TUFTON, Sir Humfrey (1584-1659), of Mote, Maidstone and Hothfield.

Tufton was the scion of a prestigious and wealthy family whose elder brother, Sir Nicholas Tufton† (d. 1631), was elevated to the peerage as 1st earl of Thanet. Despite being a younger son, Tufton secured a propitious match, to the daughter of one of the most well established gentry families in Sussex, which brought a portion of £6,000, as well as the Morley family estate at Glynde.34E. Suss. RO, Glynde MSS 134, 138, 140-1, 144-8. There is evidence that Tufton was favoured at court, and he was granted royal lands in Essex and Kent, as well as in the parish of St Sepulchre, London.35CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 29. He was also put forward for the parliamentary seat of Chippenham in Wiltshire in 1614, with the backing of his kinswoman, Cecily, countess of Rutland, but was forced to step down in favour of a candidate sponsored by Sir Anthony Hungerford†.36F.H. Goldney, Recs. of Chippenham (Chippenham, 1889), 328. Tufton’s burgeoning career as a courtier came to an abrupt end in 1616, when he was accused of ‘bastinading’ the son of Edward Nevill†, 8th Baron Abergavenny, ‘in a jealous humour that he made love to his wife’. The case was brought before star chamber, and Tufton was fined £4,000, while some of his personal servants faced the pillory and the whip.37CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 414, 588; STAC8/223/2; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 179.

During the decades which followed Tufton made little impression on public life. Although he retained property in the parishes of St Margaret’s Westminster, and St Giles-in-the-Fields, he seems to have led the life of a country squire.38CSP Dom. 1639, p. 13. There is no evidence that he resumed his attempts to secure a parliamentary seat, and he busied himself instead with his duties as justice of the peace, deputy lieutenant, and local commissioner.39Stowe 743, f. 108; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 419. Tufton was reluctant to contribute to the benevolence in 1621, and was summoned to attend the privy council as a result, but in later years he emerged as a loyal supporter of the crown, and during the bishops’ wars, he undertook ‘wary and cheerful’ management of the militia troops summoned for the Scottish expedition.40SP14/127, f. 82; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 148.

Although no evidence survives to suggest that Tufton sought a seat in the Short Parliament in the spring of 1640, he stood for Maidstone in the autumn, in an election marked by ‘much strife’ between Tufton and a rival candidate, Sir Francis Barnham*. Although this dispute ostensibly centred upon both men’s desire to take the senior place, there was also a degree of personal animosity between them, and when ‘they two gave one another the lie’, the result was physical violence during a row in the town’s schoolhouse.41Bodl. Rawl. D.141, p. 7. At Westminster, Tufton was a natural supporter of the crown, as evidenced by his speech regarding the need to supply the army (19 Nov. 1640), but he displayed little inclination for reform in the early months of the Long Parliament.42D’Ewes (N), 43. His infrequent committee nominations during the first session involved minor legislation regarding private matters, and a relatively insignificant aspect of the trial of Sir Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford, although he was also appointed to consider the abolition of trial by combat, and the bill against pluralities.43CJ ii. 79b, 93b, 100b, 101a, 103b. But while Tufton was evidently regarded as being influential by some of those with business depending at Westminster, he may have withdrawn from the House in the wake of the army plot in the spring of 1641.44Procs. in Kent 1640 ed. Larking, 162-3; CJ ii. 133a. The grant of a baronetcy in the following December indicates that Charles I considered Tufton worth cultivating, if nothing more.45CB.

As political tensions mounted during the spring of 1642, Tufton may have considered withdrawing from Westminster altogether, but by June, as it became clear that his county was predominantly parliamentarian, his options were limited. He was deputed to return to Kent in late June, to organise the militia and attend the forthcoming assizes, and his reluctance to serve raised suspicions about his loyalty; he was absolved only on taking the covenant to support the parliamentarian lord general (Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex) in September.46CJ ii. 483a, 641a, 686b, 724a, 750a, 755b, 756a; PJ iii. 277. Unlike his nephew John Tufton, 2nd earl of Thanet, who fled into royalist exile, Tufton spent the following year working for Parliament in the county. Although his obvious lack of zeal provoked further protests from more radical colleagues, he was assiduous in attending the county committee during the summer of 1643, and even made complaints of his own about those who lacked enthusiasm for the cause came.47CJ ii. 765b; iii. 31b; Harl. 164, ff. 356v, 357a; Bodl. Nalson XI, ff. 161-2, 192-3, 197; Bodl. Tanner 62, ff. 186, 222; CCL, U85/35/7. Tufton’s activity declined sharply in the wake of the failure of peace initiatives in the late summer of 1643, prompting moves to levy an assessment on his lands in late December.48CJ iii. 347b; Harl. 165, ff. 252v-53. Jogged into action by this threat, Tufton belatedly subscribed the Solemn League and Covenant (13 Jan. 1644), and resumed his seat in the Commons.49CJ iii. 365a; Harl. 165, f. 1030. During 1644 he was nominated to a handful of committees, and although some of these predictably related to local administration and military organisation, he was also appointed to committees to consider wider aspects of the war effort, attempts to raise money from the City, and reform of the prerogative courts.50CJ iii. 383b, 455b, 457a, 541b, 563b, 666b, 688a; Harl. 166, f. 148-v.

As a closet royalist, it was no surprise that Tufton was named to the committee to receive a delegation from the king in mid-December 1644, and the failure of the ensuing negotiations at Uxbridge prompted him to withdraw once again from the House.51CJ iii. 725b. Between February 1645 and August 1648 he was granted leave of absence on eight separate occasions, and the only evidence of his attendance during that period was a nomination to the committee for petitions in August 1645, and his involvement in plans to reward William, 1st Baron Grey of Warke† in December 1646. Although Tufton undoubtedly suffered from ill health at this time, there is little doubt that his absence was caused by political disaffection.52CJ iv. 63a, 195b, 228b, 268b, 453a, 647a; v. 30a, 193a, 251a, 677b; LJ viii. 630a. Indeed, Tufton’s nomination to a committee regarding the army on 22 November 1648, which focused on its payment, freedom of movement, and claims to free quarter, revealed his opposition to the military interest. He was duly secluded at Pride’s Purge on 6 December.53CJ vi. 83b; A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62); A Vindication (1649), 28 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5).

The last years of Tufton’s life were marked by futile attempts to secure assistance for his royalist relatives, and a series of battles with those who sequestered portions of his estate in Wiltshire and Sussex. His complaints to the commissioners for compounding appear to have found little favour, although the security of his estate in Kent may have been improved by his elevation to the shrievalty in 1654, amid attempts to promote ‘healing and settling’ in the region.54CSP Dom. 1650, p. 35; CCC 2282, 2766; SP23/125, pp. 301, 304; Cent. Kent. Stud. U55/O31. Tufton died sometime before 8 October 1659, when administration of his estate was granted to his eldest surviving son, Sir John Tufton†, who sat in Parliament after the Restoration, both as a knight of the shire, and as burgess for Maidstone.55PROB6/35, f. 277v; HP Commons 1660-1690.