BILL FOR A REGENCY.

The majority in both houses now professed the same principles, and were well disposed to support the queen in all her designs. They first presented the usual addresses in the warmest terms of duty and affection. Then the commons drew up a second, assuring her they would, to the utmost of their power, assist her in bringing the treaty of union to a happy conclusion. They desired that the proceedings of the last session of parliament, relating to the union and succession, might be laid before the house. The lords had solicited the same satisfaction; and her majesty promised to comply with their request. The lower house having heard and decided in some cases of controverted elections, proceeded to take into consideration the estimates for the service of the ensuing year, and granted the supplies without hesitation. In the house of lords, while the queen was present, lord Haversham, at the end of a long speech, in which he reflected upon the conduct of the duke of Marlborough, both on the Moselle and in Brabant, moved for an address to desire her majesty would invite the presumptive heir to the crown of England to come and reside in the kingdom. This motion was earnestly supported by the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Rochester, Nottingham, and Anglesea. They said there was no method so effectual to secure the succession as that of the successor’s being upon the spot, ready to assume and maintain his or her right against any pretender; and they observed, that in former times, when the throne of England was vacant, the first comer had always succeeded in his pretensions. The proposal was vehemently opposed by the whigs, who knew it was disagreeable to the queen, whom they would not venture to disoblige. They argued, that a rivalry between the two courts might produce distractions, and be attended with very ill consequences; and observed, that the princess Sophia had expressed a full satisfaction in the assurances of the queen, who had promised to maintain her title. The question being put, was carried in the negative by a great majority. The design of the tories in making this motion, was to bring the other party into disgrace either with the queen or with the people. Their joining in the measure would have given umbrage to their sovereign; and, by opposing it, they ran the risk of incurring the public odium as enemies to the protestant succession: but the pretence of the tories was so thin, the nation saw through it; and the sole effect the motion produced was the queen’s resentment against the whole party. Burnet, bishop of Sarum, proposed, that provision might be made for maintaining the public quiet in the interval between the queen’s decease and the arrival of her successor; the motion was seconded by the lord-treasurer, and a bill brought in for the better security of her majesty’s person and government, and of the succession to the crown of England. By this act a regency was appointed, of the seven persons that should possess the offices of archbishop of Canterbury, lord-chancellor, or lord-keeper, lord-treasurer, lord-president, lord privy-seal, lord high-admiral, and the lord chief-justice of the queen’s bench. Their business was to proclaim the next successor through the kingdom of England, and join with a certain number of persons named as regents by the successor, in three lists to be sealed up and deposited with the archbishop of Canterbury, the lord-keeper, and the ministry residentiary of Hanover. It was enacted, that these joint regencies should conduct the administration; that the last parliament, even though dissolved, should reassemble, and continue sitting for six months after the decease of her majesty. The bill met with a warm opposition from the tories, and did not pass the upper house without a protest. It was still further obstructed in the house of commons even by some of the whig party, who were given to understand that the princess Sophia had expressed an inclination to reside in England. Exceptions were likewise taken to that clause in the bill, enacting, that the last parliament should be reassembled. They affirmed, that this was inconsistent with part of the act by which the succession was at first settled; for among other limitations, the parliament had provided, that when the crown should devolve to the house of Hanover, no man who had either place or pension should be capable of sitting in the house of commons. After tedious disputes and zealous altercations, they agreed that a certain number of offices should be specified as disqualifying places. This self-denying clause, and some other amendments, produced conferences between the two houses, and at length the bill passed by their mutual assent. Lord Haversham moved for an inquiry into the miscarriages of the last campaign, hoping to find some foundation for censure in the conduct of the duke of Marlborough; but the proposal was rejected as invidious; and the two houses presented an address to the queen, desiring she would preserve a good correspondence among all the confederates. They likewise concurred in repealing the act by which the Scots had been alienated, and all the northern counties alarmed with the apprehension of a rupture between the two nations. The lord Shannon and brigadier Stanhope arriving with an account of the expedition to Catalonia, the queen communicated the good news in a speech to both houses, expressing her hope that they would enable her to prosecute the advantages which her arms had acquired. The commons were so well pleased with the tidings, that they forthwith granted two hundred and fifty thousand pounds for her majesty’s proportion in the expense of prosecuting the successes already gained by king Charles III. for the recovery of the monarchy of Spain to the house of Austria. On the fifteenth day of November, the queen gave the royal assent to an act for exhibiting a bill to naturalize the princess Sophia, and the issue of her body.

These measures being taken, the sixth day of December was appointed for inquiring into those dangers to which the tories affirmed the church was exposed; and the queen attended in person, to hear the debates on this interesting subject. The earl of Eochester compared the expressions in the queen’s speech at the beginning of the session, to the law enacted in the reign of Charles II. denouncing the penalties of treason against those who should call the king a papist; for which reason, he said, he always thought him of that persuasion. He affirmed that the church’s danger arose from the act of security in Scotland, the absence of the successor to the crown, and the practice of occasional conformity. He was answered by lord Halifax, who, by way of recrimination, observed that king Charles II. was a Roman-catholic, at least his brother declared him a papist after his death; that his brother and successor was a known Roman-catholic, yet the church thought herself secure; and those patriots who stood up in its defence were discountenanced and punished: nay, when the successor ascended the throne, and the church was apparently in the most imminent danger by the high commission court and otherwise, the nation was then indeed generally alarmed; and every body knew who sat in that court, and entered deeply into the measures which were then pursued. Compton, bishop of London, declared that the church was in danger, from profaneness, irreligion, and the licentiousness of the press. He complained, that sermons were preached wherein rebellion was countenanced, and resistance to the higher powers encouraged. He alluded to a sermon preached before the lord mayor by Mr. Hoadly, now bishop of Winchester. Burnet of Sarum said, the bishop of London was the last man who ought to complain of that sermon; for if the doctrine it contained was not good, he did not know what defence his lordship could make for his appearing in arms at Nottingham. He affirmed the church would be always subject to profaneness and irreligion, but that they were not now so flagrant as they usually had been; he said the society set up for reformation in London and other cities, had contributed considerably to the suppression of vice; he was sure the corporation for propagating the gospel had done a great deal towards instructing men in religion, by giving great numbers of books in practical divinity; by erecting libraries in country parishes; by sending many able divines to the foreign plantations, and founding schools to breed up children in the christian knowledge; though to this expense very little had been contributed by those who appeared so wonderfully zealous for the church. The archbishop of York expressed his apprehension of danger from the increase of dissenters, particularly from the many academies they had instituted; he moved, that the judges might be consulted with respect to the laws that were in force against such seminaries, and by what means they might be suppressed. Lord Wharton moved, that the judges might also be consulted about means of suppressing schools and seminaries held by non-jurors, in one of which the sons of a noble lord in that house had been educated. To this sarcasm the archbishop replied, that his sons were indeed taught by Mr. Ellis, a sober virtuous man; but that when he refused the oath of abjuration, they were immediately withdrawn from his instructions. Lord Wharton proceeded to declare, that he had carefully perused a pamphlet entitled “The Memorial,” which was said to contain a demonstration that the church was in danger; but all he could learn was, that the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Rochester and Nottingham, were out of place; that he remembered some of these noblemen sat in the high commission court, and then made no complaint of the church’s being in danger. Patrick, bishop of Ely, complained of the heat and passion manifested by the gentlemen belonging to the universities, and of the undutiful behaviour of the clergy towards their bishops. He was seconded by Hough of Litchfield and Coventry, who added, that the inferior clergy calumniated their bishops, as if they were in a plot to destroy the church, and had compounded to be the last of their order. Hooper of Bath and Wells, expatiated on the invidious distinction implied in the terms “high church,” and “low church.” The duke of Leeds asserted, that the church could not be safe without an act against occasional conformity. Lord Somers recapitulated all the arguments which had been used on both sides of the question: he declared his own opinion was, that the nation was happy under a wise and just administration; that for men to raise groundless jealousies at that juncture, could mean no less than an intention to embroil the people at home, and defeat the glorious designs of the allies abroad. The debate being finished, the question was put, Whether the church of England was in danger? and carried in the negative by a great majority: then the house resolved, that the church of England, as by law established, which was rescued from the extremest danger by king William III. of glorious memory, is now, by God’s blessings under the happy reign of her majesty, in a most safe and nourishing condition; and that whoever goes about to suggest or insinuate that the church is in danger, under her majesty’s administration, is an enemy to the queen, the church, and the kingdom. Next day the commons concurred in this determination, and joined the lords in an address to the queen, communicating this resolution, beseeching her to take effectual measures for making it public, and also for punishing the authors and spreaders of the seditious and scandalous reports of the church’s being in danger. She accordingly issued a proclamation containing the resolution of the two houses, and offering a reward for discovering the author of the memorial of the church of England, and for apprehending David Edwards, a professed papist, charged upon oath to be the printer and publisher of that libel.

ANNE, 1701—1714