144

THE CHARACTER OF WILLIAM UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

66

[1695.

In narrating the circumstances which retarded the Union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland-a measure of which William observed, "I have done all I can in that affair, but I do not see a temper in either nation that looks like it"-Defoe says, "The affair of Glencoe was another step to national breaches." To us, looking calmly upon this affair at the interval of a hundred and sixty-six years, it would appear the most extravagant of national delusions to set up this as a ground of national animosity." From the beginning to the end it was a Scottish affair. Not an English statesman was concerned in advising the proceeding. The character of the monarch who signed the order, as king of Scotland, is far more truly exemplified in one sentence of the Proclamation of Indemnity, which ought to have been the rule of conduct for those who urged on the massacre-"to interpret this indemnity in the most favourable and ample manner."

Mariborough dismissed from office-Parliamentary Debates-Independence of the Judges-The king leaves for Holland-Threatened invasion-Declaration of James-Battle of La Hogue -Siege of Namur-Grandval's plot to assassinate William-Battle of Steinkirk-Parliament-Crime and public distress-Commencement of the National Debt-The Licensing Act expires-Place Bill-Bill for Triennial Parliaments-The King's Veto-Murder of Mountfort-Trial of Lord Mohun.

"THE king was pleased, without assigning any reason, to remove my lord Marlborough from his employments." Such is the brief notice of an important event by the wife of the great peer. Much fuller is her account of the circumstances which caused a serious disagreement between queen. Mary and her sister, the princess Anne. The queen, three weeks after the dismissal of the earl, wrote to her sister that "it is very unfit lady Marlborough should stay with you, since that gives her husband so just a pretence of being where he ought not." Mary said, "I need not repeat the cause he has given the king to do what he has done, nor his unwillingness at all times

VOL. V.

L

146

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

[1692

Anne refused to

to come to such extremities, though people do deserve it." be separated from her beloved Mrs. Freeman; and Mrs. Freeman being commanded to leave the palace, Mrs. Morley left with her. Anne chose her abode at Sion House; and the nation was scandalised at a quarrel between the occupier of the throne and the sister who might one day be called to occupy it. It is easy to imagine that no circumstance in the lives of William and Mary produced more misery than this rupture. The dismissal of Marlborough occurred on the 10th of January, at the very time when, in the view of some candid persons, William was occupied in planning the slaughter of an obscure Highland clan. It was a period to the king of great political anxiety. Lady Marlborough says she could, never learn "what cause the king had for his displeasure." The popular feeling regarded the earl's dismissal as a just punishment "for his excessive taking of bribes, covetousness, and extortion on all occasions from his inferior officers."* In another passage, Evelyn attributes Marlborough's disgrace to his "having used words against the king." What Marlborough had really done has been revealed in a letter of James. The Lieutenant-General of William, who also held the domestic office of his Gentleman of the Bedchamber, had concerted with the Jacobites to effect the recall of James by the subtlest of plots. He was organising a party to propose and carry in parliament a motion that all the foreigners in the employ of the Crown, civil or military, should be sent out of the kingdom. The object was to produce a rupture between the king and the parliament. Then, says the letter of James, "my lord Churchill would declare with the army for the parliament; and, the fleet doing the same, they would have recalled me." James adds that some of his own imprudent friends, dreading that the scheme of Churchill had for its ultimate object to make the princess Anne queen, discovered it to Bentinck, and thus "turned aside the blow."+

The Parliament was adjourned on the 20th of February, having met on the 2nd of the previous October. It was a Session of great debate; but more remarkable for the discussion of important measures, than for their final enactment. The rival claims of the Old East India Company and of the New, were the subject of earnest argument, not unmingled with party feelings. But nothing was finally decided; and a bill for the regulation of the India trade was suffered to drop. A most important measure for regulating trials in cases of high treason was passed by the Commons; but becoming the subject of a great controversy between the two houses, as to the right of peers to be tried by the whole body of the Upper House, as well during a recess as during the sitting of Parliament, that valuable bill also fell through. A few years later the jealousy of the Commons was removed. Another measure of great public advantage was defeated by the king's Veto. It was the first time in which William had exercised this power. The Judges had been made independent of the Crown as to their term of office. They were appointed by William and Mary "Quamdiu se bene gesserint:" they could not be arbitrarily removed. But their salaries had not been fixed,

Evelyn, "Diary," January 24.

This letter, in French, is given by Macaulay, who mentions that a translation was published by Macpherson "eighty years ago.' History, vol. iv. p. 166.

See ante, p. 38.

1692.1

INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDGES.

147

as they ought to have been. The Houses passed a Bill for legally establishing this judicial independence; also providing that each judge should be paid a thousand a year. But they charged the salaries upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, without the previous consent of the king having been accorded. The king, says Hallam, "gave an unfortunate instance of his very injudicious tenacity of bad prerogatives in refusing his assent." A later historian says that the circumstances under which the king used his veto have never been correctly stated. "William could defend the proprietary rights of the Crown only by putting his negative on the bill. . . . It was not till the provisions of the bill had been forgotten, and till nothing but its title was remembered, that William was accused of having been influenced by a wish to keep the judges in a state of dependence." * This great constitutional principle was determined by the Act of Settlement of 1701 (13 Gul. 3, c. 2), which provides that after the limitation of the Crown under that statute shall take effect, "Judges' Commissions be made Quamdiu se bene gesserint, and their salaries ascertained and established; but upon the Address of both Houses of Parliament it may be lawful to remove them."+

The king set out for Holland on the 5th of March. At the beginning of the Session he had told the Parliament that an Army of sixty-five thousand men would be required, and the Houses voted that number. The distribution of the land force gave about eleven thousand men for England, thirteen thousand for Ireland, two thousand for Scotland, and thirty-eight thousand to serve beyond sea. The proportion of regular troops for the defence of England was thus comparatively small; but then the Militia of the kingdom could be immediately called out, and the regiments of London and Westminster were always in readiness for service. The Navy had been brought into a greater state of efficiency than at any previous period since the Revolution. If loyal songs are to be believed in, the war was popular ;

"Our army makes Lewis to tremble and quake

He fearing that Mons we again will retake." ‡

Weavers, shoemakers, butchers, dyers, hatters-the men of London and the men of the West—were all ready to march under "renowned king William," says the popular doggrel. But something more effective than a broadside ballad was issued to stir up the country to defend its government. It was a Declaration by James himself, which was not suppressed by the queen and her Council, but reprinted, and widely circulated with appropriate comment. There was in this document not a word of regret for the past; not a word that could hold out a prospect of amendment for the future. It breathed

Macaulay, "History," vol. iv. p. 183. There is an exception to Lord Macaulay's wonted accuracy in his remarks on this subject. He says, "that great law [the Bill of Rights] had deprived the Crown of the power of arbitrarily removing the judges." The Bill of Rights contains not a word on the subject; neither does the Declaration of Rights.

Mr. Hallam has pointed out that we owe the independence of the Judges to this statute, and not to George III., as we have long been taught to believe. Blackstone contributed to this popular delusion, by ascribing vast importance to the statute 1 Geo. III. c. 23, which continued the commissions of the judges notwithstanding the demise of the Crown-a point before doubtful. The recent editor of Blackstone, Dr. Kerr, has pointed out that "the learned commentator much exaggerates the value" of the statute of George III.

"Songs of the London Prentices and Trades." Edited by Charles Mackay, p. 122.

148

THREATENED INVASION.

[1692

vengeance against nobles and prelates who were proscribed by name; it threatened whole classes with punishment as guilty rebels; the judges and juries who had convicted Ashton and Cross, two of the plotting Jacobites, and the "fishermen and all others who offered personal indignities to us at Feversham." Such was a Declaration issued to prepare the people for receiving their ejected king with contrite tears, when he came back at the head of a French invading army. James had at last induced the king of France to hazard the chance of a landing in England. The minister who had constantly opposed that dangerous project was dead. That minister was Louvois. He had been the chief military administrator of Louis for nearly a quarter of a century, but at last became obnoxious to his master. Louvois, says Burnet, "grew uneasy at the authority Madame de Maintenon took in things which she could not understand; and was in conclusion so unacceptable to the king that once, when he flung his bundle of papers down upon the floor before him, the king lifted up his cane, but the lady held him from doing more."* Saint Simon tells something like the same story, with the variation of the king catching up the fire-tongs instead of lifting his cane. Louvois died suddenly, not without suspicion of poison. Saint Simon represents Louis as feeling free when he had got rid of his old servant; and then relates that, when an officer came from James at St. Germains, with a compliment of condolence, Louis, "with an air and a tone more than perfectly easy (plus que dégagés) replied-" give my compliments and thanks to the king and queen of England, and say to them from me, that my affairs and their affairs will go on none the worse for what has happened." When the great war minister of France was saved by the hand of death from being sent to the Bastile, Louis was free to assist his confident brother at St. Germains with ten thousand French troops, and with the Irish regiments which had entered the service of France. A camp was formed at La Hogue; and James, in the Declaration which we have noticed, announced that the Most Christian King had now "lent us so many troops as may be abundantly sufficient to untie the hands of our subjects, and make it safe for them to return to their duty and repair to our standard." +

On the 24th of April, James joined his camp in Normandy. He relied upon his French and Irish army, but he relied as much upon the defection of the English fleet. Not only Admiral Russell, but other officers had been tampered with. Russell, however, had been disgusted into something like a sense of honour and duty by the insane Declaration issued by James. He sent word to the rebel-threatener that he ought "to grant a general pardon, and that then he would contribute what he could to his restoration, without insisting upon any terms for himself." This crafty renegade had still something of the Englishman about him; for whilst he proposed to get out of the way with the fleet he commanded, so as to give the invaders an opportunity of landing, he declared that "if he met the French fleet he would fight it, even though the king himself were on board."

On the 15th of May, the English fleet was at St. Helen's. It had been joined by the Dutch fleet, the whole force amounting to ninety sail of the