About the middle of October, William returned to England, and conferred upon the duke of Shrewsbury the office of chamberlain, vacant since the resignation of Sunderland. * Mr. Montague at the same period resigned his seat at the treasury-board, together with the chancellorship of the exchequer; either foreseeing uncommon difficulty in managing a house of commons after they had been dismissed in ill humour, or dreading the interest of his enemies, who might procure a vote that his two places were inconsistent. The king opened the session of parliament on the sixteenth day of November, with a long speech, advising a further provision for the safety of the kingdom by sea and land, as well as the repairs of ships and fortifications; exhorting the commons to make good the deficiencies of the funds, discharge the debts of the nation, and provide the necessary supplies. He recommended some good bill for the more effectual preventing and punishing unlawful and clandestine trading; and expressed a desire that some method should be taken for employing the poor, which were become a burden to the kingdom. He assured them his resolutions were to countenance virtue and discourage vice; and that he would decline no difficulties and dangers where the welfare and prosperity of the nation was concerned. He concluded with these words: “Since then our aims are only for the general good, let us act with confidence in one another; which will not fail, with God’s blessing, to make me a happy king, and you a great and flourishing people.” The commons were now become wanton in their disgust. Though they had received no real provocation, they resolved to mortify him with their proceedings. They affected to put odious interpretations on the very harmless expression of “Let us act with confidence in one another.” Instead of an address of thanks, according to the usual custom, they presented a sullen remonstrance, complaining that a jealousy and distrust had been raised of their duty and affection; and desiring he would show marks of his high displeasure towards all persons who had presumed to misrepresent their proceedings to his majesty. He declared, in his answer, that no person had ever dared to misrepresent their proceedings, and that if any should presume to impose upon him by such calumnies, he would treat them as his worst enemies.
* Villers, earl of Jersey, who had been sent ambassador to France, was appointed secretary of state in the room of the duke of Shrewsbury. This nobleman was created lord chamberlain; the earl of Manchester was sent ambassador extraordinary to France; the earl of Pembroke was declared lord-president of the council; and lord viscount Lonsdale keeper of the privy-seal.
WILLIAM, 1688—1701.
INQUIRY INTO THE EXPEDITION Of CAPTAIN KIDD.
The house was not in a humour to be appeased with soothing promises and protestations; they determined to distress him by prosecuting his ministers. During the war the colonies of North America had grown rich by piracy. One Kidd, the master of a sloop, undertook to suppress the pirates, provided the government would furnish him with a ship of thirty guns well manned. The board of admiralty declaring that such a number of seamen could not be spared from the public service, Kidd was equipped by the private subscription of the lord Chancellor, the duke of Shrewsbury, the earls of Romney, Orford, and Bellamont, sir Edward Harrison, and colonel Livingstone of New York. The king promised to contribute one-half of the expense, and reserved to himself one-tenth of the profits; but he never advanced the money. Kidd being thus equipped, and provided with a commission to act against the French, as well as to make war on certain pirates therein mentioned by name, set sail from Plymouth; but instead of cruising on the coast of America, he directed his course to the East Indies, where he himself turned pirate, and took a rich ship belonging to the Moors. Having divided his booty with his crew, ninety of whom left him in order to join other adventurers, he burned his own ship and sailed with his prize to the West Indies. There he purchased a sloop in which he steered for North America, leaving part of his men in the prize, to remain in one of the Leeward Islands until they should receive further instructions. Arriving on the coast of New York, he sent one Emmet to make his peace with the earl of Bellamont, the governor of that province, who inveigled him into a negotiation, in the course of which he was apprehended. Then his lordship sent an account of his proceedings to the secretary of state, desiring that he would send for the prisoners to England, as there was no law in that colony for punishing piracy with death, and the majority of the people favoured that practice. The admiralty, by order of the lords-justices, despatched the ship Rochester to bring home the prisoners and their effects; but, after having been tossed for some time with tempestuous weather, this vessel was obliged to return to Plymouth in a shattered condition. This incident furnished the malcontents with a colour to paint the ministry as the authors and abettors of a piratical expedition, which they wanted to screen from the cognizance of the public. The old East India company had complained to the regency of the capture made by Kidd in the East Indies, apprehending, as the vessel belonged to the Moors, they should be exposed to the resentments of the Mogul. In the beginning of December, this subject being brought abruptly into the house of commons, a motion was made, That the letters patent granted to the earl of Bellamont and others, of pirates’ goods, were dishonourable to the king, against the laws of nations, contrary to the laws and statutes of the land, invasive of property, and destructive of trade and commerce. A warm dispute ensued, in the course of which some members declaimed with great bitterness against the chancellor and the duke of Shrewsbury, as partners in a piratical scheme; but these imputations were refuted, and the 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.
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. David’s. This prelate 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 Sarum. He 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.
INQUIRY INTO THE IRISH FORFEITURES.
The circumstance on which the anti-courtiers 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 Annesley, 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 abhorrence 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 the king’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 the 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.