Commons, who have any Pension during pleasure, or for any number of years, or any Office held in trust for them,' was read a second time. It was then proposed to commit the Bill; which being objected to, after debate the question was put, Whether the said Bill shall be committed? And it was resolved in the negative. So that the Bill was lost.

The King's Message concerning the Queen of Hungary.*] April 1. Mr. Sandys acquainted the Commons, that he had a Message from his majesty, which was read as follows:

"George R.

"It is always with the utmost reluctance his majesty asks any extraordinary supplies of his people: but as his faithful Commons have, with the greatest zeal and unanimity, expressed their concern for the support of the House of Austria, and for restoring the balance of power in Europe; and as the late events in favour of the queen of Hungary afford a reasonable prospect of success, his majesty makes no doubt but this House will, at this time, readily grant him such a supply, as may enable him to concert proper measures, and form such alliances with other powers, as may be necessary for attaining those desirable ends, which they have, in so particular a manner, recommended to him."

The said Message was ordered, nem. con. to be referred to the Committee of Supply.

April 2. In the said Committee it was resolved, "That 500,000l. be granted to

*From the Secker Manuscript.

April 2. In the Commons 500,000l. voted for the Queen of Hungary, I believe nem. con. Sir John Bernard moved it, which Mr. Sandys told me, was that day making himself the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He told me also, the king was unwilling to grant the Prince 50,000l. a year, and I am told from other hands, that he saith he never promised it. The bishop of Sarum says, sir Robert Walpole told him, that the king would give 30,000l. but no more. Mr. Sandys appeared determined against admitting Tories, and said it was wonderful their union had held so long, and it could not be expected to hold longer: that he could not imagine why every body spoke against lord Carteret, but that he had better abilities than any body that as soon as foreign affairs could be settled, they would endeavour to reduce the expences of the crown and interest of the debts.

his majesty, upon account, towards enabling his majesty to concert proper measures, and form such alliances, or enter into such engagements with other powers, as his majesty shall judge necessary for the support of the House of Austria, and for restoring the balance of power in Europe."

Debate in the Lords on the Place Bill.*] April 6. The Lords read a second time,

*From the Secker Manuscript.

April 6. Place Bill. It was moved to clear the House.

The Duke of Argyle said, it was strange to portance was under consideration, sent up unatake this opportunity, when a bill of such imnimously by the House of Commons at the request of the nation. Whoever thinks it a wrong one, should be proud to convince the House of Commons, and he wished all the people of England could hear them.

Lord Darnley said, the House of Commons had not been cleared lately when a motion to that purpose had been made, but permitted

lords to stay.

The Duke of Montague desired the Order of 1696, might be read, which forbids lords going to the House of Commons but by leave of their own House.

Lord Sandwich said, if the Order for clearing the House was to be executed, he would insist on every other Order.

The Duke of Montague desired he would, and that the Order of the 25th January, 1720, might be read, which is, that business should stop till the House is cleared.

Lord Halifax hoped that motion would be withdrawn, in civility to the Commons.

Lord Haversham moved the previous ques. tion.

Delawar said, no standing Order could be dispensed with, till a day had been appointed to consider it.

Lord Berkshire moved it should be considered on Thursday.

Lord Chancellor said, that motion was not regular, since the House was in possession of other business, and it must be cleared-[Which it was.]

Lovel. This Bill was rejected by a great majority last year, and for the same reasons should be rejected now.

Raymond. It will drive young people of quality out of the army.

Berkshire. The Commons are the best judges of their own privileges.

Delawar. The people need not chuse placemen again.

Orford. Only persons in the lowest offices intended to be excluded: clerks that in the morning stand behind the chairs of those, whom half an hour after they sit down with in the

though my lords, Bills of this nature have been canvassed in both Houses by men of far greater abilities and experience than I can pretend to, yet I should think

universally given them instructions on this head. Do not by rejecting this Bill throw an imputation of collusion upon them. This House hath hitherto kept as free from the suspicion of corruption as from the reality of it. Though these are impervious to it, yet you should also keep the other pure, and not envy them the glory of such a Bill. It is a blemish upon a good administration to have any assistance from a corrupt parliament. One of the ablest Roman emperors thought the reputation of purity so necessary, that he never would give a pension to the most indigent senator, without acquainting the House and obtaining their consent. Luxury hath lost its name. Corruption assumes a thousand shapes, friendship, charity, public service: and thus transforming itself, it transforms others. Some places have no business belonging to them: these are mere pensions, and there are many such employments without business. This Bill leaves almost all the employments which can be offered to a person of consequence: and excludes only such from the House as would be excluded from most company; such as may without incivility be sent to fetch pens and paper for other members. You may commit it and take in more, if you think too many are excluded. But not committing it, is saying, that nothing of this kind shall ever pass. There are now about 200 persons in the House who have places; what will the nation say, if a Bill recommended as this hath been, be thus thrown out ?

Newcastle. You had the last time this Bill was before you, the reasons against it drawn up by one of those great men who brought about the Revolution (lord Somers.) It goes upon a principle destructive to the constitution, which is, that the crown and the people have a different interest; it excludes from parliament all the first employments of the kingdom. And when the Commons can have no other they will have all these. Wrong instructions from their constituents may influ ence the other House, but let them not influence us. It will be an imputation upon us, if having been rejected last year it be admitted now. The Bribery Bill hath done nothing but add perjury to corruption. Expences for elections are not to be laid at the door of one party only. Perhaps that is the most guilty which complains. This Bill hath been brought up in almost the same words from the Revolution to this day, and hath hitherto been rejected under all administrations. To pass it now will be, to say we are at length convinced that whoever bath an employment is to be distrusted. This Bill will exclude such as were not designed to be excluded, offices of honour, wardens of the forests, stewards of the crown, &c.

myself highly blameable, if I did not, as far as in me lies, oppose a Bill which strikes directly at the root of the constitution, and is an infringement both of the liberties of

Carlisle. The Bill against which the great person mentioned by the noble duke drew up reasons, excluded all men in offices: I sat in the House of Commons with the foot post, whose business was to carry the letters from the post house to St. James's. You may exclude all but such: you cannot exclude all by name: would you exclude by name the king's corn-cutter? If you reject this Bill, the Commons may put it into a Money Bill. The commissioners of the Customs are excluded by a clause in the Land-tax Bill.

Lonsdale. I do not like this Bill as it stands: but would make amendments in it, for which the proper time is when it is committed, and that time will probably never come. I am afraid of making any great changes in the constitution. At present things will not go to the utmost length: it appears there are some resources in it: this power in the crown of giving rewards to members, hath been extended too far. Perhaps not above 8 or 10 clerks' places have been given wrong, given to members. Such persons get themselves chosen where they are not known. And these things have brought disgrace on all in power. These things therefore I would correct, and not go much farther. All restraints upon the crown have come from abuses committed by the crown. Yet a man's having an employment, neither takes away his understanding nor his probity. He will be a good man or a bad man as he was before.

Bathurst. The honour of the House is essentially concerned in this matter-It will be said, this is the place where such Bills are to drop. The opinions of the people have weight even in arbitrary governments, inuch more should they in ours. In ours the legislative power is absolute: let us preserve the regard of the people to it. You may alter this Bill into excluding such and such, instead of all but such. If the Commons have no mind it should pass, pass it for that reason. He would not bear obloquy for one's nearest friends. Pension Bill was the most innocent Bill that ever came hither, probably there will come stronger. It may come in time to this, that nobody will vote for the court without reward, and then more reward. There will be above 100 Placemen left in the House of Commons

The

by this Bill. The Self Denying Ordinance was a blind. Cromwell sat with an employment after it; but it got the House the good opinion of mankind.

Bishop of St. Asaph.* We are now in a

Dr. Isaac Maddox. "He was born in London, 27th July, 1697. His parents were very humble, and he lost them both early, upon which he was placed by an aunt with a pastry

the people, and the prerogative of the crown. In the sequel of what I shall offer to your lordships, I think I can plainly make out this assertion; but should be mistaken, my lords, I will venture to say, my head, not my heart will be in fault.

To weigh the merits of this Bill, it will be necessary to take it from its birth, consider its parents, and how and upon what occasions it has appeared. My lords, this blessed plant was sown by party and faction: it was nursed by fury and discontent: loss of English liberty was its fruit. It was the first step by which Oliver Cromwell, and some few others, mounted up above the liberty of mankind. It was framed to divide and destroy the bulwark of our constitution, the parliament; and surely, my lords, it would be very extraordinary, if parliament again should cherish this canker-worm, which since its birth never has dared to appear, but when a distempered air hovered round us, and, like sudden and intense darkness, was the forerunner of a storm.

My lords, the very preamble of this

war, and the liberties of Europe depend on the success of it. Therefore I am against this Bill. If it would help us in the war, I would be for it. I do not enter into the merits of it. If it be a good one, I wish well to it, but it be likely to have any extraordinary good effects, it should take place sooner, not after the end of this parliament, which in all probability will last seven years, and that is counted the life of a man. The popularity of a Bill that is to take place in the next age you will not encourage. Let popularity be founded on a vigorous prosecution of this war. That must be interrupted by this Bill, which is owned to require great alterations, and they will take up time. The king's serjeants and counsel may by this

cook, who refused to keep him, because he paid more attention to books, than his business. He afterwards was sent to a Scotch University, but disliking their tencts he entered Queen's College, Cambridge, under the patronage of bishop Gibson, and obtained a doctor's degree at Lambeth. He obtained the rectory of St. Vedast, Foster Lane, London, and in 1729, was appointed clerk of the closet to the Queen; in 1733, dean of Wales, bishop of St. Asaph 1736, and translated to Worcester 1743. In 1733, be published a Vindication of the Church of England, against Neal's History of the Puritans; and published besides, 14 single sermons, preached on various occasions. He was a great benefactor to several hospitals; he encouraged the British Fisheries, and promoted the erection of the Worcester Infirmary. He died 27th of September, 1759." Lempriere.

Bill sets up a standard of division between the crown and the people: it declares their interest separate, and of consequence they must draw separately; which is a doctrine quite different from what I have been taught from my cradle. I am sure, it is a most melancholy doctrine; for a state divided against itself can never stand long.

But, my lords, to be more particular, let us consider (should this become an act) what effect it would have, first by excluding all but some few of the most important places from the House of `ommons, and afterwards by excite n the army.

First, then, with regard to those places of importance which it does not exclude, and those lesser which it excludes, I shall only beg leave of your lordships to put a few questions. If ther, we exclude all but those of the greatest trust, and where the very being of public affairs is centred, how shall we in the next age find men capable of filling them? For by taking away the lesser, we take away the proper steps to the greater. How are those who Bill sit in parliament. But if any of your lordships' sons offer their lives for the service of their country, a post in the army will exclude them. Thus cedant arma togae.' Their wounds and scars are to be the foundation of their being rejected from parliament. Let us therefore drop this Bill and prosecute the war, and God give success.

Question whether it be committed,
N. C. 81.
C. 52.

Of whom I was one. Lord Pom-
fret, &c.

Then lord Darnely proposed to have the standing Order of Jan. 25, 1720, considered a few days after.

C. 43. Of which bishop of Glocester was

one.

N. C. 63. Of whom I was one.

Then lord Halifax moved to have the Order of April 5, 1707, read, that neither the Attorney General nor any assistant of the House should be counsel for any private person at the bar. Also to have the 62d Order read, that causes shall be called in at 11, 28th June, 1715. The Chancellor said it was meant for a compliment to him, he was glad of it, for he loved early hours. But as the business of Chancery must be carried on, he hoped he should not attend without such a decent number as that he could go on with business, that great causes were determined by two or three spiritual and as many temporal lords, which did not do honour to that judicature which was the principal sup port of the House. Adjourned.