After redressing internal grievances, the Commons proceeded to take into consideration the state of Europe.  The King flew into a rage with them for meddling with such matters, and, with characteristic judgment, drew them into a controversy about the origin of their House and of its privileges.  When he found that he could not convince them, he dissolved them in a passion, and sent some of the leaders of the Opposition to ruminate on his logic in prison.

During the time which elapsed between this dissolution and the meeting of the next Parliament, took place the celebrated negotiation respecting the Infanta.  The would-be despot was unmercifully browbeaten.  The would-be Solomon was ridiculously over-reached.  Steenie, in spite of the begging and sobbing of his dear dad and gossip, carried off baby Charles in triumph to Madrid.  The sweet lads, as James called them, came back safe, but without their errand.  The great master of king-craft, in looking for a Spanish match, had found a Spanish war.  In February 1624, a Parliament met, during the whole sitting of which, James was a mere puppet in the hands of his baby, and of his poor slave and dog.  The Commons were disposed to support the King in the vigorous policy which his favourite urged him to adopt.  But they were not disposed to place any confidence in their feeble sovereign and his dissolute courtiers, or to relax in their efforts to remove public grievances.  They therefore lodged the money which they voted for the war in the hands of Parliamentary Commissioners.  They impeached the treasurer, Lord Middlesex, for corruption, and they passed a bill by which patents of monopoly were declared illegal.

Hampden did not, during the reign of James, take any prominent part in public affairs.  It is certain, however, that he paid great attention to the details of Parliamentary business, and to the local interests of his own country.  It was in a great measure owing to his exertions that Wendover and some other boroughs on which the popular party could depend recovered the elective franchise, in spite of the opposition of the Court.

The health of the King had for some time been declining.  On the twenty-seventh of March 1625, he expired.  Under his weak rule, the spirit of liberty had grown strong, and had become equal to a great contest.  The contest was brought on by the policy of his successor.  Charles bore no resemblance to his father.  He was not a driveller, or a pedant, or a buffoon, or a coward.  It would be absurd to deny that he was a scholar and a gentleman, a man of exquisite tastes in the fine arts, a man of strict morals in private life.  His talents for business were respectable; his demeanour was kingly.  But he was false, imperious, obstinate, narrow-minded, ignorant of the temper of his people, unobservant of the signs of his times.  The whole principle of his government was resistance to public opinion; nor did he make any real concession to that opinion till it mattered not whether he resisted or conceded, till the nation, which had long ceased to love him or to trust him, had at last ceased to fear him.