He was interrupted by the Speaker, who told him that it stood not with
the gravity of the house to listen to dreams; but the house was inclined
to hear him out.

"The sheep would sometimes go over to the bell-wether, or the
bell-wether to the sheep. Once both met on the narrow bridge, and the
question was who should go back, since both could not go on without
danger. One sheep gave counsel that the sheep on the bridge should lie
on their bellies, and let the bell-wether go over their backs. The
application of this dilemma he left to the house."[310] It must be
confessed that the bearing of the point was more ambiguous than some of
the important ones that formed the matters of their debates. _Davus sum,
non Oedipus!_ It is probable that this fantastical politician did not
vote with the opposition; for Eliot, Wentworth, and Coke, protested
against the interpretation of dreams in the house!

When the attorney-general moved that the liberties of the subject might
be moderated, to reconcile the differences between themselves and the
sovereign, Sir Edward Coke observed, that "the true mother would never
consent to the dividing of her child." On this, Buckingham swore that
Coke intimated that the king, his master, was the prostitute of the
state. Coke protested against the misinterpretation. The dream of
Nethersole, and the metaphor of Coke, were alike dangerous in
parliamentary discussion.

In a manuscript letter it is said that the House of Commons sat four
days without speaking or doing anything. On the first of May, Secretary
Cooke delivered a message, asking whether they would rely upon the
_king's word_? This question was followed by a long silence. Several
speeches are reported in the letters of the times, which are not in
Rushworth. Sir Nathaniel Rich observed that, "confident as he was of the
royal word, what did any indefinite word ascertain?" Pym said, "We have
his majesty's coronation oath to maintain the laws of England; what need
we then take his word?" He proposed to move "Whether we should take the
king's word or no." This was resisted by Secretary Cooke; "What would
they say in foreign parts, if the people of England would not trust
their king?" He desired the house to call Pym to order; on which Pym
replied, "Truly, Mr. Speaker, I am just of the same opinion I was; viz.,
that the king's oath was as powerful as his word." Sir John Eliot moved
that it be put to the question, "because they that would have it