should be approached no further on pain of her displeasure. The same night a note was flung into the presence-chamber saying that the debate on the succession had been undertaken because the commonwealth required it, and that if the Queen interfered it might be the worse for her.1 In the most critical period of the reign of Henry the Eighth, speech in Parliament had been ostentatiously free; the Act of Appeals had been under discussion for two years and more, Catholic and Protestant had spoken their minds without restraint; yet among the many strained applications of the treason law no peer or commoner had been called to answer for words spoken by him in his place in the legislature. The Queen's injunction of silence had poured oil into the fire, and raised a fresh and more dangerous question of privilege. As soon as the House met again on Monday morning Mr Paul Wentworth rose to know whether such an order' was not against the liberties' of Parliament. He and other members inquired whether a message sent by a public officer was authority sufficient to bind the House, or if neither the message itself nor the manner in which it was delivered was a breach of privilege, 'what offence it was for any of the House to declare his opinion to be otherwise.' The debate lasted 1'A noche echaron en la camera le placerian.'-De Silva to Philip, de presencia un escrito que contenia November 11: MS. Simancas. en sustancia que se habia tratado en el Parlamento de la sucesion porque convenia al bien del Reyno, y que si la Reyna no consentia que se tratase dello que veria algunas cosas que no 2 3 2 Commons' Journals, 8 Elizabeth. Note of Proceedings in Parlia ment, November 11: Domestic MSS, Elizabeth, vol. xli. five hours, and (a rare if not unprecedented occurrence) was adjourned. Elizabeth, more angry than ever, sent for the Speaker; she insisted that there should be no further argument;' if any member of either House was dissatisfied he must give his opinion before the council. The Commons having gone so far had no intention of yielding; and de Silva watched the crisis with a malicious hope of a collision between the two Houses and of both with the Queen. The Lower House, he said, was determined to name a successor, and was all but unanimous for Lady Catherine; the Peers were as decided for the Queen of Scots.1 A dissolution would leave the Treasury without a subsidy, and could not be thought of save at the last extremity. On the return of the Speaker the Commons named a committee to draw up an answer, which, though in form studiously courteous, was in substance as deliberately firm. The finishing touch was given to it by Cecil, and the sentences added in his hand were those which insisted most on the liberty of Parliament, and most justified the attitude which the Commons had assumed. 2 After thanking the Queen for her promise to marry, and assuring her that whatever she might think to the que inclina todo a emocion.'-De Silva to Philip, November 13: MS. Simancas. 1 'Ellos pretenden libertad de proceder á lo del nombramiento de la sucesion en la qual en la camara superior tendra mucha parti la de 2 Draft of an Address to the Escocia; se tiene por cierto y assi lo Queen, submitted to the Committee creo que Caterina tendra casi todos of the Commons' House: Domestic los de la Camara baja, y assi parece | MSS., Elizabeth, vol. xli. 1566.] THE MURDER OF DARNLEY. 465 3 contrary they meant nothing but what became them as loyal subjects, they said that they submitted reluctantly to her resolution to postpone the settlement of the succession, being moet sorry that any manner of impediment had appeared to her Majesty so great as to stay her from proceeding in the same." They had however received a message implying that they had deserved to be deprived, or at least sequestrated, much to their discomfort and infamy, from their ancient and laudable custom, always from the beginning necessarily annexed to their assembly, and by her Majesty always confirmed-that is, a lawful sufferance and dutiful liberty to treat and devise matters honourable to her Majesty and profitable to the realm.' Before this message reached them they had made no determination to deal in any way to her discontentation; they therefore besought her of her motherly love that they might continue in their course of duty, honouring and serving her like children, without any unnecessary, unaccustomed, or undeserved yoke of commandment; so should her Majesty continue the singular favour of her honour, wherein she did excel all monarchs, for ruling her subjects without misliking; and they also would enjoy the like praise above all other people for obeying without constraint-than the which 1 The words in Italics were added | liberties of the House of Commons by Cecil. 2 Added in Cecil's hand. 3 The word first written was graciously.' Cecil scratched through graciously,' as if it implied that the VOL. VII. depended on the pleasure of the So- 5 The conclusion is entirely Cecil's. 30 no prince could desire more earthly honour, nor no people more earthly praise.' No one knew better than Elizabeth how to withdraw from an indefensible position, and words so full of firmness and dignity might perhaps have produced an effect; but before the address could be presented a fresh apple of discord was thrown into the arena. A book had appeared in Paris, written by a refugee Scot named Patrick Adamson. The subject of it was the birth of James; and the Queen of Scots' child was described as the heir of the English throne. Copies had been scattered about London, and Elizabeth had already directed Mary Stuart's attention to the thing as a matter strange and not to be justified.'1 On the 21st of November, on occasion of a measure laid before the House against the introduction of seditious books from abroad, a Mr Dalton brought forward this production of Adamson in the fiercest Protestant spirit. How say you,' he exclaimed, to a libel set forth in print calling the Infant of Scotland Prince of England, Scotland, and Ireland? Prince of England, Scotland, and Ireland! What enemy to the peace and quietness of the realm of England-what traitor to the crown of this realm hath devised, set forth, and published this dishonour against the Queen's most excellent Majesty and the crown of England? Prince of England, and Queen Elizabeth as yet having no child!-Prince of 1 Elizabeth to Bedford, November 13: Scotch MSS. Rolls House. What England, and the Scottish Queen's child!-Prince of Scotland and England, and Scotland before England! who ever heard or read that before this time? true English heart may sustain to hear of this villany and reproach against the Queen's Highness and this her realm? It is so that it hath pleased her Highness at this time to bar our speech; but if our mouths shall be stopped, and in the mean time such despite shall happen and pass without revenge, it will make the heart of a true Englishman break within his breast.' With the indignity of the matter being,' as he afterwards said, 'set on fire,' Dalton went on to touch on dangerous matters, and entered on the forbidden subject of the Scottish title. The Speaker gently checked him, but not before he had uttered words which called out the whole sympathy of the Commons, and gave them an opportunity of showing how few friends in that House Mary Stuart as yet could count upon.' The story was carried to the Queen: she chose to believe that the House of Commons intended to defy her; she ordered Dalton into arrest and had him examined before the Star Chamber; she construed her own orders into a law, and seemed determined to govern the House of Commons as if it was a debating society of riotous boys. The Commons behaved with great forbearance: they replied to the seizure of the offending member by requesting' to have leave to confer upon the liberties 1 Mr Dalton's Speech, according to the Report: Domestie MSS., Eliza beth, vol. xli. |