VII. FACTIONS IN THE ENGLISH PRIVY COUNCIL UNDER ELIZABETH. By CONYERS READ, 109 FACTIONS IN THE ENGLISH PRIVY COUNCIL UNDER ELIZABETH. By CONYERS READ. Broadly speaking, the English Privy Council under Elizabeth had two kinds of functions to perform. It had to help the Queen formulate her policy upon all matters to which the royal prerogative extended, and it served as her principal instrument for putting that policy into action. In a word, it was both advisory and executive. The scope of its work has been enlarged upon too many times to need repetition. Its manner of working is less perfectly known. The Queen herself apparently never attended its meetings. When she wished its advice she laid the matters for consideration before it through one of its own members, generally through the principal secretary. The discussion was probably quite informal. It is difficult to say in what manner the sense of the Council upon particular questions was ascertained, and how this was conveyed to the Queen. Since the attendance at Council meetings did not average above seven, formal methods of procedure could be pretty easily dispensed with. It is quite clear, however, that Elizabeth never felt herself under any obligations to consult her Council at large. She sought its advice when she saw fit, but she reserved many, delicate questions for the ears of a select few from among its members. Such questions very frequently never reached the Privy Council as a whole at all. The same thing was true of her attitude toward the Council in its executive capacity. Much of its business was, of course, more or less formal and all such it disposed of as a body. Furthermore, there were certain departments of the administration to which individual councillors, by virtue of their special offices, attended. The lord high treasurer, for instance, had general oversight of the finances, and the principal secretaries took charge of most of the correspondence. But a good deal of important administrative work fell outside these assignments. In coping with it the Queen used her councillors without much regard to their formal positions. Naturally those who proved to be most efficient had most to do. Like all the Tudors, Elizabeth had a fine eye for a capable servant and she singled out her ablest councillors to do all her most difficult work without much regard either for their predilections or their powers of endurance. No doubt, from the beginning of her reign to the end, marked differences of opinion revealed themselves among the members of the Privy Council. It was desirable and indeed inevitable that it should have been so. To investigate these differences in detail would involve a review of the whole course of her policy at home and abroad. Such is not my purpose. I intend to confine myself to certain general observations upon the subject during the period between 1574 and 1588, when the three most conspicuous of Elizabeth's councillors, Burghley, Leicester, and Walsingham, were working together in the Council-a period, moreover, during which the main features of her policy were pretty clearly defined. In January, 1574, the Privy Council consisted of seventeen members, of whom, however, only thirteen were in anything like regular attendance at the Council meetings. Of these thirteen, seven were peers and six commoners. The peers were the Earls of Bedford, of Arundel, of Lincoln, of Sussex, of Leicester, and of Warwick, and Lord Burghley. Of these all except Bedford and Arundel held important offices at court. Lincoln and Arundel had sat in the Council of Queen Mary. Burghley had been secretary of state under Edward VI. The rest began their careers as privy councillors under Elizabeth. The six commoners all held office at court. Sir Nicholas Bacon was lord keeper of the great seal; Sir James Crofts, comptroller of the household; Sir Francis Knollys, vice chamberlain and treasurer of the household; Sir Walter Mildmay, who sat only occasionally, chancellor of the exchequer; Sir Thomas Smith and Francis Walsingham, principal secretaries. Of these, Smith had been secretary of state under Edward VI. The rest were new men. Such was the group of councillors that sat around Elizabeth's council table in January, 1574. They represented fairly well the character of the Privy Council during the next fifteen years. There were, however, several important changes in its personnel during this period which should be noted. Bacon and Smith both died before 1580, and Sir Thomas Bromley and Sir Thomas Wilson took their places. Sussex died in 1583, and Lord Howard of Effingham succeeded him as lord chamberlain the next year, to become lord high admiral upon Lincoln's death, in 1585. Lord Hunsdon, first cousin to the Queen and governor of Berwick, was made privy councillor in 1577; Sir Christopher Hatton in 1578. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Cobham, and Lord Buckhurst were added early in 1586. There were other changes also; but these were the most significant ones. It has been pointed out already that all the councillors did not play an equally important part in the service of the Crown. There appears to have existed, in fact, within the Privy Council a kind of cabinet of men whom the Queen trusted above their fellows and who were, under her, chiefly responsible for the formulation and execution of her policy. Of these the principal figure was Lord Burghley, and the others Leicester, Sussex, Walsingham, Bacon, Hunsdon, and Hatton. Even in this smaller group Bacon and Hunsdon and Hatton were less important than the rest. Some of these men, like Burghley and Walsingham, were singled out because of their ability; others, like Leicester and Hatton, because they were dear to the Queen's heart. Officially, they were on the same plane with the other councillors; practically, they dominated the council and determined, so far as their imperious mistress permitted, the policy of the Crown. If it be true, and contemporary evidence leaves little room for doubt about the matter, that these men did dominate the Council, it follows a fortiori that their attitude determined the existence of factions within that body. From divisions in their ranks factions must spring, and could certainly only gain significance among their colleagues at large if countenanced by their support. It will be pertinent, therefore, in this connection to examine their relations to one another and to the big questions, domestic and foreign, which they had to face and tried to solve. The obvious point of departure lies in the inveterate antagonism of Burghley and Leicester. Both of these men had a powerful influence over the Queen. She called Burghley her "spirit" and Leicester her "sweet Robin." One might perhaps say that Burghley appealed to her mind and Leicester to her heart, and that they exemplified the proverbial opposition of these two organs. It is certain that each one continually tried to displace the other from his position of influence. The contest between them began at the very beginning of Elizabeth's reign and ended only with Leicester's death. It seems to have sprung in the first place from Leicester's ambition to marry the Queen, which Burghley was determined to thwart and probably was largely instrumental in thwarting. It was embittered by an attempt, which Leicester undoubtedly abetted, to turn Burghley out of power in 1569. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that on most questions, domestic and foreign, Leicester and Burghley took opposite sides. One must not, however, make the mistake of supposing that the difference between them was entirely a personal one. It may have originated in a private quarrel, but it owed its persistence to the fact that these two men, radically different in temperament as they were, came to represent opposing views as to the methods and aims of Elizabethan policy which divided the Privy Council at large. The personal antipathy merely added an element of bitterness to issues far more fundamental; issues which were at bottom not per |