Editing Addled Parliament (section)

===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to have been simply the tool of the pro-Spanish [i.e. Northampton's] interests."{{sfn|Moir|1958|p=140}} The provocative historical reference was submitted by two of Northampton's lackeys: [[Lionel Sharpe]], [[Sir Charles Cornwallis (diplomat)|Sir Charles Cornwallis]].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}}