st not expect to sit
any longer.[***] And though these harsh commands were endeavored to
be explained and mollified, a few days after, by a speech of
Buckingham's,[****] they failed not to leave a disagreeable impression
behind them.

* See note A, at the end of the volume.

** Rush worth, vol. i. p. 371.

*** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p. 444.

**** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p 451. Rushworth. vol. i. p.
225. Franklyn, p. 118.

Besides a more stately style which Charles in general affected to
this parliament than to the last, he went so far, in a message, as to
threaten the commons that, if they did not furnish him with supplies, he
should be obliged to try new "counsels." This language was sufficiently
clear: yet lest any ambiguity should remain, Sir Dudley Carleton,
vice-chamberlain, took care to explain it. "I pray you, consider," said
he, "what these new counsels are, or may be. I fear to declare those
that I conceive. In all Christian kingdoms, you know that parliaments
were in use anciently, by which those kingdoms were governed in a most
flourishing manner; until the monarchs began to know their own strength,
and seeing the turbulent spirit of their parliaments, at length they,
by little and little, began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last
overthrew the parliaments, throughout Christendom, except here only
with us. Let us be careful then to preserve the king's good opinion of
parliaments, which bringeth such happiness to this nation, and makes us
envied of all others, while there is this sweetness between his majesty
and the commons; lest we lose the repute of a free people by our
turbulency in parliament."[*] These imprudent suggestions rather gave
warning than struck terror. A precarious liberty, the commons thought,
which was to be preserved by unlimited complaisance, was no liberty
at all. And it was necessary, while yet in their power, to secure the
constitution by such invincible barriers, that no king or minister
should ever, for the future, dare to speak such a language to any
parliament, or even entertain such a project against them.

Two members of the house, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot, who
had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the duke, were
thrown into prison.[**] The commons immediately declared, that they
would proceed no further upon business till they had satisfaction
in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this