ethod
of collecting the public revenue. Nevertheless, the motion in favour
of the sufferers was rejected. When the commons deliberated upon the
supply, Mr. Andrews, deputy-paymaster of the army, moved for an addition
of eighteen hundred men to the number of land forces which had been
continued since the preceding year. The members in the opposition
disputed this small augmentation with too much heat and eagerness.
It must be acknowledged, they were by this time irritated into such
personal animosity against the minister, that they resolved to oppose
all his measures, whether they might or might not be necessary for the
safety and advantage of the kingdom. Nor indeed were they altogether
blameable for acting on this maxim, if their sole aim was to remove from
the confidence and councils of their sovereign, a man whose conduct they
thought prejudicial to the interests and liberties of their country.
They could not, however, prevent the augmentation proposed; but they
resolved, if they could not wholly stop the career of the ministry, to
throw in such a number of rubs as should at least retard their progress.
The duke of Bolton and lord Cobham had been deprived of the regiments
they commanded, because they refused to concur in every project of the
administration. It was in consequence of their dismission, that lord
Morpeth moved for a bill to prevent any commissioned officer, not above
the rank of a colonel, from being removed, unless by a court-martial,
or by address of either house of parliament. Such an attack on the
prerogative might have succeeded in the latter part of the reign of the
first Charles; but at this juncture could not fail to miscarry; yet it
was sustained with great vigour and address. When the proposal was set
aside by the majority, Mr. Sandys moved for an address to the king,
desiring to know who advised his majesty to remove the duke of Bolton
and lord Cob-ham from their respective regiments. He was seconded by Mr.
Pulteney and sir William Wyndham; but the ministry foreseeing another
tedious dispute, called for the question, and the motion was carried in
the negative. The next source of contention was a bill for securing the
freedom of parliament, by limiting the number of officers in the house
of commons. It was read a first and second time; but when a motion was
made for its being committed, it met with a powerful opposition, and
produced a warm debate that issued in a question which, like the former,