GORING, Sir George (1585-1663), of Danny Park, Hurstpierpoint; Lewes, Suss. and Goring House, Westminster.

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



1628 - 14 Apr. 1628

Family and Education

b. 28 Apr. 1585, 1st s. of George Goring† of Danny Park, and Anne, da. of Henry Denny of Waltham Abbey, Essex; bro. of Sir Edward*. educ. Sidney Sussex, Camb. 1600; travelled abroad 1609. m. by 1608, Mary (bur. 15 July 1648), da. of Edward Neville† of Birling, Kent, 3s. (2 d.v.p.) 7da. (3 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 1602; kntd. 29 May 1608; cr. Bar. Goring 14 Apr. 1628, earl of Norwich 28 Nov. 1644. d. 6 Jan. 1663.1 sig. George Goring.

Offices Held

Commr. sewers, Suss. 1610-at least 1641, Northants. 1633-at least 1634, Westminster 1634; 2 freeman, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire 1617,3 Portsmouth, Hants 1635;4 steward, honour of Peverell, Notts. (jt.) 1618-38, (sole) 1638;5 j.p. Westminster 1621-at least 1641, Northants. 1628-at least 1641;6 commr. subsidy, Westminster 1621-2, 1624, Suss. 1624,7 Forced Loan, Suss. 1627;8 sec. of Council in the Marches of Wales 1630-41, 1661-d.;9 commr. archery, London 1632,10 oyer and terminer, Wales and the Marches 1634-40, Surr. 1640,11 array, Suss. 1642.12

Gent. pens. by 1608,13 lt. 1616-39;14 gent. of Privy Chamber to Prince Henry 1610;15 member, embassy to France 1616, agent Sept.-Oct. 1624, Jan.-Apr. 1625, amb. extraordinary 1643-4;16 surveyor of soap 1624;17 farmer of sugar impost 1626;18 vice-chamberlain to Queen Henrietta Maria 1626-8, master of the Horse 1628-at least 1638;19 commr. sale of French prizes 1627;20 farmer of wine licences 1627;21 commr. butter exports 1635, gold and silver thread 1636,22 tobacco licences 1636,23 cottages 1638, usury 1638;24 farmer of customs 1638-41;25 vice-chamberlain 1639-44; PC 1639-44, 1660-d.;26 commr. subsidy, peerage 1641,27 revenue inquiry 1642;28 capt. of the guard 1645, 1657-61;29 commr. trade 1660-d.30


Goring came from a junior branch of a long-established Sussex family based at Burton, and was the second cousin of Sir William Goring*. His grandfather, a younger son, became receiver-general of the Court of Wards and purchased Danny Park in the parish of Hurstpierpoint, six and-a-half miles north-west of Brighton. His father also entered royal service, becoming a gentleman pensioner, and both father and grandfather were twice returned for Lewes, where the family owned property.31 His father died when Goring was still a minor and his mother purchased Goring’s wardship for £70.32

Both his father and grandfather and had speculated heavily in the Sussex property market, leaving the family heavily in debt. ‘At my first entrance into the world’, Goring told the rising favourite, Buckingham, in 1618, ‘I had not 100 marks by year free, nor many years after. I so sucked in debt from my cradle as I never knew what freedom was’.33 Inevitably, he made his way to Court, and in January 1607 starred in the masque written for the marriage of his cousin, the heiress of Sir Edward Denny*, to the Scottish courtier, James, Lord Hay, later 1st earl of Carlisle.34 Two months later his grandfather’s debt to the Crown, which still stood at nearly £12,000, was apparently written off by way of a grant to Sir George Fleetwood* and another of his father’s trustees and two of his kinsmen.35

Goring was well suited to the courtier’s life that now opened before him. Anthony Weldon, a hostile critic, dismissed him as ‘master of the game for fooleries’ at the Jacobean Court, but his survival and promotion in the more sedate Court of Charles I demonstrates his possession of more enduring qualities.36 Everybody agreed that he was a political lightweight, in the words of the Venetian ambassador ‘a man more given to joking than to affairs’, but nearly everybody liked him, ‘his frolic and pleasant humour’ reconciling ‘people of all constitutions wonderfully to him’, and he was a loyal friend. His most practical talent seems to have been for the less formal aspects of diplomacy, in which his wit and amiability could be given full play.37

Goring secured a position in the Household of Prince Henry in 1610, but may have been travelling abroad when his master died in November 1612, having obtained a licence to travel the previous June. He was certainly in Paris in early 1613, from where he went on to Heidelberg to see the reception of Princess Elizabeth, recently married to the Elector Palatine.38 On returning home, however, Goring found himself without Court position and so took pains to ingratiate himself with the lord treasurer, the 1st earl of Suffolk. In 1614 he arranged a match for Suffolk’s younger son, Sir Thomas Howard*, with a daughter of William Cecil†, subsequently 2nd earl of Exeter.39 At the end of that year he secured an annuity of £100 and two years later Lord Howard of Walden (Theophilus Howard*) appointed him lieutenant of the gentlemen pensioners.40 He went with Hay on his mission to Paris in 1616, characterized by Chamberlain as one of the ‘three mignards’ of the embassy, the others being (Sir) Henry Rich* and Hay himself, and was rewarded with a further pension of £200 a year.41 In the following year he attended the king in Scotland, and may have taken the opportunity to attach himself to the newly created earl of Buckingham.42 His wife was a lady of the privy chamber to Queen Anne, and after the queen’s death in March 1619 he received a pension of £3,000 out of her jointure, followed by a grant of £2,000 p.a. for 20 years out of the pretermitted customs. He very much needed the money, telling Buckingham in the autumn that he hoped to pay off £7,000 of his debts within the week. At the end of the year he was sent to persuade Suffolk to acquiesce in the retirement from office of his sons following the earl’s fall from office. He carried out his commission, but pleaded earnestly with Buckingham for the family and for his sister-in-law’s husband, the disgraced Exchequer official (Sir) John Bingley*, who had been implicated in the corruption scandal which had brought down Suffolk.43

Goring was returned for Lewes to the third Jacobean Parliament, thanks presumably not only to his own interest, but that of his father-in-law, Edward, 1st Lord Bergavenny, who was one of the joint owners of the honour of Lewes. During the Parliament Goring and Bergavenny’s younger son, Christopher Neville*, were appointed trustees for the marriage settlement of Anne, another daughter of William Cecil.44

During the 1621 Parliament Goring made three recorded speeches and was appointed to one committee. Nevertheless, his impact on its history was far greater than this meagre contribution would suggest. He made his first speech on 2 Mar., following the flight of the monopolist (Sir) Giles Mompesson*. Goring stated that he had been standing behind Mompesson at a meeting of the investigating committee the previous evening, although he was not formally one of its members. Thinking Sir Giles was ill, Goring unsuccessfully moved the committee to give the patentee leave to go home. With remarkable frankness Goring admitted that ‘heretofore he would have been glad of his escape’, although he ‘now never intended, or desired it’.45

Goring seems to have regarded himself as much Buckingham’s representative in the Commons as his constituency’s. When Buckingham was mentioned on 15 Mar. by Randolph Davenport, a witness before the committee for courts of justice, Goring made haste to report the incident to his patron. Writing that day, he assured Buckingham that Davenport had ‘faithfully and clearly’ stated that when the marquess had been asked to intervene in a court case, ‘your lordships answer was that you would never write in any cause depending between party and party’, and that this testimony ‘was so recorded by all and again distinctly repeated’ by the chairman Sir Robert Phelips. Goring also reported that he had, ‘without your lordships licence’, tackled Sir Edward Sackville* about the latter’s alleged involvement in plotting against the favourite among the peerage, and passed on Sackville’s ‘sense of suffering in your [Buckingham’s] good opinion’.46

Goring’s final contribution to the proceedings of the first sitting came on 1 May, when he outbid all other contributors to the debate on punishing the Catholic lawyer Edward Floyd, accused of slandering the Elector Palatine and Princess Elizabeth, in the gruesomeness of his proposal. Referring to the prayer beads which had been found in Floyd’s possession, he suggested that he should be whipped at twelve stages and forced to swallow a bead at each. This was to be followed by cutting off his nose and possibly also his ears and tongue, cutting his cheeks, and then by hanging at the Tower, ‘and there is an end to him’. His hostility to Floyd may well have been exacerbated by concern for the Protestant cause in Europe. According to one account, he made reference to a recent massacre in the Valtelline, a strategically important valley in the Alps, where the year before the native Catholics had, with the help of Habsburg forces, slaughtered 600 Protestants.47

During the recess Goring was again ordered to accompany Hay, now Lord Doncaster, to France, but he successfully pleaded with Buckingham on 13 July that his private affairs made it very difficult for him to obey, having mortgaged his ‘chief house and lands for the payment of £6,000 within eight months’. Moreover, his wife was eight months pregnant, and ‘though she can dispense with a progress, yet will she not condescend to a voyage’.48

During the second sitting Goring made regular reports to Buckingham of proceedings in the Commons. On 27 Nov. he told his patron that the House had decided to debate the issues of supply, religion, ending the session, and an address to the king about those issues the following day. He was keen to defend his colleagues, assuring Buckingham that ‘the House is now in much better order and temper than yesterday’ and that ‘having disported themselves they will ... let His Majesty see that it was nothing but their zeal that first transported them’. He argued that their ‘affections’ were ‘as great as ever was to any king’ and denied that they intended to ‘cross upon his prerogative or direct him in his councils’.49

Buckingham, however seems to have had other ideas, and having learnt from Goring that the Commons intended to petition the king, he instructed his client to propose an additional clause concerning the recovery of the Palatinate. Consequently on 29 Nov. Goring moved, in the words of his report to the marquess written that night, for the Commons to petition that, if the king of Spain did not ‘procure presently a general cessation of arms from the emperor in the Palatinate’ then ‘his Majesty will be pleased to declare unto them that he will not spare to denounce war as well against the king of Spain and any other prince or state that shall oppose or assist against his children’. Goring, no doubt aware that he was treading on dangerous territory, was worried that Buckingham might think that he had exceeded his instructions and assured his patron that these were ‘the very words, ... I moved it and with as much circumspection in every kind for his Majesty’s service as my poor judgment could afford’. He also asked Buckingham not to believe any reports he might receive to the contrary. Goring went on to report that the motion ‘took wonderfully well, but the House was much distracted therewith’, particularly as it came from Goring, thinking ‘either ... that I have undone myself at Court, or else that I had some underhand advice to do that I did’. In the margin he added that ‘His Majesty’s end is not known to any’, suggesting that he shared this last suspicion. The House referred this proposal to the sub-committee already established to prepare an address on recusancy and draw the session to an end, which Goring himself attended in the afternoon.50

When the draft petition was read at the committee on 1 Dec. the clause proposing war with Spain was no longer conditional on failure to withdraw from the Palatinate. Moreover, it included an additional proposal calling for Prince Charles to be married to a Protestant, which had not been part of Goring’s original motion.51 However, writing to Buckingham early on 3 Dec. Goring stated that the only event of any significance that had happened since his last report had been the decision of the Commons to send for Sir Edwin Sandys*, who had been absent since the start of the new sitting. He assured Buckingham that the petition would be ‘thoroughly debated’ and expressed the hope that it would be ‘pared of such things as may in likelihood most offend His Majesty’, but he still regarded the section concerning foreign policy as the ‘point which was from my motion’. He made no recorded contribution to the ensuing debate later that day, at the end of which he received his only committee appointment of the Parliament, as one of the councillors and courtiers chosen to deliver the address to the king.52

On the following day Goring was ordered to hand over the address to the chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Richard Weston*. However, that same day the Commons received James I’s outraged letter attacking the undelivered petition, and further plans to present it were shelved as Members sought to justify their right to debate foreign policy. Goring was one of the four Members who were appointed on 18 Dec. to inform the king of the Commons’ refusal to complete legislation.53

In April 1623 Goring was among the courtiers summoned to join Buckingham and Prince Charles in Spain. Shortly afterwards he was sent to report the progress of the marriage negotiations to the Prince’s sister, Elizabeth of Bohemia, now an exile at The Hague. He was back at The Hague at the end of the year to excuse the failure of the dukes of Buckingham and Richmond to attend the christening of Queen Elizabeth’s son, Louis. (Sir) Dudley Carleton*, ambassador to The Hague, wrote that his ‘good company’ greatly augmented their Christmas cheer.54

Goring was returned for Stamford in 1624 on the interest of his friend Cecil, but chose to sit for Lewes, though yielding precedence to Christopher Neville.55 On 3 Feb., before the Parliament met, he wrote to Carleton of his fear of ‘strange and dangerous practices for the breaking up of this meeting’ and his hope that the well-affected would prevent them.56 Goring made four speeches in the last Jacobean Parliament, and his ten committees included the committee of privileges (23 February).57 On 16 Feb. the king sent him to the House to announce the adjournment of the session on the death of the duke of Richmond.58 A week later he spoke in favour of the choice of the prince’s chaplain Isaac Bargrave, rather than James Ussher, as preacher at the House’s communion.59 On 26 Feb. he moved to defer consulting with the Lords about the recusancy petition, arguing that ‘our hasting of it may cross our desires to do more effectual business against them’. He urged the House to ‘first have a report and make some resolutions on what we heard from the prince and Buckingham’. He joked that they should wait until an imminently expected Spanish diplomat had arrived before expelling the Catholics from London ‘that then we may send our papists to guard him out of this land’.60 The House agreed to defer consultations with the Lords for a few days but, on Secretary Calvert’s motion, also postponed consideration of Buckingham’s narrative until the next day, when Goring spoke about the Spanish ambassador’s complaint to the king against Buckingham. He stated that ‘this indignity was threatened before the prince’s coming from Spain’ and was among those appointed to consider the dishonour allegedly done to the duke.61 He was also appointed to help confer with the Lords on 3 Mar. on the advice to be given to the king, and accompanied Buckingham on 16 Mar. when the duke went to hear James’s answer.62 Five of his remaining committees were for private bills, one of them for Sir Thomas Cheke*, another Cecil trustee (9 March). He was also among those appointed to consider bills to abolish trial by battle (22 Mar.) and to give statutory force to a defunct levy on Tyneside coal (29 April).63 On 7 Mar. he and Neville, under the command of the 18th earl of Oxford, searched the houses of John Borough* and Sir Robert Cotton*.64

Later in 1624 Goring was sent to France to assist his fellow-mignards, now Lords Kensington and Carlisle, in the negotiations for a French marriage for Charles, or rather to reconcile the quarrelling ambassadors themselves, as the Venetian ambassador reported: ‘he is a very discreet man and a friend of both’. Early in 1625 he was commissioned to take the garter to Carlisle, returning just after the king’s death. He made several more trips in connection with the marriage, and was one of the small party which went with Buckingham to escort the new queen back to England.65

Goring was re-elected for Lewes to the first Caroline Parliament. His only committee appointments were to consider a bill in mitigation of the sentence of excommunication (27 June) and to investigate two petitions, read on 10 Aug., complaining that the treasurers of the subsidies voted in 1624 were refusing to pay money on warrants from the Council of War. His only recorded speech was delivered on 5 Aug. when, reacting to perceived criticism of his patron, he unsuccessfully moved for a committee and ‘the duke to be called to it, that he may give satisfaction for any aspersions which shall be cast upon him’. According to Sir Francis Nethersole*, this suggestion was as unwelcome to Buckingham as to the Commons, but it is more likely that Goring was again acting on his patron’s instructions.66 He certainly remained in favour, and accompanied Buckingham to The Hague in October for the conclusion of the anti-Habsburg alliance.67

Re-elected at Lewes, Goring was named to seven committees in 1626, including the committee for privileges on 9 Feb., and made 13 recorded speeches.68 He acted as teller on 9 Feb. against the motion inviting Bargrave, now dean of Canterbury but temporarily out of favour at Court, to preach again at the House’s communion, but his side was defeated.69 On the following day he objected to (Sir) John Eliot’s slighting use of the word ‘courtier’ in his motion on supply and grievances, observing that Eliot ‘knows not so well "courtiers" as "courtiers" do him’. However, when Eliot started to explain himself, Goring hastily replied that ‘he took no exception but at the name’. According to one correspondent Goring also asserted that ‘courtiers were as honest men as any were in the House, and did interest themselves as much in the good of the state’, but this is not borne out by the diarists.70

Goring inevitably became closely involved in defending Buckingham, especially over the allegations relating to arrest of the St. Peter of Le Havre. On 23 Feb. he was added to the committee for investigation of the detention of English shipping in France. On 1 Mar. he seconded Pym’s motion for Buckingham to be heard by his counsel, stating that he ‘thinks good the duke does desire it’,71 and later the same day he was he was one of the four Members instructed to ask Buckingham to explain the renewed detention of the St. Peter.72 Three days later he was named to attend the conference with the Lords on the summons issued to the duke, following which he announced to the Commons that his patron had been given leave by the Upper House ‘to give satisfaction’ and that he wished to do so on the following Monday.73 When the attorney-general came to the Commons on 6 Mar., Goring told the House that ‘he comes to bring the duke’s answer’.74 Five days later he declared that he had ‘letters under good hands’ that the English shipping in France had been released, and when the St. Peter was again debated on 1 May he stated that the re-arrest had been due to ‘new proof, though it proved not current’.75

Goring was keen to hasten a vote of subsidies. When a message from Charles I calling for supply was read out on 11 Mar., Goring unsuccessfully opposed moves to set up a subcommittee to draft a reply, which he evidently considered a delaying tactic, moving ‘that here our answer may be made, punctual and profitable’. On 18 Apr., responding to arguments that grievances should come before supply, he stated that ‘we may not go less with His Majesty than with others’, and that he thought ‘the king cannot take this well at our hands’.76 On 2 May Goring warned his fellow Members that the attempts to bring down Buckingham were doomed to failure, stating that ‘His Majesty’s words [showed] that he will not make such a sacrifice’ as to lose his favourite. He held out the prospect of change in the duke, stating that ‘a heart so generous will reform itself by these cries’, but warned of ‘enemies abroad’ and moved ‘that we take such a way as may give His Majesty sure ease in this extremity, for he is in a great strait’.77 Two days later, responding to Hotham’s accusation that Buckingham supported Catholics, Goring called for a committee to ‘examine what the duke has done against this course and whether he have done more than others in his place have done’.78 On 9 May he spoke in defence of Richard Dyott, a fellow supporter of the duke who had been brought to bar for words spoken in debate.79 When the proposed Remonstrance against the duke was read on 12 June he took exception to the first clause, ‘concerning the dissolution of the Parliament at Oxford, making of sheriffs, and sending away Mr [John] Glanville*’, which he maintained ‘trenches upon the king’s honour more than upon the duke’s’. In a second grand committee debate on the same day he observed in support of supply that ‘nothing adds more to a prince than the reputation that he has in his subjects’ hearts’. 80

Goring was appointed on 15 Feb. to consider the bill to allow the trustees of the Sackville estate to sell lands. He was also among those named on 14 Mar. to consider the proposal of Sir Dudley Digges* for the financing of war at sea ‘by the voluntary joint stock of adventurers’, and the merchants’ petitions presented on 16 March. On 7 June he helped carry the Commons’ reply to the king’s message on the duke’s election to the chancellorship of Cambridge University.81

Soon after the dissolution Goring was appointed vice-chamberlain to the queen. In August he made a successful bid for the farm of the sugar imposts, and in 1627 he was granted control of the retail trade in wine. In a letter to Buckingham the following November he commented on the difficulty of raising money in the City, stating that, such was the distrust of the Court, that no wealthy Londoner would lend money to the government, whatever security was offered.82

Goring was elected a fifth time for Lewes in 1628. Although the borough returned two indentures, Goring was named in both and so was allowed to take his seat immediately. He was appointed to attend the conference with the Lords on 21 Mar. about the proposed fast. On 2 Apr. he seconded Sir Robert Phelips’ motion to defer further debate on supply and the following day he unsuccessfully moved for a fresh writ to fill the other seat at Lewes. He made no further recorded contributions to proceedings in the Commons before his ennoblement on 14 April.83 Carleton, as reported by Lord Houghton (John Holles*), claimed that those Members elevated to the Upper House at this time owed their promotion to the king’s desire ‘to put himself into his people’s hands’, as ‘they were the men that did most oppose their proceedings’.84

Goring remained in the queen’s service until 1639, when he became a privy councillor and vice chamberlain of the Household. He acquired several lucrative offices and developed commercial interests in which he took a more active concern than was common among courtiers, finally acquiring a share in the great farm of the customs in 1638. On the eve of the Civil War he had an annual income of £26,800. His affairs, however, remained in disorder, and he also had to cope with those of his equally extravagant elder son George, an unscrupulous but brilliant soldier who sat for Portsmouth in the Long Parliament before becoming a ruthless royalist general in the Civil War. Goring himself was most active as a diplomat during the first Civil War, and was created earl of Norwich in 1644. The refusal of Parliament to recognize this title accounts in part for the very common confusion between Goring and his son. During the second Civil War in 1648 Goring led the royalist forces in Kent and was subsequently captured after the fall of Colchester. He was tried by a specially constituted High Court of Justice and sentenced to death, but was reprieved by the Rump on 8 Mar. 1649 thanks to the casting vote of Speaker Lenthall. He subsequently joined Charles II in exile. He survived the Restoration, but died on 6 Jan. 1663, allegedly of a broken heart after failing to recover his interest in the great farm. He was buried eight days later in Westminster Abbey. His will, dictated to a servant four days before his death, was solely concerned the settling of his debts. His younger son, Charles, succeeded to the earldom and a leasehold estate worth, by his own account, no more than £450 per annum, and died without issue in 1671.85

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Authors: Alan Davidson / Ben Coates


  • 1. Oxford DNB; Al. Cant.; SO3/4, unfol. (June 1609); Danny Archives, xii-xiii; CP, ix. 769-72; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 145.
  • 2. C181/2, ff. 134v, 292v; 181/3, ff. 133, 166v; 181/4, ff. 46v, 53v, 73v, 140, 180, 190; 181/5, ff. 69, 205v.
  • 3. J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 330.
  • 4. R. East, Portsmouth Recs. 357.
  • 5. C66/2149; T. Rymer, Foedera, ix. pt. 2, p. 205;.
  • 6. C231/4, ff. 117, 250; C66/2859.
  • 7. C212/22/20-1, 23.
  • 8. C193/12/2, f. 59v.
  • 9. HMC 13th Rep. IV, 275; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 163.
  • 10. Rymer, viii. pt. 3, p. 252.
  • 11. C181/4, f. 162; 181/5, ff. 169, 184v.
  • 12. Northants. RO, FH133.
  • 13. Lincs. AO, Worsley 1/30.
  • 14. Carew Letters ed. J. Maclean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 38; Badminton, FM H2/4/1, f. 18v.
  • 15. Collection of Ordinances and Regulations for the Government of the Royal Household (1790), p. 323.
  • 16. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 363; Handlist of British Diplomatic Representatives comp. G.M. Bell, 107, 112.
  • 17. CSP Dom. 1623-5, pp. 154, 160.
  • 18. APC, 1626, pp. 180-2.
  • 19. T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 140, 378; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 602.
  • 20. CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 181.
  • 21. C66/2422.
  • 22. CSP Dom. 1634-5, p. 586; 1635-6, p. 178.
  • 23. Rymer, ix. pt. 2, p. 80.
  • 24. CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 602.
  • 25. CTB, i. 132.
  • 26. HMC 4th Rep. 294; PC2/50, p. 608; HMC 12th Rep. VIII. 29; CP, ix. 771.
  • 27. SR, v. 72.
  • 28. CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 263.
  • 29. Oxford DNB; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 96.
  • 30. Officials of the Boards of Trade comp. J.C. Sainty,
  • 31. HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 209-10; Danny Archives, pp. xii-xiii.
  • 32. WARD 9/159, f. 131v.
  • 33. Harl. 1580, f. 405v.
  • 34. Nichols, ii. 108.
  • 35. C66/1693.
  • 36. Secret Hist. of Ct. of Jas. I ed. W. Scott, i. 399,
  • 37. CSP Ven. 1643-7, p. 18; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. W.D. Macray, iv. 355-6.
  • 38. SO3/5, unfol. (16 June 1612); HMC Downshire, iv. 102; HMC Buccleuch, i. 135.
  • 39. Harl. 1580, f. 415.
  • 40. C66/2029.
  • 41. Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 14; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 381.
  • 42. Nichols, iii. 255.
  • 43. Harl. 1580, ff. 411, 415; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 283; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 25; Nichols, iii. 541; SP16/180/17.
  • 44. ‘North Pprs.’ ed. C.M. Borough (Bodl. unpublished calendar), 18.
  • 45. CJ, i. 536a.
  • 46. CD 1621, vii. 578-9; Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 173.
  • 47. Nicholas, Procs. 1621, i. 372; CD 1621, iii. 124; v. 360; G. Parker, Europe in Crisis (2nd edn.) 143. Another diarist states that he referred to a massacre in France. CD 1621, v. 129.
  • 48. Harl. 1580, f. 426.
  • 49. Ibid. f. 428.
  • 50. CD 1621, vii. 620-1; CJ, i. 652a.
  • 51. Nicholas, ii. 261-7.
  • 52. Harl. 1580, f. 430; CJ, i. 657b.
  • 53. CJ, i. 658a, 668b.
  • 54. Harl. 1580, ff. 433, 435, 436; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 90, 170; Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 312.
  • 55. CJ, i. 716a.
  • 56. CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 159; R.E. Ruigh, Parl. of 1624, p. 43.
  • 57. CJ, i. 671b.
  • 58. ‘Lowther 1624’, f. 1.
  • 59. CJ, i. 671a.
  • 60. ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 24v; CJ, i. 674b.
  • 61. ‘Holland 1624’, i. f. 12; CJ, i. 722a.
  • 62. CJ, i. 676b; ‘Lowther 1624’, f. 33; ‘Holland 1624’, i. 55v; Ruigh, 215.
  • 63. CJ, i. 680a, 746a, 778b.
  • 64. ‘Nicholas 1624’, f. 57.
  • 65. HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 235; CSP Ven. 1623-5, pp. 434, 568; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 609, 617; CCSP, i. app. 2, p. 11; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 236.
  • 66. Procs. 1625, pp. 253, 393, 442, 711; Lockyer, 257.
  • 67. HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 235.
  • 68. Procs. 1626, ii. 7.
  • 69. Ibid. 8. Goring presumably supported the alternative candidate, John Donne*. Ibid. 10.
  • 70. Ibid. 13, 17-18; iv. 302.
  • 71. Ibid. ii. 171
  • 72. Ibid. 162.
  • 73. Ibid. 185, 196.
  • 74. Ibid. 209-10.
  • 75. Ibid. 261; iii. 115.
  • 76. Ibid. ii. 274; iii. 22.
  • 77. Ibid. iii. 129.
  • 78. Ibid. 161.
  • 79. Ibid. 209.
  • 80. Ibid. 423, 426.
  • 81. Ibid. ii. 44, 280, 297.
  • 82. HMC 4th Rep. 289; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 422.
  • 83. CD 1628, ii. 188, 267, 275, 282.
  • 84. Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 44.
  • 85. L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 374, 428; HMC Cowper, ii. 20, 21; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 13; 1663-4, pp. 5, 6; F.C. Dietz, Eng. Public Finance 1558-1641, pp. 335-7; Oxford DNB; PROB 11/310, f. 55.