of the name of Tory, an Irish Act of Parliament for the suppression of 'Rapparees, Tories, and other Robbers.' The appellation of Whig, as well as Tory, was also a nickname, and given by the opposite party in allusion to sour milk."

Freedom of Speech in Parliament.—What was thought by the House of Commons, in the reign of James II., unreasonable latitude of speech, is illustrated in the following extract from Macaulay. The Commons had presented an address to the King on the subject of infractions of the Test Act, and were met by a reprimand. On the reassembling of the House, "Wharton, the boldest and most active of the Whigs, proposed that a time should be appointed for taking his Majesty's answer into consideration. John Coke, member for Derby, though a noted Tory, seconded Wharton. I hope,' he said, 'that we are all Englishmen, and that we shall not be frightened from our duty by a few high words.' It was manfully, but not wisely, spoken. The whole House was in a tempest. Take down his words!' To the bar!' To the Tower!' resounded from every side. Those who were most lenient proposed that the offender should be reprimanded, but the Ministers vehemently insisted that he should be sent to prison. The House might pardon, they said, offences committed against itself, but had no right to pardon an insult offered to the Crown. Coke was sent to the Tower."*

A Standing Danger.-On June 28, 1689, the subject of the arrest of the Earl of Danby, then a member of the House of Commons, was discussed. He had fitted out his pleasure-yacht, and supplied it with arms. It was alleged that this was done with a view to some treasonable project. Serjeant Maynard said, in the course of his speech: "If we take notice of this, and let a member sit amongst us so accused, we cannot well answer that. We are to vote it a breach of privilege, and then inquire what those treasonable practices are. At this rate, we may all be imprisoned and whipped to our lives' end.”—Parliamentary History.

Longevity.-Of Serjeant Maynard it is also related that when the Prince of Orange received a deputation from the bar on his arrival in London, he thus addressed the member who forty-seven years before had conducted the proceedings against Strafford: "Serjeant, you must surely have outlived all the lawyers of your time." "Yes, my lord," was the reply to the future King, "and without your highness I might also have outlived our laws."

Division Lists.-Macaulay mentions that lists of divisions were, for the first time in our history, printed and dispersed for the information of constituent bodies at the general election in 1690. The first publication, however, of division lists of any kind occurred (Mr. R. Palgrave points out) in April, 1641, when the names of those who had voted against Strafford's attainder were posted up as betrayers of their country," and

66

a similar document emanated from the opposite side.

The Speaker an Agent of Corruption.-Sir John Trevor, who was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons in 1689, was also, for

Compare, under "Chatham," "Strong Terms respecting a King's Speech."

a time, First Commissioner of the Great Seal. Bishop Burnet says of him: "Being a Tory in principle, he undertook to manage that party, provided he was furnished with such sums of money as might purchase some votes; and by him began the practice of buying off men, in which hitherto the King (William III.) had kept to stricter rules. I took the liberty once to complain to the King of this method. He said he hated it as much as any man could do; but he saw it was not possible, considering the corruption of the age, to avoid it, unless he would endanger the whole."

Committal for Receiving Money from the King.-In 1693, "while the Commons were debating supplies, the commissioners they had appointed for taking the public accounts were ordered to lay before the House an account of what money had been paid for secret service, and to members of Parliament, out of the public revenue. Upon examination of the whole matter, it was resolved on February the 17th (1694), That the Lord Falkland, being a member of that House, by begging and receiving 20007. from his Majesty, contrary to the ordinary method of issuing and bestowing the King's money, was guilty of a high misdemeanor and breach of trust; and that he be committed to the Tower of London during the pleasure of the House.' Accordingly his lordship was sent to the Tower, from whence on February the 19th he presented a petition to the House, setting forth that he was highly sensible of their displeasure, and that a longer continuance of his confinement would be extremely prejudicial to him. Whereupon it was ordered that he should be discharged from his imprisonment."-Parliamentary Debates, 1668-1741.

Royal Prerogative.-Sir John Trevor, speaking in the House of Commons on the royal prerogative, maintained that its exercise was by no means to be inquired into by Parliament. "It is the King's prerogative," said he, "to make peace or war; 'tis he that makes it and he that breaks it. The disciples came to our Saviour in the ship, and said, 'Lord, save us, or we perish!' and we say no more to the King."

Vote of Censure on the Speaker.—In 1695 a rumour rose and spread that the funds of the City of London and the East India Company had been largely employed for the purpose of corrupting great men, and the name of Sir John Trevor, Speaker of the House of Commons, was mentioned among others. A committee was appointed to examine the books of the two corporations. Foley was placed in the chair, and within a week reported that the Speaker had, in the preceding session, received from the City a thousand guineas for expediting a local bill. As soon as the report of the committee had been read, it was moved that he had been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. He had to stand up and to put the question. There was a loud cry of "Ay!" He called on the "noes," and scarcely a voice was heard. He was forced to declare that the "ayes" had it. A man of spirit would have given up the ghost with remorse and shame; and the unutterable ignominy of that moment left its mark even on the callous heart and brazen forehead of Trevor. Had he returned to the House on the following day he would have had to put the question on a motion for his own expulsion. He therefore pleaded

illness, and shut himself up in his bedroom. Wharton soon brought down a royal message authorising the Commons to elect another Speaker.— Macaulay's" History."

Royal Assent to a Bill Refused by William III.-On the meeting of Parliament in November, 1693, "there was a bill lay ready for the royal assent, 'Touching free and impartial proceedings in Parliament,' which had been prepared the last year, and was now again brought in and passed by both houses; but his Majesty thought fit again to refuse his assent to it; which the Commons took so ill, that the next day, upon considering the state of the nation, they resolved That whoever advised the King not to give the royal assent to that act was an enemy to their Majesties and the kingdom,' and a representation was drawn up by a committee, and agreed to by the House, wherein they humbly laid before his Majesty" a representation to that effect. The King returned a vague reply, whereupon a motion was proposed in the House, "That an humble application be made to his Majesty for a further answer;" but the motion was negatived. (Parliamentary Debates, 1668 to 1741.) The last occasion on which the Royal assent to a bill was refused occurred in the following reign (see p. 18, ante).

The Commons Stopping a Royal Grant.—In 1695, a warrant was issued by William III., conferring upon the King's friend Bentinck, who had been made Earl of Portland, sundry lordships in Wales, amounting to about five-sixths of the county of Denbigh. The matter excited strong opposition, and a deputation of gentlemen from the Principality was heard on the subject before the Lords of the Treasury. It was also brought before Parliament by a petition to the Commons, when Mr. Price -one of the petitioners, but also a member of the House-made a plainspoken address on the subject, saying that at this rate we were in danger of becoming a colony to the Dutch. He continued: "I shall make no severe remarks on this great man, for his greatness makes us little, and will make the Crown both poor and precarious; and when God shall please to send us a Prince of Wales, he may have such a present of a crown made him as a Pope did to King John, who was surnamed Sans Terre, and was by his father, King Henry the Second, made Lord of Ireland; which grant was confirmed by the Pope, who sent him a crown of peacocks' feathers, in derision of his power and the poverty of his revenue. I would have us to consider that we are Englishmen, and must, like patriots, stand by our country, and not suffer it to become tributary to strangers. We have rejoiced that we have beat out of this kingdom Popery and slavery, and do now with as great joy entertain Socinianism and poverty; and yet we see our properties daily given away, and our liberties must soon follow. I desire redress rather than punishment, therefore I shall neither move for an impeachment against this noble lord nor for the banishment of him; but shall only beg that he may have no power over us, nor we any dependence upon him." He concluded by moving an address to the King that the lands should not be granted but by consent of Parliament; and we are told by the reporter (Parliamentary Debates, 1668 to 1741) that "this stout and eloquent

speech made so great an impression that Mr. Price's motion was carried by an unanimous consent."* The address was presented to the King by the Speaker, attended by the whole House, and his Majesty replied, "I should not have given him these lands if I had imagined the House of Commons could have been concerned. I will therefore recal the grant, and find some other way of showing my favour to him."

The Lords Rescinding a Committal by the Commons.25th Jan., 1697-98.-Charles Duncombe, Esq., M.P., was charged with making false indorsements on Exchequer bills, and was committed close prisoner to the Tower. 29th.-Being ill, his apothecary and his brother Anthony Duncombe were permitted to see him. He confessed his guilt, and was expelled the House. A bill was brought in for seizure of his estate, which was passed 26th Feb. after great opposition, 138 against 103. This being sent to the Lords, they desired a conference with the Commons, and not being satisfied, though he had acknowledged the fact, they discharged him from the Tower. 31st March.-The Commons recommitted him. We do not find in the Journals of the House that anything further was done.-Bray's Notes to Evelyn's Diary.

The Case of Ashby and White-Law versus Privilege.The representative history of Aylesbury (writes Oldfield) is the most important in the annals of Parliament, as it involves the famous case of Ashby and White-a contest between Law and Privilege, which produced a serious difference between the two Houses. Ashby had brought an action (1703) against White and others, the constables, returning officers of the borough, for not receiving his vote. The House of Commons con sidered the interference of a court of law, in a question which concerned the right of election, as a breach of their privilege, and ordered all the parties concerned therein-counsel, attorney, and others-to be taken into custody. Lord Chief Justice Holt was also ordered to attend the House, but, disregarding the summons, the Speaker was directed to proceed with the mace to the Court of Queen's Bench and command his attendance upon the House. The Chief Justice is said to have replied, "Mr. Speaker, if you do not depart from this court, I will commit you, though you had thé whole House of Commons in your belly." The Queen was compelled to prorogue the Parliament to put an end to the dispute.

The Legislative Union with Scotland.-The copy of the treaty of Union between England and Scotland was registered by the Scottish Parliament on the 25th of March, 1707, and on the 22nd of April (writes Sir Walter Scott) "the Parliament of Scotland adjourned for ever. Seafield, the Chancellor, on an occasion which every Scotsman ought to have considered as a melancholy one, behaved himself with brutal levity, and said that 'there was an end of an auld sang.' On the 1st of May, 1707, the Union took place, amid the dejection and despair which attended on the downfall of an ancient state, and under a sullen expression

Macaulay, strangely enough, questions the fact of this speech having been delivered, and alludes to it as an "impertinence."-See note to his "History," Chap. XXI., 1696.

of discontent, that was far from promising the course of prosperity which the treaty finally produced."

A Scottish Patriot on the Union.-While the projected Union was under discussion in the Scottish Parliament, in November, 1706, Lord Belhaven gave expression to the feelings of the party opposing it, in a forcible speech, part of which ran as follows: "I think I see the present peers of Scotland, whose noble ancestors conquered provinces, overran countries, reduced and subjected towns and fortified places, exacted tribute through the greatest part of England, now walking in the Court of Requests like so many English attorneys; laying aside their walking swords when in company with the English peers, lest their self-defence should be found murder. I think I see the honourable estate of barons, the bold assertors of the nation's rights and liberties in the worst of times, now setting a watch upon their lips and a guard upon their tongues, lest they may be found guilty of scandalum magnatum, a speaking evil of dignities. I think I see the royal state of burghers walking their desolate streets, hanging down their heads under disappointments, wormed out of all the branches of their old trade, uncertain what hand to turn to, necessitated to become 'prentices to their unkind neighbours, and yet, after all, finding their trade so fortified by companies and secured by prescriptions, that they despair of any success therein. I think I see our learned judges laying aside their pratiques and decisions, studying the common law of England, gravelled with certioraris, nisi priuses, writs of error, verdicts, injunctions, demurs, &c., and frightened with appeals and avocations, because of the new regulations and rectifications they may meet with. But above all, my lord, I think I see our ancient mother Caledonia, like Cæsar, sitting in the midst of our senate, ruefully looking round about her, covering herself with her royal garment, attending the fatal blow, and breathing out her last with an et tu quoque mi fili!” The effect of this harangue, says Scott, was in some degree dispelled by Lord Marchmont, who, rising to reply, said he too had been much struck by the noble lord's vision, but that he conceived the exposition of it might be given in a few words: "I awoke, and behold it was a dream!"

The Septennial Bill.-The bill extending the duration of Parliament from three to seven years was passed in 1716. It was introduced by the Ministers of the day in the House of Lords in the first instance, and, when it had passed that House, was sent down to the Commons by the hands of two of the judges. The preamble gave as reasons for the repeal of the Triennial Act that it had been found "very grievous and burdensome, by occasioning much greater and more continued expenses in order to elections of members to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this realm, than were ever known before." Lord Somers, who died on the day the bill was passed, was reported to have said of it, in his last moments, "I think it will be the greatest support possible to the liberty of the country."

A Dilemma.-The Earl of Peterborough, speaking in the House of Lords, April 14th, 1716, in opposition to the Septennial Bill, said that if