NOEL, Edward (c.1582-1643)

Noel’s ancestors were Staffordshire landowners from around the eleventh century. However, his grandfather Andrew^‡, a younger son, moved to the east Midlands in the early 1500s, acquiring the estates of Brooke in Rutland and Dalby in Leicestershire. Thrice sheriff of Rutland, he also represented the county in Mary Tudor’s first Parliament.26 Vis. Leics. 113-14; Nichols, iii. pt. 1, p. 249. Noel’s father, Sir Andrew^‡, was a major local figure, serving as a sheriff and deputy lieutenant in both Rutland and Leicestershire, and securing election five times as a Rutland Member. Possessed at his death of more than 7,000 acres, he built a major seat at Brooke, and married into Rutland’s leading gentry family, the Haringtons.27 List of Sheriffs, 75, 113-14; HMC Hatfield, xvii. 603; Nichols, iii. pt. 1, p. 249; C142/303/145; VCH Rutland, ii. 37; Vis. Rutland (Harl. Soc. iii), 38-9. Noel himself entered public life in 1601, in controversial circumstances. Sir Andrew, then sheriff of Rutland, illegally returned himself to Parliament, and so was ejected from the Commons, whereupon Noel stood successfully as his replacement, despite being under age.28 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 326. In the following year he saw service in Ireland against the forces of Hugh O’Neill, 2nd earl of Tyrone [I]. His precise role remains unclear, but he earned a knighthood from the lord deputy, Charles Blount^*, 8th Lord Mountjoy (later 1st earl of Devonshire).29 Nichols, iii. pt. 1, p. 250; Shaw, ii. 100.

In July 1603, Sir Andrew recommended Noel to his long-term patron Robert Cecil^*, Lord Cecil. The latter’s nephew, Sir Edward Cecil^* (later Viscount Wimbledon) had recently married Noel’s sister Theodosia. In 1605, Cecil, by now 1st earl of Salisbury, may have helped to arrange Noel’s own match with a daughter of the City magnate Sir Baptist Hicks^*, whose brother Michael^‡ was one of the earl’s closest confidants. Tellingly, it was Michael Hicks who hosted the wedding celebrations.30 Hatfield House, CP 187, no. 92; Vis. Leics. 4; A.G.R. Smith, Servant of the Cecils, 162-3. Despite these burgeoning connections with the court, the Noels’ local fortunes were at a low ebb. The 1601 electoral scandal had caused a breach with the Haringtons, whose interest swept the board in Rutland’s 1604 election. When the 1st Lord Harington became the county’s lord lieutenant in 1607, Sir Andrew, his brother-in-law, refused to serve under him.31 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 326; Vis. Rutland, 38-9; HMC Hatfield, xix. 124. Noel himself, despite his substantial patrimony, seems not to have held office until his appointment as sheriff of Rutland in late 1608. However, his purchase of a baronetcy in 1611, probably at Salisbury’s request, seems to have advanced his public career, for in the following year he was named to the prestigious local commission of oyer and terminer, and entertained James I overnight at Brooke House.32 P. Croft, ‘The Cath. Gentry, the Earl of Salisbury and the Baronets of 1611’, Conformity and Orthodoxy in the Eng. Church ed. P. Lake and M. Questier, 268; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 457.

Noel is not known to have sought election to the 1614 Parliament, but instead presumably backed the return for Rutland of Basil Feilding^‡, a close family friend. He contributed £26 13s. 4d. to the Benevolence collected in the aftermath of this failed assembly.33 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 327; E351/1950.

The direct male line of the Harington family died out shortly before the Addled Parliament, an unexpected development which worked to Noel’s advantage. In October 1614 Rutland’s new lord lieutenant, Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon, appointed Noel one of his deputies, a role which he combined in 1615-16 with the onerous duties of sheriff. Meanwhile, much of the Harington estate was put up for sale by its female heirs, whereupon Noel acquired two more Rutland manors, at Leighfield and Ridlington.34 HEHL, HAM Box 53 (6), ff. 9-10; VCH Rutland, ii. 17, 93. In the longer term he also planned to buy one of the county’s grandest seats, Burley-on-the-Hill, and in order to fund that purchase he agreed in early 1617 to sell his ancestral home at Dalby to the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, reportedly for £29,000. No other money is known to have changed hands, but in return for Dalby, Buckingham arranged for Noel to become a peer: indeed, the latter’s patent of creation as Lord Noel of Ridlington, and the crown’s ratification of the Dalby sale, passed the great seal on consecutive days. Noel apparently raised no objections when Buckingham himself subsequently bought Burley from the Harington heiresses, which suggests that his acquiescence may have been another condition for the peerage grant.35 Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 65-6; ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 25; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 53-4; C66/2112/12; 66/2161/69; VCH Rutland, i. 184. In most respects, his new status made little immediate difference to Noel, as he remained a mere deputy lieutenant, obliged to follow Huntingdon’s instructions concerning the Rutland militia. It was also the earl who coordinated the county’s contributions towards the Palatine Benevolence in 1620, though Noel was one of the ‘forwardest’ men supporting the collection there, and personally donated £100.36 HEHL, HAM Box 53 (6), ff. 41, 46, 61; APC, 1619-21, p. 293; SP14/118/11.

Noel exercised no discernible electoral patronage during the 1620s, though he was presumably content that Rutland almost invariably returned his fellow deputy lieutenants during this period.37 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 327. He first took his seat in the Lords on the opening day of the 1621 Parliament, attending fairly assiduously until the Easter recess, but thereafter was missing for a whole month. Upon his return to the House, his record was again exemplary until the summer break, but he failed to appear at all in November or December. These long absences went unexplained. For at least one of them he awarded his proxy to Buckingham.38 LJ, iii. 4b. In all Noel missed just over half of all the sittings, though that alone does not account for his negligible contribution to events in the Lords. In mid-February he signed the ‘Humble Petition of the Nobility’, which complained about the social side-effects of the granting of Irish and Scottish titles to Englishmen. His only other recorded activity was on 23 Mar., when he voted against a motion to examine a witness to the corruption charges against the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St. Alban.39 HMC Var. v. 120; A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 39.

During the next two years, Noel continued to accumulate minor local offices, becoming a sewer commissioner and the bailiff of Leighfield forest, Rutland. He also sold a further manor to Buckingham, though this time the transaction was purely financial.40 C66/2301/32; Harl. 1581, f. 125. During the 1624 Parliament Noel attended the Lords for almost three-fifths of the session. He presumably obtained leave for his one extended period of absence from mid-March to late April, for on 13 Mar. he again presented his proxy to Buckingham.41 LJ, iii. 212b; Add. 40087, f. 3v. Noel was now evidently better known in the House, and attracted ten bill committee appointments. Most concerned issues relevant to local government, such as the implementation of the recusancy laws, the removal of lawsuits from lower courts, and the construction of new inns. However, other topics included the estates of the Leicestershire resident Sir Thomas Beaumont^‡, 1st Viscount Beaumont [I], and a property transaction which cleared the way for Buckingham to acquire York House, a London mansion on the Strand. On the session’s penultimate day, Noel helped to deliver to the House a legal document relating to an Irish land dispute, but it is unclear why he took on this duty.42 LJ, iii. 252b, 317b, 384a, 397a, 414b; Add. 40088, f. 138.

With the country now on course for war with Spain, Noel helped to levy 50 soldiers in late 1624, and another 50 the following spring, his office of deputy lieutenant having been renewed shortly after the accession of Charles I.43 HEHL, HAM Box 53 (6), ff. 97v, 107, 115, 119. He attended the opening two days of the first Caroline Parliament, but then withdrew without explanation for the remainder of this session, conceivably through fear of the plague. His absence was excused on 23 and 27 June, and as usual he handed his proxy to Buckingham.44 Procs. 1625, pp. 47, 58, 591. That autumn, he helped to identify Rutland landowners capable of lending money to the crown on privy seals, but warned Huntingdon that most of them were ‘indebted … and impoverished of late by the fall of rents and commodities’. He was similarly defensive about the shortcomings of the Rutland militia, in November 1625 refusing to provide a certificate of defects, on the grounds that the recent plague outbreak in London had made it difficult to obtain arms.45 HEHL, HAM Box 53 (6), ff. 135, 142.

Noel attended barely two-fifths of the 1626 Parliament, appearing regularly in the Lords only during May. Formally excused on 23 Feb. and 3 June, he also obtained leave of absence on 8 Mar., thereafter missing 13 consecutive sittings. As usual, no explanations were recorded. He gave his proxy initially to Buckingham, but the duke subsequently had him transfer it to his kinsman Henry Montagu^*, 1st earl of Manchester after the Lords decided to limit the number of proxies held by any one peer.46 Procs. 1626, i. 65, 561; iv. 11; SO3/8, unfol. (8 Mar. 1626); Vis. Rutland, 38. Surprisingly, given his attendance record, Noel was nominated on 15 Feb. to the standing committee for petitions. He took the oath of allegiance later that day.47 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 50. Of the six bill committees to which he was named, one was concerned with clergy incomes, another with clothing, while the remainder dealt with private matters, including the estates of the infant Dutton Gerard^*, 3rd Lord Gerard.48 Ibid. i. 231, 357, 545. In the course of the Commons’ preparations for Buckingham’s impeachment, Noel’s peerage grant came under scrutiny. On 25 Mar. his father-in-law, Sir Baptist Hicks, was questioned about the deal struck between Noel and the royal favourite, but Hicks merely confirmed the details of the Dalby sale, refusing to speculate on whether the barony was also part of the bargain. The issue was not pursued any further. Following this episode Noel might have been expected to close ranks with Buckingham, but in fact he distanced himself, on 15 May twice disagreeing with the duke’s assertion that Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had made treasonable statements while introducing the impeachment charges.49 Ibid. i. 482; ii. 371.

Back in Rutland, Noel became increasingly outspoken about the local impact of the war effort, particularly the rising costs of militia training, and the fact that Rutland was now expected to match the much larger county of Leicestershire in its stores of munitions. In July 1626 he and his fellow deputy lieutenants even refused to submit a certificate of musters until their complaints were addressed, though Huntingdon, under pressure from the Privy Council, could offer no concessions. Thereafter, while Noel continued to communicate local grievances, he also endeavoured to deliver the required reforms.50 HEHL, HAM Box 53 (6), ff. 173-4, 185v-6, 189v, 207. In addition, he cooperated over the Forced Loan, paying £100, and allowing one of his servants to be employed to deliver Rutland’s contributions to the Exchequer.51 APC, 1627-8, p. 285; E401/1913; SP16/52/39.

The 1628 parliamentary session saw a huge improvement in Noel’s attendance. Present every single day, he merely absented himself on six mornings or afternoons when the Lords sat both before and after lunch. As if to underline this dramatic change, he also held two proxies, for Buckingham’s kinsman Oliver St. John^*, 1st Lord Tregoz, and his own brother-in-law William Eure^*, 4th Lord Eure.52 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 26; Vis. Leics. 4. On 20 Mar. Noel assisted in the introduction of one or two new peers, the Buckingham ally John Poulett^*, 1st Lord Poulett, and (according to two sources) his own distant kinsman Nicholas Tufton^*, 1st Lord Tufton (later 1st earl of Thanet). He also escorted another of the duke’s clients, John Mohun^*, 1st Lord Mohun, when the latter was introduced on 12 May.53 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 74, 409. Tufton was Viscount Wimbledon’s brother-in-law. Another source states that Tufton was introduced by William Grey^*, 1st Lord Grey of Warke: ibid. 76.

As in 1626, Noel was named to the standing committee for petitions. On 24 May, after the Lords heard a report from this committee on a long-running dispute between the earl of Huntingdon and his Leicestershire rival Sir Henry Shirley, Noel rallied to Huntingdon’s cause, insisting that Shirley should ‘make satisfaction at the assizes in the country’ and also at the bar of the House. Five days later, he was appointed by the committee to arbitrate in a case of alleged wrongful arrest.54 Ibid. 79, 527, 560; T. Cogswell, Home Divisions, 148, 162-6.

During the vexed debates on the liberties of the subject, Noel’s contributions were even-handed. On 2 Apr. he defended a magistrate from Banbury, Oxfordshire, who had controversially permitted martial law to be executed in the town. However, when an impasse developed between the two Houses over the bounds of the royal prerogative, Noel urged the Lords on 22 Apr. to confer with the Commons and find a compromise. His interventions were invariably brief, and frequently procedural. On 16 Apr. he proposed a committee to frame a message to the Commons setting out the Lords’ stance on the liberties of the subject. He also recommended, on 29 Mar., that a joint petition against recusants should be preferred to the king by both Houses.55 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 124, 140, 244, 322. Noel’s nine remaining appointments were all to bill committees, the issues concerned including (once again) Lord Gerard’s estates, along with Sabbath abuses and fen drainage.56 Ibid. 189, 371, 421.

In May 1628 Noel’s father-in-law was created Viscount Campden. The new peer being a septuagenarian with no surviving sons, his patent provided for Noel to inherit his title.57 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 355. The prospect of further honours conceivably influenced Noel’s promotion four months later to custos rotulorum of the Rutland bench. That autumn, the Privy Council made Noel responsible for his sister Elizabeth, the mentally unstable dowager countess of Castlehaven [I], though in the following year he obtained permission for his kinsmen Viscount Wimbledon and the earl of Manchester to assist him.58 CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 369; APC, 1628-9, p. 220; 1629-30, p. 29.

Noel’s attendance of the Lords during the 1629 parliamentary session was again high, his only recorded absence being on 3 February. Despite this, he contributed little to the House’s proceedings. On 21 Jan. he assisted with the introduction of Francis Leigh^*, 1st Lord Dunsmore (later 1st earl of Chichester), a distant relative through the Harington family, and also one of Buckingham’s kindred.59 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 331. Named once again to the standing committee for petitions (20 Jan.), Noel received just four other nominations. On 14 Feb., having already served on the committee for the bill to improve clergy stipends, he was selected to help draft a new bill on the same subject.60 LJ, iv. 6b, 8a, 31a.

With the death of his father-in-law in October 1629, Noel became the 2nd Viscount Campden. He was immediately embroiled in a dispute with his wife’s younger sister, Mary, Lady Cooper, who had been cut out of the 1st viscount’s will. Campden, whose children were major beneficiaries, was presumed to have ‘carried the business’ to his advantage, but a widely anticipated legal challenge to the will failed to materialize.61 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 344-5; PROB 11/156, ff. 330v-2v; Birch, i. 418. Now possessed of a major seat at Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, Campden was added to the local bench, though Rutland remained his primary administrative field during the 1630s. A longstanding commissioner for knighthood compositions, he also became actively involved in the collection of Ship Money in 1637, when one of his Harington kinsmen was sheriff of Rutland.62 PROB 11/156, ff. 330v-2v; CSP Dom. 1636-7, pp. 530, 555-6. In 1638 Campden was cited in Star Chamber as a witness to an alleged case of slander at the Rutland assizes, while in the following year he was appointed by the Court of Chivalry to arbitrate over a verbal assault on the county’s sheriff, Edward Andrewes.63 CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 241; Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry ed. R.P. Cust and A.J. Hopper (Harl. Soc. n.s. xviii), 2, 257.

In March 1639 Campden paid £500 in lieu of personal attendance on the king at York. However, he attended the Great Council of Peers there in the autumn of 1640, being appointed to help negotiate a loan from the City of London.64 CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 97, 135; Addenda, 1625-49, p. 605; SP16/466/42, p. 38. His son and heir Baptist^* sat for Rutland in both the Short and Long parliaments. In July 1642 Campden headed the county’s list of commissioners of array, and shortly afterwards was instructed by the king to raise several regiments of horse and foot. However, he seems not to have taken an active part in the opening phase of the Civil War, instead seeking refuge in the royalist garrison at Oxford, where he died in March 1643.65 Northants. RO, FH133; J.B. Crummett, ‘Lay Peers in Parl. 1640-44’ (Manchester Ph.D. thesis, 1972), 450; A. Fletcher, Outbreak of the Eng. Civil War, 367-8; J. Wright, Hist. and Antiqs. of Rutland, 108. He was buried at Chipping Campden, where a grandiose monument was erected to his memory after the Restoration. His titles descended to his son Baptist.66 Nichols, iii. pt. 1, p. 250.