Passages on the question of the Hanover Succession: 1702

The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1713-1714. Originally published by Chandler, London, 1742.

'Passages on the question of the Hanover Succession: 1702', in The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1713-1714, (London, 1742) pp. 110-119. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-hist-proceedings/vol5/pp110-119 [accessed 19 April 2024]

By Way of Supplement to the Proceedings of this first Parliament of Queen Anne, we must here insert the following remarkable Particulars, tho' they are likewise connected with the History of that which met in 1710, when the Controversy first took Place. The List being published by the Whigs, and the Answer, signed P. Jodrell. by the Tories, with a View to influence the approaching Election.

On Wednesday, the 27th of January 1702, in the first Year of her Majesty's Reign, the House of Commons passed a Bill, intituled, An Act for enlarging the Time for taking the Oath of Abjuration, and also for recapacitating and indemnifying such Persons as have not taken the same by the Time, and shall take it by the Time appointed; and the same Day sent it up to the Lords for their Concurrence.

On Tuesday the 9th of February following, the Lords returned the said Bill with some Amendments, to which they desired the Commons Concurrence.

On Saturday the 13th of February, the House of Commons took into Consideration the Amendments made by the Lords; the most material of which being a Clause for the further Security of the Protestant Succession in the illustrious House of Hanover, is here set down at length, and is as follows:

'And for the further Security of her Majesty's Person, and the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line, and for extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales, and all other Pretenders, and their open and secret Abettors: Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, at any time after the first Day of March, 1702, shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any Person, who shall be the next in Succession to the Crown for the time being, according to the Limitations in an Act, intituled, An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown; and according to one other Act, intituled, An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, from succeeding after the Decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging, according to the Limitations in the before-mentioned Acts; that is to say, such Issue of her Majesty's Body, as shall from time to time be next in Succession to the Crown, if it shall please God Almighty to bless her Majesty with Issue, and during the Time her Majesty shall have no Issue, the Princess Sophia, Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover; and after the Decease of the said Princess Sophia, the next in Succession to the Crown for the time being, according to the Limitation of the said Acts; and the same maliciously, advisedly, and directly shall attempt by any Overt-act or Deed: Every such Offence shall be adjudged High-Treason, and the Offender or Offenders therein, their Abettors, Procurers and Comforters, knowing the said Offence to be done, being thereof convicted or attainted, according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, shall be deemed and adjudged Traitors, and shall suffer Pains of Death, and all Losses and Forfeitures, as in Cases of High-Treason.'

The other Amendments were, a Clause or Clauses to enact the Abjuration-Oath to be taken in Ireland, in the same manner as in England, and to provide that no Person, who by Reason of his Neglect of taking the Oath had forfeited his Office, &c. to which any other Person had been legally preferred, should be restored to the same, by any thing contained in the Act, as sent up to the Lords.

After Debate, the Question being put for agreeing with the Lords in these Amendments, the House divided.



Yea's for agreeing with the Lords. Lord Russel Sir William Gostwick William Spencer Richard Nevill Richard Topham Sir Owen Buckingham Sir Richard Temple Sir Edmund Denton Charles Godfrey Fleetwood Dormer Richard Hampden James Chase Sir Rushout Cullen Henry Boyle Anthony Thompson Russel Roberts Henry Vincent Francis Godolphin James Craggs Hugh Boscawen Thomas Stanwix James Stanhope William Cowper Sir Peter King Thomas Bere Robert Burridge Sir William Phippard Anthony Henley Henry Henley Sir John Copley Sir Isaac Rebow Maynard Colchester Richard Dowdeswell Lord Coningesby George Sayer Charles Stanley Ambrose Pudsey John Chaplain Sir William Ellys Richard Ellys Sir Gilbert Heathcote John Morgan Sir Charles Turner Robert Walpole Sir Thomas Littleton Sidney Montagu Charles Egerton Thomas Wentworth Sir Francis Blake Sir Henry Liddal William Carr Emanuel How Sir John Delaval Samuel Ogle Jonathan Hutchinson John Thornhaugh Sir Francis Molineux George Gregory Sir Humphry Briggs Sir William Forrester George Weld Robert Yate Sir William Danies Edward Clark George Balch Lord Pawlet George Rodney Bridges Anthony Morgan Robert Mitchell Thomas Dore Paul Burrard Richard Woolaston John Smith Sir Michael Biddulph John Crew Offley Thomas Guy Spencer Compton Sir Joseph Jekyll Sir Thomas Felton Sir Richard Onslow Charles Cox John Cholmondeley John Ward Sir Robert Clayton Stephen Harvey Denzil Onflow Thomas Onflow Thomas Pelham Sir Nicholas Pelham Nathaniel Gould Robert Eyre Sir John Hawles Sir James Ash Thomas Jervoise Edward Ash William Monson James Mountagu Charles Mompesson William Welsh Thomas Wylde Charles Cocks John Rudge Lord Hartington Sir William Robinson Sir William St. Quintin William Maisser Christopher Stockdale Sir William Hustler Sir William Strickland William Jessop Sir Charles Hotham William Lowther John Pulteney Matthew Aylmer Philip Papillon Sir Henry Furnese Sir Arthur Owen Griffith Rice In all, 118. Tellers for the Yea's. Sir John Holland Sir Matthew Dudley.	No's against agreteing with the Lords. Sir John Stonehouse William Jennings Thomas Renda Sir Simon Harcourt Simon Harcourt Sir Henry Parker Sir Samuel Garrard Richard Crawley Granado Pigot Arthur Annesley Sir George Warburton Sir Roger Mostyn Sir Richard Vivian James Buller William Cary Lord Hyde William Pole Francis Scobell Sir Henry Seymour Alexander Pendarvis John Manley George Granville Henry Flemming John Anstis Sir Nicholas Morrice John Tredenham Sir William Coryton Sir Christopher Musgrave Richard Musgrave Christopher Musgrave John Curzon Thomas Coke John Harpur Thomas Coulson John Woolcomb Nicholas Hooper Richard Hele James Bulteel Sir Thomas Lear Richard Reynell Frederick Herne Thomas Strangeways Thomas Chaffin Nathaniel Napier Henry Thynne George St. Loe Edward Nicholas Richard Fownes Sir Robert Eden Sir Henry Bellasis Thomas Conyers Sir Charles Barrington William Fytche John Comyns John How William Trye Charles Cox Henry Gorges Henry Cornwall Ralph Freeman John Gape Charles Cæsar Richard Goulston Henry Lee Edward Knatchbull William Cage Heneage Finch Thomas Bliss Thomas King Richard Fleetwood Robert Heysham John Ward Thomas Leigh John Verney Sir George Beaumont James Winstanley Lewis Dymock Sir John Thorold Sir Thomas Meres Arthur Moore William Cecil Charles Bertie Hugh Smithson Thomas Cross Sir Francis Child Thomas Blofield Sir Justinian Isham Francis Arundel John James William Levinz Sir Robert Jenkinson William Bromley Thomas Rowney Francis Norreys Charles North Richard Holford Roger Owen John Kynaston Richard Mytton Sir Edward Acton Nathaniel Palmer Sir Francis Warre Sir Thomas Wroth Sir Jacob Banks George Pitt Henry Holmes William Stephens Francis Gwyn Edward Bagot Joseph Girdler Sir Robert Davers Morgan Randyl Thomas Gery Henry St. John Robert Byerly Lord Bulkeley Thomas Mansel In all, 117. Tellers for the No's. Sir Willoughby Hickman Richard Crawley

Note, That the Lord Wharton, now (1710) Earl of Wharton, and late Lord Lieuteuant of Ireland, was the Person who proposed in the House of Lords the Clause for the further Security of the Protestant Succession, and the other Amendments afore-mentioned.

To this happy Majority, tho' but of one Vote, we owe so excellent a Law, so great a strengthning to the Protestant Succession in the illustrious House of Hanover, upon the supporting of which our Religion and Liberties, and all that is dear to any true British Protestant, does entirely depend.

This seeming to be a very home Thrust, the new Ministry could not bat think it necessary to give an Answer to the heinous Charge; and therefore the following Account of that Matter was published by Authority, in the London Gazette of the 30th.

Whereas two printed Papers, one intituled, A Test offered to the Consideration of the Electors of Great Britain; and the other intituled, A List of the honourable House of Commons that voted for and against the Clause for the Hanover Succession, in the Year 1702, are lately dispersed abroad; wherein are mentioned Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill, intituled, An Act for enlarging the Time for taking the Oath of Abjuration, and also for recapacitating and indemnifying such Persons as have not taken the same by the Time, and shall take the same by the Time appointed: And that the House of Commons, the 13th of February 1702, took those Amendments into Consideration.

And whereas, after setting forth Verbatim the Clause following, viz.

'And for the further Security of her Majesty's Person, and the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant Line, and for extinguishing the Hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales, and all other Pretenders, and their open and secret Abettors; be it further enacted, by the Authority aforesaid, that if any Person or Persons, at any time after the first Day of March, 1702, shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any Person, who shall be the next in Succession to the Crown for the time being, according to the Limitations in an Act, intituled, An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the Succession of the Crown; and according to one other Act, intitled, An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, from succeeding after the Decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging, according to the Limitations in the before-mentioned Acts that is to say, such Issue of her Majesty's Body, as shall from time to time be next in Succession to the Crown, if it shall please God Almighty to bless her Majesty with Issue, and during the time her Majesty shall have no Issue, the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover; and after the Decease of the said Princess Sophia, the next in Succession to the Crown for the time being, according to the Limitations of the said Acts; and the same maliciously, advisedly, and directly, shall attempt by any Overt act or Deed; every such Offence shall be adjudged high Treason, and the Offender or Offenders therein, their Abetttors, Procurers, and Comforters, knowing the said Offence to be done, being thereof convicted or attainted, according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, shall be deemed and adjudged to be Traitors, and shall suffer Pains of Death, and all Losses and Forseitures, as in Cases of High Treason.'

And also, after setting forth the Substance of other Clauses (other of the said Amendments) it is said in the said printed Papers, thus: 'After Debate, the Question being put for agreeing with the Lords in these Amendments, the House divided.'

And at the End of the said printed Papers, it is said: To this happy Majority, tho' but of one Vote, we owe so excellent a Law, so great a strengthning to the Protestant Succession in the illustrious House of Hanover, upon the supporting of which our Religion and Liberties, and all that is dear to any true British Protestant, does entirely depend.'

Now I (being required to certify the Truth of the Fact, as it appears by the Journal of the House of Commons) do humbly certify as followeth, viz.

That it does appear by the Journal of the House of Commens, of the Session of Parliament begun in October 1702, as also by the original Minute-Books thereof, That the said Clause set forth at large as aforesaid, and (which was marked B) was agreed to by the House of Commons, without any Division thereupon; and that the Division that was in the House upon the 13th Day of February, (upon which the Number of Yea's were 118, and No's 117,) was upon a precedent Amendment, viz. upon a Clause marked A, which is as followeth:

'Provided always, That no Person or Persons, who by reason of any such Mistake, Neglect, or Omission, hath or have left or forfeited any Office, Benefice, Place, Dignity, or Employment whatsoever, to which any other Person or Persons hath or have been preferred or promoted, shall be restored to such Office, Benefice, Place, Dignity, or Employment: Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

And the other Amendments, made by the Lords to the said Bill, were agreed to by the House of Commons, without any Division.

PAUL JODRELL,

Sept. 29, 1710.

Cler' Dom' Com'

The first Reply that was made to this, was intituled, A Letter sent from a Gentleman in the Country, who was very well acquainted with what past in Parliament concerning the Test; to this effect.

'I Do not wonder they are so angry at the Test, and their catching at any Twig to turn it off: If they had printed the whole Journal, the Fact would have appeared in its true Light. The Division was not actually upon that Clause, for there were three Amendments, and that was the second of the three; and their losing the Question upon the first, was the reason of their not dividing upon all the others; no body ever dividing upon three or four Questions in Parliament of the same Nature, when the first is lost; and the Test does not pretend to say, that the Division was actually upon that particular Clause, but upon the Amendments, which were all of the same Nature, tho' that was the most material; but the Debate ran upon them all, and particularly upon this Clause; upon which Sir Christopher Musgrave said, in the Debate, That he could never agree to make new Treasons, by a particular Clause tacked to a Bill. In answer to which Sir J— J—l said, He wondered to hear that Gentlemen make that Objection, who had been so warm but the Year before, just before the King's Death, to tack a Clause of the same Nature, in favour of the Princess Anne of Denmark, to the Abjuration-Bill.'

But the following Letter being much more particular in answer to Jodrell's Account, as well as that signed by Dr. Smalridge and Mr. Cross, called, A Detection of a Falsehood, &c. of less Authority than the other, it is thought proper to insert it here in totidem verbis.

SIR,

I Have seen a Paper that was lately published, which is signed by Geo. Smalridge, D. D. and Tho. Cross, called, A Detection of a Falsehood endeavoured to be imposed on the Publick, in a Paper, intituled, A Test offered to the Consideration of the Electors of Great Britain. I have also seen an Account of the same Matter printed in the Gazette of the 30th of September, and signed by Mr. Jodrell. But having been myself in the House when the Matter was transacted, I beg leave to acquaint you with some Particulars, by which it will plainly appear to you, that the first Account is equivocating, and the second is imperfect.

'When the House of Commons proceeded (according to Order) to take into Consideration three Amendments made by the Lords to a Bill, intituled, An Act for enlarging the time for taking the Oath of Abjuration, &c. the Debate was chiefly held upon the Subject-matter of the second Amendment; and those Gentlemen that were against giving that Security to the House of Hanover, principally insisted on the Danger of multiplying Treasons, the great Inconveniences that might arise from making new Treasons, and other Arguments to that effect. But though hardly any Notice was taken of the first Amendment, it was in course to be first put. And now comes the great Art and Parliamentary Skill of those Persons that were against the second Amendment: They resolved, (according to the most usual Piece of Management in that House) to try their Numbers, by dividing upon the first. But that was so little thought to be the Business of the Day, or indeed of the first Division itself, that two or three staunch old Members went out just before the Division, having some particular Views at that time, which made it inconvenient for them to declare against the Protestant Succession. And those of their Friends who stay'd the Division, and whose Names are set forth in the printed Test, under the Title, No's, against agreeing with the Lords, may strictly and properly be said, in Parliamentary Language, to have divided against the Amendments; the rather, because few Instances can be given that ever the weaker Side, upon losing such a previous Question, divided again upon any subsequent Clause, that had been mixed in the same Debate.

'But I believe there is no Body alive that does not think, if they had thrown out the first Amendment, they would immediately have proceeded to throw out the second: And there were two Circumstances attending this Affair, which must needs put it out of all doubt, how it was understood both abroad and within the House. Mr. Dyer, the common News-writer, expressed himself thus in his Letter to Chester upon this Occasion, That the Prince of Wales had lost it in the House only by one Vote; or, that the House of Hanover had carried it but by one Vote: One of them I am sure it was, for which he was punished by the House, upon the Complaint of a Member for that City. And to shew what the Members thought of it, the only Gentleman that gave a Negative to the first Bill for establishing the Protestant Succession, who was then of that House, though soon after called up to the other, saluted Sir M— Dud—y, when this Division was over, in these Words, How fare ye. Mynheer D—y? upbraiding him by that Expression for having voted for the Interest of the House of Hanover, which the late King and the Dutch had espoused: To which the other replied, Fort bien, Monsieur Gran—lle, alluding by that to his Vote, which he took to be for the French Interest, as well as to his French Name, which had been changed not many Years before from a plain English one, as it is still printed in the History of the Earl of Clarendon.

'If I should say, therefore, that these Gentlemen were not for throwing out the second Amendment, it would perhaps be a logical Truth, because they did not just divide upon that Clause: But it would be a moral Lye and a Fallacy, that I ought to be ashamed of, because every Step they took that Day was in order to throw it out; and they went the best way to work that they could. So that after all their Clamour which has been raised against the TEST before mentioned, since that Paper does not affirm, that the Division was upon this Clause; but that after Debate, the Question being put for agreeing with the Lords in these Amendments, the House divided, as actually they did: It is left to every impartial Person, who knows any thing of Parliamentary Proceedings, to determine whether the Charge which is set forth against them in that Paper stands good or not; and whether they shewed upon this Occasion the same Abhorrence of the Pretender, and the same Zeal for the House of Hanover, which has slamed out indeed in their late Addresses; but which (if one may use the Expression of a very great Minister in another Nation) has rather amazed than convinced the World.'