MALTRAVERS then induced her to consent to a private marriage. When Lord ARUNDEL was informed of the fact he immediately disclosed his knowledge to the King, and besought pardon for the culprits. But CHARLES’ wrath was unbounded. He placed the new-married pair under restraint in London. He committed ARUNDEL himself to the Tower. He commanded Lady ARUNDEL to remain at Horsley, in Surrey, a seat belonging to the Dowager Countess, her mother-in-law. When Lord ARUNDEL was thus imprisoned Parliament was sitting. The Lords declared his arrest to be an infringement of their privileges. The King replied that ‘the Earl of ARUNDEL is restrained for a misdemeanour which is personal to the King’s Majesty, and has no relation to matters of Parliament.’ The Lords still insisted that it was the Earl’s unquestionable right ‘to be admitted to come, sit, and serve in Parliament.’ CHARLES released ARUNDEL from the Tower, and then confined him to Horsley. Royal evasion did but provoke increased earnestness and firmness from the Peers. At length they resolved that they would suspend public business until the Earl presented himself in his place. [Sidenote: _Secretary Conway’s Letter Book_, pp. 251 seqq. (R. H.)] Nearly three months had been spent in debate and altercation before Secretary CONWAY was directed to write to ARUNDEL in these terms: ‘It is the King’s pleasure that you come to the Parliament, but not to the Court.’ [Sidenote: _Lords’ Journals_, vol. iii, p. 653, &c.] The sequel of the story, as it tells itself in the State Papers, affords an early and eminent illustration of the qualities in CHARLES THE FIRST which, as they ripened, brought about his ruin. The King resolved that his concession should as far as was possible be retracted. Directly the sitting of Parliament was suspended, the King commanded CONWAY to apprise the Earl that his restraint to Horsley was renewed, ‘as before the Earl’s leave to come to Parliament.’ [Sidenote: _Domestic Corresp._, Charles I, vol. xxxv, p. 16 (R. H.).] ARUNDEL on his part made courtly and even lavish declarations of submission. ‘I desire to implore the King’s grace by the humblest and best ways I can.’ This was written in September, 1626. Whenever it was indispensable that he should obtain leave to visit the capital a petition had to be prepared. In March, 1627, he writes: ‘The King has limited my stay in London until the 12th of March. I will obey, but I beg you to represent to His Majesty that I have necessary business to transact ... and that I have so carried myself as to shew my desire to give His Majesty no distastes. If now, after a year has passed, the King will dissolve this cloud, and leave me to my own liberty, I will hold myself to be most free when living in such place and manner as may be most to His Majesty’s liking.’ It was all in vain. Another whole year passes. ARUNDEL has still to write: ‘I beseech the King to give life to my just desires, and after two years of