CECIL, John (c. 1648-1700)

In theory, Exeter’s family connections ought to have made him one of the most influential peers in the midlands counties of Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland. Related to the families of Manners, Egerton and Ashley Cooper, Exeter enhanced this network further by his marriage alliance with the Cavendish family of Derbyshire. The previous earl’s relative lack of political aplomb meant that it was left to his son to rebuild the family interest. Reluctant to involve himself too deeply in the remote county of Lincolnshire, Exeter concentrated his efforts on the comparatively central territory of Northamptonshire. The Cecils had long wielded the dominant influence in the town of Stamford in Lincolnshire, but as a result of his father’s lethargy, the town had become increasingly vulnerable to the joint interest of the Noels and Berties. Lincs. Hist. and Archaeology, 5, p. 63. The implosion of the latter’s influence through their own neglect offered Exeter an opportunity to resume control there, but for the most part he preferred to concentrate on the arts. C. Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire, 243. During his life he acquired a reputation as a considerable scholar and patron, and amassed a vast collection of works by Lely, Wissing, Kneller, Grinling Gibbons and Verrio. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 500.

Although Parliament was in session when he inherited his peerage, Exeter demonstrated little interest in attending the House. On 16 Feb. 1678 he was excused attendance, then on 23 Feb. he registered his proxy in favour of his cousin John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater, which was vacated by the close of the session. Eager to simplify the settlement devised by his father on his marriage, in August Exeter entered into an agreement to increase Lady Exeter’s jointure to £2,500 p.a. in return for a reallocation of estates in order to make the collection of her rents less ‘troublesome.’ Burghley House, Exeter mss 64/38. Exeter failed to attend either of the 1678 sessions. He entrusted his proxy to Bridgwater again on 30 Oct. 1678, and it was not until 6 Mar. of the following year that he finally took his seat in the House. Given the rivalry between the Cecils and Berties in Stamford, it is perhaps not surprising that Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), listed Exeter as a likely opponent in a series of assessments compiled in or about March 1679. However, Exeter again registered his proxy with Bridgwater on 15 Mar. 1679 having attended for just five days. Excused at a call of the House on 9 May, the proxy was vacated when he resumed his seat the following day. He sat for a further five days, during which time he was noted as being in favour of appointing a joint committee of both Houses to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords and on 10 May he entered his dissent at the resolution not to do so. On 27 May he voted against adhering to an earlier vote that the lords spiritual had the right to stay in court in capital cases until judgment of death came to be pronounced. At the general election that year Exeter wielded his interest at Stamford successfully on behalf of William Hyde^‡, but he showed little inclination to continue his involvement in the heated political climate of the times and instead secured a pass to travel abroad. HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 632; CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 352.

Exeter was recorded as being abroad at a call of the House on 30 Oct. 1680. He was still absent overseas at the time of the vote on the exclusion bill and for the trial of William Howard, Viscount Stafford. He returned in 1681 but showed more interest in engaging with building works at Burghley than with political life either in London or the country. The same year scandal enveloped Exeter’s family when his sister, Lady Scudamore, eloped with Thomas Coningsby^‡, Baron Coningsby [I], only to be abandoned by her paramour and compelled at gunpoint to effect a reconciliation with her cuckolded husband. Verney ms mic. M636/35, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 21 Aug. 1681; HMC Rutland, ii. 57; HP Commons, 1660-90, ii. 116. Thereafter Exeter appears to have retreated to the country, dividing his time between Chatsworth and Uffington in 1682. Eg. 3352, ff. 171-2. The same year he was noted as being likely to employ his interest on behalf of exclusionists in any new Parliament, but in 1683 he again opted to travel overseas in company with William Hyde^‡ and Charles Fitzwilliam^‡. CSP Dom. 1682, p. 618; CSP Dom. 1683-4, p. 192.

On his return in 1684 Exeter founded a curious secret society known as the Order of Little Bedlam. Its activities and function are obscure, but it seems to have been a drinking club with vague political overtones. HMC 5th Rep. 399. Following the accession of James II, Exeter served as chief almoner at the king’s coronation, an office claimed through his tenure of the barony of Bedford. An assessment of early 1687 noted Exeter as being likely to oppose repeal of the Test, a prediction that was repeated in May and November.

In January 1688 Exeter was noted by Danby as one of those peers in opposition to the king, and he was again listed as being opposed to repeal of the Test. Perhaps swayed by his brother-in-law, William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, Exeter joined the northern rebellion and then rallied to Princess Anne at Nottingham. Bodl. Carte 130, f. 307. In January 1689 he was included as a member of the Privy Council in a list of potential office-holders for the new regime compiled by Gilbert Burnet, later bishop of Salisbury, but he soon proved to be at odds with those eager to replace the king and sided instead with those pressing for a regency. Add. 32681, ff. 317-18; Ellis Corresp. ii. 320; Clarendon Corresp. ii. 256. The same month he voted against declaring William and Mary king and queen, and in February he voted against concurring with the Commons in the use of the word abdicated and of declaring the throne to be vacant. On 6 Feb. he registered his dissent at the resolution to agree with the Commons on both points.

Exeter retired from the House permanently after 11 Feb. 1689. He was said to have retired to the country, and he was noted as missing at a call on 22 May. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, v. 7. Later the same month he was summoned along with several other peers including Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, Edward Howard, 2nd earl of Carlisle and William Paston, 2nd earl of Yarmouth, to appear before the House to explain himself. Royal Society, ms 70, pp. 76-77; Add. 17677 II, ff. 79-80. In June he made a point of staying at Lufton to avoid an awkward meeting with his brother-in-law, Devonshire, and the same month he was in regular communication with Clarendon to co-ordinate their refusal to take the oaths. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 278. On 6 June Exeter’s letter to the House explaining that his absence had been ‘owing to ill-health, sciatica, and very urgent affairs at home’ was read. His failure to appear was excused, but at a call on 28 Oct. he was again absent without explanation. Add. 17677 II, ff. 86-87; HMC Lords, ii. 114.

The death of the countess of Devonshire in January 1690 was reported to have made Lady Exeter ‘rich’. HMC Rutland, ii. 127. During that year, as one of the executors of his father-in-law, Exeter was involved with Devonshire in a legal dispute with the trustees of John Frescheville, Baron Frescheville, over the manor of Staveley in Derbyshire. TNA, C6/264/31; C6/401/53. In February, in spite of his retirement from Westminster, Exeter was again successful in securing William Hyde’s return for Stamford. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 466. His interest was also sought in Northamptonshire by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, through the medium of Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton, on behalf of the moderate Tory Edward Montagu^‡. Add. 29594, f. 194. Whether or not Exeter stirred on Montagu’s behalf, both county seats were secured with ease by Whig candidates. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 426. Having refused to take the oaths, Exeter’s loyalty became suspect. In June 1690 his name was mentioned in association with reports detailing the activities of ‘factious people’ in Yorkshire, leading Sir Robert Southwell to recommend that he deserved ‘to have a strict eye kept over his actions.’ Ailesbury Mems. i. 237; CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 528; HMC Finch, ii. 309. Towards the end of September it was reported that Exeter intended to travel abroad again in the following spring, but in May 1691 he was again implicated in reports concerning the malcontents in Stamford and Yorkshire, who were making use of cockfights as cover for their political activities. Verney ms mic. M636/45, R. Paulden to Sir R. Verney, 28 Sept. 1690; HMC Finch, iii. 74. In December he was one of a large number of peers and gentry accused by William Fuller of seeking a French invasion on behalf of the exiled king. Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73, lxxi.

In November 1692 Exeter was compelled to petition the House over the ongoing dispute over Staveley. He sought the reversal of a decree in chancery ordering him to pay £6,000 and interest of £700 to the late earl’s creditors. The case was heard on 12 Dec. when the House ordered that the decree be upheld. HMC Lords, iv. 110-11. On 26 Nov. the House was moved on his behalf to strike out several protections, which he claimed he believed already to have expired. Ibid. 249.

Exeter was granted leave to travel to Holland in July 1693. CSP Dom. 1693, p. 229. He had returned by the winter of 1694 when the death of William Hyde triggered a by-election at Stamford. His refusal to set up his heir, John Cecil, styled Lord Burghley (later 6th earl of Exeter), allowed the seat to be taken by Philip Bertie^‡. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 368; HMC Ancaster, 436-7. In the general election of October 1695, though, Exeter was successful in bringing his interest to bear on Burghley’s behalf at Rutland. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 491; iii. 500. The following month he caused considerable comment when he absented himself from Burghley House at the time of the king’s visit. Portledge Pprs. 215. Exeter was in town in December to negotiate a match between his son and Annabella Bennet, daughter of John Bennet, Baron Ossulston, but the slow progress of the discussions irritated him as he was ‘impatient of being in the country.’ Belvoir Castle mss letters xxi. f. 118.

In 1696 his name appeared on a list compiled by Renaudot of peers supposedly committed to King James’s cause and prepared to rise in the event of an invasion. Ideology and Conspiracy, ed. E. Cruickshanks, 125. Probably unwilling to take the Association, Exeter stood down as recorder of Stamford in 1697. CSP Dom. 1697, p.477; Burghley House, Exeter mss 76/119/2. Even so, he was still able to wield considerable influence. His interest was sought once again by Nottingham for the Northamptonshire election the following year, and in August 1698 his younger son William Cecil^‡ was returned for Stamford in partnership with Charles Bertie. Northants. RO, IC 1588; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 367, iii. 502.

Exeter was granted leave to travel abroad again in 1699. CSP Dom. 1699-1700, p. 259; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 487. His intention was to travel through France and Italy to attend the papal jubilee in Rome. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 563; Bodl. Carte 228, f. 332; London Post, 22-25 Sept. 1699. Before departing he began the process of settling his estate, no doubt as a result of his heir’s marriage that summer to Elizabeth Brownlow, but he was unable to complete the arrangements. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/6/157/2528. A number of other notables joined Exeter at Rome, including Other Windsor, 2nd earl of Plymouth, and Winwood Montagu, styled Lord Monthermer, but he seems to have been eager to remain aloof from such people. Add. 29576, f. 2. According to one account he made sure ‘when he was to have seen any person of quality that he had the gout in his foot or shoulder so that none but painters and antiquaries were admitted.’ TNA, C115/109, 8935. Exeter’s indisposition may initially have been diplomatic, but having originally intended to be away for three years, he was forced to cut his foreign sojourn short on account of ill health. The English ambassador in France hinted that he expected Exeter to wait on the Jacobite court in exile during his homeward journey. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 503. Before he could do so he fell sick again and died at Issy on the outskirts of Paris on 29 August. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 681, 683; Northants RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 48, nos. 109, 115. Samuel Pepys^‡ recorded the cause of death as being from ‘a surfeit of fruit’:

which alone was the occasion of all that has befallen the earl of Exeter’s family, in the death not only of himself and of one or two more of his train, but the endangering all the rest, by a bloody flux; from which my lady herself and her son Mr Cecil have but hardly escaped. Pepys Corresp. ed. J.R. Tanner, ii. 85.

Pepys’ dramatic account was not universally accepted and elsewhere the cause of the earl’s death was said to have been peritonitis, while Luttrell believed it to have been on account of a bowel ulcer. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 684. Exeter’s remains were brought back to Stamford, where a monument was erected in the church according to the stipulations of his will. He also left £8,000 towards his daughter’s portion and annuities of £400 apiece to his younger sons Charles^‡ and Edward Cecil. Of a £4,000 bequest outstanding from Devonshire’s will, £3,000 was left to Charles Cecil and £500 each to Edward and Elizabeth Cecil. Strict instructions were laid down to prevent Exeter’s heir, Burghley, from squandering his inheritance, but Exeter left his son considerable debts with which to wrestle. Exeter’s death was marked with an elegy, praising him as ‘our country’s darling.’ Add. 43410, f. 160. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Burghley, as 6th earl of Exeter.