he had addressed to them about the
speech of some member which had displeased him: on the contrary he was
obliged to receive back into favour the very member who had affronted
him. Parliament regarded liberty of speech as the Palladium of its
efficiency; foreigners were astonished at the recklessness with which
members expressed themselves about the government.

As a rule the investigation of relative rights has an unfavourable
result for those who are in actual possession of authority. The
prerogative which the King exalted so highly presented itself to the
Parliament in an obnoxious aspect. In the debates on the contract the
question was raised, how Sampson's hands could be bound, that is to
say, how the King's prerogative could be so far restricted as to
prevent him from breaking or overstepping the agreement.

During a dispute with the House of Lords the sentiment was uttered,
that the members of the Lower House as representing the Commons ranked
higher than the Lords, each of whom represented only himself.[370] It
is easy to see how far this principle might lead.

Even his darling project of combining England and Scotland into a
single kingdom could not be carried out by the King in the successive
sessions of Parliament. One of the leading spirits of the age, Francis
Bacon, was on his side in this matter as in others. When it was
objected that it was no advantage to the English to take the
poverty-stricken Scots into partnership, as for example in commercial
affairs, he returned answer, that merchants might reckon in this way,
but no one who rose to great views: united with Scotland, England
would become one of the greatest monarchies that the world had ever
seen; but who did not perceive that a complete fusion of both elements
was needed for this? Security against the recurrence of the old
divisions could not be obtained until this was effected. Owing to the
influence of Bacon, who at that time had become Solicitor-General, the
question of the naturalisation of all those born in Scotland after
James had ascended the English throne, was decided with but slight
opposition, in a sense favourable to the union of the two kingdoms, by
the Lord Chancellor and the Judges. The decision however was not
accepted by Parliament. And when the question was now raised how far
the assent of Parliament was necessary in a case like this, the
adverse declaration of the Lord Chancellor was exactly calculated to
provoke a contest o