VOLTE FACE
The death of her daughter Elizabeth Lennox proved a heavy blow to Bess
Shrewsbury. At first she did not realise the full force of it.
Everything possible had been done to secure puissant support and
interest for Elizabeth and her child Arabella immediately on the death
of her husband and mother-in-law.
The will executed by Queen Mary in 1577 specially named Arabella Stuart
as heiress to her father’s earldom, in the clause: “Je faitz don à
Arbelle, ma niepce, du compté de Lennox, tenu par feu son père, et
commande a mon filz comme mon heritier et successeur, d’obeyr en cest
endroict à ma volonté.”
Further, the young widow herself had found courage to address Lord
Burghley:—
“I can but yield unto your Lordship most hearty thanks for your
continual goodness towards me and my little one, and specially for your
Lordship’s late good dealing with the Scots Ambassador for my poor
child’s right, for which, as also sundry otherwise we are for ever bound
to your Lordship whom I beseech still to further that cause as to your
Lordship may seem best.
“I can assure your Lordship that the Earldom of Lennox was granted by
Act of Parliament to my Lord my late husband and the heirs of his body,
so that they should offer great wrong in seeking to take it from
Arbella, which I trust by your Lordships’ good means will be prevented,
being of your mere goodness for justice sake so well disposed thereto.
For all which your Lordship’s goodness as I am bound I rest in heart
more thankful than I can anyway express.
“I take my leave of your Lordship, whom I pray God long to preserve.
“At Newgate Street the 15th Aug. 1578.
“Your Lordship’s,
“As I am bound,
“E. LENNOX.”[62]
Again, immediately on the death of the old Lady Lennox Mary had executed
this warrant dated Sept. 19, 1579, appointing any heirloom jewels to
Arabella:—
“To all people be it knowne that we Marie be the grace of God Quene of
Scotland, dowagier of Fraunce doo will and require Thomas Fowller soole
executor to our dearest mother in lawe and aunt, the lady Margret
countess of Lennox deceased, to deliver into the hands and cowstody of
our right well belowed cousines Elizabeth contess of Shrewsbury all and
every such juells, as the sayd Lady Margaret before her death delivered
and committed in charge to the said Thomas Fowller for the use of the
lady Arbella Stewart her graund chyld if God send her lyf till fowrten
yeres of age; if not then, for the use of our deare and only sonne the
prince of Scotland. In witness that this is owre will and desire to the
sayd Fowller we have gewen the present under our owne hand at Shefild
Manor, the XIX off September the year of our lord M.D. threscore and
nyntenth, and of our regne the thretty sixth.”[63]
In addition Mary wrote at this time to “Monsieur de Glasgo” one of her
Archbishops, in such a manner as shows her sincere attitude towards the
Lennox succession. This letter embodies the important fact of the
interposition of Queen Elizabeth, while the warrant just quoted awards
the care of the jewels not to the mother but the maternal grandmother of
the Stuart heiress.
“The Countess of Lennox, my mother-in-law died about a month ago, and
the Q. of E^d. has taken into her care her ladyship’s grand daughter
(Arabella S.). I desire those who are about my son to make instances in
his name for this succession, not for any desire I have that he should
actually succeed to it, but rather to testify that neither he nor I
ought to be reputed or treated as foreigners in England who are both
born within the same isle.
“This good lady was, thank God, in very good correspondence with me
these 5 or 6 years bygone, and has confessed to me by sundry letters
under her hand, which I carefully preserve, the injury she did me by the
unjust pursuits wh. she allowed to go against me in her name, thro’ bad
information, but principally, she said thro’ the express orders of the
Q. of Ed. and the persuasions of her council, who took much solicitude
that we might never come to good understanding together. But as soon as
she came to know of my innocence, she desisted from any further suit
against me.”[64]
Lady Shrewsbury may or may not have felt the support of Mary
ineffectual, but she must have hoped everything from Elizabeth, and to
Lord Burghley’s condolences wrote thus:—
“My honourable good Lord, your Lordship hath heard by my Lo. how it hath
pleased God to visit me; but in what sort soever his pleasure is to lay
his heavy hand on us we must take it thankfully. It is good reason his
holy will should be obeyed. My honourable good Lord I shall not need
here to make long recital to your Lo. how that in all my greatest
matters I have been singularly bound to your Lo. for your Lo. good and
especial favour to me, and how much your Lo. did bind me, the poor woman
that is gone, and my Arbella, at our last meeting at Court, neither the
mother during her life, nor can I ever forget, but most thankfully
acknowledge it; and so I am well assured will the young babe when her
riper years will suffer her to know her best friends. And now my good
Lo. I hope her Majesty upon my most humble suit will let that portion
which her Majesty bestowed on my daughter and jewel Arbella, remain
wholly to the child for her better education. Her servants that are to
look to her, her masters that are to train her up in all good learning
and virtue, will require no small charges; wherefore my earnest request
to your Lo. is so to recommend this my humble suit to her Majesty as it
may soonest and easiest take effect; and I beseech your Lo. to give my
son William Cavendish leave to attend on your Lo. about this matter. And
so referring myself, my sweet jewel Arbella, and the whole matter to
your honourable and friendly consideration, I take my leave of your Lo.
to pardon me for that I am not able to write to your Lo. with my own
hand. Sheffield this 28th January.
“Your L. most assured
loving friend
“E. SHREWSBURY.”[65]
Meanwhile the young King of Scotland took his own way, and Esmé Stuart
stepped eventually into the shoes of the newly appointed Lord Lennox—the
old Bishop of Caithness aforesaid—as intended by the nobles who
surrounded the Scottish throne.
There was from the standpoint of King James sufficient excuse for this
device. Esmé was the nephew of the late Lord Lennox, Arabella’s
grandfather, and a close kinsman of the young King. He had courtly
training, culture, and diplomacy in his favour. He was nine years older
than the little sovereign, and he came to Scotland from France as the
accredited though secret representative of Rome and the Guises, to win
Scotland at one stroke back to its alliance with France and its
obedience to the Pope. He made his presence felt quickly enough and the
first-fruits of his coming was the seizure and execution of Lord
Morton—erstwhile Regent, and creature of Elizabeth—as a prominent agent
in the murder of Lord Darnley. Here for the moment we leave Esmé Stuart,
in Creighton’s concentrated phrase, as “master of Scotland ... the
English party practically destroyed.”
Meanwhile, all the Countess of Shrewsbury could do was to write abject
letters to Elizabeth asking her to execute an order by which a settled
allowance should be conferred on Arabella.
The Countess could obviously now have nourished no hopes of utilising
Mary’s influence. The Earl was in receipt of all outside information in
regard to Scotland and the English Court. It was patent that no help for
Mary could come from James, well primed since his cradle by the lords
who hated his mother. Bess Shrewsbury’s glorious dream of a throne for
Arabella stared at her now as a somewhat sickly vision. The only hopes
for the child were from an influential marriage. That Arabella’s
grandmother did confide her dream to Mary is evident from the very
curious revelations which the latter makes in subsequent letters, when
the Countess, once so friendly and communicative, if at times brusque
and inquisitorial, had turned against her to the extent of grave
“scandilation,” in the language of those days.
This business of Arabella Stuart’s future marks a crisis in the
Shrewsbury household. It was like the tap given to a very vivid and
complex kaleidoscope, for it suddenly brought the relationship of the
three important personages—Earl, Countess, and Scottish Queen—into new
juxtaposition, and the true colour of the desires of the Countess shone
out more vividly for the changed order of things. To the mere onlooker
the matter is not made clear till much later. Only those immediately
concerned were aware of her gradual change of front, especially towards
her husband, and it was not yet that the full result of this apparent
volte face could be perceived. In order to understand how marked was
this change events must be anticipated by a year or two, and attention
given to an extraordinary letter from Queen Mary which betrays all sorts
of unauthorised intercourse between herself and Lady Shrewsbury. This
letter, penned by an always fanciful and extremely excitable woman, is
of course, an exaggeration of the Countess’s opportunism. Yet, there has
evidently been a gradual cessation of the friendly intimacy between the
two women, and a sufficient revelation of the Countess’s mind to give
Mary occasion to flare out to such a correspondent as the ambassador
Mauvissière. In this letter, of the year 1584, she speaks fiercely of
the treachery of Lady Shrewsbury—“La fausseté de mon honorable
hostesse”—which she wishes made clear to Elizabeth: “Rien n’a jamais
aliené la susdite de moy que la vaine espérance par elle conçue de faire
tomber cette couronne sur la teste d’Arbella sa petite-fille, mesmement
par son mariage avec le fils du comte de Leicester, divers tokens estant
passez entre les enfants nourris en cette persuasion, et leurs peintures
envoyées d’une part et l’aultre.” She goes on to say that but for this
imaginary hope—“une telle imagination”—of making one of her race royal
the countess would never have so turned away from Mary—“ne se fult
jamais divertye de moy”—for, the writer continues:[66] “she was so bound
to me, and regardless of any other duty or regard, so affectionate
towards me that, had I been her own queen, she could not have done more
for me; and as a proof of this say to the Queen, pretending that you
heard it from Mrs. Seton last summer when she went to France, that I had
the sure promise of the said countess that if at any time my life were
in danger, or if I were to be removed from here, she would give me the
means of escape, and that she herself would easily elude danger and
punishment in respect to this; that she made her son Charles Cavendish
swear to me in her presence that he would reside in London on purpose to
serve me and warn me of all which passed at the Court, and that he would
actually keep two good strong geldings specially to let me have speedy
intelligence of the death of the Queen, who was ill at the time; and
that he thought to be able to do this.... Thereupon the said countess
and her sons used every possible persuasion to prove to me the danger to
which I was exposed in the hands of the Earl of Shrewsbury, who would
deliver me into the hands of my enemies or allow me to be surprised by
them, in such a manner that, without the friendship of the said
countess, I was in very bad case. To begin with you need only put
forward these two little examples, by which the Queen can judge what has
gone to make up the warp and woof[67] of the intercourse during the past
years between myself and the said countess, whom, if I wished, I could
place in a terrible position by giving the names of those persons who,
by her express order, have brought me letters in cypher, which she has
delivered to me with her own hand. It will be sufficient for you to tell
the Queen that you heard these particulars from the said Mrs. Seton, and
that you are positive that if it pleased her to make skilful enquiry
into the misconduct of the said countess, I could disclose other
features of greater importance which would cause considerable discomfort
to others about her. Contrive, if possible, that she[68] shall keep the
matter secret without ever naming who had been induced to reveal these
things by devotion to her welfare, that in short she may recognise what
faith she can place in the said countess, who in your opinion could be
won over to my cause, if I thought well, by a present of two thousand
crowns.
“You have afforded me peculiar satisfaction by sending copies of my
letters ... into France and Scotland, by which the truth of these
rumours may be known, rumours which I am certain only proceed from the
said countess and her son Charles; but since the witnesses by whom I can
prove my case are afraid to incur the displeasure of the Queen, I am
constrained to bide until I can find others to assist at a public
explanation and reparation.
“Sheffield, 1584, March 21.”
This letter flies like a thunderbolt across the Shrewsbury heaven. The
lady’s ambition, according to her enemy, acknowledges no bounds, is no
respecter of persons. Mary she not only casts aside like an old glove,
but she assumes a triumphant, hostile attitude towards her. Through Lord
Leicester’s heir, Arabella will ensure the favour of the English throne,
while other means will be used to secure the Scottish throne itself for
the child. Portraits and “divers tokens” have passed between the
children. Bess is as sure of her power now as she was in the days when
she boasted that she could both assist Mary to escape and herself elude
retribution. Robust, rich, prosperous, swelled with her dreams, she
counts herself unassailable. Her mood of excitement tempts her, however,
further than her caution. Mary has spoken to Mauvissière of “rumours,”
reports so serious that they have reached even to Scotland and France.
She is sure that the Countess and her son Charles, once her sworn
servants, are the source of these. A letter, which must be quoted in
full here, written six months later to Mauvissière, makes the substance
of these rumours perfectly clear.
If the correspondence already quoted come like a thunderbolt, this next
letter conveys a shock even greater. There is one really extraordinary
passage in the first letter which, though it concerns the Earl, does not
prepare the onlooker for the scandalous matter of the second epistle.
This passage is the one in which his wife has the audacity, according to
Mary, to warn the latter against the Earl. What is the psychological
process which forces such a statement from the shrewd, worldly-wise
woman whose fortunes, socially, are entirely bound to those of her
husband? What can it be but blind jealousy arising from consciousness of
their opposite natures and from the hostility of sex? The intrigues with
Mary, the opportunism, the blatant ambition—these are comprehensible.
Was it all true? In the light of later letters from Mary all such
statements must be regarded very sceptically. Division there certainly
was in the great household: scolding and bitterness, a great weariness
of heart, a series of sordid misunderstandings. If in a wild reckless
mood the emotional, powerful spirit of Bess Shrewsbury had escaped
control, and she had uttered the ghost of such a warning as that quoted,
it must have sprung from nothing but the blind hatred of Mary and
jealousy of her husband, the last having its source in her fierce
consciousness of an utter clash of temperaments. Her opportunism, her
immense ambitions are conceivable; even, to a certain degree, the
longing to intrigue with Mary. They are comprehensible if one estimates
the Countess’s nature as one in which the love of domination, the quick
sense of advantage, and the keen perception of the melodrama of life
were combined. The Earl’s nature was the very opposite. To him she must
have acted latterly like a goad, while his obstinacy maddened her. His
dogged patience under unwilling service, his bitter and almost stupid
resignation under the meanness and suspicion of his Queen, his caution
and method, his intense sensitiveness to any unjust criticism, his
horror of plots, his dread of any unauthorised move, be it ever so
trifling, formed a granite barrier to his wife’s independent,
self-concentrated, restless spirit. Her pugnacity tussled with his
resolution, and discord ensued.
She whom Elizabeth darkly called “The Daughter of Debate,” the captive
Queen—was suddenly become as much of a thorn in the side of husband and
wife as in that of their sovereign. Wheresoever Mary was there stalked
complexity. This of itself, given the intricacies of her Stuart nature
and her extraordinary life and circumstances, was sufficient. But that
the Countess should have piled complexity upon complexity in such a way
as to wreck her own household reduces the observer to stupefaction. By
the second letter to Mauvissière it is seen that she was at Court. The
mere fact of her presence there seems to rouse Mary to a sort of fury at
her own helplessness. This letter is even more detailed, more excited
than the one just quoted:—
“Wingfield, October 18, 1584.
“No reply having come from the Queen of England concerning the treaty
proposed between her, me, and my son, and not having received any news
from you for six weeks I cannot but doubt that this delay has been
purposed to give time and advantage to the Countess of Shrewsbury, in
order that she may play her game and trouble those on every side
possible, to escape the just punishment of her fault and treason, and to
give the lie to the Queen her sovereign, to the malicious reports, so
harmful to me. I would make, with all affection possible, the request
from myself, and in the name of Monsieur, my good brother, and the
noblemen, my relations in France, that you will give a satisfactory and
clear explanation to the Queen of England and those of her Council of
the false and scandalous rumours that everybody knows have been invented
and spread abroad by the Countess of my intercourse with the Count of
Shrewsbury. I beg you to proceed with all haste in a public examination
or at least before the Council, and in your presence particularly, of
her and her two sons, Charles and William Cavendish, whether they will
confirm or refute the rumours and language they have previously
maintained, that in the cause of reason and justice they may be punished
as an example, there being no subject so poor, vile, and abject in this
kingdom to whom common justice can be denied. Such satisfaction would be
granted to the meanest subject, how much more to one of my blood and
rank, and so closely related to the Queen. But here I am, bound hand and
foot, and, I might say, almost tongue-tied. I can do nothing for myself
to avenge this atrocious and wicked calumny. May it please you to
remember the definite promise made to me by the Queen, which I have
mentioned before in four or five letters to you, that she had always
hated the liberty and insolence, so largely encouraged in this corrupt
age in the slander of Kings and primates, and that she would do all in
her power to repress this evil. I will give her the names of the guilty
originators of this scandal, and in proof of her words she will be
obliged to execute a rigorous and exemplary punishment upon them. I name
to her now the Countess of Shrewsbury and her son Charles especially, to
convict them of this unhappy slander. If not, I ask but their own
servants and those of the Count usually in the house should be put on
their oath to God, and their allegiance to the Queen, and examined, for
I know too well that some of them otherwise would never have the chance
of giving witness, and the Countess would maintain her rumours were
truth. One of her servants has told me that she has caused this scandal
to be spread in divers parts of the kingdom, and that they have heard
her in the room of the Count reproaching him similarly. And to come to
particulars, for some months at Chatsworth there was staying one of the
grooms of Lord Talbot specially to enquire concerning this. He has
nothing to say of me under the name of the Lady of Bath. I cannot but
think the Countess has power to silence her friends, who would otherwise
be too convincing witnesses of the falsehood of their rumours against
the Queen, her sovereign, so that she will do wisely not to force me to
rouse the witnesses, for if I demand justice on them, and am refused, I
will produce, before all the princes of Christendom, by articles signed
by my own hand, an account of the honourable proceedings of this lady,
as much against the Queen as against me, against whom she had formerly
spread this rumour. I will give a declaration of the time, persons, and
all friends, so necessary that it will not be pleasing to those who are
constant in condemning. And in the wrongs that she has done them, if
there are any of them to support her and to countenance those injuries
which I have received from her, or if in such a case there is a question
of my honour, it will always be to me more than earthly life. It may be
after so long and painful captivity I am constrained and obliged to put
before the public anything which may offend them or do harm. In that it
is for them to remedy and obviate by giving me reparation and
satisfaction for scandals and impostures. God grant that at the end I
may find true what the Countess has formerly told me, that the more she
could show herself my enemy, and work against me, she would be so much
the more welcome and more favoured at Court.
“MARIE R.”[69]
The scandalous rumours suggesting a liaison between Mary of Scotland and
Shrewsbury seem to have been on foot some two years previous to this
letter, and were naturally combined with the suggestion of his
connivance in her plans for escape and his vilification of his Queen.
There is a long, tedious, pitiful letter from the Earl on the subject
under the date of October 18th, 1582, addressed, of course, to Lord
Burghley. The “scandilation” is not mentioned as such, but the other
allegations are strictly denied. Shrewsbury reminds his friend that on
the last occasion on which he saw Elizabeth and “enjoyed the comfort of
her private speech” she did “most graciously promise that she would
never condemn” him without calling for his self-justification. He begs
for a hearing now. He adds: “Among the rest of my false accusations,
your Honour knoweth that I have been touched with some undutiful
respects touching the Queen of Scots; but I am very well able to prove
that she hath shewed herself an enemy unto me, and to my fortune; and
that I trust will sufficiently clear me.” The letter is dated from
Handsworth, the little manor which appears to have been the only place
in this and after years in which the harassed man could possess his soul
in quiet and dignity.