CECIL, William (1591-1668)

Cecil’s early life was a heady mix of privilege and indulgence. As the only son of Robert Cecil^*, 1st earl of Salisbury, the dominant English politician at the turn of the seventeenth century, and latterly lord treasurer, Cecil was guaranteed a place at court, an environment to which he was temperamentally well-suited. Despite being a poor scholar who routinely neglected his studies, he was a proficient performer in royal entertainments, an accomplished horseman, and latterly an art connoisseur.81 HMC Hatfield, xii. 406; xv. 143; xvii. 81-2; xviii. 341-2, 394; xix. 131; xxii. 196; Chamberlain Letters ed. N.E. McClure, i. 328. Styled Viscount Cranborne from 1605, he became a firm favourite of both James I and his heir, Prince Henry, and was welcomed just as warmly by the crowned heads of Europe during his extensive teenage travels on the Continent. Judging from his lax correspondence with his father during his grand tour, he failed to grasp on whose account he was afforded this treatment. Instead, having quite clearly been groomed by Salisbury for high office, he reached adulthood with a deep-rooted sense of his own importance, and, as one of Prince Henry’s closest associates, a justifiable optimism about his future prospects.82 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 102, 631; xviii. 130; xx. 273-4; xxi. 35, 243-4, 246-8; Chamberlain Letters, i. 330-1.

Mixed fortunes at court, 1612-20

In May 1612 Cranborne succeeded his father as 2nd earl of Salisbury. His inheritance included debts of around £45,000, but prompt action brought these down to manageable levels within a decade, and this financial burden never held back his career. He was now the proud owner of a large London town house, a hunting box at Cranborne much frequented by the king, and a vast mansion at Hatfield designed specifically with royal visits in mind.83 L. Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 124-5; J. Summerson, Architecture in Britain 1530-1830, p. 88; A. Oswald, Country Houses of Dorset, 125; M. Girouard, Life in the Eng. Country House, 115. He became lord lieutenant of Hertfordshire in July 1612, and was soon also administering several of the local hunting grounds, an important task given James’s obsession with the chase, and one which Salisbury fully understood. Indeed, as Edward Hyde^†, 1st earl of Clarendon later harshly observed, Salisbury was ‘a man of no words, except in hunting and hawking, in which he only knew how to behave himself’.84 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 5; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. W.D. Macray, ii. 545.

Prince Henry’s unexpected death in the following November was a serious blow to Salisbury, depriving him of his principal patron. He might reasonably have expected support from his father-in-law, Thomas Howard^*, 1st earl of Suffolk, the lord chamberlain, who had been a close friend of Lord Treasurer Salisbury. However, Suffolk showed little inclination to advance his career, which rapidly began to stall. At court he remained a familiar fixture at major festivities, but he went out on a limb in April 1613 by helping to block a proposal that James’s Scottish cousin Ludovic Stuart^*, 2nd duke of Lennox [S] (later duke of Richmond) should be granted an English dukedom or earldom. Since Suffolk was one of the principal advocates of this plan, Salisbury conceivably declined to cooperate on account of his own poor treatment.85 Stone, 115; CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 167; Chamberlain Letters, i. 444, 487, 496-7. Seven months later, the young earl’s political vulnerability was exposed when the crown obliged him to surrender his farm of duties on imported luxury cloth, which had been bringing him £7,000 a year. In return he was compensated with a pension of only £3,000 based on the same farm.86 Stone, 118; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 262. That said, Salisbury was evidently not considered a nonentity. He was cultivated by the Savoyard agent, Gabaleone, who reported in April 1614 that the earl favoured a marriage alliance with Catholic Savoy for Prince Charles (Stuart^*, later prince of Wales) if no suitable protestant bride was available.87 Add. 32023B, ff. 231v-2.

Salisbury is not known to have influenced the 1614 parliamentary elections in Hertfordshire. He attempted to nominate one of the burgesses at Old Sarum, where he held a crown grant of the castle site, but lost out after failing to strike a deal with the borough’s usual patron, William Herbert^*, 3rd earl of Pembroke.88 L. Stone, ‘Electoral Influence of the 2nd Earl of Salisbury’, EHR, lxxi. 395; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 448; Hants RO, 44M69/L4/2; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 135. Salisbury attended roughly three-fifths of his first session in the Lords, but as a newcomer to the upper House, and with limited previous experience in the Commons, he made little impact on proceedings. Appointed to confer with the Commons about the bill to naturalize the Elector Palatine’s children, he was also named to a single bill committee, concerning a charitable foundation at Monmouth.89 LJ, ii. 692a, 711b.

During the next few years a regular pattern emerged in Salisbury’s career. On the face of it, he was normally in favour at court. The king stayed at Cranborne several times, intervening in June 1616 to uphold the earl’s rights over Cranborne Chase. That same month, James became godfather to Salisbury’s eldest son, briefly visiting Hatfield in the process.90 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 10-11; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 17, 35; Oswald, 126; J. Nichols, Progs. of Jas. I, iii. 491; In February 1617 the earl hosted the French ambassador, Baron de la Tour, at his London town-house, Salisbury House, apparently the first of several occasions when he was employed to escort visiting diplomats. Nevertheless, he secured no significant court or government office, beyond a distant reversionary interest in the mastership of the Court of Wards.91 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 52; T. Birch, Ct. and Times of Chas. I, i. 87; ii. 51; G.E. Aylmer, King’s Servants, 114.

On the rare occasions that better opportunities came his way, Salisbury tended to play his cards badly. In March 1617 he sought the post of captain of the guard, which he probably felt was a little beneath him, since it had until recently been held by commoners. Although the incumbent, Viscount Fentoun [S], had provisionally agreed to sell the office to Sir Henry Rich^* (later 1st earl of Holland), Salisbury persuaded him to reconsider with a higher bid of £7,500. It was generally assumed that the king’s approval would shortly follow, for Salisbury had also secured the backing of the royal favourite, George Villiers^*, earl (later 1st duke) of Buckingham. Indeed, the latter had just arranged for Salisbury to join James’s anniversary progress to Scotland, which would give him ample opportunity to press his claim.92 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 58-9; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 42-5. Then, at the critical moment, Anne of Denmark came out strongly in favour of Rich, while Salisbury backed out of the Scottish trip, citing first his wife’s pregnancy, then personal business, and finally his own ill health. As a result, it was Rich who became captain, while the earl merely succeeded in annoying the king, the queen and Buckingham.93 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 45, 47-9, 53, 56. By the following year James had forgiven him, paying him yet another visit at Cranborne, but the earl remained sufficiently estranged from Buckingham that he felt unable to approach him directly when seeking a pardon for one of his clients in mid 1618, instead requesting an old friend, Sir Dudley Carleton^* (later Viscount Dorchester), to act as a go-between.94 Nichols, iii. 491; CSP Dom. 1611-18, pp. 552, 575.

It was probably no coincidence that in 1618 Salisbury’s thoughts turned to his family’s past triumphs, and he finally erected a spectacular monument to his father in a lavish chapel built specially for that purpose at Hatfield church.95 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 59; P.M. Hunneyball, Architecture and Image-Building in Seventeenth-Century Herts. 41, 87, 91. In fact, this proved to be a good time to maintain a low profile at court, for the earl avoided all the fallout when his father-in-law Suffolk was dismissed as lord treasurer and put on trial for corruption. By the following year, Salisbury had renewed his friendship with Buckingham, who, with Prince Charles, became a godparent to his second son in July. By late 1619 the royal favourite even agreed to intercede with the king for Suffolk, whose punishment was significantly reduced as a result.96 ‘Camden Diary’ (1691), 48; R. Lockyer, Buckingham, 64. However, in the following year Salisbury contrived to offend the government once again. During the summer of 1620 he responded enthusiastically when the Elector Palatine’s agent, Baron Dohna, appealed for urgent funds to help resist the rapid Habsburg military advances in Germany, but then declined to make a further donation when the Privy Council itself took up the cause in October. Despite several increasingly curt reminders, he stood his ground, conceding merely that he would happily contribute to any taxation granted by the forthcoming Parliament for that purpose.97 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 117-18, 121, 129; APC, 1619-21, pp. 291-2, 334-5; SP14/117/106; 14/118/42, 59-60.

Consolidation, 1620-5

By now Salisbury had firmly established his own authority within Hertfordshire. Between 1617 and 1619 he restructured his property portfolio to increase his holdings in the county, while in the latter year he succeeded Sir Julius Caesar^‡ as custos rotulorum, or senior magistrate. He was also proving to be an effective lord lieutenant, attending local musters in person, and steadily improving the militia’s performance.98 Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 124; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 86; CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 48, 278. Consequently, when Parliament was summoned to meet in 1621, he was able to influence the outcome of the shire election, at least one and probably both of the successful candidates standing with his approval; Henry Carey^‡, Viscount Falkland [S] certainly requested Salisbury’s support, while Sir Charles Morrison^‡ apparently ran on a joint ticket with Carey.99 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 136-7. Salisbury also moved quickly this time to secure both burgess-ships at Old Sarum, where his right to patronage over the borough was being questioned. Having obtained legal advice, he imperiously informed the voters that the power of election was invested in him personally, though he would still permit them to cast their votes provided that they chose his nominees. Salisbury’s candidates, George Mynne^‡ and Thomas Brett^‡, were duly returned. The earl of Pembroke reacted badly to the news, but had to admit defeat on this occasion.100 Ibid. xxii. 135-6; xxiv. 262 [letter misdated to c. Jan. 1626]; Hants RO, 44M69/L4/5-6; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 448-9. Doubtless buoyed up by these successes, Salisbury also showed interest when the re-enfranchisement of Hertford was proposed during the Parliament itself. As high steward of the borough, he was again in a strong position to influence any elections, and identified two potential candidates, but in the event Parliament was dissolved before the scheme came to fruition.101 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 205 [letter dated ‘before May 1625’]; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 178.

Salisbury was a fairly regular face in the Lords during the first sitting of the 1621 Parliament, with an attendance record of almost 70 per cent, though he missed two-fifths of the winter sitting, obtaining leave of absence on 1 December.102 LJ, iii. 177a. Less than three weeks after the state opening, he helped to provoke a major confrontation between the Lords and the king. Along with Richard Sackville^*, 3rd earl of Dorset, he organized a petition protesting against James’s practice of conferring Scottish and Irish peerages on Englishmen. This was a contentious issue, because such titles gave their holders precedence over English nobles of an inferior rank, even though these foreign honours were held to be less valuable than their English equivalents. With 33 signatures collected, the question then arose of how to present the petition. The king having got wind of the document, the petitioners were instructed to hand it over to the Privy Council, but instead, on 20 Feb., they tried unsuccessfully to get it endorsed by the upper House. Following pressure from the Council, the petition was finally delivered to Prince Charles, whereupon a furious James summoned the dissident peers and admonished them for their impertinence. Although Salisbury had apparently allowed other peers to take the lead once the petition was drafted, his involvement did not go undetected by the king who, according to the French ambassador, would have sent both Dorset and Salisbury to the Tower had Parliament not been in session. Buckingham also interpreted the petition as an attack on his role in procuring such peerages, and threatened retribution.103 C.R. Mayes, ‘Early Stuarts and the Irish Peerage’, EHR, lxxiii. 247-8; A. Wilson, Hist. of Gt. Britain (1653), 187; LD 1621, 1625 and 1628, pp. 10-11; APC, 1619-21, pp. 352-3 (misdated 19 Feb.); Chamberlain Letters, ii. 348; F. von Raumer, Hist. of the 16th and 17th Centuries, ii. 250-2. Salisbury unsurprisingly adopted a low profile in the House after this episode. His only committee appointments were to consider the bill to limit lawsuits, and to attend the king in early May, when James was asked to sequester the great seal from the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon^*, Viscount St. Alban. James’s anger over the petition had evidently already abated, for Salisbury accompanied the king to St Paul’s Cathedral on 26 March.104 LJ, iii. 149b; Add. 40085, f. 82v; Harl. 5176, f. 241.

For the next two years, the earl seems to have focussed on personal concerns and administrative duties. Payment of his pension had been suspended in 1621 by the new lord treasurer, Lionel Cranfield^*, 1st earl of Middlesex, and Salisbury had to fight a protracted battle to prevent it from being cancelled altogether.105 M. Prestwich, Cranfield, 273, 357; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 167; Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 118. Meanwhile, he continued to enforce good order in the Hertfordshire militia, reporting further improvements to the Privy Council. The king also intermittently sent him instructions on preserving the game around his Hertfordshire retreat of Theobalds.106 CSP Dom. 1619-23, pp. 446, 463; 1623-5, pp. 86-7, 132; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 152. In August 1623 James spent over a week at Cranborne. Prince Charles was then in Spain with Buckingham, who had recently been created a duke, and when the king took time out from his hunting to write to them both, Salisbury was careful to send his own letter of flowery compliments to the royal favourite. Having clearly now learnt his lesson, henceforth he made every effort to retain Buckingham’s friendship.107 Nichols, iv. 888, 902; Harl. 1581, f. 300.

When the 1624 Parliament was summoned, Salisbury dictated the outcome of the Hertfordshire election, mobilizing his tenants behind his preferred candidates, Sir Charles Morrison and William Lytton^‡. At St Albans he probably threw his weight behind Sir Arthur Capell^‡, whose nephew was then expected to marry the earl’s eldest daughter. If so, he simultaneously ignored letters from Prince Charles’s council requesting his support there for two of its own nominees.108 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 178, 188; DCO, ‘Prince Charles in Spain’, f. 37; Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, 389. Salisbury also sought a clean sweep at Old Sarum again, but here he was betrayed by his local agent, Henry Sherfield^‡, who, playing a double game, invited one nomination from the earl of Pembroke. As it turned out, Salisbury’s successful candidate, Sir Arthur Ingram^‡, then opted to sit for York, but the earl presumably arranged the election of his replacement, Sir Robert Cotton^‡.109 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 449; HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 262 (letter misdated to c. Jan. 1626); Hants RO, 44M69/L37/26. At Wallingford, in Berkshire, his kinsman William Knollys^*, Viscount Wallingford (later earl of Banbury), most likely obliged Salisbury by arranging for the return of the earl’s client Sir Anthony Forest^‡.110 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 16; CP, i. 401; xi. 406. Collectively, this was an impressive electoral haul, but it did not end there, for when Parliament authorized the re-enfranchisement of Hertford, Salisbury was quick to secure the new seats for William Ashton^‡ and Thomas Fanshawe^‡. In the process he ignored an alternative recommendation made to him by the lord keeper, John Williams^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), and again trampled on the electoral plans of the prince’s council. It apparently never occurred to him that, had he taken this opportunity to ingratiate himself with Prince Charles, he might have achieved some of his wider ambitions.111 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 192, 205 (letter dated ‘before May 1625’); Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, 392; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 178-9.

Back in the Lords, Salisbury was present for almost three-quarters of the session, proving more regular in his attendance during the first half of the Parliament than in the second. He made two speeches, and attracted ten appointments. Now an established figure in the upper House, he chaired the bill committees concerned with drunkenness and restitution of possession, reporting on both measures within hours of the committees being established.112 LJ, iii. 274b, 296a. In a major boost to his personal standing, he was added on 7 Apr. to all the committees on which the 3rd earl of Dorset had been serving prior to his death, namely the standing committee for privileges and the committee for the monopolies bill. Two weeks later he was also added to the standing committee for petitions.113 Ibid. 215a-b, 267b, 293b; PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 29v. Of his four remaining legislative committee appointments, three related to legal issues, while the fourth addressed purveyance, still a significant means by which the court was supplied with food and fuel.114 LJ, iii. 288b, 296a, 304a, 397a. On 1 May Salisbury was nominated to the select committee for examining corruption charges against Lord Treasurer Middlesex. Whatever his personal feelings about Middlesex may have been, it must have been gratifying that during this inquiry his own father’s performance as lord treasurer was repeatedly held up as a model of good practice.115 PA, HL/PO/JO/5/1/3, f. 41; LJ, iii. 308a, 309b, 336a, 366b.

Following Middlesex’s disgrace, payments of Salisbury’s pension resumed, and in addition to striking a deal over the arrears, he had the annuity transferred to the Court of Wards. With this more secure arrangement in place, he eventually received all the money still owed to him, albeit with some delays.116 Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 118; CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 187; 1625-6, p. 541. Meanwhile, Salisbury was once more on intimate terms with Buckingham. By October 1624 they were socializing again, and when the earl sent the duke a painting that month, the favourite accepted the gift with profuse thanks, promising to ‘set it up as a monument of your love to me, and of mine own obligation ever to remain your humble and faithful servant’.117 Add. 12528, f. 16v; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 196. In December it was reported that Salisbury would accompany Buckingham when he went to France to collect Prince Charles’s bride, Henrietta Maria, though in fact he did not feature in the small entourage with which the duke eventually travelled. At the end of that month, he was created a knight of the Garter, probably at the duke’s request, although the Venetian ambassador cynically suggested that Salisbury had purchased the honour.118 Chamberlain Letters, ii. 589, 591; Add. 72332, f. 87v; H. Ellis, Orig. Letters Illustrative of Eng. History, ser. 1, iii. 189; Lockyer, 236, 414; CSP Ven. 1623-5, p. 553. This rapprochement continued into the next reign. The earl was a prominent mourner at James I’s funeral in May 1625, and shortly afterwards he was reappointed lord lieutenant of Hertfordshire with additional powers.119 Nichols, iv. 1047; Sainty, 23.

A loyal servant of the crown, 1625-9

When elections were held for the first Caroline Parliament, Salisbury ensured the return of Buckingham’s kinsman Sir John Boteler^* (later 1st Lord Boteler), and the latter’s cousin John Boteler^‡, as Hertfordshire’s shire knights. Hertford’s seats went to the same Members as in 1624, presumably with the earl’s approval. At St Albans Salisbury failed to secure both burgess-ships as he faced local opposition, but he eventually made one successful nomination there, probably for Sir Charles Morrison.120 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 205; Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, 389; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 181; OR. Sir Anthony Forest once again found a place at Wallingford. However, at Old Sarum the earl emerged empty-handed. Sherfield would not guarantee him more than one seat there, whereas the earl insisted on making two nominations, trying to appeal directly to some of the voters behind Sherfield’s back. This bullishness ultimately backfired, and the earl of Pembroke secured both places for his own clients.121 HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 261; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 16, 449; Hants RO, 44M69/L4/7.

Once the Parliament opened, Salisbury helped to introduce John Holles^*, 1st earl of Clare, and Francis Fane^*, 1st earl of Westmorland, when they took their seats on 22 June. The next day he was absent as a result of illness. This unspecified malady presumably explains why he attended only six sittings at Westminster. However, his failure to appear at Oxford at all was probably due to other factors, such as fear of the plague. Predictably, he awarded his proxy to Buckingham.122 Procs. 1625, pp. 39, 41, 45, 591.

With England now at war with Spain, Salisbury’s duties as lord lieutenant increased. He proved quite efficient in levying recruits for military service, and in disarming local recusants, but met with significant opposition to the privy seal loans sent out by the government as an alternative to parliamentary taxation. To his embarrassment, even his own deputies sought to avoid contributing.123 CSP Dom. 1623-5, p. 413; 1525-6, pp. 116, 126, 164. Nevertheless, Charles I continued to employ him at court on much the same lines as in the previous reign: at the coronation in February 1626 he carried one of the king’s sceptres, and a month later he escorted the Persian ambassador to a royal audience.124 HMC Rutland, i. 476; Birch, i. 87.

The 1626 parliamentary elections produced mixed results for Salisbury. The Hertfordshire seats went to his nominees, Sir Thomas Dacres^‡ and John Boteler, while St Albans returned his friend Sir Charles Morrison, and his distant kinsman Sir Edward Goring^‡. Sir Anthony Forest yet again sat for Wallingford. However, local interests prevailed at Hertford, and at Old Sarum, where the earl’s relations with Henry Sherfield had now broken down completely, he failed to prevent Pembroke’s candidates from taking both seats.125 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 209-10; xxiv. 263-4; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 16, 179, 181, 449.

Salisbury attended over four-fifths of this Parliament, missing just 14 sittings. On 23 Feb. he acted as a supporter when Buckingham’s former adversary Edmund Sheffield^* was introduced in the Lords as 1st earl of Mulgrave. He was again appointed to the standing committee for petitions, but he attracted only four other nominations, all for legislative committees. Of these, he presumably took an interest in the two measures with relevance to Hertfordshire, namely the bills to promote the New River construction project and to bar clergy from becoming magistrates.126 Procs. 1626, i. 48, 53, 65, 327. He was granted parliamentary privilege on 17 May, after a subpoena was served on him, either by Sir Francis Leigh^‡, the 1625 Surrey shire knight, or by Sir Francis Leigh^*, later 1st earl of Chichester.127 Ibid. 495, 498; HP Commons, 1604-29, v. 91-3.

With much of this session devoted to attacks on Buckingham, Salisbury’s close association with the duke may actually have restricted the number of his appointments. He was considered in March for a conference about the Commons’ request for Buckingham to explain the second arrest of the St Peter, and nearly added in June to the committee investigating the duke’s enemy, John Digby^*, 1st earl of Bristol, but on neither occasion was the nomination approved.128 Procs. 1626, i. 101, 605. Salisbury is not known to have contributed to any debates about Buckingham, but conceivably he was working on his behalf behind the scenes. On 20 July, shortly after the dissolution, the duke stayed overnight at Salisbury’s house, in a very public affirmation of their friendship. Two days later, the earl became a privy councillor, as part of the post-Parliament settlement between Buckingham and his court rivals. However, a rumour in August that Salisbury would replace the duke as master of the Horse proved to be groundless.129 Add. 12528, f. 30v; APC, 1626, p. 117; Lockyer, 333; CSP Ven. 1625-6, p. 500; Yonge Diary ed. G. Roberts (Cam. Soc. xli), 95.

As the burdens of war began to be felt more strongly around the country, Salisbury worked hard to maintain the military effort. In Hertfordshire he obtained extra powers to help the militia prepare for a possible foreign invasion, and firmly promoted the next round of arbitrary taxation. Having found the county as resistant to the 1626 Benevolence as it had been to the privy seals, he resorted to subterfuge when the Forced Loan was launched in the autumn of that year, spreading a false report that the judiciary was backing the levy, in order to persuade people to subscribe. As a result, he faced a local backlash in December, but he continued to crack down on Loan refusers, both in Hertfordshire and in Suffolk, where he acted in conjunction with his brother-in-law, Theophilus Howard^*, 2nd earl of Suffolk.130 APC, 1626, p. 133; 1627, pp. 4-5, 29; CSP Dom. 1625-6, p. 378; 1627-8, pp. 9, 66; Birch, i. 176; HMC 13th Rep. IV, 449. When peace negotiations with Spain were mooted in February 1627, Salisbury was identified by observers as a likely member of the English delegation. However, nothing ultimately came of this.131 Birch, i. 192-3; CSP Ven. 1626-8, pp. 136-7. Even so, he remained firmly in favour with Buckingham, and as a privy councillor became increasingly involved in the government’s desperate efforts to raise more money.132 HMC Cowper, i. 313; APC, 1627, p. 218; 1627-8, p. 455; CSP Dom. 1627-8, p. 574.

In January 1628 Salisbury revealed a more conciliatory side to his character, when Algernon Percy^* (later 4th earl of Northumberland) requested the hand of his daughter Anne. Algernon’s father Henry Percy^*, 3rd earl of Northumberland, had been imprisoned for over 15 years for his alleged involvement in the Gunpowder Plot, and blamed Salisbury’s father for his treatment. Accordingly he initially dismissed all talk of this match. Salisbury, however, recognized a genuine opportunity to heal this wound, and eventually won Northumberland round with persistence, fine words, and a generous dowry.133 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 238-40.

By the time a fresh Parliament was summoned in 1628, Salisbury had finally also come to terms with the earl of Pembroke, as both men made one nomination at Old Sarum.134 HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 449-50; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 229. As usual, the two Hertfordshire shire knights were Salisbury’s clients, while the earl’s brother-in-law, Sir Edward Howard^* (later 1st Lord Howard of Escrick), was returned at Hertford. St Albans corporation was less quiescent this time, and although Salisbury secured one seat there, he was requested to select a candidate with local connections, his choice falling on Robert Kirkham^‡, the brother of one of his servants. When Howard was elevated to the Lords in April 1628, he was replaced at Hertford by another of the earl’s long-term clients, Sir Charles Morrison.135 Stone, ‘Electoral Influence’, 386; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 241-2; HP Commons, 1604-29, ii. 179, 181; v. 28.

Salisbury was excused from the Lords on four occasions in 1628, and was particularly erratic in his attendance from late May, but still managed to be present for 70 per cent of the sittings. During this session he held the proxy of Henry Parker^*, 14th Lord Morley.136 Lords Procs. 1628, pp. 26, 189, 334, 376, 580. On 15 Apr. Salisbury helped to introduce his wife’s brother-in-law, William Knollys, who had just been promoted to the earldom of Banbury. He made no speeches, and received just two appointments, to the standing committee for petitions, and to a bill committee concerned with the queen’s palaces and revenues. When the Commons accused the earl of Suffolk of slandering John Selden^‡, Salisbury was named on 17 Apr. as a probable witness to the incident, but the matter was not pursued.137 Ibid. 79, 228, 256, 641. Like several other Buckingham allies, Salisbury was absent from the House on 31 May, when, according to the Venetian ambassador, the duke whisked the king off to an unspecified country house to discuss Charles’s impending response to the Petition of Right. It is therefore possible that the earl hosted this party at Hatfield.138 CSP Ven. 1628-9, pp. 126-7.

With the crown still desperate for money, despite Parliament finally granting supply, Salisbury agreed to lend the king £500 in June 1628. Following Buckingham’s assassination in August, the earl was tipped to succeed his former patron as master of the horse, but the post went instead to a Scot, James Hamilton^*, 2nd earl of Cambridge and 3rd marquess of Hamilton [S], who had a prior claim.139 APC, 1627-8, pp. 486-7; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 246. When Parliament reconvened after Christmas, Salisbury was present in the Lords for all but three days. However, apart from his now customary appointment to the committee for petitions, he received just two nominations, to consider a private dispute within a Hertfordshire family, the Coningsbys of North Mymms, and to help deliver a petition from the Lords requesting the king to relieve the poverty of Robert de Vere^*, 19th earl of Oxford.140 LJ, iv. 6b, 34a, 37b; Lords Procs. 1628, p. 570.

Gradual disillusionment, 1630-9

In the early phase of Charles I’s personal rule, Salisbury was at the heart of many of the government’s initiatives, such as the knighthood composition fines programme, the reform of poor relief, and the closer scrutiny of local government.141 APC, 1628-9, pp. 276-7; 1630-1, p. 474; M.V.C. Alexander, Chas. I’s Lord Treasurer, 162; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 474. At court, he continued to perform minor ceremonial functions, such as escorting the Spanish ambassador in January 1630, and he was one of the most regular attendees of Garter feasts and chapters. When he accompanied the king to Scotland in 1633, he was appointed a member of the Scottish Privy Council, a significant mark of esteem, though in real terms an empty gesture.142 Birch, ii. 51; R. Cust, Chas. I and the Aristocracy, 122. However, major office continued to elude Salisbury’s grasp. In July 1630 the king indicated that he would succeed Sir Robert Naunton^‡ as master of the Court of Wards, in fulfilment of his reversionary claim. Nevertheless, within 18 months Charles had backtracked again, with Francis Cottington^†, Lord Cottington now tipped to be the next master. Salisbury instead agreed to accept one or more of the lesser posts currently held by his brother-in-law, Suffolk, but he had to wait until mid 1635 before finally becoming captain of the gentlemen pensioners, a considerably less lucrative role than he had been hoping for.143 CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 312; 1631-3, p. 205; Aylmer, 114-16; Birch, ii. 229; Strafforde Letters (1739) ed. W. Knowler, i. 412, 427.

As the decade wore on, Salisbury’s frustration over his treatment became more apparent. In June 1631 he attended the lord treasurer, Richard Weston^*, Lord Weston (later 1st earl of Portland), about an Exchequer suit, only to find the meeting postponed. After half an hour, ‘he expostulated in plain terms’ with Weston ‘for making a person of his quality, being an earl, a privy councillor, and a knight of the Garter, so long to wait’, but his outburst had no effect.144 Birch, ii. 125. It was presumably no coincidence that a book published in 1632 by one of his chaplains emphasized the essential role of the nobility in maintaining stable government.145 W.P. Bird, ‘The Third Generation of an Arriviste Family: William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Salisbury, and the Consolidation of Noble Status in Unpropitious and Tumultuous Times’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 2013), 103-5. Salisbury began to neglect his duties as lord lieutenant, and was reprimanded by the Privy Council in October 1634 after failing to submit musters certificates for three consecutive years. In September 1636 he tried to avoid having to entertain yet another Spanish ambassador, his reluctance becoming a matter of London gossip.146 PC2/44, f. 82; Birch, ii. 249. During the previous year, he joined forces with Philip Herbert^*, 1st earl of Montgomery and 4th earl of Pembroke, to undermine one of the king’s leading ministers, Thomas Wentworth^*, Viscount Wentworth (later 1st earl of Strafford). The latter, seeking to impose his authority as lord deputy of Ireland, had brought corruption charges against his principal rival, the 1st earl of Cork [I], whose daughter-in-law, Lady Dungarvan, was a kinswoman of both Salisbury and Pembroke. Once made aware of Wentworth’s actions, the two earls lobbied the king for Cork’s case to be heard in England, justifying their intervention by asserting that they were merely protecting Lady Dungarvan’s interests, though in fact Salisbury and Cork were good friends. After several months of delays, the lord deputy agreed to consult Pembroke and Salisbury before any punishment was inflicted on Cork, whereupon the earls withdrew their objections.147 HMC Hatfield, xxii. 281-2; Strafforde Letters, i. 449, 480; H.F. Kearney, Strafford in Ireland, 70; Lismore Pprs. (ser. 1) ed. A.B. Grosart, iv. 125, 130; v. 115, 118; CP, iii. 295, 421, 568-70; Sheffield Archives, WWM/StrP8, pp. 294-6, 325-6; Str P 15/241.

If Salisbury needed further proof of his real standing at court, it came in 1637, when he was fined £20,000 for breaches of forest law in Rockingham forest, Northamptonshire. This was an entirely fabricated charge, brought out of malice by the earl of Holland, for Salisbury’s parks there had been established legitimately after Elizabeth I presented the bulk of the forest to his father as a reward. Indeed, once the sentence was handed down, it was rapidly commuted to a much smaller fine of £3,000, and Salisbury was permitted to restore his parks. Nevertheless, the episode was a major humiliation for such a proud man. As Edward Conway^*, 2nd Viscount Conway observed of this incident, ‘weak minds have strong retentions of injuries’.148 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 171; Alexander, 196; Bodl., Bankes 47, f. 45; Strafforde Letters, ii. 124.

Salisbury was appointed a member of the king’s council of war in January 1639, but suffered another snub when Charles opted to use his gentlemen of the privy chamber as his bodyguard in the north in preference to the gentlemen pensioners. Despite this, the earl personally supplied 30 horsemen for the expedition against the Scots, in addition to the foot soldiers levied in Hertfordshire.149 CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 378; HMC Hatfield, xxii. 299; HMC Buccleuch, i. 278-9. Although he took the oath at York to fight the Scottish rebels, he evidently had some sympathy with their cause, being himself of puritan inclination and a patron of several radical preachers. In June he helped to negotiate a truce, but the English delegation was considered in some quarters to be ‘too deeply tainted with a good opinion’ of the Scots.150 HMC Rutland, i. 507; Stone, Fam. and Fortune, 115; CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 294, 304, 319. Upon his return to London, Salisbury found himself accused of circulating a Scottish pamphlet which misrepresented the peace deal. Although he firmly refuted this charge, it was clear that many people found it credible.151 CSP Dom. 1639, pp. 398, 402-3, 421; PC2/50, f. 289v.

Later career, 1640-68

In 1640 Salisbury attended the Great Council of Peers at York, and was again appointed to treat with the Scots. He remained loyal to the king until the summer of 1642, despite his misgivings about the direction of royal policies, but then dramatically switched sides, and supported Parliament during the Civil War. Following the abolition of the House of Lords, he sat for King’s Lynn in the Rump, and also represented Hertfordshire in the first two Cromwellian Parliaments. After the Restoration Salisbury sued out a royal pardon, but lost most of his remaining offices. He died in December 1668, and was buried at Hatfield. His peerage descended to his grandson, James Cecil^*, 3rd earl of Salisbury.152 SP16/466/42, p. 37; HMC Var. vii. 424-5; C. Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 472; Clarendon, ii. 543; HMC Hatfield, xxiv. 285; VCH Herts. Fams. 115.