1692: Earl of Marlborough released from the Tower. BOOK II. to the Tower on the information of one Young, a prisoner in Newgate, who had, as it afterwards proved, framed the draft of a treasonable association to assist king James on his landing, to seize on the person of the princess of Orange, &c.; to which he had forged the names of archbishop Sancroft, the bishop of Rochester (Sprat), the earls of Marlborough and Salisbury, lord Cornbury, sir Basil Firebrace, and John Wilcox, One of his emissaries had found means to secrete this paper in the library of the bishop's palace at Bromley in Kent, where it was found by the king's messengers. On the subsequent examination of this prelate by the privy council, the whole villanous imposition was detected, the bishop honourably discharged, the earl of Marlborough admitted to bail, and a bill of forgery and subornation of perjury found by the grand jury of Middlesex against Young. A misunderstanding having taken place, after the victory of La Hogue, between admiral Russel and the secretary of state lord Nottingham, it was now transferred to the two parliamentary factions, and converted into a political and party contest. In the house of lords the interest of the court predominated, and the earl of Nottingham was completely exculpated. In the house of commons, the advantage remained with Russel. The lower house returned the papers of the sc 1692. attack on Notting cretary of state transmitted from the lords, with BOOK μ. the declaration, that they had read and well considered the papers in question, and had unanimously resolved, "that admiral Russel in his command of the fleets had behaved with fidelity, courage, and conduct." They also came to a very pointed vote, "that his majesty be humbly advised, for the necessary support of his government, to employ in his councils and management Unavailing of his affairs such persons only whose principles the Earl of oblige them to stand by him and his rights against ham. the late king James and all other pretenders whatsoever." This was extremely invidious, and even unjust, According to the earl of Nottingham's explanation of his own principles, when the new settlement took place, he could very con sistently obey that king whom the nation had elected; and he had in fact served him ably, zealously, and faithfully: and the vote could have no propriety, except the earl had in any point swerved from the allegiance he had solemnly sworn, which might be affirmed of various of his adversaries with a much nearer approach to truth than of him. The house passed another vote, probably as little acceptable to the earl, for an address to the king, "that in future all orders for the management of the fleet should pass through the admiralty." Also, in a grand committee, the commons came to an unanimous 1692. BOOK I. Vote, "that there had been an apparent miscarriage in the management of affairs relating to the descent the last summer." Yet on the ultimate criminatory resolution, "that one cause of the said miscarriage was the want of giving timely and necessary orders by such persons to whom the management of this matter was committed,” the friends of the earl of Nottingham so vigorously exerted themselves, that it was carried by a single vote only, viz. 165 to 164-so that this deep-laid project of the whigs for the disgrace and removal of the earl of Nottingham proved abortive. The king, who well knew that the failure of the plan of descent was ascribable to far other causes than the negligence or incapacity of the secretary of state, took a decided part in favour of the minister, and dismissed admiral Russel from the service. Admiral Russel dismissed. Affairs of the East pany. In this session the affairs of the East-India India Com- company were resumed, and a bill ordered in for regulating, preserving, and establishing the EastIndia trade to this kingdom-which was in fact a bill for establishing a new company under new regulations. But the progress of the bill through the house was much impeded by the interests of the old proprietors, and the whole business terminated in an address to the king, "that he would be pleased to dissolve the company upon three years' warning, according to the condition 1692. of their charter;" to which the king replied in BOOK IL ambiguous terms, declaring his intention, with a view to the good of the kingdom, to take this address into consideration. A bill of a very popular nature was at this period brought into parliament by the whigs, whose opposition to the ministry became now very powerful, for free and impartial proceedings in parliament," rendering all members of the house of commons incapable of places of trust or profit. This bill, the first of a long series of place-bills which met with the same fate, passed the house of commons without difficulty, and was, after vehement debate, rejected by the lords. The earl of Mulgrave exhausted his eloquence in a celebrated speech in support of the bill; concluding with the observation, "that, whatever success the bill might have, there must needs come some good effect of it: for, if it passes," said his lordship, "it will give us security; if it be obstructed, it will give us warning." A bill of still greater importance was soon afterwards introduced by the earl of Shrewsbury, "for the frequent calling and meeting of parliaments." By this bill it was enacted, that a session of parliament should be held every year, and a new parliament summoned every third year. It was therefore known by the appellation of the Triennial Bill. This bill passed the BOOK II. lords by a great majority, and, contrary to the 1692. general expectation, was well received by the commons, notwithstanding the opposition of the courtiers; for the whigs and the tories were now Royal As running a race for popularity. But the bill was fused to the extremely unacceptable to the king, who regarded sent re Triennial Bill. letter of the Sarum burnt. it as a dangerous novelty, and a serious invasion of his prerogative, When he came to the house, therefore, to pass the bills which were ready, after suffering that in question to lie long on the table, and exciting the eager curiosity and anxious expectation of the by-standers, he at length refused the royal assent, Complaint having been made to the house of commons of a pamphlet written by Charles Blount, esq. entitled "King William and Queen Mary Conquerors," it was ordered to be burnt Pastoral by the common hangman, together with a pastoBishop of ral letter of Burnet bishop of Sarum, containing the same dangerous and unconstitutional assertion. A similar doctrine had been inculcated by Lloyd bishop of Worcester, in a sermon preached before their majesties November the 5th, 1690, and afterwards licensed by authority, on the text, "For promotion cometh neither from the east nor from 'the west, nor from the north nor from the south; but GoD is the judge, he putteth down one and setteth up another." This was mentioned in the house with great disapproba |