it appears that Russell himself' was desirous of a divided command *, as there was not one man in England capable of doing it alone!" Among the eminent courtiers who sought a share in command, was lord Shrewsbury, the retired secretary of state, who made the offer in a letter to lord Carmarthen. † Russell himself was willing to serve with Shrewsbury, but he, and Marlborough, to whom the queen remembered Williams' predilection for Shrewsbury, and suggested it, were apprehensive that Carmarthen and Nottingham would object. The lord president was himself a candidate for the post. Lord Pembroke (who had been proposed) objected to have a man of quality to go, saying, "it was only to send him to be knocked on the head, without the hopes of having any credit of what was well done." Upon which lord president offered to go himself. I put that off with compliment, and said that I thought the best would be to name the two seamen, which would be sir R. Haddock and sir J. Ashby, being now first in the fleet, and leave the third person to your naming. This lord president approved."

The lords of the admiralty proposed urgently that Russell should have the sole command; but this good advice was given, not upon a sound principle of unity, but because they were indisposed to Haddock, one of the naval officers proposed. I extract Mary's account of this embarrassing proceeding: "When they came, lord president told them what the resolution was; sir Thomas Lee (one of the admiralty) grew as pale as death, and told me that the custom was, that they used to recommend, and they were to answer for the persons, since they were to give them the commission, and did not know but they might be called to account in parliament.§. . . . . Lord president argued with them; at last sir Thomas Lee came to say plainly, Haddock was the man they did not like. Lord Pembroke spoke for him, so did Sir John Lowther; Mr. Russell was gone † P. 103.

*July 12., p. 130.
P. 105.

out; Priestman spoke against it, so did lord Carberry, and sir Richard Onslow.* At last sir Thomas Lee said, I might give them a commission if I pleased, but they could not. He talked long, and insisted upon their privilege. I said that I perceived the king then had given away his own power, and could not make an admiral which the admiralty did not like. He answered, No, no more he could. I was ready to say, that then the king should give the commission to such as would not dispute with him, but I did not, though I must confess I was heartily angry; it may be I am in the wrong, but as yet I cannot think so. Lord president, after more discourse, desired them to retire."

They were afterwards ordered to prepare the commission, when three of them sent to excuse their not signing. "I asked lord president what answer was to be sent, for he brought me the message. I told him I was much surprised: he was very angry, and talked at a great rate; but I stopped him, and told him I was angry enough, and desired he would not be too much so, for I did not believe it a proper time: he said, the best answer he could give from me was, that they would do well to consider of it. I desired he would add this,— I could not change my mind, if it were proper to say so much. He said it was rather too little.” — King William approved of his wife's behaviour, even to her wrath. “Last night,” she writes in reply, "I received yours of the 3d July, and with great satisfaction that it was so plain. Your approving my anger is a great ease to me, and I hope may make things go on better if it be possible." +

....

"I shall do as much as lies in my power to follow your directions in all things whatever, and am never so easy as when I have them. Judge then what a joy it was to me to have your approbation of my behaviour; and the kind way you express it in, is the only comfort I can possibly have in your absence. All three, lords of the admiralty. † Aug. 15., p. 114

What other people say, I ever suspect, but when you tell me I have done well, I could be almost vain upon it. I am sure I have all the reason in the world to praise God, who has sustained me in things so difficult to flesh and blood, and has given me more courage than I could have hoped for. I am sure 't is so great a mercy that I can never forget it: we have received many. God send us grace to value them as we ought; but nothing touches people's hearts here enough to make them agree; that would be too much happiness." These curious discussions ended in the appointment of Russell to the sole command.*

The difference about the fleet was hardly a question between the two parties of which the cabinet was composed. I know not whether we ought to ascribe to a dread of tory preponderance, I speak of party, not of principle - lord Devonshire's suggestion, that the parliament should be dissolved, "for he was sure it would do no good...... I see it is a thing they are mighty set upon. Lord president, methinks, has very good arguments to try this point." †

It is not easy to imagine by what arguments lord Devonshire maintained the propriety of dissolving parliament, which had had only one, and that a quiet session. It is even less easy to account, upon any admissible reason, for the opinion professed by the whig admiral Russell upon another question which arose in the council: "There has been a great debate this morning in the cabinet council, whether the commissioners of the admiralty should be trusted with the secret (of the expedition to Kinsale under Marlborough): Mr. Russell thought it was no matter if the whole town knew it. Lord president thought the whole success depends on its being a secret, and would not have the commissioners of the admiralty told of it by no means.' ‡

* I can find nothing concerning these transactions either at the Admiralty or at the State Paper Office. Russell's appointment is dated by Burchett on the 23d of December, 1690.

+ Aug. 22., p. 120.

Sep. 5., p. 128.

Did Russell desire that king James should be forewarned of the expedition? Carmarthen unwillingly consented to the expedition itself, disapproving of the defenceless state in which the withdrawal of troops left the English coast.

In parliament, matters went easily* during a whole session. But the continued war, as well on the Continent as in Ireland, produced in the next session † the usual complaints of mismanagement and profusion. Danby had not either the management of the finances, or the conduct of the war, and had now ceased to be the particular object of opposition and attack.

Still, the government generally now began to be unpopular. To the ordinary causes of discontent was added the cold and distant behaviour of the king, and his partiality to his Dutch favourites and Dutch guards.

Two constitutional measures of much importance were brought forward in this session ‡, and defeated by the influence, and in one case by the prerogative, of the crown. The first was a place bill, for excluding from the house of commons persons holding offices. This was rejected in the house of lords by a small majority. The other was the bill for triennial parliaments, which, after passing both houses, was rejected by the king.

It would naturally be supposed that Carmarthen was in some degree responsible for the loss of these bills, though his name has never been particularly connected with them.

But we know, on the authority of the lord president

*Second session.

The third session of the second parliament lasted from Oct. 22. 1691 to Feb. 24. 1691-2. Parl. Hist. v. 405.

t Fourth session, Nov. 4. 1692 to March 14. 1692-3. Parl. Hist. v. 707. Jan. 3. 1692-3. Lords' Jour. xv. 172. Parl. Hist. v. 751.

March 14. 1692-3. Lords' Jour. 289. Parl. Hist. 768. It has been lately asserted in the house of commons, that in consequence of the refusal of the royal assent to this bill, the commons withheld the supplies. I can find no foundation for this assertion. The royal assent was refused at the end of the fourth session of this parliament; in the next session, the commons themselves rejected a similar bill, and I find no record of any proceeding connected with the king's refusal.

himself, that he concurred in the triennial bill; though whether that concurrence was given on this occasion, or when the same bill was introduced again, I cannot say. Lord Carmarthen's words are consistent with either supposition. *

It is probable that the rejection of this bill was very much the act of the king himself, for it is recorded that he consulted sir William Templet upon it; not through one of his ministers, but through his favourite, the earl of Portland. All intimacy had by this time apparently ceased between Carmarthen and Temple.

Some not unimportant changes were now made in the administration, one of which gave the great seal to Somers. This appointment is not to be regarded as a decided symptom of William's returning partiality to the whig party. Considering that Somers was at this time attorney-general, and a very rising lawyer, it is hardly necessary to find a special cause for this promotion. § And when we recollect that it immediately followed the rejection of the triennial bill, and was followed by a similar exercise of prerogative, it cer tainly is not indicative of any change of political principle. It appeared at this time to be William's policy to have ministers of all parties.

The re-appointment of lord Shrewsbury to the office of secretary of state in the ensuing spring || may be cited with more plausibility as an indication of William's favour to the whigs; we shall soon come to other grounds upon which it may be accounted for.

It is well known that Carmarthen was one of those

"I have lived to find kings to be true prophets as well as kings. I have seen many abuses made of the triennial act, about which king William was very much displeased with me for concurring; and used the very same expression which king Charles had done on the popish plot-that should live to repent it. And I am not afraid to acknowledge that I have repented both, since I have seen such very wrong uses made of them."— Preface to Memoirs, p. xi.

+ Life of Temple, ii. 134.

In the spring of 1693.

See Burnet, iv. 187. Trenchard was made secretary of state, but it was in the room of Sidney, who was equally a whig.

March 16. 1693-4. Collins, iii, 40.