revolution government, especially lord Nottingham, and, what is more unaccountable, lord Halifax.*

In the next session†, occurred the remarkable proceedings against sir John Fenwick, for treasonable attempts in favour of king James. His narrative involved several high personages in the guilt of corresponding with the dethroned monarch, Shrewsbury||, Godolphin, Marlborough, Russell, and others, but not the duke of Leeds; and hopes were expressed of gaining certain forts through the governors or lieutenants, namely, Plymouth, Berwick, Sheerness, and Landguard, but not Hull. Surely this is important negative evidence in favour of the duke's innocence of the charge, for which there is assuredly no positive testimony.

And the duke of Leeds, who was still president of the council, opposed the bill of attainder against Fenwick; and though not in the habit of protesting, he did twice protest against the bill, as founded upon insufficient or inadmissible evidence, and too extraordinary in its nature to be adopted against a man so inconsiderable.

In the last session** of this parliament, the civil list as at last granted to king William for lifett, a measure entirely conformable to the duke's monarchical principles. Nevertheless, he now became more and more uneasy in his situation: in the course of this session there was some talk of his retirement from office. He appears to have been quite unconcerned in the discussions which occurred in the king's presence, concerning official arrangements; and the report of them by the duke of Shrewsbury to lord Somers ‡‡, thus mentions him and his connections. He notices the king's opinion that

This is asserted in the Parl. Hist. 993., and I do not find their names in the journals as having signed. I do not understand what process was used as to peers present (as these two were,) and not signing; to absentees, special requisitions were addressed.

Second, Oct. 20. 1696, p. 995.
Com. Jour. xi. 577.

State Trials, xii. 538.

Fenwick states that lord Shrewsbury laid down his office under William when he first began to communicate with lord Middleton, in favour of James; and that it was with the consent of James that he resumed his post. Lords' Jour. xvi. 44, 48.

**Third session of third parl., Dec. 3. 1697., p. 1165. # April 14. 1697. Hardwicke Papers, ii, 429,

A A

tt P. 1168.

some alterations were necessary in the boards, several of the members of which "had so behaved themselves this session, that if no punishment were made, no government could be expected for the future; and that this must not be extended partially to one kind of men, but some should be displaced of different denomi nations. In general, I agreed with this, but submitte that a distinction was reasonably to be made, between persons who had done wrong only once through ignorance, and those who in the whole course of business had continually opposed. This argument met with so cold a reception, that I think it is not hard to guess what was meant by this speech; though I think, if it were intended against sir Walter Young and Mr. Clarke, we are obliged (I am sure I think myself so) to stand by them. This sort of discourse naturally brought on that of my lord president, &c., and I was surprised to find, how easy the king was in parting with him and his consequences. He said, the whole family of the Berties were against him, and declared himself not satisfied even with the vice-chamberlain, but lord Sunderland excused him. I perceive all that, as to the vicechamberlain, is so prepared that it may be done as shall be thought best.".

May it be inferred from this extract, that not only the relations of the duke of Leeds, but the duke himself, had taken a line in parliament unfavourable to the court ? However this may be, the duke of Leeds retained the presidency of the council for two years more, and his retirement was simultaneous with that of Shrewsbury from the secretaryship of state.*

The two dukes were of different parties; and whatever may have been the cause of Shrewsbury's retirement†, there is nothing to connect that of Leeds with any party cause. It is probable that the king and he were mutually tired of each other, and Leeds must, have had by this. time enough of office.

* May, 1699, Kennet, iii. 768. He was succeeded by the earl of Pembroke.

+ Somerville (518) carelessly mentions the dismissal of both as intended to conciliate the tories,

.

In 1697, peace had been made at Ryswick; but as I have not, in any debate or document, met with the lord president as connected with foreign affairs in the time of king William, I have not thought it necessary to give a mere narrative of public events.

On one occasion only I find any further mention of Leeds in this reign; and that I am not able to explain.

The house of commons, in the session* following that in which the duke went out of office, passed a bill for resuming the grants which had been made by the king of the forfeited estates in Ireland. This bill the commons most unjustifiably tacked to a bill of supply, and would not entertain the amendments which the lords made to it. The king disliked the bill extremely, and was much inclined to encourage the lords to reject it, or perhaps even to refuse his assent; but he was persuaded that that step would be dangerous, and ultimately promised the house to agree to the commons' bill. "The earls of Jersey and Albemarle told me,' says the earl of Dartmouth, "the king was convinced of the danger of rejecting the bill, but their present difficulty was, that they could not prevail with their people either to join with us" (who opposed it)" or keep away, and they understood the duke of Leeds (which was true,) was trying to make use of the false step the king had made, to force him to a dissolution, which, in the ferment the nation was in, must throw us into the utmost confusion."

This is the statement of a respectable tory; but no light is thrown by lord Dartmouth upon the motives of the ex-president, nor do I find elsewhere any reference to his proceedings.

!

On the accession of queen Anne, the duke of Leeds was sworn of her privy council. He attended the

+ P. 1215

*Second sess. of the fourth parl., Nov. 16. 1699, p. 1199. Note on Burnet, iv. 439. On this business see Somerville, 520. Ralph, ii. 833.

house of lords, but nothing is known of his proceedings until December 1703, when he concurred with Marlborough, Godolphin, and others of the queen's ministers, in supporting, but without success, the bill for preventing occasional conformity.

*

It is to be collected from lord Dartmouth's lan. guage, that he also took part with the queen, in resisting the attempt, made in 1705, to bring over to England the presumptive heir to the throne. He distinguished himself on this occasion from lords Nottingham and Rochester, and other tories, who, apparently from factious motives, supported this motion, by which the queen was greatly offended.

In 1705, he spoke in affirmation of "the danger of the church;" but unless his speech is greatly abridged in the report, he used no arguments in support of his position. He continued to attend the house occasionally, and probably gave a silent support to all tory motions; but is not specially heard of until the memorable era of Sacheverel's trial.

He spoke upon the question whether the commons had made good the first article§ of their impeachment. Of the long speech in which he maintained the negative of this question, very little is known, but that little has some interest as connected with the proceedings of the duke at the revolution. "He had a great share in the late revolution, but he never thought that things would have gone so far as to settle the crown on the prince of Orange, whom he had often heard say, that he had no such thoughts himself. That they ought to distinguish between resistance and revo

*Parl. Hist. vi. 170. A bill for the same object had been introduced in December, 1702; and another was brought forward in 1704 (pp. 59. and 359). No doubt, Leeds supported these bills, though he is not mentioned, + Note on Burnet, v. 233.

t Parl. Hist vi. 498. See Burnet, v. 239.

Art. 1." He the said Henry Sacheverel, in his said sermon preached at St. Paul's, doth suggest and maintain that the necessary means, used to bring about the said happy revolution, were odious and unjustifiable. That his late majesty, in his declaration, disclaimed the least imputation of resistance, and that to impute resistance to the said revolution, is to cast black and odious calumny upon his late majesty and the said revolution." State Trials, xv. 38.

lution, for vacancy or abdication was the thing they went upon, and therefore resistance was to be forgot; for had it not succeeded, it had certainly been rebellion, since he knew of no other but hereditary right."

I am satisfied that the duke spoke sincerely when he disclaimed the intention of substituting William for James.

Sacheverel's defence evaded the question of the lawfulness of resistance in any possible case, and so, as he affirmed, had his sermon. The duke of Leeds, with others, contended in a protest†, that the sermon did not contain reflections on the memory of king William, or on the revolution; and with this opinion, were justified in acquitting him. But there is surely no doubt but that he was guilty of the resistance which he condemns, before there was any pretence for asserting the vacancy of the throne.

In the year following this trial, and Leeds's condemnation, for such it may perhaps not unreasonably be styled, of the revolution of 1688, he expressed, in a letter to the elector, his attachment to the house of Hanover. § For this, as contrasted especially with his disavowal of any but hereditary right, an historian has charged the duke with inconsistency. If the im|| putation be just, surely, considering the age and situation

*Parl. Hist. vi. 347.

P. 33. The duke very rarely exercised the privilege of protesting, but he signed almost all the protests which this impeachment produced.

For some remarks upon Sacheverel's trial, in connection with the doctrine of resistance and other political tenets, see Fraser's Magazine, xvi. 52.

Nov. 1. 1710.-"Sir, I hope your electoral highness will pardon my acknowledging, in this manner, the extraordinary favours which I understand your highness has been pleased to show to my grandsons, Danby and his brother; and I am sorry my years will not allow me to go and do so myself. Whilst I was able, I was an actor, to the best of my power, to encompass those alterations, which were necessary for the security of our religion and laws; and as those alterations have justly brought the crown of these kingdoms into your illustrious family, so, I doubt not, but they will be preserved by it whenever they shall come to be under its protection; and although I may not live to pay my personal services, I hope I shall leave a family, both as well principled in loyalty, and as dutiful to your person and family, as they ought to be, and with that esteem which is due to your highness from all the world.". Macpherson's Orig. Papers, ii, 19% Macpherson, ib., and Hist. ii. 466.