Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/520

 512 THE SUCCESSION QUESTION October discussion : she now sacrificed a substantial sum of money. In her message to the house flattery tried to outbid generosity ; * and that the gesture might be perfect, on the same day she stayed all further proceedings against Dalton. 2 * She had stooped to conquer. The stroke was masterly, but if Elizabeth thought she had heard the last of marriage and the succession, she was deceived. The fact that they had not succeeded in getting their suit into writing must have rankled in the minds of members. Accord- ingly, two days after the resurrection of the subsidy bill, they hit on the ingenious idea of incorporating the queen's promises in a preamble to the bill. She would thus be compelled in assenting to supplies to reassert her promises in the most solemn manner, and the preamble would both remain of record and go forth to the country as a binding pledge and as substantial proof of the work of the session. 3 The leaders in this new move included Monson and Bell, 4 and it is probable that a committee, perhaps the committee dealing with the bill itself, undertook the drafting of the preamble. The preamble consisted of three sections, the first thanking the queen for her remittance of part of the subsidy, the second and third reasserting and thanking her for her promises regarding her marriage and the succession : and as the address prepared a fortnight previously may be regarded as a reiteration of their unpresented petition, though in a form modified to suit the circumstances, so the preamble may be viewed as a revival of the address, though considerably amended owing to subsequent events. Cordell, the master of the rolls, probably drew up the first model, 5 and three consecutive drafts of it survive in the State Papers, with Cecil's amendments, no doubt made at the behest of the committee. 6 But this first model was rejected and a new one substituted, the draft of which is amongst the lords' manu- scripts. 7 The two have practically no common basis, except in subject, and the second was probably drafted by a private member. It is not obvious why the first was abandoned, but perhaps we may see a clue in the third section relating to the succession, where in the later model, as in the old address, the queen is reminded that the surety of her people rather than of herself is to determine the time for nominating her successor. 8 1 Cf. infra, pp. 517-18, and D'Ewes, p. 115 b. 2 Supra, p. 509. 3 In 1628 there was a suggestion, of interest in this connexion, to make the Petition of Right a preamble to the subsidy bill. Referred to in Relf, The Petition of Right, p. 55. s Cf. ibid. 8 State Papers, Dom., Eliz., xli, nos. 40, 41, 41 a. Heads for the preamble are in vol. xl, no. 90. 7 Printed below, p. 517. 8 Infra, p. 518.
 * Cf. Hist. MSS. Comm., Hatfield MSS., part i, p. 341.