CECIL, William (1566-1640)

Cecil was presumably named after his grandfather, the powerful Elizabethan secretary of state and lord treasurer, William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley. The latter built up a large estate in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, which was inherited by Cecil’s father in 1598, together with Burghley House near Stamford.42 THOMAS CECIL. Cecil travelled in Italy in the mid-1580s, during which time he illicitly visited Rome where, it was rumoured, he converted to Catholicism.43 CSP Dom. 1581-90. p. 287; HMC Hatfield, iii. 130; CSP For. 1586-8, p. 133. This report may have been accurate, as he himself subsequently told the herald and antiquarian William Camden ‘that while he was travelling in Italy he did verily believe his brains were desiccated, and that his wits were much poorer than they were before’. It seems to have been Christopher Parkins^‡, an English Jesuit who converted to Protestantism, who was responsible for bringing Cecil back to the Church of England. Cecil met Parkins in Rome, and returned with him to their native land after being persuaded that he was in danger of being kidnapped. Once home, Cecil recommended Parkins to Burghley.44 G. Goodman, Ct. of Jas. I, i. 330-1; CSP Dom. 1595-7, p. 126. Cecil thereafter remained a Protestant, though there were continued suspicions about his religion. In 1606 John Batt, the minister of Newark, was accused of writing verses attached to Cecil’s pew, alleging that Cecil was Catholic and warning that ‘no loyal love within his breast resides’.45 Eg. 2877, f. 88v; CCEd.

Waiting to succeed, 1589-1623

After his first marriage, in 1589, to Elizabeth Manners, sole daughter of Edward Manners^†, 3rd earl of Rutland, Cecil resided at Newark, in Nottinghamshire. Rutland had leased Newark Castle from the crown, which lease descended to Cecil after the death of Rutland’s wife. Cecil may have taken lived in the castle after his marriage, but subsequently acquired a property just outside the town, where he built a house.46 Brown, ii. 14, 17, 24, 218. Cecil’s first wife survived barely two years after their marriage, but produced a son, who inherited the barony of Ros from his mother. Cecil subsequently remarried and had five daughters by his second wife, of whom three lived to adulthood; their only son did not survive infancy.

Cecil was elected three times to the Commons under Elizabeth, but seems to have had no interest in staying in the lower House after his father inherited the Burghley barony in 1598. Five years later, Cecil’s father became 1st earl of Exeter, whereupon Cecil was known by courtesy as Lord Burghley. He played little role in public affairs before he inherited the earldom in 1623, despite the fact that his uncle Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, was the crown’s chief minister until his death in 1612. In 1603 his second wife was among a party of prominent ladies who went to Scotland to wait on the new queen consort, Anne of Denmark, but no advancement followed.47 Harl. 1580, f. 424. A rumour that he would be appointed ambassador to Spain in 1604 proved false.48 Winwood’s Memorials ed. E. Sawyer, ii. 26. Burghley seems to have been largely confined to participating in court ceremonies. For instance, he carried the king’s train when Prince Henry was created prince of Wales in June 1610, and conducted the Venetian ambassador to an audience in 1613.49 Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 98; CSP Ven. 1610-13, p. 498.

Burghley had little to do with his son, Ros, with whom he got on badly; it was Burghley’s grandfather who appointed John Molle to supervise Ros’ travels in 1607 and who also managed Ros’ estates during the latter’s minority.50 Carleton to Chamberlain ed. M. Lee, 222; Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxi), 129-30; HMC Hatfield, xix. 439; xx. 37, 144. In May 1617, having fallen out with his father-in-law, Secretary of State Sir Thomas Lake^‡, Ros wrote his father ‘a most submissive, and a penitent letter, for errors past’ in an attempt to repair relations, but Burghley rejected the overture. Unlike his father Exeter, Burghley subsequently remained aloof from the dispute between Ros and the Lakes, which led Ros to flee to Italy in July 1617, where he died the following year.51 Holles Letters, 162; (xxxv), 170-1. Although Burghley was a party to his father’s application to Chancery, in November 1617, to assume control over Ros’ estate, it was undoubtedly Exeter who was the driving force behind this. Consequently, it was Exeter rather than Burghley who came into conflict with the Lakes, resulting in the libelling of Exeter’s young countess, Burghley’s stepmother, and a sensational Star Chamber case.52 C8/32/151; THOMAS CECIL.

Burghley’s relative obscurity was probably not intentional. By 1614 he occupied a large London House in St John’s street, Clerkenwell, later valued at £5,000, which he purchased the following year from Robert Spencer^*, 1st Lord Spencer, suggesting that he hoped to play a role in national affairs.53 C2/Chas.I/O8/1; Add. 75333, unfol. In February 1619 it was reported that Burghley would be made a privy councillor in order to induce his sister, Lady Hatton, to settle her land on her son-in-law, Sir John Villiers^* (later Viscount Purbeck), the brother of the favourite, George Villiers*, marquess (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. However, the scheme fell through.54 T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Jas. I, ii. 140. On 24 Nov. 1620 his friend, Sir George Goring^* (subsequently 1st earl of Norwich), informed Buckingham that Burghley was seeking ‘some mark’ of the king’s favour, suggesting that he was hoping to be granted a writ of acceleration to the third Jacobean Parliament, which was due to meet the following January. Goring argued that for Burghley ‘still to hover here without apparent cause of his own, or calling from above would subject him to … censure’, and he was ‘confident’ that Burghley’s ‘abilities and breeding ... will be no more questioned than his descent and blood’.55 Harl. 1580, f. 424. However, whatever hopes Burghley may have entertained of securing a summons to the upper House were presumably diminished by his refusal to contribute to the Palatinate benevolence levied in late 1620. He wrote to the Privy Council seeking to be excused, arguing that while his father lived his ‘estate is such as I am as unable to give what become me as unwilling to give less than would sort with my honour and reputation’.56 SP14/11/107.

The last Jacobean and first two Caroline parliaments

Burghley succeeded his father as earl of Exeter in February 1623, by which time he was almost 57. Although his inheritance included Exeter House in the Strand, he continued to dwell at Clerkenwell whenever he was in London. He intended to allow his relatives to use the Strand property, but the crown pressured him into lending it to house foreign diplomats and then, in 1625, into renting it out to the dowager duchess of Richmond (widow of Ludovic Stuart^*, duke of Richmond), who died there in 1639.57 CSP Dom. 1619-23, p. 561; 1623-5, p. 484; 1639-40, p. 66; Add. 35832, f. 132; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, ii. 612.

By April 1623 the new earl had negotiated a marriage between his daughter, the renowned beauty Diana Cecil, and Henry de Vere^*, 18th earl of Oxford. This was despite the fact that Oxford had been imprisoned in the Tower 12 months earlier for a furious outburst against Buckingham and James I. Consequently, Exeter and his wife were obliged to embark upon a prolonged lobbying campaign to secure the release of their prospective son-in-law, which was not secured until 30 Dec. 1623. The couple were married two days later.58 HENRY DE VERE; Goodman, ii. 287-8; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 592, 612; 1623-5, p. 107.

When the 1624 Parliament was summoned, Exeter almost certainly secured the return of Sir George Goring at Stamford. However, Goring chose to sit for Lewes, and the earl had no discernible role in the election of his replacement. As the owner of the liberty of Peterborough, Exeter may also have been responsible for the return for the borough of Lawrence Whitaker^‡, a minor crown official then in the service of Robert Carr^*, earl of Somerset. It is possible that Whitaker was recommended to Exeter by John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, a mutual friend of Exeter and Somerset. Unlike his father, Exeter never seems to have exercised parliamentary patronage on behalf of his brother Richard Cecil^‡, perhaps suggesting that they were not on good terms.59 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 238, 294; iii. 481; Holles Letters , 124.

Exeter attended 63 of the 93 sittings of the 1624 Parliament, 68 per cent of the total. He was excused on 3 Apr. but returned for the next sitting two days later.60 Add. 40088, f. 8. Introduced on 25 Feb. by Robert Devereux^*, 3rd earl of Essex, and Theophilus Clinton^*, 4th earl of Lincoln,61 LJ, iii. 217b. he probably received only two committee appointments: one to consider a bill to confirm the sale of property in Kent by John Ramsay^*, earl of Holdernesse and another concerning inns.62 Ibid. 305b, 407a. The assistant clerk’s manuscript minutes also record that Exeter was named to consider a bill relating to the West Country fishing industry, but he appears to have been confused with John Egerton^*, 1st earl of Bridgwater, whose name is listed instead in the Journal and the committee book.63 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 28; HL/PO/CO/2/3, f. 20; LJ, iii. 313a. Exeter made no recorded speeches. The ‘Exon’ who made a motion concerning a servant of the bishop of St Davids (William Laud^*, later archbishop of Canterbury) on 28 May was probably the bishop of Exeter, Valentine Carey^*, rather than the earl; the bishop had raised the matter the day before and the earl of Exeter was not recorded as present on either occasion.64 Add. 40088, ff. 136, 138v. Exeter paid the fee due to the officials of the upper House for his first writ of summons and delivered this writ to the clerk.65 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/2, f. 54v, 56

Exeter made haste on the accession of Charles I in March 1625 to affirm his devotion to Buckingham, hoping to remain lord lieutenant of Northamptonshire (in which position he had succeeded his father) ‘by your lordship’s good means … to my last’.66 Bodl., Add. D111, f. 332. The following May he accompanied the new king to Kent to meet Henrietta Maria.67 Finetti Philoxenis (1656), 152. When a fresh Parliament was summoned, Whitaker was re-elected for Peterborough, but otherwise there is no sign that Exeter influenced any elections to the first Caroline Parliament.68 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 294. He attended only the first sitting of the upper House, on 18 June, being excused on 25 and 27 June, and 7 July, on the last occasion by his friend, Clare. On 11 July the session was adjourned to Oxford, and ten days later, while Parliament was still in recess, Exeter wrote from Burghley to Secretary of State Lord Conway (Edward Conway^*, subsequently 1st Viscount Conway), seeking leave of absence from the king. He had already given his proxy to Buckingham ‘before I came down’, suggesting that he had previously been in London but had been too unwell to attend Parliament. He can have had little doubt that he would receive the desired dispensation, as he had Buckingham’s support, but he would ‘not be quiet in mind’ until he had obtained the king’s permission concerning ‘so great a point of my duty’. Conway procured his dispensation soon afterwards.69 Procs. 1625, pp. 102, 591, 670-1; SO3/8, unfol. (July 1625).

In the autumn of 1625 Exeter vigorously enforced the collection of the privy seal loans in Northamptonshire.70 HMC 10th Rep. VI, 113. This appears to have brought him into conflict with one of his deputy lieutenants, Sir William Spencer^* (later 2nd Lord Spencer), who allegedly announced at a meeting summoned by Exeter ‘that the king wanted no money, and if he did he might call a Parliament’. As a result Exeter seems to have deprived Spencer of his office.71 Add 75308, unfol. Sir William Spencer to Exeter, 14 Feb. [1626], and rough draft of the same.

On 22 Jan. 1626 Exeter wrote to Conway from his Newark home seeking to be excused attendance at both the forthcoming coronation and the second Caroline Parliament, ‘having even now a grievous fit of the gout that makes my attendance impossible’. He denied seeking to avoid the expense of kitting himself out for the former, stating that he and his wife were already ‘prepared in all things’ for the coronation. He enclosed his proxy which he again granted to Buckingham, together with a short letter to the duke, in which he stated that, as a result of the gout ‘it will be very long or ever I shall be able to attend his Majesty’s service’. Conway accordingly procured his dispensation both from the Parliament and the coronation on 28 January.72 Procs. 1626, iv. 228; SP16/19/19; SO3/8, unfol. (28 Jan. 1626). Despite the issue of this licence, Exeter drew up a formal petition for permission to exercise the office of high almoner at the coronation as owner of the barony of Bedford. Its purpose was presumably to maintain his hereditary right so as to ensure that the office passed down to his descendants. His claim was apparently successful, but as Exeter neither attended in person nor appointed a deputy, the functions of the office were not performed.73 Burghley House, F50/30; Manner of the Coronation of King Charles the First ed. C. Wordsworth (Henry Bradshaw Soc. ii), pp. li, 11.

Exeter secured the election for Grantham of his kinsman, John Wingfield^‡, presumably thanks to the influence of his brother-in-law (and Buckingham’s father-in-law) Francis Manners^*, 6th earl of Rutland, while Lawrence Whitaker was re-elected for Peterborough.74 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 234, 294 Before Parliament met, Sir William Spencer wrote to Exeter denying that he had criticized the privy seal loans, or that he had ‘privately and underhand … laboured’ to be elected as knight of the shire for Northamptonshire. This suggests that Exeter had supported Sir Lewis Watson^† (later 1st Lord Rockingham), the defeated candidate in the county election and collector of the privy seal loan. However, Exeter was unwilling to exonerate Spencer in writing from the charge of having spoken out at a meeting of his deputy lieutenants against the privy seal loan, blaming his memory, which he claimed was ‘not always so true to me as I could wish’. He refused to make any further response until his health had recovered, when he hoped to attend Parliament and meet Spencer in London.75 Add 75308, unfol., Spencer to Exeter, 14 Feb. [1626], Exeter to Spencer, 18 Feb. 1626.

Exeter was recorded as attending the upper House on 2 and 6 Mar., but not subsequently until 13 April. On 22 Apr. it was reported that he was dangerously sick and unlikely to recover, but although he was excused five times he otherwise attended regularly the later stages of the session. In all he was marked at present for 34 of the 81 sittings of the Parliament, 40 per cent of the total.76 Procs. 1626, i. 327, 540, 545, 561, 602; iv. 279. On 4 May he assisted in the introduction to the House of his brother, Edward Cecil^*, Viscount Wimbledon, but made only one recorded speech, on 15 May, when he stated he had not been present at the conference at which Sir Dudley Digges^‡ had made his controversial speech during the presentation of the impeachment articles against Buckingham.77 Ibid. i. 351, 478. He received no committee appointments.

Behind the scenes Exeter appears to have acted as an intermediary between Buckingham and his friend Clare, one of the duke’s principle opponents in the upper House. On 16 May Clare wrote to Exeter detailing his recent discussions with Buckingham about the impeachment articles, in which he stressed his intention to act impartially. He may have hoped that Exeter would pass on this letter to the duke.78 Holles Letters ed. P.R. Seddon (Thoroton Soc. xxxvi), 329-30. Surprisingly, in his annotated list of the members of the 1626 upper House, Laud did not mark Exeter as one of Buckingham’s firm supporters. Instead he included him in the uncommitted group, possibly because he did not think that Exeter’s attendance could be relied on.79 E. Cope, ‘Groups in the House of Lords, May 1626’, PH, xii. 169.

Exeter probably attended the later stages of the 1626 Parliament because he wished to promote a private bill. This measure was intended to clear up an ambiguity in the wording of his father’s settlement of the family estates, which made it unclear whether property assigned to the jointure of the 2nd earl’s wife could be leased out. The bill confirmed the legality of all leases made by Exeter, as long as they accorded with the terms of his father’s settlement. It was introduced in the Commons on 5 May, and was committed 19 days later, but proceeded no further.80 Procs. 1626, iii. 167, 317; SP14/161/62. The last document, a summary of the bill, is undated and has been mistakenly assigned to 1624 in CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 203.

The Forced Loan, the Privy Council and the third Caroline Parliament, 1626-9

Exeter paid his Forced Loan assessment, totalling £350, on 17 Nov. 1626. Two days later it was reported that he would be appointed to the Privy Council to help with the execution of the Loan. In fact, Charles and Buckingham seem to have been unsure of Exeter’s usefulness, as the earl does not appear in the first lists of those councillors who were to be sent out to initiate the collections. However, by 14 Dec. they had evidently changed their minds, as Exeter was sworn a councillor that day. The following month Exeter was among those councillors who attended the initial meetings of the commissioners of the Loan in Northampton and Leicester.81 E401/1386, rot. 29; Holles Letters, 339; Procs. 1628, p. 33; Add. 39238, f. 74v; CSP Ven. 1626-8, p. 94; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 15; Harl. 3881, f. 62v.

Exeter continued to demonstrate his loyalty to Buckingham over the summer of 1627. On 13 Aug. he wrote in glowing terms to Sir Thomas Fairfax^‡ about Buckingham’s exploits at the Île de Ré, writing that ‘my lord duke hath recovered the honour of our nation’.82 Fairfax Corresp. ed. G.W. Johnson, i. 78-9. However, by the time Exeter wrote to Buckingham himself, on 3 Nov., he was aware that the expedition was not going well. He assured the duke that his ‘hope is not dismayed … since I am confident what cannot be obtained by your courage must in the end be submitted to your patience’. He ‘humbly beseech[ed]’ Buckingham to remember ‘how many brave generals of armies have given over their enterprises for want of diligent supplies’, and stated that what Buckingham had ‘done already without a party in France is miraculous’. However, Buckingham may already have returned to England before he received Exeter’s letter.83 SP16/84/16.

In the elections to Parliament in 1628, Exeter seems to have secured control of both seats at Stamford, which elected Sir Thomas Hatton^‡, married to Exeter’s niece, and Sir Edward Baeshe^‡, the stepson of Rutland’s brother, Sir George Manners^† (subsequently 7th earl of Rutland). Baeshe was probably nominated by Exeter in gratitude for the nomination of Wingfield for Grantham in 1626. Whitaker was again returned at Peterborough.84 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 238, 294.

Exeter was marked as present at 70 of the 94 sittings of the 1628 session, 74 per cent of the total. On 20 Mar. he helped introduce to the House his brother-in-law, Edward Denny^*, as earl of Norwich. He subsequently assisted in the introduction of two further earls, his son-in-law, Henry Grey^*, 1st earl of Stamford (29 Mar.), and his cousin, Henry Danvers^*, earl of Danby (5 May).85 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 73, 74, 123, 378. Exeter made only one known contribution to the proceedings concerning the liberty of the subject, which formed such a prominent part of the 1628 session. On 21 Apr., in the debate on the king’s power to imprison, he moved that the Lords should agree that any ‘commitment [was] good upon a just cause’. However, his proposal was not taken up, presumably because it left to the king the power to decide whether or not a cause was just.86 Ibid. 314. The only other occasions Exeter was recorded as having spoken concerned the libelling of Henry Hastings^*, 5th earl of Huntingdon by Sir Henry Shirley at a meeting held at Leicester in January 1627 to execute the commission for the Forced Loan. Exeter, who had attended this gathering, affirmed the truth of Huntingdon’s accusation, both on 24 May and 7 June.87 Ibid. 520, 595 He received no committee appointments.

Exeter was recorded as attending 10 of the 23 sittings of the 1629 session, 43 per cent of the total. He was excused on the first day of the session (20 Jan.) and also missed the following two sittings, taking his seat on the 24th. He attended until 5 Feb., but was excused at the following sitting two days later. At the call of the House on the 9th it was recorded that he was sick. He returned to the House on the 16th.88 LJ, iv. 6a, 23a, 25b He made no recorded speeches and received no committee appointments.

Later life, 1630-40

In 1630 Exeter was made a knight of the Garter, for reasons which are unclear. Three years later he entertained the king at Newark when Charles I went to Scotland, and did so again the following year.89 K. Sharpe, Personal Rule of Chas. I, 779; C115/106/8460. Lacking a son of his own, Exeter allowed Burghley House to fall into ruins. Instead, during the 1630s, he used Wothorpe Lodge, a compact house built by his father in Burghley Park, as his Northamptonshire base, leading one of his (unspecified) male relatives to complain to the king. Although Exeter left instructions with his servants not to let any courtier in, Charles reportedly visited Burghley House incognito in August 1634, gaining admittance after he was recognized by a porter. However, Exeter does not seem to have suffered any disgrace as a result.90 C115/106/8429; HMC Var. vii. 396-7, 400.

Exeter remained active as lord lieutenant of Northamptonshire, complaining about a seditious attorney obstructing the collection of money for the militia in 1632.91 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p. 278; V.L. Stater, ‘Ld. Ltcy. on the Eve of the Civil Wars’, HJ, xxix. 285. However, his public service was increasingly obstructed by poor health. In December 1633 he was unable to attend Star Chamber hearings because of a ‘relapse of my gout’ and ‘a cruel cough’. In early 1637, following reports that was suffering from a ‘lethargy’, it was incorrectly rumoured that he had died. In 1638 sickness caused him to seek to be excused from attending the St George’s day feast. By the end of the decade he rarely attended the Privy Council. Frequent illness even prevented Exeter from expressing himself freely by letter. In March 1636 he wrote to his friend and ally, Ireland’s lord deputy, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (subsequently 1st earl of Strafford), explaining that he was unable to detail the criticisms then being made of Wentworth at court because his gout forced him to use a secretary. Under such circumstances, he explained, he wrote ‘nothing but compliments’.92 Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP13/135; StrP16/159; Bodl., North c.4, ff. 18, 20; Bodl., Ashmole 1111, f. 63v; Stater, 289.

In response to Charles I’s summons, issued to the nobility, to attend him at York in April 1639 to fight the Scottish Covenanters, Exeter pleaded age and infirmity and promised to send in his stead his grandson, Henry Howard (a younger son of Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Berkshire) with as many horses as he could afford.93 SP16/413/117. Despite his declining health, Exeter’s death in the summer of 1640 seems to have been sudden; he was still performing his duties as lord lieutenant up to a week before he died at his Clerkenwell house on 6 July. He was buried in Westminster Abbey three days later.94 CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 366, 454-5; Regs. Westminster Abbey ed. J.L. Chester, 134. In his brief will, made on 9 July 1639, Exeter, ‘having already sufficiently advanced all my children’, bequeathed his personal estate to his wife, whom he made his executor.95 PROB 11/183, f. 420r-v. Both his sons having predeceased him, he was succeeded as earl of Exeter by his nephew, David Cecil^†.