The people, who generally abhorred the convocation as much as they revered the parliament, could scarcely be restrained from insulting and abusing this assembly; and the king was obliged to give them guards, in order to protect them.[***] An attack too was made during the night upon Laud, in his palace of Lambeth, by above five hundred persons; and he found it necessary to fortify himself for his defence.[****] A multitude, consisting of two thousand secretaries, entered St. Paul's, where the high commission then sat, tore down the benches, and cried out, "No bishop; no high commission."[v] All these instances of discontent were presages of some great revolution, had the court possessed sufficient skill to discern the danger, or sufficient power to provide against it. In this disposition of men's minds, it was in vain that the king issued a declaration, in order to convince his people of the necessity which he lay under of dissolving the last parliament.[v*] * There was one in 1586: see History of Archbishop Laud, p. 80. The authority of the convocation was, indeed, in most respects, independent of the parliament: and there was no reason which required the one to be dissolved upon the dissolution of the other. ** Whitlocke, p. 33. *** Whitlocke, p. 33. **** Dugdale, p. 62. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 143. v Dugdale, p. 65. V* Rush. vol. iii. p. 1165. The chief topic on which he insisted was, that the commons imitated the bad example of all then predecessors of late years, in making continual encroachments on his authority, in censuring his whole administration and conduct, in discussing every circumstance of public government, and in their indirect bargaining and contracting with their king for supply; as if nothing ought to be given him but what he should purchase, either by quitting somewhat of his royal prerogative, or by diminishing and lessening his standing revenue. These practices, he said, were contrary to the maxims of their ancestors; and these practices were totally incompatible with monarchy.[*] [5]