in glory and in State; how she depressed her enemies, how she upheld her friends; how she enjoyed a full security, and made them then our scorn, who now are made our terror![6] Some of the principles she built on, were these; and if I be mistaken, let reason and our statesmen contradict me. First, to maintain, in what she might, a unity in France, that that kingdom, being at peace within itself, might be a bulwark to keep back the power of Spain by land. Next, to preserve an amity and league between that State and us; that so we might join in aid of the Low Countries, and by that means receive their help and ships by sea. Then, that this treble cord, so wrought between France, the States, and us, might enable us, as occasion should require, to give assistance unto others; by which means, the experience of that time doth tell us, we were not only free from those fears that now possess and trouble us, but then our names were fearful to our enemies. See now what correspondence our action hath had with this. Square it by these rules. It did induce as a necessary consequence the division in France between the Protestants and their king, of which there is too woeful, too lamentable an experience. It has made an absolute breach between that State and us; and so entertains us against France, France in preparation against us, that we have nothing to promise to our neighbors, hardly for ourselves. Nay, but observe the time in which it was attempted, and you shall find it not only varying from those principles, but directly contrary and opposite _ex diametro_ to those ends; and such as from the issue and success rather might be thought _a conception of Spain than begotten here with us_.[B] [B] This allusion or insinuation of Eliot’s provoked an instantaneous uproar. Buckingham had visited the Courts of Spain and France, and his name had been associated with discreditable intrigues. In the streets of London there had been talk of “treasonable correspondence,” and of “a sacrifice to vanity or passion of the most sacred duties of patriotism.” When Eliot, therefore, alluded to the act of England as springing from the “conception of Spain,” he struck a sensitive spot. The Chancellor, Sir Humphrey May, sprang to his feet, and exclaimed: “Sir, this is strange language. It is arraigning the Council.” But a general shout arose demanding that Eliot should go on. Then the Chancellor said: “If Sir John Eliot is to go on, I claim permission to go out.” In an instant, the Sergeant, by order of the House, opened the door, and, according to testimony of Alured, who was present, “they all bade him begone! Yet he stayed, and heard Sir John out.” It is evident from this incident that Eliot had the sympathies of the House in his firm grasp. When quiet was restored, Sir John resumed his argument.