COXE, Alban (1605-65), of Beaumonts, St Peter’s, St Albans, Herts.

This MP’s great-grandfather, John Coxe, of Welsh origin, acquired the manor of Beaumonts on the outskirts of St Albans from the crown in 1540.1VCH Herts. ii. 416. John’s son, Thomas, had four sons. On the death of the eldest, Thomas, in 1618, these lands passed to the second son, John, a marshal of the hall in the royal household under Elizabeth I, James I and Charles I.2Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 113-14; Chauncy, Herts. ii. 333. The third son, Sir Richard, James I’s joint master of the household, died without heirs in 1623, and the fourth, Alban, died in 1629.3Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 113-14; Urwick, Nonconformity in Herts. 459n. Shortly before his own death in 1630 John Coxe effectively designated Alban’s eldest son, Alban, the future MP, as his heir when he transferred to him the ownership of Beaumonts, while retaining a life interest for himself.4Coventry Docquets, 603; C142/465/41; Chauncy, Herts. ii. 333. The family’s tradition of royal service looked set to continue when Alban Coxe was appointed as the keeper of the royal stables at St Albans for life in 1636.5Coventry Docquets, 197; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 437; Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 209.

Two contrasting views can be taken of Coxe’s role during the civil war. On the face of it, he seemed to be one of Parliament’s key supporters in Hertfordshire. But his many local enemies, led by Richard Jennyns*, subsequently insinuated that his commitment to the cause had always been suspect. There is little evidence for that during the war’s earliest stages. Coxe’s particular contribution was organising the county’s militia. As early as July 1642 he was among Hertfordshire gentlemen given powers by Parliament to collect money for horses and arms.6LJ v. 207b. Then, on 10 August, in response to a request from some of the inhabitants, the Commons gave permission for volunteers at St Albans to form themselves into militia units, with Coxe being appointed to command those on horseback.7CJ ii. 712b; LJ v. 291a. Many years later Hercules Langrish claimed that he had lent £350 to Coxe in February 1643 at the instigation of the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, and of Nathaniel Fiennes I*.8CSP Dom. 1655, p. 41. By 1644 Coxe was also a member of the Hertfordshire militia committee and of the local pro-parliamentarian committee at St Albans, although the clerk of the latter later claimed that Coxe attended rarely and then only to speak on behalf of royalists, such as Thomas Coningsby*.9Impact of the First Civil War ed. Thomson, 8, 23, 24, 25, 31-5; Add. 40630, f. 151; HMC Var. vii. 346; Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 25. In January 1645 Coxe probably attended on the committee of the Eastern Association at Cambridge.10Lttr. Bks. of Sir Samuel Luke, 431. Later that month he and William Dawges (‘Mr Daughs’) were the two Hertfordshire representatives at a meeting of the Eastern Association at Bury St Edmunds to organise its opposition to the creation of the New Model army, seen as a threat to the local autonomy.11Suff. ed. Everitt, 84, 89. Coxe and Dawges were the lone dissenting voices, insisting ‘that the contrary thereto might be beneficial for the kingdom and of the counties in order thereunto’.12Suff. ed. Everitt, 85.

That March Coxe was added to the committee for Hertfordshire.13CJ iv. 78a; LJ vii. 274a; Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 39. At about the same time he was promoted to the rank of colonel.14Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 31. He continued to make himself useful. When Sir Samuel Luke* transported a consignment of money to Northampton in mid-June, he was told that Coxe would be the officer receiving it.15Abbott, Writings and Speeches, i. 361. In late August, as the king retreated from Doncaster, Coxe received several reports of his movements through Huntingdon and Bedford.16Add. 11315, f. 1. Although Charles then appeared to be heading for Oxford, on 27 August both the county committee and the militia committee ordered Coxe to advance to Hitchin as a precaution.17Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 41-3. Years later, however, it was said that Coxe had opposed or been reluctant to implement orders that involved his troops operating outside the county.18Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, ff. 24-5. In late October 1646 the Hertfordshire committee asked him to attend the meeting to the Eastern Association to be held at Bury St Edmunds on 3 November.19Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 44. Early the following year he joined with other parishioners of St Peter’s, St Albans, to petition the Committee for Plundered Ministers about the appointment of a new vicar.20Urwick, Nonconformity in Herts. 148-9.

In February 1647, his friend and former subordinate, Silius Titus†, who was escorting the royal prisoner to Holdenby, wrote to him that the king was as intransigent as ever.21Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 44-5. Four months later a Hertfordshire petition was presented to the House of Lords countering what it claimed were unjustified complaints against the army. One case it cited concerned steps taken to prosecute three soldiers under Coxe’s command despite his support for them.22LJ ix. 278a-b. In early June 1648 Coxe was ordered to prepare the county militia in case the uprising in Essex spread to Hertfordshire.23CSP Dom. 1648-9, p. 115. Several weeks later some of the rebels, led by the 1st earl of Holland (Henry Rich†), marched through the county via St Albans. That Coxe had left the town undefended would later be used by his rivals against him.24Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, ff. 25-6.

During the summer of 1649 some of the soldiers in the regiment until recently commanded by Philip Skippon* and now commanded by William Sydenham* supported the Leveller-inspired mutinies. As a result Sydenham was dismissed and replaced by Coxe, who thus received a full-time army commission for the first time.25Wanklyn, New Model Army, ii. 44; Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 434. He had taken up that position by 28 July when seven of his companies were ordered to march to Bristol, although he obtained permission not to accompany them.26CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 243, 252. That enabled him to attend the court martial at Whitehall on 1 August against Latimer Sampson. Coxe, William Stane* and William Goffe* were then asked to inform General Sir Thomas Fairfax* that Sampson had been acquitted.27CCC 306.

Control of the Channel Islands became an urgent concern when in September 1649 Charles Stuart established himself on Jersey. There was a danger that he would also try to seize the whole of Guernsey, where a royalist garrison occupied the key military stronghold of Castle Cornet but the island was otherwise under an acting parliamentarian governor, Richard Ashfield. In October the council of state assigned five of the companies from Coxe’s regiment as reinforcements.28CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 332, 335, 337, 377, 382, 556, 592; Add. 11315, ff. 3, 5. On 22 October Fairfax issued an order that Coxe should be the new acting governor.29Add. 11315, ff. 2, 7, 9v-10; CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 376, 379, 386. To the council’s displeasure, Coxe did not leave at once and three weeks later the council’s president, John Bradshawe*, wrote ordering him to take ship from Weymouth.30CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 386, 387; Add. 11315, ff. 11, 15. Coxe set out from London on 12 November, reached Dorchester on 24 November and then spent a couple of weeks there and at Weymouth gathering supplies and organising his men. On 9 December Edward Popham* arrived off Weymouth with the ships to transport them. But further forces did not join them until 16 December, whereupon adverse winds prevented them sailing.31Add. 11315, ff. 13-14. Two days later Coxe informed Bradshawe that they had still not departed.32Add. 11315, f. 17.

By 4 January 1650 Coxe had reached Guernsey.33Add. 11315, f. 18. A letter from him there was read at the council of state on 14 January.34CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 481. Meanwhile, on 9 January, the leader of the royalists occupying Castle Cornet refused to surrender to him.35Add. 11315, f. 19. On 1 February Coxe summoned a meeting of the island’s governing body, the states assembly, for 4 February.36Actes des État de l’Îlle de Guernesey, 1605 à 1651 (Guernsey, [1851]), 343. While on Guernsey Coxe wrote a letter to one of his daughters telling her to be ‘very dutiful and observant to thy dear mother, that in my absence thou mayest be a comfort to her sad heart’.37Add. 11315, f. 23.

Coxe did not remain on the island for long. As early as 24 December 1649, perhaps even before he set sail, the council of state had recalled him, as being of more use in England.38CSP Dom. 1649-50, 451-2. That order seems then to have been rescinded. But by mid-March 1650 he was back in London. On 16 March Fairfax wrote to Speaker William Lenthall*, informing him that an address from the council of officers regarding complaints from persons affected by the recent Act to expel Catholics and delinquents from the London area was to be presented to Parliament by Coxe and John Disbrowe*.39Mems of the Great Civil War, ed. Cary, ii. 217. This probably occurred on 18 March.40CJ vi. 384b. However, there seems to have been some suggestion that Coxe had returned without permission. On 30 March the council of state delegated the resolution of this to Fairfax.41CSP Dom. 1650, p. 69.

Coxe’s companies stationed on the island continued there for the time being.42CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 58, 106, 537. His eventual successor as governor, appointed in the spring of 1651, was John Bingham*.43CJ vi. 557b-558a; CSP Dom. 1651, pp. 124-5. In the spring of 1650 those of Coxe’s men still in England were added to the army for the planned invasion of Scotland.44CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 95, 163, 165. That August they marched northwards with Oliver Cromwell*.45Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 435-6. Whether Coxe accompanied them is unknown, but on 1 April 1651 the council of state spoke of Coxe’s ‘late dismissal’ when it wrote to Cromwell about another vacancy in that regiment.46CSP Dom. 1651, p. 125. The circumstances remain a mystery.47Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. ii. 436; Wanklyn, New Model Army, ii. 60.

Coxe remained an important figure in Hertfordshire local politics throughout the 1650s. A justice of the peace since at least 1649, he was also included on assessment commissions.48Herts. County Recs. vi. 520; A. and O. In March 1650 the Committee for Compounding* had ordered that a survey should be compiled of Thomas Coningsby’s estates at North Mimms. Coxe was one of the two Hertfordshire magistrates who subsequently carried this out.49Impact of the First Civil War, ed. Thomson, 197-9. In 1651 he and the other justices bought the gatehouse of St Albans abbey to serve as the county gaol.50Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 46n. In the summer of 1653 he was among local gentlemen asked by the council of state to resolve a dispute at Graveley over the appointment of the rector.51CSP Dom. 1652-3, pp. 341, 405; 1653-4, p. 59. In the meantime he had petitioned the Rump to be allowed to retain possession of the lodgings he had occupied at St Albans as keeper of the royal stables. In March 1653, having sought legal advice from Thomas Twisden*, the committee for removing obstructions in the sale of royal lands granted that request.52Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, ff. 30, 252, 254.

His career as an MP reinforced Coxe’s local importance. He was elected to all three protectorate Parliaments for St Albans, the constituency immediately adjacent to his Beaumonts estate. He played only a relatively minor role in the first, being named to only three committees, namely those on Scottish and Irish affairs (29 Sept. 1654) and on the petition from Thomas Levingston* and his wife Anne (21 Nov.).53CJ vii. 371b, 387a. More significantly, in one of a series of divisions on 19 January 1655 about the franchise qualifications in the bill for settling the government, Coxe was a teller with Sir William Boteler* in support of including ‘customary estates’ in an extension of the old 40 shilling freehold franchise. They were heavily defeated (138 votes to 86), although the main proposal, to include copyhold lands worth more than £20 a year, was subsequently defeated by just one vote.54CJ vii. 420b.

In late April 1655, three months after this Parliament had been dissolved, the lord protector, Oliver Cromwell*, summoned Coxe to Whitehall to discuss ‘some affairs relating to the public’.55Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iii. 699. A year later he and others recommended to Cromwell that a disruptive clergyman, Richard Farrer, should be banned from preaching at Ware.56CSP Dom. 1655-6, p. 305. On 3 March 1656 he and the other new Hertfordshire commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth wrote to Cromwell welcoming their appointments.57TSP iv. 573.

In the election on 6 August 1656 Coxe was again returned for St Albans. Richard Jennyns, the former St Albans Member who had tried to regain his seat, unsuccessfully petitioned the elections committee, alleging impropriety on Coxe’s part and army involvement in the poll.58Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 5. In early September, shortly before this Parliament assembled, William Packer*, the major-general for Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire, promoted Coxe’s appointment as commander of the new militia regiment to be raised in Hertfordshire, notwithstanding Coxe’s own recommendation of Sir Richard Combes.59TSP v. 409. Distinguishing in the records of Parliament between Coxe and Charles George Cock*, MP for Great Yarmouth, who had also served as a colonel, is sometimes difficult. However, most of the numerous ambiguous Journal references more probably relate to Cock, a probate and admiralty judge with a strong interest in law reform.60CJ vii. 425a, 426a, 428a, 429a, 429b, 433b, 434a, 435b, 436b, 440a, 442a, 444a, 446a, 447a, 449a, 453b, 454b, 456a, 457a, 458a, 460b, 488b, 500b, 501a, 528a, 565a, 566a, 566b, 581a, 590a. The same is probably true for most (but not all) of the speeches recorded by Thomas Burton*.61Add. 15859, ff. 5v, 18, 35v, 84, Add. 15860, f. 60; Add. 15861, f. 2v, 30v, 33, 55v, 59, 64v, 68, 70v, 79, 100, 101v; Burton’s Diary, i. 9-10, 38-9, 82, 187; ii. 103, 172, 226, 230, 280-1, 288. 299, 307, 316, 349, 437, 442. Re-attributing those speeches to Cock means that Coxe becomes a rather less radical figure than has sometimes been assumed.

At the beginning of the session Coxe was named to the committee of privileges (18 Sept.) and again to that on Irish affairs (23 Sept.).62CJ vii. 474a, 427a. He was then granted a fortnight’s leave of absence on 16 October.63CJ vii. 439b. He was still absent on 31 December at the call of the House; on that occasion he was excused because of his son’s death.64Burton’s Diary, i. 284. His only recorded activity during the first half of 1657 was on 3 February, when he was named to a committee on a minor bill (for the disappropriation of a Suffolk rectory).65CJ vii. 485b. On 19 February 1657 Cromwell wrote to him warning that there was a real danger of an imminent royalist uprising combined with an invasion by Charles Stuart from Flanders.66BL, RP2235/2. On 17 June he was named to the committee on the bill against immoderate living.67CJ vii. 559b.

When Parliament reassembled on 20 January 1658, it was probably Coxe rather than Cock who drew the Commons’ attention to the unauthorised edition of the law reports of the late Sir George Croke†, which pirated an English translation being prepared by Croke’s son-in-law, (Sir) Harbottle Grimston*.68Burton’s Diary, ii. 318-19. Grimston and Coxe were neighbours now that Grimston was living at Gorhambury and were in contact: just over a year earlier Grimston had written to Coxe offering him his condolences on the death of his son, Alban junior.69HMC Verulam, 53. On the other hand, it was probably Cock rather than Coxe who was the ‘Coll. Cocks’ who spoke in the debates on the Other House on 3 and 4 February, admitting that he had opposed the offer of the kingship to Cromwell the previous spring but that he had since changed his mind.70Add. 15861, ff. 100, 101v; Burton’s Diary, ii. 437, 442. A few hours after dissolving Parliament on 4 February, Cromwell wrote to Coxe at St Albans ordering him to put the Hertfordshire militia on a state of alert in case any disorder broke out. This strongly suggests Coxe had not been at Westminster and also, since Cromwell observed that the parliamentary session had wasted too much time debating the concerns of the Humble Petition’s critics and opponents, that Coxe was thought to share his perspective.71Abbott, Writings and Speeches, iv. 735. In June 1658 Coxe may, as a commissioner for the security of the lord protector’s person, have served among judges for the trial of the royalist plotter, John Hewett.72LJ xi. 99b, 103a, 103b; Add. 11315, f. 27.

Meanwhile, the local rivalry between Jennyns and Coxe resurfaced more nastily than before. At some point in early 1658 Jennyns made a series of allegations against Coxe, the most serious being that, at a dinner in St Albans about the time Parliament had been debating whether to offer the crown to Cromwell, he made remarks to the effect that if there was to be a king, he might as well be a Stuart as a Cromwell. When local witnesses were formally questioned, William Retchford, the vicar of St Peter’s, St Albans, retold the story with two subtle but crucial differences. First Retchford claimed only to have heard what another guest, Thomas Arris†, had repeated to him. Secondly, Arris had told him that Coxe was not offering his own opinion but only reporting what had been said by other MPs in Parliament.73Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 19. Arris, a wealthy physician who lived at Great Munden, backed this up. His version was that when there had been,

some discourse at table about crowning the lord protector, Colonel Coxe, being a Member of Parliament, related the passages pro and con which had passed in the case and added withall that some were so bold as to say that a crown would sit as well on a Stuart head as a Cromwell’s.74Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 21.

All that Jennyns could do was to produce witnesses who testified that Retchford had on other occasions directly attributed the comments to Coxe or who claimed that Coxe had made similar comments at other times. Other witnesses, including Thomas Niccolls*, gave noncommittal replies.75Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, ff. 19-21. When Jennyns’s subsidiary allegations against Coxe were investigated, accusations about his past conduct as a militia officer and as a member of the county committee were aired. Much evidence was heard that many of the men in his militia troop were gamblers, drunks or former royalists, while another of Jennyns’s assertions was that Coxe had discouraged ‘the godly party’ from submitting a petition to Cromwell.76Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, ff. 21-4. He was also said to have opposed the moves to eject Lambert Osbaldeston from the rectory of Wheathampstead in 1655.77Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 26; Walker Revised, 202.

Coxe probably now wrote to Cromwell in an attempt to defend his reputation. In his surviving draft, Coxe pointed out that Retchford had failed to support Jennyns’s claims and that William Ellis, one of the witnesses who had tried to contradict him, was ‘a most dangerous and debauched cavalier’. He assured Cromwell that he himself was ‘fully satisfied as to your highness’s government and hath he therefore endeavoured so to serve your highness as might render your person honourable and your government secure’. He was also ‘ready to adventure his life and fortune in the defence of your highness’s person and government against all persons whatsoever’.78Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 11. It was later claimed by some local royalists that, as a consequence of this incident, Coxe toyed with the idea of resigning his militia commission, but that they dissuaded him as they thought him preferable to any likely replacement.79Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 260; Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 113n.

Coxe had asked Cromwell that the accusations against him be investigated by Charles Fleetwood*, Edward Whalley* and William Goffe, three senior army officers he presumably thought would be sympathetic.80Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 11. The council of state seems to have acted on the matter: one of its committees held hearings on the case in late May 1658.81Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 258. As nothing more was heard about this, probably the councillors concluded that the evidence against Coxe was insufficient. That Jennyns had had to dig up old accusations from the 1640s was plausibly a sign of weakness.

When the elections were held for the 1659 Parliament, the freemen of St Albans chose Coxe and Jennyns as their two MPs. This must have made for a most uneasy pairing. Charles George Cock was also re-elected, but the few Journal references are for ‘Colonel Cox’, who can be assumed to have been Coxe. On the other hand, most of the speeches by ‘Coll. Cocks’ recorded by Burton were more probably by Cock.82Add. 15862, ff. 6, 117v; Add. 15863, ff. 5, 31v, 105v; Add. 15864, f. 14; Burton’s Diary, iii. 20, 341, 418, 512-13; iv. 108, 347. But two speeches in March 1659 related to Packer and appear to be Coxe speaking on behalf of his friend. On 4 March the Commons considered the case of Henry Wroth, who was accused of having assaulted Packer. Coxe alleged that Wroth was ‘not so ignorant of the person as is informed’ and claimed that Wroth had ‘bragged since in the country’. Coxe therefore wanted Wroth to be held in custody for the time being.83Burton’s Diary, iv. 4. He was then named to the committee appointed to investigate the assault.84CJ vii. 610a. Several weeks later he also spoke during the debate on the Hertford election dispute, in which Packer was one of the contending candidates. He reported that he had heard from ‘divers honest men of the town’ that Packer had received the most votes.85Burton’s Diary, iv. 251. In the final weeks before this Parliament was dissolved, he was included on the committees on the petition from sick and injured soldiers at Ely House and the Savoy (7 Apr.), to prepare the impeachment against William Boteler* (12 Apr.) and on the petition from the disbanded troops in Lancashire (13 Apr.).86CJ vii. 627b, 637a, 638a.

In July 1659, under the restored Rump, Coxe was replaced as the commander for his Hertfordshire militia troop.87CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 24. On 27 February 1660 he, Sir Henry Blount and Sir John Gore presented to General George Monck* an address from some of the Hertfordshire gentry calling for a free Parliament to be summoned.88To His Excellency the Lord General Monck, the Humble Addresse and Thanks of the Gentry, and other Free-Holders in the Co. of Hartford [1660], 669.f.23.67. Since the secluded MPs had already been re-admitted to the Long Parliament and Monck had come out in support of a new Parliament, they were doing little more than endorsing the direction in which events were clearly moving. When the election for the Convention was held at St Albans, there was a double return between Coxe and the corporation’s recorder, William Foxwist*. When the Commons considered both returns on 21 May, it disallowed the one in Coxe’s favour.89CJ viii. 39b; HP Commons, 1660-1690.

Some of his former opponents nevertheless viewed Coxe with respect. Fearing that Coxe’s position was now endangered by changing political circumstances, on 28 June 1660 nine Hertfordshire royalist drew up a defence of Coxe’s character. They declared that he had always treated them ‘with all civility and respect’, that they had not been ‘molested or disturbed’ by him when suspected royalists elsewhere were being imprisoned and that their trust in him had led them to persuade him to stay on as a militia officer in 1657.90Museum of Eng. Rural Life, FR HERT 5/1/1, f. 260; Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 113n. Such support was valuable as Coxe soon found himself inadvertently caught up in the arguments over who to exempt from the new act of indemnity. When Lady Mary Hewett, widow of the royalist plotter John Hewett, sought revenge on those involved in his execution, the House of Lords considered calling in Coxe for questioning (July 1660). But they abandoned the matter after establishing that neither Lady Mary nor Sir Thomas Slingesby†, son of fellow victim Sir William Slingisby*, had actually accused him.91LJ xi. 99b, 103a, 103b; Add. 11315, f. 27. At about this time Coxe was removed from the Hertfordshire commission of the peace, but he was restored in early 1662, possibly through the influence of Grimston, who was now the master of the rolls.92C181/7, pp. 145, 151; C231/7, pp. 158, 171.

Coxe was buried at St Peter’s church, St Albans on 8 February 1665.93Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 114. In his will, dated 30 March 1664, he left to his elder son, Thomas, a silver basin and six silver spoons, while his other son, John, received two silver porringers and six silver spoons marked ‘J.C.’. The rest of his goods, apart from a few small payments, went to his ‘beloved and very virtuous’ wife, Mary, whom he appointed as the sole executrix.94Herts. RO, 103AW4. His only surviving daughter, Mary, died in 1733 aged 101. The male line of this branch of the family died out in 1722 on the death of the MP’s great-grandson, Thomas Coxe.95Clutterbuck, Herts. i. 113-14. His descendants through a female line (via the Carpenter family) included Queen Elizabeth, wife of George VI.