THE KING DESTITUTE OF MONEY, 1237. Henry III., finding himself destitute of Money, without which a King is a cipher, craves help of the Estates. What Money they might please to collect might be made use of for the Kingdom's service in a way that some of them, chosen for that purpose, might think proper. The King at length confirming to all his subjects their Magna Charta, which he had cancelled, his demand was granted. In the year of our Lord 1237, the Royal Writs were sent out to every part of the kingdom, commanding all peers to appear without delay at London on a day appointed, there to treat on the urgent affairs of the kingdom. Accordingly, an infinite number of the nobility from all parts of the nation came to London, imagining some matters of very great moment were in agitation. In Westminster Hall they met, in order to know the King's pleasure, when William De Kele, a man very discreet and learned in the laws of the land, stood up and delivered the King's will and purpose in this manner :— "Our Lord the King commands me to acquaint you, that he will entirely submit himself to your advice, both in the present affair and hereafter. Nevertheless he must inform you, that the people he entrusted with the management of his treasury have given in false accounts of the receipts. The King, therefore, finding himself destitute of money, without which a king is a cipher, craves help of you, the estates, to supply him. In this manner, however, that what money you please to collect may be made use of for the kingdom's service, in a way that some of you, chosen for that purpose, may think proper."

Not one of this assembly expecting such a message, it was received with great discontent. The Lords answered with great indignation, "That the King had promised and broke his word many and many a time with them: that he had extorted from his subjects by the same arguments, and at many different times, very much money to their great detriment."

The King, finding the peers in this temper, sought to soften them, lest the discontent should prove more general, by promising many fair things, provided the peers would kindly grant him money for his present use. He said that "he had sent a great deal of money to the Emperor, &c.; the most of it out of his own treasury."

To this it was loudly answered, "That he did all those things without the advice or consent of his subjects; nor was it necessary that they should partake of the punishment who were no ways guilty of the crime." The Lords, after this, withdrew themselves

into a private place, that they might be more at liberty to consult together on the exigency of this affair, and the King's demand.

By means of these debates this meeting of the peers was prolonged four days. At length, the King agreed to confirm to all his subjects their Magna Charta, which he had cancelled, alleging that he had made and signed it when he was not his own master, but under the government of others, and consequently that it could not be valid, because he was not bound to keep what he was forced to promise. And the King swore to keep Magna Charta inviolable. After this oath the King's demand was granted; and the thirtieth part of all moveables was levied throughout the realm.

Queen Elizabeth frees the State from that eating corrosive,
a Debt running upon Interest.

1575. House of Commons. Sir W. Mildmay, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech for a subsidy, said that her Majesty had most carefully and providently delivered the kingdom from a great and weighty debt wherewith it had long been burdened. The debt had begun four years at least before the death of King Henry VIII., and was not cleared until within two years last passed; and all that while it was running upon interest, a course able to eat up not only private men and their patrimonies, but also princes and their estates. Such, however, had been the care of the present time, that her Majesty and the State were clearly free from that eating corrosive.

Of what Queen Elizabeth made greater account than of
Ten Subsidies.

LORD Keeper Sir Nicholas Bacon, in his speech at the close of the session 13 Eliz. 1571, addressing the House of Commons, said that, as concerning the subsidy, her Majesty forgot not that it was a grant made, proceeding from the earnest affections and hearty good wills of her good, dutiful, and obedient subjects for the greatest part; and she had therefore commanded him to say unto the Commons that she made a greater account of the great good wills and benevolent minds of her good and loving subjects than she did of ten subsidies. Again, her Majesty forgot not that, besides, this was not a grant by good and loving subjects that had never made like grant theretofore, but by such as had contributed from time to time as the necessary charges of the realm had required, which did much commend and set forth that subsidy of theirs.

Debate respecting the Assessment of a Tax upon Property in

the Time of the Commonwealth.

MAJOR GENERAL Disbrowe.—I would have no proportion set but only 6d. per pound; and Commissioners appointed either by yourselves or my Lord Protector, who, upon oaths, may inquire and give other persons an oath to find out the value of this.

Colonel Cox.-I would have a strict way of punishing persons that do forswear themselves.

Mr. Bodurda.—I speak not upon a prudential account; but this is the way to discover every man's estate, not only his real estate (and the land will bide still), but every man's personal estate will be laid open. I must examine what every alderman is worth; and the chief magistrate, knowing where the money lies, he and his army may command it.

Mr. Disbrowe.-What is feared is that a man should do wrong in paying 3d., by giving a false value when his neighbour pays 6d. These are the failings of men. I lay not much stress upon that way of an oath before commissioners, or how a false oath can be punished, unless it be in a court of record. I had rather have a penalty on the concealers, as in the case of excise and customs. As to that of personal estate, is not every man as liable to have his estate looked into as the assessments are now, and it will be no more then?

Mr. Vincent. It was never known that men should be put to swear in their own cases. We have lately had experience in the last six months, though grudging nothing that is laid by his Highness and the parliament.

Sir Christopher Pack.-How practical soever it may be in the country, it is impracticable in the city. We have some that have only trades, and no visible estates.

Colonel Chadwicke.—It was always the care of our ancestors to keep off such courses.

Sir Richard Onslow.-As to that of oaths, I am not so much for them; only I would have the assessments sworn to. Who knows the estates of their neighbours? They need not go to mathematical proportion. For that of personal estates the judges used to say every man's estate was visible, &c.

Captain Baynes.—As to this plan of surveying, and searching into men's estates, it is that which your ancestors would never endure. That the chief magistrate should know men's estates, was always avoided. If you appoint strangers to survey-and I should be sorry

to be put upon that employment-I have known counties ready to rise in arms, when surveyors were coming into the country.

Colonel Shapcott.-All ways that are propounded are very inconvenient and impracticable, and have been tried in other parliaments, and before committees, and could never be done.

Mr. Campfield. If you go this way to work, it will raise the greatest earthquake and disturbance that ever was in England. Honest conscientious men will make a just return; other less conscientious, cunning knaves, will venture at low rates, because they know this will be a constant standard.

Major General Boteler.-If you appoint strangers to survey, I doubt you will raise greater disturbance than ever was in England. If assessors are appointed to assess their neighbours, there will be great partiality.

Sir William Strickland.-The way that is propounded looks like a Court-project; and though we have no cause to suspect any thing, as there is now a confidence between the chief magistrate and the people, we know not what may come next. Our ancestors have always declined such courses. Patience has enured our parts [Yorkshire] to bear our sufferings.

Major General Disbrowe.-I am convinced of the impracticableness of this, which I was so zealous in; and if I had had the least jealousy that it was a Court-project, I should have been sorry to have moved it.

Mr. Bond. I should be sorry to trust any chief magistrate to understand all men's estates. The Alderman [Sir C. Pack] tells you it is impracticable with them. I remember a story, when the Bishop of Canterbury [Archbishop Laud] sent for Sir Thomas Somner, a member that served for the city, and would have him to discover the aldermen's estates; he would not, and was committed to prison; and this was aggravated as an article against the Bishop of Canterbury [Archbishop Laud].

Colonel Sydenham.—I would not have you put such a disturbance and confusion in the nation, as this will do.

Sir Gilbert Pickering.-I have one objection against it; the danger is of assessors being more favourable and partial in one place than another.

Different Times that the great Question of Parliamentary Reform was brought forward, previously to Mr. Charles Grey's Motion of 1793.

MAY, 1793, House of Commons. Mr. Charles Grey, [afterwards Earl Grey], in his speech upon his motion for a reform in Parliament, said that many had been the unsuccessful attempts to bring about a reform. At different times the great question of reform had been brought forward; but a proper time had never yet been found for it. In 1733, a motion was made in that House, by Mr. Bromley for a repeal of the Septennial Act *. And that motion was supported in a very able speech by Sir William Wyndham. At that time the proposition was met, and successfully resisted, upon the pretence of danger arising from Papists and Jacobites plotting against the state and the constitution. In 1745 another attempt was made †, and that was the only occasion on which the pretence of danger was not made use of, although the country was then in a state of war and disturbance; but the success of the attempt was just the same as of the former one. Again, he said, the business came to be agitated in the year 1758 ‡; then also the motion was rejected. The right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Pitt) had himself brought forward the subject three different times §-1782 and 1783, and lastly in 1785, when he was minister. The same objection with respect to the time was then made, and combated by the right honourable gentleman strongly and powerfully in argument but without effect; and he had no doubt it would continue to be made successfully, till the people resolved for themselves that there should be a proper time.

Reform in the Commons House of Parliament.-The Three Resolutions moved by Mr. Pitt, 7th May, 1783.

THE ensuing is the substance of the above-mentioned celebrated resolutions:-1. That it was the opinion of the House, that the most effectual and practicable measures ought to be taken for the better prevention both of bribery and expense in the election of members to serve in Parliament. 2. That for the future, when the majority of voters for any borough should be convicted of gross and notorious corruption before a select committee of that House appointed to try the merits of any election, such borough should be disfranchised, and the minority of voters not so convicted should be

*See Parl. Hist. vol. 9, p. 394.

Parl. Hist. vol. 15, p. 870.

+ Ibid. vol. 13, p. 1056.

§ Ibid. vol. 22, p. 1416; vol. 23, p. 826; vol. 25, p. 432.