Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/266

252 a satisfactory and permanent peace. The honourable service of the fleet and the conquest of Sardinia and Minorca were duly dwelt upon, and the facilities the possession of Port Mahon would afford for operations in the Mediterranean. The great event of the union was commented on with just pride, and the parliament was assured that the queen would take every precaution to prevent any fresh attempts of invasion of Scotland by the pretender. The lords and commons sent up addresses of congratulation on the prosperous condition of the war, and of condolence on the queen's late bereavement.

The commons then went into the question of supply, and voted no less than seven millions for the service of the ensuing year. They voted also an augmentation of ten thousand men. Great debates then took place regarding the elected sons of Scottish peers being excluded from sitting in the commons. The shires of Aberdeen and Linlithgow had sent up lord William Haddo and James lord Johnstone, who were in that predicament, and it was determined that their election was invalid, and fresh writs were issued. It was decided that such Scotch lords as were created English peers should no longer retain their votes in Scotland for one of the sixteen Scottish representatives in the house of lords, but that those lords who were unavoidably absent could vote by proxy; so that such of the noblemen as were confined in the castle of Edinburgh had this right. The Scottish peers who sate in the house of lords had, like the English ones, their particular factions. The duke of Queensberry and his friends were in favour with the queen; and the lord treasurer Godolphin, the dukes of Hamilton, Montrose, and Roxburgh had different views, and coalesced with the earls of Sunderland and lord Somers.

In the peers lord Haversham did the work of Harley and the tories by contending that proper precautions had not been taken to prevent the late attempt to invade Scotland; that ministers had had timely information of the preparations in France, but had taken no sufficient precautions, except it could be called a precaution to take up a number of nobles of the highest quality and character on mere suspicion, who, he contended, had been most harshly treated by the government. He asserted that so insufficient were the defences of Scotland that there was nothing to prevent Louis XIV. resuming the attempt the next season with much greater success; that he had as many ships, as many friends, and as much encouragement in these kingdoms now as he had then. He next went on to depreciate the victories abroad on which so much had been said. The lords, however, carried a motion that timely and effectual care had been taken to disappoint the designs of her majesty's enemies both at home and abroad.

The tories carried a vote of thanks to major-general Webbe, who had been defrauded of his due honour for his splendid action at Wynendael through the misrepresentations of Cardonnel, Marlborough's secretary; but as this was deemed a censure on Marlborough, and as it would appear, a very just one, the whigs also moved and carried a vote of thanks to Marlborough too. And thus closed the year 1708.

One of the first parliamentary acts of 1709 was to pray the queen to think of a second marriage. The indelicate haste with which this was done—for the prince of Denmark had scarcely been three months in his grave—was attributed to Anne having issued an order in council to omit the prayers used on the anniversary of her accession, for making her a happy mother of children. She had been the mother of several children, and had now reached the age of forty-five. She marked her surprise and displeasure at this indecorous request, by replying that she had taken full precautions for the protestant succession, and that the nature of their address was such that she was persuaded that they did not expect a particular answer to it.

As some persons, who were deemed unquestionably guilty of high treason in Scotland, had been suffered to escape—as it was said, by the connivance of the judges there—the government brought into the lords a bill for altering the laws of Scotland as it regarded high treason, and assimilating them to those of England. The Scots protested against this as contrary to the articles of the union, but the ministers paid little regard to the argument. The Scottish law had, in political as well as in civil cases, to this day admitted the verdict of the majority of a jury as valid, instead of the whole jury, as the law was and is in England. The jury consisted of fifteen persons, and formerly a simple majority had been held sufficient; but by a recent act the majority was required to consist of at least two-thirds of the jury. Besides this, in Scotland, the accused were furnished fifteen days before the trial with the indictment against them, and with the names of the witnesses who were to appear against them. The horrid practices of an English execution were unknown to the Scottish law, neither did confiscation of the accused's property follow conviction. All this was to be altered, and the law of high treason in all particulars assimilated to the English practice. No wonder that the Scottish peers protested against this legislation as a gross violation of the articles of the union, which provided that Scotland should retain her ancient laws and courts of justice. This bill went even to interfere with these courts, and permit the crown to grant commissions of oyer and terminer.

Many of the English members of parliament and lawyers contended that the Scotch had the utmost ground for their complaint. Amongst these were Sir John Hawkes, a lawyer of high reputation, Sir Peter King, Mr. Hampden, and Mr. Wortley. Sir John Hawkes affirmed that he had carefully examined the laws of treason in both kingdoms, and that he considered those of Scotland much the best in many particulars. The same was the case in the lords, many of the tories taking the Scotch side, though probably more to embarrass the whig government than from any other cause. Bishop Burnet opposed the alteration strenuously, and the Scottish peers contended that the English practices would be unknown to the Scottish judges, and these changes might lead to much confusion and mischief.

All argument, however, availed little in the lords, but the commons sent up two alterations as amendments, namely, that the names of the witnesses should be furnished to the prisoners ten days before the trial, and confiscation of estate should not follow a conviction of treason. These amendments were stoutly resisted in the lords, but were at length