not survived, but which, in spirit, was unfavourable to the King.[1] Gardiner, in the course of the debate, attempted to put in a clause affecting Elizabeth,[2] but the success was no better than usual. The Act went down to the Commons, where, however, it was immediately cancelled. Though the Commons would give Philip no rights as King, they were better disposed towards him than the Lords; and they drew another bill of their own, in which they declared the father to be the natural and fitting guardian of the child. The experience of protectorates, they said, had been uniformly unfortunate, and should the Queen die leaving an heir, Philip should be Regent of the realm during the minority; if obliged to be absent on the Continent, he might himself nominate his deputy;[3] and so long as it should be his pleasure to remain in England, his person should be under the protection of the laws of high treason.
Taking courage from the apparent disposition of the House, the friends of the Court proposed that, should the Queen die childless, the crown should devolve absolutely upon him for his life.[4] But in this
- ↑ 'It was suspected,' says Renard, 'que le dict act se proposoit á maulvais fin, qu'il estoit coutre les traictez et capitulation de marriage pour hereder la couronne qui venoit de maulvais auteurs quilz plustôt desiroient le mal dudict S. roy et inquietude dudict royaulme que le bien.'—Renard to the Emperor: Granvelle Papers, vol. iv. p. 347.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 348.
- ↑ 'Et que en son absence il y pourra nommer qui luy plaira.'—Granvelle Papers, vol. iv. p. 348.
- ↑ 'Aulcuns particuliers proposaient en ladicte chambre basse que le dict S. roy deust demeurer roy absolut dudict royaulme mourant ladicte dame sans hoirs sa vie durant.'—Granvelle Papers, vol. iv. p. 348.
