Lovett and brings me my print of the Passion, varnished by him, and
the frame which is indeed very fine, though not so fine as I
expected; but pleases me exceedingly."

Whether he had or had not a crucifix in his house was a matter for himself
alone, and the interference of the House of Commons was a gross violation
of the liberty of the subject.

In connection with Lord Shaftesbury's part in this matter, the late Mr. W.
D. Christie found the following letter to Sir Thomas Meres among the
papers at St. Giles's House, Dorsetshire:--

"Exeter House, February 10th, 1674.

"Sir,--That there might be no mistake, I thought best to put my
answer in writing to those questions that yourself, Sir William
Coventry, and Mr. Garroway were pleased to propose to me this
morning from the House of Commons, which is that I never designed to
be a witness against any man for what I either heard or saw, and
therefore did not take so exact notice of things inquired of as to
be able to remember them so clearly as is requisite to do in a
testimony upon honour or oath, or to so great and honourable a body
as the House of Commons, it being some years distance since I was at
Mr. Pepys his lodging. Only that particular of an altar is so
signal that I must needs have remembered it had I seen any such
thing, which I am sure I do not. This I desire you to communicate
with Sir William Coventry and Mr. Garroway to be delivered as my
answer to the House of Commons, it being the same I gave you this
morning.