willingly, this will excite confidence in its disposition, and induce the King the more speedily to adopt that measure."

To this plausible argument in favour of the unusual proceeding, it was answered, if the King had not dissolved the Parliament precipitately and without reason, the supplies would long since have been granted in a legal manner, and the want of money removed. The King indeed declared that this proceeding should not serve as a rule, but it is itself a violation of the rule, and takes away from the Parliament a most important and undeniable right. Besides, it seems absurd to purchase, in a manner, the royal confidence by the payment of illegal taxes, and to be punished for words and apprehensions which appear equally just and natural. Lastly, the King quite arbitrarily puts off the calling of a Parliament till certain unknown occasions may occur, as if the annual right of granting taxes were not a sufficient ground, which determines both the time and the object of the meeting of Parlia

ment.

Instead of listening to these and similar arguments, the King and those under him, blindly persisted in the course they had once entered on. Those who refused to subscribe to the loan, had soldiers billeted upon them, were pressed into the sea or land service, sent abroad, reprimanded by the King in the bitterest and most offensive terms,

dismissed from their offices, or imprisoned at once. Yet so little was received that people said, this was like fishing with golden hooks, or cultivating the land with ivory ploughs or silver spades. And in fact, begging and plundering were employed almost from house to house; and with the greatest offence to all his subjects, and a fatal diminution of the respect due to the King, only small sums were collected, whereas legal and prudent conduct would have readily procured far greater resources.

Among those who were arrested for refusing to contribute to the loan, five gentlemen, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John Heveningham, and Sir Edward Hampden, ventured to try the question, and affirmed, that an order of the King or the Privy Council was not sufficient ground to arrest any person without allegation of the cause, or to refuse setting him at liberty on his giving sufficient bail. Hereupon a solemn trial, which excited universal attention, took place, in the Court of King's Bench, in which it appeared that the Kings had certainly acted in many cases in this manner, but that it had been expressly prohibited by the Magna Charta and six subsequent statutes.

At the same time the court employed certain clergymen to enforce its notions of the absolute power of the sovereign, from the pulpit. Thus Dr. Sibthorpe said, in his sermon, "Only the King gives

laws and does what he pleases, where his command is there also is the power, and who dare ask him, what doest thou? When Princes order anything which subjects cannot perform, because it is contrary to the commands of God or to the laws of nature, or in itself impossible, they must suffer the penalty of their disobedience without murmur, complaint, or resistance; they must manifest passive obedience where active is impracticable." In the same spirit Dr. Mainwaring preached before Charles: "The King is not bound to observe the laws of the kingdom, respecting the rights and privileges of the subjects. Every royal command, for instance, in respect to taxing and loans, binds the consciences of the subjects on pain of eternal damnation. He who resists commits a great sin against the law of God and the supreme power of the King. He is guilty of impiety, disloyalty, and rebellion; for the consent of Parliament is not necessary for the imposing of taxes, &c."

We would willingly look upon such expressions as mean flatteries of servile court chaplains, or as the unmeaning results of partial theories, had not Charles reprimanded and dismissed from his office, Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, because he would not allow the sermon by Sibthorpe to be printed; had he not subsequently rewarded Mainwaring in a manner which gave offence, and elevated him to the Episcopal dignity. The dis

content excited by these theories, and the administration which was conformable to them, continued to increase, so that only a few officers and clergy about the court approved of this mistaken course, while in the deliberations of the Privy Council, the deficiency of all the means employed was more and more plainly pointed out. At length, the celebrated historian and antiquary, Cotton, plainly declared on the 29th of January, 1628, two things are wanting, money and popularity. But these two things cannot well be separated, on which account, that great statesman, Lord Burghley, said to Queen Elizabeth, "Gain the hearts of your subjects, and you will have their hands and their purses." The present mode of obtaining money is contrary to the laws, becomes daily more difficult, and besides produces but very little. The King ought, therefore, to remove all doubts on religious affairs, to introduce rigid economy, not to maintain a standing army in the country to excite suspicion, and Buckingham should make himself popular by being the first to propose the maintenance of the public liberty and the calling of a Parliament.

As the distress was urgent, and the Duke easily and willingly persuaded himself that he could in this manner for ever turn the opinions of Parliament in his favour, the King, by his advice, summoned it to meet on the 26th of March, 1628, and set

above seventy persons at liberty who had been arrested for refusing to contribute to the forced loan. Twenty-seven of them were immediately elected into the House of Commons, and brought with them, if not passion and a desire of revenge, yet the firm resolution to adopt every means to render such inroads on property and personal liberty impossible for the future.

The King, in his opening speech, said: "The times call for actions and not for words, therefore I will say but little, and wish, as Kings ought to be patterns for their subjects, that you may imitate me in this, and quickly come to a decision. The danger threatens all, the necessity is notorious, and I have called a Parliament to provide means for our own safety, and the preservation of our allies. Every one must now act according to his conscience, wherefore, if, which God forbid, you should not do your duty, and refuse to contribute to what the state needs in these times, I am bound, for the discharge of my conscience, to employ those other means which God has placed in my hands, to save what the folly of some individuals otherwise brings near to destruction. Do not take this as a threat, for I disdain to threaten any except my equals, but as an exhortation, from him who by nature and duty is chiefly concerned for your preservation and your happiness, I will willingly forget and forgive what