FARNEFOLD, Sir Thomas (1599-1644), of Gatewick, Steyning, Suss. and Little Almery, Westminster

The first Farnefold recorded in Sussex was Nicholas de Farnefold, who lived at Wisborough in 1269. John Farnfold† sat in Parliament for Bramber and Steyning in 1399, and his grandson, Richard Farnfold† (1440-1509) for Shoreham, Steyning, and Bramber in the reign of Edward IV. By the early sixteenth century the family had settled in Steyning, where they acquired a substantial estate centred on the manor of Gatewick.18Breach, ‘Farnefold’, 84-8; HP Commons 1386-1421; Wedgwood, Hist. of Parliament 1439-1509, 312; W. Suss. RO, Wiston MSS 291, 606, 617, 647, 1188, 2262; VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, p. 227.

Farnefold’s father died in 1609, leaving five daughters and two sons under 21.19PROB11/114/141. Following the death of his elder brother Walter in April 1611, the wardship of young Thomas passed successively to Sir Thomas Leedes, Sir Edward Sackville† (later 4th earl of Dorset), and Bartholomew Rogers, usher of the court of wards, whose daughter Thomas married in 1616 at the age of only 17.20St Dunstan in the West par. reg.; Breach, ‘Farnefold’, 88, 97-100; C142/311/115; C142/325/196; WARD9/162, f. 77v; W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 3137; Suss. Manors, i. 202. Thomas was knighted in 1621, but his estates had suffered from large-scale asset-stripping.21Mems. of St Margaret’s Westminster, 110, 122, 125, 142, 324; Breach, ‘Farnefold’, 101-2; C54/2514/11; Preston Manor, Brighton, Thomas-Stanford coll. WS/FK/8; C54/2523/10. In a petition to the Commons that year he accused Rogers – now dead – of ruthless exploitation, and in 1622 was briefly committed to the Marshalsea, after he had pursued the dispute with the master of the wards, William Knollys†, 1st Viscount Wallingford.22Harl. 6803, f. 14; APC 1621-3, pp. 254, 262, 271.

Farnefold was elected to the Parliaments of 1624 and 1625 as Member for Steyning, probably on his own interest, but was unsuccessful in 1626.23HP Commons 1604–1629. However, that year he gained a position at court. 24C78/520/8. In 1627 he secured from the Rogers family the place of usher in the court of wards, worth £400 a year, but it involved redeeming a mortgage, and this and other financial commitments forced him to borrow £4,000 from Sir David Watkins on the security of Gatewicke, and to sell other portions of his estate.25WARD9/421/159; E407/1/43; PC2/53, f. 11; Breach, ‘Farnefold’, 102; W. Suss. RO, Wiston MSS 2485, 6381, 6774; Suss. Manors, i. 179; C54/3100/21; C54/3130/31. He was re-elected to the Parliament of 1628, but as before made no recorded impression on the House.26HP Commons 1604-1629.

Farnefold was named to the Sussex commission of the peace in August 1633, but made no appearances at the quarter sessions, and was removed in July 1637.27C231/5, p. 253; ASSI35/79/9. Between 12 and 24 January 1638 the privy council examined him for an unknown offence and committed him to the Fleet prison.28PC2/48, ff. 229v, 235v, 254v, 266; CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 156, 185. A dispute with one of the serjeants at arms, Humfrey Leigh, came before the council in February 1639, when Farnefold was ordered to pay Leigh £48.29PC2/50, f. 37.

On 1 June 1639, apparently on the eve of a journey north with the king to fight the Scots, Farnefold drew up his will to cover the eventuality that ‘I have lost my life in his majesty’s wars’. He envisaged further sales of Sussex land to fund provision for his six sons and one daughter, his eldest surviving child, whom he named executor with his friend Robert Marr or Mawer of Westminster, possibly the man of this name described in December 1640 as a milliner at court.30PROB11/192/153; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 209. He hoped that, in recognition of the service he would have rendered, the king would grant his request that the guardianship of his children be given to Marr, who was also to receive his best horse and ‘my cast of hawks a-mewing near Colebrook’. He also mentioned debts owing to him of over £1,000, while admitting to debts of £600 which he himself owed.31PROB11/192/153.

Farnefold lived on, however, and returned to Parliament – again for Steyning – in the spring of 1640. Like Sir John Leedes*, the son of his first guardian, with whom he was elected, Farnefold may have been seeking the protection against creditors that membership of the House conferred. Neither man made an impact on proceedings in the Commons. That Farnefold was still experiencing financial and legal difficulties is clear from a petition he submitted to the privy council, which was considered on 20 October by the earl of Dorset, among others. Farnefold now claimed that his father-in-law had mortgaged the wards ushership for £1,800. Having redeemed it and obtained a decree allowing him to keep the office, Farnefold had assigned it to Henry Garton* and Edward Hanchett, in return for a bond of £6,000. During Farnefold’s ‘absence in his majesty’s service’, however, Garton and Hanchett had obtained a legal judgement on the bond, thus avoiding payment.32PC2/53, f. 11.

Farnefold retained his seat in the Long Parliament, although the other place was contested between two men with whom he was closely connected; Thomas Leedes* (son of Sir John) and Richard Sackville*, Lord Buckhurst (Dorset’s heir). On 31 December a petition of his was referred to the committee of privileges, but otherwise he made no impression in the House, being evidently preoccupied with personal concerns rather than with wider political issues.33CJ ii. 60a. The dispute with Garton dragged on until at least June 1641, while he was forced to sell yet more of his estate, including Garvis manor, in February 1643.34C54/3282/59; C54/3295/8; W. Suss. RO, Wiston MS 6771. Seemingly not realizing that he was an MP, on 11 July 1643 the assessment commissioners for Sussex summoned him to pay £100. In September the Committee for Advance of Money ordered a respite on the grounds that he should have been assessed by the Commons, and a certificate as to whether he had contributed in Sussex; by November it was clear he had not.35CCAM 190; SP19/90, ff. 35-40. While his ties with suspected Catholics and royalists in the Leedes and Sackville families might suggest loyalty to the king, Farnefold was evidently not in active service, however, and, possibly protected by his obscurity, he was not removed from Parliament before his death in March 1644.36C142/710/40; PROB11/192/153. A by-election was ordered on 12 September 1645.37CJ iv. 272a.

Farnefold’s son Henry inherited an estate encumbered with debts. Since his father had defaulted on his bond with Sir David Watkins, he faced losing his property in Sussex. A writ of liberate was issued to the sheriff in November 1646 to give Watkins the Farnefold estates, including the manor of Gatewick, although Watkins assigned the debt to Roger Norton and George Almery, and in December Henry Farnefold released the properties to them.38W. Suss. RO, Wiston MSS 2485-7, 6771, 6773. By October 1649 information had been laid before the Committee for Advance of Money that Henry had been in arms against Parliament in at Oxford and Colchester, supplied with funds to go to the latter by Robert Mawer, so an order was issued to secure his goods.39CCAM, 1144-5. Thereafter the family seems to have sunk into obscurity.40Breach, ‘Farnefold’, 105-9.