PIERREPONT, Robert (1584-1643)

The Pierrepont family originally came from the village of that name in Picardy. They settled in Hurstpierpoint in Sussex after the Conquest and became major Nottinghamshire landowners, acquiring the valuable manor of Holme, near Nottingham, by marriage in the late thirteenth century. Holme became their principal residence and so became known as Holme Pierrepont.21 S.J. Payling, Political Soc. in Lancastrian Eng. 21; Thoroton, i. 178. The family regularly represented Nottinghamshire in the Commons from 1417, a role which Pierrepont himself performed in 1601, while still a teenager.22 OR. In his youth, Pierrepont was closely connected with his uncle, Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury. He married the latter’s niece, and in 1604 Shrewsbury nominated him (without success) for election at Nottingham.23 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 315. When Pierrepont was summoned before the Privy Council in November 1614, probably for failing to pay the benevolence, Shrewsbury vouched for the truth of Pierrepont’s plea that he was too sick to travel.24 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 260; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 308.

Pierrepont had a reputation among his contemporaries for covetousness and parsimony that may have made him unsociable.25 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, ii. 332; L. Hutchinson, Memoirs of the Life of Col. Hutchinson ed. J. Sutherland, 61. In March 1627 his neighbour John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, wrote that ‘he stirs so little, as I despair of seeing him’. In fact, Pierrepont was an active magistrate until his elevation to the peerage, and Clare expected to meet him at the quarter sessions.26 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 348; Oxford DNB online sub Robert Pierrepont (May 2015). Pierrepont ploughed the money he had saved from his frugal lifestyle into purchasing land. The estimate of Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, that he spent £10,000 annually is undoubtedly an exaggeration; according to Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, Pierrepont himself put the figure at £1,000 a year.27 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 390; Clarendon, ii. 332. Nevertheless, modern research has confirmed that he invested large sums in augmenting his estates. One estimate puts his purchases at £66,000 between 1612 and 1633; another gives a total of £56,171 from 1610 to the end of his life. Whichever of these calculations is the more accurate, he was clearly, as one commentator on the eve of the Civil War observed, ‘a man of vast estate’. The bulk of his purchases were in his native county, making him the largest landowner in Nottinghamshire.28 L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 146; Oxford DNB online sub Robert Pierrepont (May 2015); Hutchinson, 61. In addition to real estate, he also invested in iron smelting and engaged in money-lending. In 1618 he was certainly accused of breaching the usury laws, which he denied, and he apparently lent money on mortgages to his cousins Arbella Stuart and William Cavendish^*, 1st earl (later 1st duke) of Newcastle.29 C2/ChasI/C6/37; C21/C22/9; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 538; SO3/6, unfol. (Jan. 1618); Add 70499, f. 147.

Pierrepont’s father was suspected of Catholic sympathies and his mother and wife were both recusants, although the former conformed in 1626.30 HMC Bath, v. 116; Notts. County Recs. ed. H.H. Copnall, 133. His wife’s recusancy ensured that Pierrepont was identified as a Catholic officeholder by the House of Commons in 1624 and 1626, though he almost certainly conformed.31 LJ, iv. 396a; Procs. 1626, iv. 213. After Pierrepont’s death, his fellow royalist, Sir Francis Wortley^‡, described him as a Protestant whose ‘religion … was pure and sound’.32 F. Wortley, Characters and Elegies (1646), 35.

Despite his growing wealth Pierrepont initially held himself aloof from the sale of honours, which must have had a detrimental effect on his status in Nottinghamshire. On hearing of the purchase of a baronetcy by a neighbour in September 1622, Clare (at this date 1st Lord Houghton) thought that it ‘may prove a spur to Mr Pierrepont’ to do the like, but he was evidently mistaken.33 Holles Letters, 262. However, his rising wealth meant that Pierrepont could not escape notice, particularly as the crown became increasingly desperate for money after the failure of the 1626 Parliament to vote taxation. In the autumn of 1626 Pierrepont was reportedly sent a privy seal requiring him to lend £1,000 to the crown. This demand was soon abandoned in favour of the Forced Loan, which Pierrepont helped to enforce in Nottinghamshire.34 Procs. 1626, iv. 346; Notts. County Recs. 110. Nevertheless he continued to be singled out for special attention.

On 27 Feb. 1627 Pierrepont’s cousin Newcastle, by now 1st Viscount Mansfield, the lord lieutenant of Nottinghamshire, reported to George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, on his attempts to persuade Pierrepont to purchase a title. Pierrepont had uttered effusive expressions of gratitude towards Buckingham, but Mansfield found the haggling distressing, writing that ‘when I parted with him [Pierrepont] I thought myself a worse man by £2,000 than I valued myself at before’. Pierrepont himself recounted that he had twice before been approached about buying a peerage, once by Buckingham’s physician, Dr John Moore, who offered him a barony for £4,000, with rapid promotion to viscount for a further £4,000 and the prospect of an earldom after ‘a little space’ for another £4,000, and once by an unnamed Scottish knight (possibly acting on behalf of Pierrepont’s brother-in-law, Thomas Erskine, 1st earl of Kellie [S]), who offered him a viscountcy for £5,000. Mansfield tried to convince Pierrepont that £9,000 or £10,000 was a more realistic price for a barony, and presumably that more was expected for higher titles.

These overtures were unsuccessful, but Mansfield thought that if Buckingham were to make a direct approach, Pierrepont ‘might be brought to good terms’. He nevertheless warned the duke not to expect money ‘upon the nail’, as Pierrepont’s land purchases meant that he had little ready cash and would not borrow to buy an honour. He also did not think Pierrepont would settle for a barony, ‘because there are so many before him, but a viscount if it come somewhat easy I think he would be’. The one ray of hope was that Pierrepont had sworn that he would accept an honour only if it came via the duke or his mother.35 SP16/55/26. It seems likely that Buckingham took Mansfield’s advice, for by the following June a deal had been struck, whereby Pierrepont was made Baron Pierrepont of Holme Pierrepont and Viscount Newark; he presumably took the latter title because Newark was just 14 miles from his home. How much money changed hands, and whether it was paid to Buckingham or his mother, is unknown.

Newark secured the election for Nottingham of his eldest son Henry Pierrepont^† (subsequently marquess of Dorchester) to the Parliament which met in March 1628, but initially he seems not to have been concerned to attend himself.36 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 317. When the upper House was called on 22 Mar., Newark had leave to be absent. However, there is no evidence that he sent a proxy, despite promising to do so. He did not appear in the Lords until 25 Apr., when he was formally introduced by William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele and Edward Cecil^*, Viscount Wimbledon, the only other viscounts then present. He was excused on 3 May, and missed the following four sittings, returning on 8 May. He last attended on 4 June and so was absent for the last 22 sittings. In total, he attended 35 (37 per cent) of the session’s 94 sittings, but was named to only one of the House’s 52 committees, that for petitions, to which he was added on 28 May. He made no recorded speeches.37 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 87, 344, 374, 550.

Newark’s decision to attend the upper House may have been prompted by the introduction of an estate bill for his cousin, William Cavendish^*, 2nd earl of Devonshire. However, by the time he had taken his seat, the measure had already passed the Lords and been sent to the Commons. Devonshire wished to sell part of his entailed lands, to which Newark had a remainder, but though he intended to entail other properties to compensate for the sales, Newark was clearly dissatisfied. He may perhaps have been unwell in the early days of the session but hastened to London as soon as he could to make a last ditch attempt to obstruct the measure. He also wrote, on 26 Apr., to Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (subsequently 1st earl of Strafford), who had been named to the Commons’ committee for the measure five days previously, prompted to do so, he declared, by his ‘knowledge of your wisdom and confidence in your justice’. He enclosed a separate document, now missing (perhaps a detailed statement of his objections to the bill), but left ‘the success of the matters contained therein … to God’s goodness’.38 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP/12/30.

When John Glanville^‡ reported the bill to the Commons on 10 May, he stated that Newark’s counsel had objected that the new entail could be reversed at a later stage. As a result, the committee added a saving clause to prevent this. However, on 2 June Sir William Button^‡ informed the lower House that Newark still opposed the bill, a point reiterated eight days later by Sir Miles Fleetwood^‡ and Clare’s son, Denzil Holles^† (subsequently 1st Lord Holles). This was despite the fact that the committee had offered to let Newark’s counsel draw up a proviso. (They had only drawn up the saving clause themselves when this offer was not taken up.) They claimed that, as a result of their saving clause, the bill would now leave Newark ‘in the same state as he was before’. Wentworth and Holles were subsequently appointed tellers against the bill, but a vote was avoided after Newark’s supporters yielded, allowing the bill to pass.39 CD 1628, iii. 3. 356-7; iv. 51, 55, 220, 224, 230. Newark seems to have remained discontented for some considerable time; his family papers include a certified copy of the saving clause, made in June 1641.40 Eg. 3541, ff. 40-2. He played no further recorded part in the session’s proceedings. However, on 14 June, he was again included in the Commons’ list of Catholic officeholders because of his wife’s recusancy.41 CD 1628, iv. 319.

In July 1628 Newark purchased the title of earl of Kingston-upon-Hull, a town with which he had no known connection. Once again the purchase was the result of lengthy negotiations, with Newcastle acting on Buckingham’s behalf. Newcastle’s report to the duke on this occasion is undated but, as it is signed ‘Mansfield’, it must have been written before 7 Mar., when Newcastle himself was made an earl. On this occasion the sticking point was not the purchase itself; Newcastle reported that ‘the honour took with him [Newark] so much as willingly he would part with a reasonable sum of money’. Instead, it was the inclusion of the sale of land to Dr Moore, which Newark adamantly refused to contemplate, even though Newcastle argued that it would make the title purchase cheaper. The deal was evidently concluded despite this objection, perhaps because, by the summer of 1628, Buckingham was desperate for cash to help pay for the expedition being prepared to relieve La Rochelle, and was no longer willing to countenance a discount intended to help Moore purchase property.42 SP16/108/72. Although reappointed to the committee for petitions at the start of the 1629 session, on 20 Jan., Kingston stayed in the country. When the upper House was called on 9 Feb., he was recorded as absent due to ill health. There is no evidence that he ever attended the Lords.43 LJ, iv. 6b, 25b; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xii), 316.

Kingston was particularly vulnerable to the knighthood compositions for levied in the early 1630s. Newcastle, the leading commissioner for compounding in Nottinghamshire, may have had Kingston in mind when he inquired of Wentworth (by this date president of the council in the north), whether the commissioners remit included peers: ‘for if it do your lordship knows there is one would raise the sum well’. Newcastle also complained that Kingston was saying that the compositions would yield ‘almost nothing’ in Nottinghamshire, possibly in an attempt to undermine the execution of the levy.44 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP12/130, 132b. In March 1631 it was reported that Kingston would be required to pay £2,000, or even £3,000, for his composition. The following December he was summoned before the Privy Council, which evidently assessed him at the former amount. It was reported that he intended to contest the levy, but in fact he paid up the following summer.45 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, ii. 99-100, 171; Barrington Letters ed. A. Searle (Cam. Soc. 4th ser. xxviii), 189-90; PC2/41, p. 282; E401/2452, unfol. However, he subsequently opposed the reintroduction of forest fines, when he supported efforts to prevent the expansion of Sherwood forest beyond its traditional limits. In 1638 he was obliged to pay £400 as composition for depopulation.46 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 292; E405/547, unfol.

Despite these demands upon his purse, there is little to suggest that Kingston was alienated from the court during the 1630s. Writing to his friend and kinsman Sir Gervase Clifton^‡ in February 1636, he praised Wentworth, by now lord deputy of Ireland, whom he described as ‘able and active as … ever any English subject was’. He does not seem to have been unduly concerned about the forthcoming trial of John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (subsequently archbishop of York) in Star Chamber, thinking Williams would emerge unscathed, being ‘a politic man and of great experience and parts’. Nevertheless, Kingston adopted a worldly, cynical attitude towards affairs in general. He was, for instance, sympathetic to Clifton’s unsuccessful efforts to purchase a peerage via James Stuart^†, 4th duke of Lennox [S] (later 1st duke of Richmond in the English peerage), and suggested that a recent proclamation about coach horses would be ‘as many other matters in like sort, well intended by the state, through the [de]pravity of men’s conditions … of no great effect’.47 HMC Var. vii. 411-12. His eldest son, Henry, was prosecuted in Star Chamber for assault in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey but received a free pardon in 1637, suggesting the family had good contacts at court.48 HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 707; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 16. Henry even managed to avoid paying reparations to his victim. CSP Dom. 1638-9, pp. 412-13.

In February 1637 Christopher Copley, a Yorkshire gentleman, was fined £500 for describing Kingston as ‘a base lord’ and for claiming that he was better born than the earl or his countess. Kingston’s decision to prosecute may have been motivated by more than merely the upholding of his family’s honour, as Copley’s father, William, had initiated a Chancery suit with Kingston in the early 1630s over the earl’s ironworks. During the Chancery suit, Kingston answered interrogatories under oath, even though peers were entitled to answer upon their honour. This suggests that defeating his enemies, the Copleys, was more important to Kingston than his status as a peer.49 Cases in the High Ct. of Chivalry 1634-40, ed. R.P. Cust and A.J. Hopper (Harl. Soc. n.s. xviii), 153-4; Clay, Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. ii. 53; C2/ChasI/C6/37; C21/C20/22; 21/C24/21.

When Charles I summoned the nobility to attend him at York in April 1639 to fight the Scottish Covenanters, Kingston was excused due to ill health, paying £1,000 instead. Writing to Clifton at the start of March, he expressed his willingness to serve, if only he had ‘ability of body to undergo such a journey’, and regretted that he could not spare the king more. However, these sentiments suggest politic caution rather than genuine enthusiasm for the approaching war. Although he said he anticipated another Flodden, he seems to have been fearful of the impact of the war on England, particularly the implications for the rule of law. Welcoming the news that his friend Sir Edward Leech^‡ had offered £11,000 to succeed the dying Sir Dudley Digges^‡ (whom he admired) as master of the Rolls, he observed that ‘there is good hope of equity, though we have no other law saving jus belli [martial law]’.50 SP16/413/117; HMC Var. vii. 420-1.

Lucy Hutchinson wrote that when the Civil War broke out, Kingston ‘divided his sons between both parties and concealed himself’.51 Hutchinson, 61. Kingston maintained a strict neutrality for several months. However, on 25 Mar. 1643 the king commissioned him to raise an infantry regiment and in May he was appointed commander of the royalist forces in Lincolnshire. On 20 July Kingston was captured by Parliamentarian forces at Gainsborough. He was then sent in a boat down the Trent to Hull. However, the vessel was fired on by the royalists, killing Kingston.52 C. Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincs. 168; J. Rushworth, Historical Collections, v. 278; HMC 7th Rep. 555; Perfect Diurnall, no. 5 (24-31 July 1643), 34.

Kingston was buried on 25 July in the parish church of Cuckney in Nottinghamshire (where one of his secondary residences, Holbeck Woodhouse, was situated), despite having requested burial at Holme Pierrepoint, both in a will he had drafted in 1634 and the revised version of 1639. The former, written when he was ‘sick in body and much grieved in mind’, was mostly concerned with bequeathing lands to his younger sons, although there is no mention of his fourth son, Robert. The residue of his lands were left to his eldest son, Henry, which he claimed were ‘of clear yearly revenue above six times more than my late good father received at any time during his life’. His second son, William Pierrepont^‡, was not bequeathed land but was instead to receive £4,000. Unlike his siblings, he was praised as ‘a most loving son to me’. His only surviving daughter, Elizabeth, was to have a portion of £5,000, although only if she married with the consent of Newcastle, Newcastle’s brother Sir Charles Cavendish^‡, and Sir Gervase Clifton; otherwise she was to receive £1,000. His third son, Francis, was appointed executor.53 Eg. 3517, ff. 10-11.

The 1639 version of Kingston’s will was proved in December 1647 by Francis, who had again been appointed executor, and was more concerned with bequests to friends and servants, and the disposal of his personal estate. However, it did include bequests of land to his youngest sons, George and Francis. It is likely that in the interim he had provided for his other sons. His fourth son, Robert, was now included in the remainders, although not given anything specifically. Clifton was to have a pomander with a precious stone set in gold affixed to it; Newcastle was not mentioned. His daughter was to have £5,500 when she was aged 17 without any conditions.54 PROB 11/202, ff. 433-4v. He was succeeded by his son, Henry, who was subsequently created marquess of Dorchester.