The session was again the scene of a great contest between the Houses. The war was still well supported, and the grants were upon a very liberal scale, rendered necessary by the additional troops required for Portugal and Spain, since Portugal had joined the Great Alliance, first under a treaty with Austria, and subsequently under the well-known Methuen Treaty with England. This treaty, regarded as a triumph of diplomacy, was completed by Mr. Methuen, the English minister at Lisbon, at the close of 1703. It was in exact accordance with the commercial views of the time, and contained but two articles. By the first English woollen manufactures were admitted into Portugal, by the second it was arranged that the duty on Portuguese wines should always be less by one-third than that on the wines of France. It was supposed that this would not only secure the friendship of Portugal, but would also bring much gold and silver, of which the Peninsula was the great emporium, into England, an object regarded as of the first importance under the mercantile system. It was when the Bill against occasional conformity, which had been dropped in the preceding session, was reintroduced that the contest began. The ministers who had been eager the preceding year that the Bill should be carried, had, since the resignation of Rochester and the opposition offered by his friends, grown less eager in their Tory views. In spite of their very lukewarm support, the Bill again passed the House of Commons by a large majority. But again it met with great opposition from the Lords, and was finally thrown out by a majority of eleven. As no amendments had been proposed, there was no room for angry conferences between the Houses. But an opportunity for quarrel was found in questions arising from the Aylesbury election. The returning officers for that borough had been notoriously guilty of tampering with the returns in favour of their own friends. At the last election the vote of Matthew Ashby had been rejected. He brought an action against the returning officer, and a verdict was found in his favour. The case was removed into the higher court, and three of the four judges of the Queen's Bench decided that all decisions with regard to votes rested entirely with the House of Commons. Upon this Ashby brought his case by a writ of error before the House of Lords, where the decision of the Queen's Bench was set aside, and the case finally settled in favour of Ashby. On this the Commons engaged in the quarrel, and declared that Ashby, by appealing to the law, was guilty of a breach of privilege. The Lords replied, declaring that the right of voting, like any other right, might be maintained by an action at the common law. There for the present the quarrel was left. It seems tolerably clear that on this point the Lords were in the right, but the newly won position of the House of Commons inspired its members with most overweening views of their own importance. In February of this year