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.]