1828.] 
of importance before his time. Undoubt- 
-edly he was an able and an effective man, 
-and to him we must look for the tenor and 
counsels of along and successful reign—not 
one, however, distinguished for liberality, 
or freedom, or enlightened policy—but one 
*which admirably accomplished its aims— 
keeping people in order. Burghley had, 
of course, enemies, and was exposed to ca- 
lumnies, and no doubt suffered from them ; 
but he was not, we imagine, the faultless 
angel his fond biographer would make him. 
An early account of Burghley was published 
-anonymously by one who described himself 
as his ‘ domestic for 25 years,’’ written 
wholly in a laudatory spirit—in a servile, 
or more correctly, in a dutiful strain. Dr. 
-Nares thinks he must have been rather a 
-“ retainer,’ according to the manners of 
the times—but there were no “ retainers,”’ 
we take it, of 25 years standing—“ and 
very capable,’’ Dr. N. adds, “of appre- 
ciating the high attainments of his lord and 
master, and above fiattery.”’ 'This is quite 
gratuitously put—the probability is, that 
_the man was confidentially employed, per- 
haps as a secretary, or a bailiff, or superin- 
tendent of his household; but why, because 
he writes his master’s life, and praises him | 
through thick and thin, he is, therefore, 
“ above flattery,’’ must be quite incompre- 
hensible to common understandings. Dr. 
_Nares forgets subordination in society was 
better practised in those days than ours; 
and men of humble stations did not pre- 
sume to scan the conduct of their superiors 
—it was sufficient that they could venture 
to commemorate their virtues. This ac- 
count, however, good or bad, is Dr. Nares’s 
text-book, and the very object of his la- 
‘bours might really seem to be to justify the 
dicta of this “ faithful” domestic. Every 
‘word of it is sacred to the author, and his 
‘own book is but a laboured commentary 
‘uponit. The life is brought down only to the 
death of Mary, and contains the part least 
known, and, moreover, politically, the least 
worthy of being known, though, doubtless, 
the tracing of the early career of a distin- 
‘guished personage is not among the least 
useful purposes for which biographical 
Stories are told. 
- Cecil was born in 1520, at Bourne, in 
Lincolnshire, and sent from Grantham 
‘school to St. John’s, Cambridge. At Cam- 
bridge he was early distinguished ; and be- 
fore he was nineteen read amateur lectures 
‘on Greek—a study then comparatively new. 
‘Smith Cheke, Ascham, Nich. Bacon—all 
men of the highest acquirements—all some- 
' ‘what older than himself—were his chief 
_ associates. He was one, in short, of a knot 
_ of men, who were the early patrons of 
Greek and Protestantism. At one and 
‘twenty, we find him in Gray’s Inn, appa- 
tently studying for the bar, and within a 
few months marrying a sister of Cheke’s. 
But a political career was, probably, from 
the first his object. His eyes were naturally 
4 
Domestic and Foreign. 531 
turned to the court—his father was Henry 
VIII.’s master of the robes—and a ready 
access to the presence-chamber was open to 
him. According to his ‘‘ domestic,” a dis- 
pute with two of O’Neale’s (the Irish chief- 
tain—come to pay homage on Henry’s as- 
sumption of the title of King of Ireland) 
chaplains, on the subject of the king’s su- 
premacy—then a very interesting topic— 
introduced him favourably to the king, who 
was so much pleased with him, that he de- 
sired the father would make some “suit’’ 
for the son, and, accordingly, the reversion 
of custos brevium of the Common Pleas was 
conferred on him. This was in 1541. He 
appears to have made no farther progress in 
Henry’s good graces; but his friends at 
court multiplied —Cheke was made tutor to 
the young prince, and Ascham to the Prin- 
cess Elizabeth. His first wife dying shortly 
after their marriage, he took a second—one 
of the five learned daughters of Sir Anthony 
-Cooke—which added greatly to his courtly 
connexions, for Cooke was the prince’s 
governor, and the other daughters were all 
of them well allied. Through these con- 
nexions, especially Cheke, he was intro- 
duced to more potent persons—to Somer- 
set and Cranmer; and on Somerset’s as- 
suming the title of protector, was made 
apparently, his private secretary, and ac- 
companied him in the expedition to Scot- 
land, apparently, again, for the matter is 
not at all ascertainable, as a judge or pro- 
yost-marshal of the army. Soon after he 
was taken into the secretary of state’s office 
—not made secretary certainly, as seems 
to have been often supposed. 
On the protector’s fall, he was, with other 
confidential agents, thrown into the Tower; 
but—by what course of management brought 
about we know not—within a few months 
-we find him actually succeeding Wootton as 
secretary of state; and under Warwick’s 
government more thriving and prosperous 
than he had ever been under Somerset’s. 
He was now knighted—and shared liberally 
in the good things that float in the atmo- 
sphere of a eourt; was made chancellor of 
the garter, and obtained the reversion for 
sixty years of Wimbledon Rectory. He is 
charged with betraying his patron, Somerset, 
to curry favour with Warwick, whose star 
rose as the other’s set. But of this there is 
no good evidence ; he lost one patron and 
gained another—these patrons were, it is 
true, enemies; but before Cecil’s new ap- 
pointments, these enemies were apparently 
friends again. As secretary, he shewed 
‘himself the steady coadjutor of Cranmer 
and the reformers, in furthering the in- 
terests of the Reformation, and, we suppose, 
it may be added, in persecuting its oppo- 
‘nents. 
Cecil was again charged with betraying 
his second patron, Warwick, the Duke of 
Northumberland. That he deserted him 
is no doubt true enough ; but Northumber- 
land’s measures were obviously utterly wa- 
3 Y2 
