Charles), there were about eleven who could be reckoned on by Laud as likely to coöperate with him zealously against Puritanism; about six who were likely to dissent strongly from his measures; and about ten who were likely to be neutral, or to obey whatever force could be brought to bear upon them. Among the deans, archdeacons, masters of colleges, and other dignitaries inferior to the bishops, the proportions may have been about the same. In the general body of the parish clergy and their curates, as has been already stated, the Puritan and Calvinistic elements were naturally in much larger proportion. Finally, the lecturers were almost exclusively Puritans.

In studying the action of Laud upon this clerical body, it is necessary, in the first place, to have some conception of the mechanism and the personal composition of the central government, with which he was connected. The sole deliberative and legislative body in the realm was now, it is to be remembered, the King's Privy Council or ministry. This body consisted of the great officers of state and of the royal household, together with such other persons, lay or ecclesiastical, as the King chose to associate with them. The following is a list of the body between 1628–9 and 1632, as nearly complete as we need make it:

Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury (seldom present).
Harsnet, Archbishop of York; sworn of the Council, 1628; died, 1631.
Laud, Bishop of London ; sworn April 29, 1627, while Bishop of Bath and

Wells.
Neile, Bishop of Winchester (afterwards Archbishop of York) ; sworn, April

1627, while Bishop of Durham. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, Ex-Keeper of the Great Seal (a nominal mem

ber only, having been ordered to keep away). Thomas, Lord Coventry; Keeper of the Great Seal since 1625. Richard, Lord Weston ; Lord High Treasurer since July 1628, having pre

viously, as Sir Richard Weston, been a Privy Councillor and Chancellor of the Exchequer under James. Created Earl of Portland in 1633. His wife and daughters were professed Roman Catholics, and he was

thought to tend the same way. Henry Montague, Earl of Manchester, Lord Privy Seal. Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey (Collector of the Arundel

Marbles), Earl Marshal of England. He was the haughtiest man in England, keeping Charles himself at a distance ; concerning himself with English politics only as being the head and representative of the English nobility; otherwise an alien, with Italian tastes, and “thought not

to be much concerned for religion." William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (Shakspeare's friend), Lord Steward of

the Household; "the most universally beloved and esteemed,” says Clarendon, “ of any man of that age," so that, while he lived, he “made the court itself better esteemed and more reverenced in the country.”

But he died suddenly, April 10, 1630. Philip Herbert, Earl of Montgomery, Lord Chamberlain ; the younger brother

of the preceding (and conjoined with him in the dedication of the folio Shakspeare); but a far inferior man, of gross and rough habits, and skilled chiefly, says Clarendon, in “ horses and dogs.” Succeeding his brother (April 1630), he became Earl of Pembroke as well as of Mont

gomery. Edward Sackville, Earl of Dorset, Lord Chamberlain to the Queen. Henry Rich, Earl of Holland; Buckingham's successor as Chancellor of the

University of Cambridge. He was the chief agent for the Queen in

the Council James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, First Gentleman of the Bedchamber and Master

of the Wardrobe ; a Scot, who had come into England at James's accession, and been raised to rank and wealth, but more popular with the English than “any other of his country ;” “a man,” adds Clarendon, “ of a great universal understanding,” but indolent and jovial, and of the greatest expense in his person (in dress and housekeeping) of any

of the age in which he lived." Thomas Erskine, Earl of Kellie (in Fifeshire); another Scot, who had come

in with James, and had a similar run of favor. John Egerton, Earl of Bridgewater; the second son of the great Lord

Chancellor Ellesmere, and his successor, in 1617, as Viscount Brackley; made an earl in the same year. In June, 1631, he was appointed Lord

President of the Principality of Wales. William Cecil, Earl of Salisbury; son of the first earl of that name, and

grandson of the famous Burleigh, but inheriting “ not their wisdom and

virtues," says Clarendon, “but only their titles.” William Cecil, Earl of Exeter, cousin of the preceding ; being the son of

Burleigh's eldest the first Earl of Exeter. Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, younger brother of the preceding. He

had been raised to the peerage by Charles, and had commanded the

unsuccessful expedition against Cadiz in 1625. Theophilus Howard, second Earl of Suffolk ; Lord Warden of the Cinque

Ports. Robert Bertie, Earl of Lindsay, and, since 1626, Lord Great Chamberlain.

In Sept. 1628, he commanded the expedition sent for the relief of Ro

chelle, after Buckingham's death. William Feilding, Earl of Denbigh ; brother-in-law of Buckingham. He

had commanded the fleet sent to Rochelle in April 1628. Oliver St. John, Viscount Grandison; who had been Lord Deputy of Ire

son,

Henry Carey, Viscount Falkland ; Lord Deputy of Ireland from 1625 to

1632. He died 1633. Edward Conway, Viscount Conway, Secretary of State from 1622; after

wards President of the Council. He died January 3, 1630–1. Edward Barret, Baron Newburgh, in Fifeshire, Chancellor of the Duchy of

Lancaster; one of the few Englishmen on whom Charles, in pursuance of his policy for uniting the institutions of the two kingdoms, bestowed Scotch titles. He had risen in office under James; had been raised to the peerage in 1627, and been made a Privy Councillor July 1627. He had held for a time the office of Chancellor and Under-Treasurer of

the Exchequer. Sir Francis Cottington (made Baron Cottington of Hanworth, July 1631),

Chancellor of the Exchequer and (after 1630) Master of the Wards in addition. He had been secretary to Charles as prince; had accompanied him to Spain ; had been disgraced by Buckingham's influence

after Charles became King; but had since recovered favor. Sir Thomas Edmonds, Treasurer of the Household since 1618. Sir Henry Vane, senior (father of the more celebrated Sir Henry Vane);

Comptroller of the Household. Sir Julius Cæsar, Master of the Rolls since 1614; died 1636. Sir Humphrey May, Vice-Chamberlain to the King; died 1630. Sir Robert Naunton, Master of the Court of Wards till his death in 1630,

when Cottington succeeded him. Dudley Carleton, Viscount Dorchester, Vice-Chamberlain of the Household

till 1629, and then successor of Viscount Conway as Secretary of State. He died Feb. 1631-2; and, in June 1632, the office of Secretary was conferred on Sir Francis Windebanke, an old and special friend of

Laud, and educated at the same College. Sir John Coke, the other Secretary of State. Thomas, Viscount Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford. This great

man, by inheritance Sir Thomas Wentworth, Baronet, of WentworthWoodhouse, Yorkshire, had recently made his memorable defection to the King's side, after having led the popular cause in Parliament. He had been immediately (July 22, 1628) made Baron Wentworth, of Newmarch and Oversley; and again (Dec. 1628) created Viscount, and sworn of the Privy Council. As he was then appointed Lord President of the Council in the North, or, in other words, Viceroy of all England, north of the Trent, his head-quarters for the present were at York, and his attendance at the Privy Council could be but occasional. He was

(1629) in his thirty-seventh year. James, Marquis, and afterwards Duke, of Hamilton. This Scottish noble

man and kinsman of the King (born in 1606, and therefore now in the first flush of youth) was also but commencing his eventful career. After being educated, as Earl of Arran, at Oxford, he had succeeded his father as Marquis in 1625, and had immediately become one of the hopes of the court — Knight of the Garter, Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Privy Councillor of both Kingdoms, and Master of Horse (1628). It was on the King's own solicitation that he consented to leave his native Clydesdale and the wild splendors of his hereditary Isle of Arran, and to enter into the service of the state. Two lines of service were already marked out for him. In the first place, it was through him, as the greatest of the Scottish nobles, that the King hoped to manage the affairs of Scotland. In the second place, it was resolved (1629) that wbat assistance Charles could give to the Swedish hero, Gustavus Adolphus, in his war in behalf of continental Protestantism (an enterprise involving the recovery of the Palatinate for Charles's brave sister, the Queen of Bohemia), should be given in the shape of a volunteer expedition under the Marquis of Hamilton. Accordingly, he was empowered to raise an army of 6,000 men, chiefly Scots; with this army he sailed for the continent, July 1631 ; and he remained abroad in the service of Gustavus till Sept. 1632.?

In this body of about five and thirty men, --some of them ecclesiastics, some hereditary legislators or great nobles, and the rest men of business who had risen to rank and eminence through the profession of the law,- was vested, under the King, from 1628–9 onwards, the supreme government of England. Whatever laws were now passed, or other measures adopted, binding the subjects of the English realm, were framed by this body sitting in council in Westminster, or, in certain cases, by a select portion of them consulted in a more private manner by the King, and were issued (now that there were no Parliaments) as proclamations, royal injunctions, orders in council, and the like. Of course, all the members of the body were not equally active or equally powerful. The attendance of some at the council-meetings was exceptional, and depended on their chancing to be at court; and the usual number present at a full council, seems to have been from fifteen to twenty. Even of those who regularly attended, some were rather listeners or clerks than actual ministers. The working chiefs of the ministry seem to

have been Laud, Neile, the Lord Keeper Coventry, the Lord Treasurer Weston, Sir Francis Cottington, and the Earls of Manchester, Arundel, Holland, and Dorset. Moreover, the King himself took pleasure in business, and in letting it be known that he had the reins in his own hands.

In all civil business the ecclesiastical members of the Council seem to have been quite as active and influential as the lay lords. Laud, in particular, from his first admission, took a leading share in all the discussions and proceedings, and kept the Council in a continual fidget; such being the heat of his temper and the natural sharpness of his tongue that “he could not,” says Clarendon, “ debate anything without some commotion, even when the argument was not of moment, nor bear contradiction in debate.” The lay lords, especially Weston, resented this; and it was one of Cottington's great amusements to lead Laud on at the Council Board so as to make him lose his temper, and say or do something ridiculous. “This he chose to do most,” says Clarendon, “when the King was present, and then he (Cottington) would dine with him (Laud) the next day.” The truth is, Laud and his ecclesiastical colleagues, Harsnet and Neile, seem to have been of a party in the Council more extreme and rigorous in their notions of prerogative, and more bent on harsh courses of civil procedure than the majority of the lay lords, and especially than the lawyers among them. A curious indication of the respective degrees of severity of the various members of Council is furnished by a record of their several votes in Star-chamber in May 1629, on the question of the amount of fine to be inflicted on Richard Chambers, a merchant of London, who, having had a parcel of silk-grogram goods seized by the custom-house officers, and having been summoned before the Council for obstinacy in the matter of tonnage'and poundage, had ventured to say, even in their august presence, that “the merchants in England were more wrung and screwed than those of Turkey.” The sum fixed on was £2,000; but Laud and Neile had voted with Weston, Arundel, Dorset, and Suffolk for a higher sum. Chambers refused to pay, and wrote on the paper of apology and submission, which was presented to him for signature, that he “utterly abhorred