together. It was for the aid of the realm, where they had as great an interest, bare as great a burden, as we; therefore fittest we should join. And for the precedent alleged, they desire it may be sent them."

How could the Upper House more distinctly assert its pretension to take part with the Lower in deliberations concerning supply? How more distinctly dispute the privilege of the Commons to deal with such questions "apart by themselves, and not joining with their Lordships"? But the Commons were not disposed to retreat.

"This being put to the question (continues the reporter), whether the precedent should be sent, it was clearly answered No." They then merely ordered the Committee of Supply to meet again on Monday; and so Saturday's work ended.

4.

Sunday coming between gave the Court time to consider. The Queen, to whom of course everything was reported, found she had gone a step too far. She must give way; how to retreat without seeming to be beaten, was the question. But this was an art in which she excelled, and it may be fairly suspected that the plan of operations which commenced on Monday morning was designed and guided by herself.

In the first place, the Lower House was not to be pressed to submit its precedents to the consideration of the Upper. That motion was to be silently dropped. But it was privately explained to Mr. Beale that the precedent which he had produced was not in point; for in that case the Lords, having agreed among themselves to a greater subsidy than the Commons had granted, invited them to a conference in order that they might confirm what they had done; which was not the present proposition; and he was content to acknowledge in the House that he had mistaken the question, and that if he had understood it as it was meant, he would have been of a different opinion.

If upon this explanation the Commons should consent to reverse their resolution, so much the better: the principle of joint discussion might still be saved. But that could hardly be reckoned upon. For their objection to the conference had not in fact turned upon any such point. They had objected, not because they were asked to confirm a resolution which the Lords had taken, but because they were asked to join in conference with them about a subsidy. In the

1 Hargrave MSS. 324. 29. A journal evidently made by some member of the Lower House.

second place therefore, the objection, if persevered in, was to be met by boldly declaring that it was not about a subsidy that they had been asked to confer; that the subject of the proposed conference was the dangers of the kingdom and the means of withstanding them; and that if any one had thought it was to be about a subsidy, he was mistaken. To do this after what had passed would require a firm countenance; but once done it would make all the rest easy; and since it would involve a virtual concession of the entire principle for which the Lower House contended, they would let it pass if they were wise.

The plan of operation having been thus laid (so at least I suspect ; for we have no means of knowing what did actually pass between the Queen and her ministers, but are left to infer it from the proceedings which followed), the business was opened on Monday morning by an explanation from Mr. Beale. He said that since the decision of the House was supposed to have been influenced by the precedent which he had quoted, it was right they should know that he had quoted it under a misapprehension of the question under discussion. He showed in what respects his precedent failed to fit the present case; and wished that, if any had been led by him, they would now be satisfied; for if he had conceived the matter aright, he should himself have thought differently. "There being but a conference desired of the Lords, and no confirming of anything they had done, he thought they might, and it was fit they should, confer." The explanation being made, it was immediately moved by two of the privy councillors (Sir Thomas Heneage and Sir John Wolley) that Saturday's resolution be reversed, as having proceeded upon a mistake.

For this however the House (as might have been expected) was not quite ready. What the precise mistake had been, to what therefore, if they revoked their No, they would be understood as saying Yes, was not yet clear. And to remove all doubt, Sir Henry Unton, after reciting the whole proceeding, moved that they should agree to "confer with the Lords about a subsidy, but not in any sort to be conformed therein unto them." Hereupon Sir Robert Cecil, finding I suppose that they were falling back into the old dispute, resolved at last to throw the disputed point fairly overboard; wondered what the last speaker could be thinking of; "his motion was that they should confer with the Lords about a subsidy, but not conclude a subsidy with them; which motion seemed contrary to his meaning, or else it was more than ever was meant; for it was never desired of them by the Lords to confer about a subsidy." This avowal removed at once all obstacles to agreement, and when, upon the motion of Sir Walter Raleigh, "the Speaker put the question, whether they would have a

general conference with the Lords or no? it was answered by all, Aye." A message was sent accordingly, which was graciously received, and it was agreed that the conference should take place next day.

Still it was necessary to be watchful, for still there was room for more misunderstanding. They had agreed to confer; but "what (asked Sir Thomas Heneage) are we to confer upon? For either we must conform ourselves to somewhat that they will say, or else we must deliver them somewhat that we will say; for we desiring their conference, and to come with nothing to say to them, will be unfit for us."2 A statement of the case so obviously inaccurate, that one can hardly help suspecting a design in it; the rather because, when it was very justly objected to as "a mistaking of the thing agreed upon," the objector was suddenly called to account by two of the privy councillors for imputing a mistake to the Vice-Chamberlain, and that with a degree of unnecessary sharpness which is most easily explained by supposing that the objection was fatal to their scheme. But however that may be, it was resolved at last that they should have authority to confer generally about the dangers and remedies, but “not in any manner of wise to conclude anything particularly' without first reporting the whole proceeding to the House and receiving further orders.

With this commission they went up to the Lords, and told them that "if they desired to enter into speech of the great cause, they were ready to hear them. But if they would have them to descend into consideration of it amongst themselves, they desired a little respite, and by Thursday would bring them a resolute determination.”3

And now what had the Lords to say, which they might not have said last Thursday ? Of the subsidies not a word. Not a word of what they had said before on that subject (if two independent reports of the conference may be trusted) was repeated; not a word added to it. But they had to inform them of "divers dangers not heard of before;" a new sum of 50,000 crowns had been sent into Scotland by Spain; the Scotch king had gone into the north, and there was fear that, willingly or unwillingly, he would be taken by the lords who were combined against him. These and the like intelligences they imparted to the Commons for their consideration; consented to give them a clear day to consult upon the case; and expected their answer on Thursday afternoon.

It is clear therefore that the Lords had at last silently abandoned their former position; for what they now so easily assented to was

1 Hargrave MSS. 324. 27.

* Hargrave MSS. 324.

2 Hargrave MSS. 324. 27 b.

in fact all that the Commons upon Bacon's motion had asked. The communication from the Upper House had been received; they would take it into consideration apart by themselves.

5.

The point of privilege being now no longer in the way, the original question came on again, and was referred to the same Committees, who were ordered to meet on Wednesday afternoon, with a general commission "to confer of all matters of remedies." And now Bacon,

-whose name has not been mentioned in any of the proceedings since Friday, when he raised the question which we have just seen settled,-appears again upon the stage.

The Lords had in their first conference demanded a bill of not less than three subsidies, payable in three years. Now the invariable custom had hitherto been to allow two years for the payment of each subsidy. The proposition would therefore involve a double innovation. Not only the total amount of taxation ordinarily imposed by one Parliament would be trebled (which if Parliaments were less frequent might, as far as the burden went, have come to the same thing), but the amount payable in each of these three years would be doubled. And it might well be thought a hazardous experiment, however unexceptionable the purpose and however popular the occasion, to introduce two such novelties at once; first a breach of constitutional usage, which in so tender a matter might naturally awaken jealousy in the people; and next, at the very same instant to send the tax-gatherer among them to demand twice as much as they had ever before been called on to pay. The latter was probably the more hazardous step of the two; for it could hardly be known till tried whether the people could pay so much; and accordingly it was upon this point that dispute arose in the Committee. Indeed the Government party themselves so far modified the proposal as to allow four years instead of three for the payment of the three subsidies.' And this, as I gather, was the motion submitted to the Committee.

Now Bacon, it will be remembered, had from the first declared his assent to the treble subsidy; but the innovation in the mode of collection, even thus modified, was greater than he was prepared to advise; and after a speech from Mr. Heale in favour of a still larger grant than the one proposed,-which he contended that the country, being so much richer than heretofore, could well afford,-he rose at once to oppose it. The note which has been preserved of his speech

runs thus:

1 D'Ewes, p. 493.

SPEECH ON MOTION FOR A GRANT OF THREE SUBSIDIES, PAYABLE IN FOUR YEARS.

"Mr. Francis Bacon assented to three subsidies, but not to the payment under six years; and to this propounded three reasons, which he desired might be answered.

"1. Impossibility or difficulty.

"2. Danger and discontentment.

"3. A better manner of supply than subsidy.

"For impossibility, the poor men's rent is such as they are not able to yield it, and the general commonalty is not able to pay so much upon the present. The gentlemen must sell their plate and the farmers their brass pots ere this will be paid. And as for us, we are here to search the wounds of the realm and not to skin them over; wherefore we are not to persuade ourselves of their wealth more than it is.

"The danger is this: we [shall thus] breed discontentment in the people. And in a cause of jeopardy, her Majesty's safety must consist more in the love of her people than in their wealth. And therefore [we should beware] not to give them cause of discontentment. In granting1 these subsidies thus we run into [two] perils. The first [is that] in putting two payments into one [year], we make it a double subsidy; for it maketh 4s. in the pound a payment. The second is, that this being granted in this sort, other princes hereafter will look for the like; so we shall put an ill precedent upon ourselves and to our posterity; and in histories it is to be observed that of all nations the English care not to be subject, base, taxable, etc.

"The manner of supply may be by levy or imposition when need shall most require. So when her Majesty's coffers are empty, they may be imbursed by these means."

So ends the note; the last paragraph breaking off, as it would seem, abruptly; and not giving even the substance (so at least I infer from comparing it with Bacon's own words in a letter written shortly after, which will appear in its place) of the proposition with which he concluded; which I think was this: that two subsidies should be granted and raised in the ordinary way; but that some difference should be made with regard to the third, with a view partly to mark 1 paying in MS.

2 Hargrave MSS. 324. 33; compared with D'Ewes, p. 493. The words within brackets supplied by conjecture.