LEAK, Francis (c.1582-1655)

The Leak family may have been inhabiting the manor of West Leake in south Nottinghamshire as early as the mid twelfth century. The main branch failed in the male line in the 1430s but, by that date, a cadet branch had acquired, by marriage, the manor of Sutton in the Scarsdale district of Derbyshire, which became the ‘the ancient seat and dwelling house’ of Leak’s ancestors.20 HP Commons, 1386-1421, iii. 582-3; S.J. Payling, Political Soc. in Lancastrian Eng. 45; C2/Chas.I/L2/61. Leak’s grandfather, Sir Francis Leke^‡ (d.1580), purchased large amounts of former monastic property in Derbyshire as well as the site of the priory of the Austin friars in Newark, Nottinghamshire, the latter becoming an additional family residence. He became a prominent figure in the local government of Derbyshire, serving as custos rotulorum of that county for more than 30 years.21 HP Commons, 1509-58, ii. 519-20; Brown, 63. Leak’s father, another Francis, was a ruthless landowner and quarrelsome member of the Derbyshire gentry, who represented that county in the Commons in 1601.22 HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 446-7. Leak’s first name was also Francis and, consequently, it is difficult to distinguish him from his father in the early stages of his career.

Said by Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon, to have had ‘a very unusual and unpleasant face’, Leak was married in September 1608 to the sister of the rising courtier, Sir Henry Carey^‡ (subsequently 1st Viscount Falkland [S]). The match was, at least in part, brokered by Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, a witness to the marriage settlement, indicating that the Leaks were not without noble connections.23 Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion, ii. 333; E133/44/23. A year later his father decided to pass over the management of the bulk of the family estates to his son and retire to Newark. Nevertheless, the elder Sir Francis Leak wanted to retain a substantial income so he leased the estate to his son for a term of five years, to run from the start of 1610, for a yearly rent of £1,500. Leak’s father initially resided at the family’s existing house in Newark, called the Friary, but subsequently purchased another house in that town. For his part, Leak seems to have alternated between living in Sutton in Derbyshire and the Friary in Newark.24 C21/L12/1; C33/151, f. 1349; Brown, 73.

The lease of the Leak estates was renewed in March 1615, when the rent was reduced to £1,400. However, despite the reduction, Leak fell into arrears.25 C2/Chas.I/D48/59. Leak’s failure to pay the rent undoubtedly stemmed from the fact that he was a miser and, consequently, had a great dislike of paying money, even to his own father. He had a reputation for ‘great parsimony’. On the eve of the Civil War his neighbour, Robert Pierrepont^*, 1st earl of Kingston-upon-Hull, who had a similar reputation, said that he ‘lived like a hog, not allowing himself necessaries’, in a ‘scurvy house’. Leak’s own father seems to have been concerned that his son did not fulfil his social obligation to provide hospitality, and wished he would be ‘more liberal and keep a good house’.26 Clarendon, ii. 332; C21/L12/1.

Leak’s miserliness caused him to constantly argue, and possibly convince himself, that he was in financial difficulties, although he was almost certainly very wealthy. The estate was generally thought to be worth £4,000 a year, although litigants sometimes inflated this figure to £5,000.27 C21/L12/1; Procs. 1626, i. 445; SP14/135/44; C2/Chas.I/D48/59; C78/256/8. Leak, however, argued that even £4,000 a year was an exaggeration, as he was deprived of the tithe of lead ore in the High Peak district of Derbyshire, worth £500 a year. (The lead miners, resentful of Leak’s attempt to extract maximum profit from them, refused to pay, which led to lengthy and expensive litigation.)28 C2/Chas.I/D48/59; C21/L12/1. He claimed that the annual rental value of the lands in his lease actually amounted to less than £1,300. This may well have been true, but it overlooks the fact that he had a number of other sources of income including some iron works and coal mines.29 HMC Rutland, iv. 221; C21/L12/1; APC, 1613-14, p. 347. It is indicative of his true wealth that, when paying the higher level of rent during the first lease, Leak could still afford to spend £1,095 on buying a baronetcy.30 Barnsley Archives and Local Studs., EM 1284(a). He evidently was willing to open his purse strings to increase his own status.

By the summer of 1621 Leak’s failure to pay the rent had caused a breakdown in relations with his father. James I sent Richard Neile^*, bishop of Durham (later archbishop of York) to mediate; he managed to persuade the father to surrender to his son the latter’s bond (which could have been used to initiate legal proceedings) in return for Leak’s promise of future payment.31 C2/Chas.I/D39/11; 2/Chas.I/D48/59; C21/L12/1. For a while Leak evidently did pay at least part of the rent. However, on some occasions, Leak’s father returned a significant portion of the money to Leak to encourage him to be more hospitable, which only led Leak to believe that his father did not really need or want the rent.32 C21/L12/1.

In 1623 tensions arose between Leak and his stepmother, Dame Mary Leak, who complained that her jointure was only worth £200 a year, and that her son, William, Leak’s half-brother, was not sufficiently provided for. The dispute centred on the manor of Hawton, in Nottinghamshire, which was not part of Leak’s lease and which Dame Mary wanted settled on William. However, Leak had already agreed to settle two manors on his half-brother, and wanted Hawton for himself, as his father had appropriated part of the portion of the younger Sir Francis Leak’s wife and sold some of his mother’s lands.33 SP14/135/44; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 476, 572; E112/230/39; C2/Chas.I/D48/59. In September 1624 the elder Sir Francis suddenly became enraged with his wife, and accused her and her sister, among other things, of trying to bewitch him. He thereupon signed a deed conveying Hawton to Leak, who, at the same time, apparently also persuaded his father to seal a document releasing him from paying his arrears of rent. Leak’s father soon realized his mistake and, by 25 Sept., turned his anger from his wife to Leak. He revoked the conveyance of Hawton and instead settled it on William.34 SP14/172/29, 29I; C2/Chas.I/D48/59; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 344.

Ennoblement, and the early Caroline parliaments, 1624-9

In October 1624 Leak was made Baron Deincourt, having paid the favourite, George Villiers^*, 1st duke of Buckingham, £8,000 for the privilege.35 D.M. Bergeron, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, 212. He presumably chose the title because the Deincourts had been a prominent baronial family in the east Midlands in the fourteenth century, although he himself had no known connection with them.36 CP, iv. 118-130. He had previously offered Buckingham, via an intermediary, £6,000 for a peerage, only to change his mind.37 Procs. 1626, ii. 371. Deincourt’s desire for ennoblement undoubtedly owed much to the fact that, earlier that same year, a bill had been laid before Parliament by William Cavendish^*, Lord Cavendish (subsequently 2nd earl of Devonshire), to abolish the tithe of lead ore in the High Peak. Although this measure had been rejected, Deincourt may have feared that it would be revived.38 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 85. He therefore needed a seat in the House of Lords to protect his interests.

Deincourt’s father was far from pleased with his son’s elevation, no doubt angry that Deincourt had been able to find the purchase money after being so reluctant to pay him rent. Indeed, he reportedly remarked ‘that many of his ancestors both knights and esquires had lived in a better sort and fashion’ than Deincourt, even with his new title.39 C21/L12/1. Relations between the two men deteriorated rapidly. On 1 Nov. Deincourt forced his way into his father’s house in Newark, in the process doing considerable damage to the outer gate. When Deincourt returned on the 19th, Sir Francis refused to admit him, shouting from behind his door to ‘go like a knave’, and that ‘he should answer in Star Chamber’. When the next instalment of the rent fell due, on 1 Jan. 1625, Deincourt sent only excuses. The following month, he procured a letter from the king ordering his father to grant him access. However, he failed to overawe his father, for, on 23 Mar., Secretary of State Sir Edward Conway^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Conway), who was evidently related to Mary Leak, threatened that an appeal would be made to the king unless he paid his father what he owed within a fortnight. This threat was probably never carried out, presumably because James I died four days later.40 SP16/11/16II; SO3/8, unfol. (Feb. 1625); CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 508.

Deincourt attended the three prorogation meetings which preceded the start of the 1625 Parliament. He is also recorded as being present at the first three sittings of the session. On the last of these days, 22 June, he was introduced to the upper House by Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth (later earl of Cleveland) and William Paget^*, 5th Lord Paget. However, there is no evidence that he attended subsequently. He was recorded as excused when the House was called on 23 June, and again two days later. He gave his proxy to the lord chamberlain, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke.41 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 47, 53, 590.

Deincourt was due to make the next payment of rent to his father on 25 July. He accordingly went to Newark, where his father agreed to see him, but brought with him only £400, although by then a full year’s rent of £1,400 was due. Deincourt claimed that the money ‘was more than he could well spare by reason of his charges he had been at concerning his honour, and because there was likelihood of a Parliament which would be cause of further expense unto him’. Moreover, rather than proffering the money, he demanded that his father sign a release for all debts owed to him by Deincourt. Sir Francis, after first consulting William Wilson, a neighbour and scrivener whom he frequently employed about his affairs, refused to do so, whereupon Deincourt turned on Wilson, abusing him as ‘you whoreson, scurvy knave’ and assaulting him with ‘divers blows with his fists’ and kicking him with his heels. Sir Francis and John Wood, a Nottinghamshire magistrate who was also present, were obliged to pull Deincourt off the unfortunate Wilson. Deincourt thereupon left and, although Sir Francis sent a servant after him to receive the £400, no money was paid.42 C21/L12/1; SP16/11/16II.

In the autumn of 1625 Deincourt, accompanied by his children, tried unsuccessfully to get access to his father, in the hope of persuading him to write off his debts. He subsequently sought another royal letter, lobbying not only Secretary of State Sir John Coke^‡ but also his former proxy, Pembroke. Although the former rebuffed him, a letter was issued in the king’s name on 19 Nov., directed to the rulers of Newark and some of the neighbouring magistrates, including Sir George Manners^† (subsequently 7th earl of Rutland). The recipients visited Sir Francis, who informed them he would welcome his son when he paid the money he owed. On 3 Dec. William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Exeter, Sir Francis Leak’s ‘ancient friend and nearest neighbour’, wrote to Pembroke that ‘whosoever procured his Majesty’s letters was certainly abused by’ Deincourt. He urged the lord chamberlain not to ‘accept … so dishonourable a cause’.43 SP16/11/16I, 16II, 18; HMC Cowper, i. 220-1, 229, C21/L12/1. On 12 Jan. 1626 Deincourt hit upon another tactic, for instead of attempting to see his father in person he sent his chaplain, Francis Tallents, who carried with him £600, although by then £2,100 was owed in rent. Tallents was instructed to pay this money only if Sir Francis signed an acquittance for all the rent arrears. Sir Francis refused and, consequently Tallents failed to pay over the money, instead leaving it with a neighbour.44 C21/L12/1.

On rejecting Deincourt’s request for help, Secretary Coke had, presumably out of politeness, offered to do Deincourt some other favour instead. Consequently, on hearing that new knights of the Bath would be made at the coronation of Charles, scheduled for the following February, and fearing his eldest son would be among the creations, which would incur expense, Deincourt wrote to Coke requesting that his son be spared. He claimed, probably disingenuously, that he was heavily indebted, had many lawsuits, and had ten children to provide for.45 HMC Cowper, i. 232. Deincourt’s son was duly spared the Bath, but Deincourt, himself attended the coronation on 2 Feb. 1626.46 Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), p. l.

Deincourt was recorded as present at 35 of the 81 sittings of the 1626 Parliament, which met shortly after the coronation, 43 per cent of the total. He evidently attended regularly until 18 Mar., but was subsequently marked as present on only six occasions, including four of the last seven sittings, suggesting that he returned before the end of the session. On this occasion he granted his proxy to Robert Carey^*, 1st earl of Monmouth, but whether this was because he had fallen out with Pembroke or because he wanted a representative who could be counted on to support Buckingham is unclear. Deincourt was named to five of the 49 committees appointed during the session; all his appointments were made in February and March, in which time he was named to nearly a fifth of all the committees established. Three of his appointments concerned private bills, though only one of them – a measure regarding lands in Derbyshire – touched on his local interests. He was also named consider a bill concerning fishing in American waters. On 7 Mar. he was added to the committee for safety. Deincourt made no recorded speeches but took the oath of allegiance on 15 February.47 Procs. 1626, i. 51, 60, 121n.8, 119, 128, 137; iv. 11.

On the very day Parliament opened (6 Feb.), Sir Francis Leak preferred a bill in Chancery against his son, demanding payment of £2,100 in rent arrears. Reluctant to initiate a potentially expensive lawsuit, Sir Francis seems initially to have contemplated appealing directly to Parliament. Nevertheless, he evidently came to the conclusion that Chancery was his best option, perhaps because he feared that the Parliament would not last long enough to grant him justice. However, Deincourt used his parliamentary privilege to avoid answering the bill and therefore, shortly before Easter, Sir Francis instructed his younger son, William, to prefer a petition to Parliament in his name, and was ‘very earnest and violent to have the said petition with all speed proceeded with’.48 C2/Chas.I/L2/61; C21/L12/1. Sir Francis did not ask the Lords to take up the case, merely that Deincourt should be instructed either to answer the Chancery bill, notwithstanding his privilege, or pay up. On 15 May the petition was presented to the upper House by Devonshire, whose father had been William Leak’s godfather, whereupon the Lords approved Sir Francis’s request.49 Procs. 1626, i. 478, 485; Household Accts of William Cavendish, Ld Cavendish of Hardwick, ed. P. Riden (Derbys. Rec. Soc. xlii), 285.

Sir Francis did not live to witness the outcome of the case, as he died 15 days later. Nevertheless, Deincourt drew up an answer, although there is no evidence that it was presented to the Lords. He blamed both the Chancery bill and the petition on his stepmother, alleging that both had been submitted without his father’s knowledge. Arguing that he had only claimed parliamentary privilege to give him time to return to Nottinghamshire to see his father, and asserting that his stepmother had refused to admit him, he maintained that the Leak estate had been overvalued, and that he had often tendered his rent to his father, only to be refused.50 HMC Rutland, iv. 221-2.

The day after Sir Francis’s death, Deincourt’s stepmother proved her late husband’s will, which made no mention of Deincourt. It bequeathed Hawton and certain other properties which had not been part of the lease to Deincourt’s half-brother, William, who, with his mother, was left all of Sir Francis’ personal estate. The two were also appointed sole executors.51 Borthwick, Reg. Test. 39, f. 421r-v.

Following the dissolution, Deincourt refused to pay the Forced Loan. It is likely that his refusal owed more to his parsimony than it did to principle. He was consequently removed from the Derbyshire bench in June 1627.52 SP16/89/2. A few months earlier, Deincourt and the executors of his father’s will sued each other in Chancery. Deincourt’s stepmother and half-brother demanded payment of the rent arrears due to Sir Francis’ estate, while Deincourt contested the validity of his father’s will, arguing that Sir Francis had ‘in his old age grown very weak in his understanding and altogether governed by her [his wife] and standing in much fear and dread of her and her adherents’. He claimed that either the will had been forged or had been made when the testator had not been of sound mind. However, in February 1628 the court accepted the will as valid. It also found that Deincourt’s estate had been more than adequate to pay the rent he owed. Consequently, Deincourt was ordered to pay his mother and half-brother the arrears, amounting to £2,100 to the executors, half on 1 May and the rest on 1 November.53 C2/Chas.I/D48/59; C78/256/8.

By the time the court made its ruling, a new Parliament was about to meet. Deincourt failed to attend the early stages of the 1628 session, but instead gave his proxy to Francis Russell^*, 4th earl of Bedford, whose lease of a house in the Close at Westminster (belonging to the dean and chapter of Westminster) he now took over. (Bedford delivered this proxy to the clerk on 16 Mar., the day before the session started.) However, Deincourt was not formally granted leave of absence until 22 March. He began attending the Lords a month later. In all, he seems to have attended 61 of the 94 sittings, 65 per cent of the total, and was named to five of the 52 committees established that session. All of these appointments were made during May and June, and all were legislative in nature. They included measures concerning alehouses and the dyeing and dressing of cloth. Deincourt made no recorded speeches.54 Acts of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster 1609-42: III ed. C.S. Knighton (Westminster Abbey Rec. Ser. ii), 102; Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 87, 678, 690; CSP Dom. 1628-9, p. 32.

Predictably, Deincourt failed to make the first payment of the rent arrears on 1 May, despite having been served with a writ, on 31 Mar., by one of his stepmother’s servants. The following July, Mary and William were given permission to proceed further against Deincourt once parliamentary privilege had expired. As Deincourt continued to refuse to pay, the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry^*, 1st Lord Coventry, had him arrested in December for contempt of court.55 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/37, 29 Jan. 1629; C33/153, ff. 1125, 1127, 1171v; C33/155, f. 281. Ironically, later the same month Deincourt was restored to the Derbyshire bench.

Despite his arrest, Deincourt attended the first day of the 1629 session on 20 January. Nine days later, he delivered to the Lords a petition in which he argued that his arrest was invalid, on the grounds that the writ of 31 Mar. 1628 had been delivered to him during the previous session of Parliament, when he had been protected by parliamentary privilege. He could not, he said, be in contempt as he had not been lawfully served with the writ. Thereupon Coventry defended the actions of Chancery, arguing that all the court’s proceedings, other than the serving of the writ, had taken place outside the time of privilege. However, though he satisfied the House concerning the proceedings of his court, the Lords were doubtful whether a peer could be lawfully arrested by Chancery, and referred the issue to the committee for privileges.56 LJ, iv. 16a; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/37, 29 Jan. 1629.

While this matter lay before the House, Deincourt commissioned a printed brief, in which he argued that the case concerning the rent arrears should be reopened. Once again he accused his stepmother of dominating his father, whom he described as ‘extremely weak, ruled as a child, and not of a disposing memory’. However, in an apparent contradiction of this statement, he also claimed that Sir Francis Leak had been ‘of health and understanding’ as late as the January before his death when, Deincourt alleged, he had refused to receive the rent offered to him. In addition, in this brief Deincourt attacked the lord keeper, whom he criticized for ordering him to pay the rent without ruling on the validity of the will and before giving him the opportunity to examine many of his witnesses.57 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/37, 5 Feb. 1629.

On 5 Feb. Deincourt handed a copy of his brief to the lord keeper as the latter was entering the upper House. Once in the Lords Deincourt complained that he had been slandered, and cited John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, Francis Fane^* 1st earl of Westmorland and John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York) as witnesses. Clare, Westmorland and Williams all admitted having heard general reports critical of Deincourt, but said they could not provide details. They added that they had only passed on the reports to Deincourt for his advice. Coventry thereupon brought Deincourt’s brief to the House’s attention, and complained that both he and Chancery had been unfairly attacked. His sense of grievance was widely shared, not least because the House had banned the use of printed briefs to lobby Parliament in 1624. Moreover, Deincourt made his case worse by oscillating between defending his accusations and blaming his lawyer. When Deincourt produced a copy of the decree issued by Chancery in February 1628, the House ruled that it was satisfied that he had been given a full hearing and that he himself was responsible for failing to pursue the issue of the validity of the will. Deincourt was consequently obliged to apologize to Coventry and acknowledge the justice of the decree.58 LJ, iv. 20b-21a; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 333-4.

Deincourt was excused at the next sitting, on 7 Feb., having apparently started a course of medication. His lawyer and the printer of the brief were brought before the House; the latter was let off with a warning and the former claimed that the brief, as printed, differed significantly from his draft, which he no longer had in his possession because he had delivered it to Deincourt. The lawyer and Deincourt were summoned to appear again a week later. In addition, an order made in Chancery in October 1627 was read out. This revealed that Deincourt, contrary to the claim made in his printed brief, had in fact been given further time to examine witnesses. Moreover, William Fiennes^*, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, testified that Sir Gervase Clifton^‡ (shortly to marry Mary Leak), one of the commissioners who had collected the depositions for Chancery, had affirmed that Deincourt could have had many more witnesses examined had he wished.59 LJ, iv. 23a-b; HMC Buccleuch, iii. 334.

Deincourt was marked as sick when the House was called on the 9th, but was recorded as attending the following day.60 LJ, iv. 25a. On the 12th a petition from Mary and William Leak was read in which the authors complained that they were still denied justice. Deincourt, then absent, was duly sent for, and on his arrival he demanded a hearing concerning the justice of the decree. This naturally elicited objections from Coventry, who observed that Deincourt had acknowledged the decree’s justice only one week earlier. Deincourt, however, continued to object, whereupon he was ordered to depart from the chamber. The House then agreed to order him to pay the money, plus five per cent interest for the delay, or else face imprisonment in the Fleet. Brought back to the House, Deincourt had little choice but to accept this order and promise to pay.61 Ibid. 28b-9b.

Other than in his own defence, Deincourt was not recorded as speaking during the 1629 session. He received no committee appointments in January but was named to three of the nine committees appointed in February, those for the bill concerning apparel, the drafting of a bill concerning churches and curates, and one for munitions.62 Ibid. 19b, 31a, 37b. In all, he was recorded as attending 17 of the 23 sittings of the session, 74 per cent of the total.

Later life, 1629-55

It seems likely that the Lords’ ruling of 12 Feb. 1629 proved to be decisive. There are certainly no further recorded proceedings concerning the arrears of rent. However, Deincourt continued to pursue his stepmother and half-brother in the courts, bringing a Star Chamber suit in which he charged them with a number of offences including riot, forging Sir Francis’s will, and preferring the 1626 petition to the House of Lords without Sir Francis’s consent. The case was dismissed.63 Reps. of Cases in Cts. of Star Chamber and High Commission ed. S.R. Gardiner (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxxix), 79-81. In November 1631 a hearing before a committee of the Privy Council took place, at which William offered Deincourt £500 in settlement of the latter’s claims to the manor of Hawton. However, Deincourt demanded £4,000.64 PC2/41, p. 274. Deincourt subsequently sued William in the Exchequer, but this case too was dismissed, in the autumn of 1633.65 E112/230/39; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP13/107.

Summoned to attend the king at York in April 1639 to fight the Scottish Covenanters, Deincourt responded that ‘I shall be ready to perform to my power and as far as my unwieldy and aged body will give me leave’.66 SP16/413/41. Deincourt was initially reluctant to contribute to the royalist cause in the Civil War but seems, subsequently, to have relented, and was rewarded with the earldom of Scarsdale in 1645. Two of his sons died fighting for the king, and Deincourt himself was so affected by the regicide that, according to the antiquarian, William Dugdale,‘he apparelled himself in sackcloth: and causing his grave to be digged some years before death, laid himself down in it every Friday; exercising himself frequently in divine mediations and prayer’. Deincourt died in 1655 and was buried at Sutton. In his will, dated 24 Apr. 1651, Deincourt instructed that his body be interred ‘in the middle of the tomb by me erected in the north aisle of Sutton church without a coffin only a little round board of an inch thick laid upon my face … in the earth a little beneath the loose mould’. He made his four unmarried daughters his executrixes, each of whom was to receive £4,000 for their portions. However, they refused to act and so administration was instead granted to his eldest surviving son, Nicholas^†, who succeeded as 2nd earl of Scarsdale.67 Clarendon, ii. 333; Dugdale, ii. 450; PROB 11/251, ff. 129v-40.