1921 IN 1562/3 AND 1566 503 a sense of its defective rehearsal in 1562/3. Moreover, the three and a half years which had passed since they last met had not weakened their case for the settlement of the succession. Whilst the summoning of the parliament had been in prospect only, its meeting had been coupled with the succession in the talk of the court : l and people were said to have thought — with a prescience that may have contributed to its partial realization — that the parliament would not vote the queen any supplies if she would not marry or proclaim a successor. 2 Already a pamphlet literature had begun to arise round the controversy, 3 whilst the birth of a son to Mary of Scotland three months before parliament met had intensified national and party interests. Under these cir- cumstances it was a tactical blunder of Elizabeth's to summon the old house of commons. No doubt she was confident of being able to stifle any serious discussion of the succession, and did not foresee that the events of the last session, in providing grounds for distrust of her word, would lead in the new session to the prosecution of the suit in a different spirit. Nor did she foresee that individual members of the commons would be fortified from the outset by a knowledge of the overwhelming support of their assembly, a knowledge which, we may be sure, explains the confidence and pertinacity with which they resisted her express injunctions. Whether the commons could give effect to their will or not depended upon the queen's need of supplies ; and the skill with which they pivoted their manoeuvres upon the subsidy bill showed that they had by now grasped the main principle of par- liamentary tactics. Quite early in the session, on 17 October, the comptroller made the customary motion for supply and obtained the usual committee ; and this, so far as we know, without opposition or complication. 4 But on the following clay the policy for the whole session was suggested by Mr. Molyneux and the progress of the subsidy bill significantly linked with the revived suit for the succession. 5 The debate that followed was sharp. ' Some said ', reported Silva, the Spanish ambassador, that the succession was the prime cause of calling them together, and should be one of the reasons for granting supplies ; others that the succession should not be discussed until supplies were voted, as they thought it was disrespectful to seem to force the Queen in this way. The dispute went so far that on some of the members attempting to leave, saying it was too late to deal with so important a matter, others insisted that the door should be shut to prevent them from leaving, and so they came to blows. 6 1 Spanish Cal., ffliz., i. 568, 571, 577, 578, 580. « Ibid. i. 580. 3 See Cotton MS., Calig. B. ix, ff. 250 and 280 ; also John Hales's tract, of which there are many copies in the British Museum, e. g. Harleian MS. 4666.
- Commons' Journals, i. 74. 6 Ibid. • Spanish Cal., Eliz., i. 589.
