tion which is exceedingly curious as illustrating James's character, the origin of the Spanish marriage, and the relations of the English Government of that day to Gondomar.

6

It appears, then, that the King had learnt the Ambassador's determination and strength of purpose, by having been compelled to yield to his demands for the liberation of a certain Spanish lady, Doña Luisa de Carvajal. Now, with that consciousness of his own weakness which is visible in all his acts, when he became disgusted with the turbulence of his Parliament, he had recourse at once to Sarmiento (Gondomar).* He sent for the Spanish Minister and begged him to transmit to the King of Spain the true version of the quarrel with the House of Commons, rather than that which was given in the streets.' He went on to say that the King of Spain had many more kingdoms and more subjects than he had; but, he added, with a sort of bitter humour, there was one thing in which he surpassed His Majesty, namely, in having a larger Parliament; for the Cortes of Castille was composed of little more than thirty persons, whilst his Parliament consisted of nearly four hundred. There was no head to them, and they voted in a disorderly way. There was nothing heard at their sittings but cries, shouts, and confusion. He was astonished that the Kings his predecessors had given their consent to such things. He himself had found the institution in existence when he came, and he was unable to get rid of it.'

The effect, therefore, of the quarrel with the Parliament of 1614, on the irritable temper and weak intellect of James, was that he threw himself into the arms of Spain. He probably would not have done so if the Spanish Minister had been a man of less power: as it was he evidently hoped by the Spanish match to counterbalance in some way the turbulence of his own subjects. The power of Spain was to be employed against the liberties of England; and the instinct which made the match so unpopular in this country was true and sagacious. How James thought the object was to be effected in this way is not quite so clear. Sarmiento, feeling his power over the King, at once endeavoured to make the match with the Infanta acceptable to his own Court. Paul V. (Borghese) objected to it, but still the project was submitted to a Junta of Theologians, and the conditions were drawn up and placed in Digby's hands. Then, however, all sorts of doubts and apprehensions crossed James's mind before he finally acquiesced in the substance of what was proposed.

His name was Diego Sarmiento de Acuña: he was created Conde de Gondomar in 1617.

In September, 1615, poor Arabella Stuart died in the Tower. It is difficult, when we think of her treatment, to feel much compassion for the embarrassments or sorrows of James I. The fall of Somerset occurred in the same autumn, but the trial of the Earl and Countess did not take place till the month of May in the following year. Thus ended the career of the first of those favourites whose paramount influence was so unfortunately characteristic of the reigns of James and Charles. Eliot appears to have esteemed and pitied Overbury. In October, 1618, Raleigh was executed, but there appears grave reason for doubting whether he was merely sacrificed to Spain in the manner usually assumed. We are inclined to think that fresh light will yet be thrown on this episode in history. Lewis Stukeley, Raleigh's betrayer, had held the Vice-Admiralty of Devonshire, and Eliot, who had been knighted, succeeded him in that office in January, 1619. The Marquis of Buckingham, Eliot's old travelling companion, was Lord High Admiral of England. The place of Vice-Admiral, in the west of England at least, was then no sinecure. It is difficult for us at this time to conceive either the imbecility and helplessness of our own naval administration, or the insecurity of our coasts and seas.

That the Turkish and Barbary pirates swept the Mediterranean and ravaged the shores of Italy and Spain we knew before. We had heard that Barbarossa deliberately laid a plan to carry off Julia Gongaza from Fondi, and that the Christian captives at one time at Algiers exceeded 25,000, but we confess that we were ignorant of the fact that in the seventeenth century prisoners without number were carried into slavery from the western counties of England. Mr. Forster says: "He (Eliot) estimates the number of Christians captured during the outrage at not less than twelve hundred. "This man bewayled his sonne; that, his father; another, his brother; a fourth, his servant, and the like. Husbands and wives, with all relations els of nature and civilitie, did complaine.' (Vol. i. p. 317.) It would seem that twenty "Turks and Renegadoes' were hanged at once as pirates at Plymouth (p. 194). One of the Algerine captures was reckoned to be worth more than a quarter of a million (p. 193). A Turkish pirate captured a ship and three Cornish fishing-boats at the very mouth of Dartmouth harbour; and again, There

* Mr. Gardiner infers from Gondomar's despatches that the secret which Somerset was supposed to hold over James's head may have been the simple fact that he had for the last twelve months been thoroughly committed to Spain. It is curious to find from the Spanish archives that Eliot's friend Sir Robert Cotton was the go-between employed by Somerset in his communications with the Ambassador, and that he (Cotton) professed in the warmest manner that he was at heart a Catholic!

were

were fourtie saile of Turks, besides those which formerlie kepte that coast, then in one fleet come within the Channel.' (Vol. i. p. 320.) Mr. Forster tells us (p. 428) that these accounts are fully corroborated by the manuscripts in the State Paper Office.*

Besides the Turks and Barbary pirates, every adventurer who chose to fit out a vessel and gather together a sufficient number of desperate characters, seems to have robbed and plundered ships on the high seas or in harbour, as he pleased. Among the most distinguished of these freebooters was a certain Captain Nutt, whom Eliot, by the exercise of considerable courage and craft, managed to get into his power. The pirate then charged the Vice-Admiral with having encouraged his piracies and shared in his plunder. These accusations were sufficiently refuted, but Nutt was protected by Sir George Calvert (afterwards Lord Baltimore) and finally obtained a pardon. Eliot, on the other hand, was committed to the Marshalsea and remained a prisoner for some time. Nutt returned to his old courses, and many years afterwards plundered a vessel which was conveying Lord Wentworth's furniture and plate to Ireland.

At the conclusion of the Parliament of 1614, James had sent some of the refractory members to the Tower, and had committed himself to the struggle against the liberties of England. His extravagance, and the position of foreign affairs, made money necessary for him, but his appeal to the country for 'Benevolences' was met by a sullen feeling that Parliament was the only legitimate source whence supplies should be derived.

Years elapsed before another Parliament assembled: it met on

*It is a curious fact that the Ironmongers' Company still have the charge of a large fund originally left for the redemption of British slaves in Turkey or Barbary. This fund, which in 1819 amounted to 22567. 138. 1d. per annum, was left by a certain Thomas Betton, whose will is dated July 15, 1723. Half the income of his property was to be applied in the manner stated yearly, and every year for ever. In 1750, as much as 76477. was paid; in 1785, 40007.; in 1816 (the year of the taking of Algiers), 1250l. (Attorney-General v. Ironmongers' Company, Craig and Phillips's Reports, p. 208.) Previously to this devise Lord Craven had, in 1647, given part of his property to endow scholarships at the two Universities, and the residue to redeem British captives in Turkey or Barbary. In 1819 a scheme was sanctioned by the Court of Chancery for receiving a moderate portion in case captives should be made; and the residue was applied to increase the income and number of the scholars. (Attorney-General v. the Bishop of Llandaff, 2 Mylne and Keen's Reports, p. 586.)

Lady Mico, by her will, dated in 1670, bequeathed a sum of money to be invested and the income employed in redeeming poor slaves, apparently contemplating the redemption of slaves in the Barbary states. The only part ever applied was 1500. stock, which, in 1727, was paid to Sir Charles Wager for the redemption of poor captive slaves. In 1835 the fund was ordered to be transferred to trustees, to be applied in the education of the apprentices and their issue in the British colonies. (Attorney-General v. Gibson, 2 Beavan's Reports, p. 317.) the

Vol. 117.-No. 233.

the 30th of January, 1620-1,-a day of evil omen for the House of Stuart.* At this moment the voice and the purse of the people of England would have supported James, if he had placed himself at the head of the Protestant cause in Europe. But whilst the nation and its representatives were expressing their abhorrence of Spain and its principles, the King and his favourite were doing their best to promote the marriage of the Prince and the Infanta. At length, on the 18th of December, 1621, the Commons of England adopted that protest which asserts in the strongest terms the hereditary liberties of Englishmen and the freedom of debate and speech in Parliament. James tore the protest with his own hand from the documents on the following day, and after the dissolution imprisoned Phillips, Coke, and other members.

After Buckingham's return from Spain on the 6th of October, 1623, Eliot addressed a letter to the Lord High Admiral, which we think Mr. Forster is quite justified in characterising as manly and independent in its tone. The King by his want of money was obliged to summon a new Parliament, which met in February 1623-4. In this Parliament Eliot had a seat as member for the borough of Newport, in Cornwall, and until some time at least after its meeting he had probably continued his private and official intercourse with Buckingham.

One of the first acts of the House of Commons was to stop the proceedings which had been instituted against Eliot and his servants. Eliot himself spoke immediately afterwards, and this was in fact the commencement of that fearless action as a Parliamentary leader which was destined to bring him to an early grave, whilst it secured to him a reputation for honesty, ability, and patriotism, such as few have earned. He referred to the proceedings of the last Parliament, and in the course of his speech he said:

'For as Parliaments have been ever held to be the chief support and pillar of the kingdom, so is this privilege of parliaments essential to their existence; by which opinions are plainly delivered, difficulties beaten out, and truth resolved upon. Were it otherwise, men fearing to displease would blanch those propositions that might have

*It is singular that the author of that useful little book, 'The Annals of England' (Oxford: Parker, 1856), should have supposed that there were two Parliaments, one in 1620, and another in 1621, which met on the 30th of January. The mistake arose, of course, from confusion as to the commencement of the year on the 1st of January or the 25th of March. The error is worth noticing because the book is, we believe, used as a text-book in the University lectures. It will be found in the second volume at pp. 355-356. The Parliament of 1620 was really summoned for the 16th of January, prorogued by proclamation to the 23rd, and then to the 30th. See 'Parl. History,' vol. i. p. 1168.

question,

question, and silence their understandings in matters of most import. And in this, the protestation of the Commons last made gives me great satisfaction, as proceeding from excellent deliberation and advice. Its reasons were well weighed. Such had been the habit and long use of this place. Still had its way been held with jealous regard to the honour and dignity of our head-the King. More for his sake than for ours, it behoved that such liberty be allowed. The business is the King's; the kingdom hath its representative in the King. In him our resolutions rest. We are only called hither upon either the general affairs of the kingdom or the special propositions of His Majesty, and therein but to deliberate and consult, not to conclude. Without our privileges we should fail to perform that duty. And can it be thought that in claiming them, in order that we may facilitate His Majesty's resolutions and ease him in the consideration, leaving the end still to himself, in this can it be thought there is any diminution or derogation to regality ?-vol. i. pp. 138, 139.

An address to the King was carried unanimously advising him to break off the treaties for the marriage and urging the restoration of the Palatinate. James demanded 700,000l. to begin the war with, and an annual payment of 150,000l. towards his debts.

Eliot's position in the House was now one of considerable influence; he cast his whole weight against Spain, and when the impeachment of the Lord Treasurer Middlesex took place, although he did not take a part at first, he spoke strongly before a conclusion was come to, and added his voice to those which voted against the Treasurer. This case was the great precedent which established definitively the power of the Commons over an obnoxious minister, and it became a weapon of fearful efficacy against the Crown.

Buckingham, for his own purposes, taught the House of Commons how to use the weapon of impeachment, when he abandoned Middlesex to their attacks in 1624. James was quite right when on that occasion he told him, 'By God, Steenie, you are making a rod for your own back.' In reality, however, as we have observed, the great issue between the King and the Parliament had been joined in 1614, when James dissolved the House and caused Hoskins and other members to be imprisoned. This issue is the one which was tried in the long struggle through the reign of Charles, and on which the final judgment was given only in 1688.

Three subsidies and three fifteenths (about 350,0007.) were voted as payable within the year. In the mean time the Commons had never acquiesced in the decision of the Judges in Bate's case, in which the right of the Crown to levy a duty of five shillings a hundredweight on currants in addition to the half