KILLIGREW, Sir Robert (c.1580-1633), of Kempton Park, Mdx.; Lothbury, London and Pendennis Castle, Cornw.
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Education
b. c.1580, o.s. of Sir William Killigrew I* of Hanworth, Mdx. and Margery, da. of Thomas Saunders of Uxbridge, Mdx.1 educ. Christ Church, Oxf. 1591, aged 11; travelled abroad 1596-9?;2 embassy, Madrid 1605, Brussels 1619.3 m. by 1605, Mary, da. of Sir Henry Woodhouse† of Hickling, Norf. 5s. 4da. kntd. 23 July 1603; suc. fa. 1622. bur. 3 July 1633.4 sig. Robert Killigrew.
Steward, Launceston Land manor, Cornw. 1609-at least 1624;7 j.p. Cornw. Devon, Mdx. 1617-d., Kent 1629-d.;8 commr. oyer and terminer, Western circ. 1617-d.;9 capt. (sole), Pendennis Castle 1617-28, (jt.) 1628-d.;10 dep. lt. Cornw. by 1618-at least 1627;11 commr. piracy 1624-6, Devon 1630,12 sewers, Colne valley 1624, E. Lincs. fens 1629-d.,13 impressment, Cornw. 1625,14 Forced Loan, Devon, Cornw. and ?Mdx. 1626-7,15 martial law, Devon and Cornw. 1627.16
Recorder, Penryn, Cornw. 1621-d.17
Farmer, Seal Office of k.b. and c.p. 1622-d.;18 commr. exacted fees 1623, 1627, 1630,19 govt. of Virg. 1624, 1631;20 amb. designate, Utd. Provinces 1625-at least 1627;21 prothonotary, Chancery 1628-d.;22 v.-chamberlain, Henrietta Maria’s Household 1628-d.;23 commr. survey, ordnance office 1630.24
One of only four Members returned to every Parliament from 1601 to 1628, Killigrew invariably held a Cornish seat, although he switched constituencies at each election, representing only one borough twice. This local dominance, which also made him one of the leading electoral patrons of this period, is the more remarkable because he owned comparatively little land in Cornwall, and spent most of his life at Court. In effect, he successfully built on the foundation laid by his father, Sir William, who, through his long-standing position in the privy chamber and his kinship with the Cecils, established his reputation as ‘the most kind patron of all his country and countrymen’s affairs’ in London.25 Sir William doubtless found Killigrew his seat at St. Mawes in the 1601 Parliament, though his attempt to transfer his privy chamber post to his son around the same time proved unsuccessful. Killigrew secured a knighthood shortly after the accession of James I, and took his place in the first Jacobean Parliament as a Member for Newport, a borough where Sir William was the principal landowner. Still a relatively young man, he made no recorded impact on the Commons until the fourth session, when he was nominated to accompany the Speaker to the king with a petition against recusancy (26 May 1610).26
Killigrew’s career outside Parliament proved more eventful. In 1605 he secured the reversion of one of Sir William’s main sources of income, the farm of the profits of the seal office in King’s Bench and Common Pleas. Shortly afterwards he joined the earl of Nottingham’s embassy to Spain, where he was falsely rumoured to have died in a duel with Sir Robert Drury*, sometime antagonist of his brother-in-law, Sir William Woodhouse*.27 In 1607 Killigrew joined the committee of the recently formed Virginia Company, and although his active involvement appears to have ceased within five years, he took an intermittent interest in the colony’s affairs for the rest of his life. He also later dabbled in other commercial ventures, such as the Yorkshire alum farm in 1613 and the New River Company in 1619, though he generated the bulk of his income through Court connections. In 1608, just a few months after the earl of Salisbury (Robert Cecil†) became lord treasurer, Killigrew received a pension of £100 p.a. It was presumably also his noble kinsman who obtained for him the stewardship of Launceston Land manor in 1609. Sir William had surrendered his lease of this property to the Crown in the previous year, but the stewardship ensured that the family maintained its electoral grip on Newport.28 Although Cecil patronage had underpinned Sir William’s career, Killigrew looked to the future, and by mid-1612 he was already one of Viscount Rochester’s ‘next favourites’ after Sir Thomas Overbury. In May 1613, following Overbury’s confinement to the Tower, Killigrew was briefly imprisoned for engaging in unauthorized conversation with him ‘in a strange language’, while visiting his friend Sir Walter Ralegh†.29
In 1614 Killigrew began to flex his muscles as an electoral patron, relying on a combination of his father’s Cornish estates and his own Launceston Land stewardship. At Helston, where he secured his own return, he offered the other seat to his friend James Whitelocke*, then accepted the latter’s nomination of Henry Bulstrode. A distant cousin, Sir Thomas Cheke, was found a place at Newport, alongside Thomas Trevor, whose brother Sir John Trevor I* had accompanied Killigrew on the 1605 embassy to Spain. Francis Crane at Penryn, Sir Charles Wilmot and William Croft at Launceston, and Robert Naunton at Camelford, were probably all presented to their respective boroughs by Killigrew at the request of Rochester, now earl of Somerset.30 The 1614 Parliament brought Killigrew a single committee nomination, to consider a bill which would have reduced the profits of the seal office by restricting the issue of writs from the Westminster courts (18 May). His thoughts on this topic are not recorded, but he certainly felt strongly about ‘undertaking’, perhaps because his kinsman Sir Henry Neville I* was attacked over the issue. On 12 May, during a committee of the whole House on undertaking, Killigrew allegedly accused the chairman, Sir Roger Owen, of bias and ‘laid his hand upon him and upon the chair and said he would see him out of it, and told him he should put no more tricks upon them, with other hot words’. When the incident was reported to the Commons the next day, Killigrew ‘was thought worthy of the deepest censure of the House’, despite his denials, and was ordered to acknowledge his fault. However, it appears that he was ultimately spared the shame of apologizing at the bar of the House.31
In July 1614 Killigrew exchanged his pension for the reversion of the captaincy of Pendennis Castle. Besides strengthening his influence over the borough of Penryn, this appointment will have had considerable resonance in Cornwall, because his family had monopolized the post until John Killigrew† of Arwennack was deprived for misconduct in 1598.32 Killigrew’s full entry into local government in 1617 coincided with the reversion falling in. He quickly proved himself ‘very commendable in the care and good performance’ of his new command. In June 1618 he persuaded the government to provide £300 for repairs, and over the next few years he bombarded the Privy Council with requests for further funds, though initially with little success.33 In the meantime he had emerged comparatively unscathed from the fall of Somerset. During the 1615 inquiry into the fatal poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury, one of the earl’s servants alleged that Killigrew had supplied his master with a powder later used to make the victim vomit. However, when Somerset came to trial in the following year, the prosecution argued that this substance had never actually been sent to Overbury, thus clearing Killigrew of complicity. He seems to have quickly attached himself to the new royal favourite, Viscount Villiers, who in November 1616 showed interest in a suit that Killigrew was pursuing. By December 1619 Villiers, now marquess of Buckingham, was describing him as ‘a gentleman whom I love and wish very well unto’.34 Earlier that year Killigrew accompanied another of the king’s favourites, Viscount Doncaster, on his peace mission to the continent, though he travelled only as far as Brussels, returning via the Hague in order to visit his old friend (Sir) Dudley Carleton*. By now Killigrew had evidently settled at Kempton Park, which his father had leased since 1594, for in 1620 Doncaster took up residence at Hanworth manor, the family’s other Middlesex seat.35
The 1620 parliamentary elections in Cornwall were complicated by the nominations which a number of boroughs received from Prince Charles’s Council. Newport and Helston were both affected, though Killigrew took the remaining seat in the former, and successfully nominated his friend Sir Thomas Stafford at the latter. Penryn, which would shortly choose Killigrew as its recorder, returned his nephew, Robert Jermyn, and once more accommodated Sir Francis Crane. During the 1620s Bodmin also came under Killigrew’s sway, for reasons which are unclear, and Sir John Trevor I’s presence there may have been the first sign of this phenomenon.36 Now attending his fourth Parliament, Killigrew produced a more assured performance. On 21 Feb. he was nominated to a sub-committee to assess which petitions should be brought before the Commons. His first recorded contribution to a debate came on 27 Feb., during the second reading of the bill on sea-marks, or lighthouses. As early as July 1619 he had expressed concern at the impact on trade of the impositions being introduced to fund new lighthouses, and he was almost certainly aware that his cousin Sir John Killigrew was seeking a mandatory levy for the light which he had erected at the Lizard. He now particularly criticized the 20-fold increase in the impositions on shipping for the Dungeness light, and although he had some reservations about the bill, which aimed to rein in such exactions, he called for it to be committed. The measure was rejected following the report stage and a revised bill prepared, which Killigrew on 7 May defended against charges that it would give Trinity House a monopoly: ‘it was a strange speech for any man to say ‘twas monopolical, ‘twas drawn by order of the House’. He was named to the new bill’s committee stage but failed to attend the meetings.37 On 12 May, during the debate on the bill to cancel the conveyance of the Hogan patrimony to his sister-in-law, the third wife of Sir Julius Caesar*, he intervened decisively with personal knowledge of the case to secure the measure’s rejection. However, when he helped on 14 May to secure the demise of the bill to increase the share of the tin market enjoyed by the London Pewterers’ Company, he was acting on behalf of the Cornish tinners, who had recruited him a month earlier to safeguard their interests in the negotiations for a new farm of the duchy of Cornwall’s pre-emption of tin.38 Later that day he was named to the committee for the bill to prevent the export of ordnance, after defending the inclusion of the lieutenant of the Tower among the officials to whom notification of infringements must be given, and desiring that Scotland should be exempted from its provisions. He was also appointed to legislative committees concerned with the naturalization of some Scottish courtiers, including Sir Francis Stewart*, and a disputed Chancery decree (19 Mar. and 17 May).39
In November 1621 Killigrew was approached by the earl of Southampton to invest £100 in the troubled Virginia Company, but seems to have held back out of concern over its future. In the following February he was summoned before the Privy Council for refusing to contribute £100 towards the Palatinate Benevolence. His objections are unlikely to have been ideological, as just a few weeks later he requested the queen of Bohemia to use her influence to secure his second son a place in the prince of Orange’s service. He may have been experiencing financial difficulties, though these will have been eased by his father’s death in November 1622, which markedly increased his landed income and also brought him the profits of the seal office.40
At the 1624 general election Killigrew took the first seat at Penryn for himself, and handed the other to a Middlesex neighbour, Edward Roberts. Bodmin similarly accepted two nominees, his friend Sir Thomas Stafford and his nephew Sir Charles Berkeley. Killigrew may also have used his Launceston connections to secure a place there for Sir Miles Fleetwood, as a favour to Buckingham. However, at both Helston and Newport he seems to have lost out to a strong showing by more local patrons.41 In the Commons he adopted a cautious approach to the subject of war, probably with a view to preserving Buckingham’s freedom of manoeuvre with the king. During the debate on 1 Mar. about relations with Spain, he reminded Members that they had been invited simply to consider the treaties, and advised against premature discussion of the consequences of a diplomatic breach. Two days later he was named to the conference with the Lords for preparing a joint petition urging the abandonment of the treaties. On 19 Mar., with the House unsure whether to vote supply until James’s foreign policy intentions were clear, he encouraged Members to offer a grant based on a proper calculation of the likely costs of military ventures, but reminded them that it was not the Commons’ prerogative to dictate war objectives. When debate resumed on the following day, with Sandys urging that supply be tied to specific military targets, Killigrew apparently sought to block this approach by means of a procedural motion to limit the scope of the discussion.42 Of his remaining three speeches, the most heartfelt was a scathing attack on 25 May on the imposition for upkeep of the Dungeness lighthouse, which was being collected even in the West Country, and consequently deterring ships from putting into the ports there. Killigrew was named to select committees to draft the charges against lord treasurer Middlesex (Sir Lionel Cranfield*), and to consider patents which might be classed as monopolies (12 and 22 April). He was also appointed on 22 May to the conference to consider amendments to the bill for continuance of statutes.43 He was named personally to five legislative committees, whose subjects included the New River and decrees in the equity courts (22 Mar. and 14 Apr.), and as a port town burgess also attended bill committees concerned with the fees of customs officials and fishing in America.44
In June 1624 Killigrew was named to the commission for settling the government of Virginia. However, with war now a real prospect he was more preoccupied with events at home. In October he obtained a privateering licence from Buckingham, and in the following month secured a fresh supply of arms for Pendennis. In April 1625 he finally persuaded the Council of War to provide another £350 for repairing the castle, while his role as a Cornish commissioner for impressment placed him at the heart of local military preparations.45 It was in this context that he emerged from the 1625 parliamentary elections as knight of the shire for Cornwall. As usual he found borough seats for several relatives. Sir Henry Hungate and Robert Caesar, the son and stepson of Lady Caesar, were returned at Camelford and Bodmin respectively. The remaining Bodmin burgess-ship went to Killigrew’s nephew Henry Jermyn, while Penryn again elected Edward Roberts. The latter borough’s total subservience was demonstrated by the return of Sir Edwin Sandys, whom Buckingham had failed to place in Kent. According to Thomas Scott*, ‘Sandys had never seen Penryn, nor knew the name of it … nor was a freeman there; nor chosen there; but by Sir Robert Killigrew, at London; who, for that purpose, or to put in some other, if Sir Edwin had sped elsewhere, brought up a blank in his pocket’.46 It was possibly also around this time that the 3rd countess of Bedford, hearing ’out of the west that Sir Robert Killigrew hath yet some burgess-ships in his gift undisposed’, wrote in support of an unidentified gentleman to whom her husband had himself ’intended ... this courtesy’.47 Killigrew’s only committee appointment in the first Caroline Parliament concerned the bill to prevent the abuse of Exchequer procedure by private creditors (23 June). His two recorded speeches were both pleas for supply. On 30 June he urged an immediate grant of two subsidies and two fifteenths, on the grounds that plague might rule out a further session. At Oxford on 11 Aug., with the dissolution looming, he moved for a vote on supply, ‘for it is a greater [sic] disgrace to be denied by a few than by all’.48
Around early August 1625 Killigrew secured the nomination to replace Sir Dudley Carleton as ambassador to the United Provinces, apparently in the hope of reducing ‘the incommodity of his estate’. However, although his official payments began in the following December, it emerged that he was unacceptable to the Dutch, partly perhaps because of his long-standing association with Arminians such as Richard Thomson. With the States threatening to withhold the privilege of admitting the English ambassador to their councils, the king conceded defeat in November 1626 and dispatched Carleton back to the Hague, though Killigrew was still being paid as late as March 1627.49
This personal setback had no apparent impact on Killigrew’s standing in Cornwall, and at the 1626 general election his patronage was undiminished. Penryn once more elected Edward Roberts and Sir Edwin Sandys. Henry Jermyn retained his seat at Bodmin, though Sir Henry Hungate was shifted to Newport. Jermyn’s partner this time was another Buckingham client, Sir Richard Weston, while Edward Lyndsey was probably nominated at Camelford as a favour to the 4th earl of Dorset (Sir Edward Sackville*). Killigrew himself found a place at Tregony, conceivably by arrangement with Charles Trevanion, his fellow knight of the shire in 1625. His status as one of Buckingham’s more prominent clients placed him on the defensive throughout the 1626 Parliament. On 22 Feb. he failed in a bid to postpone discussion of the second arrest of the St. Peter of Le Havre. Appointed on 1 Mar. to deliver to the duke the Commons’ request for an explanation of this incident, he reported back the next day that this direct approach had caused offence in the Lords as a breach of parliamentary etiquette. His advice that the normal procedures be followed was ignored, and on 4 Mar. he was named to the conference where the two Houses debated whether Buckingham’s privilege had been infringed.50 On 13 Mar. he argued that the Commons should grant supply before pursuing its grievances any further, while on the following day he was named to the select committee to consider Digges’s proposal for a privately funded naval war. When Sir John Eliot on 24 Mar. attacked the lord admiral’s failure to guard the seas, Killigrew called unsuccessfully for a committee to consider how far Buckingham had been hampered by lack of money. Six days later, with the House debating how to respond to the king’s charge that their recent behaviour had been ‘unparliamentary’, he attempted to deliver a message from the duke, but was shouted down. On 5 Apr. he was selected to help present Charles with the Commons’ Remonstrance of its privileges. Thereafter he maintained a low profile until 3 May, when he argued fruitlessly for an early date for collecting the proposed fourth subsidy.51
Killigrew’s firm support for the Forced Loan of 1626-7 requires little explanation. Although the onset of war underlined the strategic significance of Pendennis, he had been unable to obtain further funding for essential repairs since early 1625. By the spring of 1626 he was paying the garrison himself, and in January 1627 he complained to the Privy Council that he had now petitioned 69 times since assuming the command. In February the Council accepted Killigrew’s proposal that £1,177 of Cornish Loan money should be spent on repairing Pendennis, and in September it provided a further £300 from the same source. However, his consequent concern that the Loan should be collected efficiently did not guarantee his co-operation with Buckingham’s other principal West Country client, (Sir) James Bagg II*. In June 1627 he complained to Sir Edward Conway I* that Bagg was interfering in his naval jurisdiction at Falmouth, acting as though he were the duke’s sole mouthpiece in the county, and threatening ‘that he would use [Killigrew] as he did others’.52
Not surprisingly, when Bagg’s Cornish allies, led by John Mohun*, attempted to prevent Sir John Eliot and William Coryton from standing as knights of the shire in the 1628 parliamentary elections, Killigrew stood aloof, and focused on finding seats for his own circle. In fact, the growing hostility of voters towards Buckingham and his clients seems to have limited Killigrew’s options this time. He himself was returned at Bodmin, but the other seat there went to Coryton’s ally Humphrey Nicoll. Killigrew successfully nominated Sir Thomas Edmondes at Penryn and probably Evan Edwards, another of Dorset’s servants, at Camelford. However, he was sufficiently unsure of his own authority that his heir, Sir William Killigrew II, stood at both Newport and Penryn, eventually opting to represent the latter borough after the legitimacy of his election at Newport was questioned. Killigrew played little part in the 1628 parliamentary session, making just three speeches. On 4 Apr., with Eliot trying to delay a vote on supply, he called for a division to settle whether or not the king’s financial propositions should be discussed first. When the Commons debated on 3 June how to respond to Charles’s unsatisfactory first response to the Petition of Right, he argued that the king would be more co-operative if Members completed work on the subsidy bill. On 9 May he was added to the select committee which considered the contempt of John Mohun and his faction in ignoring the Commons’ summons to explain their behaviour during the Cornish shire election. Killigrew headed the committee list on the bill for the restitution in blood of Carew Ralegh (4 June). His other legislative committee appointments related to the naturalization of his son-in-law, George Kirke, and saltpetre production (26 Apr. and 27 May).53 During the 1629 session, he was nominated only to the select committee to inquire into a complaint about the management of the posts (9 February).54
In March 1628 Killigrew had obtained a fresh grant of the Pendennis captaincy, which handed joint command to his son Sir William. This enabled him to spend more time in London, and four months later he was appointed vice-chamberlain to the queen. In the same year he succeeded Francis Carew I* as prothonotary of Chancery, though he held this office only for the benefit of Carew’s mother.55 Nevertheless, he had recently renewed his farm of the seal office, and he had sufficient spare capital in 1629 to venture into fen drainage. Having first solicited a grant of Crown land in Lincolnshire’s East and West Fens, north of Boston, he then exploited his Court connections to ensure that local opposition to the drainage project was stifled, and work went ahead in 1631. This undertaking proceeded so smoothly that in April 1633 he launched into a second, more ambitious scheme to drain the neighbouring Eight Hundred Fen.56
Killigrew made his will on 12 Sept. 1632, his Arminian reputation belied by his decision to copy his father’s Calvinist religious preamble. In keeping with his social standing, he allowed for £100 to be spent on his funeral. To his wife he left his main seat of Kempton Park, so long as she remained unmarried, along with a share of the seal office profits. He provided £1,500 dowries for his three unmarried daughters, and divided his fenland investments between his sons and some of his servants. His patent of Irish starch, obtained in reversion in 1629, would shortly come into force, and he assigned the profits to paying his debts and legacies. His designated overseers were his friend Stafford (who later married his widow), Sir Benjamin Rudyard* and Robert Long*. Killigrew drew up a separate codicil on 24 June 1633, taking account of his most recent fen drainage project. He died shortly afterwards, and was buried on 3 July at St. Margaret Lothbury church in London. His main will was proved on 12 July 1633, the codicil five years later.57
Ref Volumes: 1604-1629
Authors: Anne Duffin / Paul Hunneyball
- 1. Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 268, 270.
- 2. Al. Ox.; SO3/1.
- 3. NLW, Carreglwyd ms I/699; HMC Trumbull transcript XXIV. 40.
- 4. Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 268, 270; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 127; GL, ms 4346/1 (unfol.).
- 5. Recs. Virg. Co. ed. S.M. Kingsbury, iii. 363; A. Brown, Genesis of US, i. 211.
- 6. B. Rudden, New River, 282.
- 7. E315/310, ff. 57, 67v; DCO, ‘Warrants, letters etc. 1623-6’, f. 133v.
- 8. C231/4, f. 45r-v; 231/5, p. 15; SP16/212.
- 9. C181/2, f. 286v; 181/4, f. 169.
- 10. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 242; 1628-9, p. 31.
- 11. Cornw. RO, DD.B.35/1; APC, 1627, p. 431.
- 12. C181/3, ff. 113, 195v; 181/4, f. 52v.
- 13. C181/3, f. 116; 181/4, ff. 29v, 39v, 46, 53, 83, 93v.
- 14. APC, 1623-5, p. 499.
- 15. C193/12/2, ff. 7, 10; T. Rymer, Foedera, viii. pt. 2, p. 144; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 521.
- 16. CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 440.
- 17. C66/2227/2.
- 18. C66/1667; 66/2395/3.
- 19. Add. 34601, f. 147; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 232; 1629-31, p. 236.
- 20. APC, 1623-5, p. 252; Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 192.
- 21. CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 559; 1627-8, p. 103.
- 22. C66/2183/17; E215/398.
- 23. Autobiog. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Haliwell, ii. 203.
- 24. CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 158.
- 25. Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 268; Vis. Essex (Harl. Soc. xiii), 39-40; R. Carew, Survey of Cornw. ed. P. White. The other long-serving Members were Richard Digges, Thomas Fanshawe I and William Ravenscroft.
- 26. Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 133; L.M. Hill, ‘Sir Julius Caesar’s Jnl.’, BIHR, xlv. 322; CJ, i. 434a.
- 27. HMC Hatfield, xvii. 92; R.C. Bald, Donne and the Drurys, 53.
- 28. R.B. Turton, Alum Farm, 112; C66/1761/8; Hill, 322.
- 29. Chamberlain Letters, i. 358, 451-2; APC, 1613-14, pp. 16, 25; Life and Letters of Sir Henry Wotton ed. L. Pearsall Smith, 22.
- 30. Liber Famelicus of Sir J. Whitelocke ed. J. Bruce (Cam. Soc. lxx), 41; Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 268; Misc. Gen. et Her. (ser. 3), iv. 20; Vis. Essex (Harl. Soc. xiii), 177.
- 31. Procs. 1614 (Commons), 228-32, 282; Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 268.
- 32. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 248; S.P. Oliver, Pendennis and St. Mawes, 10-11; HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 397.
- 33. Harl. 1376, f. 82v; APC, 1618-19, pp. 165-6; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 15.
- 34. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 313; HMC Downshire, v. 510; Works of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vi. 102; Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, vii. 69.
- 35. SP84/72, f. 265 (misdated as 1616); HMC Trumbull transcript XVI. 11; Chamberlain Letters, i. 358; D. Lysons, Mdx. Par. 95.
- 36. PROB 11/164, f. 91; Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 270; Vis. Suffolk ed. Metcalfe, 200.
- 37. CD 1621, vi. 258; SP84/91, f. 39; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 67; D.D. Hebb, ‘Profiting from Misfortune: Corruption and the Admiralty under the Early Stuarts’, Pols. Religion and Popularity ed. T. Cogswell, R. Cust and P. Lake, 117-19; CJ, i. 529b, 611a-b; C.R. Kyle, ‘Attendance Lists’, PPE 1604-48 ed. Kyle, 188.
- 38. CD 1621, iii. 243; CJ, i. 619b; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, ii. 64; HEHL, HM 30664.
- 39. CD 1621, iii. 251-2; CJ, i. 563a, 621b, 623b.
- 40. Magdalene Coll. Camb. Ferrar pprs. (5 Nov. 1621); SP14/127/82; 14/156/14; SP84/106, f. 32.
- 41. Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 270.
- 42. ‘Jervoise 1624, f. 27; ‘Spring 1624’, pp. 56, 139, 141; ‘Pym 1624’, i. f. 13; ‘Holland 1624’, i. f.64v; ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 96; CJ, i. 676b, 743b; S. Adams, ‘Foreign Policy and the Parls. of 1621 and 1624’, in Faction and Parl. ed. K. Sharpe, 168.
- 43. ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 223r-v; CJ, i. 709a, 764a, 773a.
- 44. CJ, i. 745a, 766a; Kyle, 218, 221.
- 45. CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 358; APC, 1623-5, p. 358; AO3/1276, pt. 2.
- 46. Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 270; F. Blomefield, Hist. Norf. 353; Vis. Herts. (Harl. Soc. xxii), 133-4; Canterbury Cathedral Archives, U66, f. 19.
- 47. Bedford Estate Office, HMC 8, pt. 1, no. 108.
- 48. Procs. 1625, pp. 229, 274, 463.
- 49. HMC Portland, ii. 117; HMC 11th Rep. i. 70; Procs. 1625, p. 723; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 559; 1627-8, p. 103; N. Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists, 38; Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives comp. G.M. Bell, 198.
- 50. Procs. 1626, ii. 97-8, 162, 180, 195.
- 51. Ibid. ii. 273, 280, 361, 404, 430; iii. 147.
- 52. CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 323; 1627-8, pp. 15, 287; APC, 1627, pp. 64-5; 1627-8, pp. 2-3; SP16/67/8.
- 53. CD 1628, ii. 318; iii. 94, 336, 623; iv. 70-1, 83; Vivian, Vis. Cornw. 270.
- 54. CJ, i. 927b.
- 55. C66/2183/17; G.E. Aylmer, King’s Servants, 75.
- 56. CSP Dom. 1633-4, p. 35; 1635-6, p. 26; SP16/487/37; K. Lindley, Fenland Riots, 48-50; C54/3092/2.
- 57. PROB 11/164, ff. 89v-91v; 11/140, f. 271; 11/177, ff. 305v-6; CSP Ire. 1625-32, p. 490.