Sackville was described by Clarendon (Edward Hyde†) as ‘beautiful, graceful, and vigorous’ with a ‘wit pleasant, sparkling, and sublime’,
I. Early Life
On the death of his father in February 1609, Sackville, then aged almost 19, inherited ‘a good support for a younger brother’, at least according to Clarendon.
In Lyons Sackville secured the release of Sir Edward Herbert* from prison for recruiting soldiers for the duke of Savoy.
Despite this stain on his reputation, Sackville was admitted to the Order of the Bath at the investiture of the prince of Wales in November 1616. According to Chamberlain, at the subsequent City banquet, the newly dubbed knights put the citizens’ wives ‘to the squeak, so far forth that one of the sheriffs broke open a door upon Sir Edward Sackville’.
In March 1619 Sackville had a severe attack of the ‘ague’, and it was ‘generally reported that he was dead’.
II. The First Sitting of the 1621 Parliament
In December 1620 Sackville was returned to Parliament for Sussex, in which county his elder brother, Richard, 3rd earl of Dorset, was lord lieutenant. Once in the Commons Sackville quickly established a reputation as an orator. Indeed, as early as 17 Feb. Chamberlain reported that he had ‘spoken once or twice very well’, while John Pym* came to regard him as an earnest and elegant speaker.
Sackville was appointed to the privileges committee on 5 February.
Sackville does not seem to have been unduly concerned to follow correct procedure. On 10 Feb. he tried to excuse Sir John Leedes, a Sussex knight who had sat in the Commons without taking the obligatory oaths, arguing that ‘he did it through ignorance’. He unsuccessfully moved for Leedes to be sworn and admitted.
On 24 Jan., shortly before the session began, the Privy Council had added Sackville to a recently established commission to consider the recovery of the Palatinate. The commission reported to the Council on 13 Feb., and two days later Sackville presented its findings to the Commons’ grand committee for supply and grievances. His report was subsequently widely circulated as a separate. In it Sackville stated that an army of 30,000 would be required, costing £300,000 for arms and equipment alone. Referring to the king’s attempts to achieve his objectives by purely diplomatic means, he expressed the hope that ‘heaven’ would ‘be pleased to crown his actions with success’, but added that ‘I must be excused if I doubt it’. Even if there was to be no war abroad, money would still be needed to improve defences at home, as the ‘great ... want of munitions’ was more important than the ‘want of money’ of which so many complained. After declaring that in dealing with monarchs ‘the way to conquer is to submit’, he therefore argued that a generous grant was needed, which would also serve to persuade James to deal with domestic grievances and make him ‘not only love, but fall in love with parliaments ... [and] recall them home from exile’. He concluded by intemperately attacking those who wanted grievances to be dealt with before supply. Although he conceded that some of these individuals might be acting from good intentions, he warned against ‘agent[s] of base and beggarly promoters, needy and greedy projectors’ who, for ‘false and foreign ends, would endeavour to put a partition wall between the king and his people’ and ‘do an acceptable service to the papists’. From this it would seem that he believed that there were some in the Commons whose advocacy of an immediate assault on monopolies was intended to cause the king to despair of supply and bring about a rapid dissolution.
At the beginning of his report on 15 Feb. Sackville referred to the ‘heavy burden’ which ‘my country ... now groans under, by reason of the innumerable number of monopolies’, and he promised he would not ‘sit silent, if I find myself able to say anything’ on the subject when the time was right.
Sackville was clearly exasperated by the petition of Sir Francis Michell, the alehouses’ patentee, which seemed to describe Members of the Commons as ignorant. According to Michell’s subsequent account, Sackville, on leaving the chamber on 23 Feb., found Michell outside and exclaimed ‘what have you done man, are you mad?’ Michell tried to explain that he had only intended to describe alehouse-keepers as ignorant, to which Sackville replied that Sir Dudley Digges ‘hath paid you an hour together, I never heard any man so paid’.
As the brother of a peer it is not surprising that Sackville was keen to co-operate with the Upper House over the punishment of the patentees. On 27 Feb., after Sir Edward Coke reported (Sir) Giles Mompesson’s* patent for licensing inns, he urged the Commons not to exceed its powers by acting alone, but instead to join with the Lords in punishing Mompesson and he was appointed to the committee to search for precedents.
Sackville was not unsympathetic to some of those who had been involved in the holding of patents. At the committee for grievances on 22 Feb. he moved that the brother of Buckingham (now a marquess), Sir Christopher Villiers, and another gentleman of the bedchamber, should be granted legal representation when they were examined concerning the alehouses’ patent, to which they were parties. However, he may have been merely hoping that such a concession would mollify the treasurer of the Household, Sir Thomas Edmondes, who had moved to exempt the courtiers outright.
On 21 Apr. Sackville attacked Sir Robert Lloyd’s* patent for engrossing wills, arguing that as a consequence ‘the liberty of the subject is taken away’. Believing that it was self-evidently illegal in execution, he moved that the only question to be put was whether it was also illegal in origin.
At the second reading of the monopolies bill on 26 Mar., Sackville also defended the patent for providing guns for the merchant navy held by his kinsman Sackville Crowe*, a servant of Buckingham. He defended Crowe again on 8 May, when a petition from the ordnance officers against the grant was debated. On both occasions he attacked Crowe’s rival, the Kentish gun founder John Browne, whom he accused of exporting large quantities of artillery and teaching Dutch craftsmen the secrets of his trade.
Sackville’s major preoccupation during the first sitting was with the investigations into the courts of justice, which is surprising given that he had no legal training. This started modestly enough on 8 Feb., when the issue was first raised and he moved that the House should investigate only complaints brought to its notice.
Reluctant though Sackville may have been to take on the responsibility of the chair, the committee for courts of justice soon consumed a large amount of his time, especially as it became a target for a considerable number of petitioners. At a meeting of the committee on 21 Feb. Sackville successfully moved for a sub-committee to assist him in sorting through the complaints, in order to decide what was fit to be presented to the Commons.
A few days later Sackville was struck down by a further bout of illness. On 12 Mar. Phelips was ordered to assume the chairmanship of the committee and to receive ‘divers petitions’, including ‘many frivolous, and clamorous; many of weight and consequence’, which Sackville had accumulated.
One reason Sackville may have been particularly reluctant to resume the chairmanship of the committee for courts of justice was because it was investigating allegations of corruption against Bacon, a long-standing connection of the Sackville family. Nevertheless, his family’s association with Bacon had not prevented him from attacking the referees, of whom the lord chancellor was one.
Sackville does not seem to have thought that the king’s proposal to appoint a commission to investigate the charges would do Bacon much good. He did, however, call for the Commons to work with the Lords on questions concerning parliamentary judicature. On 19 Mar. he joined with Sir Edward Coke in successfully moving that the king be requested to forward his proposal to the Upper House before the Commons formulated its reply.
Sackville had not been entirely successful in freeing himself from the business of the law courts. During the Easter adjournment he again chaired the sub-committee for petitions, although now it was technically a sub-committee of the recess committee rather than that for the courts of justice. He made his report when the Commons resumed on 17 Apr., stating that ‘many things [had been] laid to the charge of a great judge, which not yet fully proved’.
Sackville seems to have drawn the short straw and he chaired a meeting of the committee the following day. He also continued as chairman of the sub-committee for petitions, chairing a meeting on the morning of the 19th, but later that day his position was challenged in the House by Sir Francis Seymour. The previous order appointing Phelips to chair both the committee and the sub-committee was read and approved. However, it was agreed that Sackville should retain the chair of the committee for courts for the proceedings against Bennet, presumably because he was more familiar with the case.
On 20 Apr. Sackville reported the numerous charges against Bennet, stating that although the committee had proceeded cautiously ‘his cause was put into the balance and corruption was the heavier’.
Thomas Malet, deputizing for the absent chairman of the committee, who was probably Sackville, reported the charge on 23 April. Sackville had arrived in the House by the time of the following debate, as he proposed that steps should be taken to prevent Bennet from disposing of his estate, whereupon Sir Edward Montagu retorted that the Commons had no power over Bennet’s property. He subsequently spoke again to support a motion to send Bennet to the Tower. He brushed aside concerns about Bennet’s health, stating it was ‘better he perish than the House lose their power’ and, presumably replying to Montagu, said that ‘if there be no precedent, let us make one’. Despite protesting that ‘he would not eat of his bread that esteemed him his enemy’, he was subsequently sent with a committee to secure Bennet until the sheriffs of London arrived to arrest him formally. On Sir Edward Coke’s motion Sackville was also named to present the charges to the Lords.
In the case of Edward Floyd, the Catholic prisoner in the Fleet accused of slandering Princess Elizabeth and the Elector of the Palatine, Sackville’s respect for the king’s daughter appears to have trumped his respect for the jurisdiction of the Lords.
A week later, on Phelips’ motion, Sackville, rather than Sir Dudley Digges, who had left town, was added to the committee for conferring with the Lords that afternoon about the case.
Sackville took a keen interest in the dispute between Sir Charles Morrison and Clement Coke. The two Members had fallen out over a piece of doggerel, recited by Morrison 30 Apr., which Coke believed disparaged his father, the jurist Sir Edward. On leaving the chamber, Coke had struck Morrison, prompting the latter to draw his sword. It was probably the issues of honour and reputation thrown up in the affair that appealed to Sackville. On 7 May he argued that the case should be heard and judged by the entire House. The following day he spoke three times on the subject. He called for Morrison as well as Coke to be called to the bar, as Morrison had been guilty of drawing his sword.
Given his own history of violence it is interesting that Sackville was careful to distinguish between ‘valour’ and ‘fury’, arguing that ‘to strike is the property of a beast; when to strike of a man, reasonable’. Clearly it was Coke’s lack of forethought, rather than his use of force itself, which offended Sackville, although he expressed the hope that ‘years and discretion will moderate’ Coke’s temper. Turning to the question of Morrison’s satisfaction, Sackville argued that the Commons should draw up a form of words for an apology to be made by Coke. He was concerned that Morrison might regard a ‘compulsive satisfaction’ as dishonourable, but cited the practice of the Marshal’s Court and asserted that it ‘can be no dishonour to any man to receive that [which] comes from the wisdom of a whole House’.
Sackville devoted a considerable amount of time to economic issues. In June 1620 he had been elected to the committee of the Virginia Company on the nomination of the Company’s treasurer, Sir Edwin Sandys*.
Sackville spoke three times in favour of the bill prohibiting the import of corn. At the second reading on 8 Mar. he argued that if corn was cheap, no rent could be paid and, in any case, England produced enough for its needs. He was appointed to the committee. When the bill was reported on 17 May, following a recommittal, he argued it was ‘a just an[d a] honest bill as ever came into the House’. He saw the bill as a means to protect the economic underpinning of England’s social hierarchy, arguing that it was better to provide relief for the poor than cheap food and that ‘the landlords are not to be neglected, especially in a monarchy, that so every man may maintain his condition’. Presumably fearful of depopulation, he was also anxious that the conversion of arable land to pasture ‘will go ill with the state’. He concluded that it was ‘very equal’ to ban imports when exports were also forbidden. Sackville spoke again when the bill, which was once more recommitted, was reported nine days later. Stating that the measure was ‘of the greatest consequence that may be’, he argued that disagreements over the bill only emphasized its importance. In so doing he may have been trying to persuade the House to come to a decision, despite the divisiveness of the issue, rather than continue the long drawn out quest for consensus.
Sackville also defended the agricultural interest when he supported the bill to prohibit the import of Irish cattle on 9 May. He argued that while it might ‘advantage particulars’ it might also benefit the country as a whole. Emphasizing once again the importance of maintaining prices for preserving social hierarchy, he declared that he did not want ‘to have our cattle here at so low a price as the gentleman and farmer here may [not] live’. He was also concerned about the export of coin to pay for imports, stating ‘it is not cheapness that enriches a kingdom but money’.
Sackville opposed the bill for reducing the rate of interest at its second reading on 7 May, fearing it would lead to a flight of capital, which would harm those who needed to borrow. He called for ‘some way to raise [the value of] land for those that cannot borrow and have their moneys called in from them’. Despite his opposition he was subsequently appointed to the committee.
On 21 Apr. Sackville opposed provisions in the bill ‘for the better venting of the cloth of this kingdom’, to hinder the import of gold and silver thread, which he pointed out had been one of the offences for which Mompesson had been punished. He also argued that individual extravagance did not impoverish the nation, only the ‘party prodigal’. Nevertheless he called for a prohibition of embroidered silk and satin lace ‘whence cometh no profit at all’. He was appointed to the committee, which was also instructed to examine a measure concerning apparel and ‘waste of gold and silver therein’.
Sackville showed only limited interest in legislation concerning legal reforms. Nevertheless on 8 Feb. he was named to the committee for the informers bill and after the measure was reported on 7 Mar. he argued against exempting senior government officials from its provisions.
Sackville spoke at the second reading of the bill promoted by his elder brother to confirm the foundation of Sackville hospital, the almshouse founded by their father in East Grinstead. However, he seems to have been mostly concerned to ensure that measure did not interfere with the family’s settled estate, although he also objected to description of the institution as a college. It is possible that he was covertly opposed to placing the institution on a statutory footing, as it is noticeable that attempts to pass a bill to this effect abruptly ceased when Sackville succeeded his brother in 1624. He seems to have played no other role in the passage of the bill, which was not reported, although as knight for Sussex he was entitled to sit on the committee.
Sackville was involved in three other private measures. On 16 Mar. he spoke twice in favour of a bill introduced on behalf of his aunt’s husband, Anthony, 2nd Viscount Mountagu, at its second reading and he was named to the committee.
Towards the end of the sitting Sackville became involved in the case of Theophilus Field, the bishop of Llandaff, who had been accused by one Randolph Davenport of complicity in Bacon’s corruption. Davenport’s evidence had formed one of the charges sent by the Commons to the Lords, but when Davenport failed to reiterate his evidence under oath before the Upper House William Hakewill proposed, on 14 May, that the Commons should punish him. Hakewill was enthusiastically seconded by Sackville, who wanted ‘an example to future ages, else all may deride us with false accusations’. Sackville was named to a committee to draw up a message to the Lords about the business and, after Davenport was brought before the Commons later the same day, he advised the House to first wait until they had confirmation that Field had been cleared and that Davenport was not the Lords’ prisoner before proceeding further.
On 24 May Sackville, concerned that time was running out for passing legislation, moved for all public bills which had been engrossed to be read and sent to the Lords ‘to be christened by the name of acts’.
Sackville’s last speech of the sitting, on 1 June, concerned a petition that had been delivered against the president of the Council in the North, Emanuel, 11th Lord Scrope. Sackville argued that the petitioner should be required to give security to substantiate his petition when Parliament met again, or else Scrope should be left free to prosecute his accuser.
On 13 May the French ambassador reported, inaccurately, that Sackville had been placed under house arrest. Shortly after the sitting ended there were rumours, equally unfounded, that Sackville was among those Members who had been summoned before the Privy Council for questioning.
III. The Second Sitting of 1621
Sackville made his first recorded speech of the second sitting on 20 Nov., the first day of the resumed session. Sir Edward Coke moved that Members should call in all protections other than those legitimately granted to their servants. However, although Sackville had to acknowledge ‘the reasonableness of the motion’, he had to admit that he could not remember all those to whom he had given protections, and he successfully moved that if any Member was found to have granted an unlawful protection they would not face censure so long as they were willing to disavow it when it was questioned.
On 24 Nov. Sackville spoke in the debate concerning Lepton and Goldsmith, two patentees who had initiated a suit in Star Chamber against Coke. Sackville argued that it was ‘every one of our cases’, and successfully called for a committee to search Lepton and Goldsmith’s studies and bring both men into custody, to which body he himself was appointed.
On 26 Nov. Sackville spoke in the debate about foreign policy.
Sackville spoke again in favour of a grant of supply the following day when he tried to counter the arguments that could be made against it. Concerning the question of whether the king should declare Spain the enemy, he argued that if James were asked he would not be able to answer ‘because as yet he knoweth not’. Nevertheless, he was at pains to persuade those who wanted a general war with Spain that intervention in the Palatinate would lead inexorably in that direction ‘if we hinder it not’, because it was the king of Spain who funded the invasion of the Palatinate and ‘if the Spaniard assault the king’s forces there, then he is our enemy’. Acknowledging the force of the argument that a second grant of supply without an accompanying batch of legislation would set a dangerous precedent, he nevertheless asserted that it was warranted by the urgency of the situation. Moreover, the Commons had the power to ensure that there would be ‘no new gift without a like occasion hereafter’. He also tried to counter the argument that extra taxation would prove too great a burden, stating that ‘he doth not think this kingdom so poor and beggarly as it is said to be’, and it would be dangerous to refuse a grant on those grounds as it would make the kingdom appear weak and ‘incite our enemies to set on us’.
When the draft of the petition on foreign policy was reported by Coke on 3 Dec. Sackville opposed the clause calling on James to marry his heir to a Protestant, arguing that this intruded on ‘the king’s undoubted prerogative’ and he feared that it would ‘make him cast out all the rest’. He warned against the danger of ‘pressing the king’, arguing that this would make James fearful for his independence and force him to choose between ‘his own ways and ends’ and ‘the petition of the Commonwealth’. Moreover, he believed the clause was unnecessary as princes did not marry for love and therefore Charles was hardly likely to abandon his faith because he was ‘enamoured’ with his bride; in fact he thought it more likely ‘he will rather convert her’. Growing increasingly impassioned, he alluded to the Greek legend of Phaeton, son of the god Helios, who had driven the chariot of his father, the sun, but had lost control and burnt Africa. He declared ‘let me entreat this House not to take their hands, like Phaeton, their father’s chariot whereupon a general incendiary followed’. He concluded by stating that ‘no honest man’ ... ‘would propose that which we think will be denied’. It is hardly surprising that such a direct attack on the supporters of the petition was highly unpopular. According to Hawarde ‘he ... lost much of his reputation in the House’, while another diarist stated that he was ‘hemmed at’. Nevertheless he declared that ‘this [was] his opinion, and now hath discharged his conscience’.
The news of the Commons’ petition brought a furious rebuke from James the following day, and the House went into a committee to consider its response. On 6 Dec. Sackville reported back to the Commons that business had not been concluded. He also took the opportunity to retract the last part of his speech made three days previously. He denied that it had been his intention to say that no honest man would support the petition, and that if he had said it ‘he was a mad man or a fool ... and desired to be censured at the bar for it for he acknowledged he did well deserve it if he had said it but [it] was not in his thought and he was heartily sorry for it’. The House promptly exonerated him, whereupon Hawarde now wrote that his reputation ‘was in better state than ever it was’.
In the debate concerning the House’s freedom of speech the following day Sackville queried ‘whether we should not meddle with the matters of state without the Lords’.
IV. Later Life
On 17 Dec the secretary of state, Sir George Calvert*, wrote to Buckingham that Sackville was one of the ‘the principal men that upon all occasions stand up for the king’. However, there is no evidence that Sackville gained any reward for his service.
Sackville returned home to find that his opposition to Spain and support for the prerogative made him an ideal political ally for Prince Charles and Buckingham. In addition, his spendthrift brother left a much-depleted estate, having sold lands to the value of £80,000 and still dying £60,000 in debt, which presumably increased the attractions of public office. He subsequently became a prominent adherent of Buckingham, and the accession of Charles in March 1625 brought him to national political prominence. In May he was appointed knight of the Garter, although the report of the Venetian ambassador that he ‘contributed largely’ to the decision to dissolve the first Caroline Parliament cannot be substantiated. The following year he supported Buckingham in Parliament, although he also defended the right of the latter’s enemy, the earl of Bristol (Sir John Digby*), to sit in the Lords. He was appointed to the Privy Council in July 1626 and advocated the most vigorous measures for crushing resistance to the Forced Loan, subsequently defending the right of the Crown to arrest without showing cause in the 1628 Parliament.
In the summer of 1628 Sackville was appointed chamberlain to the queen and in the following year he ‘let his house in Salisbury Court unto the queen for the ambassador lieger of France’, and other property there for the erection of a theatre.
Sackville was a moderate royalist in the Civil War. He was present at the battle of Edgehill, and attended the king at Oxford. He was one of the signatories to its capitulation in 1646, and later compounded on the Oxford Articles at £2,415. He died at his house in Westminster on 17 July 1652, and was buried at Withyham in Sussex. He had drafted a will in 1625, but it was never proved and administration was granted to a creditor in May 1653. His only surviving son, Richard Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, sat in the Long Parliament for East Grinstead before being excluded for royalism.