Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 10.djvu/327

 some Jacobites conceived the suspicion that Marlborough intended to use the position thus gained to crown Anne instead of James. Hereupon they communicated the whole affair to Portland (see, chap. xviii., who ffives the statement of James, first published by Macpherson, and Burnetts original account from Harl. MS. 6584).

The real nature of Marlborough's ultimate intentions is of course conjectural. Probably he was too good a player to commit himself to the second move of the game before he had seen the issue of the first. There is, however, no reason to doubt James's assertion that the Jacobite suspicion existed, and led to the discovery of the scheme. On 9 Jan. 1601-2 Queen Mary had an explanation with Anne, and on the 10th Marlborough was dismissed from all his positions. Lady Marlborough still remained with the princess, and three weeks later accompanied Anne to the palace at Kensington. Next day Mary wrote to insist upon the dismissal of the mvourite. A violent quarrel followed. Anne stood by the Marlboroughs; she had to leave the palace, and was deprived of the customary tokens of respect. During the following summer a sham plot was concocted by a wretch named Robert Young. He produced a forged association for the restoration of James, to which he appended the signatures of Marlborough, Sprat (bishop of Roctiester), and others. Marlborough was at once sent to the Tower (6 May 1692). Sprat, however, succeeded in demonstrating the falsehood of the accusation, and Marlborough was released on bail 15 June. On 23 June his name, and those of his sureties, Halifax and Shrewsbury, were struck from the list of privy councillors. The secret of his real treachery was not revealed until the publication of James's papers; his contemporaries could only make vague conjectures, Evelyn supposing that William had detected him in peculation, while attempts to raise discontent in the army and quarrels between the queen and princess were suggested in other directions. The scandal most generally accepted, and for many years popularly believed, was that a plan for surprising Dunkirk had been confided by Marlborough to his wife, and through her to Lady Tyrconnel and the French (see e.g. Short Narrative, by 'An Old Officer in the Army' (1711), and Review of Conduct, &c. (1742), p. 42).

That Marlborough should have been a Jacobite at this period is neither surprising nor disgraceful. It is certainly disgraceful, though not surprising, that he helped James while serving William in positions of trust. Other statesmen yielded to the temptations of one of the revolutionary periods in which men are forced to be heroes or traitors. Resentment for his disgrace impelled him to a baser action. He wrote to James through an agent (who forwarded the letter on 8 May 1694) stating that an English expedition, then on the point of sailing, was intended to attack Brest. James had just before received (1 May) a similar intimation from Godolphin, then first lord of the treasury, and from Lord Arran. The English expedition was delayed by weather; the French were fully prepared; and a rash landing of troops in Camaret Bay was repulsed with heavy loss and the death of their leader, Talmash. It does not appear that the failure was due to the information supplied by Marlborough rather than to that supplied by Godolphin, Arran, and probably others. From the 'Shrewsbury Correspondence' (pp. 44-7) it seems that William regarded the action as imprudent, because the French had been 'long apprised of the intended attack.' It has therefore been argued that Marlborough made the statement, knowing it to be superfluous, in order to get credit from the Jacobites. This, however, can scarcely be maintained. The information from an authentic source mi^ht clearly be of the highest importance, even if more or less anticipated. Marlborough's conduct is only too much in harmonv with his character. The implied absence of any chivalrous sentiment of honour is, unfortunately, no reason for disbelieving the accusation. Marlborough was not the man to shrink from any means which would lead to his end, and apparently regarded a treasonable action as not less admissible than a stratagem in war.

Macaulay, following a suggestion of Macpherson (Original Papers, i. 487), attributes to him also the desire to get rid of Talmash as his only military rival m England. Such insight int.o secret motives is only granted to men of Macaulay's omniscience. It is remarkable, however, that Shrewsbury remarks to William upon the want of any English soldier to take Talmash's place, and adds that Marlborough has been with him to apply for fresh employ ment 'with all imaginable expressions of duty and fidelity.' William coldly rejected the offer (Shrewsbury Correspondence, pp. 47, 53). The treachery is bad eno^h, without assuming that Marlborough foresaw all the consequences of which he tried to take advantage (Original Papers, i. 483, 487;, Life of James II, p. 522; , Memoirs, pt. iii. bk. iii. p. 62; and Puzzles and Paradoxes, by John Paget (1874), where all that is possible is said in defence of Marlborough).

Marlborough continued to correspond with the court of the Pretender for many years. During the first part of Queen Anne's reign,