1921 IN 1562/3 AND 1566 509 confronted by Dalton's denial of the words alleged against him, they had resolved to elicit the truth from the house itself. 1 Obviously if the charge against Dalton was lodged on 24 November only, and if even on 26 November it was not certain that he had committed the offence, his case cannot be connected with the new request of the house of commons. Nor was Silva conscious of any connexion. He not only fails to link the two, but he actually refers to Dalton's speech as subsequent to the queen's message, which, whilst an error in itself, yet shows that the two events were clearly dissociated in his mind. 2 Froude, indeed, makes Dalton's case more serious than it really was, by a totally unwarranted assumption that he was arrested ; and his ' release ', a term equally unwarranted, is made to precede the queen's raising of her veto, although the document it is based on 3 is dated two days later. Silva, it is true, asserts that Elizabeth promised Melville she would punish Dalton and make him withdraw his statement ' as soon as supplies were voted '. 4 But supplies were not yet voted : nor did the commons seem to be in haste to vote them. And when on 27 November, after asking Leicester
- what dalton had donne and what order was taken ', she ordered
that the proposed inquiry in the house of commons concerning the words he had used should be stayed ' and not procede further to any questyone or tryall ', she was probably tacitly admitting that the susceptibilities of the commons had become too intimately connected with the progress of the subsidy bill to make it wise to pursue Dalton's case any further. 5 Froude 's conclusions are untenable. And yet. they had the merit of solving an awkward problem. To abandon them is to be confronted again with that foot-note to the queen's message, and with what it appears to imply, a change of tactics after Saturday, 16 November, in consequence of which the proposed address to the queen was abandoned. Can it be that Elizabeth launched some new inhibition, for she must have known what was afoot when the committee on the address was sitting ? If so, there is not the slightest hint of it anywhere : and in view of Silva's statement that the privy councillors were opposed to the former veto, it is probably safer not to postulate a further infringe- ment of the liberties of the house. It may be, however, that there is no need to assume any vital change of tactics. If we can impose on Silva's casual reports a strict interpretation, the committee which drew up the address received only a general charge, Ho consider what course should be taken'. 6 The decision 1 Hist. MSS. Comm., Hatfield MSS., part i, p. 341 ; Haynes, Burghley State Papers, p. 449. 2 Spanish Cat., Eliz., i. 599. 3 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., addend., xiii, no. 39. 4 Spanish Cal., Eliz., i. 599. 5 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., addend., xiii, no. 39. 6 Spanish Cal., Eliz., i. 597-8.
