They met full of fury against the memory of the late king, and against those who had been employed by him." Robert Harley, the Speaker of the last House was again elected. The temper of the Commons immediately manifested itself, for in their address, they not only praised the queen as the champion of the Church of England, but congratulated her on having by her majesty's arms under Marlborough, "signally retrieved the ancient honor and glory of the English nation". The word retrieved excited a warm debate in the House, as it implied that the honor of the kingdom had been lost. Occasion was taken in the debate to load the memory of the late king with heavy reproaches, and when the Whigs proposed that the word "maintained" be substituted for retrieved, it was rejected by a great majority.

2. The Occasional Conformity Bill, 1702. The preamble of this bill asserted toleration, it proposed nevertheless to enact, that all those who had taken the sacrament and test as qualifications for offices of trusts, or magistracy of corporations, and did afterwards go to the meetings of dissenters, or any meeting for religious worship, not according to the Liturgy or practice of the Church of England, should be disabled from holding their employments, pay a fine of £100, and £5 for every day in which they continued to act in their employments, after having been at their meeting. It was further proposed to include in this act, all inferior officers and freemen having a right to vote for members of parliament. In support of this bill it was argued, that an established religion and national church were absolutely necessary, and that the most effectual way to preserve the national church, was to maintain the civil power in the hands of those who expressed their regard to the church in their principles and practices: that occasional conformity was an evasion of the law, by which the dissenters might insinuate themselves into the management of all corporations: and that as the last reign began with an act in favor of dissenters, so it was the wish of the Commons that an act in favor of the Church of England should mark the commencement of the present reign.

In the Lords, the bill was strongly opposed by the Whig party, on the ground that it was intended to remodel the corporations, so as to eject from them all who would not vote for the Tory interest. By the aid of the entire strength of the court, the bill passed the House, after many amendments and alterations had been made. As some of the fines were altered, the Commons would not agree to the alterations, for they denied the right of the Lords to alter any fines or penalties fixed by the lower House. The bill consequently miscarried, as it did also ou more than one subsequent occasion; when the Tories came into possession of

the government, it was passed in a modified form, but subsequently repealed, 1718. It was while this bill was pending that De Foe published a pamphlet, entitled "The Shortest Way with the Dissenters; or a proposition for the Establishment of the Church"-a severe satire on the violence of the church party. The Commons ordered it to be burned, and the author prosecuted. De Foe was condemned to pay a fine of £200 and to stand in the pillory.

3. Dispute between the Houses, in the matter of Fraser's Plot, 1703. The Commons had again sent up the 'Occasional Conformity Bill", but the Lords carried a negative, which greatly incensed the Tory majority of the House. It so happened that a conspiracy had become known, commonly called Fraser's plot, from Simon Fraser of Lovat. Fraser was a man of most disreputable morals, and having been outlawed for the violation of Lord Athol's sister, found a refuge at St. Germains. While there, he made a proposal to raise twelve thousand Highlanders, to act in favor of the Prince of Wales. His character led the French king to doubt his veracity, he was therefore sent over to Scotland, with two trusty agents, who were to examine the Highlands and sound the clans themselves. Fraser was no sooner in Scotland, than he discovered to the Duke of Queensberry the whole affair, together with the correspondence between the Pretender and the Jacobites. This was made known to the queen, and verified by her spies at Paris, and also by the evidence of Sir John Maclean, a Jacobite agent from France, who had been apprehended at Folkstone.

The House of Lords having intimation of what was discovered, and that other Jacobites had been arrested, and having doubts of the examinations before the ministers, appointed a committee to examine into particulars, and ordered that Sir John Maclean be next day brought to their House. The queen being known to be displeased with the Lords for seeking to change the mode of examination, and the Commons, out of temper with the peers for rejecting the Occasional Conformity Bill, seized the present opportunity and presented an address to her majesty, declaring themselves surprised to find that persons suspected of treasonable practices, should by the Lords be wrested out of their hands, in violation of the known laws of the land, so that a due enquiry into the evil practices and designs against her majesty's person and government might, in a great measure, be obstructed. upper House was not behind in resenting the accusation. They declared, that by the known laws and customs of parliament, they had an undoubted right to take examinations of persons charged with criminal matters. It was resolved, "that the address of the

The

Commons was unparliamentary, groundless, without precedent, highly injurious to the House of Peers, tending to interrupt the good correspondence between the two Houses, to create an ill opinion in her majesty of the House of Peers, of dangerous consequences to the liberties of the people, the constitution of the kingdom, and privilege of parliament". The heat was kept up between the Houses, and led to another address by the Commons, and a remonstrance by the Lords.

4. Dispute between the Houses in the matter of the Aylesbury election, 1704. This case affords another instance of "unwarrantable" proceedings, generated by the bad understanding which had grown up between the two Houses. Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for refusing his vote. Three judges of the Queen's Bench determined that it did not lie a writ of error was therefore brought in the House of Lords, where the judgment was reversed. The Commons in their indignation, passed resolutions affirming that the whole matter relations to elections, and the right of examining and determining the qualifications of electors, belonged wholly and solely to them the Commons of England; and that Ashby was guilty of breach of privilege, as were also all lawyers prosecuting or pleading in any case of the same nature. These resolutions were affixed to the gates of Westminster Hall. The Lords met them with counter resolutions, that every person being wilfully hindered from exercising his right in voting, might seek for redress in the Queen's courts against the officer, by whom his vote should be refused: that any assertion to the contrary was destructive of the property of the subjects, against the freedom of elections, and manifestly tending to the encouragement of partiality and corruption; and that the declaring Ashby guilty of a breach of privilege of the House of Commons was an unprecedented attempt upon the judicature of parliament in the House of Lords, and an attempt to subject the law of England to the will and votes of the House of Commons. And they further ordered the lord-keeper to send copies of the case and these resolutions to all the sheriffs of England, to be circulated through all the boroughs of their respective counties. The two Houses were in conflict again on this matter in the next session, when the violence of their proceedings were ended only by putting an end to the session, and as Hallam observes, "a great constitutional question was thus wholly eluded".

5. Changes in the Ministry, 1704. During the year several changes took place. Nottingham had not been successful in the guidance of his party, and the queen's refusal to dismiss Somerset from the council, furnished him with an occasion to resign the seals. Harley, favored by Godolphin and Marlborough,

succeeded him as secretary of state, and was allowed to continue Speaker of the House of Commons. Henry St. John became at the same time secretary at war. Soon after, Sir Edward Seymour was dismissed, the lord-keeper Wright deposed, and others of the party removed either from the council or from their employments in the government.

6. Queen Anne's Bounty confirmed, 1704. Before the Reformation, the first-fruits, or profits of every spiritual benefice for the first year, according to the valuation thereof in the king's book, and the tenths, or tenth part of the annual value of each living, for.ned part of the papal dues; after that event, they were annexed to the revenue of the crown. At this time the tenths amounted to about £11,000 a year, and the first-fruits on an average, £5000. The proceeds were not however paid into the treasury like the other branches of the revenue, but the bishops, as they always had done, were collectors for the crown, and persons in favor obtained assignations upon them for life, or for a term of years. Burnet says: "This had never been applied to any good use, but was still obtained by favorites for themselves and their friends; and in king Charles's time, it went chiefly among his women and his natural children". The queen in the exercise of a very proper feeling, put an end to this occasion of scandal, by restoring these payments to the church in 1703. In the year following she intimated to the House her wish that this intention might be made more effectual. A bill was therefore brought in to enable her majesty to alienate this branch of the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply the money according to the queen's intentions, in augmenting the stipends of the poorer clergy. The bill with little opposition passed into a law. By an act in 1706, livings not exceeding £50 a year were exempted from the payment of first-fruits, tenths,

and arrears.

66

7. Act of Security, 1704. The parliament of Scotland had just now resolved, that until essential provision was made for settling the rights and liberties of the Scottish nation independent of English interests and English councils, the succession to the Scottish crown should not ever more devolve on the person who wore the crown of England". Both Houses of the English parliament were greatly excited, and a Bill of Security passed, enacting that so long as the settlement of the crown in Scotland was not the same as in England, the natives of Scotland should not enjoy the privileges of Englishmen; nor be allowed to export into England, cattle or linen, or import arms into Scotland; that the protestant freeholders of the six northern counties, be permitted to furnish themselves with arms; and that her majesty be

empowered again to nominate commissioners to treat concerning a union with Scotland.

SECTION III. AFFAIRS OF SCOTLAND.

1. Dispute with respect to the existence of the parliament, 1702. "At the period of Queen Anne's succession", writes Sir Walter Scott, "Scotland was divided into three parties. These were, first the Whigs, staunch supporters of the Revolution, in the former reign called Williamites; secondly the Tories or Jacobites, attached to the late king; and thirdly a party sprung up in consequence of the general complaints arising out of the Darien adventure, who associated themselves for asserting the rights and independence of Scotland. This latter association comprehended several men of talent, among whom Fletcher of Saulton, was the most distinguished, they professed that providing the rights of the country were ascertained and secured against the encroaching influence of England, they did not care whether Anne or her brother, the titular prince of Wales, was called to the throne. These statesmen called themselves the country party as embracing exclusively for their object the interests of Scotland alone." When the parliament met, the existence of a strong party feeling immediately manifested itself. The act in the last reign provided that the existing parliament should meet within twenty days after the death of the sovereign, but by successive prorogations its meeting had been deferred nearly three months. The Duke of Hamilton made an advantage of this, and declared in the House that they were not now warranted by law to meet, sit, or act; he then formally protested against the proceedings and withdrew with seventy-nine members. Nevertheless, the parliament went on and passed an act for recognising her majesty, and another to enable her majesty to appoint commissioners for considering of a union between the two kingdoms.

2. Meeting of the Union Commissioners, 1702. The commissioners met for several weeks towards the close of the year, and agreed that the two kingdoms should be inseparably united into one monarchy, under her majesty, her heirs, and successors, and under the same limitations, according to the acts of settlement. But it was found impossible to conclude anything, for the Scotch commissioners proposed that the rights and privileges of their company trading to Africa and the Indies, should be preserved and maintained. As this demand could not be complied with, no further progress was made in the commission.

3. Scotch Act of Security, 1704. In 1703, a proposed Act of Succession in favor of the Electress Sophia, led to a coalition for the purpose of diminishing the commanding influence of