affection and fears of the people were still calculated upon. In the mean time, the fleet sailed on an expedition against Cadiz, the bay of which was crowded with richly-freighted vessels. In order, however, to humour the people a little, the clergy were directed to proceed against the papists, who were forbidden to go further than five miles from their place of abode without permission, and received orders to recall such children from the continent as they had sent there to be educated. They were also compelled to deliver up their arms. The commons had cried out for their liberties; the king in return exercised a little tyranny against their enemies.

This contemptible expedient did not satisfy them besides, even the proceedings against the papists were equivocal and suspected; for the king secretly sold them dispensations or granted them pardons. The loan brought but little money to the treasury; the expedition against Cadiz failed, and the public attributed its failure to the ignorance of the admiral and the drunkenness of the troops; the government was accused of neither knowing how to choose commanders, nor how to maintain good conduct among the soldiers. Six months had scarcely passed when a second parliament was thought necessary. Rancour had not taken deep root in the mind of the young king, and his despotism was both timid and confident. He thought the commons would

February 6th, 1628.

be delighted to be re-assembled so soon; perhaps he even hoped that the firmness he had shown would render them more obedient. He had moreover taken measures to keep from parliament the more popular orators. The earl of Bristol, a personal enemy of the duke of Buckingham, received no summons to attend. Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir Francis Seymour ", and others, named sheriffs of their counties, could not be elected. It was not doubted but in their absence the commons would be more submissive, for, it was said, the people love the king, only that a few factious spirits lead them astray.

The commons, on the other hand, thought that it was the king who was led astray, and that to bring him back to his people, it was only necessary to rescue him from his favourite. The first parliament had merely insisted upon the redress of public grievances, by delaying the subsidies; the one now assembled resolved to strike nearer the throne, at the author of all their grievances -the duke of Buckingham *.

The duke was one of those men who seem born to shine in courts and to displease nations. Handsome, presumptuous, magnificent, rash and careless, sincere and warm in his attachments, open and haughty in his hatred, alike incapable of virtue or hypocrisy, he governed without poli

::

"Seven in all the three others, who were of less note, were, Sir Grey Palmer, Sir William Fleetwood, and Mr. Edward Alford. February 21st, 1626.

X

tical design, and neither troubled himself concerning the interests of the country nor those of the king. His whole care was his own greatness, and that greatness consisted in displaying his own powerful influence over the king. He had once endeavoured to render himself popular, and had succeeded. The rupture of the intended marriage of Charles with the infanta of Spain had been his work. But public favour was, with him, only a means of forcing the king to his purpose-public favour he lost, but he scarcely bestowed a regret upon it, proud of having retained over Charles the same ascendancy he had so insolently exercised over James. But his ambition was unsupported by talents; the gratification of frivolous passions was the sole aim of his intrigues; to seduce a woman, to get rid of a rival, he compromised, with arrogant insensibility, sometimes the king, sometimes the country. The power of such a man, to a people daily becoming more serious, appeared an insult as well as a misfortune; and the duke continued to hold the highest functions in the state, without appearing to the people aught but an upstart without glory -an incapable and daring favourite.

He was earl, marquis, and duke of Buckingham, earl of Coventry, viscount Villiers, lord high admiral of England and Ireland, governor-general of the navy, master of the horse, warden of the Cinque Ports, governor of Dovor Castle, lord high keeper; high steward of Westminster, constable of Windsor, knight of the garter, gentleman of the bedchamber, privy councillor, etc. The royal domains that had been given him were valued at £284,395 sterling, etc. Brodie, Hist. of the British Empire, etc. vol. ii. p. 122.

The attack of the commons was violent: it was difficult to prove against Buckingham any legal crime; the house voted that public report alone afforded sufficient grounds for proceeding against him; and it collected together all the chief aggressions that public rumour accused him of. The duke cleared himself of most of these attacks; but it availed him little. It was the maladministration that the commons wished to reform: though innocent of theft, murder, or treason, Buckingham was still no less obnoxious. The boldness of the commons gave courage to the disaffected at court. The earl of Bristol complained of not having been called to parliament. Buckingham, who feared him, wished to keep him at a distance. The lords acknowledged the earl's right, and Charles sent him a summons to parliament, but at the same time ordered him to remain on his estates. The earl had recourse a second time to the house, beseeching them to inquire, whether the privileges of the peers of the realm did not require that he should be allowed to take his seat in the house. The king immediately impeached him of high treason". In order to defend himself, Bristol, in his turn, accused Buckingham. Thus the king saw his favourite impeached at the same time by the representatives of the people and by an old courtier.

2 April 22nd, 1626; Parl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 32. In March 1626; Parl. Hist, vol. ii. p. 72. May 1st, 1626; Parl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 79.

This was interfering too much with Charles's power, and offended his pride. Buckingham had not been convicted of any crime, it seemed then mere wanton malice against his favourite and friend. He said to the commons: "I must let

you know, that I shall not suffer you to prosecute any of my servants, and far less those who are placed in high situations and near my person. Formerly the question was, 'What shall be done for the man whom the king honours? Now there are people who weary themselves in finding out what shall be done against the man whom the king thinks fit to honour. I desire that you should hasten the business of the subsidies, if not it will be the worse for you; and if any harm happen, I think I shall be the last who will suffer by it." At the same time, he forbade the judges to answer the questions which the house had submitted to them concerning one part of the earl of Bristol's charge, fearing that the answer would be in the earl's favour. The judges were silent; but the commons did not desist. Eight of its members were appointed to support, in a conference with the upper house, the accusation against Buckingham. When the conference was over, the king caused two of the eight members, Sir Dudley Diggs, and Sir John Elliot,

e

d Parl. Hist. col. 49, 50.

f Parl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 105.

e Ibid. col. 106.

* May 3rd, 1626; Journals of the House of Commons. They were, Sir Dudley Diggs, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Selden, Mr. Glanville, Mr. Pym, Mr. Whitby, Mr. Wandesford, and Sir John Elliot.