The Lucas Family - Hungerford Virtual Museum

The Lucas Family
Lucas was a family prominent in Hungerford affairs during the first half of the
17th century. The first Hungerford Lucas was John ("the elder"). We have no
record in the parish register of his birth or marriage nor of the birth of his
two eldest sons, John and Jehosophat. His next son Onesimus was baptised on
1st January 1604, and his youngest son Timothy in 1609. He also had daughters
Elizabeth, Naomi and Deborah who were baptised in 1605, 1606 and 1612
respectively. We may assume therefore that John Lucas moved into
Hungerford at some date prior to 1604. At the time of the 1609 town survey
he held two tenements on lease, one of them belonging to the church. In the
1591 survey his name did not appear and the two tenements were then held by
others. His name is not among those of the 39 freeholders listed in the
Hocktide Court Book for 1600. Yet a year later, in 1601, John Lucas is
Constable, a post he occupied on three further occasions.
His tenancy of the church tenement which had been leased to Richard Maile
involved him in the legal controversy between Henry Maile and the church
wardens which continued for several years with suits and cross suits and in
several courts (1620-24 - see Lawsuits, Hungerford, Vol.1: Court of Chancery).
Henry Maile, in his complaint, describes John Lucas as "petty chapman", the
defence witnesses as "mercer". It is this latter term by which his is known in
all other documents. Maile alleges that Lucas, who had acquired the remnant
of a sub-lease granted by his father Richard Maile to William Pottinger, when
Maile's own head lease was due to expire, entreated him to show the deeds
relating to this lease (originally granted in 1557) to the vicar, John Wirrall. In
fact, this was a course the Church Vestry had been urging for some time.
Maile, however, alleged that Lucas had "combined himself with John Wirrall
and his son Thomas and so "did by his persuasions draw Henry Maile to the
house of John Wirrall as well as other places and made him bring with him all
his evidences", Lucas persuading Maile that John Wirrall and Thomas Wirrall
were "two very deep and learned men and knew the law as well as any lawyers
whatever and would tell him his own right title" etc and so persuaded Maile to
produce the deeds and leave them with the vicar, who then urged Maile to
approach the church wardens for a new lease. Maile had a bad case and also a
bad record. The upshot was that the parish church retained its properties,
and these continued to be leased to the Lucas family, as the references to the
two widow Lucases in the 1676 town quit rent rolls show.
Lucas' capacity to act as a negotiator was shown also in the complicated
business involved in the town's purchase of the borough and manor rights
which had been granted by James I to two London entrepeneurs, John Eldred
and William Whitemore. He is one of the four feoffees who purchased these
rights on behalf of the town on 27 May, 1612. In March 1613 by a legal shuffle
the original four feoffees were able to expand the number of quality of the
feoffees by including Sir Thomas Parry, the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster, Sir Francis Knolleys of Reading, John Wirral the then vicar of
Hungerford, Drs Thomas Sheaff and Erasmus Webb, canons of the prebend of
Windsor. In June 1614 Lucas and the other original feoffees issued a

declaration that it was agreed by them and the rest of the inhabitants that
the conveyance made on 27 May 1612 was to be for the benefit of all the
inhabitants of Hungerford. Implicitly there must have been some public
anxiety concerning the concentration of power which had come into the hands
of the four local tradesmen. They therefore pointed out that it was in
pursuance of this trust that the subsequent conveyances of 1613, to a wider
and more distinguished body, had been made. Criticism, however, must have
attached itself to this new body, although perhaps from a slightly different
angle, for the feoffees went on to acknowledge that they were feoffees only in
trust for the inhabitants of the town (exluding the tenants of the Dean and
Canons of Windsor), and to that intent they would account for their
management of the town before the Constable and burgesses on the occasion
of the next Court Leet. They declared further that when their present
numbers fell below 4 or 5, they would allow the inhabitants to appoint 12 or 13
men to choose additional feoffees to bring the total to 9 or more. The
signatories promised to satisfy the actions of this body until such time as a
corporation should be established and the inhabitants thereby enjoy its
privileges in their own right.
Clearly the protracted legal complications in setting up a satisfactory trust
were disturbing to some townsmen to whom such legal complications or delays
were unfamiliar. In 1617, however, a transfer sale took place which
transferred the manor and borough to a full representative body of
burgesses. John Lucas was not among them, but this was not for any lack of
confidence in him, for in that year they elected him as Constable, the first of
the new corporation and then re-elected him in 1618 and 1620.
Lucas had had a difficult set of negotiations to handle; and whoever had
handled them would surely have had a rough ride. In his "Story of
Hungerford" W.H. Summers fails to make use of documents other than those
immediatley accessible to him among the Borough MSS then in the Town Hall.
By such limitation he omits the lawsuit launched against Lucas and his cofeoffee
Ralph Mackerell by such luminaries as the Earl of Rutland, Henry
Sadler esq, Edward Hungerford esq, together with townmen Ralp Harrold,
John Bradford and John Burch who claimed to be acting in the interests of "all
other the inhabitants, copyholders and freeholders" of the borough.
This suit (PRO C2/JasI/Rl/7) was presented in May 1613. The plaintiffs' bill
describes how, following the purchase of Eldred and Whitmore, the
freeholders and inhabitants of the borough had "divers meetings and
conferences concerning the purchasing of the said borough", and a sum of
money was agreed, and the four feoffees were chosen by the inhabitants to
"undertake the purchasing and contracting for the said borough". The real
problem which confronted the inhabitants was how to raise the purchase price
of £285. Various courses were proposed but at length it was considered that
the money could be raised by demising "for some small time" the borough
commons or waste land, in which some of the suppliants had an interest of the
soil and freehold and others had rights of common.
What disturbed these townsmen was that the sale to Elgar and Field seemed

to have been made so that the interest in the property was sold to them not as
trustees but so they became possessed of the estate in fee simple. Similarly,
when Elgar and Field transferred to the extended body this was again without
any mention of trust. In the light of these charges it is easy to see why the
feoffees issued their declaration in June 1614. The plaintiffs continued their
case by alleging that John Lucas was the principal "director" of the
transaction and that he was "a man of not good note" - unlike, say, the Earl of
Rutland, Henry Sadler esq, and Edward Hungerford esq, gentlemen whose
social status clearly made them of "note". How far these non-resident
gentlemen were concerned with the active prosecution of the suit is unclear; it
is likely that they were brought in primarily because of their particular
interest as freeholders and that the real thrust of the suit came from the
"residents" Harrold, Bradford and Burch. The argument is brought forward
that the feoffees - or the survivors of them - may make claim "as they already
begin to do (if they survive the suppliants) to the absolute inheritance of the
just right and lawful title". The suppliants, or plaintiffs, therefore request
that the trust may be set down in writing and that a new set of responsible
trustees be appointed.
In answer Lucas and Mackerell state that they were the chief representatives
of the townsmen and that Lucas went to London to deal with Eldred and
Whitmore for the purchase of the patent which the Crown had granted them
for the sum of £285. This sum they raised by various loans at interest for
three months. Such a short term loan suggested that they may have been
anxious to clinch the deal before some other purchaser or prospective
purchaser might deprive them of it. At any rate they could not repay this
short term loan within the 3 months, and so a further loan of £300 was raised
in London, repayable within 4 months. This seems to have been cleared by
"leasing the downs or waste for £240 for a certain term yet to run" and by
felling trees and woods to realise a further £60. Finally, all the deeds were
properly delivered and executed in the town hall and in the presence of the
inhabitants.
This was the law suit to which the Charity Commissioners in 1906 referred
when that stated that "legal proceedings followed, which have unfortunately
not been traced". The details of this suit reveal the difficulties - and the
opposition - which confronted those townsmen who were willing to take an
active part in bringing about a new constitution for the borough; and of these
activists John Lucas must be regarded as the chief. The preliminaries of the
town's new status took five or six years and its final achievement then led to
the election of Lucas as Constable to steer the new constitution for three of
its first four years. Thus altogether almost a decade of his life was spent
more or less full time on this affair. It is appropriate, though quite
coincidental, for the builders of the present town hall in 1870 did not know
this, that the present town hall should stand on the very site of one of the
two adjacent houses which John Lucas tenanted during all those years.
It is also notable that, although Constable on four occasions, he never held
freehold property and so does not appear in the lists of freeholders from

1600 onwards. He is one of a number of instances where a Constable has been
elected from non-freeholders. Moreover, if he came to Hungerford from
without the parish (as the lack of parish register entries regarding his birth,
marriage and the baptism of his two eldest sons suggests) then it is difficult
to see how he could have been Constable in 1601 and have passed successively
through the qualifying offices of port reeve, bailiff and tithing man,
precedent to his Constableship.
He was a mercer by trade and, as his will shows, a man of some financial
substance. He left cash bequests to his children totalling £700 - each of his
three daughters received an equal amount as each of his four sons, with the
exceptions of his second son Jehosophat and his third son Onesimus.
Jehosophat however, not the eldest son John, was appointed executor of and
received the remainder of his estate (after some further small bequests) and
the care of the deceased's wife, Elizabeth who is "to have her maintenance
with my executor in the best manner he can, as I have done". Onesimus
received £200, double the amount of each of the others. Although the eldest
son John received £100, the relative coolness shown to him is obvious,
especially when it is considered that another son is the one entrusted both
with the executorship and with the care of his mother. A late addition to the
will is in the form of an admonition to his executor, which seems to say "Also
let not Thomas Mundy enjoye that goods that he hath unjustly or if by law you
may get it but let my son John have the most part of it because he is
accustomed to it (when you have it)".
Among minor bequests in his will were the customary sums to be distributed to
the poor and to the parish church, there was a bequest of £10 "towards the
setting up of a school in Hungerford or Sandon - provided it be built or set up
within the ten years". The provision of a local free school was very much in
the minds of forward looking townsmen about this time and the establishment
of such a school is usually attributed to the bequest in Dr Sheaff s will of a
piece of land in Church Field. Sheaff, it will be remembered, was a colleague
of Lucas on the board of feoffees set up in 1614. W.H. Summers describes
the old Grammar School (p.160) as "Sheaff s Charity". He seems not to have
known of John Lucas' will and earlier bequest. The legacy shows Lucas'
continued concern for the town and its townsmen: it also shows in its
conditional clause an awareness of their natural tendency to dally unless
pushed - or led. Fortunately, the further bequest of Dr Sheaff probably
ensured that the £10 left by Lucas was able to be utilised within the
conditional term.
II
From 1604 onwards all of John Lucas' five children born after that date were
baptised in the parish church. His wife Elizabeth was a frequent witness or
godparent at others' christenings. In his will he left a small sum to the
church. It is clear therefore that he accepted the Anglican Church. There
are however in his life and work traces of a work ethic and a social welfare
ethic which may suggest that he was in time with the developing Puritan
thought and feeling shown at this time by so many of the prosperous middle or

merchant class. A further indication is the naming of his children - each one
of them was given a Christian name based on Biblical characters. John and
Elizabeth are perhaps not outstanding as such, and Deborah may be more
common or familiar today than it was then; so too perhaps Naomi; Timothy
might also be unremarkable had it not been given as Tymotheus. But there is
no questioning the Biblical and therefore probably Puritan tone of Jehosophat
and Onesimus.
Of John's male children two, Jehosophat and Timothy, became local worthies
and were each Constable of the town. Onesimus and John were not cast to be
businessmen like their two brothers.
We know little of Onesimus other than what is told us in his will. His father's
legacy, double that of the cash bequests to any of his brothers and sisters,
shows a concern for him which may derive from special affection, a realisation
of his relative incapacity to make his living by trade, or a knowledge of illhealth
which would cut short his years; or, of course, a combination of these
concerns. In fact, Onesimus died young, aged only 34. He was married but had
no children. His wife's name was a good Puritan name, Rebecca. And his will is
full of extreme Puritan sentiments.
It was drafted 20 September 1638 and he was dead before the year was out.
It was signed by him, but there were no witnesses; and the composition would
seem to have been personal - the work of a person with a scholarly,
introverted, and bookish bent. Indeed of personal possessions books are one
of the few items which he has to leave (bonds, books, clothes). This personal
preamble to his will is such a good example of a certain kind of Puritan thought
and feeling which was affecting others in the country - and in the local area of
Hungerford - that 1 reproduce it verbatim. He begins by stating that he is the
son of John Lucas late of Hungerford deceased and, having thus identified
himself, proceeds:
"I commend my soul to God that gave it in the name of merit and mediation of
Christ Jesus my lord and only saviour and Redeemer, adhering to, professing
and confessing and ending my life in the truly ancient authentic and orthodox
faith which is contained in the most sacred and revealed will of God in the
writings of the old and new testaments, abhorring and detesting those
superstitions (?) and patches (?) of opinions which have lately been superadded
to the most holy and ancient faith by Rome and her adherents, these I do
most religiously reject and do constantly forever refuse them, being repugnant
to the work of God and doubtful, damnable, looking only to Christ Jesus the
Author and fisher (?) of my faith, not doubting but through faith in his name
and him alone according to the Scriptures John 3.15, 16, 18; Acts 4.129 and by
his blood-shedding to obtain remission of all my sins and everlasting life
whereof he hath given me earnest here by testimony of his holy spirit and
assurance, by the fruit and effect of the same, who notwithstanding I confess
myself and acknowledge myself to be a vile, detestable and abominable
transgressor by reason of my original corruption and actual sins, so that I
cannot speak against myself as I deserve, for which cause I abhor myself and
repent in truth of heart and for which sins he may justly abhor me and cast

me off forever, my conscience bearing me record that I desire to forsake all
sin and to embrace all virtue and piety God for Christ his sake doth accept the
evil in me, his poor unworthy servant for the deed (?)".
Onesimus requested to be buried in the parish churchyard near to his father
and sisters. He left sums of money to his two nephews, John and Jehosophat,
sons of his brother Jehosophat. He says they are his nearest kinsmen and the
chief supporter of the family. He does not mention his brothers John and
Timothy.
Norman Hidden