motion should be put. The noes were ordered by the speaker to go forth into the lobby. They resented this much, and complained loudly of his servility and partiality; for they conceived that, according to the intricate and subtle rule which was then in force, and which, in our time, was superseded by a more rational and convenient practice, they were entitled to keep their seats; and it was held by all the parliamentary tacticians of that age that the party which staid in the House had an advantage over the party which went out; for the accommodation on the benches was then so deficient, that no person who had been fortunate enough to get a good seat was willing to lose it. Nevertheless, to the dismay of the ministers, many persons on whose votes the court had absolutely depended were seen moving towards the door. Among them was Charles Fox, paymaster of the forces, and son of Sir Stephen Fox, clerk of the green cloth. The paymaster had been induced by his friends to absent himself during part of the discussion. But his anxiety had become insupportable. He came down to the speaker's chamber, heard part of the debate, withdrew, and, after hesitating for a short time between conscience and five thousand pounds a year, took a manly resolution, and rushed into the House just in time to vote. Two officers of the army, Colonel John Darcy, son of the Lord Conyers, and Captain James Kendall, withdrew to the lobby. Middleton went down to the bar and expostulated warmly with them. He particularly addressed himself to Kendall, a needy retainer of the court, who had, in obedience to the royal mandate, been sent to parliament by a packed corporation in Cornwall, and who had recently obtained a grant of a hundred head of rebels sentenced to transportation. 'Sir," said Middleton, 'have not you a troop of horse in his majesty's service? Yes, my lord," answered Kendall; "but my elder brother is just dead, and has left me seven hundred a year.”

66

66

When the tellers had done their office it appeared that the ayes were one hundred and eighty-two, and the noes one hundred and eighty-three. In that House of Commons which had been brought together by the unscrupulous use of chicanery, of corruption, and of violence, in that House of Commons of which James had said that more than eleven twelfths of the members were such as he would himself have nominated, the court had sustained a defeat on a vital question.*

*

Commons' Journals, Nov. 13, 1685; Bramston's Memoirs ⚫

In consequence of this vote the expressions which the king had used respecting the test were, on the thirteenth of November, taken into consideration. It was resolved, after much discussion, that an address should be presented to him, reminding him that he could not legally continue to employ officers who refused to qualify, and pressing him to give such direc tions as might quiet the apprehensions and jealousies of his people.*

A motion was then made that the Lords should be requested to join in the address. Whether this motion was honestly made by the opposition, in the hope that the concurrence of the peers would add weight to the remonstrance, or artfully made by the courtiers, in the hope that a breach between the Houses might be the consequence, it is now impossible to discover. The proposition was rejected.†

The House then resolved itself into committee, for the purpose of considering the amount of supply to be granted. The king wanted fourteen hundred thousand pounds; but the ministers saw that it would be vain to ask for so large a sum. The chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned twelve hundred thousand pounds. The chiefs of the opposition replied that to vote for such a grant would be to vote for the permanence of the present military establishment: they were disposed to give

Reresby's Memoirs; Barillon, Nov. 1; Leeuwen, Nov. 3 Memoirs of Sir Stephen Fox, 1717; The Case of the Church of England fairly stated; Burnet, i. 666; and Speaker Onslow's note. * Commons' Journals, Nov. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187; Lans. MS 253.

†The conflict of testimony on this subject is most extraordinary; and, after long consideration, I must own that the balance seems to me to be exactly poised. In the Life of James, (1702,) the motion is represented as a court motion. This account is confirmed by a remarkable passage in the Stuart Papers, which was corrected by the Pretender himself. (Clarke's Life of James the Second, ii. 55.) On the other hand, Reresby, who was present, and Barillon, who ought to have been well informed, represent the motion as an opposition motion. The Harleian and Lansdowne manuscripts differ in the single word on which the whole depends. Unfortunately Bramston was not at the House that day. James Van Leeuwen mentions the motion and the division, but does not add a word which can throw the smallest light on the state of partics. I must own myself unable to draw with confidence any inference from the names of the tellers, Sir Joseph Williamson and Sir Francis Russell for the majority, and Lord Ancram and Sir Henry Goodricke for the minority. I should have thought Lord Ancram likely to go with the court, and Sir Henry Goodricke likely to go with the opposition.

only so much as might suffice to keep the regular troops on foot till the militia could be remodelled; and they therefore proposed four hundred thousand pounds. The courtiers exclaimed against this motion as unworthy of the House and disrespectful to the king; but they were manfully encountered. One of the western members, John Windham, who sate for Salisbury, especially distinguished himself. He had always, he said, looked with dread and aversion on standing armies; and recent experience had strengthened those feelings. He then ventured to touch on a theme which had hitherto been studiously avoided. He described the desolation of the western counties. The people, he said, were weary of the oppression of the troops, weary of free quarters, of depredations, of still fouler crimes which the law called felonies, but for which, when perpetrated by this class of felons, no redress could be obtained. The king's servants had indeed told the House that excellent rules had been laid down for the government of the army; but none could venture to say that these rules had been observed. What, then, was the inevitable inference? Did not the contrast between the paternal injunctions issued from the throne and the insupportable tyranny of the soldiers prove that the army was even now too strong for the prince as well as for the people? The Commons might surely, with perfect consistency, while they reposed entire confidence in the intentions of his majesty, refuse to make any addition to a force which it was clear that his majesty could not manage.

The motion that the sum to be granted should not exceed four hundred thousand pounds, was lost by twelve votes. This victory of the ministers was little better than a defeat. The leaders of the country party, nothing disheartened, retreated a little, made another stand, and proposed the sum of seven hundred thousand pounds. The committee divided again, and the courtiers were beaten by two hundred and twelve votes to one hundred and seventy.*

The

On the following day the Commons went in procession to Whitehall with their address on the subject of the test. king received them on his throne. The address was drawn up in respectful and affectionate language; for the great majority of those who had voted for it were zealously and even super

*Commons' Journals, Nov. 16, 1085; Harl. MS. 7187; Lans. MS.

stitiously loyal, and had readily agreed to insert some compli mentary phrases, and to omit every word which the courtiers thought offensive. The answer of James was a cold and sullen reprimand. He declared himself greatly displeased and amazed that the Commons should have profited so little by the admonition which he had given them. "But," said he, "however you may proceed on your part, I will be very steady in all the promises which I have made to you.” *

The Commons reassembled in their chamber, discontented, yet somewhat overawed. To most of them the king was still an object of filial reverence. Three more years filled with injuries, and with insults more galling than injuries, were scarcely sufficient to dissolve the ties which bound the Cavalier gentry to the throne.

The speaker repeated the substance of the king's reply. There was, for some time, a solemn stillness; then the order of the day was read in regular course; and the House went into committee on the bill for remodelling the militia.

In a few hours, however, the spirit of the opposition revived. When, at the close of the day, the speaker resumed the chair, Wharton, the boldest and most active of the Whigs, proposed that a time should be appointed for taking his majesty's answer into consideration. John Coke, member for Derby, though a noted Tory, seconded Wharton. I hope," he said, "that we are all Englishmen, and that we shall not be frightened from our duty by a few high words."

66

It was manfully, but not wisely, spoken. The whole House was in a tempest. "Take down his words," "To the bar," "To the Tower," resounded from every side. Those who were most lenient proposed that the offender should be repri manded; but the ministers vehemently insisted that he should be sent to prison. The House might pardon, they said, of fences committed against itself, but had no right to pardon an insult offered to the crown. Coke was sent to the Tower. The indiscretion of one man had deranged the whole system of tactics which had been so ably concerted by the chiefs of the opposition. It was in vain that, at that moment, Edward Seymour attempted to rally his followers, exhorted them to fix a day for discussing the king's answer, and expressed his confidence that the discussion would be conducted with the respect due from subjects to the sovereign. The members were so

• Commons' Journals, Nov. 17, 18, 1685.

much cowed by the royal displeasure, and so much incensed by the rudeness of Coke, that it would not have been safe to divide.*

The House adjourned; and the ministers flattered themselves that the spirit of opposition was quelled. But on the morrow, the nineteenth of November, new and alarming symptoms appeared. The time had arrived for taking into consideration the petitions which had been presented from all parts of England against the late elections. When, on the first meeting of the parliament, Seymour had complained of the force and fraud by which the government had prevented the sense of constituent bodies from being fairly taken, he had found no seconder. But many who had then flinched from his side had subsequently taken heart, and, with Sir John Lowther, member for Cumberland, at their head, had, before the recess, suggested that there ought to be an inquiry into the abuses which had so much excited the public mind. The House was now in a much more angry temper; and many voices were boldly raised in menace and accusation. The ministers were told that the nation expected, and should have, signal redress. Meanwhile it was dexterously intimated that the best atonement which a gentleman who had been brought into the House by irregular means could make to the public was to use his illacquired power in defence of the religion and liberties of his country. No member who, in that crisis, did his duty had any thing to fear. It might be necessary to unseat him; but the whole influence of the opposition should be employed to procure his reëlection.†

On the same day it became clear that the spirit of opposition had spread from the Commons to the Lords, and even to the episcopal bench. William Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire, took the lead in the Upper House; and he was well qualified to do so. In wealth and influence he was second to none of the English nobles; and the general voice designated him as

*Commons' Journals, Nov. 18, 1685; Harl. MS. 7187; Lans. MS. 253; Burnet, i. 667.

+ Lonsdale's Memoirs. Burnet tells us (i. 667) that a sharp debate about elections took place in the House of Commons after Coke's committal. It must therefore have been on the 19th of November; for Coke was committed late on the 18th, and the parliament was prorogued on the 20th. Burnet's narrative is confirmed by the Journals, from which it appears that several elections were under discussion on the 19th.