CECIL, Thomas (1542-1623)

Cecil’s great-grandfather, David Cecil^‡ (c.1460-?1540), was the younger son of a Herefordshire yeoman who fought for Henry VII at Bosworth. Rewarded with the post of yeoman of the guard, he subsequently rose to the rank of serjeant at arms. David settled at Stamford in Lincolnshire, where he married the daughter of a prominent townsman and became an important figure in the corporation, representing the borough five times in the Commons. David’s son, Richard Cecil^‡, followed him into royal service, represented Stamford and bought the manors of Burghley and Little Burghley across the border in Northamptonshire. However, it was Richard’s son, William Cecil^†, who brought the family to national prominence. He became secretary of state and a privy councillor in the reign of Edward VI, posts to which he was reappointed by Elizabeth at her accession. Raised to the peerage as Lord Burghley in 1571, he was appointed lord treasurer the following year.75 C. Read, Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Eliz. 17-21; HP Commons, 1508-58, i. 602-3; S. Alford, Burghley, 9.

Elizabethan career, c.1560-1601

Cecil was Burghley’s only son by his first marriage and a great disappointment to his father who, in 1561, complained that his heir, then aged just 19, was ‘slothful in keeping his bed, negligent and rash in expenses, ... careless in his apparel, an unordinate lover of unmeet plays, as dice and cards; in study soon weary, in game never’. However, Cecil’s principal fault in his father’s eyes was probably that he lacked any spark of William’s political genius.76 CSP For. 1561-2, pp. 104-5, 299. Cecil’s relationship with his father may eventually have improved, as the latter found a kindred spirit and political heir in Cecil’s younger half-brother, Robert Cecil^* (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury), and as Burghley’s thoughts turned to the founding of a noble dynasty. Cecil’s first marriage, to the daughter and co-heir of a Yorkshire baron, linked the Cecils with the Percys, Manners and Nevilles, all well established noble families, and produced a large number of children. Cecil also became very useful to his father as he spent most of his early married life at Burghley. There he oversaw the construction of his father’s imposing mansion house and the management of the surrounding estate, tasks which Burghley’s political duties left him little time for.77 Read, Mr. Secretary Cecil, 309; C. Knight, ‘Cecils at Wimbledon’, Patronage, Culture and Power ed. P. Croft, 53-4.

Although Cecil was repeatedly elected to Parliament, he was not trusted with any major political office during his father’s lifetime. He openly admitted that the abilities of his half-brother Robert were much greater than his own.78 HMC Hatfield, xv. 132. His ambitions seem to have been more military than political, despite a mild temperament. However, even here he was disappointing, despite the war with Spain. On being appointed governor of Brill in 1585, he was slow to take up his command because of an attack of gout, a condition from which he suffered for the rest of his life. Not surprisingly, therefore, he resigned after less than two years in post.79 CSP Dom. 1598-1601, p. 252; CSP Scot. 1571-4, p. 565; HMC Rutland, i. 181. By 1605 his walking appears to have been constantly impaired by gout. HMC Hatfield, xvii. 51-2.

Cecil inherited the Burghley barony in 1598, along with the core of his father’s estates, which were situated in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire and included Burghley House, in Northamptonshire. He also inherited his father’s Westminster residence on the Strand.80 PROB 11/92, ff. 242v-5. The following year he was appointed president of the council in the North, almost certainly because his younger brother, who had succeeded his father as the queen’s chief minister, wanted someone trustworthy in that position rather than for his abilities. However, the new Lord Burghley found the northern cold exacerbated his gout, and in June 1600 it was reported that he desired to surrender the post. His wish was not granted, but he usually got permission to come south for the winter, as a result of which he was in London in February 1601, allowing him to play a prominent part in suppressing Essex’s rising. In reward for this service, he was made a knight of the Garter the following May.81 Chamberlain Letters, i. 109, 171; CSP Dom. 1598-1601, pp. 403, 508-9; HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, ii. 466; HMC Bath, v. 278.

The accession of James I and the 1604 session of Parliament

Burghley was at his post in York when Elizabeth I died on 24 Mar. 1603; three days later he reported to his brother that the inhabitants of the north had welcomed the accession of James I and that he had sent his son, Edward Cecil^* (subsequently Viscount Wimbledon) to greet the new king.82 HMC Hatfield, xv. 10-11. However, writing to Robert again on the 30th, he expressed anxiety, both about his power as president, which was yet to be confirmed by the new monarch, and the arrangements for James’s journey south. He soon received a commission from the king, but continued to bombard his brother with letters about the difficulties he anticipated in accommodating James and perceived slights to his own authority, which understandably drew an impatient response from Robert.83 Ibid. 18, 28-9, 31-2, 36; Lansd. 238, ff. 130-1. Nevertheless, Burghley evidently impressed James with his honesty and good nature, if not with his intelligence; Godfrey Goodman^*, bishop of Gloucester, claimed that James ‘did ever love’ Burghley.84 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I. i. 196. It may have been because he quickly established a sound relationship with the new king that in May Burghley was permitted to surrender the presidency of the North. However, his resignation did not take effect until after June, when he returned to York to welcome James’s consort, Anne of Denmark. His principal concern on leaving office seems to have been to avoid any suspicion that he had been disgraced, fears probably assuaged by his appointment to the Privy Council.85 HMC Hatfield, xv. 106, 118-19, 132-3. In July he successfully claimed the office of almoner at the coronation by right of his wife, who, it was said, was seised of the barony of Bedford.86 CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 24. On this barony, which was not a peerage dignity, see CP, ii. 88.

In a briefing prepared for the Spanish ambassadors sent to England in 1603 to negotiate peace, Burghley was described as ‘a great heretic [suitable] for little and hostile to peace’.87 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics ed. A.J. Loomie (Cath. Rec. Soc. lxiv), 7. The last point at least was inaccurate, as Burghley, like his half-brother Robert, had been a supporter of peace with Spain since at least July 1601.88 Ibid. 6; CSP Dom. 1601-3, p. 75. He was certainly a staunch Protestant, but though sympathetic to some puritan proposals was probably not a puritan himself. His chaplain, Mr Fuller, was praised by the puritan, Lady Margaret Hoby, as ‘a godly and religious young man’. This was almost certainly Thomas Fuller, the father of the author of the Worthies of England, whom Burghley appointed to a living in Northamptonshire and who subsequently became a prebend of Salisbury Cathedral. His other chaplains included John Layfield, one of the contributors to the Authorised Version.89 Pvte. Life of an Elizabethan Lady ed. J. Moody, 20, 137; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 232; T. Fuller, Worthies of Eng. i. p. ix; CCEd. In 1609 Burghley wrote on behalf of one Vaughan, a kinsman of Richard Vaughan^*, bishop of London, describing him as a ‘poor minister and a good preacher’ but ‘no puritan’ as he ‘liveth orderly … according to the orders of the Church’.90 SP14/45/147.

In January 1604 Burghley was offered a higher rank in the peerage by Sir John Hobart^‡, an employee of his son-in-law, William Paulet^*, 4th marquess of Winchester. How Hobart came to be in a position to offer a title to Burghley is unknown, but he certainly had powerful friends at court, for shortly thereafter he was returned to Parliament at the request of another of Burghley’s sons-in-law, the attorney general, Sir Edward Coke^‡. Burghley, however, replied that he was ‘resolved to content myself with this estate I have of a baron’, having ‘little enough to maintain the degree I am in’. He was ‘sure they that succeed me will be less able to maintain it than I am’, as he would need to provide for three younger sons.91 F. Peck, Desiderata Curiosa (1779), 197. The ms original has not been discovered. These words should probably not be taken at face value. Burghley’s real objection to Hobart’s offer may have been to the cost of securing the services of Hobart and his friends.

In the elections to the first Jacobean Parliament in 1604, Burghley secured the return of his son, Richard Cecil^‡, at Peterborough, the liberty of which he owned, and his cousin, Sir Robert Wingfield^‡, at Stamford.92 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 237, 294. Exeter was recorded as attending 34 of the 71 sittings of the 1604 session, 48 per cent of the total. His attendance would undoubtedly have been higher had he not been rendered lame by a swollen foot, presumably as a result of gout. Advised by his doctor to go to Bath, he applied to his half-brother, now Lord Cecil, for leave of absence, both from Parliament and the St George’s day Garter feast, promising to give his proxy to Cecil, ‘for that I presume in my mind our voice do tend one way, that is to no particular respect but to the service of his Majesty and to our country’. A licence was accordingly issued on 14 Apr., but in the event Burghley continued to attend the Lords until the 28th. The day before he intended to leave for Bath, he wrote again to his half-brother, sending his proxy and stating that ‘I hope I have seen the end of this great cause, wherein you have by all men’s opinions carried yourself most honourably and faithfully towards your country’. This is perhaps an obscure reference to Cecil’s attempts to obstruct the Union. Burghley returned to the Lords on 7 June, having missed 25 sittings.93 Hatfield House, CP189/72-3; CSP Dom. 1603-10, p. 96; LJ, ii. 263a.

At the start of the session Burghley was named by the king to the largely honorary post of trier of petitions for Gascony and was appointed to 18 of the 70 committees established by the upper House. On two occasions he was named to committees when he was not marked as present in the chamber. This was because the bills under consideration (concerning witchcraft and the repair of Whitby harbour) were referred to committees of which he was already a member. Burghley had previously been appointed to consider a separate measure for repairing another Yorkshire harbour, that of Bridlington, presumably because of his recent service as president of the council in the North and because he was a Yorkshire landowner (his wife having inherited Snape Castle in the North Riding): the Whitby harbour bill was referred to the same committee.94 LJ, ii. 264b, 275a, 281a, 286a; Knight, 54. Burghley must also have been concerned with the bill to relieve Capt. Thomas Lovell, to which committee he was appointed on 17 April. Burghley and other members of the fen sewer commission had contracted with Lovell to drain Deeping Fen, near Stamford, but local opposition had denied Lovell (who had invested his whole estate in the project) the recompense he had been promised in the agreement, which the bill now assured to Lovell. On 1 May Lovell wrote to Cecil informing him that the bill had Burghley’s support. It was subsequently enacted.95 LJ, ii. 280a; W. Dugdale, Hist. of Imbanking and Drayning of Divers Fenns and Marshes (1662), 205-7; L. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, 356; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 79.

Burghley was named five times to attend conferences with the Commons, including those on wardship and ecclesiastical affairs. He was also appointed to consider two bills concerning religion, about church courts and the execution of laws against Catholics. The last measure occasioned his only known speech of the session. On 25 June Anthony Maria Browne^*, 2nd Viscount Montagu, speaking against the bill, delivered his controversial defence of the Catholic faith. In the ensuing uproar Burghley was the only member of the upper House who opposed punishing Montagu, arguing that they should let the speech ‘pass unregarded … because he supposed that the lord Viscount Montagu did affect a glory therein, and would be glad to get the more reputation among the papists’.96 LJ, ii. 266b, 282b, 323a, 324b, 328b.

Burghley’s opposition to punishing Montagu did not, however, mean he supported toleration for Catholics. According to a report by the Spanish ambassador, Burghley, unlike his brother, thought that the penalties imposed on Catholics should not be relaxed. At a meeting of the Privy Council in September 1604, he argued that Catholics could not be trusted to be good subjects because they would always place their allegiance to the pope above their allegiance to the king.97 A.J. Loomie, ‘Toleration and Diplomacy’ Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. n.s. liii. 56. Burghley was nevertheless sometimes willing to do favours for individual Catholics. In 1613 he fell out with the puritan Sir Edward Montagu^* (subsequently 1st Lord Montagu) after he appointed the Catholic Sir Thomas Brudenell^* (later 1st earl of Cardigan) to junior offices in Rockingham forest, Northamptonshire, formerly held by Montagu’s uncle.98 HMC Buccleuch, i. 239; iii. 148; E.S. Cope, Life of a Public Man, 58.

Becoming an earl and the later sessions of the first Jacobean Parliament, 1605-10

Burghley was one of the commissioners who, on 7 Feb. 1605, prorogued the Parliament until the following October, on which occasion he witnessed the formal introduction to the Lords of his son-in-law, Edward Denny^*, Lord Denny (later earl of Norwich).99 LJ, ii. 349b. More than two months later, on 27 Apr. Gilbert Talbot^*, 7th earl of Shrewsbury was informed that Burghley would be made an earl, having ‘made great means’ to that end.100 Illustrations of Brit. Hist. ed. E. Lodge, 152-3. It is not clear why Burghley had changed his mind over his advancement, since he had rejected promotion in January 1604, but it was probably because his half-brother, Lord Cecil, now Viscount Cranborne, was about to become earl of Salisbury. Nevertheless, Burghley continued to be outranked by Cranborne, for although both men were created earls on the same day, Cranborne was placed above him. It is not clear why Burghley chose the title Exeter, a city with which he had no known connection. His father had wanted to be made earl of Northampton (the county in which Burghley was located), but that title had been taken by Henry Howard^* in 1604. He may have decided on Exeter because it had previously been a dukedom. The new earl attended Parliament for the first time in his new capacity on 3 Oct. 1605, when he again acted as a commissioner for proroguing Parliament.101 CSP Dom. 1581-90, p. 575; LJ, ii. 351a.

In the second session of the first Jacobean Parliament, Exeter’s attendance was again affected by gout. He was marked as present at just 28 of the 85 sittings, a third of the total, and was absent from 18 Feb. 1606 to 13 May 1606 inclusive (52 sittings), during which time he again gave his proxy to his half-brother and took himself off to Bath.102 LJ, ii. 355b. However, he apparently left without first securing formal permission to depart, for only after spending some time in the city did he thank Salisbury for procuring him leave. In this same, undated letter he reported that the waters were having a beneficial effect on his swollen leg. He hoped to return soon, and welcomed his brother’s election to the Garter (on 24 Apr.), an honour he described as just as appropriate for statesmen as for soldiers.103 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 231.

Exeter was named to 16 of the 72 committees appointed by the Lords and made two recorded speeches. On 25 Jan. he was appointed to the committee, established on his motion, to consider the punishment of the Gunpowder plotters. He was also named, on 3 Feb., to consider the bill to attaint the surviving conspirators, and to confer with the Commons about improving the laws for protecting the established religion. He was twice named to consider measures against blasphemous swearing, once in his absence. He was not recorded as present when he was appointed to help consider two bills against recusants on 29 April. However, he had returned to the House by 19 May, when he was named to consider the bill for restraining the use of excommunication by church courts.104 LJ, ii. 363a, 365a, 367a-b, 381a, 419b, 437a. On 24 May Exeter was appointed to consider a bill to improve London’s water supplies, a measure of interest to him as his house in the Strand was supplied with water from the City. He was also one of the lords who, at the third reading of the bill two days later, moved to recompense Edmund Colthurst for work already carried out on the project. Exeter was probably speaking on behalf of his half-brother, as Colthurst had petitioned Salisbury, who had secured an order from the Council to the City to come to terms with him. Exeter and Robert Bennett^*, bishop of Hereford, were instructed to consult the recorder of London, Sir Henry Montagu^* (subsequently 1st earl of Manchester). They subsequently reported back that the City would grant whatever the lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley) thought appropriate.105 Ibid. 441a, 442b; Remembrancia ed. W.H. and H.C. Overall, 556; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 55, 417-18.

Exeter was recorded as attending exactly half the sittings in the 1606-7 session, 53 out of 106. One particularly long absence occurred between 24 Feb. and 31 Mar. 1607 inclusive (27 sittings), but there is no evidence that he was excused or that he gave a proxy. In addition, he was sent in June to Northamptonshire, where he was lord lieutenant, to help suppress the Midlands Rising. He left London on the 8th and did not return to the House until the 27th, during which time he missed 12 sittings.106 SO3/3, unfol. (June 1607); Add. 25079, f. 66.

Exeter was named to a higher proportion of the Lords’ committees during this session, 15 out of 41, but made no recorded speeches. The main item of business was the Union. On 24 Nov. 1606 he was named to help confer with the Commons on this subject. He was also appointed to the committee for the bill to abolish the hostile laws on 8 June 1607, though by that date he was absent.107 LJ, ii. 452b, 520a. Exeter may have sympathized with the widespread opposition to the Union in the Commons, for, according to the French ambassador, ‘Lord Burghley’ was one of the peers who advised the king to conciliate the Commons during the Easter recess, earning a sharp rebuke from James. (By this date it was Exeter’s eldest son, William Cecil^* (subsequently 2nd earl of Exeter) who was properly known as Lord Burghley, but as William was not then a member of either House it is unlikely that the ambassador was, in fact, referring to him.)108 Ambassades de M. de la Boderie en Angleterre (1750), ii. 199-200. Exeter’s other committee appointments included bills against the enforcement of ecclesiastical Canons which had not been confirmed by statute, for the regulation of the cloth industry and the confirmation of defective titles. The last measure had to be redrafted and the same committee was instructed to consider the new bill, on 23 Mar., although Exeter himself was not then recorded as present.109 LJ, ii. 471b, 494a, 503a, 514b.

On 8 June, shortly before he left London, Exeter wrote to Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, a wealthy Northamptonshire landowner, ordering a meeting of the county’s landowners three miles outside Northampton ‘with their full strength of horse’. Nevertheless, he did not anticipate serious opposition from the enclosure rioters, as all that was necessary was ‘to give a terror to those tumultuous people, whom nothing can keep in awe but force’.110 Add. 25079, f. 66. The following evening he arrived at Huntingdon, where he received a letter from two of his deputy lieutenants, no doubt informing them of their victory over the rebels that day. Exeter promptly wrote to James assuring him that ‘your Majesty shall not need to fear a general revolt’, for although the militia had been unwilling to take action against the rebels, whose opposition to enclosures they shared, they were ‘otherwise … dutiful subjects’. He also advised James to take legal action against enclosures after the rising was suppressed, a course of action that would result in ‘the placing of yourself and posterity in peace and security’.111 SP16/392/42 (miscalendared in CSP Dom. 1637-8, pp. 500-1); E.F. Gay, ‘The Midland Revolt and the Inquisitions of Depopulation of 1607’, TRHS, n.s. xviii. 216-17. Later that month Salisbury was informed that Exeter had ‘carried himself so nobly, and with that moderation as hath begotten him much love and good opinion of all sorts’. In September, Exeter forwarded to Sir Edward Montagu a commission from the king to inquire into illegal enclosures.112 Hatfield House, CP121/100; HMC Montagu, 50.

The Midlands Rising was not Exeter’s only serious concern in 1607, as his wayward grandson, William Cecil^*, 16th Lord Ros, had recently returned from travelling in France. Exeter decided to send him abroad again ‘to the end he may spend his time better there than at home’, and selected John Molle, an official of the council in the North whom he had appointed during his time as president, to supervise the young man. Molle and Ros travelled to Italy, but in 1608 Molle was arrested by the inquisition in Rome, which he had been obliged to visit by his charge. Exeter was horrified, and soon began to lobby Catholic diplomats in England to secure Molle’s release. In January 1610 it was reported that the earl had secured a letter from Henri IV to the pope on Molle’s behalf, but the papacy refused to release Molle, who had rejected all their efforts to secure his conversion.113 Hatfield House, CP194/58; R.W. Lighbrown, ‘Protestant Confessor, or the Tragic Hist. of Mr Molle’, Eng. and the Continental Renaissance ed. E. Chaney and P. Mack, 245-6, 248; W.S. Powell, John Pory, microfiche supplment, 11.

Exeter secured the election of his son Sir Edward Cecil for Stamford at a by-election in December 1609 occasioned by the death of the earl’s 1604 nominee, Sir Robert Wingfield, the previous August.114 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 237. The fourth session of the 1604-10 Parliament started two months later, during which time Exeter was recorded as attending 40 of the 95 sittings, 42 per cent of the total. However, this figure may be an underestimate, as he spoke on 11 July, when his presence was not marked in the attendance list, and received two committee appointments on 16 July, when his attendance was similarly unrecorded. Nevertheless, he was clearly absent for much of the session, as he was not recorded as present between 22 Mar. and 2 June inclusive (although it was not until 19 Apr. that he was excused).115 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 103. Writing to Salisbury on 2 May, Exeter wished his brother ‘that which I want myself, continuance of good health’.116 SP14/54/7.

The debates in the upper House during the fourth session are much better recorded than those in previous assemblies. Consequently, it is not entirely surprising that Exeter appears to have made significantly more speeches than in former sessions, 14 in total. However, he was named to only ten of the upper House’s 58 committees. On 14 Feb. he was instructed to attend the conference at which his half-brother, now lord treasurer, spelt out the crisis in the royal finances. This meeting initiated the proceedings which led to the Great Contract, whereby the crown offered to surrender certain of its rights in return for an annual revenue provided by Parliament. On 24 Feb. Exeter argued that unless the Lords first established what the Commons were willing to offer it was ‘to no purpose’ to detail the concessions which the king should make, as they would thereby lose sight of the objective of the exercise, namely the improving of the crown’s finances. Two days later Salisbury reported that the Commons wanted wardship included in the Contract, whereupon Exeter moved that the Lords should send a delegation to the king to obtain his permission, including both privy councillors and other members of the House; his motion was accepted, but he was not appointed himself.117 LJ, ii. 550b; Procs. 1610, ii. 13, 179.

On 27 Feb. the lower House requested a conference about The Interpreter, a legal dictionary written by the civil lawyer, Dr John Cowell, which was thought to be dangerously absolutist. The Lords instructed the committee they had appointed on the 14th to attend, including Exeter. On 2 Mar., before the conference was held, Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, Tobie Matthew^*, archbishop of York, and Exeter’s former ward, Edward La Zouche^*, 11th Lord Zouche, were appointed on Exeter’s motion to report back to the House.118 LJ, ii. 557b; Procs. 1610, i. 184.

On resuming his seat in the Lords on 7 June, after a long period of absence, Exeter took the oath of allegiance, indicating that he had missed the meeting of the Privy Council at which the king had administered the oath to his colleagues.119 LJ, ii. 608b. His primary interest thereafter appears to have been religious legislation. On 11 June he defended the proposal to commit a new bill against the execution of ecclesiastical Canons not confirmed by Parliament, on the grounds that he did not think the measure would infringe the royal prerogative. He also defended the Commons, from where the measure originated, saying that he would be ‘loth any aspersions should be cast upon the lower House and that they should be called a popular assembly’. He was named to the committee and, on 11 July, moved for a conference with the Commons about the bill. The Lords agreed to send a message to the lower House the following day, but the next day this was again deferred and the conference seems to have been subsequently forgotten.120 Procs. 1610, i. 103; LJ, ii. 611a, 640b, 641b.

On 7 July Exeter opposed the motion of George Abbot^*, bishop of London (subsequently archbishop of Canterbury), for rejecting the bill against scandalous ministers at its first reading. Exeter stated that he had once made a similar motion about another measure but had been informed by Lord Chancellor Ellesmere ‘very gravely that it was not the manner of the House’. When the bill received a second reading on 12 July, Exeter defended it, complaining that ‘it is a common thing for mean ministers to go to alehouses’. He argued that clerical misbehaviour was a proper subject for Parliament, because the bishops lacked the power to discipline the clergy properly and because ‘the scandal of the ministry … is a scandal unto us all’. Consequently, the maintenance of clerical standards could not be left to the episcopal bench. He was again named to the committee.121 Procs. 1610, i. 128, 135; LJ, ii. 641b.

Exeter did not neglect the Great Contract. During discussions in the upper House ahead of a conference on 26 June, he argued that it should be left to the Commons to initiate debate in the forthcoming meeting as it was ‘prejudicial to us if they put us to begin’.122 Procs. 1610, i. 116. On 19 July, before a further conference with the Commons, Salisbury initiated a debate about raising the additional revenue for the crown required by the Contract. Exeter may have been speaking in support of his half-brother when he argued that the Commons ‘will not do anything to bind [themselves to the Contract] until they see how they may levy’ this money. He argued that ‘we must use the same course in this [as] mean men do in their bargaining by articles’, presumably indicating that he thought that hard-headed, business-like negotiations with the Commons would be necessary.123 Ibid. 116, 153.

At the end of the session, on 18 July, Exeter expressed alarm at the sudden introduction of a bill to increase the punishments for plotting against the king, a measure occasioned by the recent assassination of Henri IV. Although he ‘like[d] well of the body of the act’, he was concerned that it would ‘punish the child for the father’s fault’, which he thought was ‘unlawful and contrary to the word of God’. He seconded Zouche, who moved for further proceedings to be deferred until the next session because the judges who usually attended the House were away on circuit.124 Ibid. 147, 150-1.

Exeter attended 14 of the Lords’ 22 sittings during the Parliament’s fifth session in late 1610. He was also appointed to four of the seven committees created by the Lords and spoke three times. On 30 Oct. he was allowed to speak twice because the subject under discussion did not concern a bill. The debate was occasioned by the announcement of the clerk of the parliaments, Robert Bowyer^‡, that he had received a request from the Commons for a copy of the king’s answer to the grievances presented by the lower House in the previous session. It is not known what Exeter said in either of his interventions.125 Ibid. 252.

On 25 Oct. Exeter was named to confer with the Commons about the Great Contract. However, on 14 Nov., following the rejection of the Contract, he opposed his half-brother’s motion for a fresh conference to ask the lower House to vote supply. Asserting that ‘profit’ was more persuasive than ‘eloquence’ or ‘authority’, he argued that it would be ‘unseasonable’ to ask the Commons for money until they ‘had somewhat to sweeten their mouths with’. He evidently had in mind a more positive response to the complaints the lower House had presented the previous session, as the Commons were ‘much distasted that their grievances are unsatisfied’. However, he did not think that ‘at this session we can do much good’. He may have thought that the Contract would be revived at a later date, as he added that he hoped ‘the business may hereafter have a happy event’.126 LJ, ii. 671a; Procs. 1610, i. 171. During this brief session, Exeter was appointed to three legislative committees, on the preservation of timber, the export of artillery and the administration by Prince Henry of the duchy of Cornwall.127 LJ, ii. 669a, 670a, 677a.

The second and third Jacobean parliaments and conflict with the Lakes

Salisbury died in May 1612. It is not clear whether Exeter attended the funeral. Although he reportedly served as a mourner, he does not feature in the list of the funeral procession.128 Chamberlain Letters, i. 354; HMC Hatfield, xxi. 374-5. In the elections to the 1614 Parliament, Exeter probably secured the return of his son, Richard, at Stamford and his Wimbledon neighbour, Sir William Walter^‡, at Peterborough. However, presumably due to ill health, he himself only attended the upper House twice, once on the first day of the session (5 Apr.) and again on 9 May (when he also attended the Privy Council). He made no recorded speeches and received no committee appointments.129 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 237, 294; APC, 1613-14, p. 432. It is likely that by this date old age was compounding the impact of chronic gout. Nevertheless, in September 1615 he spoke ‘at good length’ in the Privy Council debate about preparing for a new Parliament. Citing the authority of his son-in-law, Sir Edward Coke, he stated that, legally, Parliament should be called every year ‘for redress of the people’s grievances’, which he argued was a precondition for any grant of taxation. In order to secure a successful Parliament it was necessary to rescind ‘offensive’ patents, but he warned that even if the Commons voted four subsidies the money would be ‘but a relief temporary’. The only ‘certain and perpetual’ solution to the crown’s financial problems was retrenchment. However, the debate was ultimately fruitless as James refused to call a new Parliament.130 Letters and Life of Francis Bacon ed. J. Spedding, v. 203; J.D. Alsop, ‘Privy Council Debate and Committees for Fiscal Reform, Sept. 1615’, HR, lxviii., 207.

Exeter remarried shortly before Parliament broke up in December 1610. In July 1616 his new wife gave birth to a daughter, for whom Anne of Denmark acted as godmother.131 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 20. During this period, Exeter remained active as lord lieutenant of Northamptonshire. He also continued to seek the release of Molle, to which end he assiduously courted the Spanish ambassador, but to no avail.132 HMC Buccleuch, iii. 166-7, 184, 190, 192-4; Chamberlain Letters, i. 612; ii. 128.

If Exeter was hoping to go into peaceful retirement in the second half of the 1610s he was to be disappointed. As trustee for the property of his daughter, Lady Hatton, he was drawn into the conflicts between her and her husband, Sir Edward Coke, following Coke’s disgrace as lord chief justice in 1616. Although he initially disapproved of his daughter’s desertion of her husband, Exeter wrote to the king in April and in July 1617 on her behalf (although the letters were drafted by her friend John Holles^*, Lord Houghton, later 1st earl of Clare), complaining that Coke was seeking to cheat Lady Hatton of her property.133 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 38; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 157; Harl. 6055, f. 30r-v. Exeter subsequently benefited from Lady Hatton’s rise to favour following the marriage in November of her daughter, Frances, to John Villiers^* (subsequently Viscount Purbeck), elder brother of the favourite, George Villiers^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. In November Buckingham and his clan were feasted by Exeter at his house in the Strand. Shortly thereafter, the king knighted one of his servants, Sir Peter Chapman.134 HMC Downshire, vi. 325; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 117.

The major crisis of the last years of Exeter’s life was caused by his grandson, Lord Ros. Ros got on badly with his father, Exeter’s heir Lord Burghley, but according to Goodman, Exeter was very fond of Ros. His determination to get Ros out of the country in 1607 suggests that Exeter harboured few illusions about his grandson. Nevertheless, he seems to have played a larger part in Ros’ affairs than did Ros’ father, for, it was Exeter who leased Ros’ estates from the crown during the young man’s minority. Moreover, Ros, hoping to ingratiate himself with his grandfather, had befriended Exeter’s young second wife, who ‘became an earnest spokeswoman in his behalf’.135 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 222; Goodman, i. 194; HMC Hatfield, xx. 37. Ros himself married the daughter of Secretary of State Sir Thomas Lake^‡, but by October 1616 he had fallen out with his father-in-law, transferring his allegiance to Lake’s colleague, Sir Ralph Winwood^‡.136 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 26-7. Before long, relations between Ros and his wife also collapsed. Despite attending secret meetings with Exeter and Winwood, Ros fled abroad in August 1617.137 Holles Letters, 170-1.

The following autumn Exeter and Lake came into conflict over Ros’ estate. Before fleeing, Ros had made over to his wife the reversion of the manor of Walthamstow in Essex. This meant that, should they have no children, which was now highly likely, this property would descend to her heirs (the Lakes) rather than his (the Cecils).138 C78/457/9. Exeter was alarmed by the Walthamstow conveyance and, having apparently been told by Ros that he had been compelled to make it by his mother-in-law Lady Lake, he accused Lady Lake of cheating his grandson out of the property.139 STAC 8/24/19-10. In late November, Exeter and Burghley applied to Chancery for permission to administer Ros’ estate, and requested that Sir Thomas Lake and others, whom they accused of fraudulently appropriating some of Ros’s property, be ordered to account for any part of the estate in their possession.140 C8/32/151.

According to the subsequent testimony of Thomas Wentworth^*, 4th Lord Wentworth (subsequently earl of Cleveland), Lady Lake tried to persuade the countess of Exeter to get Lord Ros to withdraw his accusation that his mother-in-law had compelled him to make the Walthamstow conveyance; when the countess refused Lady Lake threatened her.141 SP14/105/82. Exeter claimed that the Lakes were enraged with the countess because she had not appeased his anger over the transaction.142 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 61. By January 1618 Lady Lake and Lady Ros had accused the countess of attempting to poison Lady Ros. They also accused her of incest with Ros and claimed that, at the time of her wedding to Exeter, she had been contracted to marry Sir Francis Crane^‡.143 CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 512-13, 524; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 132; HMC Mar and Kellie, ii. 82. Exeter was incensed by the slanders against his wife, which represented him as having been cuckolded by his own grandson, and pressed the king to allow him to sue the Lakes in Star Chamber. James was initially reluctant to grant this request, although he promised the earl satisfaction in another way.144 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 134, 136. Exeter, fearing a protracted court case which might last longer than his remaining life, agreed to refer the matter to James, so long as the king acted as judge not arbitrator.145 Ibid. 145. In the event the Star Chamber case went ahead; in May 1618 Exeter put in two bills against the Lakes, one accusing them of slander and the other concerning the Walthamstow conveyance, although the second seems to have been abandoned after the death of Ros in June.146 STAC 8/111/26-7; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 61-8.

By October it was reported that the slander lawsuit was ready for hearing, but was delayed because the king wanted to be personally present.147 HMC Downshire, vi. 552. Moreover, as the case generated a vast amount of paperwork - estimates vary from 9,000 sheets to 19,000 - it was decided to defer proceedings until the following February.148 CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 594, Chamberlain Letters, ii. 183, HMC Downshire, vi. 596. The king attended the hearings in Star Chamber on four days in early February 1619 and then passed sentence personally on the 13th. The result was a triumph for Exeter and his wife. Sir Thomas Lake, his wife and daughter were all fined and sentenced to imprisonment in the Tower during the king’s pleasure. They were also required to make a public submission to the countess and pay her £4,000 in damages.149 Add. 72421, ff. 116-117v; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 213-14, The Walthamstow property was subsequently seized by Exeter for payment of Lady Ros’ share of the damages, although it was subsequently redeemed by Lady Ros’ second husband, George Rodney, who paid what remained of the debt.150 Cal. of Deeds Relating to Walthamstow ed. S. J. Barns (Walthamstow Antiq. Soc. xi), 9-10.

In October 1620 Exeter contributed £600 towards the benevolence for the defence of the Palatinate.151 SP14/117/2. In the elections to the 1621 Parliament, he managed to secure control of both seats at Stamford, where his son, Richard, was returned alongside Sir Robert Wingfield’s brother, John^‡. However, he no longer seems to have had any influence at Peterborough. At Boston, where Exeter was recorder, he nominated his kinsman, Sir Thomas Cheke^‡, but though Cheke was chosen he elected to sit for Harwich, for which borough he had also been returned. In the ensuing election at Boston, Exeter tried to secure the return of a courtier, Sir Edward Lewis, but was unsuccessful.152 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 231, 238, 294.

Exeter was granted leave of absence from the upper House in January 1621, and gave his proxy to the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St Alban, on whose behalf he had written to his father nearly 30 years before. There is no evidence that Exeter made a new proxy after St Alban was impeached. The earl was recorded, possibly in error, as attending the upper House on four occasions during 1621; on 5 and 15 Feb., 24 Apr. and 7 Dec., but received no committee appointments and made no recorded speeches.153 SO3/7, unfol. (Jan. 1621); LJ, iii. 4a; Read, Lord Burghley, 494. In a letter to Northamptonshire’s deputy lieutenants from his London residence on 4 Mar., he stated that he was not able to go into the country. As it was not his parliamentary duties that were detaining him in London, and he does not appear to have attended the Council, it seems likely that the earl was by now largely housebound.154 Add. 34217, f. 7.

In December 1621 Exeter wrote to the lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, Lord Cranfield (subsequently 1st earl of Middlesex), requesting payment of the arrears of an allowance granted to Lord Ros, who had gone on embassy to Spain in 1616. He was evidently unsuccessful as he was obliged to write again, in November 1622, when he stated that the money was needed to satisfy his grandson’s numerous poor creditors who ‘do daily repair unto me’. However, Cranfield responded that there were insufficient funds in the Exchequer.155 Kent Hist. and Lib. Cent. U269/1/OE253; HMC 4th Rep. 301.

On 7 Dec. Chamberlain reported that Exeter had recently been ‘at the last cast’, due to the cold, but was likely to survive longer. Nevertheless, the earl was allowed to remain in London over Christmas because of his poor health.156 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 466-7. It was reported that he was suffering from gangrene in his foot and, by 7 Feb. 1623, was ‘so weak that he is accounted as good as a dead man’. He died the following morning, having ‘made a very good end’.157 Add. 72255, ff. 9v, 11; Chamberlain Letters, 477-8; In his will, which he had written on 21 Nov. 1622, Exeter requested burial in Westminster Abbey in the tomb he had made for his first wife. His request was carried out two days after his death, although his funeral did not take place until 6 March. Exeter appointed as supervisor of his will George Abbot^*, archbishop of Canterbury, and bequeathed him a silver basin and ewer and ‘choice of six of my choicest books in my library’. Abbot intended to preach at his funeral, but being incapacitated by gout, the task fell to Joseph Hall^* (subsequently bishop of Norwich). Exeter’s funeral and will illustrate his connections among the English nobility. Among the assistants to the chief mourner, William Cecil, Exeter’s eldest son and now 2nd earl of Exeter, were Exeter’s son-in-law, Lord Denny, his nephews William Cecil^*, 2nd earl of Salisbury and Henry Danvers^*, Lord Danvers (subsequently earl of Danby), his niece’s husband Philip Herbert^*, earl of Montgomery (later 4th earl of Pembroke) and his granddaughter’s husband Henry Grey^*, 2nd Lord Grey of Groby (later 1st earl of Stamford). Exeter’s bequests to his servants included gifts of money and clothing (although not his Parliament robes) to the attendants ‘who have taken great pains in carrying me’. Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (subsequently duke of Richmond in the English peerage) received his second best insignia of the Garter. Other bequests were given to John Wingfield, Sir Thomas Cheke, Sir Thomas Edmondes^‡, Lord Denny and, another son-in-law, Nicholas Tufton^* (later 1st earl of Thanet), who bore ‘the great banner’ at the earl’s funeral. Exeter’s eldest son and heir, William, served as his executor.158 PROB 11/141, ff. 181-2; Regs. Westminster Abbey, 120; Chamberlain Letters, ii. 483; Bodl., Tanner 236, f. 77v.