mission; but they rejected the proposition; and Sir John died in the Tower, Nov. 27, 1632. In 1646, it was voted, in Parliament, that £5,000 should be paid to his family; and also to other families which had suffered under the same persecution. The language for which Sir John had been imprisoned, was that "the Council and Judges conspired to trample under their feet the liberties of the subject, and the privileges of Parliament."

His character and position are indicated by the following extract from Hume's History of England :

"The House of Commons, we may observe, was almost entirely governed by a set of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views; men who were now formed into a regular party, and united, as well by fixed aims and projects, as by the hardships which some of them had undergone in prosecution of them. Among these, we may mention the names of Sir Edward Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir Dudley Digges, Sir John Eliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Mr. Selden, and Mr. Pym. Animated with a warm regard to liberty, these generous patriots saw with regret an unbounded power exercised by the crown, and were resolved to seize the opportunity, which the King's necessities offered them, of reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass. Though their ancestors had blindly given way to practices and precedents favorable to kingly power, and had been able, notwithstanding, to preserve some small remains of liberty, it would be impossible, they thought, when all these pretensions were methodized, and prosecuted by the increasing knowledge of the age, to maintain any shadow of popular government, in opposition to such unlimited authority in the sovereign. It was necessary to fix a choice; either to abandon entirely the privileges. of the people, or to secure them by firmer and more precise barriers than the constitution had hitherto provided for them. In this dilemma, men of such aspiring geniuses and such independent fortunes, could not long deliberate; they boldly embraced the side of freedom, and resolved to grant no supplies to their necessitous prince without extorting concessions in favor of civil liberty. The end they esteemed beneficent and noble; the means regular and constitutional." (Vol. IV, p. 398.)

"Two members of the House, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot, who had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the Duke, [Buckingham,] were thrown into prison. The Commons immediately declared that they would proceed no farther upon business till they had satisfaction in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this measure, certain seditious expressions which, he said, had, in their accusation of the Duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, it appeared that no such expressions had been used. The members were released, and the King reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate the House still farther, and to show some degree of precipitancy and indiscretion." (Vol. IV, p. 410.)

"Sir John Eliot framed a remonstrance against levying tonnage and poundage without consent of Parliament, and offered it to the clerk to read. It was refused. He read it himself. The question being then called for, the speaker, Sir John Finch, said, that he had a command from the King to adjourn, and to put no question. Upon which he rose and left the chair. The whole house was in an uproar. The speaker was pushed back into the chair, and forcibly held in it by Hollis and Valentine, till a short remonstrance was framed, and was passed by acclamation rather than by vote. Papists and Arminians · were there declared capital enemies to the Commonwealth. Those who levied tonnage and poundage were branded with the same epithet; and even the merchants who should voluntarily pay these duties were denominated betrayers of English liberty, and public enemies. The doors being locked, the gentleman usher of the House of Lords, who was sent by the King, could not get admittance till this remonstrance was finished. By the King's order, he took the mace from the table, which ended their proceedings. And a few days after the Parliament was dissolved. Sir John Eliot, Hollis, and Valentine were summoned to their trial in the King's Bench, for seditious speeches and behavior in Parliament; but, refusing to answer before an inferior court for their conduct, as members of a superior, they were condemned to be imprisoned during the King's pleasure, to find sureties for their good behavior, and to be fined, the two former in a thousand pounds - apiece, the latter five hundred. This sentence, procured by the influence of the crown, served only to show the King's disregard to the privileges of Parliament, and to acquire an immense stock of popularity to the sufferers, who had so bravely, in opposition to arbitrary

power, defended the liberties of their native country. The Commons of England, though an immense body, and possessed of the greater part of the national property, were naturally somewhat defenseless; because of their personal equality, and their want of leaders; but the King's severity, if these prosecutions deserve the name, here pointed out leaders to them whose resentment was inflamed, and whose courage was nowise daunted by the hardships which they had undergone in so honorable a cause.

"So much did these prisoners glory in their sufferings, that though they were promised liberty on that condition, they would not condescend even to present a petition to the King, expressing their sorrow for having offended him. They unanimously refused to find sureties for their good behavior, and disdained to accept of deliverance on such easy terms. ****** Yet, because Sir John Eliot happened (?) to die while in custody, a great clamor was raised against the administration; and he was universally regarded as a martyr to the liberties of England." (Vol. IV, pp. 459, 460.)

As Sir John Eliot was one of the most prominent members of Parliament who early and resolutely opposed the encroachments of the King, and defended the Protestant religion against the Papacy, we present the following condensed statement, taken from the 2nd vol. of Cobbett's "Parliamentary History."

Charles I took the reins of government March 27th, 1625; and on the 2d of April he issued writs for a new Parliament, to meet on the 7th of May. Of the record of this short Parliament the name of Sir John Eliot does not appear. Both Houses presented a petition to the King "for the advancement of God's true religion, and suppressing the contrary" and though the King returned a favorable answer, he evidently favored the Papists. On the 12th of August the Commons unanimously agreed on a protestation against abuses; and the King, perceiving the Commons resolved against a supply, without a redress of grievances, the same day ordered a dissolution of Parliament.

The King summoned a new Parliament, which met on the 6th of the succeeding Feb. Of this Sir John Eliot was a member, and so continued until his death in 1732. On the 10th,

Sir John Eliot proposed, first, in general, to consider the state of the country, and a relief of grievances, &c. For particulars, first, the con

sideration of the King's revenue. Next, an account how the subsidies were expended, &c. And moved for a special committee to take consideration thereof. Happening in his speech to use the word "courtier," he was called upon to explain it, which he did.

When the Duke of Buckingham, who had before been charged with endeavoring to bias Charles, when a prince, in favor of Popery, was im peached for mismanagement of the funds, &c., April 29, 1726, Sir John Eliot was appointed one of the eight managers to conduct the trial. Two of the managers, Sir Dudley Diggs and Sir John Eliot, having in their speeches let fall some expressions that were highly resented by the King, he ordered them to be committed to the Tower. The Commons highly resented the imprisonment of two of their members; and the next day, May 12th, resolved "Not to do any more business till they were righted in their privileges." Sir Dudley was soon released, the King being satisfied of his innocency; and on the 20th, Sir John having explained the epithets he had applied to the Duke of Buckingham and the Bishop of Ely, the House exculpated him, and he again took his seat. But, as there appeared to be no prospect of an amicable settlement of difficulties, the King dissolved Parliament, before the supplies had been voted. The King, therefore, had recourse to raise contributions or loans, from his subjects, particularly the nobility. Many were imprisoned for refusal; among others was Sir John Eliot, who, from his prison at the Gatehouse sent a petition to the King. After expressing his unhappiness at his Majesty's long displeasure, and professing his loyalty, he proceeds to give reasons for his conduct, which his duty to religion, to justice, and to his Majesty, enforce. "THE RULE OF JUSTICE HE TAKES TO BE THE LAW." He fortifies his position by reference to the history of the government, and by arguments drawn from the constitution and justice. The whole document (pp. 210– 212) places Sir John high among those heroes of Puritan times, to whom religion and right were paramount to all personal considerations.

A new Parliament was called to meet March 17th, 1627-8. In the debate, March 20th, "Sir John Eliot did passionately and rhetorically set forth our late grievances. He misliked much the violating of our laws; urged many good arguments for our propugning them;-and concluded for a committee."

On the 3d of June, 1728, when the King's answer to the petition of Right was read in the Commons, Sir John Eliot stood up, and gave

forth a full and lively representation of all grievances, both general and particular, (pp. 380-385.) During the delivery, he was interrupted by one of the Privy Council; but the House ordered him to go on.

In a debate on a Message from the King, June 5th, Sir John Eliot said, "Our sins are so exceeding great, that unless we speedily turn to God, God will remove himself farther from us. Ye know with what affection and integrity we have proceeded hitherto, to gain his Majesty's heart; and out of necessity to our duty, were brought to that course we are in." On his making an allusion to the Ministers, he was interrupted by the Speaker, who said, command was laid on him to interrupt any who would cast aspersions on the Ministers of State. Upon this Sir John sat down. Whereupon Sir D. Diggs said, "Unless we may speak these things in Parliament, let us arise and be gone, or sit still and do nothing." After a season of deep silence, Sir N. Rich said, "We must now speak, or forever hold our peace. Silence may be for our security, but not for the security of those we serve." On the suggestion that the late speech of Sir John Eliot had given offense to his Majesty, the House declared that every member is free from any undutiful speech.

At the meeting of Parliament, Jan. 21, 1628-9, Sir John Eliot moved for a committee on their Petition of Right, and his Majesty's answer thereto, and also to consider how other liberties of this kingdom are invaded. On the 27th, Sir John made a speech on religious grievances,- —the introduction of new ceremonies into the Church, &c. He thought the advisers of his Majesty were most to be blamed. During a debate on this question, OLIVER CROMWELL first makes his appearance in Parliament, on the 11th of Feb., and says, he heard that “Dr. Alabeaster had preached flat popery, at St. Paul's Cross." next day, 12th Feb., after a speech of Sir John Eliot, a committee was ordered on innovation of religion, its cause, and the remedy. On the 13th, on the Report relating to popish priests, Sir John charges Ministers of State with interfering in their behalf, and considers it a foundation for undermining of the State; but doubts not when his Majesty understands the matter, he will come to a better judgment.

The

On the 19th, in a debate on seizing a member's goods for tonnage, Sir John exclaimed, 66 THE HEART-BLOOD OF THE COMMONWEALTH RECEIVETH LIFE FROM THE PRIVILEGE of this HOUSE," and the House resolved itself into a Committee for more freedom of debate.