HERBERT, Sir William (1575-1656), of Hendon, Mdx. and Powis Castle, Welshpool, Mont.

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

Family and Education

b. Jan. 1575,1 1st s. of Sir Edward Herbert† of Powis Castle and Mary, da. and h. of Thomas Stanley†, Goldsmith of London and Standon, Herts. educ. MA Oxf. 1605; L. Inn 1614; I. Temple 1635.2 m. settlement 2 June 1595, Eleanor (d. 24 Dec. 1650) da. of the 8th earl of Northumberland (Sir Henry Percy†), 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 4da. (2 d.v.p.) suc. fa. 1595; cr. K.B. 25 July 1603; Bar. Powis of Powis 2 Apr. 1629.3 bur. 21 June 1656.4 sig. W[illia]m Herbert.

Offices Held

J.p. Mont. 1596-1641, 1643, custos rot. 1602-41, 5 dep. lt. 1597-1642;6 member, Council in the Marches 1603-44; commr. subsidy, Mont. 1608-10, 1621-2, 1624, aid 1609, Forced Loan 1626-7;7 sheriff 1612-13;8 freeman, Shrewsbury, Salop 1623;9 constable, Radnor Castle, Rad. 1631.10

Gent. privy chamber by 1616-29.11


Herbert’s father, second son of the 1st earl of Pembroke, was granted the manor of Hendon, Middlesex and various properties in Pembrokeshire and Glamorgan upon his marriage in 1569. A decade later he acquired the lordship of Powis, Montgomeryshire, comprising some 150,000 acres of upland pasture, from Edward Grey, illegitimate son of the last Lord Grey of Powis. He may be assumed to have obtained a good price, as the vendor’s title was then being contested by Henry Vernon of Stokesay Castle, Shropshire, descendant of a daughter of the 1st Lord Grey, who pursued his cause vigorously in Parliament and the law courts. Although warned to desist by both Vernon and the Privy Council, Herbert pressed ahead with his purchase, and in 1587, shortly after his brother’s appointment as lord president in the Marches, he made good his title to the estate.12

William Herbert was acknowledged as heir to the Powis estate in his father’s inquisition post mortem of 1595, but Vernon made a final bid for control with a private bill given a first reading in the Commons on 13 Apr. 1604, which proposed to overturn a fine levied at the Montgomeryshire Great Sessions in 36 Henry VIII, whereby the descent of the lordship was settled upon Edward Grey. This fine (upon which the Herberts’ title depended) had come into question in 1579, when Grey’s cousin Sir John Throckmorton† was sacked as justice of Chester and fined 1,000 marks in Star Chamber for returning a false certificate of the damaged original into King’s Bench. Yet the fine itself had been confirmed, a situation Vernon aimed to overturn with his estate bill. Counsel was heard for both sides, but at the second reading several MPs feared that a revocation of the original fine would prejudice a fresh hearing of the case in the courts, and on 4 May 1604 the bill was rejected by 202 votes to 130. The controversy ended with Vernon’s death in July 1606.13

Control of the Powis estate also brought the Herberts into conflict with their neighbours, the Vaughans of Llwydiarth, who held 120,000 acres in northern Montgomeryshire. The two families sustained a protracted quarrel over 4,000 acres of common land near Llwydiarth, which quickly spilt over into local politics. Thus the Vaughans supported Arthur Price†, the Herberts’ opponent at the hard-fought county election of 1588, while in 1602 the rival factions clashed over control of the borough of Llanfyllin. Later the same year the Vaughans successfully petitioned against Herbert’s plans to secure the shrievalty of Montgomeryshire for himself or one of his relatives. Matters took an unexpected turn in 1616, when Owen Vaughan, apparently distracted by the execution of a cousin for the murder of one of Herbert’s servants, committed suicide. The Llwydiarth estate escheated to Herbert as lord of Powis, who waived his rights in return for a marriage between his daughter Katherine and Robert Vaughan, heir to Llwydiarth, an arrangement which left a legacy of resentment among Vaughan’s younger brothers.14

Herbert’s return as knight for Montgomeryshire in 1597, only a few weeks after the death of Arthur Price, signified the resumption of the Herberts’ domination of county politics. The only likely alternative as MP was Herbert’s fourth cousin (Sir) Edward Herbert* of Montgomery, who replaced him at the next election. In 1604 Sir William, seeking election to co-ordinate opposition to Vernon’s estate bill, was returned for the shire once again. Sir Edward, who voluntarily assigned his interest in the Montgomeryshire seat to his cousin, spent much of the next 20 years abroad as a soldier and a diplomat, leaving Sir William to represent the shire throughout the period. For all his local status, Herbert accomplished little in the first Jacobean Parliament beyond blocking Vernon’s bill: he was named to four bill committees and ordered to attend two conferences with the Lords, and on 29 Nov. 1606 he was added to the committee preparing for a conference over the Instrument of Union.15

At the start of the Addled Parliament Herbert was named to the important committee investigating the ‘undertakers’ who were alleged to have offered to manage the Commons for the Crown (13 Apr. 1614). A month later there were complaints that he had accused the committee chairman, Sir Roger Owen, of partiality. He held a longstanding grievance against Owen, who had supported Vernon over the Powis lordship dispute, and one diarist noted that Herbert,

being a man of an haughty spirit, rose up and accused himself and confessed that he told him [Owen] that he dealt partial in his judgment and moreover professed that he should love him the worse for that business so long as he knew him. Whereupon he [Herbert] made his recantation openly for those words and ... went out [of the House] voluntarily.

This act of contrition proved just sufficient to save Herbert from expulsion.16

Although a fixture at the Jacobean Court, Herbert maintained a low political profile during the first half of the reign, perhaps the price he paid for his strong Catholic connections in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot: his mother was a notorious recusant, as was his wife, a sister of the 9th Earl of Northumberland.17 Yet Herbert’s strongest links at Court were with his first cousins William, 3rd Earl of Pembroke and Philip [Herbert*], earl of Montgomery. Until the birth of Montgomery’s fourth son Philip† in 1621, Herbert was heir presumptive to his cousins’ estates, and his interests remained inseparable from theirs until well into the 1630s. Pembroke, lord chamberlain from 1615, doubtless procured Herbert’s appointment as a gentleman of the Privy Chamber, while in 1623 the earl underwrote the marriage settlement between Herbert’s son Sir Percy* and the elder daughter of the London financier Sir William Craven, which yielded a prodigious dowry of nearly £30,000.18

Herbert’s significance in Parliament during the 1620s owed much to his links with Pembroke, but he never aspired to the stature of the earl’s regular parliamentary mouthpiece, Sir Benjamin Rudyard. Pembroke had been one of the original backers of George Villiers, marquess (and later duke) of Buckingham, but by 1621 he was willing to see the wings of the now over-mighty favourite clipped. Herbert therefore added his voice to the clamour raised in Parliament against monopolists, most of whom were linked to the Villiers clan. In a debate of 6 Mar. on the gold and silver thread patent he urged an enquiry as to the origins of the bullion used by threadmakers. Two days later, the Commons’ rehearsal of the charges against the patentee (Sir) Giles Mompesson*, was terminated by Speaker Richardson, who left the House without warning, unsettling those who were to deliver the charges to the Lords a few hours later. On the following morning Herbert chided the Speaker `that he was required by the greatest voice of the House to sit still. That he must respect the meanest, as well as those about the chair [i.e. Privy Councillors]’. On 21 Mar. (Sir) Robert Lloyd*, whose patent for engrossing of wills had come under attack, protested that he was not the original promoter of the project; Herbert refuted this claim, and, for good measure, added that he had heard the king himself ‘more inveigh against this patent than ever [he] did against any other’. Yet Lloyd was not the only courtier to benefit from monopolies: when Herbert was linked with Sir Robert Mansell’s* glass patent, he sheepishly explained that he had acquired his share as settlement for a debt.19

Whatever his grievances against monopolists, Herbert was careful not to trench upon the prerogative: learning that Sir George Marshall’s* lawsuit for payment of 1,000 marks for procurement of a knighthood was based on a Chancery decree secured upon a letter from James, he insisted that the sentence be razed from the record `to clear the king’s honour’. On 4 May 1621, when the king questioned the Commons’ claim to pass judgment upon the Catholic barrister Edward Floyd for slandering Princess Elizabeth, Herbert observed that execution of sentence lay with the king, while over the following fortnight he attempted to avert a jurisdictional dispute with the Lords over this case. Unlike some Members, Herbert wished to see a successful conclusion to the session, and therefore his forays into the realm of high politics, although rare, were constructive. On 22 Mar., he was among those who supported the king’s unsuccessful request for an abbreviated Easter recess, while at the end of May, when James caught the Commons unawares with his insistence on an early adjournment, he was disinclined to pick a quarrel: ‘let us leave all with prayer to God for his blessing to our next meeting’.20 Somewhat surprisingly, he left no trace on the records of the autumn sitting of 1621, when moderate counsels were sorely needed.

In the 1624 Parliament Herbert followed the semi-official brief of the ‘patriot’ coalition assembled by Buckingham and Prince Charles to press the king for an end to the pro-Spanish policies of the preceding 20 years. Among the patriots, Pembroke was the keenest to use Parliament to make a formal breach with Spain, and it is hardly surprising that his cousin should have played a role in these plans.21 As early as 24 Feb. Herbert was sent to Pembroke to ensure that all but peers and MPs were excluded from Buckingham’s relation of the failure of the Spanish Match, scheduled for the following day, and on 3 Mar. he attended a further conference about the breach with Spain. Yet Herbert was a follower, not a leader of the war party, remaining silent during the angry debate of 5 Mar. at which the Commons rejected an ill-timed motion for supply in the event of war which the earls of Southampton and Pembroke had drafted the previous day.22 He found his voice again on 11 Mar., when Rudyard broached a plan for a strictly defensive policy, which sparked a curious debate in which the patriots strained to avoid any detailed consideration of offensive strategies and their potential cost, lest the king object to having his foreign policy dictated by his subjects. Hence when Sir Robert Mansell moved to consider the cost of this plan, Herbert urged the Speaker to hold Members to the question in hand, which was a general resolution in support of war.23 Agreement was finally reached over a declaration which stopped short of tying James to a war, and when Sir Robert Phelips suggested a more bellicose phrasing two days later, Herbert intervened to quash the motion.24 James’s acceptance of this declaration allowed the Commons to consider a vote of supply on 19 Mar., a debate which was quickly stalled by Sir John Savile’s motion to consider the cost of the specific policies laid out by Rudyard on 11 March. No vote was taken, and on the following day Savile further attempted to sidetrack proceedings with a proposition to abolish pretermitted customs, a motion guaranteed to stir up a vehement debate and irritate the king. Herbert and Sir Thomas Jermyn leapt in to urge that grievances be left to future consideration, and the matter was dropped.25

While Herbert often spoke to Pembroke’s brief in Parliament, he was equally capable of promoting Welsh interests, particularly those relating to the upland economy of Powis lordship. One of the prime movers of the 1621 bill to break the Shrewsbury Drapers’ monopoly of the Welsh cloth trade, he complained vehemently to the Company’s lobbyist about the Salopians’ boycott of the cloth market at Oswestry, and rejected offers to come to a settlement. Herbert was not recorded to have spoken in the extensive debates, but he attended one of the two committee meetings and probably continued to provide leadership for the Welsh clothiers after the dissolution of the Parliament, as the compromise which finally settled the issue in the spring of 1623 was sealed by the admission of Herbert and his son as freemen of Shrewsbury.26 In May 1621 he warmly endorsed two bills to prohibit the importation of Irish cattle, which he insisted damaged the Welsh cattle trade, while in 1624 he was one of a large number of Welsh MPs who signed Sir Eubule Thelwall’s* petition opposing a grant of the Welsh greenwax farm to (Sir) Richard Wynn*.27 As knight of the shire, he was required to name any recusant officeholders in his county on 27 Apr. 1624, which obliged him to admit that `his own wife is an obstinate papist ..., but he will never be overruled by her’. The House accepted this explanation and his name was removed from the list before it was submitted to the king.28

Herbert’s chief concern outside Parliament in the 1620s was the fate of the Llwydiarth estate: his son-in-law Sir Robert Vaughan died suddenly on 2 July 1624, while the latter’s widow, Dame Katherine, gave birth to a son, Herbert Vaughan, three weeks later. However, by then Sir Robert’s brother Edward Vaughan* had taken possession of Llwydiarth under an entail drafted on 2 Feb. 1622 at his behest, which had ignored the claims of Sir Robert’s wife or any future male heir. This entail was too obviously convenient for Vaughan’s purposes to be credible, as was the additional claim that Herbert Vaughan was a changeling, substituted at birth for the girl Dame Katherine had allegedly delivered. Vaughan made desperate attempts to bolster his position through an offer of marriage to the Villiers clan, but although he elicited a sympathetic letter from the favourite’s mother to lord president Northampton, the Council in the Marches awarded Dame Katherine an injunction to put her in possession. Herbert was later said to have mustered the militia to eject Vaughan from Llwydiarth, resulting in a violent affray during which one of his servants was killed.29

At the 1625 general election Vaughan almost certainly contested the Montgomeryshire seat, prompting Herbert to apply to Pembroke for a safe seat at Wilton, which ultimately proved superfluous. For all this effort, Herbert played little part in the proceedings of the session: he was named to the privileges’ committee (21 June); ordered to attend two conferences with the Lords (23 June, 8 July); and included on a delegation sent to Charles with a petition for stricter enforcement of the recusancy laws (8 July), presumably because of his position in the Household. Parliament quickly adjourned to Oxford because of the plague raging in London, but Herbert may have stayed away, as he left no further mark on the records of the session. His diffident performance doubtless owed much to Pembroke’s reluctance to make an open demonstration of his growing antipathy to Buckingham.30

Herbert was probably returned unopposed for Montgomeryshire in 1626, but Vaughan found a seat in neighbouring Merioneth, and attempted to have Herbert included on the recusant officeholders’ list on 3 May, a motion ignored by a Commons which needed Pembroke’s support for its impeachment of Buckingham. Herbert’s role in the impeachment debates was surprisingly modest, as Sir James Bagg II* noticed, remarking that ‘the earl of Pembroke ... doth appear publicly rather by strangers than by Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Sir William Herbert and others of his’, a tactic which allowed the earl the option of a reconciliation with the duke in the event of failure.31 Thus although his papers contain an extensive list of precedents for impeachment (possibly collated at the end of the session), Herbert kept a low profile in the House. He naturally attended the conference of 7 Mar. at which Pembroke and Archbishop Abbot exhorted the Commons to grant supply for the war effort against Spain, and on 5 Apr. he was one of the courtiers included in a delegation sent to the king with a remonstrance justifying the House’s proceedings against the duke. Herbert’s only recorded speech, on 9 June, had nothing to do with the impeachment charges (long since sent to the Lords), but concerned a letter written by Sir John Savile, which accused the Commons of neglecting the economic dislocation caused by the outbreak of war in order to pursue their vendetta against the duke. Herbert recalled having spoken to Savile, one of the few independent MPs still willing to support Buckingham, about this accusation, and was told that Savile acknowledged authorship of the letter as a ruse to encourage his enemies to reveal themselves, an assertion Herbert dismissed as ‘a plot to evade this business’.32

Immediately after the dissolution of June 1626 Pembroke was reconciled to the duke and appointed lord steward, although he lost much of his influence on the Privy Council during the collection of the Forced Loan. Herbert also kept a low profile, while his son Sir Percy* served as a collector for the Loan.33 At the general election of 1628 Vaughan probably mounted another unsuccessful challenge to the Herbert interest, as Sir William once again secured a seat at Wilton as a precautionary measure. Pembroke’s supporters largely held aloof from the controversy surrounding liberties of the subject which dominated the 1628 parliamentary session, which left Herbert with relatively little to do. He intervened in these debates only once, on 14 May, as teller for the noes in a division over a motion to inform the Lords of the Commons’ decision to decline a conference about the Petition of Right. This apparently trifling procedural motion was in fact of considerable significance: the Lords (prompted by Pembroke and Buckingham) sought to broker a compromise between the king’s refusal to accept the Petition of Right and the Commons’ determination to see it passed. The Lords’ overtures had no chance of acceptance in the Commons, but a rebuttal would have played into the hands of Buckingham, who wanted to persuade the Lords to increase pressure on the Commons by breaking off all contact over the Petition. Thus Herbert’s opposition to this motion gave more moderate counsels the opportunity to sway the Upper House.34

Herbert appeared only once more in the debates on the Petition, on 22 May, as the Commons threw out the Lords’ proposal to add a clause to the Petition saving the king’s prerogative. The debate was held in closed session, with no-one allowed to leave the House, but at one point it was noted that Herbert had slipped away - doubtless to warn Pembroke of the failure of the Lords’ initiative - and the serjeant-at-arms was sent to find him. The Lords quickly capitulated, and the Petition was sent for the Royal Assent unaltered. To encourage Charles, the Commons resumed debate upon the long-delayed subsidy bill, but when the king’s expected response failed to materialize, the House held up the bill again with an heroic filibuster on 31 May. Towards the end of this debate Sir Thomas Jermyn optimistically suggested completing the first reading of the bill, but his motion was cast aside by Herbert: ‘Wilfulness and perverseness have caused this long dispute; when there is not a yielding to reason all goes awry. I think we may rise, and without prejudice to the king’s service’.35

Herbert was also involved with a selection of other business during the session, including two committees investigating the misconduct of Buckingham’s allies in Cornwall (20 Mar., 16 Apr.) and another to examine the new book of customs rates drafted by Sir Edmund Sawyer* (17 May), one of the trustees for Sir Percy’s wife. On 5 May, Herbert claimed that a clergyman who had written a mock catechism lampooning puritans had been advised to keep silent under questioning, providing some brief amusement by casting his speech in the same didactic form as the minister’s libel. He was once again obliged to present himself as a recusant officeholder because of his wife’s Catholicism, but was excused by the House. Finally, in the closing days of the session, his Court contacts proved useful in arranging several meetings with the king to smooth the passage of business.36

Buckingham’s assassination was followed by a jockeying for position on the Privy Council between supporters and opponents of war. Herbert sought to bolster the position of Pembroke, chief among the hawks, by effecting an alliance between his patron and Sir John Savile, whose rival Wentworth had longstanding links with the key peacemaker, lord treasurer Weston. War was not possible without parliamentary subsidy, and Pembroke’s faction were thus keen to remove potential sources of conflict in the parliamentary session of 1629. Hence when a motion was tabled for an investigation of the king’s interference with the printing of the Petition of Right, Herbert protested that ‘this comes near the Spanish Inquisition to make particular inquisitors’, an inflammatory turn of phrase for which he was called to order by (Sir) John Eliot.37 The dissolution of Parliament of 10 Mar. 1629 signalled the end of the war, but in the following month Herbert received the notable consolation of a peerage as Baron Powis, a title which effectively confirmed his claim to the Greys’ lordship, while (to his delight) it also gave him precedency over his relative Sir Edward Herbert, who was created Lord Herbert of Chirbury in May.38

Pembroke’s death in April 1630 deprived Herbert of his chief patron, and his relationship with the earl’s brother, lord chamberlain Pembroke and Montgomery, while close, was punctuated by a series of quarrels, particularly when Montgomery suggested that Sir Percy Herbert’s son should be taken away from his parents and raised in a Protestant household.39 Meanwhile, Vaughan tenaciously pursued his claims to the Llwydiarth estate in half a dozen jurisdictions, and although he was rebuffed at every turn, the Herberts’ reliance on judgments handed down by prerogative courts meant that the Long Parliament was predisposed to look kindly upon Vaughan’s petitions for redress.40 Thus although Pembroke and Montgomery declared for Parliament in 1642, the Llwydiarth question and the Catholicism of the Powis branch of the family pushed them into the royalist camp during the Civil War. Herbert held Montgomeryshire for the king until his capture by Sir Thomas Myddelton II* at the storm of Powis Castle in October 1644. He was thereafter kept under house arrest in the Strand, surviving on a pension of £4 a week paid out of the £500 life annuity he reserved to himself when he entailed the family estates upon his son in 1623; the estates themselves were sold by Act of Parliament in 1652. Herbert was buried on his former manor of Hendon, Middlesex on 21 June 1656, at which time he had no legal title to any lands, hence he left no will or administration. Sir Percy Herbert recovered his patrimony at the Restoration, and his son, while disbarred from the Commons by his Catholicism, secured a marquessate and (briefly) a dukedom under James II. The last male member of the family died in 1748, but the heiress married into the Montgomery branch of the family, created earls of Powis, who held the estate until modern times.41

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Author: Simon Healy


  • 1. C142/242/107.
  • 2. Al. Ox.; LI Admiss.; CITR, ii. 224-5.
  • 3. C2/Chas.I/H114/59; Shaw, Knights of Eng. i. 154; CP.
  • 4. D. Lysons, Environs of London, ii. 401.
  • 5. JPs in Wales and Monm. ed. Phillips, 131-43.
  • 6. SP14/28/48; APC, 1615-16, p. 266; HEHL, EL7443.
  • 7. SP14/31/1, 14/43/107; E179/222/387, f. 5v; 179/222/391, f. 1; C212/22/20-3; C193/12/2; T. Rymer, Foedera viii. pt. 2, p. 146.
  • 8. List of Sheriffs comp. A. Hughes (PRO, L. and I. ix), 263.
  • 9. Salop RO, 6001/290.
  • 10. CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 94.
  • 11. NLW, Powis 12233; Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama ed. N.W. Bawcutt, 4; LC2/6, f. 37; SP16/154/76.
  • 12. C142/242/107; SP46/59, ff. 14-18, 51-9; D. Dean, Law-making and Soc. in late Eliz. Eng. 196, 201; CP, vi. 697-701.
  • 13. SP46/59, ff.14-18, 59; P. Williams, Council in the Marches, 266-7; CJ, i. 169b, 193-4, 198-9, 962a, 964b; C142/298/97; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 511.
  • 14. C142/247/84; 142/380/136; J.E. Neale, Elizabethan House of Commons, 93-104; Mont. Colls. lxxxv. 28-9; C2/Jas.I/H2/4; NLW, Wynnstay 44/55, 193.
  • 15. MONTGOMERYSHIRE; Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury ed. J.M. Shuttleworth, 39; CJ, i. 154b (wardship conf.), 180a (Union conf.), 197b (assarts), 281b (Walsh estate), 326b (Instrument of Union), 347b (pluralities), 397b (shop books).
  • 16. HMC Hatfield, xii. 496-7; Procs. 1614 (Commons), 76, 228-9, 231-2.
  • 17. HMC Hatfield, xii. 495-6; xvii. 594; E. Lodge, Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ii. 202; Mdx. County Recs. ed. J.C. Jeaffreson, ii. 211; CJ, i. 776b; CD 1628, iii. 64; CCC, 2194.
  • 18. Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 260; NLW, Powis 12233; C2/Chas.I/H12/59, 2/Chas.I/H114/59; C78/440/5.
  • 19. C. Russell, PEP, 106-8; CJ, i. 541b, 547b, 567a; CD 1621, iii. 258; v. 61; R. Zaller, Parl. of 1621, pp. 66-7.
  • 20. SIR GEORGE MARSHALL; CD 1621, iii. 2-3, 165, 239, 353; vi. 135; C33/136, f. 1540; CJ, i. 570a, 608a, 624b, 632a; Nicholas 1621, ii. 127; Zaller, 134-5.
  • 21. Russell, 147-8; T. Cogswell, Blessed Revolution, 129-32.
  • 22. CJ, i. 676b, 717a; ‘Jervoise 1624’, f. 5; ‘Earle 1624’, f. 52v; Russell, 179-82.
  • 23. ‘Nicholas 1624’, p. 107; CJ, i. 733b; Cogswell, 189-93. Other diarists missed the point of Herbert’s speech: CJ, i. 682b; ‘Spring 1624’, p. 106, ‘Holland 1624’, i. f. 46.
  • 24. ‘Nicholas 1624’, pp. 120-1; Holles 1624, p. 35; ‘Earle 1624’, f. 82.
  • 25. Cogswell, 203-15; ‘Nicholas 1624’, p. 158; ‘Lowther 1624’, f. 41v; Holles 1624, p. 49; ‘Spring 1624’, p. 149.
  • 26. SHREWSBURY; CJ, i. 534b; Salop RO, 1831/14 (letters of April-May 1621); C.R. Kyle, ‘Attendance Lists’, PPE 1604-29 ed. Kyle, 190; Salop RO, 6001/290 (April 1623); T.C. Mendenhall, Shrewsbury Drapers and Welsh Wool Trade, 181-4.
  • 27. CD 1621, ii. 357; v. 157-8; CJ, i. 615b; NLW, 9059E/1217, 1228.
  • 28. CJ, i. 692a, 703a, 776b; ‘Nicholas 1624’, p. 287; ‘Earle 1624’, ff. 180v-1; ‘Holland 1624’, ii. f. 86v.
  • 29. C3/387/43; C2/Chas.I/P44/36; NLW, Wynnstay 44/55, 75, 77, 175, 192, 228, 297; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 356; D’Ewes ed. W. Notestein, 512; Mont. Colls. xiv. 388-9.
  • 30. Procs. 1625, pp. 205, 228, 347, 349; Russell, 252-6; C. Thompson, ‘Court Pols. and Parl. Conflict in 1625’, Conflict in Early Stuart Eng. ed. R. Cust and A. Hughes, 170-1, 186.
  • 31. Procs. 1626, iii. 146; iv. 215; SP16/523/77; Russell, 266-7, 287-9.
  • 32. NLW, Powis 21621; Procs. 1626, ii. 216, 430; iii. 393, 399.
  • 33. Russell, 326-7; R. Cust, Forced Loan, 26-7; E401/1389, m. 5.
  • 34. CD 1628, ii. 28-9; iii. 372-3, 404-7; Russell, 342-3, 371-3.
  • 35. CD1628, iii. 526; iv. 45; Russell 373, 376-7.
  • 36. CD 1628, ii. 479; iii. 64, 260, 448; iv. 307, 319, 321, 324, 388, 403-4, 424, 430.
  • 37. Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 308; Russell, 393-4; L.J. Reeve, Chas. I and the Road to Personal Rule, 80-1; CD 1629, p. 6.
  • 38. CSP Dom. 1628-9, pp. 503, 506-7, 511, 524; CP.
  • 39. HMC Cowper, i. 426; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 177-8, 207; ii. 147; CSP Dom. 1639, p. 401.
  • 40. CSP Dom. 1629-31, pp. 272-3; 1637, p. 558; 1639-40, p. 261; 1640-1, pp. 356, 505; C142/472/97; C2/Chas.I/P44/36; NLW, Wynnstay 44/77, 176, 192.
  • 41. CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 3-4, 367; CCC, 2193-5; C78/440/5; Lysons, ii. 401; DWB sub earls of Powis.