THE LIBRARY 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 33- ovU^ , <M^> - 
 
 O e*(r(^- , I"! 13
 
 HISTORICAL AND 
 LITERARY STUDIES 
 
 VOLUME 3
 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK 
 TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY 
 
 HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A. 
 
 PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY
 
 OXFORD 
 
 Historical and Literary 
 
 STUDIES 
 
 Issued under the direction of C. H. FIRTH 
 
 and WALTER RALEIGH Professors of 
 
 Modern History and English Literature in 
 
 the University of Oxford 
 
 VOLUME 3 
 
 THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN THE 
 REIGN OF WILLIAM III 
 
 By ^. S. 
 
 OXFORD 
 At the Clarendon Press
 
 VOLUME I. ELIZABETHAN ROGUES AND VAGA- 
 BONDS AND THEIR REPRESENTATION IN 
 CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE. BY FRANK 
 AYDELOTTE. 
 
 VOLUME II. ANGLO-ROMAN RELATIONS, i? ?8-ij6j. 
 BY C. G. BAYNE, C.S.I. 
 
 VOLUME III. THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN THE REIGN 
 OF WILLIAM III. BY A. S. TURBERVILLE.
 
 Libr 
 
 ary 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 THE following study deals with the House of Lords in one 
 of the most interesting periods in its history. The reign of 
 William III was ushered in by the movement which we term 
 the English Revolution, and it marks the beginning of a new 
 constitutional epoch. By such a crisis the House of Lords 
 could not fail to be deeply affected, so that its story during 
 the reign is well worth telling for its own sake. But while 
 making the influence of the Revolution upon the Second 
 Chamber the main pivot of the narrative, I have sought to 
 treat the subject in its broader aspects and to present a picture 
 of general aristocratic influence, whose interest belongs to the 
 province of social as well as that of constitutional history. 
 The House of Lords stood as the embodiment of a tradition 
 of government which entrenched upon numerous spheres. 
 Many of the incidents dealt with in this book are well known 
 to all students of the reign of William III; I can only hope 
 that there may be some to whom it will be useful to have the 
 familiar facts treated from a new point of view. 
 
 The most obvious authorities for the subject are the Journals 
 of the House and the Parliamentary Histories. The informa- 
 tion to be gleaned from these sources is, however, very frag- 
 mentary, and it is fortunate that it can be largely supplemented 
 by details drawn from the prolific memoirs and correspondence 
 of the time, and by the dispatches of foreign residents in 
 England interested in parliamentary affairs. But much more 
 important than any of these are the Manuscripts of the 
 House of Lords, which have been recently printed for the
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 whole period under consideration. The publication of these 
 invaluable documents has rendered possible a fuller and more 
 detailed account of the Upper House than would have been 
 possible hitherto. 
 
 Professor Firth suggested to me the undertaking of this 
 work, and I have been indebted to his assistance throughout 
 its progress. How much this has meant to me will be realized 
 by all those who have had the rare privilege of drawing upon 
 Professor Firth's unrivalled knowledge of the literature of the 
 Stuart period. I wish also to express my thanks to my friend, 
 Mr. F. J. Routledge, of Liverpool University and New College, 
 Oxford, who gave much time and zealous care to the reading 
 of my proofs, and to suggesting various improvements in 
 matters of style and arrangement. 
 
 ARTHUR STANLEY TURBERVILLE.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I PAGE 
 
 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE . . i 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH . . . .16 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 THE SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE . 31 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE ... 62 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE . . 94 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION THE INTERREGNUM . 119 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION THE SETTLEMENT . . 149 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 THE LORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION 166 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 THE GREAT QUARREL BETWEEN THE HOUSES . . .196 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 CONCLUSION 225 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 THE MANNER OF SITTING IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS . . 247 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 249 
 
 INDEX . . .255
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 
 
 THE history of the House of Lords divides itself into 
 a number of well-defined periods. In the earliest days the 
 assembly of the nation, the Magnum Concilium, is an assembly 
 consisting of lords only. With the beginning of a parlia- 
 mentary system there comes into existence a chamber of 
 popular representatives. Burgesses and knights of the shire 
 eventually elect to sit together ; and so there arises the possi- 
 bility of a strong House of Commons. A third epoch in the 
 history is reached when the abbots and higher clergy, who had 
 the right to sit in the Upper House together with the bishops, 
 begin to meet in their own Convocation only. Thus the 
 House of Lords becomes a chamber consisting of a pre- 
 ponderatingly temporal element instead of being as heretofore 
 very largely a clerical body. The marriage alliances of 
 Edward III may almost be said to have made the House into 
 a congregation of relatives, all connected more or less nearly 
 with the sovereign. The consummation of this remarkable 
 system led to its speedy dissolution in the Wars of the Roses. 
 The restoration of order out of chaos which came with the 
 triumph of the strong Tudor monarchy did not, however, 
 bring revival for the nobility. The Tudors had no mind to 
 resuscitate a feudalism which had over and over again in the 
 past rendered strong centralized administration difficult, if not 
 impossible. Instead they encouraged the influence of a House 
 of Commons destined to do battle with despotism, and in 
 so doing to overthrow monarchy and peerage together. The 
 House of Lords perished when the Commonwealth began. 
 It is an interesting paradox that prior to the return of 
 Charles Stuart in 1660 the monarchy had been restored in 
 all but name. Certainly after the attempted ' rule of the
 
 2 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 saints ' in the Little Parliament there is a distinct conservative 
 process discernible, in which the Instrument of Government 
 marks one stage, the Humble Petition and Advice another. 
 The institution by the latter of a monarchy and a second 
 chamber is the precursor to the re-establishment of the 
 hereditary sovereignty and the historic House of Lords. The 
 House returned apparently much the same as it had been 
 before the days of its humiliation. In reality new processes 
 were at work. It was no more possible for the hereditary 
 chamber to remain unaffected by the Great Rebellion than 
 it was for the hereditary monarchy to do so. The restored 
 monarchy, tried in the balances, was in no long time found 
 wanting, and was accordingly dispensed with. The Revolution 
 of 1689, which saw the final downfall of the Stuart sovereignty, 
 could not but prove a crisis in the history of the hereditary 
 chamber which, together with that sovereignty, had been tem- 
 porarily abolished and then restored. 
 
 Were gratitude for honours received a lasting tie, then never 
 was bond stronger than that which bound the House of Lords 
 to the Stuart dynasty. The extent to which the peerage in 
 1688 was of Stuart creation is very remarkable. 1 When 
 William III ascended the English throne the House of Lords 
 consisted of 1 53 members ; eighty- four years previously it had 
 consisted of only 59. During a single reign the number was 
 almost doubled. When Charles I succeeded his father there 
 were 104 temporal lords. James had made 62 creations, but 
 17 titles had become extinct during his reign. Charles I 
 raised the number to 142, his creations totalling 59. His 
 son was responsible for no fewer than 64 additions, but as 53 
 
 1 See Two lists showing the alteration in the composition of the House 
 of Commons from the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII to the end of 
 that of James I, and in that of the House of Peers from the accession of 
 James I to the present time, with observations. Published 1719 in con- 
 nexion with the Stanhope Peerage Bill. Most of the particulars given 
 as to peerage creations in the following pages are derived from these 
 peerages : J. E. Doyle, Complete Baronage of England, 3 vols., London, 
 1886 ; Arthur Collins, The Peerage of England, ed. Sir E. Brydges, 9 vols., 
 1812; The Complete Peerage of England and Ireland, &*c., by G. E. 
 C[okayne], 8 vols., 1887-98 ; The Peerage of England, or An Historical 
 and Genealogical Account of the Present Nobility, in 2 vols. (printed by 
 E. J. for Abel Roper and Arthur Collins), 1714.
 
 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 
 
 peerages died out between 1649 an ^ ^85 this only meant 
 a net increase of ti. Despite the large number of extinctions 
 the membership of the chamber had considerably more than 
 doubled in the eighty years prior to the accession of James II. 
 But this statement of the case does not quite accurately 
 express the extent of the Stuarts' influence on the composition 
 of the House, seeing that they had actually conferred as many 
 as 185 peerages altogether. 
 
 A brief glance at the composition of the House of Lords 
 in the reign of James II in the year 1687 will show in 
 a striking manner in what degree it was of Stuart origin. 
 In 1614 a chamber which consisted of but 65 lay members 
 was composed of a single duke, a single marquis, 19 
 earls, 4 viscounts, and 40 barons. In 1687 there were 
 12 dukes, 2 marquises, 65 earls, 9 viscounts, and 66 
 barons. Five of the dukes were illegitimate children of 
 Charles II, viz. Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond ; Charles, 
 Duke of Southampton ; Henry, Duke of Grafton ; George, 
 Duke of Northumberland ; and Charles, Duke of St. Albans. 
 Of the remaining seven one was a Villiers, the second Duke 
 of Buckingham. He died in the April of this year 1687. 
 Another was Christopher Monk, Duke of Albemarle, son 
 of the famous general. Recently promoted to the highest 
 rank of peerage was Henry Somerset, who had succeeded as 
 third Marquis of Worcester in 1667, and was promoted to the 
 dukedom of Beaufort in December 1682. James Butler, first 
 Duke of Ormonde, had obtained his title only a few months 
 earlier. Henry Cavendish was the second Duke of Newcastle, 
 having in 1676 succeeded his father, the royalist general in the 
 Civil War. There were only two of the dukes who could lay 
 claim to antiquity in their titles these being the Dukes of 
 Norfolk and of Somerset. Henry Howard was the descendant 
 of that John Howard who in 1470 became a baron and in 
 1483, as the reward of his attachment to Richard III, acquired 
 the dukedom of the Mowbrays, and was at the same time 
 made Earl Marshal of England. Charles Seymour was the 
 sixth Duke of Somerset, and derived his title from the year 
 1547, though it has to be remembered that there was the long 
 
 B 2
 
 4 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 intermission between the execution of the famous Protector in 
 1552 and the restoration of the dukedom to the family in 1660. 
 
 The two marquises in 1687 were Charles Paulet, sixth 
 Marquis of Winchester, whose title was also of sixteenth- 
 century origin, and the celebrated George Savile, first 
 Marquis of Halifax. 
 
 Among the earls were some names of historic interest. The 
 ancient family of de Vere still held the earldom of Oxford ; 
 the holder of the honour in 1687 being the twentieth in the 
 succession. Charles Talbot was the twelfth of his race to 
 boast of the title of Earl of Shrewsbury. Anthony Grey, 
 Earl of Kent, was the tenth in a line which stretched back 
 to days before the dynastic war of York and Lancaster. 
 Among peers of a more recent creation were men who had 
 played so conspicuous a part in recent political events as 
 Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury ; Thomas 
 Osborne, Earl of Danby ; Lawrence Hyde, Earl of Rochester. 
 A large number of earls owed their dignity to Charles II. 
 Such were Edward Montague, made Earl of Sandwich in 
 1660 ; Edward Hyde, made Earl of Clarendon in the following 
 year, which also saw the elevations of the Earls of Cardigan, 
 Anglesey, Bath, Carlisle, and Essex. The possession of the 
 earldoms of Ailesbury and Burlington by the families of Bruce 
 and Boyle respectively dated from 1664. In 1672 came 
 Cooper's earldom ; two years later there followed the creations 
 of Powys and Danby. In 1676 Louis de Duras became 
 Earl of Feversham. 1 The year 1679 saw the creation of the 
 earldoms of Macclesfield, Radnor, Yarmouth, and Berkeley in 
 the families respectively of Gerard, Roberts, Paston, and 
 Berkeley. Six more earldoms owed their origin to the year 
 1682, viz. those of Nottingham, Rochester, Abingdon, 
 Gainsborough, Holderness, and Plymouth. Of the total 
 number of sixty-five earldoms existent in 1687 there were 
 only ten that were not of Stuart origin. 
 
 Among the nine viscounties, there were three only of earlier 
 date than the Stuart period, viz. those of Hereford, Montague, 
 and Saye and Sele. 
 
 1 He succeeded his father-in-law in the title by special remainder.
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 5 
 
 The first Viscount Fauconberg was Thomas Belasyse, created 
 a baron in 1627 and a viscount in 1643. Francis Newport, 
 son of the first Baron Newport, was raised to the higher 
 dignity in 1675. The extraordinary Charles Mordaunt was the 
 second Viscount Mordaunt of Avalon. Horatio Townshend had 
 been created a baron in 1661 and had been given a viscounty 
 in 1682. Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, was yet 
 another who owed his rank to Charles II. Finally, Christopher 
 Hatton, the son of the first Baron Hatton of Kirby, was pro- 
 moted in 1683. 
 
 An examination of the list of baronies extant in 1687 reveals 
 a situation very similar to that of the earls ; but of the total 
 number of sixty-five only fifteen dated beyond 1603, the oldest 
 being those of Audley, de la Warr, and Abergavenny. Seven- 
 teen were created by Charles II, among them being one or 
 two names of note. There was George Booth, Lord Delamere, 
 destined to play a prominent part in the events of the Revolu- 
 tion ; George Carteret, a member of the great Jersey family 
 which had befriended Charles in his exile at their manor house 
 of St. Ouen ; George Legg, Lord Dartmouth, the admiral ; 
 Francis North, Lord Guilford ; and greatest of all, Sidney 
 Godolphin. 
 
 James II himself made but little change in the composition 
 of the House of Lords. He made only eight new peers, and 
 as the same number of titles became extinct during the reign, 
 in actual numbers the House was the same in 1688 as it had 
 been in 1685. Except for the Duke of Berwick the new lords 
 were all barons. These were Henry Jermyn, the Catholic 
 debauchee, created Lord Dover ; John Churchill, already Baron 
 Churchill of Eyemouth in Scotland, now made Baron Churchill 
 of Sandridge ; George Jeffreys, the judge of evil memory, made 
 Lord Jeffreys of Wemm ; Henry Waldegrave, Lord Waldegrave 
 of Chewton ; Lord Derwentwater ; Lord Stafford ; and Lord 
 Griffin. 
 
 It is of interest to note the creations of peerages made by 
 James after his abandonment of the English throne. 1 He was 
 
 1 See Jacobite Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage, 6-Y., compiled by the 
 Marquis of Ruvignyand Raineval (Edinburgh, 1904), pp. 150-1.
 
 6 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 not prodigal of his rewards, and was more apt to be profuse in 
 threats than in bribes. But a few of his immediate followers 
 were recompensed with peerages or promotion within the 
 degrees of peerage. In 1689 the Marquis of Powys, who 
 subsequently became Lord Steward and Chamberlain of the 
 Household at St. Germain's, was given a dukedom. In the 
 same year Lord Dover was given an earldom. 1 Sir Edward 
 Herbert, brother of the better-known Lord Torrington, was 
 one of those adherents who accompanied James to France and 
 Ireland. For this conduct he was attainted in a bill, which, 
 however, lapsed in parliament owing to prorogation, and his 
 estates were handed over to his brother. Compensation for 
 the losses which his fidelity had brought upon him came from 
 his royal master in the shape of the earldom of Portland. 2 
 Another of the small band of the faithful was rewarded with 
 a like honour in 1689. This was Viscount Preston (in the 
 peerage of Scotland), who was now created Earl of Esk. a 
 Sir Edward Hales was another recipient of an earldom in 
 1692. He had accompanied the King in his first attempted 
 flight out of England, had been fetched back ignominiously 
 from F^eversham, and lodged in the Tower. In October 1689 
 he had been brought to the bar of the House of Commons on 
 a charge of high treason, but less than eight months later he 
 was so fortunate as to obtain his discharge, whereupon he 
 speedily betook himself to St. Germain's, and in due course 
 became Earl of Tenterden. 4 The two most active of the 
 Jacobites at the exiled court were the two secretaries, Melfort 
 and Middleton. The former was in 1689 created Baron of 
 Cleworth, besides being given a Scottish dukedom. 5 The 
 honours to Middleton were somewhat belated. He did not 
 obtain an English title until 1701, when he became Earl of 
 Monmouth. 6 In 1696 the dukedom of Albemarle, which had 
 become vacant on the death of Christopher Monk in 1685, 
 was conferred upon Henry Fitzjames, the youngest of James's 
 illegitimate children by Arabella Churchill, and younger brother 
 
 1 Ruvigny, pp. 42-3. 2 Ibid., p. 150. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 47-8. 4 Ibid., pp. 171-3. 
 
 6 Ibid., p. 37. Ibid., pp. 121-3.
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 7 
 
 of the Duke of Berwick. 1 This closes the list of the important 
 Jacobite peerages created between 1688 and 1702. There 
 were, however, three others. During his reign in England 
 James had employed a certain John Caryll as his agent at 
 Rome. The latter followed his master into exile. James 
 would seem to have had a singular affection for him, as he 
 asked that the estates of his agent should specially be exempted 
 from confiscation. His request was granted, but unfortunately 
 Caryll was suspected of complicity in the Assassination Plot of 
 1696, and he was attainted and his estates forfeited. Between 
 1694 and 1696 he acted with Middleton as joint secretary of 
 state at St. Germain's ; and a year or two later he was raised to 
 the peerage as Lord Caryll of Durford. 2 As to the authen- 
 ticity of the last two creations that remain to be mentioned 
 there appears to be some doubt. A certain Walter Pye is 
 said to have been made Lord Kilpee 3 ; and one Humphrey 
 Borlase is reported to have followed James to France, and to 
 have been created Baron Borlase of Mitchell. 4 Nine men in 
 all were honoured by James with the right to take their seats 
 in the House cf Lords during the period while the usurping 
 William sat upon the throne of England. 
 
 During this period William made thirty elevations to the 
 peerage. In comparison with the lavish grants of James I 
 and Charles II -.his is not a large number, even taking into 
 consideration the comparatively short duration of the reign. 
 Twelve of the number belong to the first two years, 1689 and 
 1690. There was only one new peerage created after 1698. 
 As twenty-one titles became extinct, William only increased 
 the numbers of the House of Lords by nine in the aggregate. 
 Six of the new peerages were conferred upon the eldest sons 
 of peers, and their titles ultimately became merged into those 
 of the fathers. This process had already taken place in five 
 cases before the death of William. The barony of Willoughby 
 de Eresby had become merged in the earldom of Lindsey ; 
 that of Berkeley in the earldom of Berkeley ; that of Sidney 
 in the earldom of Leicester; that of Granville in the earldom 
 
 1 Ruvigny, p. 42. 2 Ibid., pp. 20-21. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 73. * Ibid., pp. 118-19.
 
 8 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 of Bath, and that of Clifford in the earldom of Burlington. 
 But as Thomas Osborne, successively Earl of Danby, Marquis 
 of Caermarthen, and Duke of Leeds, lived on until 1722, the 
 Osborne barony had a separate existence throughout the reign. 
 Of William's new creations two were dukedoms, and both were 
 made in 1689. The title of Duke of Cumberland was given 
 to Prince George of Denmark in April of that year. At the 
 same time William's Dutch follower, Schomberg, became a 
 duke. None of the new lords were marquises. Nine of them 
 were earls, viz. Cholmondeley, Portland, Romney, Torrington, 
 Rochford, Albemarle, Jersey, Orford, Grantham. There was 
 one viscount, Lonsdale. The new barons, in addition to the 
 seven already mentioned, were Ashburnham, Capel, Lempster, 
 Weston, Strafford, Herbert of Cherbury, Willoughby de Broke, 
 Craven, Haversham, Somers, Barnard, and Halifax. It will 
 be noticed how soon after the dying out of a title in one 
 family it was revived in another, a fact which is apt to confuse 
 the reader. Savile, Marquis of Halifax, died in April 1695. 
 In December 1700 the title of Baron Halifax was conferred 
 upon Charles Montague. The Portland title had been extinct 
 but a short time when it was revived for the benefit of 
 Bentinck. The most remarkable case is that of the title 
 of Baron Herbert of Cherbury. One lord of that name died 
 in April 1691. Exactly three years later another Henry 
 Herbert, who, though his name was the same, came from 
 a different family, took his place. In addition to Bentinck 
 and Schomberg there were three other Dutchmen among the 
 new peers : Zuilestein, Earl of Rochford ; van Keppel, Earl 
 of Albemarle; and d'Auverquerque, Earl of Grantham. 
 
 At the outset of the reign Savile urged upon William the 
 desirability of raising existing peers who had been on his side 
 to a higher degree. He argued that it would have two good 
 effects. It would oblige the lords for their previous services ; 
 and secondly, it would engage their interests for the future. 1 
 As they would be indebted to William for their superior 
 dignity, so they would be compromised and impelled by 
 
 1 Life and Letters of George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, by M iss H. C. 
 Foxcroft (1898, 2 vols.), vol. ii, p. 207 (in the Spencer House Journals).
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 9 
 
 motives of personal safety and aggrandisement to support 
 the de facto sovereign. As Halifax notices, the new king 
 was at first slow to embrace this proposal, as he was to 
 adopt any new suggestion before he had had time to master 
 his position. There certainly was plenty of pressure brought 
 to bear upon William to make promotions. The attainment 
 of a dukedom was the ambition of more than one of the most 
 influential peers, and they did not hesitate to advertise their 
 claims for advancement to the King. The Earl of Rutland 
 had just succeeded in obtaining the promise of his dukedom 
 from William before the latter's death. 1 He actually obtained 
 the coveted distinction in March 1703. The Earl of Bedford 
 had gained his dukedom as early as 1694. This encouraged 
 another ambitious peer, Lord Montague, to proffer a request 
 that the same honour should be done to him. The letter in 
 which he addresses the King on the subject is so astonishing 
 in its effrontery as to merit quotation in evtenso ' 2 : 
 
 'I did not think it very good manners to trouble your 
 Majesty in the middle of so great affairs as you had at your 
 going away, else I should have made it my humble request 
 that you would have been so gracious as to have done my 
 family the same honour you have done to my Lord Clare, 
 Bedford and others. This request had been made to you by 
 the old Duke of Schomberg, who thought himself under some 
 obligation to me for the encouragement I gave him to attend 
 you in your expedition into England, but that I did not think 
 it reasonable to ask the being put over the Duke of Shrews- 
 bury's head, but now, Sir, that you have given him that rank, 
 which the greatness of his family and personal merit has 
 deserved, I may, by your Majesty's grace and favour, pretend 
 to the same dignity as well as any of the families you have 
 promoted, being myself the head of a family that many ages 
 ago had great honours and dignities, when I am sure these 
 had none ; and we having lost them by the Civil Wars 
 
 1 AfSS. of the Duke of Rutland at Belvoir Castle, vol. ii, p. 168. 
 (Historical MSS. Comm. Rep. xii, Append., pt. 5). Rutland's son, Lord 
 Roos, to his father, February 17, 1702. 
 
 3 Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland from the last Parliament of 
 Charles II to the Battle of La Hague, by Sir John Dalrymple ( 1 720, 3 vols. ), 
 Appendix to Bk. VI, pp. 256-8. Lord Montague to William III, May 18, 
 1694. It is unfortunate that the pagination in Dalrymple is not by volume, 
 but by Books.
 
 10 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 between York and Lancaster, I am now below the two younger 
 branches, my Lord Manchester and Sandwich. I have to add 
 to my pretensions the having married the Duke of Newcastle's 
 eldest daughter ; and it has been the practice of all your 
 predecessors, whenever they were so gracious to keep up the 
 honour of a family by the female line, to bestow it upon those 
 who married the eldest, without there are some personal 
 prejudice to the person who held that claim. I may add, 
 Sir, another pretension, which is the same for which you have 
 given a dukedom to the Bedford family, the having been one 
 of the first ; and held out to the last, in that cause which, for 
 the happiness of England, brought you the crown. I hope it 
 will not be thought a less merit to be alive and ready on all 
 occasions to venture all again for your service, than if I had 
 lost my head when Lord Russell did. I could not then have 
 had the opportunity of doing the nation the service I did, 
 when there was such opposition made by the Jacobite party, 
 in bringing my Lord Huntingdon, the Bishop of Durham, and 
 my Lord Ashley, to vote against the regency, and for your 
 having the crown ; which was carried but by those three 
 voices and my own. I should not put you in mind of this, 
 but hoping that so fortunate and so reasonable a service as 
 this may supply all my other wants of merit ; and which, 
 since you were pleased to promise me in your bed-chamber 
 at St. James', before you were King, never to forget, you will 
 not now that are so great and gracious a one. The Duke of 
 Shrewsbury can further satisfy you what persecution I suffered, 
 and what losses I sustained in the last two reigns, which must 
 make the mortification greater if my humble suit be refused.' l 
 
 In his promotions William showed impartiality. Both 
 Whigs and Tories obtained a share in them. In the first 
 place the men who had been the prime movers in bringing 
 about the landing of the Prince of Orange were rewarded. 
 These, besides commoners who were now raised to the peerage, 
 were Lumley, who obtained a viscounty ; Danby, who became 
 Marquis of Caermarthen ; Churchill, given the earldom of 
 Marlborough ; Mordaunt, made Earl of Monmouth ; Delamere. 
 created Earl of Warrington. Lumley was subsequently once 
 more promoted, taking the title of Earl of Scarborough. 
 The Earl of Shrewsbury obtained his dukedom in 1694. 
 Caermarthen was made Duke of Leeds in the same year ; 
 
 1 It "was refused.
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 11 
 
 when Devonshire and Bedford also obtained their dukedoms. 
 Other promotions were those of the Marquis of Winchester 
 to the dukedom of Bolton ; of Viscount Sidney to the earldom 
 of Romney ; of the Earl of Clare to the dukedom of New- 
 castle ; of Viscount Newport to the earldom of Bradford ; of 
 Lord Grey de Ruthyn to a viscounty ; l of the Earl of Mulgrave 
 to the marquisate of Normanby ; of Lord Coventry to an 
 earldom ; of Viscount Villiers to the earldom of Jersey. It 
 will be seen that the list contains a number of Tory names as 
 well as Whig, although the latter preponderate. 
 
 The extent of the influence of William's creations upon the 
 character, and particularly the party complexion, of the House 
 is not an easy question. But it must be clear at the outset 
 that there is a presumption against any very sweeping changes 
 having been made by the addition of no more than thirty new 
 peers. Put succinctly the case stands thus : of the sixteen 
 dukes in the House in 1702 seven owed their present titles to 
 William ; of the sixty-seven earls, thirteen were of William's 
 creation ; of the nine viscounts, three ; and of the sixty-three 
 barons, nine only. The House of Lords in the reign of 
 William III is often spoken of as a Whig House. So positive 
 a statement as this is, to say the least, inaccurate. We are 
 not justified in speaking of a House as being either Tory or 
 Whig unless the preponderance of the one party over the 
 other is really considerable. Otherwise some qualification is 
 needed. 
 
 It is certain that in 1688 the House was preponderating!}' 
 Tory. It would be too much to say that a House principally 
 of Stuart origin would necessarily be so. But it is reasonable 
 to argue that this was the tendency. The Stuarts usually 
 rewarded men who were of their own ways of thinking, and 
 were not likely to approve the political principles of Whiggism. 
 It is true that one of the tenets of the Whigs was 
 toleration, and that both Charles II and James II issued 
 declarations of indulgence. But the toleration which the 
 Stuarts wanted was toleration of Roman Catholics, while the 
 Whigs desired it only for Protestant dissenters. In any case 
 1 He took the title of Viscount Longueville.
 
 12 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 the question of toleration was a negligible quantity in com- 
 parison with the main issue the different ways in which the 
 two parties viewed the monarchy. When the House of Lords 
 had to decide upon that subject in connexion with the Exclu- 
 sion Bill they decided in favour of the established system by 
 63 votes to 30. Certainly the situation radically changed 
 between that day and 1688, and peers who had been unwilling 
 to exclude the Duke of York from the throne found his yoke, 
 when he was on the throne, unbearable. At the same time 
 the Exclusion Bill, notwithstanding the intervention of ' the 
 trimmer', forms about as good an indication of the state of 
 parties as the proceedings over the Revolution Settlement. 
 The fate of the Regency motion undoubtedly a Tory motion 
 does not provide a true criterion as to the state of parties 
 in the House at the time. At that debate the supporters of 
 William were able to defeat the proposal for a regency by 
 only two votes, 51 to 49. The Whigs did their very utmost, 
 and we may take it that the figure 51 represents their full 
 strength. On the other hand, we know that the minority does 
 not represent the full strength of their opponents. Some 
 Tories voted in the majority, while the names of others, such 
 as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Newcastle, the 
 Earl of Mulgrave, do not appear at all in the division lists. 
 It should be remembered that Halifax, who voted with the 
 Whigs at this juncture, not long after went over to the other 
 party and ranked as a Tory till the end of his life. We have 
 a better criterion in the majority by which the 'vacancy' 
 motion was rejected in the Lords, viz. 55 to 41. The deter- 
 mined opposition made in the House to the words 'vacant' 
 and ' abdicated ' reveals the activity of the Tory majority. 
 In addition to those present in the Convention, there were 
 Tory peers who continued to support James till the last and 
 did not come up to Westminster. The facts justify us in 
 stating that in 1688 there was a considerable Tory majority in 
 the Upper House. 
 
 But there is a prevalent idea that all this was changed 
 during the reign of William, and that this epoch inaugurates 
 the long period of Whig supremacy in the House of Lords
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 13 
 
 which lasted through the eighteenth century until George III, 
 principally by the aid of the younger Pitt, transformed the 
 chamber into a stronghold of Toryism. That this idea is 
 incorrect is proved by the simple fact that at the end of the 
 reign of Anne there was a Tory and not a Whig majority in 
 the House. It is with the utter downfall of the Tory party 
 in 1714, and not with the accession of William III, that the 
 period of Whig ascendancy in the chamber begins. As is 
 notorious, it was by the creation of twelve peers to carry the 
 Treaty of Utrecht that the Tories secured a majority in the 
 Lords. The fact that such an expedient was required at all 
 is scarcely more significant than that so small a number of 
 new peers should have been required. If the ministry could 
 be sure of being able to carry their peace proposals through 
 the House by so small a creation, the inference is that the 
 previous position was one of remarkable numerical equality 
 between the two parties. 1 This becomes still clearer when 
 we remember that the Whigs were at the time enjoying the 
 support of such men as the Duke of Somerset and the arch- 
 Tory Nottingham. It is true that the introduction of the 
 sixteen Scottish representative peers in 1707 and a small 
 number of creations made by Anne herself had done some- 
 thing to increase the strength of the Tories since 1702. On 
 the other hand it has to be remembered that the two 
 leaders of the Whigs in the reign of Anne Godolphin and 
 Marlborough had both counted as Tories under William III. 
 Such transferences of political allegiance were not uncommon 
 in those days. Indeed, the instability of principle revealed by 
 not a few of the peers makes it very difficult to speak with 
 accuracy about the party character of the House. The main 
 motive with some would appear to have been personal ambi- 
 tion ; their chief characteristic volatility. In any case, seeing 
 that there were at one time during the reign of William as 
 many as 190 peers, temporal and spiritual, it would be an 
 
 1 As a matter of fact the government thought they could count upon a 
 bare majority even before the creation of the twelve peers ; though in this 
 they were mistaken. See Swift, Four Last Years of Hie Queen (Prose 
 Works of Jonathan Swift, ed. Temple-Scott, 12 vols., 1899-1908, vol. x, 
 p. 36).
 
 i 4 THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE CHAP. 
 
 impossible task to say what was the political creed of each. 
 Moreover, one had to distinguish then, as always, between the 
 peers who led a political life and were effective members of 
 the second chamber and those who took no part in public 
 affairs and were scarcely ever present at Westminster. Even 
 when the Lords were called upon to sign the Association 
 after the Fenwick conspiracy as many as sixty-two peers 
 never attended a sitting of the House. There were a number 
 who during the war were generally absent serving in the 
 army ; there were one or two in the navy. In view of these 
 circumstances it will be recognized that to draw up an accurate 
 statement of the balance of parties from time to time would 
 be impossible. One thing is clear, however. The change 
 made by William III, whatever it may have been, was not 
 so great but that it was possible for the Tories to obtain 
 a certain majority in the Upper House in the following reign 
 without any great difficulty. The change was not of a sweeping 
 kind. 
 
 Of the thirty new peers created by William most were 
 Whigs, but the number does include Tories, viz. Weston, 
 Jersey, Lonsdale, and Cholmondeley. The elevation of the 
 seven sons of existing peers, as we have seen, did not mean 
 any permanent addition to the House, and as the Duke of 
 Cumberland has to be omitted from our calculations, it will 
 be seen that the permanent addition to the strength of the 
 Whig party made by the new peerages was not very con- 
 siderable ; certainly quite insufficient in itself to transform 
 the Tory majority of 1688 into a substantial Whig majority. 
 We have to seek for contributory causes to explain the 
 alteration in the position of parties which did undoubtedly 
 occur while William III occupied the English throne. First 
 and foremost we have to remember the really great change 
 which came upon the episcopal bench. This aspect of the 
 case will be considered more particularly in the next chapter. 
 It is sufficient to note here that the bishops from being a pre- 
 dominantly Tory body became predominantly Whig. In the 
 second place, there were Jacobite and non-juring temporal 
 lords as there were Jacobite and non-juring clergy. They
 
 I THE COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE 15 
 
 may not have been very numerous, but the Tories could not 
 afford any abstentions. And it was not only voluntary 
 exiles like Berwick and Dover, outlaws like Huntingdon and 
 Salisbury, and non-jurors like Clarendon that the Tory party 
 lost. There were besides Tories who were willing to submit 
 to what they regarded as the inevitable, to take the oaths of 
 allegiance to the new sovereign and live at peace under the 
 new settlement ; and yet were so completely estranged from 
 the existing order that they abjured parliament and lived 
 in retirement from the arena of politics. Such were Grafton 
 and Beaufort. 
 
 In such ways as these is explained the change in the 
 balance of parties in the House of Lords and the fact that 
 the Tory majority, which was to be expected and which did 
 actually exist in 1688, faded away and left the Whigs pre- 
 dominant, though the superiority of the latter was by no 
 means overwhelming. The new creations to the peerage 
 were not sufficiently numerous to bring about such a revolu- 
 tion. William himself was a trimmer, and had no purpose 
 to aggrandize one party at the expense of the other. The 
 essential fact about the situation is not that the Whigs became 
 more numerous than their rivals ; it is rather that during the 
 reign the two parties maintained more or less an equipoise.
 
 CHAPTER II 
 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 
 
 IF the alteration made in the character of the temporal 
 peerage by the creations of William III was small, it was 
 far otherwise with the spiritual lords. During the reign there 
 took place nothing short of a revolution in the composition 
 of the episcopal bench. Changes were numerous and frequent. 
 In only five dioceses was the see occupied by a single bishop 
 throughout the short term of twelve years ; in eight there 
 were as many as three different bishops ; in two of them 
 there were as many as four. 
 
 At the very commencement of the reign a great difficulty 
 was necessarily created by the non-juror schism. It may 
 seem at first sight surprising that the very men who in 
 their resistance to the assumed dispensing power of the 
 King gave the signal of revolt from James II, and were con- 
 sequently in no small measure responsible for the Revolution, 
 should find the situation which they had helped to create 
 too hard for them and refuse to take the oaths to the new 
 sovereign, whose future triumph had been first heralded when 
 a delighted populace acclaimed the acquittal of the Seven 
 Bishops. Yet the position of the bishops is quite compre- 
 hensible when we take into consideration the peculiar position 
 of the Anglican Church at this juncture. The Restoration 
 had been both a restoration of the monarchy and of the 
 national church. The events of the Civil War and the 
 Commonwealth appeared to prove how indissolubly connected 
 were the interests of Church and King. There was therefore 
 a strong tendency after 1660 for the Church to cling more 
 closely than ever to a sovereign ruling in virtue of divine 
 right and to dread profoundly anything savouring of revolu- 
 tion. What, then, must have been the perplexity of the
 
 CHAP. II THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 17 
 
 Church's leaders when they found that revolution was 
 threatened from the very quarter whence it was least to be 
 expected, and that the same dynasty, whose restoration had 
 brought with it the Clarendon Code and the Test Act, had set 
 out upon a policy which would utterly wreck that intolerant 
 system and which (worse still) was one of Popish propaganda ? 
 Surely passive resistance to such a policy was required by 
 conscience? It was necessary to remind His Majesty that 
 he was no longer the exponent of the divine purpose, of which 
 the king is none the less the undoubted earthly guardian, and 
 to pray earnestly that he might be brought to see the error 
 of his ways and his prime duty to the established church of 
 his country. It had been well for James II had he realized 
 the peculiar nature of the conditions which the Restoration 
 had involved, and that since so much of loyal enthusiasm was 
 really devotion to the Anglican Church, the bishops were the 
 last persons in the realm whom it was politic to offend. 
 
 For his failure to comprehend the facts James paid the 
 penalty by being virtually deposed. And thus the Seven 
 Bishops found that in resisting one revolution, which had 
 threatened the whole fabric of their religious system, they 
 had brought upon themselves another revolution, whose nature 
 was altogether opposed to their scheme of political thought. 
 For how could any believer in Laudian principles abandon 
 his divinely appointed, although misguided, sovereign for 
 an outsider whose presence upon the throne was unavoidably 
 subversive of the whole High Anglican state theory? 'That 
 is the reason why Sancroft, after a good deal of undignified 
 shilly-shallying, failed to appear as the leader of the Tory 
 party in the Convention, as he was expected to do, and 
 eventually decided that he was unable to take the oaths to 
 the new government. With him there also stood out Ken, 
 Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lake, Bishop of Chichester, Turner 
 of Ely, White of Peterborough, Frampton of Gloucester, 
 William Lloyd of Norwich, and Thomas of Worcester. Of 
 these the first four had been of the number of the Seven 
 Bishops. Trelawney of Bristol and William Lloyd of St. Asaph , 
 who must be distinguished from William Lloyd of Norwich,
 
 i8 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 one of the non-jurors, succeeded in reconciling their consciences 
 to the taking of the oaths. Lake died early in 1689, asserting 
 on his death-bed his emphatic belief in the doctrine of passive 
 obedience and non-resistance : a declaration which aroused 
 some warm rejoinders. 1 William was lenient to conscientious 
 objectors ; too much so in Burnet's estimation. 2 He gave the 
 bishops plenty of time in which to reconsider their decision 
 and kept the sees open as long as was possible. That the 
 Church lost men of high honour and distinguished character 
 in the non-juring bishops, there can be no question. But it 
 was clearly impossible for the government, however willing 
 it might have been to retain them in their sees, to allow men 
 who incidentally held high positions in the state to continue 
 in the enjoyment of them without their owning allegiance to 
 the head of the state. 
 
 Within the first year of the new reign six bishoprics happened 
 to fall vacant, viz. those of Bristol, Chichester, Worcester, 
 Bangor, Chester and Salisbury. The men whom William 
 appointed to these sees were of a different temper and in- 
 tellectual character from High Church divines like Sancroft 
 and Ken. They were, in a word, Latitudinarians* Reason 
 and common sense began to be enshrined in the place of 
 sentiment and mysticism upon the episcopal bench. There 
 was some outcry against the new appointments. William 
 himself was known to have but little sympathy with the 
 Anglican Church. He was indeed a Calvinist; he had abolished 
 Episcopacy in Scotland 3 ; he favoured the dissenters in England. 
 It was bruited about that in future the great posts in the Church 
 would be engrossed by Socinians, as their enemies chose to 
 term the Latitudinarians. These slanders against the new 
 bishops were ascribed by one of them, Burnet, to ' some angry 
 men at Oxford ', the Earl of Clarendon, and several of the non- 
 juring bishops. 4 The six bishops appointed in 1689, who gave 
 
 1 Bartholomew Pamphlets for 1689 in Bodleian : Declaration of John, 
 Bishop of Chichester on his Death Bed. 
 
 1 Burnet, History oj My Own Time (folio ed.), vol. ii, p. 9. 
 
 8 The abolition was really the work of the Scottish Convention before 
 William was accepted as king ; William did but acquiesce. 
 
 4 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 29,
 
 H THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 19 
 
 such umbrage to the High Church party, were Nicholas Strat- 
 ford, who became Bishop of Chester upon the decease of 
 Cartwright ; Humphrey Humphreys, who succeeded Lloyd at 
 Bangor; the great Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul's, who was 
 given the see of Worcester ; Simon Patrick, who followed Lake 
 at Chichester ; Gilbert Ironside, who took the place of the 
 popular Trelawney at Bristol, Trelawney having been trans- 
 ferred to Exeter to fill the bishopric rendered vacant by the 
 promotion of Lamphugh, now Archbishop of York; finally, 
 Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, best known of all the 
 new bishops. 
 
 No consideration of the House of Lords during the reign of 
 William III would be complete without some notice of this 
 remarkable man, who played so outstanding a part in the pro- 
 ceedings of the Chamber, and to whom also we are indebted 
 for so much of our information on the subject. Because he 
 was a chronicler as well as an actor, it follows that we know 
 more about the activities of Gilbert Burnet in the House than 
 we know about those of the rest of the episcopal bench together. 
 Burnet was in many respects typical of the new type of bishop: 
 he was certainly the best hated of them all. Denounced as a 
 Presbyterian, he was accused of every heresy. On one occasion, 
 when one of the not infrequent attacks was being made upon 
 him in parliament, this time upon his;having been entrusted 
 with the education of the youthful Duke of Gloucester, 
 Christopher Musgrave inveighed against the Bishop's exposi- 
 tion of the Thirty-nine Articles. It was, he argued, obviously 
 written from the Presbyterian standpoint, by one who did 
 not understand Church of England dogma. Full of Arminian 
 opinions, it was mixed with a grain of Socinianism. 1 Both 
 parties in the Lower House were at this time rancorous against 
 the Bishop. The services he had rendered to the House of 
 Orange, his intimacy with William, his friendship with Mary, 
 all marked out Burnet for speedy advancement. Nevertheless, 
 William did not love him. Halifax notes in his diary of 
 conversations with the King that he never heard the latter say 
 
 1 Dispatches of Friedrich Louis Bonet : British Museum Add. MSS. 
 30,000, vol. c, pp. 271, 274, December 12/22, 1699. 
 
 C 2
 
 20 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 a good word of Burnet. The King once remarked to Savile 
 that he only wished he knew everybody as well as he knew 
 the Bishop of Salisbury. 1 And indeed the whole character of 
 the man stands out very clearly. Robust in intellect, good- 
 natured, exceedingly industrious, conscientious, he was, on the 
 other hand, conceited, a busybody and, it must be added, some- 
 times vulgar, as the well-known episode in Salisbury Cathedral 
 in the early days after the prince's landing proves. 2 He is his 
 own best biographer. Time after time he bears witness to 
 his own meddlesomeness and self-importance, as when with 
 infinite self-complacency he lectured Queen Anne upon the 
 dangers she incurred from the Jacobites and the Papists. 3 His 
 broad-mindedness was never proof against the fear, which 
 became almost an obsession with him, that fires would again 
 be raised in Smithfield. His faults are indeed on the surface, 
 and it is difficult to discern evidence for the view expressed 
 by William that the Bishop was a dangerous man with no 
 principles. 4 But it shows what a hostile feeling Burnet was 
 capable of arousing even in those to whom he was devotedly 
 attached ; and if so, what were the sentiments of those whose 
 principles, political or religious, the Bishop unfeignedly dis- 
 liked? But whatever may have been the weaknesses of the 
 Bishop of Salisbury, there can, on the other hand, be no 
 doubt of his many admirable qualities. Had more of his 
 brethren shown the same practical energy in their religious 
 work, the same zeal for reform, and the same seriousness of 
 purpose, had they, in a word, carried out the weighty and 
 eloquent injunctions which Burnet laid upon the clergy in his 
 splendid conclusion to his History, the accusation of lethargy 
 so justly levelled against the English Church in the eighteenth 
 century need never have been uttered. But, as we know, many 
 
 1 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. *2l6. 
 
 2 Macaulay's History of England (1849-61 ed.), vol. ii, pp. 539-40: 
 ' As soon as the officiating minister began to read the collect for the king, 
 Burnet, among whose many good qualities self-command and a fine sense 
 of the becoming cannot be reckoned, rose from his knees, sate down in 
 his stall, and uttered some contemptuous noises which disturbed the 
 devotions of the congregation.' 
 
 s See Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 547-8 and 583. 
 4 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 322.
 
 II THE EPISCOPAL BENCH ai 
 
 in a puny spirit resented the desire for reform among the clergy 
 coming from a man whom they labelled an interfering Scot, 
 a Presbyterian. And the episcopal bench was scarcely likely 
 to look with favour upon one who made a point of speaking in 
 the Upper House more than all the other bishops put together 
 on any subject. 1 
 
 The consecration of Burnet was accompanied by some little 
 difficulty. Sancroft against whom it is plain that Burnet 
 entertained a good deal of personal pique had scruples. In 
 the end he compromised by granting a commission to all the 
 bishops of the province of Canterbury or to any three of them 
 to act together with the Bishop of London, and to exercise the 
 authority of metropolitan between them. In this way Burnet 
 was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury in succession to Seth Ward. 
 The inconvenience of having an archbishop who refused to 
 perform his archiepiscopal functions was very obvious, and 
 although, as has already been stated, William kept open 
 the sees of the non-juring bishops as long as possible, the 
 interregnum could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. 
 Deprivation therefore became necessary, and in 1691 the 
 vacant sees were filled up. The most natural candidate for 
 the position of metropolitan was undoubtedly the Bishop of 
 London. His was a very strong claim inasmuch as he had 
 been one of the foremost promoters of the Revolution, had 
 indeed been one of the signatories of the Association which 
 invited the Prince of Orange to undertake his crusade. He 
 had, moreover, since the beginning of the reign actually per- 
 formed the offices of Archbishop of Canterbury owing to 
 Sancroft's failure to perform them. Compton, however, to his 
 great and not unwarranted chagrin, was passed over and the 
 primacy was bestowed upon Tillotson, the Dean of St. Paul's. 
 The choice was an admirable one. Though not the ablest 
 of the Latitudinarians intellectually he was the inferior of 
 both Burnet and Stillingfleet Tillotson was in many respects 
 excellently fitted for the great office which he was chosen to 
 
 1 Extracts from the Reports of Friedrich Bonet to the Court of Branden- 
 burg, printed in Ranke's Hi 'story of England (trans. Oxford, 1875), voL vi, 
 p. 211, January 24/February 3, 1693.
 
 44 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 occupy. The new archbishop had a gentle, mild and con- 
 ciliatory spirit, but his broad-mindedness and his mildness of 
 disposition did not prevent his being at once vigorous and 
 resolute. 
 
 As successor to Ken in the see of Bath and Wells Richard 
 Kidder was appointed. Patrick, who had for a short time 
 been at Chichester, having succeeded Lake, was now promoted 
 to Ely, and Robert Grove followed him at Chichester. To fill 
 the vacant see at Gloucester the excellent choice was made of 
 Edward Fowler, a singularly able and open-minded man. The 
 other two bishoprics, made vacant by the deprivation of the 
 non-jurors, were those of Norwich and Peterborough. They 
 were now filled respectively by Moore and Cumberland. Upon 
 the death of Bishop Croft of Hereford, Gilbert Ironside was 
 transferred thither after his brief administration of the diocese of 
 Bristol, and John Hall succeeded him. Tenison, destined after- 
 wards to become Archbishop of Canterbury, became Bishop of 
 Lincoln, and Sharp, like Tillotson, a noted preacher, but in 
 Burnet's opinion neither so experienced in the world nor so 
 steady in judgment, was made Archbishop of York on the 
 death of Lamphugh. 1 Burnet utters a panegyric on all these 
 men. He declares that all those whom the king had appointed 
 were 'generally looked on as the learnedest, the wisest, and 
 best men that were in the church '. He continues his eulogium 
 thus: 
 
 1 It was visible, that in all these nominations, and the filling 
 the inferior dignities that became void by their promotion, 
 no ambition or court favour had appeared ; men were not 
 scrambling for preferment, nor using arts, or employing friends 
 to set them forward ; on the contrary, men were sought for, 
 and brought out of their retirement ; and most of them very 
 much against their own inclinations ; they were men both of 
 moderate principles and of calm tempers.' 2 
 
 By the end of 1691 William had been responsible for as 
 many as eighteen episcopal appointments. Of these, fifteen 
 had been appointments of entirely new men. There had been 
 three translations. As there were only twenty -six sees in 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 76. * Ibid.
 
 H THE EPISCOPAL BENCH $3 
 
 existence, it will be seen that already in three years a very 
 remarkable change in the episcopate had been accomplished. 
 But the process was by no means at an end. In 1692, on the 
 death of Wood, Bishop of Lichfield, William Lloyd, the cele- 
 brated Bishop of St. Asaph, was promoted to fill the vacancy, 
 his place at St. Asaph being taken by Edward Jones. In 1694, 
 the same year in which Queen Mary died, there died also 
 Archbishop Tillotson. Tenison succeeded to the archbishopric. 
 He was in no sense the equal of his great predecessor. The 
 man who was marked out by his gifts for the post was 
 undoubtedly Stillingfleet, and the Queen was particularly 
 anxious for his appointment. But the Bishop of Worcester 
 was not a persona grata in some quarters. Although he was 
 a Latitudinarian and a moderate man, the Whigs considered 
 him too high a churchman, and apprehended that he might 
 prove of too independent and uncompromising a temper. 
 Although intellectually somewhat of a mediocrity, Tenison 
 was well suited for this position by his conciliatory disposition 
 and his conscientious industry. 1 
 
 In 1696 the bishopric of Chichester again fell vacant, and 
 Dr. Williams was appointed. On the death of Stillingfleet in 
 1697 Lloyd was transferred from Lichfield to Worcester, being 
 followed in the midland see by Hough, Bishop of Oxford. 
 The year 1701 saw two more appointments; Humphrey 
 Humphreys being promoted to the see of Hereford, and his 
 place at Bangor being taken by John Evans. 
 
 It will be noticed how frequent throughout the reign was 
 the practice of promoting a bishop from one see to another. 
 William Lloyd held as many as three different bishoprics 
 successively in the period of twelve years. In 1701 an attack 
 was made in the House of Commons upon this system of 
 transference. It was stigmatized as ' a spiritual polygamy ', 
 the argument being that the effect of the practice was to make 
 bishops too dependent upon the court. 2 It made possible a sort 
 of bribery by means of sees ; for the hope of being promoted 
 from one see to another better and more lucrative successfully 
 
 1 See Burnet's eulogy, vol. ii, pp. 135-6. 
 
 2 F. L. Bonet, E. p. 75, March 11/22, 1701.
 
 24 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 chained a man to the leading strings of his sovereign. What- 
 ever little force this argument may be considered to have is 
 diminished when we realize that it had a purely personal aim, 
 as it was directed not really against a system but against the 
 Bishop of Salisbury. It was thought that Burnet had hopes 
 at the time of succeeding to the diocese of Winchester, and so 
 exchanging a stipend of 1,000 for one of 8,000. 
 
 Although we need not suppose that William deliberately 
 transferred bishops from one see to another in order to keep 
 them in leading strings, it is certainly true that the new bishops 
 were generally in the King's interest. The Latitudinarian in 
 religion was as a rule a Whig in politics, just as the High 
 Churchman was as a rule a Tory. A High Church Tory 
 episcopate existed under James II. Stung into protesting 
 against the policy of the Romanizer, it still maintained its 
 political creed. Among the lords at the Guildhall who joined 
 in declaring their intention of assisting with their utmost 
 endeavour the Prince's efforts to call a parliament, 'wherein 
 our laws, our liberties, and our properties may be secured, 
 with a due liberty to Protestant dissenters, and in general, 
 that the Protestant religion and interest over the whole world 
 may be supported and encouraged ', were the two Archbishops, 
 with the Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, 
 and Peterborough. 1 Yet when the motion for a regency was 
 discussed in the Upper House, all of these, with the exception 
 of Sancroft and the Bishop of St. Asaph, were in favour of the 
 motion, and the absent Sancroft was regarded as the proper 
 leader of the Tories. Of the fourteen bishops present in the 
 House on this occasion only two voted against a regency, viz. 
 the Bishops of London and Bristol 2 ; and of these Compton 
 voted 'almost throughout the reign as a Tory. Near the end 
 of the reign the position is reversed. There were again fourteen 
 bishops present at the trial of Lord Somers. Eleven voted on 
 the Whig side for his acquittal. The Bishops of London, 
 
 1 James Ralph, History of England during the Reigns of William 111, 
 Anne, and George I (1744), vol. i, p. 1061. 
 
 a See the list given in the Diary of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, in 
 vol. ii of his Correspondence (ed. S. W. Singer), London, 1828, p. 256.
 
 II THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 25 
 
 Exeter, and Rochester were the only three who voted against 
 him. The Whig complexion of the episcopacy is shown as 
 early as January 1692/3, when all the bishops in the House, 
 with the exception of the notorious Bishop of St. David's, 
 Dr. Watson, were in favour of the Triennial Bill. On the 
 other hand, the majority of the bishops voted against the other 
 great reform measure obnoxious to William, viz. the Place Bill, 
 and were well lectured by Mulgrave for so doing. 1 The bishops 
 were once more on the side of the King on the question of the 
 Irish Forfeited Estates, and a very serious crisis was only 
 averted by the retirement of the bishops from the House 
 at the eleventh hour. Tenison, the Archbishop, had been 
 particularly vigorous in his opposition to a measure which 
 might well seem to a just-minded man nothing short of 
 iniquitous. 
 
 It is unfortunate that we do not possess speeches of the 
 ecclesiastics in the House with the exception of the outlines 
 of some of Bumet's. It is difficult therefore to estimate the 
 extent and character of the influence exercised in the Chamber 
 by the episcopal bench. We can say, broadly speaking, that 
 it was for most of the reign Whiggish, and that it was moderate. 
 Even the High Churchmen showed at the commencement of 
 the reign that they quite realized that something must be 
 done for the Protestant dissenters. The opposition to the Com- 
 prehension Bill, itself introduced into the Upper House under 
 the patronage of the High Anglican party, failed not in the 
 Lords but in the Commons. The general tolerance of the 
 bishops was such that it is somewhat disappointing to find 
 that no one of them offered any amendment to the scanda- 
 lous bills against the Papists of 1699. With the first of these, 
 which was introduced in the Commons, the Lords made no 
 progress, and it was dropped. The second bill was even more 
 intolerant. Among other clauses there was one banishing all 
 popish priests from the realm, and condemning them to prison 
 if they returned. 2 The Bishop of Salisbury himself defended 
 the measure. Although laying claim to the principles of 
 
 1 Infra, p. 183. 
 
 2 See Lords MSS. 1697-9, No. 1419, pp. 389-91.
 
 26 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 toleration, he could yet say that he had always considered 
 'that if a government found any sect in religion incom- 
 patible with its peace and safety, it might, and sometimes 
 ought, to. send away all of that sect, with as little hardship 
 as possible '- 1 Moderation among Protestants of every de- 
 nomination was far to seek where Roman Catholicism was 
 concerned at the end of the seventeenth century. On the 
 whole, however, it may be said that the voices of the 
 bishops were raised in favour of moderate views in religious 
 as in other affairs which came before the House of Lords. 
 
 The importance of the episcopal element in the Chamber 
 was obviously far smaller in the seventeenth century than it 
 had been in the past. At a time when the temporal peers 
 numbered about 160 the episcopate consisted of only 26 
 members, an inconsiderable minority in the House. Nor 
 does an examination of the Journals show that the bishops 
 were at all regular in their attendance. In view of their 
 diocesan duties it was not to be expected that they should 
 be. It is rare to find more than a dozen of them present at 
 a time, and only a few enthusiastic politicians were at all 
 assiduous in their appearance at Westminster. 
 
 Again, in those cases in which the attendance of the temporal 
 lords was especially required, i.e. judicial cases, the presence ot 
 the bishops was not wanted at all. It was a rule that in cases 
 where the death penalty was involved they should absent them- 
 selves before sentence was actually given : it was quite in order 
 that they should remain during the preliminary proceedings. 
 Still, the very prominent position assumed by the Bishop of 
 Salisbury during the Fen wick trial met with strong disapproval, 
 and indeed his eagerness against the accused was altogether 
 inexcusable. There is extant a speech of the Earl of 
 Warrihgton, in which he brings out the main arguments of 
 his day against the bishops being allowed to vote in cases 
 of blood. 2 He is at pains to prove the inferiority of the 
 spiritual peers in their claims as members of the House of 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 228-9. 
 
 ' Works of Henry, Lord Delamere and Earl of Warrington (1694), 
 p. 1 1 1 et seq. ,
 
 II THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 27 
 
 Lords. Strictly speaking they are not peers at all, but only 
 lords of parliament. An act of parliament is good even if the 
 bishops be entirely absent from its consideration. It has been 
 their custom when decisions in capital cases are in question to 
 withdraw before sentence is given after making a formal pro- 
 test. Lastly, they have not so absolute a right to sit and vote 
 in the House of Lords as the temporal peers have because they 
 are called to parliament so uncertainly. Warrington considers 
 that no good case can be made out for the bishops sitting iri 
 judgment upon peers : which, as only a select number of peers 
 were summoned to the Court of the Lord High Steward, they 
 ceased to do. 1 They could, he insisted, find no precedent irt 
 peaceful times. When a peer had been tried out of parliament, 
 had a bishop ever been nominated to sit upon the jury ? It was 
 in the interests of the temporal peerage to make common cause 
 against the claim of the bishops to take any part in judicial 
 proceedings. Surely it was expedient for the peers to keep 
 their numbers as small as possible, and to take every oppor- 
 tunity to exclude those who had really no lot with the 
 nobility ? 2 
 
 As a matter of fact, although the cleavage between the tem- 
 poral and spiritual lords was no doubt a wide one in any case, 
 and tended to become wider when the personnel of the 
 episcopate was rendered unstable by constant changes, never- 
 theless the bishops could scarcely fail to imbibe some of the 
 characteristic spirit of the nobility from sitting so much with 
 them and sharing in so many of their distinctive privileges. 
 Spiritual as well as temporal lords could insist upon their 
 claims to immunity from the ordinary course of the law. 
 Assuredly no member of the Upper House made more ex- 
 tensive or (it may be added) more discreditable use of his 
 privileges than did Dr. Watson, the Tory Bishop of St. David's. 
 
 1 After the passing of the Act, 7 Will. Ill, cap. 3, it became doubtful whether 
 spiritual lords were included in the word 'Peers', i.e. whether they 
 could take place in trials of peers, ' but as they could not " vote at the 
 trial ", and have always withdrawn before judgment, it seems clear that 
 they are excluded '. L. O. Pike. Constitutional flisinry of the House oj 
 Lords (1894), p. 224 footnote. See infra, pp. 111-2. 
 
 * The bishops acknowledge themselves to be lords of parliament and 
 not peers as early as the Reformation. See Pike, p. 165.
 
 28 THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP. 
 
 Burnet cannot speak too badly of this bishop. 1 ' He was ', he 
 says, ' one of the worst men in all respects, that ever I knew in 
 holy orders : passionate, covetous and false in the blackest 
 instances, without any one virtue or good quality to balance 
 his many bad ones.' An instance of the manner in which 
 Dr. Watson utilized his parliamentary privileges is found in 
 a petition presented by a man named Lucy against the Bishop 
 in i699- 2 The petitioner had been for thirty years registrar of 
 the diocese of St. David's, by a patent granted to his father by 
 the late bishop. He was entitled to the fees and perquisites 
 of the office. Lucy's title had recently been confirmed by the 
 Court of Exchequer in a suit which had been brought against 
 him by a new patentee under the present bishop. Dr. Watson 
 had for nine years been appropriating the fees due to the peti- 
 tioner, and now detained them, insisting upon his privilege, 
 despite the decision of the court. Moreover, he had failed to 
 make an entry in the register of such matters dispatched by 
 his lordship as was required by the canons, whereby the 
 petitioner had been debarred from ascertaining what fees 
 were due to him therefrom, and was in danger of losing 
 them altogether. In the meantime the Bishop was suing 
 Lucy for a small rent from tithes which he held from his 
 lordship. Lucy very naturally wanted to have the same 
 facility for recovering his considerable dues from the Bishop 
 as the Bishop had for recovering his small debts from Lucy. 
 The matter was referred to a committee of privileges, with the 
 satisfactory result that it was decided in the report that the 
 Bishop of St. David's was in this case merely a trustee and 
 could not claim privilege. 
 
 Watson did not retain his bishopric for long after this. The 
 evil practices of which he had been guilty were so patent and 
 so scandalous that from the first it was not possible to doubt 
 what would be the verdict of the Ecclesiastical Court, before 
 which eventually he was summoned to appear. 3 The only 
 point upon which there could be any question was the penalty. 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 226-7. 
 
 1 Lords MSS. 1697-9, No. 1234, pp. 235-8, May 12, et seq. 
 s T. 15. Howell, Complete Collection of State Trials, vol. xiv, 
 pp. 447-7".
 
 II THE EPISCOPAL BENCH 29 
 
 Tn the end he was deprived, though Burnet had been in favour 
 of excommunication. 1 Watson was not the sort of man to sub- 
 mit quietly to his fate : when the court sat to give judgment, 
 he chose to resume his privileges, and when deprived by the 
 archbishop, he pleaded this and appealed to the House of 
 Lords. The House of course did not go into the merits 
 of the case which had come before the Ecclesiastical Court, 
 but confined itself to the question of privilege, and decided that 
 the bishop should not be allowed his privilege. Even after this 
 Watson was not at once satisfied : he made another attempt to 
 obtain relief from the Lords, but his petition was dismissed. 
 
 Fortunately the Bishop of St. David's stood by himself in 
 marked contrast to the rest of an episcopate, whose united 
 influence was decidedly for good. It was an influence which 
 showed itself principally by its tone and dignity. The days 
 when the whole bench acted together in the bonds of 
 a common interest and united purpose, when the Church as 
 such had to adopt a definite attitude towards the state, were 
 gone. There were no overmastering claims upon the bishops 
 which obliterated the distinctions between Whig and Tory, 
 Court party and Opposition. Therefore the influence of the 
 episcopate within the House of Lords was not likely to be at 
 all considerable. It was not sufficiently distinctive, sufficiently 
 vital. 
 
 Nevertheless, the history of the episcopal bench in the reign 
 of William III is of very great importance. The fundamental 
 change in its composition had far-reaching consequences. From 
 this time we date a very remarkable divergence between the 
 higher and lower clergy, which is revealed in the many acri- 
 monious disputes between the two Houses of Convocation. 
 The bishops were no doubt chosen from the most learned, 
 from perhaps in all respects the most distinguished, part}- in 
 the English Church at the time. But it soon became clear 
 that however admirable they might be, however zealous, erudite 
 and enlightened, they were almost wholly out of touch with the 
 main body of the clergy, and so far as we can judge, with the 
 majority of the Anglican laity too. The Sacheverell case proved 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 250.
 
 3 o THE EPISCOPAL BENCH CHAP, n 
 
 indisputably how strong and widespread in the succeeding reign 
 was High Church feeling in the country. We know that the doc- 
 trines of passive obedience and divine right were never more 
 zealously preached than in the beginning of the eighteenth 
 century ; that the royal martyr was never more assiduously 
 worshipped. Of such tendencies there was no trace at all 
 among the bishops. With whichever side our sympathies 
 may be, with High Church or Low, we must agree that it was 
 an evil day for the Anglican Church when the nominal repre- 
 sentatives of the Church in Parliament ceased to represent the 
 Church as a whole.
 
 CHAPTER III 
 THE SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 
 
 WHEN Gulliver visited Brobdingnag he gave His Majesty 
 the King of that realm an account of the English constitution. 1 
 He explained that the Parliament was partly made up of an 
 illustrious body called the House of Peers, ' persons of the 
 noblest blood and of the most ancient and ample patrimonies '. 
 He described ' the extraordinary care always taken of their 
 education in arts and arms, to qualify them for being counsel- 
 lors born to the king and kingdom, to have a share in the 
 legislature : to be members of the Highest Court of Judicature, 
 from whence there could be no appeal ; and to be champions 
 always ready for the defence of their prince and country, by 
 their valour, conduct and fidelity. That these were the orna- 
 ment and bulwark of the kingdom, worthy followers of their 
 most renowned ancestors, whose honour had been the reward 
 of their virtue, from whence their posterity was never once 
 known to degenerate '. Gulliver also described the position of 
 the bishops in the Upper Chamber of the Parliament. It was, 
 he said, their business to take care of religion ; their function 
 was indeed to be the spiritual fathers of both clergy and people. 
 As was only right, therefore, the bishops were holy men, sought 
 out from the whole nation and selected from the priesthood on 
 account of the special sanctity of their lives and the depth of 
 their erudition. The king was much interested in Gulliver's 
 account, and proceeded to put a number of very pertinent 
 questions. He was anxious to learn what were the methods of 
 education used to cultivate the minds and bodies of the young 
 nobility of England. In what kind of business were they 
 engaged during their earlier years? In the second place, when 
 vacancies occurred in the assembly owing to the extinction of 
 
 1 Swift, Prose Works, vol. viii, pp. 130-3.
 
 32 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 a noble house, what were the qualifications deemed necessary 
 when a new lord was created ? Were the reasons for advance- 
 ment ever such as the caprice of a prince, or a design of 
 strengthening a party opposite to the public interest ? Or could 
 a peer's dignity ever be bought by a sum of money to a court 
 lady or a prime minister ? Then as to the judicial qualifications 
 of the peers : what sort of knowledge of their country's laws 
 had they, and in what way did they come by such knowledge ? 
 Were they always so free from avarice or bias as to be entirely 
 incorruptible ? With regard to the spiritual lords, the king 
 inquired whether as a matter of fact it was always on account 
 of their personal holiness and their knowledge in matters of 
 religion that they were promoted, and never through time- 
 service to the spirit of the hour or meek compliance with the 
 opinions of a nobleman opinions which 'they continued 
 servilely to follow after they were admitted into that assembly '. 
 
 Such questions as these are apposite at all periods. But 
 how wide in Swift's day was the severance between the ideal, 
 as sketched by Gulliver, and the reality, as suggested by His 
 Majesty of Brobdingnag ? We may find an answer partly by 
 discussing the cases of particular peers. But it is clearly 
 impossible to examine one by one the numerous members of 
 the House, many of whom history scarcely remembers, even 
 if she deigns to notice them at all. It is necessary in order to 
 visualize the House of Lords to have some idea not only of 
 the distinguished minority, but also of the ordinary men in it. 
 
 We need a picture of the typical peer ; of his pursuits and 
 interests, and of the daily life he led. Such a picture is much 
 more readily attainable in the pages of fiction than in those of 
 the history book. From the writer of fiction we may learn, at 
 any rate, what manner of man the peer was supposed to be, 
 and what measure of dignity attached to a title irrespective 
 of the personal merits of its holder. The literature of the 
 latter half of the seventeenth century provides us with a very 
 distinct and vivid impression of social conditions, and no figure 
 occurs more frequently in it than that of the man about town, 
 the man of quality ; for these are the halcyon days of bucks 
 and beaux. We do not indeed often come across him in the
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 33 
 
 literary and critical Spectator or in the lady's paper, The 
 Tatler. Defoe, the one novelist of the period, is chiefly 
 interested in the lower classes in the social scale. But the 
 dramatists, on the other hand, serve our purpose admirably. 
 They are concerned almost entirely with the one class, writing 
 for them, of them, and at them. The commonest figure in 
 what we call Restoration Comedy is the man of fashion, and 
 in not a few instances the man of fashion is a peer. 
 
 Most famous of all the noble characters in the fiction of the 
 time is Lord Foppington, in TJie Relapse, by Vanbrugh, the 
 play which Sheridan converted into ' A Trip to Scarborough '. 
 When the play opens his lordship has just entered upon the 
 pleasures of peerage. 1 Alone in his bedroom he soliloquizes 
 upon his new-found delights. ' Well, 'tis an unspeakable 
 pleasure to be a man of quality, strike me dumb My Lord 
 Your Lordship My Lord Foppington. Ah ! C'est quelque 
 chose de beau, que le diable n'importe.' Such is the creed 
 of this very self-satisfied and entirely vacuous gentleman. It 
 is admirably set forth in his remarks upon reading and the 
 manner in which he spends his day. Sheridan has taken 
 a slice of this eloquent address verbatim from Vanbrugh, but 
 a good deal of it he has omitted. Lord Foppington confesses 
 to a passionate fondness for reading, but adds that he never 
 thinks of what he reads. For what must be the attitude 
 towards literature of the man who aspires to be a leader in 
 the fashionable world? The answer is given by my lord as 
 follows : 
 
 ' To mind the inside of a book is to entertain one's self with 
 the forc'd product of another man's brain. Naw I think 
 a man of quality and breeding may be much diverted with the 
 natural sprauts of his own. But to say the truth, madam, let 
 a man love reading never so well, when he comes to knaw the 
 tawn, he finds so many better ways of passing away the four 
 and twenty hours, that 'twere ten thousand pities he should 
 consume his time in that. For example, Madam, my life ; 
 my life is a perpetual stream of pleasure, that glides thro' such 
 a variety of entertainments, I believe the wisest of our ancestors 
 never had the least conception of 'em. 
 
 1 The Relapse, Act I, sc. 3.
 
 34 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 ' I rise, Madam, about ten o'clock. I don't rise sooner, be- 
 cause 'tis the worst thing in the world for the complexion ; 
 nat that I pretend to be a beau ; but a man must endeavour 
 to look wholesome lest he make so nauseous a figure in the 
 side-bax, the ladies should be compelled to turn their eyes 
 upon the play. So at ten o'clock, I say, I rise. Naw, if I find 
 it a good day, I resalve to take a turn in the Park, and see the 
 fine women, so huddle on my clothes and get dressed by one. 
 If it be nasty weather, I take a turn to the chocolate house ; 
 where, as you walk, Madam, you have the prettiest prospect in 
 the world ; you have looking-glasses all round you.' 
 
 ' But I fear,' the narrator breaks off, ' I tire the company.' 
 Being assured that he does not, he then continues : 
 
 ' Why then, ladies, from thence I go to dinner at Lacket's, 
 and there you are so nicely and delicately served, that, stap my 
 vitals, they can compose you a dish no bigger than a saucer, 
 shall come to fifty shillings ; between eating my dinner and 
 washing my mouth, ladies, I spend my time, till I go to the 
 play ; where till nine o'clock I entertain myself with looking 
 upon the company ; and usually dispose of an hour more lead- 
 ing them out. So there 's twelve of the four and twenty hours 
 pretty well over. The other twelve, Madam, are disposed of 
 in two articles. In the first four I toast myself drunk, and in 
 'tother eight I sleep myself sober again. Thus, ladies, you 
 see my life is spent in an eternal raund O of delight.' 
 
 'But,' objects Loveless, 'your lordship now is become a 
 pillar of the state ; you must attend the weighty affairs of the 
 nation.' Foppington's reply is eminently characteristic. ' Sir, 
 as to weighty affairs I leave them to weighty heads. I never 
 intend mine shall be a burden to my body.' Foppington, 
 having thus delivered himself, now proceeds to make love to 
 Amanda, Lovcless's wife, declaring that he is in love with her 
 to desperation, strike him speechless ; whereupon, Amanda, 
 with excellent justification, administers a sound box on the ear. 
 ' Gad's curse, madam,' exclaims Lord Foppington, ' I'm a peer 
 of the realm.' 
 
 In another of his plays, The Provoked Wife, Vanbrugh 
 introduces to us the delectable company of another nobleman 
 of very similar character in the person of Lord Rake. With 
 his boon companion, Sir John Brute, his lordship sits toping.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 35 
 
 When two such cronies are singing and drinking together, 
 what matters affairs of state and acts of parliament ? 
 The ditty runs thus : 
 
 What a pother of late 
 
 Have they kept in the state, 
 About setting our consciences free ! 
 
 A bottle has more 
 
 Dispensation in store 
 Than a king or a state can decree. 1 
 
 The singer is perfectly content. There are no penal laws 
 that can curb him. 
 
 Whate'er I devise 
 
 Seems good in my eyes, 
 
 And religion ne'er dares to disturb me. 
 
 He is not to be worried by ' saucy remorse ' or ' impertinent 
 notions of evil ', and he is quite prepared ' in peace to jog on 
 to the devil '. He will have another glass, and ' damn morality '. 
 
 Lord Plausible in The Plain Dealer of Wycherley is another 
 of the same character as Foppington and Rake. Lord Froth in 
 Congreve's TJie Double Dealer belongs less to the merely feeble 
 and inane type, more to the defiantly vicious. He is notable 
 as sharing Chesterfield's views on the subject of laughter. As he 
 says, everybody can laugh, and to be pleased with what pleases 
 the vulgar is not to be thought of. 2 Farquhar gives us in 
 The Tivin Rivals the unpleasing figure of Benjamin Would-be. 
 The best scene in the play a very lifelike one, which admir- 
 ably represents the range of aristocratic influence is the scene 
 in which the supplanting brother is hailed as Lord Would-be 
 at his levee. 3 To him enters first a poet, bringing with him 
 1 an elegy upon the dead lord and a panegyric upon the living 
 one in utrumque paratus.' Enter also the suitors for places. 
 There is the gentleman who craves the new peer's influence in 
 order to obtain a post in the army ' that (as he puts it) the 
 blood I have already lost may entitle me to spend the remainder 
 
 \ The Provoked Wife, Act III. 
 
 The Double Denier, Act I, sc. 4. 
 
 * The Tu'in Rivals, Act III, sc. I. Works of George Farquhar (ed. 
 Alex. C. Ewald, 2 vols., 1892), vol. ii, pp. 49-51. 
 
 D 2
 
 36 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 in my country's cause'. There is the alderman who wants 
 a commission for his scapegrace son, as the army is the natural 
 resort of the ne'er-do-weel. 
 
 The idea of the typical peer of the time which, notwith- 
 standing such occasional exceptions as Lord Bellamy in 
 Shadwell's Bury Fair, we gain from the comic dramatists is 
 clearly most unflattering. There is an interesting passage 
 in Jeremy Collier's Short Vieiv of the Immorality and Pro- 
 faneness of the English Stage, in which he discusses the treat- 
 ment of the peerage by contemporary dramatists. 1 'What 
 necessity is there ', he asks, ' to kick the coronets about the 
 stage, and to make a man a lord, only in order to make him 
 a coxcomb ? I hope the poets don't intend to revise the old 
 project of levelling, and vote down the House of Peers. In 
 earnest, the playhouse is an admirable school of behaviour ! 
 This is their way of managing ceremony, distinguishing degree, 
 and entertaining the boxes.' The canons of criticism which 
 guided Collier are very different from those of our own day, 
 and it will be noted that he objected to the dramatists' treat- 
 ment of the peerage not on the ground of any infidelity to 
 truth in it, but rather on the ground of impropriety. He 
 thought that it was highly indecorous to speak of a duke as 
 a rascal even in fiction. 
 
 Is it more to our own purpose to decide whether the 
 Restoration Comedy can be at all treated as a guide to social 
 facts. Is it really mere farce, where the humour is not of that 
 artistic kind, which, however broad it may be, is yet a criticism 
 of actual conditions? It will be remembered that Lamb's 
 
 1 Jeremy Collier's A Short View of the Immorality and Profanenessof 
 the English Stage (1698), p. 175. Cf. p. 173 : ' Let us now see what 
 quarter the Stage gives to Quality. And here we shall find them extremely 
 free and familiar. They dress up their Lords in Nick-Names, and expose 
 them in Characters of contempt. Lord Froth is explained a Solo/in Cox- 
 comb ; and Lord Rake and Lord Foplington give you their talent in their 
 title. Lord Plausable in The Plain Dealer acts a ridiculous Part, but is 
 with all very civil. He tells Manly he never attempted to abuse any 
 Person. The other answers: What you were afraid? Manly goes on 
 and declares He would call a Rascal by no other title, tho 1 his father had 
 left him a Duke's. That is to say, he would call a Duke a rascal. This 
 I confess is very much Plain Dealing. Such freedom would appear but 
 oddly in life.'
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 37 
 
 excuse for the work of Congreve and Wycherley was based 
 precisely on the ground that it was artificial, that it bore 
 no relation to the world of reality; that the characters in it 
 broke no laws, because they had got out of Christendom 
 into a ' Utopia of gallantry, where pleasure is duty, and the 
 manners perfect freedom.' Unfortunately, apart altogether 
 from the question as to the validity of Lamb's main contention, 
 the fact is that his premises are wrong. However artificial the 
 Restoration Drama may appear to us, it is clear that it did 
 not appear so to contemporaries. The vogue which it obtained 
 was due to the fact that it did represent, though certainly 
 from the comic point of view, the kind of life which the 
 sort of people depicted actually lived. The picture of society 
 vouchsafed us in the Memoirs of Grammont is remarkably 
 similar to that given in the comedies. Both the memoirs 
 of the man of fashion and the plays which are concerned with 
 his counterparts are conceived in the same frankly cynical 
 spirit. The Restoration Comedy existed because it was not 
 artificial ; because it was in harmony with the thoughts and 
 interests of the class which patronized it. Dryden dedicates 
 his Marriage-a-la-Mode to the amazingly dissolute Wilmot, 
 Earl of Rochester, and makes the interesting confession that 
 not only he but the best comic writers of the age will join in 
 acknowledging ' that they have copied the gallantries of courts, 
 the delicacy of expression, and the decencies of behaviour from 
 your lordship, with more success than if they had taken their 
 models from the Court of France * '. Wilmot the model for 
 the comic dramatist ! 
 
 We are too prone to think of the reign of Charles II as of 
 a period standing apart, if viewed from the ethical standpoint ; 
 as though the laxity of morals which characterized his 
 court died with the monarch. The term ' Restoration 
 Comedy' is in itself misleading. A large proportion of the 
 best-known works of the school were produced not in the reign 
 of Charles at all, but in that of William III. The Restoration, 
 however, did certainly mark the beginning of a new order of 
 
 1 Dryden's Works (ed. Walter Scott), vol. iv, pp. 236-7.
 
 38 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 things. It meant the resuscitation of court life. The court 
 was restored, and that with a brilliance such as England had 
 never known before. The renewal of the life of Whitehall 
 meant for the peerage the reconquest of a position of social 
 ascendancy which had inevitably been lost during the Common- 
 wealth. Under the rule of the saints there had been no 
 possibility of a Society, to use the word in its narrow sense. 
 The peers had been the object of ridicule and contempt. 1 
 But now after a period of eclipse the central luminary of 
 their constellation shone once more, and they could -shine 
 again in its reflected radiance. There can be little doubt 
 that, whatever may have been the results of the Restoration 
 upon the political influence of the peerage, their social influence 
 was probably increased beyond what it had been prior to the 
 outbreak of the Civil War. For the court after 1660 was more 
 animated, played a more important part than it had done in 
 the reign of Charles I. In the earlier period there could have 
 been no doubt that the English court was less brilliant than 
 the French. On the other hand, when Grammont landed in 
 England he discovered ' so little difference in the manners and 
 conversation of those with whom he chiefly associated, that he 
 could scarcely believe he was out of his own country. Every- 
 thing which could agreeably engage a man of his disposition, 
 presented itself in its different humour, as if the pleasures of 
 the court of France had quitted it to accompany him into 
 exile.' 2 In fact, as the Count elsewhere observes, ' the court . . . 
 was an entire scene of gallantry and amusements, with all the 
 politeness and magnificence which the inclinations of a prince, 
 naturally addicted to tenderness and pleasure, could suggest.' " 
 It is clear that in the eyes of Europe England in 1660 
 emerged from beneath a cloud ; her court was admitted to be 
 on an equality with those of the great continental capitals. This 
 was largely due to the influx of French manners and ideas into 
 London upon the accession of a prince largely French in taste 
 
 1 Cf. C. H. Firth, The House of Lords during the Civil War (1910), 
 pp. 238-9. 
 
 2 Memoirs of the Count de Grammont, by Anthony Hamilton (ed. 
 Scott), London, 1876. 
 
 8 Ibid., p. 186.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 39 
 
 and upbringing. Pepys notices how soon after Charles' acces- 
 sion Lord Sandwich showed himself sensible of the new condi- 
 tions. In his diary for October 20, 1660, he tells us he dined 
 with my lord and lady, and how the former was very merry, 
 and talked very high about having a French cook and a master 
 of his. horse, and his wife and child to have black spots after 
 the French fashion. Lady Sandwich mentioned her hope of 
 getting a good merchant as her daughter's husband ; but my 
 lord would have none of it, expressing himself warmly upon 
 the subject, and asserting that he would rather see his daughter 
 with a pedlar's pack on her back so long as she married a 
 gentleman, rather than that she should marry a citizen. 1 
 
 It is not necessary to linger over the picture of Charles II's 
 court ; it is sufficiently notorious. Royal favourites vied with 
 each other which should set the laws of decorum most utterly 
 at defiance. Sedley and Wilmot were only the most daring 
 members of a thoroughly depraved society. The question is : 
 how far were the conditions under William III the same as 
 they had been under Charles ? At the threshold we are met 
 by one very obvious difference. The days of Whitehall had 
 passed away. Instead of a merry monarch entertaining his 
 laughter-loving guests in the centre of London, there was 
 a dour and taciturn Dutchman, who lived in retirement at 
 the suburb of Kensington. The central social luminary of the 
 realm was, to all intents and purposes, once more extinct. 
 
 The change in the situation is undoubtedly important ; yet 
 its effects must not be exaggerated. Merely because there 
 was no longer any centre of gaiety at Whitehall, courtiers 
 who had learnt bad habits under Charles did not therefore 
 repent and amend their lives. To take an example : the 
 depravity which had marked Thomas, Lord Wharton, in his 
 early life he retained until his death, and he passed it on to 
 his son. 2 Even if we are to discount a good deal of the 
 denunciations which party opponents poured upon the head 
 of this notorious nobleman, he still remains exceptionally 
 
 1 Pepys' Diary (ed. H. H. Wheatley, 1893), vol. i, p. 264. 
 
 2 ' Wharton, the scorn and wonder of our days.' floral Essays. Pope's 
 Works (ed. Warton, London, 1822), vol. iii, p. 194.
 
 40 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 iniquitous. Of the most abandoned, something good may be 
 said. It is certain that Wharton possessed decided abilities, 
 though they may have been of a debased order. The Whigs 
 owed much to his great skill as a party manager and borough- 
 monger. Again, Macky described him as ' one of the com- 
 pletest gentlemen of England, hath a very clear understanding, 
 and manly expressions, with abundance of wit '. 1 He certainly 
 had the gift of a ready, and, it must be added, of a very foul 
 tongue, which was the terror of his opponents in the House. 
 It has been said of him that ' his eloquence was coarse and 
 popular ; his attacks merciless, and his wit ready and poignant, 
 but often degenerating into ribaldry, which induced Boling- 
 broke, in language equally coarse, to call him the scavenger 
 of his party.' 2 It has been claimed that Wharton was not 
 destitute of qualities of heart as well as brain. His son 
 describes him as ' the best of fathers ' ; and the writer of an 
 anonymous life, published in 1715, says of him that 'he was 
 generous to all he .employed and charitable to the poor, 
 especially to old people and children ; never was a man of 
 his quality more easy of access, and never one who was 
 a kinder master'. 3 That the man who gave the populace 
 ' Lillibullero ' to sing (by which he claimed he chanted a 
 deluded prince out of three kingdoms) may have had the 
 capacity to make himself pleasant to his dependants, if he 
 chose to do so, we may well believe. Unfortunately there 
 is another aspect of the character of ' honest Tom ', as the 
 Whigs called him. 4 The evil side of the picture has been 
 drawn with equal vigour and venom by Swift, who in two 
 numbers of the Examiner attacked him under the guise of 
 Clodius. 5 Again, as a second Verres he is denounced for his 
 conduct as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. 'Didst thou think, 
 O Verres, the government of Sicily was given thee with so 
 
 1 John Macky, Memoirs of the Secret Service (1733, reprinted for 
 Roxburghe Club, 1895), p. 33. 
 
 2 Memoirs of John, Duke of Mar thorough, by William Coxe (6 vols., 
 1820), vol. ii, p. 82. 
 
 3 See 7'he Whartons of Wharton Hall, by E. R. Wharton, p. 51 
 (Oxford, 1898). 
 
 4 See The Last Four Years of the Queen. Swift's Works, vol. x, p. 28. 
 Works, vol. ix, p. 169.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 41 
 
 large a commission, only by the power of that to break all the 
 bars of law, modesty, and duty, to suppose all men's fortunes 
 thine, and leave no house free from thy rapine or lust, &c.' l 
 Indeed, Swift accuses ' the most universal villain I ever knew ' 
 (as he calls him) of unmentionable crimes of indecency and 
 sacrilege. Again, in the well-known Short Character, which 
 opens with a disquisition on the private character of his 
 excellency, and contains a catalogue of his crimes in Ireland, 
 particular note is taken of his indulgence in lying. Though 
 he was in fact an ill-dissembler, yet his talents for deceit he 
 valued most highly. His lies might be detected within an 
 hour, often in a day, and were always detected in a week. He 
 would solemnly swear friendship for you one moment, and the 
 next, when your back was turned, tell those about him that 
 you were a dog and a rascal. He went constantly to prayers 
 and yet would talk ribaldry and blasphemy at the chapel 
 door. 2 
 
 An even more notorious reprobate of his time than Wharton 
 was Lord Mohun. He had the misfortune to come to his 
 title when still young. He speedily became a most thorough 
 rake, and an utter scandal to the peerage. Before he had 
 come of age he had twice been on trial by his peers on the 
 charge of murder. The first of these two cases arose from the 
 passion of a worthless army captain, named Hill, for the beauti- 
 ful Mrs. Bracegirdle, one of the queens of the contemporary 
 stage. As she remained impervious to his advances, Hill 
 came to the conclusion probably unfounded that he had 
 been foiled by a successful rival in Captain Mountford. He 
 determined to have vengeance on Mountford, and to carry oft 
 the object of his desires. The latter purpose he undertook 
 with the assistance of Mohun, who was his bosom friend. 
 The attempt was not successful. The screams of the actress 
 roused the neighbourhood, and she was rescued. The dis- 
 appointing result of this enterprise only served to whet the 
 indignation of the two bravadoes against Mountford. They 
 hung about the latter's house for a considerable time with drawn 
 swords. The watch endeavoured to interfere, and requested 
 1 Swift's Works, vol. ix, p. 178. 2 Ibid., vol. v, p. 9.
 
 42 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 the gentlemen to sheath their weapons. But Mohun haughtily 
 informed them that he was a peer, and dared them to touch 
 him. The guardians of the peace felt themselves powerless. 
 The unfortunate man eventually made his appearance; messages 
 sent to give him warning having failed to reach him. Mohun 
 at once engaged him in a dispute. During the altercation Hill 
 seized his opportunity, stabbed his enemy and fled. Mohun was 
 indicted for murder, but as he had only been an accomplice, 
 was acquitted. It might have been expected that, having 
 passed through the ordeal of a murder trial, even the most 
 irresponsible of men would have been scared into some sort of 
 amendment ; or at least that he would carefully have avoided 
 the possibility of the recurrence of such an incident. Not so, 
 however, Mohun. Five years later he was placed in precisely 
 similar circumstances. This time in connexion with the death 
 of that very Captain Hill with whom he had been associated 
 in his former escapade. Hill perished in a tavern brawl, in 
 which Mohun was engaged. The coroner's verdict was one of 
 manslaughter, and so once more Mohun escaped scot-free. The 
 House had grown tired of hearing of his lordship's delinquencies 
 when only a short time later he once more appeared before 
 them, together with Lord Warwick and Holland, in connexion 
 with the murder of one Captain Coote. Mohun on this occasion 
 was indeed found to be quite guiltless of any part in the crime; 
 but it was felt to be singularly disgraceful that a peer should 
 so often be involved in such ugly circumstances. There is 
 some evidence for believing that subsequently Mohun made 
 some efforts to live more reputably in accordance with the 
 sense of contrition which he had expressed. 1 But he died as 
 he had lived, perishing in a duel with the Duke of Hamilton, 
 which Thackeray has made familiar to all novel readers. 
 A character for libertinism was shared by many of the most 
 
 1 Macky, p. 72 : ' He hath been as good as his word ; for now he 
 applies himself to the knowledge of the constitution of his country, and 
 to serve it ; and having a great deal of fire and good sense, turned this 
 way, makes him very considerable in the House ; he is brave in his 
 person, bold in his expressions, and rectifies, as fast as he can, the slips 
 of his youth by acts of honesty ; which he now glories in more than he 
 was formerly extravagent.'
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 43 
 
 conspicuous nobles of the day together with the mere idle 
 rakes. Henry Sidney, it is said, was for years drunk every 
 day. Swift's summary of his character is very terse and 
 decided. ' He was,' he says, ' an idle, drunken, ignorant rake, 
 without sense, truth, or honour.' l The two versions of Burnet's 
 history give two very different accounts. The earlier is most 
 eulogistic. Sidney's sweetness of temper, his truth and candour, 
 are dwelt upon. All his inclinations were noble. He might be 
 too apt to be led away from business into pleasure, ' but it is 
 a great pleasure when all that is to be apprehended in a man 
 of favour is an excess of gentleness and good nature.' 2 The 
 published version of the Bishop's memoirs gives a much shorter 
 passage to Romney, and the illicit pleasures are more insisted 
 upon. 3 Evidently Burnet's further experience of the earl had 
 been much less pleasing. 
 
 Another notorious ill-liver was Charles Mordaunt, Earl of 
 Monmouth, and subsequently Earl of Peterborough, one of the 
 most extraordinary men of his time. Marlborough had in 
 his earlier day been famed even at a dissolute court for his 
 gallantries. Even Somers had the reputation of being a 
 libertine. The Tory Scarsdale, who loyally supported all 
 the measures of his party in the Lords, was ever a man of 
 pleasure rather than of business. A fat, red-faced man, very far 
 from attractive in appearance one would suppose, and tongue- 
 tied in the company of the fair, he was notwithstanding a great 
 lover of their society and successful in his intrigues. A great 
 sportsman, he possessed neither the taste nor the capacity for 
 any pursuit more intellectual. 4 It was noted of the Earl of 
 Bradford, that, although a man of considerable parts and 
 refinement, and a good judge of literature and art, he had 
 been all his life a great libertine/' 
 
 1 Swift's comment is made in his Notes on Burnet's History. These 
 will be found in the foot-notes to the 1823 and 1833 editions. They are 
 also collected together in Temple Scott's edition of Swift's Works, vol. x, 
 pp. 327-68. The remark on Sidney is on p. 358. 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. i, pp. 763-4. 
 
 3 For the earlier version see H. C. Foxcroft's Supplement to Burnet's 
 History of His Oicn Time (Oxford, 1902), p. 284. 
 
 1 Macky, p. 66. '' Ibid., p. 56.
 
 44 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 Other individuals might be mentioned, but it is hardly 
 necessary to do so. The low moral standard of the nobility 
 can hardly be questioned. Few of them had any deep 
 religious convictions ; while some, like Monmouth, were the 
 open enemies of all religion. Apart from the vicious gallantry 
 which the court of Charles II had inculcated in so many, 
 drunkenness and gambling were both widely prevalent. The 
 love of play was with many all-absorbing. It was encouraged 
 by the great growth of coffee-houses, to which the nobility, 
 like everybody else, were wont to repair after dinner. To 
 Tallard, it would appear, they seemed to have made a con- 
 siderable change in the manner of life of the English peerage. 1 
 Swift's patron, the Earl of Oxford, we are told, never passed 
 White's, the most notable of these places of resort, ' without be- 
 stowing on it a curse as " the bane of the English nobility " ' 2 
 so wild was the gambling which went on there every night. 
 It was expected that Sundays would be exempt from the 
 practice of gaming. The Duke of Norfolk was once fined 5 
 for ignoring the rule. 3 But for the man who had the fever 
 in his blood it was impossible to refrain. 4 And in this way 
 patrimonies, in some cases none too large, were squandered 
 away. Devout believers in aristocratic government, who felt 
 it to be a source of weakness to the nobility that, as it was, 
 they did not possess sufficient property, were profoundly 
 shocked by their inability to retain even what they had. 
 
 The author of the Memorial to the Princess Sophia attributed 
 
 1 Tallard to Louis XIV, in Letters of William III and Louis XIV, 
 edited by Paul Grimblot (1848), vol. ii, pp. 468-70 : ' Nothing is so differ- 
 ent from the manners of former times as the present style of living among 
 noblemen. They have no intercourse with one another after they quit the 
 House ; most of them go to dine at some tavern ; and afterwards they 
 repair to places called coffee-houses, where everybody goes without 
 distinction. Of these there is an infinite number in London, and there 
 they remain till they return home.' 
 
 2 See Lecky's History of England in the Eighteenth Century (1904), 
 vol. ii, p. 156. 
 
 8 MSS. of the Duke of Portland, vol. iii, p. 472 (Hist. MSS. Comm. 
 Rep. xiv, Append, pt. ii). 
 
 4 The diversions of gambling, &c., were by no means confined to the 
 male sex. Note the way in which Bridget Noel, Countess of Rutland, 
 spends her time. MSS. of the Duke of Rutland at Belvoir, vol. ii, 
 PP- 72, 97-98, 101, 104, 105, 108-110. (Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep. xii, 
 Append, pt. v).
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 45 
 
 the decay which he believed he saw in the English nobility to 
 their living in London and not in their country homes. 1 Here 
 again we come across the malignant influence of the court at 
 Whitehall. ' The debauched and loose way of living wholly in 
 London, neglecting their estates and interests in the country, 
 their monstrous gaming, and that bottomless pit, their mistresses, 
 have confounded and brought the nobility very low.' The 
 feeling that the peerage were losing their influence and this 
 largely on account of moral failings was shared by many. The 
 Jacobite, Ailesbury, raises a wail of lamentation, ' God knows,' 
 he exclaims, ' the peerage in these my days are sadly degene- 
 rated, and I had rather trust a poor honest cobbler than a great 
 part of my brethren. And the peerage also is become so cheap 
 and despicable by such unwarrantable promotion and in such 
 numbers that I insert what I have publicly asserted that it 
 I had no succession, and that it was in my power to do it, I 
 would resign up my title, and live as a single gentleman, and 
 I would make up in lieu of greatness by a sincerity and moral 
 deportment. 2 ' 
 
 Another member of the Upper House, though a man of 
 very different character and principles, delivered an eloquent 
 attack upon the life of the lords of his time. Burnet never 
 wrote anything else comparable in style and matter with the 
 Conclusion to his History. In it we feel at once the touch 
 of deep sincerity combined with real insight and wide expe- 
 rience. No doubt the Bishop's prophetic utterances have the 
 too gloomy tone usually to be found in the harangues of seers 
 and censors. But in the main we cannot doubt that the 
 faults which he finds in the various classes of society were 
 as he declares them to be. The faults of the nobility were, 
 as he says, generally speaking, the faults of the gentry, and 
 the latter were, in Burnet 's opinion, ' the worst instructed 
 and least knowing of their rank ' he had ever met with. 3 Very 
 
 1 Memorial offered to the Princess Sophia, 1712 (reprinted 1815), p. 31. 
 This pamphlet has been attributed to Burnet, but the initials G. S. pro- 
 bably refer to a man named George Smyth, not to Gilbert Sarum. 
 
 2 Memoirs of Thomas Bruce, Marquis of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 
 1890), p. 304. 
 
 8 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 658.
 
 46 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 often they were both ill-taught and ill-bred, and so also both 
 haughty and insolent. 1 Burnet blamed the system of educa- 
 tion as being radically at fault. There was too much time 
 spent on Latin, too little on the English and French languages, 
 while a knowledge of law would be useful, especially for service 
 in parliament. 2 In after years the ordinary man learned nothing 
 more than what was to be found in plays and romances, and 
 the stage was the great corrupter of the town. Religious 
 principles were not sufficiently instilled into the young, and 
 then the gentry ' grew soon to find it a modish thing, that 
 looks like wit and spirit, to laugh at religion and virtue, and 
 so become crude and unpolished infidels'. 3 The universities 
 are criticized, because those schooled in them came to have 
 no love of country or public liberty, ' so that they are easily 
 brought to like slavery, if they may be the tools for managing 
 it.' The remedy suggested is a course of Plutarch's Lives, 
 together with English history. 
 
 The advice which the Bishop of Salisbury gave to the 
 gentry generally he gave also to the nobility. Only in their 
 case the advice was more urgent, because just as they were 
 higher in social rank than their neighbours, so they ought 
 to excel in knowledge and virtue. In particular, as members 
 of the House of Lords, the supreme court of judicature, they 
 ought to have some knowledge of the law. Burnet maps out 
 a special scheme of education for the sons of the nobility. 
 Each should, he thinks, have two governors, the one to frame 
 the mind, ' to give him true notions, to represent religion and 
 virtue in a proper light to him,' and in particular to inculcate 
 * noble principles of justice, liberty and virtue, as the basis 
 of government ; and with an aversion to violence and arbitrary 
 power, servile flattery, faction and luxury, from which the 
 corruption and ruin of all governments have arisen'. The 
 other governor was to teach modern languages and to correct 
 literary style and language. It had often surprised him, con- 
 tinues the Bishop, to remark how often noble parents, who 
 
 1 Cf. Pope, Dttnciad, i. 220 : ' The polished hardness that reflects the 
 Peer.' 
 . 2 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 652. s Ibid., p. 648.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 47 
 
 were lavish in every other direction, would be frugal and 
 narrow in the education of their children. A good education 
 they owed to their children. But not only to them. They 
 owed it as a debt to their country. Burnet looks upon educa- 
 tion as ' the foundation of all that can be proposed for bettering 
 the next age '. * How,' he observes, ' do some of our peers 
 shine, merely by their virtue and knowledge ; and what a con- 
 temptible figure do others make, with all their high titles and 
 great estates ? ' l The Bishop lays particular emphasis upon 
 the proper employment of domestic chaplains by the peerage, 
 and upon the well ordering of their households. He has in 
 his mind's eye the vision of the ideal noble family, in which 
 religion and virtue are enthroned, forming, as it were, a little 
 provincial court, where all the members of the circle, servants 
 as well as children, are brought up to be a pattern to the 
 neighbourhood. The nobility should above all ever be affable 
 and easy of access, and ought to achieve the best sort of 
 popularity among their people by protecting the oppressed 
 and ' entering into the true grievances of their country '. 2 
 Such was Burnet's ideal for the English peerage. 
 
 'A continued pursuit of such methods,' he pursues in an 
 eloquent passage, ' with an exemplary deportment, would 
 soon restore the nobility to their ancient lustre, from which 
 they seem very sensible how much they have fallen, though 
 they do not take the proper methods to recover it. Have we 
 not seen in our own time four or five lords, by their knowledge, 
 good judgement and integrity, raise the House of Peers to 
 a pitch of reputation and credit, that seemed beyond the 
 expectation or belief of those who now see it ? A progress 
 in this method will give them such authority in the nation 
 that they will be able, not only to support their own dignity, 
 but even to support the Throne and the Church. If so small 
 a number has raised the peerage to such a regard that the people, 
 contrary to all former precedents, have considered them more 
 than their own representatives, what might not be expected 
 from a greater number pursuing the same method ? These 
 would become again that which their title imports, the peers 
 of the crown, as well as of the kingdom, of which that noble 
 right of putting on their coronet at the coronation is a clear 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 655. - Ibid., p. 656.
 
 48 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 proof. Great titles, separated from the great estates, and the 
 interest their ancestors had in their countries must sink if not 
 supported with somewhat of more value, great merit, and 
 a sublime virtue.' 
 
 It was, then, Burnet's ideal that the peerage should 
 serve the purpose of a real aristocracy and be shining lights 
 to the other classes of the social organism by their model 
 behaviour. That they were very far from setting any 
 such example is obvious. In the nature of the case, they 
 were exposed to greater temptations to levity than other 
 classes. On the other hand, however, we must be careful to 
 remember that coarse manners were the rule in those days 
 among people of every rank and station. They were days of 
 brutal punishments, and days when brutal sports were popular. 
 Thus a great deal which seems discreditable to our sense of 
 refinement the nobility did but share with the rest of the 
 community. In his lecture on Steele, Thackeray refers to 
 Swift's Polite Conversation, and he retells the story of Lord 
 Smart's dinner-party. 
 
 ' Really/ says the lecturer with mock irony, ' fancy the moral 
 condition of that society in which a lady of fashion joked with 
 the footman, and carved a sirloin, and provided besides a great 
 shoulder of veal, a goose, hare, rabbit, chickens, partridges, 
 black puddings, and a ham for a dinner for eight Christians. 
 What what could have been the condition of that polite 
 world in which people openly ate goose after almond pudding 
 and took their soup in the middle of dinner ? Fancy a Colonel 
 in the Guards putting his hand into a dish of briqiiets dabricot 
 and helping his neighbour, a young lady du monde \ Fancy 
 a noble lord calling out to his servants, before the ladies of his 
 table, " Hang expense, bring us a ha'porth of cheese ! " Such 
 were the ladies of Saint James's such were the frequenters 
 of " White's Chocolate House ", when Swift used to visit it, 
 and Steele described it as the centre of pleasure, gallantry and 
 entertainment, a hundred and forty years ago ! ' J 
 
 We do not need to take the Polite Conversation very 
 seriously. The underlying truth which justifies the satire is 
 the open coarseness which characterized society in certain of 
 
 1 Thackeray's Lectures on the English Hiimorists. Works (Biographical 
 Edition, 1902), vol. vii, pp. 316-17.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 49 
 
 its moods. Swift has given us two pictures from fact in his 
 Journal to Stella. One is rather pretty. 1 Swift himself joins 
 Lady Kerry and two other ladies in one coach ; Lady Kerry's 
 son and three other gentlemen are in a second ; there is a third 
 containing Lord Shelburne's little children. Off the pleasure 
 party goes from Lord Shelburne's house in Piccadilly intent 
 upon seeing all the sights, which in those days included not 
 only the Tower and the lions, but Bedlam into the bargain. 
 They had dinner at the chop-house behind the Exchange, and 
 finished the evening at the puppet-show. Then there is the 
 picture of a dinner at Lady Betty Germain's. 2 It is a very hot 
 day, and the narrator is feeling the heat excessively, and is 
 therefore peevish. After dinner, Swift was not allowed to put 
 ice in his wine, being warned of its ill-consequences. This does 
 not increase his good humour. Then in the drawing-room the 
 cross and perspiring cleric is made a butt by the company. 
 Lady Berkeley, who was there with her lord, possesses herself 
 of Swift's hat and claps it on another lady's head, who in her 
 turn roguishly puts it on the rails. Swift was Very sullen ; he 
 minded them not, he says. But two minutes later he is called 
 to the window, and Lady Carteret shows him his hat up at her 
 window several doors off. So he is forced to walk away, and 
 pay Lady Carteret and old Lady Weymouth a visit in order 
 to obtain his stolen property. 
 
 Diaries and memoirs such as the Journal to Stella are of 
 great utility in creating a definite impression of social life. By 
 scores of little touches, too minute, and often in themselves 
 without reference to others too uninteresting for quotation, 
 Swift helps us to realize in the pages of his journal the manner 
 of life of the great ones in society. Such works as these 
 enable us to check the statements of the professed humorist 
 or satirist, and to sift from general criticisms those which apply 
 in particular to a definite period. For example, when Pope 
 talks about the ' right hereditary to be fools ', 3 he is uttering 
 
 1 Swift's Works, vol. ii, p. 72. 
 1 Ibid, p. 189. 
 
 3 Letter to a Noble Lord who had written An Epistle to a Doctor of 
 Divinity from a Nobleman at Hampton Court. Pope's Works, vol. iii,
 
 50 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 a gibe which has been brought against the hereditary principle 
 at all times. There is no reason to believe that there was 
 a larger proportion of noble asses in his day than at any other, 
 though it is on the other hand probable that there was a larger 
 number of rakes. It is a very common error to suppose that 
 the ne'er-do-weel is necessarily mentally deficient. There were 
 noble youths of the Plausible and Foppington description 
 perhaps in plenty. But more typical of the time than they 
 are men of Bolingbroke's kind. After a long night of carousal 
 in which he has vindicated his ability, notwithstanding his 
 more serious duties, to be a man of the world and to share 
 in the dissipations of the idle, the statesman will rise from his 
 troubled bed, wrap a wet towel round his aching head, and sit 
 down doggedly to tackle piles of diplomatic correspondence or 
 official documents. It is impossible to withhold a tribute of 
 admiration from the extraordinary versatility and buoyancy ot 
 temper which characterized so many of the illustrious politicians 
 of the latter part of the seventeenth and the opening of the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 After all, the nobility and here was their saving grace 
 aspired to be more than the leaders of society, had other 
 interests than those of mere dissipation. Even the dissolute 
 Wilmot and others like him prided themselves upon their 
 literary attainments ; and, what is more, some of them had 
 real literary gifts. In our period we stand at an interesting 
 parting of the ways in literary history. The day was shortly 
 approaching when Johnson should strike his famous blow at 
 patronage. The growth in the influence of Grub Street, the 
 development of the professionally literary class, portended 
 a new era. But the new state of things was only in its 
 infancy. There was as yet little of what we can call popular 
 literature. The audience to which satire is addressed, except 
 this be of the very broadest description, must inevitably be of 
 the educated classes. The pungency of satire depends in part 
 upon its being esoteric. In a word, literature is not popular, 
 but aristocratic. In the reign of Charles II we may almost 
 
 p. 328. Cf. The Dunciad, vol. v, p. 280 : ' The sire is made a Peer, the 
 son a Fool.'
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 51 
 
 say the court was an academy. In such circumstances patron- 
 age was a necessity. As in the nature of things the circulation 
 of any book could not be very extensive, so the author was in 
 large measure dependent upon his patron. There is extant 
 some interesting correspondence between Dryden and Philip, 
 Earl of Chesterfield the latter a man of subtilty and cunning, 
 who is described in Grammonfs Memoirs as being not deficient 
 in wit and agreeable in appearance, but of ' indifferent shape 
 and worse air V The Earl had already sought retirement at 
 the accession of William III. The poet writes offering him 
 the dedication of his translation of the Georgics. The dedica- 
 tion would be suitable, as the Earl in his retreat spends his 
 time in the study of philosophy. Dryden declares that ever 
 since he had the pleasure of making his lordship's acquaintance, 
 he has always preferred him to all other noblemen of the 
 kingdom, and that in all respects. Finally, he declares that 
 he is desirous of making the dedication, not from any thoughts 
 of personal profit, but simply from the consideration that he 
 honours himself in doing so. 2 Although Dryden gave priority 
 to the noble earl among all the nobility of England, a glance 
 through his published works will show that he was yet able to 
 say things of the most laudatory description and in very flowery 
 phraseology to many of the Earl's compeers. 
 
 The dedications of contemporary authors are indeed quite 
 instructive reading, as evidence of the system of patronage 
 which was so prevalent. Congreve, in tendering Love for Love 
 to the Earl of Dorset and Middlesex, speaks in this strain : 
 
 ' Whoever is king is also the father of his country ; and as 
 nobody can dispute your Lordship's monarchy in poetry, so 
 all that are concerned ought to acknowledge your universal 
 patronage. And it is only presuming on the privilege of 
 a loyal subject, that I have ventured to make this, my address 
 of thanks, to your Lordship, which at the same time includes 
 a prayer for your protection.' 
 
 Shadwell, again, dedicates his comedy, The Miser, also to 
 Dorset, and asserts that ' the favour which your Lordship was 
 
 1 Grammonfs Memoirs, p. 168. 
 
 2 Letters of Philip Stanhope, second Earl of Chesterfield (1829), p. 376. 
 
 E 2
 
 5 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 pleased to shew this play I value more than all the loud 
 applauses of the theatre '. l Several of his works he dedicates 
 to the Duke of Newcastle, whom he regards as still main- 
 taining the magnificence and grandeur of the ancient nobility. 
 Welbeck is indeed the seat of the Muses. 2 The Sullen Lovers 
 is addressed to this Maecenas. 3 
 
 ' Had I no particular obligation to urge me ', writes Shadwell, 
 ' yet my own inclinations would prompt me not only to dedicate 
 this to you, but myself to your Grace's service, since you have 
 so much obliged your country by your courage and your wit, 
 that all men who pretend either to sword or pen ought to 
 shelter themselves under your Grace's protection ; those ex- 
 cellences, as well as the great obligations I have had the 
 honour to receive from your Grace, are the occasions of this 
 dedication. And I doubt not but that generosity, wherewith 
 your Grace has always succoured the afflicted, will make you 
 willing (by suffering me to the honour of your name) to rescue 
 this from the bloody hands of the critics, who will not dare to 
 use it roughly when they see your Grace's name in the begin- 
 ning, that being a stamp sufficient to render it true coin, though 
 it be adulterate. 1 
 
 Such are a few examples of the kind of language habitually 
 addressed to the peerage, in their capacity as leaders in the 
 literary world, though some of them, so addressed, had no 
 pretensions to literary capacity whatever. With some it was 
 otherwise. Dorset was certainly a poet. Admirers even held 
 that he was ' the author of some of the finest poems in the 
 English language'. 4 Dryden, archflatterer, being asked to 
 
 1 Works of Thomas Shadwell (4 vols., 1720), vol. ii, p. 5. 
 1 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 184, Dedication of Epsom Wells. 
 5 Ibid., vol. i, p. 3. 
 4 Macky, p. 55. Cf. : 
 
 Dorset, the Grace of Courts, the Muses' Pride, 
 
 Patron of Arts, and Judge of Nature, died. 
 
 The Scourge of Pride, tho' sanctify'd or great, 
 
 Of Fops in Learning, and of Knaves in State ; 
 
 Yet soft in Nature, tho' serene his Lay, 
 
 His Anger moral, and his Wisdom gay. 
 
 Blest Satirist ! who touch'd the Mean is true, 
 
 As shared, Vice had its hate and pity too. 
 
 Blest Courtier ! who could King and Country please, 
 
 Yet sacred keep his Friendships, and his Ease.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 53 
 
 name authors of his own country superior to the authors of 
 antiquity, instanced his lordship in satire and Shakespeare in 
 tragedy. ' Would it be imagined ', asks Johnson, ' that, of this 
 rival to antiquity, all the satires were little personal invectives, 
 and that his longest composition was a song of eleven stanzas ?' l 
 But, as Johnson adds, the blame of exaggerated praise falls 
 upon the encomiast, not upon the belauded author, and Dorset 
 was certainly responsible for a number of pieces which show 
 real poetic fancy. Another peer who wooed the Muse was 
 John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, subsequently Marquis of 
 Normanby and then Duke of Buckinghamshire. He has 
 left behind him two volumes of works, including an account 
 of the Revolution and a quantity of verse. His Essay on 
 Satire is so good that it was at one time thought that Dryden 
 must have had some hand in its authorship, if indeed he were 
 not really the sole author. Charles Montague, Earl of Halifax, 
 has the honour of a place in Johnson's Lives, but no one has 
 been admitted to that company on slighter pretext. But 
 though his original work was small in quantity and of no great 
 merit, Montague was remarkable as performing the same sort 
 of function as literary protector for the Whigs that Oxford per- 
 formed for the Tories. A man of far greater literary eminence 
 was George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, who revealed his great 
 intellectual powers in political writings of real genius. 
 
 It is probably easier for most people to think of the noble 
 of the period, not in his capacity as literary dictator, but as 
 a territorial magnate. We picture him rolling along in his 
 equipage over the none too even high roads, being received by 
 village innkeepers with an excess of deference ; or red-faced 
 and jolly as he rides to hounds, goes a-hawking, or patronizes 
 the local sports of the country-side. On his country estate 
 the lord was an influence altogether paramount, and he ruled 
 
 Blest Peer ! his great Forefather's ev'ry Grace 
 Reflecting, and reflected in his Race ; 
 Where other Huckhursts, other Dorsets shine, 
 And Patriots still, or Poets, deck the time.' 
 
 Pope's Works, vol. ii, p. 365. 
 
 1 Johnson's Lives cf the Poets (ed. Cunningham, 1834), vol. ii, 
 p. II.
 
 54 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 his dependants in the good old feudal manner with certain 
 modern improvements and modifications. 
 
 We are fortunate in possessing the records of their journeys 
 by certain travellers, who visited England on its emergence 
 into the sphere of polite intercourse after the Restoration. 
 Among these was Cosmo, Grand Duke of Tuscany, the narra- 
 tive of whose visit, with its interesting illustrations in sepia, 
 is especially instructive. Cosmo made what was almost a 
 triumphal progress through the country ; the consummation 
 of which was his entertainment in London. Both on his 
 journey and in the capital he was the guest of different 
 members of the nobility. Hence we have a picture of their 
 country seats and of the pomp and splendour of their establish- 
 ments. Everywhere he was magnificently feted. He stayed 
 at the palace of the Earl of Northumberland ; with Sunderland 
 at Althorpe. He visited Audley End, the superb mansion of 
 the Earl of Suffolk. Its wide courtyard, its minarets, spacious 
 rooms and galleries surpassed anything which the royal 
 residences could show. Indeed, Charles II looked upon 
 Audley End with envious eye, and bought it, though he never 
 paid the whole price. 1 Later on, and shortly before the 
 termination of his stay in England, the Grand Duke paid 
 a visit to the Duke of Albemarle (Monk) at his spacious and 
 magnificent abode, Newhall. Several of the seats of the great 
 nobles who entertained Cosmo are illustrated in the book ; and 
 altogether we obtain quite a valuable impression in these pages 
 of the social prosperity of the peerage. 2 
 
 We have, too, an actual criticism of the English nobility. :i 
 The writer expends some pages on a description of the 
 ordinary people, especially of the London populace. He 
 describes their pastimes and amusements. Among their 
 
 1 Audley End had originally cost ,200,000. James, Earl of Suffolk, 
 agreed to sell it to Charles for ,50,000, of which only .30,000 was 
 actually paid. See the petition of Henry Howard, the brother of the Earl 
 of Suffolk, in Lords MSS. 1689-90, No. 63, p. 93. 
 
 1 For an interesting list of the members of the establishment at Belvoir 
 in the reign of Charles II see Rutland MSS., vol. ii, p. 54. 
 
 s The Travels of Cosmo HI, Grand Duke of Tuscany, through England, 
 translated from the Italian of Lorenzo Magalotti (London, 1821), pp. 397 
 407-8.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 55 
 
 characteristics he particularly notices their pride. The 
 nobility, he goes on to say, are also proud, but they have not 
 usually the defects of the lower orders. They display polite- 
 ness and courtesy in their reception of strangers. As might 
 be expected, those gentlemen are most well-bred and cere- 
 monious who have travelled abroad and have been able to 
 take lessons in politeness from the manners of other peoples : 
 
 ' Almost all of them speak French and Italian, and readily 
 apply themselves to learn the latter language, from the good- 
 will which they entertain towards our nation ; and although 
 by their civil entertainment of foreign gentlemen, whom they 
 endeavour to imitate, they moderate a little that stiffness or 
 uncouthness which is peculiar to them, yet they fail in acquiring 
 such good manners as to put them on a level with the easy 
 gentility of the Italians, not being able to get the better of 
 a certain natural melancholy, which has the appearance of 
 eternally clouding their minds with unpleasant thoughts.' 
 
 The idea of melancholy in connexion with the English 
 nobility at the date of Cosmo's journey may seem somewhat 
 incongruous. It has to be remembered that it is an Italian 
 that is writing; and English jollity has never been of the same 
 flavour as that which comes from the warm South. The 
 haughtiness of the English nobility is commented upon by 
 another foreign visitor, Sorbiere, who declares that such is the 
 pride of the English peer that he seems to regard himself 
 as quite a different sort of being from his fellow mortals. 1 
 It may perhaps seem a little difficult to reconcile such an 
 account with the descriptions by Swift, which give an impression 
 of open-heartedness and familiarity. The Dean, however, had 
 been permitted to enter the sacred gates, which were barred and 
 padlocked against the ordinary person. The great pride of caste 
 which characterized the English peerage during our period is 
 emphasized again and again. Foppington's ' Gad's curse, 
 madam, I'm a peer of the realm' is a delicious revelation of an 
 actual state of things. Lord Longuevillc happened to be once 
 insulted in the theatre. This affront was made the subject oi 
 
 1 Relation <Fnn Voyage en Angleterre, by Samuel de Sorbiere (1664), 
 p. 193. Another foreigner who experienced the hospitality of the English 
 nobility was the Swiss, Muralt. See Letlrcs sur les Anglois ct les Francois 
 et sur /cs Voingcs, by Beat de Louis Muralt (Cologne, 1/25), pp. 88, 99.
 
 56 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 a long debate in the Upper House. Indeed, the temper of the 
 hereditary councillors was so much ruffled that the Earl of 
 Stamford rose to move that playhouses should be totally 
 abolished, as they were illegal and tended to the increase of 
 debauchery. The Earl of Manchester and several others were 
 very earnest in the matter and contrived to have an order 
 promulgated to suppress all acting ; which order was, however, 
 soon after taken off. Still, it is interesting to notice that such 
 drastic steps should have been taken as the result merely of 
 an insult done to a single peer's high-mightiness. 1 Another 
 remarkable incident occurred as the result merely of a laugh. 
 The Earl of Lincoln was noted for his excessive corpulence. 
 He had, in fact, to be excused from kneeling when occasion 
 required it, on account of his unwieldiness. 2 The appearance 
 of his lordship's paunch once provoked the curiosity, if not the 
 laughter, of a youth named Webb. Bitterly did the boy rue 
 his presumption in gazing at this sensitive peer. Two of his 
 lordship's servants assaulted the boy, threw him down, and 
 beat him so severely that, when he died shortly afterwards, it 
 was the verdict of the coroner's jury that he had succumbed 
 as the result of the wounds he had received on this occasion, 
 though it was subsequently decided that Webb would have 
 died in any case from consumption, so that the murder charge 
 failed. 3 Such tales as these make us feel that we are dealing 
 with a strange world. A man, who was examined before a 
 committee of the Upper House in connexion with an inquiry 
 into the circumstances surrounding the death of Lord William 
 
 1 MSS. of the Duke of Portland (Hist. MSS. Comm., i4th Rep., App. 
 pt. ii) ; Hurley Corr. vol. iii, p. 485. See also Lords MSS, idyo-f, No. 
 493> PP- 464-5- Lord Longueville and his servants were assaulted by 
 the guard at the playhouse. 
 
 1 Lords MSS, 1692-3, No. 524, p. 24. 
 
 J See Luttrell's Diary, February 27, 1691-2. It is Luttrell who 
 informs us that the assault upon Webb was due to his gazing upon the 
 Earl in the street. The jury at the trial declared the prisoners not 
 guilty, on the ground that Webb on February 24, 1691-2, and long before- 
 hand, had been sick of ' "a consumption", and died of this disease, by 
 the visitation of God '. After the assault, however, both the Earl himself 
 and one of his men had fled and hidden themselves, which shows clearly 
 that they realized that the damage inflicted had been serious. Narcissus 
 Luttrell's Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678-1714 (6 vols., Oxford, 
 1817), vol. ii, pp. 369-71.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 57 
 
 Russell, declared that he had told the Earl of Lincoln that 'he 
 would be torn in pieces before he would discover anything 
 against any nobleman V We cannot wonder that common 
 people went about in fear of the vengeance of a noble potentate, 
 should he happen to be offended. 
 
 Squire Western's objection to the proximity of a peer in his 
 part of the country is well known. There were, no doubt, many 
 who shared in this objection before his day. It was indeed 
 claimed by enemies of the peerage that, when an estate was to 
 be sold, it was a great addition to the purchase that there 
 should not be a lord within a radius often miles. 2 To country 
 folk there may not have appeared to be any great difference 
 between landlord squire and landlord earl. As landowners their 
 interests were very much the same. They were probably too 
 nearly the same to please the squirearchy. The typical 
 country gentleman of the Western type, living comfortably on 
 his own estate from year to year, travelling but rarely and 
 lacking in the refinements of urban polish, might well feel 
 himself put in the shade by a more powerful neighbour, who 
 united the experience of court or official life with the pride of 
 peerage. 
 
 Fortunately this pride of peerage did not alone reveal itself 
 in an excessive determination to insist upon its dignity and to 
 resent all encroachments thereupon. There may have been 
 something ludicrous in the pose of the Duke of Somerset 
 ' The proud Duke ', as he was called particularly as he would 
 appear to have been a man of no great intellectual capacity. 3 
 He made a magnificent ornamental figure at coronations, royal 
 funerals, and on all great state occasions. But people realized 
 that there was something in this portentous Duke besides mere 
 
 1 Lords MSS. 1689-90, No. 154, p. 289. 
 
 2 See a pamphlet on The Limitation of the Peerage (1720), p. 10. 
 
 s Macky's account of the Duke is : ' Is of a middle stature, well-shaped, 
 a very black complexion, a lover of music and poetry ; of good judgment.' 
 (p. 39). Swift's comment : ' Not a grain ; hardly common sense.' 
 Works, vol. x, p. 274. There is a well-known anecdote related of his 
 Grace. His second wife one day had the temerity to tap him roguishly 
 with her fan. The Duke solemnly reprimanded her for taking so great 
 a liberty with his person. ' My first wife was a Percy, and she never did 
 such a thing,' he told her. Dictionary of National Biography (1st ed.), 
 vol. li, pp. 294-9.
 
 58 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 outward show, when he categorically refused to conduct the 
 papal legate in procession at James II's bidding, and consented 
 to be dismissed his regiment rather than do what he considered 
 would derogate from the high dignity of the peerage of His 
 Majesty's realm. Again, there were not wanting among the 
 peerage men who united seriousness of life with considerable 
 powers, and in some cases even genius. A good example of 
 the earnest-minded lord, possessed of ordinary abilities, was 
 Thomas, Earl of Pembroke. His political views were moderate, 
 and he was esteemed by both parties. A plain, quiet-spoken 
 man, his life is said to have been like that of the primitive 
 Christians. Fate placed him at the Admiralty Board, even 
 against his own wishes. As to his success there, there would 
 seem to be some doubt. Admirers actually maintained that 
 had he had any experience of the sea, he would have been 
 as good an admiral as any we had. As he had none, the 
 compliment does not appear to mean very much. 
 
 The Earl of Nottingham was of such serious manner and 
 appearance as to earn the name ' Don Dismallo '. He is best 
 remembered as an enthusiastic Anglican. Very early in life 
 he had donned the mantle of religious gravity. When he 
 was at Christ Church, and before he had reached his 
 sixteenth year, his father wrote to him exhorting him to 
 preserve the reputation he had got of ' a very serious man V 
 
 1 The History of Burley-on-the-Hill, Rutland, by Pearl Finch (2 vols., 
 1901), vol. i, p. 168. P. 1 66, his uncle writes in a similar strain : ' I charge 
 ye to frequent ye publique prayers and study to Reverence and defend as 
 well as to obeye the Church of England, you will give me but a sad 
 account of your time at the University if you return either factious or 
 indifferent in ye point of Religion. Nothing can betray you to errors in 
 Religion sooner than the having too good an opinion of those who are 
 not sound themselves. Bee sure you never trust your own judgment in 
 things of this nature, nor submit to Arguments only because you have not 
 wit enough to answer them.' It must be admitted that the advice was 
 earnestly taken to heart, and that Nottingham became so much of an 
 orthodox Anglican that he could hardly continue to remain in common 
 charity with Dissenters. The bargain which he made with the Whigs in 
 1711 is famous, by which he agreed to lead their cause in the Lords on 
 condition that they should consent to the passing of the Bill against 
 Occasional Conformity. For William's opinion of Nottingham see Fox- 
 croft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 206. For Mary's see Memorial of Mary \ 
 Princess of Orange, Queen Consort to William 111, by Gilbert Burnet 
 Bishop of Sarum (Edinburgh, 1842), Appendix, p. xxii.
 
 in SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 59 
 
 The Earl's openness and apparent singleness of purpose won 
 him William's regard, though it was not always easy to square 
 the King's policy with Nottingham's high principles. He also 
 impressed Mary favourably. Though he took no pains to 
 ingratiate himself, indeed spoke but rarely of himself at all, 
 she confessed that she was inclined to have a good opinion of 
 him and to believe in his sincerity, though she confessed that 
 she might possibly be deceived by his formal grave look. The 
 heavy formal look, of which the Queen speaks, was really the 
 index of a very large measure of conscientiousness and industry 
 in his official capacity. Ailesbury tells us that ' in comparison 
 to Secretaries before and after him, he played the clerk as well 
 as the chief, and he often told me he never ate until he had 
 finished in the office in parliament time, and that he was 
 obliged to go to Kensington ... for to have the king to sign, 
 and although fasting, he stayed often one or two hours before the 
 king came out, who was in Council with his Dutch favourites'. 1 
 Godolphin, dark and stern in mien, retiring and hard of 
 access, was a man of somewhat similar type to Nottingham, 
 although of infinitely greater power and ability. Again like 
 Nottingham, he gave William the impression of being ' a very 
 honest man '. He believed Lord Godolphin, the King once 
 said, because he had given him his word. 2 Apart from his 
 love of dice and horse-racing he was an invariable visitor to 
 Newmarket at the Easter and Autumn meetings his habits 
 were singularly austere. ' He is ', writes Spanheim who visited 
 England in i 704, l an enemy to all splendour and outward 
 parade in his household, in his equipage and indeed in general, 
 and perhaps to excess, as he has contented himself up to now 
 with the lowest degree of peerage, which is that of baron, and 
 only agreed with difficulty to be made Knight of the Garter, 
 as he became only a few weeks ago.' :i 
 
 1 Ailesbury, p. 247. 
 
 2 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, pp. 219, 223, 242. Swift, making 
 much of Godolphin's supposed Jacobitism, draws a rather unfavourable 
 portrait in The Last Four Years of the Queen. Works, vol. x, pp. 26-7. 
 
 3 Ezifchiel Spanheim, Relation de la Lour dc Frame en i6yo, suivie de 
 la Relation de la Cour tfAngletcrre en 7707 (ed. Kmilc Bourgeois, 1900), 
 p. 640.
 
 60 SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE CHAP. 
 
 Even in this period of dissolute living and volatility of 
 purpose, there were noblemen who were not afraid of hard 
 work. Nor does this statement refer only to men like 
 Godolphin, Somers, and Montague, Earl of Halifax, who had 
 been born commoners. One has always to bear in mind that 
 the social priority of the peerage was not the cause of their 
 other dignities and importance, but the result. Their social 
 eminence was a factor derivative from their parliamentary 
 privileges ; and these privileges they owed to the fact that the 
 nobility of England had originally been the servants of the 
 sovereign. Historically considered, the peers were great 
 because they had served. They enjoyed privileges because 
 they had borne burdens. And now when many of these 
 burdens had gone altogether and others had come to be 
 regarded in a very different light, ambition egged on the noble 
 subject to be the servant of the state. The aristocracy must 
 be leaders in the sphere of literature. So must they also be 
 in the various departments of government, in the navy and in 
 the army. In the House of Lords there were soldiers like 
 Marlborough, Ormonde, Monmouth, Feversham, and many 
 others ; sailors like Orford, Torrington, and the elder Dart- 
 mouth, Kiveton and Berkeley of Stratton ; diplomatists like 
 Jersey, Manchester, and Shrewsbury. Even the young 
 Mulgrave must needs go to sea he was in command of 
 a ship when only twenty-two. It may have been a mistaken 
 system which sent irresponsible young sparks to take posts in 
 the forces. However that may be, it is certain that it was 
 good for noblemen themselves to take part in serious occupa- 
 tions and in the defence of their country ; and it must be 
 allowed that the English lords were good fighters as a rule ; 
 some of them remarkably good officers. They had whole 
 centuries of a military tradition behind them. 
 
 Finally, for all the nobility the wide field of politics lay 
 open, and the door to office in the state might be entered by 
 those who had ability and application. To some, politics 
 might appear principally as an excitement ; to others they 
 formed a duty. There were those who deliberately turned 
 their backs on White's and Wills's, and the amusements of
 
 Ill SOCIAL POSITION OF THE PEERAGE 61 
 
 court and theatre, and sought the more solemn pleasures of 
 St. Stephen's and the Cockpit. There were a good many 
 more who found it possible to combine both the pleasures 
 of labour and of dissipation. There can be little doubt that 
 the purely social attractions which a brilliant court in London 
 had originated, or those bestowed by a position of semi-feudal 
 authority in provincial seats, were often a snare for the young 
 noble who found himself born to a place of great dignity and 
 of at any rate comparative affluence. Rank necessarily brings 
 its temptations in every age. In the later years of the seven- 
 teenth century they were no doubt particularly severe. It 
 were a futile task for any one to take upon himself the role of 
 apologist for the escapades of Mohuns, who made the special 
 privileges of their rank a nuisance to society, or for the ter- 
 giversation of politicians like Marlborough and Godolphin, 
 upon whose allegiance either to principle or party it was 
 impossible to rely. But this at least we may say that even 
 in those days there did not lack among the peerage those who 
 aspired to other ends than that of mere social predominance, 
 examples of the motto Noblesse oblige.
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE 
 
 AN exhaustive list of the privileges of the English peerage 
 would be lengthy, and it would have to include a number 
 which really belong to the province of the laws of etiquette 
 and are of but slight historical importance. Such small 
 matters, however, deeply interested those concerned. An 
 illustration of the minute interest taken by the Lords in 
 matters relating to their dignity, however insignificant, is 
 found in proceedings arising from a complaint brought for- 
 ward by the Earl of Macclesfield, 1 that commoners were wont 
 to be covered equally with peers when the sovereign went 
 to the play. Evidence was adduced to prove that in the 
 time of Charles I only peers used to sit covered. It was 
 so also when the king was in the Mall or playing tennis. 
 When Charles I put on his hat in the King's chapel, he used 
 to give a sign to the peers to put on theirs. A committee of 
 privileges reported in accordance with the evidence ; but there 
 were no further proceedings, possibly because the subject was 
 regarded as being too trivial to warrant any very serious atten- 
 tion. One curious privilege highly valued, no doubt was to the 
 effect that an earl might have eight tuns of wine free of impost 
 every year, and the rest of the peerage amounts proportionate 
 to their rank. But such exemptions are unusual in connexion 
 with our English peerage. 2 There has always been much less 
 
 1 Lords MSS. 1689-90, No. 61. See foot-note on p. 86. 
 
 a Muralt, p. 5, records the melancholy jest of an English peer at the 
 futility of his privileges. ' On ne peut pas, dit-il, nous arreter pour dettes, 
 mais aussi ne trouverons nous point de credit ; pour tout serment, nous 
 ne sommes obligez de jurer que sur notre Honneur, mais peu de gens nous 
 en croient ; il y a une Loi, qui defend de mal parler de nous, mais il nous 
 arrive, comme a d'autres, d'e'tre batus dans les rues ! ' ' II pouvait ajouter ', 
 adds Muralt, ' que leur naissance leur donne entre'e au Parlement, mais 
 que ce n'est pas tout-a-fait leur Chambre qui gouverne.'
 
 CHAP, iv PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES 63 
 
 tendency in England than on the continent for the nobility to 
 degenerate into a mere caste, partly on account of their official 
 origin, partly by reason of the system of primogeniture. Thus 
 all the important privileges of the English peerage are parlia- 
 mentary. Peers possess them because they are lords of 
 parliament, not because they are members of an aristocratic 
 class. Their social dignity is historically considered a 
 derivative factor. Several of their parliamentary privileges 
 the Lords share with the Commons, such as that of freedom 
 of speech. 1 On this it is not necessary to dwell ; and of the 
 privilege of trial by one's peers in cases of treason or felony 
 it will be more convenient to speak in another place, when 
 discussing the judicial powers of the House of Lords. 
 
 Freedom from arrest during the sitting of Parliament the 
 Lords shared with the Commons ; nor could they be impleaded 
 in a civil action during time of privilege. As a matter of fact, 
 in both cases the period of exemption extended beyond the 
 nominal period, for it included anything from twenty to forty 
 days both before and after the session. 2 In no civil case could 
 a peer be impanelled upon any jury ; not even if the dispute 
 lay between peers. In no case could he be compelled to 
 swear not to break the peace. He need only promise upon 
 his honour, which was accounted sacred and inviolable. In 
 any suit in which a peer was concerned no day of grace 
 was allowed to the plaintiff. It is clear that it was no easy 
 matter for the ordinary subject to obtain right from a peer, so 
 thoroughly hedged round was the latter by exemptions from 
 the ordinary processes of justice, and so long did the period of 
 such exemptions extend. Often, indeed, one parliament might 
 come to an end and another meet without the plaintiffs having 
 
 1 On the subject of Privilege of Peerage see Chamberlayne's Angliae 
 Notitia or The Present State of England, the Whittaker of its day. It 
 contained a good deal of permanent matter together with details which 
 varied from year to year. The pagination of the publication for different 
 years naturally varies somewhat. It is immaterial to what year in the 
 reign reference is made. In the 1692 issue, for example, the section on 
 Privilege is on p. 220 et sey. 
 
 * A period of forty days was claimed in 1664. No decision as to 
 whether the period should be one of twenty or forty days was arrived at, 
 but in practice the longer period was no doubt adhered to.
 
 64 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 any opportunity of bringing his action. In any case, the time 
 available for legal proceedings was very short, and the wheels 
 of the judicial machine, whenever a lord was concerned, were 
 apt to move with exceeding slowness. 
 
 Occasionally it did happen that a peer became enmeshed in 
 the network of the law courts. In such cases there was very 
 likely to be an outcry. Several cases of importance came up 
 at the beginning of William's reign. The momentous question 
 respecting the covering of peers in the presence of the King 
 was discussed at a time when there was a particular reason for 
 eagerness on the part of the peers to assert their right. When 
 the committee of privileges first met after the beginning of the 
 reign, the redoubtable Earl of Macclesfield brought forward 
 some more serious grievances than the trivial matter already 
 referred to. 1 He made the general complaint that whenever 
 a peer was unfortunately brought into a court of law, he met 
 with unjust treatment there. The peerage, as he said, was 
 invaded in their trials, which were not as fairly conducted as 
 those of commoners. He went on to urge that lords should 
 never be tried but in Parliament, and cited ancient usage. 
 A statute of Edward III was read, in which it was enacted 
 that no peers were to be tried except in Parliament. The 
 particular circumstances which gave rise to this discussion 
 were the trials in the Court of King's Bench of Lord Lovelace 
 in 1685, of the Duke of Grafton in 1687, that of the Earl of 
 Devonshire in the same year, and also the Seven Bishops' 
 trial. The further proceedings of the House were confined 
 to the case of Devonshire. This had arisen from a quarrel 
 between the Earl and a certain Colonel Culpepper, which had 
 aroused widespread attention at the time. It is clear that the 
 former had received considerable provocation ; which did not, 
 however, excuse his use of personal violence against Culpepper. 
 Still, quite apart from the question of privilege involved, the 
 punishment was exceedingly severe and altogether out of 
 proportion to the offence. Summoned before the Court of 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1689-90, No. 62, pp. 86-93, Macclesfield's complaint, 
 p. 87.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 65 
 
 King's Bench, the Earl had pleaded privilege of parliament 
 against an accusation of misdemeanour. This did not hold 
 good, and the pica was quite rightly overruled by the court. 
 Eventually Devonshire was fined 30,000, was committed to 
 the King's Bench prison until the sum should be paid, and 
 was bidden to find security for his keeping the peace for one 
 year. 
 
 The case is made the occasion of an eloquent dissertation 
 by the Earl of Warrington. 1 
 
 ' The overruling of the Earl's plea of privilege ', he contends, 
 1 is a thing of that vast consequence, that it requires a great 
 deal of time to comprehend it aright, and is of so great extent 
 that more may be said of it than any man can say. . . . Because 
 it is in case of Privilege, which is the most tender part of our 
 Court, for if the Rights and Privileges of any Court are made 
 light of, the Court itself will soon come to nothing, because 
 they are as it were the most essential part of it, if not the very 
 essence of the Court, for what signifies a Court, if its Orders 
 cannot be executed ? It is better that a Court were not, than 
 that its Privileges should not be observed, for without that it 
 becomes a snare and mischief to the People, rather than an 
 Advantage.' 
 
 The noble author goes on to attack the actions of the King's 
 Bench judges in setting the feet above the head. Such is his 
 lordship's phrase. These judges have arrogated to themselves 
 superiority over the House of Lords, which is the supreme 
 judicial body in the kingdom. This must lead to a complete 
 inversion of the whole course of nature. 2 In fine, the Earl sees in 
 the case a most manifest attempt upon the status of the peerage. 
 In common with so many others of his day he bemoans the de- 
 structive policy of the Tudors towards the nobility, who had 
 been undermined by lavish creations, and rendered contemp- 
 tible by the honours given to men of mean extraction. Only 
 one thing more was needed to complete the ignominy of the 
 peerage. That finishing touch has been added by the Earl of 
 Devonshire's case. 
 
 1 Works of Warrin%ton, p. 563, on the case of William, Earl of 
 Devonshire, and Colonel Culpepper. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 566.
 
 66 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 ' Nothing can make it [the peerage] more despicable, than 
 that its Privileges should depend upon the beck of the King's 
 Bench, and therefore considering how groundless and without 
 president [_sic\ it is, what they have done in the case of the said 
 Earl, it is no more than probable [? no less] that they thereby 
 aimed at pulling down the peerage. For what seems so likely 
 as it does ? It carries its evidence in its Face, for it manifestly 
 takes away the privilege of the Peers, and till it does appear 
 for what other end it was done, all Men of Sense, and that are 
 unprejudiced, must believe it was to pull down the Peerage ; 
 for all that can be pretended is, either to secure the Peace, or 
 to punish the offence.' 
 
 It is clear that it is for the noble caste that Warrington 
 is arguing here, and that his case deserved better arguments 
 than he has supplied. The Earl had done better to confine 
 himself to the grievance which was really relevant. The 
 assertion by the King's Bench judges of their competence 
 to try Devonshire's case was no infringement upon the dignity 
 of the peerage. 1 It was the infliction of a fine of the most 
 exorbitant figure, out of all keeping with the gravity of the 
 offence, that constituted the gravamen of the charge against , 
 the judges. The Lords summoned the offenders before them. 
 It should be noticed that they did this, not as a court of appeal, 
 but in virtue of their original jurisdiction. In pursuance of 
 an act of Edward III, Macclesfield and several others were 
 appointed as a committee to inquire into delays and failures 
 of justice. The committee were anxious that not only Devon- 
 shire's case, but also those of Lovelace, Grafton, and the Seven 
 Bishops should be investigated. None, however, of these lords 
 attended, and although it was agreed to move the House for an 
 order to compel them, no more is heard of the matter. The 
 further proceedings had reference only to Lord Devonshire. 
 Sir Robert Wright, one of the judges concerned, cited the 
 precedents for peers not enjoying privilege in breach of the 
 peace. The other, Sir Richard Holloway, was more apologetic. 
 He admitted that the fine had been excessive. Personally, he 
 said, he had been in favour of the lowest fine, but he had been 
 
 1 It is an ancient maxim of the law that the King's judges are the equal 
 of any man, be he peer or commoner.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 67 
 
 overridden by the court. He did not attempt to justify anything, 
 but submitted himself to their lordships. The advice of the 
 Lord Chief Justice and others of the judicial bench was invited 
 by the committee on the question as to how the law stood as 
 to the commitment of a peer upon a fine to the King, for the 
 trial had been at the King's suit. The Lord Chief Justice, 
 although finding it difficult to answer on the spur of the 
 moment, was of opinion that a peer could be committed upon 
 a fine, at the suit of the King. Another of the justices put 
 the case very clearly. Here was a lord brought before the 
 King's Bench, and they had taken cognizance of it. As this 
 was so, their censure could not but fall upon the peer as it 
 would have done upon any other individual. Another legal 
 adviser added that once a fine had been imposed, the court was 
 justified in taking means to secure the payment of the fine. 
 Notwithstanding this evidence, the judgment of the House 
 was that a peer's privilege did protect his body. Accordingly, 
 on May I5th, the resolution of the House was entered in the 
 Journals, in which emphatic protest was made both against 
 the commitment of a peer to prison for non-payment of a fine 
 and also against the excessive nature of the fine in this case. 1 
 Memories of the Devonshire incident were revived in October 
 1690 in connexion with the imprisonment of Torrington after 
 Beachy Head. 2 The details of his trial are principally of interest 
 to the naval historian ; but one or two points of parliamentary 
 importance arose from it. Torrington was in the first instance 
 committed to the Tower by the Privy Council, and this during 
 time of privilege. The Earl petitioned for his release and for 
 trial by his peers. The question before the House was whether, 
 having accepted a commission, Torrington had any right on 
 account of privilege of peerage to be exempt from trial by the 
 Articles of War. The opinion of the judges was that he was 
 triable by the Admiralty. The House drew up a resolution in 
 accordance with the judicial advice. 3 The claim of privilege 
 having been disallowed, Torrington was now by warrant of 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1689-90, No. 62, p. 90. 
 
 2 For proceedings in this case see Lords' MSS. 1690-2, No. 285, 
 pp. 93-6. 
 
 3 October 13, Lords' Journals, vol. xiv, pp. 521-2. 
 
 F 2
 
 68 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 the commissioners of the Admiralty committed to the Mar- 
 shalsea. The question then arose whether this was a legal 
 warrant. Two issues were involved in this question. In the first 
 place, did such power of commitment belong to the Admiralty ? 
 In the second, could the power be exercised as well by Admiralty 
 commissioners as by the Lord High Admiral ? Both issues 
 were determined in the affirmative by the judges. There was 
 a martial law in the kingdom. By it Torrington might be tried, 
 and if he could be tried he could also be committed. A third 
 question the judges also answered in the affirmative, when they 
 decided that for the offence specified in the articles of commit- 
 ment issued by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the 
 Earl might also have been committed by the Privy Council. 
 
 The judicial decision on the subject of the Council's power 
 to commit was not accepted by the Lords. 1 They were satisfied 
 that the Admiralty commissioners had legal power to try 
 Torrington, and that his privilege did not exempt him from 
 such jurisdiction ; but they would not agree to the argument 
 that necessity of state justified the Earl's being sent to the 
 Tower by the Privy Council. For treason he might be, but not 
 for high crimes and misdemeanours. The report of the select 
 committee appointed to examine the question was accepted by 
 thirty-two voices to seventeen, several amendments having been 
 rejected. They thought fit to enter their opinion in their books, 
 that the case ' may not be drawn into an example for the future '. 2 
 The epilogue to the Torrington affair is interesting. In view of 
 the forthcoming trial there was a feeling in the House that the 
 judicial powers of the Admiralty commissioners should be 
 made clear beyond dispute. Accordingly a bill was introduced 
 with this object in view. Macaulay is very eloquent in his 
 denunciation of the opposition made to the passing of this 
 bill. 3 He refuses to believe that the* argument used against it, 
 
 1 See Report by F. Bonet (Ranke, vol. vi, p. 152), October 28/Novem- 
 ber 4, 1690. ' II y cut un long debat dans la Chambre, et plusieurs, non 
 contens que cet emprisonnement fut declare une breche a leurs privileges, 
 insisterent a ce que les 9 conseillers fussent citez et censurez par la 
 Chambre, et les principaux de ce parti estoient le Marq. d'Halifax et le 
 Comte de Rochester, tous deux peu amis du President du Conseil.' 
 
 2 L.J., vol. xiv, p. 525, October 20, and p. 527, October 21. 
 
 3 Macaulay's treatment of this episode of Lord Torrington is typical of
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 69 
 
 that it was a retrospective penal law, could have been used in 
 good faith. He concludes that the opposition proceeded merely 
 from a strong feeling of caste. 'If their noble brother had 
 offended, articles of impeachment ought to be exhibited against 
 him : Westminster Hall ought to be filled up : his peers ought 
 to meet in their long robes, and to give in their verdict in his 
 favour : a Lord High Steward ought to pronounce the sentence 
 and to break the staff. There was an end to privilege if an 
 Earl was to be doomed to death by tarpaulins seated round 
 a table in the cabin of a ship.' l At any rate Macaulay is led 
 into exaggerating the strength of the opposition by following 
 Ralph, who states that the majority for the passing of the bill 
 was only two, whereas the third reading was in reality carried 
 by twenty-five votes to seventeen. 2 In the second case there 
 was a very good argument against the bill that it was un- 
 necessary ; the almost unanimous opinion of the different 
 judges consulted being that the new act did but affirm what 
 already existed. In reality there was not even a change of 
 procedure, as Macaulay states. No one will maintain for 
 a moment that jealousy for their distinctive immunities did 
 not have influence in the House of Lords in connexion with 
 the whole Torrington episode. Notwithstanding this, however, 
 the facts are that the House agreed that the Admiralty com- 
 missioners had been justified in their action, and went the 
 length of passing an uncalled-for act upon the subject. 
 
 A third important case of privilege, which arose in November 
 1692, has given rise to considerable difficulty. The facts are 
 indeed somewhat complicated. There can be no doubt that 
 feeling was very much excited over the matter. There were 
 ' very warm debates '. As Burnet says, when commenting upon 
 
 his less admirable methods. In the first place he quotes no authority for 
 the account he gives, except Ralph on a point of numbers. He is con- 
 tent to suppose that Ralph had ' some authority which I have been unable 
 to find', as he confesses. As a matter of fact he was misled by Ralph. 
 But for the much more important matter, viz. the arguments adduced 
 against the bill, he gives no reference whatever, and for evidence sub- 
 stitutes rhetoric of his own on the subject of tarpaulins. 
 
 1 Macaulay, vol. iii, pp. 715-16. 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 307, p. 147.
 
 70 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 the situation, ' where the privilege or the dignity of peerage is 
 in question, it is not easy to keep the house within bounds.' l 
 The Lords' sensitiveness on all such matters may be taken for 
 granted. But the view that their attitude on this particular 
 occasion was purely selfish seems to be founded upon a mis- 
 understanding. The facts in the case are these. 2 The Earls 
 of Maryborough, Scarsdale, and Huntingdon had been com- 
 mitted to the Tower on the grounds of alleged complicity 
 in a Jacobite plot. On November yth they formally informed 
 the House that they had been committed and that they were 
 now on bail within the time of privilege of parliament. It was 
 moved that they should be discharged from their bail. Nothing 
 came of this, however ; and, in accordance with a previous 
 motion, it was ordered that the Lord Chief Justice and the 
 King's Bench judges should attend. They did so, and all 
 agreed that the recognizances could not be removed to the 
 House save upon a writ of error ; secondly, that they (the 
 judges) could not discharge until the last day of the law term. 
 It was now moved that the King's Bench be ordered by the 
 House to discharge the bail of these lords. This motion was 
 not passed. As the result of the debate which followed, the 
 matter was referred to the committee of privileges, who, how- 
 ever, eventually confessed that the question was too hard for 
 them. Law and privilege often seemed to clash in a most 
 perplexing way. 
 
 It is important to notice that after this the matter shifts to 
 different ground. The House now took into consideration the 
 reasons for the commitment. It so happened that in the cases 
 of the Earl of Huntingdon, the Earl of Middlcton, Lord 
 Dunmore, and a commoner, Sir Andrew Forester, their release 
 had been successfully resisted by means of the affidavit of one 
 Aaron Smith, Treasury solicitor. Smith was sent for by the 
 House, and as the result of a searching cross-examination 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 102. 
 
 2 See Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 581, pp. 86-91. See also Joifrnals, 
 vol. xv, pp. 105-15 passim. A great deal more is to be gleaned from 
 the MSS. than from the latter, where the notices are meagre. It is 
 notable that in one place a marginal note in the Minutes is inserted, 
 ' Nothing to be entered. 1
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 71 
 
 he failed to make good his affidavit. The point was, had 
 there been the two requisite witnesses against Huntingdon? 
 Being pressed, Smith acknowledged that he could not say 
 there were two witnesses upon oath. There was one witness 
 upon oath, and other evidence besides. It had now to be 
 decided whether by the Habeas Corpus Amendment Act such 
 testimony was sufficient to justify a remand. The judges' 
 declaration upon this subject was to the following effect : first, 
 that if there was but one witness it was the judge's duty to 
 grant bail ; secondly, that other circumstantial evidence, if it 
 was not upon oath, was no evidence. 1 
 
 On November i2th the judges, being again examined, drew 
 an important distinction between the evidence required for 
 conviction and that required for a remand. They were clear 
 that the act did not necessitate that for the latter purpose 
 there should be two witnesses upon oath. The word ' witness ' 
 was to be taken as meaning ' any person ' it had to be 
 a person ; no other sort of evidence would serve ' capable of 
 giving testimony'. The judges' justification of their action 
 was that Aaron Smith's affidavit might as a matter of fact have 
 been faulty ; formally, however, it answered to the stipulations 
 of the act. It was not their duty to inquire into the King's 
 evidence at that stage in the proceedings. Therefore, it was 
 contended they had done right in remanding the lords. 
 
 Having gone into the legal aspects of the matter, the Lords 
 now acted in a manner precisely similar to their action in the 
 Torrington case. They proceeded to make it quite plain 
 what the law was, and framed a resolution with this purpose 
 
 1 Ralph on this subject is guilty of a most extraordinary confusion : 
 ' The judges managed their defence in such a manner as gave Mr. John 
 Hampden occasion to say " that the very same opinions were now 
 delivered for law, which King Charles' and King James' judges were 
 infamous for. It is but a few days ago ", continues he (Short Considera- 
 tions, p. 1 8), " that some of the judges declared in the Lords' House that 
 one witness to a principal treason and another to a circumstance was 
 sufficient to convict a man that is indicted for treason ; which was the 
 worst of all the opinions delivered upon the Bench by the late Chief 
 Justice Jeffreys." ' Ralph, vol. ii, p. 389. As a matter of fact the judges 
 had said nothing of the kind. They said exactly the reverse. History 
 of England during the reigns of William ///, Anne and George /, James 
 Ralph (1744).
 
 72 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 to the effect that for a remand two witnesses were necessary. 
 But there was no insistence upon their being witnesses upon 
 oath. This resolution was agreed to by thirty-five votes to 
 twenty-eight. It must be carefully noticed in the first place, 
 that the Lords were simply stating the judges' own doctrine, 
 and therefore were not ' implying ' as Macaulay would have 
 it they did ' a censure on the Judges of the King's Bench, 
 men certainly not inferior in probity, and very far superior in 
 legal learning, to any peer of the realm 1 ' ; secondly, that the 
 resolution was no assertion of a distinctive privilege on their 
 own behalf. Not a word was said about peers in particular.- 
 It was the right of every freeman, in accordance with the 
 Habeas Corpus Act, that the Lords asserted. In their resolu- 
 tion they asked nothing for themselves which they did not 
 ask for /all ; but in the particular case of the three earls they 
 were not satisfied. The subject was still discussed at length 
 and with heat ; and it was moved that an address should be 
 made to His Majesty for taking the bail off the said lords. 
 This was rendered unnecessary by William's voluntarily con- 
 senting to cancel the recognizances, and thus setting the souls 
 of his nobility at rest. 
 
 The three cases just referred to stand out as being of 
 particular importance ; but privilege cases of varying con- 
 sequence were constantly coming before the House. None 
 were more frequent than those relating to litigation in 
 connexion with estates. It often happened that a peer would 
 at one time agree to waive his privilege and then suddenly 
 resume it. For example, in the case of Cecil v. the Earl of 
 Salisbury, which was proceeding in 1690, the younger brothers 
 of the Earl brought a bill against him in Chancery, wishing 
 to gain their portion under the will of their father. 3 Salisbury 
 consented to waive his privilege when he found it to his 
 advantage to do so, but subsequently insisted upon it when 
 the case seemed likely to go against him. In these circum- 
 
 1 Macaulay, vol. iv, p. 300. 
 
 2 Luttrell is responsible for a misunderstanding on this point (vol. ii, 
 p. 617). 
 
 3 Lords' MSS. i6go-j, No. 336, pp. 185-6.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 73 
 
 stances the Cecils brought up a petition before the House of 
 Lords, with the result that Salisbury was ordered not to insist 
 upon his privilege. In 1685 it had been decided that 
 privilege should not be allowed as a bar to legal proceedings 
 in the case of peers who were acting solely as trustees. 
 Nevertheless, the settlement of estates continued to create 
 difficulties if peers were involved. In March 1696/7 the Earl 
 of Derby was concerned in several such cases. 1 Charlotte 
 Catherine Savage, only child of the late Viscount Colchester, 
 became entitled to ,10,000 by the will of the late Earl Rivers, 
 but she could not obtain her legacy owing to the obstruction 
 of the Earl of Derby. In pursuance of the petition to the 
 House on the subject, Derby was ordered to attend, and then 
 signified his willingness not to insist upon his privilege, either 
 as trustee, or legatee, or executor in trust. Again, the Earl's 
 mother petitions that her son should be made to waive his 
 privilege, because the payment of a dowry is in arrear, and 
 she is largely dependent upon it, and yet can get no satis- 
 faction from the Earl, who is responsible. 2 In the third place 
 the two executors for the late Lord Widdrington pray that 
 the Earl may so far waive his privilege that they may be able 
 to prove the wills both of Widdrington and also of Lord 
 Stanley. 3 An affair of very similar character came before the 
 notice of the House in April i699. 4 Upon the death of the 
 first Duke of Bolton, the Earl of Bridgwater and the other 
 executors tried to prove the will in the Prerogative Court, but 
 were prevented from doing so by the new duke, who had 
 entered a caveat. His Grace's agent and proctor being 
 summoned to show cause, pleaded privilege, and the claim was 
 admitted by the court, to the great detriment of the executors, 
 who had to pay debts and legacies, to discharge servants, &c., 
 none of which could be done until the will had been proved. 
 The House, upon hearing Bridgwatcr's petition, very properly 
 drew up a new Standing Order, ' That no peer of this House 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1695-7, No. 1141, p. 532. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 537, No. 1148, p. 537. 
 s Ibid., p. 536, No. 1144, p. 536. 
 4 Ibid., 7697-9, No. 1446, p. 420.
 
 74 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 hath privilege, whereby any stop or hindrance may or can be 
 given to the proving the will of any person whatsoever.' l 
 
 The judicious inconsistency of peers in connexion with 
 their privileges is well illustrated by a dispute which arose out 
 of the sale of Lord Berkeley of Stratton's house in Piccadilly. 2 
 One morning Berkeley agreed to sell the house to the Duke 
 of Devonshire. The same afternoon he arranged that the 
 Marquis of Normanby should have it. The latter, hearing of 
 the earlier transaction, brought in a bill in Chancery against 
 both Berkeley and Devonshire. Berkeley at once waived his 
 privilege, as after some little delay did Devonshire. A short 
 time later, however, he changed his mind and resumed his 
 privilege. Normanby appealed to the House. The three 
 lords were heard, and an attempt was made to bring them to 
 an agreement by seven of the foremost peers in the land 
 the Lord President, Nottingham, Rochester, Marlborough, 
 Monmouth, Cornwallis, and Godolphin. But the Duke gave 
 considerable trouble. It was proposed that he should be 
 permitted to retain his privilege until the termination of the 
 present parliament, but that after then none of the persons 
 concerned should be permitted to insist. Devonshire found 
 it hard to make up his mind whether he would waive his 
 privilege immediately or not, but eventually decided to 
 do so. 
 
 The celebrated and excessively complicated suit of the 
 Earl of Montague v. the Earl of Bath came before the notice 
 of the Lords on several occasions, as for example during the 
 months of January and February, i6g^/4. 3 An appeal was 
 brought by the Earl of Montague and Elizabeth, Duchess of 
 Albemarle, his wife, against the Earl of Bath. The question 
 at issue was between two wills of the late Duke of Albemarle, 
 the one in favour of the Earl of Bath, the other in favour of 
 the Duchess. Both parties at different stages in the pro- 
 ceedings claimed privilege of Parliament, and so interfered 
 
 1 L.J., vol. xvi, p. 437, April 29, 1699. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1695-7, No. 1067, pp. 259-60. 
 
 3 Lords' MSS. 1693-5, No. 776, p. 331. See also Chandler's History 
 and Proceedings of the House of Lords from 1660 to 1743 (8 vols. 1742-3), 
 vol. i, p. 424.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 75 
 
 with the progress of the case. A third claim in connexion 
 with the Duke's estate was brought forward by one Pride, 
 who complained that he was prevented from maintaining his 
 cause by the use of their privilege made by the two earls. 
 The latter were bidden to waive their privilege 'as to all 
 persons who pretend to any title to the estates '. An after- 
 burden of this notorious case is heard of in 1 699/1700,* when 
 we find the unfortunate Earl of Bath complaining that he had 
 for several years been living in quiet possession of Finchley 
 Park in the county of Southampton, part of the late Duke of 
 Albemarle's estate settled upon himself, when suddenly in 
 October last he had a declaration of ejectment served upon 
 him by one Middleton, agent of William Sherwin. The Earl 
 insisted upon his privilege against a cause carried on for 
 scandal and vexation only (so he declared) in the face of two 
 verdicts at King's Bench, and he prayed the House to take 
 into consideration the breach of privilege : which it did. 
 
 One other case of a similar nature may finally be mentioned. 2 
 It was the result of the quarrel between the Earl of Peterborough 
 and the Duchess of Norfolk, which had been engendered by 
 the circumstances attending the Fenwick trial. The former 
 laid claim to the Duchess's Northamptonshire estates, of which, 
 despite his efforts, the Duchess and her trustees succeeded in 
 retaining possession. The Earl had, however, succeeded in 
 obtaining an injunction for stopping waste. Notwithstanding 
 that her Grace had pleaded her title as heiress and purchaser, 
 this injunction had been continued from time to time at 
 Peterborough's suggestion, and upon his agreeing to proceed 
 to some decision in law and equity next Easter term. In 
 November 1699 the Duchess's servants were employed by the 
 yeomen of the toils in removing some deer from one park to 
 another. In doing so they had occasion to cut down some 
 underwood, not more than i in value, according to her 
 Grace, in a part of Drayton Park, of which Peterborough 
 never had possession. The Earl had moved the Court of 
 Chancery to take the Duchess's servants into custody for 
 
 1 Lords' AfSS. 1699-1702, No. 1485, p. 68. 
 
 2 Ibid., No. 1464, pp. 6-7.
 
 76 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 breach of the injunction. He had failed in this, and so now 
 appealed to the House of Lords, making the case one of 
 breach of privilege. The appeal being made, the House 
 ordered Hoyte, the Duchess's servant responsible for clearing 
 away the wood, to be attached. The Duchess therefore 
 petitioned in his behalf, and Peterborough failing to prove his 
 case, Hoyte was dismissed. This case brought about the 
 addition of two new items to the Standing Orders of the 
 House. 1 They were as follows : 
 
 (1) ' That in case of complaint by any lord of this House, 
 of a breach of privilege, whereupon any person shall be taken 
 into custody for the future ; if the House, upon examination 
 of the matter complained of, shall judge the same to be no 
 breach of privilege, the lord who made the complaint shall 
 pay the fees and expenses of the person so taken into 
 custody.' 
 
 (2) ' That no person shall be taken into custody upon 
 complaint of a breach of privilege, but upon oath made at the 
 bar of the House.' 
 
 Cases such as those already outlined might be multiplied 
 almost indefinitely. They are frequently quite devoid of 
 intrinsic interest ; but taken together they are deserving of 
 considerable notice. For one thing, their great number 
 shows how a good deal of the House's time was occupied. It 
 shows, too, how constant a resource the privileges of the 
 House were whenever a member of it became involved in any 
 difficulties. It was remarkably easy so to speak to assume 
 the magic mantle of peerage and become invisible to the 
 ordinary eye. Certainly it was not always that the claim could 
 be made good or that the House would befriend its member. 
 But there was always the chance that it might, and, at the 
 worst, time was gained. The Chamber could be used as 
 a sort of refuge or asylum, as when Lord Saye and Sele 
 appealed to it with piteous cry to prevent his stepmother 
 from ousting him from his estates during his absence 
 abroad. 2 
 
 1 L.J., vol. xvi, pp. 488-90. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1691-9, No. 1363, pp. 391-2.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 77 
 
 It has to be admitted that for no purpose was parliamentary 
 privilege more valued than for escaping from the payment of 
 lawful debts. Sorbiore sketches the English peer, who has 
 a great rent roll and four houses. 1 He is courteous and civil, 
 obliging and even liberal, something of a philosopher and 
 man of letters. He spends a good deal upon the collection 
 of curios or objects of interest. In fact he is an admirable 
 person altogether ; only he forgets his debts and his creditors. 
 A number of measures were during the reign introduced in 
 the House of Commons for the assistance of creditors. Two 
 of these, viz., the Creditors' Relief (Privileged Places) Bill and 
 the Creditors' Relief (Composition) Bill passed into law in 
 1696/7. But it is noticeable how little anxiety the Lords 
 appear to have shown for them. Time after time, when 
 similar measures, some of general, some of local import, were 
 brought up from the Lower Chamber, they were laid aside, 
 and there were no further proceedings. 2 It looks as though 
 the sympathies of the Peers were all on the side of the debtor. 
 They certainly made at times most discreditable use of their 
 immunity in order to escape from the payment of their debts. 
 Occasionally an arrest might be made, as was the case, for 
 instance, with the Countess of Newport, who was seized on 
 account of her son's debts, he having succumbed to wounds 
 received in His Majesty's service/ 5 The Countess had 
 legitimate grounds for grievance. The arrest was certainly 
 in defiance of her privilege ; and she appears to have been 
 barbarously used into the bargain. On the other hand, there 
 are instances in which no excuse is possible. For example, 
 in December 1696 we find several persons petitioning the 
 House because the Earl of Nottingham, a bad offender, has 
 been indebted to them severally for the last six years, but has 
 continually refused or delayed payment, and the sessions of 
 
 1 Sorbiere, p. 161. 
 
 7 Some of these measures were of local importance only. See, for 
 example, Lords' KISS. i6Sg~<)o, No. 195, pp. 388-92. Norwich Court 
 of Conscience Bill. One principal aim was to put an end to the abuses 
 of VVhitefriars. See Lords' A/SS. i6S<)-go, No. 244, pp. 17-25. The 
 Creditors' Relief (Privileged Places) Bill at last accomplished this. 
 
 * Lords' .1/55. 1699-1702, No. 1527, pp. 121-2.
 
 78 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 parliament have been so frequent that there has been no 
 interval sufficiently long in which to take action against him. 1 
 The petitioners pray for leave to prosecute actions of law 
 against the Earl, or else to sue out originals and summons 
 him thereon and procure a return thereof. The answer to 
 their petition is the Standing Order of December 14, 1696, to 
 the effect that the filing of an original against any lord of this 
 House shall not be taken to be a breach of privilege of 
 parliament. Again, in March 1699/1700 we find a builder 
 named Jackson praying the House that the Duke of Devon- 
 shire may not be permitted to resume his privilege in order to 
 stop a suit which had been brought against him for payment 
 of work due in the building of Chatsworth. 2 In a previous 
 suit the Duke had agreed that in the event of further differ- 
 ences he could waive his privilege. Now, however, he chose 
 to disregard his promise. The case was referred to two 
 committees of privileges, but we hear nothing more of the 
 matter. 
 
 It was, one would have thought, sufficient that peers them- 
 selves should enjoy such choice exemptions as freed them so 
 largely from the clutches of the ordinary tribunal. But the 
 privilege went further than this. The servant was allowed 
 to share in his master's virtue. In other words, the peer 
 communicated his immunity to his dependants. No privilege 
 of the Upper House is more interesting, none was more 
 frequently discussed, none more liable to misuse than this. 
 It has in fairness to be stated that the House was fully 
 alive to the objectionable character of the abuse, and made 
 efforts to regulate the enjoyment of the privilege. In March 
 1690 it ordered lists of protections to be produced by the 
 sheriffs of London and Middlesex, the bailiff of Southwark, 
 the marshal of the Marshalsea, and the steward of West- 
 minster. 3 These lists were considered, and as a result an 
 order was made 'that all protections are to be vacated and 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1695-"}, No. 1092, p. 375. 
 
 2 Ibid. 7699-7702, No. 1531, p. 125. Macky notices of the Duke of 
 Devonshire that he is ' of nice honour in every thing, but the paying 
 his tradesmen '. Macky, p. 40. 
 
 3 Lords' MSS. 7690-7, No. 241, pp. 11-15.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 79 
 
 none allowed but what are entered in the office of the Clerk 
 of the Parliaments '.* The full lists of protections, which was 
 compiled as a result of the investigations made upon this 
 occasion, is of peculiar interest. The total number of those 
 proved by the sheriff of Middlesex is 126, distributed among 
 thirty-four peers and one peeress. The majority of these had 
 granted but one or two apiece, but the Duke of Northumber- 
 land was responsible for nine, and Lord Morley and Mount- 
 eagle for as many as fifty-four. Of the latter, all but nine 
 had to be withdrawn. 
 
 As an example of the scandals which were apt to arise 
 from the granting of protections we may take a case in which 
 the Earl of Lincoln was concerned. 2 Some one, named Dixon, 
 presented a petition to the House, complaining that he had 
 without any legal warrant or process been seized by the Earl 
 and imprisoned for certain misdemeanours of a trivial character, 
 and kept in confinement by a certain James Taylor. The 
 chief contriver of his misfortunes was a woman, named Anne 
 Lamb. Yet Dixon was unable to proceed against either her 
 or Taylor because they were ' protected ' by the Earl. The 
 affair was so outrageous that a serious, though unsuccessful, 
 effort was made at the time to deal with the abuse which 
 rendered such episodes possible. On December 12, 1690 the 
 whole House was put into committee to consider the general 
 question. It was proposed that all lords who gave irregular 
 protections should either be reprimanded or sent to the Tower. 
 The proposal came to nothing. Indeed, it was not until the 
 27th that anything further of moment was done in the matter. 
 On that date the House was moved ' that all Protections be 
 vacated, that the Lords declare they will never give any more 
 but to their menial servants '. 3 But this motion met with no 
 better success than the other, and even the record of it was 
 cancelled. And although Dixon's case was heard, still on the 
 question whether written protections should be granted in 
 future, it was resolved in the affirmative by forty-three to 
 
 1 /../., vol. xiv, p. 441, March 18, 1690. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. f6yo-f, No. 372, pp. 231-4. 
 
 3 L.J., vol. xiv, p. 607, December 27.
 
 8o PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 twenty-five. In these circumstances it was useless to expect 
 that the misuse of a valued privilege should be discontinued. 
 George Wilson complained to the House that in the counties 
 of Lancaster, York, and Westmoreland there were sixty 
 persons who produced protections from Lord Morley, though 
 none of them had been entered by the Clerk of the House. 1 
 In fact, the petitioner went on to state, ' in the town of Hornby, 
 where his lordship lives, no sheriffs officer dare attempt to 
 arrest any inhabitant without his lordship's license first had, 
 several bailiffs who have attempted to do so, having been 
 whipped and put in the stocks by his lordship's order.' Another 
 witness said that Hornby had the name of the Whitefriars, as 
 the result of Lord Morley's wholesale distribution of protections. 
 This makes rather a striking picture of aristocratic influence in 
 distant counties ! As a result of the case Lord Morley was 
 bidden to ask pardon of the House, and was committed to the 
 Tower, where, however, he stayed only a week or two. It was 
 only to be expected that as their protectors made use of their 
 privilege to escape the payment of their debts, those protected 
 would follow their example. James Howard, a relative of the 
 Duke of Norfolk, though a man of substance, for years made 
 use of illegal means to defraud his creditors, and when at last 
 a warrant for arrest had been obtained produced a protection 
 from his noble relative and was discharged. 2 There was 
 indeed a potential Whitefriars on every nobleman's domain. 
 
 A secondary abuse which arose out of the system was the 
 counterfeiting of protections. A case early in the reign drew 
 attention to a gross scandal. 3 A counterfeit protection came 
 to the notice of the Lords, which purported to emanate from 
 Lord Kingston, and was said to have been given by him to 
 a surgeon called Kirby. The evidence showed that as a matter 
 of fact the latter had, in order to escape his creditors, bought 
 the forgery from two men, one of whom confessed to having 
 disposed of a similar counterfeit for 2. 
 
 A petition presented to the House in 1699 may be cited, 
 
 1 Lords' MSS, 1 692-3, No. 514, pp. 7-8. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. '695-7, No. 1098, p. 380. 
 
 3 Ibid. i 690-1, No. 251, pp. 27-9.
 
 IV OF THE HOUSE 81 
 
 because the circumstances are of a different kind from any of 
 those which have yet been mentioned. 1 It reveals a really 
 intolerable state of things. Susannah, wife of John Harrington, 
 has taken out a process against her husband in the Consistory 
 Court of the Bishop of London, to answer a cause of separa- 
 tion or divorce by reason of cruelty and adultery, and for 
 alimony, but John refuses to appear, exhibiting a protection 
 from the Earl of Warrington, upon which the Court has 
 declined to proceed. Petitioner prays that the protection 
 may be set aside, as she is thus forced to live with an adulterous 
 husband or to live away from him unalimented and perish 
 through want, although she had brought him nearly 2,500. 
 The House read the petition and rejected it, ' it appearing 
 that the said John Harrington was a servant to the Earl of 
 Warrington and had been so for some years '. 2 
 
 It is true that the Lords were fully alive to the abuses to 
 which their privileges were apt to lead. But even if they 
 did not personally benefit by it, a privilege was a privilege, 
 and as such it was hard to give up. Nevertheless, the House 
 was frequently engaged in discussing means by which abuses 
 might be prevented and in putting a stop to all irregularities. 
 Efforts were made to restrict the use of protections to menial 
 servants only of peers. An order was entered in the Journals 
 in November 1691, by which it was decreed that no attorney 
 or solicitor should be entitled to privilege. 3 Notwithstanding 
 this, there seems to have still lingered some doubt on the 
 subject, for in December 1692 the Earl of Oxford desires 
 the opinion of the House whether he may protect his solicitor, 
 who is a person that he can trust in his business ; 4 and in 
 1696 the question was broached once more, when the Earl 
 of Derby complained that his steward had been committed 
 to the Fleet prison. 5 The point at issue was whether his 
 lordship's agent was to be regarded as an attorney. This 
 was the view ultimately taken by the House, though even 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1697-9, No. 1152, pp. 541-2. 
 
 2 L.J., vol. xvi, p. 138. 
 
 s See Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 423, p. 283. 
 4 Ibid., 1692-3, No. 6 1 8, pp. 248-9. 
 8 Ibid. 7695-7, No. 1065, pp. 251-3. 
 
 1626.1 (',
 
 8a PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 then it was probably by no means easy to satisfy Lord Derby's 
 counsel, who could not see why an attorney, in serving a 
 nobleman, was unfit to have privilege. 
 
 More important than any such restriction as the exclusion 
 of lawyers from the benefit of protection, was a general rule 
 laid down in April 1694 as the result of a case involving the 
 Duke of Southampton's privilege. 1 Richard Shelmer petitioned 
 on his own behalf and on behalf of his attorney and of the 
 bailiff of the sheriff of Middlesex. The petitioner had been 
 owed a debt amounting to 200 by George Elwes, who had 
 absconded. Having heard that Elwes claimed a protection, 
 he had searched the Parliament Book, and not finding any 
 such protection there, he had had Elwes arrested. There- 
 upon the latter produced an obsolete protection signed by 
 the Duke. When the case was brought before them, the 
 Lords resolved that the arrest was a breach of privilege, but 
 they followed this up by framing an important order to the 
 effect that any protection was void unless it had been entered 
 ten days before the end of the session. 2 Another important 
 order made to regulate protections required ' that no lord 
 shall enter any written protections in the book of protections, 
 until after he shall have personally attended this House in the 
 same session of parliament '. The Duke of Norfolk thought it 
 incumbent upon him to append his solitary signature to a pro- 
 test against the order. He considered that ' to take away any 
 part of the undoubted privileges of the peerage by a vote in 
 a pretty thin House, particularly when it had actually been 
 moved by a member on behalf of absentees that a day might 
 be appointed for the discussion of a matter so nearly concerning 
 them, seemed in the manner of it to make too light of what 
 their House ought to esteem so sacred as the privileges of the 
 Peerage of England.' 3 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1693-5, No. 856, pp. 891-2. 
 
 * L.J., vol. xv, p. 422. 
 
 5 J. E. Thorold Rogers, Complete Collection of the Protests of the 
 Lords (Oxford, 1875), vol. i, p. 115. It will also be found printed in 
 vol. iii, p. 483, of A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England 
 from the year 1668 to the Present Time (Dublin ; reprinted London, 
 John Torbeck, 14 vols., 1741).
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 83 
 
 These being the Duke's sentiments, it would have been in- 
 teresting to know what he thought of the attempt which the 
 House made in the late months of 1696 to deal with the diffi- 
 culties with which creditors met in consequence of peers' privi- 
 leges enjoyed either by themselves or by their servants. At this 
 date the case of Nottingham and one or two others, in which 
 protections had been utilized by commoners in order to evade 
 their debts, had brought the problem prominently forward. 
 One in particular had come under the notice of the Commons, 
 who on November 30 decided nem. con. that no member of 
 their own body should have any privilege save for his own 
 person only. 1 They communicated this decision to the Lords, 
 at the same time asking for a conference, which was granted. 
 As a result the Upper House on December 20 appointed 
 a select committee to consider heads for a bill upon the 
 subject. 2 Next day the Lord Chief Justice of the King's 
 Bench and Mr. Justice Powell were directed to draw up 
 a bill upon the following heads : (i) That all privileges, except 
 personal privileges, shall be taken away during the sitting of 
 Parliament. (2) That there be the same process at Common 
 Law against a commoner, sitting in Parliament, as against 
 a peer out of Parliament. (3) That if the trial must necessarily 
 be in the country, then privilege shall prohibit the same as it 
 does now; but if at the bar, then no privilege to be allowed, 
 because it is near the place where the Parliament sits. This 
 bill was truly of an epoch-making character. But it never 
 became law. The first clause was rejected by 40 voices to 22. 
 Subsequently it was ordered that the bill should not be 
 engrossed, and thus unsuccessfully ended the first attempt to 
 deal with the problem of how to recover debts from privileged 
 persons. 
 
 In May 1701 a new bill for the greater ease of the subjects 
 in recovering their just debts was introduced in the Upper 
 House ; but it was laid aside in favour of a bill of the same 
 purpose, originating in the Commons. 3 The stipulations of 
 
 1 C.J., vol. vi, p. 642. 
 
 -' Lords' MSS. 1695-7, No. 1089, pp. 371-2. 
 
 3 Ibid. 2699-1702, No. 1643, pp. 363-4. 
 
 G 2
 
 84 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 the Commons' proposal did not differ materially from those 
 included in the Lords' recent measure, but they were somewhat 
 fuller. It is to be observed that neither of these two later 
 bills were as stringent as that of 1696, for in the measures of 
 1701 it was still forbidden to commence an action against any 
 member of either House or any privileged person during 
 session of Parliament or during adjournment lasting less 
 than a fortnight. 1 The last provision was an addition made 
 by the Lords, whose amendments were accepted by the 
 Commons ; the bill thus passing both Houses and becoming 
 law on June 12. That the new act was a boon, notwith- 
 standing the restrictions contained in it, cannot be doubted. 
 The advantages which accrued from it were further reinforced 
 in 1711 when the House of Lords entered a Standing Order in 
 their Journals, abolishing protections altogether. 
 
 A privilege which the Peers share with the Lower House is 
 that of control over the composition of their own Chamber ; 
 although in this connexion it has to be remembered that it is 
 a prerogative of the Crown to decide claims to peerages, which 
 are, however, as an almost invariable rule referred to the House 
 for decision. Two claims to peerages during the reign of 
 William III received a great deal of attention in the writings 
 of contemporaries, viz. those of Charles Knowles to the 
 earldom of Banbury and of Sir Richard Verney to the barony 
 of Broke. Knowles was arrested for killing his brother-in-law 
 in a duel, and was thrown into Newgate. 2 Two bills of 
 murder were preferred against him, the one as against a 
 commoner, the other as against an earl ; and the trial was 
 postponed until the question as to whether the prisoner 
 was peer or commoner had been decided. Knowles petitioned 
 the House of Lords that he might be tried by them as a peer. 
 Into the question of the validity of the claim to the earldom 
 of Banbury it is not necessary to go. It may, however, be 
 remarked that the King expressed surprise so the Attorney- 
 
 1 See Statutes at Large, vol. iv, p. 59, Anno 12 W. Ill, cap. iii. ' An 
 Act for preventing any Inconvenience that may happen by Privilege of 
 Parliament.' 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 631, pp. 267-71. See foot-note on p. 267.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 85 
 
 General informed the House that any one should come to 
 ask to be tried as a peer before he had asked the King for 
 a writ of summons. The House decided against the claim. 1 
 The case of Sir Richard Verney was a good deal more com- 
 plicated. 2 The pedigree was not disputed. The question 
 turned upon the descent of the barony, created by writ in 
 1492, to co-heiresses thirty years later. What became of the 
 honour in this case ? On the one hand, it was contended 
 that an honour could not be lost save by attainder ; on the 
 other, the Attorney-General argued that the barony by writ 
 could not go by inheritance. It reverts to the Crown. If 
 the King chooses to renew it in the family he may do so ; 
 but descendants have no right in the matter. The case was 
 decided against Sir Richard Verney. But this query was put 
 by certain lords interested in the case : What happens when 
 a person summoned to Parliament by writ, and sitting there, 
 dies leaving two or more daughters, who also die, the issue of 
 one of them surviving ? In January 1 695/6 Verney propounded 
 a new claim, basing it upon his right as descendant of the sole 
 issue of one of the co-heiresses. The title which he now 
 claimed was that of Lord Willoughby de Broke. The King's 
 counsel argued that the former decision of the House was 
 a bar against the new demand. The claimant was either 
 Lord Broke or Sir Richard Verney. The original claimant 
 had been referred to in the Journals as ' Dominus Broke '. 
 But the petitioner in his second venture had two points in his 
 favour ; first, the disarming of the opposition of the existing 
 Lord Broke by the change of title, and secondly, an array of 
 precedents laid before the House by his counsel, Sir Thomas 
 Powys : and this time he succeeded in making good his 
 claim. 3 
 
 A problem of some perplexity taxed the minds of lords at 
 the time when the first Verney claim was being discussed. 
 The question, as put to the committee of privileges, was whether 
 
 1 /../> v l- xv > P- J 87 January 17, 1692-3. 
 J Lordf AfSS. t693~5, No. 859, pp. 403-10. 
 
 s /../., vol. xv, p. 668. Lord Willoughby de Broke took his scat, 
 February 27, 1695/6. Ibid. p. 684.
 
 86 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 the son of a peer's son, called by writ into his father's barony, 
 becomes a peer on his father's death. 1 It is so ambiguously 
 expressed that the general is best explained in terms of the 
 particular. The son of the Earl of Burlington had been 
 summoned to the House of Lords as Lord Clifford of Lanes- 
 borough. He died in his father's lifetime. Did his son, 
 grandson of Burlington, become a peer on his father's death ? 
 The committee was unable to discover any precedent in the 
 Journals; but the House after debate agreed that Charles 
 Lord Clifford, son and heir of the late Lord Clifford of Lanes- 
 borough, had a right to a writ of summons to parliament. 
 Accordingly he took his seat next day. 2 A few months after 
 this the minds of noble lords recurred to the subtle question 
 which had been propounded to them, and some person or 
 persons thought it well that Lord Clifford's claim should be 
 formally explained. The House adjourned the consideration 
 of the matter, arranged that the judges should attend and that 
 the Attorney- General should be heard. Apparently, however, 
 they fought shy of their self-appointed task, for there appear 
 to have been no further proceedings on the subject. 
 
 A distinctive privilege of the Lords, one not shared by the 
 Commons, was the right of voting by proxy. Like most 
 other privileges it was liable to abuse and apt to create 
 difficulties. For instance, a proxy might be used contrary 
 to the wishes of the principal. The Earl of Chesterfield in 
 1689 gave his proxy into the hands of the Earl of Mulgrave, 
 only to find that, a hundred miles distant as he was from 
 Westminster, he was made to differ from those friends to 
 whose judgment, had he been on the spot, he would probably 
 have submitted his own. 3 He had been much deceived so 
 he said in the character of Mulgrave. There were certain 
 restrictions on the use of proxies, some of which were re- 
 cognized, others of which were questioned. A curious situation 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1693-3, No. 843, p. 393. 
 
 3 L.J., vol. xv, p. 488, November 21, 1694. See on the Verneycase and 
 the question of peerages falling into abeyance, Pike, p. 135. The doctrine 
 of abeyance was first recognized in the case of Lord Windsor in the reign 
 of Charles II. Pike, p. 133. 
 
 8 Letters of Chesterfield, p. 352.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 87 
 
 arose in connexion with the use of proxies in the proceedings 
 in the Norfolk Divorce case in February 169 1/2. l In its 
 earlier stages one or two divisions were determined by 
 proxies. For example, on February 12, the motion for 
 adjournment was lost, although those present in favour num- 
 bered thirty-two and those against were only thirty. The 
 contents could, however, muster ten proxies only ; the non- 
 contents had fourteen. Despite the fact that proxies had 
 been used and had actually, as in this case, turned the scale in 
 divisions, it was on February 16 moved to consider whether 
 they should be allowed at all in connexion with this bill. 
 After debate the question was formally put, to be met by the 
 counter-motion of the previous question, whether this question 
 should now be put. It was decided in the affirmative by three 
 votes only, the contents including nine proxies, the non- 
 contents seventeen. The main question was then put and 
 carried by thirteen votes against the use of proxies. 2 Obviously 
 this situation involved an anomaly. For, as the lords who 
 protested very aptly objected, it was absurd for those to use 
 proxies who were voting against the use of proxies. Two 
 other reasons were propounded in the protest. First, voting 
 by proxy was an inherent right of peerage, and therefore could 
 not be taken away by a chance vote in the House ; secondly, 
 those who were interested in the matter had not been heard. 
 It was unfair that those who wished to retain a right, which 
 they considered inherent in their rank, should be deprived of 
 it by those who did not value it. After the decision of the 
 House on this occasion, it is curious to find that when the 
 second Norfolk Divorce Bill was thrown out, seven proxies 
 were used in the division, four on one side, three on the other. 3 
 It was a question whether proxies, which might be used in 
 the preliminary business, could be made use of in the final 
 decision on bills of a judicial nature, or indeed, whether in 
 such cases they ought to be used at all. Standing Order CIX 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 524, pp. 23-4. See also Chandler's Lords' 
 Debates, vol. i, p. 409. 
 
 2 The main question itself was voted on without the use of proxies. 
 L. /., vol. xv, p. 78. February 16. 
 
 * Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 642, p. 279.
 
 88 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 forbade their use altogether during judicial proceedings. The 
 matter came up in connexion with the trial of Buncombe, 
 when the bill for his punishment was rejected by a single 
 voice. 1 There being a number of peers absent, it was pro- 
 posed that their opinions should be taken by proxy. It was, 
 however, resolved that not only in this case, but in the future 
 generally, no proxies should be taken at all in judicial pro- 
 ceedings. Another regulation regarding the use of the privilege 
 was made in March 1696/7, when an order was made 'that no 
 proxy entered in the Books after Prayers shall be made use of 
 the same day ', 2 and this was added to the Standing Orders 
 of the House in January, 1702/3. 
 
 The right of entering formal protests against decisions of the 
 House was constantly exercised throughout the reign. There 
 were few interesting debates in connexion with which no 
 protests are to be found. As to the value of being able to set 
 on record one's disapproval of one's comrades' opinions there 
 may be some doubt. Once or twice, after a protest had been 
 entered in the Journals, it was subsequently deleted by order 
 of the House. This only occurred when the ' reasons ' given 
 by the dissentients were particularly obnoxious to the majority. 
 Still, it is true that the right of protest the right of a minority 
 was always dependent upon the good will of the majority. 
 There was no fundamental law sustaining the privilege of 
 ' entering dissents ' ; so that if a majority in the House chose 
 to order that the records of a protest should be expunged, it 
 could always do so. This fact deducts somewhat from the 
 value, however great it may be held to be, of the privilege of 
 protesting. 
 
 The list of Peers' privileges may be concluded with the 
 brief mention of three others. First, when search was made 
 for conventicles or prohibited books, the house of a peer could 
 not be entered by the officers of justice save with a warrant 
 signed by the King's own hand and the hands of six of his 
 
 1 See Dispatches of L'Hermitage in State Correspondence between 
 England and the Netherlands, MS. transcripts in the British Museum. 
 Add. MSS. 16,677, vol. N.N., p. 191, March 15-25, 1697-8. 
 
 2 L.J., vol. xvi, p. 130, March 20, 1696-7.
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 89 
 
 privy councillors, of whom four must be peers. Secondly, the 
 peers enjoy the right of personal access to the Sovereign. 
 Thirdly to quote Chamberlayne 'The Laws of England 
 are so tender of the honour, credit, reputation and persons of 
 noblemen, that there is a statute on purpose to hinder all 
 offences by false reports, whereby any scandals to their persons 
 may arise, of debate and discord between them and the 
 commons ; and because it is to defend not only lay lords, 
 but bishops and all great officers of this realm, it is called 
 scandalum magnatmn. 1 Libel was particularly heinous when 
 it attacked the sacred dignity of the peerage. The lords 
 themselves took care in Parliament to make clear the superiority 
 of the lord over the mere commoner, of the Upper over the 
 Lower House. The rules which they themselves framed upon 
 the subject of conferences between the two Chambers run as 
 follows : ' The place of our meeting with the Lower House 
 upon conference is usually the Painted Chamber, where they 
 are commonly, before we come, and expect our leisure. We 
 are to come hither in a whole body, and not some lords 
 scattering before the rest, which both takes from the gravity 
 of the Lords, and besides may hinder the Lords from taking 
 their proper places. We are to sit there, and be covered ; but 
 they are at no committee or conference either to be covered, 
 or sit down in our presence, unless it be some infirm person, 
 and that by contrivance in a corner out of sight, but not 
 covered.' 2 
 
 Always rights should imply duties. We have seen that the 
 English peerage owe their rights to their being members of 
 a political, not a social body, to their position in days gone 
 by as counsellors of the Crown, servants of the realm, bearers 
 of the nation's burdens. Secondly, the House in its corporate 
 capacity has always assumed control over its members. One 
 of the essential ideas of the trial of peers by their peers is that 
 they are peculiarly responsible for their actions to their fellows. 
 
 1 Chamberlayne's Angliae Notitia (for 1692), p. 22. 
 
 2 See T. Krskine May's Parliamentary J'r<ii/iic(ioih ed. 1893), p. 419. 
 Also Edward I'orritt's The Unreformcd House of Commons (Cambridge, 
 1903), vol. ii, p. 588.
 
 90 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 When the House had official notification of a quarrel between 
 Lord Granville and Lord Kiveton, it ordered the arrest of 
 both parties. 1 It might have been well had the superintend- 
 ence of the House over some of its younger and more turbulent 
 members been stricter than it was. Particular mention should 
 be made of one way in which the House endeavoured to exert 
 disciplinary powers over members, viz., in endeavouring to 
 enforce attendance. Even in the later years of the seventeenth 
 century there were excuses for non-attendance. Locomotion 
 was difficult at a time when roads were exceedingly bad and 
 the effect of unfavourable weather upon them very severe. 
 Lengthy sessions were greatly disliked by both Houses. 
 London in the heat of summer was often very unpleasant, and 
 the list of casualties was apt to be heavy when the session 
 was prolonged in the summer months. 2 The call of the 
 country with its freshness and purity was in such circumstances 
 exceedingly alluring. 
 
 It must be confessed that the House was often very per- 
 emptory indeed in its messages desiring the attendance of 
 absent members, and difficult to satisfy. No doubt there was 
 sometimes good reason to suspect the genuineness of the 
 excuses made. At times they were of the most piteous 
 description. Chesterfield was an offender more than once. 
 Summoned to appear in the House in November 1689, he 
 thus writes to Halifax : 
 
 I confess I do think this very hard ; for since a man who is 
 not well does not sometimes know himself whether he is able 
 to undertake such a journey, how can he honestly send two 
 persons to swear that they believe he is not in a condition to 
 come up ? Besides this is but a late custom ; and when I 
 moved the House last session to have it renewed, it was upon 
 a change of government, to oblige all the peers to come and 
 take a new oath to a new master. But now that the kingdom 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 2690-1, No. 309, pp. 150-1. 
 
 2 See MSS. of Earl Cowper at Melbourne House (Hist. MSS. Comm. 
 Rep. xii, App. pt. i), vol. ii, p. 40. Charles Davenant to Thomas Coke, 
 ' . . . though it be now sixteen years ago I still bear in memory the evil 
 smells descending from the small apartments adjoining the Speaker's 
 chamber, which came into the House with irresistible force when the 
 weather was hot.'
 
 iv OF THE HOUSE 91 
 
 is so well settled, I cannot conceive why your Lordships 
 should endanger us poor country lords and our servants, by 
 tempting them to forswear themselves'. 1 
 
 Chesterfield was once more in difficulties in November 1696, 
 when the House took special means to ensure the presence of 
 all its members so far as possible, to discuss the Fenwick case. 
 It was ordered first, 'that such lords as do not attend the 
 service of the House, by a day to be appointed, shall be sent 
 for in custody ; ' and secondly, ' that no lord absent himself 
 from the service of the House [by being out of town] without 
 the leave of the House, upon pain of being sent for in custody, 
 and that no such leave be asked for, but between the hours of 
 12 and a of the clock.' 2 Chesterfield was at this time very 
 seriously indisposed, and the demand made him indignant. 
 4 1 must say ', he exclaims, ' they [the House] seem to usurp 
 a power, by bidding a sick man to take up his bed and walk, 
 which I never heard belonged to any body but Jesus Christ.' 3 
 
 Upon this occasion there were a number of other peers in 
 the same predicament with Chesterfield. The aged and infirm 
 Earl of Berkshire was excused, as were one or two others, on 
 the grounds of advanced years or dangerous illness. But the 
 House was not easily propitiated. The Earl of Rutland, 
 although he declared that a journey to Westminster would 
 hazard his life, was not excused. The Duke of Bolton was in 
 very ill health, plagued with dyspepsia, could ' not digest the 
 least bit of meat'; he was afraid he could not arrive at the 
 proper time, but would endeavour to reach the House on 
 the 2jth. The answer of the Lords was that unless he 
 succeeded in carrying out his intentions and arrived not later 
 than the 26th, he should be taken into custody. Particularly 
 unfortunate was the Duke of Beaufort, who seems to have 
 experienced considerable difficulty in persuading the House 
 of the reality of his ailments. When summoned, he sent 
 a letter of excuse, with which he enclosed a certificate from 
 his physician. But this did not satisfy. He was sent for 
 
 ' letters of Chesterfield, p. 352. 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 7695-7, N- I 7 I > P- -63. 
 
 s Letters of Chesterfield, p. 374.
 
 92 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES CHAP. 
 
 in custody. This elicited a dolorous protest from the Duke, 
 who felt himself much aggrieved. He was surprised that the 
 House should be so ready to take away the liberty of one 
 of its members. It was punishment enough not to be able to 
 sit with his brothers ; but to be punished for this punishment 
 was hard indeed. He owed it to himself and his family not 
 to endanger his life or at least court pain by abandoning 
 Bristol waters and setting forth on so long a journey. 1 Such 
 instances as these serve to indicate the strictness which the 
 House could show upon occasion. The Fenwick case does 
 not stand alone. Similar severity had been shown in con- 
 nexion with the first Mohun trial. Early in the proceedings 
 it was moved that all the lords then present should attend on 
 the morrow, and that if any were absent he should be sent 
 to the Tower. The motion was lost by a substantial margin, 
 but the next day the subject of attendance was revived, and 
 a stringent order was brought in. 2 The four lords who had 
 left the House on Tuesday during the trial and had gone out 
 of the court before the summing up of the evidence and before 
 the adjournment were to be fined 100 each. 3 Eventually the 
 fine was exacted from Ailesbury only. 4 Still the action of the 
 House was undoubtedly severe. In days before the advent 
 of the party whip, when the privilege of voting by proxy was in 
 itself a temptation to absenteeism, frequent calls of the House 
 and occasional measures of severity were justified. 5 
 
 1 Cf. Lords' MSS. 1689-90, Nos. 9 and 21, pp. 13-14 and 37-9. The 
 excuses of Bancroft and the Bishop of St. David's for non-attendance 
 were not considered satisfactory. A cancelled entry (p. 39) in MS. 
 Minutes for March 22 states, ' Ordered that this House shall be called 
 ten days hence, and that all peers that do not attend shall be fined ,500.' 
 
 2 L.J., vol. xv, p. 211. 
 
 3 Luttrell, vol. iii, p. 27. January 31, 1692-3. 
 
 4 Ibid., p. 30. February 4. 
 
 6 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 603, p. 122. A letter from Lord Ferrers. 
 4 My Lord, I reseved y e six and twentieth of this monnth your Lord 9 ?, of 
 y one and twentieth, by which you acquant me that unles I attend y e 
 house ye fifth of December I shall incur y farther displeasure of ye 
 House (if sicknes do not prevent me) which I thanke God I can not 
 aledg, but I can this in excuse of my past absence, that having a Proxe 
 allowed of and in such good hands as my vote wold not be beter given by 
 my presence, did not thinke my selve as altogether absent, which made 
 me on y account of sum exterordinary famaly bisnes defer my attendance 
 and y same still remaning I hope there Lord 8 !' 8 , will grant me sum longer
 
 rv OF THE HOUSE 93 
 
 A very interesting proposal was made in October 1690, 
 whose object was to enforce the attendance of lords, the House 
 being in committee with that purpose. 1 Precedents for fining 
 absent peers were read. It was then proposed ' That any 
 lords that shall omit their attendance here one session of 
 Parliament shall lose the privilege of parliament. A fine to 
 be on all the lords alike.' A sum of 100 was proposed and 
 agreed to, and it was resolved that no privilege should be 
 allowed against the execution of such a sentence. The Earl 
 of Bridgwater reported the results of the committee's consulta- 
 tions, but there were no further proceedings. Still, the incident 
 would be significant even if it stood alone ; but, as we have 
 seen, it does not. The proposal of 1690 can be paralleled by 
 the order actually made in 1694 with regard to protections, 
 to which reference has already been made. Let it be admitted 
 that individual peers often abused their privileges and set too 
 great store by them. On the other hand, the House as a 
 corporate body was a court of appeal against its own members, 
 if they offended ; it possessed and exercised disciplinary 
 powers which kept the abuse of privileges in check. 
 
 time, which request I desier your Lord 8 i>". will make for me in ye most 
 prevaling terms you can.' To Sir R. Atkyns, Speaker of the House of 
 Lords. 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 314, p. 153.
 
 CHAPTER V 
 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE 
 
 ONCE when two toleration bills lay before the House of 
 Commons, one their own, the other from the Second Chamber, 
 Mr. Hampden, junior, who opened the debate, reminded his 
 hearers that as a rule in such circumstances they selected the 
 bill from the Upper House. ' You always ', he said, ' respect 
 a bill from the Lords, the judges and bishops being there 
 present.' l The frequent, indeed the almost constant, presence 
 of members of the judicial bench in the House of Lords is 
 a very interesting feature. Negligence in attendance on the 
 part of the judges once led to a very severe reprimand from 
 the Lord Keeper, and it was ordered that two of the judges 
 at least should be present in the Lords every day during 
 term time. 2 It may seem rather an exorbitant demand that 
 the judges should attend the pleasure of the Peers as well 
 as perform their ordinary functions in the courts. It has, 
 on the other hand, to be remembered that the Upper 
 House was no great distance from Westminster Hall. The 
 judges were virtually on the spot. The Lords also expected 
 to receive the advice of the Attorney-General. 3 The Peers 
 could always obtain the very best possible advice on the legal 
 aspect of all matters which came before their notice. They 
 
 1 Debates of the House of Commons, Auchitell Grey (London, 1703), vol. 
 ix, p. 252. 
 
 2 L.J., vol. xv, p. 364. February 9, 1693-4, ' I am commanded by the 
 House, to tell you, you have the honour to be the assistants here ; and 
 the House takes notice of your great negligence in your attendance. You 
 have had sometimes warning given you, though not with so much 
 solemnity as I am directed now to do it. If this fault be not amended 
 for the future, the House will proceed with great severity against you.' 
 
 3 When in connexion with the Banbury peerage case the Solicitor- 
 General appeared in place of the Attorney, objection was raised to the 
 substitution and measures were proposed for securing that in future the 
 Attorney- General should always bean assistant to the House. See Lords' 
 MSS. 1692-3, No. 631, p. 268.
 
 CHAP.V THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 95 
 
 availed themselves of the expert knowledge at their disposal 
 in the drafting of bills, the most important being as a rule 
 drawn up by the judges. Hence the significance of 
 Mr. Hampden's argument that bills originating in the Upper 
 House had a special authority as coming from the judicial 
 chamber. So far as the mere legal framework went, there 
 was a presumption that such measures would be superior to 
 those of the Commons. 
 
 The House of Lords would have had a certain judicial 
 appearance in any case simply because of the presence in it 
 of judicial functionaries ; but the judicial atmosphere was 
 derivative chiefly from the Lords' possession of judicial powers. 
 The original identity of the Parliamentum with the Magnum 
 Concilium had meant that, when the Council became differ- 
 entiated from the Parliament and separate law courts were 
 established, such judicial powers as remained to Parliament 
 were possessed by the Lords and not by the Commons. The 
 ever-increasing activity and influence of the courts of justice, 
 the use by Tudor sovereigns of new and extraordinary courts, 
 the rise to political power of new official classes were all factors 
 leading to the gradual loss of judicial authority by the Peers. 
 But under the Stuarts, particularly in the reigns of Charles I 
 and Charles II, the Lords made a number of spasmodic efforts 
 to revive their jurisdiction. 1 In the latter reign one or two 
 cases of exceptional importance gave rise to exceedingly bitter 
 quarrels between the two Houses. These concerned both the 
 original jurisdiction of the Lords, as in the celebrated case of 
 Skinner v. the East India Company and in the Fitzharris case, 
 and also the appellate jurisdiction of the House, as in the case 
 of Shirley v. Fagg. It may be said that the authority of the 
 Upper House as a court of first instance terminates with the 
 case of Skinner. Indecisive as the results of this case were, it 
 was clear that the Peers would always have very great difficulty 
 in maintaining their claim. Moreover, the opportunities for 
 doing so could in the nature of things be only very infrequent. 
 
 Quite different was the result of the case of Shirley, in 
 
 1 L. O. Pike, p. 231.
 
 96 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 connexion with which the Commons had denied that there 
 lay any appeal from the Court of Chancery to the House of 
 Lords. The proceedings in the cases of Skinner and Shirley 
 v. Fagg were somewhat similar. In each the Lords remained 
 obdurate in the defence of what they considered their un- 
 doubted right. In each the Commons refused to withdraw 
 their objections. But in the latter case it was the Peers that 
 won. The petition of Dr. Shirley was not pursued to the 
 bitter end. The particular case dropped, but others of a like 
 nature followed, and the Lords exercised without protest their 
 appellate jurisdiction in cases of equity. Still, the question 
 was evidently regarded as one which was not quite satisfactorily 
 settled. A good act of parliament which should define the 
 position of the Court of Chancery quite clearly was in some 
 quarters thought to be needed. Atkyns dedicates his treatise 
 on the subject to the House of Peers, as being the last resort 
 in cases of equity as in those of common law. 1 - 2 
 
 Appeals upon writs of error are of fairly frequent occur- 
 rence, as the most cursory examination of the Journals of the 
 Second Chamber will show. They are usually of no great 
 intrinsic interest or consequence ; and it is only the fact of 
 their frequency that is to be noticed. The House was con- 
 stantly occupied with purely judicial questions especially 
 appeals. These cases almost invariably called for the presence 
 of the judges, who had to deliver their decisions upon points of 
 law. Occasionally they took up a considerable time, as for 
 example did one in which Isabella, Duchess of Grafton, was 
 concerned in 1693. It lasted six days, at the end of which the 
 
 1 See An Inquiry into the Jurisdiction of the Chancery in Causes of 
 Equity, by Chief-Baron Atkyns (1695). 
 
 2 Pike, p. 297 : ' It has often been questioned by lawyers of eminence 
 whether the jurisdiction really belonged to the House of Lords, without 
 any special commission of the sovereign, such as there was in the case of 
 a writ of error to rectify judgment in a court of common law. The point 
 is one which has reference to form rather than to substance. The Parlia- 
 ment, in the sense of the King, Lords, Judges, and high officers of State, 
 was the original fountain of justice from which flowed remedies not to be 
 obtained elsewhere. It might have been technically incorrect to address 
 a petition in the nature of an appeal to the Lords alone, but hardly more 
 incorrect than to address a petition in the first instance to the Chancellor 
 alone.'
 
 v OF THE HOUSK 97 
 
 Duchess, being sensible of the trouble she had given their 
 lordships, withdrew her petition. 1 The roll of the House was 
 called over on more than one occasion, and it was ordered on 
 the 2Oth of December that all those peers who had been present 
 when the case was first brought before the House should 
 attend on the morrow. The ordinary peer, layman as he was 
 in legal matters, might at any time be summoned to act as 
 judge of the judges. 
 
 Of greater interest than these numerous miscellaneous cases 
 is the appeal made by the Society of Ulster in 1697. The 
 circumstances were somewhat complex, involving a dispute 
 between the society which had built Londonderry and Coleraine 
 in earlier days and the Bishop of Deny. 2 The latter had 
 made an appeal against certain orders of the Lord Chancellor 
 of Ireland to the Irish House of Lords which had reversed the 
 decision of the Court of Chancery. Thereupon the Ulster 
 Society sent up a petition to the English House of Lords 
 against this reversal, arguing that there was no appeal from 
 the Irish Court of Chancery to the Irish House of Lords, but 
 direct to the English House of Lords only. The cause was 
 discussed at great length and the proceedings were protracted, 
 lasting off and on from January 1697/8 until December 1699. 
 A large number of precedents were cited, and eventually the 
 House showed but little hesitation in resolving that an appeal 
 from the Chancery in Ireland to the Irish House of Lords 
 was coram nan iudice. The proceedings of the Irish Chamber 
 were considered void. This decision was subsequently re- 
 affirmed in connexion with the reversal by the Irish Peers of 
 an order made by the Chancellor of the County Palatine of 
 Tipperary. :t Any furtive attempts on the part of the Irish 
 Legislature to act with independence were doomed to failure, 
 if they came in conflict with the adamantine determination of 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1693-5 ', No. 775, pp. 31-45- 
 
 2 Ibid. 7697-9, No. 1194, pp. 16-24. On this case see Revolutionary 
 Ireland and its Settlement, by Rev. Robert II. Murray (London, 1911), 
 pp. 318-28. The case of the Ulster Appeal was the occasion of the 
 appearance of Molyneux's work, The Case of Ireland's being bound by 
 Acts of Parliament in England stated, to which Ur. Murray attaches 
 considerable importance (p. 322). 
 
 * Lords' MSS. 1697-9, No. 1369, pp. 297-9. 
 
 1528.3 H
 
 98 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 the English Peers to maintain their supremacy in judicial 
 matters. 
 
 One or two interesting points relating to impeachments 
 arose in the reign of William III. The case of Sir Adam 
 Blair is a curious appendage to that of Fitzharris in the reign 
 of Charles II. Then the House of Lords had refused to listen 
 to the impeachment of a commoner. The case was impending 
 in a court of common law, and the Peers refused to interfere in 
 it. The Commons, conceiving that their right of impeachment 
 was in jeopardy, drew up a resolution, declaring ' that it is the 
 undoubted right of the Commons in Parliament assembled to 
 impeach before the Lords in Parliament any peer or commoner 
 for treason or any other crime or misdemeanour, and that the 
 refusal of the Lords to proceed in Parliament upon such 
 impeachments is a denial of justice and a violation of the 
 constitution of Parliaments'. 1 The case of Fitzharris was 
 a complicated one. The man was already in prison. He was 
 about to be charged in an ordinary court. The Lords, there- 
 fore, in refusing to proceed with his impeachment, were not 
 necessarily asserting that in no case would they allow the 
 impeachment of a commoner. 2 The situation was made clear 
 when in 1689 the Commons impeached Sir Adam Blair and 
 certain other commoners. The Lords examined precedents, 
 and discussed the question whether the term ' great men ' 
 might include commoners. Eventually they decided by the 
 narrow margin of 44 to 43 to proceed with the impeachment. 3 
 
 Another important decision with regard to impeachments 
 followed in October 1690. The Earl of Peterborough com- 
 plained that he had been detained in the Tower for upwards 
 of two years notwithstanding a dissolution and several proro- 
 gations of parliament. The Earl of Salisbury had suffered 
 a similar fate. The question raised was whether impeach- 
 ments remained in statu quo from parliament to parliament. 
 A great number of precedents were exhumed, and it was 
 finally decided that impeachments were discharged by either a 
 
 1 C.J., vol. ix, p. 711. 
 
 2 L. /., vol. xiv, pp. 260 and 362-4. 
 
 J Lords' MS S. 1689-90, No. 118, pp. 203-4.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 99 
 
 dissolution or a prorogation. The two earls were accordingly 
 discharged. 
 
 The most celebrated impeachments of the period, viz. those 
 of the Whig Junto, as also the most celebrated attainder, that 
 of Fenwick, belong to the realm of political rather than of 
 constitutional history, and do not call for general treatment in 
 this place. But the attitude of the House of Lords to the bill 
 of attainder against Fenwick ought briefly to be noted here. 1 
 Process against a man by means of attainder instead of by 
 impeachment meant that although in effect the results would 
 be the same in either case, the Upper House was converted 
 from a judicial into a legislative assembly. In the case of an 
 impeachment the Lords are acting as judges, therefore as the 
 superiors of the Commons ; in the case of a bill of attainder 
 they enjoy only their usually co-ordinate authority. The 
 second method of procedure would be preferred whenever 
 evidence was not sufficiently good for the exactness of the law 
 or whenever instantaneous action was necessary in the interests 
 of national security. But precisely because there was greater 
 latitude allowed for the passing of a bill of attainder than 
 would be permitted in judicial proceedings, it was essential in 
 the interests of individual liberty that the special causes 
 supposed to necessitate recourse to legislative methods should 
 be closely scrutinized. Accordingly when the bill reached 
 the Peers, who as revisers had to act a part exactly analogous 
 to that which they would have performed in connexion with 
 an impeachment, they had to determine whether the guilt, and 
 incidentally the importance, of Fenwick merited so extreme 
 a method of procedure as an attainder. 2 They had also to 
 
 1 Pike, pp. 228-9: 'There had always been some confusion between 
 the judicial and legislative powers of the Lords, and thus the proceeding 
 by Bill of Attainder appears, for a very long time, to have superseded the 
 proceeding by impeachment, where, at any rate, the offence was High 
 Treason. This may have tended to obscure the right of the Commons 
 to impeach a commoner of treason, and the jurisdiction of the Lords to 
 try him. The subject was still further complicated by the usual practice 
 of introducing a Bill of Attainder first in the House of Lords.' 
 
 2 For the proceedings in the Lords in connexion with the Fenwick 
 case see the following authorities: Hurnet, pp. 182-90; Torbeck's 
 Parliamentary Debates, vol. iii, p. 88 et seq. \ Lords' AfSS. 1693-7, Nos. 
 1071, 1081 ; L'Hermitage, Q.Q., p. 632, and R.K., pp. 140-77 (passim), 
 
 11 2
 
 joo THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 consider whether in the absence of one of the two witnesses, 
 Goodman, there was sufficient evidence against the accused. 
 Three Tory lords, viz. Nottingham, Rochester, and Godolphin, 
 wished for a preliminary inquiry upon these heads : but they 
 were overruled. 1 On the question of the use of Goodman's 
 deposition there was considerable difference of opinion. Leeds, 
 Ormonde, St. Albans, Normanby, Rochester, and Nottingham 
 urged that the law required two witnesses ; and if the law were 
 disregarded in such an instance as the present, how was any 
 subject of the realm to feel secure ? Any arbitrary act would 
 be possible. 2 If it were argued that the written deposition of 
 Goodman was sufficient, it could be answered that written 
 evidence was from the point of view of the accused no evidence 
 at all, as he could not enjoy the privilege of cross-examining. 3 
 Their opinion on the more general question of the desirability 
 of .bills of attainder is summarized in the protest entered by 
 the fifty protesting peers when the bill against Fenwick was 
 eventually passed. 4 ' Bills of attainder ', they assert, ' against 
 persons in prison, and who are therefore liable to be tried by 
 common law, are of dangerous consequence to the lives of the 
 subjects, and as we conceive, may tend to the subversion of 
 the laws of this kingdom.' 
 
 The two most ardent champions of the bill were Monmouth 
 and the Bishop of Salisbury. The former, endeavouring to 
 answer the contention that the Treason Act necessitated the 
 production of two witnesses, made the brilliant explanation 
 that that act had been passed for the liberty, and not for the 
 license of the subject : which argument merely comes to mean 
 that the privileges of the subject, as guaranteed by law, can be 
 interfered with by the executive whenever it thinks fit. His 
 
 December 8/18, 1696, to January 12/22, 1696/7 ; Howell's State Trials, 
 vol. xiii, pp. 538-758; Ailesbury's Memoirs, pp. 413-14; Letters from 
 1696 to 1708 to the Dttke of Shrewsbury by James Vernon (ed. G. P. R. 
 James, 1841), vol. i, pp. 81-140 (passim); Cobbett's Parliamentary 
 History i pp. 998-1156; for proceedings in the Upper House, pp. 1149- 
 1156. 
 r L'Hermitage, Q.Q., p. 632, December 8/18, 1696. 
 
 2 Ibid., R.R., p. 140, December 18/28. 
 
 3 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 185 ; see Dartmouth's note on this passage. 
 
 4 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 128-9.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 101 
 
 own arguments are given by Burnet with considerable fullness. 
 They were stuffed with a great deal of matter which was 
 nothing to the purpose, in Dartmouth's opinion, and probably 
 the modern reader will agree with Dartmouth. The chief 
 argument was that necessities of state may override all 
 securities of law, the latter being for convenience' sake termed 
 1 forms '. A number of curious historical examples, culmi- 
 nating in the cases of Straffbrd and the Duke of Monmouth, 
 were cited. So also was the procedure of ancient Rome. 
 Burnet's harangue apparently had greater weight than 
 might now be imagined, for it was largely owing to the 
 Bishop's eloquence that, despite the strenuous opposition of 
 Godolphin, the bill passed the third reading. Marlborough 
 influenced Prince George to give his vote among the contents. 
 Monmouth's partisanship was also valuable. Yet the third 
 reading was carried by a majority of no more than seven 
 in a crowded house, several lords Devonshire, Pembroke, 
 Ormonde, and Dorset who had previously voted for the 
 bill now voting against it, and explaining that their support 
 hitherto had been given simply with a view to bringing pressure 
 to bear upon Fenwick in order to make him speak, and that 
 they were against the attainder in itself, as they dreaded its 
 consequences and the use that might in future be made of such 
 a precedent. 1 There was, then, quite a considerable force of 
 opinion in the Upper House against the Fenwick Bill of 
 Attainder, both upon the ground that such procedure might 
 be dangerous to the liberty of the subject and because such an 
 extra-judicial method of accomplishing a judicial act was in 
 itself dangerous, and would make an ugly precedent. It will 
 be generally admitted that while Fenwick merited his fate, 
 the opposition in the Lords were justified in the exception 
 they took to the means employed in order to get rid of him. 
 
 We again find objection being raised in the Upper House to 
 the method of proceeding by bill in a judicial matter in the 
 case of Duncombc.- Charles Duncombe was a prominent 
 
 1 L'Hermitage, R. R., p. 157, December 26/January 4. 
 
 2 For the Duncombe case see the following authorities : Lords" MSS. 
 7697-9. ^- os - I2 3 2 > I2 38, 1248, 1257, 1258; L'Hermitage for 1698,
 
 102 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 banker who had, when cashier of the Excise, led an attack 
 upon the government, and had in particular singled out 
 Montague as the object of his diatribes, accusing him 01 
 peculation. This charge the great minister had little difficulty 
 in refuting; and he was able to turn the tables by proving 
 that his assailant had been responsible for serious irregularities 
 in the issue of exchequer bills. The Commons, accordingly, 
 introduced a bill of pains and penalties, the penalty being 
 exceptionally heavy. The bill was passed in the Lower House 
 and in due time reached the Lords on March i, 1697/8. The 
 situation created considerable excitement. Duncombe and 
 those who had been accused with him, Knight and Barton, 
 took heart of hope from the lambent jealousy between the two 
 Houses subsisting at this time. The bill might be regarded 
 as an attack by the Commons upon the peculiar judicial 
 privileges of the other Chamber. At the first reading of the 
 bill it became clear that Duncombe had powerful support in 
 Bolton, Leeds, Nottingham, Peterborough, Rochester, and 
 Halifax. They argued that the Commons possessed no 
 judicial powers, were no court of justice, and had no power 
 to impose an oath or to hear testimony. The bill of attainder 
 against Fenwick afforded no precedent. Fenwick had con- 
 spired against the state. It could not so much as be proved 
 that Duncombe had directly broken the law. The sound 
 arguments which can always be adduced against unusual 
 methods of judicial procedure were forcibly maintained in this 
 case. If such a comparatively venial offence as the putting 
 false endorsements to exchequer bills was to be punished by 
 act of parliament, the liberties of the people were very seriously 
 menaced ; men could no longer rely upon their being tried by 
 ordinary law and in ordinary courts of law. The answer to 
 these statements was that to bring in the question of the rights 
 of the two Chambers was to confuse the issue. The only point 
 to be decided was whether the accused in point of fact deserved 
 
 vol. S. S., pp. 183-202 (passim), March 8/iS to March 25/April 4 ; 
 F. L. Bonet, B., pp. 61-89 (passim), March 8/18 to April 8/18, 1698 ; 
 Howell's State Trials, vol. xiii, pp. 1062-1106; Vernon Corr.,vo\. ii, 
 pp. 19-26.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 103 
 
 the punishment which the Commons sought to impose. It 
 was asserted that he did. Use was made of the rather far- 
 fetched argument that he had really been guilty of a grave 
 offence against the state, because he had endangered its credit. 
 When the question was put whether the bill be read a second 
 time, it was resolved in the affirmative by 48 votes to 36. 
 
 At this juncture Duncombe, who had recovered from the 
 immediate and somewhat paralysing effects of the indictments, 
 denied that he had made a confession, as had been supposed. 
 The Commons must prove their case. They were very indig- 
 nant, as they showed when the Lords asked for a conference to 
 discuss the reasons for which Duncombe had been condemned. 
 Let the Lords look to the bill itself for the reasons, rejoined 
 the Commons. However, the conference was agreed to. The 
 Lords were resolved to treat the case judicially. Counsel were 
 heard on both sides, and a telling speech for the defence was 
 made by Sir Bartholomew Shower. Had Duncombe merited 
 that a bill of pains and penalties should be brought against 
 him ? Surely not ? The bill in effect punished a crime which 
 had only just been recognized as such. Putting false endorse- 
 ments to cheques is a very different thing from high treason. 
 The payments which Duncombe had made, whether irregular 
 or not, had been good and lawful payments and could not 
 possibly be refused. It was not denied that the accused had 
 merited censure ; but to deal with such a case as his the 
 ordinary courts of law were quite adequate. After the hearing 
 of counsel a heated debate took place, and continued for three 
 hours. It was moved to commit the bill, and the motion was 
 lost by a single vote. The question was raised whether proxies 
 might be called for; but it was decided 'that no proxies shall 
 be made use of in any judicial cause in this House, although 
 the proceeding be by way of bill '. The Commons' case having 
 thus been rejected, Rochester moved that Duncombe, whom 
 the Lower House had placed in the Tower, should be removed 
 thence ; and an order to that effect was granted. This further 
 action on the part of the Peers incensed the Commons. What 
 right, they demanded, had the Lords to set at liberty a man 
 who was not their prisoner? Duncombe was a member of the
 
 io 4 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 Lower House, and its participation should have been obtained 
 before the accused could be released from the Tower. The 
 Lords replied with a quibble. The Commons had sent up the 
 case to them ; in doing so they had sent up Duncombe too. 
 He had been handed over altogether into the hands of the 
 Lords, who, as they had been able to summon him from the 
 Tower without the Commons' objecting, were also able to set 
 him free if they found him to be guiltless. 
 
 It will be generally agreed by most candid critics that the 
 Lords were not justified in their action in setting Duncombe 
 free. And in the end the Commons gained the day on this 
 point, for they restored Duncombe to the Tower, where he 
 remained until the close of the session. But in their decision 
 with regard to the bill of pains and penalties there can be 
 no doubt that the Lords were right. The points at issue 
 have been clearly put by Macaulay. 1 He contends that ' the 
 bill for punishing Duncombe was open to all the objections 
 which can be urged against the bill for punishing Fenwick, 
 and to other objections of even greater weight. In both 
 cases the judicial functions were usurped by a body unfit 
 to exercise such functions. But the bill against Duncombe 
 really was, what the bill against Fenwick was not, objection- 
 able as a retrospective bill. It altered the substantive criminal 
 law. It visited an offence with a penalty of which the offender, 
 at the time when he offended, had no notice.' Macaulay goes 
 on to maintain the apparent paradox that the Duncombe bill 
 was the worse of the two inasmuch as it touched not life, as 
 the bill against Fenwick did, but property. Duncombe was 
 to have been mulcted of two-thirds of his great wealth. But 
 whereas men are always chary about taking the life of a fellow 
 creature, they have not always such qualms about taking a 
 man's possessions, particularly when, as in this case, the victim 
 would still be very well off when the fine had been paid. 
 There was a positive inducement to severity in the fact that 
 the application of the amount of the fine .300,000 would 
 in those days have meant a quite appreciable reduction in 
 taxation. Thus such a bill of pains and penalties as the 
 1 Macaulay, vol. v, pp. 44-5.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 105 
 
 Commons brought against Uuncombe might come to have 
 an irresistible attraction for the House which voted the 
 revenue, and which would find confiscation a singularly simple 
 expedient for raising it. The Buncombe case is indeed a 
 remarkable instance of the utility of a revising chamber in 
 defending the interests of property ; as also of a judicial 
 chamber in preventing the use of irregular weapons of justice 
 to the detriment of individual freedom. 
 
 It would be giving a false impression to let it be supposed 
 that the House of Lords stood firm upon a bedrock of principle 
 in their resistance to legislative methods of judicial procedure. 
 The opposition to the Fenwick Attainder Bill was defeated ; 
 the opposition to the bill against Buncombe won the day by 
 one vote only. That they were quite ready to make use of 
 a bill of attainder when it suited them to do so, the Lords 
 showed in the attainders against the Pretender and Mary of 
 Modena brought forward towards the end of William's reign. 
 The bill against James was introduced in the Lower House 
 and came before the Peers in January 1701/2. It was pro- 
 posed as an amendment that a clause should be added 
 attainting the Pretender's mother as well as himself. The 
 Commons disagreed for the excellent reason that an attainder 
 was far too serious a thing to be introduced simply as an 
 amendment. It could not in that form receive sufficient atten- 
 tion. So the Lower House lectured the Upper upon its lack of 
 due gravity. At first the Lords insisted on their position and 
 busied themselves in the discovery of precedents and discussion 
 of the heinousness of Mary of Modena's offences. Then they 
 gave way and introduced a bill specially to accomplish their 
 purpose, only to be seized later on in the proceedings with 
 qualms as to whether a foreigner could be attainted at all. 
 A number of peers protested against the third reading ' because 
 there was no proof of the allegations in the bill so much as 
 offered before the passing of it, which is a precedent that may 
 be of dangerous consequence. 1 It will be seen that the Lords 
 could at times be somewhat precipitate even with regard to 
 attainders, although it must be admitted that the attainting 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 160-1.
 
 io6 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 a deposed royal family is not analogous to a bill which may 
 be of imminent danger to the subjects of the realm. In the 
 cases of Fqnwick and Duncombe much was undoubtedly due 
 to party divisions and to the animus existing between the two 
 Houses, apart altogether from any question of principle. 
 
 It was this latent jealousy between the two Houses that lay 
 at the root of the difficulties which were found in settling 
 the question of treason trials. There was no privilege upon 
 which the Lords set greater store than that of trial by their 
 peers. They had been much exercised in mind by the case of 
 Lord Delamere, subsequently Earl of Warrington, who in the 
 previous reign had successfully emerged from the ordeal of 
 trial by a grossly partial tribunal, presided over by Jeffreys as 
 Lord High Steward. The Peers certainly had a legitimate 
 grievance in the composition of the Court of the Lord Steward 
 during recess of parliament. 1 While Parliament was sitting the 
 whole House were the judges, but in recess the Lord Steward, 
 always nominated by the king, summoned only a select number 
 of triers, the number being indefinite, and at the discretion of 
 the Lord Steward. The system obviously afforded opportuni- 
 ties for packing, by which means the sovereign might contrive 
 to get rid of any obnoxious magnate. 
 
 To remedy this patent abuse the Lords introduced in 
 February 1688/9 a bill for the better regulation of trials of 
 peers. The measure underwent considerable changes during 
 its progress through the House. 2 In the original draft it was 
 
 1 See His Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers, by L. W. Vernon 
 Harcourt (1907). Mr. Harcourt traces the history of Trial of Peers, and 
 in particular of the Steward Court up to the important case of Buckingham 
 in 1521, by which date the Court maybe said to have become standardized. 
 Mr. Harcourt concludes that the Court ' has an origin, which is neither 
 ancient, nor obscure, nor creditable ', p. 433. Discussing the question of 
 the influence of the Court on the status of the spiritual lords, as lords of 
 parliament and not peers, he shows that so far was it from being an 
 engine for the degradation of the spiritual lords and to the aggrandizement 
 of the temporal lords at their expense, that 'this court was a fraudulent 
 device for the degradation of the nobility generally ; it was intended to 
 supersede and altogether deprive them of trial in parliament' (p. 442). 
 Mr. Harcourt's book does not deal at all with the post-Tudor history of 
 the Steward's Court. 
 
 2 For the text of this bill, together with the amendments, see Lords' 
 MSS. 1689-90, No. 1 8, pp. 31-4. See also Chandler's Lords' Proceedings, 
 vol. i, p. 348.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 107 
 
 stipulated that at all treason trials fifty-one peers should be 
 summoned, of whom thirty-five at least must attend. In select 
 committee it was proposed that instead it should be enacted 
 that whether during session of Parliament or not a peer should 
 be tried by the whole House. Eventually the number was 
 altered to sixty-one, of whom at least forty must attend. The 
 prisoner was to be allowed to challenge twenty of these. So far 
 the bill was, as indeed it only purported to be, purely selfish. 
 But there followed several clauses, which applied to the 
 ordinary subject as well as the peer, though this fact has 
 sometimes been overlooked. One clause was to the effect 
 that ' in all cases of treason, other than concerning the king's 
 coin, there shall be two witnesses of express overt acts of treason'. 
 Another clause regulated the property qualifications of persons 
 called to serve upon juries in various cases. For instance, no 
 one should serve upon the grand jury in a criminal case or 
 upon the petty jury in case of high treason who was not 
 possessed of ' lands and tenements of some estate of freehold 
 of the clear yearly value of twenty pounds at the least '. In 
 the third place, it was proposed ' that every peer and peeress 
 and other person that shall hereafter be indicted of any capital 
 offence for which he or she shall be tried by his or her peers 
 or in the court of King's Bench, shall have a copy of his 
 indictment translated into English, whereupon he or she is 
 to be arraigned by the space of a week before such arraign- 
 ment and also of the panel by the space of two days before 
 the trial '. Again, the defendant shall be allowed to have 
 counsel to advise him and evidence shall be given upon oath 
 on his behalf. The bill passed the Lords, though an important 
 protest was entered against it. It is interesting to notice the 
 grounds of dissent set forth by the seventeen peers who signed 
 the protest. They objected to the bill precisely because it was 
 not selfish, because, while purporting to secure the privilege of 
 the nobility, it benefited the commonalty as well. It reflected 
 greatly upon the honour of the Peers, they maintained, because 
 it placed Lords and Commons upon an equal footing, whereas 
 the distinctive privileges of the former were based upon the 
 very special regard which the law of Kngland had for the
 
 io8 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 honour and integrity of Peers above that of the Commons 
 a regard exemplified by the statute de scandalis magnatum. 1 
 Although such objections could be raised to the Lords' pro- 
 posals by members of the Upper House themselves, the 
 Commons did not regard the bill with any favour. The 
 majority agreed with Sir Thomas Lee that it would not be 
 for the peace of the government if the bill were passed. Its 
 result would be that the Peers might do as they pleased with 
 impunity. They, the Commons, had no use for the bill. 2 It 
 must be confessed that there was strong justification for their 
 conduct in refusing to accept the measure. The truth is that 
 it was, even as things were, extraordinarily difficult to convict 
 a peer who had been engaged in treasonable practices, so 
 hedged in was he by the privileges of his class. Even 
 Delamere, despite the great efforts made to secure his con- 
 viction, had been acquitted. 3 On the other hand, the Lords 
 had their very reasonable grievance ; and it was natural that 
 they should fight strenuously for their privilege, and endeavour 
 to avoid measures which tended to bring them more within 
 the reach of the common law. 
 
 Two bills whose object was the regulation of treason trials 
 were before Parliament in November i69i. 4 The first 
 originated in the Lords, and was an attempt to revive the 
 bill of 1689. It was stated to be ' for the more equal trial 
 
 1 L.J., vol. xiv, p. 140, March 6, 1688/9. 
 
 2 Grey's Debates, vol. ix, p. 173. It has to be remembered that trial by 
 one's peers means one thing among the mass of Englishmen, and quite 
 another among a small and privileged class. Ordinary commoners are 
 not united by any sense of comradeship simply because they are not 
 noblemen. But the peerage possesses a distinct solidarity. The judges 
 are always the same men ; not simply twelve jurymen selected from an 
 ever-changing multitude. The men whom you are trying to-day may be 
 trying you yourself to-morrow. In such circumstances the rule ' Do as 
 you would be done by ' becomes the soundest maxim of expediency and 
 most eminently practical. 
 
 9 The garrulous Ailesbury tells us the following story in connexion 
 with the Delamere trial. ' There happened a thing extraordinary enough 
 in its nature. Henry, Earl of Peterborough, Groom of the Stole, a man 
 of a hot and fiery temper, rising up, said the same as did the rest of the 
 lords, but then whispered his next neighbour in the ear, " Guilty, by God." 
 And indeed the whole number of the lords was of the same sentiment, but, 
 as I said, men of honour and conscience could proceed no otherwise by 
 the strict rule of the law.' Ailesbury, p. 135. 
 
 4 For the Lords' measure see Lords' AfSS. 2 690-1, No. 417, pp. 278-9.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 109 
 
 of every peer, peeress, and every commoner of the realm '.' 
 It went no further than the committee stage, as the atten- 
 tion of the House was then arrested by another bill of the 
 same nature emanating from the Commons. In this, as was 
 only to be expected, there was no special reference to the 
 Peers' grievance. 2 The latter were, however, determined to 
 make use of the bill for their own purposes. The Commons' 
 proposals included several which had been included in the 
 abortive Lords' measure of 1689, i.e. those which related to 
 the use of counsel and witnesses for the defendant. The Lords 
 made a number of amendments, the principal being the addition 
 of the following clauses : 
 
 ' And be it further enacted, That upon the trial of any peer 
 or peeress for any such treason or misprision of treason as 
 aforesaid, all the peers who have a right to sit and vote in 
 Parliament, shall be duly summoned, twenty days at least 
 before any such trial, to appear at every such trial, and that 
 every peer so summoned and appearing on such trial shall vote 
 in the trial of such peer or peeress so to be tried, he and they 
 first taking the oaths mentioned in one Act of Parliament 
 made in the first year of King William and Queen Mary. . . .' 3 
 
 The Commons received the amendment with no favour at 
 all. It was urged, in particular by Somers, that the nobility- 
 are not merely each other's peers, they are often each other's 
 kindred. If all the Lords were summoned, it was certain that 
 even the most abandoned creature would find friends among 
 the number. 4 The refusal of the Commons to accept the 
 amendments was followed by the appointment by the Lords 
 of a committee to draw up reasons for insistence. The Com- 
 mons had maintained that the new clause \vas foreign to the 
 general purport of the bill. The committee repudiated this 
 suggestion. The aim of the bill was the protection of innocent 
 men, accused of treason. Peers ought to be included among 
 the beneficiaries by this protection. Hence, if there was any 
 objection to the present method of trial of peers, this bill was 
 
 1 /,. J., vol. xiv, p. 639. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 442, pp. 3 1 9~ 2 7- 
 
 1 See Torbeck's far/. Debates, vol. ii, p. 351. 
 4 Grey's Debates, vol. x, p. 213.
 
 no THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 the proper place for its remedy. 1 And unless a remedy were 
 forthcoming this seems to be implied the peer was more 
 exposed than the meanest subject. The statement prepared 
 by the committee closed with a rebuke to the Commons. The 
 Lords conceived that nothing conduced more to the preserva- 
 tion of the constitution than a good correspondence between 
 the Houses. As they would ever do their best to promote the 
 interests of the Commons, so they could not doubt that the 
 latter would be equally ready to comply with the Lords in any 
 instance in which they had so good a case as in the present. 
 The Commons, despite this exhortation, resolved by 136 to 120 
 to persist in their attitude. The Lords, said Dolben, already 
 had a power of overruling the courts of Westminster ; and by 
 accepting the clause the Commons would be completing the 
 work, overthrowing the King's prerogative and establishing 
 that of the Upper House in its place. 2 There were, however, 
 defenders of the Lords, such as Finch and Colonel Granville, 
 who considered that so far as argument went all was in favour 
 of the amendments. There was only an obstinacy excuse the 
 expression against them. 3 Eventually, after further confer- 
 ence, the Commons agreed to accept the obnoxious clause with 
 certain amendments. Its application was to be restricted to 
 temporal peers only. 4 The provision that all the Lords should 
 be summoned was altered into a stipulation that there should 
 never be less than thirty-six present at a treason trial. This 
 was as far as the Commons would go as regards concessions ; 
 so that despite the prolonged discussion the bill was ultimately 
 lost. 
 
 This was the beginning of an attempt, several times repeated, 
 of the Commons to pass a treason bill which should not have 
 special reference to the Lords. The different measures they 
 introduced were fundamentally the same, varying only in such 
 small details as the number of the defendant's counsel, &c. 
 The bills of February 1693/4 and December 1864 met with the 
 
 1 L. /., vol. xvi, pp. 3-4, December 29. 
 8 Grey's Debates, vol. x, p. 220. 
 s Ibid., p. 223. 
 
 4 L. /., vol. xv, p. 40. The Lords on January 20 agreed to accept this 
 amendment. They would not accept the other.
 
 V OF THE HOUSE in 
 
 same fate. The first was summarily rejected by the Upper 
 House at its second reading. 1 Speaking of the second bill, 
 Burnet acidly remarks that ' the design seemed to be, to make 
 people as safe in all treasonable conspiracies and practices 
 as possible.' 2 The two most important amendments made by 
 the Lords were, first, the inevitable addition about trial of 
 peers, and secondly, the stipulation that if there were one 
 witness to each of two separate treasons, charged in a single 
 indictment, it was not to be considered that the two necessary 
 witnesses were thereby provided. The Lower House agreed 
 to the changes suggested by the peers with three exceptions. 
 But it was only about the trial of Peers that no agreement 
 was possible ; and it was again upon this rock of offence that 
 the attempt at reform met with disaster. 
 
 The first session of William's third parliament was rendered 
 memorable by the fact that a Treason Bill, originating in the 
 Commons, actually passed both Houses and became law. As 
 usual, the Lords added their favourite clause. Burnet tells us 
 that the amendment was only passed by a small majority and 
 with difficulty, ' for those who wished well to the bill looked on 
 this as a device to lose it, as no doubt it was.' 3 The Bishop 
 himself strenuously opposed the amendment, ' with all his impo- 
 tent might," sneers Dartmouth, 4 ' having never been in reality 
 for liberty, but that of his own being impertinent, which by his 
 being no peer, could have no benefit of this bill.' Whether the 
 conduct of the majority in the Lords was dictated, as Burnet 
 suggests, simply by a wish to wreck the bill, or whether as is 
 much more likely it was the result of the perfectly genuine 
 wish to safeguard the position of the peerage, at any rate the 
 bill actually passed with the Lords' amendment incorporated 
 in it. The obduracy of the Lower House had indeed by this 
 time been worn out, and it was forced into acquiescence. The 
 reform of treason trials which it has to be remembered is 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1693-3, No. 798, PR. 343~4- 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 141. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 161. 
 
 4 See Dartmouth's note on the above passage. Spiritual Lords had 
 from the first laid no claim to trial by their peers owing to the fact that 
 since the Conquest they had been so persistent in their determination to 
 acknowledge no lay jurisdiction. See Pike, pp. 179-208.
 
 ii2 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 aimed at in the original Trial of Peers Bill of the Lords was 
 much needed, and rather than suffer a further period of useless 
 delay, the Commons assented to a clause which the majority 
 among them cordially disliked. 
 
 The manner of procedure in peerage trials is exemplified in 
 the various trials of Lord Mohun or in those of the Junto. 
 Upon such occasions special efforts were usually made to 
 secure a full attendance of peers. They were indeed finable 
 if they failed to attend. If the charge were a capital charge 
 the Bishops would deliver a protestation and withdraw. The 
 opinion of the judges on different points of law would in the 
 event of any difficulty be freely asked. 1 The actual trial took 
 place not in the House but in Westminster Hall, which had to 
 be suitably prepared for the occasion. The Lord Steward 
 asked the opinion of the peers assembled severally, beginning 
 with the junior baron, and each, when his name was called, 
 stood up and declared whether he was content or non-content. 
 Immediately he had pronounced the sentence of the House 
 and the trial was over, the office of the Lord Steward came to 
 an end, and he would openly break the white staff which was 
 the symbol of his authority. 
 
 No discussion of the judicial powers of the House of Lords 
 in our period would be complete which did not include some 
 reference to the divorce proceedings with which it was from 
 time to time occupied. Up till 1857 marriage could not 
 be dissolved save by act of parliament. As the petitioner 
 was required in the first place to petition for a separation and 
 to bring an action against the co-respondent for damages, 
 it required both time and money to obtain a divorce, and in 
 consequence divorce bills were very infrequent. Indeed, before 
 the accession of William III there are only two acts mentioned 
 in the Journals, viz, those of the Marquis of Northampton in 
 1552 and of Lord Roos in 1670. Charles II had taken con- 
 siderable interest in the latter, and had attended the debates of 
 the Upper House when it was under discussion, for he had 
 some thought at the time of obtaining a divorce from Catherine 
 
 1 See, for example, the questions asked of the judges in connexion with 
 the first Mohun trial. Lords' JfSS. 1692-3, No. 658, p. 296.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 113 
 
 of Braganza. In the reign of William there were several divorce 
 acts passed. At about the time when the Duke of Norfolk at 
 length succeeded in his celebrated suit against the Duchess, 
 there were two other divorce bills before the House, viz. those 
 of a certain Ralph Box and of Sir John Dillon, and the proposal 
 was made that the precedent of naturalization bills should be 
 followed and all divorce bills under consideration at a given 
 time be merged into one. 1 A topical poem written in 1701 
 testifies to the greater freedom which is gradually being 
 introduced. 
 
 Farewell Church-juggle, that enslaved my Life, 
 
 But bless the Powers that rid me of my Wife ; 
 
 And now the Laws once more have set me free, 
 
 If Woman can again prevail with me. 
 
 My Flesh and Bones shall make my Wedding- Feast, 
 
 And none shall be invited as my guest, 
 
 But my good Bride, the Devil and the Priest. 2 
 
 The famous cause ctttbre of the reign was that of the 
 Duke of Norfolk, which was first brought before the House 
 in January 1691/2, and was not settled until April 1700. 
 There were three different bills, and during the time in which 
 they were under consideration the House had to listen to the 
 repetition of much the same sordid evidence, which it was 
 noticed on one occasion sent the Duke himself to sleep. 3 
 There were several different reasons why the first two bills 
 were unsuccessful. Burnet saw in the support afforded to 
 the Duchess the tokens of Jacobite activity. He was, as 
 Dartmouth says, ever in apprehension of a halter, and so 
 found ' a Jacobite influence predominant in all transactions '.* 
 It might have been added that the Bishop of Salisbury was 
 also in constant and fanatical apprehension of popery, and the 
 Duchess was a Roman Catholic. The Duke himself could 
 scarcely win the sympathy of virtue, as he was a notoriously 
 vicious man, and had been the means of introducing his wife 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, D. p. 89, March 9/19, 1699/1700. 
 
 2 'On Divorce by Parliament', in the collection Poems on Affairs of 
 State (4 vols., London, 1707), vol. ii, p. 272. 
 
 3 F. L. Bonet, D. p. 72, February 27/March 9, 1699/1700. 
 
 4 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 127, and Dartmouth's foot-note. 
 
 1526.2 I
 
 ii4 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 into the bad company which had depraved her. 1 He had also to 
 contend with the strong Peterborough influence which was 
 exerted on behalf of the Duchess, who was a cousin of the 
 Earl. Indeed, the ultimate success of the Duke's suit in 1700 
 is to be explained by the fact that the Duchess' conduct in the 
 Fenwick case had alienated the sympathies of her family. But 
 altogether apart from these personal considerations, there was 
 an obstacle against the Norfolk Divorce Bills in the shape of 
 a principle. It was the custom that all divorce and separation 
 suits should in the first instance go before an ecclesiastical 
 court. The passing of a divorce bill in Parliament should only 
 follow upon the decision of the spiritual authority. The first 
 Norfolk Bill was therefore regarded as unprecedented, since it 
 was not founded upon any ecclesiastical sentence. 2 
 
 In March 1697/8 there was passed the Macclesfield Divorce 
 Bill. It excited the greatest interest at the time, as may be 
 gathered from a perusal of the dispatches of L' Hermitage, 
 which abound in references to it. From January 16 until 
 March 2 not a day passed in the Lords but this case came 
 up before the House. The bill is remarkable by reason of its 
 being the first divorce bill to become law although no judg- 
 ment had been first given in an ecclesiastical court. During 
 the hearing of the case counsel for the Countess made much of 
 the point that the procedure was irregular. ' We say it is 
 in the nature of the legislature to be an aid to other courts and 
 not to take it from them.' 3 The Earl's answer was that his 
 efforts to proceed with the case in a spiritual court had been 
 frustrated by the persistent delays made by his wife. The case 
 was without remedy save in Parliament. When the bill did 
 eventually pass, a protest was made against it by Rochester 
 and Halifax, 'because we conceive this is the first bill of this 
 nature that hath passed, where there was not a divorce first 
 
 1 MSS. of the Earl of Denbigh, p. 2 1 1 (Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep. 7, 
 pt. i, app. Third Rep. on Denbigh Papers). 
 
 1 For first two bills see Lords' MSS. 1622-93, Nos. 524, 642 ; see 
 especially p. 1 8. 
 
 3 Lords' MSS. idyj-g, No. 1197; see pp. 57-8. The Macclesfield 
 Divorce Suit is of some general interest because Richard Savage claimed 
 to be the illegitimate offspring of the Countess of Macclesfield and Earl 
 Rivers.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 115 
 
 obtained in the spiritual court, which we look upon as an 
 ill precedent, and may be of dangerous consequence for the 
 future.' l A similar objection was also raised to the passing of 
 the Norfolk Bill in 1700, for in this case not only had no 
 ecclesiastical judgment been obtained, but the bill was brought 
 into Parliament when its ' subject matter had not first been pro- 
 ceeded on in the ecclesiastical courts '. Moreover, ' it may be 
 of dangerous consequence to the settlement of families, to 
 subject the dissolution of marriages to so short and summary 
 a way of proceeding.' 8 
 
 A year after the formal dissolution of the Duke of Norfolk's 
 marriage, Lady Anglesey succeeded in obtaining a separation 
 from her husband. She had previously failed in her petition to 
 the Lords that her husband should be compelled to waive his 
 privilege in order that she might institute a cause of separation 
 against him in ecclesiastical courts. 3 As she was debarred 
 from obtaining relief from this source, the Countess presented 
 a petition for a separation bill. 4 The House made fruitless 
 endeavours to reconcile husband and wife. The bill was intro- 
 duced, evidence of gross cruelty was forthcoming, and as 
 a result the bill was passed. Lord Haversham protested 
 against a measure which gave not absolute divorce but per- 
 petual separation. 5 He explained that ' marriage being looked 
 upon in the Church of Rome as a sacrament always and in all 
 cases indissoluble, but by the pretended authority of the 
 infallible vicar, and there being, in some cases, an absolute 
 necessity for a divorce, the Roman courts of judicature, fearing 
 to expose the weakness of the infallibility, contrived this trick 
 of a separate maintenance ; which practice of theirs, I humbly 
 conceive, such a bill would give too much countenance to'. 
 He also considered that a perpetual separation was a much 
 heavier judgment upon the Earl of Anglesey than a divorce 
 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 131-2, and /.../., vol. xvi, p. 204. 
 
 2 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 143-4, an ^ /- /> vol. xvi, p. 540 on 
 second reading ; p. 545 on third reading. This protest was signed by 
 Rochester, Halifax, Montague, the Bishops of London, Exeter, Lincoln, 
 and Rochester, and twelve other lords. 
 
 s Lords' MSS. 1699-1102, No. 1564, pp. 149-51. 
 
 4 Ibid., No. 1571, pp. 188-205. 
 
 "' Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 143-4 ; /-./., vol. xvi, p. 611. 
 
 I 2
 
 n6 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP. 
 
 itself would have been. It was a punishment for him and 
 nothing more. 
 
 A short survey of such proceedings in the House of Lords 
 as those in connexion with divorce bills or separation bills, 
 impeachments or attainders serves to strengthen the impres- 
 sion of the judicial atmosphere prevalent in the House of 
 Lords. It was assuredly not only in its exercise of its peculiar 
 authority over its own members or in its jurisdiction as a court 
 of appeal that the House performed judicial functions. Much 
 of its legislation had a judicial colouring. The same may 
 certainly be said of the Commons. Still, judicial characteristics 
 belonged to the Lords in a particular degree even in the 
 sphere of legislation. It was in the Upper House that the great 
 divorce cases originated ; it was there that they were carefully 
 examined and decided. The part which the Lords played in 
 connexion with attainders was essentially the same as that 
 which they undertook in cases of impeachment. The Peers 
 very openly assumed an attitude of superiority. They stood 
 very much upon their dignity when the Commons impeached 
 the Whig Junto. When Goudet and others were impeached 
 in 1698, the Commons claimed the right to have seats provided 
 for them. It was reasonable that they should be seated, for, 
 as certain sympathizers in the Upper House pleaded, the 
 managers of the Commons would have papers and records, 
 ' which they could not conveniently make use of in a crowd '. 1 
 The Lords, however, contented themselves with the bald 
 statement that the Commons ' have always come to the bar of 
 the House without any other provision for them, and their 
 Lordships intend to proceed in the same manner as hath been 
 usual in all trials within their House'. The Peers once sent 
 a message to the Commons summoning Sir Robert Clayton 
 and Sir George Treby to attend concerning an alteration in 
 the Lieutenancy of London. Upon the receipt of the message, 
 Sir Thomas Clarges declared that it was an unfortunate thing ; 
 it affected him very deeply. He feared its consequence would 
 be a rift between the two Houses. ' Is not this ', he asked, 
 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 132-3.
 
 v OF THE HOUSE 117 
 
 ' a sort of bringing of original causes before the Lords ' ? l So 
 prone were the sensitive Commons to see in actions of the 
 Peers an attempt to extend the sphere of their judicial powers. 
 It should be remembered that the Lords made use of their 
 peculiar position to attempt some noteworthy legal and 
 judicial reforms. In consequence of complaints of grave 
 abuses in the administration of justice the House, in November 
 1689, appointed a committee to inquire into irregularities in 
 the Court of Westminster Hall. 2 Subsequently the inquiry 
 was extended to the Court of Chancery, the Courts of the 
 Grand Sessions in Wales and the Courts of the Counties 
 Palatine. A great many scandals were brought tonight in the 
 course of the investigation. In April 1690 an attempt was 
 made to remedy the abuses discovered by the committee by 
 a Law Reform Bill, 3 which was intended to put an end to the 
 buying and selling of offices. The penalties of former acts 
 were to be made to extend to all ministers of state, judges, 
 and justices. The fees of counsel were to be regulated, and all 
 barristers when admitted to practice were to take an oath not 
 to give presents to judges. If they failed to appear for a client 
 or in such case did not return their fee, they were to incur 
 the penalty of ^100. The bill included a number of other 
 provisions to regulate proceedings in Chancery, &c. This 
 bill dropped with the session. It was followed by another 
 measure of similar character, but restricted in scope, which 
 sought to reform abuses in Chancery and other courts of 
 equity. 4 It was marked by the jealousy which the common 
 lawyer in those days always felt for the Court of Chancery. 
 This bill also dropped, but a committee was appointed to 
 draw up another for preventing unnecessary delays in Chancery, 
 for regulating extravagant fees and expenses and restraining 
 Chancery from giving relief after judgment in cases not 
 properly equitable after judgment. 5 Only the initial proceed- 
 ings of the committee are recorded, and no bill was produced. 
 
 1 Grey's Debates, vol. x, pp. 133-4. 
 
 ' Lords' MSS. 1689-90, No. 160, pp. 313-32. 
 
 3 Ibid., No. 244, pp. 17-25. 
 
 4 Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 304, pp. 128-41. 
 '" Ibid., p. 138.
 
 n8 THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS CHAP, v 
 
 In November 1691 the Lords framed another measure dealing 
 with Chancery. 1 Its object was to put an end to the pro- 
 ceedings of the courts of equity upon bills of review, upon the 
 very reasonable grounds that such bills were brought before the 
 same persons who had decreed in the same cause before, so that 
 nothing was gained and time was wasted. Causes were to be 
 reheard by five common law judges. This bill passed in the 
 Upper House, but was rejected by the Commons. In February 
 1692/3 a severe bill to prevent the buying and selling of 
 judicial offices appeared in the Lords, but disappeared after 
 it had been committed. In 1692 and 1693 a number of 
 measures were introduced in the Lords dealing with such 
 questions as clandestine mortgage frauds, abuses on procedure 
 on outlawries. Two attempts were made to limit the number 
 of attorneys and to insure their proper qualifications. 2 The 
 former, made in a bill of 1698, was thrown out in the Com- 
 mons. The second, a less ambitious scheme, failed in a similar 
 way in February 1699/1700. The Lords also lost in the 
 Lower House a Vexatious Suits Bill, in which they had sought 
 to apply to the inferior courts of record the principle of an act, 
 which had originated in the Commons, for checking such suits 
 in the courts of Wales and the Counties Palatine. 3 By the 
 end of the reign not a great deal had been accomplished, but 
 the constant endeavours made by the Upper House to remedy 
 undoubted abuses in the administration of justice ought not 
 to be forgotten. 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1690-1, No. 438, pp. 308-13. 
 
 2 Ibid., 1697-9, No. 1200, pp. 69-88; 1699-1702, No. 1482, pp. 62-4. 
 
 3 Ibid., 1609-1702, No. 1636, pp. 356-9.
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION THE 
 INTERREGNUM 
 
 THE English Revolution has been termed a conservative 
 movement. Burke loved to demonstrate that the Revolution 
 of 1689 did not formulate new rights, but maintained the old. 
 As the movement was largely conservative, so also was it 
 largely aristocratic. It was not effected by the howling mob 
 of a revengeful populace ; nor was it really accomplished by 
 the victory of an invading army, or the prowess of a foreign 
 champion. The Revolution was undeniably a national move- 
 ment. Yet it was the work primarily of certain leading peers, 
 not all of whom shared the same political views, but who were 
 all actuated by a sense of the necessity of taking decisive steps 
 to deliver their country from a despotic king. That such 
 should be the case might well at the first glance appeal- 
 surprising, the presumption being that the peerage would upon 
 the whole tend to side with, and not against, the crown in emer- 
 gency. The fall of monarchy and the nobility in 1649 seemed 
 to be proof of the identity of their interests. In 1660 they had 
 been restored together, and the peerage creations of Charles II 
 had been very lavish. The answer to the enigma lies in the 
 fatal perversity of James II. He needed the combined adher- 
 ence of all the normal supporters of monarchical prerogative, 
 and he succeeded in alienating all. Obviously there was 
 nothing in his policy which was calculated to please the 
 Whigs. It was disastrous that there was really nothing in 
 it which was calculated to please the Tories. The Anglican 
 clergy had supported James despite his Roman Catholicism. 
 Perhaps acting partly under the muddled notion that there 
 was some affinity between High Church Anglicanism and 
 Roman Catholicism, the King exasperated the English clergy
 
 lao THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 by openly flouting them and endeavouring to establish his 
 own religion. 
 
 But it was not only the clergy, and particularly the bishops, 
 that were roused by the Romanizing policy of the sovereign. 
 What was just as serious, the temporal peers were aroused 
 also. The Lords as a whole did not like popery; some of 
 them were probably as much infected by anti-papist fanaticism 
 as the ' mobile '. But they specially disliked popery when they 
 saw it leading their King into courses which were wholly sub- 
 versive of their cherished principles of government. The 
 Peers regarded themselves as the hereditary councillors of the 
 realm ; they considered that they ought to enjoy the full con- 
 fidence of the sovereign. But as early as March 1686, James 
 had begun to surround himself with a few chosen and kindred 
 spirits, to whom alone he revealed his purposes, such as Father 
 Petre, the Jesuit, who was as." much disliked by James's truest 
 friends as he was by his foes, Tyrconnel and Jermyn, Lord 
 Dover. Barillon informs Louis XIV that the Earl of Powys 
 has joined 'the other Catholic lords, whom the King of 
 England consults, and who often meet at Lord Sunderland's 
 to deliberate upon matters that offer ; it is a sort of council, 
 independent of any other, and in which the most important 
 resolutions are taken ; that is to say, those which relate to 
 religion'. 1 Such a small Catholic caucus as this was not 
 calculated to be popular with any class, least of all with the 
 courtiers. Even the devoted Ailesbury declared of Sunderland 
 that ' pen cannot describe worse of him than he deserved '. 3 
 His opinion of Father Petre was equally unfavourable. Ailes- 
 bury also saw the unwisdom of the King's infatuation for so 
 unworthy an object as Lord Dover; but as he confesses, 
 'those the King loved had no faults'. 3 Meanwhile the 
 accredited leaders of the nation were treated with contumely. 
 His opposition in Parliament to the royal policy led to the 
 dismissal of the Bishop of London from the Privy Council. 
 The objection of Sancroft to serve as an ecclesiastical com- 
 
 1 Barillon to Louis XIV. March 26, 1686; Dalrymple, Part I, App. to 
 Book IV, p. 107. 
 
 * Memoirs of Ailesbury, p. 127. 3 Ailesbury, p. 130.
 
 VI THE INTERREGNUM 121 
 
 missioner was punished in the same way. Room was soon 
 found in the Council for Catholic peers. 1 A further blow 
 came when the two Hydes were dismissed from their posts. 
 It was made clear to Rochester that he could only retain the 
 treasurership on condition of his embracing Roman Catholi- 
 cism. He preferred to abandon his office. At the same time 
 Clarendon was recalled from Ireland, his place as lord-lieutenant 
 being taken by Tyrconnel. The treasurership was put into 
 commission, at its head being the trusty Belasyse with Dover 
 as a colleague. Arundell of Wardour became Lord Privy 
 Seal. In fact by the summer of 1687 it had become quite 
 plain that the best qualification for political office was con- 
 version to Romanism ; and that in comparison with this 
 experience in statecraft, administrative ability, the prestige of 
 rank and tradition were in James's eyes negligible quantities. 2 
 The papal nuncio arrived in June at St. James's. The haughty 
 Duke of Somerset refused to conduct him in solemn pro- 
 cession to court, and fell into disgrace in consequence. There 
 is, no doubt, much that is absurd in the pomposity of Somerset. 
 Still, it was an ill thing for James when he came in conflict 
 with the pride of race of the English nobility. 3 
 
 For the consummation of his designs, to secure Catholic 
 indulgence, it was necessary to bring influence to bear upon 
 Parliament. No properly representative House of Commons 
 was likely to be favourable. Neither could the good will 
 of the Lords be reckoned upon. Macaulay quotes three 
 interesting lists which show the state of feeling in the Upper 
 House on the question of the repeal of the Test. 4 According 
 to one list, the number of those who would be in favour was 
 31, of those against 86, of those doubtful 20. According to 
 the second computation, the numbers were for, 33 ; against, 
 87 ; doubtful, 19. In the third, the numbers are, 33, 87, and 
 10 respectively. We should probably be justified in reckoning 
 that the opposition would be three times as strong as the 
 
 1 Belasyse, Powys, Arundell of Wardour, and Dover were made 
 members of the Privy Council in July, 1686. Luttrell, vol. i, p. 383. 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. i, p. 683. 
 
 3 Macaulay, vol. ii, p. 271-3. 
 
 4 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 316, foot-note.
 
 122 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 King's party. How did James intend to deal with the opposi- 
 tion? When it was suggested that the Peers might prove 
 recalcitrant, Sunderland turned to Churchill with the words, 
 ' Oh, silly, your troop of horse shall be called up to the House 
 of Lords.' 1 But for the present the main thing was to secure 
 the subservience of a new House of Commons : it would not 
 be necessary to deal with the other Chamber till later. In 
 order to control the Commons, James, practically speaking, 
 tried to make use of the Peers, when he commanded the lords- 
 lieutenants of the counties to make all ready for the next 
 election conformably with the King's wishes. 2 A number of 
 the lieutenants absolutely refused to do so. Accordingly it 
 rained dismissals. Prominent among those who were turned 
 out was the Earl of Oxford, who told James very plainly that 
 he would ' not persuade that to others which he was averse to 
 in his own conscience '. 3 He was deprived both of his lieuten- 
 ancy and his regiment. Owing to similar circumstances the 
 lieutenancy of the West Riding of Yorkshire passed from the 
 hands of the Earl of Burlington into those of a brother of 
 the Duke of Norfolk. 4 The new lord-lieutenant was an ardent 
 papist. The Earl of Shrewsbury lost both his lord-lieutenancy 
 and his regiment. Indeed the list of those who were punished 
 for their non-compliance is a lengthy one, and includes the 
 Duke of Somerset, the Earls of Pembroke, Derby, Bridgwater, 
 Thanet, Northampton, Abingdon, Scarsdale,and Gainsborough, 
 and the Viscounts Fauconberg and Newport. Their places 
 were taken by Roman Catholics. 
 
 It was not surprising that the nobility were as a whole discon- 
 tented. They felt that they were being thrust out of their legiti- 
 mate places to make room for a small ring of popish upstarts. 
 Such circumstances as the Delamere trial and the seizure 
 of the Earl of Stamford persuaded them that the King had no 
 
 1 Dartmouth's note to Burnet, vol. i, p. 755. 
 
 2 See King James IPs Proposed Repeal of t/te Penal Laws and Test 
 Act in 1688; His Questions to the Magistracy and Corporations; with 
 their answers thereto, in the three Ridings of Yorkshire, by Sir George 
 Duckett, Bart., 1879. The King's Instructions are printed on p. 4. 
 
 3 Memoirs of Sir John Reresby (ed. J. J. Cartwright, 1875), p. 390. 
 
 4 Ibid., p. 391.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 123 
 
 respect for them. Some at court were complaining that their 
 salaries were being unwarrantably diminished owing to some 
 ill-advised retrenchments in the Treasury. Little wonder if, 
 as Mulgrave says in his account of the Revolution, ' the general 
 dislike of the King's management had like an infection reach'd 
 some of the Ministers themselves, as the Earls of Mulgrave 
 and Middleton, never the least tainted with being either false 
 or factious.' l Active opposition from the disaffected leaders 
 of the Peers was encouraged by the fact that William of Orange 
 was so obvious a protector. It must be admitted that the 
 love of intrigue was firmly rooted in many a noble heart in 
 the late years of the seventeenth century. It was no part 
 of the character of the man of affairs to act the part of 
 a resigned Stoic. From the beginning of 1687 William was 
 receiving letters of attachment from prominent leaders of the 
 nobility, and fruitful work was done during the missions of 
 Dykvelt and Zuilestein in England. 
 
 The first English nobleman to visit Holland was Mor- 
 daunt, subsequently notorious as Earl of Peterborough. He 
 pressed William to undertake an expedition to England ; 
 but Mordaunt was not the type of man to win confidence 
 or to succeed in carrying out secret enterprises. He 
 was a noisy person, who courted the popularity of coffee- 
 houses and talked very loudly there ; and his excessive vanity 
 might at any time render him a prey to an inquisition. 2 In 
 1687 the place of Mordaunt was taken by a man of very 
 different stamp, the Earl of Shrewsbury, 3 the acknowledged 
 leader of the Whigs. The remarkable diffidence, the shrinking 
 
 1 Works of John Sheffield, Duke of Buckinghamshire (2 vols., 1729), 
 vol. i, p. iii : Some Account of the Revolution. 
 
 - See H. C. Foxcroft's Supplement to Burnefs History of His Own 
 Time (Oxford, 1902), p. 284. 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. i, pp. 762-3: 'He seemed a man of great probity, and 
 to have a high sense of honour. He had no ordinary measure of 
 learning, a correct judgment, with a sweetness of temper that charmed 
 all who knew him. He had at that time just notions of government ; and 
 so great a command of himself that, during all the time that he continued 
 in the ministry, I never heard anyone complaint of him, but for his silent 
 and reserved answers with which his friends were not always well pleased. 
 His modest deportment gave him such an interest in the prince, that he 
 never seemed so fond of any of his ministers as he was of him.' Cf. 
 Foxcroft's Supplement, p. 288.
 
 124 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 from political life which too often robbed the country of the 
 services of one of the most cultured and ablest men of his day, 
 did not prevent Shrewsbury in the critical days of the Revolu- 
 tion from playing as important a part as any of the other 
 notable actors in the drama. 1 In the early scenes indeed 
 it was Shrewsbury that took the lead, and it was at his house 
 that the conspirators used to meet. Russell and Sidney 
 followed Shrewsbury, and by them the matter of the Prince's 
 intervention was brought nearer to a head. The intriguers 
 sounded a number of the principal peers with varying degrees 
 of success. There was no man in England whose influence 
 would carry greater weight than Halifax, but he did not 
 regard the scheme as practicable. He was only tentatively 
 approached and the lack of response did not encourage more 
 intimate advances. 2 The confederates found him 'backward 
 in all this matter'. He was never one prematurely to burn 
 his boats. Besides, as a letter of his written in May 1687 
 shows, he thought that the situation was not really very 
 serious. He considered there was little fear that popery would 
 prevail. 3 Nottingham proved just as unsatisfactory. 4 He 
 had stood very much aloof from the court of late, and at first 
 he entertained the proposals of the intriguers favourably. 
 Then he began to doubt. In his case High Church principles, 
 though they necessarily alienated him from James, yet weighed 
 heavily in the balance against resistance. Sidney probably 
 does him an injustice, when he writes to the Prince : ' He has 
 gone very far, but now his heart fails him, and he will go no 
 further : he saith 'tis scruple of conscience, but we all conclude 
 'tis another passion.' 5 Nottingham, like Halifax, persuaded 
 himself that things would come right of themselves. 6 
 
 1 See a remarkable letter from Shrewsbury to Somers, quoted in John, 
 Lord Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors (8 vols., 1846-69), vol. iv, 
 p. 166 : ' I cannot help referring to my old opinion, which is now supported 
 by more weight than 1 ever expected, and wonder that a man can be 
 found in England who has bread, that will be concerned in public business. 
 Had I a son, I would sooner breed him a cobbler, than a courtier, and 
 a hangman than a statesman.' 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. i, p. 754. s Dalrymple, Part I, App. to Book V, p. 69. 
 4 Burnet, vol. i, p. 764. 
 
 6 Dalrymple, Part I, App. to Book V, p. 112. 
 
 6 Ibid., p. 1 1 8. Nottingham writes : ' The birth of a Prince of Wales,
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 125 
 
 A very different spirit was found in the Earl of Devonshire, 
 like Shrewsbury a Whig leader. lie was not a man of great 
 mark, and William thought slightingly of him, averring that 
 he had never heard him give a reason for anything. 1 Now, 
 however, Devonshire made up his mind with great decision 
 and threw himself zealously into the business. A yet more 
 important adherent was secured in the person of Danby, who 
 showed the same keenness as Devonshire. He had had no 
 place in the administration during the reign of James, and he 
 bitterly hated the entire policy of the King. Once won over, 
 Danby became himself a propagandist ; and it was to his 
 persuasion that the Prince's party owed the adherence of 
 Compton. 2 Later, he made an appeal to the Karl of Chester- 
 field. ' I had rather lose my life in the field ', he writes, 'than 
 live under an arbitrary power, and see our laws and religion 
 changed, which is now visibly the King's intention.' 3 But 
 Chesterfield could not approve. He had always had an 
 aversion against taking arms against his sovereign, ' which the 
 law justly terms compassing the King's death.' 4 He tried to 
 dissuade Danby. Ambition, revenge, even patriotism might 
 counsel resistance, yet no man could foresee what the issue 
 would be of what at the time could only be a tragedy. Though 
 backward himself, Chesterfield regarded success as certain. 
 The King had committed his crowning blunder in the trial of 
 the Seven Bishops, and the birth of the Prince of Wales which 
 should have given him joy proved a dire misfortune. For the 
 situation was at once profoundly changed. There was no 
 prospect of the accession of the Protestant Mary. The menace 
 was no longer temporary, but perpetual. The nobility would 
 be submerged not for one single reign only, but indefinitely. 
 The schemers saw that the time was ripe for immediate and 
 
 and the designs of a further prosecution of the bishops and of new 
 modelling the army and calling of a parliament, arc matters that afford 
 various reflections. Hut I cannot apprehend from them such ill con- 
 sequences to our religion, or the just interests of your Highness, that 
 a little time will not effectually remedy, nor can I imagine that the Papists 
 are able to make any further considerable progress.' 
 
 1 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 236. 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. i, p. 764. 
 
 s Letters of Chesterfield, p. 336. 4 Ibid., p. 338.
 
 126 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 decisive action. The famous seven, Shrewsbury, Devonshire, 
 Danby, Lumley, Compton, Russell, and Sidney, met at 
 Shrewsbury's house and drew up the Association, which 
 contained a definite invitation to William of Orange. 1 They 
 besought His Highness to find a remedy for the country's 
 deliverance before it was too late ; assured him that the 
 populace were desirous of a change and that the greatest part 
 both of the nobility and gentry were as dissatisfied as the 
 populace; and that many of the most conspicuous among 
 them would join the Prince on his landing. 
 
 This is no place for a full account of the events which 
 followed upon the Prince's landing at Torbay on November 
 5, 1688. William expressed some disappointment at not 
 finding as much immediate support as he had anticipated. It 
 took some little time for risings to be organized ; but organized 
 they were. Delamere rose in Cheshire ; Devonshire in Derby- 
 shire ; Shrewsbury secured Bristol ; the Duke of Norfolk de- 
 clared for a free parliament in his own county ; Lord Herbert 
 of Cherbury raised Worcestershire ; Danby and Lumley 
 together took the lead in Yorkshire. 2 Danby indeed was inde- 
 fatigable. :! He had hoped with many others of his supporters 
 that William would land in the north. The Prince's failure 
 to do so occasioned some disappointment, and in some perhaps 
 even consternation. In these circumstances Danby showed 
 the greatest dexterity in keeping up the spirits of his adherents. 
 He made it clear to them that their position was now irre- 
 trievable ; they could not go back and therefore they must 
 advance. He assured them that they had already done enough 
 to ensure their condemnation for treason ; they could only 
 escape by success in their present enterprise. When they 
 heard a report that the King was willing to pardon all who 
 would now secede from the Prince, Danby concocted a letter 
 
 1 The text of the Association is printed in Dalrymple, Part I, App. to 
 Book V, p. 107 et seq. ; also in the appendix to Sir James Mackintosh's 
 History of the Revolution (1834), pp. 690-2. 
 
 2 Luttrell , vol. i, pp. 476-485, November 29 to December 9, 1688. 
 
 " See MSS. of the Earl of l.indsey, p. 449 (Hist. MSS. Comm., 
 Rep. XIV, pt. ix), and also Laurence Echard's History of the Revolution 
 (J725), PP. M9, i?o 2.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 127 
 
 which purported to give authoritative assurance that the King 
 had in reality no intention of clemency. 
 
 In the hour of his distress James most signally failed to 
 deal with the situation. He heard of the departure of the 
 Dutch fleet for England, and was instantly all concession. He 
 heard of its discomfiture in a storm and straightway abandoned 
 compromise until he heard that the disaster to the Prince's 
 fleet had been greatly exaggerated. At one moment he was 
 seeking reconciliation with the bishops ; at another he was 
 trying to bully them into signing a special repudiation of the 
 Prince of Orange's undertaking. 1 In his declaration William 
 had stated that he entered the country on the invitation of the 
 Lords Spiritual and Temporal. The bishops made the very 
 reasonable objection that as the statement was made of the 
 temporal peers as well as of themselves there was no reason to 
 single them out. The King was enraged, but he could make 
 no impression on Sancroft. He had to listen to a good deal 
 of advice from his nobility. He was presented with a petition 
 by the two archbishops and two bishops, signed by nineteen 
 peers, in which he was asked to call a free parliament. There 
 had been difficulties with regard to this document. It was 
 intended that it should be signed only by those who had not 
 made themselves obnoxious to the general welfare during the 
 reign. On this ground Rochester was excluded. This annoyed 
 his brother, who saw in the exclusion only the pique of Halifax. 
 But as Nottingham, who was at this time very much at 
 one with Savile, perceived, there were good reasons for the 
 stipulation. Of what use was it to seek to gain the con- 
 fidence of the country by a petition, in which there would be 
 seen the strange picture of men asking for the repudiation of 
 their own acts, and even for their own punishment ? 2 The 
 result of the quarrel was that I lalifax, Nottingham, Kent, Pem- 
 broke, Wey mouth, Fauconberg, Carlisle, and Pagct abstained. 
 James's answer to the petition was petulant. How, he cx- 
 
 1 Diary of Henry Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, in vol. ii of his Corre- 
 spondence (ed. S. W. Singer, 1828), vol. ii, pp. 493 7- 
 
 2 Hatton Correspondence (Camden Society, 18/tf), vol. ii, pp. 103, 105. 
 See also Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 10.
 
 128 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 claimed, could he summon a free parliament, so long as the 
 Prince of Orange remained in the country ? He told the 
 bishops that they would do better by praying and preaching 
 for him, and the temporal lords by appearing with swords in 
 their hands, than by petitioning. Even now, though circum- 
 stances forced him to hearken to the voice of his hereditary 
 councillors, he could not be prevailed upon to act in accordance 
 with their advice. 
 
 At Salisbury James's ineffectiveness became more pro- 
 nounced than ever. The advance of the Prince of Orange had 
 been prospering. At Exeter the first important recruits began 
 to arrive. There came Lord Colchester, Lord Wharton, and 
 the Earl of Abingdon. Shrewsbury had predicted that once the 
 ice was broken, all would be well. 1 Then the fear of being the 
 first to join would give way to the fear of being last. James 
 was abandoned by Churchill and Grafton, by Ormonde and 
 Drumlanrig, eldest son of the Duke of Queensberry, and by 
 Prince George of Denmark himself. They all entered the 
 Prince's camp. Events prospered also in other parts of the 
 kingdom. Newcastle, in whom the King had placed much 
 confidence, failed to hold Yorkshire for him. Danby proved 
 completely successful, and a declaration signed by six peers 
 and a number of prominent gentlemen was issued at York. 
 Another concourse of peers assembled at Nottingham Devon- 
 shire, Manchester, Rutland, Stamford, Cholmondeley, Grey de 
 Ruthyn, and even the reluctant Chesterfield. 2 There is a 
 short but interesting essay by the Earl of Warrington in which 
 he discusses the reason why the King fled from Salisbury. 3 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. i, p. 790. 
 
 2 Luttrell, vol. i, p. 479 ; Hatton Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 105. 
 
 15 Works of Ify. Booth, Earl of Warrington, p. 63 and sq., ' Reasons 
 why King James fled from Salisbury.' James, says Warrington, could 
 see plainly that the peers ' had thrown away the scabbard, and contemned 
 the thought of asking quarter, for Us they could never hope for another 
 opportunity to recover their liberties if they failed in this, so they very 
 well knew the inexorable temper of King James, that it would be to no 
 good purpose to sue for his mercy, whereby being made desperate, and 
 abetted moreover by the whole nation ; he must expect the utmost that 
 could be done by the united vigour of courage, revenge, the recovery of 
 liberty, and despair, all of which would make up too strong a composition 
 for King James his tender stomach, and turn his thoughts from fighting,
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 129 
 
 He concludes that it cannot have been the trifling desertions 
 from the army. But he lays great stress upon the importance 
 of the declarations of the nobility for the Prince. They would 
 march through the country, boldly proclaiming their deliverer. 
 Thus five hundred would speedily become forty thousand, and 
 what was at first sight a cloud no bigger than a man's hand 
 would quickly overspread the entire heavens. In other words, 
 it was the menace of the leading discontented peers that 
 caused James to throw away all his chances by his flight from 
 Salisbury ; it was the instrumentality of the peers in forming 
 the nucleus of rebellion that caused the success of the Revolu- 
 tion. This is not a complete explanation of the situation ; 
 nevertheless it rightly emphasizes what was certainly a most 
 important factor in it. 
 
 Upon his return to London on November 16 James once 
 more had recourse to the Lords. 1 He summoned those who 
 were in the capital and set before them the prospect of affairs, 
 asked their advice and at the same time apologized for his 
 failure to call a free parliament. There were some forty lords 
 present, including Clarendon, Rochester, Nottingham, Halifax, 
 Godolphin, and Oxford. A somewhat acrimonious discussion 
 took place ; James once more showing unwillingness to accept the 
 advice that he had sought, particularly as regards the granting 
 of a complete amnesty. 2 He failed to see that his welfare lay 
 not in making examples but in making amends. Halifax, in 
 Clarendon's phrase, spoke ' flatteringly '. But whether couched 
 in terms too deferential or not, the advice he gave was 
 thoroughly sound. As for Clarendon, he made a speech which 
 
 to contrive the best way to save his life, and this was the storm that drove 
 him away from Salisbury.' 
 
 1 AfSS. of the Earl of Dartmouth, p. 216 (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rep. XI, 
 App., pt. v) ; MSS. of Lord Kenyan, p. 209 (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rep. XIV, 
 App., pt. iv). 
 
 1 Macaulay quotes Van Citters, who he says had evidently obtained his 
 information from some of those present. ' I cannot do it,' said James, 
 ' I must make examples, Churchill above all ; Churchill whom I raised 
 so high. He and he alone has done all this. He has corrupted my 
 army. He has corrupted my child. He would have put me into the 
 hands of the Prince of Orange, but for God's special providence. My 
 Lords, you are strangely anxious for the safety of traitors. None of you 
 troubles himself about my safety.' Macaulay, vol. ii, pp. 526-7-
 
 130 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 was notable for the complete lack of deference shown in it. 
 He admits himself that he spoke with 'great freedom'. 1 
 Ailesbury declares that the Earl ' behaved like a pedagogue 
 to a pupil ' ; 2 and James's own version is ' My Lord Clarendon 
 flew into an indiscreet and seditious railing, exaggerating fears 
 and jealousies, and blaspheming the King's conduct, so that 
 nobody wondered at his going a day or two later to meet the 
 Prince of Orange at Salisbury'. 3 Such a proceeding is 
 certainly remarkable from one who so short a time before had 
 been rilled with intense horror on learning that his son, Lord 
 Cornbury, had been amongst the first to go over to William. 
 1 O God ! ' he had written, ' that my son should be a rebel ! 
 The Lord in His mercy look upon me, and enable me to 
 support myself under this most grievous calamity ! I made 
 haste home, and as soon as I could recollect myself a little, I 
 wrote to Lord Middleton to obtain leave for me to throw 
 myself at the King's feet.' 4 Less than three weeks later the 
 writer of these words had himself joined the Prince and his 
 own son. In the interval he had signed the petition to the 
 King on the subject of the summoning of a free parliament, 
 had been soundly rated by the Queen for doing so, and had 
 made his outspoken speech. There can be little doubt that 
 ever since James's dismissal of the two Hydes there had been 
 smouldering dissatisfaction in Clarendon's heart, and that it 
 only needed familiarization with the idea of William's mission 
 and possibly some small affront at Court to separate him from 
 his master. 
 
 James was now contemplating flight. Disregarding the 
 bold advice tendered by the loyal Ailesbury, he was once 
 more falling back upon the counsels of those Catholic advisers, 
 who saw that there could be no safety for them in a settle- 
 ment. 5 We cannot doubt that to James it appeared that it 
 
 1 Clarendon's Diary, vol. ii, pp. 206-10. 
 
 2 Ailesbury, p. 192. 
 
 3 Memoirs of James II in Dr. J. S. Clarke's Life( London, 1816), vol. ii, 
 p. 239. Even Burnet speaks of Clarendon's 'indecent and insolent 
 words, which were generally condemned '. 
 
 4 Diary, vol. ii, p. 204. 
 ^ Ailesbury, pp. 195-6.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 131 
 
 was not alone the peers who had openly sided with William 
 that were against him, but also those who would speak so 
 freely to him as his own supporters had been doing. 1 It was 
 clear that they had no sympathy whatever for his cause ; it 
 was only their attachment to the monarchical principle that 
 kept them at his side. And when even a Clarendon could 
 find this consideration outweighed, it was not possible for the 
 King to feel confidence in any but a very few of his adherents. 
 Again, the conditions brought back from Hungerford by 
 James's representatives, Halifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin, 
 were far from reassuring. 2 In short, the tone taken by the 
 Prince, the continuance of insurrections in the country, the 
 attitude adopted by the prominent peers, together with the 
 fearful warnings of his private advisers, convinced James that 
 he was in peril not merely of losing his crown, but of losing 
 his life as well. Having first sent his wife and child out of the 
 country, he took flight himself. 
 
 What was to be done in this conjuncture ? The King was 
 gone ; the promised parliament had not yet come into being ; 
 the writs had not even been issued ; there was no recognized 
 legal authority existing. Once more the Peers came forward 
 to take the lead. Twenty-nine of them met together at the 
 Guildhall and assumed the functions of government. Their 
 first idea had been to consult with the magistrates, but the 
 latter proved themselves quite incapable of rising to the 
 occasion. 3 The Lords therefore arrogated to themselves the 
 supreme authority in the country. Their meeting was fortified 
 by the precedent of 1640, when Charles I had summoned the 
 Peers together at York, though Parliament was not sitting. 
 
 1 It is typical of the point of view taken by the peers it was not 
 James's that Dartmouth refused to send the Prince of Wales to France 
 or to hand over his fleet to Tyrconnel. 
 
 2 The terms were : ' That papists should be disarmed, and removed 
 from employments, the Tower of London and Tilbury fort put into the 
 hands of the city, and Portsmouth into those of persons chosen by both 
 Princes ; that no more foreign forces should be brought into the kingdom ; 
 and that, if the King chose to reside at London during the sitting of 
 parliament, the Prince might reside there likewise, attended with an equal 
 number of guards.' Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, pp. 16-24. See 
 
 794-5- 
 1061. 
 
 K 2 
 
 Burnet, vol. i, pp. 79 
 s Ralph, vol. i, p.
 
 132 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 This assembly of peers at the Guildhall is, therefore, of some 
 constitutional interest. 1 But its importance at the time was 
 severely practical. In all great national crises such as that 
 which overtook the country when the King took flight, im- 
 mediate action must be taken in order that the anarchical 
 forces in society, ever prone to make their appearance on such 
 occasions, may be kept in check. In such circumstances forms 
 and ceremonies are apt to be swept away and the fundamental 
 forces in the political system will stand revealed. It would be 
 going too far to say that the Peers were thus proved to be the 
 predominant power in England at the end of the year 1689.* 
 Yet the way in which time and again they came to the fore 
 in these critical weeks reveals them as leaders of the people, 
 and amply justifies the use of the phrase, ' the Aristocratic 
 Revolution.' 
 
 The proceedings at the Guildhall were such as might have 
 been expected in the emergency. 3 In the first place, on 
 December n a letter was dispatched to Lord Feversham, 
 ordering him to remove his troops to distant quarters. Another 
 letter was sent to Lord Dartmouth, who was in command of 
 the fleet. As His Majesty had that morning privily withdrawn 
 himself, their lordships wrote, they being desirous to prevent 
 effusion of blood in this juncture desired him to see to it that 
 there should be no acts of hostility between his own fleet and 
 that of the Prince of Orange, should they happen to meet. 
 They likewise required him to remove forthwith all Popish 
 officers from their commands. 4 To the Earl of Rochester and 
 Lord Weymouth and the Bishop of Ely and Rochester was 
 
 1 Pike, p. 254. 
 
 2 The following attended : The Archbishops of Canterbury and York ; 
 the Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, Peterborough ; 
 the Earls of Pembroke, Dorset, Mulgrave, Thanet, Carlisle, Craven, 
 Ailesbury, Burlington, Berkeley, Rochester ; Viscounts Newport and 
 Weymouth ; the Lords Wharton, North & Grey, Chandos, Montague, 
 Jermyn, Culpepper, Carbery, Crew, Ossulstune. The Parliamentary 
 History (Cobbett and Wright), vol. v, p. 19. 
 
 3 For proceedings at Guildhall and the subsequent proceedings at 
 Whitehall see Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, pp. 37-57 (passim}. 
 Miss Foxcroft uses the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum (MSS. 
 255, f. 40). 
 
 4 Dartmouth AfSS., p. 229.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 133 
 
 entrusted the task of drawing up a declaration of the reasons 
 for the Peers' action. 1 In the declaration they stated that 
 anxious as they had been for the Protestant religion, the laws 
 of the land and the liberties of the subject, they had hoped to 
 see the assembling of a free parliament ; but I lis Majesty having 
 withdrawn himself, they could not be silent in these calamities. 
 They had therefore unanimously resolved to apply to the 
 Prince of Orange, whose kindness in helping by his presence 
 to secure a free parliament they acknowledged, in order that 
 he might rescue them with the least possible effusion of blood 
 from slavery and popery. They stated that they for their 
 part would do their utmost to assist His Highness in bringing 
 together a parliament, ' wherein our laws, our liberties and 
 properties may be secured, and the Church of England in 
 particular with a due liberty to Protestant Dissenters.' In the 
 meantime they would do their best to preserve peace in 
 London and Westminster by disarming Papists and securing 
 all Jesuit priests on whom they could lay hands. Whatever 
 else might be necessary for the public good they would do as 
 occasion required. This document was dispatched to the 
 Prince by the hands of Pembroke, Weymouth, Culpepper, and 
 the Bishop of Ely. 2 Finally, the assembled Peers sent to the 
 Tower, demanding that the keys should be delivered up to 
 them, and this being done, appointed Lord Lucas governor in 
 place of Skelton. 
 
 December 1 1 closed in riot and fury within London. The 
 mob broke out ; the opportunity for disturbance afforded by 
 the uncertain state of events was too good to be let slip by the 
 thieves and ruffians who infested the slums of the metropolis. 3 
 Next day the Peers again met, this time at Whitehall, in the 
 endeavour to preserve order, Halifax now presiding in place 
 of Sancroft. 4 Lord Montague moved that Gates might be 
 discharged from prison, but nothing was done in the matter. 
 
 1 Tor full text of this declaration see Purl. Hist. vol. v, pp. 19-20. 
 
 Luttrell, vol. i, p. 485, December 9. 
 
 s Works of Buckinghamshire, vol. i, p. xv. 
 
 4 Ralph suggests that it was the mere accident of the Prince's finding 
 Halifax presiding over the Peers at Whitehall that brought him into 
 favour with William subsequently.
 
 I 3 4 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 Orders were given to fire upon the rabble should necessity 
 again arise. The Queen Dowager sent to ask for thirty horse 
 to be drawn up before Somerset House to disperse the mob ; 
 whereupon the Lords desired Feversham to meet them, but 
 the latter sent an excuse to the effect that the Queen Dowager 
 desired him to stay and defend her. The night of Decem- 
 ber 12 saw a repetition of the previous excesses, but on the 
 second occasion they were yet more outrageous and alarming. 1 
 The terrors of the Irish Night were long remembered. Next 
 day the Peers resumed their sittings. They had been occupied 
 with the question of Feversham's conduct when the unwelcome 
 news was brought that James had been captured. When the 
 messenger arrived, Halifax would have adjourned the meeting, 
 but Mulgrave by calling attention to the messenger's presence 
 forestalled him. Feversham was dispatched to attend upon 
 the King ; the instructions to receive his commands and to 
 protect him from insolence being added at Feversham's own 
 request. 2 
 
 On the I4th a reply to the Lords' declaration was brought 
 from the Prince by Pembroke and the other deputies. He 
 told them he intended to be in London in a few days' 
 time. His presence was indeed urgently needed. It had to 
 be admitted that the assemblage of Peers had not succeeded 
 in its primary object of maintaining order. An armed force 
 was necessary. In the meantime business continued to be 
 transacted at Whitehall. On the I5th an examination was 
 made of Lord Jeffreys, who had been attacked by the mob in 
 their fury and had at his own request been removed to the 
 Tower for safety's sake. For this service he humbly thanked 
 his examiners, whose chief purpose with him was to ascertain 
 what had happened to the Great Seal and the writs. William's 
 chief anxiety now was to be rid of his father-in-law. He 
 held a consultation with some of the leading peers at Windsor, 
 and it was decided that the King should be advised to leave 
 London whither he had returned. This advice was conveyed 
 to James by Shrewsbury, Delamere, and Halifax, who was 
 
 1 Hat ton Correspondence, vol. i, p. 124. 
 3 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 58.
 
 VI THE INTERREGNUM 135 
 
 now thoroughly in the Prince's interests. 1 William on Decem- 
 ber 21 summoned all the peers in London to meet him at 
 St. James's. Some seventy appeared. 2 Having thanked His 
 Highness for his assistance, they withdrew to Westminster. 
 It is interesting to note that they resolved that in their address 
 tenderness might be used in thanking the Prince for having 
 called the Lords together, as they had a birthright which 
 might be prejudiced. 3 Nothing of consequence occurred on 
 the aand, except that Halifax took the chair by desire ; but 
 that evening James made good his flight out of England. 
 The next day was a Sunday. On the 24th the Lords had 
 to consider a new situation. An application was drawn up 
 asking that the Prince should take upon himself the admini- 
 stration. This was formulated by Nottingham, Culpepper, 
 Uelamere, and the Bishops of London and Ely. The Prince 
 was asked to summon a parliament by means of circular 
 letters. 4 But upon this point there was less unanimity, for 
 Nottingham, clinging to his Tory principles, still wished that 
 the King should be asked for a legal writ, a proposal which 
 was wholly impracticable, but which soothed the consciences 
 of those who as yet did not see that they were already well 
 embarked on revolution. 
 
 The Convention met on January 22. In the meantime 
 the elections had returned to Parliament a House of Commons 
 with a very strong Whig majority, and there could be little 
 doubt what sort of line it would adopt. But what the Lords 
 would do was doubtful. Would that assembly show sympathy 
 with the sort of contractual doctrine which pamphleteers 
 were disseminating? 5 How far could the more backward of 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. i, pp. 800-1. 
 
 2 The numbers are variously given. Chandler (vol. ii, p. 90) says there 
 were 92. The Parliamentary History (vol. v, p. 23), probably following 
 Chandler, says 'about 90'. Reresby says 'about 50' (Memoirs, p. 420). 
 Macaulay accepts the computation in Dalrymple (Part I, Book VI, 
 p. 216), i.e. 70. 
 
 s Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 59. The fact that the Peers did 
 not meet again after the I5th until summoned by the Prince is considered 
 by Ralph to imply that they tacitly resigned all authority to him 
 (vol. i, p. 1074). 
 
 4 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 44- 
 
 5 See Bartholomew Pamphlets for l6b'9, vol. i, in Bodleian: The
 
 136 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 William's supporters be induced on mature reflection to 
 accept the principle of a new system whose introduction they 
 had unconsciously helped to effect ? There were some who, 
 like Somerset, Burlington, and Scarsdale, had been active in 
 bringing in the Prince, but had never dreamed that he would 
 contend for the crown. 1 Matters had gone much further than 
 they had ever anticipated. In the House the Tories had 
 a small but decided majority. In his account of the state of 
 parties' among the Peers, Mulgrave divided them into three 
 classes, of which those who inclined to the King were much 
 the smallest. 2 Some of these were actuated by motives of 
 conscience ; more, according to this authority, by despair 
 of ever receiving any favour from William. But the bulk 
 of the Tories were not well-affected towards James personally 
 in the least. Some of them, like Danby, had taken a foremost 
 part against him. They were attached not to the monarch, 
 but to monarchy ; and the distinction is one of vital impor- 
 tance. They had not exerted themselves to maintain the 
 status quo ; but now the horror of the thing which had been 
 done, the sense that despite all that might be said about 
 voluntary abdication and so forth, the sovereign had really 
 been turned out of his own kingdom, weighed heavily upon 
 them. In particular a number of the bishops, chief among them 
 Sancroft, found themselves in a most unfortunate position, 
 because their theory of government was semi-religious. 3 The 
 
 Breviate, or Advice before it is too Late. Also a pamphlet On Magistracy, 
 Laws and Obedience : 
 
 1 There is no natural obligation, whereby one man is bound to yield 
 obedience to another, but what is founded on patriarchal authority. 
 
 All the subjects of a patriarchal monarch are princes of the blood. 
 
 All the people of England are not princes of the blood. 
 
 No man who is naturally free can be bound but by his own consent. 
 
 Public laws are made by public consent, and they therefore bind every 
 man, because every man's consent is involved in them,' &c., &c. 
 
 1 Reresby, p. 435. 
 
 2 Works of Buckinghamshire, vol. i, p. xxxiv. 
 
 3 The High Church principles of government are summarized in 
 a pamphlet, which purports to be a Speech of a Noble Lord against 
 Deposing Kings for Male-administration (Bartholomew Pamphlets, 
 1689) : 'The law of God commands that the child should be put to death 
 for any contumely done unto the parents. But what if the father be 
 a robber? If a murderer? If for all excess of villainies, odious and 
 execrable both to God and man ? Surely he deserves the highest degree
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 137 
 
 position in which the Archbishop was placed was certainly 
 one of extreme perplexity ; but in virtue of his great position 
 and because, by his resistance to James, he had been voluntarily 
 or involuntarily an important agent in bringing about the 
 crisis, it behoved him to take some part in bringing about 
 a settlement of the country. He was the natural leader of 
 the Tories, yet he would not lead them, and refused so much 
 as to take his seat in the Convention. 
 
 The explanation given by Dalrymple of the greater strength 
 of the Tories in the Upper House when the Convention met 
 is probably the correct one. 1 The Lords had continued in 
 London ever since the arrival of the Prince. But the members 
 of the Lower House came from all parts of the country. To 
 the excitement occasioned by the appearance of a Dutch 
 army, the risings in the different counties, the dramatic success 
 of William and the disappearance of the King, there had 
 succeeded all the bustle of elections fought under conditions 
 of high pressure. When the Commons assembled, therefore, 
 they were still in the whirl of excitement ; they had had no 
 time to cool down, to think dispassionately, to remember old 
 prejudices, or personal predilections. They realized that a 
 momentous problem had arisen ; that it was their function 
 to solve it with as little delay as possible, so that their 
 attention was focussed exclusively upon the immediate question. 
 As the inevitable result of the state of high feeling throughout 
 the country it had followed that very strong and decided 
 
 of punishment, and yet must not the son lift up his hand against him, for 
 no offence is so great as to be punished by parricide. But our country 
 is dearer unto us than our parents; and the prince \s pater patriae^ the 
 father of our country ; and therefore more sacred and dear unto us than 
 our parents by nature, and must not be violated, how injurious, how 
 impious soever he may be. Doth he command or demand our person or 
 our persons, we must not shun from the one, nor shrink from the other. 
 For (as Nehemiah saith) Kings have dominion over the bodies or over 
 the cattle of their subjects at their pleasure. Doth he enjoin those actions 
 which are contrary to the law of God ? We must neither wholly obey nor 
 violently resist, but with a constant courage submit ourselves to all 
 manner of punishment, and show our submission by enduring and not 
 performing ; yea the Church hath declared it to be heresy to hold that 
 a prince may be slain, or deposed by subjects, for any disorder, or default, 
 either in life, or else in government.' 
 1 Dalrymple, Part I, Book VII, p. 273.
 
 138 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 Whigs had for the most part been returned. There can be 
 no doubt that there was a fairly large number of republicans, 
 who were glad to find that a constitutional crisis had arisen to 
 which they could apply their favourite theories. Some there 
 were who were anxious to prove that the English monarchy 
 was actually elective, though such ardent archaeologists were 
 kept in the background. The case of the Peers was very 
 different from that of the Commons. They had for the past 
 few weeks been enjoying a period of comparative quiet after 
 the tumult. Electioneering frenzy did not trouble them. 
 They had therefore an opportunity to look around them, to 
 take stock of the situation, to regain their equilibrium and to 
 remember old attachments. In order to escape from an 
 intolerable position they had launched a boat in dangerous 
 waters. It was essential that they themselves should as far 
 as possible control its navigation, and not allow themselves 
 under pressure of a reckless crew to be swept away upon the 
 flood tide. Their minds were open once more to historic 
 principles ; their hearts assailed by ancient sentiments. After 
 all need there be any great upheaval ? Certain changes were 
 inevitable, but it was necessary to retain the old system and 
 to beware of the new-fangled doctrines of an impertinent 
 generation, eager to make all things new. 
 
 Unfortunately for themselves the Tories were not united. 
 They had all the same end in view, but they differed greatly 
 as to the means by which it was to be attained. Some, such 
 as the Archbishop of Canterbury, would not commit them- 
 selves to any course of action. In a private meeting with 
 the bishops he had agreed that a regency was the best 
 expedient, but he would not come to Westminster to propose 
 the plan. That task was left to Nottingham, who led the 
 main body of the Tories in the House. There were again, 
 no doubt, others who would have liked to see the restoration of 
 James on certain conditions. Lastly, there were the followers 
 of Danby, who though prepared to go much further than the 
 orthodox Tory and determined that James should not be 
 allowed to return, yet felt that William had no good claim 
 to the English Crown, which ought to devolve upon Mary
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 139 
 
 singly. Thus the Tories, despite their majority in the Upper 
 House, were unable to present a united front to the solid 
 Whig phalanx, which, as events proved, possessed a great 
 advantage in the favour of Halifax, who presided in the 
 Lords. 
 
 The early proceedings of the Upper House in the Con- 
 vention were of a non-contentious character. 1 It was resolved 
 that the 315! inst. should be celebrated as a thanksgiving day, 
 and that a special prayer for the occasion should be drawn up 
 by the bishops. There being no judges present, a number of 
 legal assistants were appointed, including Dolben and Holt. 
 It was determined that an address of thanks should be sent 
 to the Prince ; that he should be requested to undertake the 
 administration ; that the disposal of the public revenue should 
 be placed in his hands, and that he should be asked to have 
 an especial care for the present condition of Ireland. It was 
 resolved that no Papist should be permitted to enter the 
 lobby, the Painted Chamber, the Court of Requests, or West- 
 minster Hall during the sitting of the Convention. The 
 appointment of Halifax as Speaker pro tcmpore closed the 
 first day's proceedings. The Tory lords were anxious to 
 come into contact with the vital question at issue without 
 any delay. They realized how desirable it was for the success 
 of their own interests that the House in which their party had 
 a majority, the House which up to this point had taken the 
 lead, should take the initiative now. Accordingly Nottingham 
 tried to arrange that the Chamber should enter into considera- 
 tion of the state of the nation at the earliest opportunity, 
 before ' any extravagant votes should be taken below '. The 
 Tory plan was upset very largely by the influence of Halifax, 
 who, trimmer as he was, had now entirely gone over to the 
 Prince's side and had no doubt come to the conclusion that 
 no other satisfactory solution was possible than that which 
 lay in the full recognition of the existing conditions. 2 He 
 declared, therefore, that any discussion of affairs at this stage 
 
 1 Luttrell, vol. i, p. 485; L.J., vol. xiv, pp. 101-6; Clarendon's Diary, 
 vol. ii, p. 252. 
 
 2 Clarendon's Diary, vol. ii, p. 253.
 
 140 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 ' was just as much time lost ; for the Lords should not 
 proceed upon any business, till they saw what the Commons 
 did '. The formal proposal for delay was made by Devonshire 
 who, speaking on Friday the 25th, suggested that as the Lower 
 House was to discuss the state of the nation next Monday, 
 the Lords should postpone their consideration of that subject 
 till the Tuesday, by which time, as he said, ' we shall be able 
 to gather some lights from below, which might be of use to 
 us.' The motion was carried, though (to use Clarendon's 
 phrase) ' The lights from below did not pass without animad- 
 versions '. 
 
 In the Commons the Whigs were easily triumphant. 1 Finch 
 and Musgrave might insist upon the republican tendency dis- 
 played in the arguments of the majority ; the arguments 
 embodied the widespread popular philosophy of the day. The 
 King had virtually demised. A prince ceasing to administer 
 justice ceases to be a king. James had overturned all the 
 foundations of government, and a sovereign who acts against 
 his own laws is a tyrant. The contractual theory, at the back 
 of the Whig doctrine, was finally formulated in the celebrated 
 motion, which was easily carried, 'that King James, having 
 endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by 
 breaking the original contract between King and people, and 
 by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked persons, having 
 violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of 
 the kingdom, hath abdicated the government, and the throne 
 is thereby vacant.' 2 When this motion was brought up to 
 the Lords it was laid aside for the time being. But another 
 which accompanied it to the effect ' 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 ' 
 was instantly accepted by the Lords without a division. It 
 was evidently taken as an irrefutable statement of lamentable 
 fact, and the Lords did not regard themselves as having by 
 
 1 For an account of the debates in the Commons see Original Papers of 
 Philip Yorke, first Earl of Hardiuicke (London, 1785), vol. ii, pp. 399- 
 401 for January 28, and pp. 413-25 for January 29. 
 
 2 C.J., vol. x, p. 14, January 28, 1688/9.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 141 
 
 their acceptance of it committed themselves to the contractual 
 creed. But in reality there was no fundamental difference be- 
 tween the two motions. The immediate inference to be 
 drawn from the second resolution was that sovereignty was 
 based rather upon national expediency than upon hereditary 
 right Either resolution involved a breaking away from the 
 hereditary principle ; the one explained it by a fiction, the 
 other justified it by the verdict of experience. 
 
 Before embarking upon the intricate questions raised by 
 the House of Commons, the House, being in committee with 
 Danby as chairman, discussed the question whether without 
 necessarily agreeing that the throne was vacant, the problem 
 could not be better met by the expedient of a regency than 
 by that of making a new king. If the proposal of a regency 
 were adopted, then the old system might in essentials be 
 retained and uncomfortable questions be banished. Notting- 
 ham took the lead and made a long and able speech in which 
 he discussed the question apparently for the most part from 
 the historical point of view. 1 In the reign of Edward III 
 it had been resolved that the King had no peer in the king- 
 dom ; no one could judge him. It had also been resolved 
 that he could not abdicate his kingdom. The conclusion 
 which Nottingham drew from these and other similar argu- 
 ments was that a regency was the best remedy and came 
 nearest to the law. Ailesbury objected to the manner of the 
 speech as being too lawyer-like ; he confessed that he had not 
 felt edified by it. 2 Clarendon supported the motion, speaking 
 in a peevish strain. 3 Rochester also spoke, and spoke well, 
 
 1 For rough notes of this speech see Lords' AtSS. i6SQ-<}o, No. 10, p. 14. 
 
 2 The following particulars are taken from Ailesbury, p. 232. Ailesbury 
 says a good deal that is of interest about the proceedings in the Upper 
 House during the sitting of the Convention ; and it is unfortunate that 
 more extensive use cannot safely be made of his accounts of debates. 
 But he is so often inaccurate, so often speaks clearly from imperfect 
 recollections of events in the past, that it is impossible to rely on him 
 implicitly. His avoidance of dates makes it at times very difficult to be 
 sure to which debate he is referring. No doubt can, however, exist in the 
 present instance. 
 
 s His attitude now, in view of his having gone over to the Prince's side, 
 greatly irritated William. It is suggested that he was actuated by 
 resentment at not receiving the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland upon which he 
 had set his heart.
 
 i 4 2 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 but as usual with too much passion. 1 He was very apt to 
 lose his self-control in debate, so that the force of his rhetorical 
 skill and knowledge was in large measure lost. Still, the 
 case for a regency was put so ably that some thought, 
 especially after Nottingham's speech, that the motion would 
 be carried. It was two exceedingly forceful speeches by 
 Halifax and Danby, who were on the present subject quite 
 united, that altered the complexion of affairs. As it was the 
 motion was lost by the narrow margin of 51 to 49.2 Only 
 two of the fourteen bishops present voted against the motion, 
 viz. London and Bristol. 
 
 Next day, January 30, the Lords examined the principal 
 resolution from the Commons clause by clause. Although 
 many maintained the complete divine right theory, still the 
 clause which spoke of the original contract between king and 
 people, which James had broken, was passed by 54 voices to 
 43. 3 But even after the acceptance of so revolutionary a 
 doctrine as this, the Tories were not yet beaten. Their chance 
 came in the discussion of verbal questions, where it was pos- 
 sible to indulge in the intricacies of sophistic argument. They 
 took exception to the word ' abdicate '. James might have 
 broken a compact, but abdicated he had not. The Tories 
 triumphed ; they carried a resolution for the substitution of 
 the word ' deserted '. The debate was resumed next day 
 when the question of the vacancy of the throne was con- 
 sidered. The Whigs perceived as the result of the previous 
 day's discussion that they were in danger of being again 
 defeated. Danby, who had taken upon himself the role of 
 
 1 See Macky, p. 45. 
 
 2 So Clarendon's Diary, vol. ii, p. 256. In Lords' A1SS. 1689-90, No. 10, 
 p. 15, the numbers are given as 51 and 48. Clarendon, however, gives 
 a precise list : Dukes of Somerset, Southampton, Grafton, Ormonde, 
 Northumberland, Beaufort ; Earls of Kent, Pembroke, Exeter, Scarsdale, 
 Chesterfield, Westmoreland, Thanet, Clarendon, Craven, Nottingham, 
 Feversham, Berkeley, Rochester, Abingdon, Ailesbury, Lichfield, 
 Yarmouth ; Viscount Weymouth ; Lords de la Warr, Ferrers, Chandos, 
 Brooke, Leigh, Coventry, Jermyn, Dartmouth, Crew, Godolphin, Griffin, 
 Maynard, Arundell of Trerice; the Archbishop of York; the Bishops of 
 Winchester, Norwich, Lincoln, Llandaff, Ely, Chichester, Bath and 
 Wells, Peterborough, Rochester, Gloucester, St. David's. 
 
 8 Lords' AfSS. 1 689-90, No. 10, p. 16.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 143 
 
 protector of the Princess Mary's interests, would not accept 
 the theory of vacancy, as he held that Mary was already 
 Queen by right. The Whigs, abandoned by their former 
 ally, in their predicament moved that instead of the words 
 ' the throne is thereby vacant ' there should be inserted the 
 conclusion ' the Prince and Princess of Orange be declared 
 King and Queen '. But the previous question was moved and 
 the ' vacancy ' clause rejected by eleven votes. 
 
 The situation created by the divergence between the two 
 Houses was complex. Various expedients were being can- 
 vassed throughout the country, for crowning the Prince and 
 Princess jointly, for crowning the Prince alone. 1 The Lords' 
 treatment of the Commons' motion did not admit of either of 
 them. So keen did popular feeling in London become that 
 an attempt was made to influence the Peers by petitions, and 
 during the debates crowds would assemble in the neighbour- 
 hood of St. Stephen's and insult the Tory lords as they 
 made their way either to or from parliament. 2 William took 
 measures to put a stop to these proceedings. Although the 
 Lords had stood out against the Commons, the cause of James 
 personally was not thereby advanced in any way. Not con- 
 tent with agreeing to the resolution that the security of the 
 Protestant religion was incompatible with the rule of a popish 
 prince, they commanded that a special thanksgiving for delivery 
 from popery and arbitrary power should be drawn up together 
 with a prayer for the deliverer. A letter for the Convention 
 from James was read by neither House. 3 
 
 When the Lords' amendments to their resolution was brought 
 into the House of Commons, no hesitation was shown in dis- 
 
 1 See Bartholomew Pamphlets for 1688: (l) Reasons for placing the 
 Prince of Wales on the Throne, singly during Life. (2) Reasons for 
 crowning the Prince and Princess of Orange jointly. 
 
 2 A History of Political Transactions and of Parties from tJic Restora- 
 tion to the death of William 111, by Thomas Somerville (1792), 
 p. 232. 
 
 The text of the letter is given in Lords." J/.V.V. rfSv-cjo, No. 1 1 , pp. 18- 
 22. It might seem scarcely credible in after days, thought Mulgrave, that 
 a full House of nobles should not so much as open what might be 
 reckoned the last words of a dying sovereign. The reason he gives is 
 that it was thought the recital of the letter might prove too moving. 
 Works of Buckinghamshire, vol. i, p. xxvi.
 
 H4 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 missing them. The Commons did not agree because they 
 considered that the word ' deserted ' did not express the 
 conclusion to be inferred from the premises to which their 
 lordships had agreed, viz. that James II had violated the 
 original contract between king and people. Nor could they 
 accept the Lords' amendment of leaving out the clause referring 
 to the vacancy of the throne. Vacancy, in their opinion, was 
 the corollary of abdication, just as abdication was of royal 
 subversion of the fundamental laws of the constitution. 1 In 
 other words, the Lords were arraigned for inconsistency and 
 illogicality. A free conference was asked for by the Lower 
 House and agreed to. It took place, but led to no solution of 
 the difficulty, for the Lords stood their ground. Nottingham, 
 who was their chief representative, explained that they insisted 
 upon the substitution of the word ' deserted ' for ' abdicated ', 
 because the latter was a word unknown to the common law of 
 England, and secondly, because abdication was a voluntary 
 renunciation; and James had made no voluntary renunciation. 
 In the second place, the Lords insisted upon their second 
 amendment, because the monarchy was hereditary and not 
 elective, and because no act of a king could invalidate the right 
 of his heirs, and therefore allegiance was due ' to such person 
 as the right of succession doth belong to '. When the result of 
 the conference was made known to them, the Commons once 
 more rejected the Lords' amendments, but only by the small 
 majority of 181 to 151. 
 
 It had been William's intention not to interfere with the 
 deliberations of the Convention, but he now lost patience with 
 its dilatoriness and determined to settle the question at once 
 by definitely stating what his own wishes were. When Mary 
 made it quite plain that she would never consent to be Queen 
 save in conjunction with her husband, and he that he would 
 never be tied to his wife's apron-strings, Danby realized that his 
 scheme was doomed. This put an end to the schism between 
 his party and the Whigs and rendered the acquiescence of 
 the House of Lords inevitable. There took place, however, 
 
 1 C. /., vol. x, p. 18, February 2.
 
 vi THE INTERREGNUM 145 
 
 a second conference between the Houses on February 6, at 
 which the Tory peers once again explained their position. 1 
 Probably most readers of the account of this discussion share 
 with Macaulay his feeling of disappointment. It is not merely 
 that the conference was practically unimportant, as the actual 
 result was not affected by it, but that the arguments adduced 
 appear so very puerile. But, though the discussion resolved 
 itself into a haggling about the precise meaning of words, and 
 though no general statements of principle are to be found, still 
 questions of principle were involved and underlay the quibbling. 
 Over and over again the Tories were twitted with their inability 
 to answer the question,' If the throne is not vacant, by whom 
 then is it filled ? ' They objected that ' abdicated ' was a word 
 unknown to the English law ; so for that matter was the word 
 'deserted'. 'Abdicate', Mr. Sergeant Holt solemnly explained, 
 was a word frequently met with in the best Latin authors, such 
 as Cicero. The retort made by Nottingham and his fellow 
 managers was that the language used by the Commons seemed 
 to suggest that the English Crown was elective. The Bishop 
 of Ely was responsible for the distinction between the exercise 
 of government and the right to govern. The King might 
 have abdicated the former, he could not abdicate the latter. 
 Clarendon objected to the contract theory that allegiance 
 to the sovereign was owed immediately upon the Crown's 
 devolving upon him, before ever he had taken the Corona- 
 tion Oath. The question whether, granted that James had 
 renounced, he could renounce for more than himself occasioned 
 some acrimonious discussion. Pembroke and Clarendon would 
 have it that the throne being hereditary, it must in default of 
 James be occupied by his heir, to be met by the legal retort, 
 ' Nemo est haeres viventis.' ' I say, no man can be his heir 
 while he lives,' exclaimed Maynard. ' If he has any he is 
 in mtbibus, our law knows none ; and what shall we do till he 
 be dead ? ' Later on the debate in the hands of the Hydes 
 wandered off into a disquisition on the subject of the deposi- 
 tion of Richard II. Nottingham in the last words he spoke 
 
 1 A full account of the conference is given in Torbeck's Part. Debates, 
 vol. i, pp. 189 et sey., and also in the Pur/. Hist., vol. v, pp. 67-107. 
 
 15282 I,
 
 i 4 6 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 at the conference made an appeal to the Commons' representa- 
 tives to reflect lest in getting the established government they 
 wished for in their own way, ' they should overturn all our 
 legal foundations.' Of the sincerity of Nottingham there can 
 be no question. He knew that the time spent in the conference 
 had been so much time wasted ; he knew what was destined to 
 take place, and though he himself could not conscientiously 
 agree, he actually confessed that he was glad that the fact of 
 others being less scrupulous rendered an escape from the dead- 
 lock possible. 
 
 Clarendon had been very well satisfied with the conference. 
 ' I think ', he wrote, ' that all impartial men who were present 
 will own that the Lords had by far the better of the argument, 
 both upon the point of reason, and according as the law now 
 stands.' l It was therefore a terrible disappointment to him 
 that upon his return to the House after so successful a meeting 
 it was only to find defeat for his party. He laments that 
 ' such was the strength of the malicious (I think I may so call 
 them) contrary to all law and right reason, the question was 
 put whether to agree with the House of Commons '. Halifax, 
 he complained, ' drove furiously.' His chief argument was that 
 of necessity. The crown was only made elective pro hoc 
 vice, and then reverted to its ordinary hereditary channel. 
 Nottingham made ' a substantial reply '. Nevertheless the 
 motion was carried by a majority of twenty. 2 Authori- 
 ties differ as to the exact numbers. Several of the Tory 
 peers absented themselves Chesterfield, Weymouth, Ferrers, 
 Godolphin, the Bishop of Oxford. Grafton, Southampton, and 
 Northumberland, who had all three voted for the regency, saw 
 fit to side with the majority, whose ranks were also swelled 
 by the inclusion of several peers who were but rarely to be 
 seen within the walls of the House, such as the Earls of 
 Lincoln and Carlisle. Another of the contents was the Bishop 
 of Durham, who had previously absconded and was actually 
 waiting for a ship to convey him out of England, when he was 
 
 1 Clarendon's Diary, vol. ii, p. 260. 
 
 2 Clarendon gives the numbers as 62 to 47 ; but the more trustworthy 
 computation is that given in Lords' AfSS. 1689-90, No. 10, p. 18, viz. 65 
 to 45.
 
 VI THE INTERREGNUM 147 
 
 prevaile^ upon to buy at least a pardon by giving his vote for 
 the new settlement. Thirty-eight peers recorded their dissents. 
 Then the decisive question was put ' whether the Prince and 
 Princess of Orange shall be declared King and Queen of 
 England and of all the dominions thereunto belonging '.* It 
 was not thought fit to divide the House upon this question, 
 which was therefore counted as being unanimously carried ; 
 but Clarendon believed that there were really forty who 
 would have been for the negative. In his diary for this day, 
 February 6, he recorded, ' I think this was the most dismal 
 day I ever saw in my life. God help us ; we are certainly 
 a miserable, undone people.' 2 
 
 The interregnum was now, for better or worse, over ; and 
 the Lords had to bear their share of responsibility for the 
 Revolution which had been accomplished. It was not alone 
 the Whig leaders like Shrewsbury that had brought about the 
 downfall of James II, and so prepared the way for a new 
 regime. The Seven Bishops by their opposition to the King's 
 ecclesiastical policy, Tories like Danby and Clarendon by 
 their dislike of the King's governmental methods, had also 
 contributed to the result. Had they in November 1688 come 
 to the conclusion that the sacred cause of monarchy was bound 
 up with that of James himself, had they in that belief sub- 
 ordinated their personal feelings to the cause of a principle, it 
 is conceivable that the course of events would have been quite 
 different. In point of fact, though James was given sound 
 advice from a few of the peers, he was not supported by the 
 peerage, firm prop and stay of monarchy as it was supposed 
 to be. The divergence between the grandeur of the hereditary 
 principle and the littleness of its embodiment, between the 
 principles of its adherents and their personal interests, resulted 
 in the curiously illogical attitude of the conservative-minded 
 members of the Upper House, who, while they were prevailed 
 
 1 The phraseology ' are and are declared to be' was adopted with 
 a view to propitiate the Tories. As the time at which their Majesties 
 began to be is not specified, it was not absolutely essential to adopt the 
 vacancy theory in order to subscribe to the resolution. See /../., vol. xiv, 
 p. 126, February 12. 
 
 3 Clarendon's Diary, vol. ii, p. 262. 
 
 L 2
 
 148 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP.VI 
 
 upon to acquiesce in the fact, would not accept the theory 
 of the new settlement. But this very illogicality is typical 
 of the Revolution settlement, as it has been typical of all 
 our constitutional settlements ; moreover, it was certainly 
 a cause of its success and its stability, for illogicality is often 
 a necessary condition of compromise and reconciliation.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTIONTHE 
 SETTLEMENT 
 
 THE period in which the Revolution Settlement was 
 established synchronizes, roughly speaking, with the duration 
 of the first parliament of the reign of William and Mary. 
 The conduct of the Upper House throughout this period is 
 a continuous illustration of its intention to preserve as many 
 conservative elements as possible in the Revolution, in which 
 it had willingly or unwillingly become involved. Much of 
 the history of the first parliament indeed resolves itself into 
 a struggle between an extreme party, whose strength lay 
 in the House of Commons, and a party of compromise, which 
 was predominant in the House of Lords. It was inevitable 
 that the triumphant Whigs, strong in their Commons' majority 
 and the success of their policy in the Convention, should be 
 anxious to press their advantage and to establish their supre- 
 macy. They regarded the Revolution as peculiarly their own 
 work. The King owed his kingship to them. He should, 
 therefore, act as their perpetual ally and aggrandize them 
 at the expense of their rivals. This was not William's policy 
 at all. The number of Tories given high office in the state, and 
 more particularly the high degree of confidence enjoyed by 
 Nottingham in the royal closet, gave very great umbrage to 
 the Whigs. Hence the attitude of the Whig majority in the 
 Commons is found to be characterized by considerable party 
 bitterness against their opponents and not a little 'resentment 
 against the King. 
 
 When once the succession had been formally settled and the 
 Convention had escaped a somewhat puzzling dilemma by 
 solemnly declaring itself a parliament, there was no more 
 pressing problem before it than that afforded by the religious
 
 i5o THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 question. It was not a tolerant age according to our modern 
 standards, and it never occurred to any Protestant that anything 
 could be gained by attempting a reconciliation with the hated 
 Papists. They had had their hour ; they were considered to 
 have imperilled the security of the country ; they had been 
 worsted and they must bear the consequences of their defeat. 
 Vae victis ! The Lords had during the Interregnum ordered 
 that all Papists should be compelled to leave London. When 
 the Convention met they had obtained detailed information as 
 to the number of Roman Catholic householders of less than 
 three years' standing resident in the different parishes of the 
 City and Westminster. 1 On March I they followed up these 
 proceedings by introducing a bill for the removal of Papists 
 from London. 2 The bill became law on April 24. The case 
 of the Protestant dissenters was very different. Despite the 
 persecutions which they had suffered under Test Act and 
 Clarendon Code, they had repudiated the advances made by 
 James II in the name of religious liberty, and had staunchly 
 supported the Anglican cause. Justice demanded that their 
 conduct should meet with its reward. William, himself 
 a Calvinist, did his best to assist the very remarkable attempt 
 which was made at the Revolution to unite all his Protestant 
 subjects. 
 
 When the Peers were called upon to take the oaths of 
 allegiance to their new sovereign a small number refused, 
 including Clarendon and eight of the bishops, among whom 
 were five of the famous Seven. ' But in the meantime', says 
 Burnet rather uncharitably, ' that they might recommend 
 themselves by a show of moderation, some of them moved 
 the House of Lords, before they withdrew from it, for a bill 
 of toleration, and another of comprehension.' 3 As a matter 
 of fact both proposals were introduced by the high-church 
 Nottingham at the urgent request of William. The two bills 
 were closely connected with another, viz. that for abrogating 
 the old oaths of supremacy and allegiance and substituting new 
 ones. This measure, which determined the oaths to be taken 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. i68Q-go, No. 6, pp. 2-11. 
 
 2 Ibid., No. 20, pp. 36-7. 3 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 6.
 
 vii THE SETTLEMENT 151 
 
 by office-holders, has to be distinguished from the former 
 measure which applied only to members of the two Houses. 
 In consequence of the abstention of the non-juring bishops, the 
 second bill was pushed on with great acrimony by a certain 
 anti-clerical section in the Commons, who imagined that the 
 majority of the lower clergy would probably follow the example 
 of these bishops, and would thereby be discredited. The bill 
 was brought up from the Commons on March 18, was read 
 twice and committed, but not further proceeded with, as the 
 Lords abandoned it in favour of a bill of their own. 1 This, 
 which purported to be ' for the better discovery of Popish 
 recusants and repressing all usurped and foreign power and 
 preserving the King and Queen's Majesties in their persons, 
 and the more assured support of the government ', 2 was read for 
 the first time on March 14. The following day it was referred 
 to a select committee to draw clauses for making the abroga- 
 tion of the oaths clearer and for removing the necessity of 
 receiving the Sacrament as a test for holding office. Here, in 
 the attempted abolition of the hateful test, was the making of 
 a great reform. It was one which the King had very much at 
 heart. He came down to Parliament, and in the Upper House 
 made a speech dealing mainly with Irish affairs, in which he 
 expressed the hope ' that they would leave room for the admis- 
 sion of all Protestants that were willing and able to serve '. 
 But the proposal was too advanced and too bold for the time. 
 The question being put whether to agree to the clause for 
 repealing so much of the Test Act as concerns the receiving of 
 the Sacrament, it was resolved in the negative. Leave was, 
 however, granted to dissentient peers to record their reasons for 
 dissent, and eight peers did so. a They argued very properly 
 that a hearty union among Protestants was a greater security 
 to the Church than any test which could possibly be invented ; 
 that the obligation to receive the Sacrament was a test on 
 Protestants rather than on Papists ; that so long as it continued 
 there could not possibly be that thorough union amongst Pro- 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1689-90, No. 38, pp. 63-6. 
 
 2 Ibid., No. 33, pp. 52-5. 
 
 1 See Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 71-2.
 
 152 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 testants which had always been desired, and which was at that 
 time indisputably necessary ; finally, that a greater caution 
 'ought not to be required from such as were admitted into 
 offices, than from the members of the two Houses of Parliament, 
 who were not obliged to receive the Sacrament in order to 
 enable them to sit '. When the bill came up for its third 
 reading, a rider was offered, providing that no officer should 
 incur the penalties of the Test Act in case he should receive 
 the Sacrament in any Protestant congregation within a year 
 before or after his admission. This also was rejected. 
 
 Although the abrogation of the test proved too great 
 a demand upon the conservatism of the Peers, there was 
 one important proviso in the cause of leniency which they 
 wished to have carried. They agreed that all persons, who 
 should in the future enter upon any office, civil or ecclesiastical, 
 such as in the past would have necessitated the taking of the 
 oaths of supremacy and allegiance, must be required to take 
 the new oaths ; but, on the other hand, they were anxious that 
 those who were already in the enjoyment of such office should 
 only be required to take the oaths if they were particularly and 
 individually tendered to them. That is to say, any such 
 person would not necessarily, because of the new succession, 
 be compelled to take the oaths, but he would always be liable 
 to be called upon to do so, should suspicion arise as to his 
 loyalty. This conciliatory scheme aimed at the protection 
 of the uneasy conscience of High-Church Anglicanism. 
 
 Burnet, who had just been created Bishop of Salisbury, 
 happened to make his first appearance in the House when 
 the debates on this question were proceeding. 1 He imme- 
 diately began to take a prominent part in the activities of the 
 Chamber, and as he is careful to inform us, to take the lead in 
 favour of the clergy. The arguments for and against the cause 
 of leniency have been summarized by him. In favour of the 
 motion it was argued that the liability to be called upon to 
 swear and to be punished in the ordinary way upon failure 
 to do so would be a sufficient restraint, whereas the peremptory 
 demand with the present threat of deprivation would only 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 7-9.
 
 vii THE SETTLEMENT 153 
 
 cause desperation among many conspicuous clergy, and this 
 would be dangerous to the government. Moreover, in the 
 very offices of the Church the clergy owned their allegiance to 
 God, and this was a more solemn obligation than any other 
 could be. If they failed to fulfil the Church's offices the clergy 
 could be proceeded against in accordance with the ordinary 
 law of the land. It was urged on the other side that it was not 
 fitting that any government should entrust so sacred a function 
 as that of the clergy to men who would not give any security 
 for their loyalty to it, especially since the oath already required 
 was too wide and too loose. The day fixed for the new oaths 
 to be taken was some months distant, and allowed ample time 
 for men to consider their position and examine their consciences. 
 If by that time they were still unable to convince themselves 
 of the propriety of acknowledging the legitimacy of the new 
 regime, it was not right for them any longer to fill posts in the 
 Church. The arguments in favour of conciliation carried the 
 day in the Upper House, as was only to be expected from its 
 character and composition at the time. The majority sympa- 
 thized profoundly with the uneasy scruples of the believers in 
 divine right. But that this sympathy was not confined to 
 high Tories is shown by the fact that the majority were led by 
 the Whig, Burnet. The latter confesses, however, that his 
 feelings changed somewhat by reason of certain discoveries 
 concerning the conduct of the non-juring clergy. When the 
 tolerant proviso of the Lords reached the Commons, the latter 
 would have none of it. They were resolved that they would 
 not be baulked of their prey. Two conferences proved un- 
 availing to produce any agreement, and eventually the Lords 
 gave way altogether even upon the question of the maintenance 
 of the non-juring clergy. The only mitigation which they 
 succeeded in obtaining was that the King should be empowered 
 to reserve the third part of the revenues of twelve benefices for 
 such clergy as should be deprived in consequence of the act. 
 
 Over the Toleration Bill no such difficulty arose, for it did 
 not necessarily mean more than the unavoidable reward of 
 party services. It affirmed no principle; it gave no recogni- 
 tion to dissenters. The rule still remained that of intolerance,
 
 154 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 and there was nothing in the measure to prevent a speedy 
 return to intolerant practice, should it prove desirable. Thus 
 the exemption from the penalties of certain persecuting laws, 
 though entailing substantial benefit to dissenters, was not too 
 startling a change for the scruples of the rigid and uncom- 
 promising Anglican. Moreover, the bill was fathered by 
 the chief lay representative of the party most calculated to 
 oppose it. Two proposals, brought forward in the two Houses 
 respectively, whose object was to make the operation of the 
 bill temporary and so to put dissenters upon their good 
 behaviour, though thoroughly in harmony with the spirit of 
 the measure, were both defeated. 
 
 The incomplete and perhaps somewhat grudging nature of 
 the benefits bestowed by the Toleration Bill is typical of a good 
 deal of our most successful legislation. It was certainly in 
 keeping with the temper of the time, and to that fact the 
 measure owed its success. But jt has long been recognized 
 that many of the encomiums bestowed upon it as marking the 
 dawn of a tolerant spirit have been misplaced. A much more 
 interesting attempt to give effect to the most enlightened ideals 
 of the day is shown in the Comprehension Bill, which suffered 
 a less happy fate. 1 Although there was much nobility in the 
 idea of comprehension, still there was an element of bargaining 
 in it. If only the test is retained, the High Church party 
 suggest, we will then see what can be done to make it possible 
 for the dissenter of to-day to take the Sacrament in accordance 
 with the usage of the Church of England to-morrow. Some of 
 the provisions of the bill are most remarkable. For example, 
 it is proposed that in place of assent to the Thirty-nine Articles 
 the taking of an oath only should be required. The terms of 
 the oath, it was originally suggested, should be as follows : ' I, 
 A.B.,do approve of the doctrine and worship and government of 
 the Church of England by law established, as containing all 
 things necessary to salvation, and I promise in the exercise of 
 
 1 For the text of this most important and interesting bill see Lords' 
 MSS. 1689-90, No. 32, pp. 49-52. The complete text of both the original 
 measure and the amendments is given ; so that it is possible to trace its 
 full history in the House of Lords.
 
 vii THE SETTLEMENT 155 
 
 my ministry to preach and practice according thereunto." That 
 such a concession as the permission to take so loosely worded an 
 undertaking should have been suggested is sufficiently extra- 
 ordinary. Still more so is the fact that, when Burnet proposed 
 that the words ' submit to ' should be substituted for ' approve ', 
 the amendment was accepted by thirty- five voices to three. An 
 interesting clause, which appears in the original draft, but was 
 subsequently omitted in committee, was to the effect that any 
 person who had been ordained by the Presbytery, and not by 
 a bishop, should notwithstanding upon his desire to be admitted 
 into the ministry of the Church at once be so admitted by the 
 laying on of hands of a bishop in a certain form, and that 
 henceforth he should be regarded as capable of performing 
 offices and enjoying benefices exactly as if he had been 
 examined and ordained according to the ordinary form ot 
 the Church of England. Other clauses permitted the omission 
 of the surplice, of the sign of the cross in baptism, of kneeling 
 when receiving the Sacrament. 1 On the last point there was 
 some vehement debate, as it was thought that dissenters' chief 
 objection to taking the Communion according to the usage of 
 the Church of England was the necessity of taking it kneeling. 
 Hence this exemption would mean that all employments 
 would instantly be besieged. Despite opposition, however, 
 this clause was eventually carried, Burnet being particularly 
 zealous on behalf of it. The last clause in the bill gave rise to 
 difficulties owing to the question of machinery. It is particu- 
 larly striking as it admits that the liturgy is capable of certain 
 alterations and improvements. For the purpose of making 
 them it was proposed that a commission should be set up. On 
 report it was moved that this commission should contain lay- 
 men as well as clergy. It is interesting to note that this motion 
 was only lost in accordance with the ancient custom semper 
 pracsumitnr pro negante, the votes being equal. A vigorous 
 argument, drawn up by the dissenting peers, claimed that the 
 
 1 The use of the surplice was still to be compulsory in the Chapels 
 Royal, all Cathedrals, collegiate churches and chapels ; and when it was 
 not used a black gown suitable to the degree of the wearer was to be 
 worn in its place.
 
 156 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 Church was acknowledged and defined as consisting of both 
 clerics and laymen ; that the matters to be considered were of 
 human, and even of parliamentary institution, and were there- 
 fore the concern of one party as much as of the other. It 
 would, besides, facilitate matters to have members on the 
 commission who could satisfy both Houses, Commons as well 
 as Lords, as to the reasons for which alterations were made. 1 
 
 The fact of the inception of so bold and so arresting a scheme 
 as is contained in the Comprehension Bill in the House of 
 Lords, the interest of the arguments brought forward concern- 
 ing it in the Chamber, justify and indeed necessitate somewhat 
 fuller treatment than need be given to the majority of the 
 measures with which the first of William's parliaments was 
 concerned. The brilliant attempt failed, and it is not difficult 
 to understand why it did so. Conservative feeling was satisfied 
 by the measure of relief granted by the Toleration Bill, and 
 regarded the second measure as superfluous. There were those 
 who, while Whig in secular matters, approached to Toryism 
 where the Church was concerned. The Revolution Settle- 
 ment had not altered fundamental religious sympathies and 
 aversions. But, on the other hand, W 7 hig lords such as Mordaunt 
 and Macclesfield took the opportunity to indulge in fiery and 
 contemptuous language against the Church. Another agency 
 working against the bill was of a particularly discreditable 
 character. There was a maxim, says Burnet, even amongst 
 those apparently most zealous for the dissenters, ' that it was 
 fit to keep up a strong faction both in Church and State/ 2 
 the idea being that not only was dissent in itself a valuable 
 asset, but toleration would be better maintained if the number 
 of those who needed it was large. The Comprehension Bill, 
 the work of the Lords, in spite of difficulties, passed through 
 the Upper House. But in the House of Commons, having 
 been read only once, it ceased to be. 
 
 There is reason to believe that William had the welfare of 
 the measure very much at heart. But it was not in religious 
 matters only that his wishes were meeting with opposition. 
 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 74-6. 
 * Burnet, vol. ii, p. 12.
 
 VII THE SETTLEMENT 157 
 
 There was a section of the Whigs in the Commons who were 
 determined to press the sovereign as much as possible. 1 This 
 could best be done in connexion with their control of revenue. 
 It was felt to be desirable that supplies should be granted 
 annually, or at any rate for only a short term of years at 
 a time. It has to be admitted that opposition came also from 
 the Lords in financial matters. The Tory peers brought strong 
 opposition to bear against the bill to discontinue the hearth 
 tax, opposition which was probably prompted very largely by 
 ordinary conservative feeling. The reason assigned for the 
 Tories' action by the Whigs was that the Tories feared lest 
 the King should win too great favour with the nation by the 
 removal of so unpopular a burden. The reason they them- 
 selves gave was that the tax was the only one upon which 
 certain reliance could be placed in time of war. a 
 
 Parliament was necessarily occupied very largely in the 
 passing of such defensive legislation as is required by great 
 political emergencies. No opposition was made to two Habeas 
 Corpus Suspension Bills. But a Treasonable Correspondence 
 Bill, originating in the Lords, was rejected in the Lower House. 
 The Peers did not take very kindly to the Militia Bill, in- 
 troduced by the Commons, and brought to the Lords on 
 July 16, 1689. This measure was based upon the Act of 1662, 
 but some important changes were made, whereby a good deal 
 of authority originally in the hands of the Crown and the lords- 
 lieutenants was taken away. 3 Thus the peerage was robbed 
 of a certain measure of influence. The bill was considerably 
 amended both in the committee and report stages. But it is 
 not true to say, as Burnet does, that it was allowed to lie upon 
 the table owing to the Lords' opposition ; its further progress 
 being in fact blocked by the prorogation in August, of which 
 no doubt the King and the Upper House were both glad to 
 take advantage. The other important military enactment of 
 
 1 So Burnet, vol. ii, p. 13. 
 
 1 This was a very strong argument, there being so very littie direct 
 taxation in these days ; and it was particularly desirable in time of war 
 that there should be some direct impost which could be reckoned upon. 
 
 3 See the two measures compared in Lords MSS. 1689-90, No. I2c , 
 pp. 206-17.
 
 158 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 the parliament the Mutiny Act was not of a very con- 
 troversial character, and the amendments made by the Lords 
 were only on points of detail. 
 
 Both Houses showed activity in the punishment of past 
 offenders. Jacobites such as Salisbury and Peterborough were 
 committed to the Tower, the Commons having resolved that 
 in joining the Church of Rome during the late reign they had 
 committed high treason. The Lords appointed a so-called 
 Murder Committee to investigate the circumstances surround- 
 ing the death of Lord Russell. 1 But it was in the Commons 
 that the greatest animosity was shown, where the Whigs made 
 violent attacks upon Halifax and Danby, now Marquis of 
 Caermarthen. In the case of Halifax, the attack was opened 
 in the Upper House, where the Whigs had a vehement 
 champion in Mordaunt. The proposal that the King should 
 be asked to appoint another speaker was unsuccessful and 
 the motion for the previous question was carried. In the 
 Commons a more sweeping motion was brought forward, that 
 it was advisable that Halifax should be dismissed from the 
 services of the Crown. The friends of Halifax found them- 
 selves in a majority of not more than eleven or fourteen. 2 
 Strong partisan and quarrelsome feeling became more and 
 more marked, especially after a prorogation. The most acri- 
 monious question arising before that date was occasioned by 
 the devotion shown by the Whig House of Commons for 
 a man whom they regarded as their friend and champion, 
 Titus Gates. 
 
 The whole of the Oates case is complicated, and the issues 
 primarily at stake were of no great consequence : they merely 
 concerned the fate of a singularly loathsome informer. Their 
 importance lies in their having been the cause of the first of 
 the critical ruptures which took place between the two Houses 
 during the reign. On March 11, 1688/9, Oates sent in a 
 petition to the Upper House in which he set forth in detail 
 the abominable treatment to which he had been subjected, 
 and begged their lordships to discharge him from his unjust 
 
 J Lords' MSS., No. 154, pp. 283-310. 
 2 See Macaulay, vol. iii, pp. 409-10.
 
 vii THE SETTLEMENT 159 
 
 imprisonment. 1 The case was taken into full consideration on 
 April 26, when the judges who had tried Gates were called 
 upon to justify their sentence. The other nine judges, the 
 best legal authorities of the day, were unanimous in condemn- 
 ing in the strongest terms the punishment to which the 
 petitioner had been subjected. Nevertheless, when the main 
 question was put, whether the judgment should be reversed, 
 it was resolved in the negative by 35 votes to 23. A protest 
 was signed, in which it was argued that the whole matter had 
 been outside the power of the King's Bench ; the judgment 
 had been barbarous, inhumane, unchristian ; the vote of the 
 Lords would encourage similar judgments in the future ; Holt, 
 Pollexfen, and Atkyns had declared the sentence to be contrary 
 to law and precedent. 2 Only a few days previous to the 
 sitting at which the Peers resolved not to reverse the sentence, 
 a printed paper circulated by Gates had been brought into the 
 House. It had been resolved that it contained matter tending 
 to a breach of the privilege of the House, and this motion had 
 been carried by 29 votes to 18. There were weighty objections 
 to this action as to the other. It did not appear in what respect 
 the paper had infringed privilege. It had been addressed to 
 both Houses, and therefore the vote of the Lords was likely 
 to breed dissension between the Chambers. 
 
 The truth is that considerations of policy or prudence, and 
 even considerations of justice, were silenced at the sight of 
 the man who had brought misery upon some of the highest 
 families in the land. Nottingham for one made the exceed- 
 ingly injudicious speech which so exasperated his sovereign. 
 He declared that as Gates had been whipped from Aldgatc to 
 Tyburn, the best way to reverse his sentence was to have 
 him whipped again from Tyburn to Aldgatc.' All the latent 
 prejudice of the Peers, all their class feeling, all their natural 
 
 1 For the Gates case see the following papers in Lords' MSS. i6Sg-go : 
 No. 31, Gates' Petition; No. 49, Gates ?'. Rex (Writ of Krror) ; No. 50, 
 Gates T'. Kex (continued) ; No. 51, Gates -'. Duke of York (Writ of Error) : 
 No. 54, Petition of Titus Gates (pp. 76 84) ; No. 138, Gates, Reversal of 
 Sentence Bill. See also Chandler's Lords' Debates, vol. i, pp. 364-85, and 
 Torbeck's I'arl. Debates, pp. 453-6, 457-65. 
 
 2 /.._/., vol. xiv, p. 228. 
 
 3 Sec Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 218.
 
 160 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 repugnances were aroused. The sufferings of the wretched 
 petitioner might indeed have been terrible : they could not 
 have been as great as those which he had gratuitously brought 
 upon the nation. Instead of showing mercy the noble lords 
 cavilled at the informer's assumption of the title of Doctor of 
 Divinity. But they had placed themselves in an untenable 
 position. They had shown that their attitude was the result 
 simply and solely of sentiment. They refused to bow the 
 knee to the besmirched idol of a perverse and wicked genera- 
 tion, the Whigs in the House of Commons. Even to grant 
 justice seemed humiliation. But they proceeded to make their 
 position still more indefensible when they petitioned the King 
 to grant a pardon to Gates. The retort was obvious. What 
 was wanted was not mercy, but justice. The petition was in 
 fact a confession of weakness. The Commons proceeded with 
 a bill of their own for the reversal of the sentence against 
 Gates. In the preamble they stated that the verdicts against 
 the Doctor had been corrupt. When the bill was discussed in 
 the Lords, it was decided to omit this statement. The debate 
 was adjourned till next day, when the preamble to the enacting 
 clause was considered. Objection was now taken to a clause 
 asserting that the verdict of the King's Bench had been 
 ' erroneous, cruel, and illegal, and ... of evil example to future 
 ages '. When the question was put whether to agree to the 
 preamble, it was resolved in the negative, but only by six 
 votes (41 to 35). Eventually two terminological amendments 
 were agreed to, 1 and a proviso was introduced to the effect 
 that Gates should never again be allowed to appear as a 
 witness. With these amendments the Commons refused to 
 agree. A free conference, at which the case for the Lower 
 House was led by Somers, proved unavailing. The Lords 
 determined to adhere to their amendments by 48 to 38, and 
 the bill had accordingly to be dropped. 
 
 Macaulay has suggested, probably with truth, that the 
 conduct of the Lords in the Gates case was responsible for 
 
 1 Instead of erroneous to read unprecedented', after illegal and of evil 
 example for future ages to read that the practice thereof ought to be 
 prevented for the time to come.
 
 vii THE SETTLEMENT 161 
 
 the way in which the Commons treated the Bill of Rights. 
 The famous Declaration had passed through the Convention 
 without any difficulty and with no important alteration. But 
 when the bill which incorporated the terms of the Declaration 
 came up for discussion, the Lords added four notable amend- 
 ments. The first, which was proposed by Burnet at William's 
 own request, settled the crown in default of issue to Anne on 
 the Princess Sophia, ' as being the next Protestant in the lineal 
 succession of the royal family, and to the heirs of her body.' l 
 The second amendment added to the clause disabling Papists 
 from succeeding to the crown, the words 'or such as shall 
 marry Papists '. Burnet proposed the insertion of still a third 
 clause, absolving subjects from their allegiance should any 
 such marriage take place. The last of these four amendments 
 was to leave out entirely the last portion of the bill, which 
 related to the non-obstantes, i. e. put strictures on the dis- 
 pensing power of the Crown. With these amendments the 
 Bill of Rights was returned to the Commons, who rejected 
 the first without a dissentient voice, and also negatived the 
 fourth. Conferences proved useless to produce agreement, and 
 the bill had to be dropped. The reason for the opposition 
 of the Lower House to the very prudent and reasonable first 
 amendment regarding the succession is doubtful. Burnet, ever 
 on the alert to detect republican machinations, sees in it nothing 
 less than a design to extinguish monarchy and to bring the 
 succession to a speedy end. There was undoubtedly a strong 
 republican following among the Commons, but this fact 
 supplies no sufficient explanation of the united action of the 
 House. The reason suggested by Macaulay is much more 
 plausible : that the House was actuated by resentment against 
 what it considered the scandalous conduct of the Peers in 
 connexion with Oates's petition. 
 
 As time went on, the relations between the two Chambers 
 had been growing more and more strained. The friction came 
 to burning-point on the question which had proved the bone of 
 contention all through the sitting of this first parliament : the 
 
 1 See Lords' AfSS. 1689-90, No. 174, pp. 345-9 ; Burnet, vol. ii, p. 15 ; 
 L.J., vol. xiv, pp. 215, 218, May 22 and 24. 
 
 1626.1 M
 
 162 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 question of vengeance or pardon for political foes. The Whig 
 majority in the Lower House made plain their dislike of 
 William's expedient of indemnity. 1 It was insinuated that the 
 King's desire for mild courses revealed undue fondness for his 
 prerogative ; that he wished to grant pardon to all the ministers 
 of the late reigns simply in order that he might have servants 
 in his employ as obsequious as the servants of former princes. 
 The Whigs showed great keenness in drawing up a long list 
 of exceptions from the indemnity, so as to nullify the effect of 
 the Indemnity Bill as far as possible. The whole of the Lower 
 House evinced an incomparable zeal for inquiring into abuses. 
 They annoyed the sovereign by drawing up a resolution for 
 making a settlement upon Anne before they had settled one 
 upon him. 
 
 It is not to be wondered at that William lost patience. His 
 efforts to tranquillize the country were proving unsuccessful 
 owing mainly to the animosities of that party which might 
 have been expected to be his greatest assistance. It was 
 already clear that William's policy of maintaining an equipoise 
 between parties was faced with two great obstacles. The first 
 was the intensity of party feeling, the second the inherent 
 spirit of opposition subsisting between the two Houses of 
 Parliament. To quote Dalrymple, whose remarks upon the 
 political situation are often very illuminating, f the state of 
 mutual opposition in which these assemblies had stood for 
 half a century, the antipathy of individuals against each other 
 in the last two reigns, some present jealousies in the Peers of 
 the interests of their own order, together with a belief they 
 entertained, that the present House of Commons had hostile 
 intentions against monarchy itself, mingled private passions 
 with political divisions.' 2 With the intention of preventing the 
 Commons from proceeding with the dangerously controversial 
 subjects upon which they had been engaged, the King first 
 adjourned and then prorogued parliament. 
 
 But when the House reassembled, it was at once proved 
 that the Commons would not allow themselves to be baulked 
 
 1 See Grey's Debates, vol. ix, p. 253. 
 a Dalrymple, Part II, Book III, p. 103.
 
 vil THE SETTLEMENT 163 
 
 so easily. Not even the case of Gates itself had occasioned 
 such friction as was aroused by the Corporation Bill. It being 
 rumoured that the Tories were making headway at court, and 
 that they were pressing for a speedy dissolution, the Whigs 
 determined upon a decisive stroke which should result in the 
 establishment of a permanent ascendancy of their party in all 
 future parliaments. 1 The primary purpose of the bill was 
 perfectly just and necessary. Parliament had been corrupted 
 by the Crown's tampering with corporations. It was therefore 
 to be enacted that all surrenders of customs and franchises to 
 the Crown had been illegal and should henceforth be regarded 
 as null and void. So far there could be no legitimate objection 
 to the measure. But in the report stage in the Commons, 
 a further clause was proposed by Sacheverell, that all who 
 had been concerned in delivering up of charters without the 
 consent of the whole municipal body should be turned out 
 of all corporations, and be incapable of holding office in them 
 for six years. The Tories realized the ulterior purpose of 
 Sacheverell : that it sought to make the House of Commons 
 no better than a Whig monopoly, at any rate for the period 
 specified in the clause. Both parties understood that the 
 fight upon which they were engaged was critical. The Tories 
 brought up their full strength and fought so well that in the 
 end the Whigs yielded, and it was shorn of its most objection- 
 able clause that the Corporation Bill reached the Upper House. 2 
 They took into consideration the declaratory part, and asked 
 the opinion of the judges as to the legality of the practice of 
 surrendering charters. Here they found disagreement. The 
 opinion of the committee which sat upon the question was 
 exactly divided as to the desirability of retaining the first 
 clause. According to rule, therefore, it was omitted, i.e. the 
 word ' declared ' was left out, as also the phrase ' were and 
 are illegal and void'. When the committee reported it 
 was resolved to agree by 51 votes to 43. A protest was 
 signed by nine peers, including the staunch Whigs Herbert, 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 38. 
 
 2 For the proceedings of the Lords on the Corporation Bill see Lonif 
 MSS. 1689-90, No. 208. pp. 422-33. 
 
 M 2
 
 164 THE ARISTOCRATIC REVOLUTION CHAP. 
 
 Macclesfield, Montague, and Sidney. The bill dropped with 
 the prorogation with which William put an end to the 
 parliament. 
 
 William had indeed grown tired of his first parliament with 
 very good reason. The Commons, besides prosecuting such 
 schemes as the Corporation Bill, had occupied their time 
 chiefly in attacking their enemies, especially Caermarthen 
 and Halifax, in critical inquiry into the conduct of the Irish 
 war, and in diligently proceeding with their bill of Pains and 
 Penalties. William's position was difficult. He wanted to 
 side with neither party ; but events seemed to show that he 
 must side with one or the other. Tory principles were not 
 Revolution principles. Yet it was from the Whig stronghold 
 in the House of Commons that William had met with the 
 greatest opposition to his wishes. He complained that the 
 Commons treated him like a dog. Their usage ' boiled upon 
 his stomach \ l The prorogation was in effect a blow struck 
 by the King for the Tories. They were being hard pressed 
 at the time; their opponents were growing more and more 
 urgent against them. The Sacheverell clause in the Corpora- 
 tion Bill might be followed up by similar expedients, and the 
 whole position of the Tories jeopardized. 
 
 But the crisis concerned not only the relations of the two 
 parties ; it concerned also the relations between the two 
 Houses. The attempt to form a Whig oligarchy in the 
 Lower House involved an attempt to aggrandize the powers 
 of that House. The triumph of the election at the opening 
 of the reign had given an impetus to the Whig majority to 
 enhance the influence of the Chamber in which they were 
 collected. Their attempt to settle the succession in the first 
 place had met with opposition in the Lords. From that 
 time right through the two sessions of the parliament they 
 had carried on an attack upon the citadel of conservatism, 
 an attack which might with almost equal truth be termed 
 a Commons' attack as a Whig attack. Partly, of course, 
 because the Tories were stronger in the Lords and they 
 were on the defensive, there was much less animosity shown in 
 1 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 207.
 
 vil THE SETTLEMENT 165 
 
 the Upper than in the Lower House. Not that it was by any 
 means absent, as the Gates case proves. But on the whole it 
 may certainly be said that the Peers showed more of the spirit 
 of conciliation, entered more into the King's desire for peace, 
 than did the Commons. It was only natural that the House of 
 Lords, with its sympathy for the Church and for legitimist 
 doctrine should seek to do its best for the non-jurors. But 
 it was the House of Lords also in which the endeavour origi- 
 nated to bind together all the Protestant subjects of the 
 Crown. There were not wanting in the House ardent Whigs 
 to support the proceedings of their brethren in another place. 
 Yet the ardour which breeds factiousness was tempered and 
 controlled by the more solemn atmosphere which belongs to 
 the Upper House in the legislature. The tradition of the 
 House impelled to peace in times of political crisis. There 
 were in it forces which served in some degree to counteract 
 extravagant tendencies in the Commons. In the Commons 
 there was the desire to make of the Revolution a party 
 triumph, to consider it as only the stepping-stone to some 
 further consummation, which should be in favour of the Whigs. 
 The conservative forces in the Upper House were directed to 
 the end of making the Revolution as far as possible acceptable 
 to all parties, of making of it a permanent settlement.
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 THE LORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 THE House of Lords had been party to a revolution which 
 was at once dynastic and constitutional. To the average peer 
 perhaps the first aspect was the more apparent. He was 
 probably much more interested in his own personal relations 
 with the new sovereign than in those of his class with the new 
 constitution. The very manner in which legislators attacked 
 their problem attracted more attention to the dynastic than to 
 the constitutional aspect. Primarily their efforts were directed 
 to securing the Protestant succession. That at the same time 
 they should seek to make certain constitutional changes was 
 made to appear almost haphazard. For future generations 
 the important fact was to be that the English throne had 
 ceased to be strictly hereditary ; that the Crown had become 
 not divine but parliamentary in origin ; that in this change 
 the philosophic basis of a despotic system of government had 
 been given the death-blow ; that henceforward what we term 
 specifically constitutional government would progress more 
 smoothly. But contemporaries were compelled by the exigen- 
 cies of their position to fix a great deal of their attention 
 upon the problem of how to maintain the dynasty, whose 
 security alone would enable them to reap the constitutional 
 benefits which had been rendered possible. Tory nobles found 
 themselves required to join associations for the defence of their 
 Majesties, to take oaths of allegiance or to abjure solemnly 
 their late sovereign and all machinations in his behalf. They 
 were asked to swallow the phrase ' rightful and lawful ' as 
 applied to the present settlement. The Whigs took delight 
 in endeavouring to force them from their position of illogical 
 compromise. But even among Whig peers there was a feeling 
 that being required to take oaths at frequent intervals was
 
 CHAP. vin LORDS AND THE CONSTITUTION 167 
 
 a thing obnoxious in itself. Philip, Lord Wharton, said that 
 he had taken abundance of oaths in his time. He hoped God 
 would forgive him if he had not kept them all. He could not 
 pretend to remember them all. 1 Even the ardent Macclesfield 
 was of opinion that the ' chief effect of demanding oaths was 
 to make men desperate against the government '. The wisdom 
 and the efficacy of the expedient of demanding declarations of 
 allegiance may alike be doubted.- Certain it was, however, 
 that means of security had to be taken to guard a constitu- 
 tional and dynastic settlement which was constantly being 
 exposed to fresh perils. The Act of Settlement is a great 
 constitutional measure ; but it was in the first place simply 
 an expedient, just as the Abjuratioa Bills were, to deal with 
 the immediate exigencies of the situation. 
 
 Had the proposal made by the Lords in connexion with 
 the Bill of Rights been accepted by the Commons, the death 
 of the Duke of Gloucester in July 1701, the only surviving 
 son of the Princess Anne, would not have called for any fresh 
 legislation. As it was, a further settlement of the succession 
 was rendered immediately imperative. As new regulations 
 with regard to the succession had to be made, so it was 
 resolved to take the opportunity to make new regulations 
 with regard to the constitution, on the lines laid down in the 
 Bill of Rights. The account given by Bonet of the Act of 
 Settlement makes somewhat curious reading. To him it was 
 not surprising that it should be the Tories that were responsible 
 for the bill. 3 He was only apprehensive of the opposition of 
 the Whigs, of the republican party, who might take the oppor- 
 tunity to introduce their anti-monarchical schemes. His chief 
 hope for the passing of the measure without objectionable 
 features was in the intervention of the House of Lords. It 
 was they, in Bonet's opinion, that would prove most zealous 
 
 1 Hurnet, vol. ii, pp. 43-4. 
 
 3 A favourite argument was that all new impositions were, so to speak, 
 a breach of the original oath tendered at the beginning of the reign. 
 ' Things of that kind ought to be fixed and certain, and not mutable and 
 endless.' 
 
 s F. L. Bonet, D. pp. 241, 273: July 3O/August 10, September 6/17 
 1701.
 
 168 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 for the security of the succession ; at the same time the very 
 motives which would make them zealous for this would also 
 urge them to oppose the constitutional provisions of the bill. 
 Yet in point of fact the Act of Settlement passed quite easily 
 through the Upper House without amendment. 
 
 It was indeed generally anticipated at the time that the 
 measure would meet with opposition in the Upper Chamber. 1 
 Could the peerage be expected to view with equanimity the 
 new regulations, which entrenched on royal authority ? Did not 
 these limitations mean that the ultimate power was devolving 
 upon the people, or rather upon the leaders of the House of 
 Commons, who ruled by faction and interest ? Monarchy and 
 peerage alike would suffer. In a word, was not the balance of 
 power about to be changed ? It would be difficult for the 
 Upper House to keep the Lower within bounds. It was 
 expected that the Peers would insist upon certain stipulations 
 concerning their privileges, and that there would consequently 
 ensue a quarrel between the two Houses, which were already 
 embittered on the subject of the Whig impeachments. These 
 prognostications were not fulfilled, although one or two inter- 
 esting proposals with regard to the peerage were made during 
 the passage of the bill through the Upper House. Devonshire 
 advised that a clause should be inserted to prevent the reckless 
 creation of peerages. It was absurd, he insisted, that men 
 might be made peers, even though their fathers were tailors. 
 The most important motion was one brought forward by 
 Longueville, who revived a scheme which had been mooted 
 before. It was that those persons who should henceforward 
 be created peers must possess a certain amount of landed 
 property for example, 3,000 for a baron, 4,000 for a" 
 viscount, and so forth and that this property should be 
 inalienable from the peerage. The idea was a favourite one 
 with their lordships, who, however, rejected all these sugges- 
 tions, and the bill was passed in its original shape. At the 
 
 1 It is interesting to contrast the earlier passages in Bonet's Dispatches 
 where the question of securing the succession after the death of the Duke 
 of Gloucester is first discussed with the passage dealing with the actual 
 Succession Act, E. 80 : March 11/22, 1700/1.
 
 vili THE CONSTITUTION 169 
 
 third reading there were five peers who recorded their protests, 
 Huntingdon, Plymouth, Scarsdale, Guilford, and Jeffreys. 
 
 The acquiescence of the Lords in the Act of Settlement 
 does not want for an explanation. Some light is thrown 
 upon the subject by Burnet in his somewhat partisan account. 1 
 He is anxious to throw discredit upon the promoters of the 
 bill. He admits that the new ministers spoke of the project 
 with much zeal. But he adds ' those who were still jealous 
 of their sincerity' looked on their conduct as a blind. He 
 considered that the whole manner in which the act was 
 managed was suspicious and showed no tokens of sincerity 
 on its authors' part. The affair was, he complains, put off 
 from day to day and gave place to the most trifling matters. 
 But it is not of delay merely that the Bishop complains ; it 
 is of indifference as well. ' The committee ', he tells us, ' once 
 or twice sat upon it, but all the members ran out of the House 
 with so much indecency, that the contrivers seemed ashamed 
 of this management.' Upon this passage it has been justly 
 commented, ' If this be true, neither party seems to have 
 given themselves concern, at this time at least, about the 
 Hanoverian Succession.' 2 Burnet, in his eagerness to prove 
 his point, has proved a great deal too much. But he has 
 probably revealed the truth. Neither party was immensely 
 interested in the Act of Settlement. In comparison with 
 the Impeachments, the great subject of contention which had 
 been exciting the political world, all else became insignifi- 
 cant. Unless the whole question of the Revolution state was 
 to be fought out afresh, unless the Tories were definitely to 
 declare themselves Jacobite, the Succession Act must be 
 regarded as a non-party measure in its primary provisions 
 at all events. The Lords may not have liked the new con- 
 stitutional clauses ; on the other hand, they knew that the 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 270-1. 
 
 - Dartmouth's comment upon the above passage in Burnet. Cf. 
 Dalrymple, Part 1 1 1, Book 1 1, p. 217: 'When the Whig party in England 
 assumes the credit of placing the family of Hanover on the throne, they 
 belie all history to serve themselves. For they opposed and defeated the 
 settlement, soon after the revolution, and gave themselves no trouble 
 about it at the end.'
 
 170 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 succession must be secured, that circumstances would not 
 brook delay. 1 Thus they hesitated to introduce amendments 
 in view of the already serious state of friction existing between 
 the Houses, lest the bill should be lost altogether. 
 
 One other consideration had no doubt weight with the 
 Lords, as it certainly had with William himself. The con- 
 stitutional clauses of the measure after all referred to a future 
 date, to the time when the new Hanoverian dynasty should sit 
 upon the throne of England. Of what use was it to risk the 
 loss of a bill which was of instant necessity by quarrelling 
 over stipulations which might after all never take effect ? 2 
 The truth is that the Act of Settlement is not altogether 
 such a commanding landmark in our constitutional history 
 as at first sight it appears. It was to a very large extent 
 abortive. 3 And although contemporaries could not forsee this, 
 still it seems clear that it did not arouse the keen interest 
 usually devoted to a measure of first-class importance. 
 Practically considered, the act ranked at the time not so 
 much with the Bill of Rights as with the numerous expedients 
 by which the government sought from time to time to secure 
 the Protestant succession. If this interpretation of the Act of 
 Settlement be the correct one, it then becomes clear that from 
 their attitude towards this measure we can obtain no certain 
 light as to the attitude of the House of Lords on constitutional 
 questions. It would at all events be very rash and premature 
 to imagine that because they passed the act, they had neces- 
 sarily any sympathy with the spirit of its constitutional clauses. 
 We are on much firmer ground when we proceed to consider 
 the attitude of the Upper House in regard to other constitu- 
 tional legislation of the reign, notably that which concerns the 
 powers and influence of the House of Commons. 
 
 We find during our period a persistent attempt to purify the 
 House of Commons by the introduction of two main schemes 
 of reform, viz. those embodied in the Triennial Bills and Place 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, E, p. 205 : ^May 20/31, 1701. 
 
 * See Emile G. Boutmy's fctudes sur Droit Constitutionnel( Paris, 1885), 
 p. 54. 
 
 3 The two great constitutional clauses, i. e. those referring to the Privy 
 Council and to Office-holders under the Crown, were both abortive.
 
 vin THE CONSTITUTION 171 
 
 Bills with which we are frequently meeting. The Triennial 
 Bills have to be distinguished from the abortive Triennial Act 
 Revival Bill of November 1689, which sought to revive the 
 act of Charles I for Preventing of Inconveniences happening 
 by the Long Intermission of Parliaments. 1 The object of the 
 later bills was quite different from this. They dealt with the 
 duration of parliaments, and not with the intervals between 
 them. 2 The first of these was introduced in January 1692/3, 
 and in the Upper House. 3 It was brought forward by 
 Shrewsbury and was entitled ' an act for the frequent meeting 
 of parliaments '. What it stipulated for was not triennial, but 
 annual parliaments. Parliament must be held at least once 
 every year. In the second place, should the sovereign fail to 
 issue writs, the Lord Chancellor is to do so upon his own 
 authority. Such was the original scheme of the measure 
 which subsequently ripened into the Triennial Bill. As re- 
 drafted by Mr. Justice Rokeby it assumed a very different 
 guise. The compulsory clause was dropped altogether; the 
 whole baldness of the original draft disappeared. Now for the 
 first time the idea of the triennial duration of a single parlia- 
 ment was introduced. By a very strange oversight, although 
 the first section of the bill still required that Parliament should 
 sit every year, there followed a stipulation that there should 
 not be a longer interval than three years between different 
 parliaments. This curious inconsistency was removed by 
 an amendment of the Commons, which the Lords accepted ; 
 and the bill then became a Triennial Bill in the modern sense 
 simply and solely. 
 
 The arguments used in the debates on the bill in the Upper 
 House were such as might be expected. Those who feared 
 the influence of the electorate held that short parliaments, 
 involving as they did frequent appeals to the country, were 
 
 1 Lords' AfSS. i6Sg-go, Nos. 171, 191, pp. 343-4 and 364-77. 
 
 The Triennial Act of 1664 is one in the same sense as that of 1641, 
 from which it differed only in the absence of the compulsory clauses 
 which distinguished the enactment of the Long Parliament. 
 
 * For the first Triennial Bill see the following : Hurnet, vol. ii, pp. 
 106-7; Torbeck's ParL Debutes, vol. ii, p. 359; Lords' AfSS. 
 
 No. 660, pp. 299-302.
 
 172 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 dangerous. On the other hand, it could be urged that long 
 parliaments produced staleness ; members tended to grow out 
 of touch with their constituents. Some were of opinion that 
 members who had sat together for a long time were apt to 
 treat their sovereign without due respect. Others with 
 perhaps greater force argued that the result of -long parlia- 
 ments was precisely the contrary ; that members were prone 
 to come under royal influence, if the court were given sufficient 
 time in which to exercise its powers of bribery. Whichever 
 argument may have been the better one, it is clear at all events 
 that both court and opposition persuaded themselves that they 
 had reason to dislike lengthy parliaments and to support the 
 Triennial Bill. 
 
 The measure, having passed the Lords, was carried in the 
 Commons by 200 voices to 161. But it met with stalwart 
 opposition there. The conduct of the Peers was viewed with 
 considerable suspicion. Their object, asserted Sir Edward 
 Seymour, though ostensibly frequent parliaments, was in 
 reality the dissolution of the present parliament. ' By this 
 bill ', he continued, ' you will take off the dependency of the 
 people on the Crown, and set up the Lords, that have no 
 right, and turn the Commons out of doors. Is it reasonable 
 that the Lords, who only represent themselves, should turn 
 you out that represent the people ? ' l The Peers had in fact 
 been guilty of unwarrantable presumption in meddling with 
 affairs which did not concern them. It was maintained on 
 somewhat shaky premisses, that as the Lords were themselves 
 firm and secure, questions relating to the duration of parliament 
 were the province of the Lower House only. The Peers were 
 denounced as being engaged in a nefarious attempt to draw 
 ' all our causes and fortunes to their bar, where relations and 
 friends decide matters '. Nay, more, in assuming the right to 
 dissolve the House of Commons they were guilty of arrogating 
 to themselves a prerogative of the Crown. In short, according 
 to Sir Richard Temple, the Commons had never been con- 
 
 1 Grey's Debates, vol. x, p. 300. See in Grey not only the account of 
 the proceedings on the first reading on January 28, but also of the second 
 reading February 20, pp. 304 et scg.
 
 vill THE CONSTITUTION 173 
 
 fronted with a greater danger than that which the Triennial 
 Bill presented. The jealous suspicions of the Commons were, 
 it must be admitted, quite natural. But if the merits of the 
 proposition were considered, apart from the question of its 
 origin, the case for the bill was to the majority a clear one. 
 Harley harangued against the Lords as much as any one, but 
 he thoroughly approved of the provisions of the bill. There 
 were others again who, like Sir William Strickland, confessed 
 that they thought more charitably of their lordships' inten- 
 tions, and asked whether it was in any case reasonable to 
 examine into the motives of those who were performing a real 
 kindness. 1 To all who had the purification of the House at heart 
 the bill clearly had great attractions. To the King, however, it 
 was altogether obnoxious, and he had recourse to the royal 
 veto. A second bill was introduced in the House of Commons 
 in the following November. It was lost there by ten votes, 
 not without suspicion of royal manipulation.- Then in 
 December Monmouth introduced a third bill in the Upper 
 House identical with the re-drafted measure of January 
 i692/3. 3 Some record of the ensuing debates has come down 
 to us, but it cannot be said that they are of especial interest. 
 Discussion centred very much upon questions of phraseology, 
 viz. the relative merits of the words ' to hold ' and ' to 
 assemble '. What was really being aimed at was the definition 
 of a session. Could it be said that a parliament had been 
 ' held ' if no act had been passed in it ? A proviso was added 
 
 1 Grey's Debates, vol. x, p. 306. 
 
 2 See Lords' MSS. 1693-5, Introd., p. xxi. '"This result", says 
 Macaulay, on the authority of numerous pamphlets, "confounded all the 
 calculations of the best politicians of the time." Hut the Hush Money 
 pamphlet, which he quotes as making Seymour the contriver of its 
 unexpected rejection, adds in another passage cited by Ralph (vol. ii, 
 p. 475 note) that Seymour himself had predicted and promised in the 
 Cabinet, at the time when the King had vetoed the previous Hill, that 
 the next one would share the same fate and that this had stolen out 
 as a Cabinet secret. Perhaps the best explanation of the result lies in 
 the words of Caermarthen in his memorial to the King (Dalrymple, 
 Part III, Book II, p. 32) that "his ministers agreed in opinion, that 
 nobody knew one day what the House of Commons would do the next." ' 
 
 * For this bill see Lords' MSS. 1693-5, No. 759, pp. 51-3. For an 
 account of the debates in the Upper House see MSS. of the Earl of 
 Denbigh (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rep. XII, App., pt. v, pp. 215-8.
 
 174 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 explaining ' that a parliament shall be understood to be holden, 
 although no act or judgement shall pass within the time of 
 the assembly'. The Tories, Somerset, Nottingham, and 
 Abingdon, would have liked to see the bill rejected in toto. 
 All the bishops with the exception of Dr. Watson were, we 
 are told, in favour of the measure, which passed in the Upper 
 House, only to be rejected in the Commons by the consider- 
 able majority of 197 to 127. No doubt the arguments which 
 had weighed so heavily against the Lords' interference before 
 were responsible in large measure for the rejection of the bill 
 on this occasion. 
 
 It was not long before the measure was once more revived, 
 in 1694. This time it passed through both Houses and 
 received the royal assent. 1 Nothing was said about annual 
 sessions ; and as the act was finally framed it was possible 
 that as much as three years might elapse between the dissolu- 
 tion of one parliament and the assembly of the next. This 
 being so, the act did involve theoretically a diminution in the 
 power of the House of Lords, seeing that it was established that 
 there could be no parliament without a House of Commons. 
 
 1 Pike, p. 333 : ' This was of greater consequence in relation to the 
 House of Commons than in relation to the House of Lords because it set 
 a limit, for the first time, to the period during which representatives could 
 sit in the House of Commons without re-election. It was, however, of 
 very great constitutional importance, and indirectly affected even the 
 House of Lords. As the principle was now established that there could 
 be no ' Parliament ' without representatives of the Commons, a dissolution 
 precluded the Lords from sitting in any Parliament until the writs for the 
 summons of a new House of Commons had been returned, and there was 
 nothing to compel the issue of the writs until three years had elapsed 
 after a dissolution. The Parliamentary functions of the Lords, being now 
 dependent on the existence of a House of Commons, might thus legally 
 be dormant for no less than three years. Practically no inconvenience 
 followed, because there has never been a year in which a Parliament has 
 not met, but, theoretically at least, the power of the House of Lords was 
 curtailed. 1 Two contradictory views may be taken on the subject of the 
 influence of the Triennial Act on the authority of the Upper House. On 
 the one hand, it may be maintained that a House of Commons which sits 
 only a short time has no opportunity to consolidate its power. On the 
 other hand, it may be said that the Upper House might take a much freer 
 hand with a House of Commons which had sat for a long period and 
 might be regarded as out of touch with the constituencies. The argument 
 that frequent elections must necessarily strengthen the hands of members 
 of the Lower House is weakened by the consideration that the influence 
 of the peerage at elections was in these days so considerable.
 
 VIII THE CONSTITUTION 175 
 
 When we remember that next to the King's own opposition 
 the greatest obstacle to the passing of the Triennial Bill was 
 the House of Commons' dread of the unwarranted interference 
 of the other assembly in their affairs, it seems at first sight 
 surprising that we do not come across more protests against 
 the Peers' open and persistent interference in what the 
 Commons might very justly consider peculiarly their own 
 affair, viz. parliamentary elections. Yet the pamphlets and 
 broadsides of the day are not full of invectives directed against 
 the Peers on this ground. The very silence of the publicist is 
 indeed evidence of the wide extent of the practice. That the 
 Lords should endeavour to maintain a preponderating influence 
 in the Lower House by obtaining the election of their own 
 nominees was accepted as being so inevitable a part of the 
 prevailing political system that it did not call for particular 
 comment or animadversion. But though we do not discover 
 traces of the system in the pages of the indignant reformer, 
 we find frequent references to it in the correspondence of the 
 day. There are many, for example, in the Portland Papers. 
 Simon Harcourt, wishing to obtain a seat at the elections in 
 1700, finds that it is too late to attempt any place where 
 there is not ' a commanding interest '. He therefore appeals 
 to the Duke of Newcastle. Will not his Grace come to the 
 rescue, and thereby render a service, not only to Harcourt 
 himself, but to the Church party also ? ] The Duke had special 
 influence in the borough of Westminster. In 1695 he is being 
 appealed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his 
 agents instructions to assist Montague himself and Sir Stephen 
 Fox, who are joining together to stand for the borough." 
 Fifteen years later we find Newcastle contriving the return of 
 General Stanhope for the same constituency. 3 If we turn to 
 the Vernon Correspondence we find sundry passing references 
 to the electioneering activities of Wharton and Macclcsficld 
 in August 1698.* 
 
 The machinery of electioneering is made very plain in some 
 passages in the Coke Correspondence, contained in the papers 
 
 1 Portland MS S., vol. ii, p. 177. 2 Ibid., p. 173. 
 
 8 Ibid., p. 222. 4 Vernon Corr., vol. ii, pp. 145, 152.
 
 176 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 of Earl Cowper. 1 It is not difficult to interpret such a letter, 
 for example, as the following: Sir Gilbert Clarke writes to 
 Thomas Coke in February 1700/1, desiring that he may be 
 allowed a view of the poll-book. ' I am told ', says he, ' my 
 Lady Halifax's letter was stopped by the way a fortnight, till 
 most of her interest was made against you. And notwith- 
 standing my Lord Ferrers' orders, you had but a small part 
 of his interest about Shirley, Bralsford, and that angle belong- 
 ing to him in those parts. Mr. Wills, the Duke of Newcastle's 
 agent, came to Derby with a body of freeholders for both 
 Lords.' Evidently in this instance the peers' manoeuvres 
 have not been as successful as usual, but the Duke of New- 
 castle may accomplish much. Another letter to Coke about 
 this time gives him advice with regard to his own candidature. 
 It is necessary that he should speak to Lord Roos (son of 
 the Earl of Rutland), to Lord Hartington, and Lord James 
 Cavendish. It is essential that Lord Stamford should either 
 be actively on Coke's side, or at all events not against him. 
 His opposition would be fatal. As a matter of fact Coke was 
 unsuccessful. So three weeks after the receipt of the last 
 letter there comes another, one from Lord Stanhope, who 
 offers to procure a vacant seat in Lancashire for him, without 
 
 1 MSS. of Earl Cowper at Melbourne House, Derbyshire, vol. ii, 
 p. 417 (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rep. XII, App., pt. i). See also a letter in 
 Buccleuch Papers (MSS, of Duke of Buccleuch at Montague House, vol. ii, 
 p. i). Pp. 245-6, Letter of Sir J. Somers, Ld. Keeper, to Shrewsbury : 
 
 ' If I am not misinformed, Mr. Penn makes but an ill use of what he 
 obtained from your Grace, for he is got to Bristol and makes all the 
 interest he can for Sir J. Knight. But of this I may perhaps give your 
 Grace a more certain information. The business of the Countess of 
 Middlesex is in such a posture that I am very much troubled that your 
 Grace is not here to direct us. The Duke of Bedford is disturbed at the 
 apprehension of changes, but his agents have endeavoured to make an 
 interest, and that actually before any notice of the Cambridgeshire 
 election. Besides this, so many persons have been engaged for him and 
 Sir John Wolstenholme, and the appearance is such and it is so universally 
 understood that your Grace and I gave the first motion in this thing that 
 I am afraid it cannot be desisted from without a good deal of reflection. 
 
 ' Let me beg your Grace's opinion in this matter. Mr. Montague is very 
 earnest to have the thing proceed, so is Baron Broadbury. If it does go 
 on, the under-sheriff (who is a friend) says it would be of great 
 consequence if the poll might be in Hide Park. You can best tell if that 
 may be obtained, and in what manner. The Duke of Leeds gives a good 
 deal of roast beef against Mr. Montague.'
 
 vm THE CONSTITUTION 177 
 
 the latter's even coming down or taking the slightest trouble 
 in the matter. Illustrations might be multiplied. 1 Perhaps 
 none are more striking than those of the Earl of Rutland's 
 influence. No candidate was very likely to be returned for 
 Leicester unless he enjoyed the Earl's support. 2 There is an 
 interesting letter in the correspondence from Lord Roos to 
 his father, asking leave to stand for Leicestershire, which 
 would be a safe seat. He adds the secret intelligence that 
 the King has been pleased to signify ' he hopes that those who 
 are his friends and have interest will use it for such as are 
 of opinion we were of last session '. King and peerage were 
 often in alliance in order to secure a tractable House of 
 Commons. But this is not the only interest of Lord Roos' 
 letter. It reminds us of the important part played by the 
 sons of peers. The most convenient way in which the Lords 
 could maintain an influence in the Lower House was to send 
 their sons into that House. The practice was widely pre- 
 valent ; and an examination of lists of the nation's repre- 
 sentatives will show that quite a considerable proportion 
 among them were intimately connected with the peerage by 
 family ties. Indeed many of the ablest members of the Upper 
 House had served a novitiate in the Commons before they 
 succeeded to their titles. 3 
 
 In one way or another the task of influencing the House 
 of Commons was not a difficult one for the peer at the end 
 of the seventeenth century. For a man of Thomas, Lord 
 Wharton's tastes the pursuit afforded an agreeable pastime. 
 But it was not necessary to possess sons to act as representa- 
 tives of the father's interests or to have large sums of money, in 
 order to exert influence. 4 In the days of a feudal aristocracy 
 it was inexpedient for the dependent voter to offend the landed 
 potentate. From time to time the Commons protested against 
 
 1 An account of the method of bribing a borough will be found in Lord 
 Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors (the biography of Cowper), 
 voL iv, pp. 283-5. The Duke of Bolton was anxious to secure the scat 
 of Totnes for Cowper, when the latter contemplated entering Parliament. 
 
 2 MSS. of Earl of Rutland at Hclvoir, vol. iii, pp. 162, 167, 169. 
 
 s Such, for example, were Savile, Marquis of Halifax, Clarendon, 
 Nottingham, Pembroke, Rochester, Wharton. 
 
 4 See E. Porritt's The Unrcf armed House of Commons, vol. i, p. 547.
 
 178 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 the electioneering practice of the Peers. They drew up a 
 series of resolutions in 1691 condemning it ; but after the 
 Restoration it was as rampant as ever. A point was, however, 
 gained soon after William's accession, when by act of parlia- 
 ment the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was deprived 
 of the right of 'nominating and recommending to each of the 
 said Cinque Ports, the two ancient towns and their respective 
 members, one person whom they ought to elect to serve as 
 baron or member of Parliament for each respective port, 
 ancient town or member'. 1 
 
 The interests of the Peers being what they were, it followed 
 that the different efforts made in the Commons to obtain 
 greater independence did not meet with the co-operation 
 of the Upper House. The question of the determination of 
 disputed elections remained a difficulty. The Commons not 
 unnaturally wanted to be the sole arbiters in such cases, and 
 to exclude the Peers altogether. In January 1690 they sent 
 up a bill to the Lords on this subject. 2 It was stated that 
 there had of late been a great increase in the number of 
 disputes, many of them being entirely unfounded. It had 
 been found that the decision of so many cases by a committee 
 was a hindrance to the business of the House, and that the 
 method of procedure was really an encouragement to the 
 abuse. The remedy proposed was that in the future, instead 
 of being dealt with by a committee, all double returns and 
 ' other matters relating to elections of members to serve in 
 Parliament ' should be heard and determined at the bar of 
 the House of Commons, before they proceeded to any other 
 business save the necessary taking of the oaths. This bill was 
 negatived in the Lords on its third reading. The Commons 
 made another, and this time a successful, attempt to settle the 
 problem of unlawful and double returns in 1695.3 The solu- 
 tion then proposed was that all returns should be made 
 according to the last determination of the House of Commons. 
 In a very thin House the bill passed in the Lords by 27 votes 
 
 1 2 W. and M. c 7. 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1690-91, No. 377, pp. 251-2. 
 
 3 See Burnet, voL ii, p. 162 ; Chandler's Lords' Debates, vol. ii, p. 450.
 
 viii THE CONSTITUTION 179 
 
 to 20. From their protest we know what were the argu- 
 ments of the minority, who on this subject may well have 
 represented the opinion of most of their absent brethren. 
 They objected that ' the confirming, by act of parliament, 
 the proceedings in another place, which have never been 
 examined here, is derogatory to the dignity, and inconsistent 
 with the justice of the House of Peers '.' They felt and 
 here clearly the bill touched a very sore point that the 
 arrangement was tantamount to the creation in the Commons 
 of a court of judicature, an expedient which they declared 
 to be contrary to the constitution of the government and to 
 the practice of all previous ages, and likely to ' contribute 
 to the introduction of evil precedents, and be of dangerous 
 consequence hereafter'. As a matter of fact, the promulga- 
 tion of the act did not afford a complete solution of the 
 difficulty. There is evidence \hat the Lords were in the 
 habit of whipping up their nominees and directing how they 
 should vote whenever petitions were presented, and that this 
 practice continued unabated until the passing of the Grenvillc 
 Act in i7;o. 2 
 
 It cannot be said that during the reign of William any 
 great progress was made in freeing elections from noble influ- 
 ence. In 1699, in consequence of the Earl of Manchester's 
 having given a vote at an election in Huntingdon, the 
 Commons resolved ' that no peer of this kingdom hath any 
 right to give his vote at an election of any member to serve 
 in Parliament ' ; 3 and this Standing Order was certainly effec- 
 tive, as there is no further instance of a peer's actually voting 
 at an election. But a subsequent Order of the House, of 
 a more general character, remained a dead letter. It was 
 declared to be ' a high infringement of the liberties and privi- 
 leges of Great Britain for any lord of parliament, or any 
 lord - lieutenant of any county, to concern himself in the 
 election of members to serve for the Commons in Parlia- 
 ment'. 4 This Standing Order was completely disregarded 
 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, pp. 125-6. 
 1 See Porritt, vol. ii, p. 450. 
 
 3 C. /., vol. xiii, p. 64, December 14, 1699. 
 
 4 C. /.. vol. ix. p. 654, January 3, 1701/2. 
 
 N 2
 
 i8o THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 by the peerage ; and noble influence at elections was probably 
 even greater in the eighteenth than it had been in the seven- 
 teenth century. 
 
 As important as the determination of election disputes was 
 the question of the composition of the House of Commons, 
 of the qualifications necessary for membership. In 1696 
 a bill was introduced, excluding from the House all but 
 natural-born subjects of the realm ; providing that every 
 knight of the shire must possess property worth 500 and 
 every burgess property worth 200 ; and lastly, putting severe 
 penalties on bribery and corruption. 1 This measure had to 
 meet the opposition of the merchant class, 2 of the King him- 
 self, who used his vote to defeat it, and also to a certain 
 extent of the House of Lords, who nevertheless passed it. 
 The indignation of the Commons at the fate of their bill 
 found vent in a motion to the effect that whoever had 
 advised His Majesty not to give his consent to it was an enemy 
 to the King and the kingdom. The motion was defeated by 
 a large majority, but this did not betoken acquiescence in 
 defeat. Very soon another bill, similar to the last and 
 retaining the same figures as property qualifications, was 
 introduced. 3 But in order to meet what was considered a 
 legitimate objection to the former proposal, a clause was 
 added, providing that any merchant or trader of seven years' 
 standing, who had resided in a borough for the space of twelve 
 months before the date of election and possessed property of 
 5,000 total value, might sit as a borough member. This 
 measure contained no such provision against bribery as the 
 former had. The concession in favour of the traders evidently 
 did not give satisfaction, for a number of petitions were pre- 
 sented against the bill by different towns. The bill did not 
 
 1 See the following: L. /., vol. xv, pp. 677, 699, 713; Lords' MSS. 
 1695-7, Nos. 1016, 1028, i.e. pp. 199-201 and 216-17; Burnet, vol. ii, 
 p. 161 ; Torbeck's Parl. Debates, vol. iii, p. 164. 
 
 2 The Lord Mayor presented a petition against the bill, representing 
 that it would incapacitate from membership of the House of Commons 
 many ' very eminent merchants and traders of great estates and 
 knowledge '. 
 
 8 See Lords' MSS. i6^"j, No. 1093, pp. 375-8 ; Burnet, vol. ii, 
 p. 181 ; Torbeck's Par!. Debates, vol. iii, p. 429.
 
 vin THE CONSTITUTION 181 
 
 survive its second reading in the Lords, being rejected by the 
 substantial majority of 62 to 37. It may be asked why it 
 was that the Lords, who had consented to its predecessor, 
 threw out the present measure. No doubt the influence of 
 the King had something to do with the action of the Peers, 
 who would naturally gain increasing confidence in their 
 opposition, as they perceived the extent of the urban feeling 
 against the bill. It certainly is not necessary to see any 
 token of democratic sympathy in their action. If we are 
 to believe Bonet and we may well do so the argument 
 which weighed most heavily with the Lords was a personal 
 one. 1 The fact was that if the bill passed into law, it would 
 involve the disqualification of practically all the younger sons 
 of peers and many of their eldest sons, none of whom had 
 as a rule much property of their own. The bill was therefore 
 regarded as a menace to the political influence of the peerage. 
 Great as was the obstacle to complete independence on the 
 part of the Commons presented by the House of Lords, still 
 greater was the menace of court influence. At no time before 
 or since has corruption been carried on with greater thorough- 
 ness than it was under William III. 2 In 1692 much discontent 
 had been aroused by the flagrant misuse of preferment, and 
 the opposition raised an outcry for free and impartial pro- 
 ceedings in Parliament. So many members of the House 
 at this time were officers in the army that the assembly were 
 nicknamed ' the officers' parliament '. This state of things 
 gave rise at the end of the year 1692 to the first Place Bill 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, A, pp. 33 and 56-7 : March 10/20, 1695/6. 
 
 2 Burnet remonstrated with the King, who, while professing to refute the 
 necessity of such methods of government, declared ' it was not possible, 
 considering the corruption of the age, to avoid it, lest he should endanger 
 the whole'. Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 42, 86, 105. 
 
 Cf. James Drake, A History of the Last Session of Parliament (1702), 
 p. 87 : ' By these means we have seen at one time in the House, 
 near 300, who all held Places in the King's Pleasure ; who together with 
 those whom Secret Pensions, Future Hopes and other Private Kngage- 
 ments draw after 'em, made a Party so formidable, that some great 
 courtiers by whose Inspiration they moved, grew insolent; and within 
 Doors treated those Gentlemen with contempt, who came hither only 
 to serve their country, without any separate regard to themselves ; and 
 without Doors, have the Hardiness to promise for the House, before they 
 consulted it.'
 
 i8a THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 of the reign. 1 Its provisions were simple. No member of 
 the House of Commons was in the future to accept any place, 
 office or employment under the Crown ; if he did, he was to 
 be declared incapable of sitting any longer. In every such 
 case a new writ must be issued for the election of a new 
 member. The only office excepted from the operation of 
 the act was to be that of the Speaker. The bill passed 
 in the Commons without much difficulty. Those who held 
 offices had not the courage to oppose. On the other hand, 
 those who did not enjoy any form of preferment feared that 
 if they uttered any protest, it .might appear that they were 
 only recommending themselves to the Crown for office in the 
 future. 
 
 In the House of Lords the Place Bill met with a different 
 reception. 2 The motives which had silenced opposition in the 
 other Chamber had no existence here. There was an exciting 
 struggle, the discussion being protracted for several days. Six 
 hours' debates were unusual, but they were found necessary in 
 this case. As so often happened in the parliamentary history 
 of this reign, the lines of party division were not at all closely 
 adhered to. On the whole Whigs were for the bill and Tories 
 against it ; but there were notable exceptions. The Tories 
 Halifax and Mulgrave were amongst the foremost advocates of 
 the bill, which was also supported by such thinly-veiled Jacobites 
 as Ailesbury, Scarsdale, and the Bishop of St. Davids. The 
 Whigs Devonshire, Dorset, and the moderate Godolphin were 
 against it. The fact is that with this Place Bill, as with so 
 many other controversial questions of the day, the fundamental 
 distinction was less one between Whig and Tory than one 
 between Court and Opposition. Devonshire, Dorset, and 
 Godolphin were members of the Cabinet. They with Portland 
 knew well the King's wishes. They therefore joined the bulk 
 of the moderate Tories, such as Caermarthen and Nottingham, 
 Rochester and the great majority of the bishops, who held 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 643, pp. 279-81. 
 
 2 For the proceedings in the Upper House see the following : Lords' 
 MSS., pp. 279-81 ; MSS. of Earl of Denbigh, p. 212; Despatches of 
 Friedrich Bonet in Ranke, vol. vi, p. 198.
 
 vni THE CONSTITUTION 183 
 
 that the tendency of the bill was to sap the roots of monarchy 
 and to encourage the growth of republicanism. They argued 
 that it was hard to deprive the sovereign of the prerogative 
 which all his predecessors had enjoyed of rewarding the 
 fidelity of those who had served him best; especially hard 
 when this king was one to whom his subjects were particularly 
 indebted and from whom they had little to apprehend 1 
 
 Burnet tells us that the feeling which weighed most strongly 
 with the opponents of the measure was that it seemed to 
 establish an opposition between the Crown and the people. 
 It is notable that the Bishop during the debates on the bill 
 harangued eloquently in its favour, but when it came to the 
 point of voting, discreetly absented himself. 2 If he wished to 
 please both parties, it is clear that he only succeeded in annoy- 
 ing both. But Burnet was always unpleasantly faced by the 
 difficulty of reconciling his Whig views with his personal 
 allegiance to William. 
 
 One of the very few speeches delivered in the House of 
 Lords which have come down to us is one in which Mulgrave 
 argued very strenuously for the passing of the bill. 3 The 
 English constitution was, he said, the envy of other nations. 
 There was a king. Then there was a House of Lords, 'to 
 advise him on all important occasions about peace and war ; 
 about all things that may concern the nation, the care of 
 which is very much entrusted to your lordships '. But as the 
 peerage could not in the nature of the case be very closely in 
 touch with the generality of the people, there was a House of 
 Commons, which was to record their grievances. In order 
 that the functions of the Lower House should be efficiently 
 performed it was necessary that particular care should be 
 
 1 Cf. Cursory Remarks upon some late Disloyal Proceedings in Sc-scral 
 Cabals. This pamphlet is printed in Somcrs Tracts, vol. xi, pp. 149 
 et seq. P. 186: 'Every Protestant gentleman of England, under such 
 requisite qualifications as the law has established, hath a right to be 
 elected member of parliament, and nothing can look with a more arbitrary 
 countenance upon the gentry of England, than a design of this nature; 
 for it takes away their birthright, and sinks their honour in the esteem of 
 the nation, as it distinguishes them as men unfit to serve their country, 
 because they have the honour of serving their king.' 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 106. He passes over this bill rather rapidly. 
 
 3 Works of Buckinghamshire, vol. ii, p. 95 et scq.
 
 184 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 taken of the representation in it. But how could this repre- 
 sentation be satisfactory if, after they had been chosen, 
 members ' changed their dependency ', as he put it, by 
 engaging in employments inconsistent with their trust ? The 
 general carelessness which was apparent in public business 
 was, he argued, largely due to the fact that so many members 
 of Parliament had other interests to attend to than those of 
 the public. The danger was great in every case, greatest 
 of all in the case of Parliament men who enjoyed places in 
 the exchequer. ' Would any of your lordships ', Mulgrave 
 asked, ' send and entrust a man to make a bargain for you, 
 whose very interest shall be to make you give as much as he 
 can possibly? ' That would be like playing a farce in which 
 the actor holds a dialogue with himself. But really this was 
 no farce, ' for 'tis no laughing matter to undo a nation. But 
 'tis altogether as unnatural for a member of parliament to ask 
 first in the King's name for such a sort of supply, give an 
 account for him how much is needful towards the paying such 
 an army or such a fleet, and then immediately give by his 
 ready vote what he had before asked by his master's order.' 
 Mulgrave argued that the bill involved no disrespect to the 
 King. ' All that we would prevent ', he declared, ' is that 
 a good rich corporation should not choose to entrust with all 
 their liberties a plain honest country neighbour, and find him 
 within six months changed into a preferred cunning courtier ; 
 who shall tie them to their choice, though he is no more the 
 same man than if he were turned papist, which by the law as 
 it stands already, puts an incapacity upon him.' With all 
 reverence be it spoken, it was no less the King's duty than 
 his true interest to allow to the nation entire freedom in the 
 choice of his representatives. Mulgrave besought his hearers 
 to reflect how much might turn upon a single vote, and 
 counselled them not to suppose that because the bill did not 
 concern them immediately, they need not be careful in the 
 matter. Let them take warning by the state of the French 
 nobility, who let things slide until the people should be quite 
 mastered, only to find that they were mastered themselves. 
 He considered that the people of this country were easily
 
 vili THE CONSTITUTION 185 
 
 provoked. Let them not have a new provocation in being 
 debarred from a sense of security in their representatives. 
 There was a real danger that at a time when such vast sums 
 were being expended on the war with France, the people 
 might suppose that the money was not being given, but taken. 
 'I am sure ', Mulgrave concluded, 'whatever success this bill 
 may have, there must needs come some good effect of it, for 
 if it passes, it will give us security ; if it be obstructed, it will 
 give us warning.' 
 
 Mulgrave was not a man of principle, and one cannot be 
 sure how far his attitude on this question was the result of 
 genuine conviction or personal pique against the King or the 
 Court party. But whatever his motives, it is clear that there 
 is a great deal in his argument that necessarily commends 
 itself to readers of to-day. Some such measure as this Place 
 Bill was imperative if the House of Commons was to perform 
 its functions in full health and vigour, and be freed from the 
 enervating atmosphere of jobbery and corruption. But the 
 eloquence of Mulgrave proved vain. It could not carry 
 the weight due to its intrinsic merits owing to the suspicions 
 that unavoidably attached to one so volatile. The Court 
 party spared no efforts to defeat the bill. 1 The different 
 divisions were exceedingly close. On the third reading the 
 bill was passed by 42 to 40. Then, however, a debate arose 
 as to whether proxies entered that day should be allowed 
 upon the question, and it was resolved in the affirmative. 
 The Speaker then reported the proxies to be contents 3, 
 non-contents 7 ; and the bill was accordingly rejected by two 
 votes. The chagrin of the supporters of the measure was 
 very great at finding victory thus snatched from them at the 
 last moment. They consoled themselves, however, with the 
 reflection that they had a majority in the Lower House and 
 were on an equality with their opponents in the Upper. 
 They had been unfortunate in the fact that Shrewsbury and 
 
 1 The Earl of Scarborough inveigled Pembroke, one of the leading 
 supporters of the bill, out of the House, and then returned bringing 
 Schomberg, an opponent of the measure. Mulgrave unsuccessfully 
 raised an objection to their being received at so late an hour in the 
 debate.
 
 1 86 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 several others of their number had been away in the country. 
 They bitterly resented their betrayal by the Whig members 
 of the Council and the perfidy of the Bishop of Salisbury and 
 of the Earl of Macclesfield. They had been beaten only by 
 chance, and they would have better fortune next time. 
 
 The next time proved to be a year later (December 1693), 
 when a bill practically identical with the last was sent up to 
 the Lords from the Commons. The former introduced several 
 amendments. To the clause disabling an office-holder from 
 sitting in the House of Commons they added the words 
 ' unless he or they shall be afterwards elected to serve in the 
 same parliament '. That is to say, appointment to an office 
 was to necessitate not retirement from Parliament altogether, 
 but simply re-election. Such a scheme had been offered in 
 the Lords the year before, but had been rejected. In the 
 second place the Peers omitted the clause exempting the 
 Speaker of the House of Commons from the operation of 
 the act. The Lower House accepted the first of these amend- 
 ments, but not unnaturally rejected the second. A conference 
 was held with the result that the Lords decided by 36 to 25 
 to give way. The Earl of Rochester and the Bishop of 
 London protested against this decision, being no doubt 
 prompted by their knowledge of the great influence for corrupt 
 purposes possessed by so complete a master in the arts of 
 bribery as Sir John Trevor. They declared with some justi- 
 fication that it was inconsistent that an act professing to 
 provide against corruption should exempt from its operation 
 the man who was calculated to do more mischief than any one 
 else. 1 They did not, however, solve the dilemma as to what 
 was to be done with a Speaker not exempted from the opera- 
 tion of the act. The bill had now passed both Houses. To 
 William's chagrin the Lords had failed him. Once more he 
 had recourse to his veto. 
 
 The Commons made another attempt to carry out their 
 design in the House of Commons Officers Bill of March 
 The measure had but a short life, as the Lords 
 
 1 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, p. 112 ; /.. /., vol. xv, p. 335, January 5, 1694. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1697-9, No. 1410, pp. 282-3.
 
 vin THE CONSTITUTION 187 
 
 postponed its serious consideration for a fortnight, until the 
 day on which Parliament was prorogued. ' The Lords are 
 much given to favouring the intentions of the court ' is 
 Bonet's comment. 1 This time they had not failed their 
 sovereign. In the end the Commons had their way. The 
 persistent demand of the reformers was engrafted in the Act 
 of Settlement, and accepted together with all the other clauses 
 by the Lords. 
 
 It must be clear from a review of the constitutional questions 
 which affected the House of Commons during our period, that 
 although there might sometimes be a nearly equal division of 
 opinion in the Upper House, still on the whole that Chamber 
 was distinctly opposed to the other. Generally speaking, it 
 was not in the interest of the Peers any more than it was in 
 that of the King that the House of Commons should become 
 independent. On the other hand, the loyal House of Commons 
 men complained that the Lords were constantly interfering in 
 matters outside their province. This was felt, as we have seen, 
 in connexion with all questions respecting the composition of 
 the Lower House. It was felt, perhaps, even more strongly 
 in connexion with the most cherished of all the powers of the 
 Lower House control over finance. 
 
 It was not until comparatively recent years that the House 
 of Lords had come to be looked on as the enemy by the 
 Commons, when the latter tried to make good their claim to 
 sole control of taxation. In the Middle Ages it was by extra- 
 parliamentary bodies such as the colloquies of merchants, 
 whom Edward III had delighted to consult, that their right 
 had been menaced. In the earlier years of the seventeenth 
 century it was the Crown that was the danger. During the 
 constitutional struggle which ended in the triumph of the 
 Commonwealth the Lords had not been challenged upon 
 the specific question of taxation ; and after the Restoration 
 they made it plain they did not conceive that they had ever 
 surrendered their control. 2 In 1661 they originated a bill for 
 paving and repairing the streets in the neighbourhood of West- 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, C, p. 88; cf. p. 99: April 2i/May i ; May 5/15, 1699. 
 3 Porritt, vol. i, pp. 548-56.
 
 188 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 minster. They were even anxious to provoke a controversy 
 with the Lower House, that they might demonstrate that 
 they did most emphatically claim the right to originate, 
 amend, or reject a money bill. Accordingly they made an 
 amendment to one. The Commons vehemently protested. 
 The Lords reasserted their claim. 'We find no footsteps', 
 they declared, ' in record or history for this new claim of the 
 House of Commons. We would see that charter or contract 
 produced by which the Lords divested themselves of the right 
 and appropriated it to the Commonwealth in exclusion of 
 themselves. Till then we cannot consent, or shake or renounce 
 foundations, in the laying whereof it will not be denied that 
 the Lords and Grandees of the realm had the greatest hand.' l 
 The Peers appealed to law ; the Commons in their answer 
 to custom. They averred that the Lords had forfeited their 
 privilege by non-usage. The constitution of the country, in 
 their view, was not founded simply upon a basis of statute and 
 ordinances, but upon one of customs and understandings as 
 well. 2 To which the Lords might well answer that they were 
 not responsible for the omissions of their predecessors ; the 
 temporary discontinuance of a practice was no reason why it 
 should not be resumed, seeing that there had been no formal 
 renunciation in the past. Unfortunately for themselves the 
 Lords did not stand firm upon their principles. They did 
 indeed amend another money bill in 1678, but eventually 
 they surrendered in the dispute which inevitably ensued. 
 This year 1678 is generally regarded as marking a turning- 
 point in the history of the House of Lords' control of taxation. 
 It is from this time that we date the wording of bills of supply : 
 ' We, your Majesty's most faithful Commons, have given and 
 
 1 L.J., vol. xi, p. 328, July '30, 1661. There were two precedents in 
 the reign of Elizabeth. See Pike, p. 343, foot-note. 
 
 2 See Resolution of the Commons in 1671 : 'That in all Aids given to 
 the King, by the Commons, the Rate or Tax ought not to be altered by 
 the Lords.' C/., vol. ix, p. 235. A Resolution in 1678 runs: 'That all 
 Aids and Supplies, and Aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole 
 gift of the Commons. And that it is the undoubted and sole right of the 
 Commons, to direct, limit and appoint in such Bills, the Ends, Purposes, 
 Considerations, Conditions, Limitations, and Qualifications of such 
 Grants ; which ought not to be changed, or altered by the House of 
 Lords.' '../., vol. ix, p. 509.
 
 viil THE CONSTITUTION 189 
 
 granted to your Majesty.' The crucial struggle was perhaps 
 fought and decided in the reign of Charles II ; yet there were 
 serious quarrels between 1689 and 1702, which made it clear 
 that the Lords still maintained it to be their right both to reject 
 and amend money bills. 
 
 The earliest important dispute of this nature during the 
 reign arose over the celebrated Land Tax Bill of i6q2/$. 1 To 
 put a tax of four shillings in the pound on land in any case 
 marked a great innovation, and the bill is important in the 
 history of the House of Lords, if for no other reason, because 
 its members were the greatest landowners in the country. 
 The proposal which the Lords made in connexion with the 
 tax is of especial interest because the part they played has 
 been somewhat misunderstood. Burnet's account of the matter 
 follows upon his explanation of the ill-humour prevalent in the 
 two Houses. He speaks of the factious opposition of Halifax 
 and Mulgrave, who had contrived to win over Shrewsbury. 
 These leaders were, says Burnet, supported by Jacobites and 
 discontented Whigs. ' But ', he continues, ' they knew that all 
 their murmuring would signify little, unless they could stop a 
 money bill, and since it was settled in the House of Commons 
 as a maxim that the Lords could not make any alteration in 
 money bills, when the bill for four shillings in the pound land- 
 tax came up, they put their strength to carry a clause that 
 the peers should tax themselves.' 2 It has been properly 
 objected to Burnet's account that what the Peers wanted to 
 do was not to tax themselves, but merely to assess their own 
 property a very different thing. It can only be said in 
 partial justification of the historian that the phraseology of 
 one of the motions is misleading. It runs, ' that a clause be 
 added for the Peers to tax themselves for their personal 
 estates '. As the question was put, however, there was no 
 such ambiguity. What was to be decided was whether a 
 clause should be added to the bill of the same nature as one 
 in a former poll-tax. 
 
 The reference was to the Poll Bill of 1689. The Lords 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1691-3, No. 665, pp. 305-7. 
 3 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 104.
 
 1 90 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 had then named commissioners from among themselves for 
 purposes of assessment, and the Commons had made no objec- 
 tion. This was the precedent upon which the Lords acted 
 upon the present occasion, and the Lower House showed 
 inconsistency in refusing to admit the provisos added by the 
 Peers to the Land Tax Bill. There appears some excuse for 
 this, when we remember that although the Bishop of Salisbury 
 had been himself one of the commissioners in 1689, he can 
 now find no defence for the proposal to act upon the precedent. 
 After a futile conference had taken place the Lords began to 
 waver. It was actually moved to recede from their position, 
 because there was more in the proviso than was intended by 
 the House. Mulgrave, however, vehemently demanded delay, 
 urging that a committee should be appointed to examine 
 precedents. This he pressed for several hours, as Burnet 
 confesses, ' with a force of argument and eloquence beyond 
 anything that I ever heard in that House.' l It were better, 
 he declared, to have property in Turkey than in England. If the 
 Lords yielded in this, ' they divested themselves of their true 
 greatness ; and nothing would remain but the name and shadow 
 of a peer, which was but a pageant.' 2 Burnet adds with 
 evident satisfaction that despite this pomp of oratory, ' the 
 Lords considered the safety of the nation more than the 
 shadow of privilege,' and passed the bill without amendments. 
 They contented themselves with making a solemn declaration 
 of principle. To make amendments in a bill of supply they 
 conceived to be ' a fundamental, inherent and undoubted right 
 of the House of Peers, from which their Lordships can never 
 depart '. 3 Considering, however, the inconveniences which 
 arise should there be any delay in the granting of supplies, 
 they would not insist at this time. Such lame conclusions 
 to assertions of privilege in regard to matters of finance are to 
 be met with not infrequently in the history of the House of 
 Lords. 
 
 They showed a more determined front, however, not a month 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 105. 
 
 2 See Friedrich Bonet in Ranke, vol. vi, p. 205, January 17/27, 1692/3. 
 
 3 L.J., vol. xv, p. 190, January 19.
 
 vin THE CONSTITUTION 191 
 
 later in connexion with a bill of minor consequence, viz. the 
 Duchy of Cornwall Bill, brought from the Commons in February 
 1692/3. The Lords introduced certain small amendments, to 
 which the Commons agreed with the exception of one, which 
 restored a former rate of fees. This was rejected because it 
 was held to involve the laying a tax upon the subject. 1 At 
 a conference between the Houses the Lords resolutely insisted 
 upon their amendments, and appointed a committee to prepare 
 a list of reasons for their firmness. There were no further 
 proceedings. 
 
 A very similar situation arose just four years later in con- 
 nexion with a bill prohibiting the importation of all East India 
 silks with purpose to encourage the silk manufacture at home.* 
 A similar measure had been initiated in the Commons the 
 previous year, but it had aroused hostility and been laid aside 
 in the Upper House. In the present instance petitions were 
 heard against the bill. In committee the Lords extended its 
 operation to all wrought silks imported and all calicoes printed 
 and stained out of the realm. The Commons would not agree, 
 first, because they considered the amendment would be injurious 
 to the export trade; secondly a more important reason- 
 because the amendment involved the imposition of additional 
 penalties, which might originate only with the Commons. The 
 Lords maintained in answer to the constitutional objection that 
 to impose pecuniary penalties was no charging of money upon 
 the people, because ' nothing can truly be called so, which is 
 within the people's choice not to pay if they please. And 
 their Lordships cannot imagine how the imposing a penalty in 
 a legislative way can well be denied to arise properly in this 
 House ; when according to the Law of the Land their Lord- 
 ships, in a judicial way, are in possession of that undoubted 
 right by themselves alone '. 3 Whatever may be thought of 
 the validity of this curious argument, it was obviously not to 
 be expected that the Commons would acquiesce in a constitu- 
 
 1 C. /., vol. x. p. 895. 
 
 1 for the two bills here referred to see Lor t ii MSS. 1695-7, Nos. 1050, 
 1051, 1121. 
 * L. /., vol. xvi, p. 121.
 
 i9a THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 tional theory which gave the Lords control over all indirect 
 taxation. Both parties remained obdurate, and the bill was lost. 
 The vexed question of the Lords and money bills found its 
 way into the discussions on the exceedingly important problems 
 connected with the Bank of England and the currency. There 
 was a natural prejudice in the House of Lords against the Bank 
 scheme, which was supposed to be inimical to the interests of 
 the landed gentry, and a vigorous attempt to throw out the 
 Tonnage Bill, by which the fund-holders were turned into a 
 corporation, was made by the Tories Halifax, Rochester, and 
 Nottingham, assisted by the Whig Monmouth. 1 Their argu- 
 ments were that the scheme of the Commons was anti- 
 monarchical ; that it would make it very difficult in the future 
 to raise money on the security of land ; that the scheme would 
 be prejudicial to commerce because money would be lying idle 
 in a bank ; that it was hazardous to have so large a sum in 
 a single fund. It would appear that but little attempt was 
 made to controvert these not very convincing objections. 
 What carried the Tonnage Bill in the House were considera- 
 tions quite extraneous from the merits of the bill. Lord 
 Berkeley put the case thus. Supposing their lordships 
 determined to wreck the bill, what must follow ? The 
 Commons being unwilling to allow the right of the Lords to 
 touch a money bill, there would be endless and fruitless con- 
 ferences, and a great waste of time, although the necessities of 
 the war required that money should be raised instantly, and 
 everything done to enable His Majesty to leave at once for the 
 continent. Nottingham, for his part, was not afraid of a con- 
 flict with the Commons, who, he urged, were session by session 
 entrenching upon the peculiar privileges of the House of 
 Lords. The Lords, however, disregarded the appeal to their 
 amour-propre, deeming it politic to yield to the pressure of 
 circumstances. The majority upon the bill was 43 to 31, a 
 majority, in Bonet's opinion, of heads rather than of arguments. 
 
 1 For particulars of this important debate see Friedrich Bonet in 
 Ranke, vol. vi, p. 247 ; L'Hermitage, O. O., pp. 243-4, April 24/May 4, 
 1694. The Lords' dislike of the Bank of England induced many of them 
 to lend support to Harley's grandiose scheme for a Land Bank, which 
 proved so complete a fiasco.
 
 vni THE CONSTITUTION 193 
 
 Both Houses gave their serious attention to the very press- 
 ing problem presented by the ill state of the coinage. 1 But 
 clearly the Commons regarded the activities of the other 
 House with suspicion. They agreed with Burnet's verdict 
 that in the Lords' ' it was not possible to give the proper 
 remedy '. 2 A measure, which aimed at the suppression of the 
 practice of clipping, but which proved certainly unsuccessful 
 in operation, was introduced in the Lords in February 1694/5, 
 and after some haggling was accepted by the Commons. So 
 bad did the state of the currency continue to be that the 
 King in opening his third parliament drew very special 
 attention to the subject. The Lords lost no time in consider- 
 ing the matter and resolved upon joint action with the 
 Lower House. The Commons, for their part, showed no keen- 
 ness for co-operation, but occupied themselves in formulating 
 Montague's great reform scheme. When the bill reached 
 them, the Lords made several amendments, including the 
 addition of a clause to the effect that the deficiency on all 
 clipped money whatever should be made good. They also 
 objected strongly to the multiplication of mints, which they 
 regarded as dangerous. The Commons would not accept the 
 amendments, because in them ' is a charge, and there are 
 pecuniary penalties laid upon the subject, which ought to 
 have their commencement only from the House of Commons '. 
 The Lords made answer that they regarded the Commons' 
 allegation as highly derogatory to their House, but since the 
 Commons had contented themselves with a bare statement, 
 their lordships answered with as bare a denial of it. The 
 situation produced a deadlock, and the bill was allowed 
 to drop. 
 
 It was not long before a second bill with the same object 
 was forthcoming. Although they thanked the other Chamber 
 for its extraordinary solicitude in the subject of the coinage, 
 the Commons were nevertheless determined upon having 
 
 For the proceedings of the Lords on the coinage see Lords' AfSS. 
 -7, No. 978, pp. 128-31 ; Chandler's Lot-its' Debates, vol. i, pp. 497- 
 8 ; Torbeck's Purl. Debates, vol. iii, pp. 50-2, 423-4. 
 2 See Burnet, vol. ii, pp. 140, 147. 
 
 1526.2 Q
 
 i 9 4 THE LORDS AND CHAP. 
 
 their own way. The clause concerning the erection of mints 
 reappeared. This aroused opposition not merely upon the 
 ground of its supposed demerits, but because the Lords con- 
 sidered 'that it is contrary to the known and usual method 
 of proceedings in Parliament that the same clause should by 
 either House be brought into a new bill while it remains 
 undetermined in the old '. Their lordships solemnly warned 
 the Commons against all such innovations in the future, but 
 in consideration of the importance of the coinage question 
 were willing to give way. 1 
 
 If the Lords objected strongly to the Commons' introducing 
 in a new bill a provision to which they had taken exception in 
 a previous measure, they had especially good cause for protest 
 when such provisions were reintroduced in specific money 
 bills, which the Commons defied them to alter. To this 
 undeniable abuse of tacking the Lower House had recourse 
 more than once during the reign. An early instance of it 
 was afforded by the Poll Bill of February i6^i/2,. 2 Hereon 
 was grafted a proviso for taking the accounts of the public 
 moneys ; this had formed a bill by itself earlier in the 
 session, which had been lost owing to disagreement between 
 the Houses. The action of the House of Commons was 
 stigmatized as unparliamentary, highly prejudicial to the 
 privileges of the Peers, and likely to be of dangerous conse- 
 quence to the Crown. 3 Nevertheless the Lords surrendered 
 owing to the immediate necessity for a bill of supply, con- 
 tenting themselves with entering in their Journals a solemn 
 record for all posterity to witness ' that they will not hereafter 
 admit upon any occasion whatsoever, of a proceeding so con- 
 trary to rules and methods of Parliament '. Notwithstanding 
 the emphatic nature of this declaration, they were destined 
 more than once again during the reign of William III to 
 submit to a House of Commons' tack, as in connexion with 
 the great disputes over the Army Disbandment and the Irish 
 
 1 The entries of these proceedings from the appointment of the select 
 committee are expunged in the Minutes, and there is no record of them 
 to be found in the Journals, 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. idgz-j, No. 539, pp. 50-1. 
 8 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, p. 104.
 
 vin THE CONSTITUTION 195 
 
 Forfeited Estates, which will be fully dealt with in their 
 chronological order in the next chapter. 
 
 Indignant protestations, measured declarations of what the 
 House considered its constitutional rights, availed very little 
 when they were not accompanied by action of corresponding 
 firmness. Objection was very reasonably taken by the Duke 
 of St. Albans and others to the withdrawal of the House in 
 the case of the aforementioned Poll Bill. Such pusillanimity 
 they justly regarded as no better than an invitation to further 
 aggression. The Lords were often sufficiently obstinate to 
 bring matters to a temporary deadlock, but in all important 
 cases they eventually submitted. The House of Commons 
 never did. Thus while they made no formal surrender of 
 their claim to intervene in money matters, but on the contrary 
 lost no opportunity of reiterating it, the Peers' position grew 
 weaker and weaker every year. It mattered not at all what 
 the constitutional merits of the controversy might be so long 
 as the House of Commons could appeal to pressing necessities 
 of the state. 
 
 O 2
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 THE GREAT QUARREL BETWEEN THE HOUSES 
 
 IT might almost be said that the parliamentary history of 
 the reign of William III resolves itself into the record of a 
 series of quarrels between the two Houses. At the very 
 outset they made their appearance. The initial question 
 whether William should or should not be King of England 
 occasioned a dispute. The question of revenge or indemnity 
 drove the Chambers into hostile camps and made the tale of 
 the first parliament of the reign one of warfare. And from 
 that time onward the Houses were constantly coming into 
 collision, disagreeing in a way which rendered it increasingly 
 difficult for harmony to be restored after each successive 
 dispute. Now it was the privileges of the Lords, the exclusive 
 judicial powers they claimed such questions as that of the 
 trial of peers that gave occasion for ruptures ; at another 
 time it was the rights of the Commons, their control of taxa- 
 tion or, again, their attempts at the reform of their own House. 
 Notable as is this state of discord between the Houses at all 
 times during the reign, it becomes especially acute in its later 
 years. After the Treaty of Ryswick there ensues a series of 
 disputes which has in it something so dramatic that it is best 
 considered in its entirety. This great quarrel becomes more 
 and more envenomed until it culminates in the story of the 
 Whig impeachments. 
 
 The Treaty of Ryswick marks an epoch in the history of 
 the reign. Up to then the country had been involved in 
 a great war, during part of which it had been in fear of 
 invasion. The national danger had inevitably had the^ effect 
 of uniting all sections of the community to a certain extent. 
 But now that there were no distractions abroad men had time 
 to think more of their own small enmities. For William
 
 CHAP. IX THE GREAT QUARREL 197 
 
 himself, forced henceforward to live more among a people 
 whom he did not understand and did not like, the change 
 from war to peace was not a happy one. Amid the general 
 rejoicings, moreover, he alone clearly understood that the 
 peace would not be permanent. He could not persuade the 
 nation that preparation for war was still necessary. 1 A stand- 
 ing army and the taxes necessary to maintain it were alike 
 unpopular. When the King expressed his opinion in favour 
 of keeping up a land force the Commons seemed to regard 
 it as an injury that he should offer advice to them, his 
 advisers. William thought 15,000 troops necessary ; the 
 Commons would only agree to 8,000. The army question 
 was not yet over. The second parliament, remarkable for 
 the dispute between Lords and Commons over the case of 
 Charles Duncombe, came to an end. When the third assem- 
 bled in 1698 the Commons proposed a further reduction in 
 the forces. Thinking that the arena of foreign politics looked 
 very peaceful they concluded that 7,000 troops, all of whom 
 were to be natural-born subjects of the realm, were ample 
 for the requirements of national security. Determined upon 
 having their way, they introduced an army bill for the 
 disbandment of a thousand troops, and tacked it on to 
 a supply bill, as it was feared that the Lords might prove 
 recalcitrant. 2 
 
 There were not wanting in the Upper House champions 
 willing to pick up the gauntlet so rudely flung in their faces. 
 The Tories Leeds, Normanby, Rochester, and Nottingham, 
 were expected to make a strenuous fight on behalf of the 
 
 1 William's conduct was unfortunate. He showed perversity in not 
 instructing his ministers as to his precise wishes. The Commons had 
 given their verdict in favour of maintaining a force of 8,000 troops before 
 the government made the official suggestion for 15,000. Burnct, vol. ii, 
 p. 206. See note by Hardwicke on this passage. 
 
 There is a severe attack on the conduct of the Commons in the 
 pamphlet entitled, Cursory Remarks upon some lute Disloyal Proceedings 
 in Several Cabals (Somers Tracts, vol. xi, pp. 149-90) : ' Blush ! O heaven ! 
 and let the earth be amazed and tremble ! Tell it not in Gath, proclaim 
 it not in Ashkelon, lest the whole nation be condemned and included in 
 the guilt of a few seditious and ungrateful members, that, having received 
 the benefit of their deliverance from his goodness, durst not trust him with 
 an army to defend their liberties.'
 
 198 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 privileges of the Chamber. The situation was felt to be 
 dangerous. 1 The Commons occupied themselves with busi- 
 ness of little or no consequence in order that they might keep 
 their attention fixed upon the proceedings of their adversaries. 
 The effect of the anticipated struggle was seen in the sinking 
 of the public funds ; and in consequence of the serious financial 
 troubles which must follow upon a quarrel at this juncture, it 
 was considered by many of the wisest and most influential 
 peers that it would be better both for the nation and the 
 court that the Lords should sacrifice their dignity, as they 
 had done in similar circumstances before, and pass the bill. 2 
 They felt that it did not make requisite provision for the 
 public safety ; and yet they could not see how matters would 
 be in any way improved by a rupture with the House of 
 Commons. These views were put forward, in particular, by 
 Somers and Tankerville. 3 The latter urged that the King 
 would gain more by conciliation than he lost. If he accepted 
 the bill he would knit the hearts of the people closer to him, 
 and the goodwill of the people was of incomparably greater 
 value than a thousand troops. These two speeches repre- 
 sented the general feeling. Individuals might differ in their 
 ways of looking at the matter, but they nearly all concluded 
 by advising the passing of the bill. Nottingham and those 
 who were most in the confidence of the court maintained 
 silence. It was accordingly agreed that the bill should be 
 read a third time, and it thus passed quietly without a division. 
 William disguised his anger and gave the royal assent, for 
 which the Peers drew up an address of thanks, in which they 
 assured His Majesty ' that at all times for the safety of the 
 Kingdom and the preservation of the peace which God hath 
 given us, this House will assist and defend your Majesty 
 against all your enemies both at home and abroad '. 4 The 
 incident was not yet quite over. The King could not bring 
 himself to part with his Dutch Guards who had faithfully 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, C, p. 22 : January 27/February 6, 1698/9. 
 
 2 Vernon Corr., vol. ii, pp. 254-5. 
 
 3 L'Hermitage, T.T., p. 83: January 3i/February 10. 
 
 4 L.J., vol. xvi, p. 372.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 199 
 
 served him so many years. He was brought so low as 
 actually to petition for pity. 1 He informed the Commons 
 that he had made all arrangements for the transport of the 
 Guards and would dispatch them immediately ' unless, out 
 of consideration for him, the House be disposed to find a way 
 for continuing them longer % in his service, which His Majesty 
 would take very kindly'. There was real pathos in this 
 appeal, but it fell upon deaf ears. There is a tradition that 
 when William heard of the refusal of the Commons to accede 
 to his request, he paced up and down the room, at last 
 exclaiming, ' If I had a son, by God, these Guards should not 
 quit me.' There can be no doubt that in consequence of his 
 treatment by the House he did seriously contemplate retire- 
 ment from the country altogether. 2 
 
 On this occasion the Lords showed a very different spirit 
 from the Commons. They had at least expressed sympathy 
 with their sovereign. A committee on February 8 reported 
 a resolution to the effect that ' as a particular mark of their 
 respect and duty to his Majesty, this committee hath thought 
 fit to declare that they are ready and willing to enter into any 
 expedient that shall be thought proper and consisting with 
 the forms of Parliament for retaining near his Majesty for the 
 year one thousand six hundred and ninety-nine those Guards 
 who came over with his Majesty to our assistance and have 
 constantly attended him in all the actions wherein he hath 
 been engaged '. 3 In the debate on the subject the majority 
 supported Godolphin in his proposal that the Guards should 
 be retained. Normanby agreed that this was a compliment 
 to His Majesty, but would have liked to hear more as to how 
 the proposal was to be carried into effect. Leeds, Stamford, 
 
 1 See Dalrymple, Part III, Book VII, p. 179. 
 
 2 See the text of the remarkable speech which it is believed he intended 
 to deliver in Parliament. Dalrymple, Part III, Book VII, pp. 180-1. 
 That it was no idle threat on William's part seems to be proved 
 conclusively by a letter from Somers to Shrewsbury. The former admits 
 that he had found it difficult to believe that the King seriously contemplated 
 retirement, but says that he has had such confirmation of the reality of 
 the resolve that he is no longer able to disbelieve it. Correspondence of 
 Charles Talbot, Duke of Shrewsbury (ed. W. Coxe, 1821), p. 572. 
 
 3 Z./'fVol. X vi, p. 377.
 
 200 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 Tankerville, and Rochester all spoke of the necessity of giving 
 satisfaction to the King, particularly as the nation was left so 
 exposed. But there were others who considered that it was 
 useless to attempt anything after the passing of the bill for 
 disbandment, from whose operation the Guards had not been 
 excepted. How could the Lords augment the number of the 
 troops when it was not in their power to grant the means for 
 their support ? l When the vote was taken there proved to 
 be 54 in favour of agreeing with the committee's recommenda- 
 tion, 38 who were not. 2 But as Normanby and others had 
 perceived, the favourable intentions of the Lords were of no 
 practical avail, when once the Commons had made up their 
 minds that the troops must go. The rebuff with which the 
 Lower House met the King's entreaties was at once followed 
 by the departure of the Guards. 
 
 The next important disagreement between the Houses 
 arose in 1700 in connexion with the question of the Forfeited 
 Irish Estates. It is impossible to understand this dispute 
 without first briefly reviewing the previous history of the Irish 
 difficulty. In order to do this it is necessary to go back 
 to the Rebels Attainder Bill in 1690, when Parliament was 
 busied in strengthening the Revolution state and improving 
 the conditions of Ireland after the war in that country. 3 The 
 Commons voted that the sum of one million pounds should be 
 raised by the forfeiture of the estates of rebels. They intro- 
 duced a bill of attainder against all persons in rebellion in 
 England and Ireland, in which their confiscated property was 
 applied to the charges of the war. It was plain upon the face 
 of it that it would be difficult to manipulate such a measure 
 with equity. When the bill became public numerous petitions 
 were presented for exemption from its penalties upon one 
 ground or another. So numerous were they that the House 
 of Commons came to the conclusion that it would be simplest 
 not to deal with any. When, however, the bill came before 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1691-9, No. 1357, PP- 284-5. 
 
 2 All the thirty-eight joined in signing a protest. 
 
 3 For this bill see Lords' MSS. 2690-1, Nos. 370, 374 ; Burnet, vol. ii, 
 p. 67, pp. 228-30 and 234-47.
 
 IX BETWEEN THE HOUSES 201 
 
 the Lords, they determined that in common justice the peti- 
 tions ought to be read, and proceeded to read them. In 
 consequence of this it was found necessary to add a great 
 many provisos to the bill, which thus became exceedingly 
 cumbrous, and in the end proved abortive. In the course of 
 the proceedings the Court party had succeeded in adding 
 a clause to the effect that the Crown should have the disposal 
 of a third of the forfeited estates. When, however, the bill 
 failed to pass, William promised that he would give no grants 
 from estates confiscated in Ireland. But at the same time he 
 held himself free to grant such terms to the Irish as circum- 
 stances should necessitate. 
 
 Rather less than a year after this we find the Houses once 
 more in collision on Irish affairs, this time in connexion with 
 the act for abrogating the oath of supremacy in Ireland. 1 
 The intention of the bill was to disable all Irish Papists from 
 public offices and from the professions of law and medicine. 
 The Lords objected that the proposal infringed the rights 
 granted by the Capitulation of Limerick, and, therefore, made 
 certain amendments in order to safeguard the privileges of all 
 who were in Limerick on October 3, 1691. The Commons 
 refused to accept these amendments, and it was only after 
 a third conference with the other House that they at last 
 yielded. In February 1691/2 a new Irish Forfeited Estates 
 Bill, together with a similar measure for England, came up 
 from the Commons, who were anxious to revive the proposals 
 of their unsuccessful Rebels Attainder Bill. 2 They did not 
 manage to do this, as the Lords calmly ignored both bills, 
 though reminded of their existence by the Lower House. 
 
 After this the matter of the Irish estates did not again 
 become a burning question until the year 1699. William had 
 disregarded the promise he had made in 1690, and had since 
 rewarded a number of his friends, chiefly Dutchmen, with 
 grants from the forfeited estates. 3 The chief beneficiaries 
 
 s' MSS. 1690-1, No. 441, pp. 315-19; Murray's Revolutionary 
 Ireland and its Settlement, p. 243. 
 
 2 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, Nos. 558, 559, pp. 65-72. 
 
 8 Acting on the theory that the estates of rebels became the King's 
 property by the law of treason ; and no doubt encouraged by the silence
 
 202 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 were Portland, Albemarle, Rochford, Galway, Athlone, and 
 Lady Orkney, who had at one time been William's mistress. 
 The grants made to Portland and Lady Orkney were of great 
 extent and value. 1 In the first session of the fourth parlia- 
 ment the question of these forfeited lands was taken up by 
 the Commons. They appointed a commission to take an 
 account of the estates in Ireland ; the commission consisting of 
 seven persons, viz. the Earl of Drogheda, Sir Richard Levinz, 
 Sir Francis Brewster, Francis Annesley, John Trenchard, 
 James Hamilton, and Henry Langford. A clause appointing 
 these commissioners was tacked on to a Land Tax Bill, and in 
 this way it passed the Upper House, not without protest. 2 
 
 In order to understand the rights and wrongs of the dispute 
 which subsequently arose, it is desirable to follow some of the 
 facts as set forth in the newly published Manuscripts of the 
 House of Lords concerning this commission. Of the seven 
 commissioners the first three were Whigs, the other four 
 Tories, of whom Trenchard, the leader, was a particularly 
 violent man. The conduct of the Tory members cannot be 
 too severely condemned. They made it their sole object to 
 use their opportunity so as to embarrass the sovereign. When 
 the report was produced, the Whig members of the commission 
 found that they could not agree with it in toto. Some clauses 
 in it they passed through with misgivings owing to the manner 
 in which they were expressed, others they could not sanction 
 at all either because they were not within the powers enforced 
 on the commissioners or because they were not warranted by 
 proof. They also complained of most unfair treatment at the 
 hands of the majority. 3 The report which the Tory com- 
 
 of Parliament to regard his promises as no longer binding. For a severe 
 criticism of William's action see J. E. Thorold Rogers's The Economic 
 Interpretation of History (1909), pp. 424-9. P. 428 : ' It was alleged by 
 Davenant, and alleged with historical truth, that it was not in the power 
 of the Crown to grant more than a life interest in any part of the Crown 
 estate, and the precedents for this construction of the law were numerous 
 and cogent.' 
 
 1 There was no accurate knowledge of the extent of these estates 
 before the investigations of the commission. There were no maps. 
 See Murray's Revohitionary Ireland and its Settlement, p. 329. 
 
 2 See Thorold Rogers's Protests of the Lords, vol. i, pp. 134-5. 
 
 3 See Lords' MSS. idgg-ijoz, No. 1471. Pp. 14-15 contain the letter
 
 IX BETWEEN THE HOUSES 203 
 
 missioners presented was eminently calculated to win them 
 popularity, at so high a figure did they value the confiscated 
 estates, 1 and such a rosy picture did they draw of the reduc- 
 tion in taxation which would be possible if the estates were 
 utilized for public purposes. 2 Among the articles in the report 
 to which the minority had objected 3 was one in which the 
 King was accused of having gone beyond the Articles of 
 Limerick in his indulgence, and another in which it was stated 
 that the labours of investigation had been thwarted by men 
 in high position ' from the fear of the grantees and the persons 
 in power whose displeasure is not easily borne'. It should 
 be noticed that the attention bestowed in the report on the 
 Countess of Orkney's estate was a piece of sheer effrontery, 
 as her lands were part of the Crown property, and, therefore, 
 did not come within the cognizance of the commission. 
 
 The rancour of the Tory commissioners was equalled by 
 that of the House of Commons when they started their pro- 
 ceedings after the presentation of the report. 4 On December 15, 
 1699, they resolved that a bill should be brought in for the 
 application of the Irish estates to public purposes. They 
 also resolved that they would not listen to any petitions on 
 the subject, 5 and that they would take into consideration the 
 great services performed by the commission. They followed 
 up this by committing Levinz to the Tower. He accused 
 a certain member of having written a letter to the commis- 
 sioners recommending the separate reference to Lady Orkney 
 'because that might reflect upon somebody'. When the 
 
 of the Minority to the Chancellor. Attempts had been made to win 
 them over by private letters and instructions which the Tory commissioners 
 said they had received from the House of Commons. Finally, the majority 
 had insisted that unless the minority were prepared to put their names 
 to the whole report, they should not put their names to any part of it. 
 
 1 They grossly exaggerated the value. 
 
 2 Thorold Rogers, Ike Economic Interpretation of History, p. 429 : 
 ' If the Irish foifeitures could lighten this load of debt, it was not un- 
 reasonable for a people, smarting under novel taxes, irritated at a 
 great direct tax on land, to claim for itself the repayment of those funds, 
 the advance of which had made the Irish conquest alone possible.' 
 
 3 The clauses were Nos. 8, 10, 25, 32, 66, 78, and 79. 
 
 4 For proceedings of the Commons see Torbcck's Parl. Debates, 
 vol. iii, pp. 134-9- 
 
 6 Here they followed their own example of 1690.
 
 204 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 accused denied the charge, Levinz was adjudged to be guilty 
 of a ' groundless and scandalous aspersion '. Two days later, 
 when the Court party proposed as an amendment that a pro- 
 portion of the estates should be reserved for the disposal of 
 His Majesty, the proposal was indignantly rejected. On 
 January 15 a resolution was passed reprimanding all who 
 had advised the King's grants. The House communicated 
 the gist of their resolutions in an address to His Majesty, who 
 replied by coldly suggesting that the Commons had been 
 neglecting their public duty in not providing supplies. The 
 curt rebuke stung them to fury. Having dealt with their 
 King, they now directed their attack upon the Lords by 
 deliberately tacking their Resumption Bill on to the Land 
 Tax Bill. 
 
 It is well to realize precisely what was the attitude of the 
 House of Lords towards the bill. It is quite clear that they 
 were not opposed to the expedient of raising public moneys 
 from the Irish estates. The finances were not flourishing, 
 and the proposed expedient was a convenient method of over- 
 coming the serious difficulty of raising the necessary supplies. 
 It would at all events have been altogether impossible to 
 resist a measure so entirely popular in character, however 
 obnoxious it might be to all who had profited from the royal 
 grants. But the bill went far beyond the reasonable proposal 
 of utilizing the confiscated estates to ease the taxpayer. 1 It 
 provided for the resumption of more than the estates which 
 had been forfeited after the rebellion of 1689. It resumed 
 all grants made since 1685, and all property held by grantees 
 since that date was at a blow to be taken away from them. 
 The whole of the estates were vested in thirteen trustees, 
 who included among their number the four faithful Tory 
 commissioners. It is true that the rights of all except the 
 actual grantees were safeguarded, but these rights were really 
 at the mercy of the trustees, and if any unfortunate person 
 
 1 See Murray's Revolutionary Ireland and its Settlement, pp. 328-32 
 on the effects of the scheme on Ireland. The Commons' scheme created 
 almost as great a revolution in real property in Ireland as the 
 Cromwellian and Caroline Settlements (p. 330).
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 205 
 
 claiming a right failed to make it plain to their satisfaction 
 he was to be fined heavily for having wasted their time. As 
 rewards were to be offered to any one who gave information 
 as to estates yet undiscovered, which were liable to resump- 
 tion under the act, it was extremely likely that the security 
 of the poor Irish would be invaded, and their property sub- 
 jected to an inquisition whose object was confiscation wherever 
 possible. There was, moreover, to be no appeal. Upon that 
 point the Commons were determined. There was, in short, 
 a good deal to call for criticism in the Resumption Bill. It 
 was just one of those pieces of impatient, in part vindictive, 
 legislation which require the intervention of a revising tribunal. 
 But it was not only on the score of its inherent vices that 
 opposition to the bill in the House of Lords was to be antici- 
 pated. The animus of the House of Commons had been 
 directed primarily against the sovereign: but it was certain 
 that it would be directed against the House of Lords 
 also, should they dare to take exception to the bill. The 
 device of tacking showed contempt for the Peers. They had 
 with comparative equanimity submitted to it in the last 
 session. What they had then permitted they would have to 
 permit again. They had shown themselves weak, and, there- 
 fore, they might be treated without respect. Thus the 
 Resumption Bill distinctly involved an attack upon the powers 
 and privileges of the Lords, and in this light the latter 
 regarded it. 
 
 The obnoxious measure was ushered into the Upper House 
 on April 3, 1700. After the first reading Haversham fired 
 up against it, declaring it to be fit only for rejection. 1 This 
 view was taken also by Stamford, Ferrers, and Anglesey ; 
 but the drastic expedient of rejecting the bill at so early 
 a stage in the proceedings was not likely to find favour, and 
 the second reading was carried by 70 to 23? On April M 
 
 1 Vernon Corr., vol. iii, p. 4. 
 
 2 A protest was signed by Richmond, Bolton, Stamford, Anglesey. 
 Mohun, Abergavenny, Audley, and Haversham, in which they gave as 
 reasons for dissent (I) that the bill tended to the alteration, if not 
 destruction, of the constitution, (2) that a tack was contrary to all rules of 
 Parliament, and was dangerous both to the Crown and to the House of
 
 206 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 there was an eager debate. Devonshire declared that with 
 their money bills the Commons were invading the preroga- 
 tives of the Lords, and implicitly those of the monarch, since 
 the peerage stood as a sort of barrier between King and people. 
 Normanby supported the House of Commons on this occasion. 
 Leeds delivered a somewhat lengthy harangue to show the 
 necessity for the bill, but concluded by opposing it. Sunderland, 
 through fear of affording occasion for his enemies, gave his 
 opinion in favour of the measure. So did Rochester, though 
 he insisted upon the privileges of the Chamber. Peterborough 
 delighted the assembly by a little analogue. He compared 
 the House to a man whose affairs are in disorder. Some one 
 proposes that he should take a rich wife. Although the 
 woman is a baggage the man prefers to take her and live 
 with a demon than to be exposed to the cruel necessities of 
 life. Peterborough thought that the man was a wise one, 
 and that the Lords would do well to follow his example and 
 obtain security even at the expense of so distasteful a burden 
 as a tack. 1 After the second reading the bill was returned 
 with sundry amendments to the Commons. 2 
 
 There was an outburst of fury. The amendments were 
 unanimously rejected, and a conference clamorously called 
 for. It was ordered that a list of the Privy Council should 
 be laid before the House. An idea was abroad that the King 
 managed the Lords. 'They object to tacking,' cried one 
 excited member, ' let them take care that they do not pro- 
 voke us to tack in earnest. Jriow would they like to have bills 
 of supply with bills of attainder tacked to them ? ' Seymour, 
 Musgrave, and Harcourt dilated upon the misery which would 
 befall the nation owing to the Lords' obstinacy, all to preserve 
 the grants of those who would beggar the King. 3 At the 
 conference held on April 9/20 the Commons made it quite 
 clear that they would accept no amendment at all. Both 
 
 Lords, and (3) that the bill endangered the security of property. L.J., 
 vol. xvi, p. 568. 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, D, pp. 123-4; April 9/20, 1700. 
 
 2 The chief was the alteration of the clause whereby estates which had 
 not been forfeited were handed over to the trustees. 
 
 3 Vernon Corr., vol. iii, pp. 12-13.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 207 
 
 sides stood firm. Next day there took place a second con- 
 ference, at which the Lord President produced a number of 
 reasons why the Houses insisted upon their amendments. 
 
 Among the reasons given was that ' though there be nothing 
 in the said amendments relating to aids and supplies granted 
 to His Majesty in Parliament, yet the Commons have thought 
 fit to take occasion thereupon to assert a claim to the sole 
 right, not only of granting all aids in Parliament, but that 
 such aids are to be raised by such methods, and with such 
 provisions as the Commons only think proper. If the said 
 assertions were exactly true (which their lordships cannot 
 allow) yet it could not, with good reason follow from thence 
 that the Lords may not alter or leave out, according to their 
 amendments, when the saving estates of innocent persons, and 
 of such as have been outlawed after their death, makes such 
 amendments necessary.' l They had amended a clause in the 
 bill which instituted outlawry after death. They could not 
 accept what was equivalent to condemning a man unheard. 
 Another clause to which they took grave exception was one 
 which disqualified the commissioners of assize from member- 
 ship of Parliament. Such a rule, if it was to be made at all, 
 ought to have formed the substance of a separate enactment. 
 The Commons had as a matter of fact produced place bills 
 ere now. ' The joining together in a money bill ', pursued 
 their lordships, ' things so totally foreign to the method of 
 collecting money, and to the quantity and qualification of the 
 sums to be raised, is wholly destructive of the freedom of 
 debates, dangerous to the privileges of the Lords, and to the 
 prerogatives of the Crown. For by this means things of 
 the last ill consequence to this nation may be brought into 
 money bills, and yet neither the Lords, nor the Crown, be 
 able to give their negative to them, without hazarding the 
 public peace and security.' Finally, the Lords vindicated 
 their own conduct in the case, lamenting the inconvenience 
 which must accompany the loss of the bill and a quarrel 
 between the Houses, but affirming that they had been desirous 
 of avoiding such ill consequences by every means in their 
 1 L. /., vol. xvi, p. 575.
 
 208 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 power, as appeared by the fact that they had overlooked 
 irregularities in former bills, although they had always 
 protested against them. But they had found their kind 
 intentions had had no other effect than to invite further 
 attacks upon them. At no time had they entertained any 
 designs to invade the least right of the Commons. All they 
 wanted to do was to defend their own. Consequently, they 
 regarded themselves as wholly discharged from the suspicion 
 of being in any way accessory to such constitutional dangers as 
 seemed likely to arise. 
 
 Neither these arguments nor further conferences produced 
 any change for the better in the situation. Excitement pre- 
 vailed everywhere. The Commons, having ordered the lobby 
 of their House to be cleared of all strangers, that the back 
 door of the Speaker's chamber should be kept locked, and 
 that the sergeant should stand at the door and permit no one 
 to leave, thus shut off from the outer world and in the heated 
 atmosphere of exasperation, debated upon the obstinacy of 
 the Upper House. Throughout London there was uproar. 
 Westminster was thronged with crowds, so that it was only 
 with great difficulty that any one could approach either House. 
 A rumour was current that the King had come down to the 
 Cockpit and had sent for his crown with the intention of dis- 
 solving Parliament immediately. There were many in the 
 House of Lords, as Burnet says, who, though loyal supporters 
 of the King, were yet for passing the bill. They feared that 
 a dissolution would only make matters worse ; that the 
 unfriendly Tory majority in the Commons would only be 
 increased in numbers thereby ; that the bill would be reintro- 
 duced, possibly with even more disagreeable features than 
 before. 1 Burnet himself urged these considerations ; and he 
 acknowledges that William was much displeased with him in 
 consequence. 2 Sunderland was another who persistently 
 
 1 Burnet was roused to much excitement during these debates. At one 
 time he so far forgot himself as to shout out * Stuff, stuff' at an observation 
 made by the Earl of Anglesey. Vernon Corr., vol. iii, p. 24. 
 
 2 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 240. See Hardwicke's note. Burnet confesses 
 that he gave his advice being under a misapprehension as regards the 
 meaning of some clauses in the bill. He did not realize till afterwards 
 how bad they were.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 309 
 
 counselled retreat, and Portland and Albemarle sided with 
 him, much as they must have hated the bill. 1 At last 
 Albemarle and Jersey had an interview with the King in 
 which they counselled that means should be taken to secure 
 the passage of the bill. They understood 'that Leeds was 
 aiming at forcing a dissolution. This they considered could 
 only result in disastrous consequences to the King owing to 
 the state of ferment in the nation. The scheme they advocated 
 was that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had been strongly 
 against the bill, should be requested by the King to see that 
 the opposition on the episcopal bench was removed. There 
 was a saying spread abroad that those who were in favour 
 of the amendments were either bishops, beggars, or bastards. 
 The report of the final conference with the Commons having 
 been made to them, the Lords voted upon the fatal question 
 of whether they should continue to stand firm. The contents 
 numbered 40, the non-contents 37. The crisis seemed to be 
 over. But the tension was prolonged for a few minutes longer. 
 Proxies were called for and were allowed. The votes were 
 found to be equal. The Earl of Bridgwater, who presided 
 in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, then gave his vote in 
 the negative, as he was bound to do by rule, and declared the 
 motion to abide by the amendments to be lost. It was then 
 resolved to agree with the Commons by 39 to 34. That the 
 crisis had been averted was due to the Archbishop, who, 
 acting upon his instructions, had just before the critical 
 moment risen and beckoned to his brethren on the episcopal 
 bench to follow him outside the House. 
 
 The Commons, having won their great victory, now pro- 
 ceeded to turn their wrath upon a special object of execration 
 to them the Lord Chancellor, Somers, whom the King soon 
 after found it advisable to dismiss in consequence of his 
 unpopularity. The unfortunate affair of Captain Kidd gave 
 a handle to the enemies of Somers, but a far better opportunity 
 was shortly afforded them when the details concerning the 
 Partition Treaties came to light 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, D, p. 137, April 12/23, 1700; Vernon Corr., vol. iii, 
 p. 17. 
 
 I51S.J I'
 
 210 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 Englishmen in the days of William III had only hazy 
 ideas about foreign affairs. Even statesmen were lamentably 
 ignorant about them, and in order that the policy of the 
 country should be carried on with understanding William 
 had kept them under his own control, rarely consulting his 
 ministers and only approaching Parliament upon the subject 
 when he needed supplies with which to carry on the war. 
 Except when the country was actually endangered Parliament 
 showed no great zeal for hostilities, and when the Tories pre- 
 ponderated in the Commons there was not much sympathy 
 shown with the King's policy. But, generally speaking, it 
 may be said that apart from occasional outbursts of spleen 
 against the Dutch, the story of parliamentary activity in 
 foreign affairs is told in the customary expressions of loyal 
 support with which communications from the sovereign on 
 the subject were uniformly received. Their main interests 
 being centred in things at home, both Houses of Parliament 
 were content to give the King and his advisers a free hand. 1 
 Having enjoyed a considerable immunity from criticism 
 William had really no right to complain when their ignorance 
 of foreign affairs led to the Commons' resolve to reduce the 
 forces, and when the revelation of the irregular way in which 
 he had been wont to carry on negotiations on behalf of the 
 realm of England created an outcry against such uncon- 
 stitutional procedure. 
 
 The first step in the consideration of the Partition Treaties 
 was taken by the Upper House in March 1 700/1.2 William's 
 deliberate determination to rouse Parliament against Louis by 
 revealing some of the machinations of the latter inevitably led 
 to more prolonged and serious consideration of foreign affairs 
 
 1 Somewhat different attitudes were adopted by the two Houses in 
 1701. The King maintained that both the safety of England and the 
 existence of Holland were at stake. The Lords' reply was as satisfactory 
 as even William could desire, since they requested His Majesty to set in 
 operation the old treaties and renew the alliance of 1689. The Commons, 
 though fully realizing the perils of the situation, were not willing to go as 
 far as this. They did not consider that the project of alliance with the 
 Emperor was at all warranted, and they were certain that it would be too 
 expensive. See Von Ranke, vol. v, pp. 265-6. 
 
 * Lords' MSS, 1699-1702, No. 1559, pp. 220-73.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 211 
 
 than had been at all customary. In the course of its debates 
 the House obtained leave to examine all the documents relating 
 to treaties concluded since the Treaty of Ryswick. As the 
 result of the investigation, Devonshire, although a privy 
 councillor and member of the cabinet, was moved to declare 
 that those who were responsible for the recent Partition Treaty 
 ought to answer for it with their heads. 1 Another peer went 
 even further, and declared that their heads would not suffice, 
 though what precisely it was that he wanted besides does not 
 appear. After a series of angry attacks upon ministers, which 
 lasted five hours, Godolphin and Marlborough intervened and 
 suggested that an address should be presented to His Majesty 
 to pray him that for the future treaties might be concluded 
 only in Privy Council. It was resolved that this temperate 
 opinion should be expressed in the most decent and respectful 
 manner possible. 2 While a committee, at whose head was 
 Nottingham, was drawing up the address, the Lord Presi- 
 dent Pembroke, Halifax, Portland, and Somers all made an 
 attempt to justify the conduct of ministers with regard to the 
 negotiations conduct which, particularly in the Chancellor's 
 case, it is not possible to defend at all, when once the principle 
 of ministerial responsibility is admitted. 3 The Lords' address, 
 reported on March 20, 1 700/1, proved to be both firm and re- 
 spectful. 4 It was inevitable in the circumstances that it should 
 contain a reflection on His Majesty, but it was couched in terms 
 of ' deep humility '. It was proposed to send to the Commons, 
 who also had been discussing the treaties, for their concurrence 
 in the address. But the question being put, it was resolved in 
 the negative by 45 voices to 27. The resolution is notable, as 
 it forms a sort of prelude to the ensuing quarrel. 
 
 The recent debates had occasioned a good deal of rather 
 violent talk." There was bickering on the question of the 
 respect due to royalty. A peer who spoke disrespectfully of 
 
 ' F. L. Bonet, K, p. 91 : March 17/28, 1700/1. 
 a /../., vol. xvi, p. 622. 
 
 3 See, however, the attempt that Hurnet does make, vol. ii, p. 261. 
 An answer to it is given in Onslow's note on the passage. 
 
 4 L.J., vol. xvi, pp. 628-9. 
 
 Torbeck's Par/. Debates, vol. iii, p. I 52.
 
 312 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 the French King was rebuked by another peer, who declared 
 that the King of France was not only to be respected, but 
 also to be feared. A third noble lord retorted ' that he hoped 
 no man in England needed to be afraid of the French King ; 
 much less the peer who spoke last, who he doubted was too 
 much a friend to that monarch to fear anything from him '. 
 Normanby spoke with his customary eloquence. He and the 
 other Tories, as Burnet confesses, managed the debates with 
 great dexterity. 1 The Bishop blames William for his neglect 
 in not attending to the manipulation of matters in the House. 
 ' No directions were given and we were involved in great 
 difficulties, before the court was aware of it : the King either 
 could not prevail with his new ministers to excuse the treaty, 
 if they would not justify it ; or he neglected them so far as 
 not to speak to them at all about it.' Burnet thought that 
 the Tory lords designed to set on the House of Commons to 
 impeach some of the ministers concerned in the treaties. He 
 sees evidence for this in the motion to send to the Commons 
 for their concurrence in the Lords' address. 
 
 In the meantime the Lower House had been proceeding in 
 the matter of the treaties, in a more bellicose fashion than the 
 Lords had done. They also had drawn up an address ; but it 
 was remarked how different was its tone from that used by 
 the Peers. 2 The latter had directed their attention chiefly 
 to reform ; the Commons thought chiefly of revenge. The 
 1 8th of April saw the impeachment of Somers. A conference, 
 desired by the Lower House, took place between the Houses, 
 and the Lords entrusted the papers which they had been 
 examining to the Commons. It was well understood that 
 although Portland had been first attacked, the animus of the 
 Lower House was really against Somers, who endeavoured 
 to meet his adversaries' charges in an apologia which he 
 delivered actually in the other House, 3 but whose impeach- 
 ment immediately followed, together with those of Halifax and 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 260. 
 
 * F. L. Bonet, E, p. no: March 25/April 5, 1701. 
 3 The effect of this speech on its audience is disputed. See Burnet, 
 vol. ii, p. 267, and cf. Dartmouth's note.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 213 
 
 Orford. The decision to bring forward these impeachments 
 was carried by only a small majority, and it became doubtful 
 whether the angry party were strong enough to be able to 
 carry through their project. 
 
 Up to this point the conduct of the Commons, though 
 possibly marred by a show of personal animosity, had been 
 perfectly justified. They were right in remonstrating against 
 the method in which the recent Partition Treaties had been 
 carried through ; they had quite a good case in impeach- 
 ing ministers for acquiescing in unconstitutional practice. 
 Unfortunately, they now made a great blunder. Being aware of 
 their weakness and diffident of their capacity to carry through 
 their impeachments to a successful issue, the Tories secured 
 the dravving-up of an address to His Majesty, in which they 
 expressed their great satisfaction at having found in their 
 recent investigations that His Majesty had shown great care 
 of his people in not entering into negotiations without the 
 advice of his English ministers. They found that Somers was 
 chiefly responsible for the recent treaty, assisted by Orford 
 and Halifax. These men, the Commons had discovered, had 
 insinuated to the King that he might enter into the treaty 
 without the advice of the Council. The Commons could not 
 but resent such treatment of His Majesty. In order, therefore, 
 that the delinquents might no longer be able to deceive their 
 sovereign, they humbly besought His Majesty that he would 
 be pleased to remove Somers, Orford, and Halifax from his 
 council and presence for ever, as also the Earl of Portland, 
 who had actually transacted the treaties. 1 This address, which 
 amounted to a condemnation before trial, was passed through 
 the Commons, and presented to William. It is not to be 
 wondered at that the Lords were incensed by the action of 
 the other Chamber. What the Commons were endeavouring 
 to do was to render the jurisdiction of the Peers a nullity. 
 What a farce must those impeachments be if the accused were 
 to be punished before the cases were tried and before the 
 victims had even had the chance to make a formal answer to 
 the indictment ! On April 16 after a protracted debate it was 
 1 C. /., vol. xiii, p. 497, April 16, 1701.
 
 ai4 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 resolved by the substantial majority of 49 to 29 'that an 
 address be made to His Majesty, that he will be pleased to 
 pass no censure or punishment against the four noble lords, 
 who stand impeached of high crimes and misdemeanours until 
 the impeachments depending against them in this House shall 
 be tried.' 1 
 
 Matters hung fire for some little time after the presentation 
 of the two addresses, to neither of which any direct reply was 
 forthcoming. 2 The King contented himself with the vague 
 assurance to the Commons that they might depend upon his 
 employing only such councillors as he could trust. In the 
 meanwhile the names of the impeached lords remained on 
 the Council Book. The Commons ordered a committee to 
 draw up articles of impeachment, but this, by Burnet's account, 
 was only for form's sake. 3 He explains that they considered 
 that they had already done sufficient injury to their enemies, 
 and trusted that the King would not again employ them. As 
 this was their sole object, the Commons were content that the 
 matter should now be allowed to drop. Be this a true account 
 of the situation or not the matter was not permitted to drop. 
 The appearance of the Kentish Petition, with its forcibly ex- 
 pressed dissatisfaction with the nation's representatives, stung 
 them to further action. At the same time, the impeached lords 
 moving earnestly for a speedy trial, the Upper House sent 
 a message to the other Chamber suggesting that the articles 
 of accusation should be prepared as soon as possible both in 
 justice to the persons concerned and in order to conform to 
 
 1 /../., vol. xvi, p. 654. See L'Hermitage, W.W., p. 253, April 18/29, 
 1701. A protest was made against this resolution on the ground that it 
 was unparliamentary procedure ' to take notice in this House of what is 
 represented only by some lords to have passed in the other'. It was 
 signed by Scarsdale, Normanby, Townshend, Abingdon, Bp. of Exeter, 
 Lexington, Bp. of London, Sandwich, Cholmondeley, Caernarvon, Thanet, 
 Weymouth, Ashburnham, Hereford, Granville, Willoughby of Parham, 
 Ormonde, Kent, Rochester, Howard, Poulett, Weston, Jeffreys, and Dart- 
 mouth. A debate arose subsequently as to this protest. It was resolved 
 that the reasons should be expunged ; a resolution which provoked a 
 second protest against such treatment of a privilege of the House. 
 
 * For a detailed account of the proceedings of the House of Lords in 
 connexion with the impeachments see Lords' MSS. idyg-rjof, No. 
 1615. 
 
 8 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 268.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 215 
 
 the methods of Parliament. 1 Thus conjured to proceed, the 
 Commons submitted the articles against Orford, and also 
 demanded that sufficient security should be given by the Karl 
 to abide the judgment of his peers. The Lords investigated 
 this demand, and as they could find no precedent, they 
 informed the Commons of the fact. The Upper House now 
 did its utmost to hasten the procedure of the Commons. 
 As a result of their remonstrances the articles of impeach- 
 ment against Somers at last appeared on May 19, but none 
 were forthcoming against Portland and Halifax. The Lords 
 reminded the other House of this fact in two messages, in 
 which they spoke of the hardships under which the afore- 
 mentioned peers laboured by reason of the delay. Not until 
 the 3 ist did a reply come from the Commons. In this they 
 stated that they intended to proceed first with the trial of 
 Lord Somers. Secondly, they asserted that for their lordships 
 to declare that the delay to exhibit articles against Portland 
 and Halifax was a hardship for those noblemen and not con- 
 sonant with parliamentary methods, tended ' to the breach of 
 that good correspondence betwixt the two Houses, which ought 
 to be mutually preserved '. The same day the Lords informed 
 the Commons that they had appointed Monday, June 9, 2 for 
 the trial of the Earl of Orford, and at the same time they 
 reiterated their complaint of the hardship under which Halifax 
 and Portland laboured. A committee of impeachments met to 
 furnish material for a reply to the Commons' message. It 
 could find no precedent for so long a delay in the past. So the 
 Lords were satisfied that they had been amply justified in their 
 use of the word ' hardship '. They expressed the hope that 
 the Commons on their part would be as careful to preserve 
 amity between the Chambers as the Lords always would be 
 on theirs. 
 
 By this time the Houses had become well embarked upon 
 their quarrel. It was clear, especially from their treatment 
 of the Kentish Petitioners, that the Commons were in a 
 particularly angry mood. It was equally clear that the Lords 
 
 1 Torbeck's Parl. Debates, vol. iii, pp. 175-8. 
 3 The date of trial was subsequently postponed.
 
 ii6 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 were determined not to yield to what they regarded as high- 
 handed procedure on the part of the Commons. There was no 
 question of taxation involved here, and the Peers had a much 
 freer hand than in the previous dispute concerning the Irish 
 Forfeitures. If the Commons had then shown themselves 
 resolved to defend their peculiar privileges in money matters, 
 the Lords now showed themselves equally disposed to stand 
 firmly by precedent as regards their judicial privileges. 
 
 The Commons sent an aggrieved answer to the Lords' com- 
 munication of the 3ist. They said that in their opinion it was 
 their undoubted right, when several persons stood impeached 
 together, to bring to trial first whichever they thought fit. 
 They considered that their lordships' proceedings were con- 
 sistent neither with justice nor reason. They wished for Somers 
 to be tried first, and, therefore, they were unable to agree to the 
 day appointed for the trial of Orford. On the 6th of June a 
 free conference took place at which Harcourt, the chief manager 
 for the Lower House, explained that they had desired to confer 
 with their lordships in order to preserve the good relations 
 between the Chambers which they considered the Peers had 
 endangered. In order to prevent differences in the future 
 conduct of the impeachments, the Commons proposed the 
 appointment of a joint committee of both Houses. The Lords 
 certainly at this juncture showed themselves in a most uncon- 
 ciliatory mood. They refused to consent to the Commons' 
 scheme. 1 They expressed astonishment at the expressions 
 used by the other Chamber, which were such as they conceived 
 had never before been used by one House to the other, and 
 which, if repeated, could only have the result of destroying all 
 good correspondence between the Houses. They concluded 
 by the pious declaration that they thought that they had 
 given convincing proof of their moderation and of their sincere 
 desire to preserve the amity between the two Houses. 
 
 Meanwhile the Commons were considering the last com- 
 munications from the other House. They made answer to it 
 
 1 L. y., vol. xvi, p. 730. Twenty-one lords protested, averring that 
 a similar joint committee had met in 1679 in connexion with the trials 
 of Popish lords. There was therefore a precedent. Ibid., p. 731.
 
 ix BETWEKN THE HOUSES 217 
 
 in an injured tone. They thought they might justly have 
 expected their lordships' compliance in their request. For 
 their part they claimed that they had shown great moderation 
 and a sincere desire for concord ; witness their proposal for 
 a joint committee, upon which they still insisted. There were 
 one or two important questions which they considered ought 
 to be settled, viz. whether the impeached peers should 
 come to the bar of the Lords as criminals ; whether they 
 were to sit as judges at each other's trials or be permitted 
 to vote in their own cases. If the request for a joint com- 
 mittee were not conceded, they asserted that it would mean 
 the end of the rights of the Commons of England as shown 
 by unquestionable precedents and the usage of Parliament. 
 Another result would be that all impeachments would be 
 rendered impracticable for the future ; and impeachments 
 were the greatest bulwark of the laws and liberties of the 
 land. The Peers were quite willing to answer the specific 
 questions of the Commons, but they were still resolved to 
 dispense with the latter's co-operation. Thus they decided 
 ' that no lord of parliament, impeached of high crimes and 
 misdemeanours, shall upon his trial be without the bar' ; and. 
 secondly, that no peer could be precluded from voting on any 
 occasion save at his own trial. 1 Another message came from 
 the Lower House, principally directed against the date of the 
 trial. The appointment of so near a date was such a hardship 
 to them and such an indulgence to the accused so they 
 declared as could not be paralleled in any parliamentary 
 proceedings. In short, it would be preposterous for them to 
 enter upon the trial of the impeached lords until the Upper 
 House revealed some inclination to make it practicable. 
 They insisted that a later date should be fixed for the trial. 
 But the Lords would not agree. The session was far advanced 
 already, and there was urgent need for haste, if the impeach- 
 ments were to take place at all before Parliament adjourned. 
 
 1 /.. _/., vol. xvi, p. 737, June 12. Against the first resolution then- 
 protested : Nottingham. VVeymouth, Rochester, Abingdon, Bp. of London. 
 Guilford, Bp. of Exeter, Bp. of Rochester and Torrington. Their reason 
 was that they conceived it very improper to determine the question before 
 the House had heard what the Commons had to say about it.
 
 218 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 As for the Commons, they discovered ambiguities in the last 
 message of their antagonists and concluded that there was 
 greater need than ever for the joint committee. It was visible, 
 in Burnet's opinion, that the Commons had no serious charges 
 to bring against the Whig peers and that they were only intent 
 upon finding excuses for delay. 1 A final pretext was found in 
 a speech made by Lord Haversham at a free conference held 
 on June 13. 
 
 This conference was opened by Halifax.* The case for the 
 Commons was put by Sir Bartholomew Shower, and the reply 
 to it by the Lord Steward, to whose speech the Commons 
 could make no objection. Then, however, Lord Haversham 
 rose to speak. He was a young man, a strong Whig, one 
 never at any time conspicuous for moderation. Originally 
 a member of the Lower House, he had not long been in 
 enjoyment of his peerage. On this occasion he expressed 
 himself in very outspoken fashion, with a flimsy pretence of 
 restraint, charging the Commons with deliberately attacking 
 men whom they knew to be innocent. There was instant 
 outcry at the insinuations contained in the speech. The 
 managers for the Commons looked upon it as containing so 
 great an aspersion on their House that they were obliged 
 to retire. The deeply injured Chamber proceeded to pass 
 a resolution against scandalous reproaches which tended to 
 make a breach between the Houses and to delay the impeach- 
 ments. They also resolved that the Lords should be requested 
 to inflict a punishment upon their member for his heinous 
 offence. As for the Lords, they sent a message stating that 
 they had been informed of the misunderstanding at the con- 
 ference and suggesting that as they were anxious not to 
 interrupt public business the best thing to do was to resume 
 the conference. The suggestion was repeated next day, but 
 the Commons preserved the haughtiness of outraged dignity. 
 They were, they said, exceedingly desirous of maintaining 
 friendly relations, but at the same time it would not be con- 
 sistent with their honour to renew the conference before 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 278. 
 8 L.J., vol. xvi, p. 743.
 
 ix BETWEEN THE HOUSES 219 
 
 reparation was done them. The same day the articles against 
 Halifax were at last produced. 
 
 Notwithstanding the determination of the Commons to play 
 no part in it the trial of Lord Somers actually took place on 
 the appointed day, Tuesday, June 17. The Commons might 
 do as they pleased ; that was no concern of the Peers who 
 had fixed a date and were going to abide by it. By 57 to 36 l 
 they resolved to go into the court of Westminster Hall for the 
 trial of Lord Somers. A message was sent to the other 
 House to say that the Lords intended to proceed immediately 
 to the trial. The Bishop of Hereford and the Earl of Anglesey 
 were excused from attendance, together with Orford and 
 Halifax, who requested to be absent from the trial of their 
 comrade. It was ordered that Westminster Hall should be 
 cleared for the Peers, and thither they took their \vay, and the 
 solemn farce began. When all were seated, proclamation was 
 made for silence. A second proclamation declared that Lord 
 Somers, who had been charged with high crimes and mis- 
 demeanours by the House of Commons, was now upon his 
 trial, and that all persons concerned were to take note of the 
 fact and now come forward to make good the charge. Next 
 were read the articles of impeachment, and the answers made 
 to them by the accused, after which the previous proclamation 
 was made once more. The Lord Keeper- stated that the 
 House was ready to receive evidence and desired that their 
 lordships should give attention to it. Then there was silence 
 again. The Upper House sat in solitary state in Westminster 
 Hall. None came to disturb their serene repose ; there were 
 no accusers, there was no evidence. After a while Somers 
 moved that his own counsel should be heard ; and the case for 
 the defence was thus presented. There was no other case. 
 The space within the Hall where the faithful Commons should 
 
 1 The Non-Contents included Somerset, Northumberland, Up. of 
 London, Scarsdale, Jermyn. Normanby, Nottingham. Derby, Rochester, 
 Caernarvon, Fevcrsham, Marlborough, Plymouth. Abingdon, Thanet, 
 Oxford, Peterborough, Lawarr, Warrington, Denbigh. Lexington, Up. of 
 Rochester, Hunsdon, Dartmouth, Howard, Wcston, Weymouth, 
 Cholmondeley, Jeffreys, (iodolphin, Bp. of Kxeter, and (iuilford. These 
 signed a protest, afterwards erased by order of the House. 
 
 * Sir Nathan Wright.
 
 220 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 have stood remained empty. So the Lords adjourned to their 
 own House. 
 
 The House being resumed, it was moved to acquit Lord 
 Somers of the charges preferred against him. A long debate 
 ensued. The opinion of the judges was asked as to what 
 naturally happens when any one accused of felony, treason, 
 and misdemeanour pleads not guilty and no evidence is forth- 
 coming. Finally, the question was put that Lord Somers is 
 acquitted of the charge against him and -the impeachment 
 is dismissed. It was resolved in the affirmative by a majority 
 of 55 to 33. Of the latter 30 protested, their reasons for dis- 
 sent being subsequently expunged from the Journals. Once 
 again the Peers proceeded in dignified order to Westminster 
 Hall. When they were assembled in their proper places the 
 Lord Keeper asked each one severally whether he was con- 
 tent that Lord Somers be acquitted or not content ; and each, 
 as his name was called, stood up and gave his verdict. The 
 contents numbered 55, the non-contents 32. 1 When all had 
 answered the Lord Keeper declared that Lord Somers had 
 been acquitted, whereupon the Peers returned to theirChamber, 
 where it was ordered that the impeachment should be dis- 
 missed, and also that an account of the proceedings of the 
 House throughout the entire matter of the impeachments 
 should be printed. 
 
 The House of Commons were not slow to express their 
 wrath at the last outrage on the part of the Peers. They 
 
 1 The Contents were : Barons Haversham, Herbert, Ossulstune, 
 Osborne, CornwaJlis, Granville, Berkeley, Rockingham, Lucas, 
 Culpepper, Byron, Mohun, Lovelace, North and Grey, Wharton, Eure, 
 Fitzwalter, Abergavenny ; Bishops of Chichester, Lincoln, St. Asaph, 
 Bristol, Gloucester, Peterborough, Norwich, Coventry, Ely, Bangor, 
 Sarum ; Viscount Saye and Sele ; Earls of Rochford, Romney, Scarborough, 
 Montague, Portland, Berkeley, Radnor, Macclesfield, Shaftesbury, 
 Burlington, Bath, Essex, Kingston, Stamford, Rivers, Dorset, Huntingdon, 
 Carlisle; Dukes of Newcastle, Schomberg, Bolton, St. Albans, Devon- 
 shire ; the Earl of Tankerville, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 The Non-Contents were : Barons Jeffreys, Godolphin, Guilford, 
 Dartmouth, Lexington, Jermyn, Howard of Escrick, Hunsdon, Lawarr : 
 Bishops of Exeter, Rochester, and London ; Viscount Weymouth ; Earls of 
 Warrington, Marlborough, Plymouth, Abingdon, Rochester, Nottingham, 
 Feversham, Scarsdale, Thanet, Caernarvon, Peterborough, Denbigh, 
 Derby, Oxford, Jersey, Lindsey ; Marquis of Normanby; Dukes of 
 Northumberland and Somerset. L.J., vol. xvi, p. 756.
 
 IX BETWEEN THE HOUSES 2*1 
 
 passed a resolution affirming that the Lords had refused them 
 justice, had by their pretended trial endeavoured to subvert 
 the rights of impeachment, and had invaded the liberties of 
 the subject by laying a foundation of impunity for the greatest 
 offenders. All the disastrous consequences which must follow 
 upon the delay in granting supplies must, they stated, be 
 laid to the charge of those who had done their best to 
 make a breach between the Chambers. When the Lords sent 
 a message giving official notice of Somers' acquittal and 
 stating that the next Monday, June 23, had been fixed for 
 the trial of Lord Orford, the Commons ordered that no 
 member should presume to appear at the pretended trial upon 
 pain of incurring the utmost displeasure of the House. They 
 then adjourned until Tuesday, June 24. 
 
 Meanwhile the Lords resolved that unless the Commons' 
 charge against Lord Haversham were presented by them 
 before the end of the session they would declare him innocent. 
 They also emphatically condemned the resolutions of the 
 Commons, which they hinted had been contrived merely with 
 a view to covering the Commons' own delays. 1 These resolu- 
 tions they regarded as tending to the destruction of the 
 Lords' judicature and the rendering trials and impeachments 
 impracticable in future. On Monday, June 23, the whole 
 elaborate ceremonial, which had been gone through on the 
 occasion of the Somers' trial was punctiliously repeated, with 
 precisely the same result. The Tory lords had stayed away 
 in sympathy with the action of the Commons, so that all who 
 were present in Westminster Hall voted for Orford's acquittal. 
 The impeachment was accordingly dismissed. The House 
 afterwards took notice that several lords in town had absented 
 themselves, though summoned to attend that day, and that 
 others who had actually been at St. Stephen's had absented 
 themselves from the trial. It was, therefore, resolved that all 
 such peers, if they proved unable to make a just excuse, were 
 to be held guilty of a great and wilful neglect of their duty. 
 On June 24, the last day of the session, Haversham was 
 solemnly absolved from the charge against him, and the 
 1 /.. /., vol. xvi, pp. 763, 765-7-
 
 222 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP. 
 
 impeachments against Halifax and Portland, together with 
 one, long outstanding, against the Duke of Leeds were all 
 dismissed. The famous episode of the impeachments was now 
 ended. But the bitterness it had aroused had been extreme. 
 Bolton had even moved that the King be desired to put an 
 end to a Chamber which in abusing its own legitimate authority 
 was a menace to the affairs of Europe and a seed of discord 
 in the state. 1 The rupture had produced difficulties outside 
 the immediate area of dispute. A Commons' bill for appoint- 
 ing commissioners of accounts had been amended in the 
 revising chamber to the indignation of a Lower House already 
 indignant enough. The King put an end to the troublous 
 parliament as speedily as he could ; and thus ended the long 
 series of quarrels between the two Houses. The fifth parlia- 
 ment of the reign, which came to an untimely end owing to 
 William's death, was peaceful. 
 
 The rights and wrongs of the dispute over the impeach- 
 ments of the Junto have often been argued and might be argued 
 indefinitely. The case for the Commons may be found in a 
 pamphlet, entitled A Vindication of the Rights of the Commons 
 of England? 1 It is an interesting piece of work if only for the 
 objections which the writer raises against the Cabinet, whose 
 existence had been found such a difficulty in the attempt to 
 bring home their crime to the ministers responsible for the 
 Partition Treaties. But the main argument of Sir Humphrey 
 Mackworth is concerned with the Commons' right of impeach- 
 ment. The Lower House, he says, made no claim to concur 
 in the sentence ; they in no way encroached upon the Lords' 
 judicature. 3 But to the latter's judicial rights the appointment 
 of a time for an impeachment to be held did not appertain. 
 The appointment of a day was a collateral power, which 
 might or might not belong to the judge. If the judge 
 possessed it in the case of impeachments, then the right of 
 the Commons would be rendered impracticable. And if the 
 
 1 L'Hermitage, W. W., p. 304: June 24/July 5, 1701. 
 
 2 A Vindication of the Rights of the Commons of England, by Sir H. 
 Mackworth (1701), p. 16. Also printed in Somers 3 Tracts, vol. xi, p. 276 
 et seq. 
 
 3 Ibid. (ed. 1701), p. 20.
 
 ix. BETWEEN THE HOUSES 223 
 
 right of impeachment were defeated, might not that of the 
 control of the purse be defeated also? For what did the 
 latter signify if it was not accompanied by the power to 
 impeach evil ministers, who acted to the ruin of the nation 
 or misapplied money to corrupt purposes? In short, a blow 
 aimed at the Commons' right of impeachment was a blow at 
 the balance of the constitution, and that again was a blow 
 at the common safety of King and people. For ' the power 
 of impeachments ... in the Commons seems to be an 
 original inherent right in the people of England, reserved to 
 them in the first institution of government by the law of 
 nature, and self-preservation for the common safety of their 
 just rights or liberties. 1 With regard to the Lords' refusal to 
 agree to the scheme for a joint committee, Mackworth avers 
 that according to parliamentary practice, when precedents are 
 doubtful, recourse should be had to the fountain of all pre- 
 cedents, i.e. sound reason, in accordance with which joint 
 committees had been held in the past. The author closes with 
 the declaration that when the question is one of the methods 
 of procedure in cases of impeachment he declines to argue ; he 
 considers it necessary only to assert. 
 
 Mackworth's pamphlet was answered by a truly remarkable 
 production, A Vindication of t/u: Rights and Prerogatives of 
 tJic House of Lords? The argument of this paper is conceived 
 on too lofty a plane to permit of its author's descending much to 
 details. But he twits Sir Humphrey with claiming to be of no 
 party but that of Reason and Law, and yet defending the pro- 
 ceedings of an assembly which sought to have its enemies 
 condemned unheard ; and he claims that it was undeniably the 
 Commons, and not the Lords, that were the aggressors in the 
 quarrel. The Peers deferred the trial from day to day for 
 the convenience of the other House until further delay was 
 out of the question. The same side is taken in the manifesto 
 
 1 Mackworth's Vituiication, p. 32. Cf. another pamphlet in favour 
 of the Commons, A History of the Lust Session of J'<irliament 
 (1702). 
 
 8 Somers Tracts, vol. xi, p. 315. The pamphlet was originally published 
 in 1701.
 
 224 THE GREAT QUARREL CHAP, ix 
 
 directed against the Commons under the name of Legion. 1 
 In this the Commons are accused of having abused their 
 power, first by their imprisonment of the Kentish Petitioners ; 
 secondly, by delaying public affairs until the enemy was at 
 the door; thirdly, by impeaching members of the House of 
 Lords, and then shuffling out of an untenable position by 
 miserable shifts, ' the end being to blast their reputations, not 
 prove the fact, that they might be put out of place, and your- 
 selves put in ; finally, by quarrelling with the House of Lords 
 at a time when peace at home was most necessary.' 
 
 There is a poem, possibly by Defoe, on the imprisonment 
 of the Kentish Petitioners, which puts the case of an in- 
 jured public against a House of Commons which no longer 
 represents it. 2 
 
 And now your wrath is smoking fast 
 
 Against the Kent petition, 
 No man alive can tell for what, 
 But telling truths that please you not, 
 
 And taxing your discretion. 
 
 The author concludes that there is only one thing to be done. 
 An assembly which is not representative must be got rid of. 
 
 For since in vain our hopes and fears, 
 
 Petitions too are vain, 
 No remedy but this appears, 
 To pull the house about your ears, 
 
 And send you home again. 
 
 These are the nation's discontents, 
 
 The causes are too true, 
 The ploughman now his choice repents, 
 For though he values parliaments, 
 
 He's not in love with you. 
 
 1 ' Legion's New Paper ; Being a Second Memorial to the Gentlemen 
 of a late House of Commons.' Somers 1 Tracts, vol. xi, p. 267. 
 
 2 Somers' Tracts, vol. xi, pp. 259-64.
 
 CHAPTER X 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 THE ultimate causes of the great quarrel between the two 
 Houses is the most interesting question presented by the 
 parliamentary history of the reign of William III. Our own 
 knowledge and experience of the thoroughly organized party 
 system make us too prone to read all parliamentary history 
 from the standpoint of party divisions even in days when the 
 party system, so far from being organized, was really in its 
 infancy. Though the terms Whig and Tory certainly connoted 
 fairly well defined political principles, they are far from being 
 a master-key to the whole meaning of the parliamentary 
 proceedings of the reign. The terms may be positively mis- 
 leading. Neither party in 1689 had a detailed creed. After 
 the Revolution the position of the Tories was distinctly 
 ambiguous, for by strict rule Tory ought to have meant 
 Jacobite, which it was very far from doing. The party issue 
 becomes confused, if only because it is hard to reconcile 
 Toryism as it was in 1689 with the Revolution Settlement. 
 Moreover, this is not the only cause of confusion. We find 
 politicians acting in a way which on the broad basis of party 
 would be difficult to explain. They are actuated by motives 
 other than party motives. Again and again we find that the 
 parliamentary contest is being fought between the two Houses 
 rather than between the two parties. It is reasonable to 
 inquire whether it would not be a more illuminating way of 
 studying the parliamentary history of the reign to consider 
 the relations between Lords and Commons rather than those 
 between Tories and Whigs. And the discussion of the relations 
 between the two Houses involves the question of the amount 
 of political influence which the House of Lords exercised at 
 the close of the seventeenth century.
 
 aa6 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 Reference has been made in the chapter on the Social 
 Aspect of the Peerage to contemporary lamentations over the 
 personal decadence of the nobility. Similar lamentations were 
 expressed over an alleged decay in their corporate influence 
 also. A favourite argument of the day ascribes the disasters 
 of the Commonwealth and Protectorate to unwise policy on 
 the part of kings themselves. The Tudors' policy, it was 
 affirmed, had been utterly at fault. Their successors had paid 
 the dire penalty attaching to a tactical blunder. The true 
 support and mainstay of the monarchy was the nobility. Yet 
 Henry VII had waged dreadful war upon the nobility. This 
 argument is almost a commonplace in the seventeenth century 
 and beginning of the eighteenth. We must take the theory 
 for what it is worth. We are looking at the situation through 
 the eyes of a supporter of the Stuarts, who is not concerning 
 himself in the least with the nature of the problem with which 
 the Tudors were in their day confronted. The fact was clear 
 to the monarchist of 1700 that whatever might have been the 
 justification of the Tudors' policy for their own generation it 
 had certainly resulted in the sowing of a new crop of dangers 
 for a future generation to reap. Henry VII had been the 
 destroyer of the baronage by a war of proscription. Henry VIII 
 and Elizabeth had been equally culpable, though the method 
 of their warfare had been different. The author of the 
 Memorial to the Princess Sophia * especially censures Eliza- 
 beth's courting of popularity. She neglected the Peers ; she 
 smiled upon the House of Commons, so that (to quote Harring- 
 ton) ' her successors have ever since looked pale before their 
 assemblies. For the House of Peers, which alone had stood 
 in the gap, now sinking down between the King and the 
 Commons, showed that Crassus was dead, and the Isthmus 
 broken. But a monarchy divested of its nobility, hath no 
 refuge under heaven but an army ; wherefore the dissolution 
 of this government caused the war, not the war the dissolution 
 of this government.' Says another pamphleteer : ' Had the 
 Lords in Charles I's reign had but the fortieth part of the real 
 
 1 Memorial to the Princess Sophia, by G. S., p. 38.
 
 x CONCLUSION 227 
 
 power their ancestors enjoyed, there can be no doubt they had 
 kept the balance even, and prevented that unnatural war. 1 1 
 
 It is hardly fair to the Tudors to regard them as alone 
 responsible for the decrease in the influence of the nobility. 
 Does strength lie with the many or the few? It is possible 
 to argue either way, as was found in 1719 in the discussions 
 over the Peerage Bill. But whatever be the answer to that 
 question, it is certain that the lavish creations of James I did 
 not enhance the prestige of the House of Lords. It was not 
 so much the number as the character of the new peerages that 
 was at fault. For James made a market of them ; sold them 
 right and left. A new nobility, lacking in the eclat of family 
 distinction, was raised up side by side with the older baronage, 
 which was not slow to express its resentment. If the House 
 had already been humiliated before the outbreak of the Civil 
 War, infinitely greater was its humiliation afterwards. It 
 failed to effect a reconciliation between the monarchy and 
 the Commons, who thereupon found it to be as useless and 
 dangerous as the monarchy itself and destroyed it altogether. 2 
 Then followed the days of the nobility's greatest degradation. 
 They were outcast from the social pale of their country. No 
 longer leaders, they became objects of ridicule, targets for 
 jeers and mockery. 3 The restoration of the monarchy in 1660 
 
 1 The Constitution explained in relation to the Independency of the 
 House of Lords. A pamphlet written on the Stanhope Peerage Bill. It 
 will be found in the British Museum, Political Tracts, 1714-21 (No. 
 1 1 08). 
 
 2 See Firth's House of Lords during the Civil War, p. 74 : 
 
 ' During the first and second sessions of the Long Parliament the 
 House of Lords was the arbiter between the Crown and the Commons. 
 As in 1626 and in 1628 both Crown and Commons appealed to it for 
 support, and once more it endeavoured to mediate between the two. 
 Its inability to effect a compromise led directly to the Civil War, and 
 indirectly to the abolition of the House of Lords itself.' 
 
 s See Firth's House of Lords, pp. 238-9. ' So they jostle him now in the 
 streets, who was wont before, like Mandarins, to make whole streets to 
 give way, and nobody takes notice of him unless some one in seven points 
 at him (perhaps), and says, "There goes a Lord," and this is all the 
 privilege of peerage they have now, besides the having every base fellow 
 without commission to search their house, every tradesman cite them 
 before their Worships at next shire-towns, and every common serjeant 
 drag them away to prison, where they lie in the dungeon or common 
 gaol : and this fine prerogative they have got, who would needs pluck 
 
 2
 
 228 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 did not involve the restoration of the nobility to their former 
 power and reputation. For them the restoration was social 
 rather than political. And as the society of the court was 
 so largely frivolous, the social restoration did them but little 
 good, at a time when, as has been said, 'it looks rather 
 as if the spread of the democratic spirit had undermined the 
 moral basis of their claims, so that deference to rank had 
 become a debt grudgingly paid rather than a due willingly 
 rendered.' 1 Earnest-minded men like Clarendon realized 
 that if the House was to increase its authority it must do so 
 by paying faithful and devoted services to the nation, whereas 
 it was only too prone after 1660 to fritter away its influence 
 by the slackness of its proceedings and the altercations and 
 ill-living of its members, together with the ill-use they were 
 accustomed to make of their privileges. 2 
 
 Charles II regarded the House of Lords as impotent for 
 good or ill, and when William III ascended the English 
 throne, it is plain that he was inclined to share this opinion. 
 He was unwilling to attend the debates of the House, though 
 often urged by Halifax to do so. If only he would come, 
 thought the Marquis, he would realize how necessary the 
 support of the Peers was to him. 3 He would seem to have 
 lost his temper at Halifax's repeated exhortations. When 
 again asked to attend the debates in January 1689/90 he showed 
 heat, exclaiming that he had no time for it. The estimation 
 in which in these early days he held the average English 
 peer is revealed by a saying of his in March 1689, quoted by 
 Halifax, that he will raise regiments, but will not give the 
 command of them to peers, as the humour and character of 
 a peer of England did not agree well with the discipline to 
 which a colonel must be subject. 4 The opinion that the 
 House of Lords now counted for much less than the Commons 
 
 away the King, only to be promoted to the King's Bench themselves.' 
 From a sketch of 1652 entitled ' A character of a degenerate nobleman '. 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 293. 
 
 2 Life of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon (3 vols., 1827), vol. iii, pp. 
 166-9. See Old Parl. Hist., vol. xxi, p. 95 (quoted in Firth, p. 294). 
 
 3 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, pp. 208, 244. 
 
 4 Ibid., p. 205.
 
 x CONCLUSION 3*9 
 
 was shared very generally by foreigners. The recent history 
 of England inevitably gave this impression to outside observers, 
 who were in any case likely to be struck by the remarkable 
 vigour of the most vigorous representative chamber in Europe. 
 An interesting instance of this state of feeling is afforded in 
 1698, when Bolton and Abingdon moved an address in favour 
 of the persecuted Protestants in France, only to be roundly 
 informed that an address from the Upper House could carry 
 but little weight, as their Chamber had not the reputation in 
 foreign countries that the Commons enjoyed. 1 
 
 The pamphlets on the Peerage Bill of 1719, though obviously 
 dealing for the most part with the specific proposals of that 
 measure, yet contain general discussions on the state of the 
 peerage, which are as relevant to the days of William III as 
 to the early days of George I. 2 There are some interesting 
 passages in a reply to one of Walpole's pamphlets against the 
 bill. ' What are the Lords ? ' the writer exclaims. ' They are 
 few in numbers ; they possess merely an imaginary dignity ; 
 they represent none but themselves. They can never be 
 popular, but must always remain a mark for envy. Most of 
 them are poor, and few possess a dangerous wealth. They 
 possess no strongholds as they did in ancient days. When 
 considered as a body, they are dissoluble at pleasure. Could 
 there be a description of more harmless creatures ? ' The con- 
 stitutional position of the House reminds the author of pur- 
 gatory. For what is the idea of purgatory? It is a place 
 ' where the great and ultimate decrees of Providence are not 
 altered, but suspended and delayed.' 3 It appears that in 
 strictness the House of Lords is but an imaginary estate, 
 resembling purgatory in this, that affairs pass through its 
 channel, and rest there deposited for a while, but the final 
 decision is always given either by the Crown or the Commons. 
 The Peers can be brought to book by the King, the Commons, 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, B, pp. 119-20: May 13/23, 1698. 
 
 J For list of these pamphlets see Retrospective Review, Series II, vol. ii, 
 1828, p. 129. 
 
 s Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled ' Thoughts of a Member of the 
 Lower House in relation to the Project for Restoring the Peerage ' 
 (1719), p. 30.
 
 230 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 the civil officers, the army, or the mob. * The Lords in their 
 greatest splendour and authority, with their speaker at their 
 head, what have they to contend with against all these 
 supposed enemies? They have an empty embroidered purse 
 and a black Rod.' 1 
 
 Other writers might be quoted as illustrating what was 
 clearly an opinion held widely both by friend and foe, that 
 the House of Lords, viewed both in its personal and its cor- 
 porate character, had much declined in authority and prestige. 
 That the opinion should have existed at all is a noteworthy 
 fact apart altogether from the question whether the opinion 
 was justified or not. But, on the other hand, it is necessary 
 not to take these lamentations and diatribes too literally. 
 One must remember that the standpoint of contemporaries 
 was very different from our own. When they spoke of the 
 halcyon days of the House of Lords, from which it had been 
 declining, they were thinking of the period of feudalism, 
 when the third estate had scarcely any practical power, 
 and government was a true oligarch}-. Little wonder if the 
 authority of the House in their own day seemed puny and 
 meagre when such was their standard of comparison. But 
 we, with two more centuries behind us, view the condition 
 of parliamentary institutions at the end of the seventeenth 
 century in a very different light. So real were the privileges 
 and exemptions of the noble class that it formed then, in 
 a way quite different from the present, a caste apart. Privilege 
 was not a dead letter; it was perpetually utilized. At no 
 time did the English nobility show the utter aloofness, the 
 indifference to the interests of the rest of the community 
 displayed by the French noblesse. Vet the conception of 
 the dignity of the peer, as of some one on quite a higher 
 plane than his neighbours, was still strong at the end of the 
 seventeenth century. 
 
 It was still possible for a supporter of the authority of the 
 Upper House in all seriousness and sincerity to build up 
 a gaudy theory of natural superiority, which seems strange 
 
 <i l-\wtf>hJtf, &c, p. 33.
 
 x CONCLUSION 231 
 
 and somewhat ridiculous to our ears. 1 The foundation of the 
 theory is the undoubted fact that man, as the perfection of 
 the universe, was made paramount on the earth. Hence is 
 adduced the principle that ' superiority and subordination are 
 the ligaments of government '. Then follows a glorification of 
 the great man, and an exhortation to godliness in rulers. After 
 this comes a laudation of the English nobility, 
 
 ' That know themselves honourably born, of plentiful estates 
 in the country, and that owe their original to virtue, that can 
 never be suspected of ill intentions, against their nation's soil, 
 where the parents, relations, friends, and tenants reside, and 
 must be possessed of their heirs and successors. Altho' they 
 are tender of their rights and privileges, as the supreme court 
 of judicature in England, from which there is no appeal, and 
 are zealous in maintaining them ; cannot, I say, without the 
 greatest breach of duty and charity imaginable be supposed 
 to act against the valuable interest of England in general ; 
 but on the contrary are the pillars that support the nation, 
 welfare, and grandeur, and their estates in conjunction with 
 others that defend our coasts from the insults and depredations 
 of our enemies. 
 
 1 These are the English nobles, which being adorned with their 
 own virtues as well as with those of their ancestors, merit 
 esteem, preferment, trust, honour, and fame above all others 
 that would stand in competition with them, in the administra- 
 tion of public affairs, for they arc armour of proof against all 
 innovations and whatever might reflect injuries upon our 
 happy constitution of Kings, Lords, and Commons either 
 obliquely or directly.' 
 
 Another writer justifies the special judicial prerogatives of 
 the Upper House on somewhat similar grounds. 2 As the 
 peers hold their seats in parliament by hereditary right they 
 are supposed to be above corruption or the influence of a court. 
 As having the greatest share in landed property, they are 
 thought to be most fit to make impartial rules about it, as 
 what they do must affect both themselves and their posterity. 
 
 1 A Vindication of the Rights and Prerogatives of the House of Lords, 
 in Settlers' Tracts, vol. xi, p. 315. The pamphlet was first published in 
 1701. 
 
 1 The Constitution explained in relation to the Independency of the 
 House of Lords, p. n. British Museum Political Tracts 1714-21, No. 1108.
 
 232 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 Again, the peers may be expected to be free from chicanery 
 which too often mars the proceedings of inferior courts. In 
 a like strain other writers expatiate upon the calmness, fair- 
 ness, superior virtues inherent in a House composed of the 
 nobility of the realm. 
 
 Such was the sort of theory which justified the peculiar 
 privileges of the peer. It will be noticed that, although most 
 of these had their origin in Parliament, their importance was 
 chiefly personal. A lord who scarcely ever appeared at West- 
 minster, in virtue of his membership of the Upper House, was 
 able to exert the widest authority as a territorial magnate. 
 This territorial power reacted upon the influence of the House 
 of Lords viewed as a corporation. The House was in the 
 main an assembly of great landowners, of men bound together 
 by the ties of common interest, and because of their authority 
 in their respective districts able to wield a great authority in 
 Parliament. Tangible proof of this was given in the extensive 
 nature of aristocratic control over elections and the composi- 
 tion of the House of Commons. The strength of the Upper 
 House itself was enhanced by the fact that it was no assembly 
 of diverse elements : it was in reality an organism. Apart 
 from community of interests, there was the cohesion given 
 by close family connexion, as a glance at the genealogical 
 trees of the peerage will prove. So strong was the sense of 
 common heritage and the corporate character of the peerage 
 that in the world of politics there was always a tendency for 
 a lord to stand more for his House than for his party. Thus 
 the House of Lords was strong in its territorial influence, its 
 distinctive privileges, and its consciousness of essential unity. 
 
 When we realize the solidarity of the Upper House, we 
 become possessed of one of the explanations of the parlia- 
 mentary history of the reign of William III. Whenever the 
 House of Commons came into forceful contact with the cor- 
 porate sense of the other Chamber it came up against some- 
 thing adamantine. For in the other Chamber there was 
 enshrined not only political aspirations but class consciousness. 
 The Commons failed repeatedly in their attempts to carry 
 their Treason Bills because the Lords saw in those bills
 
 x CONCLUSION 233 
 
 a menace to their security. It did not matter whether those 
 bills emanated from the Whig or the Tory party. They were in 
 any case regarded as attacks upon the House of Lords, not as 
 an assembly consisting mainly of one party or the other, but 
 as a united organism. Similarly, the attack upon Somers, 
 Orford, Halifax, and Haversham was felt to be an attack not 
 merely upon them, but also upon the House of which they 
 were members. It was as when the internal disputes of a city 
 are forgotten in the haste to defend the citadel against the 
 escalade of an outside foe. 
 
 It was not only as an assembly consisting of a privileged 
 class that the House of Lords enjoyed a superiority which 
 laid it open to attacks from without : it has been generally 
 admitted that, at any rate until the era of Walpole, the Lords 
 were the intellectual superiors of the Commons. ' Until the 
 reign of George III', says Buckle, 'the House of Lords was 
 decidedly superior to the House of Commons in the liberality 
 and general accomplishments of its members.' * The education 
 of many of them may have been defective ; they may have 
 been impregnated with narrow prejudices ; still they were 
 considerably freer from these failings than the squirearchy 
 from which the Commons were in large measure recruited. It 
 is indisputable that from 1660 to 1714 we must go to the 
 Upper House in order to find the great personalities of the 
 political world. Of these, it is true, several served an appren- 
 ticeship in the Lower House ; but then the ablest members 
 of the Commons were generally sent ere long to the other 
 Chamber. We may say with confidence that at any given 
 time within the period mentioned, the majority of the most 
 remarkable figures in political life will be found in the 
 Upper and not in the Lower House. The peers were apt 
 to predominate in all the services, either by actually holding 
 places themselves, or by being able to fill them with their 
 nominees. But in particular they were predominant in the 
 great offices of the state. The leading ministers were almost 
 always peers. Because this was so the House of Peers played 
 a foremost part in political affairs, which it subsequently lost. 
 
 1 Buckle's History of Civilisation (1869, 3 vols.), vol. i, pp. 451-3.
 
 234 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 In those days the connexion between the administration and 
 the Lords was closer and more intimate than the connexion 
 between the administration and the House of Commons. 
 When we realize such facts as these, the privileges of the 
 House, its corporate character, its priority in the executive, 
 its judicial activities, its influence over offices, over elections, 
 over the electorate and its representatives alike, we recognize 
 that from our modern point of view the House of Lords was 
 not the decrepit institution some contemporaries pictured 
 it to be. It was still a strong citadel, a mark for jealousy 
 not contempt. 
 
 Even despite its reverses, even after the era of the Common- 
 wealth, the House of Lords still symbolized the traditions of 
 aristocratic government, with which the House of Commons, 
 if it was to progress, could not sympathize. And the aspira- 
 tions of the Lower House had been fired by the great part 
 it had played against the first Charles, and been encouraged 
 by the continuous duration of Parliament under the second 
 Charles. If the authority of the representative Chamber was 
 to increase, it was inevitable that that of the other House 
 must decrease. The battle to be waged was not against 
 a despotic monarchy only, but against an oligarchical tradition 
 also. It has been pointed out that in William's first parlia- 
 ment a great Whig majority was returned, who conceived that 
 the new settlement was their work, and that they must make 
 the most of the opportunity afforded by the new order. The 
 members of this first parliament were of a distinctly militant 
 type, and on the whole that type was maintained in subsequent 
 assemblies. 
 
 There were not wanting those who perceived in the ambitions 
 of the Lower House a danger not only to the Lords but also 
 to the whole nation ; l who thought they saw the balance of 
 
 1 F. L. Bonet, E, p. 13, January 3/14, 1700/1. 'La Chambre des 
 Communes, parce qu'elle est Maitresse des bourses, a force' les Rois de 
 leur ceder mille privileges qui favorisent a la verite' en un terns le Peuple, 
 mais qui rendent les deliberations importantes a I'e'tat de plus en plus 
 dangereuses. Non contente de voir ces anciens privileges establis et la 
 religion affirmie par le secour de S. M. a present regnante, elle ne cesse 
 dans toutes ces sessions d'e"branler la balance du pouvoir qui a rendu 
 cette Nation heureuse et florisante ; de sorte qu'on peut craindre que ce
 
 x CONCLUSION 235 
 
 power which had made the country happy and prosperous 
 threatened by a too violent assembly. The author of the 
 Memorial to the Princess Sophia expressed consternation at 
 the growing influence of the Commons. He compared them 
 to wild beasts, who, did they but know their own strength, 
 would destroy mankind. So might the Commons destroy 
 kings and monarchies ; no power on earth could govern them. 
 It was fortunate that they could not utilize their full strength. 
 Country gentlemen might manage their own estates excellently 
 well ; they could divert themselves with hunting and feasting : 
 citizens could be sharp enough in business but, God be 
 thanked, all were not cut out for statesmen ! l Such was the 
 pious ejaculation of the man who believed thoroughly in the 
 old order, and considered that the House of Commons should 
 hold only a subordinate position, such as the Lords certainly 
 did their best to maintain for it by means of influence, direct 
 or indirect. We have seen how extensive that influence could 
 still be. On the other hand, it was becoming increasingly 
 difficult for the Lords to secure a considerable following in 
 the Commons. The independent ambitions of the Lower 
 House had been so much encouraged of recent years ; its 
 traditions had become so powerful that they exerted a con- 
 trolling authority over its members. Once brought into fellow- 
 ship with the body, each new recruit found himself breathing 
 a distinctive atmosphere, which had stronger properties than 
 the forces to which he had been subjected outside the 
 House. The Commons also had its corporate sense. And 
 now to strengthen it there emerged a new class in the 
 Chamber, ' the moneyed class,' of which we begin to hear so 
 much in the reign which saw the foundation of the National 
 Debt and the Bank of England. Over the forces of trade 
 and finance the landed interest had no power whatsoever. 
 Although there was often a good deal of jealousy between 
 them, there was still a distinct affinity between the peerage 
 
 desir d'empccher sur les prerogatives de la Couronne ou que cctte jalousie 
 invetere'e qui a e'te' de tous terns entre le Roy et le 1'cuplc, apri;s avoir 
 produit pendant un terns la conservation des Privileges et le bonheur dc 
 cet etat n'en produise un jour la perte.' 
 1 Memorial to the Princess Sflphi-i, pp. 31-2.
 
 236 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 and the squirearchy. But when the ' moneyed class ' began to 
 have a determining voice in the House of Commons, there 
 came into the counsels of the Lower House an interest which 
 had no counterpart in the Lords. There was a new contingent, 
 strong, alert, and proof against a bribe. 
 
 There is a most remarkable passage in Burnet's History, in 
 which he expresses his opinions on the House of Commons in 
 lyoo. 1 The passage might well form a text on the condition 
 of parliamentary government at the opening of the century. 
 He has just been speaking of the death of the little Duke of 
 Gloucester, and his mind is much perturbed, for he writes : 
 
 ' The nation was falling under a general discontent, and 
 a dislike of the King's personal government, and the King on 
 his part seemed to grow weary of us and our affairs ; and 
 partly by the fret from the opposition he had of late met 
 with, partly from ill-health, he was falling into a lethargy 
 of mind : we were, upon the matter, become already more 
 than half a commonwealth, since the government was plainly 
 in the hands of the House of Commons, who must sit once 
 a year, and as long as they thought fit, while the King had 
 only the civil list for life, so that the whole administration 
 of the government was under their inspection : the act for 
 triennial parliaments kept up a standing faction in every 
 county and town of England : but though we were falling 
 insensibly into a democracy, we had not learned the virtues 
 that are necessary for that sort of government : luxury, vanity, 
 and ambition increased daily, and our animosities were come 
 to a great height, and gave us dismal apprehensions. Few 
 among us seemed to have a right notion of the love of their 
 country, and of a zeal for the good of the public : the House 
 of Commons, how much soever its power has advanced, yet 
 was much sunk in credit : very little gravity, order, or common 
 decency appeared among them ; the balance lay chiefly in 
 the House of Lords, who had no natural strength to resist 
 the Commons.' 
 
 The Bishop was perplexed by the opposition so frequently 
 shown to the King, the country's redeemer. He can find no 
 better word for it than factiousness. That there was always 
 a strong opposition in the House of Commons is obvious. 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. ii, p. 247.
 
 x CONCLUSION 237 
 
 Enemies of the Lower House were content to go no further 
 in search of an explanation of this phenomenon where they 
 were able to ascribe it to self-interest. ' The truth of the 
 matter is ', says one already quoted, ' these gentlemen having 
 their wants to lead, and the devil to drive, they can find no 
 other expedient to supply the former and to please the latter 
 as by changing the ministry, and threatening in themselves to 
 accomplish what they aim at ; and therefore prosecute the 
 design accordingly with uncommon vigour.' l 
 
 Vernon, arguing in favour of the calling of a new parliament 
 in 1700, asks, ' In a concluding session do people consider any 
 thing so much as securing their next elections, and does not 
 that naturally run them into an opposition against the Court, 
 and setting up pretences for the good of the country ? ' 2 
 Although William at his accession regarded the Commons 
 as decidedly the more important of the two Chambers, he 
 felt no love for them. He complained that they used him 
 like a dog. 3 He resented the very thinly-veiled reprimands 
 which they addressed to him on more than one occasion. It 
 is necessary to remember that opposition to the wishes of the 
 sovereign did not mean that the opposition was necessarily 
 either Whig or Tory. We have to draw a very important 
 distinction between Whig and Tory on the one hand, and 
 Court and Opposition on the other. The ministry was 
 always more or less composite ; at no time was it entirely 
 composed of members of the one party. On the other hand, 
 the opposition was also often of a composite character. We 
 read of Jacobites and Republicans joining hands. 4 As to the 
 strength of the republican party in England at this time, 
 we have seen it asserted that Whig and republican were 
 synonymous terms. William's first impression was that ' the 
 Commonwealth party ' was the strongest in the country. 5 
 
 1 ' Cursory Remarks on some late Disloyal Proceedings in several 
 Cabals.' Comers' Tracts, vol. xi, p. 182. 
 
 2 Vernon Corr., vol. iii, p. 114. 
 
 8 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax; vol. ii, p. 207. 
 
 * F. L. Uonet, I), p. 273, September 6/17, 1700. Cf. ' Cursory Remarks, 
 &c.', Somtrs 3 Tracts, vol. xi, p. 159. 
 
 8 Foxcroft's Life of Halifax, vol. ii, p. 203.
 
 238 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 Bonet's statement is undoubtedly an exaggeration, but it is 
 no more inaccurate than Cowper's disclaimer. 1 It is certain 
 that there were many Whigs who were discontented with the 
 Settlement of 1689, and thought it should have gone much 
 further. They had a permanent grievance against the King 
 for his refusal to proscribe the Tories altogether. On the 
 other hand, the Tories who loved monarchy did not love 
 their King. There was, therefore, as much likelihood of 
 opposition against the Court emanating from the one party 
 as from the other. It is the object of the writer of this 
 pamphlet already referred to, Cursory Remarks 'a reviling 
 declamatory pamphlet ' it has been called to prove that the 
 House of Commons was only united in its opposition to the 
 sovereign. 2 
 
 It was certainly at times united in one other thing, viz. 
 opposition to the House of Lords. ' There is no more certain 
 maxim in polities', writes Sir Robert Walpole, voicing the 
 current theory, used also by the author of the Memorial, 
 'than that a monarchy must subsist either by an army or 
 a nobility ; the first makes it despotic, and the latter a free 
 government. I presume none of those noble personages 
 themselves, who have the honour to make up that illustrious 
 body, do believe they are so distinguished and advanced above 
 their fellow-subjects for their own sakes. They know well 
 they are intended the guardians as well as ornaments of the 
 monarchy, an essential prerogative of which it must be to add 
 to, and augment their number in such proportion as to render 
 them a proper balance against the democratic part of our 
 constitution, without being formidable to the monarchy itself, 
 the support of which is the reason of their institution.' 3 There 
 is reason to believe that William changed his opinion that the 
 
 1 Campbell's Lives of the Lord Chancellors, vol. iv, p. 421. Bonet, 
 speaking of the question of the Succession on the death of the Duke of 
 Gloucester, declares that Whigs and Republicans are synonymous. D., 
 P- 273. 
 
 2 See Sowers' Tracts, vol. xi, p. 149. 
 
 3 Thoughts of a Member of the Lower House in relation to the Project 
 for Restraining and Limiting the Power of the Crown in the future 
 
 Creation of Peers, by Sir R. Walpole Ci7I9), p. 9. Published 
 anonymously.
 
 x CONCLUSION 239 
 
 Lords could be of but little use to him, and realized that there 
 was some measure of truth underlying the theory of a natural 
 alliance between crown and nobility. 
 
 We have to be careful not to overstate the case. There 
 was at all times an anti-court party in the Lords as there was 
 in the Commons. The House as a body was not enthusiastically 
 friendly to William. Once or twice it read him lectures, 
 though certainly in more deferential terms than the Commons 
 used. The Peers evinced the dislike which they shared in 
 common with the rest of the nation for William's Dutch 
 advisers. For example, they made an address of advice in 
 1692, prompted by their investigations into the state of the 
 navy and army. At that time the commander-in-chief of the 
 forces was Count Solms ; a list of members of the Ordnance 
 revealed the fact that nearly all were Dutchmen. The Lords 
 moved that in future his Majesty's native subjects should be 
 preferred in the army above all others, and that the chief 
 governor of the forces should always be a subject born in His 
 Majesty's dominions. 1 Another reprimand was contained in 
 the Lords' first address in regard to the Partition Treaties. 
 But while there was always an opposition in the House of 
 Lords as well as in the Commons, on the other hand, whereas 
 in the latter House the party of opposition was nearly always 
 predominant, in the Lords it was nearly always subordinate. 
 In the early days of the reign we find the Upper House 
 supporting the King in his projects of indemnity and tolera- 
 tion, when the Commons were bent on proscription and threw 
 out the Comprehension Bill. Later in the reign the Lords 
 support the King in connexion with the Army question and 
 the Irish Forfeited Estates. 
 
 The representation of the sovereign's own views in the 
 Lords followed from the intimate connexion between the 
 House and the ministers, who were in those days really 
 the servants of the King. How far ministers continued to 
 be not responsible to the nation was proved by the incident of 
 the Partition Treaties. The Lords, as has been noted, solemnly 
 declared their disapprobation of the methods whereby the 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1692-3, No. 611, pp. 179-98.
 
 240 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 Treaties had been carried through ; but they actually rallied 
 to the defence of the ministers themselves, and saved them 
 from punishment for their constitutional misdemeanours. 
 Again, when it is desirable to name a definite number of 
 troops as in the sovereign's opinion the minimum com- 
 mensurate with safety, the number must be stated in the 
 Upper House, which will take up the cudgels in favour of 
 the wishes of the King. Unfortunately William is too angry 
 to consult with his ministers, and the opportunity is allowed 
 to pass. Again, the second chamber is the one in which the 
 royal will is normally expressed, for the simple reason that it 
 is the revising chamber. By the time a measure has reached 
 the Lords from the Commons, sufficient time has elapsed to 
 allow a definite opinion to be formed upon it. The King has 
 been able to review the situation, to estimate the strength of 
 feeling in the Commons. Premature interference is undesirable, 
 but should the King greatly dislike the measure, he may send 
 a judicious message to the Lords. 
 
 William Ill's conduct conclusively disproves the fallacious 
 notion that the royal power was killed, or even very greatly 
 curtailed, by the Revolution. Not only was he the most 
 important member of his own administration ; he did not 
 shrink from making use of his veto upon occasion. 'THe 
 power of the Crown ', said Burke, ' almost dead and rotten as 
 prerogative, has grown up anew, with much more strength, 
 and far less odium, under the name of Influence.' The process 
 originated long before the reign of George III. William 
 made use of influence, by means of places in the House of 
 Commons, by means of his ministers in the House of Lords. 
 We possess the significant statement in connexion with the 
 debates on the Irish Forfeitures, that it is universally believed 
 that the King ' manages ' the House of Lords as seems good 
 to him. 1 But apart altogether from direct influence by the 
 Crown, there was undoubtedly a certain amount of unity of 
 interest between the Upper House and the monarchy. They 
 were both upon the defensive from the attacks of a House, 
 which was militant, innovating. There proved to be an 
 1 F. L. Bonet, D, p. 127 : April 9/20, 1700.
 
 x CONCLUSION 241 
 
 affinity between royal prerogative and aristocratic privilege. 
 William, despite his lack of interest in domestic affairs, was 
 bound to have a definite policy. It is summed up in the 
 determination he expressed to Halifax to be the latter's 
 disciple as a trimmer, to go always upon the foundation of 
 a middle party. 1 Latterly he took Sunderland's famous 
 advice to entrust his affairs to ministers mainly from one 
 party ; but at no time had William any sympathy with the 
 tenets of either party. The younger Bonet, writing of the 
 ministerial changes in May 1699, notes that the new men, 
 Pembroke and Lonsdale, are like the Secretary of State, 
 Jersey, moderate and far removed from the spirit of faction. 
 He thinks that this proves that His Majesty has a set plan 
 of giving places in the government to men of moderation, 
 irrespective of party. 2 It is certain that William never 
 encouraged the extremists. Something of the spirit of 
 moderation William found in the House of Lords, a chamber 
 open to all the influence of tradition, which because it was 
 hereditary must be conservative in feeling, and essentially 
 interested in the maintenance of equilibrium. William never 
 fpund a party of trimmers. But surely it is not fanciful to 
 suggest that in the House of Lords he found at times some- 
 thing of the spirit of the middle party ? 
 
 Discussing the uses of an aristocracy, Lecky 3 says, ' Such 
 men may be guilty of much misgovernment, and they will 
 certainly, if uncontrolled by other classes, display much 
 selfishness, but it is scarcely possible that they should be 
 wholly indifferent to the ultimate consequences of their acts, 
 or should divest themselves of all sense of responsibility or 
 private duty. When other things are equal, the class which 
 has most to lose and least to gain by dishonesty will exhibit 
 the highest level of integrity. When other things are equal 
 the class whose interests are most permanently and seriously 
 bound up with those of the nation is likely to be the most 
 careful guardian of the national welfare. When other things 
 
 1 Foxcroft's Halifax, vol. ii, pp. 206, 232, 242, 252. 
 - F. L. Bonet, C, p. no: May 23/June 2, 1699. 
 
 3 W. E. H. Lecky. History of England in the Eighteenth Century 
 (7 vols., 1904), vol. ii, p. 221.
 
 242 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 are equal, the class which has most leisure and most means 
 of instruction will, as a whole, be the most intelligent. Besides 
 this, the tact, the refinement, the reticent, the conciliatory 
 tone of thought and manner characteristic of gentlemen, are 
 all peculiarly valuable to public men, whose chief task is to 
 reconcile conflicting pretensions and to harmonize jarring 
 interests . . . ' The argument is that, theoretically at all 
 events, the composition of the second chamber is such as to 
 make it normally the home of conciliation and moderation. 
 The history of the House in the reign of William III is not 
 such as to call for anything in the nature of high eulogy. 
 Over and over again it gave evidence of its selfishness, its 
 exaggerated sense of its own importance. The case of Oates 
 and its anti-papal measures revealed an intolerant spirit, in the 
 possession of which, however, it was by no means peculiar. 
 Its hostility to the attempts made to purify the Lower House 
 showed its determination to preserve its own predominance, 
 if possible, even at the price of corruption. In its frequent 
 economic legislation it showed no enlightenment, though here 
 again it was in no way behind the thought of the age. 
 Although the Lords acquiesced in the scheme, it was the 
 Commons who first conceived the idea of allowing the licensing 
 of the press to lapse. And in January 1698/9 in a Printing 
 Regulation Bill, 1 which the Commons rejected, the Lords 
 sought to reintroduce the system of superintendence, though 
 it should be added that many of the objectionable features 
 originally in the measure were omitted in the committee stage. 
 On the other hand, we do find the feeling against the licensing 
 principle voiced in the Lords as early as March 1692/3* 
 
 1 See Lords' 1 MSS. idyj-Q, No. 1339, pp. 271-6. Both Houses were 
 anxious to put down vice, profanity, and atheism. For bill of 1697 see 
 No. 1217, pp. 112-13. 
 
 1 The motion then brought forward is of considerable interest. It was 
 to the effect that ' if the names of printer and author of any book be 
 affixed to, and printed in the same book, that then, and in such case, it 
 shall not be necessary to take out a license for the printing of the said 
 book.' The proviso was lost by twenty-six votes to eighteen, but of the 
 minority eleven, including Halifax, Mulgrave, Marlborough, and 
 Shrewsbury, entered a protest, which assigned among other reasons for 
 dissent from the passing of the expiring Laws Continuing Act the fact 
 that ' it subjects all learning and true information to the arbitrary will and 
 pleasure of a mercenary, and perhaps, ignorant licenser, destroys the
 
 x CONCLUSION . 243 
 
 On the whole we may say that though we cannot find in 
 the proceedings of the House of Lords evidence of any out- 
 standing political wisdom and foresight, on the other hand the 
 Peers were well abreast of their age, and the best political 
 thought of the day found expression among them. But 
 together with the intellectual eminence of a Savile, a Talbot, 
 a Stillingfleet, there was all the native caution of an aristocratic 
 chamber. On the one hand there was sympathy for the 
 enfranchisement of literature ; on the other, balancing it, the 
 protective instinct to guard against profanity and sedition. 
 The note of compromise and moderation is struck at the very 
 outset. The Lords, in great measure responsible for the 
 Revolution which has indeed been termed aristocratic, were 
 resolved that it should also be a conservative revolution 
 monarchical, not republican. They were anxious that the 
 inevitable change should not be accentuated, but disguised. 
 This same moderation, shown in the first parliament of the 
 reign, is revealed on all the different occasions in which the 
 Lords came to the rescue of the sovereign ; when they resisted 
 the confiscatory methods of the Commons ; when they en- 
 deavoured to maintain the standing force which William 
 considered requisite. It is shown again when they protected 
 the rights of private property in their defence of Duncombe. 
 From insular prejudice the Peers were by no means free, but 
 they tried to secure the Dutch Guards for His Majesty. Some 
 of the English jealousy of the Scots appeared in the Upper 
 House in its proceedings in regard to the Darien scheme, 
 but it promoted the King's statesmanlike scheme for a union 
 with Scotland, in a bill for the appointment of commissioners 
 to discuss the project. 1 Partly because the Lords dared 
 specially to recommend the measure, the Commons 'rejected 
 it. When the Commons showed that the motive of their 
 impeachments of the Junto was largely vindictive, the Lords 
 rallied to the support of the ministers, although they had 
 previously condemned their conduct. They had other reasons 
 
 properties of authors in their copies, and sets up many monopolies." 
 Thorold Rogers, vol. i, p. 109. 
 
 1 Lords' MSS. 1699-1702, No. 1513, pp. 106-7. 
 
 R 2
 
 244 CONCLUSION CHAP. 
 
 for their action in the matter, but certainly dislike of violent 
 methods was one of their reasons. That there was need for 
 a moderating spirit in the England of William Ill's day, and 
 that the Lords performed a valuable function for their 
 generation in supporting the cause of moderation no one 
 will deny. It was a good thing that there was a strong 
 conservative influence in the country to secure consolidation 
 when there was much temptation to excess. Nevertheless there 
 was good cause for the battle which the House of Commons 
 waged against the alliance of King and peerage, against the 
 obstacle which barred the way to their further advance. 
 
 The great struggle between the House closed with a triumph 
 for the Lords. Their lordships, in the words of Legion's 
 Address, ' like the true posterity of those noble ancestors, at 
 the price of whose blood we received our privileges and 
 liberties/ had ' vigorously and gloriously withstood the 
 treacherous and unfaithful proceedings of our degenerated 
 representatives'. 1 They had vindicated the rights of the 
 English people against the usurpation of the House of 
 Commons to the immortal glory of the English nobility. 
 The Commons had imprisoned the Kentish Petitioners ; they 
 had been guilty of other arbitrary proceedings. And yet the 
 cause which they had been upholding in their long quarrel with 
 the Upper House, and particularly in their impeachments, was 
 that of the representative principle. We know now that the 
 reign of William III was a critical period in the development of 
 our parliamentary system and in particular of the Cabinet. It is 
 instructive to turn to the writings of the Bishop of Salisbury 
 and to notice how little he comprehended the significance of 
 the situation. He is at a loss to account for the constant, 
 in his eyes ill-conditioned, opposition to the saviour who 
 had succoured the nation in the hour of its extremity. 
 Such factiousness is akin to treason and argues a bad and 
 ungenerous spirit in its authors. So urges Burnet, seeing in 
 the action of the Lower House nothing better than caprice 
 and discontent. To us, on the other hand, the cry of the 
 
 1 ' Legion's Humble Address to the Lords ', Sowers' Tracts, vol. xi, 
 p. 275. The address has reference to the Kentish Petition.
 
 x CONCLUSION 245 
 
 Commons appears, so to speak, as the half-articulate voice of 
 the party system, pleading for its fuller development. 
 
 It was necessary that the Revolution settlement should have 
 some harmony with the past, in order that its fruits might be 
 lasting. On the other hand, it was desirabje that the fruits 
 should be brought to perfection. The principles underlying 
 the Revolution demanded, among other things, the proper 
 organization of the ministerial system. Burnet was horrified 
 at the unprecedented dismissal of a statesman who had done 
 such loyal service as Somers. He did not realize that in order 
 that government may be efficient it is necessary that the 
 ministers shall enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons' 
 majority. It was a semi-conscious desire to assert that 
 principle which prompted the rancorous attacks upon Somers 
 himself and the impeachment of him together with his col- 
 leagues. The great stumbling-block in the path of the 
 development of the Cabinet system was the prominence of 
 the sovereign in the party conflict, a sovereign who had to be 
 taught the expediency of employing ministers pleasing to the 
 nation's representatives as well as to himself, a sovereign who 
 took sides in the warfare of Parliament and was a member of 
 his own government. So long as such a condition of things 
 continued there could be no straight issue between Whig and 
 Tory. There would always be a struggle between Court and 
 Opposition. It was necessary that the sovereign should be 
 removed outside the sphere of politics altogether ; that he 
 should become the neutral symbol of the essential union 
 which embraces and transcends all political differences. 
 Criticism is an imperative condition of efficient government ; 
 an organized party of opposition as indispensable as a ministry. 
 It was for the right to criticize, without being deemed disloyal, 
 that the House of Commons was fighting. The phrase ' His 
 Majesty's Opposition ' shows how far we have travelled since 
 Burnet's time. The opposition forces which he condemned 
 were not merely the ill-natured cavillers against a beneficent 
 sovereign ; they were performing a legitimate service to the 
 sovereign and to the state. That they were often violent 
 and bad-tempered was the fault not so much of their own
 
 246 CONCLUSION CHAP, x 
 
 dispositions as of the disadvantages of the ambiguous conditions 
 under which they laboured. 
 
 The struggle for the principles of representative government 
 and responsibility of ministers involved an attack upon the 
 House of Lords as well as upon the sovereign. Ministers 
 were usually in the Lords, and they were sheltered by the 
 Lords, who keenly defended their own members. Moreover, 
 the Upper House joined with other forces in preventing the 
 House of Commons from being a true representative of the 
 nation. The latter chamber aimed at realizing a complete 
 independence. The endeavour, in which the House was 
 engaged at the opening of the eighteenth century, was not 
 destined to succeed for many a long day. It had no chance 
 of success in the years of Whig oligarchy which followed 
 upon the downfall of the Tory party at the end of the reign of 
 Queen Anne. Complete independence could only come with 
 the appearance of democracy. It was industrialism that forced 
 through the Reform Bill of 1832. In 1688 England was in no 
 sense a democratic country. The Commons had indeed secured 
 a brilliant triumph when they had overthrown monarchy and 
 peerage together, and even after the reaction had set in, they 
 had retained the great prestige of their victory. The principles 
 of government which, though veiled in ambiguity, underlay 
 the Revolution Settlement, presaged a new train of develop- 
 ment in the future, which should enhance the authority of the 
 Lower House. On the other hand, the forces of aristocracy 
 were still strong, possibly predominant, despite the moral 
 reverse of the Commonwealth. The Revolution was in its 
 origin essentially an aristocratic and not a democratic move- 
 ment. The House of Lords, in which the aristocratic tradi- 
 tion was enshrined, still claimed co-ordinate powers with 
 the Commons, together with what they termed ' a natural 
 superiority'. For were they not the King's hereditary council- 
 lors not merely the Upper Chamber in the Legislature, but 
 a special advisory body to the Crown ? Privilege and Influence 
 were still powerful weapons in their hands, and although the 
 nobility may have been ' sunk in credit ', the personal dis- 
 tinction of its most notable members added the moral weight 
 which only intellectual power and high achievement can bestow.
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 THE MANNER OF SITTING IN THE HOUSE OF 
 
 LORDS 
 
 IT is interesting to picture the Chamber as it was constituted 
 in the reign of William III, since it differed very considerably 
 from the present House. 1 
 
 Whenever the King was present in person, he sat at the 
 upper end of the room in a chair of state, over which was 
 spread the cloth of state. Under this and on either hand of 
 the sovereign the royal children might sit. On the right hand 
 of the King was placed a seat, once used for the King of 
 Scotland, and destined for a Prince of Wales. On the right- 
 hand side and set against the wall was a bench upon which 
 sat the two Archbishops. Just below was another bench for 
 the superior Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. 
 Upon other forms and still on the same side of the House sat 
 the rest of the episcopate. 
 
 On the King's left hand were places for the great officers of 
 state the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the President 
 of the Council, and the Lord Privy Seal. If, as was practically 
 always the case, these were peers, they sat in virtue of their 
 office above all the nobility including dukes, except such as 
 were members of the Royal Family. If it chanced that any 
 of the great officers was not a lord, he sat on the uppermost 
 woolsack. On the same side as the ministers and below them 
 sat the dukes, marquises, and earls in order of their creation ; 
 while the viscounts and barons sat on cross benches at the foot 
 of the room. 
 
 When the King was present, the Lord Chancellor or Lord 
 Keeper stood behind the cloth of state. Otherwise he pre- 
 sided as Speaker of the I louse, taking his place on the woolsack 
 athwart the chair of state. Upon other woolsacks sat the 
 judges, privy councillors not being barons, and secretaries of 
 
 1 For the following description see any issue during the reign of 
 William III of the Whittaker of the day, viz. Chamberlaync's J'rescnt 
 State of England. In the issue for 1692 the passage to which reference 
 is here made is in Part II, p. 35 et seq.
 
 248 APPENDIX 
 
 state, king's counsel at law and masters of chancery. Such of 
 these as were not peers had their place in the House as advisers 
 and necessarily possessed no suffrage. On the lowest woolsack 
 were the clerk of the Crown and the clerk of Parliament, the 
 latter having two clerks under him, who knelt behind this 
 woolsack and wrote upon it. 
 
 When the King was present, the lords remained uncovered ; 
 when he was absent they sat covered, after having at their 
 entrance done reverence to the chair of state. After this, the 
 judges were allowed to take their seats, but they might not be 
 covered until the Lord Chancellor or Keeper signified to them 
 the consent of the peers. The king's counsel and masters of 
 chancery were also allowed to sit, but at no time might they 
 be covered. 
 
 The Upper House assembled every day, except on Sundays 
 and great festivals, in the morning, and they might remain 
 until the comparatively early dinner hour of those days. Only 
 very rarely did the House meet after dinner, but sittings were 
 often protracted until late in the afternoon. Though the 
 House itself so infrequently sat after dinner, committees did.
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 THK principal authority is the Journals of the House of Lords for 
 the period. The space occupied by the reign of William III extends 
 from vol. xiv, p. 101, to vol. xvii, p. 62. 
 
 The Journals give the outline of the business transacted at each 
 sitting of the House, together with the names of the peers present 
 on each occasion. Their utility is limited, as they provide no 
 information as to the debates or divisions or work done in select 
 committee. 
 
 The gaps left by the Journals have to a great extent been filled up 
 by the publication of the Manuscripts of the House of Lords for the 
 years 1678-1702. The four volumes for the years 1678 to 1693 
 were published under the authority of the Historical MSS. Commis- 
 sion 1887 to 1895. Four other volumes dealing with the period 
 1693-1702 have been issued separately, 1900 to 1908, but are 
 uniform with the volumes published by the Historical MSS. 
 Commission. 
 
 The papers gathered together in these volumes are of the utmost 
 value, as a great deal of the material is entirely new. They give 
 details which are not recorded in the Journals, but are gleaned from 
 the MS. Minutes of the House. Such are proceedings in com- 
 mittees, examination of witnesses before the Lords, questions asked 
 of the judicial advisers of the House, heads of arguments used in 
 debate and at conferences with the Commons, particulars as to the 
 voting in divisions. There are also reports and official papers laid 
 before the House in connexion with its consideration of questions, 
 e. g. of finance, military and naval administration, judicial reform. 
 Thus the MSS. provide the widest information on a variety of 
 subjects outside the sphere of one considering the history of the 
 House only. 
 
 The Protests entered by dissentient peers in the Journals are of 
 considerable value. They have been printed in easily available 
 form in J. E. Thorold Rogers's Complete Collection of the Protests of 
 the Lords (Oxford, 1875, 3 vols.). 
 
 The interest of the Protests is tlrat they provide us with the 
 arguments of minorities, which in many cases might otherwise have 
 remained unknown to us. As it is, owing to the existence of the 
 Protests we know at least as much about the opinions of minorities 
 as those of majorities.
 
 250 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 DEBATES. 
 
 Information as to Debates is unfortunately very scanty. There 
 is a good deal more information about those of the other chamber. 
 The Parliamentary History of England, 1066 to 1803, William 
 Cobbett and John Wright, is the most familiar compilation. Volume x 
 (1809) deals with the reign of William III. Another collection, 
 upon which it is largely based, is to be preferred to it. This 
 is A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates from 1668 to the 
 Present Time (14 vols., Dublin, reprinted London, John Torbeck, 
 1741). This is referred to in the following pages as Torbeck's 
 Parliamentary Debates. The type is much larger than that of The 
 Parliamentary History. Protests are printed in appendices at the 
 end of the volumes. Another collection of debates is Chandler's 
 History and Proceedings of the House of Lords from 1660 to 1743 
 (8 vols., 1 742-3 ; Timberland, printer). 
 
 The information given in these publications is scrappy and jejune. 
 A good deal of space is occupied by quotations verbatim from the 
 Journals. There is little independent material ; and undue notice 
 is sometimes directed to matters of the most ephemeral consequence, 
 while important bills are sometimes passed over with the barest 
 reference. For really interesting accounts of debates the investigator 
 is dependent on two other sources: (i) contemporary letters and 
 memoirs ; (2) the dispatches of representatives of foreign powers 
 to their governments. Such accounts are often fragmentary and 
 haphazard, but they are as a rule more lifelike and arresting than 
 those vouchsafed by the formal collections. 
 
 Among correspondence and memoirs giving particulars on parlia- 
 mentary proceedings may be mentioned, e. g. Works of John Sheffield, 
 Duke of Buckinghamshire (2 vols., 1729); Memoirs of Thomas Bruce, 
 Earl of Ailesbury (Roxburghe Club, 1890). Ailesbury's memoirs are 
 somewhat confused and not altogether trustworthy, but they are 
 generally entertaining. The Diary of Henry Hyde, Earl of Claren- 
 don, in vol. ii of his Correspondence (ed. S. W. Singer, 1828), is good 
 for the early days of the reign ; for later years Letters from 1696 to 
 Ijo8 to the Duke of Shrewsbury by James Vernon (ed. G. P. R. James, 
 1841). The Hatton Correspondence (Camden Society, 1878) is more 
 particularly useful for the Revolution period. Some useful news- 
 letters are to be found among the MSS. of the Earl of Denbigh 
 (Hist. MSS. Comm., Rep. xii, App., pt. ii, 1873). Narcissus LuttrelPs 
 Historical Relation of State Affairs, i6jS-iji4 (6 vols., Oxford, 
 1817) provides occasional details and is invaluable as a guide to 
 chronology. 
 
 Some interesting particulars about leading peers are to be gleaned 
 from Queen Mary's own Memoirs, for which see the appendix to 
 Memorial of Mary, Princess of Orange and Queen Consort to 
 William III, by Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Sarum (Edinburgh, 1842).
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 251 
 
 The fullest sources, curiously enough, are not in English. Exten- 
 sive use has been made of the following authorities : (i) Dispatches 
 of L'Hermitage in State Correspondence betiveen England and the 
 Netherlands MS. transcripts are in the British Museum, Add. MSS. 
 17677; (2) Extracts from the Reports of Friedrich Bonet to the 
 court of Brandenburg, printed in appendix to von Ranke's History 
 of England, mainly in the Seventeenth Century (trans. Oxford, 1875), 
 vol. vi ; (3) Dispatches of Friedrich Louis Bonet (Brit. Mus. Add. 
 MSS. 30000). 
 
 For some critical remarks about the work of the brothers Bonet 
 see Ranke, vol. vi, pp. 146-7. 
 
 Gilbert Burnet's History of My Chun Time naturally supplies much 
 material in connexion with proceedings in which its author played 
 a prominent part. The book has to be regarded rather as the memoirs 
 of a political partisan than as the work of an impartial historian. Never- 
 theless, its value as an authority on the House of Ix>rds in this period 
 is great ; and it is not difficult to guard against its defects. The notes 
 made on the History by Swift, Hardwicke, Dartmouth, and Onslow, 
 which are printed as foot-notes in the 1823 and 1833 editions, contain 
 ample criticisms, so that few questionable statements are permitted 
 to pass unchallenged. Though his ideal of history was high, Burnet's 
 generalizations are rarely satisfactory. His analyses of popular 
 feeling, particularly at elections, are superficial. His pen-pictures 
 of politicians are apt to be biased, and are at times acrid. Party 
 spirit is shown, e. g. in the accounts of the Fenwick case and the 
 Act of Settlement. Indefiniteness is typical of the History ; there 
 is a notable absence of precise dates. Exact numbers in parlia- 
 mentary divisions are never given. Burnet does not profess to give 
 a full parliamentary history. For obvious reasons the proceedings 
 of the Upper House are much more fully treated than those of the 
 Commons. Privilege questions and private bills are passed over. 
 The Duncombe case, for example, is not mentioned. Inaccuracies 
 of statement are to be found, but they are not very numerous. 
 Sometimes it has been the critics and not Burnet that have been 
 proved inaccurate (particularly James Ralph, who has been shown to 
 be in the wrong more than once by the publication of the Lords' 
 MSS.). In short, it may be said that Burnet has all the value which 
 attaches to the Memoirs of a prominent politician, together with 
 some measure of the authority which attaches to historical work, 
 undertaken with ingenuous purpose. References are to the folio 
 edition of Burnet. As the folio pages are marked in the margins 
 of the 1823 and 1833 editions, the folio references are good for all 
 three editions. 
 
 No other contemporary or almost contemporary historian is nearly 
 as useful as Burnet. The following, however, may be mentioned : 
 Abel Boyer's History of William III (3 vols., i 702-3) ; I^aurencc 
 Echard's History of the Revolution (1725) ; John Oldmixon's History 
 of England under the Reigns of I fie House of Stuart (1730). Of
 
 252 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 somewhat later works James Ralph's History of England during the 
 Reigns of William III, Anne, and George 7(1744) is of interest for 
 its criticisms of Burnet and also for the use made of some original 
 documents. Sir John Dalrymple's Memoirs of Great Britain and 
 Ireland from the Last Parliament of Charles II to the Battle of La 
 Hogue (1720, 3 vols.), besides containing a number of valuable 
 original papers, is well worth reading for its own sake. A very 
 readable account of parliamentary affairs is given by Thomas Somer- 
 ville in his History of Political Transactions and of Parties from the 
 Restoration to the Death of William 7/7(1792). But by far the 
 most brilliant narrative is given by Lord Macaulay. It is unfortunate 
 that he often omits to mention his authorities when recounting 
 debates, and on occasion attributes opinions to the House for 
 which, though they may be intrinsically probable, there is no direct 
 evidence, despite the fact that Macaulay gives the impression that 
 he is quoting from actual speeches. The last part of the History, 
 incomplete and unrevised, inevitably provides only a fragmentary 
 account of parliamentary proceedings. 
 
 SPEECHES. 
 
 There is a woeful dearth of printed speeches. One, by Mulgrave, 
 on the first Place Bill, is printed in his Works, vol. ii, p. 95 et seq. 
 Another speech by this eloquent peer, one on a purely personal 
 matter in which he was discreditably involved, is printed in Chandler's 
 and Torbeck's Parliamentary Debates ; but one would willingly have 
 dispensed with it for one on a more important subject. There is 
 a speech of Warrington's against bishops being allowed to vote in 
 cases of blood ( Works of Henry, Lord Delamere and Earl of 
 Warrington, 1694, p. in). But there is no evidence that it was 
 ever delivered or intended to be delivered. Pamphlets in the form 
 of speeches, but quite unauthentic, are common, e.g. Speech of 
 a Noble Lord against Deposing Kings for Male-administration 
 (Bartholomew Pamphlets, Bodleian, 1689). One is glad to have 
 such materials as the heads of speeches, e.g. those of Savile, Marquis 
 of Halifax, in Miss Foxcroft's Life, vol. ii, pp. 253-7. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE. 
 
 For matter concerning privileges of the House and its procedure 
 an annual publication, J. Chamberlayne's Angliae Notitia, or the 
 Present State of England, is very useful. Modern authorities con- 
 sulted on these subjects have been Sir W. Anson's Law and Custom 
 of the Constitution; L. O. Pike's Constitutional History of the House 
 of Lords (London, 1 894) ; T. Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 
 (loth ed., 1893). For the conduct of peers in connexion with
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 253 
 
 elections see E. Porritt's The Unreformed House of Commons (Cam- 
 bridge, 1903). Contemporary evidence on the subject is provided 
 in several publications of the Historical MSS. Commission, e.g. in 
 the Harley Correspondence in the MSS. of the Duke of Portland, 
 vol. ii (1891); the Coke Papers in MSS. of Earl Cowpcr in 
 Melbourne House, vol. ii (1888); Rutland MSS. at Belvoir, vol. iii 
 (1894). The principal judicial proceedings of the House are narrated 
 in the Complete Collection of State Trials (ed. T. B. Howell and 
 T. J. Howell, 34 vols., 1828). The space occupied by the reign 
 of William III is vol. xii, p. 598, to vol. xiv, p. 516. 
 
 PEERAGES. 
 
 The Peerages used have been : J. E. Doyle's Official Baronage of 
 England (3 vols., London, 1886); Arthur Collins's Peerage of Eng- 
 land (ed. Sir F. Brydges, 9 vols., 1812); Complete Baronage of 
 England, &c., by G. E. C[okayne] (8 vols., 1887-98); The 
 Peerage of England, or an Historical and Genealogical Account 
 of the Present Nobility (2 vols., printed by E. J. for Abel Roper 
 and Arthur Collins, 1714); The Jacobite Peerage, Baronetage, 
 Knightage, &c., by the Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval (1904). 
 Lists of peers are given each year by Chamberlayne in Angliae 
 Notitia. 
 
 It is a pity that Doyle's Baronage is not complete, as it is the 
 most valuable of all on account of its admirable arrangement. It is 
 finished from Dukes to Viscounts inclusive, but there are no Barons, 
 i. e. Barons at the time of the publication of the work. 
 
 PERSONAL HISTORY. 
 
 Individual references to the numerous authorities for the social 
 life of the peerage are quoted in the chapter on that subject. It is 
 unfortunate that there are few modern standard biographies of the 
 leading peers. At present, for example, there are none of Leeds, 
 Nottingham, Shrewsbury, Somers, and Tillotson. The best modern 
 biography is the Life and Letters of George Savile, Marquis of 
 Halifax, by Miss H. C. Foxcroft (2 vols., 1898). Miss Foxcroft is 
 also responsible, in collaboration with T. E. S. Clarke, for the Life 
 of Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury (Cambridge, 1907). From 
 such books, e.g. as the History of Burley-on-the- Hill, by Pearl Finch 
 (2 vols., 1901), useful on Nottingham; The Whartons of U'harton 
 Hall, by E. R. Wharton (Oxford, 1898) ; John, I.ord Campbell's 
 Lives of the Chancellors (7 vols., 1848), on Somers, vol. iv, pp. 62- 
 240, some interesting facts may be gleaned. But generally speaking, 
 in order to learn anything of the prominent personalities in the 
 House of Lords in this period, it is necessary to have recourse to 
 contemporary memoirs, correspondence, &c.
 
 254 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Many pamphlets are of interest either as criticizing proceedings in 
 the House or, more particularly, as discussing the claims or the 
 influence of the House as a whole. Three main sources have been 
 used : (i) The Bartholomew Pamphlets in the Bodleian, which are 
 of value for the Revolution period ; (2) Pamphlets included in the 
 collection of Lord Sowers' Tracts (2nd ed., 1809-15) ; (3) Pamphlets 
 on the Peerage Bill of 1719. For list see Retrospective Review, 
 Series II, vol. ii, 1828, p. 129. An especially interesting pamphlet 
 is the Memorial offered to the Princess Sophia(\i\2, reprinted 1815). 
 [See Clarke and Foxcroft's Life of Burnet y p. 556, for authorship.] 
 The impression made by the House on contemporaries is admirably 
 mirrored in writings of this description.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Abdication, theory of James II's, 140. 
 Abergavenny, George Neville V., 
 
 eleventh Baron, 205 f, not. 
 Abingdon, James Bertie, first Earl of, 
 
 4, 123, 128, 142 f, 174, 220. 
 Abingdon, Montague Venablcs Bertie, 
 
 second Earl of, 2 1 4 f, 2 1 7 f, 2 1 9 f, 
 
 22Of. 
 
 Admiralty, question of its jurisdiction 
 
 over peers, 67-9. 
 Ailesbury, Thomas Bruce, second Earl 
 
 of, his opinion of the nobility, 45 ; 
 
 on Lords Dover and Sunderland, 1 20 ; 
 
 gives James II good advice, 130 ; his 
 
 attitude to Place Bill of 1692, 182 ; 
 
 otherwise mentioned, 92, I32f, 141, 
 
 i47f. Quoted, 59. 
 Ailesbury, earldom of, 4. 
 Albemarle, Arnold Joost van Keppel, 
 
 Earl of, 8, 202, 209. 
 Albemarle, Christopher Monk, second 
 
 Duke of, 3, 54. 
 Albemarle, dukedom of, conferred on 
 
 Henry Fitzjames by James II, 6. 
 Anglesey, James Annesley, Earl of, 
 
 I i.s-6, 205, 208 f, 219. 
 Annesley, Francis, 202. 
 Army Disbandment, 194, 243. 
 Arrest, freedom from, 63-4. 
 Arnndell of Trerice, John, second 
 
 Baron, 142 f. 
 Arundell of \Vardour, Henry, third 
 
 Baron ,121. 
 
 Ashburaham, John, first Baron, 8, 2 14 f. 
 Attainder, Bills of, 99-106. 
 Attendance, enforced ... in House, 90-3. 
 Attorney-General, 84-5. 
 Audley, barony of, 5. 
 Audley End, 54. 
 Audley, James Tuchet, fifteenth Baron, 
 
 205 f. 
 
 Banbury, earldom of. See Knowles. 
 Bangor, Bishop of. See Lloyd, 
 
 Humphrey ; Humphreys ; Evans. 
 Bank of England, opposition to in 
 
 House of Lords, 192, 235. 
 Barillon, 120. 
 Barnard, Christopher Vane, first Baron, 
 
 8. 
 
 Bath, John Granvillc, first Earl of, 4, 
 
 74-5, 22of. 
 
 Bath and Wells. See Ken ; Kidder. 
 Beaufort, Hear}- Somerset, first Duke 
 
 of, 3,91-2, 142. 
 Beauw, William, Bishop of LlandafT, 
 
 142 f. 
 Bedford, William Russell, fifth Earl 
 
 and afterwards first Duke of, o, 
 
 i76f. 
 
 Belasyse, John, first Baron, 121. 
 Bellamy, Lord, in Shadwell's liury 
 
 Fair, 36. 
 
 Berkeley, Charles, second Earl of, 220 f. 
 Berkeley, George, first Earl of, 4, 132 f., 
 
 142, 192. 
 Berkeley of Stratton, John, third 
 
 Baron, 60, 74. 
 Berkeley of Stratton, William, fourth 
 
 Baron, 2 20 f. 
 Berkshire, Thomas Howard, third Earl 
 
 of, 91. 
 
 Berwick, James, Duke of, 5, 15. 
 Bishops. See Chapter II. Asked to 
 
 repudiate William of Orange, 127; 
 
 their anomalous position in inter- 
 regnum, 136; their attitude on 
 
 question of Irish forfeitures, 209. 
 
 See also Seven Bishops. 
 Blair, Sir Adam, case of, 98. 
 Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, Viscount, 
 
 5- 
 Bolton, Charles Paulet, Marquis of 
 
 Winchester, afterwards first Duke of, 
 
 4, n, qi, 102, 229. 
 Bolton, Charles Paulet, second Duke of. 
 
 73, -205 f. 
 Bonet, F. L., his account of Act of 
 
 Settlement, 167-8 ; on Lords' attitude 
 
 towards House of Commons' Officers' 
 
 Bill, 1^7 ; on dangerous nature of 
 
 House of Commons, 234-5 ^ 
 Borlase, Humphrey, said to have been 
 
 created Baron Borlase of Mitchell by 
 
 James II, 7. 
 Bradford, Francis, Viscount Newport, 
 
 afterwards created K.trl of, n, 43. 
 Brcwster, Sir Francis, 202. 
 Bridgwater, John E^erton, third Earl of, 
 
 73, i 22, 209.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Bristol, Bishop of. See Trelawney ; 
 Ironside ; Hall. 
 
 Broke, barony of. See Verney. 
 
 Brooke, FulkeGreville, fifth Baron, 142 f. 
 
 Buckingham, George Villiers, second 
 Duke of, 3. 
 
 Burke, Edmund, on conservatism of 
 English Revolution, 119; on royal 
 influence, 240. 
 
 Burlington, Charles Boyle, Baron Clif- 
 ford of Lanesborough, afterwards 
 second Earl of, 8, 220 f. 
 
 Burlington, Richard Boyle, first Earl of, 
 4, 122, 132 f., 136. 
 
 Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, his 
 character, 19-20 ; his consecration as 
 Bishop, 21 ; defends bill against 
 papists, 25 ; his eagerness against 
 Fenwick, 26; on Dr. Watson, 28-9; 
 on Sidney, 43 ; on the faults of the 
 nobility, 45-8 ; attitude in Fenwick 
 case, loo-i ; on Trials for Treason 
 Bill, 101 ; on Norfolk divorce case, 
 113; his activity in House, 152-3; 
 attitude towards Comprehension Bill, 
 155 ; on Act of Settlement, 169 ; 
 remonstrates against corruption of 
 Lower House, 181 f. ; on Place Bill 
 of 1692, 185; on Land Tax Bill of 
 1692/3, 189-90 ; on Lords' attitude to 
 currency question, 193; on Resump- 
 tion Bill, 208 ; on Whig Impeach- 
 ments, 212, 214, 218, 220 f. ; on the 
 House of Commons, 236, 244-5 > on 
 dismissal of Somers, 245. Otherwise 
 mentioned, 24, 157. 
 
 Byron, William, fourth Baron, 220 f. 
 
 Cabinet system in reign of William III, 
 
 2 44-5- 
 Caermarthen, Marquis of. See Leeds, 
 
 Duke of. 
 
 Caernarvon, Charles Dormer, second 
 Earl of, 214 f., 219 f., 220 f. 
 
 Canterbury, Archbishop of. See San- 
 croft : Tillotson ; Tenison. 
 
 Capel, Henry, first Baron, 8. 
 
 Carbery, John Vaughan, third Earl of, 
 
 I32f. 
 
 Cardigan, Thomas Brudenell, first Earl 
 
 of, 4. 
 
 Carlisle, Charles Howard, first Earl 
 ^ of, 4. 
 Carlisle, Charles Howard, third Earl 
 
 of, 220 f. 
 Carlisle, Edward Howard, second Earl 
 
 of, 127, I32f., 146. 
 Carteret, George, first Baron, 5. 
 Cartwright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester, 
 
 19. 
 
 Caryll, John, created Lord Caryll of 
 
 Durford by James II, 7. 
 Catholicism, Roman, favoured by James 
 
 II, 17, 120-2. See also Papists. 
 Catherine of Braganza, Queen Dowager, 
 
 134- 
 Chancery, Court of, appeals from it to 
 
 House of Lords, 96. 
 attempted reform of, 117-18. 
 Chandos, James Brydges, eighth Baron, 
 
 J32f., 142 f. 
 
 Charles I, his peerage creations, 2. 
 Charles II, his peerage creations, 2 ; his 
 court, 38-9 ; his interest in divorce 
 proceedings, 112; his opinion of 
 House of Lords, 228. 
 Chester, Bishop of. See Cartwright ; 
 
 Stratford. 
 
 Chesterfield, Philip Stanhope, second 
 Earl of, 51, 86, 90-1, 125, 128, 142^., 
 146. 
 Chichester, Bishop of. See Lake ; 
 
 Patrick ; Grove ; Williams. 
 Cholmondeley, Hugh, third Viscount 
 and afterwards first Earl of, 8, 14, 
 128, 214 f., 319 f. 
 Churchill, John. See Marlborough, 
 
 Earl of. 
 
 Clarendon Code, 17. 
 Clarendon, Edward Hyde, first Earl of, 
 
 4, 228. 
 
 Clarendon, Henry Hyde, second Earl 
 of, 18, 121, 129, 141, 142 f., 145-7, 
 150. 
 
 Clarges, Sir Thomas, 116. 
 Clifford, barony of, 8,86. 
 Coffee-houses, frequented by nobility, 
 
 44. 
 
 Coinage, Lords and its reform, 193-4. 
 Colchester, Viscount. See Rivers, 
 
 fourth Earl of. 
 
 Collier, Jeremy, on dramatists' treat- 
 ment of the nobility, 36. 
 Comedy, Restoration, 33, 36-7. 
 Commons, House of, impeaches Blair, 
 98 ; attacks Duncombe, 102-5 '< at *i- 
 tude towards treason trials, 109-12 ; 
 suspicious of Lords' judicial powers, 
 95-6, 116-17 i James II tries to force 
 repeal of Test through, 122 ; strong 
 Whig majority returned in Conven- 
 tion to, 135 ; its resolution concern- 
 ing vacancy of the throne, 140, 144 ; 
 throws out Comprehension Bill, 156; 
 attack on Savile, 158 ; championship 
 of Gates, 158-61 ; 'attitude to Bill of 
 Rights, 161 ; factiousness in first 
 parliament, 162-5 ; introduces Cor- 
 poration Bill, 163 ; William's in- 
 dignation against, 164, 237; attempt
 
 INDEX 
 
 257 
 
 to create Whig oligarchy in, 164 ; 
 Lords' influence over its composition, 
 175-81, 235-6 ; attitude to Place 
 Bills, 181-7 I quarrels with Lords 
 over money bills, 187-95 ; use of 
 tacking by, 194 5 ; attitude to Army 
 Disbandmenl, 197 200; to Irish 
 Forfeitures question, 200-9 ; to Parti- 
 tion Treaties, 2 1 2-3 ; impeachment of 
 Whig Junto by, 213-24; explana- 
 tion of its attitude to House of Lords, 
 332-47. 
 
 Comprehension Bill, 25, 54-6. 
 
 Compton, Henry, Bishop of London, 
 21, 24, 120, 126, 135, 186, 214 f., 
 
 2I7f., 219 f., 22Of. 
 
 Conferences between the two Houses, 
 rules of, 89. 
 
 in Convention, 144, 145-6. 
 Congreve, Lord Froth in his The 
 
 Double Dealer, 35, 36 f. ; makes 
 dedication to Earl of Dorset, 51. 
 
 Contract, theories of, 135, 136-7^, 
 140-1. 
 
 Convention Parliament, The, 17, 135- 
 
 47- 
 
 Cornwall, Duchy of, Bill, 191. 
 Cornwallis, Charles, fourth Baron, 22of. 
 Corporation Bill of 1689/90, 163. 
 Corruption of House of Commons, 
 
 i7 J -5- 
 
 Cosmo, Grand Duke ol Tuscany, on 
 
 the English nobility, 54-5. 
 Court, at Whitehall, 38, 39. 
 Court influence in House of Commons, 
 
 181-2. 
 
 Court party, 182, 237, 245. 
 Coventry, Thomas, first Karl of, 1 1 , 
 
 142 f. 
 Craven, William, first Baron, 8, 132 f., 
 
 142 f. 
 Creditors' Relief (Composition) Bill, 77. 
 
 (Privileged Places) Bill, ibid. 
 Crew, Nathaniel, Baron, Bishop of 
 
 Durham, 132 f., 142 f., 146. 
 Croft, Herbert, Bishop of Hereford, 22. 
 Crown, its status after the Revolution, 
 
 1 66, 240, 245. 
 Culpepper, Thomas, second Baron, 
 
 132 f-, 133, 135, 22 f - 
 
 Cumberland, Prince George of Den- 
 mark, Duke of, 8, 101, 128. 
 
 Cumberland, Richard, Bishop of Peter- 
 borough, 22, 220 f. 
 
 Dalrymple, James, his explanation of 
 differences between the two Houses 
 in 1689, 162. 
 
 Danby, Earl of. See Leeds, Duke of. 
 
 Dorien scheme, 243. 
 
 Dartmouth, George Lcgge, first Baron, 
 
 5, 60, 131 f., 132, 142 f. 
 Dartmouth, William I-egge, second 
 
 Baron, afterwards Earl of, 101, in, 
 
 214 !.. 219 f., 22O 
 Debts, peers use privilege in order to 
 
 escape from payment of, 77-8. 
 
 Bill for greater case of subjects in 
 recovering their just, 83-4. 
 
 Defoe, Daniel, poem attributed to 
 him quoted, 224. 
 
 Delamerc, George Booth, Lord. See 
 Warrington, Earl of. 
 
 DC la Warr, barony of, 5, 142 f. 
 
 De la Warr, John West, Baron, 219 f. 
 
 Denbigh, Basil Fielding, fourth Earl of, 
 219 f., 220 f. 
 
 Denmark, Prince George of. See 
 Cumberland, Duke of. 
 
 Derby, William George, ninth Earl of, 
 73, 81, 122, 2i9f., 220 f. 
 
 Derwentwater, Francis, first Baron, 5. 
 
 Devonshire, William Cavendish, third 
 Earl and first Duke of, in Culpepper 
 case, 64-7 ; action in Revolution, 
 125-8 (/ojjjw) ; in Convention, 140 ; 
 makes proposal for restraining 
 creation of peerages, 168 ; attitude 
 to Place Bill of 1692, 182; against 
 Resumption Bill, 206; attacks Parti- 
 tion Treaties, 211. Otherwise men- 
 tioned, 74, 78, 1OI, 22Of. 
 
 Dissenters, Protestant, their attitude in 
 the Revolution, 150. 
 
 Divorce proceedings in House, 112-16. 
 
 Dorset and Middlesex, Charles Sack- 
 ville, sixth Earl of, 51, 52, 101, 132, 
 182, 220 f. 
 
 Dover, Henry Jermyn, first Baron, 5, 6, 
 15, 120. 121. 
 
 Dryden, John, 37, 51. 
 
 Duncombe, Charles, 88, 101-5, 243. 
 
 I )urham, Bishop of. See Crew. 
 
 Dykvelt, his mission in England, 123. 
 
 East India silks, bill prohibiting impor- 
 tation of leads to quarrel between 
 Houses, 191-2. 
 
 Edward III, his influence on the 
 peerage, i. 
 
 Elections, parliamentary, 1-ords' inter- 
 ference in, 175-80. 
 
 determination of disputed, 178-9. 
 
 Lords prohibited from voting at, 
 179. 
 
 Ely, Bishop of. See Turner; Patrick. 
 Error, appeals upon writs of, 96-7. 
 Essex, Algernon Capel, second Karl of, 
 
 220 f. 
 Essex, Arthur Capcl, fir>t I arl >!, 4.
 
 258 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Estates, Irish Forfeited, 25, 194-5, 
 
 200-9, 2I ^ 2 4- 
 
 Eure, Ralph, seventh Baron, 22of. 
 Evans, John, Bishop of Bangor, 23, 
 
 22of. 
 
 Exclusion Bill, 12. 
 Exeter, Bishop of. See Lamphugh ; 
 
 Trelawney. 
 Exeter, John Cecil, sixth Earl of, 
 
 142 f. 
 
 Farquhar, George, quoted, 35. 
 Fauconberg, Thomas Belasyse, first 
 
 Viscount, 5, 122, 127. 
 Fenwick, Sir John, case of, 91, 99- 
 
 101. 
 Ferrers, Robert Shirley, thirteenth 
 
 Baron, 142 f., 146, 176, 205. 
 Feversham, Louis de Duras, Earl of, 
 
 4, 60, 132, 133, 142, 2i9f., 220 f. 
 Finance, Lords' control of. See 
 
 Taxation. 
 Finch, Heneage, afterwards first Earl 
 
 of Aylesford, no. 
 Fitzharris, case of, 95, 98. 
 Fitzwalter, Charles Mildmay, second 
 
 Baron, 22of. 
 Foppington, Lord, in Vanbrugh's The 
 
 Kelapse, 33. 
 Foreign Policy, attitude of both Houses 
 
 to William's, 210. 
 Forfeited Estates in Ireland. See 
 
 Estates. 
 Fowler, Edward, Bishop of Gloucester, 
 
 23, 22O f. 
 
 Frampton, Robert, Bishop of Gloucester, 
 
 17, 142 f. 
 Froth, Lord, in Congreve's The 
 
 Double Dealer, 35. 
 
 Gainsborough, Wriothesley, first Earl 
 
 of, 4, 122. 
 Gambling, addiction of nobility to, 
 
 44-5- 
 Gardner, James, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 
 22Of. 
 
 Gloucester, Bishop of. See Frampton ; 
 Fowler. 
 
 Gloucester, Duke of, 19, 167, 236. 
 
 Godolphin, Sidney, first Baron, his 
 character, 59 ; part in Revolution, 
 129, 131, 142 f., 146; attitude to 
 Place Bill, 182 ; in favour of retain- 
 ing Dutch guards, 199 ; action in 
 questions of Partition Treaties and 
 Impeachments, 211, 219 f., 220 f. 
 Otherwise mentioned, 5, 13, 60, 61, 
 100. 
 
 Grafton, Henry, first Duke of, 3, 142 f., 
 146. 
 
 Grammont, Comte de, 37, 38. 
 
 Grantham, d'Auverquerque, first Earl 
 
 of, 8. 
 Granville, Charles, Baron, afterwards 
 
 second Earl of Bath, 7-8, 214!"., 220 f. 
 Grenville Act and disputed elections, 
 
 179. 
 
 Grey de Ruthyn. See Longueville. 
 Griffin, Edward, first Baron, 5, 142 f. 
 Grove, Robert, Bishop of Chichester,22. 
 Guards, the Dutch, 198-200, 243. 
 Guildhall, meeting of peers at, 131-3. 
 Guilford, Francis North, second 
 
 Baron, 5, 169, 21 7 f., 219 f., 220 f. 
 Gulliver, his description of the English 
 
 peerage, 31-2. 
 
 Habeas Corpus Amendment Act, ques- 
 tion of its interpretation discussed by 
 Lords, 71-2. 
 
 Suspension Bills, 157. 
 
 Hales, Sir Edward, created Earl of 
 Tenterden by James II, 6. 
 
 Halifax, Charles Montague, first Baron, 
 subsequently Earl of, 8, 53, 60, 102, 
 193, 211, 212-22 (passim), 233. 
 
 Halifax, George Savile, Marquis of, 
 urges William to promote peers, 8 ; 
 as a writer, 53 ; part in Revolution, 
 124, 127, 129, 131 ; presides at 
 Whitehall, 133, 134; presides at 
 Westminster, 135 ; presides in Con- 
 vention, 139, 146 ; attacked by 
 Commons, 158 ; attitude to Place 
 Bill of 1692, 182 ; opposes Bank of 
 England, 192 ; urges William to 
 attend House of Lords, 228. Other- 
 wise mentioned, 4,11, 189, 242 f., 243. 
 
 Hall, John, Bishop of Bristol, 22, 22of. 
 
 Hall, Timothy, Bishop of Oxford, 146. 
 
 Hampden, Mr., jun., 94-5. 
 
 Harcourt, Simon, afterwards Viscount, 
 175, 206, 216. 
 
 Harley, Robert, afterwards Earl of 
 Oxford, 173. 
 
 Haversham, John Thompson, Lord, 8, 
 115, 205, 218, 220 f., 221, 233. 
 
 Hearth Tax, Bill to discontinue, 157. 
 
 Herbert, Sir Edward, made Earl of 
 Portland by James II, 6. 
 
 Herbert of Cherbury, Henry, fourth 
 Baron (d. 1691), 8, 126, 163. 
 
 Herbert of Cherbury, Henry, first 
 Baron, 8, 22of. 
 
 Hereford, Bishop of. See Croft ; Iron- 
 side ; Humphreys. 
 
 Hereford, Price Devercux, ninth 
 Viscount, 214 f. 
 
 Hereford, viscounty of, 4. 
 
 High Church party, 17, 25,30, 119-20, 
 
 J 54- 
 lloldemess, earldom of, 4.
 
 INDEX 
 
 259 
 
 Holt, Sergeant, 139, 145, 159. 
 
 Hough, John, Bishop of Bangor, after- 
 wards of Hereford, 23, 220 f. 
 
 Howard of Escrick, Charles, fourth 
 Baron, -'14 f., .>ic>t.. jjof. 
 
 Humphreys, Humphrey, Bishop of 
 Bangor and afterwards of Hereford, 
 
 *9, 3 3- 
 
 Hungcrford, meeting between William 
 
 and James's representatives at, 131. 
 Hunsdon, Robert, seventh Baron, 219 f., 
 
 2 20 f. 
 Huntingdon, George Hastings, eighth 
 
 Earl of, 2 20 f. 
 Huntingdon, Thcophilus Hastings, 
 
 seventh Earl of, 15 ; case of his 
 
 imprisonment, 70-2, 169. 
 
 Impeachments, 98-9. 
 
 of the \Vhig Junto, 212-24, 233, 
 
 3 43-4- 
 
 Irish Night, the, 134. 
 Ironside, Gilbert, Bishop of Bristol, 
 
 afterwards of Hereford, 19, 22, 219. 
 
 Jacobite peerages, 5-7. 
 
 James I, his peerage creations, 2, 227. 
 
 James II, his peerage creations, 5-7; 
 and Anglican Church, 16-17; his 
 fatuity, 119, 127; retreat from 
 Salisbury, 1 28-9 ; flight from 
 London and capture, 130-4; leaves 
 England, 1 35 ; his crimes recited in 
 Convention, 140; held to have 
 abdicated, 140-2 ; his letter to Con- 
 vention, 143 ; his unpopularity with 
 peerage, 147. 
 
 Jeffreys of Wem, George, first Baron, 
 
 5, 134- 
 Jeffreys of \Vern, John, second Baron, 
 
 169, 214 f., 219?., 220 f. 
 Jcrmyn, Thomas, second Baron, 132 f., 
 
 142 f., 219!., -'20 f. 
 
 Jersey, Edward Villiers, first Earl of, 
 8, u, 14, 60, 209, 220 f., 241. 
 
 Johnson, Samuel, referred to, 50, 53. 
 
 Jones, Edward, Bishop of St. Asaph, 
 23, 22of. 
 
 Judges, their attendance required in 
 House of Lords, 94-5. 
 
 See also King's Bench. 
 
 Ken, Thomas, Bishop of Bath and 
 
 Wells, 17, 142 f. 
 Kent, Anthony Grey, tenth Earl of, 4, 
 
 127, 142 f., 214 f. 
 Kentish Petition, the, 214, 215, 224, 
 
 244. 
 
 Kidd, Captain, affair of, 209. 
 Kidder, Richard, Bishop of Bath and 
 
 Wells, 22. 
 
 Kingston, Evelyn Pierrepont, fifth Earl 
 
 Of, 22Of. 
 
 Kings' Bench Judges, in Devonshire 
 casx > 65-7; in case of the Three 
 Earls, 70-2 ; in case of Titus Gates, 
 i 59-60. 
 
 Kiveton. See Osbome of Kiveton. 
 
 Knowles, Charles, 84-5. 
 
 Lake, John, Bishop of Chichester, 17, 
 
 142 f. 
 Lamphugh, Thomas, Bishop of Exeter, 
 
 afterwards Archbishop of York, 19, 
 
 32, 24, 132 f., 142 f. 
 Land Bank, 192 f. 
 Land Tax Bill of 1692/3, attitude of 
 
 Lords towards, 1 89-90. 
 Langford, Henry, 202. 
 Latitudinarians, 18, 25. 
 Law Reform Bill, 117. 
 Lecky, W. E. H., on the uses of an 
 
 aristocracy, 241-2. 
 Lee, Sir Thomas, 108. 
 Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Earl of 
 
 Danby, then Marquis of Caermarthen 
 
 and then Duke of, part played by in 
 
 Revolution, 125-6, 128, 136; in 
 
 Convention, 138, 141, 142, 144 ; 
 
 attitude towards Place Bill, 182; 
 
 attitude towards affair of Dutch 
 
 Guards, 199; opposes Resumption 
 
 Bill, 206, 209. Otherwise mentioned, 
 
 4, 8, 10, 100, 102, 147, 158, 197, 222. 
 I egion s New Paper, quoted, 224, 244. 
 Leigh, Thomas, second Baron, 142 f. 
 Lempster, William Fermor, first 
 
 Baron, 8. 
 
 Levinz, Sir Richard, 202-4. 
 I-exington, Robert Sutton, second 
 
 Baron, 2 1 4 f., 2 1 9 f., 220 f. 
 Licensing of the Tress. Sec Press. 
 Lichfield and Coventry, Bishop of. 
 
 See Wood ; Lloyd, William ; Hough. 
 Lichfield, Edward Henry Lcc, first 
 
 Earl of, I42f. 
 
 Limerick, capitulation of, 201, 203. 
 Lincoln, Bishop of. See Barlow ; 
 
 Tenison. 
 Lincoln, Edward Clinton, fifth Earl of, 
 
 ?6, 57, 79. '4 6 - 
 Lindsey, Robert Bertie, Baron Wil- 
 
 loughby d'Ercsby, afterwards fourth 
 
 Earl of, 7, 220 f. 
 Litigation, use made by peers of their 
 
 privileges in cases of, 73-6. 
 Llandaff, Bishop of. See Beauw. 
 Lloyd, William, Bishop successively 
 
 of St. Asaph, Lichfield and Coventry, 
 
 and Worcester, 17, 23, 24, I32f. 
 Lloyd, William, Bishop of Norwich, 
 
 17. 14 'f-
 
 INDEX 
 
 London, Bishop of. See Compton. 
 
 Longueville, Henry Yelverton, Baron 
 Grey de Ruthyn, afterwards Viscount, 
 ii, 55-6, 128, 168. 
 
 Lonsdale, John Lowther, first Viscount, 
 8, 14, 241. 
 
 Lords, Irish House of, its action with 
 regard to the Society of Ulster, 97. 
 
 Lovelace, John, fourth Baron, 220 f. 
 
 Lucas, Robert, third Baron, 133, 22of. 
 
 Lumley, Richard, Baron. See Scar- 
 borough, Earl of. 
 
 Macaulay, Lord, on Torrington case, 
 
 88-9 ; on Buncombe case, 104-5 ; 
 
 on connexion between Gates case 
 
 and Bill of Rights, 160-1. 
 Macclesfield, Charles Gerard, first Earl 
 
 of, 4, 62, 64, 167. 
 Macclesfield, Charles Gerard, second 
 
 Earl of, 114-15, 156, l6 4, i?5 l86 > 
 
 220 f. 
 
 Mackworth, Sir Humphrey, his Vindi- 
 cation of the Rights of the Commons 
 
 of England, 222-3. 
 Manchester, Charles Montagu, fourth 
 
 Earl of, 10, 60, 128, 179. 
 Marlborough, John, Baron Churchill, 
 
 afterwards Earl of, his imprisonment, 
 
 70-2; 5, 13, 43, 60, 61, 101, 128, 
 
 213, 2i9f., 22of., 242 f. 
 Mary II, Queen, her opinion of 
 
 Nottingham, 59; 138, 143, 144. 
 Mary of Modena, Queen Consort of 
 
 James II, bill of attainder against, 
 
 105, 130. 
 
 Maynard, Sergeant, 145. 
 Maynard, William, second Baron, 142 f. 
 Melfort, secretary to James II at St. Ger- 
 main's, created Baron of Cleworth, 6. 
 Memorial to the Princess Sophia, 
 
 quoted, 45, 226, 235. 
 Mews, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, 
 
 24, I32f., 142 f. 
 Middleton, Lord, secretary to James II 
 
 at St. Germain's, created Earl of 
 
 Monmouth, 6, 123. 
 Militia Bill of 1689, 157. 
 Mohun, Charles, Lord, 41-2 ; his trial, 
 
 92, 112 ; 205 f., 220 f. 
 Money Bills. See Taxation. 
 ' Moneyed Class', the, 235. 
 Monmouth, Charles Mordaunt, Earl 
 
 of. See Peterborough, Earl of. 
 Montague, Charles. See Halifax, 
 
 Lord. 
 Montague, Ralph, third Baron, 9, 74-5, 
 
 132 f-, 133, 164, 220 f. 
 Montague, viscounty of, 4. 
 Moore, John, Bishop of Norwich, 22, 
 
 220f. 
 
 Mordaunt, Charles, Viscount. See 
 
 Peterborough, Earl of. 
 Morley and Mounteagle, Thomas 
 
 Parker, fifteenth Baron, 79, 80. 
 Muralt, Beat de Louis, 55 f., 62 f. 
 Musgrave, Sir Christopher, 206. 
 Mutiny Act of 1689, 158. 
 
 Newcastle, Henry Cavendish, second 
 Duke of, 3, 12, 128. 
 
 Newcastle, William Cavendish, first 
 Duke of, 52. 
 
 Newcastle, John Holies, fourth Earl of 
 Clare and afterwards first Duke of, 
 9, n, 175-6, 220 f. 
 
 Newport, Countess of, 77. 
 
 Newport, Francis, first Viscount, 5, 
 122, 132 f. 
 
 Non-jurors, 14, 16, 18, 153. 
 
 Non-juring bishops, 150-1. 
 
 Norfolk, Henry Howard, seventh Duke 
 of, his divorce case, 87, 1 1 3-4 ; 3, 
 44, 82, 126. 
 
 Normanby, John Sheffield, third Earl 
 of Mulgrave, afterwards first Mar- 
 quis of, as an author, 53 ; conduct in 
 Revolution, 123, 132 f., 134, 136 ; on 
 Place Bill of 1692, 182-5; attitude 
 to Land Tax Bill of 1692/3, 189-90 ; 
 for Resumption Bill, 206 ; on Parti- 
 tion Treaties, 212. Otherwise men- 
 tioned, n, 12, 74, 86, loo, 214^, 
 2i9f., 22of., 242 f. 
 
 North and Grey, Charles, fifth Baron, 
 220 f. 
 
 North and Grey, William, sixth Baron, 
 220 f. 
 
 Northampton, George Compton, fourth 
 Earl of, 122. 
 
 Northumberland, George, first Duke of, 
 3, 79, 142 f., 146, 2U)f., 220 f. 
 
 Norwich, Bishop of. See Lloyd, 
 
 William ; Moore. 
 
 Nottingham, Daniel Finch, second Earl 
 of, character, 58-9 ; conduct in 
 Revolution, 124, 127, 129, 131, 135; 
 leads Tories in Convention, 138, 139, 
 141, 142 f., 144, 145, 146; his in- 
 fluence over William, 149 ; intro- 
 duces Toleration and Comprehension 
 Bills, 150 ; speech against Gates, 
 159 ; attitude to Triennial Bill of 
 1692/3, 174; attitude to Place Bill 
 of 1692, 182 ; opposes Bank of Eng- 
 land, 192 ; opposes Army Disband- 
 ment, 197-8 ; on Partition Treaties, 
 211. Otherwise mentioned, 13,77-8, 
 100, 102, 217 f., 219 f., 220 f. 
 
 Gates, Titus, 133, 158-61. 
 Oaths, Bill for abrogating old and sub- 
 stituting new, 1 50-3.
 
 INDEX 
 
 261 
 
 Oaths of allegiance, often demanded, 
 
 166-7. 
 Offices Bill, House ofCommons, attitude 
 
 of Lords towards, 186-7. 
 Orford, Edward Russell, first Karl of, 
 
 his impeachment, 213-21 ; 8, 60, 
 
 124, 126, 233. 
 Orkney, I-ady, given Irish estates by 
 
 William, 202-3. 
 Ormonde, James Butler, first Duke of, 3, 
 
 60, 100, 101, 128, 142 f., 214 f. 
 Osborne of Kivcton, Peregrine Osborne, 
 
 summoned to Upper Hou>e as Baron, 
 
 afterwards second Duke of Leeds, 8, 
 
 60, 90, 220 f. 
 Ossulstune, John, first Baron, I32f.. 
 
 220 f. 
 Oxford, Aubrey Verc de Vere, twentietli 
 
 Earl of, 4, 81, 112, 129, 219 f., 
 
 aaof. 
 Oxford, Bishop of. See Hall ; Hough. 
 
 Paget, William, seventh Baron, 127. 
 
 Pains and Penalties, Bill for, pusho! 
 forward in House ofCommons, 164. 
 
 Papists, Bills against, 25 ; in Intei- 
 regnum, 131 f., 150; bill for discovery 
 of, 151 ; bill against Irish, 201. 
 
 Parties. See Court party ; Republicans; 
 Tories ; Whigs. 
 
 Partition Treaties. 209-13. 
 
 Patrick, Simon, Bishop of Chichester, 
 afterwards of Ely, 19, 22, 220 f. 
 
 Peerage, Bill of 1719, 227, 229. 
 
 Peerage, the, low moral standard of, 37- 
 48 ; literary interests, 50- 3 ; pride 
 of, 55-8; width of activities, 60 ; 
 insistence on privileges, Chaptir IV 
 (passim) ; their debts, 77-8 ; and 
 treason trials, 106-12; robbed of 
 influence by Militia Act, 157; de- 
 gradation in time of Commonwealth, 
 227-8 ; influence of Restoration upon, 
 228. 
 
 Peerages, claims to, 84 6. 
 
 Pembroke, Thomas Herbert, eighth 
 Earl of, character of, 58 ; part played 
 by in Revolution. 122, 127, 1321'., 133, 
 1 34, 142 f., 145. Otherwise mentioned, 
 
 101 , 185 f., 2O7, 211, 241. 
 
 Peterborough, Bishop of. Set White ; 
 Cumberland. 
 
 Peterborough, Charles Mordaunt, Karl 
 of Monmouth, afterwards Karl of, his 
 character, 43 ; his imprisonment, 98- 
 9; connexion of with Kenwick case, 
 100, 102 ; visits William of Orange, in 
 Holland, 133; attitude to Compre- 
 hension Bill, 156; attacks Sa vile, 15X1 
 introduces Triennial Bill of 1692/3, 
 173 ; opposes Bank of England, 19.' ; 
 
 on Resumption Bill, 206. Otherwise 
 mentioned, s, 44, 60, 75-6, 219^, 
 
 22Of. 
 
 Petertarough, Henry Mordaunt, second 
 
 Earl of, 158. 
 Pctre, Father, I 20. 
 
 Place Bills, Ixirds' attribute to, iSi 7. 
 Plausible, Lord, in Wycherley's The 
 
 Plain dealer, 35. 
 Pl\ mouth, earldom of, 4. 
 Plymouth, Other Windsor, second Karl 
 
 of, 169, 219 f., 220 f. 
 Poll Bill of 1689, 189-90. 
 Poll Bill of 1691 2, 194-5. 
 Pope, Alexander, quoted, ^9 f.. 46 I., 49, 
 
 5> 3f- 
 
 Portland, \\ ilium Bentinck, Earl of, 
 his impeachment, 212-22 (fassim) ; 
 8, 182. 202, 209. .MI. 
 Poulctt, John, fourth Baron, 214 f. 
 Powys, William IIerl>crt, first Karl and 
 aftcrw ards Marquis of, 4 ; given duke- 
 dom by James II, 6; 120. 
 Press, Licensing of, Peers' attitude to, 
 
 242. 
 Preston, Viscount, made E,irl of Ksk 
 
 by James II, 6. 
 Privileges of the House : 
 freedom from arrest, 63 72. 
 other judicial exemptions, 72-8. 
 right of granting protections, 78^4. 
 control over composition of chamber, 
 
 84-6. 
 
 right of voting by proxy, 86-8. 
 right of protesting, 88. Other privi- 
 leges, 88-9. 
 Privy Council, question of its right to 
 
 commit peers, 67-9. 
 Protections, abuse of the privilege, 7S 
 
 84. 
 
 Protests, in the Lords, 88. 
 Proxies, use of, H6-8. 
 Pye, Walter, said to have been made 
 'Lord Kilpee by James II, 7. 
 
 Qualifications of members of parliament, 
 bills concerning, 180-1. 
 
 Radnor, Charles Bodvillc Kobaitcs, 
 
 second Karl of, 22o(. 
 Radnor, earldom of, 4. 
 Rake, Lord, in Vanbnigh's The rrmvkfd 
 
 "'/<< 34-5- 
 
 Rebels, attainder bill of i6>o, .'oo-l. 
 Regency motion in Convention, 11, 
 
 14! -2. 
 
 Republican party, the. 167, .'^7. 
 Restoration, The, its tffects on the 
 
 peerage, 2, 37-9, 227-8. 
 Resumption Bill. Arc Estates, Irish 
 
 Forfeited.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Revolution of 1689. See Chapters VI 
 and VII. 
 
 aristocratic, 118, 132, 243-6. 
 
 Richmond, Charles Lennox, first Duke 
 of, 3, 205 f. 
 
 Rights, the Bill of, 161. 
 
 Rivers, Richard Savage, Viscount Col- 
 chester and subsequently fourth Earl 
 of, 128, 22of. 
 
 Rivers, Thomas Savage, third Earl of, 
 
 73- 
 
 Rochester, Bishop of. See Sprat. 
 
 Rochester, John Wilmot, Earl of. See 
 Wilmot. 
 
 Rochester, Laurence Hyde, first Earl of, 
 is dismissed by James II, 121 ; con- 
 duct in Revolution, 127, 129, 132; 
 speeches in Convention, 141-2 ; 
 attitude towards Place Bills, 182, 
 186 ; opposes Bank of England, 192; 
 wishes Dutch Guards to be retained, 
 200 ; in favour of Resumption Bill, 
 206 ; his attitude towards Impeach- 
 ments of Whig Junto, 214 f., 217 f., 
 
 219 f., 220 f. Otherwise mentioned, 4, 
 100, 102, 103, 197. 
 
 Rochford, William Henry Zuilestein, 
 first Earl of, 8, 123, 202, 220 f. 
 
 Rockingham, Lewis Watson, third 
 Baron, 22of. 
 
 Roman Catholicism. See Catholicism. 
 
 Romney, Henry, Viscount Sidney, after- 
 wards first Earl of, his character, 43 ; 
 part played in Revolution, 124, 126. 
 Otherwise mentioned, 8, n, 164, 
 
 220 f. 
 
 Roos, Lord, his divorce case in 1670, 
 
 112. 
 Russell, Lord, inquiry into circumstances 
 
 of his death, 158. 
 Rutland, John Manners, ninth Earl of, 
 
 subsequently first Duke, his anxiety 
 
 for a dukedom, 9; his influence at 
 
 elections, 177. Otherwise mentioned, 
 
 91, 128. 
 Ryswick, Treaty of, marks epoch in reign 
 
 of William III, 196. 
 
 St. Albans, Charles, first Duke of, 3, 
 
 100, 193, 220 f. 
 St. Asaph, Bishop of. See Lloyd, 
 
 William ; Jones. 
 
 St. Davids, Bishcp of. See Watson. 
 Sacheverell clause in Corporation Bill, 
 
 163-4. 
 Salisbury, Bishop of. See Burnet ; 
 
 Ward. 
 
 Salisbury, desertions from Jamesat, 128. 
 Salisbury, James Cecil, fourth Earl of, 
 
 '5, 72-3> 98-9> 158. 
 Sancroft, William, Archbishop of 
 
 Canterbury, 12, 17, 21, 24, 120, 127, 
 
 132 f., 136-7. 
 Sandwich, Edward Montague, first 
 
 Earl of, 4, 39. 
 Sandwich, Edward Montague, third 
 
 Earl of, 214 f. 
 Saye and Sele, Nathaniel Fiennes, 
 
 fourth Viscount, 76, 22of. 
 Saye and Sele, viscounty of, 4. 
 Scandalum magnatum, 89. 
 Scarborough, Richard,ViscountLumley, 
 
 afterwards first Earl of, 10, 1 26, 185 f., 
 
 22Of. 
 
 Scarsdale, Robert, second Earl of, his 
 character, 43 ; his imprisonment, 
 70-2 ; part played by in Revolution, 
 122, 136, 142 f. Otherwise men- 
 tioned, 169, 182, 2i4f., 219 f., 220 f. 
 
 Schomberg, Armand Frederick, first 
 Duke ot, 8. 
 
 Schomberg, Charles de, second Duke of, 
 185 f. 
 
 Schomberg, Meinhardt, third Duke of, 
 220 f. 
 
 Scotland, scheme for legislative union 
 with, 243. 
 
 Separation Bill, Earl of Anglesey's, 
 115-16. 
 
 Settlement, Act of, 167-70. 
 
 its clause regarding placemen in 
 Commons, 187. 
 
 Seven Bishops, The, 16, 17, 125, 146. 
 
 Seymour, Sir Edward, 172, 206. 
 
 Shadwell, Thomas, Lord Bellamy in 
 his Bury Fair, 36 ; dedication by, to 
 Earl of Dorset, 51-2 ; to Duke of 
 Newcastle, 52. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 
 first Earl of, 4. 
 
 Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 
 third Earl of, 220 f. 
 
 Sharp, John, Archbishop of York, 22. 
 
 Shirley v. Fagg, 95-6. 
 
 Shower, Sir Bartholomew, 103, 218. 
 
 Shrewsbury, Charles Talbot, twelfth 
 Earl and afterwards first Duke of, 
 part played by in Revolution, 122, 
 123-4, x 2 6, 134; his character, 124; 
 introduces bill for frequent parlia- 
 ments, 171. Otherwise mentioned, 
 4, 9, 10, 60, 185, 189, 242 f., 243. 
 
 Sidney, Henry. See Romney, first 
 Earl of. 
 
 Skinner v. East India Company, 95-6. 
 
 Solms, Count, 239. 
 
 Somers, John, first Baron, on Army 
 Disbandment Bill, 198; attacked by 
 Commons, 209 ; on Partition Treaties, 
 211 ; his impeachment, 212-20 
 (passim). Otherwise mentioned, 8, 
 24, 43, 60, 109, 233.
 
 INDEX 
 
 263 
 
 Somerset .Charles Seymour, sixth Duke 
 of, 3 13, 57- 8 > '"> ' '3 6 '4 J f- 
 
 174, 219 f., 320 (. 
 
 Sophia, Princess, clause regarding in Bill 
 
 of Rights, 161. 
 
 Memorial to. See Memorial. 
 Sorbiere, Samuel de, quoted, 55. 
 Southampton, Charles, first Duke of, 3, 
 
 82, 143 f., 146. 
 
 Spanheim, Eze'chiel, quoted, 59. 
 Speaker, of House of Commons, his 
 
 position under Place Bills, 182, 186. 
 Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, 
 
 24, 25, 132, 142 f., 217 f., 219!'., 220 f. 
 Stamford, Thomas Grey, second Earl 
 
 of, 122, 128, 199, 205, 2 lot. 
 Steward, Court of Lord High, 27, 106, 
 
 112. 
 
 Stillingfleet, Edward, Bishop of 
 
 Worcester, 19, 23, 243. 
 Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop of Chester, 
 
 19. 
 Strickland, Sir William, defends Lords' 
 
 attitude to Triennial Bill, 173. 
 Succession Act. See Act of Settlement. 
 Sunderland, Robert Spencer, first Earl 
 
 of, 1 20, 122, 206, 208, 241. 
 Swift, Jonathan, his Gulliver's Travels 
 
 quoted, 31-2 ; his attack on Wharton, 
 
 41 ; his Polite Conversation, 48 ; his 
 
 Journal to Stella quoted, 49 ; his 
 
 opinion of Godolphin, 59 f. 
 
 Tacking, system used by Commons, 
 
 194-5- 
 
 Tallard, on the influence of coffee- 
 houses, 44. 
 
 Tankerville, Ford Grey, first Earl of, 
 198, 200, 220 f. 
 
 Taxation, disputes between Houses 
 concerning control over, 187-95. 
 
 Temple, Sir Richard, on dangers of 
 Triennial Bill to House of Commons, 
 
 17.2-3- 
 Tenison, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, 
 
 afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 
 22, 23, 25, 209, 220 f. 
 Tenterden. See Hales, Sir Edward. 
 Test Act, attempted repeal of by 
 
 James II, 121-2. See also 17, 151-2. 
 Thackeray, W. M., quoted, 48. 
 Thanet, Thomas Tufton, sixth Earl of, 
 
 122, 132 f., 142 f., 214 I., 219 f., 220 f. 
 Thomas, William, Bishop of Worcester, 
 
 '7- 
 
 Tillotson, John, Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, 21-3. 
 
 Toleration Act, 153-4. 
 
 Tories, given peerages by William, 
 lo-n ; their numbers in Upper 
 House in 1688, 12; their strength 
 
 there during reign, 13-15, ; their 
 strength in Convention, 136-7 ; 
 divisions among them, 138-9; wish 
 Lords to take lead in settlement, 
 139 ; their amendments to Com- 
 mons' motion about the vacancy of 
 the throne, 142-6 ; opposed to dis- 
 continuance of Hearth Tax, 157; 
 rescued by William, 164 ; attitude to 
 Act of Settlement, 167 9 ; their 
 attitude to Place Bills, 182 ; their 
 attack on Whig Junto, 212-24 ' their 
 position in 1689, 225; their place in 
 party conflict, 237 8. 
 
 Torrington, Arthur Herbert, first Baron, 
 his imprisonment, 67-9; 8, 60, 21 7 f. 
 
 Townshend, Charles, second Viscount, 
 
 21 4 f. 
 
 Townshend, Horatio, first \ iscount, 5. 
 Treason Trials, Bills for regulating, 
 
 108-12, 232-3. 
 
 Treasonable Correspondence Bill, 157. 
 Treby, Sir George, 116. 
 Trelawney, Sir Jonathan, Bishop of 
 
 Bristol, afterwards of Exeter, 17, 19, 
 
 24, 25, 214 f. , 217 f., 219 f. 
 Trenchard, John, 202. 
 Trevor, Sir John, Speaker of House of 
 
 Commons, 186. 
 Trial of Peers Bill, 106-8. 
 Triennial Bills, 170 5. 
 - Triennial Act of 1694, its influence 
 
 on House of Lords, 174. 
 Tndors, their attitude towards nobility, 
 
 i, 226-7. 
 Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, 17, 24, 
 
 132. '33. '35, '4 a f-, '45- 
 Tyrconnel, Earl of, 120, 121, 131 f. 
 
 Ulster, Society of, its petition to House 
 of Lords, 97-8. 
 
 Vacancy clause in Commons' resolution 
 concerning settlement of Crown, 4, 
 140-4. 
 
 Vanbrugh, Sir John ; his The Ketaf-sf 
 quoted, 33-4 ; his The Provoked Wife 
 quoted, 34. 
 
 Vaughan. See Carbcry, Earl of. 
 
 Verney, Sir Richard. Ste Willoughby 
 dc Broke. 
 
 Vexatious Suits Bill, 118. 
 
 Vindication of the Rights .;</ Preroga- 
 tives of the House of Lords referred 
 to, 223. 
 
 Waldegravc of Chcwton, Henry, lirst 
 
 Baron, 5. 
 Wal|H)lc, Sir Robert, on the function* 
 
 of the nobility, 238. 
 Ward, Scth, Bishop of Salisbury, 21.
 
 264 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Warrington, George Booth, Lord De- 
 lamere, afterwards first .Earl of, 5, 
 26-7, 8l, 106, io8f., 122, 126, 128, 
 
 135- 
 Warrington, George Booth, second Earl 
 
 of, 219 f., 22of. 
 Warwick and Holland, Edward Rich, 
 
 sixth Earl of, 42. 
 Watson, Thomas, Bishop of St. David's, 
 
 25, 28-9, 142 f., 174, 182. 
 Westminster, bill for paving streets in, 
 
 leads to dispute between Houses, 
 
 187-8. 
 Westminster, meeting of peers at, in 
 
 Interregnum, 135. 
 Westminster Hall, 94, 112, 219-21. 
 
 Court of, 117. 
 
 Westmoreland, Charles Fane, third Earl 
 
 of, 142 f. 
 Weston, Charles Butler, first Baron, 8, 
 
 14, 214 f., 2i9f. 
 Weymouth, Thomas Thynne, Viscount, 
 
 5, 127, 132, 133, 142 f., 146, 2i4f., 
 
 217 f., 219 f., 220 f. 
 
 Wharton, Philip, fourth Baron, 128, 
 132 f., 167. 
 
 Wharton, Thomas, fifth Baron, his 
 character, 39-41 ; his electioneering, 
 175,177. Mentioned, 220 f. 
 
 Whigs, their strength in House of Lords, 
 10-15 ; wish to make party capital 
 out of Revolution, 149 ; dislike of 
 indemnity, 162 ; bring in Corporation 
 Bill, 163-4; trv to force oaths on 
 Tories, 166 ; attitude to Place Bill, 
 182 ; attitude to Land Tax Bill 
 of 1692/3, 189-90; their principles 
 in 1689, 225 ; supposed to be re- 
 publicans, 237; their predominance 
 in eighteenth century, 246. 
 
 White, Thomas, Bishop of Peter- 
 borough, 17, 24, 132 f., 142 f. 
 
 Whitehall. See Court at. 
 
 Peers meet at in Interregnum, 133-4. 
 William III, Prince of Orange and King 
 
 of England, his peerage creations, 7- 
 15; a trimmer, 15 ; attitude to non- 
 jurors, 1 8 ; his estimate of Burnet, 
 19-20; chooses Tillotson as San- 
 croft's successor, 19-20; his episcopal 
 appointments, 22-3; transfers bishops 
 from one see to another, 24 ; lives in 
 
 retirement, 39 ; puts an end to Three 
 Earls dispute, 72 ; sounds English 
 peers in 1687, 123; lands at Torbay, 
 126; at Salisbury, 1 30 ; consults with 
 peers at Windsor, 134; summons 
 peers to St. James', 135 ; his position 
 discussed- in Convention, 143 ; will 
 not accept regency, 144; his anxiety 
 for toleration ,150; anxious for Com- 
 prehension Bill, 156 ; attitude to Act 
 of Settlement, 170; his hostility to 
 Triennial Bills, 175 ; feeling about 
 standing army, 196-8 ; wishes to 
 retain Dutch Guards, 198-200; his 
 conduct with regard to Irish for- 
 feitures, 201-9 (passim} ; controls 
 foreign policy, 210; his action with 
 regard to Partition Treaties and Whig 
 impeachments, 212, 214, 222; his 
 opinions on House of Lords, 228; 
 his opinions on the Commons, 237 ; 
 on 'Commonwealth party', 237; 
 served by Upper House, 239-40; his 
 personal power, 240 ; his wish for a 
 ' middle ' party, 241. 
 
 Williams, John, Bishop of Chichester, 
 23, 220 f. 
 
 Willoughby de Broke, Richard Verney, 
 eleventh Baron, 8, 84-5. 
 
 Willoughby de Eresby, barony of, 7. 
 
 Willoughby of Parham, Hugh, twelfth 
 Baron, 2i4f. 
 
 Wilmot, John, second Earl of Rochester, 
 
 37, 5- 
 
 Winchester, Bishop of. See Mews. 
 Wood, Thomas, Bishop of Lichfield and 
 
 Coventry, 23. 
 Worcester, Bishop of. See Thomas ; 
 
 Stillingfleet ; Lloyd, William. 
 Wright, Sir Nathan, 219-20. 
 Wycherley, Lord Plausible in his The 
 
 Plain Dealer, 35, 36 f. 
 
 Yarmouth, earldom of, 4. 
 
 Yarmouth, William Paston, second Earl, 
 
 142 f. 
 York, Archbishop of. See Lamphugh ; 
 
 Sharp. 
 York, meeting of peers at, 1640, 131. 
 
 Zuilestein. See Rochford, Earl of. 
 
 Oxford : Horace Hart M.A., Printer to the University
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, LOS ANGELES 
 
 COLLEGE LIBRARY 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below. 
 
 w * 
 
 coi tm 
 
 MAR1 
 
 Book Slip-35m-9,'62(D2218s4)4280
 
 ( ..II,; 
 
 Libra 
 
 DA 
 h6C 
 
 T81, 
 
 A 001 151 221 7