Chapter VII (2)

A NEW PARLIAMENT.

During these transactions the queen seemed to be happy in the affection of her subjects. Though the continuance of the parliament was limited to six months after the king’s decease, she dissolved it by proclamation before the term was expired; and issued writs for electing another, in which the tory interest predominated. In the summer the queen gave audience to the count de Platens, envoy-extraordinary from the elector of Hanover; then she made a progress with her husband to Oxford, Bath, and Bristol, where she was received with all the marks of the most genuine affection. The new parliament meeting on the twentieth day of October, Mr. Harley was chosen speaker. The queen in her speech, declared that she had summoned them to assist her in carrying on the just and necessary war in which the nation was engaged. She desired the commons would inspect the accounts of the public receipts and payments, that if any abuses had crept into the management of the finances, they might be detected and the offenders punished. She told them that the funds assigned in the last parliament had not produced the sums granted; and that the deficiency was not supplied even by the one hundred thousand pounds which she had paid from her own revenue for the public service. She expressed her concern for the disappointment at Cadiz, as well as for the abuses committed at Port St. Mary’s, which had obliged her to give directions for the strictest examination of the particulars. She hoped they would find time to consider of some better and more effectual method to prevent the exportation of wool, and improve that manufacture, which she was determined to encourage. She professed a firm persuasion, that the affection of her subjects was the surest pledge of their duty and obedience. She promised to defend and maintain the church as by law established; and to protect her subjects in the full enjoyment of all their rights and liberties. She protested, that she relied on their care of her: she said her interest and theirs were inseparable; and that her endeavours should never be wanting to make them all safe and happy. She was presented with a very affectionate address from either house, congratulating her upon the glorious success of her arms, and those of her allies, under the command of the earl of Marlborough: but that of the commons was distinguished by an implicated reproach on the late reign, importing, that the wonderful progress of her majesty’s arms under the earl of Marlborough had signally “retrieved” the ancient honour and glory of the English nation. This expression had excited a warm debate in the house, in the course of which many severe reflections were made on the memory of king William. At length the question was put, whether the word “retrieved” should remain? and carried in the affirmative by a majority of one hundred.

DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.

The strength of the tories appeared in nothing more conspicuous than in their inquiry concerning controverted elections. The borough of Hindon, near Salisbury, was convicted of bribery, and a bill brought in for disfranchising the town; yet no vote passed against the person who exercised this corruption, because he happened to be a tory. Mr. Howe was declared duly elected for Gloucestershire, though the majority of the electors had voted for the other candidate. Sir John Packington exhibited a complaint against the bishop of Worcester and his son, for having endeavoured to prevent his election: the commons having taken it into consideration, resolved, that the proceedings of William lord bishop of Worcester, and his son, had been malicious, unchristian, and arbitrary, in high violation of the liberties and privileges of the commons of England. They voted an address to the queen, desiring her to remove the father from the office of lord-almoner; and they ordered the attorney-general to prosecute the son, after his privilege as member of the convocation should be expired. A counter address was immediately voted and presented by the lords, beseeching her majesty would not remove the bishop of Worcester from the place of lord-almoner, until he should be found guilty of some crime by due course of law; as it was the undoubted right of every lord of parliament, and of every subject of England, to have an opportunity to make his defence before he suffers any sort of punishment. The queen said she had not as yet received any complaint against the bishop of Worcester; but she looked upon it as her undoubted right to continue or displace any servant attending upon her own person, when she should think proper. The peers having received this answer, unanimously resolved, That no lord of their house ought to suffer any sort of punishment by any proceedings of the house of commons, otherwise than according to the known and ancient rules and methods of parliament. When the commons attended the queen with their address against the bishop, she said she was sorry there was occasion for such a remonstrance, and that the bishop of Worcester should no longer continue to supply the place of her almoner. This regard to their address was a flagrant proof of her partiality to the tories, who seemed to justify her attachment by their compliance and liberality.

THE LORDS INQUIRE INTO THE CONDUCT OF SIR GEORGE ROOKE.

In deliberating on the supplies, they agreed to all the demands of the ministry. They voted forty thousand seamen, and the like number of land forces, to act in conjunction with those of the allies. For the maintenance of these last, they granted eight hundred and thirty-three thousand eight hundred and twenty-six pounds; besides three hundred and fifty thousand pounds for guards and garrisons; seventy thousand nine hundred and seventy-three pounds for ordnance; and fifty-one thousand eight hundred and forty-three pounds for subsidies to the allies. Lord Shannon arriving with the news of the success at Vigo, the queen appointed a day of thanksgiving for the signal success of her arms under the earl of Marlborough, the duke of Ormond, and sir George Rooke; and on that day, which was the twelfth of November, she went in state to St. Paul’s church, attended by both houses of parliament. Next day the peers voted the thanks of their house to the duke of Ormond for his services at Vigo, and, at the same time, drew up an address to the queen, desiring she would order the duke of Ormond and sir George Rooke to lay before them an account of their proceedings: a request with which her majesty complied. These two officers were likewise thanked by the house of commons: vice-admiral Hopson was knighted, and gratified with a considerable pension. The duke of Ormond, at his return from the expedition, complained openly of Rooke’s conduct, and seemed determined to subject him to a public accusation; but that officer was such a favourite among the commons, that the court was afraid to disoblige them by an impeachment, and took great pains to mitigate the duke’s resentment. This nobleman was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and Rooke was admitted into the privy-council. A motion however being made in the house of lords, that the admiral’s instructions and journals relating to the last expedition might be examined, a committee was appointed for that purpose, and prepared an unfavourable report; but it was rejected by a majority of the house; and they voted, That sir George Rooke had done his duty, pursuant to the councils of war, like a brave officer, to the honour of the British nation.

THE PARLIAMENT MAKE A SETTLEMENT ON PRINCE GEORGE OF DENMARK.

On the twenty-first day of November, the queen sent a message to the house of commons by Mr. Secretary Hedges, recommending further provision for the prince her husband, in case he should survive her. This message being considered, Mr. Howe moved, that the yearly sum of one hundred thousand pounds should be settled on the prince, in case he should survive her majesty. No opposition was made to the proposal; but warm debates were excited by a clause in the bill, exempting the prince from that part of the act of succession by which strangers, though naturalized, were rendered incapable of holding employments. This clause related only to those who should be naturalized in a future reign; and indeed was calculated as a restriction upon the house of Hanover. Many members argued against the clause of exemption, because it seemed to imply, that persons already naturalized would be excluded from employments in the next reign, though already possessed of the right of natural-born subjects, a consequence plainly contradictory to the meaning of the act. Others opposed it, because the lords had already resolved by a vote, that they would never pass any bill sent up from the commons, to which a clause foreign to the bill should be tacked; and this clause they affirmed to be a tack, as an incapacity to hold employments was a circumstance altogether distinct from a settlement in money. The queen expressed uncommon eagerness in behalf of this bill; and the court influence was managed so successfully that it passed through both houses, though not without an obstinate opposition, and a formal protest by seven-and-twenty peers.

EARL OF MARLBOROUGH CREATED A DUKE.

The earl of Marlborough arriving in England about the latter end of November, received the thanks of the commons for his great and signal services, which were so acceptable to the queen, that she created him a duke, gratified him with a pension of five thousand pounds upon the revenue of the post office during his natural life; and in a message to the commons, expressed a desire that they would find some method to settle it on the heirs male of his body. This intimation was productive of warm debates, during which sir Christopher Musgrave observed, that he would not derogate from the duke’s eminent services; but he affirmed his grace had been very well paid for them by the profitable employments which he and his duchess enjoyed. The duke, understanding that the commons were heated by the subject, begged her majesty would rather forego her gracious message in his behalf, than create any uneasiness on his account, which might embarrass her affairs, and be of ill consequence to the public. Then she sent another message to the house, signifying that the duke of Marlborough had declined her interposition. Notwithstanding this declaration, the commons in a body presented an address, acknowledging the eminent services of the duke of Marlborough, yet expressing their apprehension of making a precedent to alienate the revenue of the crown, which had been so much reduced by the exorbitant grants of the late reign, and so lately settled and secured by her majesty’s unparalleled grace and goodness. The queen was satisfied with their apology; but their refusal in all probability helped to alienate the duke from the tories, with whom he had been hitherto connected.

COMMERCE PROHIBITED BETWEEN HOLLAND, FRANCE, AND SPAIN.

In the beginning of January, the queen gave the house of commons to understand, that the states-general had pressed her to augment her forces, as the only means to render ineffectual the great and early preparations of the enemy. The commons immediately resolved, that ten thousand men should be hired, as an augmentation of the forces to act in conjunction with the allies; but on condition that an immediate stop should be put to all commerce and correspondence with France and Spain on the part of the states-general. The lords presented an address to the queen on the same subject, and to the same effect; and she owned that the condition was absolutely necessary for the good of the whole alliance. The Dutch, even after the declaration of war, had carried on a traffic with the French; and at this very juncture Louis found it impossible to make remittances of money to the elector of Bavaria in Germany, and to his forces in Italy, except through the channel of English, Dutch, and Geneva merchants. The states-general, though shocked at the imperious manner in which the parliament of England prescribed their conduct, complied with the demand without hesitation, and published a prohibition of all commerce with the subjects of France and Spain.

BILL FOR PREVENTING OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY.

The commons of this parliament had nothing more at heart than a bill against occasional conformity. The tories affected to distinguish themselves as the only true friends to the church and monarchy; and they hated the dissenters with a mixture of spiritual and political disgust. They looked upon these last as an intruding sect, which constituted great part of the whig faction that extorted such immense sums of money from the nation in the late reign, and involved it in pernicious engagements, from whence it had no prospect of deliverance. They considered them as encroaching schismatics that disgraced and endangered the hierarchy; and those of their own communion, who recommended moderation, they branded with the epithets of lukewarm christians, betrayers, and apostates. They now resolved to approve themselves zealous sons of the church, by seizing the first opportunity that was in their power to distress the dissenters. In order to pave the way to this persecution, sermons were preached, and pamphlets were printed, to blacken the character of the sect, and inflame the popular resentment against them. On the fourth day of November, Mr. Bromley, Mr. St. John, and Mr. Annesley, were ordered by the house of commons to bring in a bill for preventing occasional conformity. In the preamble, all persecution for conscience sake was condemned: nevertheless it enacted, that all those who had taken the sacrament and test for offices of trust, or the magistracy of corporations, and afterwards frequented any meeting of dissenters, should be disabled from holding their employments, pay a fine of one hundred pounds, and five pounds for every day in which they continued to act in their employment after having been at any such meeting: they were also rendered incapable of holding any other employment, till after one whole year’s conformity; and, upon a relapse, the penalties and time of incapacity were doubled. The promoters of the bill alleged, that an established religion and national church were absolutely necessary, when so many impious men pretended to inspiration, and deluded such numbers of people: that the most effectual way to preserve this national church, would be the maintenance of the civil power in the hands of those who expressed their regard to the church in their principles and practice: that the parliament, by the corporation and test acts, thought they had raised a sufficient barrier to the hierarchy, never imagining that a set of men would rise up, whose consciences would be too tender to obey the laws, but hardened enough to break them: that, as the last reign began with an act in favour of dissenters, so the commons were desirous that in the beginning of her majesty’s auspicious government an act should pass in favour of the church of England: that this bill did not intrench on the act of toleration, or deprive the dissenters of any privileges they enjoyed by law, or add any thing to the legal rights of the church of England: that occasional conformity was an evasion of the law, by which the dissenters might insinuate themselves into the management of all corporations: that a separation from the church, to which a man’s conscience will allow him occasionally to conform, is a mere schism, which in itself was sinful, without the superaddition of a temporal law to make it an offence: that the toleration was intended only for the ease offender consciences, and not to give a license for occasional conformity: that conforming and non-conforming were contradictions; for nothing but a firm persuasion that the terms of communion required are sinful and unlawful, could justify the one; and this plainly condemns the other. The members who opposed the bill argued, that the dissenters were generally well affected to the present constitution: that to bring any real hardship upon them, or give rise to jealousies and fears at such a juncture, might be attended with dangerous consequences; that the toleration had greatly contributed to the security and reputation of the church, and plainly proved that liberty of conscience and gentle measures were the most effectual means for increasing the votaries of the church, and diminishing the number of dissenters: that the dissenters could not be termed schismatics without bringing a heavy charge upon the church of England, which had not only tolerated such schism, but even allowed communion with the reformed churches abroad: that the penalties of this bill were more severe than those which the laws imposed on papists, for assisting at the most solemn act of their religion: in a word, that toleration and tenderness had been always productive of peace and union, whereas persecution had never failed to excite disorder and extend superstition. Many alterations and mitigations were proposed, without effect. In the course of the debate, the dissenters were mentioned and reviled with great acrimony; and the bill passed the lower house by virtue of a considerable majority.

The lords, apprehensive that the commons would tack it to some money-bill, voted, that the annexing any clause to a money-bill was contrary to the constitution of the English government, and the usage of parliament. The bill met with a very warm opposition in the upper house, where a considerable portion of the whig interest still remained. These members believed that the intention of the bill was to model corporations, so as to eject all those who would not vote in elections for the tories. Some imagined this was a preparatory step towards a repeal of the toleration; and others concluded that the promoters of the bill designed to raise such disturbances at home as would discourage the allies abroad, and render the prosecution of the war impracticable. The majority of the bishops, and among these Burnet of Sarum, objected against it on the principles of moderation, and from motives of conscience. Nevertheless, as the court supported this measure with its whole power and influence, the bill made its way through the house, though not without alterations and amendments, which were rejected by the commons. The lower house pretended, that the lords had no right to alter any fines and penalties that the commons should fix in bills sent up for their concurrence, on the supposition that those were matters concerning money, the peculiar province of the lower house; the lords ordered a minute inquiry to be made into all the rolls of parliament since the reign of Henry the Seventh; and a great number of instances were found, in which the lords had begun the clauses imposing fines and penalties, altered the penalties which had been fixed by the commons, and even changed the uses to which they were applied. The precedents were entered in the books; but the commons resolved to maintain their point without engaging in any dispute upon the subject. After warm debates, and a free conference between the two houses, the lords adhered to their amendments, though this resolution was carried by a majority of one vote only; the commons persisted in rejecting them; the bill miscarried, and both houses published their proceedings, by way of appeal to the nation. [114] _[See note T, at the end of this Vol.]_ A bill was now brought into the lower house, granting another year’s consideration to those who had not taken the oath abjuring the pretended prince of Wales. The lords added three clauses, importing, that those persons who should take the oath within the limited time might return to their benefices and employments, unless they should be already legally filled; that any person endeavouring to defeat the succession to the crown, as now limited by law, should be deemed guilty of high treason; and that the oath of abjuration should be imposed upon the subjects in Ireland. The commons made some opposition to the first clause; but at length the question being put, Whether they should agree to the amendments, it was carried in the affirmative by one voice.

INQUIRY INTO THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

No object engrossed more time, or produced more violent debates, than did the inquiry into the public accounts. The commissioners appointed for this purpose pretended to have made great discoveries. They charged the earl of Ranelagh, paymaster-general of the army, with flagrant mismanagement. He acquitted himself in such a manner as screened him from all severity of punishment; nevertheless, they expelled him from the house for a high crime and misdemeanor, in misapplying several sums of the public money; and he thought proper to resign his employment. A long address was prepared and presented to the queen, attributing the national debt to mismanagement of the funds; complaining that the old methods of the exchequer had been neglected; and that iniquitous frauds had been committed by the commissioners of the prizes. Previous to this remonstrance, the house, in consequence of the report of the committee, had passed several severe resolutions, particularly against Charles lord Halifax, auditor of the receipt of the exchequer, as having neglected his duty, and been guilty of a breach of trust. For these reasons they actually besought the queen, in an address, that she would give directions to the attorney-general to prosecute him for the said offences; and she promised to comply with their request. On the other hand, the lords appointed a committee to examine all the observations which the commissioners of accounts had offered to both houses. They ascribed the national debt to deficiencies in the funds: they acquitted lord Halifax, the lords of the treasury, and their officers, whom the commons had accused; and represented these circumstances in an address to the queen, which was afterwards printed with the vouchers to every particular. This difference blew up a fierce flame of discord between the two houses, which manifested their mutual animosity in speeches, votes, resolutions, and conferences. The commons affirmed, that no cognizance the lords could take of the public accounts would enable them to supply any deficiency, or appropriate any surplusage of the public money; that they could neither acquit nor condemn any person whatsoever, upon any inquiry arising originally in their own house; and that their attempt to acquit Charles lord Halifax was unparliamentary. The lords insisted upon their right to take cognizance originally of all public accounts; they affirmed, that in their resolutions, with respect to lord Halifax, they had proceeded according to the rules of justice. They owned however that their resolutions did not amount to any judgment or acquittal; but that finding a vote of the commons reflected upon a member of their house, they thought fit to give their opinion in their legislative capacity. The queen interposed by a message to the lords, desiring they would despatch the business in which they were engaged. The dispute continued even after this intimation; one conference was held after another, at length both sides despaired of an accommodation. The lords ordered their proceedings to be printed, and the commons followed their example. On the twenty-seventh day of February, the queen, having passed all the bills that were ready for the royal assent, ordered the lord-keeper to prorogue the parliament, after having pronounced a speech in the usual style. She thanked them for their zeal, affection, and despatch; declared, she would encourage and maintain the church as by law established; desired they would consider some further laws for restraining the great license assumed for publishing scandalous pamphlets and libels; and assured them, that all her share of the prizes which might be taken in the war, should be applied to the public service. By this time the earl of Eochester was entirely removed from the queen’s councils. Finding himself outweighed by the interest of the duke of Marlborough and lord Godolphin, he had become sullen and intractable; and, rather than repair to his government of Ireland, chose to resign the office, which, as we have already observed, was conferred upon the duke of Ormond, an accomplished nobleman, who had acquired great popularity by the success of the expedition to Vigo. The parties in the house of lords were so nearly matched, that the queen, in order to ascertain an undoubted majority in the next session, created four new peers, [115] _[See note-J, at the end of this Vol.]_ who had signalized themselves by the violence of their speeches in the house of commons.

{ANNE, 1701--1714}

DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES OF CONVOCATION.

The two houses of convocation, which were summoned with the parliament, bore a strong affinity with this assembly, by the different interests that prevailed in the upper and lower. The last, in imitation of the commons, was desirous of branding the preceding reign; and it was with great difficulty that they concurred with the prelates in an address of congratulation to her majesty. Then their former contest was revived. The lower house desired, in an application to the archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans, that the matters in dispute concerning the manner of synodical proceedings, and the right of the lower house to hold intermediate assemblies, might be taken into consideration and speedily determined. The bishops proposed, that in the intervals of sessions, the lower house might appoint committees to prepare matters; and when business should be brought regularly before them, the archbishop would regulate the prorogations in such a manner, that they should have sufficient time to sit and deliberate on the subject. This offer did not satisfy the lower house, which was emboldened to persist in its demand by a vote of the commons. These, in consequence of an address of thanks from the clergy, touching Mr. Lloyd, son to the bishop of Worcester, whom they ordered to be prosecuted after his privilege as member of the convocation should be expired, had resolved, that they would on all occasions assert the just rights and privileges of the lower house of convocation. The prelates refused to depart from the archbishop’s right of proroguing the whole convocation with consent of his suffragans. The lower house proposed to refer the controversy to the queen’s decision. The bishops declined this expedient, as inconsistent with the episcopal authority, and the presidency of the archbishop. The lower house having incurred the imputation of favouring presbytery, by this opposition to the bishops, entered in their books a declaration, acknowledging the order of bishops as superior to presbyters, and to be a divine apostolical institution. Then they desired the bishops in an address to concur in settling the doctrine of the divine apostolical right of episcopacy, that it might be a standing rule of the church. They likewise presented a petition to the queen, complaining, that in the convocation called in the year 1700, after an interruption of ten years, several questions having arisen concerning the rights and liberties of the lower house, the bishops had refused a verbal conference; and afterwards declined a proposal to submit the dispute to her majesty’s determination; they therefore fled for protection to her majesty, begging she would call the question into her own royal audience. The queen promised to consider their petition, which was supported by the earl of Nottingham; and ordered their council to examine the affair, how it consisted with law and custom. Whether their report was unfavourable to the lower house, or the queen was unwilling to encourage the division, no other answer was made to their address. The archbishop replied to their request presented to the upper house, concerning the divine right of presbytery, that the preface to the form of ordination contained a declaration of three orders of ministers from the times of the apostles; namely, bishops, priests, and deacons, to which they had subscribed; but he and his brethren conceived, that without a royal license, they had not authority to attempt, enact, promulge, or execute any canon, which should concern either doctrine or discipline. The lower house answered this declaration in very petulant terms; and the dispute subsisted when the parliament was prorogued. But these contests produced divisions through the whole body of the clergy, who ranged themselves in different factions, distinguished by the names of high-church and low-church. The first consisted of ecclesiastical tories; the other included those who professed revolution principles, and recommended moderation towards the dissenters. The high-church party reproached the other as time-servers, and presbyterians in disguise; and were in their turn stigmatized as the friends and abettors of tyranny and persecution. At present, however, the tories both in church and state triumphed in the favour of their sovereign. The right of parliaments, the memory of the late king, and even the act limiting the succession of the house of Hanover, became the subjects of ridicule. The queen was flattered as possessor of the prerogatives of the ancient monarchy; the history written by her grandfather, the earl of Clarendon, was now for the first time published, to inculcate the principles of obedience, and inspire the people with an abhorrence of opposition to an anointed sovereign. Her majesty’s hereditary right was deduced from Edward the Confessor, and as heir of his pretended sanctity and virtue, she was persuaded to touch persons afflicted with the king’s evil, according to the office inserted in the Liturgy for this occasion.

ACCOUNT OF PARTIES IN SCOTLAND.

The change of the ministry in Scotland seemed favourable to the episcopalians and anti-revolutioners of that kingdom. The earls of Marchmont, Melvil, Selkirk, Leven, and Hyndford, were laid aside; the earl of Seafield was appointed chancellor; the duke of Queensberry and the lord viscount Tarbat, were declared secretaries of state; the marquis of Annandale was made president of the council, and the earl of Tullibardin, lord privy-seal. A new parliament having been summoned, the earl of Seafield employed his influence so successfully, that a great number of anti-revolutioners were returned as members. The duke of Hamilton had obtained from the queen a letter to the privy-council in Scotland, in which she expressed her desire that the presbyterian clergy should live in brotherly love and communion with such dissenting ministers of the reformed religion as were in possession of benefices, and lived with decency, and submission to the law. The episcopal clergy, encouraged by these expressions in their favour, drew up an address to the queen, imploring her protection; and humbly beseeching her to allow those parishes in which there was a majority of episcopal freeholders, to bestow the benefice on ministers of their principles. This petition was presented by Dr. Skeen and Dr. Scot, who were introduced by the duke of Queensberry to her majesty. She assured them of her protection and endeavours to supply their necessities; and exhorted them to live in peace and christian love with the clergy, who were by law invested with the church-government in her ancient kingdom of Scotland. A proclamation of indemnity having been published in March, a great number of Jacobites returned from France and other countries, pretended to have changed their sentiments, and took the oaths, that they might be qualified to sit in parliament. They formed an accession to the strength of the anti-revolutioners and episcopalians, who now hoped to out-number the presbyterians, and outweigh their interest. But this confederacy was composed of dissonant parts, from which no harmony could be expected. The presbyterians and revolutioners were headed by the duke of Argyle. The country party of malcontents, which took its rise from the disappointments of the Darien settlement, acted under the auspices of the duke of Hamilton and marquis of Tweedale; and the earl of Hume appeared as chief of the anti-revolutioners. The different parties who now united, pursued the most opposite ends. The majority of the country party were friends to the revolution, and sought only redress of the grievances which the nation had sustained in the late reign. The anti-revolutioners considered the accession and government of king William as an extraordinary event, which they were willing to forget, believing that all parties were safe under the shelter of her majesty’s general indemnity. The Jacobites submitted to the queen, as tutrix or regent for the prince of Wales, whom they firmly believed she intended to establish on the throne. The whigs under Argyle, alarmed at the coalition of all their enemies, resolved to procure a parliamentary sanction for the revolution.

DANGEROUS HEATS IN THE PARLIAMENT.

The parliament being opened on the sixth day of May at Edinburgh, by the duke of Queensberry as commissioner, the queen’s letter was read, in which she demanded a supply for the maintenance of the forces, advised them to encourage trade, and exhorted them to proceed with wisdom, prudence, and unanimity. The duke of Hamilton immediately offered the draft of a bill for recognising her majesty’s undoubted right and title to the imperial crown of Scotland, according to the declaration of the estates of the kingdom, containing the claim of right. It was immediately received; and at the second reading, the queen’s advocate offered an additional clause, denouncing the penalties of treason against any person who should question her majesty’s right and title to the crown, or her exercise of the government, from her actual entry to the same. This, after a long and warm debate, was carried by the concurrence of the anti-revolutioners. Then the earl of Hume produced the draft of a bill for the supply; immediately after it was read, the marquis of Tweedale made an overture, that, before all other business, the parliament would proceed to make such conditions of government, and regulations in the constitution of the kingdom, to take place after the decease of her majesty and the heirs of her body, as should be necessary for the preservation of their religion and liberty. This overture and the bill were ordered to lie upon the table; and in the meantime the commissioner found himself involved in great perplexity. The duke of Argyle, the marquis of Annandale, and the earl of Marchmont, gave him to understand in private, that they were resolved to move for an act ratifying the revolution; and for another confirming the presbyterian government; that they would insist upon their being discussed before the bill of supply, and that they were certain of carrying the points at which they aimed. The commissioner now found himself reduced to a very disagreeable alternative. There was a necessity for relinquishing all hope of a supply, or abandoning the anti-revolutioners, to whom he was connected by promises of concurrence. The whigs were determined to oppose all schemes of supply that should come from the cavaliers; and these last resolved to exert their whole power in preventing the confirmation of the revolution and the presbyterian discipline. He foresaw that on this occasion the whigs would be joined by the duke of Hamilton and his party, so as to preponderate against the cavaliers. He endeavoured to cajole both parties; but found the task impracticable. He desired in parliament, that the act for the supply might be read, promising that they should have full time afterwards to deliberate on other subjects. The marquis of Tweedale insisted upon his overture; and after warm debates, the house resolved to proceed with such acts as might be necessary for securing the religion, liberty, and trade of the nation, before any bill for supply or other business should be discussed. The marquis of Athol offered an act for the security of the kingdom, in case of her majesty’s decease; but before it was read, the duke of Argyle presented his draft of a bill for ratifying the revolution, and all the acts following thereupon, An act for limiting the succession after the death of her majesty, and the heirs of her body, was produced by Mr. Fletcher of Saltoun. The earl of Rothes recommended another, importing, that after her majesty’s death, and failing heirs of her body, no person coming to the crown of Scotland, being at the same time king or queen of England, should as king or queen of Scotland, have power to make peace or war without the consent of parliament. The earl of Marchmont recited the draft of an act for securing the true protestant religion and presbyterian government; one was also suggested by sir Patrick Johnston, allowing the importation of wines, and other foreign liquors. All these bills were ordered to lie upon the table. Then the earl of Strath-more produced an act for toleration to all protestants in the exercise of religious worship. But against this the general assembly presented a most violent remonstrance; and the promoters of the bill, foreseeing that it would meet with great opposition, allowed it to drop for the present. On the third day of June, the parliament passed the act for preserving the true reformed protestant religion, and confirming presbyterian church government, as agreeable to the word of God, and the only government of Christ’s church within the kingdom. The same party enjoyed a further triumph in the success of Argyle’s act, for ratifying and perpetuating the first act of king William’s parliament; for declaring it high treason to disown the authority of that parliament, or to alter or renovate the claim of right or any article thereof. This last clause was strenuously opposed; but at last the bill passed with the concurrence of all the ministry, except the marquis of Athol and the viscount Tarbat, who began at this period to correspond with the opposite party.

THE COMMISSIONER IS ABANDONED BY THE CAVALIERS.

The cavaliers thinking themselves betrayed by the duke of Queensberry, who had assented to these acts, first expostulated with him on his breach of promise, and then renounced his interest, resolving to separate themselves from the court, and jointly pursue such measures as might be for the interest of their party. But of all the bills that were produced in the course of this remarkable session, that which produced the most violent altercation was the act of security, calculated to abridge the prerogative of the crown, limit the successor, and throw a vast additional power into the hands of the parliament. It was considered paragraph by paragraph; many additions and alterations were proposed, and some adopted; inflammatory speeches were uttered; bitter sarcasms retorted from party to party; and different votes passed on different clauses. At length, in spite of the most obstinate opposition from the ministry and the cavaliers, it was passed by a majority of fifty-nine voices. The commissioner was importuned to give it the royal assent; but declined answering their entreaties till the tenth day of September. Then he made a speech in parliament, giving them to understand that he had received the queen’s pleasure, and was empowered to give the royal assent to all the acts voted in this session, except the act for the security of the kingdom. A motion was made to solicit the royal assent in an address to her majesty; but the question being put, it was carried in the negative by a small majority. On the sixth day of the same month, the earl of Marchmont had produced a bill to settle the succession on the house of Hanover. At first the import of it was not known; but when the clerk in reading it mentioned the princess Sophia, the whole house was kindled into a flame. Some proposed that the overture should be burned; others moved that the earl might be sent prisoner to the castle; and a general dissatisfaction appeared in the whole assembly. Not that the majority in parliament were averse to the succession in the house of Hanover; but they resolved to avoid a nomination without stipulating conditions; and they had already provided, in the act of security, that it should be high treason to own any person as king or queen after her majesty’s decease, until he or she should take the coronation oath, and accept the terms of the claim of right, and such conditions as should be settled in this or any ensuing parliament.

HE IS IN DANGER OF HIS LIFE.

Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, a man of undaunted courage and inflexible integrity, who professed republican principles, and seemed designed by nature as a member of some Grecian commonwealth, after having observed that the nation would be enslaved should it submit, either willingly or by commission, to the successor of England, without such conditions of government as should secure them against the influence of an English ministry, offered the draft of an act, importing, that after the decease of her majesty, without heirs of her body, no person being successor to the English throne should succeed to the crown of Scotland but under the following limitations, which, together with the coronation oath and claim of right, they should swear to observe: namely, that all offices and places, civil and military, as well as pensions, should for the future be conferred by a parliament to be chosen at every Michaelmas head-court, to sit on the first day of November, and adjourn themselves from time to time till the ensuing Michaelmas; that they should choose their own president; that a committee of six-and-thirty members, chosen out of the whole parliament, without distinction of estates, should, during the intervals of parliament, be vested, under the king, with the administration of the government, act as his council, be accountable to parliament, and call it together on extraordinary occasions. He proposed that the successor should be nominated by the majority; declaring for himself that he would rather concur in nominating the most rigid papist with those conditions, than the truest protestant without them. The motion was seconded by many members; and though postponed for the present, in favour of an act of trade under the consideration of the house, it was afterwards resumed with great warmth. In vain the lord-treasurer represented that no funds were as yet provided for the army, and moved for a reading of the act presented for that purpose; a certain member observed, that this was a very unseasonable juncture to propose a supply, when the house had so much to do for the security of the nation; he said they had very little encouragement to grant supplies when they found themselves frustrated of all their labour and expense for these several months; and when the whole kingdom saw that supplies served for no other use but to gratify the avarice of some insatiable ministers. Mr. Fletcher expatiated upon the good consequences that would arise from the act which he had proposed. The chancellor answered, that such an act was laying a scheme for a commonwealth, and tending to innovate the constitution of a monarchy. The ministry proposed a state of a vote, whether they should first give a reading to Fletcher’s act or to the act of subsidy. The country party moved that the question might be, “Overtures for subsidies, or overtures for liberty.” Fletcher withdrew his act, rather than people should pervert the meaning of laudable designs. The house resounded with the cry of “Liberty or Subsidy.” Bitter invectives were uttered against the ministry. One member said it was now plain the nation was to expect no other return for their expense and toil than that of being loaded with a subsidy, and being obliged to bend their necks under the yoke of slavery, which was prepared for them from that throne; another observed, that as their liberties were suppressed, so the privileges of parliament were like to be torn from them; but that he would venture his life in defence of his birthright, and rather die a free man than live a slave. When the vote was demanded, and declined by the commissioner, the earl of Roxburgh declared, that if there was no other way of obtaining so natural and undeniable a privilege of parliament, they would demand it with their swords in their hands. The commissioner, foreseeing this spirit of freedom and contradiction, ordered the foot-guard to be in readiness, and placed a strong guard upon the eastern gate of the city. Notwithstanding these precautions, he ran the risk of being torn to pieces; and, in this apprehension, ordered the chancellor to inform the house that the parliament should proceed upon overtures for liberty at their next sitting. This promise allayed the ferment which had begun to rise. Next day the members prepared an overture, implying, that the elective members should be chosen for every seat at the Michaelmas head courts; that a parliament should be held once in two years at least; that the short adjournments _de die in diem_ should be made by the parliaments themselves as in England; and that no officer in the army, customs, or excise, nor any gratuitous pensioner, should sit as an elective member. The commissioner being apprised of their proceedings, called for such acts as he was empowered to pass, and having given the royal assent to them, prorogued the parliament to the twelfth day of October. [117] _[See note X, at the end of this Vol.]_ Such was the issue of this remarkable session of the Scottish parliament, in which the duke of Queensberry was abandoned by the greatest part of the ministry; and such a spirit of ferocity and opposition prevailed, as threatened the whole kingdom with civil war and confusion. The queen conferred titles upon those who appeared to have influence in the nation [118] _[See note Y, at the end of this Vol.]_ and attachment to her government, and revived the order of the thistle, which the late king had dropped.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.

Ireland was filled with discontent by the behaviour and conduct of the trustees for the forfeited estates. The earl of Rochester had contributed to foment the troubles of the kingdom by encouraging the factions which had been imported from England. The duke of Ormond was received with open arms as heir to the virtues of his ancestors, who had been the bulwarks of the protestant interest in Ireland. He opened the parliament on the twenty-first day of September, with a speech to both houses, in which he told them that his inclination, his interest, and the examples of progenitors, were indispensable obligations upon him to improve every opportunity to the advantage and prosperity of his native country. The commons having chosen Allen Broderick to be their speaker, proceeded to draw up very affectionate addresses to the queen and the lord lieutenant. In that to the queen they complained that their enemies had misrepresented them, as desirous of being independent of the crown of England; they, therefore, to vindicate themselves from such false aspersions, declared and acknowledged that the kingdom of Ireland was annexed and united to the imperial crown of England. In order to express their hatred of the trustees, they resolved, that all the protestant freeholders of that kingdom had been falsely and maliciously misrepresented, traduced, and abused, in a book entitled, “The Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Irish Forfeitures;” and it appearing that Francis Annesley, member of the house, John Trenchard, Henry Langford, and James Hamilton, were authors of that book, they further resolved, that these persons had scandalously and maliciously misrepresented and traduced the protestant freeholders of that kingdom, and endeavoured to create a misunderstanding and jealousy between the people of England and the protestants of Ireland. Annesley was expelled the house, Hamilton was dead, and Trenchard had returned to England. They had finished the inquiry before the meeting of this parliament; and sold at an undervalue the best of the forfeited estates to the sword-blade company of England. This, in a petition to the Irish parliament, prayed that heads of a bill be brought in for enabling them to take conveyance of lands in Ireland; but the parliament was very little disposed to confirm the bargains of the trustees, and the petition lay neglected on the table. The house expelled John Asgil, who, as agent to the sword-blade company, had offered to lend money to the public in Ireland, on condition that the parliament would pass an act to confirm the company’s purchase of the forfeited estates. His constituents disowned his proposal; and when he was summoned to appear before the house, and answer for his prevarication, he pleaded his privilege as member of the English parliament. The commons, in a representation of the state and grievances of the nation, gave her majesty to understand that the constitution of Ireland had been of late greatly shaken; and their lives, liberties, and estates, called in question, and tried in a manner unknown to their ancestors; that the expense to which they had been unnecessarily exposed by the late trustees for the forfeited estates, in defending their just rights and titles, had exceeded in value the current cash of the kingdom; that their trade was decayed, their money exhausted; and that they were hindered from maintaining their own manufactures; that many protestant families had been constrained to quit the kingdom in order to earn a livelihood in foreign countries; that the want of frequent parliaments in Ireland had encouraged evil-minded men to oppress the subject; that many civil officers had acquired great fortunes in that impoverished country, by the exercise of corruption and oppression; that others, in considerable employments, resided in another kingdom, neglecting personal attendance on their duty, while their offices were ill executed, to the detriment of the public, and the failure of justice. They declared, that it was from her majesty’s gracious interposition alone they proposed to themselves relief from those their manifold grievances and misfortunes. The commons afterwards voted the necessary supplies, and granted one hundred and fifty thousand pounds to make good the deficiencies of the necessary branches of the establishment.

A SEVERE ACT PASSED AGAINST PAPISTS.

They appointed a committee to inspect the public accounts, by which they discovered that above one hundred thousand pounds had been falsely charged as a debt upon the nation. The committee was thanked by the house for having saved this sum, and ordered to examine what persons were concerned in such a misrepresentation, which was generally imputed to those who acted under the duke of Ormond. He himself was a nobleman of honour and generosity, addicted to pleasure, and fond of popular applause; but he was surrounded by people of more sordid principles, who had ingratiated themselves into his confidence by the arts of adulation. The commons voted a provision for the half-pay officers; and abolished pensions to the amount of seventeen thousand pounds a-year, as unnecessary branches of the establishment. They passed an act settling the succession of the crown after the pattern set them by England; but the most important transaction of this session was a severe bill to prevent the growth of popery. It bore a strong affinity to that which had passed three years before in England; but contained more effectual clauses. Among others it enacted, that all estates of papists should be equally divided among the children, notwithstanding any settlement to the contrary, unless the person to whom they might be settled should qualify themselves by taking the oaths, and communicating with the church of England. The bill was not at all agreeable to the ministry in England, who expected large presents from the papists, by whom a considerable sum had been actually raised for this purpose. But as they did not think proper to reject such a bill while the English parliament was sitting, they added a clause which they hoped the parliament of Ireland would refuse: namely, that no persons in that kingdom should be capable of any employment, or of being in the magistracy of any city, who did not qualify themselves by receiving the sacrament according to the test act passed in England. Though this was certainly a great hardship on the dissenters, the parliament of Ireland sacrificed this consideration to their common security against the Roman catholics, and accepted the amendment without hesitation. This affair being discussed, the commons of Ireland passed a vote against a book entitled, “Memoirs of the late king James II.” as a seditious libel. They ordered it to be burned by the hands of the common hangman; and the bookseller and printer to be prosecuted. When this motion was made, a member informed the house that in the county of Limerick the Irish papists had begun to form themselves into bodies, to plunder the protestants of their arms and money; and to maintain a correspondence with the disaffected in England. The house immediately resolved, that the papists of the kingdom still retained hopes of the accession of the person known by the name of the Prince of Wales in the life-time of the late king James, and now by the name of James III. In the midst of this zeal against popery and the pretender, they were suddenly adjourned by the command of the lord-lieutenant, and broke up in great animosity against that nobleman. [119] _[See note Z, at the end of this Vol.]_

THE ELECTOR TAKES POSSESSION OF RATISBON.