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.1 The strength of Elizabeth's resolution would soon be tried. Meanwhile, on 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.

1 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.

and bodies to recover Calais, to maintain Newhaven and any war which might arise thereof;' but they were not so ready to contribute to the charge of supporting the army of the Protestants." The disposition of the people was the same as the disposition of the Queen; and Elizabeth, warned on many sides that she could not trust Condé, and only half trusting Coligny, wrote to Sir Thomas Smith that in a doubtful quarrel she could not press her subjects too far. He need not hint to the Admiral that there was 'any slackness' on her part; but 'she would be glad if some indirect means could be devised' to compose the religious difficulties-though 'toleration was not stablished so universally as the Admiral desired'-provided England could have 'its right in Calais and the members thereof,' and the money which she had lent Condé partially, if not wholly, repaid.2

Both Queen and country were falling back on the 'hollow dealing' which she had regretted so bitterly on the fall of Rouen; and then as ever it was found dangerous to follow private objects behind an affected zeal for a noble cause. Six thousand Englishmen paid with their lives for this trifling with Coligny, while the coveted Calais was forfeited for ever; the Huguenots obtained the half-toleration which Elizabeth desired for them; and they found the value of it on the day of St Bartholomew.

But to return to the succession.

1 Elizabeth to Sir T. Smith, January 25: FORBES, vol. ii.
2 Ibid.

In the interval of these discussions the address of the Commons was drawn ; and on the 28th the Speaker with the whole House attended to present it in the gallery of the palace. Commencing with an elaborate compliment on the Queen's services to the country, Sir Thomas Williams proceeded to say that the nation required for their perfect security some assurance for the future. Her Majesty had been dangerously ill, and the Commons had supposed that in calling them together so soon after her recovery she had intended to use their assistance to come to some conclusion. He reminded her of Alexander's generals; he reminded her-more to the purpose of York and Lancaster; and the realm, he said, was beset with enemies within and without. There was 'a faction of heretics in her realm-contentious and malicious Papists—who, most unnaturally against their country, most madly against their own safety, and most treacherously against her Highness, not only hoped for the woful day of her death, but also lay in wait to advance some title under which they might revive their late unspeakable cruelties. The Commons saw nothing to withstand their desires but her only life; they feared much to what attempt the hope of such opportunitynothing withstanding them but her life-might move the Catholics; and they found how necessary it was that there should be more set and known between her Majesty's life and the unkindness and cruelty they intended to revive.' Ignorant as they were to whom the crown ought to descend, and being unable to judge of the limitation of the succession in King Henry's will, their