262 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[2od S. X. Oct. 6. '60. 



after his own son and daughter. The first attempt 

 to set aside this order was that of the Duke of 

 Northumberland, on the death of Edward VI., in 

 the well-known endeavour to place his daughter- 

 in-law, the Lady Jane Grey, eldest daughter of 

 the Lady Frances Brandon, on the throne, by vir- 

 tue of a nomination of Edward VI. On the ac- 

 cession of Elizabeth, her presumptive successor 

 (supposing the will of Henry VIII. valid) was 

 Lady Katharine Grey, younger sister of Lady 

 Jane Grey ; it was, however, strenuously asserted 

 that the will of Henry VIII. was not properly 

 executed, and that the Queen of Scots was the 

 true successor as the common-law heir ; a con- 

 sequence as strenuously denied by the supporters 

 of Lady Katharine, who asserted that at common- 

 law the Queen of Scots, and other descendants of 

 Margaret, sister of Henry VIII., were not capable 

 of inheriting the crown, being aliens born ; and 

 that, neglecting all considerations of the act and 

 will, Lady Katharine was the true heir. These 

 disputes were not idle. Protestants looked to the 

 Lady Katharine as the safeguard of Protestantism, 

 and all Romanists saw in the succession of Mary 

 an assurance of the revival of their faith ; indeed, 

 the more zealous of them added a fresh element 

 of dispute by supporting her claims to the imme- 

 diate possession of the crown on the ground of 

 the illegitimacy of Elizabeth. It is, however, 

 easily to be believed that most Englishmen, hating 

 Scotch succession, yet looking askance on the claims 

 of Lady Katharine, were glad to be relieved from 

 these doubtful discussions ; and accordingly, in 

 the first parliament of Elizabeth (1559), the Com- 

 mons besought the Queen to marry. Their hope 

 to get rid of the difficulty must have been some- 

 what discouraged when they met with the answer 

 that she would die a virgin. 



Men's minds were in this state of distraction, 

 when Ferrex and Porrex appeared. It was first 

 performed at the Christmas revels at the Temple, 

 in 1561 ; and some three weeks afterwards (18th 

 Jan. 1561-62), was acted by command before her 

 majesty. It was not printed till 1565, when it 

 was surreptitiously published by Griffith, whose 

 title-page ascribed the first three Acts to Thomas 

 Norton ; the remainder to Thomas Sackville, 

 afterwards Lord Buckhurst and Earl of Dorset. 



In the autumn of 1562, the Queen was for some 

 time dangerously ill, and the terror of disorder 

 brought home to all men : so that, on a new par- 

 liament being called, we find in the Commons' 

 Journals the following significant entries : — 



" Friday, 15 Janfy, 1562-3. 

 Saturday 16 „ „ 



Monday 18 

 Tuesday 19 



Speaker. 



A motion made by a Bur- 



§838 at length for the 

 accession. 

 Divers members spoke on 



the same subject. 

 A Committee was ap- 

 pointed, and on 



Tuesdaj' 26 „ „ A petition devised by the 



Committees, to be made 

 to the Queen's Majy by 

 M' Speaker, for Limita- 

 tion of Succession read 

 by M' Norton, one of 

 the Committees." 

 The Lords also petitioned the Queen to marry, 

 and limit the succession * ; but it is not necessary 

 to go any farther into the history of these attempts 

 at a settlement of the crown ; it is well known 

 how Elizabeth alternately bullied and cajoled her 

 Commons, and did not name her successor until 

 on her deathbed. 



If the reader will read again the extracts I have 

 given, he will see how the fears expressed by the 

 nobles were the fears then felt by most English- 

 men — how the speech of Eubulus points out a 

 means of averting disorder, which was immedi- 

 ately afterwards attempted to be carried into 

 effect by the parliament — how Arostus appears as 

 an advocate for Lady Katharine Grey, at once 

 putting forth her strongest argument, and striking 

 against the pretension of her adversary. 



Before finishing this paper, I would add a few 

 words on the authorship of Ferrex and Porrex. 

 I have said that Griffith attributed the first three 

 acts to Thomas Norton, but the accuracy of this 

 has been doubted. Warton was of opinion that it 

 was the work of one man, and that man Sackville ; 

 and Mr. Hallara inclined to Warton's opinion ; 

 but as Mr. Hallam says the rhymed utterances of 

 the chorus are in blank verse, the value of his 

 judgment is diminished by the slight and careless 

 manner in which he must have read the play. 

 The latest editor, the Hon. and Rev. R. W. Sack- 

 ville- West, has a natural judgment in favour of 

 Lord Dorset. 



Without setting up the complete accuracy of 

 Griffith's title-page, I must confess to thinking 

 that Norton's claim has been too quickly rejected. 

 There is no external evidence whatever against 

 it ; and the second or authorised edition names 

 Lord Buckhurst and Ngrton as the authors. More- 

 over there is evidence that Norton was foremost 

 in the debate on the limitation of the succession, 

 and so might reasonably have shared in the com- 

 position of this tragedy. The reader will have 

 noticed in the extract from the Commons' Jour- 

 nals that Mr. Norton, one of the committees, read 

 the petition which had been devised. Now, as 

 Norton had no official position to call for this pro- 

 minence, I think it fair to assume that in accord- 

 ance with the present parliamentary practice, — a 

 practice reasonable in itself, he read the petition 

 as chairman of the committees, the person on 

 whose motion the committees were nominated, 

 the burgess who opened the subject on the 16th 



' The petition of the Lords is printed in Cobbett's 

 Pari. History, but erroneously referred to the parliament 

 of 1566. 



