A man, whose pretensions to virtue were as equivocal as Whitfield’s to sanctity, took upon him about this time to lay straiter obligations on members of Parliament. The plan, like that of hypocrites of all denominations, was, by coining new occasions of guilt. Sir John Philipps brought a Bill into the House of Commons to oblige the members to give in particulars of their qualifications, and to swear to the truth of them. A known Jacobite, who and whose friends had taken the oaths to King George, ought to have been sensible that perjury was not the crime at which most men stuck in that age: nor could it be hoped that they who made a seat in Parliament the foundation of their fortune would not overleap any obstacle to obtain one. Pitt, James Grenville, and Beckford promoted the Bill. Lord Egmont opposed it with great ability, and pointed out how much it would subject all estates to the inspection, and, consequently, to the iniquitous practices of attorneys: and he showed that western estates in particular were so circumstanced, that, without double the qualification required, they would not be sufficient to answer it. Much spirit against the Bill appeared in others. The Duke of Newcastle was very averse to it, but forced to swallow it a little curtailed, as Pitt insisted that something must be done to gratify the Tories. Lord Strange ridiculed it, particularly one notorious blunder: the Bill directed that no man should take his seat till he had produced his qualification, and sworn to it in a full House, the Speaker in the chair. This, at the opening of a new Parliament, was an impossibility—by whom was the Speaker to be chosen? Young Thomas Townshend spoke warmly against it, and traced its origin to the four last disgraceful years of Queen Anne, when a like Bill had been attempted by the Tories.
The Bill, however, passed both Houses. In the Lords, the Duke of Richmond and the Earls of Gower and Hilsborough opposed it. Lord Temple supported it insolently, threatening disunion if it were not allowed to pass. Lord Hardwicke seemed but cool towards it; yet he treated the Commons arrogantly, and said he had winked at many things for the sake of union. Lord Gower put it home to the Bishops, whether the Bill would not multiply perjuries; yet it was carried by fifty to sixteen, as it had been in the other House by fourscore to forty.
A Bill for a Militia in Scotland was less successful; nor could the disaffected there obtain this mode of having their arms restored. Pitt had acquiesced; but the Duke of Newcastle, the Solicitor-General Yorke, Nugent, Lord Barrington, and the young Whigs, attacked it with all their force. Even the Scotch Lord Advocate spoke with spirit against it. Elliot defended it masterly; and Sir Henry Erskine went so far as to say that all Scotland would come and demand it at the bar of the House. Unluckily for that menace, the man who had most weight in that country, the Duke of Argyll, was not cordial to the Bill, and it was rejected by one hundred and ninety-four to eighty-four.
A proposed extension of the Militia met with the same fate. It had been granted for five years. The counties which had adopted it grew tired of the expense. The Tory gentlemen were fond of this more decent mode of accepting emoluments. To humour them and George Townshend, Pitt had consented that a Bill should be brought in to make the expense common to the whole kingdom, by enabling the counties where Militia was raised to draw on the Exchequer. The Speaker advertised the House that this would not only be a Money Bill, but must have the consent of, nay, must be recommended by, the Crown. That the King absolutely refused to give. Notice being taken of the Bill’s non-appearance, Lord Strange, in his frank manner, said, “Why did not gentlemen speak out? was it not that his Majesty would not consent to the Bill?” Pitt, to draw all possible honour from what he could not bestow, replied, it was now too late in the session; but if any man would renew the Motion the second day of next session, even to make the Militia perpetual, he would not only second, but try to get the Bill passed before the supplies; yet what were those supplies to feed but his own war, which he boasted had doubled the expense of any year of Queen Anne? This very year above sixteen millions were voted.
FOOTNOTES:
[84] William Pulteney, the celebrated Earl of Bath.
[85] Dr. Douglas, canon of Windsor, known for his detection of Lauder, and controversy with Archibald Bower, author of the Lives of the Popes.—A.
He became Bishop of Carlisle in 1788; Bishop of Salisbury in 1791, and died in 1807.—E.
[86] Macklyn, in general a disagreeable actor, was liked in Iago, and extremely admired in Shylock the Jew. He had been tried and honourably acquitted for the murder of another actor, but his character was not popular. He played the Scotchman himself in his own farce, but not well; however, its not being printed, nor played but when he pleased, made it always draw crowded audiences; which, with having a daughter who was a pretty good actress, and of an excellent character, made him never rejected by the theatres, though of a quarrelsome temper. He continued to play for twenty years, and, though past fourscore, retained so much vigour and parts, that he wrote another piece, not less severe on the Scotch, though it was much curtailed before he could obtain permission to have it acted; and though it succeeded, it was not near so much liked as his Love à la Mode.
[87] John Stuart, Earl of Bute, a very considerable personage in the succeeding reign.