[596] State Papers, Domestic.

[597] Numerous similar instances of this devotion occur in the letters of Burghley to his son and others. In April 1594 he writes to Sir Robert from Cecil House, that as her Majesty desires to have him there (Greenwich) to-day, he will go, if it be her pleasure that he should leave his other engagements. He then recounts his various duties for the day, including sitting all the morning in the Court of Wards, “with small ease and much pain,” and again in the afternoon; the next day he had to preside in the Exchequer Chamber, the Star Chamber, &c.; “but if her Majesty wishes I will leave all. I live in pain, yet spare not to occupy myself for her Majesty.” In July he writes to his son, “I can affirm nothing of my amendment, but if my attendance shall be earnestly required I will wear out my time at court as well as where I am” (State Papers, Domestic). How great and generally recognised his influence still was is seen by the depositions of what disaffected persons said of him. Prestall (Kinnersley’s deposition, State Papers, Domestic, 1591) said “the Lord Treasurer was the wizard of England, a worldling wishing to fill his own purse, and good for nobody; so hated that he would not live long if anything happened to the Queen.” “The Treasurer led the Queen and Council, and only cared about enriching himself.”

[598] Declarations of Kinnersley, Young, and Walpole (1594), State Papers, Domestic.

[599] Ibid.

[600] In accordance with the practice of the time Burghley doubtless received presents from suitors for office and others (see State Papers, Domestic); but it is on record that he frequently refused such offerings when they assumed the form of bribes to influence judicial decisions or questions of account. Above all, there is no proof that he accepted any bribes from Spain, even when almost every other Councillor of the Queen was paid by one side or the other. Several mentions are made in the Spanish State Papers of the advisability of paying him heavily, and even sums were allotted for the purpose; but I have not found a single statement of his having accepted such payments; although in after years his son certainly did so.

[601] Francis Bacon answered the book in an able pamphlet published the same year (1592), called “Observations upon a Libel published in the Present Year,” in which Lord Burghley and Sir Robert Cecil are very highly lauded.

[602] One of the loyal English Catholics, St. Mains, writing (January 1593) to Fitzherbert, says that “the Lord Treasurer has been dangerously ill, but is now well recovered, thanks be to God; for the whole state of the realm depends upon him. If he go, there is not one about the Queen able to wield the State as it stands.” The principal Catholic refugees against Spain at this period were Charles Paget, William Gifford, the Treshams, Hugh Griffith, Dr. Lewis, Bishop of Cassano, the Scottish Carthusian Bishop of Dunblane, Thomas Morgan, Thomas Hesketh, Nicholas Fitzherbert, &c.

[603] Francis was member for Middlesex, whilst his brother Antony sat for Wallingford. The Queen remained angry with Francis for many months. It was only in September that Essex with the greatest difficulty obtained permission for him to appear at court (Bacon Papers, Birch).

[604] Morice was sent to Tutbury Castle and kept there in prison for some years for making a speech in this Parliament complaining of the grievances of the Puritans. Wentworth was sent to the Tower, and Stevens and Walsh to the Fleet. Puckering, the Lord Keeper, told the House that the Queen had not called it together to make new laws; there were more than enough already. “It is, therefore, her Majesty’s pleasure that no time be spent therein” (D’Ewes).

[605] Phillips’ suggestions to Sterrell (State Papers, Domestic).

[606] Elizabeth seems to have received the first hint of his intention in May, and Lord Burghley sends an indignant letter to his son about it (26th May). He ends by saying, “If I may not have some leisure to cure my head, I shall shortly ease it in my grave; and yet if her Majesty mislike my absence, I will come thither” (Hatfield Papers, part iv.). See also letters of Sir Thomas Edmunds (State Papers, France, Record Office); and Elizabeth’s curious letters to Henry (July), signed, “Votre tres assurée sœur si ce soit à la vielle mode: avec la nouvelle je n’ay qui faire, E. R.” (Hatfield Papers).

[607] State Papers, Domestic.

[608] How deeply Lady Bacon resented her son’s friendship with Perez is seen in a letter of hers to Francis Bacon: “I pity your brother; but yet so long as he pities not himself, but keepeth that bloody Perez, yea, a court companion and a bed companion—a proud, profane, costly fellow, whose being about him I verily believe the Lord God doth mislike, and doth the less bless your brother in credit and in health. Such wretches as he is never loved your brother, but for his credit, living upon him” (Bacon Papers, Birch).

[609] Nichols’ Progresses, vol. iii.

[610] Burghley appears to have been very dangerously ill a few weeks afterwards at Windsor. Essex’s spy Standen wrote to his friend Antony Bacon (6th November) that he had gone up to the Lord Treasurer’s lodging to inquire after his health; but was refused admittance by the servants, who told him, however, that his Lordship had rested better than on the previous night. Whilst Standen “was going down the stairs, the Queen was at my back, who, unknown to me, had been visiting my Lord, so I stayed among the rest to see her Majesty pass. A little while after I met Mr. Cooke, who told me, that true it was that my Lord had somewhat rested the night past; but that this morning his Lordship had a very rigorous fit of pain, and dangerous” (Bacon Papers, Birch). We hear from the same source of similar attacks in December and January following.

[611] “I hope you will remember,” wrote Raleigh to Howard, “that it is the Queen’s honour and safety to assail rather than to defend” (Hatfield Papers).

[612] Frobisher was mortally wounded in the assault.

[613] See the extraordinary letters of Foulis, Cockburn, and other Scottish agents, to Bacon, &c., in the Bacon Papers (Birch). “Mr Bowes, the English Ambassador here (in Scotland), is very much scandalised at the behaviour of Crato (i.e. Burghley) and his son towards me, and assures me he will remonstrate with the Queen at his return,” writes Foulis to Bacon (Bacon Papers); and similar expressions in the letters of other French and Scotch agents show clearly that Essex took care to cultivate the idea that it was only the Cecils who prevented the adoption of a generous policy towards them.

[614] See the many confessions and declarations of spies and informers (1594) as to alleged plots for the murder of the Queen, Burghley, &c., at this time (State Papers, Domestic).

[615] It was here, and at Eton College, where he was lodged when the court was at Windsor, that he wrote his bitter “Relaciones” against Philip. He alleged that men were sent to London to assassinate him, and with indefatigable zeal of tongue and pen kept up and increased the ill-feeling in the court against Spain. His copious correspondence with Henry IV. leaves no doubt whatever either as to the real object of his mission or the utter baseness with which he executed it.

[616] See Burghley’s correspondence with Andrada, Da Vega, and others (State Papers, Domestic), and Mendoza’s references to the same men in the Spanish State Papers.

[617] On the way from this examination Sir Robert Cecil and Essex rode together in a coach. The former—surely to annoy Essex—reverted to a subject which had caused intense acrimony between the Earl and the Cecils for months past, namely, the appointment to the vacant Attorney-Generalship which Essex was violently urging for Francis Bacon; an appointment to which neither the Queen nor Lord Burghley would consent, although the latter was willing for him to have the Solicitor-Generalship. The abuse and insult heaped upon the Cecils behind their backs on this account by the Earl, by the scoundrel Standen, and by the Bacons themselves, may be seen in the Bacon Papers (Birch). On this occasion the violent rashness and want of tact on the part of Essex is very clear. Cecil asked him, as if the subject was new, who he thought would be the best man for the Attorney-Generalship. The Earl was astonished, and replied that he knew very well, as he, Cecil, was the principal reason why Bacon had not already been appointed. Cecil then expressed his surprise that Essex should waste his influence in seeking the appointment of a raw youth. Essex flew in a rage, and told Cecil that he was younger than Francis, and yet he aspired to a much higher post than the Attorney-Generalship, i.e. the Secretaryship of State, and then, quite losing control of himself, swore that he would have the appointment for Francis, and would “spend all my power, might, authority, and amity, and with tooth and nail procure the same against whomsoever.” The hot-headed Earl foolishly ended by an undisguised threat against Cecil and his father (Bacon Papers), which we may be sure the former, at least, did not forget, although Essex had quite changed his tone and wrote quite humbly to Cecil on the matter in the following May (Hatfield Papers). It is hardly necessary to say that Bacon was disappointed of the Attorney-Generalship.

[618] See the extensive correspondence and proceedings in the case (State Papers, Domestic, and Hatfield Papers).

[619] Cecil to Windebanke (State Papers, Domestic).

[620] Great obscurity still surrounds the case. Apart from his own alleged confession, Lopez’s condemnation depended upon the declarations of the double spies who were his accomplices, and he solemnly asserted his innocence on the scaffold. I have carefully examined all the evidence—much of it hitherto unknown—and although there is no space to enter into the matter here, I am personally convinced that the service that Lopez was to render was to poison Don Antonio—not the Queen—and bring about some sort of modus vivendi between England and Spain.

[621] Bacon Papers, Birch.

[622] Ibid.

[623] Hatfield Papers, part iv.

[624] Correspondence with Burghley, in the Hatfield Papers, part v., and State Papers, Flanders (Record Office); and with Essex, in Bacon Papers (Birch). Burghley, apparently to occupy his mind during his illness, wrote a most elaborate minute, “to be shown to her Majesty when she is disposed to be merry, to see how I am occupied in logic and neglect physic;” proving that her demands upon the States to be made by Bodley are founded upon the maxims of civil law. “If,” he says, “my hand and arm did not pain me as it doth in distempering my spirits, I would send longer argument” (Hatfield Papers, part v.). Thanks to Burghley’s persistence, terms were made with the States.

[625] Printed in Strype’s “Annals.”

[626] The Queen at this time appears to have been desirous of saving Burghley trouble. When the court was at Nonsuch (September 1595), the Council was held in his room, the Queen being present. (Bacon Papers.)

[627] That he was not idle in mind even in his greatest pain is shown by the fact that during this autumn, whilst he was almost entirely disabled, he not only continued his close attendance to State affairs, but gave a great amount of attention to the new question which was disturbing the Church, and especially setting the University of Cambridge by the ears. A Mr. Barrett, of Gonville and Caius, had preached a sermon in which the doctrine of free grace was enunciated. This was thought by many to be “Popish,” and Burghley, as Vice-Chancellor, ordered him to recant. The doctrine was eloquently defended by Burghley’s protegé, Professor Baro. Curiously enough, Whitgift, a prelate of prelates, then came out with a series of articles (called the Lambeth articles) enforcing the extreme Calvinistic doctrine of absolute predestination. Burghley was passionately appealed to by both parties, and while supporting the authority of Whitgift, expressed his dissent from the doctrine of predestination. The Queen, annoyed at the question being raised, instructed Sir Robert Cecil to stop the dispute, which had caused much trouble both to her and Burghley.

[628] Venetian State Papers.

[629] In extenso in Bacon Papers (Birch).

[630] Burghley did not prevail with the Queen at this juncture without trouble when Essex was near. In March 1596, Essex arrived at the court at Richmond, and Standen says: “The old man upon some pet would needs away against her will on Thursday last, saying that her business was ended, and he would for ten days go take physic. When she saw it booted not to stay him she said he was a froward old fool” (Bacon Papers). The following dignified letter written soon afterwards by Burghley to his son evidently refers to this incident: “My loving son, Sir Robert Cecil, knt., I do hold, and will always, this course in such matters as I differ in opinion from her Majesty. As long as I may be allowed to give advice I will not change my opinion by affirming the contrary, for that were to offend God, to whom I am sworn first; but as a servant I will obey her Majesty’s command and no wise contrary the same; presuming that she being God’s chief minister here, it shall be God’s will to have her commandments obeyed—after that I have performed my duty as a Councillor, and shall in my heart wish her commandments to have such good success as she intendeth. You see I am a mixture of divinity and policy; preferring in policy her Majesty before all others on earth, and in divinity the King of Heaven above all.” This letter seems to enshrine Burghley’s lifelong rule of conduct as a minister.

[631] Hatfield Papers, part v.

[632] Lord Burghley must be absolved from all blame for the hesitation to succour Calais. The delay and failure were entirely the fault of the Queen. Whilst Burghley held back and resisted attempts to drag England into war with Spain unnecessarily; when English interests were really at stake, as in the case of Calais, he could be as active as any one. On the 6th April, as soon as the news arrived, his secretary wrote to Robert Cecil—the Lord Treasurer being “freshly pinned” with the gout and unable to write—approving of Essex’s plan to relieve Calais; and on the 10th he writes himself, after the town had surrendered, but whilst the citadel held out: “I am heartily sorry to perceive her Majesty’s resolution to stay this voyage, being so far forward as it is; and surely I am of opinion that the citadel being relieved the town will be regained, and if for want of her Majesty’s succour it shall be lost, by judgment of the world the blame will be imputed to her.… These so many changes breed hard opinions of counsell.” Sancy and the Duke de Bouillon came to Elizabeth at Greenwich to remonstrate with her, in Henry’s name, on the effect which her demand for Calais in return for her aid had produced. Sancy had a long conversation with Burghley on the 23rd April, and the latter frankly told him that the conversion of Henry had entirely changed the situation. The only common interests now, he said, between the two countries was their vicinity. Sancy says the Lord Treasurer praised the Spaniards to the skies, to the detriment of the French. The French envoy was endeavouring to secure an offensive and defensive alliance with England, which Burghley steadily opposed. How could Henry help Elizabeth? the Treasurer asked; and what more could Elizabeth do for him than she was doing? In one of their interviews Burghley flatly told Sancy that the Queen did not intend to strengthen Henry in order that he might make an advantageous peace over her head. Sancy was shocked at such an imputation on his master’s honour, and gave a written pledge of Henry that he would never treat without England, and this was embodied in the treaty (26th May 1596). Burghley made as good terms as he could, but he never was in favour of the treaty. His letter quoted above (page 479) and his quarrel with the Queen evidently had reference to this subject.

[633] Bacon Papers.

[634] Writing from Theobalds to Robert Cecil soon after the expedition sailed from Plymouth, he says, “I came here rather to satisfy my mind by change of place, and to be less pressed by suitors, than with any hope of ease or relief.”

[635] Essex had lately, and most intemperately, been trying to force Bodley into the Secretaryship. His importunity was so great as to offend the Queen, and predisposed her against his protegés. How jealous Antony Bacon was may be seen in his letter. “Elphas peperit; so that now the old man may say, with the rich man in the gospel, ‘requiescat anima mea.’” Bacon Papers.

[636] That the reconciliation was not easy will be seen in Essex’s letters in the Bacon Papers. The Earl writes in September to Lady Russell, “Yesterday the Lord Treasurer and Sir Robert Cecil did, before the Queen, contest with me, … and this day I was more braved by your little cousin (Cecil) than ever I was by any man in my life. But I was, and am, not angry, which is all the advantage I have of him.” In the following April Essex entertained Cecil and Ralegh at dinner, “and a treaty of peace was confirmed.” During the Earl’s disgrace with the Queen shortly afterwards, Cecil appears to have behaved in a friendly manner towards him.

[637] It is curious that in the previous year, when Essex was going on the Cadiz expedition, Bellièvre, the French minister, expressed an opinion that “his appointment is a suggestion of the Lord Treasurer, in order to divert the Queen from sending aid to his Majesty (Henry IV.), and to get rid of the Earl of Essex on the pretext of this honourable appointment, which would leave him (Burghley) master of the Council.” It is fair to say that the Venetian ambassador who transmits this opinion, expresses his disbelief in it. Venetian State Papers.

[638] That the sagacious Bacon saw and foretold the consequences of Essex’s willingness to absent himself in risky enterprises, is evident from his letters to the Earl in October 1596 (Bacon’s Works, ed. Montagu, vol. 9).

[639] There were about 120 ships, English and Dutch, and a force of some 6000 men, including 1000 English veterans from the Low Countries, led by the gallant Sir Francis Vere.

[640] State Papers, Domestic.

[641] State Papers, Domestic.

[642] State Papers, Domestic.

[643] Ibid.

[644] Ibid.

[645] De Maisse, the French peace envoy to England, wrote, “These people are still dwelling on their imagination of the house of Burgundy, … but it does not please them to have so powerful a neighbour as the King of Spain.”

[646] Full particulars of his embassy will be found in his Journal, in the Archives de la Ministère des affaires étrangères, Paris, partly reproduced in Prévost-Paradol’s “Elizabeth et Henry IV.”

[647] For Cecil’s account of his embassy see Bacon Papers, Birch. There are also a great number of papers and letters on the subject of the mission in Cotton Vesp., cviii., and B.M. MSS. Add. 25,416.

[648] State Papers, Domestic.

[649] Chamberlain Letters, Camden Society.

[650] The Venetian Ambassador in France writes at this time (24th July): “The States are sending three representatives to England to urge the Queen to continue the war, as in her councils there are not wanting those who recommend this course, chiefly the Earl of Essex; but the Lord Treasurer is opposed, and, more important still, the Queen herself is inclined to peace.”

[651] Desiderata Curiosa.

[652] A superficial observer, Dudley Carlton, writes a few days after Burghley’s death: “There is so much business to be thought of on the Lord Treasurer’s death. The Queen was so prepared for it by the small hopes of recovery that she takes it not over heavily, and gives ears to her suitors. The great places are in a manner passed before his death.” (State Papers, Dom.)

[653] The full arrangements for the funeral will be found in the State Papers, Domestic, of the 29th August (Record Office). After the funeral at Westminster, the body was carried with great state to Stamford and buried at St. Martin’s Church, in accordance with the will. Dr. Nares appears to be in doubt as to whether the interment was at Westminster or Stamford, but the State Papers seem to admit of no question on the point.

[654] Lytton to Carlton (State Papers, Domestic).

[655] Chamberlain Letters.