FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524  
525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   >>   >|  
, I must own that the balance seems to me to be exactly poised. In the Life of James (1702), the motion is represented as a court motion. This account is confirmed by a remarkable passage in the Stuart Papers, which was corrected by the Pretender himself. (Clarke's Life of James the Second, ii. 55.) On the other hand, Reresby, who was present, and Barillon, who ought to have been well informed, represent the motion as an opposition motion. The Harleian and Lansdowne manuscripts differ in the single word on which the whole depends. Unfortunately Bramston was not at the House that day. James Van Leeuwen mentions the motion and the division, but does not add a word which can throw the smallest light on the state of parties. I must own myself unable to draw with confidence any inference from the names of the tellers, Sir Joseph Williamson and Sir Francis Russell for the majority, and Lord Ancram and Sir Henry Goodricke for the minority. I should have thought Lord Ancram likely to go with the court, and Sir Henry Goodricke likely to go with the opposition.] [Footnote 24: Commons' Journals, Nov. 16. 1685 Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans. MS. 235.] [Footnote 25: Commons' Journals, Nov. 17, 18. 1685.] [Footnote 26: Commons' Journals, Nov. 18. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans. MS. 253.; Burnet, i. 667.] [Footnote 27: Lonsdale's Memoirs. Burnet tells us (i. 667.) that a sharp debate about elections took place in the House of Commons after Coke's committal. It must therefore have been on the 19th of November; for Coke was committed late on the 18th, and the Parliament was prorogued on the 20th. Burnet's narrative is confirmed by the Journals, from which it appears that several elections were under discussion on the 19th.] [Footnote 28: Burnet, i. 560.; Funeral Sermon of the Duke of Devonshire, preached by Kennet, 1708; Travels of Cosmo III. in England.] [Footnote 29: Bramston's Memoirs. Burnet is incorrect both as to the time when the remark was made and as to the person who made it. In Halifax's Letter to a Dissenter will be found a remarkable allusion to this discussion.] [Footnote 30: Wood, Ath. Ox.; Gooch's Funeral Sermon on Bishop Compton.] [Footnote 31: Teonge's Diary.] [Footnote 32: Barillon has given the best account of this debate. I will extract his report of Mordaunt's speech. "Milord Mordaunt, quoique jeune, parla avec eloquence et force. Il dit que la question n'etoit pas reduite, comme la Chambre des Communes le p
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520   521   522   523   524  
525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Footnote

 

Burnet

 

motion

 
Journals
 

Commons

 
Sermon
 

Goodricke

 

Bramston

 

Ancram

 
Memoirs

debate

 

elections

 

Funeral

 

discussion

 

remarkable

 

account

 

confirmed

 
Mordaunt
 
Barillon
 
opposition

reduite

 

Chambre

 
question
 

Teonge

 

committed

 

extract

 

November

 
Parliament
 

prorogued

 

Communes


appears

 

report

 

narrative

 

Devonshire

 

allusion

 

Dissenter

 

Letter

 
quoique
 

person

 
Halifax

Milord

 

Bishop

 

speech

 

Compton

 

remark

 

Kennet

 

Travels

 

preached

 

eloquence

 

incorrect