It would only be appropriate to begin this section with Frank Burgoyne’s Introduction 2 to which offers some insight on what we shall be investigating.

This historical work here reproduced [1904] throws considerable light upon the life of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, and the political history of the reign of Elizabeth I. The book was printed on the Continent in 1584. Where, is unknown, but probably at Antwerp. It was first published under the title ‘Copie of a Leter Wryten by a Master of Arte of Cambrige to his friend in London.’ The interest excited by its issue was considerable.

In 1585, the year following its publication, it was translated into French and a Latin version was also published at Naples in the same year. These editions, although printed on the Continent must have had a considerable, circulation in England, for the Queen in Council on June 20, 1585 found it necessary to repudiate the assertions contained in the work. In a letter addressed to the Magistrates of Cheshire, she writes:

“Her Highness not only knoweth to assured certainty the books and libels against the said Earl to be most malicious, false and scandalous, and such as none but an incarnate devil himself could dream to be true.”

There is no doubt that careful watch was kept for the book at the various ports, and many copies were seized and destroyed. This led to extensive copying of the work in England and its circulation in manuscript; there being many more contemporary manuscript copies now in existence than copies of the printed book.

Anthony Wood never saw a copy of the first issue, and writes respecting it, that he thought it was first printed in 1600; and the great collector Thomas Grenville wrote in a manuscript copy, now preserved in the British Museum 3 “I never heard of more than one copy having been in print of this first edition, so carefully was it suppressed.” The book has been described 4 as “one of the most inveterate and scurrilous libels which the religious dissensions of the times, prolific as they were, had produced. In its pages everything was raked together which the tongue of scandal had uttered to the disparagement of the exalted statesman whom it strove to overwhelm with obloquy, and where that was silent the imagination of the writer was not slow in filling up the void, and in supplying materials which were characterized by all the venom and rancour that the most ruthless hatred could suggest.”

In its pages Leicester is depicted as an inhuman monster. He is accused of attempting to gather in his hands the reins of government, by filling all offices of trust about the Queen with his friends. He is full of ‘dissimulation, hypocrisy, adultery, falsehood, treachery, rebellion, treason, cowardice, atheism, and what not.’ He is said to be unscrupulous in his methods, and to have practiced the Italian art of poisoning upon many who stood between him and his ambitions.

It is in this book that the tragic story of the death of his wife, Amy Robsart, was first related and the Earl charged with her murder a crime that the generally accepted opinion of the time attributed to him. Ashmole in his Antiquities of Berkshire states that “when Dr. Babington, the Earl’s Chaplain, did preach the funeral sermon, he tripped once or twice in his speech, by recommending to their memories that virtuous lady so pitifully murdered, instead of saying pitifully slain.” The event is also alluded to in the play, The Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) where a husband kills his wife by throwing her downstairs, and says:

The surest way to charm a woman’s tongue
Is, break her neck a politician did it.

An indignant answer to the Commonwealth was penned by Leicester’s nephew, Sir Philip Sidney. It is characteristic of the writer and his times that he does not attempt to answer any of the charges made against his uncle, but confines himself to the vindication of the lineage of his maternal ancestors.

The authorship of the work has never been settled. At the time of publication, and for some years afterwards, it was attributed to Robert Parsons, 5 the Jesuit Missionary and controversialist, so much so that it was colloquially termed by his contemporaries, ‘Father Parsons Greencoat.’ This was in allusion to the somewhat unusual colour of the binding and edges of the book. It is interesting to note that one of the two copies preserved in the British Museum, still retains the colour upon its edges. The second copy (the Grenville) has, however, been recently rebound, and mirabile dictu, the edges have been carefully gilt, and this distinctive feature of the work destroyed.

Walpole wrote 6 “It was pretended that [Burghley] furnished the hints for that composition [Leycesters Commonwealth] to Parsons the Jesuit. This assertion was never proved: it ought to be before it deserves any credit. Leicester was a bad man, but would that justify Cecil in employing one of his mistress’ bitterest enemies to write against one of her ministers?”

A letter has been preserved in the manuscript collections of William Cole, now in the British Museum, in which the authorship of the book is discussed. It is addressed to the Rev. Dr. Mosse, at Gray’s Inn, and signed C.A. Internal evidence is adduced to prove that Parsons could not have written the work and Dr. Mosse notes upon the back of the letter that “Parsons, many years after the death of L[eicester] denies himself to be author of it. In short the author is very uncertain, and for anything that appears in it, it may as well be a Protestant’s, as a Papist’s. I should rather think it the work of some subtle Courtier, who, for safety got it printed abroad, and sent into England under the name of Parsons.”

The bibliography of the book is short and simple. As has already been stated, it was first printed in 1584, in a small octavo of 202 pages. 7 The book was not reprinted until 1641, when one edition in quarto and two in small octavo were printed. It is now impossible to say why this sudden rush of popularity occurred during that stormy year, but the reprint excited the animosity of the Government, and an attempt was made to suppress the work. There has been preserved in the Public Record Office a letter to the Wardens of the Company of Stationers, dated October 13, 1641 in which the writer, Edward Nicholas, states:

“I hear there is now printing at one Dawson’s, a printer in Thames Street, a book called Leicester’s Commonwealth, which I am told is very scandalous to divers of the Lord’s ancestors, and a book unfit to be divulged. I pray give order forthwith to stay the printing or dispersing of any of those books until the Lords of Parliament or the Lords of the Council shall meet.”

The small octavo edition of 1641 was twice issued, the first issue consisting of 194 pages, and has the first word spelt ‘Leycesters.’ For the second issue a new title-page was printed and the first word is spelt ‘Leicesters’ and the sentence ‘whereunto is added Leicester’s Ghost’ is inserted.

The poem Leicester’s Ghost is placed at the end of the Commonwealth, and is separately paged from 1 to 34. A quarto edition of the poem was also printed in 1641 and is occasionally found bound up with the quarto editions of the Commonwealth.

The work was reprinted by Dr. Drake in 1706 in an octavo volume, and a second edition was issued during the same year. The editor ignored the issues of 1641 and states that he printed from a manuscript copy. The title under which he issued the work was ‘Secret Memoirs of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.’ A third edition was issued in 1708 with the title ‘The perfect picture of a Favourite,’ and the same book was re-issued dated 1721. 8

Leaving Burgoyne’s Introduction, we delve somewhat into the history surrounding this peculiar book before we head out, just briefly, into its content and possible discovery of authorship.

The Society of Lincoln’s Inn has in its library a very large number of pamphlets and other publications that are included in the general catalogue, 9 but the bulk of them had not been catalogued according to modern requirements, though a manuscript slip-catalogue rendered them available to a certain extent. Within that manuscript slip-catalogue are to be found some works of Sir Francis Bacon to which and entry is of use to us in order to proceed:

1641: Leycester’s Commonwealth, 4to, pp. v, 182. 1641. Brydall, 24. Fo. 162. Usually but wrongly attributed to Robert Parsons the Jesuit. A copy of this work was discovered in the Northumberland Manuscript

This is the same quarto edition that Burgoyne printed from in 1904. In 1867, James Spedding 10 discovered the most fascinating (to that date) Elizabethan treasures which he publicly offered and wrote a full account of, in his Conference of Pleasure published in 1870. It gives description of how the Northumberland Manuscript was brought into his hands. It would be too long to add his entire description here, and we only give his notice to that which interests us:

“And Leycester’s Commonwealth fills up the remainder of the volume. The titles which follow have nothing corresponding to them in this manuscript, but probably indicate the contents of another of the same kind, one attached to this, and now lost. If such a one should ever turn up, which is far from impossible, it will probably be found to contain:

1. The conclusion of Leycester’s commonwealth.
2. The speeches of the six councillors to the Prince of Purpoole at the Gray’s Inn revels 1594, 11 of which Orations at Graie’s Inne revells would be a correct description, and an independent manuscript would be valuable; for the printed copy in Gesta Grayorum is full of errors.
3. Something of Bacon’s about the Queen, or addressed to her, the particulars of which I cannot make out.
4. A copy of Bacon’s Essays in their earliest form; that is, as printed in 1597.
5. Copies of Shakespeare’s plays of Richard II., and Richard III.
6. A piece called Asmund and Cornelia, of which I cannot hear that anything is known.
7. A play called the Isle of Dogs, of which the induction and the first act were written by Thomas Nashe, and the rest by the players; but of which no copy has been found.

Going back to Elizabeth’s reign, upon receiving news of the book’s circulation, certain letters left from the Lords of the Council to Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange; William Chaderton, Lord Bishop of Chester, and all the other Justices of Lancashire and Cheshire: 12

After our very hearty commendations; upon intelligence given to her Majesty last past, of certain seditious and traitorous books and libels covertly spread and scattered abroad in sundry parts of her realms and dominions; it pleased her Highness to publish a Proclamation throughout the realm, for the suppressing of the same, and [for the] due punishment of the authors, spreaders-abroad, and detainers of them, in such sort and form as, in the said Proclamation, is more at large contained.

Sentence which time notwithstanding her Highness hath certainly known, that the very same and divers other such like most slanderous, shameful, and devilish books and libels have been continually spread abroad and kept by disobedient persons, to the manifest contempt of her Majesty’s Regal authority: and namely, among the rest, one most infamous; containing notorious slanderous and hateful matter against her right trusty and right well beloved Cousin the Earl of Leicester, one of her principal Noblemen & chief Counselors of Estate; of which most malicious and wicked imputations her Majesty in her own clear knowledge, doth declare and testify his innocence to all the world; and, to that effect, hath written her gracious letters, signed with her own hand, to the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen of London (where it is likely these books would chiefly be cast abroad.) We therefore (to follow the course taken by her Majesty, and knowing manifestly the wickedness and falsehood of these slanderous devises against the said Earl) have thought good to notify her further pleasure and our own consciences to you in this case.

First, that (as in truth her Majesty hath noted great slackness and remissness in the former execution of her commandment) forasmuch as the said seditious libels have been suffered since that time to be spread abroad, divided and kept by contemptuous persons, without severe and due punishment inflicted for the same; so now, upon this second charge and admonition given unto you, she verily looketh for the most strict and precise observation thereof, in the sharpest manner that may be devised; testifying in her conscience before God unto you, that her Highness not only knoweth, in assured certainty, the books and libels against the said Earl to be most malicious, false, and slanderous; and such as none but a devil himself could dream to be true: but also think it to be, of the fullness of malice, subtitle contrived to the note and discredit of her princely government of this Realm; as though her Majesty should have failed in good judgment and discretion in the choice of so principal a Counselor about her, or be without taste or care of all justice and conscience, in suffering much heinous and monstrous crimes (as by the said books and libels be infamously imputed) to pass unpunished; or finally, at the least, to want either good-will, ability, or courage (if she knew these enormities were true), to any subject of hers whatsoever to render sharp accompte of them, according to the force and effect of her laws: all which defects (God be thanked) we, and all good subjects, to our unspeakable comforts, do know and have found to be far off from the nature and virtue of her most excellent Majesty.

As of the other side, both her Highness (of her certain knowledge) and we, [to] do his Lordship but right, of our sincere consciences must needs affirm, these strange and abominable crimes to be raised of a wicked and venomous malice against the said Earl; of whose good service, sincerity of religion, and all other faithful dealings towards her Majesty and the Realm, we have had long and true experience.

Which things considered, and withal knowing it to be a usual trade of traitorous mind (when they would render the Prince’s Government odious) to detract and bring out of credit the principal persons about them; her Highness (taking the abuse to be offered to her own self) hath commanded us to notify the same unto you; to send that, knowing her good pleasure, you may proceed therein, as in a matter highly touching her own estate and honour.

And therefore we wish and require you to have regard thereof accordingly; that the former negligence and remissness showed in the execution of her Majesty’s commandment may be amended by the diligence and severity that shall be hereafter used. Which amendment and carefulness in this cause chiefly her Majesty assuredly looketh for, and will call for accompte of, at your hand.

And so we bid you heartily farewell.
From the Courte at Greenwich, this xx of June, 1585.

Your very loving friends,
T. Bromley, Canc.       F. Bedford.     H. Sydney.
W. Burghley.               C. Haward.     Chr. Hatton.
Geo. Shrewsbury.       J. Hunsdon.     Fr. Walsingham.
H. Derby.                    F. Knollys.      Wal. Myldmay.

To our very good Lords, the Lord Strange, and the Bishop of Chester; and to our loving friends the rest of the Justices of the Peace in the counties of Lancaster and Chester.

Numerous were the libelous squibs which called for the Proclamation mentioned in the above letter. The Queen was anxious to vindicate her favourite from the slanders thrown out against him; and with this view caused the letter (here stated) to be written from the Lords of the Council, notwithstanding Burghley was one of them. It appears by this letter that the Earl of Leicester had such powerful interest with the Queen, as to prevail with her to write her letters to the same effect, and signed by her, to the Lord Mayor, Sheriff, and Aldermen of London, where it was likely these books would be chiefly cast abroad.

The interested parties we need to check into regarding this ‘libel’ are Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, and the anonymous author(s), presumably Robert Parsons, the Jesuit, and Burghley. We deal first with the Earl being accused:

Leicester’s family is a remarkable instance of the fickleness of fortune. His grandfather, Sir Edmund Dudley, was beheaded in 1510, as a sacrifice to the importunate clamours of the people. His father, John, was soon after restored in blood by King Henry VIII., and raised successively to be Viscount Lisle, Earl of Warwick, and Duke of Northumberland; but likewise lost his head in 1553, for rebelling against Queen Mary, and ambitiously marrying his son, Lord Guildford Dudley, to the Lady Jane Grey; and Lord Robert Dudley, another of the Duke’s sons, was imprisoned by Queen Mary, arraigned at Guildhall of high treason, and, confessing his indictment, had judgment given him by the Earl of Sussex, to be drawn, hanged, bowelled, and quartered; 13 but was afterwards restored by her to his honour and estate, on account of his youth.

On August 15, 1551 Leicester was sworn one of the six Gentlemen of the Bed-chamber to King Edward VI., and Sir John Hayward, in his Life of this King, says, that after his entertainment into a place of so near service, the King enjoyed his health not long. But this is too severe an accusation of him, as he was then only nineteen, and could not at that early age be suspected, with the least probability, of so horrid a crime as the poisoning his Royal Master.

Immediately after Queen Mary’s death, in 1558, this young Nobleman went to the Princess Elizabeth (who was then at Hatfield), mounted on a snow-white steed, being well skilled in riding a managed horse; and paid homage to her on his knees. His beauty, stature, and florid youth, were such powerful recommendations, that she made him Master of the Horse, and conferred on him titles and estates.
He was high in the favour of Queen Elizabeth, who out of royal and princely clemency heaped honours upon him, and saved his life whose father would have destroyed hers:

“Whether this was from any real virtues in him, whereof he gave some appearances; or in regard of the common lot of their imprisonment in Queen Mary’s days; or that there was something in his birth, or the planets that ruled it, which occasioned a mysterious sympathy between their souls,” says Camden, “I cannot determine: but most certain it is, that the favour or disfavour of Princes to several persons is governed by a secret kind of fatality. For the Queen having made him Master of the Horse, as the first token of her friendship and esteem, she made him Knight of the Garter (to the amazement of all) in the first year of her reign.” 14

In 1564, Leicester was created Baron of Denbigh and Earl. He was a person of fine shape and proportion, of exact neatness, a generous Patron of Arts and Arms, and a most complete Courtier. Besides, he was of a temper pleasant and popular, very shy and reserved to his suspected enemies, had in his youthful days been very complaisant to the ladies, and, when he grew older, expressed a strange fondness for marriage.

In the Summer of 1572 the Queen made a long-extended Progress, through Essex, Herttfordshhe, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, and thence to Warwick and Killingworth; and Holinshed, in his Chronicle, after noticing her Majesty’s visits to the Lord Treasurer Burghley, at Theobalds; Sir Anthony Bacon, at Gorhambury; and Francis Russel, second son of the Earl of Bedford, at Woburn, adds,

“She was also at Kenilworth, the seat of the Earl of Leicester, another of her great Peers, where she was most splendidly entertained in the month of August.”

One of the last important events in the life of this great favourite was his attending the Queen at Tilbury, at the memorable period of the threatened invasion, in August 1588; soon after which, in his return to Kenilworth, he was taken ill of a fever, though some suspected he died of poison, and reported that his wife served him as he had served others. He died on September 4, 1589. His corpse was removed to Warwick, arid interred in the Beauchamp Chapel; where, on the North side, is a handsome monument, of four Corinthian pillars, supporting an entablature, under which is an arch, over the figures of an Earl in his coronet, plated armor and mantle, and of his Countess in her coronet and mantle of Ermine, on a table of marble, enclosed with iron rails.

It remains doubtful regarding his children and whether he left any legitimate or not. In Sir Robert Naunton’s words,

“He was a very godly person, and singular well featured, and as his youth well favoured, and of a sweet aspect, but high forehead, which, as I should take it, was of no discommendation: but towards his latter end (which with old men, was but a middle age) he grew high coloured and red faced.” 15

In Henry Holland’s Heroologia, P. 76, it is said that his countenance was handsome, his stature upright and tall, his face full of dignity and majesty (as his picture there represents him); and that in his conversation he was affable and engaging. And Grotius allows him a certain engaging majesty, both in his face, and in his discourse. This is the character he is supposed to give of himself, in the Poem, Leicester’s Ghost:

My brain had wit, my tongue was eloquent,
Fit to discourse or tell a courtly tale
My presence portly, brave, magnificent;
My words imperious, stout, substantial;
My gestures loving, kind, heroicall;
My thoughts ambitious, proud, and full of ire
My deeds were good or bad, as times require.

From Sir James Melville we learn that Queen Elizabeth could not forbear publicly showing her partial favour to him:

“I was required,” he says, “to stay till I should see him made Earl of Leicester, and Baron of Denbigh, which was done at Westminster with great solemnity, the Queen herself helping to put on his ceremonial investments, he sitting upon his knees before her with great gravity. But she could not refrain from putting her hand in his neck, smilingly tickling him, the French Ambassador and I standing by. Then she turned, asking at me, ‘How I liked him’: 16 Certainly this was a great freedom to be taken by a Lady of thirty. She showed also the particular regard she had for him, by writing with her own hand on the paper in which was wrapped the picture of the Earl of Leicester, My Lord’s Picture.”

The Queen was once desirous of making him her husband; yet submitted the gratifying her passion for him to prevailing reasons against it: and at one time he so far flattered himself in these ambitious views (to which his brother Lord Guildford Dudley, having been near the Crown, might not a little conduce) as to procure his first wife

“to be got out of the way, by having her neck broke in a fall down stairs; but this accident raising some suspicion, the Earl caused her to be buried a second time in the University Church at Oxford, with great pomp and solemnity, and her funeral Sermon to be made by his Chaplain Dr. Babington, who unhappily tripped twice in his Speech by recommending to their memories that virtuous Lady so pitifully murdered, instead of so pitifully slain.” 17

Regarding this event, the funeral of Amy Robsart took place at the Church of Our Lady at Oxford, on Sunday, September 22, 1560 of which may be found among the Dugdale MSS., in the Ashmolean Collection. In whatever manner the death of Leicester’s wife took place, it is certain that, on his becoming a widower, his ambition raised him to the hopes of marrying the Queen; and that there was a general opinion, both at home and abroad, of her Majesty’s inclination to the match. Indeed it was not disclaimed by Elizabeth herself. The Queen took many pains to vindicate Leicester from the aspersions that were cast upon him. An instance of that may be found in her answer to Mr. Jones, who had been sent with despatches from Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, then Ambassador in France, who says that, in reference to the report that Lord Robert had caused his wife to be privately murdered,

“She thereupon told me that the matter had been tried in the country, [Coroner’s Inquest] and found to be contrary to that which was reported, saying that he was then in the Court, and none of his at the attempt at his wife’s house, and that it fell out as should neither touch his honesty nor her honour.”

Some years afterwards (in 1585) letters signed by Burghley and the rest of the Council were sent to the justices of the peace for the suppression of the libels in circulation against Leicester, and a letter with the Queen’s sign manual was sent to the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen of London, to the same effect.

That Leycester’s Commonwealth was a most virulent libel, everyone must admit. Yet Ashmole, whose statement has been quoted by most subsequent writers, not satisfied with adopting the ‘Commonwealth story’ as his own, has added some statements at direct variance with the truth, for instance,

“That as soon as ever she was murdered, they made great haste to bury her, before the Coroner had given in his Inquest (which the Earl himself condemned, as not done advisedly) which her father, or Sir John Robertsett (as I suppose) bearing of, came with all speed thither, caused her corpse to be taken up, the Coroner to sit upon her, and further enquiry to be made concerning this business to the full, but it was generally thought that the Earl stopped his mouth, and made up the business betwixt them.”

It so happens that her father, Sir John Robsart, had then been dead above three years, for Leicester came into possession of the Robsart estates in January 1557. Then, again,

“That as soon as ever she was murdered, they made great hast to bury her, before the Coroner” and her father “caused her corpse to be taken up, the Coroner to sit upon her”.

The Commonwealth story says,

“My good Lord would needs have her taken up again and reburied.”

All which is evidently false; there is nothing in Leicester’s letters to Blount to warrant such an inference. 18

On account of her Elizabeth’s partiality to him, she suffered greatly in her reputation, and she was informed of it; for Sir Nicholas Throgmorton, her Ambassador in France, wrote to her,

“that he heard reported at Duke Montmorance’s table, that the Queen of England had a meaning to marry her Horse keeper; but for this the Earl, her Master of the Horse, invited Sir Nicholas to supper, and gave him a sallet; the fatal effects of which soon put an end to his life.” 19

Leicester was always ambitious of obtaining the favour of the Learned. In 1563 he became High Steward to the University of Cambridge, and in 1564 the Earl was chosen Chancellor of Oxford. Goeffrey Whitney, in his dedication to him of A choice of Emblemes (1586), compliments him on this subject, and tells him, that

“Knowing there needeth no apology to be made unto your honour, in the behalf of learning: whose noble mind hath been so addicted to the same these many years, that divers, who are now famous men, had been, through poverty, long since discouraged from their studies, if they had not found your honour so prone to be their patron.”

When this fortunate Earl was first raised to his honours, he, by his mild and submissive behaviour, made himself universally beloved: and was as eminent for his courage as his mildness. His charitable foundations at Warwick and Coventry are celebrated by Christopher Ocland and his great liberality in Laneham’s Letter. 20

His gaiety appears by having one of the best dances of that age called from his title ‘The Leicester Dance.’ He was the first of all Englishmen that ever used the title of ‘His Excellency’ which was given him by the Dutch, 21

“till Leicester’s days none of the Privy Council is found to have received pensions from foreign Princes.” 22

Winstanley says, that the Earl of Leicester seemed wiser than he was; that Sir Nicholas Bacon was wiser than he seemed to be; and Lord Hunsdon neither was nor seemed wise. 23 It would take up too much room to speak particularly of his haughty temper, his dissembled zeal for religion, and great show of pretended piety, and his skill in the arts of dissimulation; being, in the words of Sir Henry Wotton,

“wont to put all his passions in his pockets”, 24

and it would fill too many pages to transcribe the various instances of his lust, and numerous vices, already collected by a writer contemporary with him, 25 who, even when he seemed to be Fortune’s and the Queen’s chief Favourite, spared not disgracefully to defame him; yet, says Camden, not without a mixture of some untruths. 26 Nichols also adds, that

“It is remarkable that though the Earl of Leicester continued in the Queen’s favour all his life, he was no sooner dead than she seized all his estates, and caused them to be sold at a public sale, for the payment of money which she had lent him: and certain it is that his widow encountered, after his decease, many serious difficulties.”

The most eminent divines of the Catholic persuasion, in the reign of Elizabeth, were Robert Parsons, Edmund Campian, Nicholas Sanders, Robert Turner, Thomas Stapleton, Thomas Harding, William Rainolds, and William Cardinal Allen. Of interest to us, is Robert Parsons, the most celebrated Roman Catholic of this period, who was educated at Baliol College, Oxford, and there professed the Protestant religion; but being expelled, he went abroad, became a Catholic, and entered into the Society of Jesuits. In 1580 he was sent into England by the Pope, in order to form disturbances, and was the first Jesuit to enter into England. Camden 27 tells us, that Parsons,

“Coming privately into England, he travelled up and down through the country and to popish gentlemen’s houses covertly, and in the disguised habits, sometimes of a soldier, sometimes of a minister of the word, and sometimes of an apparitor, diligently performing what he had in charge, both by word and writing.”

This extraordinary man was the author of several controversial pieces, but his most celebrated performance was his Conference about the Succession to the Crown of England published under the fictitious name of ‘Dolam’.The obvious intention of this work was to support the title of the Infanta of Spain, to the crown of England, against that of King James I., after the death of Queen Elizabeth, in which he attempts to prove that lineal descent is not the best title to a crown, and that, in certain cases, the people have a right to depose their Princes and elect others. In this work he has maintained principles which have been followed by some of the best writers, who have written in defense of the suppression of tyranny and the liberties of the subject, and who have contributed not a little, by their writings, to the establishment of a constitution.

Coming to our other assumed author, Burghley was born in 1520 at Bourne in Lincolnshire. His father Richard Cecil held the office of Master of the Royal Wardrobe to Henry VIII., and was generally known as a zealous Catholic, but, as a politician, he became the obsequious servant of the Court. The father of Richard Cecil was a working tailor. He subsequently kept an Inn at Stamford, where he was unsuccessful in trade. He came to London, and being a fine-looking man, obtained admission to the King’s Body Guard. This new position proved to be the turning point in the future prosperity of the Cecil family. The grandson, William, received a University education. He studied for the profession of the law at Gray’s Inn. Early in life he was fond of practical jokes. At one time he lost all his furniture and books at the gambling room of a convivial friend.

“I am undone,” he had said; “what shall I do?”

He soon, however, thought of an expedient. He bored a hole in the wall which separated his chambers from those of the successful gambler, and at midnight shouted through the passage:

“Give me back my property again, or else I will thrash you well; I am poor, do not fleece me; gambling is a great sin, do not cheat your poor friend.”

The next morning the gambler returned to young Burghley the money and other effects, which he had won from him. Sir Nicholas Bacon has related many of his wild tricks when but eighteen to twenty-two years of age. In after years Burghley became one of the most remarkable statesmen in Europe.

He first attracted the notice of Henry VIII., by advocating the Spiritual Supremacy of that monarch. At this period Burghley was a very young man; and the fact of his exciting the attention of the King by the expression of certain opinions, was considered a proof that he possessed talent of a high order; besides, he was most pliant, and his principles were, whatever the King desired. At this time he was no favourite with the Seymours; but circumstances subsequently brought about an apparent friendship.

Upon the accession of Edward VI., Burghley took office under Somerset, and when that Minister was impeached by the Warwick party, he deserted his friend and joined the Government formed by the newly created Duke of Northumberland. He volunteered to draw up the articles of impeachment against the Protestant and let the reader further remember that the ‘great performer’ in question was his benefactor and sincere friend Somerset who was informed that Burghley had deserted him, he exclaimed, within tears and sobs,

“Ah, my false friend! I thought he was a religious man, I have been deceived.”

It was a nice matter to discover a religious man connected with Warwick’s government. Between Cranmer and Burghley there existed a private compact to promote the Reformation in Edward’s reign and Burghley at that period was in communication with the German Reformers. He was also the agent through whom Cranmer offered terms to the wavering secular clergy, to join the English Reformers. When Northumberland attempted to set aside the claims of Mary and Elizabeth to the English throne, Burghley joined him in his treason. The secret correspondence between Burghley and Northumberland, still extant amongst the State Papers of Edward’s reign, reads like the despatches of men who were wholly absorbed in religion, but who in reality were engaged in a game of deep deception. They desired to keep the preachers on their side till a convenient opportunity occurred to dispose of them. Northumberland looked upon Burghley as the ablest man amongst the rising school of the Reformation party, and expressed a deep friendship for him. His professions in this case were hollow and treacherous; and Cecil, knowing such, was in daily correspondence with the secret agents of the Princess Mary. William Cecil (Burghley) died in 1598.

Since we have completed our tasks above-mentioned, and before we may dissect briefly the content of Leycester’s Commonwealth, it should be kept in mind, that Queen Elizabeth’s original Council, were dead, and seven alive by 1575. The former consisting of the Duke of Norfolk, Sir Edward Rogers, Sir Thomas Parry, Sir Ambrose Cave, Sir Richard Seckville, and Dr. Wotton. Leaving the Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon; the Lord Treasurer, William Cecil (Burghley); Thomas, Earl of Sussex; Edward, Lord Clinton; Henry, Earl of Arundel; Ambrose, Earl of Warwick, and George, Earl of Shrewsbury. The death of Sir Anthony Cooke, the father-in-law of William Cecil (Burghley) and father of Lady Anne Bacon, took place on June 11, 1576, at his seat, Giddy Hall, in the county of Essex. Sir Anthony Cooke was one of the executors of Henry VIII’s last will, and one of the tutors to his son, King Edward VI.

The Epistle Directory of
Leycester’s Commonwealth
To M.G.M. 28
In Gratious Street in London

Dear and loving friend,

[The author, whoever it is, obviously knows the recipient of this pamphlet: M.G.M., the salutation being put in such ease, and there is no dedication letter in the pamphlet to the reader. This would project that publication was intended for one person, if not for a few.]

I received about ten days agone your letter of the 9, of this present:

[This was published in 1584, no month offered. But in “for the Queen in Council on June 20, 1585 found it necessary to repudiate the assertions contained in the work.” It obviously was not entered into the Registers’ Hall. We thus can estimate the letter the author received “about ten days agone your letter of the 9, of this present” was around June 1, 1585.]

wherein you demand and solicit again the thing, that I so flatly denied you, at my late being in your chamber:

[The author, as mentioned above, was not a stranger to M.G.M. since he had met with him in his chamber. The “demand and solicit” by M.G.M. is offered here, for no other reason, we suspect, but to take some blame off the author’s motives in publishing something he had told M.G.M.]

I mean, to put in writing the relation which then I made unto you, of the speech had this last Christmas [1583] in my presence, between my right worshipful good friend and patron, and his guest the old Lawyer, of some matters in our state and country.

[Here we now get a clearer picture of what M.G.M. wanted the author to print: the ‘speech’ the author had heard over the Christmas period of 1583 being in the company of his patron and his patron’s guest, an ‘old Lawyer.’ Since the author confesses to having a patron, it would be worthwhile to check history records and see who in England was patron to whom in the year 1583; additionally, this patron went into cahoots with the author in offering to sponsor the printing and therefore would have been liable to Elizabeth’s repercussion of the law. So, we not only have the author guilty of printing libels, but the patron for offering to sponsor the print. Was this under the consideration of the Council at the time?

Rereading the letter of the Lords of the Council to Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange; William Chaderton, Lord Bishop of Chester, and all the other Justices of Lancashire and Cheshire, given by Nichols, 29 there seems to be no consideration in the capture of the patron sponsoring this pamphlet; only the need to

“vindicate her Favourite from the slanders thrown out against him; and with this view caused the letter (here stated) to be written from the Lords of the Council, notwithstanding Lord Burleigh was one of them. It appears by this letter that the Earl of Leicester had such powerful interest with the Queen, as to prevail with her to write her letters to the same effect, and signed by her, to the Lord Mayor, Sheriff, and Aldermen of London, where it was likely these books would be chiefly cast abroad.”]

And for that you press me very seriously at this instant, both by request and many reasons, to yield to your desire herein, and not only this, but also to give my consent for the publishing of the same, by such secret means as you assure me you can there find out:

[The patron, which we believe is M.G.M., presses the author to publish; offers guarantees of ‘secret means’ to do this which he assures the author he ‘can there find out.’ There? Was this patron living overseas? Or was this patron somewhere ‘There’ that enables the publication of such materials?

By the year 1585, only a year after this publication, the puritan publications had come so obnoxious to the Court, that a decree of the Star Chamber confined the exercise of that art to London and the Universities, and forbade the setting up a press without a license.

However, the non-conformists rendered this prohibition of no avail, by printing their works abroad, and importing them to England, where they had an extensive circulation. The High Commission Court also laid a further restraint on the press, by prohibiting the printing of satires and epigrams.

The puritans, notwithstanding the orders of the government, had a private presswhere they printed their controversial work. It was first stationed at Moulsey in Surrey, but the vigilance of the Court obliged it to shift its quarters and retire to Fawsley, Norton, Coventry, Woolston, and Manchester.

This press cost several persons their lives who had dared to harbour it. Periodical publications called Newspaper first took their rise. The first English Newspaper appeared on July 23, 1588 and was called The English Mercurie. 30]

I have thought good to confer the whole matter with the parties themselves, whom principally it concerneth (who at the receipt of your letter were not far from me).

[Does the author mean with this statement that he took “the whole matter” to Leicester, Elizabeth, and Burghley, “the parties themselves, whom principally it concerneth” before printing? The author’s following paragraph answers our question.]

And albeit at the first, I found them averse and nothing inclined to grant your demand: yet after upon consideration of your reasons, and assurance of secrecy, (especially for that there is nothing in the same contained, repugnant to charity or to our bounden duty toward our most gracious Princess or Country, but rather for the special good of them both, and for the forewarning of some dangers imminent to the same) they have referred over the matter to me,

[It does not seem likely that the author took “the whole matter” to Leicester, Elizabeth, and Burghley, “the parties themselves, whom principally it concerneth”. He took “the whole matter” to other parties who were strongly washing their hands and leaving the matter to the author. Who were the participants of this party?]

yet with this Proviso, [stipulation] that they will know nothing, nor yet yield consent to the publishing hereof, for fear of some future flourish of the ragged Staff [Queen’s Council] to come hereafter about their ears, if their names should break forth:

[Who were these participants that the author deemed fit to convey “the whole matter” to yet who were taking no risks to give consent of publication or in being connected by name to avoid “some future flourish of the ragged Staff [Queen’s Council] to come hereafter about their ears”? The denying of their consent to publish offers us some insight: that they must be a secretive council or group of men, powerful enough to decide what goes into publication or not. This similar power was only lawfully given to by the commands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, who were sufficient enough to “burn books at the Stationers’ Hall” 31 should they be found “seditious & traitorous books & libels”. Was there an underground Stationers’ Hall in Elizabethan London that was approving such material?]

which (I trust) you will provide, shall never happen, both for their security, and for your own.

[Here the author gives us fact of knowledge that M.G.M. knew this secretive group and trusts he shall never disclose the names “both for their security, and for” M.G.M.’s.]

And with this I will end, assuring you that within these five or six days,

[This would be a week after publication, June 16, 1584.]

you shall receive the whole in writing by another way and secret means, neither shall the bearer suspect what he carrieth:

[The author would send M.G.M. a copy “by another way and secret means”. The copy would not be sent the usual way it is sent, and will also be sent secretly. It was a habit for the author of a new book to send a copy to his patron by attaching a letter of salutation and gratitude, either personally, or by messenger. Here, the author will not do it the usual way, but “by another way” we know not how, and “under secret means” that even the messenger would not “suspect what he carrieth.”]

whereof also I thought good to premonish you.

[The author is in need to inform his patron how he will receive the book, so as not to suspect any foul play when the book comes in his patron’s hands, and also to be careful of who is around him when the book arrives.]
And this shall suffice for this time.

[The author leaves an open window that it is possible further correspondence may be needed after the publication, but feels “this shall suffice for this time.”]

The Preface of the Conference
Leycester’s Commonwealth

Not long before the last Christmas, [1583] I was requested by a letter from a very worshipful and grave Gentleman, whose son was then my pupil in Cambridge,

[We see that the author is indeed a tutor in 1583 at Cambridge.]

to repair with my said Scholar to a certain house of his near London, and there to pass over the Holy-days [holidays] in his company: for that it was determined that in Hillary term

[Hillary term is the second academic term of Oxford University’s academic year. It runs from January to March and is so named because the feast day of St Hilary of Poitiers, January 14, falls during this term. All the other terms are dated from this day in the following way:

Michaelmas term: 13 Sundays before to 5 Sundays before the feast day of St Hilary
Hilary term: 1 Sunday to 9 Sundays after the feast day of St Hilary
Trinity term: 15 Sundays to 21 Sundays after the feast day of St Hilary

The term originated in the legal system. The Courts of England and Wales divide the legal year into four terms: Hilary, Easter, Trinity, and Michaelmas.]

following, his said son should be placed in some Inn of Chancery, to follow the study of the Common-law, and so to leave the University.

[An investigation to tutors at Oxford University, Cambridge for 1583 should transport closer identity of the author.]

This request was grateful unto me in respect of the time, as also of the matter, but especially of the company. For that, as I love much the young Gentleman, my pupil, for his towardlines in religion, learning, and virtue: so much more I do reverence his Father, for the riper possession of the same ornaments, and for his great wisdom, experience, and grave judgement in affairs of the World that do occur: but namely touching our own Country, wherein truly I do not remember to have heard any man in my life, discourse more substantially, indifferently, and with less passion, more love and fidelity than I have heard him: Which was the cause that I took singular delight to be in his company, and refused no occasion to enjoy the same. Which also he perceiving, dealt more openly and confidently with me, than with many other of his friends, as by the relation following may well appear.

When I came to the foresaid House by London, I found there among other friends, an ancient man that professed the law, and was come from London to keep his Christmas in that place, with whom at divers former times I had been well acquainted, for that he haunted much the company of the said Gentleman my friend, and was much trusted and used by him in matters of his profession, and not a little beloved also for his good conversation, notwithstanding some difference in religion between us.

For albeit, this Lawyer was inclined to be a Papist, yet was it with such moderation and reservation of his duty towards his Prince and Country and proceedings of the same: as he seemed always to give full satisfaction in this point to us that were of contrary opinion.

[Among the most eminent divines of the Catholic persuasion, in the reign of Elizabeth, was Robert Parsons, educated at Baliol College, Oxford. He is the one accused by the Privy Council to have stated the libel in Leycester’s Commonwealth. Yet, Parsons College days do not match the author’s evidence of the “ancient man that professed the law”. We may assume here from a logic connection that this old lawyer was also from Oxford University since the author’s Gentleman would seek this old lawyer’s company “for his good conversation, notwithstanding some difference in religion between us”. A search of the other divines is needed; they being:

Edmund Campian, who like Parsons, from a Protestant became a papist, was educated at St. John’s College, Oxford, and became proctor of that University. When he retired abroad, he entered into the order of the Jesuits, and was sent, together with Parsons, into England, to promote the cause of the church of Rome; but he was soon after taken, confined, and at length tried for having imagined the destruction of the Queen and realm, raising forces for that end, and having adhered to the Bishop of Rome, the Queen’s enemy. Of all these charges, except the last, he was certainly innocent, and the last, with his attempting to convert the people of England to the Catholic faith ought not to have occasioned his melancholy fate. However, he was condemned and executed at Tyburn, with three Catholic priests. We exclude Edmund Campian, as his school days were at St. John’s College, Oxford.

Nicholas Sanders was the author of two Latin works; one was An Account of the Rise and Progress of the schism of England, and the other A Treatise on the Visible Monarchy of the Church: both these works were very popular among those of his own party, and the former was translated into several languages. Among his English works were A Treatise in Defense of Images, and a work on The Real Presence. We cannot exclude Sanders as little is known of his school days.

Robert Turner was a scholar of Campian, and the author of a Life of his unfortunate Master, and an account of the Life and Martyrdom of Mary Queen of Scots. Some of his epistles have been printed, and he particularly distinguished himself by his panegyrical orations, which be pronounced in several events and persons of that period. We cannot exclude Turner as little is known of his school days.
Thomas Stapleton was a divine extremely celebrated among the Roman Catholics, and was one of the most eminent scholars of his time; but his writings, which are very voluminous, consisting of six folio volumes, have long since been consigned to dust and oblivion. We cannot totally exclude Stapleton as he was known to be a scholar.

Thomas Harding the celebrated antagonist, of Jewel, obtained great reputation among his own party in his controversy with that prelate. He was the author of several pieces against the Bishop’s apology for the Church of England. In learning he was far above the common rank which is acknowledged even by his enemies. We cannot totally exclude Harding.

William Rainolds brother to John Rainolds, was distinguished for his zeal in the cause of Rome. Among his works is a treatise concerning the Just Authority of the Christian Republic over impious and heretical Princes. We cannot exclude Rainolds as little is known of his school days.

William Cardinal Allen is a name of considerable celebrity in the theological history of this period. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford and in the reign of Queen Mary was made proctor of that University. We exclude William Cardinal Allen, as his school days were at Oriel College, Oxford.]

Neither did he let to protest often times with great affection, that as he had many friends and kinsfolk of contrary religion to himself: so did he love them never the less for their different conscience, but leaving that to God, was desirous to do them any friendship or service that he could, with all affection, zeal, and fidelity. Neither was he wilful or obstinate in his opinion, and much less reproachful in speech (as many of them be) but was content to hear whatsoever we should say to the contrary (as often we did) and to read any book also that we delivered him, for his instruction.

Which temperate behaviour, induced this Gentleman and me, to affect the more his company, and to discourse as freely with him in all occurrents, as if he had been of our own religion.

[The author offers a compiled description of the old lawyer that helps to not only understand his motive to his speech in Leycester’s Commonwealth, but also a possible identity after being referred to the short biographies of the above-mentioned divines.]