“My good Lord,
“For that I perceive your Lordship takes God’s handiwork thankfully, and for the best, doubt not but God will increase you with many good children, which I wish with all my heart. And where it pleases you to put me in mind of Gilbert Talbot, as though I should remember his case by my own, truly, my Lord, they greatly vary. For my son, I never dissuaded him from loving his wife, though he hath said he must either forsake me, or hate his wife, this he gives out, which is false and untrue. This I think is his duty; that, seeing I have forbad him for coming to my wicked and malicious wife, who hath set me at naught in his own hearing, that contrary to my commandment, hath both gone and sent unto her daily by his wife’s persuasion, yea and hath both written and carried letters to no mean personages in my wife’s behalf. These ill dealings would he have salved by indirect reports, for in my life did I never seek their separation; for the best ways I have to content myself is to think it is his wife’s wicked persuasion and her mother’s together, for I think neither barrel better herring of them both. This my misliking to them both argues not that I would have my son make so hard a construction of me that I would have him hate his wife, though I do detest her mother. But to be plain, he shall either leave his indirect dealings with my wife, seeing I take her as my professed enemy, or else indeed will I do that to him I would be loth, seeing I have heretofore loved him so well; for he is the principal means and countenance she has, as he uses the matter, which is unfit; yet will I not be so unnatural in deeds as he reports in words, which is that I should put from him the principal things belonging to the Earldom. He hath been a costly child to me, which I think well bestowed if he come here again in time. He takes the way to spoil himself with having his wife at London; therefore if you love him, persuade him to come down with his wife and settle himself in the country; for otherwise, during his abode with his wife at London, I will take the £200 I give him yearly besides alienating my good will from him, ... If he allege it be her Majesty’s pleasure to command him to wait, let his wife come home, as more fit it is for her.
“The assurance of your Lordship’s faithful friendship towards me hath, by so many years’ growth, taken so deep root as it cannot now fade nor decay, neither any new friendship take my faithful goodwill away, as time and occasion shall try; and so hoping your Lordship will be satisfied without further doubt or scruple therein, I commend your Lordship to the discretion of the Almighty.”
This letter is not signed by Shrewsbury, but simply endorsed: “The copy of my letter of 8th Aug., 1584,” which fixes the date.
That the dignified George Talbot should stoop to such a slang expression as “neither barrel better herring” in regard to his once adored and brilliant Countess shows the complete wreckage of all their joy, their high comradeship, their mutual reverence.
Into the same confessional, the ear of the astute Treasurer, Bess Shrewsbury poured out her side, writing from Hardwick on August 2nd: her husband was using her very hardly, he sought to take Chatsworth from her, he had induced her son Henry to deal most unnaturally with her, wherefore she hoped that Burghley would remonstrate, as his letters would do more with the Earl than those of any other living person, etc. etc. A little over a fortnight after, the Earl, who had already given his version of the Chatsworth affair, placed details of the “insolent behaviour” of William Cavendish before the Privy Council. The State Papers show that the Council took prompt action here, but to their reply informing the Earl of the committal of William to prison, and expressing their opinion that it was not meet that a man of his mean quality should use himself in a contemptuous sort against one of his Lordship’s station and quality, they add a clause stating that the Queen desired that “he should suffer the Cavendishes to enjoy their own lands unmolested.”
To all this quarrel over possessions, which reads for all the world like a prolonged act out of a new version of the ancient drama All-for-Money, was added the distasteful business of the now flourishing scandal about Queen Mary and the Earl. Doubtless his wife and stepsons were ready to bite out their tongues by the time the scandal they apparently fostered of his intimacy with Mary of Scots was generally known. Though their nerves were less sensitive they could not but see that the affair was passing beyond their control and that only harm could ensue. The time was approaching when they must be publicly called to account. Meanwhile lesser persons were already being interrogated. The actual details of the slander are located in the extract from a letter in diary[[72]] form written by the Recorder of London, William Fletewood, to Lord Burghley:—
“Thursdaie,[[73]] the next daie after, we kept the generall sessions at Westminster Hall for Middlesex. Surelie it was very great! We satt the whole daie and the next after also at Fynsburie. At this sessions one Cople and one Baldwen my Lord of Shrewsburie’s gent. required me that they might be suffered to indict one Walmesley of Islyngton an Inn-holder for scandilation of my Lord their master. They shewed me two papers. The first was under the clerk of the council’s hand of my Lord’s purgation, in the which your good Lordship’s speeches are specially set downn. The second paper was the examinations of divers witnesses taken by Mr. Harris; the effect of all which was that Walmesley should tell his guests openlie at the table that the Erle of Shrowsbury had gotten the Scottish Quene with child, and that he knew where the child was christened, and it was alleged that he should further adde that my Lord should never go home agayne, with lyke wordes, etc. An indictement was then drawne by the clerk of the peace the which I thought not good to have published, or[[74]] that the evidence should be given openlie, and therefore I caused the jurie to go to a chamber, where I was, and heard the evidence given, amongst whom one Merideth Hammer, a doctor of divinitie and Vicar of Islyngton was a witnes, who had dealt as lewdlie towards my Lord in speeches as did the other, viz. Walmeslye. This doctor regardeth not an oathe. Surelie he is a very bad man: but in the end the indictement was indorsed Billa Vera.”
Of course this true bill was satisfactory in one sense. At the same time mud sticks, and the publicity of such a case always helps to arouse wider interest in the possible rumours. Both Queen Mary and the Earl were rampant and eager for a proper official enquiry. She even sent a message to Elizabeth on the subject when in committee with an emissary of the Queen in regard to other matters. This talk was duly noted down and is included among the Marian MSS.:—
“She thanked her Majesty for the promise to punish the authors of the slanders against her; Toplif [Topcliff] was one, and Charles Candish another; the Countess of Shrewsbury did not bear her that goodwill which the Queen supposed, ‘who with her divers times laughed at such reports, and now did accuse her. It touched his Lordship as well as her, wherefore she trusted as a nobleman he would regard his house.’ She wished this to be signified to the Lord Treasurer, Leicester, and Walsingham, desiring their favour in this suit.”