LUCY, Sir Richard (1591-1667), of Broxbourne, Herts., and Faccombe, Hants.

The second son of a leading Warwickshire gentleman, Lucy had excellent prospects thanks to generous provision for him from his mother’s Hampshire estates, although her longevity delayed his full enjoyment of them.44VCH Hants, iv. 190, 290. These prospects doubtless assisted him to marry an heiress and to negotiate a favourable settlement. The twice widowed Elizabeth Cocke, whose eldest son from her second marriage, Sir Robert Oxenbridge II†, less than five years younger than Lucy, was heir to property adjacent to the latter’s in Hampshire, had herself inherited an substantial estate in Hertfordshire from her father.45Clutterbuck, Herts. ii. 53; VCH Herts. iii. 432; VCH Hants, iv. 289; ‘Robert Oxenbridge II’, HP Commons 1604-1629. The couple chose to live in Hertfordshire, where Lucy was knighted in January 1618 and where, doubtless as part of the bargain for this and a baronetcy bestowed that March, they forfeited land at Cheshunt to allow expansion of the royal park at Theobalds, in exchange for the grant of the manor of St Neots.46E115/240/39; E115/250/24; E214/412; E330/10; PC2/33, ff. 178, 189; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 167; CB. Associations with the Cecils at Hatfield and later with George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham, to whom Lucy’s brother William was chaplain, appear to have perpetuated royal favour and assisted Lucy’s career.47SP16/111, f. 136.

As early as December 1620 there were rumours that Lucy, whose elder brother Sir Thomas Lucy* had already sat in Parliament for Warwickshire, might stand for election as a knight of the shire for Hertfordshire. However, Henry Carey†, 1st Viscount Falkland, nominee of William Cecil*, 2nd earl of Salisbury, reported it with some disbelief to his patron, and it is implausible that Lucy seriously considered challenging the earl’s choice. 48HMC Hatfield, xxii. 136. Instead Lucy, who was later described as a ‘temperate man’, contented himself with county office as a justice of the peace, deputy lieutenant (under Salisbury) and regular member of local commissions.49SP16/420, f. 266v; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 235; 16356, p. 523; 1636-7, p. 138; 1638-9, p. 301; 1641-3, p. 549; Herts. Recs. v. 39, 115, 126, 230. However, he was among leading Hertfordshire gentry summoned before the privy council in May 1640 accused of dilatoriness in executing the king’s orders for musters for the northern expedition.50HMC Hatfield, xxii. 311; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 186.

Named by Charles I to the commission of array and by Parliament as an assessment commissioner in 1642, Lucy seems at first to have evaded declaring allegiance to either side in the civil war, unlike his younger brother William, rector of the family living at Highclere, Hampshire, who was ‘a staunch royalist’.51Northants. RO, FH133; ‘William Lucy’, Oxford DNB. On 30 March 1643 the House of Commons granted him a pass to travel with three servants to France, but if he indeed went abroad, he does not seem to have done so for long.52CJ iii. 25a. In early October the Committee for Advance of Money assessed him at £1,500, but a fortnight later it was noted that he had already contributed £250 in Hertfordshire and that day had paid in a further £400. Since he had also given £500 towards an approved ‘public charitable work’, he argued that the first two sums were already disproportionately large, and was discharged from further payment.53CCAM 260. He had returned to public life by 22 February 1644, when he presented to Parliament a petition from Hertfordshire.54CJ iii. 404b. As the year went on he was named first among the justices of the peace sitting in sessions at Hertford on 8 July, and was again a commissioner for oyer and terminer (4 July) and for assessment (18 Oct.).55Herts. Recs. v. 342; A. and O.

Around this time Lucy’s first wife died. Her son Robert Oxenbridge II having predeceased her unmarried, the heir by remainder to her paternal estates was her daughter Ursula Oxenbridge, wife since 1627 of Sir John Monson†, but by the terms of his marriage settlement Sir Richard retained a life interest in Broxbourne, despite having had – as it would seem – no children with Elizabeth, and it remained his primary residence.56VCH Herts. iii. 432. By the autumn of 1646 he had taken the opportunity to marry another, much younger, local heiress and so consolidate his standing in the area.57C3/482/12. Jane Chapman had inherited property in Hertfordshire and London jointly with her two sisters Rhoda, from 16 October 1646 wife of the 2nd Baron Fairfax of Cameron (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*), and Rebecca, then wife of Thomas Playters (d. 1651) but thereafter wife of Lucy’s nephew Richard Lucy (son of Francis Lucy† and often confused both with his uncle and with his cousin, Richard Lucy*, son of Sir Thomas). The match brought Sir Richard involvement in litigation, as the sisters asserted their rights against other claimants, but it also brought (somewhat divergent) political connections, Rhoda being the step-mother of New Model commander Sir Thomas Fairfax* and Rebecca the daughter-in-law of Suffolk MP Sir William Playters*, who was broadly speaking a Presbyterian.58The Gen. (n.s.) xxxiv. 4-5; C10/3/48; SP16/539, f. 128; Hist. Gazetteer of London: Cheapside, 743-6; CSP Dom. Add. 1625-49, p. 712. Contrary to usual statements, Jane (rather than Elizabeth Cocke) appears to have been the mother of Sir Richard’s daughter Constantia – significantly not mentioned in the 1635 will of Dame Constance Lucy – as well as of his only son Kingsmill.59CB; PROB11/174/426 (Dame Constance Lucy).

It was evidently as the nominee of the earl of Salisbury that at a by-election on 7 January 1647 Lucy was chosen to replace Salisbury’s receiver, the late Roger Kirkham*, as Member for the pocket borough of Old Sarum in Wiltshire.60CJ v. 21a; C219/43/3, no. 20. He was at Westminster by the 13th, when he was placed on the committee working on the ordinance for the visitation of the University of Oxford.61CJ v. 51b. Over the next two years his visible contribution to parliamentary proceedings is slender and his political stance complex and difficult to pin down.

Lucy, who came from a notably pious family, had an obvious interest in religious questions which diverged from that of his brother William, an Arminian from the 1620s.62PROB11/174/426; ‘Sir Thomas Lucy (d. 1600)’, ‘Sir Thomas Lucy (d.1640)’, ‘William Lucy’, Oxford DNB. He took the Covenant on 1 February 1647.63CJ v. 69a. Three of his five committee nominations in the next three months or so concerned religion; they included preparing ordinances to expedite the sale of episcopal lands (27 Feb.) and to block the admission of ‘malignant’ ministers to livings, colleges or hospitals (22 Mar.).64CJ v. 84b, 99b, 119b. These appointments may have stemmed from the ecclesiological Presbyterianism which he appeared to exhibit later. That he was an MP of consequence is indicated by his being named with big factional players on both sides to the committee reviewing the committee of accounts (25 Jan.) and to the delegation of notable members who went to meet the king’s nephew Charles Louis, elector palatine (25 Mar.), but it is not clear that in such company he was a consistent political Presbyterian.65CJ v. 62b, 125a. On 21 April he joined with Sir Thomas Myddelton* as a teller against Denzil Holles* and Sir William Lewis*, to help prevent the latter’s attempt to delay the compounding of Lord Robert Rich, son of Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Warwick.66CJ v. 148b. His link to the Fairfaxes potentially brought more than just a desire to pay off the New Model army to his membership of the committee to settle land on its general (11 May).67CJ v. 167a.

Yet, having apparently forsaken or kept a low profile at Westminster in the interim, Lucy’s next appearance in the Journal was during the Presbyterian coup, when on 2 August he was among additions to a committee giving powers to the Presbyterian-dominated ‘committee of safety’ and its ally, the City militia committee.68CJ v. 265b. Following the return of the Independents who had fled to the army, the overthrow of the coup and the departure of the Presbyterian leaders, Sir Richard, ‘being indisposed’, obtained leave to go into the country for recuperation (21 Aug.).69CJ v. 280b. He reappeared in the Journal only in November, by which time factions had reached a state closer to equilibrium and perhaps to his moderate instincts. Three committee appointments before the end of the year indicate preparedness to address the problem of wounded soldiers (11 Nov.) and to countenance the independence of the more radical Tower Hamlets militia from that of London (19 Nov.), and that he had an interest in resolving long-standing grievances like monopolies (14 Dec.).70CJ v. 356a, 363b, 383a.

Lucy made very little visible impact on proceedings in 1648. On 14 January he was among Members added to the committee of complaints for the purpose of investigating accusations against the marshal of the King’s Bench prison, Sir John Lenthall, brother of Speaker William Lenthall*.71CJ v. 432a. Evidently an advocate of accepting at least some of the Scottish commissioners’ terms for a peace settlement, on 25 February he was a teller with the Presbyterian John Boys* against those mustered by Sir Arthur Hesilrige* and Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire* who wished to challenge the Scots’ rejection of English Erastianism.72CJ v. 473a. In the early summer Lucy was nominated to the committee for the sale of dean and chapter lands (16 June).73CJ v. 602a. Appointed on 25 November to consider which castles and garrisons should be slighted and which maintained, he may have still hoped for an imminent peace.74CJ vi. 87a.

Possibly because of his recent low profile, possibly because of his link to Fairfax, possibly because of a reputation for pious but accommodating behaviour, Lucy was not excluded at Pride’s Purge. However, on 20 December, the day MPs were required to dissent from the vote of 5 December to continue negotiations with the king, he was a teller for the majority who voted to remonstrate with the army over its actions.75CJ vi. 101a. He did not register a dissent, and probably absented himself from the House very soon afterwards. In time, like others, he came to terms with the new regime. Readmitted to the Commons on 23 July 1649, he went on to make a noticeable contribution to the Rump, especially between then and the autumn of 1651.76CJ vi. 268a.

As before, religion was a significant component. Named to the committee chosen to review the Directory of Worship and its surrounding legislation, and to introduce measures to accommodate ‘tender consciences’ (7 Aug. 1649), Lucy was added to the Committee for Plundered Ministers (5 Sept.) and appointed to two committees promoting preaching (20 Dec. 1649; 5 Sept. 1651).77CJ vi. 275b, 290a, 336a; vii. 12b. He was made a governor of Westminster School and almshouses (26 Sept. 1649) and on 29 March 1650 he was added to the committee for regulating the universities, which worked with the Committee for Plundered Ministers in settling a godly ministry.78CJ vi. 299b, 388b. As befitted an experienced justice of the peace with a record of engagement in social and moral issues, he was nominated to committees addressing poverty, indebtedness, usury, high prices and the vice of swearing.79CJ vi. 284a, 290a, 317b, 327a, 335a, 441b, 481a. His acknowledged commitment to reform in certain areas is demonstrated by his appointment after the Parliament had ended as a judge for the relief of poor prisoners (5 Oct. 1653).80A. and O.

Occasionally Lucy was involved in committees dealing with individuals’ petitions and interests, while in July 1651 the House discussed the case of his stepson-in-law Sir John Monson, a royalist delinquent who owed money to both Lucy and Suffolk MP Maurice Barrowe*, who had been excluded at the purge.81CJ vi. 389a, 413b, 567a, 611a; vii. 5a. From time to time Lucy was nominated to discuss the wider issues of running the commonwealth, such as finance, the suppression of seditious writing and scandalous news (9 Aug. 1649), pruning parliamentary pensions and government bureaucracy (19 Sept. 1649; 27 June 1650), and supplying the navy (13 Feb. 1651).82CJ vi. 276a, 298a, 325a, 432b, 459b, 534a He does not seem to have objected to the continuing sequestration and sale of delinquents’ lands, being first among those added to the committee for removing obstructions on 10 April 1651, and he was nominated to discuss the bill for nullifying titles of honour bestowed by the king in the later years of his reign (16 Apr.).83CJ vi. 436b, 457b, 463b, 558a, 562b.

At times Lucy even looked like a friend of the army. He was, for instance, among MPs who discussed the act to settle lands on Oliver Cromwell* in recognition of his victorious campaign in Ireland (30 May 1650).84CJ vi. 417b. But his allegiance is as opaque as before the purge. In an unusually busy month, the day after being placed on a committee to prepare a bill for pressing soldiers for service in Ireland (17 Apr. 1651) he joined Sir John Danvers* to marshal votes against depriving English county militias of 150 horse so as to send them to the army in Scotland, although once again he was ranged against Hesilrige (18 Apr.).85CJ vi. 563a, 564b. On the other hand, in the aftermath of the battle of Worcester he was placed on the small committee deputed to organise accommodation at Whitehall for the fêted lord general (6 Sept.).86CJ vii. 13b. Yet he was then absent from the Journal for ten months, reappearing only on 8 July 1652, when he joined the radical Colonel Henry Marten* in an unsuccessful attempt to exclude one John Richmond from the list of those whose estates were to be forfeit for treason.87CJ vii. 150b. The same month he was included on a committee examining wider questions of exemption from pardon (27 July), only to vanish from the record for another four months.88CJ vii. 158b. His final appearance in the Journal during the Rump was on 26 November, when with Sir James Harington* he was a teller for the minority who wished to have Bryan Broughton discharged from being sheriff of Nottinghamshire.89CJ vii. 221b.

It seems that, like many other conservative-minded MPs with a religious and social conscience, Lucy had attempted to work with the powers-that-be, but found them unsatisfactory, preferring to concentrate instead on wielding local office, where his influence still counted. For him, as for others, the advent of the protectorate may have come as a relief, promising some stability and opportunity for constructive engagement. Elected in July 1654 to its first Parliament to serve for Hertfordshire alongside the earl of Salisbury, he was apparently initially quite active. He was named to an unprecedented (for him) five committees in the first fortnight, including the standing Committee for Irish Affairs (29 Sept.) and the privileges committee, to which he was added on 5 October.90CJ vii. 369b, 370a, 371b, 373b, 374a. Visible involvement then tailed off, however, with two appointments each in November and December, and none in January.91CJ vii. 381a, 383b, 399b, 407b. Among the nominations familiar preoccupations surfaced: those relating to printing, to the ordinance setting up ‘triers and ejectors’ and to providing in the settlement of government for the definition of heresies, testified to a pious desire to contain religious and other radicalism; those relating to reform of the court of chancery, to civil lawyers and to the construction of a new Surrey gaol, presumably stemmed from a continuing commitment to addressing grievances.92CJ vii. 369b, 370a, 374a, 383b, 399b, 407b. But perhaps disillusionment had set in before the dissolution of the Parliament on 22 January 1655.

When under the major-generals there was a remodelling of local government, Lucy’s name was omitted from the commission of the peace – apparently for the first time in over 30 years – but on 22 February 1656 this was pronounced to be an oversight, and his membership was upheld.93CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 197. Nonetheless, his re-election to Parliament that year alongside Salisbury and Rowland Lytton*, who had married his wife’s twin sister Rebecca, ran into difficulty. When the Hertfordshire indenture was read before the Speaker on 19 September, the clerk raised a problem with the return, apparently signalling government attempts to exclude some of the candidates.94CJ vii. 425a. However, by 25 October Lucy had taken his seat.95CJ vii. 445a.

In the first session of the Parliament Lucy was about as active as he had ever been, with 19 committee nominations in nine months. There were periodic signs of his customary engagement with religious, social or charitable initiatives: recusants (7 Nov. 1656); the repairing of highways (2 Jan. 1657); redemption of captives in Algiers (14 Mar.); the purchase of impropriations to fund ministers and parish lecturers (31 Mar.); the curtailment of unregulated building in London (9 May); and the resolution of alleged abuses at Wyggeston’s Hospital in Leicester (9 Dec. 1656).96CJ. vii. 450b, 466a, 478a, 488b, 515b, 532a. Lucy demonstrated his commitment to the latter by making what diarist Thomas Burton described as ‘a long narrative’ of the background to the case.97Burton’s Diary i. 83. When the Commons came to discuss provisos to the bill enjoining ministers to engage in catechising – a move to guard against unchecked religious radicalism – Lucy was a teller for the majority who wanted more time to consider a clause which appeared too readily to excuse minors whose parents belonged to gathered churches (20 May).98CJ vii. 536a. He made no recorded contribution to the lengthy debates on the alleged heresy of James Naylor, however.

Once again appointed to investigate representations from civil lawyers (1 Dec. 1656), Lucy revealed that he considered that it was important to take professional opinion into account in setting up new arrangements for the probate of wills (15 June 1657).99CJ vii. 462b; Burton’s Diary ii. 254. He continued to exhibit some interest in financial matters, being added to the committee for examining debts on the public faith (10 Dec. 1656).100CJ vii. 466b. On 2 June 1657 he was a teller for the majority who called for an alteration of apportionment of assessments, perhaps carrying greater weight on account of his long record in local administration.101Burton’s Diary ii. 218. Named to a succession of committees dealing with individual petitions, he had one of his own before the Commons, related to his property in Essex which had become mired in the delinquency of the Byron family, first scheduled for the end of December, but according to the usual form postponed or resurrected several times thereafter.102CJ vii. 445a, 465a, 473a, 479b, 483a, 485a, 487b–488b, 489b, 494b, 495b, 499a, 543b. When Essex MP Major Hezekiah Haynes* introduced a bill for confirmation of a division of the commons at Nazeing between the landlord, James Hay, 2nd earl of Carlisle, and his tenants, Lucy revealed that he was one of them and asserted ‘the desire of them all’ to have the matter settled (5 Dec. 1656).103Burton’s Diary i. 20. He sat on the resulting committee (15 Dec.).104CJ vii. 468a.

Lucy was apparently silent in all the constitutional discussions which preoccupied the House, but there is no doubt that he was an avid supporter of the Humble Petition and Advice, and he was listed as having voted to offer the crown to Cromwell on 25 March.105Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 22 (E.935.5). On 7 and 8 April 1657 he was named to committees which presented Cromwell with Humble Petition and which returned to hear his scruples about accepting the proffered title of king.106CJ vii. 521a, 521b. When six weeks later it was proposed that ‘lord protector’ be substituted, Lucy was a teller for those who thought this alternative should not be considered.107CJ vii. 535a. He was defeated, but still nominated to participate in further negotiations at Whitehall.108CJ vii. 538a, 540b. Perhaps ultimately frustrated by failure to secure a traditional solution, promising greater stability, he appears not to have attended during the short second session of the Parliament in 1658.

It is not clear whether Lucy stood for election to the third protectorate Parliament. He returned to sit in the Rump and on 21 May 1659 was nominated to the committee which reviewed legislation passed since it had last convened.109CJ vii. 661b. Between then and 1 September he received five miscellaneous committee appointments, including one related to the conservation of the Thames, for which his years as a commissioner of sewers in the Lea valley should have provided useful experience.110CJ vii. 691a, 751a, 757a, 763b, 772a. It seems probable that he avoided Westminster for some time before clashes between army leaders and civilians came to a head and ‘interrupted’ Parliament. There was then no sign of him in the Journal until 30 December, when he was named to refine a money bill.111CJ vii. 800a. This was his last recorded contribution to parliamentary proceedings.

Lucy’s career in local administration continued almost seamlessly into the 1660s. Re-appointed as a justice of the peace, he served on the bench and on local commissions until shortly before his death.112A Perfect List, 20; C181/7, pp. 37, 223, 304; C231/7, p. 38; Herts. Recs. vi. 523. In the will drawn up on his death bed he requested burial at Broxbourne ‘beside my two dear wives’. Having ‘lately given a great portion’ to secure his daughter Constantia’s much-desired marriage to Henry Hare, son and heir of the enormously rich Hugh Hare, 1st Baron Coleraine, he left the young couple nothing. Lucy’s own son and heir, still under age, was left to the guardianship of his uncle, Francis Lucy. Other beneficiaries included ‘my good friend Mr [William] Hawling, minister of Amwell, Herts., under whose ministry I did formerly many years live’ and William Lucy, now bishop of St David’s, while the overseer was baron of the exchequer Sir Edward Atkyns.113PROB11/323/546; ‘Hugh Hare’, ‘Henry Hare’, Oxford DNB; Al. Ox. (William Hawling). Lucy died on 6 April 1667.114CB. Kingsmill Lucy†, who succeeded as second baronet and reverted to living on the Hampshire estates, only survived his father by eleven years, but he was twice elected to Parliament for Andover.115HP Commons 1660-1690.