Parliament had declared, if Halifax had been so deeply concerned in the last and worst part of Charles II.'s misrule as was supposed, if Godolphin had been, as was evident,a party to every measure of James II., William ought not to have made them his trusted servants.
If the King was really interested in securing freedom to Englishmen, he ought not to have displayed such pettish readiness to leave England to itself when Parliament did not grant him all the revenue he wanted. Nor can anything excuse his concern in the Irish grants or in the partition treaties.
In answer to an address in 1690, he promised to make no grant of the Irish forfeitures till the matter had been decided in Parliament. While bills for its settlement were being discussed, it was discovered that he had granted away the whole of the land, although Parliament had expressly reserved two-thirds for the public service. And these lavish grants were made, chiefly to Dutch favourites and an English mistress, at a time when England was in a wretched condition. The historian of the future will be content to accept the forcible statement of Mr. Lecky.[1]
Again, in 1697 the enormous grants of royal rights in Wales to the Duke of Portland caused much comment. Stronger still, perhaps, is the case against William in the matter of the partition treaties. He carried on the whole of the negotiations without consulting any of his English ministers. His Dutch favourite, Portland, induced the Lord Chancellor to
- ↑ "History of England in the Eighteenth Century," vol. i. p. 16.
