1921 IN 1562/3 AND 1566 507 Firm, if submissive in tone, it began by dwelling in 'few wordes' upon ' a matter of gretest moment ' to themselves, their single- ness of motive and good faith. They urged the queen to accept this testimony of theirs rather than ' any other coniectures, which in such cases by misreporting or mistaking of speches ' might stir up and nourish in her mind doubtfulness of their meaning. Proceeding then to thank the queen for her promise to marry, they fixed the promise by repeating it, and added a prayer to God to hasten its fulfilment. Their next concern was to express their disappointment that she had decided against the immediate settlement of the succession, which they did with care : but the most was made of her promise to accede, if and when the opportunity presented itself, and this was to be determined by the interests of her realm rather than of her person. Here also the aid of God was invoked. The final section of the address dealt with the queen's inhibitions. They imported, so the com- mittee declared, that the commons 'deserued as it were to be depriued or at the least sequestred ', much to their discomfort and infamy, 'from an ancient laudable custome allwaysfrom the begin- ning necessarely annexed ' to their assembly, ' a lefull suffrance and dutifull liberty to treate and deuise of matters ' honourable to the queen and profitable for her realm. They had been ' in some sort informed ' that the queen had not meant to diminish their accustomed liberties, and were persuaded that if she should find in them ' no lack of duty in receauing ' her answers obediently, she would withdraw all signification of misliking. Declaring that prior to her first message they had come to no conclusion to proceed further in the suit against her will, they asked that they might continue in their humble duty ' without the burden of any un- necessary, unaccustomed or undeserued yoke of commandement '.* The address was never presented : why, we do not know. Our authorities fail us at this point, and the Commons' Journals, still cramped by the primitive ideas of their originator, John Seymour, 2 neglect even to mention the committee that had pre- pared the address. The problem is still further confused by an error of Froude's, and this it must be our first concern to set right. On 22 November a motion was made in the commons against corrupt and wicked books from beyond the sea, and John Dalton, seeing in the house at that moment a copy of Patrick Adamson's recent poem 3 in which the child, James of Scotland, was styled prince of England, declaimed against it indignantly, and perhaps indiscreetly. At any rate, Robert Melville, 4 Mary of 1 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, no. 22. 2 See Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 4th series, vol. iii, vbi supra. 3 See Diet, of Nat. Biog. i. 112. 4 Melville is called Melvyn in the State Papers and in Silva's dispatches.
