Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 5.djvu/161

 12 s. V.JUNE, 1919.3 NOTES AND QUERIES.

155

formation on the subject I shall be very rgrateful. Horace Walpole, who succeeded his eccentric nephew as the fourth Earl, has several allusions in his letters to the racing .at Newmarket, but does not apparently touch on this specific point.

WlLLOUGHBY MAYCOCK.

QUEEN ANNE: THE SOVEREIGN'S VETO : THE ROYAL ASSENT.

(12 S. v. 95.)

THERE are many references in ' N. & Q.' to what is popularly termed the "royal veto." Probably the following list is not exhaus- tive :

1 S. vi. 556 ; vii. 50.

3 S. ix. 374, 519 ; x. 55, 97, 137, 156, 191, "256.

5 S. ii. 426, 476; iii. 117.

8 S. iii. 369, 394, 456 ; iv. 418, 494.

US. xi. 451.

The reply at the second reference (Jan. 8, 1853) says that the last exercise of the pre- Togative of rejecting a Bill, after passing both Houses of Parliament, was in 1692, when William III. refused his assent to the Bill for Triennial Parliaments. Perhaps this "was taken from a foot-note in ' Bishop Burnet's History of his own Time,' new edition, 1847, p. 587, which asserts that this rejection " is the last time the prerogative of the crown has been so employed." Con- cerning this refusal of assent Burnet (ut supra] says :

Triennial Parliaments] ; so this session ended in ill humour. The rejecting of a bill, though an un- questionable right of the crown, has been so seldom practised, that the two houses are apt to think it a hardship when there is a bill denied."
 * He [the King] refused to pass it [the Bill for

The fact that this was not the last royal rejection of a Bill is given by Sir Thomas Erskine May in his ' Parliamentary Practice,' e.g. 12th edit., 1917, p. 395, where he says that the last instance was when Queen Anne refused her assent to the Militia of Scotland Bill in 1707. Other writers (e.g. the Editor 3f ' N. & Q.,' 3 S. ix. 374 ; and a correspon- ient, 3 S. x. 256) give a more particular date, viz. March 11, 1707.

These statements are not as precise as they ought to be. I have referred to the ' Journals of the House of Lords,' vol. xviii.,

where I find, p. 506, that the actual date, though given as March 11, 1707, was in fact March 11, 1707/8. Therefore, according to the historical reckoning, the date was March 11, 1708.

Similarly the historical date of the rejection of the Triennial Bill was March 14, 1693 otherwise 1692/3 (the Journals give, of course, only the legal years). Regarding this rejection it should be noted that the Triennial Bill was not the only one rejected on that day. The entry in the ' Journals of the House of Lords,' vol. xv. p. 289, is as follows (the King being on his throne in the House of Lords) :

" ' An Act for the frequent Calling and Meeting of Parliaments ' [i.e. the Triennial Bill].

'"An Act for removing Doubts and preventing Disputes Touching Royal Mines ; and that Their Majesties may have the Pre-emption.' "

To these Bills the answer was,.

" ' Le Roy et la Reyne se aviseront.' " Concerning Queen Anne's refusal of assent, March 11, 1707/8, the entry, vol. xviii. p. 06, is (the Queen being on her throne) :

"'An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland.'*'

"La Raine se avisera.' 5

On Dec. 22, 1694, the Bill for Triennial Parliaments received the Royal Assent (the King being on his throne). The entry is :

" ' An Act for the frequent Meeting and Calling of Parliaments.'
 * ' Le Roy et la Reyne Tveulent.'*

On the same day a Bill of Supply (pro- viding money) received the Royal Assent as follows :

" Le Roy et la Reyne, remerciant les bon Sub- jects, acceptant leur Benevolence, -et aiusi 1'veu- lent." * Journals,' xv. 451. The same form appears ibid., pp. 203, 288.

But in Queen Anne's time this assent was :

"La Raine remercie ses bon Subjects, accepte leur Benevolence, et ainsi le veult." 'Journals,' xviii. 506.

Sometimes in her reign (e.g. '^Journals,' xviii. 162) " bons Subjects " appears instead of " bon Subjects."

The Royal Assent to a private Bill was :


 * ' Soit fait come il est desire."

See ' Journals,' e.g. xv. 290 ; xviii. 506.

It may, I think, be assumed that the spellings were correct, according to their oeriods, seeing that in vol. xv. pp. 203, 289, there is a foot-note as to "la" in la Reyne," which reads " Origin, le." This, no doubt, means that originally the