[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.