guilty, and had been pardoned; but from this time he showed, on every occasion, the most rancorous personal hatred of his royal mistress, of her husband, and of all who were favoured by either.  It was known that the Queen frequently consulted Burnet; and Howe was possessed with the belief that her severity was to be imputed to Burnet’s influence.394 Now was the time to be revenged.  In a long and elaborate speech the spiteful Whig—­for such he still affected to be—­represented Burnet as a Tory of the worst class.  “There should be a law,” he said, “making it penal for the clergy to introduce politics into their discourses.  Formerly they sought to enslave us by crying up the divine and indefeasible right of the hereditary prince.  Now they try to arrive at the same result by telling us that we are a conquered people.”  It was moved that the Bishop should be impeached.  To this motion there was an unanswerable objection, which the Speaker pointed out.  The Pastoral Letter had been written in 1689, and was therefore covered by the Act of Grace which had been passed in 1690.  Yet a member was not ashamed to say, “No matter:  impeach him; and force him to plead the Act.”  Few, however, were disposed to take a course so unworthy of a House of Commons.  Some wag cried out, “Burn it; burn it;” and this bad pun ran along the benches, and was received with shouts of laughter.  It was moved that the Pastoral Letter should be burned by the common hangman.  A long and vehement debate followed.  For Burnet was a man warmly loved as well as warmly hated.  The great majority of the Whigs stood firmly by him; and his goodnature and generosity had made him friends even among the Tories.  The contest lasted two days.  Montague and Finch, men of widely different opinions, appear to have been foremost among the Bishop’s champions.  An attempt to get rid of the subject by moving the previous question failed.  At length the main question was put; and the Pastoral Letter was condemned to the flames by a small majority in a full house.  The Ayes were a hundred and sixty-two; the Noes a hundred and fifty-five.395 The general opinion, at least of the capital, seems to have been that Burnet was cruelly treated.396

He was not naturally a man of fine feelings; and the life which he had led had not tended to make them finer.  He had been during many years a mark for theological and political animosity.  Grave doctors had anathematized him; ribald poets had lampooned him; princes and ministers had laid snares for his life; he had been long a wanderer and an exile, in constant peril of being kidnapped, struck in the boots, hanged and quartered.  Yet none of these things had ever seemed to move him.  His selfconceit had been proof against ridicule, and his dauntless temper against danger.  But on this occasion his fortitude seems to have failed him.  To be stigmatized by the popular branch of the legislature as a teacher of doctrines so servile that they disgusted even Tories,