Editing Addled Parliament (section)

===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}}