LEEDES, Sir John (c.1591-1657 or 1658), of Wappingthorne, Steyning, Suss.

This MP appears to have come into possession of the family estates soon after he came of age, when his father went into exile in the Spanish Netherlands.20Suss. Arch. Coll. liv. 49, 54. Leedes’s parents and siblings lived for many years at Leuven (Louvain), where their Catholicism became increasingly apparent.21Suss. Arch. Coll. liv. 37-48; Recs. of the English Province of the SJ ed. H. Foley (1877), i. 246-7; VCH Suss. vi, part i, 229; HMC Downshire, iv. 246; Harl. 703, f. 152v; APC 1613-14, p. 234; Suss. Manors, i. 13, 223. There is no evidence that he himself was a Catholic, although his marriage in May 1610, at the age of only 19, had placed him in the milieu of patrons who certainly or probably were. 22London Marr. Lics. ed. Foster, 833. His father-in-law, Sir Thomas Monson†, was a client of Henry Howard, 1st earl of Northampton; like Monson, Leedes almost certainly owed to the Howards his knighthood (bestowed at Whitehall in January 1611) and a place at court (by November 1613).23Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 150; ‘Sir Thomas Monson’, HP Commons 1604-1629; HMC Downshire, iv. 247; Beinecke Lib. uncat. MS, box 19, no. 15.

Leedes had been returned to the Addled Parliament of 1614 as Member for the Sussex seat of Bramber, controlled by Thomas Howard, 14th or 21st earl of Arundel. Possibly under the influence of his father-in-law, Leedes soon emerged as an opponent of Sir George Villiers, later duke of Buckingham.24HMC Downshire, v. 183. When that November Monson was imprisoned in the Tower on suspicion of complicity in the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, Lady Leedes was incarcerated in the Fleet for ‘certain irreverent speeches’ and Sir John was placed under house arrest.25APC 1615-16, p. 323; HMC Downshire, v. 371, 378-9; HMC Buccleuch, i. 164-5; Letters from George Lord Carew, ed. J. MacLean (Cam. Soc. lxxvi), 19. However, his fall from grace at court was brief.26HMC Downshire, vi. 139, 350; Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 330.

In 1621 Leedes was returned to Parliament for New Shoreham, but did not manage to hold his place at Westminster. On 10 February he was removed from the House after it was found that he had sat for one day without taking the oath. During a long debate, it was noticed that his father was a ‘fugitive’, with suspicions that he scrupled to take communion, and it was suggested that he should even sent to the Tower, but exclusion was the only penalty imposed.27CJ i. 516b; Commons Debates 1621, ii. 54, v. 252, vi. 343; C231/4, f. 119; HP Commons 1604-1629. That July Leedes was in trouble again for ‘idle words’ critical of the Spanish match.28CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 275-6.

For two decades from 1618 Leedes struggled to control his finances and in 1621 he had to lease out his seat at Wappingthorne.29Add. Ch. 18929; Add. Ch. 18927; Add. 28241, ff. 80-129v; Suss. Manors, i. 134; ii. 443, 463-4; Preston Manor, WS/BQ/1. In 1625 he complained in a chancery deposition of his father's ‘many suits, controversies, and troubles in law’, and of the inconveniencies arising from the fact that many deeds were still held by his father's old lawyer.30C3/364/14. Notwithstanding this, having joined the circle around Sussex grandee Henry Percy, 3rd earl of Northumberland, a fellow opponent of Buckingham, in 1626 Leedes tried to obtain a parliamentary seat at Steyning, where Northumberland had an interest.31HMC 4th Rep., 124; Arundel Castle, Autograph Letters 1617-1632, J. Peers to R. Spiller, 16 Jan. 1626; HP Commons 1604-1629. He was unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, although he was no longer a significant figure at Whitehall, Leedes's status in the county was growing. He began to serve regularly in local administration, and was named to the bench sometime before 15 July 1630, when he was first listed as eligible to attend the assizes.32C181/2, f. 292; ASSI35/72/8. Shortly after (22 June 1631), he received a pass to travel on the continent for three years, but he did not leave England immediately, since he signed reports as a magistrate between May 1631 and November 1633; he also appears in an inventory of 1633 as having a chamber in the residence at Petworth of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland.33APC 1630-1, p. 397; SP16/191, f. 74; SP16/203, f. 51; SP16/210, f. 74; SP16/220, f. 92; SP16/250, f. 165; W. Suss. RO, QR/W25; Household Pprs. of Henry Percy, ed. G. R. Batho (Cam. Soc., 3rd ser. xciii), 120, 157. If he went abroad, it was probably between that date and February 1636, when his name was absent from the records of Sussex justices and when he had a particular motive for absenting himself.34SP16/314, f. 218. His brother Edward Leedes, who had become a Jesuit, was arrested in London in 1634 and sent to the Gatehouse for writing a book (as Father Courtney) against the oath of allegiance.35Recs. of the English Province, i. 251-68; ‘Edward Leedes’, Oxford DNB.

Thereafter, Leedes returned to the bench.36SP16/328, f. 171; SP16/347, f. 260; SP16/363, ff. 265, 267; SP16/364, f. 235; SP16/383, f. 30; SP16/386, f. 224; SP16/395, ff. 33, 228; SP16/426, ff. 51, 53. As a justice of the peace in February 1638 he was involved in a dispute over grain supplies with John Crane, victualler to the navy. Leedes prevented the transport of wheat to London on account of its scarcity in Sussex, and the fact that it was being sold for private profit and not used for the king's service.37CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 278-9; SP16/383, f. 47. Whether this suggests any opposition to the crown is unclear, but in 1639 Leedes refused to contribute to Charles’s Scottish campaign.38Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 914. By this time drastic measures such as temporary mortgages had improved his financial position sufficiently to allow him to claw back parts of his estate; he regained Wappingthorne by 1641.39Add. Ch. 18932; C54/2690/86; Suss. Manors, ii. 315, 464.

In the spring of 1640 Leedes was returned to Parliament as MP for Steyning alongside his old colleague Sir Thomas Farnefold*, perhaps through the influence of another, Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset, who had defended him in 1621.40C219/42ii/34. He made no mark on parliamentary records, and did not stand for re-election in the autumn, when his son, Thomas Leedes*, took the seat. Nevertheless, during February 1641 Sir John took the Protestations of Sussex ministers, churchwardens, and overseers, although he was too ill to travel to Lewes to sign it himself.41West Suss. Protestation Returns, 7.

Thereafter there is little evidence of his activity. In 1642 he was involved in the marriage settlement of his heir, quitclaiming Wappingthorne to Sir Ambrose Browne*, his son's father-in-law.42Suss. Manors, ii. 464. Last named as a justice of the peace on the assize list for 29 July 1642, he was evidently removed following his nomination on 6 August to the royalist commission of array.43ASSI35/84/8; Northants. RO, FH133, unfol. In June 1643 Harbert Morley* drew the Commons' attention to intercepted letters from Leedes, which were referred to the Committee of Safety, but it is not clear that he was active in the king’s cause.44CJ iii. 112a. He avoided sequestration proceedings. Assessed at £500 in August 1644, he had not paid on 18 September, when an order was issued that Leedes be brought into custody to encourage compliance. On 21 October the Committee for Advance of Money accepted late payment of £50, on the ground that Leedes was living out of town, and thus had not had notice of his assessment until 30 September.45CCAM 443.

Leedes does not resurface until February 1655, when he drew up his will as a resident of Whitefriars, London.46Preston Manor, WS/FR/3. He bemoaned the fact that 'my personal estate will not appear so considerable as to admit of any great solemnity at or about my burial’.47PROB11/283/516. During investigations in May 1658 into the royalist plot led by John Stapley*, depositions mentioned Leedes as among Sussex contacts in London potentially canvassed in Michaelmas term 1657, but he does not appear to have participated in any conspiracy.48TSP vii. 110, 165. His name did not appear on the list of royalist sympathisers in the county, drawn up in 1658.49Bodl. Eng. hist. e.309, p. 40. He died before 22 November, when his will was proved. Since his son had predeceased him, the principal beneficiary was a cousin, Robert Leedes of Beverley, Yorkshire.50PROB11/283/516. His son had been the last Leedes to sit in Parliament.