ootnote 518: 2nd and 3rd Philip and Mary, cap.
iv.]

In this form the measure went down to the Commons, where it
encountered fresh and violent opposition. To demand a subsidy in one
week, and in the next to demand permission to sacrifice a sixth part
of the ordinary revenue, was inconsistent and irrational. The laity
had no ambition to take upon themselves the burdens of the clergy. On
the 27th there was a long discussion;[519] on the 3rd of December the
bill was carried, but with an adverse minority of a hundred and
twenty-six, against a majority of a hundred and ninety-three.[520]

[Footnote 519: _Commons Journals._]

[Footnote 520: Ibid. The temper of the opposition
may be gathered from the language of a pamphlet
which appeared on the accession of Elizabeth.

The writer describes the clergy as "lads of
circumspection, and verily _filii hujus saeculi_."
He complains of their avarice in inducing the
queen, "at one chop, to give away fifty thousand
pounds and better yearly from the inheritance of
her crown unto them, and many a thousand after,
unto those idle hypocrites besides."

He then goes on:--

"And yet this great profusion of their prince did
so smally serve their hungry guts, like starven
tikes that were never content with more than
enough; at all their collations, assemblies, and
sermons, they never left yelling and yelping in
pursuit of their prey, Restore! Restore! These
devout deacons nothing regarded how some for long
service and travail abroad, while they sat at
home--some for shedding his blood in defence of his
prince's cause and country, while they with safety,
all careless in their cabins, in luxe and lewdness,
did sail in a sure port--some selling his antient
patrimony for purchase of these lands, while they
must have all by gift a God's name--they nothing
regarding, I say, what injury to thousands, what
undoing to most men, what danger of uproar and