Parliaments of CHAP. III. was vehemently opposed by the Court party. Yet so nearly was this important measure passing that 42 peers voted for it, with three proxies on the same side; while 40 peers only were against it, with seven proxies. The bill was thus only lost by a majority of two. William The Triennial Bill. One other question of vital importance to the Commons was discussed at great length this session. The Earl of Shrewsbury, acting on behalf of the body of Whig peers who were dissatisfied with the relations existing between Ministers and the majority in the Lower House, brought forward a bill providing for frequent Parliaments. As it finally passed the Lords, it enacted that Parliament should meet every year, that there should be a new Parliament every three years, and that the existing Parliament should be dissolved on January 1st, 1694. This sweeping measure excited great commotion in the Commons. Some regarded it as an act of vengeance against the Lower House, because of the stand it had made on the money bills; and Sir Charles Sedley, the famous but dissolute poet, declared with regard to the clause dismissing the Parliament then sitting, "Never was there any such invasion upon the prerogative of a king, never such an indignity offered to a House of Commons in being." Sir Edward Seymour also said that the bill would take off the dependency of the people on the Crown, and set up the Lords, who had no right, turning the Commons out of doors. Mr. Finch opposed it on the ground that it took away the great prerogative of dissolving Parliaments, and Sir Richard Temple pursued the same argument, affirming that the bill was the most dangerous thing that had ever been seen in the House. Speeches On the other hand, the bill was supported by many of thereupon. the best men in the House. One of the ablest speeches in its favour was made by Mr. Robert Harley, who was afterwards Speaker, and subsequently became Earl of Oxford. He held it to be no entrenching upon prerogative, and read with great effect the passage from the Prince of Orange's declaration promising frequent Parliaments. He contended that experience showed how Parliaments of long standing were liable to corruption, and no longer represented the people. Mr. Herbert, who had been a hearty promoter of the Revolution, and was soon to be created Lord Herbert of Cherbury, said he would rather have a standing army than a standing Parliament. Even an old Tory like Sir Thomas Clarges was enthusiastic for the measure, and declared it to be the best bill that ever came into the House since the treason statute of Edward III. The Long Parliament had ever been held a grievance by him, and the chief good thing in the Bill of Rights was the clause relating to frequent Parliaments. his assent to it. Being supported by a combination of Whigs and William Tories, the bill was ordered to be read a second time by refuses 210 votes to 132, and it finally passed by 200 to 161. Much to the surprise of the House and the country, the King refused his assent to the bill. Although he had an unquestionable right to do this, it was an impolitic step, for the measure was not one which had been forced upon either House by the other. Lords and Commons had alike declared for it. His Majesty, however, was now obliged to reconsider his position with regard to the Whigs, seeing that they had led both Houses on an important constitutional question. The session closed on March 14th, 1693, amid ill-humour on all sides. The Earl of Nottingham was assisted, and afterwards Ministesuperseded, as principal Secretary of State by Sir John rial changes. Trenchard, a pronounced Whig; and the Great Seal was given to Sir John Somers, the learned Whig lawyer. The Tory Ministers, however, were still in a majority, but the course which military and naval affairs took during the next few months worked them serious damage. The loss of the Smyrna fleet was followed in July by the defeat at Landen. Cries of treason began to be raised against the Tories, and a strong anti-Jacobite feeling prevailed. In the absence of William, who was on the Continent, Mary promised a searching inquiry into the defeats. But the King himself was extremely CHAP. III. popular, and on his return was greeted with great enthusiasm. Parliaments of William III. The Fleet. Bill again. William opened the fifth session of his second Parliament on November 7th, 1693. The Commons severely condemned the mismanagement of the fleet. Killigrew and Delaval were in consequence deprived by the King of their posts at the Admiralty and in the fleet, and Nottingham lost the seals of office. The bill for more frequent Parliaments was again brought forward, but was rejected by 146 to 136, the Commons holding that in the general position of affairs all difficulty with the Crown ought to be avoided. The bill touching free The Place and impartial proceedings in Parliament, or the Place Bill, was more successful on its reintroduction. Harley said that no arguments had been offered against it, and his great contention was that acceptance of office rendered a member's place vacant. The measure passed, with a new article providing that on the appointment of a member of Parliament to any fresh office re-election was necessary. But on the day when the royal assent was expected to be given to the bill in the House of Lords William sat silent. The clerk looked towards the throne for the King's bow, but, as it was not given, he was obliged to declare that his Majesty would think about the bill. The Commons were angry at the rejection, though they could not question the King's legal right of extinguishing the bill. But this step was most unusual, and in the storm which arose William was upbraided for disappointing the nation's hopes, and it was decided to present him with an address requesting him to be guided by the counsels of Parliament, instead of by those of individuals who might have personal ends to serve. William replied that he should call no man friend who interfered with the mutual confidence between himself and the nation. The discussion continued, but a proposal to wait on the King again was thrown out of the Commons by a large majority. War pre The war preparations next engaged the attention of parations. Parliament. A sum of £2,500,000 was voted for the Parliaments of William III. maintenance of the fleet; but the demand for an increase CHAP. III of 30,000 men in the land forces met with considerable opposition. A compromise was arrived at, the Commons voting 20,000 additional men, with which William expressed himself satisfied. The vote for the land forces also amounted to about £2,500,000, together with £147,000 for subsidies to foreign Powers, so that the total votes for the two services reached quite £5,000,000, a heavy amount for that period, and considering the population. In the session of 1694 the revenue question was dealt The with upon comprehensive and permanent principles. Revenus. The House of Commons, taking as the basis of its plan the sum of £1,200,000, fixed by the Parliament of Charles II., decreed that in time of peace it should serve for a double use-namely, to pay the expenses of the Court and Government and the expenses of the public defence. The costly war with France prevented this arrangement from taking effect; but the idea of a fixed sum for the King's own expenses, both in governing and keeping house, was never afterwards departed from. The public defence in its three branches-navy, army, and ordnance-became a separate department, controlled directly by the Commons, who received estimates of the proposed expenditure, and granted supplies accordingly. The National Debt originated at this time. As early The Naas 1690 it was felt that loans must be contracted to meet the requirements of the war, and in 1692 steps were taken towards establishing a bank for life annuities. The financier who conceived this new idea was Charles Montague, who had formerly been Sir Isaac Newton's pupil. He now began to make a conspicuous figure in the House of Commons. He was made Commissioner of the Treasury, and afterwards Chancellor and UnderTreasurer of the Exchequer. At first inclined towards literary pursuits, he had abandoned these (though he still encouraged them in others) to devote himself to the concerns of the Treasury and to a study of the public funds. He demonstrated the error of giving money upon remote tional Debt. Parlia ments of CHAP. III. funds, at a vast discount, and with great premiums to raise loans upon them; and he pressed upon the King the William financial maxim to have all the money required for the service of any year to be raised within that year. III. Financial schemes. Founding of the Bank of England. In 1692 Montague, in order to defray part of the military expenses, had borrowed, with the authority of Parliament, a million sterling, the interest of which was secured by new duties on liquors. These duties were to form a fund, and on the credit of this fund the loan was to be raised by life annuities, which were to be extinguished when the survivors were reduced to seven. Next year-1693-a still greater deficiency had to be filled up, and various taxes were suggested for securing the regular payment of the interest. Duties were proposed on leather and soap, but, as these would have pressed heavily upon the manufacturing community, they were rejected, after a powerful speech by Edward Seymour. The land tax was reimposed at four shillings in the pound, and a tax on salt was agreed to; but, more money still being required, a stamp duty and a tax on hackney coaches were passed. The establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 sprang out of the necessity for relieving the Government of its many difficulties caused by the war and misapplied taxation. The founding of this important institution marks an epoch in the monetary history of the country. The Bank was projected by a Scotchman named William Paterson, who had in view the double object of accommodating the London merchants and preventing the Ministry from being obliged to pay frequent visits to the City to raise sums at heavy interest. Utilising Paterson's idea, Montague borrowed £1,200,000 at 8 per cent., and formed the subscribers into a company, who treated the loan to Government as part of their capital, the interest being secured by Parliament upon the taxes. The company was restrained from trading in anything but bullion, bills of exchange, and forfeited pledges, and from lending money to the Crown without the consent of Parliament. The capital was not to be repaid till 1705, |