ALFORD, Sir Edward (?1594-1653), of St Andrew’s, Holborn, London, and Cashiobery, Herts.

Alford’s family had been resident in Sussex since the thirteenth century, but achieved a degree of prominence only from the sixteenth century, through the patronage of the Cecil family. Alford’s father was a notable MP, and a leading exponent of country, although not godly, interests.19HP Commons 1604-1629. In 1612 Alford was admitted to Christ Church, Oxford, which was to become a bastion of Arminianism, as was St John’s, where his elder brother John Alford* was a student.20Al. Ox. Although Edward Alford then went to Lincoln’s Inn, a predominantly ‘godly’ institution, he appears not to have belonged to its puritan network. The manucaptors who supported his admission included Edward Fettyplace, a barrister with strong Catholic connections.21LIL, Admiss. Bk. 4, f. 115; W.R. Prest, The Rise of the Barristers (1986), 360.

Edward Alford was not mentioned in his father’s will of 1630, but it seems likely that his inheritance had already been settled.22PROB11/161/72. Shortly after receiving a knighthood, in December 1632 Alford married Mary, daughter of Sir Baptist Hicks†, 1st Viscount Campden, as her third husband after Sir Charles Morrison† – from whom she inherited Cashiobury Park in Hertfordshire – and more recently (and briefly) Sir John Cooper†.23London Marr. Licences (Harl. Soc. xxv), 22; Glos. RO, D2957/302/88, 90, 92-6. For some years before he died Alford’s father had been a party to property settlements involving both Sir John Cooper and Viscount Campden.24PRO30/24/32/7, ff. 119-29; Glos. RO, D2957/302/124-6, 131. Those attending Alford’s wedding included prominent Sussex gentry, like Sir Thomas Pelham*, who gave Alford £20 for a watch.25Add. 33145, f. 60v.

Marriage to a widow older than himself brought Alford substantial property in both Hertfordshire and London, but resulted in a long-running and acrimonious legal dispute with Sir Daniel Norton† and Edward Tooker†, the guardians of Lady Alford’s step-son, Anthony Ashley Cooper*.26WARD9/163, f. 28; CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 737; SP16/540 pt. 1, ff. 163-70. There were claims and counter-claims regarding the division of Sir John Cooper’s estate between his son and widow, involving large sums of money. In June 1634 Alford and his wife claimed that Norton and Tooker had failed to account for over £5,000 worth of property.27CSP Dom. 1625-49, p. 475; 1634-5, p. 600; 1635-6, p. 323; 1636-7, p. 377-8; SP16/534, ff. 227-34; Glos RO, D2957/66/4. Both sides attempted to petition the king, and employed a range of the country’s most powerful lawyers.28CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 495-6; PRO30/24/33/8, ff. 4-77v; PRO30/24/32/7, ff. 5, 24-106. Agreement was finally reached in June 1639, a settlement having been brokered by the lord keeper, Thomas Coventry†, 1st Baron Coventry, whose involvement was doubtless inspired by the forthcoming marriage of his daughter to Anthony Ashley Cooper. Alford and his wife were forced to pay nearly £1,500 in money and jewels.29WARD9/101, ff. 619-20; PRO30/24/32/7, ff. 132-6.

Alford’s marriage helped him to a seat in the Short Parliament as MP for Tewkesbury. Viscount Campden had held it from 1624 to 1628, until his elevation to the Lords, when his nephew Sir William Hicks* was returned in a by-election. Alford’s connection to Campden and his own property interest in the borough secured him a place alongside Ashley Cooper. 30Glos. RO, D2957/302/88, 90, 92-6. Their election represented a victory over Lionel Cranfield, 1st earl of Middlesex, who had attempted to exert influence on behalf of his son.31HMC 4th Rep. 303. Alford made no impression on the records of the Parliament.

In elections for the Long Parliament Alford was returned both at Tewkesbury and at Arundel in Sussex. At the former, however, two indentures were returned, one naming Alford and John Craven*, and the other Sir Robert Cooke* and Edward Stephens*. At the latter, Alford was elected with Henry Garton*, who had held the seat in the spring, probably as a client of Thomas Howard, 21st (or 14th) earl of Arundel. Alford was given time to make his choice, and not until 6 August 1641 did the House resolve that the Tewkesbury election was void.32CJ ii. 22b, 32b, 239b. A second writ was issued, but once again there was confusion, since Alford and Cooke were chosen by the bailiffs, while the inhabitants elected Cooke and Stephens. On 18 October Alford declared that he would sit for Arundel, pre-empting the eventual decision of the Commons (25 Dec. 1643) that Alford’s election at Tewkesbury was void, while that of Stephens was to stand.33CJ iii. 352a-b, 378b-79a.

The Arundel election was no less problematic than the one at Tewkesbury, since a challenge was made by Edward Sackville, younger son of Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset. In January 1641 Sackville had twice failed to appear before the Commons to explain his case, and after a debate in the House (2 Nov.), on 12 November the election of Garton and Alford was declared valid. ‘Fiery spirits’ such as Sir Arthur Hesilrige* opposed Alford, but their efforts were successfully resisted by Sir Simonds D’Ewes*.34D’Ewes (C), 69, 126-7; CJ ii. 302b, 313a. Hesilrige’s opposition probably sprang from suspicions regarding Alford’s support for reforms. His sole committee nomination thus far had been to meet with the Lords over the case against Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford (30 Nov. 1640) and he made no other appearance in the Journal before voting on 21 April 1641 against the earl’s attainder.35CJ ii. 39b; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 248. He took the Protestation promptly on 3 May, but then disappeared until he was given leave to go into the country on 30 July.36CJ ii. 133b, 230b.

Hesilrige’s suspicions were confirmed after the resolution of the Arundel dispute, when Alford assumed a more active role in the House. Between January and June 1642 Alford revealed himself several times as a defender of the interests of the king, his advisers and his sympathisers. On 31 January he was named to a committee to investigate an attack on Gervase Holles*, a future royalist.37CJ ii. 404b. Following Charles’s departure from London, Alford was nominated to the delegation of both Houses to deliver the Militia Ordinance to the king (14 Feb.).38PJ i. 378; CJ ii. 431b. Before departing, Alford was teller (15 Feb.) with Edmund Waller* for the large minority who opposed the exclusion of Endymion Porter*, one of the most infamous of Charles’ courtiers, who had been implicated in the army plot and was suspected of fomenting the Irish rebellion.39PJ i. 391; CJ ii. 433b. Alford delivered the message to the king at Dover, reporting back to the Commons on 19 February.40PJ i. 420, 422, 424; CJ ii. 442b; LJ iv. 599b. Distrust of him was such that when he left the House on 5 March during the debate on its proposed declaration of ‘fears and jealousies’, taking with him the notes that he had made, Sir Walter Erle* moved that he should be forced to submit those notes to the Speaker, in case he should divulge the declaration to the king.41PJ i. 512; LJ iv. 629b-31b.

As the stand-off between king and Parliament gave way to confrontation, Alford’s loyalties were clear. Following the refusal of Sir John Hotham* on 23 April to admit the king to Hull, Alford questioned Hotham’s power over the garrison, and asked to see the orders by which he had been authorised to enter the town.42PJ ii. 224-5. When on 3 May the House debated the disputed election at Andover, Alford was a teller with fellow Straffordian Edward Kirton* on behalf of those who opposed the challenge made to Henry Vernon*, another Straffordian, by the future parliamentarian general, Sir William Waller*. Vernon had represented the borough since April 1641, but Alford and Kirton were unable to prevent Waller’s challenge.43PJ ii. 267; CJ ii. 554b; Keeler, Long Parliament, pp. 49, 320-1, 373. On 9 May Alford was a teller with yet another Straffordian, Sidney Godolphin*, in opposition to a move to install Captain John St John as commander of a troop of horse in Ireland, but was again defeated, this time by prominent parliamentarians Arthur Goodwin* and Sir Christopher Yelverton*.44PJ ii. 294; CJ ii. 564a.

Alford was among royalists who withdrew from Westminster as the king issued commissions of array, being recorded as being absent at the call of the House on 16 June.45CJ ii. 626. On 2 September he was suspended from sitting until a committee was able to examine the cause of his absence.46CJ ii. 750a. He failed to return, despite a further summons to the House on 6 September, and it seems that he had been with the king at York since June, as a member of the royal lifeguard. 47CJ ii. 754b. He later admitted having lent the king £100 at York, and that, after receiving a special royal pardon (27 Sept.) he went to Oxford, where he subscribed another £100 to the royalist war effort.48SP23/176, p. 327; C231/5, p. 542.

Alford soon faced penalties for his allegiance. On 9 June 1643 the Commons ordered the sequestration of bequests in the will of Alford’s mother-in-law, Viscountess Campden (whereby Alford lost jewels and money to the value of £4,700) and on 28 September that of Alford’s own estate.49Glos. RO, D2957/66/3; CCAM 157; CJ iii. 122a, 256a. On 22 January 1644 he was disabled from sitting in the Commons, as a member of the king’s Parliament at Oxford.50CJ iii. 374a; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. v. 573-4. In February Alford was assessed at £800, although this was increased to £1,500 in July.51CCAM 332. Still in Oxford, in November 1645 Alford received a pass to leave the besieged city.52SP23/176, p. 291. Immediately after subscribing the Solemn League and Covenant, he begged to compound for his delinquency (29 Nov. 1645), claiming that his estate was impoverished, partly because he paid contributions to four garrisons.53CCC 1009; SP23/176, p. 327. SP23/176, p. 346. Nevertheless his fine was set at £2,908.54CCC 1009.

Alford subsequently returned to the king’s quarters, and on 9 April 1646 was in Exeter when the city fell to Sir Thomas Fairfax*.55SP23/176, p. 341. Thereafter he engaged in a protracted struggle with the commissioners for compounding over the size of his fine, which was complicated by his estate being dispersed through several counties, by uncertainty over its value, especially with regard to the rectories of Cheltenham and Charlton in Gloucestershire, and from January 1649 by his inheritance from his elder brother, John.56CCC 76, 85, 1009-10; SP23/176, p. 323. Alford claimed that allowance should be made for debts on his properties, and that he should be allowed to compound according to the articles of surrender agreed at Exeter.57CCC 1010; SP23/176, pp. 314, 347. In July 1649 Alford’s fine was reduced to £1,284, on condition that he settled £100 a year on the ministers at Cheltenham and Charlton, and after some delay, in September 1651 this was put into effect. After further petitions, Alford’s fine was reduced to £219, upon payment of which his estate was finally discharged (22 Feb. 1653).58CCC 1010.

Alford died soon afterwards, without leaving a will; in December that year administration of his estate was granted to his wife.59PROB6/30, f. 193v. His only son, John Alford†, still a minor, was later taught at Oxford by John Locke, perhaps because of the familial link to Locke’s employer, Anthony Ashley Cooper (created 1st earl of Shaftesbury). John Alford represented Midhurst in both Exclusion Parliaments and again in 1689.60E. Suss. RO, SAS/SH1; HP Commons 1660–1690.