my consent as freely to the cancelling of this as any member of this House." The advisers of the Crown met the complaints by saying that the granting of monopolies was a branch of the prerogative. But the House was determined. A petition on the subject was sent to the Queen, who saw the wisdom of giving way. She promised to revoke all illegal patents, and her concession was received by the House with extravagant rejoicings. Her promise, however, does not seem to have been strictly carried out.

On several occasions during this session Ralegh spoke out strongly for the freedom of the individual. An act was brought in to compel men to sow a certain proportion of hemp on their land; and Ralegh, speaking on this point, said, "For my part I do not like this constraining of men to manure or use their ground at our wills, but rather let every man use his ground to that which it is most fit for, and therein use his own discretion." The bill was thrown out, and later on it was proposed to repeal the Bill of Tillage, made in a time of dearth, according to which every man was obliged to plough the third part of his land. Ralegh spoke in favour of the repeal: "Many poor men," he said, "are not able to find seed to sow so much ground as they are bound to plough, which they must do or incur the penalty of the law. Besides, all nations abound with corn. And therefore I think the best course is to set it at liberty, and leave every man

1601]

PARLIAMENTARY MEASURES.

137

free, which is the desire of a true Englishman." These statements sound to us like truisms; but they were by no means looked upon as such in those days of monopolies, protection, and overbusy legislation on all points. Ralegh himself by no means fully adopted the principles of free trade. In this same Parliament he spoke in favour of restraining the export of ordnance, saying, "I am sure heretofore one ship of her Majesty's was able to beat ten Spaniards; but now, by reason of our own ordnance, we are hardly matched one by one. I say there is nothing does so much threaten the conquest of this kingdom as the transportation of ordnance." The same man who spoke so strongly for repeal of the Statute of Tillage was in favour of a bill forbidding the export of ordnance.

Ralegh also spoke with much force on a bill for the more diligent resort to church on Sundays. He opposed the bill, and showed how it must remain a dead letter, unless an enormous amount of work were thrown on the churchwardens, who would. have to appear at the assizes to give information to the grand jury. He calculated that about four hundred and eighty persons would have to appear at each assize on this subject. "What great multitudes this will bring together," he exclaimed, "what quarrelling and danger may happen, besides giving authority to a mean churchwarden; how prejudicial this may be." The bill was finally thrown out by one vote.

Whilst Parliament was debating the question of

the subsidy, a new deputy, Lord Mountjoy, was subduing the rebels in Ireland. He defeated the joint forces of the Spaniards and Irish, and compelled Tyrone to submit. Tyrone's final submission came in immediately after Elizabeth's death. She had been failing in mind and body ever since the execution of Essex. To the last she persisted in taking her usual exercises of hunting and riding; and when in March, 1603, she grew really ill, she refused to take any sustenance or go to bed. Her kinsman, Robert Carey, went to visit her about this time, and says that he "found her sitting low upon her cushions. She took me by the hand and wrung it hard, and said, 'No, Robin, I am not well' . . . and in her discourse she fetched not so few as forty or fifty great sighs. I was grieved to see her in this plight; for in all my lifetime I never knew her fetch a sigh, but when the Queen of Scots was beheaded." On the 23rd of March she grew speechless, and on Thursday morning her spirit passed away, after she had been supposed to indicate by signs that she wished James VI. of Scotland to succeed her.

So died the great Queen. She had done her work well and nobly, though she could not understand or enter into its results. Whatever may be said of her personal failings, it is at least clear that she had guided England wisely through troublous times. How she had strengthened the people's character was to be seen in ways she little dreamt of-in the struggle for freedom against Charles I.

CHAPTER X.

Accession of James L.

FEW hours after Elizabeth's death, a meeting

was held at Whitehall, consisting of the Privy Councillors, such Peers as were in London, the Lord Mayor, and a few other persons. To them Cecil submitted a proclamation, which he had prepared, announcing the accession of James VI. of Scotland to the throne of England.

As Elizabeth had never married, the direct line of Henry VIII. came to an end at her death. All through her reign much anxiety had been caused by uncertainty about the succession. Elizabeth could never be persuaded to name her successor. At first this policy was wise, especially during the lifetime of Mary Queen of Scots. The recognition of a Catholic successor would have given a dangerous head to the intrigues of Spain; the recognition of any successor at all would have. created a centre for malcontents, and would have weakened the Queen's position. But towards the end of Elizabeth's reign much anxiety might have been spared had the Queen clearly recognised

James VI. of Scotland as her successor.

Still the thought of any successor was distasteful to her. She was afraid lest, if she acknowledged the claim of James VI., he would try to interfere with English affairs; and so she adhered to the policy which had become a habit to her. But her refusal to consider the question of the succession could not keep her subjects from doing so. It was discussed in secret, books were written about it, and many intrigues were carried on.

Many different claims were put forward. Essex had accused Cecil of favouring the claim of the Infanta Isabella, daughter of Philip II. But this claim, though it was a good deal talked about, obtained no countenance except from some of the most violent Catholics. It had been put forward by them, because they saw no other chance of getting a Catholic sovereign. To find any grounds for her claim, they had to trace her descent from Eleanor, daughter of Henry II., who had married Alphonso IX. of Castile. Few even of the Catholics would have been willing to recognise a claim such as this, which ignored the rights of the House of Tudor, and would have handed over England to a foreigner. The real question lay between the Houses of Suffolk and of Stuart, which both sprung from sisters of Henry VIII., as will be seen in the genealogical table. The parliamentary title belonged to the House of Suffolk. An Act of Parliament had given Henry VIII. the right of disposing of the succession