upon without further orders, and what not; in which it was easy for them to make mistakes, especially having a strong bias of their own in favor of the shortest way. Some such misunderstanding might account for that doubtful message on the strength of which the warrant against Mary was at last executed; which Elizabeth disavowed; and for delivering which Davison was prosecuted in the Star Chamber and ruined. Such may also be the true explanation of a blacker transaction; I mean the joint letter addressed to Sir Amias Paulet by Walsingham and Davison1 signifying the Queen's surprise, apparent by "speech lately uttered," that none of her loyal subjects should have found a way to relieve her from her embarrassment, namely by pursuing Mary to death (for the words can bear no other meaning), as their oaths bound and the statute warranted them to do. That such a solution of the question would have been convenient to Elizabeth, was true; that in the agitations of irresolution such a thought should present itself to her mind, was natural; that in talking with her confidential councillors it found its way to her tongue, is not improbable; that her councillors, not daring on so delicate and dangerous a subject to ask more directly what she meant, should seek to shift the difficulty from themselves by passing the hint on to those who were about Mary's person, may be easily supposed. But that she really intended them to do so, is to me, considering her character and ways, less easy to believe, than that they thought she did and were mistaken. When all is said, however, her behavior throughout the business, read it as favorably as we may, was not such as any loyal subject could have thought upon without regret. It showed the worse, too, by contrast with that of her victim. Mary, whatever else was in her, possessed in full measure all those qualities which have so often turned the scaffold into a scene of public triumph, in 1 See Hearne, Rob. of Glouc., p. 673.

which the memory of the sufferer is cleared from all its stains, and every harsher thought is lost for ever in reverence and pity. It was on the 7th of February, 1586-7, that she received notice to prepare to die the next morning. It seems she did not need even that short notice. She was ready on the instant to meet death with a composure and a dignity such as neither martyr nor philosopher ever surpassed. Even the dry official report of the day's proceedings, made by the Commissioners to the Council, reads, in spite of its formal phraseology and impassive tone, like a leaf out of the closing scene of some majestic tragedy

High actions and high passions best describing: whereas Elizabeth - who, if she had proceeded to the execution with the same openness, directness, and solemnity with which she had conducted the trial, would have seemed, in the eyes of her own people at least, like the minister of God's justice, - contrived by her delays, uncertainties, and ambiguous directions, to seem like one sacrificing justice to state policy, and doing what she was ashamed of.

The Parliament did not meet again for work till the 22d of February; on which day the perilous condition of the Protestant cause in Europe was set forth at large to the House by Sir Christopher Hatton, and urged as a motive for granting a subsidy, - to be employed mainly in supporting the Netherlands against Spain. A committee, including the first knight of every shire as well as all the privy councillors that were of the House, was immediately appointed in the usual form, " to set down articles for the subsidy." And they appear to have entered on the business with more than usual alacrity. If the Journals are not too imperfect to ground a conjecture upon, they agreed at once to offer more than was asked. But a difficulty arose. On the one hand, a single

It

subsidy was thought insufficient for the exigency; on the other hand, to grant a double subsidy (which had never been done yet) would create a precedent which might be abused. In order to avoid the precedent, and yet not to withold the necessary supply, it was proposed to increase the grant by "a loan or voluntary contribution," to be offered to the Queen by both Houses. Such at least seems to be the most probable explanation of an entry in the Journals of the 23d of February (the day after the appointment of the Subsidy Committee), which deserves to be quoted both for the proposal itself a novel one as originating in such a quarter - and for the prominent position in which it exhibits Bacon's name. runs thus: "The Committees appointed for conference touching a loan or benevolence to be offered to her Majesty are, Mr. Francis Bacon, Mr. Edward Lewkenor, and others." And I quote it the rather because in the two next Parliaments we shall find Bacon's name equally prominent in connection with motions which, though not the same, were for the same object. The result in this case is not distinctly stated. It may be inferred however from the silence of the Journals, that it was judged best not to proceed further in the matter till the Subsidy Bill had been framed and passed in the ordinary way. But as soon as this was done, - as soon as a bill for one subsidy and two fifteenths and tenths had passed through its three readings and gone to the upper House (which was on the 7th of March), - the subject was taken up again; and on the 11th a Committee was appointed to confer with the Lords, and invite them to join " in a Contribution or Benevolence for the charges of the Low Countries' wars, which they of the House of Commons meant to offer unto her Majesty." The Lords declined the proposal, and it was resolved that each House should proceed by itself. What the Lords did further or whether they did anything, is not stated; but the Commons, being informed on the 18th that the Queen, "understanding of their great love unto her in regard of the charges sustained in the Low Countries," would give audience that afternoon to some convenient number of them, appointed a Committee to wait on her; and as we hear no more of the matter, I conclude that at this audience the offer was made and declined: a circumstance to which Bacon probably alludes in his "Discourse in praise of his Sovereign" (written about the year 1592), where he says, - " there shall you find no new taxes, impositions, nor devices; but the benevolence of the subject freely offered by assent of Parliament, according to the ancient rates, and with great moderation in assessment; and not so only, but some new forms of contribution offered likewise by the subject in Parliament, and the demonstration of their devotion only accepted, but the thing never put in ure:" a passage of which the substance is repeated in his "Observations on a Libel."

For the rest, this session was chiefly remarkable for an ineffectual attempt to revive the question concerning ecclesiastical government so much discussed in the last Parliament, and to raise a question concerning the right of free speech in that House; both which motions were summarily answered by the removal to the Tower of the members who stirred them; - also for the quiet way in which the House took the matter; the majority being content, it seems, when it was proposed to petition for the restitution of their missing members, to suppose that "they might perhaps be committed for somewhat that concerned not the business or privileges of the House." But the times were too full of danger to allow of a quarrel between the Queen and the Commons just then.

Parliament was dissolved on the 23d of March, 1586-7: and from this time we have no more news of Bacon (unless it be worth while to mention that he assisted in getting up the masque which was presented to the Queen by the gentlemen of Gray's Inn on the 28th of February following) till after the defeat of the Spanish Armada; an event which I need only name, that its significance in relation to all the political questions of the time may be sufficiently appreciated. On the 20th of July, 1588, the Spanish Armada appeared in the British Channel, while the Prince of Parma waited with a large army in the Low Countries ready to form a junction at Calais. By the middle of August the wreck of the Armada was making its way home round the shores of Scotland and Ireland, and the Prince of Parma was drawing his forces away from the coast. But though baffled for the season, Spain was neither disabled by this disaster, nor perhaps (considering in how great part it was owing to accidents of weather) very much discouraged; and next spring was looked forward to with great and just apprehension. By way of preparation, Elizabeth summoned a new Parliament for November, 1588; which did not however meet for business till the 4th of February following. The cause for which they were called was explained by Sir Christopher Hatton, now Lord Chancellor, - namely, to take measures for provision of arms, soldiers, and money, against the future attempts of the King of Spain. The Commons were as prompt as before to meet the extraordinary occasion by an extraordinary supply; but not less jealous than before of setting an example which other Parliaments might be expected to follow on occasions less urgent, or by sovereigns less frugal, less disinterested, and less in sympathy with the people. How they attempted to escape this dilemma in the last Parliament, I have already explained. They then voted a single subsidy to be levied in the usual way, but offered at the same time to sanction the collection of a benevolence or voluntary contribution. To this however the Queen herself objected (graciously, I suppose, yet so as to forbid the renewal of a similar offer), and contented