A History of England, Period III. Constitutional MonarchyBright, J. Franck (James Franck)
History
A History of England, Period III. Constitutional Monarchy
Bright, J. Franck (James Franck)
Great Britain -- History
the Treaty of 1677, and promised to send succours to the Dutch, but
there seemed no immediate prospect of any grants for the purpose. Nor
was the other point much more vigorously prosecuted. A Bill of
Succession was indeed produced, but nearly every clause seemed evidently
aimed against the King's former conduct. The new sovereign was not to
leave the kingdom without leave of Parliament; no person not a born
Englishman was to be capable of holding any position of trust, or of
receiving any grant from the Crown. England was not to be engaged in war
for the defence of any dominions not belonging to the Crown of England.
All matters relating to the Government were to be transacted in the
Privy Council, and countersigned by such members of that body as should
advise or consent to them. Having thus secured, as they thought, the
insular position of England, the House proceeded to settle the
succession upon the Electress Sophia of Hanover. Thus, though the
Protestant succession was secured, a Bill which William had hoped would
be a singular expression of popular sympathy with his own efforts was in
fact a vote of censure on many of the acts of his reign.
[Sidenote: Impeachments against the Whigs.]
While public business was thus proceeding languidly, the whole energy of
the House was directed against the old Whig leaders and against the
House of Lords. Impeachments were hurried on against Lord Portland, Lord
Orford, Lord Somers, and Montague, who had now become Lord Halifax.
Against each of these the main charge was the share they had taken in
the Partition treaties. But, in the case of Portland and Montague, there
were additional charges in reference to the grants and dilapidations of
the royal revenue, for which they were said to be answerable; while
against Somers and Orford was alleged a ridiculous story concerning
their participation in the notorious exploits of Captain Kidd. This man
had been sent out by private enterprise to destroy piracy in the Indian
Sea, and had there himself turned pirate. Both Somers and Orford had
subscribed to the original enterprise. Somers, as Chancellor, had sealed
Kidd's commission. It was now ridiculously suggested that they had all
along known of his piratical intentions. But, while sending up these
impeachments, the Commons felt absolutely certain that the Whig majority
of the Lords would at once acquit their victims, for it was well
understood that the measure was not one of justice but one of faction;
they therefore passed an unjustifiable address to the King, praying him
to dismiss the four Peers from his Council, even before the impeachments
were heard. The House of Lords produced a counter address. The Commons
demanded longer time to complete their impeachments, but the Peers were
determined to bring a matter on which their judgment was in fact
foregone to a speedy issue, and had now both law and right on their
side. They therefore positively refused to extend the time, and the 17th
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account