MASHAM, William (c.1616-by 1655), of Otes, High Laver, Essex.

William Masham’s entire political career was overshadowed by his much more prominent father. Given that Sir William was one of the local MPs and that they were one of the major county families, it is unsurprising that the son should have been a member of most of the local commissions appointed by Parliament in Essex during the civil war.23LJ v. 203b; A. and O. In time he could no doubt have been expected to benefit from the family’s considerable electoral influence within that county. It is therefore something of a surprise that when he did enter Parliament as a recruiter MP early in 1646, it should have been for far-off Shrewsbury. The reasons for this remain unclear.24H.T. Weyman, ‘Shrewsbury Members of Parliament’, Trans. Salop. Arch. Soc. 4th ser. xii. 212. He had no obvious links with the town or with Shropshire. It may, in part, reflect the influence of his father-in-law, Sir John Trevor*, a major figure in the neighbouring counties of Flintshire and Denbighshire. But the influence of the Independents at Westminster may also have been a factor.

Masham had taken his seat by 24 April 1646, when he was included on the committee considering the Irish assessments.25CJ iv. 521a. Between then and the purge of December 1648 Masham was named to only six further committees, including those on the bill concerning delinquents’ fines (10 Dec. 1646), on John Lilburne (1 Nov. 1647) and on the bill to punish the defaulters at the Kent musters (20 Apr. 1648).26CJ v. 8b, 84b, 302b, 347b, 356a, 538a. Already one feature of his parliamentary career was evident, which was the tendency for him to follow the lead set by his father; of those six committees, five were ones to which Sir William was also named. Following the capture of his father and the rest of the Essex county standing committee by the royalist rebels in early June 1648 during the second civil war, Masham was asked by the Derby House Committee to assist Edward Whalley* and Carew Hervey alias Mildmay* in organising resistance by the inhabitants around Epping.27CSP Dom. 1648-9, pp. 114-15.

Father and son conformed after the purge on 6 December 1648. William made his dissent to the vote of 5 December on 7 February 1649, a day earlier than his father, and on 8 February both were named to the committee preparing the new lists of justices of the peace.28PA, Ms CJ xxxiii, p. 651; CJ vi. 134a. During his time in the Rump William junior was noticeably more active in the House than heretofore, although the same tendency for that activity to mirror that of his father is still evident. He showed a particular interest in godly reform, supporting the maintenance of a godly preaching ministry and the sale of former episcopal lands.29CJ vi. 196a, 219b, 270a, 382b, 388b, 416a, 423b, 437a, 458b. Less obvious, but possibly significant in view of his later membership of the treasury commission, was his interest in the public accounts, the excise and the supply of specie.30CJ vi. 154a, 325a, 403b, 524a. However much he may have been an outsider in Shrewsbury, he was still named to the committee on the bill to allow another Shropshire MP, the royalist Sir Robert Howard*, sell some of his estates.31CJ vi. 612a.

A new dimension to Masham’s career opened up in late 1651 when he was elected by his colleagues to the council of state. He received 47 votes during the second ballot on 25 November, which placed him joint eleventh in that ballot and thirty-second overall.32CJ vii. 42b. Again, he was only following his father who had been a councillor since 1649. He was not especially regular in his attendance at its meetings – he attended only 133 of the 330 meetings – and, apart from the committees on the admiralty and foreign affairs, most of the sub-committees to which he was named were minor, temporary ones.33CSP Dom. 1651-2, pp. xxxv-xlvii, 43, 46, 91-2, 111, 143, 150, 450, 462. His time as a councillor also did not appreciably increase his activity in Parliament. During his year as a councillor of state, he was named to only eight parliamentary committees, all of which were ones to which his father was also named.34CJ vii. 49a, 55b, 58a, 86b, 107b, 115a, 141a, 171b. There is no evidence that the council ever asked him to raise specific matters on their behalf in the Commons. The elections for a new council in November 1652 seem to confirm that Masham had failed to impress his fellow MPs during his year on the council as he was not re-elected. In the following five months until the dismissal of the Rump he was named to only two further committees, including the Army Committee to which he was added on 17 December.35CJ vii. 230b, 251a. That he was included on a number of local commissions in early 1654 indicates that he was thought to be willing to cooperate with the new protectoral government.36C181/6, pp. 5, 13, 59.

In March 1654 he and his father stood successfully for two of the 13 Essex seats in Parliament.37Mercurius Politicus, no. 221 (31 Aug.-7 Sept. 1654, E.809.24). Unlike his father, there is no record of his having played any part in its proceedings. That he was an MP no doubt played a part in his appointment as one of the treasury commissioners the following August, although the main reason he was chosen seems to have been to provide him with some financial assistance.38CSP Dom. 1654, p. 284; Whitelocke, Diary, 393. According to Edmund Ludlowe II*, Cromwell appointed him

upon information that he had divers relations [connections] of considerable interest in the clergy-party, together with a numerous family and small estate during his father’s life, which considerations prevailed with the said gentleman to accept of that employment.39Ludlow, Mems. i. 372.

He did not hold the position for long as he was dead by January 1655.

Masham had needed the money. Most of his lands, which had been settled on him by his father at the time of his marriage, had been entailed, so his younger children were left without any financial settlements. To get round this problem, the family almost immediately began promoting a private bill which would have allowed the profits from the entailed lands to be used for that purpose. However, having received its first reading on 15 January 1655, the bill progressed no further.40CJ vii. 415b. The death of Sir William the following year did at least mean that the eldest son, a third William, inherited the main family estates. A second attempt to secure the passage of the private bill was attempted during the 1656 Parliament. Read for the first time on 22 October 1656, an amended version was approved on 10 November.41CJ vii. 443b, 445a-b, 447b, 449a, 452a, 460b. As it was, one of the younger sons, Francis†, succeeded to the baronetcy anyway in about 1663.