Discussing this MP’s death, the nineteenth-century lord chancellor, Lord Campbell (John Campbell†) would observe that, ‘if he had been childless his name never more would have been heard of’.20Lord Campbell, The Lives of the Chief Justices of England (1849-57), ii. 119. Campbell had a point. Holt’s career as a lawyer was, even within his own lifetime, overshadowed by that of his son and his time in Parliament would be unremarkable.
The Holts seem to have originated in Lancashire, but this MP’s father, Rowland Holt, became a London merchant and his wife, Mary Bruckner, was herself a Londoner.21Vis. Berks. i. 229; Le Neve’s Pedigrees, 336-7. They were living in the parish of St Christopher le Stocks when Thomas, their eldest son, was born in 1623.22GL, MS 4421/1, unfol. Two siblings, John and Mary, were later born, although perhaps neither survived childhood.23Vis. Berks. i. 229. On 15 January 1635, when Thomas was still a teenager, his father was robbed and murdered on Clerkenwell Fields in the second of a series of attacks by two notorious criminals, Thomas Sherwood and Elizabeth Evans.24C142/537/60; H. G[oodcole], Heavens Speedie Hue and Cry sent after Lust and Murther (1635), sigs. B1v-B2; Murder upon Murder [1635]; Smyth’s Obit. 10. He left some property at Reading in Berkshire.25C142/537/60. Within seven years and before he had reached the age of majority, Thomas had married, for his eldest son, John†, was born at Abingdon in December 1642.26J. R[ayner], The life of the Right Honourable Sir John Holt (1764), 1. This marriage, his young family and the outbreak of the civil war presumably explains why it was not until February 1646, when he was already in his early twenties, that Holt was admitted to Gray’s Inn.27GI Admiss. 241. He cannot have done so merely in order to round off his education: that he was intent on a legal career was confirmed when he was called to the bar two years later.28PBG Inn, i. 368.
By the early 1650s Holt was combining his legal practice in London with local office back in Berkshire. In 1652 he was added to the commissions of the peace for that county and for Oxfordshire and the following year he was included on the separate commission for his home town, Abingdon.29C231/6, pp. 236, 263, 297. At about the same time he was also acting as the steward of Wantage, another Berkshire town, for it would later be claimed by the local gathered congregation that, as steward, he had prevented them using the town hall for their services.30CSP Dom. 1654, pp. 385-6. We can thus see Holt being willing to accept office from the republic as a justice of the peace, while at the same time being out of step with some of the more radical ideas in circulation at the time.
He may not have been the most obvious person to be elected as the MP for Abingdon in July 1654. That he was elected by the inhabitants, rather than on the narrower, more traditional corporation franchise, may even mean that he was not the candidate favoured by the town’s civic elite.31Berks. RO, A/AEp 1/4. His known activity in this Parliament was very limited. He was named to only two committees, one of which was that on the bill to recognise the protectoral government (25 Sept. 1654).32CJ vii. 370a. The other, which was the committee to consider writs of certiorari and habeas corpus (3 Nov.), even more obviously reflected his professional interests.33CJ vii. 381b.
What is known is that he did not endear himself to those around Oliver Cromwell*. In 1656 he stood for re-election. The local major-general, William Goffe*, was not pleased. In writing to John Thurloe* on 15 July, he described Holt as ‘an ill man, and no friend to the protector’, making it clear that he would try his best to block his election.34TSP v. 215. He failed. Eleven days later the Abingdon corporation chose Holt as their MP.35Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), f. 182. Rather surprisingly, he does not seem to have been one of those MPs who were then prevented from taking their seats by the council of state.36CJ vii. 425a-b. In this Parliament the only committee to which Holt is known to have been named was the committee for privileges.37CJ vii. 580b. Whatever else might be said about him, Holt was evidently not one of those barristers who sought to use their time in Parliament as a way of raising their professional profiles. But his election in 1656 did help advance his career in another way. In September 1656, just two months after the parliamentary election, the Abingdon corporation sacked their recorder, Bartholomew Hall. His fault was that he did not live in the town. Four weeks later, on 17 October, they offered the job to Holt. He accepted and was sworn in on 14 December.38Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), ff. 182v, 183.
That Holt was not re-elected as the town’s MP in 1659 was something of a snub. As recorder he had a good claim to be considered again, but the corporation preferred to elect Sir John Lenthall*, another professional lawyer who lived in the area. Later, after the Restoration, the Stonehouse interest reasserted itself and, in claiming the seat for himself, Sir George Stonehouse* prevented Holt resuming the parliamentary career that may not have interested him much anyway. He nevertheless did continue to serve as the town’s recorder.39Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), ff. 187, 208v, 211, 215, 216v, 226. The rest of his legal practice probably continued to prosper and by 1671 he was a bencher of Gray’s Inn.40PBG Inn, i. 444, 455, ii. 14, 15, 33. He had, in the meantime, acquired links with the queen consort, Catherine of Braganza, particularly in his role as steward of St Katherine’s-by-the-Tower.41Jamison, Royal Hosp. of St Katherine, 141. He was also the lessee of one of the royal fiefdoms in Berkshire, the hundred of Kintbury Eagle, which was granted to her in 1665.42VCH Berks. iv. 157.
At some point during the 1670s Holt moved his main residence from Abingdon to Reading and in April 1672 he was appointed by the Reading corporation as their steward.43CSP Dom. 1671-2, pp. 266, 304; Univ. of Chicago, Bacon coll. 4554. This left the Abingdon corporation resentful that he was neglecting them, although they did still seek his advice as before.44Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), f. 226. But by July 1675 they had had enough. Exactly the same arguments about non-residence that had been used to dismiss Hall were now turned against Holt.45Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), f. 230. He did not go quietly, however; he complained to the privy council and tried to take legal action to block the appointment of his successor, Thomas Medlycott†.46CSP Dom. 1675-6, pp. 252, 432; Berks. RO, TF41 (microfilm), ff. 230, 232v; T. Jones, Les Reports De divers Special Cases (1695), 51-2.
But he still had plenty of friends elsewhere. His appointment as a serjeant-at-law in 1677 confirmed his status as one of the leading London barristers.47Rayner, Life, 1-2n; Baker, Serjeants at Law, 197. However, his talent to offend would soon re-emerge. Another Berkshire justice of the peace, Samuel Brightwell, claimed that Holt had provoked divisions between local officials, which led to further litigation.48CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 177; 1678, p. 126; Berks. RO, D/ERw L1. This willingness to offend was now reinforced by Holt’s committed toryism. His local position in Reading was strengthened in April 1680 when he was appointed as the corporation’s recorder. The king then showed his approval by dubbing him as a knight.49Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 254; Le Neve’s Pedigrees, 336. The Commons took a rather different view, however. On 20 November 1680 they took offence over claims that Holt had attempted to obstruct a petition which had asked the king for a new Parliament. He appeared before them three days later to make a full apology.50CJ ix. 658a-b, 660a-b. In September 1683 he was the person who, along with a number of other members of the Reading corporation, tipped off the government when the 3rd Baron Lovelace (John Lovelace†) organised a major whig meeting.51CSP Dom. 1683, pp. 377, 384, 392-3; HP Commons 1660-1690, i. 133. It may not have been a coincidence that Holt was then appointed as a king’s serjeant the following month.52Sainty, English Law Officers, 22. As further evidence of his tory credentials, he supported the surrender of the Reading charter in 1685 and personally carried the new charter into the town.53VCH Berks. iii. 361; CSP Dom. 1685, p. 403.
Holt died on 28 July 1686 and was buried nine days later in the old chapter house of St James’s, Clerkenwell.54Pinks, Hist. of Clerkenwell, 44; Hovenden, St James, Clerkenwell, 117 His substantial, scattered estates in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Norfolk and Hertfordshire were left in the first instance to his widow, passing on her death in 1701 to their eldest son, John Holt†.55PROB11/384/176. By the mid-1680s John had already been recognised as an outstanding lawyer and he was appointed as recorder of London in the year of his father’s death. As a whig, he sat briefly in 1689 in the Convention until his appointment as lord chief justice.56HP Commons 1660-1690. His subsequent fame as one of the most distinguished judges ever to preside over the court of king’s bench would indeed dramatically outshine his father’s rather more modest achievements.