510 THE SUCCESSION QUESTION October to address the queen was its own. If it submitted its final draft to the house on Monday, 18 November, or on some subsequent day, the necessity must then have arisen of obtaining access to the queen. After all, it was easy enough to prepare an address, but its presentation was not thereby assured. The address touched on three subjects, the queen's • marriage, the settle- ment of the succession, and the alleged breach of the commons' liberties. Although in the case of the two former the house was merely acknowledging Elizabeth's speech of 5 November, yet by innuendo there was a reiteration of the succession suit. Clearly no audience could be sought on these grounds : a double veto prevented such action. Only the third, the breach of liberties, could be urged ; but if this was to be the reason for approaching the queen, then a question of procedure must have arisen. It was the queen herself who had committed the supposed breach, and one can well imagine that the ministerial, and perhaps the moderate legal, element in the house urged that her consent to discussing the question should first be sought, before presenting her with an address condemning her actions, in however humble language. There is at least this merit attaching to the suggestion, that it avoids our assuming an important tactical change for which we have no evidence. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the committee suffered a defeat in the house, its address was abandoned, and a new line of action was taken involving a request by the house for leave, to confer on its liberties. In effect the request forced the queen either to give way, or to dissolve the parliament and lose her supplies. Two ways of placating the commons were open to her. The one was to accede to their request, the inconveniences of which were obvious. The other was to raise her veto. This she did, although ' An addition ' to the draft message wisely ordered the "Speaker to silence any member who might thereafter directly or indirectly deal with any particular title to the succession. 1 Her voluntary surrender, when surrender had clearly become a necessity, was a wise move of Elizabeth's, for it cancelled anything in the nature of the proposed address, with its inconvenient references to marriage and the succession. Moreover, it probably went far to pacify the more moderate section of the house, and the generosity of allowing them freedom to continue their discussions perhaps operated as a challenge to their own sense of chivalry to rely on her good faith and rest content with her promises made on 5 November. After all, the draft address showed that they were ready to do this under the compulsion of her disapproval. Silva reported at this time, ' It is believed that an arrangement has been made that they shall refrain from further considering the succes- 1 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, no. 30.
