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 into 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 the religion we profess. In some churches, it is added, that they do 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." The expression, "masters of ceremonies," referred particularly to Laud, who was mentioned a few days later as the person whose zeal for such things was likely to spread the flame of religious discord through the land. The immediate effect of Eliot's speech was the recording of a journals, in which the commons of England "claimed, professed, and avowed for truth, that some of the articles of religion, which were established in parliament in the thirteenth year of 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."

vow" in the

Jan. 29.

With regard to the alleged increase of Popery, this was described as the natural consequence of the supineness or lenity of the Complaints of government. Of ten priests lately apprehended, one only the increase of Popery. had been condemned, and the law was not enforced even in his case. Two committees were appointed to interrogate the judges, and the attorney-general, on this subject, and every member was called upon to state whatever he knew respecting the cause of so much remissness in the administration of the laws against recusants*.

Duplicity of Charles with respect to the printed copies of the Petition of Right.

While the commons were employing themselves on these irritating topics, Charles called upon them repeatedly to have some consideration of his wants, and to pass the bill of tonnage and poundage without any further loss of time. But he soon found that his subjects had other matters of complaint beside those which respected religion. Immediately after the prorogation, the king's printer had prepared fifteen hundred copies of the Petition of Right for distribution by sale, having the king's last answer to that much valued document attached to them. Charles, in a moment of almost inexplicable weakness, commanded the printer to destroy that edition, and to prepare another, inserting in the place of that answer the evasive one which the commons had compelled him to recall, and with it the suspicious statements which he had made at the

* Parl. Hist. ii. 248, 449, 458, 464, 467, 473-476, 483. Rushworth, i. 649,

Disputes be

close of the last session, as expressing his own judgment of the true import and design of the petition. No means could be devised to save the king from the disgrace of this proceeding, and as it became matter of general notoriety, its effect upon his character was of the most injurious description-for after this, who could either think creditably of his understanding, or place the slightest confidence in his sincerity* ? Charles now endeavoured to calm the excitement which his conduct had occasioned. He publicly admitted that the duties of tween the King tonnage and poundage were received by himself and his preand the Com- decessors as a gift from the subject, and assured the commons. mons that nothing recently said or done by him was meant to contravene the great principle included in this concession. It was determined accordingly, that the duties should be voted, but it was first demanded that a reparation should be made to the persons who, in consequence of their not being levied with consent of parliament, had refused to pay them, and who had been sufferers on that account. The officers who had been thus illegally employed became alarmed, and fled to the protection of the sovereign; and Charles was at length induced to admonish the house that it was not his pleasure that any of his servants should be punished in consequence of acting according to his instructions. It did not require the sagacity which distinguished the leading men in the commons to discover the repugnance of such a prohibition to every principle of freedom ;-an irresponsible king, and irresponsible ministers, being all that is necessary to constitute the most perfect despotism. Eliot had argued, that it became not the house to be satisfied with repairing the injuries done to the merchants whose goods had been illegally seized. The delinquency of the men who had made such seizures should be visited with signal punishment, and in the mean time every threat of the king's displeasure reported to them by his ministers should be interpreted as a libel on his Majesty's sense of justice. When the royal message above mentioned was announced, there was reason to apprehend that the moment of a more dangerous struggle between the crown and the people than had hitherto occurred in our constitutional history had arrived, and the house adjourned itself for two days.

Its next meeting was on the twenty-fifth of February, when the committee of religion had brought its report to a close, and a paper containing many charges, directed principally against Laud, was agreed upon to be presented to the king. For a moment the house seemed to be losing sight of the more obnoxious matters of complaint respecting the king's officers and the merchants. But Charles was too much offended to adopt the course which sound policy would have suggested at this juncture. He might have broken the force of the opposition on the question of ton-` nage and poundage, by showing a disposition to conciliate on the ques* Parl. Hist. ii. 435-437.

tion of religion. But he chose rather to command an adjournment of several days.

The commons now determined that their remoustrance should embrace both their civil and their ecclesiastical grievances. In the paper produced at their next meeting they insisted that the delay in passing the bill of tonnage and poundage had been strictly necessary, if the object for which they were convened was to promote, to the extent of their power, the good of the commonwealth; and they concluded by expressing their solemn regret, that their efforts to serve both his majesty and the country by placing every branch of the revenue on a constitutional basis had been rendered fruitless, and that nothing now remained to them but to affirm "in 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 the royal answer to the Petition of Right." Not content with this declaration to the sovereign, Eliot prepared a protestation on the principal matters in debate, consisting of three articles drawn up in the following terms:-" First, 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. Secondly, 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 the kingdom and commonwealth. Thirdly, 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 reported a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same."

of March.

On the morning of the memorable second of March, 1629, Eliot entered the house with the fixed purpose of strongly recom- Proceedings in mending the immediate adoption of these resolutions. the Commons Prayers were no sooner ended, than he rose and denounced on the second the bishop of Winchester, and the lord treasurer Weston, as men in whom the evil policy of the late duke still found support. The latter, especially, was described as the great enemy of the commonwealth, and as employing every secret influence for the destruction of parliaments, their existence being incompatible with the impunity of his own bad actions; and fearing that this influence would be employed with too much success, the orator concluded by declaring, that should he ever meet again in that honourable assembly, where he had now finished he would then be found to begin. He then advanced toward the chair, exhibited the remonstrance prepared to meet the eye of the sovereign, and called upon the speaker to read it. The speaker refused; he then presented the document to the clerk, who also refused. Not at all dis

mayed by an impediment so unusual, Eliot now read the remonstrance himself, and demanded of the speaker that he should put it to the vote. That officer, still refusing, at length said that he was commanded otherwise by the king. This confession was followed by an indignant censure from Selden; and the speaker on rising to leave the chair was forced back again by Hollis and Valentine. Several of the privy council interposed for his rescue, but he was compelled, by the strong hands upon him, to remain sitting, and Hollis swore that he should not rise until it should be the pleasure of the house to separate. Violent disorder now spread through the house. The speaker with tears implored that he might be permitted to withdraw. Sir Peter Hayman, his kinsman, reproached him as the disgrace of a noble family, and as a man whose pusillanimity would make him the contempt of all future times. The confusion increased, and some members were seen placing their hands upon their swords, when the voice of Eliot rose above the rest as he declared that he would express with his tongue what the paper in his hand should have done. Throwing the remonstrance upon the floor, he placed the protestation in the three articles in the hands of Hollis, exclaiming that nothing should prevent their making that declaration, Hollis, assuming the function of the speaker, read the resolutions, and they were adopted amidst loud acclamations. During these proceedings Charles sent, first, the sergeant at arms, and then the usher of the black rod, to bring away the mace-but the doors were locked. He was meditating a forced entrance with his guard, when, Eliot's resolutions having passed, the doors were thrown open, and the members suddenly disappeared, passing in a crowd through the street*.

Parliament dissolved.

The house separated, in obedience to the royal message, until the tenth of March on that day Charles went to the lords, and, having in the course of his speech described the leaders of the opposition in the commons as ' vipers" who should have their reward, dissolved the parliament.

Conduct of the

There were men in that age who did not profess themselves of the court party, and who regarded the speeches of the popular Commons to- leaders and the proceedings of the lower house as someward Charles times ill-advised. According to these persons the commons considered. should have been satisfied with the king's acknowledgment that the duties at the ports depended, like other taxes, on the consent of parliament; and should not have pressed for any inquiry respecting the conduct of the persons who had lately exacted such duties regardless of that consent. And the house would perhaps have acted wisely to have stayed at this point for the present. But the language of the speech in which Charles addressed the commons at the close of the last session, his eagerness to bestow preferments on such men as Montague and Manwaring, after the most open disavowal of their

*Parl. Hist. ii. 441-491, 504-513; Rushworth, i. 660, 665-670, 679, 691.

dogmas, and his duplicity in the matter of the printed copies of the Petition of Right, had all tended to leave but little room for confidence in his professions, and to make every thing depend on the strict responsibility of those who should become the instruments of his pleasure in contempt of the laws. In the judgment of the patriots, the benefit of examples which should serve to fix the responsibility of such persons could not be too early secured: nor was any time to be lost in adopting vigorous measures to prevent the pulpits of the hierarchy from becoming subservient to the diffusion of principles among the people destructive of all freedom. Clarendon states that he was well acquainted with the proceedings of the three parliaments assembled by Charles previous to 1629, and expresses his wonder at the councils which disposed the government to such courses. "It is not to be denied," he adds, "that there were in all those parliaments, especially in that of the fourth year, several passages and distempered speeches of particular persons, not fit for the dignity and honour of those places, and unsuitable to the reverence due to his Majesty and his councils. But I do not know any formed act of either house (for neither the remonstrance or votes of the last day were such) that was not agreeable to the wisdom and justice of great courts, upon those extraordinary occasions. And whoever considers the acts of power and injustice, in the intervals of parliament, will not be much scandalized at the warmth and vivacity of those meetings*.' "These admissions in favour of the popular party are from an enemy. And, indeed, so far were those great men from having passed the boundary of the constitution to entrench on the prerogative, that they had not yet proceeded so far as to claim the whole of the safeguards which the law of the land would have authorized them to demand. They claimed no more security in any case, either for their persons or possessions, than the unrepealed statutes of the realm had awarded to them; and had they prayed now for the abolition of the court of star-chamber, as they prayed in the last reign for the abolition of the court of high commission; and had they furthermore insisted that the time for the meeting of parliament should be determined by enactment, and not left to the pleasure of the crown; it would have been possible for them to have shown, not only that such measures were of paramount importance if their liberties were to be duly protected, but that they were in harmony with the most venerable forms of the constitution. But the people in general were not yet prepared for these bolder enterprises.

* Hist. i. 8, 9.