Editing Addled Parliament (section)

==Parliament==

===Preparations===
[[File:Randolph Crewe by Peter Lely.jpg|thumb|left|[[Ranulph Crewe]], [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker]] for the Addled Parliament. Crewe was a surprising choice for Speaker, a last minute pick with little previous experience.]]

The Privy Council as a whole was not optimistic about the upcoming parliament. Two of the king's closest advisors were unavailable: Salisbury was dead and the 74-year-old Northampton was ill.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=92}} Even Suffolk and Pembroke were clueless of any way to prevent Parliament from bringing up thorny issues such as impositions again.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} However, two Councillors were to provide advice to the king over his new parliament, which would prove significant.{{sfn|Stewart|2011|p=251}} [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] [[Sir Francis Bacon]], who had been among the most vocal in favour of calling Parliament, publicly blamed Salisbury entirely for the failure of the previous Parliament; he held a private grudge against the treasurer, suspecting he had undermined his early career. He asserted that Salisbury's deal-making with Parliament had been the root of the king's failure, and that James should instead approach Parliament as their king, rather than some merchant, and therefore request subsidies on the basis of the Commons' goodwill to their ruler.{{sfn|Willson|1967|pp=344–345}}{{sfn|Stewart|2011|pp=251–252}} Bacon added to this that the king should employ patronage to win over the men of Parliament to his side.{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=489}} [[Sir Henry Neville (died 1615)|Sir Henry Neville]] offered advice to the king on how to warm relations with Parliament, which he accepted amiably,{{sfn|Thrush|2010c}} but Neville's more portentous offer was that of an "undertaking", whereby Neville and a group of "patriots" would arrange to manage the Parliament in James's favour, in return for the office of Secretary of State.{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=481}} James rejected the undertaking derisively, and no such conspiracy was ever arranged,{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=481}} but rumours of its actual occurrence spread quickly in the lead up to Parliament.{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=491}}

MPs later accused James of trying to [[wikt:pack#Verb|pack]] the parliament.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=52}} Indeed, Bacon had plainly advised the king on the "placing of persons well-affected and discreet" in Parliament,{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=481}}{{sfn|Mathew|1967|pp=221–222}} and James had unapologetically packed the Irish Parliament the previous year.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=93}}{{efn|James attempted to pack the Irish Parliament of 1613 with Protestants by adding 84 new seats to the former 148 that election: 38 represented tiny or as-yet nonexistent settlements in the Protestant [[Ulster plantation]]. The election came out with a Protestant majority of 32. James insisted he was within his royal right in doing this and mocked the parliament's anger at this.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=93, 148}}}} An atypically large number of Crown officials found themselves in this parliament;{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=53}} four Privy Councillors had seats in the Commons, alongside plenty of Crown lawyers.{{sfn|Mathew|1967|pp=222–223}} Though there is no evidence that the Crown sought to pack Parliament with easily controlled and pacified MPs, James certainly promoted the election of those sympathetic to the Crown's ambitions.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=53}} The Privy Council, in actuality, seemed more apathetic with regard to appointing useful parliamentary officials. Few of the expected preparations were made.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=92}} After some Byzantine wrangling in which another better-qualified candidate was dropped, [[Ranulph Crewe]], judge and MP for the [[rotten borough|government-controlled borough]] of [[Saltash (UK Parliament constituency)|Saltash]], was chosen at the last minute to be the [[Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom)|Speaker of the House of Commons]].{{sfn|Moir|1958|pp=41–42}} This was a surprising choice: Crewe's previous experience in Parliament was limited to a short stint as an MP in [[9th Parliament of Queen Elizabeth I|1597–98]] and an appearance on two minor legal counsels; his legal career was no more impressive.{{sfn|Hunneyball|2010}} Crewe's inexperience at dealing with rowdy MPs was no doubt among the factors that allowed Parliament to descend into disorder, as it rapidly did.{{sfn|Smith|1973|p=169}} James's most senior representative in the House of Commons, [[Ralph Winwood]], [[Secretary of State (England)|Secretary of State]], was announced similarly late. Though a spirited official and zealous Puritan, Winwood had no parliamentary experience at all and was a terse, unlikable figure.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=92}}{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=345}} Though sometimes caricatured as juvenile, and thus prone to passionate outbursts, the new House of Commons as a whole was not especially young or inexperienced;{{efn|61% (281 out of 464) of the members had never sat in Parliament before, a little above the Elizabethan average of 50%, but perfectly reasonable given the decade-long interval between elections.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=55}}}} it was the inexperience of his most important officials and advisors that was to damage the king.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=55}}

===Opening and conspiracies===
[[File:Henry Neville 1599.jpg|right|thumb|The first six weeks of Parliament were marked by the suspicion of an "undertaking", headed by Sir [[Henry Neville (died 1615)|Henry Neville]].]]
Parliament opened on 5 April 1614.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} James opened the Parliament with the wish that it would come to be known as the "Parliament of Love", and that king and Parliament would go on in harmony and understanding.{{sfn|Mondi|2007|p=153}} His opening speech was divided into three sections: the first ({{lang|la|bona animi}}), decrying the growth of Catholicism and imploring the harsher enforcement of existing laws;{{efn|According to historian Thomas L. Moir, this aspect of James's speech "displayed one of those flashes of visions which occasionally revealed his intellectual capacity."{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=81}} Rather than demand the institution of new anti-Catholic legislature, James contended that persecution only aided the Catholic cause, and that, as Protestantism was correct, it could reject Catholicism for its own fallacies. Such an ostensibly tolerant doctrine was a novelty in James's time.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=81}}}} the second ({{lang|la|bona corporis}}), assuring Parliament of the security of the [[Stuart dynasty]]; and the third ({{lang|la|bona fortunae}}), emphasising his financial necessity, and his aim not to bargain with Parliament any longer, but rather to ask of their goodwill in supplying funds.{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=226}}{{sfn|Moir|1958|pp=80–82}} All but the religious aspect of this speech bore the unmistakable stamp of Bacon's influence.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=82}} Notably missing from the speech was any promise of compromise or reformation from the king.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=346}} In the same speech, he stringently denied any sanction of Neville's undertaking,{{sfn|Mondi|2007|p=153}} but speculation on the conspiracy was already widespread.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} Neville's plan had, by now, been twisted into a far-reaching conspiracy of the king's court.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=346}} English diplomat Sir [[Thomas Roe]] was the first to allege that the rumours were promulgated by the Earl of Northampton's crypto-Catholic faction, who wanted the king to instead look for funds in a [[marital alliance]] with Catholic Spain, thus favouring Parliament's failure.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=491}} The idea that Northampton masterminded many of the factors in the failure of this parliament has been accepted by most later historians,{{sfn|Peck|1981|loc=p. 533: "Northampton was accused by some contemporaries and most later historians of engineering the abrupt dissolution of the Addled Parliament in 1614"}} but has met with the notable rejection of one Northampton biographer, Linda Levy Peck.{{sfn|Peck|1981|loc=p. 535: "Secondly, the one thing that every schoolboy knows about Northampton - that he destroyed the Addled Parliament of 1614 - might be questioned"}}

Suspicions only compounded as Parliament proceeded, with the revelation that the king had corresponded with influential subjects in the hopes of securing the election of the sympathetic.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=346}} The House of Commons was divided between those who accepted the conspiracy and those who rejected it.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} The Commons thus immediately set about investigating the preceding elections for signs of misconduct.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=347}} Though little beyond this was established, it was found that the [[Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster]], Sir [[Thomas Parry (ambassador)|Thomas Parry]], had swayed the election in [[Stockbridge (UK Parliament constituency)|Stockbridge]]. For a brief period, this investigation dominated the Commons: Parry was suspended from the House and, passingly, from his Chancellorship. For many in Parliament, this seemed evidence enough that the king's officials had attempted to pack Parliament.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=347}}{{sfn|Seddon|2008}} Simultaneously, a [[Parliamentary committees of the United Kingdom|committee]] to inquire into the alleged undertaking was launched, though this proved less fruitful. The committee's chairman returned on 2 May; he spoke confusingly, but concluded against the existence of any undertaking. However, parliamentary provocateur [[John Hoskins (poet)|John Hoskins]] demanded further investigation, which the House accepted.{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=492}} On 14 May, the inquiry ended; after six weeks of Parliament, rumours of an undertaking had conclusively been dismissed.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=492}} However, by the end of this controversy, resentment against the undertakers had evaporated. Neville was never suspended for his part, but rather ultimately met with commendation of Parliament. His advice was seen as part of an effort to allow the king to remedy their grievances. The packers, on the other hand, never gained the sympathy of Parliament, with their efforts invariably seen as attempts to undermine the parliamentary process.{{sfn|Roberts|1985|p=29}}

===Controversy over impositions===
{{quote box
|text=My Lords, I think it a dangerous thing for us to confer with them about the point of impositions. For it is a {{lang|la|[[Noli me tangere]]}}, and none that have either taken the [[Oath of Supremacy]] or [[Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)|Allegiance]] may do it with a good conscience, for in the Oath of Allegiance we are sworn to maintain the privileges of the Crown, and in this conference we should not confer about a flower, but strike at the root of the Imperial Crown, and therefore in my opinion it is neither fit to confer with them nor give them a meeting.
|author=[[Bishop Neile]]
|source=The "{{lang|la|Noli me tangere}} speech", given to the House of Lords on 21 May.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=117}}
|align=left
|width=450px
|quoted = 1
}}
The dispute over the alleged packing and undertaking split the House, but it was not this that would cause the parliament's ultimate failure.{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|pp=496–497}} As early as 19 April, letter writer [[John Chamberlain (letter writer)|John Chamberlain]] communicated that "the great clamor against undertakers [was] well quieted",{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=497}} and the Commons were occupied with a familiar controversy: impositions.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Duncan|Roberts|1978|p=497}} Parliament adjourned on 20 April for Easter, reconvening on 2 May.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} Two days later on 4 May, the king delivered a speech to the Commons, ardent in its defence of the legality of impositions, a fact the king's judges had apparently assured him of beyond any doubt.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=347}} At the end he added portentously that, if he did not receive supply soon, the Commons "must not look for more Parliaments in haste".{{sfn|Thrush|2014}} However, at the same time, the Commons were united and unflinching in their belief that impositions threatened property law, and that, over impositions, "the liberty of the kingdom is in question."{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=93}} James was so irritated by one such speech, given by MP [[Thomas Wentworth (Recorder of Oxford)|Thomas Wentworth]], that he had Wentworth imprisoned shortly after Parliament ended.{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=227}} As parliamentary historian [[Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell|Conrad Russell]] judged it, "both sides were so firmly convinced that they were legally in the right that they never fully absorbed that the other party thought differently."{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=93}} Any understanding between the two sides was further hampered by the fact that the Commons continued to disregard the king's financial troubles, which discouraged the king from giving up such a valuable source of income as impositions.{{sfn|Croft|2003|p=93}}

On 21 May, the Commons asked the Lords for a conference on impositions, anticipating their backing in petitioning the king. After five days of debate, the Lords returned with their formal refusal of such a conference, meeting with the astonishment of many.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} The Lords had voted 39 to 30 against it, carried by the near unanimity of the [[Lords Spiritual]] against this conference.{{efn|Out of the 17 [[prelates]] who voted, all but one opposed the conference, namely the old-fashioned [[Archbishop of York]], [[Tobias Matthew]].{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=227}}}}{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=227}} Bishop [[Richard Neile]], who was one of the most vocal opponents of the conference,{{sfn|Moir|1958|pp=116–117}} added insult to injury with a sharp speech condemning the petitioners.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=347}} The remarks made in this speech, known as the "{{lang|la|Noli me tangere}} speech", have been described by one historian as "the most dangerous words used in the reign [of James I] by any politician."{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=228}} The Commons refused to conduct any more business until Neile had been punished for this affront.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} Crewe's feeble attempts to argue that parliamentary business must go on revealed his impotence in the face of the angered body.{{sfn|Hunneyball|2010}} Though the Commons received a tearful apology and retraction from the Bishop on 30 May, they were unsatisfied and doubled down on their demands of disciplinary action.{{sfn|Moir|1958|pp=130–131}} By the end of May, as historian Thomas L. Moir put it, "the temper of the Commons had reached a fever pitch"{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=132}} and leadership had broken down in this intractable atmosphere.{{sfn|Moir|1958|pp=132–133}} No punishment for Neile, however, ever materialised, and the king grew impatient with Parliament.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}

===James grows impatient===
[[File:Henry Howard Earl of Northampton circle of Gheeraerts.JPG|right|thumb|[[Henry Howard, 1st Earl of Northampton]]'s wishes were finally fulfilled on his deathbed, as James dissolved Parliament and looked for Spanish support.]]

Parliament was adjourned on 1 June for [[Ascension Day]], reconvening again on 3 June.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} When the Commons met on this day, they received an ultimatum from the king: unless Parliament agreed to grant him a financial supply soon, he would dissolve Parliament on 9 June.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=136}} James expected this to shock the Commons into pursuing his aims, but instead, it only entrenched the opposition further into its obstinacy. Many felt this demand was a bluff; the king was still deeply in debt, and parliamentary subsidies seemed his only way out. Instead of effecting any subsidies, the Commons attacked the king mercilessly. His Court, especially its Scottish members, were accused of extravagance, suggesting the king would have no need for impositions or subsidies if not for these subjects.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} As one member memorably pronounced, James's courtiers were "spaniels to the king and wolves to the people".{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=229}} Possibly encouraged by Northampton,{{efn|According to Moir, Hoskins here "seems to have been simply the tool of the pro-Spanish [i.e. Northampton's] interests."{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=140}} The provocative historical reference was submitted by two of Northampton's lackeys: [[Lionel Sharpe]], [[Sir Charles Cornwallis (diplomat)|Sir Charles Cornwallis]]. Gardiner alleges he was not the most historically learned member, and likely misunderstood the insinuation in the reference. Hoskins was also promised the protection of Northampton (and possibly Somerset) if he was to be charged with sedition, and was perhaps encouraged by a £20 bribe.{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=140}} This allegation has been questioned by Peck, who asserts that Hoskyns' misunderstanding of the allusion was "unlikely" given his educational background, and Hoskyns was already a known opponent of Scottish influence. Thus, in her view: "it seems more reasonable to view Hoskyns not as the innocent tool or victim of the pro-Spanish interests, but as a member of the Commons who agreed with the idea of sending home the Scots".{{sfn|Peck|1981|p=550}}}} Hoskins grimly hinted that the lives of these Scottish courtiers were in danger, alluding to the ethnic massacre of the [[County of Anjou|Angevins]] in the [[Sicilian Vespers]]; this was communicated to the king as a threat to the lives of himself and of his closest friends, such that he likely feared himself in danger of assassination.{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=348}} Roe was more prescient, if somewhat melodramatic, in his judgement that the impending dissolution would be "the ending, not only of this, but of all Parliaments".{{sfn|Thrush|2014}} The Commons issued their own ultimatum to James: if he abolished impositions, "wherewith the whole kingdom doth groan", they would give him financial support.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}

However, James was in no position to give up such a source of income.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}} While the anti-Northampton faction pleaded with the king to [[Prorogation in the United Kingdom|prorogue]] rather than dissolve Parliament, the king visited Northampton on his deathbed. Northampton persuaded the desperate king to dissolve Parliament. Shortly after James contacted the Spanish Ambassador, [[Diego Sarmiento de Acuña, 1st Count of Gondomar|the Count of Gondomar]], to be assured of Spanish support after his break with Parliament, an assurance which Gondomar happily supplied. James dissolved Parliament on 7 June 1614. The aims of Northampton's factions were finally fulfilled, as Northampton saw the end of the Addled Parliament little more than a week before he died.{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Willson|1967|p=348}} The Parliament had elapsed without any bill being passed with [[royal assent]], and thus was not constitutionally considered a parliament. Contemporaries spoke of it as a "convention". For John Chamberlain, it seemed "rather a [[wikt:parley|parlee]] only".{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}{{sfn|Mathew|1967|p=229}}{{sfn|Croft|2003|pp=93–94}} However, for its failure the parliament has universally been known to posterity as the "Addled Parliament".{{sfn|Thrush|2010b}}