lessening that debt and supporting public credit, is what in my opinion will best contribute to the honour, interest, and safety of this kingdom.”
With the latter sentence we are not now concerned — indeed the king’s friends do not defend it. At to the first, let us hear Lord Macaulay:—
“To whatever criticism William’s answer might be open, he said one thing which well deserved the attention of the House. A small part of the forfeited property had been bestowed on men whose services to the state deserved a much larger recompence, and that part could not be resumed without gross injustice and ingratitude. An estate of very moderate value had been given with the title of Earl of Athlone to Ghinkel, whose skill and valour had brought the war in Ireland to a triumphant close. Another estate, with the title of Earl of. Galway, had been given to Ruvigny, who in the crisis of the decisive battle, at the very moment when Saint Ruth was waving his hat and exclaiming that the English should be beaten back to Dublin, had at the head of a gallant body of horse struggled through the morass, turned the left wing of the Celtic army, and retrieved the day. But the predominant faction, drunk with insolence and animosity, made no distinction between courtiers who had been enriched by injudicious partiality, and warriors who had been sparingly rewarded for great exploits achieved in defence of the liberties and the religion of our country. Athlone was a Dutchman — Galway was a Frenchman — and it did not become a good Englishman to say a word in favour of either.”
The Resumption Bill passed the Commons on the 2d April “tacked” to the land tax. On the 4th the Upper House agreed to the second reading by a majority of seventy to twenty-three — only eight peers (including the Duke of Bolton) protesting against it. But on this occasion the Lords made amendments in committee, and sent the amended bill to the Commons, who returned it without remark. Committees being appointed, the two Houses through them held conferences both on the 9th and on the 10th of April without result. On the latter evening, the Commons, being exasperated, locked their doors and proceeded to consider both the report on the Irish forfeitures and the list of privy councillors. The king, alarmed at the ferment, sent a message to the House of Lords to pass the original bill without the amendments. Their Lordships then divided on the question of adhering to those amendments, when the votes were equal, forty-three against forty-three. Another question was then put, “to agree to the said bill without any amendment,” which was carried by thirty-nine against thirty-four, and intimation was sent to the Lower House that the bill was passed. Twenty-one peers formally protested, signing a copy of the reasons which had been so long insisted on in conference with the Commons’ committee.[1]
The House of Commons, still violently excited, continued to examine the list of the members of the privy council. Though the leaders failed to pass an address, praying that Lord Somers might be removed from the king’s presence and councils for ever, they carried another address to his Majesty, “that no person who was not a native of his dominions, except his Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark, be admitted to his Majesty’s councils in England and Ireland.” Cotemporaries wondered why Ireland was added to the motion, as the addition could affect no one but Lord Galway, whose government of that kingdom gave satisfaction to both sides of the House. The conjecture which they accepted as most probable, was that it was intended to please the Duke of Ormond. The English councillors, to whom the address applied, were Schomberg and Portland. To prevent such an address being presented, the king came down to the House of Lords next day (April 11), sent for the Commons, gave the royal assent to the bills that had passed both Houses, and prorogued the Parliament.
Although no address for Lord Galway’s removal was thus ever presented, the king thought it was necessary to yield to the tempest, and intimated this as tenderly as possible in a letter to the hero himself:—
“Hampton Court, May (2) 13, 1700.
- ↑ The Resumption was protested against in a pamphlet (from which I have already quoted) entitled, “Jus Regium, or the King’s Right to grant forfeitures and other revenues of the Crown fully set forth and trae’d from the beginning; his Majesty vindicated as to his promise concerning the disposal of the Forfeited Estates; the manifold hardships of the Resumption, and the little advantage we shall reap from it, plainly demonstrated. London, printed in the year mdcci.” At page 60 Lord Galway’s estate at Portarlington is spoken of. One of the anticipated hardships, however, did not take place, because the purchasers respected Lord Galway’s leases, and did not turn out his tenants.
