¹ Quoted in C[okayne], G. E., The Complete Peerage … (13 vols., London, 1910–1959) VI, 539Google Scholar. See also Godwin, William, History of the Commonwealth of England … (4 vols.,London, 1824–1828), 1, 193Google Scholar; Hyde, Edward, earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England … (3 vols., Oxford, 1702–4), III, 209Google Scholar; Aylmer, G. E., The King's Servants … (London, 1961), pp. 213Google Scholar, 384–5; Wedgwood, C. V., Thomas Wentworth First Earl of Strafford 1593–1641. A Revaluation (London, 1961), pp. 257–8, 289.Google Scholar

² Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1640 (C.S.P.D.), p. 278; Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, 1640–42 (C.S.P. Ven.), p. 247.

³ For the careers of Hamilton and Pembroke, see Dictionary of National Biography, ‘James Hamilton, third Marquis and first Duke of Hamilton’, and ‘Philip Herbert, Earl Montgomery and fourth Earl of Pembroke’. Clarendon's view that Pembroke was really loyal at heart appears to have been based on partiality rather than the facts of his career. On aristocratic faction in 1640–1 and Holland's role at that time, see Brian Manning, ‘The Aristocracy and the Downfall of Charles I’, Politics, Religion and the English Civil War, Manning, (ed.) (London, 1973), pp. 37–80Google Scholar; on peace parties, see e.g. Rowe, Violet A., Henry Vane the Younger (London, 1970)Google Scholar, ch. 2; Pearl, Valerie, ‘The “Royal Independents” in the English Civil War’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, xviii (1968) 69–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘London's Counter-Revolution’, The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646–1660, G. E. Aylmer (ed.) (Hamden, Conn., 1972), pp. 29–56 (for the political manoeuvres of groups with which Holland was involved either directly or through his family).

⁴ Hamilton was finally freed by Fairfax's troops in 1646.

⁵ Zagorin, Perez, The Court and the Country (London, 1969), pp. 33–9Google Scholar and passim; Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, p. 42; Russell, Conrad, ‘Parliament and the King's Finances,’, in Russell, Conrad (ed.) The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 110–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Havran, Martin J., Caroline Courtier. The Life of Lord Cottington (London, 1973) chs. 10–12.Google Scholar

⁷ Historical Manuscripts Commission (H.M.C.) 29: Fourteenth Report, Pt. II, Manuscripts of … the Duke of Portland … (London, 1894), III, 52.Google Scholar

⁸ Clarendon, 1, 48.

⁹ Stone, Lawrence, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558–1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 743.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hacket, John, Scrinia Reserata … (2 vols. in one, London, 1692), 11, 26.Google Scholar

¹¹ Clarendon, , 1, 49; Wilson, Arthur, The History of Great Britain … (London, 1653) p. 162.Google Scholar

¹² C.S.P. Ven. 1623–25, p. 374; Somerset House, Soame fo. 51.

¹³ On one occasion, according to gossip, ‘after the King had slobbered his mouth’, Rich turned aside and spat. Osborn, Francis, Traditional Memoires on the Reign of King James, in The Works of Francis Osborn … (London, 1673), p. 535Google Scholar; Johnson, George W., Memoirs John Selden (London, 1835), pp. 91–2Google Scholar; The Letters of John Chamberlain, McClure, N. E. (ed.) (Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, Memoirs, XII, 2 vols., 1939, 1, 14.Google Scholar

¹⁴ C.S.P.D. 1611–18, p. 261; Loftie, W. J., Kensington Picturesque & Historical (London, 1888), pp. 60–72; Chamberlain, 1, 346, 516; 11, 30.Google Scholar

¹⁵ C.S.P.D. 1619–25, p. 589.

¹⁶ C.S.P.D. 1619–18, pp. 441, 494; C.S.P.D. 1625–26, p. 396; Acts ofthe Privy Council 1625–26 (A.P.C.), p. 124; Chamberlain, 11, 612; C.S.P.Ven. 1629–32, p. 264.

¹⁷ E.g. sole exchanger and comptroller of foreign bullion, C.S.P.D. 1627–28, pp. 76–7, 168, 189, 198, 359, 379, 383; Aylmer, King's Servants, p. 374; captain and governor of Harwich fort, C.S.P.D. 1627–28, p. 362; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, pp. 8–9, 14, 45, 323, 373, 415. Both grants involved conflict with others who thought their privileges had been infringed.

¹⁸ C.S.P.D. 1619–23, pp. 554–5, 562, 589; C.S.P.D. 1623–25, pp. 158, 206–7, 325; C.S.P.D. 1625–26, pp. 192, 299, 579; C.S.P. Ven. 1629–32, pp. 13, 37; Chamberlain, 11, 391; A.P.C. July 1628–April 1629, p. 273; Clarendon, 1, 48.

¹⁹ Granger, James, A Biographical History of England … (2 vols. in 4, London, 1769), 1, pt. 2, 366.Google Scholar

²⁰ C.S.P.D. 1627–28, pp. 363, 390–1, 397–8, 400–2, 406, 414, 424–30, 458, 473; C.S.P. Ven. 1626–28, passim.

²¹ Diary of John Rous, Green, M. A. E. (ed.) (Camden Society, 1856), p. 25Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 267. Holland eventually succeeded in acquiring the constableship of Windsor. Lords' Journals (L.J.), VIII, p. 45.Google Scholar

²² C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, pp. 291–7, 382.

²³ Ibid. pp. 292–4; C.S.P. Ven. 1628–29, P. 262; The Venetian ambassador commented: ‘The person who seems to be the chief favourite is the Earl of Holland, a great friend of the duke, a man of some forty years old and beloved by the king. He is more given to amours than politics, but only time can show what he is.’

²⁴ C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 276. Williams was rapidly forced to withdraw his offer by the displeasure of the king, who wished Montgomery to have the office. Ibid. pp. 277, 311, 317.

²⁵ C.S.P. Ven. 1628–29, pp. 310–11.

²⁶ C.S.P. Ven. 1629–52, pp. 263–4, 271, 276–7, 281; H.M.C. 45: Manuscripts of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry … (London, 1926),III, 346–7; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 310.Google Scholar

²⁷ Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 132. Holland's brief tenure as master of the horse (September–November, 1628) was recognized as a stop-gap measure while the king used the office as a carrot to persuade Hamilton to live with his wife, Buckingham's niece. D.N.B. ‘Henry Rich, first Earl of Holland’, C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, PP. 292–3, 295–6.Google Scholar

²⁸ H.M.C. 55: Manuscripts in Various Collections (London, 1914), vii, 412–13Google Scholar; C.S.P.D. 1603–10, p. 643; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 423. Holland's involvement in the queen's financial affairs dated from her marriage. See e.g. C.S.P.D. 1625–26, p. 265; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, P. 513; C.S.P.D. 1637–38, p. 447; Dalton, Charles, Life and Times of General Sir Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon (2 vols., London, 1885), 11, 367.Google Scholar

²⁹ C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, P. 293; Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, pp. 42, 46; Havran, , Cottington, pp. 114–16Google Scholar; John H. Barcroft, ‘Carleton and Buckingham: The Quest for Office’, Early Stuart Studies … Reinmuth, Howard S. Jr, (ed.) (Minneapolis, 1970), pp. 123–4Google Scholar, 130–2, 134; Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 211.Google Scholar

³⁰ Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Memorials of the English Affairs from the Beginning of the Reign of Charles the First … (4 vols., Oxford, 1853), II, 524–5. Cf. the tenure of Holland's brother Warwick as parliament's lord admiral, when political interest and professional skill combined.Google Scholar

³¹ See Aylmer, , King's Servants, pp. 346–51 for the conflicting interests of the exponents of ‘thorough’ and the great courtiers.Google Scholar

³² C.S.P. Ven. 1632–56, pp. 263–4, 336–7; The Earl of Strafforde's Letters and Dispatches … Knowler, William (ed.) (2 vols., Dublin, 1740), 1, 463, 467; 11, 124; H.M.C. 45: Buccleuch, III. 374–5–Google Scholar

³³ Knowler, 11, 124. See Dietz, Frederick C., English Public Finance 1558–1641 (New York, 1932), pp. 273, 283, for the Crown's relatively low returns and for mitigation of fines.Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘A Relation of a Short Survey of the Western Counties’, in Camden Miscellany xvi (London, 1936), pp. 51–5; see also Knowler, 1, 410.Google Scholar

³⁵ C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, P. 415, and Cf. P. 435.

³⁶ H.M.C. 45: Buccleuch III, 347.

³⁷ H.M.C. 55: Var. Coll. VII, p. 401; see also C.S.P. East Indies 1630–34, p. 282.

³⁸ C.S.P.D. 1633–34, pp. 11–15. The occasion of this quarrel was Weston's opening, as ambassador in France, of a packet of Holland's letters, including some from the queen. Holland regarded it as an occasion for drama, demanding that Weston meet him as ‘a cavalier’. The king was particularly angered that Holland proposed to fight an unlawful duel in the king's own garden (namely Spring Gardens), and was not mollified by Holland's defence that he merely wished to issue the challenge there as it was a convenient public place. One's sympathy for Charles in coping with his courtiers increases when one notes that he had not only to disentangle the principals but also their supporters, for Lord Fielding had challenged Holland's friend Goring for impugning Weston's courage. Ibid., and see also C.S.P. Ven. 1632–36, pp. 82, 100, 221–2; H.M.C. 9: Manuscripts of the … Marquess of Salisbury … xxii (London, 1971), 274–5Google Scholar; Howell's Familiar Letters, quoted in Faulkner, Thomas, History and Antiquities of Kensington … (London, 1820), p. 70.Google Scholar

³⁸ H.M.C. 55: Var. Coll. vii, 412–13; C.S.P. Ven. 1636–39, p. 598.

⁴⁰ Knowler, 11, 156.

⁴¹ H.M.C. 77: Manuscripts of … Viscount De L' Isle … vi (London, 1966), 70. As ambassador in Paris and later as suitor for the lord deputyship of Ireland, Leicester stood in need of friends at court.Google Scholar

⁴² Knowler, 1, 101.

⁴³ Ibid. 11, 124; 1, 479.

⁴⁴ Chamberlain, 11, 30, 227; Birch, Thomas, The Court and Times of James the First … (2 vols., London, 1848), 11, 120–1Google Scholar, 137; C.S.P.D. 1611–18, p. 400; C.S.P.D. 1619–23, p. 2; D.N.B. ‘ Henry Rich’. For Holland's friendships see e.g. Whitelocke, n, 551: ‘the earl of Holland … was my particular friend, whose memory I honour’, Codrington, Robert, ‘The Life and Death of the Illustrious Robert, Earl of Essex…’, Harleian Miscellany (12 vols., London, 1808–1811), vi, 35.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Knowler, 11, 276.

⁴⁶ E.g. C.S.P. Ven. 1632–36, p. 222.

⁴⁷ Clarendon, 1, 118; ‘Four Letters of Lord Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford…’, Gardiner, S. R. (ed.), Camden Miscellany vii (London, 1883), 4–5Google Scholar; Knowler, II, 125, 258, 283–4; Wedgwood, , Strafford, p. 243.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Knowler, II, 230. Of Wentworth's remark in 1633 that the king should cut off Holland's head, Clarendon questioned whether ‘such an injury were capable of aggravation’. Clarendon, 1, 118. On aristocratic pride and sensitivity over threats to status, see Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, pp. 40–1.

⁴⁹ Wedgwood, , Strafford, p. 346Google Scholar. Gardiner suggests that Holland would originally have been satisfied by Strafford's loss of office without loss of life, but was persuaded to take a stronger stand. Gardiner, Samuel R., History of England…1603–1642 (10 vols., New York, 1965), ix, 361.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Chamberlain, 1, 575–6; Webb, E. A., The Records of St. Bartholomew's Priory …(2 vols., London, 1921), 11, 247.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. 11, 233.

⁵² It seems likely that, with rising rents until 1642, the amount of ‘improvement’ forecast in 1616 proved conservative. Cf. Stone, Lawrence, Family and Fortune … (Oxford, 1973), pp. 111, 114, on Salisbury's St Martin's Lane property. The parish also produced a steady small income from Bartholomew Fair; in 1629 the net profit was £81.185.3d. Webb, 1,311–12.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. 11, 233; Stone, , Family and Fortune, p. 110Google Scholar; Jonson, Ben, ‘Bartholomew Fair’, The Induction, Complete Plays (2 vols., Everyman edition, London, 1910), 11, 182Google Scholar; H.M. 3: Fourth Report, Pt. 1 (London, 1874), p. 292. The population of the parish had already greatly increased with Lord Rich's development, as is shown by the change from an open to a select vestry in 1607, the parish being ‘much increased by many buildings, [and] the parishioners finding many inconveniences by a disagreeing multitude’. Webb, 11, 390. In 1636 the inhabitants of the parish tried to prevent the setting up of gold and silver works, fearing ‘stench, ill fume, or vapour of lead or smoke or noise of hammers’, but were apparently unable to stop the renting of premises for this purpose. C.S.P.D. 1635–36 P. 157.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Stone, , Aristocracy, p. 761Google Scholar; Loftie, , Kensington, pp. 64–9Google Scholar; Dietz, 259; Soame fo. 51; C.S.P. Ven. 1625–25, p. 411. In 1632 Holland's Knollys great-uncle, the earl of Banbury, left him the manor of Cholsey in Berkshire, but although his descendants profited from it Holland himself did not as the widowed countess of Banbury, who had a life interest, outlived him. The Victoria History of the County of Berkshire (4 vols., London, 1906–1924), III, 297–8Google Scholar, C.S.P. 1629–31, p. 199; Calendar of Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, &cc, 1613–166 Green, M. A. E. (ed.) (5 vols., London, 1889–1892), III, 2011–12.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ L.J. viii, 44–45; Commons' Journals (C.J.), iv, 380–1Google Scholar; Cooper, J. P., ‘The Fortune of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, xi (1958), 246.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ L.J. vii, 45; C.S.P.D. 1628–29, pp. 49, 254, 259.

⁵⁷ Chamberlain, 11, 491, 625; C.S.P.D. 1623–25, pp. 247, 479; C.S.P.D. 1625–26, pp. 534, 579.

⁵⁸ Chamberlain, 11, 623. Chamberlain was sceptical of the truth of Buckingham's claim.

⁵⁹ C.S.P. Ven. 1629–32, p. 205.

⁶⁰ Cf. the warrant of June, 1628, to pay Holland £2,000 for the king's ‘secret service’ – unspecified – from the duchy of Cornwall revenues. C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 171. This may possibly have been the first payment on his 1628 pension.

⁶¹ Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 473,Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid. p. 339; L.J. VIII, 45; Cooper, ‘Strafford’, p. 246. In 1635 he was apparently paid only ££16. 13s. 4d as Justice in Eyre, C.S.P.D. 1635, p. 80.

⁶³ Keeperships of parks, etc., were not in general highly lucrative; see Aylmer, King's Servants, passim. See also H.M.C. 6: Seventh Report, Pt. 1 (London, 1879), p. 42; C.S.P.D. 1652–53, pp. 420–1.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ L.J. VIII, 45; H.M.C. 55: Var. Coll. viii (London, 1913), pp. 194–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Notestein, Wallace, Relf, Frances Helen, and Simpson, Hartley, Commons Debates 1621 (7 vols., New Haven, 1935), vii, 375Google Scholar, for a partial classification. See also C.S.P.D. 1603–10, pp. 158, 174–5, 342, 483; C.S.P.D. 1611–18, p. 578; C.S.P.D. 1619–23, pp. 61, 509; and Pearl, Valerie, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution … (Oxford, 1961), pp. 80, 84, for a few examples of the sub-divisions of the office. See C.S.P.D. 1636–37, p. 111, for an example of the jurisdictional difficulties resulting from the multiplicity of grants.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The chief source for the ensuing account is Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642–1656, Green, M. A. E. (ed.) (3 vols., London, 1888), 11, 628–31.Google ScholarStone, , Aristocracy, p. 442, assigns Holland another valuable legal sinecure, the Post Fines (fines for licence of concord, pro licentia concordandi,.), but I have found no evidence for this. Stone appears to allot the price and profit cited in 1645 for the Greenwax to the Post Fines, although Holland specifically referred to the Seal Office, L.J. viii, 45, and see also Committee for Advance of Money. 11, 628–30. The Post Fines were part of the Greenwax in its wider sense. They were granted to Lord Knollys (later earl of Banbury) in 1608; in 1625 he and his brother-in-law Thomas Howard, Viscount Andover (later earl of Berkshire), who had held the reversion of the office, were granted a forty-eight year lease. After Banbury's death in 1632 Berkshire was joined by his brother Lord Howard of Escrick; although Stone says Holland had bought the office in 1636, in 1638 Berkshire and Howard were still the farmers of the Post Fines. Thus although it is not impossible that Holland later acquired the office, or that he inherited some interest from his great-uncle Banbury, it seems improbable that he did so, especially as he laid no later claim to the office, nor did sequestrators try to take it from him. C.S.P.D. 1603–10, p. 438; C.S.P.D. 1611–18, pp. 60, 88, 101, 225; C.S.P.D. 1625–26, p. 537; C.S.P.D. 1635–36, p. 167; C.S.P.D. 1637–38, p. 152.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 213. Sir Thomas and Lady Stafford had an interest in minimising rather than maximising the debt, as they had ‘forgotten’ to include it among their assets when Sir Thomas first compounded for his delinquency. Committee for Compounding, 11, 1301–2. Lady Stafford's first husband's name is mistakenly given as ‘Peter’, but cf. the index.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See note 54 above.

⁶⁹ Aylmer estimates that by 1656–7, out of the gross yield of £5,000, the net value of the office after deducting standard bureaucratic expenses was £2,345, of which £1,910 was consumed by Holland's ‘heirs, legatees, and creditors’, leaving only £435 net profit for the current managers. Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 213Google Scholar. Lady Holland was not so impoverished that she was unable to indulge in more building at Holland House. She succeeded, in the years after Holland's death, in salvaging much of the estate from sequestration. Faulkner, , Kensington, pp. 67–8; Committee for Advance of Money, 11, 630; Committee for Compounding, iv, 2935–36.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ In 1635 Berkshire apparently held some £19,000 for the Post Fines. C.S.P.D. 1635, p. 244. On the value of such cash balances to office–holders, see Ashton, Robert, ‘The Disbursing Official under the Early Stuarts…’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xxx (1957), 163Google Scholar; Cooper, , ‘Strafford,' pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

⁷¹ C.S.P.D. 1627–28, pp. 76–7, 168, 189, 198, 359, 383; C.S.P.D. 1637–38, p. 247; C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, p. 267; Aylmer, , King's Servants, pp. 374–5.Google Scholar

⁷² C.S.P.D. 1637–28, p. 379; C.S.P.D. 1637, p. 312;Cooper, , ‘Strafford,' p. 246Google Scholar; A Pack of Patentees. Opened. Shuffled. Cut. Dealt. And played (London, 1641), p. 10.Google Scholar

⁷³ Calendar of State Papers Colonial 1574–1640 (C.S.P. Col.), pp. 260, 307; C.S.P.D. 1636–37, p. 312; C.S.P.D. 1637, p. 189; Pearl, London, p. 88.

⁷⁴ C.S.P.D. 1627–28, p. 403; C.S.P. Ven. 1628–29, p. 459; C.S.P.D. 1631–33, p. 448. He may also have shared with Henrietta Maria a £12,000 fine, of which £10,000 was actually paid, imposed on Sir Giles Alington for marrying his niece. SirPeyton, Edward, The Divine Catastrophe of the Kingly Family of the House of Stuarts … (London, 1731), p. 26; Gardiner, vii, 251–2.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ C.S.P.D. 1637, pp. 477–8. Cf. the offer to Jermyn in 1641 of £4,000 to favour Leicester over Vane for the Lord Deputyship of Ireland. H.M.C. 77: De L'Isle, vi, 367.

⁷⁶ H.M.C. 6: Seventh Report, Pt. 1, p. 42; L.J. x, 397, 523–4.

⁷⁷ Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 206.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ H.M.C. 78: Manuscripts of … Reginald Rawdon Hastings … (London, 1930), 78; Knowler, 1, 412.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Chamberlain, 1, 575–6.

⁸⁰ Clarendon, 1, 49; C.S.P. Ven. 1632–36, p. 558. Carlisle's generous provision for his second wife was at the expense of a son whom he disliked. For the Crown's £42,000 debt to Carlisle, see Gardiner, vii, 166.

⁸¹ Duke, of Manchester, , Court and Society from Elizabeth to Anne … (2 vols., London, 1864), 1, 330Google Scholar; C.S.P. Ven. 1629–32, p. 37. The only estimate of a lump sum for benefits received by Holland from the Crown appears to refer to this period. Sir Edward Peyton said that in a few years after Buckingham's death Holland had nearly £150,000 from the king. Peyton, scurrilous and unbalanced, does not always inspire confidence, but in any case this estimate is too vague to be helpful as it fails to discriminate between gifts, offices, and other perquisites, and the length of the ‘few Years’ remains unspecified. Peyton, , Divine Catastrophe, p. 26.Google Scholar

⁸² Committee for Compounding, in, 2078; Committee for Advance of Money, 11,629; Keeler, Mary Frear, The Long Parliament, 1640–1641…(Philadelphia, 1954), p. 98; Huntingdonshire Record Office (Hunts. R.O.), dd M28/3. Rich provided Holland with ready cash on a number of occasions, including his expedition to Spain with Charles and Buckingham.Google Scholar

⁸³ Upton, Anthony F., Sir Arthur Ingram…(Oxford, 1961), pp. 236–7Google Scholar; H.M.C. 55: Var. Coll. viii, 51; The Diary of Sir Henry Slingsby…, Parsons, Daniel (ed.) (London, 1836), P. 51Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Dietz, 258–9.

⁸⁵ Gardiner, VII, 166. Dietz, 259, mentions two debts totalling £52,800, apparently a little before 1630, so that by 1630 the crown had substantially reduced its indebtedness. L.J. vni, 45; C.S.P.D. 1640, p. 149.

⁸⁶ Chamberlain, 11, 58; L.J. viii, 45; Aylmer, , King's Servants, p. 221.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ A.P.C. Sept. 1627–June 1628, pp. 486–7; C.S.P. Ven. 1632–36, p. 278. There was a rough quid pro quo in diplomatic gifts; in 1633 Holland had received two valuable horses from the duke of Vendome, ibid. p. 147.

⁸⁸ Rubens noted that many courtiers could not afford to live as court life demanded, ‘Therefore, public and private affairs are to be sold here for ready money’. Quoted in Gardiner, vii, 105.

⁸⁹ C.S.P.D. 1641–43, p. 29; C.S.P.D. 1639–40, p. 143; Slingsby, , Diary, pp. 32Google Scholar, 51; Faulkner, , Kensington, p. 68; H.M.C. 77: De L ' lsle, vi, 158.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Although in 1645 Holland complained that he had not received the benefits of the Greenwax, constableship of Windsor, justiceship in Eyre, etc., for some years, they were clearly regarded as in abeyance or arrears rather than as items of which he had been deprived, and their profits in fact later became available again. L.J. viii, 45; Committee for Advance of Money, 11, 628–30.

⁹¹ C.S.P.D. 1640, p. 278; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, p. 247.

⁹² [Wilford, John], Memorials and Characters…(London, 1741), p. 173Google Scholar; Chamberlain, 1, 516; H.M.C. 77: De L'lsle, vi, 94, 158; C.S.P. Ven. 1636–39, pp. 285, 416–17; L.J. vi, 85. On the threat posed by Arminianism to the true, and basically Calvinist, religion see Nicholas Tyacke, ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,’ in Russell, , Origins of the English Civil War, pp. 119–43Google Scholar. For arguments by early seventeenth-century Calvinist Anglicans for obedience and adherence to the Church of England as a true church in spite of its faults, see e.g. Shuckburgh, E. S. (ed.), Two Biographies of William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore (Cambridge, 1902) pp. 215–18Google Scholar, and Grosart, A. B. (ed.), The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, D.D. (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1862–1867), 1, cxv-vi.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Rubens noted that many courtiers could not afford to live as court life demanded, ‘Therefore, public and private affairs are to be sold here for ready money’. Quoted Gardiner, vii, 105.

⁸⁹ C.S.P.D. 1641–43, p. 29; C.S.P.D. 1639–40, p. 143; Slingsby, , Diary, pp. 32Google Scholar, 51; 32, 51; Faulkner, , Kensington, p. 68; H.M.C. 77: De L' Isle, vi, 158.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Although in 1645 Holland complained that he had not received the benefits of Greenwax, constableship of Windsor, justiceship in Eyre, etc., for some years, they clearly regarded as in abeyance or arrears rather than as items of which he had been deprived, and their profits in fact later became available again. L.J. viii, 45; Committee for Advance of Money, 11, 628–30

⁹¹ C.S.P.D. 1640, p. 278; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, p. 247.

⁹² [Wilford, John], Memorials and Characters…(London, 1741), p. 173Google Scholar; Chamberlain, 1, 516; H.M.C. 77: De L'lsle, vi, 94, 158; C.S.P. Ven. 1636–39, pp. 285, 416–17; L.J. vi, 85. On the threat posed by Arminianism to the true, and basically Calvinist, religion see Nicholas Tyacke, ‘Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,’ in Russell, , Origins of the English Civil War, pp. 119–43Google Scholar. For arguments by early seventeenth-century Calvinist Anglicans for obedience and adherence to the Church of England as a true church in spite of its faults, see e.g. Shuckburgh, E. S. (ed.), Two Biographies of William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore (Cambridge, 1902) pp. 215–18Google Scholar, and Grosart, A. B. (ed.), The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, D.D. (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1862–1867), 1, cxv–vi.Google Scholar

⁹³ Heath, James, A New Book of Loyal English Martyrs…(London, n.d.), p. 227Google Scholar (misnumbered); Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 548.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Webb, , St Bartholomew's, 11, 293Google Scholar, 312–17; Faulkner, , Kensington, p. 144Google Scholar; Seaver, Paul S., The Puritan Lectureships…(Stanford, 1970), pp. 231–2. In 1641 Holland persuaded Juxon to install Hodges at Kensington in place of t h e previous disreputable incumbent.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Diary of John Rous, pp. 79–80; Brook, Benjamin, The Lives of the Puritans…(3 vols., London, 1813), III, 527Google Scholar. Holland's support had limited effect, as Stoughton was later tried before the High Commission, Seaver, , Lecturers, p. 324Google Scholar. Mullinger, J. B., The University of Cambridge (3 vols., Cambridge, 1911), III, 125Google Scholar, 128; Trevor-Roper, H. R., Archbishop Laud 1573–1645 (2nd ed., London, 1965), pp. 206–8.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ E.g. C.S.P.D. 1628–29, p. 525; C.S.P.D. 1633–34, pp. 269–70, 464.

⁹⁷ Heath, , Martyrs, p. 237.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Two Elizabethan Puritan Diaries, Knappen, M. M. (ed.) (Studies in Church History, 11, Chicago, 1933), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Rushworth, John, Historical Collections…(8 vols., London, 1721–1722), v, 368.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ C.S.P.D. 1619–23, p. 589.

¹⁰¹ C.S.P. Ven. 1632–36, pp. 330–1, 564–5; C.S.P. Ven. 1636–39, p. 186; cf. Stone's dismissal of them as ‘frondeurs’, see above.

¹⁰² E.g. C.S.P.D. 1633–34, pp. 189, 209, 458, 464–5; C.S.P.D. 1637, p. 413; Gardiner, VII, 199.

¹⁰³ C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, PP. 432, 435; C.S.P.D. 1633–34, p. 209.

¹⁰⁴ Gardiner, vii, 104–5; C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, pp. 415, 417, 433–4.

¹⁰⁵ C.S.P.D. 1637, p, 308; C.S.P. Col. 1574–1640, pp. 169, 183, 235, 275; Newton, A. P., The Colonising Activities of the English Puritans (New Haven, 1914), p. 61Google Scholar. The future earl of Manchester, Warwick's son-in-law, inherited part of Sir Nathaniel's share in the Company, so the close family connexion continued. C.S.P. Col. 1574–1640. pp. 234, 245; Newton, , op. cit. p. 242.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ C.S.P. Col. 1574–1640, pp. 108, 131, 146, 260, 290.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. pp. 220, 279; C.S.P.D. 1637, pp. 252, 310, 312, 336; Marsden, R. G., ‘Early Prize Jurisdiction and Prize Law in England’, English Historical Review, xxv (1910), 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Craven, Frank, ‘The Earl of Warwick, a Speculator in Piracy’, Hispanic American Historical Review, x (1930), 470–1Google Scholar; Foedera, Conventiones, Literae… Rymer, Thomas and Sanderson, Robert (eds.) (20 vols., London, 1726–1735), xx, 186–8Google Scholar (for an extended commission 1638). In December 1637 a prize worth £15,000 to the Company was reported, Knowler, 11, 141; Craven, pp. 471–3; but cf. C.S.P. Col. 1574–1640, p. 298, for less successful ventures.

¹⁰⁸ On the Scottish campaign, cf. Clarendon, 1, 94–6, and Slingsby, , Diary, p. 36Google Scholar. H.M. 7: Eighth Report, Pt. 11 (London, 1881), pp. 55–6Google Scholar; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 1, 92–4.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ C.S.P. Ven. 1636–39, p. 598; John K. Gruenfelder, ‘The Election to the Short Parliament, 1640’, in Reinmuth, , Early Stuart Studies, pp. 189, 193, 203, 220; Gardiner, ix, 111, C.S.P.D. 1640, p. 66.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Gardiner, ix, 187; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, p. 70. The other peers were Lennox, Hamilton, and Pembroke.

¹¹¹ For the negotiations and plots of 1640–2, for the important role of the aristocracy in leading the opposition, and for its retention of the methods and approach of court faction, see Manning's enlightening article, ‘The Aristocracy and the Downfall of Charles I’, op. cit.

¹¹² Ibid. pp. 62, 72; Gardiner, ix, 361; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, pp. 142, 179, 183, 209, 212; L.J. VIII, 45; H.M.C. 7: Eighth Report, Pt. 11, 56.

¹¹³ C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, p. 222.

¹¹⁴ Gardiner, x, 3; Clarendon, 1, 214, 229, 234. Clarendon commented that ‘the Courtiers of that time look'd upon whatsoever was Denied to them, as Taken from them’, ibid. p. 229. Gardiner's estimate of the value of the barony was more conservative than Clarendon's: ‘a few thousand pounds’. Although Clarendon correctly drew attention to the Forest Courts as an albatross around Holland's neck (see below), I think he exaggerated its importance at this time. This is not to say, however, that Holland was free of apprehension on that score.

¹¹⁵ Manning, ‘Aristocracy’, p. 72.

¹¹⁶ C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, pp. 141–2.

¹¹⁷ Slingsby, , Diary, p. 14.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Ibid. p. 11.

¹¹⁹ Gardiner, x, 32, 73, 98; Clarendon, 1, 236; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, pp. 241, 247.

¹²⁰ Gardiner, x, 130, 142, 149–50; C.S.P. Ven. 1640–42, p. 281; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 1, 159–Google Scholar

¹²¹ C.S.P.D. Add. 1625–49, pp. 642–3; Diary of John Rous, p. 126; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 1, 178, 191, 195; C.S.P. Ven. 1642–43, pp. 108, 178–9, 263.Google Scholar

¹²² Clarendon, 11, 256. Clarendon said of Holland, ‘[he] allways consider'd Himself in the first place’.

¹²³ Ibid. II, 281–3.

¹²⁴ Ibid, 11, 247; The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie…(3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841–1842), 11 99.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Rushworth, , Historical Collections, v, 368.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Clarendon, 11, 280–3.

¹²⁷ Whitelocke, , Memorials, 1, 208. Clarendon agreed that Charles's cold reception was a grave tactical error, op. cit. 11, 283.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 348.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Rushworth, , Historical Collections, v, 368.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Holland's escape from sequestration and impeachment in 1644 was largely due to his cousin Essex. Rowe, Sir Henry Vane, pp. 37–8, 44; Baillie, Letters, 11, 135; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 1, 423Google Scholar, 425; L.J. vi, 340, 349–50, viii, 44–5; C.J. iv, 380–1. It seems that rather than a direct pension of £1,000, as suggested by Firth in the D.N.B., Holland in 1645 was asking for remission of the rent due to the state on the office of the Greenwax, cf. Whitelocke, 1, 548; Committee for Advance of Money, 11, 629–30. Between 1645 and 1647 Holland was a party to intermittent negotiations with the French ambassador for the king's return, although on terms unacceptable to Charles. See The Diplomatic Correspondence of Jean de Montereul… Fotheringham, J. G. (ed.) (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1898–1899), 1, 67–9Google Scholar, 73–5, 89–91, 117, 430, and passim. MacCormack, John R., Revolutionary Politics in the Long Parliament (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 104–9, 113, is misled by Montereul into treating Holland rather more seriously than his activities warranted at this time; he fails to note that although at first Montereul placed great faith in Holland's judgement, he dropped him as a source of authoritative information after the collapse of the first negotiations early in 1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³¹ H.M.C. 77: De L'lsle, vi, 560–2, 565.

¹³² Whitelocke, , Memorials, II, 187–8, 191; L.J. viii, 718, ix, 78,81–2, 191–2, 361,385; H.M.C. 77: De L'Isle, vi, 562–7; Baillie, Letters, II, 99; Clarendon, III, 48. See Pearl, ‘London's Counter-Revolution’, passim, for an illuminating account of the events of this period.Google Scholar

¹³³ L.J. ix, 192; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 348–9.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Clarendon, III, 95, 153.

¹³⁵ His enemies saw it as a repetition of the situation in 1643: in [the] low condition of the parliament, [he] revolted again’. Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow (London, 1771), p. 109Google Scholar. On the social threat, cf. the explanation of Willoughby's support of the City presbyterians followed by defection to the king in 1647: he was ‘jealous that monarchy, and consequently degrees and titles of honour, were in danger to be wholly abolished’. Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 366.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ H.M.C. 77: De L' Isle, vi, 573; Heath, , Martyrs, p. 235Google Scholar; Committee for Advance of Money, 11, 628; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 546–7.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Clarendon, III, 207; Whitelocke, , Memorials, 11, 542Google Scholar, 547–8; H.M.C. 77: De L'Isle, vi, 138 Carte, Thomas, A Collection of Original Letters and Papers…(2 vols., London, 1739), 1, 247; Clarendon, III, 209.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ [Wilford, ], Memorials, p. 173.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Heath, , Martyrs, pp. 234–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ L.J. ix, 385, x, 356; H.M.C. 77: De L' Isle, vi, 577–8; Pearl, ‘Royal Independents’, P.74.

¹⁴² H.M.C. 51: Manuscripts of F. W. Leyborne–Popham…(Norwich, 1899), p. 8Google Scholar; Heath, , Martyrs, pp. 235–6.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Clarendon, 11, 280. Although their earlier influence had declined, both Warwick and Manchester remained active and significant figures up to 1649. Manchester's military deficiencies should not obscure his political durability.

¹⁴⁴ Clarendon, III, 209.