SIDNEY, Robert (1563-1626)

Although the Sidneys claimed an unbroken male descent from the mid twelfth century, it was not until the first half of the sixteenth century that they achieved prominence. Nicholas Sidney (c.1447-1512) married the aunt of Charles Brandon^†, duke of Suffolk, brother-in-law to Henry VIII, while his son Sir William (1482-1554) commanded a wing of the English army at Flodden, and became a privy councillor, a knight of the Garter, lieutenant of the Tower and chamberlain to the prince of Wales. He also acquired a large estate in southern England centred on Penshurst Place, in Kent. Sir William’s own eldest son, Sir Henry Sidney^‡, proved no less illustrious, for during the 1560s and 1570s he simultaneously held the presidency of the council in the Marches of Wales and the position of lord deputy of Ireland. His wife, Mary Dudley, was the daughter of John Dudley^†, duke of Northumberland and sister of the royal favourite Robert Dudley^†, earl of Leicester.

Early life, 1563-1603

Robert Sidney, the subject of this biography, was the second of the three sons of Sir Henry Sidney. Afforded the educational advantages normally bestowed on those destined from birth to inherit their father’s estates, he spent four years at Oxford before touring northern and central Europe. At Strasbourg in 1579 he was tutored by a pupil of the famous Calvinist scholar Zacharius Ursinus, Peter Hubner, who helped to represent the Reformed churches at the Colloquy of Montbéliard (1586). Thanks to Hubner, Sidney became proficient in both German and Latin.35 Corresp. of Sir Philip Sidney and Hubert Languet ed. S.A. Pears, 161, 161n, 189; Zurich Letters (Second Ser.) 1558-1602 ed. H. Robinson (Parker Soc. 1845), 309; E.D. Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology, 16. On Ursinus and his impact on English Calvinist thought, see N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 62.

Following his return to England in 1582, Sidney married the heir of a wealthy member of the Welsh gentry and served as knight for Glamorgan in the Parliament of 1584-5. A committed Protestant – he had previously contemplated serving in the forces of the German Calvinist leader John Casimir, despite his youth - he subsequently joined Leicester’s expedition to the Low Countries.36 Corresp. of Philip Sidney and Hubert Languet ed. W.A. Bradley, 189. There he was granted a command by his talented elder brother Sir Philip Sidney^‡, the governor of Flushing (Vlissingen), who had overseen his education. However, his military career was cut short in 1586 by the deaths of his father and brother.

At the age of just 22, Sidney unexpectedly found himself the head of his family. The immediate outlook was far from promising. Royal service had ruined his father, while his brother Sir Philip had not only racked up large debts but also left half the Sidney estate, worth £1,200 p.a., to his daughter Elizabeth. Even allowing for his wife’s lands, Sidney was left with a diminished inheritance and debts amounting to more than £6,000. Not surprisingly, for the rest of Elizabeth’s reign Sidney remained short of funds. Rather than live frugally, however, he increased his borrowings and obtained from the queen a licence to export 300,000 leather hides.37 Sidneiana, 81, 84; Hay, 51, 54.

In 1588 Sidney suffered a further setback with the death of his uncle and court patron, Leicester. Sidney had been relying upon Leicester to secure for him the governorship of Flushing in succession to Sir William Russell^‡, who had succeeded Sir Philip Sidney in the post and now wished to retire.38 Hay, 55, 60. In the event, Sidney need not have worried, for in 1589 he was appointed anyway, as the queen was impressed at the manner in which he had acquitted himself as special envoy to the Scottish king over the summer of 1588. A second, more serious blow was the death, in 1590, of Leicester’s brother, Ambrose Dudley^†, earl of Warwick. As Warwick was childless, his debts to the crown, amounting to about £2,900, became the responsibility of his nephew and heir, Sidney.39 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 214. To help settle her late husband’s account, Warwick’s widow transferred to Sidney 3,000 acres of woodland in Worcestershire known as Alton woods, but this conveyance proved to be a mixed blessing, as the queen claimed this property herself.40 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 461. On the size of this woodland, see Reps. of Sir Edward Coke, I. 63.

During the second half of the 1590s, Sidney became restless. The governorship of Flushing was by no means the pinnacle of his ambitions, and he was now in his mid thirties. Like his father and paternal grandfather before him, he was anxious to secure high office before it was too late. Fearing that Flushing might prove to be the graveyard of both his youth and his career,41 Poems of Robert Sidney ed. P.J. Croft, 101, 103. he aligned himself with Leicester’s stepson, Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, the husband of his former sister-in-law Frances Sidney née Walsingham. In 1597 Sidney asked Essex to secure for him the lord wardenship of the Cinque Ports. The wardenship would be a step up from the governorship of Flushing, and the Cinque Ports were conveniently close to Penshurst. However, the queen had already promised this office to Henry Brooke^†, later 11th Lord Cobham, who was supported by Essex’s bitter rivals, the Cecils. In desperation, Essex, whose reputation as a patron was at stake, asked Elizabeth to bestow on Sidney a barony instead.42 P. Clark, English Provincial Soc. 261-2; Letters and Mems. of State (1746) ed. A. Collins, ii. 24-6; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 286; CSP Dom. 1595-7, p. 505. After all, Sidney was the last legitimate male survivor of the Dudley line, and heir to one of the late earl of Warwick’s lesser titles, that of Baron Lisle, which had previously descended in the female line. However, Elizabeth was notoriously sparing when it came to distributing honours and refused Essex’s request, just as she had previously disregarded a suggestion, made in 1589 by Lord Treasurer Burghley (William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley), that Sidney be ennobled as Baron Sidney of Penshurst. Essex then tried to obtain for Sidney the vice chamberlainship of the royal household, while Sidney himself lobbied to become lord president of the council in the Marches of Wales, which office his father had held.43 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 298; Hay, 157; Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 87. However, advancement continued to evade him. Frustrated, he poured out his feelings in a series of poems, which he committed to his private notebook.44 Hay, 195-7.

Although Sidney aspired for more than the governorship of Flushing, the latter post did at least offer him the chance of military glory. In December 1597, together with 300 men of the Flushing garrison, he joined the commander of the Dutch army, Maurice of Nassau, who was gathering troops to intercept a large Spanish force operating south of Breda. The following month he and his fellow English commander, Sir Francis Vere, engaged the Spanish at the village of Turnhout, where they were joined by a large body of Dutch cavalry under Count Hohenlo. The latter, though hesitant, was persuaded to charge by Sidney, and, supported by Vere, the enemy cavalry was routed and his infantry destroyed. The queen was naturally delighted on learning of this victory, and sent Sidney a letter of congratulations. However, her praise was tempered by an instruction that, in future, he confine himself to his duties at Flushing.45 Ibid. 103, 105.

In the summer of 1600 Sidney’s patron, Essex, was stripped of his Council rank and forbidden from attending court. Sidney quickly distanced himself from the earl, and sought a rapprochement with Sir Robert Cecil^* (later 1st earl of Salisbury), the earl’s chief rival. As a result, during Essex’s abortive rising in February 1601, Sidney was sufficiently trusted by Cecil to be given the task of negotiating with the rebels after government troops surrounded Essex House. He continued to cultivate Cecil after Essex’s execution, arranging, in August 1601, for Cecil to receive stone from Penshurst for use at Theobalds. These approaches soon began to bear fruit. Three months later, Sidney was permitted to buy the manor of Otford, in north Kent, which property he had been trying to obtain from the crown for some time.46 Ibid. 166, 167, 189. For his part, Cecil was only too pleased to have Sidney as an ally, as he now hated the latter’s local rival, Lord Cobham.

The accession of James I, 1603-5

Sidney had made a favourable impression on James VI during his short-lived embassy to Scotland in 1588.47 Ibid. 210. Following the death of Elizabeth in March 1603, James, now king of England, sent him not only ‘comfortable messages’ but also confirmed him as governor of Flushing. Sidney responded by crossing the Channel (which almost cost him his life, as he nearly drowned) and travelling to Exton Hall, the home of his first cousin Sir John Harington^* (later 1st Lord Harington), where, on 23 Apr., he greeted James on his journey south.48 Sidneiana, 87; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 21. For the precise date, see J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, i. 93. For the relationship between Sidney and Harington, see Hay, 247. At this meeting it seems likely that Sidney revived his claim to the barony of Lisle. James was far more amenable than Elizabeth, and inclined to increase the size of the English peerage. However, Sidney’s case was fraught with problems. Although the late earl of Warwick had enjoyed the Lisle title by way of creation rather than restoration (his father having forfeited all his titles on his attainder in 1553), the barony actually dated back to 1444, making it one of the England’s oldest. Granting it might mean according Sidney a precedence that would irritate many others of baronial rank. In the event, James, presumably at the suggestion of Cecil, adopted the proposal put forward by Lord Burghley in 1589, and created Sidney Baron Sydney rather than Baron Lisle.

Following his elevation to the peerage in May 1603, the new Lord Sydney initially intended to return to Flushing.49 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 272. However, there was no particular hurry, especially as it was clear that James intended to make peace with Spain. Consequently, he remained in England where, in early June, he was dispatched to Canterbury to greet the newly arrived French ambassador extraordinary.50 HMC Hatfield, xv. 125; Elphinsone Fam. Bk. ed. W. Fraser, ii. 199. Shortly thereafter he was appointed lord chamberlain to James’s queen, Anne of Denmark. This office was prestigious, but the duties were onerous, requiring long attendance, as Sydney soon discovered.51 See, for instance, HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 278, 294. Moreover, the official salary of £100 p.a. did little more than pay for the annual New Year gifts Sydney bestowed on the queen and her chief lady-in-waiting.52 Sidneiana, 97. He may have felt disappointed, but there is no evidence that he wished to pursue a diplomatic career instead, despite a rumour, circulating in November, that he had been made ambassador to the Spanish Netherlands. Indeed, he had actually declined the offer of the Paris embassy two years earlier.53 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 114; Chamberlain Letters, i. 122.

Although the new reign had begun well for Sydney, it was not long before storm clouds began to gather. In the autumn of 1603 Henry Berkeley^*, 7th Lord Berkeley, instituted legal proceedings against the widow of the late earl of Warwick over lands in Gloucestershire lost by him to the Dudleys in the 1570s.54 HENRY BERKELEY. Following the death of the countess in February 1604, Berkeley turned his attention to Sydney. His initial grievance was that Leicester and Warwick had usurped the duties of his own estate officials by creating a new administrative unit, the hundred of Wootton. When the matter was heard in Easter term 1604, Sydney played for time. Claiming that none of the relevant documents belonging to the late countess of Warwick had yet come to his hands, he obtained a postponement until the following term.55 J. Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys ed. J. Maclean, ii. 318-20.

The 1604 court hearing coincided with James’s first Parliament, which opened on 19 March. Sydney attended the state opening, for which occasion he had a footcloth of black velvet trimmed with gold lace made costing £105.56 Sidneiana, 89. Thereafter he rarely missed more than two days at a time in the Lords, where he was a newcomer. Nevertheless, he was not present for 21 morning sittings (six during Easter term) and four afternoon meetings. Some of these absences may have been attributable to the peace negotiations with Spain, which commenced on 20 May. Although Sydney was not himself one of the negotiators, he advised Robert Cecil, now Lord Cecil and the leading English commissioner, on points relating to trade with Flanders. He may also have been anxious to ensure that the Cautionary Towns of Flushing and Brill, which Spain hoped to obtain for herself, were not bargained away.57 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 265; HMC 8th Rep. I, 95-6.

Regular attendance in the Lords meant that Sydney received numerous committee appointments. Most of the 17 bill committees to which he was named were probably of little concern to him. A notable exception, however, was the committee for the bill to ban the export of iron ordnance and round shot, which undoubtedly interested him as governor of Flushing. As a committed Calvinist, Sydney may also have taken more than a passing interest in measures to prohibit the import, printing or selling of popish books and to ensure the execution of the existing laws against recusants, Jesuits and seminary priests. Sydney’s conference appointments with the Commons included meetings to discuss terms for the abolition of wardship and the proposed union with Scotland.58 LJ, ii. 282b, 284a, 285a, 290a, 301b, 303a, 314a.

Following the prorogation in early July, Sydney struggled to put his finances on a sound footing. It had been agreed that his daughter Mary should marry a member of the gentry, the younger Sir Robert Wroth^‡, whose father, also Sir Robert^‡, was one of Robert Cecil’s closest allies. However, he lacked sufficient funds to raise the required £3,000 dowry. His nephew, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, with whom he stayed (at the latter’s Thames-side residence of Baynard’s Castle) whenever he was in London, promised to try and borrow £1,000, but unless this money was forthcoming the wedding would have to be postponed until the autumn.59 For the size of the dowry, see Sidneiana, 94. The wedding was held on 27 Sept. 1604, and not 27 Sept. 1602 (as in HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 867). These difficulties, and the fact that he had by now embarked upon costly building work at Penshurst, led Sydney to petition the king to cancel the debt to the crown he had inherited from the late earl of Warwick. He also asked James to buy out his interest in Alton woods for £5,000. James was by nature generous and acceded to the first of these requests in April 1605.60 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 127-9; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 461. However, perhaps restrained by Cecil, he took no action over the second, at least for the time being.

In the autumn of 1604 Sydney was faced with a renewal of Lord Berkeley’s lawsuit. On the evening before the trial was due to begin, he persuaded Berkeley to refer the matter to arbitrators. He chose as his own representative the recorder of London Sir Henry Montagu^* (later 1st earl of Manchester), his first cousin once removed. However, Sydney’s case was weak, and in March 1605 Montagu was forced to agree that the hundred of Wotton was in fact part of the hundred of Berkeley, and that Sydney should therefore cease holding courts. Sydney doubtless hoped that this was now an end of the matter, but his solicitor, Thomas Woodward, had already received intelligence that these proceedings were merely the prelude to a wider assault by Berkeley, who intended to try to recover the lands of which he had been deprived by the Dudleys.61 Smyth, ii. 321-2; Add. 15914, f. 57.

Before Lord Berkeley could commence fresh proceedings, Sydney was obliged to deal with another, potentially more serious threat to his estate. Sir Robert Dudley, the bastard son of the late earl of Leicester, was trying to prove that he was legitimate, and thus heir to all the Dudley property now owned by Sydney, including the disputed lands in Gloucestershire. Dudley, whose late mother was a member of the Howard family, enjoyed powerful support in the form of Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton. However, Sydney was also not without influential friends, chief among them Robert Cecil, whose once warm relations with Northampton were now strained.62 HENRY HOWARD; ROBERT CECIL. In 1603 the matter was brought before Star Chamber. However, before the case opened on 8 May 1605 for its final hearing, the king, presumably at Cecil’s suggestion, signalled his support for Sydney. On 4 May, as part of the celebrations which followed the christening of the king’s youngest daughter, Mary, he created Sydney Viscount Lisle, which title had previously been held by John Dudley, duke of Northumberland. (As there were then only two other viscounts in the English peerage, this creation neatly avoided the thorny question of precedence associated with the Lisle barony.) In the ensuing legal battle, lasting two days, Sir Robert Dudley was judged guilty of defamation.63 Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata ed. W.P. Baildon, 204-5, 209; Brennan, 121. The two other viscounts were Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Visct. Montagu, and Thomas Howard*, 3rd Visct. Howard of Bindon. (According to one observer, Cecil, now earl of Salisbury, had used his influence with James to ensure a favourable verdict for the new Viscount Lisle.)64 J.T. Leader, Life of Sir Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and Duke of Northumberland, 48. This was extremely good news for Lisle, but it did not mean that he was entitled to take possession of Dudley’s own estates, chief among which was the Warwickshire manor of Kenilworth. That being said, in June 1606, six months or so after Dudley left England for France and Italy, Lisle was appointed steward of Kenilworth for life. Two years later, he was one of the commissioners appointed to identify and seize Dudley’s lands. When, in 1611, Henry, prince of Wales entered into negotiations with Dudley to purchase Kenilworth, Lisle received £1,200 from the prince to buy out his interest.65 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 594; Sidneiana, 96.

Over the summer of 1605, the new Viscount Lisle set out again for Flushing, having been absent for more than two years. However, bad weather forced him to land at Gravelines, in the Spanish Netherlands, and he was forced to complete the last leg of the journey through the territory of the archdukes. This was unfortunate, to say the least. The Dutch, resentful that England had signed a separate peace with Spain one year earlier, were sensitive of any actions by the English which smacked of betrayal, particularly as there had recently been treasonable contact between the now imprisoned Lord Cobham and the Flemish ambassador in London. Fearing that Lisle was plotting to surrender Flushing to Spanish forces, the Dutch ambassador in England, Noel Caron, complained to James, who flew into a rage.66 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 271. For the letter alerting Caron to Sydney’s landing at Gravelines, see HMC Hatfield, xvii. 138 (misdated 14/24 Apr. 1605). Ordered to return, despite suffering from swollen legs,67 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 380, 390-3, 403, 411; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 189. an astonished Lisle quickly cleared his name. As he observed, ‘I visited nobody, I sent to nobody, I heard from nobody, except in matters necessary for my passage’. It was absurd to suppose that he was secretly sympathetic to Spain, as he was one of the few English courtiers not to have received presents from Spain on James’s accession. Nevertheless, he had clearly behaved unwisely, and therefore plans to appoint Lisle to the Privy Council were quietly shelved.68 CSP Ven. 1603-7, p. 271; Chamberlain Letters, i. 209.

The parliamentary sessions of 1605-10

Following this embarrassing affair, Lisle did not return to Flushing but instead remained in England, attending Parliament when the second session opened on 5 November. However, the meeting was cut short by the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot. He resumed his seat when Parliament reconvened on 21 Jan. 1606, on which day he informed the upper House that his cousin, Lord Harington, had leave to be absent.69 LJ, ii. 361a. Over the next four months he regularly attended the Lords. His longest period of continuous absence lasted 16 days (13 Mar. to 8 Apr. inclusive) and remains unexplained.

During the session, Lisle was named to two conferences with the Commons, the first to identify shortcomings in existing laws for the preservation of the Protestant religion and the second to discuss purveyance, free trade and the Union. He was also appointed to 20 legislative committees, including one on 29 Apr., when he was recorded as absent. Most of the topics covered probably held little interest for Lisle. However, his inclusion on the committee for the bill to create a royal entail was probably encouraged by Salisbury, one of the measure’s chief architects. Moreover, it is unlikely that Lisle was indifferent to the bill to attaint the surviving Gunpowder plotters, since he was one of the intended targets. Landed interests in Gloucestershire probably explain why Lisle was named to consider a measure to settle a manor straddling the Gloucestershire/Worcestershire border on William Throckmorton.70 Ibid. 367a, 367b, 413a, 419b, 433b.

During the session Lisle asked his cousin Sir Henry Montagu, then sitting in the Commons for London, to show a bill regarding writs of error to a certain Mr Jones. This measure subsequently came before the lower House, but never reached the Lords. Lisle also commended to Montagu a bill which had just completed its passage in the Lords and concerned the lands of the Essex gentleman Sir Christopher Hatton^‡ of Clayhall, Ilford. He asked Montagu to give this measure ‘good passage’ when it came down to the Commons.71 R. Davids, Mss, Literary Portraits and Assoc. Items, lot 132 (calendared briefly in HMC 8th Rep. II, 28b). For the bill concerning writs of error, see CJ, i. 301b. The reason for Lisle’s interest in this bill remains unclear; he was not even a member of the bill committee.72 LJ, ii. 386a. However, it may be relevant that Hatton was a neighbour of Sidney’s son-in-law Sir Robert Wroth, one of whose seats lay just to the north of Ilford, at Loughton.

Lisle attended Parliament when it reconvened for its third session in November 1606. However, despite missing just two sittings (11 and 12 Dec.), he made little recorded impact on its proceedings before Christmas. Indeed, during this time he was appointed to just two committees, the first being to help confer with the Commons about the Union and the second to consider a bill to restrict new buildings in and around London. However, when Parliament reassembled in February 1607, Lisle attracted 12 legislative appointments, including the committee for the bill to abolish the hostile laws between England and Scotland.

After the Easter recess, Lisle’s attendance was erratic. The reason is not hard to guess. Over the last few years tensions in Gloucestershire between Lisle and Lord Berkeley had increased.73 Add. 15914, ff. 59, 62; Smyth, ii. 328. In Easter term 1607 Berkeley, perhaps irritated by a plan to join Lisle with him in the lord lieutenancy of Gloucestershire, brought a Chancery suit against Lisle, in which he claimed that the Dudleys had wrongly expelled him from various lands.74 Smyth, ii. 326-7 (incorrectly dated in the margin). For a draft warrant, never implemented, joining Lisle in the lieutenancy, see CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 219. The precise dates of the court hearings have not been established, but the term lasted from 22 Apr. until 18 May, during which time Lisle was absent six times. Berkeley failed to achieve a quick legal victory, with the result that, over the summer and autumn, both the Privy Council and the judges tried to find a solution.75 Smyth, ii. 333; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 421. Kept in the capital by this legal dispute, Lisle was able to attend the prorogation meeting of Parliament on 16 November.76 LJ, ii. 540a.

Berkeley’s threat to dispossess him of a large part of his estate could not have come at a worse time for Lisle. In November 1607 he told his wife that ‘I never was in that case that I am now’. He could not pay the interest on his debts, amounting to £3,000, and expected to be sued. Unless he sold land immediately, he feared he would not be able to show his head in public. ‘I am’, he confessed, ‘at my wits ends what to do’.77 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iii. 321-2. However, matters were not quite as desperate as Lisle imagined them to be. He was still creditworthy - in May 1608 he managed to borrow £1,500 – and in November the king gave him the right to half of all old debts due to the crown.78 LC4/29, m. 3, nos. 114, 115; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 470. Better still, in October 1609 he struck a deal with Lord Berkeley. In return for surrendering all those lands which had formerly belonged to Berkeley, including the manor of Wootton-under-Edge, worth £300 a year, he received a flat payment of £7,320.79 Smyth, ii. 321; Sidneiana, 96. Lisle was euphoric, declaring that ‘every man says I never made a better day’s work’. However, instead of using this windfall to strengthen his finances, his thoughts soon turned to buying up more property.80 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 169.

In January Lisle was it was rumoured that Lisle would be created earl of Warwick,81 HMC Downshire, ii. 219. which title had been assumed by Sir Robert Dudley, now living in self-imposed exile. However, when Parliament reassembled the following month, Lisle’s style remained unaltered. Lisle attended the opening on 9 Feb., but thereafter his attendance was irregular. The longest period of absence occurred between 22 Mar. and 19 Apr. inclusive, and encompassed nine days of sittings, though it was not until 18 Apr. that he was formally excused by the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley). However, he certainly attended, on 4 June, the creation in Parliament of the prince of Wales, for which occasion he had a new suit made, costing £100.82 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 207; Sidneiana, 100. Perhaps in view of his erratic attendance, Lisle was appointed to just five bill committees and two conferences with the Commons, one on the subject of supply, the other on Dr John Cowell’s controversial legal dictionary, the Interpreter. His inclusion on the committee for the bill to assure certain lands to the earl of Salisbury doubtless reflected his friendly relations with the king’s chief minister. Lisle made no recorded speeches in this session, which is better documented than previous meetings. In June one of his servants was arrested in defiance of parliamentary privilege, occasioning an investigation.83 LJ, ii. 620a, 621b; Procs. 1610, i. 112.

In the summer of 1610, Lisle intended to visit the garrison at Flushing. However, he was forced to abandon this plan because, in the absence of the queen’s vice chamberlain, Lord Carew (George Carew^*, later earl of Totness), he was unable to free himself from attending on Anne of Denmark.84 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 221. When Parliament reconvened in mid October, Lisle feared that he would remain tied to the queen, who had resolved to spend the period leading up to Christmas at Hampton Court. The prospect of travelling back and forth to Westminster filled him with dread, as he privately complained to his wife that these journeys ‘will be a terrible trouble to me’. Nevertheless, he attended the first two days of the new session. Thereafter, he absented himself; on the 22nd he and his nephew and niece (perhaps the earl of Pembroke and his wife) set out on an unspecified journey together. On his return he was roundly criticized for failing to attend both Parliament and the queen.85 Ibid. 242, 243. However, his absence, at least from Parliament, was far from unique. Only 28 members of the upper House – just 28 per cent of the whole – took their seats on 20 Oct. and only 38 did so on the 23rd. Like a substantial section of the House of Commons, many peers were apparently unwilling to be present when the parliamentary scheme to re-endow the royal finances known as the Great Contract collapsed.

Following his return to the upper chamber, Lisle attended more regularly, though he still missed several sittings. During this period he was appointed to just one legislative committee, on a bill to prevent lawsuits over land bequeathed in wills, and one conference with the Commons, on supply.86 LJ, ii. 675a, 678a. He made no recorded speeches. Lisle served as a commissioner for both the prorogation on 6 Dec., and the dissolution on 9 Feb. 1611.

The Addled Parliament and the sale of the Cautionary Towns

In the aftermath of the first Jacobean Parliament, Lisle’s finances remained fragile. To a large extent, the problem was self-inflicted: like the king, he was both open-handed and profligate.87 Sidneiana, 100. Rather than curb his spending, he preferred to seek improvements to his revenue. In April 1606 he tried to persuade James to appoint him general examiner of all witnesses in the English courts in the hope of increasing his income, but without success, and in consequence he was obliged to sell a manor in Hampshire for £4,000.88 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 116; xxiv. 75; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 80. In May 1611, his estate steward, concerned by his master’s ‘extreme wants’ and the size of his ‘consuming debts’, begged Lisle to refrain from enlarging his deer park at Penshurst.89 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, iv. 265-6; Hay, 187. Lisle reluctantly agreed not to do so, and by August he himself was so concerned at his financial situation, ‘which goes from ill to worse’, that he renewed his earlier suit to the king regarding Alton woods. On the face of it, his timing could not have been worse, for in the wake of the failure of the Great Contract the lord treasurer, Salisbury, was obliged to retrench the royal finances. However, in mid October the crown agreed to buy the woods from Lisle for £3,000. This sum was much less than the £5,000 Lisle had originally sought, but under the circumstances it was manna from heaven.90 Ibid. 283, 289, 297. For confirmation of payment, see J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, ii. 610. He received another windfall on the death, in August 1612, of his niece, the countess of Rutland, who bequeathed him the Sussex manors of Haldon and Robertsbridge. These properties had formerly belonged to the Sidneys and, between them, were worth £924 p.a. Of the two, Robertsbridge, with its ironworks, was the more valuable and also capable of improvement. Lisle was so pleased at these additions to his estate that he paid the £600 funeral costs of his niece himself.91 HMC Buccleuch, i. 10; Chamberlain Letters, i. 374; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 268; Sidneiana, 96.

These improvements to his financial circumstances came not a moment too soon for Lisle. The death of his eldest son from smallpox in December 1612 was not merely a personal tragedy but also a severe financial blow: the funeral cost £500, there were £600 of debts to clear, and ‘an accident’ involving his late son – probably an illegitimate child – required a payment of £500 to settle. To make matters worse, in February 1613 the king’s daughter married, for which occasion Lisle spent more than £180 on a new suit, an enormous sum.92 Sidneiana, 90. Following the wedding, Lisle was among those peers who were required to accompany the newly married Princess Elizabeth and her husband to the Palatinate. After discharging this duty, he journeyed to Spa and Aachen to seek relief for his legs, which had once again swollen up (a complaint he attributed to the fact that he had once sprained his ankles).93 HMC Downshire, iv. 66, 115, 138, 146, 154, 169; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 112, 113. This sojourn abroad, plus a hastily arranged visit to the Continent for his remaining son, the 17 year-old Robert Sidney^* (later 2nd earl of Leicester), now his heir, set him back £800.94 Sidneiana, 94.

Lisle had returned to England by October 1612. Shortly thereafter he entered into negotiations for a marriage between Robert and the eldest daughter of William Cecil^*, Lord Burghley, heir to the earldom of Exeter. Lisle was enthusiastic for this union to proceed, ‘the match being so noble’, as Burghley offered a dowry of £8,000. However, in February 1614 Burghley unexpectedly withdrew. Undeterred, Lisle commenced fresh negotiations over the summer with the imprisoned Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, who employed the Middlesex gentleman Sir Francis Darcy^‡ as his intermediary. However, Northumberland declined to offer more than £5,000 by way of dowry, whereas Lisle demanded £6,000. As a result, these negotiations also faltered.95 HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 330.

It may have been against the backdrop of this second set of marriage negotiations that Parliament met in April 1614. Lisle attended the opening on 5 Apr., and also the next two days of sitting, but on 4 Apr. he stayed away, pleading illness. He attended the Lords only once more – on the 19th – before the Easter adjournment. He remained unwell after Parliament resumed sitting on 2 May, for his attendance was initially slight and on 12 May he was again excused on grounds of illness. (He also informed William Trumbull^‡ that he intended to re-visit Spa.) However, before the Parliament ended he staged something of a recovery, attending between 19 and 31 May without intermission. During the course of this short session, Lisle made no recorded speeches and was appointed to just two committees, the first on a bill to preserve timber and the second on a measure to punish abuses of the Sabbath.96 HMC Hastings, iv. 242; LJ, ii. 697b, 701b, 708b.

Lisle was initially optimistic that the assembly would give the king contentment. On 24 Apr. he wrote to Trumbull that ‘notwithstanding the divers opinions of many I do not doubt but by the issue of the Parliament the world shall see how kind subjects the king of England hath’. Eight days later, as Parliament reconvened after the Easter break, he continued to remain upbeat. Despite admitting that the outcome remained in the balance, ‘I do not see that every man almost is very forward to supply the king’s wants’. As late as 8 May he declared that ‘somewhat will be done in the lower House about the undertakers, the impositions and the subsidy’.97 HMC Downshire, iv. 389-90, 395, 398-9. These statements were wildly optimistic, for in early June the Parliament collapsed in acrimony after the Commons declined to vote subsidies. How far they represent the view genuinely held by Lisle is open to question. Trumbull, the recipient of his letters, was the English resident agent at Brussels, and it would not have been acceptable for Lisle to spread rumours of impending failure to such a person in case they were repeated. However, it is also possible that Lisle’s optimism was genuine, and that he was misled by his nephew Pembroke, one of the twin architects of the Parliament. He may also have relied on misleading assessments from various Members of the Commons. Apart from his son Sir Robert, who served as one of the Members for Wilton thanks to Pembroke, the borough’s patron, he may also have received reports from Sir Francis Barnham^‡, one of the Members for Grampound and a neighbour from Kent. Shortly after the dissolution, Barnham, together with Lisle’s estate steward, Thomas Goulding, lent Lisle £1,000.98 LC4/34, m.195.

Lisle attributed the failure of the 1614 Parliament to the malign influence of the crypto-Catholic earl of Northampton.99 HMC Downshire, iv. 492. The two men had a long history of bad blood: as previously mentioned, in 1605 Northampton had supported Sir Robert Dudley’s claim of legitimacy, and in 1607 Lisle reported to an angry king that Northampton was secretly funding Dudley, who was then living in Florence.100 HMC Hatfield, xix. 296. Shortly before his death in June 1614, Northampton asked the royal favourite, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, to ensure that neither Lisle nor Pembroke succeeded him as warden of the Cinque Ports.101 CUL, Dd.iii.63, f. 16; Chamberlain Letters, i. 542. Somerset evidently agreed to this request, for over the next 13 months he himself discharged the duties of this office.

In the aftermath of the 1614 Parliament, Lisle’s nephew Pembroke expected to be appointed lord chamberlain, in accordance with the terms of a deal struck in January between himself and Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk. However, this important office was bestowed instead on Suffolk’s son-in-law, Somerset. An enraged Pembroke was soon plotting to bring about the fall of the royal favourite, and in March 1615 he held a private supper party at Baynard’s Castle to discuss promoting the interests of George Villiers^* (later 1st duke of Buckingham), who had caught the eye of the king. It is not known whether Lisle attended this gathering, at which were present the leaders of the Herbert family, together with the earls of Hertford and Bedford and ‘some others’.102 W. Sanderson, Compleat Hist. (1656), 456 (page incorrectly numbered 466). There is also no direct evidence that he subsequently threw his support behind Villiers. However, Lisle was a frequent guest at Baynard’s Castle, and the fact that Somerset had prevented him from becoming lord warden would have given him a powerful motive to join the conspirators.

The discovery that Somerset was a party to murder led to the fall of the favourite in October 1615. However Lisle, though doubtless pleased by this development, was by then mired in difficulties of his own. The state of the royal finances was now so parlous that in mid September the garrison at Flushing had to be paid by the company commanders. Lisle was thoroughly alarmed, and sought an urgent meeting with the king, only to be brushed off with promises of future payment.103 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 314, 320. He seems to have been left with little alternative but to dip into his own pocket, for between late November 1615 and mid February 1616 he borrowed £8,500 on his own credit.104 LC4/36, mm. 9, 11 (bonds of 28 Nov. and 2 Dec 1615; and 16 Feb. 1616). Taking up money on his own account was no more than a short term solution, however, and by the spring of 1616 James and the Privy Council debated whether to sell the Cautionary Towns to the Dutch, who had offered to buy them back at a reduced rate. It seems unlikely that Lisle, who stood to lose his governorship of Flushing, was pleased by this suggestion, which was opposed in Council by his nephew, Pembroke.105 Chamberlain Letters, i. 620; HMC Downshire, v. 468. However, in April the king reluctantly agreed to sell. By way of compensation, Lisle was promised a cash payment of £6,000, an annual pension of £1,200 for life, and membership of the order of the Garter.106 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 363; APC, 1615-16, p. 514; CSP Ven. 1615-17, p. 213.

Lisle served as a member of the jury which tried the earl of Somerset on 25 May 1616. Somerset tried to evade conviction by blaming his wife for poisoning the tarts sent to the murdered Sir Thomas Overbury. However, Lisle retorted that Somerset should have ensured that the tarts were not tampered with.107 State Trials ed. T.B. Howell, ii. 994. The following day Lisle was elected to the order of the Garter. Although not formally installed at Windsor until 7 July, he received the order’s emblems shortly after rendering Flushing to the Dutch in June. The latter occasion was not without incident, as the troops mutinied and refused to leave until they had been reimbursed the cost of their clothing. Only with some difficulty were they pacified by Lisle, who returned to England later that same month.108 HMC Downshire, v. 528, 531, 533; CSP Ven. 1615-17, pp. 234-5.

Elevation as earl of Leicester, and the parliaments of 1621 and 1624

Over the summer of 1616 it was once again rumoured that Lisle would be created earl of Warwick, which title had, of course, previously been held by his maternal uncle, Ambrose Dudley. This report was credible enough for the Warwickshire antiquary, Henry Ferrers^‡, to draft a dedication to Lisle for a work he was compiling on previous earls of Warwick.109 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 10; HMC Downshire, v. 585; E.K. Berry, Henry Ferrers: An Early Warws. Antiquary (Dugdale Soc. Occasional Pprs. xvi), 26, 35. Lisle’s proposed advancement was probably a by-product of a plan at court to create the new favourite, George Villiers, earl of Leicester. Lisle could claim a proprietary interest in the Leicester title, and, unless granted the Warwick earldom, might resent the promotion of Villiers. In the event, all talk of advancing Villiers to an earldom proved premature, for in September the favourite was created Viscount Villiers instead. Lisle, being now one of only two viscounts in the English peerage, assisted in the formal investiture.110 Harl. 5176, f. 221v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 22. The other viscount was the 2nd Visct. Montagu.

The rumour of his own advancement nevertheless seems to have whetted Lisle’s appetite, and in September 1617 he turned for assistance to the queen, whom he continued to serve as lord chamberlain.111 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 415. In June 1618 Anne had the king create him earl of Leicester after he agreed to contribute £10,000 towards the cost of the forthcoming royal progress. His formal investiture took place on 2 August.112 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxv), 209; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 162; C231/4, f. 70. How Lisle managed to raise the sum needed for his new peerage remains unclear, as he failed to curb his overspending, despite the repeated advice of his household servant, Thomas Nevitt, whom he later suspected of embezzlement.113 Sidneiana, 96, 100. Land sales may have helped.114 E. Suss. RO, SAS-RF/13/18, 19; Sidneiana, 96. So too may the dowry of £6,000 paid by the earl of Northumberland, whose daughter married Lisle’s son in secret despite the collapse of the earlier marriage negotiations.115 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U1475/T327/12. However, Lisle undoubtedly overstretched himself. In September 1620 he demanded that his son give up his colonelcy in the Dutch army and return home, ‘both in respect of my years and mine inabilities to maintain you there’. Two months later he declined to contribute to the benevolence demanded by the Privy Council for the defence of the Rhenish Palatinate, which had been attacked by Catholic forces, on the grounds that his debts were ‘exceeding great’ and he lacked the means to pay them.116 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 351; SP14/118/53. His fortunes were soon at such a low ebb that in July 1622 the king took pity on him and cancelled his late father’s debts to the crown.117 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 426.

Following the death of the queen in March 1619, the new earl of Leicester lost his office at court. Four months later it was rumoured that he would succeed his nephew Pembroke as lord chamberlain of the king’s Household, but only if Pembroke became lord treasurer in succession to the disgraced earl of Suffolk.118 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 166. However, he was to be disappointed, as Pembroke was never offered the treasurer’s staff. His military experience nevertheless earned him a place on the council of war appointed in January 1621 to advise the king on the best means to defend the Palatinate.

Leicester attended the opening of Parliament on 30 Jan., and also the next three sittings of the upper House. Thereafter, however, his absences became ever more frequent due to sickness. He missed five days in a row in the fourth week of February (20-24 Feb. inclusive), and towards the end of April, and for most of May, he was confined to his chamber at Whitehall by an attack of the stone.119 LJ, ii. 25a; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, v. 423, 424. He might have resumed his seat in late May had it not been for the sudden death of his beloved wife at Penshurst. He presumably attended the funeral on the 26th, as he was granted formal leave of absence by the Lords two days earlier.120 LJ, ii. 130a; Letters and Mems. of State, i. 120; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 379.

Given his slender attendance, it is hardly surprising that Leicester played little recorded part in the Lords before the adjournment on 4 June. He made no reported speeches, and was appointed to just seven committees, four of them legislative. The latter included a measure to make the arms of the kingdom more serviceable, to which he was added on 12 February. His non-legislative appointments were to consider Buckingham’s proposal to create an academy for young noblemen; to investigate grants of concealments; and to confer with the Commons on the misuse of the Sabbath and abuses connected with the issue of writs of certiorari. On the face of it, this latter appointment is puzzling, since Leicester was absent when the conference committee was established, but the explanation probably lies in the fact that he had previously been appointed to consider a bill on this same subject.121 LJ, ii. 15b, 17b, 37a, 39b, 47a, 130b. Before the Parliament met, Leicester was appointed by the king one of the triers for Gascony, a largely honorific position but one which he also held in the parliaments of 1624 and 1626.122 Ibid. 7a; iii. 208a; Procs. 1626, i. 22.

When Parliament reconvened in November 1621, Leicester was in greater evidence, but still missed six sittings of the upper House. These included the sitting of 28 Nov., when a bill to allow Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) to buy Kenilworth manor from Lady Alice Dudley (wife of Sir Robert Dudley) was committed. Leicester made no recorded speeches and was appointed to just two committees. The first, to which he named by way of addition, was to consider a bill to amend the government of Wales, in which measure he presumably had an interest, since he still owned lands in Glamorgan and was, theoretically at least, a member of the council in the Marches. The second concerned a bill regarding the merchants of the staple.123 LJ, ii. 172b, 173b, 184a.

Following the dissolution, a public quarrel erupted between Leicester’s daughter Lady Mary Wroth and Edward Denny^*, Lord Denny (later earl of Norwich). Among other things, Lady Mary satirized Denny in print as a drunkard. Leicester himself chose not to become involved. One reason for this, perhaps, was that addiction to alcohol was not a vice to which he himself was immune, for after his creation as earl of Leicester in 1618, he too had been libelled as ‘vinosos’.124 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 163. However, he was also too sick to quarrel, unlike his son Sir Robert, now styled Viscount Lisle. The latter sided with his sister, and in so doing fell out with Denny’s son-in-law, James Hay^*, Viscount Doncaster (later 1st earl of Carlisle). Rather than join in this fight, Leicester urged his son to mend his fences with Doncaster.125 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 355.

Leicester was so infirm over the winter of 1622-3 that he was unable to descend the stairs at his rented house near St Bartholomew’s gatehouse, London.126 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 485. He still remained in a feeble condition when Prince Charles returned from Spain in October 1623. The following month he petitioned Villiers, now duke of Buckingham, for payment of his pension, granted seven years earlier on losing the governorship of Flushing. Overlooking the damage caused to his estate by his purchase of an earldom, he claimed that royal service had ruined him.127 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 356, 358. However, his suit evidently fell on deaf ears.

Increasing infirmity perhaps explains why Leicester transferred the Penshurst estate to his son in 1623.128 G. Warkentin, ‘Robert Sidney (1595-1677), Second Earl of Leicester’, Ashgate Research Companion to the Sidneys, 124. When a fresh Parliament convened in mid February 1624, Leicester did not immediately attend, perhaps due to the bitter cold. At a call of the House on 23 Feb. the Lords were informed that he intended to arrive shortly. He took his seat two days later. Thereafter the details of his attendance are difficult to establish, as the Journal and the clerk’s manuscript minutes often fail to agree. On 2 Mar., for instance, the Journal records that he was present whereas the minutes indicate that he was absent. However, in this case, and perhaps in most others, it is probably the Journal that is erroneous. On 13 Mar. the Journal fails to record his attendance, yet Leicester’s presence is confirmed both by the manuscript minutes and by a surviving committee book, which states that the earl took delivery of the bill of informers.129 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 37; HL/PO/CO/2/2, f. 8v. Despite the inconsistency of the sources, it is clear that Leicester attended far more frequently than he had in previous assemblies. His longest period of continuous absence seems to have lasted just three days (26-28 Apr. inclusive).

A higher level of attendance meant that Leicester was appointed to several committees, most of them legislative. Of his 15 nominations, one – to consider the bill regarding those who provided the authorities with information regarding breaches of the penal statutes - is noteworthy, because Leicester went on to report the committee’s findings to the House.130 LJ, iii. 263b. Coupled with the fact that he had previously been given custody of the measure, this indicates that Leicester served as the committee’s chairman, a position he had not hitherto held. Despite his military background, Leicester was not included on the committee to survey the kingdom’s arms, munitions and forts which was established on 1 March. Eight days later the committee’s chairman, the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot^*, drew attention to the oversight and asked that it be remedied.131 Add. 40087, f. 61v. However, if Leicester was subsequently appointed to this body there is now no record of the fact. Another surprising omission is that Leicester was not included on the committee appointed on 10 Mar. for the bill, first introduced in 1621, to confirm the purchase by Prince Charles of Kenilworth manor from Lady Alice Dudley. (Despite having sold his stake in Kenilworth to Prince Henry some years earlier, Leicester still claimed an interest in this property.) The most likely reason for the omission is that Leicester was absent, for although the Journal records his presence the manuscript minutes do not.132 LJ, iii. 254a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 31v.

Final years, 1625-6

Following the accession of Charles I in March 1625, Leicester was offered the right to sell a barony by the new king as compensation for his remaining interest in Kenilworth. However Leicester, claiming to be ‘extremely pressed, both in time and matter with my debts’, and perhaps hoping to improve his creditworthiness, asked instead to be granted a 31-year lease of crown lands worth £200 p.a. It is not known what provision, if any, was made for him.

Leicester served as an assistant to the chief mourner at the funeral of James I in May 1625.133 Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 1047. When the first Caroline Parliament opened in mid June, he attended the House of Lords regularly, missing only two morning sittings and one afternoon sitting before 7 July, on which day he was excused. He failed to attend the remainder of the Westminster sitting, which was adjourned on 11 July. During this time he made no reported speeches, and was named to just three committees, including the privileges committee, his first ever appointment to this body.134 Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 89, 102. Leicester did not attend when Parliament reconvened at Oxford on 1 Aug., but instead relied upon his nephew Pembroke to obtain for him leave of absence. Pembroke not only obliged but also urged his uncle to remain at home, as ‘all things are in heat, and, I think, will have a sudden and distasteful conclusion’.135 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 359.

Leicester attended the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. 1626,136 Manner of the Coronation of King Charles I ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l (2nd page so numbered). and also the opening of the second Caroline Parliament four days later. Thereafter, however, his appearances in the upper House were infrequent. Indeed, by mid June, when the assembly was dissolved, he had obtained leave on no less than ten occasions.137 Procs. 1626, i. 43, 50, 83, 119, 179, 183, 270, 327, 558, 602. The reason is unclear, but in November 1625 he was afflicted with both gout and the stone.138 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 366. However, one particular absence evidently owed nothing to illness: on 25 Apr., the earl married for a second time, taking as his wife the widow of the wealthy Kent merchant (and fellow member of the Virginia Company) Sir Thomas Smythe^‡, who brought with her a dowry of £3,500. Leicester played no recorded part in the 1626 Parliament, which he attended intermittently, except to be appointed, in absentia, to two committees. The first of these was the privileges committee, to which he had also been named in 1625; the second was to the committee for the defence of the kingdom.139 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 110.

Leicester may have hoped that his marriage to Sarah Smythe would help restore his ailing finances, which had been further weakened by the crown’s inability to pay his annual pension of £1,200.140 Letters and Mems. of State, ii. 368-9. However, despite the claims made by one modern biographer, he remained heavily indebted at his death, which occurred at Baynard’s Castle on the morning of 13 July 1626, five days after he was seized by an apoplexy.141 Sidney, 134; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 129. He left no will, and was buried at Penshurst three days after his decease. In view of his impoverished state, the funeral was not surprisingly inexpensive.142 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 4. Letters of administration were granted to his son and heir in June 1627.143 Letters of Admon. 1620-30 ed. J.H. Morrison, 66.