Family and Education

b. 21 Mar. 1556, 1st s. of Thomas Leveson of Whornes Place and Ursula, da. of Sir John Gresham of Titsey, Surr. educ. Queen’s, Oxf. 1575, G. Inn 1576. m. (1) 27 Apr. 1579, Margaret (d. 26 Apr. 1585), da. of Sir Roger Manwood†, c. bar. exch. 3da. d.v.p.; (2) 4 July 1586, Christian (d. c.Feb. 1627), da. of Sir Walter Mildmay† of Apethorpe, Northants. chan. exch., wid. of Charles Barrett of Belhus, Essex, 5s. (3 d.v.p.) 5da. (4 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 1576;1 kntd. 1589.2 d. 7 Nov. 1615.3 sig. John Leveson.

Offices Held

J.p. Kent 1585-d.,4 Salop and Staffs. 1614-d.;5 capt. militia, Kent by 1585-at least 1589,6 dep. lt. 1590-at least 1608, Canterbury 1608;7 bridge warden, Rochester, Kent 1586-d.;8 collector, Privy Seal loans 1590-1, 1597-8, 1604-5;9 commr. subsidy, Kent 1591, 1593, 1606, 1610-11,10 recusancy inquiry, Canterbury 1591,11 Kent 1592, subsidy 1593, Lord Cheyney’s lands 1594, grain export 1595;12 capt. Upnor Castle, Kent by 1596-at least 1604;13 commr. inquiry into lands of attainted persons, Kent 1601,14 oyer and terminer, Home circ. by 1602-d.,15 Kent and Rochester 1606-at least 1608;16 collector, composition for purveyance, lathe of Aylesford (N. Div.), Kent 1602-at least 1612, treas. Kent 1610-11;17 recvr. (jt.) revenues of lands of Henry Brooke II†, 11th Lord Cobham 1603-5;18 commr. sewers, Essex (Rainham bridge to Mucking mill) 1605, Kent and Suss. 1609, inquiry, lands of Lord Cobham, Kent 1608,19 aid, Kent 1609,20 charitable uses, 4 May 1615-d.;21 pres. Cobham New Coll. Kent.22

Sub-commr. navy inquiry, 1608.23

?Member, Virg. Co. at d.24

Biography

Though he always described himself as being of Halling, Leveson resided in a late-fifteenth century manor-house which he largely rebuilt in the adjacent north Kent parish of Cuxton, close to the west bank of the Medway.25 Descended from the Levesons of Prestwood Hall, Staffordshire,26 Leveson was firmly established by 1603 as a central figure in Kent’s government, having made a propitious first marriage to the daughter of the county magnate and Exchequer chief baron, Sir Roger Manwood. A dedicated administrator, his labours as a county governor, detailed in the great mass of his surviving papers, have been likened to those of a French intendant.27

Leveson took part in the queen’s funeral procession in April 1603.28 In the following month he was praised by the new king for committing to prison ‘the lewd persons which did abuse and outrageously assault’ the French ambassador at Rochester, four miles from his house.29 Soon afterwards, he was entrusted to help receive on behalf of the Crown the rents of his neighbour (and the godfather of his third son),30 Henry Brooke, 11th Lord Cobham, who had been attainted for his involvement in the main Plot. Though there were two other receivers Leveson did most of the work, as it was he who accounted with the Crown, had access to Cobham in the Tower and carried messages between Lord (Robert) Cecil†, Lord Cobham and Cobham’s wife, the countess of Kildare.31 Leveson’s appointment placed him in an uncomfortable position, as he was also an executor and trustee for William, 10th Lord Cobham†, who had died in 1597. As such Leveson was supposed to convey to the 11th Lord Cobham his inheritance after certain conditions laid down in the 10th lord’s will had been performed. As these conditions remained unperformed at the time of the 11th lord’s attainder, the bulk of the Cobham estate, including numerous leases, remained in the hands of Leveson and his fellow surviving trustee, (Sir) Thomas Fane†, and was therefore not subject to forfeiture by the Crown. However, Leveson realized that if he retained control of these lands it might appear to the Crown that he was abusing his position as receiver of the revenues of the Cobham estates. Writing to Cecil in January 1604, Leveson complained that unless his title was examined and approved, ‘it may be laid to my charge that I, under the countenance of His Majesty’s authority [as receiver of Lord Cobham’s rents], have sought to patronize the said leases to his defrauding’.32 This appeal evidently did the trick, for two weeks later Leveson was told that a bill drawn up against him concerning this very point would be dropped.33 Nevertheless, in May 1604 the king’s serjeant, (Sir) John Hele I†, who had himself only recently been in the Fleet for extortion, accused Leveson of abusing the king by endeavouring to purchase one of Cobham’s Kent manors at a cut-price. Belatedly, Hele realized that Leveson, having recently been elected to Parliament, could not be compelled to appear before Star Chamber and therefore asked for process to be delayed until after the Parliament unless Leveson agreed to appear voluntarily. Leveson naturally preferred not to waive his privilege, and the matter appears to have been quietly dropped.34

Leveson was elected to Parliament in February 1604 as junior knight for Kent, having previously represented Maidstone. An experienced parliamentarian, he was appointed to the privileges committee (22 Mar.), but made no recorded speeches in the first session, and was named to only 15 committees and five joint conferences.35 These dealt with topics as diverse as the disputed Buckinghamshire election (28 Mar. and 12 Apr.), apparel (11 Apr. and 2 June), the Union (14 Apr.), religion (16 Apr.) and the continuance of expiring statutes (5 and 22 June).36 They also included wardship (22 May), a subject which presumably interested him as he was the guardian of the lunatic widow of his neighbour, Sir Thomas Sondes of Throwley, Kent, to whose putative daughter he married his eldest son in 1611.37 One of Leveson’s concerns in the session was to protect the interests of the wife of the former Lord Cobham, the dowager countess of Kildare. Cobham’s attainder had threatened to leave her landless, and although the king had already granted Cobham manor and various other Kent properties to trustees on her behalf, legislation was needed to confirm this arrangement. Leveson, being a trustee, was naturally concerned with the progress of this bill (which was enacted), and was therefore named to the committee on 30 May.38 Another bill he was appointed to consider concerned Robert Theobald of Seal, in north Kent, who wanted to sell some entailed lands to make a jointure and provide for his younger children (22 May). It may have been introduced by Leveson’s former brother-in-law Sir Peter Manwood, whose name headed the committee list and whose mother was a Theobald.39

Leveson’s interest in Lady Kildare’s bill stemmed principally from his position as a trustee of her estate, but significantly his distant cousin, admiral Sir Richard Leveson* was the son-in-law of her father, the lord admiral, the earl of Nottingham (Charles Howard I†). Leveson enjoyed close relations with the admiral, handling Sir Richard’s affairs while he was at sea, providing him with a chamber at his house and appointing him a godfather to his fourth son, Richard. In return, Sir Richard entertained Leveson’s teenage sons and stepson, (Sir) Edward Barrett*, aboard his ship in September 1601, and in March 1605 nominated his godson Richard as his heir.40 Leveson’s closeness to Sir Richard explains why he was put in charge of repairing the navy’s defences at Upnor Castle between 1596 and 1600.41 It may also explain why Nottingham deputed him to help administer the Oath of Supremacy to his fellow Members at the beginning of the first Jacobean Parliament.42

The admiral’s sudden death in August 1605 meant that his entire estate, located mainly in Shropshire and Staffordshire, descended to Leveson’s son Richard. As Richard was only seven years old, Leveson took possession on his son’s behalf, to the dismay of Mary Curzon, Sir Richard Leveson’s closest surviving, legitimately born relative, being sister of the admiral’s late father, Sir Walter Leveson†. Shortly after Sir Richard’s death, she and her husband, Sir George Curzon of Croxall, Derbyshire, were approached by George Sheppard, a former servant of Sir Walter Leveson, who said he could prove that Sir Richard’s conveyance to his godson was invalid and that Mary was the rightful heir. In November 1605, therefore, Sir George commenced a suit in the Court of Wards on behalf of his wife.43 In the following month, Sheppard claimed that Sir Walter Leveson, who had detested his son, had drawn up a deed disinheriting him in favour of Mary’s daughter.44 Asked why Sir Walter had thereby also disinherited his sister, another witness later explained that Sir George Curzon had been considered too timid to contest the Leveson estates. By conveying his property to his granddaughter, also named Mary, Sir Walter had hoped that she would be married to someone ‘of spirit and sufficiency to defend the title of the lands’.45 However, despite a search, no deed was found.46

Undeterred, Sheppard began looking for a powerful husband for the younger Mary Curzon. Following an unsuccessful approach to Lord Danvers, he arranged a match with (Sir) Edward Sackville*, grandson of the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville†, 1st earl of Dorset,47 and the couple were married on 1 May 1606. Leveson’s difficulties now began in earnest. Twelve days after the marriage a member of Leveson’s legal team named Mr. Combes died, whereupon Dorset authorized a search of his study in the hope of finding papers which might prove the claims of the heir-general. This was only prevented after Leveson appealed to his friend, the master of the Court of Wards, Robert Cecil, now earl of Salisbury.48 Later that year, Leveson discovered that Dorset was responsible for preventing him from reaching an agreement with the earl of Shrewsbury, the principal creditor of Sir Walter Leveson, for whose debts he was now liable. Shrewsbury was owed £4,000 for a commercial transaction, including £2,000 as a penalty for non-payment in accordance with the terms of a recognizance. Leveson had hoped to persuade him to accept a lesser sum, and had enlisted the support of his friend the earl of Northampton, whose investiture as knight of the Garter Leveson had attended the previous year.49 Northampton duly wrote a glowing recommendation on Leveson’s behalf,50 but learnt that Shrewsbury, who was short of cash, had already granted Dorset the benefit of the recognizance. Clearly Dorset hoped to extend Leveson’s lands for non-payment, and so gain possession of his estates that way.51

Leveson attended the drunken festivities held at Chatham in honour of the queen’s brother, Christian IV of Denmark, in August 1606, when he fell into the river and exposed his ‘cue and his cullions, which as the Danes confessed, could be no discredit to Kent or Christendom’.52 A few months later the Curzons, having now found the deed that they alleged had been drawn up by Sir Walter Leveson in favour of his granddaughter, resumed their lawsuit. Leveson confidently pronounced it to be a forgery,53 but in the event its authenticity was not critical, for in the Easter term of 1607 the court found that it contravened the Statute of Marlborough, as it unlawfully set aside the claims of the rightful heir, Lady Curzon, in favour of her daughter.54

Although Leveson had won the first round, his troubles quickly multiplied. In June 1607 an inquiry was established into the goods seized by admiral Leveson in 1602 aboard a Portuguese carrack, the St. Valentine of Lisbon. Testimony provided by the admiral’s former cabin-keeper, Walter Grey,55 helped persuade the commissioners that Sir Richard had embezzled goods worth approximately £40,000. Leveson was horrified, as he would be held liable for this entire sum, and told the Privy Council that Sir Richard had obtained only one tenth of the sum alleged and had died £10,000 in debt. He also disputed the impartiality of many of the witnesses, asserting that they ‘were well known to have dependency upon such persons as desired the advancement of the said carrack goods’. Pleading that he would be ruined unless a new commission was issued to ‘indifferent persons’,56 and perhaps helped by his friend Salisbury, he subsequently spoke to the king. Following his interview, Leveson set down his grievances. Though he carefully denied it, he implicitly accused the lord treasurer of orchestrating a conspiracy against him in order to deprive him of his estates. It was Dorset, he said, who had authorized a search of Combes’s study and who had sanctioned the investigation into the carrack goods, though he had not shown any interest in doing so before the marriage of his grandson, and it was Dorset who had prevented Leveson from reaching an accommodation with Shrewsbury over the debt owed by Sir Walter Leveson. The lord treasurer, moreover, was behind the revival of two long-dormant outlawries, one directed against Sir Walter Leveson and the other against Sir Richard. Finally, it was Dorset’s name which had been used to intimidate Leveson’s witnesses, principally Richard Hammersley, who had been told by George Sheppard that the lord treasurer would have him hanged for felony if he testified on Leveson’s behalf.57 Incensed at these allegations, Dorset accused Leveson of slander, and though Leveson offered to give the lord treasurer satisfaction behind closed doors Dorset demanded that the matter be judged by the king and Council.58 However, when the case finally came before the Council in April 1608, Dorset, while rummaging through his papers for a paper concerning redress against such accusers, ‘suddenly fell down dead without speaking a word’.59

Dorset’s unexpected death paved the way for Leveson to settle his most pressing financial difficulties amicably. The Exchequer swiftly suspended proceedings against Leveson concerning the carrack goods until further notice. Though these were resumed in June,60 Leveson uncovered evidence which undermined the findings of the earlier inquiry by suggesting that a key witness, Walter Grey, had perjured himself for profit.61 This new evidence, coupled with the promotion of Leveson’s patron, Salisbury, as lord treasurer, explains why Leveson was now allowed to pay just £5,000 for the carrack goods.62 Around the same time Shrewsbury agreed to refer the debt of £4,000 to the arbitration of Salisbury, despite knowing that the new lord treasurer was Leveson’s ‘best friend’.63 A grateful Leveson paid £45 12s. to the lord treasurer in November 1608, and a further £59 10s.11 d. to his son William Cecil, Viscount Cranbourne*.64

Dorset’s demise proved a relief for Leveson, but it instilled panic and fear in George Sheppard. Enraged, he blamed Sir George Curzon for not pursuing the suit in the Court of Wards more vigorously, and in the hearing of Edward Sackville’s solicitor, declared that ‘there is nothing will undo me in this suit but only the stamp to the deed now in question, and I would to God I had never meddled in it seeing the business is no better followed’.65 These words were to prove prophetic, for when the Curzon claim was again scrutinized by the Court of Wards in May 1609 doubt about the authenticity of the conveyance allegedly drawn up by Sir Walter Leveson finally tipped the balance. After a marathon, nine-hour hearing, the judges declared that they suspected the deed to be ‘untrue and false’ and that Sheppard, whom they disabled as a witness in any subsequent examination of the Curzon claim, was guilty of ‘many foul practices, abuses and misdemeanours’.66 The only crumb of comfort for Mary Curzon was that Chancery upheld her claim to be the Common Law heir to the estates of Sir Richard Leveson,67 but as this ruling did not entitle her to possession this was, at best, a hollow triumph.

In the summer of 1610 Leveson exacted his revenge on Sheppard, the principal author of his misfortunes. Clear evidence that Sheppard was guilty of forgery was provided by a Holborn scrivener, who claimed that either he or a now dead colleague had written the text of the deed produced by Sheppard. This testimony was crucial, because the deed was dated before the scrivener and his deceased colleague had begun their apprenticeship, and neither man had previously been able to write ‘text hand’.68 As a result of this and other damning evidence, including his reported angry outburst at Croxall, Sheppard was sentenced by Star Chamber in December 1611 to the pillory, the loss of his ears and the mutilation of his face.69

Although Leveson had now triumphed, years of litigation had taken a heavy toll. A rental of 1609 shows that he enjoyed an annual income of just over £1,600,70 yet in February alone he paid £600 to one barrister, and in May, at the height of the suit in the Court of Wards, he disbursed a further £194 in legal fees.71 As well as paying for lawyers Leveson had also to find £5,000 for the carrack goods, plus £848 for cloves which Sir Richard Leveson had allegedly also taken, and £3,872 to prevent the admiral’s former lands from being extended for debt.72 Frequent litigation, combined with the need for a London address to attend Parliament, also forced him to lease a house in Blackfriars, which, over five years, had cost him £500.73 Calculating the final cost of all these demands in August 1615, Leveson reckoned that he had disbursed more than £18,000 over and above the money inherited from the admiral, causing him to sell part of his own patrimony, including Prestwood Hall, which ‘had been in my name and blood 350 years at the least’. Little wonder that he bitterly regretted ever having ‘meddled with the estate of Sir Richard Leveson’.74 Leveson’s lawsuits ate up time as well as money. Frequent court appearances may explain why he played little part in the parliamentary sessions of 1605-7. On 23 Jan. 1606, two days after the Commons reassembled after the Christmas break, he vainly tried to prevent the judges from ordering him to submit all his title deeds for inspection. Parliament was also sitting on 11 and 12 Feb. 1606, when he swore that he had submitted all the relevant documentation.75

Leveson made no speeches during either the second or third sessions, and received only 12 committee or conference appointments in all. Three dealt with measures of interest to county governors like himself: the correct interpretation of the Statute of Artificers, the building of new weirs (both 7 Feb. 1606) and the better execution of sewer commissions (12 June 1607). His inclusion on the committee for the bill to assure Cheshunt vicarage to the earl of Salisbury (12 Dec. 1606) must reflect his friendship with Cecil. It is not known what his interest was, if any, in the bills to assure a jointure to the countess of Essex (13 Mar. 1606), confirm the letters patent of St. Bees Grammar School in Cumberland (17 Mar. 1606), settle a manor straddling Gloucestershire and Worcestershire on William Throckmorton and his heir (8 May 1607) and explain a piece of Henrician legislation regarding Southwark’s churchwardens (25 Feb. 1607). His remaining committees concerned the prevention of popish plots (21 Jan. 1606) and the export of beer (27 Mar. 1606). On 24 Nov. 1606 he was named to a joint conference on the Union.76

Leveson was more active in the fourth session, perhaps because the Star Chamber case against Sheppard only began in earnest in the summer. Among his 22 committee appointments was a measure to restore the Cobham lands to (Sir) William Brooke* (31 Mar. 1610), heir to the imprisoned Lord Cobham. Other bills concerning north Kent that Leveson was appointed to consider dealt with the lands of Sir Henry Crispe of Quex in the Isle of Thanet (12 Mar.), the estates of the late Lord Cheyney (19 June) and Rochester (22 June). On 26 Feb. he was appointed to consider a bill regarding purveyance,77 even though Kent had reached agreement with the board of Greencloth over this hated exaction eight years earlier. He may have been nominated for his expertise, having been one of the architects of the Kent agreement.78 Experience as a regular litigant may also explain Leveson’s nomination to the committee for a bill to reduce the fees charged for legal copies (13 March). Given the heavy costs he had incurred in his own recent legal battles, Leveson probably sympathized with the aims of this measure, introduced by Sir John Parker†, but this did not prevent one Chancery official, who stood to suffer if the bill were enacted, from lobbying him at his house in Blackfriars.79 Leveson’s inclusion on the committee for the bill to erect Britain’s Bourse on land owned by Salisbury (23 June) must, like his membership of the Cheshunt vicarage bill committee in 1606, reflect his connections with Cecil.80

Leveson was named to the supply conference of 15 Feb. and spoke in favour of voting one subsidy and two fifteenths on 11 July. The previous day he supported a motion to allow the hearing of counsel in respect of the Davison bill (10 July), an obscure measure to whose committee he had previously been named (27 March). He was also vexed by the House’s pursuit of the two collectors of recusancy fines, Sir Stephen Procter and Henry Spiller*. On 8 Mar. he asked for some recognizances to be produced in Procter’s case, 81 while on 16 June he attempted to shield Spiller from examination regarding a recusant named More, who paid Spiller an ‘annual rent’. In the only recorded account of this intervention, Leveson explained that Spiller received this money ‘not to his own use but to another person’s, which he desired the committee he might forbear to name’. An angry Sir Francis Hastings thereupon accused Leveson of acting as the mouthpiece of a ‘great man’, meaning Salisbury. A heated exchange was only defused by the intervention of the chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar.82

Leveson is unmentioned in the scanty records of the fifth session. Though he did not stand in 1614, he attempted unsuccessfully to secure a seat for his nephew at Rochester, where he was a junior bridge warden.83 During his final years, Leveson’s depleted financial resources were further strained. As late as 1611 he was still trying to settle the debts of Sir Walter Leveson.84 Moreover, following the death from plague of his eldest son John in December 1613 he took on further debts, amounting to £1,000.85 Shortly thereafter the marriage of his only surviving daughter, Rachel, obliged him to sell many of his remaining Staffordshire lands to raise a dowry. However, he was not bankrupt and as late as January 1615 spent money on building a brewhouse at Lilleshall.86

Leveson drew up his will on 4 Aug. 1615 while still in ‘perfect health’. Unlike the arrangements made for Sir Richard Leveson ten years earlier, he requested that his own funeral be attended by only ‘some very few friends dwelling near the place of my burial, which I desire to be as privately done as may be’. The poor were to be kept away by arranging for an orderly distribution of £25 among them two weeks after his death. Leveson had provided for the bulk of his estates to descend on his son Richard rather than the two infant daughters of his eldest son John, whose premature death he regarded as a divine judgment ‘for the punishment of my sins’.87 However, the girls were each promised a dowry of £3,000 in compensation. Leveson named his widow as his executrix, and appointed her relative Sir Francis Fane* as her successor. Three other executors were appointed: Leveson’s son-in-law (Sir) Richard Newport*, his step-son Sir Edward Barrett and Sir Robert Harley*, whose first wife had been Barrett’s sister Anne. A codicil added on the day of Leveson’s death provided for his daughter Rachel’s dowry to be increased by £1,000.88

Leveson died on 7 Nov. 1615 and was buried in St. Michael’s, Cuxton, at a cost of £300.89 An inventory taken in December at his houses in Cuxton, Lilleshall and Blackfriars valued his goods at more than £2,600. A separate valuation at Trentham was begun in January 1616 but never completed.90 Leveson’s heir, Richard, subsequently sold his Kent estates and settled at Lilleshall and Trentham, representing Newcastle-under-Lyme in 1624 and Shropshire in 1626.

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Author: Andrew Thrush

Notes

• 1. Staffs. RO, D593/Add/8/27, pp. 147-8, 164; 593/E/3/6/2, unnumb. item (Ct. of Ward’s breviat); Vis. Surr. (Harl. Soc. xliii), 78; Al. Ox.; GI Admiss.
• 2. Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 87.
• 3. C142/349/174.
• 4. Cal. Assize Recs. Kent Indictments, Eliz. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 236.
• 5. C66/1988.
• 6. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/13/4; HMC 5th Rep. 138.
• 7. Staffs. RO, D593/S/3/1-5; SP14/33, f. 3v; Eg. 860, f. 21v.
• 8. Traffic and Pols. ed. N. Yates and J.M. Gibson, 293.
• 9. Staffs. RO, D593/S4/27; E401/2585, ff. 121-3; 401/2583, ff. 55v-6.
• 10. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/23/14; 593/S/4/6/25; E115/252/104; 115/275/118.
• 11. Canterbury Cathedral Archives, CC/AA/54.
• 12. Staffs. RO, D593/S/3/6, 7; D593/S/4/6/25; D593/S/4/37/17.
• 13. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/51; Jacobean Commissions of Inquiry ed. A.P. McGowan (Navy Rec. Soc. cxvi), 172-3.
• 14. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/14/23.
• 15. C181/1, f. 15.
• 16. E115/275/118; SP14/31/1.
• 17. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/57/2, 5, 16.
• 18. E351/412.
• 19. C181/1, f. 121; 181/2, ff. 64v, 87v.
• 20. E179/283.
• 21. C93/6/18.
• 22. E. Hasted, Kent, iii. 447.
• 23. HMC Laing, 111; Jacobean Commissions, 181.
• 24. Perhaps his eldest s.: Virg. Co. Recs. ed. S.M. Kingsbury, iii. 85, 328, 339.
• 25. Hasted, iii. 392-3.
• 26. Vis. Kent (Harl. Soc. lxxv), 4-5; N and Q, cxvi. 63.
• 27. P. Clark, Eng. Prov. Soc. 260.
• 28. LC2/4/4, f. 70.
• 29. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/69/16.
• 30. Staffs. RO, D593/Add/8/27, p. 148.
• 31. E351/412; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 193, 198, 244, 375, 409; xvii. 57, 176, 186, 260, 266.
• 32. HMC Hatfield, xvi. 9.
• 33. E123/29, f. 231v.
• 34. STAC 8/170/30.
• 35. CJ, i. 150a.
• 36. Ibid. 154b, 157a, 167a, 169b, 172a, 173a, 984a, 232b, 244b.
• 37. Ibid. 222b; WARD 9/528, f. 418; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 326.
• 38. CJ, i. 224a, 229b; HLRO, O.A. 1 Jas.I, c. 50.
• 39. CJ, i. 222a. For the remainder of his appointments, see ibid. 150a, 151a, 153a, 160b, 166a, 180a, 189b, 228b.
• 40. Staffs. RO, D593/Add/8/27, p. 148; D868/1/3, 8, 9, 14; D593/C/9/2/9, m. 11.
• 41. For Leveson’s involvement, see Add. 5752, ff. 374-9, 382-3, 386.
• 42. CJ, i. 140b.
• 43. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/10/1, unnumb. item, bill outlining the case against Sheppard.
• 44. STAC 8/205/26, f. 5.
• 45. Staffs. RO, D593/E3/10/1, unnumb. item, breviat of defendants’ arguments in Leveson v. Sheppard.
• 46. WARD 9/528, ff. 146v-7.
• 47. STAC 8/205/26, ff. 10, 61v.
• 48. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/3/1, unnumb. item, Leveson’s petition to the Privy Council; WARD 9/528, f. 147.
• 49. STAC 8/205/26, f. 12; Add. 34218, f. 87.
• 50. Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, iii. 193.
• 51. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/3/1, unnumb. item, Sir John Leveson’s petition to the Privy Council; D593/E/3/6/2, unnumb. item, Northampton’s deposition.
• 52. Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 88.
• 53. WARD 9/528, ff. 525v-6, 586v-7; STAC 8/205/26, f. 15.
• 54. Croke Reps. ii. 157.
• 55. E178/4429; E134/5Jas.I/Mich.41. For a more detailed analysis, see SIR RICHARD LEVESON.
• 56. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/2, unnumb. item.
• 57. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/3/1, unnumb. item.
• 58. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/1.
• 59. ‘Jnl. of Sir Roger Wilbraham’ ed. H. Spencer Scott, in Cam. Misc. x. 98.
• 60. Lansd. 166, f. 300; E126/1, f. 108v.
• 61. Staffs. RO, D593/C/9/3. For the details, see SIR RICHARD LEVESON.
• 62. Staffs. RO, D593/S/4/64/2; 593/C/9/3, unfol.; 593/R/1/1/3.
• 63. Lansd. 90, f. 167.
• 64. Staffs. RO, D593/R/1/1/2, unfol.
• 65. STAC 8/205/26, ff. 61v-2v.
• 66. WARD 9/89, ff. 382v-4.
• 67. C142/312/158.
• 68. STAC 8/205/26, ff. 80, 82r-v.
• 69. Chamberlain Letters, i. 320.
• 70. Staffs. RO, D593/H/14/1/2, annual total interpolated from figures which give a half-yearly total.
• 71. Staffs. RO, D593/R/1/1/3, unfol.
• 72. £3,372 was paid to Sir Richard Corbett and his wife; the remaining £500 was paid to Lady Fitton: PROB 11/126, f. 247.
• 73. Staffs. RO, D593/C/9/3, unnumb. item, acct. bk. unfol. For Leveson’s reassignment of the Blackfriars lease in 1614, see 593/B/11.
• 74. PROB 11/126, ff. 247v-8.
• 75. WARD 9/528, ff. 12v, 89v, 109v-10.
• 76. CJ, i. 257b, 264b, 265a, 283b, 285b, 290b, 292a, 307a, 324b, 330a, 340b, 382b.
• 77. Ibid. 400a, 409b, 413b, 417a, 441a, 442b.
• 78. For his involvement, see J.J.N. McGurk, ‘Roy. Purveyance in Kent’, BIHR, l, 63-4.
• 79. CJ, i. 410a; C173/2, bdle. 1, Nicholas Roberts to Leveson, 23 Mar. 1610.
• 80. CJ, i. 443a. For his remaining cttees. see ibid. 408b, 413b, 414a, 414b, 415a, 415b, 417b, 419a, 421a, 426a, 440b, 442b.
• 81. Ibid. 408a.
• 82. ‘Paulet 1610’, f. 16v.
• 83. Staffs. RO, D593/S4/60/13. See also ROCHESTER.
• 84. Staffs. RO, D593/R/1/1/3, unfol. payment of 3 July 1611. See also Add. 12497, f. 461.
• 85. Staffs. RO, D593/P/4/3; 593/E/6/12, unnumb. item, breviat of case in Ct. of Wards, 1628, m. 13, deposition of John Terrick; Chamberlain Letters, i. 491; Arch. Cant. xx. 9.
• 86. HMC 5th Rep. 140.
• 87. C142/349/174.
• 88. PROB 11/126, ff. 246-50.
• 89. Staffs. RO, D593/P/6/7A.
• 90. Staffs. RO, D593/C/10/3; D593/C/10/1/8.