motion was rejected by a great majority. Not but they might have justly stigmatized the expedition as a little mean adventure, in which those noblemen had embarked with a view to their own private advantage.

§ XXIV. While this affair was in agitation among the commons, the attention of the upper house was employed upon the case of Dr. Watson, bishop of St. Davids. This prelate

rum.

was supposed to have paid a valuable consideration for his bishopric: and, after his elevation, had sold the preferments in his gift, with a view of being reimbursed. He was accused of simony; and, after a solemn hearing before the archbishop of Canterbury and six suffragans, convicted and deprived. Then he pleaded his privilege : so that the affair was brought into the house of lords, who refused to own him as a peer after he had ceased to be a bishop. Thus disappointed, he had recourse to the court of delegates, by whom the archbishop's sentence was confirmed. The next effort that the commons made, with a view of mortifying king William, was to raise a clamour against Dr. Burnet, bishop of SaHe was represented in the house as a very unfit preceptor for the duke of Gloucester, both as a Scottish man, and author of that pastoral letter which had been burned by order of the parliament, for asserting that William had a right to the crown from conquest. A motion was made for addressing his majesty that this prelate might be dismissed from his employment, but rejected by a great majority. Burnet had acted with uncommon integrity in accepting the trust. He had declined the office which he was in a manner forced to accept. He had offered to resign his bishopric, thinking the employment of a tutor would interfere with the duty of a pastor. He insisted upon the duke's residence all the summer at Windsor, which is in the diocese of Sarum; and added to his private charities the whole income of his new office.

XXV. The circumstance on which the anticourtiers built their chief hope of distressing or disgracing the government, was the inquiry into the Irish forfeitures, which the king had distributed among his own dependents. The commissioners appointed by parliament to examine these particulars, were Annesly, Trenchard, Hamilton, Langford, the earl of Drogheda, sir Francis Brewster, and sir Richard

Leving. The first four were actuated by all the virulence. of faction: the other three were secretly guided by ministerial influence. They began their inquiry in Ireland, and proceeded with such severity as seemed to flow rather from resentment to the court, than from a love of justice and abhorence of corruption. They in particular scrutinized a grant of an estate which the king had made to Mrs. Villiers, now countess of Orkney, so as to expose his majesty's partiality for that favourite, and subject him to an additional load of popular odium. In the course of their examination, the earl of Drogheda, Leving, and Brewster, opposed the rest of the commissioners in divers articles of the report, which they refused to sign, and sent over a memorial to the house of commons, explaining their reasons for dissenting from their colleagues. By this time, however, they were considered as hirelings of the court, and no regard was paid to their representations. The others delivered their report, declaring that a million and a half of money might be raised from the sale of the confiscated estates; and a bill was brought in for applying them to the use of the public. A motion being made to reserve a third part for the king's disposal, it was overruled: then the commons passed an extraordinary vote, importing, that they would not receive any petition from any person whatsoever concerning the grants; and that they would consider the great services performed by ths commissioners appointed to inquire into the forfeited estates. They resolved, that the four commissioners who had signed the report had acquitted themselves with understanding, courage, and integrity; and, that sir Richard Leving, as author of groundless, and scandalous aspersions cast upon his four colleagues, should be committed prisoner to the tower. They afterwards came to the following resolution, which was presented to the king in form of an address: That the procuring and passing those grants had occasioned great debts upon the nation, and heavy taxes upon the people, and highly reflected upon the king's honour; and, that the officers and instruments concerned in the same had highly failed in the performance of their trust and duty. The king answered, that he was not only led by inclination, but thought himself obliged in justice to reward those who had served well in the reduction

of Ireland, out of the estates forfeited to him by the rebellion in that kingdom. He observed, that as the long war had left the nation much in debt, their taking just and effectual ways for lessening that debt, and supporting public credit, was what, in his opinion, would best contribute to the honour, interest, and safety of the kingdom. This answer kindled a flame of indignation in the house. They forthwith resolved, that the adviser of it had used his utmost endeavours to create a misunderstanding and jealousy between the king and his people.

§ XXVI. They prepared, finished, and passed a bill of resumption. They ordered the report of the commissioners, together with the king's promise and speeches, and the former resolutions of the house touching the forfeited estates in Ireland, to be printed and published for their justification; and they resolved, that the procuring or passing exorbitant grants by any member, now of the privy council, or by any other that had been a privy counsellor, in this or any former reign, to his use or benefit, was a high crime and misdemeanor. That justice might be done to purchasers and creditors in the act of resumption, thirteen trustees were authorized and empowered to hear and determine all claims relating to those estates, to sell them to the best purchasers; and the money arising from the sale was appropriated to pay the arrears of the army. It passed under the title of a bill for granting an aid to his majesty, by the sale of forfeited and other estates and interests in Ireland; and that it might undergo no alteration in the house of lords, it was consolidated with the money bill for the service of the year. In the house of lords it produced warm debates; and some alterations were made, which the commons unanimously rejected. They seemed to be now more than ever exasperated against the ministry, and ordered a list of the privy council to be laid before the house. The lords demanded conferences, which served only to exasperate the two houses against each other; for the peers insisted upon their amendments, and the commons were so provoked at their interfering in a money bill, that they determined to give a loose to their resentment. They ordered all the doors of their house to be shut, that no members should go forth. Then they took into consi

VOL. I.

S s

deration the report of the Irish forfeitures, with the list of the privy counsellors; and a question was moved, that an address should be made to his majesty, to remove John lord Somers, chancellor of England, from his presence and counesls for ever. This, however, was carried in the negative by a great majority. The king was extremely chagrined at the bill, which he considered as an invasion of his prerogative, an insult on his person, and an injury to his friends and servants; and he at first resolved to hazard all the consequences of refusing to pass it into a law: but he was diverted from his purpose by the remonstrances of those in whom he chiefly confided. He could not, however, dissemble his resentment. He became sullen, peevish, and morose; and his enemies did not fail to make use of this additional ill humour, as a proof of his aversion to the English people. Though the motion against the chancellor had miscarried, the commons resolved to address his majesty, that no person who was not a native of his dominions, except his royal highness prince George of Denmark, should be admitted into his majesty's councils in England or Ireland. This resolution was levelled against the earls of Portland, Albemarle, and Galway: but, before the address could be presented, the king went to the house of peers, and having passed the bill which had produced such a ferment, with some others, commanded the earl of Bridgewater, speaker of the house, in the absence of the chancellor, who was indisposed, to prorogue the parliament to the twenty-third day of May.

§ XXVII. In the course of this session, the commons having prosecuted their inquiry into the conduct of Kidd, brought in a bill for the more effectual suppressing of piracy, which passed into a law:* understanding afterwards, that Kidd was brought over to England, they presented an address to the king, desiring that he might not be tried, discharged, or pardoned, till the next session of parliament; and his majesty complied with their request. Boiling still with indignation against the lord chancellor, who had turned many disaffected persons out of the commission of the peace, the house ordered a bill to be prepared for qualify.

i Burnet. Oldmixon. Cole's Mem. State tracts. Lamberty. Tindal. Ralph. * An. 1700.

ing justices of the peace; and appointed a committee to inspect the commissions. This, reporting that many dissenters and men of small fortunes depending on the court, were put into those places, the commons declared, in an address, that it would much conduce to the service of his majesty, and the good of this kingdom, that gentlemen of quality and good estates should be restored, and put into the commissions of the peace and lieutenancy: and that men of small estates be neither continued, nor put into the said commissions. The king assured them he was of the same opinion; and that he would give directions accordingly. They were so mollified by this instance of his condescension, that they thanked him in a body for his gracious answer. They passed a bill to exculpate such as had ne glected to sign the association, either through mistake, or want of opportunity. Having received a petition from the Lancashire clergy, complaining of the insolence and attempts of popish priests, they appointed a committee to inquire how far the laws against popish refugees had been put in execution; and upon the report a bill was brought in, complying with the prayer of the petition. It decreed a further reward to such persons as should discover and convict popish priests and jesuits and perpetual imprisonment for those convicted on the oath of one or more witnesses. It enacted, that no person born after the twentyfifth day of March next ensuing, being a papist, should be capable of inheriting any title of honour or estate within the kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick upon Tweed; and, that no papist should be capable of purchasing any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, either in his own name or in the name of any other person in trust for him. Several alterations were made in this first draft, before it was finished and sent up to the lords, some of whom proposed amendments: these, however, were not adopted; and the bill obtained the royal assent, contrary to the expectation of those who prosecuted the measure, on the supposition that the king was a favourer of the papists. After all, the bill was deficient in necessary clauses to enforce execution; so that the law was very little regarded in the sequel.