NAPIER, Sir Robert (1602-1661), of Luton Hoo, Luton, Beds.

Napier was descended from a cadet branch of the ancient Scottish family of Napier, lairds of Merchistoun.22M. Napier, Hist. of the Partition of the Lennox (Edinburgh, 1835), 193-5, 198-202; Vis. Beds. 183-4. In 1611, his father, Robert Napier – a successful Turkey merchant and member of the London Grocers’ company – purchased a baronetcy and several manors in the parish of Luton, Bedfordshire, having already acquired property there in 1602.23VCH Beds. ii. 353, 355, 356; Oxford DNB, ‘Sir Robert Napier’. Sir Robert would purchase several more manors in Luton before his death in 1637.24VCH Beds. ii. 356, 360, 361. His younger brother (Napier’s uncle) was the renowned ‘astrological physician’ Richard Napier.25Oxford DNB, ‘Richard Napier’. The Napiers were distantly related to the Scottish dukes of Lennox, cousins of the Stuart monarchs, and in 1623, Napier married a niece of the duchess of Lennox.26Chamberlain Letters, ii. 495.

In 1626, Napier was returned for the Dorset borough of Corfe Castle – probably on the interest of his kinsman Sir Nathaniel Napper† (Napier), who had represented the county in 1625. At the next parliamentary election, in 1628, Napier was returned for the adjacent borough of Weymouth – this time by arrangement of his brother-in-law, Sir Thomas Myddelton*.27HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘Sir Thomas Myddelton II’; ‘Sir Robert Napier’; ‘Sir Nathaniel Napper (Napier)’. In the elections to the Short Parliament early in 1640, Napier stood as a candidate for two constituencies – Ludlow, in Shropshire, and the Yorkshire port-town of Scarborough. At Ludlow, despite enjoying the support of the lord president of the marches – his father-in-law by his second marriage – he was rebuffed by the town’s corporation, and it was a similar story at Scarborough, where his local interest as lord of the nearby manor of Seamer failed to impress the voters.28Supra, ‘Ludlow’; ‘Scarborough’; Brilliana Harley Letters, 86. It was on the basis of his estate at Seamer, it seems, that he had secured appointment as a magistrate for the East and North Ridings in 1633 (his omission from the Bedfordshire bench in 1637 was for failing to attend the judge to be sworn into office rather than the result of government displeasure).29C231/5, pp. 112, 233.

In August 1640, during the second bishops’ war, Napier and other ‘loyalist’ gentry were named to a commission of array for Yorkshire, which was drawn up by the king and Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, in an attempt to mobilise the county’s trained bands against the invading Covenanters.30Add. 28088, f. 94. During Strafford’s trial in the spring of 1641, Napier would be among the Yorkshire gentry summoned to testify on the earl’s behalf.31Procs LP iii. 362.

In addition to his estate in Bedfordshire and Yorkshire, Napier owned lands in Northamptonshire, and in the elections to the Long Parliament in 1640 he was involved in a double return for Peterborough.32Supra, ‘Peterborough’; CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 92. The case was reported by the committee of privileges on 9 November and again 6 January 1641, whereupon the House resolved that William Fitzwilliam – who had been named on both election indentures – should sit, but that Napier and his competitor, Anthony Fane, should forbear to do so ‘until their election be decided’.33CJ ii. 23a, 63b. There was another report on 4 February, following which the House agreed with the committee that Napier’s election was good and that he should be admitted accordingly.34CJ ii. 78b; Procs. LP, ii. 366. Napier took the Protestation on 3 May, but otherwise made no contribution to the House’s proceedings.35CJ ii. 133a.

Granted leave of absence by the Commons on 8 March 1642, Napier was appointed that summer to both the Bedfordshire and Yorkshire commissions of array.36CJ ii. 471a; Northants. RO, FH133. On 20 August, the godly Northampton MP Richard Knightley informed the House that Napier, Sir Christopher Hatton* and Geoffrey Palmer* ‘were providing of horses to send to the king’, whereupon they were ‘summoned forthwith to attend the service of the House, all excuses laid aside’.37CJ ii. 729a; PJ iii. 311. Napier, like Hatton and Palmer, failed to obey this summons, but whereas the latter two were disabled from sitting on 7 September, the Commons took no action at this time against Napier.38CJ ii. 755b; PJ iii. 336. The committee for propositions included him on a list it presented to the House early in January 1643 of those MPs of ‘great estates’ who had not contributed to Parliament’s war chest. The committee had assessed Napier at £1,000, and the House ordered that notice should be given him to pay up accordingly.39CJ ii. 916a; Add. 18777, f. 116v. But he failed to comply with this demand, for on 10 April the House ordered that his lands be ‘distrained for payment of the rate assessed upon him’.40CJ iii. 38a. On 24 June, however, it was resolved that he should pay his assessment to his brother-in-law Sir Thomas Myddelton, who had been appointed commander of Parliament’s forces in north Wales.41Supra, ‘Sir Thomas Myddelton’; CJ iii. 143a. It was as a result of Myddelton’s intervention that an order on 22 January 1644 to disable Napier from sitting was respited.42CJ iii. 374a. The House had reason to believe that Napier had taken up residence in Oxford, and although it was later asserted that he had remained in the royalist capital for some time, there is no evidence that he attended the Oxford Parliament.43CCAM, 1260. When his case was reported to the House by the committee for absent Members, late in 1645, he was classed among those MPs who had had deserted Parliament but not yet been disabled.44CJ iv. 385b, 397b, On 3 November 1646, the House set up a committee to examine Napier on his reasons for absenting himself from Parliament and to investigate why the county committees of Bedfordshire and Yorkshire had seen fit to sequester his property. For his ‘present subsistence’ he was allowed £200 from his estate.45CJ iv. 712b. After reading a petition from Napier on 14 September 1647, the House resolved to discharge his estate from sequestration, but ordered the 3 November 1646 committee to make its report on his case.46CJ v. 300a.

Napier was declared absent at the call of the House on 9 October 1647 and absent and excused when the House was called on 24 April 1648.47CJ v. 330a, 543b. That same day (24 Apr.), however, he tendered another petition, ‘expressing that he was ready at the door [of the Commons] if the House pleased to call him in’.48CJ v. 544a. Although the Commons again ordered that his case be reported, the vote for his admission on 8 June – which was appended to a series of resolutions for revoking the disabling orders against Denzil Holles and other leading Presbyterian MPs – made no reference to his absenteeism or its causes, merely stating that he ‘be admitted and required to give his attendance’.49CJ v. 590a. Nevertheless, there is no sign that he sat in the House before Pride’s Purge, when he was secluded by the army, presumably as a suspected royalist.50A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5); Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 381. In about 1649, he reacted to ‘distasteful’ changes in the services in St Mary’s church, Luton, by having an ornate chapel built in his house at Luton Hoo for the use of his family and servants.51Austin, Luton, ii. 96; H. Shaw, Hist. and Antiquities of the Chapel at Luton Park (1829), 10-11.

In November 1655, Major-general William Boteler* wrote to John Thurloe* from Bedfordshire to ask whether Napier should be exempted from the decimation tax, ‘for that he was sequestered three years together, though afterwards (as it was alleged here) when he saw which way success was like to go, he did for some little time sit in the Long Parliament’.52TSP iv. 218. In the event, Napier was not made liable for decimation.

Soon after the Restoration, Napier surrendered his father’s baronetcy and requested that it be regranted to himself and his sons from his second marriage, thereby preventing the title from descending to his six year old heir by the only son of his first marriage, who had ‘proved disobedient and married poorly’. Napier, who claimed to have lost £20,000 as a result of sequestration, had settled the remainder of his estate on his two younger sons.53CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 350; CB, iii. 168. The patent was granted and dated 4 March 1661, but by then Napier had died – or would very shortly do so – and was buried on 7 March at St Mary, Luton.54Genealogia Bedfordiensis, 189. From his very brief will it is clear that he intended to settle the bulk of his estate upon his first son by his second marriage, John Napier.55PROB11/304, f. 48v. Sir John Napier was returned for Bedfordshire to the Cavalier Parliament in 1664.56HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Sir John Napier alias Sandy’.