him of a plot to kill Rizzio, and probably the Queen, in order that
Lennox and his son Darnley might seize the crown. He says he thinks it
better _not_ to tell Cecil, but to keep the secret between the writer
and Leicester. On the 1st March, Randolph sent to Cecil copies of the
two “Conventions,” signed by the Earls—namely, that of Darnley, Morton,
and Ruthven, to kill Rizzio; and that of Murray, Argyll, Rothes, &c.,
to uphold Darnley in all his quarrels. Bedford, writing to Cecil on the
6th March, begged him earnestly to keep the whole matter secret, except
from Leicester and the Queen. It will thus be seen that, far from being
a promoter of the Darnley plot to kill Rizzio, Cecil did not know of it
in time to stop its perpetration, if he had been inclined to do so, as
the murder was committed on the 9th March. Against this, however, must
be placed, for what it is worth, Guzman’s statement that Cecil had told
Lady Margaret of Rizzio’s murder as having taken place the day before it
really occurred.
[229] From a statement of Guzman (28th January 1566) it would appear
that Cecil, probably in union with Murray, had some idea of bringing
Darnley round to the English interest. The Queen (Elizabeth), he says,
had refused Rambouillet’s suggestion that when he arrived in Scotland he
might bring about a reconciliation between the two Queens. “Afterwards,
however, Cecil went to his (Rambouillet’s) lodgings, and told him that
when the King of Scotland, bearing in mind that he had been an English
subject, should write modestly to the Queen, saying that he was sorry
for her anger, and greatly wished that it should disappear, he (Cecil)
believed that everything would be settled, if at the same time the Queen
of Scotland would send an Ambassador hither to treat of Lady Margaret’s
affairs” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.).
[230] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.
[231] Only two days before this Guzman gave the same advice to
Elizabeth. Both she and Cecil then assured him of their desire for such
a settlement, which would have checked French designs in Scotland, and
disarmed Spain.
[232] We do not often hear of Lady Cecil’s action in politics, but on
this occasion she seems to have seconded her husband. Guzman writes (22nd
April 1566): “Cecil’s wife tells me that the French Ambassador says that
if the Archduke comes hither, he will cause discord in the country, as
he will endeavour to uphold his religion, and will have many to follow
him. She thinks the Queen will never marry Lord Robert, or, indeed, any
one else, unless it be the Archduke, which is the match Cecil desires.
Certainly, if any one has information on the matter, it is Cecil’s wife,
as she is clever and greatly influences him.”
A few days after the above was written, Guzman visited Cecil, who
was ill, and mentioned how annoyed the French were when they saw the
Archduke’s suit prospering. “They then at once bring forward their
own King to embarrass the Queen. When this trick has hindered the
negotiations, they take up with Leicester again, and think we do not see
through them.” “Yes,” replied Cecil, “they are very full of fine words
and promises, as usual, and they think when they have Lord Robert on
their side their business is as good as done, but their great object is
to embroil the Emperor with the King of Spain.” (Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth, vol. i.)
[233] When news came of Brederode’s “protest” in the Netherlands and
the rising of the “beggars,” Guzman tried hard to discover from Cecil
whether any connection existed between the rebels and the English. He
concluded that there was none, although the eastern counties’ ports were
full already of Flemish Protestant fugitives. The Queen was very emphatic
in her condemnation of the “beggars” at first. “Fine Christianity, she
said, was this, which led subjects to defy their sovereign. It had begun
in Germany and in France, and then extended to Scotland, and now to
Flanders, and perhaps some day will happen here, as things are going now.
Some rogues, she said, even wanted to make out that _she_ knew something
about the affairs in Flanders. Only let me get them into my hands, she
exclaimed, and I will soon make them understand the interest I feel in
all that concerns my brother, the King” (_i.e._ Philip). (Spanish State
Papers, Elizabeth.)
[234] See the letters of Cecil’s spy, Ruxby (or Rooksby), _in extenso_
in Haynes. This man had fled from England to Scotland for debt. He was
known to Cecil, who, when he heard that he was dealing with Mary Stuart
in Edinburgh, warned him. Ruxby then offered his services as a spy, and
sent Cecil very compromising information about Mary’s plans. Melvil
discovered this, and Ruxby was seized by the Scots and put in prison,
Killigrew’s attempts, at the instance of Cecil, to convey him to England
as an escaped recusant, being thus frustrated. (Hatfield Papers.)
[235] He started from Edinburgh a few hours after James’s birth, and
reached London in four days (Melvil Memoirs).
[236] Melvil Memoirs.
[237] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i. On the 20th July, Cecil
writes to Lord Cobham, “I trust I shall not be troubled with the Scottish
journey” (Hatfield Papers).
[238] Nichol’s “Progresses of Queen Elizabeth.”
[239] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.
[240] Although Cecil was a member of the Commons deputation, he was,
of course, known to be against the measure, and escaped the Queen’s
vituperation. Cecil himself in his notes thus refers to the matter:
“1566. October 17. Certen Lords, viz., Erle of Pembroke and Lecester,
wer excluded the presence-chamber, for furdering the proposition of the
succession to be declared in Parliament without the Queen’s allowance.”
[241] The Parliament was dissolved on 2nd January 1567. The principal
measure adopted in it was that which gave Parliamentary confirmation to
the consecration of the bishops and archbishops, in order to counteract
the attacks promoted by Bonner against the Protestant consecration. The
measure was principally urged by the bishops themselves, and in the Lords
was carried to a great extent by their votes, there being twenty-eight
bishops present, and thirty-two lay peers. The House of Commons was
strongly Protestant, and was dissolved instead of being prorogued, as was
expected. Although the measure referred to was passed, the Government
refrained from proceeding further against the Catholic bishops who had
refused the oath of supremacy. (See Strype’s “Annals,” &c.)
[242] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[243] Spanish State Papers: Guzman to Philip, 1st March.
[244] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[245] These letters will be found in Labanoff, vol. ii.
[246] Catharine de Medici’s attitude when she heard the news was
characteristic. She thus wrote to Montmorenci: “Gossip: my son the King
is sending you this courier to give you the news he has received from
Scotland. You see that the young fool (Darnley) has not been King very
long. If he had been wiser he would have been alive still. It is a great
piece of luck for the Queen, my daughter, to be rid of him.” (MSS.
Bibliothèque Nationale, Bethune.)
[247] Drury to Cecil, April 1567 (State Papers, Scotland).
[248] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[249] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[250] Again, on the 3rd September, Cecil writes to Norris: “The Queen’s
Majesty, our sovereign, remaineth still offended with the Lords (of
Scotland) for the Queen: the example moveth her.” Later in the month
(27th September) a French envoy came through England on a mission to
Scotland, and proposed to Elizabeth that joint action should be taken to
secure Mary’s liberation. The envoy was persuaded in London to refrain
from continuing his journey, and we see that Cecil’s feeling in favour
of the Protestant party was gradually gaining ground in Elizabeth’s
counsels. He writes: “Surely if either the French King or the (English)
Queen should appear to make any force against them of Scotland for the
Queen (of Scots’) cause, we find it credible that it were the next way to
make an end of her; and for that cause her Majesty is loth to take that
way.” As an instance of the divergence of the Queen and Cecil during the
summer, Guzman, detailing a private conversation he had with the Queen
in July, during which he warned her again against French interference in
Scotland, writes: “Certain things passed in the conversation which she
begged me not to communicate _even to Cecil_.”
[251] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[252] The object of the French was to retain their alliance with Scotland
in any case, which, indeed, was their great safeguard against England and
Spain. De Croc was sent as Ambassador in 1566 for this especial purpose.
Villeroy and Lignerolles were subsequently despatched respectively to
conciliate Murray and Bothwell. When Murray assumed the Regency, the
French were just as anxious to recognise him as they had been to welcome
other régimes, and Charles IX. himself assured Murray of his continued
friendship. (See letters and instructions in Chéruel.)
[253] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.
[254] Cecil writes to Lord Cobham (27th May): “Lady Clinton hath procured
my wife to make a supper to-morrow, where a greater person will covertly
be, as she is wont. The Queen hath made asseverations to persuade the
Duke (of Norfolk) of her effectual dealing to marry, and to deal plainly
in this embassy” (Hatfield Papers). The object of the supper was to
enable the Queen privately to meet the Emperor’s Ambassadors before their
public reception. She seems to have been much disappointed that they had
nothing to say about the marriage, and as a result decided at last to
send the Earl of Sussex to the Emperor.
[255] Guzman expressed his disbelief in any such intelligence having
been received, whereupon Cecil showed him the paper. The document had
reached Cecil in German from one of his agents, and is still in the
Burghley Papers. Guzman pointed out to Cecil the undiplomatic form in
which the articles of the alleged treaty were drawn up and their inherent
improbability, which Cecil admitted. The particulars are now known to
have been a fabrication, although the main object of the league was
unquestionably to suppress Protestantism by extermination.
[256] The answer, which Guzman calls a very impertinent one, will be
found in State Papers, Foreign, June 1567, and the original draft, in
Cecil’s hand, at Hatfield.
[257] Guzman writes (5th July): “Everything that can be done to arouse
the suspicion of the Queen against your Majesty is being done by certain
people, and I am trying all I can to banish such feeling and keep her
in a good humour, without saying anything offensive of the King of
France … I think I have satisfied and tranquillised her; although when
they see your Majesty so strongly armed, suspicion is aroused, and not
here alone.” On the 21st July, he says, “With all the demonstrations
of friendship and the friendly offers I make to the Queen from your
Majesty, I find her rather anxious about the coming of the Duke of Alba
to Flanders.”
[258] Murray very closely describes the contents of the “first” casket
letter, of which so much has been written. The arguments of Mary’s
defenders, founded on the long delay in the production of the letters,
therefore fall to the ground, as Murray had evidently seen a copy, or the
originals, before the end of July. To those who accuse Murray himself
of having caused the letters to be forged, it may be replied that, on
the 12th July, De Croc, on his way from Scotland to France, mentioned
to Guzman in London the existence of the letters. As Dalgleish, with
the letters, was captured in Edinburgh on the 20th June, there was no
time in the interval for Morton in Scotland and Murray in Lyons to have
concocted an elaborate forgery such as this. Murray, at all events, must
be acquitted, as De Croc, leaving Scotland at the end of June, had copies
of the letters in his possession.
[259] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[260] How wavering Elizabeth’s policy was at the time, according as
Leicester or Cecil was near her, may clearly be seen. By Throgmorton’s
instructions of 30th June (State Papers, Scotland; _in extenso_ in
Keith), it is evident that his mission was to blame both Mary and the
Lords, making Elizabeth the arbiter between them, and to negotiate the
restoration of Mary to liberty, but without political power. The Lords
would not allow this, and Throgmorton failed. On the other hand, Melvil
was sent back to Scotland shortly before Throgmorton, taking a message
from Elizabeth to the Lords, in reply to their secret intimation that
they intended to depose Mary, and a promise to the effect that she
would aid them “in their honourable enterprise” (Melvil to Cecil, 1st
July—State Papers, Scotland; _in extenso_ in Tytler).
[261] Guzman to Philip, August 9, 1567, Spanish State Papers. Guzman
at this time had a conversation with a French envoy, Lignerolles, who
was returning from Scotland. He told him that Leicester’s henchman
Throgmorton, on his embassy to Scotland, had acted earnestly and
vigorously in favour of Mary. “Which,” writes Guzman, “I quite believe,
as he has always been attached to her. He is also a great friend of Lord
Robert’s, and an enemy of Cecil, whom the Queen does not consider to be
in favour of the Queen of Scots, but a partisan of Catharine” (Grey).
[262] “Her Majesty much dislikes of the Prince of Condé and the French
Lords. The (English) Council do all they can to cover the same. Her
Majesty, being a Prince herself, is doubtful to give comfort to subjects.
You (Norris), nevertheless, shall do well to comfort them as occasion
shall serve” (_Scrinia Ceciliana_). The day before this was written,
Guzman writes to Philip, speaking of the suspicion that exists that the
Queen is helping the Huguenots, of which, however, he cannot find any
confirmation: “But still I notice that when news comes favourable to the
heretics, these Councillors are more pleased than otherwise, whilst they
grieve if the heretics fail” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth).
[263] Guzman’s comment upon this is curious: “These heretics are so blind
as to marvel why your Majesty does not allow full liberty to all in your
dominions to enjoy their own opinions and schisms against the Catholic
religion, and yet they themselves refuse to let people live freely in
the ancient religion which for so many years they have followed without
molestation.”
[264] This second “plough” was probably an arrangement to subsidise
Murray to send a privateer naval force to intercept some of Philip’s
vessels conveying a number of Flemish nobles to Spain, amongst others
Count de Buren, the young son of the Prince of Orange.
[265] Dr. Allen had recently established the English seminary at Douai,
and a Dr. Wilson was apprehended in March 1568 for collecting money
from English Catholics for the seminary at Louvain. Cecil himself, in
his essay on the “Execution of Justice,” mentions the large number of
papal emissaries in England at this time. Thomas Heath, brother of the
Archbishop, and Faithful Cummin, a Dominican monk, were both arrested
during this spring for carrying on a Catholic propaganda under the guise
of Puritan Nonconformists. (See Strype’s Parker, &c.).
[266] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[267] He was said to have called the Pope a “canting little monk.”
Amongst those who testified against him was Gresham’s agent Huggins, who
afterwards became one of Cecil’s spies in Spain, and betrayed both sides.
[268] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. ii.
[269] Drury to Cecil, 28th November 1567 (State Papers, Scotland).
[270] In Labanoff, vol. ii. Copy in Hatfield Papers, part i., and Haynes.
[271] _Scrinia Ceciliana._
[272] It is possible that these jewels may be those referred to in a
memorandum at Hatfield, of the date 17th May, in Cecil’s writing, as
having been bought from one Felton.
[273] Drury to Cecil, 15th May, describing Langside (Cotton MSS.,
Caligula, c. i.)., &c.
[274] Mary to Elizabeth (_ibid._).
[275] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[276] Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. i.
[277] See Cecil’s letters to Norris of this period, detailing the
discussions which this gave rise to in the Council. Cecil’s whole efforts
were directed against preventing French troops being sent to Scotland at
any cost. In Cecil’s own memoranda (Harl. MSS., 4653), when Mary first
entered England, this is the main point dwelt upon. No person was to see
Mary without permission of the English guard, all the known accomplices
of Darnley’s murder were to be arrested, all interference of the French
was to be prevented, and if it was decided to restore Mary, it was only
to be on conditions which insured the exclusion of the French. The
summing up of the document consists of a statement of the dangers that
would ensue to England if Mary were to be allowed to return to France, or
if, on the other hand, she remained in England. At this time Cecil was in
favour of Mary’s restoration under the strict tutelage of England.
[278] See letters 21st June, &c., Hatfield Papers (_in extenso_ in
Haynes), and 13th June and 5th July, Cotton MSS., Caligula, c. i.
[279] See Cecil’s report and recommendations, Harl. MSS., 4653.
[280] A journal of the proceedings made by the English president, the
Duke of Norfolk, is at Hatfield, part i. (No. 1200), and many letters
on the subject _in extenso_ in Haynes. In November the sittings were
transferred to Westminster. On the 30th October a Council was held at
Hampton Court, at which the “casket letters” were considered, and it was
decided that Mary’s representatives, the Bishop of Ross and Lord Herries,
should first have audience of Elizabeth. They were to be so questioned as
to “move them to confess their general authority to answer all charges.”
The representatives of the Lords, Maitland and MacGill, were then to be
introduced and asked what answer they could give to Mary’s accusations,
and why, in face of the letters they produced, they refrained from
charging the Queen openly with murder. It was decided in the Council
to remove Mary from Bolton to Tutbury. (See Minutes in Cecil’s hand,
Hatfield Papers, part i. 1203-1205; _in extenso_ in Haynes.)
[281] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[282] Odet de Coligny, brother of the Admiral of France.
[283] Hatfield State Papers, 18th September 1568.
[284] 28th October (_Scrinia Ceciliana_).
[285] Hatfield Papers, part i. 1237.
[286] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[287] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. ii.
[288] Hatfield Papers, part i. No. 1243.
[289] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[290] Spinola had been concerned in John Hawkins’ ventures, and it has
usually been assumed that he had already received from his correspondents
in Spain news of the attack on Hawkins’ fleet at St. Juan de Ulloa two
months before. It is asserted that the seizure of the treasure was urged
upon Cecil as a reprisal for this. I am of opinion that such was not the
case, as the seizure of the money was under consideration before it was
possible for the affair of St. Juan de Ulloa to be known.
[291] The safe conduct for the money sent to the ports by De Spes was
closely followed by contrary orders from the Council to Sir William
Horsey at Southampton, and Champernoun at Plymouth, and the treasure was
landed in accordance therewith. On the 13th December, William Hawkins
wrote to Cecil from Plymouth with rumours of the attack on John Hawkins
at St. Juan de Ulloa, but the seizure must have been decided upon before
Cecil received the letter.
[292] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[293] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[294] The seizure of Spanish property had greatly alarmed the English
merchants and bankers, and was the pretext seized upon by Cecil’s enemies
to ruin him.
[295] _Desiderata Curiosa._
[296] Fuller’s “Holy State.”
[297] How moderate and cautious Cecil was in his triumph, after he had
discovered and apprised the Queen of the plot to ruin him, and had barely
escaped the dagger of the hired assassin who was to kill him, is seen
in his subsequent demeanour towards the conspirators. Instead of trying
to disgrace or punish them, he continued to work loyally with them.
The real prime mover in the plot was Leicester, with whom outwardly
Cecil was always friendly. Cecil, writing to a friend at the time, thus
expresses himself: “I am in quietness of mind, as feeling the nearness
and readiness of God’s favour to assist me with His grace, to have a
disposition to serve Him before the world; and therein have I lately
proved His mere goodness to preserve me from some clouds or mists, in
the midst whereof I trust mine honest actions are proved to have been
lightsome and clear. And to make this rule more proper, I find the
Queen’s Majesty, my gracious lady, without change of her old good meaning
towards me, and so I trust by God’s goodness to observe a continuance.
I also am moved to believe that all my Lords, from the greatest to the
meanest, think my actions honest and painful, and do profess inwardly
to bear me as much good-will as ever they did.” That this was the case,
at least with one of the conspirators, is proved by the fact that
Lord Pembroke, who died at the end of the year, left Cecil one of his
executors, jointly with Leicester and Throgmorton.
[298] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[299] Although in all her letters Mary designates Cecil as her enemy,
she could, when not carried away by anger, perceive his good qualities.
In February 1569 she was removed to Tutbury, and was extremely angry and
alarmed at this. In conversation with Henry Knollys, who repeated the
conversation to a correspondent of Cecil’s (Hatfield Papers, part i.
1279), “she spared not to give forth that the Secretary was her enemy,
and that she mistrusted by this removing he would cause her to be made
away.” But when her passion was over, she said that though the Secretary
were not her friend, he was an expert, wise man, wishing it might be her
luck to get the friendship of so wise a man.
[300] Hatfield Papers; _in extenso_ in Haynes.
[301] Denied afterwards by Norfolk, but confirmed by Melvil. (See State
Trials, and Melvil’s Memoirs).
[302] The Bishop of Ross deposed afterwards that Norfolk was so much
exasperated at Murray’s having finally brought forward the whole of
the evidence to convict Mary of murder, that he formed a plot for his
assassination. Melvil says, however, that before Murray returned to
Scotland, Throgmorton had fully gained his acquiescence in the projected
marriage, and had reconciled the Regent and the Duke.
[303] Alba was very angry with De Spes for the way in which he was
compromising Spain. He wrote again to him in July, saying that he “was
informed from France that the Queen of Scotland was being utterly ruined
by the plotting of her servants with you, as they never enter your house
without being watched. This might cost the Queen her life, and I am not
sure that yours would be safe.” The evidence given afterwards at the Duke
of Norfolk’s trial, and the examinations of Bailly and the Bishop of
Ross, proved that Cecil had information of everything that occurred.
[304] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth. Alba, writing to Philip soon
afterwards (8th August), says, “I have written several times to Don
Gerau, telling him to suspend negotiations, as I plainly see they are
tricking him, so as to get all they can from him, and then say they have
negotiated without authority. He is zealous … but he is inexperienced;
he allows himself to be led away, and is ruining the negotiation.” It
will be seen that it was comparatively easy for Cecil to outwit such an
instrument as this.
[305] Mary consented to the condition; and the whole arrangement was,
according to Norfolk and the Bishop of Ross, acquiesced in by Leicester
and the majority of the Council. How far sincere Mary was in accepting
the condition, may be seen by her message to De Spes. “She says if she
were at liberty, or could get such help as would enable her to bring her
country to submission, she would deliver herself and her son entirely
into your Majesty’s hands, but now she will be obliged to sail with the
wind” (De Spes to Philip, 27th August). This, no doubt, referred to her
having consented to the marriage with Norfolk, and to the proposals
submitted by the English Government to Murray and the Parliament of Perth
for Mary’s return to Scotland. Murray was opposed to his sister’s return
in any form, and neither of the Queen’s propositions, nor Mary’s petition
for a divorce from Bothwell, was granted. That Cecil was at this time
(the spring and summer of 1569) desirous of getting rid of Mary from
England, without allowing her to go to France, where the Catholics had
just beaten the Huguenots, is certain, and also that he did not wish her
to be ill used in Scotland. See his minute sent to Murray by Henry Carey,
demanding to know what hostages would be given for her safety if she was
returned. (Hatfield Papers, Haynes; also Strype’s Annals, and Rapin.)
[306] Harl. MSS., 6353.
[307] _Scrinia Ceciliana_, 3rd October.
[308] In a postscript to a letter from the Earl of Huntingdon to Cecil
from Coventry, where he was in joint charge of Mary Stuart, 9th December
1569, he mentions “the speech that passeth amongst many, how earnest a
dealer you were for this marriage for which the Duke and others do suffer
her Majesty’s displeasure: yea, it is reported from the mouth of some
of the sufferers that, in persuasion, you (Cecil) yielded such reasons
for it as he (the Duke), by them, was most moved to consent.” Cecil can
hardly have been so forward in the matter as is here suggested, or it
surely would have been mentioned in the rigorous examinations of those
implicated. (Hatfield Papers, part i.)
[309] De Spes went so far as to say that it was Cecil who was urging that
Norfolk should be sent to the Tower—the very reverse, as we now know,
being the case. Cecil afterwards thought it worth while to defend himself
against this charge in a note of his still existing in the Cotton MSS.
It runs: “Whoso sayeth that I have in any wise directly or indirectly
hindered or altered her Majesty’s disposition in the delivery of the
Duke of Norfolk out of the Tower, I do affirm the same is untrue, and he
that sayeth so doth speak an untruth. If any man will affirm the same to
be true against this, my assertion, the same doth therein maintain an
untruth and a lye. W. Cecil, xii. Julii, 1570.”
[310] 2nd November (_Scrinia Ceciliana_).
[311] Full details of the operations against the rebels will be found
in the Sadler Papers; Sir Ralph Sadler being the Warden of the East and
Middle Marches, and Paymaster-general of the army.
[312] The Earl of Westmoreland succeeded in escaping to Flanders,
and thence to Spain. He remained a pensioner of Philip’s for years
afterwards, plotting against England, and beseeching payment of the
grudging dole which the Spanish King had assigned to him. Northumberland
was captured by Murray and imprisoned in Lochleven; and at the time of
the Regent’s assassination, Elizabeth’s special envoys from the Border
were negotiating for Northumberland’s surrender. He was delivered to the
English Government in 1572 by the Regent Morton, and beheaded at York.
[313] On the pretext of negotiating once more for the return of the
Spanish property seized, Alba sent to England, in October, the famous
Italian general, Ciapino Vitello, and in his letters to Sadler, Cecil
expresses great anxiety as to the probability of an attack being made by
Alba on Hartlepool at the time. English writers have always assumed that
Ciapino came to England in order to take command of a force to be sent
by Alba to England, but there is no trace of such a project in Alba’s
or Guzman’s letters. Ciapino was forced, however, to leave his large
retinue at Dover, and considerable delay took place before even he was
received. Alba states to Philip that Cecil and Leicester had been, or
were to be, bribed by the bankers Spinola and Fiesco, to allow Ciapino
to come to England (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth), but Leicester sent
word to Ciapino, as soon as the rising in the north was known, that his
stay in England was considered very suspicious. He was then hurried
away as soon as possible. There was really, however, not the slightest
ground at the time to fear an armed invasion by Alba in favour of Mary.
He wrote to Philip, 11th December, that he expected the rising “would
all end in smoke,” and he would not move a step without Philip’s precise
instructions.
[314] See _inter alia_ the Bishop of Ross’s letter to Philip, 4th
November 1569 (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth). His mistress, he says,
had ordered him to remonstrate with Elizabeth against her imprisonment at
Tutbury, and to demand either her restoration to her throne, or that she
should be allowed to go over to France or Spanish Flanders. He can get no
answer from Elizabeth, he says, and therefore in Mary’s name fervently
begs for Philip’s aid.
[315] Very large sums were granted by Elizabeth for this purpose. To
Count Mansfield alone she promised 100,000 crowns payable in three
months, and a like sum in two years. In February the Prince of Orange
sent an envoy to England to beg for similar aid, which was to be largely
supplemented by the Flemings in England. The envoy was secretly lodged in
Cecil House.
[316] There is an interesting memorandum of this period in Cecil’s hand
(Hatfield Papers, part i., Nos. 1452 and 1455), entitled, “Extract of ye
booke of ye state of ye realme,” in which the various dangers set forth
in this page and the remedies therefor are described. The dangers are—the
conspiracy of the Pope and the Kings of France and Spain against England;
that of Mary Queen of Scots; the decay of civil obedience and of martial
power in the country; the interruption of trade with Flanders, and the
shortcomings in England’s treaties with foreign princes.
[317] Hatfield Papers, part i.
[318] _Ibid._
[319] See her letters in Labanoff, iii., and also Banister’s Confessions
(Hatfield).
[320] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[321] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[322] The whole of the documents are at Hatfield; most of them _in
extenso_ in Haynes.
[323] See Morton to Cecil, 9th February 1571 (Hatfield Papers, part i.,
1541); and Elizabeth to Shrewsbury, 24th March (_ibid._, 1546).
[324] _Correspondance de la Mothe Fénélon._
[325] Walsingham Papers. Most of the letters _in extenso_ in “The
Compleat Ambassador.”
[326] There are in the Foreign State Papers of the year several of
Cecil’s balancing considerations of the advantages and disadvantages of
the match. From them it is clear that the Secretary himself was uncertain
of the Queen’s intentions. In one important letter to her (31st August),
Cecil suggests a way by which she may extricate herself, if she pleases,
from the agreement she had made on the matter with Catharine’s special
envoy, De Foix, at Knebworth. But he warns her very seriously of the
dangerous position in which she stands unless she does marry. “It will,”
he says, “also be necessary to seek by your Majesty’s best council the
means to preserve yourself, as in the most dangerous and desperate
sicknesses, the help of the best physicians; and surely how your Majesty
shall obtain remedies for your perils, I think, is only in the knowledge
of Almighty God.”
[327] Norris to the Queen (Foreign State Papers), 31st August 1570; also
Warcop’s communications from Walsingham to Cecil, 16th July 1571, &c.
[328] Walsingham Papers.
[329] His eldest son Thomas, afterwards Lord Exeter, also sat in this
Parliament as representative of the borough of Stamford. He had ended the
sowing of his wild oats, to which reference has been made, by running
away with a nun from a French convent; and was now married to Dorothy
Nevil, a daughter of the last Lord Latimer, whose sister had married Sir
Henry Percy, brother of the rebel Earl of Northumberland. Lord Burghley,
in the little Perpetual Calendar at Hatfield, duly records the birth of
all of Thomas’s children, three of whom had been born by this time.
[330] The young Earl of Rutland, one of his wards, especially at this
time seems to have occupied much of his attention. He was sent with
Lord Buckhurst’s embassy to France to congratulate Charles IX. on his
marriage with Elizabeth of Austria, and at every stage of the journey a
correspondence was kept up between them, the Secretary being solicitous
for the lad’s welfare and good treatment even to the smallest detail.
In the State Papers, Domestic, of 20th January 1571, there is a curious
document in Cecil’s handwriting, headed “Directions for a Traveller,”
laying down for Lord Rutland’s guidance strict rules for his conduct
whilst abroad.
[331] Mary to the Bishop, 8th February 1571 (Cotton MSS., Caligula, c.
xi.).
[332] Hatfield Papers and State Trials.
[333] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[334] That this possibility was ever present to the minds of Elizabeth’s
advisers, is seen by the constant warnings on the subject by Cecil’s
agents in Flanders, and by Walsingham. In one of Cecil’s statements as
to the advantages and disadvantages of the Queen’s marriage with Anjou
(Foreign State Papers, 14th January 1571), he enters on the contra
side the possibility that, in the case of there being no issue, the
King-consort might shorten the Queen’s life and marry Mary Stuart. The
confessions of the men who were to murder Burghley in connection with the
Ridolfi plot are at Hatfield.
[335] Details of all the examinations and the letters are at Hatfield.
Burghley alleged that Bailly was a Scotchman. His claim to be considered
a servant of the Queen of Scots was merely a technical one, although on
his tomb in a church in a suburb of Brussels he is called a secretary of
the Queen, which he certainly was not, and there is a bas-relief of her
execution. This has led on several occasions to the incorrect assertion
that Charles Bailly was present at the scene represented. He lived for
many years in Flanders in the pay of Spain; and, at least on one occasion
(1586), he took part in a Spanish attempt to foment a Catholic invasion
and revolution in Scotland.
[336] The Pope had sent by Beton, early in the year, as much as 140,000
crowns to Mary Stuart, which she received through Ridolfi. (Examination
of Ross: Hatfield.)
[337] The conspiracy included also a design to assassinate Burghley
himself. (See the confessions of Edmund Mather, the proposed murderer,
and Kenelm Berney, January 1572. Hatfield State Papers, part ii.).
[338] The cipher letter from Hickford will be found in Harl. MSS., 290.
[339] Examination of the Duke (Hatfield; _in extenso_ in Murdin).
[340] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[341] The English draft of Burghley’s speech is in Foreign State Papers;
De Spes’ version in the Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[342] It added to De Spes’ rage that the time he was thus contemned
Burghley was celebrating with great magnificence the marriage of his
eldest daughter, Elizabeth, with the young Earl of Oxford, a connection
which in after years brought him much trouble and anxiety. During the
wedding festivities the open slight to Spain was made the most of.
Cavalcanti was flattered and caressed, the Guises were denounced as
“Hispaniolised traitors,” and the Queen’s connection with the Protestants
of Germany and Flanders boasted of; whilst De Spes and his master
were scornfully held up as an object-lesson of England’s boldness and
strength. De Spes, in his last letter to Alba before his embarkation,
says that “Burghley has received certain threatening letters, and had
informed the Queen that if I stay here during the trial of the prisoners
the country will rise up in arms; and he, timid, contemptible fellow that
he is, commits so many absurdities that people are quite astonished.”
[343] The alcabala or tenth penny—ten per cent. on every sale.
[344] Foreign State Papers.
[345] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[346] _Correspondance de la Mothe Fénélon._
[347] Burghley writes to Walsingham, 11th February 1572, an account
of the Queen’s vacillation about Norfolk’s fate: “Suddenly on Sunday,
late at night the Queen’s Majesty sent for me, and entered into a great
misliking that the Duke should die next day, and said she was, and should
be, disquieted; and said she would have a new warrant made that night to
the sheriffs to forbear, until they should hear further. God’s will be
fulfilled, and aid her Majesty to do herself good.” (Walsingham Papers:
Complete Ambassador). In another letter from Burghley to Walsingham a
few weeks earlier than this, he complains of the Queen’s clemency: “The
Queen’s Majesty has always been a merciful lady, and by mercy she hath
taken more harm than by justice, and yet she thinks she is more beloved
in doing herself harm.” And again: “Here is no small expectation whether
the Duke shall die or continue prisoner. I know not how to write, for I
am here in my chamber subject to reports which are contrariwise.”
[348] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[349] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[350] Walsingham Papers.
[351] A copy of the charges with Lord Burghley’s signature erased is in
Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[352] There was in the Parliament in question a strong Puritan element.
An attempt was made by it to alter the rites of the Established Church in
the Genevan direction, which Elizabeth regarded as an interference with
her prerogative; and the pressure put upon her to consent to the trial of
Mary Stuart led her to dismiss the Parliament, which did not meet again
till 1575. When Parliament did meet again, the clemency of the Queen
towards Mary was made a source of complaint by the Puritan Wentworth, who
was imprisoned for his undutiful speech. For the consultation and report
of the joint committee of the two Houses in 1572 respecting Mary Stuart,
see D’Ewes’ “Compleat Journal.”
[353] It is probable that on this occasion the Queen made the celebrated
remark to Burghley’s servant. He told her Majesty, who wore a very high
head-dress, that it would be necessary to stoop to enter the door of the
chamber where the sick man lay. “For your master only will I stoop,”
said the Queen, “but not for the King of Spain.” It may be worth while
to repeat De Guaras’ remark when giving an account of this sickness of
Burghley. The latter had been showing an inclination to come to terms
with Spain about the seizures (it was shortly before the French alliance
was signed), and his illness had interrupted the negotiations. “If this
man dies,” writes De Guaras, “it will be very unfortunate for the purpose
which he declared to me.… It is true that hitherto he has undoubtedly
been the enemy of peace and tranquillity, for his own bad ends; but I am
convinced that he is now well disposed, which means that the Queen and
Council are so, for he, and no one else, rules the whole affairs of the
State. God grant that if it be for His service he may live.” (Spanish
State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. ii.)
[354] These are the dates in the diary, but they do not quite agree with
the entries in the little Perpetual Calendar at Hatfield, which run thus:—
“19 July 1572. W. Cecill admiss. Thesaurus Angl.
“19 July 1572. Quene’s Majestie at Theobalds, 5 to 6.”
[355] A curious letter from Sir Nicholas Bacon to Burghley respecting
this visit is in Lansdowne MSS., 14 (printed by Ellis), in which he prays
for advice and guidance, “ffor in very deede no man is more rawe in such
a matter than myself” (12th July 1572. Gorhambury).
[356] There is another letter in the same collection from the Earl of
Bedford to Burghley, begging him to arrange that the Queen should not
stay at Woburn longer than two nights and a day. “I pray god the Rowmes
and Lodgings there may be to her Majesty’s contentation for the tyme.…
They should be better than they be” (16th July 1572. Russell House).
[357] Spanish State Papers, 22nd July 1572, a month before St.
Bartholomew. If this be true, it to some extent confirms the subsequent
allegations of the Catholics as to a plot of the Huguenots.
[358] Foreign State Papers; _in extenso_ in Digges.
[359] Smith to Walsingham, 27th September (Foreign State Papers; _in
extenso_ in Digges).
[360] When Orange entered Brabant in September he sent an envoy to
England to ask for aid. An agent at once started from London with £16,000
in money, and a few days afterwards £30,000 in bills on Hamburg were
sent, for which the Prince wrote thanking Burghley. Large quantities
of stores were also shipped from England, and a force of 12,000 men
collected at the ports in case of emergency.
[361] See his letters in Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth; and also
“Antonio de Guaras,” by Richard Garnett, LLD.
[362] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[363] How deeply interested Burghley was in the question of trade is seen
in the active efforts he was making at this time to establish the Flemish
fugitives in various parts of England, to exercise the handicrafts in
which they excelled. During the negotiations with De Guaras, he was
establishing a community of cloth-workers in his own town of Stamford,
lodging them at first in a house of his own, giving them a church and
aiding them with money. (Dr. Cunningham’s “Alien Emigrants in England”;
State Papers, Domestic; and Strype’s Parker.)
[364] Burghley, on a previous occasion, had frightened De Guaras out of
his wits by charging him with conspiring against the Queen. Throughout
the whole negotiation the Spaniards were alternately flattered and
threatened. De Guaras himself was one day overjoyed with Burghley’s
amiability and admiration for all things and men Spanish; and the next
day cast into the depths of gloom, by haughty indifference, or hints at
punishment for treason, of which the poor man was as yet quite innocent;
or, again, by talk of the diversion of all English trade to France or
Hamburg, the abundant aid being sent to Orange, or the welcoming of the
Dutch privateers into English ports. The negotiation and its result are a
good specimen of Lord Burghley’s diplomatic methods.
[365] The documents relating to the protracted negotiations with regard
to the seizures, and the resumption of trade, will be found in the Cotton
MSS., Galba ciii., civ., cv., cvi., and Vesp. cxiii.
[366] Hatfield Papers; _in extenso_ in Murdin; also State Papers,
Scotland.
[367] See letters in Cotton MSS., Caligula, ciii.
[368] The terms were—that the hostages should be delivered within four
hours of the surrender of Mary; that James should be taken under the
protection of Elizabeth, and his rights remain intact, and be recognised
by the English Parliament; that a defensive alliance should be concluded
between the two countries; that the Earls of Bedford, Huntingdon,
and Essex should be present at the Queen’s execution with a force of
3000 men, and immediately afterwards join the King’s troops to reduce
Edinburgh Castle, which should then be delivered to the Regent; and,
finally, that all arrears of pay owing to the Scottish army should be
paid by England. The Spanish agents attributed the failure of Killigrew’s
mission to the efforts of De Croc, the French Ambassador in Scotland.
Elizabeth told the latter, when she saw him in London in October, that
she was well aware of all his plots in Scotland. Her uneasiness at the
time was increased by the news of the arrival in Paris of Cardinal
Orsini, a papal envoy with a fresh plan for the release of Mary.
[369] State Papers, Foreign. See also Burghley’s letters to Copley.
Roxburghe Club.
[370] Foreign State Papers; _in extenso_ in Digges.
[371] Foreign State Papers; _in extenso_ in Digges.
[372] The progress of each stage in the complicated business is related
in the author’s “Courtships of Queen Elizabeth.”
[373] The Bishop of London’s letter to Burghley is at Hatfield, part
ii.; _in extenso_ in Murdin. “These be dangerous days,” he says, “full
of itching ears mislying their minds, and ready to forget all obedience
and duty.… A soft plaister is better than a sharp corosy to apply to this
sore.… If Mr. Deryng be somewhat spared, yet wal scoled, the others,
being manifest offenders, may be dealt withal according to their deserts”
(3rd June 1573).
[374] In one case his love of justice had an unfortunate termination.
A crazy Puritan named Birchett stabbed Sir John Hawkins in the Strand,
under the belief that he was Sir Christopher Hatton, the declared rival
of Leicester in the Queen’s affection; and it was surmised also, his
opponent in his Puritan leanings. The Queen issued a commission for
Birchett’s summary trial and punishment by martial law, but was persuaded
by Burghley to remand him to safe custody for further inquiries. He was
imprisoned in the Lollard’s Tower, and a few days afterwards killed his
keeper. He was clearly a maniac, but the affair brought great odium upon
Puritanism, and led to the arrest of Mr. Cartwright, the leader of the
party. It is to be noticed that Burghley provided suitable preferment
for all the eminent Puritan nonconformists who were dismissed from their
positions in the Church; Cartwright, Lever, and Sampson being made
respectively “masters” of charitable foundations where their opinions on
ritual were of little importance.
[375] Original letters, Ellis.
[376] Gilbert Talbot to the Earl of Shrewsbury, 9th May 1573 (Lodge’s
Illustrations).
[377] The number and variety of remedies sent to Burghley from all parts
of the world for the cure of the gout are truly marvellous. We have
already mentioned some in an earlier page, but they became much more
frequent after this year (1573), when a Mr. Dyon sent one which Burghley
endorses as “Recipe pro podagra,” as well as Lady Harrington. Dr. Nuñes,
the Queen’s Portuguese physician, sent quite a collection of nostrums
in Latin, and a German doctor recommended certain medicated slippers; a
tincture of gold was advocated by a Nicholas Gybberd, and the Earl of
Shrewsbury was loud in his praises of “oyle of stagg’s blood.” Most of
the recipes mentioned will be found in the Lansdowne MSS., 18, 21, 27,
29, 39, and 42.
[378] See letters from Mary, in Labanoff, vol. iv. Elizabeth showed some
amount of jealous suspicion at Burghley’s interview with Mary, of which
Leicester and the Treasurer’s enemies made the most during his absence.
[379] Burghley, as Lord Treasurer, seems to have been seriously concerned
at the heavy cost of these progresses. In the Lansdowne MSS., 16, there
is a document, altered and corrected by Lord Burghley himself, of this
date (1573), showing how the royal household expenses had been increased
by this particular progress. It is to be deduced from the document that
extra expenditure entailed was £1034, 0s. 6d.
[380] See a curious letter from Lord Windsor to Burghley, 10th January
1574, exculpating himself for this letter (Hatfield Papers, part ii., No.
181).
[381] Hatfield Papers; _in extenso_ in Murdin.
[382] As a matter of fact he was straining every nerve at the time
to hold back his half-brother, Don John of Austria, who, with papal
support, was full of all manner of grand plans for the founding of a
great Christian Empire in Africa or the East, with himself as Emperor;
or else for invading England from Flanders, marrying Mary Stuart, and
reigning over a Catholic Great Britain. Don John and Gregory XIII. were
very serious in their plans; but Philip was determined that nothing of
the sort should be done with Spanish forces. He was absolutely bankrupt
at the time, and had recently been obliged to repudiate the interest
upon the vast sums he had borrowed. This had caused wholesale financial
disaster in Italy and Flanders, and Philip’s credit was at its lowest ebb.
[383] Mary’s own hopes were high for a short time after the accession
of her favourite brother-in-law. But she soon found out her mistake.
Catharine’s aim was not to benefit Mary Stuart, but to prevent the
extinction of French influence in Scotland. Her first act after Henry
III. ascended the throne was to project an embassy to Scotland,
accredited, not as all previous French embassies had been, to Mary
Stuart’s party alone, but to both parties. Mary indignantly protested
at this proposed recognition of the “usurpers,” and the embassy was
abandoned. La Chatre was sent to London in March 1575, to confirm the
treaty of Blois (in which Elizabeth and the Huguenots were comprised),
but he did not say a word in favour of the liberation of the Queen of
Scots. The withdrawal soon afterwards of the Guisan La Mothe Fénélon from
England, and the appointment, as Ambassador, of Castelnau, a great friend
of the English alliance, quite convinced Mary that she had nothing to
hope for from Henry III., who, sunk in sloth and vice, left everything to
his mother.
[384] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[385] 16th April 1575 (Hatfield Papers).
[386] Woodshaw’s interesting letters of this period to Burghley are in
Hatfield Papers. See also “Copley’s Correspondence,” Roxburghe Club.
[387] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[388] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[389] See Philip’s minute of his conversation with Cobham, October 1575
(Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth), and also Lord Burghley’s Diary.
[390] Burghley, in his Diary, refers to this embassy, giving the names
of the envoys. He says they based their offer of Holland, &c., to the
Queen upon her descent from Philippa of Hainault and Holland, who married
Edward III.
[391] Gerald Talbot writes: “Her Majesty is troubled with these causes,
which maketh her very melancholy, and she seemeth to be greatly out of
quiet. What shall be done in these matters is at present unknown; but
here are ambassadors on all sides, who labour greatly, one against the
other. Her Majesty hath put upon her to deal betwixt the King of Spain
and the Low Country; the King of France and his brother. Her Majesty may
deal as pleaseth her, for I think they both be weary of war, especially
Flanders, which, as report goeth, is utterly wanting of money, munition,
&c.” Hampton Court, 4th January 1576.
[392] Burghley was at the time unable to attend the Council in
consequence of an attack of his old enemy the gout.
[393] A few days later Burghley had reason to be still more angry with
Oxford himself, though with his reverence for rank he appears to have
treated him with inexhaustible patience and forbearance. Oxford had been
very extravagant and got into difficulties. During his absence abroad
he had made some complaint to Burghley about his steward or agent, but
nothing apparently of consequence. In March, Lord Burghley wrote to
him in Paris, saying that his wife was pregnant; and the Earl’s answer
was most cordial, full of rejoicing at the news, and announcing his
immediate return. The Treasurer’s eldest son, Sir Thomas Cecil (he had
been knighted the previous year at Kenilworth), travelled to Dover to
meet his brother-in-law. All went well until they arrived in London, when
Oxford declined to meet his wife or hold any communication with her.
Burghley reasoned, remonstrated, and besought in vain. Oxford was sulky
and intractable. His wife, he said, had been influenced by her parents
against him, and he would have no more to do with her. The whole of the
documents in the quarrel are in Hatfield Papers. As some indication of
the state in which noblemen of the period travelled even short distances,
two entries in the uncalendared household account-book at Hatfield may
be quoted: “Saturday, December 1576. My Lord and Lady Oxford came from
London to Theobalds; 28 servants with them.” And again, “Monday, 14th
January 1577. My Lord and my Lady of Oxford and 28 persons came from
London.”
[394] State Papers, Foreign.
[395] State Papers, Foreign.
[396] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[397] How true this is may be seen by the account of an important
conversation De Guaras had with Burghley on the 30th January 1576
(Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth). De Guaras had prayed Burghley to
prevent the Queen from accepting the offer of Orange’s envoys for her to
take Holland and Zeeland. The Treasurer replied that, if the offer were
accepted, it would only be in the interests of Spain, and to prevent the
French from obtaining a footing. The Spaniard derided such a possibility,
and Burghley said that England, in pursuance of its ancient policy, would
defend the rights of the House of Burgundy, but that “foreign intruders”
had misgoverned the States to an extent which endangered England itself.
“Foreign intruders” indeed, retorted De Guaras; “your Lordship cannot
call Spaniards ‘foreign intruders’ in Flanders.” Burghley got angry at
this, and said, “You people are of such sort that wherever you set foot
no grass grows, and you are hated everywhere.” Hollanders, he continued,
were fighting for their privileges, and would be successful in upholding
them. The end of the colloquy was a renewal of the Queen’s wish to
mediate between Orange and Spain. The great object was to prevent the
French from obtaining influence in Flanders, and here Spanish and English
aims were identical.
[398] A violent attack against the hierarchy, and even against the Queen,
was made in Parliament (February 1576) by Paul Wentworth, member for
Tregony, a strong Puritan, who declared against the powers given to the
bishops to regulate ritual without the intervention of Parliament, and
complained of the rejection by the Queen of the bills against the Queen
of Scots in the previous session of 1572. Wentworth was imprisoned in the
Tower for a few days for his boldness. (D’Ewes’ Journal.)
[399] As Sussex for once was on the side of Leicester and the Puritans,
Burghley seems to have depended as an ally at this time principally upon
Hatton. A letter from the latter to the Treasurer (26th August 1576,
Lansdowne MSS., 22) shows that Burghley was urging him to return to court
from the country, where he was lying ill, and apparently unhappy. His
recent unjust extortion of the lease of Ely Place, Holborn, from the
Bishop of Ely (Cox), had rendered him very unpopular.
[400] A similar but more flattering offer was made in 1573 by the
unfortunate Earl of Essex, who proposed that his eldest son, then
only about six years old, should be betrothed to Burghley’s daughter
(Lansdowne MSS., 17). A few hours before he died (21st September 1576)
the Earl wrote a most pathetic letter to Lord Burghley, praying him to
take the same son into his household, and beseeching him to be good
to him for the sake of his father, “who lived and died your true and
unfeigned friend” (Hatfield Papers). It is sad to consider that the
son grew up to be the enemy of his father’s friend; to succeed, in his
enmity of Burghley, the vile Leicester, who dishonoured his mother and
deliberately ruined his father.
[401] Hatfield Papers.
[402] _Ibid._
[403] Philip’s reception of Smith was cold, more so even than had been
his treatment of Sir Henry Cobham. Smith writes to Burghley (5th February
1577) saying that he “has had special care to make known the Queen’s
noble nature and the great love and obedience of her subjects; in which
he has not detracted any title of honour that your Lordship is worthy of.
Yea, even the Duke of Alba himself gives you the honour to be one of the
most sufficient men in Christendom in all politic government.” Smith’s
reports of the extremity of Philip’s financial exhaustion caused great
surprise amongst the friends of Spain in Elizabeth’s court, many of whom
disbelieved them. When Smith returned and begged the Queen for a reward
for his services, she refused to accord him anything except to take his
bills payable in twelve months for £2000 instead of a mortgage she had
on his lands. (See letter 21st September 1578, Hatton to Burghley: State
Papers, Domestic.)
[404] A sum of no less than 400,000 crowns was openly provided by
Elizabeth for the States at the request of the Catholic Flemish nobles.
[405] Hatfield Papers.
[406] See the extraordinary Italian letter of this period from Baptista
de Trento to the Queen, in which nearly the whole of her nobility
(including Leicester and Sussex) are accused (Hatfield Papers), and also
a letter written by Burghley to Lord Shrewsbury, after his return from
Buxton, warning him to keep his eyes on Mary, who was, he said, suspected
of suborning some of Shrewsbury’s servants. The persecuting Bishop of
London (Aylmer) also wrote at the same time to Burghley urging him to
“use more severity than hath hitherto been used; or else we shall smart
for it. For as sure as God liveth they look for an invasion, or else they
(the Catholics) would not fall away as they do” (Strype’s Aylmer).
[407] According to his own statement the case against him was divulged
to Burghley by some of the Catholic Flemish nobles who were aware of his
former practices; but there are many indications in his letters up to
the time of his arrest, that he was a party to plots then in progress,
especially one with Colonel Chester and others.
[408] An interesting minute on the subject, in Burghley’s writing, is
in Hatfield Papers (part ii., No. 531). Two personages were to be sent
from England to bring about peace: one to the States, and the other to
Don Juan. The States were to be reminded that they owed gratitude to
Elizabeth for risking war with Spain on their behalf, and aiding them
with £85,000; and the envoy was to point out to them the danger of their
receiving French help. The French, they are to be told, may either turn
and side with the enemy, or try to keep the country for themselves. As a
last resort, the English envoy is to be authorised to offer English aid
if the States will desist from dealing with the French.
Don Juan, on the other hand, is to be told that if he does not make terms
with the States, the French will conquer the country, in which case the
Queen will send such aid to the States as will enable them to hold their
own against everybody. As usual with Burghley’s minutes, there is at the
end a carefully-balanced summary of possibilities, and courses to be
pursued, all tending to the same end—the exclusion of the French from
Flanders. The mission in question was that of June 1578, the envoys being
Lord Cobham and Walsingham.
[409] For a wonder, on this occasion Sussex sided with his enemy
Leicester, although, as will be seen, only for a short time.
[410] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[411] Grindall, Archbishop of Canterbury, had been deprived by the Queen
for neglecting to suppress the “prophesying”; and Sandys, Archbishop of
York, was also in disgrace; but, as Strype says, “his good friend Lord
Burghley stood up for him.” He certainly did so in the case of Grindall,
who kept up a constant correspondence with the “good Lord Treasurer.”
[412] Add. MSS., 15,891; 21st April 1578.
[413] To such an extent was this so, that whilst, according to Mendoza,
money and men were constantly being sent to Flanders, and Leicester and
Walsingham were planning the murder of Don Juan and the expulsion of
Mendoza from England, “I can assure your Majesty that the Earl of Sussex
is sincerely attached to your Majesty’s interests, and Cecil also, though
not so openly. But if he and Sussex are properly treated they will both
be favourable, and their good disposition will be much strengthened when
they see it rewarded.” His suggestion was that Burghley and Sussex should
be granted large pensions. It will be observed that Sussex had already
broken free from Leicester.
[414] Elizabeth appears to have been very angry about Gondi’s mission.
“She told him,” says Mendoza, “loudly in the audience chamber, that she
knew very well he had come to disturb her country, and to act in favour
of the worst woman in the world, whose head should have been struck off
long ago. She was sure he had not come with the knowledge of his King,
but only of some of those who surrounded him. Gondi replied that the
Queen of Scots was a sovereign, as she was, and her own kinswoman, and
it was not surprising that efforts should be made on her behalf. The
Queen answered him angrily, that she should never be free as long as she
lived, even if it cost her (Elizabeth) her realm and her own liberty. The
Queen-mother, she said, must surely know what Mary had attempted against
her.” (5th May 1578; Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.)
[415] Mendoza dilates much upon the venality of the English Council, and
says, “I am told by a person in the palace, that, even in the matter of
giving me audience readily, the Queen has been considerably influenced by
the gloves and perfumes I gave her when I arrived.”
[416] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, and also a letter from Sussex
to Burghley in November, printed by Lodge, vol. ii.; also Sussex to
Burghley, Hatfield Papers, part ii., where he mentions that “Burghley
also had been ill-used by lewd speech. I will on all occasions stick as
near to you as your shirt is to your back.” (5th November 1578.)
[417] This was true. The treaty of Nerac was signed in February 1579 by
Henry of Navarre, now the acknowledged leader.
[418] Cobham, Wilkes, and Smith had all been sent back with a short
answer.
[419] Sir Thomas Cecil to Burghley, and Lord Lincoln to the same
(Hatfield Papers).
[420] Hatton to Burghley, 28th September 1578 (Hatfield Papers).
[421] There are many hundreds of such letters as these at Hatfield and in
the Lansdowne MSS.
[422] Hatfield State Papers, part ii.
[423] Mendoza, writing on 8th April, says, “Lord Burghley is not so much
opposed to the match as formerly; but I cannot discover whether he and
Sussex have changed their minds because they think that they may thus
bring about the fall of Leicester, and avenge themselves upon him for old
grievances, and for his having advanced to the office of Chancellor an
enemy of theirs” (_i.e._ Bromley). On another occasion, when the Queen
learned of the Papal-Spanish expedition to Ireland to aid the Desmonds in
Munster, she was so much alarmed that she dropped the French negotiations
for some days and refused to see Simier.
[424] It has not been noticed by Burghley’s biographers that, true to his
cautious character, he found an excuse for going into Northamptonshire
shortly before Alençon arrived in London. He writes an interesting
letter to Hatton from Althorpe, dated 9th August (Nicholas’s “Life of
Hatton”), in reply to the advices respecting the fortifying of the Papal
force at Dingle, in Kerry. The ships must be sent against them, he says,
double-manned, “as there is no good access by land.” He is very jealous
of foreigners setting foot in Ireland, for fear any “discontentation
grow betwixt France and us upon a breach of this interview (_i.e._
with Alençon), or if the King of Spain shall be free from his troubles
in the Low Country.” He approves of the agreement of Cologne and the
pacification of Ghent, whereby Holland and Zeeland were to remain
Protestant, and Flanders Catholic, rather than the war should go on.
“On Tuesday morning we will be at Northampton, where after noon we mean
to hear the babbling matters of the town for the causes of religion,
wishing that we may accord them all in mind and action; at least we will
draw them to follow one line by the rule of the laws, or else make the
contrariant feel the sharpness of the same law.” On the same day Burghley
wrote a vigorous letter to Walsingham directing energetic action in
Ireland.
[425] Burghley’s minutes of the deliberations are in Hatfield Papers,
part ii.
[426] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[427] The original draft of the protocol in Simier’s handwriting is
in the Hatfield Papers. A most valuable digest or “time-table,” in
Burghley’s handwriting, of the whole of the negotiations for the Queen’s
marriage up to the period of Simier’s departure, will be found in the
Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[428] Allen’s famous English seminary had been transferred to Rheims
under the patronage of the Guises, and a great number of young priests
were continually sent into England, especially after 1579, the first
members of the Jesuit mission, Persons and Campion, arriving in 1580.
[429] Mendoza at this period writes to the King of the enormous number of
ships being built. “This,” he says, “makes the English almost masters of
the commerce … as they have a monopoly of shipping, whereby they profit
by all the freights.” Burghley was an untiring promoter of extension of
legitimate trade, as he was a constant enemy to piracy. He was at this
time promoting Humphrey Gilbert’s colonisation schemes in North America,
the enterprises of Frobisher and his friends in Hudson’s Bay, the trade
of the Muscovy Company, the overland route to the Caspian by the White
Sea and the Volga, and other similar adventures; but, as we shall have
occasion to see later, he disapproved entirely of Drake’s proceedings in
the Pacific, and other expeditions of a wantonly aggressive character.
[430] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[431] Sadler State Papers.
[432] The intention, however, was not carried out. In the summer Lord
Shrewsbury wrote to Lady Burghley asking her to prevail upon her husband
to obtain the Queen’s permission for Mary Stuart to go to Buxton and
Chatsworth. Lady Burghley in her reply suggests that the Queen was angry
and refused. Mary, however, did go to Buxton later, but not to Chatsworth.
[433] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth. Burghley’s interest in naval
affairs was great. He had, when danger threatened from Alba, in the
summer of 1578, elaborated a scheme for the mobilisation of the navy,
and had put fourteen ships into commission. The Council appear to have
addressed to him most of their minutes respecting naval organisation,
instead of to the Lord Admiral.
[434] The Duke Hans Casimir was in England at the time (January 1580),
and took a large sum of money back with him for the purpose in question.
[435] This was actually the case at the time so far as Scotland itself
as apart from Mary was concerned. There is in the Hatfield Papers of
this date (1580) a fervent appeal from James VI. to the King of France,
begging for assistance in force to release his mother, and support him
against his heretic subjects. Mendoza also reports (4th September 1580)
that Guise had just recognised James’s title of King for the first time,
and that intimate relations were being formed between the courts of
Scotland and France. This probably arose from the long delay of the reply
from Spain to Mary, Guise, and the Archbishop of Glasgow, relative to
their offer of complete submission to Philip. The whole matter, however,
was changed in the following year, and thenceforward Mary and her friends
depended upon Spain alone.
[436] In Strype’s “Annals,” _in extenso_.
[437] Hatfield Papers. Another letter of this period (June 1580) from
Sussex to Lord Burghley (Hatfield Papers) shows forcibly the affection
and veneration he felt for him. “I do love, honour, and reverence you
as a father, and do you all the service we can as far as any child you
have, with heart and hand.… The true fear of God which your actions have
always shown to be in your heart, the great and deep care you have had
for the honour and safety of the Queen … and the continual trouble you
have of long time taken for the benefit of the commonwealth, and the
upright course you have always taken respecting the matter, and not the
person, in all causes … have tied me to your Lordship in that knot which
no worldly frailty can break.”
[438] See her letter to Henry III. (Hatfield State Papers, 27th July
1580).
[439] According to Drake’s statement given in Cooke’s narrative in Vaux,
Drake was presented to the Queen by Walsingham; but Doughty, of whom we
shall speak presently, asserted when he was on his trial that he, who was
a great friend of Drake, and private secretary to Hatton, had interested
the latter in the project, and that it was he who persuaded the Queen to
countenance Drake.
[440] 20th June 1578. Doughty confessed that he had given Burghley a plan
of the voyage. It was this, unquestionably, that sealed Doughty’s fate.
[441] Mendoza writes to the King (23rd October 1580): “Sussex, Burghley,
Crofts, the Admiral, and others insist that the Queen should retain the
treasure in her own hands in the Tower, and if your Majesty will give
them the satisfaction they desire about Ireland, the treasure may be
restored, after reimbursing the adventurers for their outlay.… Leicester
and Hatton advocate that Drake should not be personally punished, nor
made to restore the plunder if the business is carried before the
tribunals. The fine excuse they give is that there is nothing in the
treaties between the countries which prohibits Englishmen from going to
the Indies.”
[442] Spanish State Papers.
[443] D’Ewes’ Journal.
[444] Sir Walter Mildmay introduced a bill in this Parliament by which
reconciliation to Rome should be punishable as high treason, the saying
of mass by a fine of 200 marks and a year’s imprisonment, and the hearing
of mass half that penalty. Absence from church was to be punished by a
fine of £20 a month, and unlicensed schoolmasters were to be imprisoned
for a year. The bill met with much opposition by the Lords and by
Burghley’s party, and was somewhat lessened in severity before it became
law.
[445] How entirely Elizabeth herself depended upon the Burghley policy
now, is proved by a remark reported by Mendoza (27th February). D’Aubigny
was quite paramount in Scotland, and Morton was in prison, his doom
practically sealed. Mendoza reports that the Earl of Huntingdon,
Leicester’s brother-in-law, Warden of the Marches, had connived at a
raid of Borderers into England as far as Carlisle, where some Englishmen
were killed, in order that he might have an excuse for crossing into
Scotland and attacking Morton’s enemies. When the Queen heard of this
she was extremely angry. “What is this I hear about Scotland?” she asked
Walsingham. “Did I order anything of this sort to be done?” Walsingham
minimised the affair. The answer was, “You Puritan! you will never be
content until you drive me into war on all sides, and bring the King of
Spain on to me.” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.)
[446] It consisted of two very young princes of the blood sent for
appearance’ sake, Francis de Bourbon, Dauphin d’Auvergne, and Charles de
Bourbon, Count de Soissons; Marshal de Cossé, Pinart, La Mothe Fénélon,
Brisson, and a great number of courtiers of rank. So desirous was
Elizabeth that they should be impressed with the splendour of her court,
that she ordered that the London mercers should sell their fine stuffs
at a reduction of 25 per cent. in order that the courtiers might be
handsomely dressed.
[447] Lodge, vol. ii.
[448] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[449] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[450] Hatfield Papers, part ii.
[451] Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris: _Fonds français_, 3308.
[452] In addition to the letter of the Queen, there is another document
signed by the Ambassadors and by the English Council, saying that the
terms shall not be considered binding upon the Queen, unless within six
weeks she and Alençon report in writing to the King of France that they
have arranged certain personal questions to their mutual satisfaction.
Both documents are printed _in extenso_ in Digges.
[453] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[454] The real reason for the Queen’s ostentatious slighting of Mendoza
at the time was to draw the King of France on, and make him believe that
she was willing to break with Spain.
[455] Walsingham to the Queen: “fearing lest when he should be embarqued
your Majesty would slip the collar” (Walsingham Papers). See also
Walsingham’s letters to Burghley, in the same.
[456] Burghley to Walsingham; _in extenso_ in Digges.
[457] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[458] Hatfield State Papers, part ii.
[459] Burghley to Walsingham; _in extenso_ in Digges.
[460] “Courtships of Queen Elizabeth,” by the present writer.
[461] See Camden; _Memoires de Nevers_; Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth;
and “Courtships of Queen Elizabeth.”
[462] Wilkes, Clerk of the Council, was sent to confer with Mary upon the
subject. His report in full is in State Papers, Scotland, and at Hatfield.
[463] See his own book, “Treatise on the Execution of Justice,” written
in 1583 in answer to Allen’s attacks.
[464] See Simpson’s Life of Campion, Spanish State Papers, Camden’s
Elizabeth, and Allen’s _De Persecutione Anglicana_.
[465] Burghley, writing to Lord Shrewsbury (Lansdowne MSS., 982) in
August 1581, telling him of the trial and execution for treason of the
priest Everard Duckett, who had denied the Queen’s authority, says in
reference to Campion and his companions, “If they shall do the like,
the law is like to correct them. For their actions are not matters of
religion, but merely of state, tending directly to the deprivation of her
Majesty’s crown.” Campion, he says, had been brought before Leicester and
Bromley, but had not confessed anything of importance. It appears to have
been the result of the admissions wrung from Campion and others about
this time as to the houses in which they had lodged that led to the great
number of Catholic arrests all over England.
[466] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[467] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[468] _Ibid._
[469] Ralegh was certainly known to Leicester before this. He was
attached to his suite when he accompanied Alençon to Antwerp in February;
and always professed to be specially attached to him personally, even
when he was lending his aid to his political opponents.
[470] B. M. Add. MSS., 15,891: Walsingham to Hatton.
[471] B. M. Lansdowne MSS., 36: Hatton to Burghley.
[472] The probable cause of the Queen’s displeasure with Oxford on this
occasion was an affray between him and Sir Thomas Knyvett, one of the
Queen’s Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, in March 1582. Nicholas Faunt
writes to Anthony Bacon (Bacon Papers, vol. i.): “There has been a fray
between my Lord of Oxford and Knyvett, who are both hurt, but Lord Oxford
more dangerously. You know,” he adds, “Master Knyvett is not meanly
beloved at court, and therefore is not likely to speed ill, whatsoever
the quarrel be.” There is also a most interesting letter from Burghley
to Hatton (12th March 1582, B. M. MSS., Add. 91), in which he begs him
to intercede with the Queen for Oxford, and recites the whole of the
accusations against him.
[473] State Papers, Domestic.
[474] Mary to Beton, 18th November 1582 (Spanish State Papers).
[475] Harl. MSS., 5397.
[476] Full particulars of De Maineville’s and La Mothe Fénélon’s missions
in M. Chéruel’s _Marie Stuart et Catherine de Medicis_, drawn from the
correspondence of La Mothe Fénélon and the archives of the D’Esneval
family.
[477] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[478] See Beale’s instructions, Harl. MSS., 4663; also Beale’s report of
his proceedings in Lord Calthorpe’s MSS.
[479] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[480] This is according to Beale’s official report. But on the following
day (17th April 1583) Beale wrote to Lord Burghley (Harl. MSS., 4663),
saying that she had abandoned all ambition, she was old and ill, and was
ready to swear to anything for her liberation. This, however, was before
she received Mendoza’s letter (6th May?) advising her on no account to
accept her release (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth).
[481] The Queen had nicknames for most of her friends; Burghley was the
Leviathan or the Spirit, Hatton was Bellwether or Lyddes, Walsingham was
Moon, Alençon was Frog, Simier was Ape, Ralegh was Water, Leicester was
Sweet Robin, and so forth.
[482] Printed in Dr. Nares’ Life of Burghley.
[483] See letter from a Scottish gentleman to De Maineville, 13th July
(Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth), and Mary to Mendoza, of same date
(_ibid._).
[484] See letter of Castelnau to Henry III., 1st July; _in extenso_ in
Chéruel’s _Marie Stuart_. How completely Mary distrusted the French and
Castelnau at the time, notwithstanding her cordial letters to them, may
be seen by a paragraph in her letter to Mendoza of 13th July (Spanish
State Papers). The recognition of James as King by La Mothe’s embassy had
confirmed Mary’s determination to depend only upon the Spaniards.
[485] One of Elizabeth’s movements as soon as she heard the news was
to summon Lord Arbroath, the eldest of the Hamiltons, from France, to
proceed to Scotland in her pay. See letter, Mary to Castelnau, September
(Hatfield Papers), and Mendoza to the King, 19th August (Spanish State
Papers).
[486] Guise sent Persons (alias Melino) to the Pope in August, giving
him an account of his plans. Four thousand Spaniards were to land at
Dalton-in-Furness, Lancashire, whilst Guise made a descent on Sussex,
simultaneously with a rising of Catholics in the North of England and on
the Scottish Border (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, 22nd August).
[487] Walsingham’s disinclination to undertake the mission is quite
comprehensible. He was at the time engaged in a complicated intrigue with
the triple traitor Archibald Douglas, by which he learnt the secrets of
Mary Stuart; and at the same time he and Leicester were making approaches
to Mary Stuart and James, for a marriage between the latter and Lady
Dorothy Devereux, the step-daughter of Leicester, on condition of James
being declared the heir of England. See letters from Mary to Castelnau,
September 1583 (Hatfield Papers, part iii.), and Mendoza to the King,
13th March 1583 (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth); also Castelnau to
Henry, 1st January 1584 (Harl. MSS., 1582), and the same to Mary (Harl.
MSS., 387). The heads of Walsingham’s instructions are in Hatfield
Papers, part iii.
[488] Mendoza to the King, 19th August (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth).
[489] Many of her compromising letters to Mendoza were intercepted and
read. Mary herself, writing to Elizabeth from Tutbury (29th September
1584), thanking her for her change of lodging, protests against the
stoppage of her correspondence with the French Ambassador Castelnau. “All
that I write,” she says, “passes through the hands of your people, who
see, read, examine, and keep back in order to point out to me any fault
if they find in it anything offensive or injurious to you” (Harl. MSS.,
4651). This was more true than Mary thought when she wrote it, for she
had no idea that some of her more compromising letters to the Spaniards
were read. A letter from Mary to Sir Francis Englefield, Philip’s English
Secretary (9th October 1584), contains the following dangerous words: “Of
the treaty between the Queen of England and me I may neither hope nor
look for good issue. Whatsoever shall come of me, by whatsoever change of
my state and condition, let the execution of the great plot go forward
without any respect of peril or danger to me.” And she continues by
saying that the plan (_i.e._ the rising and invasion) must take place at
latest next spring or the cause will be ruined.
[490] There are several reasons for believing that the prosecution
of Somerville, the Ardens, Throgmorton, and others, was not entirely
honest on the part of Leicester. Somerville was obviously a madman,
and was strangled in his cell; the estates of Arden, whose wife was a
Throgmorton, went to enrich a creature of Leicester; and the priest,
Hall, on whose evidence the prisoners were condemned, was quietly
smuggled out of the country by Leicester’s favour. Although it is
possible that Throgmorton may have participated in Guise’s murder plot—he
certainly did in the invasion plot—there is no satisfactory evidence to
prove it.
[491] Hatfield State Papers, part iii.
[492] How keenly Whitgift felt the attacks upon him for doing what
he conceived to be his duty, may be seen by his letters in Strype’s
Whitgift. In a letter to Anthony Bacon (Birch’s Elizabeth) he writes: “I
am, thank God, exercised with like calumnies at home also; but I comfort
myself that lies and false rumours cannot long prevail. In matters of
religion I remain the same, and so intend to do by God’s grace during
life; wherein I am daily more and more confirmed by the uncharitable and
indirect practices, as well by the common adversary the Papist, as also
of some of our wayward, unquiet, and discontented brethren.”
[493] Hatfield State Papers, part iii.
[494] Even whilst the bill was passing through Parliament, however, the
effects of his moderation were seen. In March twenty Catholic priests and
one layman, either convicted or accused of treason, were released from
prison and sent to France. Father Howard himself told Mendoza that he was
at a loss to account for this leniency.
[495] He certainly was not benefited in purse; for one of the first
things Parry did was to borrow fifty crowns of the young man, which he
never returned (Birch’s Elizabeth). In the correspondence of Sir Thomas
Copley with Burghley at this period (1579-80), Parry is presented in a
more favourable light than that in which he is usually regarded, and so
far as can be judged by his letters he retained the Lord Treasurer’s
esteem almost to the time of his arrest.
[496] Mendoza, writing to Philip from Paris at the time, says that this
letter was forged (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth), but in any case the
letter did not necessarily imply approval of murder.
[497] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[498] Harl. MSS., 4651.
[499] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[500] See letter (Nau?) to Mary (Hatfield Papers, part iii. p. 125).
[501] See letter from Burghley’s nephew Hoby, at Berwick, to the
Treasurer (Hatfield Papers, part iii. p. 71).
[502] Hatfield State Papers, part iii.
[503] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii. p. 536; and Hatfield
Papers, part iii. p. 99.
[504] Carliell to Walsingham, 4th October 1585 (State Papers, Domestic).
[505] Cotton, Galba, cviii. (Leycester Correspondence).
[506] Harl. MSS., 285 (Leycester Correspondence).
[507] Harl. MSS., 6993 (Leycester Correspondence).
[508] The unfortunate Davison, born apparently to be made a scapegoat,
had to bear Leicester’s reproaches for the Queen’s anger, which the Earl
said was owing to Davison’s ineffective or insincere advocacy—Davison
being a distant connection both of Burghley’s and Leicester’s. The latter
even had the meanness to allege that it was mainly owing to Davison’s
persuasion that he accepted the sovereignty, and Davison was disgraced
and banished from court for a time in consequence. See Sir Philip
Sidney’s letters to Davison (Harl. MSS., 285).
[509] Cotton, Galba, cx. (Leycester Correspondence).
[510] Harl. MSS., 6994 (Edwards’ “Letters of Ralegh”).
[511] Amongst many other proofs may be mentioned her letter to Charles
Paget, 27th July 1586 (Hatfield Papers, part iii.), in which she says:
“Upon Ballard’s return the principal Catholics who had despatched him
oversea imparted to her their intentions;” but she advises that “nothing
is to be stirred on this side until they have full assurance and promise
from the Pope and Spain.” In another letter of the same date to Mendoza
she says that although she had turned a deaf ear for six months to
the various overtures made to her by the Catholics, now that she had
heard of the intentions of the King of Spain, she had consented thereto
(Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii.). Again, on the same day, she
instructed the French Ambassador to ask Burghley to be careful in the
choice of a new guardian for her, “so that whatever happen, whether it be
the death of the Queen of England, or a rebellion in the country, my life
may be safe” (Labanoff).
[512] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. iii. The reference to Parma
applies to certain negotiations for peace which had been attempted by
Andrea de Looe, Agostino Graffini, and William Bodenham. In a statement
furnished by an English agent to Philip in November, it is also asserted
that these negotiations were initiated by Burghley “who was always
against the war.”
[513] Mendoza wrote to Philip (8th November): “When Cecil saw the papers
(taken in Mary’s rooms) he told the Queen that now that she had so great
an advantage, if she did not proceed with all rigour at once against the
Queen of Scotland, he himself would seek her friendship. These words are
worthy of so clever a man as he is, and were intended to lead the other
Councillors to follow him in holding the Queen of England back.” It is
evident from this that Mendoza did not consider Cecil to be Mary’s enemy.
[514] Babington, Savage, Ballard, Barnewell, Tylney, Tichbourne, and
Abingdon were executed at St. Giles-in-the-Fields on the 20th September.
Mendoza says that as Babington’s heart was being torn out he was
distinctly heard to pronounce the word “Jesus” thrice.
[515] State Papers, Domestic.
[516] Camden.
[517] Davison, who had just been appointed an additional Secretary of
State, wrote to Burghley from Windsor (5th October) that the Queen did
not like the wording, “Tam per Maria filiam et hæredem Jacobi quinti
nuper Scotorū Regis ac communiter vocatam Scotorū Regis et dotare
Franciæ.” She wished it to be, “Tam per Maria filiam &c. … Scotorū Regis
et dotare Franciæ _communiter vocata Regina Scotorū_.” Thus it is seen
that, although Elizabeth made no difficulty about acknowledging Mary as
Queen Dowager of France, she would not recognise her as of right Queen of
Scots. Davison adds that she was sending a special messenger to Burghley
to discuss the matter with him.
[518] He was the secret means of communication between Mendoza and his
spies in England.
[519] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[520] Nau and Curll, the two Secretaries, had been closely examined
by Burghley in London, and at first had denied everything, but
subsequently when confronted with their own handwriting, were obliged
to acknowledge—especially Nau—Mary’s cognisance of Babington’s plans.
Nau afterwards (1605) endeavoured to minimise his admissions, but Mary’s
letter to Mendoza (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, 23rd November) which
was not delivered or opened until long after Mary’s death, leaves no
doubt whatever that Mary considered he had betrayed her. Curll lived
for the rest of his life on a handsome pension from Spain, but Nau
got nothing. Mary’s first answer to her accusers, that she was a free
princess and not subject to Elizabeth’s tribunal, had been foreseen by
Beale (see his opinion, Harl. MSS., 4646).
[521] Queen to Burghley, 12th October (Cotton, Caligula, cix.).
[522] Camden Annals, and Life of Sir Thomas Egerton.
[523] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[524] Howell’s State Trials. Burghley writes to Davison (15th October,
Cotton, Caligula): “She has only denied the accusations. Her intention
was to move pity by long artificial speeches, to lay all blame upon the
Queen’s Majesty, or rather upon the Council, that all the troubles past
did ensue from them, avowing her reasonable offers and our refusals. And
in these speeches I did so encounter her with reasons out of my knowledge
and experience, as she hath not the advantage she looked for. And, as
I am assured, the auditory did find her case not pitiable, and her
allegations untrue.”
[525] Hollingshead.
[526] Mary to Mendoza, 24th November (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth,
part iii.).
[527] Paris Archives; _in extenso_ in Von Raumer.
[528] Philip’s secret agent in London wrote at the time urging that “a
message should be sent from Spain to the Lord Treasurer, who is the
ruling spirit in all this business, and is desirous of peace, to let him
know that your Majesty wished for his friendship” (Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth, part iii.).
[529] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii.
[530] Bellièvre did not arrive in England until 1st December. An account
of his embassy will be found printed in Labanoff. The regular Ambassador,
Chateauneuf, did his best, for he was a Guisan, but Elizabeth flatly
told him she believed he was exceeding his instructions. His own doubts
as to his master’s real wishes are expressed in a letter to D’Esneval in
Paris (20th October): “Je vous prie me mander privément, ou ouvertement,
l’intention de Sa Majesté sur les choses de deça; car il me semble que
l’on se soucie fort peu de par dela du fait de la Reine d’Ecosse.”
Davison wrote to Burghley at Fotheringay (8th October), telling him of
the “presumption” of Chateauneuf’s first remonstrance, and the rebuke
sent to him by the Queen “for attempting to school her in her actions.”
[531] Mendoza to Philip, 7th December (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth,
part iii.).
[532] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, part iii. In a marginal note to
another letter, Philip himself expresses an opinion that Bellièvre has
gone, not to save Mary’s life, but for another purpose.
[533] See Lord Burghley’s notes of this appeal for his reply thereto
(Hatfield State Papers, part iii.); and also Elizabeth’s own most
interesting letter to Henry III. (Harl. MSS., 4647). She ends by a hit
at Henry’s helpless position: “I beg you, therefore, rather to think of
the means of preserving than of diminishing my friendship. Your States,
my good brother, cannot bear many enemies; do not for God’s sake give
the rein to wild horses, lest they throw you from your seat.” Another
characteristic step taken in England at the same time was to concoct
a bogus plot to murder Elizabeth, in which it was pretended that the
Ambassador Chateauneuf was concerned. This gave an opportunity for
much anger and complaint on the part of Elizabeth, especially against
the Guises; and in Lord Burghley’s memoranda giving reasons for Mary’s
execution, this so-called plot of Stafford, Moody, and Destrappes is
gravely set forth as a contributing factor.
[534] Gray’s own feelings in the matter may be seen by his copious
correspondence with Archibald Douglas, at Hatfield. He had, when he was
in Flanders, proposed that Mary might be put out of the way by poison,
and was hated by Mary’s friends in consequence. “If she die,” he said, “I
shall be blamed, and if she live I shall be ruined;” but he was forced
against his will to accept the embassy and acted in a similar way to
Bellièvre—pleaded with strong words but weak arguments, in order that his
own position might be saved whether Mary lived or died.
[535] Mendoza to Philip, 24th January 1587 (Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth, vol. iv.).
[536] The matter is fully discussed in Nicolas’s Life of Davison.
[537] It is curious that the warning should come from Howard, a Catholic
and a Conservative, several of whose relatives were Spanish pensioners.
[538] Hatfield Papers, part iii. There is no mention of the poison letter
to Paulet, but it was written, and is printed in Nicolas’s Life of
Davison, with Paulet’s reply.
[539] The Queen kept up a pretence of anger against the Councillors for
some time, and especially against Burghley, who on the 13th February
wrote her a submissive letter praying for her favour. He was excluded
from her presence, and complains that she “doth utter more heavy, hard,
bitter, and minatory speeches against me than against any other,” which
he ascribes to the calumnies of his many enemies, and to the fact that
he alone was not allowed to justify his action personally to her. “I
have,” he says, “confusedly uttered my griefs, being glad that the night
of my age is so near by service and sickness as I shall not long wake to
see the miseries that I fear others shall see that are like to overwatch
me.” When at length he obtained audience of the Queen, she treated him
so harshly that he again retired, and was only induced to return again
by the intercession of Hatton. Elizabeth’s special anger with Burghley
may have been an elaborate pretence agreed upon between them, or, what is
more probable, the result of some calumnies of Leicester.
[540] An interesting statement of Burghley’s treatment of Davison in
later years will be found in Harl. MSS., 290. Part of his unrelenting
attitude to him is commonly attributed to Burghley’s desire to secure
the Secretaryship of State for his son, Sir Robert Cecil. It is evident,
however, that Davison was adopted by Essex as one of his instruments to
oppose Burghley’s policy, and the restoration of Davison would thereafter
have meant a defeat for the Cecils. This, it appears to me, amply
explains the Lord Treasurer’s attitude.
[541] Hatfield Papers, part iii. 223.
[542] That Lord Burghley was desirous of dissociating himself personally
from the execution, and of remaining on good terms with the Catholic
party, is further seen by a remark made in a letter from Mendoza to
Philip (26th March 1587): “Cecil, the Lord Treasurer, said publicly that
he was opposed to the execution, and on this and all other points feeling
was running very high in the Council; Cecil and Leicester being open
opponents” (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth).
[543] Walsingham, conveying this news to Leicester in Flanders (17th
April), says: “There are letters written from certain of my Lords, by her
Majesty’s effectual command, to inhibit him (Drake) to attempt anything
by land or within the ports of Spain.” On the 11th he wrote: “This
resolution proceedeth altogether upon a hope of peace, which I fear may
do much harm.”
[544] The first hint to this effect reached Philip too late to be useful.
It was conveyed by Mendoza from Stafford in Paris on the 19th April, the
day that Drake reached Cadiz.
[545] Foreign Office Records, Flanders, 32.
[546] This was the great galleon _San Felipe_, one of the richest prizes
ever brought to England.
[547] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[548] His mother, the owner of Burghley, had just died, aged eighty-five;
and his unmanageable son-in-law, the Earl of Oxford, still caused
him endless trouble. His only family consolation at the time was the
promise of his favourite son, Sir Robert Cecil, whose great talents
and application were already remarkable. How incessant and varied Lord
Burghley’s labours still were may be seen by the great number of letters
addressed to him, entreating him for help, influence, or advice. The
Catholic Earl of Arundel from the Tower, the Earl of Huntingdon, Lord
Buckhurst, Lord Cobham, and a host of other nobles appealed to him to
forward their suits; Puritan divines like Hammond, Cartwright, Humphreys,
and Travers; prelates like Whitgift, Aylmer, Herbert, and Sandys, by
common accord chose him as the arbiter of their constant disputes. The
Court of Wards, too, entailed a large correspondence and much personal
attention; whilst at this period Burghley was also deeply concerned
in checking the tendency of Cambridge students to indulge in “satin
doublets, silk and velvet overstocks, great fine ruffs, and costly
facings to their gowns.”
[549] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[550] As instances see letters—Ralegh to Burghley, 27th December 1587
(State Papers, Domestic, ccvi. 40); Howard to Burghley, 22nd December
(State Papers, Domestic, ccvi. 42); same to same (Harl. MSS., 6994,
102); Burghley’s own holograph list of ships and their destinations,
5th January 1588; Hawkins to Burghley, 18th January 1588 (both in State
Papers, Domestic, cviii.); and many similar papers of this period in
State Papers, Domestic, cviii., and Harl. MSS., 6994.
[551] Stafford told Mendoza (25th February) that Burghley had written to
him saying, that he would do his best to prevent Drake from sailing, as
his voyages were only profitable to himself and his companions, but an
injury to the Queen and an irritation to foreign princes; and in May,
Burghley told Stafford that if he had remained out of town two days
longer, his colleagues would have let Drake go.
[552] Hatfield Papers, part iii.
[553] Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth.
[554] This mission was said to have been entrusted originally to Paulet,
and afterwards to Herbert; but as they did not go to Flanders, it is more
likely to have been left to Crofts. I can, however, find no record of it
except in Spanish account.
[555] The Commissioners were the Earl of Derby, Lord Cobham, Sir James
Crofts, with Valentine Dale and Rogers. Burghley’s son, Sir Robert Cecil,
was also attached. The whole correspondence of the Commissioners, mostly
directed to Lord Burghley, will be found in Cotton, Vesp., cviii.
[556] Motley thought that Burghley was referred to, but surely Howard
would not call him witless. Probably Crofts is meant.
[557] State Papers, Domestic, ccix.
[558] Howard, writing on the 13th June to Walsingham, says: “I forbear to
write unto my Lord Treasurer because I am sure he is a very heavy man for
my lady his daughter, for which I am most heartily sorry.”
[559] Writing to Walsingham, “from my house near the Savoy,” 17th July,
he says: “I am at present by last night’s torment weakened in spirits, as
I am not able to rise out of my bed; which is my grief the more, because
I cannot come thither where both my mind and duty do require;” and yet on
the same day he (Burghley) sent a long minute corrected with his own hand
to Darrell, giving directions for the victualling of the navy.
[560] In September, when the news came of the flight of the Armada, grand
reviews of these forces were held previous to their being disbanded.
Lord Chancellor Hatton entertained the Queen at dinner in Holborn, and
his hundred men-at-arms in red and yellow paraded before her Majesty.
The next day (20th August) a similar ceremony took place at Cecil House,
and shortly afterwards Leicester’s troop was reviewed. But they were all
thrown into the shade by Essex’s splendid force of sixty musketeers and
sixty mounted harquebussiers, in orange-tawny, with white silk facings,
and two hundred light horsemen, in orange velvet and silver.
[561] See his letter, 30th July (O.S.), to his father, giving him an
account from hearsay of what had happened off Calais (State Papers,
Domestic, ccxiii.).
[562] The ordinary Arabic numbers were never used by Burghley, even in
calculations.
[563] One of the last letters that Leicester wrote was to Burghley, from
Maidenhead, two days only before his death, asking for some favour for
a friend, Sir Robert Jermyn, and apologising for leaving court without
taking leave of the Lord Treasurer; and in November the widowed Countess
of Leicester—the mother of Essex—wrote begging Burghley to use his
influence with the Queen to buy a vessel belonging to her late husband.
[564] Lord Burghley’s memoranda (State Papers, Domestic). For particulars
of the expedition see “The Year after the Armada,” by the present writer.
[565] Don Antonio had been deceived so often in England, that although
preparations for the expedition were being made for some months
previously, he was not convinced that it was really intended for him
until the end of the year 1588.
[566] On the eve of his flight Essex thus explained his action in a
letter to Heneage (Hatfield Papers, part iii. 966): “What my courses have
been I need not repeat, for no man knoweth them better than yourself.
What my state now is I will tell you. My revenue is no greater than when
I sued my livery, my debts at least two or three and twenty thousand
pounds. Her Majesty’s goodness has been so great I could not ask her for
more; no way left to repair myself but mine own adventure, which I had
much rather undertake than offend her Majesty with suits, as I have done.
If I speed well, I will adventure to be rich; if not, I will not live to
see the end of my poverty.”
[567] His entry in his diary recording the fact runs thus: “1589. April
4 _Die Veneris inter hor 3 et 4 mane obdormit in Domino, Mildreda Domina
Burgley_.” She is interred at Westminster Abbey, with her daughter the
Countess of Oxford; a very long Latin inscription is on the tomb, written
by Burghley, recording their many virtues and the writer’s grief at their
loss. There is at Hatfield (part iii. 973) a note of the mourners and
arrangements for the funeral in Lord Burghley’s handwriting.
[568] MSS. Lansdowne, ciii. 51.
[569] This is a not unnatural mistake under the circumstances for 9th
April 1589. The year then began on the 1st April, and in his sorrow Lord
Burghley had overlooked the change of year. More than a month after this
he wrote a letter, full of grief still, to his old friend the Earl of
Shrewsbury, by which we see that he was still living in retirement in one
of the lodges of his park at Theobalds, as it is signed “From my poore
lodge neare my howss at Theobalds, 27 Maii 1589. _P.S._ The Queene is at
Barn Elms, but this night I will attend on her at Westminster, for I am
no man mete for feastings.”
[570] For the particulars of the Catholic plots of Huntly, Crawford,
Errol, Claud Hamilton, and Bothwell (Stuart), see Spanish State Papers,
Elizabeth.
[571] State Papers, Domestic.
[572] The Vidame de Chartres was the Huguenot agent in Elizabeth’s
court for some years, and was constantly craving aid for the cause. His
promises of repayment were very rarely kept, as the Huguenots had most of
the wealth of France against them. Hence the saying quoted.
[573] Egerton MSS., 359.
[574] “November 30. I have heard a rumour that you have arrived at
Calais, and that if the enemy comes to attack that place you will be
there with troops to defend it. If this news be true I pray you let me
hear it from yourself, and advertise me by the ordinary courier what the
enemy is doing and what you think of these designs. For I shall be very
happy to see some opportunity by which we could together win honour and
serve the common weal. I am idle here, and have nothing to do but to
hearken for such opportunities.” (Essex to La Noue; Hatfield Papers, part
iii.)
[575] Hatfield Papers, part iv.
[576] A letter from Sir John Smith to Burghley, 28th January 1590,
expresses sorrow “to hear that you were very dangerously sick, being
next unto her Majesty, in my opinion, the pillar and upholder of the
Commonwealth. Howbeit, I am now very glad to hear you have recovered your
health;” to which the Lord Treasurer appends the note “relatio falsæ”
(Hatfield Papers, part iv.). Later in the year, however (October), the
Clerk of the Privy Seal, writing to Lord Talbot, says, “I never knew my
Lord Treasurer more lusty or fresh in hue than at this hour.” How heavily
business still pressed upon the Lord Treasurer is seen by a remark of
his in a letter to Mr. Grimstone (January 1591): “The cause” (of his not
having written) “is partly for that I have not leisure, being, as it
were, roundly besieged with affairs to be answered from north, south,
east, and west; whereof I hope shortly to be delivered by supply of some
to take charge as her Majesty’s principal secretary” (Bacon Papers,
Birch).
[577] Soon afterwards, Essex was at issue with Robert Cecil about the
appointment of a successor to one of Heneage’s offices (Essex to Sir
Henry Unton; Hatfield Papers, part iv.). How bitter Essex was against the
Cecils is shown by a letter from him to Sir Henry Unton in Paris (June
1591): “Things do remain in the same state as they did. They who are most
in appetite are not yet satisfied, whereof there is great discontentment.
If it stand at this stay awhile longer they will despair, _for their
chief hour-glass hath little sand left in it, and doth run out still_.”
[578] In one of the letters suggested by the secret intelligence
secretary, Phillips, to be written to English Catholics abroad (31st
August 1591), Robert Cecil’s appointment to the Council is noted; “but
the Queen seems determined against Robert Cecil for the Secretaryship;
but my Lord being sick, the whole management of the Secretary’s place
is in his (Robert’s) hands, and as he is already a Councillor, any
employment of him between the Queen and his father will be the means of
installing him in the place” (State Papers, Domestic).
[579] He expressed this wish as soon as Essex’s opposition to Robert
Cecil’s appointment became manifest. A letter (State Papers, Domestic)
from Hatton, 15th July 1590, thus refers to the matter: “We can
well witness your endless travails, which in her Majesty’s princely
consideration she should relieve you of; but it is true the affairs
are in good hands, as we all know, and thereby her Majesty is the more
sure, and we her poor servants the better satisfied. God send you help
and happiness to your better contentment.” Nearly all through 1590 and
1591 repeated reference is made in his correspondence to Burghley’s
infirmities. This, added to the everlasting disputes between the
Prelatists and the Puritans, in which he was between two fires, and the
galling opposition of Essex to his son’s appointment, might well have
excused his desire to be relieved of his heavy burden.