CECIL, John (1628-78)

Described both as ‘totally undistinguished’ and as ‘one of the most worthy persons of the nation’, Exeter’s own assessment echoed the first and he reckoned himself perhaps overly modestly to be ‘an insignificant creature.’ E. Butler, Cecils, 159; CCSP, iv. 558; Eg. 2717, f. 366. Such a reputation appears undeserved when considered in the light of his holding the lord lieutenancy of Northamptonshire uninterrupted from the Restoration until his death 18 years later. For the majority of the time the lieutenancy was held jointly, but the county was a particularly troublesome one for the king, being host to a sizeable Dissenting population and this, rather than any lack of confidence in either lieutenant, explains the decision to appoint two peers to manage it.

Exeter’s father had opposed the king in the early stages of the Civil War, but at the Restoration the 4th earl appears to have escaped any adverse reaction to his father’s disloyalty. For all his self-deprecation, he commanded significant interest in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, with his estates in the former being valued at over £1,200 a year in 1662. Add. 34222, f. 38. Exeter’s family had traditionally enjoyed strong influence over the town of Stamford which adjoined their Burghley estates and in April 1660 Exeter’s kinsman, Francis Wingfield^‡, was returned as one of the burgesses. HP Commons 1660-90, i. 306. When Wingfield chose not to stand in 1661 Exeter was able to secure the return of another of his nominees, William Stafford^‡, in his stead. The Cecil interest was underpinned by powerful kinship ties. In addition to his connection to the Manners family, the 4th earl was closely related to John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, as well as being brother-in-law to Anthony Ashley Cooper, later earl of Shaftesbury, who from 1667 rented Exeter House in the Strand as his London residence. Haley, Shaftesbury, 206.

Exeter took his seat in the Convention on 4 May 1660 and was thereafter present on 58 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he had been assessed by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as one of those Lords whose fathers had sat. He was shortly after added to the committee for privileges and that preparing the bill creating George Monck, later duke of Albemarle, captain general. On 22 May he was appointed custos rotulorum for Rutland and Peterborough, though he was replaced later in the year by Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden. Four days later, he was named to the committee for the king’s safety. On 10 Aug. 1660 Exeter entrusted his proxy to his cousin Bridgwater after which he was absent for the remainder of the session. His absence may have been owing to his involvement the following month with a protracted legal case over the draining of 14,000 acres of Lincolnshire fenland to which he laid claim. BL, 74/816m8, The Case of the Earl of Exeter … in Relation to the … Lindsey Level; CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 253-4. Exeter returned to the House shortly after the opening of the second session of the Convention. He sat until 22 Dec. (having attended 44 per cent of all sitting days) but was named only to two committees.

Exeter failed to attend the coronation after he was granted a dispensation from the king permitting him to remain in the country. Verney ms mic. M636/17, L. Sheppard to Sir R. Verney, 8 Apr. 1661. His absence from the coronation did not prevent him petitioning to be recognized as hereditary high almoner by virtue of his holding the barony of Bedford. Although Sir George Carteret fulfilled the role during Exeter’s absence, his right to the office was confirmed. CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 585. He returned to London in time to take his place in the House at the opening of the Cavalier Parliament on 8 May. On 16 May he was named to the committee considering the Lindsey Level bill in which he had a personal interest. His involvement with the bill may have brought him into conflict with a local rival, Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey. In spite of this, Exeter was noted as an opponent of the attempt made by Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to secure recognition as lord great chamberlain, presumably preferring Lindsey’s claim to the office. On 2 July Exeter was entrusted with Rutland’s proxy. In November of that year Exeter was himself absent at a call of the House. He returned to the chamber in early 1662 and on 6 Feb. entered his protest over the resolution to pass the bill submitted by Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to be restored to a number of estates sold during the Interregnum. Soon after, Exeter absented himself once more and did not return to the House until midway through the following session in April 1663.

The summer of 1662 proved troublesome for Exeter. Lieutenancy duties occupied his attention in the first half of the summer when he joined Westmorland in overseeing the destruction of the walls of Northampton. CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 424. The pair received £50 from secret service funds for their trouble, which it rapidly became apparent was insufficient to cover the amounts expended. Add. 34222, ff. 25-26; CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 431, 447. There was also some suggestion that his relationship with his partner, Westmorland, was not entirely harmonious, though ill health may explain some of the difficulties experienced during the shared lieutenancy. At one point Exeter sent for his hounds to provide the workers with welcome entertainment. Add. 34222, f. 40; Bodl. Clarendon 77, f. 66.

More dramatic was the breakdown in Exeter’s marriage, which came to a head shortly after. In August, increasingly fractious relations led to Exeter’s estrangement from his countess amid claims that he had mistreated her. Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, anxious to assure Exeter that it was only by the king’s direct command that he sought to intervene in so delicate an affair, was deputed to effect a reconciliation or find a way of the pair living ‘charitably asunder’. CCSP, v. 258; Bodl. Clarendon 77, f. 216. Exeter, recovering at the same time from a bad fall from his horse, strenuously denied the countess’s allegations insisting that rather than being guilty of mistreating her, he had been ‘a long time used to the harshness of her tongue.’ He also claimed that the reason for her complaints was that she had been set on by her friends in the hopes of obtaining an allowance from him. To this he insisted that he would ‘never give her an allowance to live’ apart from him unless he was compelled to do so by law. He promised Clarendon to wait on the king to seek a solution as soon as his health would permit, though he feared that it would be some time before he would be well enough to do so. CCSP, v. 261; Bodl. Clarendon 77, f. 300. Exeter and his countess remained estranged for the ensuing five years.

Poor health appears to have dogged Exeter throughout his life. He was excused at calls of the House on 23 Feb. 1663 and, having taken his seat on 2 Apr. he attended on just seven days before retiring for the remainder of the session. The following year, he was excused again on 4 April. Having taken his seat on 19 Apr. 1664 he proceeded to attend on 64 per cent of all sitting days but he was thereafter absent for the following two years. He was excused once more on 7 December.

Absence from the chamber did not necessarily imply political inactivity. Following Westmorland’s death in 1665, Exeter was confirmed in post as lieutenant of Northamptonshire, though the commission was again divided and he was joined by Henry Mordaunt, earl of Peterborough. An informal arrangement divided the county into western and eastern divisions, a division that was formalized in 1673. Any suggestion that Exeter was an ineffectual lord lieutenant, though, is dispelled by the evidence of William Goffe who petitioned Sir Henry Bennet, later earl of Arlington, in October 1665 following his imprisonment on suspicion of being a ‘disturber’ at Exeter’s direction. CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 37.

After an absence from Westminster of almost two years, Exeter responded to the summons to attend the trial of Robert Parker, 15th Baron Morley and Monteagle, at which he joined with the majority in finding Morley guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. HEHL, EL 8398; Stowe 396, ff. 178-90. He was absent from the House again at the beginning of October 1666 when he was excused on the grounds of ill health. He took his seat once more on 6 Nov., after which he was present on just under half of all sitting days. On 14 Nov. he was named to the committees considering the enclosure bill and that to illegitimate Lady Roos’s children.

The following May Exeter’s reconciliation with his countess proved the occasion for lavish festivities with ‘sack possets and stockings thrown and the other vanities not omitted.’ Bodl. mss North c.4, ff. 164-5. Improvements in his domestic arrangements made no difference to Exeter’s continuing poor attendance of the House. In October 1667 he was missing at a call without explanation and on 17 Feb. 1668 he was again excused attendance.

In April 1668 Exeter was involved with brokering the marriage between Lady Dorothy Manners and his nephew, Anthony Ashley Cooper, later 2nd earl of Shaftesbury. HMC Rutland, ii. 10. That autumn he was sufficiently fit to participate in a horse race involving the king and James, duke of York, George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and Oxford. The following month, Exeter was still racing at Newmarket, where he was beaten by one of the grooms of the bedchamber called Elliot. Add. 36916, ff. 117-18. The temporary improvement in Exeter’s health also seems to have been reflected in his application to business in his lieutenancy and other areas where he held interest. In May 1667 he had referred to the council concerns about rioting in the Lincolnshire fenland. Bodl. Carte 222, ff. 154-5. In the spring of 1669, in response to the king’s request to know the extent of ‘scandalous meetings’ held in the diocese of Peterborough, he turned his attention to controlling the local nonconformists. His actions gained him the warm approbation of Joseph Henshaw, bishop of Peterborough, who commended his suppression of a local conventicle and committal of ‘the ablest’ of its members to gaol. CSP Dom. 1668-9, p. 294; Bodl. Add. mss C305, f. 303.

Exeter’s health took a turn for the worse later that year and on 26 Oct. 1669 sickness once more prevented him from attending the House. In December the countess of Exeter died. HMC Rutland, ii. 13. Their reconciliation had clearly been fragile as it was reported almost immediately afterwards that by his wife’s death Exeter was now free to marry ‘the lady he has so much courted.’ Verney ms mic. M636/23, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 6 Dec. 1669. Shortly afterwards, Exeter married as his second wife one of the daughters of his former colleague, Westmorland. Exeter was excused his attendance of the House twice in 1670, but he managed to rally sufficiently to take his place in the spring session on 10 Mar, though he proceeded to attend just 18 days in all (11 per cent of the whole). On 19 Mar. he was entrusted with the proxy of his brother-in-law, Charles Fane, 3rd earl of Westmorland, which was vacated six days later and on 25 Mar. he was named to the committee considering the bill for a treaty of union with Scotland. Exeter sat for the final time on 5 April. The following day he registered his proxy with Horatio Townshend, Baron Townshend, who held it for the remainder of the session.

Exeter’s continual absence from Parliament may have given rise to rumours current in January 1672 that he was dying. Hatton Corresp. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii, xxiii), i. 78. Certainly, his activity in the House was managed entirely by proxy after 1671. On 4 Feb. the proxy was held by his brother-in-law, Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury was given the proxy again on 28 Oct. of the same year, and he held the proxy for a third time on 27 Dec. 1673 in anticipation of the opening of the thirteenth session.

Exeter’s poor health meant that his dominance in Stamford came under increasing pressure from Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey and Lindsey’s relative, Campden. C. Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincs. 36. Exeter’s identification with Shaftesbury’s grouping may also explain his failing influence in the face of the united Bertie-Noel alliance, while in August 1676 the countess of Exeter was mentioned as being a member of a conventicle meeting in Great Russell Street. Eg 3330, ff. 16-18. That September, Exeter was dismayed by Lindsey’s lavish entertainments in the town in preparation for the by-election triggered by William Montagu^‡ accepting office, and which threatened to obscure his interest. Exeter’s preferred candidate, John Hatcher^‡, chose to accept being pricked sheriff rather than contest the seat in the face of such fierce opposition and in December, to add to his woes, Exeter was turned out of his place as recorder in favour of Campden. Exeter protested in vain at his displacement and his son, John Cecil, styled Lord Burghley (later 5th earl of Exeter), fought a duel with one of Campden’s sons (possibly Henry Noel^‡) over the issue. TNA, C115/109/8907. At the same time it was rumoured that the dowager countess of Shrewsbury was attempting to exert her influence over her brother-in-law Westmorland to prevent him from working in partnership with Exeter. Hatton Corresp. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxii, xxiii), i. 142. Having lost Hatcher, Exeter (under, it had been said earlier, his wife’s direction) transferred his interest to William Thursby^‡ but he too desisted prior to the poll when it was clear that he stood no chance of catching Noel. Eg. 3329, ff. 109-10; Eg. 3330, ff. 77-78; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 306-7. Hatcher was left to make a late entry to the contest (in spite of his office) but the result was predictable and Noel returned with ease.

Shaftesbury noted Exeter doubly worthy in his assessment of May 1677. Despite his loss of the recordership and the humiliation of the by-election, in June Exeter approached Henry Coventry^‡ on behalf of the Stamford corporation, following rumours that it was to face quo warranto proceedings. Coventry assured Exeter that no such proceedings were in hand. CSP Dom. 1677-8, p. 201.

Exeter’s steady loss of influence in the final years of his life appears reflected in his response to a letter from a potential client shortly before his death. He protested himself ‘incapable of serving you in any capacity except you had a son that was in a way of being a clergy man.’ Eg. 2717, f. 366. Exeter died at Burghley on 1 Feb. 1678 and was buried at St. Martin’s, Stamford. In his will of December 1677 Exeter left legacies of £100 each to his trustees: Bridgwater, Townshend, and the unsuccessful candidate for Stamford, William Thursby. By the time of his death, Exeter had lost control of Stamford. It was left to his heir to restore the family’s fortunes in the area. Holmes, 240.