[1] “Sadler State Papers,” vol. i. p. 375.
[2] Memoires sur les affaires d’Angleterre MS. Bibliothèque Nationale. Colbert, 35.
[3] Naunton, in Fragmenta Regalia, says that he was personally acquainted with the senior branch of Cecil’s family in Herefordshire, which was of no mean antiquity: but he speaks of David Cecil, the statesman’s grandfather, as “being exposed, and sent to the city, as poor gentlemen used to do their sons, became to be a rich man on London Bridge, and purchased (an estate) in Lincolnshire, where this man (i.e. Sir William) was born.” Cecil’s enemies in his lifetime, especially Father Persons, spoke of David Cecil as having been an innkeeper at Stamford; but this is very improbable, though he may well have owned inns in the town, of which he was an alderman.
[4] The date of his death in the “journal” at Hatfield is given as 1536, and Collins states it to have happened in 1541, his will being proved in that year.
[5] Peck, Desiderata Curiosa.
[6] “Courtships of Queen Elizabeth.”
[7] That Cecil’s father was much displeased at his marriage is seen by a letter from Alford, his steward, at Burghley, after the death of Richard Cecil. Mrs. Cecil, the widow (to whom Burghley belonged), appears to have been an extremely self-willed old lady, and refused to exhibit her husband’s will to her son’s agents. In conversation with one of them, she said she knew that her husband had made a will (besides the one in her possession) touching his goods, when he went to Boulogne (i.e. 1544). Alford says: “Thinking this might have been about the time he conceived displeasure against you for your first marriage, I rode off immediately to the attorney who, according to Mrs. Cecil, held it, in order, if possible, to learn the contents of the will in your (Cecil’s) interests” (Alford to Cecil, 9th April 1553; Hatfield Papers).
[8] Perpetual Calendar MS., Hatfield.
[9] Desiderata Curiosa. This is confirmed by a letter at Hatfield from Griffin, the Queen’s attorney (27th April 1557), saying, “I am sorry that you never were of Gray’s Inne nor can skill of no lawe,” by which it is clear that Cecil was never called to the bar, and probably never seriously studied law.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Roger Ascham, writing to Sturmius (August 1550), says: “But there are two English ladies whom I cannot omit to mention.… One is Jane Grey … the other Mildred Cooke, who understands and speaks Greek like English, so that it may be doubted whether she is most happy in the possession of this surpassing degree of knowledge, or in having for her preceptor and father Sir Anthony Cooke, whose singular erudition caused him to be joined with John Cheke in the office of tutor to the King; or finally, in having become the wife of William Cecil, lately appointed Secretary of State: a young man, indeed, but mature in wisdom, and so deeply skilled, both in letters and affairs, and endued with such moderation in the exercise of public offices, that to him would be awarded, by the consenting voice of Englishmen, the fourfold praise attributed to Pericles by his rival Thucydides: ‘To know all that is fitting, to be able to apply what he knows, to be a lover of his country, and superior to money.’”
[12] Desiderata Curiosa, and Camden.
[13] State Papers, Dom., 1547-80.
[14] Ibid., and Tytler.
[15] December 1547, Lansdowne MSS., 2, 16.
[16] Diarium Expeditionis Scoticæ.
[17] Desiderata Curiosa.
[18] This is the assertion made by Nares, but it is very questionably correct, as a letter dated 1st July 1548 from Sir Thomas Smith in Brussels (State Papers, Foreign) is addressed to Mr. Cecil, Master of Requests to the Lord Protector’s Grace, and a similar letter from Fisher at Stamford on the 27th July 1548 bears the same superscripture (State Papers, Dom.).
[19] Harl. MSS., 284.
[20] State Papers, Dom.
[21] State Papers, Dom., and also in Tytler.
[22] State Papers, Dom.
[23] The correspondence will be found in Ellis’s original letters, and State Papers, Dom., and also in Strype’s “Memorials.”
[24] Burnet.
[25] State Papers, Dom.: Northumberland to Cecil, 31st May 1552.
[26] This disposes of the suggestion that Cecil was Secretary of State at this time.
[27] See Correspondence, Lady Mary and the Council. “Foxe’s Acts and Monuments.”
[28] She afterwards became the third wife of Philip II. of Spain, 1560.
[29] State Papers, Dom.: Duchess of Suffolk to Cecil, 2nd October 1550.
[30] Or 1553, according to the Perpetual Calendar at Hatfield.
[31] Hatfield Papers.
[32] State Papers, Foreign.
[33] Hatfield Papers, part i., p. 88.
[34] Desiderata Curiosa.
[35] King Edward’s Journal, printed in Burnet.
[36] There is, however, a memorandum in the Cotton MSS., Titus B 11, (printed in Ellis’s original letters) which proves that, though Cecil may not have been publicly prominent in the condemnation of Somerset, his acumen and diligence were, as usual, made use of to that end. The document is entirely written by Cecil, and is a list of fifteen questions to be put to Somerset in the Tower, all of them of a leading character and calculated to compromise the prisoner. In Cotton, Vesp. 171, will be found the minutes of the Council which discussed the execution of Somerset. Cecil has written thereon, as if to exonerate himself from all responsibility, that the minutes are in the King’s hand.
[37] State Papers, Dom.
[38] State Papers, Foreign.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Strype.
[41] King Edward’s Journal (Burnet).
[42] In Sir William Cecil’s handwriting.
“Question:—
“1. Whether the K. Mt̅i̅e̅ shall enter into the ayd of the Emperor.
“Answer. He shall.
“1. The Kyng is bound by the treaty, and if he will be helped by that treaty he must do the reciproque.
“2. If he do not ayde, the Emperor is like to ruyne and consequently the House of Burgundy come to the French possession, which is perilous to England, and herein the greatness of the French King is dreadfull.
“3. The F. King bringeth the Turke into Chre̅n̅dome and therefore that exploit be stayed.
“4. If the Emperor for extremitie should agree now with the F. the said perill were dooble grettur. First th’ Emperor’s offence for lacke of ayde. 2. The F. King’s enterprises towards us; and in this peace the bishop of Rome’s devotion towards us.
“5. Merchants be so evill used that both for the losse of goods and honour some remedy must be sought.
“6. The F. Kynge’s procedings be suspisiose to the realm by breaking and burning of our shippes, which be the old strength of this isle.
“Answer. He shall not.
“1. The ayde is too chargeable for the cost, and almost impossible to be executed.
“2. If the Emperor should dye in this confederacy we should be left alone in the warr.
“3. It may be the German Protestants might be more offended with this conjunction with the Emperor, doubting their owne cause.
“4. The amytie with France is to be hooped will amende and continue and the commissioner’s coming may perchance restore.
“Corollarium of a meane way.
“1. So to helpe the Emperor as we maye also joine with other Christian princes and conspyre against the F. King as a common enemy to chr̅e̅dome.
“Reasons for Common Conjunction.
“1. The cause is common and therefore there will be more parties to it.
“2. It shall avoyd the chargeable entry into ayde with the Emperor accordyng to the treaties.
“3. If the Emperor should dye or breake off, yet it is most likely some of the princes will remayne so as the K. Mā shall not be alone.
“4. This friendship shall much advance the King’s other causes in Chre̅n̅dome.
“5. It shal be more honourable to breake with the F. Kyng for this common quarrel of Chre̅n̅dome.
“Reasons against this Conjunction.
“1. The treaty must be with so many parties that it can nether be spedely nor secretly concluded.
“2. If the matter be revealed and nothing concluded then consider the F. Kyng’s offence, and so may he at his leisure be provoked to practice the like conjunction agaynste England with all the papists.
“The above is in Cecil’s handwriting. To it the young King himself has added in his own boyish hand.
“Conclusion.
1. “The treaty to be made wᵗʰ the Emperor and by the Emperor’s meanes wᵗʰ other princes.
“2. The Emperor’s acceptation to be understood before we treat anything against the F. King.”
After long reasoning it was determined to send to Mr. Morysine willing him to declare to the Emperor that “i haveing pitee as al other Christian princes should have on the envasion of Christendome by the Turkes would willingly joine with the Emperor and other states of the Empire if the Emp. could bring it to passe in some league against the Turke and his confederates but not to be knowen by the F. King … Morysine to say he hath no more commission but if the Emperor will send a man to England he shall know more. This was done on intent to get some friends. The reasonings be in my deske.”
[43] Desiderata Curiosa.
[44] Nares.
[45] State Papers, Dom.
[46] Another remedy was a hedgehog stewed in rose-water.
[47] The office at first entailed considerable expense to him. In his diary there is an entry on 12th April, “Paid the embroiderer for xxxvi. schutchyns for my servants coats at iiˢ each. iiiˡ xiiˢ;” and in a letter (State Papers, Dom.) from Petre to Cecil he tells him that the “fashion of his robes” will be decided when Garter comes to court.
[48] Strype regards the illness as being a diplomatic one, and I am inclined to side with him; but it is only fair to say that Cecil’s old friend Dr. Wotton, Ambassador in France, attributed it to overwork. He writes (State Papers, Foreign), 21st June: “Yow perceive yow must needes moderate your labour, your complexion being not strong ynough to continue as yow begone; and my Lords, I doubt not, will not be so unreasonable as to requyre more of yow than yow be able to do. A good parte of the labour which was wont to lye on the Clerkes of the Counsell’s hands is now turned to yow, whereof I suppose yow may easily disburden yourself. It is better to do so betimes than to repent the not doinge of it after, when it shalle be too late.”
[49] The ceremony took place at Durham House, in the Strand, which had been granted by Somerset as a town residence for the Princess Elizabeth, but which Northumberland had, much to Elizabeth’s indignation, exchanged, without her acquiescence, for Somerset’s unfinished palace in the Strand. In answer to her remonstrances, Northumberland humbly protested that he had no desire to offend her Grace, but he made no alteration in his arrangements.
[50] Strype’s “Annals,” vol. iv. Alford’s deposition was made at Cecil’s request twenty years afterwards, and doubtless echoes what Cecil desired to be said.
[51] This statement also must be taken for what it is worth. It was written in Cecil’s extreme old age—or soon after his death—and of course reflected his own version of affairs. It was natural that after the fall of Jane, and particularly when he was Elizabeth’s minister, he should be anxious to dissociate himself from an act which deprived the Queen of her birthright.
[52] B. M. Lans. MSS., 2, 102.
[53] Notwithstanding this protest, there is in Lansdowne MSS., 1236, No. 15, a draft or copy, in Cecil’s own handwriting, of the document referred to, addressed to the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, in which they are begged “to disturbe, repell, and resyste the fayned and untrue clayme of the Lady Mary, basterd daughter of … Henry VIII.” The date of this is the 10th July; but the Duke of Northumberland’s draft of the same letter is endorsed by Cecil, 12th July. This would seem to suggest that at all events Cecil had helped the Duke in the composition of the first draft of the document. On the dorse of Northumberland’s copy (Lansdowne MSS., 3, 34), Cecil has written: “First copy of a l’re to be wrytte from ye Lady Jane … wrytte by ye Duk of Northūblā.” But, as stated above, the date of his own copy is two days earlier.
[54] This interesting document is also printed in Tytler’s “Edward VI. and Mary.”
[55] An early copy of this document is in Harl. MSS., 35, and the original draft or “devise” is in Petyt Papers, Inner Temple Library. See also Strype and Burnet.
[56] “Queen Jane and Queen Mary,” Camden Society.
[57] Harl. MSS., 194. Also Hollingshead and “Queen Jane and Queen Mary.”
[58] Harl. MSS., 353.
[59] It is not quite clear whether Cecil preceded or followed Arundel and Paget in their journey to meet the Queen. It is nearly certain that Cecil started after them. They were certainly present at the proclamation at Baynard’s Castle on the 19th July, whereas Cecil does not appear to have been there. The letter, moreover, written the same morning from the Tower by the Council to Lord Rich, exhorting him to stand firm for Jane (Lansdowne MSS., 3) which Cecil said was written by Cheke, is signed by all the Councillors in London, including Arundel, Paget, Petre, and Cheke, but not by Cecil. The letter to Mary from the Council, carried by Arundel and Paget, appears to have borne no signatures (Strype’s “Cranmer”); but the letter to Northumberland shortly afterwards ordering him to obey the Queen bears Cecil’s signature. Probably, therefore, Cecil found some excuse for absenting himself on the critical 19th July, and when Mary’s triumph was assured, signed the denunciation of Northumberland, and at once started to greet the Queen.
[60] 7 Julii Libertatem adeptus sū morte regis et ex misere aulico factus libertas mei juris.
[61] An interesting letter from Northumberland to the Council and Secretaries of State, written during his illness (27th November 1552, State Papers, Foreign) shows how much Cecil and his colleagues distrusted Northumberland’s new departure in foreign policy. The French Ambassador’s secretary had desired audience of the Duke alone, to convey a private message from Henry II. to him. Northumberland knew that this would be resented by the Council, and wrote: “I have availed myself of my sickness to direct the Secretary, who was very importunate, to communicate what he had to say, to one of the Secretaries of State or to the Council. And thus I trust within a while, although I may be thought affectionate to the French, as some have reported me, yet I doubt not this way which I intend to use with them to continue but a little while in their graces, which I never desired in all my life but for the service of my master, as knoweth the Lord.”
[62] Dalby’s letter in Harl. MSS., 353.
[63] Hatfield Papers.
[64] Strype.
[65] In Lansdowne MSS., 2, will be found many letters on these subjects to and from Cecil, showing the deep interest he took in educational matters.
[66] Ambassades de Noailles, vol. ii., and Hatfield Papers, part i. 25.
[67] Hatfield Papers, part i., and Haynes.
[68] Hatfield Papers.
[69] Reproduced by Tytler.
[70] Lansdowne MSS., 3.
[71] State Papers, Foreign.
[72] “Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth,” vol. iv. 629.
[73] Lansdowne MSS., 3.
[74] See an account of the pursuit of these exiles in the narrative of John Brett (“Transactions Royal Hist. Soc.,” vol. xi.), and also Foxe’s “Acts and Monuments.”
[75] A few months afterwards his brother-in-law, Sir John Cheke, wrote from abroad (February 1556), evidently in fear that Cecil was going too far in his conformity. “He hoped,” he said, “that he would not suffer his judgment to be corrupted in these evil times by what a multitude of ignorance might approve” (Lansdowne MSS., 3). Cheke’s evil fate fell upon him very shortly, as if in judgment for his own pharisaism. In the same spring he was lured by promise of pardon into Philip’s Flemish dominions with Sir Peter Carew. He was treacherously seized, bound, and kidnapped on board a vessel at Antwerp (much as Dr. Story was in the reign of Elizabeth), brought to England, and lodged in the Tower. Threatened with the stake, he allowed Dr. Feckenham to persuade him to recant. Mary’s Government made him publicly drink the cup of degradation to the dregs, and the unhappy man—pitied by his friends, and betrayed and scoffed at by his enemies—died of a broken heart the following year (September 1557). See Strype’s “Memorials.” Archbishop Parker’s remark, written on the margin of one of Cheke’s recantations, is the most merciful and appropriate to the case, “Homines Sumus.”
[76] Desiderata Curiosa.
[77] Desiderata Curiosa.
[78] Sir Thomas Cornwallis to Cecil: Hatfield Papers, part i.
[79] Hatfield Papers, part i.
[80] Hatfield Papers, part i.
[81] The powerful Earl of Bedford was a prime favourite of Philip—though afterwards so strong a Protestant—and had been sent to Spain to accompany the Queen’s consort to England. He appears to have been on close terms of friendship with Cecil, who managed his affairs in his absence, and to whom he wrote an interesting account of the great victory of St. Quentin (Hatfield Papers). The friendship of such men as Bedford, Clinton, and Paget would of itself almost account for Cecil’s immunity and favour under Philip and Mary.
[82] State Papers, Dom.
[83] Ibid.
[84] Cecil seems to have been greatly in request for commissions involving a knowledge of rural dilapidations and the management of landed estates. In March 1557 the Lords of Queen Mary’s Council commissioned him to examine the damage done to Brigstock Park, Northamptonshire, and to place Sir Nicholas Throgmorton there as keeper (Lansdowne MSS., 3). He was also steward of Colly Weston and other manors belonging to Princess Elizabeth.
[85] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[86] Feria had visited Elizabeth at Hatfield a few days before the Queen died, and had then written to Philip: “I am told for certain that Cecil, who was Secretary to King Edward, will be her Secretary also. He is considered to be a prudent, virtuous man, although a heretic.”
[87] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[88] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[89] Fragmenta Regalia.
[90] Cotton MSS., Titus cx.
[91] A proclamation was issued on the 27th December, that no alterations should be made in the rites and ceremonies of the Church, and that no unauthorised person should preach; but a few days afterwards orders were given that the Litany, Epistle, and Gospel should be read in English, as in the Queen’s chapel, which was done on the following day, 1st January, Sunday (Hayward).
[92] Hayward’s reference to this point would seem to prove that the sermons at Paul’s Cross were discontinued altogether for some months. He says preachers had been warned—in accordance with Cecil’s note—to avoid treating of controversial points, and to the raising of any “dispute touching government eyther for altering or retayning the present form. Hereupon no sermon was preached at Paules Crosse until the Rehearsall sermon was made upon the Sunday after Easter; at which tyme, when the preacher was ready to mount the Pulpit, the keye could not be found; and when by commandment of the Lord Mayor it was opened by the smyth, the place was very filthy and uncleane” (Hayward’s “Annals,” Camden Society).
[93] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[94] Original draft in Cotton MSS., Cal. E. V.
[95] State Papers, Foreign; also printed in extenso in Forbes.
[96] Cotton MSS., Cal. E. V.; printed in Forbes.
[97] It must not be forgotten that Mary Stuart, the young Queen of Scots, was married to Francis, the heir to the French throne, and that the disappearance of Elizabeth from the throne would almost inevitably have meant the complete dominion of both Scotland and England by the French. This would have rendered the position of Spain in the Netherlands untenable, and would have destroyed the Spanish commerce, and the fact explains Philip’s forbearance with Elizabeth in the earlier years of her reign. Both Cecil and the Queen were fully cognisant of the advantage they derived from the situation.
[98] Hatfield Papers, part i. p. 151.
[99] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth.
[100] Ibid.
[101] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth, vol. i. p. 11.
[102] Parry had just been made Treasurer of the Household vice Sir Thomas Cheynes.
[103] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth, vol. i.
[104] The treaty was ratified simultaneously by the French King at Notre Dame, the English special Ambassador being the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Howard of Effingham. The correspondence on, and descriptions of, the ceremonies in France, will be found printed in extenso in Forbes. An account of the festivities in England will be found in Nichols’ “Progresses of Queen Elizabeth,” and in the Calendar of Venetian State Papers.
[105] Spanish Calendar, Elizabeth, vol. i.
[106] Strype.
[107] A great impetus had been given to the building of warships on the accession of Elizabeth, and a programme of naval construction was presented, providing for the building of twenty-eight ships during the ensuing five years; an enormous increase when it is considered that the whole navy when Mary died consisted of only twenty-two sail. The first measure of Elizabeth was to turn a large number of the merchantmen, which had been built under subsidy, into warships. These were probably the ships referred to by Cardinal Lorraine. On the 3rd July, shortly afterwards, the Queen was present at the launch of a fine new warship at Woolwich, which she christened the Elizabeth.
[108] State Papers, Foreign; in extenso in Forbes.
[109] See also Throgmorton to Cecil, 1st July. Ibid.
[110] The Queen to Throgmorton, 17th and 19th July (State Papers, Foreign).
[111] Sadler to Cecil, 16th September 1559 (Sadler Papers, vol. i.).
[112] Printed in extenso in Sadler Papers, vol. i.
[113] Arran travelled as a Frenchman under the name of De Beaufort.
[114] Sadler Papers, vol. i.