LYTTON, Sir William (1586-1660), of Knebworth, Herts.

Lytton’s family originated in Derbyshire, but his great-great-grandfather, Sir Robert Lytton† (d. 1504), an exchequer official, had acquired the reversion to Knebworth in the 1490s and sat in Parliament as knight of the shire for Hertfordshire in 1497.46VCH Herts. iii. 115. By the early seventeenth century they ranked as one of the major families of the county. As a young man, William Lytton was close to the 2nd earl of Salisbury, whose sporting tastes he shared. John Chamberlain described him during that period as the earl’s ‘principal mignon’ and ‘favourite’.47Letters of John Chamberlain, i. 309, 353. A love of hawking also provided a bond with Sir Thomas Barrington*, whose second wife, Judith, was Lytton’s sister.48Eg. 2646, ff. 84, 113, 115. (Lytton would later marry Barrington’s sister, Ruth.)49Vis. Essex 1552, 1558, 1570, 1612 and 1634, (Harl. Soc. xiii.), 343; Luke Letter Bks. 389; Barrington Letters, 187n.

Such connections linked him to those who by the 1630s were dissatisfied by Charles I’s political and religious programme. Local tradition dating back at least to the late nineteenth century claimed that Lytton held meetings at Knebworth with some of them, including John Pym* and John Hampden*.50Kingston, Civil War Herts. 28; P.C. Standing, ‘Hatfield and other great houses’, 130, in Memorials of Old Herts. ed. P.C. Standing (1905). The house still has a ‘Hampden Room’. Retellings of the story make the irreconcilable claims that these meetings took place in the summer of 1640, and that the long-dead Sir John Eliot† was also present, suggesting that the whole tradition may be a romantic Victorian invention. Yet Lytton is known to have disapproved of some of the king’s policies. In 1636 he refused to contribute to the Ship Money collection in Hertfordshire. Local officials asserted that he was among prominent refusers whom they were afraid to prosecute.51CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 88. Lytton was among justices of the peace who in the spring of 1639 gathered evidence against a Hertford shoemaker accused of implying that criticism of the Scottish Covenanters was sinful.52CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 153, 197. But that same year he himself declined to contribute to the king’s campaign against the Covenanters.53Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 912.

Having previously served twice as MP for Hertfordshire, Lytton was an obvious contender for a seat when a new Parliament was called for April 1640. As before, he probably stood with Salisbury’s full support. As a result of the poll held between 12 and 14 March, Lytton gained the senior seat while Arthur Capell* took the junior place. Lytton’s first committee appointment in the Short Parliament was to the privileges committee on 16 April.54CJ ii. 4a. His most significant contribution came two days later when, in what may have been an orchestrated move, he and two other MPs, Sir Harbottle Grimston* and Thomas Atkin*, each presented petitions from different parts of the country. In Lytton’s case, the petition was that from the freeholders and freemen of Hertfordshire complaining about innovations in religion, abuses by feodaries, purveyors and monopolists, and the imposition of Ship Money.55Aston’s Diary, 11-12; Procs. Short Parl. 277-8. Two days later , as part of its wider attack on royal policies, the Commons created a committee to review all the grievances mentioned in the petitions they had heard, Lytton was included on it.56CJ ii. 7b. His one other committee appointment concerned probate administrations (1 May).57CJ ii. 17b.

Even if Lytton did not hold clandestine meetings with Pym and Hampden at Knebworth that summer, he was not idle in the months following the dissolution. In mid-August 1640 he intended to visit Hatfield, presumably to consult with Salisbury.58Eg. 2646, f. 150. On 21 September, Lytton and Capell presented the county’s grievances to the king at York.59Add. 11045, f. 121v; Autobiography and Corresp. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ed. J.O. Halliwell (1845), ii. 242. The following month the two of them were again elected as the Hertfordshire MPs.

From the earliest days of the Long Parliament Lytton was linked to those in the Commons pressing for wholesale political and religious reform. One immediate way in which this group sought to gain the initiative was by manipulating decisions in contested elections. They doubtless nominated Lytton to the privileges committee (6 Nov.) and the committee on blank election indentures (14 Nov.) on the assumption that he would be a trusted ally.60CJ ii. 29a; Procs. LP, i. 150. His godly credentials were meanwhile established as early as 9 November when he was named to the committee to investigate how Catholics could be prevented from sitting as MPs.61CJ ii. 24a. He was also concerned about the powers of monopolists (16 Nov.) and of the courts of star chamber (20 Nov.) and chivalry (21 Nov.).62CJ ii. 30a, 34b; Procs. LP, i. 219. Lytton’s opposition to Ship Money probably made him sympathetic to the complaints against Robert Hyde*.63CJ ii. 39b. He was second-named to the committee considering the petition against Ship Money presented by the inhabitants of Watford, which specifically targeted the former sheriff of Hertfordshire, Thomas Coningsby (5 Dec.).64CJ ii. 45b. Moreover, two days later he was among MPs sent to ask the judges who had ruled in the Ship Money case against Hampden whether they had come under pressure from royal officials beforehand.65CJ ii. 46b.

His one recorded speech from this period related to an issue with a direct Hertfordshire connection. On 12 December a former member of the county’s grand jury, Henry Browne, complained to the Commons about the conduct of one of the assize judges, Sir Robert Berkeley†, with regard to their objections to the repositioning of the communion table in a Hertford church. Lytton confirmed that Berkeley had torn up the jury’s presentment. When Browne’s allegations were referred to the committee on judicial misconduct, Lytton was added to it.66CJ ii. 50a; Northcote Note Bk. 55-6; Procs. LP, 581, 583.

It is likely that he shared the grand jury’s views on the re-ordering of the chancel. He was included on the committee to gather evidence against the strongly Laudian bishop of Bath and Wells, William Piers, which was set up as the next item of business.67CJ ii. 50a. Four days later, he was among the MPs asked to investigate which of the bishops had been behind the controversial new ecclesiastical Canons.68CJ ii. 52a, 129a. Later that same month,he was named to the committees on his alma mater, Emmanuel College, Cambridge (17 Dec.) and to receive complaints against another of the most notorious of the Laudians, the bishop of Ely, Matthew Wren (22 Dec.).69CJ ii. 52a, 56a, 197a. Meanwhile, he was probably keen to see that the existing laws against Catholic priests were firmly enforced.70CJ ii. 73a-b, 105b. He doubtless also supported the bill against superstition and idolatry, introduced in February 1641.71CJ ii. 84b. Some weeks later he was named to the committee on the bill to prevent clergymen holding temporal offices (8 Mar.).72CJ ii. 99a.

Some of his other committee appointments were just as high-profile. On 18 December 1640 he was second-named, after Oliver St John*, to the committee to investigate the dissolutions of the past two Parliaments.73CJ ii. 53b. A month later, on 18 January 1641, he and others were added to the committee on the army.74CJ ii. 69b. But there were other issues he seems to have been happy to leave to others. The spring of 1641 was dominated by the proceedings against the former lord deputy of Ireland, the earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†). On 18 March Lytton was one of the MPs asked to find a suitable venue for the impeachment hearings.75CJ ii. 107b. But this was his only known involvement in the earl’s trial and subsequent attainder. Lytton took the Protestation on 3 May, as soon as it was introduced.76CJ ii. 133b. On 20 May his name was the first on the list of 19 MPs added to the committee for the reduction in the number of committees.77CJ ii. 151a. Several weeks later he was the first MP added to the committee on chancery fines (7 June).78CJ ii. 169a. In late June he was one of the four MPs sent to examine Thomas Philipps concerning the case between William Ashburnham* and Walter Long*.79CJ ii. 194a, 194b; Procs. LP, v. 427-8.

With most MPs keen for prompt disbandment, Lytton was among those appointed on 20 May to discuss with the Lords options for the future of the two armies in the north of England.80CJ ii. 152a. It was a measure of Lytton’s standing in the Commons that in late June he was one of the 16 MPs who, along with eight peers, were appointed to hand over the money that Parliament had agreed to pay to the Scots.81CJ ii. 182b. On 24 July Lytton was a recorder of the conference with the Lords on raising funds for this by borrowing from the City.82CJ ii. 223b.

Lytton’s support for the Ten Propositions, offered to the king at about this time, can be inferred from his role as reporter of the joint conference with the Lords on 12 July. Participants heard Charles’s written assurance that, in responding to the demand that he dismiss those of his advisers who had tried to ‘stir up division between him and his people’, by asserting that he would not dismiss advisers on the basis of ‘slander’, he had not intended to impute slander to Parliament.83CJ ii. 208a. Meanwhile, Lytton was added to the committee to decide what business needed to be completed before the king acted on his declared intention to leave for Scotland on 10 August.84CJ ii. 211a. Before his departure, the king elevated Capell to the peerage. On 7 August Lytton moved the writ for the Hertfordshire by-election to replace him.85Procs. LP, vi. 270. Lytton was a member of the committee that sat at the Guildhall for the duration of the recess beginning on 9 September.86CJ ii. 288b. The search for money was as pressing as ever when the Commons re-assembled on 20 October. On 2 November Lytton was among the MPs who went to seek a loan of £50,000 from the City.87CJ ii. 302a.

During the debates on 20 November about which prominent Catholics should be arrested, both Lytton and Sir Hervey Bagot* spoke against the inclusion of Walter, 2nd Lord Aston of Forfar, even though it would seem that both were less than confident in arguing that he was not a Catholic.88D’Ewes (C), 174. Lytton would have known Aston because the latter had strong connections with Hertfordshire through his mother’s family, the Sadlers of Standon. On the other hand, on 14 December the Commons sent Lytton to the Lords in pursuit of peers’ agreement to their request that seven condemned Catholic priests should be executed despite the king’s wish to reprieve them. He took with him the latest news of the Catholic uprising in Ireland.89CJ ii. 342b-343a; D’Ewes (C), 288-9; LJ iv. 474b. Two days later he presented the Hertfordshire petition calling for swift action against the atrocities being committed by the Irish Catholics.90D’Ewes (C), 300. When letters en route to Rome were intercepted at Plymouth, Lytton headed the Commons committee set up to investigate (31 Dec.).91CJ ii. 364a.

As political tension ratchetted up in early 1642, Lytton was to the fore. On 5 January, the day after the king’s abortive attempt to arrest the Five Members, he moved for a suspension of the sitting until the drafting of a Declaration condemning Charles’s actions had been completed, although this proved unnecessary owing to prompt reporting from the committee appointed to effect it.92PJ i. 14. The House then agreed to adjourn until the following week, appointing a large committee, including Lytton, to meet at the Guildhall in the interim.93CJ ii. 369a. Following the resumption of sittings, on 15 January the Commons sent Lytton to seek a conference with the Lords to discuss their disapproval of the king’s wish to appoint Sir John Bryon† as lieutenant of the Tower of London and their preference for Sir John Conyers. At the same time he alerted the Lords to the reports that the king was massing troops to the west of London.94CJ ii. 381a; LJ iv. 515a; PJ i. 76, 77, 81. On 17 January, when the Commons adjourned for four days, Lytton was again appointed to the committee to meet in the meantime, this time at Grocers’ Hall, with the task of deciding how to preserve the peace of the kingdom.95CJ ii. 385a.

On 25 January Lytton alerted the Commons to the Hertfordshire gentlemen who were at the door with a petition declaring their support for Parliament and requesting that bishops and the Catholic peers be barred from voting in the Lords. He headed the list of MPs appointed to discover who had printed a rival petition, described by Sir Thomas Dacres* as ‘false’.96PJ i. 160-1, 167; CJ ii. 393a. Yet when Edward Wingate* then accused Charles Price* of muttering comments against the first petition, Sir Simonds D’Ewes* and Lytton sought to excuse the elderly Price and the matter was taken no further.97PJ i. 161, 167.

When the king objected to the passing of a bill asserting Parliament’s authority over the militia, Lytton was one of the seven MPs appointed on 21 February to consider how they should respond.98CJ ii. 446b. That same day he was also named to the committee to devise measures to prevent Irish Catholics travelling over to England.99CJ ii. 447a. On 7 March he was part of the delegation sent to Newmarket to present Parliament’s latest Declaration to the king.100CJ ii. 469b. He was also the first MP named to the committee appointed on 19 March to meet with some of the peers to decide how the money raised to assist those Irish Protestants affected by the Irish rebellion should be distributed.101CJ ii. 486a. When the king indicated that he might go to Ireland in person, Lytton was a member of the large committee created on 13 April to draw up reasons against it.102CJ ii. 525b. On 3 May he presented the petition from the parishioners of St Peter’s, in St Albans.103PJ ii. 269.

It was events at Hull that finally pushed Parliament and the king to the brink of armed conflict. Lytton was a member of the committee appointed on 16 April to defend the former’s decision to remove arms from Hull to London.104CJ ii. 531a. A week later Sir John Hotham* refused to admit the king. As preparations for war began, Lytton was unwavering in his support for Parliament. During May and June he was among the MPs who went to ask the corporation of London and the City livery companies for loans.105CJ ii. 558b, 570b, 623b, 632b. On 12 May, he was involved in drafting the order indemnifying anyone implementing the Militia Ordinance.106CJ ii. 568b. On 21 June he may have helped draft the response to the king’s printed Declaration against Parliament.107CJ ii. 635b. On 9 July he and three other MPs waited on the common council of London to propose that they raise a force of 10,000 volunteers.108CJ ii. 663b.

Having set an example by promising on 10 June that he would personally supply Parliament with two horses and £100, Lytton could encourage others to do likewise.109PJ iii. 468. On 30 June he gave the Commons the welcome news that the inhabitants of Watford had already raised £1,200, 150 volunteers and 50 horse and that they hoped to raise a further 60 horses.110PJ iii. 153; CJ ii. 644a. On 5 July he and Sir Thomas Dacres were told to attend the Hertfordshire quarter sessions on 10 July to encourage the collection of money, plate and horses.111CJ ii. 654b. This was subsequently extended to include all the Hertfordshire MPs.112PJ iii. 213; CJ ii. 671b. Meanwhile, on 9 July Lytton carried to the Lords letters from the deputy lieutenants and militia officers of Warwickshire reporting that they had already implemented the Militia Ordinance.113CJ ii. 662b; LJ v. 194a, 195b-196a. On 30 July he was sent to the Upper House to seek agreement to the Commons’ Declaration justifying their military preparations.114CJ ii. 697a, 697b; LJ v. 249a.

Having been tireless in the Commons throughout the unfolding crisis, Lytton became less visible at Westminster during the autumn of 1642, plausibly because he felt he could be more useful in Hertfordshire. He is next recorded at Westminster on 20 October, when he was part of the delegation who went to meet with the lord mayor and the corporation of London.115CJ ii. 817b. He was in Westminster again by 3 December, when he was sent to the Lords to encourage the peers to donate more money to help fund the army.116CJ ii. 874b, 875a; LJ v. 471b. Two days later he was appointed to the committee to issue warrants ordering innkeepers in and around London to compile lists of men and horses that could be recruited for the parliamentarian army.117CJ ii. 876b. He was then a reporter of a conference with the Lords on 23 January 1643 over the requisitioning of horses.118CJ ii. 938b.

In late January, Lytton was on the delegation of eight MPs and four peers who travelled to Oxford to present peace proposals to the king in what was the first serious attempt to end the fighting through negotiation.119CJ ii. 945a; LJ v. 575a, 577b. While some at Westminster wanted peace at almost any price, Lytton probably represented those who considered that there should be no let-up in the war until the right terms were agreed. It was quickly established that there was little imminent prospect of an agreement. When in mid-March the two Houses considered new terms for a ceasefire while negotiations continued, Lytton was sent to request a joint conference on some of the articles suggested by the Lords (16 Mar.).120CJ iii. 3b; LJ v. 650b. A week later he was a teller with Denzil Holles* for the majority in a division over a reply to the king’s refusal to accept a proposal that, under the ceasefire, forts or ships could be left under the control of persons nominated by Parliament. Although the precise context is unclear, it seems likely that Lytton still wanted to pursue the negotiations, even if the chances of success now looked more remote than ever.121CJ iii. 17a. Within weeks any hope of continuing the peace talks had been abandoned.

On 28 March 1643 the Commons sent Lytton back to Hertfordshire to assist in the collection of assessments.122CJ iii. 22a. Defeating the king’s army in the field now seemed the only realistic option. Lytton had probably returned to Westminster by 12 April, when he was among the MPs asked to consult with the Londoners about the possibility of introducing a new tax on commodities.123CJ iii. 41a. On 18 April, when the Commons were informed that 1,500 troops from Essex being sent to join the siege of Reading were refusing to move further than Hertford unless they were supplied with waggons, Lytton and Dacres (or possibly Sir Henry Mildmay*) were ordered to oblige.124Harl. 164, f. 373; CJ iii. 51a. Such first-hand experience helps explain why some weeks Lytton was included on the committee to consider complaints about abuses in requisitioning (6 May).125CJ iii. 73a, 93b. Two months later, after the lord general, the 3rd earl of Essex, raised similar concerns, Lytton was also named to that committee (13 July).126CJ iii. 165a. In August he was also among MPs asked to investigate complaints about the seizure of horses in Hertfordshire.127CJ iii. 214a.

Meanwhile, on 9 June, Lytton had joined with other MPs in swearing the oath to support the parliamentarian armies.128CJ iii. 118a. On 29 July he was named to a committee to establish which of the existing committees had powers to handle money.129CJ iii. 186a. That same day he was among MPs sent to consult with the corporation of London over the appointment of Sir William Waller* as the commander of the new forces to be raised in London.130CJ iii. 187b. On 7 August he was appointed to the committee to search goods passing through the port of London.131CJ iii. 196b.

On 8 September, as the Solemn League and Covenant to formalise alliance with the Scots was under discussion, Lytton obtained leave to go into the country for eight days.132CJ iii. 233b. He was not among MPs who swore the resulting Covenant on 25 September. Five days later, he was among several MPs who asked for more time to consider their positions.133CJ iii. 259b. But by 3 October he had managed to overcome his scruples and duly swore the Covenant.134CJ iii. 262a.

Later that day he and Sir Philip Stapilton* were sent to inform the earl of Essex that the Hertfordshire horse were to be placed under his command.135CJ iii. 262b. On 31 October Lytton was among MPs deputed to arrange for the payment of arrears to the garrison at Aylesbury, with that at Newport Pagnell the first line of defence against possible royalist attack on Hertfordshire.136CJ iii. 297a. On 15 November he was one of the Eastern Association MPs sent to consult with the earl of Essex about the state of the Newport Pagnell garrison.137CJ iii. 311b. (It was at about this time that his kinsman, Sir Samuel Luke*, was appointed as its governor.) He was soon named to the committee on the bill for raising money in Hertfordshire (15 Dec.).138CJ iii. 342a. On 1 January 1644 he was named to the committee which paved the way for the creation of the committee for taking the accounts of the kingdom.139CJ iii. 355a.

Since March 1643 Lytton had been a member of the Hertfordshire sequestrations committee, an appointment confirmed that June.140A. and O.; CJ iii. 141b; LJ vi. 106a. However, Lytton had soon come under suspicion of using this position to favour his friends in two of the most sensitive of the cases that the Hertfordshire committee had to handle. First, that July he intervened to prevent the sequestrators seizing the goods of Lady Capell, the wife of his former colleague, on the grounds that Capell’s sequestration was still under consideration in the Lords.141HMC Var. vii. 344-5. But his other motive – friendship with the Capells – is apparent in his remark to one of their kinsmen that, ‘there is nothing certain but my heartiness in her ladyship’s service; these times are tetchy, people humorous and inconstant’.142Add. 40630, f. 123. Secondly, he was accused of hiding goods belonging to Sir Thomas Fanshawe* to prevent them being seized by the sequestrators. The Commons heard the complaints about Fanshawe’s goods on 1 January 1644 and a committee was set up to investigate.143CJ iii. 355a-b. Some of the local sequestration commissioners had previously visited Knebworth in search of these goods, but nothing more was hear of the Commons enquiry.144The Impact of the First Civil War on Herts. ed. A. Thomson (Herts. Rec. Soc. xxiv), 167.

Lytton was among the MPs temporarily added to the Excise Committee on 27 January 1644 when obstructions to its collection was referred to it.145CJ iii. 378b. His own hesitation doubtless informed his membership of the committee discussing the proposal that the Covenant should be applied nationally (22 Feb.).146CJ iii. 404b. Predictably, he was included on the committee appointed that same day to examine the military accounts for Hertfordshire.147CJ iii. 405a. On 26 March he was among those appointed to prepare a letter to the major-general of the Eastern Association, the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†), about the double collection of the fifth and twentieth part.148CJ iii. 438b. On 11 April Lytton was among those named to the committee to raise money for the Aylesbury garrison.149CJ iii. 457a. A month later he was one of the five MPs sent to tell the earl of Essex that the regiment stationed at Bedford was to be transferred there.150CJ iii. 489b. That same month he was included on another committee created to review the finances of the Newport Pagnell garrison (30 May).151CJ iii. 510b. When a delegation from Hertfordshire, headed by Sir John Wittewronge*, presented a petition to the Commons on 27 July seeking reforms to the organisation of the county’s militia, Lytton and Dacres were sent to inform the petitioners of its referral to the committee to reform the army.152CJ iii. 572a-b; Harl. 166, ff. 101-101v.

On 16 September Lytton was included on the committee to consider Parliament’s response to the latest letter from the king.153CJ iii. 629a. On 8 October, like other MPs from within the region, Lytton was asked to consider a petition from the Eastern Association committee at Cambridge requesting permission to retain the excise and sequestration revenues to pay their own troops.154CJ iii. 655b. Three weeks later he was among those added to the Army Committee when it was told to decide how to divide the latest vote of supplies between the various armies.155CJ iii. 681b. He was also named to the committee on 14 November to consider which offices were held by MPs, a move foreshadowing the Self-Denying Ordinance.156CJ iii. 695b. That same month Parliament sent commissioners to Oxford in the latest attempt to re-start the peace talks. When the duke of Richmond and the earl of Southampton travelled to Westminster with the king’s reply, Lytton was among MPs appointed to receive them.157CJ iii. 725b.

Lytton seems to have been willing to go along with the re-organisation of the army that created the New Model army. On 17 February 1645 he was included on the committee to consider how the newly-passed New Model ordinance was to be implemented.158CJ iv. 51a. Later, on 24 March, he was named to the committee on the self-denying bill.159CJ iv. 88a. A crucial factor in persuading the soldiers to accept these changes was the prompt payment of their wages and arrears. When on 19 March the Commons ordered that wages for a fortnight were to be paid to the earl of Essex’s lifeguards from the excise, Anthony Nicoll* and Lytton were despatched to inform the excise commissioners.160CJ iv. 84a.

Soon Lytton gained first-hand experience of the discontented troops. On 5 March he complained in the Commons about 300 mutinous mounted troops from the parliamentarian army causing trouble in Hertfordshire. According to him, they ‘did spoil in the country and were near his own house at Knebworth’.161Harl. 166, f. 182. This prompted the Commons to order that a Declaration be prepared offering them a pardon if they gave themselves up within a specified period.162CJ iv. 69b. Later that same month Lytton, together with Philip, 4th Baron Wharton and Cornelius Holland*, conferred with the collector of the Newport Pagnell garrison, William Love, about the proposed bill to grant extra funding to the troops stationed within the Eastern Association there and at Bedford and King’s Lynn. Love told his boss, Sir Samuel Luke*, that he was confident that Lytton would give his full support to Dacres in promoting this bill in the House.163Luke Letter Bks. 496-7. That bill was eventually passed in early September.164A. and O. i. 762-6.

On 10 July Lytton was appointed to the committee on the proposal that additional troops should be raised in London.165CJ iv. 203a. Six days later he presented the Hertfordshire petition calling for the abolition of tithes, but other MPs thought that this an unsuitable moment to pursue it.166Harl. 166, f. 240; CJ iv. 208b. In mid-August he sat on the committee to investigate sequestration abuses (16 Aug.).167CJ iv. 244b. Two months later he and Dacres were asked by the county standing committee to resolve the assessment rating dispute between St Albans and the surrounding hundred.168Impact of the First Civil War ed. Thomson, 97-8. On 6 December he twice acted as a teller to help block the proposal that £4,000 be granted to the Northamptonshire county standing committee.169CJ iv. 367b.

All this represents a noticeable tailing-off of his activities in the House. There may have been a personal reason for this: his second wife, Ruth, died in December 1645.170Clutterbuck, Herts. ii. 377. He is next recorded at Westminster in connection with some family business. In late April 1646 he received permission to visit the royalist Giles Strangways* in the Tower.171CJ iv. 524b. Strangways and Sir William’s eldest son, Rowland*, were married to two sisters and this visit was doubtless so that Sir William could break the news to Strangways of the death of his three-week old son, who had died at Knebworth the previous day.172Chauncy, Herts. ii. 103; RCHME Herts, 136. Other evidence confirms that the Lyttons looked after the Strangways children while their father remained in the Tower.173Dorset RO, D124, Mary Gresley to Lady Strangways, 4 Aug. 1650.

On 28 May Lytton was one of five MPs asked to consider how to find the £300 owed to Oliver Cromwell* for his arrears.174CJ iv. 557b. In July he and Dacres were among the Hertfordshire members of the Eastern Association Committee whom the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs consulted over whether the cavalry forces stationed at St Albans should be transferred to Ireland.175CSP Ire. 1633-47, p. 476. He was also named to the committee on the petition from Colonel Lilburne (3 July).176CJ iv. 601b. Towards the end of the year he was a member of the committees on the bill for the maintenance of ministers (11 Nov.), the bill to reform the Committee for Compounding (11 Dec.) and complaints against lay preachers (31 Dec.).177CJ iv. 719b, v. 8b, 35a. On 8 March 1647 he was granted permission to go into the country.178CJ v. 107b. Two months later he was named to the committee on the bill to borrow £200,000 (12 May).179CJ v. 168b.

Lytton almost certainly supported the Eleven Members, but the only evidence that he was present during the Presbyterian coup in late July and early August 1647 is an order on 3 August by the MPs remaining at Westminster for the return of his horses.180CJ v. 267a. He was absent at the call of the House on 9 October, but his excuses were subsequently accepted and the fine imposed on him was repaid six days later.181CJ v. 330a, 333b. He was probably back by 22 October, as he was then included on the committee on army arrears.182CJ v. 340a. He was certainly present on 9 December when he acted as teller with Sir Robert Pye I* in favour of reading the July-August ordinance that had reconstituted the controversial, and Presbyterian-dominated, ‘committee of safety’ – a move presumably intended to weaken the case of those eager to punish the committee’s members (9 Dec.).183CJ v. 378a. On 23 December he and Dacres were appointed to go to Hertfordshire to encourage the prompt collection of the assessment arrears.184CJ v. 400b.

Evidence of his involvement in events at Westminster during 1648 is slight. On 4 May he was a member of the committee to settle the militia.185CJ v. 551a. The following month he was also named to the committee on the bill to appoint new prebendaries of Christ Church, Oxford (17 June).186CJ v. 603b. On 24 September he and Dacres were again appointed to make sure that the Hertfordshire assessment arrears were collected promptly.187CJ vi. 30b. Two days later he was excused at the call of the House.188CJ vi. 34b. Lytton’s final committee appointment, made on 21 October, was for conferring with Sir Thomas Fairfax* on reducing the army.189CJ vi. 58a. At Pride’s Purge he was arrested on 7 December but quickly released, presumably on the orders of Sir William Constable*.190OPH xviii. 453; A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62); A Vindication (1649), 29 (irregular pagination) (E.539.5); Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 152, 379.

This ended Lytton’s political career. He was removed from the Hertfordshire commission of the peace and he was not appointed any public position under the republic or the protectorate. When he was drawn into political matters, it was with great reluctance. In 1642 the earl of Salisbury had transferred some of his lands in Wiltshire into the names of Lytton and Roger Hill II. Since the real possessor was probably Denzil Holles, the sequestration of his estates in 1651 caused complications.191CCC, 2772. Lytton made no attempt to stand for Parliament under the protectorate, preferring instead to see his eldest son, Rowland, elected as one of the Hertfordshire MPs in 1656 and 1659. It is not known whether Sir William resumed his seat in the Long Parliament when the secluded Members were re-admitted in 1660. It would be understandable if he did not as he was then in his mid-seventies

Lytton died on 14 August 1660, aged 74. He was buried at Knebworth three days later.192Chauncy, Herts. ii. 103; Clutterbuck, Herts. ii. 376; RCHME Herts. 136. In his will he expressed an earnest desire to be buried privately ‘by the Book of Common Prayer’ without ‘funeral pomp and not to have any sermon for the avoiding of flattery’.193PROB11/304/185.