A REMONSTRANCE PRESENTED TO THE QUEEN.

The commons, taking it for granted that the queen was disobliged at these proceedings of the upper house—which indeed implied an insult upon her ministry, if not upon herself—presented an address, declaring themselves surprised to find that when persons suspected of treasonable practices were taken into custody by her majesty’s messengers in order to be examined, the lords, in violation to the known laws of the land, had wrested them out of her hands, and arrogated the examination solely to themselves; so that a due inquiry into the evil practices and designs against her majesty’s person and government, might in a great measure be obstructed. They earnestly desired that she would suffer no diminution of the prerogative; and they assured her they would, to the utmost of their power, support her in the exercise of it at home, as well as in asserting it against all invasions whatsoever. The queen thanked them for their concern and assurances; and was not ill pleased at the nature of the address, though the charge against the peers was not strictly true; for there were many instances of their having assumed such a right of inquiry. The upper house deeply resented the accusation. They declared, that by the known laws and customs of parliament, they had an undoubted right to take examinations of persons charged with criminal matters, whether those persons were or were not in custody. They resolved, That the address of the commons was unparliamentary, groundless, without precedent, highly injurious to the house of peers, tending to interrupt the good correspondence between the two houses, to create an ill opinion in her majesty of the house of peers, of dangerous consequence to the liberties of the people, the constitution of the kingdom, and privileges of parliament. They presented a long remonstrance to the queen, justifying their own conduct, explaining the steps they had taken, recriminating upon the commons, and expressing the most fervent zeal, duty, and affection to her majesty. In her answer to this representation, which was drawn up with elegance, propriety, and precision, she professed her sorrow for the misunderstanding which had happened between the two houses of parliament, and thanked them for the concern they had expressed for the rights of the crown and the prerogative; which she should never exert so willingly as for the good of her subjects, and the protection of their liberties.

Among other persons seized on the coast of Sussex on their landing from France, was one Boucher, who had been aidecamp to the duke of Berwick. This man, when examined, denied all knowledge of any conspiracy: he said, that being weary of living so long abroad, and having made some unsuccessful attempts to obtain a pass, he had chosen rather to cast himself on the queen’s mercy than to remain longer in exile from his native country. He was tried and condemned for high treason, yet continued to declare himself ignorant of the plot. He proved that in the war of Ireland, as well as in Flanders, he had treated the English prisoners with great humanity. The lords desisted from the prosecution; he obtained a reprieve, and died in Newgate. On the twenty-ninth day of January, the earl of Nottingham told the house that the queen had commanded him to lay before them the papers containing all the particulars hitherto discovered of the conspiracy in Scotland; but that there was one circumstance which could not yet be properly communicated without running the risk of preventing a discovery of greater importance. They forthwith drew up and presented an address, desiring that all the papers might be immediately submitted to their inspection. The queen said she did not expect to be pressed in this manner immediately after the declaration she had made; but in a few days the earl of Nottingham delivered the papers, sealed, to the house, and all the lords were summoned to attend on the eighth day of February, that they might be opened and perused. Nottingham was suspected of a design to stifle the conspiracy. Complaint was made in the house of commons that he had discharged an officer belonging to the late king James, who had been seized by the governor of Berwick. A warm debate ensued, and at length ended in a resolve, That the earl of Nottingham, one of her majesty’s principal secretaries of state, for his great ability and diligence in the execution of his office, for his unquestionable fidelity to the queen and her government, and for his steady adherence to the church of England as by law established, highly merited the trust her majesty had reposed in him. They ordered the speaker to present this resolution to the queen, who said, she was glad to find them so well satisfied with the earl of Nottingham, who was trusted by her in so considerable an office. They perused the examinations of the witnesses which were laid before them, without passing judgment or offering advice on the subject; but they thanked her majesty for having communicated those particulars, as well as for her wisdom and care of the nation. When the lords proceeded with uncommon eagerness in their inquiry, the lower house, in another address, renewed their complaints against the conduct of the peers, which they still affirmed was without a precedent. But this was the language of irritated faction, by which indeed both sides were equally actuated. The select committee of the lords prosecuted the inquiry, and founded their report chiefly on the confession of sir John Maclean, who owned that the court of St. Germain’s had listened to Lovat’s proposal; that several councils had been held at the pretender’s court on the subject of an invasion; and that persons were sent over to sound some of the nobility in Scotland. But the nature of their private correspondence and negotiation could not be discovered. Keith had tampered with his uncle to disclose the whole secret; and this was the circumstance which the queen declined imparting to the lords until she should know the success of his endeavours, which proved ineffectual. The uncle stood aloof; and the ministry did not heartily engage in the inquiry. The house of lords having finished these examinations, and being warmed with violent debates, voted that there had been dangerous plots between some persons in Scotland and the courts of France and St. Germain’s; and that the encouragement for this plotting arose from the not settling the succession to the crown of Scotland in the house of Hanover. These votes were signified to the queen in an address; and they promised, that when the succession should be thus settled, they would endeavour to promote the union of the two kingdoms upon just and reasonable terms. Then they composed another representation in answer to the second address of the commons touching their proceedings. They charged the lower house with want of zeal in the whole progress of this inquiry. They produced a great number of precedents to prove that their conduct had been regular and parliamentary; and they, in their turn, accused the commons of partiality and injustice in vacating legal elections. The queen, in answer to this remonstrance, said, she looked upon any misunderstanding between the two houses as a very great misfortune to the kingdom; and that she should never omit anything in her power to prevent all occasions of them for the future.