selves in a position to deny their own words, assented to the claim of the Lords, and transferred to them the privilege of condemning the miserable wretch to an altogether monstrous punishment.

The harmony between the king and his Parliament did not last long. He offended them by a sudden prorogation; still more by prosecutions instituted during the recess against their principal leaders-Sir Edward Coke and Sir Edwin Sandys; still more by his manifest leanings to a Spanish alliance and a Spanish marriage for his son Charles. James, in reply to their complaints, only told them not to interfere with foreign policy, which was no business of theirs. They sent up at once an energetic protestation, claiming the full right of discussing freely any subject they might select without censure from any outside power. James's answer was sharp and short. Sending for the Journals of the House, he tore out the protestation with his own hands, in the presence of the Privy Council, and immediately afterwards dissolved Parliament. His principal opponents-Coke, Philips, Selden, Pym, Mallory, and the Earl of Oxford were committed to prison. And so James returned once more to his old ways.

The last Parliament of the reign, summoned in February, 1623/4, was chiefly remarkable for an effort on the part of Prince Charles and the Duke of Buckingham to recover their lost popularity by supporting the Commons in their desire for a Spanish war, and by hounding them on to impeach Lord High Treasurer Middlesex, a staunch supporter of the Spanish alliance, on the nominal ground of bribery and malversation of public money. The accusation was a mere blind to hide their personal feeling, but the case was of the utmost importance. It confirmed for ever to the Commons their right of impeaching the royal ministers, which the single case of Bacon might have been insufficient to establish. It also definitely enunciated the constitutional doctrine, that ministers are responsible to Parliament for their conduct. "Steenie, Steenie," said the old king in disgust at the suicidal folly of his favourite, "you are a fool. You are making a rod, and you will be scourged well with it yourself." Then turning to Charles, he warned him that he would soon have his "bellyful of impeach

F

ments." It is worth noting that this Parliament was the only one in the reign which did not terminate in passion and anger on both sides, and that this unusual circumstance was mainly due to the satisfaction of the Commons at that event which had caused James the bitterest chagrin-the total failure of his efforts to bring about the Spanish marriage.

CHAPTER VI.

THE EARLY STRUGGLES WITH CHARLES 1.

THE

(1625-1640.)

HE popularity which Charles and his favourite had gained. by their conduct in the Parliament of 1624 was but shortlived, and it had almost entirely vanished by the meeting of the first Parliament of the new reign. The grievances under which the people laboured were too numerous and real to be easily forgotten; the state of the royal finances was far too embarrassed; the open favour accorded by the Court to the Arminian clergy and the preachers of passive obedience was too alarming; the French marriage and the toleration conceded to the Catholics were too exasperating; the part which Charles and Buckingham had really played in the Spanish negotiations was too dishonest and equivocal, for it to be possible for the nation to retain very long any confidence in the new king, or in the man to whose malign influence they attributed all their evils.

The General Election of 1625 was an exciting time. Never had the competition for seats been so keen within the memory of man. Never had the meeting of Parliament been so numerously attended and this though the plague was raging in London. Sir Edward Coke, Sir John Eliot, Sir Dudley Digges, Mr. Pym, Mr. Mallory, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir Edward Philips, and many others who had been prominent in preceding Parliaments, or were destined to come to the front in future ones, were all returned to Westminster. The speech from the throne was conciliatory, but vague. The Commons were reminded of the king's necessities, and that the breach with Spain was mainly their own work. Money was urgently asked for, but no sum was named and no details given. The Commons were anxious and distrustful. They feared to make the king independent of them too soon, and they determined to be sparing of the supplies.

It

was this feeling which prompted them to offer Charles only two subsidies, and to limit the usual grant of tunnage and poundage to one year only. They were resolved not to grant more until grievances had been redressed, and their determination was strengthened by the news that English ships had been lent by the Government to France for the ruin of the Huguenots of La Rochelle. This occurred during a prorogation brought about by the alarming increase of the plague. When the two Houses reassembled at Oxford, Aug. 1, Sir Edward Philips definitely took the lead in denouncing the disasters and failures of the royal policy there was a general outcry against misgovernment and mismanagement; and at last Sir Francis Seymour spoke out what was in the mind of all. "Let us lay the fault where it is,” he said. "The Duke of Buckingham is trusted, and it must needs be either in him or his agents." Furious at this attack on his favourite, Charles immediately dissolved them, and thus definitely committed himself to the downward path which led to destruction.

The failure of another expedition against Cadiz obliged the king to summon a Parliament again very shortly. In the hope of lessening the chances of opposition, sheriffdoms were very unwisely conferred on Coke, Seymour, Philips, Wentworth, and two others, with the object of disqualifying them for Parliament. Coke, however, declared that the disqualification applied only to his own county, and secured his election for another; but still the move was so far successful that none of the six appear to have sat in this Parliament. This trivial success, however, was amply counterbalanced by the exasperation which it excited among the popular party, and especially the devolving of the leadership on Sir John Eliot. The name of Eliot is in fact as much identified with this Parliament as those of Coke and Philips with the two preceding ones.

Eliot, however, was not yet committed to opposition. In the last Parliament he had even defended Buckingham's integrity. Nothing but dire experience would have thrown him over to the other side. Had Charles met his Parliament in a different spirit, had he courted inquiry in the slightest, instead of merely demanding money, Eliot might not have broken loose from the Court.

But the Court stood firm in its old unbending position,

and Eliot's first words were to declare, in impassioned language, that the country had been brought to the verge of ruin, and to demand a committee of inquiry into the causes. Till this had been done, nothing should be said about the king's supply.

Three great committees were quickly appointed, one for religion, one for grievances, and the third for evils and their remedies. An extraordinary number of abuses and illegalities were immediately revealed, and it soon became apparent that the primary cause of the mismanagement and failure of the war, the disordered state of the finances, and the peculations in the public service, was to be found in the all-controlling influence of the Duke of Buckingham, In vain the king demanded money : he was presented instead with a long list of grievances requiring instant remedy. In vain he warned them angrily that they had better not aim at any of his servants in their search after grievances-still less at the Duke of Buckingham: in reply, Dr. Turner rose and told the House openly, that the cause of all their grievances was "that great man, the Duke of Buckingham," and in a series of six questions denounced the chief crimes of the duke as a matter of common fame. Then Eliot again assumed the leadership of the House, and formally proposed the impeachment of Buckingham. After a debate whether common fame were a sufficient ground, which was decided in the affirmative, the Commons resolved upon the impeachment, and determined "to proceed to the great affair of Buckingham morning and afternoon till it was done, to the end that they might proceed to consider his Majesty's demand for supply."

Charles did not dare let the impeachment be carried to its close, for he could not even rely on the Lords, owing to his unwise interference with their privileges. The Earl of Bristol, late ambassador to Spain, could have explained Buckingham's exact share in the Spanish business with most undesirable accuracy: he was, therefore, first refused his summons, and then ordered to abstain from appearing in Parliament. The Earl of Arundel was Buckingham's principal enemy and the holder of six proxies: his hostility had been stifled by imprisonment. In each case, however, the king had to give in, and the Lords successfully placed on record a protest of the right of a peer to receive his special