at once wholly abandoned, and the horror of being guilty of a false oath might perhaps have more weight with some men, than the horror of being guilty of a breach of trust, which is a crime of such a nature, that the guilt of it is not always apparent at the time it is committed: That even the most wilful betrayers of their country are seldom sensible of the fatal consequences of their treachery, till they find themselves involved in the ruin that they have brought upon their country.

The Earl of Strafford said, That though some men might be hardy enough to declare a falsity upon oath, where there was no man present, who, as they thought, knew the contrary, yet, he believed, no nian would have assurance enough to declare upon oath, that he had no pension, in the very face of the man who paid him his money, and who, upon hearing such a declaration, must know and must think him a most abandoned villain; for no man could well bear to be thought or known a downright villain even by his greatest enemy, and far less by his bosom friend. And, in answer to the bishop of Bangor's argument, his lordship urged, That he was as far as any man from having the least thought of weakening that legal dependence, which each of the branches of our constitution had upon the other two, nor could they find any such tendency in the Bill before them: what they were for, and what every good Christian must be for, was all that was or could be intended by that Bill, and that was to prevent any pernicious and corrupt dependence of the House of Commons upon the servants or ministers of the crown: He insisted, That there was no clause in that Bili, that could ever give occasion to the House of Commons to assume any new or extraordinary power: That though it was provided by the Bill, that any member refusing to take the oath therein mentioned, should, by such refusal, forfeit his seat in parliament, it was only subjecting the member to a forfeiture, but giving no new power to the House, except that of administering the cath; for if the member had no Pension, he might freely take the oath, and if he had such pension, he was by former laws declared incapable of having a seat in parliament; so that all that was new in this Bill was only a new method of discovering whether or no a man was capable of being a member by the standing laws of the realm: That as to the other part of the Bill, whereby a member is obliged to declare to the House when he receives any Gratuity, &c. from the Crown, the House of Commons had no new power given them by the Bill, but only the power of receiving such declaration; for if the gratuity that he had received from the crown did not disable him from continuing a member by former laws, the House could not, by any clause in this Bill, proceed to determine that to be an incapacity, which was not declared so by former disabling laws; and whether a man be by law under any incapacity of being a member, was always under the proper cognizance of that House, and could not belong to any other

judicature whatever: That it was not possible that ever the House of Commons could, from any words in that Bill, assume a power of judging or determining whether any person receiving a gratuity froin the crown, deserved such a gratuity or no; or that they could draw any other consequences from such a declaration, but only to determine, whether the accepting of such a gratuity or reward came under any of the disabling laws in being; and without such declaration, wherever the House could prove that any man accepted of an office or gratuity, which subjected him to any legal incapacity, they were the judges, and could declare his seat in parliament vacant by the laws formerly enacted: so that in this case also all that was intended by the Bill then before them was, a new method of discovering whether any of their members had fallen under the description of any of the former laws for disabling persons from sitting or voting in the House of Commons: That these disabling laws were certainly thought reasonable, otherwise they would have been repealed: That the Incapacities introduced by these laws were necessary for the preservation of our constitution; and if the methods formerly provided were not sufficient for discovering of those incapacities, new methods must be contrived, which was the only intention of the Bill then before them.

The Pension Bill rejected by the Lords.] The debate being over the question was put, That the Bill be committed; which was resolved in the negative. Then the question being put, That the said Bill be rejected; it was resolved in the affirmative.*

"The opposition, during the recess of parliament, having perceived a great ferment in the nation, upon the rejection of the Pension Bill, resolved to repeat the experiment this session. The motion was introduced with great solemnity, and after passing with very little opposition through the House of Commons, was sent to the House of Peers, where it was thrown out. The then bishop of Bangor despising popular prejudices, and founding his speech upon the true principles of reason and the English constitution, had the courage to strip the motion of its masque of popularity, and expose its bad tendency to the view of the House.

"It is certain, that the reverend prelate consulted the lights of his own understanding, experience and reading, more than he did the mistaken, but general sentiments of the public, who took hold of his pleading against the independency of the two Houses upon the crown, as if he meant that they ought to be dependent upon the minister. But it is plain from the whole of his speech that he meant no more by the word independency, than that relation which the constitution prescribes to exist amongst all the constituent parts of the legislature, and which, if dissolved, the ruin of all must be the consequence, because it never

Protest thereon.] "Dissentient',

1. "Because the Reasons, which were entered on our Journals last session for the

commitment, and against the rejecting of this Bill, can, in our judgment, have nothing of weight said against them, as we think they want little to be added to them; though they seem to us to be strengthened on this occasion,

lest our second refusal to concur with the House of Cominons in what solely regards their own members, and without any arguments of fered to them in a parliamentary way for that refusal, should be looked upon by them as unkind, if not unprecedented treatment; and should, in the opinion of many disinterested lovers of our ancient frame of government, too justly create in them a resentment that might

could be dissolved, unless one House should arrogate to itself powers inconsistent, not only with the general plan of public welfare, which the constitution lays down, but with that executive power which it vests in the crown, and without which, all operations of govern

ment cease.

It must, however, be admitted, that his lordship happened to make use of an unlucky word, and it is incredible what use his speech was put to, in order to influence the public to believe that there was a settled design to unhinge the constitution, by making both Houses of Parliament dependent upon the minister. The Speech, torn into scraps, was hackneyed round the kingdom; and none of the common writers for the ministry had either understanding or knowledge of the constitution, sufficient to vindicate the speaker." Tindal.

૧

"The bill against pensions produced a warm debate in the House of Lords, where it was violently opposed by the dukes of Newcastle and Argyle, the earl of Ilay, and Dr. Sherlock, bishop of Bangor. This prelate, in a remarkable speech, represented it as scheme, to enlarge the power of the House of Commons, and to break the balance between the powers essential to the constitution, so as, sooner or later, to prove the ruin of the whole, The great barrier provided against bribery and corruption by this hill consisted in an oath to be imposed on all members of the lower House, by which they must have solemnly sworn and declared, that they had not directly, nor indirectly, any pension during pleasure, or for any number of years, or any office in part, or in the whole, held for them, or for their benefit, by any persons whatsoever; and that they would not accept any such pensions or offices, without signifying the same to the House within fourteen days after they should be received or accepted. The bill was vindicated as just and necessary by the earls of Winchelsea and Strafford, lord Bathurst, and lord Carteret, who had by this time joined as an auxiliary in the opposition." Sinollett.

* See p. 794.

interrupt the harmony between the two Houses, which is necessary for carrying on the most important affairs of the nation.

2. "Because the Commons seemed to think this Bill is wanted; and, we are persuaded, it is earnestly desired by the people, and so wisely contrived, by a solemn and strict oath of purgation, to guard against secret corruption in lent, its consequences would be most pernicious that place, where, if ever it should be prevaand extensive, that, we fear, we should be exposed to some uncharitable suspicions, if we did not, in this most authentic manner the constitution of parliament will allow, from a becoming zeal to hinder the infection of so mischievous an evil from spreading among others, give an undeniable proof that we are untainted with it ourselves.

3. "Because a member of parliament, who is not ashamed to accept a gratuity for any service which he is asbamed publicly to avow, must be conscious to himself, as we fear, that he is guilty of an immoral action: and therefore we conceive ourselves not only obliged in policy, but in conscience, to yield our assent to a Bill, that as far as we could apprehend upon the most mature and serious reflection, monarchy, to preserve both the innocence and contains a proper expedient in this limited independency of elected legislators, and that we had reasonable hopes would, in a great measure, have prevented the danger of an infamous breach of trust of the highest nature, reposed in every single member of the lower House, for the benefit of the whole community; which we think a crime that ought to be dreaded by us, as good patriots, and that we are bound to abhor as sincere Christians.

4. "Because we cannot, but with grief of heart, lament the loss of that opportunity which, by enacting this Bill into a law, we assure ourselves his Majesty would have embraced with particular satisfaction, of demonstrating to all his subjects, that he is incapable of suffering an improper use to be made, by any of his servants, of that large revenue which a parliament, liberal beyond any example of their predecessors, so cheerfully gave him; or of entertaining the least thought himself to the prejudice of the liberties or properties of his people, by any unjustifiable influence on their representatives.

-(Signed,) Bruce, Berkshire, Northampton, Plymouth, Bedford, Foley, Gainsborough, Oxford and Mortimer, Willoughby de Broke, Gower, Maynard, Abergavenny, Strafford, Thanet, Warrington, Aylesford, Ancaster, G. S. Litchfield, Cadogan, Bristol, Coventry, Bridgwater, Abingdon, Boyle, Bathurst."

Petition from the Sugar Colonies in America.] Feb. 23. A Petition of several merchants, planters and others, trading to and interested in his Majesty's Sugar Colonies in America, was presented to the House in behalf of themselves and many others, complaining, "That divers of his Majesty's subjects, residing within his

dominions in America, and elsewhere, had of late years carried on a trade to the foreign Sugar-Colonies in America, from whence they were supplied with sugar, rum, molosses, and their other productions, instead of those from our own colonies, as well as with foreign European goods and manufactures, contrary to the intention of the laws in being, and the Treaty made with France in 1686; and as that new method of trade encreased and enriched the colonies of other nations, so it was injurious to the trade of this kingdom, and greatly im poverished the British Sugar-Colonies; and therefore the Petitioners prayed the consideration of the House, and such relief as the House should think fit." This Petition was referred to the consideration of a Committee.

Petition of the Liverpool Merchants complaining of the Depredations of the Spaniards in the West Indies.] Feb 25. A Petition of the corporation of Liverpool, and also of the Merchants trading from that Port to his Majesty's colonies in the West-Indies, was present ed to the House and read; "complaining of their Sufferings by the continued Depredatious of the Spaniards, who had treated such as had fallen into their hands in a very barbarous and cruel manner, and praying the consideration of the House, and such redress as the House should think fit." This Petition was referred to a Committee of the whole House.

In

bring in a Bill, To prevent the Translation of Bishops.;' which occasioned a debate. support of the motion it was urged, That such a Bill was necessary to prevent a too great dependence of that part of the legislature upon the crown. To this the Courtiers answered, That such a law would be a great incroachment upon the prerogative of the crown, and an injury to the rights of the clergy.

Then the question being put on the motion, it passed in the negative.*

The English Language Law-Bill passes the Commons.] The same day sir George Saville presented to the House, a Bill to enact, "That all Proceedings in Courts of Justice shall be in the English Language," which was read the first time, and ordered to be read a second-time, and likewise to be printed.

way

While this Bill was depending in the House, great opposition was made to it, and the prinLanguage and Writing of the Law should be cipal arguments insisted on were, That if the altered, and made according to the modern be at the pains to study that ancient language of speaking and writing, no one would ever and writing, which most of our old valuable Rewould in a few years be entirely lost: That the cords are wrote in, so that the use of them method of distributing justice was now established according to a most concise and regular form, which must be entirely altered, if the language and methods of pleading should be changed: That this would necessarily produce such a confusion, that it would cost many years

Sir Robert Walpole called this a motion for erecting the House into a court of inquisition; and said, that it justified the treatment which the Bill had met with in the other House. He added, that he could not see any possibility of the ends of the motion being answered, unless the House should assume to itself powers unknown to this constitution; a power of obliging every gentleman that was suspected to accuse bimself, not of any thing criminal, for there could be no crime in taking either a place or a pension from the crown, but of what the House may construe to be criminal, and in consequence of that construction, disfurnish half the Counties and boroughs in England of their representatives.

A great many gentlemen, who were suspected to have pensions or places in trust, though they were in their minds against the motion, yet to avoid suspicion voted for it; but it was thrown out by a majority of 206 against

143.

Motion for a Bill to prevent the Translation of Bishops. March 4. A motion was made, and the question put, That leave be given to

new forms could be settled in a certain and regular course of proceedings; so that the making of those alterations would occasion greater delay of justice; give more room to dangerous frauds; render the prosecution of the rights of the subject more difficult and expensive; the recovery of small debts more impracticable; and the number of Attornies more excessive than heretofore.

To these objections it was answered by the Advocates for the Bill, That though both the language and writing of the law should be altered, there would be no danger of losing the use of our ancient Records; because, as long as we have any such, there always will be some men, who either out of curiosity, or for the sake of gain, will make it their business to understand both the language and character in which they are wrote, in the same manner as we find among us now several gentlemen, who make it their business to learn to understand the language and character of manuscripts much ancienter than any of our Records: That a very few ofsuch Law Antiquarians will suffice, considering

* This notion was generally supposed to be owing to the bishop of Bangor's Speech in the House of Lords, against the Pension-Bill, the day before, and to the unanimity which appeared on the reverend Bench in their opposition to that Bill.