SACKVILLE, Sir Edward (1590-1652), of South Berwick, Suss. and Dorset Court, Fleet Street, London.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1604-1629, ed. Andrew Thrush and John P. Ferris, 2010
Available from Cambridge University Press




Family and Education

bap. 5 Mar. 1590,1 3rd but 2nd surv. s. of Robert Sackville*, 2nd earl of Dorset (d. 1609) and Margaret, da. of Thomas Howard, 4th duke of Norfolk.2 educ. Christ Church, Oxf. 1605; travelled abroad 1609-11; MA Camb. 1612.3 m. 1 May 1606,4 Mary (d. 16 May 1645), da. and h. of Sir George Curzon of Croxall, Derbys., 3s. (2 d.v.p.) 1da. d.v.p. KB 3 Nov. 1616; suc. bro. as 4th earl of Dorset 28 Mar. 1624; KG 15 May 1625.5 d. 17 July 1652.6 sig. E[dward ]Sackeville.

Offices Held

Vol. Wesel, Germany 1620.7

Commr. sewers, Suss. 1610-at least 1641, Kent and Suss. 1625-at least 1640, Mdx., Bucks. and Herts. 1625, 1638-9, Kent 1628, 1636-40, London 1629-at least 1632, Fens 1629-42, Surr. and Kent 1632, 1639, Westminster 1634, 1637-8;8 j.p. Suss. 1611-at least 1642, Surr. 1612-16, 1624-at least 1642, Derbys. by 1614-at least 1615, 1628-at least 1641 (custos rot. 1628-at least 1636), Mdx. 1617-at least 1641, Westminster 1620-at least 1641, Kent 1624-at least 1642,9 Oxon. 1644;10 commr. oyer and terminer, London 1617-41, Mdx. 1617-41, Suss. 1627, Home circ. 1629-42, the verge 1630-9, Surr. 1640,11 Kent and Derbys. 1643,12 gaol delivery, London 1617-41, Surr. 1640,13 lieutenancy, Mdx. 1620-2,14 subsidy, Mdx. and Suss. 1621, London, Mdx., Surr. and Suss. 1624,15 steward, honour of Eagle, Suss. 1624,16 honour of Grafton, Northants. 1629;17 commr. nuisance, Mdx. 1624;18 ld. lt. (jt.) Suss. 1624-42, Mdx. 1628-42;19 dep. lt. Mdx. by 1625;20 commr. new buildings, London 1625-34, London and Westminster 1636,21 Forced Loan, Mdx. 1626-7, Suss. 1626-7, London, Surr. Westminster, Chichester, Suss. 1627,22 martial law, Suss. 1627;23 high steward, Great Yarmouth, Norf. 1629-at least 1640,24 Barnstaple, Devon 1637-43;25 commr. piracy, London 1630-35, Devon 1630, 1637, Cumb. 1631, Hants and I.o.W., 1635-6, Suss. 1637 Cornw. 1637,26 knighthood fines, Mdx. 1630,27 repair of St. Paul’s Cathedral 1631;28 constable, Beaumaris Castle, Anglesey 1631-44;29 commr. survey, St. James’s bailiwick, London 1640;30 steward (jt.), Eltham park, Kent by 1642;31 commr. array, Kent and Mdx. 1642,32 defence, Oxon. 1643, Berks. and Bucks. 1645, rebels’ estates, Oxon., Berks. and Bucks. 1644, visitation of Christ Church hospital, Oxford 1644, oaths 1645.33

Member, Virg. Co. by 1612, cttee. 1620,34 member, NW Passage Co. 1612,35 member, Somers Is. Co. by 1618, cttee. 1623;36 gov. Mines Royal 1624-50.37

Commr. recovery of the Palatinate 1621,38 trade 1622, 1625;39 PC 22 July 1626-at least 1644;40 member, High Commission, Canterbury prov. 1626-at least 1633;41 commr. sale of Crown lands 1626,42 prizes 1626-37,43 exacted fees 1627-at least 1637,44 bullion exchange 1627, assistance to allies 1628;45 chamberlain to Queen Henrietta Maria 1628-44;46 commr. Admlty. 1628-38, 1643-at least 1645,47 knighthood fines 1630, poor relief 1631,48 plantation of Virg. 1631,49 saltpetre 1631-7,50 execution of poor laws 1632,51 transportation of felons 1633,52 ordnance inquiry 1633-5,53 soap monopoly 1634,54 defective titles 1635,55 American appeals 1636;56 member, Council of War 1637;57 commr. compositions, cottages without four acres 1638, usury 1638,58 revenue inquiry 1642,59 treasury 1643;60 ld. chamberlain 1644-6.61


Sackville was described by Clarendon (Edward Hyde†) as ‘beautiful, graceful, and vigorous’ with a ‘wit pleasant, sparkling, and sublime’,62 and by Wood as ‘a person of acute parts, who had a great command of his pen, and was of able elocution’.63 His descendant, Vita Sackville-West, thought him ‘the embodiment of cavalier romance’ and, aged 13, wrote an ‘enormous novel’ about him and his son.64 Despite these glowing reviews, Sackville could be an intemperate speaker, making sweeping allegations against those who had aroused his animosity, such as the elder brothers of Trinity House, and impugning the motives of those whose opinions differed from his own.

I. Early Life

On the death of his father in February 1609, Sackville, then aged almost 19, inherited ‘a good support for a younger brother’, at least according to Clarendon.65 By then he had also married the heiress to an estate in Derbyshire and Staffordshire, estimated by one of the 7th earl of Shrewsbury’s (Gilbert Talbot†) correspondents to be worth £700 a year.66 Three months after his father’s death, Sackville was granted a licence to travel, presumably to complete his education. He had returned to England by November 1611. On 24 Aug. 1613 he fought a duel at Bergen-op-Zoom with his former friend, the Scottish courtier, Edward, 2nd Lord Bruce of Kinloss, possibly over Sackville’s seduction of Bruce’s sister. Although Bruce died of his injuries two days later, it was initially reported that Sackville, who enjoyed the support of his uncle the lord chamberlain, Thomas Howard, 1st earl of Suffolk, ‘feeleth no violence of His Majesty’s displeasure’ on his return to England. However, in November he was replaced as a performer in a Court masque. Suffolk subsequently managed to get Sackville admitted to the tilt held to celebrate the marriage of the earl’s daughter Frances to favourite Robert Carr, but shortly thereafter, in January 1614, Sackville, evidently believing it would be prudent to retire to the Continent, secured another pass to travel, this time for five years.67

In Lyons Sackville secured the release of Sir Edward Herbert* from prison for recruiting soldiers for the duke of Savoy.68 By August 1615 he had heard that James I wished him to return ‘in order to demonstrate, by some token or other’ that he was no longer in disfavour.69 However, after returning to England he joined his kinsman Sir John Holles* in trying to exonerate Robert Carr, by now earl of Somerset, from complicity in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury. On the scaffold at Tyburn they cross-questioned Richard Weston, who had been convicted of the murder, but in so doing they incurred the wrath of the judges, who considered such behaviour tantamount to undermining the judicial process. As a result Sackville was briefly imprisoned. Unlike Holles, however, he was not prosecuted in Star Chamber.70

Despite this stain on his reputation, Sackville was admitted to the Order of the Bath at the investiture of the prince of Wales in November 1616. According to Chamberlain, at the subsequent City banquet, the newly dubbed knights put the citizens’ wives ‘to the squeak, so far forth that one of the sheriffs broke open a door upon Sir Edward Sackville’.71 In the summer of 1617 Sackville rode with Holles* and Sir Robert Rich* in a fruitless attempt to frustrate the match made by Sir Edward Coke* between his unfortunate daughter Frances and the lunatic John Villiers, 1st Viscount Purbeck, brother to the rising favourite, the earl of Buckingham. Sackville, having procured a pass to travel to Spa ‘for the recovery of his health’ in June, found it again convenient to retire to the Continent, although he had returned by the following October.72

In March 1619 Sackville had a severe attack of the ‘ague’, and it was ‘generally reported that he was dead’.73 By June 1620 he had become a prominent adherent of Princess Elizabeth and her husband the Elector Palatine.74 In that month he was commissioned to command a company to serve in the Palatinate, but promptly resigned after a quarrel with Sir John Wentworth of Gosford, Essex over precedence.75 Nevertheless, in August he was commissioned by the king to carry a message to Sir Edward Cecil*, who was then in military service in the Netherlands. He subsequently accompanied Cecil as a volunteer to Wesel in the Rhineland but did not see action.76

II. The First Sitting of the 1621 Parliament

In December 1620 Sackville was returned to Parliament for Sussex, in which county his elder brother, Richard, 3rd earl of Dorset, was lord lieutenant. Once in the Commons Sackville quickly established a reputation as an orator. Indeed, as early as 17 Feb. Chamberlain reported that he had ‘spoken once or twice very well’, while John Pym* came to regard him as an earnest and elegant speaker.77 His eloquence earned him a reputation that extended far beyond the walls of St. Stephen’s, for in November one Herefordshire gentleman described him as a ‘powerful man to speak in the Lower House’.78 In total Sackville made some 100 recorded speeches, and was appointed to 33 committees. By December 1621 his fellow Member, John Hawarde, could write that Sackville ‘had deserved well of the House and done very noble and worthy service’.79 Yet, despite his undoubted abilities, Sackville’s interest in Parliament seems to have been limited, for on 19 Mar. the Venetian ambassador reported that he was willing to abandon the Commons to take command of a force of English soldiers which were to be levied for the republic. In the event nothing came of this plan, although as late as 2 Apr. Sackville was apparently still eager to serve, for ‘honour’ rather than pay. Sackville’s preparedness to serve abroad suggests that he believed that he had little prospect of advancement at home, despite the fact that he was now popular at Court and was the favoured jousting partner of Prince Charles.80 Although he was next in line to inherit the earldom of Dorset, his elder brother’s three sons having all died in infancy, the likelihood that he would soon become earl himself must have seemed remote, as the 3rd earl and his wife were still only in their early thirties.81

Sackville was appointed to the privileges committee on 5 February.82 The following day he urged his colleagues to stand by their appointment of James Ussher as preacher at the forthcoming Members’ communion after the House learned that the prebendaries of Westminster Abbey had resolved to refuse to allow the Commons to use their church unless one of their number was chosen as preacher.83 On 8 Feb. he found himself embarrassed, as it was reported that one of his servants had assaulted suitors before the court of King’s Bench and drawn his sword. Moreover, the servant in question refused to admit his fault before the Speaker, and was only discharged when Sackville offered to give undertakings for his further attendance.84 On 2 Mar. Sackville argued that Members should not express their ‘duty’ to the Lords in a message to the Upper House because the peers were ‘but servants to the Commonwealth as are we’.85

Sackville does not seem to have been unduly concerned to follow correct procedure. On 10 Feb. he tried to excuse Sir John Leedes, a Sussex knight who had sat in the Commons without taking the obligatory oaths, arguing that ‘he did it through ignorance’. He unsuccessfully moved for Leedes to be sworn and admitted.86 Nine days later he sought to gain an exemption from the rules of the House himself after he missed the Members’ communion due to illness. Through Sir Robert Phelips he asked for permission to attend the House, but the motion was rejected ‘for example’s sake’, although, as one diarist noted, the Commons was nevertheless ‘well assured of his soundness in religion’.87 On 15 Mar. Sackville defended the courtier Sir Thomas Jermyn*, who had granted protection to a bankrupt tradesman, arguing that Jermyn had acted out of ignorance.88

On 24 Jan., shortly before the session began, the Privy Council had added Sackville to a recently established commission to consider the recovery of the Palatinate. The commission reported to the Council on 13 Feb., and two days later Sackville presented its findings to the Commons’ grand committee for supply and grievances. His report was subsequently widely circulated as a separate. In it Sackville stated that an army of 30,000 would be required, costing £300,000 for arms and equipment alone. Referring to the king’s attempts to achieve his objectives by purely diplomatic means, he expressed the hope that ‘heaven’ would ‘be pleased to crown his actions with success’, but added that ‘I must be excused if I doubt it’. Even if there was to be no war abroad, money would still be needed to improve defences at home, as the ‘great ... want of munitions’ was more important than the ‘want of money’ of which so many complained. After declaring that in dealing with monarchs ‘the way to conquer is to submit’, he therefore argued that a generous grant was needed, which would also serve to persuade James to deal with domestic grievances and make him ‘not only love, but fall in love with parliaments ... [and] recall them home from exile’. He concluded by intemperately attacking those who wanted grievances to be dealt with before supply. Although he conceded that some of these individuals might be acting from good intentions, he warned against ‘agent[s] of base and beggarly promoters, needy and greedy projectors’ who, for ‘false and foreign ends, would endeavour to put a partition wall between the king and his people’ and ‘do an acceptable service to the papists’. From this it would seem that he believed that there were some in the Commons whose advocacy of an immediate assault on monopolies was intended to cause the king to despair of supply and bring about a rapid dissolution.89

At the beginning of his report on 15 Feb. Sackville referred to the ‘heavy burden’ which ‘my country ... now groans under, by reason of the innumerable number of monopolies’, and he promised he would not ‘sit silent, if I find myself able to say anything’ on the subject when the time was right.90 In fact, he had already spoken on the question during the debate on the shortage of money on 5 Feb., when he had not only seconded Edward Alford’s motion for the establishment of a select committee to examine patents but argued that the committee should also consider the referees who had certified that the patents were fit to be granted. In so doing Sackville was seeking to ensure that the king was ‘freed from scandal’ by throwing the blame for the grants on the referees, ‘who misled His Majesty and are worthy to bear the shame of their own work’. However, the referees had been the law officers and consequently Sackville’s motion threatened some of the most important Crown ministers.91 Sackville returned to this theme on 5 Mar., when he opposed Sir John Walter, who had moved for a bill to regulate the granting of patents and for an end to further investigation into the referees. Sackville argued that ‘no referee should be spared, how great or in what place soever’, and he urged the House to ‘question all; and clear, or condemn them’.92

Sackville was clearly exasperated by the petition of Sir Francis Michell, the alehouses’ patentee, which seemed to describe Members of the Commons as ignorant. According to Michell’s subsequent account, Sackville, on leaving the chamber on 23 Feb., found Michell outside and exclaimed ‘what have you done man, are you mad?’ Michell tried to explain that he had only intended to describe alehouse-keepers as ignorant, to which Sackville replied that Sir Dudley Digges ‘hath paid you an hour together, I never heard any man so paid’.93

As the brother of a peer it is not surprising that Sackville was keen to co-operate with the Upper House over the punishment of the patentees. On 27 Feb., after Sir Edward Coke reported (Sir) Giles Mompesson’s* patent for licensing inns, he urged the Commons not to exceed its powers by acting alone, but instead to join with the Lords in punishing Mompesson and he was appointed to the committee to search for precedents.94 On 16 Mar. the question of the Lords’ power to examine Members of the Commons on oath threatened to derail the prosecution of Mompesson. Sackville promptly announced himself ‘converted’ and he argued it was ‘honourable for the House to send them [their Members] up to be sworn; else doubteth, the Lords cannot proceed to judgment’.95 He was unsatisfied when the king suppressed the alehouse patent by Proclamation, arguing on 21 Apr. that this edict could be easily rescinded and perfectly legal grants could be voided the same way. However, he conceded that the Proclamation had only been issued as a temporary measure until Parliament had had time to act, and he called for a bill to annul those grants that had been condemned. He was subsequently appointed to a committee to consider how Parliament could cancel the alehouse patent.96

Sackville was not unsympathetic to some of those who had been involved in the holding of patents. At the committee for grievances on 22 Feb. he moved that the brother of Buckingham (now a marquess), Sir Christopher Villiers, and another gentleman of the bedchamber, should be granted legal representation when they were examined concerning the alehouses’ patent, to which they were parties. However, he may have been merely hoping that such a concession would mollify the treasurer of the Household, Sir Thomas Edmondes, who had moved to exempt the courtiers outright.97 Another patentee for whom Sackville expressed support was Giles Bridges*, who seems to have been one of his friends.98 Bridges had been returned for Tewkesbury but was suspended from the House on 21 Feb. because he had been party to two of Mompesson’s patents. On 21 Mar. Sackville unsuccessfully moved for Bridges to be restored.99 On 2 May William Mallory moved for all patentees to be expelled from the Commons, whereupon Sackville argued that there was a ‘great difference between a projector and a sharer’, that many had become involved in grants who had not known they were illegal and that there were ‘none here but would accept of any benefit if the king should confer it’. He then asked ‘why should a man be punished before he [be] found delinquent?’.100 Later in the same debate he argued that ‘if [there was] cause’ Sir Edward Villiers*, against whom Mallory’s motion was chiefly directed, should be heard and condemned by the Commons.101

On 21 Apr. Sackville attacked Sir Robert Lloyd’s* patent for engrossing wills, arguing that as a consequence ‘the liberty of the subject is taken away’. Believing that it was self-evidently illegal in execution, he moved that the only question to be put was whether it was also illegal in origin.102 Nevertheless, he thought some monopolies could be economically beneficial. On 16 May he defended Sir Robert Mansell’s* patent for making glass, arguing that if it were suppressed the English industry, of which Sussex was a major centre, would be ruined by a flood of imports from Scotland, where he presumably thought manufacturing costs would be lower.103 Sackville entertained no such illusions, however, about the benefits to shipping conferred by the Trinity House of Deptford’s claim to sole control over the country’s lighthouses. At the second reading of the bill to strengthen Trinity House’s rights on 27 Feb. he attacked Trinity House as a monopoly, arguing that there was no reason for its sole control of lighthouses, and proposing instead commissions of the gentry in every county.104 When the subject was debated again on 21 Mar. he ‘inveighed’ against Trinity House, stating it was ‘not fit to be trusted’, having approved a licence to allow the Spanish ambassador to export gun carriages.105 Sackville’s aim in attacking Trinity House was probably to defend the patentees for the Dungeness and Winterton Ness lighthouses. The former lay close to Sussex and members of his mother’s family, the Howards, were heavily involved in its affairs.106 On 26 Mar. he defended the patentees, arguing that although Trinity House had offered to maintain the two lighthouses for ‘nothing, but the courtesy of such, as pass’ this would in time become ‘the greatest exaction on the subject’, outstripping the fees taken by the existing patentees. Once again he sought to discredit Trinity House by attacking it on issues far removed from the question of the management of lighthouses, stating that he would ‘lay three or four things, of breach of trust’ against it.107 His true objective was probably revealed at the second reading of a further bill concerning lighthouses on 7 May, when he moved for the addition of a clause ‘to provide recompense for the patentees’. He was subsequently named to the committee.108

At the second reading of the monopolies bill on 26 Mar., Sackville also defended the patent for providing guns for the merchant navy held by his kinsman Sackville Crowe*, a servant of Buckingham. He defended Crowe again on 8 May, when a petition from the ordnance officers against the grant was debated. On both occasions he attacked Crowe’s rival, the Kentish gun founder John Browne, whom he accused of exporting large quantities of artillery and teaching Dutch craftsmen the secrets of his trade.109 Despite these efforts on behalf of one of Buckingham’s servants, Sackville seems to have antagonized Buckingham’s clientage and possibly the marquess himself. On 15 Mar. Sir George Goring* wrote to Buckingham stating that he had asked Sackville ‘whether or no he had never been busy in any underhand proceedings with the Lords to your prejudice in that time of difference between you’. Goring was possibly referring to the petition of a group of Lords of February 1621 against the precedence claimed by Englishmen who had been granted Irish peerages. Sackville’s brother, the earl of Dorset, had played an important role in organizing the petition, including hosting meetings at Dorset House. The petition was directed against Buckingham, who was largely responsible for the creations. Alarmed at the prospect of incurring the hostility of the powerful favourite, Sackville not only hastened to assure Goring of his eagerness for Buckingham’s favour, but claimed that he was himself suspected by the petitioners of having revealed ‘the persons and manner of their meetings at Dorset House’ to the marquess. There is no direct evidence that Sackville acted as Buckingham’s informant, but a rumour to that effect had reached the French ambassador by July.110

Sackville’s major preoccupation during the first sitting was with the investigations into the courts of justice, which is surprising given that he had no legal training. This started modestly enough on 8 Feb., when the issue was first raised and he moved that the House should investigate only complaints brought to its notice.111 As a result of the debate a committee of the whole House was appointed to meet every Wednesday afternoon.112 Sackville was named as its chairman, and reported back to the Commons nine days later, when he hinted that he had been reluctant to take the position. His apology for any inadequacies in his report, which he divided into four parts, was possibly more than the customary formality. The fourth part concerned remedies, and here he had little to offer except proposals to draft bills to rectify some of the complaints. He concluded, somewhat obscurely, in the medical terminology that frequently featured in his speeches, that he had ‘delivered [the report] as a Paracelsian and not as a Galenist’.113

Reluctant though Sackville may have been to take on the responsibility of the chair, the committee for courts of justice soon consumed a large amount of his time, especially as it became a target for a considerable number of petitioners. At a meeting of the committee on 21 Feb. Sackville successfully moved for a sub-committee to assist him in sorting through the complaints, in order to decide what was fit to be presented to the Commons.114 On 28 Feb. Sackville reported from the sub-committee detailing various petitions and making recommendations, either for their acceptance or rejection, and on 2 Mar. he reported from the committee to the Commons. As well as specific cases, he included general complaints against the Chancery registrars and proposals for reform that had been made in committee.115 Four days later he suggested sending a message to the lord chancellor (Sir Francis Bacon*) about the Chancery registrars, but the House was more interested in pursuing Mompesson and the issue was put off.116

A few days later Sackville was struck down by a further bout of illness. On 12 Mar. Phelips was ordered to assume the chairmanship of the committee and to receive ‘divers petitions’, including ‘many frivolous, and clamorous; many of weight and consequence’, which Sackville had accumulated.117 Sackville seems to have been happy to have relinquished the chair, for when he returned to the Commons three days later and Phelips tried to hand it back to him, the former successfully excused himself, stating he ‘hath an ague; is not well; not fit for it’.118

One reason Sackville may have been particularly reluctant to resume the chairmanship of the committee for courts of justice was because it was investigating allegations of corruption against Bacon, a long-standing connection of the Sackville family. Nevertheless, his family’s association with Bacon had not prevented him from attacking the referees, of whom the lord chancellor was one.119 When the accusations were brought before the Commons on 17 Mar. Sackville, possibly fearing that his colleagues believed he was prejudiced in Bacon’s favour, stated that he ‘would bite off his tongue, and throw it to the dogs, before [he] would speak for the lord chancellor, if he were once found guilty’. However, he did his best to cast doubt on the testimony of the witnesses who, he said, had only accused Bacon to clear themselves, and had tempted the lord chancellor to accept bribes. Nevertheless, he saw that it was fruitless to try to persuade the House to dismiss the charges and confined himself to urging that they be presented to the Lords without ‘any prejudice opinion’.120

Sackville does not seem to have thought that the king’s proposal to appoint a commission to investigate the charges would do Bacon much good. He did, however, call for the Commons to work with the Lords on questions concerning parliamentary judicature. On 19 Mar. he joined with Sir Edward Coke in successfully moving that the king be requested to forward his proposal to the Upper House before the Commons formulated its reply.121 Sackville subsequently became a close friend of Bacon who included a bequest of a ring to the former when he drafted his will the following April.122

Sackville had not been entirely successful in freeing himself from the business of the law courts. During the Easter adjournment he again chaired the sub-committee for petitions, although now it was technically a sub-committee of the recess committee rather than that for the courts of justice. He made his report when the Commons resumed on 17 Apr., stating that ‘many things [had been] laid to the charge of a great judge, which not yet fully proved’.123 The judge in question was almost certainly Sir John Bennet*, who presided over the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. Sackville continued at the committee for grievances in the afternoon, when he stated that Bennet was due to be heard before the sub-committee the following day. With the House back in session this was changed to the reconstituted committee for courts of justice and, according to one diarist, there was ‘much strife between Sackville, Sandys, and Phelips to avoid the chair’.124

Sackville seems to have drawn the short straw and he chaired a meeting of the committee the following day. He also continued as chairman of the sub-committee for petitions, chairing a meeting on the morning of the 19th, but later that day his position was challenged in the House by Sir Francis Seymour. The previous order appointing Phelips to chair both the committee and the sub-committee was read and approved. However, it was agreed that Sackville should retain the chair of the committee for courts for the proceedings against Bennet, presumably because he was more familiar with the case.125

On 20 Apr. Sackville reported the numerous charges against Bennet, stating that although the committee had proceeded cautiously ‘his cause was put into the balance and corruption was the heavier’.126 Sackville spoke twice in the ensuing debate, stating that Bennet had twice been given the chance to put his case before the committee but had failed to attend on both occasions. Nevertheless, he agreed that Bennet should be allowed to put his case before the Commons, and if he failed to give a satisfactory answer then he should be expelled from the House and the charges transmitted to the Lords. He was appointed to a committee to draft the charges.127

Thomas Malet, deputizing for the absent chairman of the committee, who was probably Sackville, reported the charge on 23 April. Sackville had arrived in the House by the time of the following debate, as he proposed that steps should be taken to prevent Bennet from disposing of his estate, whereupon Sir Edward Montagu retorted that the Commons had no power over Bennet’s property. He subsequently spoke again to support a motion to send Bennet to the Tower. He brushed aside concerns about Bennet’s health, stating it was ‘better he perish than the House lose their power’ and, presumably replying to Montagu, said that ‘if there be no precedent, let us make one’. Despite protesting that ‘he would not eat of his bread that esteemed him his enemy’, he was subsequently sent with a committee to secure Bennet until the sheriffs of London arrived to arrest him formally. On Sir Edward Coke’s motion Sackville was also named to present the charges to the Lords.128 At the conference with the Lords the following day Sackville condemned Bennet, whom he described as having abused his position in all of the five courts over which he had presided. He called on the peers to ‘banish pity’ and perform an ‘abscission of a putrefied member of the Commonwealth’.129 Reporting back to the Commons on 25 Apr. he stated that the complaints against Bennet ‘now come in heaps’. Finally, he asked to relinquish the chair to Phelips, whom he lavishly praised, pleading that he had a ‘great business in the Common Pleas’, although what this may have been is not known.130

In the case of Edward Floyd, the Catholic prisoner in the Fleet accused of slandering Princess Elizabeth and the Elector of the Palatine, Sackville’s respect for the king’s daughter appears to have trumped his respect for the jurisdiction of the Lords.131 Indeed, on 4 May he declared that ‘while Floyd [was] not punished, we all suffer’. He also argued that while the Commons should confer with the Lords about the sentence passed on Floyd, this was not necessary ‘to conform it and make it good’, as it was ‘no loss of privilege, for the Lords to concur with us’.132 Later the same day he argued that ‘I doubt not but by a diligent search precedents may be found to warrant what we have done’. He also stated that poor record-keeping was the reason why precedents had not yet been found and, mistakenly thinking that the Journal of the Commons only survived for the previous 40 years, he called for the Journal to be enrolled on parchment.133

A week later, on Phelips’ motion, Sackville, rather than Sir Dudley Digges, who had left town, was added to the committee for conferring with the Lords that afternoon about the case.134 The following day Sackville moved for a message to be sent to the Lords to find out if the Upper House had confirmed the settlement agreed at the conference. He also contradicted Sir Thomas Roe’s* assertion that the Lords could only judge a commoner on the complaint of the Lower House.135 Having reaffirmed his belief in the jurisdiction of the Lords, four days later he warned the Commons against examining the warden of the Fleet about Floyd, as the case was now entirely within the province of the Upper House.136

Sackville took a keen interest in the dispute between Sir Charles Morrison and Clement Coke. The two Members had fallen out over a piece of doggerel, recited by Morrison 30 Apr., which Coke believed disparaged his father, the jurist Sir Edward. On leaving the chamber, Coke had struck Morrison, prompting the latter to draw his sword. It was probably the issues of honour and reputation thrown up in the affair that appealed to Sackville. On 7 May he argued that the case should be heard and judged by the entire House. The following day he spoke three times on the subject. He called for Morrison as well as Coke to be called to the bar, as Morrison had been guilty of drawing his sword.137 In the subsequent debate in committee Sackville moved for Morrison to be first asked ‘whether he was struck’ and then Coke to be asked the reason for his outburst.138 The following day Sackville argued that Coke had given ‘offence to the House’, for ‘here [there are] no swordmen; but men of peace’; if Coke had been offended he should have lodged a formal complaint. He then asserted that the House had to ‘repair the honour of the injured and right, else we leave a tang and occasion of future difference’.139 Later in the same debate he concurred that Coke should be sent to the Tower.140

Given his own history of violence it is interesting that Sackville was careful to distinguish between ‘valour’ and ‘fury’, arguing that ‘to strike is the property of a beast; when to strike of a man, reasonable’. Clearly it was Coke’s lack of forethought, rather than his use of force itself, which offended Sackville, although he expressed the hope that ‘years and discretion will moderate’ Coke’s temper. Turning to the question of Morrison’s satisfaction, Sackville argued that the Commons should draw up a form of words for an apology to be made by Coke. He was concerned that Morrison might regard a ‘compulsive satisfaction’ as dishonourable, but cited the practice of the Marshal’s Court and asserted that it ‘can be no dishonour to any man to receive that [which] comes from the wisdom of a whole House’.141 When a petition from Coke was read on 11 May, Sackville had a committee appointed to draw up the apology, which in fact he drafted himself.142 He reported the result of its deliberations three days later, when he declared that ‘I thought I could not make a more equal measure for another’s honour than what I would make a measure for mine own’. Coke was ordered to make his apology, according to Sackville’s form, the following day.143

Sackville devoted a considerable amount of time to economic issues. In June 1620 he had been elected to the committee of the Virginia Company on the nomination of the Company’s treasurer, Sir Edwin Sandys*.144 In the Commons Sackville advocated the Company’s interests. In the debate on the scarcity of money initiated by Sandys on 26 Feb. Sackville moved for the former to ‘now speak his knowledge’, providing the cue for Sandys to attack the import of tobacco from Spain. This was of vital interest to the Virginia Company because tobacco was one of the few viable products of the plantation.145 Sackville spoke twice in the debate on the tobacco trade on 18 April. His first intervention was an attempt to counter the argument that banning Spanish tobacco would constitute a breach of the 1604 peace treaty. He argued that ‘we make treaties for our own good, not for theirs with whom we treat’, and therefore if the ban did contravene the treaty it was the treaty that needed to be changed. The Commons should ‘study a way to enrich our own state’ and not worry about diplomatic niceties. In his second speech he approved calls to ban all tobacco but joined Sir Dudley Digges in proposing a temporary exemption for Virginia ‘else all the people there undone’.146

Sackville spoke three times in favour of the bill prohibiting the import of corn. At the second reading on 8 Mar. he argued that if corn was cheap, no rent could be paid and, in any case, England produced enough for its needs. He was appointed to the committee. When the bill was reported on 17 May, following a recommittal, he argued it was ‘a just an[d a] honest bill as ever came into the House’. He saw the bill as a means to protect the economic underpinning of England’s social hierarchy, arguing that it was better to provide relief for the poor than cheap food and that ‘the landlords are not to be neglected, especially in a monarchy, that so every man may maintain his condition’. Presumably fearful of depopulation, he was also anxious that the conversion of arable land to pasture ‘will go ill with the state’. He concluded that it was ‘very equal’ to ban imports when exports were also forbidden. Sackville spoke again when the bill, which was once more recommitted, was reported nine days later. Stating that the measure was ‘of the greatest consequence that may be’, he argued that disagreements over the bill only emphasized its importance. In so doing he may have been trying to persuade the House to come to a decision, despite the divisiveness of the issue, rather than continue the long drawn out quest for consensus.147

Sackville also defended the agricultural interest when he supported the bill to prohibit the import of Irish cattle on 9 May. He argued that while it might ‘advantage particulars’ it might also benefit the country as a whole. Emphasizing once again the importance of maintaining prices for preserving social hierarchy, he declared that he did not want ‘to have our cattle here at so low a price as the gentleman and farmer here may [not] live’. He was also concerned about the export of coin to pay for imports, stating ‘it is not cheapness that enriches a kingdom but money’.148 On 17 Mar. Sackville successfully opposed the bill to make sheep commonable in Waltham Forest, Essex at its first reading.149 Nevertheless, he wanted to preserve commons in his native county, calling for Sussex to be exempted when the bill for improving commons was debated on 7 May.150

Sackville opposed the bill for reducing the rate of interest at its second reading on 7 May, fearing it would lead to a flight of capital, which would harm those who needed to borrow. He called for ‘some way to raise [the value of] land for those that cannot borrow and have their moneys called in from them’. Despite his opposition he was subsequently appointed to the committee.151 Sackville also spoke on the second reading of the act against the export of ordnance on 14 May, which also prohibited the export of iron ore. Here his interest in the Protestant cause, which would benefit from a ban on the sale of artillery to Spain, ran counter to the economic interests of Sussex, where the production of iron was a major industry. Sackville did not oppose the bill outright, but he objected to a proviso to allow the export of ordnance to Scotland and Ireland, arguing that they should ban exports first, presumably fearing that otherwise exports would continue covertly through the two kingdoms. He also spoke in favour of the sale of iron ore to Ireland, which he said depended on English exports, and was named to the committee.152

On 21 Apr. Sackville opposed provisions in the bill ‘for the better venting of the cloth of this kingdom’, to hinder the import of gold and silver thread, which he pointed out had been one of the offences for which Mompesson had been punished. He also argued that individual extravagance did not impoverish the nation, only the ‘party prodigal’. Nevertheless he called for a prohibition of embroidered silk and satin lace ‘whence cometh no profit at all’. He was appointed to the committee, which was also instructed to examine a measure concerning apparel and ‘waste of gold and silver therein’.153

Sackville showed only limited interest in legislation concerning legal reforms. Nevertheless on 8 Feb. he was named to the committee for the informers bill and after the measure was reported on 7 Mar. he argued against exempting senior government officials from its provisions.154 On 25 Apr. he was named to the committee instructed to draft a bill for regulating Chancery, and he attended one undated meeting.155 Sackville spoke at the second reading of the bill to regulate judicial fees on 2 May, but his words were not recorded.156

Sackville spoke at the second reading of the bill promoted by his elder brother to confirm the foundation of Sackville hospital, the almshouse founded by their father in East Grinstead. However, he seems to have been mostly concerned to ensure that measure did not interfere with the family’s settled estate, although he also objected to description of the institution as a college. It is possible that he was covertly opposed to placing the institution on a statutory footing, as it is noticeable that attempts to pass a bill to this effect abruptly ceased when Sackville succeeded his brother in 1624. He seems to have played no other role in the passage of the bill, which was not reported, although as knight for Sussex he was entitled to sit on the committee.157

Sackville was involved in three other private measures. On 16 Mar. he spoke twice in favour of a bill introduced on behalf of his aunt’s husband, Anthony, 2nd Viscount Mountagu, at its second reading and he was named to the committee.158 Three days later he was appointed to the committee to consider the bill to entail the estates of Sir Richard Lumley, who owned significant lands in Sussex, which he successfully reported on 22 March.159 On 9 May he successfully opposed a bill to void a fine levied by a ward of the Crown who had died before he had come of age, arguing that the fine had been upheld by ‘all the courts in Westminster’.160

Towards the end of the sitting Sackville became involved in the case of Theophilus Field, the bishop of Llandaff, who had been accused by one Randolph Davenport of complicity in Bacon’s corruption. Davenport’s evidence had formed one of the charges sent by the Commons to the Lords, but when Davenport failed to reiterate his evidence under oath before the Upper House William Hakewill proposed, on 14 May, that the Commons should punish him. Hakewill was enthusiastically seconded by Sackville, who wanted ‘an example to future ages, else all may deride us with false accusations’. Sackville was named to a committee to draw up a message to the Lords about the business and, after Davenport was brought before the Commons later the same day, he advised the House to first wait until they had confirmation that Field had been cleared and that Davenport was not the Lords’ prisoner before proceeding further.161 Two days later Sir Thomas Roe reported the draft message and Sackville joined Roe in arguing that it would ‘refresh our old custom of demanding judgment [of the Upper House], that so things commended to the Lords may not lie there unjudged’. The Commons decided not to send the message in writing but to have it delivered by Sackville orally, using the draft as a ‘model’. However, he could only report back later that day that the Lords had replied that ‘they had been so taken up with great business, that they could not enter into this’.162

On 24 May Sackville, concerned that time was running out for passing legislation, moved for all public bills which had been engrossed to be read and sent to the Lords ‘to be christened by the name of acts’.163 Four days later he moved for days to be assigned for specific purposes, warning that ‘the hand that grasps too much holds nothing’. If bills were to be enacted, he added, the Commons would have to establish priorities for its business.164 On 30 May, the king having announced that Parliament would rise on 4 June, Sackville commended the widely felt sense of ‘discontent and grief’ that the Commons would not be able to pass all the legislation it wanted: ‘I am glad to see men trusted for their country to be thus affected’. Despite his inexperience, he asserted that it was ‘an old rule of Parliament that when we cannot get the best, we labour for the second best’, and that if they could not pass 20 bills they should settle for 16 or ten rather than none at all. At any rate it was important to avoid a repetition of the Addled Parliament, memories of which, he thought, had prompted fears that Parliament would be suddenly dissolved before it could meet again. Warning that the Commons should take care not to alienate the king ‘so that he call not a Parliament in haste again but love our meeting and keep us in work and often convene us’, he concluded by arguing that James’s offer to pass whatever legislation could be made ready should be accepted. However, Sackville’s advice was rejected and his colleagues agreed to an adjournment without completing further legislation.165

Sackville’s last speech of the sitting, on 1 June, concerned a petition that had been delivered against the president of the Council in the North, Emanuel, 11th Lord Scrope. Sackville argued that the petitioner should be required to give security to substantiate his petition when Parliament met again, or else Scrope should be left free to prosecute his accuser.166

On 13 May the French ambassador reported, inaccurately, that Sackville had been placed under house arrest. Shortly after the sitting ended there were rumours, equally unfounded, that Sackville was among those Members who had been summoned before the Privy Council for questioning.167 On the contrary, Sackville remained in favour with Buckingham, who sometime before early July offered him the post of ambassador to France in place of Sir Edward Herbert*, who had fallen out with the constable of France.168 However, his appointment was strongly opposed by the French ambassador who, rather strangely, described the conformist Sackville as a violent puritan.169 In September a correspondent of William Trumbull* reported, accurately, that Herbert would be sent back to Paris, although Sackville had already spent a considerable sum of money in kitting himself out.170

III. The Second Sitting of 1621

Sackville made his first recorded speech of the second sitting on 20 Nov., the first day of the resumed session. Sir Edward Coke moved that Members should call in all protections other than those legitimately granted to their servants. However, although Sackville had to acknowledge ‘the reasonableness of the motion’, he had to admit that he could not remember all those to whom he had given protections, and he successfully moved that if any Member was found to have granted an unlawful protection they would not face censure so long as they were willing to disavow it when it was questioned.171 He remained concerned about the issue, however, and two days later, declaring that ‘the honour of the House calls me up’, he complained that a man possessing an unlawful protection had been arrested even though it had been intended that the order of 20 Nov. would not be put into execution until the following Monday. However, his motion to discharge the arrest was rejected.172

On 24 Nov. Sackville spoke in the debate concerning Lepton and Goldsmith, two patentees who had initiated a suit in Star Chamber against Coke. Sackville argued that it was ‘every one of our cases’, and successfully called for a committee to search Lepton and Goldsmith’s studies and bring both men into custody, to which body he himself was appointed.173 Sackville again spoke twice in the debate on 29 Nov. when he attacked Lepton for continuing to execute his patent after the Commons had condemned it, although he sought to exonerate the king who, he said, had taken to steps to stop Lepton. Sackville called for Lepton to be punished for his contempt and for proceedings in Star Chamber to be halted.174

On 26 Nov. Sackville spoke in the debate about foreign policy.175 Praising the speech of Sir Dudley Digges, who had ‘made that visible which before was but audible’, he argued that the Commons had within its power ‘a cordial’ with which to revive ‘religion and the state of the Palatinate’, which causes were ‘not dead, but dying’. This cordial was money, but concerned to keep his proposals moderate Sackville urged the Commons to vote enough only ‘to maintain and keep together those forces in the Palatinate’. He opposed lord treasurer Cranfield’s (Sir Lionel Cranfield*) motion, made at the start of the sitting, for a vote of taxation large enough to raise a substantial force, stating that ‘I wish we were able ... but no time for a great army’. He concluded by urging the House not to ‘speak or discourse of any thing else till this be effected’.176

Sackville spoke again in favour of a grant of supply the following day when he tried to counter the arguments that could be made against it. Concerning the question of whether the king should declare Spain the enemy, he argued that if James were asked he would not be able to answer ‘because as yet he knoweth not’. Nevertheless, he was at pains to persuade those who wanted a general war with Spain that intervention in the Palatinate would lead inexorably in that direction ‘if we hinder it not’, because it was the king of Spain who funded the invasion of the Palatinate and ‘if the Spaniard assault the king’s forces there, then he is our enemy’. Acknowledging the force of the argument that a second grant of supply without an accompanying batch of legislation would set a dangerous precedent, he nevertheless asserted that it was warranted by the urgency of the situation. Moreover, the Commons had the power to ensure that there would be ‘no new gift without a like occasion hereafter’. He also tried to counter the argument that extra taxation would prove too great a burden, stating that ‘he doth not think this kingdom so poor and beggarly as it is said to be’, and it would be dangerous to refuse a grant on those grounds as it would make the kingdom appear weak and ‘incite our enemies to set on us’.177 The following day Sackville unsuccessfully moved for Sir Samuel Sandys to chair the committee of the whole House to discuss supply. He was equally unsuccessful in the committee itself, fruitlessly protesting that a single subsidy was not enough to maintain the army because £40,000 had been already spent and he also called for financial provision for Princess Elizabeth and her family.178

When the draft of the petition on foreign policy was reported by Coke on 3 Dec. Sackville opposed the clause calling on James to marry his heir to a Protestant, arguing that this intruded on ‘the king’s undoubted prerogative’ and he feared that it would ‘make him cast out all the rest’. He warned against the danger of ‘pressing the king’, arguing that this would make James fearful for his independence and force him to choose between ‘his own ways and ends’ and ‘the petition of the Commonwealth’. Moreover, he believed the clause was unnecessary as princes did not marry for love and therefore Charles was hardly likely to abandon his faith because he was ‘enamoured’ with his bride; in fact he thought it more likely ‘he will rather convert her’. Growing increasingly impassioned, he alluded to the Greek legend of Phaeton, son of the god Helios, who had driven the chariot of his father, the sun, but had lost control and burnt Africa. He declared ‘let me entreat this House not to take their hands, like Phaeton, their father’s chariot whereupon a general incendiary followed’. He concluded by stating that ‘no honest man’ ... ‘would propose that which we think will be denied’. It is hardly surprising that such a direct attack on the supporters of the petition was highly unpopular. According to Hawarde ‘he ... lost much of his reputation in the House’, while another diarist stated that he was ‘hemmed at’. Nevertheless he declared that ‘this [was] his opinion, and now hath discharged his conscience’.179

The news of the Commons’ petition brought a furious rebuke from James the following day, and the House went into a committee to consider its response. On 6 Dec. Sackville reported back to the Commons that business had not been concluded. He also took the opportunity to retract the last part of his speech made three days previously. He denied that it had been his intention to say that no honest man would support the petition, and that if he had said it ‘he was a mad man or a fool ... and desired to be censured at the bar for it for he acknowledged he did well deserve it if he had said it but [it] was not in his thought and he was heartily sorry for it’. The House promptly exonerated him, whereupon Hawarde now wrote that his reputation ‘was in better state than ever it was’.180

In the debate concerning the House’s freedom of speech the following day Sackville queried ‘whether we should not meddle with the matters of state without the Lords’.181 Three days later he tried to persuade the Commons to go on with the business of legislation, stating if the House ‘sit still, and say nothing’ it would ‘incense His Majesty’, who would then not look favourably on its claim to be entitled to debate what it pleased. He assured the House that it was not a Member of the Commons but a ‘stranger’, possibly referring to the Spanish ambassador, who ‘did misinform the king’ about the petition on foreign policy.182 Five days latter, in his last recorded speech of the Parliament, he approved a motion for a committee to draft ‘a declaration that our liberties are our inheritances’ based on the 1604 Form of Apology and Satisfaction.183

IV. Later Life

On 17 Dec the secretary of state, Sir George Calvert*, wrote to Buckingham that Sackville was one of the ‘the principal men that upon all occasions stand up for the king’. However, there is no evidence that Sackville gained any reward for his service.184 He inherited his father-in-law’s estate in 1622, by this time estimated to be worth £1,000 a year. Still without significant national office, he suffered another setback in the spring of 1623 when, according to Chamberlain, he ‘carried himself so malapertly and insolently’ in defence of the Sandys’ faction in the Virginia Company ‘that the king was fain to take him down soundly and roundly’. Thanks to Cranfield’s mediation he was able to make his peace with the king the following day, but nevertheless he shortly afterwards obtained another licence to travel for three years.185 The following September he wrote from Lyons to Cranfield, now earl of Middlesex, requesting diplomatic employment, which he thought was his due having been promised the French embassy in 1621, but without success. Still abroad at the time of the elections for the 1624 Parliament he was in Florence when he heard that he had succeeded to the earldom of Dorset on the death of his brother on 28 March.186

Sackville returned home to find that his opposition to Spain and support for the prerogative made him an ideal political ally for Prince Charles and Buckingham. In addition, his spendthrift brother left a much-depleted estate, having sold lands to the value of £80,000 and still dying £60,000 in debt, which presumably increased the attractions of public office. He subsequently became a prominent adherent of Buckingham, and the accession of Charles in March 1625 brought him to national political prominence. In May he was appointed knight of the Garter, although the report of the Venetian ambassador that he ‘contributed largely’ to the decision to dissolve the first Caroline Parliament cannot be substantiated. The following year he supported Buckingham in Parliament, although he also defended the right of the latter’s enemy, the earl of Bristol (Sir John Digby*), to sit in the Lords. He was appointed to the Privy Council in July 1626 and advocated the most vigorous measures for crushing resistance to the Forced Loan, subsequently defending the right of the Crown to arrest without showing cause in the 1628 Parliament.187

In the summer of 1628 Sackville was appointed chamberlain to the queen and in the following year he ‘let his house in Salisbury Court unto the queen for the ambassador lieger of France’, and other property there for the erection of a theatre.188 He invested in fen drainage, and obtained grants for the export of coal in 1634, which, according to a correspondent of Viscount Wentworth (Sir Thomas Wentworth*), was ‘worth better than £1,000 a year’, and of land in America.189 Among those who profited from his ecclesiastical patronage were John Donne*, an old friend, and Brian Duppa, his chaplain who subsequently became bishop of Chichester.190

Sackville was a moderate royalist in the Civil War. He was present at the battle of Edgehill, and attended the king at Oxford. He was one of the signatories to its capitulation in 1646, and later compounded on the Oxford Articles at £2,415. He died at his house in Westminster on 17 July 1652, and was buried at Withyham in Sussex. He had drafted a will in 1625, but it was never proved and administration was granted to a creditor in May 1653. His only surviving son, Richard Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, sat in the Long Parliament for East Grinstead before being excluded for royalism.191

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Authors: Alan Davidson / Ben Coates


  • 1. WCA, St. Mary-le-Strand par. reg., f. 22.
  • 2. Phillips, i. 294; CP, iv. 423.
  • 3. Al. Ox.; Al. Cant.; SO3/4, unfol. 13 May 1609.
  • 4. Staffs. RO, D593/E/3/6/1.
  • 5. CP, iv. 425; Phillips, i. 379; Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 31, 159.
  • 6. HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 613.
  • 7. C. Dalton, Life and Times of Gen. Sir Edward Cecil, i. 337.
  • 8. C181/2, ff. 134, 292; 181/3, ff. 165v, 184, 209v, 252, 255v; 181/4, ff. 18, 29, 37v, 46, 73v, 93, 106, 126, 128v, 190v; 181/5, f. 40v, 69, 81, 81, 114v, 122, 129v, 136, 144, 153, 167, 177v, 205v, 222v.
  • 9. Cal. Assize Recs. Suss. Indictments, Jas. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 38; Cal. Assize Recs. Surr. Indictments, Jas. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 68; Cal. Assize Recs. Kent Indictments, Chas. I ed. J.S. Cockburn, 421; C231/4, ff. 17, 52, 53, 99, 168; ASSI 35/84/6; 35/84/8; C66/1988; 66/2047; 66/2859; SP16/405.
  • 10. Docquets of Letters Patent 1642-6 ed. W.H. Black, 169.
  • 11. C231/4, f. 52; 231/5, p. 29; C181/2, f. 304v; 181/3, f. 216v; 181/4, ff. 13, 48v; 181/5, ff. 154, 169, 207, 213, 221v.
  • 12. Docquets of Letters Patent 1642-6, pp. 30, 109.
  • 13. C181/2, f. 301; 181/5, ff. 169, 214.
  • 14. Sainty, Lords Lieutenants, 27.
  • 15. C212/22/20-1, 23.
  • 16. Duchy of Lancaster Office-Holders ed. R. Somerville, 217.
  • 17. T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 3, p. 82.
  • 18. Rymer, vii. pt. 4, p. 96.
  • 19. Sainty, Lords Lieutenants, 27, 35.
  • 20. E401/2586, p. 456.
  • 21. Rymer, viii. pt. 1, p. 70; ix. pt. 2, p. 8; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 233.
  • 22. CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 435; Rymer, viii. pt. 2, pp. 141, 144; C193/12/2, ff. 34, 56v, 58v, 74v, 76v.
  • 23. CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 461.
  • 24. C.F. Patterson, Urban Patronage in Early Modern Eng. 248.
  • 25. Reprint of Barnstaple Recs. ed. J.R. Chanter and T. Wainwright, i. 102; Patterson, 244.
  • 26. C181/4, ff. 36v, 52, 81; 181/5, ff. 24, 26v, 58v, 68v, 83, 84.
  • 27. CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 342.
  • 28. Ibid. 1631-3, p. 6.
  • 29. Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 164; Docquets of Letters Patent 1642-6, p. 388.
  • 30. CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 208.
  • 31. Ibid. 1641-3, p. 318.
  • 32. Northants RO, FH133.
  • 33. Docquets of Letters Patent 1642-6, pp. 30, 121, 143, 233, 267.
  • 34. A. Brown, Genesis of US, 542; Recs. Virg. Co. ed. S.M. Kingsbury, i. 379.
  • 35. CSP Col. E.I. 1513-1616, p. 239.
  • 36. J. Smith, Generall Historie of Virginia (1624), p. 189; Brown, 989.
  • 37. BL, Loan 16/2, ff. 12v, 102v.
  • 38. APC, 1619-21, p. 335.
  • 39. Rymer, vii. pt. 4, p. 11; viii. pt. 1, p. 59.
  • 40. APC, 1626, p. 117; PC2/53, p. 231.
  • 41. R.G. Usher, Rise and Fall of High Commission, 349.
  • 42. CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 428.
  • 43. Ibid. 1625-6, p. 481; 1637, p. 32.
  • 44. Ibid. 1627-8, p. 232; E215/173A.
  • 45. CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 359, 574.
  • 46. HMC 4th Rep. 290, 308.
  • 47. G.F. James and J.J.S. Shaw, ‘Admiralty Admin. and Personnel, 1619-1714’, BIHR, xiv. 13-15.
  • 48. CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 175, 474.
  • 49. Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 192.
  • 50. CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 97; 1637, p. 202.
  • 51. PC2/42, f. 54.
  • 52. CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 547.
  • 53. Ibid. 1633-4, p. 60; 1634-5, p. 527.
  • 54. C181/4, f. 186.
  • 55. Rymer, ix. pt. 1, p. 6.
  • 56. CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 363.
  • 57. Ibid. 1637, p. 224.
  • 58. Ibid. 1637-8, p. 602.
  • 59. Ibid. 1641-3, p. 263.
  • 60. Docquets of Letters Patent 1642-6, p. 14.
  • 61. HMC 4th Rep. 308.
  • 62. Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. W.D. Macray, i. 75.
  • 63. Ath. Ox. iii. 313.
  • 64. V. Sackville-West, Knole and the Sackvilles, 82.
  • 65. Clarendon, i. 75.
  • 66. Illustrations of British History ed. E. Lodge, iii. 169; D.L. Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset’ (Cambridge Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1989), p. 19.
  • 67. Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 405, 473, 487; HMC Downshire, iv. 202; Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville’, 20-8; SO3/5, unfol. 26 Jan. 1614.
  • 68. Life of Edward, First Lord Herbert of Cherbury ed. J.M. Shuttleworth, 81.
  • 69. HMC Downshire, v. 319.
  • 70. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 322; Letters of John Holles ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Rec. Soc. xxxi), 93, 99.
  • 71. Chamberlain Letters, 35.
  • 72. Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 226; Clifford Diary ed. V. Sackville-West, 73; APC, 1616-17, p. 271.
  • 73. Clifford Diary, 89; CJ, i. 555b.
  • 74. Add. 72358, f. 3.
  • 75. APC, 1619-21, p. 225; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 307; SO3/7, unfol. July 1620.
  • 76. Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville’, 46-7.
  • 77. Chamberlain Letters, ii. 344; CD 1621, iv. 437.
  • 78. HMC 7th Rep. 682.
  • 79. Wilts. RO, 9/34/2 (6 Dec. 1621).
  • 80. CSP Ven. 1619-21, pp. 606, 608; 1621-3, pp. 6, 13.
  • 81. CP, iv. 424. Phillips, i. 289-90.
  • 82. CJ, i. 507b.
  • 83. CD 1621, ii. 29.
  • 84. CJ, i. 513a; CD 1621, ii. 40-1; v. 250, 442.
  • 85. CJ, i. 534b; CD 1621, vi. 23.
  • 86. CD 1621, ii. 54.
  • 87. Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 59-60.
  • 88. CJ, i. 555a.
  • 89. CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 223; CD 1621, ii. 85-6; iv. 56-7; vi. 464; Nicholas, i. 48; Historical Collections ed. J. Rushworth, i. 131-4 (misdated to 1624). For separates with variant readings see Add. 33051, ff. 109-10; Harl. 6021, ff. 44-8.
  • 90. Historical Collections, 131.
  • 91. CD 1621, ii. 30; iv. 19-20.
  • 92. CJ, i. 539b; CD 1621, v. 272.
  • 93. CD 1621, ii. 129, n. 11.
  • 94. CJ, i. 530a-b; CD 1621, ii. 146.
  • 95. CJ, i. 557a.
  • 96. CD 1621, iii. 44; v. 87; CJ, i. 586b.
  • 97. CD 1621, ii. 123; vi. 263.
  • 98. He was probably the ‘Mr. Bridges’ who travelled with Sackville in 1615. HMC Downshire, v. 345.
  • 99. CJ, i. 566b.
  • 100. Ibid. 603a; CD 1621, iii. 131; vi. 124-4.
  • 101. CJ, i. 603a.
  • 102. Ibid. 566a; CD 1621, v. 59.
  • 103. CD 1621, iv. 353-5.
  • 104. CJ, i. 529b; CD 1621, v. 522.
  • 105. CD 1621, v. 316; CJ, i. 568a.
  • 106. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 29.
  • 107. CJ, i. 573b; Nicholas, i. 223-4.
  • 108. CJ, i. 611a-b.
  • 109. CJ, i. 575a; CD 1621, iii. 198-9.
  • 110. CD 1621, vii. 579; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, p. 60; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 96; PRO 31/3/55 (27 July 1621).
  • 111. CD 1621, ii. 44.
  • 112. CJ, i. 514b.
  • 113. CD 1621, ii. 98-100; v. 507.
  • 114. Ibid. vi. 258-9.
  • 115. Ibid. 20-1; CJ, i. 534b-5a.
  • 116. CD 1621, v. 31; CJ, i. 541a.
  • 117. CJ, i. 549b.
  • 118. Ibid. 555b.
  • 119. Bacon had been nominated for Ipswich in 1604 by Sackville’s grandfather, and he had borrowed Dorset House in the early months of his lord keepership in 1617. Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vi. 209.
  • 120. CJ, i. 561a ; CD 1621, ii. 239-40.
  • 121. CJ, i. 563a; CD 1621, v. 51.
  • 122. Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vii. 228, 320, 323-4, 342-4, 542.
  • 123. CJ, i. 579a.
  • 124. CD 1621, iii. 3; CD 1621, v. 331.
  • 125. CD 1621, iii. 22.
  • 126. Ibid. ii. 302.
  • 127. Ibid. iii. 29-30; CJ, i. 584a.
  • 128. CJ, i. 588a; CD 1621, iii. 56-9.
  • 129. CD 1621, iii. 74.
  • 130. Ibid. 80; v. 349.
  • 131. Historical Collections, i. 133.
  • 132. CJ, i. 608a; CD 1621, ii. 345.
  • 133. CD 1621, iii. 169; v. 141-2.
  • 134. Ibid. iii. 229-30.
  • 135. Nicholas, ii. 64; CD 1621, v. 162.
  • 136. CD 1621, iii. 275.
  • 137. Ibid. 200; v. 153; vi. 143-4.
  • 138. Ibid. iii. 202.
  • 139. CJ, i. 616a; CD 1621, iii. 215.
  • 140. CJ, i. 616b.
  • 141. CD 1621, ii. 358; iii. 218; v. 159; vi. 149.
  • 142. Ibid. iii. 230; CJ, i. 619a.
  • 143. CJ, i. 621a; CD 1621, v. 164.
  • 144. Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville’, 43.
  • 145. CJ, i. 527b.
  • 146. CD 1621, iii. 10; v. 77; CJ, i. 581b.
  • 147. CJ, i. 545a ; CD 1621, iii. 283, 323; vi. 163.
  • 148. CD 1621, iii. 215; CJ, i. 615b.
  • 149. CJ, i. 560a; CD 1621, ii. 236.
  • 150. CJ, i. 611b.
  • 151. Ibid. 611a; CD 1621, iii. 184.
  • 152. CJ, 621b; Nicholas, ii. 70; CD 1621, iii. 252.
  • 153. CJ, i. 584a-b; Nicholas, i. 287; CD 1621, iii. 36.
  • 154. CJ, i. 414b, 542b.
  • 155. CJ, i. 590b; C.R. Kyle, ‘Attendance Lists’, PPE 1604-48 ed. Kyle, 194.
  • 156. CD 1621, iii. 151.
  • 157. CJ, i. 607a; CD 1621, iii. 158; PROB 11/143, ff. 210-11.
  • 158. Nicholas, i. 174-5, CJ, i. 556b; CP, ix. 100.
  • 159. CJ, i. 562a, 570a.
  • 160. Ibid. 615a; CD 1621, iii. 212.
  • 161. CJ, i. 621a; CD 1621, iii. 249, 253.
  • 162. CJ, i. 622b, 623a; CD 1621, iii. 271.
  • 163. CD 1621, ii. 385.
  • 164. CJ, i. 629b; CD 1621, iii. 327; v. 387.
  • 165. Nicholas, ii. 132-3; CD 1621, ii. 413; CD 1621, iii. 363.
  • 166. CD 1621, iii. 387.
  • 167. PRO 31/3/55 (13 May 1621); T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 260; Add. 72361, f. 111.
  • 168. Add. 72361, f. 111.
  • 169. PRO 31/3/55 (12 and 27 July). For Sackville’s religion see D.L. Smith, ‘Catholic, Anglican or Puritan? Edward Sackville, fourth earl of Dorset and the Ambiguities of Religion in Early Stuart Eng.’, TRHS (ser. 6), ii. passim.
  • 170. Add. 72254, f. 53v.
  • 171. Nicholas, ii 180-1; CD 1621, iv. 420-1.
  • 172. Nicholas, ii. 194; CD 1621, iii. 430; iv. 431.
  • 173. CD 1621, ii. 442; iii. 439; CJ, i. 644a.
  • 174. Nicholas, ii. 251-2; vi. 212.
  • 175. CD 1621, iv. 437.
  • 176. Nicholas, ii. 210; CJ, i. 645b; CD 1621, iii. 449-50; v. 403-4.
  • 177. CJ, i. 648a; Nicholas, ii. 220; CD 1621, ii. 454; iii. 463; v. 217.
  • 178. CD 1621, vi. 205, 209; vi. 220, 330.
  • 179. CJ, i. 655b; Nicholas, ii. 269; CD 1621, ii. 487-8; Wilts. RO, 9/34/2 (6 Dec. 1621).
  • 180. Wilts. RO, 9/34/2 (6 Dec. 1621); CJ, i. 659a.
  • 181. CD 1621, ii. 507.
  • 182. CJ, i. 661b; Nicholas, ii. 301; CD 1621, ii. 508.
  • 183. CJ, i. 665b; CD 1621, ii. 526.
  • 184. CD 1621, vii. 625.
  • 185. Chamberlain Letters, ii. 466, 489; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 588.
  • 186. Phillips, i. 306-7, 316.
  • 187. Phillips, i. 270, 274; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 283; 1625-6, pp. 145, 528-9; Birch, Chas. I, i. 177; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 29, 45, 55; D.L. Smith, ‘4th Earl of Dorset and the Pols. of the 1620s’, HR, lxv. 41-9.
  • 188. Birch, Chas. I, ii. 35; G.E. Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage, ii. 423-4.
  • 189. L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 356, 374; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 227.
  • 190. R.C. Bald, John Donne, 455, 487.
  • 191. Phillips, i. 343, 376; Oxford DNB; CCC, 1509; Smith, ‘Political Career of Edward Sackville’, 449; PROB 6/30, f. 93.