CECIL, William, 2nd earl of Salisbury (1591-1668), of Hatfield, Herts.; Cranborne, Dorset and Salisbury House, The Strand, Westminster.

The Cecils were descended from a younger son of a Herefordshire family who may have fought for Henry VII at Bosworth, and who settled in Stamford and represented the borough in five early Tudor Parliaments. This MP’s grandfather, the great Lord Burghley (Sir William Cecil†), became a major Hertfordshire landowner in 1564, though Hatfield was not acquired until 1607, when it was exchanged for Theobalds. Burghley’s younger son, Robert, also successively secretary of state and lord treasurer, was created Baron Cecil in 1603, Viscount Cranborne in 1604 and earl of Salisbury in 1605.

Acknowledging that Burghley and the 1st earl had both been ‘very wise men’, Edward Hyde* would sneer that their ‘wisdom and virtues died with them, and their children only inherited their titles’. For Hyde, the 2nd earl, ‘a man of no words, except in hunting and hawking, in which he only knew how to behave himself’, was a spineless fool who, by turns, toadied to the king and then to his opponents.1Clarendon, Hist. ii. 542-3. By the late 1630s Salisbury was frustrated that he had become sidelined at court, holding no higher office than the captaincy of the band of gentlemen pensioners. In 1642 he disobeyed the king’s summons to York and instead sided with Parliament. He remained a leading figure in the Lords throughout the 1640s. So long as the 3rd earl of Essex was the lord general, Salisbury tended to support him, while later he served on a number of the major executive committees, including those for the Army, the Revenue and, most importantly, in 1648, the Derby House Committee. In December 1648 he was one of the four parliamentarian peers who made one final, desperate attempt to avert the king’s trial by seeking a negotiated settlement. He is said to have watched the king’s execution from the Cockpit, and was encouraged to accept the republic by the 4th earl of Pembroke (Philip Herbert*), by then perhaps his closest friend.2HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 597.

The abolition of the House of Lords threatened to exclude Salisbury from a formal role in national politics. However, to lessen this blow, he and four other peers were elected to the new council of state on 14 February 1649, although, in Salisbury’s case, this was only after a division in which those opposed to his appointment (20 MPs) came close to outvoting those in favour (23).3CJ vi. 141a; A. and O. Along with three of those peers, he then refused to take the Engagement on the grounds that it was inconsistent with their former actions as members of the House of Lords, but he probably took it in its modified form some days later.4CJ vi. 146b; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 9; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 598. His attendance at council meetings, while never frequent, picked up slightly following his election to Parliament.5CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. xlviii-lxxv. He also sat on its sub-committees on the precedence of ambassadors, the future of the royal palaces and the coinage.6CSP Dom. 1649-50, pp. 14, 136, 430. Along with the rest of the council, he attended the city banquet on 7 June to celebrate the failure of the Leveller uprising.7CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 173; Perfect Diurnall (4-11 June 1649); HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 589; Whitelocke, Memorials, iii. 46.

Along with Pembroke and 1st Lord Howard of Escrick (Edward Howard*), Salisbury was one of only three peers to take advantage of the provision in the ordinance for the abolition of the House of Lords that allowed them to stand for the surviving House. A vacancy had existed at King’s Lynn since 5 July 1647 when Edmund Hudson* had been formally disabled for his royalist sympathies and a new writ was authorized on 22 June 1649, quite possibly with the specific intention that Salisbury could take advantage of it. He was elected without any obvious opposition on 8 September.8King’s Lynn Borough Archives, KL/C7/10, f. 260v; HMC 11th Rep. iii. 182. In his letter of thanks he admitted that the circumstances of his election were unusual but assured the corporation that he would be zealous for the maintenance of their freedoms.9HMC 11th Rep. iii. 182. He took his seat ‘near Mr Speaker’ on 18 September, but, in the view of the 2nd earl of Leicester (Sir Robert Sidney†), ‘he should have done well not to have protested against it so much as he did, unnecessarily and almost in all companies.’10CJ vi. 297a; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 456, 596. As a mark of honour to the three peers, the House ordered that they were to be allowed to sit on all committees to which they had been appointed when they had been in the Lords.11CJ vi. 297a.

It was almost four decades since Salisbury had last sat in the House of Commons and he may have considered himself rather too grand to lower himself to some of the more mundane aspects of parliamentary business. Even in the much diminished House, he mostly stayed in the background. But his purchases of newsbooks suggest that he took care to remain well-informed about current affairs.12Hatfield House, CFEP Bills 254/14; CFEP Bills 254/16. He also left some traces on the Rump’s proceedings. His first committee appointments were concerned with enforcing the Engagement (24 Oct., 27 Nov. 1649), presumably on the basis that his own qualms about taking it did not apply to non-peers.13CJ vi. 313a, 326b. Several months later, on 23 February 1650, he was one of the tellers for extending the deadline for taking the Engagement to 25 March.14CJ vi. 370b. Another early committee appointment was on the bill to relieve those in debtors’ prisons (28 Nov. 1649).15CJ vi. 327a. He was also named to the committees on the bills for preaching the gospel in Ireland and Wales.16CJ vi. 327b, 352a. In January 1650 he wrote to John Moore*, then serving in Ireland, welcoming the latest military successes there and declaring his conviction that, ‘these great victories show that God is pleased to own our cause and to him only be the praise given.’17Belvoir Castle, Lttrs. of Long Parliament MPs, i. f. 21.

He was reappointed to the council of state on 12 February 1650, and in the election for further members, helped count the ballot papers and reported the votes to the House (20 Feb.).18CJ vi. 363a, 368b-369a; CSP Dom. 1650, p. 10. The council then appointed him to its admiralty committee.19CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 3, 18. Salisbury was also among those MPs ordered to consider the regulation of the universities (29 Mar.), the sale of delinquents’ estates (6 Apr.) and the creation of a treasury commission (18 Apr.).20CJ vi. 388b, 393b, 400a. Later, on 4 July, he was added to the Committee on Plundered Ministers.21CJ vi. 437a.

That there is no mention at all of Salisbury in the parliamentary records between mid-August 1650 (when he was named to the committee on the estate bill for the 2nd earl of Downe) and late April 1651 might indicate that he was avoiding Parliament.22CJ vi. 455b. Yet this is probably an illusion, as he continued to attend council meetings throughout the final months of 1650 and in December he was sent by the council to greet the Spanish ambassador.23CSP Dom. 1650, pp. xxvi-xxxv, 480. A sense that Salisbury was not doing enough, however, may explain why he was not re-elected to the council in February 1651. He was next recorded in Parliament on 24 April 1651 when he and Sir John Danvers* were the tellers in favour of the articles of qualification for the elections of Irish MPs.24CJ vi. 567a. What is more likely to have brought him back to Westminster was the petition from his former son-in-law, the 4th earl of Northumberland (Algernon Percy†), which was considered by the House the following day. As Salisbury was the grandfather to Northumberland’s daughter, Elizabeth, the two men had remained close.25Hatfield House, CP 197/133; CP 200/18-24. Salisbury was included on the committee to which Northumberland’s petition was then referred.26CJ vi. 567a. His apparent absence then resumed. He was certainly not present in mid-October, when he instead attended a horse race at Newmarket.27Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/1, unfol. He cannot be placed in Parliament again until 18 December 1651, when, with Sir Henry Mildmay* and Danvers, he was appointed to attend on the Dutch ambassadors.28CJ vii. 53a, 54a. When they dined together the next day, Salisbury and the former grand pensionary, Jacob Cats, toasted ‘the success of the task begun’.29L. Huygens, English Jnl. 1651-1652 ed. A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer (Leiden, 1982), 41-2.

One issue in which Salisbury had a direct personal interest was the planned sell-off of the royal lands. The properties on sale included Theobalds, which his father had presented to the crown so many years before. In acknowledgment of its Cecil origins, James I had later appointed the 2nd earl as the keeper of its park. Now that those lands were to be sold, Salisbury sought compensation for his existing pasture rights and other perquisites. He had raised the issue with the council of state as early as the spring of 1649 and had been added to its committee on timber after it was asked to consider his case.30CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 130. John Goodwyn* later reported to Parliament on the subject from the committee on obstructions to the sales on 15 April 1650. The House acknowledged Salisbury’s rights by the narrowest possible margin, passing the motion only on the Speaker’s tie-breaking vote.31CJ vi. 397a-398a. The committee on obstructions was asked to assess the scale of his potential losses.32CJ vi. 404b-406b, 411b; Hatfield House, CFEP Accounts 46/5. Finally, on 25 December 1651, Parliament offered him £5,360 18s 4d in compensation.33CJ vii. 56a-58a; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 423. Thus satisfied, Salisbury seems to have withdrawn from the House again for almost a year. Theobalds was subsequently sold to William Packer*.

His return in November 1652 was probably prompted primarily by this same issue. When he reappears in the parliamentary records, he was taking a particular interest in the bill for the sale of forfeited estates, as he was appointed on 2 November to the committee set up to protect the interests of the infant heir of the late Sir Christopher Neville†, whose estates were among those included in the bill.34CJ vii. 205a. More significantly, the House considered a proviso to that bill on 18 November, which would have confirmed Salisbury’s compensation grant. That proviso was presumably promoted by Salisbury himself. His colleagues however rejected it.35CJ vii. 217b-218a.

But his reappearance at Westminster did achieve something, for on 25 November, with 42 votes, he narrowly regained his seat on the council of state.36CJ vii. 221a. His membership of the council is one reason why the recurring theme of his activities during the Rump’s final months was assisting in the receptions for foreign ambassadors. During December he helped escort the Spanish and Portuguese ambassadors to their formal audiences with Parliament, as well as welcoming the agent from the grand duke of Tuscany.37CJ vii. 228b, 229a, 230a; CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 41. Later he was among those MPs who received the embassies from Hamburg and Sweden.38CJ vii. 252a-b, 262a. In early February 1653 he was added to the council’s committee on foreign affairs.39CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 137. Meanwhile, he sat on the parliamentary committee to receive complaints against the trustees for the sale of the late king’s goods (25 Jan. 1653).40CJ vii. 250b. During March he served as president of the council.41CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 180. In the debate on 16 March on amendments to the bill for a new representative, he acted as teller in favour of reprieving the decayed borough of Queenborough.42CJ vii. 268a. It can hardly have been a coincidence that the dominant electoral interest in the constituency had been that of the earl of Pembroke. Once the Rump had been dismissed, there seems to have been no suggestion that he might be summoned to sit in the 1653 Nominated Parliament.

With the establishment of the protectorate, Salisbury’s position became increasingly insignificant. A hint of political ambiguity is evident in his portrait by Peter Lely for which he sat in early 1654, as his Garter mantle and Lesser George strike a rather unrepublican note.43Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/4, unfol.; E. Auerbach and C.K. Adams, Paintings and Sculpture at Hatfield House (1971), 167-8. His most obvious public role during these years was as an MP in the first two protectoral Parliaments. In July 1654 the bells were rung at Hatfield to celebrate his return as one of the Hertfordshire MPs.44Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/4, unfol. He was part of the delegation sent to ask Oliver Cromwell* on 18 September to agree to their declaration for a fast day. The following day Salisbury informed the House that the protector had consented.45CJ vii. 368b; Clarke Pprs. v. 212. His petition for payment of his promised compensation as keeper of Theobalds Park was read on 3 November and referred to a committee.46CJ vii. 380b, 381b. His committee appointments included those on the public accounts (22 Nov.) and on the office of sheriff (4 Dec.).47CJ vii. 387b, 394b. In May 1655 he was suffering from gout.48Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/5, p. 58.

The bells were rung again at Hatfield in August 1656 when Salisbury was re-elected for the county.49Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/6, unfol. However, he was initially excluded with the other Hertfordshire county Members.50CJ vii. 425a. One royalist agent, Silius Titus†, assumed that this was because Cromwell somehow feared the earl.51CCSP, iii. 189. Salisbury presented himself before the council and was approved sometime after 22 September, together with his trusted client, Sir Richard Lucy*. He was sitting in the House by 22 October, when he was named to the committee on papists’ estates.52CJ vii. 443b. His main preoccupation remained his claim for compensation regarding Theobalds Park. His petition on the subject was referred to a committee on 10 December, which, in a division, was denied the power to satisfy the debt.53Hatfield House, CFEP Deeds 15/8; CJ vii. 466a-b, 473a; Burton’s Diary, i. 93. That committee seems to have been ready to report back to the House in late May 1657, but this was never happened, probably because it was crowded out by the debates on the Additional Humble Petition.54CJ vii. 539a.

Salisbury, meanwhile, was named to several committees, including those concerning the estates of the 2nd earl of Carlisle (15 Dec. 1656) and the 8th earl of Derby (22 Dec.).55CJ vii. 457b, 466a, 468a, 472a, 475a, 475b. On 8 January 1657 he was a teller in a division in the grand committee on the excise bill.56Burton’s Diary, i. 329. Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*) on 30 April raised the case of Salisbury and the other executors of the 4th earl of Pembroke, who were being sued by some of Pembroke’s creditors. After debating the case in some detail, the House agreed to refer this to a committee and to suspend the court case for the time being.57Burton’s Diary, ii. 82-5; CJ vii. 528b. That suspension was continued on 18 June.58CJ vii. 561b; Burton’s Diary, ii. 256-7. Salisbury was said to have supported the offer of the crown to Cromwell.59Narrative of the late Parliament (1657), 22 (E.935.5). As one of the ‘untainted’ peers, Salisbury was incorrectly rumoured in November 1657 to be one of those who would be summoned to sit in the new second chamber.60HMC Egmont, i. 591. If he attended the brief second session of this Parliament in early 1658, he took no obvious part in its proceedings.

In May 1659 Sir Richard Browne in Paris picked up a rumour that Salisbury was seriously ill.61Nicholas Pprs. iv. 145. That may explain why the earl was not recorded as having resumed his seat in the restored Rump until 18 August, when he was one of the three MPs appointed to receive the French ambassador.62CJ vii. 762b, 765b; CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 123. Six days later he was named to the committee on the petition from Pembroke’s former secretary, Michael Oldisworth*, who was another Pembroke executor. He was also included on the committees concerning the appointment of the clerk of the Parliaments (24 Aug.) and the poor knights of Windsor (20 Sept.).63CJ vii. 767a, 782a. He was still attending Parliament the day before its sittings were again interrupted on 13 October.64Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/8, unfol. That he played much part in the Rump after it reassembled in December is doubtful; he was ill during January 1660 and his gout recurred during February and March.65Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/8, unfol. Meanwhile, in February 1660, he lost his Whitehall lodgings to Nathaniel Whetham I*.66CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 351.

With the calling of the Convention Salisbury resumed his seat in the Lords.67LJ xi. 6b. He had few reasons to welcome the Restoration -- although he did pay for the bells at Hatfield to be rung in celebration – and he would later accuse George Monck* of having restored Charles II purely for personal gain.68Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/10, unfol.; CCSP, v. 175. But Salisbury’s personal relations with the king seem to have been cordial enough when he entertained him at Hatfield on a hunting trip in July 1660.69Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/10, unfol.; Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, ed. W.L. Sachse (Cam. Soc. 3rd ser. xci. 1961), 106. Later that month he obtained a standard royal pardon.70Hatfield House, CFEP Deeds 26/2. By the mid-1660s he may well have been senile.71Pepys, Diary, v. 298-9. He died on 3 December 1668 and was then buried at Hatfield. His eldest son, Charles*, who sat for Hertford in the Short and Long Parliaments, had predeceased him, so he was succeeded by his grandson James†, Viscount Cranborne, who until then had been the MP for Hertfordshire.