which is scarcely to be credited!), with the addition of his first and rejected answer. Tonnage and poundage had been recklessly levied. Richard Chambers, Samuel Vassal, and John Rolles, three distinguished merchants, the last named of whom was a member of the house of commons, had submitted to a seizure of their goods, rather than become parties to a violation of the public liberties, and the judges had refused them protection. 1 Such was the news that travelled day by day to the seat of sir John Eliot. To crown the whole, Richelieu, laying aside his hat for a helmet, had, by his personal appearance at Rochelle, finally reduced that ill-fated place and driven back the disgraced English fleet.2

But now, bad news having spent itself, the time fixed for the parliament approached. Eliot left his home, to which he was never to return, and hurried up to London.

Parliament met, having suffered an intermediate prorogation, on the 20th of January, 1829. The spirit with which they reassembled was evidenced by their very first movement. They revived every committee of grievance. Sir John Eliot then moved a call of the house for the 27th, when vital matters, he said, would be brought into discussion. It was further ordered, on his motion, that "Mr. Selden should see if the petition of rights, and his majesty's answer thereunto, were enrolled in the parliament rolls and courts at Westminster, and in what manner." Selden having reported, almost immediately after, the gross fraud that had been practised, Pym rose and moved an adjournment of the debate "by reason of the fewness of the house, many being not then come up." Sir John Eliot's conduct was characteristic. "Since this matter," he said "is now raised, it concerns the honour of the house, and the liberties of the kingdom. It is true, it deserves to be deferred till a fuller house, but it is good to prepare things; for I find this to be a point of great consequence. I desire, therefore, that a select committee may both enter into consideration of this, and also how other liberties of this kingdom have been invaded. I found, in the country, the petition of rights printed indeed, but with an answer that never gave any satisfaction. I desire a committee may consider thereof, and present it to the house; and that the printer may be sent for, to be examined about it, and to declare by what warrant it was printed." Eliot's influence with the house was paramount; what he proposed was instantly ordered, and the disgrace of the attempted imposition indelibly fixed upon the king. 1

Eliot followed up this blow. The seizure of the goods of Mr. Rolles came into question; some attempt was made to narrow the inquiry; and sir Robert Philips proposed to refer the matter to a committee. Sir John rose sharply. "Three things, sir," he said, "are involved in this complaint; first, the right of the particular gentleman; secondly, the right of the subject; thirdly, the right and privilege of the house. Let the committee consider the two former; but, for the violation of the liberties of this house, let us not do less than our forefathers. Was ever the information of a member committed to a committee? Let us send for the parties. Is there not here a flat denial of the restitution of the goods? Was it not also said that if all the parliament were contained in him, they would do as they did? Let them be sent for."2 The sheriff of London, Acton, who seized the goods, was in consequence sent for, appeared at the bar on his knees, and was ordered to the Tower. The officers of the customs were, at the same time, punished.3

The fiery decision of Eliot had its usual effect upon the court. The king sent a message to the house to 1 See Parliamentary Hist., vol. viii. pp. 245, 246. The proceedings of this session are but imperfectly reported in Rushworth's Collections.

desire them to forbear all further proceedings until he should have addressed both houses next day at Whitehall as he purposed. His speech was an entreaty that they should not be jealous of him, and an endeavour to impose upon them a self-evident absurditythat he took tonnage and poundage, as a "gift of the people," but as a gift, forsooth, for his life, according to the custom of his predecessors; which he desired them, therefore, to embody in a bill, since they had no discretion to withhold it. This speech was not noticed by the commons.

The 27th of January, the day fixed for the call of the house on Eliot's motion, arrived. The house was in debate on religious grievances. I have already alluded to the encouragement given to arminianism by the court, and to the justifiable alarm it had been viewed with by the popular party. Sir John Eliot's present purpose was to break the power of Laud, and to this full house he now presented himself in all the confidence of an eloquence which worked its greatest influence on minds of the greatest order, which could sway them at will to high excitement or wrap them in deepest admiration. The reader will perceive with what a sober dignity the opening passages of this speech are conceived.

"Sir," he began, taking advantage of a rest in the debate which had been caused by Mr. Coriton, " I have always observed, in the proceedings of this house, our best advantage is in order; and I was glad when that noble gentleman, my countryman, gave occasion to stay our proceedings; for I feared they would have carried us into a sea of confusion and disorder. And now having occasion to present my thoughts to you in this great and weighty business of religion, I shall be bold to give a short expression of my own affection; and in that order that, I hope, will conduce best to the effecting of that work, and direct our labour to an end. To enter, sir, into a particular disquisition of the writings and opinions of divines, I fear it would involve us in a labyrinth that we shall hardly get out of; and perchance hinder that way, and darken that path, in which we must tread. Before 1 Parl. Hist., vol. viii. p. 256. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 644.

we know, however, what other men have declared, it is necessary that we should presently ourselves lay down what is truth. I presume, we came not hither to dispute of religion. Far be it from the thoughts of that church that hath so long time confessed it, now to dispute it. Shall posterity think we have enjoyed our religion fourscore years almost, and are we now doubtful of the defence? God forbid. It may be, however, sir, and out of some things lately delivered I have not unnecessarily collected, that there is a jealousy conceived, as if we meant so to deal with matters of faith, that did not perhaps belong unto us, as to dispute of matters of faith. It is our profession. They are not to be disputed. Neither will that truth be receded from, this long time held. Nor is that truth decayed. It is confirmed by parliament, because it was truth. And this, sir, before I come to deliver myself more particularly, give me leave, that have not yet spoken in this great cause, to give some apprehension I have of fear; for it is not in the parliament to make a new religion, neither, I hope, shall it be in any to alter the body of that truth which we now profess."

Eliot now alluded to the declaration which I have already described as published in the king's name, but which had issued from the hand of Laud. "I must confess, sir, amongst all those fears we have contracted, there ariseth to me not one of the least dangers in the declaration, which is made and published in his majesty's name: and yet, sir, this conclusion exclusively let me state, that I may not be mistaken, - whatever in this, or other things, shall appear to make mention of his majesty, we have not the least suspicion of jealousy of him. I hope it is by those ministers about him, which not only he, but all princes are subject to." The speaker then adduced various precedents which covertly aimed at Laud. "As it was in that," he continued, "so it may be in this. I speak to this end to draw it to this conclusion, that if there be any thing that carrieth the title of his majesty, it may be the fault of his ministers. Far be it from me to have suspicion of him. And now to that particular, in that declaration; wherein, I confess, with me, is an apprehension of more fear than I have of all the rest; for in the last particulars we heard what is said of popery and arminianism. It is true our faith and religion have before been in danger; but it was by degrees. Here, sir, like an inundation, it doth break in at once. We are in danger at once to be ruined and overwhelmed. For, I beseech you mark, the ground of our religion is contained in these articles. If there be any difference of opinions concerning the sense and interpretation of them, the bishops and clergy in convocation have a power admitted to them here to do any thing which shall concern the continuance and maintenance of the truth professed; which truth being contained in these articles, and these articles being different in the sense, if there be any dispute about that, it will be in them to order which way they please; and, for aught I know, popery and arminianism may be a sense introduced by them, and then it must be received. Is this a slight thing, that the power of religion must be drawn to the persons of those men? I honour their profession and honour their persons; but, give me leave to say, the truth we profess is not men's, but God's; and God forbid that men should be made to judge of that truth!"

This passage wrought upon the house; and Eliot, throwing out a sarcasm with his usual skill and effect, thus continued: - "I remember a character I have seen in a diary of Edward VI., that young prince of famous memory, wherein he doth express the condition of the bishops and clergy in his time, and saith, under his own handwriting, 'that some for sloth, some for ignorance, some for luxury, and some for popery, are unfit for discipline and government. Sir, I hope, it is not so with us; nay, give me leave to vindicate the honour of those men that openly show their hearts to the truth. There are amongst our bishops such as are fit to be made examples to all ages, who shine in virtue, like those two faithful witnesses in heaven, of whom we may use that eulogy which Seneca did of Caius - that to their memories and merits, 'Nec hoc quidem obstet