CLINTON, Thomas (c.1568-1619)

As the eldest son of a peer, Clinton was automatically appointed a local magistrate while still in his early twenties, though his suitability for office was soon called into question. A firm partisan of his father, Henry Clinton alias Fiennes^*, 2nd earl of Lincoln, in the latter’s longstanding feud with Sir Edward Dymoke^‡, he was obliged to defend himself several times against allegations of assault, even though he maintained that he wished to see a peaceful end to this dispute.19 HMC Hatfield, xii. 344-5; xiii. 556-7; STAC 8/279/27.

First elected to Parliament in 1601 as a Member for Great Grimsby, Clinton was returned to the Commons three years later as senior knight for Lincolnshire. However, in February 1610, he was summoned to the Lords in his father’s barony, most likely through the influence of his brother-in-law Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, the lord chamberlain, with whom he is said to have been on close terms. It was probably no coincidence that Suffolk’s own son Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd Lord Howard de Walden (later 2nd earl of Suffolk), was elevated to the Lords on the same day.20 LJ, ii. 606a; Wilts. N and Q, viii. 449-50; Gent. Mag. xlii. 163. Surprisingly, Clinton proved reluctant to relinquish his seat in the Commons. It has been suggested that he objected to the choice of his successor, Sir Valentine Browne^‡, as the latter was Dymoke’s nephew. However, as the Lincolnshire by-election was not held until early April, that cannot be the full explanation, although Clinton certainly obstructed Browne’s arrival at Westminster. ‘Lord Clinton’s cause’ was referred to the Commons’ committee for privileges on 3 May, and a further delay to Browne’s own admission was requested a fortnight later.21 HP Commons, 1604-29, iii. 550; C219/35/1/36; CJ, i. 424b, 429a. The statement in HP Commons, 1604-29, that Clinton believed he had been summoned to the Lords in order to create a vacancy for Browne, is unfounded. The Commons’ records fail to explain these events, but the reason Clinton resorted to delaying tactics was that he was embroiled in a precedence dispute in the upper House. Henry Elsyng, the Lords’ clerk, records that ‘the old earl his father was very careful … for the right place of his son’. Back in 1558 the 1st earl of Lincoln, then still 9th Lord Clinton, had been allowed to move up eight places on the barons’ bench, so that he occupied the second most senior position. In 1610 Clinton himself evidently claimed that same precedence, but following a fresh inquiry in the Lords, and four months of behind-the-scenes wrangling, he was obliged to admit defeat. When he finally took his seat as a peer on 2 June, supported by Edward Sutton^*, 5th Lord Dudley and John Darcy^*, 3rd Lord Darcy, he was escorted to the place allotted to his family prior to the 1558 ruling.22 H. Elsyng, The Manner of Holding Parls. in Eng. (1768), 97; LJ, i. 522b; ii. 607a; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/7 (2 June 1610); Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 94-5.

Once he actually entered the Lords, Clinton attended quite assiduously, missing just nine of the remaining 41 sittings, and receiving eight nominations. Named to the committee for the bill to oblige those seeking naturalization to take the oath of allegiance, he himself swore this oath five days later. He was also appointed to help scrutinize the bill for administering the oath to recusants.23 LJ, ii. 606b, 608b, 645a. In addition, Clinton was nominated to both the bill committee on the execution of justice in northern England and a conference about this measure. His remaining legislative committees were concerned with the reform of scandalous clergy, the draining of marshland in East Anglia, dairy farming, and the estates of the Arundell family of Cornwall. Clinton did not attend the brief parliamentary session in late 1610, and is not known to have supplied a proxy.24 Ibid. 619a, 630a, 634b, 639a, 641b.

Around the autumn of 1610 Clinton applied unsuccessfully for a place in Prince Henry’s household, modestly observing that, as his financial position had hitherto restricted his attendance at court, he was probably barely known there.25 T. Birch, Henry, Prince of Wales (1760), 210; Harl. 7007, f. 445. In the event, the remainder of his life was hardly any less obscure. Clinton absented himself from the 1614 Parliament, awarding his proxy to the earl of Suffolk.26 LJ, ii. 686b. Having succeeded his father as 3rd earl of Lincoln in September 1615,27 C142/397/66; N and Q, 8th ser. iv. 168. he took on a few more local responsibilities, such as the stewardship of Boston, and in early 1616 gave his backing to a scheme for improving navigation on the river Fosse at Lincoln.28 APC, 1615-16, pp. 414-15. However, his finances remained precarious, as a bitter legal battle developed between him and his brothers over their father’s estate. By December 1615 the Privy Council had become involved, but this merely complicated matters, as the board took custody of much of the paperwork relating to the disputed properties. Without these documents, no resolution in the courts was possible, but the now-estranged siblings proved unable to agree on arrangements for the return of this evidence.29 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 315; APC, 1615-16, pp. 348-9, 516, 626-7. By the time Lincoln was granted administration of the estate in October 1616, his brother Sir Henry Fiennes had begun vandalizing the deer park at Tattershall, which he believed rightfully belonged to him, reviving memories of the old Clinton-Dymoke feud.30 PROB 11/128, ff. 227v-8; APC, 1615-16, pp. 680-1; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 394.

Lincoln made his will on 11 Jan. 1619, leaving the bulk of his property to his son Theophilus^* (later 4th earl of Lincoln), who was still a minor. He provided, perhaps optimistically, £2,000 dowries for five of his daughters, though a sixth, Elizabeth, was bequeathed only £1,000, which sum was to be withheld should she marry the earl’s former servant John Beresford.31 PROB 11/134, ff. 139v-141v. Lincoln died on 15 Jan., and was buried at Tattershall. Three days prior to his death, the estate documents retained by the Privy Council were completely destroyed when the Banqueting House at Whitehall Palace burnt down. In these unpropitious circumstances, the earldom descended to Theophilus, whose title at least was not in dispute.32 R. Bigland, Observations on Marriages, Baptisms and Burials (1764), 15; APC, 1618-19, p. 342.