ST JOHN, Oliver (c.1545-1618)

The St Johns were granted Fonmon Castle in the Welsh marches in the twelfth century. The first MP in the family was returned for Northamptonshire in the early fifteenth century, and his grandson acquired Bletsoe in Bedfordshire by marriage to the heiress Margaret Beauchamp, grandmother of Henry VII. It was doubtless this connection which explains the ennoblement of John St John by Queen Elizabeth in 1559.14 Coll. Top. et Gen. i. 310-11; S. Adams, ‘Patronage of the Crown’, Reign of Eliz. I ed. J. Guy, 28. The family owned nearly 20,000 acres in Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Glamorgan, and Oliver St John, although only a younger brother to the 2nd Lord, secured a generous dowry of 2,000 marks upon his marriage, in about 1583.15 C142/249/56; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 139.

St John succeeded to the peerage and the majority of the family estates when his elder brother died in 1596, leaving an 11-year-old daughter as his heir. He also succeeded his brother as recorder of Bedford and lord lieutenant of Huntingdonshire. Despite this latter office, the family rarely visited their manor of King’s Ripton, Huntingdonshire; during the 1590s Sir Henry Cromwell^‡, the county’s largest landowner, handled the shire’s military affairs.16 C142/249/56; N.A. Younger, ‘War and the Counties. The Elizabethan Lord Lieutenancy, 1585-1603’ (Univ. of Birmingham Ph.D. thesis, 2006), 306. Apart from his attendance at Parliament, St John was only occasionally involved in national politics. In 1597 Peter Wentworth^‡ unsuccessfully pleaded to be released from the Tower into his custody at Bletsoe; and in 1601 St John was one of the many peers summoned to sit in judgement on Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, and his co-conspirators.17 HMC Hatfield, vii. 286, 303-4; APC, 1600-1, pp. 150-1, 169-70; HMC Rutland, i. 371.

At James’s accession, St John was probably one of the prime movers of a loyal address from the gentry of Bedfordshire, which pleased the new monarch – a distant cousin via the Tudor lineage.18 Beds. RO, L.29/22; Eg. 2877, f. 80. At the 1604 general election Lord St John’s eldest son, Oliver St John^* (later earl of Bolingbroke), was returned on his interest for Bedfordshire, while Humphrey Winch^‡, the lawyer who deputized for him as recorder, served as the senior Member for Bedford. (The junior Member, Alderman Thomas Hawes^‡, was also a relation by marriage.)19 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 5, 7. St John himself assiduously attended the first Jacobean Parliament, habitually being present on more than three-quarters of the days on which the Lords sat. However, the poor recording of debates makes it difficult to say how much impact he made before 1610. In the 1604 session he was named to attend conferences with the Commons about many of the main issues under debate: wardship, purveyance, the Union, ecclesiastical affairs and Tunnage and Poundage.20 LJ, ii. 266b, 278a, 282b, 284a, 290b, 292a, 303a, 323a, 332b. He was also included on 23 committees scrutinizing bills as varied as recusancy, the importing of popish books, drunkenness, and procedures in ecclesiastical courts.21 Ibid. 274a, 290a, 301b, 314a, 319a, 323a. Two manuscript separates on the Union, which survive in the family papers, may have been acquired by St John at this time.22 Beds. RO, J.1268-9.

In August 1604 King James spent several days hunting at Bletsoe, and in the following spring St John accompanied Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, to Brussels on his embassy to ratify the peace treaty with the Spanish Netherlands.23 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 202, 206, 208-9, 263; NLW, Carreglwyd 1/701. He missed the opening day of the new parliamentary session, but news of the Gunpowder Plot clearly sharpened his appreciation of the Catholic threat, as he was named to committees to consider the punishment of the plotters, fresh recusancy laws, the importing of popish books and the bill to require those either entering or leaving the country to take the new oath of allegiance.24 LJ, ii. 360b, 363a, 367b, 380b, 419b, 427a. Other legislative committees to which he was appointed dealt with free trade with Spain, Portugal and France, the manufacture of kerseys and Welsh cottons, and the dressing of cloth before export. On 8 Apr. he was ordered to attend a conference on ecclesiastical affairs and on 19 May the committee for the bill to restrict the use of excommunication by church courts.25 Ibid. 399b, 404b, 408b, 410a, 411a, 437a.

The 1606-7 parliamentary session was dominated by the Union, but as very little of the king’s ambitious programme ever reached the Lords it is impossible to discover St John’s opinion of this controversial project. Aside from being ordered to attend the conference of 24 Nov. 1606, at which ministers attempted to stir the Commons into action, his only other involvement with the issue was to be nominated to the committee for the bill to repeal anti-Scots legislation. He is unlikely to have attended its meeting, as after 9 June he left Westminster, having presumably been sent to galvanize the Huntingdonshire militia in the wake of the Midlands Rising.26 Ibid. 453a, 520a. His remaining committee appointments included the ill-fated measure to restrict the impact of the 1604 Canons on nonconforming ministers, a bill to sanction an exchange of lands between the crown and the archbishopric of Canterbury, two bills against drunkenness, two bills to confirm the title of landowners who had compounded with the commissioners for concealed lands, a similar bill for the London livery companies, and a bill for the manufacture of woollen cloth.27 Ibid. 471b, 479a, 487a, 489b, 494a, 503a, 504a, 514b. During this session St John made two recorded speeches, in which he applied for privilege on behalf of Henry Wriothesley^*, 3rd and 1st earl of Southampton and Edward Russell^*, 3rd earl of Bedford.28 Ibid. 511b, 513b. The failure of the Union project had no impact on St John’s relationship with the king, who hunted at Bletsoe again in 1607 and 1608, knighting St John’s sons Anthony^‡ and Alexander^‡ on the latter occasion.29 HMC Hatfield, xix. 194; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 454; CSP Dom. Addenda, 1580-1625, pp. 448-9; Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 146.

The Lords’ debates of the first parliamentary session of 1610 are better recorded than those of previous sessions, and in these St John emerges as a regular speaker, often participating in important debates. He was one of the large delegation attending a conference at which Lord Treasurer Salisbury (Robert Cecil^*) lay out the scale of the crown’s financial problems, and invited both Houses to offer solutions, while on 26 Feb. he was among those sent to inform the king of the Commons’ wish to compound for wardship as part of the bargain which came to be known as the Great Contract. James promptly gave his consent to these negotiations, whereupon St John moved to convey this information to the Commons; but he was overruled by Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, who successfully urged that MPs be first questioned about the nature of their grievances over wardship.30 LJ, ii. 550b, 556b; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 21. At this early stage, a controversy arose over the absolutist statements made by the law professor Dr John Cowell in his legal dictionary, the Interpreter. St John was ordered to attend the initial conference with the Commons over this matter, and on 2 Mar. insisted that Lord Chancellor Ellesmere (Thomas Egerton^*, later 1st Viscount Brackley) should report a second meeting after Ellesmere, pleading ill health, asked to be excused.31 Procs. 1610, i. 184; LJ, ii. 560a.

The debate over composition for wardship was almost derailed on 19 Apr., when James insisted that, while prepared to waive his revenues, he did not wish to see the tenures on which they were based abolished, thereby raising fears that he might revive wardship at some later date. When Ellesmere moved to relay this unwelcome message to the Commons promptly, he was seconded by St John. On 26 May and 19 June St John was included on delegations which conveyed the Commons’ latest negotiating positions to the king. On 26 June Salisbury stated that James wanted the Lords to urge the Commons to further concessions before he named his final figure. The resulting silence was broken by George Abbot^*, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), who observed that MPs were expecting a fresh offer, not entreaties from the Lords. St John, however, claimed that the Commons would be prepared to state their position first, ‘for they know these things better than we do or can do’.32 Procs. 1610, i. 114, 210; LJ, ii. 603a, 618a. In the event, James named his price before the conference with the Commons, thus averting another clash.

St John’s views on the matter of ecclesiastical reform can also be discerned. On 26 Mar., shortly before the Easter recess, he moved for a second reading to be given to the bill on clerical non-residence and pluralism, but despite support from Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon and others his motion was ignored.33 Procs. 1610, i. 53, 197. The second reading eventually took place on 30 Apr., but debate on this contentious issue was held over until 3 May, when the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft^*, who had already declared his opposition to the bill, challenged any peer to dispute his views. He was answered by St John, who objected to Bancroft’s dismissal of the measure as ‘full of iniquity’, observing that the 1572 Canons had condemned pluralism as ‘filthy in itself, dangerous to the people, [and] against the word of God’. While acknowledging that some of the poorer bishops needed their income to be supplemented by alternative means, he considered that this problem could be remedied without infringing the draft legislation then under debate. Bancroft thereupon explained that his chief objection was to the paltry stipends the bill offered to the curates expected to serve in place of the absentees, while William Barlow^*, bishop of Lincoln (in whose diocese St John lived), protested that the bill was retrospective, taking away part of the revenues of pluralists then in possession. During a long debate, the bishops proved unwaveringly critical of the bill, and at the end of the afternoon, the issue was referred to a subcommittee, of which St John was a member.34 LJ, ii. 584a, 587a-b; Procs. 1610, i. 75, 230. The bishops clearly hoped that this would smother the bill, but on 8 June St John called for the bill committee to meet that afternoon, presumably to hear the subcommittee’s report. However, Bancroft, who had taken notes, was then absent through sickness. Salisbury therefore suggested the debate be postponed for three days, at which time Bancroft could either attend or send his notes. At this point Barlow confessed that he had Bancroft’s notes with him, but despite this admission the debate was postponed until 11 June.35 Procs. 1610, i. 99-100; LJ, ii. 609b. However, that day the House was distracted by the second reading of the bill for ecclesiastical Canons, which had originated in the Commons. This bill sought to strike down the Canons passed by Convocation in 1604 insofar as they affected ‘life, liberty, lands or goods’, and so would have allowed the ministers deprived for refusing subscription to these Canons to sue for restoration to their benefices. Bancroft condemned the bill as ‘scandalous and injurious to the king and the state’, and was seconded by Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York). However, they were countered by St John, who moved for the bill to be committed because the issues it raised ‘toucheth our lives, lands and liberties’. He also warned the bishops that ‘before we take an oath’ – the Lords had taken the oath of allegiance four days earlier – ‘we ought to understand it’. After extensive debate the bill was committed, never to emerge.36 Procs. 1610, i. 101-2, 125; LJ, ii. 611a. St John attempted to revive the pluralities bill on 30 June, moving to choose a fresh subcommittee, which met on 9 and 13 July, but thereafter debate on this issue was apparently discontinued.37 Procs. 1610, i. 122; LJ, ii. 637b, 640b.

As in previous sessions, St John was named to a variety of bill committees for local and estate bills, but a handful of his appointments were of more general significance. On 2 June, for instance, he was named to the committee for the bill requiring those naturalized or restored in blood to take communion and the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and on 16 July he was appointed to the committee for the bill requiring all adult males to take the oath of allegiance. On 18 July St John spoke at the second reading of the bill for the safety of the king, drafted in the aftermath of the assassination of Henri IV of France. He warned that the measure showed signs of having been drafted hastily, and moved to leave it until the next session, but Bancroft insisted it had been penned ‘by a learned man’. Several other peers supported St John, and when the debate ended inconclusively, the bill was allowed to sleep.38 LJ, ii. 606b, 645a; Procs. 1610, i. 151-2.

Attendance in the Lords was low in the brief autumn session, because many peers feared to displease the king by rejecting the Great Contract, but St John missed only three days. Ordered to attend the conference of 25 Oct., at which the Commons were prompted to state their views over the Contract, and also that of 13 Nov., when MPs were asked to come up with some alternative to supply the king’s needs, he was also named to five bill committees, including one for erecting brewhouses to supply the court on progress and another to confirm leases made to duchy of Cornwall tenants.39 LJ, ii. 670a, 671a, 677a, 678a. Although appointed a commissioner to prorogue the session on 6 Dec., he failed to attend. He also missed the dissolution of 9 Feb. 1611, despite being named a commissioner for that task.40 Ibid. 683b, 684b.

St John was one of the chief mourners at Lord Treasurer Salisbury’s funeral in June 1612. Otherwise, he busied himself in the provinces, supervising the Huntingdonshire militia, until the summons of a fresh Parliament in 1614.41 HMC Hatfield, xxi. 374; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 178. On this occasion Sir Henry Grey^*, nephew and heir presumptive to Charles Grey^*, 6th earl of Kent, stood for the senior county seat in Bedfordshire. St John’s eldest son, who would have had to have yielded precedence to Grey, did not stand, but St John’s third son Sir Alexander was returned for Bedford, and his fifth son Rowland^‡ for Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire.42 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 5, 7, 291; vi. 148-9.

St John missed only three days of the 1614 session, but the records suggest he was less active than in 1610. He was named to attend both the conference with the Commons about the bill recognizing the claims of Princess Elizabeth’s children by the Elector Palatine to the succession, and the committee and a conference about the Sabbath bill. His presence was also required to consider the apparel bill. On 26 May he excused the absence of Ralph Eure^*, 3rd Lord Eure.43 LJ, ii. 691a, 692b, 708a-b, 713b.

St John was involved in the dispute over impositions which derailed the Parliament. On 21 May, when the Commons asked for a conference on this issue, Lord Chancellor Ellesmere suggested that the Lords would first need to consult the judges about this attempt to question their ruling in Bate’s Case (1606). The earl of Southampton pressed for a ‘meeting’ to hear the Commons, rather than a ‘conference’ to debate the issue, but Ellesmere remained reluctant. St John backed Southampton, calling for a meeting ‘to have their [MPs’] reasons in writing, and before we confer, [to] have the opinion of my lords the judges therein’. A succession of speakers supported this motion, and those present ‘took it for granted’ that agreement had been reached.44 HMC Hastings, iv. 249-51. However, on 23 May Ellesmere reported that the debate had been inconclusive. Robert Rich^*, 3rd Lord Rich (later 2nd earl of Warwick) promptly renewed the motion to meet rather than confer, while St John insisted that ‘I thought your lordships, though not to confer, had resolved to give them [MPs] meeting’. The debate which followed nevertheless saw his motion rejected.45 Ibid. 251-2; LJ, ii. 707b; C. Russell, King James VI and I and his English Parls. 119; HP Commons 1604-29, i. 352. On 6 June James threatened the Commons, whose members were angry at the refusal to confer, with dissolution unless they showed good faith by voting supply immediately. The Lords waited patiently for word from the Commons, but as they were unable to reach a decision that same day St John moved to give them until the following afternoon. In the event MPs failed to reach any agreement, and the Parliament was dissolved.46 HMC Hastings, iv. 281-2; LJ, ii. 715b-16a.

St John’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Addled Parliament may be surmised from the fact that he declined to promote the benevolence which was raised in lieu of the supply the Commons had declined to vote under threat of dissolution. His ‘coldness’ in front of the assembled taxpayers of Bedfordshire, and the ‘scornful offers’ from his friends came to the attention of the Privy Council; a stiff letter was dispatched, which ultimately persuaded him to contribute the generous sum of £100.47 APC, 1613-14, pp. 582-3; E351/1950. This incident had no lasting effect on his standing at court, however, as he continued to serve as lord lieutenant of Huntingdonshire, and his son Rowland^‡ was created a Knight of the Bath at Prince Charles’s investiture as prince of Wales in 1616.48 Shaw, i. 160; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 31-2.

St John drafted his will on 31 Mar. 1609, almost a decade before his death. With his six sons already provided for, he focussed on providing dowries for his four unmarried daughters. He died on 2 Sept. 1618, and was buried on the same day at Bletsoe; the will was proved by his nephew Sir Oliver Luke^‡ two-and-a-half months later.49 PROB 11/132, ff. 348v-9v; C142/376/126; Bletsoe ed. F.G. Emmison (Beds. Par. Reg. xxiv), p. A24. He was succeeded as 4th baron by his eldest surviving son Oliver^*, subsequently 1st earl of Bolingbroke, whose younger brothers Alexander, Anthony, Beauchamp^‡, Henry^‡ and Rowland were returned to the Commons during the 1620s and 1640s.