And now, having said enough for the consequence and opportunity of my coming over, I desire to know why my coming should be suspiciously apprehended. Out of Ireland there came in the same passage with me, my Lord of Southampton that was displaced, my Lord of Dunkilline, and Sir Christopher St. Lawrence, that, in this vacancy of offers and time of truce, desired by their own presence to renew the memory of their former services; Sir Henry Davers, that was not through whole[59] of a dangerous wound; Sir Henry Dockwrey, that was before I came away ... to sue for the government of Connaught; and some other knights and captains that were discharged, besides two captains that pretended great business and long absence, and some gentlemen that were my own servants, that were out of pay by the discharging of Sir John Lee’s company. But of all these, there were not ten persons that accompanied me (from the sea’s side) any part of the way, and not above six that came to the Court, the rest taking their own courses and intending their private occasions. But should my evil intent be?[60] It was as easy for me to do evil as to think evil when I had a kingdom in my government and an army in my hand. And the evil I did was but to myself, for I wasted both my body and state in a costly, painful and discomfortable service. And now, having stripped myself of all, and thrown myself at my Sovereign’s feet, shall enemies or accusations prevail against demonstration, to make my intent of coming over to be held suspect? Justice and charity will not allow of these constructions made of those whose religion or descent might make them suspected, except they enforce probable grounds: and shall I (without any ground) be thus censured, who have lost my father and my brother in her Majesty’s service, spent 13 of my 33 years as an officer about her Majesty’s person, and seven years as a poor councillor of her State, that am of all the subjects of England most hated by all the enemies of her Majesty’s religion and welfare, and for my services to her person and to her crown am so threatened with revenge as no place is safe for me but her kingdom, nor no time but her reign? No! I thank my God I know there doth neither good Christian nor lover of his country suspect my intent. And for the imputations of the rest, I answer them with the old rule, _ut quisque est ... bonus et sic e contra_. And now it appears that I settled the State before my coming away, and that there grew no dangerous consequence by my coming over. QUEEN ELIZABETH’S SPEECH TO HER LAST PARLIAMENT, IN ANSWER TO THE COMMONS’ THANKS TO HER FOR SUPPRESSING THE “ENGROSSING” OR MONOPOLIES, NOVEMBER 30, 1601. =Source.=--_Somers Tracts_ (from MS. of Bishop of Bangor).[61] Vol. i., p. 244.