BOWYER, Sir Thomas (1586-1650), of Leythorne, North Mundham, Suss.

By 1640 Bowyer – who was from a prosperous and well-established Sussex family, represented at Westminster since 1529 – had years of experience in local administration and had sat in six Parliaments, although without being especially prominent.26HP Commons 1604-1629. His friends included numerous leading gentlemen of west Sussex, many of whom were suspected of Catholicism and most of whom were later royalists, as well as members of prominent civic families in Chichester, where he was diocesan steward from 1619.27W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 3865. He was sheriff of Sussex in 1626-7 and acquired a baronetcy in July 1627, allegedly at the behest of his second wife, the widow of Sir George Stoughton†.28C231/4, f. 232; PSO5/5, unfol.; SO3/8, unfol.; Add. 6174, f. 137.

Over the succeeding decade, however, Bowyer was beset by a number of problems. Although he had been a relatively zealous member of the commission of the peace during the 1620s, his attendance at quarter sessions became sufficiently irregular in the early 1630s to justify his removal from the bench in February 1635.29APC 1619-21, pp. 202-3; W. Suss. RO, QR/W14, 17, 25; SP14/130, f. 17; SP16/202, f. 86; SP16/210, f. 115; SP16/243, f. 32; SP16/262, f. 27; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 565. His absence may have been caused by financial problems, which were largely blamed on his wife, ‘a mad prodigal proud spending lady’.30Add. 6174, f. 137. Bowyer compounded for knighthood in 1630 with an ostentatious £70, and extravagance of this kind may have been responsible for eroding an estate said to be worth £1,200 a year. 31E407/35, f. 166.

Bowyer’s difficulties were compounded in the late 1630s by an acrimonious dispute with his eldest son Thomas, who had entered into an unarranged marriage to a woman of uncertain wealth and dubious morals. Bowyer, who had evidently relied on a lucrative settlement to alleviate his own financial troubles, disinherited his son. An investigation in 1637 by a high-powered committee of the privy council, probably concerned at the future dishonour to the crown of a penniless baronet, concluded that the match ‘was not very unequal’. Preparing his case for a hearing before the king himself in November 1638, Bowyer claimed that his indebtedness arose from a combination of the costs attendant on holding the shrievalty, building work at Leythorne, and pursuing another serious dispute over his title to the estate. He insisted that his son’s ‘ill courses and disorderly life had lost the good opinion of his nearest friends and kindred’ and that he had proceeded with a ‘rash and inconsiderate match’, despite the threat of disinheritance, and despite an alternative marriage settlement arranged with Sir Sampson Dorrell, which would have brought a portion of £3,000.32W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 20,504; CSP Dom. 1637, p. 238; 1638-9, pp. 46-7. The precise outcome of this case is unclear, but father and son apparently remained estranged.

At elections in the spring of 1640 Bowyer was once more returned for Bramber. Despite the death of his wife a few days before the Short Parliament opened, Bowyer was soon in evidence, being named to the committee for privileges on 16 April and that investigating the turbulent end to the previous Parliament in 1629 (18 Apr.).33CJ ii. 4a, 6b. Of his four further nominations, three concerned grievances; among them he was listed first on the committee to look into ‘inconveniences happening by occupancy’ (24 Apr.), which appeared to relate to tenancy disputes.34CJ ii. 8a, 10a, 17b. He was also named first ( May) to the committee examining the petition of Sir Edward Bishoppe*, who had been ostensibly accepted by the electors as a suitable candidate for the second borough seat at Bramber, only to be defeated by Sir John Suckling*, who called on ‘undue means’ and ‘powerful letters’ of recommendation.35CJ ii. 18b; HMC 4th Rep. 25. The committee evidently made no report before the Parliament was dissolved.

Bowyer was returned yet again for Bramber at the autumn elections in 1640. Perhaps because of his lengthy record, in the early weeks of the Long Parliament he achieved a reasonable prominence. He was among MPs who on 21 November offered £1,000 security for the loan.36Procs. LP i. 229, 232. A member of the committee for privileges (6 Nov. 1640), Bowyer was also appointed to consider other procedural and electoral matters, including review of the records of the House (7 Nov.), the bill for annual Parliaments (30 Dec.) and the enfranchisement of county Durham (1 Jan. 1641).37CJ ii. 21a, 21b, 40b, 60a, 61b. Nominated to several committees dealing with grievances – monopolists, the powers of high constable and the earl marshal’s court, accusations against Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, the perceived misdemeanours of lords lieutenant – Bowyer’s was conceivably a moderating voice.38CJ ii. 31a, 34b, 39b, 50b. On 23 November, for instance, he argued that the royal patent for the transport of calf skins was beneficial.39Procs. LP i. 248. As steward of the diocese of Chichester, he had a vested interest in maintenance of the ecclesiastical status quo, and it may have been in defensive mode that he approached appointments to committees addressing complaints about the courts of high commission and Star Chamber (3 Dec.), and against the bishop of Ely (22 Dec.).40CJ ii. 44b, 56a. He argued on 25 November for the expediting of charges against Dr Edward Layfield, rector of All Hallows, Barking, who had been accused of introducing images and other popish practices into his church, but his desire to have the case referred to the Lords might be indicative of a desire to deflect it into less hostile hands or address alternative business.41Procs. LP i. 292.

On 2 December Bowyer moved that fellow Sussex MP Sir William Morley* be granted leave of absence owing to illness.42Procs. LP i. 423, 425. For reasons that do not appear, he himself vanished from the record between 1 January and 18 March 1641. It is not clear whether by this time he had already married the woman who was certainly his third wife; their son James was born about 1645. The daughter of one Scottish courtier and the stepdaughter of another, Anne Ryder brought royal connections which might provide a context for the interpretation of Bowyer’s parliamentary career.43‘Jane Whorwood’, Oxford DNB; CB. He was manifestly not among the ‘hot spirits’, but the degree to which he was a government supporter in 1641 is opaque.

That on 18 March he was named to the committee preparing a bill for the raising of tonnage and poundage might be suggestive of an attitude which prioritised granting money over redressing grievances, but his inclusion on 17 June with such reformers as Denzil Holles* and Harbert Morley* on the committee to consider the clause in the 1628 Petition of Right which addressed this particular tax raises a doubt.44CJ ii. 107a, 130b, 178b. When on 19 June Sir Edward Dering* ‘presented a bill without direction of the House for a royal subsidy’, Bowyer objected that this was ‘against the order of the House’, voicing the majority opinion which ensured the measure was ‘cast out’.45Procs. LP v. 245. Evidently someone for whom correct parliamentary procedure was important, he was nominated to the committee addressing disorders in elections (30 Mar.), moved for a writ for a by-election at Lewes following the death of one of its MPs (9 June), and presented a petition from voters at New Windsor regarding an election dispute (6 July).46CJ ii. 114a; Procs. LP v. 67, 72, 517. Significantly, when on 14 April Edward Kirton* launched an attack on the forthcoming trial of the earl of Strafford, Bowyer said he should withdraw from the chamber for having breached its rules, although Bowyer’s own stance on the vote for the earl’s attainder is unknown.47Procs. LP iii. 554. There are even isolated signs of support for some reforms, as in his appointment to committees for tackling usury (19 Mar.) and promoting ‘the free passage of the gospel’ (12 Apr.).48CJ ii. 108a, 119a.

Bowyer took the Protestation promptly on 3 May.49CJ ii. 133a. In the wake of initial revelations about the Army plot, he was party to a conference with the Lords about the ‘tumults’ in the City of London (11 May) and added to a committee which investigated the allegations that George Goring* was complicit in some conspirators’ escape via Portsmouth (13 May).50Procs. LP iv. 368; CJ ii. 143b, 146a. On the other hand, he was not carried away with paranoia about popish conspiracies. He was among MPs who discussed with the Lords the disbanding of the armies in the north (20 May) and was a teller (following weeks of apparently rare attendance in the House) for the minority against the use of the damning word ‘enticement’ in one of the articles against plotters Henry Jermyn and Henry Percy* (26 July).51Procs. LP vi. 94; CJ ii. 152a, 224b. Yet he was apparently prepared to consider complaints against members of the government, being named on 4 August to the committee addressing accusations of bribery and corruption made about the pro-Catholic lord treasurer, Francis Cottington, 1st Baron Cottington.52CJ ii. 235b.

A little more in evidence in the House in the later summer, Bowyer had time for commercial matters, revealing the interest in trade also occasionally visible in the 1620s Parliaments. On 13 August he was a minority teller against the imposition of a tax on tobacco from the plantations, which suggests that he had friends in Virginia, while on 30 August he was placed on a committee to consider a petition on African and American trade.53CJ ii. 255b, 276a, Meanwhile he seems to have instigated an order that the ports of Bristol and Chester be subject to the same restraints on the transport of leather which had been applied by Parliament to London.54Procs. LP vi. 457.

At least partly on account of his local connections, Bowyer, who on 9 August had been restored to the commission of the peace, was among several Sussex gentlemen named to the committee charged on 14 August not only with conferring with peers to put the kingdom in a posture of defence, but also with reviewing arrears due to Portsmouth.55CJ ii. 257a; C231/5, p. 475. But his inclusion in this small and important group also betokens his standing at the heart of Commons activity as a leading proponent of a certain political outlook, most plausibly at this stage the pursuit of a middle way rather than active defence of the court. Following a lively debate on ecclesiastical ‘innovations’ under the regime of Archbishop William Laud (1 Sept.), during which Sir John Culpeper* had defended the Book of Common Prayer, Bowyer was a teller with Sir Robert Pye I* (another moderate) for the majority who desired that the consequences of undermining it be addressed in discussions on with the Lords on religious reform.56Procs. LP vi. 632, 635; CJ ii. 279b. With Pye, Bowyer was named to a joint committee which looked into curbing the spread of plague in the City (6 Sept.).57CJ ii. 280a. On the 8th he was one of the reporters of a conference with peers on the controversial question of soldiers levied in Ireland for service in Spain and France.58CJ ii. 282a, 282b; Procs. LP vi. 673, 681. Later the same day he revealed the limits of his indulgence towards the army plotters as a teller with Sir Thomas Barrington* for the majority confirming an order withholding the pay due to two of their number, Hugh Pollarde* and Colonel William Asbournham*.59CJ ii. 282b; Procs. LP vi. 685. On 9 September his importance in the Commons was affirmed by his inclusion on the recess committee.60CJ ii. 288b.

Following the resumption of proceedings on 20 October, Bowyer continued his efforts to defend the traditional church order. On 29 October he was a teller for the minority who tried to block a parliamentary petition to the king against the appointment of five new bishops, although he had the consolation of inclusion on the committee preparing to discuss it with the Lords.61CJ ii. 298b. As tension mounted following news of the Irish rebellion, Bowyer was named to confer with the Lords on Irish affairs (2 Nov.), and to legislate for the levying of troops (4 Nov.).62CJ ii. 302a, 305b. In the meantime he took advantage of parliamentary privilege to secure the release of a servant arrested in Chichester.63CJ ii. 305a.

Bowyer then vanished from the Journal for several weeks, during which the Commons considered the Grand Remonstrance and then delivered it to the king, returned from the north. In the wake of violence around Parliament surrounding the presentation of the London petition, Bowyer reappeared on a committee named to discuss sending armed men into Westminster (13 Dec.).64CJ ii. 340a. The next day he was among MPs who conferred with the Lords over representing to the king an alleged breach of privilege in his dealings with the Houses; his own opinions are not apparent, but his inclusion indicates he was still an important player.65CJ ii. 343b. He then received two further committee nominations on 20 and 27 December, including that for raising contributions for the relief of Protestants in Ireland, before departing for the quarter sessions in Sussex.66CJ ii. 350a, 357b; W. Suss. RO, QR/W45.

Bowyer was thereby absent from Westminster when Charles impeached the Five Members and attempted to effect their arrest on 4 January 1642. When he returned to Parliament after the king’s departure from the capital, he resisted moves to create a standing committee of both Houses (13 Jan.), on the grounds that it was against the ‘ancient order of this House, for that our power should not be given to a few men’ – an observation which might reflect a negative experience of the recess committee.67PJ i. 59. That day he was apparently a key member of the committee which reviewed whether those recently committed to the serjeant-at-arms by Parliament should be bailed.68CJ ii. 376b; PJ i. 60. Still influential, he was added to the committee for putting the kingdom in a ‘posture of defence’, and named to the committee to meet with the Lords regarding the petition to be sent to Charles (17 Jan.).69PJ i. 95; CJ ii. 383b, 384a.

But by this time he had become more openly critical of the king’s opponents in the House. On 27 January, when a lengthy and heated debate followed a suggestion by leading courtier James Stuart, 1st duke of Richmond, that the Lords should adjourn for six months, Bowyer attacked those who spoke ‘treason against prerogative’.70PJ i. 198. He evidently thought that militants like Sir John Hotham* had gone too far in contemplation of measures for defending the kingdom. In a debate on 1 February he reminded his colleagues that ‘it was one of the grievances we complained of when the Petition of Right was in agitation to billet soldiers upon us against our minds’ and requested that ‘we should be very careful’ in measures for accommodating troops.71PJ i. 246. An apparently leading member of the new committee for naval affairs – which would evolve in August into the Committee of Navy and Customs – he was also active in promoting the campaign against the Irish rebels, proposing on 25 February that a Sussex dealer should be allowed to transport 500 quarters of wheat there free of customs duties. On 24 February he was added to the committee for informations – or as it would become known, the Committee for Examinations.72Supra, ‘Committee for Examinations’; ‘Committee of Navy and Customs’; CJ ii. 393a, 452b; PJ i. 168, 464, 467.

Between late February and mid-June, however, Bowyer disappeared from the parliamentary record, suggesting at the least withdrawal into the background to consider his position. He reappeared on 21 June 1642, when he was named to a committee to discuss with peers a printed declaration reputed to have come from the king, ‘which imports a preparation of a war’, on which he might be presumed to have been among the most pacific participants.73CJ ii. 635b. He apparently remained at Westminster for several weeks, collecting three more committee nominations (one on 22 June and two on 21 July), but promptly thereafter went home to Sussex.74CJ ii. 684b.

Although not named by the king as a commissioner of array for the county, Bowyer was soon associated with those who were. On 9 August a letter was read to the House in which it appeared that Bowyer, along with John Alford*, Sir William Morley* and Thomas May*, were attempting to seize Chichester for Charles, whereupon they were summoned to the Commons for questioning.75CJ ii. 711a. A newspaper report had it that Bowyer, Morley, and May, acting with royalist clergy from the cathedral, had demanded the magazine in the king’s name, only to be denied.76An Exact Relation from Portsmouth (1642), sigs. Av-A2 (E.112.34); Exceeding Good News (1642), 5 (E.114.3). On 20 August Bowyer was ‘discharged from any further attendance’ – presumably at the examining committee, having satisfied a majority of its members in some measure as to his conduct.77CJ ii. 729b. Like Morley, he was in the House on 27 August, when Henry Marten*, noting the presence of ‘some Sussex men that were lately come up’, demanded that they should assent to the declaration of allegiance to Parliament’s commander-in-chief, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex. While Sir William obliged, Bowyer seems to have hesitated. Identified sitting immediately to the left of Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, Bowyer was challenged to follow suit, whereupon he ‘stood up and said that he did agree to the same declaration so far as it might stand with the oaths of supremacy and allegiance’. According to D’Ewes, ‘divers violent spirits’ then ‘called out to him to withdraw as if he had committed some great offence’, which he rose ‘ready to do’, but the diarist, who had his own axe to grind against the militants, persuaded him to remain. Speaker William Lenthall* advised Bowyer to decline to take the oath if he ‘were not satisfied’ with it, which he duly did, but (D’Ewes recounted) he was persuaded to change his mind when D’Ewes then provided a rationale for taking the oath on his own account. Again rising to his feet, Bowyer requested

the favour of the House that he might not be surprised upon the sudden, this question being new to him, and that now understanding … that all these particulars were taken in a conjoined sense, he was ready to give his aye to it.

His offer was accepted, despite protestations from radicals like William Strode I*.78PJ iii. 321-2; CJ ii. 740a.

On 19 September Bowyer sought to placate his enemies in the House by pledging £50 to Parliament’s cause.79PJ iii. 477; CJ ii. 772b. Even so, he soon withdrew from the House, provoking the Commons to summon his attendance (1 Nov.).80CJ ii. 829b. Revelations about his role in a second, successful attempt to seize Chichester for the king resulted in his removal from the House on 23 November.81Add. 18777, f. 68b; CJ ii. 860b. Yet thereafter he seems to have made no further contribution to the royalist war effort, retiring to Leythorne.

Sequestration proceedings against him were instigated by the Commons on 27 June 1643.82CJ iii. 148a. The Sussex county committee set about their task with zeal: by the autumn portions of his rents were being received by the treasurer for sequestrations.83SP28/214, unfol. In February 1644, however, Bowyer pleaded that he had ‘come in’ to the parliamentary fold, out of a genuine desire to serve Parliament, and not merely to protect his estates. His claims to have kept to his house for 15 months, and denials of having sent horses, arms or money to the king failed to lift his sequestration.84CCC 833; SP20/1, p. 216. Nevertheless, in June 1645 he secured a reduction in his assessment from £1,500 to £400, although on 11 August it was ordered that he be brought into custody to pay this sum.85CCAM 421; CJ iii. 725a. Lingering suspicion may have attached to him owing to the activities on behalf of the king of his sister-in-law, Jane Whorwood.86‘Jane Whorwood’, Oxford DNB.

Despite further petitions, Bowyer had not succeeded in getting the sequestration of his estates discharged by the time, describing himself as ‘infirm’, he drew up his will in January 1649. He left rather modest annuities to his wife, Dame Anne, and his sons Thomas and (from his third marriage) James and Algernon, and portions of £600 to Thomas the younger’s two (unnamed) daughters. He also provided for his daughter-in-law, provided that this was not Thomas’s ‘now wife Katherine, daughter of Richard Stany esquire’.87CJ iv. 724a; SP20/5, f. 105v; W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 20,505. Following his death in February 1650, Bowyer’s executors unsuccessfully launched a challenge to the sequestration of the estate before the barons of the exchequer, claiming that Bowyer had died with debts of £8,000. In March 1652 they paid a posthumous fine, set at £2,033, and the estate was discharged from sequestration.88CCC 833, 469. Thomas the younger and James succeeded their father successively as second and third baronets, but neither sat in Parliament or left male heirs, and the family patrimony dwindled away.89CB.