Though the particular provisions of this bill do not appear, I think it probable that it went too far in excluding military as well as civil officers. [283] 4 & 5 W. & M. c. 21. [284] 11 & 12 W. 3, c. 2, § 50. [285] The House of Commons introduced into the act of security, as it was called, a long clause, carried on a division by 167 to 160, Jan. 24, 1706, enumerating various persons who should be eligible to parliament; the principal officers of state, the commissioners of treasury and admiralty, and a limited number of other placemen. The Lords thought fit to repeal the whole prohibitory enactment. It was resolved in the Commons, by a majority of 205 to 183, that they would not agree to this amendment. A conference accordingly took place, when the managers of the Commons objected (Feb. 7) that a total repeal of that provision would admit such an unlimited number of officers to sit in their house, as might destroy the free and impartial proceedings in parliament, and endanger the liberties of the Commons of England. Those on the Lords' side gave their reasons to the contrary at great length, Feb. 11. The Commons determined (Feb. 18) to insert the provision vacating the seat of a member accepting office; and resolved not to insist on their disagreements as to the main clause. Three protests were entered in the House of Lords against inserting the word "repealed" in reference to the prohibitory clause, instead of "regulated and altered," all by tory peers. It is observable that, as the provision was not to take effect till the house of Hanover should succeed to the throne, the sticklers for it might be full as much influenced by their ill-will to that family as by their zeal for liberty. [286] 4 Anne, c. 8; 6 Anne, c. 7. [287] Burnet, 86. It was represented to the king, he says, by some of the judges themselves, that it was not fit they should be out of all dependence on the court. [288] It was originally resolved that they should be removable on the address of either house, which was changed afterwards to both houses. Comm. Journ. 12th March, and 10th May. [289] It was proposed in the Lords, as a clause in the bill of rights, that pardons upon an impeachment should be void, but lost by 50 to 17; on which twelve peers, all whigs, entered a protest. _Parl. Hist._ 482. [290] 13 W. 3, c. 3. The Lords introduced an amendment into this bill, to attaint also Mary of Este, the late queen of James II. But the Commons disagreed on the ground that it might be of dangerous consequence to attaint any one by an amendment, in which case such due consideration cannot be had, as the nature of an attainder requires. The Lords, after a conference, gave way; but brought in a separate bill to attaint Mary of Este, which passed with a protest of the tory peers. Lords' Journals, Feb. 6, 12, 20, 1701-2. [291] 13 W. 3, c. 6.