DORSET AS a LOCAL MAGNATE, 1624-1642. in the Previous Chapter
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CHAPTER FIVE: DORSET AS A LOCAL MAGNATE, 1624-1642. In the previous chapter, I argued that Dorset's ecclesiastical patronage is best understood as one dimension of his local influence: most of the benefices in his gift lay near his Sussex estates, and he nearly always chose local men to serve them. 1 I now want to explore more fully Dorset's career as a provincial magnate from his inheritance of the earldom to the outbreak of civil war. I will suggest that muscle in local politics and government depended on three things above all: first, the tenure of specific offices, such as the Lord Lieutenancy of a county, or the High Stewardship of a borough; second, residence in a particular district, and the local knowledge which this yielded; and third, the location of landed estates. The first three sections of this chapter analyse how these variables interacted in Sussex, where Dorset was Lord Lieutenant from 1624, and where his territorial base was concentrated. We will see that Dorset's extensive selling of land to payoff his elder brother's debts did not per se reduce his local clout, and that the office of Lord Lieutenant retained considerable power, especially in military and fiscal matters. However, the Lord Lieutenancy did not necessarily confer electoral patronage, and it seems that Dorset's ------------------------- 1. See Chapter Four, above, pp. 242-3. -260- parliamentary candidates were most consistently successful where they had a local background. In the fourth section, I will strengthen these conclusions with evidence from outside Sussex, and suggest that recent discussion of the early Stuart electorate has tended to neglect the central conflict of interest between noblemen sponsoring their men-of-business and corporations seeking representatives with local knowledge. ~fuether elections produced peaceful 'selections' or bitter contests depended as much on whether the needs of peers and burgesses could be reconciled as on any growing 'poli ticisa tion' of early Stuart electors. The final section will examine Dorset as Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex from 1628. Here it seems that his most important task was to preserve order, especially on Shrove Tuesday and May Day. This is further evidence that early seventeenth century Lords Lieutenant continued to wield extensive military powers, and explains Parliament's anxiety to disarm Dorset in the spring of 1642. The seizure of five wagon-loads of arms from Knole the following August is a clear indication of Dorset's perceived importance as a provincial magnate. I It is appropria te to begin wi th Dorse t' s act i vi ties in Sussex, for the main Sackvi11e lands had been concentrated in -261- 2 the east of that county since the high Middle Ages. Until the move to Knole (near Sevenoaks, Kent) in 1603, the family's 3 country seat lay at Buckhurst Place in Ashdown Forest. Thereafter, the first five Earls of Dorset all served as Lords Lieutenant of Sussex even though they spent most of their time at Knole or in London. 4 Dorset's power in Sussex thus rested on a combination of high office and the location of his estates, rather than on actual residence in the county. By far the most striking development of the late 1620's was a rapid shrinkage of Dorset's Sussex lands as he tried to payoff the vast debts left by his profligate elder brother. The third Earl had begun to sell property as early as 1617,5 and by the time of his death in March 1624 most of the manors ------------------------- 2. V. Sackville-West, Knole and the Sackvilles (London, 1922), pp. 42-50. C.J. Phillips, History of the Sackville Family (2 vols., London, 1930), I, especially 61-9. 3. Phillips, History of the Sackville Family, I, especially 23-5. 4. 422-5. See also A. Fletcher, A Peace and War: Sussex 1600-1660 5. See, for example, E.S.R.O., Ashburnham MS 758 (indenture, 3 June 1617). The third Earl's sales between 1617 and 1623 are fully documented in K.A.O., Sackvi11e MS, U 269/E66/3 (account book of sales by Richard Sackvi11e, third Earl of Dorset, 1617-23). -262- around Lewes especially Kingston, Preston, Ringmer and 6 Southover - were already in the hands of trustees. Further lands, for example at Beddingham and West Firle, had been sold outright in 1623. 7 Despite these measures, the fourth Earl inherited debts of over £60,000,8 and these necessitated drastic action. Dorset raised money by a mixture of permanent sales and widespread mortgages. Initially, he appears to have chosen his less lucrative lands for sale. Thus, on 14 December 1624, he sold the manor of Downeashe, together with 'certain marshlands' comprising about 500 acres, to William Strode, Nicholas Crisp, 6. P.R.O., C 142/405/153 (Inguisition Post Mortem for Richard Sackville, third Earl of Dorse t, 7 September 1624). For another copy, see WARDS 7/71/59. For the third Earl's will, dated 26 March 1624, see PROB 11 (Prerogative Court of Canterbury, copies of proba ted wills), Box 143; and B.L., Add. MS 5701 (miscellaneous Sussex collections), fols. 54-121. See also E.S.R.O., RF 12 (miscellaneous Sussex indentures), items 37 and 39. 7. E.S.R.O., Glynde Place MSS 1383-1387 (deeds relating to sales of lands, May 1623). 8. P.R.O., SP 14/162/45 (John Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, 10 April 1624). -263- 9 Abraham Reynardson and Thomas Cu11ham for a total of £2,830. He was also prepared to sacrifice some ecclesiastical patronage for the sake of ready capital: on 23 November 1624 he sold the manor of Chalvington and the advowson of the parsonage to Thomas Tray ton for £600.10 A private act of Parliament in 1625 confirmed those sales already made and facilitated more sales thereafter. 11 Similar a1ienations continued until the end of the decade, and Dorset's final sale of a Sussex manor was apparently that of Meeching to Matthias Ca1decot on 1 May 1630.12 ------------------------- 9. E.S.R.O., D 145 (bargain and sale, 14 December 1624). See D 295 (deed of payment, 3 June 1625) for payment of the purchase money. For the licence to alienate, see P.R.O., C 66/2346/11 (Chancery Patent Rolls). For the foot of fine, see P.R.O., CP 25/2 (Court of Common Pleas, Feet of Fines), 364/22JAS.I/HIL. See also R.W. Budgen, 'The Manor of Chalvington', Sussex Notes and Queries, XIII (1950), 25-32, especially 30-1. 10. E.S.R.O., RF 12/40 (bargain and sale, 23 November 1624); RF 12/41-2 (deed of sale and its counterpart, 10 December 1624). These lands exceeded 400 acres in area: RF 12/44A (recovery by Thomas Tray ton, Hilary Term, 23 Jas. I). See also Budgen, 'Manor of Chalvington', 32. 11. ~, I, 807, 813. L.J., Ill, 455, 457, 460, 490. 12. P.R.O., C 66/2552/10. For the foot of fine, see CP 25/2, 498/6CHAS.I/HIL. See also Victoria History of the County of Sussex, Vol. VII, ed. L.F. Salzman (London, 1940), 64. -264- Permanent alienation was not, however, the only way of raising money, and Dorset sometimes preferred to mortgage property rather than sell it outright. Much the most profitable of these mortgages involved the manor of Berwick, for which three indentures survive dated 18 January 1625/6,13 20 February 1627/8,14 and 8 November 1629.15 On each occasion, the manor and its qui t-rents were conveyed to George Strode, with all profits and fines in excess of £280 per annum accruing to Dorset. The manor could be redeemed for £3,000. There may well have been further mortgages for which evidence no longer survives. Unfortunately, where the original indentures have been lost, it is often difficult to recover the precise acreages and values of the manors involved, or even whether the transaction was a sale or a mortgage. The central sources consistently disappoint in these respects. As Professor Russell has argued, neither the feet of fines nor the licences to alienate preserved in the Patent Rolls 'permit the compilation of any ------------------------- 13. E.S.R.O., G 23/8 (mortgage of Berwick to George Strode, 18 January 1625/6). 14. E.S.R.O., G 23/9 (mortgage of Berwick to George Strode, 20 February 1627/8). 15. E.S.R.O., G 23/10-11 (release and conveyance relating to the mortgage of Berwick, 8 November 1629). -265- statistics about the volume of land sales,.16 Where we possess only a licence to alienate,17 we cannot tell exactly what Dorset did and for what financial gain without a copy of the original deed. 18 Calculation of total profits would thus require a more complete set of indentures than appears to survive. Nor have I been able to trace any 'valors' of the Sackville estates comparable to those for the Stanley lands. 19 Dorset's personal accounts for these years are also missing, which further hampers attempts to gain an overall view of his financial position. We do have an inventory of payments made by the third Earl's receiver-general and executor, Edward Lyndsey, in order to discharge debts,20 but this ends on 29 ------------------------- 16. C. Russell, 'Engl ish Land Sales, 1540-1640: A Comment on the Evidence', Economic History Review, Second Series, XXV (1972), 117-121. See also H.J. Habakkuk, 'The Rise and Fall of English Landed Families, 1600-1800: III. Did the Gentry Rise?', Transactions of the Ro al Historical Society, Fifth Series, XXXII, 95- especia y 195-8.