3. In 1633, Laud, a tyrannical, ambitious man, and a servile creature of the King, mentioned before, was made Archbishop of Canterbury, continuing Bishop of London at the same time. Charles I. was strongly inclined to Romanism, Laud also leaned that way, aiming to come as near as possible to the Papal and not be shut out of the English Church. He made some new regulations in regard to the Communion Table and the Lord's Supper. John Williams, before mentioned, Dean of Westminster and Bishop of Lincoln, who had been Lord Keeper under King James, wrote a book against those innovations; besides, in his episcopal court he had once spoken of the Puritans as "good subjects," and of his knowing "that the King did not wish them to be harshly dealt with." In 1637 Laud directed that he should be prosecuted in the Star-Chamber for "publishing false news and tales to the scandal of his Majesty's government;" and "for revealing counsels of State contrary to his oath of a Privy Counsellor." He was sentenced to pay a fine of L10,000,--equal to $50,000, or thrice the sum in these times; to be suspended from all offices, and kept a close prisoner in the Tower during the King's pleasure--whence the Revolution set him at liberty. Besides he wrote private letters to Mr. Osbalderston, and called Laud "the little great man," for this he, in 1639, was fined L5,000 to the King, and L3,000 to the Archbishop. Osbalderston in his letters had spoken of the "great Leviathan" and the "little Urchin," and was fined L5,000, to the King, and the same to the Archbishop, and sentenced also to stand in the pillory with his ears nailed to it![27] [Footnote 27: 3 St. Tr. 769; 2 Campbell, 400.] 4. In 1629 Richard Chambers, a merchant of London, complained to the Privy Council of some illegal and unjust treatment, and declared "that the merchants in no part of the world are so screwed and wrung as in England; that in Turkey they have more encouragement." Laud, who hated freedom of speech and liberal comments on the government as much as "eminent citizens" nowadays, is said to have told the king, "If your majesty had many such Chambers, you would soon have no Chamber left to rest in." The merchant was tried before the "commissioners" at the Star-Chamber, and fined L2,000, and condemned to make a "submission for his great offence,"[28] which the stout Puritan refused to do, and was kept in prison till the Court of King's Bench, faithful to the law, on Habeas Corpus, admitted him to bail: for which they were reprimanded. Laud and all the ecclesiastical members of the "commission" wished his fine L3,000. [Footnote 28: 3 St. Tr. 373; Franklyn, 361; 2 Hallam (Paris, 1841), 6 _ac etiam_ 13; 2 Mrs. Macaulay, 16, 45, 65.]