LEKE, Nicholas (1612-81)

The Leke family had been prominent in the north Midlands since the fourteenth century and were the greatest landholders in the Scarsdale Hundred of Derbyshire. HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 446. The majority of the family’s holdings lay here and in Nottinghamshire. Their principal seat, Sutton Hall, was comparatively modest, being assessed at just 26 hearths in 1670, making it only the twelfth greatest house in the county and dwarfed by the likes of Hardwick Hall, Chatsworth and Bretby House, which were assessed at 114, 79 and 68 hearths respectively. Derbyshire Hearth Tax, xlix. In 1624 Nicholas Leke’s father, Sir Francis Leke, who had been one of the first baronets created by James I, was elevated to the peerage as Baron Deincourt through the interest of George Villiers^†, duke of Buckingham, and in return for payment of £8,000. C.H. Firth, House of Lords during the Civil War, 12. On the outbreak of Civil War, the Lekes were divided with Deincourt, his younger sons and his cousin, another Francis Leke^‡, taking the side of the king, while Nicholas Leke supported Parliament. Deincourt was promoted in the peerage as earl of Scarsdale in 1645.

Leke succeeded his father as earl of Scarsdale in 1655. At the Restoration he was noted as being one of those willing to delay their entry into the House until given leave to do so by George Monck, later duke of Albemarle. CCSP, iv. 674-5; Bodl. Clarendon 72, ff. 19-20. As a Civil War creation, the earldom of Scarsdale was initially not recognized; it was consequently as Baron Deincourt that he took his seat in the House on 27 April. He then attended for approximately 62 per cent of the session before the adjournment of September. On 1 May he was named one of the managers of the conference considering methods to heal breaches within the kingdom, but two days later he was granted leave of absence as a result of his mother’s death. He resumed his seat on 5 May and on 2 June, following the king’s order that Civil War peerages should be recognized, he took his seat on the earl’s bench as earl of Scarsdale. Scarsdale was absent from the House from 24 July to 18 August. On 30 July his brother-in-law, Henry Hildyard^‡, was returned at the by-election for Hedon in Yorkshire (though whether the election was related to Scarsdale’s absence from the House is uncertain). HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 549. Scarsdale attended the second part of the session on 6 Nov., after which he attended on almost 87 per cent of all sitting days. The previous day (5 Nov.), he had been commended to the lord chamberlain, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, by George Berkeley, 9th Baron Berkeley (later earl of Berkeley). PA, MAN/57.

Scarsdale does not appear to have been active in the elections for the Cavalier Parliament in Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire. The Cavendishes held a commanding interest in both counties, rivalled in Nottinghamshire only by the Byrons, Chaworths and Pierreponts. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 187, 349. Scarsdale took his seat at the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May 1661, after which he attended on three-quarters of all sitting days. On 6 Feb. 1662 he registered his protest at the resolution to pass the bill to restore the estate of Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby. On 13 July 1663 Scarsdale was listed by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as a supporter of the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon (as Hyde had since become).

Scarsdale attended the 1664 session for approximately 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 21 Apr. he was named to the committee for the gaming bill. Scarsdale’s attendance during the 1664-5 session increased markedly. Present on just under 89 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to six committees in addition to the sessional committees. His attendance declined during the brief session of October 1665, in which he attended just six of its 19 days, but he was named to four committees, including that considering the bill for preventing the importation of foreign cattle. He was summoned for the trial of Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley and Monteagle, at the end of April 1666 and found Morley guilty of manslaughter. Stowe 396, ff. 178-90; HEHL, EL 8398.

His attendance was particularly assiduous during the 1666-7 session when he was present on almost 97 per cent of all sitting days and was named to nine committees. On 29 Oct. his cousin, the former cavalier Sir Francis Leke, was returned for Nottinghamshire (though there is no reason to believe that Scarsdale employed his interest on his cousin’s behalf in the election). On 23 Jan. 1667 Scarsdale entered a dissent to the refusal to grant a right of appeal from the fire court to the king and the House of Lords.

During the 1667-9 session he attended on approximately 68 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 14 committees. His rate of attendance increased once more in the following (1669) session. Taking his seat at its opening on 19 Oct., he attended each of its 36 days and was named to three committees. He demonstrated a similarly high level of attendance in the following session (1670-1), attending approximately 92 per cent of all sitting days and being named to 41 committees.

Scarsdale sold the lease on his London home in Pall Mall to Nell Gwyn in May 1671, reputedly for £2,500. Add. 36916, f. 221. The following year his heir, Robert Leke, styled Lord Deincourt (later 3rd earl of Scarsdale), caused consternation when he eloped with the under-age daughter of Sir John Lewis. Lewis’ widow and her father, Sir Thomas Foote, sought to prosecute the pair, despite the efforts of Sir William Morton^‡, the presiding judge, to persuade them to accommodate the matter with Scarsdale, ‘an honest and honourable person, and of great estate.’ CSP Dom. 1671-2, p. 147. The marriage endured but led to a series of court cases between Deincourt, his brother-in-law, Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, and Lewis’ executors over rights to Lewis’ estate. TNA, C10/497/101, C10/132/2.

Scarsdale resumed his seat for the first session of 1673 and was again assiduous in his attendance. Present on 39 of the 41 sitting days, he was named to 11 committees. He returned to the House for the brief second session of 1673, attending each of its four days. The 1674 session also saw a remarkably high level of attendance; he sat on each of the session’s 38 days during which he was named to five committees.

During the first 1675 session he was present on 95 per cent of all sitting days and was again named to five committees. He was then present on each of the 21 days of the second 1675 session, during which he was named to seven committees. On 20 Nov. he voted in favour of addressing the crown for a dissolution of Parliament.

During the long prorogation, Scarsdale joined with James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, and Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, in petitioning the king to grant letters of incorporation to the Company of the Royal Fishery of England, in which he had invested. CSP Dom. 1676-7, p. 4. He returned to the House at the opening of the following (1677-8) session on 15 Feb. 1677, after which he maintained his typically high rate of attendance, being present on 96 per cent of all sitting days and being named to 49 committees. In acknowledgement of his association with the opposition, Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, noted him as doubly worthy. On 4 Apr. 1678 he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter. He was present on approximately 88 per cent of sitting days during the summer session of 1678 and was named to 14 committees. The second session of that year (the last of the Cavalier Parliament) saw him present on almost 94 per cent of all sitting days. On 15 Nov. 1678 he voted in favour of disabling Catholics from sitting in the House and on 26 Dec. voted against the supply bill. The following day he voted in favour of committing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds).

Scarsdale’s heir, Robert Leke was returned for Newark on the interest of his cousin, Sir Francis Leke, at the first Exclusion election in 1679. There is no suggestion that his candidature was in any way supported by Scarsdale. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 732. Deincourt and his father (repeating the example of the previous generation) were opposed politically, but Deincourt’s election may have been one of the reasons for Danby mistakenly assessing Scarsdale as a likely supporter in March 1679. Subsequent assessments more realistically noted Scarsdale as ‘doubtful’. Scarsdale attended nearly every day of the brief 1679 Parliament. Named to eight committees in the course of the session, on 1 Apr. he voted in favour of the early stages of Danby’s attainder. On 4 Apr. he again voted in favour of the attainder, and he voted to agree with the Commons on 14 April. On 10 May he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords, and he then registered his dissent at the resolution not to do so. On 27 May he registered a further dissent at the resolution to insist upon the vote confirming the right of the bishops to remain in court during capital cases.

During the second Exclusion Parliament, despite advancing age, Scarsdale was present for approximately 85 per cent of sitting days. On 15 Nov. 1680 Scarsdale voted in favour of rejecting the exclusion bill, and on 23 Nov. he voted against appointing a committee to consider the state of the kingdom. On 7 Dec. he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason.

Scarsdale continued to sit in the session until its close on 10 Jan. 1681. He died, without leaving a will, just over two weeks later on 27 Jan. and was buried in the Hunsdon vault at Westminster Abbey. He was succeeded by his heir, Deincourt, as 3rd earl of Scarsdale.