And there never was a case in which both parties in the House were more unanimous.

Governor Pownall called the rejection of the clause by the Lords "a flagrant encroachment upon the privileges of the House," and affirmed that the Lords had "forgotten their duty." Burke termed it "a proof that the Lords did not understand the principles of the constitution, an invasion of a known and avowed right inherent in the House as the representatives of the people," and expressed a hope that "they were not yet so infamous and abandoned as to relinquish this essential right," or to submit to "the annihilation of all their authority." Others called it "an affront which the House was bound to resent, and the more imperatively in consequence of the absence of a good understanding between the two Houses." And the Speaker, Sir John Cust, went beyond all his brother members in violence, declaring that "he would do his part in the business, and toss the bill over the table." The bill was rejected _nem.

con._, and the Speaker tossed it over the table, several of the members on both sides of the question kicking it as they went out;[32] and to such a pitch of exasperation had they worked themselves up, that "the Game Bill, in which the Lords had made alterations, was served in a similar manner," though those alterations only referred to the penalties to be imposed for violations of the Game-law, and could by no stretch of ingenuity be connected with any question of taxation.
Notes: [Footnote 16: A motion was, indeed, made (but the "Parliamentary History," xvi., 55, omits to state by whom) that the House should "humbly entreat his Majesty, out of his tender and paternal regard for his people, that he would be graciously pleased to name the person or persons whom, in his royal wisdom, he shall think fit to propose to the consideration of Parliament for the execution of those high trusts, this House apprehending it not warranted by precedent nor agreeable to the principles of this free constitution to vest in any person or persons not particularly named and approved of in Parliament the important offices of Regent of these kingdoms and guardian of the royal offspring heirs to the crown." But "it passed in the negative," probably, if we may judge by other divisions on motions made by the same party, by an overwhelming majority.] [Footnote 17: No one doubted that this choice had been made under the influence of Lord Bute, and was designed for the preservation of that influence .-- Lord Stanhope, _History of England_, v., 41.] [Footnote 18: In his speech in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill of 1840, the Duke of Sussex stated that George III.

had nominated the Queen as Regent in the first instance, and, in the event of her death, the Princess Dowager.] [Footnote 19: "Lives of the Chancellors," c.

cxli.] [Footnote 20: It appears from these dates that it was not yet understood that Parliament could not be prorogued for a longer period than forty days.] [Footnote 21: These words occur in a speech attributed to Lord Mansfield.