Editing Addled Parliament (section)

===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}}