Chapter XVI (3)

[224] Yaxley was sent back from Madrid with glowing promises and encouragement from Philip to Mary and Darnley, and 20,000 crowns in money. The ship, however, in which he sailed from Flanders was wrecked, and Yaxley’s lifeless body was washed up on the coast of Northumberland, with the money and despatches attached to it. The money, of course, never reached Mary, but formed the subject of a long squabble as to the respective claims for it, of the Crown and the Earl of Northumberland. (Spanish State Papers, Elizabeth, vol. i.).

[225] State Papers, Scotland.

[226] Randolph’s letter, 6th February 1566, gives particulars of Mary’s adhesion to the League of Bayonne (Harl. MSS. 4645); but she does not appear actually to have signed the “bond” sent to her, as she was urged to do by the Bishop of Dunblane and other papal emissaries. There is not the slightest doubt, however, that she looked at this time to the Catholic league alone for help in her claims, and had decided to defy England and the Protestant party.

[227] Randolph to Cecil, 1st March; and Randolph and Bedford to Cecil, 6th March (Scottish State Papers).

[228] Randolph wrote to Leicester on the 13th February 1566, telling 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.