ciently express their resentment at the conduct of the king, and they attempted, not very honourably, to wound him through Burnet. The lords had taken notice of the conduct of Dr. Watson, bishop of St. David's. The archbishop of Canterbury had convicted him of simony in purchasing his bishopric, and then selling the presentations in his gift to repay himself. The deprived bishop appealed to the lords, who ignored his appeal on the ground of his being no longer a member of their house. The commons thought this a favourable opportunity to demand the dismissal of bishop Burnet from his office of preceptor to the duke of Gloucester, on the ground of his being not suitable, as a Scotchman, to instruct an English prince, and also on the old score of his pastoral letter, which had been burned by order of parliament. Burnet little deserved this attack, for he had discharged his trust most conscientiously. He had begged to decline the office, but had not been permitted, and when it was in a manner forced on him, had offered to resign his bishopric, as not feeling it right to devote any of his time to other objects whilst he held it. When this was also declined, he insisted on the prince residing constantly at Windsor, which was in his bishopric, and devoted the whole salary of the tutorship to the charities of his see. The motion was very properly rejected.
The year 1700 opened amid the combined attacks of the commons on the king and his ministers. Montague, though out of the ministry, made a bold effort to turn the tide against the attacking party. He complained that Mr. Arthur Moore, a member of the house, had by letter urged the commissioners to throw the odium on the king, by making a separate and prominent case of the grant to the countess of Orkney, saying that this case "would reflect upon somebody." There was a vehement call for Montague to name the parties who gave that information. He at first excused himself on the ground that this would be betraying private confidence, but he was forced to speak out, and named Methuen, Chancellor of Ireland. Methuen, thus unexpectedly brought forward, boldly denied having said anything of the kind; and the house hastened to pass a resolution that the charge as to Arthur's Moore's letter was false and scandalous. But Leving and Brewster demanded that their side should be heard, denouncing the resolution as precipitate and unfair till they had been allowed an opportunity of defending themselves. Leving then declared that his opinion was, and he had asserted it before the commissioners, that the estates granted to the countess of Orkney had no right to be brought under their notice; that their jurisdiction extended only to lands forfeited since the 13th of February, 1689, but the lands of James were forfeited on his abdication, and were conferred on William and Mary with the crown. He charged Trenchard and Annesley with having said that they had received such a letter as that mentioned by Mr. Montague, as well as one from Mr. Harcourt, urging them to reflect upon somebody. Brewster confirmed this, and Trenchard not only denied it, but brought Annesley and Langford to deny it. Notwithstanding these stout denials, the letters of Moore and Harcourt were produced and read. There remained no doubt that the commissioners had been urged to reflect on the king; but the commons took no notice of this, but passed a resolution that the charges against the four commissioners, Annesley, Trenchard, Hamilton, and Langford were groundless and malicious, that they had discharged their trust with understanding, courage, and integrity, and that Leving had made false and empty statements against them and should be committed to the Tower, and he was accordingly committed.
The commons then addressed the king, declaring that the procuring and passing of those grants had occasioned heavy debts and taxation to the nation, and reflected severely on the king's honour. William bluntly replied that he had consulted both his inclination and his duty in rewarding those brave officers with forfeited Lands who had contributed so much to put down the rebellion in Ireland; and as to the debts occasioned by the war, he conceived that they would best be consulting their own honour in taking measures to discharge them. This answer was received with a tempest of indignation, and the house resolved that whoever had suggested such an answer to his majesty was guilty of endeavouring to create a breach betwixt the king and his people.
They instantly set themselves to frame a bill of resumption of all the grants. They ordered the report of the commissioners, the speeches and promises of the king regarding these forfeited estates, and their former resolutions regarding them, to be printed, that the whole country might judge of this matter for itself. And they resolved that any member of the privy council who should procure or be concerned in procuring grants from the crown for their own purposes, should be deemed guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. As the tories were the means of carrying this resumption bill, the whigs, to avenge themselves, moved by way of amendment, that all grants made since the 6th of February, 1684, should be resumed, and the tories were caught in their own snare, for they could not with a show of consistency oppose a measure of their own originating. Therefore the bill passed, and they were themselves compelled to disgorge all the crown property they had settled on themselves from the accession of James. Ministers proposed to insert a clause to reserve a third part of the forfeited property for the king's own disposal, but the commons would not listen to it, and they resolved not to receive any petition from any person whatever concerning the grants; and that they would consider the services of the commissioners, who had so well discharged their duty in this business. That justice might be done to purchasers and creditors in the act of resumption, they appointed thirteen trustees to hear and determine all claims, to sell to the highest purchasers, and to appropriate the money to pay the arrears of the army. The house of lords introduced some alterations, but the commons unanimously rejected them, and to prevent the bill being lost in the lords they consolidated it with a money-bill for the service of the year. The lords demanded a conference, and the commons, exasperated at their interference in a money-bill, prepared to go greater lengths. They assumed the aspect of the commons in Charles I.'s time. They ordered the doors to be closed, and called for a list of the privy councillors. They then moved that John, lord Somers, should be expelled from the service of the king for ever. The resolution was not carried, but the temper of the house was such as made wise men tremble for an approaching crisis.
