STAFFORD, Edward (1572-1625)

Stafford was the great-grandson of Edward Stafford^†, 3rd duke of Buckingham, England’s premier peer until his execution for treason in 1521, when his estates were confiscated by the crown. Buckingham’s son Henry^† was rapidly restored in blood, and in 1547 recovered his family’s ancient barony of Stafford, which dated back to 1299. However, most of the ancestral lands were lost forever. In 1553 Henry, regarded by modern commentators as 1st Lord Stafford, despite his restoration, claimed that whereas his father had enjoyed an annual income of 7,000 marks, he himself received a mere £316.8 Staffs. Peds. (Harl. Soc. lxiii), 213; H. Miller, Henry VIII and the Eng. Nobility, 7, 42, 214-17; CP, xii. pt. 1, 173; CSP Dom. 1553-8, p.12. By rights this situation should have improved in the following decades, since Stafford’s father Edward^†, the 3rd baron, received several grants from Elizabeth I of lands formerly held by Buckingham, which were intended to boost his income.9 CPR, 1569-72, p. 236; CPR, 1582-3 ed. L.J. Wilkinson (L. and I. Soc. cclxxxvi), 72-3; CPR, 1600-1 ed. S.R. Neal and C. Leighton (L. and I. Soc. cccxxxix), 199-200. However, Edward squandered this advantage, wasting his estate, and on occasion alienating the properties bestowed on him by the crown almost as soon as he secured possession.10 CPR, 1569-72, pp. 458, 460-1; CPR, 1582-3, p. 138; C142/284/33. Moreover, while the 3rd Lord Stafford was relatively active in local government, serving as a magistrate, vice admiral of Gloucestershire, and latterly a member of the council in the Welsh Marches, his position was further compromised by persistent reports that he was secretly Catholic.11 C66/1594; Sainty and Thrush, Vice Admirals of the Coast, 23; HMC Hatfield, xi. 320; Cath. Rec. Soc. Misc. viii. 90; Cath. Rec. Soc. liii. 125.

Stafford himself was presumably born at Stafford, where he was baptized with his twin sister in September 1572.12 CP, xii. pt. 1, p. 186. His elder brother having already died, he was from the outset heir to the barony, and during his childhood his mother nursed hopes of arranging a marriage alliance with the all-powerful Cecil family. However, William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley remained deaf to her pleas, and Stafford eventually married one of his mother’s attendants, the daughter of a Shropshire gentleman. This socially disadvantageous match produced just one child, a son, in 1601.13 HMC Hatfield, iii. 214; Letters and Memorials of State, i. 363.

In October 1603 Stafford inherited his family’s peerage, but with few financial resources to support this dignity. His patrimony now comprised only Stafford Castle, in Staffordshire, Thornbury Castle in Gloucestershire, and a handful of other properties in both counties. The demesnes lands, those estates which had not been leased out, were later said to be worth just £400 a year, while the Gloucestershire properties formed the jointure of Stafford’s mother until her death in 1609. Stafford himself claimed that, due to the encumbrances on his estate, his disposable income stood at barely 100 marks.14 C2/Jas. I/S22/3; C142/284/33; Hatfield House, P. 2361. Despite these constrained circumstances, Stafford took over some of his father’s local offices, becoming a Staffordshire magistrate, and a commissioner of oyer and terminer. In March 1604 he also took his seat in the Lords for the first time, attending all but three days of the first Jacobean parliamentary session. Despite this diligence, his only recorded activity in the House was on 26 May, when he acted as supporter to Edward Neville^*, 8th or 1st Lord Abergavenny during the latter’s formal introduction.15 LJ, iii. 307a. Unlike his father, Stafford exercised no discernible influence over Stafford borough’s parliamentary elections.16 HP Commons 1604-29, ii. 371.

In March 1605 this air of respectability was abruptly shattered when Stafford was confined to the Fleet prison, on the king’s orders, for allowing a murderer to go free. His release was finally procured in early May by his cousin Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton, but in the interim James ordered an inquiry into Stafford’s affairs. The lord chief justice, Sir John Popham^‡, concluded that Stafford was ‘unable to govern his person, as appeared by the offence then in question, and unfit to manage his estate’. Accordingly, Stafford was persuaded to entail his key properties on his heirs, to prevent him from disposing of them. If he failed to comply, control of his lands would pass to his two distinguished kinsmen, Northampton, and Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, to prevent further wastage of the estate.17 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 118-19; Hatfield House, P.2361; CP, ix. 612-13, 619.

In the aftermath of this episode Stafford lost his local offices, but otherwise his life ostensibly continued much as usual. When Parliament resumed in November 1605 he was initially conscientious about attending the Lords, but then took leave of absence from 3 Apr. to 17 May 1606, ‘upon his necessary occasions’, giving his proxy to the lord treasurer, Thomas Sackville^*, 1st earl of Dorset. In total he missed just over half of the session. His only appointment, on 19 May, was to scrutinize two bills for reforming the Marshalsea court.18 LJ, ii. 355b, 436b. During the third session Stafford again missed approximately half of the sittings, though this time his general pattern of attendance was intermittent. Nevertheless, he finally achieved a measure of recognition in the Lords, being nominated to a conference with the Commons on the Instrument of Anglo-Scottish Union, and also to the committee for the bill to abolish hostile laws between the two countries. Furthermore, Stafford was named to scrutinize legislation to settle the estate of his late kinsman, Ferdinando Stanley^†, 5th earl of Derby, and to consider the bill to block ecclesiastical canons issued without parliamentary approval.19 LJ, ii. 453a, 480a, 503a, 520b.

During the next few years an increasingly impoverished Stafford continued to dispose of his property, usually on unfavourable terms, and in defiance of the legal constraints imposed on him. In September 1609, he finally inherited his mother’s jointure lands. However, before he could sell these as well, Northampton and Suffolk stepped in and took formal control of his entire estate, though he was provided with an equivalent annual income. After failing to overturn this decision in the courts, Stafford tried a last-ditch appeal to the king, alleging that he was the victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by his wife, a notorious Catholic, who had deprived him of his house, lands and even his son. However, this strategy backfired spectacularly. While Lady Stafford freely admitted to being a recusant, she insisted that her husband shared her beliefs. Moreover, he had deserted her some four years earlier, taking up with ‘certain lewd women and infamous’, and had in recent months refused to let his son visit him. As for his property, his Howard cousins had no choice but to act, since he had even sold the lead on Stafford Castle, before leasing the buildings to ‘one Cradock, a cutler’. In the light of these revelations, the king naturally sided with Northampton and Suffolk.20 Hatfield House, P.2361.

Apparently undeterred by this latest damage to his reputation, Stafford attended the first parliamentary session of 1610. On 4 June he witnessed Prince Henry’s creation as prince of Wales, and 12 days later, despite his alleged Catholic sympathies, took the oath of allegiance. Once again he missed approximately half of the sittings. He received a single nomination, to a bill committee concerned with the handling of stolen goods in London, and on 3 May claimed privilege for one of his servants, who had been arrested for debt.21 LJ, ii. 583b, 586b-7a, 595a-b, 615a; PA, HL/PO/JO/10/13/4 (14 May 1610). Stafford was also present for just over one-third of the brief session in late 1610, during which time he was appointed to conferences with the Commons, to discuss the Great Contract and supply. Surprisingly, he also attended the dissolution meeting on 9 Feb. 1611, despite not being one of the commissioners appointed for the task.22 T. Rymer, Foedera, vii. pt. 2, p. 169; LJ, ii. 671a, 678a, 684a-b; HMC Hastings, iv. 223-6.

Stafford was back in London in December 1612, when he participated in Prince Henry’s funeral.23 Harl. 5176, f. 208. Predictably he avoided contributing to the aid for Princess Elizabeth’s marriage the following year, and also ignored the Benevolence raised after the 1614 Parliament.24 APC, 1613-14, p. 78; E351/1950. He was present for all but two or three days of that short session, but attracted only one nomination, to a bill committee concerned with preserving stocks of timber.25 LJ, ii. 697b.

In June 1615 Stafford settled his Gloucestershire estates on his son, but this was largely an empty gesture. The boy was a convinced Catholic, and the earl of Suffolk, now sole trustee following Northampton’s death, declined to relinquish control of these properties.26 C142/407/93; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 466. Stafford himself, still debarred from local office, apparently maintained a low profile over the next few years, though he was back in London in May 1619 for Anne of Denmark’s funeral.27 NLW, Brogyntyn 11/53. There is no evidence that he contributed to the Palatine Benevolence of 1620-1.28 SP14/118/11.

Stafford was a familiar face in the Lords throughout the 1621 Parliament, with an attendance record over both sittings of close to 90 per cent, and this time he participated more actively, though with limited results. His first recorded intervention was to sign the ‘Humble Petition of the Nobility of England’, a protest against the social advantages accorded to Englishmen with Scottish or Irish peerages, which was briefly produced in the House on 20 Feb. before being suppressed by the king.29 A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, p. 10. Stafford made six speeches during the first sitting, but they all fell on deaf ears. On 24 Apr., the Lords ignored his proposal that James should be met down by the Thames when he arrived by barge to address the House. Later that day, he backed unsuccessful calls for Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, the disgraced lord chancellor, to appear before the Lords to explain himself. On 25 Apr. he supported a motion for a delegation to the king about Bacon, but again the idea was not adopted. The next day Stafford’s attempt to present a petition in the House fell flat because he failed to follow the correct procedure.30 Add. 40085, ff. 11, 14, 21, 50v; LJ, iii. 88b. Named on 4 May to the committee for the bill against drunkenness, he opposed the measure at its third reading on 9 May, but to no effect. Three days later, he reminded the Lords of their proposal that the monopolist Sir Francis Michell should be degraded from his knighthood, but this was not treated as a priority. Of his two other bill committee nominations, he may well have taken an interest in one which concerned manorial customs in Staffordshire.31 LJ, iii. 28a, 107b; Add. 40085, ff. 77, 132. However, his only clear achievement during this sitting was to obtain privilege on 15 Mar. for another of his servants, who had been arrested despite producing a ‘warrant of privilege’ from Stafford.32 LJ, iii. 45a, 56b, 58b; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 23, 27.

It was the issue of privilege that finally brought Stafford to the fore at Westminster, though for the wrong reasons. In a break with tradition, Parliament was adjourned over the summer of 1621 instead of being prorogued, which meant that privilege continued to apply to members and their servants, the latter being issued with letters of protection to confirm their status. This system was soon being abused, with these letters being sold on the open market to anyone seeking to circumvent the law. By the autumn a massive scandal had developed, and one peer in particular was heavily implicated. According to the newsletter writer John Chamberlain, ‘the report goes the Lord Stafford hath given above three hundred [protections] to some very base and mean companions for five shillings apiece more or less’.33 LJ, iii. 157b; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 409.

On 26 Nov., two days after Chamberlain’s letter, Stafford appeared in the Lords to defend himself, naming ‘divers lewd persons’ whom he claimed had forged protections in his name. The offenders were brought before the House, and by 18 Dec. two of them had indeed confessed to counterfeiting Stafford’s signature and seal.34 LJ, iii. 170a, 172b, 199a. In the meantime, however, the Lords also considered claims of privilege relating to six of Stafford’s servants, an unusually high number for one peer in a single session. Of these claims, three were accepted, but two were rejected, while the sixth was referred to the committee for privileges on 26 Nov. after it emerged that Stafford himself had privately agreed to withdraw his protection if it emerged that the servant was defrauding his creditors. ‘This was not well tasted of by the Lords’, for such a concession implied that Stafford had at the very least issued letters too indiscriminately. On 8 Dec. several peers complained about Stafford’s behaviour, though the earl of Suffolk intervened to point out that the business had already been referred to the committee for privileges. However, when the committee report four days later revealed that Stafford had also handed out a protection with the recipient’s name left blank, there were fresh calls for him ‘to bring in all his protections’, and for the lord keeper, John Williams^*, ‘to give his lordship a check for the same’. Fortunately for Stafford, the matter was deferred, and no decision had been reached when the session ended a week later.35 Add. 40086, ff. 20v, 55v, 68; LJ, iii. 173b-4a, 179a, 183b-4a, 193b; Northants. RO, Montagu 29/63.

Stafford’s son died in April 1621, but the earl of Suffolk maintained his grip on the Gloucestershire properties, ensuring that the young man’s widow received them as her jointure estate. Two years later Stafford Castle was also put in trust to provide a jointure for Stafford’s wife, though by this stage the impecunious baron was apparently resigned to his loss of financial freedom.36 C142/407/93; 142/419/72; HMC 5th Rep. 410. During the 1624 Parliament he attended barely one-third of the Lords’ sittings, attracting a single committee nomination, to scrutinize a minor Hertfordshire estate bill. Yet another of his servants claimed privilege during this session, but the matter was resolved without the Lords ruling on the case. A further servant, arrested in Westminster shortly after the prorogation, while privilege still applied, was freed on the lord keeper’s orders.37 LJ, iii. 291b, 302a, 425b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 31v.

When the first Caroline Parliament was summoned, Stafford obtained leave of absence, probably on the grounds of illness, and never attended. He is not known to have appointed a proxy.38 Procs. 1625, p. 45. He died intestate in September 1625, and was buried at Stafford. Administration of his personal effects was granted to his twin sister, after his widow declined this duty.39 CP, xii. pt. 1, p. 186; PROB 6/12, f. 46v. The baroness was presumably the ‘Lady Stafford’ who received a charitable donation from the Lords in 1628.40 Lords Procs. 1628, p. 673. His title passed to his grandson Henry, a three-year-old boy. He died, still a minor, in 1637, whereupon the remaining Stafford estates were inherited by Henry’s sister, Mary, whose husband William Howard^† was later created Viscount Stafford. The Stafford barony descended to an elderly cousin, Roger Stafford^*, 6th Lord Stafford.41 C142/419/72; CP, xii. pt. 1, pp. 187-8.