EVERSFIELD, Thomas (1614-49), of The Grove, Hollington, Suss.

Eversfield’s family had no ancient connection with Sussex, having moved from Surrey only in the late sixteenth century, but it quickly became prominent among the county gentry. During the seventeenth century the family split into two branches, the senior living at Denne and the junior at Hollington.19Comber, Suss. Genealogies Horsham, 89-93; Notes IPMs Suss., 83. Some confusion has arisen from the fact that during the 1640s there was a Sir Thomas Eversfield of Denne and another of Hollington, who were second cousins.20E179/191/388. This MP’s grandfather, also Thomas Eversfield, acquired The Grove and an estate of some 600 acres in 1586, and served as sheriff of the county in 1599-1600.21Notes IPMs Suss., 84. The MP’s father, Nicholas Eversfield†, was sheriff in 1619-1620, a justice of the peace from 1624 until his death, and represented Hastings in Parliament between 1624 and 1628.22HP Commons 1604-1629.

One of the radical `godly’ in the eastern half of Sussex, this Nicholas Eversfield led the opposition to Thomas Large, minister of Hollington, who was suspected of popery, and organised the withholding of tithes by his tenants.23STAC8/195/28. He refused the Palatinate loan of 1622 and challenged Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset, over the customs of the manor of Framfield.24Add. 5701, f. 136; SP14/127/79; C78/434/8. His victory in the election at Hastings in 1624 was a triumph for local gentry over the power of the then lord warden of the Cinque Ports, Edward Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche.25Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, ff. 15, 19v, 24v. In June 1626 he was involved in paying for and circulating the remonstrance to the king issued shortly before the dissolution of the Parliament.26CSP Dom. 1625-6, pp. 354-5. Having retained his seat in 1626, Eversfield persuaded the borough to return another member of the godly, Sir Thomas Parker*, in opposition to the next lord warden, George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham.27Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, f. 31.

Nicholas Eversfield died in May 1629, leaving his son Thomas, aged almost 15, and putting two thirds of his estate in trust.28Suss. Manors, i. 179, 233, 279; Notes IPMs Suss., 84; PROB11/156/360 (Nicholas Eversfeilde). The wardship was bought in February 1630 by Robert Morley† of Glynde (father of Harbert Morley*), and by Thomas’s uncles, Anthony Eversfield, Henry Goringe* of Okehurst and Edward Goring of Highden.29W. Suss. RO, Wiston MSS 672-4; PROB11/156/360. Thomas Eversfield entered the Inner Temple in November 1632 and was formally admitted in February 1633. He was not called to the bar, although he retained his chambers for many years; his younger brother, John Eversfield†, became a student in 1642. Thomas would later be threatened with expulsion from his rooms (Nov. 1647), for non-payment of debts to the society.30I. Temple Admissions database; IT Admiss. 271; Al. Ox.; CITR ii. 278.

In April 1635, aged 20, Eversfield married Elizabeth Goring, his second cousin, adding to multiple connections between the two families, Nicholas Eversfield’s two brothers-in-law having married daughters of Sir Thomas Eversfield of Denne (d. 1616). Our Thomas Eversfield lived with his wife at Burton until her death in March 1636, following the birth of their short-lived son, Goring Eversfield. In May 1637 he married Jane Alford, daughter of John Alford* of Offington in Sussex, in what was probably an auspicious match.31GL, MS 6777/1, p. 103; Suss. N. and Q. xiv. 253. For all of his father’s godly zeal, Thomas Eversfield grew up amongst a group of men of a very different complexion, and the Gorings and Alfords would later incline to royalism, or at least to an uncomfortable inactivity during the civil wars, which led to suspicions regarding their allegiance to Parliament.

Given his father’s long connection with Hastings, Thomas Eversfield’s involvement in the borough election in the spring of 1640 comes as little surprise. As in the 1620s, the battle centred on the nominee of the lord warden (the godly Theophilus Howard, 2nd earl of Suffolk), Robert Reade*, nephew and secretary to Secretary of state Sir Francis Windebanke*, and an outsider to the borough. It was alleged that bribes were offered by Reade and John White I* (secretary to Edward Sackville, 4th earl of Dorset), and that Reade was a Catholic; Eversfield led the opposition of the freemen, who issued a statement (20 Mar. 1640), complaining of the way in which the election had been handled. At a meeting called by the mayor, Thomas Barlow (13 Mar.), the freemen heard letters of recommendation on Reade’s behalf and a promise from White that the town would receive a grant of £20, and an annuity of £10, as well as two barrels of powder annually. The freemen asked for time to consider their position, and at the next meeting declared that they approved of the letters but not the candidate. When Barlow threatened to report them to the lord warden for this impertinence, they walked out, complaining that Reade was returned, ‘as we conceive contrary to our free election’.32SP16/448, f. 90.

The mayor, who clearly supported Reade, blamed Eversfield, who ‘means to overthrow the election at the Parliament’, for this behaviour. Incited by the latter, the freemen disturbed the ceremony at the town hall in which Reade and Sir John Baker* took the oath as burgesses.33SP16/450, f. 13; CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 2-3. On 7 April Barlow sent Reade ‘private notes’ regarding Eversfield’s ‘pretended intended claim, [which] you may please to make use, as you see occasion’.34CSP Dom. 1640, p. 12. Eversfield’s party, including many of his tenants, were alleged to have engaged in house-to-house canvassing in support of a protest against Reade’s election, and to have laboured strongly in the taverns, alehouses, and ‘private assemblies’. Eversfield further stirred up resentment against the mayor and jurats, it was claimed, by questioning what had been done with the proceeds from the collection of Ship Money.35SP16/450, f. 77. The mayor denied Eversfield’s ‘scandalous aspersions’, and was confident that he could be frustrated, and that Reade could secure the seat with the help of the lord warden, who would ‘send for them and examine them about their mutiny’.36SP16/450, f. 79; CSP Dom. 1640, p. 56. In a final, and bizarre move, Barlow told Reade a curious story of how Eversfield had ridden into Hastings accompanied by a drummer and two fiddlers sitting back to back on the same horse.37SP16/450, f. 112.

Eversfield’s attempts to block Reade’s return proved fruitless, but he was evidently determined to prevent the same thing happening in the autumn elections. By early October he had secured a position as a freeman of the corporation, so that he could lead the campaign as an insider. With Barlow no longer mayor, Eversfield and John Ashburnham* were returned as burgesses to Parliament.38Hastings Museum, C/A(a)2, ff. 88v-89v. Reade had planned his campaign carefully, noting the need to obtain commendatory letters from the lord warden, the duke of Lennox, and the earl of Dorset, and suggesting that those chosen as burgesses ought to be freemen before the date on which the writ was issued.39SP16/469, f. 163; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 158.

The fact that Eversfield made no attempt to prevent the election of Ashburnham sheds light on his motivation. Ashburnham, who would become one of the king’s most ardent supporters and closest advisers, was not, like Reade, an outsider; nor was he a crypto-Catholic ally of Windebanke and the queen – although it is not entirely clear how far godly considerations weighed with Eversfield. His father had displayed hostility to the vicar of Hollington, appointed by the Catholic Viscount Montague of Cowdray. Thomas Eversfield, on the other hand, was evidently close to the incumbent of the 1620s and 1630s, John Abbot, who in his 1644 will named him overseer and acknowledged him gratefully as ‘my honourable patron.40PROB11/193/335; Suss. Arch. Coll. xxi. 154. In 1642, when the living was in danger of being sequestered, Eversfield, together with his father-in-law, John Alford, and his kinsmen Henry and Edward Goring, acquired the advowson from Viscount Montague.41Suss. Manors, i. 220. On Abbot’s death in 1644, he was succeeded by Thomas Carr, who managed to ride out the controversies of the interregnum and Restoration, and held the cure until 1667.42Suss. Arch. Coll. xxi. 154.

Eversfield made no impact on the records of the Commons until 21 April 1641, when he was given leave to go to the country for 5 or 6 days, to deal with ‘necessary affairs’. 43CJ ii. 124b; Harl. 163, f. 80. His departure coincided with the third reading of the bill to attaint the 1st earl of Strafford (ir Thomas Wentworth†), suggesting that he scrupled at the attainder, and did not wish to be present on the day of the vote. His father-in-law, John Alford, was one of those who voted against the measure, and Eversfield himself seems to have owned a van Dyck portrait of Strafford.44Suss. N. and Q., xiv. 255-6. The knighthood conferred on him at Whitehall on 23 July may constitute thanks for baulking at the condemnation of a royal minister.45Shaw, Knights of Eng., ii. 210.

Eversfield’s activity at Westminster was limited to passing the very obvious tests of loyalty. He was present in the House on 8 May 1641, when he signed the Protestation, and on 10 October 1642, when he voted to adhere to Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, as commander of Parliament’s forces, and promised to give £100.46CJ ii. 139a, 802b; Harl. 163, f. 149; Harl. 477, f. 44b. This proves little, however: many who did likewise in October 1642 would fail later, more telling, tests of loyalty. In the only committee appointment of his career (22 Oct. 1642), Eversfield may simply have been making up the numbers to negotiate with City authorities, on account of the fact that many of those formerly appointed were absent from Westminster.47CJ ii. 819b.

Eversfield clearly struggled to come to terms with the outbreak of civil war, and soon withdrew from Westminster. On 9 May 1643 the Commons sought his attendance within 10 days, on pain of a fine of £200, which would be levied upon his estates.48CJ iii. 77b. Clearly, he did not return, since on 18 July Harbert Morley* was ordered to make the levy.49CJ iii. 171a. It seems curious that Eversfield was named to the county committee later that day, but perhaps that was an error.50CJ iii. 173a. Along with his father-in-law Alford, and his kinsmen, Edward and Henry Goringe, on 4 September he was removed from all parliamentary committees in Sussex.51CJ iii. 227a. Meanwhile, Eversfield refused to pay his taxes, and on 24 May was ordered to be brought into custody to pay his assessment on an estate valued at £800 per annum. During the summer he paid over £700 to ensure that sequestration proceedings were discharged (16 Sept.), but less than two weeks later the Commons ordered proceedings to be re-instigated, for his neglect of the commonwealth, and his failure to attend the House.52SP19/3, pp. 127, 140, 156, 238; CCAM 299-300; CJ iii. 256a. This was followed by an order (25 Nov.) that he should be assessed for his twentieth part.53CJ iii. 319b; CCAM 299; SP19/2, p. 165.

Like many of his friends and kinsmen in Sussex who were suspected of being crypto-royalists, Eversfield maintained a low profile during the civil war, and occupied himself instead in private affairs, which included loans to the lord lieutenant, Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, from whom he received interest of £30-40 per year (on £500) until 1649.54Alnwick Castle, Northumberland MSS, U.I.6. On 5 February 1644 the Commons, fearing that he was with the king, disabled him from sitting at Westminster, and that year he was also removed from the county bench, to which he had probably been appointed in 1642, but on which he had been entirely inactive.55CJ iii. 389b; Suss. QSOB 1642-1649, p. xxvii.

A writ for a new election was ordered on 3 September 1645, but was not acted upon.56CJ iv. 263. Having in the interim played no part in political events either at Westminster or in Sussex, Eversfield returned to a slightly more prominent position early in 1648, as part of a resurgence by the moderates and crypto-royalists in the county in the months before the second civil war. In February he was named as a commissioner for the assessment for Ireland, and a month later he rejoined the county bench.57A. and O.; ASSI35/89/9; ASSI35/89/2. His re-emergence was evidently checked by the execution of the king and the coming of the commonwealth, but remarkably, particularly for a county renowned for its godly zeal and parliamentarian politics, on 7 November 1649 he was appointed sheriff, like his grandfather and father before him, and like his cousin, Sir Thomas Eversfield of Denne, who held the post in 1646.58CJ vi. 319b. Within weeks, however, he was dead, and following his burial at Hollington (24 Nov.), the Commons nominated a replacement sheriff.59CJ vi. 326b; E. Suss. RO, Hollington par. reg. transcript.

Eversfield drew up his will in July 1644. In the absence of a son, his estates were bequeathed to his daughters, Frances, who received a portion of £3,000, and Elizabeth, who was to have those lands which would pass to Eversfield at the death of his mother-in-law, Frances Alford. Eversfield named his brothers, Edward Eversfield† and Anthony Eversfield†, as executors, and John Alford and Sir Thomas Pelham* as overseers.60PROB11/212/310.; Suss. Arch. Coll. xxi. 150-1. Three of Eversfield’s younger brothers sat at Westminster after the restoration of the monarchy; Edward and John Eversfield†, who sat in the Convention, were both listed as having been proposed as knights of the royal oak, confirming the family’s royalist inclinations. Anthony Eversfield, Member for Horsham between 1679 and 1689, was reckoned to be a supporter of the court interest.61HP Commons 1660-1690. Sir Thomas Eversfield’s nephew, Nicholas Eversfield†, and his son, Charles Eversfield†, continued the family presence at Westminster until the mid-eighteenth century.62HP Commons 1660-1690; HP Commons 1690-1715; HP Commons 1715-1754.