ns, they had reason to complain. Their
complaisance for the king, therefore, carried them no further than
to appoint forty-four English to meet with thirty-one Scottish
commissioners, in order to deliberate concerning the terms of a union;
but without any power of making advances towards the establishment of
it.[**]

* Journ. 21st April, 1st May, 1604. Parliamentary History,
vol v p. 91.

** Journ. 7th June, 1604. Kennet, p. 673.

The same spirit of independence, and perhaps not better judgment,
appeared in the house of commons when the question of supply was brought
before them by some members attached to the court. In vain was it
urged that, though the king received a supply which had been voted to
Elizabeth, and which had not been collected before her death, yet he
found it burdened with a debt contracted by the queen, equal to the full
amount of it: that peace was not yet thoroughly concluded with Spain,
and that Ireland was still expensive.

On his journey from Scotland, amidst such a concourse of people, and on
that of the queen and royal family he had expended considerable sums;
and that, as the courtiers had looked for greater liberalities from the
prince on his accession, and had imposed on his generous nature, so the
prince, in his turn, would expect, at the beginning, some mark of
duty and attachment from his people, and some consideration of his
necessities. No impression was made on the house of commons by these
topics; and the majority appeared fully determined to refuse all supply.
The burden of government, at that time, lay surprisingly light upon the
people: and that very reason, which to us, at this distance, may seem a
motive of generosity, was the real cause why the parliament was, on all
occasions, so remarkably, frugal and reserved. They were not, as
yet, accustomed to open their purses in so liberal a manner as their
successors, in order to supply the wants of their sovereign; and the
smallest demand, however requisite, appeared in their eyes unreasonable
and exorbitant. The commons seem also to have been desirous of reducing
the crown to still further necessities, by their refusing a bill, sent
down to them by the lords, for entailing the crown lands forever on the
king's heirs and successors.[*] The dissipation made by Elizabeth had
probably taught James the necessity of this law, and shown them the
advantage of refusing it.

In order to cover a disappointment with regard to