LUKE, Sir Oliver (1574-1651), of Hayes and Woodend, Cople, Beds.

A scion of a distinguished Bedfordshire family, Oliver Luke was a survivor from the generation that had grown up when the military threat from Catholic Spain had been at its height. He was 13 at the time of the Armada and his years at Cambridge and at the Middle Temple were dominated by reports of Catholic conspiracies and threats of invasion. Not surprisingly, he acquired a deep and abiding fear of Catholicism, reinforced by his marriage into the godly Knightley family of Fawsley, Northamptonshire, in 1599. He made his parliamentary debut in 1597, representing Bedford, when war with Spain was once again a pressing concern. From the abortive Parliament of 1614 until the purge in 1648, he sat as knight of the shire for his county in every Parliament of the period. With a memory which spanned almost all major parliamentary controversies of the early Stuart period, he was among the most experienced MPs at Westminster during the 1640s.

Luke had a long history of opposition to attempts by the crown to extend the ambit of the royal prerogative at the expense of the subjects’ liberties.28HP Commons 1558-1603; HP Commons 1604-1629. He had been a friend of Sir John Eliot† ever since they had both been Members of the 1614 Parliament and during the 1620s he became a staunch opponent of the crown’s use of fiscal expedients of questionable legality. He was among the Bedfordshire resisters to the Palatinate benevolence of 1621.29SP14/127/82. In 1627 he again refused to contribute to Charles I’s Forced Loan, despite being nominated as one of the loan commissioners for the county. When he refused to pay up, he was arrested and committed to prison in the Gatehouse, where he remained until the privy council ordered the general release of the loan resisters on the eve of the 1628 Parliament.30SP16/89/1, 5; CSP Dom. 1627-8, pp. 44, 246, 306; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. i. 473. He was probably equally opposed to the imposition of Ship Money, for there is some evidence that in late 1637 he was conniving with the constable of Wixamtree hundred to delay its collection.31F.G. Emmison and M. Emmison eds. ‘The Ship Money pprs. of Henry Chester and Sir William Boteler, 1636-9’, Publ. Beds. Hist. Rec. Soc. xviii. 56, 59.

Luke was able to secure his elections as knight of the shire for Bedfordshire in 1640 on his own interest, being one of the most substantial gentlemen in the county. All three of his committee appointments in the Short Parliament were important ones; his previous parliamentary experience made him a natural choice for the committee for privileges (16 Apr.), while he also sat on two of the committees which consulted with the House of Lords about the innovations in religion (23 Apr.) and about grievances in general (24 Apr.).32CJ ii. 4a, 10a, 12a.

That autumn he was again his county’s choice as MP. Joining him in the Commons was an extensive network of kin. His eldest son, Sir Samuel*, sat for Bedford; his sister Anne was married to the receiver-general of the court of wards, Sir Miles Fleetwood*, and it was probably through this connection that Luke obtained his interest in the property of Grafton Park during the 1640s: Sir Miles had managed the park until at least 1636 and he continued as its receiver until his death in 1641.33Strafforde Letters, i. 524; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 141. Sir Oliver occupied a house belonging to a royalist, Sir William Fleetwood, in May 1643 and it is possible that he taken possession of it to protect it for the benefit of his son’s royalist in-laws.34CCAM 21. With his son, Sir Samuel, he stood surety for Lord St John of Bletso (a relative by marriage) for a debt of £4,000 borrowed at some point before 1649 from another royalist, Sir George Benyon.35CCAM 346. Sir William Lytton* and Sir Beauchamp St John* were friends and first cousins.

As in the Short Parliament, Sir Oliver was critical of many of the king’s recent policies. Among the issues in which he took an interest during the opening months of the Parliament were questionable forms of royal taxation, such as Ship Money or coat and conduct money, religious affairs, such as the new Canons or the activities of the bishop of Ely, Matthew Wren, and abuses by such diverse royal servants as the clerk of the market, customs officials and chancery clerks.36CJ ii. 45b, 50b, 52a, 56a, 75a, 92a, 169a. He also sat on the committee that investigated the breaches of Commons’ privileges in the two previous Parliaments, two assemblies in which he had, of course, been a Member.37CJ ii. 53b. In January 1641 he presented the Bedfordshire petition calling for the abolition of episcopacy.38Procs. LP ii. 272; CSP Dom. 1640-1, pp. 445-6. All this suggests that he had viewed the king’s period of personal rule with dismay and now saw this Parliament as an opportunity to dismantle the policies of the 1630s. In the wake of the news of the Irish rebellion, he was named to the committee on Irish affairs (2 Nov. 1641) and it was in the context of fears of a Catholic uprising nearer home that on 23 December 1641 he was ordered to organise the arrest of suspicious Catholics in Bedfordshire and to seize the arms held by Thomas Lunsford, whom it was expected the king would appoint as the new lieutenant of the Tower.39CJ ii. 302a, 354a; D’Ewes (C), 336. In August 1641 he presented the petition of James Beverley complaining of the conduct of Sir William Bryers as one of the poll tax commissioners in Bedfordshire.40Procs. LP vi. 265-6, 273, 276, 280-1; CJ ii. 243a.

His position as one of the Bedfordshire deputy lieutenants made him a key local figure once the control of the militia became a major issue. The Militia Ordinance probably had his full support, as he presented the Bedfordshire petition of 16 March 1642 backing the measure.41PJ ii. 46. Two months later, on 23 May, he secured permission to return home to carry out his duties as a deputy lieutenant.42CJ ii. 583b; PJ ii. 362. The following month, for the same reason, the Commons ordered that he and Sir Beauchamp St John* travel to Bedfordshire to muster the forces there.43CJ ii. 628b; PJ iii. 92. On 14 July 1642 he reported the seizure of some horses belonging to Sir John Byron†.44PJ iii. 213.

Once the fighting began Sir Oliver proved himself to be a useful supporter for Parliament, playing a crucial role in mobilizing the war effort in Bedfordshire. For the next two years his activities at Westminster were dominated by military affairs, although it is also likely that he regularly returned to Bedfordshire to organise things there as well. Whether it was sending books of assessment to Bedfordshire (24 Mar. 1643), consulting with various Bedfordshire residents who had petitioned Parliament (13 June 1643) or delivering the letter from Sir John Norwich that reported the capture of Bedford in October 1643, he was his county’s vital link to Westminster.45CJ iii. 16a, 165a, 281b. He combined this with the task of providing political support for his eldest son, Sir Samuel, scoutmaster-general to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, and later governor of the garrison at Newport Pagnell. This assistance was particularly obvious in November 1642 when Sir Oliver was one of the MPs appointed to muster horses for the use of his son’s troop.46CJ ii. 833a. Several days later he also arrested Sir Robert Hatton* for trying to implement the king’s commission of array.47CJ ii. 837b. Luke always seems to have been keen to raise money, men, horse or ammunition for the army, especially to those troops or areas controlled by his son.48CJ iii. 274a, 297a, 457a, 489a, 490a, 520b, 524b; Luke Letter Bks. 356. On some occasions, as in March 1643 when he warned of Prince Rupert’s advance towards Aylesbury, the son used his father to pass on important information to the Commons. Sir Samuel was close to the earl of Essex, helping explain why Sir Oliver was one of those MPs sent to inform the earl of Sir William Waller’s* military appointment in October 1643.49CJ iii. 266b.

From late 1644 there is little direct evidence for Luke’s involvement in any proceedings on the floor of the Commons, but he continued lobbying behind the scenes on behalf of his son. If necessary, he was prepared to flatter. In his letters to his son, he regularly commended to him the virtues of ‘courtesies’ towards great men and potential patrons, advising him to send pheasants to Essex in November 1644 ‘to cherish him after his physic’; or, again as a gift for Essex, ‘a good haber deer before or in Christmas for him’; in February 1645, he was advising that ‘if you can send a fair present to his excellency [Essex] it will not be amiss’.50Luke Letter Bks. 398. 415, 439. He had waited on Essex early in November 1644 in a bid to persuade him ‘to own [the garrison] as his own … [otherwise] the garrison must of necessity fail’.51Luke Letter Bks. 384-5. He again approached Essex in December in the hope that the earl would use his influence to find some alternative preferment for Sir Samuel, when it seemed likely that, as a result of the first Self-Denying Ordinance (which had recently passed the Commons), he would lose the governorship of Newport Pagnell.52Luke Letter Bks. 414-15. With such close links to Essex, Luke and his son seem to have identified themselves with Essex’s allies against what Sir Oliver termed ‘the other party’, the political Independents.53Luke Letter Bks. 430. When the Lords sent back the bill for the creation of the New Model army, heavily amended, Luke reported the alterations made by the peers with evident approval, noting, in particular, the amendments providing for the choice of officers by both Houses, and the peers’ insistence that ‘all officers and soldiers should take the Covenant and subject themselves to the government of the church established’.54Luke Letter Bks. 430. He was present in the House when the first of the Lords’ amendments was debated for ‘five or six hours’, and when the Commons agreed to most of the peers’ alterations, he noted ‘I perceive the Independents are not well pleased’.55Luke Letter Bks. 434, 439. Luke evidently attended these debates assiduously: on 8 February he noted that ‘we sat in the House till 6 at night and fought the battle stoutly’.56Luke Letter Bks. 439.

Though afflicted by intermittent ill health, Luke regularly attended upon Essex, who remained, despite the threat posed by the new-modelling of the army, his son’s most powerful patron at Westminster.57Luke Letter Bks. 461. However, by the beginning of March 1645, Luke saw that Essex’s removal as lord general was only a matter of time and advised his son to adjust to the new configuration of power which the Self-Denying Ordinance had created. ‘His excellency will not long keep his commission, and therefore hasten your business and play your own game’.58Luke Letter Bks. 467. Luke viewed with alarm the success with which the advocates of reform brought an increasing number of peers round to back down from their insistence that all members of the New Model should take the Covenant. When it looked as though Essex and his friends in the Lords would be outvoted by William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele’s questionable use of the proxy of Edmund Sheffield†, 1st earl of Mulgrave, Luke was disheartened.

If there be no order [against the use of such proxies], then the House of Commons prevail, and all the Independents will be allowed and God knows what an army we shall have. God’s will be done.59Luke Letter Bks. 479.

When it came to appointing Sir Samuel’s successor as governor of Newport Pagnell in April 1645, the Presbyterian interest rallied to the support of their man. The governor (with Essex’s support) had wished to be replaced by his own lieutenant-colonel; and when the matter came to be debated in the Commons’ committee dealing with the nomination of garrison commanders, the two leading members of Essex’s party, Sir Philip Stapilton* and Denzil Holles*, ‘played their parts for Sir Samuel’, and supported the nomination of his second-in-command as the new governor (17 Apr. 1645).60Luke Letter Bks. 517. Although Sir Oliver now recommended that his son earn the good opinion of the Committee of Both Kingdoms by writing to them when he had firm news, he also recommended that he ‘write the same to his excellency [Essex], which I am sure to deliver first, if he is in town’.61Luke Letter Bks. 521. At Sir Oliver’s prompting, Sir Samuel then sent Holles and Stapilton a buck as thanks for their assistance.62Luke Letter Bks. 548, 549, 560. As his son become increasingly identified with the Essex interest, Sir Oliver was able to warn him of the moves which his enemies were making against him.63Luke Letter Bks. 580. He supported the attempts to reopen negotiations with the king after Naseby.64Stowe 190, f. 112v.

It is clear that, in religious terms, Luke was a Presbyterian. In June 1643 he was used by the Commons to approach Herbert Palmer, who would be appointed master of Queens’ College, Cambridge, the following year, to ask him to preach one of the fast sermons.65CJ iii. 110b, 148a. Luke evidently approved of the Commons’ decision of November 1644 to execute William Laud; ‘this day we have despatched the archbishop to the gallows if the Lords be of our mind’.66Luke Letter Bks. 394-5. He noted the ‘great distemper’ which the Independents made in the Westminster Assembly, but that the Presbyterians ‘hold close to their work with a great clarity to them’.67Luke Letter Bks. 435. He enjoyed the patronage of the Somerset living of Exford jointly with members of the Trenchard family, and their nominee, George Trenchard, was ousted by the Independents on the local county committee who seem to have regarded him as too conservative. In January 1648 Luke and his co-patrons successfully petitioned the Lords for the restoration of their man.68PA, Main Papers 25 Jan. 1648; HMC 7th Rep. 5; LJ ix. 677a.

The war years cost Luke heavily. Some of his estates yielded no rents at all while the fighting lasted and in May 1645 he was forced to dock £10 from a payment of £100 in order to provide some ready cash, for ‘I could not otherwise have known how to have lived’.69Luke Letter Bks. 546. From this point onwards, his attendance at Westminster seems to have been minimal. Twice, in August 1645 and September 1646, permission was granted for him to be absent.70CJ iv. 228b, 663b. When he and two others petitioned the Lords in April 1648, they asked for a postponement of the hearings for a month, ‘when [the] petitioners will be in town’.71PA, MP 17 Apr. 1648; HMC 7th Rep. 21. It may well be that once Sir Samuel had been released from his military duties and so was able to spend more time at Westminster, Sir Oliver felt that he could rely on him to look after the family’s political interests. Like his son, Luke almost certainly supported the Newport treaty in the autumn of 1648 and the Commons’ controversial vote to accept the king’s concessions as the basis for an immediate restoration. With his impeccable Presbyterian credentials, he was an obvious target when the army purged the Commons on 6 December 1648.72A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62); A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5). Luke was duly secluded; his son imprisoned. He took no part in the proceedings of the Rump.

Having witnessed at first hand most of the parliamentary history of the first half of the seventeenth century, Luke did not long outlive Charles I. In November 1650 he was reported to be suffering from a ‘dangerous illness’.73CCAM 767. His death may have been connected with this illness, although he seems to have been alive in March 1651, when the Committee for Advance of Money wrote to the Bedfordshire sequestration committee asking them to take evidence from him. He was noted as being dead on 29 November 1651, and it is likely that he had died earlier that year.74CCAM 437. He was survived by his son and heir, Sir Samuel.