Henry VIII. sending for Edward Montague, a member who was supposed to have considerable influence, and thus apostrophising him: Ha! man! will they not suffer my bill to pass?' and laying his hand on Montague's head, then on his knees, 'Get my bill passed by to-morrow, or else to-morrow this head of yours shall be off.' The bill was passed on the morrow. To complete the humiliation of the Commons, the Cardinal Minister treated them with no more respect than his master. 'In full-blown dignity see Wolsey stand, It was in this plenitude of pride and power in which the satirist has painted him, that Wolsey, fearing lest a subsidy of extraordinary amount (800,000l.) might not pass smoothly, announced his intention to be present when it was brought forward. He came in state, and delivered a solemn oration, setting forth that less than the sum demanded would not answer the Prince's occasions; and then looked round for a reply. "Getting none, he required answer of Mr. Speaker (Sir Thomas More), who first reverently on his knees, excusing the silence of the House, abashed at the presence of so noble a personage, able to amaze the wisest and best learned in a realm, and then, by many probable arguments, proving that for them to make answer was neither expedient nor agreeable with the ancient liberty of the House; in conclusion for himself showed that though they had all with their voices trusted him, yet except every one of them could put into his own head their several wits, he alone in so weighty a matter was unmeet to make his Grace answer.'1 The Cardinal, angry and mystified, as he well might be, suddenly arose and departed. The next time More waited on him at Whitehall, he said: 'I wish to God, Mr. More, you had been at Rome when I made you Roper's Life of Sir Thomas More.' 1 Speaker.' 'Your Grace not offended, so would I too, my Lord,' replied Sir Thomas, for then should I have seen the place I long have desired to visit." The subserviency of the Third Estate is rendered more glaring by the means which More's ready wit suggested for extricating them from the dilemma. Queen Elizabeth expressly prohibited Parliament from meddling with State matters or ecclesiastical causes, and she sent members to prison who dared to transgress her imperial edict in these particulars. When James commanded a conference between the House of Commons and the Judges he commanded it (to use his own words) 'as an absolute king,' from whom all their privileges had been derived. He stuck to this pretension, which was rather evaded than contested; never called together his faithful Commons except when he wanted money; and never met them without quarrelling with them. Yet his sense of their growing importance was betrayed by his pettish exclamation when the deputation of twelve waited on him, in 1620, at Newmarket, to present the declaration against monopolies Chairs! chairs! here be twal kynges comin.' And again, by his apostrophe to the restive horse: The de'il i my saul, sirrah, an you be not quiet, I'se send you to the five hundred kings in the House of Commons; they'll quickly tame you.' When the Prince (Charles I.) and Buckingham were promoting the impeachment of the Earl of Middlesex, the canny old King told his son that he would live to have his bellyfull of Parliamentary impeachments.' The altered position of the Commons, however, appears to have been imperfectly understood until they had practically become paramount; and the ill-advised attempt to seize the five members shows how slow Charles and his counsellors were to recognise the fact that the real sovereignty of England had departed from the Crown. During the Reform Bill agitation of 1831, an enthusiastically loyal orator1 at Nottingham called on the lieges to rally round their sovereign like the barons at Runnymede.' This style of rallying was discontinued after the wars of the Roses, which made sad havoc amongst the peerage. Only twenty-nine temporal peers were summoned to the first Parliament of Henry VII. They numbered 59 at the death of Elizabeth, 139 the year after the Restoration, 168 at the death of Queen Anne, exclusive of the 16 representative peers of Scotland, 174 at the accession of George III. In the first ten years of his reign forty-two peers were created, or raised to a higher order in the peerage. Lord North created or promoted about thirty. In 1801, when Mr. Pitt temporarily left office, he had created or promoted 140 British peers.2 The House of Lords now consists of nearly five hundred members, including the episcopal bench and the representative peers; yet the augmentation has hardly kept pace with the increase of wealth and population.. The silken barons, who replaced the iron barons, were most of them the creatures of the Crown, and the House of Lords could hardly be said to possess an independent existence or will of its own till after the Great Rebellion. When it began to play a leading part in government and legislation, its leaning towards the Crown was influenced by the frequent attendance of the King at its sittings. Charles the Second used to say they were as good as a comedy. In describing the debate (November 20, 1680) on the Bill for dissolving his Majesty's marriage with 1 The late Nathaniel Goldsmid, an Oxonian and barrister of some note in his time, much esteemed by his friends. He was also reported to have declaimed against the heroes of the July Revolution as a set of cowardly fellows, who, instead of standing manfully in front of their barricades, slink behind them.' But this flight has likewise been attributed to a more distinguished person who still adorns the legislature. 2 Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament.' By Sir T. Erskine May, K.C.B. Catharine of Portugal, on the ground of her barrenness, Barillon writes: One of the peers represented that the remedy of divorce was very uncertain, it not being sure that the King would have children by another wife. Upon this Shaftesbury rose, and pointing to the King, who is almost always by the fireplace, said: "Can it be doubted from the King's mien that he is in a condition to have children? He is not more than fifty. I know people who are more than sixty and do not despair of progeny." All the House burst out laughing, and the King laughed with the rest.' There is a French maxim old enough to have been in Shaftesbury's mind-That a man marrying at seventy has a fair chance of progeny, and marrying at eighty is quite sure.' 6 Charles was standing by the fire during a debate on the Declaration of Indulgence, when the Duke of York whispered to him: What a rogue you have for a Lord Chancellor.' And the King replied: Codsfish, what a fool you have for a Lord Treasurer.' The Lord Chancellor was Shaftesbury, and the Lord Treasurer Clifford. The first day Shaftesbury presided as Lord Chancellor, he gave occasion to a scene by telling the Duke of York, who had taken his seat on the right hand of the throne, that his proper place, as only heir presumptive, was on the left. The Duke submitted with an exceedingly bad grace, exclaiming: My Lord, you are a rascal and a villain.' To which Shaftesbury calmly replied: "I am much obliged to your royal highness for not calling me likewise a coward and a papist.' A curious scene in the Lords is recorded by Pepys as occurring in 1667: Thence I up to the Lords' House to enquire for my Lord Bellasis, and there hear how at a conference this morning between the two Houses, my Lord Buckingham leaning rudely over my Lord Marquis Dorchester, my Lord Dor chester removed his elbow. Duke of Buckingham asked him whether he was uneasy. Dorchester replied, "Yes; and that he durst not do this were he anywhere else." Buckingham replied, "Yes, he would, and that he was a better man than himself." Dorchester said that he lyed. With this Buckingham struck off his hat, and took him by his periwigg, and pulled it aside, and held him. My Lord Chamberlain and others interposed, and upon coming into the House, the Lords did order them both to the Tower, whither they are to go this afternoon. ... This day's work will bring the Lieutenant of the Tower 350l.' The royal practice of attending the sittings of the Lords is thus described by Burnet, writing of 1669: 'To prevent all trouble from the Lords, the King was advised to go and be present at all their debates. Lord Lauderdale valued himself to me on this advice, which he said he gave. At first the King sat decently on the throne, though even this was a great restraint on the freedom of debate; which had some effect for awhile. Though afterwards many of the Lords seemed to speak with more boldness, because they said one heard it to whom they had no other access but in that place, and they took the more liberty because what they said could not be reported wrong. The King, who was often weary of time, and did not know how to get round the day, liked the going to the House as a pleasant diversion. So he went constantly, and he quickly left the throne and stood by the fire, which drew a crowd about him, that broke all the decency of that House. For before that time every Lord sat regularly in his place, but the King's coming broke the order of their sittings, as became senators. "The King's going thither had a much worse effect. Thus he became a common solicitor, not only in public affairs, but even in private matters of justice. He would in a little time have gone round the House and spoken to every man that he thought worth speaking to, and he was apt to do that upon the solicitation of any of the Ladies in favour, or of any that had credit.' It would appear that when their Lordships were sit |