es. In order the more to intimidate them, he mentioned
the imprisonment of Sir Edwin Sandys; and though he denied that the
confinement of that member had been owing to any offence committed in
the house, he plainly told them, that he thought himself fully entitled
to punish every misdemeanor in parliament, as well during its sitting
as after its dissolution; and that he intended thenceforward to chastise
any man whose insolent behavior there should minister occasion of
offence.[*]

This violent letter, in which the king, though he here imitated
former precedents, may be thought not to have acted altogether on the
defensive, had the effect which might naturally have been expected
from it: the commons were inflamed, not terrified. Secure of their
own popularity, and of the bent of the nation towards a war with the
Catholics abroad, and the persecution of Popery at home, they little
dreaded the menaces of a prince who was unsupported by military force,
and whose gentle temper would, of itself, so soon disarm his severity.
In a new remonstrance, therefore, they still insisted on their former
remonstrance and advice; and they maintained, though in respectful
terms, that they were entitled to interpose with their counsel in all
matters of government; that to possess entire freedom of speech in their
debates on public business, was their ancient and undoubted right, and
an inheritance transmitted to them from their ancestors; and that if
any member abused this liberty, it belonged to the house alone, who were
witnesses of his offence, to inflict a proper censure upon him.[**]

So vigorous an answer was nowise calculated to appease the king. It
is said, when the approach of the committee who were to present it was
notified to him, he ordered twelve chairs to be brought; for that there
were so many kings a coming.[***]

* Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 43. Kennet, p. 741.

** Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 44. Kennet, p.
741.

*** Kennet, p. 43.

His answer was prompt and sharp. He told the house, that their
remonstrance was more like a denunciation of war than an address of
dutiful subjects; that their pretension to inquire into all state
affairs, without exception, was such a plenipotence as none of their
ancestors, even during the reign of the weakest princes, had ever
pretended to; that public transactions depended on a complication of
views and intelligence, with which they were en