ș， （*' - aet≡ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± ;-）
№țăț¢;$$$$šč，ſaeiſ）;
ſ
§§§§§
¿¿.******×
¿§§§）;

×1
***）（$*$±!！！T，
|
ſ.
|
|-
ĀĻIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIĻſ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ŒŒŒCESCRIPCCCREDEDITEĽ№r-Eſ-C-CŒŒ\Nſaeſ， o， ， ， • • • • • • • •■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Œ
§
\\$
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SATRGENT
º
|?
|-
§§
BEQUEST OF
ABBY L.
}
##1 ſº ſi
*-i-º-º-º-º-º-º-i-
! { } {1|, i ;
; ; ; ; ; ;
（ſº
º
º
||f|||||||||||||||||||||||IHillhillſ|||||||||||||IIIlſº
Lººs ºº e ºre sº- as ºr sºme as *.*.*, *.*.* * * * ~...~ * * * * * * ~ *s as sºlº-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIĘ%%%%ſaem|||||||||||||||||I||I||I||I||I|ſſſ||
ÌìÎîÏïĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
āſīſātūIHIIHIHIIIHIIIHſiſſiſſiºn
EjilîIHilliſill
* *
[]
Ef
∞ √° √* * · · · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .
-· · · · · · · · — • • • • • •– + – – – – –）. --. –،
******** * * * * * *~~~ ~~~~=+-------- ---- --- - .…-_- - … . __|
• , ** * *= * ， , ，• * * * * * * * *~~ ~~ … … ）-
، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،** **ºw ， w • • . .° • × × × × × , ， , ， ** **• • • • • • •• • • • • • • •∞ √°r √≠ √ √
w.************* • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••• • • • • • • .

•• •-|-r…; ~;~~ ,+ x~<-» ~=> w-------- - -…»！ , ！--***
**
！ 4
|
|-----!-{
º ----------------^------------* &|×'--}° s.！-.*– % ºſ
H IS TO R. Y
OF THE
ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
VOLUME II.
\§

|×|-ºz//|-
ºººººººº/ſºwº，
º，�~~~~ºººººººº« ：
HISTORY

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT
TOGETHER WITH
AN Account
OF THE
parliaments of stotlant and reland
{/
A BY
G! BARNETT sm ITH
V O I, U M E II.
FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE REFORM A CTS OF 1884-85
WARD, LOCK, BOWDEN & CO.
LONDON: WARWICK HOUSE, SALISBURY SQUARE, E.C.
NEW YORK : BOND STREET
MELBOURNE : ST. JAMES'S STREET, SYDNEY: YORK STREET
1892
[All rights reserved]
2
\–3
OS −
S →
\ n vo
| 3all
V, 9.
of ~

ºnz).' .
—Q—
BOOK IX.
THE REVOI, UTION.
CHAP. PAGEſ
I. JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT º - - º * 3
II. THE CONVENTION . º e 4e - - º 17
III. PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. . - • s . 36
BOOK X.
THE PAR LIAMENT OF SCOTLAAWD.
I. ITS EARLY HISTORY TO A.D. 1560 - • º . 97
II. FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE UNION º e . 129.
BOOK XI.
THE COWSTITUTION TW THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
I. THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE e e e s . 199
II. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. . e e - - . 227
III. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. - e - e . 282
BOOK XII.
THE IRISH PAR LIAMENT FROM ITS ORIGIN TO THE UNION.
I. THE IRISH PARLIAMENT TO 1782 . º - - . 373
II. FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TO THE UNION 413
CONTENTS.
CHAP,
II.
III.
BOOK XIII.
PAR LIAMEWT IN THE WIWETEENTH CENTURY.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
WILLIAM TV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA
I. REPEAL of THE CoRN Laws
II. COLONIAL AND INDIAN LEGISLATION
III. LEGISLATION FOR THE WoRKING CLASSES
IV. EDUCATION .
V. FINANCE
VI. IRISH LEGISLATION
VII. FoEEIGN POLICY.
VIII. GENERAL LEGISLATION
TX. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
CoNSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA .
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII,
IX.
THE GREAT CHARTER, A.D. 1215
THE PETITION OF RIGHT, 1628.
HABEAs CoRPUs ACT, 1679
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 1689
LORD CHANCELLORS OF ENGLAND e
SPEAKERs of THE House of CoMMONs .
PRIME MINISTERs e
CHANCELLORs of THE EXCHEQUER o e
PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND OF THE UNITED
RINGDOM . º º ©
PRINCIPAL ACTS, ORDINANCEs, ETC., SINCE THE
CoNQUEST .
PAGE
425
448
467
469
474
480
487
494
501
516
524
537
549
551
557
559
56]
565
566
568
568
569
YI.
XII.
DXIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
INDEX
MINISTRIES OF QUEEN VICTORIA
CoNSTITUENCIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT e * e º
THE SOVEREIGN, THE MINISTRY, THE CABINET, AND
THE PRIVY COUNCIL . º º º ©
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC.
THE STATUTES .
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING
572
576
581
584
587
591
600
601
607
LIST OF SU P P L E M E N T S
TO W O L. II.
Facsimile of Portion of George III.'s Speech, made on Opening
his First Parliament, in his own Handwriting (see p. 283). Frontispiece
Facsimile of Signatures and Seals to the Articles of Union with
Scotland, 1706 . g gº p & ſº tº tº e . To face page 177
Facsimile of Letter from John Wilkes, written in 1764, about
his Conduct in Parliament . gº te g tº e 3 * 3 * 290
BOOK IX.
THE REVOLUTIOW.
VOL. II,


CHAPTER I.
JA IES II.’S PARLIAMENT.
IMMEDIATELY upon the death of Charles II., the Duke of Policy of
York was proclaimed king, under the title of James II.
Like all the Stuarts, he began with the fairest promises,
and, like them also, he failed to redeem them. In
addition to this sovereign’s reliance upon France, which
was repugnant to Englishmen, his views upon constitu-
tional questions were bound sooner or later to lead to
a collision. But when to James’s arbitrary ideas of
government was added an open profession of the Catholic
religion, a conflict between the sovereign and the people
became of course inevitable.
The King’s first speech in council was extraordinarily
pacific. “I know,” he said, “that the laws of England
are sufficient to make the King as great a monarch as I
can wish ; and as I shall never depart from the just right
and prerogative of the Crown, so I shall never invade
any man’s property. I have often heretofore ventured
my life in defence of the nation, and I shall still go as
far as any man in preserving it in all its just rights and
liberties.” Yet immediately upon this he informed the
world that his late brother had died a Roman Catholic,
while he himself attended a public celebration of the
mass at Westminster, to which he went in state. He
found his counsellors in men like Jeffreys, now Chief
James II.
His speech
in Council.

4
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
*-uy
CHAP. T.
James II.’S
Parlia-
ment.
He opens
Parlia-
ment.
Justice of the King's Bench, and he sent Churchill over
to Versailles to cement the obnoxious French alliance.
As an indication of his religious policy, the eminent
Puritan Richard Baxter was prosecuted and sentenced
to eighteen months’ imprisonment, and only one party of
Dissenters escaped his vengeance. This was the sect
known as Quakers, or Friends, whose most prominent
representative, William Penn, had acquired a powerful
influence over James.
Although the King, when Duke of York, had been
opposed to the summoning of a Parliament, he now found
himself obliged to call one together for the settlement of
the Crown revenues, which he had already collected
without Parliamentary sanction. When such a settle-
ment had been effected, he argued that he could in future
do with or without Parliaments as he pleased. Even if
Parliament failed to do what was required of it, James
had extracted a promise from Louis XIV. to support his
authority and establish their common religion. The
King required from Parliament a grant of the whole
income which his predecessor had received, and the
electors were warned beforehand of the hopelessness of
resistance to his demands. What was practically a
Royalist House of Commons was elected, and on May
19th, 1685, the first and only Parliament held in the
reign of James II. assembled at Westminster. In his
speech from the throne, the King reiterated what he had
said before the Privy Council, promising to maintain
the government in Church and State as then established
by law. “Having given you this assurance concerning the
care I will have of your religion and property,’” said James,
“I cannot think that I shall fail of suitable returns from
you, and particularly to what relates to the settling of
my revenue.” This emphatic use of the personal pro-
noun was very significant. He then proceeded to shatter
the constitutional rights of Parliament in the following
manner : “There is one popular argument which I foresee
may be used against what I ask of you, from the inclina-
tion men have for frequent Parliaments, which some may

Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT.
5
think would be the best security by feeding me from
time to time by such proportions as they shall think
convenient ; and this argument, it being the first time I
speak to you from the throne, I will answer once for all :
that this would be a very improper method to take with
me, and that the best way to engage me to meet you
often is always to use me well.”
Here was the old threat, covertly expressed, to do
without Parliaments, if they were found intractable.
But for the present the House acquiesced. The revenues
which Charles II. had possessed for life, and which were
now reckoned at about £1,400,000, were granted to his
successor for the same period, and the tax upon wines
was voted for eight years. The Upper House was like-
wise yielding, and repealed the resolution passed some
years before providing that proceedings begun on an
impeachment by the Lower House were not to be an-
nulled by a dissolution. Under this new enactment
Lord Danby and the imprisoned Catholic lords were re-
leased. The Lower House promised to stand by and
assist with their lives and fortunes his Majesty against the
Earl of Argyle and all other rebels and traitors. There
was practically no opposition to the grant of revenue,
and the only speech to disturb the general harmony was
one made by Edward Seymour, who, though a Tory, and
hitherto no friend to popular government, stood forth
singly to condemn the abrogation of the charters of
towns and the arbitrary proceedings which had in con-
sequence resulted at the elections. Seymour made him-
self the mouthpiece of constitutionalism, foreseeing grave
dangers to the State if a system of arbitrary government
were to acquire the ascendency, of which he declared there
were manifest signs. He had, no doubt, secret sym-
pathisers, but he found none to support his views in the
House.
Shortly afterwards a committee for religion which had
been appointed recommended an address to the King
“to publish his royal proclamation for putting the laws
in execution against all dissenters whatsoever from the
CHAP. I.
James II.'s
Parlia-
ment.
*-*
Settlement
of the
Crown.
7'60'670.7/CS.
A Tory
veformer.
The reli-
gious ques-
tion and
the Dis-
Senters.
6
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [Book
CHAP. T. Church of England.” This brought the religious question
Jº's to an issue, for James could not well invoke the cruel
Iment.
Argyle
and Mon-
ontowth.
Roman.
Catholic
commis-
8ions.
disabling statutes against those of his own faith. Stre-
nuous efforts were accordingly made to defeat the proposal,
the King threatening with his personal displeasure all
who should vote for it. Ultimately the previous question
was adopted, and a resolution was substituted to the effect
“That this House doth acquiesce, entirely rely, and rest
wholly satisfied in his Majesty's gracious word and re-
peated declaration to support and defend the religion of
the Church of England as it is now by law established,
which is dearer to us than our lives.”
Parliament adjourned on July 2nd until August 4th,
and from the latter date until November 9th. Meantime
the country was agitated by the Argyle and Monmouth
invasions. The Earl of Argyle appeared in Scotland, but
his rising was easily suppressed, and its instigator was
executed at Edinburgh. Monmouth's rebellion in the
west of England was equally unsuccessful. The Duke
was defeated at Sedgmoor, the last battle fought on
English soil. Monmouth was captured, taken to London,
and beheaded. The Bloody Assizes, which have made
the names of Jeffreys and Kirke infamous in history,
followed ; and for his share in these and other transac-
tions Jeffreys was made Lord High Chancellor of England.
The King resolved to make himself independent of
Parliament, and to establish a standing army. There
were two great statutes of the realm, however, which were
peculiarly hateful to him : the Habeas Corpus Act and
the Test Act. Overriding the provisions of the latter,
he gave commissions to Roman Catholic officers in the
newly levied regiments. Ministers warned him that
these measures would provoke discontent, but he replied
that he did not expect opposition from them, and that he
intended to retain the Catholic officers in his service.
Halifax, Lord President of the Council, would not sup-
port the King's policy, and was consequently dismissed
from office; and James declared that he would give his
confidence to no one who did not completely agree with
Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT. 7
him in feelings and principles. But the reactionary rate CHAP: I.
at which the monarch was proceeding soon had its effect Jº's
upon Parliament. Iment.
The Houses met on November 9th, and in opening the The King
session the King set forth his methods of government º
without circumlocution. Alluding to the late rebellion,
and to the length of time it had been carried on without
opposition, he said, “I hope everybody will be convinced
that the militia, which hath hitherto been so much de-
pended on, is not sufficient for such occasions; and that
there is nothing but a good force of well-disciplined
troops, in constant pay, that can defend us from such as,
either at home or abroad, are disposed to disturb us.”
Some offence had been taken in Parliamentary circles at
the increase of the army and the granting of Catholic
commissions, but these were declared necessary, as well as
a double grant of money, to support the augmented army.
“Let no man take exception,” he proceeded, “that there
are some officers in the army not qualified, according to
the late tests, for their employments : the gentlemen, I
must tell you, are mostly well known to me ; and having
formerly served with me on several occasions and always
approved the loyalty of their principles by their practice,
I think them now fit to be employed under me: and I
will deal plainly with you, that, after having had the
benefit of their service in such a time of need and danger,
I will neither expose them to disgrace, nor myself to the
want of them, if there should be another rebellion to
make them necessary to me.”
James thus put into the forefront the two most un- James's
acceptable points he could have selected—a standing ;"
army and the violation of the Test Act ; while he was
reticent upon the subject of the laws and the Protestant
religion, in regard to which he had been expected to
make a definite declaration. This caused much dis-
satisfaction, and in the Commons there was already a
party springing up, composed of zealous Tories and a
number of Whigs, who strongly resented the King's
support of Popery.
8
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
The Earl of Middleton, Secretary of State and a
wº member of the House of Commons, proposed that the
Iment.
The
Militia,
and a
Standing
Army.
The
Catholic
officers.
Lower House should immediately return thanks for his
Majesty’s speech, but this was rejected, and a day ap-
pointed for discussing the address. Instead of first
passing the article on subsidies, as agreed upon, the
House plunged into a debate on the King's statement
concerning the relations of the militia to the standing
army. There was a general feeling that something must
be done to improve the militia, but it was also admitted
that a strong standing army was necessary, though
Edward Seymour said, “Supporting an army is maintain-
ing so many idle persons to lord it over the rest of the
subjects.” The discussion was very animated, but the
Court party carried the grant of a supply. At the same
time, however, the House came to a resolution to repre-
sent to the King that the true force of the kingdom
consisted in the militia, and that it would take every
possible means to render this force efficient. This was
a plain indication that the Commons would not allow of
a regular standing army. Many of the members, in-
cluding Seymour and Clarges, spoke with great vehemence
against the army and the Catholic officers, and asserted
that the King's speech was a contradiction of what he
had said in the preceding session, since now he openly
declared himself against the established laws, which were
the safeguard of the Protestant religion."
The discussion altogether was so obnoxious to James,
that rumours were already afloat of the speedy proroga-
tion or dissolution of Parliament. But it was necessary
that the grant should acquire the force of law, while the
Commons were resolved to have an understanding touch-
ing the Catholic officers. The question was therefore
debated in grand committee on November 14th. The
majority were of opinion that the arbitrary disregard of
the test oaths could not pass unnoticed. One speaker
said that the creation of a Popish force had already
* Despatches of Barillon, the French ambassador.
Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT. 9
begun ; Clarges urged that Catholic officers might at CHAP. I.
some future time be tempted to resist the Protestant James II's
succession ; and Serjeant Maynard, recalling the case *::::
when Henry IV. yielded to Parliament with regard to T
his confessor, said that no doubt King James, who sur-
passed Henry in all respects, would grant the request,
which should be delivered to him in a respectful re-
monstrance : he would not break with his Parliament
for the sake of twenty or thirty officers whose services
could be discharged equally well by others. The House
adopted certain resolutions, in which occurred this strong
request with regard to the Catholic officers: “That his
Majesty would be pleased not to continue them in their
employments.” This language being subsequently viewed
as too abrupt, the following words were substituted in
lieu thereof: “That his Majesty would be graciously
pleased to give such directions that no apprehensions or
jealousies may remain in the hearts of his Majesty's good
and faithful subjects.” So the motion for an address
was carried, and a bill of indemnification was ordered to
be prepared for unqualified persons.
Mr. Solicitor Finch brought up the address on the The Com-
16th. It contained nothing about the standing army and ºs,
the militia, but it reminded the King of the statutes by tº the
which Catholics were rendered incapable of serving in the Ring.
English army, which incapacity could only be removed
by act of Parliament. “Therefore we are preparing a
bill to pass both Houses for your royal assent to in-
demnify them from the penalties they have now incurred;
and because the continuing of them in their employment
may be taken to be a dispensing of that law without act
of Parliament (the consequence of which is of the greatest
concern to the rights of all your Majesty’s subjects and
to all the laws made for security of their religion), we
therefore do most humbly beseech your Majesty that you
would be graciously pleased to give such directions
therein that no apprehensions or jealousies may remain
in the hearts of your Majesty’s good and faithful sub-
jects.” A motion for obtaining the concurrence of the
10
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
James II's
Parlia-
Iment,
gºes
A Member
committed.
Pemark-
able speech
by Bishop
Compton.
Lords and making the address a joint one from both
Houses was lost by a considerable majority. The Com-
mons presented their address to James on the 17th at
Whitehall. When the Speaker had read it, the King
expressed surprise at their distrust of him ; but however
they might proceed on their part, he would be steady in
all his promises to them—a declaration which was very
favourably received on the whole, though some were
dissatisfied with the sovereign's demeanour.
On the following day, when the royal answer was
read in the Commons, it was proposed to discuss the
speech again. Mr. Wharton having moved a day for
the consideration of the address, he was seconded by
Mr. Coke, who suddenly threw the House into a ferment
by remarking, “I hope we are all Englishmen, and are
not to be frighted out of our duty by a few high words.”
Exception was taken to this utterance, and in the midst
of a violent scene Coke endeavoured to excuse himself.
He was ordered to withdraw, and there were cries from
Lord Preston and others of “Send him to the Tower l’”
He was committed accordingly, “for his indecent and
undutiful reflecting on the King and this House.”
The discussion was resumed on the King’s answer, and
the general feeling was that the House would do well to
accept it. But the interest in the question suddenly
became centred in another place. The Lords now pro-
posed to take the King's speech into consideration,
although they had already returned thanks to his Majesty
for it. The danger from the King's attitude became so
apparent that even the bishops were compelled to intervene
The proposal to reopen the question was strongly re-
commended by Lord Halifax, and also by Lord Devonshire,
a follower of the philosopher. Hobbes. Surprise was
expressed that a number of officers had accepted posts in
unquestionable contradiction of the laws of England, even
though they were sheltered by powerful support. Henry
Compton, of London, the most militant of the bishops,
delivered an uncompromising speech, which created a
profound sensation. Looking at the question from a
Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT. 11
Protestant and an ecclesiastical point of view, he saw in CHAP. I.
the appointment of the Catholic officers a way opened James II's
for a general transformation. “If it were acquiesced in, *:::::
all the higher posts would very soon be filled with
Catholics, and the whole administration would assume a
Catholic character,” which was exactly James's object.
“The case resembled that of the dykes which protected
the land in Holland; if they were broken through in
one point a general inundation followed. English Pro-
testantism appeared to him a district embanked by the
laws, and the power of universal Catholicism the great
flood which it alone kept back.” Point was lent to these
observations from the fact that France and Austria were
strenuously supporting the most advanced claims of the
Papacy, while French Protestant exiles were to be found
in large numbers in the streets of London. Compton
spoke with the sympathy of most of his episcopal
brethren, and his speech was, from the historical point of
view, “one of the most remarkable ever made in Parlia-
ment ; it set forth in full distinctness the breach between
the episcopal system and the Crown, which had previously
been allied together.””
The Court party were alarmed at the turn of events, The Lords
and endeavoured to ward off the attack by urging that º
the peers were now precluded from finding fault with the
Ring's speech. But this plea was rejected with in-
dignation, and a day was named (November 23rd) for
taking the speech into consideration. The King had
been present at the debate, and he gathered from its
menacing tone, as well as its unanswerable arguments,
that the Lords would vote such an address as must
embarrass him and call for the abandonment of his
evasive attitude. The Lords likewise now contemplated
appealing to the judges for a legal deliverance upon the
unconstitutional acts of the King. But, with all this, the
peers did not desire an open breach ; they only wished
for a clear understanding with regard to the Catholic
* Ranke's History of England.
12
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
James II.'s
Parlia-
Iment.
Parlia-
7ment,
suddenly
Aprorogued.
officers, and were ready to grant by act of Parliament a
dispensation to those officers whom the King was re-
luctant to dismiss.
But this did not suit James, who thought far more of his
personal prerogative than of legality. Finding therefore
that he could carry nothing in either House unless he
departed from his speech, and allowed the operation of
the Test Act, he resolved to prorogue Parliament
before the Lords resumed their debate. Consequently,
he appeared unexpectedly in the House of Lords on
November 20th, 1685, and the Commons having been
summoned, Lord Chancellor Jeffreys announced that his
Majesty was pleased, “for many weighty reasons,” to
prorogue Parliament to February 10th, and it was pro-
rogued accordingly. The King's main object in this was
to save his dispensing power, a right which would have
been denied him by the Houses and the judges. To
maintain that right and his Catholic policy he was
content to forego the grant of supplies. Although the
prorogation was a normal act, it increased the discontent
of those who knew what was operating in the King's
mind, and undoubtedly put a fresh complexion on the
affairs of England.
It is
finally
dissolved.
James's
IDeclara-
tion of In-
dulgence.
James discovered that it was not an easy task to put
forward unconstitutional claims, and then expect Parlia-
ment to sanction them. His determination to push the
Catholic religion to the uttermost was the great stumbling-
block to a good understanding, and it alienated those
Tory and Protestant supporters who originally aided in
his accession in the belief that he would not assume an
aggressive attitude. Having staved off the evil day for
himself by one prorogation, he was obliged to continue
upon the same lines, and Parliament was prorogued no
fewer than six times. It was at length ordered to
assemble on November 22nd, 1687, but before that day
arrived it was dissolved by proclamation.
Meanwhile James began to govern without the aid
of Parliament, as his father had done, and with like
disastrous results, his tyrannical action precipitating the
Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT.
13
Revolution. He took for his counsellors men like
CHAP. I.
Tyrconnell and Castlemaine, and Father Petre, the Jº's
Jesuit. By the exercise of the dispensing power, he
placed Roman Catholics in office in defiance of the law ;
and he further endeavoured to strengthen the Catholic
position by the formation of a High Commission Court,
with Jeffreys as President. On April 4th, 1687, James
issued his first Declaration of Indulgence, a distinctly
illegal act ; but he hoped by this document, which swept
away all the penal laws and tests, to unite the Catholics
and the Puritans against the Anglican Church. Some
Nonconformists, including the distinguished Quaker
William Penn, accepted the Indulgence joyfully, but
Baxter, Bunyan, Howe, and their sympathisers looked
askance at it. Hopes were indulged of a Nonconformist
Parliament, and preparations were made for securing it ;
but all possibility of a reconciliation was soon at an end.
Tyranny proceeded apace both in Church and State, and
Protestant feeling was exasperated by the introduction
of a Jesuit to the Council board, by an imposing re-
ception given to the Pope's Nuncio, and by the sending
of an ambassador to Rome. Attacks were next made
upon the Universities, Romanism being forced upon
Oxford and Cambridge through the action of the High
Commission Court.
On April 27th, 1688, the King published a second
Declaration of Indulgence ; but as it remained com-
paratively neglected, it was supplemented on May 4th
by an order in Council which directed all ministers to
read the Declaration from their pulpits on certain specified
Sundays. The days fixed for London were May 20th
and 27th, but the London clergy almost unanimously
pledged themselves not to read the Declaration.
At an assembly held at Lambeth Palace on May 18th,
a petition was written out by Sancroft, Archbishop of
Canterbury, whose tenor was that the sovereign had no
right to dispense with the laws in matters affecting the
Church. The petition was signed by Sancroft and six
bishops : Ken of Bath and Wells, Lake of Chichester,
ment.
FIis second
Declara-
tion.
Trial of
the Seven
JBishops.
14
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. I.
James II's
Parlia-
Imient.
Invitation
to the
Prince of
Orange.
The King
temporises.
Turner of Ely, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Trelawney of Bristol,
and White of Peterborough. The bishops went to present
it to the King, who was furious when he read it, and
dismissed the prelates from his presence. It is remark-
able that the bishops were strong Tories and High
Churchmen. The petition was surreptitiously printed
and sold by thousands, and the bishops were arrested
and sent to the Tower on a charge of libel. During
their incarceration a son was born to James, but the
populace discredited the birth of an heir to the crown.
The trial of the Seven Bishops in the Court of King's
Bench (June 29th-30th) threw the country into a ferment.
Great pressure was put upon the jury by the Govern-
ment, so that the King and the Court party suffered a
rude shock when a verdict of Not Guilty was announced,
while the people hailed the decision with enthusiasm.
The monarch and the nation were now hopelessly
estranged from each other, and all eyes were turned
towards the Prince of Orange. This Protestant prince was
closely allied to England by his marriage with the King's
daughter Mary. On the same day upon which the
bishops were acquitted (June 30th), an invitation, signed
by seven leading Englishmen, was despatched to William
at the Hague. The signatories were Henry, brother of
Algernon Sidney; Edward, cousin of Lord William Russell;
Shrewsbury and Lumley, two newly converted but ardent
Protestant peers; Compton, Bishop of London, one of
the prime movers in the invitation; Devonshire, a trusted
and celebrated Whig ; and Danby, one of the founders of
the Tory party and of the union between Charles II.'s
government and the aristocracy and Episcopalianism.
All ranks and classes of English Protestantism were thus
represented in this historical document. -
From the close of June until the beginning of October
James and his Government pursued an irresolute policy.
The King yielded on many points, and writs were even
issued for a new Parliament, but these were withdrawn.
In a final interview with his Majesty on October 3rd,
the bishops formulated their most pressing demands,
THE SEVEN BISHOPS TAKEN TO THE TOWER. º

Ix.] JAMES II.'s PARLIAMENT. 15
which included the issue of new writs for a free and CHAP: I.
regular Parliament, the abolition of the Ecclesiastical º's
Commission, the immediate filling up of the vacant ment.
episcopal sees, the removal of vicars apostolic and of T
|Roman Catholic schoolmasters, and the restoration of the
Protestant fellows at Magdalen College, Oxford. The
King proceeded at once to abolish the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission and to restore to the city of London its confiscated
charters. A commission was issued to organise Magdalen
College in accordance with its original Protestant statutes.
But James was afraid to call a Parliament which was
sure to be Episcopalian, and which might favour the
designs of the Prince of Orange.
While the King's neglect to summon Parliament #º
rendered the situation critical, William of Orange was jºiniºn
pushing forward his preparations, and on October 10th ºf 9”.
he issued a declaration, setting forth the wrongs and
misgovernment from which the people of England were
suffering, and demanding a Parliament for the settlement
of the religious difficulties and the removal of grievances.
The Prince declared his intention of establishing the
Protestant religion and freedom so securely that there
should never again be any ground for fearing a restora-
tion of arbitrary government. As James made certain
concessions in order to render William’s declaration in-
effectual, the latter issued a postscript, or second declara-
tion, in which he denied the value of concessions that left
untouched the claim to despotic power, and he held that
there could be no redress or remedy except that offered
by a free assembly of the nation in a lawful Parliament.
William landed with his forces at Torbay on November flºw
5th, and although the nation he had come to deliver was Prince.
at first apathetic, the most influential men in England
eventually joined his banner. There was little fighting,
but various attempts at diplomacy ; and it was not until
December 18th that William arrived at St. James’s
Palace. On that day, after a previous abortive flight,
James went down in a barge to Rochester, and from
thence escaped to France.
16
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
With this constructive abdication theinfatuated monarch
wº practically passed out of English history, though he made
ment.
James's
flight.
His cha-
2'acter,
Mis-
govern-
7ment,
subsequent efforts to recover his throne. Never was a
revolution more completely justified or more peacefully
accomplished than that which drove James II. from his
throne.
A sovereign more utterly out of harmony with Erglish
aspirations and sympathies than the second James could
not possibly be conceived. As the arbitrary ruler of some
European state which was the slave of the Vatican he
would have been in his natural place; but as the head
of a people devoted to the Protestant religion, and bent
upon the preservation of the liberties won by the blood
of their fathers, he was an anomaly to the last degree.
His inveterate misgovernment rendered the Revolution
necessary; and while the deposing of kings is not a
matter to be lightly undertaken, it cannot be denied that
in his case the step was unavoidable, or that the vast
majority of the nation were completely alienated from
their sovereign head. The fall of this monarch led to
the confirmation and extension of the national liberties,
and also to such a settlement of the popular bulwarks
against tyranny that they can nevermore be uprooted or
overthrown.
Ix.] THE CONVENTION.
17
CHAPTER II.
THE CONVENTION.
AFTER the first flight of James, about thirty of the
Lords spiritual and temporal then in London met at
the Guildhall (December 11th), and drew up a declaration
to the effect that they would use their utmost endeavours,
in conjunction with William of Orange, to obtain a free
Parliament with all speed. This assembly was to secure
the laws, liberties, and properties of the people, and in par-
ticular to preserve the interests of the Church of England
with a due liberty to Protestant Dissenters. This was
the last public document signed by Archbishop Sancroft.
No power was given to the Prince, and the chief initial
object of the Lords seems to have been to restore the
violated Constitution.
But an address from the city of London followed,
imploring William to repair to London ; and some such
step was necessary, for a disorderly night which ensued
in the metropolis showed what dangers threatened the
public safety. On December 21st the Lords, to the
number of above sixty, appeared at St. James’s, and
assisted the Prince in a great council. It was proposed
that the whole assembly should sign the Association
formerly subscribed by the nobility and gentry at Exeter,
and all agreed except the Duke of Somerset, the Earls
VOL. II. ' 2
Declara-
tion of the
Lords.
Signing
the Asso-
ciation.
18 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, of Pembroke and Nottingham, Lord Wharton, and the
ºf bishops. The prelates were better satisfied when the
** word “punishment” was substituted for that of “revenge,”
the original word in the Association.
William On the 23rd the peers, to the number of about ninety,
ſº met at Westminster, and desired the Prince to take upon
Øment. himself the administration of public affairs until the
meeting of the proposed Convention on January 22nd.
They also requested him to issue writs for the elections.
William was in some difficulty respecting the Commons;
but passing over the Parliament of James II., he requested
all such persons as had seats in the Parliaments of
Charles II. to meet him at St. James's on the 26th; and
he also invited the Lord Mayor and aldermen, with fifty
of the Common Council. On the day appointed some
hundred and sixty former members of Parliament, with
the other persons specified (except the Lord Mayor, who
was ill), assembled at St. James’s, and, after being ad-
dressed by William, repaired to Westminster, where they
formed themselves into a House, with Henry Powle, the
Speaker in the “Exclusion Parliament” of 1681, as
chairman. A committee, which included the names of
Maynard, Hampden, and Capel, was appointed to draw
up an address. There was some discussion as to the
proper legal course to take, though all were agreed that
the Prince’s declaration must be substantially carried
out. Some objected to sign the form of association laid
upon the table, on the ground that the act might be
construed as conspiracy; and it was finally agreed that
every one should be at liberty to sign it or not. All
present then agreed with the Lords in requesting the
Prince of Orange to take upon himself the administra-
tion of public affairs, both civil and military, and the
disposal of the public revenues. They also besought
him to take into particular consideration the condition
of Ireland, and to prevent by speedy and effectual means
the dangers threatening that kingdom. Finally, they
desired him to issue the letters required for the election
of a Convention.
Ix.] THE CONVENTION.
19
The Prince accepted on December 18th the trust offered
him, and made special reference to the disorders in
Ireland, which more than ever rendered a settled govern-
ment necessary. Considering the difficulties in which
English statesmen were placed, this step of entrusting
the actual government to William, while as yet destitute
of Parliamentary and legal sanction, was undoubtedly
the wisest, as it was the only safe course to adopt. It
was better to call a Convention and proceed by regular
and legitimate steps, than to make William immediately
king.
Upon the appointed day, January 22nd, 1689, according
to the old style, the Grand Convention met at West-
minster, under circumstances of lively expectation both for
England and Europe. The members separated into two
Houses, and proceeded to their choice of Speakers. The
Marquis of Halifax was chosen by the Lords, and
Mr. Powle by the Commons.
The Prince of Orange did not open the sittings, not
having as yet any constitutional status, but he sent a
letter to this free assembly of the nation, pointing out
the necessity for securing at once a happy and lasting
settlement, alike in the interests of England as in those
of the Protestants of Europe. After some discussion, an
address of both Houses was agreed upon describing the
Prince, under God, as the glorious instrument for freeing
the kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power, and
thanking him for the great care he had taken in ad-
ministering the affairs of the kingdom. They begged
him to continue his administration until further applica-
tion should be made to him by the Convention, which his
Highness agreed to do.
Then began the debates on the state of the nation. On
January 28th, upon the suggestion of Sir Edward Sey-
mour, the Speaker left the chair, and the House went
into a grand committee of the whole House, in order to
secure a full, free, and uninterrupted discussion. Mr.
Gilbert Dolben, an able lawyer, and son to the late
Archbishop of York, opened the discussion by a remark-
CHAP. II.
The Con-
Vention.
Płis ac-
ceptance.
Meeting of
the Grand
Conven-
tion.
Address to
the Prince,
Position,
of the
Crown.
20
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
The gon-
Vention.
James's
self-depo-
Sition.
able speech, in which he gave it as his opinion that the
crown was demised, and that James II. was no longer
Ring of England. He laid it down as an undoubted
proposition that “when the King does withdraw himself
from the administration of the government, without any
provision to support the commonwealth, when, on the
contrary, he stops the use of the Great Seal by taking
it away with him, this amounts to what the law calls
demise—id est, a cession.” The meaning of the word
“demise,” he urged, was demissio, laying down, whether
actually relinquishing the government, or passively by
death, in either of which cases it was a demise. By
withdrawing his person, the King made a parenthesis
in the government ; and by withdrawing the seal the
Chancery ceased, and no justice could be obtained.
Mr. Dolben then argued from James’s letter to Lord
Feversham, in which he stated his intention of following
the Queen to France, that the King's withdrawal had
been voluntary ; and he appealed to Littleton (temp.
Edward IV.), “the oracle of the law,” to prove that
this withdrawal was equivalent to a surrender of the
crown. He therefore recommended the Convention to
declare that James II. had voluntarily demised the
CTOWI).
Such a view was very debatable, and it was open to
the objection that it circumscribed the right of Parliament
merely to a recognition of the new prince while it was
not known who that new prince might be. This did not
satisfy Sir Richard Temple (nephew of Sir William, the
diplomatist), who declared that the King had endeavoured
to destroy the government of the nation in Parliament,
and to overthrow the Constitution. He was no better
than a tyrant, and had practically forfeited his right to
the crown. Serjeant Maynard observed that the question
was, not whether they could depose the King, but whether
he had not deposed himself. Sir George Treby brought
common-sense into the discussion when he said, “We
found the throne vacant, and are to supply that defect ;
we found it so : we did not make it so.” -
Ix. THE CONVENTION.
21
Somers, the eminent lawyer, afterwards the great
Lord Somers, spoke during the debate." He was of
opinion that the King’s going to a foreign sovereign and
casting himself into his hands absolved the people from
their allegiance. Finch, another celebrated lawyer, who
had been removed from the Solicitor-generalship in 1686,
said that, while King James's acts were in no way justi-
fiable, yet difficulties would arise if they declared that he
had made a total renunciation of the kingdom. They
could not transform the hereditary monarchy into an
elective realm, and no one could dare to say that a bad
administration involved a forfeiture of the crown itself.
Sir Robert Howard, on the other hand, a champion of
the popular liberties, openly asserted the vacancy of the
throne and the breach of the original contract by a
continued series of illegal acts throughout the whole of
James’s reign.
From the constitutional point of view the situation
was a perplexing one. Theoretically the kingship could
not cease; yet practically there was no king. The main
difficulty was to reconcile the views of those who held
the Divine right with the views of those who placed the
supreme power in the people. In order to reconcile the
various conflicting ideas, the Convention passed a resolu-
tion declaring the throne vacant in these words: “That
King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the
constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original
contract between King and people, and, by the advice of
* This distinguished man was born at Worcester in 1652. He
was educated at Trinity College, Oxford, and was called to the bar
of the Middle Temple. He became an able and eloquent pleader,
and in 1683 was one of the counsel for Pilkington, Lord Grey, and
others who had caused a riot in London, and in 1688 for the
Seven Bishops. He was returned to the Convention Parliament for
Worcester. Historians and his contemporaries generally, represent
him as a most incorrupt lawyer, as a perfectly honest statesman,
a master of oratory, a genius of the finest taste, and a patriot of the
noblest and most extensive views—“a man who dispensed blessings
by his life and planned them for posterity.”
CHAP. Ll,
The con-
Vention.
Warious
wie?vs
thereon.
The Thºrome
declared
ºva.0&nt.
22
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
The con-
Vention.
Sugges-
tions for a
settlement.
Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the
fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of
the kingdom, has abdicted the government, and that
the throne is thereby become vacant.” The former part
of this resolution satisfied the Whigs, who justified their
revolt on the ground of the King’s misconduct ; and the
latter part eased the consciences of the Tories by assert-
ing that James’s withdrawal involved his abdication
also.
A further debate ensued on the 29th, and a resolution
was carried “That it hath been found by experience
to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this
Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince.”
The throne being now vacant, there was but one way
to fill it. Wharton the younger said from his place,
“Consider of it a thousand years, and you cannot cast
- your eyes upon persons so well fitted to fill it as the
The
zational
Teligion
and
liberties.
Prince and Princess of Orange.” Lord Falkland and
others urged, they had suffered so much in the past that
the Prince could not take it ill if they secured themselves
in future against arbitrary government. As in the pre-
vious debate, Sir Richard Temple again pointed the way
to a safe settlement. He called upon the members to
secure their liberties, and indicated under three heads
what he considered to be essentially necessary : (1) Par-
liament must not be encroached upon by the King or his
Ministers, while the military power must depend on the
votes of Parliament; (2) Westminster Hall must be
filled with judges who were not slaves to the King's
prerogative ; (3) the coronation oath must be taken
upon entrance to the government, for “as we are sworn
to our kings, so must they be sworn to protect us.”
Under such securities they could pursue the ends of the
Prince's declaration.
It was resolved “That before the committee proceed
to fill the throne, now vacant, they will proceed to secure
our religion, laws, and liberties.” Serjeant Maynard
agreed with this vote, but warned the committee against
endeavouring to do too much. Some even spoke of a
Ix.] THE CONVENTION.
23
new Magna Carta. Mr. Hampden, grandson of the
patriot, thought time pressed, and to rise without doing
more than merely fill the throne was not for the safety
of the people. The Convention gradually widened its
operations, and one of its first acts was to pass a vote
of thanks to the clergy and to the army and navy.
While the Commons were thus deliberating, the Lords,
forming themselves into a grand committee, with Danby
as chairman, debated the question of the vacancy in the
Crown, without first formally declaring, with the Lower
House, that the throne was vacated. The discussion was
noticeable for the skill and learning displayed, as well as
for its warmth. The Earl of Nottingham advocated a
regency with the regal power, leaving the title and
dignity with King James. The peers would have followed
the Earl but for the strenuous opposition of Halifax and
Danby, who, with much power of argument, exposed the
inextricable difficulties of such a course. On the vote
being taken, 51 were for a king, and 49 only for a regent.
The minority comprised many able men, however, and
of the bishops only two, London and Bristol, were in
favour of filling up the throne. The prelates were
anxious to reconcile the claims of legitimate right with
the exigencies of the moment, and therefore favoured
the regency of the Prince of Orange, leaving the nominal
possession of the crown with James.
The party for a king was soon strengthened by the
accession of four dukes : Ormonde, Southampton, Grafton,
and Northumberland ; and on January 30th the House
came to a decision, by 53 votes to 46, that all power
originally belonged to the community, and to the King
only by mutual compact. The next question, “whether
James had broken the original compact,” was soon
carried in the affirmative. Their lordships then voted
the word “deserted '' instead of “abdicated,” and on
the question of the vacancy of the throne coming up,
a very heated debate took place. It was affirmed by a
majority of eleven voices that, as the king never dies,
the throne could never be vacated. Inferring from this
CHAP. II.
The Gon-
vention,
The Lords
and the
Cromwm.
Was the
throme ºf
vacant f
24
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II,
The gon-
Vention.
Attitude
of William
and his
wife.
The Lords
agree with
the Com-
772.072S.
Position of
parties.
that the crown devolved upon the next heir, certain
peers moved that the Prince and Princess of Orange
should be declared king and queen, but this was lost by
five votes. Before the House rose, forty peers, including
Halifax, Danby, Winchester, and Devonshire, entered
their protest against the vote declaring that the throne
was not vacant.
The Tories hoped to be able to transfer the crown
to the Princess of Orange, as the nearest Protestant
heiress; but when Lord Danby assured her that if she
desired it she could be elevated to the throne alone, the
Princess made him a very sharp answer to the effect that
she was the Prince's wife, and that she would never be
other than what she should be in conjunction with him
and under him. William also, while he shut himself up
at St. James’s and would scarcely allow himself to be
seen, let it be clearly understood that he would not be
second to his wife in the government. “Much as he
loved her, he could not be inferior to her.” It was
certainly necessary to have a strong sovereign, duly
invested with the supreme power, upon the throne, for if
James were to have another son of unquestioned legiti-
macy, and the Princess Mary were to die, what would
be the status of the Prince of Orange P Under such
circumstances grave difficulties must arise, culminating
possibly in another revolution.
Meanwhile the Lords and Commons held a conference
(February 6th) touching the word “abdicated.” There
was a great display of learning and eloquence on both
sides; but, according to the sense of the whole nation, the
Commons had clearly the advantage. The upshot of this
great critical dispute was that the Lords finally agreed
with the vote of the Commons that James had abdicated
the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant.
There were three parties: first, those who were for
William alone as king—but these were not numerous—
secondly, those who were for the Princess of Orange
alone, with delegated powers to her husband; and thirdly,
those who were for a joint government by William and
// /.
%%%%%%%ź
%%%%%%%%;12¿?
//%ſaeŕ
//Z~%A7;）:+%%%%ſ%ſ',źſ?#fffff;ſ)
ģ%
! /////Á，2%ſººſ 4（†???)%%
©®°¶
gºj
∞
%ſ%
///////§ ' |
//
Fº
%E1ſ%2%
aº
º
º
***.…
S.
|
|
№N
~ & №
~
**）
zºº
º
:
º º
Zºº:
º:2:3:
（№№ : （ "）
ſae№ssºs，
§ìÑ<<№š
§¶√¶' . . .
§§
§§§***
ºſ º§*，
：ſaeaº
2，22
- …*…*…*
· * * ?.
22： ***~
2. Lae， .·\
22:22，
-. . . . \\
ſ º~::: - . . . . .\\~ -….…. ：-：！
ſaeLºgºff}}\\§ \\}\\}\\$D •
£22ſºģºſ№， ºs
ſae; ſae：
£; £
|（27,3%，，，，，，
%3，8，
ae،
∞∞º
28%（2×。、、、、、、、、)
∞ √∞∞∞∞ - zºººººº ：№， z, ，-
<！--zaeº, ， ， Ōāſ--→--—
5: №ſſae，&&&&&&&&&&&&##? --★ →-
()

































Ix.] THE CONVENTION. 25
Mary, with the former as actual ruler. On February 6th CHAP. II.
there was a decisive debate in the House of Lords. Tº
Halifax, who, as a former upholder of hereditary right, –
might have been expected to decide for Mary, demanded
the crown for William alone, declaring strongly against
a divided authority ; Clarendon and his brother defended
the rights of the Princess Mary ; and, as a compromise
between these proposals, it was suggested to confer the
crown upon the Prince and Princess together. Danby
approved of this plan, which is also said to have been
supported by Shrewsbury, Sidney, and all the moderate
Church of England men. Without a division, the Lords
passed a resolution that the Prince and Princess of
Orange should thenceforth be King and Queen of England
and all the dominions thereunto belonging."
The Commons at this juncture, mindful of their duty The pe.
to the people, were engaged in formulating a scheme for *#.
securing the laws, religion, and liberties of England. A
commission had been appointed, embracing men of all
parties, to draw up the articles. It was presided over
by Somers, and included Hampden, Wharton, Temple,
Clarges, Seymour, and the lawyers Sawyer, Finch, and
Pollexfen. The result was the Declaration of Rights,
which drew its title from the Prince's declaration, and
was the natural corollary of the Revolution settlement.
This important historical document consisted of three
parts: a recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts of the
late King and of the vote of abdication; a declaration
condemnatory of those acts ; and a resolution that the
throne should be filled by the Prince and Princess of
Orange, according to certain limitations. The Lords and
Hallam says there was a division on this proposition, that it
was carried by 62 to 47, and that forty peers protested, including
twelve bishops. Hallam is wrong, however, in this matter, and
Ranke is right when he states that there was no division. I find
by the Lords' journals that the protest spoken of by Hallam was
the one against the vote declaring that the throne had not been
vacated. The question for declaring the Prince and Princess of
Orange king and queen was carried without a division or a protest.
26
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [Book
CHAP. II.
The con-
Vention.
Commons asserted in their declaration “That the pre-
tended power of suspending laws and the execution of
laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament
is illegal ; that the pretended power of dispensing with
laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and
exercised of late, is illegal ; that the commission for
creating the late Court of Commissioners for ecclesiastical
causes and all other commissions and courts of a like
William
and Mary
declared
joint sove-
weigns.
nature are illegal and pernicious; that levying of money
for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative,
without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in any
other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is
illegal ; that it is the right of the subjects to petition the
King, and that all commitments or prosecutions for such
petitions are illegal; that the raising or keeping a standing
army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be
with consent of Parliament, is illegal ; that the subjects
who are Protestants may have arms for their defence
suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law ; that
elections of members of Parliament ought to be free ;
that the freedom of speech or debates or proceedings in
Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place out of Parliament ; that excessive bail
ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
cruel and unusual punishment inflicted ; that juries ought
to be duly empannelled and returned, and that jurors
who pass judgment upon men in trials for high treason
ought to be freeholders; that all grants and promises of
fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction
are illegal and void; and that for redress of all grievances,
and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of
the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.”
The Declaration closed with the resolution passed by
both Houses of Parliament on February 13th : “That
William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be,
and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold
the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions
to them, the said Prince and Princess, during their lives
Ix. THE CONVENTION. 27
and the life of the survivor of them ; and that the sole CHAP. II.
and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and º:
executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of -
the said Prince and Princess during their joint lives; and
after their decease the said crown and royal dignity of
the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the
body of the said Princess, in default of such issue to
the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body,
and in default of such issue to the heirs of the body of
the said Prince of Orange.” The Convention had thus
completely changed the course of the English monarchy.
It not only deposed James and abolished the reversion of
his posterity, but affirmed that the kingship of England
lay in abeyance from December 23rd, 1688, to February
13th, 1689. William and Mary were named joint rulers,
but William was the real sovereign, a point conclusively
demonstrated in 1690, when a distinct act of Parlia-
ment was required to enable Mary to exercise the regal
power during the King’s absence from England. In
failure of royal issue in the lines specified, the devolution
of the crown was to be regulated by future Parliaments.
As for the character of the Revolution of 1689, generally
speaking, it was the revolution of the people, and not of
the classes, for the national sentiment went with the vote
of the representatives.
The Declaration was confirmed by a regular act of the The Bill
Legislature known as the Bill of Rights. This measure * *
embraced many parts or sections. The first section
recited the Declaration of Rights, with the resolutions
already given, and the second declared, as we have also
seen, that William and Mary should become king and
queen. The third section contained the new oaths of
allegiance and supremacy. The fourth recorded the ac-
ceptance of the crown by the Prince and Princess, the
fifth the pleasure of the new sovereigns that the Lords
and Commons should continue to sit and make provision
for the settlement of the religion, laws, and liberties of
the country. In the sixth, Parliament declared the
matters set forth in the preceding sections to be the
28
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. II.
The con-
Vention.
indubitable rights of the English people, while the seventh
acknowledged the sovereignty of William and Mary, and
the eighth fixed the succession. The ninth section con-
tained a new and important declaration: that, “as it has
been found by experience inconsistent with the safety and
welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a
Popish prince or by any king or queen marrying a Papist,
it is enacted that all persons who shall hold communion
with the Church of Rome, or shall marry a Papist, shall
be excluded from the throne, and the crown shall descend
to the next heir.” The tenth section provided therefore
that every king or queen on the first day of their first
Parliament should subscribe and audibly repeat the
declaration mentioned in the statute 30 Charles II.-that
is, the Test Act—which declaration is one against tran-
substantiation, adoration of the Virgin, and the sacrifice
Settlement
of the
Crom:70.
of the mass. Finally, the closing section dealt with the
dispensing power, and declared that no dispensation by
non obstante of or to any statute should be allowed,
except such dispensation be allowed in the statute or
should be specially provided for by one or more bills to
be passed during the current session of Parliament. The
article in the Declaration of Rights against the dispensing
power had already been modified by the House of Lords
by the insertion of the words “as it hath been exercised
of late,” and the last section in the bill was now added
to provide for cases where it might be desirable that the
dispensing power should be used. In the next Parlia-
ment the judges were ordered by the Lords to draw up
a bill for the King's dispensing in such cases wherein
they should find it necessary, and for abrogating such laws
as had been usually dispensed with and become useless,
but nothing further was done in the matter.
The crown of England was not only vested in the
Prince and Princess of Orange jointly, but it was also
conferred by anticipation on that one of the pair who
should outlive the other. It was specially necessary, in
case Mary died first, that William should be secured in
possession of the throne, and provision was even made
Ix.] THE CONVENTION.
29
for the succession of his children by any subsequent
marriage; but they were only to inherit after the children
of the Princess Anne. The Commons further affirmed
the continuance in full of the Plantagenet title “King of
France and Ireland.” Troubles were already anticipated
in Ireland, and the assertion of the authority of Parlia-
ment over that island was considered essential.
The formal transfer of the crown to William and
Mary was made on February 13th, 1689, this important
ceremony taking place in the Banqueting House, White-
hall, where the Lords and Commons of the Convention
had assembled. The Prince and Princess stood upon the
step under the canopy of state ; and the Speakers of both
Houses and all parties having taken their places, the
clerk of the House of Lords read the Acts of Settlement
and the Declaration, in which the tender of the crown was
made. The reference to the constitutional concessions
ran as follows: “We do claim and insist upon the
premises as our undoubted rights and liberties. En-
couraged by the Declaration of his Highness the Prince,
we have confidence that he will perfect the deliverance
which he has begun, and will preserve our rights against all
further injury.” The crown was accepted under the limita-
tions expressed and the rights reserved. In his answer
William declared his willingness to concur in anything
that would be for the good of the kingdom. In his wife’s
name and his own he promised to protect the rights,
privileges, and religion of the country, and to summon
Parliament frequently, and to attach even more importance
to its counsels than to his own opinion, while maintaining
at the same time the lustre of the Crown. Proclamation
of the new King and Queen was then made, with all the old
formalities, first at Whitehall Gate, then at Temple Bar,
and afterwards in Cheapside and at the Royal Exchange.
William and Mary began their reign with a mixed
Ministry. Danby was appointed Lord President of the
Council : Halifax became Privy Seal, retaining also the
Speakership ; and Shrewsbury and Nottingham became
Secretaries of State. The business of the Treasury and
CHAP. Il.
The con-
ntion.
Its accept-
ance by
JPilliam
and Mary.
The JMin-
istry.
30
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
‘CHAP. II.
The Con-
Vention.
The Con-
4,677tion.
becomes a
Parlia-
//vent.
Corona-
tion of the
Ring and
Queen.
Admiralty departments was executed by boards, and the
King himself directed the foreign policy of England.
On February 20th the Convention declared itself a
Parliament. Powerful arguments were adduced both for
and against this step. The last elections had not been
held for the purpose of electing a legally constituted
Parliament, but it was urged that the work of the
Revolution might be jeopardised if the Convention now
dissolved itself and the country were appealed to ; the
members therefore considered themselves justified in
declaring themselves to be a Parliament and de facto
representatives of the people at this crisis.
The coronation of William and Mary was performed
on April 11th in Westminster Abbey. The new rulers
swore to govern according to the statutes passed by
Parliament, and to maintain the religion established by
law. Meanwhile the Revolution was being perfected in
Scotland. A Convention was summoned in which the
Presbyterian and Whig elements were greatly pre-
ponderant over those of the Episcopalians and Tories.
The Convention quickly declared the deposition of James,
and passed a Claim of Rights which was even more
pronounced than the English declaration. It affirmed
very clearly, amongst other things, the necessity for
summoning frequent Parliaments, and it demanded the
deposition of an ecclesiastical power which stood above
the presbyter, and was alien to the historical development
of the Church of Scotland. At Whitehall on May 11th,
1689, a Scottish deputation offered the crown to William
and Mary. To only one of the required obligations did
the King object: the article which pledged him to extirpate
heretics and enemies of God’s truth. William said he
would work for Protestantism by legal and evangelical
means, but he would never be a persecutor; and on the
understanding that this only was required of him he
swore to observe all the articles. There was a rising of
the Highlanders in favour of James, but their leader,
Dundee, was killed at Killiecrankie, and Mackay, the
general of the Convention, brought the war to a successful
Ix.] THE CONVENTION. 31
conclusion at St. Johnstone's and Dunkeld. James himself CHAP. II.
made an effort in Ireland. The siege of Londonderry º
was undertaken, but the city was relieved by Kirke, and -
the battle of Newtown Butler gave the advantage to
William. -
James, however, found encouragement in the condition William's
of the English Parliament, which was now very much ſºul.
divided in its counsels. The King was also embarrassed
in his Ministry. The chief Treasury offices were held by
Mordaunt and Delamere, who knew nothing of finance,
and the actual management lay with Godolphin, the
brilliant Tory statesman. Of the two secretaries of
State, one, Shrewsbury (the chief favourite of William),
was a Whig, and the other, Nottingham, a Tory.
A serious difficulty arose in relation to the clergy. By The King
a large majority the House of Commons required that º
the oath of allegiance to William and Mary should be
taken by every one, including the clergy. A time was
fixed by which the Oath must be taken ; suspension was
to follow refusal, and deprivation to succeed that, if the
refusal were continued for a further six months. As a
section of the clergy held out, the Lords proposed to
leave it to the King to settle when the oath should be
taken by each person; but the Commons opposed this.
They held that, as Parliament had ordained the earlier
oaths taken to King James, it had power to abolish them
now. The State was the supreme authority in the
alteration of oaths. The bishops maintained that Parlia-
ment had no right whatever to prescribe an oath to the
clergy. Ultimately the oath was exacted, but the clergy
had six months’ more time allowed them in which to take
it than the laity. A number of bishops were deprived
of their sees, but they were succeeded by others incom-
parably superior ; and while there were excellent men
among the non-juring clergy generally, the well-affected
part of the Church contained by far its most useful and
able members. Of course the expulsion brought a certain
amount of hostile influence to swell the other difficulties
which beset the Government.
32
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
The con-
vention.
Compre-
hension
scheme.
Ministe-
orial dis-
Sensions.
Whigs and
To?"ies.
A Comprehension scheme was next brought forward
for placing the Presbyterians on an equality with the
members of the State Church. William advocated this,
but the Church refused any concession except the re-
vocation of the penal laws against Protestants; it would
not tolerate equality on the part of any other religious
body. -
The King was also thwarted in other directions, and
his composite Ministry soon became a source of trouble.
The Whigs grew jealous of the Tories, and the Commons
were so prejudiced against Halifax that he was compelled
to retire from power. His policy had been one of con-
venience, and “his fall is a warning to English statesmen
that they will be deemed responsible to their country for
measures which they countenance by remaining in office,
though they may resist them in council.”" There had
been scandalous mismanagement of affairs in Ireland,
and Military Commissary Shales, whose appointment the
Commons suspected was due to Ministerial influence and
corruption, was dismissed.
The breach between the Whigs and Tories became
wider. Although both had co-operated in the Revolution,
their principles now drove them asunder. When a bill
of indemnity was brought forward, the Whigs endeavoured
to use it as a means of vengeance, following unfortunately
but too many precedents. It was sought to bring to
account all those who were concerned in the proceedings
of James II. which were declared to be illegal by the
Declaration of Rights. The executions of Russell and
Sidney were declared to be judicial murders; and
reprisals were discussed of a kind suggested by the pro-
ceedings of the Restoration Parliament. It was further
proposed that all who had taken part in the surrender of
the charters of towns should be declared incapable of
holding any office in the corporations, and this legislation
would have struck severely at the Tories, the existing
holders of those offices. The Indemnity Bill, however,
I Hallam's Constitutional History of England.
Ix.] THE CONVENTION.
33
was not carried through. As the Whigs failed to eject
the Tories from the corporation offices, which bore with
them great influence, the former suffered severely at the
ensuing elections.
While the Whigs in some matters acted from jealousy
and vindictiveness, “they amply redeemed their glory by
what cost them the new King’s favour: their wise and
admirable settlement of the revenue.” William had been
anxious in the outset “to combine all Protestant parties
in the service of the State, and them to procure for himself
a permanent revenue independent of an annual grant.” "
By this means he would have held a strong position as
a monarch, and yet one in accordance with law. He
considered that he was fairly entitled to the revenue of
James II., and the lawyers who supported the King’s
view held that the revenue was annexed to the Crown,
and followed the arrangement of public affairs. But
the Whigs argued that if Parliament had power to
dispose of the crown, it had also power to dispose of
the revenue. Both matters lay with the people, and
through them were vested in the Commons. The Con-
vention Parliament recognised in former large grants a
fruitful source of royal encroachments, and it was un-
willing to risk future dissensions with the sovereign on
the same grounds. Sir William Pulteney said, “It is
our security to have the revenue in our disposition,” and
this was certainly an effectual means of preventing a
monarch from acting independently of Parliament. While
the Commons therefore did not object to a grant of
£1,200,000 per annum, as under Charles II., they were
not inclined to secure this sum to William III. for
life. They even adopted a more stringent policy than
had hitherto prevailed, and voted for one year only, and
no longer, the taxes required to produce the necessary
revenue. The learned Whig lawyer Somers pointed out
that this tantamount reversal of the hereditary right of
the Crown to a definite property was an innovation which
| Ranke's History of England.
WOL. II. 3
CHAP. II,
The Con-
vention.
Settlement
of the
Revenue.
34
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [Book
CHAP. II.
The Con-
vention.
Dissolu-
tion of
Paºlia-
7.67%.
Work of
the Com-
wention.
The War
in Ire-
land.
General
situation.
might have most dangerous consequences; but, much to the
chagrin of the King, the House adhered to its resolution.
The friends of James II., including William Penn,
regarded the new Government as in imminent peril at
this juncture; and William was unquestionably in a
most unenviable position. He could not make friends
with the Tories, and yet the Whigs, upon whom he had
relied, were now curtailing his power and placing the
Parliament in supreme authority. He still gave his
confidence to Halifax and Danby, and upon their advice,
combined with that of Nottingham, he prorogued Parlia-
ment on January 27th, 1690. He dissolved it by pro-
clamation ten days later, and a new one was summoned
to meet on March 20th.
The Convention had done its work in placing the new
King and Queen upon the throne. But not content with
that work, and acting under the influence of trepidation,
it had constituted itself a regular Parliament. Its later
proceedings annoyed and embarrassed the King, and it is
said he was so greatly agitated that at one time he
thought of relinquishing a dignity which he found cumber-
some and distressful. As the Court and Parliament were
riven by contending factions, William decided on sub-
mitting the issues to the nation.
Anticipating for a moment the sittings of the new
Parliament, Irish and European events demand here a
brief mention. In June, 1690, William went over to
Ireland to relieve Marshal Schomberg, and on July 1st
he won the battle of the Boyne, one of the decisive
engagements of the world. He was compelled to raise
the siege of Limerick, however, and return home ; but
in the succeeding year Ginkell, a Dutch commander left
in charge, concluded the Irish war by taking Athlone,
gaining a victory at Aughrim, and besieging Limerick.
The Pacification of Limerick was signed October 3rd,
1691 ; and with this James’s Irish attempt ended, and
his rival was secured upon his throne.
Affairs abroad were for a time unsatisfactory. England
had declared war against France in 1689, and in the
Ix.] THE CONVENTION. 35
following year the combined fleets of England and CHAP. II.
Holland were beaten off Beachy Head. Nevertheless The gon.
the Protestant coalition was greatly strengthened by a vention.
congress at the Hague. The projected invasion of England
was completely thwarted by the great sea-fight off La
Hogue in May, 1692, when the British commanders,
Russell and Rooke, almost destroyed the naval power of
France. At home Marlborough was dismissed from his
offices, upon the discovery of his intrigues with the
Jacobites in France. This led to a rupture between the
Princess Anne and the Queen. Wiscount Preston, head
of the Jacobite conspiracy, was arrested and convicted of
treason; and, lastly, the pacification of the Highlands
was signalised by the infamous massacre of Glencoe—
February 13th, 1692.
From this time forward William's difficulties were ſº
mainly of a Parliamentary and constitutional character. culties.
36
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAPTER III.
PARLIAMENT'S OF WILLIAM III.
William's THE composition of the second Parliament of William III.'
second
Parlia-
Qe7!t.
was such as the Whigs foreboded upon the rejection of
the corporation scheme. The city of London returned
the Tory list, and Burnet states that the elections
generally went for men who would probably have de-
clared for King James if they had known how to secure
his return.” The leading Whigs did not lose heart, how-
ever, but still hoped to regain the confidence of the King.
When the Houses met on March 20th, 1690, the Tories
carried Sir John Trevor as Speaker of the Lower House
by a large majority. Trevor undertook to manage the
Tory party provided he was furnished with sums of money
* As the Prince of Orange summoned the members of the Con-
vention, and as that body transformed itself into a Parliament after
the Prince's acceptance of the throne, it became the first Parlia-
ment of William III., or William and Mary.
* Hallam says this is quite an exaggeration, though he admits
that the Tories were victorious in certain cases. Ranke speaks of
the altered relation of parties in the new Parliament. No doubt,
on the whole, the House of Commons was favourable to the
Revolution and public liberty, but it cannot be denied that the
Tories had greatly strengthened themselves. Party names are a
little confusing, however, at this period, when certain Ministers
and officers of state were Tories, and others Whigs, and when the
Jacobite Tories threw in their lot with the discontented Whigs.
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
37
to purchase votes, and it was under him that the practice
of buying off men began.
In his opening speech William desired the Commons
to make a settlement of the revenue forthwith, with as
much regard for the honour and dignity of the monarchy
in his hands as had been shown to his predecessors. He
also referred to his repeated recommendations of an act
of indemnity to the last Parliament, and said, “I intend
to send you an act of grace, with exceptions of some
few persons only, but such as may be sufficient to show
my great dislike of their crimes and at the same time
my readiness to extend protection to all my other sub-
jects.” The King further recommended Parliament to
nominate commissioners for considering the proposed
union with Scotland.
The House of Commons went into committee for
settling the revenue, with Mr. Hampden, who was now
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the chair. The King's
wishes were carried out, for after debate four important
resolutions were agreed to without a division. The first
affirmed that the hereditary revenues to which the late
Ring was entitled were now vested in William and
Mary, “in right of the crown of England,” except the
revenue arising by fire-hearths and stoves. By the
second the House agreed to bring in a bill for vesting
the said revenues accordingly, so that they should not be
alienated from the Crown, nor chargeable with any gift
or grant to be made in the future. The third provided
for the settling of that moiety of the excise which was
granted to Charles II. and James II. upon their present
Majesties for their lives and the life of the longest liver
of them, with a clause to enable their Majesties to make
the revenue a security for raising money towards a supply.
The fourth resolution pledged the House to bring in a
bill to grant to William and Mary for the term of four
years from the ensuing December the Customs which
were granted to Charles II. and James II. The limita-
tion of the Customs to four years was not only a basis
for the credit which the King desired to open, but it
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
The King's
speech.
The
Jºevenue.
38
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
#!" prevented him from being permanently independent of
ments of Parliament.
William
III
Act of
Grace.
Abjura-
tion,
Scheme.
These concessions were followed by the publication of
the King’s comprehensive Act of Grace. Issued on
May 20th, it was received with peculiar marks of respect
and satisfaction, and was only read once respectively
in the Lords and the Commons. With the few excep-
tions of those who had made themselves notorious as the
ready instruments of James II., and who had already
fled from the popular vengeance, the act pardoned all
those guilty of political offences before the day on which
the royal signature was affixed to the indemnifying
document. The act was very distasteful to the violent
Whigs, who alleged that it completely refuted William's
declaration ; but, as Macaulay has remarked, it is “one
of his noblest and purest titles to renown.” It was a
humane departure from the old practice of vindictive
reprisals.
The Whigs now sought to press forward an Abjuration
Bill, founded on the principle that those who would not
make renunciation of King James's title ought not to
have the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act or be capable
of holding any office. Sir Thomas Clarges thought the
bill would bring in a commonwealth, but Mr. Comptroller
Wharton pointed out its necessity because the nation
was at actual war with one who had been king, and
whom some still hoped might be again. But the general
feeling was that criminal attempts against the King's
person would not be hindered by the proposed oath,
while many conscientious men might be driven by it
into antagonism to William. The bill was also of the
objectionable nature of an inquisition into men's political
sentiments. The measure was rejected by 192 to 165
votes. In the Lords the bill was brought forward in a
modified form, but ultimately dropped. The Earl of
Shrewsbury was the most ardent defender of the abjura-
tion scheme; and seeing that the Whigs were driving
King William into the hands of the Tories, and being
also jealous of Danby's influence, he delivered up his
1x.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
39
seals as Secretary of State, and could not be prevailed
upon to resume office.
Another important question which came up was the
validity of the laws passed by the Convention Parliament.
A Recognition Bill was brought in, and the Whigs sought
to secure a declaration that the acts in question “were,
and are, good laws,” while the Tories were only in favour
of confirming them by stating “that they are good laws.”
When one member challenged the legality of the Con-
vention, since it was not summoned by writ, Somers,
then Solicitor-General, answered with great spirit that
if the Convention was not a legal Parliament, they who
were then met, and who had taken the oaths enacted
by that Parliament, were guilty of high treason, and
James was still king. None could answer this, and it
was felt that a bill covering more than a mere confirma-
tion was necessary. The question was finally set at rest
by a clause embodying a recognition of the lawfulness
of the acts of the Convention Parliament, and in this
form the bill passed both the Lords and the Commons.
The second session of this Parliament was opened
October 2nd, 1690. No official report of the debates
has been preserved, but the reports of Bonnet, the
representative of Brandenburg in London, to some extent
supply the deficiency. The King assured the Houses
that if the war against France was not prosecuted with
vigour, no nation in the world was exposed to greater
danger than England. He spoke so urgently of the
need of additional war preparations and fresh money
votes as to give offence. Yet the popular feeling was
all with William. The French were threatening the
English coasts, and there was a universal outburst against
them. The House of Commons had therefore no option
but to acknowledge that the safety and the liberties of
Europe were bound up with the King’s person, and that
he must be strongly supported. A sum of £4,425,000
was asked for, and the chief difficulty that arose was
as to the method of raising it. Various expedients were
suggested; and at length a land tax was imposed for
CHAP. III.
Parlia.
ments of
William
III.
ecog-
nition of
the Com-
wention.
lan's.
War taata-
tion.
40
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
illiam
III.
The poli-
tical
Situation.
War re-
quire-
70,670ts.
Army and
Navy
grants.
twelve months, the bread tax was also doubled, and the
import duties were increased.
During this session great loyalty and liberality pre-
vailed in the Commons, for which William returned
his “hearty thanks.” The Whigs gained new courage,
and Lord Godolphin, who now began to associate with
them, was placed at the head of the Treasury. Sir John
Somers, by his conspicuous abilities and virtues, was
every day winning the confidence of the King, and in
the city of London the Whigs were once more pre-
dominant. In March, 1691, William visited the Hague,
and presided over the Congress of Princes, when it was
resolved to employ 222,000 men against France, England
furnishing a contingent of 20,000.
The third session of William's second Parliament was
opened on October 22nd, 1691. After a reference to
Ireland, which had now been reduced to a peaceable
condition, the King said he hoped this would be looked
upon as an earnest of future successes. But England
required as strong a fleet as in the previous year, and a still
stronger land force, and his Majesty did not see how it was
possible to do with less than 65,000 men. Both Houses
congratulated the King upon his safe return, and promised
to assist him to the utmost of their power in vigorously
carrying on the war against France.
In Committee of Supply a grant of £1,575,890, with
30,000 men, was made for the navy, and one of
£2,225,671, with 64,924 men, for the army. The army
figures only included private soldiers, and a special grant
was noted for officers. But, with all this liberality, the
Commons asserted their constitutional claim to examine
the Government estimates for the next year's service
and to limit them at their discretion. Parliament re-
garded itself as the rightful custodian of the public
purse, and as responsible for a judicious and an economical
expenditure. The Commons also claimed control over
the expenditure of the public money, and several acri-
monious money debates occurred this session; while a
Commission of inquiry into the accounts was appointed.
///////////////////%;%%%%%$&#%$
ſae2，ºººººººººº ！ſaeſae|（š}（）
。
§§
±√¶
§§§§
ÑŅŇ````
<`№,§ .*
-§§.
º
§¶√∞∞∞|
Ģae º：- - .→ ، -. ， ، ،ſºáęgę
· · ·//%}',''，%%%%%%%×%%%wae
iſſºumilumºniº
s.r.º.º.º is º 'º' tº dº
utúliuſ
a gue- to º
////////！
MARY II.
AND
KING WILLIAM III.




Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
41
The secret service money, which had been misapplied
and used for bribing members, was especially singled
out for attack, and Sir John Lowther, Secretary of State,
was so closely pressed in connection with the Treasury
accounts that he declared he should be much easier out
of his place, and hoped to leave it. The general tendency
of these discussions proved that, while Ministers acted
under the King's authority, they must account for their
stewardship in Parliament. -
The Lords desired to co-operate in selecting the com-
mission of inquiry, but the Commons circumvented them
by tacking the nomination of its members to a money
bill, which the Upper House did not venture to throw
out. This bill was one for the imposition of a poll-tax,
it being found that the land tax and the increased excise
duties (voted anew) were not sufficient for the national
requirements. A clause annexed to the bill provided
for the permanence of the commission. The Lords
vehemently opposed the measure, but gave way because
of “the imminent peril that England and a great part
of Christendom would run if either the passing of the
subsidies or his Majesty's journey to the Continent were de-
layed.” The bill consequently passed without amendment,
and the royal assent was given to it on December 24th,"
in the old French formula, “The King and Queen thank
their subjects, accept their benevolence, and will it so.”
The Lower House again took up the question of assign-
ing the Irish confiscated lands to the purposes of the war,
and also raised the general subject of the limitation of the
military privileges enjoyed by the King and his officers.
Following a scheme suggested at the settlement of 1688,
it was proposed to make the judicial bench independent
of the administration, and to pay the judges’ salaries
quarterly without a royal order. The bill passed both
Houses, but it was the first measure to which the King
*m-
* Ranke says February 24th, but that was the day on which the
King closed the session, not the day on which he gave his assent
to the money bills.
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
W
illiam
III.
Lords and
Commons.
The King
vetoes a
bill.
42
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments 0
W
III.
Misman-
agement of
the ma/r.
Parlia-
mentary
struggles.
withheld his sanction. To avoid giving it, he went down
to the House of Lords on February 24th, 1692, and closed
the session, stating that he was very speedily going
beyond sea. This visit to the Continent was only
partially auspicious for the King. Although Russell
gained his brilliant victory off La Hogue in May, in
the Netherlands Namur was besieged and taken by the
French monarch, and William’s army was afterwards
defeated at the battle of Steinkirk (July 24th).
At home the devious course of politics was complicated
by the quarrel between Admiral Russell and Finch
Earl of Nottingham. When Parliament opened again in
November, 1692, loud complaints were heard as to the
mismanagement of the war, and attacks were made upon
Count Solmes for his hostile attitude towards the English
at Steinkirk. A demand was made that in future no
foreign officers should command British troops. So great
was the feeling against Solmes that the King would not
see him for many months after. The Whigs pressed all
the scandals home, and especially attacked the chief
Ministers, Nottingham and Carmarthen. Nottingham
charged Russell with slackness in duty alike before, at,
and after the battle of La Hogue. Russell defended him-
self in the Commons, and showed that there had not
been one transaction of the fleet without the consent of the
Council of War; they were all unanimous. The Commons
passed a resolution congratulating the Admiral on his
loyalty, courage, and skill, and if later Ministerial
precedents had prevailed this would have led to the
resignation or dismissal of Nottingham ; but it was Russell
who actually lost his appointment, while Nottingham
strengthened his position, and advanced his Tory friends
to important naval posts.
The Whigs next attacked Nottingham in another way.
To overthrow him and the Tories, they proposed a statute
declaring it high treason to deny the lawful authority of
the King. This would have necessitated the taking of an
oath of abjuration by all persons holding high offices, but
the Commons threw the bill out on the ground of its
1x.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
43
being of the nature of a State inquisition, and because of
the destructive powers it would have put into the hands
of two false witnesses. The Tories exercised the rights
of a majority in one important point this session: they
overthrew a proposal for a joint committee of the two
Houses to advise with the King. Once more the exclu-
sive authority of the Lower House in questions of finance
was affirmed; yet a financial struggle of great importance
arose between the Lords and the Commons. The Upper
House sought to add the names of certain peers to the
Treasury commission on the levying of the land tax, but
the Commons resisted this as an infringement of their
privileges. The Lords fought earnestly for the right of
taxing themselves, and the Earl of Mulgrave, in a speech
of many hours, marked by great force and eloquence,
pressed for a committee to examine precedents. But
considering the safety of the nation rather than their
supposed privileges, the peers abandoned a claim which
was constitutionally unsound.
A bill was brought forward in the Commons by which
a member of Parliament who accepted any civil or
military post under the Crown was declared to be “civilly
dead,” and another election was ordered to fill up the
vacant seat. Then, in order to strike at Ministerial
influence over members, it was further proposed to
exclude all public servants from Parliament. Those who
supported this change held it to be inconsistent with a
representative system of government for public servants
to have seats in the Lower House. The measure was
called “A bill touching free and impartial proceedings
in Parliament,” and it was introduced by Sir Edward
Hussey, one of the members for Lincoln. It placed the
Commons on the horns of a dilemma, for those who were
in office had not strength and credit to make great
opposition to it, being the persons concerned, and those who
had no places had not the courage to oppose it, as that
would have appeared a recommendation of themselves
for preferment. The bill accordingly went through the
Lower House with little difficulty; but in the Lords it
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
The Place
Bill,
44
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
Iments O
Williaml
III,
The Tri-
em?vial
Pºll.
Speeches
thereupon,
was vehemently opposed by the Court party. Yet so
nearly was this important measure passing that 42
peers voted for it, with three proxies on the same side ;
while 40 peers only were against it, with seven proxies.
The bill was thus only lost by a majority of two.
One other question of vital importance to the Com-
mons was discussed at great length this session. The
Earl of Shrewsbury, acting on behalf of the body of
Whig peers who were dissatisfied with the relations
existing between Ministers and the majority in the
Lower House, brought forward a bill providing for fre-
quent Parliaments. As it finally passed the Lords,
it enacted that Parliament should meet every year,
that there should be a new Parliament every three years,
and that the existing Parliament should be dissolved on
January 1st, 1694. This sweeping measure excited great
commotion in the Commons. Some regarded it as an act
of vengeance against the Lower House, because of the
stand it had made on the money bills ; and Sir Charles
Sedley, the famous but dissolute poet, declared with
regard to the clause dismissing the Parliament then
sitting, “Never was there any such invasion upon the
prerogative of a king, never such an indignity offered to
a House of Commons in being.” Sir Edward Seymour
also said that the bill would take off the dependency of
the people on the Crown, and set up the Lords, who had
no right, turning the Commons out of doors. Mr. Finch
opposed it on the ground that it took away the great
prerogative of dissolving Parliaments, and Sir Richard
Temple pursued the same argument, affirming that the
bill was the most dangerous thing that had ever been
seen in the House.
On the other hand, the bill was supported by many of
the best men in the House. One of the ablest speeches
in its favour was made by Mr. Robert Harley, who
was afterwards Speaker, and subsequently became
Earl of Oxford. He held it to be no entrenching upon
prerogative, and read with great effect the passage from
the Prince of Orange's declaration promising frequent
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 45
Parliaments. He contended that experience showed how CHAP. III.
Parliaments of long standing were liable to corruption, Parlia:
and no longer represented the people. Mr. Herbert, who #
had been a hearty promoter of the Revolution, and was III.
soon to be created Lord Herbert of Cherbury, said he
would rather have a standing army than a standing
Parliament. Even an old Tory like Sir Thomas Clarges
was enthusiastic for the measure, and declared it to be
the best bill that ever came into the House since the
treason statute of Edward III. The Long Parliament
had ever been held a grievance by him, and the chief
good thing in the Bill of Rights was the clause re-
lating to frequent Parliaments.
Being supported by a combination of Whigs and William
Tories, the bill was ordered to be read a second time by º'ºnt
210 votes to 132, and it finally passed by 200 to 161. to it.
Much to the surprise of the House and the country, the
King refused his assent to the bill. Although he had an
unquestionable right to do this, it was an impolitic step,
for the measure was not one which had been forced
upon either House by the other. Lords and Commons
had alike declared for it. His Majesty, however, was
now obliged to reconsider his position with regard to the
Whigs, seeing that they had led both Houses on an im-
portant constitutional question. The session closed on
March 14th, 1693, amid ill-humour on all sides.
The Earl of Nottingham was assisted, and afterwards Ministe-
superseded, as principal Secretary of State by Sir John #
Trenchard, a pronounced Whig ; and the Great Seal was " la/lgé8.
given to Sir John Somers, the learned Whig lawyer.
The Tory Ministers, however, were still in a majority, but
the course which military and naval affairs took during
the next few months worked them serious damage. The
loss of the Smyrna fleet was followed in July by the
defeat at Landen. Cries of treason began to be raised
against the Tories, and a strong anti-Jacobite feeling
prevailed. In the absence of William, who was on
the Continent, Mary promised a searching inquiry into
the defeats. But the King himself was extremely
46 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, popular, and on his return was greeted with great
jº,f enthusiasm. g e
# William opened the fifth session of his second Parlia-
The Fleet ment. On November 7th, 1693. The Commons severely
condemned the mismanagement of the fleet. Killi-
grew and Delaval were in consequence deprived by the
Ring of their posts at the Admiralty and in the fleet,
and Nottingham lost the seals of office. The bill for
more frequent Parliaments was again brought forward,
but was rejected by 146 to 136, the Commons holding
that in the general position of affairs all difficulty with
the Crown ought to be avoided. The bill touching free
The Place and impartial proceedings in Parliament, or the Place
#. Bill, was more successful on its reintroduction. Harley
said that no arguments had been offered against it, and
his great contention was that acceptance of office ren-
dered a member's place vacant. The measure passed,
with a new article providing that on the appointment of
a member of Parliament to any fresh office re-election
was necessary. But on the day when the royal assent
was expected to be given to the bill in the House of
Lords William sat silent. The clerk looked towards
the throne for the King’s bow, but, as it was not given,
he was obliged to declare that his Majesty would think
about the bill. The Commons were angry at the re-
jection, though they could not question the King's legal
right of extinguishing the bill. But this step was most
unusual, and in the storm which arose William was
upbraided for disappointing the nation’s hopes, and it
was decided to present him with an address requesting
him to be guided by the counsels of Parliament, instead
of by those of individuals who might have personal ends
to serve. William replied that he should call no man
friend who interfered with the mutual confidence between
himself and the nation. The discussion continued, but a
proposal to wait on the King again was thrown out of
the Commons by a large majority. -
War pre- The war preparations next engaged the attention of
parations. Parliament. A sum of £2,500,000 was voted for the
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 47
maintenance of the fleet; but the demand for an increase 9” "
of 30,000 men in the land forces met with considerable ºf
opposition. A compromise was arrived at, the Commons whºm
voting 20,000 additional men, with which William ex- –
pressed himself satisfied. The vote for the land forces
also amounted to about £2,500,000, together with
£147,000 for subsidies to foreign Powers, so that the
total votes for the two services reached quite £5,000,000,
a heavy amount for that period, and considering the
population.
In the session of 1694 the revenue question was dealt The
with upon comprehensive and permanent principles. Reve".
The House of Commons, taking as the basis of its plan
the sum of £1,200,000, fixed by the Parliament of
Charles II., decreed that in time of peace it should
serve for a double use—namely, to pay the expenses of
thé Court and Government and the expenses of the public
defence. The costly war with France prevented this
arrangement from taking effect; but the idea of a fixed
sum for the King’s own expenses, both in governing and
keeping house, was never afterwards departed from.
The public defence in its three branches—navy, army,
and ordnance—became a separate department, controlled
directly by the Commons, who received estimates of the
proposed expenditure, and granted supplies accordingly.
The National Debt originated at this time. As early The Wa-
as 1690 it was felt that loans must be contracted to meet ºf
the requirements of the war, and in 1692 steps were
taken towards establishing a bank for life annuities.
The financier who conceived this new idea was Charles
Montague, who had formerly been Sir Isaac Newton’s
pupil. He now began to make a conspicuous figure in
the House of Commons. He was made Commissioner
of the Treasury, and afterwards Chancellor and Under-
Treasurer of the Exchequer. At first inclined towards
literary pursuits, he had abandoned these (though he still
encouraged them in others) to devote himself to the con-
cerns of the Treasury and to a study of the public funds.
He demonstrated the error of giving money upon remote
48
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments Of
illiam
III.
Financial
schemes.
Founding
of the
JBank of
England.
funds, at a vast discount, and with great premiums to raise
loans upon them ; and he pressed upon the King the
financial maxim to have all the money required for the
service of any year to be raised within that year.
In 1692 Montague, in order to defray part of the
military expenses, had borrowed, with the authority of
Parliament, a million sterling, the interest of which was
secured by new duties on liquors. These duties were to
form a fund, and on the credit of this fund the loan was
to be raised by life annuities, which were to be ex-
tinguished when the survivors were reduced to sevem.
Next year—1693—a still greater deficiency had to be
filled up, and various taxes were suggested for securing
the regular payment of the interest. Duties were pro-
posed on leather and soap, but, as these would have
pressed heavily upon the manufacturing community, they
were rejected, after a powerful speech by Edward Seymour.
The land tax was reimposed at four shillings in the
pound, and a tax on salt was agreed to ; but, more money
still being required, a stamp duty and a tax on hackney
coaches were passed.
The establishment of the Bank of England in 1694
sprang out of the necessity for relieving the Government
of its many difficulties caused by the war and misapplied
taxation. The founding of this important institution
marks an epáčh in the monetary history of the country.
The Bank was projected by a Scotchman named William
Paterson, who had in view the double object of accommo-
dating the London merchants and preventing the Ministry
from being obliged to pay frequent visits to the City to
raise sums at heavy interest. Utilising Paterson’s idea,
Montague borrowed £1,200,000 at 8 per cent, and
formed the subscribers into a company, who treated the
loan to Government as part of their capital, the interest
being secured by Parliament upon the taxes. The
company was restrained from trading in anything but
bullion, bills of exchange, and forfeited pledges, and from
lending money to the Crown without the consent of
Parliament. The capital was not to be repaid till 1705,
*
Ix. PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
49
and if paid then, the company must be dissolved at the
same time. The members of the Lower House did not
like the plan, jealous of the influence it might give to
either of the great parties, but State exigencies compelled
them to give way, and the scheme passed the Commons
April 18th, 1694. In the Lords, Halifax and others
opposed the bill on the ground that the establishment of
the Bank would tend neither to the advantage of govern-
ment nor to that of commerce, as people would leave
their money in the Bank rather than risk it in commercial
ventures, while it was also detrimental to the interests
of the landed gentry, as the ease with which money could
be taken to the Bank and drawn out again would add
enormously to the difficulty of negotiating mortgages
and make land unsaleable. Weak in other arguments,
Ministers could only plead the overwhelming necessity
for a loan if the war were to be carried on with vigour;
so on April 23rd the Lords passed the measure by a
majority of twelve. The Bank of England, though now
in one sense established, had many difficulties to contend
with before it could be said to be a stable institution.
Parliament was prorogued April 25th, 1694, and the
same day Shrewsbury, who was now principal Secretary
of State, received a dukedom and the Garter, while
Carmarthen, President of the Council, was made Duke
of Leeds. Sidney, Lord Godolphin, was appointed First
Lord of the Treasury. During the recess the war pursued
a devious and undecided course.
The sixth session of William's second Parliament
opened on November 12th, 1694, but a good deal of delay
ensued before it proceeded to business. The tunnage and
poundage money had only been granted to the King up
to December 24th, and there was ground for the assertion
that the Commons were determined to make its con-
tinuance depend upon the sovereign’s acceptance of the
bill for triennial Parliaments. Mr. Harley was at any
rate ordered to prepare and bring in the Triennial Bill
soon after the session opened, and it went through its
various stages with unusual celerity. The Lords agreed
VOL. II. 4
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III
*4 =
Eleva-
tions.
Passing of
the Tri-
emºnial
Bill.
50
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
* ===––––--—--------- - * ~ * -
CHAP. III. to it without amendment. To assert its control over the
Parlia-
ments of
William
Jęeportºng
the de-
bates.
JOeath of
Queen
Mary.
Continu-
ance of
Parlia-
ment,
public money, the Lower House suffered a day to elapse
between the expiration of the period assigned to the
grant of tunnage and poundage and the voting of the
new grant, which was to date from December 26th and
to run for five years. The King gave his assent to the
Tunnage Bill and the Triennial Bill on the same day
(December 22nd). It was generally anticipated that
Parliament would be more independent and less cor-
ruptible in consequence of the passing of the Triennial
Act, but it did not affect the King's right of dissolving
Parliament at his discretion. The bill was very popular,
and loud applause followed the declaration of the royal
assent.
One Dyer, who had presumed to report the Parlia-
mentary debates in his News Letter, was brought to the
bar of the House of Commons on December 22nd, and
upon his knees was reprimanded by Mr. Speaker for his
great presumption. It was resolved “That no news-
letter writers do in their letters or other papers that they
disperse presume to intermeddle with the debates or any
other proceedings of this House.”
While William III. was full of anxiety with respect
to the war abroad, a severe domestic calamity befell
him by the death of his wife on December 28th. This
excellent princess was universally lamented, and she
was so beloved by her husband that for some time after
her death there was reason to apprehend the King's
following her. He never entirely recovered this untoward
blow. When Mary was dying she sent a message of
reconciliation to her sister, and, through the intervention
of Lord Sunderland, the King afterwards received the
Princess Anne, whereupon the royal estrangement to a
considerable extent ceased, though there never was real
..confidence or cordiality between them.
A constitutional question arose upon the death of
Mary. While the crown in this melancholy event
was vested by settlement in William alone, some argued
that Parliament pso facto was dissolved by the demise
1x.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
51
of the Queen, as the writs had run in the names of both
the King and the Queen. But those about the Court, as
well as the legal luminaries called in for consultation,
held that, as William's name had always stood first, there
could be no doubt that Parliament would continue legally
to exist; and the contention that it was practically
dissolved met with no real countenance. As there was
provision already for an early dissolution under the
Triennial Act, it was regarded as the wisest course to
overlook any defect of form, if any such defect there
were, rather than suffer the whole business of the year
to languish, and the kingdom to be put into a ferment at
so delicate a conjuncture. More than ordinary caution
was requisite for preserving the peace at home. The
Commons took no note of the constitutional objection,
but proceeded at once with their business. The Queen’s
name disappeared from the Great Seal, but that was the
only change, and William’s reign still continued to be
dated from 1689. Both Houses of Parliament voted
addresses of condolence to his Majesty, who thanked
them for their kindness and sympathy at a time
when he was able to think of nothing but his great
loss.
The death of the Queen alienated the Tories and
Episcopalians from the Government, while it was also
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
Effect of
Mary’s
death upon
followed by an accession of official strength on the part of parties.
the Whigs. In the Upper House Lord Nottingham now
felt himself free, for his wife’s position in Mary’s house-
hold had been his last tie at Court. He vehemently
attacked both the home and foreign policy of the Govern-
ment, objecting to the expedition of the English fleet
into the Mediterranean as endangering the security of
the British Isles, and to the establishment of the Bank
as ruinous to the interests of landowners and even of
traders. Nottingham was supported by Halifax, and the
Government was defended by Godolphin and Marlborough.
It was certainly a mistake to attack the Bank, an insti-
tution which had been rendered indispensable by the
national exigencies.
52
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARTIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
Proceed-
Žºgs
against
Trevor and
Danby.
Dissolu-
tion of
Parlia-
726.70%.
Opening
of a men,
0?? 6.
The Whigs in the Commons assumed a very militant
attitude. They expelled the Speaker, Sir John Trevor,
for taking bribes, and elected Mr. Paul Foley in his
place. Foley had obtained great credit for his integrity
and his constant complaints against the administration,
which were frequently but too well founded. Danby,
Duke of Leeds, was accused of having been bought for
a very considerable sum of money—5,500 guineas—by
the East India Company. He was for a second time
impeached, but escaped condemnation, causing the
suspension of the proceedings by securing the flight of
the principal witness. He managed to retain his place
for three years longer, but the Whigs were deter-
mined, if possible, to eject the Tories entirely from the
administration.
Parliament was prorogued on May 3rd, 1695, and thé
King set out for Holland on the 12th. The retaking of
Namur from the French consoled William and the allies
for many previous unsatisfactory or indecisive actions.
The King’s friends now besought him to return while
England was full of his praises, and he was advised
to call a fresh Parliament at once. Accordingly on
October 11th, the day after his return from Holland,
a proclamation was issued dissolving Parliament, and
calling a new one for November 22nd ensuing. The
Ring now assumed a cordial attitude towards the Whig
leaders, and at the elections a number of leading Tories
lost their seats, while the same fate befell certain Whigs
who opposed the Government. John Hampden, grandson
of the famous patriot, took his rejection so much to heart
that he committed suicide. A considerable number of
new men were returned at the elections, and while the
political attitude of some was dubious, generally they
were in favour of the Government.
On the day appointed—November 22nd—the third
Parliament of William III. assembled at Westminster.
The Commons promised to support the King vigorously
against all foes at home and abroad, and in the prosecution
of the war in which he was engaged for the safety of
ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 53
England and the liberty of Europe. But a powerful CºAP. III.
section of the House were at issue with the Government ºf
on the practical questions involved. Musgrave and Sey- William
mour endeavoured to carry a reduction of 25,000 men, +
and they stated their case very ably, showing that
England was bearing a heavy burden, and one greatly
disproportionate to that borne by the allies. However,
the Government again pleaded that England must not
relax her efforts, and the full demand for men was carried
by 243 to 135 votes. Seeing the strong feeling, Musgrave
himself proposed a grant of money as large as that voted
for the previous year for the land forces; and ultimately
the votes for the two branches of the service amounted to
upwards of £5,000,000.
The raising of this sum, under ordinary circumstances Depre-
no easy task, was now rendered far more difficult by º
the rapid depreciation of the English silver coin. Shortly coinage.
before the Revolution a custom had set in by which the
silver in circulation had been so clipped and filed that
by the year 1695-6 the great bulk of it was very far
from corresponding to the value it ought to bear. This
not only led to confusion at home, but the Bank of
Amsterdam at one time absolutely prohibited the circu-
lation of English silver. A good deal of the silver lost
half its original weight in clipping ; silver coin that was
not clipped was hoarded ; and gold consequently rose to
an extravagant price, the guinea being valued at thirty
shillings. Some steps were necessary, and the House
of Lords requested the King to fix a day after which no
clipped coin should be a legal tender, the Commons to
be consulted as to the most convenient day. The pro-
position caused great excitement, for practically all the
silver coin in circulation had been clipped, and if it were
no longer to possess its face value great hardship would
be caused amongst the entire community.
The matter was very pressing ; and Montague, the Money to
Chancellor of the Exchequer, alleged that the mischief ...
would be fatal if an immediate remedy were not devised
and applied. The Commons were afraid to postpone the
54
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
Revémºte
and Taara-
tion.
Ring and
Parlia-
ment.
question on the ground of the feeling out of doors, so it
was resolved to go into committee on the state of the
coinage. The problem for decision was, Who was to
bear the loss, the State or the individual P The King
desired the State to be the loser, and the Commons took
this view. On December 10th, after a lengthy debate,
the Lower House resolved to recoin the clipped money,
according to the established standard of the Mint, both
as to weight and fineness; and, to make it more easy
for the people, they voted a recompense for the deficiency
of the clipped money. Locke, the philosopher, who
issued two pamphlets on the subject, which “form an
epoch in the history of the theory of currency,” opposed
this view because it contradicted the axiom that society
was based on the individual. But it was absolutely
necessary to do something for the public. On another
issue, however, the Commons agreed with Locke, and,
by 225 votes to 114, decided that the new coinage should
be unchanged, and should follow the established standard
of value. -
The loss to the revenue by the operations was estimated
at £1,200,000, and this could only be met by new taxes.
The old hearth tax was unpopular because it savoured of
Crown privileges, so it was resolved that a tax known
as the window tax should be levied on all dwelling-
houses except cottages. The impost was to be exacted
for seven years, at the rate of 2s. yearly upon each
house, 4s. upon every house having ten windows, and
8s. upon such houses as had twenty windows, over and
above the 2s. While the people gained, the Crown lost
by these monetary changes, for William surrendered the
recoinage of the currency, which preceding sovereigns
had tenaciously held as a right.
There were two important matters at this time in
which William sustained a check at the hands of Par-
liament. The first related to the large Crown domains
in Wales, which the King had granted to his friend
Bentinck, Earl of Portland. The House of Commons
strongly opposed these grants on the ground that they
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
55
would sever the connection between King and subjects.
They did not affirm that the sovereign had no right at
all to alienate Crown property, but they maintained that
there were certain cases which called for the assent of
Parliament. For example, these Portland grants would
swallow up the revenues on which the government of the
country depended. They were vigorously attacked by
Sir Roger Puleston and Mr. Price, a very able lawyer
and subsequently one of the Barons of the Exchequer ;
and the King had no option but to recall his gift.
The second matter in which the King’s policy was
seriously called in question was the scheme of Paterson
the banker for colonising the Isthmus of Darien as a
central place of trade. The Scots took up the plan by
which goods from India were to come by ship to the
Isthmus on the Pacific side, to be then carried overland
to the colony, and there shipped off to Glasgow. They
were then to be borne by a Clyde and Forth canal to
Leith, and from this port a ready entrance would be
found to the European markets. A capital of £400,000
was raised in Scotland, and in 1695 the scheme received
the approval of the Scottish Parliament. It was sanc-
tioned by the royal commissioner on the ground of
the King's promise to favour Scottish commerce and
to support its settlements in foreign parts. But the
English merchants attacked the scheme, perceiving in
it a formidable rival to their commercial enterprises.
Parliament was moved on the subject, and both Houses
complained of the King for entering into a project, not
only opposed to English interests, but hostile to his own.
Both England and Holland, they urged, must suffer from
the new company, and there would be a great loss in
import duties. The King was more bound to consider
England than Scotland. William gave way, and re-
moved the Scottish Ministers chiefly responsible for the
project. -
Parliament followed up this step, and established a
Board of Trade, for the better securing of the trade of the
nation. The King ordered his Ministers to oppose the
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
*º-º:
Isthmus of
Dariem,
scheme.
JBoard of
Trade es-
tablished.
56
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, plan, but the Earl of Sunderland, to his great surprise,
Parlia-
ments Of
illiam
III.
The law
of Trea-
S07?).
supported it. Then William proceeded to name the
members of the Board, among whom Locke was in-
cluded, but the House of Commons asserted its own
right of naming the members.
Important legislation on the question of trial for high
treason was initiated this session, and the Crown was
involved in a struggle with the Lords, in which the
latter conquered. A bill “for regulating trials in cases
of treason and misprision of treason,” which had been
several times lost in former Parliaments, was again
brought into the House of Commons, and in a short time
read three times there, and sent up to the Lords for their
concurrence. This measure, which mitigated or removed
many hardships upon the liberty of the subject, enacted
“That all persons indicted for high treason or misprision
of it, shall have a copy of the indictment five days before
their trial, and shall be admitted to make their defence
by counsel learned in the law, hot exceeding two. That
no person shall be indicted or attainted but by the oaths
of two lawful witnesses. That no person shall be prose-
cuted unless the indictment be found within three years
after the offence committed. That all persons indicted
shall have copies of the presentment of the jury two
days before their trial, and shall have like process to
compel their witnesses to appear before them as is,
usually granted to witnesses against them.” The Lords
added the following clause to the bill: “That upon the
trial of any peer or peeress for treason or misprision of it,
all the peers who have a right to sit and vote in Parliament
shall be duly summoned twenty days at least before such
trial, and shall not vote without first taking the oaths
appointed by the act 1 Will. and Mary and subscribing
and repeating the declaration mentioned in the act
30 Car. II.” The provision by which the Lords claimed
to be tried before the whole body of the peers alone,
and not by a commission appointed by the Government,
naturally made the aristocracy independent of the Crown
party, and it was thought that it would either fail to pass
ºx.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
57
the House of Commons, or that the King would not give
his consent to it; but the current of feeling was too
powerful, and William assented to the bill.
Whilst the Treason Bill was passing through the
Commons, Lord Ashley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury,
and author of the Characteristics, prepared a speech on
behalf of the bill, which he intended to deliver in the
Lower House, of which he was a member. But when
he stood up to speak, the great audience so intimidated
him that he lost all memory, and was unable to proceed."
The House, after giving him a little time to recover his
confusion, called loudly upon him to go on, when he
proceeded to this effect: “If I, Sir" (addressing himself
to the Speaker), “who rise only to give my opinion on the
bill now depending, am so confounded that I am unable
to express the least of what I proposed to say, what
must the condition of that man be who without any
assistance is pleading for his life, and under apprehensions
of being deprived of it?” This sudden turn of wit was
thought to have been premeditated by some, but such
was not the case, and it was of no little service in pro-
moting the fortunes of the bill.
The freedom of the press was practically established
this session. By the Licensing Act of 1662 printing was
confined to London, York, and the two Universities, and
the number of master printers was limited to the old
number of twenty, while all new works were subjected
to examination by an officer called the licenser. The
harsh provisions of the act were cruelly used by the
licenser, Roger L’Estrange, and all London newspapers
were stopped except the official London Gazette and the
Observator. The act expired in 1679, but it was revived
at the accession of James II., and continued in vogue
until now. A committee of the House of Commons
again proposed to renew the censorship, and the Govern-
ment held it to be a grievance that unauthorised journals
* This incident will recall Lord Beaconsfield's first appearance in
the House of Commons, a century and a half later.
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
Interest-
ing inci-
demt.
Liberty of
the Press.
58 EIISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III, should be permitted to disseminate intelligence. But
#ºf there was a general tendency in Parliament towards
iñam freedom from Government restraint, and especially as
III. touching the independence of the press, and the Lower
House negatived the renewal of the censorship. In
theory at least the press was henceforth free.
William The King gave way to Parliament on all matters
º of grave domestic import, such as the law, commerce,
and the press. His enemies thought that a quarrel
between him and the Whigs was inevitable, but William
would have made even still further concessions rather than
have been thwarted in his darling project, the prosecution
of the war. And he soon needed all the support which
could be given to him, for French and Jacobite schemes of
invasion were rife at this time. The Duke of Berwick
took a very prominent part in the unsuccessful plot for
a Jacobite insurrection, which was to have been aided by
a French force. Several conspirators were hanged at
Tyburn ; but it is not clear that Berwick was acquainted
with the darker schemes of some of the plotters, who
aimed at William’s assassination.
Safety of On February 24th, 1696, the King went down to the
.* House of Lords to request the co-operation of Parliament
in measures for the common safety, when both Houses
immediately assured him that they were resolved to
defend him and his government against all foes at home
and abroad, and especially against James II. They
added the declaration to all the world “ that in case
your Majesty shall come to any violent death (which
God forbid), we will revenge the same upon all your
enemies and their adherents.” The King thanked the
Houses for their assurances, and said he would adventure
his life for the preservation of the kingdom. . .
Emergetic The resolutions passed by the Commons at this time
* testify to the critical aspect of things. The Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended; power was given to the
King to secure persons conspiring against his person
or government; instructions were issued for the more
effectual raising of the militia ; it was provided in the
Ix. PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 59
event of the King's death that the Parliament then sitting CHAP. III.
should not be dissolved thereby, but should continue Parlia:
g tº ge º tº ments of
until the next heir to the crown in succession, according whºm
to the late Act of Settlement, should dissolve it ; and, tº
finally, his Majesty was memorialised to banish all
Papists from London and Westminster and a circuit
of ten miles from the same, and to give instructions
to the judges going the circuits to put the laws in
execution against Papists and nonjurors.
The Commons, as the greatest test of their loyalty, Patriotic
further drew up a form of association, such as marked #:(??0-
the Prince of Orange's landing in England, to be sub-
scribed by all the members. There was embodied in the
obligations of the association a formal recognition of
William III. as right and lawful King of England. In a
large House, consisting of about 400 members, there were
eighty-nine who refused to subscribe to the declaration,
chiefly on the ground urged by Sir Christopher Musgrave,
the Tory leader, that the form of words adopted would
contradict the earlier resolutions touching the abjuration
of James II. The Lords worded their declaration “that
his present Majesty King William hath right by law to
the crown of these realms.” This form, proposed by the
Duke of Leeds and carried by 60 to 33, satisfied moderate
men of both parties in the Upper House. With very
few exceptions, the association was signed by the whole
of the people. The bishops likewise drew up a form for
the clergy, substantially in agreement with that signed
by the House of Lords, and it was so universally signed
that not more than a hundred objectors were noted. The
King himself joined the association, and most Englishmen
now put on orange ribands bearing the inscription,
“National Association for King William.” The great
constitutional questions affecting William's title were thus
finally adjusted, and mainly in accordance with the views
of the Whigs
In 1696 a severe financial contest was fought out Great
between the Whigs and Tories. A crisis arose in the º:
fortunes of the Bank of England, in consequence of the
60
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
W
III.
Case of Sir
John Fem-
wick.
action of the goldsmiths, who bought up its paper in
the hope of destroying the Bank by suddenly presenting
it for immediate payment. The directors gained time by
referring their antagonists to the law-courts, and mean-
time the credit of the Bank was restored by extensive
calls upon the subscribers. But the Tories were active,
and not only succeeded in forming a company to establish
a National Land Bank—which was to lend money on
landed security—but persuaded Parliament to resolve
that the loans required for the next year, amounting to
£2,500,000, should be transferred to the new Bank under
certain conditions. Harley adopted the new scheme in a
modified form, and promised to advance the £2,500,000
to Government at 7 per cent., the interest being secured
upon a new tax on salt. The King wanted money, and
it really did not much matter to him where it came from.
He encouraged the new venture, and headed its list of
subscriptions with £500, but the proposed Land Bank
proved a complete failure. Its collapse strengthened the
Bank of England, to which the Government now turned
in its perplexity. The subscribers, in full court, resolved
to lendithe King the sum of £200,000, which the Earl of
Portland had been making strenuous efforts to raise, and
with this transaction began the alliance between the
Bank of England and the Whig Ministries. Montague
extolled the action of the Bank to the King, and his
Majesty in his gratitude said it should not be forgotten.
The second session of William’s third Parliament was
opened October 20th, 1696. It was mainly occupied with
the proceedings against Sir John Fenwick, a Jacobite
closely connected with the English aristocracy. He
had been concerned in the conspiracy of 1695, which
culminated in the assassination plot of the succeeding
year. After his arrest Fenwick offered to disclose all
he knew touching the plots; but his confession, while
silent about the actual Jacobite plotters, contained much
evidence against Marlborough, Godolphin, Russell, and
Shrewsbury, who had intrigued on various occasions with
the Court of St. Germains. The Duke of Shrewsbury
1x.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 61
at once wrote to the King declaring that Fenwick’s CHAP. III.
charges were exaggerated, and William forgave him; #of
but Shrewsbury, fearing a Parliamentary impeachment, Tºlent S O
and suffering from remorse, withdrew from the King's III.
councils, and retired from London. The Whigs took
up the subject. Fenwick proffered a full confession to
the King, but, as the latter would not receive it except in
the presence of the Archbishop, the Lord Keeper, the
Lord Chief Justice, and some others, the prisoner would
make no disclosures. His wife, Lady Mary Fenwick (a
daughter of the Earl of Carlisle), next succeeded, with
the aid of the Tories, in getting one of the two necessary
witnesses against her husband out of the country.
Fenwick was now safe against legal process, but the Bill of
Whigs brought in a bill of attainder against him. In “”
addition to the count of conspiracy, he was charged with
endeavouring to undermine the Government, and the
Commons resolved upon punishing this offence. The
Tories fought hard against the bill, but it passed the
Commons by 189 to 156. The Lords read it a first time
without a division; but a violent struggle took place on
the second reading, which was ultimately carried by
73 to 53. Still closer was the division on the third
reading, when the bill only passed by 68 votes to 61.
Bishop Burnet delivered a powerful speech in the Lords
in favour of the bill, his main argument being that, in
default of other means of proceeding against such a
prisoner, recourse must be had in great emergencies to
the supreme legislature. A number of peers entered a
protest against Fenwick’s condemnation, but the King
gave his assent to the bill on January 11th, 1697, and on
the 28th Sir John Fenwick was beheaded on Tower Hill."
| Hallam's view of the Fenwick Attainder Bill is that “it did not,
like some other acts of attainder, inflict a punishment beyond the
offence, but supplied theideficiency of legal evidence.” Yet while
admitting the strength of the arguments and evidence against
Fenwick, and endorsing the substantial justice of the sentence, he
agrees with those who thought him not important enough to warrant
a divergence from the stubborn rules of law in matters of treason.
62
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
Iments of
illiam
III.
Financial
??!6087/7'éS.
The embarrassments in the revenue at this juncture
led to the adoption of a series of important financial
measures. The King had referred in his speech from
the throne to the condition of the coinage and of credit,
and to the necessity for making up the deficit in the
previous year's money vote. The House of Commons
made no scruple in voting the full amount asked for,
but instead of raising it by loans, as before, it determined
to impose fresh taxes, sufficient to bring in the whole
amount required within the twelvemonth. But the
matter of the coinage also imperatively demanded ad-
justment, and an order was issued that the price of coin
should depend upon its weight; only for ordinary traffic
the price was fixed at a lower level than that which the
Treasury would pay were the clipped money taken to it
to be recoined. The difference amounted to 10 per cent.,
and under the stimulus of this premium coin poured into
the Treasury in immense quantities. There was also a
great delivery of silver coin at the Mint. This happy
idea of recoining the currency was so successful that
money for the needs of commerce was soon abundant.
The grants to the King were secured by the continuance
of certain taxes beyond the term for which they were
originally voted. To mitigate the disastrous failure of
the Land Bank, and to raise the £2,500,000 which it had
failed to provide, the privileges of the Bank of England
were extended. Its patent was prolonged till 1710, and
it was not to be abolished after that date without a year's
notice; no rival bank was to be permitted; the Bank’s
capital was allowed to be raised by new subscriptions
from three millions to five—four-fifths of the sum to be
paid in Exchequer bills, and the remainder in notes.
The country sustained Parliament by cheerfully bearing
the burdens for the year, which consisted of a poll-tax,
and an income tax which in some circumstances rose to
no less than 15 per cent. The credit for these wise
financial measures was almost wholly due to the Chan-
cellor, Montague, whose brilliant success was envied by
his opponents in Parliament. The Whigs, as a party,
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 63
also reaped great benefit from their adoption; and their CHAP. III.
financial policy generally strengthened the Whigs with #.
the nation. whºm
The European conflict, which had been waged for eight T. *---
years, was terminated by the Treaty of Ryswick, con- #
cluded September 10th, 1697, between France and the
Allied Powers. James II. in vain sought representa-
tion at the conferences. France agreed to acknowledge
William as King of England, and Anne as his suc-
cessor, and to withdraw all assistance from James.
France also restored all towns captured since the Treaty
of Nimeguen (with the exception of Strasburg) together
with Freiburg, Breisach, Philipsburg, and the French
fortifications on the right bank of the Rhine. The Duke
of Lorraine received back his dominions; the Elector of
Cologne was recognised; and the rights of the Duchess
of Orleans upon the Palatinate were compromised for
money. At last the despised Prince of Orange had
become a great sovereign, and the position he had won
for himself by his energy, courage, and marvellous perse-
verance was fully recognised by the mightiest of European
monarchs.
But while the Peace of Ryswick assured William’s Home dif.
standing abroad, and indeed paved the way for his be- ficulties.
coming the arbiter of Europe, at home his position soon
became less stable than it had been before the conclusion
of the Treaty. The vast majority of the people and of the
members of both Houses of Parliament were undoubtedly
content with the stipulations, but questions began to be
mooted which caused a good deal of friction between the
Ring and the nation.
Parliament assembled for its third session on Decem- Parlia-
ber 3rd, 1697. In his opening speech, the King stated tº
that there was a debt in connection with the services, and
as the revenues of the Crown had been anticipated with
his consent for public uses, he was wholly destitute of
means to support the Civil List. It was necessary to
maintain the land forces, so as to prevent the enemy from
obtaining, under the cloak of peace, what they had failed
64
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
Iments Of
Williaml
III.
Disband-
ment of the
Army.
William
parts with
Sunder-
land.
to achieve in war. “In conclusion,” he said, “as I have,
with the hazard of everything, rescued your religion, laws,
and liberties, when they were in the extremest danger,
so I shall place the glory of my reign in preserving them
entire, and leaving them so to posterity.” The Commons,
in their address, congratulated his Majesty upon holding
in his hands the balance of Europe, and upon having fully
completed the glorious work of the nation’s deliverance.
Nothing was said on the all-important subject of the
disbandment of the army, but action was soon taken.
On the question whether supply or the consideration
of the King's speech should be taken first, Ministers only
carried supply as the first order of business by 156 to 153
votes, although Montague had pleaded that all the public
funds were exhausted and the Treasury empty. Then the
disbandment of the army was brought forward by Harley,
leader of the moderate Tory party, who moved that all the
land forces raised since September 26th, 1680, should be
paid off and disbanded. The friends of the King and
his government, including Montague, Littleton, and
Wharton, argued that the nation was still unsettled,
and not quite delivered from the fear of King James,
whose protector, the King of France, was as formidable
as ever. The House passed the vote for disbandment,
following it up by a resolution regulating the militia,
and another decreeing that 10,000 men were necessary
for a summer and winter guard at sea for the year 1698.
The King felt most keenly the disbandment of the army,
and exclaimed that Parliament had accomplished a feat
which France had striven in vain to achieve for eight
years. Thus, in spite of the Whig Ministry and the
Whig influences in Parliament, the Court was defeated.
There were some matters, including a standing army,
upon which the Government could never rely on a strict
party vote.
A movement was now initiated against the Earl of
Sunderland, that pliable statesman who had assiduously
served two masters—James II. and William III. He
held high office, and was powerful in the Privy Council,
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
65
but he found it extremely difficult to control the various
sections of the Whig party. A motion was made to
request the King to dismiss Sunderland, but it was not
taken up with spirit by the Tories, and fell through.
Nevertheless, feeling his position to be intolerable, Sun-
derland asked the King to dismiss him, which was done
after much demur. Parliament thus achieved its end.
The House of Commons, however, acted generously
over the Civil List, fixing it at £700,000, notwithstanding
the determined efforts of Seymour and Musgrave to keep
it at £600,000. It was felt that besides owing a great
debt of gratitude to the King, he would soon have to
provide for the young Duke of Gloucester, the heir pre-
sumptive, as well as to meet other claims.
A collision occurred between the two Houses in a
matter arising out of the Exchequer bills, which had
been devised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
were of signal service in supplying the scarcity of money
during the recoining of the silver specie. Several of
the Exchequer, Customs, and Excise officers contrived
together to get large sums of money by false endorsements
on these Exchequer bills, before they had circulated or
been brought into any branch of his Majesty’s revenue.
The most considerable persons who carried on this un-
warrantable practice were Mr. John Knight, treasurer
of the customs, and Mr. Charles Duncombe, receiver-
general of the excise, Montague's chief opponent. Both
were members of the House of Commons. They were
first expelled the House, and committed prisoners to
the Tower; and bills were then brought in to punish
them and other offenders. The bill against Duncombe
imposed a fine of nearly half his estate, which was
estimated at the enormous value of £400,000. It rapidly
passed the Commons, but being sent up to the Lords,
their lordships were equally divided upon it, when the
Duke of Leeds gave his casting vote for rejecting the
bill. It was then reported that Duncombe gave up a
portion of his wealth, and he was set at liberty by order of
the House of Lords without the consent of the Commons.
WOL. II. 5
CHAP. III.
Parlia.
ments of
III.
The Civil
List.
Collision,
betn:een
the
Houses.
66
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. The latter were exasperated to that degree that they
Parlia-
Iments of
caused Duncombe to be remanded to the Tower, where
whºm he continued till the end of the session.
The East
India
C0772-
panies.
The new
scheme,
The monopoly of the East India Company came up
for consideration this session. Vigorous, though un-
successful, attempts were made to prevent the renewal
of the company’s charter ; but Montague succeeded in
establishing a new or rival company in the Whig interest,
known as the General East India Company, or English
Company. For some years past there had been a dispute
between the original company and the interlopers, the
former asserting that it suffered from the insecurity of
its patent and the competition of the new-comers. The
Tories supported the prerogative of the old, and the
Whigs championed the rights of the new company. The
Free-traders, on the other hand, claimed—and the claim
had been admitted—that all subjects had an equal right
to trade with the East Indies, unless some limitation
were imposed by Parliament. The monopoly had been
kept up by bribes, in which several leading Tory states-
men were implicated. In May, 1698, Sir John Fleet,
chairman of the old company, brought forward a motion
in Parliament for enlarging the capital of the company
by new subscriptions to £1,500,000, and securing it in
possession of all its privileges for thirty-one years, in return
for which it engaged to take up a loan of £700,000. The
Whigs opposed this, and Montague proposed instead the
establishment of a new company, which should undertake
a loan of £2,000,000, and receive from Parliament in
return the exclusive right of trading with the East Indies.
The fact was, England being in the throes of a financial
crisis, the Chancellor was anxious to extricate her by the
best means possible, and there seemed nothing for it but
the placing of further burdens upon an already overtaxed
community.
The House of Commons agreed generally with Mon-
tague's proposals, and asserted its power of disposing
of the right to trade with the East Indies. The old
company was not shelved altogether. It was allowed
1x.] PARTIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 67
three years in which to wind up its affairs, and was CHAP. III.
permitted to take part as a corporation in the new com- Parlia:
e tº ImentS Of
pany, which was ultimately and permanently to take the whºm
place of the old. This was the only grace the first +
company could obtain ; and the Lords sanctioned the
action of the Commons, notwithstanding the opposition
of the Duke of Leeds. As permission was given to all
classes of corporations to subscribe, the old company
protected itself as well as it could by becoming the
largest subscriber to the new venture, in order to control
its fortunes as far as possible. As this policy opened an
effectual door to financial relief, the King gave way on
the question of his royal prerogative, which was involved
in the legislation of the Commons, and he even sought
to further the interests of the new company.
Parliament was prorogued on July 5th, and dissolved Work of
two days later. This third Parliament of William III. !º
had achieved great things during its existence of three liament.
years. The whole money of England had been recoined,
the King secured in his government, an honourable
peace concluded, public credit restored, and the pay-
ment of public debts placed on a firm basis. The chief
conduct of affairs now lay in few hands. Lord Somers
was most eminent in the House of Lords, and Montague
gained such ascendency in the Commons that he gave
the law to all the rest. The fleet was under the manage-
nent of Russell, now Earl of Orford, who was both
Treasurer of the Navy and head of the Admiralty. In
July the King embarked for Holland, but before leaving
he gave orders that a far larger number of men should
be retained than Parliament had voted, justifying his
action on the ground that the country must be properly
defended in the event of a vacancy to the Spanish
throne. During William’s stay on the Continent the
first Partition Treaty was concluded between England,
France, and Holland. By this treaty France consented
to resign all claims upon Spain, the Indies, and the
Netherlands, in favour of the Electoral Prince of
Bavaria ; and as the latter was still a child, it was
68
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
The
JElections.
Mem; Paº-
liament
opened.
Disband-
onent of the
Army.
agreed that his father should be regent of Spain during
his minority. -
The elections to the new Parliament caused the Govern-
ment deep concern. In Westminster Sir Harry Colt,
taking as his motto, “No courtiers, no inventors of
taxes 1” closely pushed Chancellor Montague and Secre-
tary Vernon, and in other places Opposition candidates
were returned. There were many new members whose
political views were unknown. Both sides, however,
suffered at the polls; and while the official Whigs—
that is, the thick-and-thin supporters of the Ministry—
were in a minority, many influential members of the
Opposition also lost their seats. It was clearly apparent
that the continued dominance of the Whigs would de-
pend upon the manner in which public business was
conducted.
The King returned to England on December 3rd,
1698, and on the 6th the first session of his fourth
Parliament began at Westminster. The leading Whigs
at once tried their strength by proposing Sir Thomas
Littleton as Speaker, and although the Opposition would
have preferred Foley or Grenville, Littleton was elected
on the first division by a large majority. The King’s
speech, drawn up by Somers, set forth two important
things for consideration, namely, what strength ought
to be maintained at sea and what force kept up on land.
It also desired progress to be made in discharging the
public debts. Trade and prosperity depended upon the
maintenance of England's influence in Europe.
The new Parliament, however, detested the idea of a
burdensome army as much as the old, and it postponed
supply to a consideration of the reduction of the forces.
The question was regarded as so important that all
absent members were expressly summoned to attend on
December 16th, when the House went into committee.
Ministers were powerless against the general feeling, and
it was resolved that all the land forces in England, with
the exception of seven thousand English-born troops,
should be forthwith paid off and disbanded, and that

Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
69
only twelve thousand men should be allowed to remain
in Ireland. The King's Dutch regiment of guards was
thus to be sent out of the kingdom. William was greatly
chagrined both at the step itself and the supine attitude
of his Ministers. He could clearly perceive, he said, that
he would be driven to extreme measures, and even pre-
pared the draft of a speech in which he was determined
to express to Parliament his intention of withdrawing
himself from England. Had he fulfilled his threat, it is
impossible to see into what grave difficulties the country
might not have been plunged. In the Lords the bill for
disbanding the troops was condemned by Marlborough
and others, but the peers did not venture to reject the
measure. The King reluctantly gave his assent to the
bill on February 1st. Once more, however, he made an
effort to preserve his Dutch guards, but the Commons
drew up an address stating the reasons why the King's
request could not be complied with. Although William
regarded this as impertinent, he was obliged to give way.
Backed by the country, which generally was in favour
of dismissing the troops, the extreme Whigs and Tories
combined, and Ministers were powerless before such a
coalition.
An address was next presented on the irregularities
which prevailed in the management of the navy, and
Lord Orford, against whom the address was levelled,
resigned his important posts. He had rendered signal
services to his country, and, although he had received
presents from the States which he had protected, the
English fleet had never been better cared for or provided
for than while under his command. The Commons now
declared the naturalised French refugees, who had sup-
ported Montague at the elections, incapable of holding
any civil or military post ; and at the same time threw
out a proposal for disfranchising those who had been
lukewarm in acknowledging the King.
The King prorogued Parliament on May 4th, 1699,
evidently dissatisfied with the work of the session. In
addition to seriously curtailing his military authority, the
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
Willia,
III.
-*
Mavy irre-
gularities,
6tc.
Proroga-
tion of
Parlia-
77te??,
70
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
*—
CHAP. III. Commons had scarcely voted one half the sums given
Parlia-
Iments of
William
III.
Minis-
terial
changes.
The King
and the
Commons.
him in previous years. He had looked for unanimity
and despatch, and hoped that no public inconveniences
would be felt during the recess. Various Court and
Ministerial changes now occurred. Bentinck, Earl of
Portland, long William’s chosen friend, resigned the
post of Chamberlain, mainly owing to the growing favour
of his rival, Keppel, Earl of Albemarle, with the King.
More important still was the resignation of Montague,
who was unable longer to contend against the Tory
animosity. He was succeeded as Chancellor of the
Exchequer by his friend Smith, a more pliable man and
a fluent speaker. The changes in the administration,
however, did not answer the King’s expectation by
smoothing the current of public business, though Somers
as Lord Chancellor was still a tower of strength. It was
the great object of Somers to reconcile the monarchical
power with constitutional liberties, and no Chancellor
had hitherto commanded such universal confidence in
the City, though attacks began to be made upon him
within the walls of Parliament. w
In opening the second session of his fourth Parliament
on November 16th, the King observed that the common
security required a further provision for the safety of the
kingdom by sea and land. It was also necessary to
make good the deficiencies in the funds, and to discharge
the debts contracted by reason of the war. He then
drew attention to the question of the maintenance of the
poor and the desirability of finding labour for the
unemployed. Although there was considerable tension
in the country owing to the previous attitude of the King,
and certain utterances of the Judges against the House
of Commons, William carefully avoided all controversial
topics. But in their address the Commons dwelt upon
the necessity for entire mutual confidence between King
and Parliament, and as the House had amply provided for
the security of the King and the nation, they called upon
his Majesty to show marks of his high displeasure towards
all persons who had presumed or should presume to
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 71
misrepresent their proceedings to him. The King replied CHAP. III.
that there had been no such intermeddling persons, or ºf
they would have immediately felt the highest marks of whºm
his displeasure. He also said that the happiness of an -
English king depended upon an entirely good correspond-
ence between him and his Parliament.
But the Commons would not rest content with these Address
general assurances. They moved an Address against #.
Lord Chancellor Somers, both as the most powerful of
Ministers and the inspirer of the offending Judges. He
was assailed for complicity in the piracies of Captain
Kidd, because he had given Kidd a patent for the
suppression of piracy in the East Indies and had sub-
scribed to the expedition. It was complained that Kidd
was nothing better than a pirate himself, and that his
patent provided that all goods brought in by him were
to belong to those who had equipped him, of whom the
Lord Chancellor was one. This was held to be illegal,
and the old East India Company, which asserted that
its trade had been ruined by Kidd, pressed forward its
grievances, with the aid of many prominent Tories in
Parliament. But as, in addition to the Whig Chancellor,
such important men as Shrewsbury, Orford, Rumney,
and Bellamont were implicated, and as the jurists were
on the side of Somers, the House of Commons decided
that the patent was legal, though there was a considerable
minority against this.
Another and a more important difficulty arose out of Irish for-
the Irish forfeited estates. The right to dispose of them .
had been in dispute since 1690. The King claimed the
power of disposing of them as he pleased, but the Com-
mons held that they ought to be applied in making good.
the War charges incurred in subduing the island, and
certainly that the confiscated lands ought not to be dis-
tributed amongst courtiers, nor, above all, given to
foreigners. Loud complaints were heard as to the
actual disposition of a large portion of these lands by
William amongst his friends and generals—Bentinck,
Keppel, Ginkell, etc. Commissioners were appointed to
72
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, take an account of the forfeited estates, and these went
Parlia-
ments Of
William
Party re-
crimina-
tions.
Ring and
Commons
claim the
€States.
over to Ireland for the purpose. The matter gave great
umbrage to the King ; but the commissioners proceeded
with their task, and on its completion prepared a report,
which was laid before Parliament on December 15th,
1699. Thereupon the Lower House resolved that a bill
should be brought in to apply all the forfeited estates
and interests in Ireland and all grants thereof, and the
rents and revenues belonging to the Crown within that
kingdom since the day of William III.'s accession—
February 13th, 1688—to the use of the public ; and a
clause was ordered to be inserted in the bill for erecting
a judicature for determining claims touching the said
forfeited estates. The feeling was so strong against the
grants generally that even men like Montague, who had
participated in them, voted for their withdrawal.
When the second reading of the bill dealing with the
estates came on—January 18th, 1700–Ministers, acting
reluctantly upon the King's wish, proposed a clause
dividing the vacant properties into three parts, one being
reserved for the King, one for the army, and one for the
English nation. It met with such resistance, however,
that its introducers did not venture to take a formal
division upon it, and the idea was abandoned. But the
matter was not permitted to rest here. The Commons
passed a resolution to the effect that, by their advice and
co-operation in these alienations, Ministers had burdened
the nation with debts and taxes, had even stained the
King's honour, and that their course had exhibited a
grave dereliction of duty. The Whigs were alarmed at
the prospect of their denunciation by the nation, and
tried to prove that Tories like Godolphin and Seymour
had also been concerned in the alienations. A deputa-
tion from the Commons laid the resolution before the
Ring.
In his answer William not only asserted his right to
the forfeited estates, but pointed out that the House
might have been better employed in devising other
means for the reduction of the debt than by recalling
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
73
the royal grants. The Commons were furious, and after
a heated discussion passed a resolution that whosoever
advised the King’s answer had used his utmost en-
deavours to create misunderstanding and jealousy be-
tween the King and his people. Parliament was thus
in antagonism with both the sovereign and his Ministers.
But it adhered to its claim over the confiscated estates,
and when at a later stage it voluntarily inserted some
grants in the bill, it only thereby further accentuated its
constitutional right and authority; and it was supported
in its action by the vast majority of the nation, who
naturally looked for a diminution of the public burdens
by the resumption of the forfeited lands.
Unable to contend against the feeling in the Commons,
the Whigs looked for support to the House of Lords.
The Forfeited Estates Bill was designedly tacked by the
Commons to the Landed Tax Bill, in the belief that the
peers would not dare to reject a money bill. The Lords
complained of the compulsion thus put upon them, but
passed the second reading. In committee, however, the
Whig peers brought forward several amendments. Whar-
ton was the chief spokesman, but the Duke of Devonshire
openly declared that the bill broke down the barriers be-
tween Crown and people, and that he would never consent
to it. But there were other firm friends of the King who
were for passing the bill. Bishop Burnet was the most
influential of these, and he said he was “willing to ven-
ture his Majesty’s displeasure rather than please him in
that which he feared would be the ruin of his govern-
ment.” Afterwards, when the Bishop grasped the work-
ing of the bill, he declared that if he had understood the
matter in time he would never have given his vote for it.
He also determined “never to consent again to any tack
to a money bill as long as he lived.”
The Lords ultimately adopted the amendments, but
this only made the Commons the more resolute. Most
of the leading men, including Harley, Seymour, and Mus-
grave, declared against the changes, and declined under
the circumstances to proceed to vote the supplies. This
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments Of
William
III.
*º-
The Lords
and the
JBill.
The Com-
7)?07?.S &7°63
victorious.
74
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [boo
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
*-*.
Dissolu-
tion.
Party
changes.
Succession,
question.
determination brought things to a crisis, but although
the attitude of the Commons imperilled the pay of the
services, for a time the Lords would not give way. Then
the King was appealed to—as some thought, by Sunder-
land—and the Commons were victorious in the struggle.
The Upper House agreed, by 39 votes to 34, to pass
the bill without any amendments. Twenty-two peers for-
mally dissented, and published their reasons for so doing.
The passing of this bill carried with it the overthrow
of the Whigs who had opposed it. The House of Com-
mons attacked Somers, and failing to carry an address
for his removal from the King's councils, contented itself
with one calling for the removal of all foreigners there-
from, except Prince George of Denmark. This address
was aimed at Albemarle, Portland having already re-
signed. The King would not receive it, but on April 11th
went down to Westminster, signed the bills laid before
him, and, without vouchsafing a word to the House,
commanded the Earl of Bridgewater to prorogue the
Parliament to May 23rd. It was afterwards dissolved
on December 19th, and a new one called to meet on
February 6th ensuing. On April 17th the King com-
manded the Lord Chancellor to give up the seals, which
he had declined to do voluntarily, lest the act should be
construed as one of guilt or fear. Montague was raised
to the peerage under the title of Lord Halifax. The
party leaders in Parliament were now stronger than the
King, and William further somewhat suffered in popu-
larity by his continued visits to the Continent in times
of peace.
While he was abroad this year, a succession question
of moment arose. The young Duke of Gloucester, son
of the Princess Anne, and who had been regarded as
heir-presumptive to the throne after his mother, died
suddenly on July 30th, 1700. The hopes of the Jacobites
revived, but they were not placed so much on the un-
popular James as upon the Prince of Wales, whom most
of the party now acknowledged to be the rightful and
legitimate heir to the throne. William favoured the
Ix.]. PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
75
claims of the children of the deceased Henrietta, Duchess
of Savoy, the lovely and accomplished sister of Charles II.
But a more powerful candidate sprang up in the Princess
Sophia, Electress of Hanover. Though far removed from
any hereditary title, this Protestant princess was in every
other respect the fittest object of the nation’s preference.
Her only claim in blood was that she was the grand-
daughter of James I. The Princess herself, however,
favoured the Prince of Wales, whose claims she foresaw
might become formidable.
But while the succession question was pending,
European affairs once more came into great prominence.
The death of the Electoral Prince of Bavaria led to the
second Partition Treaty, concluded March 13th, 1700,
between France, England, and Holland. Under this
further attempt to settle the Spanish succession, the
Archduke Charles of Austria was to be king of the
greater part of the Spanish dominions. France was to
receive Guipuzcoa, in the north of Spain, and the two
Sicilies, together with Milan, which was to be exchanged
for the duchy of Lorraine. Spain, the Indies, and the
Netherlands were to pass to the Archduke Charles.
Louis was insincere, and the new King of Spain, who
was then in a critical condition, was easily induced to
declare the Duke of Anjou, a son of the Dauphin, heir
to the whole of his dominions. The King of Spain died
in November, and Louis accepted the Spanish inheritance
for his grandson, in complete disregard of the treaties.
The whole of the arrangements were extremely unpopular
in England. -
Such was the situation at home and abroad at the
close of the year 1700. It was in December that the
King resolved upon the dissolution of Parliament, for
he saw it was hopeless to expect to arrive at a good
understanding with the existing House of Commons,
which was now, moreover, in the last year of its legal
existence. The elections to the new Parliament were
carried on amidst great excitement. So eager were men
to enter the House of Commons, that there were reported
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
smsº
Second
Partition,
Treaty.
The Elec-
tions,
76
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments Of
William
III.
Parlia-
ment of
1701.
Pressing
questions.
Attitude
of the
Commons.
to be five candidates for every seat. One of the East
India companies supported the Whigs, the other the
Tories. Godolphin was now First Lord of the Treasury,
and Rochester held high office ; but the Tory party were
not satisfied with the efforts of the new Ministers, which
they described as lukewarm and ineffective. Country
gentlemen were for the most part returned in the coun-
ties, and capitalists in the boroughs. *
The new House of Commons met on the day appointed,
February 6th, 1701, and on the 11th proceeded to the
election of a Speaker. The choice fell on Mr. Robert
Harley, of Presbyterian antecedents, but his singular
ability and dexterity gave him a powerful sway over both
the High Church party and the Dissenters. The King
advised Sir Thomas Littleton to give way to him, and Sir
Thomas absented himself from the House on the day of
election. Harley and Sir Richard Onslow were proposed,
but the former was successful, obtaining 249 votes against
125 in the negative.
The King's speech left no doubt of the necessity both
for settling the English succession, and taking measures
for the preservation of the Protestant religion and the
peace of Europe. William's reading of French designs
and diplomacy was speedily confirmed and justified, for
when it was found impossible, without the actual out-
break of a war for which the allies were not prepared,
to maintain the Dutch garrisons in the Spanish Nether-
lands, the French troops marched into the garrisons on
the very day of the assembling of the English Parlia-
ment. This step gave Louis an enormous advantage,
for in the event of a conflict Holland was laid com-
pletely open to his attack. The French king had like-
wise designs against the foreign trade of England and
Holland, and this commercial rivalry, as well as his
high-handed conduct in the Netherlands, caused great
commotion in England. -.
The House of Commons spent a good deal of time in
investigating charges of bribery at elections. The old
East India Company had long bought members, but
Ix.] 12ARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 77
the new East India Company now did the same. Justice CHAP. III.
was visited upon many offenders, but not without par- Parlia:
tiality, for “that which was voted corruption in the Whigs #
was called giving of alms in the Tories.” This business +
being disposed of, on the 14th the House passed the
following resolution, though only by 181 votes to 160 :
“That they would stand by and support his Majesty and
his Government, and take such effectual measures as may
best conduce to the interest and safety of England, the
preservation of the Protestant religion, and the peace of
Europe.” But war was not believed to be a near con-
tingency by the majority. The main objects were to avoid
a breach with Spain and to effect a settlement of various
home questions. It is true the partition treaties were
attacked, and a motion was carried requesting the King
to lay before the House all treaties concluded with foreign
Powers since the late Peace ; but these incidents only
signified the intention of the House generally not to lose
sight of British interests. The Commons did not as yet,
as the King did, grasp the far-reaching and ulterior views
of Louis XIV. concerning the Spanish succession ; but
not long hence they were destined to have convincing
proofs of William's prescience.
Meanwhile only a few days elapsed before evidence Stuart
was furnished of the activity of the Stuarts. A letter Pºº".
written by the Earl of Melfort to the Earl of Perth, then
governor to the alleged Prince of Wales, accidentally
fell into King William’s hands. This letter contained a
proposal for the revival, with French aid, of James II.'s
plan of invasion which had proved abortive in 1696.
The Government laid the letter before both Houses of
Parliament on February 17th, and it caused considerable
commotion. The Houses hastened to assure the King
of their loyalty and devotion, and at once began to
take steps for the security of the throne. The Lower
House likewise promised the King its co-operation in
carrying out the alliance between England and the
States-General ; and, with the united consent of Whigs
and Tories, William was authorised to enter into negotia-
78
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. | Book
CHAP. III.
The Act
of Settle-
72677t.
Its pro-
wisions.
tions with the double object of securing the general
safety of the British kingdoms and of the States-
General, and the peace of Europe.
The House of Commons also at once addressed itself
to the question of the Protestant succession in England.
A committee was appointed to draw up resolutions touch-
ing the limitation and succession of the crown in the
Protestant line after the King's death. On March 12th
the resolutions were reported to the House, and a bill
founded upon them was brought in, which speedily
passed through Parliament and became law. This final
Act of Settlement vested the reversion of the crown in
Sophia, Electress of Hanover, who was chosen for her
Protestantism. All hereditary questions were set aside
for the sake of basing the national Protestant faith upon
a durable foundation. The Act of Settlement included
eight provisions which were not contained in the Declara-
tion of Right. These provisions were to the following
effect: (1) that all who should hereafter wear the crown
should be in communion with the Church of England; (2)
that the nation should not without consent of Parliament
engage in a war to defend any territory not belonging to the
English crown ; (3) that the sovereign should not without
consent of Parliament go out of the British islands; (4)
that matters cognisable in the Privy Council should be
transacted there, and resolutions should be signed by the
advising members; (5) that no foreigner should be per-
mitted to sit in the Privy Council, or in either House of
Parliament, or to hold any place or receive any grant
from the Crown ; (6) that no place-holder or pensioner
should be a member of the Commons; (7) that the
judges should hold office for life or good conduct at a
fixed rate of salary, and should be removable only by
both Houses of Parliament ; (8) that no pardon under
the Great Seal of England should be pleadable to an
impeachment by the Commons in Parliament.
The debates in connection with the Act of Settlement
were led by Harley, and the articles, while bearing a
Tory impress, were in the main such as most Englishmen
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 79
at the time felt to be necessary for the future welfare of CHAP. III.
England. The first provision sprang out of the national Parlia:
Protestantism. The second caused frequent discussion #
during the reign of George II. With regard to the defence III.
of Hanover, and a full solution of the difficulty was not
arrived at until the accession of Queen Victoria, when
Hanover was separated from the English crown. The
third article was repealed soon after the accession of
George I. The fourth, a much more important one from
the practical point of view, aimed at the subordina-
tion of the Cabinet, which had begun to exercise far
more power than the Privy Council. The signature of
the Privy Councillor was adopted as a means of obviating
the irresponsibility of the Cabinet Minister. The article
was also a protest against the Partition Treaty, which
had been concluded by Portland and Somers, without
consulting the Cabinet or other State officials. It was
repealed in 1705. The fifth article was aimed against
Portland and Albemarle, and while it had a beneficial
effect in the reign of George I. it was of much too sweep-
ing a character, and, after being modified, was finally
repealed by the Naturalisation Act of 7th and 8th Vic-
toria. The sixth article would have perpetually banished
Ministers from Parliament had it remained in force,
and would thus have completely severed the executive
from the legislative body. The article was revised in
1705, and provision made for a new election when any
member accepted an office under the Crown. The
seventh article was subsequently enlarged by the exclu-
sion of judges from Parliament.
Agitated debates arose in the House of Commons The second
respecting the second Partition Treaty. The King was ſº
reproached for having only given verbal instructions to
its negotiators, and the contents of the instrument were
fiercely assailed. It was even said that “since the com-
pact between King John and the Pope, by which he
received back his kingdom as a papal fief, it was the
worst treaty that had ever been concluded, the most
ruinous for England, the most disastrous for Europe.”
80 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. The Privy Council had never been properly consulted
#ºr about it, and the Duke of Devonshire, whose opinion
whºm carried great weight, declared that “those who had taken
+ part in this business ought to answer for it with their
heads.” In the Lords, Rochester and Godolphin, the
leading Tory Ministers, made no defence of the earlier
proceedings of the Government, and the Upper House
carried an address to the King complaining both of the
treaty, and of the manner in which it had been effected.
On the motion of Lord Wharton, an addition was made
to the Address to the effect that, whereas the French
king had broken that treaty, they should advise his
Majesty to treat no more with him or rely on his word
without a real security. William replied that the
Address contained matter of very great moment, and he
promised always to take care that all treaties he made
should be for the honour and safety of England.
Impeach. The House of Commons carried their dissatisfaction
#;" with the treaty much further. As the instrument would
leaders, have allowed large possessions to fall into the hands of
the King of France, and as it had been negotiated while
Parliament was sitting without being laid before the
Houses, their indignation was perhaps natural. The
King was attacked with great bitterness, and the Commons
then proceeded to impeach the Earl of Portland. Next,
by a majority of 198 to 188, they carried this resolution :
“That John Lord Somers, by advising his Majesty in the
year 1698 to the treaty for partition of the Spanish
monarchy, whereby large territories of the King of
Spain’s dominions were to be delivered up to France,
is guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour.” Mr. Simon
Harcourt was ordered to go up to the Lords and impeach
him. This resolution, it will be seen, referred to the
first Partition Treaty, and Somers's offence was that he
had been induced to legalise its acceptance by a com-
mission granted to persons whose names had been left
blank. Even the admirers of Somers felt that they
could not justify this commission. The matter was
therefore pushed with great vigour by his antagonists.
Ix.] PARLIAMIENTS OF WILLIAM III.
81
Somers had been unable to ward off the attack by CHAP. III.
personally appearing before Parliament on April 14th,
1701, when he declared that he had never had anything
in view but the honour and profit of England. Even at
the time, he said, he had objected to the treaty, but the
King urged that it was then impossible to make any
alteration in it, and that it could not be concluded except
under the conditions stated. How then could he venture
to make himself the cause of the failure of so important
and urgent a treaty P But the Tory majority of the
House of Commons resolved to proceed against him for
grave offence and dereliction of duty in connection with
the treaty of 1698. The House likewise ordered the
impeachment of Russell, Lord Orford, by 193 to 148
votes, and that of Montague, Lord Halifax, by 186 to
163. In their efforts to crush the Whig leaders, the
Commons further requested the King to exclude from
his councils for ever the four noblemen Somers, Portland,
Orford, and Halifax. It was manifest by these proceedings
that the Lower House was resolved upon establishing
two principles: that of its right to participate in the
making of treaties and that of making the holding of
offices contingent upon its will and pleasure.
But the Upper House, in which the Whigs were as strong
as the Tories, now proceeded to checkmate the Commons.
Strengthened by the support of the bishops, the Whigs
carried an address to the King, in direct opposition to
that of the Commons, praying his Majesty not to pass
any censure upon the four lords until they had been
tried upon the impeachments, and judgment given ac-
cording to the usage of Parliament and the laws of the
land. The King made no response to this, but in reply
to the Commons’ Address praying for the dismissal
of the impeached noblemen he said, “You may de-
pend upon it that I will employ none in my service
but such as shall be thought most likely to improve that
mutual trust and confidence between us which is so
necessary in this conjuncture, both for our own security,
and the defence and preservation of our Allies.” This
VOL. II. 6
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
Action of
the Lords.
82
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
Iments of
wºIIl
Public
feeling for
the King.
The Kent-
ish Peti-
thom.
Proceed-
ings
against
the peti-
tioners.
was not all the Tories hoped to obtain, but they were fain
to put up with it.
But outside Parliament there was a growing feeling
in favour of the King. The people now distrusted the
pacific policy of the Tories, and thought that even peace
might be bought too dearly. The violent proceedings of
the Commons in the matter of the impeachments, and
their slowness with regard to foreign affairs, greatly
displeased the city of London, and indeed the nation
generally. It was felt that the ruin of trade, and even
of the nation itself, must ensue if once France and
Spain were firmly united, and William were hampered
in his foreign policy. Public opinion consequently found
expression in the famous Kentish Petition, which was
presented to the House of Commons on May 8th. This
petition was drawn up by William Colepepper, Chair-
man of the Quarter Sessions at Maidstone, and signed
by the deputy lieutenants, about twenty justices of the
peace, and a large number of freeholders. It prayed
that there should be no pretence whatever for a mis-
understanding “ or the least distrust of his most sacred
|Majesty, whose great actions for this nation are writ in
the hearts of his subjects, and can never, without the
blackest ingratitude, be forgot. We most humbly im-
plore this honourable House to have regard to the voice
of the people, that our religion and Safety may be
effectually provided for, that your loyal addresses may
be turned into bills of supply, and that his most sacred
Majesty (whose propitious and unblemished reign over
us we pray God long to continue) may be enabled
powerfully to assist his Allies before it is too late.”
This petition formed a historical turning-point ; but
the House of Commons was furious at the idea of one
county setting itself up as the exponent of the wisdom
of the whole nation, and it also resented the indirect Way
in which the petition had first been brought under its
notice. The petitioners were only able to get their
document presented at all on condition that they would
avow their deed. Then Seymour and Howe vigorously
rx.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 83
denounced them. “ Double war taxes ought to be im- CHAP. III.
posed on them, their goods seized, and an example made #ºr
of them, how many soever they might be.” The House whºm
declared the petition “scandalous, insolent, and seditious, -
tending to destroy the constitution of Parliament and
to subvert the established government of these realms.”
The most prominent authors of the petition were ordered
into the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms. But public
opinion was in favour of the petitioners, and although
there was no attempt to contest the powers of the House
by habeas corpus or other legal means, the action of
the Commons was widely canvassed and condemned as
arbitrary. “The health of the five * prisoners became
quite a popular toast, and their names were invoked
everywhere as the champions of the people's rights.
Nor did the matter end here. A Whig pamphlet The
known as the Legion Memorial was sent to the Speaker, ſº
with a request that he would communicate it to the rial.”
House. Daniel Defoe was the alleged author of this
memorial, which expressed the public disgust at the
treatment by the Commons of the Kentish petitioners.
Penned “in the name of the gentlemen, freeholders, and
many thousands of the good people of England,” the
memorial claimed that the freeholders were masters of
the House, and cited a long list of errors, including the
impeachment of the former Ministers and the unworthy
treatment of the King. John Howe, the principal
speaker against the Kentish Petition, was described as
an insolent fellow, who ought to be ejected from Parlia-
ment. Notwithstanding its intemperate language, the
memorial accurately reflected the temper of a large
portion of the population, and while the Whigs hailed it
with delight, the rage of the Tories over it was unbounded.
A proposal made in the Common Council of the City
of London to present to Parliament a petition of similar
import was only lost by one vote.
It was a remarkable thing that, while the House of Parlia-
Commons, which is supposed to represent the people, "“”
was now at variance with the nation, the popular sen- country
84
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ImentS Of
William
III.
Unawi-
mity
against
France
The second
Grand
Alliance.
timent ranged itself with the King and the House of
Lords in the matter of the impeached lords. Speaking
collectively, the Tories and Anglicans were acting to-
gether on the one side, and the Whigs and Presbyterians
on the other. Differences with respect to the methods
of procedure under the impeachments arose between the
two Houses, and numerous conferences ensued. Answers
were made by the incriminated parties, and arguments
heard, but finally the impeachments fell through owing
to divergences upon a constitutional point. The Lords
claimed the right to fix a time for the trials, and ap-
pointed it accordingly, but the Commons failed to appear
on the day named. On June 17th the peers pronounced
a verdict of acquittal in Somers's case by 56 votes to 31.
The Commons remonstrated, and refused to appear at
the trial of the Earl of Orford, who was thereupon
honourably acquitted. Subsequently the impeachments
against Lords Haversham, Portland, and Halifax were
dismissed, as was also an old impeachment against the
Duke of Leeds.
There was now a considerable Whig reaction apparent,
but the Tories were not altogether cast down, and per-
ceiving the critical condition of affairs abroad, they fell
in with the King's views, and were prepared even to fight
if needs be, as auxiliaries, for Holland. The Commons
concurred with the Lords in their decision to put the King
in a position to support his Allies in maintaining the
liberties of Europe, and they were ready to grant aid to
the States-General. Such was the position when on
June 24th William went to the House of Lords to close
the session. He thought it best to terminate the difficulty
touching the impeachments, as well as other disputes
caused over a bill for examining the public accounts, by
putting an end to the sittings. Parliament was accordingly
prorogued until August 7th.
The King went over to Holland during the recess, and
on September 7th the second Grand Alliance was con-
cluded at the Hague between England, Holland, and the
Empire. By this treaty it was agreed to compensate the
1x. PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
85
Emperor for the loss of Spain, and to provide for the
security of England and Holland. The alliance was
afterwards joined by Prussia and other European Powers.
At this juncture James II. lay seriously ill at St. Ger-
mains, and he died there on September 16th. Louis XIV.
acknowledged his son under the title of James III.,
and the Pretender was proclaimed King of England,
Scotland, and Ireland at St. Germains, the French
monarch paying him a formal visit. William thereupon
recalled his ambassador, and war became inevitable.
The proclamation of the Pretender excited hostile
manifestations in England. When William returned
from the Continent early in November, the first thing
that fell under debate was whether the Parliament should
be continued or dissolved, and a new one called. Addresses
poured in upon the King praying him to dissolve it, for
if the land was to be saved “from Popery and slavery,
men should be sent to Parliament who would be thoroughly
determined to stand by him.” Sunderland and Somers
were both of opinion that no risk would be run by a
dissolution, for even if a Tory Parliament were returned
it would not venture in the state of popular feeling to do
anything against the King.
William put the matter before his Privy Council. The
Tories opposed a dissolution, and Godolphin threatened
to resign if that policy were adopted. There was a small
majority, however, even in the Privy Council, in favour
of a dissolution, and on November 11th the proclamation
was issued. The new Parliament was summoned to meet
at Westminster on December 30th. The occasion was so
critical that both sides exerted their full strength at the
elections. The commercial interests were universally in
favour of war. The ultra-Whigs and the Jacobites were
the political sections which suffered. Among notable
candidates returned was Sir Isaac Newton, elected for
Cambridge as a moderate Whig. The attitude of the
East India Companies was of considerable importance,
and on December 24th these hostile corporations came
to a compromise and decided to coalesce. After the
CHAP. III,
Parlia-
ments Of
William
III.
Death of
James II.
Proclama-
tion of the
Pre-
tender.
The
Dissolu-
tion and
the Elec-
tions.
86
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III,
Parlia-
ments 0
Tººl
III.
William's
last Paº'-
liament.
The King's
Speech.
elections were completed, it was found that both parties
were almost equally represented, but while the Whigs
had the advantage as regards wealth, the Tories had the
monopoly as regards intellect. On the whole, the new
House of Commons gave a clear majority in favour of
the King’s interests.
The first session of the sixth and last Parliament of
William III. opened on December 30th, 1701. In the
Commons Mr. Harley was elected Speaker over Sir
Thomas Littleton by a majority of fourteen votes, although
the King favoured Littleton. On the 31st the King for-
mally inaugurated the session, and made his last speech in
Parliament. Lord Somers is supposed to have borne the
chief hand in framing this memorable speech, which
became so popular at home and abroad that it was printed
with decorations in English, Dutch, and French, and hung
up in frames in almost every house in England and
Holland, as his Majesty's last legacy to his own and all
Protestant peoples. It was in every respect a noble
oration, and very different from the vapid and nerveless
utterances so frequently put into the mouths of sovereigns.
“I promise myself,” the King began, “you are full of
that just sense of the common danger of Europe and the
resentment of the late proceedings of the French king
which has been so fully and universally expressed in the
loyal and seasonable addresses of my people. The owning
and setting up the pretended Prince of Wales for King of
England is not only the highest indignity offered to me
and the nation, but does so nearly concern every man who
has a regard for the Protestant religion or the present
and future quiet and happiness of his country, that I need
not press you to lay it seriously to heart and to consider
what further effectual means may be used for securing
the succession of the crown in the Protestant line and
extinguishing the hopes of all pretenders and their open
and secret abettors.” He then observed that the French
king, by placing his grandson upon the throne of Spain,
was the real master of the Spanish monarchy, and able
to oppress the rest of Europe if speedy and effectual
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 87
measures were not taken. English trade must soon CHAP-III.
suffer and become precarious. To obviate the general Hºt
calamity he had concluded several alliances. “But,” he whºm
continued, “it is fit I should tell you the eyes of all tº
Europe are upon this Parliament ; all matters are at a
stand till your resolutions are known ; and therefore no
time ought to be lost. You have yet an opportunity, by
God’s blessing, to secure to you and your posterity the
quiet enjoyment of your religion and liberties, if you are
not wanting to yourselves, but will exert the ancient
vigour of the English nation; but I tell you plainly, my
opinion is, if you do not lay hold on this occasion, you
have no reason to hope for another.” His Majesty then
urged the necessity for strengthening the sea and the
land forces and for maintaining the public credit. He
desired nothing for himself, and was willing that all
supplies should be appropriated to objects for securing
the safety and honour of the nation. What time could
be spared from this all-important business he hoped would
be devoted to preparing some good bills for employing the
poor, for encouraging trade, and for the further suppression
of vice. With this skilful and eloquent call to unanimity,
the royal speech concluded—“Let me conjure you to dis-
appoint the only hopes of our enemies by your unanimity.
I have shown, and will always show, how desirous I am
to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in
like manner, lay aside parties and divisions. Let there
be no other distinction heard of amongst us for the future
but of those who are for the Protestant religion and the
present Establishment and of those who mean a Popish
prince and a French government. I will only add this :
if you do in good earnest desire to see England hold the
balance of Europe, and to be indeed at the head of the
Protestant interest, it will appear by your right improving
the present opportunity.”
The Lords in reply agreed with the King's denunciation The
of the French king and the attempt to set up the Pre- ſº
tender; and they promised his Majesty to assist to the the
utmost of their power in defending his person and govern- *
88 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III ment, and, in the event of his death, engaged still to
, ºr secure the Protestant succession against all pretenders
wh; Whatsoever. The Commons gave similar assurances, and
+ further promised to make good all the King's alliances,
which he had contracted with the object of preserving
the liberties of Europe and reducing the exorbitant power
of France. A bill was brought in to secure the King's
person, and the Commons also voted a land force of
forty thousand men and a like number of men for the
sea-service. The naval vote was extended so as to
include the establishment of a force of ten thousand
marines, and, as war was actually approaching, no opposi-
tion was offered to a proposal to incorporate ten thousand
foreign troops into the British army. All parties were
now cordially united in furthering the views of the King.
The The Lower House next proceeded with a bill for the
ſº attainder of the pretended Prince of Wales, whom they
declared to be guilty of high treason for assuming the
title of King of England. Every kind of correspondence
with the Pretender was emphatically forbidden; and, the
Tories consenting, it was declared penal for any one to
maintain by voice or pen that the so-called Prince of
Wales had any right to the throne of England. On the
proposition of Edward Seymour, a condition was asserted
in the alliances to be concluded, that no peace should be
made with the King of France till he had given satis-
faction for the insult to the British nation contained in
his recognition of the Pretender; and a similar article
was afterwards put into the treaty with Austria. The
bill of attainder against the pretended Prince of Wales
passed both Houses, and the Lords also passed a bill
attainting James’s queen, but that was let sleep in the
House of Commons. -
Oath of Yet a matter which occasioned long and animated
* debates in both Houses was an act for formally abjuring
& the pretended Prince of Wales and for swearing to King
William, by the title of “rightful” and “lawful” king,
and his heirs, according to the Act of Settlement. In the
Lords it was proposed to make the Oath voluntary, and
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 89
subscription or refusal to be recorded without any other CHAP. III,
penalty. Even this was opposed by the Tory party, #or
headed by Nottingham, though the number of those in whºm
favour of the bill was three times larger than the number +
of those who opposed. But the House of Commons,
perceiving the attitude of the Lords, resolved to bring in
a bill that should oblige all persons to take the abjuration.
It was drawn by Sir Charles Hedges, and all appointments
in Church and State were to be subject to it. Various
things were added to the abjuration, including an obliga-
tion to maintain the government in King, Lords, and
Commons, and to maintain the Church of England, to-
gether with the toleration for Dissenters. The resolution
to make the oath compulsory, however, was carried by
one vote only. The Tories in the House of Lords
resisted the bill by every means in their power ; but after
a singularly determined opposition it passed on February
24th, ten peers protesting.
The nature of the instructions given by certain towns Members
and counties to their representatives in Parliament now tº."
came on for discussion, and the Tories supported the view tions.
that the instructions tended to hinder freedom of debate.
The spectacle of the Tories insisting upon the exclusive
prerogatives of the Commons caused considerable astonish-
Tment in the country. A committee of the House of
Commons reported against the instructions, and affirmed
that the statement that there could be any other repre-
sentative of the Commons of England except the Lower
House was ruinous to the rights of the House itself and
to the fundamental constitution of the kingdom. Defoe
and others had argued with great spirit that Parliament
was subordinate to the people, and that English liberty
consisted in the connection between king and people, the
Sovereign nevertheless being not so much king over the
people as the people's king.
The petitions presented to the King for dissolving the £º.
late Parliament having been taken into consideration by º
the Commons, that prominent Tory leader Mr. Finch *.
broadened the issue by demanding that the authors of
90 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III, the petitions, who had thereby been guilty of a crime,
jºr should be inquired after. Several members of the House
virtually came within this condemnation, and one of them,
+ named Strickland, rose and said that if people were so
anxious to know who were the authors of the addresses,
they could see one of the supposed culprits before them :
that the Yorkshire address had originated with him, but
it had received five thousand signatures and had met with
the King's approval. The House was thrown into an
electrical condition, and recriminations were heard on all
sides. In the midst of the excitement, Strickland was
fatally seized with apoplexy, and the chairman of the
committee having left his seat, the Speaker resumed the
chair and adjourned the House.
Great On February 26th an important debate arose on the
#. , question of the renewal of the trial of the Whig lords.
In committee of the whole House the conduct of the
House of Lords in relation to the trial of the four accused
persons was discussed. Both parties used the most
strenuous efforts to bring up their adherents, for im-
portant political issues were involved. No fewer than
456 members were present in the House, being a larger
attendance than had been noted within living memory.
If the motion had been carried, a serious breach must
have ensued between the two Houses; but the Whigs’
secured a majority of fourteen votes in this critical
division, the numbers being 235 to 221. Yet while it
was thus conceded that every person accused had a right to
demand a speedy deliverance upon the offences laid to his
charge, the Whigs determined to go further than this. On
the motion of the Marquis of Hartington, a resolution was
carried to the effect that it was an undoubted right of the
people to petition the King for a dissolution and even for
the summoning of a fresh Parliament. Other resolutions
followed, and the curious spectacle was witnessed of a
House of Commons which had agreed at one time to
three resolutions asserting in various forms the unfettered
freedom of Parliament, and at another to two resolutions
giving the people a right to petition for the limitation of
Ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III. 91
its action, and confirming the right of the subject to a CHAP. III.
speedy trial when charged with any offence. At this Parlia-
time the Tories pitted the House of Commons against #:
people, Lords, and King ; while the Whigs claimed for III.
the people the right to review public affairs in opposition,
if necessary, to their own representatives. The Tories
were very powerful, and, in order not to be crushed by
them, the Whigs placed in opposition to the authority
of Parliament the three interests of King, peers, and
people.
Whilst the struggle of parties was in progress, William Accident
was disabled by a serious accident. In riding from %.
Kensington to Hampton Court on February 21st, 1702,
he was thrown from his horse, and broke his right collar-
bone. He was carried to Hampton Court, and there
medically treated. During his enforced quietude, the
King sent a message to Parliament on the subject of
the union with Scotland, a matter which had recently The Union
occupied his anxious thoughts. In this message he º’"
observed that he would esteem it a peculiar felicity if
some happy expedient for making both kingdoms one
might be devised during his reign. He was extremely
desirous that a treaty for that purpose should be set on
foot, and in the most earnest manner he therefore com-
mended this affair to the consideration of the House of
Commons. -
But “man proposes, and God disposes.” The King William's
soon found that he must leave this and all other questions º
to his successor. The war also upon which he had set
his heart must be left to the direction of Marlborough,
whose military genius had already impressed his royal
master. On March 1st his Majesty suffered a relapse, and
next day he sent a commission to the Houses of Parliament
to signify his assent to certain bills, including the bill
against the pretended Prince of Wales, and a bill pro-
viding that the solemn affirmation and declaration of
the people called Quakers should be hereafter accepted
instead of an oath in the usual form.
The King's strength then suddenly failed. His lungs His death.
92
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
III.
Charac-
ter of
William
III.
Constitu-
tional im-
portance
of his
weign.
were diseased, and they had been further injured by the
fall. Inflammation ensued, and he breathed his last on
the morning of March 8th, 1702, having reigned just
over thirteen years.
Although William III. was not of the very first order
of men, he so impressed his contemporaries by his general
abilities and sagacity that the Queen of Prussia exclaimed,
“I fear that centuries will pass ere such another is vouch-
safed to earth.” He had the greatness which is able to
perceive and weigh the significance of current events, and
his perception of the importance of the struggle against
the French king amounted to prescience of an extra-
ordinary kind.
In private life the King was too apt to suppress his
feelings, but the ring containing Mary’s hair found near
his heart after death told of strong affections. The
Glencoe massacre and the harsh treatment of the pro-
moters of the Darien scheme are remembered against his
public character ; yet what king with such great public
virtues had fewer failings P From the constitutional and
Parliamentary points of view, his reign is one of singular
interest for the people of England. That can be no in-
glorious reign which saw the establishment of the Bank
of England, the introduction of the modern system of
finance, the recognition of ministerial responsibility, the
assertion of the liberty of the press, and the founding
of the British Constitution upon a firm basis. From
William's time the ultimate decision in grave matters
of state has rested with Parliament, and not with the
sovereign. In several preceding centuries the House of
Lords had been the preponderant power; but from the end
of the seventeenth century onwards the House of Commons
became the ruling influence. It is true that under
William the House of Commons had not yet become a
popularly elected body. “The county voters were the
freeholders; but in the towns, with some important
exceptions, the electors were the richer inhabitants who
formed the corporations of the boroughs, or a body of
select householders more or less under the control of some
ix.] PARLIAMENTS OF WILLIAM III.
93
neighbouring landowner.”" The House was thus strong
aristocratically, socially, and commercially; but it was not
democratic. Yet the Commons limited the power of the
Crown by the Bill of Rights and the annual Mutiny
Act, first passed in 1689 ; the independence of the
judges was secured, and the liberty of writing and
speaking was affirmed. In religion, the Toleration Act
marked a great stride. This Act, passed in May, 1689,
relaxed the stringent conditions of the Act of Uniformity,
the Five Mile Act, and the Conventicle Act. Yet, while
it was a noble step in advance, and relieved many
religious bodies from the penalties under existing statutes,
as well as granted indulgence to Quakers, it did not
extend to Papists, or such as denied the Trinity. Tolera-
tion still continued to be the exception, though it is
just to note, with Macaulay, that the measure “removed
a vast mass of evil without shocking a vast mass of
prejudice.”
As regards the machinery of government, William
vastly improved it by instituting the Cabinet, an idea
which really had the Earl of Sunderland for its originator.
The King selected as his Ministers those leading members
of both Houses who enjoyed the confidence of the
majority in the House of Commons. This was a very
important departure, and one that was perpetuated by
William's successors.
On the whole it must ever be an honour to the Crown
of England that it has been worn by so great a man.
Even the famous statesmen who surrounded him, Somers,
Montague, Sunderland, and Godolphin, pale into insigni-
ficance before him. “He was in truth too great, not for
the times wherein he was called to action, but for the
peculiar condition of a king of England after the Revolu-
tion ; and as he was the last sovereign of this country
whose understanding and energy of character have been
very distinguished, so was he the last who has encountered
* Dr. S. R. Gardiner, article “England,” Encyclopaedia Britannica,
ninth edition.
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments Of
William
*-*
The
Cabinet.
William’s
greatness.
94
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book IX.
CHAP. III.
Parlia-
ments of
William
the resistance of his Parliament, or stood apart and un-
disguised in the maintenance of his own prerogative.”"
The Revolution of 1688-89 was fully necessary, and was
abundantly justified by its results. For his share in that
Revolution, as well as for his appointment of the first
Parliamentary Ministry, and other personal and public
acts at home and abroad, William III. will ever continue
to hold a conspicuous place in our general and con-
stitutional history, as well as in the esteem and gratitude
of the English nation.
The King
and the
Revolu-
tion.
* Hallam's Constitutional History.
BOOK X.
THE PARLIAMEWT OF SCOTLAWD.


CHAPTER I.
ITS EARLY HISTORY TO A. D. 1560.
IT will be convenient here to interrupt the thread of
my narrative, in order to trace the history of the Scottish
Parliament from its earliest records down to the time of
the Union with England. The Constitution of Scotland
is more obscure in its origin and progress than that of
most European states, for all ancient documents and con-
temporary chronicles which may have existed during the
first eleven centuries of the Christian era have been irre-
trievably lost. No authentic Scottish charter, record, or
chronicle is known to be extant so old as the reign of
Malcolm Canmore, who died in 1093 ; and it is therefore
useless to conjecture upon the constitution and powers
of such political bodies as existed prior to the eleventh
or twelfth century. -
It is extremely difficult to distinguish the ancient
Scottish legislative court or council of the sovereign from
that which discharged the duty of counselling the King
in judicial proceedings. While the early lawgivers
enacted statutes by the advice of the “bishops, earls,
barons, thanes, and whole community,” or “through the
common counsel of the kynryk (kingdom),” during the
reigns previous to Alexander III. the King also decided
causes in a similar assembly of magnates; and laws
of the greatest importance, and affecting the interests of
*
VOL. II. 4.
The
Scottish
Comsti-
tution.
The King
and the
Legis-
lative
Council.
98
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I. all classes of the community, were enacted by the King
#% and his judges. The appointment of Turgot to the
Aïišč, bishopric of St. Andrews by King Alexander I. in 1107,
The
Scottish
Estates.
and the proceedings in connection with the election and
retirement of his successor, Eadmer, in 1120–1, are the
earliest events in Scottish history where there is evidence
of the concurrence of a national council. This council, as
the King himself stated in a letter to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, consisted of certain bishops, earls, “and good
men of the country.” In the few remaining charters of the
kings preceding this monarch there is no mention of any
great officers of the Crown. Those of Alexander are
witnessed by his chancellor and constable, the former
office being rendered necessary by the introduction of
royal fiefs and charters, and the latter marking the rise
of a feudal baronage. A justiciar also first occurs in this
reign, and in royal grants of importance Alexander cites
the testimony and consent of the bishops and magnates
of his kingdom."
The Representative Assembly, or Parliament, of the
Scottish nation approximated more to the French than to
the English model. It contained three estates, prelates,
tenants-in-chief great and small, and townsmen, until
James I., in 1428, in imitation of the English system,
instituted commissioners of shires, to supersede the
personal appearance of the minor tenants-in-chief ; then
the three estates became the lords, clerical and lay,
the commissioners of shires, and the burgesses; and
these throughout their history continued to sit in one
house.” The estates have been simply and clearly defined
by some authorities as the clergy, the barons, and the
burgesses. The Chancellor was president; the officers of
state had seats in virtue of their offices ; and the judges of
* The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, printed by command
of Queen Victoria in pursuance of an Address of the House of Commons
of Great Britain, Vol. I., A.D. 1124–1423.
* Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer; and Stubbs's Constitutional
IIistory, Vol. II.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
99
the Court of Session sat round a table in the centre of the
hall, between the barons and the Commons. All tenants
of the Crown, or barons, as they were denominated, were
entitled to sit in Parliament; but many, from the small-
ness of their incomes and the overwhelming influence
of the great aristocracy, forbore to attend an assembly
where they were merely objects of disdain. It was this
failure that led to the statute of James I., a statute passed
nearly two centuries after the Commons of England had
obtained representation. Moreover, in England the right
of voting was not confined to mere tenants of the Crown ;
it was indisputably exercised by all freeholders; but
in Scotland the right was restricted to proprietors who
held of the Crown." The burghs early acquired a right
of representation, and their commissioners sometimes
attended, but the commissioners for counties never.
The National Council practically established by
Alexander I. is called the Curia Regis from the reign of
William the Lion till the death of Alexander III.
Constitutional progress during this period is interesting,
though somewhat difficult to trace. David I. (1124–
1153) was known as a legislator, and a considerable body of
his work has survived to this day. In his reign the offices
of great steward and constable became hereditary in the
families of Stewart and De Morevil. Another important
officer, the great chamberlain, had probably the general
control of the Treasury; but his functions, administrative
and judicial, had more particular reference to the affairs
of the burghs, the defined constitution of which was one
of the remarkable features of the reign.
Well-defined constitutional landmarks distinguish the
reign of William the Lion, who was crowned at Scone
in 1165. This king held frequent great courts for the
decision of causes and enacting of assizes and statutes.
These assemblies consisted of bishops and prelates, earls,
barons, and free tenants of the Crown. For the first
* Constitutional History of the British Empire. By George Brodie,
Historiographer Royal of Scotland.
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560.
•=º
Early con-
stitutional
progress.
The
Mational
Assem-
blies.
100
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
wº-
CHAP. I.
time mention is now made of public taxes imposed by
####, the National Assembly. The ordinary expenses of the
Ai, ië6ö. government were obtained from other sources, such as
Growing
influence
of the
burghs,
the old prescriptive regal dues, the customs on export
and import of merchandise, the rents of the Crown lands
and of burgh tenements, and the fines and escheats in
the king’s courts. With the authority of the National
Assembly, William imposed taxes on all lands, whether
the property of the clergy or of the laity. During the
reigns of Alexander I. and II. there was no material
change in the constitution of Scotland. Alexander II.
was supported by the National Assemblies in resisting
the admission of legates from Rome, and in confirming
the privileges of the National Church. Under legislative
sanction, aids were imposed for public purposes, and
several general statutes enacted. Alexander III., who
reigned from 1249 till 1286, gave stability to the institu-
tions which had sprung up in the stormier reigns of his
predecessors. The administration of the law by sheriffs
in shire courts was extended over the remotest districts,
including Inverness, Elgin, and Dumfries ; lands were
valued by a general “extent” for ascertaining the dues of
the Crown and assessing public taxes; and the whole of
modern Scotland was brought under a firm and vigorous
government. During this first period of constitutional
history, extending from Alexander I. to the death of
Alexander III., the National Council or Assembly of
Scotland appears to have differed very little in its con-
stitution from that of England at the same period.
It is important to note the growth of burgh privileges.
It was under that wise sovereign David I. that the
burghs of Scotland took their place as recognised mem-
bers of the body politic of a feudal kingdom. Their
voluntary incorporation was legalised, they became tenants
in capite of the Crown, and from that period yielded a
large proportion of the revenue of the country. Their
growing influence was fostered by the organisation of an
assembly for treating their common affairs. “Long before
the principle of representation can be discovered elsewhere,
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
101
the burghs of Scotland sent delegates to a court of their
own, where they framed laws for their common govern-
ment, and reviewed decisions of individual burgh courts :
a burgher Parliament, which, though now become insig-
nificant, long continued, under its successive characters
of the Court or the Convention of Burghs, one of the
most remarkable of the peculiar institutions of Scotland.”"
The burgesses joined in aids and public contributions
from a very early period, and probably met for that
purpose in their own court, as their attendance in the
National Councils during a whole century is ignored by
contemporary chroniclers.
Touching the composition of the National Councils,
statutes are found in 1230 which profess to be enacted by
the advice and consent of the magnates of the realm and
of the whole community; but the list of those present,
preserved in several manuscripts, gives no more than the
names of one bishop, two earls (one of them justiciar of
Scotland proper), one prior, the justiciar of Lothian, the
high steward, and one baron. In 1255 an important
national convention numbered four bishops, four abbots,
four earls, and thirteen great barons. At the head of
the list were the Steward of Scotland and Robert de
Brus (Bruce). The Assembly of Nobles which acknow-
ledged the Maiden of Norway as heir to the throne at
Scone on February 5th, 1283, consisted of thirteen earls
and twenty-four great knights and barons. Finally,
the great convention at Brigham in 1289 was composed
of the four guardians, two of whom were bishops, of ten
other bishops, twelve earls, twenty-three abbots, eleven
priors, and forty-eight barons. There were thus upwards
of a hundred representatives of the estates present. But
down to the second period of the constitutional history
of Scotland, which may be said to commence with the
disputed succession and the War of Independence, there is
no allusion to representatives of burghs as being present
at any of the national councils or assemblies.
| Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Preface.
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560,
Com-
position
of the
Councils.
102
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I,
Its Early
Histo
ry to
A.D. 1560.
There is some confusion as to the first actual mention
of the word “Parliament” in connection with the Scottish
representative councils. Lord Hailes' states that “a Par-
Use ºf the liament was held at Stirling in 1211, when the King
Ovord
“ Parlia-
ment.”
demanded an aid for levying the sum due to the King of
England by the late convention, when the barons gave
him 10,000 merks, and the burghs 6,000. ” But in the
official records this assembly is distinctly called a great
council–magnum concilium. Burton states that up to
1289 no assembly had as yet called itself a Parliament
on its record ; and that the earliest Parliament thus
styling itself is that of 1292, held by John Baliol at
Scone.” But I find that the first use of the word
“Parliament” in the records occurs at a much earlier
date than this. In 1215 Alexander held a Parliament
at Edinburgh, the language expressly used being tenuit
Parliamentum. The next use of the word is in 1259,
when a council was held whose proceedings were “ap-
parently Parliamentary.” Again, the famous assembly
in 1283 is styled “a Parliament at Scone,” when, as
already stated, the settlement of the succession was
made by the earls and barons in favour of the Maiden
of Norway. The first time that Wyntoun gives to the
National Assembly of the Estates the name of Parlia-
ment is in connection with that of 1286, in which the six
wardens were appointed. In 1289, at the Parliament of
Brigham (above referred to), letters were read from the
guardians “and all the commonalty, or community, of
the realm of Scotland,” to the kings of England and
Norway regarding the marriage of Queen Margaret.
That the word “Parliament " must have been already in
use is shown by the treaty of Brigham (1289), in which
it was covenanted that no Parliament should be held
without the boundaries of Scotland as to matters re-
specting the kingdom.
* Annals of Scotland.
* History of Scotland, by John Hill Burton, Historiographer
Royal, Vol. II.
* Et tote la commune de reaume de Escoce,
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 103
But the records state that the Parliament assembled CHAP. I.
by John Baliol at Scone on February 9th, 1292, was #.
probably the first of the National Councils of Scotland Ali, ië66.
which bore that name throughout the country at the time. Parlia.
No change of constitution occasioned the adoption of the ..." and
new term, which soon became in Scotland, as in England, burghs.
the received designation of the great legislative council
solemnly assembled. In 1289–90, however, burghs had
been mentioned for the first time as having a voice in
the affairs of the nation ; and to the treaty between John
Baliol and Philip of France, ratified at Dunfermline in
1295, the seals of six burghs were appended. Yet from
the peculiar phraseology of the deed itself, and from the
silence of historians as to any meeting of a Parliamentary
nature in which it could have been voted, it is doubtful
whether the parties stated as consenting, and especially
whether representatives of those six burghs, were actually
present as in a National Assembly or Parliament. It is
further dubious whether the representatives of the burghs
formed a part of the Parliaments of Robert I. in 1314,
1315, and 1318, although in the Parliamentary settlement
of the Crown by the second of these there is mention
of the majores communitatum. In Bruce's great Parlia-
ment of 1326, however, held at Cambuskenneth, the
representatives of corporations were undoubtedly present.
To meet the expenses of the War of Independence and
the necessities of the State, the tenth penny of all rents
was granted to the monarch “by the earls, barons, bur-
gesses, and free tenants in full Parliament assembled.”
From this time forward the representatives of the burghs
formed the Third Estate, and an essential part of all
Parliaments and General Councils.
It is in this Parliament of 1326 that we meet with The
the first development in Scotland of what are now con- ...".
sidered the fundamental principles of a representative people.
constitution, namely, a claim of right, redress of griev-
ances, a grant of supplies, and a strict limitation of the
grant to its proper purposes. The gift of a tenth penny
to the King was declared to be null if the King should
104
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
.A.D. 1560,
Burgh
cou?"tS 07'
Parlia-
memts.
defeat its application to the public service by any re-
missions granted beforehand. Then, because certain of
the nobles had liberties and privileges—regalities and
high jurisdictions—which impeded the King's officers in
levying taxes within their bounds, all such privileged
lords undertook to make payment of the tax effeiring to *
their lands, which failing, the King's sheriffs were to
distrain. The concluding words of the act were very
remarkable : “It is consented and agreed between our
lord the King and the community of his realm.” (inter
dominum regem et communitatem regni Sui) “that on the
death of the King the payment of the tenth penny shall
stop, and that the thing shall not be drawn into a pre-
cedent.” With this important constitutional limitation,
the King gave his consent to the act by appending the
Great Seal. He thus acknowledged the authority of the
Estates in regard to money grants.
Before this period nevertheless the Scottish burghs, as
we have seen, had courts or Parliaments of their own.
There was a burghal Parliament in the south, called
the Court of the Four Burghs. These were Edinburgh,
Berwick, Stirling, and Roxburgh. Even after other cor-
porations joined it, the old name was retained, and its
functions partook of a mixed judicial and legislative cha-
racter. “It reviewed,” says Burton, “the decrees of the
Lord Chamberlain in questions where individual corpora-
tions were concerned, as the English Parliament reviewed
the decision of the King’s judges, the Chamberlain him-
self sitting with the burgess representatives, and probably
guiding their proceedings after the practice still followed
by some law lord in the House of Lords.” The Court
of the Four Burghs further established rules of law on
matters of private rights and obligations, such as the
modes of succession to the property of burgesses. A
notable case has been handed down where one of the
parties appealed against a judgment in Scotland to
Edward I., when the English king was asserting his
1 Fairly falling to.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 105
right of superiority over Scotland. The laws of the Four CHAP: I.
Burghs are held to be more complete and compact, and #%
to have in them more of the qualities of a body of statute Ali, ië66.
law, than any other fragments of ancient legislation in
Scotland. By degrees the Court absorbed all the royal
burghs of Scotland, but its influence weakened as the
municipalities became directly represented in the general
Parliament of the country. Under the title of the
“Convention of Royal Burghs,” it continued to adjust
questions affecting the internal affairs of corporations until
the passing of the Burgh Reform Act of 1833; but the
convention still has the semblance of life, and continues
to meet annually at Edinburgh.” The old Scots burghs
were truly democratic, and there was “no trace of thral-
dom or serfdom * within them, affording in this respect
a marked contrast to the English corporations, while
closely resembling them in others.
Edward I., in his scheme for the government of the Edward
realm, decided that the Crown was to be represented in ſº70-
Scotland by a governor or lieutenant. He was to be Scotland.
assisted by a small council, not of a parliamentary or
deliberative character, but one selected to give advice in
aid of the executive government. The members chosen
all bore distinctively Scottish titles.” In the year 1305
Edward summoned to the English Parliament ten re-
presentatives from Scotland, who were to be chosen as
follows : two by the prelates, two by the abbots, two by
the earls, two by the barons, and two by the commonalty;
and they were to be recouped their expenses for attend-
ance in England. With the desire of further pacifying
and conciliating Scotland and completing the fusion of
the two countries, Edward contemplated the summoning
of a great union Parliament at Carlisle ; but his efforts
came too late, for early in 1306 Bruce left the English
* Ryley's Collection of Pleadings in Parliament.
* Marwick's Records of the Convention of the Royal Burghs of
Scotland.
* Palgrave's Documents Illustrative of the History of Scotland.
106
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP, I.
Its Early
St0 O
A.D. 1560.
Parlia-
ment of
1318.
A.
ovational
7°67??0%-
Stº'a?!C6,
Court, and soon raised his standard in the northern
kingdom.
A Scottish Parliament held in 1318 passed many im-
portant laws, especially distinguishing itself in matters
of order and good government. One statute provided
for the arming of the people ; a second prohibited the
removal of any commodities or money from the king-
dom of Scotland, so that the barons or others who lived
in England could draw nothing from their estates. To
retain their privileges as Scotsmen they must return to
their native country. Another enactment would have
affected the heart of old Izaak Walton. It dealt with
that noble fish the salmon—which continues to be legis-
lated upon until this day—and provided that it should
be consumed so far as, and no farther than, might be
consistent with the due preservation of the breed.
On April 6th, 1320, a Parliament assembled in the
abbey of Arbroath, when a solemn address to Pope
John XXII. was resolved upon from the earls, barons,
and free tenants, with all the community of the kingdom
of Scotland. A great remonstrance was made against
the wrongs of the Scottish nation and the misrepresen-
tations of England. The language of this memorable
document is distinguished for “a becoming and mourn-
ful dignity that has made the remonstrance illustrious
among the utterings of national wrongs and appeals for
national mercy and justice.” The remonstrants com-
plained of the King of England for attempting, under
JParlia-
ments of
JDavid II.
the guise of friendly intervention, to destroy the liberties
of Scotland, and to conquer it for himself. Bruce's
achievements were then proudly recited. The Scots’
memorial at once produced a mitigatory effect through
the bulls of the Papal Court, but ten years later the war
with Scotland was renewed by Edward III.
During the reign of David II. (1329–1371) the Scot-
tish Parliaments gained in independence and power. That
held at Scone in 1363 rejected as inadmissible, and with
disdain, the King's suggestion that his successor should
be one of the sons of the King of England. Another
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 107
held in 1366 debated four propositions: homage, the CHAP: I.
succession, the dismemberment of the kingdom, and the #;"
tº * g tº $ g ry
subsidising of an armed force against England; and it Aiºiš60.
resolved that all but the last should be rejected as
intolerable, and not to be admitted even to deliberation.
The captivity and frequent absence of David, and still Bold legis-
more, perhaps, his propensity to rely upon English lation.
counsels, had their effect upon his people. The later
Parliaments of his reign manifested a “surly resoluteness
in checking abuses and stretches of the prerogative.”
Among other things, it was resolved that strict justice
should be administered between man and man, that
favour should be shown to no one, and that the writs
issued from the King's Chapel in Chancery should not
be stopped at the instance of any one, however powerful.
Royal remissions for injury done were to be null, unless
the injured were satisfied ; and no justiciar, sheriff, or
other officer of the Crown was to execute any warrant,
if it were contrary to statute or common law. Except
the feudal dues, nothing was to be taken from the com-
munity for the King’s use without prompt payment.
Under severe penalties, horses were not to be sent to
graze on peasants’ lands. Royal gifts of estates and
feudal dues were to be recalled, and the property of the
Crown restored to its original state at King Robert's
accession. Public services were to be rewarded, by
advice of the Council, out of the movable property of
the Crown. The liberal supplies granted to the Crown
were to be used for their specified purposes, and no
other. Here was asserted the great Parliamentary
principle of the right to control the appropriation of
the supplies, as well as the power to grant them."
* In the collections of the Scots Acts made in the early part of
the seventeenth century several of these enactments were omitted,
although they must have existed in the original manuscripts. Burton
attributes this to a propensity to overlook whatever bore testimony
in these earlier times to the freedom of the people and their control
of the royal prerogative,
108 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP: I. The increase in the functions of the executive, and the
####, secrecy and decision deemed requisite in a council of
Ali, ië66 state, led to the introduction of a mode of conducting the
Pomers affairs of Parliament which ultimately and materially
* affected the independence of its deliberations. The fre-
mittees, quent and protracted meetings of the National Council
were felt to be extremely burdensome, especially by the
class of small freeholders, among whom as yet no
representation was established. Many of these attended
with reluctance, and they could not remain through the
session without much inconvenience. To ease that class,
and also to avoid the difficulties attending the popular
discussion of certain questions, for the consideration of
which the National Council was expressly summoned,
Parliament devised the plan of delegating its powers to
various committees of its members." For example, in
the Parliament of Perth, held in March, 1368, the Three
Bstates, on account of the inconvenience of the season
and the dearness of provisions, elected certain persons
“to hold the Parliament,” who were divided into two
bodies, one to treat of the general affairs of the King
and kingdom, and another and a smaller committee to sit
on appeals from inferior courts. And in the succeeding
Parliament of February, 1369, two committees were ap-
pointed, the first to deal with appeals, pleas, and
complaints which of right should have come before
Parliament, and the other “to treat and deliberate on
certain special and secret affairs of the King and king-
dom previous to their being brought before the whole
Parliament.” In these arrangements were the germs
both of the Committee of Articles, which afterwards
became an essential and a remarkable part of the con-
stitution of Parliament, and of the Judicial Committee,
which, under various forms and regulations, became also
a permanent institution, and terminated in the establish-
ment of a separate and Supreme Court of Justice. These
changes were accepted as precedents by David's successor,
1 Preface to the Scots Acts of Parliament.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
109
Robert II., the first Stuart king, whose reign otherwise
marks little of constitutional change or improvement.
The Lords of the Articles, who ultimately became a
recognised part of the legislative machinery of Scotland,
and who sprang out of the “Committee of Articles,”
CHAP. T.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560.
The
Lords
of the
assumed the form of a permanent body by the time of Articles.
James I., or just about half a century after the original
inception of the Committee. From the reign of James
the legitimate method of transacting the legislative busi-
ness of Parliament was that, on the meeting of the Es-
tates, the tenor of the measures it was desirable to pass
was ascertained. Then certain persons were chosen from
each Estate to be the Committee on the Articles. They
prepared and matured the various measures, the Estates
standing adjourned while they were at work, and their
functions somewhat resembled those of a committee of
the whole House of Commons which deals with a bill
referred to it after the second reading. The Estates
being again assembled, the Committee reported the bills
matured, and they were put to the vote for final adoption
or rejection.
The settlement of the crown made in 1371, the first
year of the reign of Robert II., was upon the strict lines
of male succession. Parliament enacted that the King's
eldest son, John, Earl of Carrick, should succeed him.
Two years later another act was passed naming succes-
sively the sons of the King by his first wife, each to
succeed on the failure of his elder brother and the male
children of that elder brother. If the sons of the first
marriage provided no successor to the crown, then those
of the second were to come in their order. This express
Parliamentary “entail of the crown,” as it has been
termed, was rendered necessary by Robert's two mar-
riages. He had espoused first Elizabeth, daughter of Sir
Adam Mure, of Rowallan, and by her he had four sons
and six daughters. But by the ecclesiastical or canon law
these children were held to be illegitimate, as under that
law the parents (who were within the forbidden lines
of relationship) could not have been wedded without a
Settle-
ment of
the Suc-
cession.
110
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I. dispensation. By his second wife, Euphemia Ross,
####, Robert had two sons and four daughters, so that there
Aïiásá was no lack of heirs to the crown. All the King's
Reform-
ing Pay-
liament
of 1398.
daughters made influential alliances by marriage. The
offspring of Elizabeth Mure actually reigned, according
to their Parliamentary title, but ecclesiastical doubts con-
tinued to disturb the minds of many. The succession
difficulties of the Stuarts were not unconnected with the
tragic death of James I.; and, by way of singular con-
trast, four hundred years later there was something of the
ludicrous attaching to the last prominent representative
of the ecclesiastically legitimate race of Stuart."
By the time of the first Stuart king, the foundations
had been laid of all that was peculiar in the constitution
of the Scottish Parliament. But the action of the Estates
during the reign of Robert III. possesses considerable
interest. The Parliament which met at Perth in April,
1398, addressed itself to the work of remedying the
national grievances. Although some of the most flagrant
offenders had seats in the assembly, Parliament em-
phatically denounced the evils of the day, and endeavoured
to find a remedy. In consequence of the weakness and
incompetency of the King, it proceeded to appoint his
eldest son and heir, the Duke of Rothesay, as his lieu-
tenant, with full sovereign powers, but limiting his
commission to three years, and appointing a council
named in the act for his guidance. It was further
provided that the acts of the regent and his advisers
should be minuted, in order that the counsellors of the
Duke might be amenable to punishment by Parliament
if they transgressed. The hands of the executive were
strengthened in bringing offenders to justice, including
those who should set the officers of the Crown at defiance.
If they failed to appear after due notice, they were to be
1 Burton reminds us that the last conspicuous representative of
Euphemia Ross and the legitimate race of Stuart was Captain
Barclay, of Ury, noted a generation or two ago as a pugilist, a
pedestrian, and an amateur driver of stage-coaches.
x. THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 111
proclaimed as rebels and outlaws. These acts would have CHAP. I.
appeared drastic in other States, but the Scots cared #,
little for Divine right even at this early period. This A.ii. #6.
Parliament of 1398 was signalised by the appearance of
a new dignity upon its rolls : that of duke. The title
was limited in the outset to the blood-royal, and the
regent was created Duke of Rothesay, while the King's
brother was created Duke of Albany.
The reign of James I. (1406–1437) was marked by Origin
many important legislative and judicial changes. The ºr
King was for some time a captive in England, but on his Lan.
return home in 1424 he was crowned at Scone. Immedi-
ately began a revolution in the common law and statute
law, and from this period practically dates the statute
law of Scotland, for the collections of Scots Acts made for
the profession go no further back than this. James gave
his Parliament plenty to do, and statutes were passed
in almost every year of his reign. Arrangements were
made for promulgating the acts themselves among the
executive and judicial authorities who had to deal with
them, and the laws were directed to be issued in the
vulgar tongue. A committee of revision was also ap-
pointed to amend and interpret the old laws. A general
survey and valuation of property was instituted for
purposes of taxation, and rigid inquiries were made into
the disposition of ancient Crown property. Statutes were
passed to restrain begging and vagrancy, and to compel
the able-bodied to work. Weights and measures were
regulated, and a coinage standard established equal in
weight and fineness to that of England. Those entitled
to practise in the law were clearly identified, and their
privileges defined.
These various reforms formed an important body of Parlia:
provisions, but an effort was also made to assimilate the .
Parliament itself to that of England. The lesser barons, i.
who had found attendance irksome, were released pro-
vided they sent “commissioners ” or elected substitutes,
two for each shire, save Kinross and Clackmannan, which
were to send one each. Every person holding land from
112
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
Policy of
James I.
Checks
on the
Sove-
Teign.
&eful
and
curious
legis-
lation.
the Crown was to have a voice in the elections. In the
act containing these provisions the name of “Speaker’”
occurred for the first time, as also the word “Commons,”
the commissioners being enjoined to choose “a wise and
an expert man called the common Speaker of the Par-
liament, the whilk shall propose all and sundry needs
and causes pertaining to the Commons in the Parliament.”
At this period the King incited the Commons to dis-
courage by legislation “the game of football,” and to
encourage a system of parochial archery schools, for he
had observed the great superiority of England in the
military organisation of the people. -
James put to death his cousin Murdoch of Albany,
the Regent, for abusing his power. Then, in 1426, when
sundry Highland chieftains rose in rebellion, he obtained
from Parliament an extraordinary tax “for the resistance
of the King’s rebellers in the north "; and the tax was
to be such that “in all lands of the realm where the yield
of twa pennies was raiset there be now ten pennies
raiset.” This was a heavy impost, but the Commons did
not spare when the suppression of sedition was in question.
The murder of James I., the poet, the man of letters,
and a prince really desirous of instituting a system of
good government, was avenged by his queen. But his
successor, the second James, was also surrounded with
difficulties. He at length overcame the rebel house of
Douglas, whose estates were in 1454 declared by
Parliament forfeited to the Crown. This great accession
of Crown property was made the occasion by Parliament of
the passing of an act for restraining the dispersal of the
Crown estates by gifts to subjects. In the course of five
years James had distributed a vast amount of Crown
property in lordships. Various important lordships and
castles were now declared to be imalienably annexed to the
Crown.
But the poor also were not forgotten in the legislation of
this period. The Parliament of 1449 distinctly enacted,
“for the safety and favour of the poor people that labour
the ground,” that when they held leases these should
, ; ; ; ; iiii ºf HITT
R º #! li º ; * |- } | t * ń ſºft
º s 4 i. | % " . | | Hi}}|{{f}}]] | N % |Wſ,
º
iš' #FAQ: ń # #######. #. ū | -
* * * : * * * * * * : *
t l i ::: #; j}}}}|| | iii. |
| ºſſil sº i
tºº:::: tº
: ; ; ; 1||
x i
'N -
A - \ |
- W
\ i
------- |
|
| |
|
|
Hººliº
t
#:
t # \;
|
;
i -
ii; t
A
3
t
s | fºre
lºº º º
g | %2|{{..
|º
ºilºilº
#|| |||||};| -
#;
#
£2
§ -->
§§s
#}\Sºl
! {\ ^* !
\ || ||
s:
= * º
! E*) #|| >
Z
|:
|
|
{
|
i
". SS sº
. º
amºssºmsºmºsºmsºmºmºmº-º-º-º-ºmºsº-"
||
f
|
|
|
f
i
rº
|
|
g
!
2 --- -- E.
t º-º. .”. -- ..::- * * ::
º - % iii
º --------
% * Žiž / |
ºf º-ººººººº...AAAAAAAAA º Fyº.
% 2. Ž & ## 14://
J/ W///* - -
22 * -
% | |
*AZAZ. f
ºr Zºº Z/Z. % ſ
& % r
*
THE OLD HOUSE OF LORDS, DUBLIN. 2b







x.] TEIE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
113
remain good although the ownership or lordship of the
land should change hands. And while thus encouraging
peaceful industry, Parliament was very severe upon
“superfluous” persons and vagrants. The preamble of
one act set forth that it was “for the putting away of
sorners, feigned fools, bards, and such-like others, runners
about,” and “masterful beggars.” These “beggars,”
strange to say, were to be identified by their wandering
over the country with horses and hounds. The quadru-
peds and any other property seized were to be forfeited,
and the “beggars” themselves imprisoned. Short shrift
was to be made of those “that make themselves fools, but
are not ”: they were to be kept in ward or prison so
long as they had any goods to live upon ; and then, if
they remained contumacious, it was provided “that their
ears be mayled to the Trone or any other tree, and cuttet
off, and banished the country, and if thereafter they
be founden again, that they be hanged.” The Scots
Parliament of this reign likewise devoted much time to
the perfecting of the national defences, all the legislative
provisions in this respect being directed against “our
enemy of England.” -
As the King's successor, James III., was only eight
years old when he came to the throne, the government
for a time fell into the hands of Kennedy, Bishop of
St. Andrews, who was the first churchman to wield
high political influence in Scotland. He maintained a
stainless reputation, and for some years there was peace
in the country. But the reign was chiefly noteworthy
for the rise and fall of a great house, that of the Boyds,
whose head seized the King and became guardian of the
kingdom. At the time of the King’s marriage, however,
with Margaret of Denmark and Norway—who brought
as her dowry the Orkney and Shetland Isles—Boyd’s
enemies prevailed against him. He and his relatives
were tried for high treason, Parliament charging them
with the seizure at Linlithgow of the person of the King
totally against his will, and with the degradation of the
Crown by employing its power for their own ends and
WOL. II. 8
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560.
Reign of
James
III
114
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560,
The
Estates
and the
Cronym,
Com-
federacy
against
the King.
interests. An indemnity which they held was set at
nought, and they were found guilty. Boyd, Earl of Arran,
fled to England, but his brother Sir Alexander was
executed.
The Scottish Estates further showed their power over
the Crown when in 1471 James desired to lead an army
of six thousand men to the assistance of Louis XI.
against the Duke of Burgundy. Parliament declined to
sanction the step, reminding his Majesty that he had
plenty to do at home, and commenting on the
questionable dealing of Louis as to the countship of
Xaintonge, which he had agreed to hand over to the
Crown of Scotland on his marriage with the daughter
of James I. The King did not go abroad, but the
remainder of his reign was marked by domestic trouble
and rebellion. There were threats of war also with
England, and the Parliament, which was greatly moved,
charged “the riever" Edward, calling himself King of
England,” with “lichtlying ”? their lord. The Papal
Nuncio intervened, and James was for peace, but England
set at nought the papal injunction, so that the Scots
Parliament complained of “incontinent great burnings,
hereschip,” and destruction done upon our said sovereign
lord, his realm and lieges.” -
James thereupon collected one of the largest armies
ever gathered together in Scotland for the purpose of
invading England. He was seized at Lauder, however,
by a number of conspiring Scottish nobles, and conveyed
to Edinburgh. He was soon set at liberty, but reports
were shortly afterwards spread that he was in private
treaty with England for the purpose of obtaining assist-
ance in his schemes of vengeance upon his enemies. A
powerful confederacy was then organised against the
King by the Estates of the Realm. The chief ground of
complaint set forth in a declaration of Parliament was
that he had surrounded himself with false counsellors,
! Spoiler or robber. * Despising or undervaluing.
* Rapine, devastation.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
115
who “ counsellet and assistet him in the inbringing of
Englishmen, to the perpetual subjection of the realm.”
This was the unpardonable sin with Scotsmen. Some
authorities nevertheless, believing that the confederacy
lacked more substantial ground for their action, state
that they only raised the charge of privately negotiating
with England because it was not alone the most odious
which could be discovered, but would serve them for
a complete justification. One thing is clear: that the
latter were resolved to dethrone James and to make his
eldest son king. -
It testifies to the business habits of the Scots that
during this exciting time the work of Parliament went
on as usual. While the country was ringing with prepa-
rations for civil war, statutes were being passed, some
of which were designed for the advancement of trade and
commerce. The commissioners of burghs invoked aid
against the practice of granting letters of marque, which
gave sanction to the piracy then infesting every sea
wherein merchant vessels sailed. Then the treasonable
Commons, as James would have called them, passed an
act forbidding the sovereign to grant remission or pardon
to criminals, because of the trouble brought upon the
land “through treason, slaughter, rief, burning, theft,
and openhership through default of sharp execution of
justice, and over-common granting of grace and remission
to trespassours.” There is something humorous in the
situation when men, many of whom were guilty of
treason up to the hilt, gravely sat in judgment upon
traitors outside the Parliamentary pale.
The struggle between the King and the confederates
ended in the defeat of James at Sauchieburn and his
assassination at Beaton's Mill, near Bannockburn. Only
the monarch’s deposition, and not his death, was aimed
at, and Parliament took care to place on record that he
was slain “ of mischance.” The Estates then proceeded
to windicate the late rising, and in the legislation which
* Scots Acts, vol. ii.
CHAP. I.
Its º
History to
A.D. 1560.
Legis-
lation on
(?0770%67°Cé
and
trea S07).
James's
death.
116
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
#
History to
A.D. 1560,
Legis-
lation
against
his as-
Sassins.
Bdu-
cation.
Jºcclesi-
astical
larvs.
ensued they used their power with moderation. Although
the high offices of state were naturally transferred to
the conquering party, there was little spoliation of pro-
perty. A general amnesty was passed, by which James IV.
forgave those who had been in arms against his father, and
the heirs of those who had died in hostility to him were
assisted by legislative provisions to enter upon their
estates. We do not find such magnanimity among many
of the English factions.
In 1491 the Estates, deeming that something was due
to the memory of the assassinated King, passed a reso-
lution lamenting with respect to the “eschewing and
ceaseing of the heavy murmur and voice of the peóple, of
the death and slaughter of um while our sovereign lord’s
father and progenitor, whom God assoyle, King James III.,
that the person or persons that put violent hands on his
person and slew him are not punished.” An act was
passed offering a reward of one hundred marks’ worth of
land in fee and heritage to any one who should reveal
the perpetrators.
Education shortly afterwards received attention, for it
was in the year 1496, during the reign of the accomplished
King James IV.-Ariosto's hero—that the remarkable
act was passed ordaining that all barons and freeholders
should send their sons to grammar-schools at eight or
nine years of age. They were to be kept there until they
had “perfect Latin,” and were thereafter to proceed to
the schools of “art and jure” for three years.
The Estates also took up ecclesiastical affairs, "and, in
consequence of repeated difficulties with the Papal Court,
passed some very uncompromising statutes. These were
chiefly aimed at the ecclesiastics who went to Rome to
purchase benefices ; that is, those who acknowledged the
right of the Vatican to distribute ecclesiastical patronage,
and who claimed under such alleged right the rank and
revenues attaching to the presentations. A fierce quarrel
having ensued between the Archbishop of St. Andrews
and the first Archbishop of Glasgow, Parliament inter-
posed with a vigorous statute, enjoining silence upon
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
117
both prelates, and threatening them with the loss of their
revenues if they did not yield to the adjustment of the
quarrel by the King and the Estates. A further stand
against papal intervention in Scottish ecclesiastical affairs
was made when Parliament expressly denounced the
practice of taking litigations to Rome, and ordered liti-
gants to bring home “their rights, bulls, writs, and
monuments, in order that the questions at issue might
be settled in the courts of law.”
The rest of James IV.'s reign is barren of legislative
interest. His foolish patronage of Perkin Warbeck, his
settlement of the Highlands, his founding of the Scottish
navy, and his expedition against England at the instigation
of France are matters of history. Yet the King who
perished at Flodden Field in 1513 was a brave soldier,
and in some respects a wise administrator.
The new monarch, James W., being not quite two years
old, the Estates of the Realm requested the Duke of
Albany, nephew of James III., to come over from France
and assume the regency. This he consented to do. The
queen-mother, who had married the Earl of Angus,
carried off her son to Stirling Castle, but she was obliged
to give him up, and the Regent soon suppressed all
attempts at rebellion in Scotland. He then left for
France. Struggles for power ensued among the Scottish
nobles, but the King was installed at Edinburgh, and
eventually Angus was driven from Scotland.
The Parliament which met at Edinburgh in Novem-
ber, 1524, was a reforming Parliament. It first declared
John, Duke of Albany, to have lost his office of tutory,
and empowered the boy-king to govern his realm by the
advice of the queen-mother and the Lords in Council.
Then it projected its greatest reform : that “there be
chosen certain famous lords and persons of the Three
Estates that have best knowledge and experience, who
shall sit upon the session, and begin the same in-
continent, and thereafter continue and administer justice,
evenly to all parties, both poor and rich, without feud,
favour, or affection, keeping the order of the table,
CHAP. I.
#
History to
A.D. 1560.
-
Cha-
7'acter of
James I. V.
James V.
Reforms
in 1524.
118
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560,
The Par-
liament
of 1525.
The
Chºſo'ch
of Rome.
Leath of
James V.
notwithstanding any request of the King or Queen.”
There was a similar measure for the constant adminis-
tration of justice in criminal matters, and for police
throughout the realm.
The next Parliament, which assembled at Edinburgh
early in 1525, was marked by strong dissensions. No
sooner had the Lords of the Articles been chosen than
the Register of Parliament was crowded with protests
against the elections. The Queen led the way. The
Bishop of Ross protested against everything that should
be done in the Parliament prejudicial to the King and
country, and in that protest all the Lords of the Articles
joined. The Earl of Eglinton, the Earl of Arran, and
the Bishop-elect of Ross, each protested that the Lords
of the Articles had not been duly elected, and that
those should be Lords of the Articles whom they them-
selves had severally voted for. There were strange
jarrings and recriminations in this national Parliament;
but the Lords of the Articles went on to elect for the
Secret Council—to execute and put in force the King's
authority—four bishops for the spiritualty, and four
lords for the temporalty, of the party opposed to the
Queen.
One of the most remarkable legislative developments
of this reign was the action of Parliament with regard to
the Church of Rome. In 1540 acts were passed, respect-
ively, “for honour to the holy sacraments,” “for worship
to be had of the Virgin Mary,” and against private
conventions “to dispute in the Scripture.” The word
“conventicle,” which afterwards passed into such common
use, appeared in this last act. One brief statute, consist-
ing of only thirty words, denounced the “pain of death,”
with confiscation of goods, upon any one who impugned
the power of the Pope. Rewards were ordered to be given
out of the confiscations to those who denounced heretics.
At the same time an act was passed calling upon the
Church to strengthen itself by purging itself of its abuses.
The fifth James died soon after the defeat of his army,
gathered to invade England, at Solway Moss in December,
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
119
1542. This monarch was accomplished, but indolent and
exceedingly lavish in display. He was no friend to the
nobles, but was beloved by the bulk of his people, by
whom he was spoken of as “the King of the Commons.”
Arran was regent during the first eleven years of the
minority of the beautiful and unfortunate Mary, Queen of
Scots. In 1543 a treaty of alliance was entered into with
England, and a treaty for the marriage of Prince Edward
to the infant Queen, a union which was set aside by other
events. But consent had been wrung from a packed
House of Parliament, and great opposition arose in
Scotland to the proposals of Henry VIII. The Estates
met in December, 1543, and repudiated the treaties on
the ground of their having been broken by King Henry
by the seizure of Scots vessels and other acts of hostility.
At the same time the Estates ratified and renewed the
compacts with France, receiving from the French am-
bassadors promise of “aid and supply to our sovereign
lady the Queen's grace and nobles of this realm for
the defence of the same, and liberty thereof, against the
King of England.” Then ensued Henry’s “burning and
slaying expedition,” with the defeat of the English at
Ancrum Moor.
Mary married the Dauphin of France in April, 1558,
and at her request the marriage commissioners requested
Parliament to confer the crown matrimonial on her hus-
band. Fearing that this proposition would be somewhat
unpalatable, the commissioners were careful to state that
it was to be “by way of gratification during the marriage,
without any manner of prejudice to her Highness’s self,
the succession of her body, or lawful succession of her
blood whatsomever.” The Estates authorised the act with
this limitation, and a declaration that the distinction of
king was to last “during the marriage allenarly.” "
Before the Reformation had made much progress in
Scotland, the provincial councils endeavoured to deal
with abuses in the Church. Injunctions had been issued
CHAP. I.
| Only.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560.
Minority
of Mary.
The
Estates
and the
Queen’s
marriage.
Purifying
the
Church.
120
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
by the provincial ecclesiastical council of Scotland in 1549
against the profligacy, extravagance, and idleness of the
clergy; and a council held in the spring of 1559 had
before it “articles proponit to the queen-regent of
Scotland by some temporal lords and barons, which had
been forwarded by her Grace “to the haill prelates and
principals of the clergy convened in their provincial
council in Edinburgh.” Although the members of the
council were no sympathisers with the new doctrines,
they recommended various reforms, especially as affecting
internal discipline among the clergy. The Reformation
now began to work its way rapidly, and its prin-
ciples had not such great difficulties to contend with
as in other countries. As early as 1542 Parliament had
passed an act authorising the common reading of the
Scriptures, “baith the New Testament and the Auld,
in the vulgar tongue, in Inglis or Scottis, of ane good
and true translation.” The Edinburgh Council of 1559
adjourned till the following year, but it never met again,
for John Knox had boldly entered upon his aggressive
work against the Church of Rome, and the Reformation
zeal was permeating the masses.
In the midst of great religious excitement, the Scots
Parliament of 1560 assembled. Its sittings were very
eventful, for the Estates established the Reformation in
Scotland. On August 17th the Geneva Confession of
Faith was approved of as “hailsom and sound doctrine,
grounded upon the infallible truth of God's word.”
Eight days later all acts authorising any other form of
belief or worship were repealed, and the authority of the
Bishop of Rome was abjured. The administering of the
Mass, or presence thereat, was declared to be punishable
on the first offence by forfeiture of goods and corporal
infliction at the discretion of the magistrates, on the
second by banishment from the realm, and on the third
by “justifying to the death.” So far as the Estates were
concerned, the Romish hierarchy, which on the morning
CHAP. I.
#%
A.D. 1560.
The Re-
formation
estab-
lished.
* Statuta Ecclesiae Scoticanæ.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
121
of August 25th was supreme, was deposed by the evening
of the same day, and Calvinistic Protestantism established
in its place. There were still troublous days in store, how-
ever, before the work of the Reformers was complete.
Thomas Randolph, English ambassador to Queen Mary,
wrote an entertaining account of the early proceedings of
the Parliament of 1560 to Cecil." After premising that
he “never heard matters of such great importance sooner
despatched, nor with better will agreed unto,” he proceeds
to say, “The matters concluded and past by common
consent upon Saturday last (August 17th) are, first, that
the barons (according to an old act made in A.D. 1427)
should have free voice in Parliament. This act passed
without contradiction, as well of the bishops Papists as
all others present. The next was the ratification of the
Confession of Faith, which the Bishop of St. Andrews
said was a matter he had not been accustomed with, and
he had had no sufficient time to examine or confer with
his friends; howbeit, as he would not utterly condemn it,
so was he loath to give his consent thereunto. To that
effect also spake the Bishops of Dunkeld and Dumblane.
Of the lords temporal, the Earls of Cassilis and Caithness
said, No. The rest of the lords with common consent
and glad will allowed the same ; divers, with protestation
of their conscience and faith, desired rather presently to
end their lives than ever to think contrary to it ; many
offered to shed their blood in defence of the same. The
old Lord Lindsay, as grave and goodly a man as ever he
saw, said, ‘I have lived many years; I am the oldest in
this company of my sort; now that it has pleased God to
let me see this day where so many nobles and others have
allowed so worthy a work, I will say, with Simeon, Nune
dimittis.’ The Lord Marshall said, though he were other-
wise assured it were true, yet might he be the bolder to
pronounce it for that he saw there present the pillars of
* By an unaccountable error, Burton (vol. iii.) attributes this
report to Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, who was then the English
ambassador to France.
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560.
-
Interest-
ing scene
in Par-
liament.
122
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
Its Early
Bistory to
A.D. 1560.
The
Queen and
the Re-
formation
Statutes,
The
Estates
press
Eliza-
beth's
marriage,
The
Scheme
fails.
the Pope's Church, and not one of them would speak
against it. Many other spoke to like effect, as the Laird
of Erskine, the Laird of Newbottle, the Sub-Prior of
St. Andrews, concluding all in one, that that was the
faith in which they ought all to live and die.”"
Although the Reformation statutes were not confirmed
by the Crown, Mary being then in France, the people
were well satisfied with their effects, which involved the
separation of the Church of Scotland from that of Rome.
The Queen herself, on her return in 1561, did not attempt
to restore the Romish religion, although she demanded
toleration for herself and her attendants, and re-established
the Mass in her private chapel.
The Estates were at this time most anxious to please
Queen Elizabeth. Maitland of Lethington promised that
if she would specify what she disliked in the Scottish
policy, he would see it “further altered or modified.”
Parliament seconded Maitland, and was ready to yield
anything if she would only consent to the proposal for
her marriage with the Earl of Arran. The Estates re-
solved upon a special embassy to London, but Elizabeth
temporised. The Estates, interpreting her silence as a
favourable omen, proceeded to draw up a formal address
to the English Council, pressing the marriage as the only
means to make the alliance between the two countries
permanent.
“Other devices may seem probable for a time,” said
the Estates in this important document, “but, we fear, not
for long. We wish the best, but many incidents which
may fall out make us to fear the worst ; but if this may
take place, then are all doubts removed for ever. You
need not fear that by marriage of a king of Scotland unto
a queen of England the pre-eminence of England might
be defaced, for that should always remain still for the
worthiness thereof, neither need you fear any alteration
of the laws, seeing the laws of Scotland were taken out
! Calendar of State Papers of the Reign of Elizabeth (1560–1561,
Foreign Series).
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
123
of England, and therefore both these realms are ruled by
one fashion. By these means Ireland might be reformed,
and thus the Queen of England become the strongest
princess upon the seas, and establish a certain monarchy
by itself in the ocean, divided from the rest of the world.”"
The allusion to the ocean Supremacy of England proved
to be prophetic. In regard to the main burden of their
address, the Estates were not successful. The husband
of Mary Stuart having died, Elizabeth would not seem
to conspire against a widowed queen, so she took the
opportunity to dismiss the Scots commissioners with a
virtual refusal of their offer, and the union between the
English and Scottish crowns was thereby delayed.
The Estates met in January, 1561, to receive in form
Elizabeth’s refusal of the Earl of Arran. Bothwell and
others had returned from Paris to be present, bringing
with them as many as three hundred letters from Mary
to different noblemen and gentlemen. All eyes were now
turned towards her. The Catholic party sent Leslie, after-
wards Bishop of Ross, to Mary, to invite her to land at
Aberdeen, where they would join her with twenty thousand
men and march on Edinburgh ; while the Protestants
sent Lord James Stuart to bid her come to them in the
name of the Parliament which had passed the Confession
of Faith.
Some observations may well be offered at this juncture
on the powers and action of the Scots Parliament from
the time of the War of Independence to the Reformation.
Scottish historians admit the superiority of the practice of
the present British Parliament on all points in which it
differs from the practice of the Scots Estates anterior to
the Reformation. Yet the Scots Estates were notable
in one important respect : they would not admit the irre-
sponsibility of the sovereign. James III. was expressly
censured by them, and they endeavoured to dethrone
him. The Estates also kept in their own hands the
power of making peace and declaring war. They gave
CHAP. I.
| Scots JISS. Rolls House.
Its Early
story to
A.D. 1560,
Move-
7)767ts 0%.
Mary’s
behalf.
Poncers of
the Scots
Parlia-
7,767t.
124 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I, instructions to ambassadors, and were very careful of
#. Parliamentary usages in treaties and the like. Their
Aïiš65 power was such that down to the time of the Union
T with England the question whether the consent of the
sovereign was necessary to an act of Parliament was left
undecided. Few conflicts occurred between the Crown
of Scotland and the Estates, and those which did arise
had their origin in the resolve of the Estates to permit
no temporising or treating with England on the part of
the sovereign.
Proce- From the fourteenth to the beginning of the seventeenth
dure. century, there is no evidence that any article or bill was
brought in and discussed, opposed, supported, voted upon,
in Parliament—that is, in plain and open Parliament.
The accident of the Three Estates meeting in one chamber,
as the Three Estates had met in England of old, was
only a small part of the cause which destroyed freedom
of discussion, and prevented the growth of what may be
called Parliamentary feeling in Scotland for centuries.
“The time was not Parliamentary. No one thought of
making a party in Parliament. No one looked there for
redress of grievances. During all that time—for three
centuries—when a party were displeased with the conduct
of the existing Government, they did not attack its
favourite measure or Minister in Parliament, nor try to
pass a vote of want of confidence in the Government.
The leaders of the Opposition in Scotland took another
way of righting themselves—they laid a trap for the
young King, and carried him off to Stirling or St. Andrews,
as the case might be, surrounded him with their armed
followers, Douglases or Ruthvens, Homes or Hamiltons,
and then summoned a Parliament of their own friends,
which they took care to declare a free Parliament. In
that Parliament they proceeded to carry on the govern-
ment, and always in the first place to pass a long series
of forfeitures of the estates of the opposite party.” "
* Lectures on Scotch Legal Antiquities, by Cosmo Innes, a very
valuable work; but in this one instance of forfeitures the author is
too sweeping. There were some notable exceptions.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
125
The formation of the body known as the Lords of the
Articles has already been explained ; but there was also
a committee called the Lords Auditors of Complaints,
which gave remedy of law to those who might apply for
it. The proceedings of this committee from 1466 to
1494 have been printed by the Record Commission.
Then there was the body styled the Lords of Council,
whose proceedings likewise from 1478 to 1495 have been
recovered and published. The Council was recast in 1503,
when an act of the Estates declared that the lords
were to be appointed by the Crown, and were to sit
continually in Edinburgh, “ or where the King makes
residence, or where he pleases.” As the Lords Auditors
had authority only during the sitting of Parliament, it
was necessary for some court or council to have the power
of sitting during the recess, and this was given to the
Lords of Council, who had the same jurisdiction as the
Auditors, and completed their unfinished causes.
The Secret Council was yet another committee for
advising the sovereign ; and we have here perhaps “the
cradle of an organisation which afterwards passed into
the hands of the Crown itself to exercise an authority
inimical to the constitutional action of the Estates.”
When the sheriffs, as representing the Crown, sometimes
resisted the orders of the Auditors, questions of “privilege”
would arise analogous to those which frequently formed
the subject of animated debate in the English Parliament.
The Auditors, holding delegated power from the Estates
as the Supreme Court of Parliament, counted themselves
a court of review on appeals from the King’s courts, and
promulgated their decisions with singular distinctness
and emphasis. Occasionally they adjudicated in inter-
national questions, as when they endorsed a decree against
one William Lennox, of Kail, obtained from a French
court of law by William Richardson, a burgess of Dieppe.
CHAP, I.
#
History to
A.D. 1560.
Lords
Auditors.
Jords of
Council.
The
Secret
Council.
As the Lords Auditors and the Lords of the Council The
failed eventually to work well together, in 1532 the
two bodies were practically amalgamated, and the
Court of Session was founded, upon the model of the
Court of
Session.
126
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History
A.D. 1560,
Personal
privileges.
Laasities
of Parlia-
One?t.
Parliament of Paris. Its general remedial powers seemed
at times to overlap those of the Legislature; and it was
deemed illogical to appeal from the Court of Session to
Parliament, since the Court of Session was but the
remodelling of that committee of Estates which was
itself the high court of appeal, as exercising the full
powers of Parliament. The court also made no provision
for trial by jury, again thereby asserting that it repre-
sented Parliament, the grand jury of the nation."
With regard to the privileges of the subject, there was
no precedent in Scotland for privilege of peerage, for
forest law, or for game law ; and it was only at a very
late period that the Scots Legislature, imitating the
practice of England, enacted that the ownership of land
was a necessary qualification for the privilege of slaying
wild animals. While the feudal aristocracy of Scotland
had undoubtedly great power, which was in certain cases
abused, the Estates passed acts for fixity of tenure to
the peasant, and imposed other checks on the arbitrary
exercise of feudal power. Peers could not claim to be
tried by a separate tribunal of their own, and important
cases of treason were generally tried by the Estates,
whether the accused were lords or commoners. “The
Estates were ever jealous of leaving political offences to
be dealt with by the King’s courts; but for other offences
a lord, however high, had to ‘thole an assize, or stand
by the verdict of a jury, like any other subject.” The
Scots had a wonderful tenacity for “auld laws and lovable
customs”; they held well together ; and they knew no
such risings of class against class as that of Wat Tyler
in the sister kingdom.
Yet the early Scots were not sufficiently careful of their
Parliamentary privileges. For example, the Committee
of Articles appointed in 1535 were authorised to make
acts with the whole force of Parliament, and they used
that power by even imposing a tax. During later and
perhaps worse times, the election of the Lords of the
Burton, vol. iii.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 127
Articles “became the great job and juggle of the session.” CHAP. I.
Matters went on thus till the reign of Charles I., when #,
it was decided in 1633 that the bishops should choose #sº
eight lay peers, these lay peers elect eight bishops, and
these sixteen elect eight commissioners of shires and
eight of burghs. Parliament then came to its last
degradation, meeting only on two days of the session,
the first and the last, the first to choose the Lords of
the Articles and the last to give their sanction to what
they proposed. The Lords of the Articles were abolished
at the beginning of the Civil War ; and although the
committee was revived in the same form after the
Restoration, its power and that of Parliament itself was
soon suppressed, when an act was passed “that whatever
the King and Council should order respecting all eccle-
siastical matters, meetings, and persons should have the
force of law.” Up to the end of the reign of James II.
of England this arbitrary government obtained. In the
early Scots Parliaments the King was often present,
overawing in part all the Estates ; and there was no
Speaker to guard and assert the liberties of the
Commons."
Among the grave constitutional defects from which *
Scotland suffered was the King’s prerogative of revoking %.
all grants made during his minority, which proved “a ºnline
tremendous engine for unsettling the tenure and right gavvv8.
of property in Scotland.” With this prerogative was
associated the statute of annexation, which declared all
grants of Crown lands of a certain class to be incurably
null and void. The excessive number of regalities and
private jurisdictions was another serious evil. “These
heritable jurisdictions, perhaps more fatal to political
liberty than to justice between man and man, destroyed
the independence of the Commons.” The jurisdictions
existed in all directions; they were not dealt with by the
Act of Union ; and they were only abolished by an act
passed after the suppression of the rising in 1745.
* Innes's Scotch Legal Antiquities.
128
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. I.
Its Early
History to
A.D. 1560
Larvs
affecting
the Sub-
ject.
General
progress.
The freedom of the subject, moreover, was much less
protected in Scotland than in England. There was no
habeas corpus, or anything equivalent to it. The practice
of judicial torture survived for a short time after it had
ceased in England ; and the power of putting the dead
to trial for treason, borrowed from the law of Rome, was
not abolished till after the Union. The law affecting
treason also was vague and wide, but the Scotch had not
before the Union that terrible concomitant of treason law,
the power of punishing the posterity of traitors through
the “corruption of blood.” -
The better aspect of the constitutional picture, however,
shows what noble work had already been accomplished.
The last claim of serfdom proved in a Scotch court was in
1364, though the institution of slavery still remained to be
grappled with and overthrown. In Parliament, the earliest
laws we read of were passed in favour of the poor people
who tilled the soil, and likewise in favour of the education
of all classes of the community—first the barons’ sons,
and later the class that required an endowment of parish
schools. In other directions, individual freedom was
secured, justice was well administered, the general well-
being of the community was fostered, the privileges of
the burghs were extended, and the power of the sovereign
for evil was curtailed. These were no mean advantages
for the Scottish nation to have gained in this early stage
of its constitutional history, and before the influences of
the Reformation had permeated the length and breadth
of the land. -
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTTIAND.
129
CHAPTER II.
FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE UNION.
THE Parliament of 1561, desirous of consolidating the
work of the Reformation, gladly accepted the Confession
of Faith ; but it declined to sanction the Book of
Discipline, drawn up by Knox and his fellow-Reformers
as a basis for a reorganisation of the Protestant Church
and its practice. Many influential men in the Estates
were unwilling to submit to certain stringent restraints
which the book would have enforced, for it dealt radically
and comprehensively with practice as well as with faith.
The Book
of Disci-
pline.
Two years later the Estates met and passed an Act of Act of
Oblivion, to protect from prosecution all concerned in the
troubles immediately preceding the Queen's arrival. The
protecting clauses covered the period from March 6th,
1558, to September 1st, 1561 ; but the great object of
the act was to secure from dispute the transactions with
Oblivion.
regard to Church lands during that time, a matter into
which even many Protestant laymen did not desire a very
close scrutiny.
The first germs of a persecution which afterwards
gained force in Scotland appear in an act passed by
this Parliament against witchcraft, whereby all persons,
of whatsoever estate, degree, or condition, were forbidden
to use any manner of witchcraft, sorcery, or necromancy,
under pain of death, “as well to be execute against the
WOL. II. 9
Witch-
craft.
180
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Oºlla,"
tion to the
Union.
Parlia-
ment of
1567.
Larv of
defama-
tion.
user and abuser as the seeker of the response or
consultation.”
The Parliament which assembled at Edinburgh in
April, 1567, after the murder of Darnley, and when
Bothwell had gained the ascendency, was really an
assembly called together in the interests of the Queen.
The Archbishop of St. Andrews and four other prelates,
twelve noblemen (including Bothwell and Argyle), and a
few commoners represented the Legislature of Scotland.
Important statutes were passed, however, affecting the
Church and other matters. An act in favour of religious
peace and toleration, intended to bribe the Protestants,
promised and reiterated protection to all persons in the
exercise of their religion, without specifying the nature
of the religion or defining the characteristics of Pro-
testantism as distinguished from the tenets of the Church
of Rome. The project of representation in the Estates
also came up, when it was ordered that the barons of
each shire should elect commissioners to represent them
in Parliament, and that the barons be mulcted for their
expenses. The Estates further passed many ratifications
of gifts of private estates. Bothwell’s right to his barony
and lordships of Hailes, Crichton, and Liddesdale, and all
his other lands, lordships, baronies, castles, etc., was
confirmed. By his inherited territories and the grants
and distinctions now conferred upon him, Bothwell
acquired overwhelming wealth and influence. Lething-
ton and Chambers, the latter one of the Lords of Session,
were well provided for, and Morton and the Queen’s
illegitimate half-brothers were confirmed in their acquisi-
tions and dignities, while Huntly had restored to him a
large part of his hereditary domains.
The Queen now for the first time formally recognised
the Reformation; but, in order to silence mutinous tongues,
it was enacted that, “whereas writings had been set up
to the slander, infamy, and reproach of the Queen's
Highness and divers of the nobility, the Queen and
Estates ordained that in time coming, when any such
placard or defamation was found, the person first seeing
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
131
the same should take it or destroy it, that no further
knowledge nor copy should pass of the same ; if such
person failed therein, and either the writing was copied
or proceeded to further knowledge among the people, the
first seer and finder should be punished in the same
manner as the first inventor and upsetter, if he was appre-
hended ; the defamers of the Queen should be punished
with death, and all others with imprisonment at the
Queen’s pleasure.”" This act, dealing with anonymous
libels and denunciations, was practically a reproduction of
part of the old Roman law, being little more than a
translation of the provisions in the forty-seventh book
of the Pandects.
Mary married Bothwell in May, 1567, but in the
following month there was a rising of discontented lords.
Bothwell fled, and the Queen surrendered to Kirkcaldy
of Grange at Carberry Hill. She was taken to Lochleven
Castle, where on July 23rd she signed a deed of abdi-
cation, and appointed Murray regent of the kingdom
during the minority of her son. .
The famous Casket Letters came before the Parliament
which met in December, 1567. These documents were
supposed to be a correspondence between Bothwell and
Mary Stuart, which fell into the hands of the Earl of
Morton after Bothwell's flight from Carberry Hill. It
was upon one letter from the Queen to Bothwell that the
charge against Mary of complicity in Darnley's murder
was founded. The letters were laid before the Scotch
Council of Government, and now came before Parliament
to be adjudicated upon. Although many of the Queen's
partisans were present, they do not appear to have stood
forth in her defence. Lord Herries, with one or two
others, protested, not against the truth of the charges,
but against any step which would be “prejudicial to the
honour, power, and estate of the Queen.” Nevertheless
acts were passed setting forth the mature of the docu-
ments, and affirming their genuineness. “Anent the
'Proceedings of Parliament, as given in Bishop Keith's history
of this period.
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The
Queen
abdicates.
The
Casket
Letters.
132
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Mary re-
pudiates
them.
The Refor-
mation
StatutóS
ratified
retention of our sovereane lord’s motheris person,”
said the Estates in defending their action, it was to be
attributed to “her aun default, in sa far as be divers her
privie letters written halely with her aun hand, and send
be her to James, sometime Earl of Bothwell, chief
executer of the said horrible murther, as well before
the committing thereof as thereafter.”” Another act
declared it to be most certain from the Queen’s letters to
Bothwell, “and by her ungodly and dishonourable pro-
ceeding to a pretended marriage with him, that she was
privy art and part of the device and deed of the murder,
and therefore justly deserved whatever had been done to
her. Indirect counsel and means had been used to hold
back the knowledge of the truth, yet all men were fully
persuaded in their hearts of the authors and devisers of
the fact. The nobility perceiving the Queen so thrall and
so blindly affectionate to the private appetite of the
tyrant, and perceiving also that both he and she had
conspired together such horrible cruelty, they had at
length taken up arms to punish them.”
Mary denied the authenticity of the letters, and de-
manded to see the originals, but this request was not
granted. It must be borne in mind, however, as Burton
has pointed out, that the theory of forgery “seems to
have become prevalent only after any appeal to the original
writings, and to the recollection of the persons referred
to in them, had ceased to be practicable.” In October,
1568, the letters were produced before the English Com-
missioners at Westminster, when, after being compared
with some other of the Queen's writings, they were ac-
cepted as genuine. English and foreign historians have
differed widely on the subject of these documents, but
those bearing the greater weight accept their authenticity.
Having dealt with the Queen, the Parliament of
December, 1567, which had been summoned by the new
regent, Murray, proceeded to other work. It ratified
* Acts of the Scots Parliament.
* Acts of Parliament begun at Edinburgh December 15th
(Anderson's Collection).
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 133
the acts passed in 1560 for abolishing Popery and CHAP. II.
establishing a Protestant Church ; enacted that a third ºne
of the benefices of the realm should be set aside for the tº he
suffering clergy; and granted an amnesty to Huntly, -
Argyle, and Herries, who had aided the Hamiltons against
the regent, which amnesty was made general to all who
would agree to conform to the new government. Murray's
Protestant zeal led to great opposition. He obtained
from Parliament the prohibition of the Catholic religion,
under pain of death, in all parts of Scotland. But the
act cost him dear, for a large minority which supported
the protests of Caithness and Athole and the Bishop of
Murray, “went over in a body at the close of the session
to the side of disaffection and the Hamiltons.”
In July, 1569, the Scots Estates met amid great popular ſhe,
e e e JHamilton,
excitement. Murray’s enemies, the Hamiltons, were co,
working indefatigably against him, and concerting mea- "Pºê).
sures for bringing back Mary and ousting the regent.
Murray seized the chief conspirators, including Lethington
and Balfour, and then turned his attention to reducing
the Border. In August, Parliament arraigned thirty
persons for trial. Seventeen of them were Hamiltons,
including two of the sons of Chatelherault, and the virtual
head of the house, the Archbishop John. The indict-
ments were in Latin, after the solemn form of the High
Court of Parliament. While the overt act of treason
alleged was an attack on the regent and his forces, the
accused were charged with rebellion against King James,
to which they were seduced by his Majesty’s mother, who
attempted to usurp his crown. As the accused did not
appear before the Estates, they were formally declared
“forefaulted * or outlawed, a comprehensive sentence
perilling their lives and estates.
After the assassination of Murray on February 23rd, The
1570, by Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, Lennox was ap- Regency
pointed regent, but he was mortally wounded at Stirling
in September, 1571. Parliament then met and elected
the Earl of Mar, who filled the office of regent with
moderation and great acceptability until his death on
134
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
October 28th, 1572. The King's party had failed in
their effort to hold a Parliament in Edinburgh in 1571,
tº he but one was solemnly opened in the Queen’s name and
The
JEstates
$70, 1572.
Important
€v670ts.
interests. It met in the Tolbooth, the legitimate place
for the assembling of the Scots Estates, but it was very
sparsely attended. Mary sent a message declaring that
her abdication had been obtained by force, and the old
government was revived, with sweeping acts against its
enemies. These fulminations, however, were rendered
innocuous by subsequent history.
When the real Parliament of the nation met in
February, 1572, there was some difficulty about its ancient
symbols, for these were held by Lethington, Grange, and
the small band which still remained true to the Queen,
who were known as “Castilians,” and who had entrenched
themselves on the top of the Castle rock of Edinburgh.
However, Angus carried the crown, Argyle the sceptre,
and Morton the sword ; but they “were made of brass,
and double overgilt with gold, because the principal jewels
were in the castle of Edinburgh and might not be had.”
The Estates dealt chiefly with ecclesiastical matters, and
a stringent statute was passed for the suppression of
Popery and for the maintenance of “the trew and haly
Kirk.” That Kirk was directed to act through “the lawful
archbishops, bishops, superintendents, and commissioners
of the dioceses and provinces of this realm by themselves,
and the ministers and readers serving at the kirks within
their charges.” An Act of Indemnity was next passed
for the security of those of the Queen's party who had
conformed, naming in particular the Earls of Argyle,
Eglinton, and Cassilis, and the Lords Boyd, Maxwell, and
Herries. The property of all citizens who had remained
in Edinburgh during the war as adherents of the Queen
was made convertible by another statute into a fund for
indemnifying the citizens of the King’s party who had
suffered loss by the destruction of their houses or in other
ways. -
John Knox, the great moving spirit of the Reforma-
tion, died on November 24th, 1572, and on the same day,
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
135
at a large meeting of the Estates, James Douglas, Earl
of Morton, was elected regent. Not long before, a wave
of indignation had passed over Scotland on the reception
of the news of the terrible crime of St. Bartholomew’s.
It accentuated the feeling of the Protestants for their
Kirk, and their animosity towards the Romish Church
and its adherents. Edinburgh Castle, which had given a
good deal of trouble, fell in the succeeding year (1573),
and vengeance was exacted upon the Queen’s partisans.
Morton was now left firmly established in power.
A period of national quietude and prosperity ensued,
but after a lapse of four or five years. Morton’s enemies
began to move vigorously, and the regency was anything
but a bed of roses. Difficulties arose as to the possession
of the King, the formation of a guard or regiment to
protect his person, and the disposition of the Crown
jewels and other property which Morton had recovered
and held in Edinburgh Castle. It was only with much
circumspection that a civil war was avoided. In 1577,
while party contentions were at their height, the regent
summoned a Parliament to be held in the great hall of
Stirling Castle, instead of at Edinburgh, which was then
much disturbed. The Estates met as directed, and set
to work in a business-like manner. Among the acts
passed was an important one for “the ratification of the
acceptance of the regiment upon the King's Majesty
in his own person.” Another statute indemnified the
regent for his past conduct, and relieved him from all
responsibility or liability to be questioned concerning
“the administration of his regiment, Castle of Edin-
burgh, munition, jewels, and others being therein.”
Action was then taken against the Hamiltons. The Earl
of Arran, who had succeeded to the late Duke, was a
hopeless maniac ; but his younger brothers, John, Com-
mendator of Arbroath, and Claud, Commendator of
Paisley, were summoned to plead to the charges to be
advanced against them in Parliament. They retired
within their fortresses, were besieged, and escaped.
Parliament then proceeded to indemnify the Commis-
CHAP. II.
From the
forma-
tion to the
Union.
Parlia-
ment of
Stirling.
136 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. Sioners who had been deputed to act against them,
£º declaring them to have rendered good and lawful service
tº he to his Majesty. Acts were next passed for the destruc-
− tion of the castles of the Hamiltons and the forfeiture
of their estates, which were afterwards conferred upon
James Steward, a son of Lord Ochiltree, created Earl of
Arran.
* Morton, who had for a brief period lost his power, but
jºined, fully recovered it again, was arrested in January, 1581, for
the murder of Darnley. He was brought to trial before
the High Court of Justiciary, when a jury of sixteen was
empannelled, eleven of them being Lords of Parliament,
and the others barons. The regent was condemned, and
it was decided that the proceedings should be inscribed
not only on the records of the court, but also on those
of the Estates of Parliament, with the Great Seal and
the seals of the Estates appended, “for the fortifica-
tion, approbation, and confirmation thereof.” Morton
was executed June 2nd, 1581, and his estates were
forfeited.
The King, After the plot for the King's detention in Doune Castle
º” and the incident known as the “raid of Ruthven,” James
Church, went on to Perth, from thence to Stirling, and finally to
Holyrood, where he held a Parliament in October, 1582.
An Act of Indemnity in favour of the Ruthven conspira-
tors was passed. This statute recited the evils to which
Scotland was subject, and from remedying which the
King was restrained by the machinations of evil men,
until certain gallant and devoted subjects came to his
rescue, to wit, the Earls of Gowrie, Mar, and Glencairn.
The Second Book of Discipline, which was chiefly the
work of Andrew Melville, came before this Parliament.
It was intended to complete the polity of the Church
on the Presbyterian system, and was practically a com-
pressed edition of the Huguenot discipline adopted at
the first National Synod of the Reformed Church of
France, held at Paris in 1559. The Estates, however,
declined to adopt and sanction this second book, much
to the chagrin of its authors. A succeeding Parliament—
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 137
that of 1584–legislated vigorously against various ecclesi- CHAP. II.
astical developments. One act was directed against É;
the perfect independence combined with absolute rule tºne
claimed by certain Presbyterian clergy ; another referred tº
to “seditious and contumelious speeches” uttered in the
pulpit, and enacted that the King's authority, enforced
through the established judicatories, should have effect
over all his subjects, whatever their degree or condition,
spiritual or temporal. But Parliament, reserving its con-
stitutional rights, decreed, in the King’s name, “that
the honour, authority, and dignity of the Three Estates
shall stand and continue in their own integrity, according
to the ancient and lovable custom observed in time
bygone, without any alteration or diminution.” The
legislative and judicial powers assumed by the clergy
when they met in assemblies were declared to be un-
authorised innovations on the old constitution of the
country, in which the Estates of Parliament were the
supreme power. Excepting the established judicatories,
none were to presume to call together councils, conven-
tions, or assemblies. All beneficed clergymen were
required to take a declaration agreeing to conform to
these laws, or they were to forfeit their benefices; and
the test was rigorously exacted.
The Parliament of 1585, which sat at Linlithgow, League
ratified the league with England. An important con- ºwa.
stitutional point was herein involved. When the question
of the league had first been brought forward by England
some months before, there was no regular sitting of the
Estates. But a body consisting of members of the
Estates formed themselves into a committee, and adjusted
an arrangement to be laid before a full Parliament for
ratification. This committee, in a written document
subscribed by all the members, authorised the King and
his council to represent the Estates of Scotland in con-
cluding the league ; and vindicated this exceptional
process in the preamble, narrating the imminent danger
to the Protestant cause from the combined action of the
Popish Powers, and “considering the great and urgent
138
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Changes in
the repre-
sentation.
necessity of the said league, and how the same may be
na langer protracted nor without peril deferred to a more
solemn convention of the hail Estates in Parliament.”
One section of the document allowed the Scots to main-
tain the ancient alliance with France by “providing
always that the said league be without infringing or pre-
judice in any sort to any former league or alliance betwixt
this realm and any other auld friends and confederates
thereof, except only in matters of religion, whereanent
we do fully consent the league be offensive and defen-
sive.” The meaning of this authorisation to James is
plain. The Estates, even though not sitting, were
resolved upon adhering tenaciously to the privilege of
deciding all questions of peace and war, including the
negotiation of treaties."
The principle of representation was further elaborated
in the session of 1585. An act was passed which, after
reciting how necessary it was that the King and Estates
should be well informed of the needs of all subjects,
especially the Commons of the realm, directed that all
freeholders of the King under the degree of prelates and
lords of Parliament should elect commissioners to Par-
liament annually for each shire, but that none have
votes save such as had forty shillings in land in free
tenantry held of the King, and had their usual dwelling
within the shire. Other important legislation was
effected in 1587, when the King ratified in full Parlia-
ment the preceding acts, and ordained commissioners to
be elected at the first head court after Michaelmas yearly,
their names to be notified to the director of the chan-
cellery by the commissioners of the preceding year. The
act also declared that the commissioners, authorised with
sufficient commissions, which must be sealed and sub-
scribed by at least six of the barons and freeholders of the
shire, should be equal in number to the commissioners of
burghs on the articles, and have votes in Parliaments
and General Councils in time coming. “From the period
* Scots Acts of Parliament and Burton's History.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
139
of this last act at least, the representatives of the small
barons or freeholders formed a considerable proportion of
every Parliament, where they were classed and entered
as a separate estate,” though by the theory of the Con-
stitution as received by the old lawyers they formed a
portion of the baronage."
Before the execution of Mary at Fotheringay on
February 8th, 1587, certain members of the Estates held
a meeting to encourage and instruct the ambassadors
sent to intercede with the Queen of England ; but it was
not a regular Parliament, and no account of the proceed-
ings appears in the acts. There was no other public
movement in favour of the hapless Queen. The Parlia-
ment which met in the succeeding July passed an act
entitled “The King’s Majesty’s General Revocation.”
This statute was a very comprehensive revocation of all
grants to the prejudice of the Crown made either by the
King’s “um while dearest mother ” before his coronation,
or by himself in his minority, excepting those conferred
by act of Parliament.
The triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland was com-
plete in 1592, when Parliament legislated in its favour
with clearness and decision. But although Episcopacy
was abolished, and the Presbyterian system legally es-
tablished, it was but formal legislation. Scots acts of
. Parliament generally followed the popular sentiment,
and, unlike the English acts, which resemble the laws of
the Medes and Persians so long as the letter of them
remains on the statute-book, they often fell into desue-
tude. In England a statute can be acted upon after the
lapse of centuries, and until it is expressly repealed ; but
in Scotland it was frequently virtually repealed by falling
into oblivion. “An act of the Estates had in a great
measure the character of a vote or resolution by a popular
assembly, which might be forgotten when the popular
feeling that had carried it was weakened.”* This dis-
* Scots Acts and Innes's Legal Antiquities.
* Burton's History.
CHAP. II.
From the
On 1112,-
tion to the
Union.
Eacecution
of Mary.
Triumph
of Presby-
teria/mism.
140
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
tinction accounts for the slightness of the real change
produced by the otherwise very important act of 1592.
R. - * * * e ſº
#ie The act of 1584 authorising the Episcopal hierarchy was
Union.
JEcclesias-
tical re-
action.
repealed, and the Church was to consist of a General
Assembly, provincial assemblies or synods, presbyteries,
and the Kirk Sessions attached to individual spiritual
charges. The King or his commissioner was to be
present at the deliberations of the General Assembly—a
provision which in later times was strongly protested
against ; and before the dissolution of the Assembly, the
King was to “nominate and appoint time and place when
and where the next General Assembly shall be halden.”
A subsequent statute, of brief but stringent character,
gave the Church powers of severe punishment over
obstimate and disobedient persons.
The legislative supremacy of the Presbyterian polity
and discipline was not, however, of long duration. In
the course of a few years the General Assembly was
scandalised by “the common corruption of all estates
within this land,” and the Episcopalians began to wax
bold. Symptoms of the ecclesiastical reaction were
strongly apparent in 1597, when the Estates passed a
significant act, giving such as might be appointed to
prelacies votes in Parliament. But while a prelate was
to be a lord of the secular Parliament, the act gave him
no spiritual jurisdiction over the clergy. The proposal to
admit the prelates to Parliament had the advocacy of the
able Secretary John Lindsay, of Balcarres, who hoped
thereby to counterbalance to a certain extent the votes of
the heads of the great feudal houses. The idea was that
Parliament should “step in some degree into the place
that was occupied by the body which bore the same
name in England, so as to give full play to all the social
forces which existed in the country, and to support the
Crown in its efforts to mediate between the nobility and
the clergy.”" The Assembly came to a compromise with
the King on the matter. At its meeting at Dundee in
* Gardiner's History of England, 1603–1642.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 141
1 98, it decided by a small majority that fifty-one CHAP. II.
representatives of the Church should vote in Parliament ; #;"
and the election of these was to pertain in part to the tºne
Ring and in part to the Church. But what the King Tº"
really wanted was an episcopacy which should keep the
clergy in order and support his own authority, and not a
body of men in Parliament which should act as a check
upon the temporal lords. There was at last an open
breach between James and the Presbyterian clergy, and
the differences were embittered by the publication of the
King's work The Basilicon Doron, in which were asserted
the Divine right of the sovereign and his uncontrolled
authority over all orders of men. Another step towards
Bpiscopacy was taken on October 14th, 1600, when
James summoned a convention of commissioners from
the various synods, whose consent he obtained to the
appointment of three bishops in addition to the few sur-
viving from amongst those formerly nominated. These
new bishops took their seats and voted in the ensuing
Parliament, but as they had not been nominated by the
General Assembly, but by a convention, they had no
right to act in the name of the Church ; their rank could
only be equivalent to that derived from a civil appoint-
ment by the Crown. -
James's difficulties were no doubt great, and he was James
anxious to discover a modus wivend; between the con- º
w a tº © - * ing of
flicting parties and interests. The mysterious plot England.
against the King, known as the Gowrie conspiracy, was
the chief incident of the year 1600. In March, 1603,
James succeeded Elizabeth as sovereign of England,
being crowned king at Westminster in July of the
following year. James VI. of Scotland thus became
James I. of England, and united the two countries under
one monarch.
In 1606 James resolved upon the restoration of Epis.
Episcopacy in Scotland, and the Estates met at Perth ..."
and proceeded forthwith to legalise his plans. An act Scotland.
was passed for the restoration of the order of bishops
“to their ancient and accustomed honours, dignities
142
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, prerogatives, privileges, livings, lands, etc.” In February,
From the 1610, two courts of high commission were erected by an
Reform
tion to
Uni
Parlia-
*ment of
1617.
8.- e © o
...the act of the prerogative, one for each province, to consist
Il.
of bishops, the archbishop presiding. They were after-
wards united into one, whose duty it was to deal with
questions of discipline and correction ; but its activity
was short-lived, and its judgments were subject to
revision by the Court of Session, the supreme civil
tribunal of the realm. With regard to the acts dealing
with the dignities and temporalities of the bishops as lords
of Parliament, it was deemed desirable that legislation
dealing directly with spiritual functions should come
before the General Assembly for sanction. This was
done at Glasgow in 1610, when various important
decisions were arrived at. The collective ecclesiastical
bodies moulded on the Presbyterian system were not
abolished ; the General Assembly was to hold its meet-
ings as authorised by the Crown ; the bishops were to be
permanent moderators of the provincial synods ; though
presbyteries were not expressly abolished, no place was
left for them in the new hierarchy ; and no acts of
discipline, etc., affecting ecclesiastical rights were to be
valid without the sanction of the bishop. Parliament
ratified all these adjustments in 1612, but ignored the
resolution of the Assembly that the bishops should be
liable for their public and private acts to the censure
of General Assemblies.
The Parliament of 1617, which met at Edinburgh,
passed further important acts re-establishing Episcopacy.
One statute passed for perfecting the structure of the
new hierarchy by the restoration of the dean and chapter
of each see had really a much wider scope than this.
The election of the bishop by the Crown presenting and
the chapter electing was affirmed, but the most impor-
tant part of the measure was the restoration of the
temporalities of the deaneries, canonries, and prebends'
stalls, so far as they could be recovered. Another act,
“little noticed in history,” says Burton, effected a great
change in the condition of the clergy. Described as an
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 143
act “ament the plantation of kirks,” it set forth that there CHAP. II.
were many kirks without ministers and many others with ;:
ministers, but no provision or maintenance, and it there- tion to the
fore appointed an independent Parliamentary commission Union.
of thirty-two persons, being eight out of each estate—
prelates, nobles, lesser barons, and burgesses. Out of
the teinds or tithes they were to assign a stipend to the
minister of each church, the minimum allowance being
of the value of £27 15s. 6d., and the maximum £44. 9s."
From this time forward the complaints of the clergy
respecting their incomes were much less frequent. An
attempt was made in this Parliament to assert the King’s
prerogative over the Church, but the proposal excited so
much opposition that it was withdrawn.
James's religious innovations became more daring, The Five
however, and the Parliament of 1621 passed “The Five º;
Articles of Perth,” which had been adopted by the º
General Assembly. These articles enjoined kneeling at
the Sacrament and the keeping of saints' days and holy
days, permitted communion in private houses in case of
sickness, allowed private baptism on necessary cause,
and ordered confirmation by the bishop of children eight
years old. These Popish observances were distinctly at
variance with the spirit of the Reformation, and the bitter
religious struggle between the Stuarts and the Scottish
nation may be said to date from their imposition. There
was great excitement during the meeting of the Estates,
and as a terrible storm broke forth just as the grand
commissioner was giving the royal sanction to the acts,
a well-known historian of the period observed that “God
appeared angry at the concluding of the articles.” “ The
act of the Estates authorising the Five Articles is “ the
only statute on the face of the records of the Scots
Parliament which either authorises or dictates on matters
of religious ceremonial.” It was superseded by various
laws passed during the Civil War, but it was never
* Scots Acts, vol. iv., and Burton's History, vol. vi.
* Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland.
144
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
expressly repealed ; and it is further remarkable that,
while the statute was most express in its injunctions,
Reforma- º g
tiºn tº the there was no penalty or punishment laid upon offenders.
Policy of
Charles I.
The Lords
of the
Articles.
After James's death in 1625, the work of restoring
Episcopacy and asserting the King's supremacy was con-
tinued with vigour. As soon as he came to the throne,
Charles I. revoked all grants by the Crown and all
acquisitions to the prejudice of the Crown, whether before
or after his father’s Act of Annexation of 1587. This
sweeping proclamation affected the vast ecclesiastical
estates which had passed into the hands of the territorial
magnates from the Reformation downwards, and included
those grants which had been fortified by a Parliamentary
title in being confirmed by acts of the Estates. It was
the beginning of that foolish and oppressive policy which
ultimately cost Charles his crown and his life. The Scots
Parliament of 1633, at which the King was present, rati-
fied the arrangements respecting Church property, and
continued an impost of the nature of an income-tax which
had been temporarily granted some years before in aid of
the King's brother-in-law, the Prince Palatine.
A struggle arose in this Parliament between the King
and the Estates on the constitution of the Lords of the
Articles. There being no representative body in Scotland
like the English House of Commons, which could meet
in its own place without being overawed by the presence
of the King, business, as we have seen, devolved upon
the committee called the Lords of the Articles, who
settled all the details of legislation. As the Estates
were compelled to accept or reject the bills prepared by
the Lords in their entirety, and as the Lords of the
Articles were so constituted as to represent as far as pos-
sible the wishes of the King, it is obvious that the real
legislative powers of the Estates were very small indeed.
At this time the Lords of the Articles were thirty-two
in number, and the election was so manipulated on behalf
of the Crown that the majority in the Estates had
practically no voice. Eight bishops were first elected,
who went with the Crown, and these chose eight barons,
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
145
who of course would also support the King. The bishops
and nobles combined then chose eight of the untitled
CHAP. II.
From the
* e & €1OTIOlal-
gentry and eight of the commissioners for burghs. If tiºn to the
all these sixteen had opposed the Crown they would not
have turned the scale ; but, besides the fact that many
of them were no doubt on the King's side, the sovereign
had the further right of adding eight officers of state
to the committee thus constituted and of appointing his
chancellor as president. Further, he might himself attend
the deliberations of the Lords of the Articles. Parlia-
ment asserted that each Estate had the right to elect
its own delegates; but while this was the common-sense
view, and indeed the only fair one, precedent was hazy
upon the matter, so that it was impossible to withstand
the innovation."
When the bills came before Parliament, there was one
which not only confirmed an act made in 1606 acknow-
ledging the royal prerogative, but also gave power to the
King to determine the apparel in which judges, magis-
trates, and the clergy were to appear in public. This
provision was very obnoxious to many in the Estates,
and complaint was made that it compelled them either
to vote undutifully on the point of prerogative, or un-
conscionably on Church innovations. Charles refused to
regeive a petition condemning the acts and a proposed
new tax which weighed upon all landowners in Scotland.
During the crucial debate in the Estates, the Earl of
Loudoun rose and questioned the propriety of joining the
confirmation of two acts in one bill, but the King angrily
told him that “the orders of the House” were “not to
dispute there, but to vote.” The division was taken amid
great excitement and solicitude, and a majority appeared
on the King's side, though there is every reason to be-
lieve it was a small one. Charles himself took down the
names of the members, and it was said afterwards that
there was a majority against him, which he concealed ;
but this story has been shown to be erroneous.” “Of
'Scots Acts and Burton and Gardiner's Histories.
* Napier, Montrose and the Covenanters, and Burton and Gardiner.
WOL. II. 10
Union,
Obnoaxious
legisla-
tion.
146
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, thirty-one acts and statutes concluded in this Parlia-
From the ment,” said a contemporary writer, “not three of them
Reform
- #. but were most hurtful to the liberty of the subject, and,
Ill
Benewal
of the
Covenant.
as it were, as many partitions to separate the King from
his people. This Parliament was led on by the Epis-
copal and Court faction, which thereafter proved to be
that stone which afterwards crushed them in pieces, and
the fuel of that flame which set all Britain afire not long
thereafter.” "
This was no exaggeration ; the Parliament of 1633
marked a critical epoch. Henceforth there was hostility
between the Scots nation and Estates and the King. In
1637 Charles's attempt to displace the liturgy of John
Rnox by that of England drove his northern subjects into
rebellion. The Covenant was renewed and signed all
over Scotland, and it soon became the Protestant war-
cry. It was amid circumstances of grave national anxiety
that the Estates met in 1639, not in the old and dingy
apartments of the Tolbooth, but in a new great hall, with
fine roof work of Oaken beams, which became one of the
most admired structures of Edinburgh. The Parliament
first met on May 15th, but it was twice adjourned by the
King, and ultimately it reassembled for the transaction
of business in August. Its earliest act was to protest
against the election of the Lords of the Articles by the
first Estate, and for the present Parliament a compromise
was arrived at by which the Earl of Traquair, the
Ring’s High Commissioner, selected eight members of
the nobility, the majority of whom were supporters of the
Covenant. These eight then selected eight from the
lesser barons or country gentlemen, and eight burgesses.
Disputes next arose on an Act of Indemnity and other
matters, and Traquair sent to London for instructions,
meanwhile adjourning the Estates. Charles perceived
that there must be some remodelling of the Lords of the
Articles; but he wrote to Traquair, with regard to the
general situation, that, while he consented to the abolition
1 Sir James Balfour's Annals.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 147
of Episcopacy, he would not consent to any act rescind- CHAP. II.
ing the existing laws by which Episcopacy had been ;:
established. This was equivalent to declaring that he tº he
would show no favour to the Presbyterians. -----.
The Marquis of Montrose conceived a scheme for aban- Struggle
doning Episcopacy and relying upon the royal power, but %,
this failed, and laid him open to suspicion. The Earl of and the
Argyle then stepped in with a policy for conciliating the *
middle classes. He saw that the constitution of the
Lords of the Articles must be made to harmonise with
the prevailing Presbyterian sentiment ; and with great
difficulty, and by a majority of one only, he carried a vote
at a sitting of the Lords of the Articles, that henceforth
each Estate should choose its own representatives in that
body. By this decision the barons and burgesses would
be represented by sixteen votes, the nobility by eight
only, and the King by none at all. Thus the business of
the Estates would pass into the hands of a body really
representative of Parliament itself. This reform was
submitted to the King, together with other legislative
changes by which Episcopacy was to be abolished,
bishops were to be deprived of their votes in Parliament,
a general taxation, to include Royalists, was to be levied
for the expenses of the late war, and the command of the
castles of Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dumbarton was to be
given to Scottish subjects only, nominated by the King,
but sanctioned by the Estates. These suggestions made
it clear that Parliament claimed the supreme authority
in Scotland, and Charles determined to resist.
The Estates reassembled on June 2nd, 1640. Charles The
sent instructions to adjourn or prorogue the meeting, ...?
but as no one appeared on his behalf, and there was stituted.
no royal command formally and officially before the
House, the Estates proceeded to business. The King's
Commissioner was not present, and Robert, Lord Burleigh,
was elected president, his functions combining those of
the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker in England. The
Covenanting lawyers and divines gave it as their opinion
that Parliament might lawfully sit without the presence
148
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
either of the King or of his Commissioner. They even
affirmed that “a king who sold his country to a stranger,
tº he who deserted it for a foreign land, or who attacked it with
They defy
the Cronym,
an invading force, might lawfully be deposed.” The
Estates then initiated their war with the King. Charles,
in the Large Declaration, written in justification of his
Scotch policy, had spoken strongly of the practical diffi-
culty which must beset a Parliament without bishops,
but the Estates at once brushed this difficulty aside.
They rearranged themselves into three chambers : the
greater barons were called the mobility; those who repre-
sented the smaller freeholders, and who were equivalent
to the English knights of the shire, were styled the
barons; and the burgesses formed the third Estate. This
reorganisation was accomplished under “an act anent
the constitution of this Parliament and all subsequent
Parliaments.” The Estates, in the absence of the bishops,
pronounced “this present Parliament, holden by the
mobility, barons, and burgesses, and their commissioners
—the true Estates of the kingdom—to be a complete and
perfect Parliament, and to have the same power, authority,
and jurisdiction as any Parliament formerly hath had
within this kingdom in time bygone.” -
The Estates, indignant at the attempt of the King to
forcibly close the sittings of 1639, and further incensed
by the refusal of the Court to receive their deputed com-
missioners, Lords Loudoun and Dunfermline, proceeded to
defy the Crown. Seeing that all their efforts to come to
an understanding with the King had been met with con-
tumely, they resolved, for the prevention of the utter ruin
and desolation of the Kirk and kingdom, to abide together
until the business before Parliament was completed. The
King's Large Declaration was stigmatised as “dishonour-
able to God and His true religion, to this Kirk and kingdom,
to the King's Majesty, and to the Marquis of Hamilton,
then his Majesty’s Commissioner, and divers other persons
therein, and to be full of lies.” It was directed that the
authors and spreaders thereofshould be severely punished.
The Estates then confirmed the proceedings of the General
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLANT).
149
Assembly, and adopted the Covenant as an act to which
all citizens were to subscribe under penalties against de-
faulters, members of Parliament themselves leading the
way by accepting the test. Legislative work proceeded
with vigour. Triennial Parliaments were voted ; the im-
portation of arms was facilitated ; a system of taxation
was organised under which defaulters were to be treated
as non-Covenanters ; arrangements were made for the
distribution of the vacated revenues of the bishops ; and
a Puritan spirit was infused into legislation generally.
But the most important statute passed by the Estates
was one appointing a permanent “Committee of Estates’
to act when Parliament was not sitting. It consisted of
representatives of the Three Estates as newly constituted,
and this important body was empowered to perform its
functions in the camp as well as at the seat of government.
Charles proceeded to Scotland in August, 1641, for, in
view of his English difficulties, he was anxious to conciliate
the Scots. Visiting Parliament, which was then in ses-
sion, “he offered to touch with the sceptre, and so convert
into law, all the acts which he had so long resisted,” but
the Estates claimed more consideration than this. The
King duly made a pacific speech from the throne, and
Burleigh, the president, in the name of the House, “made
a pretty speech to his Majesty of thanks for all the former
demonstrations of his goodness.” There was thus out-
ward agreement, but the Estates went on their own way,
and promoted Leslie, who had openly opposed Charles,
to the dignity of Earl of Leven. Argyle was created a
marquis, and the erstwhile imprisoned Loudoun was made
Chancellor. The Court of Session was reconstituted to
admit staunch Covenanters like Johnston of Warriston.
In September Charles was still very hopeful of Scotland
from his own point of view. On the 16th an act was
passed according to which the King was to choose his
officers “subject to the advice of Parliament.” He named
his councillors, but was deeply chagrined to find that
Argyle not only objected to one of the most important of
them, Morton, but was himself determined to be master
---
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
and adopt
the Cove-
7tant.
Charles in
Scotland.
The
“I’m ci-
dent.”
150 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II, of Scotland." Supported by the nation, Parliament not
;: only claimed the right to reject the King's nominee, but
tºne to name its own ; and the barons further demanded that
* their votes should be taken by ballot, and that no one
who had taken the King's part in the late war should be
admitted to any office in the State. Under these cir-
cumstances occurred what is known as the “Incident.”
Argyle and Hamilton were to be seized ; and this coming
to the knowledge of Parliament; an investigation was
opened into the whole affair. Charles went down to the
Parliament House in October, and after speaking of his
friend Hamilton with tears in his eyes, demanded that
justice should be done between himself and his enemies.
The Estates were not so deeply concerned about the King
as about the threatened seizure of two of their most pro-
minent members, and a secret committee of investigation
was appointed. The committee was unable to clear up
all the points involved ; but many rumours were afloat
respecting the King's high-handed policy of governing
Scotland on the same principles which he had endeavoured
to apply in England, with the result of precipitating a
civil War.
Aets of the The rebellion in Ireland overshadowed the proceedings
* of the committee, and the Scots Parliament was asked
to vote a thousand men to assist in the suppression of
the insurrection. The Scots promised aid, and an auxi-
liary force went over to Ireland. The Estates then
wound up their business, and concluding the session on
November 7th, appointed their next meeting for the first
Tuesday of the month of June, 1644. During this one
session, from May 13th to November 7th, the Parliament
had passed no fewer than three hundred and sixty-five
Acts. But with regard to this portentous display of
industry, it must be borne in mind that many of these
statutes were merely executive and judicial deliverances,
in respect to which the Scots Estates claimed a very com-
prehensive right of action.
1 Gardiner's History.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
151
The Parliament of 1644 condemned to the scaffold
Sir John Gordon, of Haddo—forerunner of the Earls of
Aberdeen—for conspiring against the Estates. His death
was followed by that of Sir Robert Spottiswood, who had
been a leader in the struggle with Argyle. Amongst the
charges against him was one of signing the commission to
the Earl of Montrose to raise forces against the people
and the Estates. Others also suffered for their hostility
to the Parliament. In April, 1646, Charles took refuge
with the Scottish army, but he proved a source of great
embarrassment, and when the Scots withdrew from
England, they surrendered the King into the power of
the English Parliament. That step has been discussed
in a preceding chapter of this work.
While at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in 1647,
Charles made a compact with the Scots Commissioners,
known as “The Engagement,” by which he agreed to
support the Covenant and the Presbyterian party ; whilst
the Covenanters, on the other hand, agreed to assist him
against the English Parliament. But when the Scots
Estates met in January, 1649, the predominant party
repudiated the transaction. The Engagement element
was weeded out of the new Parliament, which proceeded
to support Cromwell, and to exclude from public office all
who had been concerned in the Engagement. Their dis-
Qualification was confirmed by statute, and much of the
business transacted by recent Parliaments and the Com-
mittee of Estates was reversed. This important legisla-
tion was chiefly effected by a measure called the Act of
Classes. Four classes of men were disqualified for
holding office or sitting in Parliament, including sup-
porters of the Engagement, enemies of the Covenant,
and profane and non-worshipping persons. Many
eminent individuals were fain to sit upon the stool of
repentance, including the Lord Chancellor, Loudoun, who
did so “with abundance of tears.”
The most important constitutional change which had
occurred in Scotland for a lengthened period was completed
in the time of Cromwell. The Protector was the first
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Progress
of events.
“The En-
gagement.”
Important
legisla-
tion.
Cromwell
and the
imperial
"epresen-
tation.
152
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
statesman who brought forward a well-considered scheme
for the Parliamentary representation of the three nations ;
4.i. and he also fixed the proportion between the county and
Members
from
Scotland.
The clergy
in Parlia-
7ment.
The royal
burghs.
Settlement
of Parlia-
mentary
forms.
the burgh representation of Scotland. Under his direction
the whole number of members who were to represent
Scotland in the united Parliament was thirty : for the
counties twenty, and for the burghs ten. The shires and
burghs of Scotland were also for the first time grouped in
Cromwell’s second Parliament of the three nations, which
met July 27th, 1654. To that Parliament four hundred
members were summoned from England, thirty from
Scotland, and thirty from Ireland. Twenty members
were sent from Scotland to represent the shires, of which
the smaller and less populous were grouped, and ten
members were elected to represent the burghs. Edinburgh
was the only constituency returning two members.
During the Commonwealth there was but one Imperial
House of Parliament, of which peers were sometimes
members. A large proportion of the members sent to
represent Scotland were either officers of the English
army or officials of Cromwell’s Scotch Government.
The bishops, and also the heads of the regular religious
houses, were long required to attend Parliament, as be-
longing to the spiritual estate ; but clergy of an inferior
station and income also appear in the lists of sederunts of
Parliament. The bishops disappeared from Parliament
after the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, and did not appear
again until the Restoration, from which time till the Revo-
lution the bishops alone filled the place of the first Estate.
Originally each of the royal burghs was required to send
at least two representatives to Parliament, and it was not
till 1619 that they were relieved of part of the burden.
From that time, by an act of the Convention of Burghs—
passed, however, without the sanction of Parliament—one
member only was to be returned for each burgh except
Edinburgh, which was still required to send two.
The forms of Parliament were fixed by an act dated
May 13th, 1662. It prescribed fines for absence and for
late attendance, and enacted that none be admitted but
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 153
the “ordinar’ members of Parliament, that is, the arch- CHAP. II.
bishops and bishops, noblemen, officers of state, commis- Frºm the
sioners from shires and burghs, the Clerk Register, and #.
the deputes and servants employed by him to serve in Tº"
the House. Admittance, however, without vote or voice,
was allowed to the eldest sons of noblemen, to the senators
of the College of Justice, to the Marischal, to the Lyon's
ushers, to the justice deputes, to the King's agent, to one
servant of the Lord Chancellor, two of the Constable, two
of the Marischal, and one of the Advocate. It was ordered
that in all debates no member was to interrupt another,
or to direct his discourse to any but the Lord Chancellor
or President ; that all reflections should be forborne ;
that no man should offer at one diet and in one business
to speak oftener than twice ; and that no member of
Parliament should leave the House until the meeting
were dissolved. The riding of Parliament from Holyrood
to the Tolbooth was the great solemnity and show of
the season in the Scottish capital. From the time of
James VI. downwards there were frequent disputes
and protests concerning precedency and right of place
and vote in Parliament ; indeed, for a century or two
this subject occupied the attention of the nobility and the
lawyers more than any other."
After the restoration of Charles II., application was The Res-
made by the Scots Estates to the King's Council for the *
return of a considerable mass of national records which
had been removed to London during the Protectorate.
“It is said that the reason for detaining the records was
to discover and destroy the covenant signed by the King,
if it could be found. They were shipped for Scotland
before the end of the year 1661, but were lost on the way
by shipwreck.” But the Estates recovered the regalia,
and it was with some pomp that the Parliament of 1661
opened, with John, Earl of Middleton, a self-made man,
as the new Lord High Commissioner.
| Acts of Parliament, vols. vi. and vii., and Innes's Scotch Legal
Antiquities.
154
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Sweeping
Acts of
the Par-
Ziament of
1661.
Peaction-
ary legis-
lation,
The Estates effected an enormous amount of legisla-
tion. By the principal measure passed, the Act Rescis-
sory, there were cut off from the body of the law all the
statutes passed in the Parliament of 1640 and subse-
quently. This actually abolished all legislation after the
year 1633, as the Parliament of 1639 passed no statutes.
No act of the Scots Estates, says Burton, had ever
accomplished so much as this. There were certain acts
which ought to have been preserved, of a civil and
ecclesiastical character, “but it was thought well to seize
the opportunity and cast away the whole, leaving it to
the diligence of succeeding Parliaments to restore all
that related to the administration of civil and criminal
justice, to commercial legislation, taxation, coinage, social
institutions, and all the complex elements of the legisla-
tion of the seventeenth century.” This abolition act was
badly drawn, for it spoke of the rescinded statutes as
invalid, and yet repealed them. During Charles II.'s reign
measures were left to the Lord Clerk Register to be put
into shape after their substance had been adopted; and
Niddleton hurried through the Rescissory Act in order
to “dash bustling oppositions” and hostile petitions. It
was followed by “an act concerning religion and Church
government,” which was really an act restoring Epis-
copacy. The settlement of the future government of the
Church was put into the hands of the King, although
existing arrangements were permitted temporarily to
continue. The basis of the permanent Church system
was to be that existing in 1633. Then on May 27th
a statute was passed for the restitution and re-estab-
lishment of the ancient government of the Church by
archbishops and bishops. The oppression of the Pres-
byterian clergy at once began, and it was decreed that
they should be incapable of holding any benefice in the
Church." -
The Covenant was publicly burned in London, and a
Privy Council was erected for Scotland, which was to
1 Scots Acts and Grub's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
155
exercise the supreme powers of the Estates during the
intervals between the sessions. While the indemnity
question was agitating England, Argyle was arrested on
a charge of high treason, but the real reason for his
seizure was that he was too powerful a subject to be at
large. He was tried before the Estates, condemned,
and executed.
In the session of 1662 an act was passed demanding
a declaration of conformity from all persons in public
trust. They were required to abjure the Covenant
and the National League and Covenant as unlawful
oaths. Clergymen who had become ministers since
1649 were ordered to obtain a presentation from the
lawful patron, with collation from the bishop of the
diocese. Those who complied were forsaken by their
flocks, who began to gather in conventicles.
What is called “The Drunken Parliament *—because
there was only one sober man in the Council when it met
On October 1st, 1662, at Glasgow—passed an act re-
quiring the recusant and non-conforming ministers to
remove themselves and their families out of their
parishes within a month from the date of the act.
Further time was subsequently granted for conforming,
however, but ultimately three hundred and fifty ministers
abandoned their benefices, drawing the greater part of
their congregations with them. Penalties were then laid
upon absentees by a supplementary statute known as
“the bishops’ drag-net.” Another act of Council was
“The Mile Act,” which, like the English “Five Mile
Act,” was directed against the non-juring ministers. It
was very stringent, and amounted to a sentence of banish-
ment from their old parishes. No recusant minister was
permitted to reside within twenty miles of his old parish,
or within six miles of Edinburgh or any cathedral town,
or within three miles of any royal burgh.
The High Commission Court, which was alike obnoxious
to Englishmen and Scotsmen, was restored ; and although,
as Scotch historians have remarked, it was Ostensibly con-
stituted, as if by a cynical pleasantry, to assail the Papists,
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union, g
Eacecution
of Argyle.
A&of Com-
formity.
The
“ Drwºken
Parlia-
ment.”
Oppressive
yeligious
Statutes.
The High
Commis-
sion Court
z’estored.
156
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
its real purpose was to attack the Covenanters. This was
speedily shown by its comprehensive powers. The court
was not only authorised to proceed against “all Popish
traffickers,” but all obstinate contemners of the discipline
of the Church; all keepers of conventicles; all proscribed
ministers who remained in or near their parishes ; all
unlicensed preachers in private houses ; all writers or
speakers against the Establishment ; all “busybodies "
who should go about “corrupting and disaffecting people
from their allegiance ’’; and in general all who showed
themselves disaffected towards his Majesty's authority
by contravening acts of Parliament or Council in relation
to Church affairs." -
The Parliament of 1662 passed the Billeting Act
under peculiar circumstances. A vote of the Estates was
to be taken for disqualifying for public office persons
specifically named as not to be trusted on account of
their previous political history ; but on this occasion it
was proposed to take the vote by ballot, to secure
immunity from corrupting or intimidating influences. By
this action Middleton hoped to crush the rising statesman
Lauderdale. The ballot was taken, and the names of
such as were billeted were to be concealed upon Oath ;
only the Lord Clerk Register, “having a rooted quarrel
against Southesk, did mark his billet with a nip when he
received it, and thereby discovered his vote.” Parlia-
mentary method was at a low ebb at this time, and the
Clerk Register was even recommended to the court for
preferment because he had drawn up the acts of the
session very advantageously to his Majesty's interest.
On Middleton’s own showing, the Parliamentary arrange-
ments were ludicrously imperfect. The Scots Parliaments
continued only eight days, the first of which was taken up
in constituting the House and choosing the Lords of the
Articles; the Lords of the Articles then consumed nearly
all the remaining time in preparing the acts to be passed ;
and Parliament had its second and last meeting on the
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Decline in
Parlia-
mentary
method.
1 Wodrow's Sufferings of the Church.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
157
eighth day, when all acts were read, debated, voted, and
CHAP. II.
passed. This appears now as the very burlesque of From the
national legislation.
Commissioner Middleton went to London in high glee
after the session of 1662, for he had procured a con-
demnation of Lauderdale. But the latter had already
obtained the King’s ear, and shown him various defects
in Middleton’s administration. The balloting was repre-
sented as a tyrannical act, and an interference with the
royal prerogative ; while the Commissioner had com-
mitted the still more serious offence of giving his assent
to measures without receiving the King's special authority
to do so. He had also set aside Charles's order deferring
the exaction of the fines imposed on recusants, expecting
that he would receive an indemnity for their enforcement.
Further, the Billeting Act itself was new and unusual.
When this act was given to the King with the other
statutes, he threw it into his cabinet, stating that he
would not act upon it. He subsequently sent a message
to the Estates with a “commission for trying of the
contrivance and carrying on of the Act of Billeting.”
The measure was spoken of as “that strange act for
incapacitating twelve, transmitted to his Majesty sealed,
and which his Majesty has so ordered that it shall never-
more come to light.” Middleton had dealt in an under-
hand manner, playing the King off against the Parliament,
and Parliament against the King. The Estates there-
fore suppressed their acts of ostracism, declaring them
to be “now and in all time coming void and null,” and
ordaining that they “be expunged and rased out of the
records, like as, accordingly, the said principal acts, being
called for and presented in Parliament, were publicly
rased and destroyed.” The quarrel between Middleton
and Lauderdale led to the supersession of the former and
the appointment of the latter as Commissioner.
Upon the accession of James II. in 1685, the Scots
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Charles
and his
Commis-
Sioner.
The
Billeting
Act.
The
Estates re-enacted the Test Act and the act against #.”
conventicles, but rejected a bill drawn up by the Lords
'Scots Acts of Parliament.
depose
James II.
158
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The Claim
of Right.
of the Articles in favour of the Papists. It was, how-
ever, forced upon them by the royal prerogative, and
Popery was restored with great ceremony at Holyrood.
A period of mixed indulgences and persecution followed.
When the Revolution in favour of the Prince of Orange
was announced from England, the Estates passed an act
approving of the good service thus done to the nation.
On March 14th, 1689, a convention of the Estates was
opened at Edinburgh. It deposed James, and declared
the throne of Scotland vacant. The King’s misdeeds
against the people having been recited, the Vote went on
to affirm that “the Estates of the kingdom of Scotland
find and declare that King James the Seventh, being a
professed Papist, did assume the regal power and acted
as king without taking the oath required by law, and
hath, by the advice of evil and wicked councillors, invaded
the fundamental constitution of this kingdom, and
altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary
despotic power, and hath exercised the same to the
subversion of the Protestant religion and the violation of
the laws and liberties of the nation, inverting all the
ends of government, whereby he hath forefaulted the
right to the crown, and the throne is become vacant.”
Having by this vote asserted their right to depose the
sovereign, the Estates next assumed the power to elect.
his successor, and appointed a committee to prepare an
act for settling the crown upon William and Mary.
These courageous steps were taken under conditions
involving personal danger ; for, notwithstanding the
strength of the Protestant revolutionary feeling, violence
was expected in the streets of Edinburgh and even on
the floor of the Parliament House itself. Claverhouse,
who was at the head of the Opposition, assumed a
threatening attitude, and endeavoured to interrupt the
work of the Convention, but the Estates caused the doors
of the Parliament House to be locked, thus preventing
communication with or from the outside. On April 11th,
the Claim of Right was adopted. This declaration
asserted the fundamental liberties of the kingdom of
x.] THE PARTIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
159
Scotland, affirmed that no Papist could be King of
Scotland, that the Scottish Church was Presbyterian,
and that William and Mary were now King and Queen
of Scotland. A number of resolutions were next voted
called the Articles of Grievances, which set forth various
acts done under the authority of bad laws that the
Bstates desired to have repealed, and certain reforms in
regard to which they craved the new King’s co-operation.
Until the settlement of the crown had been finally
completed by the acceptance of William III., the Con-
vention exercised the executive authority in Scotland,
and then it became a Parliament, all its acts henceforth
belonging to the statute law of Scotland. The offer of
the crown was made to William by three commissioners
—the Earl of Argyle, Sir James Montgomery, of Skel-
morlie, and Sir John Dalrymple—representing the three
estates of peers, barons, and burgesses. The King
received the Declaration of Right and the list of
grievances, but demurred to the condition that he should
“root out all heretics” in upholding the true Church.
Nevertheless, on his being assured that the words were
a mere form, he accepted the oath, and promised for
himself and his wife, with God’s assistance, religiously
to observe it.
The Estates, which now looked forward to a new and
more popular constitution as well as a complete change
in their relations with the Crown, elected the Duke of
Hamilton — not a man of strong purpose—President
of the Convention. When the Convention was turned
into a Parliament (June 5th, 1689), he was appointed
by William Lord High Commissioner, and the Earl of
Craufurd succeeded him in the presidency of the Estates.
Parliament soon found itself in conflict with the Crown.
It resented the nomination of a president by the Lord High
Commissioner, but passed this by to enter upon a more
serious contest for the establishment of a free debating
Parliament in Scotland. The Lords of the Articles stood
in the way of this reform, and the Estates called for
their abolition. William, however, hoped to modify the
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The
JEstates
offer the
67'0707, to
Williams.
Parlia-
ment and
the Cronym.
The Lords
of the
Articles.
160
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
offensive system and to render it more acceptable by
making the Lords of the Articles elective, and increasing
tºne their number to thirty-three. But the Estates were firm
Their
abolition,
demanded.
in demanding their abolition, stating also that there
ought to be no committees of Parliament but such as
were chosen freely by the Estates to prepare motions
and overtures. Hamilton then bluntly announced, on
June 17th, the King's pleasure that there should hence-
forth be twenty-four Lords of the Articles, eight chosen
from each Estate, but that their power of rejecting
absolutely any motion laid before them was to cease,
remedy being provided by motion in full Parliament.
The Estates met this by passing a resolution that a fixed
committee was a grievance ; and shortly afterwards a
bill was brought in for regulating committees according
to their views. This plan was modified so far as that
each Estate was to elect its own representatives upon the
committees. Hamilton withheld his consent until he
had communicated with the King. Meanwhile the
Church settlement was postponed, and angry debates
ensued about the Crown, proceedings being threatened
against the Earl of Argyle and the other Commissioners,
who were held to have betrayed their country if they
had suffered the King to believe that he had the power
to restrain the action of Parliament by fixed committees.
The two Dalrymples, as the advisers of William in his
anti-Scotch policy, were also denounced.
It was at this juncture that William’s proposal to
enlarge the Lords of the Articles to thirty-three arrived ;
but the Estates remained obdurate. Abolition was their
only policy, and it was in vain that Hamilton devised
expedients for drawing away their attention from this
one great object. The Commissioner even offered to
restore all forfeitures carried out since the year 1665;
and when that and all other efforts at distraction failed,
he announced that he had discovered a formidable con-
spiracy against the Government and the Estates of Par-
liament at their very doors. The Duke of Gordon and
thirty-seven other persons were arrested, but the whole
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
161
thing turned out to be only some minor matter affecting
the hostile force of Claverhouse." The session of the
Estates closed on August 2nd, many questions remaining
undecided. But Parliament had asserted its rights so
freely that “something which Sir John Dalrymple called
a ‘prerogative was sacrificed every day.” Six important
measures had passed the Estates, but they had not received
the magic touch of the royal sceptre.
Before the Estates again met there occurred the Jacobite
plot, in which Sir James Montgomery, one of the original
Commissioners to William, was implicated, and this, in
conjunction with the rising in the north of Scotland and
the war in Ireland, predisposed the King to an amicable
settlement with the Scots. He now gave his sanction to
the acts passed during the late session, and surrendered
the main points of difference with regard to the mode of
Parliamentary proceedings. Hamilton had already been
dismissed and succeeded by Lord Melville, who was
empowered to deal with leading opponents in a spirit of
bribery—a spirit which was neither creditable nor suc-
cessful. The Lords of the Articles were abolished, this
being a great triumph for Parliament, and in future the
Estates were to appoint at pleasure committees to digest
measures submitted to their consideration. In every
committee there was to be an equal number of repre-
sentatives from each Estate, but the King reserved for
the officers of state the right to attend such committees,
with the privilege of moving and debating, though not
of voting.” The representation of the larger counties—was
augmented during this session, twenty-six representatives
being added to the Estates. By special acts reversing
their forfeitures in preceding reigns, such men as Fletcher
of Saltoun, Melville, and Carstares were restored to their
former positions ; and a general act of reversal of forfeit–
ures and condemnations on religious grounds from the
year 1665 was also passed.
CHAP. II.
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
| Burton's History.
* Minutes of the Estates.
WOL. II. 11
The King
gives may.
Legisla-
tive re-
forms.
162
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISEI PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. II.
From the
The massacre of Glencoe was inquired into by a royal
commission, and, after it had reported, the Estates ad-
4. dressed a memorial to King William on July 15th, 1695.
The Mas.
sacre of
Glemcoe.
Presby-
terianism
ze-estab-
Zished.
The inferior persons implicated in that mournful and dis-
graceful tragedy being in Flanders, the Estates censured
Sir John Dalrymple, without directly impeaching him of
high treason ; and they accused Lord Breadalbane of
high treason, though he was not brought to trial. As a
matter of fact, no one was directly punished for this crime
against humanity, which must ever remain a blot upon
the otherwise noble character of William III. The in-
famous design was clearly traced to Dalrymple, Argyle,
and Breadalbane. The man most deeply involved, Dal-
rymple (afterwards Lord Stair), was simply dismissed
from his office of Secretary of State for Scotland. Even
after the massacre of Glencoe, writs of extermination,
or “letters of fire and sword,” were granted against
two Highland clans, on private grounds of quarrel, by the
Privy Council of Scotland. -
The ecclesiastical settlement of the Revolution was now
proceeded with. In 1689 an act had been passed for
abolishing prelacy and all superiority of office in the
Church; and during the following session (1690) statutes
were passed which practically ended the ecclesiastical
struggle by establishing Presbyterianism. Banished
Presbyterian clergymen were restored to their benefices,
and on May 26th Parliament adopted the Confession of
Faith. The preamble to this important religious declara-
tion stated that “the Confession of Faith underwritten
was this day produced, read, and considered, word by
word, in presence of their Majesties’ High Commissioner
and the Estates of Parliament, and being voted and
approven, was ordained to be recorded in the books
of Parliament.” As the acceptance of the Confession
of Faith was not accompanied, however, by the renewal
of the Covenant, alarm was created in many minds.
A second opportunity occurred for imposing it when
the Estates passed an act repealing the legislation
of later times which might impede the exercise of their
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
163
old powers by the Church courts. Another statute of CHAP. II.
importance was carried, whose ostensible purpose was to
abolish the offensive powers given to the hierarchy in
previous reigns. The ecclesiastical punishment of excom-
munication, which had been enforced by the courts of law,
was put an end to ; and “all acts enjoining civil pains
upon sentences of excommunication ” were repealed.
A new General Assembly was summoned to meet on
October 16th, 1690, and Lord Carmichael, a firm and
judicious man, was appointed King’s Commissioner. He
kept aloof from ecclesiastical questions, and most of the
authority was left in the hands of the Church president,
the Moderator ; but the King was resolved that the State
should maintain a general control over the Assembly.
Hence it became an established custom that the Com-
missioner, at the end of the session, adjourned the
Assembly to its next meeting “in the name of the sove-
reign º’; and the Moderator adjourned it to the same day
“in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Great offence
was given to the Covenanters by the failure of the
Assembly to renew the Covenant, which, as Burton
observes, was “a more flagrant abandonment than even in
Parliament, of the fundamental privileges of the Church.”
The Patronage Act was passed by Parliament on July
19th. The right of patrons to present to benefices had
always been repugnant to the Presbyterian body, who
would never concede it when they had the power of
resistance. Nevertheless it had been restored with the
hierarchy in Charles II.'s reign, and now it was to be
abolished. The first clause of the Patronage Act of
1690 expressly stated that “our sovereign lord and lady
their Majesties the King and Queen, considering that the
power of presenting ministers to vacant churches of late
exercised by patrons hath been greatly abused, and is
inconvenient to be continued in this realm, do therefore,
with the advice and consent of the Estates of Parlia-
ment, hereby discharge, cass,' annull, and make void the
'Really to make void, as repeated.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
nion.
The
Assembly
and the
Covenant.
Patron-
(ºffé.
164
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. II, foresaid power, heretofore exercised by any patron, of
From the presenting ministers to any kirk now vacant or that
Reforma- #1-2 1 ºr 4-1-4 te e
tº he shall hereafter happen to vaike," within this kingdom,
Univer-
sity tests.
with all exercise of the said power; and also all rights,
gifts, and infeftments, acts, statutes, and customs, in
so far as they may be extended or understood to estab-
lish the said right of presentation.”* It was directed
that when a vacancy occurred the heritors or landowners
in country parishes and the municipal corporations in
burghs, together with the elders of the Church, were to
propose a person in holy orders to the congregation, who
were either to approve or disapprove of him. When
objections were taken, these were to come before the
Presbytery, who were to decide whether the person
selected should be clergyman of the parish or not. Thus
the act did not abolish the lay element in patronage,
but regulated it, nor did it admit the right of the con-
gregation finally to reject a minister. What it conferred
was the power to object and the right to plead the
objection before the Presbytery. Some held that the
act was not an abolition of rights of patronage, but only
an arrangement for enabling them to be sold, as clauses
were inserted providing that for each patronage a sum of
six hundred merks (about £35) should be paid. Where
compensation was not made, it would seem that under
this perplexing act the right of patronage remained.
Another act was also passed in July, 1690, imposing
a religious test upon professors in the universities, and
appointing visitors to seek out and report against those
hostile to the new settlement. None were to be admitted
to chairs or allowed to continue in them but such as
acknowledged and subscribed the Confession of Faith,
swore and subscribed the oath of allegiance, and sub-
mitted to the government of the Church as now settled
by law. This statute was the beginning of a series of
harassing measures, which led to bickerings and grave
discontent. Those professors who were at first driven
| Fall vacant. * Scots Acts of Parliament.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
165
forth, however, were not the most distinguished men at
the universities.
When Parliament reassembled in 1693, an act was
passed “for settling the quiet and peace of the Church,” its
object being to secure the taking of the oath of assurance
already prescribed, but not enforced. The new act sought
to bring in those who swore allegiance to the existing
King “as a calamity beyond help,” but who reserved
their prospective allegiance to the rightful King when-
ever his restoration was attempted or effected. A General
Assembly was called to endorse the oath for the clergy,
but the Presbyterians resented Erastianism, or State
domination of the Church. Dalrymple and Tarbat, the
King’s advisers, resolved to push the royal supremacy ;
but William Carstares—who had acquired great influence
over the King, for whom he acted as a kind of unofficial
Secretary for Scotland—saw the danger of insistence.
He braved the anger of William by forcing himself into
his presence, and, producing before him the royal instruc-
tions, which he had intercepted, he besought his Majesty
to withdraw them. The King at first took this boldness
very ill, but his clear reason soon enabled him to perceive
that Carstares was right, and at length he forgave his
secretary and revoked the order. A serious difficulty
was thus averted.
A special act of Parliament was passed for the exclu-
sion from their benefices of the non-conforming Episco-
palian clergy, who by this statute were compelled to
live on the south side of the Forth. Another act was
passed in 1695 to enforce payment of a portion of the
stated incomes of the clergy to temporary missionaries
appointed by the Church ; and the jurisdiction under this
act extended to all the country beyond the Grampians
and to all the counties north of the Forth. A still further
act, of a more pacific tendency, gave the non-conforming
clergy an opportunity of remaining in their benefices and
performing their pastoral duties by conforming to the
civil Oaths. They were, however, prohibited from con-
tinuing the spiritual succession, and were merely mission-
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The
Church.
and the
Royal
Supre-
ºnacy.
Ecclesias-
tical legis
lation.
166
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. aries, being neither part of a corporate Church nor entitled
From the to sit in ecclesiastical courts. Burton states that this
Reforma- & tº ſe
tion to the act was of great service in breaking the compactness of
Encour-
the Episcopal body in the north.
Parliament likewise passed in 1693 an important act
agement of for the encouragement of trade. This statute provided
trade.
The
Daº'ien,
scheme.
Opposi-
tion to
England.
that in Scotland adventurers associating together for
foreign commerce should enjoy all extant privileges of
trade ; and the trade of the East and West Indies and
the Mediterranean was especially included as among those
to which the right of the adventurers, when incorporated
under the Great Seal of Scotland, should become public and
undoubted. Following up this legislation, the Parlia-
ment which met at the Tolbooth on June 26th, 1695,
sanctioned the Darien scheme by a statute entitled “An
Act for a Company trading to Africa and the Indies.”
Privileges were granted to the company which raised
them above the restraints of the Navigation Act, and
they were also granted the extraordinary power of fitting
out and arming vessels of war either in Scotland or any
other country not at war with the British sovereign.
The company were further authorised to make settle-
ments and build cities, harbours, and fortifications in
Asia, Africa, or America, to contract alliances with
Powers in these distant parts of the world, and to defend
themselves if attacked ; while, to restrain private adven-
turers, all other Scotchmen were prohibited from trading
in the districts occupied by the said company without
their licence. The history of the Darien scheme was
most romantic and unfortunate ; and British action with
regard to it and the ultimate collapse of the company
will be found treated of elsewhere.
In the Scots Parliament of 1698 there arose a formi-
dable opposition to the English Government on the ground
of its high-handed conduct towards the Darien expedition.
It was with the utmost difficulty that the Government
could secure the election of the committees for the trans-
action of public business. A proposal was made in the
Estates formally to renew the powers and privileges of
x.]
167
THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
the company, but by specious promises the Commis-
sioner put off this resolution. But the alienation from
the Crown increased rapidly, and the session of 1700
was very unpropitious and stormy. The Darien dis-
asters had thoroughly roused the Scottish temper, but a
temporary truce was enforced by the prorogation of
Parliament. The Earl of Melville wrote that the people
all sided with the Opposition in Parliament, and that
there was no more speaking to the people than to a
man in a fever. Riots broke out in Edinburgh, and the
bands of music which paraded the city played, in allusion
to King William, the tune, “Wilful Willy, wilt thou be
Wilful Still P ‘’”
In October, 1702, the Parliament met in as angry a
spirit as ever. Uncompromising resolutions were adopted,
condemning the interference of the English Parliament
in the Darien scheme, as well as the proclamations by
the governors of the English colonies. Certain pamphlets
defending the King were denounced as “blasphemous,
scandalous, and calumnious libels,” and they were ordered
to be burned by the common hangman. In the mean-
time projects were put forward for accomplishing the
Union between England and Scotland. Nothing was done,
however, for the negotiations fell through in consequence
of a claim by the Scots to equal trading privileges with
England, which was well known to refer to the African
or Darien scheme. As there was no hope of a perma-
ment agreement, the Estates were adjourned on February
3rd, 1703, until October 4th ensuing, but this Parliament
never again assembled.” *
The new Parliament, the memorable Union Parlia-
ment, met at Edinburgh on May 6th, 1703. The num-
bers summoned to it were very large, including 153 lords,
85 barons, and 67 burghers, or a total of 305. They all
* Stanhope's History of England, and the Carstares State Papers.
* Burton says that this Parliament had a more protracted exist-
ence than the celebrated Long Parliament of England ; but that is
not so. The Long Parliament lasted for twenty years (1640–1660);
the Scotch Parliament sat for fourteen years (from 1689 to 1703).
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Parlia-
'ment in,
1702.
Projects
for Uniox,
ºvíth Eng-
land.
Meeting
of the
Union.
Parlia-
'ment.
168
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, sat in one House, with the Chancellor as Chairman.
Frºm the The nobles were accommodated at the upper end of the
Reforma- &
tº he hall on raised benches, and beneath these were ranged
the lesser barons and burgesses. Before the sittings
began, the old feudal ceremony of “riding ” to the Par-
liament House was carried out with more than customary
pomp and splendour. Queen Anne, who had succeeded
William III. in the preceding year, appointed the Duke
of Queensberry her Scots commissioner, and the Earl of
Seafield Lord Chancellor. When the sittings opened, a
letter was read from the Queen favouring toleration, and,
in pursuance of this letter, the Earl of Strathmore brought
in a bill “for toleration to all Protestants in the exercise
of religious worship,” but so much hostility was mani-
fested towards it that it was dropped. Instead of an act
of relief, on June 3rd the Estates passed a declaratory
act ratifying and confirming the Church establishment
of the Revolution; and it was at the same time made high
treason to impugn any article of the Claim of Right.
Sir David Cunningham, of Milncraig, urged that it was
uncharitable to affirm, as was done by this act, that
“the Presbyterian Government was the only Church of
Christ.” To this the Marquis of Lothian replied that
“he was sure the Presbyterian Government was the best
part of the Christian religion,” a sentiment which “set
all the House in a merry temper.”” The act was carried
with the objectionable words.
The Estates next formally asserted themselves to be a
Parliament, and then passed an act declaring that after
her Majesty’s decease no king or queen of Scotland
should have power to make peace or war without consent
of Parliament. And to make it clear that they held
themselves free from the war with France then raging,
they brought forward a measure to remove, even in the
midst of war, the restrictions on the importation of French
wines. Both these acts, though asserting large powers
for the Estates, were suffered to be touched with the
sceptre and become law.
The
Estates
declared
a Parlia-
ment.
* Lockhart (of Carnwath) Papers.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
169
The most considerable personage in this Parliament
was Andrew Fletcher, of Saltoun. Fletcher was born in
1653, and educated under Bishop Burnet. When first
returned to Parliament, he so strongly opposed the
measures of the Court that he was obliged to flee to
Holland. In , 1685 he returned, and landed with Mon-
mouth in the west of England, and he subsequently
fought against the Turks in the Hungarian army. The
Revolution restored him to his country, and he became
a commissioner to settle the government of Scotland.
Fletcher was a fine, high-toned man, exempt from the
vices of the age. He was very accomplished both in law
and letters, and was master of the English, Latin, Greek,
French, and Italian languages. He was by far the finest
speaker in the Parliament of Scotland, the Earl of Stair
coming next. The latter was famed for a splendid, the
former for a close and nervous eloquence. Fletcher's
works are classics, and his “speeches and language will
bear comparison with the best speeches of the reign of
Queen Anne, the Augustan age of Great Britain, being far
Superior to the meretricious, inflated, metaphorical style
of our modern orators.” Observed another writer, “If
ever a man proposes to serve and merit well of his
Country, let him place his courage, zeal, and constancy
as a pattern before him, and think himself sufficiently
applauded and rewarded if he obtain the character of
being like Andrew Fletcher, of Saltoun.””
Fletcher's ideal government for Scotland would have
been a republic something after the type of the Italian
republics ; but failing this, he endeavoured to give to the
constitution of his country a broad and liberal basis. He
brought forward a scheme of “limitations,” whose object
was to take the patronage of office from the Crown and
to exercise it in the Estates by the method of the ballot.
To the objection that this was revolutionary Fletcher
replied, “Not at all ; it merely transfers the power of
' Buchan's Life of Fletcher.
* Lockhart Papers.
CHAP. II.
From the
Oriºla-
tion to the
Union.
-ms-
JFletcher
of Saltown.
His
scheme of
“Ziºni-
#&tions.”
170 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. governing Scotland from a knot of English placemen to
;; the Scottish Parliament.”
tiºn tº the This scheme was not perfected and carried through,
Union. e
tº for a greater measure soon absorbed the attention of
gº Parliament. This was the Bill of Security, brought in
by Tweeddale, but subsequently moulded by Fletcher.
The measure did not pass in the current session; but, as
ultimately adopted, the Act of Security provided that on
the death of the Queen without issue the Estates were
to name a successor from the Protestant descendants of
the royal line of Scotland ; but the admitted successor to
the crown of England was excluded from their choice
unless “there be such conditions of government settled
and enacted as may secure the honour and sovereignty of
this crown and kingdom, the freedom, frequency, and
power of Parliaments, the religion, freedom, and trade of
the nation, from English or any foreign influence.” To
administer the coronation oath without instruction from
the Estates was declared to be treason, and a further
clause ordered the nation to be placed in a state of im-
mediate defence. - -
Angry de- For four months, fierce debates raged round this question.
º: Charges of intimidation and corruption were freely made,
cession, and any speaker who seemed to favour England was
threatened or howled down. Early in September the
Earl of Marchmont moved for leave to withdraw a bill
he had introduced to settle the succession. This being
granted, he introduced another to “settle the succession
on the house of Hanover,” but when the Clerk came to
the paragraph naming the Princess Sophia, the whole
House was in a flame. Some moved to have the overture
burnt ; others were for calling the Earl to the bar or
sending him to the Castle. By a majority of fifty-seven
votes, permission was even refused to enter the project on
the minutes. The Act of Security was carried, but the
Queen refused her assent thereto. This led to further
exciting debates. Members boldly asserted their inde-
pendence, and spoke of resorting to the sword if they
were denied the right of expressing their desires in
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 171
Parliament. Fletcher again introduced his drastic limita- CHAP. II.
tions scheme, proposing annual elections, the exclusion ;:
of office-holders, the frequent calling of Parliaments, etc., tº he
but the discussions were cut short on September 16th by Tº
the adjournment of the House."
Now arose a singular incident, known variously as the The
Scots Plot and the Queensberry Plot. Queen Anne having £ºOt.
granted a pardon in March, 1703, to all Scottish political
offenders who would take the oath to her government,
many adherents of the Stuarts availed themselves of
her clemency. Lord Lovat was one of these. A great
Highland gathering was fixed to be held at Lochaber in
August, but while its ostensible object was the driving of
the deer, its real object was supposed to be a political
one. Lovat, having a deep grudge against Lord Athole,
the Keeper of the Privy Seal, now laid a plot for his
ruin. He had obtained possession of an unaddressed
letter written by the wife of the Pretender to some
Scotch nobleman, and he filled in the blank with the
name of Athole, and forwarded the document to the Duke
of Queensberry. His Grace sent on the letter to the
Queen, but, the deceit becoming known, Lovat fled
to the Continent, and the Duke lost his place as Com-
missioner. The plot had still wider effects, however.
Anne informed the House of Lords in December that
there were French emissaries stirring up rebellion in
Scotland, and the Lords at once investigated the question,
but without definite result. The Scots were angry with
the House of Lords, considering that the matter should
have been dealt with by the Privy Council. The House
of Commons also fell foul of the peers for assuming
powers of criminal inquiry which did not belong to them,
and prayed the Queen to give orders for the investigation
to be carried on by her officers.
The Scottish Parliament met July 6th, 1704, and the ºf
g e * tº- Estates
Queen desired the Privy Council to ascertain how much jºi.
* In addition to the Parliamentary Minutes, the authorities for
this Parliament are Tindal, Hume of Crossrig, and Boyer (Annals
of Queen Anne).
172
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The
Act of
Security
passed.
The Eng-
lish Paº'-
liament
and the
Scots.
truth there was in the suspected plot. The Marquis of
Tweeddale was the new Commissioner in place of Queens-
berry. Instead of making up the rent between the two
nations, which Anne lamented had become wider, the
Estates denounced the interference of the English House
of Lords in the matter of the plot, and carried an address
to her Majesty regretting that such an encroachment had
occurred upon her prerogative as Queen of Scotland ; and
they requested her to take such measures as would pre-
vent the like meddling in future. The Act of Security
was again passed, practically without resistance, the
Estates adopting the “tacking” policy of the English
House of Commons in order to carry their point. It was
resolved not to grant the funds for the support of the
Scots troops if the Act of Security were not touched
with the sceptre, and the act was consequently accom-
panied in the statute-book by another act for the supply
of six months’ cess upon the land rent. Lord Stanhope
observes that, as the act might involve on the demise of
the Queen a separation of the crowns of England and
Scotland, “a resolute Prime Minister would for the
second time have refused it the royal assent.” ". But
Godolphin gave way, and the measure received the
Queen’s sanction.
When the English Parliament met on October 29th,
the hostile attitude of Scotland at once engaged its atten-
tion. Lord Haversham first opened the matter ; and a
special sitting was appointed for November 29th, when
the Queen attended, with the hope of moderating by her
presence any heats which might arise. Godolphin was
attacked by both Whigs and Tories, and made but a
feeble defence, for his vital energies were waning. The
Queen attended a second time on December 6th, when
Lord Somers indicated the measures he thought necessary.
He proposed a law declaring the Scots aliens, and for-
bidding the importation of their cattle, which law was
to remain in force until the succession to the crown of
* Stanhope's History of England, vol. i.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
173
Scotland should be settled. A bill to that effect was
introduced, and the Lords also carried an address to the
Queen praying that Newcastle should be put into a
condition of defence, that the port of Tynemouth should
be secured, that the works at Carlisle and Hull should
be repaired, and that the militia of the four northern
counties should be disciplined and provided with arms
and ammunition.
The House of Commons concurred with the Lords, but
took umbrage at certain money penalties which apparently
invaded their own taxing privileges. The Lower House
accordingly introduced a bill of their own, which passed
the Peers, and became law during the session. It was
entitled “An Act for the effectual securing the kingdom
of England from the apparent dangers that may arise
from several acts lately passed in the Parliament of
Scotland.” This measure enacted that the Queen should
be empowered to name commissioners to treat of a union
with Scotland; that after Christmas Day, 1705, unless
the succession to the crown of Scotland should be decided
by that time, every native of Scotland not a settled in-
habitant of England, nor serving in her Majesty’s forces,
should be taken and held for an alien ; that from the
same date no Scotch cattle nor sheep should be brought
into England, nor any Scotch coals, nor yet any Scotch
linen.
This act of self-protection, which was natural enough
on the part of England, alarmed the Scots, whose trade
in cattle and linen was threatened with ruin. While the
matter was pending, a painful occurrence, arising indirectly
out of the Darien enterprise, greatly emphasised the
necessity for an amicable understanding between England
and Scotland. Captain Thomas Green and thirteen of
the crew of the Worcester were seized off Burnt Island,
and brought to trial on charges of piracy upon the coast
of Malabar and the murder of one Drummond, a Darien
captain. They were found guilty, and notwithstanding
the Queen's orders to the Privy Council of Scotland to
stay their execution, so great was the resentment of the
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Measures
of defence.
The breach
mide?vs.
174
PHISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
Scotch
legislation
$7, 1705.
Proposed
Treaty of
Jnion.
people that Green and two others were put to death.
What made the matter worse, evidence was produced
affirming that Drummond was alive, and this was subse-
quently corroborated."
In anticipation of the next meeting of the Scottish
Parliament, Ministers in England reinstated the Duke of
Queensberry, who, however, only took the post of Privy
Seal, the Duke of Argyll being appointed Commis-
sioner. The Estates met on June 28th, 1705, and the
Queen’s message earnestly pressed upon their notice
the settlement of the succession and the appointment of
commissioners to treat for a legislative union. There
were now three parties: the Jacobites, or Cavaliers; the
independent or national party led by Fletcher ; and the
party of Tweeddale and his friends, called the “Squad-
rone Volante,” from its compactness, which latter fre-
quently held the fortunes of Parliament in its own hands.
Instead of acting upon the Queen's message first, the
Estates considered and settled various matters affecting
commerce, and appointed a council of trade. Even when
the vexed settlement question was reached, they came to
a stand so far as the person was concerned ; but with
regard to limitations and securities they were sufficiently
definite, though not going so far as Fletcher could desire.
An act was passed which made on the Queen's demise
the officers of state and the judges of the supreme
courts elective by Parliament. A second act provided
that a Scottish ambassador should be present at every
treaty made by the sovereign of the two kingdoms with
a foreign Power. By a further measure the Parliament
was to become triennial at the end of the next three
years.
The Queen's Commissioner declined to give the royal
assent to these acts, and indeed they took a secondary
place when the all-absorbing question of the Union was
introduced. Fletcher, with much eloquence and great
breadth of view, introduced a new and comprehensive
| State Trials, vol. xiv., and Burton's Criminal Trials in Scotland.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 175
scheme of limitations and securities, but this also fell CHAP. II.
into the background. On August 25th the first draft ;#:
of an act for a Treaty of Union was brought for- tºne
ward. After several sittings the Court party carried an tº:
act empowering the Queen to name commissioners to
treat for Scotland. This important point was gained
with the assistance of the Squadrone, whose action ex-
asperated and dismayed the opponents of the Union.
The act, nevertheless, was tempered by a resolution that
the Scottish commissioners should not begin to confer
with the English until the clauses in the English act of
Parliament making the Scotch aliens had been repealed.
Another important proviso was also adopted : “That the
commissioners shall not treat of or concerning any altera-
tion of the worship, discipline, or government of the
Church of this kingdom as now by law established.”
The first step towards a union was thus taken ; and when
the English Parliament met in October, the alien clauses
so obnoxious to the Scots were fully and frankly repealed,
at the instance of the liberal-minded Lord Somers.
Difficulties arose in connection with the appointment The
of the Scots commissioners, who, like the English, were *
thirty-one in number. There was no attempt to repre-
sent the Scottish Church, but otherwise the list was a
more representative one than the English, which con-
sisted exclusively of peers and official personages.
Hamilton and Argyll were not in the Scottish list, but
it included the Jacobite plotter George Lockhart, of
Carnwath. Eventually, responsible commissioners were
nominated, who began the requisite negotiations.
The joint body which sat on the question of the Union Their
had no precedent. In one sense it was a deliberative .
body, in another sense two deliberative bodies, “who tion.
could transact nothing without a majority on each side in
favour of every proposition adopted.” Again, “it behoved
* The Jerviswood Correspondence shows that Hamilton was pur-
posely omitted, as, owing to his views, he might have complicated
matters.
176
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II, the treaty to be so directed that the Scotsman’s advan-
Ref
Questions
for settle-
Øve???,
#: tage should not lie in the good bargain he obtained over
tº he the Englishman, but in both being equal members of the
same great community ; and similar in kind, though not
so great in degree, was the corresponding interest on the
other side. But it was not merely necessary that each
nation should avoid gaining any advantage over the other:
it was necessary that neither should retain any substan-
tial element of superiority, even though the other had
nothing to give in exchange for the advantage of partici-
pating in it.” ". With such problems as these before them,
and previous abortive attempts to serve as a warning, the
commissioners assembled in the old council chamber of
the Cockpit at Whitehall on April 16th, 1706.
As we have seen, the act expressly excepted the Church
from the matters with which the commission was to deal ;
and this wise decision to leave each nation in undisturbed
possession of its own Church undoubtedly tended to
smooth the path of the negotiators. Subsequently it was
decided to treat the law in the same way as the Church,
the Scots being left with their own system of judicature.
These two formidable subjects being removed from the
scope of the treaty, there remained four main questions
for decision : the succession, trade, taxation, and the
composition of the future Parliament. The Scottish
commissioners gave way on the first, the English on the
second, and the third and fourth were adjusted by a skil-
ful compromise, the genius of Somers being the chief
factor in the success of the negotiations. The Scotch
proposal that the Union should be federal was set aside,
and it was resolved that as the two nations had virtually
become one people, united by community of interests, so
they should now become one in point of law, and as they
already had one and the same sovereign, so they should
have one and the same legislature. The adjustment of
taxation and national burdens was a matter of grave
difficulty. It was pointed out on behalf of Scotland that
* Burton's History of Scotland.
The above are the The above are the
Scots' Commissioners. English Commissioners.

x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
177
before it could bear its part in the heavier imposts of
England it must enjoy for some years the prosperous
fruits of the Union; and it was ultimately conceded that
there should be granted to Scotland an exemption from
certain taxes. Among these were the window duties, a
portion of the stamp duties expiring in August, 1710, and
the tax on coals expiring in September of the same year.
From the salt duty they were to be exempt for seven
years. As Scotland would necessarily sustain an im-
mediate loss from a uniform system of taxation, the
payment of a money compensation known as “the equi-
valent” was discussed. The amount was finally fixed at
£398,085 10s., and it was to be expended partly in pay-
ment of the public debts of Scotland, partly in compensa-
tion for losses by the coinage, and partly in recompensing
the stockholders of the Darien Company with interest,
the Company itself being dissolved. The surplus was to
go towards the promotion of Scottish fisheries and manu-
factures. These financial questions gave the greatest
trouble, and when they were disposed of, the political
difficulties were more readily adjusted."
The Articles of Union, as finally arranged, numbered
twenty-five. The main provisions were—that on May 1st,
1707, England and Scotland should be united in one
kingdom, bearing the name of Great Britain ; that the
succession to the crown of Scotland should be in all
points the same as that of England, the succession of the
United Kingdom being vested in the Princess Sophia and
CHAP. II.
From the
eforma-
}
* The best and most authentic account of the Union negotiations
appears in the Appendix to vol. xi. of the Scots Acts of Parlia-
ment. Defoe has written a ponderous work on the History of
the Union between England and Scotland; there is another narrative
on the same subject by the Rev. Ebenezer Marshall; and there
is an official Report on the Events and Circumstances which produced
the Union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, prepared in 1799
by Mr. Bruce, of the State Paper Office. Then there are the
various accounts given by our later historians, Burton's being
probably the best. A very brief but useful summary of the nego-
tiations is given by Dr. AEneas Mackay in the article “Scotland ’’
in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1886).
WOL. II. 12
tion to the
Union.
Articles
of Union.
178
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, her heirs, being Protestants; that all privileges of trade
Fºlº should belong equally to both nations; that there should
eforma- tº tº
tº he be one Great Seal and the same coinage, weights, and
Agitation
against
the
Treaty,
measures ; that the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches
of England and Scotland should be for ever established
as essential and fundamental parts of the Union ; that
the United Kingdom should be represented by one and
the same Parliament, to be called the Parliament of
Great Britain ; that the number of representative peers
for Scotland should be sixteen, to be elected for every
Parliament by the whole body, and the number of repre-
sentatives in the Commons forty-five, two-thirds of whom
were to be chosen by the counties, and one-third by the
boroughs; that the Crown be restrained from creating
any new peers of Scotland; that both parts of the United
Kingdom should be subject to the same duties of excise,
and the same customs on exports and imports ; but that
when England raised £2,000,000 by a land-tax £48,000
should be raised in Scotland, and in like proportion. A
standard on which were blended the flags of both nations,
the crosses of St. Andrew and St. George, which had
been first projected by James VI. under the name of the
Union Jack, was adopted as the national flag of the
United Kingdom ; and it was agreed that the arms of
the two countries should be quartered with all heraldic
honours.”
When the terms of the articles became known in
Scotland, they gave great dissatisfaction in certain quar-
ters. The Jacobites were especially angry with them,
for they saw in them the prospect of a steadily growing
feeling in favour of the Union and the consequent decline
of their own ideas. Edinburgh was soon in a state of
great agitation, and to prejudice the treaty it was urged
that there was an immediate loss to Scotland, owing to
With regard to the Parliamentary representation for Scotland, it
has been sometimes urged that it was not very favourable to the
Scots, but if taxation, and not population, be taken as the measure
of representation, they were by no means hardly dealt with. See
Burton, Hallam, and Stanhope.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
179
the abolition of its independent Parliament, the reduction
of the capital to a provincial town, and the increase of
taxation to pay the growing national debt. The gains
which might be expected to accrue from the Union were
kept in the background. There were those of course
CHAP. II.
From the
Oriºla-
tion to the
Union.
who conscientiously believed that trade would decline, .
instead of advance, as it did, by rapid strides ; that, in
spite of the solemn guarantees, the law and the Church
would yield to the dominant influences of the larger
country, in which henceforth was to be the sole seat of
government ; and that much of the talent and wealth
of Scotland would be attracted southwards and be
absorbed by the English. These considerations led to a
stormy agitation, which heralded the sittings of the last
Parliament of Scotland.
The Estates met early in October, 1706, and on the
12th took the Articles of Union into consideration.
While the debates were progressing, addresses were pre-
sented in considerable numbers from various counties and
boroughs praying that the treaty might not be ratified,
whilst scarcely any were presented in its favour. Although
it could not be held that the Union was popular, a
Scottish historian (Burton) observes that the addresses
Were no more a measure of positive national antipathy
to it than the turbulence of a few Edinburgh apprentices
which for a time disturbed the capital. After nearly a
month spent in preliminary discussions, it was agreed on
November 4th to take a vote on the first article of the
Union, with a proviso, however, that it was to be depen-
dent on the rest being carried.
The debate furnished one of the finest oratorical dis-
plays which marked the course of the Scots Parliament.
The Duke of Hamilton spoke stirringly on Scottish nation-
ality, and Seton of Pitmedden, one of the commissioners,
pleaded for the measure in a calm and statesmanlike
speech. But the great feature of the debate was the
eloquent oration of Lord Belhaven, a young nobleman of
fiery and impetuous character, whose opposition to the
Union reached a species of famaticism. His speech formed
Meeting
of the
Estates.
Great
debate on
the Union.
Lord Bel-
haven's
speech.
180
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [Book
Char. II, an event in the history of Scotland, and was afterwards
; spread broadcast, in numberless editions, throughout the
#. country. As compared with the efforts of later English
Thefirst
Article
carried.
orators, if examined in some distant age, “it would be
found to have few competitors among them in the essen-
tials of heroic oratory, rapid and potent diction, im-
passioned appeal, bold and apt illustration.” Though
evidently addressed to the people at large, it bristled
with classical allusions. While the form of the speech
delighted the cultivated, its substance alarmed those who
already dreaded the effects of the Union. “What hinders
us, my lord,” he exclaimed in the most rhetorical por-
tion of his speech, “to lay aside our divisions, to unite
cordially and heartily together in our present circum-
stances, when our all is at stake P Hannibal, my lord,
is at our gates. Hannibal is come the length of this
table ; he is at the foot of this throne ; he will demolish
this throne if we take not notice ; he’ll seize upon these
regalia; he'll take them as our spolia opima, and whip
us out of this House never to return again. For the love
of God then, for the safety and welfare of our ancient
kingdom, whose sad circumstances I hope we shall yet
convert into prosperity and happiness —we want no
means if we unite. God blesseth the peacemakers. We
want neither men nor sufficiency of all manner of things
to make a nation happy.” In another dramatic passage
the speaker put the question of a national union of parties
against the common enemy upon his bended knees,
paused for a reply, and receiving mone, solemnly recorded,
“No answer l’” Again, after rapidly sketching the con-
tents of the treaty, he said, “Good God what is this—
an entire surrender My lords, I find my heart so full
of grief and indignation, that I must beg pardon not to
finish the last part of my discourse, that I may drop a
tear as the prelude to so sad a story.”
This fervid oratory, nevertheless, failed to awe or
impress the House, and it had absolutely no effect
upon the division. Whatever might be the case in
the country, the House was inclined to ridicule rather
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 181
than to quail before the great speech. Lord March- CHAP. II.
mont excited laughter and cheers when he said that they ;:
had heard a long speech, and a very terrible one ; but tion to the
he thought a short answer would suffice, and it might “
be given in these words: “Behold, he dreamed ; but, lo,
when he awoke, behold it was but a dream.” The division
gave 116 in favour of the article and 83 against, the
Squadrone having declared for the Union. Although
the great preponderance of the majority was in the
peerage, there was an actual majority in each Estate
—a matter of considerable moment upon so vital a
question." The actual majority in each of the Estates was
as follows: peers, 25; barons, 4 ; representatives of the
boroughs, 4. In many of the subsequent articles, and
especially those relating to trade, the Parliament secured
modifications which were distinctly in favour of Scotland.
By disturbances in the west, and projected addresses to
the High Commissioner in Parliament, the party opposed
to the Union now sought to prevent its consummation.
But the work went forward, and additional guarantees
were given to the Presbyterian Church in an act
passed for “securing the Protestant religion and the
Presbyterian Establishment.” To conciliate the English
Episcopacy and Parliament, the measure contained a
balancing clause, consenting that the Parliament of
England might provide as it thought fit for the security
of the English Church within its own sphere.
During the discussion of the articles, an amendment Proposed
that the Parliament of Great Britain should meet once ...”
each third year in Scotland was put and lost. Waiving in Edin-
other objections to such a scheme, the inconvenience of *
taking the vast bulk of the members of the House of
Commons to Edinburgh once in every three years, with
such defective means of transit, was, and is, manifestly
apparent. A Parliament in Edinburgh would no doubt
* Dr. Mackay, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, gives the total
majority as 35, but that is a mistake; the Scots Acts of Parlia-
ment show it to have been only 33.
182
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
©for Iſlal-
tion to the
Union.
Tragio
death of
Lord
Stair.
The
Treaty of
Union.
carried.
Charges of
bribery,
have led to an increase of trade in the Scottish capital ;
but the proposal was scarcely taken seriously even in the
north, and it finds but the barest mention in the official
minutes.
The passage of the articles was pushed through ; but
just as the twenty-second article was carried Lord Stair
expired suddenly, from the effects of anxiety and over-
exertion in connection with the treaty. This nobleman,
who fifteen years before had played such an unenviable
part in the massacre of Glencoe, rendered great legal
service as a supporter of the Union. With the passing
of the twenty-second article, the treaty was safe. The
discussions concluded on January 16th, 1707, when the
last division was taken on the passing of “An Act
ratifying and approving the Treaty of Union.” It
was carried by 110 to 69 votes, and on this occasion
there was a satisfactory majority in each Estate. The
peers in favour of the act were 42, with 19 against ;
the barons 38, as against 30 ; and the burgesses 30,
as against 20. The Act was thereafter touched with
the royal sceptre by her Majesty’s High Commissioner.
Lockhart states that Seafield, the Chancellor, in signing
the official exemplification of the Act, made use of a
well-known Scotch simile : “And there's an end o' an
auld sang.” For this he has incurred the indignant
remonstrances of some of his countrymen, Sir Walter
Scott included.
With regard to the charges of corruption against the
statesmen of the Union, the historian Burton, after a
close examination of them, came to the conclusion that
there was no ground for the charge of bribery in Scotland.
It is true that Lockhart makes the most express
charges, and gives the amount actually distributed as
£20,540 17s. 7d. ; but several of the official persons stated
to have been bribed continually complained that they
could not get their arrears of salary paid. Of course it
would be corruption if long arrears were paid cash down
as an equivalent for a vote ; but, as Burton observes,
“it surely does not follow from the mere fact of arrears
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
183
being paid that such a compact has been made, nor can
it be inferred from the general condition of our informa-
tion on this matter.” Whether money passed legitimately
or as an equivalent, there are few now who would hold
the Union to have been a base and sordid betrayal of the
interests of Scotland.
After the Treaty of Union had been carried, the
Scots Estates still continued to sit as a sovereign
legislature pending the acceptance of the treaty by Eng-
land; and various questions of importance came up for
solution. Seeing that the existing Parliament of Eng-
land was to remain as the English portion of the united
Legislature, the Estates resolved that the representative
peers as well as the commoners for Scotland should be
chosen from their existing Parliament. It was further
decided that representatives should be elected for every
Parliament, that voting should be open, and not by ballot,
and that proxies should be allowed. Thirty of the forty-
five seats reserved for the Commons of Scotland were
apportioned to the counties, and fifteen to the towns.
Edinburgh was to have the privilege of electing its
representative separately, but the other boroughs, sixty-
six in number, were joined together in groups to the
number of fourteen. A commissioner was to be chosen
by each borough, and the commissioners of each group
were to meet and elect the member of Parliament.
Peers were excluded from candidature for the House of
Commons, and it was proposed also to exclude their
eldest sons. Though the latter proposition was not
carried in this form, it found indirect acceptance in a
resolution to limit the representative right “to such as
are now capable by the laws of this kingdom to elect or
be elected.” The principle of excluding peers’ eldest sons
from the representation of Scotch shires and boroughs,
though not a very intelligible one, prevailed down to the
Reform Act of 1832. In disposing of the Equivalent,
the sum of £232,000, being more than half the whole,
was awarded to the stockholders of the Darien Company
for capital and interest. The balance was employed in
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union,
Details of
Scotch Re-
presenta-
tion,
184
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The Treaty
in the
English
JParlia-
Oment.
Debates on
the Union,
discharging certain outstanding claims and in remunerat-
ing the late and former commissioners. The apportion-
ment of the latter item caused great dissatisfaction to
the public. The last legislative act of the Estates was
a statute for the encouragement of the growth of wool.
On March 25th the Scots Parliament was adjourned by
the High Commissioner, and it never again assembled.
Meanwhile the Treaty of Union had passed through
the English Parliament. On January 28th the Queen
went to the House of Lords and announced the passing
of the Treaty by the Parliament of Scotland. After
expressing a hope that the House of Commons would
be willing to provide for the stipulated equivalent, she
commended to the Legislature at large the opportunity
“of putting the last hand to a happy union of the two
kingdoms.” In order to carry the measure, Godolphin
and his colleagues determined to sacrifice some of its
details, for it would not do to excite public feeling by
sending the bill back to Scotland for reconsideration upon
any of its provisions. But as the Presbyterians had
secured their own Church, so the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, acting on behalf of the English Establishment,
brought in a measure for the security of the Episcopal
Church in England, and this was carried.
Considering the importance of the subject, the reports
preserved of the Union debates in both Houses are very
unsatisfactory. Only in those instances where the orator
himself prepared his speech for the press is there any-
thing like an adequate account of these Parliamentary
utterances, and even such cases are few in number. On
February 4th the Commons sat, as a committee of the
whole House, to consider the Articles of Union and the
Act of Ratification by the Parliament of Scotland. The
House met, not in the performance of its proper legisla-
tive functions, but to consider a question laid directly
before Parliament by the Crown. The usual method of
procedure is by message, but on this memorable occasion
the sovereign attended in person. Little time was lost,
for the committee’s report in favour of the articles was
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
185
received and adopted on the 8th. During the debate
certain members complained of the careless rapidity
CHAP. II.
From the
Refo
with which the committee proceeded, describing it as tºne
“post-haste, post-haste,” whereupon Sir Thomas Littleton
very smartly pursued the allegory, and said “they did
not ride post-haste, but a good easy trot ; and, for his
part, as long as the weather was fair, the roads good,
and their horses in heart, he was of opinion they ought
to jog on, and not take up till it was night.” Sir John
Packington (erroneously supposed by some to be the
original of Sir Roger de Coverley) delivered a vehement
speech against the Treaty. “He was absolutely against
this incorporating union,” he said, “which was like the
marrying a woman against her consent, a union that
was carried by corruption and bribery within doors,
and by force and violence without,” etc. These bold
expressions, which reflected alike upon the Queen’s
Ministers, the Scottish commissioners, and Parliament,
gave great offence ; but Sir John added that in Scotland
they said the Union was carried by bribery and force.
An amendment for postponing the first article of the
Treaty having been defeated by an overwhelming majority,
the report of the committee, practically approving the
whole of the articles, was received and ratified without
a division."
On February 15th there was a “grand ” debate in the
House of Lords on the Treaty of Union, the Queen lend-
ing additional weight to the deliberations by her presence.
Bishop Burnet, who had done so much for Protestantism
in England, and was a staunch supporter of the Union
with Scotland, was called upon to take the chair on the
Lords going into committee of the whole House for the
consideration of the articles. In the course of the debate
on the first article, Lord Nottingham took exception to
the name of Great Britain, alleging that it was such an
innovation in the monarchy as totally subverted all the
laws of England ; but, on the judges being appealed to,
' Parliamentary History, vol. vi.
The Lords
and the
Treaty.
186
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. II, they “unanimously declared they could not conceive that
#: it anyways altered or impaired the constitution of this
€ O se tº sº *
tºne realm, whose laws, they were of opinion, must remain
Oll.
Lord
Pła/ver-
sham's
speech.
The
Articles
debated.
entirely the same as well after as before the Union,
except such as were altogether inconsistent with, and
directly contrary thereto.”
The only lengthy speeches in the debate published in
the Parliamentary History are those by Talbot, Bishop of
Oxford (who declined to join in the hue-and-cry against
the recognition of the Scotch Kirk), and Lord Haver-
sham. The latter spoke uncompromisingly against the
Union, and boldly lauded the statesmanship of Oliver
Cromwell, who “was so wise as to abolish " the reserved
hereditary jurisdictions and the privileges of the boroughs
as elements in the Scottish Constitution.
A proposal to postpone the consideration of the first
article was negatived by 72 to 22, and the House read
and approved the first six articles. When the debate
was resumed on the 19th, Lords North and Grey ob-
jected, with regard to the ninth article, to the small
amount Scotland was to contribute to the land-tax.
Lord Halifax in reply admitted that the amount was
small, but it was all the Scots would pay. They could
not expect to reap equal advantages from every article of
the Treaty ; and if the Scots had the better in some
few, England was infinitely recompensed by the many
advantages which accrued to her on the whole. The
article was carried by 70 to 23 votes. At a later stage,
the Earl of Thanet, perpetual sheriff of the county of
Westmoreland, and the Marquis of Lindsey, Lord
Chamberlain, were anxious to know how their heritable
offices would be affected, whereupon the judges assured
them they were perfectly safe. The Bishop of Bath and
Wells remarked that he was altogether opposed to the
Union, for which he could find no better comparison
than “the mixing together strong liquors, of a contrary
nature, in one and the same vessel, which would go nigh
to be burst asunder by their furious fermentation.”
The Bishop, curiously enough, anticipated certain nine-
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 187
teenth-century complaints of the episcopal bench by CHAP. II.
saying that “it was always reckoned the dead weight of ;:
the House.” - tion to the
When the last article of the Treaty had been read, nion.
Lord Nottingham stood up and begged their lordships’ flºw.
pardon for having troubled them upon almost every haul dis-
article. “As Sir John Maynard,” he said, “made this Sents.
compliment to the late King at the Revolution, that,
having buried, upon account of his great age, all his
contemporaries in Westminster Hall, he was afraid, if
his Majesty had not come in that very juncture of time,
he might likewise have outlived the laws themselves,
so if this Union did pass, as he had no reason to doubt
but it most certainly would, he might with as much
reason, and as justly, affirm he had outlived all the laws
and the very constitution of England ”; and his lordship
concluded with a prayer to God to avert the dire effects
which might probably ensue from such an incorporating
Union.
On February 24th the Bishop of Salisbury reported Formal
the resolutions, which were agreed to by a great majority P*
of the House. A number of protests were, however,
entered. Lords Granville, Haversham, and Stawell
dissented from every one of the articles; the Duke of
Beaufort to all except the second; the Bishop of Bath
and Wells to the last four ; Lord Abingdon to eleven
of the articles ; and Lords North and Grey, Rochester,
Howard, Leigh, and Guilford to the one dealing with
the unequal land-tax. The same peers (with the ex-
ception of Howard) objected to the raising of an equiva-
lent in England, instead of fixing the debt of each
country on its particular revenue. Lords North and
Grey, Buckingham, Leigh, Rochester, and Guilford pro-
tested that the sixteen peers from Scotland formed too
large a number to be added to the peers of England
generally in attendance ; that, being elected peers, they
suffered a diminution of dignity; and that their election
was an innovation upon the Constitution. Finally,
Lords Rochester, Leigh, North and Grey, and Guilford
188
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. H. dissented to the last article, because, there being no
#: enumeration of what laws were to be repealed, too great
tiºn ºthe a latitude of construction was left to the judges.
Act of
Union.
carried
in the
Commons.
When all the articles had been agreed to in both
Houses, a bill was ordered to be brought in converting
the Treaty of Union into a law. The question arose how
to avoid a discussion upon each article, which would have
afforded a fine field for the Opposition in their desire to
prolong the campaign. Owing to the ingenuity of Har-
court, the Attorney-General, the bill was so cleverly
constructed that it cut off all debates. The preamble
was a recital of the articles as they were passed in
Scotland, together with the acts made in both Parlia-
ments for the security of their several Churches. Then,
in conclusion, came one enacting clause, ratifying all.
This main provision, or crucial clause, was in the follow-
ing terms : “That all and every the said Articles of
Union, as ratified and approved by the said act of Parlia-
ment of Scotland as aforesaid, and hereinbefore par.
ticularly mentioned and inserted, and also the said act
of Parliament of Scotland for establishing the Protestant
religion and Presbyterian Church government within
that kingdom, entitled ‘Act for securing the Protestant
religion and Presbyterian Church government,’ and every
clause, matter, and thing in the said articles and act
contained, shall be, and the said articles and act are
hereby, for ever ratified, approved of, and confirmed.”
This strategic movement “put those upon great difficul-
ties who had resolved to object to several articles and
to insist on demanding some alterations in them, for
they could not come at any debate about them ; they
could not object to the recital, it being merely matter of
fact ; and they had not strength enough to oppose the
general enacting clause, nor was it easy to come at
particulars and to offer provisoes relating to them. The
matter was carried on with such zeal that it passed
through the House of Commons before those who intended
to oppose it had recovered themselves out of the surprise
under which the form it was drawn in had put them. It
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND. 189
did not stick long in the House of Lords, for all the CHAP. II.
articles had been copiously debated there for several days #:
before the bill was sent up to them ; and thus this great tºne
design, so long wished and laboured for in vain, was begun **
and happily ended within the compass of nine months.” "
The bill, which was ordered to be brought into the It passes
Commons on February 8th, was sent up to the Lords on * *
March 1st. Lords North and Grey proposed to add the
following rider : “Provided always that nothing in this
ratification contained shall be construed to extend to
an approbation or acknowledgment of the truth of the
Presbyterian way of worship, or allowing the religion
of the Church of Scotland to be what it is styled : the
true Protestant religion.” This rider was rejected by 55
to 19 votes.
On the final motion that the Act of Union do pass, the Final
following protest was inserted by the Dukes of Beaufort P*
and Buckingham, and Lords Stawell, Guilford, Gran-
ville, and Leigh : “Because the constitution of this
kingdom has been found so very excellent, and therefore
justly applauded by all our neighbours for so many ages
that we cannot conceive it prudent now to change it and
to venture at all those alterations made by this bill, some
of them especially being of such a nature that as the in-
convenience and danger of them (in our humble opinion)
is already but too obvious, so we think it more proper
and decent to avoid entering further into the particular
apprehensions we have from the passing of this law.” It
is interesting to note that the following peers also dis-
sented from the Act of Union, though, as their names
were only entered upon the margin of the protest, it is
not clear whether they adopted the reason :-Lords Not-
tingham, Anglesey, Thanet, Winchilsea, Northampton,
Scarsdale, Weymouth, and Guernsey.”
The royal assent to the Act of Union was given by the The
Queen in person, who went to the House of Lords for ſº
that purpose on March 6th. In a few weighty and well- -
*Burnet's History of His Own Time.
* Parliamentary History and Thorold Rogers's Protests of the Lords.
190
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [Book
CHAP. II, chosen sentences, the outcome of the counsels of her
; statesmen, the Sovereign thus set the seal upon the fore-
tºne most Act of her reign : “I consider this Union as a
Il.
Supple-
mentary
legisla-
tion.
matter of the greatest importance to the wealth, strength,
and safety of the whole island, and at the same time
as a work of so much difficulty and nicety in its own
mature that till now all attempts which have been made
towards it, in the course of above a hundred years, have
proved ineffectual ; and therefore I make no doubt but
it will be remembered and spoke of hereafter to the
honour of those who have been instrumental in bringing
it to such a happy conclusion. I desire and expect from
all my subjects of both nations that from henceforth they
act with all possible respect and kindness to one another,
that so it may appear to all the world they have hearts
disposed to become one people. This will be a great
pleasure to me, and will make us all quickly sensible of
the good effects of this Union. And I cannot but look
upon it as a peculiar happiness that in my reign so full
provision is made for the peace and quiet of my people
and for the security of our religion by so firm an estab-
lishment of the Protestant succession throughout Great
Britain.” The drama was now complete, and from May
1st, 1707, England and Scotland became united in one
kingdom, under the name of Great Britain.
At first the working of the Union was not very aus-
picious, for many of the Scots lamented the legislative
absorption of their native country ; and it was some time
before they became even passively reconciled to the
change. Two important acts of the British Parliament
were soon necessitated by the Act of Union. The Scot-
tish Privy Council, or Secret Council, as it was known in
the north, was abolished. This council, which was not
an indigenous portion of the Scottish Constitution, had
wrought great evil in the reign of Charles II. ; and
being a secret, irresponsible tribunal, with undefined but
absolute powers, it was felt that it might work serious
mischief even under the Union. English statesmen
naturally could not tolerate a body which had very little
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
191
responsibility towards the Crown, and none of an effective
character to Parliament. A statute was consequently
passed for its abolition ; and, in order to show its close
relations to the Act of Union, it was entitled “An Act
for rendering the Union of the two Kingdoms more
entire and complete.” The Court party was against the
bill, which gave umbrage also to the governing body in
Scotland ; and it was carried against Ministers by the
independent Whigs and the Tory Opposition. Strong
efforts were made to defeat it, but it passed the Commons
by a great majority. In the House of Lords there was a
lengthy debate. The Scots Ministers urged that the
country would be in great danger without a supreme
government, but the supporters of the measure held it
to be an absurd thing that there should be a different
administration where there was but one Legislature. The
bill passed by 50 votes to 45, to the great discontent of
the Court." A new Court of Exchequer was also created
for Scotland, upon the model of that of England ; and
special acts were made for the election and return of the
representatives in both Houses of Parliament.
The second noteworthy act of the British Parliament
was one passed in 1709 for the assimilation of the Scotch
law of treason to that of England. The measure con-
tained no actual definition of high treason in Scotland,
but it prescribed in general terms that what was
law in England should be law there. The authority of
the old Court of Justiciary was superseded, and the
English method, by commission of oyer and terminer,
prescribed. The bill was stoutly but ineffectually re-
sisted by the Scottish members. Yet two important
amendments were secured. By one the names of the
witnesses who had been before the grand jury were
ordered to be sent to the prisoner ten days before his
trial. The other provided that no estate in land was to
be forfeited upon a judgment of high treason, which
agreed with a resolution introduced by Bishop Burnet.
* Tindal and Burnet.
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union.
The
Scottish
Privy
Council
abolished.
The lany
of Treason.
192
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
© (OTſºlº,"
tion to the
Union.
sº-
*-
Toleration.
and
Patron-
age.
Last de-
bate on the
Union,
The Lords deemed it wise to agree to these amendments,
but with this proviso, moved by Lord Somers: that they
should not become operative until after the death of the
Pretender. As the latter had assumed the title of King
of Great Britain, and had lately attempted to invade the
country, it was not deemed advisable during his lifetime
to lessen the penalties of treason. The Commons ac-
cepted the proviso, with the further addition that it
should not take effect until three years after the house
of Hanover should succeed to the crown. A great fight
took place over this, and members were summoned from
the country to vote. Ultimately the bill, with all its
amendments and provisoes, was carried by a small majo-
rity, the Lords agreeing to the new amendment. The
Queen then promulgated an Act of Grace, the first of
her reign, to the effect that all treasons committed before
the signing of the Act (which was dated April 19th)
would be pardoned, those only excepted that were done
upon the sea, by which proviso all who had embarked
with the Pretender were of course excluded from the act.
By the new legislation Scotch treason was made more
definite, and less liable to extension by forced construction
in the criminal courts.
In 1711–12 some further questions of moment to Scot-
land were decided. A limited Toleration Act in favour
of the Episcopalians was passed, permitting them to
worship in private chapels. By a second act, patronage
was restored in the Presbyterian Church, notwithstanding
the protests of the Assembly, and this measure unfor-
tunately proved a fruitful source of discord.
The last Parliamentary debate in connection with the
Union took place in the session of 1713. It arose out
of a small matter in the Commons, but it ended in an
effort made in the Lords to dissolve the Union. The
Lower House having decided upon the imposition of a
tax of sixpence per bushel on malt, the Scots members
urged that it would be an insupportable burden to their
countrymen, by reason of the vast disproportion between
the English and Scots malt, both in goodness and price.
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTLAND.
193
Upon this the Committee reduced the tax in Scotland to
threepence per bushel. The members for Wales and the
northern counties of England insisted upon a like reduc-
tion, whereupon the Committee reverted to a uniform tax
of sixpence for all parts of Great Britain. The Scottish
members fought stubbornly, but the third reading of
the Malt Bill was carried by a majority of 197 to 52.
The Scots peers and commoners now consulted together
how best to redress their grievances. The Malt Bill,
being a measure of supply, could not be directly fought
by the peers, but on June 1st there was a set debate
in the House of Lords on a motion for dissolving the
Union. It was opened by Lord Findlater, who specified
the Scottish grievances, which were four in number : the
abolition of the Privy Council, the new law of treason,
the incapability of Scots peers being made peers of Great
Britain, and the malt tax. Some speakers urged that the
Union was like a marriage and therefore indissoluble, and
Lord Peterborough said nothing could be more solemn
than the Treaty unless it could have come down direct
from Heaven, like the Ten Commandments. He added
that the Scots would never be satisfied, for they would
have all the advantages of being united to England, but
would pay nothing for it. The Duke of Argyle warmly
replied, admitting that he had a great hand in making
the Union, which he did to secure the Protestant suc-
cession ; but he was satisfied that that might be done as
well now if the Union were dissolved. Unless it were
dissolved, “he did not expect long to have either property
left in Scotland, or liberty in England.” Considering the
momentous issue involved, the attendance of peers was very
small. The question being put, on the Earl of Findlater's
motion, for repealing the Union, it was only carried in
the negative by a majority of four proxies; 54 lords voted
on each side, but there were 17 proxies for the negative
and only 13 for the affirmative. The Malt Bill itself
was ultimately passed in the Lords by 64 voices against
56. A protest was entered against it by 19 peers."
| Parliamentary History, vol. vi.
VOL. II. 13
CHAP. II.
From the
eforma-
tion to the
Union.
Scottish
grievances,
Motion for
dissolving
the Union.
A marrow"
division.
194
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
From the
Reforma-
tion to the
Union,
Scottish
business
Żm, Parlia-
77.8%t.
Changes
in the
Scotch
JRepresen-
tation.
Iffects of
the Act of
Union.
The management of Scottish business in London re-
mained with a Secretary of State for Scotland until 1746;
but the Lord Advocate, the adviser of the Crown on all
legal matters both in London and Edinburgh, gradually
acquired a large amount of influence in Scottish affairs,
although he was nominally a subordinate of the Secretary.
When the office of the latter was suppressed, the Lord
Advocate became paramount. In 1885, however, a
Secretary for Scotland was again appointed, with a sepa-
rate office in London, and since that time the Lord
Advocate has ceased to have the charge of Scottish
business in the House of Commons.
In closing this account of the Scottish Parliament, the
later changes in the representation must be noticed.
Under the Reform Act of 1832 the number of Scottish
representatives in the Commons was raised from 45 to
53, the counties, under a slightly altered arrangement,
returning 30 members, as before, and the burghs, rein-
forced by the erection of various towns into Parliamentary
burghs, 23. The second Reform Act (1868) increased
the number of representatives to 60, the universities
obtaining representation by two members, while three
additional members were assigned to the counties and
two to the burghs. The franchise was granted in
counties to a £5 ownership and a £14 Occupation. A
householder and a lodger franchise were also fixed in
burghs. By the Redistribution of Seats Act of 1885
an addition of six members was made to the representa-
tion of the Scottish counties and six to that of the
burghs, the total representation being raised to 72. The
Franchise Act of 1884, which assimilated the franchise
in counties with that in the boroughs, added upwards of
two hundred thousand voters to the Scottish register.
The Act of Union, which was the glory of Anne's
reign, reflects great credit upon Godolphin and Somers.
The latter statesman especially, with his far-seeing
eye, perceived the danger to the throne and the nation
from States united territorially yet divided in interests,
and he laboured wisely and patriotically for the
x.] THE PARLIAMENT OF SCOTTIAND. 195
Union; while Godolphin, whose personal services were CHAP. II.
not so great, knew when and where to yield in pursuit ###.
of the same great end. The Scots foreboded ill effects tiºne
from the Union, and the Jacobite rebellions no doubt +
retarded its beneficial effects; but the latter half
of the eighteenth century and the whole of the nine-
teenth, have constituted but one period of continuous
prosperity for Scotland. Without losing its individuality,
the Scottish race has achieved during the past hundred
years extraordinary triumphs in trade and commerce,
science, literature, and the arts ; and Scotsmen them-
selves would now doubtless acknowledge that the Union
with England gave a great impetus to these remarkable
developments.


BOOK XI.
THE COWSTITUTION IN THE EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY.
CHAPTER I.
THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
THE reign of the last sovereign of the House of Stuart An illus-
was distinguished in war, in letters, and in statesman- * *
ship; but this narrative is concerned with its legislative
developments alone. The greatest of these was the
Union with Scotland, which has been described in detail
in the previous chapter. The important Act by which
Anne became the first sovereign of Great Britain, com-
bined with the brilliant victories of Marlborough abroad,
shed a special lustre upon that brief but glorious age
which has justly been called Augustan.
Anne was desirous of being known as a thoroughly The
English queen. She began her first speech in Parlia- ?..."
ment—March 11th, 1702—by saying, “I cannot too ment,
much lament my own unhappiness in succeeding so
immediately after the loss of a king who was the great
support not only of these kingdoms, but of all Europe,”
and the concluding passage contained this expression :
“as I know my own heart to be entirely English.” The
prosecution of the war against France, and the Union
with Scotland, were the chief points of the royal speech.
Before the Revolution the Parliaments of England were
held to expire immediately upon the death of the
sovereign ; but the act passed 7 and 8 William III. to
obviate the evils of a disputed succession enabled the
200 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I. Parliament which existed at a demise of the crown to
The Reign continue during a period of six months. Consequently
* this Parliament of Anne was the first in our annals that
T was entitled to sit and vote after the demise of the crown.
It acted prudently, and made no attempt to embarrass
the Government or withhold the supplies. Anne was
crowned on April 23rd, and she immediately named
the Princess Sophia as next in succession to the throne.
The members of both Houses were sworn, as required
by the new Abjuration Bill. Parliament passed a bill
for examining the public accounts, as well as an act
granting to the Queen for life the same revenue that
William had enjoyed. Anne became still more popular
by announcing in the House of Peers that, as her sub-
jects were labouring under heavy taxation, she should
set apart £100,000 from her civil list to be applied to
the public service in the current year. Godolphin, whose
eldest son had married Marlborough's eldest daughter,
was named Lord Treasurer, thus taking Supreme control
of the finances. War with France and Spain having
been declared, and other business transacted, Parliament
was prorogued on May 25th and finally dissolved on
July 2nd.
Session of The ensuing elections gave the Tories and the Angli-
1702. cans the upper hand in the new Parliament. The two
Houses met on October 20th, 1702, and Mr. Harley was
for the third time elected Speaker. The Commons in
their address spoke of Marlborough’s wonderful success
in the Low Countries, which had “signally retrieved the
ancient honour and glory of the English nation.” The
Whigs took umbrage at the word “retrieved,” which
they regarded as a cruel stab at the memory of King
William, and they proposed the word “maintained"
instead ; but “retrieved ” was affirmed by 180 to 80
votes. This division was the keynote to the whole
session. The Tory majority eagerly received a petition
from Sir John Packington, Tory member for Worcester-
4 bishop shire, complaining that Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Worcester,
*P*ed, had unduly interfered in his election. The Commons
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE. 201
voted the Bishop's conduct to be “unchristian,” and at CHAP. I.
their instigation the Queen dismissed him from his post º
as Lord Almoner, though not without protest in the Añne.
House of Lords. Votes of thanks were passed to Marl-
borough, Ormond, and Rooke ; liberal supplies were
granted, and 40,000 seamen, 33,000 foot-soldiers, and
7,000 horse, were voted as the English forces for the
Wà,I’.
Marlborough was now created a duke, and the Queen Honours
granted him for the term of her own life a pension of ſº
£5,000 a year, derived from the Post-office revenue. -
She likewise sent a message to the House of Commons
desiring that this pension might be settled for ever on
the title. As the Duke already had £10,000 a year from
the Dutch as commander-in-chief of their troops, and the
Duchess held no fewer than four lucrative Court offices,
the proposal to settle the pension on the dukedom for
ever met with no favour. Sir Christopher Musgrave
was amongst those who most strongly condemned it,
and the Commons voted an address to her Majesty fully
recognising the Duke's great services, but adding, with
“inexpressible grief,” their apprehensions of “making a
precedent for future alienations of the revenue of the
Crown, which has been so much reduced by the ex-
orbitant grants of the last reign.” Anne was much
annoyed that she was thus “maliciously hindered " by
Parliament from showering further honours and gifts
upon her favourites.
One of the principal measures of the session was the Prince
proposal, made in committee of the Commons, to confer º
on the Prince Consort, in case he should survive the Bill.
Queen, a grant fixed at the enormous amount of £100,000
a year—a sum double that which any queen of England
ever had in jointure. The Commons passed the bill,
with a clause declaring that Prince George should not
be liable in any future reign to the incapacity of holding
employments which was imposed upon foreigners by the
Act of Settlement. The peers were now up in arms,
regarding this as a “tack" upon a money bill—a pro-
202
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. T.
ceeding which they had already condemned by a Stand-
The Reign ing Order as “unparliamentary,” and tending “to the
of Queen
Anne.
The Occa-
sional
Conform-
ity Bill.
destruction of the constitution of this Government.” "
Heated debates ensued, but eventually the bill for the
Prince’s annuity passed with the obnoxious clause. Pro-
tests against it, however, were signed by such eminent
peers as Devonshire and Somerset, and by the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, Bishop Burnet, and other prelates
appointed by King William. Marlborough supported it,
but, to his extreme annoyance, the Earl of Sunderland,
the husband of his second daughter, not only opposed
it by his vote, but signed a protest against it.
Another important measure, and one of wide political
scope, was the bill for preventing occasional conformity.
It was a private measure, one of its introducers being
Henry St. John, now rapidly acquiring fame, but it had
the sympathy of the Queen. Her husband, Prince
George, was placed in a delicate position by this bill,
seeing that he was himself an occasional Conformist.
The bill was designed to prevent Dissenters from com-
plying with the provisions of the Test Act simply to
qualify themselves for office or membership of a corpora-
tion. The Tories were already powerful in the counties,
and hoped by this measure to strike at the Whig ascend-
ency in the towns. The bill provided that any one who
attended a Dissenting meeting-house after having taken
the Sacrament and test for office of trust or the magistracy
of corporations, should be immediately dismissed and
heavily fined. This arbitrary measure passed the Com-
mons, but was rejected by the Lords, although the Queen
put great pressure upon the peers to pass it. It was
rejected for a second time in 1703, and again in 1704.
On the latter occasion the more violent Tories, headed
by Nottingham, ineffectually endeavoured to carry it by
“tacking” it to the Land Tax Bill. At length, in 1711,
Nottingham formed an unprincipled coalition with the
Whigs, when the latter agreed to support the Occasional
* Lords' Journals, December 9th, 1702.
x1.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
203
Conformity Bill, and it accordingly became law, the
money fine being reduced from £100 to £40. This
graceless act, which is condemned by all our best his-
torians, remained in force until 1719, when General
Stanhope introduced a measure under the ingenious title
of a “Bill for strengthening the Protestant interest,” by
which the Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism
Act were abolished, but from which he was obliged to
exclude the Test Act. Before the close of the session
of 1702–3 a bill was passed which, among other things,
made it high treason to endeavour to defeat the succes-
sion as now limited by statute. The affair of the famous
Rentish Petition was also finally, though somewhat im-
potently, disposed of by the humble submission at the
bar of the House of Commons of its framer, Mr. Cole-
pepper. Action against him was stayed by an address
to the Queen.
When Parliament met on November 9th, 1703, the
accession of the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy
to the Grand Alliance was made known, but the House
of Commons was at the same time told that further
subsidies would be required. Public business was inter-
rupted by the most terrible storm ever experienced in
England. It began on the night of November 26th, and
great loss of life was sustained, as well as immense
damage to property. The Commons presented an address
to the Queen lamenting the diminution of the royal navy
caused by the storm, and beseeching her to give orders
for the building of some new ships. This was done, and
a proclamation was issued for a general fast, which was
observed on January 19th ensuing. This was the only
instance, as Macaulay has remarked, in which a tempest
was made the occasion of a Parliamentary address or a
public fast. In December the Commons cheerfully voted
the supplies of men necessary for the war, together with
a sum of £1,800,000 for expenses. Considerable ex-
citement arose at this time over the Queensberry Plot,
details of which have been given in the account of the
Parliament of Scotland.
CHAP. I.
The Re
Of o;"
Great
Storm im,
England.
204 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP: I. In the session of 1704, the celebrated Aylesbury elec-
The Reign tion case led to a violent collision between the House of
of Queen
Aline. Commons and the House of Lords. For many years
The there had been complaints of gross corruption at the
#.” Aylesbury elections. The returning officers were in the
60386, habit of making a bargain with some of the candidates,
and then managing matters so that they should be
elected. At the last election the vote of a burgess
named Matthew Ashby had been rejected by the return-
ing officer, William White. Ashby brought an action
against White at the county assizes, and obtained a ver-
dict. It was moved, however, in the Court of Queen's
Bench, to quash these proceedings ; and a majority of the
judges, contrary to the opinion of Chief Justice Holt,
decided against Ashby, on the ground that no harm had
been done to him, and that decisions on the right to vote
belonged to the Commons alone. But the question was
next brought by writ of error before the House of Lords,
where it was decided by a large majority to set aside the
order of the Queen's Bench, thus placing franchises under
the common law. The Commons now took fire. Ignoring
the temperate advice of the Whig lawyers, William
Cowper and Sir Joseph Jekyll, they passed a string of
resolutions declaring that the qualification of any elector
was cognisable only by themselves, and that Ashby had
been guilty of a breach of privilege in commencing his
action. The Lords passed contrary resolutions, and the
quarrel was left open when Anne closed the session early
in April. Ashby and four other burgesses next sued out
execution for damages against the returning officers, but
the Commons promptly committed the plaintiffs and
their attorney to Newgate. The prisoners moved for a
writ of habeas corpus, but the judges of the Queen's
Bench—again contrary to the opinion of Holt—decided
that they had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was next
determined to bring the matter by writ of error before
the Lords ; but the Commons voted an address to the
Queen praying her not to grant a writ of error. Her
Majesty replied that the matter required careful con-
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE. 205
sideration, which was tantamount to a refusal. There- CHAP. I.
upon the Lords passed these important resolutions : that º
neither House of Parliament could arrogate to itself any Añne.
new privilege ; that the Commons had assumed an un-
warranted legislative power by attributing the force of
law to their declaration ; that they had thereby subjected
the rights of Englishmen to the arbitrary votes of the
House of Commons; that every Englishman who was
imprisoned by any other whatever had an undoubted
right to his writ of habeas corpus; that for the Commons
to punish any person for assisting a prisoner to procure
such a writ was a breach of the statutes provided for the
liberty of the subject ; that a writ of error was not one of
grace, but of right, and ought not to be denied to the
subject when duly applied for. A conference between
the two Houses proved abortive, and as the Queen
prorogued Parliament shortly afterwards, a great con-
stitutional question thus remained undecided."
Anne celebrated her fortieth birthday by a noble act of º
beneficence. The birthday actually fell on a Sunday, #ºn.
February 6th, but on the following day Sir Charles
Hedges, Secretary of State, brought down to the House
of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that
her Majesty desired to make a grant of the whole of that
portion of her revenue arising out of the First Fruits and
Tenths for the benefit of the poorer clergy. These first-
fruits and tenths were originally sent to Rome, but Henry
VIII. added them to the Crown revenue. Charles II.
squandered the fund on his mistresses and their offspring.
Bishop Burnet had recommended to William and Mary a
* Hallam (Constitutional History) justly observes upon this famous
case—“The House of Commons had an undoubted right of deter-
mining all disputed returns to the writ of election, and consequently
of judging upon the right of every vote. But as the House could
not pretend that it had given this right, or that it was not, like any
other franchise, vested in the possessor by a legal title, no pretext
of reason or analogy could be set up for denying that it might also
come, in an indirect manner at least, before a court of justice, and
be judged by the common principles of law.”
206
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Quee
Anne.
*
FIarley
and
St. John
take office,
Marl-
borough
and
JBlenheim.
plan for benefiting the poorer clergy by the use of the fund,
and he now took considerable credit for Anne's resolve. The
income was £17,000 a year, to which Parliament added
an annual grant of £100,000. The bill enabling her
Majesty to alienate this branch of her revenue also
created a corporation to act as trustees for the bounty.
There was likewise a clause repealing a part of the
statute of mortmain, so that it might henceforth be free
to any man to give what he thought fit, either by deed or
will, towards the augmentation of benefices. This clause
was warmly opposed in the Lords, but it was eventually
carried with the rest of the bill. Later statutes of
George I., George III., and Victoria enlarged the scope
of the original act as touching the livings to be dealt
with ; and further allowed certain advances for repairing
chancels, building parsonages, and other similar purposes.
“Queen Anne's Bounty’” has well fulfilled its appella-
tion, and rendered signal service to the Church.
Ministerial changes were effected before the close of
the session of 1704. The Earl of Jersey and Sir Edward
Seymour were dismissed from office, and Nottingham—
nicknamed the “Dismal,” because of his lugubrious pre-
dictions in public affairs—resigned. He was succeeded
as Secretary of State by Robert Harley, then Speaker,
and one of Marlborough's personal friends. Harley
began his career as the Whig member for a Cornish
borough, but he had now become a moderate Tory. He
developed into an adroit politician, and “possessed in
perfection a low sort of management and all the base
arts of party, which enabled him to cajole and keep
together his followers, and to sow divisions amongst his
enemies.”" The office of Secretary-at-War was taken
from Blathwayte, a man of little note, and given to the
brilliant Henry St. John, who since the year 1700 had
sat as Tory member for Wotton Basset.
When Parliament met on October 29th, 1704, the
Queen was able to congratulate the two Houses on the
glorious victory of Blenheim. Although the Tory majority
* Lord Stanhope's Reign of Queen Anne.
x1.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
207
tried to depreciate Marlborough's success, the Commons
readily voted the supplies for a vigorous prosecution of Tº
the war. These supplies amounted to the enormous sum,
for those days, of £4,670,000, which was raised mainly
by a land-tax of four shillings in the pound, by a con-
tinuance of the malt duties, and by the sale of nearly one
million of annuities. At the instance of the Queen,
Marlborough was now rewarded with a free gift of the
royal manor and honour of Woodstock, cleared of all
encumbrances. A bill passed both Houses without a
dissentient voice settling this noble domain free of charge
on Marlborough and his heirs for ever, as a feudal tenure
from the Crown, on the sole condition, as the act itself
describes it, of “rendering to her Majesty and her suc-
cessors on the second day of August in every year for
ever, at the castle of Windsor, one standard or colours
with three Flowers de Luces painted thereupon.” This
feudal tenure has ever since been maintained. Anne also
erected the palace of Blenheim, from the designs of
Vanbrugh, as a mark of her own and the nation’s
gratitude.
The elections of 1705 went in favour of the Whigs,
and on the opening of the new Parliament on October
25th their candidate, John Smith, member for Andover,
was elected Speaker by 248 votes against 205 given for
William Bromley, who represented the university of
Oxford on High Church principles. In the Upper
House Lord Haversham moved an address entreating
her Majesty to invite the presumptive heir “into this
kingdom to reside here.” The Tory chiefs, Rochester,
Nottingham, and Buckingham, strongly supported the
proposal, although they knew it was very distasteful to
the Queen, and that she would never consent to it.
Buckingham especially was very offensive, and even sug-
gested that “perhaps the Queen might live till she did
not know what she did, and be like a child in the hands
of others.” This was enough to shake Anne's faith in
the Tories. Ministers carried the previous question, but
they subsequently brought in two measures for the better
CHAP. I.
Reign
Queen
Anne.
Parlia-
ment of
1705.
208
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
security of the succession. The first, which passed with-
*:::::::" out difficulty, was entitled “An Act for the naturalisation
€.
The Shac-
cession.
The
Regency
Bill.
Office-
holders in
JParlia-
27.672%.
The
40hurch.
of the most excellent Princess Sophia’’ and her issue,
with a saving clause denying the benefits of the act to
any one who should become a Papist. The second mea-
sure of security, which was ably explained by Bishop
Burnet and Lord Wharton, came to be commonly known
as the Regency Bill. It provided for the immediate
proclamation of her successor upon the Queen’s demise,
nominated seven great officers of state to act as the
Lords Justices and carry on the government in the new
sovereign’s absence, and empowered the next heir to
nominate any other persons to act in conjunction with
the Lords Justices.
It is important to note likewise that under this bill
the clause in the Act of Settlement which, after the
accession of the House of Hanover, would exclude all
holders of office from the House of Commons, was to
cease to be absolutely prohibitory. Certain offices were
specified as being unquestionably disqualifying, besides all
those that might at any time be created since the day
the Parliament met—October 25th, 1705. With regard
to other cases, the acceptance of office was to vacate the
seat, but the electors were free to re-elect the office-
holders. This act of 4 and 5 Anne was re-enacted in
1708, after the Union with Scotland. It now took a
wider form, preventing the holders of pensions from the
Crown or of offices created after October 25th, 1705, from
sitting in Parliament. Members of Parliament appointed
to offices under the Crown which had existed before the
date just mentioned must vacate their seats, but might
seek re-election. This is the law which still continues to
regulate the Ministerial system.
The Tories raised the cry of “The Church in danger l’”
but when a debate was initiated in the House of Lords
the alarm-cry was negatived by 61 votes to 30, and it
was resolved that “under the happy reign of her
Majesty, the Church is in a most safe and flourishing
condition”; and that “whoever goes about to suggest
x1.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
209
and insinuate that the Church is in danger is an enemy
to the Queen, the Church, and the kingdom.” The
resolution was confirmed by the Commons by 212 votes
to 160, and it was embodied in a joint address to the
Queen from the two Houses.
Marlborough now relied almost wholly upon the Whigs,
and Sunderland, the Whig statesman, was appointed
Secretary of State in place of Hedges on December 3rd,
1706. Parliament met the same day, being opened by
the Queen in person. It quickly voted the supplies,
as well as its thanks to the Duke of Marlborough for
his great victory of Ramillies, and a bill was passed by
which, on the failure of a son, the dukedom and domain
were settled on the victorious general’s daughters in suc-
cession and their issue male. A day of general thanks-
giving was appointed, on which the great officers of state
and the members of both Houses of Parliament accom-
panied the Queen to St. Paul's. Promotions and creations
in the peerage were gazetted, nearly all of which were
in favour of the Whigs. Political parties were sharply
divided on most questions, but all cordially united in
January, 1707, in an act of Parliament to settle a pension
of £5,000 a year out of the revenue of the Post-office
upon the Dukes of Marlborough in due descent for ever.
The leaders of the high Tories had now carried their
disturbing tactics to such a pass that Ministers prevailed
upon her Majesty to strike the names of Buckingham,
Nottingham, Rochester, and some others from the list
of her Privy Council. -
As the Act of Union with Scotland was to come into
force on May 1st, 1707, a new Great Seal was prepared
for the United Kingdom, and Lord Cowper, who already
held the English seal, was retained in the post of Chan-
cellor, his lordship thus being the first Lord Chancellor
of Great Britain. Prince George and Lord Godolphin
likewise respectively took new oaths as Lord High
Admiral and Lord Treasurer of Great Britain.
Anne was largely ruled by her favourites in public
matters, and in the year 1707 there came into favour
VOL. II. 14
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Queen
Anne.
Sunder-
land
Secretary
of State.
Victory of
Ramillies.
Merv
Great
Seal.
Abigail
JHill.
210
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Queen
Anne.
*
Admiral
Churchill.
Fºrst
Pa/'lia-
ment of
Great
JBritain,
Abigail Hill, whose mother was an aunt of the Duchess
of Marlborough. She owed the appointment of bed-
chamber woman to the Queen to the influence of the
Duchess herself, who was now rapidly losing the con-
fidence of Anne. Abigail Hill married privately, in the
Queen’s presence, Mr. Samuel Masham, one of Prince
George's gentlemen. The Duchess speedily discovered
that Harley, who was Mrs. Masham's cousin, was using
her as a means of furthering his interests with the Queen.
It was believed to be owing to the influence of Harley
and Mrs. Masham that Anne filled up the vacancies in
the sees of Exeter and Chester with High Church and
Tory prelates, without consulting Godolphin and the
Marlboroughs. The Whigs threatened to withdraw their
support from the Government unless the Queen could be
coerced in her Church appointments, and they still
declined to be altogether mollified when a divine of
thorough Whig principles was appointed to a third see
which opportunely became vacant.
The Whig chiefs resolved to vent their wrath against
Godolphin and Marlborough by striking at the latter’s
brother, Admiral George Churchill, a foolish and irascible
Tory of the extreme school. He was vehemently attacked
for his mismanagement of the navy, and his defiant reply
to a commission of inquiry into his conduct only exaspe-
rated his enemies the more. He managed, however, to
maintain his ascendency at the Admiralty until 1709,
when he was dismissed.
The first Parliament of Great Britain met on October
23rd, 1707. The House of Commons promptly voted the
necessary supplies for the war, although they amounted
to £6,000,000, “an amount which seemed altogether stu-
pendous to the financiers of Queen Anne's reign. “Six
millions of supplies and almost fifty millions of debt l’
cried Swift towards the end of the war; ‘the High
Allies have been the ruin of us !'” In the Upper
House Lords Wharton, Somers, and others inveighed
| Stanhope's Reign of Queen Anne.
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
211
against the Government for the decay of trade, and on
CHAP, I.
November 19th there was a great debate on the state of º
the nation, when the House went into committee with
Lord Herbert of Cherbury as chairman. Wharton again
took the lead, but it was Lord Halifax who brought the
debate to a practical issue by moving the appointment of
a committee to receive proposals for the encouragement
of trade and privateers in the West Indies. The Lord
Treasurer gave way to the motion, which was an implied
slight upon the Board of Admiralty, and the committee
was appointed.
On December 19th the peers again went into committee
on the state of the nation, when, amongst other things,
the conduct of the Earl of Peterborough was discussed.
This splendid military leader, whose excitability pre-
vented him from doing justice to his own talents, had
been recalled by Sunderland. But personal matters soon
gave way to the general conduct of the war. A resolu-
tion was passed, on the motion of Somers, that no peace
could be honourable or safe for her Majesty or her allies
if Spain and the Spanish West Indies were suffered to
continue in the power of the House of Bourbon. Other
motions, combined in the form of an address, prayed the
Queen to urge upon the Emperor the necessity of sending
reinforcements to the allied armies. The passing of
these resolutions formed the last joint act of the Whigs
and Tories out of place. A few days later, an important
addendum was made to the resolutions, at the instance
of Somers, which pledged “Parliament, so far as it could
be pledged, to an indefinite prolongation of the war.””
Now came a severe Ministerial crisis. Marlborough
and Godolphin were determined to oust Harley, and the
discovery that one William Gregg, a clerk in his office,
was in correspondence with France, was made the ground
for his dismissal. Gregg was tried, convicted of high
treason, and sentenced to be executed. As a menace
against Harley, the peers appointed by ballot a committee
| Stanhope's Queen Anne.
Anne.
The
Conduct of
the War.
Harley
Tesigns
office.
212
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I
The Reign
of Quee
Anne.
Walpole. ,
Designs
of the
Prete?der.
Death of
Prince
George,
Paºlia-
ment and
the Suc-
cession,
of seven Whig lords to examine Gregg, whereupon
Harley gave up the struggle and resigned office. It
should be stated that just before his death Gregg
solemnly denied Harley's complicity. With Harley,
there went out of office Henry St. John, War Secretary,
Sir Simon Harcourt, Attorney-General, and Sir Thomas
Mansell, Comptroller of the Household.
Robert Walpole now came into prominence as the
most rising man in the Whig party. This celebrated
statesman, who was born in 1676, was the son of a
Norfolk gentleman, and was educated at Eton and King's
College, Cambridge. In 1702 he was returned to Parlia-
ment for Castle Rising. He now took St. John’s place
at the War Office. Harley was succeeded as Secretary of
State by Henry Boyle, whose previous office of Chancellor
of the Exchequer was given to the Speaker, John Smith.
As the Queen some months later was compelled to accept
Somers as President of the Council, it will thus be seen
that a considerable number of the body known as the
Whig Junto were now installed in office.
The expedition fitted out in 1708 by the King of
France in the interests of the Pretender failed completely.
Upon the news of it, Parliament showed its zeal for the
Queen by voting loyal addresses and passing bills to
strengthen the Government. The Habeas Corpus Act
was suspended, and numerous arrests were made. Anne
herself was very wroth at the attempt to dethrone her,
and in closing the session on April 1st she denounced
“the designs of a Popish pretender, bred up in the prin-
ciples of the most arbitrary government.” Before the
year closed a great sorrow fell upon Anne by the death
of her royal consort, Prince George, who expired on
October 20th. -
When Parliament met on November 16th, the Whig
influence was unquestioned. Sir Richard Onslow was
chosen Speaker, in opposition to Mr. Bromley, whom the
Queen had favoured. Scarcely anything was done during
the session beyond the passing of loyal addresses and
the voting of supplies. In the ensuing January the two
x1.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
213
Houses drew up an address recommending a second
marriage to the Queen, but Anne replied that she had
made provision for the Protestant succession, and added,
“The subject of this address is of such a nature that I
am persuaded you do not expect a particular answer.”
Godolphin and Marlborough were still harassed by the
Whigs to provide places for their friends, so that the
former wrote to the latter, “I must give myself the vent
of saying that the life of a slave in the galleys is para-
dise in comparison with mine.” Nevertheless Edward
Russell, Earl of Orford, was appointed First Lord of the
Admiralty. +
Before the session closed an act was passed making
the laws in cases of treason the same throughout the
United Kingdom. But as it was feared that this might
lead to severe retrospective prosecutions, Ministers
supplemented it by carrying through an Act of Grace and
Free Pardon, which was the first of the reign and the
fullest since the Revolution. It granted forgiveness for
all treasons committed before the passing of the act, save
those only done on the high seas. But for this beneficent
act, great personages like Godolphin and Marlborough
might even have been struck at, as both had formerly
made secret engagements with the exiled King, and
rendered themselves liable to all the penalties of high
treaSOn.
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Quee
€.
The
Law of
Treason.
The position of the Marlboroughs with the Queen was A rebuff
now so critical that the General desired to make himsel
independent of the Sovereign by obtaining a patent for
life of his office as captain-general or commander-in-
chief. This was a very unwise step, seeing that public
feeling was already roused against his ambition and the
accumulation of offices in his own and the Duchess's
hands. The Lord Chancellor was consulted, but he de-
clared that he would not put the Great Seal to such a
patent. Marlborough wrote to the Queen praying to be
made general for life, but she was both alarmed and
seriously offended, and refused the request in decided
terms.
f for Marl-
borough.
214
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
*-
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Queen
Anne.
The War.
Impeach-
onent of
Sache-
ºverell,
In 1708 the battle of Oudenarde had been won, and
Louis XIV. made another effort to treat for peace, but
his terms were rejected. Tournay and Mons were cap-
tured in 1709, and in September of that year Marlborough
and Prince Eugène defeated Villars at Malplaquet. The
English Parliament voted further liberal supplies for the
war in November.
The Whigs now seemed to have thoroughly established
themselves, and they were looking forward to a long
lease of power, when an incident happened which made
them very unpopular and led to their downfall. This
was the famous impeachment of Dr. Henry Sacheverell.
Sacheverell was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford,
and a follower of Laud. Elected in 1705 chaplain of
St. Saviour’s, Southwark, in November, 1709, he preached
before the Lord Mayor and aldermen at St. Paul’s his
audacious sermon on “The Perils of False Brethren both in
Church and State.” He denounced the principles of the
Revolution, and severely attacked the Dissenters, and also
the Whig Ministry, referring to Godolphin under the name
of Wolpone, or “Old Fox.” The doctrine of non-resistance
was strongly upheld. It is said that forty thousand copies
of the discourse were sold. The Ministry were very
wroth, and Sunderland proposed that Sacheverell should
be impeached. He was supported by Godolphin, but
opposed by Somers and Marlborough. The House of
Commons voted the sermon, as well as another preached
by the Doctor at Derby, to be “malicious, scandalous,
and seditious libels, highly reflecting upon her Majesty
and her Government, the late happy Revolution, and the
Protestant succession.” A committee was appointed to
draw up articles of impeachment, and Sacheverell was
arrested, and refused bail by 114 to 79 votes. After the
Lords had received the articles of impeachment, how-
ever, they allowed bail, but fixed it at a high amount—
Sacheverell in £6,000 and two sureties in £3,000 each.
The trial was fixed for February 27th, 1710, but long
before then Ministers began to see that they had taken
an impolitic step. Still, as Hallam has remarked, although
xi. THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
215
the prosecution was very ill-advised and has been de-
CHAP. J.
servedly censured, “it was of high importance in a con- The Reign
stitutional light, and is not only the most authentic
exposition, but the most authoritative ratification, of the
principles upon which the Revolution is to be defended.”
The trial began on the day appointed in Westminster
Hall, Lord Chancellor Cowper presiding. The managers
of the impeachment ably opened the case, and among
those who especially distinguished themselves were Jekyll,
Lechmere, Stanhope, Parker, and Walpole. The clear
statement of General Stanhope on the great doctrine of
justifiable resistance may be said to represent the gist of
the various arguments. “I believe,” he said, “that there
is not at this day subsisting any nation or government in
the world whose first original did not receive its founda–
tion either from resistance or compact ; and as to our
purpose it is equal if compact be admitted. For wherever
compact is admitted there must be admitted likewise a
right to defend the rights accruing by such compact.” Sir
Simon Harcourt, the leader of the Doctor's five counsel,
was wise enough to ignore Sacheverell’s extreme position.
Indeed, he acknowledged the lawfulness of resistance in
critical cases, and justified the revolution under King
William ; but he maintained that obedience ought to be
the rule, and resistance only the exception. It was there-
fore argued that the general duty, and not the extraordi-
mary exception, ought to be advanced in a sermon. The
sympathies of the greater portion of the populace were
all with the accused, and during the three weeks of the
trial “ Sacheverell and the Church for ever !” became the
popular cry. The Queen herself, who went several times
to the trial incognito—as she on other occasions attended
the debates in Parliament—turned over to the Doctor's
side. Upon the conclusion of the arguments, Sacheverell
read an eloquent defence, supposed to have been written
for him by Atterbury. The Lords declared the accused
guilty by 69 to 52. He was suspended for three years,
and his sermon was burnt by the common hangman ; but
a motion that he should be incapable of preferment was
Of Queen
Anne.
His Trial.
216
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP, I.
thrown out. “This was deemed a sort of triumph by his
The Reign adherents, but a severe punishment on a wretch so insig-
Of Queen
Anne.
-
Sunder-
land and
Godolphin
dismissed.
Harley's
Ministry.
nificant would have been misplaced ; and the sentence
may be compared to the nominal damages sometimes
given in a suit instituted for the trial of a great right.” "
Sacheverell “was a bold, insolent man, with a very small
measure of religion, virtue, learning, or good sense ; but
he resolved to force himself into popularity and prefer-
ment by the most petulant railings at Dissenters and Low
Churchmen in several sermons and libels, written without
chasteness of style or liveliness of expression.””
Events were working rapidly against the Whig Ministry.
While they were suffering obloquy for the Sacheverell
impeachment, the Queen completely broke with the
Duchess of Marlborough. Then an unsuccessful attempt
to bring the war to a close was made by the conference at
Gertruydenberg. Urged thereto by the Tories, the Queen
dismissed Sunderland, and on August 8th, 1710, Godolphin
fell also. Anne avoided an interview with him, but sent
him a note to the effect that she would give him a pension
of £4,000 a year. Her Majesty added, “I desire that,
instead of bringing the staff to me, you will break it,
which I believe will be easier to us both.”
Harley now formed a Ministry. At first he endea-
voured to secure the support of leading Whigs, like
Somers, Halifax, and Walpole ; but failing in this, he
fell back wholly upon the Tories. Harley was Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, St. John Secretary of State, Sir
Simon Harcourt Lord Keeper, Rochester Lord President,
Buckingham Lord Steward, Shrewsbury Lord Chamber-
lain, Ormonde Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and the Bishop
of Bristol Privy Seal. This was the last occasion in our
annals in which a bishop filled a political office. In 1711
Harley was created Earl of Oxford, and became Lord
Treasurer ; and at a later period, when further changes
were made, Sir William Wyndham became Chancellor
of the Exchequer.
| Hallam's Constitutional History.
* Burnet's History of his own Time.
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
217
Parliament was dissolved on September 21st, 1710,
and at the ensuing elections the Tories largely prevailed,
carrying their candidates in many popular centres, as
well as in boroughs supposed to be under Whig influence.
They were also successful in the election of Scottish repre-
sentative peers. The new Parliament met on November
27th, and the Commons chose as their Speaker William
Bromley, who, on two occasions already cited, had been
unsuccessful in the contest for the Chair.
Early in 1711, through the intrigues of Harley and
Mrs. Masham, the Duchess of Marlborough was dis-
missed from all her offices. But it must be admitted
that by a constant abuse of her ascendency she had at
length become intolerable to the most forbearing of queens
and mistresses." -
Towards the close of 1710 Harley had begun to open
up peace negotiations with France, at the same time
intriguing with the Jacobite Court at St. Germains con-
cerning the restoration. Anne was to retain the crown
for her life, and securities were to be given for the
national religion and liberties ; but a peace must precede
any settlement. Nothing was dome, however, and Harley
unquestionably betrayed the friends of the House of
Stuart. They ought to have distrusted him, seeing that
he was averse to the High Tories and their principles of
government, and that he made numerous overtures to the
Whigs. The probability is that if Harley, who was a
man of crooked counsels, had a serious article in his
political creed, it was one in favour of the House of
Hanover.
* “It seems rather a humiliating proof of the sway which the
feeblest prince enjoys even in a limited monarchy that the fortunes
of Europe should have been changed by nothing more noble than
the insolence of one waiting-woman and the cunning of another.
It is true that this was effected by throwing the weight of the
Crown into the scale of a powerful faction, yet the House of
Bourbon would probably not have reigned beyond the Pyrenees but
for Sarah and Abigail at Queen Anne's toilet” (Hallam's Consti-
tutional History).
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Quee
Anne.
Tory suc-
cess at the
Elections.
The
Duchess of
Marl-
borough.
Barley
and the
Jacobites.
218
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. - [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Quee
Anne.
War
Supplies.
Im/mi-
gration of
Luther-
(!!??.S.
Attempted
assassi-
ovation of
Harley.
In the session of 1711 the Commons readily voted the
war supplies, amounting to £6,000,000. To obtain this
two bills were passed to raise £3,500,000 by two lotteries,
to be paid back in thirty-two years; and, as a fund to
meet this, duties were laid on hops, candles, cards and
dice, and on the postage of letters. A duty on skins and
tanned hides was also agreed to, in order to make up the
deficiency. But a scheme for a further resumption of
King William’s grants, though accepted by the Lower
House, was rejected by the Lords.
Poor emigrants from the Palatinate, chiefly Lutherans,
having come over to England for two years past in con-
siderable numbers, a cry was raised that the country was
encouraging strangers while our own people were starv-
ing. The Commons passed resolutions against further
immigration, and affirmed that “whoever advised the
bringing over the poor Palatines into this kingdom was
an enemy to the Queen and kingdom.” A bill was passed
to repeal the act for the general naturalisation of all
Protestants ; but, to the great joy of the foreign Protes-
tants, it was rejected by the House of Lords.
The Prime Minister had a narrow escape from assas-
sination in March. The Marquis de Guiscard, a French
adventurer of indifferent character, had been detected
carrying on a treacherous correspondence with the French
Court. He was arrested and brought before the Privy
Council. Guiscard had been consulted by Marlborough
and Godolphin with regard to their projects in Languedoc
and Picardy, but his counsels had been rejected and his
pension reduced by Harley. He then offered to make his
peace with the French Court by a complete disclosure.
Finding on examination before the English Privy
Council that everything was known, he stabbed Harley
with a penknife which he had secreted. Guiscard was
overpowered, but he had sustained such injuries in the
struggle that he died a few days afterwards in Newgate.
Harley’s wound was fortunately not dangerous, but the
two Houses were so incensed by this “barbarous and
villainous attempt” of “a French Papist” that the Queen
xi. THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
219
was moved to issue a proclamation putting in execution
the laws against the Papists, especially as to their re-
moval from London and Westminster ; while an act was
passed making an attempt on the life of a Privy Coun-
cillor in the execution of his office to be felony without
benefit of clergy.
The Property Qualification Act was passed in the
session of 1711. It provided that a qualification in land
was essential to a seat in Parliament—£300 a year for a
burgess and £600 for a knight of the shire. Scotland
was excepted because of the smallness of its estates.
“The design of this bill,” remarks Bishop Burnet, “was
to exclude courtiers, military men, and merchants from
sitting in the House of Commons, in hopes that, this
being settled, the land interest would be the prevailing
consideration in all their consultations.” The act was
frustrated, however, by the granting of nominal and
fictitious qualifications, but it remained on the statute
book until the year 1858, when the property qualification
for English and Irish members of Parliament was for-
mally abolished.
The disastrous South Sea scheme had its origin in
1711. Harley brought forward his financial proposals
in the House of Commons on May 2nd. He proposed to
satisfy all the outstanding debts and deficiencies, which
amounted in the navy alone to upwards of five millions,
and on the whole to nearly ten millions sterling, by allow-
ing the proprietors of these debts and deficiencies a
yearly interest of 6 per cent. redeemable by Parliament.
Accordingly a company was incorporated, and it was
granted a monopoly of the South Sea trade. More re-
mains to be said of this project at a later period.
Guiscard’s attempt on Harley had made the latter very
popular, and shortly afterwards the Minister’s position was
further strengthened by the death of his principal rival,
the Earl of Rochester. On May 24th a patent was
issued creating Harley Earl of Oxford, an ancient title
which had been held by the De Veres from 1137 to 1702.
In case a remote descendant should appear to claim this
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of Queen
Anne.
Protection.
of Privy
Coun-
cillors.
Property
Qualifica-
tion, Act.
The South
Sea Com-
pa?!!/.
Harley,
Earl of
Oaford.
220
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
illustrious title, Harley’s creation ram “Earl of Oxford and
The Reign Earl Mortimer.” Five days after his elevation he was
Of Queen
Anne.
-
The
Whigs at-
tack the
Peace.
The Scot-
tish peers.
raised to the further dignity of Lord Treasurer. The
future Dean of St. Patrick’s remarked, “This man has
grown by persecutions, turnings out, and stabbing.”
Nottingham and his friends, who were inimical to the
Ministry, were engaged in making terms with the Whigs,
when Parliament met on December 7th. The Queen
announced in her speech from the throne that both place
and time were appointed for opening the treaty of a
general peace, “notwithstanding the arts of those who
delight in war”—an expression which was interpreted
as a slight upon Marlborough and the Whigs. When
the address had been duly moved and seconded, Notting-
ham bitterly attacked the articles of peace, and said he
would rather contribute half his income for a war which
should secure the objects of the Grand Alliance than
acquiesce in such a peace. He moved to add a clause to
the address, “That no peace could be safe or honourable
to Great Britain or Europe if Spain and the West Indies
were allotted to any branch of the House of Bourbon.”
Nottingham was supported by Wharton, Sunderland,
Cowper, Bishop Burmet, and the whole strength of the
Whig party, and Ministers made but an inefficient de-
fence. The great incident of the debate, however, was
the speech of Marlborough. Rising in the presence of
the Queen and of an illustrious assembly, he solemnly,
and with much emotion, called God to witness that he
had ever desired a safe, honourable, and lasting peace,
but to the measures now proposed he could not give his
assent. Nottingham's clause was carried against the
Government by 62 votes to 54, though in the House of
Commons the same evening a similar amendment, moved
by Walpole, was rejected by 232 to 106.
The Opposition peers in the Lords were so elated with
their victory that they now introduced and pushed
through the Occasional Conformity Bill, as already de-
scribed. Then, viewing with alarm the possible admission
of more Scottish peers through British peerage patents,
x1.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE. 221
they carried by 57 votes to 52 a resolution that Scottish CHAP. I.
peers thus created peers of Great Britain had no right to The Reign
sit in the House of Lords. The rule thus established "º"
remained in force until 1782, when—upon a report from Tº
the judges that no such disability had been created by
the Act of Union—the Lords revoked their former de-
cision.
Ministers were embarrassed on many points by the Fall of
hostile action of the peers, and saw that in some way the *. /
tº g tº tº º orouſ/ſt.
Opposition must be crippled. They moved first against
the Duke of Marlborough. A commission on the public
accounts, which was strongly actuated by party spirit,
had reported that of the moneys granted by Parliament
for the public service up to Christmas, 1710, no less than
£35,000,000 remained unaccounted for. Among the
documents laid before the commission was one which
bore hardly against the great Duke. Sir Solomon Medina,
a wealthy Jew and the contractor for bread to the army
in Flanders, deposed that he had paid to his Grace, for
his own use, on his several contracts a sum of 332,000
guilders. As the previous contractor, M. Machado, had
made similar private payments, it was computed that in
ten years the Duke had received from the bread con-
tractors and applied to his own use a sum equivalent in
English money to upwards of £63,000. It was further
stated that Marlborough had received and applied to his
own use the sum of £177,000, percentages on the sub-
sidies to foreign troops. Marlborough claimed that these
were rightful perquisites, but the report of the com-
missioners strongly denied this. The charges were
reported to the Queen, who dismissed him from all his
offices on December 31st.
On the same day her Majesty created twelve new Croation
peers, to enable the Government to secure a majority in of P*
the House of Lords. Among the new creations were
George Granville, who became Lord Lansdowne, and
Samuel Masham, husband of the favourite, who became
Lord Masham. On January 2nd, 1712, a motion that
the Upper House should adjourn to the 14th was carried
222
BISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. | Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Queen
Anne.
--
The Elec-
toral
family.
Proceed-
iſºffs
against
Walpole
by a majority of 13 only, including the twelve new peers,
whereupon, seeing the number was the same as that of
a petty jury, Lord Wharton sarcastically asked whether
they would vote singly or by their foreman.
A bill had been brought forward in the House of Lords
for giving to the Electoral Prince, as Duke of Cambridge,
the precedence of all peers. But early in the session of
1712 the Lord Treasurer introduced another bill giving
precedence to the whole Electoral family of Hanover,
as to the children and nephews of the Crown. Upon
this Devonshire, who introduced the first-named measure,
withdrew it, and the Ministerial bill passed through both
Houses in two days.
Meantime the majority in the Commons pursued their
windictive policy towards prominent leaders of the Oppo-
sition. Robert Walpole was charged with peculations
in connection with certain forage contracts in Scotland
while he was Secretary-at-War. He was pronounced
guilty of notorious corruption, expelled the House, and
committed to the Tower. He disdained to make his
submission, and remained in the Tower until the pro-
rogation. Two of the resolutions by which he was
condemned were carried by extremely small majorities—
12 and 22—and his defence being regarded as quite com-
and Maº'l-
borough.
plete, he was re-elected for East Lynn. Walpole ren-
dered great service to his party at this time by his
two pamphlets: The Debts of the Nation Stated and
Considered and The Thirty-five Millions Accounted for.
Having humiliated Walpole, the Commons next took up
the case of Marlborough. The debate produced speeches
of much eloquence on both sides, St. John, Wyndham,
and Hanmer being answered by Pulteney, Onslow, and
King. Powerful arguments were adduced for the Duke's
exculpation, but the House declared by 265 votes to 155
that the payments made to Marlborough by the bread
contractors were unwarranted and illegal. A second
resolution affirmed that the 2% per cent. deducted from
the foreign troops was public money, and ought to be
accounted for. The Duke declined to plead before the
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
223
Commons, but he caused to be drawn up and published
an able statement in his defence.
Two acts affecting Scotland were passed this session.
One of them restored, in opposition to the feeling of the
Scottish Church, the ancient rights of patronage. The
effects of this measure were felt for upwards of a century,
and greatly contributed to the “disruption ” of 1843.
An act to protect the members of the Episcopal Church
in Scotland from disturbance and interruption in their
public service caused great resentment among the Scot-
tish Presbyterians, and the General Assembly “declared
itself astonished and afflicted at this monstrous measure.”
Although peace negotiations abroad had been proceed-
ing for some time, Ministers in England declared them-
selves ready to continue the war unless the arrangements
were satisfactory to this country. The Duke of Ormonde,
a Jacobite, was made commander-in-chief in Flanders,
but debates arose in both Houses as to the dilatory pro-
secution of the war. There were also apprehensions that
England sought to conclude a separate peace, but Oxford
strenuously denied that “so base, so knavish, and so
villainous” a thing was contemplated. On the general
question of the negotiations, the Government were sus-
tained on a division by 68 to 40 votes; but a strong
protest against this decision was signed by 27 peers,
including Marlborough. This protest was afterwards
expunged by order of the House, asterisks only taking
its place in the journals. In the Commons Pulteney
made a brilliant speech against Ministers, but they were
supported by 203 votes to 173. On June 6th Anne
appeared in person in the House of Lords, and announced
that negotiations with France and Spain were in a state
of forwardness. Particular care would be exercised to
have the Protestant succession in the House of Hanover
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of Quee
Anne.
Scottish
legisla-
tion.
The Peace
negotia-
tions.
clearly acknowledged, and measures also would be taken
to prevent the crowns of France and Spain from ever
being united on the same head. Addresses of confidence
and concurrence were moved in both Houses. The
Commons carried theirs unanimously, but in the Lords
224
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The reign
of Quee
Anne.
Liberty
of the
Press in-
fringed.
The first
Stamp
Duty.
- ,S$7.
Jęichard
Steele eac-
pelled.
there was a spirited debate. Marlborough denounced
the measures pursued in England as contrary to her
Majesty's engagements with the Allies, and as having
sullied the triumphs and glories of her reign, and rendered
the English name odious to all other nations. He was sup-
ported by Godolphin, Wharton, Nottingham, and Cowper;
but an amendment to the address praying that her
Majesty’s allies should be invited to join her in a
mutual guarantee was rejected by 81 to 36. A protest
against the terms of the treaty was signed by 24 peers,
including Marlborough and Godolphin ; but it was
expunged from the journals by direction of the House.
It got into circulation, however, in the country, and a
reward was offered for the discovery of all persons en-
gaged in disseminating this “malicious and scandalous
paper.”
The Commons at the same time interfered with the
liberty of the press. A volume of sermons by Bishop
Fleetwood, of St. Asaph, having just been published,
with a preface in which the terms of peace were earnestly
lamented and condemned, the House resolved, by a
majority of 119 to 53, that “the said preface is malicious
and factious,” and that it “be burnt by the hands of the
common hangman upon Thursday next " (June 12th) “at
twelve of the clock in Palace Yard, Westminster.” The
House further imposed this session the first stamp duty, for
the purpose of repressing libels. The effect of the act
was to lessen the circulation of cheap papers. Parlia-
ment was prorogued on July 8th, and immediately after-
wards St. John was created Viscount Bolingbroke, and
Oxford received the Order of the Garter. In the follow.
ing September there was removed from the political
stage by death the once powerful statesman Godolphin.
Sir Richard Steele, the genial essayist, who had been
returned to Parliament in 1709 as member for Stock-
bridge, excited the ire of the Government by his effective
writings. At length, in the session of 1714, he was ex-
pelled from the House of Commons for publishing The
Crisis, a pamphlet reflecting on the Ministry. The
xi.] THE REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.
225
FHouse, by this curtailment of the liberty of the press,
identified itself with the executive, and considered itself
libelled by the impugning of its measures.
The Peace of Utrecht was concluded on March 31st,
1713, according to the style of England–April 11th
according to the style of the southern Continental
mations. A treaty of peace and a treaty of commerce
were signed between France and England. There were
also separate treaties for the States of Holland, the
King of Portugal, the King of Prussia, and the Duke of
Savoy. The treaty between England and Spain was not
formally concluded for some weeks afterwards; and the
French treaties with the Emperor and the empire, re-
establishing the two Electors, were not signed until
March 6th, 1714, at Rastadt and Baden. The principal
provisions of the treaties were as follows: First, as
between England and France—the Protestant succes-
sion, through the House of Hanover, was secured ; the
Pretender was to be compelled to quit France ; a per-
manent severance of the crowns of France and Spain
was solemnly promised ; and Newfoundland, Acadia,
and the Hudson’s Bay Territory were ceded to England.
Secondly—the Dutch secured a strong fortress barrier,
and the Spanish Netherlands were handed over to them,
while Lille was given back to France. Thirdly—the
Duke of Savoy secured Sicily and the title of king.
Fourthly—the treaty between Spain and England, signed
in July, granted to England the possession of Gibraltar
and Minorca ; and by the Assiento, a contract signed at
Madrid, the Catalans were left to their fate, the grant
of the slave trade was withdrawn from France, and the
English were assigned the right of trading in slaves to
America, and of sending one ship a year to the South Seas.
Soon after the Utrecht pacification, dissensions broke
out in the English Ministry. Bolingbroke was in favour
of a Stuart restoration, but Oxford opposed such an
extreme measure ; upon this Bolingbroke, to overthrow
the Lord Treasurer, approved the introduction of the
Schism Act, a measure conceived in a High Church
VOL. II. 15
CHAP. I.
The Reign
of Quee
Anne.
sºmºmºr
Peace of
Utrecht.
Ministe-
7°ial dis-
Sensions.
The
Schism.
Act.
226
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
spirit. Brought forward by Sir William Wyndham in
The Reign the Commons, its object was to confirm a clause in the
of Queen
Anne.
Oaford
dismissed.
Boling-
broke
Premier.
Death of
the Queen.
Act of Uniformity which precluded schoolmasters and
tutors from giving instruction without previously sub-
scribing a declaration of conformity to the Established
Church. Although this restriction was not abolished by
the Toleration Act, it had long been practically sus-
pended. The Schism Act therefore, which became law
in May, 1714, imposed severe penalties on all tutors and
schoolmasters who were not members of the Church of
England and licensed by the bishop. Some alleviating
clauses, but none of a vital character, were carried in
the Upper House. This iniquitous measure was likewise
extended to Ireland. Thirty-three peers signed a protest
against the Act, including Somers, Halifax, Argyll,
Nottingham, Wharton, Townshend, and five bishops.
The quarrel between Oxford and Bolingbroke deepened.
Oxford’s indecision was resented by his party, and the
Queen herself frequently had cause to complain of his
disrespect. So on July 27th, after a violent scene in
the Cabinet, Oxford was dismissed, the Queen resumed
the Treasurer's staff, and Bolingbroke became Prime
Minister. Bolingbroke's opportunity now seemed to have
come, but the Queen was attacked by mortal illness, and
as she lay on her deathbed she was induced by a depu-
tation of the Council to entrust the Lord Treasurer's
staff to Shrewsbury, who was now a firm adherent of the
House of Hanover.
On August 1st, 1714, the last of the Stuart sovereigns
passed away. Anne excited more admiration for her
private virtues than for her public character as a sove-
reign, yet her reign was more illustrious than that of
many greater monarchs. She left no survivor, but she
had had no fewer than seventeen children, all of whom
expired in infancy, except William, Duke of Gloucester,
who died in 1700 at the age of eleven. The many sorrows
of this desolate queen invest her memory with a pathetic
interest, while her admirable private character obtained
for her the enviable title of “Good Queen Anne.”

ſº： ;.*>（.*?）;
º №-->
|（~~
sº
§$%
،→s```\ss
*-
Ķ\\`\ž*
%ŕ)$3<§§，§$%×?-
%
KING GEORGE I.
%/////%';'.%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%









xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
227
- CHAPTER II.
GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
THE new King, George I., was proclaimed in his absence
without opposition, though Atterbury is said to have
urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing
Cross. The leading supporters of the Pretender, how-
ever, saw that it would be absolutely futile to attempt to
overthrow the Act of Settlement, and that the best thing
to do was to endeavour to cultivate friendly relations
with the new sovereign. George I. was the son of
Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, and of Sophia,
granddaughter of James I. of England. He was born on
May 28th, 1660, and married in 1682 his cousin, the
Princess Dorothea of Zell, whom he divorced twelve
years later. From 1698 he was Elector of Hanover.
The first monarch of the House of Brunswick arrived at
Greenwich on September 29th, 1714, and was crowned at
Westminster on October 31st. Until the King's arrival,
the government was carried on by the seven great officers
of state and eighteen Lords Justices nominated by the
sovereign. These were all Whig leaders, but Somers and
Marlborough were omitted, the former because he was
now a confirmed invalid, and the latter because he was
distrusted by the Hanoverian party.
Bolingbroke was dismissed, and a new Whig adminis-
tration was formed, with Townshend, Stanhope, and Wal-
pole as its chiefs. The two former were Secretaries of
George I.
Men,
Govern-
7267t.
228
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Whig
SQM GC&SS
at the
elections.
Meeting
of Parlia-
767 t,
The late
Ministry
Q?/2 -
peached
State, and Walpole was Paymaster of the Forces; while
Cowper was Chancellor, Nottingham Lord President,
Orford First Lord of the Admiralty, Marlborough
Commander-in-chief, Pulteney Secretary-at-War, Devon-
shire Lord Steward, Shrewsbury Lord Chamberlain, and
Sunderland Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The King very
early showed his partiality for the Whigs. The Privy
Council of Queen Anne was dissolved, and a much less
numerous body formed, from which all members of the
late Ministry were excluded. Parliament continued the
Civil List of £700,000 voted to Anne, and on January
31st, 1715, it was dissolved, having continued for six
months after the late Queen’s death.
The complexion which the new Parliament was to take
was a momentous question, and the Crown threw its
influence strenuously, and not always scrupulously, on
the side of the Whigs. The King issued a proclamation
referring to the evil designs of disaffected men; reviewing
the unsatisfactory condition of public affairs, the inter-
ruption of commerce, and the grievous miscarriages of the
late Government ; and urging the electors to have a par-
ticular regard to such candidates “as showed a firmness
to the Protestant succession when it was in danger.” The
Whigs were victorious, securing an immense majority, and
from this election dated along period of Whig ascendency.
The new Parliament met on March 17th, 1715. The
King's speech, read in his presence, promised the main-
tenance of the Constitution in Church and State, and
called special attention to the fact that the Peace did not
satisfy the just expectations of England ; that it had by
no means been carried into effect, and stood in need of
further securities; and that the Pretender was issuing
threatening declarations from Lorraine. The Address
echoed the speech, but in stronger language. The recent
Peace was condemned without qualification in both
Houses.
The Government appointed a Parliamentary committee
of twenty persons to examine papers in connection with
the Peace negotiations, and to find charges against the
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
229
late Ministry. Shortly afterwards Walpole, as chairman
of the committee, stated that a report was ready for the
House, and moved for the committal of Mr. Matthew
Prior and Mr. Thomas Harley. They were taken into
custody, but eventually released. Greater men were next
proceeded against. Walpole rose to impeach Lord Boling-
broke of high treason, and before the House could recover
from its astonishment Lord Coningsby rose and said,
“The worthy chairman of the committee has impeached
the hand : I now impeach the head ; he has impeached
the scholar : I impeach the master ; I impeach Robert,
Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, of high treason and other
crimes and misdemeanours.” There were some Whigs,
however, who deprecated this extreme step, among them
being the eminent lawyer Sir Joseph Jekyll, a man of
great probity. He pointed out an overstrained article
that was charged against Oxford, and one that, as a
lawyer, he felt bound to say, did not amount to treason.
But the majority spurned moderate counsels, and the
motion against Oxford was carried by 247 to 127. With
regard to Bolingbroke, Jekyll had admitted that there
was more than sufficient evidence against him under the
statute of Edward III. The Whig managers proceeded
to impeach Oxford and Bolingbroke at the bar of the
House of Lords. A motion was made to consult the
judges as to whether the articles amounted to treason, but
it was lost by 84 to 52. Oxford stated that he had all
along acted on the immediate orders of the late Queen,
and that, having never offended against any known law,
he was wholly unconcerned about the life of an insig-
nificant old man. But the House committed him to the
Tower. Ormonde and Bolingbroke, against whom pro-
ceedings were pushed forward, fled to the Continent,
upon which the Earl Marshal of England was ordered to
erase their names and arms from the peerage list, while
all their possessions in England were declared forfeit to
the Crown. Oxford's case was not finally decided till
1717, when, in consequence of the attitude of the Com-
mons, the whole impeachment was abandoned. The
CHAP. II
George.I.
and
George II.
Boling-
broke.
Oagford.
Oayford's
C&S63
dropped.
230
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. Lords resolved that the charge of treason should be first
George I.
determined before they would enter upon the articles of
3.11 tº e
George II, less importance. The Commons thereupon were so dis-
satisfied that they declined to go forward with the pro-
secution. “The resolution of the peers was hardly con-
formable to precedent, to analogy, or to the dignity of
the House of Commons, nor will it perhaps be deemed
binding on any future occasion ; but the Ministers
prudently suffered themselves to be beaten rather than
aggravate the fever of the people by a prosecution so full
of delicate and hazardous questions.” The resolution
of the peers practically acquitting Oxford was carried by
88 to 56. The Government might have prevented this
defeat but for their conviction that it would be im-
possible to substantiate the charges of treason against
Oxford, which really amounted to no more than mis-
demeanour.”
In consequence of serious apprehensions of a Jacobite
rising, Parliament passed the Riot Act in the session of
17 lä. This measure, based on an ancient Act which had
fallen into oblivion, ordained that if twelve or more
persons unlawfully and riotously assembled against the
peace and did not disperse within one hour of being
ordered to do so by proclamation in the King's name by
a justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, or
other lawful authority, they were guilty of felony ; and
if any were killed in resisting those who were charged to
Riot Act.
* Hallam's Constitutional History.
* During his imprisonment Harley wrote offering his services to
the Pretender ; but on his release he retired into the country.
The leadership in Bishop Atterbury's plot was offered to him in
1721, but he declined it. Harley died in 1724. His fine collection of
manuscripts is one of the national treasures in the British Museum.
Bolingbroke entered the service of the Pretender, and was appointed
his Secretary of State ; but in 1716, being charged, unjustly, with
the abortive Jacobite rising in the previous year, he was dismissed,
and a rupture occurred between him and the extreme Jacobites. He
remained in France, however, seven years longer, and married the
Marquise de Villette, a niece of Madame de Maintenon.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 231
disperse them, no one should be held guilty of their CHAP. II.
murder." Geºff.
Although the loyalty of Parliament and the nation at George II.
large rendered the Pretender's cause apparently hopeless, Jacobite
a Jacobite rising was attempted in 1715. The Earl of ºw
Mar in Scotland and Forster and Derwentwater in
England raised rebellions. Forster was defeated and
taken prisoner at Preston, and Mar fought the indecisive
battle of Sheriffmuir against Argyll. Early in 1716
James landed in Scotland, but soon withdrew with Mar.
Many of the leading Jacobites were arrested, and twenty-
two officers were executed at Preston and five at Tyburn.
The Earls of Derwentwater, Nithisdale, and Carnwath,
and Lords Kenmure, Nairne, and Widdrington, were
sentenced to death, as were Forster, Mackintosh, and
other prominent men. Nithisdale, Forster, and Mackin-
tosh escaped from prison and reached the Continent, but
Derwentwater and Kenmure were executed upon Tower
Hill.
The Jacobite rising having been quelled, the Whig The Sºp-
leaders resolved on introducing the Septennial Act, ºrial
prolonging the duration of Parliament for seven years.
The Triennial Act of 1694 had not worked well in
practice, but the real cause for the new measure was the
excited state of public feeling, which made it unsafe for
the Ministry to run the risk of a general election. Some
even feared for the dynasty itself, but no doubt this
was taking an exaggerated view. “The bill, though it
related specially to the constitution of the Lower House,
* As this Act practically gave to the military power to fire on the
mob or to charge them after due proclamation had been made, the
question long afterwards arose as to the legality of military inter-
ference without the order of a magistrate. This point was decided
in 1780 in a case arising out of the Gordon riots, when Lord
Mansfield laid it down that it was the duty of every subject to
resist persons engaged in treasonable or riotous conduct, and that
this duty was equally imperative upon soldiers as upon civilians.
This decision was confirmed in 1831 in a case which arose out of
the Bristol riots.
232
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
sm-
CHAP. II, was first introduced in the House of Lords, and as it was
George I. passed without a dissolution, Parliament not only deter-
de: II. mined the natural duration of future legislatures, but
also prolonged the tenure of the existing House of
Commons for four years beyond the time for which it
was elected.” When the measure was before the Lords,
the Duke of Newcastle said the cause of the Jacobites
had never been more unsuccessful; they had been beaten
in the open field; they and their king had been driven
out of Scotland; but the party was still as insolent as
ever, and sought to keep men's minds in commotion; it
thought at a new election to win back everything: there-
fore they must strengthen themselves and disarm their
enemies. In the Commons Sir Richard Steele, answering
the charge that the proposed change was a breach of
trust, said that the trust which was placed in Parliament
was for the welfare of the country. A restless faction
was thinking of uniting with foreign foes, and, by means
of a new election, of causing the prison doors to be
thrown open and traitors to be placed at the head of
English affairs. This expectation kept Jacobitism alive;
by the proposed measure it would be cut off at the roots.
The bill passed both Houses by large majorities. Two
crucial divisions in the Commons gave for it 276 votes
to 136 and 261 to 121; in the Lords it passed by 69 to
36. Thirty-one peers entered a formal protest against
it. Apart from the advantages or disadvantages of a
Septennial Act, the right of a sitting Parliament to
lengthen its own existence could of course only be justi-
fied by the critical condition of the nation and the bad
state of the representation, which made an appeal to the
people a mockery. Although the Septennial Act has
been again and again attacked for assigning to the dura-
tion of Parliaments too long a limit for popular freedom,
it still remains the law. Latter-day usage has practically
reduced the length of Parliaments to a maximum of six
years, but efforts nevertheless have frequently been made
* A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, by William
Edward Hartpole Lecky, vol. i.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
233
for a reversion to triennial Parliaments. Annual Parlia- CHAP. II.
ments have also had their advocates. While Parliament Geºf I.
may be dissolved by royal proclamation, its duration George II.
under ordinary circumstances cannot be interfered with
by the sovereign. Before the Triennial Act there was
no constitutional limit to the continuance of a Parlia-
ment but the will of the Crown; now, under the later
Septennial Act, it ceases to exist after seven years from
the day on which, by the writ of summons, it was
appointed to meet. Before the Revolution of 1688, a
Parliament was dissolved by the demise of the Crown;
but by the acts 7 and 8 William III. and 6 Anne a
Parliament was determined six months after the demise
of the Crown; and so the law continued until, by the
Reform Act of 1867, it was provided that the Parliament
in being at any future demise of the Crown shall not be
determined by such demise, but shall continue as long as
it would have otherwise continued unless dissolved by
the Crown."
'The charge that the passing of the Septennial Act was a breach
of trust by Parliament is unfounded. As Sir Erskine May (Lord
Farnborough) observes in his Constitutional History of England,
“Parliament has absolute power to make or repeal any law; and
every one of its acts is again open to revision. Without a prior
dissolution of Parliament, the unions of Scotland and Ireland were
effected, at an interval of nearly a century, measures involving the
extinction of the Parliaments of those countries, and a fundamental
change in that of England much greater than the Septennial Act
had made. That Act could have been repealed at any time, if
Parliament had deemed it advisable ; and no other ground than
that of expediency can now be reasonably urged for shortening the
duration of Parliaments.” Hallam favoured septennial Parliaments,
remarking that “it may well be doubted whether triennial elections
would make much perceptible difference in the course of govern-
ment, and whether that difference would on the whole be beneficial.”
Lecky thus refers to the Septennial Act: “Its beneficial effect in
repressing disorder and immorality, in giving a new stability to
English policy, a new strength to the dynasty, and a new authority
to the House of Commons, can never be forgotten. It was accom-
panied, however, by no measure of Parliamentary reform, and it
had the inevitable effect of greatly increasing corruption both at
elections and in the House.”
234
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
George I.
3.11
George II.
The King
and the
Act of
Nettle-
7ment.
Minis-
terial
changes,
Act of
6'race,
Bishop
Hoadly
and Com-
vocation.
CHAP. II.
Parliament abrogated one of the clauses of the Act of
Settlement in 1716. The King finding it necessary to
go to Germany, the Whig Ministers hesitated in giving
their consent, as such a step was in contradiction to one
of the articles in the Act of Settlement, but Parliament
solved the difficulty by repealing the clause without
opposition.
A Ministerial crisis occurred at this time. Lord
Townshend, having lost favour by opposing the King’s
Hanoverian schemes, was removed to the Lord-
Lieutenancy of Ireland, and Stanhope became chief
Minister. Early in 1717 a triple alliance was formed
between England, France, and Holland to guarantee
the Hanoverian succession. Walpole, Townshend, and
Pulteney were obliged to resign their offices for opposing
Stanhope ; and Stanhope now became First Lord of
the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, with
Sunderland and Addison as Secretaries of State. In
the following year, however (1718), Sunderland was
appointed First Lord of the Treasury. Stanhope was
Secretary of State, and Aislabie Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
A comprehensive Act of Grace was passed in the
session of 1717, and many political prisoners were
released.
Divisions in Convocation passed into an acute stage in
1717, Benjamin Hoadly, the able Low Church Bishop of
Bangor, being the precipitating cause. Hoadly was a
staunch upholder of the duty of resistance, and he had been
one of the most prominent opponents of Sacheverell. He
was appointed Bishop of Bangor in 1715, and in the
ensuing year published his famous tract against the
non-jurors. This was followed in 1717 by the issue of
his sermon on the kingdom of Christ, printed by royal
command. These works were devoted to questioning the
Divine authority of the sovereign and the clergy, and
were the occasion of the “Bangorian Controversy.”
The matter was taken up by Convocation, and it led to
violent disputes. As it was clear that Hoadly would be
xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 235
censured, although he was favoured both by the King ºr "
and his Ministers, Convocation was suddenly prorogued Geºff
by the Government. It was not again summoned for George II.
business until the year 1852 for the province of Canterbury
and 1856 for that of York.
The infamous Schism Act was repealed in 1718, and it Schism
is not to Walpole's credit that he opposed this act of *wa.
justice, as he did other measures, for the sake of em-
barrassing the Ministry. The Occasional Conformity Act
was also expunged from the statute book.
In August, 1718, was formed the Quadruple Alliance, The Quad-
a name given to the extension of the Triple Alliance of *...
the preceding year by which the adherence of Austria
was secured to its principles. A treaty was drawn up by
the allied Powers with the main object of maintaining
the European settlement effected by the Treaty of
Utrecht.
The great topic of the session of 1719 was the Peerage Services
Bill. Before describing this measure it may be desirable £º
to point out the services which the peers—in the midst of
much disservice—had rendered to the nation. They had
won the Great Charter for the people, and on many
occasions shown their liberality as a body. Then the
influence of the aristocracy in raising public labour to
honour was by no means slight. At many serious crises
in our constitutional history they had averted unscru-
pulous legislation. They had assisted in making govern-
ment popular, in sustaining patriotic feelings, and in
bringing young men of promise into politics. They had
on many important occasions acted with moderation, and
they had undoubtedly played a conspicuous part in
securing the benefits of the Revolution. No doubt the Evils of
evils of a hereditary caste are also great. The desire to *
found a family leads to the accumulation of wealth and
landed estate, and a privileged class must always be a
burden upon an industrious nation that is restricted in its
natural resources, while luxury and monopoly at one end
of the social scale inevitably lead to impoverishment at
the other. But in condemning the abuses of a class
236 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II, which many think might be swept out of existence
Ge; I. without detriment to the public advantage, it would be
George II. unjust to ignore its historic services.
Stanhope's The Peerage Bill of Stanhope and Sunderland has not
#ſº inaccurately been described as “the most dangerous
constitutional innovation since the Revolution.” It was
intended by its framers to prevent the son of George I.,
who was in antagonism to his father, from overthrowing, if
he came to the throne, the Whig majority in the Upper
House by the creation of Tory peers. “Had it been carried,
it would have made the House of Lords an almost
unchangeable body, entirely beyond the control of King
or Minister or Commons. It provided that, with the
exception of members of the royal family, the sovereign
should at no time be allowed to add more than six to the
number of the English hereditary peers existing when
the bill was passed, though, whenever a peerage became
extinct, he might make a creation to replace it; and also
that twenty-five Scotch peers, selected in the first instance
by the sovereign and afterwards sitting by hereditary
right, should be substituted for the sixteen elective peers.
It is obvious that such a measure would have given the
peerage all the characteristics of a close corporation,
would have prevented that influx into its ranks of legal,
political, and commercial talent which now constitutes
one of its most distinctive merits, would have in conse-
quence destroyed its value as a reward of genius and its
weight as a representative body, and would have abolished
the only means which the Constitution provides for
overcoming in extreme cases the opposition of the
Lords.” Such a measure could only have fed the
ambition and haughtiness of the aristocracy. The very
exclusiveness it set up by the limitation of the numbers
of the peerage might have resulted in “pretensions very
galling to the people, and in an oppressive extension of
privileges which were already sufficiently obnoxious and
arbitrary.” ” -
1 Lecky's History of England.
* Hallam's Constitutional History.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
237
The bill, which by an ironical coincidence was the
work of the party which has always been associated with
popular progress, easily passed the Lords, the King
having readily relinquished his prerogative of unlimited
creation. Sunderland, as inducements to the Commons
to acquiesce, promised that the Lords would part with
scandalum magnatum"; that the Commons should be
permitted to administer an oath ; and that the King
would give up the prerogative of pardoning after an
impeachment. If these bribes had been much larger
they would not have succeeded, for a great wave of in-
dignation soon engulfed the Ministerial project. Steele
trenchantly exposed the dangers of the scheme, and both
wrote and spoke with great power against the bill. The
country gentry and all who coveted or hoped to merit
the honours of the peerage were roused, and the bill was
rejected in the Commons by 269 to 177.
A statute was passed this session to enable the English
Parliament to legislate for Ireland. It remained in force
until 1782, the year of Irish legislative independence.
Sunderland and Stanhope concluded peace with Spain
in 1720, but this year proved one of evil omen for
England socially. The nation was convulsed to its
centre by the collapse of the South Sea scheme. As
we have already seen, the South Sea Company was
formed in 1711. In 1717 Walpole persuaded the South
Sea creditors to make a further advance of £5,000,000 to
the Government. Desirous of still further Government
credit, in 1720 the South Sea Company agreed to take
up £32,000,000 of the Government annuities, and to per-
suade the holders to take in exchange South Sea stock.
The Government annuities had borne 7 or 8 per cent.
interest ; the company was to receive 5 per cent. till
1727, and 4 per cent. afterwards. In order to outbid
the offers of the Bank of England and other associations,
the South Sea Company agreed to pay to Government a
| Scandalum magmatum was the use of language tending to bring
into contempt a peer or great officer of the realm. As far back as
1275 it had been created a special offence, with special punishments.
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Its
wejection.
Ireland.
The South
Sea.
JBubble,
238
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. | Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II,
Aghjäg
inquiry.
Aislabie
eapelled.
Resigma-
tion of
ASwººder-
land.
premium of upwards of £7,000,000. This heavy burden
was bound to crush the scheme, if the public failed to
subscribe largely. But everybody rushed to subscribe,
and the price of the stock went up by leaps and bounds.
Peers, clergymen, Dissenting ministers, poor widows, and
indeed all classes of the community caught the mania.
The universal gambling spirit then led to the formation
of companies of all kinds, many of them being fraudulent
or visionary to the last degree. To protect itself, the
South Sea Company took action against some of the
bubble companies, and exposed them. The effect was
electrical ; a panic set in, shares fell rapidly, and in
the month of September, 1720, the South Sea Company’s
own stock fell from £1,000 to £175. The ruin which
ensued was unparalleled in the history of financial
enterprises.
Popular indignation was now vented upon the South
Sea directors, who, however blamable in some respects,
were not responsible for the spirit of reckless speculation
which had seized upon all classes. The odium fell
chiefly upon Sunderland, the Prime Minister, and John
Aislabie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had
accepted the proposals of the South Sea Company. The
House of Commons appointed a committee of inquiry,
which elicited the fact that an extensive system of bribes
had prevailed, and that large sums of fictitious capital
had been invented and distributed among leading mem-
bers of the Government. Aislabie's case was so flagrant
that no one rose to defend him, and he was expelled the
House and committed to the Tower. Charles Stanhope
and Secretary Craggs and his son were also implicated.
Stanhope was acquitted by three votes ; the younger
Craggs died before the inquiry was over, and the elder
committed suicide. The younger Craggs combined great
business talents with a love of letters, and he has been
immortalised by Pope.
Sunderland was accused of having received £50,000
stock as a present, but he was probably guiltless, and it
is said that he actually lost heavily by the transactions
xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
239
of the company. The Lords declared him innocent, but
his unpopularity was now so great that he was forced to
resign. It is believed that in the closing months of his
life Sunderland intrigued with the Pretender. This
zealous Whig statesman died in April, 1722. He was
an ardent admirer of Lord Somers, but lacked the pru-
dence and equable temper of that distinguished leader.
The South Sea bubble proved fatal to Lord Stanhope,
the Secretary of State. He had no share in the specula-
tion, and even proposed that Ministers who had received
bribes from the company should be accounted guilty of
“notorious and dangerous corruption.” But during the
examination of the directors the Duke of Wharton made
a furious attack upon the Administration, especially
singling out Stanhope ; and when the Secretary rose to
reply, his passion brought a rush of blood to the head,
which next day proved fatal. Stanhope was a remarkably
able and versatile man, being at once a warrior, a poli-
tician, a scholar, and an effective speaker.
Walpole, who, with Townshend, had rejoined the Minis-
try during the progress of these disastrous events, now
stepped in, and by his great financial ability restored
the public credit. “In the midst of the panic and
exasperation both of Parliament and of the nation, he
acted with great coolness, courage, and good sense. He
moderated the proceedings that were taken against the
guilty directors, and he gradually restored public credit
by measures which met with some opposition at the time,
and which many years after became the objects of
virulent attacks, but which had undoubtedly the effect
of calming public opinion and greatly mitigating the
inevitable suffering.”.” At first he favoured a scheme
suggested by Jacombe, Under-Secretary for War, by
which the stock was to be divided between the South
Sea Company, the Bank, and the East India Company ;
but this plan was abandoned. The policy finally adopted
by Walpole, and that which was embodied in a retro-
Lecky's History of England.
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II.
Death of
Stanhope.
Walpole's
financial
Scheme.
240
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II. spective act, provided that the whole sum of rather more
George I.
than £7,000,000 which the company had engaged to pay
ge; II, the public was to be ultimately remitted; that the con-
Walpole
becomes
Premier.
The
Jacobites.
fiscated estates of the directors were to be employed in
the partial discharge of the encumbrances of the company;
and that a division of stock was to be made among all
the proprietors, producing a dividend of £33 6s. 8d. per
cent.
Walpole had now no rivals, and his ascendency was
complete. In March, 1721, he became Prime Minister
and Chancellor of the Exchequer, the other important
members of his Government being—Lords Townshend
and Carteret, Secretaries of State ; the Earl of
Macclesfield, Lord Chancellor ; Lord Carleton, Lord
President ; the Duke of Kingston, Privy Seal ; the
Earl of Berkeley, First Lord of the Admiralty ; the
Duke of Marlborough, Master of the Ordnance ; Byng
(afterwards Lord Torrington), Treasurer of the Navy :
the Duke of Argyll, Lord Steward; the Duke of New-
castle, Lord Chamberlain ; and Pulteney, Cofferer of the
Household. Walpole could tolerate no opposition, and
having a difference with Carteret in 1724, that statesman
was sent to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant. Newcastle then
became Secretary of State, and Henry Pelham Secretary-
at-War.
The Jacobites seized the opportunity afforded by the
suffering and confusion prevalent in the country, and in
1722 endeavoured once more to push the interests of the
Pretender. But dissensions arose among the conspirators,
and the plot was so badly managed that the Ministry
received intelligence of what was on foot, and suddenly
arrested the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Orrery, Lords
North and Grey, Bishop Atterbury, Mr. Layer, and
several other persons. Upon investigation, sufficient
legal evidence could only be found against the Bishop
and Mr. Layer, although there was no moral doubt of the
guilt of the others. Mr. Layer was hanged at Tyburn,
and a Bill of Pains and Penalties was brought forward in
the House of Lords against the Bishop of Rochester, the
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
241
evidence being insufficient for a conviction by process at CHAP. II.
law. Atterbury was deprived of his see and banished
the kingdom for life. Going over to Paris, he became
the chief adviser of the Pretender." Walpole placed a
tax of £100,000 on the non-jurors.
During the Jacobite agitation, an incident occurred
which showed that the House of Commons could occa-
sionally transgress its own customary limits of privilege.
A newspaper called Mist’s Journal, a rabid Jacobite
organ, having given vent to its strong desire for the
Pretender's restoration, the matter was brought before
the House. Accordingly, on May 28th, 1721, it was
resolved “that the said paper is a false, malicious, scan-
dalous, infamous, and traitorous libel, tending to alienate
the affections of his Majesty’s subjects, and to excite the
people to sedition and rebellion, with an intention to
subvert the present happy establishment and to introduce
Popery and arbitrary power.” The proprietor of the
Journal was committed to Newgate, and an address was
voted to the King praying that the authors and publishers
of the libel should be prosecuted. No actual violation of
privilege was cited, but the House evidently conceived
itself to be invested with a general jurisdiction over
political offenders. The case of Mist's Journal is referred
to as the last in which any person has been committed
on a charge that could not possibly be interpreted as a
contempt of Parliament or a breach of its privilege.
Bolingbroke was allowed to return to England in 1723,
and an act of Parliament was passed permitting him to
' The method of procedure adopted against Atterbury “met with
strong opposition, not limited to the enemies of the royal family ;
and it is open to the same objection as the attainder of Sir John
Fenwick : the danger of setting aside those precious securities
against a wicked government which the law of treason has furnished.
As a vigorous assertion of the State's authority over the Church,
we may commend the policy of Atterbury's deprivation ; but per-
haps this was ill purchased by a mischievous precedent. It is,
however, the last act of a violent nature in any important matter
which can be charged against the English legislature.”—Hallam's
Constitutional History.
WOL. II. 16
George I.
3.11
George II.
Committal
for libel.
Boling-
broke.
242
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
The
Quakers.
The
JProtection,
of London.
enjoy his property; but he was still excluded from the
House of Lords. He made overtures to Walpole, but
these were rejected, and from this time forward Boling-
broke carried on a series of relentless hostilities against
Walpole by means of intrigue and political journalism.
Through the Craftsman especially, a journal of large
circulation, he inflicted many damaging blows upon the
Ministry. But Bolingbroke withdrew to France in 1734,
and remained there until the fall of Walpole. He looked
for a share of power when his friends came into office,
but being disappointed, he withdrew altogether from
politics, and went into philosophical retirement at Batter-
sea. This brilliant but unfortunate man died in 1751.
With regard to the religious legislation of the Govern-
ment, they gave some relief to the Quakers in 1721. A
temporary act, which had made their solemn affirmation
equivalent (in all civil cases) to an oath, had been made
perpetual in 1715; and the act had been extended to
Scotland, as well as to the colonies for a limited period.
But an opinion having gained ground among the Quakers
that to affirm “in the presence of Almighty God” was
not less sinful than to swear, a bill was introduced by
the Government in the session of 1721 providing a new
form of affirmation, from which the words objected to
were omitted. The bill was opposed by the two arch-
bishops, but it passed by a large majority.
The city of London suffered severely from lawlessness
during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. White-
friars and the Savoy had for centuries enjoyed the privi-
lege of sheltering debtors from their creditors, and this
privilege had been abused to give shelter to the worst
characters in the community, who defied the officers of
justice, and sometimes created a reign of terror. In
1697 a law was passed depriving the districts named of
their franchises ; but similar privileges continued to be
claimed for the Mint in Southwark. Criminals of all
kinds fled thither, and matters became so serious that in
1723 an act was passed making it felony to obstruct the
execution of a writ and enabling the Sheriff of Surrey
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
243
to raise a posse comitatus for taking by force debtors
from the Mint. This legislation finally put an end to
what had long been a dangerous and disgraceful right of
sanctuary.
Difficulties arose in Scotland in 1724 in connection with
the fiscal legislation of Walpole. The malt tax was
changed into a tax of threepence on each barrel of ale,
then the national drink of Scotland. Riots broke out
in Glasgow and other places. The brewers generally
throughout Scotland resisted the tax, but in the end were
obliged to give way.
A legislative act of peculiar interest, and one due to
the exertions of a single individual, may be cited here.
In 1725 the learned and philanthropic Bishop Berkeley
conceived a scheme for a Christian university in Bermuda,
for the civilisation and conversion of America, whose
future greatness he already foresaw. In 1726 he brought
in a bill for endowing the university, and so great was
his success in canvassing the members of Parliament
that the measure was carried with only two dissenting
voices. Walpole promised £20,000 towards the scheme,
but never advanced the money, and in 1731 Berkeley was
compelled to abandon the enterprise.
Considerable sensation was caused in 1725 by a charge
brought against the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Maccles-
field, who was accused of having sold certain places in
chancery. The House of Commons impeached him at
the bar of the House of Lords, and an interesting trial
ensued, which lasted over twenty days. The Earl was
convicted, and sentenced to be imprisoned until he should
pay a fine of £30,000. Though the fine undoubtedly
seemed heavy, no small portion of it was the produce of
the offence for which it was imposed, and the whole
amount was paid in less than two months. As the
necessity of demanding judgment in cases of impeach-
ment gives to the Commons the power of pardoning the
accused, an attempt was made by the friends of the
* See the Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage
of Parliament, by Sir Thomas Erskine May (Lord Farnborough).
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Riots im,
Scotland.
Bishop
Berkeley
and
Bermuda.
Impeach-
ment of
the Cham-
cellor,
244
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
all
George II.
Foreign
affairs.
Death of
the King.
Accession,
of
George II.
Walpole
o'etains
office.
Earl to save him from the consequences of the judgment,
but this deservedly failed. Macclesfield was succeeded as
Chancellor by Peter, Lord King.
Foreign affairs caused renewed anxiety in 1725, and as
Austria and Spain had concluded a treaty at Vienna
against England, a counter-treaty was made at Hanover
between England, France, and Prussia, with the result that
hostilities were begun and continued during the next two
years. Austria, however, eventually withdrew from her
anomalous position, and preliminaries of peace were
signed at Paris in May, 1727.
At this juncture, and while Walpole at home was
meeting almost single-handed the attacks of the Opposi-
tion, George I. suddenly died. He was on his way back
to England from Hanover when he expired at Osnabruck,
on June 9th, 1727, in the sixty-eighth year of his age
and the thirteenth of his reign. The first of the Georges
was not an imposing monarch in any sense. Lady Mary
Wortley Montagu styled him “an honest blockhead,” and
unquestionably if he had been an abler man he might
have proved a worse sovereign. He was a moderate ruler
in England, whatever he may have been in Hanover, and
he wisely refrained from straining our constitution as
many of his predecessors had done.
George II., who now succeeded his father, was born in
1683, and married in 1705 Princess Caroline of Anspach,
who bore him four daughters and two sons; the latter were
Frederick, Prince of Wales, born in 1707, and William,
Duke of Cumberland, born in 1721.
The new monarch named Sir Spencer Compton, second
surviving son of the Earl of Northampton, as Prime
Minister, but he was unable to withstand the influence
of Walpole. The latter not only impressed his views of
foreign policy upon the King, but secured the influence of
the Queen, promising to obtain from Parliament a jointure
for her Majesty of £100,000 a year, while Compton only
ventured to propose £60,000. It is only just, however
to say that Queen Caroline highly esteemed Walpole for
his great abilities. Walpole was consequently continued
xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
245
in office as Prime Minister ; but he was compelled to CHAP. II.
rely upon a servile majority, many of whom were bought,
while the Whig malcontents whom his love of power had
offended strongly opposed him. Compton was “gratified
with the title of Wilmington and the Presidency of the
Council ; and it might be said of him, as afterwards of
Pulteney, that he shrank at once into insignificance and
an earldom.” Parliament increased the Civil List of
£700,000 granted to George I. by about £130,000, and
likewise passed the first Annual Bill of Indemnity for not
observing the Test and Corporation Acts.
The new Parliament, which displayed a great Minis-
terial majority, opened in January, 1728. Mr. Arthur
Onslow—whose family had already supplied two first
Commoners—was unanimously chosen Speaker. He was
“endowed with high personal qualifications for that office.
During three-and-thirty years did this accomplished man
continue to preside over the House of Commons, with
thorough knowledge of forms and perfect impartiality of
judgment; and even after his retirement he still contributed
to the public service by his ready advice and guidance to
younger politicians.””
The docility of the Parliament was remarkable. When
Horace Walpole * made the unworthy and humiliating
proposal that the sum of £230,000 should be granted
during this year for maintaining twelve thousand Hessians
in the British pay, the Opposition could only muster 84
votes against it, while 280 members voted in the majority.
Another objectionable agreement was that by which the
Duke of Brunswick received a subsidy of £25,000 per
annum for four years. Walpole and Pulteney had a
pitched battle over the public burdens. The latter main-
tained that, in spite of the Sinking Fund, these burdens
had increased instead of diminishing since 1716. Walpole
* Lord Mahon's History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to
the Peace of Versailles (1713–1783).
* Mahon's History of England.
* Brother of Sir Robert and afterwards Lord Walpole.
George I.
George II.
Speaker
nslow.
Docility
of Parlia-
7)067t.
246
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
JReporting
the
Lebates.
controverted the statement with his usual skilfulness,
and his arguments and figures were endorsed by a large
majority. The Opposition were equally unsuccessful in
their efforts to obtain an explanation of the large sum of
£250,000 charged for Secret Service.
Parliamentary reporting became a burning question at
this period, and it has been continuously revived in some
shape or other at irregular intervals down to the present
time. In order to meet the popular demand for Parlia-
mentary information, during the closing years of Queen
Anne short summaries of debates, compiled from re-
collection, began to appear in Boyer’s Political State
of Great Britain, and in the following reign in the
Historical Register. At length Edward Cave, the enter-
prising publisher, perceiving the popularity likely to be
gained by such reports, made strenuous efforts to procure
them. In 1728 he was summoned to the bar of the
House of Commons, confined for several days, and obliged
to apologise for having furnished his friend Robert Raikes
with minutes of the proceedings for publication in the
Gloucester Journal. The surreptitious reports, however,
were so popular that in 1729 Raikes incurred the censure
of the House for the same offence. Upon this occasion
the House passed a unanimous resolution, “That it is
an indignity to, and a breach of the privilege of, this
House for any person to presume to give in written or
printed newspapers any account or minutes of the
debates or other proceedings of this House, or of any
committee thereof.” ; and “that upon discovery of the
authors, printers, or publishers, this House will proceed
against the offenders with the utmost severity.” Cave
started the Gentleman's Magazine in 1731, and it was
speedily followed by the London Magazine. In 1736
Parliamentary reports became a prominent feature of
Cave's periodical. Obtaining admission to the gallery
of the House of Commons, he and one or two friends
would secretly take down the names of the speakers and
the drift of their arguments, and then repair to some
coffee-house, where the reports were elaborated. A writer
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
247
named Guthrie was the first person to construct these
reports. He was succeeded by Dr. Johnson, who acted from
November, 1740, to February, 1743, and after the famous
lexicographer came Dr. Hawkesworth, the biographer
of Swift, and editor of the Travels. A Presbyterian
minister named Gordon executed similar work for the
London Magazine. The reports only appeared during
the recess, to avoid the action of the House, and the first
and final letters only of the names of the speakers were
given.
In April, 1738, Speaker Onslow brought the subject
before the House of Commons, and an important debate
ensued. The Tory leader, Sir William Wyndham, was the
only speaker who took the proper and constitutional view
of the matter. While condemning the reports for their
frequent inaccuracy, he thought the public had “a right
to know somewhat more of the proceedings of the House
than what appears from the votes”; and if he could be
sure that the sentiments of gentlemen would not be mis-
represented, he would be “against coming to any resolu-
tion that would deprive them of a knowledge that is so
necessary for their being able to judge of the merits of
their representatives.” But other speakers severely de-
nounced the reports. “If we do not put a speedy stop
to this practice,” said Winnington, “you will have the
speeches of this House every day printed, even during
your session, and we shall be looked upon as the most
contemptible assembly on the face of the earth.” Pul-
teney remarked that it was absolutely necessary to stop
the reports ; and Walpole, after strongly condemning
their misrepresentations and their one-sidedness, said,
“You have punished some persons for forging the names
of gentlemen on the backs of letters; but this is a forgery
of a worse kind, for it misrepresents the sense of Parlia-
ment, and imposes on the understanding of the whole
nation.” In the end a unanimous resolution was arrived
at “That it is a high indignity to, and a notorious breach
of the privileges of, this House to print the debates or
other proceedings of the House, as well during the
CHAP. II,
George I.
and
George II.
Debates
and pro-
ceedings.
248
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARTIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Treaty of
Seville,
recess as the sitting of Parliament, and that this House
will proceed with the utmost severity against such
offenders.” Yet the practice went on, the reports taking
such forms as Debates in the Senate of Great Lilliput,
Debates of the Political Club, etc. In 1747 the editors
of the Gentleman's Magazine and the London Magazine
were summoned before the House of Lords for having
published an account of Lord Lovat’s trial, and they only
escaped imprisonment by an abject apology. Cave re-
turned to the plan of giving the initials of the speakers in
1752, and he does not seem to have been molested after
this time. But the struggle was by no means over, and
as late as 1801 several prosecutions were instituted for pub-
lishing unauthorised reports of debates. The House of
Commons itself did not begin the publication of its own
division lists until 1836, and the House of Lords did not
imitate its example until 1857. Orders prohibiting the
publication of debates are still retained upon the journals
of the House of Commons ; but so long as debates are
correctly and faithfully reported the privilege which
prohibits their publication is waived. It is a curious
anomaly that these orders should be retained, when pro-
vision for reporters has long been made by the House."
The difficulties with Spain were adjusted in 1729 by
the conclusion of the celebrated Treaty of Seville on
November 9th. Gibraltar was the crucial point, and the
Ministry had been willing to cede this for a proper
equivalent. But the nation was strongly against the
* Parliamentary History, Lecky's History of England, Mahon's
History, and Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History and Parlia-
mentary Practice. The secrecy of debate was originally insisted
upon by the Commons as a protection from the King, but it
developed later a desire on the part of members to shelter them-
selves from their constituents. Systematic reporting began in 1641,
under the Long Parliament, when reports appeared under the
title of Diurnal Occurrences of Parliament, which were continued
until the Restoration. But so stringently did the Commons forbid
unlicensed reporting that Sir E. Dering was expelled from the
House and imprisoned in the Tower for printing a collection of
his own speeches, while the work was ordered to be burnt by the
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
249
cession, and great excitement was caused by the publica-
tion of a letter written by George I. indicating a willing-
ness to give up the fortress. Debates frequently occurred
in Parliament on the subject. The Treaty of Seville,
which was concluded by William Stanhope with the aid
of the French, was a defensive alliance between England,
Spain, and France, and subsequently Holland. It gave
great umbrage to the Emperor, for Spain revoked all the
privileges granted to Austrian subjects by the treaties of
Vienna. She also re-established English trade in America
on its former footing, and restored all captures. The
Assiento was confirmed to the South Sea Company, and
arrangements were made for securing the succession of
Parma and Tuscany to the infant Don Carlos. As no
provision was made respecting Gibraltar, Spain was re-
garded as having renounced her claims. The treaty
was a great triumph of French diplomacy, as it closed
the breach between France and Spain, and detached both
England and Spain from the Emperor. In March, 1731,
the Emperor, finding himself thus deserted, concluded
the second Treaty of Vienna with England, Holland, and
Spain. It practically confirmed the Treaty of Seville,
and England guaranteed the Pragmatic Sanction, by which
Maria. Theresa was to succeed to the hereditary dominions
of her father, Charles VI. For his services in connection
with the Treaty of Seville and other matters, Stanhope
was created Lord Harrington, and soon afterwards ap-
pointed Secretary of State.
hangman. From the Restoration to the Revolution few records
of Parliamentary debates were preserved. Andrew Marvell sent
regular reports to his constituents from 1660 to 1678. At the in-
stance of Shaftesbury, Locke wrote a report of a debate in the
House of Lords in 1675, which was published under the title of
A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend, but the Privy
Council ordered it to be burnt by the hangman. Shaftesbury him-
self wrote some reports, and Anchitell Grey, member for Derby,
took notes of debates for many years. These were published in
1769, and they form a valuable source of information for the
period immediately following the Revolution.
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
250
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Retire-
ment of
Tomºm-
shend.
Carteret,
English in
the Law
Courts.
A Member
eapelled.
Quarrels between the two Ministers Walpole and
Townshend had been very frequent. The former could
brook no rival near his throne, and declared that the
Ministerial firm “should be Walpole and Townshend,
not Townshend and Walpole.” The Pension Bill, which
sought to disable all persons from sitting in Parliament
who had any pension, was supported by the whole
strength of the Opposition. Walpole would not venture
on active opposition to it, and suffered it to pass the
House of Commons, leaving to his colleague the odium
of its rejection in the Lords. At the house of Colonel
Selwyn the two Ministers came to personal violence, and
it was with difficulty a duel was prevented. Seeing that
he could not struggle against the power of Walpole,
Townshend resigned in May, 1730. “He left office with
a most unblemished character, and, what is still less
common, a most patriotic moderation.” Instead of em-
barrassing his rival by going into opposition, he retired
altogether from public life. He was succeeded as Secre-
tary of State by Harrington, the other Secretary being the
Duke of Newcastle. Unlike Townshend, Carteret, who
had been six years in Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, for-
mally joined the Opposition after his return to London
in 1730, and became one of Walpole's most formidable
antagonists.
Among the excellent home measures passed in 1731
was an act declaring that in future all proceedings in the
courts of justice should be conducted in the English,
instead of in the Latin tongue.
Serious malversations were detected at this time in
the Charitable Corporation which had been formed for
the relief of the industrious poor by assisting them with
small sums of money at legal interest, but which, under
this colour, sometimes received 10 per cent., and ad-
vanced large sums on goods bought on credit by fraudulent
speculators. Several persons were criminally prosecuted,
and Sir Robert Sutton, the late ambassador in Paris,
| Lord Mahon's History of England.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
251
having been implicated in these practices, was expelled
from the House of Commons.
England was further moved to its depths by the
horrible revelations made in connection with prison life.
In 1728 the discovery of fiendish cruelties perpetrated in
the Fleet led to the appointment of a Parliamentary
commission. The prime mover in this humanitarian
inquisition into the management of the prisons was that
noble and disinterested philanthropist General Oglethorpe,
member for Haslemere." The report of the committee
revealed a shocking state of things. The Warden of the
Fleet and his agents were put upon their trial for murder,
but were acquitted. An act was passed in 1729 to remedy
the most flagrant of the evils ; but unfortunately it had
little practical effect.
General Oglethorpe, in pursuance of his ideas for
prison reform, conceived the idea of founding a colony in
which poor debtors on attaining their freedom might find
a refuge. A charter was obtained in 1732, and the
proceeds of a sale of land which Parliament had voted
for the Bermuda enterprise were, with the consent of
Berkeley, appropriated to the new enterprise. The colony
of Georgia was founded in 1733, with Oglethorpe as its
governor. This benevolent man had inserted in the
charter a memorable clause absolutely prohibiting the
introduction of slaves. Georgia Soon became an asylum
for many European Protestants, and was especially a
centre of the Moravian sect. At a later date Oglethorpe
championed the cause of the Moravians in England, and
in 1749 carried a bill through Parliament exempting
them from the necessity of violating their religious
sentiments by taking oaths or bearing arms.
CHAP. II.
George L
all
George II.
Prison.
horrors.
Colony of
Georgia
founded.
The year 1733 witnessed the introduction of two of The
Walpole's most important financial schemes. The first
was the proposal to take £500,000 from the Sinking
* Oglethorpe was one of the first to recognise the genius of
Dr. Johnson. He lived to a great age, and in his closing years was
he friend of Goldsmith, Johnson, and Burke.
Sinking
Fund,
252
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II. Fund for the service of the current year. From its
George I.
and
George II.
Walpole's
Eaccise
scheme.
establishment in 1717, the Sinking Fund had not been
interfered with until 1727, when various encroachments
were made upon it. Now Walpole proposed to make
a more serious inroad. Sir John Barnard, member for
London, and a high financial authority, urged that the
fund ought never to be applied to any other purpose than
that of discharging debts, except in the case of some
extreme emergency ; and “the author of this new ex-
pedient,” he declared, “must expect the curses of pos-
terity.” Pulteney, alluding to Walpole's claim to be the
author of the Sinking Fund, said, “If Solomon’s judgment
was right, he who is thus for splitting and dividing
the child can never be deemed to be the real father.”
Walpole in reply simply threatened the country gentle-
men with a land-tax of two shillings in the pound if his
proposal were not accepted, and the scheme was carried
by a majority of 110. The bad precedent thus adopted
was as the letting out of water ; in the ensuing year
the whole produce of the fund, £1,200,000, was taken,
and in 1735–36 the fund was mortgaged and alienated.
“Our debts were always augmented in moments of
difficulty, never diminished in a period of peace, until the
Sinking Fund was restored in a different era and on a
new foundation by the genius and integrity of Pitt.” "
Walpole's second great financial measure was his
excise scheme. Being desirous of conciliating the
country gentlemen by diminishing the land-tax to one
shilling, to accomplish that object he had imposed a
duty on salt. But as the new tax was found to fall
short by two-thirds of the required amount, he proposed
the substitution of excise duties for customs duties on
wine and tobacco. Instead of a customs duty levied at
the port, a tax would be levied at the manufactory on
the quantity made, and a licence would be required for
the sale of the articles, while the manufactories and shops
I Lord Mahon's History of England and Sinclair's History of the
Revenue.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 253
would be liable to inspection. Before the scheme was CHAP. II.
introduced, Pulteney and others attacked it, and greatly ge; I.
inflamed the public mind by hinting that there was to George II.
be a general scheme of excise. The excise duties were T
already hateful to the community, and violent demonstra-
tions were made against the Minister's proposals. Wal-
pole, in a masterly speech occupying two hours and a
quarter, unfolded his scheme before the House of Com-
mons on March 14th. As an illustration of the frauds
practised upon the revenue, he stated that while the
gross produce of the tobacco tax was, on an average,
750,000, the net produce was only £160,000. He con-
sidered that a system of warehousing for re-exportation
would tend to make London a free port, and by con-
sequence the market of the world. By the increase in
the revenue the land-tax would no longer be required,
and might be altogether abolished. “And this,” ex-
claimed Walpole, “is the scheme which has been
represented in so dreadful and terrible a light,-this
the monster, the many-headed monster, which was to
devour the people and commit such ravages over the
whole nation | *
But Wyndham, Barnard, and Pulteney fiercely assailed Its great
the scheme. Wyndham dragged in the shades of Emp- º
son and Dudley—unworthy favourites who “ had the
misfortune to outlive their master, but whose son, as soon
as he came to the throne, took off both their heads !”
Frederick, Prince of Wales, a strong opponent of Walpole,
was listening to the debate under the gallery. Walpole
was ably supported by Sir Philip Yorke, the Attorney-
General, and Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, and
he carried his resolutions by 266 to 205, but the minority
was alarmingly great. The Minister incurred much
unpopularity by describing the multitudes who demon-
strated against the scheme at the doors of the House of
Commons as “sturdy beggars.” Some of these “sturdy
beggars ” were inclined to offer him violence as he left
the House. During the subsequent debates on the
scheme, the Government majority dwindled from 60 to
254
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. 16, while in the country the popular ferment was greater
George I.
than ever, and petitions poured in upon Parliament. At
and & e g
George II, a meeting of his supporters in the House of Commons,
Walpole
and Bo-
lingbroke.
Mem:
Parlia-
771670%.
Walpole declared that he would never be the Minister to
enforce taxes at the expense of blood. He therefore
abandoned the measure, and was burnt in effigy for
having introduced it." The Minister was so incensed
by the opposition of some of his colleagues that Lord
Chesterfield was dismissed from his post of Lord Steward
of the Household, while, by an unjustifiable stretch of
the prerogative, the Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham
were removed from the command of their regiments in
the army. In the session of 1734, the last of the Parlia-
ment, unsuccessful efforts were made in both Houses to
carry a motion preventing in future all officers not above
the rank of colonels from being removed unless by a
court-martial or by address of either House of Parliament.
A spirited attack was made upon the Septennial Act,
and its repeal was supported by the large minority of 184
to 247 votes. During the debate, Walpole made a scath-
ing onslaught upon Bolingbroke, whom he denounced as
the real head of the faction leagued against him ; and he
then assailed Pulteney and Wyndham as the creatures of
the anti-Minister who betrayed every master he had ever
served.
The elections of 1734 were hotly contested, and it is
said that Walpole himself spent no less than £60,000 of
his private fortune upon them. Neither party had the
success it anticipated at the polls. Walpole secured a
majority, it is true, but it was considerably smaller than
that obtained at the previous election. In Parliament,
however, Walpole maintained his ascendency undimi-
nished, and in the session of 1735 the Opposition lost heart
after a few preliminary skirmishes. The session was re-
markable for the paucity of its legislative measures.
| Some of the ablest financial authorities of later times, including
Adam Smith, approved the main principles and objects of Walpole's
scheme.
xi. GEORGE J. AND GEORGE II.
255
The Dissenters had long looked to Walpole for the
repeal of the Test Act. They had supported him at the
polls, and interviewed him in deputations. At length
one of their distinguished representatives brought matters
to a head by plainly asking the Prime Minister when
their time of relief was to come. “If you require a
specific answer,” said Walpole, “I will give it you in one
word—Never !” Thereupon the Dissenters turned to the
Opposition, and in the session of 1736 induced Mr. Plumer
to bring forward a motion for the repeal of the obnoxious
statute. Now Walpole desired neither to offend the
Dissenters nor the Church, but after some temporising
he was compelled to vote against the former, and the
bill was lost by 251 to 123 votes. Walpole's feeling in
this matter was that the contest was hopeless at the time,
and that it was worse than useless for him to engage in it.
By way of showing that he was for some measures of
religious relief, however, he supported a bill for the relief
of Quakers in the recovery of tithes. The measure passed
the Commons, but was rejected by the Lords, chiefly in
consequence of the exertions of Gibson, Bishop of London,
Walpole's favourite prelate. The Premier was greatly
annoyed, and Gibson not only lost his confidence, but
the reversion to the archbishopric of Canterbury, for
which he had long been popularly designated.
Parliament passed, without much discussion, a Mortmain
Act, which specified the conditions under which alone
lands, etc., could be devised for charitable purposes.
Oxford and Cambridge, Eton, Winchester, and West-
minster, were excepted from the operation of this act.
The Gin Act, which was carried this session, was not
a Ministerial measure, but one introduced by Sir Joseph
Jekyll. It sought to check drunkenness among the lower
orders—a vice which had grown to so alarming a pitch
that the justices of Middlesex petitioned the House of
Commons against it. The measure proposed a prohibitive
duty of twenty shillings on every gallon sold by retail and
£50 yearly for a license to every retailer. Pulteney and
Walpole agreed in disliking the measure, and the latter
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
The
Premier
and the
Dis-
SenterS.
Mortmain
Act.
The Gim,
Act.
256
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Witch-
craft.
The
Lighting
of London.
The
Porteous
Riots.
got a clause inserted granting the King £70,000 to
compensate him for the loss to the Civil List owing to
the greatly reduced consumption of spirituous liquors.
The bill passed, but the Premier's action made him un-
popular with the lower classes, who charged him with
selling the comforts of the people to the highest bidder.
An Act against Witchcraft, which had long been upon
the statute book, was abrogated in 1736. This act con-
demned witches to be put to death, and the terrible
penalty had been frequently exacted. Three witches had
been hung at Exeter in 1682, and it is said that others
so suffered at Northampton in 1705 and 1722. Holt,
who was Chief Justice in the time of George II., did good
service to humanity by exposing the vindictiveness of
the punishment, and in the session of 1736 the law
making witchcraft punishable by death was repealed. So
far from this repeal having an injurious effect, the super-
stition gradually began to die out.
In the same session an important measure was passed
for the proper lighting of the streets of London. Hither-
to the capital had been one of the worst lighted of
European cities. The Lord Mayor and aldermen were
now authorised to erect glass lamps in sufficient numbers
throughout London, to keep them lighted from the setting
to the rising of the sun, and to levy a considerable and
general rate for their maintenance. Upwards of fifteen
thousand lamps were erected in a few years. This
measure gave greater security to the City, but the streets
still continued to be infested at night by gangs of thieves,
who were eventually subdued by a new police system.
The Porteous riots in Edinburgh in 1736 caused pro-
found sensation. Two men named Wilson and Robertson,
who had been condemned to death for smuggling, made a
desperate attempt to escape while at service in the Tol-
booth Church, and Robertson succeeded in doing so. When
Wilson came to be executed, the mob assailed Captain
Porteous and the city guard with stones. Porteous and
his men fired, killing four men and wounding eleven
others. Porteous was tried for his life and found guilty,
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 257
but received a reprieve. On September 7th, the day on CHAP. II.
which the reprieve expired, the mob broke into the Tol- Geº I
booth, seized Porteous, and hanged him in the Grass George II.
Market. They then quietly dispersed. Neither by
threats nor rewards could any disclosures be obtained
by Government with respect to the offenders. Conse-
quently, in the session of 1737, a punitive bill was brought
in, drawn up in a very vindictive spirit. It actually sought
to abolish the city charter, rase the city gates, disband
the city guard, and declare the Provost, Mr. Wilson,
incapable of again holding any public office. Witnesses
were examined at the bar of both Houses, but nothing of
importance was elicited. This legislation in a panic was
unworthy of the Government, and the Scottish peers and
members of Parliament fought against it tooth-and-nail.
Even the Lord Advocate, Duncan Forbes, denounced it.
So strong was the opposition that on one occasion in
committee an important clause was only carried by the
Chairman's casting vote. At length the measure was
stripped of its worst features, and when it passed it was
merely an act disabling Mr. Wilson from holding any
future office, and imposing on the city a fine of £2,000 for
the benefit of Captain Porteous's widow.
The Prince of Wales at this time became practically The
the head of the opposition to Walpole. His chief political ſº."
friends—who were styled the Leicester House party-–
were Carteret, Pulteney, Chesterfield, Sandys, Lyttelton,
Sir T. Sanderson, William Pitt, the Grenvilles, and Bubb
Dodington. The Tory leaders in the Commons were
Wyndham, Shippen, Lord Polwarth, Sir John Hynde
Cotton, Fazackerly, Sir Watkin Wynn, and Lord Corn-
bury. The King came to an open rupture with the
Prince, who had married Augusta of Saxe-Coburg. The
Prince of Wales demanded that his income should be
fixed by Parliament, and on February 22nd, 1737, Pul-
teney rose in the House of Commons and moved an
address to the King praying him to settle £100,000 a
year upon the Prince. Walpole replied that he had the
King’s commands to offer £50,000 and the revenues of the
WOL. II. 17
258
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
His
quarrel
ovith the
Aïng.
The Play-
house Bill.
Duchy of Cornwall, amounting to about £10,000, but no
more. He remarked that to interfere between father and
son would be highly indecorous, and that no precedent
existed for it except in the case of that weak monarch
Henry VI. The Premier would have been in a minority
had not the more ardent Tories, to the number offorty-five,
left the House without voting,on the ground that they were
unwilling to do anything to favour the heir of the House
of Hanover. As it was, Walpole only secured a majority
of 30, the numbers being 234 to 204. A similar motion
by Carteret in the Lords was rejected by a large majority.
Immediately upon his failure with Parliament, the
Prince of Wales hurried his wife from Hampton Court
to the empty and unaired palace of St. James's, when she
was on the point of giving birth to her first child. As a
consequence of this unfeeling action, the King peremp-
torily ordered him to leave St. James's with his family.
The Prince now offered his apologies to his parents, but
it was too late. George II. refused to be reconciled, and
the Queen, although upon her death-bed, declined to see
her son. Queen Caroline died on November 20th, to the
great grief, it may be justly said, of both the King and
the nation. *
The scandalous license of the stage called for restrictive
legislation at this period. When plays were not indecent
they were full of political animus. Gay's Polly, a
sequel to his Beggar's Opera, was forbidden by the Lord
Chamberlain, and in 1735 Sir John Barnard brought in
a bill to restrain the number of playhouses, and to regu-
late the stage ; but when Walpole suggested that the
powers of the Lord Chamberlain should be enlarged,
Barnard declared that they were too great already, and
withdrew his bill. However, in 1737 the Premier him-
self moved in the matter. A farce called The Golden
Rump, attacking the royal family and otherwise
encouraging sedition and blasphemy, was brought to
Walpole, in the hope that he would pay liberally to
purchase and suppress it. He paid the money, but
forthwith laid its most objectionable passages before
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 259
eminent members of both political parties, and inquired CHAP. II.
whether such things should be allowed to continue. George I.
Having secured the support of the Opposition, Walpole ge; n.
introduced his famous Playhouse Bill, under the form of T
an amendment to the Vagrant Act of Queen Anne. It
declared that any actor without a legal settlement or
a license from the Lord Chamberlain should be deemed
a rogue and a vagabond. To the Lord Chamberlain it
gave legal power instead of customary privilege, author-
ising him to prohibit the representation of any drama at
his discretion, and compelling all authors to send copies
of their plays fourteen days before they were acted, under
forfeiture of £50 and of the license of the house.
Moreover, it restrained the number of playhouses by
enjoining that no person should have authority to act,
except within the liberties of Westminster and where
the King should reside.
It was the fortune of this bill to draw from Lord Chester-
Chesterfield one of the most brilliant speeches ever yet ...;
heard in Parliament. He predicted that if the bill were *
to be enacted, the ruin of liberty and the introduc-
tion of despotism must inevitably follow. While obliged
to admit that there was a remarkable licentiousness in
the stage, his lordship observed that there was law
enough, if it were but made effectual. This bill, however,
had far deeper designs, and sought to strike a mortal
blow against the liberty of the press. In conclusion, he
remarked, “If we agree to the bill now before us, we
must perhaps next session agree to a bill for preventing
any plays being presented without a license. Then
satires will be wrote by way of novels, secret histories,
dialogues, or under some such title ; and thereupon we
shall be told, ‘What ' will you allow an infamous libel
to be printed and dispersed only because it does not bear
the title of a play ?’ Thus, my lords, from the precedent
now before us, we shall be induced, may we can find no
reason for refusing, to lay the press under a general
license, and then we may bid adieu to the liberties of
Great Britain l’” In spite of these eloquent pleas, the
260
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II.
Conven-
tion myith
Spain.
Rise of
Pitt and
Mansfield.
bill rapidly passed through both Houses. Among the
plays proscribed under the new system were the Gustavus
Vasa of Henry Brooke and the Edward and Eleanora of
Thomson. The former contained reflections on Walpole,
and when it was printed the patronage of the Prince of
Wales and Lord Chesterfield enabled the author to reap
a reward of a thousand guineas from its sale. Thomson’s
tragedy contained a very flattering portrait of Walpole's
most powerful enemy, the Prince of Wales; and a member
of the Ministry was reported to have said that the
dramatist had taken a “Liberty” which was not agree-
able to “Britannia’’ in any “Season.” The Playhouse
Act crushed the rising fashion of political comedies, “but
in general the licensing power was employed with much
moderation and simply in the interests of morality.”
The act falsified Chesterfield's predictions, and, in spite
of its liability to occasional abuse, it remains law to this
day, without detriment to the unfettered efforts of genius,
or to the wholesome influence and almost unlimited
freedom of the English stage." -
The pacific policy of Walpole abroad was now strongly
attacked by the Opposition. Nevertheless the Premier
concluded a convention with Spain. By treaty the Eng-
lish and Spanish Governments were permitted to search
each other's ships for contraband goods, and as the
English were constantly trying to establish an illegal
trade with the Spanish colonies of South America, this
right led to great difficulty and ill-will between the two
nations. British merchants put forth their grievances,
and found no lack of advocates in the House of Commons.
After various motions and resolutions, a bill was brought
in for securing and encouraging our trade with America.
In addition to Pulteney, Barnard, and Wyndham, the
Opposition now found leaders in William Murray, the
future Earl of Mansfield, and William Pitt the elder,
afterwards Earl of Chatham. Both commenced their
1 Parliamentary History, Coxe's Memoirs of Walpole, and Lecky’s
and Stanhope's Histories of England.
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
261
brilliant public career at this time. Pitt was the grand-CHAP. II.
son of a former governor of Madras. Born in 1708, he
was educated at Eton and at Trinity College, Oxford.
After a period of Continental travel, he decided to go into
the army, and obtained a cornetcy in the Blues ; but in
1735 his family interest procured for him the seat of
Old Sarum. His first speech in Parliament, which
created a deep impression, was delivered in April, 1736,
on the address voted in connection with the marriage of
the Prince of Wales and Augusta, Princess of Saxe-
Coburg. He soon became so troublesome to the Govern-
ment that Walpole dismissed him from the army ; but
the Prince of Wales recompensed him by making him
Groom of the Bedchamber. This independent position
enabled him to attack at his ease the Premier's peace
policy.
Greatly exaggerated complaints were made by British
merchants of the depredations and cruelties of the
Spaniards; and one story that did the Ministry much
harm was that of “Jenkins’s ear.” Jenkins was the
master of a trading sloop from Jamaica, and he asserted
that his ship had been boarded by Spaniards, and al-
though no proof of smuggling had been found, one of his
ears had been barbarously torn off. This he carried about
in cotton Wool to excite sympathy, and being asked on one
occasion how he felt when he was in the hands of such bar-
barians, he replied, “I recommended my soul to God and
my cause to my country.” This saying was bruited abroad,
and it further inflamed the indignation of the people.
There were those who affirmed that Jenkins had lost his
ear in a totally different way, and some even insinuated
the pillory ; but the public were not in a reasoning mood,
and the Opposition made a great deal of Jenkins.
The Lords carried an address to the Crown on the
general question of the Spanish depredations; and Wal-
pole was further embarrassed by the proceedings of his
colleague Newcastle, who began to intrigue against him,
and who favoured the King's desire for war. An address
approving the Convention was, however, carried in the
George I.
all
George II,
“Jenkins's
35
Ear.
Pitt on the
Spanish
Conven-
tion.
262
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Secession
of the
Opposi-
tion.
House of Peers, but only by 71 to 58 votes. In the
House of Commons, when the same address was moved,
energetic speeches in opposition were made by Gage,
Sanderson, and Lyttelton. But by far the most effective
oration was that of Pitt. In concluding his powerful
attack, he said, “This convention, sir, I think from my
soul, is nothing but a stipulation for national ignominy, an
illusory expedient to baffle the resentment of the nation ;
a truce without a suspension of hostilities, on the part
of Spain ; on the part of England a suspension as to
Georgia of the first law of nature, self-preservation and
self-defence ; a surrender of the rights and trade of Eng-
land to the mercy of plenipotentiaries, and in this
infinitely highest and sacred point, future security, not
only inadequate, but directly repugnant to the resolutions
of Parliament and the gracious promise of the throne.
The complaints of your despairing merchants and the
voice of England have condemned it. Be the guilt of it
upon the head of the adviser ; God forbid that this
committee should share the guilt by approving it !” The
Minister was still strong, however, though he only
carried the day by a majority of 28 votes, the numbers
being 260 to 232.
Now ensued an extraordinary scene in the House of
Commons. The Government resolution having again been
carried on the report, the Opposition seceded from the
House in a body. Wyndham, speaking for himself and
his friends, said he solemnly took leave of the House for
ever. Some of his expressions were so strong that it was
thought he courted impeachment, and Pelham was about
to move his committal to the Tower, when Walpole
interposed, and took an ironical tone instead. He re-
minded Wyndham that he and his friends had said the
same thing when Bishop Atterbury was impeached of
high treason, and he now only feared that the seceders
would not be as good as their word and would come
back. So eventually they did. Meanwhile the Ministry
readily carried their measures, including bills in behalf
of the woollen manufacture and of the sugar colonies, and
xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
263
a treaty for a Danish subsidy of 250,000 dollars annually
for three years, in return for a promise of the King of
Denmark to hold in readiness one thousand men for our
service.
But although the session of 1739 closed in tranquillity,
the feeling in the country was such that Walpole knew
he must either declare war or resign. Accordingly he
yielded against his judgment to the wish of the King
and the nation, and made war with the Spaniards, their
abuse of the right of search forming the basis of the
declaration. The war proved disastrous for England ;
and years afterwards Walpole's principal opponents ad-
mitted to Edmund Burke that they had been in error on
this Spanish question and the right of search.
It began to be urged against Walpole that his legis-
lation tended to the ruin of the country. The responsi-
bility for every national grievance was placed upon his
shoulders. His strength diminished, though as yet his
measures continued to be carried. In the session of 1740
the land-tax was raised to four shillings in the pound,
and £4,000,000 was granted for the war ; but in other
matters he began to make concessions in order to avoid
defeat. One of his most formidable opponents, the Duke
of Argyle, he got dismissed from his employments; and
another, Sir William Wyndham—whom Speaker Onslow
described as the most made for a great man of any
politician he had ever known—was removed from the
scene by the hand of death. But in place of Wyndham
there had already arisen William Pitt, a far greater
genius, and one destined to win immortal fame.
In February, 1741, the opposition to the Prime Minister
came to a head. In the House of Commons, Mr. Samuel
Sandys—member for Worcester since 1717, but a man of
little note—brought forward a motion for the dismissal
of Walpole from his Majesty’s councils. The conduct
of the war, the Spanish Convention, the Minister's
fraudulent views in adjusting the South Sea scheme, and
other unconstitutional acts were the grounds relied upon.
Mr. Wortley Montagu proposed that Walpole should
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
JWar with
Spain.
declared.
Walpole's
popularity
declines.
Motion to
dismiss
him.
264
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
The
Premier’s
defence.
withdraw during the debate, but this motion was regarded
as unfair, and was withdrawn. Pitt and Pulteney severely
attacked the Premier, who was defended by Pelham and
Stephen Fox. During this concerted onslaught upon
Walpole, Edward Harley, brother of the Lord Treasurer
Oxford, observed a dignified moderation, in fact it may
be said a noble magnanimity too often absent in political
warfare. He had opposed the Premier, and should do so
again; but “God forbid,” he exclaimed, “that my private
opinion should be my only rule of judgment l” Then he
related how the impeachment and imprisonment of the
late Earl of Oxford had shortened his life. That im–
peachment had been prosecuted by Walpole himself, who
knew that there was no evidence to support it. He
concluded thus: “I am now, sir, glad of this opportunity
to return good for evil, and to do that right honourable
gentleman and his family that justice which he denied
to mine.” With this he left the House, being followed by
his kinsman Mr. Robert Harley. Shippen, the Jacobite,
said that the motion was only a scheme for turning out
one Minister and bringing in another; and Lord Cornbury
declared that no man whose ardour for vengeance had not
extinguished every other motive of action could resolve
to sanction a method of prosecution by which the good
and the bad were equally endangered, and he announced
that he should vote against the motion. Walpole made
a powerful speech in his defence. He dealt sarcastically
with the three parties combined against him : the Tories ;
the dissatisfied Whigs, calling themselves patriots; and
the boys, the clever young men of promise. The very
name of patriotism, he said, was in danger of falling into
disgrace. “A patriot, sir! why, patriots spring up like
mushrooms I could raise fifty of them within four-
and-twenty hours; I have raised many of them in one
night. It is but refusing to gratify an unreasonable or an
insolent demand, and up starts a patriot.” Sir Robert
then defended his home and foreign policy, and thus
concluded: “I must think that an address to his Majesty
to remove one of his servants without so much as alleging
º.
//
%
%
§),
ź
%%
º%
ſae
%
KING GEORGE II.



xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
265
any particular crime against him is one of the greatest CHAP. II.
encroachments that were ever made upon the prerogative
of the Crown ; and therefore, for the sake of my master,
and without any regard for my own, I hope all those
that have a due respect for our constitution and for the
rights and prerogatives of the Crown, without which our
constitution cannot be preserved, will be against this
motion.” Walpole's speech, which was not over till four
o'clock in the morning, had a great effect, and owing
further to the secession of the Tories, the motion was
rejected by 290 to 106 votes. Carteret's motion in the
Lords, though powerfully supported, was also lost by the
large majority of 108 votes to 59. A protest, which
report said was prepared by Bolingbroke, was signed by
31 peers.
It seemed for the moment as though Walpole's power
had been entirely recovered. But foreign affairs now
absorbed attention, and the Minister was driven to inter-
fere on behalf of the injured Queen of Hungary. An
address was carried in the House of Commons pledging
Parliament to maintain the Pragmatic Sanction;' and a
subsidy of £300,000 was voted to the Queen of Hungary,
England acknowledging by treaty the national obligation
to assist her with a force of 12,000 men. The enforced
neutrality of Hanover was likewise secured.
Parliament was dissolved in April, 1741, and the new
elections were held shortly afterwards. One of the first
contests was that for Westminster, where a tumult arose
because one of the Ministerial candidates ordered the
poll-books to be prematurely closed. The military ap-
peared at the hustings, and it was thought that this
incident lost several elections to Ministers. When the
* There are six or seven important Pragmatic Sanctions, but the
one of historic eminence here referred to is the one always meant as
the Pragmatic Sanction, unless there are qualifying words pointing
to some other instrument. It was that of April 17th, 1713, by
which the Emperor Charles VI. secured the hereditary succession
of the states of Austria in the female line. This was in order to
transmit the crown to his eldest daughter, Maria. Theresa.
George I.
and
George II.
The Prag-
'matic
Sanction?
Elections
of 1741.
266
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II.
The
Opposi-
tion.
Debates
on the
election,
petitions.
Attack on
the Pre-
'mier.
electoral struggle was over, Government could only com-
mand a majority of sixteen.
When the new House of Commons met in December,
Pulteney counselled the Opposition not to divide on the
Address, wittily observing that “to divide was not the
way to multiply”; but in the struggle over the appoint-
ment of Chairman of Committees the Opposition carried
their candidate, Dr. Lee, by the narrow majority of four
votes, the numbers being 242 to 238. Walpole's enemies
were wild with delight over this victory.
Almost nightly battles were now fought upon the
election petitions. Instead of being referred to a select
committee, election petitions were at that time tried by a
committee of the whole House, and were regarded purely
as party questions. Walpole let it be known that no
quarter would be given in these petitions, yet on the day
after the King’s speech was debated he only succeeded
in the Bossiney case by seven votes. His son exclaimed,
“One or two such victories, as Pyrrhus, the member for
Macedon, said, will be the ruin of us !” Yet on the
Westminster petition—opened by Murray with an elo-
quence beyond what was ever heard at the bar—Ministers
were defeated by four votes. The Houses adjourned for
the Christmas holidays; and Walpole's personal friends,
seeing whither affairs were tending, earnestly entreated
him to resign. His ambition and love of power, how-
ever, were too strong, and he hoped to better his position
by an offer to the Prince of Wales of an addition of
£50,000 to his yearly income and the payment of his
debts if he would desist from his opposition to the
measures of the Government. But the overture was
rejected.
When Parliament met again in January, 1742, Pul-
teney brought forward a motion for referring to a Secret
Committee the papers which had been laid before the
House relating to the war. The mover spoke with great
but acrimonious ability, and was seconded with equal force
by Pitt. Lord Perceval, the new member for West-
minster, inadvertently let out the truth that the motion
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 267
was really for a committee of accusation against the CHAP. II.
Minister. Thereupon Walpole rose and delivered one of George I.
the most effective and denunciatory speeches ever heard ge: II.
in the House of Commons. Alluding to Dodington, who T
had called his administration infamous, he described him
as a person of great self-mortification, who for sixteen
years had condescended to bear part of the infamy. As
to Pulteney, it is said that Sir Robert “actually dissected
him and laid his heart open to the view of the House.”
Even Walpole's enemies acknowledged that his speech
was a masterpiece of eloquence, and it revealed an in-
timate acquaintance with foreign affairs. Yet in a House
composed of 508 members Ministers only secured a
majority of three.
Walpole's fall, however, was not long delayed, for it Hall of
occurred upon the Chippenham election petition. It is Walpole.
an illustration of the surprises of politics that so small a
matter should achieve the overthrow of a great Minister
after a long period of supremacy. On a preliminary
point Walpole was beaten by a majority of one, and
upon the final decision in the Chippenham petition
by a majority of 16. Thereupon he resigned all
his offices, and was shortly afterwards created Earl of
Orford, with an additional pension of £4,000 a year.
These honours were fiercely resented by the Opposition,
and Walpole's reputation would have stood higher with
posterity if he had been content to rest on the memory
of his great services.
At the instigation of the fallen Minister, the King Yen . .
offered Pulteney the post of Prime Minister, on the sole flºº
condition that Walpole should not be prosecuted. Pul-
teney declined office on these terms, and Lord Wil-
mington (Sir Spencer Compton) was commissioned to
form a Government. Wilmington was the nominal chief,
and several members of the Opposition came into office,
but there was no radical change of policy. Wilmington
was First Lord of the Treasury; Pulteney joined the
Cabinet, but without office; Hardwicke was Lord Chan-
cellor, Sandys Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Carteret
268
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II. and Newcastle were Secretaries of State ; Winchilsea
Geºff and Nottingham was First Lord of the Admiralty, Henry
ge; II. Pelham Paymaster, and the Duke of Grafton Lord
Proceed-
àngs
against
TWalpole.
Chamberlain. Pulteney retired to the House of Lords as
Earl of Bath, losing much of his influence thereby, and
Carteret was really head of the Government. Pulteney
was hated by the King, and his virtual disposition of the
Ministerial offices, together with his own elevation, caused
him to lose a large share of his popularity.
The prosecution of Walpole was the chief act of the
new Government. Fazackerly, a high Tory lawyer and
member of Parliament, was commissioned to draw up
articles of impeachment; but as these were not satis-
factory, on March 9th Lord Limerick moved for a Secret
Committee to inquire into the administration of Sir Robert
Walpole during the last twenty years. Pulteney now dis-
countenanced hostile action, and the motion was negatived
by a majority of two—244 to 242. But the feeling was
so strong that Pulteney was obliged to consent to the
reintroduction of the motion on March 23rd. On this
occasion he supported it, but without rancour, and asked
to be omitted from the committee. The question was
carried by 252 votes to 245. Horace Walpole ably
defended his father, but he was as ably attacked by Pitt,
who observed that while it was becoming for the honour-
able gentleman to remember that he was the child of the
accused, the House ought also to remember that they
were the children of their country. When the Secret
Committee was named, it was found that out of twenty-
one members only two were declared friends of Walpole.
The committee was baffled in its attempts to obtain
evidence. The ex-Minister was shielded by the Crown
and the House of Lords ; and Sir John Barnard was so
disgusted with the personal animus exhibited against
Walpole that he retired from the committee. Edgcumbe,
who chiefly managed the Cornish boroughs, was made a
peer to avoid giving evidence, and the Secretary of the
Treasury declined to take the oath of discovery. The
committee was foiled, and could only substantiate the
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
269
most trivial charges against Walpole. A bill to in-
demnify the recipients of bribes if they gave evidence
against the fallen statesman was rejected by the Lords,
though it had passed the Commons. The report of the
committee failed to excite indignation against the
Minister.
Walpole was already in declining health. For many
years he had fought a stout battle with his enemies ; and
in 1745, three years after his fall, he died. This great
statesman was in many respects misrepresented by his
foes, but there is no doubt that he seriously lowered the
tone of public life. He was cynical, and seemed to have
no faith in political virtue. He was jealous of power,
and corrupted the House of Commons to maintain his
position. At the same time he preserved peace at a
critical period, and completed the Revolution settlement.
Stanhope considered that he understood the true interest
of his country better than any of his contemporaries ;
while Burke remarked that his prudence, steadiness, and
vigilance preserved the crown to the Hanoverian family,
and with it the laws and liberties of England.
The session of 1743 was chiefly noted for its dis-
cussions on the war and our share therein. England
took an active part in the campaign, and, with the
Hessians and Hanoverians, defeated the French at Det-
tingen-on-the-Maine. The French forces now withdrew
from Germany.
Parliament passed the Place Bill, limiting the number
of offices tenable by members of Parliament. It was
originally proposed by Sandys, but now opposed by him
on the ground that George II. was antagonistic to it.
The measure was derided at the time, but, as Hallam has
shown, it excluded a great number of inferior officers from
the House of Commons, which has never since contained
So shameless a list of mere Court deputies. Parliament
also repealed the Gin Act, which had utterly failed in
its action, as Walpole predicted. A new bill was passed,
however, by which a small duty per gallon was laid on
spirits at the still head, and the price of licenses reduced to
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II.
His death.
The War.
The Place
Bill.
270
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Pelham.
becomes
Premieſ”.
TWar ºvith
Jºrance.
The
Jacobites.
twenty shillings. Chesterfield opposed this measure with
unusual eloquence, but in vain.
On the death of Wilmington in July, 1743, Henry
Pelham was appointed First Lord of the Treasury. The
friend and pupil of Walpole, he lacked that Minister’s
courage and aggressiveness, and it was only with reluctance
that he accepted the post offered him over the head of
Pulteney. Pelham was a younger brother of the Duke
of Newcastle. He was only forty-seven years of age,
and had been in Parliament twenty-four years. The
Paymastership of the Forces, which he had hitherto held,
he gave to Winnington, and took up the Chancellor-
ship of the Exchequer, which Sandys vacated on being
elevated to the peerage. Places were also found for
Henry Fox and Lord Middlesex, the latter an adherent
of the Prince of Wales.
The Austrian succession question caused the Ministry
much concern. By the Treaty of Worms, now entered
into, England, Holland, Austria, Saxony, and Sardinia
agreed to carry out the Pragmatic Sanction. This led
in 1744 to the League of Frankfort, which was formed
between France and Prussia in opposition to the Treaty
of Worms. Pelham was obliged to fall in with the
demands of his party and to declare open war with France.
The French made an unsuccessful attempt to support
an expedition of Prince Charles Edward to England. This
renewed activity of the Jacobites drew all parties in
Parliament together, except the high Tories. Supplies
to the extent of nearly £10,000,000 were voted, including
subsidies of £300,000 to Austria and £200,000 to Sar-
dinia. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended for two
months, and a measure was passed imposing stringent
penalties on treasonable correspondence with the Pre-
tender. The sons of the Pretender were to be attainted
should they endeavour to land in England, and the
penalties of the act were to extend to the children of
the convicted. Against this latter clause Bedford and
Chesterfield spoke strongly, but unsuccessfully, in the
Lords, and Pitt and Strange in the Commons.
x1.]
271
GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
Carteret, who had now succeeded as Earl Granville,
was a great stumbling-block to the Ministry. This
clver man, high in the royal favour “and drunk with
ambition and wine, continued to treat the Pelhams with
haughty disdain.” But his unscrupulous support of all
Hanoverian measures had lost him his reputation, both in
Parliament and with the people. The time now came
when the King must choose between Hanover, with
Granville, and the House of Commons, with Pelham.1
He was obliged to let Granvillego; and in November, 1744,
that statesman resigned the Secretaryship of State, and
the seals were given back to his predecessor, the Earl of
Harrington. Sir J. Hinde Cotton was appointed Treasurer
of the Chamber, Lord Gower Privy Seal, and Lord
Chesterfield Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The recon-
structed Ministry, of which Pelham found himself the
head, is known as the “Broad-bottom Administra-
tion.” Pitt now undertook to support the Ministerial
measures in the House of Commons, and the Opposition
became so weak that for some years the Parliamentary
debates dwindled almost into insignificance.
The first motion we meet with on behalf of Par-
liamentary reform was brought forward at the opening of
the session of 1745, when Sir F. Dashwood unsuccess-
fully endeavoured to carry an amendment to the Address
claiming for the people the “right to be freely and fairly
represented in Parliament.”
In May, 1745, the English and their allies were de-
feated by the French at Fontenoy, and one of the
immediate effects of this defeat was the Jacobite re-
bellion in Scotland. Prince Charles, with seven followers,
landed near Moidart on July 25th, and was joined by
Lochiel and other important Highland chiefs. He out-
witted Sir John Cope, the English commander, and was
proclaimed at Edinburgh. The Pretender defeated Cope
at Preston Pans, and then invaded England. The popu-
lation as a whole, however, was apathetic towards the
CHAP. II.
George I.
3.11
George II.
Resigma-
tion of
Granville.
The
** Broad-
bottom
Adminis-
tration.”
Parlia-
mentary
Beform.
* Mahon's History.
The
Jacobite
Pebellion,
of 1745.
272
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Stringent
legisla-
tion.
JEnd of
Jacobit-
ism.
Ministe-
7°ial crisis
cause of the Jacobites. Charles took Carlisle and ad-
vanced as far as Derby, but was then compelled to retreat
northwards. He reached Glasgow on December 25th,
and on January 17th, 1746, defeated General Hawley at
Falkirk. But most of his followers dispersed to their
homes with the booty, and the Prince was finally over-
whelmed and defeated at Culloden (April 16th). Lords
Kilmarnock and Balmerino were tried and executed for
high treason, and their titles and estates confiscated.
In 1747 the same fate befell Lords Lovat and Derwent-
water, and six years later another prominent Jacobite,
Dr. Archibald Cameron, Lochiel’s brother, was executed.
Severe legislation followed the rising. In 1747 High-
landers were disarmed, forbidden to wear their national
dress, and the hereditary jurisdiction of the Highland
chiefs was abolished, and compensation given. This
abolition of the heritable jurisdictions destroyed the
power of the chiefs, and put an end for ever to
Highland revolts. Subsequently an Act of Indemnity
was passed, granting a pardon to all persons who had
committed treason, with some eighty exceptions.
The Jacobite cause was practically extinguished at
Culloden. Prince Charles escaped, but his party rapidly
lost ground in England. When the Whigs fell, the Tory
party in the reign of George III., under the brilliant
leadership of Pitt, had ceased all connection with Jacobit-
ism, and only a small band of fanatics henceforth looked
for a Jacobite restoration. Prince Charles Edward died
in 1788, and with the death of Cardinal Henry of York in
1807 the last of the Stuarts passed away.
While the Jacobite rebellion was at its height, a
Ministerial crisis arose at St. James’s. The Pelhams
resigned because the King would not admit Pitt to office,
and Granville was commissioned to form a Ministry.
On his failure, however, the old Ministers returned, with
Pitt as Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, an office exchanged a
few months later for that of Paymaster of the Forces.
Henry Fox (subsequently created Lord Holland) became
Secretary-at-War, and in the following October Chester-
x1.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
273
field succeeded Harrington as Secretary of State. The
brilliant Chesterfield did not hold office long. Failing
in his project of governing the King through his mistress
Lady Yarmouth, and finding that his hopes of peace
were not likely to be realised, he resigned in 1748, and
was succeeded by the Duke of Bedford.
Nevertheless, not long after Chesterfield’s resignation,
peace negotiations were set on foot, and the Treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle was concluded on April 18th, 1748.
By this treaty, which closed the war of the Austrian
succession, all conquests made during the war were
restored by both sides, but the right of search was left
unnoticed. The French king agreed to recognise Maria
Theresa and to exclude the Pretender from France.
Austria was the great loser by the settlement, and the
result of the treaty was the breach of the alliance between
that Power and England.
The legislation of 1749–50 was interesting and im-
portant. Additional subsidies were granted of £100,000
to the Empress-Queen, and smaller amounts to the
German princes. Another grant resulting from the war
was one of £10,000 to indemnify the magistrates and
Town Council of Glasgow for the like sum levied upon
them during “the late unnatural rebellion.” A measure
was passed facilitating the settlement of Halifax, now
the flourishing capital of Nova Scotia. A clause was
added to the annual Mutiny Act subjecting all half-pay
officers and soldiers at home to martial law. This was
violently opposed by some as an interference with
constitutional freedom. A similar clause for naval
officers was introduced into the Marine Mutiny Bill, but
Pelham gave way upon this, and it was withdrawn, thus
leaving an “anomalous disparity between the two
branches of public defence.” Pelham, who manifested
conspicuous ability as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
carried a scheme by which the interest on the National
Debt was reduced to 3 per cent. ; and soon after the
fourteen different kinds of stocks were consolidated into
five.
WOL. II. 18
CHAP sº I I.
George I.
and
George II.
Treaty of
Aliaſ-la-
Chapelle,
Miscel-
laneous
legisla-
tion.
274
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Lan's
against
ovrecking.
Death of
the Prince
of Wales,
The
Calenda?"
reformed.
A serious evil, which had long been felt throughout
the whole of our coasts, was grappled with in the session
of 1749. This was the plunder of shipwrecked sailors,
who were often lured by false signals upon the rocks.
By the middle of the eighteenth century the crime had
increased to an enormous degree. A law had been
passed to check it in the reign of Queen Anne, and this
had been made perpetual under George I. It was
declared to be felony, without the benefit of clergy, to do
any act by which a ship was destroyed. The authorities
in every seaport town were authorised to take preventive
measures, and the act was ordered to be read four times
yearly in all the parish churches and chapels of the
various seaport towns in the kingdom. The legislation
proved utterly inadequate, however; and the Government
of Pelham now carried a bill making the plunder of a
shipwrecked or distressed vessel a capital offence.
Frederick, Prince of Wales, having died on March
20th, 1751, and the heir apparent being a boy of twelve,
a Regency Act became necessary. One was accordingly
passed, appointing the Princess of Wales regent in the
event of the death of George II. before the young Prince
was eighteen years old. She was to be assisted by a
council of regency nominated in the Act, to which the
King was empowered to add four others. The bill
passed the Lords with only two dissentients, Stanhope
and Talbot; but in the Commons there was a minority
Of 90. .
The chief measure of the session of 1751 was that for
the reformation of the Calendar. The scheme was
drawn up by Chesterfield, in concert with Lord Maccles-
field and Bradley the astronomer. It was proposed by
the new style—which had already been in vogue for
nearly two centuries in Roman Catholic countries—that
the legal year should commence in future on January 1st
instead of March 25th, and that eleven nominal days
should be suppressed between September 2nd and 14th.
The old quarter-days for government purposes, however,
were to be retained. The bill passed, but so great was
XI.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
275
the ignorance of a number of the people that they
imagined they had really been robbed of the time
suppressed, and they raised a cry of “Give us back our
eleven days ” --
The House of Commons manifested a tyrannical spirit
in the session of 1751 in a case arising out of a disputed
election for Westminster. In the course of his examina-
tion at the bar of the House, the High Bailiff of West-
minster denounced, as one of the persons who had
obstructed and insulted him in the discharge of his duty,
the Hon. Alexander Murray, brother of the noted Jacobite
Lord Elibank. Witnesses were summoned, but the ac-
cusation was badly supported. Nevertheless the House
voted that Murray should be confined a close prisoner in
Newgate, and should receive his sentence on his knees.
The accused rebelled against this indignity, and said,
“Sir, I never kneel but to God. When I have committed
a crime I kneel to God for pardon, but, knowing my own
innocence, I can kneel to no one else.” Members were
horrified at this insubordination, and Speaker Onslow
exclaimed in deep displeasure, “On your knees, sir! You
must kneel down.” Some went so far as to suggest that
Murray should be confined in the dungeon of the Tower
known as “Little Ease,” so called because the prisoner
could neither stand upright nor lie at length in it. Pel-
ham, to his honour, prevented this, and Murray was sent
to Newgate, but under the closest restrictions, being
debarred from the use of pen, ink, and paper, the attend-
ance of his servant, or the visits of his friends. On being
set free at the close of the session, according to custom,
he was made the hero of a triumphal procession through
the City. But on the first day of the next session he
was again committed. It was found that he had retired
to the Continent, and a reward of £500 was offered for
his apprehension, but nothing further was done in the
matter. The public conscience was roused by Murray's
firmness and sufferings, and this case eventually led to the
Suppression of a custom more honoured in the breach than
in the observance. By a standing order of the House of
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
*
Aleaxander .
Murray
'resists the
Commons.
276
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
Curious
Parlia-
'mentary
privileges.
The Jews.
Commons made in 1772, the practice of compelling a
delinquent to receive the orders of the House upon his
knees was abolished." -
While the House of Commons was thus severe upon
offenders, it was also most tenacious of the privileges of
its own members. The journals of the House during the
reign of George II. show that on one occasion it was
voted a breach of privilege to have “killed a great
number of rabbits from the warren of Lord Galway.”
The fish of a member named Jolliffe were honoured with
a like protection, as were the trees of Mr. Hungerford,
the coals of Mr. Ward, and the lead of Sir Robert Gros-
venor. The footman of one member and the porter of
another were “held to be as sacred and inviolable as the
persons of the members themselves.” Other peculiarities
of privilege have been noted in the course of this work.
In the session of 1753 the Government introduced the
Jews’ Naturalisation Bill, which extended the privilege
without making it universal. Even this concession was
vehemently opposed, however, one of the grounds advanced
being that it would deluge the kingdom with usurers,
brokers, and beggars, and rob the lower classes of their
birthright by undue competition with labour. It became
law, but such was the agitation set on foot against the
Jews throughout the country that in 1754 the Government,
in obedience to the panic, were compelled to repeal the act.
1 Parliamentary Debates and Hatsell’s Precedents. There had
been one notable case before Murray's where an offender also stoutly
resisted the ignoble order of receiving sentence on his knees. It oc-
curred in the Long Parliament, the delinquent being David Jenkins,
a Welsh judge. He addressed the House in very bold language.
“Mr. Speaker,” he said, “since you and this House have renounced
all your duty and allegiance to your sovereign and natural liege
lord the King and are become a den of thieves, should I bow my-
self in this house of Rimmon, the Lord would not pardon me in
this thing.” The House was furious, ten or twenty members rising
together in the uproar. Jenkins was voted guilty of treason with-
out trial, and sentenced to die ; but Harry Martin saved his life
by good-humouredly moving that the House suspend the day of
execution.
xi. GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
277
Another important measure of the session of 1753 was
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act. The object was to
prevent clandestine marriages. The bill provided that,
with the exception of Jewish and Quaker marriages, no
marriage should be valid unless performed according to
certain formalities by a clergyman of the Church of
England, and after the publication of banns or the
granting of a special license by the archbishop. Any
clergyman breaking these restrictions was liable to trans-
portation for seven years. No doubt there were crying
evils which required a remedy, including the Fleet
marriages, which were a scandal to religion and a con-
stant danger to families ; but the bill was a great
grievance to Nonconformists. Although the bill was
framed by the Lord Chancellor, it was severely attacked
by his Ministerial colleague Fox, who had himself formed
a clandestine marriage with Lady Caroline Lennox,
daughter of the Duke of Richmond. It was also in
attacking this bill that Charles Townshend, member for
Yarmouth, first made a considerable mark as a debater.
Fox declaimed strongly against the jargon and chicanery
of lawyers, but afterwards strove to soften his expressions.
When the bill returned to the Lords, however, Hardwicke
delivered a bitter philippic against Fox. “For my part,”
he said, “I despise the invective, I despise the apology,
and I reject the adulation l’” The bill passed after
heated debates and recriminations.
The British Museum was founded in 1753 by the
purchase for £20,000 of the collection of treasures left
by Sir Hans Sloane. One home was now provided for
three valuable accumulations—viz., the Cottonian, the
Harleian, and the Sloane collections. A suitable reposi-
tory was found for them in Montagu House, and the
necessary amounts required were raised by lotteries under
an act of Parliament.
CHAP. II,
George I.
and
George II.
The
Marriage
Act.
The
British
Museum.
Pelham, the able financier and industrious man of £eºth of
affairs, died on March 6th, 1754. When George II.
heard of his death he exclaimed, “Now I shall have no
more peace l’ and the ejaculation proved prophetic.
Pelham.
278 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
4.
CHAP. II. The incompetent Duke of Newcastle assumed the govern-
de; I ment ; and although his Ministry was not quite so
George II, rich in dukes as the “Broad-bottom Administration,”
T which contained no fewer than seven members of the
highest order of the peerage, it was yet very largely
aristocratic. Sir Thomas Robinson was made Secretary
of State, and inefficiently led the House of Commons in
the first session of the new Parliament, which met in
November, 1754. Pitt exclaimed to Fox, “The Duke
might as well send his jack-boot to lead us!” During
this year the French formed the settlement of Fort
Duquesne, on the Ohio, and war followed between the
English and French colonists. Subsidy treaties were
also at this time entered into by England with Hesse and
Russia, and Pitt was offered a seat in the Cabinet, and
other advantages, if he would support them ; but as he
resolutely declined, he was dismissed from his post of
Paymaster of the Forces. Robinson was shelved on a
good pension, and Fox became Secretary of State, with
the lead of the House of Commons.
Treaty When Parliament met in November, 1755, the treaties
*** with Russia and Hesse were the principal features of the
King's speech and the addresses. In the Lords, Earls
Temple and Halifax declaimed against the treaties, but
there was no division. The debate in the Commons was
one of the longest yet on record. It was on this occasion
“Single that William Gerard Hamilton, member for Petersfield,
}. delivered the famous oration which procured for him the
tom.” name of “Single Speech Hamilton.” Although he spoke
for the first time, his speech was perfection, full of
antithesis and of argument ; indeed, it was the best-
reasoned speech of the day. The young Orator, content
with his fame, made no other speeches in the House of
Commons, but shortly afterwards retired upon a lucrative
office in Ireland. Hamilton was one of the numerous
reputed authors of Junius.
Pomerful Pitt delivered a fine speech during the debate. He
#" ” was “haughty, defiant, conscious of recent injury and
of supreme abilities.” “He surpassed himself,” wrote
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II. 279
Horace Walpole, “and then I need not tell you that he CHAP. II.
surpassed Cicero and Demosthenes.” Unfortunately, ge; I.
reports of the best speeches at this time are of the most George II.
meagre and defective description. One celebrated passage
of Pitt's oration, however, has survived, descriptive of
the coalition between Newcastle and Fox. “It strikes
me now !” exclaimed Pitt, suddenly raising his hand to
his forehead. “I remember that at Lyons I was taken
to see the conflux of the Rhone and Saone, the one a
gentle, feeble, languid stream, and though languid, of
no depth, the other a boisterous and impetuous torrent;
but different as they are, they meet at last ; and long,”
he added, with bitter sarcasm—applying the allusion to
Newcastle and Fox—“long may they continue united,
to the comfort of each other, and to the glory, honour,
and security of this nation " " If Ministers could not
lay claim to the eloquence they could to the votes, and
the Address was carried by 311 to 105. A few days
later Pitt, Legge, and George Grenville were dismissed
from their places. Sir George Lyttelton was made
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Barrington
Secretary-at-War.
In 1756 England made an alliance with Prussia, and The Seven
war was declared between England and France, India and *
º - º (Z7".
America being the double theatre of operations. The
Seven Years' War began in Europe, the conflict being
caused by the alarm entertained by the Continental
Powers at the aggressive designs of Frederick the Great
and by the desire of Maria. Theresa to recover the province
of Silesia from the King of Prussia. -
While these great events were in their inception, a Mr. Soore.
Ministerial crisis occurred in England. Newcastle, being tary Pitt.
deserted by Fox, and unable to make terms with Murray
(soon to be created Lord Chief Justice Mansfield),
Egmont, and Granville, resigned office. The Duke of
Devonshire became nominal Prime Minister, with Pitt as
Secretary of State and possessing the real power. -
On the opening of the session of 1757, Parliament Parlia.
© - e -- º f is te ſº nºt i. -
passed a series of resolutions prohibiting for a limited #"
280 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. II. time the export of grain, flour, and biscuit; fifty-five
George I, thousand men were granted for the sea service, and forty-
ge:Il five thousand for the land; a bill was passed for re-
T modelling the national militia; and a sum of £200,000
was granted for the defence of his Majesty’s electoral
dominions.
Admiral The case of Admiral Byng caused great excitement at
Iłyng. this time. Owing to his pusillanimous conduct, Minorca
was captured by the French. There was no imputation on
Byng's personal courage, but he had failed in fully acting
up to his responsibility. He was condemned by court-
martial, and the populace clamoured for his death. Pitt
exerted himself to the utmost to save him, but in vain,
and on March 14th he was shot on the quarter-deck
of the Monarque in Portsmouth harbour.
England The King was still very inimical to Pitt, and dismissed
º * that statesman on April 9th. Devonshire fell with him.
7,677t. The Duke of Newcastle now endeavoured in vain to form
a Ministry without Pitt; and for nearly three months the
extraordinary spectacle was witnessed of England without
a Government, and with a great war in prospect. At last
Pitt the King was compelled to give way and to receive Pitt.
*eturns. The Ministry was re-constituted with the Duke of New-
castle as First Lord of the Treasury, Legge as Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Pitt and Holderness as Secretaries of
State, Granville as Lord President, Temple as Lord Privy
Seal, and George Grenville as Treasurer of the Navy.
Pitt was the real head of the Government ; and, by the
strange irony of fate, his rival Fox, who had led the
House of Commons, accepted the inferior office of Pay-
master of the Forces, without a seat in the Cabinet.
Conven- In 1758 a new convention was concluded with Prussia,
jº by which England agreed to pay to that Power yearly
7"?/SS70. e -
a subsidy of £670,000. The House of Commons voted
the money with scarcely a dissentient voice, as it did the
supplies generally, amounting to upwards of £10,000,000.
Great Pitt now prosecuted the various wars in which Eng-
%."º land was engaged with great vigour. In 1757 the
Ena-
º tg successes of Clive in India had somewhat atoned for the
xi.] GEORGE I. AND GEORGE II.
281
disasters in Germany; in 1758 there were neither great
victories nor great defeats to record; but the year 1759,
which was one of the most glorious in our history viewed
from the standpoint of foreign affairs, made amends for
all. In Europe, Africa, Asia, and America extraordinary
successes were recorded. The victories by land and sea
culminated with the naval victories at Lagos and off
Quiberon Bay, and the capture of Quebec under General
Wolfe, which ensured the conquest of Canada.
These brilliant successes gave Pitt an extraordinary
influence in Parliament and with the whole nation, and
he enjoyed a prestige hitherto unparalleled in the career
of any English statesman. He was spoken of as “the
Great Commoner,” and his will and that of Parliament
might be said to have become synonymous terms.
In the midst of this period of triumph, however,
George II. died, on October 25th, 1760, and it was felt
that new political developments must immediately follow.
These will be detailed in the ensuing chapter. Person-
ally, George II. had “scarcely one kingly quality, except
personal courage and justice.” But his private failings
must not blind us to the fact that as a sovereign he made
no attempt to invade the rights of the nation or unduly to
assert the prerogatives of the Crown. As Lord Stanhope
has remarked, his reign, which was illumined towards
its close by the glories of Wolfe and of Chatham, “left
the dynasty secure, the Constitution unimpaired, and the
people prosperous.”
CHAP. II.
George I.
and
George II.
“ The
Great
Com-
moner.”
Death of
the King.
282
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
Accession
of George
III.
Lord
JBute.
CHAPTER III.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
GEORGE III., the son of Frederick Prince of Wales, and
grandson of George II., was twenty-two years old when
he began that reign which proved to be the longest and
most eventful in our annals. He was born on June 4th,
1738, and married in 1761 the Princess Charlotte Sophia
of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
The young King was greatly under the influence of his
father's friend, John Stuart, Earl of Bute, a man of
haughty carriage and unconciliatory manners. As soon
as the reign began, Bute endeavoured to make a figure
in the political sphere, although he had hitherto shown no
special aptitude or ability for the career of a statesman.
Only two days after his accession George III. directed
that his brother Edward, Duke of York, and his Groom
of the Stole, Lord Bute, should be sworn of the Privy
Council ; and from this time forward the latter was con-
sulted on all the principal affairs of state. One of the
first acts of the King was to issue a proclamation “for
the encouragement of piety and virtue, and for the
prevention and punishment of vice, profaneness, and
immorality.” Whatever faults George III. possessed—
and he was undoubtedly not without them—this pro-
clamation only set forth the earnest efforts of his own life
for upwards of half a century after its issue.
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
283
In opening Parliament in November, 1760, the King said
that he gloried in the name of Briton, and that it would
be his peculiar happiness to promote the welfare of his
people—expressions which were welcomed with the live-
liest satisfaction by the Lords and Commons. Supplies
amounting to nearly £20,000,000 were promptly voted,
and the Civil List for the new reign was fixed at £800,000
per annum, the King surrendering the branches of his
hereditary revenue.
In the following March Speaker Onslow retired, after
a long and honourable service of thirty-three years. “He
had filled the chair with higher merit probably than
any one either before or after him—with unequalled im-
partiality, dignity, and courtesy.” In taking leave of
the House of Commons, he said, “It is, I confess, with
regret, because the being within these walls has ever been
the chief pleasure of my life.”
The party names of Tory and Whig were revived, the
former being used to denote those who supported Bute's
policy or person, and the latter to designate his oppo-
nents generally. There were cabals and intrigues on
both sides, but Bute's influence was already in the
ascendant, and on March 25th, 1761, he was ap-
pointed joint Secretary of State with Pitt, in the place of
Lord Holderness.
The elections took place during March and April, and,
although there was no great political struggle involved,
they were the most venal elections which had yet been
held. The sale of boroughs to any wide extent, as Hallam
has remarked, may be dated from this period ; and one
borough, that of Sudbury, actually advertised publicly
for a buyer. The penalties of bribery were evaded by a
simulated sale of trifling articles at exorbitant prices.
What is known as the Family Compact was made in
1761 between France and Spain, its object being to
associate the latter Power with France in the Seven
Years' War. Pitt earnestly entreated the Cabinet to
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Georº, III.
The King's
1 Stanhope's History of England.
first
Speech.
Speaker
Omslomy.
Political
parties.
The
Elections.
Resigna-
tion of
Pitt.
284
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
The men;
Parlia-
'ment.
Pitt and
Sackville.
Pute
becomes
Prime
Minister,
declare war against Spain, but only one of his colleagues
—his kinsman Lord Temple—supported him, and Pitt
consequently resigned on October 5th. He deprecated
the idea of any promotion or reward for himself,
but accepted a peerage for his wife, who was created
Baroness Chatham. A pension of £3,000 was also
granted to Pitt for three lives. Early in the following
year the Government were obliged to go to war with Spain,
as Pitt had besought them, thus justifying his policy.
The new Parliament met on November 3rd, 1761.
George Grenville, younger brother of Lord Temple and
Treasurer of the Navy, had been indicated for Speaker;
but he was destined for high political office, so the choice
of the Commons fell upon Sir John Cust, member for
Grantham and founder of the Brownlow family. During
the debates on the Address Pitt defended his recent
policy with force and moderation, but he was severely
attacked by one Colonel Isaac Barré, to whom Lord
Shelburne had just given up his seat for Chipping
Wycombe. Barré, of whom more will be heard at a
later period, described Pitt as “a profligate Minister,”
and one likely to incur “the execration of the people.”
Pitt, however, took little notice of his philippics. Parlia-
ment passed an act securing to Queen Charlotte a yearly
income of £100,000 in case she should survive her
husband.
In the session of 1762 Lord George Sackville, who
had been cashiered for his conduct in the German war,
now turned his attention to political matters. He com-
plained of the expenses of the war, and made some
insinuations against Pitt. The latter replied, “If he
means there has not been fair play with the money, I
know nothing of it.” Then stretching out his hand
dramatically, and moving his fingers to and fro, he
exclaimed, “They are clean ; there is none of it sticks
to them | *
In June the Duke of Newcastle resigned the Premier-
ship, nominally because Bute refused to continue the
subsidy to Prussia, but really because he was never
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 285
consulted either in matters of policy or of patronage. CHAP. III.
Newcastle was little of a statesman, though he was very The eign
fond of power; but he set an example to many men more George III.
distinguished than himself on leaving office. Although
his own income had fallen from £25,000 to £6,000 a
year, he refused a pension. On the fall of Newcastle
Bute was supreme. He became Prime Minister, with
George Grenville Secretary of State in his stead, and Sir
Francis Dashwood Chancellor of the Exchequer. Bute
also received the Garter ; but in a very short time a
storm of popular indignation began to gather round
his head. -
The session of 1762 was not fruitless in a domestic Bribery
sense, for it witnessed the passing of a Bribery Act. Act.
Previous attempts to grapple with the evils of corruption
had proved futile, and now provision was made for in-
flicting pecuniary penalties for bribery. This, however,
was by no means the last legislative effort required to
check a degrading practice.
Preliminaries of peace were signed at Fontainebleau in The ...,
November. Several prominent peers who disapproved ºr.
of this step were vindictively punished through the influ- tiveness.
ence of Bute. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton and
the Marquis of Rockingham were deprived of their lord-
lieutenancies ; and the Duke of Devonshire, who had
resigned the post of Lord Chamberlain, was struck off
the list of the Privy Council. Bute even carried his
animosity down to the inferior officials who had been
promoted by the late Administration. Pitt fiercely
assailed the Peace in the Commons, in a speech of three
hours’ and a half duration ; but Fox, who had now re-
ceived a seat in the Cabinet, secured the great majority
for the Government of 319 to 65. The Treaty of Paris Treaty of
was formally concluded on February 10th, 1763. ſº
The contracting Powers were England, France, Spain, sº
and Portugal; and by this instrument England retained
her conquests in America, including Canada, and gained
considerable advantages in the West Indies. Pondicherry,
in the East Indies, was restored unfortified. The Treaty
286 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III of Hubertsburg was also concluded in 1763, between
The eign Maria Theresa and Frederick. By this treaty, which
George III. closed the Seven Years’ War, Frederick retained Silesia.
Financial Bute's colleagues in the Commons had little ease.
* Fox was treated with such scant courtesy that he longed
for rest and a peerage; while Dashwood—who is remem-
bered rather for the orgies of Medmenham Abbey than
for his merits as a Chancellor–brought in a Budget
which did neither himself nor the Ministry any good.
Additional wine duties and a tax on cider were proposed.
The spectre of the exciseman was again raised. Pitt
inveighed against his intrusion into private dwellings,
“and quoted the proud old maxim that every English-
man's house was, or should be, his castle.” George
Grenville said if he (Pitt) objected to this particular tax
on cider, he was bound to tell them where else he would
have taxes laid. “Let him tell me where !” he kept on
exclaiming in a peevish and monotonous tone, until Pitt,
“Gentle imitating his voice and action, ejaculated, “Gentle shep-
; herd, tell me where !” The nickname of “the Gentle
Shepherd,” thus happily applied to Grenville, afterwards
clung to him the more because of the sharp contrast
between his starched and peculiar mien and anything
& that was pastoral either in poetry or character. The
#. Cider Cider Bill was carried, although it was unpopular; and it
o was in connection with this measure that the Lords first
divided on a money bill. -
The King's Meantime the King’s personal views of government
:g and Bute's conduct in the management of affairs were
726/27. having an injurious effect. George III. believed in govern-
ment by the sovereign. He “regarded with settled
jealousy the power of his Ministers as an encroachment
on his own, and resolved to break it down.”.” He was
ambitious, and delighted in the exercise of power. One
of his first objects had been to “loosen the ties of party
and break down the confederacy of the great Whig
* Constitutional History of England (1760–1860), by Sir Thomas
Erskine May (Lord Farnborough). -
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 287
families.” His Ministers found themselves opposed and CHAP. III.
thwarted by an “influence behind the throne,” and for a The Heign
time this unconstitutional policy prospered. But the George III.
worst feature of a policy thus begun is that it must be `
maintained by an increasing severity towards opponents,
or it must collapse at once. The arbitrary conduct of
the King and Lord Bute was bound to lead to a reaction
sooner or later, and it resulted here even earlier than was
expected. Bute's unconstitutional dismissal of placemen Bute's
for their votes in Parliament, and his oppressive measures *m.
generally, soon made him the most unpopular man in larity.
the kingdom. He was hissed and pelted at the opening
of Parliament in November, 1762, and in various parts of
the country was burnt in effigy, with humiliating allu-
sions to his supposed intimate relations with the Dowager
Princess of Wales. Bute was not so bad a man as he
has sometimes been represented, but his evil system of
personal as opposed to constitutional government led
even to his faults being exaggerated. Then, too, the
people of England have always hated the very name of
favourite.
Alarmed by the popular hostility, and fearful of His resig-
damaging his master's cause by remaining longer in 7tation.
office, Bute suddenly resigned on April 7th, 1763.
With him retired Dashwood and Fox, the latter being
created Lord Holland. George Grenville became First
Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and Lords Halifax and Egremont Secretaries of State.
But the ex-Premier still retained his influence. As Lord
Chesterfield remarked, “the public still looked at Lord
Bute through the curtain, which indeed was a very trans-
parent one.” Fox, who had incurred an unpopularity
second only to that of Bute in intensity, now retired into
private life. The three new principal Ministers—Gren-
ville, Halifax, and Egremont—were known as the
Triumvirate. ve
The two chief acts of the Grenville Ministry—both of The .
which proved to be inglorious—were the expulsion of #:
John Wilkes from the House of Commons and the
288
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
John.
JWilkes.
His
arrest a.º.d
Telease.
Further
prosecu-
tion.
Parliamentary taxation of the American colonies. The
first of these now demands our attention. Wilkes, who
was the son of Israel Wilkes, a rich distiller, was born
on October 17th, 1727. He married early a rich heiress,
whom he treated with great cruelty and neglect. He was
of a very vicious disposition, and was one of the Medmen-
ham band, and he became conspicuous for the brilliancy
of his wit and his reckless debauchery. Strange that
such a man should have been the central figure in one of
the most important constitutional struggles ever witnessed
in Parliament. After an unsuccessful attempt to enter
the House of Commons for Berwick, he bought himself a
seat at Aylesbury in 1757, and five years later started his
periodical, the North Briton, with Churchill’s help. By
his constant attacks upon the Ministry, Wilkes fanned
the popular indignation against Bute. At length, on
April 23rd, 1763, appeared “Number 45,” which severely
attacked the royal speech at the close of the late session.
Grenville caused Wilkes to be arrested on a general
warrant—that is, a warrant in which no name is
inserted, but under which the officers may arrest whom
they suspect. After being examined before Lords Halifax
and Egremont (the Secretaries of State), he was com-
mitted to the Tower. Moving for a writ of habeas
corpus, however, he was taken before Chief Justice
Pratt, who ordered his release in virtue of his privilege
as a member of Parliament. Upon this he retired to
Paris for a time.
When Parliament met in November, Lord Sandwich
drew the attention of the peers to Wilkes's scandalous
and obscene Essay on Woman. To this parody of
Pope's Essay on Man, which Wilkes attributed to
Lord Sandwich himself, some burlesque notes were
appended in the name of that unfortunate commentator
Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester. Offensive passages
were read, until Lord Lyttelton, with a groan, implored
that they might hear no more ; and Bishop Warburton
exclaimed that the blackest fiends in hell would disdain
to keep company with Wilkes, and then asked pardon of


;-- :. ~- -ſaen.
±！！---ãáĒĒ：
* Taeza：ſą=№ž，ãº
№zzº，
ºz：：:：:
±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±）,
ŹŹ№ºº，，，。2，
（Z，·，≤）■， ，ae
：№ta：ſº，…
• • • -awaea
ŹZ！！！！！?！！?！！?！！?！！?！！?！！?！affae• •
。
ſaeģā
ŹźŽĖã?????žģ
€$£，
§zźźț¢&#áź.
· ∞**）ź22：
■
·
~£，ſae
Źź
ſeº，
ſae±，±，±，±，±，±
- ，Źźğã
。、、、。
æ:：Daeae：
±，±，±，±,±,±22
ſae。、、2、3、。
£33%£&§§§
Ķī£§！??????¿?
º.
aeſºaº∞∞∞
¿??¿§§
≡
ſºț¢ć，2%%%∞
%∞%%%
،ſae∞∞∞
£%%%%%%
źÉ
2%%%%%%%%%%%
ź（ſººſ?，
ź
•3，84ſaeſºſae
· I I I ÇIſ)?[O G{{D {O NIXH
2.№E
№Ē
№~~--~±，±，±），
Q
§
º
&
§
§
º
º
ſº
º §§§
§§§ S$
º
&
&
MW
Ü
§
W
CŞ
§
§
y
M
( /////
//, / f/ // // o
*
// .
A/
2 / .
% /7 Z / , ,
w
/
/.
- 2/
r

xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
289
Satan for comparing them together On the motion
of Sandwich—who, singularly enough, had been a part-
ner in nearly all Wilkes's vices—the Lords ordered a
prosecution of Wilkes. When Pitt was told that the
Government had been ransacking Wilkes's desk in
search of libels, he indignantly replied, “Why do
they not search the Bishop of Gloucester's study for
heresy 2 °
In the Commons Grenville acquainted the House with
the imprisonment of one of their members during the
recess, whereupon Wilkes stood up in his place and
complained of that imprisonment as a breach of privi-
lege. The deposition of two printers was read confessing
Wilkes to be the author of the famous “Number 45.” ;
and Lord North and the Attorney-General pressed for
vigorous measures. Pitt, while acknowledging the guilt
of the libel and the libeller, desired to distinguish
between the criminal act and the illegal prosecution.
But a resolution was passed declaring “Number 45.” to
be “a false, scandalous, and seditious libel,” and it was
ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. A
further resolution declared that privilege of Parliament
did not extend to the case of writing and publishing
seditious libels. Wilkes was ordered to attend in his
place, but he had been sorely wounded in a duel, and
wrote from Paris that he could not attend, enclosing
medical certificates. However, the matter was pressed
to an issue in his absence, and after stormy debates and
divisions on collateral points, he was expelled the House
by a unanimous vote. Wilkes brought an action for
damages against the Under-Secretary of State for
illegal imprisonment, and obtained a verdict for £1,000;
but with regard to the prosecution of Wilkes for his
Essay on Woman, the defendant chose to absent him-
self from England, knowing that the judgment of the
Court of King’s Bench would be against him. He was
accordingly tried and outlawed in his absence, and he now
remained abroad for four years. Great riots ensued
in favour of Wilkes, who was regarded as a persecuted
VOL. II. 19
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Wilkes
eapelled
the House.
290
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
A treatise
on pre-
zogative.
Minis-
teria?
changes.
General
Qva/Praſmts.
The
American
Colonies.
man. The next act in the Wilkes drama will shortly be
described. -
The discussions on Wilkes's case had scarcely ended,
when Lord Lyttelton drew the attention of the peers to
a treatise entitled Droit le Roi, which in spirit was at
the opposite pole to Wilkes's writings. It was a high
prerogative treatise, upholding the Divine right of the
sovereign, and its arguments were too monstrous to be
defended by any one. It was accordingly ordered by both
Houses to be burned by the hands of the common hang-
Iſlall.
Important changes occurred in the Ministry in Septem-
ber. On the death of Lord Egremont in August, over-
tures had been made to Pitt by the King, but these fell
through. The Duke of Bedford was now consulted, and
after considerable pressure he consented to take office
as President of the Council, and Lord Sandwich was
appointed Secretary of State. Upon this coalition
between Grenville and Bedford the Government became
known as the Bedford-Grenville Ministry.
A spirited debate took place in the Commons on the
subject of general warrants. To say the least, these
warrants were of questionable legality ; and, in the case
of Wilkes, Chief Justice Pratt had distinctly pronounced
this form of warrant to be illegal. Pitt now took this
view, but justified the general warrants issued by his own
administration on the ground of national necessity in time
of war. Charles Townshend eloquently condemned the
warrants, as did Colonel Barré, who had just been dis-
missed from his military posts for his independent votes
in Parliament. The Government managed to defeat the
resolution declaring general warrants illegal, but only by
a majority of fourteen.
In 1764 the Government initiated a disastrous policy
towards the American colonies, which ultimately resulted
in the loss of the colonies to Great Britain. There had
been friction on questions of trade before this, and the
navigation laws also pressed heavily upon the Americans,
but it was the attempt to tax America without her own
LETTER FRom John wil-KEs, written IN 1764, ABOUT His conduct in PARLIAMENT
%2, Aze º ż
*** %
92, º,



xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
291
consent which led first to estrangement and finally to
separation. An idea which Walpole had rejected as dan-
gerous was taken up by Grenville. The latter statesman
thought that North America Ought to bear a portion of
the burden of the late war ; and so, without consulting
the wishes of the colonists or considering the spirit of
the statute book, in the session of 1764 he imposed
customs duties on several articles of American trade.
He likewise gave notice of the imposition of the stamp
duties, but postponed the introduction of the measure for
a year. However, early in the session of 1765 he brought
forward the bill known as the Stamp Act, by which
nearly the same duties were laid on America as were
already established in England. The total amount to
be obtained was small—less than £100,000 a year—and
the King could have obtained far more by appealing for
voluntary grants. But the colonists refused to be coerced,
and took their stand on the broad principle that, as men
of British blood and with British rights, they were not
liable to be taxed by the House of Commons unless they
were represented in that body. The bill imposing the
stamp duties passed through Parliament with little
difficulty.
The colonists, however, resisted the Act, and tumults
occurred at Boston and elsewhere. The discontent
became so universal that it was the all-absorbing topic
in the House of Commons when Parliament met in
January, 1766. One of the most striking and memorable
debates in our legislative history immediately ensued.
Pitt, who had been absent from illness when the bill
was passed, now delivered a powerful speech against
it. He contended that taxation without representation
was illegal, and America had no kind of representation
in that House. Grenville, in answering Pitt, said that
America was almost in open rebellion, and he attri-
buted the seditious spirit of the colonies to the factions
in Parliament. Upon this Pitt sprang up again, and
poured forth a rushing torrent of eloquence. “Sir l’ he
exclaimed in one passage, “I rejoice that America has
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
Customs
duties
imposed.
The Stamp
Act.
Riots in
America.
Great
speech by
Pitt.
292
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
* …
The Stamp
Act re-
pealed.
The
Regency
Act.
resisted. Three millions of people so dead to all the
feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves
would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the
rest. I come not here armed at all points with law cases
and acts of Parliament, with the statute book doubled
down in dog's ears, to defend the cause of liberty. If I
had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester
and Durham. I would have cited them to show that
even under arbitrary reigns Parliaments were ashamed of
taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them
representatives.” The orator continued, “I know the
valour of your troops. I know the skill of your
officers. In a good cause on a sound bottom the force
of this country can crush America to atoms, but in
such a cause as this your success would be hazardous.
America, if she fell, would fall like the strong man. She
would embrace the pillars of the State and pull down the
Constitution along with her Is this your boasted peace—
not to sheathe the sword in its scabbard, but to sheathe it
in the bowels of your countrymen P” After stigmatising
the Stamp Act as a paltry mark of the narrow genius of
the Minister who brought it forward, he called for its
total and immediate repeal. At the same time he
would maintain the absolute right of England to make
laws for the colonies. Acting upon the suggestion of
Pitt, Ministers brought in two bills: one to repeal the
Stamp Act, the other asserting the supreme power of
Parliament over the colonies. After exciting debates
these measures were carried, as was also a further bill
repealing several of the obnoxious duties imposed in
1764 and modifying others. An act was passed on
behalf of the Spitalfields weavers restraining the import
of foreign silks.
Reverting now to Ministerial questions, upon therecovery
of George III. from the first symptoms of his mental
malady in 1765, it was found desirable to introduce a
Regency Bill. The King desired to have the power of
appointing any person he pleased as regent, intending, no
doubt, to appoint the Queen ; but Ministers were fearful
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
293
lest the Dowager Princess of Wales should be nominated,
and her favourite Bute thus become all-powerful. The
doubt whether the Queen was naturalised was set at rest
in the affirmative by the judges, but on the meaning of
the term “royal family’ being discussed Ministers held
that it did not include the Princess of Wales. Her name
was rejected by the Lords, and the King was persuaded
to consent to the introduction of a clause limiting his
choice to the Queen and the descendants of the late King,
on the ground that otherwise the Commons would exclude
the Princess by name. The Commons, however, by
an overwhelming majority, reinstated her name. The
Ring was deeply incensed against Grenville on account
of this duplicity, and the incident was one of the main
causes of the fall of the Bedford-Grenville Ministry.
The Regency Act nominated a council of regency, con-
sisting of the King's four brothers, his uncle the Duke
of Cumberland, and the great officers of state ; and the
King was empowered, in the event of the death of a
brother or of his uncle, to nominate another person in
his place.
Having various causes of complaint against Grenville,
in addition to the Regency Bill, the King appealed to ;
Pitt. That statesman, however, would not form or join
a Government without Lord Temple; and his lordship was
now pledged to Grenville, with whom he had effected a
reconciliation. The King was thus obliged to accept the
Marquis of Rockingham, the head of the Whig aristo-
cracy, as Premier, with General Conway as principal
Secretary of State and leader of the House of Commons.
The Duke of Grafton was the other Secretary, Dowdeswell
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Duke of Newcastle
Privy Seal, and Henley, Earl of Northington, Lord
Chancellor. Charles Townshend, Egmont, Howe, and
others also had places in the Ministry.
The Government repealed Lord Bute's unpopular cider
tax, to the great delight of the cider counties, and in the
same session of 1766 carried a resolution declaring general
warrants to be contrary to law.
CHAP. III
The Hºlga
GeOrge III.
The
Rocking-
&Q.7%
Ministry.
The Cider
Q93,
General
rvarrants.
294
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
This session was memorable in a personal sense,
The Heign inasmuch as the House of Commons listened for the last
O
George III.
Edmund
JBºrke.
Grafton
and Chat-
ham
Ministry.
time to the eloquence of Pitt and for the first time to
that of Edmund Burke. This distinguished man was
born at Dublin in 1728. He was educated at Trinity
College, but proceeded to London to study law at the
Middle Temple. This he abandoned for literature, and
in 1756 he published A Vindication of Natural Society,
and his famous Philosophical Inquiry into the Origin of
our Ideas on the Sublime and the Beautiful. When the
Annual Register began in 1759, Burke wrote for it a
survey of the chief events of the year. In 1761 he went
with “Single Speech" Hamilton to Ireland, but returned
to London in 1765, when Rockingham, the new Premier,
appointed him his secretary. In December, 1765, he
was returned to Parliament for Wendover, through the
influence of Lord Werney; and in the ensuing session he
delivered his maiden speech. This speech, which was
made during the debates on the American colonies, drew
forth a warm compliment from Pitt. Burke was a fine
and cultured orator, and his speeches as preserved far out-
shine in certain qualities all earlier or contemporaneous
ones ; yet to the end of his days he “never attained in
any degree that mastery over the House of Commons
which his great genius fully warranted.” "
The Rockingham Ministry was inherently weak; and it
fell in July, 1766. The King once more applied to Pitt,
and this time with success. But the Duke of Grafton
was made nominal Prime Minister, and Pitt, who now
accepted a peerage, and became Earl of Chatham, di-
rected the Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal. The Government,
which was a strong one, also included Charles Townshend
as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Northington as Lord
President, Camden as Lord Chancellor, and Conway and
Shelburne as Secretaries of State. “The great Commoner”
lost much of his popularity in the country on taking
an earldom. It was felt that he had been gained over
| Stanhope's History of England.
xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 295
by the Court. He was compared with Pulteney; and CHAP. III.
while his enemies rejoiced, his friends were stupefied and The eign
confounded. George III.
Chatham began the work of government vigorously, order in
and when tumults arose in September in consequence of *
the scarcity of corn, he issued his celebrated Order in
Council laying an embargo upon corn, thus keeping
in port several ships laden with grain or flour and pre-
paring to sail. Such an order was unprecedented in time
of peace. Although the times were critical, Chatham
did not expedite the meeting of Parliament by a day ;
and when the Houses assembled in November, the Order
in Council as well as the delay in calling Parliament
together were warmly assailed. In his first speech in
the Lords, Chatham defended the Order with eloquence,
and dignity, asserting the national necessity, while he
remarked that he desired to avoid needless alarm by not
altering the day for the meeting of Parliament. An Act
of Indemnity to Ministers was passed, and Chatham had
a sharp passage of arms with the Duke of Richmond,
who had called him “an insolent Minister.”
In the midst of party difficulties, and while conceiving Illness of
great schemes in connection with the East India Company, *
Chatham was seized with a mysterious malady, and could
take no part in public affairs. Grafton was now no longer
nominal, but real, Premier, and his colleagues in the Com-
mons became erratic in their action. Townshend, as
Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed the continuance
of the land tax at four shillings ; but the Opposition, by The Land
206 to 188 votes, reduced it to three shillings, thus strik- *.
ing off £500,000 from the Ways and Means of the current
year. On another occasion Townshend—of whom a
member said, “He is the orator; the rest are speakers”—
delivered a long and brilliant speech upon everything but
the topic he was supposed to be dealing with—India—
and his exordium was called the “champagne speech.”
A far more serious matter was the act which Townshend American
carried through for taxing American imports by various º
small customs duties, the total produce of which was
296
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
*-
The
Mutiny
Act.
The East
India,
Company.
Death of
Tomyn-
shend.
Lord
Moºth.
Nullum
Tempus
Act.
estimated at not more than £40,000. Had he been able,
Chatham would have prevented such legislation, but in
his absence Lord Camden and others could only protest.
The State of New York having presumed to set aside the
American Mutiny Act as fixed by Parliament, a measure
was passed prohibiting the Legislature of New York from
passing any other act for any purpose whatsoever until
the terms of the Mutiny Act had been complied with ;
and this measure had the desired effect. An act was
also passed maintaining the directors of the East India
Company in their position for two years, on payment of
£400,000 yearly towards the public service. Further
acts limited the exorbitant dividends of the company,
and curtailed the objectionable practice of creating ficti-
tious votes at the India House.
Townshend did not live to see the disastrous effects of
his American taxation scheme, for he died of a fever on
September 4th, 1767. This statesman possessed talents
equal to those of any man of his age, but his faults—
especially his vanity—were equally great, and prevented
him from taking that commanding position which he
might otherwise have claimed.
Lord North was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer
in Townshend's room, and other party combinations en-
sued in consequence of the retirement of Lord Northington
and General Conway. Lord North was the eldest son of
the first Earl of Guilford. He entered Parliament in
1754 as member for Banbury, and in 1759 was named a
Lord of the Treasury. In 1766 he was made joint Pay-
master of the Forces with George Cooke, which drew
from Burke the remark about official persons “pigging
together, head and points, in the same truckle-bed,” who
had never hitherto spoken to each other.
In the session of 1767-8—the last session of the
existing Parliament—Sir George Savile, one of the repre-
sentatives for Yorkshire, and a conspicuous member of the
Opposition, carried through a measure commonly known
as the Nullum Tempus Act. Its object was to secure the
property of a subject at any time after sixty years’ pos-
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 297
session from any dormant pretension of the Crown. This CHAP. III.
bill took its rise from certain transactions in Cumberland The eign
and Westmoreland. The Portland family enjoyed the George III.
Honour of Penrith by a grant from William III., and
they had also possessed for nearly seventy years the ad-
joining forest of Inglewood. But Sir James Lowther, a
wealthy landowner and son-in-law of the Earl of Bute,
acting on the ancient legal maxim that the rights of
Crown and Church are not lost by any lapse of time,
obtained a lease of the King’s interest in the forest of
Inglewood. This drew forth such a storm of popular
indignation that the Government were unable to resist
the passing of Savile's bill.
Parliament was dissolved on March 11th, 1768, and Bribery
the general election which ensued was one of the most #.
corrupt in our annals. The buying and selling of seats
was most open and notorious. Before the dissolution
the Corporation of Oxford offered again to return their
members, Sir Thomas Stapylton and Mr. Lee, on payment
of the city bond debts, amounting to £5,670. The mem-
bers laid the case before the House, and the mayor and
aldermen were committed to Newgate for five days, being
afterwards severely reprimanded by the Speaker at the
bar and on their knees. But so unblushingly was the
practice of bribery carried on that during their imprison-
ment these very offenders entered into negotiations for
the sale of their borough to the Duke of Marlborough and
the Earl of Abingdon. Lord Chesterfield offered £2,500
for a secure seat for his son, but was laughed at, the price
of boroughs having gone up to £4,000 or £5,000, in
consequence of the determination of rich East and West
Indians to enter Parliament. The celebrated George
Selwyn sold his borough of Ludgershall to two candidates
for £9,000. It is said that a contested election for the
borough of Northampton and a petition which followed,
cost Earl Spencer no less than £70,000. Some boroughs
commissioned attorneys to ply about the country as
jobbers. Shoreham earned an unenviable reputation for
venality. A number of men profanely calling themselves
298
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, the “Christian Club”—because they divided the sale
The Reign money in common—became too open and gross in their
Of -
George III. proceedings for the House of Commons to pass them
Dunning.
TWilkes.
over. The first election committee appointed under
Grenville's Act inquired into the case, and five persons
were prosecuted for a corrupt conspiracy. An Act of
Parliament was passed depriving all the members of the
Christian Club of their votes, and the franchise was
granted to all the forty-shilling freeholders of the Rape
of Bramber."
To this new Parliament of 1768 two remarkable men
were returned. The first of these, John Dunning, far
surpassed in ability every other accession to the House
of Commons at this time. Born of humble parentage at
Ashburton in 1731, he was called to the bar in 1756,
and speedily distanced all his competitors. In January,
1768, he was appointed Solicitor-General, and in the
following March was returned for Calne, through the in-
fluence of Lord Shelburne. Although he laboured under
many disadvantages as an orator, he created a great im-
pression by his wit, his invective, and his powers of
reasoning. Chatham and other excellent judges discerned
in him at once a new force in politics.
The other remarkable man returned at this election
was not so able as Dunning, but his name was already in
all men's mouths, and he was destined to be the main
subject of contention in the House of Commons for many
sessions. This was the popular demagogue John Wilkes,
whose previous Parliamentary career has already been
described. Proscribed as an outlaw, he had returned to
England, and offered himself as a candidate for the city
of London. He was rejected, but immediately appeared
as a candidate for Middlesex, and was returned by a large
majority. Although he had no other claims, his wrongs
made him the idol of the people, and the cry of “Wilkes
and liberty l’’ was everywhere heard, while London was
1 Parliamentary History, Walpole's Memoirs, Cavendish Debates,
and the House of Commons' Journals.
xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 299
illuminated in his honour. His outlawry was reversed CHAP. III.
by the Court of King's Bench, but on the original The ºn
charge Wilkes was ordered to pay a fine of £1,000 and George III.
to be imprisoned for twenty-two calendar months. Riots T
and disturbances in his favour now occurred. In November,
1768, Wilkes addressed a petition to the House of .
Commons, in which he claimed his privilege against
further imprisonment, but this was disallowed. He next
severely attacked Lord Weymouth, one of the Secretaries
of State, for his advice to the Surrey magistrates to call
in the military in the suppression of riots; and his letter
was voted an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel.
Wilkes might have been proceeded against by the Lords; ~
but, instead of this, the House of Commons foolishly
rushed into the fray, and resolutions for his expulsion
were moved, framed upon his various offences in the
past as well as his last seditious libel.
All his offences except one Wilkes was already ex- His
piating, and with regard to that one—the libel on Lord .4%.
Weymouth—he could have been prosecuted for it in the House.
courts of law. The House was evidently straining its
authority in proposing his expulsion for the old offences,
and many of the best constitutional authorities perceived
the mistake and condemned it. Burke, Beckford,
Dowdeswell, and George Grenville were unanimous on
this point; and Grenville, who had been the first Minister
to bring the House of Commons into collision with Wilkes,
now saw the futility of the impending struggle. He
demonstrated the injustice of the proposed punishment,
as well as its impolicy and danger. He predicted that
Wilkes would be re-elected, and that the House would
have but two alternatives, both objectionable: either to
expel him again, and suspend the issue of the writ for
the entire Parliament; or to declare another candidate,
with a minority of votes, to be elected, on the ground of
Wilkes's legal disqualification. In both cases the law
would be violated, and the rights of the electors invaded.
He warned the House of the dangerous contest upon
which it was entering, and prophesied that if the popular
300 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III, demagogue were relieved from his martyrdom and ad-
The Reign mitted to the Legislature, his power would be diminished,
Of tº e
George III, and his true character revealed. These views were
speedily justified by the course of events.
Expulsion The Court party were determined to crush an opponent
º who had defied and insulted them, and Wilkes was ex-
pelled by a large majority. He was immediately re-
elected for Middlesex, but on the next day (February 17th)
the House resolved, by 235 to 89, “That Mr. Wilkes,
having been in this session of Parliament expelled the
House, was, and is, incapable of being elected a member
to serve in this present Parliament.” The election was
declared void, and a new writ issued. Wilkes was again
re-elected without opposition, and again a new writ was
issued. But on this occasion he was opposed by Colonel
Luttrell. On April 13th Wilkes was elected for
Middlesex for the fourth time, the numbers being 1,143
for Wilkes and 296 for Luttrell. There were two other
candidates, Mr. Serjeant Whitaker and Mr. Roache, the
former of whom received five votes and the latter none.
The Commons pronounced the return of Wilkes to be
null and void, and having called for the poll-books,
seated Luttrell as the member by 197 to 143 votes.
Leave was given to petition the House against Colonel
Luttrell’s return, and the electors speedily availed them-
selves of the permission. They were heard by counsel at
the bar of the House, and their demands were ably sup-
ported by Wedderburn, Burke, and Grenville; but Colonel
Luttrell’s election was confirmed by a majority of 69.
peiates in Wilkes, whose popularity had now increased, was
Parlia- elected an alderman of the city of London, and a sub-
on 670t. scription was raised to pay his debts. The excluded
member proceeded to make strenuous efforts to procure a
reversal of the proceedings against him. On January 9th, ...
1770, Lord Chatham moved an amendment to the
Address in the Lords denouncing the late proceedings,
in the House of Commons as “refusing, by a resolution
of one branch of the Legislature, to the subject his common
right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 301
free choice of a representative.” Camden, the Lord CHAP. III.
Chancellor, denounced the arbitrary measures of the The Reign
Government, and affirmed that the incapacitating vote Georº III.
was “a direct attack upon the first principles of the Con-
stitution.” Lord Mansfield, however, argued that in
matters of election the Commons had a complete juris-
diction, without appeal; and that, except in discussing a
bill, the Lords could not inquire into the question without
violating the privileges of the other House. Chatham
replied with fire and energy. “What is this mysterious speech by
power,” he asked, “undefined by law, unknown to the C* /
subject, which we must not approach without awe nor
speak of without reverence, which no man may question,
and to which all men must submit P My lords, I thought
the slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long since
been exploded ; and when our kings were obliged to con-
fess that their title to the crown and the rule of their
government had no other foundation than the known
laws of the land, I never expected to hear a Divine
right or a Divine infallibility attributed to any other
branch of the Legislature.” The Commons had betrayed
their constituents and violated the Constitution by uniting
in the same persons the office of legislator and of judge.
Chatham's amendment was negatived, but the support of
the first statesman of the age gave weight to Wilkes's
Cause.
In the Commons Sir George Savile spoke so warmly Motions in
that he was threatened with the Tower ; but he repeated *
his language, and said he should never rest until the fatal º
vote was rescinded. Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also spoke and voted against the Government. On
January 25th Mr. Dowdeswell moved “That this House,
in its judicature in matters of election, is bound to judge
according to the law of the land and the known and
established law and custom of Parliament, which is part
thereof.” This motion embarrassed the Government ;
but Lord North cleverly rendered it innocuous by adding
the conclusion, “and that the judgment of this House was
agreeable to the said law of the land and fully authorised
302
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. by the law and custom of Parliament.” Some days
The eign later Mr. Dowdeswell again unsuccessfully raised the
George III. question. -
Fenewed
discus-
Sions.
i
\
money by Charles I. or the dispensing power assumed
by James II.” The petitioners prayed his Majesty to
In the Upper House, on February 2nd, Lord
Rockingham moved a resolution similar to that of Mr.
Dowdeswell. It was rejected, but it had the powerful
support of Chatham, and was followed by a protest signed
by forty-two peers. A resolution was then carried, on
the motion of Lord Marchmont, that to impeach a judg-
ment of the House of Commons would be a breach of
the constitutional right of that House. The next effort
originated in the Commons, when Mr. Herbert moved to
introduce a bill regulating the consequences of the expul-
sion of members. The bill was so altered, however, that
it was withdrawn. The city of London now voted an
address to the King, in which it was remarked, “The
majority of the House of Commons have deprived your
people of their dearest rights. They have done a deed
more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-
dissolve Parliament, and to remove his evil Ministers
for ever from his councils. In his reply the King stig-
matised the address as “disrespectful to himself, injurious
to Parliament, and irreconcilable with the principles of
the Constitution.” A joint address of both Houses to his
Majesty rebuked the City for its action. Lord Chatham
condemned the King's answer, and defended the right to
petition; but his motion for the dissolution of Parliament
was rejected. He next brought in a bill to reverse the
judgment of the Commons as arbitrary and illegal, but it
was lost by a large majority. In the following December
he brought forward another unsuccessful resolution. On
April 30th, 1771, the Duke of Richmond, in the
House of Lords, moved to expunge from the journals
of the House the resolution of February 2nd, 1770,
in which they had deprecated any interference with the
jurisdiction of the Commons as unconstitutional. If
such a resolution were permitted to remain on record, he
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 303
urged that the Commons might alter the whole law of CHAP. III.
elections and change the franchise by an arbitrary de- The eign
claration, while the Lords would be powerless to George III.
interfere. The question was negatived. Chatham made `
another vain attempt to force a dissolution. In the Lower
House, in the sessions of 1772 and 1773, Sir G. Savile
sought to bring in a bill to secure the rights of electors.
On the latter occasion he found 150 supporters, and
Burke predicted that “there would come a time when
those now in office would be reduced to their penitentials
for having turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people.”
In 1774 Sir G. Savile again failed to bring in his bill.
Parliament was dissolved in 1774, and Wilkes was once Wilkes at
more returned for Middlesex. As he was only incapaci- fººm,
tated from sitting in the late Parliament, he now took his ""
seat without molestation. He had this year also been
elected Lord Mayor of London. On February 22nd,
1775, Wilkes moved that the resolution by which the
Tſouse of Commons had declared his incapacity be ex-
punged from the journals, “as subversive of the rights
of the whole body of electors.” He was supported by
Glynn, Savile, and Wedderburn, and secured 171 votes.
He renewed his motion in 1776, 1777, 1779, and 1781.
At last, on May 3rd, 1782, he succeeded in his
object. Wilkes's motion was carried by 115 to 47 votes;
and, by order of the House, all the declarations, orders,
and resolutions respecting the Middlesex election were Rights of
expunged from the journals, as being subversive of the º
rights of the whole body of electors of the kingdom. İished.
After a prolonged struggle the House of Commons thus
confessed that it had exceeded its powers.
Collaterally with this dispute as to the rights of electors, Privilege.
Wilkes waged another constitutional battle with the
Commons. It arose out of the privileges of Parliament
with respect to the exclusion of strangers, and restraint
upon the publication of debates. The Parliament of Publica-
1768-74 was usually called the unreported Parliament, º.º.
because of the rigorous exclusion of strangers. The
Lords had first taken this stand, and excluded even
304
W. HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, members of the House of Commons, whereupon the
The Reign latter retaliated by the exclusion of peers from their
Of to º *
George III. own House, and this of course involved the exclusion of
The
Commons,
and the
City. '
the public. The open attempt to muzzle the press began
on February 8th, 1771, when Colonel George Onslow
made a complaint of the Gazetteer and Wen, Daily
Advertiser, printed for R. Thompson, and of the
Middlesea: Journal, printed by R. Wheble, “as misre-
presenting the speeches and reflecting on several of the
members of this House.” The printers were directed to
attend, but, as they kept out of the way, they were ordered
to be taken into custody. Meantime Colonel Onslow
made complaints against six other newspapers, including
the St. James’s Chronicle. This attack upon the printers
was strongly resisted by a determined minority, who by
the use of various Parliamentary forms forced no less
than twenty-three divisions—a number unprecedented.
Some of the printers attended the House, and were repri-
manded on their knees. But Wheble, who was still at
large, was collusively apprehended and taken before
Alderman Wilkes, who had encouraged the printers to
resist the authority of the House. Wheble was dis-
charged, and bound over to prosecute the person who
apprehended him for assault and false imprisonment.
Wilkes next wrote a letter to Lord Halifax, Secretary of
State, acquainting him that Wheble had been appre-
hended by a person who was neither a constable nor
peace officer of the City, and for no legal offence.
Miller, another of the printers, took his stand upon his
rights as a liveryman of London. The Serjeant-at-Arms
sent a messenger to arrest him, but the messenger him-
self was taken by a City constable and carried before
Brass Crosby, the Lord Mayor. His lordship, supported
by Aldermen Oliver and Wilkes, declared that to lay
hands upon a citizen within the precincts of the City, and
without the knowledge or authority of the City magis-
trates, was a flagrant violation of the City’s charters.
The magistrates therefore not only refused to give up
Miller, but held the messenger to bail for an assault—
; * —#:
sº + # = = = = <= *L, , . . **... . * * * #| . .
\ º *. | ū 3.- . \ -= # ==== =#| % & & * - # h 4.
twº- ={{=i-Eºſ º ºº::"...ºp in "|', 'l F.
\\ \; = - 1 Jº-W – = {{}ºſſº t º º: ſº *= |..} : := \\ |
\ºf Hººijär... - ||
AW \ W \ * - -:==|[= Bº §§ ºś. º #. |É) i º
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\#=#==ºğ= |###### ||
lº º Eliº |######| ||
- º i §WºWA\\\\\\;=. É º:3# gº ºf || Elº Hººi ji
gºtimiſºs = ÉE. -
A.º
º
#:---
|
-
|
É
===
º
iº-:
º§
i||§
||º
f !º:
t
º
º
º:
#E
E.
#
i
:
º
i. ń.
#ſº
º
y - º
| º r s'
J. º | , ſº † -:
% sº §§ §§ Yiği-fi
§ºº
º §º !.
º ti;
\ º {
§§§ §§ Wºjſºłºś.
t NS º º . i. º k
º §§
| | |
sº § § †
sº #ſº
- Elºğ. º # sº
#: ºft##
i =\; º
| } | … º | #
a -- §§ -
''NT: º
|| || || || | | # §§ § § º #=; §§ ſº
r i liº |. | } || ; : º : § º :* * º 's >. º & Sº º
º
ºğ.
|| || |&ºś
| º º | || || º| ſº § § §§ § §: º §
|||||| | ſº ºś
|||||||||||||||: | - ! ===º =º-
| | || r “. . . . . . — #º § § #=== - ºf i. wº º º
"º"||ºś sºgº; ºft
º ºś. ºf
|º
º | | | §§§ § }} º : ?: ºš | §§ tiº § 'i
ºft;
|||}| | §§§ § §º
| r | | iñº | - sº + § W §§ § º § º º t ..º. s_º
h || || || | | |''{} } %, Wi tºº...", ºº: | i
|
Jiříº .
\
&
§
º
- §§ § § t \º } flº
§§§
º y - º § § \º §§
V ºft
*ś
t; , , , . ºff ſºlº WW -
| * 2/ § º º N
º
* §§ §§§
f
WNº
{{ºs
a sº º
& ºt
ë
ſ
;
&
§
*
#
§
º
§§§HÉÉ
§ §§§ #EEE
&
St:




















































































































































































|}
~ *~~~~）** --★ →=== *~~~~ ~~~~*~~~~. - x_4____. - ~3,… „ … . .: :. ~~） s- ， ） ··... * * … ;） C;：º）* ·
----+--


xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 305
that is, the attempted arrest. On learning this, the CHAP. III.
House of Commons was moved to indignation. The The Heign
Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were members, George III.
were ordered to attend in their places, and Alderman TT
Wilkes to appear at the bar. Wilkes replied that he was
the lawfully elected representative of Middlesex, and he
refused to appear unless as a member in his place.
Three times he defied the House, and the order for his
attendance was at length allowed to drop. Alderman
Oliver, standing up in his place, said, “ Do what you
please ; I defy you”; and he was committed to the
Tower. Two days later it was proposed to commit Lord
Mayor Crosby to the milder custody of the Serjeant-at- Lord
Arms, but he declined any such favour, stating that what %.
he had done he should certainly do again under similar com. $/
circumstances, and he also was sent to the Tower. The *
popular feeling was all in favour of the aldermen, and
riots and tumults ensued. The Court of Common Council
approved the action of the aldermen, and, at the charge
of the City, writs of habeas corpus were sued, but Lord
Mansfield and Lord Chief Justice De Grey held that they
were bound to acknowledge the power of commitment by
the House of Commons, and the prisoners were sent back
to the Tower. On the expiration of the session—May 8th,
1771—the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver were released,
amid general rejoicings. The House of Commons wisely
forbore to renew the conflict in the following session,
and neither Miller nor any other printer of their debates
was again molested on the general plea of privilege.
The freedom of the press was practically established Freedom
from this time, and the wider that freedom has grown 3.*
the more beneficial on the whole has been its action. secured.
While these important matters were being discussed, Minis.
various Ministerial changes had occurred. In October, i.
1768, Lord Chatham left the Government on grounds of ties.
general ill-health. The Duke of Grafton proposed at a
Cabinet Council, held on May 1st, 1769, that Ministers
should bring in a bill for the complete repeal of the
import duties laid upon America, but he was defeated
WOL. II, 20
306 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. by one vote. If Chatham had remained in the Cabinet,
The Reign the separation from America might possibly have been
decºm averted. Camden, too, had ceased to attend the Cabinet
T Councils because of the American question and Wilkes's
affair. The Chancellor resigned in January, 1770, and
the Great Seal was given to Charles Yorke, who was to
be raised to the peerage under the title of Lord Morden.
But three days after his appointment as Chancellor, Yorke
died from injuries which were believed to be self-inflicted.
About the same time the Speaker, Sir John Cust, died,
and Sir Fletcher Norton was elected in his room.
Lord The Duke of Grafton, unable any longer to grapple
i.S with his difficulties or to face the vehement attacks of
... Lord Chatham, resigned the premiership. As Lord
Chatham was not able to come to an understanding
with the Bedford section of the Whigs, the King gave
the seals to Lord North, who now formed an administra-
tion that was to last for many years, and One that was
to prove very inglorious for Great Britain touching the
Government’s American policy. The Ministry included
Lord North as First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
of the Exchequer; Earl Gower as Lord President; the
Earl of Halifax as Privy Seal ; and Lords Sandwich,
Rochford, and Hillsborough as Secretaries of State.
Hawke was at the Admiralty, Barrington was Secre-
tary-at-War, and Rigby Paymaster. In 1771 Sandwich
became First Lord of the Admiralty, and Grafton became
Privy Seal. In 1778 Jenkinson joined the Government
as Secretary-at-War. The new Prime Minister once
boasted that there was not a single popular measure
he had ever voted for. It was the evil of the new
administration that its chief was thoroughly under the .
Character influence and direction of the King. But that he had gifts
%;" of character and even of intellect is proved from the long
contest which he waged with the foremost orators of the
time. He was unwieldy and ungraceful in person, and
an opponent once spoke of him as “that thing called a
Minister.” North, who, with all his faults, was high-
minded, good-humoured, and genial, replied that when he
xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
307
was called “a thing ” it was perfectly true ; but when his
antagonist added, “ that thing called a Minister,” he
simply called him that thing which of all things he him-
self wished most to be, and therefore he took it as a
compliment. Chatham attacked North as being under
the domination of Bute, and condemned the secret
CHAP. III.
The #eign
O
George III.
*
influence that was behind all public measures. “A
long train of these practices,” said the Earl, “has at
length unwillingly convinced me that there is something
behind the throne greater than the throne itself!”
In the session of 1770 George Grenville introduced
and carried the well-known Grenville Act, regulating the
trial of controverted elections. It provided for the elec-
tion of a committee, by a mixed system of ballot and
selection, for the adjudication of election petitions. The
committee was to consist of thirteen members, instead of
being, as before, a committee of the whole House. The
Act effected a considerable improvement in the practice of
the House, but it still left election questions within the area
of party politics, and, by allowing either party to strike out
a certain number of the names chosen by ballot, committed
the decision of these cases to the weakest men of both
sides. The Act was first passed for one year only, but it
was continued from time to time, and made perpetual
in 1774. -
The Government brought forward a measure in the
same session for repealing all the American import
duties except the tax upon tea. Burke, Barré, Conway,
and the Opposition generally urged the repeal of the
The
Grenville
Act.
The
Américan
Żmport
duties.
entire Act of 1767, but Ministers carried their scheme of .
partial repeal by 204 to 142 votes. In the autumn of
1770 the Government were freed, by the hand of death,
from two of their most formidable adversaries : Lord
Granby and George Grenville. Although the latter
was the author of the Stamp Act, his last public
utterance was to the effect that nothing would ever
induce him to tax America again but the united con-
sent of King, Lords, and Commons, supported by the
united voice of the people of England.
308
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Chatham.
on Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
“Junius.”
In a speech delivered in 1770 Chatham gave utterance
to his views on Parliamentary reform. Four years before
he had described the borough representation as “the
rotten part of our constitution,” and affirmed that “it
cannot continue a century. ... If it does not drop, it must
be amputated.” Now he suggested that a third member
should be added to every county, “in order to counter-
balance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs.” He
predicted that before the end of the century “either the
Parliament will reform itself from within, or be reformed
with a vengeance from without.” In 1771 Chatham,
“with the most deliberate and solemn conviction, declared
himself a convert to triennial Parliaments.”
A prosecution was instituted in connection with the
celebrated letters of “Junius” in 1770. The first of
the letters bearing that signature appeared in the Public
Advertiser (published by Woodfall) on January 21st,
1769. They were then continued at intervals, the author
*~~
other anonymous polemic before or since his time. -
making scathing and brilliant attacks on the Duke of
Grafton, Lord North, Lord Granby, and the Duke of
Bedford. On December 19th, 1769, was published the
famous letter to the King, and it was for this that the
printers and publishers were tried in the following year.
Lord Mansfield laid it down on this occasion that the
jury had not the right to decide whether the publication
was libellous, but only whether it had been published.
The accused were found “guilty of publishing only,”
which was tantamount to an acquittal. The letters of
“Junius,” which now began furiously to assail Lord
Mansfield, were continued until January 21st, 1772.
The identity of “Junius” has never been revealed, but
the writer must have been intimately acquainted with
Parliamentary measures and the leading statesmen of
the day. Burke, Gibbon, Temple, and many others have
had the authorship assigned to them, but the strongest
weight of evidence has always pointed towards Sir Philip
Francis. Whoever this political writer was, he managed
to agitate Pârliamentary and official circles more than any
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
309
The Royal Marriage Bill was brought forward in the
session of 1772. This measure allowed no descendants
of George II. to make a legal marriage without the con-
sent of the reigning sovereign unless they were twenty-
five years of age, and had given twelve months’ notice to
the Privy Council, and the marriage had not been peti-
tioned against by Parliament. Charles James Fox threw
up his office of Junior Lord of the Admiralty in order to
be at liberty to oppose this bill, and to propose—as he
did unsuccessfully—the repeal of Lord Hardwicke's Act.
The Royal Marriage Act having been carried, Fox
rejoined the Government as a Junior Lord of the
Treasury in 1773; but, as he showed a reckless im-
patience of control, he was removed from office in 1774
through the King's influence.
Lord North carried his Act for the regulation of India
in 1773. This Act established a supreme court, with
Elijah Impey as chief judge. It made the Governor of
Bengal, Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India;
or rather, to speak with strict accuracy, Hastings, who
had been President of the Bengal Council, was made
Governor-General of Bengal, with certain powers of con-
trol over the President and Council of each of the other
provinces. The Act also contained various provisions
concerning the tea trade, to which reference will shortly
be made. The twenty-four directors of the East India
Company elected by the proprietors of India stock were
to appoint the Governor-General. Hastings was chosen,
but the Regulation Act provided a new council of five,
consisting of Barwell, Clavering, Monson, Francis, and
the Governor-General ; and three of these were greatly
prejudiced against Hastings, who was thus frequently
hampered in his action.
Important events now began to follow each other in
quick succession in the North American colonies. Early
in 1774 the Assembly of Massachusetts met for the last
time under the English Crown. It recommended a con-
gress of the different colonies, and was dissolved by
General Gage, the Governor. The petition of Massa-
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Georº, III.
Royal
Marriage
Böll.
India Act.
América,
310
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
GHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
The
JBostom,
Port Böll.
Congress
at Phila-
delphia.
Canada.
chusetts for the removal of its governor was rejected by
the Government in London ; and Benjamin Franklin, at
that time agent in England for the Assembly of Massa-
chusetts, was insulted by Wedderburn at a meeting of
the Privy Council.
The Boston Port Bill, one of the immediate causes of
the American War of Independence, was brought forward
in the House of Commons by Lord North on March 14th,
1774. This measure had its origin as follows: Lord
North, in order to find a market for the accumulated
stores of tea of the East India Company, had, by the
Regulation of India Act, withdrawn the whole of the
duty payable in England on any teas exported to America
by the company. The teas, nevertheless, were still sub-
ject to a colonial tax of threepence per pound. On
December 16th, 1773, the people of Boston proceeded to
the wharf where three tea-ships lay, and threw their
whole cargoes, valued at £18,000, into the water. Great
indignation was excited in England, and it was resolved
to make an example of the port. Accordingly the
Boston Port Bill proposed to close the port from
June 1st ensuing, but the King in Council was to have
power to restore its privileges when peace and order had
been established, and full compensation paid for the teas
destroyed. Burke, Fox, and others spoke against the
measure, but Parliament and the country were largely in
favour of it. It was passed, together with the Massa-
chusetts Government Act, which annulled the constitution
of Massachusetts. These acts were viewed with great
indignation by the colonists.
The congress of disaffected States met at Philadelphia
in September, as arranged, and denied the right of Par-
liament to tax the colonies. It demanded the repeal of
the recent acts against the colonists, and especially the
coercive acts against Massachusetts, and passed resolu-
tions for the suspension of trade with Great Britain until
the various grievances had been redressed.
While the Home Government did nothing to reconcile
America, it acted differently towards Canada. By a Con-
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
311
ciliatory policy generally, and the legal establishment of CHAP. III.
the Roman Catholic religion, it secured the loyalty of the
Canadians.
At the general election in the autumn of 1774 the
Government were victorious. But the city of London—
a marked exception to the country at large—petitioned
against the severe measures taken against the colonists.
In the House of Lords, on January 20th, 1775, Chatham
moved an address to the King praying that, in order to
open a way towards allaying the ferments and softening
the animosities in America, his Majesty would send
orders to General Gage to remove his troops as soon as
possible. The speaker was unusually eloquent and pro-
phetic. “For myself,” he said, “I must declare and
avow that in all my reading of history—and it has been
my favourite study; I have read Thucydides and admired
the master States of the world—no nation or body of
men can stand in preference to the General Congress at
Philadelphia. All attempts to impose servitude on such
men, to establish despotism over such a mighty con-
tinent, must be vain, must be fatal. We shall be forced
ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can, not
when we must. I say we must necessarily undo these
violent and oppressive acts; they must be repealed; you
will repeal them; I pledge myself for it that you will in
the end repeal them. I stake my reputation on it. . . .
If the Ministers thus persevere in misadvising and mis-
leading the King, I will not say that they can alienate
the affections of his subjects from his crown ; but I will
affirm that they will make the crown not worth his
wearing. I will not say that the King is betrayed, but I
will pronounce that the kingdom is undone.” Chatham
Was Supported by Shelburne and Camden, but in the
division he only secured 16 votes to 68. Still, he pro-
ceeded to bring in a provisional bill for settling the
troubles in America. This bill was received with such
hostility by some members of the Government, and
treated in such a vacillating spirit by others, that
Chatham indignantly exclaimed, “Who can wonder that
The Reign
O
George III.
Aarlia-
'ment and
the
Colonies.
Eloquent
speeches by
Chatham.
312
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
you should put a negative on any measure which must
Thºſen annihilate your power, deprive you of your emoluments,
George III. and at once reduce you to that state of insignificance for
which God and nature designed you?” The bill wit–
nessed an increased minority, but it was rejected by
61 to 32 votes. In the Commons, on March 22nd,
Mr. Burke moved a series of conciliatory resolutions,
omitting all mention of the congress, but declaring in
general terms the propriety of repealing several of the
recent acts, of appointing the judges during good
behaviour, of improving the Admiralty courts, and of
leaving to the provincial assemblies the right of taxa-
tion. In one beautiful passage of a very remarkable
War with.
America.
Minis-
terial
changes.
North’s
American
policy.
speech the orator foretold the future greatness of America.
But his eloquence was in vain, for the resolutions were
rejected by the large majority of 270 votes to 78.
War was inevitable, and it began in April, 1775, with
the indecisive battle of Lexington. The ultimate issues
of the War of Independence are matters of general
history. Suffice it to state here that July 4th,
1776, witnessed the Declaration of Independence by the
United States. Congress met and declared the thirteen
colonies free and independent States. After a struggle
extending over six years, immortalised by the indomi-
table skill and energy of George Washington, England
acknowledged the independence of the United States, and
peace was signed between the two countries and between
France and England at Versailles in January, 1783.
In October, 1775, the Duke of Grafton, who had in vain
urged upon Lord North the necessity of a reconciliation
with America, resigned his post as Privy Seal. Lord
Dartmouth surrendered the Colonial Secretaryship, and
became Privy Seal ; and Lord George Germaine (hitherto
known as Sackville) became Secretary for the Colonies.
In the ensuing December Lord North carried his American
Prohibitory Act. By this measure the Boston Port Act
and the two restraining acts of the last session were
repealed, as being no longer applicable ; but all trade
and commerce with the thirteen insurgent colonies was
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III,
313
absolutely interdicted so long as their rebellion should
continue. Other harsh provisions authorised the capture
of American vessels or goods, making them the property
of the captors; while the prisoners taken on such occa-
sions might be pressed for sailors and sent to serve
against their countrymen.
The Whigs in the House of Commons so strongly dis-
approved of the Government’s American policy—which
they saw no prospect of modifying—that, without formally
seceding, they ceased in 1776 to attend Parliament for
a time.
A comprehensive motion for Parliamentary reform
was brought forward by Mr. Wilkes on March 21st,
1776. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to give
additional members to the metropolis, and to Middlesex,
Yorkshire, and other large counties; to disfranchise the
rotten boroughs and add the electors to the county con-
stituency ; and, lastly, to enfranchise Manchester, Leeds,
Sheffield, Birmingham, and other rich and populous
trading towns. The scheme embraced all the leading
principles of Parliamentary reform advocated during the
ensuing fifty years, and which have since been adopted.
|Unfortunately the reformer was before his time, and his
motion was negatived without a division.
Later in the session Lord North was called upon to
deal with the new debts which had accrued upon the
Civil List—debts amounting to more than £600,000.
Profusion and extortion were rife in many departments;
yet the House of Commons not only agreed to discharge
the arrears, but, to guard against such arrears for the
future, granted the Crown a further yearly sum of
£100,000. In the Lords, Chatham made another strenuous
effort to close the war by moving an Address to the Crown,
but his motion was lost by 76 to 26 votes, and the session
closed without any hope of reconciliation between Great
Britain and America.
At the opening of the session of 1777 Chatham again
returned to the charge, in a speech, said the Duke of
Grafton, which appeared to him “to surpass all that we
CHAP. III.
The #eign
O
George III.
The
Whigs
dis-
heartened,
Wilkes
and
Reform.
The Civil
List.
Chatham,
on the
War.
314
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III, have ever heard of the celebrated oratory of Greece or
The Reign Rome.” In answer to Lord Suffolk, who had defended
Geoš III, the employment of Indian mercenaries, he said, “I call
Comcilia-
tory
TºëQS2(7°6S,
upon the spirit and humanity of my country to vindicate
the national character ; I invoke the genius of the Con-
stitution. From the tapestry that adorns these walls,
the immortal ancestor of this noble lord” (the Earl of
Effingham) “frowns with indignation at the disgrace of
his country. In vain he led your victorious fleet against
the boasted Armada of Spain ; in vain he defended and
established the honour, the liberties, the religion, the
Protestant religion, of this country against the arbitrary
cruelties of Popery and the Inquisition—if these more
than Popish cruelties and inquisitorial practices are let
loose among us, to turn forth into our settlements,
among our ancient connections, friends, and relations, the
merciless cannibal thirsting for the blood of man, woman,
and child !—to send forth the infidel savage—against
whom P Your Protestant brethren, to lay waste their
country, to desolate their dwellings, and extirpate their
race and name !” In another passage he denounced the
employment of foreign troops from Europe, and ex-
claimed, “My lords, you cannot conquer America. You
may swell every expense and every effort still more
extravagantly. . . . If I were an American, as I am an
Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my
country I would never lay down my arms—never, never,
never !” But these impassioned expostulations fell upon
deaf ears. Chatham's amendment to the Address was
rejected by 97 to 28; and a similar amendment in the
Commons, though supported by the fervent eloquence of
Burke and Fox, was lost by 243 to 86.
Lord North, however, was soon to feel the necessity
for some conciliatory measures, and on February 17th,
1778, he introduced two bills of this character. The first
repealed expressly by name the tea duty in America, and
renounced for the future the claim of Parliamentary taxa-
tion upon the colonies. The second bill enabled his
Majesty to appoint commissioners with sufficient powers
Re--- r:, ºr w we as º
--- . . . . ; - - - -- sº SSSSSSSSSSSº
- - - - - - --> * * * º º
sº
SS t
- iºs. Sº
- º . …, A. rº $
ſ - -
23 º
*...” º
… º
*322% º
22.
*...*
º
º
*
SS
Yº ſº sº.
N/"...sº
§§
*:/º
Rº
'. N . . . J
ºs is
- ... 32) - - N . . . . . N
3. % % A " \\
sº/º
§ NS ;:22 % % - %º %\
§3% %
- % %
4%
§S&
Nº.
º
* *
~. : JS SSSSSSSSSS Nº.
Rºss sº sº-Sºº Nº .

~<！ſ:ſ,
ſ.---***
k”
1.
ſ
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. - 315
to treat with the insurgent colonies. These measures CHAP. III.
passed, together with a third expressly repealing the The eign
Massachusetts Charter Act. But the olive branch was George III.
held out too late; the colonists were now bent on achieving
absolute independence.
In the midst of much confusion of parties, and of Death of
intense public feeling, a dramatic scene was witnessed on “”
April 7th, 1778, in the House of Lords, when the Duke
of Richmond brought forward a motion to recognise the
independence of the United States. Chatham had always
refused to allow America her independence, although he
was in favour of conciliation, being convinced we could
never conquer her. He now rose to speak, but it was in
shreds only of unconnected eloquence, and with but fitful
flashes of the old fire. After calling in God’s name for
either an honourable peace or active war against France
or any assailant of the birthright of the British princes,
he said, “My lords, any state is better than despair.
Let us at least make one effort, and if we must fall, let
us fall like men ” Then he sat down, but after the
Duke of Richmond's reply rose again. He endeavoured
to speak, but fell back in a swoon. He was removed to
a neighbouring house, and the debate was adjourned.
The illustrious sufferer was subsequently conveyed to
Hayes, and expired there on May 11th, in his seventieth
year. The epitaph on his monument in Westminster
Abbey scarcely exaggerates when it affirms that
during his administration Great Britain “was exalted
to a height of prosperity and glory unknown to any
former age.”"
In the session of 1778 Sir George Savile, seconded by The
Dunning, brought in a bill to relieve the Roman Catholics #.GS,
from some of the penalties which had long pressed
* A Chatham Annuity Bill, providing for a perpetual pension of
£4,000 per annum, was carried in the House of Commons without
a dissentient voice, but opposed in the Lords by eleven peers, and
formally protested against by four of these—viz., Lord Chancellor
Bathurst, Archbishop Markham of York, the Duke of Chandos,
and Lord Paget.
316
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III,
-*
The
Gordon,
2°iots.
JDis-
senters'
Relief
JBº!!.
The
Militia.
Impress-
onent in
the navy,
heavily upon them. This bill, which passed both Houses
unanimously, removed the following disabilities: the
perpetual imprisonment of priests for saying mass, the
forfeiture of the estates of Roman Catholic heirs educated
abroad to the next Protestant heir, and the prohibition
to acquire land by purchase.
Most persons thought these concessions would be wel-
comed by the people generally as an evidence of a more
liberal religious spirit ; but a hostile agitation was set on
foot by a foolish young nobleman, Lord George Gordon
(son of the Duke of Gordon). He and his fanatical
ultra-Protestant associates prepared petitions against
the Roman Catholics, to one of which a hundred and
twenty thousand signatures were attached. The agitation,
which began in Scotland, extended to London, and resulted
in the most formidable rising of the eighteenth century.
Gordon sought to intimidate Parliament by the personal
attendance of the petitioners; the houses of those favour-
able to the Catholic concessions were attacked, and
London was for a time under mob law. Riots and
conflagrations resulted in the calling out of the military,
and two hundred persons were shot dead, and many more
severely wounded. The eccentric leader of the rising
managed to escape; but in 1787 he was prosecuted for
libel, and died in Newgate in 1793.
A serious grievance from which Protestant Dissenters
had suffered since the passing of the Toleration Act was
removed in the session of 1779. By a bill now carried
through both Houses, schoolmasters and Dissenting
ministers were relieved from subscription to any of the
Thirty-nine Articles.
Spain having declared war against England, and the
French and Spanish forces having besieged Gibraltar,
Lord North’s Government, in addition to an act for
augmenting the Militia, proposed a still more stringent
measure to suspend for six months all exemptions from
impressment into the royal navy. The bill, in other
words, gave the Government power to man the fleet from
classes heretofore held free, as apprentices and fishermen.
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
317
Just as the House of Commons was rising at past
midnight on June 23rd, 1779, Attorney-General
Wedderburn brought in the bill. He could not disguise
its arbitrary character, but the standing orders were sus-
pended so as to allow it to be carried through all its
stages. The Opposition were taken by surprise, and Sir
George Savile said it was reducing the members to so
many midnight conspirators. The measure was keenly
contested in the Lords, but it became law.
Economical reform now began to attract great atten-
tion in England. Yorkshire sent up a monster petition
in its favour, a step which is regarded “as the origin of
the modern system of petitioning, by which public mea-
sures and matters of general policy have been pressed
upon the attention of Parliament.” London, West-
minster, and Middlesex held meetings in favour of
retrenchment, and the whole country was stirred. The
petitions presented to Parliament, besides praying for
economic reforms, complained of the undue influence of
the Crown and of the patronage and corruption by
which it was maintained. On February 8th, 1780, the
Earl of Shelburne moved in the Lords for an inquiry
into the public expenditure, and Lord Rockingham stated
that the whole system of executive government was domi-
nated by the influence of the Crown. This very discussion
was to afford a signal proof of the arbitrary power of the
Crown, for Lords Carmarthen and Pembroke were dis-
missed from their lord-lieutenancies by the King for
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
Ecomo-
mical
Reform.
Pomer of
the Crown.
supporting Lord Shelburne's motion. Three days later
Burke laid before the House of Commons his celebrated
scheme of economical reform. He confessed that his
main object was “the reduction of that corrupt influence
which is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality and
of all disorder; which oppresses us more than millions
of debt; which takes away vigour from our arms, wisdom
from our councils, and every shadow of authority and
credit from the most venerable parts of our constitu-
* Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History.
318
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
tion.” Burke proposed a considerable reduction of
The Reign offices, a diminution of expenditure, and improved
O
George III.
-wºmme
Dunning's
37votion,
Paºlia-
onentary
JReform.
administration and accounts in the various departments
of the State. He likewise recommended the consolida-
tion of certain offices, the diminution of the pension list
to £60,000 a year, and the payment of all pensions at
the Exchequer. This comprehensive scheme was lost on
its second reading by 233 to 190 votes. In consequence
of his independent attitude upon colonial and economic
questions, which gave umbrage to his constituents, Burke
retired from the representation of Bristol, for which city
he had sat since 1774. Through Lord Rockingham’s
influence, however, he secured a seat for Malton, in
Yorkshire.
The influence of the Crown was so strongly resented
that on April 6th, 1780, Mr. Dunning brought for-
ward a series of resolutions founded upon the numerous
petitions which had recently been presented. The first
of these resolutions, which forms an important landmark
in political history, affirmed “That the influence of the
Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be
diminished.” It was carried by 233 to 215 votes. A
second resolution asserted the right of the House to
correct abuses in the Civil List expenditure and every
other branch of the public revenue ; and a third affirmed
“That it is the duty of this House to provide, as far as
may be, an immediate and effectual redress of the abuses
complained of in the petitions presented to this House.”
These resolutions were assented to without a division,
and the whole were immediately reported and agreed to
by the House. During the debate Sir Fletcher Norton,
the Speaker, bore his personal testimony to the truth of
the resolutions. The King was angry at the votes,
which he rightly regarded as being levelled directly
against himself.
Parliamentary reform now demands attention. In the
-session of 1780 the Duke of Richmond brought forward
| Parliamentary History, vol. xxi.
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 319
a bill in the Lords for establishing annual Parliaments, CHAP. III.
universal suffrage, and equal electoral districts. This The Reign
sweeping measure was rejected without a division. Georº III.
But a greater man than the Duke shortly afterwards took William
up the question. This was William Pitt, the worthy son of *
an illustrious father. Born on May 28th, 1759, the son
of the first Earl of Chatham and Lady Hester Grenville,
at fourteen years of age only he was sent up to Pembroke
Hall, Cambridge, where he speedily developed precocious
talents, alike in classics and mathematics. He was
subsequently called to the bar, but in 1780 was returned
to Parliament for Appleby. His maiden speech was one
in favour of Burke's plan of economical reform ; and
though only twenty-one years of age, Burke proclaimed
him to be one of the first men in Parliament. He was
offered the Vice-Treasurership of Ireland by Lord
Rockingham, but declined it, preferring to wait for
something of more value. -
Pitt's first motion in favour of Parliamentary reform. His mo-
was made in 1782, when he severely analysed the state %.
of the representation, pointing out, amongst other &
anomalies, that the Nabob of Arcot had seven or eight
members in the House. He concluded by moving for a
committee of inquiry, but the order of the day was
carried by 161 to 141. His next resolutions were
brought forward on May 7th, 1783, when he moved,
first, that effectual measures ought to be taken for pre-
venting bribery and expense at elections ; secondly, that
when the majority of voters for any borough should be
convicted of corruption before an election committee
the borough should be disfranchised, and the unbribed
minority entitled to vote for the county ; and, thirdly,
that an addition should be made to the knights of the
shire and members for the metropolis. On this occasion
the majority against him was very large, the resolutions
being negatived by 293 to 149. Pitt’s third attempt to
deal with the question was made soon after he game into
office as Premier. On April 18th, 1785, he moved for
leave to introduce a bill “to amend the representation of
320
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, the people of England in Parliament.” He proposed
The eign that seventy-two members, then returned by thirty-six
George III decayed boroughs, should be distributed among the
'.
\
\
~
Fall of
Jord
Morth,
counties and the metropolis, but he added the startling
proviso that the condemned boroughs should not be dis-
franchised except with the consent of their proprietors,
who were to receive compensation from the State
amounting to £1,000,000. He next proposed to purchase
the exclusive rights of ten corporations for the benefit of
their fellow-citizens, and to obtain by the same means
the surrender of the right of returning members from
four small boroughs, whose members could be transferred
to populous towns. Altogether a hundred seats were to
be redistributed, while the enlargement of the county
constituency was to be secured by the addition of copy-
holders to the freeholders. A total addition of ninety-
nine thousand would by these proposals have been made
to the electoral body. The compensation part of the
scheme was its weak point : “such a sacrifice of prin-
ciple to expediency * as buying rotten boroughs to secure
purity “may have been necessary ; but it did not save
his scheme of reform from utter failure.”" The bill was
thrown out by 248 to 174 votes. This was Pitt's last
effort in the cause of Parliamentary reform, and both he
and the Whigs now allowed the question to sleep for a
~ time.
Attempts to terminate the American War were made
in 1781 and 1782, and these led to the resignation of
Lord North. In the former year Fox brought forward
a motion for arresting the war, which was lost by 172 to
99. Shortly afterwards Lord North issued a loan of
£12,000,000 to defray the cost of the war, and by this
loan supporters of the Ministry made large sums of
money. On February 22nd, 1782, General Conway
moved an address deprecating the continuance of the
war, which was only lost by a majority of one. On the
27th he proposed a similar address, and notwithstanding
* Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History.
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 321
the Premier's plea for delay, it was agreed to without CHAP. III.
a division. The King’s answer having been received, The eign
General Conway moved a further resolution that “the George III.
House will consider as enemies to the King and country T
all who shall advise or by any means attempt the
further prosecution of offensive war for the purpose of
reducing the revolted colonies to obedience by force.”
Lord North astonished the House by stating that he was
prepared to give effect to its instructions ; and Mr. Fox
condemned the principle of a Minister remaining in
office to carry out the policy of his opponents. General
Conway’s resolution was agreed to. Still Lord North
remained in. On March 8th Lord John Cavendish only
failed by ten votes to carry a resolution charging all the
misfortunes of the war upon the incompetency of the
Ministers. On the 15th Sir J. Rous’s motion of want of
confidence in the Government was only lost by nine; and
another attack being planned for the 20th, Lord North
announced his resignation. The Premier had for some
years only remained in office at the urgent wish of the
King. He had been for twelve years the head of a
disastrous Ministry, but he was not fairly chargeable
with all the errors of that Ministry.
The Marquis of Rockingham now became Prime Lord.
Minister, the King, much against his will, being com- #º.
pelled to accept the Whig chief. The new Premier mier.
insisted on a reversal of policy, his chief conditions being
the concession of independence to America and the
reduction of the influence of the Crown. Rockingham’s
second Ministry included Lord John Cavendish as Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, Camden as Lord President,
Grafton as Lord Privy Seal, Thurlow as Lord Chancellor,
and Shelburne and Fox as Secretaries of State. Minor
posts were filled by Burke, Dunning, Keppel, and others.
The new Government began well. It grappled first The Civil
with the Civil List. An act was passed for its regula- *
tion by which many sinecure places were abolished, and
restraints imposed upon the issue of secret service money.
The pension list was diminished, and securities were
VOL. II. 21
322
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, provided for a more effectual supervision of the royal
The Reign expenditure. The Civil List was now divided into eight
O
George III.
Electoral
abuses.
Shelbºrºe
succeeds
Rocking-
ham.
TVo??-
houses.
classes, and £72,000 was saved by the abolition of use-
less offices alone.
Bills were next brought in excluding Government
contractors from the House of Commons, and debarring
revenue officers from voting at elections. By the former
of these acts “the House of Commons was purged of a
class of men who were bribed in a manner the most
pernicious to the public interests, for they obtained con-
tracts, not on account of skill and ability, but on account
of the support which they could give the Government
in Parliamentary conflict ; and thus the Minister was
frequently made to conspire with an unprincipled adven-
turer to defraud the public service.”" By the other act
a very injurious influence in borough elections was
struck at. Lord Rockingham himself stated that there
were seventy boroughs where the elections chiefly de-
pended on the votes of revenue officers ; and altogether
no fewer than 11,500 officers of customs and excise were
electors.
The Rockingham Ministry, which appeared to give
assurance of strength and permanence, was very short-
lived. The Premier died three months after accepting
office, and on July 1st Lord Shelburne was commissioned
to form a Cabinet. Fox declined to serve under Shel–
burne, and he, Burke, and Lord John Cavendish retired.
William Pitt, who was little more than twenty-three
years of age, became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and
Thomas Townshend Secretary of State.
An excellent domestic measure was passed in the
session of 1782 called Gilbert's Workhouses Act. This
act allowed parishes or unions where the act was
adopted, by a vote of two-thirds of the owners and occu-
piers over £5 rateable value, to nominate three persons,
of whom one was to be chosen by the justices to act as a
* History of England during the Reign of George III., by the
Right Hon. W. N. Massey, M.P.
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 323
paid guardian of the poor instead of the old overseers. CHAP. III.
The guardian was obliged to find work for any poor the eign
person willing and able to work who might apply to him, Georº III.
and to supplement his wages, if needful, out of the rates. Tº
The Treaty of Versailles, concluded in September, 1783, Treaty of
closed the war between England and France, Spain, and **
the United States. Great Britain fully acknowledged the
independence of the United States ; and by other terms
of the Treaty Pondicherry and Carical, with other
possessions in Bengal, were given back to France, and
Trincomalee to the Dutch. When the articles of peace
were laid before Parliament, however, the discontented
Whigs, led by Fox, entered into an unnatural coalition
with Lord North, and severely attacked the Treaty.
The Opposition declared that it beggared all former
treaties in infamy and disgrace, and exposed to the
whole world the dismemberment and division of the
British empire. Pitt denounced these extravagant views,
and defended the Peace with consummate skill and
eloquence, but the Treaty was condemned by 224 to
208 votes. Thereupon Lord Shelburne tendered his
resignation.
The King now applied to Pitt, but that far-seeing coalition
statesman perceived that the time was not yet ripe for Aſinistry.
his taking office at the head of an administration. To
avoid Lord North's scheme of a Coalition Ministry,
George III. held North and Fox at bay for a long
period. At length, after England had been without a
Government for thirty-seven days, the Coalition Ministry
was completed on April 2nd, under the Duke of Portland.
Lord North was Home Secretary, Lord John Cavendish
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Fox, whom the King
especially hated and dreaded, was Foreign Secretary.
Burke, Sheridan, and Charles Townshend also had places.
It showed the unconstitutional spirit of the King when
he told Lord Temple that to such a Ministry he never
would give his confidence, and that he would take the
first opportunity for dismissing them. That opportunity
SOOIl 8,I’OSé.
324
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. III.
Fox brought forward his India Bill in the House of
The Reign Commons. By this measure the authority of the com-
O
George III.
Foac's
India.
Bill.
The King
defeats it.
Ministen's
dismissed.
Pitt
Prºme
JMinister,
pany was to be transferred to seven commissioners,
nominated by Parliament for four years, after which
time they were to be named by the Crown. The manage-
ment of commerce was to be in the hands of a committee
of directors named by the proprietors. The bill passed
the Commons, and instead of requiring its withdrawal
or amendment, as he was entitled to do, the King autho-
rised a campaign against it in the House of Lords. He
made Lord Temple his mouthpiece, and wrote the follow-
ing commission upon a card : “His Majesty allows Earl
Temple to say that whoever voted for the India Bill was
not only not his friend, but would be considered by him
as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough,
Earl Temple might use whatever words he might deem
stronger and more to the purpose.” The King's conduct
was compared with that of Charles I. in 1641, and the
Dukes of Portland and Richmond and Lord Fitzwilliam
protested against it. The Commons passed a declaration
against the use of the King's name, as a breach of the
fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive
of the Constitution ; but the bill was rejected by the
Lords, and the King contemptuously dismissed his Minis-
ters. For a sovereign thus to plot against his own
Ministers was highly reprehensible and utterly contrary
to the spirit of the Constitution. Nevertheless, it would
have been better for the Government if they had either
taken action against Lord Temple as the King’s mouth-
piece, or protested against the royal interference and
resigned.
Pitt's time now came, and on December 23rd, 1783,
he formed his first Government from members of both
parties. Pitt himself was First Lord of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Thurlow,
the King's staunch friend, was Chancellor. A deadly
struggle ensued between Pitt (aided by the King) and
the Opposition, led by Fox and North. A motion by
Erskine to address the King against a dissolution was
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
325
carried without a division. On January 12th, 1784,
Fox’s resolution to go into committee on the state of
the nation was adopted by 232 to 193, when a further
motion was agreed to without a division declaring it to
be a high crime and misdemeanour to issue, after a dis-
solution or prorogation, any money not appropriated by
Parliament. Next, a motion by the Earl of Surrey con-
demnatory of the use of the King's name and of the
change of Ministers was carried by 196 to 54. On
January 14th Lord Charles Spencer brought forward a
motion to the effect that “the continuance of the present
Ministers in trusts of the highest importance and re-
sponsibility is contrary to constitutional principles, and
injurious to the interests of his Majesty and his people.”
This was carried in committee by 205 to 184. Undeterred,
the Premier brought in his India Bill, but it was thrown
out on the second reading by 222 to 214.
Pitt's courage in the face of such an opposition was
sublime. Though urged by his friends to dissolve, he
determined to remain at bay until he could weaken the
forces of his enemies. So ably did he manage his party
and the House of Commons that in the end he brought
down the majority against him to one. But this took
some time to effect ; and the Minister, whose original
acceptance of office had been met with derisive laughter,
needed all his indomitable courage to save himself from
falling in the struggle. On February 2nd Mr. Grosvenor's
motion for “an efficient, united, and extended adminis-
tration,” was carried without a division ; and Mr. Coke's
rider that the continuance of the Ministers in office was
an obstacle to such an administration being formed was
adopted by 223 to 204. The Lords now came to the
support of the Government, and, on the motion of Lord
Effingham, carried resolutions condemnatory of the Com-
mons by 100 to 53. But on the 18th the Lower House
returned to the charge, and passed a motion for postponing
the supplies by 208 to 196. On March 1st Fox's motion
for an address to the Crown praying for the removal of
Ministers was adopted by 201 to 189; and on the 5th the
CHAP. III,
The Reign
OI.
George III.
The Pre-
onier's
skilful
tactics.
326
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III. Opposition leader's motion to postpone the Mutiny Bill
The eign was carried by 171 to 162. The divisions thus gradually
George III grew less adverse to Ministers, until, on March 8th, Fox's
Dissolu-
tion and
Minis-
terial
triumph.
JPitt’s
* Atav - -
motion for a representation to the King on the state of
affairs was carried by one vote only—191 to 190. Two
days later the Mutiny Bill was passed without a division.
The time for which Pitt had patiently waited had now
arrived, and on March 25th Parliament was dissolved.
The Minister’s prescience and sagacity were justified by
the event. The Opposition were smitten hip and thigh,
and no fewer than a hundred and sixty friends of
the Coalition lost their seats. The dissolution of 1784
established this precedent : that if the Ministers chosen
by the Crown do not possess the confidence of the House
of Commons, they may advise an appeal to the people,
with whom rests the ultimate decision. From this time
also dates Pitt's complete identification with Tory prin-
ciples. The influence of the Crown was unfortunately
augmented by the elections of 1784, and the King was
still ready to use this influence against his Ministers.
When the new Parliament met in May, the Premier
began the work of legislation vigorously. By the Com-
mutation Act he reduced the duty on tea and spirits to
prevent smuggling. Then he introduced his India Bill,
which was carried by 271 to 60. By this act a new
department of government was made, called the Board
of Control, consisting of six members of the Privy
Council, including one Secretary of State and the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, with supreme authority over the
administration of the company, civil and military. All
business and patronage were to be in the hands of the
company, but the Crown was to have a veto in the case
of appointment to the chief offices. The double govern-
ment thus instituted continued until the administration
of Indian affairs passed into the hands of the Crown.
The Premier also inaugurated reforms in the Post Office.
Letters were ordered to be sent by fast mail-coaches; and
the privilege of franking, which had been greatly abused,
was curtailed.
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III,
327
There was one matter, however, in which Pitt failed to
show a magnanimous spirit towards his great rival. At
the late election Fox had been returned for Westminster,
after a desperate and exciting struggle ; but the High
Bailiff withheld the return, and began a scrutiny into the
votes. This scrutiny was unjustifiably prolonged; and if
the leader of the Opposition had not also been returned for
Kirkwall, he would have been excluded from Parliament.
The scrutiny cost the enormous sum of £18,000. The
House of Commons in vain endeavoured to expedite
matters, and Pitt very ungenerously supported the High
Bailiff. His conduct was warmly censured, and, to mark
its sense of the proceeding, the House carried a vote in
opposition to the Premier by 162 to 124. Parliament
further marked its disapprobation of the unfair exclusion
of Fox by passing an act limiting every poll to fifteen
days, and closing a scrutiny six days before the day on
which the writ was returnable.
In 1785 Parliament met for the session in January
instead of in the autumn, as hitherto, and it has continued
to meet early in the year, with few exceptions, ever since.
Pitt’s celebrated scheme for a Sinking Fund was
brought forward in the session of 1786. It was pro-
posed, on a plan laid down by Dr. Price, to set aside
#1,000,000 a year, to accumulate at compound interest,
for the payment of the National Debt. The scheme was
carried, but it was ultimately shown to be fallacious, for
it was but practically taking money out of one pocket to
put it into the other, the nation having to pay the cost
of the transfer. Indeed, the Government during the
French War borrowed at a higher rate of interest to lend
out at a lower one. By 1807 the system was virtually
exploded, and in 1828 it was formally abandoned. A
more successful effort in commercial policy was Pitt's
treaty with France, concluded in 1786, by which most
of the protective duties between the two countries were
abolished.
The memorable proceedings in connection with the
impeachment of Warren Hastings began with the session
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
The West-
minster
Election.
Polling
Act.
The Meet-
ing of
Parlia-
777670t.
The Sizwk-
ing Fund.
Pitt’s
French,
Treaty.
Warren,
Hastings.
328
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
His im-
peachment
demanded.
Sheridan's
“Begum”
speech.
of 1786. Hastings, who had accomplished a great workin
India—although his policy was marked by grave errors—
had resigned the post of Governor-General and returned
to England at the close of 1784. Peace had been re-
stored to India, and England had no longer a European
rival in the Eastern seas; but charges against Hastings
began to be made. The chief misdeeds alleged against
him were the aid that he gave to his ally the Nawab of
Oudh in the war against the Rohilla Afghans, his punish-
ment of the Zemindar of Benares for non-compliance with
a demand for aid in the first Mahratta war, and his con-
nivance in the forfeiture of property, real and personal,
which had been conferred on the Begums or dowager-
princesses of Oudh. Early in the session of 1786 Burke
moved for papers, and upon these he founded the charges
for the impeachment. Hastings was furnished with a
copy of the accusation, to which he wrote a lengthy reply,
which he read at the bar of the House. In June Burke
brought forward the charge relating to the Rohilla war,
but Hastings was absolved on this by 119 to 67 votes.
On June 13th Fox, in a speech of great ability and
eloquence, elaborated the charge respecting the treat-
ment of Cheyte Sing, Rajah of Benares. Philip Francis,
the bitter enemy of the accused, followed on the same
side. Consternation overtook Hastings and his friends
when Pitt announced that, while applauding every other
part of the conduct of Hastings, he must vote for Fox's
motion. The resolution was carried by 119 to 79. Pitt
privately told Wilberforce that, as a man of conscience,
he could no longer stand by Hastings; the business was
too bad. So, although it was generally conceded that
the Rohilla charge was much stronger than the Benares
charge, the Commons endorsed the latter as the first
ground for an impeachment. In the following session
the charge touching the spoliation of the Begums was
advanced by Sheridan in a speech which has been de-
scribed as “the most elaborately brilliant of all the
productions of his ingenious mind.” The impression it
produced has never since been equalled, and the orator
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
329
concluded amidst cheering and loud clapping of hands,
in which the Lords below the bar and the strangers in
the gallery joined. No other speaker could obtain a
hearing, and the debate was adjourned. Twenty years
afterwards Windham declared that this speech was the
finest that had been delivered within the memory of man,
and Fox said it was the greatest speech ever delivered in
the House of Commons. Sheridan's motion, for which
Pitt voted, was carried by 175 to 68. The House ulti-
mately agreed to twenty articles of charge, and directed
Burke to go before the Lords and impeach the late
Governor-General of high crimes and misdemeanours,
The trial began on February 13th, 1788, in West-
minster Hall, according to forms handed down from
the days of the Plantagenets. The scene was unusually
splendid and imposing. The principal managers of
the impeachment were Burke, Fox, Sheridan, Windham,
Elliot (afterwards Lord Minto), Grey (afterwards Earl
Grey), and General Burgoyne. The distinguished culprit
appeared at the bar, and bent his knee. The charges
and the answers of Hastings were first read, occupying
two whole days. On the third day Burke opened his
general survey of the case in a magnificent speech, which
alone consumed four sittings. His sustained eloquence
and his energy and patience swayed the vast audience as
leaves are swayed in the breeze, and many of the ladies
present gave way to uncontrolled emotion as the orator
sternly depicted the tyranny of Hastings. Lifting up
his fine voice in concluding, so that the old arches of
Irish oak resounded, he said, “Therefore hath it with
all confidence been ordered by the Commons of Great
Britain that I impeach Warren Hastings of high crimes
and misdemeanours. I impeach him in the name of the
Commons' House of Parliament, whose trust he has
betrayed; I impeach him in the name of the English
nation, whose ancient honour he has sullied ; I impeach
him in the name of the people of India, whose rights he
has trodden under foot, and whose country he has turned
into a desert ; lastly, in the name of human nature
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
Trial of
Hastings.
JBºrke's
opening
address.
330
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
of
George III.
Speech of
Sheridan.
The im-
peachment
continued.
Acquittal
0
Hastings.
Prosecº-
tion of
AStockdale.
The
Prince of
Wales.
itself, in the name of both sexes, in the name of every
age, in the name of every rank, I impeach the common
enemy and oppressor of all !” Fox next opened the
charge respecting Cheyte Sing ; and Sheridan, in a
brilliant and sparkling address which lasted two days,
followed with that relating to the princesses of Oudh.
When he concluded, Sheridan, with great dramatic effect,
fell back into the arms of Burke, as though he were
thoroughly exhausted. After this the trial proceeded in
a dry and routine fashion, eloquence giving place to legal
examinations.
When Parliament was dissolved in 1790, the friends of
Hastings hoped that the impeachment would be aban-
doned. But the House of Commons decided that an
impeachment is not terminated by any prorogation or
dissolution of Parliament ; and this constitutional doc-
trine was finally established by the Hastings case. The
trial was somewhat expedited, however ; yet it did not
end until April 23rd, 1795, when judgment was finally
pronounced, and Hastings was solemnly acquitted and
discharged. The feeling had now turned in his favour,
and he lived in honourable retirement for twenty-three
years after his acquittal. Hastings was a man of great
talents, courage, and energy ; but his rule was neither
merciful nor just.
An important trial for libel arose out of the Hastings
impeachment. Stockdale, the publisher, had issued a
defence of Hastings in the shape of a pamphlet by a
clergyman named Logan. The author censured the im-
peachment and its managers with much severity. The
House of Commons voted the pamphlet to be a libel, and
ordered the prosecution of Stockdale. He was accordingly
tried in 1789, and being eloquently defended by Erskine,
was acquitted.
Reverting to Parliamentary affairs, in the session of
1787 warm discussions arose over the motion for the pay-
ment of the Prince of Wales's debts. The question of
his marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert was mooted, and the
Prince authorised Fox to deny the marriage, although it
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
331
had actually taken place. It was null and void, however,
without the King's consent; and, as Mrs. Fitzherbert was
a Roman Catholic, the union would have cost the Prince
the crown if it had been legal. As the result of Pitt's
negotiations, £10,000 a year was added to the Prince's
annual income of £62,000, and £161,000 was voted for
the payment of his debts, together with an additional
#20,000 for the repairs of Carlton House.
Various efforts were made at this period to relieve
Dissenters by the repeal of the Test and Corporation
Acts. On March 28th, 1787, Mr. Beaufoy brought in a
bill for their abolition. “He showed how the patriotism
of a Nonconformist soldier might be rewarded with
penalties and proscription, and how a public-spirited
merchant would be excluded from municipal offices in
the city which his enterprise had enriched, unless he
became an apostate from his faith. The annual In-
demnity Acts proved the inutility of penal laws, while
they failed effectually to protect Dissenters.” But the
majority took the narrow view of Lord North, who
regarded the Test Act as “the great bulwark of the Con-
stitution,” and the motion was defeated by 176 to 98.
Mr. Beaufoy renewed his motion in 1789, and during the
debate Fox delivered an able speech in favour of repeal,
in the course of which he made this remarkable admis-
sion : “It would perhaps be contended that the repeal of
the Corporation and Test Acts might enable the Dissenters
to obtain a majority. This he scarcely thought pro-
bable ; but it appeared fully sufficient to answer that if
the majority of the people of England should ever be for
the abolition of the Established Church, in such a case
the abolition ought immediately to follow.” The motion
was again rejected, by 122 to 102. In March, 1790,
Fox himself moved the consideration of the Test and
Corporation Acts in a committee of the whole House.
He put forward powerful pleas for their repeal, but was
opposed by Pitt; and the motion was lost by 294 to
105. The subject was not again revived for nearly forty
years.
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Dissenters
and the
Test Act.
332 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III. The session of 1788 was distinguished for its action
The Fairn against the slave trade. Much could not be done as
George III. yet to check this infamous traffic, for the philanthropic
The Slave efforts of Clarkson, Wilberforce, and others were only just
* beginning to make themselves felt. Pitt promised a
thorough inquiry into the whole subject ; but in the
meantime Sir William Dolben brought in a bill for
the better regulation of slave-ships. Notwithstanding
the horrors of the trade, the measure was stoutly opposed.
It passed with great difficulty, and not until the Lords
had inserted compensation clauses for shipowners and
merchants. In the following session Wilberforce de-
livered a speech condemnatory of the slave trade which
made a profound impression upon the House and the
country, and he was cordially supported by Burke and
Fox. Wilberforce returned to the charge in 1791, but
his motion for abolition, though supported by Pitt and
Fox, was rejected by 163 to 88. In 1792 an abolition
bill was carried in the Commons, but, as it was postponed
by the Lords, Wilberforce and his friends were com-
pelled to wait for thirteen years before further action
could be taken.
The The King's alarming illness having been made public
ſº, 9 in November, 1788, it again became necessary to provide
’ ‘’” for the regency. When Parliament met, it proceeded to
discuss the question. Fox asserted that “the Prince of
Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sove-
reignty during the King's incapacity as if the King were
actually dead, and that it was merely for the two Houses
of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should com-
mence the exercise of his right.” Pitt, on the contrary,
declared that, “unless by decision of Parliament, the
Prince of Wales had no more right—speaking of strict
right—to assume the government than any other in-
dividual subject of the country.” The matter was warmly
contested, for if the Prince had assumed the regency
Fox would undoubtedly have been at once appointed
Prime Minister; and this Pitt was naturally anxious to
avoid. The Opposition resisted the proposal to limit the
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
333
future Regent’s authority. At length, on February 5th,
1789—when Parliament had been formally opened by
letters patent under the Great Seal—a bill was intro-
duced in the Commons and quickly sent up to the Lords,
with the following limitations: that no new peers should
be created, that no pension or place should be granted
for life other than was necessary by law, and that the
King’s person should be left in the hands of the Queen.
The King's sudden recovery, however, which was cele-
brated with great public rejoicings, put an end to all
proceedings; and although his Majesty was anxious to
make some permanent provision for the regency, nothing
was now done.
Parliament was dissolved in 1790, and Pitt gained
largely at the elections, partly because of his able and
prudent administration of affairs, and partly because of
the alarm created amongst the middle classes by the ex-
cesses of the French Revolution. Fox’s declaration of
sympathy with the Revolution had already produced a
coolness between himself and Burke, and they now began
to draw apart.
When the new Parliament assembled in 1791, the chief
measure laid before it by the Government was the Canada
Bill. By this bill the province of Canada was divided,
at the suggestion of Pitt, into Upper or Western, and
Lower or Eastern Canada, mainly for purposes of repre-
sentation ; whilst the division also served to mark out
the locality where the English and French elements re-
spectively preponderated. Each province had a governor
and executive council, a legislative council appointed
by the Crown, and a representative assembly elected
by the people. But the Government was independent of
the Assembly, and only responsible to the Colonial Office.
This measure, which recognised for the first time the
wise and generous principle of independent colonial insti-
tutions, was carried into law.
During the debates on the Canada Bill the quarrel
between Burke and Fox came to a head. Fox took the
opportunity of sounding the praises of liberty and of
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
JElections
of 1790.
The
Canada
JBöll.
Quarrel
between
JBºz7%e
and Foac.
334
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III sneering at Burke's famous lament over the fall of
The Reign chivalry. When the bill was recommitted Burke made
Geoš III, a violent rejoinder, and a scene of almost unparalleled
Foa's
Libel
JBöll.
Catholic
felief
%260820//’6S.
confusion and excitement ensued. Fox, in retorting,
charged Burke with deserting his principles, and,
quoting the fine expression of his own with reference to
the American war, with drawing an indictment against
a whole people. Burke, in a further speech, declared
their long friendship to be at an end, whereupon Fox,
moved to tears, protested against the severance of friend-
ship over a political question. But Burke intimated that
all hope of reconciliation was at an end. He separated
himself from Fox’s party, and for the short time during
which he now remained in Parliament he became a sup-
porter of the Administration.
Fox introduced his Libel Bill in the session of 1791.
This measure placed the liberty of the press under the
protection of juries by allowing them to decide what
constituted a libel as well as the fact. It was supported
by Erskine and endorsed by Pitt, and it passed the
House of Commons without a dissentient voice. In the
following session it was carried through the Lords, and
became law.
The subject of Roman Catholic disabilities was also
legislated upon this session. Mr. Mitford brought in a
bill for the relief of “Protesting Catholic Dissenters ”
—that is, Roman Catholics who protested against the
Pope’s temporal authority, his right to excommunicate
kings and absolve subjects from their allegiance, and
the right of not keeping faith with heretics. Fox op-
posed the measure, on the ground that relief should be
given to all Roman Catholics; and Pitt took the same
view. The bill was remodelled, and ultimately passed
in a form which allowed Roman Catholics who took an
oath of allegiance to secure to themselves freedom in
education, in holding property, and in practising the pro-
fession of the law. It also permitted Catholic peers to
approach the King. In the session of 1793 a Catholic
Relief Act for Scotland was passed, removing similar
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
335
disabilities. During the same session Pitt once more
showed his solicitude for the commercial interests of
Great Britain by concluding a treaty of commerce with
Russia.
Parliamentary reform again came into prominence at
this time. In the session of 1790 Mr. Flood moved for
a bill to amend the representation of the people. He
proposed to add one hundred members to the House of
Commons, to be elected by the resident householders of
every county. Pitt still expressed his friendliness to re-
form, but said he could not support the motion, which was
superseded by the adjournment of the House. A political
association called the Society of the Friends of the People
was formed in 1792 to promote Parliamentary reform,
and in the ensuing year it undertook to prove that about
200 members of Parliament were returned by towns with
less than 100 electors, and that 357 members were re-
turned by 154 patrons. But the period was not favour-
able to reform, and Burke now agreed with Pitt, who
observed during one debate, “This is not a time to make
hazardous experiments.” Yet on May 6th, 1793, Grey—
who, with Erskine, was a leader among the Friends
of the People—brought forward a motion in favour of
reform, and presented a petition from the society exposing
the great abuses of the electoral system. The terrible
events in France, however, had alarmed the majority of
the House of Commons, while the Whig party had
broken up. The resolution was rejected by 232 to 41.
Four years later—May, 1797—Grey moved for leave to
bring in a bill for carrying his previous resolution into
effect. He proposed to increase the county members
from 92 to 113, and to admit copyholders and lease-
holders for terms of years, as well as freeholders, to the
county franchise. In the boroughs he proposed to sub-
stitute for the numerous rights of election one uniform
household franchise. To diminish the expense of elec-
tions, he suggested that the poll should be taken through-
out the whole kingdom at one time. This comprehensive
scheme was very largely upon the lines of the great mea-
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
336
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, sure which Grey carried thirty-five years later. He was
The Reign now ably seconded by Erskine in one of the finest speeches
Of º
George III, he ever made in the House of Commons, and supported
Democra-
tic Socie-
£ies.
JRiot at
Birming-
ham.
by Fox ; but Thomas Paine's Rights of Man and other
writings of an extreme character were held up as true
expositions of the reformer's creed, and the motion was
lost by a large majority—256 to 91. After this the
question again remained in abeyance for a considerable
period.
A number of democratic societies in addition to that of
the Friends of the People were formed towards the close.
of the century. The Society for Constitutional Informa-
tion, founded to instruct the people in their political rights
and to advance the cause of Parliamentary reform,
counted among its early members Fox, Pitt, and Sheridan;
but these soon left it, and Major Cartwright, Horne Tooke,
and other zealous advocates of universal suffrage, etc.,
alone remained. The London Corresponding Society,
which was composed chiefly of working men, was founded
during the early days of the French Revolution, for the
purpose of remedying political abuses and social griev-
ances and advocating universal Suffrage and annual
Parliaments. These two societies were repudiated by the
Friends of the People and all moderate reformers. The
Revolution Society, originally founded to commemorate
the English revolution of 1688, had many distinguished
members at one time, but it ultimately gave itself up to
political agitation. Political agitation led to a great riot
at Birmingham. The celebration by a number of Radicals,
on July 14th, 1791, of the capture of the Bastille—which
was held to be the inauguration of the French Revolution
—was made the occasion of a serious disturbance by the
upholders of Church and King. They attacked the house
of the Unitarian minister Dr. Priestley, a distinguished
man of science, and utterly destroyed his library,
philosophical apparatus, and manuscripts. Parliament
ordered an investigation, and twelve persons suffered for
the outrages committed during the riots, three being
executed.
xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 337
The threatening situation in Europe, and the condition of CHAP. HI.
things at home, caused Ministers to issue a proclamation The eign
on December 1st, 1792, stating that so dangerous a spirit George III.
of tumult and disorder had been excited by evil-disposed seditious
persons, acting in concert with persons in foreign parts, P^*
that it was necessary to call out and embody the militia.
Parliament met on December 13th, three weeks before
the date to which it had been prorogued; and in replying
to the King’s Speech Fox and Sheridan denied the exist-
ence of seditious practices. At a later period Sheridan
condemned the proclamation as an attempt to create a
panic, in order to inflame the public mind against France,
with which war was now declared. France had formally
declared war against England February 11th, 1793,
whereupon England, Spain, and Holland joined Austria
and Prussia in the first coalition. Fox proposed a re-
solution condemning the war, but it was lost by 270
to 44.
In the Upper House Lord Grenville brought forward The Alien
his Alien Bill, which placed aliens under supervision, *
and gave the Secretary of State power to remove them
if suspected out of the kingdom. The bill met with
some opposition in the Lords, but it was the subject of
much keener debate in the Commons, and with it is
associated Burke's famous dagger scene. Fox and the Burke's
majority of the Whig party denied the existence of any *
emergency which could justify either the proclamation
of December 1st, or any interference with foreigners
visiting or resident in the British islands. Burke urged
that much mischief might be done by a few energetic
individuals acting in concert for a common object.
He said that orders for three thousand daggers had
recently been sent to Birmingham, and drawing forth
a weapon of this description, cast it on the floor, ex-
claiming, “This is what you are to gain by an alliance
with France 1 * The scene should have been dramatic,
but it was scarcely redeemed from ridicule and con-
tempt. When the speaker declared that he voted for
the bill in order to prevent the introduction of French
VOL. II. 22
338 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, principles and French weapons, the House was too much
The Reign amazed either to laugh or sympathise; and Burke,
geois III confused and mortified, brought his speech to an abrupt
T conclusion. The bill passed through its various stages
without a division, and became law. It was supplemented
by the Traitorous Correspondence Act, the object of
which was to prohibit intercourse and commerce of any
kind with the French people.
Repressive The Government now entered upon a sternly repres-
*** sive policy with regard to seditious speeches and writings,
and prosecution followed prosecution with startling
rapidity. As a justification for their alarm over the
spread of revolutionary sentiments, they pointed to such
utterances as the memorable one of Fox when he pro-
nounced the French Revolution to be the most stupendous
and glorious edifice of liberty which had been erected
on the foundation of human integrity in any age or
country. Failing to see that a friend of liberty like Fox
might well hail such a movement for freedom while
deprecating its excesses, they argued that if he thus
spake, what would be the case with ordinary people 2
Prosecu. Paine was prosecuted for his attacks upon the Constitu-
tion.S. tion, and, in spite of Erskine’s brilliant defence, was
found guilty. But he had already escaped to France.
In 1793 John Frost, a respectable attorney, Mr. Winter-
botham, a Baptist minister, Thomas Briellat, and Dr.
Hudson, were tried for the use of seditious words and
severely punished. Besides the higher courts, quarter
sessions were active in prosecutions. In Scotland the
trials of Thomas Muir, advocate, and the Rev. Fyshe
Palmer, were most unjustly conducted, and the accused
convicted and condemned to transportation. William
Skirving, secretary of the Convention of the Friends of
the People at Edinburgh, and Maurice Margarot and
Joseph Gerrald, delegates from the London Correspond-
ing Society, were likewise unjustly convicted. Many of
the cases were eloquently denounced in the House of
Commons, and Fox exclaimed, “God help the people
1 22
who have such judges 1 * Other cases followed, and in
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
339
1794 Robert Watt was executed in Scotland for high
treason. In October, 1794, a special commission was
issued for the trial of certain persons on a charge of
treasonable conspiracy. The grand jury returned a true
bill against Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke, John
Thelwall, and nine other prisoners for high treason.
They were members of the London Corresponding Society
and of the Society for Constitutional Information.
Erskine made splendid defences, and, in spite of the
resources of the prosecution, the prisoners were acquitted.
Had they been found guilty, “the right of free dis-
cussion and association would have been branded as
treason, public liberty would have been crushed, and
no man would have been safe from the vengeance of the
Government.” "
The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was carried
in 1794 by 201 to 39. This was the first time for
England since 1745. On January 5th, 1795, Sheridan
moved for the repeal of the Habeas Corpus Suspension
Act in a speech charged with wit and sarcasm. Erskine
showed that English juries did not believe in the
traitorous conspiracy which the Government alleged to
exist, but the motion was lost by 185 to 41 votes. The
Government then brought in a Continuance Bill, which
speedily passed, and altogether the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act remained in force for eight years.
Other prosecutions followed, with riots and distress in
various parts of the country.
When the King proceeded to Westminster, to open
Parliament, on October 29th, 1795, instead of being
received with cordial acclamations, he was assailed with
groans and hisses, and cries of “Give us bread l’” “No
Pitt | * “No war !” “No famine !” His carriage was
attacked both in going and returning, on the latter
occasion being nearly broken to pieces, and his Majesty
narrowly escaped injury. The two Houses of Parliament
immediately concurred in an address to the King ex-
| Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History.
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
JHorne
Tooke.
Habeas
Corpus
Act
suspended.
Attack on.
the King.
340 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III. pressing their abhorrence of the late events; two
The eign proclamations followed, one offering rewards for the
George III apprehension of the authors and abettors of these out-
T rages, the other adverting to recent meetings near the
metropolis, and calling upon the magistrates and all
good subjects to aid in preventing such meetings and in
apprehending persons who should deliver inflammatory
speeches or distribute seditious papers.
Treason- But the matter did not end here. Lord Grenville
º * founded a bill upon the proclamations called the Treason-
able Practices Bill. It was brought forward in the
Lords on November 4th, its object being the “preserva-
tion of his Majesty’s person and government against
treasonable practices and attempts.” The Government
were dissatisfied with the results of the recent State
trials, and by this measure sought to establish a new law
of treason, completely at variance with the existing laws.
The principal feature of the bill was that it dispensed
with proof of overt acts of treason, and altogether
widened the definition of treason, so as to include any
writing or speaking which should incite the people to
hatred or contempt of the King’s majesty or the estab-
lished government and constitution of the realm. It
practically formed a statutory prohibition of all dis-
cussion of Parliamentary reform, and was a flagrant
encroachment upon freedom of opinion. The peers
passed it with only seven dissentients; but in the House
of Commons it met with a vigorous resistance. Fox
declared that if this and the Seditious Meetings Bill
“should be put into force, with all their rigorous pro-
visions, if his opinion were asked by the people as to
their obedience, he should tell them it was no longer
a question of moral obligation and duty, but of pru-
dence.” Sheridan, Grey, Whitbread, and other Liberals
supported Fox, but Ministers openly avowed their
determination “to exert a rigour beyond the law as
exercised in ordinary times and under ordinary circum-
stances.” Notwithstanding the indignation out of doors,
the Government were all-powerful in the House, and the
|\ \,\ , , X- º % - /
º
... x. \ \ ſ %2& //
º \ \ % Čº %
h A }% f
A lº-4-2-2°4′2:…
… 7 ºf % 2 A
:Zºº
2
sº------
W. ź.
Máº;
\{ Khº §§
și §
º
§
tºº
…º.º.º.º.
ºº::
s
§
§
§
:
;
;
#
--~~
§
º
º
&
º
2: *-*.
fºſſWººl
miliº
º
º
2.
|
|
ºritiº
- If
"illiſſ
**
– --→ H = Hºw?"
5 Royar –- - -- _ –––– –— — ` • A - 1.x ra" T.....…~~~
sº --- ... -- ~~~~ ... → ---...-ºr-º- • * * ***sess”
CHARLES JAMES FOX. 2ſt

xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
341
bill passed. It was to remain in force during the life of CHAP. III.
the King, and till the end of the next session after his
death.
The Seditious Meetings Bill, a second measure for
the suppression of popular rights, was introduced by
Pitt. It prohibited meetings of more than fifty per-
sons—except county and borough meetings duly called—
for the consideration of petitions or addresses for
reform in Church or State, or for the discussion of any
grievance, without the sanction of a magistrate. It
vested large discretionary powers in the magistrates
both as to sanctioning such meetings and dispersing
them. Ministers indeed even proposed to restrict the
liberty of discussion by only permitting debating societies
to meet in duly licensed rooms. The bill was avowedly
a coercive measure, and it was strenuously opposed by
the Whigs. “Say at once,” exclaimed Fox in giving
vent to his indignation, “that a free constitution is no
longer suited to England; say at once, in a manly manner,
that, on a review of the state of the world, a free con-
stitution is not fit for you : conduct yourselves at once as
the senators of Denmark did—lay down your freedom,
and acknowledge and accept of despotism. But do not
mock the understandings and the feelings of mankind
by telling the world that you are free.” Yet only 42
members voted with Fox against the introduction of
the bill, and it passed on the third reading by 266 to 51.
Great meetings were held in London, Edinburgh, Glas-
gow, York, and other places to protest against these
stringent acts.
On May 14th, 1797, Fox vainly moved for the repeal
of the Treason and Sedition Acts in a wise and powerful
speech. He observed that, “in proportion as opinions
are open, they are innocent and harmless. Opinions
become dangerous to a State only when persecution
makes it necessary for the people to communicate their
ideas under the bond of secrecy.” In another passage
he said, “Liberty is order; liberty is strength.” Yet
he found no more than 52 supporters. Not long after
The Heign
O
George III,
Seditious
Meetings
Act.
Protest by
Foſº,
Foº on.
liberty.
342
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Press
z’estric-
tions.
Whig
secession.
Corre-
sponding
Society
Act.
Sheridan
on the
press.
this, the King with his own hand struck off the name of
Fox from the list of Privy Councillors.
The press was also too powerful an engine to be left
unfettered. From 1789 to 1798 the regulation of news-
papers frequently occupied the attention of the Legisla-
ture. Stringent provisions were made against unstamped
publications; the stamp and advertisement duties were
increased, and securities taken for ensuring the responsi-
bility of printers. The object of the various laws passed
was to restrain the multiplication of cheap political
papers among the poorer classes and to subject the press
generally to a more effectual control.
Fox and his friends were so disheartened by Pitt's
repressive measures that, seeing no hope of effecting
anything, they seceded from Parliament for a time. The
great Whig leader went into retirement at St. Anne's
Hill.
Pitt proceeded in his course, and on April 19th, 1799,
introduced a bill for the suppression of the London Cor-
responding Society, the Societies of United Englishmen,
Scotsmen, and Irishmen, and similar political organi-
sations. The measure also contained further strong
provisions against the press. With the passing of this
bill, the series of repressive measures for practically
suspending the popular constitution of England was
complete.
During the next ten or fifteen years the libel laws
were harshly administered in (inter alia) the cases of the
Rev. Gilbert Wakefield, Jean Peltier, William Cobbett,
John and Leigh Hunt, and John Drakard, the printer
of the Stamford News. But the press was destined to
recover itself from its thraldom, In the session of 1810
Sheridan finely said, “Give me but the liberty of the press,
and I will give the Minister” (Perceval) “a venal House
of Peers, I will give him a corrupt and servile House of
Commons, I will give him the full swing of the patronage
of office, I will give him the whole host of Ministerial
influences, I will give him all the power that place can
confer upon him to purchase submission and overawe
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
343
resistance ; and yet, armed with the liberty of the press,
I will go forth to meet him undismayed : I will attack the
mighty fabric he has reared with that mightier engine :
I will shake down from its height corruption, and lay it
beneath the ruins of the abuses it was meant to shelter.”
The Prince of Wales having married the unhappy
Caroline of Brunswick in April, 1795, Parliament was
called upon for a new regulation of his income. An
additional annuity of £65,000 a year was granted to him,
which gradually paid off his debts, now amounting to no
less a sum than £650,000.
Pitt’s Ministry had been reconstituted in 1794, with
Loughborough as Chancellor, Grenville as Foreign
Secretary, the Duke of Portland as Home Secretary,
Windham as Secretary-at-War, and Dundas as Secretary
for War, this last being a new appointment. Huskisson
became Under-Secretary for War in 1795, and Castlereagh
Secretary for Ireland in 1798. But there joined the
Ministry in 1796 a young politician who became the most
brilliant ornament of the House of Commons after the
death of Pitt and Fox. This was George Canning, who
accepted the post of Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Canning, who was the son of a poor barrister, was born
in 1770. His uncle, Stratford Canning (father of Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe), sent him to Eton, where he had
a distinguished career. He subsequently proceeded to
Oxford, and on leaving there went to the bar. At first
a Whig, in 1793 he was induced to enter Parliament for
Newport, Isle of Wight, as a follower of Pitt. He
soon made his mark in the House. In 1796 he became
member for Wendover, and entered the Government, as
already stated. In conjunction with Hookham Frere
and others, he published in 1797 the famous satirical
journal the Anti-Jacobin.
The period at which George Canning came into political
prominence witnessed also the retirement of Burke from
Parliament. In 1794 he suffered severe bereavements by
| Hansard's Debates, 1st series, vol. xv.
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
The
Prince of
Wales.
Minis-
terial
changes.
George
Canning.
344
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. - [Book
CHAP. III.
the death of his brother and his only son, and from this
The Reign time until his death—July 9th, 1797—lived in retirement
Of
George III,
Death of
JBatºke.
JPitt's
financial
policy.
Imposi-
tion of the
income
tdº.
British
slavery.
at Beaconsfield. This eminent man, greater as a philo-
sophical than as a practical statesman, was more fitted by
his genius for the study than the senate.
Pitt's financial policy in 1798-9 was of great importance.
In the former year he brought forward a scheme of taxa-
tion by which he sought to impose the chief burden of
the war upon surplus property and income. This scheme
had failed, however, and although a sum of £2,000,000
was subsequently obtained by voluntary offerings, the
King himself giving £25,000, this was not an expedient
capable of frequent repetition. The estimate of expendi-
ture for 1799 was £29,000,000, while the ordinary sources
of revenue yielded little more than £6,000,000. Accord-
ingly, in the session of 1799, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer resorted to the imposition of the income tax.
He proposed to take two shillings in the pound from
every income of £200 and upwards. From that amount
to £60 a year, at which the tax commenced, there was to
be a descending scale of assessment. The proposals were
passed by a large majority, and the income tax continued
to be levied till the close of the Continental war, with the
exception of a slight break for part of the years 1802
and 1803. By the year 1806 the tax had reached the
high rate of 10 per cent. -
The question of slavery in the British islands was not
finally set at rest until 1799. It had never hitherto been
abolished by positive enactment ; and the decision of
Lord Mansfield in the case of the negro Sommerset in
1772 that slavery could not exist in England had no
legal foundation, but only represented the public opinion
of the time. . Four years after this the question was set
at rest in Scotland. A negro servant of Mr. Wedderburn
having claimed his freedom, the sheriff was appealed to,
who held that “the state of slavery is not recognised by
the laws of this kingdom.” The Court of Session was
then moved, when it was adjudged that the master had
no right to the negro's service, nor to send him out of the
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 345
country without his consent. But while the negro in CHAP. III.
Scotland was now assured of his freedom, the slavery of The eign
native colliers and salters continued in that country. Georº III.
They were actually excluded from the Scotch Habeas T
Corpus Act of 1701, and so pitiable was their condition
that in 1775 the Legislature passed an act for their relief.
It was provided that colliers and salters commencing
work after July 1st, 1775, should not become slaves ;
and that those already in a state of slavery might obtain
their freedom in seven years if under twenty-one years
of age, in ten years if under thirty-five. But the act
practically remained a dead letter, as the slaves were
rarely able to press for a decree of enfranchisement
through the Sheriff's Court; so, finally, in 1799 a measure
was carried by which their freedom was absolutely estab-
lished.
The great legislative event of the year 1800 was the The Act
passing of the Act for the Union of Great Britain and ſº."
Ireland. This measure will be fully described in the º
ensuing Book (XII.), dealing with the Irish Parliament.
By a proclamation dated November 5th, 1800, the members
of Parliament then sitting for England were declared
to be members of the first Parliament of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was
appointed to meet on January 22nd, 1801. The Union
with Scotland had been effected without a prior dis-
solution of Parliament, and that precedent was followed
now, although the passing of the acts of union in-
volved the extinction of the Parliaments of Scotland
and Ireland and a fundamental change in that of
England.
The first united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland The first
met on the day appointed. As the transfer of the Irish ;.
representation had changed the composition of the House ment.
of Commons, it was thought fit, seeing that the form of
oath was slightly altered, that all the members should be
resworn. A new Speaker was also elected, the choice
falling upon Addington, the occupant of the chair for
many years past.
346 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III. Pitt and his colleagues resolved to take advantage of
The reign the union with Ireland to make concessions to the Roman
geo; Il Catholics. This resolveled to the downfall of the powerful
The Minister, after an uninterrupted ascendency of seventeen
... years. The question of the Catholic claims was most dis-
47 tasteful to the King, and he had even suffered himself
to be persuaded that he was morally restrained by his
coronation oath from assenting to any further measures
for the relief of his Roman Catholic subjects. He
observed to Mr. Dundas at the levée on January 28th,
1801, “I shall reckon any man my personal enemy who
proposes any such measure, the most Jacobinical thing
I ever heard of !” The next day he wrote to the Speaker
desiring him to “open Mr. Pitt’s eyes to the danger
arising from the agitating this improper question.”
Canning advised the Premier not to give way, and Pitt,
who had already determined to make a stand, was sup-
ported by the Cabinet generally as well as by other
political friends. On February 1st he made a formal
communication to the King regarding his intentions.
The King was very angry, and said to the Duke of
Bortland, “Were he to agree to it, he should betray his
trust and forfeit his crown ; that it might bring the
framers of it to the gibbet.” Addington endeavoured to
Pitt accommodate matters, but Pitt, who was equally deter-
* mined with the King, resigned. Constitutional authorities
blame Pitt for his mismanagement of the Catholic question
at this time. He ought not, as he did, to have concealed
his intentions for a long time from the King. It was
also somewhat surprising that only a few weeks after his
resignation, when he heard that the King attributed his
illness to the Minister’s conduct, he conveyed an assur-
ance to his Majesty that he would not revive the Catholic
claims. During Pitt’s Ministry upwards of a hundred
and forty peers were created or promoted.
Adding- Addington was now entrusted with the task of forming
ton Prime an administration. Henry Addington, who was born in
Minister. 1755, was the son of Anthony Addington, Lord Chatham's
family physician. He was called to the bar, and became
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 347
an intimate friend and follower of Pitt. He was returned CHAP. III.
to Parliament for Devizes, and in 1789 was elected The Reign
Speaker, continuing to fill the chair until 1801. As a Georº III.
Speaker he was admirable, but he proved to be a poor T
Minister. His Government, as Macaulay remarked, con-
tained scarcely a single man who in Parliamentary
talents could be considered as even of the second rate.
Addington was First Lord of the Treasury and
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Eldon Lord Chancellor,
Portland President of the Council, Westmoreland Lord
Privy Seal, Pelham Home Secretary, Hawkesbury
Foreign Secretary, and St. Vincent First Lord of the
Admiralty. Eldon was the one able man in this list, but
his opinions were very reactionary.
Before the new Government actually came in, a ques- Bread
tion of considerable domestic importance arose. In the ”
session of 1800 numerous petitions had been presented
to Parliament complaining that, in consequence of the
scarcity of provisions and the high price of corn, the
labouring classes were perishing and the middle classes
were becoming pauperised. Various remedial measures
were passed, and among them was one to prohibit the
making of bread solely from fine flour, commonly called
the Brown Bread Act. It was believed that this would
effect a great saving in the raw material, but the Act
roused a great storm of popular indignation on the ground
that it lowered the standard of food. Serious riots
ensued. Accordingly in the session of 1801 Ministers
were compelled to hurry a bill for the repeal of the
Brown Bread Act through both Houses in a single day.
It was regarded as a measure of such urgency that the
royal assent was obtained at a time when the King
was not a responsible agent. Dr. Willis, the King's
physician, undertook to get the royal assent. He
told his Majesty that his signature was required to
something for the comfort and happiness of his people,
whereupon the afflicted sovereign said, “Is it for the
happiness of my people 2 Then I will sign my best
“George R.’”
348
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Heism
George III.
Illness of
the King.
The Min-
istry.
Clergy
disquali-
fied for
Parlia-
mê77t.
PIabeas
Corpus.
Indemnity
Böll.
War and
Colonial
Depart-
7??67ts.
Treaty of
Amiens.
The King's malady grew very serious, and all eyes
were turned in this emergency to Pitt, who was still
de facto Prime Minister. A Regency Bill was decided
upon, to be introduced on March 12th, but fortunately
the King made a speedy recovery, and no regency
measure was necessary.
All this time Addington's position was peculiar, if not
ridiculous. He had received the King's commission, and
had vacated the Speaker's chair, Sir John Mitford, the
Attorney-General, being elected as his successor. Mean-
while Pitt was managing public affairs. At length, on
March 14th, Pitt resigned the seals of office, which were
formally handed over to Addington by the King.
In consequence of the return of Horne Tooke for Lord
Camelford’s borough of Old Sarum, the Government
carried a bill in the session of 1802 declaring all persons
in holy orders disqualified for a seat in Parliament.
The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act expired in 1801,
and Ministers did not renew it; but before its operation
ceased a bill was introduced to indemnify all persons who
since February 1st, 1793, had acted in the apprehension
of persons suspected of high treason. The Indemnity
Bill was strongly opposed, for there had been many cruel
cases of imprisonment; but it was carried through, as was
also an act for the renewal of martial law in Ireland,
although the rebellion in that country had practically
ceased. It was during the debates on the latter measure
that Chancellor Clare in the Lords and Mr. J. C.
Beresford in the Commons avowed and defended the
practice of torture.
In 1801 the departments of War and the Colonies were
united under one secretary, and this union lasted until
1854. The office of Secretary of State for the Colonies,
first constituted in 1768, had been abolished in 1782;
and from the latter year until 1801 the colonial business
had been transacted at the Home Office.
The chief work of the Addington Ministry was the
negotiation of the Treaty of Amiens, which closed for a
time the 'great war that had lasted since 1793. The
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 349
severe mutual losses sustained, the blow given to the CHAP. III.
Northern Alliance by the battle of Copenhagen, and The #eign
the complete supremacy of the English fleet, with, on George III.
the other hand, the defeats inflicted on England’s Conti-
mental ally, Austria, in 1800, and the conclusion of the
Treaty of Luneville between France and Austria in
February, 1801, led both England and France to desire
a cessation of hostilities. Preliminaries of peace were
signed in October, 1801. England agreed to restore to
France, Spain, and the Dutch all her conquests except
Trinidad and Ceylon ; Malta was to be restored to the
Rnights of St. John ; the King of England gave up the
title of King of France; and there were various other
minor articles. In November, shortly after Parliament
met, the proposed peace was denounced by Grenville and
Windham as a mere armed truce, entered upon without
necessity, negotiated without wisdom, and concluded
without honour. Pitt approved the treaty, though he
did not describe it as a glorious peace, nor did he venture
to predict that it would be durable. Sheridan happily
described the treaty in a phrase that was widely quoted.
“It was a peace,” he said, “which everybody would be
glad of, but which nobody could be proud of.” The
Treaty of Amiens was finally concluded between England
and France on March 25th, 1802.
Although Addington enjoyed the confidence and even Adding-
the affection of the King, he was far too weak for the º
post of Premier at a time when Europe was held in a g
constant state of dread by Napoleon. It was speedily
seen that the Treaty of Amiens must be futile, and in
May, 1803, war was again declared. Pitt, who had
originally given his support to Addington, now saw that
he was unequal to the task of grappling with the French
invader, and he accordingly joined with Fox and Grenville
in opposing the Ministry. With a Government feeble in
itself and one beset by jealousies and intrigues, Addington
found it impossible to contend against such powerful
foes, and resigned office. He was subsequently created
Viscount Sidmouth.
350
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Pitt again
Premier.
The
Africa?
Slave
Thrade,
The Waſ),
ſin Europe.
Pitt was commissioned to form a Ministry, and he
desired to include Grenville and Fox; but the King re-
garded Fox with a detestation almost amounting to
mania, and absolutely refused to admit him into the
Cabinet. Indeed, he afterwards declared “that he had
taken a positive determination not to admit Mr. Fox into
his councils, even at the hazard of a civil war.” Gren-
ville declined to take office without Fox, so that Pitt was
obliged to form an administration as weak as Addington's,
with the exception of its chief. Pitt was again First
Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The new Government, which included many of Adding-
ton's colleagues, was constituted in May, 1804.
In the session of 1804, Wilberforce brought in a bill
for the abolition of the African slave trade. It was
passed by the Commons, but thrown out by the Lords.
However, in 1805 the Government took the first step
towards abolition by the issue of an order in council
prohibiting the traffic with colonies acquired during the
war; and in the following year a bill was passed against
the trading in slaves by British subjects either with
these colonies or with foreign possessions. The traffic
with the older British possessions still remained ; but
this also was at length abolished by the General Aboli-
tion Act of 1807. The self-denying efforts of Wilberforce,
Clarkson, Granville Sharp, and Zachary Macaulay were
thus crowned with success. As the act of 1807 only
provided for a fine, in 1811 slave-trading was created a
felony punishable with fourteen years’ imprisonment;
in 1824 it was declared piracy and punishable with
death, but in 1837 this was modified to transportation
for life.
Pitt carried on the struggle with Napoleon as well as
he was able, Parliament granting him additional forces.
But Spain declared war against England, and Napoleon
prepared to invade our shores. In 1805 Sidmouth joined
the Government as President of the Council, and brought
the Ministry the support of the King's friends; but
the fusion did not last long. The third coalition was
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 351
formed against France—England, Russia, and Austria CHAP. Tº
being the chief members. The eign
But a severe trial befell Pitt at home at this juncture. George III.
Henry Dundas, Wiscount Melville, First Lord of the Impeach-
Admiralty, was accused of misappropriating public ###.
moneys during his former period of control as Treasurer
of the Navy. A motion was brought forward for the
impeachment in the session of 1805, when a strong case
was advanced against him. The numbers on the division
being equal, the Speaker (Charles Abbot) gave his cast-
ing vote against Lord Melville. Pitt was quite broken
down by the proceedings, for Melville was his oldest
friend and colleague, and he had defended him with the
utmost ability. The Premier did not live long enough
to see the censure reversed by the Lords. Melville’s
trial began on April 29th, 1806; and notwithstanding
the splendid array of Whig talent against him, the
accused was acquitted on all charges involving his
honour, though the investigation brought to light many
circumstances by no means creditable to his discretion.
As in the case of Warren Hastings, a special act had
been passed, providing that the proceedings against
Melville should not be discontinued by reason of the
prorogation or dissolution of Parliament. The case of
Lord Melville is the last instance of an impeachment
in England.
Parliament was prorogued in July, 1805, in the midst of Important
great national solicitude. On the 19th of October ensuing *
the Austrian army capitulated at Ulm. Two days later
Nelson's glorious victory at Trafalgar saved England
from all immediate danger of invasion, but Napoleon's
crushing defeat of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz on
December 2nd proved a death-blow to Pitt. He tried
to return from Bath to London for the opening of Parlia-
ment, but expired at Putney on January 23rd, 1806. Death.of
He was decreed a public funeral and a monument in *
Westminster Abbey, and his debts were paid by the
nation. Probably no human existence embraced within
the brief space of forty-seven years ever witnessed such
352
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, continuous and distinguished service as Pitt's. His sun
The eign went down prematurely and in the midst of gloom, but
George III, nothing can detract from its long period of effulgence.
His
policy
and cha-
Ministry
of “All
£he
Talents.”
True, Pitt made several mistakes towards the close of
his career, notably in the recall of the popular Viceroy
Lord Fitzwilliam from Ireland in 1798, which con-
tributed largely to the savage Irish rebellion. He was
also led into indefensible repressive measures through
his revolutionary fears. To remedy the great popular
distress, he further passed several ill-conceived measures
for relaxing the poor laws. By levying rates for the
purpose of increasing wages, and by granting parochial
relief in proportion to the number of children in a family,
he thus offered a direct premium upon improvident mar-
riages. His measures of conciliation for Ireland, includ-
ing the concession of the suffrage, failed partly through
his own vacillation, and partly through the King’s
resolute attitude. He carried the legislative union with
Ireland, but only through corrupt means. Pitt was cold
and repellent in demeanour, but no statesman ever
succeeded so completely in gaining the unbounded confi-
dence of the nation. The greatest of Parliamentary
leaders, he was also great in financial and commercial
legislation, and he was one of the first statesmen to
endorse the enlightened doctrines of Adam Smith. He
had a unique force and influence in debate. Though
naturally a peace Minister, fate made him the most
prominent of war Ministers, and serious problems arose
with which he was ill-fitted to grapple. But he was
pre-eminently the man of Parliamentary government,
and his unlimited sway over the House of Commons was
always exercised for good and for the promotion of
private and public virtue and integrity.
Upon the death of Pitt, Grenville and Fox united to
form the Ministry of “All the Talents.” The King had
been induced to moderate his antipathy towards the
Whig leader. The Government included Grenville as
First Lord of the Treasury, Fox Foreign Secretary,
Lord Henry Petty Chancellor of the Exchequer, Erskine
x1.]
353
THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
Lord Chancellor, Sidmouth Privy Seal, Grey (after-
wards Lord Howick) Admiralty, Lord Moira Ord-
nance, Lord Spencer Home Secretary, Windham War
and Colonial Secretary, and Lord Minto Board of
Control. Sheridan, Lords Auckland and Temple, and
Others, held minor posts.
Ellenborough, Lord Chief Justice of England, was
associated with Sidmouth and given a place in the
Cabinet. To make the first criminal judge a confidential
adviser of the sovereign was contrary to constitutional
usage, and the appointment was severely condemned in
the House of Commons. Ministers defended their action,
citing the precedent of Lord Mansfield, but public
opinion was opposed to them.
Fox opened negotiations with Napoleon, but while
they were still pending the great Whig leader died
(September 13th, 1806). He had barely survived his
great rival eight months. To an ardent passion for
liberty Fox united the qualities of honesty, manliness,
urbanity, and a matchless eloquence. . He had many
failings, but they were forgotten in the light of his
engaging frankness, his suave manners, and the general
uprightness of his character. Lord Howick now became
Foreign Secretary, Thomas Grenville First Lord of the
Admiralty, and Tierney President of the Board of Con-
trol.
Napoleon at this juncture issued his Berlin Decrees,
which declared the British Isles to be in a state of siege,
forbade France or any of her allies to trade with them,
and declared all English property forfeited, and all
Englishmen in a State occupied by French troops
prisoners of war. The English Government retorted by
issuing Orders in Council prohibiting all trade with
French ports, or ports occupied by French troops.
Serious differences arose between the King and Lord
Grenville on the Army and Navy Service Bill. Ministers
brought in this measure in the session of 1807 to relieve
Catholic and Dissenting officers from certain disabilities.
It was a somewhat critical step to force on such a bill
VOL. II. 23
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
EZZerº-
borough
in the
Cabinet.
Death of
Foac.
The
Berlin,
Decrees.
Orders ??,
Council.
Army and
Wavy
Service
JBill.
354
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Ministers
dismissed.
Portland
Premie?".
Ministers
and the
Cronym.
against the King's known wishes and resolves. The bill
proposed that all who should enter his Majesty’s service
should enjoy the free and unrestrained exercise of their
religion so far as it did not interfere with their military
duties. The King absolutely refused to admit Catholics
to the staff and to include Dissenters in the provisions of
the bill. The measure was withdrawn, but, as Ministers
refused to pledge themselves not to revive the Catholic
question, the King dismissed them, and proceeded to
form a new administration under the Duke of Portland
and Mr. Spencer Perceval.
Portland was First Lord of the Treasury, Perceval
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Canning Foreign Secre-
tary, Castlereagh War and Colonial Secretary, Eldon
Lord Chancellor, Westmoreland Lord Privy Seal,
Hawkesbury (afterwards Earl of Liverpool) Home
Secretary, Huskisson Secretary to the Treasury, and
Sir Arthur Wellesley Chief Secretary for Ireland.
Debates took place in both Houses on the change of
Ministry and the unconstitutional use of the royal pre-
rogative. These were followed up in the Commons by
a further discussion on April 9th, when Mr. Brand moved
a resolution “That it is contrary to the first duties of the
confidential servants of the Crown to restrain themselves
by any pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the
King any advice which the course of circumstances may
render necessary for the welfare and security of the
empire.” Sir Samuel Romilly and Mr. Whitbread con-
demned Mr. Perceval's statement that the King had
acted without advice, and asserted that he could not
act without some responsible advisers. Canning said .
Ministers were “determined to stand by their sovereign,
even though circumstances should occur in which they
might find it their duty to appeal to the country.” The
resolution was lost by 258 to 226 votes. A similar
motion by the Marquis of Stafford in the Lords was
superseded by the adjournment of the House, which was
carried by 171 to 90. Yet Ministers who took office in
consequence of the refusal of the pledge demanded by the
xi. THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
355
King must be held to have taken upon themselves the
same responsibility as if they had advised it."
Although this was the first session of a new Parliament,
Ministers took advantage of the prevalent anti-Catholic
feeling to appeal to the country, and Parliament was
accordingly dissolved on April 27th, 1807. A large Tory
and anti-Catholic majority was returned to support the
Government; and when the new Parliament met in
June, amendments to the Address condemning the disso-
lution were rejected by a majority of 93 in the Lords and
195 in the Commons. *
In the session of 1809 charges were brought against
the Duke of York of maladministration in the army, the
Duke being under the influence of Mrs. Clarke. Although
he was acquitted by small majorities, the public feeling
was so strong that the Duke was impelled to resign his
post of Commander-in-chief. Charges were also brought
against Castlereagh and Perceval of Parliamentary cor-
ruption, though in their private relations these statesmen
were noted for their high-mindedness and integrity.
The disastrous Walcheren expedition led to a serious
breach between Canning and Castlereagh, which ended in
a duel on Putney Heath and the subsequent resignation
of both statesmen. Canning remained out of official
life for a period of seven years.
The Duke of Portland, who was weak and vacillating
as a Premier, resigned office in 1809, and Perceval became
Prime Minister. Among other changes in the Govern-
ment, Lord Wellesley was appointed Foreign Secretary,
Lord Palmerston, then only in his twenty-fifth year,
Secretary-at-War, and Robert Peel, then only in his
twenty-third year, Under-Secretary for the Colonies.
In the session of 1810 the new Premier had to bear
the full brunt of the Opposition inquiry into the Wal-
cheren expedition. Lord Chatham, Pitt’s brother, had
been in command, and his communications with the
* See Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History, where the
question is ably discussed.
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Dissolu-
tion of
1807.
The Duke
of York.
Canning
and
Castle-
reagh.
Perceval
Prime
Minister.
Session of
1810.
356
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
King were stigmatised as highly unconstitutional. In
The Reign the same session Mr. Grattan’s motion in favour of the
O
George III.
S㺠F.
Burdett
and the
Commons.
Return of
the King's
onalady.
Roman Catholics was defeated by 213 to 109, while
Mr. Brand's motion for Parliamentary reform was re-
jected by 234 to 115. The same resolution was rejected
in 1812.
A struggle arose in 1810 on a question of privilege
between the House of Commons and Sir Francis Burdett,
the popular member for Westminster. It appears that
Mr. Gale Jones had been committed to Newgate for pub-
lishing an offensive placard announcing for discussion in
a debating society the conduct of two members, Mr. G.
Yorke and Mr. Windham. Sir F. Burdett published an
address to his constituents denouncing this act of the
House and denying its right of commitment. This was
voted to be a breach of privilege, and by direction of
the House the Speaker issued his warrant for the com-
mitment of Sir Francis to the Tower. The latter, however,
barricaded himself in his house for three days. Great
riots ensued, and a man was killed. Sir Francis was at
length taken and imprisoned until the prorogation. The
people took up his cause, and the Commons were de-
nounced as tyrants and oppressors. Sir Francis brought
actions against the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms in
the King’s Bench, but the court vindicated the authority
of the House, and its decision was upheld on appeal by
the Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords.
In the autumn of 1810 the King's malady returned,
and became permanent. A Regency Bill, founded upon
the precedent of 1788-9, was brought in, but discussions
arose in both Houses as to the advisability of proceeding
by resolutions. Mr. Francis Horner spoke ably in the
Commons against proceeding by bill, while the Dukes of
York and Sussex and all the other dukes of the blood
royal advocated proceeding by address. This drew from
the Lord Chancellor a declaration to the effect that an
address from the two Houses to the Prince of Wales
praying him to exercise the royal prerogatives during the
King’s life would be treasonable. Ultimately a Regency
xi. THE REIGN
357
OF GEORGE III.
Bill was passed, which received the royal assent by com-
mission on February 5th, 1811. The Prince of Wales
took up the government, although he had endeavoured in
vain to modify the proposals in the bill. He now broke
with his old Whig friends, and, contrary to expectation,
made no change in the Ministry, Perceval being retained as
Premier. In February, 1812, the term for which the
regency was originally fixed expired, and the Prince of
Wales assumed the full government of the country with-
out restrictions.
The Ministerial changes from this period to the death
of George III. may be briefly indicated. In 1812 a
Ministerial crisis arose, and Lords Grenville and Grey
were approached with the view of joining Perceval's
Government. They felt unable to take office, however,
unless Catholic emancipation could be obtained, and so
remained in opposition. Lord Wellesley resigned, and
Castlereagh became Foreign Secretary. On May 11th,
1812, Perceval was assassinated in the lobby of the House
of Commons by Bellingham, who was immediately seized,
tried, and executed. Parliament made a liberal provision
for Perceval’s family, and a monument was erected to his
memory in Westminster Abbey. Perceval belonged to a
narrow school, and was not a great statesman, but he was
an able debater, a competent chief, and an excellent man.
He was charged with not conducting the war with vigour—
a charge which his relatives afterwards strongly denied—
and his action with regard to the Orders in Council has also
been animadverted upon. As we have seen, these orders
were issued in 1806 for the purpose of crippling French
trade, and Perceval continued them with great energy.
Unfortunately they pressed so heavily upon American
trade that shortly after Perceval’s death the United
States declared war against England. The Orders in
Council were then revoked, but too late to avert hos-
tilities. *
After Perceval's assassination, negotiations were entered
into with Lord Wellesley and with Canning, and also with
Grey and Grenville; but all these failed, and Lord Liver-
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
The
Regency
Act.
The
Ministry.
Assassima-
tion of
Perceval.
War with,
America.
Lord
Liverpool
becomes
Premier.
358
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III, pool became Prime Minister. It was confidently predicted
The eign that the new Administration could not exist for six
George III. months, but it lasted for nearly fifteen years. Liverpool
His
policy.
Castle-
Teagh.
was First Lord of the Treasury, Castlereagh Foreign
Secretary, Sidmouth Home Secretary, Wansittart
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Palmerston Secretary-at-
War, Eldon Lord Chancellor, and Peel Secretary for
Ireland. Places were also given to Harrowby, West-
moreland, Melville, Huskisson, Robinson, and others.
Huskisson took the department of Woods and Forests
from 1814. The moving spirits of the Ministry were
Castlereagh and Sidmouth. In 1816 Canning joined
the Government as President of the Board of Control,
but this post he resigned rather than remain in the
Government during the trial of Queen Caroline.
The policy of Lord Liverpool during the first ten years
he was in office has been condemned alike by Liberal
and Conservative critics. As evidence of its incompetent
or despotic character, they have cited the abandonment
of Poland, the partition of Saxony, the union of Holland
and Belgium, the Austrian establishment in Italy, the
alleged connivance of England in the suppression of the
Neapolitan revolution, the mismanagement of the finances,
and the imposition of the Corn Law of 1815, by which the
importation of wheat for home consumption was positively
forbidden when the price was under eighty shillings.
The leader of the House of Commons was Lord Castle-
reagh, whose foreign policy was a continuation of that
traditional policy which had obtained since the Revolution
of 1688, and whose main plank was the playing off of
German alliances against our old enemies the French.
He was one of the negotiators of the First Peace of Paris,
in May, 1814, under which the only real advantage gained
by England was the surrender of the Isle of France, in
order to secure the route to India, Malta being retained
for the same object. When the Holy Alliance was formed,
in September, 1815, between Russia, Austria, and Prussia,
Castlereagh refused to accede to it. The Ostensible object
of the Holy Alliance was to govern according to the
xi.] * THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
359
precepts of Christianity, but, as the Duke of Wellington
remarked, “the British Parliament liked something more
precise.” The real object of the Alliance was to guarantee
despotism against the insurrection of the subject. After
the crushing defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, the Second
Peace of Paris was negotiated (November 20th, 1815),
Castlereagh being still Foreign Minister of England.
By this new treaty France was rigorously confined to
its old boundary of 1790 and deprived of the additions
granted by the treaty of 1814. No less than £28,000,000
was to be paid to the Allies for the expenses of the war,
and, to guarantee the payment of this contribution, the
fortresses of the northern frontier were to be occupied by
the Allies for five years at the expense of France.
From the year 1811 to the year 1820 the domestic
peace of England was disturbed by serious riots and
popular agitations. The working classes were suffering
terribly from the war burdens, the high prices of food,
restraints upon trade, and diminished employment. The
Luddite outrages began at Nottingham in November,
1811, and extended during the following spring and
summer through the counties of Derby and Leicester,
and through Cheshire, Lancashire, and Yorkshire. The
outrages were committed by bands of workmen, who
went about destroying machinery, to the introduction of
which they attributed the want of work consequent on
the commercial depression. They gained their name from
Ned Ludd, a Leicestershire idiot, who had made himself
notorious by destroying stocking-frames thirty years
before. Parliament took action, and in 1812 an act was
passed “for the more exemplary punishment of persons
destroying or injuring any stocking or lace-frames, or
other machines or engines used in the framework-knitting
manufactory, or any articles or goods in such frames or
machines.” The object of the act was to make the
offence capital; but, notwithstanding this severe legisla-
tion, the outrages continued at intervals until July, 1816,
when they broke out with greater violence than ever.
Every lace machine in Loughborough was destroyed, and
CHAP. III.
**.*—
The Reign
Of
George III.
->
Second
Peace of
Paris,
1815.
The
Luddite
7°iots.
Severe
legisla-
tion.
360
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, a few months later similar riots took place at Leicester.
The eign But from this period the Luddite riots took a secondary
eorge III. place in view of the more formidable political disturbances
Corm
7'70ts,
The
Regent
attacked.
Stringent
acts
passed.
which marked the closing years of the Regency. The
Home Secretary, Lord Sidmouth, who in personal cha-
racter was amiable and humane, now began that stern
and resolute policy which made his name hated by the
masses of the people. -
On the passing of the unpopular Corn Bill of 1815
riots ensued in London and other places, but these were
suppressed by the ordinary means at the disposal of the
executive Government. When the Regent was attacked,
however, on his return from the opening of Parliament
in 1817, special repressive measures were proposed. A
message from the Prince to both Houses was accompanied
by papers containing evidence of seditious practices.
These were referred to secret committees, which reported
the existence of dangerous associations and the spread
of seditious practices with which the existing laws were
Ilnable to grapple. Among other alleged treasonable
societies, Hampden clubs were plotting revolution, while
the Spenceans, who had arranged the Spa Fields meeting
of December 2nd, 1816, were preparing to hunt down
the owners of the soil and the “rapacious fundholders.”
Parliament now extended, for the benefit of the Prince
Regent, the act passed in 1795 for the protection of the
King from treasonable attempts ; and another act was
renewed to restrain the seduction of soldiers and sailors
from their allegiance. Upon these measures all classes
were agreed: but when it was proposed to extend the
acts of 1795 and 1799 against corresponding societies to
other political clubs and associations, whether affiliated
or not ; to suppress the Spencean clubs, founded by the
followers of a Communistic teacher named Spence ;
to regulate meetings of more than fifty persons; to
license debating societies; and, lastly, to suspend
the Habeas Corpus Act—these measures were op-
posed by the minority as encroachments upon liberty
for which there was no adequate justification. Yet the
x1,.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
361
Government carried all their stringent proposals; and the
numbers for the third reading of the Habeas Corpus Sus-
pension Act in the Commons were 265 as against 103, in
the Lords 150 to 35. This Act and some other measures
expired in the following year, but new restrictive provi-
sions were permanently added to the constitutional law.
Public meetings were prohibited within a mile of West-
minster Hall, during the sitting of Parliament and the
courts; and restraints were imposed on the appointment
and co-operation of delegates from different societies to
the London conventions, which had begun to assume the
right of dictating to the Legislature.
The Government blundered in their State prosecutions.
Dr. Watson, Arthur Thistlewood, and others were in-
dicted in 1817 for high treason, arising out of the riotous
meeting in Spa Fields. Instead of being prosecuted for
sedition and riot, of which they were guilty, they were
tried for treason, of which they were not guilty, and
acquitted. Three persons were executed for an insurrec-
tionary movement in Derbyshire in the month of June,
1817.
In the previous March the Home Secretary had issued
the “Sidmouth Circular,” addressed to the lords-lieu-
tenants of counties, authorising magistrates to apprehend
persons accused of libellous publications, and to proceed
against the vendors of pamphlets and tracts under the
Hawkers’ and Pedlars’ Act. In May and June the lawful-
ness and policy of this circular were discussed and
questioned by Lord Grey in the Lords and Sir Samuel
Romilly in the Commons. They argued that the power
now ceded to the justices was not known to the common
law, nor had it been conferred by, statute or recognised
by any express decision of the courts. Ministers replied
that the law had been correctly expounded to the magis-
trates, and if disputed it could be tried before a court of
law on a writ of habeas corpus.
The repressive powers already in existence were merci-
lessly exercised against the press. William Cobbett,
whose popular writings were detested and feared by the
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Parlia-
ment and
Public
Meetings.
State
t?'ials.
The
“ Sīd-
mouth
Cºrcular.”
Cobbett
and Home.
362
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. Government, had already suffered for the freedom of his
*The jelsn utterances; so, rather than face a trial which he knew
George III would be unjustly pressed against him, he went off to
The
“Man-
chester
Mas-
Sacre.”
America for a time. William Home, however, an obscure
bookseller, was prosecuted for certain political squibs in
1817, and scored a distinct triumph over Ministers.
Being poor, he ably conducted his own defence, and, not-
withstanding all the efforts of Lord Ellenborough, he was
acquitted, to the lasting grief and chagrin of the judge.
Similar trials for libel and sedition took place in Scotland.
The state of feud between the Government and the
people culminated in what is known as the “Manchester
Massacre,” or the “Peterloo Meeting.” This gathering
was the most celebrated of all the numerous meetings
held throughout the country to discuss the state of the
nation, and to advocate Parliamentary reform. It was
held on August 16th, 1819, under the lead of a moted
Radical reformer, “Orator” Hunt. Extensive military
arrangements were made to prevent riot or disturbance.
From forty to sixty thousand people marched into
St. Peter's Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester,
and the magistrates viewed the proceedings from a neigh-
bouring house. When Hunt rose to address the crowd,
the Chief Constable was directed to arrest him, but he could
not get near the speaker. The Yeomanry were sent to
his aid, but they were powerless. The 15th Hussars were
then ordered to charge the people, which they did sword
in hand. The meeting was broken up, and the field was
soon strewn with the victims of the impetuous charge.
Upwards of three hundred persons were injured, and five
or six lives were lost. Great indignation was excited by
this event, and the whole country was stirred. Meetings
and petitions for inquiry followed, but Ministers remained
unmoved, and even the Common Council of the city of
London were rebuked by the Prince Regent for urging
an inquiry. Earl Fitzwilliam was dismissed from his
lord-lieutenancy for attending a meeting in Yorkshire
called to demand inquiry. Hunt was arrested, tried, and
imprisoned for his share in the Manchester meeting.
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
363
Parliament met in November, and Earl Grey in the
Lords and Mr. Tierney in the Commons moved amend-
ments to the Address reprobating all dangerous schemes,
but urging the duty of giving just attention to the com-
plaints of the people and the propriety of inquiring into
the events at Manchester. The speakers advised con-
ciliation, for if discontent were only responded to by
force the Constitution must be suspended. But moderate
counsels were scouted, inquiry was refused, and the
Address was voted in the Lords by 159 to 34 and in the
Commons by 381 to 150. Distinct motions for inquiry
subsequently brought forward by Lord Lansdowne in the
Lords and Lord Althorp in the Commons met with a
similar fate.
Ministers went further. Resolved on stamping out
sedition, they introduced the famous coercive measures
known as the “Six Acts.” The first, which was brought
forward by the Lord Chancellor, was an act depriving
defendants in cases of misdemeanour of the right of
traversing, the object being to prevent delay. The
second, third, and fourth acts were introduced by Lord
Sidmouth. The second prevented the training of persons
in the use of arms and the practice of military evolu-
tions and exercises ; the third was for the more effectual
prevention and punishment of blasphemous and seditious
libels; the fourth authorised justices of the peace in
certain disturbed counties to seize and detain arms col-
lected and kept for purposes dangerous to the public
peace, and the act was to continue in force until
March 25th, 1822 ; the fifth act, introduced by Lord
Castlereagh, was one to subject certain publications to
the duties of stamps upon newspapers, and to make other
regulations for restraining the abuses arising from the
publication of blasphemous and seditious libels ; the sixth
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Debates łº,
Parlia-
7.672%.
The “ Sãº
Acts.”
act, also introduced by Lord Castlereagh, was one for
more effectually preventing seditious meetings and
assemblies out of doors, and this was to continue in force
until the end of the session of Parliament next after five
years from the passing of the act. The Whigs and
364
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III, Radicals stoutly opposed these severe measures, but
The eign they were supported by the whole strength of the
George III. Government and the Tories, and passed with but few
The
Catholic
claims.
modifications. These reactionary measures may justly
be stigmatised as panic legislation, the result of distrust
of the people.
During the progress of these events the two important
questions of the Catholic claims and Parliamentary
reform were again frequently discussed in Parliament.
With regard to the former, in 1812 the aspect of the
Catholic difficulty changed, and it became an “open
question ” with the Ministry. Canning now declared him-
self in favour of the Catholic claims. Abortive motions
had been brought forward by Grattan and Lord Donough-
more in the early part of the session of 1812, but on
June 22nd Canning gained an unexpected victory on this
very question. His motion for the consideration of the
laws affecting Roman Catholics was carried by the extra-
ordinary majority of 129, the numbers being 235 to 106.
A similar motion by Lord Wellesley in the Upper House
was only lost by one vote—126 to 125. In February,
1813, Grattan moved in committee of the whole House
the immediate consideration of the laws affecting Roman
Catholics. He was supported by Castlereagh and op-
posed by Peel, and after a brilliant debate extending over
four nights the resolution was carried by 264 to 224.
A further resolution, brought forward by Grattan on
March 9th, affirming the advisability of removing the
civil and military disqualifications of the Catholics, was
opposed by Mr. Speaker Abbot, but carried by 186 to
119 votes. Grattan next brought in a bill founded upon
his resolution. It provided for the admission of Catholics
to either House of Parliament, and permitted them to
vote at elections and to hold office under certain condi-
tions. It passed its second reading by 245 to 203, but
in committee its principal provision was lost by a
majority of four, on Speaker Abbot’s motion, and the bill
was abandoned. During the session, however, the Duke
of Norfolk's bill was passed enabling Irish Roman
xi.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 365
Catholics to hold all such civil or military offices in CHAP. III.
England as by the act of 1793 they were entitled to hold The Heign
in Ireland. In 1815 Sir H. Parnell’s motion for a com- George III.
mittee to consider the Catholic claims was rejected by Tº
228 to 147, and a similar motion by Lord Donoughmore
in the Lords was lost by 86 to 60. Grattan again brought
forward the question in 1816, but was defeated by 172 to
141, and on repeating the motion in 1817 the numbers
were 245 against to 221 in favour. Similar motions by
Lord Donoughmore in the Tords were rejected by 73 to
69 in 1816 and 142 to 90 in 1817. In the latter year,
however, a distinct concession was gained by the passing
of the Military and Naval Officers’ Oaths Bill, introduced Qficers
by Lord Melville. It was simply intended as a measure %
of regulation, and escaped the animadversion of the ultra-
Protestants. This act virtually opened all ranks in the
army and navy to Roman Catholics and Dissenters.
Thus, as Lord Farnborough observes, “a measure de-
nounced in 1807 as a violation of the Constitution and
the King's coronation oath was now agreed to with
the acquiescence of all parties.” In 1819 Grattan’s
motion for a committee to consider the Catholic claims
was lost by 243 to 241, and Lord Donoughmore's
motion in the Lords by 147 to 106. In May of the
following year Grattan, the pure-souled Irish patriot,
died. Here we must pause in our sketch of the Death of
movement of which he was the honoured and unselfish *
leader.
The cause of Parliamentary reform, which had lan- Parlia-
guished for some years, was taken up in 1817 by Sir F. #:
Burdett (chairman of the Hampden Club of London),
but his motion in favour of reform was lost by 265 to 77.
Nothing daunted, in the session of 1818 he proposed
resolutions in favour of universal male suffrage, equal
electoral districts, vote by ballot, and annual Parliaments.
He was seconded by Lord Cochrane, but found not a
single supporter besides, the division showing the follow- Extraor-
ing extraordinary result : 106 to 0. On July 1st, 1819, ###,
Burdett's motion “That the House will consider the wº
366
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
Of
George III.
Insolvent
debtors.
Dissenting
Ministers.
The
Income
Taac.
Civil List.
Bill of
Im-
demnity.
question of reform in the following session ” was rejected
by 153 to 58.
The general course of legislation from 1812 to 1820
demands some attention. A bill for the relief of insol-
vent debtors was passed in 1812, and as a result of this
salutary measure during the next thirteen years upwards
of fifty thousand such debtors were set free from prison.
In 1812 the Protestant Dissenting Ministers Bill was
passed, by which the persons aggrieved were relieved
from the oaths and declaration required by the Toleration
Act and the act of 1779, and from other vexatious restric-
tions. Unitarians also obtained relief from various
penalties in the session of 1813. In the session of 1816
Ministers proposed to continue half of the income tax—
that is, to reduce it from 10 to 5 per cent.; but a strong
agitation ensued, and the House of Commons swept away
the tax altogether by a majority of 37 votes. During
the same session the Civil List was again regulated, and
£60,000 a year was voted to the Princess Charlotte
on her marriage with the Prince of Saxe-Coburg. To
the great grief of the nation, however, the Princess
died in the following year, after the birth of a dead
child.
In March, 1818, there was brought forward in the
Lords a Bill of Indemnity for those who had been
engaged in arrests on suspicion or in the dispersal of
meetings since January 26th, 1817. It was warmly and
repeatedly debated in both Houses, but passed its third
reading in the Lords by 93 to 27. Lords Lansdowne,
Erskine, Holland, and seven other peers entered a strong
protest on the journals against the measure, to the effect
that there had never been a widespread traitorous con-
spiracy; that the ordinary laws were sufficient for restoring
tranquillity; that Ministers were not entitled to a general
indemnity until the numerous cases of imprisonment had
been thoroughly investigated; that illegal and malicious
proceedings were protected by the bill and had been
systematically encouraged under it. In the Commons
the bill was opposed by Romilly, Brougham, and Tierney,
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III.
367
the last-named describing it as one of the most detestable
measures ever introduced into Parliament; but the third
reading was carried by 82 to 23. Brougham did good
service in the cause of education this session by pro-
moting inquiry, and Sturges Bourne in this and the
following session by amending the poor laws. The noble-
hearted Romilly had already procured some ameliorations
of the oppressive criminal laws, including the repeal of a
statute which made stealing from the person punishable
by death ; but when he endeavoured this session to carry
a bill for abolishing the penalty of death for the crime of
stealing from a shop goods valued at five shillings, his
measure was thrown out in the Lords, on the motion of
Lord Chancellor Eldon | Brougham and Romilly endea-
voured to repeal the Septennial Act, but were defeated
by 117 to 42. Parliament voted this session the large
sum of £1,000,000 for the building of new churches, and
it also made grants in connection with the marriages of
the royal dukes.
The Alien Act was again renewed this year, having
been previously renewed in 1816, after strong opposition.
The Whigs now contested it with the greatest obstinacy
at every step, but it passed by 94 to 29, and was then
carried through the Lords, together with a supplementary
act affecting the naturalisation of foreigners.
On June 10th, the day after the second Alien Act
passed, the Prince Regent went down to the House of
Peers and suddenly dissolved Parliament. This was an
unprecedented proceeding in later constitutional times,
and there was no parallel to it since Charles II. had
angrily dismissed his Oxford Parliament in 1681.
Ministers were anxious for a dissolution, because it still
remained the law that Parliament should reassemble
either on the demise of the Crown or the death of the
Regent, and the former event was likely to happen any
day. In that case the existing Parliament would have
been revived, even notwithstanding a dissolution, if the
day appointed by the writs of summons for the assembling
of a new Parliament had not arrived before the King's
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Bduca-
tion.
Poor laws.
Criminal
code.
The Alien.
Act.
Parlia-
77&670%
suddenly
dissolved.
368
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
The Reign
O
George III.
Care of
the King.
Cash pay-
Q67tS.
Foreign
Enlist-
onent Act.
Proroga-
tion of
JParlia-
7/7670t.
Death of
George
III.
death took place. In the ensuing elections the Opposi-
tion somewhat improved their position.
After the new Parliament met in January, 1819, fresh
arrangements were made for the care of the King's
person in consequence of the death of the Queen, and the
Duke of York was appointed to succeed her. Warm
debates took place over the Royal Household or Windsor
Establishment Bill, Tierney and others strongly objecting
to the £50,000 allowed for the Windsor establishment.
Ministers carried their proposals, however, by 281 to 186
votes. Mr. Peel, who had just been appointed chairman
of the Bank Committee, next brought forward his im-
portant proposals for the resumption of cash payments by
the Bank of England. They were debated at length, but
ultimately adopted, and bills founded upon them were
introduced by Mr. Peel and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. These were carried through, and the Bank
began to make cash payments in exchange for its notes,
of whatever amount, some time before the date specified
in the acts.
The Foreign Enlistment Act was a measure hotly
debated, but its third reading was carried by 190 to 129.
The act forbade British subjects to take service with a
foreign State without a royal license, and also prohibited
the equipment of ships to be used against a Power with
which England was at peace. Acts were also passed
ratifying the treaties concluded with Holland and Portugal
for the suppression of the slave trade.
Parliament was prorogued on July 13th, but it re-
assembled on November 23rd following, in consequence
of the events at Manchester already described. After
the Six Acts had been passed, the Houses adjourned on
December 29th to February 15th, 1820.
But before Parliament again assembled the long and
eventful reign of George III. had come to a close. The
aged and afflicted monarch died at Windsor on January
29th, 1820, in the eighty-second year of his age and the
sixtieth of his reign. The age of George III. was made
illustrious by its great military and naval captains, by its
x1.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. 369
men of science and letters, and by its statesmen and CHAP. III.
Parliamentary orators. The King himself alone pre- The eign
vented his reign from being one of the most glorious in George III.
our annals. Though admirable in all the relations of T
private life, his political prejudices and arbitrary prin-
ciples of government were great hindrances to consti-
tutional government. The wars of the reign increased
the National Debt from £138,000,000 to upwards of
£800,000,000; but fortunately the trade and commerce
of the country advanced by equal strides. During the
closing years of this monarch's rule popular forces were at
work which, though crushed for the time, were destined
to make themselves felt, in the reigns of succeeding
sovereigns, in the extension of the bounds of civil and
religious freedom.
VOL. II. 24
№.*.*¿¿. №--{~~~~- -- nº — — — • • • • • • • • • -=~ ~*=~~===


BOOK XII.
THE IRISH PARLIAMENT FROM ITS ORIGIN. To
THE UNION.
}
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
| 1
|
| |||�*
| |
| ||
||
|
|
||
| ||
||
|
||
||
||
||
|
|
|
|
||
||
|
||
|
|
|| ||
ę
|
||
|||
|
|
|
|| ||�
||
||
||
ș
; ; %| _#||· ||
CHAPTER 1.
THE IRISH PARLIAMENT TO 1782.
THE Irish people are undoubtedly a very ancient race,
but when we attempt to trace their early history, we are
at once lost in the mazes of legend and romance. Certain
Irish writers have professed to trace the Milesian records
to a period almost coeval with the Deluge, but in a
work which endeavours to ascertain the solid facts of
Irish government we may be reasonably excused for
beginning our researches long after that period. A theory
now generally accepted is that the Irish are descended
from one of the Celtic tribes which occupied Gaul and
Britain some centuries before the Christian era ; and
many antiquaries affirm that the Irish were the parent
Early.
Irish,
history.
tribe that planted the Celtic colony in Scotland at a date
considerably later than the original settlement in Ireland.
With the life and career of St. Patrick in the fifth
century of the Christian era the authentic history of
Ireland may be assumed to commence. Born in Scotland,
St. Patrick was carried as a slave to Ireland, whence he
escaped to Rome, where he rose high in the service of the
Church. Returning to Ireland, he succeeded in convert-
ing the whole island to Christianity. Ireland was at this
time divided into septs or clans, each sept bearing the
name of the head of the family. All the septs owed
allegiance to the chief king. The chieftainships were
St.
Patrick.
Septs
374
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſhook
CHAP: I, elective, and during the lifetime of each chief his
The Irish successor was chosen from the same family, and was
Parlia-
ment.
*-
The
JBrehon,
Larvs.
called the Tanist. All the land was held by the septs
for the benefit of the people, and there was no feudal
condition and no system of primogeniture.
What are known as the Brehon laws formed the
system of jurisprudence which prevailed among the
native Irish from a very early period till towards the
middle of the seventeenth century. These laws received
their name from the breitheamhuin (pronounced brei-hoo-in
or brehon), who were supposed to have been hereditary
judges, and who administered justice upon the members
of their tribe seated in the open air upon the hillside.
As was the custom in many other states in the early
stages of civilisation, the Irish laws admitted a fine or
composition for murder instead of capital punishment,
and this was divided between the kindred of the slain
and the judge. Portions of manuscript collections of the
Brehon laws are preserved in the libraries of the Royal
Irish Academy, Trinity College, Dublin, the Bodleian,
Oxford, and the British Museum. These manuscripts date
from the fourteenth to the end of the sixteenth century,
but the laws themselves have a much higher antiquity.
The redaction of them in their existing form has been
attributed, rightly or wrongly, to the learned Cormac Mac-
Cuilleanain, King and Archbishop of Cashel, who was slain
in 903 A.D. The recension of the code known as the
Seanchus Moris traditionally ascribed to St. Patrick, who
is said to have expunged from the laws all institutions
savouring of heathenism. The laws were written in
ancient Irish. The basis of society as existing in Ireland
from the earliest historic times was the tribe, and the
principal occupations the pasturage of cattle and tillage
of the soil. The community embraced monarchs, provin-
cial kings, chiefs, proprietors, clansmen, and serfs of an
alien race. The land was divided into two parts; one was
common pasture-ground, and the other was portioned
out among the chiefs and other tribal dignitaries, with
the poorer clansmen and serfs holding as tenants under a
xii.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
375
proprietor. Money was unknown, fines and valuations
being represented by so many head of cattle. The laws
embodied regulations for the fostering of the children of
the nobles, for their food and education, their dress and
its quality, together with Ordinances touching the holding
of courts and the giving of evidence. Remains of pagan
customs survived in the laws of marriage and magical
ordeals."
Ireland was divided into five provincial kingdoms—
Leinster, Munster, Ulster, Connaught, and Meath—one
of whose sovereigns was chosen King of Ireland in some
general meeting, probably of the nobility or smaller
chieftains and of the prelates. The character of this
national assembly cannot be accurately defined, though
it is said to have been held triennially. The supreme
monarch received tributes from the inferior kings, and
was their head in the defence of the country against
invasion ; but the Constitution was federal, and each
king was an independent ruler.”
Civilisation had made but little progress in Ireland
by the beginning of the twelfth century. Slavery was
universal, and the people, while superstitiously impressed
by religion, retained many of the attributes of a barbarous
nation. The clergy were numerous and influential, and
independent of Rome, and the government of the country
was almost exclusively aristocratic. The Norman in-
vasion of Ireland began in 1169, with the landing of
Robert FitzStephen and Maurice Fitzgerald; the famous
“Strongbow,” Richard de Clare, followed in 1170, and
Henry II. completed the conquest in 1172. Pope
Adrian IV. had issued a bull authorising Henry to
assume authority over Ireland, in order that she might
be made more submissive to the ecclesiastical direction
| Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland, Irish Rolls Series;
Manners of the Ancient Irish, by Eugene O'Curry; Annals of the
Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters; and articles “Ireland”
and “Brehon Laws,” Chambers's Encyclopædia, 1888-90.
* Antiquities of Ireland, by Sir James Ware ; Hallam's Constitu-
tional History, chapter “On the Constitution of Ireland.”
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Provin-
cial
kingdoms.
Morman
£7Myasion.
of Ireland.
376
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Policy of
Henry II.
Irish and
Fnglish.
The Pale,
of Rome. Henry introduced his own system of govern-
ment, divided the island into counties, and set up
courts of justice in Dublin. He made large grants of
land to the Norman barons, but allowed the native
Irish to keep to their Brehon laws. The English, how-
ever, ignored the rights of the tribes ; and from this time
dates the feud between the two races. Henry gave
charters of privilege to the chief towns, and probably
assembled Parliaments. His policy was continued by
his successors; John sent over the Great Charter to
Ireland ; and the whole common law became the birth-
right of the Anglo-Irish colonists. In course of time
powerful palatine counties sprang up, which formed by
far the greater portion of the English territories; and
in these the King's writ could only run within the lands
belonging to the Church."
As time went on the Irish were regarded by the
English as aliens and beyond the pale of English justice.
They appealed to the representatives of the English
Government in Dublin, who were disposed to assist them,
but obstruction arose from the Anglo-Irish Parliament,
whose concurrence was necessary to every general measure.
In 1278 a number of septs, calling themselves “the
Community of Ireland,” offered eight thousand marks
for the privilege of living by the English law. Edward I.
authorised the justiciary of Ireland to grant the request,
if it could be done with the general consent of the
prelates and nobles of Ireland; but the aristocracy with-
held their assent. The Irish suppliants renewed their
applications both to Edward I. and Edward III., but the
oligarchy were obdurate. Many Irishmen, however, it
must be stated, adhered to the old elective Brehon laws
of tanistry, which they preferred to the English custom
of hereditary succession. The English and Irish races
were for centuries very distinct; and that part of Ireland
which was de facto subject to English law began to be
called the Pale in the fifteenth century.
| A Discoverie of the State of Ireland, by Sir John Davies (1613).
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
377
Gradually, nevertheless, numbers of the English
settlers began to assimilate Irish speech, dress, and
manners. They also intermarried with the Irish, and
connected themselves with them by the national customs
of fostering—that is, the changing of their own children
for others—and gossipred or compaternity, which
customs did more to denationalise the invaders than
anything. An Irish statute 25 Henry VI. was very
strong against English settlers who adopted the Irish
style of dress and manner of wearing the hair. Many
great families, such as the De Burghs or Burkes of
Connaught, and the Desmonds, a younger branch of the
house of Geraldine or Fitzgerald, became almost inde-
pendent of the Crown, acted as Irish chiefs, and neither
regarded the King’s summons to his Parliaments, nor
paid any obedience to his judges. Irish Parliaments
were frequently summoned, and for all-important pur-
poses, such as granting subsidies and enacting statutes,
they were as necessary in the sister island as they were
in England.
The first properly constituted Parliament of Ireland
was that summoned by Sir John Wogan in 1295. Wogan
was an able deputy, who, by his wise and conciliatory
policy, brought about a truce for two years between the
Geraldines and their enemies. In the year above named
—the same year which witnessed the summoning of
Edward’s model English Parliament—he summoned a
Parliament to meet at Kilkenny. Writs were issued to
the Lords spiritual and temporal, and to the sheriffs
directing them to return two knights for each of the
counties. The roll of this Parliament contains only
twenty-seven names, Richard, Earl of Ulster, heading
the list ; but the ordinances it enacted had the merit
of having maturely weighed the public grievances, not
without some real intention of providing effectual redress.
Excellent ordinances, however, were fatally frustrated by
the more powerful action of the King’s corrupt servants.
It was enacted that tenants of every degree should pro-
vide according to their rank towards a militia, that
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Assimila-
tion of
Irish,
customs.
4||
The first
Irish Paº'-
liament.
378
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
Iment.
Legisla-
tion of
Bidward
II.
absentees should contribute out of their Irish revenues
to that establishment, and that settlers who refused to
assist the Government in repelling disaffection or invasion
should pay damages to their suffering neighbours. In
future no lord was to make war but by license of the
chief governor or by special mandate of the King.
Several wholesome subordinate ordinances were passed by
the express order of Edward I., and it was further enacted
that the moment hostilities commenced the country at-
tacked should rise instantly. For the purpose of prevent-
ing any mistake between Englishmen and Irishmen (for
killing the latter there was no punishment), it was
directed that all Englishmen should conform strictly to
the garb and tonsure of their own countrymen, on pain
of seizure of their lands and chattels, and imprisonment
of their persons. Lastly, two lords in every county
and liberty in which Irishmen were resident were, in
the absence of the chief governor, vested with full
power to treat with the Irish in all matters in which the
public tranquillity was concerned. These orders effected
some temporary good, but they never effectually put an
end to the disorders of the realm.,
Edward II., though a worthless king so far as England
was concerned, is regarded by many Irish historians as a
better legislator for Ireland than any of his predecessors.
He caused to be passed many salutary statutes and Ordi-
nances for the better government of the country. The
earliest Irish statutes on record—those of the year 1310–
belong to his reign. After this the records are lost till
1429, but we have other sources of information concerning
the numerous intervening Parliaments. The statutes of
1310 testify to the degeneracy of the English lords, and
to the genuine desire of Edward’s feeble government for
the reformation of abuses. The first act was one to
restrain great lords from taking of prises, and lodging
* History of Ireland from its Invasion under Henry II. to its Union
with Great Britain, by Francis Plowden; and The History of Ireland,
Ancient and Modern, by Martin Haverty.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 379
and sojourning with the people of the country against CHAP: I.
their will. It was also decreed that none should keep idle The Irish
ſº * f º º Parlia-
people nor foot-soldiers in time of peace to live upon the men.
poor of the country, but that those who had them should
keep them at their own charges. The statute further
restrained great lords and others, except such as had royal
franchises, from giving protections, which they used to
compel people to purchase ; and it directed that there
should be commissions of assize and gaol delivery through
all the counties of Ireland.
Obscurity prevails as to the time when burgesses were Burgesses.
admitted to the Irish Parliaments, but it was probably
not earlier than the time of Edward III. They appear
in 1341, when Edward’s Lord Deputy, Sir John Morris,
brought forward sweeping measures for breaking down
the ascendency of the great Anglo-Irish lords. Great The
excitement prevailed over these measures, and in order #"
to allay it the Lord Deputy summoned a Parliament lords.
to meet at Dublin in October, 1342; but the Earl of
Desmond and many others peremptorily refused to attend,
and held a general convention or assembly of their own
at Kilkenny in November, to which were summoned
deputies from various corporations. This rebel Parlia-
ment adopted a long and spirited remonstrance to the
King, setting forth the rights which they had inherited
from their ancestors, their claims to the royal favour and
protection, and the injustice of the ordinances now issued
against them. Edward’s reply was generally favourable;
he confirmed the grants of his predecessors, and restored
those lands granted by himself which had been resumed
where there had been sufficient cause for the original
gift. In an ordinance of 1359 the Commons are clearly The
specified as an essential part of Parliament; but Coke Cºlºs
was of opinion that before this time “the conventions in tºria.
Ireland were not so much Parliaments as assemblies of
great men.” Theoretically this view may not be strictly
correct, but practically no doubt it is so.
The ancient customs of coshering and coyne and livery Coyne and
spread rapidly among the Anglo-Irish, and were practised “”
380
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
The
Statute of
Rilkenny.
by such retrograde chiefs as the Geraldines and the
De Courcys. Coshery was the right which a chief had
of using the houses and taking the provisions of his
tenantry for himself and his following at his own discre-
tion. It went on till long after the time of Cromwell,
and numerous statutes failed to suppress it. Coyne and
livery was also an ancient right which enabled the lord
or chief to quarter his soldiery on his tenants. The Irish
name for it was bonaght. So widely was it adopted by
the Norman settlers that the loyal Butlers and both
branches of the house of Fitzgerald practised it. The
Irish Parliament frequently complained of the custom,
and it was legislated against in 1367, made treason in
1409, and ultimately abolished in 1603.
In 1367 Lionel, Duke of Clarence, held the memorable
Parliament of Kilkenny, the most numerous assembly of
the kind which had hitherto met in Ireland. It passed
the famous and very severe Statute of Kilkenny, which
was intended to check the degeneracy of the Anglo-Irish.
The following were its chief provisions : the prohibition
of intermarriages between the English and the natives,
of gossipred, and the adoption of the Brehon laws by the
English, who were likewise forbidden to make war on
the natives without the authority of the State. Those of
English race were forbidden to assume an Irish name,
dress, language, or customs; while no Irish were for the
future to pasture their cattle on English ground or to be
admitted to any religious house or benefice. Breaches of
these provisions entailed the penalties of high treason.
Further, no Irish were to be called in as minstrels, and
the practice of coyne and livery was strictly forbidden.
The statute was exclusively Anglo-Irish, and where it
dealt with the natives it was only to protect them from
the lawless baronage. After the Scots invasion of Ireland
by Edward Bruce in 1315, the government of the country
had become completely demoralised, and between this
period and the meeting of the Kilkenny Parliament a
good deal of the north of Ireland, and even part of the
south, was entirely lost to England.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
381
In the beginning of the reign of Richard II. England
began to think of the recovery of Ireland. The first
stringent statute against absenteeism was passed, com-
manding all persons who possessed lands, rents, or other
income in Ireland to return and reside there, on pain of
forfeiting two third parts of the profits thereof. The
Ring made his favourite Robert de Vere Duke of Ireland,
and gave him absolute and entire regal dominion over the
realm. Richard himself visited Ireland, and the princes
did him homage, but after his departure they threw off
their submission. The Duke of Lancaster, Lord Lieutenant
in Henry IV.'s reign, held several Parliaments in Dublin,
and during his rule the first idea of plantations in Ireland
was broached. By the laws of Henry Vſ. it was made a
felony for any subject of the King to sell merchandise in
a fair or market among the “Irish enemies”—that is,
Irish living beyond the bounds of the English Pale. By
a law 5 Edward IV., 1465, any Irishman found without
“a faithful man of good name in his company in English
apparel ”—and whom an Englishman should choose to
suspect of being a thief or an “intended” thief—might
be lawfully slain. A Parliament held in 1475 enacted a
law by which any Englishman who suffered injury from
a native Irishman belonging to an independent sept might
reprise himself on the whole sept or nation. Besides
these severe laws against the native Irish, there were
others against the Anglo-Irish. In 1438 a law passed in
CHAP. I.
The Iris
Parlia-
ment.
Laws of
Richard
II.,
of Henry
V.
• ?
and of
Ednyard,
IV.
England obliged all persons born in Ireland to quit the
former country within a certain time, except graduates of
universities, etc.; while another statute made in Ireland
prevented persons from emigrating into England. Such
legislation of course served to perpetuate the hostility
between the two races.
By Henry VII.'s time English authority over Ireland
had reached its lowest point ; and it appears from
Leland, Holinshed, and other writers that the real
Supremacy of the English laws was possibly not estab-
lished beyond the counties of Dublin and Louth, or from
Dublin to Dundalk on the coast, and for about thirty
Ireland
wºnder
Henry
VII.
382
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
miles inland. It consequently became necessary to make
the subjection of the country, so far at least as the
settlers of the Pale were concerned, something more than
a mere name. Sir Edward Poynings, a distinguished
military officer, was sent over as Lord Deputy; and he
succeeded in quelling the native Irish rebels in Ulster
and along the borders of the Pale. The eastern portion
of the island was quite restored to order; but Poynings’
government was made specially famous by the passing
of the statute known as Poynings’ Act in 1495. This
act contained provisions to restrain the lawlessness of
the Anglo-Irish within the Pale and to confirm the royal
sovereignty. All private hostilities without the Deputy’s
license were declared illegal, but to excite the Irish to
war was made high treason. Murders were to be
avenged by legal process, and not by pillaging and the
exaction of fines. The citizens or freemen of towns were
prohibited from receiving wages or becoming retainers
of lords and gentlemen; and, to check the power of the
freemen, none who had not served apprenticeships were
to be admitted as aldermen or freemen of corporations.
The requisitions of coyne and livery were again forbidden,
and the statutes of Kilkenny were renewed and confirmed.
All the chief officers of state and the judges were to hold
their patents during pleasure, instead of for life, as before.
But by far the most important provisions were those
which enacted that all existing English laws should be
in force in Ireland, and that no Parliament should be
held in Ireland without the sanction of the King and
Council, who should also be able to disallow statutes
passed by the Irish Houses. These provisions practically
annulled the legislative independence of the English
colony in Ireland, and—as they remained in force for
nearly three centuries—proved to be one powerful means
for maintaining the subordination of the island."
The Earls of Kildare were the most powerful Irish
subjects of the Crown in the latter half of the fifteenth
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Poynings'
Zaïv.
The Baſrils
of Kildare.
1 Irish Statutes and Plowden's History.
xii.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
383
and the former half of the sixteenth century. The eighth
and ninth earls were successively appointed Lord Deputy
by Henry VII. and Henry VIII., and many romantic
stories are related of them and their government.
Their administration of affairs was on the whole suc-
cessful, but the country was unfortunately kept in a state
of constant agitation, owing to their hereditary feud with
the Butlers.
A Parliament held at Dublin in May, 1536, imposed
the Reformation on Ireland. Henry VIII. was declared
supreme head of the Church in Ireland ; all appeals to
Rome in spiritual cases were taken away; the English
laws against slandering the King, together with the
provisions for payment of first-fruits to him, were enacted
and confirmed ; the authority of the Bishop of Rome was
solemnly renounced, and the maintainers of it in Ireland.
made subject to a praemunire ; and officers of every kind
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
The Refor-
mation in
Ireland.
and degree were required to take the oath of supremacy,
under the penalties of high treason. The Irish Parlia
ment also followed that of England with regard to the
King’s marriages and his acts of attainder. In the
Parliament of 1542 Ireland was raised to the dignity of
a kingdom, and instead of the old title of Lord of Ireland
Henry was now created by statute King of Ireland. One
salutary statute was passed this session directing that
electors in future were to be possessed in freeholds of
forty shillings a year; and that such as were elected for
counties, cities, and towns, should be resident in the
places for which they were elected. Another act, how-
ever, empowering the Privy Councillors upon the death,
resignation, or recall of a deputy, to appoint ad interim
an English governor, created fresh jealousies amongst
the Irish. Other acts passed under Henry, again pro-
hibited intermarrying or fostering with the Irish, and
enjoined the use of the English dress and language. The
Irish clergy, under the lead of Cromer, the Primate,
resisted the Act of Supremacy, and they were supported
by many of the Lords and Commons, but their opposition
was borne down by the Government.
384
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Edmord
WI.
Elizabeth,
completes
the Refor-
mation.
In the reign of Edward VI., when the Reformation
legislation was even more vigorously continued, the
opposition of the Irish Catholics was renewed; and as
it was dangerous to summon a Parliament, the English
liturgy was imposed by royal proclamation. The legal
establishment of the Reformation was not completed in
Edward’s reign, and upon Mary’s accession the Catholic
religion was restored. Mary’s civil administration, how-
ever, caused dissatisfaction in Ireland. -
Elizabeth, on coming to the throne, first established
the Protestant faith securely in England, and then turned
her attention to Ireland. She sent over as Lord Deputy
the able and energetic Earl of Sussex, who called an
Irish Parliament in 1560. It is a singular circumstance
that, while the peers in this Parliament almost unani-
mously declared in favour of the old religion, the great
majority of the bishops acquiesced in the creed of the
English Court. Pains were taken to secure a majority
in the House of Commons, and out of twenty counties
then in existence only ten received the writ of summons.
The towns supplied by far the larger share of the seventy-
six representatives forming the Lower House, and the
Government influence over the members was predominant.
Nevertheless Sussex encountered considerable opposition,
although he carried the desired legislation. The English
laws of supremacy and uniformity were imposed. Instead
of the Mass the Common Prayer was set up, but with
the curious reservation that in those parts of the country
where the minister was unacquainted with the English
language the service might be conducted in Latin. All
subjects were ordered to attend the new worship of the
Church, other forms being interdicted." These changes
were viewed with great hostility. The Papists denounced
the Queen as a heretic ; the non-conforming clergy aban-
doned their cures, and no reformed ministers could be
found to supply them ; while the statutes recently made
were evaded or neglected with impunity.
1 Irish Statutes, Leland's History of Ireland, and Hallam's
Constitutional History.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
385
Under these circumstances, a Parliament was summoned
by Sir Henry Sidney in 1569. It revealed a strong party
opposed to the Crown. Complaints were made of the
irregular returns of members. The chief complainant
was Sir Christopher Barnewall, a favourite of the old
English race, who was supported by Sir Edmond Butler
and the whole real landed interest of the kingdom. It
was alleged that members had been returned for towns
not incorporated, that several sheriffs and magistrates
had returned themselves, and that numbers of non-
resident Englishmen had been returned for places they
had never seen. The judges, on being appealed to,
declared that those returned for towns not incorporated,
and the magistrates who had returned themselves, were
incapable of sitting in Parliament ; but they decided in
favour of the non-resident burgesses, which still left, a
majority for the Court. Hooker, an Englishman who
had been returned for Athenry, and who had already sat
in the English Parliament, raised a great storm of indig-
nation by an uncompromising speech in favour of the
royal prerogative, which was by no means so sacredly
regarded in Ireland as in the sister country. The Irish
felt wounded by the proceedings against the famous
rebel Shane O’Neil, who was nearly as formidable in
the early years of this reign as his kinsman Tyrone
was towards its conclusion. O’Neil was attainted, and
his name extinguished, and the county of Tyrone and
other portions of Ulster were vested in the Crown. Pro-
vision was made for the reduction of the whole island
into shires, and Connaught, hitherto indivisible, was
partitioned into five counties.
In 1576 Elizabeth arbitrarily ordered Sir Henry Sidney
to impose by the mere authority and order of Council,
without the assent of Parliament, a new tax by way of
composition for the charge of purveyance, which amounted
to about £12 for every plough land. This attempted
subversion of the popular liberties led to serious dis-
content. Agents were sent from Parliament to memo-
rialise the Queen in person, but, instead of obtaining
WOL. II. 25
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Irregu-.
laritées à7.
the repre-
Sentation.
Shame
O'Neil.
Arbitrary
taa’ation.
386
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
Iment.
Free
Schools,
6tc.
redress, they were committed to the Fleet Prison. The
clamour in Ireland waxed so great, however, that Elizabeth,
who had received intimation that the King of Spain was
ready to throw troops into Ireland, abandoned the ob-
noxious legislation, and accepted a voluntary composition
for seven years. -
Among scholastic and ecclesiastical acts passed under
Elizabeth, one statute provided for the erection of free
schools in every diocese, under English masters, the
Pe?"rot.
Attainder
of
Desmond.
The Plan-
tation.
system.
James I.'s
legisla-
tion.
ordinary paying one-third of the salary and the clergy
the rest. Another act enabled the Archbishop of Armagh
to grant leases of his lands out of the Pale for a hundred
years, without the assent of the Dean and Chapter, to
English tenants. English and Protestant interests had
so little influence in the north that the Pope created
three bishops—Derry, Clogher, and Raphoe—and two of
these prelates were even summoned to Parliament in
1585. . . .
Sir John Perrot, a deputy sent over in 1584, was
distinguished for his prudent administration, and the
country became comparatively calm under his rule. In
the session of 1586 a bill for the attainder of Desmond
was passed, and his vast estates, computed at 574,628
Irish acres, were forfeited.
When Elizabeth introduced the system of planting, the
country again became agitated by disastrous contests ;
but Lord Deputy Mountjoy seized the opportunity afforded
by her death for concluding the pacification of Tyrone.
Among those who acquired estates under the plantation
system were Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser.
The View of the State of Ireland, written by the author
of the Faerie Queene, is invaluable for the light it throws
upon the condition of Ireland at this period, but it is
marred by its recommendation of a policy of extreme
severity in dealing with the native Irish.
The reign of James I. was a very important one in the
constitutional history of Ireland. He at first endeavoured
to ingratiate himself with the Irish, and issued an Act
of Oblivion and Indemnity. This was followed by the
xII.] THE TRISH PARLIAMENT.
387
Commission of Grace, for securing the subjects of Ireland
against all claims of the Crown. At the same time the
compulsory statutes touching Supremacy and uniformity
were much better enforced than in the previous reign.
The new administration also did much to perfect the
reduction of Ireland into a civilised kingdom and to
bring it within the operation of the law, so that the
King's writ might have free course.
James instituted his favourite system of plantations,
which was chiefly carried out by his Lord Deputy, Sir
Arthur Chichester, a man of comprehensive judgment
and signal business capacity. Upwards of 500,000
acres of forfeited lands were made the foundation of
the flourishing colony of Ulster, and other settlements
followed. In 1613, after Ireland had been without a
Parliament for twenty-seven years, James summoned
one for the ostensible objects of supporting the planta-
tion lately made, removing grievances, repressing dis-
content, and securing the administration against the
turbulent and disaffected. Means were taken to secure
a large docile Protestant majority, and the Catholic party
seceded for a time from Parliament. The policy of
James tended still further to alienate the Irish people ;
and to the two leading grievances of this period—the
stern application of the penal laws against recusants and
the inquisition into defective titles—historians trace the
originating causes of the rebellion of 1641."
With regard to the Parliamentary representation of
Ireland in the seventeenth century, it appears that in
seventeen counties out of the thirty-two into which
Ireland was finally parcelled, there was no town that
returned burgesses before the reign of James I., and the
whole number in the rest was not more than thirty.
James created some forty boroughs or more, and the
number of the Commons in 1613 was 232. From time
to time it received augmentations, until it reached the
| Carte's Life of Ormonde ; Leland's History; Desiderata. Curiosa
Hibernica, etc.
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Planta-
tion of
Ulster.
State of
the Pay-
liament-
ary repre-
se??tation.
388
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I,
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Sequestra-
tion of
Com-
7taught,
high figure of 300 in 1692. But the extensions of the
franchise were not made in the popular interests, and in
the eighteenth century at least two-thirds of the mem-
bers of the Irish House of Commons were slavishly
returned by the tenants of the aristocracy. The Irish
House of Lords in 1634 numbered 122, and those present
in Parliament that year were 66. In addition to voting,
they had the privilege of protesting by proxy, and those
who sent none were sometimes fined."
Among the many dark passages in Irish history the
treatment of the province of Connaught enjoys an evil
pre-eminence. Both under Elizabeth and under James
the Irish had fulfilled the conditions required of them by
surrendering their estates to the Crown and receiving them
back by a legal tenure. Owing to negligence, however,
the grants were not duly enrolled in chancery, and
Charles I. and his council infamously took advantage of
this flaw to declare the whole country forfeited, in order
to form an extensive plantation like that of Ulster.
Strong remonstrances were made against this proposed
act of injustice, and Charles agreed to a composition with
his Irish subjects. The latter were to contribute volun-
tarily £120,000 in three years by equal payments, in
return for certain graces which the King was to bestow.
These concessions were to secure the subject’s title to his
lands against the Crown after sixty years’ possession,
with leave to the people of Connaught to enrol their
grants, and the settlers in Ulster and other places were
also to be relieved from the penalties they had incurred
by a similar lapse. The Council chamber was to be
restrained from meddling with private causes; and the
oppression of the Court of Wards, the encroachments of
military authorities, and excesses by the soldiery, were
forbidden. Free trade was allowed with the King's
dominions and with friendly nations. Recusants were
permitted to sue for livery of their estates in the Court of
* Lord Mountnorres's Principal Transactions of the Irish Parlia-
‘ment.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
389
Wards and to practise in courts of law on taking an oath
of mere allegiance instead of that of supremacy, while
unlawful exactions and severities on the part of the
clergy were prohibited. As Hallam has justly remarked,
“ these reformations of unquestionable and intolerable
evils, as beneficial as those contained nearly at the same
moment in the Petition of Right, would have saved
Ireland long ages of calamity, if they had been as faith-
fully completed as they seemed to be graciously con-
ceded ”; but Charles acted most perfidiously, and he
was seconded by his brilliant but unscrupulous and
despotic viceroy, Wentworth, Lord Strafford.
A Parliament was called, as promised, to confirm the
graces, but as the rule established by Poynings' law that
no Parliament should be held in Ireland until the King’s
license was obtained had not been observed, the writs
of summons were declared void. No other Parliament
was called for a considerable time, and when the three
years during which the voluntary contribution had been
payable had elapsed, the King threatened to depart from
his graces if it were not renewed. There is no doubt
that King and viceroy now acted most dishonourably.
When at length a Parliament met in 1634, Strafford,
who managed it in his master's interests, obtained six
subsidies, amounting to £240,000, without making a
single material concession in return. A second session
was promised for confirming the graces, but the supplies
having been obtained, the royal promises were evaded,
and in the end the all-important articles establishing a
sixty years' prescription against the Crown and securing
the titles of proprietors in Clare and Connaught, as well
as those which relieved the Catholics in the Court of
Wards from the oath of supremacy, were set aside. On
the other hand, statutes were passed with the object of pre-
venting the evasion of the severe laws already in existence.
Next, Strafford issued a commission to inquire into
defective titles in Connaught ; and the juries being
intimidated by the threats of the viceroy, the commission
was speedily enabled to declare that some three-fourths
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Perfidious
conduct of
Charles
and Went-
ºvorth.
Defective
titles.
390
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
of the province belonged to the Crown. In the great
The Irish majority of cases the landlords had no title-deeds to
Parlia-
Iment.
Parlia-
ament of
1640,
produce, and those who had were obliged to pay large
fines for their confirmation. A jury in Galway alone
ventured to withstand the Crown, and for this they were
heavily fined. In the ordinary administration of justice
and the encouragement of trade and commerce, Strafford’s
government is to be commended ; but his duplicity in
dealing with Parliament, his oppressive severity, and
his cruelly insulting and overbearing conduct towards all
the best representatives of the Irish race, are after all
the main features of his sinister rule.
The Parliament of 1640, convoked by Strafford, voted
subsidies for a large army raised to serve against the
Scots, and it seemed to be moved generally by a spirit of
loyalty. But when the Commons assembled again after
the prorogation, a complete change had come over their
temper. Through a committee they presented a strong
remonstrance to the Long Parliament of England,
ignoring the King. The Lords joined the Commons in
demanding from Charles the fulfilment of his promises.
Catholics and Protestants sank for the moment their
irreconcilable differences, and united upon their temporal
grievances. In May, 1641, the King yielded to their
principal demands, but the concessions were unhappily
never transformed into law.
Now ensued the terrible Rebellion of 1641, which began
in Ulster in the month of October. Strafford had beeh
succeeded by two Lords Justices, Sir William Parsons
and Sir John Borlase, whose conduct during this critical
period has been severely censured. Yet “the primary
causes of the rebellion are not to be found in their
supineness or misconduct, but in the two great sins of
the English Government—in the penal laws as to religion
which pressed on almost the whole people, and in the
systematic iniquity which despoiled them of their
possessions.” . Events in England gave them an oppor-
The
JRebellion
of 1641.
* Hallam's Constitutional History.
xm.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 391
tunity to endeavour to enforce by arms that justice which CHAP. I.
had been systematically denied them. The massacre of The Irish
Scots and English in Ulster, though exaggerated by .
some writers, was yet sufficiently appalling in its nature -
and extent. In the anarchy which ensued, both Catholics
and Protestants are chargeable with cruelty. As the
conflict spread, “it became a desperate contention whether
the majority of the nation should be trodden to the dust
by forfeiture and persecution, or the Crown lose every-
thing beyond a nominal sovereignty over Ireland.” The
demand for a repeal of the penal laws was succeeded by
One for a complete establishment of the Roman Catholic
religion. This the Parliament of England would of
course mever concede ; indeed, at the commencement of
the rebellion it had been decreed that all the forfeited
estates of the insurgents should be allotted to such as
should assist in reducing the island to subjection. The
struggle was long and fierce, and when at length Crom-
well succeeded in subduing the country, Lord Clarendon
declared that it was with such bloodshed and rigour that
the sufferings of the Irish nation during this strife of
eleven years had never been surpassed save by those
inflicted by Titus in his destruction of the Jews.
Authorities differ in apportioning the responsibility. Its cha-
for the Rebellion of 1641 and also in defining its actual *
causes, but “one fact concerning the defection of the
Pale is not questionable. It is that the rebellion only
assumed its general character in consequence of the
resolution of the English House of Commons, which
determined, in the beginning of December, that no tolera-
tion should be henceforth granted to the Catholic religion
in Ireland. It was this policy, announced by the Parlia-
ment of England, that drove the Catholic gentry of
Ireland reluctantly into rebellion. In Wicklow, it is
true, and in the adjoining county of Wexford, the
rebellion assumed an agrarian character ; and in many.
different parts of the country bands of simple robbers
were soon called into existence : but in general the
rebellion out of Ulster was a defensive religious War
392
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
Iment.
The Crom.
welliam
Settle-
7ment.
entered into for the purpose of securing a toleration, and
ultimately an establishment, of the religion of the Irish
people.”" .
The year 1652 was marked by the Cromwellian Settle-
ment of Ireland. By an act of the English Parliament
passed on August 12th, all land of the Irish in Ulster,
Munster, and Leinster was confiscated and distributed
among the adventurers who had lent money for the war,
and the soldiers of the republic. Innocent Papists—
that is, all those who had no share in the war, but yet
who were not in the actual service of the Parliament
or well affected towards it—forfeited one-third of their
estates, and were to receive an equivalent for the
remainder elsewhere. All the great landed proprietors
and all the Catholic clergy were excepted from pardon
of life or estate, other, offenders being banished and
losing two-thirds of their estates. In the following year
Cromwell proceeded to effect the transplantation to
Connaught. It was decreed that the Irish must transfer
themselves to that province within seven months, under
the penalty of death. There they were to be enclosed by a
cordon of soldiers, to whom was assigned a strip of land,
a mile wide, running around the coast and the Shannon.
The population had been reduced by war and banishment
to some 850,000, for whom 800,000 acres were set apart.
Any of the transplanted Catholics who might be found in
the forbidden provinces without a passport after May 1st,
1654, might be slain without trial or order of a magistrate.
A new tribunal, called a High Court of Justice, was
established for the trial and punishment of “rebels and
malignants.” Many sons of banished owners wandered
about their old estates, living on outlawry or hospitality.
They were called “Tories,” and in 1657 a sum of twenty
pounds was placed on their heads, and their extermination
1 Mr. Lecky's History of England in the Eighteenth Century. The
chapters devoted to Ireland in Mr. Lecky's work should be pondered
by every student of Irish history. They are alike able, just, and
comprehensive.
xII.] - THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
393
decreed. Any Catholic priest found in Ireland after a
period of twenty days was held to be guilty of high
treason, and liable to be hanged, drawn, and quartered.
A sum of five pounds was set on his head, the same
amount paid for the destruction of a wolf, and the produc-
tion of either head was to be a sufficient claim for the
reward. Stringent statutes were likewise passed against
those harbouring priests. People were ordered to attend
the parish church, and the Oath of abjuration might be
tendered, under severe penalties, to all persons over the
age of twenty-one years. An Act proclaiming the
Rebellion in Ireland to be at an end was passed on
September 26th, 1653. “The Cromwellian settlement
is the foundation of that deep and lasting division
between the proprietary and the tenants which is the
chief cause of the political and social evils of Ireland.”"
Henry, the second son of Oliver Cromwell, held the
government of Ireland for nearly four years. Although
he administered many of the laws as he found them, his
humane disposition preserved Ireland from the infliction
of fresh grievances. The conduct of this pure and
considerate governor, who had not money enough upon
his recall to defray the expenses of his journey to Eng-
land, contrasts forcibly with that of the rival Irish
intriguers Broghill and Coote. These unprincipled men
had been notorious for their cruelties against the Irish,
and they now ran a race against each other to curry
favour with Charles II. That worthless monarch created
Broghill Earl of Orrery, and Coote Earl of Mamtrath.
The Irish legislation of Charles II. pleased neither the
Catholics nor the Protestants. Under the King's
declaration for the settlement of Ireland, which was
intended as a basis for a Parliamentary statute, the
adventurers—or those who, with the assent of the late
King, and on the faith of English acts passed in 1642,
had advanced money for subduing the rebellion in
* Lecky's History.
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Henry
Cromwell.
Broghill
and Coote.
Settlement
of Charles
II.
394
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Parlia-
onent of
1661,
consideration of lands to be allotted to them in certain
stipulated proportions, and who in general had actually
received them from Cromwell—were confirmed in all the
lands possessed by them on May 7th, 1659. The soldiers
were confirmed in the estates already allotted to them in
lieu of pay, with the exception of Church lands and certain
others. Officers who had served in the royal army
against the Irish before 1649 were to be satisfied for their
pay, at least to the amount of five-eighths, out of lands
to be allotted for that purpose. Innocent Papists not
concerned in the rebellion, and whom Cromwell had
arbitrarily transplanted into Connaught, were to be
restored to their estates, and those who possessed them
to be indemnified. All who had submitted to the peace
of 1648, and had not afterwards been in arms, if they
had not accepted lands in Connaught, were also to be
restored, on those now in possession being satisfied for
their expenses. Thirty-six nobles and gentry, as well as
those who had served the King abroad, were to be put
on the same footing as the last. Restitution was to be
in the order above specified.
The first Irish Parliament which had been held for
twenty years met on May 8th, 1661. The House of
Commons comprised two hundred and sixty members,
who, with the exception of sixty-four, were all bur-
gesses, and consequently of the favoured race. The
session was taken up with the Bill of Settlement,
which was warmly opposed by the Irish Catholics, but
it passed through Parliament on September 15th,
and was transmitted to England. The Upper House
had been successful in its contention that if the
unallotted lands should not be sufficient to satisfy all
the interests named in the measure, there should be a
proportional loss by every class for the benefit of the
whole. The discussions were resumed before the King
and Council, but the Irish delegates pressed their claims
so warmly and injudiciously that Charles ordered the
Act of Settlement to be sent back with little alteration,
save the insertion of some more Irish nominees—that is,
xii.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
395
Catholics who were named as objects of the royal
favour.
English commissioners were appointed to execute the
act, and as more of the Irish were pronounced innocent
than the Commons expected, the adventurers and Crom-
wellians complained that the Popish interest had
prevailed, and demanded a closer inquisition. The lands
being manifestly insufficient to satisfy all the claimants,
a supplemental measure, called the Act of Explanation,
became necessary. By this statute, passed on December
15th, 1665, the adventurers and soldiers relinquished one-
third of the estates enjoyed by them on May 7th, 1659.
Twenty Irish nominees were added to the favoured
Catholics, but all those who had not already been ad-
judged innocent—upwards of three thousand in number—
were entirely cut off from any hope of restitution. While
many of these were guilty, they justly complained of
confiscation without trial. Altogether the Irish Catholics,
who before the rebellion had held about two-thirds of
the kingdom, lost more than half their possessions
through forfeiture. In any resettlement after a sanguin-
ary civil war one party or the other must inevitably be the
greater sufferer ; and, as Hallam observes with regard to
the Restoration settlement, it is easier to perceive its
inequalities and injustice than to point out a better course
of action. -
The Catholics were wroth with the Duke of Ormonde
for his incessant watchfulness over the Protestant in-
terests and the supremacy of the English crown. They
began to agitate against the Act of Settlement, and owing
to the toleration extended to them by Lord Berkley,
who was appointed Lord Lieutenant in 1670, there seemed
considerable hope of their compassing some ameliorations;
but Berkley was recalled in 1672 and Ormonde reinstated,
so that no changes of policy were effected before the
death of Charles II.
The accession of James II. infused a jubilant spirit
into the Irish Catholics, but again their hopes were
doomed to disappointment. Just as their support of
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Act of Ea:-
planation.
Ormonde's
policy.
Action of
James II.
396
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Tyrconnel.
Parlia-
ment of
1689.
Repeal of
the Act of
Settle-
7ment.
Charles I. ended with the iron rule of Cromwell, so their
support of James II. ended in their subjugation by
William III. James, however, reversed the policy of
his predecessors. A dispensing prerogative set aside all
the statutes; the courts of justice, the Privy Council,
and all civil offices were filled with Catholics; Protestant
soldiers were disbanded, and Protestant citizens dis-
armed; the tithes were withheld from the clergy; and
the race which had long proscribed its enemies now felt
something of the subjection and humiliation it had in-
flicted upon others. The ambitious Richard Talbot, Earl
of Tyrconnel, who was appointed Lord Deputy in 1687,
resolved to defend the interests of James and the
Catholics to the uttermost; but he also intrigued with
France for the independence of Ireland under his own
sovereignty in the event of James's death.
A Parliament summoned by James met at Dublin on
May 7th, 1689. It consisted almost entirely of Catholics.
Out of 228 commoners only six were Protestants. This
Irish Parliament declared its own legislative independ-
ence and repealed Poynings' law. It also passed the
first act establishing perfect religious equality, thus
showing itself in advance of the times in that respect.
Other acts abolished the payments to Protestant clergy
in the corporate towns, and ordered that the Catholics
throughout Ireland should henceforth pay their tithes
and other ecclesiastical dues to their own priests, and not
to the Protestant clergy. Almost the whole of the reli-
gious property of the country was by this legislation
transferred from the Church of the minority to that of
the bulk of the nation, and no compensation was made
for vested interests. Various measures were likewise
passed for developing the resources of the country or
remedying abuses. But while thus legislating benefi-
cially on the whole, the Parliament unfortunately pro-
ceeded to enact reactionary measures. It passed an
important act for the repeal of the Acts of Settlement and
Explanation. In making reprisals, however, it did not
sweep away the property of purchasers under the Act of
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
397
Settlement without compensation, though there were un-
questionable hardships, as there always will be, under
such acts. But this measure was quickly followed by
another act of a sweeping and unjust character. An Act of
Attainder was passed—implicating two thousand persons
by name—which “aimed at nothing less than a complete
overthrow of the existing land system in Ireland.” This
tyrannical act made a very large proportion of the Irish
landlords liable to the penalties of high treason unless
they could prove their innocence, although their only
crime was that of living out of Ireland at a time of
civil war."
Matters looked most promising for the Catholics, when
the Revolution under William of Orange entirely changed
the aspect of affairs. After the memorable defence of
T)erry and the great victory of the Boyne, the cause of
Protestantism triumphed, though it had still some diffi-
culties to encounter. The Pacification of Limerick, con-
cluded on October 3rd, 1691, was a tribute to the noble
and humane qualities of William III., who resisted the
desire of his soldiers for reprisals. The Pacification
included a military and a civil treaty. By the former,
Irish officers and soldiers who so desired could be con-
veyed over to France. Under the first article of the
important civil treaty it was provided that “the Roman
Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in
the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the
laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of King
Charles II.; and their Majesties, as soon as their affairs
will permit them to summon a Parliament in this kingdom,
will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such
further security in that particular as may preserve them
from any disturbance upon the account of their said
| By an Irish act of 7 William III. all these acts of James's Irish
Parliament were declared to be acts of treason and rebellion. All
the attainders and the measures passed “in the late pretended Par-
liament ’’ were pronounced to be void. The English Parliament
also passed an Act of Nullification.
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment,
Act of At.
tainder.
Pacifica-
tion of
Limerick.
398
EIISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Severe
legisla-
tion of
William
and Anne.
religion.” The second article of the treaty secured to
the inhabitants of Limerick and other places then in pos-
session of the Irish, and to all officers and soldiers then
in arms who should return to their Majesties’ obedience,
and to all such as should be under their protection in the
counties of Limerick, Kerry, Clare, Galway, and Mayo,
all their estates and all their rights, privileges, and
immunities which they held in the reign of Charles II.,
free from all forfeitures or outlawries incurred by them.
This second article, so far as related to the garrison
of Limerick or other persons in arms, was confirmed by
statute in 1697; but the first article was apparently
ignored. So many of the forfeited lands in Ireland were
distributed by the English Parliament amongst English
grantees that by the close of the seventeenth century it
is computed that no more than one-sixth or one-seventh of
the kingdom remained in the possession of the Irish or
Anglo-Irish Catholics. -
During the reigns of William III. and Anne statutes
were passed against the Catholics of so oppressive a
nature as scarcely to be paralleled in European history.
These laws covered almost every relation of life, and
weighed heavily upon the Catholics especially in regard
to property, education, and religion. It is only just to
say that William was not personally responsible for the
severe penal laws enacted during his reign, for he was
magnanimous in war and tolerant in religion. The laws
were due to fear and a desire for security on the part of
the victorious race, but their vindictiveness merits severe
condemnation. By an act of the Irish Parliament of
7 William III., no Papist was allowed to keep a school or
to teach any in private houses, and severe penalties were
inflicted on those who should go abroad or send others
for education beyond seas in the Romish religion. No
Papist was permitted to hold arms, and search might be
made at any time by two justices. Under other Irish
statutes of 9 William III. and Anne, intermarriages
between persons of different religion and possessing any
estate in Ireland were forbidden; and the children, in
xII.] THE IRISEI PARLIAMENT.
399
case of either parent being Protestant, might be taken
and educated in that faith. No Papist could be guardian
to a child, and the Court of Chancery had the power to
appoint a relation or some other person to bring up the
ward in the Protestant religion. Any eldest son, being a
Protestant, might secure his own inheritance by turning
his father's estate in fee simple into a tenancy for life.
Where the children were all Papists the father's estates
were to be of the nature of gavelkind and to descend
equally among them. Papists were disabled from pur-
chasing lands, save for terms of not more than thirty-one
years, at a rent not less than two-thirds of the full value.
On pain of forfeiture to the next Protestant heir, they
were to conform within six months after any title should
accrue by descent, devise, or settlement—a provision
apparently intended to exclude them from real property
altogether. Priests, bishops, and others claiming juris-
diction, and all who should come into the kingdom from
foreign parts, were banished on pain of transportation if
they refused to comply, and of high treason in case of
returning from banishment. Priests were required to be
registered, and forbidden to leave their own parishes, and
rewards were held out to informers, which rewards were
to be levied on the Popish inhabitants of the country.
It will be seen how all-embracing was this harassing
legislation.
The question of the legislative independence of Ireland
was mooted at a much earlier period than that first assigned
to it by some historians. In the first half of the seven-
teenth century the Irish people asserted their right to an
independent Legislature, and repudiated the authority of
the English Parliament. Original documents recently
brought to light demonstrate that constitutional claims
to an independent Parliament were distinctly asserted
as early as 1641. At length wide publicity was drawn
to the matter when Molyneux, one of the members for the
University of Dublin, published in 1698 his famous
treatise, The Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of
Parliament in England Stated. It is unquestionable that
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Legisla-
tive Inde-
pendence
'mooted,
Moly-
newa's
“Case of
Ireland.”
400
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
Iment.
Bacclusion
0of
Catholics,
from the time of Henry VI. or Edward IV. English
statutes had no operation in Ireland unless enacted by
the Irish Parliament ; but Coke and other great lawyers
held that English statutes would be binding if express
words to that effect were employed. It is shown in
Carte's Life of Ormonde that the Irish in general pro-
tested against the legislative authority of England, and
two treatises on the subject may be read in Harris’s
Hibernica. Yet after the Revolution, laws of importance
binding Ireland were passed in England and acquiesced
in without express opposition by the Irish Parliament.
Molyneux, however, in the work above cited, claimed for
his country absolute legislative independency. The book
was brought before the English House of Commons,
when it was unanimously resolved “That the book pub-
lished by Mr. Molyneux was of dangerous tendency to the
Crown and people of England by denying the authority
of the King and Parliament of England to bind the
kingdom and people of Ireland, and the subordination
and dependence that Ireland had and Ought to have upon
England, as being united and annexed to the imperial
Crown of England.” The Commons also condemned in the
strongest terms the practice of the Irish Parliament in re-
enacting laws made in England expressly to bind Ireland.
The oath of supremacy imposed upon members of the
Irish Parliament by an English act of 1691 of course
banished Catholics from the Irish House of Commons.
The Irish Parliament had never adopted the oath im-
posed by Elizabeth, and in her reign and those of her.
two next successors the House of Commons had been full
of Catholics. When the rebellion of 1641 broke out,
however, the Irish House of Commons excluded by reso-
lution those who would not take the oath. To the
Parliament of 1661 only one Catholic was returned. A
bill passed the Commons in 1663 for the imposition of
the oath, but it was stopped by a prorogation. Now, by
the statute 3 William and Mary, the oath was formally
imposed; and Roman Catholics were thus excluded from
the Irish Parliament. -
xm.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
401
In 1698 the Irish Parliament exhibited its subserviency
to England by endeavouring to crush the woollen trade.
An act was passed practically forbidding the export of
Irish-manufactured wool to any country whatsoever. A
more important measure still, but one on the old religious
question, was passed in 1704. It was introduced as a
bill “for preventing the further growth of Popery,” but
there was tacked on to it a clause known as the “Sacra-
mental Test,” which really extended the Test Act to
Ireland. The bill passed, and of course it militated
against Presbyterians and other Protestant Dissenters
as well as against Catholics. Further stringent measures
against the Catholics were adopted in 1704, 1705, and
1709, and the laws were enforced with rigorous severity.
In 1713 the Schism Act was extended to Ireland. The
result of all this repressive legislation against the Catholics
was to drive away from Ireland much of the best blood
of the country. The healthiest social elements were
eliminated, and corrupting influences infected the classes
which remained.
Having established its right to present heads of bills
to the Lord Lieutenant and Council, and to examine the
accounts and the expenditure of public money, the Irish
Parliament made an effort to assert its own supremacy
in 1719. A case of property between Hester Sherlock
and Maurice Annesley having been decided for the re-
spondent by the Irish Court of Exchequer, the judgment
was reversed on appeal by the Irish House of Lords.
Annesley, the respondent, then took the case before the
English House of Lords, which affirmed the judgment of
the Exchequer. The Irish peers resolved that no appeal
lay from the Court of Exchequer in Ireland to the King
in Parliament in Great Britain ; and the barons of that
court, having acted in obedience to the Order of the
English Lords, were taken into the custody of the Black
Rod. The King was next petitioned against admitting
the appellant jurisdiction. But the English Parliament
retorted by passing a statute to enable it to legislate for
Ireland. The act secured the dependency of Ireland
WOL. II. 26
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
The
Woollen.
Trade.
The Test
Act.
The
Schism,
Act
Claims of
Parlia-
ment.
It is
subor-
dinated
.0
England.
402
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment,
Toleraticº
Act.
Wood's
Half.
26700e,
upon the Crown of Great Britain, and declared “That
the King's Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons of
Great Britain in Parliament assembled, had, hath, and
of right ought to have full power and authority to make
laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind
the people and the kingdom of Ireland; and that the
House of Lords of Ireland have not, nor of right ought
to have, any jurisdiction to judge of, reverse, or affirm
any judgment, sentence, or decree given or made in any
court within the same kingdom; and that all proceed-
ings before the said House of Lords upon any such
judgment, sentence, or decree are, and are hereby de-
clared to be, utterly null and void to all intents and
purposes whatsoever.” This legislation was very irri-
tating; and, as it was supplemented by the promotion
of strangers to the chief posts in Church and State, the
Irish Commons began to .aspire to those liberties which
were enjoyed in England. &
A Toleration Act was passed by the Irish Parliament
in 1719, relieving the Protestant Dissenters from certain
penalties to which they were liable in common with the
Catholics. -
In 1722–4 Wood's halfpence caused a great deal of
commotion. There was no mint in Ireland, and the .
people severely felt the lack of small coin. A patent for
coining copper money was granted to the royal mistress,
the Duchess of Kendal, and she soldit to Wood, an English
ironmonger. He was to be allowed to coin £108,000
worth of halfpence and farthings, a pound of copper to
be coined into thirty pence, for Ireland. In England
only twenty-three pence were coined from one pound, but
against this fact had to be set the cost of transport to
Ireland and the import duty, to be paid by Wood. An
excessive amount of copper was put into circulation, and
Ireland was soon in a ferment of excitement. The
agitation was out of all proportion to the evil. As a
charge was made that the coinage was debased, Sir Isaac
Newton examined it, and found it fully as good as was
xm.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
403
required. The sum to be coined was reduced in 1723,
but in the following year Swift's Drapier's Letters
appeared, and all Ireland, from the Chancellor and the
Archbishop of Dublin downwards, refused the new half-
pence. Walpole at length gave way to the popular
clamour, and revoked the patent, granting Wood three
thousand guineas for eight years as compensation from
the Irish Pension List, which was paid in a false name.
In 1727 an act was passed by which Catholics were
forbidden to vote at Parliamentary elections, the last
vestige of constitutional rights thus being taken from
them. This legislation was promoted by Primate Boulter,
who for twenty years continued practically to manage
Irish affairs in the English interest. In 1728 a strin-
gent act was passed to prevent Papists from practising
as solicitors. It was already the law that no convert
could be a barrister until he had embraced Protestantism
for five years. Yet while the Irish Catholics were thus
severely dealt with, during the Jacobite risings of 1715
and 1745 they remained tranquil and gave no encourage-
ment to the rebels.
Legislation against mixed marriages and abductions
was proposed in 1743 and completed in 1745. By a
law passed in the latter year, all marriages between
Protestants and Catholics, or between two Protestants
celebrated either by a priest or a degraded clergyman,
were pronounced null and void. The condemnation of
those who were guilty was also facilitated. By another
act it was provided that, although mixed marriages
carried with them no civil consequences, those who cele-
brated them were still liable to the punishment of
death.
In 1749, during the primacy of the unprincipled
“manager’ George Stone, disputes arose in the Irish
Parliament about the appropriation of the surplus
revenue, and the question of privilege was revived. A
bill was introduced in the Commons to apply the un-
appropriated surplus to the liquidation of the National
Debt. Violent discussions ensued, and the dispute was
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Anti-
Catholic
Legisla-
tion.
Miamed
narriages.
The
Revenue.
404 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. . [Book
CHAP: I. renewed in 1751 and 1753. In Ireland the practice of
The Irish Parliamentary appropriation had never strictly prevailed,
. and the Government now maintained that the whole
T revenue belonged to the King and could not be dis-
posed of without his consent. The Speaker of the
Commons and other eminent men took the popular side,
but the Crown succeeded in carrying motions apparently
supporting its authority. The House, however, so dis-
posed of the revenue in future as to avoid leaving an
unappropriated surplus. -
Ireland As a new era opened for Ireland during the reign of
*** George III., a brief review of the constitutional con-
cession of ... * * * * e © º &
George ditions prevailing before his accession will be of interest
TII. here. We have already seen that Ireland was governed
by a Parliament from which every Catholic was excluded.
The House of Lords was composed of prelates, and nobles
who were owners of boroughs, patrons of corporations,
masters of the representation, and in close alliance with
Dublin Castle. The House of Commons was elected in
a flagrantly unjust manner, the franchise being denied
to five-sixths of the people on account of their religion.
Crown nomination boroughs abounded ; and patrons of
close corporations returned the members for the towns,
and great proprietors those for the counties. Twenty-
five lords of the soil returned no fewer than 116
members out of a total of 300. Patrons of boroughs
by acting together could command an actual majority
in the House, and dictate their own terms to the
Government. These “Parliamentary undertakers ”
claimed titles, offices, and pensions for themselves and
their friends, and “self-interest and corruption were all
but universal in the active scheme of Parliamentary
government.” The Irish pension list increased alarm-
ingly under this system. Even the Speaker was chiefly
relied upon because of his management of the House
of Commons; and, to make matters worse, Parliament
expired only on the demise of the Crown. The execu-
tive was likewise strongly tainted with corruption. All
persons in authority were Churchmen, and the legal, as
xn.] THE IRISH PARIIIAMENT.
405
well as the political, administration was in the hands of
Protestants. Catholics were cut off from everything,
and Protestant Nonconformists were likewise severely
disabled in many important directions. Parliament was
in subjection to the English Parliament and Government,
and “the national pride was stung by a sense of in-
feriority and dependence.” In matters of commerce
Ireland was equally subordinate ; and, “to satisfy the
jealous instincts of English traders,” she was im-
poverished through protective and prohibitory duties."
The south of Ireland was greatly disturbed in 1761
by the outrages of the Whiteboys. These agrarian
offenders were originally called Levellers, from their
levelling the hedges of enclosed commons in Tipperary.
Afterwards they set up to be the general redressers of
grievances connected with the letting, buying, and sell-
ing of land, hiring and eviction, tithes and rates. They
were called Whiteboys because they wore white smocks
in their nightly expeditions. Their shocking barbarities
called forth the severe Whiteboy Acts, passed in 1765,
1767, and 1777, some of which laws are still in force.
Many efforts were made to suppress the society, but the
outrages were renewed again and again in various parts
of the country. The Whiteboy movement “may be justly
regarded as at once the precursor and the parent of all
subsequent outbursts of Irish agrarian crime.” Associa-
tions of Protestant peasantry in the north were also
formed, under the names of “Hearts-of-Oak Boys”
and “Hearts-of-steel Boys.” The latter were incited to
rebellion by high rents and the rapacity of the agents
of absentees. The former originally banded themselves
together for the abolition of the compulsory system of
road-making, but afterwards, like the Whiteboys, they
made themselves general reformers of agrarian abuses.
Some of their grievances were remedied by Parliament.
1 Leland, Plowden, Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, Mount-
morres's History, Lord Farnborough's Constitutional History, Carte's
Ormonde, and the Parliamentary History
* Lecky's History of England.
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
Imient.
The
White-
boys.
406 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP, I. The severe legislation against the Hearts-of-steel Boys
The Irish led to an extensive emigration to America."
. The reforming party in the Irish Parliament, foiled
on., in its attempt to deal with the scandals of the pension
Act. list, turned its attention to the reform of Parliament
itself. An agitation for a Septennial Act for Ireland
began in 1761, and in 1765 the Irish Commons passed
the heads of a bill of this nature, but the measure
was suppressed in England. In 1767, however, another
Septennial Bill was passed and transmitted to England,
where it was transformed into an octennial one. It
was hoped that this alteration would ensure its rejec-
tion, but the Irish Parliament gladly accepted it as
an instalment of reform. Seeing that the duration of
Parliament might be prolonged throughout an entire
reign, it was something to enjoy the popular rights of
election every eighth year. So the Act passed. A new
Parliament was called, and Townshend, the Lord Lieu-
tenant, scattered bribes profusely in order to secure a
strong majority for the Government.
Money The executive came into conflict with the Commons
bills, in October, 1769, on the right to originate money bills.
The English Privy Council sent over a money bill which
the Irish House of Commons rejected, “because it did
not take its rise in that House ’’; but, to show that it
was not moved by animus, it granted more liberal Sup-
plies to the Crown than had been demanded. Lord
Townshend, however, prorogued Parliament as soon as
the supplies were voted, and protested against the reso-
lution of the Commons as a violation of the law and an
invasion of the just rights of the Crown. The Houses
were not again permitted to meet until February 26th,
1771. There was great excitement in Ireland, and the
Viceroy’s repeated prorogations were animadverted upon
in the English Parliament.
The When the Irish Commons did assemble, they were no
£º” more tractable than before. In December, 1771, and
intrac-
º again in December, 1773, they rejected money bills
I Haverty's History of Ireland.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 407
because they had been altered in England. The Earl of CHAP. l.
Harcourt succeeded Townshend, and his administration The Irish
began well. A popular measure was passed in the .-
session of 1773 by which a tax of two shillings in the T
pound was proposed to be laid on the income of Irish
absentee landlords who would not reside in Ireland at
least six months in each year. The Government sup–
ported the bill, but it was rejected in consequence of the
violent opposition of the great landowners.
The American war furnished another opportunity for Their
the Irish Commons to show their growing independence. $.”
In 1775 they agreed to the withdrawal of four thousand pendence,
troops from the Irish establishment, but they consider-
ably astonished the Government by refusing to allow
them to be replaced by Protestant troops from England.
During the same session they rejected two money bills
which had been amended in England, and introduced
others—a step attended by public inconvenience as well
as loss to the revenue. The first octennial Parliament
gave little satisfaction to the Government, and it was
dissolved in 1776.
The American colonists found warm sympathisers in Fiscal,
the Irish, and their action assisted the cause of Irish %.
Independence. The cases of Ireland and America were
almost parallel. The condition of the Irish people was
lamentable, and it was made worse by an oppressive
fiscal policy. Commerce and manufactures were crushed,
and, in addition to the ordinary restraints upon industry,
in 1776 an embargo was laid on the exportation of Irish
commodities. Some concessions became necessary owing
to the distresses and the failing revenue of Ireland, and ,
from 1775 to 1779 the English Parliament made various
relaxations of the restrictions upon Irish trade
In 1778, shortly after the independence of the American Catholic
States had been acknowledged by France, a bill for the #
partial relief of the Catholics was passed unanimously by
the English Parliament; but a similar relief bill introduced
by Mr. Gardiner in the Irish House of Commons was
only carried by a majority of nine after a severe contest
408
HISTORY, OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment,
->
The
Volum-
$é67's.
Free
trade
77060,371/7'éS.
Independ-
ence de-
nanded.
Speech of
Grattan.
and eight divisions. The English Privy Council returned
the bill shorn of certain concessions to the Presbyterians
which had been inserted. The enemies of the Catholics
hoped the Irish House of Commons would reject the
whole measure because of this mutilation. The Irish
Parliament, however, acted more wisely, and the first
great relief bill for the Irish Catholics was carried
through the Commons by 127 to 89, and through the
Lords by 44 to 28. This act enabled the Catholics, on
taking the oath of allegiance and a prescribed form of
declaration, to hold leases of land for nine hundred and
ninety-nine years, though they might not purchase the
freehold, and also to inherit land in exactly the same
way as Protestants. An important concession was
secured by the Dissenters in 1780, when they were
relieved from the sacramental test by an act of the
Irish Parliament.
The great national Volunteer movement in Ireland
sprang into existence at the beginning of 1779. Acting
at first without concert, the Volunteers were soon brought
into united action, and during the first year no fewer
than forty-two thousand men were enrolled." They made
common cause with the people against the Government,
and demanded free trade. English reformers supported
their claims; and thus emboldened, the Parliament of
Ireland voted supplies for six months only. The British
Parliament passed in 1780 several acts, permitting the
free export of Irish wool and glass manufactures, and
granting freedom of trade with all the British plantations
on condition of equality of customs.
But these measures were insufficient to calm the
popular agitation. In 1780 the Volunteers demanded
the legislative independence of Ireland, and on
April 19th in that year Mr. Grattan brought the
question before the Irish Parliament. He moved a
resolution to the effect that “no power on earth Save
that of the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland had
* Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. 409
a right to make laws for Ireland.” In a speech CHAP. I.
containing many splendid bursts of eloquence, the orator The Irish
said, “I will not be answered by a public lie in the .{-
shape of an amendment ; neither, speaking for the sub- sº-º-º:
ject’s freedom, am I to hear of faction. I wish for nothing
but to breathe in this our land, in common with our
fellow-subjects, the air of liberty. I have no ambition
unless it be the ambition to break your chain and con-
template your glory ; I never will be satisfied as long
as the meanest cottager in Ireland has a link of the
British chain clanking against his rags. He may be
naked; he shall not be in irons: and I do see the time
is at hand, the spirit is gone forth, the declaration is
planted, and though great men should apostatise, yet the
cause will live ; and though the public speaker should
die, yet the immortal fire shall outlast the organ which
conveyed it, and the breath of liberty, like the word of
the holy man, will not die with the prophet, but survive
him.” The debate lasted until six o'clock in the morning,
when it terminated without a division. Grattan’s triumph,
however, was near at hand.
The Imperial Government still pursued its irritating Per.
policy. The annual Mutiny Act sent over from the *ś,
Irish Parliament was returned in 1781 transformed into Act.
a permanent one ; and, by the influence of the Irish
administration, it was adopted in its altered form. The
Irish were thus deprived of the constitutional security
against the maintenance of a standing army without the
consent of Parliament. A bill for opening the Sugar
trade to Ireland was also seriously mutilated. The
permanent Mutiny Act was denounced by Fox and others
in England; and, as we shall presently see, it was speedily
repealed.
Meanwhile the Volunteers continued their political Conven-
activity, under the Earl of Charlemont, and received for .gſ
the second time the thanks of the Irish Parliament. But gannon.
as the Government secured a majority in the House of
Commons against further concessions, a convention was
called for February 15th, 1782, at Dungannon, “to root
410
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Catholic
zelief
7000 S207'68.
Legisla-
tive Inde-
pendence.
Declara-
tion of
Rights.
out corruption and Court influence from the legislative
body,” and “to deliberate on the present alarming
situation of public affairs.” The meeting was duly held
in the church at Dungannon, and resolutions were carried
declaring the right of Ireland to legislative and judicial
independence and free trade.
On the day when these memorable resolutions were
passed, Mr. Gardiner (afterwards Lord Mountjoy) in-
troduced in the Irish Parliament his measures for the
relief of the Catholics. They were divided into three
bills. The first enabled Catholics to hold and dispose of
landed property in the same manner as Protestants, with
the exception of advowsons, manors, and Parliamentary
boroughs ; it also repealed the statutes against hearing
or celebrating mass and other disabilities: the second
bill was entitled “An act to enable persons professing the
Popish religion to teach Schools in this kingdom, and for
regulating the education of Papists, and also to repeal
parts of certain laws relative to the guardianships of
their children.” These two bills passed into law, but
the third, which authorised marriages between Catholics
and Protestants, was negatived by a majority of eight.
Legislative independence next became an accomplished
fact. True, Mr. Grattan’s motion of February 22nd in
the Irish Parliament and Mr. Flood’s motion of Feb-
ruary 26th were defeated, but independence was in the
air. Lord Rockingham's Liberal administration came
into power, and the Duke of Portland was appointed to
succeed Lord Carlisle as Lord Lieutenant. The new
Viceroy met the Irish Parliament on April 16th, and
on that day Mr. Grattan brought forward an amendment
to the Address in the shape of an Irish Declaration of
Rights, which was unanimously agreed to. It claimed
for the Irish Parliament the sole authority to make laws
for Ireland, and demanded the repeal of the permanent
Mutiny Act. On May 27th the Duke of Portland
announced to the Houses the unconditional concessions
made to Ireland by the Parliament of Great Britain.
The act 6 George I. “for the better securing the
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
411
dependency of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain,
etc.,” was repealed, and the legislative and judicial
authority of the British Parliament renounced. The
right of the Privy Council to alter bills transmitted
from Ireland was abandoned, and the perpetual Mutiny
Act repealed. The greater part of Poynings' law was
repealed, and a large number of British statutes relating
to Ireland were confirmed. In the same session an act
giving Protestant Dissenting ministers the right of cele-
brating valid marriages removed the last serious grievance
of the Protestant Dissenters. Mr. Flood and Sir Samuel
Bradstreet, Recorder of Dublin, argued that the repeal of
the act 6 George I. still left Ireland as she was before,
when England arrogated authority over her, but Mr.
Grattan and his friends took the higher and more mag-
nanimous view that all disputed constitutional questions
between the two countries were at an end. The address
moved by Mr. Grattan was ultimately carried by 211
votes to 2. The grateful Parliament then voted that
twenty thousand Irish seamen should be raised for the
British navy, and made a grant of £100,000 to carry out
that object. Congratulations were everywhere heard upon
this bloodless constitutional victory; and, as a substantial
mark of a nation’s gratitude for the noble efforts of a
high-souled patriot, a sum of £50,000 was voted by
Parliament to purchase an estate and build a house for
Mr. Grattan. '.
It remains to be added that in the session of 1782
the Habeas Corpus Act for Ireland was passed. Hitherto
the Irish had never enjoyed this great guarantee of per-
sonal liberty. The measure now passed was framed upon
lines similar to those of the English Act.
On the death of the Marquis of Rockingham, the new
Coalition Ministry sent Earl Temple to replace the Duke
of Portland in the government of Ireland. Popular
discontent was not yet allayed amongst the Irish, and
patriots differed widely and warmly as to the meaning
of legislative independence. Accordingly, in the session
of 1783, the British Parliament passed an Act of Re-
CHAP. I.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Inde-
pendence
granted.
Grattan.
7'e?varded.
Habeas
Corpus
Act.
Ea/7
Temple.
Act of
Renuncia-
tion.
412
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book -
CHAP. T.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
After the
change.
núnciation, “for removing and preventing all doubts
which have arisen or might arise concerning the ex-
clusive rights of the Parliament and courts of Ireland
in matters of legislation and judication,” etc.
The difficulties attending the government of Ireland
after the granting of independence must be left for the
ensuing chapter.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
413
CHAPTER II.
FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE TO
THE UNION.
ALTHOUGH legislative independence had been secured,
there was another aspect of Irish affairs that was far
from satisfactory. Parliament, while free, was venal
and corrupt, and the Catholic population, about four-
fifths of the whole, was unrepresented in it. The popular
leaders, moreover, turned against each other in a spirit
of rivalry, and some of them were notoriously intolerant
and insincere. The Volunteer Association, from which
so much might have been expected, began rapidly to
lose influence ; and what with the disunion of parties
and the pressure of abuses and grievances, the national
outlook was not very cheering.
Parliament was dissolved in July, 1783, and a new one
called for October. Meantime the Volunteers took up
the question of Parliamentary Reform, but the enfran-
chisement of Catholics formed no part of their scheme.
Parliament met ; and its earliest sittings were marked by
angry altercations between Mr. Grattan and Mr. Flood,
the latter being the advocate of an aggressive policy.
Aided by the eccentric Bishop of Derry (Hervey, Earl
of Bristol), Mr. Flood drew up a bill for Parliamentary
Reform, which he sought to introduce into the House of
Commons on November 29th. The mover spoke elo-
quently, but he was vigorously opposed by Attorney-
The
AVational
outlook.
Parlia-
'mentary
Reform.
414
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Pitt's com-
mercial
policy.
General Yelverton (afterwards Lord Avonmore), and a
scene of great violence ensued. Mr. Flood’s bill was
practically the bill of the Volunteer Convention. The
motion for its first reading was rejected by a large
majority—ayes, 49 ; noes, 158. A resolution was next
carried that “the House would maintain its just rights
and privileges against all encroachments whatsoever’’;
and as Lord Charlemont succeeded in getting the con-
vention adjourned sine die, this sealed the fate of the
Volunteers. Mr. Flood, however, renewed his efforts
in the House on March 13th and 20th, 1784, but he
was again defeated by 159 to 85 votes. An exclusively
Protestant House of Commons, largely nominated by
landed proprietors, was not a likely body to reform
itself.
Pitt's commercial measures for the benefit of Ireland
were the great feature of 1785 both in the English and
Irish Parliaments. Ireland had already acquired the
right of trading with Europe and the West Indies, but
she was almost debarred from trade with England herself
and with America and Africa. The Premier drew up a
comprehensive scheme making liberal concessions on all
these points. The plan was first unfolded in the Irish
Parliament by Mr. Secretary Orde, and it passed on
February 12th. On the 22nd Pitt brought it before
the British Parliament, but he was unable to overcome
the animosity of interested traders and the ignorance and
prejudices of his opponents, and was obliged to withdraw
many of his concessions, including the right of trading
with India and the foreign West Indies. But what was
still more galling to the Irish, a new proposition was
introduced requiring the English navigation laws to be
enacted by the Parliament of Ireland. The amended
proposals were received with a storm of indignation in
the Irish House of Commons. Mr. Grattan, who already
began to lament the constitutional arrangements of 1782,
vigorously denounced the mutilated measure. “This
bill,” he urged, “goes to the extinction of the most
valuable part of your Parliamentary capacity : it is
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
415
a union ; an incipient and creeping union ; a virtual
union, establishing one will in the general concerns of
commerce and navigation and reposing that will in the
Parliament of Grèat Britain; a union where our Parlia-
ment preserves its existence after it has lost its authority,
and our people are to pay for a Parliamentary establish-
ment without any proportion of Parliamentary repre-
sentation.” The bill was carried by such a small majority
—127 to 108—that Mr. Pitt abandoned it in sheer
vexation.
About this time renewed religious and agrarian out-
rages broke out in Ireland. The “Right-boys,” the
successors of the Whiteboys, disturbed the south, while
in the north the outrages of the Protestant “Peep-o'-
day Boys’ led to the organisation of Catholic “Defenders.”
The “Peep-o'-day Boys” were ultimately merged in the
Orange Society. The first Orange lodge was formed
in September, 1795, in the village of Loughgall, in
Armagh.
When the Prince of Wales was requested to assume
the Regency in 1788, the Irish Parliament ignored the
wishes of Pitt and the English Parliament, and voted
the Regency without restriction or limitation. Hailing
this momentary display of independence, Mr. Grattan
introduced a Pension Bill and other popular measures ;
but, the King's health being suddenly restored, the
Government majority resumed their sway. -
The Society of United Irishmen, which had for its
originator Samuel Neilson and its organiser Wolfe Tone,
was founded in 1791. Its primary object was a perfectly
constitutional one : it sought “a complete reform of the
Legislature, founded on the principles of civil, political,
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
The
“Right-
boys.”
“Peep-o'-
day Boys.”
The
Regency.
The
United
Irishmen.
and religious liberty”; but the association soon entered
into an alliance with the French Jacobins, and treasonable
plans were devised in aid of Irish disaffection. The Irish
Union societies were the offshoots of the United Irishmen.
The ill-fated Lord Edward Fitzgerald, who was betrayed
in 1798 and died from wounds received during a struggle
with his captors, was one of the United Irishmen.
416 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Rook
CHAP. II. Meanwhile the Government was constrained to try con-
The Irish ciliatory measures with the Catholics. By acts passed in
; 1792 and 1793, Catholics were admitted to the elective
zºº, franchise and to civil and military offices; the Irish pension
conces- list was reduced ; a fixed Civil List was settled upon the
$20708, Crown in lieu of its hereditary revenues; certain place-
men and pensioners were excluded from the House of
Commons; and Mr. Fox’s protective law of libel was
extended to Ireland. Yet these English concessions
were grudgingly yielded by the Irish Cabinet, and were
accompanied by a Militia Bill and two severe coercive
measures aimed at the Volunteers and the United
Irishmen.
Lord Fitz. In January, 1795, the liberal-minded Lord Fitzwilliam
” was appointed Lord Lieutenant. He began his adminis-
tration by treating the Catholics justly and honourably,
and the hopes of the nation were raised to the highest
pitch when he was suddenly recalled. All chance of a
pacification between the Protestants and Catholics was
soon seen to be at an end. The “Peep-o'-day Boys,” or
Orangemen, and the “Defenders” fought a pitched battle
at a place called The Diamond in September, 1795.
Insurree- Early in 1796 an Insurrection Act was passed, making
** the administration of an oath such as that now taken by
the United Irishmen punishable with death ; a discre-
tionary power was given to magistrates to proclaim
counties; and houses might be entered between sunset
and sunrise, and the inmates seized and sent on board
tenders without any formality of trial. Acts of Indemnity
were passed to shield the magistrates and military from
responsibility for excesses committed in the administra-
tion of the law. There could be no doubt that Government
favoured the Orangemen, while Parliament would do
nothing to allay discontent or ameliorate the condition
of the country. .
Rebellion. At length party strife and hatred culminated in the
"/ 1798. Rebellion of 1798. Although the leaders of this rebellion
were Protestants, and the Catholic gentry and priesthood
recoiled from any association with the French Repub-
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
417
licans, the whole Catholic body were denounced as rebels
and public enemies by the Protestant party. The Savagery
and brutality of the rebels were only equalled by the
cold-blooded ferocity and shocking barbarity of the
soldiers.
When the Rebellion had been crushed, Pitt felt that
the only hope for Ireland lay “in the mild and impartial
rule of British statesmen and a united Parliament.” In
this view he was supported by the new Viceroy, Lord
Cornwallis, who held that self-government had become
impossible. As Lord Hutchinson wrote, “if ever there
was a country unfit to govern itself, it is Ireland—a corrupt
aristocracy; a ferocious commonalty; a distracted Govern-
ment; a divided people.” But the difficulties in the way
of union were very great. Ireland was not likely to sur-
render her independence easily, or to abandon the liberties
won in 1782. The official class must give up their power
and patronage, the peers their position as hereditary
councillors, and the great families their hold over the
boroughs. Nevertheless, Ministers resolved at all costs
to carry the project through.
The Union was first proposed indirectly in a speech
from the throne on January 22nd, 1799. The project
was further defended in a pamphlet by Under-Secretary
Cooke, to which Mr. (afterwards Lord Chancellor)
Plunket replied. The Irish bar discussed the question
On December 9th, when the division was—against the
Union, 166; in favour of it, 32. Five debates took place
in the Irish House of Commons. Advocates for the
Union maintained that there was no safety for Ireland
without British government ; while, on the other hand,
all the ablest lawyers—supported by Sir John Parnell,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord Oriel, the
Speaker—held that Parliament was incompetent even to
entertain the question of a Union. This was also the
opinion of Grattan, Curran, and Ponsonby. “It is
scarcely an exaggeration to say that the whole unbribed
intellect of Ireland was opposed to the Union.” Certainly,
“beyond all reasonable doubt the overwhelming majority
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment,
Piſt’s
scheme for
a Union.
The pro-
ject dis-
cussed.
VOL. II. 27
4.18
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
The plan
Tejected.
Bribery
q'esorted
to.
of the people of Ireland were opposed to the destruction
of their national Parliament.”"
Pitt had no difficulty in persuading the Parliament of
Great Britain to recognise the necessity for the Union. In
the Commons his resolutions were carried by 149 votes to
24, and in the Lords without a division. But when the
project was first proposed in the Irish Parliament, an
amendment in favour of maintaining an independent
Legislature was only lost by a single vote—10.5 to 106.
When the report of the Address came on, another debate
took place, and this time Ministers were defeated by
five votes, the numbers being—for the Government, 104;
against, 109.
The Union policy being thus imperilled, a system of
the most unblushing bribery was resorted to. Corrupt
interests were to be corruptly bought, and Lord Castle-
reagh estimated that the cost of indemnifying the county
and borough interests, the purchasers of seats, barristers,
etc., would be no less than £1,433,000. The money was
forthcoming; and the patrons of boroughs received £7,500
for each seat. Lord Downshire was paid £52,500 for
seven seats, Lord Ely £45,000 for six, and the Earl of
Shannon a similar amount. Lord Clanmorris received
£22,500 and a peerage, Lord Belvidere £15,000, and
other great proprietors proportionate amounts. The total
compensation reached £1,260,000, but besides this, large
sums were paid for the private purchase of votes. Eighty-
four boroughs were disfranchised, and of the thirty-four
retained only nine were open. Peers were further pro-
mised English peerages or advancement in the peerage
of Ireland ; commoners were made peers, and places and
pensions were lavishly distributed. Lord Cornwallis, a
brave and honest soldier, was disgusted with the nature
of the work he was called upon to do. “My occupation,”
he wrote to his friend General Ross, “is now of the most
unpleasant nature : negotiating and jobbing with the
most corrupt people under heaven. I despise and hate
1 Mr. Lecky's Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland.
xII.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
419
myself every hour for engaging in such dirty work, and
am supported only by the reflection that without a Union
the British empire must be dissolved.”
When the Irish Parliament met on January 15th, 1800,
Sir Laurence Parsons moved an amendment to the Address
in favour of an independent resident Parliament. The
honourable member inveighed warmly against the Minis-
terial manoeuvres to pack the Parliament and influence
its members. “It mattered not,” he said, “whether the
representatives of the nation were turned out of that door
by the sword of the army or the gold of the Treasury, by
a Cromwell or by a secretary; the treason against the
Constitution was the same.” Mr. Egan, who spoke during
the debate, was referring to the Constitution of 1782 at
the moment when the founder of that constitution, Mr.
Grattan, entered the House. A scene of wild enthusiasm
ensued. Shortly afterwards Mr. Grattan rose and de-
livered a speech marked by all his old brilliancy and
fervour. In the course of it he referred to the adjustment
of 1782. “The Minister of Great Britain,” he said, “had
come forward in two celebrated productions: he declared
his intolerance of the Parliamentary constitution of
Ireland, that constitution which he ordered the several
viceroys to celebrate, in defence of which he recom-
mended the French war, and to which he swore
the yeoman ; that constitution he now declared to be a
miserable imperfection, concurring with the men whom
he had executed for thinking the Irish Parliament a
grievance, differing from them in the remedy only,
they proposing to substitute a republic, and he the yoke
of the British Parliament.” The amendment was defeated
by 138 to 96. * -
On February 15th Lord Castlereagh read a message
from the Lord Lieutenant to the House of Commons
formally bringing forward the measure for a legislative
union. The Government made every preparation for an
imposing array of strength, but when the House divided
they only carried their proposals by a majority of 43–
158 to 115. Twenty-seven members were absent. Con-
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Debate in
the Irish.
Parlia-
7ment.
Proposals
for Union.
carried.
420
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
Iment.
JJuel
between
Gratta?
and Corry.
The Union.
effected.
sidering the number of placemen, pensioners, and other
interested members, Ministers had slender grounds for
boasting of their majority. In the Upper House Lord
Clare moved the proposals in an elaborate and animated
speech; and, the British Cabinet being stronger in the
Lords, they were carried by 75 to 26.
During the further passage of the Articles of Union
through the Commons, Mr. Corry, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and Mr. Grattan, so fiercelyattacked each other
that a duel resulted, in which Mr. Corry was wounded.
The Articles of Union, as originally framed by the
English Ministry, were ultimately carried through both
Irish Houses, and brought before the British Parliament
on April 2nd, 1800. A joint address from both Houses
was presented to the King, and a plan of proceeding was
transmitted to Ireland. A bill was drawn up in accord-
ance therewith, and the motion for its introduction in the
Irish House of Commons was carried by 160 to 100. A
lengthy Address to the King against the completion of
the bill was negatived by a majority of 58. This Address,
which was generally attributed to the pen of Mr. Grattan,
was moved for by the Anti-Unionists as their solemn
protest to posterity against the measure. The Union
Bill was then taken to the House of Lords, and it was
read a third time on June 13th by 41 votes to 14. A
protest was entered against it by the Duke of Leinster
and other dissentient peers. A similar bill was carried
through the British Parliament in the month of June.
On July 2nd it received the Royal assent, when his
Majesty thus addressed the two Houses: “With peculiar
satisfaction I congratulate you on the success of the steps
which you have taken for effecting an entire Union between
my kingdoms. This great measure, on which my wishes
have long been earnestly bent, I shall ever consider as
the happiest event of my reign.” The royal assent was
given in Ireland to the Act of Union on August 1st.
The Act was to come into operation on January 1st, 1801,
and on that date the incorporate union of Great Britain
and Ireland became an accomplished fact.
xii.] THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
421
Under the Act of Union Ireland was to be represented
in the Imperial Parliament by four bishops, sitting in
annual rotation, by 28 temporal peers elected for life by
the Irish peerage, and by 100 members of the House of
Commons; Irish commerce was to be benefited by free
trade being established between the two countries; Irish
peers were made eligible for seats in the House of
Commons; one Irish peer only was to be created when
three Irish peerages had become extinct, and this was to
continue until there were only 100 Irish peers.
There can be no question that in many respects the
Union has worked advantageously for Ireland ; but
there is equally no question that the means by which it
was carried were objectionable in the highest degree.
“Scarcely any element or aggravation of political immo-
rality was wanting, and the term “honour, if it be applied
to such men as Castlereagh or Pitt, ceases to have any
real meaning in politics. Whatever may be thought of
the abstract merits of the arrangement, the Union as it
was carried was a crime of the deepest turpitude, a
crime which, by imposing, with every circumstance of
infamy, a new form of government on a reluctant and
protesting nation, has vitiated the whole course of Irish
opinion.” “ This is the language, not of a političal fanatic, .
but of a responsible historian. Though the terms in
which the judgment is couched may appear to some too
severe, the judgment itself is undoubtedly one that will be
accepted by posterity. -
During the nineteenth century many great and salutary
reforms have been effected by the Imperial Parliament
for the benefit of Catholic Ireland—reforms making for
civil freedom and religious equality. Though much yet
remains to be done, these reforms should not be forgotten
in that strife of parties for which Ireland seems to furnish
a perpetual battlefield.
* Mr. Lecky's Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland.
CHAP. II.
The Irish
Parlia-
ment.
Legisla.
tive
changes.
Effect of
the Union,
Irish
Teforms.


BOOK XIII.
PARLIAMENT IN THE WINETEENTH CENTURY,
£•& . &
----- --&<！-- *=?→
– + +，-，-- + -º-: ..…***~*~2 & -2 =--~~~~~
CHAPTER I.
THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
GEORGE IV. had occupied the throne but a few weeks,
when a treasonable plot was discovered for the assassina-
tion of Ministers. The Cato Street conspiracy—for such
was the name given to it—originated with a knot of
desperate men who had for their object the incitement
of the people to rebellion, and the murder of Lords Castle-
reagh and Sidmouth and the rest of the members of the
Cabinet. The leader, Arthur Thistlewood, acted largely
Out of revenge against Lord Sidmouth, to whom he had
sent a challenge, a proceeding which led to his imprison-
ment. It was arranged to assassinate the Ministers at
a dinner at Lord Harrowby's on February 23rd, to set
fire to London, seize the Bank and the Mansion House,
and proclaim a provisional government. The plot, how-
ever, was betrayed by one of the conspirators, named
Edwards, and the gang were attacked by the police
while arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, near
the Edgware Road. During the struggle several criminals
escaped, including the leader, Thistlewood, but he was
captured next morning. The conspirators were brought
to trial, and Thistlewood and four of his companions
were executed, five others being transported for life.
The Cato
Street con-
Spiracy.
On the initiative of Alderman Wood, the House of Spies and
Commons twice discussed the case of the informer
informers.
426 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I. Edwards and his employment by the authorities. But
The Reign the House negatived the motion for a select committee
dº. Iv. to inquire into the conduct of this acknowledged traitor,
- and Edwards was never punished. The relations of the
executive with spies and informers were much commented
upon ; and shortly before this time Lord Sidmouth—
who would not personally have connived at the use of
covert incitements to treason—was severely condemned
for accepting the services of an infamous spy named
Qliver, whose conduct was indignantly denounced in
both Houses.
The From the constitutional point of view, the two chief
; features of the reign of George IV. were the vindictive
proceedings against Queen Caroline and the cession of
the Catholic claims. The whole story of Queen Caroline
and her relations with her faithless and perjured husband
is one of the most miserable in our history. The Princess
was indiscreet, ill-disciplined, ill-educated, and sadly
lacking in judgment ; but she has been generally ac-
quitted of the graver charges brought against her by her
husband, who was notoriously guilty of the very offences
alleged against his wife. She was repudiated in 1796
merely on the ground of the Prince's personal dislike ;
and in 1806 a “delicate investigation * was ordered into
allegations of infidelity brought against her. By a
Minute of Council in 1807, she was entirely acquitted of
these charges. But she was soon deprived of access to
her child, the Princess Charlotte of Wales. The public,
under the lead of Canning and Brougham, warmly es-
poused her cause, for they were touched by her wrongs
and disgusted with the conduct and character of her
royal consort. In June, 1814, she went abroad, and fell
into the hands of the Italian Bergami, which led to other
charges being formulated against her.
Claims the When the Prince ascended the throne, he ordered the
º Queen's name to be omitted from the Liturgy, and forbade
royal honours to be paid to her at foreign courts. The
Princess assumed the title of Queen, however, and re-
turned to England, being received with great enthusiasm
xIII.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 427
in London. She demanded a public trial, instead of a CHAP. I.
secret investigation before a select committee, as proposed The Reign
by Ministers. Mr. Brougham took the management cº, IV.
of her case, and he and Mr. Denman were the Queen’s T
commissioners, as the Duke of Wellington and Lord
Castlereagh were those of the King. The Whigs and
Radicals united in defence of the Queen. Negotiations
for a settlement having fallen through, the secret
committee appointed by the Lords reported in favour of
a “solemn inquiry.” The Queen prayed to be heard by
counsel on certain preliminary and weighty matters, but
her petition was refused. Lord Liverpool then brought
in a Bill of Pains and Penalties, which was one of the Bill to
most unconstitutional and discreditable acts of his ad- jºradº
ministration. The measure was entitled “An Act to
deprive her Majesty Queen Caroline Amelia Elizabeth
of the title, prerogatives, rights, privileges, and exemp-
tions of queen consort of this realm, and to dissolve
the marriage between his Majesty and the said Caroline
Amelia Elizabeth.” Adultery and light conduct gene-
rally were charged against her, and the bill provided for
her degradation and divorce.
The bill was read a first time, and the second Its prose.
reading fixed for August 17th. From this date to Sep- *
tember 8th the House of Lords was engaged in receiving
the evidence of witnesses for the bill. Tales of im-
morality told by Italian domestics were translated by
interpreters at the bar of the House, and afterwards
published broadcast by the newspapers. The counsel
for the Queen had little difficulty in discrediting many
of the witnesses. Meanwhile the public excitement
was unparalleled, and little was heard throughout
England but the story of the Queen and her wrongs.
On November 6th the division on the second reading and
was taken in the Lords, when the majority in favour of *
the bill was only 28 in a House of 218. On the third &
reading, which took place on the 10th, the majority
was reduced to 9. With such a state of feeling in the
Upper House, Ministers knew that it was a hopeless
428
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
The "
Queen's
death.
The King's
(307'0706/.
tion.
The
Catholic
claims.
task to attempt to carry the bill, and Lord Liverpool at .
once announced their determination not to proceed further
with the measure." The joy of the nation was unbounded,
and the law officers of her Majesty became the idols of
the people. The story of the rest of the Queen's life is
soon told. She went in procession to St. Paul’s on
November 29th to offer up thanks. In the ensuing
session of Parliament she accepted a pension of £50,000
a year, and from this time her popularity began to wane.
When George IV. was crowned with unwonted pomp and
splendour on July 19th, 1821, she claimed to share the
ceremony with him, but was refused admission to West-
minster Hall. Dispirited in mind and weary of life, the
unhappy Caroline of Brunswick died on August 7th
following, in her fifty-third year.
The question of the Catholic claims now demands
attention. On the death of Mr. Grattan, Mr. Plunket
became the leader of the relief party; and in February,
1821, in a learned and eloquent speech, he moved for a
committee in the House of Commons on the Roman
Catholic oaths. The motion was carried by 227 to 221
votes. A bill, founded upon the resolutions of the com-
mittee, was subsequently brought in, which provided for
the abrogation of the declarations against transubstantia-
tion and the invocation of saints, and for a legal interpreta-
tion of the oath of supremacy in a sense not obnoxious to
the consciences of the Catholics. Mr. Canning supported
the measure, and the second reading was carried on
March 16th by a majority of 11—254 to 243. Provisions
1 The most important occasion on which the House of Lords was
called over in modern times was in connection with this bill for de-
grading Queen Caroline. The House imposed a fine of £100 for each
day's absence, pending the three first days of the proceedings, and
£50 for each subsequent day's absence, in default of payment the
absenting peer to be taken into custody. No excuses were admitted
save old age, sickness, bereavement, or absence from the country.
In every call of the House, for whatever purpose, the roll-call
begins with the junior baron ; but in the appointment of a
select committee the peer highest in rank comes first.
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 429
regulating the relations of the Roman Catholic Church CHAP. T.
with the State and with the see of Rome were introduced The Reign
in committee, and the bill passed its third reading by a Geo
majority of 19–Ayes, 216 ; Noes, 197. In the Lords,
however, the bill was thrown out by 159 votes to 120,
chiefly through the determined opposition of the Duke of
York. -
Before the question was mooted again the Grenville Minis-
party had joined the Government, and Lord Wellesley * -
had become Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. More important
still, however, Lord Sidmouth retired from office in
January, 1822, and Mr. Peel succeeded him as Home
Secretary. Soon after Parliament met in 1822, it was
announced that Mr. Canning had been appointed Governor-
General of India, universal regret being expressed at
such “a singular and unsatisfactory termination to the
career of the greatest orator in either House of Parlia-
ment.” This loss to public life, however, was averted
by a melancholy event—namely, the suicide of Lord
Londonderry (formerly Castlereagh). Mr. Canning was Canning
about to start for India, when his appointment was ...,
cancelled, and he was made Foreign Secretary in Lord
Londonderry’s room. Further Ministerial changes shortly
took place, Mr. Robinson becoming Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and Mr. Huskisson President of the Board
of Trade.
As the time was not yet ripe for yielding the whole of Disabili-
the Catholic claims, on April 30th, 1822, Mr. Canning en- ºn,
deavoured to obtain a partial concession by moving for a peers.
bill to relieve Roman Catholic peers from their disability
to sit and vote in the House of Lords. In the time of
Elizabeth, peers had been specially exempted from taking
the Oath of Supremacy because the Queen was otherwise
sufficiently assured of their faith and loyalty. In pursu-
ance of this right, Catholic peers continued to sit in the
Upper House unquestioned until the times of the infamous
Titus Oates. By the act of 30 Charles II. they were dis-
qualified for sitting and also for advising the Crown as
hereditary councillors. The latter disqualification was
Of
rge IV.
430
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
Attacks on
Canning.
Attempts
at Catho-
lic relief.
removed in 1791, and it was now sought to abolish the
former. Mr. Canning spoke powerfully of the humilia-
tions to which the Catholics were subjected, and pointed
out that the Duke of Norfolk, “who headed the proces-
sion of the peers to-day, could not sit among them as
their equal on the morrow.” The motion was ably
opposed by Mr. Peel and as ably supported by the
eloquence of Mr. Plunket, and leave was given to bring
in the bill by 249 to 244 votes. The second reading
was carried by a majority of 12, and the bill was un-
opposed at the remaining stages. But the Lords again
stood in the way, and rejected the measure by 171 to
129.
The Catholics and their leaders now grew extremely
irritable, and on April 17th, 1823, a debate took place in
the Commons which was in every way regrettable. Al-
though Mr. Canning, who was opposed by most of his
Ministerial colleagues, had again and again shown his
attachment to the cause, Sir F. Burdett fiercely attacked
him for his supposed defection. Mr. Tierney also charged
him with ruining the hopes of the Catholics by not
making emancipation an imperative question on taking
office ; and Mr. Grey Bennet declared that “he now
thought the affair was a perfect trick, or what, in
familiar language, was called a humbug.” The sensitive
Minister bore these taunts . bravely, but when Mr.
Brougham followed with a violent and insulting speech,
in which he spoke of “monstrous truckling,” “political
tergiversation,” etc., Mr. Canning could remain quiet
no longer. Starting up, he fixed his eye upon his
opponent, and remarked with forced calmness, “I rise
to say that that is false.” The matter was not adjusted
for some time, but at length Mr. Plunket was allowed to
proceed with his motion touching the Catholic claims.
Ultimately the House agreed to an adjournment by 313
to 111 votes. -
In May, 1823, Lord Nugent introduced two measures of
modified relief—to which Mr. Peel assented—one ex-
tending to English Catholics the elective franchise, and
xIII.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 431
the other admitting them to the commission of the peace CHAP. I.
and to corporate offices. When the bills came before The Reign
the Lords, however, one of them was rejected, and the doº, IV.
other dropped. These measures were revived, but un- T
successfully, in the following year. Equally abortive
attempts were made by Lord Lansdowne and Dr. Philli-
more to remove the pressure of the marriage laws upon
the Roman Catholics. In May, 1824, Lord Lansdowne
further endeavoured to obtain for English Catholics the
elective franchise, the right to serve as justices of the
peace, and the right to hold offices in the revenue. The
motion was rejected, but one act of individual toleration
was passed this year, by which the Duke of Norfolk was
enabled to execute his hereditary office of Earl Marshal
without taking the oath of Supremacy, or subscribing
the declarations against transubstantiation and the
invocation of Saints.
Great discontent prevailed in Ireland in consequence of The
the repeated failures of the Catholics to obtain justice. ſº
Daniel O’Connell had already in 1823 called into ex- gion.
istence the Catholic Association, which speedily became
most cosmopolitan in character. By means of officers
called wardens, it raised a subscription all over Ireland
called the Catholic Rent. It also appointed committees,
received petitions, and conducted a census of the Catholic
population. In the session of 1825 Parliament passed a
bill suppressing the Association, limited to three years.
But no legislative measures could now arrest the progress
of the Catholic cause. During the discussions on the
Catholic Association Bill, Mr. Canning delivered a memo- Speech by
rable speech, in which he reviewed the history of the “”
Catholic question and his own conduct in relation to it.
It was a speech of deep autobiographic interest. The
orator showed how he had endeavoured to serve the
Catholic leaders, though they were “hard taskmasters.”
He had sacrificed his own interests to the cause. “In
the year 1812,” he said, “I refused office rather than
enter an administration pledged against the Catholic
question. I did this at a time when office would have
432
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. I.
been dearer to me than at any other period of my political
The Reign life, when I would have given ten years of life for two
dº. Iv. years of office, not for any sordid or selfish purpose of
The Duke
of York
and the
Catholics.
personal aggrandisement, but for far other and higher
views.” He had also surrendered an object that was far
more to him than all the blandishments of power and
all the rewards and favours of the Crown, and that was
the hope of representing his university (Oxford) in Par-
liament. The speech made a great impression, and gave
a strong impetus to the cause of emancipation. It was a
singular anomaly in this distinguished statesman’s career
that, while he so warmly supported the Catholic claims,
he opposed the repeal of the Test Act, which pressed
heavily upon Protestant Dissenters.
In March, 1825, Sir F. Burdett carried a Relief Bill
through the Commons, which provided a new oath in
lieu of the Oath of supremacy as a qualification for office,
and regulated the intercourse of Irish Roman Catholic
subjects with the see of Rome. The measure passed
its second reading by 268 to 241, and its third reading
by 248 to 227. While the bill was going through
the Lower House, the heir-presumptive, the Duke of
York, seized the opportunity in the House of Lords to
declare that if he succeeded to the throne he should
be animated in this matter by the same principles as
his father. He had the same scruples of conscience
about the coronation oath. “These were the principles,”
said the Duke, “to which he would adhere, and which he
would maintain and act up to, to the latest moment of his
existence, whatever might be his situation of life, so
help him, God ' " About the same time Mr. Plunket
spoke effectively on the other side in the Commons.
Referring to the bigoted plea of the danger of innova-
tion, he said, “Time was the greatest innovator of all.
Arrest his course they could not, but they might vary
the forms and aspects of their institutions so as to reflect
his varying aspects and forms. If this were not the
spirit which animated them, philosophy would be im-
pertinent, and history no better than an old almanack.”
xiii.] - THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
433
These speeches were taken up respectively by the foes
and friends of the Catholics, and there was great popular
excitement. The House of Lords, however, rejected the
Relief Bill by a majority of 48—178 to 130 votes—and
“the glorious forty-eight" became the toast of the
ultra-Protestants.
On April 29th, 1825, Lord Francis Leveson Gower
brought forward a resolution in the House of Commons
declaring it to be expedient that provision be made by
law for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic clergy
in Ireland. The motion was carried by 205 to 162, but
it led to no practical result.
The hopes of the Catholics rose to the highest pitch
when Mr. Canning became Prime Minister in April,
1827, after the resignation of Lord Liverpool. The Duke
of Wellington, Lord Eldon, and Mr. Peel refused to serve
under the new Premier, but he was joined by some of the
Whigs. The Ministry included the following:—First
Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Canning ; Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst ; Home Secretary,
Mr. Sturges Bourne ; Foreign Secretary, Lord Dudley;
War Secretary, Lord Palmerston ; Colonial Secretary,
Lord Goderich. The Duke of Portland, the Duke of
Clarence, Lords Anglesey and Harrowby, and Mr. Hus-
kisson also held appointments. Unfortunately, the cares of
office and the bitter attacks of his opponents broke down
the spirit of the brilliant head of the Administration, who
expired on August 8th, 1827, only four months after the
formation of his Government. His last important act
was the conclusion of the Treaty of London—between
England, France, and Russia—by which the liberation
of Greece was secured. We cannot pass from the great
name of Canning without some references to his liberal
foreign policy. It was he who asserted the independence
of Great Britain in relation to European affairs, and who
prevented her from becoming entangled by the Holy
Alliance. He secured an Anglo-French agreement re-
specting the affairs of Spanish America, and adjusted
the relations of Brazil and Portugal. He protected
WOL. II. 28
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
*-*
The
Catholic
clergy.
Canning
becomes
Prºme
Minister.
His pre-
mat?!?'é
death.
JHis
Foreign
Policy.
434
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
A famous
Speech.
The Wem;
World,
and the
Old.
6°oderich
Premier.
Govern-
ment of
the Duke
of Wel-
lington.
Portugal from Spanish invasion, and was the first to
recognise the independence of the Spanish colonies in
America. In one of the latest and most celebrated of
his speeches, made in reply to the taunt that the dignity
of England had been lowered by the French occupation
of Spain, there occurred this passage, which closed with
a phrase now become historic : “Was there no other
mode of resistance for England than by a direct attack
upon France or by a war to be undertaken on the soil
of Spain P What if the possession of Spain might be
rendered harmless in rival hands—harmless as regarded
us and valueless to the possessors P Might not compen-
sation for disparagement be obtained, and the policy of
Our ancestors vindicated, by means better adapted to the
present time P If France occupied Spain, was it neces-
sary, in order to avoid the consequences of that occupa-
tion, that we should blockade Cadiz P No. I looked
another way. I sought materials of compensation in another
hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such as our ancestors
had known her, I resolved that if France had Spain,
it should not be Spain “with the Indies.’ I called the
New World into existence to redress the balance of the
Old.” -
On the death of Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich (formerly
Mr. Robinson) became Prime Minister. Although sup-
ported by many of his predecessor's colleagues, he was
unable to reconcile the jarring elements in his adminis-
tration ; and after a provisional rule of five months he
surrendered the seals of office.
The Duke of Wellington came into power at the head
of a Tory Ministry. Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor,
Mr. H. Goulburn Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Peel Home Secretary, Lord Dudley Foreign Secretary,
Mr. Huskisson Colonial and War Secretary, Lord
Palmerston Secretary-at-War, and Mr. Grant President
of the Board of Trade. In the course of a few months
all the Liberal members of the Government seceded from
it, including Lords Palmerston and Dudley, Mr. Huskisson,
Mr. Grant, and Mr. Lamb (afterwards Lord Melbourne).
xIII.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
435
Catholic emancipation was an open question in the
new Cabinet, though the Premier in the Lords and the
leader in the Commons were as yet determined in their
opposition to it. Events were marching rapidly, however,
and this reactionary Ministry was destined to carry the
measure which men of more liberal tendencies had strug-
gled for in vain. On May 8th, 1828, Sir F. Burdett
brought forward a resolution in favour of the Catholic
claims. During the debate, which occupied three nights,
several conversions were avowed, and the motion was
carried by a majority of six in a House consisting of
538 members. This resolution was communicated to the
Lords at a conference, but after a lengthy debate their
lordships refused to concur in it by 181 to 137. However,
the alarming state of Ireland soon demonstrated that some
change was necessary, and the result of the Clare election
further opened the eyes of the Government. Mr. Vesey
Fitzgerald, on accepting office, had vacated his seat for
county Clare, and on going before his constituents for re-
election found himself opposed by Mr. O'Connell. The
polling began on June 30th, but in the course of a few
days Mr. Fitzgerald withdrew. Although he was an
excellent candidate, and a supporter of the Catholic
claims, the people resolved to afford a signal proof of
their earnestness by returning their own champion.
Meantime the fidelity of the Catholic soldiers in Ireland
had become doubtful, while the Catholic Association had
been revived in all its former strength.
Mr. Peel now expressed his conviction that the time
had come for granting the Catholic claims, and the
necessity for action was also admitted by the Duke of
Wellington, Lord Anglesey (the late Irish Viceroy), and
Lord Lyndhurst. One great opponent of the Catholics,
the Duke of York, had been removed some time before
by the hand of death. The King, however, declared his
intention not to yield, and the bishops were equally de-
termined. But the serious representations of Mr. Peel
caused his Majesty to modify his attitude, and when Par-
liament opened on February 5th, 1829, the royal speech
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
A-
The
Catholic
question.
Attitude
of the
Ministry.
436
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
Peel de.
feated at
Oaford.
The
Catholic
Associa-
tion sup-
pressed.
Belief
JBill intro-
duced.
Its pro-
wisions.
referred to the disorders in Ireland caused by the revival
of the Catholic Association, but also recommended Par-
liament to consider whether the disabilities of Catholics
could not be removed. Mr. Peel resigned his seat for
Oxford University on February 4th, in order to give his
constituents an opportunity of pronouncing their opinion
upon the new policy. He was opposed by Sir Robert H.
Inglis, and, after a spirited contest, defeated by 146 votes
out of a total poll of 1,364. But the borough of West-
bury at once returned the rejected Minister. An act
suppressing the Catholic Association was carried through
both Houses in February, but before it became law the
Association had dissolved itself, having accomplished its
mission.
The way now seemed clear for the Relief Bill of the
Government ; but on March 3rd the King, on learning
that the Supremacy oath was to be altered, refused his
consent to the measure. Thereupon the Duke of Welling-
ton, Mr. Peel, and the Lord Chancellor resigned, but
resumed office on receiving from his Majesty his consent
in writing. At length, on March 5th, Mr. Peel intro-
duced the Catholic Relief Bill in the House of Commons
in a speech of four hours’ duration, which was repeatedly
interrupted by enthusiastic plaudits. The measure ad-
mitted Roman Catholics, on taking a new oath instead
of the oath of supremacy, to both Houses of Parliament,
to all corporate offices, to all judicial offices except in the
ecclesiastical courts, and to all civil and political offices
except those of Regent, Lord Chancellor of England or
Ireland, and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Touching the
dispensation of Church patronage, however, restraints
were imposed upon the interference of Roman Catholics.
It was further proposed to prevent the insignia of cor-
porations from being taken to any place of religious
worship except the Established Church, to restrain
Roman Catholic bishops from assuming the titles of
existing sees, to prevent the admission, of Jesuits into
the country, to ensure the registration of those already
here, and to discourage the extension of monastic orders.
xIII.] - THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
487
In unfolding his scheme, Mr. Peel pointed out that, in
consequence of recent events, it was impossible to remain
stationary on this question, and he forcibly emphasised
the evils of divided Cabinets and distracted councils.
They must either grant further privileges to Roman
Catholics or retract those previously given. The great bulk
of the House was already converted to the Ministerial
view, and the motion for going into committee was
approved by the large majority of 188—348 votes to 160.
The second reading was carried, after a lengthy debate,
by 353 to 173, and the third reading by 320 to 142. In
closing the debate on the second reading, Mr. Peel frankly
confessed that the measure was due to the efforts of the
Opposition. “The credit belongs to others,” he said,
“and not to me; it belongs to Mr. Fox, to Mr. Grattan,
to Mr. Plunket, to the honourable gentlemen opposite,
and to an illustrious and right honourable friend of mine
who is now no more. By their efforts, in spite of every
opposition, it has proved victorious.”
The bill came on for second reading in the Lords on
April 2nd. The Duke of Wellington justified the mea-
sure in an interesting, and, for him, a lengthy speech.
Apart from other considerations, he showed its necessity
in order to avert a civil war, and he made this memorable
declaration: “If I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever,
even one month of civil war in the country to which I
am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it.”
The bill was opposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury,
York, and Armagh, the Bishops of London, Salisbury,
and Durham, and several lay peers. Lord Eldon also,
alone almost among statesmen, still lifted up his voice
against a measure to which he had offered a lifelong
resistance. The bill had the support of the Duke of
Sussex, the Bishop of Oxford, Lords Lyndhurst, Grey,
Plunket, and other well-known peers. The second read-
ing was carried by 217 to 112 votes, and the third reading,
taken on April 10th, by 213 to 109. As the whole House
of Peers in George IV.'s time consisted of only 372
members, it will be seen how large these divisions were.
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
Peel on the
7/26(IS107°6.
The Bill
in the
Lords.
Passing of
the
720.6%.Sº...?"62.
438
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. T.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
Its justift-
cation.
The Irish.
Franchise.
Catholic
Pee?'s im,
the Lords.
O'Connell
and
County
Clare.
Protests against the measure were signed by the Dukes
of Cumberland and Newcastle, Lords Eldon, Sidmouth,
Bexley, and 34 other peers. The Tories severely blamed
their leaders for carrying Catholic emancipation, and
the change of view with the Duke of Wellington and
Mr. Peel was certainly extremely rapid ; but the ques-
tion is, Was it justifiable P Posterity has endorsed their
action; and it has frequently happened in our political
history that statesmen have been irresistibly borne
forward by the current of events, when resistance would
have been detrimental, perhaps fatal, to the highest in-
terests and the peace of the nation. Since Mr. Peel's
action on Catholic emancipation the truth of this has
been attested by Liberal and Conservative statesmen
alike, with regard to other important questions.
The Relief Act was immediately followed by an act
dealing with the elective franchise in Ireland. It dis-
franchised 40s. freeholders and raised the qualification to
£10. The principal reason urged for this measure was
that by the multiplication of small freeholds a large
number of dependent voters had been created who were
subject to the influence of the priests. Most of these
small freeholds owed their origin to the Protestant land-
lords, but the voters had transferred their allegiance to
the priests, so that, as Mr. Peel remarked, the weapon
forged by the landlord had broken short in his hand.
The bill quickly passed through both Houses. The
Catholics did not like it, but accepted it as the price
of emancipation, while the Protestants welcomed it as
a protection against priestly influence.
A number of Roman Catholic peers took the oaths and
their seats in the House of Lords on April 28th and
May 1st, including the Duke of Norfolk and Lords Clifford,
Stafford, and Petre. Mr. O'Connell sought to do the
same in the Lower House for county Clare, but was pre-
vented, as the new oath was restricted to members
returned after the passing of the act. The Irish leader
pleaded his own case powerfully at the bar, but the act
was clearly and emphatically against him. A new writ
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
439
was issued for county Clare, and Mr. O’Connell was re-
turned without opposition, but he never forgot his previous
exclusion, which embittered his diatribes against “the
enemies of Ireland.” Catholic emancipation had been so
long delayed that its effects failed to fulfil the anticipa-
tions of the most sanguine, though it marked a stage in
the earnest desire of statesmen to effect the peaceable
regeneration of Ireland.
Another great measure of a religious character passed
at this period was the act for the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts. It owed its passage to Lord John
Russell, a young member destined to acquire honourable
renown as a statesman. Lord John was the third son
of the sixth Duke of Bedford. He was born in 1792,
educated at Edinburgh, and in 1813 was returned for
Tavistock in the Whig interest, a month before he came
of age. He speedily identified himself in the House with
the subject of Parliamentary reform, and with civil and
religious questions generally. On February 26th, 1828,
his lordship moved for a committee to consider the Test
and Corporation Acts. In an able historical survey he
showed that the acts bore no relation to present times and
circumstances. The Dissenters might have appeared dan-
gerous to the House of Stuart, but they were certainly
loyal subjects of the House of Hanover, and did not
deserve to be excluded from civil office by the Corpora-
tion Act; while, as to the Test Act, it was originally
intended as a barrier to the Church against the King.
The penalties were of various kinds, and included a
pecuniary one of £500. Mr. Peel was weak in his oppo-
sition. While admitting Lord John Russell’s premises,
he argued that the Dissenters did not really suffer, as
they were incessantly relieved by indemnity bills. Mr.
Huskisson was equally weak, not desiring to relieve
Dissenters because of the insult it would imply to the
Catholics while their own disabilities remained. The
House, however, agreed to the motion by 237 to 193
votes. A bill was introduced and passed by the Com-
mons with the substitution of a declaration for the
CHAP. I.
The Reign
O
George IV:
Repeal of
the Test
and Cor-
poration
Acts.
Lord John,
Bussell.
440
EIISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. I.
Sacramental test as the only amendment suggested by
The Reign the bishops. The measure was discussed in the Lords on
Of
George IV.
April 17th. The Archbishop of York, in accepting it,
remarked that “religious tests imposed for political pur-
poses must in themselves be always liable more or less
to endanger religious sincerity.” The bill was read a
Jews ea:-
cluded.
Parlia.
mentary
Reform.
second time without a division, but not without an
emphatic “Not content” from that faithful champion of
bigotry Lord Eldon, who described the measure in his
private correspondence as “shameful,” “mischievous,”
and “revolutionary.” In committee there was unfortu-
nately inserted, on the motion of the Bishop of Llandaff,
the formula “on the true faith of a Christian.” This
amendment directly excluded the Jews, and in condemn-
ing it Lord Holland reminded the House that there was
nothing to keep Jews out of Parliament since the reign
of Charles II., except the abjuration oath introduced into
the Toleration Act. They were now again expressly
wronged, and were not relieved from their disabilities for
thirty years. The bill was passed by the Lords without
further amendments, but protests against this excellent
measure of toleration were signed by the Dukes of
Cumberland and Newcastle, Lords Eldon and Redesdale,
and seven other peers.
The progress of Parliamentary reform during the
reign of George IV, must now be briefly traced. In
the session of 1820 Lord John Russell had taken up
the question of the disfranchisement of boroughs
notoriously corrupt, and had brought forward a bill for
disfranchising Grampound. It reached the House of
Lords, but was dropped because of the prorogation.
Again passed by the Commons in 1821, it went to the
Lords, with a clause giving the two vacant seats to the
important town of Leeds. The Lords ignored this ex-
tension of the principle of borough representation, and
assigned two additional members to the county of York
instead. The amendment was accepted, and the bill
passed in this form. On April 17th, 1821, Mr. Lambton
brought forward a suffrage scheme, proposing, in lieu of
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 441
the borough representation, to divide counties into districts CHAP. I.
containing twenty-five thousand inhabitants, each return- The Reign
ing a member, and instituting a household franchise, but George IV.
his motion was negatived by 55 to 43. Lord John Russell T
next moved resolutions on May 19th touching bribery, the
disfranchisement of corrupt boroughs, and the transfer
of the seats to populous places, but the resolutions were
superseded by the previous question. In 1822 Lord
John, who now described himself as having “served an
apprenticeship in the cause of reform,” proposed a
resolution to the effect that the present state of the
representation required serious consideration, but the
motion was negatived by 269 to 164 votes. It was re-
introduced in the following year, when the mover was
supported by numerous petitions, including one from
seventeen thousand Yorkshire freeholders, but the motion
was lost by 280 to 169. Yet a third time, in 1826,
was the same resolution brought forward, but it was now
rejected by 247 to 123.
The Marquis of Blandford came forward as a reformer Corrupt
at this period. In the session of 1829 he moved a ”
resolution condemning close and corrupt boroughs, but
found only 40 supporters. At the opening of the follow-
ing session he moved an amendment to the Address,
setting forth the necessity of improving the representa-
tion. He was seconded by Mr. O’Connell, but the motion
was rejected by 96 to 11. Nothing daunted, his lordship
next moved for leave to bring in a bill to restore the
constitutional influence of the House of Commons, but
he was defeated by 160 to 57.
Electoral abuses and bribery gave rise to numerous Electoral
motions. In consequence of the alleged use of corporate *
funds for election purposes by the corporations of North-
ampton and Leicester, a bill to restrain such corporate
abuses passed the Commons in 1827, but Lord Eldon
secured its rejection in the Upper House. In 1827 Lord
John Russell made an unsuccessful attempt to disfranchise Disfran-
Penryn and East Retford for bribery; but in the following ;
year two bills were introduced—one by Lord John Russell,
442
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
transferring the franchise from Penryn to Manchester,
The Reign and another by Mr. Tennyson, disfranchising East Ret-
dº. Iv. ford and giving its representatives to Birmingham. The
The
JBallot.
Commer-
cial
policy.
opposition of the Government to the latter proposal led
to the secession of Mr. Huskisson and the other Liberal
members of the Ministry. The Penryn bill was thrown
out by the Lords, and the East Retford bill was abandoned
in the Commons. In February, 1830, Lord John Russell
proposed to enfranchise Leeds, Birmingham, and Man-
chester. This moderate measure was opposed on the
ground that the claims of other large towns could not
afterwards be resisted, and the motion was lost by 188
to 140. During this debate, Mr. Huskisson predicted
that the time was coming when the franchise must be
granted to the populous manufacturing districts, and when
his Majesty’s Government would propose such a measure
as necessary for the salvation of the country. Mr. Cal-
vert next introduced a bill for transferring the repre-
sentation of East Retford to Birmingham, but it was
defeated by an amendment extending the right of voting
for East Retford to the hundred of Bassetlaw, the
numbers being 126 to 99. A motion by Mr. O'Connell
to introduce the ballot only found 21 supporters, but
among these were Lord Althorp, Mr. Hume, Sir F.
Burdett,and Mr. Hobhouse. In May, 1830, Mr. O'Connell’s
motion on behalf of triennial Parliaments, the ballot,
and universal suffrage was rejected by 319 to 13 ; and
a resolution moved by Lord John Russell, “That it is
expedient to extend the basis of the representation of
the people,” was lost by 213 to 117. During the debate
Mr. (now Sir Robert) Peel said he considered that the
popular voice was already sufficiently heard in the House
of Commons.
A liberal commercial policy was inaugurated during
the reign by Mr. Huskisson, who found a supporter in
Mr. Canning. The latter also was a consistent advocate
of negro emancipation, though he favoured a gradual
policy on this question. As Free Trade made some
decided steps towards realisation under the guidance of
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 443
Mr. Huskisson, the early history of the Corn Laws may CHAP. I.
be briefly sketched at this juncture. With regard to The Reign
the exportation of corn, the first prohibition by act of Geºry
Parliament was in 1360, but before then the practice zºº,
had been forbidden by the Crown. In 1436 exportation Lans.
was permitted when the price was below 6s. 8d. per
quarter, which was increased to 10s. in 1562. Acts
passed in 1570, 1593, 1604, 1623, 1656, 1660, 1663, and
1670 imposed various rates of export duties, the amount
in the last-named year being 5s. 4d. per quarter when
the price was at 53s. 4d. The export duties were
abolished in 1689, and a bounty of 5s. was ordered on
exportation when the price was under 48s. By Burke's
act of 1773 bounty and exportation were alike prohibited
when the price was at or above 44s. In 1791 the act
of 1773 was repealed, and the prohibitory price was
raised to 46s.; it was still further raised to 54s. in 1804,
the bounty ceasing at 488. Bounties were abolished
in 1814, and exportation permitted without duty. As
regards importation, it was forbidden by an act of 1463
when the price was under 6s. 8d. per quarter. In 1670
a varying scale of duties was imposed. By the act of
1773 foreign corn was admitted at a nominal duty of six-
pence when the price reached 48s., while it was 248. 3d.
when at 44s. and under. This act proved very service-
able, while it inflicted no injury upon the agricultural
interests. The act of 1791 increased the respective
limits for importation to 54s. and 50s., and that of 1804
to 66s. and 63s.
The Corn Law Act of 1815 prohibited importation when corn
the price was below 80s. per quarter. This measure ºpertº
o © tº g e tion,
proved disastrous in its operation, and a futile effort
was made to amend it in 1822. In the session of 1823
Mr. Whitmore moved to reduce the importation price
by 2s. annually until it reached 60s., but the resolution
was negatived by 78 to 25. In the following session a
motion to admit importation at 55s, was rejected by 187
to 47; and a similar motion in 1826 was lost by 215
to 81. Mr. Canning introduced a Corn Bill in 1827
444
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. I.
The Reign
Of
George IV.
Welling-
tom’s
Sliding
Scale.
I'duca-
tion.
providing a sliding scale of 20s. duty when the price was
at 60s., decreasing to 18. at 70s., and increasing by 2s.
for every 18, decrease in price. It passed the Commons,
but was lost in the Lords through an amendment of the
Duke of Wellington to the effect that foreign corn
should not be taken out of bond till the price reached
66s. In 1828 Mr. Charles Grant proposed resolutions
similar to those of Mr. Canning. These were carried, and
formed the basis of Wellington's sliding scale passed that
year. The duty under the sliding scale was to be 36s. 8d.
at 50s., decreasing to 16s. 8d. at 68s. and 1s. at 73s., and
increasing as the price fell. An amendment by Mr. Hume
for a fixed duty of 15s., to be reduced to 10s., in 1834,
was negatived by 139 to 27. In 1829 Mr. Hume moved
for a committee to consider the Corn Laws with a view to
their repeal, but he was defeated by 154 to 12. A similar
motion in 1831 was rejected by 194 to 6, which formed
the low-water mark in the opposition to these laws.
After this the movement for repeal began to gain strength.
The course of general legislation under George IV.
demands some attention. Noble efforts on behalf of
popular education were made by Mr. Brougham, and he
produced elaborate plans in 1816 and 1820, but un-
fortunately the time was not yet ripe for inscribing
The
Criminal
Larvs.
The Press.
measures of national education upon the statute book.
Sir James Mackintosh, upon whom had fallen the
mantle of Romilly, was more successful with his criminal
law reforms. He carried three bills, under one of which
shop-lifting to the value of 5s. ceased to be punishable
with death. The Lord Chancellor thought small trades-
men would be ruined by this relaxation, while Lord
Redesdale was equally alarmed by the proposal that men
should no longer be put to death for blackening their
faces in the commission of robberies by night, and this
latter clause was actually struck out. The capital
sentence was removed from certain offences, however,
some of which were serious, though the majority Were
trivial. The license of the press was shown at this time
in the great number of libellous and slanderous articles
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. 445
which appeared. The laws were severe enough, but in CHAP: I.
1821 the . Constitutional Association was formed for the The Reign
purpose of tracking offenders and facilitating the execution gº IV.
of the law. The dangers of such irresponsible legal ad- T
juncts were forcibly shown by Mr. Brougham and Mr.
Whitbread in the House of Commons, and the judges of the
King's Bench likewise perceived them, and allowed mem-
bers of the association to be challenged as jurors. The
influence of the association was thus effectively crippled.
The session of 1823 marked a salutary change in the Efforts
whole commercial policy of England. First, Mr. Hus- *
kisson brought forward his Reciprocity of Duties Bill, by Trade.
which all duties and drawbacks were to be imposed and
allowed on all merchandise equally, whether carried in
and out by British or foreign vessels. This measure,
which passed the Commons by 75 to 15, largely modified
the old Navigation Acts, and practically freed British
and foreign shipping. The President of the Board of
Trade further offered to free the Spitalfields silk manu-
facture from restrictions such as the settlement of wages
by a magistrate, but eleven thousand journeymen petitioned
against this, and the matter was dropped. He further
offered to remit the import duty on raw cotton if the
manufacturers would consent to give up the export duty,
but they declined. In the session of 1824 the act fixing
the wages of Spitalfields weavers was at length repealed
—a proceeding which in effect saved the silk manu-
facture. Measures relating to the freedom of labour
were also passed. All acts limiting the free travelling
about of workmen were totally repealed. All laws con-
trolling the combination of either masters or workmen
were likewise repealed, but in the ensuing session com-
binations to intimidate employers were made illegal.
The duties on silk and on wool were largely reduced.
An act was passed establishing a uniformity of weights
and measures. They were now settled by natural
standards, while the old denominations were retained.
In the course of a few years of progressive legislation, £º to
e º * } @ e º skis-
Mr. Huskisson did much to justify the claim on his behalf º 2S
446
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. I.
that during the short period he was at the Board of Trade
The Reign he did more to improve our commercial policy than all
Of
George IV.
Larv re-
forms.
Monetary
panic in
1825.
Govern-
7??670ſ;
770630. SZ07'68.
Financial
zelief.
The Welsh
judica-
tº/re.
Forgery
Bill.
the Ministers who had preceded him for a hundred years.
Nor were the abuses in the law allowed to sleep. In
1825 a commission was appointed to inquire into the ad-
ministration of the Court of Chancery, and it rendered very
useful service in emphasising the need of reforms. Mr.
Brougham took up the question of law reform in 1828, and
his masterly speech of six hours delivered in Parliament on
February 7th suggested many of the improvements and
reforms which have since been effected in the legal system.
A great monetary panic occurred in England in 1825,
the result chiefly of the mania for wild and hazardous
speculation which had seized upon all classes. The
crash of joint stock companies and banks was greater
than during the panic of 1792. Seventy houses failed
during the last six weeks of the year, and it is said the
Bank of England itself was only saved by the discovery
of a batch of seven hundred thousand one-pound notes.
Mr. Peel's Currency Act had come into operation in 1823,
but exceptional measures were now necessary. Notes
for less than £5 were suppressed, and by the repeal of
the law of 1708 banks with any number of partners
became permissible beyond sixty-five miles from London,
while the Bank in return was allowed to establish
branches to be carried on by its agents. A welcome
financial measure was passed in 1826, when the house-
tax on houses under £10 rent and the duty on houses
with less than seven windows were abolished. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer gave important financial
relief to the people by his Budget of 1830. The duties
were removed on beer, cider, and leather, and it was
calculated that this afforded direct relief to the extent
of £3,400,000, and indirect relief to the amount of
£1,600,000. During the same session Wales was
annexed to the English judicature, and the number of
English judges increased from twelve to fifteen. Mr.
Peel also carried a bill circumscribing the infliction of
the punishment of death for forgery.
xiii.] THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV.
447
The influence of the Crown during the reign of
George IV. came under animadversion in Parliament as
it had done under the rule of his father. On June 24th,
1822, Mr. Brougham brought forward a motion declaring
that the influence of the Crown was “unnecessary for
maintaining the constitutional prerogatives, destructive
of the independence of Parliament, and inconsistent with
the well-governing of the realm.” The mover insisted
that the power of the Crown had greatly increased since
Dunning's motion in 1780, although the number of
placemen in the House had diminished. Lord London-
derry replied that the influence of the Crown was
counteracted by the increasing freedom of the press and
by other causes, and the motion was negatived by 216 to
101. With regard to the Civil List of George IV., the
Ring on his accession informed Parliament that he had
no wish to alter the settlement of 1816. As the Civil
List was now free from the expenses of the late sovereign,
it was fixed by the House of Commons at £845,727; but
during the whole of his reign George IV. enjoyed, in
addition to this income, the hereditary revenues of Scot-
land and the Civil List for Ireland, which averaged re-
spectively £109,000 and £250,000. He received likewise
various Crown, Admiralty, West India, and other dues.
George IV. died on June 26th, 1830, in the sixty-
eighth year of his age and the eleventh of his reign.
He was cruelly selfish and vicious as a man, and un-
conscientious and obstructive as a sovereign; but he
dressed well, and played the flute England wants
something more than this in a ruler. Yet in spite of
George IV.'s reactionary policy, she won during his reign
some substantial constitutional advantages. These
benefits, which were largely wrung from the sovereign
against his will, included the emancipation of the Roman
Catholics and the Dissenters, greater freedom for the
press, a considerable relaxation:of the criminal code, the
reduction of taxation, and the recognition and partial
concession of Free Trade.
CHAP. I.
The Reign.
Of
George IV.
Influence
of the
Cromwn.
The Civil
List.
Death of
George
IV.
Constitu-
tional
gains in
his reign.
448
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
William
IV.
Character
of his
reign.
Welling-
ton on Re-
form.
}HAPTER II.
WILLIAM ITV. A ND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
WILLIAM IV., “the sailor King,” was sixty-five years of
age when he ascended the throne. He had married in
1818 the Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, by whom
he had two daughters, but both died soon after their
birth; consequently the heiress-presumptive to the crown
was the Princess Victoria, daughter of the late Duke of
Kent. The reign of William IV. was very brief, but it
is memorable in English history for the number and
importance of its reforming statutes. Parliament was
dissolved shortly after the King’s accession, and at the
ensuing elections the progressive party was greatly
strengthened.
The first session of the new Parliament opened on
November 2nd, 1830. The King’s speech was disappoint-
ingly barren, and during the debate on the Address the
Duke of Wellington uttered that unwise and extraordinary
declaration on the subject of Reform which proved the
death-knell of his Ministry. He said that “the country
possessed a Legislature which answered all the good pur-
poses of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any
Legislature ever had answered in any country whatever.
He would go further and say that the Legislature and the
system of representation possessed the full and entire
confidence of the country.” This statement was notori-
|
*-
#*
º
#
2
Hº
#
º
%
#
#łº,
źſº
;
º
Zº
gº
º
º
É
º
º
º
ę
3%
%
ºtº
3
#
£
º
fº
:
ſº
:
|
º
º
º:tº
É
#
łºź
º
:
%
%ſº
**.
_-º-Fºnº *
ſ
W
Prº/ % §.
; : 'iſ/ º
: " : "A ſº
–º
* - r * i , x º
º
tº
tº ºn
|; it is
Wº º
| §º ºil.".
º
º º:
ºf- §º
i | º W º * tº W
$: jºliº º ºl Wu º º
jºr
: §
º
sº º
&#233;ºº
Sºº-ºººº…
>º:
Nºxºs.
d
_*
2 :
f ; : .
|
| ~’ — s_r=s=s=- -------sºms”
KIN C VV H L L I AM IV . 2t















xm.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
449
ously at variance with popular opinion, which was already
clamouring for Reform. In the House of Commons the
same night Mr. Brougham gave notice that he should
bring forward in a fortnight the question of the represen-
tation. On the 15th Sir Henry Parnell proposed his
motion for a committee of inquiry into the Civil List,
which was carried against the Government by 233 to 204.
Ministers thereupon resigned. In addition to the unpopu-
larity incurred by his opposition to Reform, the Duke of
Wellington suffered odium through his ill-advised prosecu-
tions of the press in 1830. The prolonged attempts of the
Government to suppress the freedom of the press prac-
tically came to an end in 1831 with the unsuccessful
prosecution of Cobbett by the Whig Attorney-General.
Earl Grey became Prime Minister on the resignation of
the Duke, and formed a Government out of the Whigs
and the followers of Canning and Grenville. The
Ministry included, besides the First Lord, Brougham
as Lord Chancellor, Althorp as Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Melbourne Home Secretary, Palmerston
Foreign Secretary, Lansdowne President of the Council,
Durham Lord Privy Seal, Sir J. Graham First Lord of
the Admiralty, Goderich War and Colonial Secretary,
Mr. Stanley Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Wynn
Secretary-at-War, and Messrs. Spring Rice and Ellice
Secretaries to the Treasury. Other posts were occupied
by Lords Holland and Auckland, Mr. Charles Grant,
Lord John Russell, and the Duke of Richmond. Mr.
Macaulay, the future historian, joined later as Secretary
to the Board of Control. The Ministry was thus distin-
guished in talent. Lord Grey stipulated in the outset
that Reform should be a Cabinet question. The King at
first viewed the Reform policy with distrust and appre-
hension, but Ministers at length convinced him of its
necessity.
Parliament adjourned to February 3rd, 1831, to prepare
its measures, and during the recess there were tumultuous
processions and meetings in Ireland, and popular dis-
contents, with machine-breaking and other outrages, in
WOL. II. 29
CHAP. II.
William.
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform,
Defeat of
Ministers.
Earl Grey
becomes
Premier.
The first
Reform
Böll.
450
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. II. England. Shoals of petitions in favour of Reform were
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Parlia-
onent dis-
solved.
sent up to London. The Reform Bill was entrusted to
Lord John Russell, and the ability with which he con-
ducted this great measure widely enhanced his reputa-
tion and his popularity with the country. The bill was
brought forward by his lordship in the House of Commons
on March 1st. It proposed to disfranchise 60 of the
smallest boroughs; to take one member each from
47 others ; and to effect various other changes. After a
considerable distribution of seats, the House of Commons
would be reduced from 658 to 596 members. A £10
household franchise was to be established in boroughs
instead of the old rights of election ; and corporations
were to be deprived of their exclusive privileges. Alto-
gether about five hundred thousand persons would be
enfranchised. The measure was too sweeping for the
opponents of Reform, and not sweeping enough for the
Radicals; but the Reform party generally accepted it for
its meritorious features and its bold dealing with corrup-
tion. Some thought the power of the aristocracy would
be destroyed by the bill, but Lords Grey and Althorp
held that it was an aristocratic measure. The debate lasted
for seven nights, and 71 members took part in it. The
first reading was agreed to, and out of doors the people
raised the cry which was to be heard for many months to
come : “The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the
bill !” On March 21st the second reading was carried by
a majority of one only—302 to 301—this being the fullest
House which had ever divided up to this time. On April
18th the bill went into committee, when General Gas-
coyne's amendment that the number of members of Par-
liament for England and Wales ought not to be diminished
was carried against the Government by eight votes—299
to 291. On the 21st Ministers announced that they should
not proceed with the bill, and on the morning of the 22nd
they were again defeated on a question of adjournment,
by a majority of 22.
This was the real crisis in the history of the measure.
Ministers demanded a dissolution, to which the King, after
A } (）'S NO IN IN OO HO 3HS [lO IH 3I HJ. N. I TITIĶI IN RIO BIGIRI GIH L 0 NIO Q CIONIJ, NI CITI ĢISS QNI NII O [ GIMI OTI
șNT\ſ?
^ < T22，
،
… • • •


xIII.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 451
much demur, assented. In the House of Lords, on the CHAP. II.
afternoon of the 22nd, Lord Wharncliffe rose to move an william
address to the Crown against a dissolution, when cries of j
“The King the King !” were heard. The House was .
in a state of confusion, and Lord Mansfield attacked "T-"
Ministers for “conspiring against the safety of the State
and making the sovereign the instrument of his own
destruction.” A scene equally extraordinary was proceed-
ing in the Commons, where Sir Robert Peel, Lord Althorp,
Sir F. Burdett, and others were vainly endeavouring to
obtain a hearing. Black Rod appeared in the midst of
the uproar, and members were summoned to the Upper
House. The agitation in the Lords had somewhat sub-
sided, when the King announced the prorogation of
Parliament with a view to its immediate dissolution.
The exciting scene, which had not been paralleled since
the time of Cromwell, then ended. Parliament was dis-
solved by proclamation on the following day, and the new
writs were made returnable on June 14th.
The new House of Commons contained a great majority Second
of reformers. The second Reform Bill was introduced #"
on June 24th ; but the second reading was put off till
July 4th, in order that the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills
might be brought in. Three nights were given to the
debate on the second reading, and the division resulted
in a majority of 136 for Ministers—Ayes, 367 ; Noes,
231. The discussions in committee were most protracted,
the opponents of the bill hoping to wear out the patience
of its supporters. The discussions frequently went on
until some hours after sunrise. At one of the August
sittings the Marquis of Chandos carried a clause, by
a majority of 84, conferring the county franchise on £50
tenants-at-will. The newspapers protested against the
obstructive proceedings of the minority ; the people
demonstrated in the same sense; and the political unions
of Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow held a con-
ference to determine how much longer they would wait.
It was not until September 21st that the division was
taken on the question, “That this bill do pass,” when
452
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book -
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Rejected
in the
Lords.
Popular
earcite-
ment.
Third Re-
form Bill.
the measure was carried by 345 to 236. The question
now arose, “What will the Lords do?” Lord Althorp,
accompanied by a hundred other commoners, carried the
bill up to the peers. The second reading was debated
for five nights, with much skill and eloquence on both
sides. In earnest language, Lord Grey warned their lord-
ships, and especially the prelates, not to reject the bill.
Yet one prelate only—the Bishop of Norwich—voted in
favour of the measure. Twenty-one voted against the
bill, and these were just sufficient to turn the scale, as
the bill was thrown out by a majority of 41—Ayes, 158;
Noes, 199. So exasperated were the people that for
some time after this it was not safe for a bishop to appear
in the streets in ecclesiastical dress. The infatuated action
of the episcopal bench did great harm to the Church.
Popular riots ensued at Derby, Bristol, and elsewhere,
with great destruction of property, and Nottingham Castle
was burnt down. The times were grave, and a Govern-
ment proclamation was issued on November 22nd with
the object of suppressing the political unions. Lord Grey
had remained in office after the rejection of the bill
by the peers, as the House of Commons immediately
passed a vote of confidence in Ministers by 329 to 198.
When Parliament again assembled on December 6th, the
eyes of the whole nation were turned towards Westminster.
The popular solicitude was aggravated by the ravages of
the cholera, and by the prevalent distress. On the 12th
Lord John Russell introduced the third Reform Bill.
The second reading was carried by 324 to 162, the
majority for Government being thus exactly the same
number as the opponents of the bill—162. The division
was taken on the morning of Sunday, the 18th. Parlia-
ment then adjourned for the Christmas recess. On
resuming in January, the Commons went into committee
on the 20th. The debates were prolonged until the
middle of March. On the 19th of that month the order
for the third reading of the bill was taken, when its
rejection was moved by Lord Mahon. The division gave—
for the bill, 355; against, 239. In moving “That the bill
xiii.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
453
do pass,” Lord John Russell said that the “loss of this
measure would precipitate a collision between the oppo-
ments of all reform and the advocates of universal suffrage.
Bloodshed must result, and he was perfectly persuaded
that the British constitution would perish in the conflict.”
When the bill went to the Lords, there were signs of
wavering on the part of many peers who had hitherto
opposed it. After a debate of several nights, the second
reading was carried on April 14th by a majority of nine—
184 to 175. Protests were signed by 77 peers. The
prelates saved the bill this time. The Archbishop of
York and the Bishops of London, St. David’s, Worcester,
and Chester, all of whom had been absent before, now
voted for the bill ; while the Bishop of Peterborough,
who had previously opposed it, now absented himself.
But all danger was not yet over, and during the recess
immense meetings were held at Birmingham, Edinburgh,
and other places in support of the bill. The petition of
the National Union stated that if the bill were rejected or
impaired the payment of taxes would cease, other obliga-
tions would be disregarded, and the ultimate consequence
might be the complete extinction of the privileged orders.
When the bill got into committee, Lord Lyndhurst
moved an amendment to postpone the consideration of
the disfranchising clauses until the enfranchising clauses
had been considered. Although Lord Grey stated that
the success of this amendment would be regarded as
fatal to the measure, it was carried against Ministers by
151 to 116. Lord Grey now applied to the King to
create new peers to carry the bill, but, as he refused,
Ministers tendered their resignations. The Commons
again stepped into the breach. On the motion of Lord
Ebrington, they carried, by 288 to 208 votes, an address
expressing unabated confidence in the late Ministers,
and imploring his Majesty “to call to his councils such
persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all
its essential provisions, the bill for reforming the repre-
sentation of the people which has recently passed this
House.” The King, however, resorted to the Duke of
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
*mºmº
The Bº!,
in the
Lords.
Hostile
amend-
77.077t.
454
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
The King
and the
Peers.
The Bill
carried.
Provisions
of the Re-
form Act.
Wellington for advice, but the Duke failed to form a
Ministry. Lord Grey and his colleagues returned to
office, and again proposed to his Majesty to create new
peers if necessary. The King consented, and made
known his resolve to the Opposition peers. A final
letter from the King, appealing to the peers to cease all
further opposition to the bill, proved effective. On
June 4th the measure passed the Lords by 106 to 22.
Reform bills were also passed for Scotland and Ireland,
and a great question was thus temporarily set at rest.
Lord Farnborough has observed with regard to the pass-
ing of the Reform Bill that, “in singular contrast to the
history of past times, this greatest extension of the
liberties of the people was obtained in the last resort
by the personal influence of the Crown.”
The Reform Act of 1832 practically placed the govern-
ment in the hands of the middle classes, of whom it
admitted some half-million to the franchise. The act
disfranchised 56 nomination boroughs returning 111
members, took away one member from 30 others having
less than 4,000 inhabitants each, while the united
boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis were hence-
forth to send two members instead of four, thus leaving
vacant 143 seats. In distributing these, 65 additional
members were given to the counties, two each to Man-
chester, Leeds, Birmingham, and 19 other large towns;
with a population of 25,000 and upwards—including
metropolitan districts—and 21 towns, with a population
of 12,000 and upwards, were granted one member each.
The remaining 18 seats were struck out of the repre-
sentation of England to provide five additional seats for
Wales and 13 for Scotland and Ireland. In the English
and Welsh counties copyholders and leaseholders for years
were added as voters to the forty-shilling freeholders,
and tenants-at-will paying £50 a year were enfranchised
under the Chandos clause. A £10 household franchise
was established in the towns, and the rights of freemen
to vote were restricted. The Scotch Reform Act increased
the number of members for the northern kingdom from
xIII.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 455
45 to 53, of whom 30 were to sit for counties and 23 for CHAP. II.
cities and burghs. The county franchise was given to william
all holders of property worth £10 a year, and to certain º
classes of leaseholders; the burgh franchise was given .
to all £10 householders. The Irish Reform Act increased —
the number of members for Ireland from 100 to 105.
The right of election was taken away from the corpora-
tions and vested in £10 householders, and considerable
additions were made to the county constituency. Fre-
quent complaints subsequently arose, however, with
regard to the restricted nature of the Irish franchise ;
and at length the Irish Parliamentary Voters Act,
passed in 1850, reduced the county franchise to £12
and the borough franchise to £8. The immediate effect
of the Reform Act was naturally in favour of the pro-
gressive party which had carried it. When the first
reformed Parliament was elected after the passing of
the measure, the Ministerial party were found to be in
a great majority. The numbers were—Liberals, etc.,
486; Conservatives, 172.
Dealing now with the general legislation of William The
IV.'s reign, the Regency Act rendered necessary on *
the King's accession demands attention. His Majesty
was without issue, and yet in making provision for the
devolution of the crown the possibility of a posthumous
heir must be considered. Accordingly, when the new
Parliament met after the King's accession, a Regency
Bill was introduced by which the Duchess of Kent was
appointed sole regent until the Princess Victoria should
attain the age of eighteen. In the case of the birth of
a posthumous child of the King, the Queen was to be
regent during the minority. These provisions were
accepted by statesmen and lawyers of all parties, and
the bill, which had been prepared by the Wellington
Government, was passed under the auspices of Earl
Grey.
Irish affairs caused disquietude throughout the whole Irish
reign, and efforts were made to pacify the people by *
legislation. In the session of 1831 #30,000 was voted
456
HlSTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
o'Connell
and
Repeal.
Tithes.
towards the support of undenominational national schools
in Ireland. But during the same year Mr. O'Connell,
now known as the “Liberator,” began to agitate for the
repeal of the Union. He was obliged to plead guilty to
a charge of holding illegal meetings, but he was not
punished, and Ministers were severely questioned on the
matter in the House of Commons. However, Mr. Stanley,
Secretary for Ireland, denied that the Government had
made terms with him. The collection of tithes in Ire-
land was rendered extremely difficult, and in many places
absolutely impossible, owing to the frequent outrages
which were perpetrated. Tithe-proctors were murdered,
and constant collisions occurred between the police and
the peasantry. To meet the distress of the clergy, an act
was passed on June 1st, 1832, authorising the Lord-
Lieutenant to advance £60,000 to those of the Irish
clergy who could prove themselves unable to collect their
tithes for the year 1831. The Government undertook to
levy the arrears for that year, but although the executive
proceeded at the point of the bayonet, Ministers were
obliged to confess in Parliament that out of a total sum
of £104,285 due, only £12,000 had been recovered, and
that not without loss of life. Consequently in 1833 an
Coercion?
Act.
Irish,
Church
zeform.
act was passed dealing with the subject of the Irish
tithes, providing for the collection of the arrears and
giving the clergy £1,000,000 on loan in compensation
for arrears. As predicted, this loan was in the end sur-
rendered as a free gift. During the same session a
Coercion Act for Ireland was passed, giving special
powers to prevent disturbances. It was stated by Lord
Grey that in the year 1832 upwards of 9,000 crimes
were committed, all connected with, and growing out of,
the disturbed state of the country. On March 11th, 1833,
the Government brought forward the Church Tempo-
ralities (Ireland) Bill in the House of Commons. This
sweeping measure suppressed two archbishoprics and
eight bishoprics ; reduced the incomes of others ;
abolished sinecures, Church cess, and first-fruits; made
provision for the improvement of Church lands and the
xIII.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
457
augmentation of small livings ; and appointed a com-
mission to administer surplus revenues. A clause pro-
viding that any surplus beyond that allotted to church-
building, etc., should be applied to such purposes as
Parliament might direct, was abandoned by Ministers as
involving the debated principle of appropriation. The
bill passed both Houses and became law, but much was
yet to be heard as to the alienation of the Church
revenues. Vigorous protests against the measure were
made by alarmed peers, the Duke of Cumberland assert-
ing that it was a violation of the coronation oath.
The Irish Church was again attacked in the following
year. On May 27th, 1834, Mr. Ward, in an able speech,
moved a resolution to the effect that the Church estab-
lishment in Ireland exceeded the spiritual wants of the
Protestant population ; and that, it being the right of
the State to regulate the distribution of Church property,
the temporal possessions of the Church in Ireland ought
to be reduced. This resolution caused great embarrass-
ment to Ministers, who were known to be divided on the
question. Mr. Stanley, Sir J. Graham, the Duke of
Richmond, and Lord Ripon resigned their offices, and
were succeeded by Spring Rice, Carlisle, Auckland, and
Conyngham. Matters were further complicated by a
declaration of the King to the Irish bishops, made with
tears running down the royal cheeks, that he would
never desert the Church. On June 2nd Lord Althorp,
speaking on behalf of the Government, met Mr. Ward's
motion by announcing the appointment of a special
commission of laymen to inquire into the revenues and
duties of the Church and the general state of religious
instruction in Ireland. The previous question was moved,
and Mr. Ward's motion was lost by 396 to 120. As a
substitute for tithes, Ministers introduced a bill imposing
an Irish land tax, payable to the Government by the
landlords and subject to redemption. Mr. O'Connell
vehemently, but unsuccessfully, opposed this proposal,
on the ground that it would perpetuate the old impost
under another name. However, in committee he carried
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Mº".
Ward’s
"motion.
Secession
of
lſinisters.
Irish,
Land Taac,
458
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Dissolu-
tion of the
Ministry,
Melbow'r?ve
becomes
Premier.
JHe is Sud-
denly dis-
missed.
an amendment, by 82 votes to 33, that the tithes should
be made payable immediately from the landlords to the
clergy after being reduced 40 per cent. The bill was
taken to the Lords, where it was rejected on the second
reading by a majority of 67 out of 311 votes. The
measure was supported by the Bishops of Derry,
Chichester, and Norwich, but opposed by the Arch-
bishops of Canterbury and Cashel and nineteen bishops.
The proposed renewal of the Coercion Act for Ireland
led to the downfall of Lord Grey. It was understood
that, besides omitting the martial law clause, the Govern-
ment intended to leave out that portion relating to public
meetings which had so exasperated Mr. O'Connell and
his friends. When the measure was brought forward,
however, it was found to include the clauses against
political meetings. Mr. Littleton, the Irish Secretary,
resigned, but his resignation was declined, as there would
have been great difficulty in filling up the vacancy, the
Ministry having now become unpopular. But Lord
Althorp also opposed the passing of the Coercion Bill
entire, and when he resigned the Premier lost his most
valuable colleague. On July 8th Lord Grey himself
tendered his resignation to the King. He felt that it
was hopeless to proceed with the Coercion Bill. The
veteran statesman took leave of power on the 9th. There
was a painful passage of arms between the ex-Premier
and the Duke of Wellington, which must have reminded
the former of his own attack upon Canning. On the
whole, however, the political career of Lord Grey had
few blemishes, his nepotism being the most conspicuous;
while he was justly esteemed in private life for his
integrity and his high sense of honour.
Lord Melbourne became Prime Minister, with the
previous Cabinet, in which Lord Althorp resumed his
old post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Irish
Coercion Act was renewed, but in a modified form. Lord
Althorp having become Lord Spencer by the death of his
father, the King took the opportunity of suddenly dis-
missing Lord Melbourne and his colleagues. There
xiii.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
459
seemed to be no sufficient reason for this extraordinary
step, for although Ministers were gradually losing ground
with the country, they had no special difference with his
Majesty, nor had they been condemned in Parliament.
Sir Robert Peel was designated as the next Premier; but,
as he was abroad, the Duke of Wellington acted for him
in his absence. On his return in December, Sir Robert
formed an administration, with himself as First Lord of
the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lyndhurst
as Chancellor, Wellington as Foreign Secretary, Aberdeen
War and Colonial Secretary, Mr. Goulburn Home
Secretary, Mr. Herries Secretary-at-War, and Sir H.
Hardinge Irish Secretary. Lords Wharncliffe, de Grey,
Ashburton, and Haddington were also included in
the Ministry. Mr. Sidney Herbert and Mr. W. M.
Praed, the poet, were Secretaries to the Board of Control,
and Mr. William Ewart Gladstone entered upon official
life as Junior Lord of the Treasury, an office which he
soon exchanged for that of Under-Secretary for the
Colonies. Mr. Gladstone was the son of Sir John
Gladstone, a Liverpool merchant. He was born in 1809
and educated at Eton and at Christ Church, Oxford,
where he took a double first and a senior studentship.
In 1832 he entered Parliament as member for Newark
in the Tory interest. -
Parliament was dissolved in December, 1834, and
when the new House of Commons met in February, 1835,
it was found that the Conservatives had gained strength.
The majority against them was still great, however, the
Liberals numbering 380 and the Conservatives 273,
and the Opposition had been thoroughly united by the
Ring's abrupt dismissal of Lord Melbourne. The new
Government was defeated upon the election of Speaker,
and again on the Address, when the recent dissolution
was condemned as unnecessary. Sir Robert Peel made
an unsuccessful attempt to pass a measure for the com-
mutation of tithes, and then found himself opposed by
his enemies on the appropriation question. In April
Lord John Russell brought forward resolutions affirming
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Peel takes
office.
Mr. Glad-
Stone.
New Paº'-
liament.
460
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Ministers
defeated.
Melbou?”ve
7'etwº"??S to
office.
Struggle
on the
Tº the
question.
that any surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland not
required for the spiritual care of its members should be
applied to the moral and religious education of all classes
of the people, and that no measure on the subject of
tithes would be satisfactory which did not embody that
principle. On April 2nd a committee was obtained by
a majority of 33; on the 6th the first resolution was
carried in committee by a majority of 25; and on the 7th
the second resolution was affirmed on the report by a
majority of 27–285 votes to 258. As Ministers were
strongly opposed to the principle of appropriation, they
resigned. During this brief term of office, Sir Robert
Peel had shown the highest qualities as a political
leader.
Lord Melbourne again became Prime Minister, with
Mr. Spring Rice as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord
John Russell Home Secretary, Lord Palmerston Foreign
Secretary, Lord Glenelg War and Colonial Secretary,
Lord Howick Secretary-at-War, Lord Mulgrave Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, and Lord Morpeth Chief Secretary
for Ireland.
A prolonged struggle ensued between the new Govern
ment and the Opposition on the old question of the Irish
tithes, and the principle of appropriation to which the
Whigs were pledged. On June 26th, 1835, Lord Mor-
peth introduced the Ministerial measure on Irish tithes,
which embodied the appropriation clauses authorising
the surplus to be employed in the religious and moral
instruction of all classes of the community. The bill
passed its second reading by 319 to 282; and in committee
Ministers added a clause providing for the advance of
£50,000 from the Consolidated Fund, in anticipation of
the surplus to accrue, for purposes of general education in
Ireland. In the Lords the bill weathered its second read-
ing, but all the appropriation clauses were struck out in
committee by 138 votes to 41. The measure was accord-
ingly abandoned, and this vexed question stood over for
another year. In April, 1836, the measure was again
brought forward. It passed the Commons, but the appro-
xiii.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
461
priation clause was struck out in the Lords by 138 to 47.
Lord John Russell complained of the Upper House for
altering a money bill, and the Commons rejected the
scheme. Yet again was the measure introduced in 1837,
but it was dropped owing to the dissolution which suc-
ceeded the King's death. In 1835 Lord Melbourne's
Government likewise brought in a Municipal Bill for
Ireland. It proposed to reconstitute Irish corporations
upon the same principles as those already applied to other
parts of the United Kingdom. It passed the Commons,
but was dropped in the Lords. Reintroduced the following
year, it met with considerable opposition. Sir Robert
Peel and his friends consented to the abolition of the old
corporations, but declined to establish new municipal
bodies in their place. They proposed to vest local
authority in officers appointed by the Crown. The
Commons rejected these suggestions, and carried the bill
by a majority of 61. The Lords effected the changes,
however, whereupon the Commons refused to endorse
them, and the bill was lost. The measure was again
brought forward in the session of 1837, but failed to
pass through the action of the Lords.
Lord Grey’s Government grappled successfully with
the poor laws in the Poor Law Amendment Act passed in
1834. The poor rates had reached the sum of £8,600,000,
and in many places were equal to, if not greater than, the
annual rent of the land itself. The new act appointed
commissioners for the better administration of the laws.
The law of settlement was repealed, and parishes were
united into unions, each union being placed under a
board of guardians elected annually by the ratepayers.
The act created 585 unions, including 13,964 parishes, in
England and Wales. In addition to these, there were 21
unions formed under local acts, 12 under Gilbert's Act, and
the 89 parishes of the Scilly Isles were also included in a
union. These, with 37 single parishes, made up the whole
number of 14,610 parishes. Each union had a clerk,
an auditor, a chaplain, a medical officer, relieving
officers, a master and matron, schoolmaster and school-
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Irish,
Municipal
Pºll.
The Poom"
Lan's
amended.
462
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Municipal
Corpora-
tions Act.
mistress. Relief was now to be confined to destitu-
tion, the workhouse test was instituted to detect
imposture, and outdoor relief to the able-bodied
was forbidden. The act, which was initiated by Lord
John Russell and Lord Althorp, had the effect of re-
ducing parochial expenditure, diminishing crime, and
encouraging thrift, though its full influence was not felt
until after the abolition of the Corn Laws.
Municipal reform, a natural corollary to Parliamen- .
tary reform, was dealt with in 1835. For centuries
there had been a gradual encroachment upon popular
rights by those who assumed the municipal authority in
towns. The suffrages of burgesses and freemen were
thrust aside, and the practice of self-election substituted.
In the eighteenth century corporations were little more
than close governing bodies, and the inhabitants of the
towns had no effective share in the management of their
own affairs. By the Reform Act of 1832 the exclusive
electoral privileges of the corporations were taken away
and given to the people, and now the municipalities were
to be reformed in other directions. A commission of
inquiry was first appointed, which exposed the prevalent
abuses, and this step was followed by the introduction of
Lord John Russell’s Municipal Corporations Bill in 1835.
This measure proposed to vest the municipal franchise
in rated inhabitants who had paid poor rates for three
years. These were to elect the mayor and common
council. The municipal franchise of the freemen was
superseded, and no new freemen were to be created.
Exclusive trading rights were to be discontinued, and
extended powers were given to the new councils over the
police, local government, and the administration of
justice. Provision was made for publishing the proceed-
ings of the councils, and for the proper administration of
their funds and the publication and audit of their
accounts. The ancient corporation of London was
exempted from the operation of the act. The measure
passed the Commons almost as drawn, but in the Lords
some important amendments were incorporated. As the
xIII.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
463
result of a compromise with the Commons, the Parlia-
mentary franchise and the pecuniary rights of the freemen
were more fully safeguarded, a qualification for councillors
was inserted, aldermen were to be elected for six years,
and the exclusive eligibility of existing aldermen was
surrendered. The qualification to vote was afterwards
reduced to one year's payment of rates. This act,
establishing local self-government, has had many bene-
ficial results, not the least of which is the stimulus it has
given to the growth of political freedom in the towns.
A noble act was enrolled upon the statute book in
1833. In May of that year Mr. Stanley, in a speech of
remarkable eloquence, introduced the Government bill
for the abolition of colonial slavery. By this measure
all children under six years of age, or who should be born
after August 1st, 1834, were declared free ; all registered
slaves over six years became from the same date appren-
ticed labourers, with weekly pay, either in money or by
board and lodging, possessing at the same time all the
rights and immunities of free men. With regard to com-
pensation to owners, Ministers originally proposed to
advance a loan of £15,000,000 to the West Indian pro-
prietors, but the idea of a loan was abandoned, and a gift
substituted, the sum of £20,000,000 being finally voted
as compensation to the slave-owners. By this humane
measure the self-denying labours of Wilberforce, Clarkson,
and others were brought to a happy consummation.
Many miscellaneous acts of importance were passed
during the reign. In 1833 the charter of the East India
Company was renewed for twenty years from April 30th,
1834, under certain restrictions. The company now
became a political body. Its monopoly of the China
trade was taken away, and its commercial property sold,
but its dominion over India was confirmed for twenty
years. So great was the pressure of legislation this year
(1833) that the Commons adopted morning sittings for
the despatch of business. An act was passed enabling
Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, on entering Parlia-
ment, to substitute an affirmation for an oath. The
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Abolition,
of Slavery.
The East
India.
Charter.
Morning
sittings.
Affirma-
tion Act.

464
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
Bank
Charter
Act.
Factory
Act of
1833.
JEducation
grant.
Central
Criminal
Court Act.
JHouse taa:
abolished,
€te,
The
Patent
Lany.
charter of the Bank of England was renewed by the
Bank Charter Act of 1833. The act provided that notes
of the Bank of England were to be made legal tender, so
that country banks would be enabled to meet a panic with
notes instead of gold. One-fourth of the debt due from
the public to the Bank was to be immediately paid; and,
in consideration of its new privileges, the Bank was to
deduct £120,000 per annum from its charge for the busi-
ness of conducting the National Debt affairs. Paper issued
and specie kept in hand were henceforth to bear to each
other the ratio of three to one, and the Bank was com-
pelled to publish a general statement of its condition
quarterly. Lord Ashley (afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury)
and his coadjutors witnessed the partial success of their
philanthropic labours in 1833 by the passing of a Factory
Act for the protection of women and children. The em-
ployment of children under nine years of age in factories
was prohibited; the labour of those of both sexes and of
all women was subjected to regulation; an inspection of
factories was instituted ; and provision was made for the
education of factory children. An act was passed making
a grant of £20,000 for educational purposes. This grant
was continued annually up to 1839, when it was increased,
and the Committee of the Privy Council on Education
formed. The grant was dispensed to the National
Society and to the British and Foreign School Society by
the Treasury. In 1834 an act was passed establishing
the Central Criminal Court. The jurisdiction of the Old
Bailey court was greatly extended, not only in Middlesex,
but in parts of Surrey, Kent, and Essex. Tó the
Middlesex Sessions at Clerkenwell was left the trial of
offences punishable with not more than seven years’
transportation. During the same session the house tax
was repealed, sinecure offices in the House of Commons
were abolished, and facilities were afforded by the Post
Office for the transmission of foreign newspapers. An
act improving the patent law was carried by Lord
Brougham in 1835. Amongst other things, it provided
for the extension of the term of a patent from fourteen to
Įz
* LNGI INVITINĮVa A O SGIS QOH CI^IO GIHIL HO O NINNI (18.
== <！--E=====， ！
==============№:）--
|
|


xIII.] WILLIAM IV. AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORMI. 465
twenty-one years. The year 1836 witnessed the intro- CHAP. II.
duction of a number of varied reforms. First, the william
newspaper stamp duty was reduced to one penny. Lord º:
John Russell carried two measures for the relief of ººººy
º e & & Reform.
Dissenters. The Dissenters’ Marriage Act permitted . H
the Solemnisation of marriages in Nonconformist chapels. ſº
The act for the registration of births, marriages, and º
deaths established a record of births and deaths that senters
was wholly civil; the record of marriages was ordered ºrius,
to be made by the minister performing the ceremony
and transmitted to the registrar, while those who
objected to a religious ceremony could enter into a
civil contract, before the superintendent registrar. A
general register office was provided for London, and the
country was divided into registration districts. An act Tithe
for tithe commutation in England provided for the final ſº
extinction within two years of the vexatious right of
exacting tithes in kind, and for commuting them into
a corn-rent charge payable in money. The average price
of corn for the preceding seven years was to be taken;
and the great tithes were to be levied on corn and grass,
the small tithes on other produce. Commissioners were
appointed to carry out the commutation. After the ap- Church
pointment of various commissions of inquiry into the “”
condition of the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners were incorporated in 1836, and various
schemes of reform drawn up by them were sanctioned by
Parliament. The incomes of the prelates were reduced
to the following amounts under an act for effecting a
new distribution of episcopal dioceses and incomes:–The
Archbishop of Canterbury, £15,000; Archbishop of York,
£10,000 : Bishop of London, £10,000 : Winchester,
£9,000; Durham, £8,000; Ely, £5,500 ; St. Asaph and
Bangor, É5,200; Worcester, É5,000 ; other bishops being
apportioned incomes from £4,000 to £5,000. The bishop-
rics of Gloucester and Bristol were united, and new sees
were created successively under the act at Ripon and
Manchester. Cathedral and collegiate establishments
were reduced, and their revenues appropriated to the
WOL. II. 30
466
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. II.
William
IV. and
Parlia-
mentary
Reform.
JParlia-
7776.70%
JHouses
destroyed.
Police.
Death of
|William
IV.
relief of spiritual destitution. The surplus Church funds
accruing from the various reforms effected were subse.
quently applied to the augmentation of small livings,
and other purposes intended to increase the usefulness
and efficiency of the Church.
The establishment of an efficient system of police in
Great Britain began with Sir Robert Peel's Act of 1829,
constituting the Metropolitan Police. The old system
of watchmen was abolished. Counties and boroughs
followed suit, and in 1835 the new plan was perfected.
The City of London retains control over its own police.
Acts organising or regulating the police forces through-
out the kingdom were passed at various intervals from
1829 to 1888. Ireland has two police forces—the Dublin
Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary.
By an untoward accident the Houses of Parliament
were destroyed by fire on October 16th, 1834. It ap-
pears that the conflagration was caused by the burning
of the exchequer-tallies in a building adjoining the House
of Lords. As the fire spread, grave fears were enter-
tained for Westminster Hall and Westminster Abbey,
but these venerable and magnificent structures were
happily preserved. The two Houses of Parliament were,
however, destroyed. Many valuable documents were
burnt, including the original death-warrant of Charles I.;
but the vast bulk of the State papers and the valuable
Charles) Barry.
libraries were saved. Temporary buildings were erected
on the old site, and the erection of the present imposing
Houses was begun from designs by Mr. (afterwards Sir
The Lords occupied their new chamber
in 1847, and the Commons theirs in the session of 1852.
William IV., the third son of George III., died on
June 20th, 1837. He was not in any sense a remarkable
sovereign, and he had much of the hereditary stubborn-
ness of his race; nevertheless, he had also a natural
affability of character, and, as Sir Robert Peel said in
pronouncing his eulogium, he was compassionate for
the sufferings of others, and was utterly free from all
selfishness.
„... . . . .-….……！--.** ******
QUEEN VICTORIA IN HER CORONATION ROBES. 2.7

xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
467
CHAPTER III.
LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
THE Princess Victoria succeeded to the throne amid
general acclamations. She had been well trained by
her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and early manifested
those domestic and public virtues which have endeared
her to the hearts of her people, and given her an illus-
trious and honourable place among British sovereigns.
Upon the accession of her Majesty, the crowns of Eng-
land and Hanover were divided. Hanover being under
the operation of the Salic law, which forbade the
female succession, the Hanoverian crown fell to the late
King's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland.
The young Queen continued Lord Melbourne and his
colleagues in office. Parliament was dissolved in July,
and at the ensuing elections Ministers secured a sufficient
majority, though it was not one indicating any pronounced
return of confidence in the Government. When the new
House of Commons assembled in November, 1837, it was
composed of 348 Liberals and 310 Conservatives.
The Queen’s Civil List was settled on the same
principles as that of her predecessor, and amounted to
£385,000. But there was one variation, for, in lieu of
the pension list of £75,000, her Majesty was empowered
to grant pensions annually to the extent of £1,200, and
these pensions were only to be granted to such persons
Accession
O
Wictoria.
The Min-
istry.
The Civil
List.
468
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Regency
Acts.
The
Pršºce
Consort's
Anºvuity.
as had just claims on the royal beneficence, or who by
their personal services to the Crown, by the performance
of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in
science or attainments in literature and the arts, had
merited the gracious consideration of their sovereign and
the gratitude of their country. This new arrangement
of the pension list was in accordance with a resolution
carried by the House of Commons on February 18th,
1834. Two Regency Acts were passed after her Majesty’s
accession. The first enacted that, in the event of the
Queen's decease while her successor (the Duke of
Cumberland) was out of the realm, the administration
of the government should be carried on in his name by
lords-justices until his arrival. The second act, passed
after the Queen’s marriage in 1840 to Prince Albert of
Saxe-Coburg Gotha, provided that, in the event of any
child of her Majesty succeeding to the throne before the
age of eighteen, the surviving parent should be regent,
without any council of regency or any limitation upon
the exercise of the royal prerogative, except an in-
capacity to assent to any bill for altering the succession
to the throne, or for affecting the uniformity of worship
in the Church of England or the rights of the Church of
Scotland. The Melbourne Government acted injudiciously
over the Annuity Bill for Prince Albert. Lord John
Russell proposed a grant of £50,000 to the Prince for
life, to commence on the day of his marriage, February
10th, 1840. The fearful distress prevalent among the
manufacturing classes, which found expression in armed
outbreaks of Chartism as well as in a rapidly falling
revenue and continuous deficits, made it clear that such
a large grant would be opposed. Accordingly, by a
majority of 104, in a House of 420 members, Parliament
fixed the grant at £30,000. In a fit of anger, Lord
John Russell declared that the amendment was intended
as a mark of disrespect to the Queen. This was an
unfortunate remark to come from one of the most
constitutional of statesmen, and he was rebuked for it
by Sir J. Graham and Sir Robert Peel. The House of
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
469
Commons also rejected a proposal to give the Prince
precedence over all the royal family by an act of
Parliament, while it at the same time elicited a formal
declaration of the Prince’s Protestantism, which Ministers
had not provided for. Precedence at court was given to
the Prince by the Queen’s prerogative only. The Prince
Consort came to England a stranger, but by his urbane
manners, the support which he gave to the Queen in
times of national solicitude, and his desire to act in
accordance with the principles of the Constitution, he
secured the affection and esteem of all classes.
Legislation has been so prolific during the reign of
Queen Victoria that order and convenience alike demand
a separate treatment for great questions. The late Lord
St. Leonards once stated that from the date of John’s
Great Charter to 1853 Parliament had passed 16,422
public statutes ; and from the latter year the annual
rate of production greatly increased. I propose there-
fore to adopt a sectional treatment of the Victorian
legislation, giving a complete and consecutive record of
the measures passed under each section. I shall endea-
vour to include in this survey every public act of
importance, but the contemporary character of the
legislation and the general accessibility of full records
of the transactions in Parliament will absolve me from
the necessity of dealing with the debates at length.
I. REPEAL OF THE CORN LAWs.
Periodical motions on the subject of the Corn Laws
made during the reigns of George III. and George IV.
have already been recorded. The question was further
agitated in William IV.'s reign, notwithstanding the
urgency of Parliamentary reform and questions concern-
ing Ireland. In the House of Commons on May 17th,
1833, Mr. Whitmore moved that the Corn Laws, instead
of producing equality of prices and thereby effecting a
permanent good, had produced a contrary effect and tended
injuriously to cramp trade. Ministers pleaded that the
time was inopportune for dealing with the question, and
======º-
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Pre-
cedence
question.
Wictoria),
legisla-
tion.
Motions on
the Corp,
Lan's.
470
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
* Queen
Victoria,
Corm,
Law Re-
weal Asso-
ciation.
The Anti-
Corm. Larv
League.
the motion was rejected by 305 to 206. In the Lords
a similar motion by Lord Fitzwilliam was negatived
without a division. During the same session Mr. Fryer's
bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws was rejected in the
Commons by 73 to 47. In the session of 1834 Mr.
Hume moved for a committee to consider the Corn Laws,
but was defeated by 313 to 155 votes. Mr. Poulett
Thomson, President of the Board of Trade, prophetically
said during the debate that a failure in the harvest, or
any other national disaster, would lead to a demand for
repeal couched in such language as he should not wish
to hear addressed to that House. In consequence of ex-
cellent harvests, however, the question now slumbered for
a year or two, but in 1837 the rise in corn, combined with
numerous financial failures, again brought it to the front.
Messrs. Grote, Hume, Molesworth, Roebuck, and others
formed an association for the repeal of the Corn Laws ;
and in the House of Commons Mr. Clay unsuccessfully
moved for the adoption of a fixed duty of 10s., to be
reduced to 5s. in 1839. The resolution was lost by 223
to 89. In March, 1838, Mr. C. P. Williers, the earnest
and consistent Free Trader, moved for a committee to
consider the Corn Laws, but was defeated by 300 to 95.
In the ensuing September the Anti-Corn Law League
was formed. Mr. Cobden threw his whole energies into
the movement, and his earnestness, combined with Mr.
Bright's vigorous eloquence, soon made a powerful im-
pression upon the country. Hitherto the advocates of
Free Trade had suffered from the hostility of Parliament,
the opposition of leading statesmen of both parties, land-
lords, and farmers, and the indifference of merchants,
Motion by
Mºr
Williers.
manufacturers, and traders; but now, aided by bad seasons
and other causes, the Free Trade propaganda began to
make great headway. Lectures and controversial litera-
ture, sown broadcast everywhere, were supplemented by
monster petitions to Parliament.
In February, 1839, Mr. Williers moved to hear counsel
at the bar of the House of Commons in support of a
petition against the Corn Laws, but was defeated by 361
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
471
to 172 votes. He then moved for a committee of inquiry,
but his motion was rejected by 342 to 195. Lord Fitz-
william introduced resolutions in the Upper House
condemnatory of the Corn Laws, but they were rejected
by 224 to 24 votes. In this small minority were Lords
Brougham, Minto, Durham, Holland, and Hatherton
By way of illustrating the rashness and fallibility of the
Premier, Lord Melbourne, we may cite his strange de-
claration made in the course of this debate. “To leave,”
he said, “the whole agricultural interest without pro-
tection, I declare before God that I think it the wildest
and maddest scheme that has ever entered into the
imagination of man to conceive.” Mr. Williers was again
defeated in the Commons in 1840 by 300 to 177 votes,
and Lord Fitzwilliam in the Lords by 194 to 42.
Ministers proposed a fixed duty of 8s. in 1841, but
no measure was brought in, owing to a Ministerial
crisis. On May 27th Sir Robert Peel carried a vote of
want of confidence against the Whig Government by a
majority of one—312 to 311. Upon this Lord John
Russell said Ministers intended to appeal to the country,
and Parliament was at once dissolved. The Conserva-
tives triumphed at the elections, returning 367 members,
against 286 Liberals. Mr. Cobden was elected for Stock-
port, and two years later Mr. Bright was returned for
Durham. The new Parliament met in August, 1841,
and Ministers were defeated in both Houses by large
majorities—in the Lords by 168 to 96 and in the
Commons by 360 to 269. Lord Melbourne resigned
office, and Sir Robert Peel became Prime Minister. He
was joined by Lord Ripon, Lord Stanley, and Sir J.
Graham, the seceders from Lord Grey’s Ministry, and
his Government likewise included Lords Lyndhurst,
Aberdeen, Ripon, and Eliot. Mr. Gladstone was Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, but in 1842 he suc-
ceeded Lord Ripon as President.
In the session of 1842 Sir R. Peel carried his sliding
scale of corn duties, which fixed a 20s. duty at 51s.,
decreasing to 12s. at 60s. and 18. at 733, the duty not
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
ion under
Queen
Victoria.
Lord Mel-
bourne's
declara-
tion.
Peel takes
office.
Sliding
scale of
duties.
472
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
*
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
*=º- .
Mo'.
Williers's
efforts.
to exceed 20s. when the price fell below 21s. Amend-
ments in favour of a fixed duty, proposed by Lords
Russell and Melbourne, were rejected by 349 to 226 in
the Commons and 207 to 71 in the Lords. The advocates
of total repeal fared very badly, as the amendment in
favour of abolition proposed by Mr. Williers was defeated
by 393 to 90, while Lord Brougham’s amendment in the
Lords for repeal only secured 5 votes to 109. The Pro-
tectionists in the Lords endeavoured to defeat the Sliding
Scale Bill, but the second reading was carried by 119 to
17. Motions brought forward in 1843 by Lords Russell and
Monteagle to inquire into the effects of Peel's sliding scale
were rejected by 244 to 145 in the Commons and 200 to
78 in the Lords. During the same session Mr. Williers's
motion for total repeal was defeated by 381 to 125, but
in the minority were prominent Whigs like Lord
Howick, Mr. Edward Ellice, Sir George Grey, and Mr.
Macaulay. On March 12th, 1844, Mr. Cobden moved
for a committee to inquire into the effects of pro-
tective duties on agricultural tenants and labourers, but
he was defeated by 224 to 133. In the ensuing June
Mr. Williers brought forward his annual motion by a
series of resolutions, which were rejected by 328 to 124.
During the debate Mr. Bright predicted that whenever
bad harvests again occurred Sir Robert Peel would
either abolish the Corn Laws, or his Government would
be overthrown. In March, 1845, Mr. Cobden assured
the House of Commons that if they would grant him a
committee he would explode the delusion of agricultural
protection ; but, as the country gentlemen did not want
the theory exploded, they refused him a committee by
213 to 121. On June 10th Mr. Williers introduced for
the last time his motion for total repeal. He called
upon the Government to indemnify the landlords in any
way they pleased, except that of making the food of the
people dear. Lord John Russell said the Corn Law
as it now stood was vicious in principle, and could not
long be maintained in its present position. Ministers
said they must proceed gradually with legislation
º
tººl ||
#||
| | -
º |
|
|
| | | | |
"|
|||
| |
| | - |
| ||
| || |
iſ; "|
& ºf
|||
|
|
N
N


xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
473
on this subject, and the motion was defeated by 254
to 122.
The potato disease in Ireland in the autumn of 1845
alarmed the Ministry, and convinced the Premier that
something must be done in the direction of Free Trade.
Following upon this came Lord John Russell's manifesto
to the electors of the City of London declaring for the
abolition of the Corn Laws. In December Sir Robert
Peel proposed to his colleagues to repeal the obnoxious
laws, but meeting with opposition, especially on the
part of Lord Stanley and the Duke of Buccleuch, he
resigned office. The Queen sent for Lord John Russell,
but he was unable to form an administration, and on
December 20th Sir R. Peel returned to office, the only
change in the Cabinet being the substitution of Mr.
Gladstone for Lord Stanley as Secretary of State for the
Colonies. Three days later the Anti-Corn Law League
held an important meeting at Manchester, when it was
decided to raise the sum of £250,000 to continue the
agitation.
Parliament met in January, 1846, and on the 27th
Sir Robert Peel introduced the Government measure for
the repeal of the Corn Laws in a speech which occupied
three hours and a half. The Premier admitted that his
opinions on the question of the Corn Laws had under-
gone a complete change, but honour and a sense of
public duty forbade his retirement from office at this
juncture. He then explained the details of his measure.
The duty on corn was to be at once greatly reduced, 10s.
duty being fixed when the price was under 48s., decreas-
ing by 18. for every 1s. increase up to 53s., to remain at
48. When the price was 53s. and upwards. The duty was
to cease altogether on February 1st, 1849, with the excep-
tion of a registration duty of 1s. per quarter, which was
to terminate in 1869 ; and it was eventually abolished by
the Budget of that year. The Premier was bitterly
assailed by the Protectionists. More than one hundred
speeches were delivered during the opening debate. The
bill was stoutly contested at every stage, but on May 16th
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Minis-
terial
(? 7.isi S. e
Repeal of
the Corn
Lan's.
474 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, it passed its third reading by 327 to 229. In the
Legisla- Lords the third reading was carried by 211 to 164, and
* the measure became law on June 25th. On the same
Victoria day the Peel Ministry fell upon the Irish Coercion
Fall of the Bill. In taking leave of office on the 29th, the Premier
*. reviewed the course and policy of his Government, and
paid a warm tribute to Mr. Cobden. Then, in memorable
language, he observed that in relinquishing power he
should leave a name severely censured by conscientious
Protectionists and execrated by selfish monopolists;
“but,” he added, “it may be that I shall leave a name
sometimes remembered with expressions of goodwill in
the abodes of those whose lot it is to labour and to earn
their daily bread by the sweat of their brow, when they
shall recruit their exhausted strength with abundant and
untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened
by a sense of injustice.”
Results The policy of Free Trade has been justified as the only
%. one under which capital and labour find their most
matural and profitable fields for employment. The vast
expansion of British trade witnessed during the past
forty years would not have been possible under any other
system. Periods of depression may give a momentary
impulse to Protectionist and Fair Trade theories, but
the practical difficulties in the way of the realisation
of such theories are insuperable, while it is now an
acknowledged axiom that for a country like England
Free Trade is an absolute necessity.
II. CoI.ONIAL AND INDIAN LEGISLATION.
Affairs of Canada, one of the most important of British posses-
** signs, was in a greatly disturbed condition at the time
of the Queen’s accession. The French party in Lower
Canada, which formed the vast bulk of the population,
had long complained that they could obtain no redress
for their grievances. They urged that the executive
and the Upper Legislative Chamber were composed
of Crown nominees and in no sense represented the
feelings of the majority of the inhabitants, while the
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
475
administration was one-sided and inefficielt. As popular
measures were invariably thrown out by the Council,
the Assembly of the Lower Province stopped the supplies
for the payment of official salaries in 1833; and the
Upper Province followed their example in 1836. The
Upper Province demanded that the Executive Council
should be made responsible to the Assembly, and the
Lower that the Legislative Council should be made
elective. In the Imperial Parliament, however, resolu-
tions refusing these concessions were proposed by Lord
John Russell on March 6th, 1837, and carried, after
a long debate, by 269 to 46 votes. On the news
becoming known in Lower Canada, the French popula-
tion rose as one man. The rebellion was crushed, but
the Home Government saw that they could no longer
turn a deaf ear to all reforms. In 1838, accordingly,
Lord Durham was sent out to Canada in the double
capacity of Governor-General and High Commissioner
for adjusting the differences in the Upper and Lower
Provinces. The constitution of Lower Canada was
suspended pending the pacification. Lord Durham, with
the aid of his special council, issued an ordinance banish-
ing such prisoners as were in his power, and ordering
their transportation to the Bermudas. These prisoners,
together with the insurgent leaders who had escaped to
America, were forbidden to return to Canada, under pain
of death, until they had leave to do so. This ordinance
was severely attacked by the Opposition at home, Lord
Brougham being especially strong in his denunciations.
Ministers were compelled to disallow the ordinance,
whereupon Lord Durham resigned and left Canada.
His mission had not been without effect, however, for,
acting upon a valuable report which he had prepared,
the Melbourne Government passed an act in 1840
uniting the two provinces, and granting a popular
constitution to Canada. The advantages of a single
government and a single Parliament were gained, to-
gether with electoral and municipal reforms. These
reforms were consolidated a few years later by Lord
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Lord
Durham's
policy.
476
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Confeder-
action.
Events in.
Jamaica.
Elgin, an able Governor-General, though a riot occurred
in Montreal in 1850, because his lordship had given his
assent to a bill indemnifying the inhabitants of Lower
Canada for the losses inflicted on them by the insur-
rection of 1837-8. In 1867 Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial
Minister, carried through Parliament a bill for the
confederation of the British North American provinces,
under the title of the Dominion of Canada. The plan
originally suggested by Lord Durham was successfully
completed by this measure. Under this new constitu-
tion, a House of Commons and a senate formed the
central Parliament. The members of the House of
Commons were elected by the people, and the senate
consisted of seventy members, nominated for life by
the Governor-General. The executive was vested in the
Crown, as represented by the Governor-General. The
confederation at first included the two Canadas, Nova
Scotia, and Brunswick ; but Manitoba, British Columbia,
and Prince Edward Island subsequently joined. New-
foundland alone remained independent. There are local
Legislatures for the provinces, as well as an Imperial
Legislature for the whole. The Dominion is practically
independent of the mother-country, the Governor-General
being the only link with the Home Government.
Jamaica was another English possession which had
long been disturbed by rebellions. The negroes fre-
quently rose against their masters, and in the year
1838 it was found necessary to abolish apprenticeship,
in spite of the protests of the Jamaica Assembly. The
island still remained in a deplorable condition, however,
and in 1839 a bill was brought into the English Parlia-
ment to suspend the constitution of Jamaica for five
years, in consequence of the action of the Assembly
with regard to the emancipation of slaves. This Jamaica
Bill led to the fall of the Melbourne Ministry. It was
opposed by Mr. Hume and the Radicals, and also by Sir
R. Peel, who considered that an opportunity should be
given to the Assembly to withdraw from its false position.
As the proposal to go into committee on the bill, was
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
477
carried by a majority of five votes only, Ministers decided
to resign. Sir Robert Peel was invited to form a
Government, but stipulated for the removal of certain
ladies of the Bedchamber. This request her Majesty
refused, stating that “she could not consent to adopt a
course which she considered to be contrary to usage, and
which was repugnant to her feelings.” As Sir Robert
Peel would not give way, Lord Melbourne returned to
office, somewhat strengthened by the incident, though
its constitutional aspect was warmly discussed by the
opposing parties. A second Jamaica Bill was intro-
duced, but it was shorn of its most important provisions,
and it left a loophole for continued misgovernment. As
finally passed, it allowed time to the Assembly to re-
enact the annual laws without which the affairs of the
island could not proceed ; and it invested the Governor
in Council with power to renew those laws at the
expiration of two months after the Assembly should
have separated without re-enacting them. Another
serious rebellion broke out in Jamaica in 1865, which
was repressed with great and undue severity by Governor
Eyre. At the close of the year the representative
constitution of the island was abolished by the Legisla-
ture, and this abolition was subsequently confirmed by
the British Parliament. The affairs of Jamaica have
since been administered by a governor, assisted by a
Legislative Council and a Privy Council.
Colonial reform occupied a prominent position in
1849-50. Excess of authority, the sending out of con-
victs, and other causes, had led to grave discontent in
many of the British colonies. Moved with a desire to
give the Australians a system of self-government, Lord
John Russell introduced the Australian Colonies Bill in
the session of 1850. While reserving the power of veto
in all cases to the Home Government, he proposed the
establishment of a legislative body in each of the Aus-
tralian colonies, with power to introduce such changes in
their constitution as they thought fit, and an executive
responsible to the colonial Parliament. The measure was
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
THe ºped -
chamber -
Plot.”
Jamaica
Constitu-
tion,
abolished.
Reforms
in Aust?'al-
lasia.
Austral-
liam
Colonies
Bill.
478
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. |Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Aſen, Zea-
land.
The
Colomial
Office.
South
African
Confede-
Tation.
The Crom:0.
and its
Dependen-
cies.
carried, and it formed the commencement of a system of
local responsible government for our colonies generally.
In the course of a few years representative governments
were formed for New South Wales, Victoria, South Aus-
tralia, and Van Diemen’s Land. In 1852 New Zealand
was established as a self-governing colony. It was
divided into six provinces, ultimately increased to nine ;
but in 1875 the provincial system was abolished. The
legislative power was then vested in the Governor, together
with a general assembly of two chambers—the Legisla-
tive Council, nominated by the Crown, and the House of
Representatives, elected by the people.
In 1854 the War and Colonial Secretaryships, which
had been united since 1801, were divided, the accumu-
lated duties devolving upon the Colonial Office rendering
a chief Secretary of State necessary for each department.
Sir George Grey was appointed Colonial Minister.
The policy of confederation was extended to South
Africa in 1877, when Lord Carnarvon, the Colonial
Secretary, carried a bill to permit the colonies of Natal
and the Cape of Good Hope, the Orange Free State, and
the Transvaal, to form a confederation. The measure
failed in its effect, partly because of the abortive action
of the English agents, and partly because of the un-
friendly attitude of the colonists. The South African
Confederation Act was unlike that of Canada from the
fact that, instead of merely constituting a single dominion,
to which new provinces might from time to time be ad-
mitted, it constructed an elaborate federal system, more
after the fashion of the United States, with a central
Legislature and local Legislatures, the respective functions
of which were clearly assigned in the constituting act.
Power was reserved to the Home Government tº make
any law relating to the Union. In this same year (1877)
Lord Carnarvon Sanctioned the annexation of the Trans-
vaal by Sir Theophilus Shepstone. -
The Imperial Parliament can legislate for British de-
pendencies either by the prerogative of the Crown, or by
the existence of constitutional government already con-
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
479
ceded to a colony. A conquered country, while a dominion
of the Crown in right of conquest, is subject to the
legislative power of the Imperial Parliament. A statute
passed in 1843, conferring legislative power on the Crown
in the case of settlements on the coast of Africa and the
Falkland Islands, empowered the Queen in Council to
establish laws, institutions, and ordinances, but all such
Orders in Council were to be laid before Parliament. The
Imperial Legislature has virtually a right to impose taxes
on a colony, and it also possesses a plenary power of
amending and altering its constitution. •
The direct legislative control of India had long been
gravitating towards the Crown, when urgent attention
was drawn to Indian affairs by the terrible mutiny of
1857. Legislation now became imperative, and in 1858
an act was passed for the better government of India,
by which the government of the British territories in
India was transferred from the East India Company to
her Majesty. Already in 1853 the patronage of the
Civil Service had been taken away from the East India
Company by Sir Charles Wood’s Act, and thrown open
to competition, and the disastrous Indian Mutiny pre-
cipitated other reforms. The bill of 1858 was introduced
by Lord Stanley, after several abortive attempts at legis-
lation. It provided that the entire Indian administration
should be transferred to the Crown, which was to govern
through one of the Secretaries of State, assisted by a
Council of fifteen. The title of Viceroy was given to the
Governor-General, and the naval and military forces of
the company were united with the services of the Queen.
On the motion of Mr. Gladstone, a clause was incorpo-
rated limiting the employment of East Indian troops to
our Indian possessions. Lord Stanley was appointed the
first Secretary of State for India. The East India Com-
pany still existed as a medium for distributing stock,
but it was finally extinguished in 1873. The Additional
Titles Bill, passed in 1876, enabled the Queen to add to
her other titles that of Empress of India, by which she
was proclaimed on January 1st, 1877.
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The
Govern-
ment of
India.
480 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
Legisla III. LEGISLATION FOR THE Working CLASSEs.
tion under tº e
Queen One of the most excellent characteristics of the Queen’s
V* reign is the great body of legislation passed in the in-
Workinſ' terests of the working classes. This legislation has
º * embraced their health, their labour, their recreations,
their savings, and their education. I shall endeavour
briefly to trace the course and extent of this legislation,
leaving the question of national education only for sepa-
rate treatment. It began worthily in the session of 1842
with Lord Ashley's bill for the improvement of the con-
dition of women and children in mines and collieries.
The report of a royal commission had revealed a terrible
Women state of things, under which women and children were
#2, but mere beasts of burden. Moral and physical deteriora-
in miner, tion, with premature death, was the lot of all engaged in
collieries. Lord Ashley's bill provided, first, for the entire
exclusion of all females from mines and collieries, and of all
boys under thirteen years of age ; secondly, for the em-
ployment as engineers of men over twenty-one only, for
the purpose of avoiding numerous accidents; and thirdly,
for the abolition of apprenticeships, by which pauper
children had been rendered the absolute slaves of their
masters till they reached the age of twenty-one. The
House of Commons was so shocked by the revelations
made that the measure passed without a division ; but,
to disarm the opposition of the Lords, a clause which
had compelled the employment of boys on alternate days
only was abandoned, and apprenticeship, instead of being
totally prohibited, was restricted to eight years. But, even
with these amendments, the bill possessed great humani-
tarian advantages.
Factory Factory legislation was next pressed forward. Refer-
º ence has already been made to the act of 1834, but as
far back as 1802 this subject had attracted the attention
of Sir Robert Peel the elder, who carried the Health and
Morals Act, which, besides providing for the cleansing
and ventilation of factories, limited the labour of appren-
tices to twelve hours a day, forbade their employment in
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
481
night work, and made arrangements for their clothing,
education, and moral well-being. In the session of 1843
a Factory Bill, which provided for the compulsory educa-
tion of pauper and factory children, was introduced, but
in consequence of the opposition of the Dissenters, on the
ground of the undue influence it gave to the Church, it
was withdrawn. Sir James Graham reintroduced the
measure in the following session, without the educational
clauses. Strife raged round the clause settling the hours
of labour, but at length a twelve hours’ limit was agreed
to. The Factory Act of 1844 largely amended the exist-
ing statute. It reduced the working hours of children to
six and a half, and insisted upon the hours being consecu-
tive, so as to allow time for education. The limitation of
twelve hours was to include women as well as young
persons. The certificate of age and health was made
strictly imperative ; dangerous machinery was ordered to
be guarded to prevent accidents; and inspectors were ap-
pointed to carry out the Act. In 1845 Lord Shaftesbury's
Print Works Act was passed. Mr. Fielden carried an act
in 1847 for limiting the labour of young people between
the ages of thirteen and eighteen to twelve hours a day,
less two hours for meals. The measure was opposed by
Graham, Peel, Brougham, and others, on the ground
that compulsory limitation of the hours of labour was
a restriction on free contract and an unjustifiable curtail-
ment of the willing work of an industrious man ; but the
general sense of Parliament was in favour of the measure,
and the Ten Hours Bill passed both Houses by large
majorities. In 1850 the Coal and Iron Mines Act, which
contained effective provisions for the supervision of mines,
was passed. In the same year the act of 1847 was
extended and supplemented by an act which settled the
time of labour for all protected persons at practically ten
hours per day. In 1860, bleaching and dye works were
included in the operation of the acts, and lace factories
and bakehouses were legislated for in 1861. The pottery
trade was dealt with in 1864. Lord Shaftesbury’s Com-
mission of Inquiry issued its first reportin 1861, and a few
WOL. II. 31
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Act of
1844.
The Ze),
Hou?’s
Act.
Other
7)&0&S207"(?S.
482
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMIENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Factory
and Work-
shop Act
of 1878.
years later it instituted a thorough inquiry into the ques-
tion of small shops and work-rooms used in connection
with larger establishments. Legislation resulted in 1867,
when two measures—a Factory Act Extension Act and a
Workshops Regulation Act—were passed. These Acts de-
clared for the first time that all work done for wages by
young persons and women should be placed under super-
vision, and be subject to distinct regulations, and the
working of the acts was entrusted to local authority; but,
as this did not prove satisfactory, a supplementary act
was passed in 1871 restoring the former system of
Government inspectors. Further regulating provisions
for factories were made law in 1874. Many defects still
remained, however, and in 1876 the Royal Commission
on Factory and Workshop Acts was appointed. Its
report showed that, while previous legislation had effected
great good, changes in the direction of the consolidation
of the law were required. Accordingly in 1878 Mr.
R. A. Cross brought in and carried his important measure
the Factory and Workshop Act. This great statute
formed a complete code of factory legislation. It repealed
or amended certain acts, and consolidated the whole of
the existing legislation. The Act dealt exhaustively with
five classes of works: first, textile factories such as cotton
mills; secondly, non-textile factories, including an im-
mense variety of trades, such as iron works, paper works,
and print works ; thirdly, workshops generally in which
mechanical power is not used, and where the employer
has the right of access and control ; fourthly, workshops
in which none but women above the age of eighteen are
employed ; and fifthly, domestic workshops, in which the
work is carried on in a private house, room, or place in
which the only persons employed are members of the
same family dwelling there. In some instances, such as
ship-yards, hat works, bakehouses, etc., the place is re-
garded as a factory or workshop according to the use or
non-use of mechanical power. The highest degree of regu-
lation is reached in the first class, and the legal provisions
relax in stringency from that class downwards. The Act
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
483
*.
is carried out by Government inspectors, who have the
fullest powers of entering factories, workshops, and
schools, of asking for documents, and of examining
persons on oath ; but a special warrant is required to
enter a dwelling-house.
The Railway Act of 1844, introduced by Mr. Gladstone
as President of the Board of Trade, was a measure
distinctly conceived in the interests of the working
classes as well as those of the community at large.
All later railway legislation has been based upon this
measure. One part of the act provided that if within a
certain fixed time the profits of any railway were found
permanently to exceed 10 per cent, the Lords of the
Treasury might, on guaranteeing for a time 10 per cent.
profit, reduce fares in the interest of the public. Govern-
ment had also the option of purchasing under certain
circumstances, and by an act of Parliament to be obtained
for the purpose, railways yet to be constructed. But the
most important portion of the Act was that which asserted
the constitutional right of the poorest and most dependent
citizen, not only to have his vested rights of free and
cheap locomotion along the Queen's high-roads, or such
substitutes for them as the Legislature might from time
to time introduce, protected by Parliament, but to par-
ticipate to some extent in the advantages of cheapness,
rapidity, ease, and safety which the development of the
railway system enabled the companies to achieve. The
Act compulsorily provided for one third-class train per
day upon every line of railway, regulated the speed of
travelling, etc., and arranged for the carrying of children
at reduced rates. The supervision of the Board of Trade
was afterwards supplemented by the judicial powers of
the Railway Commission. In 1864 it was made the
condition in all bills sanctioning metropolitan railways
that early cheap trains should be run conveying working
men to their work.
The growth of friendly societies has been one of the
remarkable industrial features of the nineteenth century.
Numerous small societies were in existence some two
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
sºmeº
Railway
legisla-
tion.
Friendly
Societies.
484 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [nook
CHAP. III, hundred years ago, but the first legislative recognition
Legisla- of the principle underlying these societies dates from
*...* 1793, when a measure known as the Rose Act was
V* passed, declaring the expediency of protecting and
encouraging friendly societies. A Parliamentary com-
mittee took evidence on the subject in 1825, and in
1829 an enabling act was passed under the auspices of
Lord Portman, then M.P. for Dorsetshire, which “forms
the transition from the system of local to that of central
registration.” A supplementary act passed in 1834 carried
centralisation a step further. In the early years of the
present reign the labours of Ansell, Neison, and Ratcliffe
established a secure financial basis for friendly societies.
The “Ratcliffe tables” were endorsed by the royal
commission which sat from 1871 to 1874. The affiliated
class of friendly societies received legal recognition in
1850 by a temporary measure, which five years later
became a permanent act. Before this date they had
been illegal combinations. The new registrar, however,
Mr. J. Tidd Pratt, refused to allow the registration of
branches of the orders, except as separate and isolated
cases—a misruling which was not corrected, so far as
branches registered under the act of 1855 were concerned,
until 1886, by a judgment of the Supreme Court of
Act of Appeal. In 1875 Sir Stafford Northcote's important
1875. Act relating to Friendly Societies was passed. It was
intended to cure the evils of insolvency common to
such associations, and placed opportunities in the way
of the managers for having their arrangements examined,
though it shrank from imposing compulsory supervision.
It was supplemented by a short amendment act in 1876,
under which societies with branches could be registered
as affiliated orders. The special features of the legislation
of 1875-6 were the following :—the appointment of one
chief registrar and three assistants, instead of three
separate registrars for England, Scotland, and Ireland
with co-ordinate authority; a special clause dealing with
collecting societies; deposit of rules by unregistered
societies no longer allowed ; annual audits required ;
XIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
485
valuation of assets and liabilities required every five
years ; public auditors and valuers to be appointed by
the Treasury, but their employment not compulsory ; the
number of members who could apply to the registrar for
an award of dissolution reduced, and further powers
given to the registrar on this point. Legislation since
1875 has been of an amending, and not of a radical
character.
Thrift amongst the working classes was encouraged
by Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1861 establishing Savings
Banks in connection with the Post Office. Although
the interest is not large under this scheme, the security
is sound, and this safeguard was not always enjoyed by
the thrifty workman. Among other measures distinctly
benefiting the working classes were the Bank Holidays
Act, the Shop Hours Regulation Act, the Public
Libraries Amendment Act, and the Open Spaces Act,
all of which owed their being to Sir John Lubbock.
Reference must also be made to measures of sanitary
improvement, and various acts passed by Parliament
establishing schools of design, provident societies, baths
and washhouses, parks, and places of recreation.
The progress of the working classes gave a great
impetus to the formation of trades unions. These
unions are combinations of artisans to compel masters
to pay such wages as the unions consider they ought
to give. Coercion and outrage have sometimes been
employed against non-union workmen, and shocking
cases of this kind occurred in 1866 at Sheffield and
Manchester. A royal commission was appointed in
1867 to inquire into the methods, means, and effects of
trade societies, and a smaller commission was nominated
to investigate the special cases at Sheffield and Man-
chester. Many terrible facts were revealed in the report
of the commission, but the reasonableness and legality
of combination were fully admitted, and legislation was
recommended for the removal of defects of organisation.
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
*-
Savings
JBanks,
|Various
acts
Trades
Unions,
Accordingly the Trades Union Act of 1871 was passed. Act of
It recognised the unions as legal, and their treasurers
1871.
486
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
IHousing
of the
Working
Classes.
Acts of
1875
and 1885.
Employers
and Work-
772.6%.
and trustees were made as liable as those of other
friendly societies to be sued for misuse of the funds ;
but, except in certain definite cases, only such conduct
as would authorise a magistrate to bind the perpetrator
over to keep the peace was to be regarded as criminal
molestation.
The wretchedly defective housing of the working
classes was for many years a crying evil. Legislative
efforts were made by Mr. McCullagh Torrens and others
to deal with this, and in 1875 Mr. R. A. Cross intro-
duced and passed his Artisans and Labourers' Dwellings
Act. The measure was not a compulsory one, neither
did it encourage the charitable building of houses at less
than the market rate ; but corporations of large cities
were allowed to acquire land or buildings for the accom-
modation of the working classes, and, if they chose,
they could compel owners to sell. The Housing of the
Working Classes Act, 1885, was enacted in accordance
with a recommendation of the royal commissioners On
the housing of the working classes. By this act it
was expressly declared to be the duty of all local
authorities to put in force, as occasion might arise, the
powers with which they were invested for the securing
of the proper sanitary condition of all premises within
their districts. The action thus taken by the Local
Government Board was supplemented by still further
legislation ; and the Housing of the Working Classes
Act, 1890, takes the place—with some important amend-
ments—of the enactments known as Torrens's Acts and
Cross's Acts and also the Labouring Classes’ Lodging-
houses Acts, 1851 to 1885. This new act concerns
metropolitan, urban, and rural sanitary authorities.
The interests and duties of workmen have been pro-
tected and defined by various acts. The principal of
these are the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, and
the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
These acts give the county courts special powers with
regard to the settlement of disputes between employers
and Workmen, and provide that a combination of two
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
487
or more persons cannot be indicted for conspiracy to do
what would not be criminal if done by one only. Work-
men employed by gas and water companies are liable on
breach of their contract to fine or imprisonment. Dis-
putes between employers and workmen, and between
masters and apprentices where the amount claimed does
not exceed £10, may be heard before justices at courts
of summary jurisdiction, or arbitration can be resorted
to under the Arbitration (Masters and Workmen) Act,
1872. Labourers come within the definition of “work-
men º' given in the Employers and Workmen Act, 1875.
Their wages are prohibited from being paid in kind
or with goods by the Truck Act of 1831, whose pro-
visions were extended to any workman by the Truck
Amendment Act, 1887. The Employers’ “Liability Act
of 1880 so far extended the favour of the law to work-
men as to make employers answerable to their servants
for the negligence of those to whom they have delegated
their authority. With regard to certain cases of injury,
it gave the same remedy to workmen against their
employers as is enjoyed by strangers.
IV. EDUCATION.
Education has been another conspicuous feature of
legislation during the past fifty years. Lord Brougham,
who was closely identified with this subject, propounded
a plan of national education in 1837, the chief elements
in which were—the smallest Government interference,
a system of incentives and encouragements which should
ultimately bring schools within the reach of all, and a
provision for religious but unsectarian teaching. The
shortness of the session prevented the measure from
being fully considered. A more effective step was taken
in 1838, when a committee of the House of Commons,
under the chairmanship of Mr. Slaney, reported strongly
in favour of the establishment of schools. Statistics
respecting the great educational destitution then existing
were appended to the report. A motion by Mr. Wise,
Chairman of the Central Society for Education, praying
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Edw-
cation
question.
488 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, the Queen to appoint educational commissioners, was
Legisla- lost by a majority of four only.
* Lord John Russell, however, saw that the time for
Viºla action had arrived, and in the session of 1839 he brought
Committee in a bill for the establishment of a committee of Council
ºwn. on Education. The committee was to be composed of the
Lord President of the Council and four other of her
Majesty's Ministers ; and to the board thus constituted
was entrusted the application of any sums which might
be voted by Parliament for the purpose of education in
England and Wales. Inspection was imperative to
obtain grants ; and for the Supply of teachers a Govern-
ment Normal School was to be established, where
children and teachers were to be trained in the principles
of Christianity, but the rights of conscience were to be
respected. Owing to the strong opposition of the Lords,
the Ministry gave up the Normal School, but retained
the Committee of Council. In the Commons the in-
spection clause was vehemently opposed on the ground of
unwarrantable interference, but Ministers carried their
scheme, though by two votes only : 275 to 273. Dr. J.
Phillips Kay, afterwards Sir James Kay-Shuttleworth,
was appointed first secretary and chief adviser of the com-
mittee; and owing to his efforts and those of Mr. E. G.
Training Tufnell, the Battersea Training School was instituted
ſº for the purpose of systematising the professional training
e of teachers. The school was subsequently taken over
by the National Society. The British and Foreign
School Society likewise established a training institution
in the Borough Road. In the Minutes of Council pre-
sented to Parliament in 1840, it was expressly provided
that the right of inspection should be insisted upon in
all cases in which a grant was made. Sir James Graham,
in introducing the Government Factory Regulation Act
of 1843, made proposals in the educational clauses which
had the effect of providing schools for the poor at the
cost of local rates, and enforcing in them the attend-
ance of all children partially employed ; but, as there
was a clause also providing for religious instruction
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
489
according to the principles of the Church of England, the
Nonconformists and Roman Catholics strongly opposed
the measure on the ground of undue Church influence,
and it was abandoned.
New Minutes of Council issued in 1846 proceeded on
the principle that the existing religious agencies should
be utilised and aided, and that no independent State
system should be attempted. It was proposed to make
further grants in aid, having for their primary object the
improvement of the qualifications of teachers. In the
session of 1847 Lord John Russell obtained from Parlia-
ment an augmented educational grant of £100,000. It
was to be employed chiefly in carrying out the Minutes
of Council of the previous year, and the scheme thus
authorised formed the basis of the subsequent develop-
ments in national education. Under this plan masters
were allowed to take pupil-teachers as apprentices, care-
ful inspection under strict conditions was established,
and pensions were granted to superannuated masters.
Parliament passed an act in 1856 establishing the office
of Vice-President of the Privy Council on Education,
thus providing that a Minister should be responsible to
the House of Commons for dispensing the grant hitherto
distributed on the authority of a departmental committee.
In 1858 a royal commission, under the presidency of
the Duke of Newcastle, was appointed to inquire into the
actual state of popular education. The annual grant had
and it was feared that the nation was not receiving full
value for its expenditure. The commission reported in
1861, and among other important recommendations was
one to the effect that the only way of securing efficiency
was to institute a searching examination of every child in
schools receiving Government grants, and to make the
prospects and position of the teacher dependent on the
results of this examination.
The Revised Code of 1862 was drawn up by Mr. Lowe,
Vice-President of the Council, and Mr. Lingen, Permanent
Secretary, to give effect to the recommendations of the
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Education
grants.
|Vice-
Presi-
dency
of the
Council.
Royal
Commis-
Sion on
Bduca-
tion.
IRevised
Code of
1862.
490
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Secondary
education.
Endowed
Schools
Act.
committee. The scheme abolished the personal relation
between the department and the teachers, and proposed
to make the grant to each school, in one sum, to the
local managers. The Whole of the grant was to come
from the Consolidated Fund, instead of by means of a
county rate, as suggested by the commissioners ; and in
determining the amount the results of examination in
reading, writing, and arithmetic were alone to be con-
sidered. After much opposition the measure became law.
The Government were blamed for discouraging the higher
qualifications of teachers; but as the new Code recognised
no other results than proficiency in reading, writing, and
arithmetic, increased attention was unquestionably paid
to elementary teaching, and pupils generally, especially
those in the lower classes, received greater consideration.
In 1867 Mr. Corry, who was then Vice-President,
extended the Code so far as to provide additional grants
on condition that there should be a larger staff than the
minimum heretofore required, and that one supplementary
Subject—grammar, history, or geography—should be
taught. -
Meanwhile secondary education was not neglected.
An inquiry into endowed charities, conducted at intervals
from 1818 to 1837, brought to light much information
concerning the origin, history, etc., of endowed schools,
but no investigation into their educational character and
public usefulness was undertaken until the appointment
of a special royal commission of inquiry in 1865. The
commissioners reported in 1867, when many abuses in
connection with the ancient grammar-schools were
revealed, while few of the proprietary schools were pro-
nounced either financially stable or prosperous. Various
remedies were suggested by the commissioners, and, to
give effect to these, in 1869 Mr. W. E. Forster, Vice-
President of the Council, introduced and passed the
Endowed Schools Act. Under this measure a special
executive commission was constituted, with power to
frame schemes for the reorganisation of all endowed
educational charities, and likewise, with the consent of
XIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
491
the local trustees, to apply certain non-educational en-
dowments to educational purposes. An attempt Was
made in 1874 to reverse the liberal religious principles
on which the commissioners were acting, but the only
practical effect of the movement was to transfer the
powers of the commission to the existing body of Charity
Commissioners. Under the provisions of the act of 1869
many of the old schools have been reformed, while valu-
able new schemes have been created.
With regard to the public schools and universities, in
1862 Lord Clarendon’s Commission reported on the state
of the nine great public schools: Eton, Harrow, Rugby,
Winchester, Westminster, Shrewsbury, Charterhouse,
St. Paul’s, and Merchant Taylors. With the exception
of the two last-named schools, legislation followed the
recommendations of both Lord Clarendon’s Commission
and that of the Duke of Newcastle. Great improvements
have been effected in the schools, and in several new
schemes adopted. Legislation in connection with the
universities began in 1850 with the appointment of a
royal commission of inquiry. An act was passed in
1854 which abolished the subscription to the Articles
hitherto required at matriculation at Oxford and on
admission to the B.A. degree, and appointed an executive
commission which swept away the local restrictions of
scholarships and fellowships. An act for the abolition
of tests for the higher degrees was carried in 1871. A
commission appointed in 1877 founded or augmented
professorships at the expense of the colleges, limited the
tenure of “idle" fellowships, and almost completely
removed clerical restrictions. Similar legislative mea-
sures were passed in connection with the university of
Cambridge. Several provincial university colleges have
been founded, as well as colleges for the higher education
of women. Public day-schools for girls were established
in 1874.
Elementary education in England was placed on the
widest basis by Mr. Forster's great Elementary Education
Act of 1870. This comprehensive measure combined
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Higher
education.
Element-
ary Edw-
cation
Act, 1870,
492 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III, local activity with central supervision, and it asserted for
Legisla- the first time the constitutional right of the State to
* insist upon education for the young, in the same way as
Victoria through the poor-law system it had long asserted their
claim to food and clothing. The Education Act of 1870
provided that the whole of the country should be divided
into school districts, London forming one in itself, the
boroughs another set, and the rural parishes the rest.
Sufficient school accommodation was ordered to be pro-
vided in every district for all the resident children.
Whenever the voluntary school supply was insufficient,
school boards were to be created, with power to levy
rates for the establishment and maintenance of schools,
and at the same time to exercise by means of local
byelaws the power to compel the attendance of children
at school. The scope of instruction in the schools was
Supple- enlarged. By supplementary legislation in 1873, 1874,
ºry and 1875, the curriculum was still further extended by
the introduction of a list of specific or additional subjects
beyond the class subjects, and by the allowance of grants
on behalf of older children who were examined and
passed in them. The Act passed under the auspices of
Lord Sandon in 1876 gave to school attendance com-
mittees, in places where no school boards existed, the
power to enforce attendance. It also embodied former
factory acts, and made clearer the duty of parents to
provide education for their children from six to fourteen,
unless before that age they should have succeeded in
passing the standard for exemption provided by the local
authority. In 1880, when Mr. Mundella was at the head
of the Education Department, an Act was passed super-
seding the optional compulsion provided by Mr. Forster's
Act and the indirect compulsion of Lord Sandon’s Act,
and enforcing on the school authority in every district
the obligation to make byelaws to compel attendance.
Further important educational changes were made in the
Code sanctioned by Parliament in 1882. With regard to
infant schools, in addition to the reading, writing, and
arithmetical tests, provision was made for a regular
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
493
course of object lessons on the phenomena of nature and
of common life, and also for those manual and other em-
ployments commonly known as kindergarten games and
occupations. These changes have not only brightened
instruction for the young, but have considerably raised
the standard of excellence. Among other changes effected
by the Code of 1882, graduated grants were substituted
for the fixed sums heretofore paid for instruction in such
subjects as English grammar and composition, geography,
history, and elementary science.
Touching education in Scotland, as far back as 1696 a
law was passed establishing a school in every parish in
Scotland; but the great Church disruption of 1843 led
to the establishment of the Free Church and the collapse
of the parochial school system. Free Church and Estab-
lishment schools now existed side by side, but the result
was by no means all that could be desired. Accordingly
in 1872, two years after Mr. Forster’s English Act, the
Scottish Elementary Education Act was passed. It estab-
lished a school board in every Scottish parish, which had
the control of all parochial schools—high-schools and
academies as well as elementary schools—and was like-
wise empowered to erect and maintain new schools,
according to the needs of the population. Grants were
given to all schools under school boards, except high-
class public schools. Free elementary education now
practically exists all over Scotland. The Scotch Code
provides for the teaching of more advanced subjects than
the English. A committee of the Privy Council, called
the Scotch Education Department, is charged with the
administration of the Scotch Education Act.
National education in Ireland is administered by twenty
commissioners, ten of whom are Protestants and ten Roman
Catholics, all being appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
They distribute the Government grantstovested or national
schools; non-vested or private schools; model schools, in
which young people are trained as teachers ; agricultural
national schools; technical schools ; convent and monas-
tery schools; and workhouse national schools. Any child
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
JEducation?
77 Scot-
land.
Education
in Ire-
land.
494
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Financial
legisla-
tion.
The In-
come Taac.
Bank
Charter
Act.
may be withdrawn from religious instruction of which its
parents or guardians do not approve. With regard to
higher education, in 1879 the University Education Act
(Ireland) was passed. It provided for the dissolution of
the Queen’s University, founded in 1850, and for the
foundation of the Royal University of Ireland, which
received its charter in 1880.
W. FINANCE.
The financial legislation of the reign has been of the
fullest and most comprehensive character. The first im-
portant measure was the Budget of 1839, which adopted
Rowland Hill's scheme for a penny postage. The change
resulted in a temporary loss, but in the course of a few
years vast benefits became apparent, both to the public
and the revenue. The national finances were in a disas-
trous condition in 1841. The aggregate deficiency for
five years now amounted to £7,500,000. Mr. Baring
brought forward a well-considered Budget, which pro-
posed to make up the deficiency by a modification of the
duties on sugar and timber and an alteration of the duties
on corn ; but, on the motion to go into committee on
the sugar duties, a debate ensued which lasted for eight
nights, Ministers being defeated in the end by 317 to 281
votes. The great feature of Sir Robert Peel's Budget for
1842 was the imposition of the income tax, which was
fixed at sevenpence in the pound. He stated, however,
that it was to be an exceptional tax, and limited in
duration. A sweeping revision of the Customs tariff was
effected, the duties being either repealed or diminished
on no fewer than seven hundred and fifty articles.
The year 1844 was marked by the passing of Sir R.
Peel's comprehensive Bank Charter Act. Notwithstand-
ing the previous act of 1833, London continually suffered
from a scarcity of bullion, and it was to relieve the pres-
sure upon the Bank of England that the measure of 1844
was passed. It enacted that the Bank should not be
allowed to issue more than £14,000,000 in notes, unless
a corresponding amount of specie were retained. No new
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
495
banks established after the measure became law were to
issue their own notes, and the old banks were not to in-
crease their issue. Joint-stock banks were in future to
be allowed to accept bills of any amount or date, and the
right of suing or being sued was provided. The Scottish
banks already issuing notes were permitted to continue
the practice, provided that for every note issued above
the average amount for the previous year a corresponding
amount of specie should be kept in stock. A full state-
ment of the accounts of the Bank of England was to be
rendered week by week to the Government for publica-
tion. This act was the last important piece of legislation
affecting the Bank of England, though the terms of the
charter are subject to modification or revocation by Par-
liament at pleasure. Further duties were remitted by
the Budget of this year, and a considerable annual saving
was effected by the reduction of the Three-and-a-half
Consols. In 1845 Sir R. Peel had a surplus of £5,000,000,
but instead of repealing the income tax, which was con-
tinued for three years, he made large remissions in
general taxation, taking four hundred and thirty articles
out of the tariff of duties and reducing the sugar and
other duties. The financial schemes of 1846, involving
the repeal of the Corn Laws, have already been described.
When Lord John Russell resigned office in February,
1852, after being defeated on the Militia Bill, Lord Derby
became Prime Minister, with Mr. Disraeli as Chancellor
of the Exchequer. A dissolution of Parliament occurred
in July, and when the new House met in November the
following was the estimated strength of parties: —Liberals,
315; Conservatives, 299; Peelites, 40. On December 8th
Mr. Disraeli introduced his Budget. To meet the loss
resulting from the remission of taxes and of duties on
malt, tea, and sugar, he proposed to extend the income
tax to funded property and salaries in Ireland and to
extend and increase the house tax. A formidable oppo-
sition set in against the proposals, and on December 15th
the resolution respecting the house tax was defeated by
305 to 286. Ministers thereupon resigned, and the Earl
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Mr.
Disraeli's
finance.
496 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. - [book
CHAP. III of Aberdeen formed his Coalition Government, with Mr.
Legisla- Gladstone as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Palmer-
* ston as Home Secretary, and Lord John Russell as Foreign
Victoria Secretary.
Mr. Glad. The next great financial measure was Mr. Glad-
%. , stone's Budget of 1853. It was his first statement, and
dget of
1853. it remains one of the most important Budgets on
record. After a searching analysis of the income tax,
whose inestimable value in case of war he clearly de-
monstrated, he went on to propose its retention for
one year at sevenpence in the pound, with a gradual
diminution, so that it should expire in 1860. The duties
on a hundred and thirty-three articles were to be re-
duced, the soap tax to be completely abolished, the
assessed taxes to be rearranged, and a succession duty
to be imposed. The total amount of remissions was esti-
mated at upwards of £5,000,000. Although the Budget
was received with general satisfaction, and all its main
features were adopted, Mr. Gladstone was defeated on
one interesting point. In place of his motion to reduce
the duty on advertisements to sixpence, an amendment
for total repeal was carried against the Government by
200 to 169. Mr. Milner Gibson brought forward the
resolution which substituted a cipher, 0, for the figure 6d.,
and the Speaker decided that there was nothing informal
in the proceeding. Mr. Gladstone carried a scheme for
the reduction of the National Debt, which worked success-
fully until the outbreak of the Crimean war. In 1854,
in consequence of the war, he was obliged to double the
income tax for a year, to readjust the sugar duties, in-
crease the malt tax, and place a duty on Scotch and Irish
whisky. In 1855 the last penny of the newspaper duty
was repealed, and in 1857 the income tax was reduced to
sevenpence in the pound by the then Chancellor, Sir G.
Jornewall Lewis.
ſº in In November 1857 a severe commercial panic spread
º) ( . over England. As in 1847, when similar conditions
prevailed, the directors of the Bank of England appealed
to the Government for authority to increase their issue
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA. 497
of notes and to suspend the operation of the Bank CHAP. III.
Charter Act of 1844. Ministers acceded to the request, Legisla-
and called Parliament together in December, when the *
Bank Charter Indemnity Act was passed. victoria.
The finances of India were grappled with by Lord Indian
Stanley in 1859. Before the Indian Mutiny broke out, "“”
the revenue nearly balanced the expenditure, but the
total deficiency for 1857-9 amounted to £21,600,000,
exclusive of all compensation for the loss of private
property. It had been almost entirely caused by the
increased military expenditure. The Indian revenue was
not elastic, and the only present resource was to be
found in diminished outlay. Lord Stanley, however,
obtained from Parliament a loan for India of £7,000,000,
and he promised various land reforms. Sir Charles
Wood, Lord Stanley's successor as Indian Secretary,
sent out in the autumn of 1858 an eminent financier,
Mr. James Wilson, who rendered great service in reor-
ganising the Indian finances. He reformed the Customs,
imposed an income tax and license duty, and created a
State paper currency.
A new and memorable departure in the commercial The Free
progress and general prosperity of Great Britain dates #. of
from the year 1860, when Mr. Gladstone brought forward 1860.
the most comprehensive of his financial measures. The
Treaty with France negotiated by Mr. Cobden, with the
co-operation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was
concluded on Free Trade principles, and it has resulted
in lasting benefit to the two nations. In view of this
treaty, Mr. Gladstone's Budget was awaited with the
keenest interest. The expenditure included £1,625,000
for the China expedition, but there was a relief of
£2,146,000 from the payment of interest on the National
Debt. The war duties on tea and sugar were continued
for fifteen months, but the duties on butter, cheese,
tallow, oranges, etc., were abolished, and those on
timber, currants, hops, etc., reduced. Other beneficial
changes were proposed, including the repeal of the paper
duty. Mr. Gladstone passed a glowing eulogium upon
WOL. II. 32
498 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III. Mr. Cobden in connection with the French Treaty. The
Legisla- Lords rejected the Paper Duty Bill, whereupon Lord
* Palmerston carried a resolution to the effect that the
Victoria right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown was
%he Paper vested in the Commons alone, thus reaffirming the
flºw. ancient rights of the House over financial legislation.
By the Budget of 1861 the income tax was reduced one
penny, and the paper duties were abolished, Mr. Gladstone
circumventing the Lords by including his chief financial
propositions in one bill. This course was strongly opposed
by Mr. Disraeli and Lord Robert Cecil (now Marquis of
Salisbury), but approved by such eminent constitutional
authorities as Sir William Heathcote and Mr. Walpole.
The Duke of Rutland moved the rejection of the whole
scheme in the Lords, but the Earl of Derby counselled
its acceptance. The bill became law, and a grave con-
stitutional crisis between the two Houses was thus
averted.
JDate?’ In 1863 Mr. Gladstone reduced the tea duty to one
** shilling in the pound, and took twopence off the income
tax. The financial statement of 1864 showed a surplus
of £3,152,000, and reductions were made in the income
tax, the fire insurance duty, and the malt tax. Further
reductions were made in 1865, the relief for this year
amounting to no less than £5,420,000, and in 1866
there were also considerable reductions in taxation.
Panic in The financial collapse and panic which ensued upon the
1866. failure of Overend, Gurney and Co. in the spring of 1866
brought ruin into thousands of homes. English credit
and stocks of all kinds suffered severely, and the Govern-
ment were compelled, as in 1847 and 1857, to authorise
- the Bank of England to issue notes beyond the legal
The Abys- limit. In consequence of the Abyssinian war, which
º was undertaken to compel King Theodore to give up Mr.
Cameron, British consul at Massowah, and other prisoners,
Parliament was called together in November 1867. A
vote of £2,000,000 was agreed to for the war, the amount
to be raised by an additional penny on the income tax ;
but, on the motion of Sir Stafford Northcote, it was
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
499
determined that the ordinary pay of the Indian troops
and shipping employed in the expedition should be
charged on the revenues of India. Further heavy votes
on account of the war were taken in 1869 and 1870. The
expedition was completely successful, but it cost the
country nearly £9,000,000.
The financial schemes introduced by Mr. Lowe, when
Chancellor of the Exchequer, excited much hostility.
The Budget of 1871 contemplated a deficit of upwards
of £2,000,000, in consequence of the abolition of purchase
and other improvements in the army. Mr. Lowe pro-
posed to meet this by alterations in the probate and
succession duties, by an increased and readjusted income
tax, and by a tax upon matches. Each of these propo-
sitions was violently assailed out of doors, and the match
tax was especially obnoxious to dwellers in the East End.
Ultimately the Chancellor was compelled to withdraw
his whole scheme and to substitute the simple addition
of twopence in the pound to the income tax. When the
Budget of 1872 was produced, it was found that Mr.
Lowe had miscalculated matters. There was a surplus
of £3,000,000, and the Chancellor withdrew the twopence
previously added to the income tax, and lessened the
duty upon coffee by one half. Yet, notwithstanding
Mr. Lowe’s mistakes, the Gladstone Government had a
distinguished financial record. It had remitted taxes
to the extent of £12,000,000, reduced the National
Debt by £26,000,000, and brought down the income
tax to threepence in the pound. When Mr. Gladstone
suddenly dissolved Parliament in January, 1874, he held
out the hope of abolishing the income tax altogether, for
he had always regarded it as an undesirable, though a
useful, impost; but the elections went heavily against him,
and on quitting office in February he left his successor,
Mr. Disraeli, a handsome surplus, amounting in round
numbers to £5,000,000. In 1875 profound interest was
evoked in England by the announcement that the British
Government had purchased the whole of the Khedive's
interest in the Suez Canal, at a cost of £4,000,000. It
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Mr.
Lone’s
Budgets.
Glad—
Stonian
finance.
The Suez
Canal.
500
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
-
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Finameia!
qméa SºrèS,
1880–1885.
CHAP. III, was at first thought that this financial coup indicated a
new departure in Eastern policy, but it was ultimately
regarded as no more than a defensive step on the
Premier's part, and as a successful commercial trans-
action. The Budgets for 1875-6-7 were of an unpretentious
character, but in 1878 the expenditure included £3,500,000
out of a vote of credit of £6,000,000 for the Turco-
Russian war.
In 1880, when Mr. Gladstone was again in power, the
malt tax was abolished, and a tax on beer substituted.
The expenditure included £3,000,000 for the war in South
Africa, and a penny was added to the income tax, while
the beer and spirit licenses were increased. In 1881 a
penny was taken off the income tax, and the legacy
duties were readjusted and increased. The expenditure
included special war charges and a portion of the Turco-
Russian vote of credit, amounting together to £2,347,000.
The extra war and vote of credit charges in 1882 amounted
to £3,842,000. No alteration was made in general taxa-
tion. In July of this year a vote of credit of £2,300,000
was taken on account of Egypt, and the income tax was
advanced threepence to meet the demand. Mr. Childers
now became Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1883
his financial proposals for the construction of a second
Suez Canal were generally construed as being too
favourable to M. de Lesseps, and were ultimately
abandoned. A conference was held in London in 1884
for the settlement of Egyptian affairs, but it proved
abortive ; and Lord Northbrook was sent out to
Egypt as Lord High Commissioner to inquire into
its finances and condition, the result being a loan of
£9,000,000. Mr. Childers was defeated in his Budget of
1885, which included, among other changes, a large increase
of the wine and spirit duties. A hostile motion by Sir M.
Hicks-Beach was carried by the narrow majority of twelve
votes—264 to 252. Mr. Gladstone resigned, being Sup-
ported by his colleagues in the desire to relinquish office,
although a vote of confidence in the Government could
easily have been carried.
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
501
Legislation in connection with the National Debt de-
mands attention. A scheme was adopted in 1868 for its
continuous reduction by the conversion of stock into
terminable annuities ; and in 1875 a new and permanent
sinking fund was established, which was to be maintained
by annual votes of the House of Commons. Mr. Childers
formulated and carried an important scheme in 1883 by
which, through the creation of new annuities terminable
in twenty years, £70,000,000 of debt could be immediately
extinguished, and £173,300,000 in twenty years. Mr.
Childers carried a further act in 1884 by which a portion
of the debt was to be converted from 3 per cent. to 2%
per cent. stock. On the conclusion of the Peace of Paris
in 1815, the National Debt stood at £861,039,049 ; at
the commencement of the Crimean war (1854) it was
#769,082,549; but in 1890 it had fallen to £689,944,026.
WI. IRISH LEGISLATION.
Ireland was a conspicuous subject of discussion and
legislation from the very commencement of the reign.
Lord Melbourne’s Government resolved upon measures
dealing with the tithes, poor-laws, and municipal cqr-
porations. With regard to the poor-laws, a commission
reported in 1836, revealing a terrible condition of poverty.
Mendicancy was universal, and no one felt it a disgrace.
The labours of the commission were supplemented by
those of Mr. Nicholls, one of the English Poor Law Com-
missioners, who recommended radical reforms. Accord-
ingly, in the session of 1838, Ministers brought forward
an Irish Poor Law Bill. Its main feature was the
division of the country into unions, each union having a
workhouse managed by a board of guardians, elected by
the ratepayers. Every destitute person had an absolute
right to relief, which was to be administered almost
entirely in the workhouse. There was to be a central
board, which would supervise the local bodies charged
with relief, and the rate was to be levied on the annual
value of real property. The laws were similar in spirit
to those of England. The bill was severely attacked by
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The
National
Debt.
Irish.
legisla-
tº 070.
Poor Law
Act of
1838.
502
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, ſhook
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
The Tithe
question.
Act of
1838.
Municipal
Corpora-
tions.
O'Connell both on economical and sentimental grounds,
and he especially denounced the “go to the workhouse ’’
provisions. The measure, however, became law. The
tithe question, round which such fierce controversy had
long raged, was next taken up by Lord John Russell.
A commission had reported that the State Church in-
cluded little more than one-tenth of the people, that in
a hundred and fifty parishes there was not one Protestant,
and in eight hundred and sixty parishes less than fifty.
Tithes were still withheld from the clergy, and the ques-
tion must be set at rest. But the Lords would hear
nothing of the appropriation of the surplus revenues of
the Church, and the only chance the Government had
of carrying their bill was by the abandonment of the
appropriation clauses. This they did, and the retreat of
the Whigs from a position which they had themselves
chosen greatly strengthened the Conservatives, and led
the way for their return to office. The Irish Tithes Com-
mutation Act, which was carried in August 1838, was
practically the same as the Conservative measure of
1835. It fixed the rent-charge at the rate of £75, or a
reduction of 25 per cent., and surrendered as a free gift
the whole of the million pounds which Parliament had
advanced as a loan in 1833.
In 1840 Lord Morpeth introduced the Irish Municipal
Corporations Bill. Ten corporations were reconstituted
by this measure, with a £10 franchise. Fifty-eight were
abolished ; but any borough with a population of three
thousand or upwards might obtain a charter of incorpora-
tion. Elected commissioners or the poor-law guardians
were to manage the boroughs deprived of corporations.
The bill became law, and by the passing of this act a
long controversy between two powerful parties came to
an end. Lord Stanley shortly afterwards introduced a
bill for regulating the registration of voters in Ireland.
It was warmly opposed by the Government and by
O'Connell, the latter attacking its introducer inside and
outside the House, and fixing upon him the abusive
epithet of “Scorpion Stanley.” It was alleged that the
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
503
bill would practically disfranchise Ireland, and, owing to
the obstinate opposition to it, it was abandoned. Lord
Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill of the following year
was also severely attacked and defeated.
Meanwhile a serious repeal agitation sprang up in
Ireland. The “Young Ireland ” party started the Nation
newspaper, and so threatening did matters become that
Sir Robert Peel let it be known there was no alternative
—even civil war itself—which he did not prefer to dis-
memberment of the empire. O’Connell did not desire
bloodshed, but hoped to awe the Government into con-
cessions by an overwhelming display of force at his
“monster meetings.” The Irish Lord Chancellor re-
moved the Liberal magistrates who attended these
meetings, whereupon the displaced justices formed in-
dependent courts of arbitration. In August 1843 the
Government introduced an Irish Arms Bill of a very
Stringent character. It was fought at every stage by
the Whigs, and the leaders of the “Young England"
party, Disraeli and Smythe, also spoke against the
Government. The measure was carried, however, and
Sir Robert Peel refused an inquiry into Irish grievances,
asked for by Mr. Smith O’Brien, a Protestant Irishman,
with the sanction of the Opposition. Notwithstanding
the Arms Act, the agitation increased rapidly. Driven
to further action, the Government prohibited by pro-
clamation a monster repeal meeting at Clontarf, near
Dublin, and followed up this step by arresting O’Connell
and other repeal leaders. O'Connell was brought to
trial, and, being found guilty, was sentenced to a year's
imprisonment and a fine of £2,000. The case was taken
to the House of Lords, and on September 4th, 1844, the
sentence was reversed by a majority of the law lords on
a technical error in the indictment. The prisoners were
accordingly set free. O'Connell was welcomed with
enthusiasm in Dublin, but he now moderated his zeal for
violent courses, and the repeal agitation gradually died
away, although Mr. Smith O'Brien made an abortive
attempt to revive it in 1848.
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Repeal
agitation.
Arms Act.
Trial of
O’Com?vel.
His
7"elease.
504 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſ BOOK
CHAP. III. Sir Robert Peel soon moved from his policy of com-
Legisla- plete hostility to Irish concessions, and in the session of
* 1845 carried the Maynooth Act, for augmenting and
V* putting on a permanent basis the grant to the Roman
* Catholic college of Maynooth. Mr. Gladstone agreed
t with his chief on this matter, but, as his views were now
at variance with his formerly published work on Church
and State, he chivalrously retired from the Ministry.
Being supported by the Whigs and the Irish members,
the Premier carried his Maynooth scheme in the Commons
by 317 to 184, and it afterwards passed the Upper House.
The act incorporated Maynooth College, raised the annual
grant to £2,000, and set aside £30,000 towards the re-
pairing of the buildings. Accommodation was to be
provided for eight hundred students. The Premier next
carried a scheme for the improvement of university
The education in Ireland by founding the Queen's Colleges
#. for the use of all religious denominations. The measure
was denounced as one for the creation of “godless
colleges,” and although the Catholics discountenanced
the colleges, they achieved a fair measure of success.
Peel's Co- Sir Robert Peel's last Irish measure was the Coercion
º Bill of 1846. Exasperated by the triumph of Peel's
Free Trade policy, the Protectionists ungenerously turned
against their former chief, and, joining the Whigs, suc-
ceeded in throwing out the Irish bill by 292 to 219 votes.
Upon this Sir Robert Peel resigned, and Lord John
Russell became Prime Minister. Parliament was dis-
solved by efflux of time in 1847, and when the new
House met in November it was found to consist of 325
Liberals, 226 Protectionists, and 105 Conservative Free
Traders.
Irish In consequence of the disastrous potato famine in
ºr. Ireland, which was followed by wholesale emigration,
the Whig Government introduced a series of relief
measures in 1847, and made a grant of £10,000,000.
The corn and navigation laws were suspended, the pro-
posed legislation with regard to encumbered estates was
postponed, and an act amending the poor-law was passed,
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
505
by which the land was compelled to provide for the relief
of its own pauperism. By the irony of fate, soon after
the new Parliament met, the Government were obliged
to introduce a Coercion Bill for Ireland very similar to
that for which Sir Robert Peel was turned out. During
the discussion of this measure Sir Robert said, “The best
reparation that can be made to the last Government will
be to assist the present Government in passing this law”;
and it was carried through by large majorities. Owing
to fears of rebellion, the laws relating to high treason
were extended in 1848 by the passing of the Treason
Felony Act, under which writing or speaking with a
view to excite sedition was constituted a new crime
called treason felony, punishable by penal servitude.
The act was made applicable to Ireland. The leaders
of the Young Ireland party—Mitchel, Smith O'Brien,
Meagher, and Gavan Duffy—were arrested. Mitchel
had gone further than the rest of the accused, and had
founded the United Irishman, which openly advocated
rebellion. Mitchel was convicted of treason felony, but
Smith O’Brien and Meagher were discharged without a
verdict. As Government received information of a plan
for rescuing Mitchel and anticipating the trial of Gavan
Duffy, a bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland
was hurried through Parliament towards the close of July.
The attempt at insurrection was suppressed, the leaders
were arrested, and O’Brien, Meagher, and others were
convicted of high treason and condemned to death, Gavan
Duffy being discharged. The death sentence was com-
muted to transportation for life, but the condemned
refused to accept the respite, declaring that their own
assent was necessary. The law officers of the Crown
denied the force of the objection, but, to put the matter
beyond controversy, a bill was passed through Parlia-
ment declaring the Queen's power of pardon in cases of
high treason to be absolute.
The Encumbered Estates Court was established in
1849, in accordance with a statute passed to facilitate
the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. It constituted
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Treason,
Felony
Act.
Ehucum-
bered
Estates
Act.
506 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III, a court to which landlords of such estates might apply to
Legisla- direct the sale ; and, although it did not achieve all the
* good results anticipated, the principle upon which the
Vºor” court was founded was a wise one, creating as it did an
indefeasible Parliamentary title and strengthening the
position of the landlords. In the course of ten years the
court made 3,457 sales, producing a sum of £25,190,839.
It was superseded in 1859 by the Landed Estates Court,
which dealt also with unencumbered estates. The Irish
#. larv poor-law was again amended in 1849 by a statute for
” the better administration of the previous laws. The
workhouse test and the principle of the English poor-
law were to be strictly applied, and any pecuniary defi-
ciency was to be supplied either by the “rate in aid,” by
a fresh grant from Parliament, or from the sources avail-
able before the passing of the poor-law of 1837.
Irish In 1850 the Irish Tenant League, including men of all
#. parties, was formed. Under its influence fifty tenant-
right advocates were elected to Parliament, and in the
session of 1852 Mr. Sharman Crawford's bill to secure and
regulate the tenant-right of Ulster was introduced. It
proposed to secure compensation for improvements and
to limit the power of eviction in certain cases. The
measure was thrown out on the second reading by 167
to 57. In the succeeding year two prominent members
of the League, Messrs. Sadleir and Keogh, joined the
Aberdeen Ministry. The old sectarian rivalry then broke
out in Ireland, and the influence of the League dwindled
The Irish away. In 1856 Mr. Edward Miall’s motion in favour of
* Irish Church disestablishment was rejected in the House
The of Commons by 163 to 93. The Phoenix Society was
º established in 1858 by O’Donovan Rossa, to ensure the
separation of Ireland from the English crown ; Rossa
and others were captured, tried, and condemned, but
afterwards released.
Landlord Parliament passed an act in 1860 to base the relation
º of landlord and tenant in Ireland on contract, and not on
Act. tenure. It was contemplated by this act to substitute for
the principles of the common law or custom as affecting
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
507
the relations between landlord and tenant a hard-and-fast
line of contract, thus compelling the tenant, either as to
duration of tenancy or compensation, to be dependent
upon an expressed or implied contract.
The Fenian conspiracy was the most serious, as well as
the most criminal, Irish movement during her Majesty’s
reign. The Fenian Brotherhood, which had for its object
the severance from England and the establishment of an
Irish republic, originated, it is believed, in 1858, both
in Ireland and the United States. In 1865 the Irish
Government became aware of the treasonable practices
of the Fenians, and a great number of persons were
arrested in Dublin and Cork, while the Irish People,
O'Donovan Rossa's journal, was confiscated. Stephens,
the “Head Centre,” was among the prisoners, but he
escaped. A commission was appointed to try the other
prisoners, and many of them were sentenced to penal
servitude. In February 1866 a bill suspending the
Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland was rapidly passed
through both Houses of Parliament. There was an
abortive Fenian raid into Canada in the summer, and in
the spring of 1867 there was a similar abortive insurrec-
tion at home. It began at Chester, where it was defeated
by one of the conspirators revealing the plot. There
were risings in Ireland, but all were suppressed. In
September, 1867, there was a rescue of Fenian prisoners
at Manchester, when Sergeant Brett was killed ; and
the following December witnessed a daring attempt to
rescue a prisoner in Clerkenwell Gaol. An effort was
made to blow up the prison, and twelve lives were lost.
There were subsequent Fenian raids in Canada, but all
were suppressed.
While supporting all measures for the repression of
treasonable and criminal attempts, Mr. Gladstone came
to the conclusion that the time had arrived for the
removal of many legitimate grievances in Ireland.
Accordingly he initiated his course of remedial legisla-
tion in the session of 1868 by moving resolutions
declaring the necessity for the disestablishment of the
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The
Penian
7°isinſ.
Mr. Glad.
Stone and
the Irish.
Chº?"ch.
508
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. | Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
*
The
Suspen-
sory Bill.
Irish Church. On April 13th, after a four days’ debate,
the first resolution was carried by 330 to 265 votes.
Such a severe defeat, following upon one on a motion by
Lord Stanley to remit the question of the Irish Church
to a new Parliament, ought to have resulted either in
the resignation of Ministers, or an appeal to the con-
stituencies. Mr. Disraeli did not immediately adopt
either course, but agreed to appeal to the country in the
autumn. In a wholly unnecessary manner the Premier
brought the name of the Queen into the controversy, for
which he was severely rebuked by Mr. Bright, who said
that “the Minister who put his sovereign into the front
of a great struggle like this was guilty of a very high
crime and great misdemeanour against his sovereign and
against his country.” An Irish Church Suspensory Bill
was next carried by Mr. Gladstone, but it was defeated
in the Lords by a large majority. The last Parliament
elected under the Reform Act of 1832 was dissolved
in the autumn, and the elections resulted in the return
of an unparalleled Liberal majority, the numbers being—
Mr. Glad-
stome in
office.
The Irish
Chº?"ch,
Disestab-
!ishment
Act.
Liberals, 393 ; Conservatives, 265. Mr. Disraeli resigned
office on December 4th, and Mr. Gladstone became
Premier. His Ministry was a very strong one, and it
included, amongst others, Mr. Bright as President of
the Board of Trade.
On March 1st, 1869, Mr. Gladstone introduced his
measure for the disestablishment and partial disen-
dowment of the Irish Church. His speech was one
of remarkable eloquence, and the debates which fol-
lowed were worthy of the finest traditions of the
House of Commons. The bill passed its second
reading by 368 to 250, and its third reading by 361
to 247. The measure encountered fierce opposition in
the Lords, but the second reading was carried in July
by 179 to 146 votes, and the bill finally passed shortly
afterwards. The Irish Church Act was one of the greatest
and most comprehensive statutes ever associated with the
name of a statesman. Its leading provisions were as
follows: the Church was disestablished and became a
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
509
free episcopal Church, governed by a synod of clergy
and laity; the old ecclesiastical courts were abolished ;
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
ion under
the Irish bishops ceased to have seats in the House of *
Lords; the Maynooth grant to the Catholics and the
Regium Donum to the Presbyterians were commuted ;
the fabrics of the churches and cathedrals were handed
over to the new Church ; all private endowments given
since 1660 were likewise handed over to the new Church ;
the clergy and officials attached to the Church were com-
pensated for their life-interest ; and the remaining funds
were to be applied, at the discretion of the Government
of the day, to the relief of unavoidable suffering.
Mr. Gladstone next addressed himself to another very
complicated question : the reform of the Irish land laws.
While it was his object to legislate as far as possible in
accordance with Irish ideas, he was also obliged to study
economy and the rights of the landlords. On February
5th, 1870, he brought forward the Irish Land Bill,
his explanatory statement being of the most elaborate
character. The second reading was carried by the
extraordinary majority of 442 to 11, and after prolonged
discussions in committee the bill went to the Upper House.
Here also it was considered at great length, but the
measure ultimately passed, and received the royal assent
on August 1st. By this first important Irish Land Act,
the Ulster tenant-right and similar customs in other
parts of Ireland received a legal status ; new rights were
conferred on tenants with reference to compensation for
disturbance by the act of the landlord, except in the case
of eviction for non-payment of rent ; compensation was
granted for improvements ; and facilities were given for
the loan by Government of two-thirds of the purchase-
money to tenants desirous of buying their holdings from
landlords who were willing to sell. The Act did not
bring about all the improvement desired, as landlords
frequently defeated its object by contracting themselves
out of it. While the Land Bill was before Parliament
it was found necessary to pass the Peace Preservation
(Ireland) Act, for the suppression of disorder. The
Victoria.
Land Act
of 1870.
Peace
Preserva -
tion Act.
510
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
tº T
Home
Pule
Jeague.
Irish
Univer-
sity Edw-
cation.
powers of the police and the justices were enlarged, the
use of firearms was prohibited in proclaimed districts,
and authority was given to the Government to suppress
newspapers.
In the autumn of 1870 the Home Government Asso-
ciation, afterwards known as the Home Rule League,
was founded in Ireland. Mr. Isaac Butt was the first
Parliamentary leader of the movement, which had for
its object the establishment of a Parliament in Dublin,
with absolute control over all matters relating to the
internal affairs of Ireland.
Mr. Gladstone's Government, which had been declining
in popularity for some time back, owing to a variety of
causes, essayed to deal with the question of Irish
University Education in 1873. In February the Premier
unfolded his scheme in great detail and with much
eloquence, and for a time it seemed as though the Irish
University Bill would be added to his other legislative
triumphs. The measure proposed to combine Trinity
College, Dublin, Maynooth, and the colleges of Cork and
Belfast into a new university, capable of granting degrees :
to hand over the Theological Faculty of Trinity College,
Dublin, to the Free Episcopal Church ; to exclude theo-
logy, moral philosophy, and history from the curriculum
of the new university ; to create for the university a
governing body nominated in the first instance by the
act, but ultimately by the Crown, the council, the senate,
and the professors jointly ; and, finally, to provide the
funds of the new university partly from existing funds
and partly from fees and Government aid. There was a
combination against the measure, however, of Roman
Catholics, Conservatives, and discontented Liberals, and
the bill was lost on the second reading by 287 to 284.
Mr. Gladstone resigned, but, as Mr. Disraeli declined
to take office, he returned to power with a reconstituted
Ministry. Nevertheless, as we have seen in a previous
section, the Gladstone Government ultimately went out
of office in February 1874, when a new Parliament was
returned, consisting of 350 Conservatives, 244 Liberals,
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
511
and 58 Home Rulers. The retiring Government had passed
more great measures during its term of office than any
other Ministry ever carried during a similar period.
Several other incidents of moment to Ireland occurred
from 1869 to 1877. In the former year O’Donovan
Rossa was elected for Tipperary, but his election was
declared void, no felon being eligible. Mr. Fawcett
carried a bill in 1873 for the abolition of religious tests
at Dublin University. In July 1874 Mr. Butt's motion
on Home Rule was rejected by 458 to 61. In 1875 John
Mitchel, who was convicted of treason in 1848, and who
had escaped from Tasmania, was re-elected member for
Tipperary; but the election was held void, on the ground
that a felon cannot sit in the House of Commons, and the
Dublin Court of Common Pleas assigned the seat to the
defeated candidate, Captain Moore. This same year wit–
messed a renewal of the Peace Preservation Act and the
Westmeath Act for the protection of life and property.
In April, 1877, Mr. Shaw's motion for a select committee
to inquire into the causes of the demand for Home Rule
was rejected by 417 to 67.
A resolute band of Irish Nationalist members now set
itself to force attention to the claims of Ireland by a
system of persistent obstruction of all business in the
House of Commons. This body was under the leadership
of Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell, a descendant of Sir
John Parnell, and Mr. Biggar was one of its prominent
members. Their action brought matters to a crisis in
the session of 1877. During the debates on the South
African Bill, the manoeuvres were carried to such a pitch
by obstructive divisions that, at the instance of Sir
Stafford Northcote, the House passed new rules of pro-
cedure to the effect that when a member has been twice
declared out of order by the Speaker or by the Chairman
of Committees, a motion may be made that the member
be not heard during the remainder of the debate, and
after the member complained of has been heard in
explanation, it be put to the vote without further
debate; also that no member should move to report
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
O’Dono-
van Rossa.
Religious
teSts.
John
Mitchel.
PHome
Rule.
Mation-
alists in
Parlia-
7776%t.
Obst)'\lc-
tion.
512
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Eaciting
SC 670.6°.
Irish
Unive?'-
sity Act.
The
Land
League.
progress, or that the Speaker do leave the chair, twice
in the same committee: Nevertheless, on July 31st,
when the South African Bill was still being discussed,
Mr. Parnell and his friends kept the House in continuous
session for twenty-six hours, and only the threats of Sir
S. Northcote to put the new rules in force induced the
obstructives to yield. On April 12th, 1878, another
exciting scene took place. Mr. O’Donnell made a vio-
lent attack upon the character of the murdered Earl of
Leitrim, and the House was cleared of strangers. Great
disorder marked the secret sitting, and the quarrels and
recriminations amongst the Irish party were such as to
cause Mr. Butt's retirement from the leadership. Ob-
struction continued to be used by the Irish members in
regard to other measures, such as the Army Discipline
Bill.
The Government brought forward and passed an Irish
University Act in 1879. By this act an examining body
was created, with power to confer degrees upon all ap-
proved persons irrespective of their place of education ;
these graduates, with the existing graduates of the
Queen’s University, were to form the convocation of the
new university ; and the senate of the new university were
empowered to frame a scheme of exhibitions, prizes, and
fellowships, and to ask Parliament to make a grant for
their support.
The Irish Land League was formed in October 1879
by Mr. Michael Davitt, and an anti-rent agitation was
set on foot in Ireland. Davitt and three other leaders
were arrested, but released on bail. During the ensuing
winter there was severe distress both in England and
Ireland. When Parliament met in February, 1880, Mr.
Parnell moved an amendment to the Address. The Irish
members, however, so protracted the debates on the
Address and on the Government bill for the relief of
distress in Ireland, that a resolution was passed enabling
the House to suspend any member named by the Speaker
as guilty of wilful obstruction, and ordering that if a
member be suspended three times in one session, his
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
513
suspension should continue for a week and as much
longer as the House should determine.
Distress Act for Ireland was then carried through.
Lord Beaconsfield startled the nation by his letter
written on March 8th, 1880, to the Duke of Marlborough,
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, announcing an immediate
dissolution of Parliament. The Premier charged his
opponents with endeavouring to disintegrate the empire,
and he insinuated that there was complicity between the
Liberal party and the Home Rulers and Repealers.
The elections gave Mr. Gladstone a majority over the
Conservatives and Home Rulers combined, the numbers
in the new Parliament being—Liberals, 349 : Conserva-
tives, 243; Home Rulers, 60. Lord Beaconsfield resigned,
and Mr. Gladstone again became Prime Minister. When
the House of Commons met, the Government announced
their intention of not renewing the Irish Peace Preserva-
tion Act. But they brought in and passed a second
Relief of Distress Act for Ireland. One of the original
clauses of this act, known as the compensation for dis-
turbance clause, allotted to tenants evicted for non-
payment of rent the compensation due to them had they
left for other causes, and its operation was limited to the
years 1880 and 1881. The clause was carried in the
Commons by 303 to 237, but it was rejected in the
Lords by 282 to 51.
A serious agitation was set on foot in Ireland in the
autumn of 1880 in consequence of evictions for non-
payment of rent. The movement was organised by the
Land League, and many agrarian outrages followed.
Mr. Parnell and others were prosecuted for conspiracy
in inciting to breaches of the law, but in this Irish State
trial the jury could not agree upon a verdict, and were
discharged.
Early in the session of 1881 Mr. Forster, as Irish
Secretary, introduced the Protection for Life and Pro-
perty (Ireland) Bill. On February 2nd, after a sitting
of forty-one hours, marked by great obstruction, the
Speaker declared that a new and exceptional course was
CHAP. III.
The Relief of Legisla.
VOL. II. 33
tion under
Queen.
Victoria.
Dissolu-
tion of
1880.
Mr. Glad-
stome be-
('07)06S
Premie?".
Belief
Act.
AVo-rent
agitation.
Suspen-
Sion of
Irish
7members.
514 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, [book
CHAP. III, necessary, and at once put the first reading of the bill,
Legisla- which was carried. Next day thirty-six Irish members,
* who defied the Speaker's authority, were one by one
Victoria suspended and excluded from the House. Resolutions
were next carried giving the Speaker special powers to
restrict discussion when “urgency’ had been voted in
debate. Eventually the Protection of Life and Property
Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill were
both carried.
Irish, In April Mr. Gladstone introduced his second great
#4% Irish Land Bill. It passed the Commons, and, after
some amendments in detail by the Lords, received the
royal assent on August 23rd. This act provided that
any existing tenant might sell his interest in his holding
to the highest bidder, and that the purchaser acquired
all the rights of the seller as a present tenant. Every
present tenant or his assignee had the right to apply to
a court to fix a judicial rent, subject to statutory condi-
tions. This judicial rent could not be altered for fifteen
years, nor could the tenant be disturbed, except by his
own act. At the end of fifteen years the tenant could
apply for another term, subject to revision of rent. The
breach of any of the statutory conditions involved the
determination of the existing tenancy by compulsory
sale, and the new tenant came in without the rights of
a present tenant. Future tenants were those who entered
into tenancies not then existing. In addition to these
main provisions, there were clauses giving special safe-
guards. For example, English-managed estates were
exempted from the act ; and a landlord might object to
a new tenant, while he had also rights of pre-emption
and resumption under conditions to be judged by the
court. Further, there were provisions for the establish-
ment of peasant proprietors, of perpetual leaseholders on
fee-farm rent, for assisting emigration, and for the benefit
of the labourers. In the session of 1882 the House of
Lords, by 96 to 53, appointed a committee to inquire
into the Irish Land Act and its effect on the condition of
the country; but, on the motion of Mr. Gladstone, the
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
515
Commons condemned the Lords’ committee by 300
to 167.
Mr. Parnell and other members of the Land League
were arrested on October 13th, 1881, and five days later
the No-Rent manifesto was issued by the League. On
the 20th the Government proclaimed the Land League
as an illegal and a criminal association. In May 1882,
however, Mr. Gladstone announced that Messrs. Parnell,
Dillon, and O’Kelly had been released from Kilmainham
gaol, and that a measure was to be brought in to streng-
then the law and remove the difficulties in the way of
the administration of justice. It was alleged that a
compact, known as the Kilmainham Treaty, had been
made with Mr. Parnell, who had promised to use his
influence towards the diminution of agrarian crime. Dis-
approving of the release of the Irish members, the Lord
Lieutenant and the Irish Chief Secretary, Lord Cowper
and Mr. Forster, resigned. On May 6th England was
filled with sorrow and indignation by the news of the
assassination of the new Irish Secretary, Lord F. Caven-
dish, and the Permanent Secretary, Mr. Burke, in the
Phoenix Park, Dublin. Government now introduced a
Prevention of Crimes Bill of a very stringent character,
and during the debates successfully defended themselves
with regard to the alleged Kilmainham Treaty. Mr.
Parnell and other Irish members expressed their de-
testation of the murder of Lord F. Cavendish and Mr.
Burke, but they strenuously opposed the Crimes Bill.
After an all-night sitting on June 30th, twenty-five
Irish members were suspended for obstructing the pas-
sage of the bill through committee. The measure
passed, and on July 12th received the royal assent.
The Irish Arrears Bill was another important measure
introduced by the Premier this session. The bill adopted
the principle of gift and compulsion instead of that of
loan and voluntary arrangement, and proposed to give
either landlord or tenant power to apply to the Land
Court, under certain conditions, for carrying out a com-
position with the aid of public funds. Lord Salisbury
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Azºrest
of Mr.
Parmell.
His
'release.
Assassina-
tion.
of Lord F.
Caven-
dish.
Crimes
Act.
I?’ish A7'-
7'ears Act,
516
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
M?".
Parmell's
Land
Aill.
Irish
affairs.
Lord Pal-
qmerston’s
policy.
endeavoured to deprive the tenant of the right to apply
to the court without the landlord’s consent. The House
of Lords at first accepted this amendment, but, as the
Government declared that it would be fatal to the bill,
the Lords gave way, a collision between the two Houses
was averted, and the measure became law. In the
session of 1883 Mr. Parnell brought forward a bill to
amend the Irish Land Act of 1881. It was opposed by
the Government as a virtual reconstruction of the pre-
vious act, in which they could not concur, and the bill
was rejected by 250 to 63 votes. Early in 1884 the Irish
Nationalists revived the Land League under the name
of the National League, and Mr. Parnell was elected its
president.
As this work closes with the extension of the suffrage
in Great Britain and Ireland under the reform measures
of 1884-5, subsequent legislation for Ireland, as well as
the efforts to secure Home Rule, do not come within our
purview.
VII. FOREIGN POLICY.
Lord Palmerston was our Foreign Minister when the
Queen ascended the throne, and when Lord Melbourne's
Government fell in 1841 he was the only member of it
whose reputation stood higher than when it acceded
to office. His policy, which by good fortune was as
successful as it was daring, procured him respect, if not
fear, abroad. Having in 1834 concluded a treaty by
which England and France combined to secure the peace
of the Peninsula and to support constitutional govern-
ment in Spain and Portugal, he next turned his attention
to Egypt. Regarding the revolt of Mehemet Ali in
Egypt as a grave menace to the integrity of the Turkish
empire, in 1835 and 1839 he would have interfered with
arms in defence of the Porte, but his colleagues restrained
him. However, in 1840 he entered into a league with
the Northern Powers, and brilliantly carried through the
Syrian war, suppressing Mehemet Ali. With restless
activity he intrigued against Russia in Afghanistan,
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
517
and undertook a war with China, which resulted in the
cession of Hong Kong to England. It was feared that
he would embroil England with the European Powers,
but his skill and courage brought him through many a
crisis which would have overwhelmed almost any other
foreign Minister. In 1841 he went out with the Whig
Government, and remained in comparative retirement
for some years.
Lord Aberdeen, who succeeded Palmerston at the
Foreign Office, was a more pacific Minister. He brought
to a close the Chinese war, and, with the aid of Lord
Ellenborough, reduced Afghanistan and annexed Scinde.
Under Lord Aberdeen’s auspices, Alexander Baring,
afterwards Lord Ashburton, concluded in 1842 the famous
Ashburton Treaty with the United States. This treaty
settled the vexed north-west boundary question and
other questions which threatened to involve the two
countries in war. The frontier line between the State
of Maine and Canada was definitely agreed to. Seven-
twelfths of the disputed territory, and the British settle-
ment of Madawaska, were given to the United States :
but England secured a better military frontier, as well
as the heights commanding the St. Lawrence, which the
King of Holland had previously assigned to the Americans.
Provisions were also included for suppressing the
African slave trade and for the mutual extradition of
criminals. Lord Aberdeen further settled the difficult
question of the Oregon boundary by concluding the
Oregon Treaty of 1846. In the previous year he had
stated in Parliament that he had good hopes of a settle-
ment with the United States, but shortly afterwards
President Polk came into office, and in his inaugural
address distinctly claimed Oregon as part of the United
States. Sir Robert Peel replied in the House of Com-
mons with a spirited speech, and war seemed imminent.
However, Lord Aberdeen transmitted a proposition for
a settlement, which preserved for England Vancouver’s
Island and the adjacent islands and inlets, and this
proposition was eventually accepted by the United States.
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
-*-
Policy of
Lord
Aberdeen,
The Ash-
bwnton,
Threaty,
The
Oregon
Treaty.
518
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Palmer-
Ston's
European
policy.
Difficulty
Ovith
Greece.
The territory was equitably divided between the two
countries, the north-west frontier being defined along the
mainland to the coast. In the channel which separates
the continent from Vancouver's Island, however, lies the
island of San Juan. A difficulty subsequently arose as
to its possession, and the matter being referred in 1872 to
the Emperor of Germany, he gave his award in favour of
the United States. Lord Aberdeen further satisfactorily
arranged the quarrel between France and England with
respect to Tahiti and Queen Pomare. Yet, although his
policy generally saved much bloodshed, it was attacked
on the ground of being too pacific.
When Lord John Russell came into power in 1846,
Palmerston returned to the Foreign Office. His policy
again caused great solicitude at home and abroad. He
was outwitted with regard to the Spanish marriages, which
were carried through by the influence of France, but he
took his revenge by making Paris the centre of intrigues
against the French king, thus accelerating the Revolution
of 1848. Lord Palmerston was in sympathy with all the
risings in Europe. He hated Austria, was a warm friend
of the Italian nationalists, and even actively assisted the
Sicilian insurgents against the King of Naples. Twice
in 1849 he defended his policy with great spirit in the
House of Commons, on the latter occasion observing,
“There are two objects which England ought peculiarly
to aim at—the one is to maintain peace; the other is to
count for something in the transactions of the world.”
In 1850 Lord Palmerston’s arbitrary conduct with respect
to Greece led to some of the finest debates which have
ever taken place in the House of Commons. The causes
of the difficulty were comparatively unimportant. Mr.
Finlay, a British subject, complained that a piece of his
land had been incorporated in the royal garden, and the
price he set upon it refused. Don Pacifico, a Maltese
Jew, complained that his house had been sacked by a
mob, and compensation refused. Instead of the claims
of the aggrieved parties being pursued in the ordinary
legal course, Lord Palmerston made a direct national
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
519
claim upon the Greek Government. Redress being de-
layed, he sent a fleet to the Piraeus, and Greece was
obliged to submit. On the motion of Lord Stanley, the
House of Lords condemned these proceedings by a
majority of 37. In the Commons Mr. Roebuck brought
forward a vote of confidence in the foreign policy of the
Ministry, and upon the issue of the debate depended the
continuance of the Government in office. The Foreign
Secretary had opposed to him nearly all the great orators
of the House : Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Disraeli, Mr. Cockburn, and Mr. Cobden. In a masterly
speech of five hours’ duration, Palmerston energetically
defended his policy, and challenged the verdict of the
House whether the principles which had guided the
foreign policy of her Majesty’s Ministers had been proper
and fitting, and whether, as a subject of ancient Rome
could hold himself free from indignity by saying, “Civis
Romanus sum,” a British subject in a foreign country
should not be protected by the vigilant eye and the
strong arm of the Government against injustice and
wrong. The motion of confidence was carried by 310
to 264.
But the independence of Lord Palmerston in managing
foreign affairs entirely at his own discretion drew upon
him a severe rebuke from the Queen. Her Majesty
complained to Lord John Russell that important de-
spatches had been sent off without her knowledge, and
she communicated the following memorandum to Lord
Palmerston :-‘‘The Queen requires, first, that Lord
Palmerston will distinctly state what he proposes in a
given case, in order that the Queen may know as dis-
tinctly to what she is giving her royal sanction ;
secondly, having once given her sanction to a measure,
that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified by the
Minister. Such an act she must consider as failing in
sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by
the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Queen
and Lord
Palmer-
Ston,
that Minister. She expects to be kept informed of what
passes between him and the foreign Ministers before
520
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Palmer-
ston dis-
Żnissed.
Lord
Aber-
deen’s
Ministry.
The
Crimean
War.
important decisions are taken based upon that inter-
course, to receive the foreign despatches in good time,
and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in
sufficient time to make herself acquainted with their
contents before they must be sent off.” Lord Palmerston
did not resign upon this reprimand, but in December
1851 Lord John Russell summarily dismissed him from
his post for his general intractability, and for having,
in particular, after the coup d'état of December 2nd,
assured Louis Napoleon of the support of the British
Government without having consulted his colleagues.
In the course of two months the dismissed Foreign
Secretary turned the tables upon his late chief. The
Government having brought in a Militia Bill in February
1852, in consequence of the reported hostile designs of
Napoleon III., Lord Palmerston succeeded in overthrow-
ing the measure by 136 to 125 votes. Lord John Russell
resigned, and the brief administration of Lord Derby
succeeded.
Lord Aberdeen became Prime Minister in December
1852, and formed his celebrated Coalition Government
of Whigs and Peelites. It contained an extraordinary
number of talented men, including Lords Aberdeen,
Cranworth, Palmerston, Russell, Canning, Clarendon,
Granville, and St. Germans ; Sir A. Cockburn and Sir
R. Bethell ; the Duke of Argyll ; Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Sidney Herbert, Sir James Graham, Mr. Cardwell, Mr.
Lowe, and Sir Charles Wood. England soon “drifted”
into the Crimean war, and declared hostilities against
Russia. The management of the war, especially in the
commissariat department, brought great odium upon the
Government, and there were also dissensions among
themselves. Lord John Russell resigned on the ground
that Mr. Roebuck's proposed vote of censure could not
be honestly met. In February 1855, Mr. Roebuck
brought forward his motion for a select committee to
inquire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol,
which was carried by no less than 157 votes: 305
to 148.
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
521
Lord Aberdeen resigned, and as neither Lord John
Russell nor Lord Derby could form an administration,
Lord Palmerston became Prime Minister. He brought the
War to a successful conclusion, and the Treaty of Paris
was signed March 30th, 1856. A treaty of peace between
England and Persia was concluded in the following year.
But Lord Palmerston sustained a severe check in his
Chinese policy. A lorcha called the Arrow, showing
British colours, had been seized by the Chinese. The
British Government resorted to severe measures, for
which they were condemned by their political opponents,
on the ground that the Arrow was not a vessel deserving
of British protection. In March 1857, Mr. Cobden
brought forward a motion condemning the violent pro-
ceedings of the Government in China, and it was carried
after an exciting debate by 263 to 247 votes. Lord
Palmerston appealed to the country, and came back
greatly strengthened, while his principal opponents, Mr.
Cobden, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Milner Gibson, lost their
seats. The French Emperor, whom Lord Palmerston
had supported, was destined to be the cause of his fall.
Early in 1858 Orsini made a futile attempt to assassinate
Napoleon III., and great irritation ensued in France
against England for harbouring assassin refugees. Cor-
responding indignation was felt in England owing to
the threats of French officers and others. Nevertheless,
in consequence of Orsini's attempt, Lord Palmerston
brought in a Conspiracy to Murder Bill, making con-
spiracy to murder a felony punishable with penal servitude
for five years. The bill passed its first reading in the
House of Commons by a large majority, but before the
second reading came on a feeling gained ground that
the Premier was simply carrying out the behests of the
French Emperor. Accordingly, after a lengthy debate,
the Government were defeated, on an amendment by Mr.
Milner Gibson, by 234 to 215 votes.
Lord Palmerston resigned, but returned to power on
June 30th, 1859. England remained neutral during the
war between France, Italy, and Austria. Parliament
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Palmer-
ston, Pre-
mier.
The
Chinese
difficulty.
The Com-
spiracy to
Mºrder
Jºl.
Palmer-
Ston's later
policy.
522
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Lord
Grahºville
Foreign
Secretary.
The
Easte?"n.
Question.
supported the Premier in an expenditure of £9,000,000
on the fortifications of the southern coast, in view of a
possible war with France. Neutrality was preserved
during the American Civil War, but the English Govern-
ment exacted reparation for the forcible seizure of the
Confederate commissioners, Messrs. Slidell and Mason,
when under British protection, on the West India mail
steamer Trent. In 1864, during the Schleswig-Holstein
imbroglio, Lord Palmerston unsuccessfully pressed France
and Russia to join him in enforcing the Treaty of London,
which guaranteed the integrity of Denmark. He was
not opposed, however, to the development of Germany.
Lord Palmerston died on October 18th, 1865.
Lord Granville was Foreign Secretary from the death
of Lord Clarendon in 1870 to 1874. During his tenure
of the Foreign Office, a peaceful settlement was effected of
the Alabama claims. He also arranged the treaty between
England, France, and Prussia guaranteeing the inde-
pendence of Belgium ; and he confirmed with Prince
Gortschakoff the agreement that Afghanistan should
form an intermediary zone between the Eastern territories
of England and Russia.
In Lord Beaconsfield's Administration of 1874 Lord
Derby was Foreign Secretary until April 1878, when he
was succeeded by Lord Salisbury, who held the office
until the fall of the Government in the spring of 1880.
When the Eastern Question assumed prominence, Lord
Derby declined to countenance the measures of reform
which during 1876 the Powers wished to force upon the
Porte, first in the Andrassy Note and then in the Berlin
Memorandum. But he addressed a strong remonstrance
to the Porte on the subject of the Bulgarian atrocities,
and demanded the punishment of the offenders. He
consented to the Constantinople Conference of December
1876, when proposals of reform were made to Turkey
which were forestalled by the proclamation of a Parlia-
mentary constitution. The Conference failed, and Our
representative, Lord Salisbury, returned to England.
Early in 1877 Lord Derby agreed to a European Protocol
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
523
on Turkish affairs, but it led to no results. When the
British fleet was ordered to Constantinople in January
1878, Lord Derby threatened to resign, and the order was
countermanded ; but when a vote of credit of £6,000,000
was demanded from Parliament, and the fleet was de-
spatched after all, Lord Derby resigned (March 28th,
1878). On April 16th the House of Commons was assured
that nothing existed to disturb the public tranquillity,
but on the following morning the announcement was
made that the Indian troops had been ordered to Malta.
This was a strictly unconstitutional proceeding, but Lord
Hartington’s motion condemning it was rejected by 347
to 226. Lord Salisbury compelled a reconsideration of
the Treaty of San Stefano, and in June 1878, accompanied
Lord Beaconsfield to the Berlin Congress. He arranged
the Anglo-Turkish Convention, by which England agreed
to defend the Sultan’s possessions in Asia Minor against
Russian aggression, receiving in exchange the island of
Cyprus as a military and naval station. In July the Treaty
of Berlin was signed, and the Premier and the Foreign
Secretary returned to England, bringing back, according
to the statement of the former, “peace with honour.”
War broke out with Afghanistan in December 1878, but
a vote of censure on the Afghan policy of the Government
was lost in the House of Commons by 328 to 227.
England was successful in Afghanistan, but sustained
reverses in South Africa. Strong and persistent con-
demnation by Mr. Gladstone of the foreign policy of
Lord Beaconsfield sapped the popularity of his Govern-
ment ; and his lordship ultimately went out of office in
April 1880.
Lord Granville was Foreign Minister in Mr. Gladstone's
second Administration, 1880–85. He displayed con-
siderable diplomatic skill in matters relating to the
occupation of Tunis, the unfulfilled portions of the Treaty
of Berlin, and the revolt of Arabi Pacha in Egypt. Mr.
Bright left the Ministry in July 1882, in consequence
of the determination to bombard Alexandria. Lord
Granville issued a circular note to the Powers on
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Resigma-
tion of
Lord,
Derby.
The
Berlim
Congress.
Lord
Beacons-
field's
policy
. (2070–
demned.
Foreign
policy,
1880-85.
524
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Criminal
Larv
a'eform.
Church
zeforms.
Egyptian reforms, and in 1884 convened a conference
on Egyptian finance, which proved abortive, owing to
the hostile attitude of France. Troubles in the Soudan,
culminating in the melancholy death of General Gordon,
difficulties with Germany in consequence of Prince
Bismarck's colonial schemes, differences with France,
and the threatened rupture with Russia over the de-
marcation of the Afghan boundary, caused Lord Granville
much solicitude. Frequent discussions on these topics
arose in both Houses of Parliament. In the Lower House
the Government succeeded in repulsing their opponents
in several crucial divisions ; but in June 1885 they were
defeated on a Budget question, and went out of office.
VIII. GENERAL LEGISLATION.
The first important act of the reign was a beneficent
one, having for its object a reform of the criminal law.
By this statute, passed in June 1837, numerous remissions
of capital punishment were effected, on the recommenda-
tion of the Criminal Law Commission. The death penalty
was removed from all but the following offences: high
treason, murder, attempt to murder, rape, arson, piracy,
burglary, and robbery when attended by circumstances
tending to endanger life. The use of the pillory was wholly
abolished, and counsel were allowed to prisoners. No
fewer than a hundred and eighty-seven capital offences
had been created from the Restoration to the death of
George IV., but great inroads were made upon this
barbaric code, first by Romilly and then by Sir James
Mackintosh.
In 1838 Church reforms were effected by the Pluralities
Act, which was passed to sweep away many of the abuses
caused by the non-residence of wealthy clergymen at the
benefices whose revenues they received. By the Church
Discipline Act, 1840, the procedure of the Bishops’ Court
was reconstituted and regulated. In 1844 Sir Robert
Peel carried his plan for the establishment and endow-
ment of Church districts, by which “large and unwieldy
parishes, which had given rise to much spiritual destitu-
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
525
tion, were gradually broken up.” The Clerical Disabilities
Act, passed in 1870, provided that a clergyman might
execute a deed of relinquishment, which was to be recorded
by his bishop in the diocesan registry. After this regis-
tration, the priest or deacon was incapable of officiating
as such, and lost all his rights as a clergyman.
A greatly agitated question touching privilege and the
law of libel was set at rest by the cases of “Stockdale v.
Hansard” (1837–40). Messrs. Hansard were sued for libel
for publishing, by order of the House of Commons, a report
which described a book published by Stockdale as indecent.
The Court of Queen’s Bench decided that the order of
the House was no justification. Five suits having been
brought, and Stockdale and the sheriffs committed by the
Commons, an act was passed to the effect that all such
actions should in future be stayed on an affidavit that
any paper the subject of such proceedings had been
printed by order of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel forcibly
said during the debates, “Do you believe that slavery
would have been abolished unless we had published to
the world the abuses and horrors of slavery P” In 1843
the law of libel was amended by Lord Campbell’s Act,
which allows a defendant to plead that the publication
was without his authority and was from no want of care
on his part, whilst he may also plead that a libel is true
and for the public benefit.
The great controversy in the Scotch Church came to a
head in 1843. In the previous year the General Assembly
had drawn up two addresses to the Crown, one relating
to the encroachments of the Court of Session and the
other asking for the abolition of the Church patronage in
Scotland. Replying on behalf of the Government, Sir
James Graham said it was impossible to admit the claims
of the Church to be the sole judge of what was or was
not an ecclesiastical question, and therefore beyond the
competency of the civil courts. He also said that her
Majesty’s Ministers could not recommend the total
abrogation of the rights of the Crown and other patrons.
An appeal was then made to Parliament, but in March
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Lam:
of Libel.
The Scotch.
Chºrch.
526
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Mazzini's
letters
opened.
Welsh,
ºriots.
County
Counts.
The
Naviga-
tion. Larvs.
1843 the House of Commons declined by a large majority
to entertain the petition of the General Assembly on the
vexed question of patronage and the right of the civil
courts in spiritualjurisdiction. Two months later followed
the great disruption, and the establishment of the Free
Church of Scotland.
In the session of 1844 exciting debates took place in
the House of Commons on the opening of Mazzini's letters
by the Post Office officials. Sir James Graham, the
Home Secretary, who had given the order, based his
right on statutes of Anne and George III. Mr. Thomas
Duncombe, the Radical member for Finsbury, led the
attack on the Government. The question was referred
to a secret committee, which reported that the power
itself was legal, and probably in exceptional cases neces-
sary. The various secretaries were practically acquitted
of any misuse of their power, but the action of Sir James
Graham was severely condemned in the press.
In consequence of the Rebecca riots in Wales, which
were directed against the great increase of toll-gates, a
commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of
the discontent. These were found to be genuine, and in
the session of 1844 the whole system of turnpike trusts
in Wales was reformed and remodelled.
An act establishing the modern county court was
passed in 1846, and this measure has been supplemented
by various other acts. A certain number of county court
districts were marked out in each county, and the court for
the county was directed to be held at short intervals in
one or more places within each of the districts. Several
districts were grouped in one circuit, and a judge was
allotted to each circuit. The judges were to be appointed
by the Lord Chancellor from barristers of seven years'
standing or upwards. Each judge is assisted by a
registrar and other officers.
FreeTrade received an impetus in 1849 by the abolition
of the navigation laws, and five years later the whole of
the English coasting trade was thrown open to foreign
vessels.
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
527
A Papal Bull, creating Roman Catholic bishops in
England, was issued in September 1850. It caused
intense excitement throughout the country, and protests
against it showered in upon the Government and Parlia-
ment. In the session of 1851, in obedience to the popular
sentiment, Lord John Russell introduced the Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill, which declared the Papal Bull null and void,
and imposed a fine of £100 upon all who endeavoured to
carry it into effect. The second reading was carried by
the overwhelming majority of 438 to 95, but in the minority
were many of the most distinguished members of the
House of Commons, including Messrs. Gladstone, Roundell
Palmer, Cobden, Bright, Hume, Graham, and Milner
Gibson. The measure became law ; but although it
served as a protest by Protestant England against an
obnoxious papal act, legislatively it proved little more
than a dead letter, and it was repealed in 1871.
The Victorian Volunteer movement sprang into ex-
istence in 1852, but the organization of Rifle corps did not
assume large dimensions until 1859, when a strong feeling
was roused against France. The Volunteers were regulated
and consolidated by various Acts passed in 1860, 1862-3,
1869, and 1870. The movement developed rapidly, and
became an imposing means of national defence.
In the session of 1857, Lord Palmerston carried, against
great opposition, the Divorce Act. It relaxed many of the
difficulties which had hitherto prevented all but very
wealthy people from obtaining release from irksome and
unhappy unions. Mr. Gladstone was especially eloquent
in condemning this divorce legislation, on theological,
legal, and social grounds.
A serious effort to abolish Church rates was made in
1858. The subject had often been mooted, but now
Sir John Trelawney actually carried an abolition bill
through the Commons, but it was rejected by the Lords.
By the year 1859, in consequence of the opposition of
Dissenters at vestry meetings, Church rates had been
refused in no fewer than fifteen hundred and twenty-five
parishes or districts. Trelawney reintroduced his bill
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
-*.
Ecclesias-
tical
Titles Act.
The
Volº-
tee?’S.
Divorce
Act.
Chwºch
Rates.
528
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Jervish
Disabili-
ties.
JBank-
**ptcy
Acts.
in 1861, when it was rejected only by the casting vote
of the Speaker; in the following year it was lost by
one vote ; and in 1863 the majority against it was ten.
Other unsuccessful efforts were made to deal with the
matter, and eventually it was set at rest in 1868 by the
passing of Mr. Gladstone's Compulsory Church Rates
Abolition Bill, which, however, still permitted voluntary
payments.
Jews were finally admitted to Parliament in 1858.
They had but slowly acquired the privileges of citizenship.
Again and again abortive efforts were made to remove
their civil disabilities; but in 1845 they were admitted
to corporations by Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and in 1846
they were placed as regards schools, places of worship,
education, and charities on the same footing as Protestant
Dissenters. By a statute passed in 1847 their marriages
celebrated before 1845, whose legality was doubted, were
pronounced valid. Finally, in 1858, Lord John Russell
carried a bill admitting Jews to Parliament. This statute
empowered the House to modify the oath required of
members by omitting in the case of Jews the concluding
words of the oath. Baron Rothschild, who had several
times been elected for the City of London, but had been
unable to sit, was the first Jew who entered the House of
Commons after the passing of the act. But even this
statute was only permissive, and in 1866 it was superseded
by an act which prescribed a uniform oath to be taken by
members of all religious denominations, except Quakers
and other separatists, who might claim to affirm. Jews
were first admitted to the House of Lords in 1885, when
Sir N. M. de Rothschild took his seat as Lord Rothschild.
Almost all the high offices of state are now open to the
Jews, and they may even present to livings in the Church
of England.
The bankruptcy laws were amended in 1861, on the
initiative of Lord Westbury, who also projected a great
scheme for the codification of the common law, which he
was unable to carry through. With regard to legislation
affecting bankrupts, Lord Brougham carried an act in
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
529
1830-31 establishing a special court of bankruptcy, and CHAP. III.
an act passed in 1849 made composition by arrangement
possible, and rendered fraudulent bankrupts more cer-
tainly liable to punishment. By the statute of 1861 the
provisions of the Bankruptcy Acts were extended to
others besides traders, and the Insolvent Debtors’ Court
was abolished. A comprehensive act passed in 1869
remodelled the Court of Bankruptcy, and made important
changes in the law. The commissioners were abolished,
and a chief judge and registrars appointed. County
courts were constituted local bankruptcy courts, with an
appeal to the chief judge. The creditors were empowered
to appoint trustees to take charge of the property, and
the bankrupt could not obtain his order of discharge
without the consent of a majority of the creditors
unless he had paid ten shillings in the pound. Im-
prisonment for debt was abolished. Liquidation by
arrangement was provided for, and all former enactments
on the subject of bankruptcy were repealed or consoli-
dated. Mr. Chamberlain's Bankruptcy Act of 1883
enacted severe punishments against fraudulent bank-
rupts, and abolished the system of trustees, substituting
in their place a staff of official receivers appointed by
the Board of Trade. Amending acts were passed in 1884
and 1890.
The cotton famine which ensued upon the American
Civil War had very disastrous effects in England. Lanca–
shire especially suffered from the scarcity of cotton, and
public and private measures of relief became necessary.
The Cotton District Relief Fund, started in July 1862,
did noble work, and this was supplemented by a relief
act passed by Parliament in 1862, by which loans were
granted to the guardians of the poor for the purpose of
instituting relief works.
The Poor Laws were amended in 1865 by Mr. Williers’s
Union Chargeability Act. It practically did away with
the former law of settlement by providing that the
union fund should hereafter bear the maintenance of all
the poor within the union, and by transferring the power
WOL. II. 34
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
-
The
Cottom,
Famine.
Poor
Lan's,
530
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Lord
Westbury.
The
Cattle
Plague.
The Com-
amander-
in-chief.
The Civil
Service.
Army re-
forms.
of removal from overseers to guardians and abolishing
removability from parish to parish in the same union.
At the close of the session of 1865, the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Westbury, resigned the Great Seal, in consequence
of an adverse vote of the House of Commons. Although
there was no imputation upon his personal honour, he was
censured for his action in connection with the retirement
of Mr. Edmunds, Clerk to the Commissioners of Patents,
and for his lack of discretion in the appointment of the
registrar to the Leeds Bankruptcy Court.
In consequence of the great ravages of the cattle
plague, the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, carried
an act in 1866 empowering local authorities to order
cattle to be killed and to prevent their removal by road
or rail except by licenses, and then only by daylight,
during the prevalence of the plague. Powers were
granted for carrying out measures likely to check or
to crush the disease. Compensation, to be provided by
a charge on the county and borough rate, was to be made
to those persons whose cattle were killed under the pro-
visions of the act.
The royal prerogative which asserted that the
Dommander-in-chief was the agent of the Crown was
abolished in 1870, and that distinguished personage
was formally declared to be a subordinate of the Minister
of War. In the same year, by an Order of Council, all
the appointments in the Civil Service, with the exception
of those in the Foreign Office, and posts requiring pro-
fessional knowledge, were thrown open to competition.
Army reform was grappled with by Mr. Cardwell, the
War Secretary, in 1871-2. The Army Regulation Bill,
which was brought in and carried, had the effect of
concentrating all the various branches of the military
system into a single whole. An act was also passed
by which the Crown resumed the authority over the
militia, yeomanry, and volunteers, which had formerly
been vested in the lords-lieutenant of counties. Mr.
Cardwell thus secured the adoption of the principle of
localisation of the military forces, the linking of battalions,
xiii. LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA. 531
and the admission of short as well as long service—the CHAP. III,
first steps towards the creation of an efficient reserve. Legisla-
Some of the contemplated reforms were not completely *
developed, however, until a later period. The abolition Victoria.
of purchase was a necessary step in the Ministerial plan, Abolition
but this was only carried by Mr. Gladstone in the face of gº.
powerful opposition. When the army measures went up
to the House of Lords, a motion by the Duke of Richmond
postponing the purchase clause was carried by 155 to
130. This decision was distasteful to the Commons and
to the country, and Mr. Gladstone announced in the
Lower House that the Government had advised her
Majesty to cancel the royal warrant under which pur-
chase was legal. The Queen had consented to this,
and accordingly after November 1st, 1871, purchase in
the army would no longer exist. Mr. Disraeli severely
condemned the step in the Commons, and a vote of
censure was passed in the Lords by a majority of eighty.
On the bill returning to the Lower House, however,
Ministers were cordially supported, and an opinion was
read from Sir Roundell Palmer to the effect that the
issue of the royal warrant was undoubtedly within the
power of the Crown ; and under all the difficult circum-
stances of the case, this was the least objectionable course
which the Government could pursue. The measure
passed, and although opinions were greatly diversified
upon the method by which the abolition of purchase
was secured, all were agreed in a short time as to the
substantial wisdom of the act itself. The work of army
reform was continued by Colonel Stanley (afterwards Lord
Stanley of Preston), War Minister in Lori Beaconsfield's
Administration, and practically completed during Mr.
Gladstone’s second administration by Mr. Childers’s
Army Act and Regulation of the Forces Act of 1881.
In 1871 the Local Government Board, which superseded Zoeal
and embodied the Poor Law Board of 1847, was consti- ºre
tuted. This board exercises supervision over the local Board.
taxation returns, areas of parishes, administration of
the poor-law, sanitary improvements, baths and wash-
B32
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The
Licensing
Jams.
Judica-
twre Act.
Patronage
in the
Scotch
Chºwrch.
houses, vaccination, and the prevention of disease. The
President and Parliamentary Secretary are usually mem-
bers of the House of Commons. There is a similar
board for Ireland, but in Scotland the duties are per-
formed by the Secretary for Scotland.
The English licensing laws have been the subject of
frequent discussion, but it was not until the passing of
Mr. Bruce's Licensing Act of 1872 that any considerable
reform was achieved. That act restricted the issue of
new licenses, subjected the liquor traffic to stricter
supervision, increased the penalties for misconduct, and
shortened the hours within which liquor might be sold.
A supplementary modifying act was passed in 1874, since
which no radical changes have been made in the laws,
though there has been much agitation in connection
with local option. In Scotland the Forbes-Mackenzie
Act of 1853 introduced a new form of magistrates’
certificate, the effect of which was to prohibit the sale
of liquor between the hours of 11 p.m. in large towns,
or 10 p.m. in the country, and 8 a.m., and during the
whole of Sunday. Amending acts were passed in 1862
and 1887. The general law in Ireland is similar to that
in England ; but by an act of 1874 six-day licenses were
introduced, and in 1878 total closing on Sunday was
made part of the law for all Ireland, with the exception
of the five largest towns.
In the session of 1873 Lord Selborne carried the
Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which constituted one
High Court of Justice, into which the Courts of Equity
and Common Law were consolidated—and a Supreme
Court of Appeal. This great measure, which adopted
and extended the views of lawyers like Brougham,
Westbury, and St. Leonards, practically completed the
fusion of law and equity, and established once for all
a uniform judicial system.
Two important ecclesiastical measures were passed in
the session of 1874. By the first, lay patronage in the
Established Church of Scotland was transferred from
the patrons to the male communicants of each kirk, so
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
533
that each congregation could henceforth choose its own
minister. The other measure, which closely affected the
Church of England, was the Public Worship Regulation
Bill, introduced in the Lords by the Archbishop of
Canterbury and in the Commons by Mr. Russell
Gurney. It was vehemently opposed in the Upper
House by Lord Salisbury and in the Lower by Mr.
Gladstone, who held it to be destructive of the inde-
pendence of the Church. It was as warmly defended
by Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Disraeli, and the
latter lost many Church supporters by describing it as
“a measure to put down Ritualism.” The chief incidents
in the debate in the Commons were a sharp passage of
arms between Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Gladstone,
and Mr. Disraeli’s description of the Marquis of Salihury
as “a great master of gibes and flouts and jeers.” #The
bill eventually passed and became law. Its main object
was to empower parishioners to invoke the authority of
the bishop, and to enable the bishop to prohibit by his
own mandate any practices which he considered improper
or else to submit the question to a judge specially ap-
pointed to adjudicate in such cases. The law could be
put in force whenever three parishioners declared them-
selves dissatisfied. A new court was erected, to which
was transferred the authority of the old Court of Arches,
and Lord Penzance was appointed the first judge. The
Act, however, has practically failed in its primary object:
the suppression of Ritualism.
In the session of 1875 the House of Commons altered
its regulations with regard to the exclusion of strangers.
Resolutions were passed to the effect that for the future
strangers be excluded, not at the request of a single
member, but on the vote of the majority of the House.
The Speaker, however, still retained his power of closing
the sitting.
The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 arranged for
the compensation of agricultural tenants for unexhausted
improvements in cases where landlords and tenants did
not object to come under the act. But the measure
CHAP. III
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Public
Worship
Regula-
tion Act,
Strangers
in Par-
liament.
Agricul-
twra!
Holdings
Act.
534
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Shipping
legisla-
tion.
Interna-
tional
questions.
Eactºradi-
tion Act.
proved unsatisfactory because the compensation was not
made compulsory, and facilities were given for evading
by private contract the enactments of the statute.
Another act, passed in 1883, gave the agricultural tenant
in Scotland a right on quitting his holding to obtain
pecuniary compensation from his landlord for the value
to the incoming tenant of such unexhausted improve-
ments, most generally made by tenants, as boning,
manuring, etc.; but the compensation was not to include
what was due to the inherent capabilities of the soil.
The act gave many advantages to the tenant, and parties
could not contract themselves out of it. Lord Cairns's
Land Transfer Act, passed in 1875, permitted holders of
land, whether qualified or possessory, to register their
titles ; but the permissive character of the legislation
largely nullified its usefulness.
Acts for the regulation of British merchant shipping
were passed at various intervals from 1854 to 1888.
These measures consolidated and amended the law as to
seamen and their contracts with employers, desertion,
provisions, unseaworthy ships, pilotage, signals, deck
cargoes, the load-line, life-saving apparatus, etc. The
chief of these acts, that of 1876, owed its passing to
the self-denying efforts of Mr. Samuel Plimsoll, member
for Derby. This statute, which superseded temporary
measures passed during three preceding sessions, con-
ferred stringent powers upon the Board of Trade for
the overhauling and detention of vessels, and imposed
severe penalties upon owners for sending out unsea-
worthy ships.
A considerable amount of legislation was effected
during the reign in connection with international ques-
tions, and with the slave trade, etc. The Alabama case
has been adverted to already ; but in 1870 the Extradition
Act was passed, which empowered the executive to carry
out extradition treaties made in accordance with its pro-
visions, viz., that no fugitive should be surrendered for a
political offence, nor tried for any but the crime for which
he was demanded. Treaties were made under this statute
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
535
with all the European states (except Russia), and with
some others. In 1873 Mr. Richard carried a motion
against the Government in favour of a general and
permanent system of international arbitration, but no
practical result followed. The Naturalisation Act, passed
in 1870, enabled aliens to own and to convey all kinds
of property, excepting British shipping, under no other
restrictions than those which apply to British citizens.
A British citizen who became naturalised in a foreign
state was to cease to be a British citizen unless within
two years he made a declaration of his wish to remain
a British citizen. British nationality might be resumed
on the performance of the same conditions as were
required for the naturalisation of aliens. In 1878 the
British government in Cyprus was organised under the
powers granted to the Queen and the Privy Council by
the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, 1843 to 1878. Great
excitement was caused in England by the issue of the
fugitive slave circulars of 1875-6. The first circular,
issued on August 21st, 1875, ordered officers to surrender
slaves who had escaped on board a British man-of-war,
when it was within the limits of the country from which
they had escaped, on the demand being supported by the
necessary proof. The popular indignation over this cir.
cular was so widespread that a new circular was issued in
October, which directed that when the personal danger
was over the officer was no longer to permit the slave
to remain on board. Finally, a royal commission was
appointed to inquire into the state of the law, and upon
its report a circular of a wholly different and innocuous
character was substituted. The Kidnapping Acts forbade
the entrapping of children either for reward or to serve
some object of the kidnapper ; entrapping slaves or men
to serve aboard ship was likewise made a felony, together
with the detention of native labourers or the carrying
them by sea from one country to another contrary to
existing provisions. The Consolidation (Slave Trade)
Act of 1873 had for its object the carrying into effect
treaties for the more effectual suppression of the slave
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Naturali.
sation Act.
Cyprus.
Fugitive
Slave cir-
culars.
The Slave
Trade,
536
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Terri-
torial
7vaters.
Foreign
Enlist-
ment Act.
Naval
Prize Act.
The
Public
ProSecu-
to?".
The Brad-
Zaugh case.
trade and for all purposes connected with the slave trade.
The act was of a most comprehensive character, and
included future treaties within its purview. The Terri-
torial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878 extended British
jurisdiction at sea to such a distance as was necessary for
the defence and security of our coasts. The Foreign
Enlistment Act of 1870 repealed and superseded the
earlier act of the same name of 1819. It followed the
general prohibitions of the earlier act against illegal
enlistment in the service of a foreign state at war with
a friendly state, but it also took precautions of a novel
and effective kind against illegal ship-building and expe-
ditions. The act enabled the Government to prohibit the
building as well as the escape of Alabamas; but the
Admiralty were to release suspected vessels on a bond
to the effect that they were not to be employed for any
illegal work. The Naval Prize Act of 1864 constituted
the High Court of Admiralty and all its branches a
permanent court of prize, and regulated the procedure
in prize cases.
The office of Public Prosecutor was created in 1879,
but in 1883 the duties of this office were transferred to
the Solicitor to the Treasury. Prosecutions are now
generally undertaken by the Treasury or by local authori-
ties, and criminal courts have been empowered to allow
costs to prosecutors.
The case of Mr. Charles Bradlaugh led to exciting
debates in several sessions, and to a remarkable display of
oratory on the part of Mr. Gladstone and others. Mr.
Bradlaugh was elected for Northampton in 1880. On
appearing at the table of the House of Commons he
refused to take the Parliamentary oath. As an atheist,
he claimed to make an affirmation of allegiance, and
after long discussion he was allowed to do so on his
own responsibility. It was decided by the courts of law,
however, that he was not eligible to make such an
affirmation. He next offered to take the oath, but was
forbidden, by 286 to 228, “to go through the form of
repeating the words of the oath.” On February 21st,
xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
537
1882, Mr. Bradlaugh appeared in Parliament and took
the oath upon a copy of the New Testament which he
had brought with him. Upon this he was expelled, by
297 to 80 votes, for violating the orders of the House,
and a new writ for Northampton was ordered. A long
struggle now began between the House and Mr. Bradlaugh.
He was thrice re-elected by Northampton, and at length
in 1886, having taken the oath, he was permitted to take
his seat. Contrary to expectation, he proved a very
useful member.
A Burial Laws Amendment Act was passed in 1880,
which permitted the burial of Nonconformists and others
in Church of England burial-grounds without the service
of the Church of England, and in some cases with other
services.
The Ground Game Act of 1880, more widely known
as the Hares and Rabbits Bill, was carried, after great
opposition, by Sir William Harcourt. By this act, an
inalienable right was conferred on the occupier to destroy
hares and rabbits found upon his land under certain
conditions.
In 1881 measures were passed reforming the law of
conveyancing and the law of libel as affecting newspapers.
The parcel post was established in 1882, and acts relating
to electric lighting, Government annuities, and married
women’s property were passed. Patents were dealt with
in 1883, and an act was passed for the encouragement of
Irish industry and enterprise.
IX.-PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
The wide extension of the suffrage, with protective
measures against bribery, and the provision of facilities
for voting at elections, have been important features of
her Majesty’s reign.
As early as 1833 Mr. Grote took up the question of the
ballot, and he continued to bring forward his motion
almost yearly until the year 1839. His speeches were
distinguished for their calm and philosophical arguments;
but although the minority in favour of the ballot rose
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The
JBºrial
La/vs.
Ground
Game
Act.
Miscel-
laneous
Acts.
Beform
7)06&S7//’6S.
The
Ballot.
538
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
The Sep-
ten?vial
Act.
The
County
Franchise.
Chartist
demon-
Strations.
from 106 in 1833 to 216 in 1839, the majority against it
rose in the same period from 211 to 333. When Mr.
Grote retired from Parliament, Mr. Ward took up the
motion, but he was defeated in 1842 by 290 to 157. In
1848 Mr. Henry Berkeley succeeded to the charge, and
in that year he managed to snatch a victory for his motion
by 86 to 81 votes. The division was a very small one ;
and when Mr. Berkeley brought on his motion again in
1849, he was defeated by a majority of 51. In 1851,
however, he carried his motion, in spite of the opposition
of Lord John Russell and the Government, by a majority
of 51, but the matter got no further. In 1852 the majority
against the ballot was 102, and in 1860 107.
Mr. Tennyson d'Eyncourt made several ineffectual
attempts to procure the repeal of the Septennial Act,
on the ground that prolonged Parliaments were inimical
to popular freedom ; but there was a growing indifference
amongst members to the subject, and whereas the motion
was rejected in 1833 by 213 to 164, in 1837 the division
only showed 96 against the motion and 87 for it. Even
these numbers were greatly diminished in 1843, when
Mr. Sharman Crawford's repeal motion was lost by 46
to 23.
In 1839 Sir Hesketh Fleetwood’s motion to reduce the
county franchise to £10 was rejected by 207 to 81.
Large numbers of the working classes, who were dis-
appointed with the results of the Reform Act of 1832,
and whose sufferings were great in consequence of the
scarcity of work and the dearness of food, formed them-
selves into Chartist organisations in the fall of 1837.
They began to agitate for radical political reforms, and
in 1838 their leaders drew up the six points of the People's
Charter, namely, manhood suffrage, equal electoral dis-
tricts, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, abolition of
property qualification for members of the House of
Commons, and payment of members of Parliament for
their services. The movement excited great enthusiasm,
and spread rapidly. Among its leaders were Fergus
O’Connor, Ernest Jones, and Thomas Cooper. Most of
xiii. LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
539
the Chartists supported an appeal to moral force only,
but a considerable number undoubtedly advocated more
violent methods. A national convention met in London,
and afterwards in Birmingham, in 1839. A collision with
the military took place in the latter city ; and public
meetings being forbidden by the authorities, alarming
riots occurred in various parts of the Midlands. On
June 14th, 1839, a monster petition, signed by one
million two hundred and eighty thousand persons, was
presented to the House of Commons. The petition was
temperately discussed, but a motion for referring it to
a committee was lost by the overwhelming majority of
235 to 46. The more lawless members of the organisation
now resorted to violence, and there were Chartist riots
at Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, and other places.
A rising at Newport, in Monmouthshire, resulted in the
death of ten persons and serious injury to a great many
others. Three of the popular leaders—Frost, Williams,
and Jones—were tried and transported. In 1842 there
were other food and labour riots in the North and in the
Midlands, which were aided by the Chartists, though not
directly originated by them. Another monster petition
was presented to Parliament in 1842, but Mr. Duncombe’s
motion to allow counsel to be heard in support of it was
rejected by 287 to 49. The French Revolution of 1848
revived the hopes of the Chartists. A great meeting
was summoned for April 10th at Kennington Common,
and it was resolved to carry a Chartist petition, purporting
to bear the signatures of five million persons, to the very
doors of the House of Commons. The Government took
every precaution to guard the City and all the approaches
to Westminster ; while the Houses of Parliament were
filled with police, and the streets protected by one
hundred and seventy thousand special constables. The
Chartist procession was forbidden, and the demonstration
proved a failure. Not more than from thirty to fifty
thousand persons assembled, instead of a hundred and
fifty thousand. The leaders shrank from a conflict with
the authorities, and a heavy rainstorm dispersed the
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
*-*.
A monster
petition.
540 HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook
CHAP. III, agitators. The petition, alleged as above to bear five
Legisla million signatures, was examined by order of the House
* of Commons and found to contain only one million nine
Vºrº hundred thousand signatures, though this was the largest
number ever affixed to such a document. From this
time the Chartist agitation rapidly died out ; but it is
noteworthy that several points of the charter, which
were then held to be wild and revolutionary in the
extreme, have since become the law of the land.
*. Bribery at elections is a subject which has again and
’ “” again occupied the attention of Parliament. Sudbury,
long notorious for its corruption, was disfranchised in
1844, and St. Albans in 1852. Two of the four seats
which thus became vacant were assigned to the West
Riding of Yorkshire in 1861, and one each to Birkenhead
and South Lancashire. The freemen of Great Yarmouth
were disfranchised as a body by act of Parliament in
1848, and corrupt practices have been from time to
time exposed at Warwick, Stafford, Ipswich, Hull,
Barnstaple, Beverley, Nottingham, and other places.
To remedy the evils of bribery various measures
have been passed during the last fifty years. The
act of 1841, introduced by Lord John Russell, extended
the powers of election committees, and required them
to receive evidence generally upon the charges of
bribery, without previous investigation of agency. This
measure facilitated the detection of bribery, though it
often pressed heavily upon the sitting member. A
further act passed in 1842 provided for the prosecution
of investigations into bribery after an election committee
had closed its inquiries, or where charges of bribery had
been withdrawn. This measure proving ineffectual, a
more stringent act was passed in 1852, which provided
for the most searching inquiries into corrupt practices by
commissioners appointed by the Crown on the address of
the two Houses of Parliament. In 1854 a more general
measure was carried, which made the offer or acceptance
of a bribe a misdemeanour, punishable by fine, imprison-
ment, and forfeiture of franchise. It likewise restrained
xiii. LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA. 541
candidates from paying any election expenses except CHAP. III.
through their authorised agents and the election auditor, Legisla:
and provided for the publication of accounts of all election * er"
expenses. An act passed in 1858 permitted the convey- V*.
ance of voters to the poll, but forbade money to be given
to the voters themselves for the purpose. In 1868 the
jurisdiction in election petitions was given to the judges Election
of the superior courts, with excellent results. The judge Pºº".
reports to the Speaker in each case, and the House takes
the requisite action upon the report. The severest and
most comprehensive statute against bribery is Sir Henry
James's Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, which limits the Corrupt
legal expenditure of the candidate and his agents to a *
certain sum calculated on the number of electors, and
visits with heavy penalties any authorised or unauthorised
expenditure beyond this limit. Bribery may be committed
before, during, or after the election, and may consist of
promises to give refreshments, to pay travelling or
vehicular expenses, or the offering of any valuable con-
sideration to corrupt the mind of the elector. If it be
proved that the candidate or any of his agents have been
guilty of bribery, or that bribery, though not traced to any
one, has taken place on a large scale, the election is void,
and the guilty persons may be punished by imprisonment
for one year, a fine of £200, or by electoral incapacity,
and incapacity to be elected to Parliament or to any
public office; the civil incapacity to last for seven years.
Should bribery be brought home to the knowledge of the
candidate, he may be declared incapable of ever again
representing the particular constituency ; and bribery by
agents will exclude the candidate from that constituency
for seven years. Bribery at municipal elections was
dealt with by the Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections)
Act of 1884, which put the law on the same basis as that
regulating Parliamentary elections.
The county franchise was made the subject of The
numerous motions in Parliament. This question was º
first systematically taken up by Mr. Locke King. In chise.
the session of 1851, his proposal for assimilating the
542
FIISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. [Book
Vº
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Mº'.
JHume's
motions
for reform.
Lord
John
Bussell's
2726&$707'éS.
county with the borough franchise was supported by
some Liberals, and unexpectedly carried against the
Government by 100 to 52. When the second reading of
Mr. King's measure came on, however, members attended
in greater numbers, and the bill was rejected by 299 to
83. Mr. Bright advocated a consideration of the subject.
Mr. Locke King reintroduced the bill in 1857, when it
was lost by the narrow majority of 192 to 179. In
the following session the bill passed its second reading .
by 226 to 168, but, in consequence of the pressure of other
measures and the lateness of the session, it was withdrawn.
Reintroduced in 1861, it was negatived by 248 to 229,
and again in 1864 by 254 to 227. When Mr. Locke
King died, Mr. (afterwards Sir George) Trevelyan took
up the Parliamentary lead on this question. Beginning
in 1872, he introduced his motion in five consecutive
sessions. In 1876 it was warmly supported by Mr.
Bright as the best means for neutralising any agitation
for manhood or universal suffrage. The motion was
opposed by Mr. Disraeli, however, and defeated by 264
to 165. In 1878 it was lost by 271 to 219, and in 1879
by 291 to 226. Household suffrage was eventually
extended to the counties by the Reform Act of 1884.
Mr. Joseph Hume vainly endeavoured to persuade
Parliament to pass a radical reform measure. In 1848
he brought forward a reform scheme embracing house-
hold suffrage, triennial Parliaments, equal electoral
districts, and the ballot ; but it was rejected by 351
votes to 84. He introduced the scheme again in several
subsequent sessions; but it was rejected in 1849 by
268 to 82, in 1850 by 242 to 96, and in 1852 by 244
to 89.
But the Whig Government felt the necessity of legis-
lating upon this matter, and, in response to a pledge made
in 1851, Lord John Russell introduced a Ministerial
Reform Bill in the session of 1852. It proposed a £20
rating franchise in counties and a £5 rating franchise
in boroughs; small boroughs were to be grouped together,
and taxpayers to the amount of 40s. per annum were
xiii.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
543
to have the franchise in both counties and boroughs.
A Ministerial crisis occurring shortly after the intro-
duction of the bill, however, it was abandoned. Lord
John Russell introduced another bill in 1854 proposing
a £10 rating franchise in counties and a £6 one in
boroughs. It contained also educational, savings-bank,
and other so-called “fancy " franchises. The Crimean
war having broken out, this and other causes compelled
the withdrawal of the measure.
Mr. Disraeli next made an effort to deal with the
question. Introducing the Conservative Reform Bill of
1859, he explained that it was not intended to alter the
limits of the franchise, but to establish a new franchise
in the boroughs founded upon personal property. It was
proposed to give votes to persons receiving £10 yearly
from the funds or £20 in pensions, as well as to graduates
in the universities, ministers of religion, members of the
legal and medical profession, and some other classes.
The bill further recognised the principle of identity of
suffrage between the counties and the towns. Mr.
Walpole and Mr. Henley retired from the Government
on the ground that this new principle was utterly at
variance with the traditions of the Conservative party.
Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright complained that the
bill did nothing for the working classes, and it was
rejected on its second reading by 330 to 291. Ministers
now dissolved Parliament, but they sustained losses at
the polling booths, and when the new Parliament met
in May it was found to consist of 348 Liberals and 305
Conservatives. An amendment to the Address moved by
Lord Hartington was carried by 323 to 310 votes,
whereupon Lord Derby resigned and was succeeded by
Lord Palmerston as Premier.
Early in the session of 1860, Lord John Russell
fulfilled the intentions of the new Government with
regard to reform by introducing a bill which pro-
posed to reduce the county franchise to £10 and that
of the boroughs to £6. The latter change would have
had the effect of increasing the number of borough
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Tory
Reform
Bill of
1859,
The
Liberal
Bill of
1860.
544
FHISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſhook
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Borough
Fram-
chise.
The Re-
form Bill
of 1866.
voters from four hundred and forty to six hundred and
thirty-four thousand. Twenty-five seats were to be
taken from small places returning two members, and
divided among new constituencies. Little progress
was made with the bill, however; and on June 11th
Lord John Russell announced its withdrawal. A
temporary apathy now fell upon the House of Commons
in connection with this subject, and at the opening of
the session of 1861 no mention of the matter was made
in the royal speech, much to the disappointment of all
earnest reformers.
The question of the borough franchise was next
taken up by a private member, Mr. Edward Baines.
In the session of 1861 his motion for the reduction of
the borough franchise was negatived by 245 to 193.
Three years later the same motion was defeated by
272 to 216 ; and in 1865 the scheme was rejected by
288 to 214. -
After the death of Lord Palmerston, the Russell-
Gladstone Ministry made an earnest effort to grapple
with the question. On March 12th, 1866, Mr. Gladstone
introduced the Government Reform Bill, which proposed
to fix the county franchise at £14 rental and the borough
franchise at £7 rental, lodgers to enjoy the suffrage by
paying £10 clear annual value. Debates of unusual
eloquence followed the introduction of the measure, that
on the second reading being probably unparalleled for
speeches of first-class power. Mr. Gladstone closed it
with a speech which ranked amongst his highest efforts.
He predicted an ultimate triumph for the cause, and
assured his opponents that, although they might bury
the bill, it would rise again : “You cannot fight against
the future ; time is on our side.” Owing to the secession
of a number of Liberals, led by Mr. Lowe, whom Mr.
Bright described as “Adullamites,” the second reading was
carried by five votes only : 318 to 313. The Government
decided to go on with the bill, but they were defeated in
committee on a crucial point. Lord Dunkellin having
proposed an amendment in favour of a borough franchise
1țz.· Zog I HO ITIĶI IN HOÀ GIAI GIHI. ĐNIonCIOȘILNI IT@vaeſsIGI ‘’’I W
Ř@@
→ººº ！
ŻSZSZSZSZK575
--... & .
:,:#####7+ +

xiii. LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
545
based on rating instead of rental, the proposition was
carried against the Government by 315 votes to 304.
Ministers now resigned office, and great agitation ensued
in London and the provinces. A serious riot took place
in Hyde Park, and there was an enormous reform demon-
stration at Birmingham.
In the session of 1867 Mr. Disraeli introduced a
Ministerial Reform Bill, but it did not satisfy the
Liberals, and its author withdrew it. He then brought
forward a measure of a much more democratic character,
which led to the retirement of three members of the
Cabinet: the Earl of Carnarvon, General Peel, and Lord
Cranborne. The bill was proceeded with, and, in com-
pliance with the demands of Mr. Gladstone, a great
number of proposed restrictions were removed. As it
ultimately passed, the Reform Act of 1867 established
household suffrage in boroughs, with a lodger franchise
of £10; in the counties a £12 Occupation franchise was
established. The education and tax-paying franchises
originally proposed were struck out. Under the accom-
panying redistribution scheme, the boroughs of Lancaster,
Reigate, and Great Yarmouth were disfranchised for gross
bribery, and a third member was added to the representa-
tion of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds ;
but in these boroughs, returning three members, each
voter was only allowed to give two votes. One member
was awarded to London University ; Salford, Chelsea,
and Hackney were henceforth to return two members
each ; and nine new boroughs were created to return
one member each. The West Riding of Yorkshire was
divided into three divisions, each returning two mem-
bers ; Lancashire was divided into four divisions, each
returning two members ; and ten counties were divided
into three instead of two divisions, each returning two
members. These various changes disposed of forty-
four seats out of a total of fifty-two gained by the
partial or total disfranchisement of boroughs. The
eight remaining seats were thus apportioned : an
additional member to Merthyr Tydvil, one member
WOL. II. 35
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
Reform
Act of
1867.

546
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISHI PARLIAMENT. [book
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
The Ballot
Act.
Beform
Acts of
1884-85.
each to two new Scotch university constituencies, an
additional member each to Glasgow and Dundee, one
member for the Border Burghs ; while one member was
taken from Peeblesshire and Selkirkshire, which were
henceforth to return one member conjointly; and three
seats were distributed among other Scotch counties.
Lord Cranborne described the Reform Act of 1867 as a
political betrayal which had no parallel; and the Prime
Minister, Lord Derby, described it as “a leap in the dark.”
Reform acts for Ireland and Scotland were passed in
1868. In Ireland the borough franchise was reduced
from £8 to £4; in Scotland the occupation franchise in
counties was reduced to £14.
Vote by ballot became a practical question in 1869,
when a select committee of the House of Commons
reported in favour of it as a necessary safeguard against
corruption, intimidation, disorder, and all kinds of undue
interference at elections. The principle was adopted for
school board elections in 1870. In the Queen's Speech
of 1871 the ballot was referred to, and Mr. Forster
brought in a bill for its adoption at Parliamentary elec-
tions. The measure was fiercely contested, but it passed
the Commons and was sent to the Upper House, where it
was rejected by 97 votes to 48, chiefly on the ground of
the lateness of the session. The Ballot Bill was reintro-
duced in the session of 1872 and carried, after prolonged
debates. The Lords endeavoured to make secret voting
optional, but the Commons would, not accept the amend-
ment, and the Lords yielded. The act established secret
voting at all Parliamentary and municipal elections,
except Parliamentary elections for universities. Public
nominations at the hustings and public declarations of
the poll, which had often been attended by scenes of
rioting and violence, were now abolished.
The Suffrage was widely extended, and the Constitution
made still more democratic, by the Representation of the
People Act of 1884 and the Redistribution and Registra-
tion Acts of 1885. On February 28th, 1884, Mr.
Gladstone introduced the Franchise Bill in the House

…'s Nowiwoo ao cisnoſi sihi. Ni on tºivºtais sixolscivºlo ， iiv





xIII.] LEGISLATION UNDER QUEEN VICTORIA.
547
of Commons. It proposed to give the suffrage to every
male person throughout the United Kingdom who was
the head of a household. The effect of the measure, said
the Premier, would be to add to the English constituency
upwards of 1,300,000 voters, to the Scottish constituency
over 200,000, and to the Irish constituency over 400,000,
thus adding to the aggregate constituency of the United
Kingdom—which was estimated at 3,000,000–2,000,000
more, or nearly twice as many as were added in 1867,
and more than four times as many as were added in 1832.
It was proposed to assimilate the county franchise with
that in the boroughs. Household, lodger, and service
franchises were given to the counties. The bill passed
the Commons and went to the Lords, but the peers
refused to consider any measure for extending the franchise
until the details of the Government scheme of redistribu-
tion were before them. The action of the Upper House
led to much agitation in the autumn recess. Parliament
assembled again in October, and the Franchise Bill was
reintroduced. A singular compromise was effected
between the two Houses. The Government laid their
redistribution proposals before Lord Salisbury and Sir
Stafford Northcote at a private conference. The leaders
of the Opposition attended meetings of the Cabinet, the
result being that an amicable understanding was arrived at.
The Redistribution Bill was next brought forward in the
Commons by Mr. Gladstone. This measure proposed
to disfranchise all boroughs with a population not
exceeding 15,000, to give only one member to towns
and districts with a population of from 15,000 to 50,000,
and to take one member each from the counties of
Rutland and Hereford. These proposals had the effect
of extinguishing 160 seats, which—with six seats dis-
franchised some years before, and now revived—would
be distributed as follows: eight new boroughs would
be created; the representation of London, Liverpool,
and other large cities and towns would be increased ; and
in dealing with the remainder of the unappropriated seats
Government would apply the principle of equal electoral
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria.
548
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT. ſnook XII II,
CHAP. III.
Legisla-
tion under
Queen
Victoria,
Conclu-
sion.
districts throughout the country. Twelve members were
added to the House of Commons, thus raising the total
number to 670. The Franchise Bill passed through both
Houses and became law; and the principle of the Redistri-
bution Bill having been affirmed, Parliament was
prorogued. When the Houses reassembled in February,
1885, the redistribution scheme was proceeded with.
Several important amendments were proposed, but only
one was carried, providing that the expenses of the new
registration in Ireland were to be met out of imperial,
and not out of local, taxation. The Redistribution
scheme passed both Houses, and Registration Acts were
also carried for England, Scotland, and Ireland.
With this last great measure of reform our historical
survey of Parliament closes. A long and momentous
period in British history is that which extends from
Edward I. to Victoria; but all through these six centuries
the Constitution has been expanding, until it has drawn
within its democratic limits the best blood and strength
of the empire. That we have yet reached the ideal state
desired for a free nation would scarcely be maintained
by any student of the social and economic aspects of
English life ; but as with all great changes in the past,
so with those in the future, we need indulge no fears
of national decadence. Person and property were never
more securely guarded in England than they are to-day;
and with every widening of the bounds of the Constitution,
and every extension of civil and religious freedom, the
people have advanced socially, morally, and intellectually.
Individuals and leaders pass away, but the nation abides,
strong in the strength of its freedom and its virtues; and
while the British character remains what it is, so long
will the British Constitution continue to be the envy and
admiration of the world.
THE END.
CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.

CONSTITUTIONAL ADDEN DA.
THE GREAT CHARTER, A.D. 1215.
THE following translation of the great charter of English liberties, the Magna
Carta of King John, is from the original copy preserved in the archives of
Lincoln Cathedral, which is regarded as the most accurate :-
John, by the Grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Nor-
mandy and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou, to his Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots,
Earls, Barons, Justiciaries, Foresters, Sheriffs, Governors, Officers, and to all
Bailiffs, and his faithful subjects, Greeting. Know ye, that We, in the presence
of God, and for the Salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors,
and of our heirs, to the honour of God, and the exaltation of the Holy Church and
amendment of our Kingdom, by the counsel of our venerable fathers, Stephen
Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Cardinal of the Holy
Roman Church, Henry Archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of
Winchester, Joceline of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of
Worcester, William of Coventry, and Benedict of Rochester, Bishops; Master
Pandulph our Lord the Pope's Subdeacon and familiar, Brother Almeric, Master
of the Knights-Templars in England, and of these noble persons, William
Mareschal Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Salisbury, William Earl of Warren,
William Earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway, Constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz
Gerald, Hubert de Burgh, Seneschal of Poictou, Peter Fitz-Herbert, Hugh de
Nevil, Matthew Fitz-Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip de Albiniac,
Robert de Roppel, John Mareschal, John Fitz-Hugh, and others our liegemen ;
have in the first place granted to God, and by this our present charter, have con-
firmed for us and.our heirs for ever :—(I.) That the English Church shall be free,
and shall have her whole rights and her liberties inviolable ; and we will this to
be observed in such a manner, that it may appear from thence, that the freedom of
elections, which was reputed most requisite to the English Church, which we
granted, and by our Charter confirmed, and obtained the confirmation of the
same, from our Lord Pope Innocent the Third, before the rupture between us and
our Barons, was of our own free will ; which Charter we shall observe, and we will
it to be observed with good faith, by our heirs for ever.—(II.) We have also
granted to all the Freemen of our Kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the
underwritten Liberties, to be enjoyed and held by them and by their heirs, from
Ils and from our heirs.-(II. 1.) If any of our Earls or Barons, or others who hold
of us in chief by military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full
552 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
age, and shall owe a relief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient relief ;
that is to say the heir or heirs of an Earl, a whole Earl's Barony for one hundred
pounds: the heir or heirs of a Baron for a whole Barony, by one hundred pounds;
the heir or heirs of a Knight, for a whole Knight's fee, by one hundred shillings at
most : and he who owes less, shall give less according to the ancient custom of
fees.—(III. 2.) But if the heir of any such be under age, and in wardship, when
he comes to age he shall have his inheritance without relief and without fine,—
(IV. 3.) The warden of the land of such an heir who shall be under age, shall not
take from the lands of the heir any but reasonable issues, and reasonable customs,
and reasonable services, and that without destruction and waste of the men or
goods, and if we commit the custody of any such lands to a Sheriff, or any other
person who is bound to us for the issues of them, and he shall make destruction or
waste upon the ward-lands, we will recover damages from him, and the lands shall
be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fee, who shall answer for the
issues to us, or to him to whom we have assigned them. And if we shall give or sell to
anyone the custody of any such lands, and he shall make destruction or waste upon
them, he shall lose the custody ; and it shall be committed to two lawful and
discreet men of that fee, who shall answer to us in like manner as it is said before.
—(W.) But the warden, as long as he hath the custody of the lands, shall keep up
and maintain the houses, parks, warrens, ponds, mills, and other things belonging
to them, out of their issues; (35.) and shall restore to the heir when he comes of
full age, his whole estate, provided with ploughs and other implements of
husbandry, according as the time of Wainage shall require, and the issues of the
lands can reasonably afford.—(VI. 3.) Heirs shall be married without disparage-
ment, so that before the marriage be contracted, it shall be notified to the relations
of the heir by consanguinity.—(WII. 4.) A widow, after the death of her husband,
shall immediately and without difficulty have her marriage and her inheritance;
nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage, or for her inherit-
ance, which her husband and she held at the day of his death ; and she may
remain in her husband's house forty days after his death, within which time her dower
shall be assigned.—(WIII. 17.) No widow shall be distrained to marry herself,
while she is willing to live without a husband; but yet she shall give security
that she will not marry herself without our consent, if she hold of us, or without
the consent of the lord of whom she does hold, if she hold of another.—(IX. 5.)
Neither we nor our Bailiffs, will seize any land or rent for any debt, while the
chattels of the debtor are sufficient for the payment of the debt; nor shall the
sureties of the debtor be distrained, while the principal debtor is able to pay the
debt; and if the principal debtor fail in payment of the debt, not having where-
with to discharge it, the sureties shall answer for the debt ; and if they be willing,
they shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, until satisfaction be made to
them for the debt which they had before paid for him, unless the principal
debtor can shew himself acquitted thereof against the said sureties.—(X. 34.) If
anyone hath borrowed anything from the Jews, more or less, and die before that
debt be paid, the debt shall pay no interest so long as the heir shall be under age,
of whomsoever he may hold ; and if that debt shall fall into our hands, we will
not take anything except the chattel contained in the bond.—(XI. 35.) And if
anyone shall die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and shall pay
nothing of that debt ; and if children of the deceased shall remain who are under
age, necessaries shall be provided for them, according to the tenement which
belonged to the deceased ; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, saving the
rights of the lords (of whom the lands are held). In like manner let it be with
debts owing to others than Jews.--(XII. 32.) No scutage nor aid shall be imposed
in our kingdom, unless by the common council of our kingdom ; excepting to
redeem our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and once to marry our eldest
daughter, and not for these, unless a reasonable aid shall be demanded.—(XIII.)
In like manner let it be concerning the aids of the City of London.—And the City
of London should have all its ancient liberties, and its free customs, as well by
land as by water.—Furthermore, we will and grant that all other Cities, and
Burghs, and Towns, and Ports, should have all their liberties and free customs.
—(XIV.) And also to have the common council of the kingdom, to assess and aid,
THE GREAT CHARTER, A.D. 1215. 553
otherwise than in the three cases aforesaid: and for the assessing of scutages, we
will cause to be summoned the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls, and great
Barons, individually, by our letters.-And besides, we will cause to be summoned
in general by our Sheriffs and Bailiffs, all those who hold of us in chief, at a
certain day, that is to say at the distance of forty days, (before their meeting,)
at the least, and to a certain place ; and in all the letters of summons, we will
express the cause of the summons : and the summons being thus made, the
business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of those who
shall be present, although all who had been summoned have not come.—(XV. 6.)
We will not give leave to anyone, for the future, to take an aid of his own free-
men, except for redeeming his own body, and for making his eldest son a knight,
and for marrying once his eldest daughter ; and not that unless it be a reasonable
aid.—(XVI. 7.) None shall be distrained to do more service for a Knight's Fee,
nor for any other free tenement, than what is due from thence.—(XVII. 8.)
Common Pleas shall not follow our court, but shall be held in any certain place.—
(XVIII.) Trials upon the Writs of Novel Disseisin of Mort d’Ancestre (death of the
ancestor), and Darrien Presentment (last presentation), shall not be taken but in
their proper counties, and in this manner:—We, or our Chief Justiciary, if we are
out of the kingdom, will send two Justiciaries into each county, four times in the
year, who, with four knights of each county, chosen by the county, shall hold the
aforesaid assizes within the county on the day and at the place appointed.--
(XIX. 13.) And if the aforesaid assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county-
court, let as many knights and freeholders, of those who were present at the
county-court, remain behind, as shall be sufficient to do justice, according to
the great or less importance of the business.—(XX. 9.) A freeman shall not be
amerced for a small offence, but only according to the degree of the offence ; and
for a great delinquency, according to the magnitude of the delinquency saving his
contenement : a Merchant shall be amerced in the same manner, saving his
merchandise, and a villain shall be amerced after the same manner, saving to him
his wainage, if he shall fall into our mercy ; and none of the aforesaid amercia-
ments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest men of the vicinage.—(XXI.)
Earls and Barons shall not be amerced but by their peers, and that only according
to the degree of their delinquency.-(XXII. 10.) No Clerk shall be amerced for
his lay-tenement, but according to the manner of the others as aforesaid, and not
according to the quantity of his ecclesiastical benefice.—(XXIII. 11.) Neither a
town nor any person shall be distrained to build bridges or embankments, excepting
those which anciently, and of right, are bound to do it.—(XXIV. 14.) No Sheriff,
Constable, Coroners, nor other of our Bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown.—
(XXV.) All counties, and Hundreds, Trethings, and Wapontakes, shall be at the
ancient rent, without any increase, excepting in our Demesne-manors.-(XXVI. 15.)
If anyone holding of us a lay fee dies, and the Sheriff or our Bailiff shall shew
our letters-patent of summons concerning the debt which the defunct owed to us,
it shall be lawful for the Sheriff or our Bailiff to attach and register the chattels of
the defunct found in that lay-fee, to the amount of that debt, by the view of lawful
men, so that nothing shall be removed from thence until our debt be paid to us;
and the rest shall be left to the executors to fulfil the will of the defunct ; and if
nothing be owing to us by him, all the chattels shall fall to the defunct, saving to
his wife and children their reasonable shares.—(XXVII. 16.) If any freeman shall
die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands of his nearest relations
and friends, by the view of the Church, saving to every one the debts which the
defunct owed.—(XXVIII. 18.) No Constable nor other Bailiff of ours shall take
the corn or other goods of anyone, without instantly paying money for them,
unless he can obtain respite from the free will of the seller.—(XXIX. 19.) No
Constable (Governor of a Castle) shall distrain any Knight to give money for castle
guard, if he be willing to perform it in his own person, or by another able man, if he
cannot perform it himself, for a reasonable cause: and if we have carried or sent
him into the army, he shall be excused from castle guard, according to the time
that he shall be in the army by our command.—(XXX. 20.) No Sheriff nor Bailiff
of ours, nor any other person shall take the horses or carts of any freeman, for
the purpose of carriage, without the consent of the said freeman,—(XXXI. 21.)
554 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENIDA.
Neither we, nor our Bailiffs, will take another man's wood, for our castles or other uses,
unless by the consent of him to whom the wood belongs.-(XXXII. 22.) We will not
retain the lands of those who have been convicted of felony, excepting for one year
and one day, and then they shall be given up to the lord of the fee.—(XXXIII.
23.) All Rydells (wears) for the future shall be quite removed out of the Thames,
and the Medway, and through all England, excepting upon the sea-coast.—
(XXXIV. 24.) The writ which is called Praecipe, for the future shall not be
granted to anyone of any tenement, by which a freeman may lose his court.—
(XXXV. 12.) There shall be one measure of wine throughout all our Kingdom, and
one measure of ale, and one measure of corn, namely the quarter of London ; and
one breadth of dyed cloth, and of russets, and of halberjects, namely, two ells within
the lists. Also it shall be the same with weights as with measures.—(XXXVI.
26.) Nothing shall be given or taken for the future for the Writ of Inquisition of
life or limb ; but it shall be given without charge, and not denied.—(XXXVII.
27.) If any hold of us by Fee-Farm, or Socage, or Burgage, and hold land of
another by Military Service, we will not have the custody of the heir, nor of his
lands, which are of the fee of another, on account of that Fee-Farm, or Socage, or
Durgage ; nor will we have the custody of that Fee-Farm, or Socage, or Burgage,
unless the Fee-Farm owe Military Service. We will not have the custody of the
heir, nor of the lands of any one, which he holds of another by Military Service, on
account of any Petty Sergeantry which he holds of us by the service of giving us
daggers, or arrows, or the like.—(XXXVIII. 28.) No Bailiff, for the future, shall
put any man to his law, upon his own simple affirmation, without credible
witnesses produced for that purpose.-(XXXIX. 29.) No freeman shall be seized,
or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed ; nor will we
condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment
of his peers, or by the laws of the land.—(XL. 30.) To none will we sell, to nome
will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice.—(XLI. 31.) All Merchants
shall have Safety and security in coming to England, and going out of England, and
in staying and travelling through England, as well by land as by water, to buy
and sell, without any unjust exactions, according to ancient and right customs,
excepting in the time of war, and if they be of a country at war against us: and
if such are found in our land at the beginning of a war, they shall be appre-
hended without injury of their bodies and goods, until it be known to us, or
to our Chief Justiciary, how the merchants of our country are treated who are
found in the country at war against us ; and if ours be in safety there, the others
shall be in safety in our land.—(XLII. 33.) It shall be lawful to any person, for
the future, to go out of our Kingdom, and to return safely and securely, by land
or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for Some short
space, for the common good of the kingdom ; excepting prisoners and outlaws
according to the laws of the land, and of the people of the nation at war against us,
and Merchants who shall be treated as it is said above.—(XLIII. 36.) If any
hold of any escheat, as of the Honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne,
Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hand, and are Baronies, and shall
die, his heir shall not give any other relief, nor do any other service to us, than he
should have done to the Baron, if that Barony had been in the hands of the Baron ;
and we will hold it in the same manner that the Baron held it.—(XLIV. 39.) Men
who dwell without the Forest shall not come, for the future, before our Justiciaries
of the Forest on a common summons; unless they be parties in a plea, or sureties
for some person or persons who are attached for the Forest.—(XLV. 42.) We will
not make Justiciaries, Constables, Sheriffs, or Bailiffs, excepting of such as know
the laws of the land, and are well disposed to observe them.—(XLVI. 43.) All
Barons who have founded Abbies, which they hold by charters from the Kings of
England, or by ancient tenure, shall have the custody of them when they become
vacant, as they ought to have.—(XLVII. 47.) All Forests which have been made
in our time, shall be immediately disforested ; and it shall be so done with Water-
banks, which have been taken or fenced in by us during our reign.—(XLVIII. 39.)
All evil customs of Forests and Warrens, and of Foresters and Warreners, Sheriffs
and their officers, Water-banks and their keepers, shall immediately be inquired
into by twelve Knights of the same county, upon oath, who shall be elected by
THE GREAT CHARTER, A.D. 1215. 555
good men of the same county; and within forty days after the inquisition is made,
they shall be altogether destroyed by them never to be restored; provided that
this be notified to us before it be done, or to our Justiciary, if we be not in England.—
(XLIX. 38.) We will immediately restore all hostages and charters, which have
been delivered to us by the English, in security of the peace of their faithful
service.—(L. 40.) We will remove from their bailiwicks the relations of Gerard
de Athyes, so that, for the future, they shall have no bailiwick in England; En-
gelard de Cygony, Andrew, Peter, and Gyone de Chancell, Gyone de Cygony,
Geoffrey de Martin and his brothers, Philip Mark, and his brothers, and Geoffrey
his nephew, and all their followers.-(LI. 41.) And immediately after the con-
clusion of the peace, we will remove out of the Kingdom all foreign Knights,
crossbowmen, and stipendiary soldiers, who have come with horses and arms to
the molestation of the Kingdom.—(LII. 25.) If any have been disseised or
dispossessed by us, without a legal verdict of their peers, of their lands, castles,
liberties, or rights, we will immediately restore these things to them ; and if any
.dispute shall arise on this head, then it shall be determined by the verdict of
twenty-five Barons, of whom mention is made below, for the security of the peace.—
Concerning all those things of which anyone hath been disseised or dispossessed,
without the legal verdict of his peers by King Henry our father, or King Richard
our brother, which we have in our hand, or others hold with our warrants, we shall
have respite, until the common term of the Croisaders, excepting those concerning
which a plea had been moved, or an inquisition taken, by our precept, before our
taking the Cross; but as soon as we shall return from our expedition, or if,
by chance, we should not go upon our expedition, we will immediately do
complete justice therein.—(LIII.) The same respite will we have, and the
same justice shall be done, concerning the disforestation of the forests, or the
forests which remain to be disforested, which Henry our father, or Richard our
brother, have afforested; and the same concerning the wardship of lands which
are in another's fee, but the wardship of which we have hitherto had, occasioned
by any of our fees held by Military Service; and for Abbies founded in any other
fee than our own, in which the Lord of the fee hath claimed a right ; and when we
shall have returned, or if we shall stay from our expedition, we shall immediately
do complete justice in all these pleas.-(LIV.) No man shall be apprehended or
imprisoned on the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other man than her
husband.—(LW. 37.) All fines that bave been made by us unjustly, or contrary
to the laws of the land ; and all amerciaments that have been imposed unjustly, or
contrary to the laws of the land, shall be wholly remitted, or ordered by the verdict
of the twenty-five Barons, of whom mention is made below, for the security of the
peace, or by the verdict of the greater part of them, together with the aforesaid
Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and others whom he may
think fit to bring with him ; and if he cannot be present, the business shall proceed,
notwithstanding, without him ; but so, that if any one or more of the aforesaid
twenty-five Barons have a similar plea, let them be removed from that particular
trial, and others elected and sworn by the residue of the same twenty-five, be sub-
stituted in their room, only for that trial.—(LVI. 44.) If we have disseised or dis-
possessed any Welshmen of their lands, or liberties, or other things, without a legal
verdict of their peers, in England or in Wales, they shall be immediately restored
to them; and if any dispute shall arise upon this head, then let it be determined in
the Marches, by the verdict of their peers : for a tenement of England, according to
the law of England; for a tenement of Wales, according to the law of Wales; for
a tenement of the Marches, according to the law of the Marches. The Welsh shall do
the same to us and to our subjects.—(LVII.) Also concerning those things of which
any Welshman hath been disseised or dispossessed without the legal verdict of his
peers, by King Henry our father, or King Richard our brother, which we have in
our hand, or others hold with our warrant, we shall have respite, until the common
term of the Croisaders, excepting for those concerning which a plea had been moved,
or an inquisition made, by our precept, before our taking the Cross. But as soon
as we shall return from our expedition, or if, by chance, we should not go
On Our expedition, we shall immediately do complete justice therein, according to
the laws of Wales, and the parts aforesaid.---(LVIII. 45.) We will immediately
556 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
deliver up the son of Llewelin and all the hostages of Wales, and release
them from their engagements which were made with us, for the security of the
peace.—(LIX. 46.) We shall do to Alexander King of Scotland, concerning the
restoration of his sisters and hostages, and his liberties and rights, according to
the form in which we act to our other Barons of England, unless it ought
to be otherwise by the charters which we have from his father William the
late King of Scotland; and this shall be by the verdict of his peers in our court.
––(LX. 48.) Also all these customs and liberties aforesaid, which we have granted
to be held in our kingdom, for so much of it as belongs to us, all our subjects, as
well clergy as laity, shall observe towards their tenants as far as it concerns them.—
(LXI. 49.) But since we have granted all these things aforesaid, for God, and for
the amendment of our kingdom, and for the better extinguishing the discord
which has arisen between us and our Barons, we being desirous that these things
should possess entire and unshaken stability for ever, give and grant to them the
security underwritten : namely, that the Barons may elect twenty-five Barons of
the kingdom, whom they please, who shall with their whole power, observe, keep,
and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have granted to them,
and have confirmed by this our present charter, in this manner, that is to say, if
we, or our Justiciary, or our Bailiffs, or any of our officers, shall have injured any-
one in anything, or shall have violated any article of the peace or Security, and the
injury shall have been shown to four of the aforesaid twenty-five Barons, the said
four Barons shall come to us, or to our Justiciary if we be out of the kingdom, and
making known to us the excess committed, petition that we cause that excess to be
redressed without delay. And if we shall not have redressed the excess, or, if we
have been out of the kingdom, and our Justiciary shall not have redressed it within
the term of forty days, computing from the time when it shall have been made
known to us, or to our Justiciary if we have been out of the kingdom, the aforesaid
four Barons shall lay that cause before the residue of the twenty-five Barons; and
they, the twenty-five Barons, with the community of the whole land, shall distress
and harass us by all the ways in which they are able ; that is to say, by the taking
of our castles, lands, and possessions, and by any other means in their power, until
the excess shall have been redressed according to their verdict; saving harmless
our person, and the persons of our Queen and children ; and when it hath been
redressed, they shall behave to us as they have done before. And whoever of our
land pleaseth, may swear, that he will obey the commands of the aforesaid twenty-
five Barons, in accomplishing all the things aforesaid, and that with them he will
harass us to the utmost of his power ; and we publicly and freely give leave to
everyone to swear who is willing to swear; and we will never forbid any one to
swear. But all those of our land, who, of themselves, and of their own accord, are
unwilling to swear to the twenty-five Barons, to distress and harass us together
with them, we will compel them by our command, to swear as aforesaid. And if
any one of the twenty-five Barons shall die, or remove out of the land, or in any
other way shall be prevented from executing the things above said, they who
remain of the twenty-five Barons shall elect another in his place, according to their
own pleasure, who shall be sworn in the same manner as the rest. In all those
things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen
that all the twenty-five have been present, and have differed in their opinions
about anything, or if some of them who had been summoned would not, or could
not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have
provided and decreed, shall be held as firm and as valid, as if all the twenty-five
had agreed in it : and the aforesaid twenty-five shall swear, that they will
faithfully observe, and, with all their power, cause to be observed, all the things
mentioned above. And we will obtain nothing from anyone, by ourselves, nor
by another, by which any of these concessions and liberties may be revoked or
diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be void and null:
and we will never use it, neither by ourselves nor by another.—(LXII.) And we
have fully remitted and pardoned to all men, all the ill-will, rancour, and resent-
ments, which have arisen between us and our subjects, both clergy and laity, from
the commencement of the discord. Moreover, we have fully remitted to all the
clergy and laity, and as far as belongs to us, have fully pardoned all transgressions
THE PETITION OF RIGHT, 1628. 557
committed by occasion of the said discord, from Easter, in the sixteenth year of
our reign, until the conclusion of the peace.—(49.) And, moreover, we have caused
to be made to them testimonial letters-patent of the Lord Stephen, Archbishop of
Canterbury, the Lord Henry, Archbishop of Dublin, and of the aforesaid Bishops,
and of Master Pandulph concerning this security, and the aforesaid concessions.—
(LXIII.) Wherefore, our will is, and we firmly command that the Church of
England be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold the aforesaid
liberties, rights, and concessions, well and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and
entirely, to them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and places, for
ever as is aforesaid. It is also sworn, both on our part and on that of the Barons,
that all the aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without any evil inten-
tion.* Witnessed by the above and many others.-Given by our hand in the
Meadow which is called Runningmead, between Windsor and Staines, this 15th day
of June, in the 17th year of our reign.
II.
THE PETITION OF RIGHT, 1628.
THE following is the text of the Petition of Right, made law by 3 Car. I., c.1,
June 7th, 1628:—
The Petition exhibited to his Majesty by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, concerning divers Rights and
Liberties of the Subjects, with the King's Majesty's royal answer thereunto in full
Parliament.
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty, Humbly show unto our Sovereign Lord
the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled,
I That whereas it is declared and enacted by a statute made in time of the reign of
Ring Edward I., commonly called Statutum de Tallagio non Concedendo, that no
tallage or aid shall be laid or levied by the king or his heirs in this realm, without
the good will and assent of the archbishops, bishops, earls, barons, knights, burgesses,
and other the freemen of the commonalty of this realm; and by authority of parlia-
ment holden in the five-and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III., it is
declared and enacted that from thenceforth no person should be compelled to make
any loans to the king against his will, because such loans were against reason and
the franchises of the land ; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none
should be charged by any charge or imposition called a benevolence, nor by such
like charge ; by which statutes before mentioned, and other the good laws and
statutes of this realm, your subjects have inherited this freedom, that they should
not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid or other like charge not set
by common consent, in parliament.
II. Yet nevertheless of late divers commissions directed to sundry commissioners
in several counties, with instructions, have issued ; by means whereof your people
have been in divers places assembled, and required to lend certain sums of money
unto your Majesty, and many of them, upon their refusal so to do, have had an
oath administered unto them not warrantable by the laws or statutes of this realm,
and have been constrained to become bound and make appearance and give
utterance before your Privy Council and in other places, and others of them
have been therefore imprisoned, confined, and sundry other ways molested and
disquieted; and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in
several counties by lord lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, commissioners for musters,
justices of peace and others, by command or direction from your Majesty or your
Privy Council, against the laws and free customs of the realm.
III. And whereas also by the statute called “The Great Charter of the liberties
* Hele followed the names of the Barons and other signatories as before mentioned.
558 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
of England,” it is declared and enacted, that no freeman may be taken or imprisoned,
or be disseised of his freehold or liberties, or his free customs, or be outlawed or
exiled, or in any manner destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by
the law of the land.
IV. And in the eight-and-twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III., it was
declared and enacted by authority of parliament, that no man, of what estate or
condition that he be, should be put out of his land or tenements, nor taken, nor
imprisoned, nor disherited, nor put to death without being brought to answer by
due process of law.
W. Nevertheless, against the tenor of the said statutes, and other the good laws
and statutes of your realm to that end provided, divers of your subjects have of late
been imprisoned without any cause showed ; and when for their deliverance they
were brought before your justices by your Majesty's writs of habeas corpus there to
undergo and receive as the court should order, and their keepers commanded
to certify the causes of their detainer, no cause was certified, but that they were
detained by your Majesty's special command, signified by the lords of your Privy
Council, and yet were returned back to several prisons, without being charged with
anything to which they might make answer according to the law.
WI. And whereas of late great companies of Soldiers and mariners have been dis-
persed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants against their wills
have been compelled to receive them into their houses, and there to suffer them to
sojourn against the laws and customs of this realm, and to the great grievance and
vexation of the people. -
VII. And whereas also, by authority of parliament, in the five-and-twentieth
year of the reign of King Edward III., it is declared and enacted, that no man shall
be forejudged of life or limb against the form of the Great Charter and the law of
the land ; by the said Great Charter and other the laws and statutes of this your
realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death but by the laws established in this
your realm, either by the customs of the same realm, or by acts of parliament; and
whereas, no offender of what kind Soever is exempted from the proceedings to be
used, and punishments to be inflicted by the laws and statutes of this your realm :
nevertheless of late time divers commissions under your Majesty's great seal have
issued forth, by which certain persons have been assigned and appointed com-
missioners with powers and authority to proceed within the land, according to the
justice of martial law, against such soldiers or mariners, or other dissolute persons
joining with them, as should commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other
outrage or misdemeanour whatsoever, and by Such summary course and order as is
agreeable to martial law, and as is used in armies in time of war, to proceed to the
trial and condemnation of such offenders, and them to cause to be executed and
put to death, according to the law martial.
VIII. By pretext whereof some of your Majesty's subjects have been by some of
the said commissioners put to death, when and where, if by the laws and statutes
of the land they had deserved death, by the same laws and statutes also they might,
and by no other ought to have been judged and executed.
IX. And also sundry grievous offenders, by colour thereof claiming an exemp-
tion, have escaped the punishments due to them by the laws and statutes of this
your realm, by reason that divers of your officers and ministers of justice have
unjustly refused or forborne to proceed against such offenders according to the same
laws and statutes, upon pretence that the said offenders were punishable only by
martial law, and by authority of such commissions as aforesaid; which commissions,
and all other of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the said laws and
statutes of this your realm.
X. They do therefore humbly pray your most excellent Majesty, that no man
hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or such-
like charge, without common consent by act of parliament; and that none be called
to make answer, or take such Oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or other-
wise molested or disquieted, concerning the same or for refusal thereof; and that
no freeman, in any such manner as is before mentioned, be imprisoned or detained ;
and that your Majesty would be pleased to remove the said soldiers and mariners,
and that your people may not be so burdened in time to come ; and that the afore-
HABEAS CORPUS ACT, 1679. 559
said commissions, for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked and annulled ; and
that hereafter no commissions of like nature may issue forth to any person or
persons whatsoever to be executed as aforesaid, lest by colour of them any of your
Majesty's subjects be destroyed or put to death contrary to the laws and franchise
of the land.
XI. All which they most humbly pray of your most excellent Majesty as their
rights and liberties, according to the laws and statutes of this realm ; and that
your Majesty would also vouchsafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and pro-
ceedings, to the prejudice of your people in any of the premises, shall not be drawn
hereafter into consequence or example; and that your Majesty would be also
graciously pleased, for the further comfort and safety of your people, to declare
your royal will and pleasure, that in the things aforesaid all your officers and
ministers shall serve you according to the laws and statutes of this realm, as they
render the honour of your Majesty, and the prosperity of this kingdom.
Qua quidem petitione lecta et plenius intellecta per dietun dominum regem
taliter est responsum in pleno parliamento, viz., Soit droit fait come est desiré
(Statutes of the Realm, v. 24, 25).
III.
HABEAS CORPUS ACT, 1679.
THE Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (31 Car. II, c. 2) was intituled “An Act
for the better securing the Liberty of the Subject, and for Prevention of
Imprisonments beyond the Seas.” It was restricted to the case of persons
imprisoned before sentence for criminal or supposed criminal matters. This
famous measure enacted— -
(1) That on complaint and request in writing by or on behalf of any person
committed and charged with any crime (unless committed for treason or felony
plainly expressed in the warrant; or as accessory or on suspicion of being accessory
before the fact to any petit treason or felony; or upon suspicion of such petit
treason plainly expressed in the warrant; or unless he is convicted or charged in
execution by legal process) the Lord Chancellor or any of the judges in vacation,
upon viewing a copy of the warrant, or affidavit that a copy is denied, shall (unless
the party has neglected for two whole terms after his imprisonment to apply to
any court for his enlargement) award a habeas corpus for such prisoner, returnable
immediately before himself or any other of the judges. And upon service thereof
the officer in whose custody the prisoner is shall bring him before the said Lord
Chancellor or other judges, with the return of such writ and the true cause of the
commitment ; and thereupon, within two days after the party shall be brought
before them, the said Lord Chancellor or other judge shall discharge the prisoner,
if bailable, upon giving security, in any sum according to their discretion having
regard to his quality and the nature of his offence, to appear and answer to the
accusation in the proper course of judicature. (2) That such writs shall be
endorsed as granted in pursuance of this Act, and signed by the person awarding
the same. (3) That the writ shall be returned, and the prisoner brought up,
within a limited time according to the distance, not exceeding in any case twenty
days after service of the writ. (4) That officers and keepers neglecting or refusing
to make due returns, or not delivering to the prisoner or his agent within six hours
after demand a true copy of the warrant or commitment or shifting the custody of
the prisoner from one to another, without sufficient reason or authority (specified
in sec. 8 of the Act), shall for the first offence forfeit £100, and for the second
560 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
offence £200 to the party grieved and be disabled to hold his office. (5) That no
person once delivered by habeas corpus shall be re-committed for the same offence,
on penalty to the party of £500. (6) That every person committed for treason or
felony, shall, if he requires it, the first week of the next term, or the first day of
the next session of oyer and terminer, be indicted in that term, or session, or else
admitted to bail, unless it appear, upon oath made, that the King's witnesses
cannot be produced at that time ; and if acquitted, or not indicted and tried in
the second term or session, he shall be discharged from his imprisonment for such
imputed offence ; but that no person, after the assizes shall be open for the county
in which he is detained, shall be removed from the common gaol by habeas corpus
till after the assizes are ended, but shall be left to the justice of the Judges of
assize. (7) That any such prisoner may move for and obtain his habeas corpus as
well out of the Chancery or Exchequer as out of the King's Bench or Common
Pleas; and the Lord Chancellor or Judges denying the same, on view of the
copy of the warrant, or oath that such copy is refused, shall forfeit severally to
the party grieved the sum of £500. (8) That this writ of habeas curpus shall run
into the Counties Palatine, the Cinque Ports, and other privileged places, and the
islands of Jersey and Guernsey. (9) That no inhabitant of England (except
persons contracting, or convicts praying, to be transported, or having committed
some capital offence in the place to which they are sent) shall be sent prisoner
to Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or any places beyond the seas
within or without the King's dominions, on pain that the party committing, his
advisers, aiders, and assistants, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved a sum not less
than £500, to be recovered with treble costs; shall be disabled to bear any office
of trust or profit; shall incur the penalties of pramunire ; and shall be incapable
of receiving the King's pardon for any of the said forfeitures, losses, or
disabilities.
There were three defects in this great and important statute : first, it
fixed no limit on the amount of bail which might be demanded ; secondly, it
only applied to commitments on criminal or supposed criminal charges, all
other cases of unjust imprisonment being left to the habeas corpus at common
law as it subsisted before this enactment ; and thirdly, it did not guard
against falsehood in the return. The Bill of Rights (1689) remedied the
first of these defects by declaring that excessive bail ought not to be required.
The other defects were not remedied until the year 1816, when an act was
passed “for more effectually securing the liberty of the subject.” The
statutable remedy was by this act of George III. extended to cases of
imprisonment on non-criminal charges; and the judges were empowered to
examine and determine the truth of the facts set forth in the return, and in
all cases of doubt to bail the prisoner. Finally, in consequence of the decision
of the Court of Queen's Bench in Anderson's case—where a writ of habeas
corpus was issued into Upper Canada—the act of 25 and 26 Victoria, c. 20
(1862), was passed, which provides “That no writ of habeas corpus shall
issue out of England, by authority of any judge or court of justice therein,
into any colony or foreign dominion of the Crown where her Majesty has a
lawfully established court or courts of justice having authority to grant and
issue the said writ and to ensure the due execution thereof throughout such
colony or dominion.”
THE BILL OF RIGHTs, 1689. 561,
IV.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS, 1689.
THE following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed Nov. 2nd, 1689, in
the first year of the reign of William and Mary:—
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at West-
minster, lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this
realm, did, upon the thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one
thousand six hundred eighty eight, present unto their Majesties then called and
known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of
Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing,
made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words following ; viz. –Whereas the
late King James II., by the assistance of diverse evil counsellors, judges, and
ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant
religion, and laws and the liberties of this kingdom :—
I. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of
laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament.
II. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly
petitioning to be excused from concurring to the same assumed power.
III. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the Great
Seal for erecting a Court, called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical
Causes.
IV. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative,
for other time, and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament.
V. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of
peace, without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
VI. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed, at the
same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.
VII. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament.
VIII. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench, for matters and causes
cognizable only in Parliament; and by diverse other arbitrary and illegal courses.
IX. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, unqualified persons have been
returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly diverse jurors in trials for
high treason, which were not freeholders.
X. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal
cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
XI. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments
inflicted.
XII. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any
conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and
freedom of this realm.
And whereas the said late King James II. having abdicated the government, and
the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it hath
pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom
from popery and arbitrary power) did (by advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and diverse principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, being Protestants, and other letters to the several
counties, cities, universities, boroughs, and cinque ports for the choosing of such
persons as represent them, as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and
sit at Westminster upon the two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year one
thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment, as that
their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted;
upon which letters, elections have been accordingly made.
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to
VOI, II. * 36
962 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
their respective letters and elections, being, now assembled in a full and free
representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best
means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in
like case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights
and liberties, declare :- -
I. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws by
regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.
II. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws
by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
III. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for
Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal
and pernicious.
IV. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown, by pretence of prerogative,
without grant of parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or
shall be granted, is illegal.
V. That it is right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments
and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. -
VI. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of
peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.
VII. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence
suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
VIII. That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
IX. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, Ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
X. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor
cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. -
YI. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which
pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.
XII. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
before conviction, are illegal and void.
XIII. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthen-
ing, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently. And they
do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted
rights and liberties ; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to
the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, Ought in any wise to be
drawn hereafter into consequence or example.
To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the
declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as being the only means for
obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence
that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far
advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights,
which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion,
rights, and liberties:
II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at West-
minster, do resolve, that William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be,
and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the
dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the Crown and royal dignity of the said
kingdoms and dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their
lives, and the life of the survivor of them ; and that the sole and full exercise of
the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the
names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives; and after their
deceases, the said Crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to
be to the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of such issue to
the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such
issue to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
accept the same accordingly. -
III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom
the oaths of alleigance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them ;
and that the said oaths of alleigance and supremacy be abrogated. -
*-
THE BILL OF RIGHTs, 1689. 563
I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true
alleigance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary.
So help me God.
I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart, abhor, detest, and abjure as impious
and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that Princes excommunicated
or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or
murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare That no
foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm.
- - So help me God.
IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the Crown and royal dignity of
the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons
contained in the said declaration.
W. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue
to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
settlement of the religion, laws, and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for
the future might not be in danger again of being subverted ; to which the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to act
accordingly.
VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
and Commons, in parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establish-
ing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein con-
tained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of parliament, do pray
that it may be declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties
asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable
rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed,
adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid
shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said
declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties
and their successors according to the same in all times to come.
VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, seriously con-
sidering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in His marvellous providence, and
merciful goodness to this nation, to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal
persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which
they render unto Him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and
praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts, think, and
do hereby recognize, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. having
abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the Crown and
royal dignity aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of right
Ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege Lord and Lady, King
and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belong-
ing, in and to whose princely persons the royal State, Crown, and dignity of the
same realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdic-
tions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining, are most fully.
rightfully, and entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.
VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm, by reason of
any pretended titles to the Crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession
thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this nation
doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporall
and Commons, do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and
declared, that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions,
with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be
and continue to their said Majesties, and the Survivor of them, during their lives,
and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire, perfect, and full exercise
of the regal power and government be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in
the names of both of their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their
deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body
564 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
of her Majesty ; and for default of such issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess
Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body ; and for default of such issue, to the
heirs of the body of his said Majesty: and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most
humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever : and
do faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and defend their said
Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the Crown herein specified and
contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all
persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary,
IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with
the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom, to be governed by a Popish
prince, or by any king or queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, That all and every
pers.Jn and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion
with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry
a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy
the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions there-
unto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal
power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case
or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their al-
leigance; and the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to,
and be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have in-
herited and enjoyed the same, in case the Said person or persons so reconciled,
holding communion or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead.
X. And that every king and queen of this realm, who at any time hereafter shall
come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom, shall, on the first day
of the meeting of the first parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown,
sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and
Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation, before such person or
persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of his
or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly
repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the
reign of King Charles II., intituled “An Act for the more effectual preserving the
King's person and government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House
of Parliament.” But if it shall happen, that such king or queen, upon his or her
succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age of twelve years, then
every such king or queen shall make, Subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declara-
tion at his or her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first parliament as
aforesaid, which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the
said age of twelve years.
XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared,
enacted, and established by authority of this present parliament, and shall stand,
remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said
Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
and Commons, in parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared,
enacted, or established accordingly.
XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from
and after this present Session of parliament, no dispensation by non obstante of or
to any statute Or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held
void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and
except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills
to be passed during this present session of parliament.
XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted before the three-
and-twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred
eighty-nine, shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the
same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other, than
as if this Act had never been made (Statutes of the Realm, vi. 142-5),
LORD HIGH CHANCELLORS AND LORD KEEPERS OF ENGLAND. 565
LORD HIGH CHANCELLORS AND LORD KEEPERS OF
4. - ENGLAND.
THE Speaker of the House of Lords is the Lord Chancellor or the Lord
Keeper of the Great Seal.
Although now an influential legal personage, as
he was formerly a distinguished ecclesiastic, his position as Speaker cannot
compare in importance with that of the Speaker of the Lower House.
Lord Chancellor's official duties are chiefly confined to putting the question
to the House, but he is allowed to take part in debates and to vote as an
Ordinary member.
The
The following is a list of the Lord High Chancellors and Lord Keepers
of England since the Conquest :—
Herfast, afterwards Bishop of Elmham
Osbern, Bishop of Exeter. o • e
Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury . º º
Maurice, Bishop of London © º -
William de Beaufeu, Bishop of Thetford.
William Gifford . º e - º º
Robert Bloet . o º • & •
Waldric . º º º • º ©
William Gifford . º º º
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury
William Gifford . . . º
Waldric . º
Ranulf g & º º º - ©
Geoffrey Rufus . e - te g º
Roger of Salisbury . -> - º e
Philip. e - * º º º º
Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury .
Thomas Becket . g e º e º
Ralph de Warneville . º - º e
Geoffrey Plantagenet, Archbishop of York
William de Longchamp . º & ©
Eustace, Bishop of Ely . º º -
Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury
Walter de Grey, Archbishop of York
Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester .
Walter de Grey . . January
Richard de Marisco October
Ralph Neville . e & e º o
Simon de Cantilupe . - º e
Richard, Abbot of Eveshan
Silvester of Eversden º
John Mansel - e º º
William de Kilkenny - º o
Henry Wingham, Bishop of London. •
Walter de Merton, Bishop of Rochester .
Nicholas of Ely . e - º º e
Walter de Merton
Nicholas of Ely . º
Thomas de Cantilupe.
Februa ry
Walter Giffard - August
Godfrey Giffard . º º º º º
John Chishull . e - e • •
Richard Middleton . - e & º
John Kirkeby . . . . a ſº
Walter de Merton g e ë
Robert Burnell . e - :-
John Langton .
William Greenfield *
William Hamilton . --> º <º
Ralph de Baldock - - º
A. D.
106S
1070
John Langton . © e º g
Walter Reynolds, Bishop of Worcester
John Sandall . o * o
John Hotham, Bishop of Ely . g tº
John Salmon, Bishop of Norwich º
Robert de Baldock . º
John Hotham . º Q
Henry de Clyff . © & . March
Henry de Burghersh, Bishop of Lincoln
Ma
y
John Stratford, Bishop of Winchester .
Richard Bury, Bishop of Durham . -
John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury
Robert Stratford e e o e e
Richard Bynterworth, Bishop of London .
Archbishop Stratford. & e April
Robert Stratford, Bishop of Chichester
July
William Kildesby . * - December
Sir Robert Bourchier .
: January
December 14th
Sir Robert Parmyng . º & e º
Robert Sadyngton . e • º -
John Ufford º º º e º º
John Thoresby, Bishop of St. David's .
William Edington, Bishop of Winchester.
Simon Langham, Bishop of Ely e º
William of Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester
Sir Robert Thorpe º *
Sir Richard Scrope . e e e º
Sir John Knyvett . º e . July
Adam Houghton, Bishop of St. David's .
Sir R. Scrope . . º & tº {-
Simon of Sudbury, Archbishop of Canter-
bur e e º e º e -
Rºd, Earl of Arundel . - º
Robert Braybrooke, Bishop of London
Sir Michael de la Pole e º e º
Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canter-
bury º - e º e g
William of Wykeham & e {}
Archbishop Arundel . e & t
Edmund Stafford, Bishop of Exeter.
Archbishop Arundel . e - s
John Scarle º o s
Edmund Stafford . & e o
Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Lincoln.
Thomas Langley, Bishop of Durham
Thomas Arundel e g e tº
Thomas Beaufort, Earl of Dorset
Archbishop Arundel . e
566 CoNSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
A.D. A.D
Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester . 1413 Sir Orlando Bridgeman . . . * * . 1667
Bishop Longley . t * * * . 1417 Anthony Ashley, Earl of Shaftesbury . 1672
Simon Gamstede . © e e & . 1422 Heneage Finch, Lord Nottingham . . 1675
Henry Beaufort . Francis North, Lord Guildford . † . 1682
te tº G . 1424
John Kemp, Bishop of London. ſº . 1426 George, Lord Jeffreys. g . . . . . 1685
John Stafford, Bishop of Bath and Wells. 1432 Great Seal in Commission . , 1689–1693
John Kemp, Archbishop of York . . 1450 John. Lord Somers & s g . 1693
Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury . . 1454 Sir Nathan Wright . g . . . . 1700
Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canter- William, Lord Cowper gº * & . 1705
bury t y e º gº t . 1455 Simon, Lord Harcourt º * tº . 1710
William of Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester 1456 Lord Cowper . . . . . . . . 1714
Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canter- Thomas, Lord Parker & * * * . 171S
bury • . . . . . . . 1460 Peter, Lord King . . . . . . 1725
George Neville, Bishop of Exeter . . 1460 Charles, Lord Talbot. © • . . 1733
Robert Kirkeham , . . g . 1463 Philip Yorke, Lord Hardwicke. © . 1737
Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Robert, Lord Henley. • ‘’ s g . 1757
Wells º & o © e º . 1467 Charles, Lord Camden º g e . 1766
Laurence Booth, Bishop of Durham. . 1473 | Charles Yorke, Lord Morden . . . 1770
Thomas Rotheram, Bishop of Lincoln . 1475 Henry Bathurst, Lord Apsley . & . 1771
John Russell, Bishop of Lincoln . . 1483 Edward, Lord Thurlow . * g
Thomas Barowe . o & º . 1485 Alexander, Lord Loughborough g . 1793
Bishop Alcock . t g g & . 1485 John Scott, Lord Eldon . . . e
Archbishop Morton . * ſº § . 1487 Thomas, Lord Erskine g • . 1806
Henry Deane . * º tº e . 1500 Lord Eldon tº º © g † e
William Warham, Archbishop of Canter- John Singleton Copley, Lord Lyndhurst . iš.
bury . tº . 1504 Henry, Lord Brougham 830
Cardinal Wolsey * e gº & . 1525 Ilord Lyndhurst. tº tº † g . 1834
Sir Thomas More º e tº & . 1529 Charles Pepys, Lord Cottenhain tº ... iS36
Sir Thomas Audley . g te i. . 1532 Lord Lyndhurst. e & & e . 1S41
Thomas, Lord Wriothesley tº g . 1544 Lord Cottenham. & º tº e . 1846
William Paulet, Lord St. John . . . 1547 | Thomas Wilde, Lord Truro g . . 1850
Richard, Lord Rich . * c º . 1547 Edward Sugden, Lord St. Leonards Feb-
Thomas Goodrich, Bishop of El g . 1551 ruary 27th º g - S52
º & tº ... 1
Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester . 1553 Robert Rolfe, Lord Cranworth . Dec. 18th 1852
Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York ... iś56 Frederic Thesiger, Lord Chelmsford. . 1858
Sir Nicholas Bacon . g * . 1558 John, Lord Campbell e g . 1859
Sir Thomas Bromley . g º . 1579 Richard Bethell, Lord Westbury . . 1S61
Sir Christopher Hatton . tº. . . . 1587 Lord Cranworth • • * s . 1865
William Cecil, Lord Burleigh . . . 1591 Ilord Chelmsford tº e & § . 1866
Sir John Puckering . e e & . 1592 Hugh Cairns, Lord Cairns. º 1S6S
Sir Thomas Egerton . g g § . 1596 William Page Wood, Lord Hatherley . 1868
Sir Francis Bacon . gº 49 e . 1617 Roundell Palmer, Lord Selborne . 1872
John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln . . 1621 Earl Cairns º g g & . I874
Sir Thomas Coventry. * º e . 1625 Earl Selborne . s e * : e . 1880
Sir John Finch . . tº is tº . 1640 | Lord Halsbury . . . & tº . IS85
Sir Edward Littleton . tº ſº e . 1641 Lord Herschell . tº tº & g , 1886
Sir Richard Lane tº g * & . 1645 Lord Halsbury . º tº & o . 1886
Great Seal in Commission . . 1649–1660 Lord Herschell . e • . tº . 1892
Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon . . 1660 - - -
WI.
SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
THE Speaker of the House of Commons is a much more important person,
from the constitutional point of view, than the Lord Chancellor, or Speaker
of the House of Lords. The Speaker of the House of Commons not only
presides over the debates and puts the question, but he maintains order,
enforces the decrees of the House, and acts generally as its representative ;
while it is also through him that the Commons have access to the sovereign.
The Speaker is the first commoner in the realm ; but he can take no part
in debates, and has no vote unless the numbers are equal, when he gives a
casting vote. This important office, which is much coveted, is filled by vote
of the Commons, subject to the royal approbation. Although the office of
SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE
567
OF COMMONS.
Speaker is undoubtedly of ancient origin, the position and title were only
definitely settled in 1377. The following is a complete list of the Speakers
since that date :-
Sir Thomas Hungerford
Sir Peter de la Mare .
Sir James Pickering .
Sir John Goldesburgh º
Sir Richard de Waldsgrave
Sir James Pickering . *
Sir John Bushey. ->
Sir John Cheyne (ill).
John Doreward . •
Sir Arnold Savage
Sir Henry de Redeford
Sir Arnold Savage
Sir William Esturmy
Sir John Tibetot,
Thomas Chaucer e ſº -
William Sturton (twenty days).
John Doreward - e -
Wautir Hungerford
Thomas Chaucer.
Richard Redman
Sir Walter Beauchamp
Roger Flower . -
Roger Hurst
Thomas Chaucer
Richard Baynard
Roger Flower
John Russel e e
Sir Thomas Wauton .
Sir Richard Vernon .
John Tyrrell . .
William Alyngton
John Tyrrell
John Russel
Roger Hurst
John Bowes e
Sir John Tyrrell.
William Burley .
William Tresham - e - e
William Burley . º * tº e
William Tresham & - e
John Say . -
Sir John Popham (ill, and was excused) .
William Tresham
Sir William Oldhall . e
Thomas Thorp (imprisoned)
Sir Thomas Charlton . e
Sir John Wenlock
Thomas Tresham
John Green * -
Sir James Strangways
John Say . º -
William Alyngton
John Wood . º
William Catesby
Thomas Lovell .
John Mordaunt . º
Sir Thomas Fitzwilliam
Richard Empson
Sir Reginald Bray
Robert Drury . º e -
Thomas Inglefield . * tº
Edmund Dudley -
Thomas Inglefield
Sir Robert Sheffield
Thomas Nevile
Sir Thomas More
Thomas Audley . •
Sir Humphrey Wingfield
Richard Rich .
Sir Nicholas Hare
Thomas Moyle .
Sir John Baker .
Sir James Dyer .
John Pollard
Robert Brooke
Clement Heigham
John Pollard
William Cordell .
Sir Thomas Gargrave.
Thomas Wylliams
Richard Onslow.
Christopher Wray
Robert Bell e
John Popham
Serjeant Puckering
Serjeant Silagg
Edward Coke
Serjeant Yelverton
Serjeant Crook
Serjeant Philips . .
Sir Randolph Crewe .
Serjeant Richardson .
Sir Thomas Crewe
Sir Heneage Finch
Sir John Finch .
John Glanvill
William Lenthall
Francis Rous .
William Lenthall
Sir Thomas widdrington .
Chaloner Chute .
Thomas Bamfield
Sir Harbottle Grimston
Sir Edward Turner
Sir Job Charlton
Edward Seymour
Sir Robert Sawyer
Edward Seymour
Serjeant Gregory
William Williams
Henry Powle
Sir John Trevor .
Henry Powle
Sir John Trevor .
Paul Foley . e º
Sir Thomas Littleton.
Robert Harley -
John Smith e
Sir Richard Onslow
William Bromley
Sir Thomas Hanmer .
Spencer Compton
Arthur Onslow .
Sir John Cust º
Sir Fletcher Norton .
Charles Cornwall
William Grenville
Henry Addington
Sir John Mitford
Charles Abbot . -
Charles Manners Sutton
James Abercromby
Charles Shaw Lefevre
John Evelyn Denison.
Henry B. W. Brand .
Arthur W. Peel .
568 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
VII.
PRIME MINISTERS.
Sir Robert Walpole was the first statesman with whom the title of Prime
Minister is distiactively associated. He became First Lord of the Treasury
and Prime Minister in March, 1721.
The following is a list of the Prime Ministers since that time, including
Walpole :--
1721. Sir Robert Walpole 1828. Duke of Wellington
1742. Earl of Wilmington 1830. Earl Grey
1743. Henry Pelham 1834. Wiscount Melbourne
1754. Duke of Newcastle 1834. Sir Robert Peel ſº
1756. Duke of Devonshire - 1835. Wiscount Melbourne
1757. Duke of Newcastle 1841. Sir Robert Peel
1762. Earl of Bute 1846. Lord John Russell
1763. George Grenville 1852. Earl of Derby
1765. Marquis of Rockingham 1852. Earl of Aberdeen
1766. Earl of Chatham 1855. Wiscount Palmerston
1767. Duke of Grafton 1858. Earl of Derby
1770. Lord North 1859. Wiscount Palmerston
1782. Marquis of Rockingham 1865. Earl Russell
1782. Earl of Shelburne 1866. Earl of Derby
1783. Duke of Portland 1868. Benjamin Disraeli
1783. William Pitt 1868. William Ewart Gladstone
1801. Henry Addington 1874. Benjamin Disraeli
1804. William Pitt - : (Earl of Beaconsfield)
1806. Lord Grenville 1880. William Ewart Gladstone
1807. Duke of Portland 1885. Marquis of Salisbury
1809. Spencer Perceval 1886. William Ewart Gladstone
1812, Earl of Liverpool 1886. Marquis of Salisbury
1827. George Canning 1892. William Ewart Gladstone
1827. Wiscount Godericli
VIII.
CHANCELLOR'S OF THE EXCHEQUER.
The office of Chancellor of the Exchequer is an ancient and important
one. Besides his financial functions in connection with the Exchequer, he
formerly presided with the Treasurer in equity cases, the Barons being the
judges on the common law side. The appointment of the Chancellor dates
from the reign of Edward II. The last case in which he exercised judicial
functions was in 1735. The chief holders of the office have been referred
to in the course of this work, but, for the sake of convenience, a list of the
Chancellors of the Exchequer since 1717 is now appended :-
1717. James (Earl) Stanhope | 1743. Henry Pelham
1718. John Aislabie 1754 Henry Bilson Legge
1721. Sir Robert Walpole (*-i Sir G. Lyttelton
1742. Samuel Sandys 1756. Henry Bilson Legge
PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. 569
Henry Bilson Legge
Thomas Spring Rice
1757. Wiscount Barrington 1835. Francis Thornhill Baring
1762. Sir Francis Dashwood 1841. Henry Goulburn
1763. George Grenville 1846. Sir Charles Wood
1765. William Dowdeswell 1852. Benjamin Disraeli
1766. Charles Townshend 1852. William Ewart Gladstone
1767. Lord North - 1855 William Ewart Gladstone
1770, Lord North USir George Cornewall Lewis
1782. Lord John Cavendish 1858. Benjamin Disraeli
1783. William Pitt 1859. William Ewart Gladstone
1801. Henry Addington 1865. William Ewart Gladstone
1804. William Pitt 1866. Benjamin Disraeli
1806. Lord Henry Petty 1868. George Ward Hunt
1807. Spencer Perceval 1868. ſºrt Lowe
1809. Spencer Perceval ’ \ William Ewart Gladstone
1812, ſºicholas Wansittart 1874. Sir Stafford Northcote
* \ Frederick John Robinson 1880. William Ewart Gladstone
1827. George Canning 1883. H. C. E. Childers
1827. John Charles Herries 1885. Sir M. Hicks-Beach
1828. Henry Goulburn 1886. Sir William Harcourt
1830. Wiscount Althorp 1886. Lord Randolph Churchill
1834. Wiscount Althorp 1886. G. J. Goschen
1834. Sir Robert Peel 1892. Sir William Harcourt
IX.
PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND OF THE UNITED
KING DOM.
PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND.
The following list, from 15 John to the reign of Anne, is taken from the
returns compiled by order of the House of Commons, and published in
1879 :—
Year of reign.
15 John . e
38
45
49
11
11
18
22
23
24
25
10 Henry IIſ.
25
y 5
3 Edward I. .
12
A.D.
1213
1226
1254
1261
1264-5
1275
1282-3
1283
1290
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
99-1300
1300
1300-1
1302
1304-5
1306
Year of reign. A.D.
: 35 Edward I. . g • , 1306-7
1 Edward II. gº & , 1307
l ?? e & o . H307-8
2 3 : 1309
6 3 y 1311
5 3 * 1311
5 3 y 1311-12
6 , 1312
6 ,, 1312-13
7 : 1313
7 , I313
7 :, 1314
8 33 , 1314
8 , 1314-15
9 : 1315 16
9 :, 1316
10 , 1316
11 3 y 1318
12 , 1318
12 1319
01.9
"WGINGICICIW IWNOILſ).I.I.I.SNOO .
619. I
8/8L.
118. I
1,”978.I
9-9/9I
8/8L
3/8 I
I/.3L
I-08T
‘OI’W.
9%
& § 3 gif
‘III plbApºſ gif
'u'dral go teax
08-638 I
6-838 I
868 I
8&g I
8-239 I
168 I
Z-968 I
969. I
#69 I
#-839. I
338 I
&gg I
IZ8. I
038 I
‘CI*W
ZóżI
9-góñI
gº; I
937 I
3&#I
IZ#I
IZłI
0&#I
6If I
P.If I
9If I
9I-g|If I
g|If I
# If I
#I-8IFI
9If I
g|I-ZIf I
IIf I
OI-60fl
/Of I
9-90 FI
gOFI
30%.I
Z-IOFI
I-00f I
668I
668I
8-1681
I-968T
g-f68I
#-869 I
9-3681
369 I
I68I
068I
06-688L
888 I
8-189T
988T
989 I
f38I
#881
888.I
8-389 I
388T
388 I
T88 I
088I
08-618 I ‘
#Of I
• 'A AIu2H I
; : #I
* $6 9. I
“ II
£6 6
o $6 1.
& § { 9
& 4 g
“ . . . . g .
& 8 9.
£ 6 3.
AI AIUOIII
6 & £6,
&é IZ
“ 02
& & 6 - 8I
{{ MI
6 & 9I.
£ 6 9I
t € $ QI
{ % #I
§ { 9I
{ % ZI
& 6 II
& OI
‘II plºugh I
IQ
& 09:
. Ziff
698. I
898.I
998.I
g-f{}9 I
998.I
Z98I
I-099 I
O98I
8-199T
1981
QQ9I
#gg|I
898. I
398.I
3-IQ9I
I-099 I
6-8:59 I
8#8I
8-Afg|I
958 I
#9 I
głęI
&#81
I#8I
Of 8 I
Of 9 I
Of-688 I
688.I
6-883T
888 I
8-188 I
1881
Z-988.I
Z-988.[
988.I
9-988.I
988.I
#88I
#-889 I
388 I
Z88.I
3-I98I
I88I
I88 I
088. I .
{{ gif
& & &#
{{ Of
88
;
l #9
& fg
6 & 38
& $ I9
63
. . ;
{{ 9&
& 4 Q &
º {{ Q&
& 6 Z&
{{ Ø.
{ % I&
{{ 0%
$6 8I
{{ / I
{{ 9I
4 QI
6.
#
6 & 9. [
6 9I
º {{ &I
{ ZI
g {{ GI
{{ II
${ II
* e & 0I
$6 OI
{{ OI
$6 6I
{ 8I
& 6 /...I
{{ 9I
º QI
& 44 QI
‘II p.18Apºſ FI
"ußgar Jo IP3R
PARLIAMENTS OF ENGLAND AND OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. 571
Year of reign.
8 Henry VI. .
9 5 y e
10 • ?
11 35
14 2 3
15 5 *
18 3 *
20 2 3
23 ,
25 35
27 ,
28 33
29 5 *
31 ,
33 . 33
38 33
39 9 3 t
1 Edward IV.
3 ;3 e
7 ; :
9 33
10 2 3
12 3 3
17 33
22 33 •
1 Richard III.
1 Henry VII.
3 3 3 g
7 33
11 5 5
12 53 º
1 Henry VIII.
3 * 3 º
6 5 * e
14 25
21 33
28 35
31 »
33 32
37 33 e
1 Edward VI.
7 5 y
1 Mary .
Year of reign.
6 Anne .
7 95
9 * , e
12 , . &
1 George I.
8 5)
1 George II. .
8 &
37
15 33
A.D. Year of reign. A.D.
1429 Mary . e * - . 1554
1430-1 1 and 2 Philip and Mary . 1554
1432 2 and 3 , 5 * * * , 1555
1433 4 and 5 , 2 5 2.5 . 1557-8
1435 1 Elizabeth . . 1558-9
1436-7 5 32 te . 1562-3
1439 14 35 . 1572
1441-2 27 35 . 1584
1444-5 28 29 . 1586
1446-7 30&31, , 1588-9
1448-9 35 35 . 1592-3
1449 39 33 . 1597
1450 43 35 . . .1601
1452–3 1 James I. 1603-4
1455 12 , 1614
1459 18 32 1620-1
1460 21 2 3 * 1623-4
1461 1 Charles I. . 1625
1462-3 I » º 1625-6
1467 3 92 1627-8
1469 16 33 & - º . 1640
1470 16 , (Long Parliament) 1640
1472 Interregnum . * º . 1653
1477-8 25 1654
1482-3 25 1656
1483-4 . - 53 1658-9
1485 25 e 1659
1487 12 Charles II. e ... 1660-1;
1491 the Long Or Pen- t
1495 13 , {*} #ºt 1661
1496-7 31 33 e - º . 1678-9
. 1509-10 || 31 , º e e . 1679
. . 1511-12 || 33 53 g - s . 1680 1
1514-15 1 James II. . º e 1685
1523 Convention . 3. º 1688-90
I529 2 William and Mar 1689-90
. 1536 7 William III. . 1695
. . 1539 10 22 1698
1541-2 12 33 1700-1
1545 13 2 3 1701
. 1547 1 Anne 1702
. 1552-3 4 » . 1705
s . 1553
PARLIAMIENTS OF GREAT BRITAIN.
A.D. Year of reign. A.D.
1707 2 21 George II. . . 1747
1708 27 3 * t e º . 1754
1710 1 George III. O º . 1761
1713 8 , º & o . 1768
1715 15 3y 1774
1722 21 33 1780
1727 24 9 3 1784
1734 30 5 3 1790
1741 36 2? 1796
* The official return dates the commencement of the reign of Charles II. from his father's decease.
The return ends with the first Parliament of Anne, but we have added her second Parliament, during
whose sittings the union with Scotland was carried.
* This was really a continuation of the Parliament of 4 Anne.
572 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
22
PARLIAMENTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND IRELAND.
Year of reign.
41 George III. º
42 5 § º
47 99 tº
47 3 *
53 2 3
58
1 George IV.
7 9 •
i william IV.
1 33
3 25
5 5 y
1 Wictoria,
A.D. ! Year of reign. A.D.
1801 5 Victoria . e g . 1841
1802 11 , - º s . 1847
1806 16 , º & . . 1852
1807 20 , tº º . . 1857
1812 22 , - • * . 1859
1818 29 , . . . . 1866
1820 32 . . . . . 1868
1826 37 , º º º . 1874
1830 43 , - º . . 1880
1831 49 ,, . e . . 1885
1833 50 ,, º tº * . 1886
1835 56 ,, - & , , 1892
1837
X.
PRINCIPAL ACTS, OR DIVANCES, ETC., SINCE THE CONQUEST.
The following is a list of the principal legislative acts, ordinances, etc.,
since the Norman Conquest :—
1086. Domesday Book.
Undated act or charter separat- 1297.
1290
ing the spiritual jurisdiction
from the secular courts of law.
1100. Charter of Liberties.
1136. Stephen's charter.
1154. Charter of Henry II.
1159. Scutage regularly instituted.
1164. The Constitutions of Clarendon.
1166. Assize of Clarendon.
1176. Assize of Northampton.
1181. Assize of Arms.
1184. Assize of the Forest.
1188. Saladin Tithe, the first tax upon
personal property.
1215. The Great Charter.
1217. Charter of Forests.
1258. Provisions of Oxford.
1259. Provisions of Westminster
Te-
1310.
1349.
1351.
1352.
1353.
1362.
1373.
1379.
1382.
1390.
.1391.
1393.
1401.
1414.
1484.
1488.
Statute of Quia Emptores.
Confirmatio Cartarum.
Ordinances of the Lords Ordain-
€IS.
First Statute of Labourers.
First Statute of Provisors.
First Statute of Treasons.
First Statute of Praemunire.
Act forbidding subsidies on wool
without consent of Parliament.
Act granting tunnage and pound-
age for two years.
Act for a graduated poll-tax.
Statute against heretic preachers.
Statutes of Provisors re-enacted.
Statutes of Mortmain re-enacted.
Great Statute of Praemunire.
Act de Heretico Comburendo
(statute against heretics).
enacted as a statute, 1267.
1266. The Dictum of Kenilworth.
1275. First Statute of Westminster.
1279. Statute of Mortmain, or Dereli-
giosis.
1284. Statute of Wales.
1285. Statute of Westminster II.
1285. Statute of Winchester.
1489.
1532.
New statute against the Lollards.
Statute abolishing benevolences.
Statute of Liberty and Main-
tenance.
Statute of Fines.
Act reforming the spiritual courts.
* This was really a continuation of the previous Parliament of Great Britain.
PRINCIPAL ACTS, ORDINANCES, ETC., SINCE THE CONQUEST.
573
1562.
1571.
1593.
1601
1624.
1628.
1634.
1641.
1641.
1641.
1641.
1642.
1645.
1649.
1651.
1653.
1657.
1660.
1661.
1662.
1664.
1665.
1672.
1673.
1678.
1679.
1687.
1689.
1689.
1689.
1689.
1693.
1693.
1694.
. Act for restraining all appeals to
Rome.
. Act forbidding payment of an-
nates to Rome.
. Act abolishing the authority of
the Pope in England.
5. Act of Supremacy, declaring King
head of the Church.
. Act restricting benefit of clergy.
. The Act of the Six Articles.
. The King's proclamation declared
as valid as act of Parliament.
. Severe acts against vagrancy.
. Act for uniformity of service.
. Second Act of Uniformity.
. Persecuting statutes against here-
tics.
. Elizabeth's Act of Supremacy.
Act of Uniformity.
Act against Roman Catholics.
Acts against Roman Catholics.
Acts against Puritans and Roman-
ists.
First regular poor-law.
Monopolies declared illegal.
Petition of Right.
A writ for ship-money issued.
The Triennial Act.
Statutes abolishing the Star-
chamber, etc.
Statutes against ship-money.
The Grand Remonstrance.
Universal tax on property and
incomes.
Self-denying Ordinance.
Act declaring England a common-
wealth.
Navigation Act.
Instrument of Government.
Humble Petition and Advice.
Act of Indemnity and Oblivion.
Corporation Act.
Act of Uniformity.
Conventicle Act.
Triennial Act repealed.
Five Mile Act.
Declaration of Indulgence.
Test Act.
Disabling act against Papists.
Habeas Corpus Act.
Declaration of Indulgence (James
II.).
Declaration of Right.
Mutiny Act.
Toleration Act.
Bill of Rights.
National Debt originated,
Land Tax Act.
The Triennial Act.
1694.
1695.
1701.
1707.
1708.
1711.
1711.
1712.
1712.
1714.
1715.
1716.
1719.
1742.
1751.
1753.
1757.
1762.
1765.
1767.
177().
1772.
1773.
1774.
1778.
1781.
1782.
1782.
1784.
1786.
1791.
1792.
1793.
1793.
1795.
1795.
1798.
1800.
1800.
1807.
1811.
1812.
1812.
1815.
1817.
1817.
1817.
1818.
1819.
1819.
Bank of England established.
Bribery Act.
Act of Settlement, or Succession
Act.
Act of Union with Scotland.
Act disqualifying holders of pen-
sions and offices.
Property Qualification Act.
Occasional Conformity Act.
Scottish Patronage Act.
First stamp duty imposed.
Schism Act.
Riot Act.
Septennial Act.
Statute authorising legislation
for Ireland.
The Place Act.
Reformation of the Calendar Act.
Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act.
National Militia Act.
Bribery Act.
The American Stamp Act.
Act taxing American imports.
Election Petitions Act.
Royal Marriage Act.
India Regulation Act.
Boston Port Act.
Roman Catholic Relief Act.
Irish Permanent Mutiny Act.
Act conceding legislative inde-
pendence for Ireland.
Gilbert's Workhouses Act. -
IPitt’s India. Act.
Sinking Fund Act.
Canada Act.
Fox’s Libel Act.
Alien Act. -
Traitorous Correspondence Act.T
Catholic Relief Act for Scotland.
Treasonable Practices Act. -
Seditious Meetings Act. J
, Income Tax Act.
Act of Union with Ireland.
Corresponding Societies Act.
Slave Trade Abolition Act.
Regency Act.
Insolvent Debtors’ Relief Act.
Relief acts for Dissenting minis-
ters and Unitarians.
Corm Importation Act.
Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.
Seditious Meetings Act. -->
Military and Naval Officers’ Oath
Act.
Act of Indemnity.
Six ActS. **
Act for resumption of cash pay- T
mentS.
574
CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
1823.
*1823.
- 1824.
1828.
1829.
- 1832.
1833.
1833.
1833.
1833.
- 1833.
~ 1834.
- 1835.
1836.
1838.
1838.
1840.
1843.
— 1844.
1845.
-, 1846.
~ 1847.
1847.
1848.
1849.
1849.
1851,
1852.
1854.
1855.
e- 1858.
1858.
1858
1860.
1861.
*1861.
* 1865.
1866.
•- 1867
1868.
1869.
1869.
1870.
1870.
Reciprocity of Duties Act.
Peel's Currency Act.
Acts in favour of workmen.
Repeal of Test and Corporation
Acts.
Catholic Emancipation Act.
Reform Act. -
Quakers’ Affirmation Act.
Irish Coercion Act.
Church Temporalities (Ireland)
Act.
Slavery Emancipation Act.
Children's Factory Act.
Poor Law Amendment Act.
Municipal Reform Act.
Tithe Commutation Act.
Irish Poor Law Act.
Irish Tithes Commutation Act.
Irish Municipal Act.
Irish Arms Act.
Bank Charter Act.
Maynooth Act.
Act for the repeal of the corn
laws.
Factory Act.
Irish Coercion Act.
Treason Felony Act.
Irish Encumbered Estates Act.
Navigation laws repealed.
Ecclesiastical Titles Act.
Bribery Act.
Corrupt Practices Act.
Repeal of the newspaper duty.
Property Qualification Abolition
Act,
India Act.
Jewish Disabilities Removal Act.
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)
Act.
Paper duty abolished.
Bankruptcy Act.
Poor Law Union Chargeability
Act. -
Habeas Corpus (Ireland) Sus-
pension Act. -
Reform Act.
Compulsory Church Rates Aboli-
tion Act.
Irish Church Disestablishment
Act. a
Endowed Schools Act.
The Irish Land Act. -
Elementary Education Act.
|
1870.
1871.
1871.
1871.
1872.
1872.
1873.
1873.
1874.
1874.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1876.
1877.
1879.
1879.
1880.
1880.
1880.
1880.
1880.
1881.
1881.
1881.
1881.
1882.
1882.
1882.
1882.
1883.
1883.
1884.
1884.
1885.
1885.
1885.
1885.
1886.
1886.
1886.
1887.
Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act.
University Tests Abolition Act.
Army Regulation Act.
Purchase abolished by royal war-
rant. - -
The Ballot Act.
Licensing Act.
Judicature Act.
Religious Tests (Dublin Univer-
sity) Abolition Act.
Public Worship Regulation Act.
Endowed Schools Amendment
Act.
Artisans' Dwelling Act.
Regimental Exchanges Act.
Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act.
Agricultural Holdings Act.
Land Transfer Act.
Merchant Shipping Act.
Additional Titles Act.
South African Act.
Army Discipline and Regulation
Act. -
Irish University Act.
Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts.
Abolition of the malt tax.
Burials Act.
Ground Game Act.
Employers' Liability Act.
Protection for Life and Property
(Ireland) Act.
Peace Preservation Act.
Irish Land Act.
Regulation of the Forces Act and
the Army Act.
Prevention of Crimes (Ireland)
Act.
The Arrears (Ireland) Act.
Married Women's Property Act.
Government Annuities Act.
Corrupt Practices Act.
Tenants' Compensation Act.
Reform Act. -
National Debt Act.
Redistribution Act.
Land Purchase (Ireland) Act.
Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Housing of the Working Classes
Act.
International Copyright Act.
Parliamentary Expenses Act.
Ireland Crofters Act.
Irish Coercion Act.
PRINCIPAL ACTS, ORDINANCEs, ETC., SINCE THE CONQUEST. 575
SCOTS ACTS, ETC.
The following are the principal acts, etc., of the Parliament of Scotland :-
1367.
1369.
1371.
1449.
1454.
1496.
1532.
1560.
1561.
1592.
Act regulating supplies to the
Crown.
Lords of the Articles appointed.
Act of Settlement.
Act against vagrants.
Act touching the Crown estate.
Statute against papal intervention.
The Court of Session founded.
Acts establishing the Reforma-
tion.
Act against witchcraft.
Act establishing the Presbyterian
Church. -
1612.
1621.
1639.
1654.
1661.
1661.
1689.
1703.
1704.
1707.
Acts restoring episcopacy.
The Five Articles of Perth.
Act abolishing episcopacy.
Union of England and Scotland
by ordinance. .
Episcopacy restored.
Permanent militia established.
Episcopacy abolished.
William and Mary proclaimed.
Act declaring the Presbyterian
Church to be the only true
Church.
Act of Security. .
Act of Union between England
and Scotland.
IRISH ACTS, ETC.
1691
1695.
1719.
1779.
The following are the chief acts, etc., of the Irish Parliament :-
1652.
1661.
Cromwellian settlement.
Act of Settlement.
Catholics forbidden to sit in
Parliament.
Statute repealing all the acts of
James II.'s Parliament, 1691.
Toleration Act.
Act admitting Dissenters to office
in Ireland.
Grattan's declaration of right
1295.
The first Irish Parliament passes
acts against military expedi-
tions, etc.
. Acts restraining the great lords.
. The Statute of Kilkenny.
. Act of the Irish:Parliament assert-
ing its independence of English
legislation.
. Poynings' Law.
. Act of Supremacy, repealed in
1556, but re-enacted with the
Act of Uniformity in 1660.
. Statute conferring the title of
“King of Ireland” on Henry
VIII.
1782.
accepted.
1792-3. Catholic relief bills passed.
1793.
1800.
Act restoring the franchise to
Catholics.
Act for the Union of Great Britain
and Ireland.
576 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
XI.
MINISTRIES OF QUEEN VICTORIA.
The following is a list of the Administrations during the reign of her
Majesty:-
LORD MELBourse's MINISTRY, 1835-41.
Prime Minister. . tº tº \
First Lord of the Trea- }. Lord Melbourne.
Sury . . gº tº
Lord Chancellor ... Lord Cottenham.
lººdent of the } Marquis of Lansdowme.
Lord Privy Seal * Lord Duncannon.”
' ' | Earl of Clarendon.
Chancellor of the Ex- Spring Rice.
chequer e tº ... ſ. F. T. Baring. |
Home Secretary Lord John Russell.
Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston.
Lord Glenelg.
Colonial Secretary .. }; of Normanby.
Lord John Russell.
* Wiscount Howick.
Secretary for War T. B. Macaulay.
President of the Board }Sir J. C. Hobhouse.
of Control . . & tº C. P. Th
* . Jºº. ''Il OIllSOD1.
Eoard of Trade ' ' | H. Labouchere.
* \ Lord Holland.
Duchy of Lancaster . . ſ Earl of Clarendon.
lºº lº of Lichfield.
First Lord of the * ſº *
miralty it of Ire.j Earl of Minto.
Lord Lieutenant of Ire- º - --º- - -
and .. for Ire Earl of Mulgrave.
Chief Secretary for *} *A* : * * * * * *
land . . & © & & Lord Morpeth.
Chief Commissioner of y
Public Works ... }
Attorney-General 3 *
Solicitor-General * & } § #g ##. lfe.
Lºcate o: sº }J . A. Murray.
iscount Duncannon.
Sir J. Campbell.
SIR ROBERT PEEL's MINISTRY, Sept. JS41.
Prime Minister ... *
First Lord of the Trea- | Sir Robert Peel.
Sury . . g = . . )
Lord Chancellor . Lord Lyndhurst.
Lord President of the . Lord Wharncliffe
Council tº º ºpº f Bucki i.
•A TOxº~ uke Of Bucklingham.
Lord Privy Seal tº e }}: of Buccleuch.
Chancellor of the Ex- } H. Goulburn.
chequer , s s * *
Sir J. Graham.
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston.
Lord Stanley.
Colonial Secretary W. E. Gladstone
Sir H. Hardinge.
. . . Sir T. Fremantle.
Sidney Herbert.
Lord Ellenborough.
Lord Fitzgerald.
Earl of Ripon.
Secretary for War
President of the Board
of Control .. tº gº
' ' 'ſ Marquis of Normanby.
Board of Trade
Duchy of Lancaster . .
Earl of Ripon.
' ' ſ W. E. Gladstone.
Lord G. Somerset.
Postmaster-General Lord Lowther.
First Lord of the Ad- g
º § O tº & 6 & sº }Earl of Haddington.
..., T : - .e. ) Wiscount Ebrington.
Lºewenant of Ire. . . Grey.
' ' ) Lord Heytesbury.
Chief Secretary for \ Lord Eliot.
( ſº & © of Sir T. Fremantle.
Jhief Commissioner o tº ** *
Public Works tº tº }Earl of Lincoln.
Sir T. Wilde.
| Sir F. Pollock.
tº b j Sir W. Follett.
# § º
: , , ; +… - Sir W. Follett.
Solicito, General ' ' | Sir F. Thesiger.
Lord Advocate of Scot. }; William Rae,
land . . † - D. McNeil,
Attorney-General
LORD JoHN RUSSELL's MINISTRY, 1846.
Prime Minister tº º
First Lord of the Trea. }. Lord John Russell.
sury tº º tº gº
wº \ Lord Cottenham.
Lord Chancellor ' ' ſ Lord Truro.
Iord ident of th }Marquis of Lansdowme.
Counci & & gº tº
Lord Privy Seal Earl of Minto.
} Sir C. Wood.
Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer º ſº
Home Secretary i. º Grey.
•oice * Lord Palmerston.
Foreign Secretary .. Earl Granville,
Colonial Secretary Earl Grey.
Secretary for War ... Fox Maule.
President of the Board l Sir J. C. Hobhouse.
of Control Lord Dalhousie.
* * - Earl of Clarendon.
Board of Trade ' ' ſ H. Labouchere.
Duchy of Lancaster .. }; Campbell.
Earl of Carlisle.
Postmaster-General Marquisof Clanricarde.
First Lord of the Ad-
Earl of Auckland.
miralty & sº ... ſ Sir F. T. Baring.
Lord Lieutenant of *}#} of Bessborough.
land . . & 9 ... ſ. Earl of Clarendon.
Chief Secretary for \ H. Labouchere.
Ireland e ... ſ. Sir W. Somerville.
Chief Commissioner of te *
Public Works g is }Lord Seymour.
Sir J. Jervis.
Attorney-General . . }; J. Romily.
§ à. # E. Cockburn.
Solº as +,-,-- * ir D. Dundas.
Solicitor-General ' ' ſ Sir J. Romilly.
Lord Advocate of Scot- ! A. Rutherford.
land . . ë tº ... }
* Where changes occurred the names of the original holder of the office and of his successor or
successors are given.
MINISTRIES OF QUEEN VICTORIA.
577
LORD DERBY's MIN
Prime Minister tº e
First Lord of the Trea-
Sll? * - tº e tº e
Lord Chancellor
Lord President of the
Council • * &
Lord Privy Seal
Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer - - g e
Home Secretary tº º
Foreign Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
President of the Boar
of Control . . gº º
Board of Trade & B
Duchy of Lancaster ..
Postmaster-General
First Lord of the Ad-
miralty * * tº &
Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land . . - - tº tº
Chief Secretary for Ire-
land . . - - tº º
Chief Commissioner for
Public Works g º
Attorney-General
Solicitor-General
Lord Advocate of Scot-
land * - tº º
LORD ABERDEEN's MI
Prime Minister & 6
First Lord of the Trea-
Sury . . - - e G
Lord Chancellor & &
Lord President of the
Council - - g is
Lord Privy Seal
Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer - - & sº
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
IsTRY, February 1852.
Earl of Derby.
Lord St. Leonards.
t Earl of Lonsdale.
Marquis of Salisbury.
B. Disraeli.
S. H. Walpole.
Earl of Malmesbury.
Sir J. Pakington.
W. Beresford.
J. E. Herries.
J. W. Henley.
R. A. Christopher.
Earl of Hardwicke.
Duke of Northumber-
land.
Earl of Eglinton.
\ Lord Naas.
Lord John Manners.
Sir F. Thesiger.
Sir F. Kelly.
}J ohn Inglis.
NISTRY, December 1852.
lead of Aberdeen.
Lord Cranworth.
\ Earl Granville.
J. Lord John Russell.
Duke of Argyll.
}w. E. Gladstone.
Lord Palmerston.
\ Lord John Russell.
J. Earl of Clarendon.
\ Duke of Newcastle.
’ ſ Sir George Grey.
Y. S. Herbert.
" ; Duke of Newcastle.
President of the Board ). Sir C. Wool
of Control
Board of Trade
Duchy of Lancaster . .
Postmaster-General
First Lord of the Ad-
miralty • * & º
Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land
Chief
Ireland
Secretary for
E. Cardwell.
\ E. Strutt.
f Earl of Clarendon.
Viscount Canning.
Sir J. Graham.
}Earl of St. Germans.
Sir J. Young.
Chief Commissioner of Sir W. Molesworth.
Public Works -
Attorney-General
Solicitor-General
Sir A. J. E. Cockburn.
Sir R. Bethell.
Lord Advocate of Scot-l. J. Moncreiff
... ; * : - º
land .. e -
LORD PALMERSTON's M
Prime Minister * *
First Lord of the Trea-
sury .. - - - e.
IINISTRY, February 1855.
}vent Palmerston.
Lord Chancellor º º
Lord President of the } Earl Granville
Council º
•Al TX*** *-* , S: Duke of Argyll.
Lord Privy Seal e ‘s }#. of Harrowby.
Chancellor of the Ex- W. E. Gladstone.
chequer ... ſ Sir G. C. Lewis.
Home Secretary Sir George Grey.
Foreign Secretary Earl of Clarendon.
S. Herbert.
Lord John Russell.
"" ( Sir W. Molesworth.
H. Labouchere.
Secretary for War - Lord Panmure.
President of the Board Sir C. Wood.
of Control ... J R. Vernon Smith,
E. Cardwell.
Board of Trade ... }. Lord Stanley of Alder-
ley.
& Earl of Harrowby.
' ' ' Mr. T. Baines.
as Hen’-ſ; an on- \ Wiscount Canning.
Postmaster-General . . j Duke of Argyll. &
First Lord of the Ad-\ Sir J. Graham.
miralty e - ... ſ Sir G. Wood.
Lººkieutenant ** ! Earl of Carlisle.
Chief Secretary for º
Ireland . . . tº e }E. Horsman.
Chief Commissioner of } Sir B. Hall.
Public Works º e
Attorney-General .. }; #. jºurn.
Y Sir R. Bethell.
Solicitor-General - tº ; . S. Wortley.
Sir H. Keating.
Lº Advocate o: sº } J. Moncreiff.
Lord Cranworth.
Colonial Secretary
Duchy of Lancaster
LoRD DERBY's MINISTRY, February 1858.
Prime Minister - e. l
First Lord of the Trea- } Earl of Derby.
Sury .. • *
Lord Chancellor ... Lord Chelmsford.
Lºrident of the Marquis of Salisbury.
Lord Privy Seal Earl of Hardwicke.
Chancellor of the Ex-l. : sº als
chequer e - . . . B. Disraeli.
\ S. H. Walpole.
J S. Estcourt.
Earl of Malmesbury.
R Lord Stanley.
" ; Sir E. B. Lytton.
Colonel Peel.
Lord Ellenborough.
Lord Stanley.
Board of Trade - - }#} .#fºamº.
Duchy of º . . Duke of Montrose.
Postmaster-General Lord Colchester.
Fº of the Aa. Sir J. Pakington.
Lºentenant of Ire- \ Earl of Eglinton.
Chief Secretary for w
Ireland * - of { Lord
Chief Commissioner o - t **t
Public Works - * Lord John Manners,
Attorney-General ... Sir F. Kelly.
Solicitor-General Sir H. M. Cairns.
Lord Advocate of Scot- }Charles Baillie.
land
37
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
Secretary for India
Naas.
578
CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
LORD PALMERSTON's MINISTRY, June 1859.
Prime Minister -> -->
First Lord of the Trea- ? Wiscount Palmerston.
Sury . . - - tº º
Lord Campbell.
Lord Chancellor sº dº }; Westbury.
Lord Cranworth.
Lord President of the E
Council e tº
Lord Privy Seal
Chancellor of th
chequer - tº
iDuke of Argyll.
' ' ſ Marquis of Clanricarde.
|
arl Granville.
E ſ
* * ! W. E. Gladstone.
- *** - - -- Sir G. C. Lewis.
Home Secretary Sir G. Grey.
JForeign Secretary ... Lord John Russell.
Duke of Newcastle.
Colonial Secretary . }} Cardwell.
S. Herbert.
Sir G. C. Lewis.
Earl de Grey.
Sir C. Wood,
. . T. Milner Gibson.
\ir G. Grey.
Duchy of Lancaster ... }. E. Cardwell.
j Earl of Clarendon.
Earl of Elgin.
Duke of Argyll.
Lord Stanley of Alder-
Secretary for War
Secretary for India
Board of Trade
Postmaster-General
º Of ne *}Duke of Somerset.
Lº Heutenant Of º }Earl of Carlisle.
Chief Secretary for N. E. Cardwell.
Ireland tº º . . ; Sir R. Peel.
Chief Commissioner of ). * + renºr, ºr
Public Works - H. Fitzroy.
Sir R. Bethell.
Attorney-General . . fš. W. Aherºon.
Sir W. Atherton.
' ' | Sir R. Palnier.
of Scot- }J. Moncreiff.
Solicitor-General
Lord Advocate
land ..
EARL RUSSELL's MINISTRY, November 1865.
Prime Minister - -
First Lord of the Trea- ). Earl Russell.
Sury .. • * -
Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth.
Lord President of the Earl Granville.
Council tº q
. . . Duke of Argyll.
Lord Privy Seal
Chancellor of the Ex- W. E. Gladstone.
Sir G. Grey.
chequer
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary Lord Clarendon.
Colonial Secretary #. º:
Sarºvak • *- e ari de Grey.
Secretary for War Marquis of Hartington.
Sir C. Wood.
Earl de Grey.
T. Milner Gibson.
G. J. Göschen.
Lord Stanley of Alder-
ley.
Secretary for India
Board of Trade e -
Duchy of Lancaster ..
Postmaster-General
F. º of the *}Duke of Somerset.
alty g s - -
Lord Lieutenant of Ire- Earl of Carlisle.
Chief Secretary for \ Sir R. Peel.
Ireland tº Q . . ſ C. Fortescue.
Sir W. Atherton.
' ' | Sir R. Palmer.
Sir R. Palmer.
* * | Sir R. P. Collier.
Of *}, . Moncreiff.
Attorney-General
Solicitor-General
Lord Advocate
land
LORD DERBY's MINISTRY, June 1866.
Prime Minister & - l
First Lord of the Trea- } Earl of Derby.
Sury . . • -
Lord Chancellor ... Lord Chelmsford.
Lord President of the Duke of Buckingham.
Council • * . . ; Duke of Marlborough-
Lord Privy Seal Earl of Malmesbury.
Chancellor of the Ex- ). B. Disraeli
chequer * = - - * -
H Secret S. Walpole.
ome Secretary G. Hardy.
Foreign Secretary Lord Stanley.
\ Earl of Carnarvon.
j Duke of Buckingham.
!ar, ºat-o-wr £A. W., n- General Peel.
Secretary for War .. }3. J. Pakington.
| Wiscount Cranborne.
}; S. Northcote.
Sir S. Northcote.
Duke of Richmond.
* Earl of Devon.
Duchy of Lancaster .. } Colonel W. Patten.
Duke of Montrose.
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for India
Board of Trade
Postmaster-General .
First Lord of the Ad-\ Sir J. Pakington.
miralty * * ... ſ H. T. L. Corry.
lº. Lieutenant of Ire- \, Marquis of Abercorn.
Chief Secretary for •.S. N. r. n &
*...*, * }Lord Naas.
Chief Commissioner of
IPublic Works
Attorney-General
Solicitor-General
Lord Advocate of Scot-
Lord J. Manners.
... Sir J. Rolt.
Sir W. Bovill.
land }George Patton.
MR. DISRAELI's MINISTRY, February 1868.
Prime Minister - - )
First Lord of the Trea- - Mr. Disraeli.
Sury . . tº e
Lord Ghancellºr ... Lord Cairns.
º rident o: * ! Duke of Marlborough.
Lord Privy Seal . . . Earl of Malmesbury.
Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer & e - - ! G. W. Hunt.
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
Secretary for India
Board of Trade
Duchy of Lancaster
Postmaster-General . .
First Lord of the Ad-
Gathorne Hardy.
Lord Stanley.
Duke of Buckingham.
Sir J. Pakington.
Sir S. Northcote.
Duke of Richmond.
Colonel Wilson Patten.
Duke of Montrose.
miralty e is - - H. T. L. Corry.
Lºleutenant of Ire- } Marquis of Abercorn.
Chief Secretary for
Ireland s & - - }E arl of Mayo.
Chief Commissioner of . Lord J. Manners.
Public Works e *
Attorney-General Sir J. B. Karslake
\ Sir C. J. Selwyn.
Solicitor-General • * j, Sir R. Baggallay.
Lord Advocate of Scot- *E S. Gordon
land p a ... ) --~. e
MINISTRIES OF QUEEN VICTORIA.
579
MR. GLADSTONE's MINISTRY, December 1868.
Prime Minister c -
First Lord of the Trea- ). Mr. Gladstone.
- Sury . . tº tº
Lord Chancellor ... Lord Hatherley.
Lord President of the Earl de Grey.
Council is a e
- º Earl of Kimberley.
Lord Privy Seal tº º }}. Halifax.
Chancellor of the *}Robert Lowe.
chequer
Home Secretary H. A. Bruce.
•o: Sarº-1-4 ºn “ Earl of Clareddon.
Foreign Secretary .. }#} Granville.
Earl Granville.
' ' ſ Earl of Kimberley.
E. Cardwell.
Duke of Argyll.
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
Secretary for India.
John Bright.
Board of Trade ' ' || C. Fortescue.
Duchy of Lancaster ... Lord Dufferin.
** \ Marquis of Hartington.
Postmaster-General . . J. W. Monsell.
First Lord of the *}} C. E. Childers.
miralty e - ... ſ.G. J. Goschen.
LºHeutenant of Ire- }Earl Spencer.
Chief Secretary for N.C. Fortescue.
Ireland is º . . Marquis of Hartington.
Chief Commissioner of \ A. H. Layard.
Public Works ... J. A. S. Ayrton.
Attorney-General Sir R. P. Collier.
Solicitor-General Sir J. D. Coleridge.
Lord Advocate of Scot-\ J. Moncreiff.
land . . & 8 ... J. G. Young.
MR. DisrAELI's MINISTRY, March 1874.
Prime Minister
Fiº. Lord of the Twº Beaconsfield).
y . . * *
Lord Chancellor Lord Cairns.
Lºrilent o: * }Duke of Richmond.
) Mr. Disraeli (Earl of
Earl of Malmesbury.
Earl of Beaconsfield.
Duke of Northumber-
Chancellor of the E land.
ancellor of the Ex- ) c. *
chequer tº e - e. ! Sir S. N
Holme Secretary
Foreign Secretary
Lord Privy Seal
orthcote.
R. A. Cross.
Earl of Derby.
Marquis of Salisbury.
Earl of Carnarvon.
Sir M. Hicks-Beach.
G. Hardy.
F. A. Stanley.
\ Marquis of Salisbury.
J Wiscount Cranbrook.
Sir C. B. Adderley.
Wiscount Sandon.
T. E. Taylor.
Lord J. Manners.
G. W. Hunt.
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
Secretary for India
Board of Trade
Duchy of Lancaster ..
Postmaster-General
First Lord of the Ad-
miralty - e. ... ſ. W. H. Smith.
Lord Lieutenant of Ire-\ Duke of Abercorn.
land . Duke of Marlborough.
Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach.
James Lowther.
Lord H. G. Lennox.
G. J. Noel.
Sir J. B. Karslake.
Attorney-General .. }; R. Baggallay.
Sir John Holker.
Chief Secretary for
Ireland - & - -
Chief Commissioner of
Public Works
\ Sir R. Baggallay.
Sir John Holker.
Sir H. S. Giffard.
E. S. Gordon.
W. Watson.
Solicitor-General e -
Lord Advocate of Scot-
land . . • * e -
MR. GLADSTONE's MINISTRY, April 1880.
Prime Minister
First Lord of the tº) Mr. Gladstone.
sury
Lord Chancellor ... Lord Selborne.
Lord President of the N. Earl Spencer.
Council * - ... ſ. Lord Carlingford.
Lord Privy Seal ) Duke of Argyll.
' ' || Lord Carlingford.
Chancellor of the Ex- }}. E. Gladstone.
chequer * - ... W. H. C. E. Childers.
Home Secretary Sir W. W. Harcourt.
Foreign Secretary .. \# Granville.
e - Earl of Kimberley.
Colonial Secretary . . #. of Derby.
- * Wºº º 'º H. C. E. Childers.
Secretary for War ... } \ia ºuis of Haitington.
President of the Local }; . G. Dodson.
Government Board. . ; Sir C. Dilke.
tº Yº • - Marquis of Hartington.
Secretary for India .. }} arl of Kimberley.
Board of Trade
J. Chamberlain.
Duchy of Lancaster . . } } •º #.
First Lord of the Ad- Earl of Northbrook.
H. Fawcett.
miralty * @
Postmaster-General
Lord Lieutenant of Ire- Earl Cowper.
land . . e . . Earl Spencer.
Chief Secretary for W.; §§a ish
Ireland - - *
' ' ) G. O. Trevelyan.
Chief Commissioner of \ W. P. Adam.
Public Works ... ſ G. Shaw-Lefevre.
Attorney-General Sir H. James.
Solicitor-General . . Sir F. Herschell.
Lord Advocate of Scot- ) J. M'Laren.
land e - - - }} . B. Balfour.
LoRD SALISBURY's MINISTRY, June 1885.
Prime Minister • * U. A. e - º
Foreign Secretary . . }Marquis of Salisbury.
First Lord Of the Trea- ! Earl of Iddesleigh
Sury . . e - - 4. 5*-**
Lord Chancellor lº Halsbury.
Lord Chancellor of •
Ireland } Lord Ashbourne.
Lord President of the Lord Cranbrook.
Council º
Lord Privy Seal’ Lord Harrowby.
Chancellor of the Ex- Sir M. Hicks-Beach.
chequer - *
Sir Richard Cross.
Home Secretary
Colonel Stanley.
Colonial Secretary
W. H. Smith.
Secretary for War .. j Lord Cranbrook.
Vice-President of the
Committee of Coun-
cil on Education
Secretary for India. . . } Churchill.
Postmaster-General Lord John Manners.
First Lord of the Ad Lor, George Hamilton.
miralty e e - *
Lord Lieutenant of Ire-l. Lord Carnarvon.
E. Stanhope.
Lord Randolph
land . . º º • *
President of the *}Duke of Richmond.
of Trade º tº º
580
CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
President of the Local * *
Government Board. . }Arthur Balfour.
H. Chaplin.
Duchy of Lancaster .. -
Chief Secretary for Sir W. Hart-Dyke.
India. . . . . . . . . W. H. Smith.
Chief Commissioner o D. R. Plunket.
Public Works & ©
Attorney-General Sir R. E. Webster.
Sir J. E. Gorst.
Solicitor-General
Lord Advocate of Scot- }J. H. A. Macdonald.
land . .
MR. GLADSTONE's MINISTRY, February 1886.
Prime Minister & º
First Lord of the Trea- ). Mr. Gladstone.
Sury . . e e g
Lord Chancellor . Lord Herschell.
rºlent of the coun. } Earl Spencer.
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Indian Secretary
Secretary for India.
Chancellor of the Ex-
H. C. E. Childers.
Earl of Rosebery.
Earl Granville.
Earl of Kimberley.
Henry Campbell-Ban-
Ilel'Inlan.
}Sir William Harcourt.
rº. * & * *
º of * Ad. Marquis of Ripon.
*::::::::::::::::::" J. Chamberlain.
‘Secretary for Scotland G. O. Trevelyan.
Pº me Bad }A. J. Mundella.
chºreºg tº }John Morley.
Lord Steward . .
Attorney-General
Postmaster-General
Duchy of Lancaster ..
‘Chief Commissioner of
Public Works tº ſº
Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
Earl Sydney.
tº º }Sir Charles Russell.
Lord Wolverton.
E. Heneage.
}Earl of Morley.
Earl of Aberdeen.
land . . g tº * *
tº* º sº } J. B. Balfour.
LORD SALISBURY's MINISTRY, July 1886.
Prime Minister tº ſº
First Lord of the Trea- ). Lord Salisbury.
Sury .. & 4 * *
Lord Chancellor
Iord Chancellor of Ire-
land . .
Lord Halsbury.
} Lord Ashbourne.
Foreign Secretary Lord Iddesleigh.
Secretary for War ... W. H. Smith.
Chancellor of the Bºº Randolph
chequer e ‘º e tº Churchill.
in’s H. * - - sº
Fº of * As }Lord George Hamilton.
H. Matthews.
Home Secretary
Secretary for Ireland... Sir M. Hicks-Beach.
}E. Stanhope.
Secretary for the Colo-
IllèS . . tº e ſº wº
Attorney-General Sir R. Webster.
Lord Lieutenant of Ire- Marquis of London-
land . . * - . . ; derry.
lººdent o * !Lord Cranbrook.
President of the Board }*. Stanley of Pres-
of Trade º g * * ton.
Secretary for Scotland A. J. Balfour.
Chancellor of the Duchy º *
of Lancaster . . g is Lord John Manners.
Postmaster-General . . . H. C. Raikes.
Secretary for India Lord Cross.
Lord Privy Seal Local Earl Cadogan.
President of the Local \ ,-, - * * *
Government Board.. }c. T. Ritchie.
Lord Advocate of Scot- !J H. A. Macdonald
land . . e ge . . . . . .” --- - &
Attorney-General for H. Holmes
Ireland gº & ... } --. * &
In consequence of the lamented deaths of Lord
Iddesleigh, Mr. W. H. Smith, and Mr. Raikes,
and the retirement of Sir M. Hicks-Beach and
Lord Randolph Churchill, considerable changes
were subsequently made in the personnel and
offices of this Ministry. Mr. Balfour became
First Lord of the Treasury and leader of the
House of Commons, Mr. Goschen Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson Secretary for Ire-
land, the Marquis of Lothian Secretary for Scot-
land, the Marquis of Salisbury Foreign Secretary,
and Sir James Fergusson Postmaster-General.
Sir M. Hicks-Beach rejoined the Government as
President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Chaplin
took the new office of President of the Board of
Agriculture
MR. GLADSTONE's MINISTRY, August 1892.
Prime Minister § {
First Lord of the Trea- ). Mr. Gladstone.
Sury
Lord Herschell.
Tord Chancellor ..
Lord President of the
g ... }. Earl of Kimberley.
' Mr. Asquith.
Council
Secretary for India.
Earl of Rosebery.
Marquis of Ripon.
Home Secretary
Foreign Secretary
\ Mr. Campbell-Banner-
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War . . | Iman.
First Lord of the Ad-l. Earl Spencer
miralty *
Chanceſſor of the Exi Sir William Harcourt.
chequer e tº & ſº
Chief Secretary for Mr. John Morley.
Ireland * & * *
Secretary for * l Sir George Trevelyan.
Chancellor of Ole *
Duchy of Lancaster Mr. Bryce.
Fº* º the Bas }Mr. Mundella.
President of the Local }Mr. H. H. Fowler.
Government Board
Postmaster-General . . . Mr. Arnold Morley.
Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.
First Commissioner of
Works. . tº ſº. e is l
Vice-President of the U , *
CQun,cil ë $ ... } Mr. Arthur Acland.
L º Heutenant Of Ire. } Lord Houghton.
Lord Chancellor of Ire- * ºf § *
land . . tº g * & Mr. Walker.
Lord Advocate of Scot- }Mr J. B. Balfour
land # tº ; s e ºf e - Lºs ...º. te
CONSTITUENCIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
581
XII.
CONSTITUENCIES OF THE UNITED KING DOM.
THE House of Commons consists of six hundred and seventy members, who are
returned by counties, county divisions, boroughs and wards of boroughs, and
universities.
By the Redistribution Acts of 1884-85, the more populous
counties and boroughs were divided into districts, each of which elects a single
member.
of the United Kingdom :—
ENGLAND.
COUNTIES.
Bedfordshire, 2: Biggleswade, Luton.
Berkshire, 3 : Abingdon, Newbury, Wo-
kingham.
Buckinghamshire, 3 :
Aylesbury, Wycombe.
Cambridgeshire, 3: Wisbech, Chester-
ton, Newmarket.
Cheshire, 8 : Wirral, Eddisbury,
Macclesfield, Crewe, Northwich, Al-
trincham, Hyde, Knutsford.
Cornwall, 6: St. Ives, Camborne, Truro,
St. Austell, Bodmin, Launceston.
Cumberland, 4 : Eskdale, Penrith,
Cockermouth, Egremont.
Derbyshire, 7: High Peak, North-east,
Chesterfield, West, Mid, Ilkeston,
South.
Devonshire, 8: Honiton, Tiverton, South
Molton, Barnstaple, Tavistock, Totnes,
Torquay, Ashburton.
Dorsetshire,4: North, East, South, West.
Durham, 8: Jarrow, Houghton - le -
Spring, Chester-le-Street, North-west,
Mid, South-east, Bishop Auckland,
Barnard Castle.
Essex, 8: Walthamstow, Romford, Ep-
ping, Saffron Walden, Harwich,
Maldon, Chelmsford, South-east.
Gloucestershire, 5 : Stroud, Tewkes-
bury, Cirencester, Dean, Thornbury.
Hampshire, 6: Basingstoke, Andover,
Petersfield, Fareham, New Forest,
Isle of Wight.
Herefordshire, 2: Leominster, Ross.
Hertfordshire, 4 : Hitchin, Hertford,
St. Albans, Watford.
Buckingham,
Huntingdonshire, 2: Huntingdon,
Ramsey.
Kent, 8: Sevenoaks, Dartford, Tun-
bridge, Medway, Faversham, Ashford,
St. Augustine's, Thanet.
Lancashire, 23: North Lonsdale, Lan- .
The following is a list of the constituencies in the various divisions
caster, Blackpool, Chorley, Darwen,
Clitheroe, Accrington, Rossendale,
West Houghton, Heywood, Middleton,
Radcliffe, Eccles, Stretford, Gorton,
Prestwich, Southport, Ormskirk,
Bootle, Widnes, Newton, Ince, Leigh.
Leicestershire, 4: Melton, Lough-
borough, Bosworth, Harborough.
Lincolnshire, 7: Gainsborough, Brigg,
Louth. Horncastle, Sleaford, Stam-
ford, Spalding.
Middlesex, 7 : Enfield, Tottenham,
Hornsey, Harrow, Ealing, Brentford,
Uxbridge.
Monmouthshire, 3: North, West, South.
Norfolk, 6: North-west, South-west,
North, East, Mid, South.
Northamptonshire, 4: North, East,
Mid, South.
Northumberland, 4: Wansbeck, Tyne-
side, Hexham, Berwick-on-Tweed.
Nottinghamshire, 4: Bassetlaw, New-
ark, Rushcliffe, Mansfield.
Oxfordshire, 3: Banbury, Woodstock,
Henley.
Rutlandshire, 1.
Shropshire, 4: Oswestry,
Wellington, Ludlow.
Somersetshire, 7 : North, Wells, Frome,
East, South, Bridgwater, Wellington,
Staffordshire, 7: Leek, Burton, West,
North-west, Lichfield, Kingswinford,
Handsworth.
Suffolk, 5 : Lowestoft, Eye,
market, Sudbury, Woodbridge.
Surrey, 6: Chertsey, Guildford, Rei-
gate, Epsom, Kingston, Wimbledon.
Sussex, 6 : Horsham, Chichester, Grin-
stead, Lewes, Eastbourne, Rye.
Warwickshire, 4 : Tamworth, Nuneaton,
Stratford-on-Avon, Rugby.
Westmoreland, 2 : Appleby, Kendal.
Wiltshire, 5 : Cricklade, Chippenham,
Westbury, Devizes, Wilton.
Newport,
Stow-
| Worcestershire, 5: Bewdley, Evesham,
Droitwich, North, East.
582
CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
Yorkshire, 26 : Thirsk and Malton,
Richmond, Cleveland, Whitby, Hol-
derness, Buckrose, Howdenshire, Skip-
ton, Keighley, Shipley, Sowerby,
Jºlland, Morley, Normanton, Colne
Valley, Holmefirth, Barnsley, Hallam-
shire, Rotherham, Doncaster, Ripon,
Otley, Barkston Ash, Osgoldcross,
Pudsey, Spen Valley.
BOROUGHS.
Kidderminster,
Leeds, 5.
Leicester, 2.
Lincoln.
Liverpool, 9.
London and Metropolitan Boroughs,
62: City (2), Battersea, Bethnal
Green (2), Camberwell (3), Chelsea,
Clapham, Croydon, Deptford, Fins-
bury (3), Fulham, Greenwich, Hack-
ney (3), Hammersmith, Hampstead,
Islington (4), Kensington (2), Lam-
Ashton-under-Lyne.
Aston Manor.
Barrow-in-Furness.
Bath, 2.
Bedford.
Birkenhead.
Birmingham, 7.
Blackburn, 2.
Bolton, 2.
Boston.
Bradford, 3.
Brighton, 2.
Bristol, 4.
Burnley.
Bury.
Bury St. Edmunds.
Cambridge.
Canterbury.
Carlisle.
Chatham.
Cheltenham.
Chester.
Christchurch.
Colchester.
Coventry.
Barlington,
Derby, 2.
Devonport, 2.
Dewsbury.
Dover.
Dudley.
Durham.
Exeter.
Falmouth and Penryn.
Gateshead.
Gloucester.
Grantham.
Gravesend.
Grimsby (Great).
Halifax, 2.
Hanley.
Hartlepool.
Hastings.
Hereford.
Huddersfield.
Hull, 3.
Hythe.
Ipswich, 2.
beth (4), Lewisham, Marylebone (2),
Newington (2), Paddington (2), St.
George, St. Pancras (4), Shoreditch
(2), Southwark (3), Strand, Tower
Hamlets (7), Wandsworth, West
Ham (2), Westminster, Woolwich.
Lynn Regis.
Maidstone.
Manchester, 6.
Middlesbrough.
Monmouth district,
Morpeth.
Newcastle under-Lyme.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2.
Northampton, 2.
Norwich, 2.
Nottingham, 3.
Oldham, 2.
Oxford.
Peterborough.
Plymouth, 2.
Pontefract.
Portsmouth, 2.
Preston, 2.
Reading.
; Rochdale.
Rochester.
St. Helen's.
Salford, 3.
Salisbury.
Scarborough.
Sheffield, 5.
Shields (South).
Shrewsbury.
Southampton, 2.
Stafford.
Stalybridge.
Stockport, 2.
Stockton.
Stoke-upon-Trent.
Sunderland, 2.
Taunton.
Tynemouth and North Shields.
Wakefield.
Walsall.
Warrington.
Warwick and Leamington.
Wednesbury.
CONSTITUENCIES OF
THE UNITED KINGDOM. 583
West Bromwich.
Whitehaven.
Wigan.
Winchester.
Windsor.
Wolverhampton, 3.
Worcester.
Yarmouth (Great).
York, 2.
UNIVERSITIES.
Cambridge, 2.
London.
Oxford, 2.
WALES.
COUNTIES.
Anglesey.
Brecon.
Cardigan.
Carmarthen, 2.
Carnarvon, 2.
Denbigh, 2.
Flint.
Glamorgan, 5.
Merioneth.
Montgomery.
Pembroke.
Radnor.
ROROUGHS.
Cardiff district.
Carmarthen district.
Carnarvon district,
Denbigh district.
Flint district.
Merthyr-Tydvil, 2.
Montgomery district.
Pembroke district.
Swansea district.
SCOTLAND.
COUNTIES.
Aberdeen, 2.
Argyll.
Ayr, 2.
Banff.
Berwick.
Bute.
Caithness.
Clackmannam and Kinross.
Dumbarton.
Dumfries.
Edinburgh.
Elgin and Nairn.
Fife, 2.
Forfar.
Haddington.
Inverness.
Kincardine,
Kirkcudbright.
Lanark, 6.
Linlithgow.
Orkney and Shetland.
Peebles and Selkirk.
Perth, 2.
Renfrew, 2.
ROSS and Cromarty.
Roxburgh,
Stirling.
Sutherland.
Wigtown.
BOROUGHS.
Aberdeen, 2.
Ayr Burghs: Ayr, Campbelltown, In-
verary, Irvine, Oban.
Dumfries Burghs : Dumfries, Annan,
ºright Lochmaben, Sanqu-
3.T.
Dundee, 2.
Edinburgh, 4.
Elgin Burghs : Elgin, Banff, Cullen,
Inverurie, Kintore, Peterhead. -
Falkirk Burghs : Falkirk, Airdrie,
Hamilton, Lanark, Linlithgow.
Glasgow, 7: Bridgeton, Camlachie,
St. Rollox, Central, College, Trades-
ton, Blackfriars, and Hutchesontown.
Greenock.
Hawick Burghs : Hawick, Galashiels,
Selkirk.
Inverness Burghs : Inverness, Forres,
Fortrose, Nairn.
Kilmarnock Burghs : Kilmarnock,
Dumbarton, Port-Glasgow, Renfrew,
Rutherglen.
Kirkcaldy Burghs: Kirkcaldy, Burnt-
island, Dysart, Kinghorn.
Leith Burghs: Leith, Musselburgh,
Portobello.
Montrose Burghs : Montrose, Arbroath,
Brechin, Forfar, Bervie, Paisley,
Perth.
St. Andrews Burghs: St. Andrews,
Easter Anstruther,Wester Anstruther,
Crail, Cupar, Kilrenny, Pittenweem.
Stirling Burghs: Stirling, Culross,
Dunfermline, Inverkeithing, Queens-
ferry.
Wick Burghs: Wick, Cromarty, Ding-
wall, Dornoch, Kirkwall, Tain.
UNIVERSITIES.
Edinburgh and St. Andrews.
Glasgow and Aberdeen.
584 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
- - Monaghan, 2.
IRELAND. | Queen's County, 2.
COUNTIES. ºn 4
Antrim, 4. Tipperary, 4.
Armagh, 3. i Tyrone, 4.
Carlow. Waterford, 2.
Cavan, 2. Westmeath, 2.
Clare, 2. Wexford, 2.
Cork, 7. Wicklow, 2.
Donegal, 4
Down, 4. BOROUGHS,
Dublin, 2. Belfast, 4.
Fermanagh, 2. Cork, 2.
Galway, 4. Dublin, 4: College Green, Dublin Har-
Kerry, 4. bour, St. Stephen's Green, St.
Kildare, 2. Patrick's.
Kilkenny, 2. Galway.
King's County, 2. Kilkenny.
Leitrim, 2. Limerick.
Limerick, 2. Londonderry.
Londonderry, 2. Newry.
Longford, 2. Waterford.
Louth, 2.
Mayo, 4. UNIVERSITY.
Meath, 2. Dublin, 2.
England has thus 465 members, distributed as follows: counties, 233;
boroughs, 227 : universities, 5. Wales has 30 members: viz., counties, 19;
boroughs, 11. Scotland has 72 members: viz., counties, 39 ; boroughs, 31 ;
universities, 2. Ireland has 103 members: viz., counties, 85; boroughs, 16;
universities, 2. Total members for the United Kingdom, 670.
The number of members of the House of Commons varied considerably
from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. In the reign of Edward IV.
the total number of members (county and borough members included) was
296 ; by Elizabeth's time it had risen to 462; in the reign of Charles II. it
was 513; on the union with Scotland in 1707 it was 558 ; from the union
with Ireland in 1801 down to the Reform Act of 1867 it was 658; and now
the number stands at 670.
The House of Lords has exhibited even wider fluctuations. In the year
1295 the total number of peers, lay and spiritual, was 139; by the reign of
Elizabeth the number had fallen to 69 ; on the accession of Queen Victoria
it stood at 439; and by the year 1891 it had risen to 553. The number of
spiritual peers fell from 90 in 1295 to 26 in 1891.
XIII.
ELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT.
This subject may be considered under three heads: Electors, Candidates,
and Elections.
With regard to electors, the names of all persons entitled to vote appear
IELECTIONS TO PARLIAMENT. 585
upon the register. Lists of voters are made out by the local authorities, and
these are carefully revised by the persons appointed. Under the present regis-
tration law claims can be much more readily proved and tested than was
formerly the case. Those entitled to be placed on the register are male
persons over twenty-one years of age, not being peers or disqualified by
alienage, office or employment, unsoundness of mind, conviction for crime or
corrupt practices, or receipt of parochial relief, and who possess any of the
qualifications required by law. The qualifications for voters are now defined
as follows: 1. Property.—In England freehold of inheritance of 408. yearly
value, freehold for life of £5 yearly value, copyhold of £5 yearly value, lease-
hold of £5 yearly value held for a term of sixty years or more, leasehold of
£50 yearly value if held for a term of twenty years or more, will qualify a
person to vote in counties and in towns which rank as counties. In Scotland
land or heritage of £5 yearly value, leasehold of £10 yearly value held for
life or for fifty-seven years or more, and leasehold of £50 yearly value held
for nineteen years or more, will qualify for the county franchise. In Ireland
freehold of £5 net annual value, rent-charge or leasehold for life of £20
annual value, leasehold of £10 value held for sixty years or more, and lease.
hold of £20 value held for fourteen years or more, will qualify for the
county franchise. Rules have been made to prevent the multiplication of
small freeholds for political purposes—a process more generally known as
faggot-voting. 2. Occupation.—The occupier of land or tenements of the
yearly value of £10 is qualified to vote in any part of the United Kingdom ;
but the franchise is made to depend on the payment of rates, and in English
and Scotch boroughs residence in or within seven miles of the borough is
required. 3. Residence. —The inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, or of
any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, is qualified ; but through-
out the United Kingdom this franchise is made dependent on payment of
rates. Lodgers occupying rooms of the yearly value, unfurnished, of £10 are
also qualified. Certain rights of resident burgesses and freemen in English
boroughs were preserved by the act of 1832, and the liverymen of the City
companies retain the right to vote in the City of London. 4. The Univer-
sities.—The electors for university members are all graduate members of the
particular universities. Many of these vote also for the places where they
reside or have property. This double representation is objected to by many
as inconsistent with democratic principles, and of recent years an agitation
for “one man one vote ’’ has arisen. -
Touching candidates for Parliamentary honours, any male of full age,
with certain special exceptions, may come forward for any constituency.
English and Scotch peers are entirely disqualified, but Irish peers (except
representative peers) are eligible. All English, Scotch, and Irish judges,
except the Master of the Rolls in England, are disqualified, as are likewise
clergymen of the Established Church of any of the three kingdoms ; Roman
Catholic priests; the holders of various offices specially excluded by statute,
including revenue officers; persons who have been convicted of certain
offences; bankrupts; aliens except in certain cases; persons holding pensions
586 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA,
during pleasure, save special exceptions; imbeciles; Government contractors,
except contractors for Government loans; and sheriffs and returning
officers within the constituencies for which they act. No candidate requires
any property qualification, and no member receives any payment or allowance
whatsoever from the country for his service in the House or on any com-
mittee thereof. A candidate is required to have an agent for election
expenses, and in promoting his candidature he is bound to see that no breach
of the law is committed, and that the total expenses are kept within the
limits prescribed by the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883.
Elections are conducted under the provisions of the Ballot Act of 1872. In
the case of a county election, the returning officer must within two days
after that upon which he receives the writ give notice of the day of election,
in the case of a borough on the day on which he receives the writ or the
day following. The day of nomination for a county or district borough must
be not later than the ninth day after the arrival of the writ, with an interval
of not less than three clear days between the day of notice and the day of
nomination. In ordinary boroughs, the day of nomination must be fixed
not later than the fourth day after the reception of the writ, with an interval
of not less than two clear days between the day of notice and the day of
nomination. Nominations must be in writing, subscribed by two registered
electors as proposer and seconder, and by eight other electors, who must also
be registered in the same constituency. If at the expiration of one hour
after the time appointed for the election no more candidates are nominated
than there are vacancies, the returning officer proceeds to declare the candi-
date or candidates nominated duly elected ; but if there should be more
candidates than there are vacant seats, a polling day is appointed. The poll
for a county or district borough must take place in not less than two or
more than six clear days, and for an ordinary borough within three clear
days of the day of nomination. Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and
any day set apart for a public fast or thanksgiving, are not counted. A
special allowance of time is made in the case of the constituency of Orkney
and Shetland. In any instance of equality of votes, the returning officer, if
qualified for the constituency, may give the casting vote ; but if he declines
to do so or is not qualified, a double return is made to the writ, and the seat
may be claimed on petition. A scrutiny then takes place. Neither candi-
date returned may vote in Parliament until the right to the seat has been
determined. Any member returned for two or more places is to make his
selection for which of the places he will sit within one week after it shall
appear that there is no question upon the return for that place. Polling
places are supplied with a ballot-box, voting-papers, etc. The elector votes
by placing a cross opposite the name of the candidate of his choice ; his paper
is folded up by himself and dropped into the box ; and elaborate rules are
made by the Ballot Act to protect the secrecy of the vote. Any breach of the
law in conducting an election may be made the ground of a petition. The
petitioners must find security for the costs, and the petition is tried by two
judges, who report to the Speaker the result of their inquiry. Persons
THE SOVEREIGN, MINISTRY, CABINET, PRIVY COUNCIL. 587
guilty of corrupt or illegal practices may be prosecuted. No member of
Parliament can resign his seat, theoretically speaking, but he can achieve the
same purpose by accepting the office of honour or profit under the Crown
known as the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds or of the manors of
Poynings or Northstead, granted to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and resigned immediately its object is served.
A seat in the House of Commons is vacated when the holder is created a
peer or succeeds to the peerage, and also by death or by the acceptance
of any office of profit under the Crown ; and there are likewise certain
disabilities attached to bankruptcy. All the principal members of the
Government on accepting office vacate their seats and are eligible for
re-election ; but this rule does not apply to such offices as Secretary to the
Treasury or other similar appointments which are not held direct from the
Crown ; and a change from one office to another does not involve going again
to the constituency."
If a seat becomes vacant during a session, a new writ is moved for at the
commencement of an ordinary sitting, generally by one of the whips of
the party to which the deceased member belonged. Provision is further
made for the issue of writs during the recess without the intervention of the
House, it being enacted that the Speaker may, on the production of a
certificate signed by two members that a member has died or accepted an
office held direct from the Crown, or has been called to the House of Lords,
or that the seat has become vacant by the bankruptcy of a member, order
a writ to be issued for a fresh election to fill the vacancy thus caused. But
a writ may not be issued during the recess on the acceptance of the Chiltern
Hundreds or of the like offices. Means are provided under the Lunacy
(Vacating of Seats) Act, 1886, by which the seat of any member who may
have been received into a lunatic asylum shall be declared vacant.
XIV.
THE SOVEREIGN, THE IIINISTRY. THE CABINET, AND THE
PRIVY COUNCIL.
The British Sovereign enjoys certain clearly defined prerogatives, including
those of convoking, adjourning, removing, and dissolving Parliament, refusing
assent to bills—without which they cannot become law—and the creation
of peers. Formerly the Crown could increase or diminish the number of
members of the House of Commons by either enabling towns to send mem-
bers or withdrawing the representation from them ; but this power has long
been obsolete, and that also of vetoing bills is practically so. The Sovereign
declares war ; chooses and appoints all commanders and officers by land and
sea ; appoints all judges, magistrates, councillors, and officers of state,
archbishops, bishops, and high ecclesiastical dignitaries : bestows all public
588 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDEN DA.
honours; pardons criminals; and exercises many other powers, usually by
the advice of the Cabinet Ministers, who, however, alone are responsible, the
theory of English law being that the Sovereign can commit no wrong.
Theoretically the king or queen never dies—that is, the throne is never
vacant, the succession of the heir being instantaneous. The ceremony of
coronation is merely a solemn recognition and confirmation of the royal
descent, and consequent right of succession ; and it is not necessary for the
security of the title to the crown. But it is highly necessary to the formal
establishment of those rights which the people claim from the monarch in
return for the duty and allegiance they are bound to observe towards the
new Sovereign.
The Ministry is the body carrying on the executive government. When
the Sovereign calls upon a statesman to form a new administration, the
person usually selected is the leader of the opposing party in one of the two
Houses. He first nominates the Cabinet, taking himself the principal posi-
tion, and he is variously styled the Prime Minister, First Minister, head of
the Government, or Premier. Those who accept office under him are in
general agreement with his policy. Though each Minister conducts his own
department, all important departmental matters are submitted to the Prime
Minister—most of them being afterwards laid before the whole Cabinet—
and no appointment of moment is made or recommended to the Crown
without his knowledge and concurrence. The Premier's patronage is very
extensive. Upon his advice, as vacancies occur, archbishops, bishops, deans,
judges, and other dignitaries are appointed, and upwards of one hundred
Crown livings are filled. Peerages, baronetcies, the order of the Garter, and
other distinctions are conferred on his recommendation, as well as such high
appointments as the lord lieutenancy of Ireland, the viceroyalty of India,
the principal ambassadorships and colonial governorships, and the lord lieu-
tenancies of counties. He is the leader of the House of Parliament in which
he sits. Yet his official existence is not recognised by statute, nor does he
enjoy any legal precedence over his colleagues.
The Cabinet, which is really the Executive Government, is an important
inner circle in the Ministry, and it may be described theoretically as an
irregular committee of the Privy Council. It is now an essential part of our
polity, and it is composed of the most important members of the administra-
tion. Yet it is not known to the law ; the names of its members are not
officially announced to the public ; no record is kept of its meetings and
resolutions; and its existence has never been recognised by any act of
Parliament. Formerly the members of the Privy Council were the advisers
of the Crown, but as the Privy Council was a large body, a small informal
council of royal advisers grew up within it. But the rise of the Cabinet as
it now exists dates from the revolution of 1688 and the effectual establish-
ment of Parliamentary government. George III. endeavoured to subordinate
the Cabinet into Ministers dependent on himself; and even William IV.
on one occasion dismissed a Cabinet which was personally objectionable to
him. Such a step would now be condemned as unconstitutional. The
THE SOVEREIGN, MINISTRY, CABINET, PRIVY COUNCIL. 589
Cabinet now depends on a majority of the House of Commons for its
existence, and it acknowledges a collective responsibility to Parliament for
its principal acts, though its functions are not governed by written rules.
The Cabinet now always includes the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord
Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the
Secretaries of State for the Home, Foreign, Colonial, War, and Indian
Departments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the First Lord of the
Admiralty. Other Ministers may be included, and frequently are. The
minimum number of Ministers in the Cabinet is eleven, but it has sometimes
reached the unwieldy figure of seventeen. Political unanimity, unity of
responsibility, and concert in action are the main features of Cabinet
government. The Sovereign cannot now constitutionally preside at a
Cabinet council. Members of the Cabinet are necessarily Privy Councillors.
The Prime Minister generally takes the office of First Lord of the
Treasury, though Lord Salisbury gave it to another member of the Cabinet,
in order to assume for himself the post of Foreign Secretary. The Prime
Minister may likewise be First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the
Exchequer or First Lord of the Treasury and Lord Privy Seal. Other
offices in the Ministry, holders of which may or may not be members of
the Cabinet, are those of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, First
Commissioner of Works, Postmaster-General, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Chief Secretary for Ireland, Secretary for
Scotland, President of the Board of Trade, President of the Board of
Agriculture, President of the Local Government Board, and Vice-President
of the Council on Education. Appointments to all these offices, as well as
to the under-secretaryship, and many others, are made by or on the recom-
mendation of the Prime Minister. Ministers do not vacate their seats on
going from one office to another. A Government does not now resign upon
an adverse vote of the House of Lords, but only when it is defeated in the
Commons on a question of importance. Ministers have continued to hold
office after defeat on a trifling matter in the Lower House. When defeated
on a question of importance, the Premier either resigns or appeals to the
country. If in the latter event the elections go against him, he usually
resigns, though he may if he pleases wait for a formal vote of want of
confidence passed by the new House of Commons. Touching the legislative
duties of certain of the Ministers, if the Secretary for War and the First
Lord of the Admiralty are peers, the Financial Secretary to the War Office
generally and the Secretary to the Admiralty have charge of the estimates
in the House of Commons. The education estimates for England and
Wales are introduced by the Vice-President of the Council. The Financial
Secretary to the Treasury has charge of most of the civil service estimates :
and, in addition to other matters, he arranges the course of Government
business in the House of Commons. The Patronage Secretary is the prin-
cipal Ministerial whip, and issues the official summonses, or whips, for
securing the attendance of the Ministerial supporters. He is aided in his
party duties by the Junior Lords of the Treasury and by some of the
590 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENIDA,
holders of subordinate Household appointments, and with their assistance he
tells for the Government in divisions.
The Privy Council is a development from the Curia Regis, as described in
an early chapter of the present work. The present name of Privy Council
was assumed in the time of Henry W., when its functions were partly ad-
ministrative and partly judicial. At one time its jurisdiction was very
extensive, but its judicial powers were restricted by the Long Parliament,
while during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries its functions as the
adviser of the Crown in matters of Government and State policy were
gradually usurped by the Cabinet. The Privy Council as now constituted
includes the members of the royal family, the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York, the Bishop of London, the great officers of state, the Lord
Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Lords Justices of the
Court of Appeal, the President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty
Division, the law officers of the Crown, the members of the Judicial Com-
mittee, several of the Scotch judges, the Speaker of the House of Commons,
the ambassadors, some of the ministers plenipotentiary and governors of
colonies, the Commander-in-chief, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Vice-
Presidents of the Board of Trade and Education Council, the Paymaster of
the Forces, and all the members of the Cabinet, and private individuals and
politicians who have never been in office upon whom the Sovereign has con-
ferred the distinction. Any Privy Councillor can act as a justice of the peace.
Privy Councillors are appointed by the Sovereign without either patent or
grant, and are subject to removal at discretion. It was enacted in the reign
of Queen Anne that the Privy Council should continue for six months after
the demise of the Crown, unless sooner determined by the successor of the
deceased Sovereign. No members now attend its deliberations except those
specially summoned, and the occasions are very rare when summonses are
sent to the whole Council. Generally only the Ministers, the great officers of
the Household, and the Archbishop of Canterbury are summoned. Meetings
of council are usually held at the Sovereign's residence, at intervals of every
three or four weeks; and six Privy Councillors, with one of the Clerks of the
Council, may constitute a meeting. A Privy Councillor must be a natural-born
British subject. The Lord President of the Council is appointed by letters
patent under the Great Seal. He presides over the debates, proposes matters
from the Sovereign at the council table, and reports to her Majesty the
resolutions taken thereon. A full meeting of the members takes place on the
demise of the Crown, when it is the duty of the Privy Council to meet and
proclaim the new Sovereign. The Council has many important functions,
including the establishment of quarantine when necessary, the granting of
charters of incorporation to public and private bodies, and the enforcement
by Orders in Council of many statutes which Parliament leaves to the dis-
cretion of the executive. Royal proclamations summoning, proroguing, or
dissolving Parliament, and for many other purposes, are drawn up by and
with the advice of the Privy Council before being issued. Various public
departments have grown out of or are now committees of the Council. The
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC. 591
Board of Trade, though now independent, is still officially entitled the Com-
mittee of Council for Trade. The Education Department is a committee of
the Council ; and there are in addition a Universities Committee—which
reviews the statutes made under the Oxford and Cambridge Act—a Scottish
Universities Committee, and a Judicial Committee for appellate business.
The newly established Board of Agriculture possesses many powers and dis-
charges many duties which formerly pertained to the Agricultural Department
of the Privy Council. The old Privy Council of Scotland was merged in
that of England by the act 6 Anne. Ireland has a separate Privy Council,
which in 1891 consisted of fifty eight members, who are sworn pursuant to
a sign-manual warrant directed to the Lord Lieutenant.
XV.
PARLIAJIENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC.
On the day appointed by royal proclamation for the meeting of a new
Parliament, the members of both Houses assemble in their respective
chambers. In the Upper House, the five Lords Commissioners appointed by
the Sovereign take their seats on a form placed between the throne and the
woolsack, and the Lord Chancellor commands the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod to let the Commons know that their attendance is desired. In
the Commons, all responsibility pending the election of the Speaker devolves
upon the Clerk of the House, who receives from the Clerk of the Crown
a book containing the names of the members returned to serve in the new
Parliament. Black Rod having knocked at the door and informed the
Clerk of the object of his visit, the latter joins the official from the Lords,
and the two gentlemen, followed first by Privy Councillors and afterwards
by unofficial commoners, proceed together to the bar of the Upper House.
There they are informed by the Lord Chancellor of the appointment of the
Royal Commissioners by her Majesty under the Great Seal, after which the
Clerk of the Parliaments reads the letters patent in eartenso, and the Lord
Chancellor dismisses the Commons to elect their Speaker. After their
departure, the process of swearing in is proceeded with in the Upper House,
the Lord Chancellor, as keeper of the Queen's conscience and principal Lord
Commissioner, being the first to take the oath and subscribe the roll of
Parliament.
Upon the return of the Commons to their own House, the Clerk points
with his finger to the gentleman who is to nominate the Speaker. He is
usually a leading, but unofficial, member of the Ministerial party, and his
motion is seconded by a prominent member of the Opposition. If two
members should be proposed as Speaker, a debate and a division ensue, but
this has not occurred since 1839, when Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Liberal, was
elected Speaker over Mr. Goulburn, Conservative, by 317 to 299 votes. If
592 CONSTITUTIONAL AIDDENDA.
only one nomination is made, the member proposed is called by the House to
the chair without the question being put. The Speaker elect, standing up
in his place, expresses his sense of the honour proposed to be conferred upon
him, and submits himself to the House. Having been again unanimously
called to the chair, he is conducted thither by his proposer and seconder.
He then expresses his deep acknowledgments for the honour conferred
upon him, and takes his seat. The Sergeant-at-Arms next places the mace
on the table, and the Speaker elect having received the congratulations of
the House, an adjournment is taken until the appointment has been sanc-
tioned by the Queen. On the next day, the Speaker elect and the Commons
are again summoned to the House of Lords, when the Speaker elect
announces his choice and submits himself with all humility for her
Majesty's gracious approbation. The Lord Chancellor thereupon assures
him of her Majesty's sense of his efficiency, and adds that “she does most
readily approve and confirm you as the Speaker.” The Speaker then makes
the famous declaration on behalf of the Commons, laying claim to all their
undoubted rights and privileges, “especially to freedom of speech in debate
to freedom from arrest of their persons and servants, and, above all, freedom
of access to her Majesty whenever occasion shall require it.” In conclusion,
he prays that if any error be committed, it may be imputed to him alone,
and not to her Majesty's faithful Commons. The Lord Chancellor, on
behalf of the Queen, confirms all the rights and privileges of the Commons,
and with this the ceremony ends. On his return to the House of Commons,
the Speaker informs the members of what has transpired in the Lords,
repeats his acknowledgments of the honour conferred upon him, and
swearing-in is proceeded with. The Speaker first takes the oath, and then
it is administered in the first instance to such members, not exceeding five
in number, as are of the Queen's Privy Council, and to members who have
held office under the Crown, and afterwards to such members as may present
themselves for that purpose at the table. Quakers, Moravians, Separatists,
and others are permitted to make an affirmation in lieu of, but to the same
effect as, the oath ; and those who have no religious belief, or who object to
an oath as being contrary to their religious belief, are permitted to make an
affirmation under the act 51 and 52 Vict. The form of oath taken by
members is as follows: “I, , do swear that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors,
according to law. So help me, God.” Two or more days are generally
allowed for the process of swearing-in, and then the Queen's Speech is read
in person or by the Lord Chancellor in the Upper House, before the
assembled members of both Houses. The Commons then return to their
House, and in the evening the debate on the Address is opened.
The House of Lords is composed of two of the estates of the realm, the
lords spiritual and temporal, but both sit and vote together. The lords
spiritual embrace the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and twenty-four
bishops of the Church of England. The Archbishops and the Bishops of
London, Durham, and Winchester are always entitled to sit but other
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC. 593
bishops only receive a writ of summons when the voidance of a see decreases
the total number of lords spiritual to less than twenty-six, and then in order
of seniority of appointment. The Bishop of Sodor and Man has no seat in
Parliament at any time, and any other bishop ceases to be a lord of Parlia-
ment on resigning his see. The lords temporal consist of peers whose right
to sit and vote in the House is hereditary, representative peers of Scotland
and Ireland, and lords of appeal in ordinary, of whom not more than four
may be appointed. The peers are divided into five classes: dukes, mar-
quises, earls, viscounts, and barons, these titles taking precedence in the
order given ; but a peer may hold a superior Scotch or Irish title to that
under which he sits as a peer of the United Kingdom. Each peer must
attend to record his vote, proxies having been abandoned. A newly created
peer or one elevated to a higher title is introduced by two other peers of
his own degree, and he takes the oath, and subscribes the roll with con-
siderable formalities. The lords spiritual sit permanently on the upper
benches to the right of the throne ; on the same side, but nearer the centre
of the House, sit the Ministry, with their supporters behind and below
them ; while the left front bench is occupied by the leaders of the Opposi-
tion, with their adherents behind them. In both Houses the two parties
cross the House on a change of Ministry. The Upper House has both
legislative and judicial powers. It is the highest appellate court of the
United Kingdom, and, as thus constituted (by the legal lords), may sit
during a Parliamentary recess. With regard to precedence in the House of
Lords, the Prince of Wales stands first on the roll; then come the royal
dukes, who are followed, in the order given, by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of York, the Lord President of
the Council, and the Lord Privy Seal. Then follow the dukes—headed by
the Duke of Norfolk as Earl Marshal and premier duke—the marquises,
earls, viscounts, bishops, and barons. The Lord Chancellor, or Keeper of
the Great Seal, acts as Speaker for formal purposes, but he does not keep
order, as the lords do that for themselves. It is not necessary that the
Chancellor should ever be a lord of Parliament, and he sits on the wool-
sack, which is supposed to be outside the House. A peer when speaking
addresses the whole House, and not the president. Deputy Speakers are
appointed when necessary, and there is a salaried Chairman of Committees,
who has large powers over private bills, etc. The judges and law officers
rank as assistants of the House ; they are summoned to attend in Parlia-
ment, and they are present on occasions of state ; the judges also attend and
sit together on the woolsack when the Lords desire to consult them on a
point of law. In olden times, when the Houses differed, formal conferences
were held in the Painted Chamber, the Lords sitting with their hats on, the
Commons standing and uncovered ; but the modern practice of party govern-
ment renders these conferences unnecessary. While the House of Lords
declares its own privileges, it is bound by law, and cannot create a new
privilege by mere declaration. It can censure, fine, or imprison persons.
guilty of breach of privilege ; and it can protect the House and its com-
WOL. II. 38
594 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
mittees, as well as all persons concerned in the business before the various
committees. The House of Lords, besides being a court of final appeal,
exercises original jurisdiction in peerage cases, in trials of peers for treason
or felony, and in impeachments by the Commons. It also has exclusive
power to originate bills for a restitution in blood and a restitution in
honours. It is also understood that bills of pains and penalties, or other
measures founded on Oral testimony, originate with the Lords ; and until
1871 the House of Commons had not the power which their lordships had
of examining witnesses on oath. Any member of the House of Lords may
introduce a bill affecting the public interest, and the House claims the right
to initiate bills which directly affect its own rights and privileges, but,
according to constitutional custom, it cannot initiate money bills; it may
accept or reject a money bill sent up by the Commons, but it cannot amend
it in detail. Bills are frequently read a first time without discussion ; if
they pass the second reading this means that their general principle has
been accepted. They are then discussed in detail in committee, after which
they are read a third time and passed. The royal assent to bills is always
given in the Lords, the Commons being summoned thither. The ceremony
is generally performed by commission, and the French forms are still em-
ployed. If a public bill be approved, the Clerk says, “Le roy” (or “La veyme”)
“le veult.” If the measure be a private one, he says, “Soit fait comme il est
désiré.” Should the bill have subsidies for its object, the Clerk says, “Le roy”
(or “La reyne’) “remercie ses loyawa, sujets, accepte leur bânévolence, et aussi le
veult.” If the Sovereign refuses approval to a measure, the Clerk says, “Le
roy” (or “La reyne’”) “s'avisera.” This power of rejection, however, has not
been exercised since 1707, when Queen Anne refused her assent to a Scotch
militia bill, Bills awaiting the royal assent are usually deposited in the
IHouse of Lords for that purpose, but all money bills are brought up to the
bar of the Lords by the Speaker of the Commons to receive the royal
assent. Members of the House of Lords are free from arrest on civil
process in coming, going, or returning. They are free to speak without
being liable to action or indictment. They can claim access to the Crown
to explain their proceedings. It is a breach of privilege to reflect on the
honour of the House or on the Parliamentary conduct of its members.
Technically it is a breach of privilege to report its proceedings, but now
sessional arrangements are made for the admission of reporters. Formerly
printers of Parliamentary papers for both Houses could be sued or prosecuted
for libel, but, under the act of 1840, all such proceedings can now be stayed
on the production of a certificate that such papers are printed by order.
The House of Commons is now by far the more important branch of the
Legislature. All its members are equal within the House, but the bench
immediately to the right of the chair is reserved for Ministers having seats
in the House, and their supporters sit behind them. To the left of the
chair are the Opposition benches, the front bench above the gangway being
reserved for ex-Ministers and Privy Councillors. Independent members sit
below the gangway, and since 1880 the Irish members generally have sat
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC. 595
below the gangway on the Opposition side of the House. Members enjoy
privilege of Parliament: they are free from arrest on civil process while
attending the House, and in coming or returning ; but no person is privi-
leged against arrest for crime or contempt of court. Formerly privilege
could be pleaded by members, and even for their servants, in actions for debt ,
but now an action or a bankruptcy petition is not impeded by privilege.
No member who becomes bankrupt can sit or vote in either House of
Parliament. The Commons enjoy freedom of speech, and as a House may
claim free access to the Sovereign. They can prosecute offenders against their
privileges, and may commit a person to prison during pleasure ; but persons
so imprisoned cannot be detained after the close of the session. The House
declares its own privileges, but cannot create new ones by a mere declaration.
Since 1840 it has been able to protect its own printers against actions for
libel. A member has no privilege except when he is performing his Parlia-
mentary duty. While the Commons assume no general judicial authority,
they claim to deal judicially with cases of privilege, and with questions
relating to the election and conduct of members. The House may exclude,
suspend, or expel a member, but it cannot disqualify him for re-election.
The Commons have an exclusive right to vote supplies of money and to
prescribe the ways and means by which it shall be raised. Estimates of
public expenditure are produced by Ministers and discussed in Committee
of Supply, which is a committee of the whole House. The Speaker leaves
the chair, the mace is taken from the table, and the Chairman of Committees
presides over the debate, in which members may speak more than once to the
same question. After certain necessary votes have been taken in Supply,
the House resolves itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, which deals
with the proposals relative to old or new taxes and duties, and votes sums
of money from the Consolidated Fund to make good the supplies. Resolutions
adopted in committee are embodied in bills, which are sent up for the assent
of the Lords. At the close of every financial year the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in committee of the whole House, brings forward his budget of
expenditure and revenue for the ensuing year.
As regards legislative business, a member must ask leave to introduce a
bill. When a bill has been read a second time, it is considered in detail by
a committee of the whole House or by a select committee. The com-
mittee reports to the House, the Speaker resuming the chair for the
purpose. The House of Commons, as the “grand inquest" of the nation,
takes cognisance of all matters of public concern, as well as of the conduct
of Ministers. No Government can hold office without the confidence of the
Commons, but it may if its supporters are in a minority in the House of
Lords.
The Speaker is the first commoner of the realm, and takes precedence as
such. The Chairman of Committees is empowered to act as deputy Speaker.
The Clerk of the Parliaments is the chief officer of the House of Lords. The
Assistant Clerk of Parliaments is the clerk of the House of Commons. He
reads the order of the day, turns a sand-glass when a division is called, reads
596 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDEN DA.
petitions if required, and takes charge of accounts and papers. He has two
assistant clerks, whose chief duty is to keep the journals, which are accepted
by all other authorities as evidence of what is done by the House. The
Sergeant-at-Arms is the executive officer of the Commons.
The public acts of Parliament passed in a session form one statute, which
for convenience is divided into chapters. Copies of the statutes are preserved
among the Rolls of Parliament, and printed copies are sent to judges and
magistrates ; but no form of publication is required to give validity to a
statute ; and all subjects are bound to take note of and obey the law. As
a rule, acts come into force immediately after they have received the royal
assent. All Parliamentary papers, votes, etc., printed during the Session may
be obtained from the Parliamentary publishers. Prorogation puts an end to
all sessional orders and to all pending business, except impeachments, writs of
error, and appeals to the House of Lords. No bills may be introduced twice in
the same session ; and it has sometimes been found necessary to prorogue
Parliament in order that a rejected bill may be brought in again without delay.
Members of either House of Parliament may obtain information from
the executive departments by asking for returns and papers. With regard
to subordinate departments or departments created or regulated by statute,
either House may order returns ; but touching the higher departments and
matters affecting the royal prerogative, it is usual to move a humble address,
praying that the documents required may be ordered. Neither House orders
returns regarding the proceedings of the other; papers desired can generally
be obtained without difficulty. Unless under the provisions of an act of
Parliament, no return can be ordered from private persons and associations.
Cabinet memoranda, opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and other
confidential documents are never laid on the table of either House, except
the Government has special reasons for doing so.
Divisions are taken by the voices of the members present. In the Lords
the cry is “Content" or “Not content,” in the Commons “Aye" or “ No.”
If the Speaker's decision be challenged, members pass out into the lobbies,
and are counted by members appointed for that purpose, who are called
“tellers.” When the numbers are equal, in the Lords the question is decided
in the negative ; but in the Commons the Speaker gives a casting vote.
Many matters are for the sake of convenience referred to a committee of the
whole House or to a select committee. Witnesses can be examined before
committees of both Houses on oath. In the case of a private bill referred to
a committee, its promoters and opponents attend with their counsel and agents;
and the expense of the inquiry, which partakes of a judicial character, is
very heavy. Formerly there were four grand committees of the House of
Commons: for religion, for grievances, for courts of justice, and for trade.
These were discontinued in 1832; and in 1882 two standing committees were
appointed : for the consideration of bills relating to law and courts of justice,
and to trade. They have not, however, relieved the House so much as was
expected.
Parliamentary procedure now demands attention. It is out of order for
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC. 597
a member to refer to another member by name—he must be addressed as
“the hon. or right hom. member for So-and-so.” All observations must be
addressed to the chair. It is irregular to refer directly to proceedings in the
House of Lords, unless they have been formally made known by message
or recorded on the minutes of the Upper House. Proceedings in the House
of Lords are alluded to as having transpired “in another place.” It is out
of order to refer to the opinions of the Sovereign, Ministers being responsible
for the speeches and messages from the throne. To facilitate order, rules
of procedure were passed in 1882, which provided that a member who
disregarded the authority of the chair might, under a new standing order
(order in debate), be “named ” by the Speaker and suspended from the service
of the House, on the first occasion for a week, on the second for a fortnight,
and on the third and subsequent occasions for a month. The Speaker was
empowered when a subject had been adequately discussed, and it was the
evident sense of the House that the question be put, so to inform the House,
whereupon a motion to close the debate might be made. He could also place
restrictions upon the practice of making motions of adjournment. In cases
where the second reading of a bill is not met with a direct negative, an
amendment is proposed to the effect that the bill “be read this day three
months” or “six months,” it being understood that the House will not be
sitting then. The “previous question ” may be carried in cases where the
House is unwilling to come to a decision. The first Salisbury administration
projected new rules of procedure, which Mr. Gladstone in the main accepted ;
and a select committee appointed by the House of Commons to consider the
question met in March 1886. In pursuance of its recommendations, the
Government proposed various draft rules of procedure, but the only one
adopted by the House was that dealing with the closure of debate. The
new rule, however, worked somewhat inconveniently, as it necessitated the
presence of upwards of two hundred members to enforce the closure when
the minority numbered forty or upwards. The subject was again discussed
in the session of 1888, when a settlement was arrived at satisfactory to both
sides of the House.
The new rules were very comprehensive. First, as to the sittings of the
House, it was provided that, unless the House should otherwise order, the
House should meet every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, at three
o'clock, and should, unless previously adjourned, sit till one o'clock a.m.,
when the Speaker might adjourn the House without question put, unless a
bill originating in Committee of Ways and Means or specially exempted
proceedings should be under consideration. At midnight on Mondays,
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays (except as aforesaid), and at half-past five
on Wednesdays, proceedings are to be interrupted, and any dilatory motion
before the House is to lapse without question put ; the business then under
consideration, and any business subsequently appointed, is to be appointed
for the next day on which the House shall sit, unless the Speaker ascertains
that the majority of the House desires it to be deferred until a later day. On
the interruption of business the closure may be moved, and the Speaker or
598 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
Chairman is not to leave the chair until the questions consequent thereon
have been decided. After the business under consideration at midnight or
at half-past five on Wednesdays has been disposed of, no opposed business is
to be taken. At the commencement of public business, however, a Minister
of the Crown may make a motion, without amendment or debate, that pro-
ceedings on any specified business under discussion at twelve o'clock that
night be not interrupted under the standing order. The Speaker may when
expedient request the Chairman of Ways and Means to take the chair as
deputy Speaker without any formal communication to the House; and he
is to nominate at the commencement of every session a panel of not more
than five members to act as temporary Chairmen of Committees when
requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means. Secondly, questions of
closure of debate are to be decided in the affirmative, if when a division
be taken it appears that not less than one hundred members voted in the
majority in support of the motion. The standing order of 1882 which left
it to the Speaker to take the initiative for the closure of a debate was
repealed. Thirdly, the Speaker or Chairman was empowered to order dis-
orderly members to withdraw from the House during the remainder of a
sitting, the Sergeant-at-Arms to act upon any instructions received from the
chair. But if this power seems inadequate, the Speaker or Chairman may
name offending members in pursuance of the standing order on debate, or
he may call on the House to adjudicate upon their conduct. Suspended
members are to withdraw from the precincts of the House, subject to the
proviso in the standing order relating to their service on private bill com-
mittees. Fourthly, the Speaker or Chairman may order a member to
discontinue his speech on the ground of irrelevance or tedious repetition.
Fifthly, in case of motions for adjournment in abuse of the rules of the
House, the Speaker or Chairman may forthwith put the question from the
chair, or decline to propose the question thereupon to the House. Sixthly,
the Government to have full power to arrange business as they see fit upon
those days on which the Government business has priority. Seventhly,
whenever an order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a
committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall leave the chair without
putting any question, unless notice of an instruction has been given, when
such instruction shall be first disposed of. Eighthly, upon the report stage
of any bill, no amendment may be proposed which could not have been
proposed in committee without an instruction from the House. Ninthly,
with regard to divisions, the Speaker or Chairman may after the lapse of
two minutes, if in his opinion the division is frivolously or vexatiously
claimed, take the vote of the House or committee by calling upon the
members who support and who challenge his decision successively to rise
in their places, and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the
determination of the House or committee, or name tellers for a division,
If there be no division, the number of the challenging minority shall be
declared from the chair, and their names taken down and printed in the
division lists. Tenthly, the stages of committee and report on the Address
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, ORDER, PROCEDURE, ETC. 599
to the Queen, in reply to the royal speech at the commencement of the
Session, to be discontinued. Rule 11 provided that after Whitsuntide
public bills other than Government bills be arranged on the order book
so as to give priority to the bills most advanced ; that Lords' amendments
to public bills be placed first, followed by third readings, considerations of
report, bills in progress in committee, bills appointed for committee, and
second readings. The twelfth rule revived the resolutions of 1882 relating
to the standing committees on law and trade ; and trade was ordered to
include agriculture and fishing. Other resolutions passed by the House
provided in effect that when the House meets at three o'clock opposed
business is as a rule not taken after midnight, but when it meets at two
o'clock opposed business may be proceeded with until one a.m. The House
meets at noon on Wednesdays and adjourns at six, and opposed business is
not taken after half-past five. The old half-past twelve rule and some
others which were incompatible with the new resolutions were repealed.
British subjects and persons resident in the British dominions may
petition either House of Parliament ; but a petition must be presented by
a member of the House to which it is addressed, except petitions from the
Corporation of London, which are presented by the sheriffs of London at
the bar. The Lord Mayor of Dublin has enjoyed the same privilege, and
it would probably be conceded to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. Formerly
a member could address the House when presenting a petition, but this is
not now permissible under the standing orders. A committee on public
petitions reports twice a week during the session.
The English Parliament is practically omnipotent. No act of Parliament
can be set aside by any authority whatsoever except that of the two Houses
which passed it. Sir Edward Coke has observed that the power of Parlia-
ment “is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined, either for
causes or persons, within any bounds.” -
In the case of a dissolution of Parliament by Ministers, it is customary to
put an end to the session by prorogation. A proclamation is then issued
dissolving the Parliament, and giving directions for the issue of new writs
of summons. The House of Commons is temporarily put an end to by a
dissolution. Not more than three years may elapse between the dissolution
of a Parliament and the calling of a new one ; but inasmuch as the Commons
only votes the supplies year by year, it is absolutely necessary that there
should be an annual session of Parliament. Under the Septennial Act of
1714 no Parliament may endure for more than seven years from the time
when it is first summoned to meet. Parliament is not dissolved by the
demise of the Crown ; on the contrary, an immediate assembling of the two
Houses is rendered necessary; and if no Parliament should then be in
existence, the old Parliament must reassemble. It may sit again for six
months, if it be not within that time dissolved by the new Sovereign. If
such a step be at any time deemed necessary, it is in the power of the
Crown to call Parliament together by proclamation for the despatch of
business in six days from the date of such proclamation.
600 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
XVI.
THE STATUTES.
The consolidation of the vast mass of legislation upon the statute book
and the expurgation of acts expressly repealed or obsolete by their age is
a work that has long been going forward. Its necessity has been acknow-
ledged for more than three hundred years. Lords Campbell, Cranworth,
and Westbury facilitated the work of consolidation ; but it was not until
the Chancellorship of Lord Cairns that an edition of the statutes actually
in force was directed to be printed, and a committee appointed to carry out
the work. Since then satisfactory progress has been made. The various
Statute Law Revision Acts passed since 1861 have swept away a great
number of obsolete enactments, while the committee have also done much
in the way of compressing existing statutes. But much remains yet to be
done in consolidating and codifying the numerous statutes relating to pro-
cedure, the criminal laws, the poor-laws, commerce, highways, prisons, public
libraries, etc. It is also very desirable that the statutes of the realm should
be published in a cheap form, so that they may no longer be confined to the
Hibraries of public institutions or wealthy private individuals. A revised
edition of the statutes is now in course of issue by the Government, but its
distribution must be considerably restricted owing to its cost.
By the Statute Law Revision Acts of 1890 the work of revision was
brought down to the close of the session 5 and 6 Victoria. The select
committee on the Statute Law Revision Bill and other measures reported
in 1890 that they were struck in the course of their examination of the
statute book by the large number of statutes of little or no practical utility
which still remained unrepealed. This especially applied to imperial acts
operative in Scotland or Ireland only, as well as to many acts of the Parliament
of Ireland before the Union. Modern repealing acts had frequently been
expressed to apply to England only where the committee found no reason to
think that in point of fact the act or part of an act repealed for England had
any practical application at the present day to the circumstances of Scotland
or of Ireland, as the case might be. Where the conditions of two or of all
three of the countries coincided, it was obviously desirable that the work
of revision and repeal should be effected by the same act, so that the law
of the several countries should, as far as possible, be made uniform. The
committee believed that a few consolidation acts might with advantage be
passed, embodying in a very small space all that was worth preserving in
these old statutes, so that the residue might be forthwith repealed ; and they
ventured to express the hope that the departments of state within whose
respective provinces of administration these statutes lay would energetically
co-operate with the Statute Law Committee in preparing such consolidating
and repealing measures.
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. 601
XVII.
PARLIAJIENTARY REPORT.I.W.G.
Some references to the records of Parliamentary proceedings before and
during the reign of Elizabeth have been made in the first volume of this
work. These now require to be supplemented. The Journals of the reign
of James I. have been corrected and amplified by independent sources of
information. The Parliamentary Debates of 1610, printed from a manu-
script in the British Museum by the Camden Society, is valuable as throwing
light upon a Parliament whose records are unusually defective. There are
also manuscripts in the Harleian and Cottonian collections which give whole
speeches of this period. Another Camden Society publication of considerable
value is one entitled The Debates of the House of Lords in 1621. It gives
a full account of the debates on Bacon's fall, on the gold and silver thread
patents, and on the Monopolies Bill. These debates excited wide-spread
interest, as did also that on liberty of speech in the House of Commons in
1621, which is given fairly fully in the Parliamentary History, though there
is hardly a trace of it in the Journals. In Petyt's collections there is also
a copious report of the debate. For the reigns of James I. and Charles I.
Cobbett, in writing the Parliamentary History, drew largely from the
Rushworth, Somers, Hardwicke, and other collections, which publish
important speeches by the leaders of the Court and popular parties. Then
there are the publications of Sir Benjamin Rudyard and Sir E. Dering.
Rushworth, who covers five Parliaments, reports debates on episcopacy, short
Parliaments, grievances, tunnage and poundage, etc., and he also gives the first
speech made by Oliver Cromwell. The Diurnal Occurrences and the Mercurius
Politicus were a kind of narrative of proceedings published by order of
Parliament. The Diary of Sir R. Knightley, printed by the Camden Society,
fills up large gaps in the Journals touching the first Parliament of Charles I.
In the appendix are full notes by Sir T. Crewe (formerly Speaker and after-
wards Lord Crewe) of the Parliament which sat from January to March
1629. The political literature dealing with the famous Long Parliament
surpasses in extent that of any other period. The Camden Society has
published Sir R. Verney’s Notes of Proceedings for the years 1640 to 1642.
Burton took copious notes of the Protector's Parliament. The best
authority for the earlier portion of the Long Parliament is Sir Simonds
D'Ewes's manuscript diary (in five folio volumes), which was largely used by
Carlyle in preparing his Cromwell and John Forster in writing his Grand
Remonstrance and the Arrest of the Five Members. Burton's Diary
of the Last Parliament of Oliver Cromwell and the Parliament of his Son
Richard” was printed in 1828. There was prefixed to it by way of preface
an account of the Parliament of 1654 from the manuscript of Guibon
Goddard, member for Lyme Regis. It supplies a missing speech of the
Lord Protector, which must have occupied upwards of an hour in delivery.
602 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
Burton's Diary shows that members were strictly taken to task if they
said anything reflecting on other members. The closure was in existence, and
there was a standing order to the effect that any member not taking a place
on entering the House, or leaving it to the disturbance of the House, or
speaking loudly, or interfering with business, should pay a fine of one
shilling ; and the Clerk Assistant was ordered to collect the money at the
door as the members left. There are notes and reports of proceedings in
Parliament in the second quarter of the seventeenth century by Sir F.
Gawdry, M.P. for Thetford, Lawrence Whitaker, M.P. for Okehampton,
and Walter Yonge, M.P. for Colyton, as well as collections of speeches in
the Lansdowne MSS. and the Sloane MSS.
The library of St. John's College, Cambridge, contains interesting manu-
scripts relating to Parliamentary proceedings from 1602 to 1610. A fine folio
in the Harleian MSS. contains a full report of the debates in the case of
Mr. Floyd, a Roman Catholic barrister, who had spoken disrespectfully
of the Elector Palatine and his wife. In the Additional MSS. there is
another readable folio containing the debates in 1627-28. Dawes's Collection
of Speeches (1623–1630) is not very valuable, and the manuscripts in the
Ashmolean, Middle and Inner Temple Libraries are almost wholly transcripts
from the Rolls and Journals. “In the Lansdowne collection,” writes a con-
tributor to the Times, “are copious notes of debates in the hand of Lord
Somers and his private secretary, and in the Hardwicke State Papers there
is the report of the debate in the Convention Parliament on the knotty
point whether James II. had abdicated or whether the throne was simply
vacant, printed from memoranda taken by Lord Somers in pencil. Sir
Simonds D'Ewes's Journal is among the Harleian MSS. Archbishop
Secker's Journal and Lord Hardwicke's Journal are among the Additional
MSS., and Sir H. Cavendish's reports are in the Egerton MSS. Of a later
date we have manuscript notes of Parliamentary debates in 1829, memoranda
for speeches in Parliament by R. B. Sheridan, Esq., an autograph manuscript
speech by Lord Byron on the Framework Bill, manuscript reports of speeches
by Burke, Sheridan, and Fox, and manuscript reports of speeches in the
session of 1825, by Ellenborough and others.”
The Historical Manuscripts Commission has rendered excellent service in
many directions, though it has not been able to do much hitherto in the way
of filling up the gaps in the older Parliamentary reports. There must be
many private letters, diaries, and memoranda scattered about the country in
private archives, etc., which are well worth recovering. Thirteen volumes
of manuscript reports have been discovered of the Irish House of Commons
between 1776 and 1789. Lord Braye's collection contains five folio volumes
of drafts for the Lords' Journals for 1620 to 1628 by Elsyng, ten folio
volumes of first drafts of Journals of the House of Lords for 1640 to 1642, and
first drafts of Journals not bound for 1661 to 1680. Lord Braye also has
bundles of manuscripts belonging to John Browne, who was Clerk of the
Parliaments during a great part of the seventeenth century. Colonel
Carew has an account of proceedings in Parliament in 1623, 1625, and 1628,
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. 603
and of the House of Lords from 1726 to 1733, besides a number of
scattered speeches of Sir Nicholas Bacon and others. Lord Leconfield has
a book of speeches delivered in the early days of the Long Parliament;
and the papers of Downing College contain speeches of James I.'s time which
supply blanks in the printed Journals. The Knightley papers contain three
Parliamentary Journals, viz., of 1625, of the close of the Short Parliament,
and of the opening of the Long Parliament. The Ashburnham Library con-
tains many valuable Parliamentary manuscripts. “There is a collection,
made by Brady and Morone, of Parliamentary speeches; a table of Parlia-
ments giving an account of events in Parliament during the reigns from
Edward III. to Edward IV. ; a copy of Heywood Townsend's journal of the
last four Parliaments of Queen Elizabeth, which, as mentioned already, was
printed in folio in 1680; a collection of speeches in Parliament in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the handwriting of Charles I.'s
time ; some notes taken in the session of 1627-28 by William Borlase;
proceedings and speeches on the impeachment of Lord Clarendon ; Journals
of Parliamentary Proceedings in 1721 and 1722; and the manuscript of a
speech by G. Grenville on the expulsion of Wilkes. In the Harvey papers
there are full reports of some of Pym's speeches. Lord St. Germans has a
large collection of first and second copies and drafts of Sir J. Eliot's speeches,
made use of by Mr. Forster in his Life. The Duke of Northumberland
has a Journal of Proceedings in the thirty-fifth Elizabeth. The Egmont
papers have various speeches of Sir R. Temple in 1692 and 1710 and speeches
of the Marquis of Normanby taken in shorthand, and the Bedford, Suther-
land, and Malet papers contain numerous reports of speeches, mostly in the
seventeenth century.”
Burton's Diary comes down to the Restoration ; Timberlake's Proceed-
ings of the House of Lords, in eight volumes, extends from 1660 to 1742;
and Chandler's Debates, in fourteen volumes, is a work covering the same
ground in the House of Commons. Anchitel Grey's reports, published
in 1769, in ten volumes, cover the Parliaments from 1667 to 1694. Grey
was M.P. for Derby for thirty years, and his notes are regarded as generally
trustworthy. Andrew Marvell's letters to his Hull constituents described
the Commons' debates from 1660 to 1678; and the autobiography of Sir
J. Bramston, published by the Camden Society, contains Parliamentary
references to this and the succeeding period. In 1766 Almon began to
publish the debates of both Houses from 1742 to 1780. Then there were
Debrett's Debates from 1743 to 1774 and Debrett's Register of Proceedings
of both Houses from 1780 to 1803, in three series of over sixty volumes;
Bohun's Debates touching the Right of Electing JIembers in 1702; Stockdale's
History and Proceedings of the Lords and Commons in Parliament with
regard to the Regency (1788–89); and An Impartial Report of the Debates
that occurred in the Two Houses of Parliament, 1794 to 1809, by W. Woodfall
and Assistants. Northcroft's Parliamentary Chronicle gives the debates for
1833-34. Hansard's Debates began in 1803, and from 1828 to 1841 there was
an independent report in Barrow's Mirror of Parliament, which had the
604 CONSTITUTIONAL ADDENDA.
services of some of the ablest reporters of the day. The leading speeches of
many of the greatest Parliamentary orators in the past and present century
are to be read in the Modern Orator and other compilations. Boyer's Political
State of Great Britain extended from 1711 to 1740. The system of regular
and authentic Parliamentary reporting, however, began with Cave, who in
1731 founded the Gentleman's Magazine, and made reports of the debates
in Parliament one of its chief features. The London Magazine followed,
and from these two sources the Parliamentary History for this period is
chiefly constructed. The conflict of the House of Commons with the
reporters and the press has been detailed in the body of the present work.
In order to ensure accuracy in his reports, Cave sent proofs to the Speaker
to be corrected, and he received valuable assistance in this way from
members. Sir H. Cavendish's reports in the British Museum cover the
sessions from 1768 to 1774, usually called the “unreported Parliament,”
because the rule for excluding strangers was rigidly enforced. Almost
invariably at the commencement of a sitting, some member or other would
“spy strangers,” whereupon the gallery was immediately cleared by order
of the Speaker. But Sir H. Cavendish, member for Lostwithiel, took full
notes in shorthand, filling forty-nine small quarto volumes with his reports.
Wright, who succeeded Cobbett as editor of the Parliamentary History,
began the publication of Cavendish's Debates in 1841, but was compelled
to halt half-way for lack of public support. Lord Palmerston was in
vain petitioned to complete the work at the public expense ; but as the
unpublished portion is concerned with important events like the first disputes
with the American colonies, it is hoped that the undertaking may yet be
finished. It is recorded that William Woodfall—“Memory Woodfall,” and
not Henry Woodfall, the publisher of Junius—would stand at the bar
of the House of Lords all night, or sit on a back bench in the gallery of the
House of Commons, with no refreshment but a hard-boiled egg, and repro-
duce a whole debate without having taken a note. Perry, who purchased the
Morning Chronicle in 1789, is credited with the first introduction of the “relief.”
system, by which reporters followed each other through the whole night :
but there is no doubt that the system was in use on the Times from the
very commencement of that journal. Lord Chancellor Campbell, when
working his way at the Bar, was one of Perry's reporters for three sessions,
but he was in a constant state of terror lest his connection with the press
should be discovered by his legal associates. Out of twenty-three gentlemen
regularly employed at one time in reporting the debates, eighteen were
graduates of one or other of the universities.
The standard work of reference for the debates in Parliament, though
albeit a defective one, is the Parliamentary History. The first twelve
volumes were edited by Cobbett, and the whole thirty-six volumes relate the
Parliamentary story from the Conquest up to the year 1803. The first
volume comes down to the end of the reign of James I., and the sixth
volume down to the end of the reign of Queen Anne. In compiling these
and the succeeding volumes, the editors were indebted to the original diaries,
PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. 605
papers, and memoranda already indicated. But speeches by great men like
Pitt and Fox are very defective. There is no report of that speech by
Bolingbroke which Pitt said he would rather see restored than the lost books
of Livy or Tacitus; and the speech of the elder Pitt concerning which Lord
Temple wrote, “He spoke like an angel,” is also altogether missing. The best
speeches of Carteret, Townshend, Burke, Pitt, Fox, and Sheridan, were either
not reported at all, or utterly spoilt, when a sketch of them was attempted.
The Parliamentary History was followed by Hansard’s Debates, a volu-
minous work which still continues its course. Parliamentary reporting
in the nineteenth century is one of the great features of journalism.
Gradually the public began to look to the newspapers for full and accurate
reports of the Parliamentary debates, and at length the Legislature recognised
the Reporters' Gallery as a necessary adjunct to our Parliamentary institu-
tions. At first the reporters pursued their avocation under great difficulties,
as Dickens and others have testified, but now they enjoy the fullest facilities
for their work. The chief London and provincial journals present their
readers every morning with admirable reports of the preceding night's debates
in both Houses, and the Times especially has long been distinguished for the
length and accuracy of its reports. Parliamentary oratory has attained to
such a pitch of copiousness that sometimes twelve large volumes of Hansard
are required to enshrine the eloquence of a single session.

IN DE X.
Abbot, Speaker, and the Catholics, ii.
364
Aberdeen, Lord, foreign policy of, ii. 517
— becomes prime minister, ii. 520
Abjuration scheme, the (1690), ii. 38
Abolition of purchase, ii. 531
Abyssinian War, the, ii. 498
Act of Settlement, the (1701), ii. 78
— its provisions, ii. 79
Acton Burnell, Statute of, i. 149
Addington, Henry, first speaker of the
Imperial Parliament, ii. 345
— becomes prime minister, ii. 346
— his resignation, ii. 349
— created Wiscount Sidmouth, ii. 349
(see Sidmouth)
Addison, Joseph, secretary of state, ii.
234
Adelaide, Princess, ii. 448
Adjutators, the, i. 428
Affirmation Act of 1833, ii. 463
African slave trade, the, ii. 350
Aglionby, Mr., on liberty of conscience
in 1571, i. 336
Agricultural Holdings Act (1875), ii. 533
Aislabie, chancellor of the exchequer,
ii. 234
– expelled the House, ii. 238
Aix-la-Chapelle, Treaty of, ii. 273
Alfred the Great, constitutional progress
under, i. 17
— his laws, i. 18
Alien Act passed, ii. 337
– renewed in 1818, ii. 367
Althorp, Lord, chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 449
America and the Mutiny Act, ii. 296
American colonies, English policy to-
wards the, ii. 290
Amiens, Mise of, i. 131
— Treaty of, ii. 348
Anglo-Saxon organisation, i. 7
Anglo-Saxons, constitution under the,
i. 34
—– their national councils, i. 35
— judicial system of the, i. 36
— their privileges, i. 36
Anne, Queen, accession of, ii. 199
her first speech in parliament, ii. 199
confers honours on Marlborough, ii.
201
and Prince George's Annuity Bill,
ii. 201
establishes Queen Anne's bounty, ii.
205
the succession under, ii. 208
ruled by her favourites, ii. 209
she favours Sacheverell, ii. 215
dismisses the Duchess of Marl-
borough, ii. 217
opens parliament in 1712, ii. 220
creates twelve peers, ii. 221
her death, ii. 226
Annual Mutiny Act first passed, ii. 93
Annual parliaments ordered to be held
by Edward III., i. 198
Argyle's rebellion suppressed, ii. 6
Armada, the Spanish, i. 346
Army and Navy Service Bill (1807), ii.
353 -
Army reforms, ii. 530
Arundel, trial of Earl of (1397), i. 236
-— his successor imprisoned by Charles
I., i. 382
Ashburton Treaty, the, ii. 517
Assembly of nominees, the, i. 450
Assize of arms, i. 71
— of the forest, i. 71
— of Clarendon, i. 75
— of Northampton, i. 77
— of measures, i. 86
Assizes, the Bloody, ii. 6
Athelstan, the laws of, i. 19
Atterbury, Bishop, prosecution of, ii. 240
Australian Colonies Bill, the, ii. 477
Aylesbury election case, the, ii. 204
*
Bacon, Francis, his first appearance in
the Commons, i. 350
— his impeachment, i. 372
Baliol's parliament at Scone (1292), ii.
103
Ball, John, i. 225
Ballot, the, ii. 537, 546
(308
INDEX.
Bangorian controversy, the, ii. 234
Bank Charter Act of 1833, ii. 464
— 1844, ii. 494
Bank-holidays Act, ii. 485
Bank of England established, ii. 48
Bankruptcy Acts, ii. 528
Barebone, Praise-God, i. 451
Barnard, Sir John, on Walpole's finance,
ii. 252
Baronage, the Norman, i. 47
— estate of the, i. 171
Baronets, creation of, i. 369
Barons and King John, the, i. 103
Barré, Colonel Isaac, ii. 284
Bats, parliament of, i. 265
Baxter, Richard, imprisoned, ii. 4
Beaconsfield, Lord, dissolves parliament,
ii. 513
— his foreign policy condemned, ii. 523
Beaufort, Cardinal, i. 268-9
Beaufoy's motions on the Test Act, ii.
331
Becket, his conflict with Henry II., i. 72
— his flight, i. 75
— excommunicates the bishops, i. 76
— his assassination, i. 76
Bedchamber Plot, the, ii. 477
Bedford, the Protector, i. 267
Bedford-Grenville ministry, the, ii. 290
Belhaven, Lord, his speech in the Scot-
- tish Estates, ii. 179
Berkeley, Bishop, and Bermuda, ii. 243
Berlin Congress, the, ii. 523
Bigamy, Statute of, i. 145
Bill of Rights, the, ii. 27
— text of the, ii. 561
Billeting Act, the, ii. 156
Birmingham, riot at (1791), ii. 336
Bishops' Bill of Elizabeth, the, i. 332
Bishops in parliament, the, i. 65
Black Prince, death of the, i. 217
Blackstone on general councils, i. 5
Blenheim, victory of, ii. 206
Board of Trade established, ii. 55
Bohun and Bigod, their patriotic action,
i. 158
Bold speech of a Welsh judge, ii. 276
Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, secretary
of war, ii. 206
— resigns office, ii. 212
— becomes secretary of state, ii. 216
— favours the Stuart restoration, ii. 225
— dismissed from office, ii. 227
— impeached, ii. 229
— his flight to the Continent, ii. 229
— subsequent career and death, ii. 241
Borough representation under Edward I.,
i. 167
— curiosities of, i. 168
Boroughs, privileges of the, i. 107
Boston Port Bill, the, ii. 310
Bracton on the Royal Prerogative, i. 141
Bradlaugh case, the, ii. 536
Bradshaw and Charles I., i. 437
Breda, Declaration of, i. 495
— Peace of, i. 515
Brehon Laws, the, ii. 374
Bretwalda, the title of, i. 7
Bribery Acts, ii. 285, 540
Bribery extraordinary, ii. 297
Bribery in Elizabeth's reign, i. 339
Bristol’s case, Lord, i. 383
Britain under the Romans, i. 6
British Museum founded, ii. 277
“Broad Bottom " administration, the,
ii. 271
Bromley, William, chosen speaker, ii.
217
Brougham, Lord, defends Queen Caro-
line, ii. 426
— his educational efforts, ii. 444
— Lord Chancellor, ii. 449
Brown Bread Act, the, ii. 347
Bruce's great parliament of 1326, ii. 103
Buckingham, impeachment of, i. 382
— and Arlington proceeded against,
i. 526
Burdett, Sir Francis, and the Commons,
ii. 356
— advocates parliamentary reform, ii.
365
— carries a Catholic Relief Bill, ii. 432
Burgesses, debate on the validity of, i.
Burgh, fall of Hubert de, i. 114
Burgh courts or parliaments, ii. 104
Burial Laws Amendment Act, ii. 537
Burke, Edmund, his first appearance in
the Commons, ii. 294
— his scheme of economical reform,
ii. 317
— his quarrel with Fox, ii. 333
— his famous dagger scene, ii. 337
— retires from parliament, ii. 343
— his death, ii. 344
Burnell, Robert, Edward I.'s chancellor,
i. 144
Bute, Earl of, his rise, ii. 282
— becomes prime minister, ii. 284
— his vindictiveness, ii. 285
— unpopularity and resignation, ii. 287
Butt, Isaac, resigns the Irish leadership,
ii. 512
Byng, Admiral, case of, ii. 280
Cabal Ministry, i. 518
Cabinet, the, ii. 587
— originated, ii. 93
INDEX.
609
Cade's rebellion, i. 272
Caen, Treaty of, i. 56
Calendar reform, ii. 274
Cambridge, Statute of, i. 233
Camden on the Witenagemot, i. 13
Campbell's Act, Lord, ii. 525
Canada, affairs of, ii. 474
Canada Bill, Pitt's, ii. 333
Canning, George, under-secretary for
foreign affairs, ii. 343
— foreign secretary, ii. 354
— duel with Castlereagh, ii. 355
— president of the Board of Control,
ii. 358
— declares in favour of the Catholic
claims, ii. 364, 428
— becomes foreign secretary, ii. 429
— introduces bill to relieve Catholic
peers, ii. 429
— attacks upon him, ii. 430
— memorable speech by, ii. 431
— becomes prime minister, ii. 433
— his premature death, ii. 433
— foreign policy, ii. 433
Canute's laws, i. 24
— spirit of his legislation, i. 25
— his redress of grievances, i. 26
Caroline, Queen, ii. 426
— her claims, ii. 426
— bill to degrade her, ii. 427
— its abandonment, ii. 427
— her death, ii. 428
Carteret, secretary of state, ii. 240
— sent to Ireland, ii. 240
— his resignation, ii. 271
Carucage of 1198, i. 87
Casket letters, the, ii. 131
Castlereagh, Lord, secretary for Ireland,
ii. 343
— becomes foreign Secretary, ii. 357
— his foreign policy, ii. 358
— and the union with Ireland, ii. 419
Catholic Association formed, the, ii.
431
— its suppression, ii. 436
Catholic claims supported by Canning,
ii. 428
— efforts at relief, ii. 430
— emancipation carried, ii. 436
— its justification, ii. 438
Catholic offices, the, under James II.,
ii. 8
Cato Street conspiracy, the, ii. 425
Cattle plague, the, ii. 530
Cavalier or pension parliament called,
i. 502
— its strong monarchical measures, i.
503
— its dissolution, i. 543
WOL. II.
Cave, Edward, and the parliamentary
debates, ii. 246
cavº, Lord F., assassination of, ii.
15 -
Central Criminal Court Act, ii. 464
Chamberlain's Bankruptcy Act, Mr., ii.
529
Chancellors of the Exchequer, List of
the, ii. 568
Chancery court abolished, i. 452
Chandos, Marquis of, and the Reform
Bill, ii. 451
Charity commission, origin of the, i. 353
Charles I., his character, i. 379
— his first parliament, i. 380
— conduct towards Lords Arundel and
Bristol, i. 382
— his illegal imposts, i. 389
— governs without parliament, i. 392
— calls the Long Parliament, i. 399
— attempts to seize the five members,
i. 408
— his position towards the House of
Commons, i. 413
— final breach with parliament, i. 414
— takes the field, i. 416
— surrenders to the Scots, i. 423
— is delivered to the parliament, i. 424
— seized by the army, i. 426
—- rejects the army proposals, i. 427
— his flight, i. 428
— treats with the Scots, i. 429
— parliament moves against him, i.
433
— his trial, i. 435
— condemnation and execution, i. 437
— his struggle with parliament con-
sidered, i. 439
Charles II. proclaimed, i. 497
— and the monarchy, i. 498
— bill of indemnity under, i. 498
— his revenue, i. 499
— dissolves the Convention Parliament
i. 501
–– his intrigues with Rome, i. 509
–– his Declaration of Indulgence re-
jected, i. 510
— his policy, i. 518
— his second parliament, i. 520
— issues his Declaration of Indulgence,
i. 521
— its withdrawal, i. 522
— is opposed by the Commons, i. 524
— suspends the sitting of parliament,
i. 535
— his treaty with Louis, i. 539
— his anti-popish policy, i. 544
— appoints a council of thirty, i. 546
— opens the parliament of 1680, i. 549
39
610
INDEX.
Charles II. dissolves the parliament of
1680, i. 553
— calls the Oxford parliament, i. 554
— suddenly dissolves it, i. 557
— his death, i. 559
— parliamentary progress in his reign,
i. 559
Chartist demonstration, ii. 538
Chatham, Earl of (William Pitt), in the
House of Commons, ii. 260
on the Spanish Convention, ii. 261
— paymaster of the forces, ii. 272
powerful speech by, ii. 278
secretary of state, ii. 279
— prosecutes the wars with vigour, ii.
280
the “Great Commoner,” ii. 281
his resignation, ii. 283
attacks upon, ii. 284
speech on the American colonies, ii.
291
becomes Lord Privy Seal, ii. 294
his Order in Council, ii. 295
speech on Wilkes's case, ii. 301
attacks Lord North's ministry, ii.
307
on parliamentary reform, ii. 308
eloquent speeches on America, ii.
his last great speech, ii. 313
his death, ii. 315
Chesterfield, Lord, on the Playhouse
Bill, ii. 259
— secretary of state, ii. 273
Childers, Mr., chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 500
Chinese difficulty with England, ii.
521
Church influence on the State, i. 13
-— councils in the thirteenth century,
i. 145
— reforms, ii. 465, 524
— rates, ii. 527
Churchill, Admiral George, ii. 210
Cider tax repealed, ii. 293
Civil service, the, ii. 530
Civil war constitutionally considered, i.
439
Clarendon, constitutions of, i. 72
— assize of, i. 75
Clarendon, proposed impeachment of
the Earl of, i. 510
— his fall, i. 515
— is finally impeached, i. 516
— his flight, i. 517
Classes, the Act of, ii. 151
Clergy in parliament, i. 155
— and in convocation, i. 156
— disqualified for parliament, ii. 348
Coal and Iron Mines Act, ii. 481
Coalition government of Lord Aberdeen,
ii. 520
Coalition Ministry of 1783, ii. 323
— its dismissal, ii. 324
Cobbett and Hone prosecuted, ii. 361
Cobden, Richard, and the Corn Laws,
ii. 472
Coinage, depreciation of the, ii. 53
Coke, Sir Edward, i. 385
— Mr., sent to the Tower, ii. 10
Colonial slavery abolished, ii. 463
Colonial and Indian legislation, ii. 474
— Office, the, ii. 478
Commander-in-chief, the, ii. 530
Committee of safety formed, i. 487
— of Council, ii. 488
Commoners first summoned, i. 91.
Commons, House of, asserts its financial
rights, ii. 43
members bought by the East India
Company, ii. 76
at variance with the nation, ii. 83
members instructed by their Com-
stituents, ii. 89
discusses petitions for dissolving
parliament, ii. 89
great party conflict in, ii. 90
acquires the chief power in the
state, ii. 92
(see Parliament)
Commonwealth established, the, i. 443
— its close in 1660, i. 491
Communal orders in England, i. 35
Compton, Bishop, remarkable speech
by, ii. 10
Connaught, sequestration of, ii. 388
Conspiracy to Murder Bill, the, ii. 521
Constantinople Conference (1876), ii.
522
Constituencies of the United Kingdom,
Table of the, ii. 581
Constitution, bases of the, i. 4
— the, in the fourteenth century, i. 241
— the, from Edward I. to Victoria, ii.
548
Constitutional Addenda, ii. 549
Conventicle Act, the, i. 511
Convention assembles, the, ii. 19
— addresses the Prince, ii. 19
— declares the throne vacant, ii. 21
— becomes a parliament, ii. 30
Convention of royal burghs, ii. 105
Convention Parliament, meeting of the,
i. 496
— its dissolution, i. 501
Convocation, i. 145
— and Bishop Hoadley, ii. 234
Corn Laws, sketch of the, ii. 443
INDEX.
611
Corn Laws, legislation (1815-31), ii. 443
— Wellington's sliding scale, ii. 444
— the repeal association, ii. 470
— Anti-Corn Law League, ii. 470
— motions by Mr. Williers, ii. 470
– Peel's sliding scale, ii. 471
— repeal accomplished, ii. 473
Corporation Act passed, i. 504
Corrupt Practices Act (1883), ii. 541
Corry, Mr., vice-president of the Council,
ii. 490
Cotton famine, the, ii. 529
Council of state elected in 1649, i. 444
— is dispersed by Cromwell, i. 449
— new council elected, i. 454
— that of 1659, i. 483
County court, the, i. 172
— courts, ii. 526
County elections, statute relating to
(1406), i. 253
— further important statute (1430), i.
266
County franchise, the, ii. 538, 541
Country party, rise of the, i. 519
Court of session founded, ii. 125
Coutances, government of Walter de, i.
83
Coventry, parliament of, i. 275
Coventry Act, the, i. 521
Cowell, Dr., on divine right, i. 368
Coyne and livery, ii. 379
Craggs, Secretary, commits suicide, ii.
238
Criminal Law reforms, ii. 444, 524
Cromwell, Oliver, his early life, i. 416
— career in parliament, i. 417
— his relations with the Presbyterians,
i. 421
— successes in the second civil war, i.
429
— his campaigns in Ireland and Scot-
land, i. 445
— expels the Long Parliament, i. 448
— becomes Lord Protector, i. 457
—- his imposing installation, i. 458
— his instrument of government, i. 459
— his first parliament, i. 461
— attempts to limit his power, i. 462
— prolonged debates on his govern-
ment, i. 463
— his constitutional aims, i. 465
— his foreign policy, i. 466
— summons a new parliament, i. 467
— attempts against his life, i. 467
— important speech in parliament, i.
467 -
— project for making him king, i. 469
— and the Humble Petition and Advice,
i. 471
Cromwell, Oliver, declines the crown,
i. 472
— his House of Lords, i. 474
— difficulties with the Houses, i. 474
— dissolves parliament, i. 476
— governs alone, i. 477
— his death, character, and influence,
i. 477
Cromwell, Richard, Protector, i. 479
— his abdication, i. 482
Cromwell, Thomas, succeeds Wolsey,
i. 310
— his fall, i. 313
Cromwellian settlement of Ireland, ii.
392 -
Crosby, Lord Mayor, and the Commons,
ii. 304
Crown and its dependencies, the, ii. 478
Curia Regis, the, i. 43
Curiosities of borough representation,
i. 168
Cyprus, ii. 535
Danby, Lord, his manipulation of parlia-
ment, i. 528
– brings about the marriage of Prin-
cess Mary, i. 529
— his impeachment, i. 542
— his imprisonment, i. 546
— released, ii. 5 -
— a second time impeached, ii. 52
Darien scheme, Isthmus of, ii. 55
— history of, ii. 166
Dashwood, Sir Francis, chancellor of
the exchequer, ii. 285
— his financial measures, ii. 286
David II., parliaments of, ii. 106
David of Wales, his trial, i. 148
Davitt, Michael, founds the Land League,
ii. 512
De Religiosis Statute, i. 147
Debates, reporting, forbidden, ii. 50
Declaration of Indulgence by Charles
II., i. 521
— its withdrawal, i. 522
Declaration of Rights, the, ii. 25
Defoe, Daniel, and the Legion. Memo-
*ial, ii. 83
Deposition of kings, i. 16
Derby, Lord, foreign secretary, ii. 522
— resigns in 1878, ii. 523
Dering, Sir E., expelled the House, ii.
248
Desmond, attainder of, ii. 386
Despensers, the, exiled, i. 189
— executed, i. 193
Digges, Sir D., i. 381
— his arrest, i. 382
Discipline, the Book of, ii. 129
612
INDEX.
Discipline, 2nd Book of, ii. 136
Disorderly assemblies, statute against,
i. 504 -
Disraeli, Mr., chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 495
— his budget of 1852, ii. 495
— prime minister, ii. 508
— introduces Tory Reform Bill of 1859,
ii. 543
— introduces Reform Act of 1867, ii.
545
(see also Lord Beaconsfield)
Dissenters and the Test Act, ii. 331
Dissenters’ Relief Bill, ii. 316
— marriages, ii. 465
Dissolution, the power of, i. 404
Divine right asserted (1610), i. 368
Domesday Book, i. 47
Dominican friars, i. 131
Dooms of Ethelbert, i. 15
Dover, Treaty of, i. 519
Dowdeswell, Mr., and the Wilkes case,
ii. 301
Dudley and Empson, i. 306
Dungannon, Convention of, ii. 409
Dunkirk sold by Charles II., i. 509
Dunning, John, appointed solicitor-
general, ii. 298
– his motion on the influence of the
crown, ii. 318
Dunstan, St., i. 21
Durham, Lord, Privy Seal, ii. 449
— his Canadian policy, ii. 475
East India Charter, ii. 463
East India Company formed anew, ii. 66
Eastern Question, the, ii. 522
Ecclesiastical Titles Act, ii. 527
Economical reform, ii. 317
Edgar, constitutional changes under,
i. 21
Edmund, council of, i. 20
Edmund Ironside, i. 24
Edward, king of Wessex, i. 19
— his witan, i. 19
Edward the Confessor elected king, i. 28
— his legislation, i. 30
— collection of his laws, i. 32
Edward I., the great legislator, i. 142
— the real founder of the constitution,
i. 144 -
— his quarrel with the clergy, i. 152
— calls his great parliament of 1295,
i. 153
— is withstood by Bohun and Bigod,
i. 158
— makes peace with Archbishop Win-
chelsey, i. 159
— confirms the charters in 1297, i. 161
Edward I. finally confirms the charters
in 1301, i. 163
— resists the Pope, i. 164
— his later legislation, i. 165
— death and character, i. 166
— constitutional results of his reign,
i. 169
Edward II., his accession, i. 181
— importance of his coronation, i. 182
— confirms the ordinances of the Lords
Ordainers, i. 185
— his deposition, i. 193
— his subsequent fate, i. 195
Edward III., his martial character,
i. 196
– important statutes of his reign, i
196
— great constitutional progress under.
i. 196-7
— large money grants to, i. 200
–– his difficulties as to aids, i. 208
— his strained relations with the Com-
mons, i. 210
— important parliaments of, i. 214-15
— his last parliament, i. 218
— death of, i. 219
— character of his reign, i. 219
Edward IV., his first parliament, i. 279
— character of his reign, i. 281
— exacts benevolences, i. 282
— his last parliament, i. 283
— death and character, i. 284
Edward VI., his accession, i. 317
-— his first parliament, i. 318
— issues the Book of Common Prayer,
i. 320
— his popular measures, i. 320
— alters the succession, and dies, i. 322
Eldest sons of peers in the Lower
House, i. 341
Eldon, Lord Chancellor, ii. 347
— opposes the Catholic claims, ii. 437
Elections of 1734, ii. 254
— of 1741, ii. 265
— to Parliament, ii. 584
Electoral abuses, ii. 322
Elementary Education Act (1870), ii.
491 -
Eliot, Sir John, i. 381
— his arrest, i. 382
— passage of arms with Speaker Finch,
i. 390
— his imprisonment and death, i. 392
Elizabeth, the constitution under, i. 328
— her parliaments, i. 329
— establishes the Protestant religion,
i. 330
— debates on her proposed marriage,
i. 330
INDEX.
613
Foreign policy under Queen Victoria,
ii. 516
Forfeited Estates Bill of 1700, ii. 73
— is severely contested, ii. 73
Forgery Bill, ii. 446
Forster, W.E., his Endowed Schools Act,
ii. 490
— his Elementary Education Act, ii.
491
— introduces Protection (Ireland) Bill,
ii. 513
— introduces the Ballot Act, ii. 546
Fox, Charles James, his coalition with
Lord North, ii. 323
— foreign secretary, ii. 323
— his India Bill, ii. 324
— quarrel with Burke, ii. 333
— his Libel Bill, ii. 334
— on the Sedition Acts, ii. 341
— temporarily secedes from parliament
ii. 342
— again foreign secretary, ii. 352
— his death, ii. 353
Fox, Lord Holland, secretary-at-war,
ii. 272
— secretary of state, ii. 278
Franciscan friars, i. 131
Frank-pledge, i. 19
Frederick, Prince of Wales, ii. 253
— opposes Walpole, ii. 257
— quarrels with the King, ii. 258
— his death, ii. 274
Free Trade, results of, ii. 474
Freeman on the Witenagemot, i. 11
Friars, influence of the, i. 131
Friendly Societies, ii. 483
Friends of the People Society, ii. 335
Fugitive slave circulars, ii. 535
Gaunt, John of, his influence, i. 213
Gaveston beheaded, i. 186.
General Assembly and the Covenant, ii.
163
George, Prince, Anne's Consort, ii. 201
— his Annuity Bill, ii. 201
— his death, ii. 212
George I., accession of, ii. 227
— opens parliament, ii. 228
— his death, ii. 244
George II., accession of, ii. 244
- retains Walpole in office, ii. 244
— his death, ii. 281
George III., accession of, ii. 282
Elizabeth, her high-handed treatment
of the Commons, i. 333
— legislates against Rome, i. 335
-— popish plots against, i. 345
her royal authority, i. 347
— her last parliament, i. 352
her death, i. 353
— Reformation completed, i. 354
Ellenborough, Lord, and the Cabinet, ii.
353
Elutherius, Pope, on British institutions,
i. 4
Employers and workmen, ii. 486
Encumbered Estates Act, ii. 505
Endowed Schools Act, ii. 490
“Engagement,” the, ii. 151
England under the Tudors, i. 356
— without a government, ii. 280
English in the law courts, ii. 250
Ethelred's legislation, i. 22
— his laws against the slave trade, i. 22
Evesham, battle of, i. 136
Exchequer closed, the, i. 521
Exclusion Bill, the, i. 551
Extradition Act, ii. 534
Factory Acts of 1833, ii. 464
— later legislation, ii. 480
— Extension Act, ii. 482
— and Workshop Act (1878), ii. 482
Family Compact, the, ii. 283
Farnborough, Lord, on the Reform Bill
of 1832, ii. 454
Fawcett, Mr., and religious tests, ii. 511
Fenian conspiracy, the, ii. 507
Fenwick, Sir John, his attainder and
execution, ii. 61 -
Ferrers, George, his case of privilege, i.
315 -
Feudal system, the, i. 49
— revolt in 1173, i. 76
Fifth Monarchy men, i. 453
Financial measures (1880-85), ii. 500
Fines, Statute of, i. 304.
FitzGerald, Lord Edward, ii. 415
FitzPeter's justiciarship, i. 87
Fitzwilliam, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
ii. 416
Five members, attempt to seize the,
i. 408
Five Mile Act, the, i. 512
Fletcher of Saltoun, ii. 169 r
— his action on the union with Eng-
land, ii. 169 l
— his scheme of securities, ii. 174
Floyd, cruel treatment of, i. 373
Folk Moot, i. 11 -
Foreign Enlistment Act, the, ii. 368
— (1870), ii. 536
: — his first speech in parliament, ii. 283
— his personal views of government,
ii. 286
— his Marriage Act, ii. 309
— his Civil List, ii. 313
— defeats Fox's India Bill, ii. 324
614
INDEX.
George III., his unconstitutional action,
ii. 324
– demonstration against, on Opening
parliament, ii. 339
— his attitude on the Catholic question,
ii. 346
– return of his malady in 1810, ii. 356
– the Civil List regulated under, ii. 366
— his death, ii. 368
George IV., his accession, ii. 425
— his coronation, ii. 428
— parliamentary reform under, ii. 440
— influence of the crown, ii. 447
— his Civil List, ii. 447
- his death, ii. 447
Georgia, colony of, founded, ii. 251
Gilbert's Workhouses Act, ii. 322
Gin Act, the, ii. 255
— repealed, ii. 269
Gladstone, W. E., junior lord of the
treasury, ii. 459
— colonial secretary, ii. 473
– his budget of 1853, ii. 496
– his FreeTrade budget of 1860, ii. 497
— abolishes the paper duty, ii. 498
— his later budgets, etc., ii. 498-9
— becomes prime minister, ii. 508, 513
— his Irish Church Act, ii. 508
– Irish Land Act of 1870, ii. 509
— defeated on Irish university educa-
tion, ii. 510.
— his Irish Land Act of 1881, ii. 514
his Irish Arrears Act, ii. 515
his Compulsory Church Fates Abo-
lition Act, ii. 528
carries Abolition of Purchase, ii. 531
opposes the Public Worship Regula-
tion Act, ii. 533
introduces Reform Bill of 1866, ii. 544
his Reform Acts of 1884-5, ii. 546
Glamorgan Treaty, the, i. 423
Glencoe, Massacre of, ii. 162
Gloucester, Statute of, i. 146
— Duke of, dies (1700), ii. 74
Goderich, Lord, prime minister, ii. 434
Godolphin, first lord of the treasury,
i. 559
— associates with the Whigs, ii. 40
— head of the treasury, ii. 40
— dismissed from office, ii. 216
— his death, ii. 224
Godwin, Earl of the West Saxons, i. 25
— his trial before the Witan, i. 27
Good Parliament, the, i. 216
Goodwin, Francis, case of, i. 361
Gordon riots, the, ii. 316
Government in the tenth century, i. 14
Graham, Sir J., first lord of the admir-
alty, ii. 449
---
-
-
-*-
| Graham, Sir J., and the Factory Acts,
ii. 481
—- and Mazzini's letters, ii. 526
Grand Alliance formed, the, ii. 84
Grand Remonstrance, the, i. 406
Grandees, the, i. 429
Granville, Lord, foreign secretary (1870-
74), ii. 522
— his foreign policy (1880-85), ii. 523
Grattan, Henry, and the Catholic claims,
ii. 364.
demands independence for Ireland,
ii. 408. -
is rewarded, ii. 411
his quarrel with Flood, ii. 413
introduces a Pension Bill, ii. 415
— his duel with Corry, ii. 420
Great Charter, text of the, ii. 551
Great Council, composition of the, i. 46
Grenville, George, secretary of state,
ii. 285
— becomes prime minister, ii. 287
— condemns the struggle with Wilkes,
ii. 299
— his act on election petitions, ii. 307
— his views on the American struggle,
ii. 307
Grenville, Lord, his Alien Act, ii. 337
— introduces the Treasonable Practices
Act, ii. 340.
— foreign Secretary, ii. 343.
— first lord of the treasury, ii. 352
— his dismissal, ii. 354
Grey, Earl, becomes premier, ii. 449
— his reform policy, ii. 453
— secessions from his ministry, ii. 457
— resigns office, ii. 458
Grey's debates, Anchitell, ii. 249
Grievances, supplies, and petitions, i. 207
Grote, George, and the Ballot, ii. 537
Ground Game Act, ii. 537
Gunpowder Plot, i. 365
*-
-º-º-
Habeas Corpus Act (1679), i. 547
— suspended (1794), ii. 339
— again in 1817, ii. 360
— for Ireland, ii. 411
— provisions of the, ii. 559
Habeas Corpus test case, i. 384
Halifax, settlement of, ii. 273
Hall, Arthur, expelled from the House
of Commons, i. 343
Hamilton conspiracy, the, ii. 133
Hamilton, “Single Speech,” ii. 278
Hampden, John, i. 384
— resists ship-money, i. 393
— his death, i. 418
Hampden, John, chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 37 -
INDEX.
615
Hampden, John, commits suicide, ii. 52
Hanover, electoral family of, ii. 222
Hanoverian crown, the, ii. 467
Harcourt, Sir Simon, attorney-general,
ii. 212
— Lord Keeper, ii. 216
Hardicanute chosen king, i. 27
Hardwicke's (Lord) Marriage Act, ii. 277
Harley, Robert, elected speaker, ii. 76
— becomes secretary of state, ii. 206
resigns office, ii. 211
forms a new ministry, ii. 216
is created Earl of Oxford, ii. 216
intrigues with the Jacobites, ii. 217
his attempted assassination, ii. 218
becomes lord treasurer, ii. 220
is dismissed, ii. 226
impeached, ii. 229
— and acquitted, ii. 230
Harold I. chosen king, i. 27
Harold II. elected king, i. 32
— his government, i. 33
Hastings, Warren, impeachment of, ii.
327
— Sheridan's “Begum” speech against,
ii. 328
— scene at the trial, ii. 329
— Burke's opening address, ii. 329
— speech of Sheridan, ii. 330
— acquittal of the accused, ii. 330
Haxey's case, i. 235
Hearth tax of 1662, i. 507
“Hearts of Oak Boys,” ii. 405
“Hearts of Steel Boys,” ii. 405
Henry I., i. 57
— his charter of liberties, i. 57
— his policy, i. 58
— administrative acts, i. 59
— ecclesiastical policy, i. 60
— his councils and charters, i. 60
Henry II., his character and policy, i. 69
— his searching reforms, i. 70
–– enlarges the national council, i. 71
— his judicial changes, i. 71
his quarrel with Becket, i. 72
his great councils, i. 75
conquest of Ireland, i. 76
absolution by the Pope, i. 76
his death, i. 79
— character of his reign, i. 80
Henry III., his coronation, i. 110
— re-issues the great charter, i. 111
— his second coronation, i. 112
assumes the government, i. 113
his councils and ministers, i. 113
fills his court with foreigners, i. 117
reproves the bishops, i. 123
is resisted by parliament, i. 124
— recovers his power, i. 129
---
-
-sm-
-*-
---
-
--
-
Henry III., death of, i. 139
— constitutional rights gained under his
reign, i. 140
Henry IV. elected king, i. 239
— his coronation, i. 245
— first parliament, i. 246
— becomes unpopular, i. 250
— complaints against his government
i, 251
— his death, i. 257 -
Henry V., his first parliament, i. 258
— constitutional reform under, i. 260
— his later parliaments, i. 262
— his death, i. 263
Henry VI., his accession, i. 263
— Bedford appointed protector, i. 264
— national finances under, i. 267]. “”
— York appointed protector over him,
i. 274
— his fall, i. 276
— his attainder, i. 280
— his death, i. 282
Henry VII., his character, i. 297
— title to the throne, i. 298
— his marriage, i. 299
— appoints a commission of judges,
i. 300
— suppresses pretenders, i. 300
— his parliaments, i. 301
refounds the monarchy, i. 301
his laws, i. 302
character of his legislation, i. 303
encourages trade and navigation,
i. 304
— constitution under, i. 304
Henry VIII., establishes the Reforma-
tion, i. 305
— breaks with Rome, i. 306
— his policy and parliaments, i. 306
the Commons submissive to him,
i. 308
is made Supreme Head of the Church,
i. 310
alters the succession, i. 313
the representation under, i. 315
— his character and work, i. 316
Heresy, Statute of (1401), i. 249
High Commission Court, Scotland, re-
stored, ii. 155
Higher education, ii. 491
Hill, Abigail, and Queen Anne, ii. 209
*-
wº-
*w-
Hill, Rowland, and the Penny Postage,
ii. 494
Hoadley, Bishop, and Convocation, ii.
234
Holland and the commonwealth, i. 446
— peace with (1674), i. 527
Holy Alliance, the, ii. 358
Home Rule League formed, ii. 510
616
INDEX.
House of Commons, packing of, i. 198
— considered as advisers, i. 206
their grievances and petitions, i. 207
control the supplies, i. 223
assert their right as to grants, i. 254
growing power of, under Elizabeth,
i. 356
their claims under James I., i. 364
their famous protest of 1621, i. 375
boldness under Charles I., i. 380
the right of free speech, i. 392
committee of the whole House, i. 403
memorable scene in 1642, i. 409
claims control of the army, i. 412
final breach with Charles I., i. 414
its appropriation of supplies, i. 513
checks the public expenditure, i. 514
venality in, i. 528
unparalleled scene in, i. 530
its proceedings in the case of Shirley
and Fagg, i. 531-3
another violent scene in, i. 537
orders its votes to be printed, i. 550
re-asserts the right of impeachment,
i. 556
its numbers, ii. 584
(see also Parliament)
House of Lords abolished in 1649, i. 443
— its numbers, ii. 584
(see Parliament)
House of Lords' Journals, when begun,
i. 306
House tax abolished, ii. 464
Houses of Parliament, separation of,
i. 199
— conference between (1373), i. 216
bold attitude towards Richard II.,
i. 226
place of meeting, i. 293
— differences on the right of impeach-
ment, i. 556
(see also Parliament)
Housing of the working classes, ii. 486
Bumble Petition and Advice, the, i. 471
Hungerford, Sir Thomas, first Speaker
of the House of Commons, i. 218
Huskisson, Mr., under-secretary for war,
ii. 343
— secretary to the Treasury, ii. 354
-
-
— president of the Board of Trade, l
ii. 429
— his commercial policy, ii. 442
— his efforts towards Free Trade, ii. 445
Impeachments, not abated by a dissolu-
tion, i. 546
— the case of FitzHarris, i. 556
“Incident,” the, ii. 149
Income tax imposed by Pitt, ii. 344
Income tax, abolition of, ii. 366
— reimposed in 1842, ii. 494
Independents and Presbyterians, the,
struggle between, i. 425
India, the government of, ii. 479
Indian legislation, ii. 479
— finances, ii. 497
Ine's laws, i. 15
Innocent III. annuls the Great
i. 103
Inquest of 1170, i. 75
Insolvent Debtors’ Relief Bill, ii. 366
Instrument of government, the, i. 459
International questions, ii. 534
Ireland and its parliament, ii. 373
— Brehon laws of, ii. 374
— provincial kingdoms, ii. 375
— Norman invasion, ii. 375
— policy of Henry II., ii. 376
— the Pale, ii. 376
the first Irish parliament, ii. 377
legislation of Edward II., ii. 378
the Commons in parliament, ii. 379
Statute of Kilkenny, ii. 380
laws of Richard II. and Edward IV.,
ii. 381
under Henry VII., ii. 381
Poynings' law, ii. 382
and the Reformation, ii. 383
Elizabeth's government, ii. 384
-- arbitrary taxation, ii. 385
free schools, etc., ii. 386
James I.'s legislation, ii. 386
plantation of Ulster, ii. 387
state of the representation, ii. 387
sequestration of Connaught, ii. 388
perfidious conduct of Charles I. and
Wentworth, ii. 389
parliament of 1640, ii. 390
rebellion of 1641, ii. 390
the Cromwellian settlement, ii. 392
settlement of Charles II., ii. 393
parliament of 1661, ii. 394
Act of Explanation, ii. 395
Ormonde's policy, ii. 395
action of James II., ii. 395
parliament of 1689, ii. 396
repeal of the Act of Settlement, ii.
396
pacification of Limerick, ii. 397
severe legislation of William and
Anne, ii. 398
legislative independence mooted, ii.
399
Molyneux's Case of Ireland Stated,
ii. 399
Catholics excluded from parliament,
ii. 400
Test and Schism Acts, ii. 401
Charter,
INDEX.
617
Ireland, parliament of, subordinated to
England, ii. 401
— Wood's halfpence, ii. 402
— mixed marriages, ii. 403
— the revenue, ii. 403
— its state on the accession of George
III., ii. 404
— the “White Boys,” ii. 405
— Octennial Act, ii. 406
— the Commons intractable, ii. 406
— their growing independence, ii. 407
— Catholic Relief Bill, ii. 407
— the Volunteers, ii. 408
— Grattan demands independence, ii.
408
— permanent Mutiny Act, ii. 409
-- Convention of Dungannon, ii. 409
— Catholic relief measures, ii. 410
— Declaration of Rights, ii. 410
— independence granted, ii. 411
— Habeas Corpus Act, ii. 411
— the national outlook, ii. 413
— parliamentary reform, ii. 413
— Pitt's commercial policy, ii. 414
— the “Right Boys,” ii. 415
— “Peep o' Day Boys,” ii. 415
— the Regency, ii. 415
— United Irishmen, ii. 415
— English concessions, ii. 416
— Insurrection Act, ii. 416
— rebellion of 1798, ii. 416
— Pitt's scheme for a Union, ii. 417
— the plan rejected, ii. 418
— bribery resorted to, ii. 418
— proposals for a Union carried, ii. 419
— the Union effected, ii. 420
— legislative changes, ii. 421
— the results of the Union, ii. 421
Ireland, education in, ii. 493
Irish rebellion (1641–50), i. 406
— estates disposed of by William III.,
ii. 71
— franchise, the, ii. 438
— Tithes Bill, ii. 460
— Municipal Bill, ii. 502
— Church Act, ii. 508
— Land Act (1870), ii. 509
— Peace Preservation Act, ii. 509
— Home Rule League, ii. 510
— University Education, ii. 510
— Nationalists in parliament, ii. 511
— University Act, ii. 512
— Land Act (1881), ii. 514
— Arrears Act, ii. 515
Isabella, Queen, and Roger Mortimer, i.
2
Jacobite rising in 1715, ii. 231
— plot in 1722, ii. 240
Jacobite rebellion of 1745, ii. 271
Jamaica, affairs of, ii. 476
— its constitution abolished, ii. 477
James I., his title to the crown, i. 359
— arbitrary policy, i. 360
— his views of parliament, i. 365
— exactions, i. 367
— his last parliament, i. 376
— constitutional advances during his
reign, i. 378
James II., his accession and policy,
ii. 3
— first speech in council, ii. 3
— opens his only parliament, ii. 4
— relations with the Dissenters, ii. 5
— grants Catholic commissions, ii. 6
— projects a standing army, ii. 7
— suddenly prorogues parliament, ii. 12
— his Declaration of Indulgence, ii. 12
— his second Declaration, ii. 13
— his flight, ii. 15
— character and misgovernment, ii. 16
— his self-deposition, ii. 20
— the throne declared vacant, ii. 21
— his death, ii. 85
James I. of Scotland, ii. 111
— his policy and death, ii. 112
James III. of Scotland, reign of, ii. 113
-— legislation under, ii. 115
— his death, ii. 115 -
— legislation against his assassins, ii.
James V. of Scotland, legislation under,
ii. 118
James VI. holds a parliament at Holy-
rood, ii. 136
— his breach with the Presbyterians,
ii. 140
— restores Episcopacy, ii. 141
Jekyll, Sir Joseph, on the impeachment
of Oxford, ii. 229
— supports Walpole's excise scheme,
ii. 253
— introduces the Gin Act, ii. 255
“Jenkins's ear,” ii. 261
Jewish disabilities removed, ii. 528
Jews expelled by Edward I., i. 151
Jews' Naturalisation Bill in 1753, ii. 276
John, King, succeeds to the crown,
i. 88
— his coronation, i. 89
— his character, i. 89
— loses Normandy, i. 89
— his unconstitutional acts, i. 90
— his tyranny, i. 90
— surrenders to the Pope, i. 91
— his strife with the barons, i. 94
— grants Magna Carta, i. 95
— his death. i. 104
618
INDEX.
Journals of the House of Commons
begun in 1547, i. 317
Judicature Act, Supreme Court of, ii.
532
Judicial circuits, formation of, i. 78
“Junius,” ii. 308
Justiciar, the Norman, i. 41
Kemp, Archbishop, i. 268, i. 274
Renilworth, battle of, i. 136
— Dictum of, i. 138
Kentish petition, the, ii. 82
— proceedings against its framers, ii. 82
Kildare, Earls of, ii. 382
Rilkenny, Statute of, ii. 380
Kilwardby, Archbishop, i. 144
Kingsbury, Council of, i. 16
Knighthood, growth of, i. 49
— compulsory, i. 146
Knights of the shire, i. 172
— election of, i. 174
Knox, John, death of, ii. 134
Labourers, statutes of, i. 209-10
Ladies in parliament, i. 11
Lambert expels the House of Commons,
i. 487
Lancaster, Earl of, his power under
Edward II., i. 188
— his execution, i. 190
Land League, the, ii. 512
Land tax, the, ii. 295
Landed Estates Court, ii. 506
Lanfranc and Odo, great suit between,
i. 51
Langton, patriotism of, i. 94
— his death, i. 113
Lansdowne, Lord, president of the
Council, ii. 449 -
Latimer, Lord, impeached, i. 217
Laud, Archbishop, his religious policy,
i. 387
— attempts to force his Liturgy in
Scotland, i. 396
— his execution, i. 420
Lauderdale, proceedings against, i. 526
- *Middleton, quarrel between, ii.
1
Legion. Memorial, the, ii. 83
Legislation, how effected, i. 177
Leighton's case, Alexander, i. 395
Lenthall, Speaker, i. 399, 403
Levellers, stringent measures against
the, i. 445
Lewes, battle of, i. 132
— Mise of, i. 132
Ilibel, the law of, ii. 525
Liberty of the Press established, ii. 57
Licensing laws, the, ii. 532
Life peers, i. 291
Lilburne, cruel treatment of, i. 395
Limerick, pacification of, ii. 397
Lincoln, parliament of, i. 164
Little Parliament, meeting of the, i. 451
— is suddenly broken up, i. 454
Littleton, Sir George, chancellor of the
exchequer, ii. 279
Liverpool, Lord, becomes premier, ii.
357
— indemnity bill for his Ministry, ii. 366
Local Government Board formed, ii. 531
Locke, John, reports a debate, ii. 249
Lollards, statute against (1414), i. 260
London, charter granted to, by Henry I.,
i. 61
— its first mayor, i. 107
— protection of, ii. 242
— lighting of, ii. 256
London Corresponding Society, ii. 336
— its suppression, ii. 342
Long Parliament summoned, i. 399
-— its forcible dissolution by Cromwell,
i. 448
— is recalled, i. 482
— restored for the third time, i. 488
— finally dissolved, i. 491
Longbeard, the first English demagogue,
i. 86
Longchamp, overthrow of, i. 82
Lord Chancellors, List of the, ii. 565
Lords, the, and James II., ii. 11
— they declare the throne not vacant,
ii. 23
— afterwards agree with the Commons,
ii. 24
(see Parliament)
Lords, the House of, a court of appeal,
i. 343
Lords Ordainers appointed, i. 184
— Appellant of 1397 condemned, i.
247
— Auditors of Complaints, the, ii. 125
Lords of Council, the Scotch, ii. 125
Lords of the Articles, the, ii. 109
— agitation against, ii. 159
— their abolition, ii. 161
Lovat and the Queensberry Plot, ii. 171
Lowe, Mr. (Lord Sherbrooke), his re-
vised code of 1862, ii. 489
— his budgets, ii. 499
Lubbock, Sir John, his measures for the
working classes, ii. 485
Luddite riots, the, ii. 359
Lutherans, immigration of, ii. 218
Macaulay, Lord, secretary to the Board
of Control, ii. 449
INDEX.
619
Macclesfield, Chancellor, impeachment
of, ii. 243
Mackintosh, Sir James, reforms the
Criminal Laws, ii. 444
Mad Parliament, the, i. 126
Magna Carta, i. 95
its character, i. 96
and provisions, i. 97
spirit and effect of, i. 100
an impetus to freedom, i. 109
its text translated, ii. 551
Major-generals, government by, i. 465
Making a House, i. 403
“Manchester Massacre, the,” ii. 362
Mansfield's decision against slavery, ii.
-->
-->
344
Marlborough, Statute of, i. 139
Marlborough intrigues with the
Jacobites, ii. 35
is created a Duke, ii. 201
honours to, ii. 207
his grasping policy, ii. 213
— his fall, ii. 221
proceedings against, ii. 222
made commander-in-chief, ii. 228
the Duchess of, dismissed, ii. 217
Marston Moor, battle of, i. 420
Marvell, Andrew, reports debates, ii.
249 -
Masham, Mrs., her intrigues, ii. 217
Mary, Queen, accession of, i. 322
— arrests the work of the Reformation,
i. 322
— her first parliament, i. 323
— her Marriage Bill, i. 324
— again unites England with Rome, i.
324
— persecutes the Reformers, i. 325
— her death, i. 327
Mary II., death of, ii. 50
— its effect on parties, ii. 51
Mary, Queen of Scotland, marries the
Dauphin, ii. 119
movements on her behalf, ii. 123
recognises the Reformation, ii. 130
— marries Bothwell, ii. 131
her abdication, ii. 131
repudiates Casket Letters, ii. 132
— her impeachment resolved on, i. 340
— her trial and execution, i. 345, ii. 139
Maynooth Act, ii. 504
Mayors disqualified, i. 363
Mazzini's letters opened, ii. 526
Meal-Tub Plot, the, i. 548
Melbourne, Lord, home secretary, ii.
449
— becomes premier, ii. 458
— is suddenly dismissed, ii. 458
— returns to office, ii. 460
*
Melbourne, Lord, his declaration on the
Corn Laws, ii. 471
Melville, Viscount, impeachment of, ii.
351
Members of parliament, first case of
imprisonment of, i. 164
— their wages, i. 176
— fined for non-attendance, i. 227
— payment of, abandoned, i. 536
Merciless Parliament of 1388, the, i.
231
Merton, statutes of, i. 117
Middlesex, impeachment of Lord, i. 377
Military and Naval Officers' Oaths Bill,
ii. 365
Militia, the, ii. 316
Ministerial responsibility established, i.
527
Ministries of Queen Victoria, the, ii. 576
Ministry of “All the Talents,” ii. 352
Ministry, the, ii. 587
Mist's Journal, case of, ii. 241
Mitchel, John, ii. 511
Mitford's Catholic Relief Bill, ii. 334
Molyneux's Case of Ireland, ii. 399
Mompesson, impeack ment of Sir Giles,
i. 372
Monarchy abolished in 1649, i. 443
Monasteries, suppression of the, i. 311
Monetary Panic in 1825, ii. 446
— in 1857, ii. 496
Monk, General, i. 488
— his letter to the speaker, i. 488
— demands a new parliament, i. 489
— his negotiations with Charles II., i.
495
Monmouth's rebellion suppressed, ii. 6
Monopolies condemned in 1601, i. 352
Montague, Charles, his financial
schemes, ii. 47
— establishes the Bank of England,
ii. 48
— deals with the coinage, ii. 53
is created Lord Halifax, ii. 74
his impeachment, ii. 81
Montague, Lord, imprisoned, i. 363
Montfort, Simon de.. i. 118
— his early life, i. 119
a favourite in England, i. 120
the popular spokesman, i. 125
quarrels with Gloucester, i. 128
his great parliament of 1265, i. 134
his death and character, i. 137
— his influence and labours, i. 138
More, Sir Thomas, and Wolsey, i. 307
— his fall and death, i. 310
Morpeth, Lord, chief secretary for
Ireland, ii. 460
— his Irish Tithes Bill, ii. 460
620
INDEX.
Morpeth, Lord, his Municipal Corpora-
tions Bill, ii. 502
Mortimer, Roger, his trial and execu-
tion, i. 198
Mortimer's conspiracy, i. 252
Mortmain Act, the, ii. 255
Mortmain, Statute of, i. 147
Morton, the Scottish regent, ii. 135
— his trial and execution, ii. 136
Mundella, Mr., vice-president of the
Council, ii. 492 *
Municipal Corporations Act, ii. 462
Municipal corporations strengthened
under Henry VII., i. 301
Municipal progress under Richard I., i.
88
Murray, Alexander, resists the Com-
mons, ii. 275
Murray, the Scottish regent, ii. 132
— his assassination, ii. 133
Mutiny Act first passed, ii. 93
Naming a member, i. 403
Napoleon III. and England, ii. 521
Napoleon's Berlin Decrees, ii. 353
Naseby, battle of, i. 423
National Assemblies, continuity of, i. 5
National councils, frequency of, i. 77
— voting in the, i. 178
National Debt, the, originated, ii. 47
— great increase in the, ii. 369
— changes in the, ii. 501
National Land Bank, failure of the
(1696), ii. 60
Naturalisation Act, the, ii. 535
Naval Prize Act, ii. 536
Navigation Laws, the, ii. 526
Naylor, James, the “Quakers’ Apostle,”
i. 470
New Zealand, ii. 478
Newcastle, the Duke of, premier, ii.
278
Newport, Treaty of, i. 429
Newspaper stamp duty, ii. 465
Newspapers, restrictions on, ii. 342
Newton, Sir Isaac, returned to parlia-
ment, ii. 85
“No rent" agitation, ii. 513
Nominations, Government interference
in, i. 340 .
Nominees, Assembly of, the, i. 450
Non-resistance, doctrine of, i. 529
Norman Conquest, changes resulting
from it, i. 38
— political bearings of the, i. 63
Norman public councils, i. 42
— court days, i. 50
— legislation, i. 64
— invasion of Ireland, ii. 375
Normans. revenue and taxation under
the, i. 44
— their ownership of land, i. 49
North American confederation, ii. 476
Northampton, stormy council at, i. 74
— Assize of, i. 77
— Parliament of, i. 139
Northcote, Sir Stafford, his Act on
friendly societies, ii. 484
North, Lord, chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 296
— his conduct in Wilkes's case, ii. 301
— becomes premier, ii. 306
— his India Act, ii. 309
— his American policy, ii. 312
— his fall, ii. 320
— in the Coalition Ministry, ii. 323
Northumberland's parliament of 1553,
i. 321
Nottingham, great council at, i. 84
Nottingham, Earl of, Lord President, ii.
228
Nowel, Prebendary, expelled by the
Commons, i. 323
Nullum Tempus Act, the, ii. 296
Oates, Titus, i. 540
Oblivion, Act of, ii. 129 -
Occasional Conformity Bill, the, ii. 202
— its repeal, ii. 235
O'Connell, Daniel, ii. 431
— and County Clare, ii. 438
— his trial and release, ii. 503
Office-holders in parliament, ii. 208
Oglethorpe's benevolent schemes,
General, ii. 251
Oldcastle's rebellion, i. 259
Onslow, Arthur, chosen speaker, ii. 245
— his retirement, ii. 283
Onslow, Sir Richard, chosen speaker,
ii. 212
Orange Lodge in Ireland, the first, ii. 415
Orange, Prince of, i. 527
— his marriage, i. 538
(see also William III.)
Order and privilege, cases of, i. 373
Order of the Garter founded, i. 209
Orders in Council against Napoleon, ii.
353
Ordinances of 1311, i. 185
— annulled, i. 191
Oregon treaty, the, ii. 517
Orlton, Bishop of Hereford, and Ed-
ward II., i. 193
— appointed treasurer, i. 197
Ormonde, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
ii. 216
— Commander-in-chief in Flanders. ii.
223
INDEX.
621
Ormonde, Lord, his policy in Ireland, ii.
39
Oxford, Witenagemots at, i. 26, 31
— Council at (1213), i. 92
— provisions of, i. 126
— University, visitation of, i. 256
— Parliament of Charles II., i. 554
Paine, Thomas, his Rights of Man, ii. 336
— his prosecution for treason, ii. 338
Palatine counties, i. 41
Palmerston, I.ord, secretary-at-war, ii.
355
— foreign secretary, ii. 449
— his foreign policy, ii. 516
– his difficulty with Greece, ii. 518
— reproved by the Queen, ii. 519
— his dismissal, ii. 520
— becomes prime minister, ii. 521
— his later policy, ii. 521
Paper duty abolished, the, ii. 498
Papists, proceedings against the, i. 541
Paris, Treaty of (1763), ii. 285
— second Peace of, ii. 359
Parliament, origin of, i. 3
— meaning of the term, i. 5
— the name first used, i. 106, 122
— Edward I.'s model parliament, i. 167
— of White Bands, i. 190
– of 1322, i. 192
— declares the abdication of James II.,
ii. 21
— passes Bill of Rights, ii. 27
— confers the crown on William and
Mary, ii. 28
— settles the revenue, ii. 33
-— disbands the army (1697), ii. 64
— collision between the Houses, ii. 65
— again disbands the army (1698), ii.68
– William III. and the Commons, ii. 70
— the Irish forfeited estates, ii. 71
— the Act of Settlement, ii. 78
— impeaches Somers, ii. 80
— its action against the Kentish peti-
tioners, ii. 82
— William III.'s last parliament, ii. 86
— the Pretender attainted, ii. 88
— discusses the Act of Union with
Scotland, ii. 184
— the act carried, ii. 189
— the Aylesbury election case, ii. 204
— contest for speaker in 1705, ii. 207
— first parliament of Great Britain, ii.
210
— proceeds against Walpole and Marl-
borough, ii. 222
— impeaches Bolingbroke and Oxford,
ii. 229 -
— passes the Septennial Act, ii. 231
Parliament inquires into the South
Sea Bubble, ii. 238
— impeaches Lord Macclesfield, ii.
243
—— forbids parliamentary reporting, ii.
246
— passes the Playhouse Bill, ii. 258
— proceeds against Walpole, ii. 268
— legislates against the Jacobites, ii.
272
— reforms the calendar, ii. 274
— persecutes Alexander Murray, ii. 275
— and John Wilkes, ii. 28S
— and the American Colonies, ii. 290
— renews its struggle with John
Wilkes, ii. 299
— is finally defeated, ii. 303
– publication of debates, ii. 303
— first united parliament meets, ii. 345
— debates on the Ministry and the
Crown, ii. 354
— is suddenly dissolved by the Prince
Regent (1818), ii. 367
— bill to degrade Queen Caroline, ii.
427
— its abandonment, ii. 427
— reform proposals, ii. 440
— the Corn Laws, ii. 443
— the first Reform Bill (1831), ii. 449
— the second Reform Bill, ii. 451
— the third Reform Bill (1832), ii. 452
— the bill carried, ii. 454 -
— its provisions, ii. 454
— dissolution of 1834, ii. 459
— legislation under Queen Victoria, ii.
467
— the Corn Laws repealed, ii. 469
— Colonial and Indian legislation, ii.
474
— legislation for the working classes,
ii. 480
— Education Acts, ii. 487
— financial legislation, ii. 494
— Irish legislation, ii. 501
-— Irish Church Act, ii. 508
— Irish Land Act, ii. 509
— Irish obstruction, ii. 511
— dissolution of 1880, ii. 513
— suspension of Irish members, ii. 513
— Irish Land Act (1881), ii. 514
— Crimes Act, ii. 515
— Irish Arrears Act, ii. 515
— Mr. Parnell's Land Bill, ii. 516
— foreign affairs, ii. 516
— general legislation under Queen Vic-
toria, ii. 524
— army reforms, ii. 530
— the licensing laws, ii. 532
— the exclusion of strangers, ii. 533
622
INDEX.
Parliament, Public Worship Regulation
Act, ii. 533
— shipping legislation, ii. 534
— Bradlaugh case, ii. 536
— reform legislation, ii. 537
— Bribery Acts, ii. 540
— county franchise, ii. 541
— Reform Bill of 1859, ii. 543
— Reform Bill of 1860, ii. 543
— the borough franchise, ii. 544
— Reform Bill of 1866, ii. 544
— Reform Act of 1867, ii. 545
— Ballot Act, ii. 546
— Reform Acts of 1884-5, ii. 546
Parliament houses destroyed (1834), ii.
466
Parliament, the “Drunken,” ii. 155
Parliamentary debates, first reported, i.
120
— reporting the, ii. 246
Parliamentary manners, i. 403
Parliamentary Privilege, Order, Pro-
cedure, etc., ii. 591
Parliamentary privilege, stormy debates
on, i. 337, 341
— Sir Thomas Shirley's case, i. 362
Parliamentary privileges, curious, ii.
276
Parliamentary reform, first motion on,
ii. 271
— Duke of Richmond's bill, ii. 318
— Pitt's motions, ii. 319
— motions for (1790 to 1797), ii. 335
— during George IV.'s reign, ii. 440
--— corrupt boroughs, ii. 441
— disfranchisement proposals, ii. 441
— the ballot, ii. 442
— Reform Bill of 1831, ii. 449
— dissolution of parliament, ii. 450
–– second Reform Bill, ii. 451
— great popular excitement, ii. 452
— third Reform Bill, ii. 452
— the bill carried, ii. 454
— its provisions, ii. 454
— Bribery Acts, ii. 540
— the county franchise, ii. 541
— Reform Bill of 1859, ii. 543
— Reform Bill of 1860, ii. 543
— Reform Bill of 1866, ii. 544
— Reform Act of 1867, ii. 545
— the Ballot Act, ii. 546
— Reform Acts of 1884-5, ii. 546
Parliamentary Reporting, ii. 601
Parliaments of England and of the
United Kingdom, Tabulated List
of the, ii. 569
Parnell, C. S., and Irish obstruction, ii.
512
— his arrest and release, ii. 515
Parnell, C. S., his Land Bill, ii. 516
Parnell, Sir Henry, his motion on the
Civil List, ii. 449
Parnell, Sir John, Irish chancellor of
the exchequer, ii. 417
Parochial system under the Tudors, i.,
354
Parry, Dr. William, i. 344
Partition treaty between England,
France, and Holland, ii. 67
— second treaty (1700), ii. 75
Patent Law, the, ii. 464
l’aterson, William, and the Bank of
England, ii. 48
Patrick, Saint, ii. 373
Patriotic Association under
III., ii. 59
Paul’s, St., Parliament at, i. 93
Payment of members abandoned, i. 536
Peasant revolt of 1381, i. 224
Peckham, Archbishop, his independence,
i. 14
Peel, Sir Robert, under-secretary for the
colonies, ii. 355
— secretary for Ireland, ii. 358
— his proposals for cash payments, ii.
368
— becomes home secretary, ii. 429
— supports Catholic claims, ii. 435
— introduces the Catholic Relief Bill,
ii. 436
— becomes premier, ii. 459
— repeals the Corn Laws, ii. 473
— fall of his ministry, ii. 474
— the Bedchamber Plot, ii. 477
— reimposes the income tax, ii. 494
— fall of his ministry, ii. 504
Peerage Bill, Stanhope's, ii. 236
Peers, Life, i. 291
Pelham, Henry, prime minister, ii. 270
— chancellor of the exchequer, ii. 273
— his death, ii. 277
Penn, William, and James II., ii. 4
Penny postage, ii. 494 -
Penruddocke, Colonel, beheaded, i. 465
Perceval, Spencer, prime minister, ii.
355
— his assassination, ii. 357
Perrers, Alice, banished, i. 217
Perrott, Sir John, Irish Deputy, ii. 386
Perth, parliament of, ii. 108
– Five Articles of, ii. 143
Petition of Right, i. 386
— text of the, ii. 557
Petition, right of, i. 504
Philadelphia, Congress at, ii. 310
Phoenix Society, the, ii. 506
Pipewell, Council of, i. 81
Pitt, William, his early career, ii. 319
William
INDEX,
623
Pitt, William, his motions on parlia-
mentary reform, ii. 319
prime minister, ii. 324
his skilful tactics, ii. 325
dissolves parliament in 1784, ii. 326
carries his India Bill, ii. 326
ungenerous conduct towards Fox,
ii. 327
his sinking fund scheme, ii. 327
his Canada. Bill, ii. 333
introduces the Seditious Meetings
Bill, ii. 341
his ministry reconstituted (1794), ii.
343
financial policy in 1798-9, ii. 344
imposes income tax, ii. 344
346
again becomes premier, ii. 350
his death, ii. 351
policy and character, ii. 352
Place Bill, the, ii. 43
— again discussed, ii. 46
— passed, ii. 269
Plague of 1349, the, i. 209
Plantagenets, the constitution under
the, i. 288
— privileges gained under the, i. 290
Playhouse Bill, the, ii. 258
Police established, the, ii. 466
Poll tax imposed in 1379, i. 223
Pollard, Speaker, and Queen Mary, i.
323
Poor Law Act of 1834, ii. 461
Poor relief under Elizabeth, i. 354
Popish plot, the, i. 539
Porteous riots, the, ii. 256
|Portland Ministry, the, ii. 354
Poynings' law, ii. 382
Praemunire, first statute of, i. 211
— the great statute of 1393, i. 234
Pragmatic Sanction, the, ii. 265
Presbyterianism in Scotland triumphant,
ii. 139
Presbyterians and Independents,
struggle between the, i. 425
Press, liberty of the, first restrained, i.
326
— infringed, ii. 224.
— its freedom secured, ii. 305
Pretender proclaimed, the, ii. 85
— is attainted, ii. 88
— formally abjured, ii. 88
— his designs in 1708, ii. 212
Pride's Purge, i. 430
Prime Ministers, List of the, ii. 568
Prince Consort's annuity, the, ii. 468
Prince of Orange, invitation to the, ii.
14
*º-
resigns on the Catholic question, ii.
Prince of Orange, his declaration, ii. 15
— lands at Torbay, ii. 15
— is offered the Government, ii. 18
(see also William III.)
Principal Acts, Ordinances, etc., since
the Conquest, ii. 572
Print Works Act, ii. 481
Prison horrors in England, ii. 251
Privilege of parliament, the first case of,
i. 169
Privy Council, the, ii. 587
Procedure, early parliamentary, i. 292
Property Qualification Act passed, ii.
219
— abolished, ii. 219
Prosecutions for treason (1793-4), ii. 338
Protestant Dissenting Ministers Bill, ii.
366
Protestant securities and the succession
in 1677, i. 536
Provisors, first statute of (1351), i. 211
— statute of 1390, i. 233
Prynne, cruel treatment of, i. 395
— is excluded from the House, i. 431
Public Libraries Act, ii. 485
Public prosecutor, the, ii. 536
Public schools and universities, ii. 491
Public Worship Regulation Act, ii. 533
Pulteney speaks against Harley's minis-
try, ii. 223
— secretary-at-war, ii. 228
— his action against Walpole, ii. 266
— created Earl of Bath, ii. 268
Puritans persecuted in 1583-93, i. 348
Pym, John, i. 381
— on the attainder of Charles I., ii. 401
— his attempted seizure, ii. 408
— his death, i. 420
Quadruple Alliance, the, ii. 235
Quakers, the, Relief Act (1721), ii. 242
Queen, the title of, i. 324
Queen's Colleges, the, ii. 504
Queensberry Plot, the, ii. 171
Rageman, Statute of, i. 145
Railway Act of 1844, ii. 483
Raleigh, Sir Walter, surrenders
monopolies, i. 353
his
— acquires estates in Ireland, ii. 386
— his execution, i. 371
Ramillies, victory of, ii. 209
Rates, Book of, i. 367
Rebecca Riots in Wales, ii. 526
Rebellion of 1798, Irish, ii. 416
Reformation completed by Elizabeth,
i. 354
— established in Scotland, ii. 120
— in Ireland, ii. 383
624
INDEX.
Reformation Parliament of Henry VIII.,
i. 310
— its results, i. 312
Regency Act of 1765, ii. 292
— 1789, ii. 332
— 1811, ii. 357
— of William IV., ii. 455
— of 1837 and 1840, ii. 468
Remonstrance, the Grand, i. 406
Restoration policy, the, i. 502
Revolt in London (1196), i. 85
Revolution of 1688, the, ii. 15
— its causes, ii. 16
— its completion, ii. 29
—- and justification, ii. 94
Reynolds, Archbishop, i. 193
Richard I. secures the succession, i. 81
— his ministers, i. 82
— his death, i. 88
Richard II., accession of, i. 221
— his first parliament, i. 221
— grants a charter, i. 226
— his struggle with parliament, i. 228
resists reforms, i. 231
assumes the government, i. 233
his arbitrary conduct, i. 235
effects of his policy, i. 237
resigns the crown, i. 238
his deposition, i. 239
causes of his downfall, i. 240
— his death, i. 247
Richard III. assumes the crown, i. 285
— his only parliament, i. 286
— his title, i. 287
— tunnage and poundage granted him
for life, i. 287
— abolishes benevolences, i. 287
— his death, i. 288
“Right Boys,” the, ii. 415
Rights, the Declaration of, ii. 25
— Bill of, ii. 27
Riot Act in 1715, ii. 230
Riots, statute against, i. 256
Roches, Peter des, i. 115
— his dismissal, i. 116
Rockingham's Ministry, Lord, ii. 293
— a second time premier, ii. 321
Roger of Salisbury, justiciar, i. 59
Rolls of Parliament begun in 1278, i.
145
Romilly, Sir Samuel, and the Criminal
Acts, ii. 367
Root and Branch Bill, i. 405
Royal aid refused in 1198, i. 86
-*
-
Royal Commission on Education, ii. 489 |
Royalist conspiracy in 1659, i. 485
Rossa, O'Donovan, ii. 511
Russell, Lord John, enters parliament,
ii. 439 -
Russell, Lord John, his bill to repeal the
Test Acts, ii. 439
— his reform proposals, ii. 440
— introduces the Reform Bill, ii. 450
— introduces the third Reform Bill, ii.
452
— home secretary, ii. 460
— manifesto on the Corn Laws, ii. 473
— resigns during the Crimean War, ii.
520
— introduces the Ecclesiastical Titles
Act, ii. 527
— introduces Reform Bill of 1860, ii. 543
Russell, Lord Orford, impeachment of,
ii. 81
Russell, Lord Wm., execution of, i. 558
Rye House Plot, the, i. 558
Ryswick, Treaty of, ii. 63
Sacheverell, impeachment of, ii. 214
— his trial and sentence, ii. 215
St. Albans, important assembly at, i. 91
Saladin tithe, the, i. 78
Salisbury, Lord, foreign secretary, ii.
522
— and the Berlin Congress, ii. 523
Salisbury, parliament at, i. 157
Sandon, Lord, vice-president of the
Council, ii. 492
Sandwich, Lord, and John Wilkes, ii.
288
Savage, Speaker, and Henry IV., i. 248
Savile, Sir George, introduces the
Nullum Tempus Act, ii. 296
–– his speech in the Wilkes case, ii. 301
— his Roman Catholic Relief Bill, ii.
315
Savings Banks, ii. 485
Saxon Councils, i. 6
Schism Act introduced, ii. 225
— repealed, ii. 235
Scotch Church, patronage in the, ii.
525, 532
Scotch Patronage Act, the, ii. 163
Scotland, education in, ii. 493
Scotland, parliament of, its origin, ii. 97
— the Scottish estates, ii. 98
— National Councils, ii. 99
growing influence of the burghs, ii.
100
composition of the councils, ii. 101
use of the word parliament, ii. 102
the crown and the people, ii. 103
burgh courts, ii. 104
bold legislation, ii. 107
settlement of the succession in 1371,
ii. 109
reforms in 1398, ii. 110
origin of the Statute Law, ii. 111
->
*-
INDEX.
Scotland, curious legislation, ii. 112
— the estates and the crown, ii. 114
Education Act (1496), ii. 116
ecclesiastical laws, ii. 116
reforms in 1524, ii. 117
the estates and Queen Mary, ii. 119
the Reformation established, ii. 120
interesting scene, ii. 121
Elizabeth's marriage pressed, ii. 122
procedure of the estates, ii. 124
personal privileges, ii. 126
abuses of the King's prerogative, ii.
127
early laws affecting the subject, ii.
128
parliament of 1567, ii. 130
parliament of 1572, ii. 134
parliament of Stirling, ii. 135
league with England, ii. 137
changes in the representation of, ii.
138
Presbyterian triumph, ii. 139
and reaction, ii. 140
parliament of 1617, ii. 142
the Five Articles of Perth, ii. 143
policy of Charles I., ii. 144
the Lords of the Articles, ii. 144
Charles's obnoxious legislation, ii.145
proceedings in 1639, ii. 146
the estates reconstituted, ii. 147
they defy the crown, ii. 348
adopt the Covenant, ii. 149
surrender Charles, ii. 151
important legislation, ii. 151
Cromwell and the representation, ii.
151
the forms of parliament, ii. 152
sweeping acts in 1661, ii. 154
Act of Conformity, ii. 155
oppressive religious statutes, ii. 155
James II. deposed, ii. 157
the crown offered to William III.,
ii. 159
Presbyterianism re-established, ii.
162
the Patronage Act, ii. 163
the King and the Church, ii. 165
opposition to England, ii. 166
meeting of the Union Parliament,
ii. 167
Queen Anne favours toleration, ii.
168
the Act of Security, ii. 170
debates on the succession, ii. 170
the Union project in the English
parliament, ii. 172
first steps towards Union, ii. 174
commissioners appointed, ii. 175
the Articles of Union, ii. 177
WOL. II.
Scotland, debates in the Scottish estates,
ii. 179
— Treaty of Union carried, ii. 182
Scottish clergy in parliament, the, ii. 152
Scottish Covenant, renewal of the, ii. 146
— publicly burned in London, ii. 154
Scottish law of treason, ii. 191
Scottish Privy Council abolished, ii. 191
Scottish throne, succession to the, i. 151
Scutage, the great (1159), i. 70
Secondary Education, ii. 490
Sedition, proclamation against, ii. 337
Seditious Meetings Bill, ii. 341
– practices, severe measures against,
ii. 360
Selden, John, i. 388
— his imprisonment, i. 392
Self-denying Ordinance, the, i. 422
— second Ordinance, i. 422
Septennial Act passed, the, ii. 231
— its effects, ii. 232
— discussed, the, ii. 538
Septs in Ireland, ii. 373
Serfdom in Scotland, ii. 128
Settlement of the Scottish Crown, ii. 109
Seven Bishops, trial of the, ii. 13
Seven Years' War, the, ii. 279
Seville, Treaty of, ii. 248
Seymour, Edward, a Tory reformer, ii.
5, 8
Shaftesbury, Earl of, speech on Dr.
Shirley's case, i. 533
— author of the Characteristics, ii.
Shane O’Neil, ii. 385
Shelburne, Lord, prime minister, ii. 322
Sheridan, R. B., in the Coalition Minis
try, ii. 323
— his “Begum ” speech, ii. 328
— on the liberty of the Press, ii. 342
Sheriff, the, his office and functions, i.
173
57
Ship-money exacted, i. 393
— resisted by Hampden, i. 393
— declared illegal, i. 400
Shipping legislation, ii. 534
Shire Moot, the, i. 8
Shirley, Dr., and Sir John Fagg, i. 531
Shirley, Sir Thomas, his case of privi-
lege, i. 362
Shop Hours Regulation Act, ii. 485
Shrewsbury, Parliament of, i. 236
— Earl of, becomes Lord Treasurer, ii.
226
Sidmouth, Wiscount, joins Pitt, ii. 350
— home secretary, ii. 358
— his severe measures, ii. 360
— the “Sidmouth Circular,” ii. 361
— the “Six” Acts, ii. 363
Sidney, Algernon, execution of, i. 558
40
626
INDEX.
Sigebert deposed, i. 16
“Single Speech” Hamilton, ii. 278
“Six” Acts, the, ii. 363
Slave Trade, the, ii. 332
Slavery in the British Islands, ii. 344
Smalley's case of privilege, i. 315
Society for Constitutional Information,
ii. 336
Solemn League and Covenant, the, i.
419
Solicitors, bill against, in 1601, i. 352
Somers, Lord, his early career, ii. 21
— takes the Great Seal, ii. 45
— address against, ii. 71
— resigns the Seal, ii. 74
— his impeachment, ii. 80
— and acquittal, ii. 84
Sophia, Princess, and the succession,
ii. 75
South African Confederation, ii. 478
South Sea Scheme, ii. 219
— its collapse, ii. 237
Southampton Plot, the, i. 260
Sovereign, the, ii. 587
Spain, convention with, ii. 260
Spanish Armada, the, i. 346
Speaker, indignities to the, i. 404
Speakers of the House of Commons,
List of, ii. 566
Spenser, Edmund, acquires estates in
Ireland, ii. 386
Spies and informers, ii. 425
Spiritual estate, the, i. 170
Stafford, trial of Lord, i. 552
Stair, Lord, tragic death of, ii. 182
Stamp Act passed, ii. 291
— repealed, ii. 292
Stamp Duty, the first, ii. 224
Stanhope, General, Secretary of state,
ii. 227
— first lord of the treasury, ii. 234
— secretary of state, ii. 234
— his death, ii. 239
Stanley (afterwards Lord Derby), chief
secretary for Ireland, ii. 449
— his Irish policy, ii. 456
Staples, statute of the, i. 212
Star Chamber under Henry VII., i. 303
— under Charles I., i. 394
— abolished, i. 400
Statute Law originates, i. 140
Statutes, reforming the, i. 253
— the, ii. 600
Steele, Sir Richard, expelled from par-
liament, ii. 224
— on the Septennial Act, ii. 232
Stephen's accession, i. 61
— his misgovernment, i. 61
Stirling, parliament at, ii. 135
Stockdale, prosecution of, ii. 330
— v. Hansard, ii. 525
Storie, Dr. John, imprisoned, i. 319
Storm in England, great, ii. 203
Strafford, Lord (see Wentworth)
Stratford, Archbishop, Edward III.'s
great chancellor, i. 202
— quarrels with the King, i. 203
— his constitutional stand, i. 204
Stuart plottings against William III.,
ii. 77
Stuarts, the last of the, ii. 272
Stubbs on the Witenagemot, i. 11
Suez Canal, the, ii. 499
Suffolk, impeachment of the Earl of, in
1386, i. 230
Suffolk, minister of Henry VI., his im-
peachment in 1450, i. 270
Sumptuary Law, curious, i. 284
Sunderland, Earl of, his fall, ii. 64
— originator of the Cabinet, ii. 93
— secretary of state, ii. 209
— dismissed from office, ii. 216
— first lord of the treasury, ii. 234
— his resignation, ii. 238
— his death, ii. 239
Sutton, Sir Robert, expelled from Parlia-
ment, ii. 250
Taxation, earliest examples of, i. 14
— under the Normans, i. 106
— claimed by parliament, i. 162
Ten Hours Act, the, ii. 481
Territorial Waters Act, ii. 536
Test Act, the, i. 523
Test and Corporation Acts, repeal of
the, ii. 439
Thirty-nine Articles imposed, the, i.
336
Thistlewood tried for treason, ii. 361
Thorpe, the Speaker, arrested (1453), i.
274
Throne vacant, the, i. 143
Tithe Commutation Act, ii. 465
Tithes, origin of, i. 17
Toleration Act passed, ii. 93
Tostig's quarrel with Haroid, i. 30
Town politics in the thirteenth century,
i. 108
Townshend, secretary of state, ii. 227
— his resignation, ii. 234
— Charles, chancellor of the ex-
chequer, ii. 294
— taxes American imports, ii. 295
— his death, ii. 296
Townships and moots, i. 7
Trade, Board of, established, ii. 55
Trades Unions, ii. 485
Training Institutions, ii. 488
INDEX.
627
Traitorous Correspondence Act, ii. 338
Treason Felony Act, ii. 505
Treason, the law of, ii. 56
Treasonable Practices Act, ii. 340
Treasons, Statute of (1352), i. 211
— Edward III.'s statute restored and
extended under Henry VIII., i. 314
Trevor, Speaker, and the Tory party, ii.
36
Trial by jury, its full rights conceded,
i. 560
Triennial Act of 1641, i. 400
— its repeal, i. 506
Triennial Bill, the, ii. 44
— is refused the royal assent, ii. 45
— finally passes, ii. 49
Triple Alliance, the, i. 518
— formed (1717), ii. 234
Tunnage and poundage under Charles I.,
i. 386
Tyler's insurrection, i. 225
Tyrconnel Deputy in Ireland, ii. 396
Undertakers, the, i. 370
Uniformity, Act of, i. 507
— its effects, i. 509
Union with Ireland (1800), ii. 345
Union with Scotland, proposed treaty
of, ii. 174
— joint commissioners appointed, ii.
175
questions for settlement, ii. 176
Articles of Union, ii. 177
agitation against the treaty, ii.
178
great debate in the Scottish estates,
ii. 179
proposed parliament in Edinburgh,
ii. 181
the treaty carried, ii. 182
charges of bribery, ii. 182
Scotch representation under, ii. 183
the treaty in the English parlia-
ment, ii. 184
important debates on, ii. 184
the Articles carried in the Lords, ii.
186
protests against, ii. 187
the act carried in the Commons, ii.
18S
it passes the Lords, ii. 189
receives the royal assent, ii. 189
supplementary legislation, ii. 190
last debate on the Union, ii. 192
motion for dissolving it, ii. 193
— effects of the Act of Union, ii. 194
|Unitarian relief measures, ii. 366
United Irishmen, Society of, ii. 415
University tests, Scotland, ii. 164
Unlearned Parliardent the, i. 252
Utrecht, the Peace of ii. 225
Vane, Sir Henry, execution of, i. 504
Versailles, Treaty of, ii. 323
Vicar at the Bar, a, i. 377
Vice-presidency of the Council, ii. 489
Victoria, Queen, and her accession, ii.
467 -
— her Civil List, ii. 467
— marries Prince Albert, ii. 468
— the precedency question, ii. 469
— the “Bedchamber " Plot, ii. 477
— reproves Lord Palmerston, ii. 519
Vienna, second Treaty of, ii. 249
Willage Council, the, i. 6
Williers, Mr., and the poor laws, ii. 529
Volunteer movement, the, ii. 527
Wager of battle, its origin and abolition,
i. 52 -
Walcheren Expedition, the, ii. 355
Wales, Prince of (son of George III.),
his debts, ii. 330
— his marriage, ii. 343
— assumes the government, ii. 357
— suddenly dissolves parliament, ii. 367
Wales, Statute of, i. 149
Wallingford, Treaty of, i. 62
Walpole, Robert, enters parliament,
ii. 212
— becomes war secretary, ii. 212
— proceedings against, ii. 222
— paymaster of the forces, ii. 228
— his financial policy and the South
Sea Bubble, ii. 239
— becomes prime minister and chan-
cellor of the exchequer, ii. 240
his fiscal legislation, ii. 243
overthrows Townshend, ii. 250
his sinking fund proposal, ii. 251
excise scheme, ii. 252
his relations with the Dissenters, ii.
255
declares war with Spain, ii. 263
— his declining popularity, ii. 263
motion to dismiss him, ii. 263
his effective oratory ii, 267
his fall, ii, 267
created Earl of Orford, ii. 267
prosecution of, ii. 268
his death, ii. 269
Walter's visitation, Hubert, i. 85
War and Colonial Departments, ii. 348
Ward, Mr., his motion on the Irish
Church, ii. 457
Warrants, general, condemned, ii. 290
— declared illegal, ii. 293
628
INDEX.
Wellington, Duke of, prime minister, ii.
434
— supports the Catholic claims, ii. 435
— speech on emancipation, ii. 437
— strange declaration on reform, ii. 448
— defeat of his government, ii. 449
Welsh judicature, the, ii. 446
Wensleydale, case of Lord, i. 292
Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, i. 384
— his policy in Ireland, i. 395, ii. 389
— his impeachment, i. 401
— and execution, i. 402
Wentworth, Peter, bold speech of, i. 347
Westbury, Lord, ii. 530
Westminster, Council of (1138), i. 63
— Parliament of (1244), i. 121
Provisions of, i. 128
— first Statute of, i. 144
second Statute of, i. 149
third Statute of, i. 151
-— fourth Statute of, i. 189
Westminster Election, the (1784), ii. 327
Whigs and Tories, origin of, i. 549
— and the Revolution, ii. 32
— great financial struggle between,
ll.
Whig leaders impeached (1701), ii. 80
Whigs cease to attend parliament, ii,
313, 342
White Bands, Parliament of, i. 190
“White Boy” Acts, the, ii. 405
Wilberforce and the slave trade, ii. 332,
350
Wilkes, John, enters the House of Com-
mons, ii. 288
his arrest, ii. 288
expelled from the House, ii. 289
returned for Middlesex, ii. 298
his struggle with the House, ii. 299
expulsion and re-election, ii. 300
his final triumph, ii. 303
— his defence of parliamentary report-
ing, ii. 303
— motion on reform, ii. 313
William and Mary declared joint sove-
reigns, ii. 26
— settlement of the crown on, ii. 28
— their first ministry, ii. 29
-— coronation, ii. 30
William the Conqueror, King of Eng-
land, i. 38
— continues English customs, i. 39
— discourages feudalism, i. 40
— his system of land tenure, i. 40
— acts of his councils, i. 45
— his government, i. 48
his income, i. 51
— his ordinances, i. 52
ecclesiastical policy, i. 52
--
-
William the Conqueror separates the
legal from the ecclesiastical juris-
diction, i. 53
— character of his rule, i. 53
William Rufus, i. 54
— constitutional import of his reign, i.
55
— his councils, i. 56
William III., his early difficulties, ii. 31
ministerial dissensions, ii. 32
the King's revenue, ii. 33
he dissolves the Convention Parlia-
ment, ii. 34
subdues Ireland, ii. 34
his second parliament, ii. 36
the revenue settled, ii. 37
his act of grace, ii. 38
war taxation, ii. 39
vetoes a bill, ii. 41
laments the loss of his wife, ii. 50
calls a new parliament (1695), ii. 52
his policy checked by parliament
ii. 54
critical condition of affairs, ii. 58
financial measures, ii. 62
opens his fourth parliament, ii. 68
his disposition of the Irish estates,
ii. 71
popular feeling for him, ii. 82
opens his last parliament, ii. 86
his memorable speech, ii. 86
is supported by the Houses, ii. 87
political parties under, ii. 90
his death, ii. 91
character, ii. 92
constitutional importance of
reign, ii. 92
William IV., his accession, ii. 448
— opens parliament in 1830, ii. 448
— his distrust of reform, ii. 449
—- dissolves parliament, ii. 450
— accepts the Reform Bill, ii. 454
— his death, ii. 466
William of Malmesbury on the Witena-
gemot, i. 13
— on Saxon Councils, i. 36
Wilmington's Ministry, Lord, ii. 267
Winchelsey, Archbishop, i. 154
— summons a convocation, i. 161
— proceedings against him, i. 165
Winchester, Statute of, i. 150
Witan, the, as a court of justice, i. 29
Witchcraft, acts against, ii. 129, 256
Witenagemot, i. 9
— its constitution, i. 11
— its powers, i. 12, 33
— no popular representation in, i. 36
Wogan, Sir John, calls the first Irish
parliament, ii. 377
his
INDEX.
629
Wolsey, Cardinal, and the Commons, i.
307
Women and children in mines, ii. 480
Wood's halfpence, ii. 402
Working class legislation, ii. 480
Workshops Regulation Act, ii. 482
Wrecking, laws against, ii. 274
Writs of summons, i. 105
Wycliffe, attempt to prosecute, i. 219
Wykeham, William of, i. 219
Wyndham, Sir William, introduces the
Schism Act, ii. 226
— on parliamentary reporting, ii. 247
— on Walpole's excise scheme, ii. 253
Wyndham, Sir William, secedes from
the House, ii. 262
Yelverton, Mr. Serjeant, a diffident
speaker, i. 351
York, Duke of, his proposed exclusion,
i. 551
— charges against (1809), ii. 355
— and the Catholics, ii. 432
York, House of, estates of the realm
under the, i. 290
“Young England ” party, ii. 503
“Young Ireland” party, ii. 503
THE END.
ſſſſſſ!！！
aeg: ; ***
.yes, la:.*** •
* * * · * * *ſ*…！ ：） ----
-（4）-（=+ ******）， §.A., №vae
……！--
„ès！！！！！！！!
•ș* ·- - - -→ · · · · · · · * & * .- . . . >> ----- --~~ ~ ,-, , -r e ~~~~. ::: : „！ , :- ¿?.…+=~~~~«，* · * * · · «; xº …）， ， ， ， , ） - ++.*¿¿ №rræ→-- - - --··--*------
* , ,' ！*: :* → . . . … * * * *-****• • • .-• .-· · · · ·: -~~~.-„“-|-







THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
GRADUATE LIBRARY
DATE DUE
Form 95.84


MUTILATE CARDS