the king and knighted in 1608. Neither could boast of high morals, and it is doubtful whether both were not steeped in crime to an equal degree. Overbury is supposed to have aided his patron, in carrying on an intrigue with the Countess of Essex, but when Carr wanted his assistance in influencing the king to favor a divorce, that he might marry her, he strongly objected on the ground of the "baseness of the woman", and the infamy of such a marriage. This being told to the Countess, she at once offered a thousand pounds to Sir John Wood, to take Overbury's life in a duel, but Wood refused "to go to Tyburn for any woman". It was then proposed to send him out of the country on public business; he refused to go, and was committed to the Tower for contempt of the royal authority. After a confinement there of six months, he died (1613) without having seen any of his friends, and being hastily interred, it was generally whispered that he had been poisoned. When, in 1615, Somerset's influence began to decline, the rumours became more distinct, and it was said the murder might be traced. Secretary Winwood communicated what he knew to James, who having questioned Elwes, the lieutenant of the Tower, ordered a warrant for the commitment of the Earl.

The examination showed that Somerset and his wife, for he had married the Countess, with her uncle, the Earl of Northampton, had concerted to remove Overbury, that he might not impede the marriage; that the lieutenant of the Tower had been removed to make way for Elwes, and Weston recommended as warder of the prisoner; that the Countess in conjunction with Mrs. Turner, procured poisons from Franklin, an apothecary, which poisons were administered by Weston, with the privacy of Elwes; and that in this way Overbury perished in prison. The trials took place in 1616. Elwes, Weston, Franklin, and Mrs. Turner were found guilty and executed; but Somerset and his wife, though found guilty, were after one or two reprieves, pardoned and allowed a pension of four thousand a year. Some sober writers hold that a mystery hangs over the story of Overbury's murder. Thus Hallam: "The insolence and menaces of Somerset in the Tower, the shrinking apprehension of him which the king could not conceal, the pains taken by Bacon to prevent his becoming desperate, and, as I suspect, to mislead the hearers by throwing them on a wrong scent, are very remarkable circumstances, to which, after a good deal of attention, I can discover no probable clue. But it is evident that he was master of some secret, which it would have highly prejudiced the king's honor to divulge."

2. Raleigh's expedition to Guiana: his execution, 1616-1618. After thirteen years' confinement in the Tower,

Raleigh obtained his liberty by paying fifteen hundred pounds to Buckingham's uncles; James however refused to pardon him, though he revised his patent of discovery and permitted him to sail in charge of an expedition. The king had consented to his release partly through the influence of Secretary Winwood, whom Raleigh had informed of a visit formerly made to Guiana, the fabled El Dorado, or Land of Gold, and his discovery, near the banks of the Orinoco, of signs of a gold mine. Winwood told this story to his master, whose penniless condition, outweighing the fear of offending Spain, induced him to set the captive at liberty. With difficulty, thirteen vessels were equipped for this expedition, and the coast of Guiana reached in November, 1617. But Raleigh was unwell, and the exploring party was committed to Captain Keymis. A conflict took place near St. Thomas, in which Raleigh's son Walter and the Spanish governor were slain; Keymis failed to discover the mine, and having suffered considerable loss, returned; stung by reproaches for his ill success, he committed suicide. Raleigh sailed now for Newfoundland, where his own crew mutinied, and compelled his return to England.

Arriving at Plymouth, he was arrested and conveyed to London. In the meantime, the king of Spain called upon James for satisfaction on those engaged in so piratical an expedition. The king required but little to move him, as he was just now seeking to advance the marriage between Prince Charles and the Infanta. He even went so far as to offer to the choice of Philip, either to send the offenders to be punished in Spain, or to inflict exemplary punishment on them in England. When Philip's answer came, James consulted the judges, and was told, that Raleigh, remaining under sentence of death, was already dead in law, and could not therefore be tried for any subsequent offence. He was then brought to the bar of the King's Bench, and the attorney-general calling for execution on the ground of his former conviction, execution was granted, and carried into effect the next morning.

SECTION VIII. JAMES'S THIRD PARLIAMENT.

1621-22.

1. Impeachment revived in the case of Mompesson, 1621. The House having voted some trifling supplies, turned its attention to public grievances, and, "whatever were their motives, it must be confessed that their exertions were useful. They contributed to eradicate abuses which had long crippled the freedom of trade, and polluted the administration of justice; and they revived in the Commons the exercise of an invaluable privilegethat of impeaching public offenders before the House of Lords, as the highest tribunal in the kingdom". Attention was turned to

patents of monopoly, including licenses for exclusively carrying on certain trades, a practice extensively employed, either to compensate the want of subsidies, or for the private emolument of certain favored individuals. Of the monopolies, the most obnoxious was that of Sir Giles Mompesson, who held the patent for gold and silver thread, besides another for licensing inns and alehouses. The investigation proved fraud and oppression equalling that of the most despotic countries, and that Sir Francis Mitchell, a justice of the peace, had been the accomplice of Mompesson. As both these parties had paid Buckingham for their patents, and had afterwards shared a part of the profits with Sir E. Villiers, they sought the protection of the favorite, but he abandoned them to their fate, and sent his brother abroad in the service of the government. Mompesson found means to escape beyond sea, but the Lords passed sentence both on him and Mitchell, that they should be degraded from the honor of knighthood, fined, and imprisoned. James, to make a show of indignation, exercised his prerogative, and declared Mompesson banished for life. Yelverton, the attorney-general, and Bennet, the judge of the prerogative court, were also charged with being parties to these illegal practices, and the former condemned to two fines and imprisonment for life, though he declared he was forced to draw and support the patents, by Buckingham, the king's new favorite.

2. Lord Bacon impeached for bribery, 1621. Sir Francis Bacon, by his industry and perseverance, had not only succeeded in obtaining the great seal, but as a further proof of the royal favor, had recently been raised to the title of Viscount St. Albans. But his moral nature was far inferior to his intellectual. His vanity led to expenses which could be supported only by dishonest practices, so that the suitors in his court complained that they were impoverished by the venality of the judge. Many of these complaints were sent in to the Commons, and the committee for enquiring into abuses in the courts of justice, recommended proceedings against the Lord Chancellor. Articles of impeachment were therefore sent up to the Lords, charging the Viscount St. Albans with bribery and corruption in twenty-two several instances himself, and with allowing acts of bribery and corruption in his officers. The chancellor would not face his accusers, but taking to his bed, wrote to the Lords a general confession of his guilt, and subsequently on their requiring it, made a distinct confession to each separate charge. Bacon was found guilty, and adjudged to be fined forty thousand pounds, to be imprisoned in the Tower during the king's pleasure, to be incapable of sitting in parliament, and to be prohibited from coming within the verge of the court.

3. The celebrated Protest of the Commons, Dec. 18, 1621. After an adjournment for five months the Houses met, and the king having, during the recess, abolished thirty-six of the most oppressive of the monopolies, it was hoped the Commons would meet in good humour. But it proved otherwise, for they were irritated at certain proceedings of the court against Coke and Sandys, two popular leaders. Instead of voting a liberal subsidy in aid of the Palatine, whose cause they affected to espouse, they granted but one subsidy, about one-thirteenth part of the sum required to maintain a force in Germany for one year. They then presented a petition against the growth of popery, and seeing that the English papists were encouraged by a report of an intended marriage between the Prince of Wales and the Infanta of Spain, they prayed that he would marry his son to a protestant princess and further, that he would order an expedition to be sent against Spain, as the power that was the main support of popery. Some oue forwarded a copy of this petition to the king before it was presented. Thereupon, James sent a letter to the Speaker, directing him to acquaint the House with his pleasure, that none should meddle with what concerned his government, or mysteries of state; viz., of his son's match with the princess of Spain, nor to touch the honor of that king, or any other of his friends or confederates. The House appointed a committee to draw up a petition in decorous language, containing a defence of their former proceedings, and a particular notice of that part of the king's message which threatened them for liberty of speech, calling it their ancient and undoubted right. To this the king made answer, in which, after dwelling on their unfitness for entering on matters of government, he observed "that he could not allow of the style of calling their privileges an undoubted right and inheritance, but could rather have wished that they had said that their privileges were derived from the grace and permission of his ancestors and himself".

Two points in the king's answer gave great offence--the denial of both their fitness and their right to enter upon matters of state, and the assertion that their privileges existed only by sufferance. A long debate ensued, which ended in their entering on record in the journals the following protestation:-" The Commons now assembled in parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, amongst others not herein mentioned, do make this protestation following:-That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the realm, and of the Church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of grievances which daily happen within this realm, are proper

subjects and matters of counsel and debate in parliament; and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of the House hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion, the same; that the Commons in parliament have like liberty and freedom to treat of those matters in such order as in their judgments shall seem fittest; and that every such member of the said House hath like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than by the censure of the House itself), for or concerning any bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters touching the parliament or parliamentary business; and that if any of the said members be complained of and questioned for anything said or done in parliament, the same is to be showed to the king by the advice and assent of all the Commons assembled in parliament, before the king give credence to any private information This was too much for the temper of the king. He rode up to London, sent for the journals, and tore out the protestation with his own hand, in the presence of the judges, and a full assembly of the council. A few days later, the parliament was dissolved by proclamation.

4. The leaders of the opposition imprisoned, 1622. The dissolution of the parliament was immediately followed by the punishment of its most conspicuous leaders. The Earls of Oxford and Southampton from the upper, and Coke, Phillips, Pym, and Mallory, from the lower House, were summoned before the council, and committed, a part to the Tower, and the remainder to other prisons. Digges, Crew, Rich, and Perrot, men equally under the displeasure of the court, but against whom no substantial charge could be preferred, were sent into exile under the pretext of executing a public commission in Ireland. It was evident to every one, that the real offence of these men was their free conduct in the House, and it was equally evident, that the court dared not openly oppose the liberties which they sought secretly to suppress.

Hume remarks on the result of this contest: "The king having thus, with so rash and indiscreet a hand, torn off that sacred veil which had hitherto covered the English Constitution, and which threw an obscurity upon it so advantageous to royal prerogative, every man began to indulge himself in political reasonings and enquiries; and the same factions which commenced in parliament were propagated throughout the nation. In vain did James, by reiterated proclamations, forbid the discoursing of state affairs. Such proclamations, if they had any effect, served rather to inflame the curiosity of the public. And, in every company or society, the late transactions became the subject of argument and debate."

SECTION IX. JAMES'S FOURTH PARLIAMENT.

1624.

1. James opens the Parliament with a moderated tone. The king was now in circumstances of perplexity. His debts were increased, nearly all his jewels gone, and the hope of re