LUCY, Sir Kingsmill, 2nd Bt. (c.1650-78), of Faccombe, Hants and Great Newport Street, Westminster.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer



31 Jan. - 6 Feb. 1673
10 Feb. 1673 - 19 Sept. 1678

Family and Education

b. c.1650, o.s. of Sir Richard Lucy, 1st Bt., of Broxbourne, Herts. by 2nd w. Jane, da. and coh. of Thomas Chapman, Draper, of Soper Lane, London and Wormley, Herts. educ. Sidney Sussex, Camb. adm. 12 June 1663, aged 12, BA 1666, L. Inn 1667. m. 14 May 1668, aged 19, Theophila, da. of George, 9th Lord Berkeley of Berkeley Castle, Glos., 1s. 2da. suc. fa. 6 Apr. 1667.1

Offices Held

Committee, E.I. Co. 1671-2, 1673-4; commr. for assessment, Hants and Westminster 1673-d., recusants, Hants 1675.2

FRS 1668-d.


Lucy’s father, a younger son of the Charlecote family, went abroad early in the Civil War, but returned to be elected as a recruiter for Old Sarum. He abstained from the House after Pride’s Purge, but represented Hertfordshire under the Protectorate. He acquired an interest at Andover by the purchase of Faccombe, eight miles to the north, in 1655.3

Through his father-in-law Lucy became concerned with the East India Company both as member and stockholder, though he also invested in land in the Netley area. He was first returned for Andover on 31 Jan. 1673, but the writ was declared invalid when Parliament met. Though at once re-elected, he never became an active Member, serving on only nine committees, and speaking twice. He was among those appointed to consider the bill for hindering Papists from sitting in Parliament on 28 May 1675, and in the debate three days later on the King’s answer to the address for the removal of Lauderdale, he said:

We have pressed the King so often for the removal of the Duke of Lauderdale, and for answer we have only had a civil denial. If there be a reason to cease this prosecution would hear it. If he has expiated his former ill actions by anything lately done it would much prevail with him by such a demeanour to forget what is past. Has no reason to think his principles are changed when he calls those that were against the Declaration deserters of the King. Since the first address for his removal he has had increase of honour, and a pension as if in defiance of us. He believes him dangerous and obnoxious to the Government, and as such a one would have him removed.

He acted as teller for the motion to present a further address. In the autumn session he was named to the committees for appropriating the customs to the use of the navy and for considering the petition from the Isle of Wight against customs officers. He was noted about this time as being under the influence of the Cromwellian diplomat Philip Meadows, who married his guardian’s daughter. On 11 Apr. 1677 he seconded the motion of Lord Ibrackan (Henry O’Brien) for resuming work on legislation after the adjournment, but he must have gone over to the Government soon afterwards, for Shaftesbury marked him ‘doubly vile’, and in A Seasonable Argument he was said to have been given £1,000 (though no payment can be traced in any existing account) and promised a place at Court, which he did not live long enough to claim. He signed his will with a mark on 19 Sept. 1678 and was buried at Faccombe on the following day, the last of his branch of the family to enter Parliament.4

Ref Volumes: 1660-1690

Author: A. M. Mimardière


  • 1. The Gen. n.s. xxxiv. 5; Fire Court ed. P. E. Jones, ii. 219; PCC 47 Carr, 112 Reeve; Survey of London, xxxiv. 345.
  • 2. Cal. Ct. Mins. E.I. Co. ed. Sainsbury, ix. 30, 225.
  • 3. N. and Q. cc. 298; D. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 379; VCH Hants, iv. 316.
  • 4. Cal. Ct. Mins. E.I. Co. viii. 158, 400; ix. 306-7, 309, 311, 313; x. 400, 404; xi. 332; Grey, iii. 211; Eg. 3345, f. 47v.