COOKE, William (c.1620-1703), of Highnam Court, Glos.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. c.1620, 1st s. of Sir Robert Cooke of Highnam by 1st w. Dorothy, da. of Sir Miles Fleetwood† of Aldwinkle, Northants.; bro. of Edward Cooke. educ. G. Inn 1636. m. lic. 30 Mar. 1648, Anne, da. and coh. of Dennis Rolle of Stevenstone, Devon, 9s. (5 d.v.p.) 7da. suc. fa. 1643.1
Commr. for assessment, Glos. 1648-52, 1657, Aug. 1660-80, Gloucester 1661-3, 1666-80, Glos. and Gloucester 1689-90, militia, Glos. 1648, Glos. and Gloucester Mar. 1660; lt.-col. of militia ft. Glos. Apr. 1660, j.p. 1648-?64, 1670-?79, ?1689-bef. 1701, dep. lt. July 1660-?64, 1670-?79, 1689-bef. 1701, commr. for corporations 1662-3; verderer, Forest of Dean 1668-?d.; alderman, Gloucester 1672-d., mayor 1673-4, Nov. 1688-9; commr. of inquiry, Forest of Dean 1673, 1679, 1683, 1691.2
Cooke was descended from a cadet branch of the Essex puritan family seated at Gidea Hall which figured so prominently in Tudor Parliaments. His grandfather acquired the manor of Highnam just outside Gloucester by marriage in about 1597, and represented Gloucestershire in the Addled Parliament. His father and younger brother Edward were both in arms for the Parliament, but Cooke is not known to have played any part in the Civil War, though he held local office throughout the Interregnum. He signed the Gloucestershire address of welcome to the King, and was nominated to the proposed order of the Royal Oak, with an income estimated at £1,000 p.a.3
It is not known why Cooke was removed from local office after serving as commissioner for corporations. As he was restored in 1670 he presumably had no qualms about enforcing the Conventicles Act, and he was nominated alderman for life under the new Gloucester charter of 1672, at which time he was, with Duncombe Colchester, regarded as a principal agent of the high steward, Lord Worcester (Henry Somerset), on the corporation. In April 1675 he was defeated by his fellow-alderman, Henry Norwood, in the by-election occasioned by the death of (Sir) Edward Massey. Either Cooke or some of the electors petitioned, but on 7 Mar. 1678 the elections committee reported in Norwood’s favour, to which, after a division, the House agreed. But 12 months later Cooke was returned for the city at the first general election of 1679 with the unanimous approval of the corporation and apparently unopposed. Shaftesbury marked him ‘base’. A moderately active Member of the first Exclusion Parliament, he was appointed to the committee of elections and privileges and three others of secondary importance. He was given leave for a month on 1 May, and was absent from the division on the first exclusion bill. ‘A worthy gentleman of a plentiful estate’, he fought the next election as an exclusionist, but was defeated by the lord lieutenant’s candidate, Sir Charles Berkeley III. He was removed from local office, and his petition was never reported from the elections committee. He left the country party when ‘his eyes were opened’ to the villainy of John Arnold, and it is unlikely that he stood at the next two elections.4