retrieve it, the effects of which must appear this next summer, either at sea, or in Ireland, or both; and a miscarriage in either will probably be fatal to the chief commanders (how innocent soever they be), and deeply prejudicial to your majesty. Although I have writ all this to your majesty as my own opinion, I find it to be also the opinion of all the thinking men that I converse with, and it is such a daily discourse (even amongst us who are of the committee for Irish affairs), how impossible it is for things to succeed in Ireland, under the present conduct of them, that I believe it to be the reason why we can so seldom get a number sufficient to make a committee, of which my lord Sidney and I are always two, and commonly sir Henry Goodricke the third; but (which is yet worse), if any others do chance to come, they seem to act like pioneers for pay rather than by inclination."* While the president thus complained of his colleagues, his own conduct did not escape their observation. "The lord president," wrote Sidney about the same time, "hath been of late very peevish, and continually complaining. I am now his confidant, and he hath almost told me, that he would retire in a very little time.”† Lord Marlborough too complained of the interference of the lord president in matters connected with the army. In the next session §, parliament was chiefly occupied * Feb. 20. 1690-1. Dal. iii. 177. + Lord Sidney to the king, Feb. 27., p. 180. 1 P. 247. In a letter of March 20. 1690-1, (Dalr. iii. 181.), Lord Godolphin writes thus to the king:-I take for granted that your majesty, unless you were obliged to do it by law, would never choose out the earl of Danby, of all England, to fill that officer's place, through whose hands all your own revenue, all the public money of the kingdom, and all the accounts of both the one and the other, are to pass; and for these reasons, if the case does happen, I shall think it my duty to refuse to admit him (as far as it depends of me,) till the right of the patent is determined; unless your majesty should be pleased to signify your pleasure that you would give the place to him, though there were no patent in the case; which, I confess, I think you would no more do, than you would make him a bishop." I presume that Godolphin refers to some office in the exchequer which was about to be given to lord Danby, the son of Carmarthen, but I can ascertain nothing respecting it. Fifth session, Nov. 7. 1693. Parl. Hist. v. 772. VOL. V. A A in inquiries into the misfortunes at sea. The triennial bill was again introduced, and it was now rejected by the commons themselves. The place bill, which passed both houses, was now lost by the refusal of the royal assent.* The commons remonstrated, and resolved that whoever advised this refusal, was an enemy to the king and kingdom, but stopped short of an address to inquire the name of the adviser. Those who have dated the commencement of "the Carmarthen administration" from the retirement of lord Shrewsbury, have dated its termination at the period of his reinstatement. There was not in either case any formal or complete transfer of the premiership, or indeed any premiership existing; it is probable that increasing age and discontent withdrew lord Carmarthen more and more from public business. About this time, the dukedom of Leeds† was conferred upon him, whether in consequence of the similar honour conferred upon Shrewsbury, or as a sort of compensation for the decrease of court influence, or from any cause less definite, I cannot say. It is remarkable that, in this promotion to the highest rank in the peerage, he was associated with Russell and Cavendish, the father of one of his foremost prosecutors in the reign of Charles II., and one of those prosecutors in his own person. ‡ But the new duke of Leeds did not cease to advise the crown, and we know that he was chiefly concerned in the advice now given to William in the following session, and reluctantly followed, to pass the triennial bill. || Jan. 25. 1693-4. p. 828. Lords', xv. 351. Commons', xi. 70. 74. This session lasted till April 25. 1694 + 1694. With the dukedom of Bedford and Devonshire, that of Newcastle, (since extinct) was conferred. It has been observed, that of four new dukes, three were whigs. Sixth session, Nov. 12. 1694. Parl. Hist. 859. Mr. Cooke, in his History of Party, i. 532., mentions the passing of this bill as a proof that Carmarthen and Nottingham were not the king's advisers; but we have the best proof that Carmarthen did advise this mea sure. See Introd. to letters, p. xii. But in this session, the duke of Leeds was once more under impeachment, for an offence much more injurious to his personal honour than those of which he had been formerly accused. The charge now was, that he received 5,000l. from the East India Company, for his influence in passing the bill for the renewal of their privileges. In the midst of a variety of proceedings and discoveries concerning corrupt practices, it appeared that a large sum had been expended by sir Thomas Cooke when governor, for the special service of the East India Company. Cooke refused to give an account of this expenditure, and the commons passed a bill to oblige him to it. It does not appear when or how the name of the duke was first mentioned, but it is probable that a rumour had got abroad that he was implicated. When this bill went up to the lords, the duke spoke vehemently against it, and introduced what he was about to say with a most solemn protestation of his cleanness and innocence, and laying his hand upon his breast, declared upon his faith and honour, that he was perfectly disinterested, and had no part or concern in this matter, and therefore might the better appear against it," which he did," (says the history *) expressing great abhorrence of the bill." 66 It would strike one at first, that the duke, if innocent, would desire the bill to pass; but if I rightly comprehend the proceedings of the house of lords, with the concurrence, if not at the suggestion of the duke, the bill which (after examining sir Thomas Cooke) they substituted for that of the commons, was calculated to produce a more prompt and complete discovery of the truth, inasmuch as it indemnified Cooke from any evidence which he might give, and require·l him to make his confession at a much earlier period. † The examination proceeded before a joint committee of both houses, and evidence was given whereon was * V. 911. + See the lords' reasons in Com. Jour. xi. 37. founded a charge against the duke of receiving 5,500 guineas for using his endeavours to procure a charter for the East India Company.* It was proved that one Bates was well acquainted with the duke, and had agreed with sir Basil Firebrace, who acted for the company, to neutralise the duke's supposed hostility, or to procure his co-operation. On these grounds Firebrace paid to Bates 5,500 guineas, the greater part of which had been brought back again, a very little time before the inquiry. Bates himself said that the duke (who declared against the forfeiture of the charter) promised his assistance, but refused the money, but that he gave leave to his servant, at Bates's request, to procure cash for the notes. And it was not till after some hesitation that he admitted that it was only within a few days that he had received the money from his servant Robart. The duke was defending himself in the house of lords, when he heard of the impeachment, and immediately obtained a hearing in the house of commons. He admitted that he knew Bates, and had permitted him to bring sir Basil Firebrace to him on the part of the company. He confirmed the account which Bates had given, of his lending him his servant to procure the money for the notes which Bates had received, and said that Bates offered him the 5,500 guineas, which he refused, and recommended to Bates to keep it to himself. His speech in the commons was little more than a denial of the charge. † There is nothing in the evidence at all inconsistent with the duke's account; but one most awkward circumstance had been proved, on which the duke said nothing. This was, that the money had not been * Parl. Hist. p. 937. + Dalrymple says (iii. 75.), that the duke's speech in the house of commons, “in the confusion and anxiety of his spirits, whether they arose from the consciousness of innocence or of guilt, was not equal to the lustre of his former abilities, and he displeased the pride of his audience by an arrogant expression, on which he laid arrogant emphasis, that if it had not been for him, they had not then been sitting there." Dalrymple gives no authority.. handed over by Robart to Bates, on whose account he received it, for more than twelve months from the time of receipt; and the suspicious appearance of this fact was greatly increased when Robart himself fled the country. It is the duke's own statement that this man, upon coming to town upon a temporary absence, and hearing that his lord was impeached and Mr. Bates in prison, immediately absconded, saying, that he would write from his own country (Switzerland), a true account of the matter of the 5,500 guineas to Mr. Bates." 66 -- For the retention of the money by Robart, and his subsequent flight, there are two conceivable reasons: The duke may, notwithstanding his own denial, and Bates's, have either in the first instance, or afterwards, accepted the money, in which case it was the duke's interest to keep his servants out of the way :-or Robart may have played the part of Gehazi, and may have cheated Bates with a story of his master's change of mind, and have therefore absconded, for his own safety. Not either of these suppositions is inconsistent with the evidence of Bates, and Bates is in truth the only material witness in this part of the case; for Firebrace, whose evidence is pregnant with more suspicion against the duke, knew nothing but from Bates, who had an interest in deceiving him about the money, but who in fact did not tell him that the duke had received it. I am not prepared to give a decided opinion for or against the guilt of the duke. But I do feel that his conduct in the affair of French money, with which his insidious friend Montagu tempted him, entitles him to the benefit of every doubt of which the case admits. It is alleged that he showed no eagerness in detaining Robart; and certainly the prorogation of parliament* within a few days after the impeachment had been carried up to the lords, and which the commons were actually engaged upon, was not consistent with much On May 3. 1695. Parl. Hist. p. 941. Jour. 333. |