1678 he was sent at the head of a small force to protect Ostend against the French (Reresby, p. 128; Burnet, ii. 127), and to raise the siege of Mons on the eve of the conclusion of the peace of Nimeguen. He was now the ally of the Prince of Orange, to whose English marriage in the previous year he was said to have objected from motives of both interest and pique (Ossory ap. Burnet, ii. 61 n.) On his return to England in August he found the popish plot agitation just astir, and Charles II now began his policy of balancing the rights of his brother by the popularity of his bastard son (Burnet, ii. 172). Monmouth more and more identified himself with the protestant movement; detailed (24 Oct. 1678) to the House of Lords his measures for dealing with papists in the army and providing for the safety of the king (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. pt. ii. p. 88, cf. 7th Rep. App. p. 471), and was himself proved on the testimony of Bedloe to be in danger of assassination. He lost no opportunity of heightening his popularity (cf. Autobiography of Roger North ed. Jessopp, p. 38), and the report of his being the king's legitimate son was revived so vigorously that Charles II on two successive occasions thought it worth his while to declare solemnly (6 Jan.) and attest (3 Mar. 1679) before the privy council that the story of his marriage with Lucy Walters was a fiction, and that he had married no woman but the queen (Ellis, Original Letters, 1st ser. iii. 344–5). Already in April 1679 Reresby (p. 167) wrote of him as ‘the man in power.’ It was with the distinct object of preventing Monmouth from being put at the head of an aggressive protestant administration that Sir William Temple devised his scheme of a large privy council in which Monmouth, Shaftesbury, and their associates should be included, but would not be omnipotent. For to Monmouth, in conjunction with the Duchess of Portsmouth and Lord Essex, Temple attributed the overthrow of Danby, imputing to him the design of bringing Shaftesbury, with whom he was now intimate, into power, and tampering with the succession (‘Memoirs of Sir W. Temple,’ pt. iii., Works (fol. 1750), i. 333). On the other hand, at court Monmouth was thought to have favoured Temple's scheme, using it as the occasion on which he ‘began to set up for himself’ (Reresby, p. 167). He was named a member of the committee of intelligence in matters both foreign and domestic, which was formed early in the year (Sidney, Diary and Correspondence, i. 5 n.)
After the Exclusion Bill had passed its second reading in the new House of Commons, parliament was prorogued, and a schism manifested itself among the opposition leaders. At the head of the party of action, along with Shaftesbury, stood ‘exercituum nostrorum generalis,’ as Monmouth was designated in his writ of summons to the House of Lords (Hist. MSS. Comm. 11th Rep. App. pt. ii. p. 90); nor was his popularity diminished when he was chosen to quell the insurrection which ensued in Scotland on the murder of Archbishop Sharp (Examen, p. 81). Monmouth arrived in Edinburgh on 18 June 1679, and his easy victory at Bothwell Bridge on 22 June virtually put an end to the rebellion. The clemency shown by him to many of the numerous prisoners taken in the battle (cf. Scott, Old Mortality) was disapproved by the Duke of York, and even by the king (Burnet, ii. 236 n.), but in conjunction with his military success insured him an enthusiastic reception on his return to London (Temple, u. s., p. 340). The king had again dissolved parliament, but James was still in exile, and on the king's falling seriously ill in August Monmouth ventured to request that the duke might be prohibited from returning. Charles II, however, gave the desired permission, and the warm reception of the Duke of York by the king was, on the recovery of the latter (15 Sept.), followed by Monmouth's being deprived of his commission as general, and ordered to absent himself for some time from the kingdom (Luttrell, i. 21). He was loth to go, and began to despair of his father (Sidney, Diary, i. 127, 151 n.), so that during the latter part of September there were various rumours in London as to his movements and intentions (cf. Verney MSS. in Hist. MSS. Comm. 7th Rep. App. p. 475). Ultimately he left for Holland at the close of the month, after an interview in Arlington Gardens with the king, who insisted on his departure, but told him it should not be for long (ib.). His submission to the royal wish had been advised by his whig friends (Burnet, ii. 238). At the Hague he seemed in a melancholy mood, went twice to church on one day, and was feasted by the fanatics at dinner (Sidney, i. 154, 166). During this visit the first personal approximation between Monmouth and the Prince of Orange seems to have taken place (ib. i. 190, 194).
At midnight on 27 Nov., the Duke of York being now in Scotland, Monmouth, though he had in vain sought to obtain the royal permission for his return, reappeared in London, where he was received with much popular rejoicing (Reresby, p. 181; Evelyn, ii. 359; Luttrell, i. 29). The king immediately issued orders for Monmouth's chief military and civil offices to be taken from him, and
