of privilege.

on breach cafe of interference by a peer with House of Commons privileges, which had no tendency to abate the prevailing excitement. He charged Lord Arundel with having fought unduly to influence and intimidate burgeffes of the borough of Arundel in regard to new elections. This appears to have raised an animated debate, in the course of which a doctrine laid down by Hyde and Culpeper, to the effect that Lords might "write commendatory letters" during the progress of an election, was somewhat roughly handled. But Tuesday the 7th faw a with elec- ftill more ftartling propofition launched from the other fide; a propofition fo notable indeed, that Clarendon in his History is difpofed to fingle it out, and fet it apart, as the fole cause and ground of all the mischiefs which enfued. Tuesday, Nevertheless it will probably feem to us, after 7th Dec. watching the course of events immediately be

Peers' interference

tions.

A ftart ling

propofal.

fore and fince the return of the King, but as an advance or step onward, hardly avoidable, in the hazardous path which had been entered. The neceffity of greatly increafing the forces of the realm was not more obvious, than the danger of entrusting to an executive in whom no confidence was placed, the uncontrolled power of difpofing thofe forces. The difaffected spirit of the army, as now officered, and in the midst of a frightful rebellion raging in one of the three kingdoms, was no longer matter of doubt. Irrefragable proofs of the fecond army plot had been completed; and refolutions were at this time prepared, to take effect on the day after that to which my narrative has arrived, difabling four of thofe officers (men high in the

army

King's confidence and to whom he afterwards Dangers gave peerages) from their feats in the lower from Houfe, as guilty of mifprifion of treason, by intrigues. name Wilmot, Pollard, Afhburnham, and Percy, members for Tamworth, Beeralfton, Ludgerfhall (Wilts), and Northumberland. The diftruft felt by the Commons on the King's removal of their Guard, and the refolutions as to the defence of the kingdom which they paffed on that troubled Saturday after his Diftruft of the King. return, receive only their full explanation from keeping fuch facts in view; and they led, almost unavoidably, to the more momentous step now waiting to be detailed.

§ XXVI. AN OMINOUS PROPOSAL.

ON Tuesday, the 7th of December, Sir Arthur Tuesday, 7th Dec. Hafelrig rofe in his ufual place in the gallery of the House, and prefented a Bill for fettling the fented by Militia of the kingdom by sea and land, under a Hafelrig: Lord General and a High Admiral, to whom it gave great powers to raise and levy forces. It was ftyled An Act for the making of (Blank) Lord General of all the forces within the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, and (Blank) Lord High Admiral of England. Clarendon fays for fettling that this bill had been privately prepared by Militia. the King's folicitor, St. John; and that his influence as a lawyer, on his declaring the existing law to have been fo unfettled by disabling votes of the two Houses that a special enactment was become abfolutely neceffary, mainly led to the bill being permitted to be read. But, while his statements here are to be taken with even more

C C

the

Account

in the D'Ewes

MS.

Bill angrily received.

than the ufual caution, it is to be remarked that D'Ewes, though he says nothing abfolutely inconfiftent therewith, does not expreffly confirm them; and D'Ewes's account, of which I proceed to give an abstract from his manuscript, is the only other on record, fo far as I am aware, of this memorable debate.

Hafelrig had scarcely named the provisions of the bill, when a great many members cried, Away with it!" and others, that they should "Caft it out!" Sir John Culpeper started up on the inftant of Hafelrig's refuming his feat; and, after wondering that the gentleman

in the gallery fhould bring in such a bill, Culpeper moved that it be at once rejected. Sir Thomas moves its Barrington, though he had voted with the rejection. majority in all the Remonftrance debates,

ton

Strode and

D'Ewes for.

regretted that he could not fupport the particular measure, and wished it might be thrown Barring out; but he thought another lefs objectionable fhould be brought in with fimilar defign. againft: Strode "and others" fpoke for it ftrongly ; and then D'Ewes himfelf rofe and made a lengthy speech in its favour, duly felf-reported, but with which the reader need not be troubled. Divers followed him, fpeaking on either fide, fome for, and others against the bill, and many ufing violent expreffions against it. Mr. Thomas Cook, for example, the member for Leicester, declared that one Hexey in Richard the Second's time, for introducing, in the twentieth year of that reign, a bill against the King's prerogative of far lefs confequence than this, had been condemned as a traitor. Nor did Mr. Mallory, the member for Ripon,

Cook

cites pre

cedent

againft.

have bill

speak lefs violently on the fame fide. He denounced the bill as fit to be burned in Weft- Mallory minster Palace Yard, and the gentleman who would brought it in as deferving to be queftioned. burnt. On the other hand, feveral rofe and excepted against Mr. Mallory's fpeech, as rather thinking it more worthy to be queftioned; but thereupon Strode got up and remarked that he thought Mr. Mallory's fpeech in fome fort excufable, as having been occafioned by the fpeech of a gentleman that fat near him. (alluding to Mr. Cook), who had once before cited in that Houfe a highly dangerous pre- Cook cedent. Great cries of affent followed this called up: remark, and many rofe in fucceffion to enforce it, until, in fpite of diffentients, Mr. Cook was called up to explain. But, what he said. not fatisfying the Houfe, he was ordered to ordered to withdraw, while fome would have had his withdraw. further attendance fufpended. Meanwhile a fudden thought had occurred to D'Ewes, which he had immediately proceeded to execute. During this debate," he fays, "I retired "out of the House to my lodging in Goatsalley, near the Palace, and there fearched "out the precedent. On my return, I said "that the gentleman now withdrawn was a Had mifyoung man, and a man of hope, and there- quoted "fore I defired that he be not too much dis- precedent. "heartened. I thought him more punishable "for mis-reciting than for citing precedents. "The precedent in queftion was not against "the King's prerogative, but against the "exceffive expenses of the King's household; D'Ewes " and though Hexey was fentenced, he was expofes

and laughs" afterwards cleared by Parliament. Thereat him. "fore the greatest cenfure I would have laid

upon this gentleman is, that he would cite "no more records till he fhall have ftudied "them better. At which divers of the House laughed;" and Cook having been called in, Cook ad- and admonished by Mr. Speaker, Hafelrig's monished. bill paffed to a divifion. Sir John Culpeper

*

and Sir Frederick Cornwallis were tellers for the Yeas, which were 125, to reject it; and Denzil Hollis and Sir William Armyn, member for Grantham, for the majority of 158 in Bill read its favour: and the bill was read a first time.

a firft

time: 158 to 125.

And now let me append to this trustworthy account, taken from the notes of a member prefent while the debate was in progrefs, the narrative of the fame incident as related by Same in- Clarendon. Perhaps no more remarkable warning could be given of the fcrupulous care with which his Hiftory fhould be read, and of

cident:

Commons'

ii. 334.

* The only notices hitherto given of this incident appear Journals. in the Journals and in Verney's Notes. "Some exceptions were taken to Mr. Coke for the mifalleging of precedents; "and after he had explained himself, he was, according to "the order of the Houfe, commanded to withdraw. Refolved "upon the question, That Mr. Coke fhall be called down, "and in his place, have an admonition for the words that fell "from him. The Speaker told him in his place that he was "commanded to admonish him, that he fhould take a care "hereafter, how he did allege or apply precedents in this "House." Verney fays in his Notes: "Sir Arthur Hafelrig “did bring in a bill to dispose all the Militia of England "into two generals for life. This bill was thought fit by "fome to be rejected, and Mr. Thomas Cook faid, it was in "his judgment worse than the bill brought in by Hexam in "Richard the Second's time, by which he was accused of "high treafon. For this fpeech he was questioned and taxed, "for citing but half the precedent, for Hexam was afterwards "cleared by parliament. For this offence he received an "admonition in his place, by the Speaker."

Verney's
Notes,

p. 132.