Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/514

506 THE SUCCESSION QUESTION October concessions as substantial as a prince's word. But the house of commons which had sat in 1562/3 had little reason to credit the promises of a prince, and when Cecil delivered his report of the speech, studiously moderate as it was, an ominous silence supervened. 1 The dissatisfaction, intensified as we may imagine by the queen's manoeuvre, found expression two days later in Mr. W. Lambert's motion for iteration of the succession suit. But this merely evoked a royal veto on further discussion of the subject. Thereupon at the next meeting on 11 November, Paul Wentworth turned the question into one of privilege. 2 If we may accept a manuscript in the State Papers as referring to this occasion, and there is little doubt we may, he put three questions before the house, concerning the legitimacy of the queen's inhibition, the authority of the three privy councillors who conveyed it to the house, and the right of individual members to voice opinions, even if erroneous ones, on the nature and extent of their liberties. 3 Radical in conception, we may probably regard them as the precedent and model for the more famous questions of Peter Wentworth in 1586. 4 But Paul was more fortunate than his brother, and his action stimulated a debate which, lasting from 9 a.m. till 2 p.m., was adjourned at that late hour until the following day. 5 So impressed do the privy councillors appear to have been by the temper of members that they are said to have urged the queen to allow the commons free discussion, pointing out that the con- firmation of their acts rested with her. 6 Elizabeth, however, would not yield, although she did avoid the double irritant of sending a second message through the privy councillors. The speaker was sent for before the adjourned debate could be resumed, and a new inhibition was launched through him. 7 Peremptory and threatening, it probably excited fierce discussion, lor the journal records no normal business that day ; and by 15 November a committee was at work, charged, so Silva declared, ' to consider what course should be taken'. 8 The ' insolence of these heretics, and their hankering after liberty in everything ', the ambassador told his master, was 'greatly disgusting the Queen'. 9 The com- mittee decided to draw up an address, and three successive drafts of it, amended by Cecil, are to be found in the State Papers. 10 1 Commons' Journals, i. 76. 2 Ibid. 3 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, no. 16. 4 D'Ewes, Journals, p. 411. • Commons' Journals, i. 76. 6 Spanish Cal., Eliz., i. 597. "' Commons' Journals, i. 76-7. 8 Ibid. ; Spanish Cal., Eliz., i. 597-8. See also n. 10, below. 9 Ibid. p. 598. 10 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, nos. 20, 21, and 22. The second draft is endorsed 15 November, and the third 16 November. To Froude (vii. 464) the amendments by Cecil, which happen to stress the liberty of parliament, appear to reflect Cecil's own opinions. I think it an unwarranted conclusion, for in all probability Cecil presided over the committee and the amendments are those decided on in committee and added to the address by him at its behest.