Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/510

502 THE SUCCESSION QUESTION October suggestion of a partial limitation of the succession should be attributed by Quadra to Elizabeth, since she poured scorn on the idea in the following session. 1 But perhaps she regarded it only as a sop to Cerberus, which she was the more reconciled to throw, as it did not seriously affect her prejudice against a final settlement of the question. On 10 April parliament was prorogued, and at the closing meeting in the parliament chamber the lord keeper read what was the definitive reply of Elizabeth to the petitions of both houses ; if, indeed, that may be called definitive which was but a further evasion of the problem. It is the speech which begins, ' Since there can be no duer debt '. 2 The complete break-down of all efforts to effect some settlement of the succession can hardly have been pleasant to members of the lower house ; but when this final and unsatisfactory answer came, supplies were voted and legislation completed, and it was impossible even to express disapproval. The only profit of the session of 1562/3 from their point of view was that its lessons were written large in its failure. Corporate action is largely determined by tradition and experi- ence, and consequently the events of 1566 cannot be adequately appreciated except by bearing in mind that the commons met in that year, not as a newly elected assembly, dependent for its cohesion upon a nucleus of former members, but as a body with the experience of a session behind it. As they themselves declared, their agitation in 1566 was merely the continuance of the suit begun in their earlier meeting : 3 and their part was played with 1 Infra, p. 516. 2 D'Ewes gives two versions of the speech, one very brief at the close of the session 1562/3, the other a fuller report which he assigns to the session 1566 (Journals, pp. 75 and 107). Hallam rightly pointed out that both reports were of the same speech, and then erroneously placed them in 1566 (i. 250 note). The problem was dealt with by Sir George Prothero and the speech correctly assigned to 1562/3 (ante, ii. 744-5). But its actual date needs to be stated more categorically, and the relation of the two versions to be made clearer. Now the shorter version in D'Ewes is from a Cotton MS. in the British Museum (Titus F. i, ff. 77-81), which is a report of the speeches and proceedings on 10 April at the close of the session of 1562/3. The speech in question is an integral part of the report, and therefore is dated by the whole account. It is there specifically stated by the lord keeper, Bacon, that he had asked the queen for this answer of hers in writing, so that he should make no mistake in delivering it (D'Ewes, p. 75 b). As for the fuller version of the speech, there are four manuscript copies in the British Museum, Cotton MS., Titus F. i, fo. 83, Harleian MS. 5176, fo. 97, and Add. MSS. 32379, fo. 21 ; 33271, fo. 2 b ; and one (with an additional modern copy) in the Hatfield MSS. (Hist. MSS. Comm., Hatfield MSS., part i, p. 272). The Add. MS. 32379 is a volume of transcripts from papers of Lord Keeper Bacon given to the transcriber by Anthony Bacon ; and it is, therefore, most probable that the fuller version of our speech is the complete text read by Bacon in parliament. [Subsequent confirmation of this comes by my finding amongst the Burghley papers at the British Museum the original draft of the speech in the queen's hand, endorsed by Cecil, ' x aprill 1563. The Q. speche to the parlement uttered by the L. kepar ' (Lansdowne MS. 94, fo. 30). It differs only in a few words from the fuller version in D'Ewes.] 3 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, no. 22.