[Sidenote: _SUSPENSION OF THE ‘HABEAS CORPUS.’_] After the sham fights in the camp, the hotter contests in Parliament drew the attention of all London. In October, a Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, for a whole year, was brought into the House of Lords, where it passed through all the forms, and was sent to the Commons, in one day. The Commons passed the Bill. Nineteen peers, including the Archbishop of York, protested against the suspension for so long a time of an Act which was the bulwark of the liberties of all Englishmen; and which was brought in when the detestable conspiracy, which was the motive for the suspension, had been rendered abortive. The ministry were of another opinion. In the latter half of October, the king asked the consent of the peers for the continued detention of members of the House, namely, the Bishop of Rochester, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Boyle (Earl of Orrery), and Lord North and Grey. In the case of the Duke of Norfolk, the consent was opposed, but was carried by 60 to 28. Again, nineteen peers protested, on very good grounds. The Duke was described as being suspected of having committed high treason, and the protestors held that it was contrary to the rights and privileges of the House, to detain any member (while a session was in existence) on suspicion, without the grounds for such suspicion being communicated to the House. There was probably no ground. [Sidenote: _ARREST OF PEERS._] Commoners, naturally, were not treated with more courtesy than peers. Their houses were invaded by messengers in search of a reason for the invasion. On a similar search, in November 1722, Mr. Spratt, king’s messenger, knocked at young Mr. Cotton’s door, in Westminster, and entered the house with a warrant for his arrest. Cotton received the unwelcome visitor civilly, and Spratt’s eye, falling on a picture of a lady, he asked, as if he were interested, whose portrait it might be? Cotton answered, ‘the Queen’s.’ ‘What Queen’s?’ rejoined the messenger. ‘The Queen of England’s, the wife of James III.,’ was the bold reply. ‘You mean,’ observed the officer, ‘the Princess Sobieska.’ ‘You may call it what you please,’ returned Cotton, ‘I acknowledge it as my Queen’s portrait; and if Lord Townshend was to ask me, I should make the same answer.’ On his trial subsequently, a constable and two men who supported the messenger, deposed to similar effect; but Mr. Cotton’s footman gave a modified relation. Their testimony was that when their master was asked as to the portrait, he replied, ‘You may call it whose you please!’ Counter-evidence was then adduced to corroborate the prosecutor’s story, according to which, the messenger had facetiously called the picture, ‘The portrait of the lady who married the young gentleman ‘tother side of the water!’ To which Mr. Cotton, being heated, cried, ‘A plague!――something worse, upon you! Why do you trouble me? Call it what you please!’ [Sidenote: _LORD CHIEF JUSTICE PRATT._]