CLIFFORD, Francis (1559-1641)

Cumberland was a man who aroused mixed feelings. His niece, Lady Anne Clifford, though she claimed his estate for herself, described him in her family history as ‘an honourable gentleman of good, noble, sweet and courteous nature’, whereas his son-in-law, Sir Thomas Wentworth^* (subsequently 1st earl of Strafford) complained of his ‘uncertain and unstable humours’, which led him to ‘make use of the bad success of his affairs, as slips wherewith to upbraid those which endeavour to do him service’.33 Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 170; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 715. There is no evidence that he attended university and, as Lady Anne Clifford remarked, he never left England. Cumberland himself claimed that he was ‘unlearned in the laws of this realm and cannot read or understand any Latin conveyances’. However, this statement should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt, as it was made when seeking to avoid making a fuller answer during a lawsuit. He was certainly admitted to Gray’s Inn in his youth. He may have been ‘unlearned in the laws’ only in the sense that he was not qualified as a barrister.34 Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 696, 714.

Francis Clifford, the future earl of Cumberland, was a younger son who inherited a life interest in the Clifford estates in east Yorkshire, centred on Londesborough. He quickly became entangled in the precarious finances of his elder brother, George Clifford^*, 3rd earl of Cumberland, and, in 1588, secured those properties outright in lieu of money he was owed. This made him a substantial Yorkshire landowner in his own right, and he married the following year. He nevertheless continued to be closely involved in the administration of his brother’s estate, although he apparently never risked his own money in the 3rd earl’s privateering ventures.35 Spence, Privateering Earl, 73; idem, Londesborough House and its Community, 13, 21.

On the accession of James I in March 1603, Clifford was one of the many men who went to Scotland to meet the new king. However, he evidently made little impression, for as late as October 1605 he was described as a stranger to James.36 HMC Hatfield, xv. 20; xvii. 460. Although elected to the first Jacobean Parliament for Yorkshire in 1604, at the nomination of the president of the council in the North, Edmund Sheffield^*, 3rd Lord Sheffield (later 1st earl of Mulgrave), he was sent back to Yorkshire by his brother to negotiate with the latter’s tenants.37 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 467, iii. 543; G.C. Williamson, George, Third Earl of Cumberland, 168.

A disputed inheritance, 1605-21

The 3rd earl of Cumberland died heavily indebted on 30 Oct. 1605,38 GEORGE CLIFFORD. CP incorrectly states that he died on the 29th. CP, iii. 568. but nevertheless left extensive estates largely concentrated in two areas, Westmorland and the Craven district of the West Riding of Yorkshire. Having no sons, the 3rd earl wanted all his lands to pass with the earldom to his brother, the subject of this biography, although the 4th earl would only receive the properties in Westmorland after the death of the 3rd earl’s widow. This was partly to ensure that the estates remained with the title and partly to enable the 4th earl to settle the 3rd earl’s debts. The 3rd earl did not want his sole daughter, Lady Anne Clifford, to inherit any of his lands, but instead to have a portion of £15,000. However, to enable him to sell land, the 3rd earl had broken the entail on the Clifford estates, which act would ordinarily (in the absence of a son) have left Anne as his heir, and created a new entail, settling the remaining lands on his brother. Foreseeing that his widow would challenge the legality of the new entail on Anne’s behalf, the 3rd earl urged his wife on his deathbed not to ‘fall to hard opinion nor suit with my brother’. He also ordered that his daughter’s portion be reduced by a third if she claimed the Clifford lands. However, the 3rd earl’s widow interpreted her husband’s will as giving her daughter a choice either to receive the final third of her portion when she reached the age of 21, or to claim the Clifford lands. As Anne was only 15 at the time of her father’s death, the dowager countess urged the crown to intervene to protect her daughter’s inheritance in the interim. She therefore initiated a suit in the Court of Wards, the beginning of a protracted series of legal disputes.39 Clay, 387-9; Spence, Privateering Earl, 101-2; R.T. Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 42; Williamson, George, Third Earl of Cumberland, 270; Longleat, PO/VOL. XXIII (IHR mic. XR56/10), pp. 35-6; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 676-84, 800.

The countess also laid claim to the Clifford barony on her daughter’s behalf. Her petition to that effect was referred by the king to the commissioners for the office of the earl marshal in November 1606. The loss of this ancient barony, which dated back to the thirteenth century, would have been a major blow to Cumberland’s prestige. The 4th earl responded by claiming that the barony had become attached to his earldom. However, although Cumberland was summoned by the commissioners to defend his right, there is no evidence that the latter came to a decision.40 Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 701-4; J.H. Round, Peerage and Ped. i. 93-4; Coll. of Arms, I.25, ff. 24-5; Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 40-1.

Cumberland succeeded to his title in time to take his seat in the upper House on 5 Nov. 1605, the first sitting of the 1605-6 session of the first Jacobean Parliament. He is recorded as having attended 32 of the 85 sittings of this session, 38 per cent of the total. He was not marked as present at any of the 44 sittings between 6 Mar. 1606 and 17 May 1606 inclusive, during which time he went to Skipton, the Clifford’s principal residence in Craven, presumably to take possession of his lands there. He gave his proxy to Secretary of State Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, one of the executors of the will of Cumberland’s late brother. On 25 Mar. Salisbury replaced Cumberland on the committee to consider the bill concerning the execution of wills and administrations, to which Cumberland had been appointed on 12 February. Cumberland himself was appointed to only seven of the 72 committees established that session. This included a committee to consider two bills relating to recusancy, to which he appears to have been named in his absence. Among his other appointments was a committee to confer with the Commons about strengthening laws for the protection of the Protestant religion in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot.41 LJ, ii. 355b, 367b, 372b, 400a, 419b; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 30; Clay, 390. During the course of this session, Cumberland was granted a 40-year lease of the so-called debatable lands on the Cumberland border with Scotland. This was in fulfilment of a promise made by Salisbury to the 3rd earl of Cumberland on his deathbed. These lands were sold outright to Cumberland four years later.42 CSP Dom. 1603-10, pp. 286, 595.

On 2 Oct. 1606 Cumberland wrote to Salisbury from Skipton requesting leave of absence for Henry Robinson^*, bishop of Carlisle, from the forthcoming third session of the 1604-10 Parliament. Cumberland himself had returned to Westminster by the time Parliament reopened on 18 November.43 HMC Hatfield, xviii. 295-6, 308; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 265. He was subsequently recorded as having attended 88 of the session’s 106 sittings, 83 per cent of the total. He was also appointed to 14 out of a total of 41 committees, considerably more than in the previous session, which presumably reflected his more assiduous attendance. These appointments included a conference with the Commons about the Union and a bill to abolish the hostile laws between England and Scotland. He was also appointed to consider a bill to confirm an award reached by the arbitration of Cumberland’s late brother concerning the inheritance of the lands of his nephew, Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby, and a measure to confirm the transfer of Theobalds House from Salisbury to the king.44 LJ, ii. 452b, 480a, 511a, 520a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1606/4J1n16. On 30 Mar., the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), moved for privilege to be granted to one of Cumberland’s servants, arrested for debt. The following day, the party responsible for bringing the suit, and the two officials who had made the arrest, were committed to the Fleet. However, because the session was soon to be adjourned for Easter, Cumberland and Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton, were authorized to order these men to be released after they themselves had settled the matter of the debt.45 LJ, ii. 497b, 498b.

In April 1607 the dowager countess of Cumberland drafted a petition to the House of Lords complaining that her brother-in-law was using his parliamentary privilege to obstruct proceedings in the Court of Wards, even though he had answered her bill of complaint promptly during the previous session. His servants in the north were also proving obstructive, and she therefore questioned whether privilege extended to them when they were not in personal attendance on Cumberland. However, there is no evidence that this petition was ever presented to the upper House.46 Longleat, PO/VOL. XXIII (IHR mic. XR56/10), pp. 48-9; Hatfield House, CP Petitions 306; CP118/126.

The dowager countess was no doubt eager for the case to proceed because she had discovered a legal flaw in Cumberland’s claim to his brother’s estate. The crown retained a reversion to the older parts of the Clifford estates, and therefore it was doubtful whether the 3rd earl had the right to dispose of them as he wished. In June 1607 Cumberland took advantage of the process of compounding for defective titles in order to secure a patent to confirm his ownership of the Clifford estates and to grant him the crown’s reversion, which evidently cost him £500. This seems to have done him little good, though, for in 1609, the judges ruled that the new grant was irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the inheritance of the Clifford estates. Nevertheless, they also ruled that the crown had no reversion to the substantial additions made to the Clifford estates by the 1st earl, which meant that these had been rightfully inherited by Cumberland. Moreover, they did not rule on the ownership of the rest of the lands, which, therefore, continued to be disputed.47 Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 45-7; HMC Hatfield, xix. 138, 142, 217, 277; T.D. Whitaker, Hist. and Antiquities of the Deanery of Craven ed. A.W. Morant (1878), 358; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 734-8.

During the fourth session of Parliament, which started in February 1610, Cumberland was recorded as attending 83 of the 95 sittings. He was also appointed to 15 of the 58 committees of the session, and made one recorded speech, in the form of a report, delivered on 26 May, concerning the bill regarding the sellers of second-hand goods and receivers of stolen property, which he recommended should sleep.48 LJ, ii. 592b, 600b. Early in the session he was named to help confer with the Commons, initially about supply and subsequently about the Great Contract, which he may have supported given his expensive legal battles in the Court of Wards.49 Ibid. 550b; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 59; HMC Hatfield, xix. 74. He was also appointed to consider two bills concerning his kinsmen the Stanleys, one granting the Isle of Man to William Stanley^*, 6th earl of Derby, and the other to cancel certain trusts concerning the Stanley estates, to which Cumberland’s brother had been a party.50 LJ, ii. 601a, 616b; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n29. On 4 June Cumberland carried the sword at Prince Henry’s creation as prince of Wales. At the end of the session, on the afternoon of 23 July, Cumberland again carried the sword when James came to the House to prorogue the session. However, he was not recorded as being present for that sitting, possibly because he did not take his seat.51 Procs. 1610, i. 96, 166; LJ, ii. 608b.

Two days after the prorogation, Cumberland’s son, Henry Clifford^* (subsequently 5th earl of Cumberland) married Salisbury’s daughter, cementing the alliance between the two earls. Lady Anne later wrote that the ‘marriage was purposely made that by that power and greatness of his [i.e. Salisbury] the lands of mine inheritance might be wrested and kept by strong hand from me’.52 Kensington (Harl. Soc. Reg. xvi), 65; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 803. Cumberland apparently missed the first nine sittings of the fifth session, which started on 16 Oct., and so did not take his seat until 6 November. Thereafter he was recorded as attending every sitting until the session was prorogued by commission, to which he himself was named, on 6 December. In total, he was marked as present at 12 of the 21 sittings, 57 per cent of the total. He made no recorded speeches but was appointed to three of the seven committees established that session, one of which was to press the Commons to vote supply. The remaining appointments concerned two bills: one dealt with bequests of land and the other sought to enable Prince Henry to administer the duchy of Cornwall estates. Cumberland was named a commissioner for dissolving Parliament on 9 Feb. 1611, but by then he had returned to Yorkshire.53 LJ, ii. 675a, 677a, 678a, 683b, 684a; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 2, 8.

In his final illness, in May 1612, Salisbury beseeched the king to favour Cumberland; however, Salisbury’s death undoubtedly weakened Cumberland’s position at court.54 HMC 10th Rep. IV, 14. By this date Lady Anne Clifford was married to Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset. The latter was a prominent courtier with an expensive lifestyle to fund, and as such was keen to extract the maximum benefit from his wife’s claims to the Clifford estates. Dorset was never averse in principal to a compromise whereby Cumberland agreed to increase Anne’s portion in return for surrendering her claims to the estate. However, two obstacles stood in the way of this solution, as Cumberland was understandably reluctant to diminish his own income, and Lady Anne consistently refused to surrender her rights. In early 1613 Dorset’s uncle, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, proposed the matter be settled by arbitration, but this evidently came to nothing. The following November a hearing was held in Common Pleas, only for the case to be dismissed for want of sufficient Yorkshiremen to form a jury. In January 1614, Henry Clifford’s brother-in-law, William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury, reportedly proposed to Dorset that Cumberland pay Anne composition amounting to £25,000 to settle the dispute. However, there is no evidence that Cumberland authorized the offer, and it would have been difficult for him to have raised the money needed.55 Wentworth Pprs. 53, 56; Add. 75352, John Tailor to Cumberland, 18 Jan. 1613[/14]; Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 48-50.

In January 1614 Cumberland’s principal London agent reported that there was likely to be a Parliament in the spring. A month later, after confirming that it would meet on 5 Apr., he reminded the earl to prepare his nominations for the Commons.56 Add. 75352, John Tailor to Cumberland, 18 Jan. 1613[/14], 13 Feb. [1614]. Cumberland may have been keen to influence the forthcoming elections in Westmorland because his right to the office of hereditary sheriff of Westmorland, which gave him control of the county’s election, was being challenged by Lady Anne Clifford. He returned his son, Henry, along with his nephew, Sir Thomas Wharton^‡, for the county seats and Sir George Savile^‡, the brother-in-law of his son-in-law, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Henry Wotton^‡ (whose half-brother, Edward Wotton^*, 1st Lord Wotton, had married Cumberland’s niece) for Appleby. In addition, at Carlisle, where Cumberland leased the castle and crown manor, he secured the election of the Clifford client George Boteler.57 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 83, 427, 429; iii. 260; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 276; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 758-60; R.T. Spence, ‘Backward North Modernized?’, NH, xx. 70.

Cumberland is recorded as having attended 22 of the 29 sittings of the 1614 Parliament, 76 per cent of the total. He was one of the lords excused by the lord chancellor on 7 May because they were ‘sick and ill of colds’, and also missed the following sitting, but returned on the 12th. He was named to two of the nine committees established by the Lords, one to confer with the Commons about the bill to settle the succession following the recent marriage of Princes Elizabeth to the Elector Palatine, the other to consider a bill for preserving timber. He made no recorded speeches.58 LJ, ii. 692a, 697b, 699a; HMC Hastings, iv. 248. Cumberland contributed £100 towards the benevolence levied by James in the aftermath of the Parliament.59 E351/1950.

On 16 June 1615 the Clifford inheritance dispute was finally heard in Common Pleas by means of a suit brought by Dorset, who claimed possession of the Skipton lands. However, shortly before the hearing, Dorset approached Cumberland’s son, Lord Clifford, offering to accept £20,000 in lieu of his claims. Cumberland initially responded that, although he would pay the £15,000 portion his brother had bequeathed to Anne, he was not willing to pay more unless Dorset and Anne agreed to surrender their right to inherit in the event that he and his son should die without male heir. Nevertheless, he agreed to submit the dispute to the arbitration of the judges. They agreed that, while Anne could technically claim the older part of Clifford estates, these ought in equity to go to the 4th earl, as he had shouldered the burden of paying the 3rd earl’s debts and was required to pay Lady Anne’s portion. Nevertheless, they agreed to increase Lady Anne’s portion to £20,000, as Dorset had proposed, in lieu of her claims. However, Dorset was unable to persuade his wife to accept the arbitration.60 Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 752-4, 804; Add. 25463, ff. 73-4; Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 51-3, 56.

The situation was changed by the death of the dowager countess in May 1616. Cumberland, then at Skipton, immediately sent his servants to Westmorland to take possession of her former jointure lands, but was opposed by Dorset, who had by now abandoned his attempts to persuade his wife to accept the judges’ arbitration. In August 1616 the Privy Council, alarmed that the two rival sides might clash, ordered a commission of local magistrates to sequester the properties until the matter could be resolved. The following January all the parties were brought before James at Whitehall, where everyone, except Anne, agreed to refer the matter to the king. James issued his verdict the following March, which largely followed the judges’ arbitration. Cumberland was to have all the Clifford lands, subject to several restrictions. Anne’s right to inherit the old Clifford estates if Cumberland and Henry failed to produce male heirs was upheld. Cumberland was instructed to pay Anne’s increased portion of £20,000 within two-and-a half years. In order to raise the money he was authorized to confirm the customary tenancies on the Westmorland estates in return for compositions. To make the award legally binding, in the event of Anne refusing to give her consent, an act of Parliament was to be passed. Cumberland was not required to pay a final instalment of £3,000 until either the act was on the statute book or Anne agreed to the award.61 Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 53-7; HMC Le Fleming, 14; A. Clifford, Memoir of 1603 and the Diary of 1616-1619 ed. K.O. Acheson, 113; C66//2102/12; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 772-4.

Anne refused to consent to the king’s award and, as there was no immediate prospect of a Parliament, Cumberland was obliged to pay Dorset only £17,000. However, the Westmorland tenants resisted paying compositions for rights which they believed they already owned, particularly as, without Anne’s consent or an act of Parliament, any confirmation granted by Cumberland could be overturned by Anne if she subsequently inherited the estate. Consequently, Cumberland was obliged to sue his tenants in Chancery. Although the court ruled in his favour in May 1619, the delays meant that the compositions were not received in full until 1623, and, in the meantime, Cumberland had to borrow almost all of the money he paid to Dorset.62 Spence, ‘Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland’, 303-5; Spence, Lady Anne Clifford, 72; C33/135, ff. 996-7.

In August 1618 Cumberland ‘wonderful royally entertained’ the king at Brougham, the Cliffords’ principal seat in Westmorland, on James’s return from Scotland. Although this lavish hospitality necessarily added to his expenses, Cumberland had the satisfaction of seeing the king soundly rebuke petitioners from the Westmorland estates protesting about being forced to compound with the earl.63 R.T. Spence, ‘Royal Progs. in the North: Jas. I at Carlisle Castle and the Feast of Brougham, Aug. 1618’, NH, xxvii. 41-89; SP14/93/28.

Anne later attributed the Brougham entertainment to Cumberland’s son, Henry, who, she claimed, ‘ruled all [of] his father’s estate’ for the next 20 years.64 Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 715-16. As early as January 1615, she had heard rumours that Cumberland ‘is sometimes besides his wits, but that his son [Henry Clifford] does what he can to conceal it’. In 1616, the earl, expressing his reluctance to travel to London, complained to his son that ‘you know I grow much into years, and am something infirmited [sic]’.65 G.C. Williamson, Lady Anne Clifford, 147; Whitaker, 369. Although, this indicates physical, not mental impairment, power was evidently shifting from Cumberland to his son. John Lowther^‡ later recalled that it was ‘the young Lord Clifford in his father’s weakness (yet under his father’s officers)’ who managed everything.66 Lowther Fam. Estate Bks. ed. C.B. Phillips (Surtees Soc. cxci), 224. Nevertheless, as late as September 1620, Wentworth, writing to Clifford, referred to Cumberland as ‘having the staff in his own power’. It is likely that the earl’s retirement, and the consequent passing of power to Clifford, was gradual. Not until the early 1630s did administration of the estates pass to Clifford’s officers.67 Wentworth Pprs. 139-40; Spence, ‘Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland’, 318-19.

Cumberland was evidently reluctant to contribute to the benevolence raised by James for the defence of the Palatinate in October 1620, as the Privy Council wrote to him on 18 Jan. 1621 demanding a response. There is no evidence that he ever paid.68 APC, 1619-21, pp. 292, 335. A new Parliament was summoned in late 1620, when Cumberland again ensured that Boteler was elected at Carlisle, and Clifford and Wharton were returned for Westmorland. Appleby elected Sir Arthur Ingram^‡, who handled much of Cumberland’s affairs at court and in London, and Thomas Hughes, nephew of the earl’s late wife, who had died in 1613. It appears to have been Cumberland, rather than his son, Clifford, who continued to control the family’s electoral patronage, for when Clifford moved his father ‘very earnestly’ to nominate Henry Savile^‡ for a seat, the earl refused to do so.69 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 83, 427, 439; Strafforde Letters, i. 8; Wentworth Pprs. 145-6.

Cumberland carried the sword before the king at the opening of the Parliament on 30 Jan. 1621.70 CD 1621, v. 424. He was subsequently recorded as being present at16 of the 44 sittings held before Easter, 36 per cent of the total, but does not appear to have attended after 5 March. He gave his proxy to the favourite, George Villiers^*, marquess (subsequently 1st duke) of Buckingham. He received only one committee nomination, for a private bill to confirm the grant of a manor in the Isle of Thanet to Sir Philip Carey^‡.71 LJ, iii. 4b, 21b; HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 438-9.

In May 1621 a bill to confirm Cumberland’s victory in Chancery over the tenants of his Westmorland estates was introduced in the Commons, probably by Clifford, who had spoken of securing such a measure. The text of this bill has not survived but it evidently confirmed the compositions for the tenants’ rights, in accordance with the king’s award, and, in the process, presumably ratified Cumberland’s ownership of the properties, thereby providing the statutory underpinning envisaged in the king’s award of 1617. However, the measure did not progress any further than a first reading, which meant Cumberland was not obliged to pay the extra £3,000 to Dorset. This may have hurt Cumberland as much as Dorset, as much of the composition money for the Westmorland estates had not been received from his tenants. Cumberland may have hoped that the bill, once enacted, would have made this easier to collect because, with statutory confirmation, his tenants would be sure their rights could not be subsequently overturned.72 CD 1621, iv. 349-50; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 78; Lowther Fam. Estate Bks. 225; Spence, ‘Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland’, 236, 241.

Later life, 1621-41

It is doubtful whether Cumberland attended the upper House after 1621. He was consistently granted leave of absence for the remaining parliaments of the 1620s and was recorded as absent due to ill health when the House was called on 15 Feb. 1626. Although he was marked as present on 26 Feb. 1624, and again on 4 May 1626, these were probably clerical mistakes. Cumberland also missed the coronation of Charles I on 2 Feb. 1626. He gave his proxy to Buckingham in 1624, 1625 and 1626, but on the latter occasion transferred it to Buckingham’s brother-in-law, William Feilding^*, 1st earl of Denbigh, after Buckingham agreed to restrict the number of proxies he held. After his son, Clifford, was summoned to the upper House in 1628, Cumberland gave his proxy to him.73 SO3/7, unfol. (7 Feb. 1624); SO3/8, unfol. (May 1625); SO3/9, unfol. (3 Mar. 1628); LJ, iii. 212b, 214b; iv. 25b; Procs. 1625, pp. 45, 590; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 559; Procs. 1626, i. 49; iv. 11; Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87; Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. li.

The 1620s saw a decline in the Cliffords’ electoral influence. What little remained was increasingly exercised by Cumberland’s son. Both Carlisle and Westmorland seem to have passed out of their control after 1621. At Appleby, Hughes and Ingram were re-elected in 1624. The former was again returned in 1625, along with Sir John Hotham^‡, whom Wentworth had recommended to Clifford. In 1626 the borough returned Sir William Slingsby^‡, probably another Wentworth recommendation, and William Ashton^‡, a client of Clifford’s brother-in-law, Salisbury. In 1628, Appleby re-elected Ashton, this time with Richard Lowther, a member of a family which had come to dominate Westmorland electoral politics. The Lowthers were related to the Cliffords but relations between the head of the family, John Lowther^‡, and Lord Clifford were at times strained and they probably owed their electoral success to their own, independent, influence. In the Yorkshire elections the Clifford interest was consistently deployed in support of Wentworth although, as late as 1628, Wentworth thought it necessary to secure Cumberland’s permission first.74 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 429; iii. 62-3, Wentworth Pprs. 232, 288-9; Whitaker, 346; Lowther Fam. Estate Bks. 224.

In 1628 Clifford was summoned to the House of Lords by writ of acceleration, prompting Lady Anne to petition the king that she was the rightful heir to the Clifford barony. In May 1628 Charles referred her petition to the Lords, who postponed consideration of it until the following session. Consequently, it was not until February 1629 that Cumberland and Clifford submitted their answer. They argued that the title Lord Clifford had traditionally been used by the male heirs of the family and that in any case, having been summoned to the upper House, Clifford was indisputably Lord Clifford. However, the issue was not resolved before the Parliament was dissolved the following month.75 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 446, 531; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/4/2, answer of Francis earl of Cumberland, and Henry Lord Clifford.

In 1626 Cumberland’s finances were dealt a major blow when his lease of the licence for exporting undressed and undyed cloth, which he had inherited from the 3rd earl, came to an end. After 1614 receipts from the licence had been reduced, first by the Cockayne Project, when the export of undressed cloth had been restricted, and subsequently by the disruption caused by the Thirty Years’ War. A system had been devised to compensate Cumberland for his losses in July 1615, but payments had ceased in 1617. Nevertheless, in the early 1620s the profits from the licence still totalled an average of £1,700 a year, equivalent to 40 per cent of the net income from the Clifford estates. In 1621 Cumberland and Clifford had petitioned James I for an extension, citing both loss of income due to the decline in cloth exports and the cost of Lord Clifford’s (although noticeably not Cumberland’s) services in administering the border area. However, the union of the crowns meant that the administration of that area had ceased to be of strategic importance to the crown. In August 1622, a reversionary lease of the cloth licence was granted to Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (earl and later duke of Richmond in the English peerage), and in 1626 the concession passed to Lennox’s widow. In July 1627 Cumberland was granted £6,203 to compensate for low receipts during the last years of his licence, although the customs officials calculated that the earl’s damages had been twice as much. Moreover, £2,447 was retained by the crown for arrears of rent and taxes owed by Cumberland, leaving only £3,755, which the earl was promised from ‘some such suit hereafter to be moved unto us’, and was not paid until the 1630s. Consequently, in 1628 Cumberland was forced to sell the former debatable lands on the border for £6,700.76 Spence, ‘Cliffords, Earls of Cumberland’, 266, 272-4, 281, 314-15; CSP Dom. 1611-19, p. 297; Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE851; Wentworth Pprs. 168; E403/2590, pp. 320-3; Coventry Docquets, 573; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 198.

Cumberland’s activities in the 1630s are poorly documented. By then he was in his seventies. He was evidently well enough to have ‘played his part beyond all imagination’ when Richard Boyle^†, Viscount Dungarvan [I] (subsequently 1st earl of Burlington in the English peerage), Clifford’s prospective son-in-law, visited Skipton in 1632. In March 1635 Cumberland informed his son-in-law, Sir Gervase Clifton^‡, that he was ‘in very good health’ although he had suffered ‘two or three sharp fits’ during the winter. He invited Clifton to visit him at Skipton when Sir Gervase returned from London, ‘if I live so long’, and was evidently well enough to travel, at least within Yorkshire, in the autumn of 1638.77 HMC Var. vii. 430; Nottingham UL, CL/C 146; Strafforde Letters, ii. 211.

In 1639 Cumberland was summoned to York to fight the Scottish Covenanters, but there is no evidence that he responded.78 SO1/3, f. 115; P. Haskell, ‘Sir Francis Windebank and the Personal Rule of Chas. I’ (Southampton Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1978), 431. He died on 21 Jan. 1641 at Skipton, where he was buried in the Clifford ancestral vault, located in the parish church. (The date of his death is recorded incorrectly in the local parish register as the 28th.)79 Par. Reg. of Skipton-in-Craven 164; Anne Clifford’s Great Bks. of Rec. 622, 715. Having died intestate, administration of his estate was granted at York on 28 June following.80 Wills in the York Registry 1627-36 (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. xxxv), 141. He was succeeded by his son who was to be the last of the Clifford earls of Cumberland.