in which the duke was placed by the underhand practices of James.
Therefore, up to the time of the king's abdication, Marlboroughs' rela-
tions with him appear to have been entirely free from blame. When he
could not stop the king in his mad career, he was justified in seeking aid
elsewhere, in opening an intercourse with the Prince of Orange, in con-
cealing that intercourse from the king, in deserting him in the way he
did, and in joining King William with the troops under his command at
Salisbury. He sought only, by timely precautions and in his own defence,
to counteract by treachery that treachery which had been manifestly
intended to be practised by the Stuart, both towards himself and all
England.

But enough on the first period of the duke's alleged duplicity, in which
he appears to be fairly entitled to an honourable acquittal. We come
next to the second charge of duplicity, namely, that practised towards.
King William, in which we have arrived at a very different conclusion.

It was natural, for the reasons already assigned, that Marlborough
should resume a friendly correspondence with the abdicated monarch,
though he had become the liege subject of his successor; for the duke was
capable of affection, and so far as personal feeling, and a sense of right
was concerned, he was undoubtedly inclined to the cause of King
James. Upon this point we have the testimony of his Whig duchess,
in her last will made twenty-three years after the death of her husband,
who she says "left King James with great regret." Consequently there
was nothing unnatural or very reprehensible in this liaison; it was even
creditable to Marlborough's character, had it continued restricted to past
personal recollections. But when it went beyond this -- when to these
private reminiscences, or other personal or selfish motive, public duties
were offered to be sacrificed -- when Marlborough began clandestinely to
form plans for the restoration of the prince by the betrayal of his present
sovereign, to whom he had sworn allegiance -- by whom he had been
honoured, promoted to high offices, and implicitly trusted; then we can-
not hesitate to brand his conduct as basely false and treasonable. This is
what Marlborough did, and it is an ineffaceable blot on his public repu-
tation. King William had not, like his predecessor, given to the duke
just cause of umbrage and fair pretexts for duplicity. All that the king
can be accused of, or alleged in Marlborough's defence, is, that he had
shown an undue, though natural, preference for his Dutch followers;
and the duke had not obtained so large a share as they had in royal
gifts, titles, trust, and promotion. Even the defence which Mr. Coxe
has offered for his hero only heightens the infamy of his proceeding. It
is said or implied, forsooth, that the duke, by his clandestine intercourse
with James, sought not directly to betray his present master, but only to
provide beforehand impunity and security for himself and possessions, in
the event of the prince's restoration -- a contingency at one juncture not
unlikely to happen. But this kind of defence makes matters worse.
For merely selfish considerations no person can be justified in violating
his sworn fidelity to another party, but this was certainly what the
duke attempted with King William. We think, indeed, that the duke
sought more; that by a very reprehensible species of double-dealing, he

-499-