Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/167

A.D. 1701.] he deemed more for the good of the country. That he thought himself bound to put the great seal to the treaty when finished; that he had acted as a privy councillor to the best of his judgment; and discharged his duty as lord chancellor as seemed to him most faithfully. He then withdrew, but returned, and begged to leave with the house a copy of a letter which he had received from the king and his answer, and this he said he was authorised to do by his majesty.

The statement of Somers seems to have excited a violent debate in the house, though the particulars of it have not come down to us, and very different reports have been made as to its effect on the members. Burnet says that nothing could be more convincing and successful; on the contrary, lord Dartmouth, who was equally hostile to the king and the whigs, commenting on Burnet's statement, says, "I was in the house of commons during the whole debate. What the bishop says of lord Somers making an impression in his favour is so far from true, that I never saw that house in so great a flame as they were upon his withdrawing. He justified his putting the great seal to a blank so poorly, and insisted that the king's letter, which he produced, was a good warrant, which everybody knew to be none—nor did the contents sufficiently justify him if it had been any—and his endeavour to throw everything upon the king, provoked them to such a degree, that he left them in a much worse disposition than he found them; and I have heard many of his best friends say they heartily wished he had never come thither."

There seems to be great truth in these remarks. We have seen that Somers endeavoured to get Vernon to issue a warrant for the affixing the seal to the carte blanche, but Vernon would not. Somers, therefore, showed that he knew very well that the king's command was not a warrant of itself, yet he took the responsibility of affixing the seal; and now to produce the king's letter and plead his command, certainly was an attempt to excuse himself at the expense of the king. This, however, has been so regularly the practice of facile or corrupt ministers, that the plea has been taken from them by the maxim that "the king can do no wrong," leaving the responsibility of yielding to illegal demands from the monarch on the ministers in all cases. From Somers, however, we have been led to expect better things, but, however just and honourable in general, this case sufficiently testifies that he was not one of those truly great characters, who are ready to sacrifice place rather than consent to an unconstitutional demand from the monarch. The commons, evidently, were of the same sentiment, for when he had withdrawn, amid that flame of excitement which lord Dartmouth mentions, a resolution was moved and carried, "That John lord Somers, by advising his majesty in 1699 to the treaty for dividing the Spanish monarchy, whereby large territories of the king of Spain's dominions were to be delivered up to France, is guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour." Similar resolutions were next carried against the lords Orford and Halifax, whom it was resolved to impeach at the bar of the house of lords. An address was also carried, praying his majesty to remove from his council and presence for ever Somers, Portland, Orford, and Halifax, and that without a division. There was, however, instantly a counter address moved in the house of lords, and carried by a majority of twenty, that his majesty would be pleased not to pass any censure on these noblemen until they had been tried by their peers according to the law of the land. The king replied to the address of the commons by assuring them that he would employ none in his service but such as he thought most likely to increase the confidence betwixt him and his people; but when the counter address was presented from the lords, confounded by the conflicting prayers, he remained silent, but allowed the names of the accused lords to remain in the council-book.

The commons appear to have carried their object, that of branding the characters of these ministers, for they took no active steps to carry out the resolutions of impeachment. On the 5th of May the house of lords sent a message to the commons, reminding them that no articles had yet been exhibited by them against the noblemen whom they had impeached. The commons immediately drew up a charge against the earl of Orford, accusing him of having received enormous grants from the crown; of having been connected with the pirate Kydd in his lawless enterprise; of having committed gross abuses in managing and victualling the fleet whilst it lay on the coast of Spain; and finally, of having advised the partition treaty. The earl defended himself in the lords by stating that the only grant he had received from the crown was a very distant reversion, and ten thousand pounds after his defeat of the French fleet at La Hogue; that in Kydd's affair he had done nothing illegal, but had acted at his own cost and heavy loss for the benefit of the country; that his accounts for the fleet had been examined and passed, yet he was ready to waive any advantage on that score, and answer any charge brought against him; that as to the partition treaty, he denied having advised on the subject at all. No immediate replication was made to these statements by the commons. The king adjourned parliament, and on its reassembling, secretary Hedges informed the house that the States-General were resolved not to take any steps in the negotiation with France, without the concurrence of his majesty, and returned him their hearty thanks for the assistance promised in case of their being attacked by France.

The commons voted an additional aid to support this charge of three shillings in the pound as a tax on land; but at the same time they laid their hands on various sums which the court was treating quietly as its own. The fifty thousand pounds a year allotted as dowry to the queen of James II. not being paid, they claimed, as well as thirty thousand pounds a year fallen in by the death of Catherine, the queen of Charles II., and twenty thousand pounds a year by the death of the duke of Gloucester, and passed a resolution that this sum of one hundred thousand pounds a year should be appropriated to assist in defraying the public debt. This was extremely mortifying to the court, and many of the whigs, who were now anxious to win favour and regain power, voted against it, but in vain; the resolution was carried by two hundred and fourteen to one hundred and sixty-nine.

At this juncture the men of Kent manifested their old public spirit by sending in a petition, praying the house to endeavour to rise above their party squabbles, and to