Page:Eminent English liberals in and out of Parliament.djvu/55

 He was, of course, sent to the Tower, where he remained over a month, when "her Majesty was graciously pleased to remit her justly occasioned displeasances."

He returned to the House; but in the following session he was recommitted for a similar offence. Indeed, he appears latterly to have spent more of his time in the Tower than at St. Stephen's; and in the Tower the stout-hearted, liberty-loving man is believed ultimately to have perished.

His plainness of speech had aroused against him more than royal ire. He and Paul were both at constant feud with the prelates. On one occasion the Archbishop of Canterbury announced, in the hearing of Peter, that it was the function of Parliament to pass articles of religion approved of by the clergy without note or comment. "No," said the indomitable iconoclast, "by the faith we bear to God, we will pass nothing before we understand what it is; for that were but to make you popes. Make you popes who list, we will make you none."

Through the member for Chelsea, Elizabethan Peter yet speaketh. And how modern is it all! How little real progress have the English people made in liberty since these indignant words were uttered three centuries ago! Nay, may it not even be doubted whether in some respects we have not even lost ground? Have we not still bishops thrusting down our throats articles of religion which neither they nor we can understand? Have we not likewise our royal "messages" respecting manifold dowries and annuities, duly heralded by sinister "rumors" of royal "displeasance," which incontinently convert honorable members into a troop of court