MIDDLETON, Thomas (1589-1662), of Hills Place, Horsham, and later of Hangleton, Suss.

Middleton’s ancestors rose to prosperity through the Sussex iron trade, although a great-great-grandfather of our MP had been a minor courtier to Henry VIII. Middleton’s father, John Middleton†, six times MP for Horsham between 1614 and 1628, extended the family estate, acquiring and reconstructing Hills Place (which became the family seat) as well as the manors of Waldron and Prestwood.24C54/2555/14; Blaauw, ‘Passages of the Civil War in Suss.’, 87. Among his friends in the county were many from the prominent Catholic gentry and nobility, including Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu.25Suss. Manors, ii. 363, 394. Furthermore, his eldest son, Thomas Middleton, married into the Shelleys of Worminghurst, a wealthy recusant family who were prominent in the western rapes of the county.26Add. 5698, f. 268.

As a result of this marriage Middleton’s father incurred heavy debts. In 1627 he petitioned the privy council for extra time to pay them off, complaining that, while his estate was sufficiently large for the purpose, his creditors, ‘out of malice, and without any just ground, pressed him with much extremity’. Protection was granted for in successive years and by December 1630, when he sought it for one final year, he claimed to have repaid over £11,000.27APC Jan.-Aug. 1627, p. 340; Sept. 1627-June 1628, p. 512; May 1629-May 1630, p. 27; June 1630-June 1631, p. 169; SO3/8.

At his father’s death in July 1636, therefore, Middleton appears to have succeeded to an estate which was largely unencumbered with debts, although he did realise £5,500 in 1641 from selling the manor of Findon.28Notes IPMs Suss., 160; WARD7/94/120; Suss. Manors, i. 167; C54/3276/25. He had already held local office.29C181/3, ff. 134, 167; C181/4, ff. 47, 54 Placed on the commission of peace in 1634, later he may have been removed from the bench for a short while, but he was evidently re-nominated in July 1637.30C231/5, p. 268. Thereafter he was assiduous in attending the quarter sessions until July 1642.31E. Suss. RO, QR/E39, EW42, EW46, E49, EW50, E51, E52, EW57; SP16/383, f. 55; SP16/386, f. 224; SP16/426, f. 87.

In both parliamentary elections in 1640 Middleton was returned for Horsham, a borough traditionally under the influence of the earls of Arundel, but since his father’s time dominated by local gentry. On both occasions Middleton’s partner was another local man, Hall Ravenscroft*, a family friend.32PROB11/182/526 (Francis Middleton). Middleton made no impression on the Short Parliament, and the first evidence of his presence in the Long Parliament saw him being granted leave to go into the country, on 10 March 1641.33D’Ewes (N), 464. He took the Protestation on 3 May, however, and was in the House on the 19th, when he played an integral, if accidental, role in an incident important for the light it casts on the tension at Westminster.34CJ ii. 133a. When Sir Walter Erle* reported rumours of a plot to blow up Parliament, Middleton and John Moyle I*, standing to hear him, caused a board in the gallery to break, prompting many members to flee the House, falling over each other in the process.35Harl. 477, f. 1v; OPH ix. 302; Nalson, Impartial Collections ii. 191–2; Harl. 163, f. 200v.

Although not visibly active in the Commons, Middleton was clearly zealous in county administration. As a justice of the peace he administered the Protestation to the clergy of Horsham, Cowfold, Nuthurst, and Shermanbury, so that they could then do the same for their parishioners.36West Suss. Protestation Returns, 66, 97, 130, 151–2. He also donated 2s. 6d. for the relief of distressed protestants in Ireland in May 1642.37E179/191/390/1. Nevertheless, that summer suspicions appear to have surfaced about his fidelity to Parliament, possibly because of his persistent links with the region’s prominent Catholics. The previous year, for example, Middleton had been involved in property transactions with Sir John Shelley and John Tufton, 2nd earl of Thanet.38Suss. Manors, i. 167; C54/3276/25. Like other men whose support for Parliament was doubted, Middleton was submitted to a loyalty test in October 1642, when he was required to take the covenant to assist Parliament’s lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex. Middleton obliged on the 15th, and pledged £50 to Parliament’s war effort.39CJ ii. 810a; PJ iii. 479. A week later, he received his first committee appointment, replacing previously nominated Members, now absent from the House, in negotiating with the City of London authorities.40CJ ii. 819b. On 1 November he was added to the committee charged with raising money for the parliamentary cause in Sussex, but his next appointment was not until 14 April 1643 (to consider a petition from the Merchant Adventurers). Further nominations were only occasional, however, and it was in relation to county affairs that Middleton achieved notice.41CJ ii. 830a; iii. 44a.

During 1643 Middleton was reckoned by one observer to have been among the ‘most active men’ in Sussex.42SP46/105, f. 107. In March 1643 Parliament responded to a petition from parishioners at Horsham for a ‘godly’ preacher, which Middleton and Hall Ravenscroft clearly organised, with an order that the pair sequester the profits of the vicarage to provide support for their candidate, John Chatfield.43LJ v. 678-9; PA, Main Pprs. 19 Dec. 1642. That July the Commons approved Middleton as a deputy lieutenant for his county (though it was still under discussion in December) and a member of the county committee, on which he became active.44CJ iii. 156a, 163a, 173a, 354a; SP19/90, f. 40.

However, Middleton’s high profile in local affairs made him the target for those in the county suspicious of his moderation, and by 26 August 1644 accusations against him had been laid before war-party member and Kentish MP Sir Henry Heyman*.45CJ iii. 607b. Among 23 articles, it was alleged that in December 1643, when the king’s forces invaded Sussex and took Arundel, Middleton had feigned sickness in order to avoid taking a stand for the defence of the county, and had discouraged others from taking up arms for Parliament as royalist troops approached Horsham.46HMC Portland, i. 183. He had also criticised attempts to fortify the town and managed to ‘discourage the well affected’. A number of ‘notorious delinquents’ and papists were known to have met at his sister’s house and another of his kinsmen spent two evenings in Horsham, ‘and there desired and used all means to know what the word was’ regarding the town’s defences. While the approaching royalist troops were said to have dispersed upon the arrest of these delinquents, Middleton had then released the prisoners, despite a letter from James Temple* forbidding him to do so. Additionally, Middleton was reported to have opposed the delivery of sermons exhorting the people to take the Solemn League and Covenant; failed to instruct ministers to tender the Covenant to their parishioners; refused to question those arrested for having spoken against Parliament; insulted the godly preacher, Hugh Peter, on his visit to the county; attempted to lower the assessment for the county; formally challenged the power of the county committee to seize the arms of known Papists; restored sequestered property; and offered protection to known delinquents.47Bodl. Nalson XVI, no. 36.

These allegations, from an unknown source, probably originated among zealous members of the ‘war party’ in the county, such as William Cawley I* and Harbert Morley*, and seem to have been part of a wider assault on their more moderate colleagues. Nevertheless, as with the attempts to unseat Sir Thomas Pelham* and Sir Thomas Parker*, such efforts proved fruitless. That all three retained the trust of the parliamentary leadership is clear from the order on 9 January 1645 that they and others were to go into the county to take steps for its ‘preservation’.48CJ iv. 14a. Furthermore, in March instructions were forwarded to Middleton and Hall Ravenscroft in Sussex to use their best endeavours in the collection of money for paying off the Scots.49CJ iv. 75b.

Another attempt seems to have been made to discredit Middleton in April, when the House ordered William Cawley to write to him requesting his attendance to answer charges in a petition presented by ‘divers Sussex gentlemen’.50CJ iv. 99a. This move also failed, and Middleton retained the confidence of at least some elements in Parliament. He was named, for example, to a committee in June 1645 to treat with the lenders of £80,000 for the army under Sir Thomas Fairfax*.51CJ iv. 164a. Nevertheless, Middleton would make no further mark on affairs at Westminster until December 1647.

Meanwhile in Sussex, Middleton was most visible in traditional areas of local administration, where men such as Sir Thomas Pelham* and Sir Thomas Parker* were prominent, suggesting that he was a conservative. Consistently in attendance on the county bench from April 1642 to April 1648, unlike many of his fellow justices he was not averse to travelling beyond Horsham to attend sessions at Chichester, Lewes, Petworth, and Arundel.52Suss. QSOB 1642–1649, 1, 15, 18, 22, 37, 93, 96, 104, 121, 149. On the other hand, on the county committee, where those more zealous in pursuit of the war such as Harbert Morley* were powerful, Middleton’s activity was limited. Indeed, even that modest contribution may have fostered hostility towards him, as his conservative inclinations became apparent. In September 1645, for example, he helped make a report to Speaker William Lenthall* regarding the grievances of the Clubmen in the region, and in 1646 he joined those petitioning the Committee for Compounding on behalf of Thomas May*, who had been ejected from Parliament and sequestered for having been at Chichester during the royalist occupation in 1642.53Bodl. Tanner 60, ff. 251–255v; SP23/176, pp. 211, 231. Middleton’s status as a central figure among the political Presbyterians in Sussex is confirmed by his proposed nomination, along with another suspect MP, Sir William Morley*, to the Sussex sub-committee of accounts. This proposal was made to the Presbyterian-controlled Committee of Accounts* by local gentry who were themselves either Presbyterians, neutrals or suspected royalists, such as Nathaniel Powell*, a long-time servant to the earl of Thanet.54SP28/257, unfol.

In 1648 Middleton took a prominent role in the royalist-inspired disturbances in Sussex. In June both he and his son John signed the Sussex petition, which called for a lenient settlement with the king, and which was reported with approval by royalist newsbooks.55PA, Parchment Collection, Box 11; New Propositions Agreed Upon (13 June 1648, E.447.7); Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 264 (6-13 June 1648), 974 (E.447.10); Perfect Weekly Account, no. 13 (7-14 June 1648), sigs. O3v-O4v (E.447.15); Moderate Intelligencer, no. 169 (8–15 June 1648), 1386 (E.447.24); Parliament-Kite, no. 5 (9-16 June 1648), 22 (E.447.28). Both father and son appear to have been involved in the Horsham rising in the same month.56Suss. Arch. Coll., xix. 108-10; SP46/104, ff. 24-6. Although Middleton was named by the Commons on 27 June to assist in suppressing the uprising, two days later he was summoned to attend the House, probably to answer for his conduct.57CJ v. 614b, 615b. On 20 July the House concurred with the Sussex sequestration committee’s action in arresting him and again sent for him to be examined.58CJ v. 638a, 640b; SP28/214; E113/13. But documents in the case were temporarily mislaid and he does not appear to have been excluded from the Commons until Pride’s Purge, when he was probably the Member petitioning the House on 7 December, and then turned away from the chamber by soldiers five days later, after which he was also removed from the county bench.59CJ vi. 94b; Mercurius Pragmaticus no. 38 (12-19 Dec. 1648), sig. Dd2(i) (E.476.35); ASSI35/89/2.

In response to proceedings against him, Middleton launched a legal challenge to the sequestration of his estates.60HMC Portland, i. 509. The Sussex sequestration commissioners claimed, however, that Middleton had sought to protect himself by selling lands and goods worth over £750 to his kinsman Edward Shelley, on 20 June 1648 for a term of three years. The county committee challenged Shelley’s title to such lands, on the grounds that the deal had been struck at the time of the Horsham rising; they clearly interpreted it as a sign of Middleton’s culpability and as a desperate expedient.61SP23/237, f. 196. Middleton claimed, however, that he had been sequestered ‘upon pretence of delinquency’ and that he had been a member of the Houses ‘sitting then constantly until the late secluding of divers members’. He had been ‘ever real in his actions and affections to the honour and safety of the Parliament according to his best understanding’ and had been sequestered ‘upon some misinformations’.62SP23/105, pp. 603, 605, 635. His case was confused by the claims made against his estate by one of his father’s creditors and by uncertainty over whether his lands had been settled on his son.63SP23/8, p. 55; SP23/10, f. 198v; SP23/237, ff. 190, 192, 194. The case dragged on until December 1651, when the sequestration of Middleton’s estate was discharged by the barons of exchequer, but John Middleton was still petitioning the commissioners for compounding in 1652 and both father and son remained suspect.64SP23/8, pp. 206, 210; SP23/10, ff. 60v, 61A; SP23/105, pp. 571, 627, 631, 633, 639; CCC 339, 2234. In April 1651 Middleton had been accused of supporting royalist insurgency in Sussex, although there is little evidence of this or any other activity during the remainder of the 1650s.65HMC Portland, i. 578.

Although he was eligible to return to Westminster with the restoration of the Long Parliament on 21 February 1660, Middleton made no impression at Westminster before Parliament dissolved itself on 16 March. He welcomed the return of the king to England in May 1660, being one of the signatories of the humble address of the county to Charles II.66SP29/1, f. 89. For his service to the king during the civil war, Middleton was proposed as a knight of the royal oak, his estate estimated to be worth £600 a year.67Blaauw, ‘Passages of the Civil War in Suss.’, 104. He returned to both the county bench, and Parliament, sitting once more for Horsham in the Convention.68ASSI35/102/7; ASSI35/103/7; ASSI35/103/8; HP Commons 1660-1690. Middleton was not recorded as being active, however, and in the Cavalier Parliament he made way for his son-in-law, Henry Chowne*.69Comber, Suss. Genealogies Horsham, 278. Middleton was clearly infirm by this stage, and his death must have occurred between July 1662, when he was last listed as being eligible to attend the assizes, and 20 October 1662, when his will was proved.70ASSI35/103/8; PROB11/309/290. None of his sons sat in Parliament.