ton MS. 2584, f. 177), and was dismissed by the corporation shortly afterwards. The cause of his removal does not appear. Finch himself, in a letter dated 4 Jan. 1619, soliciting the interest of Lord Zouch, warden of the Cinque ports, with the privy council, from which he had obtained a mandamus against the corporation for his reinstatement, speaks vaguely of the 'factious carriage' of one Sabin (ib. f. 100). The corporation had refused to obey the order of the privy council, and it remained as yet unenforced. On 19 May 1620 the corporation wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Zouch praying that they might not be compelled to re-elect Finch, as it would be 'against their consciences and their charter, and greatly to the disquiet of the city.' On 28 May, however, they changed their tone, humbly informing the council that they were willing to re-elect Mr. Finch as their recorder,' and craving 'pardon for discontenting their lordships' (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1619-1623, pp. 108, 144, 146, 148). Finch was returned to parliament for Winchelsea in February 1623-4, but was unseated on petition on the ground that certain voters had been excluded by the mayor. A new writ issued on 19 March, and Finch was re-elected (Comm. Journ. i. 739). He exchanged Winchelsea for Canterbury at the election of 1625. On 31 May the king, and on 13 June 1625 the king and queen paid a visit to Canterbury, and were received with an address by Finch as recorder. The addresses, notes of which are preserved in Sloane MS. 1455, ff. 1-6, must have been remarkable only for the style of fulsome adulation in which they were conceived. In 1626 he was knighted and appointed king's counsel and attorney-general to the queen (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1625-6, p. 456; Rymer, Fœdera, Sanderson, xiii. 633, 866). On 17 March 1627-8 he was elected speaker of the House of Commons, being still member for Canterbury (Comm. Journ. i. 872). His speech to the throne, couched though it was in language of the most extravagant loyalty, nevertheless concluded with three petitions: (1) that the house might be assured of the immunity of its members from arrest, (2) that freedom of debate might be respected, (3) that access to the royal person might be granted on suitable occasions (Parl. Hist. ii. 225). On 14 April 1628 he presented a petition against the practice of billeting soldiers on private citizens. On 5 May he conveyed to the king the answers of the commons to various royal messages, in particular to the demand of the king to know whether the commons would rest content with his 'royal word and promise for the redress of their grievances. Finch expressed on behalf of the commons at once their entire confidence in the royal word, and their settled conviction that 'no less than a public remedy will raise the dejected hearts' of the people at large (ib. pp. 281, 346). In the debate on the royal message of 5 June, enjoining the commons not to meddle with affairs of state or asperse ministers, Sir John Eliot having risen ostensibly to rebut the implied charge of aspersing ministers, Finch, 'apprehending Sir John intended to fall upon the duke' (Buckingham), said, with tears in his eyes: 'There is a command laid upon me to interrupt any that should go about to lay aspersion on the ministers of state;' upon which Eliot sat down, the house, after some desultory conversation, resolved itself into a committee of public safety, and Finch repaired to the king, from whom next day he brought a conciliatory message. On this occasion he seems to have acted as a mediator between the king and the commons. Sir Robert Philips, who replied to the royal message on behalf of the house, while expressing himself very cautiously on the general question, lauded Finch as one who had 'not only at all times discharged the duty of a good speaker, but of a good man' (ib. pp. 402-7; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1628-9, p. 153). In September and October 1628 Finch was associated with the attorney-general, Sir Robert Heath, in investigating the circumstances attending the assassination of the Duke of Buckingham (ib. pp. 332, 343). On 25 Feb. 1628-9 Finch delivered a message from the king commanding the adjournment of the house. Several members objected that adjournment was a matter for the house to determine, and Sir John Eliot proceeded to present a remonstrance on the subject of tonnage and poundage, which Finch refused to read. Eliot then read it himself. Finch, however, refused to put the question, and, rising to adjourn the debate, was forced back into the chair, and held there by Denzil Holies, Valentine, and others, Holies swearing 'God's wounds he should sit still till it pleased them to rise.' Finch burst into tears, exclaiming, 'I will not say I will not, but I dare not,' reminding the house that he had been their 'faithful servant,' and protesting 'he would sacrifice his life for the good of his country, but durst not sin against the express command of his sovereign.' Meanwhile with locked doors the substance of Eliot's remonstrance was adopted by the house and declared carried. Shortly afterwards parliament was dissolved, not to meet again for eleven years (Parl. Hist. ii. 487-91). In 1631 Finch was
