was there any remembrance, but in his own thoughts, of all that had been done by his party, to perpetuate his command? If he was really disgusted, because one of his sons-in law[1], and the father of another[2] were removed; how ungrateful and undutiful was that behaviour to the person that had so wonderfully raised him; to a sovereign, who had honoured him with such superlative marks of her favour? It is possible he might only seem discontented, to please his family, though, it has been shown, without reason; to which they interpreted his going to Blenheim just before the queen's birthday, from whence he returned the day after; as if he purposely chose to omit paying his duty and respects upon so remarkable an occasion.
But what mortifications, what hardships, are these which our author complains of? Was his commission limited? had he not power to advance or retreat? was he forbidden to besiege or fight? was he commanded to take no steps but what were directed from above? wherein was he devested of his authority? when was this barbarous usage? was there any person hired to assassinate his fame, or take away his life? what conspiracy, what confederacy, to make criminals accuse him? did any of his enemies tamper with monsieur de Guiscard, and offer him his life, pardon, and money, to lay his villany upon the duke? Had the persons here in power a mind that his designs this campaign should miscarry, how easy would it have been for them to have effectually disappointed them, and without being discovered! An artful hand can make more wonderful, though concealed,
- ↑ The earl of Sunderland.
- ↑ The earl of Godolphin.
