Placemen in the Commons. itself which for a while jeopardised, and threatened to frustrate altogether the king's design. The evils attendant upon the presence of placemen House of in the House of Commons had become so serious that, as we have already seen, it had been unanimously resolved, some ten years before the time when the king began to entertain the thought of a parliamentary ministry, that no member of the House, without express leave of the House itself, should accept of any office, or place of profit under the crown, under penalty of expulsion. This resolution, however, had proved entirely abortive, and since its adoption the House had continued to swarm with placemen of all kinds, from high officers of state to mere sinecurists and dependents upon the court. A more constitutional attempt to remedy this great abuse than was afforded by the adoption of a mere resolution of the House of Commons, was made in 1692, by the introduction of a Bill touching free and impartial proceedings in Parliament,'-the object of which was to disqualify all office-holders under the crown from a seat in the Lower House. This Bill passed through all its stages in the House of Commons rapidly, and without a single division, but was rejected by the House of Lords. In 1693, another Bill was passed by the Commons, substantially the same as its predecessor. This measure was agreed to by the Lords with the important proviso that all office-holders whose seats should be vacated under this Act might be afterwards chosen again to serve in the same Parliament.' The Commons concurred in this amendment; but the king, who regarded the whole measure as an encroachment upon his prerogative, refused to give it the royal assent." And See ante, p. 114. Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, pp. 121, 337; Parl. Hist. v. 4, p. 1377 n. v. 5, p. 468. u 6 pp. 337-342, 479. The Commons ventured to approach his Majesty with an earnest representation, protesting against this exercise of the Parl. Hist. v. 5, p. 745 n. royal prerogative, but they took noMacaulay, Hist. of Eng. v. 4, thing by their motion. Ib. pp. 481 quate re most reasonably, for while this Act would have author- Inadeised the presence of the king's ministers in the House medy for of Commons, it would also have readmitted numbers of this abuse. placemen who had no business there. V In this very year, however, a partial remedy was applied to this monstrous evil, by the adoption of a resolution, in connection with the Bill of Supply granting certain duties of excise, that no member of the House of Commons shall be concerned, directly or indirectly, in the farming, collecting, or managing of the duties to be collected by this Bill, or any other aid to be granted to their majesties, other than the present commissioners of the treasury, and the officers and commissioners for managing the customs and excise.' This resolution was added to the Bill, and became law." It is memorable as being the first statutable prohibition of any officeholder from sitting and voting as a member of the House of Commons. The principle hereby introduced was afterwards applied and extended by similar Acts passed in this reign; the provisions whereof were rigidly enforced by the expulsion from the House of several members who had transgressed the provisions of the same." X But these Acts were too limited in their operation to meet the emergency of the case. Accordingly, we find Place Bills, to the same general purport as the Bill of 1692, above mentioned, again submitted to the House of Commons, in 1694, 1698, 1699, 1704, 1705, 1709, 1710, 1711, and 1713. These measures, however, were of too sweeping a character to commend them to the favourable judgment of Parliament, and they were invariably rejected, for the most part by the House of Commons itself." 483; Com. Jour. v. 11, pp. 71, 74, 75. 57. * Ib. v. 1, pp. 675, 801. Prospective exclusion of all At length the majority of the House of Commons met with apparent success in carrying out their long płacemen. cherished design of freeing their chamber from the pre 6 sence of all dependents upon the crown, whether ministers of state or minor functionaries. In the year 1700, when the Act Amendatory of the Bill of Rights, and to provide for the succession of the crown in the person of the Princess Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs-being Protestants-was under consideration; the Commons insisted upon the insertion of a clause in the Bill, which they imagined would afford additional security for the liberty of the subject, that no person who has an office or place of profit under the king, or receives a pension from the crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons.' But this clause was only to take effect upon the accession of the house of Hanover, an event which did not take place until the year 1714. Meanwhile, the king had formed a ministry which was composed of persons who had seats in one or other of the Houses of Parliament; and the nation had begun to appreciate the advantages attending the introduction of cabinet ministers into the legislature for the purpose of explaining and defending the measures and policy of the executive government. So that before the time came when this ill-considered provision should go into operation, Parliament was prepared to substitute for it a wiser and more temperate measure. A due sense of the advantages attending the authorised admission of the chief ministers of the crown to seats in the legislative chambers, made it no less imperative upon the House of Commons to discriminate between the introduction of those executive officers, whose presence in Parliament was essential to the harmonious and effective working of the state machine, and of other office-holders, who could only serve to swell the ranks Act of Settlement, 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, sec. 3. by the Anne. of ministerial supporters, and stifle the expression of public opinion, of which members should be the true exponents. A few years' experience sufficed to point out the proper medium, and by a revision of the objectionable article in the Act of Settlement-an opportunity for which was happily afforded in the reign of Queen Wise proAnne, before the period fixed for its being enforced- visions Parliament preserved the principle of limitation, and at statute of the same time relaxed the preposterous stringency of its former enactment. The new Act passed in 1707 established, for the first time, two principles of immense importance, which have since afforded an effectual security against an undue influence on the part of the crown by means of place-holders in the House of Commons. These are, firstly, that every member of the House accepting an office of profit from the crown, other than a higher commission in the army, shall thereby vacate his seat, but shall be capable of re-election-unless (secondly), the office in question be one that has been created since October 25, 1705, or has been otherwise declared to disqualify for a seat in Parliament. of the Act of Settle ment. The 25th clause of this Act further provided, in conformity to Revision the principle laid down in the Act of Settlement, that 'no person having any pension from the crown during pleasure,' should be capable of being elected, or of sitting and voting in the House of Commons. By 1 Geo. I. stat. 2, c. 56, this was extended to persons in the receipt of pensions for any term or number of years. By an Act passed in 1859 and re-enacted in 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 43, sec. 17), it was provided that this ineligibility should not be construed to extend to the holders of pensions granted for diplomatic service. The disability, moreover, does not extend to pensions enjoyed for services in the army or navy, or to the case of pensions awarded to persons for services as members of the government, under the authority of the Acts 57 Geo. III. c. 65 and 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 24.d The restrictive clause was repealed in 1705 by 4 Anne, c. 8, sec. 25; the new provisions, which were the result of a compromise between the two Houses, were enacted in 1707, by 6 Anne, c. 7, secs. 25, 26. See Parl. Hist. v. 6, p. 474. Brief 6 Anne, c. 7, secs. 25, 26. Subse The Disqualifying Act was passed at a period when corruption was prevalent, and when it was customary for pensions to be conferred as a mark of royal favour, and not merely as a reward for past services to the state. Parliament has effectually restrained the crown from this abuse of power. And there is no reason why the recipients of pensions or superannuation allowances for civil services should be ineligible for a seat in the House of Commons. On the contrary, ex-public officers, such as former colonial governors, judicial functionaries, or other persons who had served the crown in a civil capacity would form a valuable addition to either House of Parliament.f It was accordingly enacted, by the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 15, that no pensions, compensations, or allowances granted for civil services shall disqualify the holder for a seat in the House of Commons. The statute of Anne, however, though it checked the increase of the evil, left much to be accomplished before the House of Commons could be wholly freed from the presence of all placemen, whose services were not actually required for the purposes of parliamentary government. Some few classes of office-holders had been expressly disqualified by special enactment in this and in the previous reign; nevertheless, the number of ancient offices which were still compatible with a seat in the House of Commons continued to be excessive and unwarrantable. In the first Parliament of George I. there were 271 quent laws against members holding offices or pensions; being nearly one placemen. half of the members of the then House of Commons. In the first Parliament of George II. there were 257. The reformers of that day were therefore obliged to renew their efforts to rid the House of useless officials, by whose continuance in Parliament the crown was enabled to exercise an undue influence. Place Bills were again introduced, year after year. But the court influence was too powerful to admit of their success, and it was not until 1743 (the very year of the overthrow of Walpole's administration, which had become notorious for its syste e See ante, v. 1, p. 655. D. v. 213, p. 40; and Com. Pap. 1872, v. 47, p. 31. h Com. Pap. 1833, v. 12, p. 1. |