life of Eliot, as another instance of what he is pleased to consider the turbulence and "ungovernable passion" of his "bold and adventurous character."1 Without

quoting any authority, Mr. D'Israeli states, that "when the house of commons voted 5000l. for a compensation to the family for his (Eliot's 'sufferings, they also voted another 2000l., part of four, for which he had been fined by the court of wards, by reason of his marriage with sir Daniel Norton's daughter." He then goes on to state that this indicates the violent carrying off of the lady by the turbulent Eliot. What possible authority Mr. D'Israeli can bring forward for this statement, I know not. The only record in existence bearing on such a subject, so far as I am aware, is an entry in the earl of Leicester's journal, of unquestioned authenticity and correctness. It is most satisfactory on the point, as will be seen; and I will not suppose that this was the source from which Mr. D'Israeli derived his statement. It is as follows: "Monday, 18th January, 1646. The house of commons this day, according to former order, took into consideration the great losses and sufferings of many members, in the yeare tertio Caroli, for speaking (in parliament) in behalf of the kingdom. A report whereof was made to the house, from the committee to whom it was formerly referred; and the commons, upon debate, passed several votes for allowances to be given to such members, in recompense of theyr wrongs and sufferings, as followeth:" several names are then specified, and among them, "that 5000l. be allowed to sir John Elliotte's younger children; and his elder son's fine in the court of wards to be remitted."2

This "elder son," against whose turbulence the reproof of Mr. D'Israeli ought to have been directed, was a youth of idle and riotous habits, very wild irregularities, which subsequently, as we shall show, proved a source of much anxiety and disquiet to his father. He was the exact person for the adventure maliciously fixed upon sir John. The latter married without violating the laws of any court, but was deprived of his wife by death, after she had presented him with two sons.1 "younger children" alluded to in the passage quoted would seem to comprise the family of the second son.

The

Eliot's intercourse with Villiers was now resumed. A wonderful change had taken place in the interval. The base creature Somerset had been prosecuted at last, ostensibly for the murder of Overbury2, but, in reality, to provide room for a fourth favourite, on whom the majesty of the day might lavish its shameless fondness. That new favourite was selected in the person of George Villiers. Well might lord Clarendon exclaim, "Never any man, in any age, nor, I believe, in any country or nation, rose in so short a time to so much greatness of honour, fame, or fortune, upon no other advantage or recommendation than of the beauty or gracefulness of his person."3 Among the successive honours showered in ridiculous abundance upon him, fell that of lord high admiral of England. With this office was connected the duty of appointing vice-admirals in the several counties; and it is probable that, personal motives of acquaintance or even friendship quite apart, the name of Eliot was instantly suggested to the young favourite, as one that claimed on every ground a promotion of this sort. He possessed one of the largest paternal estates of any gentleman of the time, and had the command of much influence in his own and the neighbouring county. Accordingly we find that the lapse of a short time after that which saw Villiers promoted to the office of lord high admiral, saw Eliot made vice-admiral of Devonshire. He was also appointed chairman of the committee of stannaries of his duties in which office he has left a manuscript report - and, at the same time, he received knighthood.

In accordance with the desperate and unwearied spirit of misrepresentation I have already had so many occasions to allude to, the political enemies of this illustrious person have seized on this change in his estate, to attribute it to those vile and vulgar motives, which alone they would seem to be acquainted with. Echard leads the way, connecting it, most unfortunately for his purpose, with the incident of Moyle. After giving the false account, formerly quoted, of that youthful anecdote, the archdeacon proceeds : "And now, supposing he had perfected his revenge, he immediately hastened to London to address himself to his sure friend the duke of Buckingham, in order to get his pardon: which, to his great disappointment, he could not obtain without advancing a considerable sum of money into the exchequer. But as soon as his pardon was sealed, and the money paid, he received intelligence that Mr. Moyle was unexpectedly recovered. Upon the happy assurance of this, he again applied himself to the duke, to procure the repayment of the money; but that being swallowed up in the occasions of the court beyond any recovery, all that he could obtain in lieu of it was to be knighted: which, though it might have allayed the heat of his ambition, was so heinously taken at the hands of a person once his equal, that after that he never ceased to be his mortal enemy, but helped to blow up such a flame in the house as was never extinguished." This monstrous account, which I have extracted partly for the amusement of the reader, has found its believers in the present day. It is idle to waste words on its refutation. At the period when, it is thus hardily asserted, the assassin Eliot hurried up to his friend the duke, to crave protection from the laws he had outraged, that "assassin" was but a boy, and the " duke" plain George Villiers, with less power than his pretended suppliant.

But the inconsistencies of the candid "historians" and " commentators" do not end here. Mr. D'Israeli, who adopts the ridiculously false statement just quoted, has attempted to corroborate it by the production of a letter written in the year 1623 to the duke. That is to say, he adopts the statement that sir John repaid the protection and the knighthood given him by the duke with immediate and violent hostility; and proposes to corroborate that, by producing a letter written in courteous and deferential terms, by sir John to the duke, some considerable time after the period of the knighthood. The gross folly of this is apparent. I pass that, however, to consider the letter, and the position attempted to be established by its means, namely, "that in 1623 we find sir John a suppliant to, and at least a complimentary admirer of, the minister, and only two years after, in 1625, Eliot made his first personal attack on that minister, his late patron and friend, whom he then selected as a victim of state."2

With respect to the first part of this charge, the answer is short and obvious. The letter is not written in sir John's personal character, but as vice-admiral of Devonshire, to the lord high admiral of England. This is admitted even, in another place, by the author of the charge himself. The office of vice-admiral had proved extremely troublesome to sir John, involving him in many disputes concerning the wrecks on the coast, and saddling him with the expenses of various trials.4 Rather than submit to these, it would appear that, in one instance, Eliot preferred to subject himself to the inconveniences of arrest. Under such circumstances

1 Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 270. 3 Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 270.

2 Pamphlet, p. 6.

See Commons' Journals, 27th of February, 1623; and again, 2d of March in the same year.

it was most natural that he should seek some reparation for the injuries he had undergone in support of the office and rights of the duke of Buckingham. For this purpose the letter in question was written: its tone is expostulatory, and, courteous as its terms are, it is even deficient in those elaborately complimentary phrases which were considered due, in that age, to the ceremonious observances of letter-writing. It is as follows.

"Right honourable, - With what affection I have served your grace, I desire rather it should be read in my actions than my words, which made me sparing in my last relation to touch those difficulties wherewith my letters have been checkt, that they might the more fully speak themselves. I shall not seek to gloss them now, but, as they have been, leave them to your grace's acceptance, which I presume so noble, that scandal or detraction cannot decline it. It were an injury of your worth, which I dare not attempt, to insinuate the opinion of any merit by false colours or pretences, or with hard circumstances to endear my labours, and might beget suspicion, sooner than assurance in your credit, which I may not hazard. My innocence, I hope, needs not these ; nor would I shadow the least errour under your protection. But when my services have been faithful, and not altogether vain, directed truly to the honour and benefit of YOUR PLACE, only suffering upon the disadvantage of your absence, I must importune your grace to support my weakness, that it may cause no prejudice of your rights and liberties, which I have studied to preserve, though with the loss of mine own. My insistance therein hath exposed me to a long imprisonment and great charge, which still increaseth, and threatens the ruin of my poor fortunes, if they be not speedily prevented. For which, as my endeavours have been wholly yours, I most humbly crave your grace's favour both to myself and them; in