CRANFIELD, Lionel (1575-1645)

A self-made merchant, Lionel Cranfield was the first financier to be given control of the crown’s finances. His humble origins and brusque manner made him many enemies and helped cause his premature downfall in 1624, when King James could hardly afford to dispense with his services. For all his reputation as a financial miracle-worker, acquired during the reform of the customs and several government departments during the 1610s – the Navy, the great wardrobe, the Court of Wards – Cranfield’s strategy was simple: cut costs and improve efficiency. This contrasts with the ambitious fiscal policies of his immediate predecessors at the treasury, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset (1598-1608) and Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury (1608-12). While few of their plans to raise the crown’s ordinary revenues came to fruition, Cranfield’s more modest reforms successfully laid the groundwork for the far-reaching changes wrought by his friend and eventual successor as treasurer, Sir Richard Weston^* (later 1st earl of Portland), which put the Caroline state on a secure financial footing.

Rise to power, 1575-1621

Cranfield married his former master’s daughter, and made his fortune as a Merchant Adventurer, shipping cloth to the Low Countries and Germany, a trade he later reckoned yielded a 20 per cent profit on each voyage. In 1605, with the aid of his brother-in-law John Suckling^‡, then secretary to Lord Treasurer Dorset, he entered the world of government finance, as receiver general of Somerset and Dorset. His business partner Arthur Ingram^‡ introduced him to Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, for whom he managed the farm of the impositions on currants, while he also invested in the great farm of the customs (1604), and the highly profitable Eldred-Whitmore syndicate for the lease of crown lands (1609).67 Prestwich, 49-53, 60-70; Upton, 7-14, 17-21; Crown Revenues from Som. and Dorset 1605 ed. C.J. Brett (Som. Rec. Soc. xcvi).

After Salisbury’s death in 1612, the head of the newly created treasury commission, Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, enlisted Cranfield’s services as surveyor general of customs. With his mercantile background and detailed trade figures to hand, he raised the crown’s rental income when leases came up for renewal, provoking complaints in the Addled Parliament, the early dissolution of which saved him from investigation. In 1616 Cranfield clashed with Suffolk, now lord treasurer, over the viability of Alderman Cockayne’s over-ambitious scheme to increase customs revenues by promoting the export of finished cloth; by the time of Suffolk’s fall in 1618, Cranfield was one of the leading advocates of financial retrenchment.68 Prestwich, 120-1, 172-6; HP Commons 1604-29, iii. 724-5. That same year, he wrested control of the great wardrobe from James Hay^*, Viscount Doncaster (later 1st earl of Carlisle), who was notoriously unable to control his departmental budget. Cranfield used his personal credit to ensure that bills were paid promptly, which slashed costs by 30 to 40 per cent, and ultimately cut expenditure by over 50 per cent: he was advanced £20,000 a year for his costs, and allowed to keep any surplus, a concession which earned him several thousand pounds a year.69 C66/2231/15; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OW1, 3; Prestwich, 227-34, 259-64; R.E. Schreiber, First Carlisle (Trans. American Phil. Soc. lxxiv), 146-50. In 1618, at Cranfield’s recommendation, further alterations were made to the customs revenues, including a lucrative new duty on cloth, the pretermitted custom. In the following year he was appointed master of the Court of Wards, where he continued administrative reforms inaugurated by his predecessors, while garnering significant rewards for his own pocket.70 Prestwich, 191, 235-45; A. Friis, Alderman Cockayne’s Project, 218-19; F.C. Dietz, Eng. Public Finance, 177, 348.

In January 1620 Cranfield was appointed a privy councillor and added to the treasury commission that had been created following Suffolk’s fall. However, his ambition to secure the treasurership was frustrated by Chief Justice Sir Henry Montagu^* (later 1st earl of Manchester), who bought both the office and a peerage, becoming Viscount Mandeville in December 1620. In the same month, having learned an important lesson about the need for patronage, Cranfield married a cousin of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham, apparently at the king’s insistence; his bride came without any dowry, beyond her political connections.71 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 286; Add. 72275, f. 95; Add. 72332, f. 29v; Prestwich, 261-2.

During the spring sitting of the 1621 Parliament, Cranfield, returned as MP for Arundel, emerged as an outspoken critic of corruption, even urging that the shortcomings of his own Court of Wards be the first to face scrutiny. His ambition was widely noticed, and he was regarded as a likely successor to the disgraced lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban – John Hacket^† (ultimately bishop of Coventry and Lichfield) later remarked ‘he had his foot in the stirrup’. Yet, while he was created a baron on 9 July, one month after Parliament adjourned for the summer, his hopes of replacing Bacon were dashed, as the king chose instead John Williams^* (later archbishop of York), who was also appointed bishop of Lincoln.72 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 345; Add. 72299, f. 42r-v; HP Commons 1604-29, iii. 725-6; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vii. 192; NLW, 9057E/943; J. Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (1693), i. 51-2; J. Cramsie, Kingship and Crown Finance, 168-79.

Although Cranfield failed to secure the lord chancellorship, it quickly emerged that James intended him for the treasurership. This was because, while still an MP, Cranfield had used his position as chairman of the Commons’ standing committee on trade to suggest remedies for the bullion shortage which affected much of northern Europe in 1621, a crisis which undermined Mandeville’s reliance on windfalls and projects. He also privately advised Buckingham about financial policy.73 NLW, 9057E/959, 979; Eg. 2594, f. 83; Add. 72254, ff. 55-7; G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, ii. 202-7; B.E. Supple, Commercial Crisis and Change, 52-8, 73-98; HP Commons 1604-29, iii. 725-6; Prestwich, 326-9; Cramsie, 185-6. Appointed at Michaelmas, his initial assessment of the crown’s finances, as relayed to Buckingham, was gloomy:

The more I look into the king’s estate the greater cause I have to be troubled, considering the work I have to do, which is not to reform one particular, as in the household, Navy, wardrobe etc.; but every particular, as well of his Majesty’s receipts as payments, hath been carried with so much disadvantage to the king, as until your lordship see it you will not believe any men should be so careless and unfaithful.

However, while the bullion crisis caused bankruptcies in the City, particularly among the purveyors supplying the royal household, Cranfield may have exaggerated the situation for political reasons – it furnished a pretext for reform, while his resolution of the most pressing problems during his first year in office enhanced his prestige.74 Goodman, ii. 207-9; Prestwich, 330-1.

The parliamentary sitting of autumn 1621

Cranfield’s vastly enhanced status was underlined when Parliament reconvened in the autumn, for while a newcomer to the peerage, as lord treasurer he sat in the Lords above his predecessor Mandeville, now lord president of the Privy Council.75 LJ, iii. 163a; Northants. RO, Montagu 29/62. He attended half the meetings of the autumn sitting, when his first task was to explain, at a conference of both Houses on 21 Nov., that the crown needed an additional grant of funds, despite the fact that the subsidies voted in the spring had not yet all been collected. He was supported by Lord Keeper Williams and John Digby^*, Lord Digby (later 1st earl of Bristol), both of whom outlined the deteriorating diplomatic situation.

Echoing the gloomy tone of his earlier correspondence with Buckingham, Cranfield began by conceding the obvious: ‘there is a great debt owing by the king; his Majesty’s revenue is but small; and the subsidy that was given is already disposed of’. He enumerated four causes of this parlous situation: corrupt officials, royal bounty, lack of regular parliamentary supply, and the expenditure of £312,370 on assistance to the Palatinate and other continental Protestants – a figure padded out by including the benevolences raised from voluntary contributions in 1620.76 Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 189; CD1621, ii. 424; iv. 428; vi. 418; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 410. Citing the Commons’ declaration of 4 June 1621, in which MPs had offered their lives and fortunes for the Palatinate, he promised any sums voted would go to this cause: ‘for any officer to go about to make use of such money to another purpose were one of the worst kinds of sacrilege’. However, his argument that the king’s attempts at reform demonstrated a genuine change of policy was not entirely convincing. He insisted that the £30,000 spent on Huguenot refugees outweighed a failure to enforce the recusancy laws against English Catholics; that Bacon’s impeachment and procedural reforms in Chancery constituted a reformation of justice; that restrictions on the import of Spanish tobacco would significantly improve the balance of trade; and that the repeal of several dozen contentious monopoly patents by proclamation represented a serious blow against corruption. Recalling the king’s aversion to bargaining with parliaments, he concluded with the assurance that, although James had broken two parliaments (in 1610 and 1614), Parliament need have no fear of dissolution, as it was seeking precisely what James wanted – assistance for the Palatinate.77 CD 1621, iii. 425; iv. 428; v. 209, 401; vi. 316-17, 418; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 189-90; LJ, ii. 168b; Prestwich, 333-4. This speech clarified the urgent need for supply, but left many ‘afraid their money will not be employed’ to relieve the Palatinate.78 NLW, 9057E/990; Add. 72254, f. 66; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 174.

While the Commons debated supply, Cranfield’s priority in the Lords was to defend the king’s revenue. As he explained in a private letter to Buckingham on 4 Dec., he intended ‘to see nothing passeth to the prejudice of his Majesty’s revenue and estate, nor to impeach his power royal’. This emerged most clearly during the debate over the monopolies’ bill. Added to the committee on 27 Nov., when the bill was reported, he insisted ‘the king cannot pass it without prejudice to his prerogative’, claiming annual revenues would thereby be reduced by £30,000. The bill was rejected, and Cranfield was named to the committee to pen a new draft, which never reported.79 Goodman, ii. 211; LJ, iii. 172b, 177b, 185b; LD 1621, pp. 104-5. He was also added to committees for bills on informers, to restrict the export of iron ordnance and to limit actions in lawsuits, which he reported on 27 November. His remaining appointments included committees for measures to allow defaulting crown tenants to retain possession of their lands during legal proceedings, to modify procedures for the procurement of licences of alienation, to allow Merchants of the Staple to export cloth; and another which largely restricted the tobacco trade to imports from Virginia, the farm for which he had just renegotiated.80 LJ, iii. 165b, 172a, 177b, 181a, 182a-b, 184a, 193b; Add. 40086, f. 22; Goodman, ii. 211-12. He must also have been included on the committee to consider measures to reduce the export of bullion on 24 Nov., as six days later he reported that the committee had failed to reach its quorum (half its membership); the quorum was reduced to ten members, but despite royal approval of the committee’s efforts, the bill was never reported.81 LJ, iii. 168b-9a, 176a; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE108 (7 December). Ill health caused Cranfield to miss the Council’s debate about the heads of the royal pardon scheduled to be tabled at the end of the session; he retrospectively endorsed their conclusions, although he was concerned that the pardon should not prejudice the Exchequer campaign for the recovery of old debts.82 Harl. 1580, f. 170a.

The management of crown finance, 1621-4

Cranfield’s stock was riding high at court by Christmas 1621, when Buckingham and the king stood as godparents at the christening of his son, James^* (later 2nd earl of Middlesex).83 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 417-18. He helped to interrogate the MPs detained after the angry prorogation of the parliamentary session: it was apparently he who told William Mallory^‡ that the Council had obtained much of their information about the Commons’ debates from the clerks.84 C. Russell, Unrevolutionary Eng. 84, 87. The letter ‘T’ in the margin of Mallory’s point 14 (p. 84) may be an abbreviation for ‘Treasurer’, making Cranfield the source of this comment. However, in June 1622 he had the Exchequer receiver-general, John Pym^‡, released from house arrest to pursue the disafforestation of Pewsham and Blackmore forests in Wiltshire.85 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1278-9.

The decision to dissolve Parliament, taken over Christmas 1621, is unlikely to have been made unless the king was confident that revenues could be found to replace the subsidy forfeited at the prorogation on 19 December. Cranfield undertook to raise loans of £1,000 apiece from 200 or 300 gentlemen, a hope which proved ephemeral, but, on royal instructions, he pressed recalcitrant MPs hard for contributions towards a fresh Palatine benevolence, which ultimately raised almost £89,000 from laity and clergy – as much as the lost subsidy.86 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1273, U269/1/OE1686; U269/1/OE108 (Buckingham to Cranfield, 3 Feb. 1621/2); SP14/135/62; Add. 72275, ff. 125, 133v; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 219. He also raised the custom on wines by £3 per tun, as a temporary measure for relief of the Palatinate, which raised £20,000 in the first year, but proved controversial; in August 1622 it was reduced to 20s. per tun for London, and 13s. 4d. for the outports. There was no domestic resistance to another increase in duty, paid on imports by foreign merchants, which rose from 3d./lb. to 12d./lb.87 PSO5/4, unfol.; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1527, pp. 70-1, 73-4, 78; Add. 72275, f. 125; CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 219. For the wine duties, see E351/899-904; AO1/736/521, 523; AO1/738/543.

Expectations of Cranfield’s expertise ran high, and from the start of his tenure as lord treasurer he had ambitious plans for financial reform. On the revenue side, he continued his earlier work on increasing revenues from customs farming, the yield of which many expected to fall, as currency fluctuations in the Baltic led to a credit crisis: Sir Francis Jones, one of the customs farmers, was bankrupted in November 1621, shortly before the Great Farm came up for renewal. However, with the aid of a dummy bid from Ingram, the rent was increased by £4,000 a year, with Cranfield giving up his own gratuity of £2,000 to clinch the deal.88 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 405; Bodl., Tanner 73, f. 86v; R. Ashton, Crown and the Money Market, 93-4. Cranfield took his compensation in the form of shares in the farm (see below). He was also involved in the renegotiation of the tobacco farm in the summer of 1621, which sharply reduced customs revenues by imposing a quota on Spanish imports, but offered a financial lifeline to the Virginia planters, who were allowed to ship their crop without restriction.89 Goodman, ii. 205, 211-12; Prestwich, 351. For the background to these changes, see Cramsie, 167, 176. Cranfield had been involved in the farm of the Irish customs since shortly after its inception in 1613, of which Buckingham became the major beneficiary in 1619. When the lease came up for renewal in 1623, a new book of rates and the prospering Irish economy allowed Cranfield to more than double the rent, to £13,400 p.a.; half the increase went to the favourite.90 V. Treadwell, Buckingham and Ire. 1616-28, pp. 92-6, 224-9; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OE254. These efforts, in a stagnating economy, caused controversy among the merchants, who were offered some relief: the northern merchants were granted an additional 10 per cent discount on the pretermitted custom; while protests at the £3/tun wine duty of 1622 were mitigated by a concealed discount, when the allowance for ‘leakage’ from casks was increased from 2½ per cent to 16-20 per cent.91 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/OE818; Hull Hist. Cent., L.190, L.200; E315/899; S.M. Healy, ‘Crown Revenue and the Political Culture of Early Stuart Eng.’ (Univ. of London PhD. thesis, 2015), 224-5.

Cranfield also scrutinized the crown estates, which had defied two decades’ worth of attempted reforms. He dismissed the prospect of resuming the sale of crown lands, discontinued since 1615, on the grounds that people would fear ‘that the crown will be enforced to lean upon taxing and imposing when the lands are gone’. He also rejected another lucrative proposal, that crown lands to be sold should be charged with a fee-farm rent of several times the current value (the basis on which most crown land sales took place after 1625). Plans for disafforestation and timber sales, which he did approve, produced few significant revenue improvements, but the revival of commissions for concealed crown lands subverted the prosecutions by the 1621 Parliament of those with patents to hunt out concealments.92 R.W. Hoyle, ‘Introduction’, Estates of the Eng. Crown, 1558-1640 ed. R.W. Hoyle; Healy thesis, 76-110; SP14/123/79; C66/2260/47 (dorse); Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE1734. Cranfield also promoted reform of the royal household’s finances: after the bullion shortage bankrupted numerous purveyors in the autumn of 1621, the existing commissions were suspended at New Year 1622. Fresh compositions were negotiated with 14 counties – several others failed to reach agreement – and with the outports, for grocery wares. These compositions yielded an income of £7,400 p.a. to the new receiver general of compositions, Sir William Hewitt^‡; yet this sum proved inadequate, and the scheme was abandoned at Michaelmas 1624, shortly after Cranfield’s fall.93 Bodl., Tanner 73, ff. 47, 81v, 107; C66/2271 (dorse); Maynard Lieutenancy Bk. ed. B.W. Quintrell (Essex Hist. Docs. iii), ii. 309-11,317; E101/436/19; LR6/154/11; G.E. Aylmer, ‘Last Years of Purveyance’, EcHR, n.s. x. 86-8; Healy, 150-1.

As for expenditure, having streamlined the great wardrobe and advised Buckingham about the financial implications of naval reform, Cranfield advocated more sweeping changes. With currency fluctuations in the Baltic playing havoc with the coinage, he speculated about the possibility of a debasement, and an alteration of the ratio between gold and silver coinage; but the Council, having acknowledged that ‘this carries a fair show of wealth at the first speech’, concluded the project ‘impoverisheth the king, the owners and consequently the kingdom’, and rejected it.94 SP14/123/79; B.E. Supple, Commercial Crisis and Change in Eng. 73-81. Perceiving the huge increase in pensions to courtiers under James, Cranfield suspended payment in the autumn of 1621, but the Privy Council judged this initiative ‘full of clamour’, and it was never comprehensively implemented. He also vetoed Lord Keeper Williams’ proposal for a pardon, which would have upset efforts to raise money from old crown debts and concealed wards and liveries.95 Hacket, i. 104. In October 1622 the king ordered that no grant of pensions or crown lands was to pass without Exchequer approval, which shifted the blame for refusal onto Cranfield’s shoulders. This ban was never applied to Buckingham or the bedchamber Scots, and those who suffered most were minor courtiers with little influence. English diplomats in post abroad also had their expenses cut, while the embassies in Venice and Turin were considered for closure.96 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 400; SP14/123/79; Add. 72275, f. 141v; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 96; Prestwich, 356-64; Cramsie, 191-3.

Ireland was a significant drain on the English Exchequer, requiring a subsidy of £20,000 a year, and, even before his appointment as treasurer, Cranfield was promoting a commission of inquiry to expose the urgent need for reform. Its dispatch over the winter of 1621-2 was delayed by the recall of the English Parliament, and in December 1621 Buckingham – whose Irish interests would have been damaged by such close scrutiny – derailed Cranfield’s plans.97 Prestwich, 348-50; Treadwell, 169-85. The commission sent in March 1622 had a more modest remit, and included several of Buckingham’s clients, while its reports, dispatched to London in the autumn of 1622, avoided scrutiny of some of Buckingham’s most lucrative interests. However, it provided ample scope for reform during the favourite’s absence in Madrid, when Cranfield, disregarding criticism from several of Buckingham’s Irish clients, secured the appointment of a Privy Council subcommittee to oversee the management of Irish affairs by Sir Francis Blundell^‡, another of the favourite’s clients. Cranfield reduced Irish debts of £86,000 in the spring of 1623 by a policy of discounting: he agreed to pay 70 per cent of the army’s arrears, but only 50 per cent of what was owed to bureaucrats and courtiers. However, the army was promised that its back-pay would be settled from the Irish Exchequer, to which they had ready access, while courtiers were required to apply to Cranfield in London, who gave them short shrift. Cranfield also pruned military and civilian wages to balance the current account. The overall impact of these reforms was to eradicate the Irish deficit, if only temporarily.98 Prestwich, 350-6; Treadwell, 186-241.

While probity was the foundation of Cranfield’s reputation, his own fortune increased substantially during his years in office, and his extensive land purchases in 1622-3 provoked jealousy among his enemies. In fact, his legitimate proceeds as master of the great wardrobe and lord treasurer – jointly worth around £15,000 a year – comprised the greater part of his income, although he also profited from bribes taken by Nicholas Herman, his secretary as master of the Wards. At his impeachment in 1624, he was convicted of changing the court’s procedures to require his personal approval for all sales of wardships and liveries, while it also emerged that Herman had freely applied a dry stamp of his signature to such warrants.99 Prestwich, 264-6; Add. 72276, f. 58v; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 113; CJ, i. 767b-8a; LJ, iii. 308b-9a, 318b-9a, 331b-2a. Cranfield also bought up the estates of several crown debtors at a discount, investments he could afford to make, since he could be sure that the Exchequer would not foreclose upon the lands to which the debt was attached while he held them. The sample allegation proved against him at his impeachment concerned the Lincolnshire estates of the Ordnance official Sir Roger Dallison^‡, extended shortly after the latter’s death in 1620 for a debt of £9,962, which was ordered to be paid off in annual instalments of £560. In July 1621 Cranfield bought Dallison’s estates, paying off the extent at £1,000 a year; later, as treasurer, he altered this settlement to his own advantage, securing the agreement of the Ordnance officers by assigning £12,000 from Exchequer funds to cover the shortfall on their account.100 Prestwich, 392-400; LJ, iii. 301a, 319a, 333a-4b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 15v-16. Cranfield used similar methods to acquire several other estates, which were not cited at his impeachment. In 1622, he bought the Sussex estate of the chronically indebted Sir Thomas Sherley^‡, undertaking to pay £7,000 to the most recent owner, Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset, whose grant had been voided by his conviction for murder, and £5,400 to Sherley, whose obligations far exceeded this sum. Cranfield procured a crown grant of this estate without encumbrances, freeing himself from liabilities reckoned to be around £5,500 greater than the price he paid.101 Prestwich, 390-2. This exchange was overlooked in the impeachment charges. Finally, in 1623-4, while cultivating one of his few allies at court, Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (and 1st duke of Richmond in the English peerage), Cranfield brokered a deal in which Lennox procured a viscountcy for Elizabeth Finch, who in turn sold her mansion at Copt Hall, Essex to Cranfield. She paid for her title partly in cash, while Cranfield expedited a farm of the greenwax fines to the duke, and ultimately assigned £8,000 of old crown debts to Lennox’s widow.102 Harl. 7000, f. 121v; Prestwich, 412-19.

Faction and rivalry at court, 1621-3

Cranfield’s abrasive personality provoked a good deal of hostility at court, even among those who shared his desire for financial retrenchment. Mandeville naturally resented being thrust aside, particularly as Cranfield was in no hurry to pay him the £15,000 agreed for the treasurership. In January 1622 the two men argued over the lease of the customs on sugar, from which Mandeville had presumably expected to be compensated, but which Cranfield was granted at £2,000 p.a. – one-third of the actual yield. At the same time Cranfield quarrelled with Digby, initially over tardy payment of the latter’s ambassadorial expenses; the two men later clashed over which of them was to have precedence upon their elevation to earldoms.103 Add. 72275, ff. 116r-v, 131v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 426, 443, 452; Prestwich, 376. In September 1622 Cranfield accused Lord Keeper Williams of corruption, of paying Buckingham a monthly retainer for his post, and of malpractice in the Chancery court. Williams, incandescent at being ‘thus rewarded by a lord who is reputed wise’, scrutinized his own servants’ account books to refute the charge of corruption, and insisted that Cranfield had been wrong to issue injunctions from the Exchequer Court and Court of Wards overturning Williams’ Chancery orders for the disposition of several rectories. The king intervened to compose these differences, with some success, as in May 1623 Williams stood as godfather to Cranfield’s daughter.104 Cabala (1654), 72-3; Harl. 7000, ff. 102, 107-8; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 457; Add. 72276, f. 36.

Such bickering may help to explain why further preferment eluded Cranfield and his relatives for some time. Within days of Cranfield’s appointment as treasurer, his brother-in-law Suckling was tipped as secretary of state – he would have preferred the chancellorship of the Exchequer – but while Suckling was sworn a privy councillor in March 1622 it was not until the following August that he was appointed comptroller of the household.105 Add. 72254, ff. 57-9; SP14/123/15, 63; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 399, 430; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE256; Add. 72275, f. 116v; Add. 72276, f. 3v. Plans to install Cranfield’s brother Randall as master of the Mint were also delayed, in this case until July 1623, while terms were agreed with the incumbent, Buckingham’s half-brother Sir Edward Villers^‡. (Randall did not enjoy this lucrative office for very long, being suspended after his brother’s fall.)106 New Hist. of the Royal Mint ed. C.E. Challis, 270-4; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 511; HP Commons 1604-29, vi. 632. Cranfield himself was rumoured to be in consideration for an earldom from January 1622, along with Digby and several others. However, disputes over titles and precedence among four aspiring earls delayed their patents until September. Cranfield was said to have paid handsomely for the earldom of Middlesex – the first ever recipient of this title – but his humble origins, cost-cutting and ill-timed clash with Williams led to him being left until last in order of precedence.107 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 422, 441-3, 446; Add. 72275, ff. 128; Add. 72299, f. 84; Add. 72276, f. 3v; CSP Ven. 1621-3, pp. 470-1.

In June 1622 Cranfield was included among an inner circle of councillors authorized to discuss the most sensitive issues of the day: the Spanish Match, the Palatinate and revenues.108 Add. 72254, f. 118v; Add. 72275, f. 141v; Add. 72299, f. 80; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 438. He was widely perceived to be sympathetic to the Spanish Match, more to avoid adding to the crown’s financial woes than for any religious or strategic motives. However, in September 1622, with a fresh Parliament under consideration, Cranfield, now earl of Middlesex, reportedly joined Buckingham in urging the king to take a more belligerent line in the negotiations with Madrid, in the hope that this might expedite a vote of supply.109 CSP Ven. 1621-3, p. 460. His relations with Buckingham gradually deteriorated, as the quest for economies led him to delay or cancel grants to the favourite and his clients, particularly after Buckingham (shortly thereafter raised to a dukedom) and Prince Charles (Stuart^*, prince of Wales) left for Spain in February 1623. While the duke’s correspondence with the treasurer remained superficially cordial, Middlesex’s nagging about the spiralling costs of the visit – ‘I was never put to such a plunge for money’ – and a steady stream of complaints from disgruntled courtiers about the treasurer’s obstruction of their grants soured relations between the two men.110 Harl. 1581, ff. 93-5, 99; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE108 (7 Apr. 1623); R Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, pp. 305-9. For criticisms Buckingham received about Middlesex, see Harl. 1580, ff. 294, 297; Harl. 1581, ff. 78-80, 97, 123, 284, 291, 345; Hacket, i. 135-6. Tensions turned to hostility at some point during the duke’s absence, when Middlesex promoted his brother-in-law, Arthur Brett, as a rival for the king’s affections; as a groom of the bedchamber from June 1622, Brett was adroitly placed to catch James’s eye. Middlesex also attempted to forge an alliance with one of Buckingham’s most inveterate enemies, Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, who discussed terms for a marriage between his son and Middlesex’s daughter in September 1623.111 Add. 72299, f. 84; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 442, 533; Harl. 1581, f. 370; Prestwich, 427-8.

The ‘Blessed Revolution’ at court and in Parliament, 1623-4

Charles and Buckingham returned to England in October 1623 with grave doubts about the wisdom of continuing to pursue the Spanish Match, which developed into outright hostility as the Spanish showed little interest in accommodating their misgivings. The prince and the favourite then set about assembling a ‘patriot’ coalition to persuade King James to launch a war against the Habsburgs. The cost of this undertaking promised to wreck the treasurer’s hopes for financial retrenchment, and while, like most court hispanophiles, he kept a low profile during the weeks following the prince’s return, he returned to the offensive in December, with plans for a new Irish investigation to expose the duke’s interests. Buckingham had this commission quashed in January 1624, packed Brett off to France, and won Southampton to his camp by offering the prospect of military command in the Low Countries.112 T. Cogswell, Blessed Rev. 83-9; Treadwell, 241-8; Ruigh, 309-10. However, Middlesex’s most powerful enemy was not the favourite but the prince, with whom he clashed in the Privy Council, perhaps when fresh Spanish overtures were discussed in the middle of January 1624. During these debates, as Williams recalled a decade later, most pro-Spanish councillors conceded that the final decision over marriage lay with Charles, but Middlesex obstinately insisted ‘the prince ought to submit his private distaste therein to the general good and honour of the kingdom’.113 SP16/280/77 (Bishop Williams’ testimony from 1634), cited in S.R. Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. v. 229; Ruigh, 311. For the diplomatic and political context, see Chamberlain Letters, ii. 541-2; Hacket, i. 169, 189; Cogswell, 128-31.

The question of a breach with Spain was left to a fresh Parliament, summoned over the objections of Middlesex and the rest of the Spanish party on the Privy Council. The sudden death of Lennox on 16 Feb. 1624 removed one of the treasurer’s few supporters at court, and his hopes for survival thereafter rested entirely with the king, who remained sceptical about the need for a breach with Spain. Middlesex played little known part in the parliamentary elections; at Steyning, Sussex, he nominated Sir Edward Greville^‡, whose Warwickshire estates he had recently purchased, but without success.114 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 419.

The first half of the parliamentary session, which commenced on 19 Feb., was dominated by Charles and Buckingham’s attempts to force James into a declaration of war. The fact that hostilities did not commence for another 18 months undoubtedly owed something to the counsel Middlesex offered James behind the scenes, although it is difficult to detect such advice in the parliamentary record. The clearest evidence of the treasurer’s role is provided by the determination with which the prince and the favourite set about securing his destruction in the latter part of the session.115 Ruigh, 34; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 262, 276; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 553; Hacket, i. 189-90.

While he attended the Lords regularly until the first impeachment charges against him were filed on 12 Apr., Middlesex played little part in the opening weeks of the session, which were dominated by the efforts of Buckingham and Charles to persuade both Houses to petition the king for a public breach with Spain. On 24 Feb. the treasurer’s motion to give the monopolies’ bill a reading in the Lords was declined. Two days later, Middlesex was included on the committee for the bill to confirm the tenure of charitable endowments against concealment hunters, having reminded the House that any endowments originally assigned to superstitious uses should remain liable to confiscation. On 2 Mar., he was added to the committee for investigating the state of the defences of England and Ireland, having been absent when it was established the previous day; this was, in fact, the committee which unearthed evidence of the earl’s irregular proceedings over the Ordnance Office accounts.116 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 11v; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 2; LJ, iii. 219a, 237b, 239a.

On 5 Mar. a parliamentary delegation attended the king to urge him to break with Spain. James, having clearly been briefed about the likely cost of a war, responded by asking to see the colour of their money, adding that ‘my treasurer shall more at large inform you’ of the sums required. When this message was reported to the upper House on 8 Mar., Middlesex offered an assurance that ‘that which shall be given to the king shall be severed from that for the wars’, and he was allowed time to prepare his accounts.117 Add. 40087, f. 60r-v; Cogswell, 183-4; Add. 72276, f. 25r-v. The reckoning he delivered on 11 Mar. was artfully fashioned to evade any general reckoning of crown finances, beyond his unsupported assertion that the annual deficit had been reduced to negligible proportions.118 The figures are garbled in various reports: PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 32 records an annual surplus of £16,000 on the ordinary account; LD 1624 and 1626, p. 23 a deficit of £32,000; while CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 249 (improbably) claims the crown’s outstanding debts had shrunk to £60,000. He focussed instead on extraordinary expenditure since Michaelmas 1621: diplomacy comprised 40 per cent of the £661,670 total, including £99,000 on Charles’s trip to Madrid; while a further £175,000 had been taken up in loans, which remained outstanding. Moreover, Middlesex reminded his peers that a war with Spain would depress customs receipts by a sum as yet uncalculated, and that much of the pension being paid to the king and queen of Bohemia came from the impositions on wine he had inaugurated in 1622, which would require statutory confirmation, or replacement by some other revenue. His account invited the inference that the first tranche of any parliamentary supply was likely to be devoted to loan repayments and the defensive preparations then under discussion in the Commons – an agenda the king was prepared to condone. It is doubtless in this light that the concluding remarks of his speech should be read: ‘if you proceed … you may perceive … that it is not impossible, but very feasible’.119 The most coherent account of this speech is in LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 23-5; another version is in PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, ff. 32-3v. Weston’s account in the Commons was reported more clearly: ‘Pym 1624’, ff. 24-5; ‘Nicholas 1624’, ff. 65-7. See also Ruigh, 202-3.

Middlesex made no attempt to calculate the costs of a war, which prompted the 1st Lord Spencer (Robert Spencer^*) to ask, ‘how this may be feasible?’ As the Commons discovered when debating the same question on 19 Mar., any digression into the technical details of war finance would have been lengthy and inconclusive. However, on this occasion Prince Charles averted a crisis by stating that supply would be assigned to war, not debt finance (as Middlesex himself had promised on 8 March). A message was drafted asking the Commons for a conference to allow the prince to repeat his assurance ‘to avoid all mistakings that may arise’, but Middlesex, thinking he had been publicly criticized, angrily demanded ‘to know wherein he mistook’. Charles assured him that any misunderstanding was in those who had heard him speak, whereupon the treasurer conceded that, though the matter of the king’s debt was to be ‘thought on’, the breach with Spain should have priority; he attended the conference of 12 Mar. at which Charles repeated this clarification to the Commons.120 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 33; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 25-8; LJ, iii. 256a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 232; Add. 72255, f. 127v; Prestwich, 439; Cogswell, 188-94. MPs then offered a cautious agreement to assist the king ‘in a parliamentary way’, and after a brief debate on the afternoon 12 Mar., when Middlesex urged a defensive strategy - ‘look upon the king’s speech, how that directs’ – the Lords supported the Commons’ undertaking.121 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 30.

On 14 Mar. James responded with a demand for five subsidies and ten fifteenths to cover the consequences of a breach with Spain, and an annual support of one subsidy and two fifteenths to pay off his debts. The king rarely demonstrated this level of financial acumen, which led the Venetian ambassador to speculate that Middlesex had advised James to ‘avoid making a declaration [of a breach with Spain], because thereby he would subject himself to the Parliament and cease to be a king’. Once again, Charles worked to dispel the initial shock of this huge demand, persuading his father that the debt repayment could be waived; while the breach with Spain was ultimately secured in return for a vote of less than half this sum.122 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 256, 262; Ruigh, 210-16; C. Russell, PEP, 185-7; Cogswell, 195-8, 215-16.

While Middlesex was included on the delegation which delivered the Commons’ offer of three subsidies and three fifteenths to the king on 23 Mar., he otherwise reverted to more routine business.123 LJ, iii. 275a. On 12 Mar. he was ordered to take swift action to prevent the rumoured export of large quantities of bullion by English Catholics,124 LD 1624 and 1626, p. 28; Add. 40087, ff. 77, 78v; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 233. whilst the following day he was advised to attend the committee for the bill intended to bar concealment proceedings against hospitals and schools. On 22 Mar. he reported the jeofails’ bill, which sought to prevent clerical errors from invalidating judicial pleadings, and he was subsequently included on the committee for the bill to restrict the crown’s right to evict duchy of Lancaster tenants for arrears of rent.125 Add. 40087, f. 82r-v; LJ, iii. 261a, 273a, 284b; Kyle thesis, 248-51.

Impeachment and disgrace, 1624

Either by coincidence or at Middlesex’s behest, Arthur Brett returned from France in late March 1624, a development which encouraged Buckingham to make the treasurer’s destruction a priority after the Easter recess. Middlesex fought hard to preserve his political career, but had few allies. The king was reluctant to permit the destruction of his treasurer, but the only way to avert this would have been to repudiate his son, his favourite and the anti-Spanish policy he had just publicly endorsed, a course of action he proved unable to take. Middlesex was also supported by various Scottish courtiers, some of whom had seats in the Lords, as well as by John Holles^*, 1st Lord Houghton and Thomas Cromwell^*, 4th Lord Cromwell; while he was also covertly encouraged by the leading hispanophile at court, Thomas Howard^*, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. However, Buckingham’s clients and the ‘patriots’ were ranged against him; Lord Keeper Williams, though also in the favourite’s sights, offered no assistance; while Bristol was kept away from Parliament when he returned from Spain late in the session.126 HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 197-8; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 268, 279; Hacket, i. 190; Ruigh, 313-16; Cogswell, 227-8.

The first attack took place on 2 Apr., when George Abbot^*, the vehemently anti-Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, reported that the munitions committee had discovered irregularities in the Ordnance Office accounts; a subcommittee was appointed to take examinations ‘for the clearing thereof’. Meanwhile, in the Commons, Sir Edwin Sandys^‡ reported complaints against the new customs revenues Middlesex had introduced. Three days later, Middlesex claimed he was the victim of ‘a dangerous plot, conspiracy and combination’, one aspect of which was the allegation of misconduct at the Ordnance Office. At the same time in the Commons, Buckingham’s client Sir Miles Fleetwood^‡, receiver general of the Wards, laid charges about the increased fees collected by Middlesex’s wardship secretary; the earl was notified of the investigation, and invited to send a solicitor to attend the depositions of witnesses.127 LJ, iii. 286a, 290a; CJ, i. 755a-b; ‘Nicholas 1624’, ff. 112-13; SP14/162/12; Prestwich, 441-2; Ruigh, 313, 316-19; Russell, PEP, 199-200. The Commons’ investigation proceeded apace: Sir Edward Coke^‡ reported on bribery in the court of Wards on 9 Apr.; while complaints mounted about customs duties and bribes received from the customs farmers. In the Lords, Middlesex, called to account for his allegation of a conspiracy, confessed he had, as yet, no firm information against any peer, but undertook to prove himself ‘an honester man than those that set the business on foot’; when pressed to reveal the conspirators, he implicated Buckingham’s client Sir Robert Pye^‡.128 CJ, i. 759b-61a; ‘Pym 1624’, f. 56r-v; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 12v; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 60-2; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 235-6; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OI25; Harl. 1581, f. 378; Ruigh, 322-3, 326-7. On 12 Apr., the treasurer’s eagerness to confront his accusers led him to agree to answer the Commons’ charges against him without first asking leave of the Lords. For this offence he was obliged to apologize to his fellow peers, but Lord Keeper Williams then reported from the munitions committee about the Dallison land exchange, and the earl withdrew from the House while the charge was investigated.129 LJ, iii. 299a-301a; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 65-6, 69-70; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 15-16; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 236. Three days later, with the assistance of several of Buckingham’s clients, and evidence of bribery from one of the customs farmers, Abraham Jacob, the Commons presented their own impeachment charges to the Lords.130 LJ, iii. 307a-10b; SP14/162/46; Add. 72255, ff. 137-9; Prestwich, 443-5; Ruigh, 327-33.

While the Lords examined a long list of witnesses, and heard fresh allegations of the treasurer’s mismanagement of Irish affairs, Middlesex’s best prospect lay in a reversal at court, with James throwing over the war he had undertaken, and reviving the Spanish Match.131 A point made by the Council clerk Jean Beaulieu: Add. 72275, f. 137. He gained access to the king with the assistance of several Scottish courtiers, and on 15 Apr. James successfully ordered the Commons to quash the allegation that Middlesex had persuaded him to dissolve the 1621 Parliament. Four days later, the treasurer took several witnesses to the king at Theobalds, only to discover Prince Charles in attendance with the customs farmer Abraham Jacob, who refuted his evidence.132 CJ, i. 768a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 236-7; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 555; Add. 72276, f. 85r-v; SP14/163/2-3, 50. His hopes were not completely dashed at this stage, as Spanish diplomats spent much of April trying to persuade the king that his son and favourite were planning a coup d’état, in which they would take over the reins of state and James would retire to Theobalds. Although Middlesex had nothing to do with the Spaniards’ ploy, he was suspected of complicity, as he would have been the most obvious beneficiary in the event of its success.133 Ruigh, 270-98; SP14/163/50, 14/164/10; JOHN WILLIAMS. Charles had Middlesex barred from court at the end of April, whereupon the lord treasurer had the temerity to reply ‘that if the prince said so by the king’s command, he would obey, otherwise he would continue as before’. Despite his exclusion, Middlesex maintained a correspondence with James, who continued his efforts on the treasurer’s behalf.134 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 238; Cabala, 267-8; Harl. 1580, f. 443; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 302; Ruigh, 334-6.

While awaiting developments at court, Middlesex used illness as an excuse to delay the proceedings against him in the Lords. However, on 29 Apr., the House, having thrice granted him more time to prepare his case, ran out of patience. Prince Charles was prepared to accept the ‘sickness pretended by his lordship’ as an excuse one final time, but it was agreed that the subcommittee handling the charges against the treasurer should set deadlines which would not be moved: his initial answer to the charges was scheduled for 1 May, with his defence to begin six days later.135 LJ, iii. 321 b, 323a-b, 324b-5b, 326b-7a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 38-9; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 238; Add. 72276, f. 86v; Add. 72255, f. 143; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 555-6. One notable absentee from the proceedings was Buckingham, who had fallen sick after clearing himself from the Spanish ambassadors’ allegations. However, his presence was not required: as Williams advised James when asked whether there was any hope of saving the treasurer, the prosecution was widely understood to be ‘the prince’s undertaking’.136 Hacket, i. 190; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 241-2.

In his written answer to the main charges, which was heard in the Lords on 1 May, Middlesex had difficulty in overcoming the testimony of witnesses who insisted he had taken a bribe of £1,000 from the customs farmers, and that his wardship secretary made huge profits from handling petitions. However, he made a concerted effort to obfuscate evidence of misconduct over Dallison’s estate and the Ordnance Office accounts. On 5 May, the king summoned the Lords to Whitehall, where he urged them to weigh ‘the verity of the fact, and the greatness of the guilt’ in reaching a judgement. He reminded peers that Buckingham had once been Cranfield’s chief patron and that no efficient treasurer could fail to make enemies. He also warned, ‘let no man’s particular ends bring forth a precedent that may be prejudicial to you all, and your heirs after you’. The ‘changeable language’ of this speech baffled some, but it clearly fell short of a ringing endorsement of the defendant.137 LJ, iii. 329b-36a, 343b-4b; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 239; SP14/164/46, 58; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 310; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 559; Ruigh, 337-8. The king’s argument about treasurers being inherently unpopular had been made by Chamberlain several weeks earlier: Chamberlain Letters, ii. 553. On 7 May Middlesex began his own defence at the bar of the House, and was judged ‘very confident’ in his demeanour, but the strain eventually took a toll: four days later he claimed to be too sick to attend the House, but the Lords proved implacable, sending a delegation to fetch him.138 LJ, iii. 344b-61b, 364a-70b, 371b-2a, 373a-81b; SP14/164/58, 67; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 559-60; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 311; Prestwich, 448-53.

In summing up his own defence on 12 May, Middlesex made light of the funds he had been accused of embezzling, weighing them against the considerable financial benefits the crown had reaped from his labours. Echoing James’s remarks of 5 May, he urged his judges to consider that, ‘if, in doing service to his Majesty, he hath procured to himself many enemies, their lordships will not impute that to him for a fault’.139 LJ, iii. 378a-b. The Lords acquitted him on two of the six charges: of receiving £4,000 a year from the sugar farm, to which the king had agreed; and of forcing Bristol merchants to pay a composition on grocery wares, for which precedents had been found. However, he was condemned over his stewardship of the great wardrobe on the tenuous grounds of his failure to render accounts. He was also convicted of accepting bribes from the customs farmers, a finding based on evidence from Jacob that Middlesex had consistently maintained was perjured; but the malpractice at the Ordnance Office, and bribe-taking at the Court of Wards were both grounded upon credible testimony.140 Ibid. 380b; Prestwich, 458-60. For the debates over his conviction, see PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 70-2v; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 74-85. Thomas Locke was also suspicious of the truth of Jacob’s evidence about bribery: SP14/162/46. In the debate over his sentence, there was general agreement that he should be barred from office and imprisoned at the king’s pleasure, but when the question of his fine was raised, two peers intervened with comments which were probably intended to help his cause: Southampton reminded the House of his service to the crown; while the 2nd marquess of Hamilton [S] (James Hamilton^*, 1st earl of Cambridge in the English peerage) asked, ‘what hath he gotten from the king?’ By this he presumably meant the fine should be commensurate with the gains Middlesex had made, a principle the treasurer could have used to make the case for a smaller fine. Furthermore, the investigation of his gains in office could have delayed his sentencing by weeks, allowing James to come to his rescue; but Prince Charles then intervened to curtail the debate. The £50,000 fine ultimately voted was rather less than some of the treasurer’s enemies had suggested; but Middlesex was also barred from Parliament and the court.141 LJ, iii. 382b-3a; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 73v-5; LD 1624 and 1626, pp. 88-90. On 15 May, the Lords rushed a bill through their House to make Middlesex’s estates liable to his fine, for any sums he might subsequently be shown to have embezzled from the crown, and for restitution of those he had wronged, several of whose petitions were heard before the end of the session.142 LJ, iii. 384b-7a, 396a, 418b, 420a-b; PA, HO/PO/JO/5/1/3, ff. 76v-8, 104-5v; SP14/164/86.

While Middlesex’s sentence was intended to terminate his court career, few believed it was the final word on the matter. Within days, his wife was lobbying the king on his behalf, and the temporary appointment of Weston, his ally and deputy, to run the Exchequer was perceived as a hopeful development. Moreover, at the end of the parliamentary session on 29 May, James reserved the right to interpret the Lords’ sentence against Middlesex as he saw fit. On the same day, Weston interceded with Buckingham to procure Middlesex’s release from the Tower; it was said that the earl paid £6,000 for this favour. Thereafter, rumours circulated that he was to be appointed a gentleman of the bedchamber, or even groom of the stole – in defiance of the terms of his sentence.143 CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 325, 335; SP14/162/12; Add. 72276, f. 92v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 561-2; Harl. 1581, f. 206r-v; Add. 72255, ff. 96v-7, 99v, 152. However, Prince Charles reportedly intervened to quash this proposal. Moreover, towards the end of June, Middlesex’s request to be allowed to kiss the king’s hands before departing for his Sussex estates was declined, along with a petition for remission of his fine. Instead, the former lord treasurer was pressed for present payment of the first £10,000, to cover the costs of the royal progress.144 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 560, 564-5, 568; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 343, 355, 395; Add. 72255, f. 101r-v; Add. 72276, ff. 105v, 107r-v. Sometime over the early summer, the lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke, was approached by his clients William Coryton^‡ and Benjamin Valentine^‡ to present Arthur Brett at court, presumably in response to another initiative on Middlesex’s part. He declined to do so, on the grounds that this would offend Prince Charles, but Brett, allegedly without Middlesex’s knowledge, accosted the king at Wanstead, Essex, as he returned from a day’s hunting in Waltham forest. James hastily rode away, instructing Robert Rich^*, 2nd earl of Warwick to ‘carry the fool out of the forest’. Brett was thereupon committed to the Fleet, while Middlesex was ordered to leave the Verge of the court and expedite the payment of his fine.145 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent., U269/1/CP145; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 401, 415; Harl. 1581, f. 208r-v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 571; Add. 72276, ff. 111v-12; Prestwich, 472-3.

Fine and pardon, 1624-36

While Middlesex’s overtures for a return to royal favour came to nothing, his fine was eventually reduced to £20,000, saving him from the importunities of numerous crown creditors, who were lobbying for a share of the spoils. This was because he paid John Ramsay^*, earl of Holdernesse, Lord Cromwell, and Dr John More, physician to the Villiers family, to intercede with Buckingham on his behalf. This concession cost him a grudging apology to the favourite, but he was unable to provide the information the duke most coveted, the names of those who had conspired against him during the 1624 Parliament. He proposed to pay by surrendering his lease of the sugar farm (valued at £16,000) and his house at Chelsea, but he was required to furnish another £5,000 in cash, which he raised by selling jewels, plate and a small estate in Warwickshire; he subsequently insisted this had been a loan, but the duke made no attempt to repay it.146 Add. 72276, f. 112v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 574, 580, 582-3, 619; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/Oo56, U269/1/OI24; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 568-9; Prestwich, 473-7; THOMAS CROMWELL. Middlesex was also required to raise a further £1,000 as the first annual payment to the officials at the Ordnance Office, and reckoned he needed £13,850 to satisfy his private creditors, who clamoured for payment once he lost his official income. He offered his newly acquired mansion of Copt Hall for sale, but with the market depressed by an outbreak of the plague, there were no takers. Instead, he sold further jewels and other assets, and in January 1626 he alienated one of his most lucrative estates, the manor of Ebury, Middlesex, for £9,400.147 Prestwich, 477-80.

At the start of the 1625 Parliament, the wine merchants of London complained to the Commons about the imposition on wines Middlesex had devised in 1622; suspended at his fall in April 1624, it was reinstated in the following autumn, but thereafter met with widespread resistance, both in London and the outports. Sir Robert Phelips^‡ moved to consult the records of Middlesex’s impeachment about this duty, which the former treasurer perceived as a threat of further proceedings; but the Commons quickly resolved upon nothing more than a petition to King Charles.148 Procs. 1625, pp. 268, 359; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/CB139 (Lowe to Cranfield, 30 June, 1 July 1625); E351/901; AO1/736/521; Prestwich, 482. In January 1626, with a fresh Parliament imminent, Middlesex asked the corporation of Steyning, Sussex if he might make a nomination, only to be told the matter had already been decided by the local gentry.149 Procs. 1626, iv. 253. At the start of the session, the wine merchants renewed their complaints to the Commons’ grievance committee about the wartime impost of 20s. per tun, and a petition was sent to the king, but Middlesex was advised ‘neither in it nor at the committee was any further touch of your lordship’.150 Ibid. ii. 49-51, 63-4, 73-9; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/CB139 (Lowe to Cranfield, 3 Mar. 1626).

The 1626 Parliament was dominated by Buckingham’s impeachment, during which Middlesex’s trial was naturally cited as a precedent on several occasions.151 Procs. 1626, ii. 165; iii. 29, 124, 130, 152, 192-3, 204, 209, 215. The Commons’ case against the duke rested heavily on ‘common fame’, and prospects of a conviction would have improved considerably if the former treasurer had testified to his intimate knowledge of the duke’s lavish subsidies from the royal purse. In mid March, around the time Dr Samuel Turner^‡ tabled his charges against Buckingham, Middlesex contacted Buckingham’s wife and mother, ostensibly about the sale of some jewels but presumably in hope of some compensation for his silence. At the same time, Arthur Brett raised the stakes by making contact with Sir John Eliot^‡, who was leading the investigation of the duke in the Commons.152 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/Oo56 (More to Cranfield, 17 Mar. 1626 and undated [?spring 1626]); U269/1/CP16/2 (Brett to Cranfield, 19 Mar. 1626); Russell, PEP, 289-90.

Middlesex’s value to both sides increased as the investigation progressed. On about 1 May, Middlesex’s secretary Nicholas Herman and his son-in-law Lord Carey of Leppington (Henry Carey^†, later 2nd earl of Monmouth) informed the Commons of the £6,000 the earl had given Buckingham for the mastership of the Wards in 1619. This minor revelation seems to have been arranged to allow Middlesex to haggle over a suitable price for his continued discretion: on 1 May he instructed Herman to attend the duke ‘and tell him the true state of my usage about the composition of my fine’; the deal he sought was apparently ‘my liberty, my quietus est, absolute pardon, and withal … have the £5,000 [cash] either repaid me, or the value of it done for my children’. Herman was also to tell Buckingham that he had given his testimony to the Commons without Middlesex’s knowledge, and although the earl recognized that ‘I may be righted by them’ [MPs], he opted ‘… to stay and expect my restitution from the duke’. However, when the testimony about Middlesex’s bribe for the mastership of the Wards was reported to the Commons on 2 May, the duke’s client Sir Robert Pye made a ‘malicious motion’, insisting that Middlesex should be investigated for pillaging ‘the £6,000 again with six score thousand pound more out of the king’s estate’. Sir John Eliot thereupon intervened, insisting the former treasurer ‘had merited well of the king and had done him that service that but few had ever done, but they could find no such matter in the duke’.153 Procs. 1626, iii. 123, 128-9, 133; iv. 298-300; Prestwich, 486-8. As a result of these exchanges, Buckingham delegated Francis White^*, dean of Carlisle (later bishop of Carlisle) to discuss terms with Middlesex. White warned the earl that Buckingham could frustrate his enemies by procuring an early dissolution of the session – which would have put Cranfield at a considerable disadvantage in the negotiations over his pardon. Middlesex responded with a letter delivered by his wife, assuring White that, despite having ‘been tempted to the contrary’, he had no intention of offering the duke ‘the least prejudice’. He advised the duke to seek an accommodation with his critics, and wisely had his wife bring the letter back to Copt Hall ‘that there may not be so much as a thought of a reconciliation intended between us, which some are already jealous of because I do not run with the current of the time for the overthrowing of him’. Having held his peace, Middlesex expected due requital, and his pardon was set in motion in the autumn of 1626. His successor as treasurer (James Ley^*, 1st earl of Marlborough), insisted upon a covenant under which he promised not to plead the pardon for any money he was subsequently found to owe the crown – precisely the reason he had sought it. After some delay, he signed in January 1627, was granted his pardon, and then had the covenant returned to him, cancelled.154 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/Oo89, 173; Prestwich, 487-90.

The pardon made it easier for Middlesex to settle with his creditors, as the threat of having his estates seized by the Exchequer was now lifted. Nevertheless, in 1632, perhaps as a punishment for his attempt to sue the Villiers family for repayment of the £5,000 he claimed to have loaned the favourite in 1624, he was caught up in an investigation of defaulting crown accountants launched by his erstwhile deputy, Weston, now lord treasurer. Accused of failing to account for the rewards he had reaped from the wardrobe without formal accounts, and funds owing on the licences for the sale of wines in taverns, all of which amounted to £93,500, he sent his wife to beg the king for relief, but was informed that his pardon only applied to accounts audited before that date, whereas his wardrobe accounts remained unsettled. After several years of haggling, and further threats to seize his estates, he reduced his liabilities to £24,000, of which he ultimately paid £11,700 as a fine in 1635-6, disposing of two more estates to do so.155 Prestwich, 497-506; C115/106/8446, 8449.

Final years 1637-45

Having cleared his obligations to the crown, Middlesex still enjoyed an income of around £5,000 a year, and while he spent too freely on the upkeep of Copt Hall, he was able to give his daughter Elizabeth a dowry of £5,000 on her marriage to Edmund Sheffield^† (later 2nd earl of Mulgrave) in 1631. Middlesex’s court and City contacts kept him in touch with affairs, but after 1636 he rented Copt Hall to the lord keeper, the 1st Lord Coventry (Thomas Coventry^*), and retired to Warwickshire. This retrenchment allowed him to offer a dowry of £10,000 for a match between his youngest daughter Frances, and Richard Sackville^† (later 5th earl of Dorset), heir to Edward Sackville^*, 4th earl of Dorset, in 1637. The latter agreed to accept payment by instalments, but the Civil War interrupted this arrangement, and the final tranche was only paid in 1652.156 Prestwich, 506-9, 512-16, 539-44

Towards the end of the 1630s, Middlesex’s health began to deteriorate. However, his letters of advice to the 3rd marquess of Hamilton [S] (James Hamilton^*, 2nd earl of Cambridge in the English peerage) about reform of the household’s finances suggest that he had not quite abandoned hope of some form of reconciliation with the Caroline court. In the autumn of 1639, with the viceroy of Ireland, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford) about to return to England, Middlesex’s friend Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, advised him to seek the deputyship for himself. This appointment would have had the advantage of not breaching Parliament’s bar on his holding office in England, but it is unlikely the king would have been prepared to consider his case, and the earl decided not to pursue the matter.157 Ibid. 547-60; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/CP51 (Goodman to Middlesex, 28 Sept. 1639).

On 2 May 1640, during the Short Parliament, the earl of Bristol moved to allow Middlesex the right to resume his seat in the Lords. However, although the question was referred to the privileges committee, the session was dissolved before the latter could report. This overture was presumably made in order to secure Middlesex’s support for the crown’s critics, as Bristol repeated his motion at the start of the Long Parliament, together with the offer of a private conference with some of the aristocratic junto, who may have wanted Middlesex to testify at the impeachment of the customs farmers. However, the privileges committee never reported, and at the roll-call of 16 Nov. 1640, Middlesex was listed as ‘under the censure of this honourable House’. Nothing more was heard of his case.158 LJ, iv. 78b, 84b, 92a; Prestwich, 563-4.

Apart from some desultory efforts to secure compensation for his losses since his impeachment, Middlesex played no part in the politics of the early 1640s, and at the outbreak of the Civil War he retired to Copt Hall. However, he was briefly imprisoned at London in November 1642 under suspicion of raising troops for the royalist cause in Kent. While his person was safe, his main estates in Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Sussex all lay in combat zones, and were taxed by both sides. His rents accordingly dwindled to almost nothing; the Essex county committee threatened to distrain him for arrears of his monthly assessment; and in December 1644 his main house in Warwickshire was burned down by the garrison of Coventry to prevent it from being used by local royalists.159 Prestwich, 564-83.

In May 1645 Dorset wrote from Oxford to Middlesex’s widow, offering condolences on receiving news of her husband’s death; he was a little premature, as the former treasurer died on 5 Aug. 1645, at Dorset House in Fleet Street. In his will of 1642, Middlesex had asked to be buried in Bishop Goodman’s cathedral at Gloucester. However, he ultimately heeded Dorset’s advice that this might lead to trouble with the town’s radical parliamentarian garrison, as he was interred in Westminster Abbey instead. His eldest son, having represented Liverpool in the Short Parliament, succeeded to the earldom and the bulk of his estate, while his wife enjoyed a jointure of £1,200 p.a.; his other children and brothers were also given generous bequests.160 PROB 11/194, ff. 126v-8A.