PETITION OF SOME SCOTTISH NOBLEMEN.

The minority in the house of lords were not less vigilant and resolute in detecting and opposing every measure which they thought would redound to the prejudice of their country. But the most remarkable object that employed their attention during this session, was a very extraordinary petition subscribed by the dukes of Hamilton, Queensberry, and Montrose, the earls of Dundonald, Marchmont, and Stair, representing that undue influence had been used for carrying on the election of the sixteen peers of Scotland. The duke of Bedford, who delivered their petition to the house, proposed a day for taking it into consideration; and to this they agreed. It was afterwards moved, that the consideration of it should be adjourned to a short day, before which the petitioners should be ordered to declare whether they intended to controvert the last election of all the sixteen peers, or the election of any, and which of them. This affair was of such an unprecedented nature, that the house seemed to be divided in opinion about the manner in which they ought to proceed. The partisans of the ministry would have willingly stifled the inquiry in the beginning; but the petitioners were so strenuously supported in their claim to some notice, by the earls of Chesterfield, Abingdon, and Strafford, the lords Bathurst and Carteret, that they could not dismiss it at once with any regard to decorum. The order of the house, according to the motion explained above, being communicated by the lord-chancellor to the petitioners, they waited on him with a declaration, importing, that they did not intend to controvert the election or return of the sixteen peers for Scotland; but they thought it their duty to lay before their lordships the evidence of such facts and undue methods as appeared to them to be dangerous to the constitution; and might in future elections equally affect the right of the present sixteen peers, as that of the other peers of Scotland, if not prevented by a proper remedy. This declaration being repeated to the house, the duke of Devonshire made a motion, that the petitioners might be ordered to lay before the house in writing, instances of those undue methods and illegal practices upon which they intended to proceed, and the names of the persons they suspected to be guilty. He was warmly opposed by the country party; and a long debate ensued, after which the question was carried in favour of the motion, and the order signified to the petitioners. Next day their answer was read to the house to this effect: That as they had no intention to state themselves accusers, they could not take upon them to name particular persons who might have been concerned in those illegal practices; but who they were would undoubtedly appear to their lordships upon their taking the proper examinations: nevertheless, they did humbly acquaint their lordships, that the petition was laid before them upon information that the list of the sixteen peers for Scotland had been framed previous to the election, by persons in high trust under the crown; that this list was shown to peers, as a list approved by the crown; and was called the king’s list, from which there was to be no variation, unless to make way for one or two particular peers, on condition they should conform to measures; that peers were solicited to vote for this list, without the liberty of making any alteration; that endeavours were used to engage peers to vote for this list by promise of pensions, and offices civil and military to themselves and relations, as well as by offers of money: that sums were given for this purpose; that pensions, offices, and releases of debts owing to the crown, were actually granted to peers who concurred in voting for this list, and to their relations; that on the day of election a battalion of his majesty’s troops were drawn up in the Abbey-court of Edinburgh, contrary to custom, and without any apparent cause but that of over-awing the electors. This answer gave rise to another violent dispute; but the majority voted it unsatisfactory, and the petition was rejected, though the resolution was clogged with a vigorous protest.

1735

Notwithstanding this discouragement, the earl of Abingdon moved, that although the petition was dismissed, an inquiry might be set on foot touching an affair of such consequence to the liberties of the kingdom. The earl of Hay declaring his belief that no such illegal methods had been practised, the other produced a pamphlet, intituled, The Protests of a great Number of Noble Lords, entered by them at the last Election of Peers for Scotland. Exceptions being taken to a pamphlet, as an object unworthy of their notice, lord Bathurst exhibited an authentic copy of those protests, extracted from the journal of that election, signed by the two principal clerks, and witnessed by two gentlemen then attending in the lobby. These were accordingly read, and plainly demonstrated the truth of the allegations contained in the petition. Nothing could be more scandalous, arrogant, and shamefully flagrant, than the conduct and deportment of those who acted the part of understrappers to the ministry on this occasion. But all this demonstration, adorned and enforced by the charms and energy of eloquence, was like preaching in a desert. A motion was made for adjourning, and carried in the affirmative: a protest was entered, and the whole affair consigned to oblivion. Divers other motions were made successively by the lords in the opposition, and rejected by the invincible power of a majority. The uninterrupted success of the ministry did not, however, prevent them from renewing the struggle as often as an opportunity offered. They disputed the continuation of the salt-tax, and the bill for enabling the king to apply the sum of one million out of the sinking fund for the service of the current year, though success did not attend their endeavours. They supported with all their might a bill sent up from the commons, explaining and amending an act of the Scottish parliament, for preventing wrongous imprisonment, and against undue delays in trials. This was all the natives of Scotland had in lieu of the habeas-corpus act; though it did not screen them from oppression. Yet the earl of Hay undertook to prove they were on a footing with their neighbours of England in this respect; and the bill was thrown out on a division. The session was closed on the fifteenth of May, when the king in his speech to both houses declared that the plan of pacification, concerted between him and the states-general, had not produced the desired effect. He thanked the commons for the supplies they had granted with such cheerfulness and despatch. He signified his intention to visit his German dominions; and told them he should constitute the queen regent of the realm in his absence. Immediately after the prorogation his majesty embarked for Holland, in his way to Hanover.