quod nostris temporibus nati sint;' and to whose memory and merit I may use the saying, that the others' faults are no prejudice to their virtues; who are so industrious in their works, that I hope posterity shall know there are men that are firm for the truth. But, sir, that all now are not so free, sound, and orthodox in religion as they should be, witness the men complained of-and you know what power they have. Witness those men nominated lately - Mr. Montague, for instance. I reverence the order; I honour not the man. Others may be named as bad. I apprehend such fear that, should it be in their power, we may be in danger to have our whole religion overthrown.

"But," Eliot exclaimed, as he saw the excitement rising in the house, " I give this for testimony, and thus far do express myself against all the power and opposition of these men! Whensoever any opposition shall be, I trust we shall maintain the religion we profess, for in that we have been born and bred-nay, sir, if cause be, in that I hope to die! Some of these, sir, you know, are masters of ceremonies, and they labour to introduce new ceremonies in the church. Some ceremonies are useful! Give me leave to join in one that I hold necessary and commendable, that at the repetition of the creed we should stand up to testify the resolution of our hearts, that we would defend that religion we profess. In some churches it is added that they did not only stand upright with their bodies, but with their swords drawn! and if cause were, I hope, to defend our prince, country, and religion, we should draw our swords against all opposers!" 1

This speech, it has been remarked, was a light that fell into a well laid train. Its result was a “ vow, made on the journals, that "the Commons of England claimed, professed, and avowed for truth, that sense of the articles of religion which were established in parliament in the 13th year of queen Elizabeth, which, by the public acts of the church of England, and by the general and current exposition of the writers of that church, had been declared unto them; and that they rejected the sense of the Jesuits, Arminians, and of all others, wherein they differed from it."1 Eliot did not fail to follow up this advantage. Some days afterwards he fastened upon Laud by name. "In this Laud," he exclaimed, "is contracted all the danger that we fear! and I doubt not but that his majesty, being informed thereof, will leave him to the justice of this house."2 His majesty, meanwhile, was sending message after message to hasten the tonnage and poundage bill, every one of which, with admirable skill, was foiled by Eliot and his friends. 3 In vain the king continued his messages. Those were commands, they replied, and commands were inconsistent with their privileges. "The heart-blood of the commonwealth," added Eliot, "receiveth life from the privileges of this house." 4

The question of religion surrendered to a sub-committee, -the popular leaders had engaged themselves in a conclusion of the inquiry into the seizure of merchants' goods, with a view to the prevention of such future wrongs, by the infliction of some stringent punishment on the delinquents concerned in the present. The chancellor of the dutchy threatened the displeasure of the king, and a close to the parliament. Eliot, cutting short his threat, quietly observed, "The question, sir, is, whether we shall first go to the restitution, or to the point of delinquency. Some now raise up difficulties, in opposition to the point of delinquency, and talk of breach of parliaments. And other fears I met with, both in this and elsewhere. Take heed you fall noton a rock. I am confident to avoid this would be somewhat difficult, were it not for the goodness and justice of the king. But let us do that which is just, and his goodness will be so clear that we need not mistrust. Let those terrors that are threatened us, light on them that make them. Why should we fear the justice of a king when we do that which is just? Let there be no more memory or fear of breaches; and let us now go to the delinquency of those men. That is the only way to procure satisfaction.” 1 Upon this the king sent word that he was the delinquent, for that what the accused did, "was by his own direct orders and command." 2 This brought matters to a crisis, and the house adjourned itself for two days.

On the 25th of February, when they reassembled, the committee of religion had concluded its report, and a long list of formidable charges, levelled against Laud, was agreed to be presented to the king. The question of the king's offence against the privileges of the house, in the seizure he had avowed, was thus judiciously avoided, yet an opportunity given to Charles, by some redemption of the recently violated liberties, of receiving from the patriot leaders, without betrayal of their trust, a power of raising new subsidies. The king showed his appreciation of this conduct by sending an instant command to both houses to adjourn to Monday, the 2d of March.3

Eliot now saw what was intended, and prepared for it with a fearless composure. He drew up a remonstrance concerning tonnage and poundage. In this able document, nothing that is essential to a just opinion of the conduct of the Commons respecting the bill that had been proposed, is omitted. The delay is shown to have been necessary, and the purposes of the leaders of the house are nobly vindicated. It concludes with a solemn statement, that "the commons had so framed a grant of subsidy of tonnage and poundage to your majesty, that you might have been the better enabled for the defence of your realm, and your subjects, by being secured from all undue charges, be the more encouraged cheerfully to proceed in their course of trade; but not being, now, able to accomplish this their desire, there is no course left unto them, without manifest breach of their duty both to your majesty and their country, save only to make this humble declaration, that the receiving of tonnage and poundage, and other impositions not granted by parliament, is a breach of the fundamental liberties of this kingdom, and of your majesty's royal answer to the petition of rights." Eliot, at the same time, drew up three articles of protestation, which ran thus:-" 1. Whoever shall bring in innovation in religion, or by favour seek to extend or introduce Popery or Arminianism, or other opinions disagreeing from the true and orthodox church, shall be reputed a capital enemy to this kingdom and commonwealth. 2. Whosoever shall counsel or advise the taking and levying of the subsidies of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament, or shall be an actor or instrument therein, shall be likewise reputed an innovator in the government, and a capital enemy to this kingdom and commonwealth. 3. If any merchant or other person whatsoever shall voluntarily yield or pay the said subsidies of tonnage and poundage, not being granted by parliament; he shall likewise be reputed a betrayer of the liberty of England, and an enemy to the same." 2

With these documents sir John Eliot entered the house of commons on the morning of the 2d of March 1629, for the last time.

He waited only till prayers had been said, and then arose. For the last time, on that fatal day, this great statesman struck, with daring eloquence, at a profligate courtier and a dishonest churchman. "Buckingham is dead," he said, "but he lives in the bishop of Winchester and my lord treasurer Weston ! (Weston, it was understood, had been a party to the dis

"

1 Parl. Hist., vol. viii. p. 327.; and see the information afterwards exhibited in the Star Chamber. Rushworth, vol. i. pp. 665, 666.

2 Rushworth, vol, i. pp. 660 and 666.

astrous advice by which, Eliot had anticipated too surely, they were now about to be dissolved. "In the person of the lord treasurer," the orator continued, amidst the interruptions of some, and the enthusiastic cheering of others, "in his person all evil is contracted, for the innovation of religion, and for the invasion of our liberties. He is the great enemy of the commonwealth. I have traced him in all his actions, and I find him building on those grounds laid by his master, the great duke. He, secretly, is moving for this interruption. From fear, these men go about to break parliaments, lest parliaments should break them." Eliot concluded, as if by a forecast of the future, with these memorable words. "I protest, as I am a gentleman, if my fortune be ever again to meet in this honourable assembly, where I now leave, I will begin again!"1 Advancing to the speaker, sir John Eliot then produced his remonstrance, and desired that he would read it. The speaker refused. He presented it to the clerk at the table. The clerk also refused. With fearless determination Eliot now read the remonstrance himself, and demanded of the speaker, as a right, that he should put it to the vote. Again the speaker refused. "He was commanded otherwise by the king." A severe reprimand followed from Selden, and the speaker rose to quit the chair. Denzil Hollis and Valentine dragged him back. Sir Thomas Edmonds and other privy councillors made an attempt to rescue him, but "with a strong hand" he was held down in the chair, and Hollis swore he should sit still, till it pleased them to rise. The house was now in open and violent disorder. The speaker weepingly implored them to let him go; and sir Peter Hayman in reply renounced him for his kinsman;-as the disgrace of his country, the blot of a noble family, and a man whom posterity would remember with scorn and disdain. Every moment increased the disorder, till at last it threatened the most serious consequences. Some members, involuntarily, placed their 1 Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 326.