Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:20:54.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fourth Earl of Dorset and the Personal Rule of Charles I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

David L. Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assembly of the Long Parliament in November 1640 witnessed an outburst of passionate hostility toward recent royal policies in church and state. “The Common-wealth hath bin miserably torne and macerated,” declared Harbottle Grimston, “and all the proprieties and liberties shaken: the Church distracted, the Gospell and Professors of it persecuted, and the whole Kingdome over-run with multitudes and swarmes of projecting cater-wormes and caterpillars, the worst of all the Aegyptian plagues.” Yet, as Kevin Sharpe has recently reminded us, “to those on the road during the 1630s, the journey seemed far from a headlong rush towards conflict.” Sir Henry Wotton could write in 1633 that “we know not what a Rebel is; what a Plotter against the Common-weal: nor what that is, which Grammarian[s] call Treason: the names themselves are antiquated with the things.” To resolve this flat contradiction requires much further research into the politics and government of Charles I's Personal Rule. In particular, a clear picture of the political behavior, relationships, and attitudes of many public figures is still lacking. This article therefore presents a case study of one prominent individual: Edward Sackville, fourth earl of Dorset, privy councillor and lord chamberlain to Henrietta Maria. These offices gave Dorset an exceptional opportunity during the 1630s to “see more clearly into [the king's] intents and actions.” Moreover, both official sources and personal correspondence should reveal his activities during the Personal Rule and his attitudes toward it. What follows will examine in turn Dorset's duties as the queen's lord chamberlain, the political influence that this office conferred, his work as a privy councillor, his relations with various factions, and his private opinions of the regime and of Charles I and Henrietta Maria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , July 1991 , pp. 257 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Grimston, Harbottle, Master Grimston his worthy and learned Speech … concerning troubles abroad and grievances at home (London, 1641)Google Scholar, signature (sig.) A3 (Wing, G 2051; this is a reference to A Short-Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and British America and of English Books Printed Abroad, 1641–1700, comp. D. Wing, 3 vols. [New York, 1945–1951])Google Scholar. There is a vast literature on the opening of the Long Parliament, but for three recent contrasted accounts, see Morrill, J. S., “The Religious Context of the English Civil War,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 34 (1984): 155–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lambert, S., “The Opening of the Long Parliament,” Historical Journal 27, no. 2 (1984): 265–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fletcher, A., The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), pp. xix–xxi, 1–10Google Scholar.

2 Sharpe, K., “The Personal Rule of Charles I,” in Before the English Civil War, ed. Tomlinson, H. (London, 1983), pp. 53–78, at p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. SirWotton, Henry, “A Panegyrick to King Charles” (1633), in Reliquiae Wottonianae, ed. Walton, I., 4th ed. (London, 1685), pp. 135–58, at p. 151 (Wing, W 3651)Google Scholar.

3 This phrase is taken from Charles I's “proclamation for the suppression of false rumours touching Parliament” of March 27, 1629. See Larkin, J. F., ed., Stuart Royal Proclamations: Vol. 2. Royal Proclamations of King Charles I, 1625–46 (Oxford, 1983), pp. 226–28Google Scholar.

4 This lacuna should be filled in the near future by the work of Caroline Hibbard.

5 For Dorset's appointment to this office in July 1628, see Public Record Office (PRO), Lord Steward's Department (LS) 13/169 (Board of Green Cloth entry book, 1627–42), p. 42. For his stipend, see PRO, Exchequer (E) 101/438/7 (Queen's household establishment, March 1629/30), fol. 2r; E 101/438/14 (Queen's household establishment, June 1632), fol. 2r; PRO, Land Revenue Office (LR) 5/57, 63 (Queen's household establishments, April 1629) (I owe these two references to Professor Hibbard); LR 5/67 and LR 9/20 (Queen's household vouchers). See also British Library (BL), Egerton MS 1048, fols. 186–87 (undated list of Queen's household servants, signed by Dorset); Stowe MS 561 (Queen's household ordinances, 1627, 1631).

6 PRO, LS 13/30 (list of diets and liveries granted to the Queen's household). This diet was worth £1,095 per annum; see Aylmer, G. E., The King's Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625–1642 (London, 1961), p. 169Google Scholar.

7 PRO, LS 13/30.

8 BL, Lansdowne MS 736 (“A Survey or Ground Plot of His Majesty's Palace of Whitehall”), fol. 12v. Compare Sharpe, Kevin, “The Image of Virtue: The Court and Household of Charles I, 1625–1642,” in The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War, ed. Starkey, David (Harlow, 1987), pp. 226–60, at pp. 229–30Google Scholar.

9 PRO. E 317/SURREY/41 (parliamentary survey of Surrey), fol. 2r. See also LR 2/298 (parliamentary survey of Surrey, vol. 3), fol. 17r.

10 PRO, Index Volumes (Ind.) 1/6747 (Privy Seal Office docquet book, 1626–31), August 1630, October 1631; Ind. 1/6748 (Privy Seal Office docquet book, 1631–37), December 1632; E 403/1743 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1630–31), October 14, November 8, 1630, March 29, April 1, 1631; E 403/1745 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book. 1631–32), February 8, 1631/2; E 403/1746 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1632–33), January 26, March 8, 1632/3; all unfoliated.

11 PRO, Ind. 1/6748, January 1633/4, October 1635; Ind. 1/6749 (Privy Seal Office docquet book, 1637–46), May 1637, March 1637/8; E 403/1748 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1634–35), May 9, July 4, 1634; E 403/1749 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1635–36), April 21, 1635; E 403/1750 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1636–37), February 18, 19, June 15, 1636; E 403/1751 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1637–38), May 22, 1637; E 403/1752 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells issue book, 1638–39), June 15, 22, July 6, October 26, November 2, 1638; all unfoliated.

12 See Elton, G. R., “Tudor Government,” Historical Journal 31, no. 2 (1988): 425–34, esp. 430CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Elton for advice on this last point.

13 See, e.g., PRO, Lord Chamberlain's Department (LC) 5/180 (household regulations, 1630). See also Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue,” pp. 230–48, esp. pp. 230–31, 242–45Google Scholar; Reeve, L. J., Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 195–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Library of the Inner Temple, Petyt MS 538, vol. 20 (miscellaneous collections), fol. 691r.

15 Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue,” esp. pp. 236–39Google Scholar.

16 PRO, State Papers (SP) 16/132/49 (Dorset to Attorney General Heath, January 20, 1628/9). For the warrant, see PRO, Signet Office (SO) 3/9 (Signet Office docquet book, 1627–30), unfoliated. May 1629.

17 For four surviving examples, see PRO, E 179/274/58 and SP 16/530/53 (certificates to household servants, 1629).

18 Cleveland Public Library, Ohio, John G. White Special Books Collection, Q 091.92 B6442 (letters of Sir Edward Dering, 1629–34), unfoliated (Dorset to Sir Edward Dering, September 27, 1632). I am most grateful to Peter Salt for this reference and for lending me a microfilm of the manuscript.

19 House of Lords Record Office (HLRO), Main Papers (MP), April 15, 1642. This certificate is dated September 13, 1630. Botteler kept it with him like a talisman and in April 1642 attached it to a petition to the House of Lords begging release from imprisonment. He was duly discharged; Lords Journal (L.J.) (London, 1846–), 4:722Google Scholar. Exactly the same is true of Dorset's certificate for Herbert Finch, sewer to the queen, dated May 8, 1635: HLRO, MP, April 28, 1642. For his release, see L.J., 5:25.

20 See, e.g., PRO, SP 16/238/58 (certificate for Edmond Fortescue, May 9, 1633).

21 See also Dorset's authorization of payments to members of the household: PRO, E 101/438/11, 13, 15; E 101/439/3; LR 5/63 (lists of acquittances due to the queen's servants).

22 PRO, SP 16/355/66 (petition of Sir Robert Willoughby, [May?] 1637).

23 PRO, SP 16/355/66.I (memorandum by Dorset, May 4, 1637).

24 See in particular PRO, E 156/7, 10 (Exchequer original letters patent: indentures relating to the queen's possessions, 1629–30); SP 16/148/56 (copy of letters patent, August 13, 1629). For another example of Dorset's activities on the queen's behalf, see Kent Archives Office (KAO), Borough of Sandwich MS, Sa/ZB2/86 (Dorset to the mayor and corporation of Sandwich, June 16, 1631).

25 PRO, Chancery (C) 66/2846/7 (patent rolls); Ind. 1/4225 (docquet book of warrants for the Great Seal, 1638–41), fol. 23v. For a lease under this warrant, see William Salt Library, Stafford, Salt MS 528 (indenture with Christopher Graves on Henrietta Maria's behalf, March 24, 1640/1). For details of Finch, Holland, and Wynne, see esp. Aylmer (n. 6 above), pp. 84, 92, 94, 132, 362–63.

26 BL, Harleian (Harl.) MS 7000 (State Papers, 1620–31), fol. 265r (George Gresley to Sir Thomas Puckering, October 24, 1629). For the lease, see BL, Additional (Add.) Charter 9290 (indenture between Dorset and John Herne, July 15, 1629).

27 PRO, Privy Council Office (PC) 2/46 (Privy Council register, 1636), p. 143. See also Bentley, G. E., The Jacobean and Caroline Stage, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1941–1968), 2:423–24Google Scholar.

28 Cunningham, P., “The Whitefriars Theatre, the Salisbury Court Theatre, and the Duke's Theatre in Dorset Gardens,” Shakespeare Society's Papers 4 (1849): 89–109, at 96–97Google Scholar. See also Bentley, 2:684. For Dorset's funding of the queen's players in October 1637, see PRO, LR 5/66 (Queen's household vouchers, 1634–38), unfoliated, October 10, 1637.

29 BL, Trumbull Miscellaneous Correspondence, vol. 61 (diary of Georg Weckherlin, 1633–42), unfoliated, December 18, 1638.

30 Davenant, William, The Iust Italian (London, 1630)Google Scholar, sig. 2 (Short Title Catalogue [STC], 6303). Compare Sharpe, K., Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 55, 88–89Google Scholar. For a critique of Sharpe's interpretation, see Butler, M., “Early Stuart Court Culture: Compliment or Criticism?” Historical Journal 32, no. 2 (1989): 425–35, esp. 429–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Heywood, Thomas, Loves Maistresse, or the Queens Masque (London, 1636)Google Scholar, sig. A1 (STC, 13352). Rutter, Joseph, The Cid: A Tragicomedy, out of French made English (London, 1637)Google Scholar, sigs. A2–A3 (STC, 5770). Rutter was tutor to Dorset's two sons, Richard and Edward, and claimed in his epistle dedicatory that parts of “this peece” had been written by them. The boys once entertained the king and queen in a short play, performed while Henrietta Maria's regular company was dispersed: The King and Queenes Entertainement at Richmond … September 12 1636 (Oxford, 1636), pp. 28–29Google Scholar, 31 (STC, 5026). I am unpersuaded by Martin Butler's claim that this was a “martial masque” containing veiled criticism of the king; see Butler, M., Theatre and Crisis, 1632–1642 (Cambridge, 1984), p. 33Google Scholar. It looks to me more like a dreamy pastoral, an interpretation that fits perfectly with the foreign policy advocated in Dorset's correspondence (see pp. 272–77 below). For Rutter's elegy on the wife of another Dorset client, Sir Kenelm Digby, see BL, Add. MS 30,259 (collection of verses on Lady Venetia Digby), fols. 14–17. For a parallel discussion of several other works dedicated to Dorset in his capacity as Henrietta Maria's lord chamberlain, see Smith, David L., “The Political Career of Edward Sackville, Fourth Earl of Dorset (1590–1652)” (hereafter called “Dorset”) (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1990), pp. 251–53Google Scholar.

31 See pp. 270–71 below.

32 See esp. the agenda suggested in Starkey, D., “Introduction: Court History in Perspective,” in Starkey, , ed. (n. 8 above), pp. 1–24, esp. pp. 4–5Google Scholar. For a critique, see Elton, “Tudor Government” (n. 12 above).

33 For more detailed discussion of this during the late 1620s, see Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 70–71, 77–78Google Scholar. For an example from June 1633, see Cambridge University Library, Add. MS 6863 (diary of Judge Richard Hutton, 1614–39), fol. 66r–v.

34 Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue” (n. 8 above), pp. 231–32Google Scholar.

35 PRO, LC 5/134 (lord chamberlain's warrant book, 1633–40), p. 145. For details of Dorset's key of office, hanging from the frame of his portrait at Knole, see Sackville-West, V., Knole and the Sackvilles (London, 1922), p. 89Google Scholar.

36 See Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue,” p. 244Google Scholar.

37 See Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 86–88Google Scholar.

38 Sheffield Central Library (SCL), Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments, Strafford Papers (WWM, Str. P), vol. 8, fols. 234–35 (Dorset to Wentworth, March 12, 1634/5). I am most grateful to Olive, Countess Fitzwilliam's Wentworth Settlement Trustees, and to the director of Sheffield Libraries and Information Services, for permission to publish this and other extracts from the Strafford Papers.

39 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 8, fols. 235–36 (Wentworth to Dorset, May 19, 1635).

40 Ibid.

41 See Gardiner, S. R., History of England, 1603–42, 12 vols. in 10 pts. (London, 1883–1884), 8:87Google Scholar. Uncharacteristically, he failed to clinch his point that the queen was put off by Wentworth's “invincible probity.” It is much more likely that she stopped promoting Wentworth for the lord treasurership because Dorset had told her that he would never accept it.

42 Ibid., 8:91. However, the king's choice of Bishop Juxon on March 6, 1636, indicated Laud's growing power and revealed the limits of Henrietta Maria's influence; ibid., 8:140–42. See also Smuts, R. M., “The Puritan Followers of Henrietta Maria in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 93 (1978): 26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar. esp. 35. For further discussion of the queen's influence, see pp. 282–83 below.

43 Dasent, J. R.et al., The Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1542–1631 (A.P.C.) 46 vols. (London, 1890–1964), vol. 45 (1629–1630), pp. 303–4Google Scholar.

44 BL, Harl. MS 390 (original letters), fol. 504r (Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville, March 20, 1629/30). This is entirely consistent with Dorset's religious attitudes insofar as we can recover them; see Smith, “Dorset” (n. 30 above), chap. 4. For the religious connotations of the term “forwardness” in early modern England, see Collinson, P., “Puritans, Men-of-Business and Elizabethan Parliaments,” Parliamentary History 7 (1988): 187–211, esp. 192–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 PRO, SP 16/380/38 (order of the Privy Council, January 31, 1637/8).

46 See esp. Smuts, p. 35; Sharpe, “Image of Virtue” (n. 8 above), p. 257; and Reeve (n. 13 above), pp. 38–39, 200.

47 PRO, C 115/M30/8072 (John Flower to Viscount Scudamore, July 29, 1630). I owe this reference to Ian Atherton.

48 Bodleian Library (Bodl.), MS Rawlinson D 912 (documents relating to the University of Oxford), fol. 82r (Dorset to Dr. Baily, [1636?]). For the public reading of this letter at Oxford, see The Works of William Laud, ed. Scott, W. and Bliss, J., 7 vols. (Oxford, 1847–1860), 5:153–54, 156Google Scholar.

49 BL, Add. MS 15,389 (transcripts from papal registers, vol. 39), fol. 190v (George Con to Cardinal Barberini, August 25, 1636). For another instance of this, see the Calendar of State Papers Venetian (C.S.P.V.), ed. Brown, R.et al., 40 vols. (London, 1864–1940) vol. 24 (1636–1639), pp. 77, 80Google Scholar.

50 PRO, C 115/M13/7264 (John Scudamore to Viscount Scudamore, August 31, 1637). I owe this reference to Ian Atherton.

51 Dorset was installed as a Knight of the Garter in December 1625; see BL, Add. MS 37,998 (Sir Edward Walker's papers relating to the Order of the Garter), fol. 56r; Bodl., MS Ashmole 1132 (papers relating to the Order of the Garter), fol. 122r.

52 For the background to this, see Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue,” pp. 241–42Google Scholar. For the seating-plans, see BL, Add. MS 37,998, fols. 33r, 48r; Bodl., MS Ashmole 1111 (papers relating to the Order of the Garter), fol. 93r; MS Ashmole 1132, fols. 124r, 126r, 133r, 285r. I have not yet found the plans for 1634, 1636, or 1639, but we know from PRO, LC 5/193 (feasts of Saint George, 1638–88), fols. 154v, 155r, that Dorset did not attend the feasts in 1638 and 1640. On these occasions, the Knights of the Garter always sat in order of installation, placing Dorset next to the earls of Carlisle, Salisbury, Holland, and Berkshire. The plans would tell us more had the knights chosen their dinnertime companions!

53 PRO, LC 5/132 (lord chamberlain's warrant book, 1627–31), fol. 104r; LC 5/134 (lord chamberlain's warrant book, 1634–41), pp. 55, 152, 246. For a fuller discussion, see Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 159–62Google Scholar.

54 The annual totals of his attendances were as follows: 44 of 96 meetings in 1629 (counting from March 10); 34 of 83 in 1630; 33 of 90 in 1631; 38 of 79 in 1632; 51 of 102 in 1633; 45 of 89 in 1634; 39 of 90 in 1635; 48 of 82 in 1636; 82 of 131 in 1637; 58 of 111 in 1638; 66 of 131 in 1639; 13 of 36 in 1640 (counting to April 13). These totals do not include meetings of standing committees or ad hoc subcommittees of the Privy Council. Figures to June 30, 1631, are derived from A.P.C. (n. 43 above), vols. 44–46 (1628–31), passim; those thereafter from PRO, PC 2/41–52 (Privy Council registers, 1631–40), passim.

55 For the development of these standing committees during the 1630s, see Sharpe, , “The Personal Rule of Charles I” (n. 2 above), pp. 64–65Google Scholar; and Haskell, P., “Sir Francis Windebanke and the Personal Rule of Charles I” (Ph.D. diss., University of Southampton, 1978), chap. 3Google Scholar.

56 He was a member of the committee for foreign affairs in 1634–35: PRO, PC 2/44, p. 1; of the committee for Irish affairs in 1628–29: A.P.C., vol. 44 (1628–29), p. 276; of the committee for ordnance in 1632–40: PC 2/42, p. 6; PC 2/43, p. 3; PC 2/44, p. 1; PC 2/47, p. 1; PC 2/49, p. 1; PC 2/51, p. 1; of the committee for trade in 1628–29 and 1634–40: A.P.C. vol. 44 (1628–29), p. 276; PC 2/44, p. 3; PC 2/47, p. 1; PC 2/49, p. 1; PC 2/51, p. 1; and of the committee for foreign plantations in 1634–39: PC 2/43, p. 1; PC 2/47, p. 1; PC 2/51, p. 1. Unfortunately, the deliberations of these committees have passed almost entirely unrecorded.

57 This total is derived from the Calendar of State Papers Domestic for the Reign of Charles I (C.S.P.D.), ed. Bruce, J.et al., 23 vols. (London, 1858–1897), vols. 3–16 (1628–1640). passimGoogle Scholar.

58 PRO, SP 16/196/1 (saltpeter commission, July 1, 1631). For some further examples, see Smith, , “Dorset” (n. 30 above), p. 119Google Scholar, n. 11.

59 PRO, SP 16/232/97 (commission, February 22, 1632/3).

60 PRO, SP 16/238/55 (commission, [May 11], 1633).

61 PRO, SP 16/247/1 (petition of Paul Micklethwaite, D.D., October 1, 1633); SP 16/259/84 (petition of the vintners of the city of London, [January?] 1633/4); SP 16/294/15 (petition of William, Lord Eure, July 20, 1635).

62 PRO, SP 16/403/87 (petition of William Newton, October 16, 1638). For Sir John Finch, see Aylmer (n. 6 above), p. 94; and p. 262 above.

63 PRO, SP 16/426/51 (order of the Privy Council, July 26, 1639).

64 PRO, SP 16/139/66 (Dorset to Lord President Conway, March 29, 1629).

65 PRO, SP 16/401/73 (Dorset to Secretary Windebanke, November 14, 1638). See also SP 16/399/20 (Dorset to Secretary Windebanke, September 27, 1638). The full Privy Council meeting referred to was presumably that held on November 18, 1638; PC 2/49, p. 547.

66 PRO, SP 16/174/63 (Thomas Windham to Dorset, October 20, 1630). Complaints against this and similar abuses were particularly widespread in 1629–30: see Walter, J., “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law,” in An Ungovernable People, ed. Brewer, J. and Styles, J. (London, 1980), pp. 47–84Google Scholar; also Walter, J. and Wrightson, K., “Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England,” Past and Present, no. 71 (1976), pp. 22–42, esp. pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

67 PRO, E 215/58E (minute book of commission on fees, 1631), unfoliated, March 17, 1630/1.

68 PRO, E 215/161 (Dorset's instructions to commission on fees, July 5, 1631).

69 The warrant for Prynne's arrest, dated February 1, 1632/3, was signed by eight privy councillors, including Dorset; see Commons Journal (C. J.) (London 1803–), 2:124Google Scholar. Prynne later claimed that Dorset “was the Chiefe meanes of helping [him] into prison”: Hampshire RO, Jervoise of Herriard Park MS, 44 M69/5/XXXIX/88 (William Prynne to Henry Sherfield, October 12, 1633). I am grateful to John Adamson for lending me a photocopy of this letter.

70 Hampshire RO, Jervoise of Herriard Park MS, 44 M69/5/XXXIX/88. The previous February, Dorset had defended Sherfield in Star Chamber when he was tried for smashing a stained-glass window in Saint Edmund's Church, Salisbury; see Smith, , “Dorset” (n. 30 above), pp. 214–17Google Scholar.

71 The fullest and most reliable text of Dorset's speech is that in Bodl., MS Tanner 299 (Archbishop Sancroft's transcriptions), fols. 130v–131r, from which the following quotations are taken. For a briefer version, see Gardiner, S. R., ed., Documents relating to the proceedings against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637, Camden Society, 2d ser., 17 (1877): 25Google Scholar (printing BL, Add. MS 11,764 [miscellaneous law papers], fols. 26v–27v).

72 Gardiner (n. 41 above), 7:333.

73 Dorset's relationship with Middlesex from the early 1620s is discussed in Smith, Prestwich, “Dorset,” pp. 65–70Google Scholar. For Middlesex's withdrawal to Copt Hall, see Prestwich, M., Cranfield: Politics and Profits under the Early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), pp. 481, 543–45Google Scholar.

74 Hyde, Edward, earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. Macray, W. D., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1888), 1:93 (bk. 1, sec. 159)Google Scholar.

75 PRO, C 115/N4/861 (John Burghe to Viscount Scudamore, October 1637). Compare the extract from SirWotton's, Henry “Panegyrick to King Charles,” quoted above, p. 257Google Scholar.

76 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers. I am most grateful to Donald Gibson of the Kent Archives Office for his assistance in using this collection of papers.

77 See pp. 283–85 below.

78 See, e.g., Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 426CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharpe, , “The Personal Rule of Charles I” (n. 2 above), pp. 74–78Google Scholar.

79 Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue” (n. 8 above), p. 257Google Scholar. See also Smuts (n. 42 above), pp. 36–40.

80 Smuts, p. 38.

81 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

82 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, February 7, 1636/7, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

83 Smith, , “Dorset” (n. 30 above), pp. 54–58Google Scholar.

84 Smuts, p. 27.

85 The evidence for this statement is rehearsed in Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 172–74Google Scholar.

86 Ibid., pp. 174–76.

87 Smuts, p. 38; Gardiner (n. 41 above), 8:202. For Arundel's political career generally, see Hervey, M. F. S., ed., The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel (Cambridge, 1921)Google Scholar; and esp. Howart, D., Lord Arundel and His Circle (London, 1985)Google Scholar.

88 They were both grandsons of the fourth duke of Norfolk; see G. E. C[okayne], The Complete Peerage, new ed., ed. Gibbs, V.et al., 14 vols. (London, 1910–1959), 1:255Google Scholar; 4:423. They also served as joint lords lieutenant of Sussex; see Smith, , “Dorset,” esp. pp. 269–70Google Scholar. A political satire of ca. 1640 even depicted them sitting side by side in the Upper House: Bodl., MS Douce 357 (political satires, temp. Chas. I–Chas. II), fol. 37r. Arundel appointed Dorset one of his executors in September 1641: PRO, Prerogative Court of Canterbury (PROB) 11/202/241 (copy of probated will of Thomas Howard, earl of Arundel). I owe this last reference to Sabrina Alcorn Baron.

89 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, January 20, 1636/7, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

90 For an analysis of Windebanke's attitudes toward foreign policy, see Haskell (n. 55 above), chaps. 5–6.

91 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers. Compare Haskell, p. 291. For the background to this episode, see Gardiner, 8:161–62.

92 PRO, SP 16/399/20 (Dorset to Secretary Windebanke, September 27, 1638).

93 PRO, SP 16/449/44 (John Ashburnham to Sir Edward Nicholas, March 31, 1640); SP 16/450/7 (deposition of Hastings alderman, March 1, 1639/40); SP 16/469/82 (notes concerning Hastings election, [October 10,] 1640). See also Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 302–4Google Scholar.

94 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [September?] 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

95 John Selden, Mare Clausum, which was first published in 1636 (STC, 22175) but originated in a treatise of 1618, boldly asserted England's maritime hegemony. See Gardiner, 8:154–55; and Tuck, R., Natural Rights Theories (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 86–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [September?] 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

97 Ibid.

98 C.S.P.V. (n. 49 above), vol. 22 (1629–32), pp. 606–7.

99 Ibid. This passage was in cipher in Gussoni's despatch.

100 Ibid., pp. 619–20.

101 See Gardiner (n. 41 above), 7:207; Reeve (n. 13 above), pp. 266–89.

102 C.S.P.V., vol. 22 (1629–32), p. 644.

103 PRO, SP 16/239/71 (Secretary Windebanke to Lord Treasurer Portland, May 31, 1633). See also Reeve, p. 185, n. 75.

104 Lambeth Palace Library, MS 943 (Laud's papers), p. 183 (“Memoriall” of July 11, 1633).

105 See Gardiner, 7:343.

106 PRO, SP 16/159/22 (Charles I to Attorney General Heath, January 27, 1629/30); SP 16/159/32 (commission, January 28, 1629/30).

107 BL, Althorp Papers, A8 (Spencer correspondence), unfoliated (Sir George Fane to Baron Spencer, April 20, 1633). I owe this reference to Ian Atherton. This was the first proposal to raise scutage since the reign of Edward III. It was not levied, however, until August 1640, when it raised only £746 16s. 8d.; see PRO, SP 16/476/23 (warrants for services in the Record Office, January 4, 1640/1); E 405/285 (Exchequer of Receipt, pells declaration book, 1636–44), unfoliated, August 1640. I am most grateful to Professor Russell for these last two references and for his help on the subject of scutage.

108 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

109 Brydges, E., Collins's Peerage of England … Greatly Augmented, 9 vols. (London, 1812), 2:159Google Scholar.

110 PRO, PC 2/45, pp. 71–75. See also John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Eng. MS 1091 (letter book of Thomas Cholmondeley, 1637–41), fols. 5v–9r, 30r–31r.

111 PRO, SP 16/319/90 (Ship Money arrears in Kent, April 1636).

112 Phillips, C. J., History of the Sackville Family, 2 vols. (London, 1930), 1:326Google Scholar.

113 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers. For Dorset's attitudes toward the Forced Loan, see Smith, , “Dorset” (n. 30 above), pp. 80–82, 86–88, 95–97Google Scholar.

114 BL, Add. MS 15,392 (transcripts from papal registers, vol. 42), fol. 104r (George Con to Cardinal Barberini, April 8, 1639).

115 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [September?] 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

116 Bodl., MS Bankes 65/28b (Francis Harris to Lord Keeper Coventry, [November?] 1638). For Dorset's duel against Lord Bruce of Kinloss, which took place in August 1613, see Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 20–26Google Scholar.

117 For this description of England during the 1630s, see Clarendon (n. 74 above), 1:94 (bk. 1, sec. 162).

118 Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue” (n. 8 above), pp. 255–56Google Scholar.

119 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

120 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [September?] 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

121 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 12c, fol. 161r (Thomas Mainwaring to Wentworth, November 6, 1630).

122 In particular, the lord treasurer frequently angered Henrietta Maria by trying to curb her extravagance; see Gardiner (n. 41 above), 7:107; Smuts (n. 42 above), pp. 31, 34–35; Aylmer (n. 6 above), pp. 62, 346; Reeve (n. 13 above), p. 39.

123 PRO, SP 16/232/16 (Dorset to Lord Treasurer Portland, [February?] 1632/3).

124 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 8, fols. 234–35 (Dorset to Wentworth, March 12, 1634/5).

125 Young, M. B., Servility and Service: The Life and Work of Sir John Coke (London, 1986), p. 273Google Scholar.

126 Dorset's speech at Sherfield's trial is discussed in Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 214–17Google Scholar. See also n. 70 above. For an analysis of Dorset's speech at Bishop Williams's second trial, placing it in the context of developments within the queen's court, see ibid., pp. 231–38.

127 Ibid., pp. 217, 235–36.

128 For these two ministers, see ibid., pp. 223–29. For Dorset's protection of John Brinsley, see also R. Cust, “Anti-Puritanism and Urban Politics: Charles I and Great Yarmouth,” Historical Journal (in press).

129 This episode is examined more fully in Smith, , “Dorset” (n. 30 above), pp. 229–31Google Scholar.

130 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, October 1, 1636, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers. The phrase “turnd up trump” probably refers to Bishop Juxon's appointment as lord treasurer in March 1636 and to Laud's highly successful management of the royal visit to Oxford the following summer. For these developments, see n. 30 and p. 266 above.

131 See pp. 264–65 above.

132 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 14, fol. 26r (Dorset to Wentworth, April 15, 1634).

133 Ibid.

134 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 8, fol. 158r (Wentworth to Dorset, May 14, 1634). Wentworth probably refers here to his imprisonment for refusal to pay the Forced Loan and to Dorset's assistance in securing his release; see Smith, , “Dorset,” pp. 86–88Google Scholar.

135 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 14, fol. 133r (Dorset to Wentworth, July 12, 1634).

136 PRO, SP 16/421/142 (Thomas Smith to Sir John Pennington, May 23, 1639). For the background to this case, see Clarke, A., “Sir Piers Crosby, 1590–1646: Wentworth's ‘tawney ribbon,’” Irish Historical Studies 26 (1988): 142–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 10, fol. 339r (Wentworth to Dorset, July 24, 1639).

138 Ibid.

139 See pp. 264–65 above.

140 SCL, WWM, Str. P, vol. 10, fol. 339r.

141 See Clarke, pp. 145–46, 158.

142 Ibid., p. 147.

143 PRO, Public Record Office (PRO) 31/3/72 (Armand Baschet's French transcripts), p. 158 (Montreuil to Chavigny, May 31, 1640). I owe this reference to Professor Russell.

144 BL, Add. MS 29,974 (Pitt correspondence), fol. 311r (William Catherens to Edward Pitt, July 17, 1640). I owe this reference to John Adamson. For Dorset's friendship with Sir Thomas Roe, see BL, Add. MS 4168 (letter book of Sir Thomas Roe), fols. 74v–75r (Roe to Dorset, July 15, 1638). I owe this reference to Ian Atherton.

145 “Dat de depute thooft moet verliesen ende die sulks ontraden, dat die verraders sijn vanden Conink ende vant Rijck”; see Algemeen Rijksarchief, The Hague, Archives of the States General, MS 8391 (journal of Van den Burch, secretary to the Dutch ambassadors to England, 1641), unfoliated, May 6/16, 1641. I am very grateful to Simon Groenveld for sending me a transcript of this and other extracts from the journal and for providing me with a translation.

146 See pp. 270–71 above.

147 See p. 271 above.

148 For this episode, see Gardiner (n. 41 above), 7:217–19.

149 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, 1633, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

150 PRO, SP 16/529/40 (Dorset to the earl of Carlisle, November 24, 1628).

151 BL, Microfilm M 485 (Cecil MS, Hatfield House), vol. 131, fol. 182r (Dorset to the earl of Salisbury, June 27, 1642). For further analysis of this letter, see David L. Smith, “‘The more posed and wise advice’: The Fourth Earl of Dorset and the English Civil Wars,” Historical Journal (in press).

152 BL, Egerton MS 784 (diary of William Whiteway, 1618–34), fol. 94r.

153 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, January 20, 1636/7, K.AO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers. This was an unusually early use of the term “cabinet council”: see the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed., s.v. “cabinet, sb.,” 8a. Dorset was not a member of the Privy Council committee for foreign affairs after 1635; see n. 56 above.

154 Reeve (n. 13 above), pp. 198–200, 226–27.

155 Ibid., p. 175.

156 PRO, SP 16/355/65 (Dorset to Secretary Windebanke, May 4, 1637); my emphasis.

157 PRO (Kew), Colonial Office (CO) 1/9, fol. 126r (Dorset to Mr. Withers, deputy governor of the Somers Islands Company, August 9, 1638); my emphasis.

158 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, August 17, 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

159 Dorset to the earl of Middlesex, [September?] 1639, KAO, uncataloged Cranfield Papers.

160 See pp. 281–82 above.

161 PRO, SP 16/466/12 (Lord Cottington's notes of proceedings in the Privy Council, September 2, 1640). See also SP 16/466/11 (Secretary Windebanke's notes of proceedings in the Privy Council, September 2, 1640). For the king's decision to summon a Great Council of Peers, see SP 16/466/28 (Privy Council minute, with annotations in Charles I's hand, September 3, 1640). For a further discussion of Dorset's speech, which explores a possible link with Henrietta Maria, see Smith, “The more posed and wise advice.”

162 See esp. the argument of McInnes, A., “When Was the English Revolution?” History 66 (1982): 377–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163 Cannon, J., Aristocratic Century: The Peerage of Eighteenth Century England (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 93–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fascinatingly, this chapter on the “sinews” of noble power devotes twenty-four of its thirty-two pages to noble influence in Parliament and the cabinet, but less than one page to the court, from which it is clear that office there did not yield power elsewhere.

164 Clark, J. C. D., English Society, 1688–1832 (Cambridge, 1985), esp. pp. 93–118Google Scholar.

165 G. R. Elton, “Tudor Government: The Points of Contact: 3. The Court,” reprinted in his Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1974–1983), 3:38–57, at 56–57Google Scholar.

166 This statement may need some qualification. Until the early sixteenth century there were, so to speak, several “courts,” in the sense of several centers of political power and action. The first two Tudors effectively “destroyed all alternative centres of political loyalty or (to emphasise another function of the Court) all alternative sources of worldly advancement”; ibid., 3:40. This was undoubtedly a major transformation, although I think my basic point—the political influence that could be derived from personal service to the monarch—holds good for both the earlier and the later periods. I am grateful to Professor Elton for advice on this matter.

167 Morgan, D. A. L., “The House of Policy: The Political Role of the Late Plantagenet Household, 1422–1485,” in Starkey, , ed. (n. 8 above), pp. 25–70, esp. pp. 38–39Google Scholar.

168 See esp. Starkey, D., “Intimacy and Innovation: The Rise of the Privy Chamber, 1485–1547,” in Starkey, , ed., pp. 71–118Google Scholar. For its broader political significance, see also Starkey, D., The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (London, 1985), esp. pp. 18–35Google Scholar; Miller, H., Henry VIII and the English Nobility (Oxford, 1986), pp. 78–87Google Scholar.

169 Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue” (n. 8 above), esp. pp. 231–32Google Scholar.

170 Starkey, , “Introduction: Court History in Perspective” (n. 32 above), p. 1Google Scholar.

171 See Adamson, J. S. A., “The Baronial Context of the English Civil War,” Transactions of the Royal Historial Society, 5th ser., 40 (1990): 93–120, at 93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

172 For the term “personal monarchy,” see esp. Sharpe, , “Image of Virtue,” pp. 226, 260Google Scholar. On Charles's unsuitability for kingship, see Reeve (n. 13 above), pp. 178, 199–200. I offer some more general thoughts on the early Stuart constitution, and on Charles's failure to manage it, in Smith, David L., “The Impact on Government,” in The Impact of the English Civil War, ed. Morrill, J. S. (London, 1991), in pressGoogle Scholar.

173 Young (n. 125 above), p. 274.

174 For Hamilton and Traquair, see esp. Donald, P. H., An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637–1641 (Cambridge, 1990), esp. chap. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Hyde and Falkland, the best study remains Wormald, B. H. G., Clarendon: Politics, History and Religion, 1640–60 (Cambridge, 1951; reprint, 1989)Google Scholar, passim. I am currently preparing a monograph on the nature and significance of constitutional Royalism before and during the English Civil Wars.

175 Elton, , Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government, 3:57Google Scholar.

176 Compare Russell, C., The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, 1990), pp. 188–91Google Scholar.

177 Compare Reeve, pp. 175–77.

178 This article is a heavily revised and condensed version of chapter 3 of my doctoral dissertation (n. 30 above), pp. 114–207.