majesty,
being informed of the articles of reformation which they had canvassed,
approved of them, intended to publish them, and to make the bishops
execute them by virtue of her royal authority, as supreme head of the
church of England; but that she would not permit them to be treated
of in parliament.[*] The house, though they did not entirely stop
proceedings on account of this injunction, seem to have been nowise
offended at such haughty treatment; and in the issue, all the bills came
to nothing.

A motion made by Robert Bell, a Puritan, against an exclusive patent
granted to a company of merchants in Bristol,[**] gave also occasion to
several remarkable incidents. The queen, some days after the motion was
made, sent orders, by the mouth of the speaker, commanding the house
to spend little time in motions, and to avoid long speeches. All the
members understood that she had been offended, because a matter had been
moved which seemed to touch her prerogative.[***] Fleetwood accordingly
spoke of this delicate subject. He observed, that the queen had a
prerogative of granting patents; that to question the validity of any
patent was to invade the royal prerogative; that all foreign trade
was entirely subjected to the pleasure of the sovereign; that even the
statute which gave liberty of commerce, admitted of all prohibitions
from the crown; and that the prince, when he granted an exclusive
patent, only employed the power vested in him, and prohibited all others
from dealing in any particular branch of commerce. He quoted the clerk
of the parliament's book to prove, that no man might speak in parliament
of the statute of wills, unless the king first gave license; because the
royal prerogative in the wards was thereby touched. He showed, likewise,
the statutes of Edward I., Edward III., and Henry IV., with a saving of
the prerogative. And in Edward VI.'s time, the protector was applied to
for his allowance to mention matters of prerogative.[****]

* D'Ewes, p. 180, 185.

** D'Ewes, p. 185.

*** D'Ewes, p. 159.

**** D'Ewes, p. 160.

Sir Humphrey Gilbert, the gallant and renowned sea adventurer, carried
these topics still further. He endeavored to prove the motion made by
Bell to be a vain device, and perilous to be treated of; since it tended
to the derogation of the prerogative imperial, which whoever should
attempt so much as in fancy, could not, he said, be otherwise accounted
than an open e