Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

This Green and Pleasant Land: A Glorious Revolution Game

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A PETITION

VNTO THE MOST NOBLE LORDS

of the

HOVSE OF PEERES

&

THEIR MAJESTIES THE KING & QUEENE

from

Divers Members of the Houſe of Commons,

Concerned at the Rejection of the Poor Relief Bill put Before the Houſe in January,
having come without Explanation, and After the Aſſent of the Commons by a
Margin most Significant.
​

OVR LORDS,


It is greatly troubling to the Minds of a great number of Men in the Most Honoured House of Commons that their Will be ſo callouſly diſregarded by the Peers of England in regard to the Matter of the Poor Bill, which was moſt Enthuſiaſtically ſupported by the Members of that Most Honoured Houſe, and yet whose counſel was Diſobeyed by the Aſſembled Lords, who caſt the Bill from their Houſe in Diſapproval.


It does trouble us, therefore, the ſuch mechaniſms Exiſt as to Allow the Peers to Act taking no Heed to the deſires of the Members of the Commons, theſe deſires also thoſe of the People of England, by whom we Members have been Elected, wherefore we aſk of Their Majeſties that, ſhould the ſame Poor Bill be Acclaimed once more by the Commons, Their Majeſties will make ſuch Proviſions that might enſure the Bill's paſſing, in defiance of Further Oppoſition from the Peers, whom we alſo do humbly Implore to give their Aſſent to the Bill upon its Re-entry into the Houſe.


This we do Most Humbly aſk out of the Spirit of the Continued and Peaceful Co-exiſtance of Their Majeſties' Houſes of Parliament, on this day, the Sixth of February, in the Year of OVR LORD, One-Thousand Six-Hundred and Ninety-One.


[Divers Members of the House of Commons]​
 
CaesarCzech said:
{{guys is my Volunteer Militia bill capable of being put before Commons ? I mean as in its decent enought ]]
Click to expand...

Yes. These things don't have to be Shakespearean.
 
Announcement of the National Bank of Plymouth
​
The National Bank of Plymouth is proud to announce that following our great successes in our hometown we will be opening up branches in the cities and towns of London, Sheffield, Bristol, Leicester and Liverpool. We hope to continue helping entreponeours follow their dreams. We also announce that our governance board is looking for 2 new members. Each must be willing to invest at least 500,000 pounds in exchange for a 20% stake in the company.
 
Last edited:
baboushreturns said:
Announcement of the National Bank of Plymouth
​
The National Bank of Plymouth is proud to announce that following our great successes in our hometown we will be opening up branches in the cities and towns of London, Sheffield, Bristol, Leicester and Liverpool. We hope to continue helping entreponeours follow their dreams. We also announce that our governance board is looking for 2 new members. Each must be willing to invest at least 5,000,000 pounds in exchange for a 30% stake in the company.
Click to expand...

I know I'm usually pretty easy with this sort of stuff, but this is actually something I'd rather leave to fate. If you wish to send in an order, please go ahead.

I should also probably mention that £5 million in 1690 would be about £440 million today.
 
Regarding the Complaints from the Commons​

It strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order to demand that a bill be accepted for passing the Commons, despite being rejected by the House of Lords, while ignoring the two bills passed by the House of Lords, yet rejected by the Commons. By what right does the Commons feel justified in demanding that a bill they supported be treated differently than two bills supported by the House of Lords? Self-centered hypocrisy at its finest. There is a process to proposing and accepting bills, and that can not be tossed aside because one does not get the result one wishes.

-12th Earl of Shrewsbury, 12th Earl of Waterford, Lord High Steward of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire, Lord Lieutenant of Worcestershire, KG, PC, Secretary of State for the Southern Department, Charles Talbot
 
aedan777 said:
Regarding the Complaints from the Commons​

It strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order to demand that a bill be accepted for passing the Commons, despite being rejected by the House of Lords, while ignoring the two bills passed by the House of Lords, yet rejected by the Commons. By what right does the Commons feel justified in demanding that a bill they supported be treated differently than two bills supported by the House of Lords? Self-centered hypocrisy at its finest. There is a process to proposing and accepting bills, and that can not be tossed aside because one does not get the result one wishes.

-12th Earl of Shrewsbury, 12th Earl of Waterford, Lord High Steward of Ireland, Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire, Lord Lieutenant of Worcestershire, KG, PC, Secretary of State for the Southern Department, Charles Talbot
Click to expand...

There is difference by bill not passing by 2 votes and bill not passing by 70 votes, This is not hypocrisy, This is math, I trust your Lordship is capable of counting into Two. Also your talk doesnt help calm situation after there being rebellion in Ireland.
 
On the Reply from the Lords to Grievances of the Commons


​
Mr. Speaker,


Having heard from the Other Place accusations that, in seeking redress for the rejection of the Poor Law Bill by the House, this House and its members act in a manner that is hypocritical, I seek to offer a reply.


It is well-established that it is not the place of the Commons to speak for the Other Place, nor vice versa, yet the Honourable Lords made indignant by remarks from this House seem to suggest otherwise: that we, the Commons, should feel aggrieved on behalf of our lords in the Other House that their bills were rejected. What ludicrousness this would equal! Having just voted in opposition to these bills, I ask the Honourable Members: what cause for lamentation have we of their demise?


It is no hypocrisy not to feel slighted that such bills were rejected, nor an injustice to omit such from our complaints. It is mere common sense. If the Lords wish to remonstrate, let them! We most definitely will not be doing it for them.


That the Poor Bill should have been so thunderously acclaimed by this House – not one member in ten voted against it – and simply cast aside by the Lords for no reason other than they seemingly felt it offensive represents a violation of the idea of good government. When such acclamation has been given by us, the representatives of Englishmen and guardians of their ancient rights, it is incumbent upon any who challenge it to supply good and valid reasons for so doing. This was not done, and this is the primary grievance. The actions of the Other Place were mere obstructionism, of the sort which is deserved by no Englishman.


Therefore, I motion that the Poor Bill be put to a second vote in this House, and thence in the Other Place, so that it might either be ratified, or our lords might give proper explanation of their dissent.


The Rt Hon Thomas Milnes, PC
Member for Cardiff​
 
DensleyBlair said:
On the Reply from the Lords to Grievances of the Commons


​
Mr. Speaker,


Having heard from the Other Place accusations that, in seeking redress for the rejection of the Poor Law Bill by the House, this House and its members act in a manner that is hypocritical, I seek to offer a reply.


It is well-established that it is not the place of the Commons to speak for the Other Place, nor vice versa, yet the Honourable Lords made indignant by remarks from this House seem to suggest otherwise: that we, the Commons, should feel aggrieved on behalf of our lords in the Other House that their bills were rejected. What ludicrousness this would equal! Having just voted in opposition to these bills, I ask the Honourable Members: what cause for lamentation have we of their demise?


It is no hypocrisy not to feel slighted that such bills were rejected, nor an injustice to omit such from our complaints. It is mere common sense. If the Lords wish to remonstrate, let them! We most definitely will not be doing it for them.


That the Poor Bill should have been so thunderously acclaimed by this House – not one member in ten voted against it – and simply cast aside by the Lords for no reason other than they seemingly felt it offensive represents a violation of the idea of good government. When such acclamation has been given by us, the representatives of Englishmen and guardians of their ancient rights, it is incumbent upon any who challenge it to supply good and valid reasons for so doing. This was not done, and this is the primary grievance. The actions of the Other Place were mere obstructionism, of the sort which is deserved by no Englishman.


Therefore, I motion that the Poor Bill be put to a second vote in this House, and thence in the Other Place, so that it might either be ratified, or our lords might give proper explanation of their dissent.


The Rt Hon Thomas Milnes, PC
Member for Cardiff​
Click to expand...
((I put the Poor Law before the Lords yesterday, so...))
 
99KingHigh said:
((I put the Poor Law before the Lords yesterday, so...))
Click to expand...

I know, don't worry. When something from the Commons is rejected in the Lords, it goes back to the Commons for review or a second vote – which is what Milnes is motioning happen. Strictly, the bill isn't Godolphin's to reintroduce at this point.
 
I have been a supporter of the Poor Bill sense I created its first version in 89 and I will continue to support the poor of our nation through any means necessary. I do urge the House of Lords to approve the Poor Bill this time as it is important to show the people of this nation that we are compassionate to their plight and that we are taking steps to alleviate them from their situation. I have already done as much as I can and in the city of Plymouth there are less unfortuitous people now then there have been ever before due to the work of my bank. However more needs to be done.
 
The Baron Wigan waves his hand dismissively.

"Th' girnin' ay th' Lower Hoose diz neither satisfy me nur turn mah opinion. Ah shaa vote Nay again tae thes upcomin' legislation an' shaa be confident in mah ability tae dae sae."
 
Bloody hell, no! It's only been two days since that last burst of activity, after all.

We'll vote on the various things that need voting on later.
 
William McWilliam O'Brien, 3rd Earl of Inchiquin, set down the letter he was reading and looked out over the countryside. He was in his father's library, though in truth since it was the Earl's library and he was the Earl it was his own. He could not bring himself quite to accept that idea. He was always expecting the Old Earl (as the staff referred to him) to come upon him and scold him for being in his rooms without leave.

The letter he had been reading was from his father. He'd expected bitterness and complaints, combined with a wealth of unsolicited advise and admonitions and countless inquiries as to the state of the realm.

What he read was quite different. The Old Earl was full of praise for Montserrat. Its landscape (comfortingly green yet pleasently exotic), its climate (sunny as Tangiers, but without the dust and gentle breezes instead of harmattan gusts), its people (black slaves and Irish indentured in near equal measure, both speaking a lilting mix of English and Gaelige), all were singled out for approval. He did complain a bit about the plantation itself. The main house was not at all to his liking, he would have to make extensive changes.

And however profitable, he did not care for the sugarcane business. There were too many slaves, and those too wretched, for him to feel at ease. 'One day they will look at those machetes, and look at me, and decide to take their chances.' He wrote.

He talked of trying other crops, particularly coffee. He'd taken the habit of drinking it in North Africa, and the idea of growing his own seemed to delight him. He also talked of orange groves, or vineyards, or anything else he fancied might flourish in the tropics.

Aside from bidding him give his regards to his mother (currently in ostentatious mourning, staying with friends at Clarecastle), his father's letter seemed to forget there was such a place as Ireland. The only advise was a lazy suggestion that he find himself a wife.

The tone puzzled the younger William. Was it a brave front? A sort of madness? High spirits had never seemed to make up part of his father's nature. Then it suddenly struck him.

William McMurrough O'Brien has no cares any more. The Earldom passed to his elder son, his businesses to his younger. There was no more politicking, no more soldiers to command. His world had shrunk to a plantation on a tiny island that nobody noticed, and in that little world he could order everything just as he liked.

His father would not be coming back. William had known that, but not believed it, when he sailed away. But now he did believe.

This was his library now, because even if the world turned upside down, and the sentence against him overturned with it, and James II offered him the dominion of all Ireland, William McMurrough O'Brien would laugh and graciously decline. Thousands of miles away, a son felt he finally understood his father, after a lifetime at his side.

He sat and looked out over drizzle falling on a fair green country. He'd always had big ideas of what he would do when he was the O'Brien in Bunratty. Now it was a question of where to start.
 
Voting time! Not much to see to this time around, though here it is anyway:

Volunteer Militia Bill: Aye/Nay/Abstain
Poor Relief Bill: Aye/Nay/Abstain

[House of Commons/Lords]
[Whig/Tory/Independent]
​
You'll notice I've stuck a place to state your partisan affiliation (or lack thereof) on the ballot. This has no bearing on the tally, but is merely for my own clerical purposes. As ever, please include any positions held by your characters – though note that only the highest ranking title is required for anyone with more than one rank. (E.g., John, Earl Russell might also be the Viscount Amberley, but he would only go by Earl Russell – not "John, Earl Russell, Viscount Amberley".)

I'll keep the ballot up until midday on Friday 10th (BST), which gives you all just under 39 hours to vote.

Happy dividing!
 
Volunteer Militia Bill: Abstain
Poor Relief Bill: Nay

[Lords]

~ Baron Wigan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back