of administering physic to the late king without acquainting his physicians. All these articles appear, from comparing the accusation and reply, to be either frivolous, or false, or both. The only charge which could be regarded as important was, that he had extorted a sum of 10,000l. from the East-India company, and that he had confiscated some goods belonging to French merchants, on pretence of their being the property of Spanish. The impeachment never came to a full determination; so that it is difficult for us to give a decisive opinion with regard to these articles. But it must be confessed, that the duke's answer in these particulars, as in all the rest, is so clear and satisfactory, that it is impossible to refuse our assent to it." His faults and blemishes were in many respects very great; but rapacity and avarice were vices with which he was entirely unacquainted.

It is remarkable that the commons, though so much at a loss to find articles of charge against Buckingham, never adopted Bristol's accusation, or impeached the duke for his conduct in the Spanish treaty, the most blamable circumstance in his whole life. He had reason to believe the Spaniards sincere in their professions; yet, in order to gratify his private passions, he had hurried his master and his country into a war pernicious to the interests of both. But so rivetted throughout the nation were the prejudices with regard to Spanish deceit and falsehood, that very few of the commons seem as yet to have been convinced that they had been seduced by Buckingham's narrative: a certain proof - that a discovery of this nature was not, as is imagined by several historians, the cause of so sudden and surprising a variation in the measures of the parliament.

a Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 306, &c. 375, &c. Journ. 25 March, 1626.

r Whitlocke, p. 7.

By a speech of sir Simon D'Ewes, in the first year of the long parliament, it clearly appears, that the nation never had, even to that time, been rightly informed concerning the transactions of the Spanish negotiation, and still believed the court of Madrid to have been altogether insincere in their professions. What reason,

While the commons were thus warmly engaged against Buckingham, the king seemed desirous of embracing every opportunity by which he could express a contempt and disregard for them. No one was at that time sufficiently sensible of the great weight which the commons bore in the balance of the constitution. The history of England had never hitherto afforded one instance where any great movement or revolution had proceeded from the lower house. And as their rank, both considered in a body and as individuals, was but the second in the kingdom; nothing less than fatal experience could engage the English princes to pay a due regard to the inclinations of that formidable assembly.

The earl of Suffolk, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, dying about this time, Buckingham, though lying under impeachment, was yet, by means of courtinterest, chosen in his place. The commons resented

upon that supposition, had they to blame either the prince or Buckingham for their conduct, or for the narrative delivered to the parliament? This is a capital fact, and ought to be well attended to. D'Ewes's speech is in Nalson, vol. 2. p. 368. No author or historian of that age mentions the discovery of Buckingham's impostures as a cause of disgust in the parliament. Whitlocke, p. 1, only says, that the commons began to suspect, that it had been spleen in Buckingham, not zeal for public good, which had induced him to break the Spanish match; a clear proof that his falsehood was not suspected. Wilson, p. 780, says, that Buckingham lost his popularity after Bristol arrived, not because that nobleman discovered to the world the falsehood of his narrative, but because he proved that Buckingham, while in Spain, had professed himself a Papist; which is false, and which was never said by Bristol. In all the debates which remain, not the least hint is ever given that any falsehood was suspected in the narrative. I shall farther add, that even if the parliament had discovered the deceit in Buckingham's narrative, this ought not to have altered their political measures, or made them refuse supply to the king. They had supposed it practicable to wrest the palatinate by arms from the house of Austria; they had represented it as prudent to expend the blood and treasure of the nation in such an enterprise; they had believed that the king of Spain never had any sincere intention of restoring that principality. It is certain, that he had not now any such intention: and though there was reason to suspect, that this alteration in his views had proceeded from the ill conduct of Buckingham, yet past errors could not be retrieved; and the nation was undoubtedly in the same situation which the parliament had ever supposed, when they so much harassed their sovereign, by their impatient, importunate, and even undutiful solicitations. To which we may add, that Charles himself was certainly deceived by Buckingham, when he corroborated his favourite's narrative by his testimony. Party historians are somewhat inconsistent in their representations of these transactions; they represent the Spaniards as totally insincere, that they may reproach James with credulity in being so long deceived by them; they represent them as sincere, that they may reproach the king, the prince, and the duke, with falsehood in their narrative to the parliament. The truth is, they were insincere at first; but the reasons, proceeding from bigotry, were not suspected by James, and were at last overcome. They became sincere; but the prince, deceived by the many unavoidable causes of delay, believed that they were still deceiving him.

and loudly complained of this affront; and the more to enrage them, the king himself wrote a letter to the university, extolling the duke, and giving them thanks for his election.*

The lord-keeper, in the king's name, expressly commanded the house not to meddle with his minister and servant, Buckingham; and ordered them to finish, in a few days, the bill which they had begun for the subsidies, and to make some addition to them; otherwise they must not expect to sit any longer." And though these harsh commands were endeavoured to be explained and mollified, a few days after, by a speech of Buckingham's, they failed not to leave a disagreeable impression behind them.

Besides a more stately style which Charles in general affected to this parliament than to the last, he went so far in a message, as to threaten the commons, that if they did not furnish him with supplies, he should be obliged to try new counsels. This language was sufficiently clear; yet, lest any ambiguity should remain, sir Dudley Carleton, vice-chamberlain, took care to explain it. "I pray you consider (said he) what these new counsels are, or may be. I fear to declare those that I conceive. In all Christian kingdoms, you know that parliaments were in use anciently, by which those kingdoms were governed in a most flourishing manner; until the monarchs began to know their own strength, and seeing the turbulent spirit of their parliaments, at length they by little and little began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last overthrew the parliaments, throughout Christendom, except here only with us.— Let us be careful then to preserve the king's good opinion of parliaments, which bringeth such happiness to the nation, and makes us envied of all others, while there is this sweetness between his majesty and the

Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 371.

" Parl. Hist. vol. 6. p. 444. x Ibid. p. 451. Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 225. Franklyn, p. 118.

commons; lest we lose the repute of a free people by our turbulency in parliament." These imprudent suggestions rather gave warning than struck terror. A precarious liberty, the commons thought, which was to be preserved by unlimited complaisance, was no liberty at all. And it was necessary, while yet in their power, to secure the constitution by such invincible barriers, that no king or minister should ever, for the future, dare to speak such a language to any parliament, or even entertain such a project against them.

Two members of the house, sir Dudley Digges and sir John Elliot, who had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the duke, were thrown into prison." The commons immediately declared, that they would proceed no farther upon business, till they had satisfaction in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this measure, certain seditious expressions, which, he said, had, in their accusation of the duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry it appeared that no such expressions had been used. The members were released, and the king reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate the house still farther, and to shew some degree of precipitancy and indiscretion.

d

Moved by this example, the house of peers were roused from their inactivity, and claimed liberty for the earl of Arundel, who had been lately confined in the Tower. After many fruitless evasions, the king, though somewhat ungracefully, was at last obliged to comply. And in this incident it sufficiently appeared, that the lords, how little soever inclined to popular courses, were not wanting in a just sense of their own dignity. The ill-humour of the commons, thus wantonly irritated by the court, and finding no gratification in the legal impeachment of Buckingham, sought other objects

y Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 359. Whitlocke, p. 6.

z Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 356. dId. Ibid. e Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 363, &c.

p. 358. 361. Franklyn, p. 180. Franklyn, p. 181.

f

on which it might exert itself. The never-failing cry of Popery here served them instead. They again claimed the execution of the penal laws against Catholics; and they presented to the king a list of persons intrusted with offices, most of them insignificant, who were either convicted or suspected recusants. In this particular, they had, perhaps, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine that the parliament, when they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him from the obligation of a strict performance. A new odium, likewise, by these representations, was attempted to be thrown upon Buckingham. His mother, who had a great influence over him, was a professed Catholic; his wife was not free from suspicion and the indulgence given to Catholics was of course supposed to proceed entirely from his credit and authority. So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office, that his wife, or relations, or companions, were Papists, though he himself was a conformist.

It is remarkable, that persecution was here pushed on by laymen; and that the church was willing to have granted more liberty than would be allowed by the commons. The reconciling doctrines likewise of Montague failed not anew to meet with severe censures from that zealous assembly."

The next attack made by the commons, had it prevailed, would have proved decisive. They were preparing a remonstrance against the levying of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament. This article, together with the new impositions laid on merchandize by James, constituted near half of the crown

f Franklyn, p. 195. * See the list in Franklyn and Rushworth.

Rushworth.

h Rushworth, vol. 1. p. 209.