Family and Education

b. 1577/8, 1st s. of Sir John Mallory* and Anne, da. of William, 2nd Bar. Eure of Malton, Yorks. educ. privately (Miles Dugdale); Thirsk g.s. (Mr. Atkinson); Caius, Camb. 1594, aged 16.1 m. 1599, Alice (bur. 10 Mar. 1662), da. of Sir James Bellingham of Over Levens, Westmld., 3s. (2 d.v.p.) 2da. (1 d.v.p.).2 suc. fa. 1619.3 bur. 4 Mar. 1646.4 sig. Will[ia]m Mallorye.

Offices Held

J.p. Yorks. (W. Riding) 1621-5, 1629-44, N. Riding 1621-5, 1626-9, 1632-c.44, liberty of Ripon 1621-c.44 (custos rot. 1641-c.44);5 treas. maimed soldiers W. Riding 1622; commr. subsidy, N. Riding 1622, 1624, 1629;6 gov. Ripon g.s. by 1623-d.;7 commr. Forced Loan, Yorks. 1626-7;8 col. militia ft. W. Riding by 1630-d.;9 commr. Poll Tax, 1641, subsidy 1641-2, assessment 1642, array, Yorks. 1642.10

Biography

Mallory was named after his grandfather, 2nd Lord Eure, and was closely involved with the affairs of his mother’s family: from 1614 he leased the estates of his recusant cousin (Sir) William Eure; while five years later, after the latter succeeded as 4th Baron Eure, Mallory was granted a half share of the recusancy fines accruing from the much larger estates which went with the title, a lucrative concession he presumably waived. His own family’s religious allegiance was also mixed: his mother was a Catholic; one of his brothers was for many years an exile; while another was ordained in the Church of England and appointed dean of Chester.11

Returned to the Commons for Ripon at the 1614 general election, when his father unsuccessfully challenged Sir Thomas Wentworth* for one of the county seats, Mallory probably submitted the petition against Wentworth’s return which was considered by the privileges committee at its first meeting on 8 April. A decision on this case was postponed until the other knight of the shire, Sir John Savile, reached Westminster after Easter; by this time a similar petition alleging misconduct by the sheriff of Cambridgeshire had been rejected, and no further action was recorded upon the Yorkshire case. Mallory’s only other mention in the records of this Parliament was a nomination to the committee for a private bill to reverse a Chancery decree (18 May).12

With the legacy of his father’s defeat in 1614 still fresh in his mind, it is hardly surprising that Mallory was one of the few West Riding gentry who opposed Sir Thomas Wentworth at the Yorkshire election of December 1620. He did not sign Savile’s petition against the return, but on 16 Mar. 1621, when the election dispute was reported in the Commons, he complained that thousands of Savile’s supporters had been excluded from the poll, ‘a very ill precedent to all the counties of England’. Wentworth in turn called for a vote of censure against Mallory, but without success. For the high constables who had sought to influence the voters at Wentworth’s behest, Mallory would not be satisfied with any punishment short of imprisonment in the Tower ‘though but [for] a night’ and a public submission in Yorkshire. Wentworth was exonerated by the House, and it was probably because of this ruling that Mallory was moved to send an apology to Wentworth, who returned a frosty answer:

I perceive my disgrace hath been very earnestly and causelessly sought after; and therefore albeit I do freely forgive them that prosecute, yet I cannot think them that interest themselves in it to bear me any goodwill. Some actions and words of Mr. Mallory have given me occasion to conceive his affection led him that ways, but now this message hath given me full satisfaction I was mistaken; and although I had some ground for my opinion, yet I have more reason to believe his gentlemanly and respectful assurance to the contrary, and so shall firmly persuade myself hereafter.

Their mutual animosity resurfaced in a debate on the wool trade on 18 May, when Wentworth tabled a proviso on behalf of Halifax, and Mallory demanded ‘that a knight of the shire would not move for a particular place for exemption’. This aside, Mallory may have served on the committee for the Ouse navigation bill (3 May) because it was opposed by Wentworth on behalf of the West Riding industrial towns.13

By the time Mallory was returned to Parliament in 1621 he had succeeded to the family estates, though he failed to inherit his father’s seat on the Council in the North. Perhaps because he had few official responsibilities, he was consistently outspoken in the Commons, where he would have been an ideal cat’s paw for some powerful patron. None has been identified, and he seems to have been something of a maverick, although he often acted in concert with Sir Robert Phelips and Sir Francis Seymour. His other regular ally was Sir Guy Palmes*, whose daughter married his eldest son in 1623; in Parliament the following year Mallory and Palmes seem to have developed an understanding whereby each named the other to bill committees.14

Mallory was not a significant figure in the Commons at the start of the 1621 session, although he was never reticent: no sooner had the House returned from the king’s opening speech than he complained about an abuse offered to Sir William Grey, 1st bt.* by one of the royal guards. On 12 Feb. he moved to divide the House on whether to affirm freedom of speech by bill rather than petition, which would have wasted valuable time on a privilege dispute, but he was ignored. In the following month he added his voice to the growing chorus of protest against monopolies, urging action against projectors, beneficiaries, and above all the referees who had approved offensive patents. The disappearance of (Sir) Giles Mompesson*, most reviled of the patentees, deprived the House of a potential witness against his backers, and Mallory demanded priority for his recapture. In ‘a stout speech’ on 8 Mar. he reminded MPs of their intention to investigate the referees; but with the Commons clearly in favour of enlarging the inquiry further than the king wished, Speaker Richardson abruptly terminated the proceedings. Next day Mallory led the criticism of Richardson for abuse of his position, declaring that ‘he feared not those that sat in thrones and chairs’. He subsequently proposed a vote of thanks to Sir Edward Coke for his management of Mompesson’s impeachment, declared himself satisfied that (Sir) Robert Lloyd* was a projector of the monopoly of engrossing wills and inventories, and drew attention to two other patents that had aroused particular resentment in his neighbourhood: the first being Sir John Townshend’s* concealed lands patent, which had compelled two of Ripon’s three hospitals to compound for their endowments; while the other was the notably futile patent for the inspection and maintenance of arms and armour which was, Mallory reckoned, costing Yorkshire £600 p.a.15

Attacks on patentees were combined with investigation of misconduct in government circles. On 20 Mar., as the investigation of the lord chancellor (Sir Francis Bacon*) got under way, Mallory called for Phelips to read a petition alleging that the stepmother of Sir Thomas Wharton* had obtained a favourable Chancery verdict by corruption. He was later added to a committee preparing similar charges against Sir John Bennet*, judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and a former Ripon MP (21 Apr.), following which he ostentatiously announced that his affection for Bennet had been transformed into loathing, and moved to commit him to the Tower: ‘a Parliament of seven years not sufficient to examine all his briberies’. He was among those sent to Bennet’s house to prevent him from fleeing abroad like Mompesson (23 April).16

In the first two months of the session, Mallory was a useful accessory for those who wished to attack the government, and his significance was growing: on 22 Mar. he successfully moved for a sub-committee to sit during the Easter recess to clear the backlog of petitions, and he was later named to the legislative steering committee to which the vacation sub-committees reported (26 April). On 21 Apr. he moved to investigate the alehouse patent, ‘a great grievance’, and was promptly seconded by Sir Francis Seymour. As this patent was held by two servants of lord treasurer Mandeville (Sir Henry Montagu*), and its execution comprised one of the charges levelled at the disgraced attorney-general, Sir Henry Yelverton*, then being tried before the Lords, Mallory’s motion played a key role in the developing attack on Buckingham. Three days later Sir Lionel Cranfield* informed the House that the king strongly disapproved of their involvement in this matter, and Mallory retorted, ‘that some misinformeth the king. Moveth if they be known, to have them severely punished’; he was again seconded by Seymour. William Noye’s long report of 11 May on this patent ‘made his [Mallory’s] heart ache’, and he called, unsuccessfully, for the arrest of the patentees, while the House went on to clear Seymour of giving any affront to Mandeville in his speeches on this matter.17

In the aftermath of the Easter recess, Mallory also helped to stoke trouble on several other fronts. On 27 Apr., when Sir James Perrot complained of the failure of various collectors to remit the Palatine benevolence raised in the autumn of 1620 to the Exchequer, he provocatively called ‘to know whether we may give out of Parliament’, a much more contentious question, which the House ignored. At the same time, the House began another inquiry into Buckingham’s influence in Ireland. The king called for an end to this debate on 30 Apr., but Seymour and Phelips urged the House to petition for permission to continue their investigation. Mallory, for once less combative, agreed with Sir Edward Giles that the Commons should defer to the king over this issue. However, two days later, when Sir Edward Villiers*, beneficiary of the gold and silver thread patent, chose to take his seat in the House moments after his patent had been condemned, Mallory insisted ‘he would not have any man sit in this House that hath been a protector or furtherer of any patent which is or hath been a grievance here’, citing the ejection of the patentee Sir Robert Lloyd earlier in the session as a precedent. Here he proved once again to have over-reached himself, as the matter was allowed to drop after a brisk debate.18 At the same time, an increasingly hysterical Commons was discussing the punishment of the Catholic barrister Edward Floyd for insulting the king’s daughter. On 1 May Mallory backed Phelips’s call to send Floyd to the Tower, adding the pillory for good measure, and rejected wiser counsels to approach to the Lords for assistance; the king naturally questioned the Commons’ claim to jurisdiction over Floyd, then a prisoner in the Fleet. Mallory was appointed to the committee searching for precedents to justify the House’s case (2 May), because, as William Hakewill observed, one the most promising was the investigation of Sir Stephen Procter’s attacks on Mallory’s father in 1610. Despite this, the Commons was eventually forced to concede the king’s right to punish Floyd on his own authority.19 Mallory’s willingness to seek conflict emerged once again on 29 May, when he greeted the news of an imminent end to the sitting with a motion to ‘return an answer to keep correspondency with the Lords; but for all other businesses, he would have us let them rest’. Though this did not happen, he was later included on the delegation who informed the king that the Commons had elected for an adjournment rather than a prorogation (2 June). Cranfield later reckoned that Mallory had spoken 38 times during the spring sitting (a slight understatement), ‘and all seditiously’.20

Mallory raised a steady stream of complaints from Yorkshire in the Commons in 1621, often while in pursuit of a monopolist, but only a handful of his speeches seem to have served a purely local agenda. He was named to the committee for the bill to enfranchise county Durham (6 Mar.), and later spoke in favour of seats for Barnard Castle and Hartlepool as well as the county town. On 14 May he supported Sir Edwin Sandys in describing the Merchant Adventurers’ privileges as ‘a general grievance’, which he moved to be referred to the Lords, and he welcomed the bill to prevent the import of foreign grain at low prices, ‘else the king can hardly have his second subsidy paid him; and says [he] himself can receive but 20s. rent this half year’.21

Shortly after the adjournment of 4 June, Sir Edwin Sandys and the 3rd earl of Southampton were arrested and questioned about their conduct in Parliament by the Privy Council, a clear breach of the free speech the Commons had been promised in February. Although both were released before Parliament reconvened, they stayed away from Westminster. In the Commons, only Mallory and Sir Peter Heyman were consistently prepared to risk an early dissolution by pursuing this issue. Mallory called attention to Sandys’s absence on 20 Nov.:

The privilege of the House concerns us all. If he [Sandys] were questioned for anything that fell from him here, we cleared him. His Majesty is wise, but we have not access to him. We may have things misreported and be wronged to the king; and his indignation is more grievous to me than to lose my head.

This speech went unheeded, but at the call of the House the following day Sandys sent a letter claiming to be sick. Edward Alford revived the issue on 23 Nov., when Mallory called for a closer examination of Sandys’s letter, but the debate was shut down by Henry, Lord Clifford, Wentworth and Secretary Calvert. Heyman made another unsuccessful attempt to raise the issue on 27 Nov., the same day as the subsidy debate, in which Mallory supported Seymour and Sir Guy Palmes in urging priority for legislation: ‘no one hath intimated a negative voice to giving, but to have bills pass now’. On 1 Dec. Mallory made another impassioned appeal for investigation of Sandys’s absence:

We are entrusted for our country. If we lose our privileges, we betray it: if we give way to this we lose our privileges and losing them we deserve to be hanged. Let us not look upon ourselves only, but upon our posterity also. Those honourable persons that sit about the chair know not whether their posterity shall be privy councillors or no. Neither are they sure their children shall not be so served.

This plea finally moved the House to send Mallory and Heyman to Sandys to secure ‘a declaration in writing whether he were examined or committed for any parliamentary business’, which was obtained with the utmost secrecy at Sandys’ lodging on 3 Dec. ‘at ten o’clock at night, the servants being put out’.22

News of the Sandys investigation reached James at the same time as an ill-judged approach from the Commons about a Protestant marriage for Prince Charles, and on 3 Dec. he angrily insisted that ‘we think ourselves free and able to punish the misbehaviour of any Member in Parliament … which we mean hereafter not to spare upon any occasion of insolency there used’. On the following day Mallory supported Phelips’ proposal for a cessation of business pending a satisfactory statement on parliamentary privilege. This motion could be requited by nothing less than total capitulation on the king’s part, and it was the determination of Phelips, Mallory and a handful of others to stand upon the Commons’ privileges which ultimately led to the demise of the Parliament. Speaker Richardson’s attempt to shelve the constitutional issue and proceed with legislation prompted Mallory to move to go into committee, ‘that we might not be troubled this day with the Speaker’, while a further motion, that Richardson might not be permitted to speak, ‘till the House called him up’, though not carried, ‘was well approved’. Mallory then followed Sir George More in confessing himself ‘more doubtful … of our privileges than before, because His Majesty taketh them to be by toleration, and not our inheritance’, urging the House ‘to consider whether our privileges stand not impeached by His Majesty’s answer’. As the privilege question and that of the king’s final request for the passage of the bill to provide for the continuance of expiring laws and the general pardon alone were debated on 14 Dec., Mallory proposed ‘that the key be brought up and that none go out till both be decided’, which prevented the privy councillors sending word to the king that his offer had been rejected. As a futile gesture in clear anticipation of the royal wrath, he tabled a last-minute motion ‘to take it into consideration, if a number of the House be committed after the Parliament, if this be not a breach of the privileges, and to see if there have been any such’.23

Mallory was fetched up from Yorkshire and committed to the Tower on 23 Jan. 1622, though ‘the country was loath to let him come; if he would have given way he might have had good store of company to come with him’. According to an account Mallory later sent Phelips of his examination before the Privy Council, (Sir) Ranulphe Crewe* questioned him ‘for matters done in the former Parliament, and did urge it with much bitterness’. In a second interrogation, Cranfield (now Lord Treasurer Middlesex) told him that

I had carried an higher hand against His Majesty than ever any subject did in that place, and that my offence was an higher treason than Empson’s and Dudley’s, and [I] deserved to have my head taken off my shoulders.

The evidence against him was provided by the clerk’s summary of debates in the Journal, and Middlesex added sardonically ‘that if I had been as careful to look to the clerk as I was to the Speaker many things had not been known that now comes to the light’. Curiously, while Mallory was afforded ample opportunity to revenge himself upon Middlesex during the latter’s impeachment in 1624, he does not seem to have done so. Said to be ‘much dejected’ at their detention, Mallory, and his fellow detainees, Coke and Phelips were all released on 9 Aug. 1622; thereafter Mallory remained confined to within six miles of his home until the end of the year. When the list of deputy-lieutenants for the West Riding was drawn up in 1623 Mallory and Sir William Lister† were bracketed with the query: ‘which of these two His Majesty will allow’. Mallory was presumably rejected, though he later served as a colonel in the militia.24

Re-elected in 1624, Mallory, mindful of Middlesex’s advice at his interrogation, declared that ‘he would not have the names of any Member of this House written by the clerk’, and he was appointed to committees to examine the Journal each week (25 Feb.), and to consider a bill for better security against wrongful arrest (9 March). Nevertheless, he was apparently privy to the agreement brokered by Phelips before the session began to pass over the privilege question with ‘a remiss and moderate eye’. Thus when (Sir) John Eliot and Sir Francis Seymour called for a detailed investigation of the privilege issues arising from the 1621 session, Mallory supported Phelips in referring these matters to a committee (27 Feb.), on which he served and doubtless helped to smother them. He was not himself named to the committee for privileges, which he strove in vain to open to all Members; but he sought to have Sir Francis Popham* seated immediately for Chippenham at the expense of John Pym*; and to defer a decision on the double return for the Pontefract by-election. He also moved unsuccessfully to fine the burgesses of Liverpool for electing the notorious papist, Sir Thomas Gerrard, 2nd bt.25

Although Mallory held his peace on the subject of his own incarceration, he was not inclined to fall in line with the ‘patriots’ who aimed to use the 1624 Parliament to effect a breach with Spain. His anti-war stance emerged on 5 Mar., when Sandys exceeded his instructions by reporting an unofficial proposal by the earl of Southampton for an open-ended resolution by both Houses to assist the king ‘with our persons and fortunes’. Mallory professed himself

sorry that the paper was brought into this House. None but a Jew or a Turk will deny supply, but not to disappoint the hopes of our country, but to endeavour to make a session. … The fittest time will [be] when the king hath declared himself. And wisheth that any man may be thrust out of doors that will but intimate the liberality of this House.

The hawks in the Commons eventually secured a subsidy debate on 19 Mar., at which point Sir John Savile attempted to defer a decision with a motion to consider why the money was needed before voting supply. Various ‘patriots’ attempted to quash this wrecking motion, but Mallory called for a vote on Savile’s plan, asking

whether they do not desire that Parliaments should be often called? If he knew it were not intended, he would grant nothing. … We are as ready to do as ever subjects were, but we are but stewards, and accountable for what we do. … It shall better satisfy the world and our friends abroad that we are ready and willing always to give, than to give a certain sum and no more.

This exasperated Pym, who complained in his diary that

there were no doubt those who wished this order for the better perfecting and establishing of our counsels, and perchance there wanted not [some] who in this variety affected delay or an opportunity of crossing that in some privative or subordinate question which they would not oppose in the main.

On the following day Mallory finally conceded a figure of two subsidies and four fifteenths, a little less than official spokesmen had requested, and added ‘that the advice we have given the king may be inserted in the book of subsidies, and so some cause may appear to the country why their money is given’.26

For all his obstruction of those who wished to rush to war, Mallory was prepared to concede the existence of a threat from both Spain and domestic Catholics. On 8 Mar. he worried about mysterious nocturnal activities in the cellars of Sir Robert Cotton’s* house next to the Commons’ chamber, and on 1 Apr. he endorsed Buckingham’s proposal for a resolution of both Houses to take up loans in anticipation of the subsidies to prepare the navy against a new armada rumoured to be assembling in Spain. Two days later he moved for the recall of English volunteers fighting for the Spanish in Flanders. On 9 Apr. he successfully moved that the king’s decision to break off negotiations with Spain should be entered in the Journal, thereby ensuring that taxation should not be misused for other purposes. However, neither he nor the other doves in the House had yet abandoned hope of delaying supply, and on 10 Apr., when official spokesmen moved for a select committee to draft the bill, Alford and Mallory unsuccessfully moved to debate this on the floor of the House, where they would have had ample opportunity for prevarication. Finally, on 11 May Seymour and Mallory attempted to have the subsidies paid into the Exchequer rather than to the parliamentary treasurers who had been appointed to allay MPs’ fears about misuse of the funds. This mischievous proposal was ruled out of order, as it contravened both the House’s earlier resolution and the king’s offer.27

Alongside his role in the war debates, Mallory was active in the investigation of grievances, moving for the revival of the sub-committee on the courts of justice which Phelips had chaired in 1621. He complained of the abuses of the clerk of the market (8 Mar.), and secured an order for John Bankes to draft a bill to curb them (22 March). He successfully moved for consideration of all monopolies condemned in 1621 but still in being (25 Feb.), renewed his assault on Townshend’s concealed lands patent, revived in 1623 (23 Mar.), and called for the expulsion from the House of any Members who had acted as referees for the office of surveyor of coals at Newcastle, which the king was asked to suppress. Trade issues also came within his purview: on his motion the patentee for the pretermitted customs was summoned to reveal the identity of the referees; and he was named to a committee to consider the offence and punishment of the projector of the gold leaf patent; while he required the East India Company to submit their charter to the committee for grievances. He joined Seymour and Phelips in protesting about the heralds, complaining that ‘upon the death of any of blood [they] do take money of everyone … but they do nothing’. On 11 May he moved to draw up a list of grievances for presentation to the king, and on Coke’s report a week later he added a complaint about Sir Simon Harvey’s patent for purveyance of malt in London. He moved for a committee to consider the patent for York gaol, to which he was first named (19 May). A member of the committee for the statutes’ continuance bill (13 Mar.), he attended the conference of 22 May about wine licences.28

In July 1624, as part of the breach with Spain, James ended the unofficial toleration of Catholics which had prevailed during negotiations for a Spanish Match. The York High Commission immediately brought proceedings against a dozen of the county’s leading Catholics, including Mallory’s mother, who was ordered to confer with a prebend of Ripon Minster fortnightly about her religious scruples. This created problems for her son when he joined Sir Thomas Fairfax I* to contest the county seats at the general election of May 1625, as the Saviles encouraged their chaplain to spread rumours about Mallory’s Catholicism. Though Fairfax remained confident that his partner would ‘most substantially acquit himself of the guilt’, Mallory wrote on 6 May that ‘my neighbours at Ripon have conferred a burgess-ship upon me with much importunity to keep that place’, and seized upon this as a pretext to withdraw from the shire contest, promising Fairfax ‘my best assistance of self and friends’. This paved the way for the successful pairing of Wentworth and Fairfax at the county election.29

Having backed Savile’s opposition to an offensive war in the 1624 Parliament, Mallory’s opposition to him at the county election the following year is difficult to explain. He was doubtless keen to erase the memory of his father’s defeat at the 1614 election, and tensions arising from the contest were presumably exacerbated by the Saviles’ slur against his religious allegiance. On the opening day of the 1625 session Mallory had no sooner been named to the committee for privileges (21 June) than he called to petition the king for an adjournment in respect of the plague ‘and the important affairs, requiring some long time, which this place will not afford to be done with any safety’; he was swiftly seconded by Phelips and Wentworth, but the motion was rejected. In his memoirs, Eliot interpreted ‘that prodigious motion’ as a naked attempt to forestall consideration of the expected petition from the Saviles about the Yorkshire election. Mallory left little trace on the rest of the session: on 25 June he reintroduced the clerk of the market bill, which received a single reading two days later; while on 29 June he complained that the alnage on cloth was ‘very grievous to the subject in Yorkshire’. At Oxford he attended a conference about the failure to enforce the recusancy laws (8 Aug.), and on 10 Aug. he spoke against the Crown’s request for an increase in the grant of two subsidies voted at Westminster on the grounds that it created an undesirable precedent.30

Mallory did not stand for election in 1626, when the Ripon seat went to his brother-in-law, Thomas Best: he may have been advised to stay away because of his reputation as a wrecker; or been offered and declined the chance to play a key role in Buckingham’s impeachment. It was doubtless Savile who secured Mallory’s appointment as a commissioner for the Forced Loan, and he seems to have served, but in the autumn of 1627 he informed Christopher Wandesford* that he would visit Wentworth, the county’s most prominent Loan refuser, then in internal exile at Dartford, Kent. He also declared his support for Wentworth and Henry Belasyse* as the only combination capable of challenging Savile for the county seats at the next election.31

In 1628 Mallory resumed his seat at Ripon, but he was less vociferous and more discreet in the Commons than he had been earlier in the decade, having perhaps forfeited some credibility because of his equivocal stance over the Loan. He kept a low profile in the constitutional debates which formed the key issue during the 1628 session: on 25 Mar., amid calls for attorney-general Heath* to justify the Crown’s brief in the Five Knights’ case, Mallory urged that the judges be summoned to explain their ruling, too; and while it was at his instance that the Commons went into committee to debate whether to accept the king’s unsupported word on the liberty of the subject on 6 May, his only contribution to the resulting debates that produced the Petition of Right was a procedural motion for a report on 26 May. Although he had been consistently averse to generous grants of supply, in 1628 it was clear to all that a repudiation of arbitrary taxation could only be purchased with an offer at least equal to the five subsidies Charles had demanded for the Forced Loan. Thus Mallory was being provocative at the start of the session, when he professed himself ‘amazed’ at the wording of a resolution in the Journal to proceed with both supply and grievances together, which was duly cancelled. Yet on 4 Apr. the Commons bowed to the inevitable and voted five subsidies: Mallory, predictably, was among those who argued for a grant of only four. He played no part in the heated debates on arbitrary government on 5-6 June, which followed the king’s first, unsatisfactory answer to the Petition of Right, but on 13 June he moved to read the excise commission of February 1628, which had initially been questioned on 6 June. He viewed the excise as another form of arbitrary taxation, and linked it to troop movements near London: ‘what might become of our government, God knows’; the commission was cancelled a few days later.32

In terms of local politics, Mallory seems to have stood aloof from both the Savile and Wentworth factions in 1628. At the start of the session he called for Savile to deliver the records of his northern recusancy commission, - widely held to have been very lenient in the assessment of composition fines on Catholics - , to the standing committee for religion, which promptly launched an investigation. However, on 29 May he suggested minimum subsidy ratings for baronets and Scottish and Irish peers, which Wentworth, unlike several other baronets, interpreted as a personal affront; this motion was adopted, but two weeks later the minimum rating for baronets was dropped, probably at Wentworth’s instigation. Mallory was otherwise little involved in local legislation save the clerk of the market bill, to which committee he was again named (18 April).33

During the summer of 1628 Mallory was a contender for the stewardship of the archiepiscopal liberty of Ripon, in which most of his estates lay: his candidacy may have been adversely affected by the activities of his long-exiled recusant brother, Christopher, who was arrested near the Tower in August and subsequently deported on suspicion of spying for Spain. This may also explain why Mallory left little trace upon the second session of Parliament, during which he was named to a single committee, to investigate another complaint against Savile’s recusancy commission (16 Feb. 1629). In October 1629 Mallory and Phelips unsuccessfully petitioned for the release of the Members imprisoned in the Tower for involvement in the tumult at its close.34

Mallory retained his seat at Ripon in both the Short and Long Parliaments, being accompanied in the latter by his eldest surviving son, John. A royalist in the Civil War, he died in March 1646 after a lengthy illness. His debts far exceeded his assets, and in his will he asked his son, upon whom he had already settled most of his estate, to pay off his outstanding debts. He was buried, as his will stipulated, ‘in Ripon Minster near unto my ancestors’.35

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Author: Simon Healy

Notes

• 1. STAC 8/227/1, f. 87; Al. Cant.
• 2. Vis. Yorks. ed. Foster, 156-7.
• 3. C142/708/102.
• 4. Memorials Fountains Abbey ed. J.R. Walbran (Surtees Soc. lxvii), 331.
• 5. C231/4, ff. 120, 202; C181/3, f. 25, 181/5, f. 217.
• 6. C212/22/21, 23; Fairfax Corresp. ed. G.W. Johnson, i. 210.
• 7. Yorks. Schools (Yorks. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. xxvii), 228-9; Ripon G.S. ed. C.C. Swinton-Bland, 16.
• 8. SP16/44/4.
• 9. Harl. 4630, f. 202; HMC Cowper, ii. 208; Add. 28082, f. 80.
• 10. SR, v. 83, 107, 150; Northants. RO, FH133.
• 11. Borthwick, Reg. Test. 25, f. 1567; E401/2421; C66/2209/4.
• 12. W. Yorks. AS (Bradford), 32D86/38/2, f. 14; Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 73; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 38, 103-5, 280, 471.
• 13. Surr. Hist. Cent. LM 1331/26; CJ, i. 556b, 605b, 625a; Wentworth Pprs. 133-4; CD 1621, iii. 288.
• 14. C. Russell, PEP, 109, 428; Holles 1624, p. 63; W. Yorks. RO (Leeds), Vyner 5902; SIR GUY PALMES.
• 15. CD 1621, ii. 16; iv. 137; v. 282-3, 301; CJ, i. 518a, 578a; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, pp. 65-6; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 218-19, 260-1.
• 16. CJ, i. 564a, 586-8.
• 17. Ibid. 569, 586a, 589a, 592b, 617-18; Zaller, 116-19.
• 18. CJ, i. 594a, 598a, 603; CD 1621, iii. 97; vi. 396; Zaller, 118-19, 124-5; Nicholas, ii. 2-3.
• 19. CJ, i. 601-2, 604b; Zaller, 104-8.
• 20. Nicholas, ii. 121; CJ, i. 637b; C. Russell, ‘Examination of Mr. Mallory’, BIHR, l. 129.
• 21. CJ, i. 553b, 620; CD 1621, iii. 323.
• 22. C. Thompson, ‘Commons and confinement of Sandys’, HJ, xl. 779-86; CD 1621, ii. 484; iii. 410, 436-7, 444; CJ, i. 649b, 650a, 654b; Russell, ‘Mallory’, 129.
• 23. Letters of Jas. I ed. J. Akrigg, 378; Russell, PEP, 39, 133-41; CD 1621, ii. 517, 521-2; vi. 339; Nicholas, ii. 330; CJ, i. 660b, 663a, 664a, 666a, 667a.
• 24. APC, 1621-3. pp. 119, 396; SP14/127/50, 151/69; Russell, ‘Mallory’, 129; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 448-9.
• 25. Russell, PEP, 150-1; Ferrar 1624, p. 42; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 20v; CJ, i. 671b, 673a, 680a, 720a, 751a; ‘Spring 1624’, pp. 8, 22; ‘Holland 1624’ i. f. 5; Holles 1624, pp. 18, 54.
• 26. Rich 1624, p. 43; ‘Spring 1624’, pp. 130, 144; ‘Pym 1624’, f. 32v; Russell, PEP, 179-82, 187-9; T. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 183-6, 203-18; T. Cogswell, ‘Phaeton’s Chariot’ and C. Russell ‘Wentworth and anti-Spanish sentiment, 1621-4’, Pol. World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford ed. J.F. Merritt, 24-62.
• 27. ‘Nicholas 1624’, ff. 56v, 92v, 202; ‘Holland 1624’ i. f. 67; ‘Spring 1624’, 86; Holles 1624, pp. 56, 61, 72, 74; CJ, i. 736a, 741b, 760b; R. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, pp. 237-9.
• 28. CJ, i. 702b, 736a, 739a, 788b; ‘Spring 1624’, 23, 39; Holles 1624, pp. 24-25, 36, 78-79, 91; ‘Holland 1624’, ii. ff. 56, 62v.
• 29. Borthwick, HCAB 16, ff. 322-3; Fairfax Corresp. i. 6-7; Bodl., Fairfax 34, f. 47.
• 30. Procs. 1625, pp. 211, 246, 268, 445, 500; Russell, PEP, 220.
• 31. SP16/44/4; 16/65/12.II; APC, 1626-7, pp. 243-5; Wentworth Pprs. 278-9.
• 32. CD 1628, ii. 43, 48, 113-14; iii. 273, 614, 616; iv. 294, 297, 300-3, 373; vi. 63.
• 33. Ibid. ii. 41, 43, 48, 85, 540; iv. 17-18, 222, 228-9.
• 34. Wentworth Pprs. 301; CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 255, 309, 343; 1629-31, p. 83; CJ, i. 930b.
• 35. M.F. Keeler, Long Parl. 265-6; Royalist Comp. Pprs. ed. J.W. Clay (Yorks. Arch. Soc. rec. ser. xviii) 136; Memorials Fountains Abbey, 331; Borthwick, Reg. Test. 48, f. 161.