who had now flung away the mask which he had lately pulled off, like one who had no other view but that of vengeance against the queen and her friends, acted consistently enough with his design, by voting as a lord against the bill, after he had directed his son in the house of commons to vote for the tack.
Thus miscarried this popular bill for appointing commissioners to examine into royal grants; but whether those chiefly concerned, did rightly consult their own interest, has been made a question, which perhaps time will resolve. It was agreed that the queen, by her own authority, might have issued out a commission for such an inquiry, and every body believed that the intention of the parliament was, only to tax the grants with about three years purchase, and at the same time establish the proprietors in possession of the remainder for ever; so that, upon the whole, the grantees would have been great gainers by such an act, since the titles of those lands, as they stood then, were hardly of half value with others, either for sale or settlement. Besides, the example of the Irish forfeitures might have taught these precarious owners, that when the house of commons has once engaged in a pursuit, which they think is right, although it be stopped or suspended for a while, they will be sure to renew it upon every opportunity that offers, and seldom fail of success: for instance, if the resumption should happen to be made part of a supply, which can be easily done without the objection of a tack, the grantees might possibly then have much harder conditions given them; and I do not see how they could prevent it. Whether the resuming of royal grants be consistent
