parliament of 1628, as his letters prove, but his name does not appear in the printed list of members (Whitaker, Life of Radcliffe, p. 161). In December 1628 Wentworth became president of the council of the north, and through his influence Radcliffe obtained the post of king's attorney in that court (ib. p. 173; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1629–31, p. 236).
When Wentworth was made lord deputy of Ireland, he resolved to have Radcliffe with him, and the latter landed in Ireland in January 1633, six months before Wentworth's own arrival. Wentworth's first despatch to secretary Coke concluded with the request that Radcliffe should be made a member of the council (Strafford Letters, i. 97–100), and the king at once granted the request (ib. pp. 115, 134). The lord deputy placed his whole confidence in Radcliffe and Sir Christopher Wandesford. Writing to the lord treasurer on 31 Jan. 1634, he said, speaking of his financial schemes, ‘There is not a minister on this side, that knows anything I write or intend, excepting the Master of the Rolls and Sir George Radcliffe, for whose assistance in this government, and comfort to myself amidst this generation, I am not able sufficiently to pour forth my humble acknowledgments to his Majesty. Sure I were the most solitary man without them that ever served a king in such a place’ (ib. i. 194). He praised in a similar strain their great services in the parliament of 1634 (ib. i. 352). In all legal matters Radcliffe was Wentworth's chief adviser, and in the management of the farm of the customs and other financial measures he was his right-hand man (ib. ii. 21; Rushworth, Trial of Strafford, pp. 249, 410; Lloyd, Memoirs of Excellent Personages, p. 149). It was owing to Radcliffe's advice that Wentworth decided, when opposed by the Earl of Ormonde, to make Ormonde his friend rather than to crush him (Carte, Life of Ormonde, i. 131, ed. 1851). In 1639 Radcliffe joined with Sir Christopher Wandesford in promising to the king an annual contribution of 500l. towards the expenses of the war with the Scots (Strafford Letters, ii. 279). In 1640 the meeting of the Long parliament involved Radcliffe in the ruin of his patron. He was regarded as Strafford's accomplice, and was committed to the gatehouse on the charge of high treason (9 Dec. 1640; Commons' Journals, ii. 40, 48). Articles of impeachment against him were read in the commons on 29 Dec., and presented by Pym to the lords on the following day. Pym represented Radcliffe as an inferior orb governed by a greater planet. ‘In the crimes committed by the Earl there appears to be more haughtiness and fierceness … but in those of Sir George Radcliffe there seems to be more baseness and servility, having resigned and subjected himself to be acted by the corrupt will of another.’ Strafford, having less knowledge of the law and stronger passions, was easily led into illegality. ‘Sir George Radcliffe, in his natural temper and disposition more moderate, and by his education and profession better acquainted with the grounds and directions of law, was carried into his offences by an immediate concurrence of will, by a more corrupt suppression and inthralling of his own reason and judgment’ (ib. ii. 58; Lords' Journals, iv. 120). On 4 March 1641 Captain Audley Mervin, on behalf of the Irish House of Commons, presented articles of impeachment against Radcliffe and three other members of Strafford's council, to the Irish House of Lords (Nalson, Collection of Affairs of State, &c., ii. 566). The articles of impeachment, both English and Irish, were of a very general nature, and as Radcliffe was not brought to trial, no evidence was brought to prove them. In the course of the proceedings against Strafford, however, Radcliffe was shown to have threatened members for their votes in parliament, and to have been the chief agent in the prosecution of Sir Piers Crosby. Crosby and Lord Baltinglass both presented petitions against him (Lords' Journals, iv. 258, 275; Rushworth, Trial of Strafford, pp. 110–12). According to Clarendon, the object of the managers of the trial in impeaching Radcliffe was to prevent him being a witness on behalf of Strafford (Rebellion, iii. 93). Strafford was denied the assistance of Radcliffe in drawing up his answer to the remonstrance of the Irish parliament, but, according to Carte, the king forwarded the remonstrance to Radcliffe, and the answer was written by him and merely approved by Strafford (Life of Ormonde, i. 238; Lords' Journals, iv. 125, 127). A formal demand by Strafford that Radcliffe should be summoned to explain the reasons for the calling in of the Dublin charters was likewise refused (Rushworth, Trial of Strafford, p. 163). Yet, in spite of all difficulties, he contrived to communicate with Strafford by letter, and to advise him as to his defence. Even after the earl's condemnation the two friends were not allowed to meet. On 9 May Radcliffe wrote a touching farewell to Strafford. ‘I shall account no loss,’ he concluded, ‘if I do now shortly attend your blessed soul into the state of rest and happiness. But whatsoever small remainder of time God shall vouchsafe
