s adherence to his resolution of supporting his minister
greatly affected the state of affairs in England, which even at that
time presupposed and required an agreement between the Crown and the
Parliament.

Buckingham attributed the rejection of his proposals in Parliament to
personal enmity; and this he thought he could certainly overcome.
Williams, who in the time of James I had been entirely in the
confidence of the King, was after a time dismissed, not without
harshness, and was replaced by Thomas Coventry. The post of Lord
Keeper was again filled by a lawyer who troubled himself less about
political affairs. Parliament was not prorogued, as the rest of the
members of the Privy Council wished: the King agreed with Buckingham
that it must be dissolved. The Duke hoped that new elections, held
under his influence, would give better results. He did not doubt that
another Parliament might be hurried away to make extensive grants
under the pressure of the great interest opposed to Spain. But in
order to effect this object it appeared to him necessary to exclude
from the Lower House its most active members, who were his personal
antagonists. He adopted the odious means of advancing them to offices
which could not be held compatible with a seat in Parliament. In this
way Edward Coke, who revived and found arguments for the
constitutional claims of Parliament, was nominated sheriff of
Buckinghamshire, and Thomas Wentworth High Sheriff of Yorkshire.
Francis Seymour, Robert Phillips, and some others, had a similar
fate.[455] When the lists were submitted as usual the King
unexpectedly announced these nominations. Some peers, whose views
inspired no confidence, were not summoned to attend the sittings of
the Upper House.

Perhaps too much weight has been attributed to the circumstance--but
yet it proves the discontent which was widely spreading--that at the
coronation of the King, which took place during these days, the
traditional question addressed from four sides of the tribune to the
surrounding multitude, asking whether they approved, was not answered
from one side at least with the joyful readiness usually
displayed.[456]

On February 6, 1626, the new Parliament was opened at Westminster. It
made no great objection to the exclusion of some of the former
members, as the means by which this had been effected could not be
regarded as exactly illegal. Among the members assembled an ambition
was rather felt to prove that