among her many faults, knew these men when she saw them, and gave them their place, and so prospered she and her country. The clergy cried out for the blood of the disaffected; the lay Speaker would let them go by the postern of Mercy and Truth.

These introductions over, the House proceeded to business. The special subject, of which all minds were full, had been passed over both by Bacon and Williams; but the Commons fastened upon it without a moment's delay. There were no signs of the Queen's marrying, notwithstanding her half promise to her first Parliament. She had been near death, and the frightful uncertainty as to what would follow should she die indeed was no longer tolerable.

On the 18th the question was talked over: the different claimants and their pretensions were briefly considered, and as had been anticipated the tone of feeling was as adverse as possible to the Queen of Scots. The Scottish nobles had not been forgiven for having supported her in refusing to ratify the treaty. To secure their sovereign the reversion of the English crown they were held to have repaid the assistance which had saved them from ruin with the basest ingratitude. Sir Ralph Sadler broke out with a fierce invective upon the false, beggarly, and perjured' nation, whom the very stones' in the English streets would rise against. Another speaker challenged Mary Stuart's pretensions on the ground of English law.

VOL. VII.

1 Sadler Papers, vol. iii. p. 303.

3

It was admitted on all sides, this person said, that the Queen of Scots' succession had been 'barred' by the will of Henry the Eighth; but some people pretended that the will had not been signed with his hand, some that he had never made a will at all; there was no mention of it on the Patent Rolls; and if the original had existed why was it not produced? This last question could not be answered; 2 but there was proof enough of the reality of the will; there were abundant entries of this and that detail of it which had been acted upon; and of the executors there were still many who survived. The dispute however was not narrowed to that single issue. The Queen of Scots was an alien, and no person could inherit in England who was not born of English parents on English soil. Lady Lennox was an alien also; for though she was born at York it was but in a passing visit; her father Angus was a Scot, and when he married her mother he had another wife living. The only legal heir was the heir appointed by Henry the Eighth-Lady Catherine Grey, the injured and imprisoned wife of Hertford.3

1 This is true. Neither is there any record of the will on the Roll, nor any sign of erasure where the entry ought to have been.

Domestic MSS., Elizabeth, vol. xxvii. Lady Catherine Grey's popularity had been increased by an accident which had redoubled Elizabeth's displeasure. Sir Edmund Warner, taking pity on his young prisoner, had allowed her husband to have access to her room; the result was a second infant; and fecundity was a virtue especially valued in an English princess. 3 Oration spoken in Parliament. Este negocio de Catalina,' wrote De

2 This mysterious concealment can only be explained as the deliberate act of Elizabeth, who was determined to maintain Mary Stuart's rights, and who felt that it would be impossible if the will was produced.

The result of the first discussion was the resolution to prepare an address to the Crown. But de Quadra was able to learn that the question would not be settled; the Queen was determined to keep her promise to Mary Stuart; and Cecil, on the 14th, wrote to Sir Thomas Smith that however Parliament might press her 'the unwillingness of her Majesty to have a successor known' would prevent a conclusion. The strength of Elizabeth's resolution would soon be tried. Meanwhile, on

2

the 20th, Cecil explained to the Commons the cause of the interference in France. On the 25th he was heard at the bar of the House of Lords on the same subject; and his speech was chiefly directed against Philip, whom he accused of having entangled England in war while its titular king, and then of having betrayed it at Cambray; of having taken part with the Queen's enemies in every difficulty in which she had been involved; and of having lent his strength to make the Duke of Guise sovereign of France and Mary Stuart Queen of England -'Queen of England,' 'as she was already styled by her household at Holyrood.'3

A penal Bill against the Catholics was next laid before the Upper House. It was described as 'a law against those who would not receive the new religion,' bloody in its provisions as the preachers desired, and

Quadra on the 27th of January, ' va cobrando fuerças entre estos de la nueva religion, y el parir la hace bien quista del pueblo.'—De Quadra to Philip. MS. Simancas.

1 Cecil to Sir T. Smith, January

14: WRIGHT's Elizabeth and her Times, vol. i.

2 DEWES' Journals.

3 De Quadra to Philip, January 27: MS. Simancas.

contrived rather as a test of opinion than of loyalty.

At once and without reserve or fear the Catholic Lords spoke out: Northumberland said the heretics might be satisfied with holding other men's bishoprics and benefices without seeking their lives; when they had killed the clergy they would kill the temporal lords next: the Earl swore that he would speak as his conscience bade him; he would protest against the law; and he believed that most of the Lords who heard him were of the same opinion with himself.1

Montague followed on the same side and at greater length:

'A law was proposed,' he said, 'to compel Papists, under pain of death, to confess the Protestant doctrine to be true. Such a law was neither necessary nor was it just. The Catholics were living peaceably, neither disputing nor preaching nor troubling the commonwealth in any way. The doctrine of the Protestants, if they had a doctrine, had been established against the consent of the ecclesiastical estate; and it was absurd, so long as the world was full of disputes and the opinions of those best able to judge were divided, for one set of men to compel another to accept their views as true or to pretend that there was no longer room for doubt.

De Quadra to Philip: MS. | and must therefore refer to some Simancas. The Supremacy Bill, other Bill-unnoticed in the meagre which ultimately passed, was brought | journals—which was thrown out. into the House of Lords on the 25th | The ambassador distinctly says that of February. De Quadra's letter, there was a vote—' viniendo á votard describing Northumberland's speech, los Señores.' was written on the 27th of January,

The Protestants might be content with what they had got without forcing other men to profess what they did not believe and to make God a witness of the lie. To take an oath against their consciences or else to be put to death was no alternative to be offered to reasonable men; and if it came to that extremity the Catholics would defend themselves. A majority might be found to vote for the law if the bishops were included; but the bishops were a party to the quarrel and had no right to be judges in it. The bishops had no business with pains and penalties; they should keep to their pulpits and their excommunications and leave questions of public policy to the lay Lords.'1

Had Montague been despotic in England the Protestants would have had as short a shrift as the Huguenots were finding in France; but even a Catholic of the sixteenth century, when in opposition, could be more temperate than a Protestant in power. The Bill was lost or withdrawn to reappear in a new form: and the Peers who had checked the zeal of Bonner and Gardiner had the credit of staying in time the less pardonable revenge of their antagonists.

On the French question there were analogous differences of opinion. When the temper of Parliament had been felt it was found that, notwithstanding the Puritan constitution of the Lower House, the feeling was in favour only of the recovery of Calais. The Lords and Commons 'resolved to yield their whole power in goods

1 Annals of the Reformation: STRYpe, vol. i.