1716.

EXECUTION OF THE LORDS.

29

while in the lords, where a greater degree of sympathy prevailed, a motion was carried to address the king "to reprieve such of the condemned lords as deserved his mercy." The success of this motion was principally due to the earl of Nottingham, president of the council, who supported it, for which he was dismissed from his office, as well as his brother, the earl of Aylesford, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; his son, lord Finch, one of the lords of the treasury; and his cousin-german, lord Guernsey, master of the jewel office. The eve

ning before the day appointed for execution, the earl of Nithisdale escaped from the Tower in woman's apparel, which had been brought to him by his mother; the remainder suffered their sentence with a firmness that could hardly fail to excite pity and admiration.*

* The earl of Derwentwater, after reading a paper he had drawn up, turned to the block, and finding a rough place in it that might offend his neck, bid the executioner cut it off: and lord Kenmure expressed his regret that, having so little thoughts of dying, he had not provided a black suit, that he might have died with more decency. Parl. Hist. vii. 285, 286.

CHAP. II.

1716.

GENERAL DISCONTENT IN THE COUNTRY. — INTRODUCTION OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT TO ESCAPE THE RISK OF AN ELECTION. — DEBATE AND PROTEST IN THE LORDS. ENERGETIC RESISTANCE IN THE COMMONS. THE BILL CARRIED WITH UNEXAMPLED RAPIDITY. SPECIAL GROUNDS ON WHICH IT WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE JUSTIFIED. CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MEASURE AND THE PRETEXTS UNDER WHICH IT WAS FORCED UPON THE LEGISLATURE. ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH THE DECLARATION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS. -ITS EFFECT UPON THE PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT. -DOUBTS OF THE RIGHT OF PARLIAMENT TO PROLONG ITS OWN EXISTENCE. INSTANCES IN WHICH ACTS OF PARLIAMENT WOULD BE INSUBSEQUENT REVOLUTION OF OPINION AMONGST THE SUPPORTERS OF THE SEPTENNIAL ACT. CLOSE OF THE SES

VALID.

SION.

THE discontents caused by these events, the general sympathy which such extreme punishments produced, and the ascendency gradually asserted by the sentiments of humanity over the rage of party *, now that the civil war was at end, led the tories, on the one hand, to rely with confidence on the next general election, while the whigs, on the other, regarded an appeal to the country at such a juncture with undisguised apprehensions. In this case, as in all others, persecution had re-acted on its authors, and the martyrs of the unpopular cause made proselytes amongst the people. The dilemma to which the government was thus reduced did

The house of commons was so troubled by petitions in favour of the noblemen under sentence of death, that Walpole, to get rid of the annoyance of receiving petitions which the majority were, beforehand, determined to reject, proposed an adjournment over the day appointed for the execution. This severity, so opposed to the natural bias of his disposition, only serves to prove the extremities to which the administration were reduced in their efforts to coerce the feelings of the nation, already sufficiently lacerated by the calamities of the rebellion,

1716.

SEPTENNIAL ACT.

31

not admit of an easy escape; and certainly there never was an administration in England which exhibited greater boldness in the adoption of a perilous, tyrannical, and unconstitutional remedy. The whigs knew, or feared, that an election would throw the majority into the hands of their opponents, and that, cast out of power, they would be exposed to measures of violence and revenge, similar to those of which they had themselves set so terrible an example. Even if the tories failed in obtaining the upper hand, the tumults of the struggle at the hustings could not be contemplated without the most serious alarm. Whichever way they looked, they had but one alternative — that of prolonging the existence of parliament, in order to prolong

-

their own. For this purpose – and for this purpose alone basing a perpetual act, which should tie up the free-will of posterity, upon a temporary necessity, and changing the permanent constitution of parliament to avert a contingent danger, they resolved upon the introduction of the famous septennial bill, by which the duration of parliament was extended from three to seven years.

It would appear that some doubt existed in the first instance, amongst those with whom this celebrated measure originated, as to the propriety of making it binding upon future times. They had grace enough to confess to themselves that all they wanted was to avoid an election so likely to unseat them, and that it would be scarcely justifiable, for such an object, to alter the fundamental principle of popular representation. With this view, it was suggested merely to suspend the triennial act for once *, the establishment of such a precedent being regarded as less objectionable than its expansion into a law; it not having occurred to them that any definite and limited law, however stringent and oppressive, is less injurious to the liberties of a nation than the capricious exercise of an arbitrary and irresponsible power. The septennial act, striking, as it did, at the

* Tindal.

rights of the electors, possessed at least the recommendation of fixing the tenure of their representatives; while the precedent of prolonging the duration of parliament, to meet the exigencies of the crown, would have been fraught with evils which could neither be predicted nor prevented. The whigs, however, at that period were so familiar with the spectacle of a suspended constitution, that the original scheme of suspending the triennial act cannot excite much astonishment. But after some deliberation, they considered it safer to repeal that act altogether; not, perhaps, for the reasons we have stated, but because it afforded them a broader ground of argument on general principles than they could have secured had they proceeded solely on the urgency of the occasion.

Having determined upon the measure, the next question to be settled was, whether it should be introduced in the lords or the commons. * For obvious reasons, they determined on the former. They were sure of the commons, which had already given such proofs of devotion to the government, and which might naturally be expected to favour a project that conferred upon themselves such a long lease of impunity; while, supposing it to be defeated in the lords, the odium of the design - for it was admitted on all hands to be unpopular out of doors - would not be visited upon the ministerial candidates to the prejudice of subsequent elections. It was accordingly decided that it should be moved in the house of lords, where the bill was introduced, on the 10th of April, by the duke of Devonshire, in a specious and careful speech. An attempt was made, in deference to the great importance of the subject, to obtain a postponement of the reading, in order to gain sufficient time to weigh and consider the measure maturely, but the ministers carried their point; and after a warm debate, the bill was committed on the 14th, by a majority of 35.† On the following Monday (16th), a

* Tindal.

Content 77, proxies 19-96; not-content 43, proxies 18-61. Parl, Hist. vii. 305.

1716.

PROTEST OF THE. PEERS.

33

protest was entered by thirty peers, in which the grounds. upon which the bill was supported were severally examined and repudiated. The concluding clause of this protest is especially worthy of notice :-"We conceive that whatever reasons may induce the lords to pass this bill to continue this parliament for seven years will at least be as strong, and may, by the conduct of the ministry, be made much stronger before the end of seven years for continuing it still longer, and even to perpetuate it, which would be an express and absolute subversion of the third estate of the legislature.'

Not

withstanding, however, the obvious truth and constitutional wisdom of this protest, the bill finally passed the lords on the 17th, by a majority of 69 voices against 36. Another protest was signed by twenty-four lords; but no remonstrance on the part of those who, upon this occasion, vindicated the rights of the people could avail against the influence of the whigs. The open profligacy of this notorious bill was not less remarkable than the indecent haste with which it was hurried through the upper chamber.

In the commons a bolder stand was made by its opponents: the principles of the measure were more fully and zealously discussed; and although the majority in its favour was overwhelming, the debates that took place during its progress were animated by a spirit of patriotism that left ministers nothing to boast of in the result, except a naked victory of force over truth and justice. The second reading was carried by a majority of 276 against 156. Lord Guernsey moved the re

*This protest appears to have been mainly founded on the speech of the earl of Nottingham, by whom it was probably drawn up.

That the superiority of argument was on the side of the minority is admitted even by Coxe, a strenuous advocate for septennial parliaments. "We," he observes in his Life of Walpole, "who live at this distance of time, without being heated by the warmth of party, without sufficiently considering the temper and state of the nation, and without weighing the peculiar circumstances which occasioned its introduction, must confess that, in theory, the arguments of those who opposed it are the most specious and convincing." Why we who live at this distance of time, and who, unmoved by party considerations, may be presumed to be more impartial and candid in our judgment than those who were concerned in the measure at either side, should be pronounced, ex cathedra, unqualified to estimate the practical value of the bill, is not very intelligible.