« AnteriorContinuar »
the death of his wife, has leave to go down into the country ;” and the impeachment of the great national foe was set aside by another unexpected circumstance, too, on the 23rd of August, this 1628. A man went into "the church which stood by the conduit in Fleet Street,” and left his name to be prayed for on the Sunday following, as a man disordered in his mind; then he went to a cutler's shop on Tower Hill, and bought a tenpenny dagger-knife, and upon a paper which he pinned to the lining of his hat he wrote the name " John Felton," afterwards the assassin of Buckingham, and these words :
“That man is cowardly, base, and deserveth not the name of a gentleman or soldier, that is not willinge to sacrifice his life for the honor of his God, his kinge, and his countrie. Lett noe man commend me for doinge of it, but rather discommend themselves as the cause of it, for if God had not taken away our hearts for our sinnes, he would not have gone so longe unpunished."
We shall soon be with Eliot in his last scenes. He arrived in London for the last time on the 30th of December, 1628. Things were getting worse and
We come at last to the scene of the 29th of March, 1629; then Eliot made his last speech. Although the Speaker had the king's command for adjournment, Eliot continued to speak, Denzil, Holles, and Valentine meantime holding the Speaker in his chair. Amidst gathering excitement, he presented the Declaration drawn up by the Committee of Trade; the Speaker refused to receive it, the clerk refused to read it. Against the call of the most distinguished members, the Speaker still refused. Still the Declaration was eventually read and put to the vote, and the House was in an uproar.
In the history of the House of Commons, the scene which was now acting stands upon the pages of our great national story as not only one of the most exciting and memorable, but one of the most important. Eliot stands out as the chief actor in that great scene. A messenger from the king came down to the House, but sought in vain to obtain an entrance; amidst the din Eliot's voice rose clear, firm, and strong; he carried the Declaration by a vast majority ; amidst the repeated knockings of the Black Rod seeking admittance at the door, and with prophetic pathos, he said, “ As for myself, I further 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 anew." A shout of assent carried the Declaration against all illegal taxation, and against all innovations in the religion of the State. Then the doors were opened, and the members rushed out, carrying away with them the king's officers who were standing and waiting for admission. It was the last time Eliot appeared in Parliament. The next day he was a close prisoner in the Tower, and from the grip of Charles he never escaped again alive. There was not another Parliament for eleven years.
Eliot was fined £2,000; he very likely increased the spite of the king by taking precautions against his pouncing upon this valuable little peculation; he said he had two cloaks, a few books, a few pair of boots, and that was all his personal substance, and if they could turn this into £2,000, much good might it do them. So the sheriffs appointed to seize upon his possessions in Cornwall, for the king, were obliged to return a nihil. He secured his property in trust for his sons, and those he committed to the care of John Hampden; and he directed his upholsterer to do what could be done to make his cell comfortable in the Tower, there he took up his residence, there he spent the remainder of his days, there he wrote the Monarchy of Man," which Mr. John Forster has now made tolerably familiar to English readers, and which shows the master of the eloquent tongue to have been equally master of the eloquent pen and eloquent prose, and whose stateliness places its writer on the same level with the authors of "Areopagitica," and the first books of the “Ecclesiastical Polity." Our knowledge of Sir John Eliot has largely inincreased since Disraeli the elder wrote his Commentaries; in fact, at that time, the story of Eliot was almost a blank in our history. Disraeli said, “ The harshness of Charles towards Eliot, to me indicates a cause of offence either of a deeper dyc or of a more personal nature than perhaps we have yet discovered.” In fact, it was Disraeli's desire to show that the great affairs in which Eliot took part