MEETING OF THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT.
The reduction of Ireland being thus completed, baron Ginckel returned to England, where he was solemnly thanked by the house of commons for his great services, after he had been created earl of Athlone by his majesty. When the parliament met on the twenty-second day of October, the king in his speech insisted upon the necessity of sending a strong fleet to sea early in the season, and of maintaining a considerable army to annoy the enemy abroad, as well as to protect the kingdom from insult and invasion; for which purposes, he said, sixty-five thousand men would be barely sufficient. Each house presented an address of congratulation upon his majesty’s safe return to England, and on the reduction of Ireland: they promised to assist him to the utmost of their power, in prosecuting the war with France; and, at the same time, drew up addresses to the queen, acknowledging her prudent administration during his majesty’s absence. Notwithstanding this appearance of cordiality and complaisance, a spirit of discontent had insinuated itself into both houses of parliament, and even infected great part of the nation.
A great number of individuals who wished well to their country, could not, without anxiety and resentment, behold the interest of the nation sacrificed to foreign connexions, and the king’s favour so partially bestowed upon Dutchmen in prejudice to his English subjects. They observed, that the number of forces he demanded was considerably greater than that of any army which had ever been paid by the public, even when the nation was in the most imminent danger; that instead of contributing as allies to the maintenance of the war upon the continent, they had embarked as principals and bore the greatest part of the burden, though they had the least share of the profit. They even insinuated that such a standing army was more calculated to make the king absolute at home, than to render him formidable abroad; and the secret friends of the late king did not fail to enforce these insinuations. They renewed their animadversions upon the disagreeable part of his character; they dwelt upon his proud reserve, his sullen silence, his imperious disposition, and his base ingratitude, particularly to the earl of Marlborough, whom he had dismissed from all his employments immediately after the signal exploits he had performed in Ireland. The disgrace of this nobleman was partly ascribed to the freedom with which he had complained of the king’s undervaluing his services, and partly to the intrigues of his wife, who had gained an ascendancy over the princess Anne of Denmark, and is said to have employed her influence in fomenting a jealousy between the two sisters. The malcontents of the whiggish faction, enraged to find their credit declining at court, joined in the cry which the Jacobites had raised against the government. They scrupled not to say, that the arts of corruption were shamefully practised to secure a majority in parliament; that the king was as tender of the prerogative as any of his predecessors had ever been; and that he even ventured to admit Jacobites into his council, because they were known tools of arbitrary power. These reflections alluded to the earls of Rochester and Kanelagh, who, with sir Edward Seymour, had been lately created privy-counsellors. Rochester entertained very high notions of regal authority; he proposed severity as one of the best supports of government; was clear in his understanding, violent in his temper, and incorrupt in his principles. Ranelagh was a man of parts and pleasure, who possessed the most plausible and winning address; and was capable of transacting the most important and intricate affairs, in the midst of riot and debauchery. He had managed the revenue of Ireland in the reign of Charles II.; he enjoyed the office of paymaster in the army of King James, and now maintained the same footing under the government of William and Mary. Sir Edward Seymour was the proudest commoner in England, and the boldest orator that ever filled the speaker’s chair. He was intimately acquainted with the business of the house, and knew every individual member so exactly, that with one glance of his eye he could prognosticate the fate of every motion. He had opposed the court with great acrimony, questioned the king’s title, censured his conduct, and reflected upon his character. Nevertheless, he now became a proselyte, and was brought into the treasury.
TRANSACTIONS IN PARLIAMENT.
The commons voted three millions, four hundred and eleven thousand, six hundred and seventy-five pounds, for the use of the ensuing year: but the establishment of funds for raising these supplies was retarded, partly by the ill-humour of the opposition, and partly by intervening affairs that diverted the attention of the commons. Several eminent merchants presented a petition to the house against the East-India company, charging them with manifold abuses; at the same time, a counter-petition was delivered by the company, and the affair referred to the examination of a committee appointed for that purpose. After a minute inquiry into the nature of the complaints, the commons voted certain regulations with respect to the stock and the traffic; and resolved to petition his majesty, that, according to the said regulations, the East-India company should be incorporated by charter. The committee was ordered to bring in a bill for this establishment; but divers petitions being presented against it, and the company’s answers proving unsatisfactory, the house addressed the king to dissolve it, and grant a charter to a new company. He said it was an affair of great importance to the trade of the kingdom; therefore, he would consider the subject, and in a little time return a positive answer. The parliament was likewise amused by a pretended conspiracy of the papists in Lancashire, to raise a rebellion and restore James to the throne. Several persons were seized, and some witnesses examined: but nothing appeared to justify the information. At length one Fuller, a prisoner in the king’s bench, offered his evidence, and was brought to the bar of the house of commons, where he produced some papers. He obtained a blank pass from the king for two persons, who he said would come from the continent to give evidence. He was afterwards examined at his own lodgings, where he affirmed that colonel Thomas Délavai and James Hayes were the witnesses for whom he had procured the pass and the protection. Search was made for them according to his direction, but no such persons were found. Then the house declared Fuller a notorious impostor, cheat, and false accuser. He was, at the request of the commons, prosecuted by the attorney-general, and sentenced to stand in the pillory; a disgrace which he accordingly underwent.
A bill for regulating trials in cases of high treason having been laid aside by the lords in the preceding session, was now again brought upon the carpet, and passed the lower house. The design of this bill was to secure the subject from the rigours to which he had been exposed in the late reigns: it provided, That the prisoner should be furnished with a copy of his indictment, as also of the panel, ten days before his trial; and, that his witnesses should be examined upon oath as well as those of the crown. The lords, in their own behalf, added a clause enacting, That upon the trials of any peer or peeress, for treason or misprison of treason, all the peers who have a right to sit and vote in parliament, should be duly summoned to assist at the trial; that this notice should be given twenty days before the trial; and that every peer so summoned, and appearing, should vote upon the occasion. The commons rejected this amendment; and a free conference ensued. The point was argued with great vivacity on both sides, which served only to inflame the dispute, and render each party the more tenacious of their own opinion. After three conferences that produced nothing but animosity, the bill was dropped; for the commons resolved to bear the hardships of which they complained, rather than be relieved at the expense of purchasing a new privilege to the lords; and without this advantage, the peers would not contribute to their relief.
WILLIAM AND MARY, 1688—1701.