ons, that this house of commons showed rather a
stronger spirit of liberty than the foregoing; and instead of entering
upon the business of supply, as urged by the king, who made them several
liberal offers of grace,[*] they immediately resumed the subject which
had been opened last parliament, and disputed his majesty's power
of levying new customs and impositions, by the mere authority of his
prerogative. It is remarkable, that, in their debates on this subject,
the courtiers frequently pleaded, as a precedent, the example of all
the other hereditary monarchs in Europe, and particularly mentioned the
kings of France and Spain; nor was this reasoning received by the house
either with surprise or indignation.[**] The members of the opposite
party either contented themselves with denying the justness of the
inference, or they disputed the truth of the observation.[***] And a
patriot member in particular, Sir Roger Owen, even in arguing against
the impositions, frankly allowed, that the king of England was
endowed with as ample a power and prerogative as any prince in
Christendom.[****] The nations on the continent, we may observe, enjoyed
still, in that age, some small remains of liberty; and the English were
possessed of little more.

* Journ. 11th April, 1614.

** Journ. 21st May, 1614.

*** Journ. 12th, 21st May, 1614.

**** Journ. 18th April, 1614.

The commons applied to the lords for a conference with regard to the
new impositions. A speech of Neile, bishop of Lincoln, reflecting on the
lower house, begat some altercation with the peers;[*] [53] and the
king seized the opportunity of dissolving, immediately, with great
indignation, a parliament which had shown so firm a resolution of
retrenching his prerogative, without communicating, in return, the
smallest supply to his necessities. He carried his resentment so far,
as even to throw into prison some of the members who had been the most
forward in their opposition to his measures.[**] In vain did he plead,
in excuse for this violence, the example of Elizabeth, and other
princes of the line of Tudor, as well as Plantagenet. The people and
the parliament, without abandoning forever all their liberties and
privileges, could acquiesce in none of these precedents, how ancient and
frequent soever. And were the authority of such precedents admitted, the
utmost that could be inferred is, that the constitution of England was,
at that time, an inco