The ablest minister that James ever possessed, the earl of Salisbury, was dead:" Suffolk, a man of slender capacity, had succeeded him in his office: and it was now his task to supply, from an exhausted treasury, the profusion of James and of his young favourite. The title of baronet, invented by Salisbury, was sold; and two hundred patents of that species of knighthood were disposed of for so many thousand pounds: each rank of nobility had also its price affixed to it:" privy-seals were circulated to the amount of 200,000l.: benevolences were exacted to the amount of 52,000/." And some monopolies of no great value were erected. But all these expedients proved insufficient to supply the king's necessities; even though he began to enter into some schemes for retrenching his expenses. However small

the hopes of success, a new parliament must be summoned, and this dangerous expedient, for such it was now become, once more be put to trial.

A parlia

When the commons were assembled (April ment. 5), they discovered an extraordinary alarm, on account of the rumour which was spread abroad concerning undertakers. It was reported, that several persons, attached to the king, had entered into a confederacy; and having laid a regular plan for the new elections, had distributed their interest all over England, and had undertaken to secure a majority for the court. So ignorant were the commons, that they knew not this incident to be the first infallible symptom of any regular or established liberty. Had they been contented to follow the maxims of their predecessors, who, as the earl of Salisbury said to the last parliament, never but thrice in six hundred years refused a supply, they needed not

m 14th of May, 1612. n Franklyn, p. 11. 33. p Id. p. 49. 4 Parliam. History, vol. 5. p. 286. Journ. 12th April, 2d May, 1614, &c. Franklyn, p. 48.

。 Id. p. 10. Kennet, p. 696.

r Journ. 17th Feb. 1609. It appears, however, that Salisbury was somewhat mistaken in this fact: and if the kings were not often refused supply by the parliament, it was only because they would not often expose themselves to the hazard of being refused; but it is certain that English parliaments did anciently carry

dread that the crown should ever interest itself in their elections. Formerly the kings even insisted, that none of their household should be elected members; and though the charter was afterward declared void, Henry VI. from his great favour to the city of York, conferred a peculiar privilege on its citizens, that they should be exempted from this trouble. It is well known, that in ancient times, a seat in the house being considered as a burden, attended neither with honour nor profit, it was requisite for the counties and boroughs to pay fees to their representatives. About this time a seat began to be regarded as an honour, and the country gentlemen contended for it; though the practice of levying wages for the parliament-men was not altogether discontinued. It was not till long after, when liberty was thoroughly established, and popular assemblies entered into every branch of public business, that the members began to join profit to honour, and the crown found it necessary to distribute among them all the considerable offices of the kingdom.

So little skill or so small means had the courtiers, in James's reign, for managing elections, that this house of commons shewed rather a stronger spirit of liberty than the foregoing; and instead of entering upon the business of supply, as urged by the king, who made them several liberal offers of grace,' they immediately resumed the subject which had been opened last parliament, and disputed his majesty's power of levying new customs and impositions, by the mere authority of his prerogative. It is remarkable that, in their debates on this subject, the courtiers frequently pleaded, as a precedent, the example of all the other hereditary monarchs in Europe, and particularly mentioned the kings of France and Spain; nor was this reasoning received by

their frugality to an extreme, and seldom could be prevailed upon to give the necessary support to government. Coke's Institutes, part 4. chap. 1. of Charters of Exemption. t Journ, 11 April, 1614.

the house either with surprise or indignation." The members of the opposite party either contented themselves with denying the justness of the inference, or they disputed the truth of the observation. And a patriot member in particular, sir Roger Owen, even in arguing against the impositions, frankly allowed, that the king of England was endowed with as ample power and prerogative as any prince in Christendom." The nations on the continent, we may observe, enjoyed still, in that age, some small remains of liberty; and the English were possessed of little more.

The commons applied to the lords for a conference with regard to the new impositions. A speech of Neile, bishop of Lincoln, reflecting on the lower house, begat some altercation with the peers;* and the king seized the opportunity of dissolving, immediately (June 6), with great indignation, a parliament which had shewn so firm a resolution of retrenching his prerogative, without communicating, in return, the smallest supply to his necessities. He carried his resentment so far as even to throw into prison some of the members, who had been the most forward in their opposition to his measures." In vain did he plead, in excuse for his violence, the example of Elizabeth and other princes of the line of Tudor, as well as Plantagenet. The people and the parliament, without abandoning for ever all their liberties and privileges, could acquiesce in none of these precedents, how ancient and frequent soever. And were the authority of such precedents admitted, the ut

u Journ. 21 May, 1614: Id. 12, 21 May, 1614.

w Id. 18 April, 1614.

* Parl. Hist. vol. 5. p. 290. So little fixed at this time were the rules of parliament, that the commons complained to the peers of a speech made in the upper house by the bishop of Lincoln; which it belonged only to that house to censure, and which the other could not regularly be supposed to be acquainted with. These at least are the rules established since the parliament became a real seat of power, and scene of business. Neither the king must take notice of what passes in either house, nor either house of what passes in the other, till regularly informed of it. The commons, in their famous protestation 1621, fixed this rule with regard to the king, though at present they would not bind themselves by it. But as liberty was yet new, those maxims which guard and regulate it were unknown and unpractised. y Kennet, p. 696.

most that could be inferred is, that the constitution of England was, at that time, an inconsistent fabric, whose jarring and discordant parts must soon destroy each other, and from the dissolution of the old, beget some new form of civil government more uniform and consistent.

In the public and avowed conduct of the king and the house of commons throughout this whole reign, there appears sufficient cause of quarrel and mutual disgust; yet are we not to imagine, that this was the sole foundation of that jealousy which prevailed between them. During debates in the house, it often happened, that a particular member, more ardent and zealous that the rest, would display the highest sentiments of liberty, which the commons contented themselves to hear with silence and seeming approbation; and the king, informed of these harangues, concluded the whole house to be infected with the same principles, and to be engaged in a combination against his prerogative. The king, on the other hand, though he valued himself extremely on his king-craft, and perhaps was not altogether incapable of dissimulation, seems to have been very little endowed with the gift of secrecy; but openly at his table, in all companies, inculcated those monarchical tenets which he had so strongly imbibed. Before a numerous audience, he had expressed himself with great disparagement of the common law of England, and had given the preference, in the strongest terms, to the civil law and for this indiscretion he found himself obliged to apologize, in a speech to the former parliament. As a specimen of his usual liberty of talk, we may mention a story, though it passed some time after, which we meet with in the life of Waller, and which that poet used frequently to repeat. When Waller was young, he had the curiosity to go to court; and he stood in the circle, and saw James dine; where King James's Works, p. 532.

1

among other company, there sat at the table two bishops, Neile and Andrews. The king proposed aloud this question, Whether he might not take his subjects' money when he needed it, without all this formality of parliament? Neile replied, God forbid you should not ; for you are the breath of our nostrils. Andrews declined answering, and said, he was not skilled in parliamentary cases: but upon the king's urging him, and saying he would admit of no evasion, the bishop replied pleasantly, Why, then, I think your majesty may lawfully take my brother Neile's money; for he offers it."

Somerset's

The favourite had hitherto escaped the inFall. 1615. quiry of justice; but he had not escaped that still voice which can make itself be heard amidst all the hurry and flattery of a court, and astonishes the criminal with a just representation of his most secret enormities. Conscious of the murder of his friend, Somerset received small consolation from the enjoyments of love, or the utmost kindness and indulgence of his sovereign. The graces of his youth gradually disappeared, the gaiety of his manners was obscured, his politeness and obliging behaviour were changed into sullenness and silence. And the king, whose affections had been engaged by these superficial accomplishments, began to estrange himself from a man who no longer contributed to his amusement.

The sagacious courtiers observed the first symptoms of this disgust: Somerset's enemies seized the opportunity, and offered a new minion to the king. George Villiers, a youth of one-and-twenty, younger brother of a good family, returned at this time from his travels, and was remarked for the advantages of a handsome person, genteel air, and fashionable apparel. At a comedy he was purposely placed full in James's eye, and immediately engaged the attention, and, in the same instant, the affections of that monarch." Ashamed of his sudden b Franklyn, p. 50. Kennet, vol. 2. p. 698.

a Preface to Waller's Works.