While the house of commons, in two successive addresses, thanked the queen for the treaty which the duke of Marlborough had concluded with Prussia concerning the troops to be sent to the duke of Savoy, and desired she would use her interest with the allies that they might next year furnish their complete proportions of men by sea and land; the lords examined into all the proceedings at sea and all the instructions of the admiralty, and presented an address to the queen, explaining all the different articles of mismanagement. She promised to consider them particularly, and give such directions upon them as might be most for the advantage of the public service. The remaining part of the session was consumed in disputes and altercations between the two houses on the subject of the Aylesbury constables, who were sued by five other inhabitants for having denied them the right of voting at the election. These five persons were committed to Newgate by order of the house of commons. They moved for a habeas-corpus in the King’s Bench, but the court would take no cognizance of the affair. Two of the prisoners petitioned the queen that their case might be brought before her majesty in parliament. The commons, in an address, besought the queen to refuse granting a writ of error in this case, which would tend to the overthrowing the undoubted rights and privileges of the commons of England. She assured them she would not do any thing to give them just cause of complaint, but this matter relating to the course of judicial proceedings being of the highest importance, she thought it necessary to weigh and consider very carefully what might be proper for her to do in a thing of so great concern. They voted all the lawyers, who had pleaded on the return of the habeas-corpus in behalf of the prisoners, guilty of a breach of privilege, and ordered them to be taken into custody. They likewise ordered the prisoners to be removed from Newgate into the custody of their serjeant-at-arms, lest they should have been discharged by the queen’s granting writs of error. The prisoners, finding themselves at the mercy of the exasperated commons, petitioned the lords for relief. The upper house passed six different resolutions against the conduct of the commons, as being an obstruction to justice, and contrary to Magna Charta. The lower house demanded a conference, in which they insisted upon the sole right of determining elections: they affirmed that they only could judge who had a right of voting, and that they were judges of their own privileges, in which the lords could not intermeddle.
THE PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED.
The upper house demanded a free conference, which proved ineffectual. New resolutions were taken by the commons, diametrically opposite to those of the peers; who, on the other hand, attended the queen with along representation of all the particulars relating to this affair. They affirmed that the proceedings of the house of commons against the Aylesbury men, were wholly new and unprecedented: that it was the birthright of every Englishman, who apprehended himself injured, to seek for redress in her majesty’s courts of justice: that if any power could control this right, and prescribe when he should, and when he should not, be allowed the benefit of the laws, he ceased to be a freeman, and his liberty and property were precarious. They requested, therefore, that no consideration whatever should prevail with her majesty to suffer an obstruction to the known course of justice, but that she would be pleased to give effectual orders for the immediate issuing of the writs of error. The queen assured them that she would have complied with their request, but finding an absolute necessity for putting an immediate end to the session, she knew there could be no further proceedings on that matter. On the very day, which was the fourteenth of March, she went to the house of lords and passed the bills that were ready for the royal assent. Then she thanked the parliament for having despatched the public business: she warned them to avoid the fatal effects of animosity and dissension: and ordered the lord keeper to prorogue them to Thursday the first of May; but on the fifth of April they were dissolved by proclamation, and another was published for calling a new parliament. The queen, accompanied by the prince of Denmark, made an excursion to Newmarket, and afterwards dined by invitation with the university of Cambridge, where she conferred the honour of knighthood upon Dr. Ellis the vice-chancellor, upon James Montague, counsel for the University, and upon the celebrated Isaac Newton, mathematical professor. The two houses of convocation still continued at variance. The lower house penned petulant representations, and the archbishop answered them by verbal reprehension and admonition. The tory interest was now in the wane. The duke of Buckinghamshire was deprived of the privy-seal, and that office conferred on the duke of Newcastle, a nobleman of powerful influence with the whig party. The earl of Montague was created marquis of Mounthermer and duke of Montague; the earl of Peterborough and lord Cholmondeley were chosen of the privy-council; and lord Cutts was sent to command the troops in Ireland under the duke of Ormond.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT.
The ministry of Scotland was now entirely changed. The marquis of Tweedale and Johnston having been found unequal to the undertaking, were dismissed. The duke of Queensberry resumed the management of affairs in that kingdom under the title of lord privy-seal, and the office of commissioner was conferred upon the young duke of Argyle, who succeeded to his father’s influence among the presbyterians. He was a nobleman possessed of good natural talents, which had not been neglected; candid, open, and sincere; brave, passionate, and aspiring; had he been endued with a greater share of liberality, his character would have been truly heroic. At this juncture he was instructed to procure an act of the Scottish parliament, settling the protestant succession, or to set on foot a treaty for the union of the two kingdoms. At the opening of the session in June, the members were divided into three parties, namely, the cavaliers or Jacobites, the revolutioners, the squadrone volante, or flying squadron, headed by the marquis of Tweedale, who disclaimed the other two factions, and pretended to act from the dictates of conscience alone. The parliament was adjourned to the third day of July, when her majesty’s letter was read, earnestly recommending the settlement of the succession in the protestant line, and an act for a commission to treat of an union between the two kingdoms. The marquis of Annandale proposed that the parliament should proceed on the limitations and conditions of government: that a committee should be appointed to consider the condition of the coin and the commerce of the nation. The earl of Mar moved that the house would, preferable to all other business, consider the means for engaging in a treaty with England. After a long debate they resolved to proceed on the coin and the commerce. Schemes for supplying the nation with money by a paper credit were presented by Dr. Hugh Chamberlain and John Law, but rejected. The house resolved that any kind of paper credit, by the circulation of bills, was an improper expedient, and appointed a council to put the laws relating to trade in execution. The duke of Hamilton proposed that the parliament should not proceed to the nomination of a successor until the treaty with England should be discussed, and the limitations settled. This proposal being approved, a draft of an answer to her majesty’s letter was presented by the marquis of Tweedale. Two different forms of an act for a treaty with England were offered by the earl of Mar and the marquis of Lothian: others were produced concerning the elections of officers of state, and the regulation of commerce.
1705