administered to him (S. P. Ireland, 1615-25, p. 456). James died 27 March 1625, and in Charles's first parliament Coke sat for Norfolk. The king's demand for money to carry on the war was the chief subject of debate. With their minds full of unredressed grievances, and ignorant of the purposes to which the money was to be devoted, the commons confined the grant of tonnage and poundage to one year, instead of following the old practice of granting it for the king's life, and for the special needs of the time gave two subsidies, amounting to about 140,000l. Charles had named no sum, but this was probably not a tenth part of what he wanted. He summoned the parliament to meet again at Oxford, and demanded a new subsidy. Coke, in what has been described as one of his greatest speeches, 'argued strongly against concession, pointing to the depression of trade and the inability of the people to bear a greater load, refusing to acknowledge the alleged necessity for a larger grant, and saying that so long as the king was led by ill advisers there was no encouragement to give. Subsidies were for exceptional circumstances, whose existence in this case was not established, while the ordinary expense and charge should, and with an economical and honest administration could, be borne by the income from lands and revenues. He entered fully into the causes of deficiency, and insisted that a thorough reform of administration was the remedy required. The speech, says Eliot, had a prodigious effect (Forster, Eliot, i. 373). A few days afterwards he offered to contribute 1,000l. out of his own pocket rather than grant a fresh subsidy. The second parliament met in 1626, and again an attempt was made to exclude him ; for Charles, who when prince used to say he never tired of hearing Coke ' he so mixed mirth with wisdom ' found him as fiery and turbulent as James had done. He was returned once more for Norfolk. But he had already been pricked as sheriff for Buckinghamshire, on purpose, as was believed, to keep him out of the house, and the scheme was so far successful that he was accorded only the technical rights of a member, without power of sitting. He attempted to evade the result by objecting first to an informality in his patent, which was amended, and next to the terms of the sheriffs' oath, because among other grounds it required him to 'suppress all errors and heresies commonly called Lollardries,' which he argued meant that he should proceed under a repealed statute against true protestants. The objection was sustained by the judges, but Coke did not escape, as by an order of council this part of the oath was omitted. It is curious to note that in 1621 the case of a sheriff elected to parliament had been submitted to him, and he had given art opinion that the sheriff could not sit in the house while holding office (S. P. D. cxxiii. 311). He refers to his own case in 4 'Inst,' 48, stating that a subposna having been served upon him at the suit of Lady C. (Lady Hatton) he was allowed the privilege of parliaments. In 1628 he was returned both by Buckinghamshire and Suffolk, and he decided to sit for the former county, in which he resided. 'Raro,' he observes, 'electus est aliquis duorum comitatum;' but of him and his colleague in Suffolk, it is said in a letter of the time, 'they would not have been chosen if there had been any other gentlemen of note, for neither Ipswich had any great affection for them, nor most of the country ' (S. P. D. xcv. 6). Now in his seventy-eighth year he was as active as ever. He spoke out earnestly on the illegality of the enforced loan by which Charles had attempted to save himself. He was one of the representatives of the commons to support in the conferences with the lords their resolut ions against illegal imprisonment and taxation. He brought in the bill of liberties, out of which grew, apparently at his suggestion, the petition of right. During the debate on the king's answer to the remonstrance, in which he bade the commons rely on his royal word, Secretary Coke admitted the illegality of the loan, and advised them to petition his majesty not to repeat it. Sir Edward Coke took up the phrase. 'Was it ever known,' he said, 'that general words were a sufficient satisfaction to particular grievances ? . . . The king must speak by a record and in particulars, and not in generall. Let us have a conference with the lords and join in a petition of right to the king for our particular grievances . . . not that I distrust the king, but because we cannot take his trust but in a parliamentary way ' (2 Parl. Hist. 348, and see Harl. MS. 4771, fol. 139 6). The subsequent alteration made in the petition by the lords the saving of the king's 'sovereign power' he strenuously resisted. This 'sovereign power' was a new and dangerous phrase, unknown, he said, to Magna Charta and other statutes of freedom. 'Take we heed what we yield unto ; Magna Charta is such a fellow that he will have no sovereign' (Parl. Hist. ii. 357).
The old man appeared in yet one more historical scene. During the debate on the ' Grand Remonstrance ' came two messages from the king, the first recommending the house to prepare for an early prorogation, which, though intended to take the house off the remonstrance and so understood, was disregarded ; the second peremptorily directing
