a list of those who were plotting against him. He put it in the fire without reading it. Britain indeed might be thankful for so generous-minded a king.

Parliament.

The overthrow of James settled the question between King and Parliament for ever. All the claims Supremacy of of Parliament were summed up in the Bill of Rights, which pronounced it illegal for the king to "dispense with" or set aside the laws, to levy money, or to keep a standing army in time of peace, without leave of Parliament. Further, it was declared that Parliament was to be freely elected, and should have liberty to debate about anything it pleased; and, finally, that no Catholic could be king. Henceforward power was in the hands of Parliament. Although William wished to take his ministers from both the Tory and Whig parties, yet in a short time it was recognized that those ministers should have the power whose followers were in a majority in the Commons. Thus we have the beginnings of our modern system of party government; but, as we shall see, a long time was to pass before the system was perfected.

XXVII.-WAR WITH FRANCE. MARLBOROUGH.

The accession of William III. was followed at once by a war with France, which lasted eight years. Nor does this war stand alone; it is the forerunner of many others. Indeed, if we take a general view of the 126 years that lie between the accession of William

Beginning of a
New Hundred

Years' War with
France, 1689-1815.

and the battle of Waterloo we shall find that war goes

on almost exactly half the time. There are seven wars which, when added together, take up rather more than sixty years. In the eighteenth century war with France is almost the rule. But if, instead of going 126 years onward from 1688, we look back over the same length of time-that is to say, roughly speaking, to the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, we find quite a different state of affairs. War with France is the exception; in the earlier period there are only two wars with France, lasting three years. It seems very curious that for a century and a quarter we have only three years of war with France, and then for the next century and a quarter we have sixty years of fighting. Why was this so? Why did the wars begin with William III.?

The lapse of time enables us to give an answer to the first question, which would hardly have been accepted in William or Anne's day, and yet The War was true. Britain was entering upon a Colonial in second Hundred Years' War with France, Character. not this time for territory in France, but for colonial power. The question really was whether the New World and India should fall into French or British hands. But this only came in sight by degrees; it is hardly visible in William's day; it is not conspicuous in Anne's reign; but fifty years later, when a war between Britain and France led to fighting all over the world, it is obvious.

The fact is that William and his English subjects were both at war with France, but for different reasons. It is hardly an exaggeration to say Growing, that William's whole life is summed up Power of in enmity to France. France was the leader of the Catholic opposition to Protestantism; she was threatening all Europe by her growing power; espe

France.

cially was she dangerous to William's native country, Holland. She became, as it were, a big bully, to whom might alone is right. And just at this time a fresh danger appeared. It seemed likely that France would be united with Spain, for Louis's grandson was heir to the Spanish throne. Such a union might give France all the wide Spanish possessions in the New World, and it would upset the balance. of power in Europe altogether. William, therefore, set himself to check Louis XIV. by a Grand Alliance; when Britain came under his sway he included Britain, as a matter of course, among the allies. It was, in fact, a master stroke of his policy, for in the previous reigns it had seemed likely that the Catholic Stuarts would take the side of their Catholic cousin, Louis XIV.

Englishmen, however, did not take so wide a view. They made war against France because France helped James II. Louis had received him, had given him a palace and large sums of money, had called him King of England, and had sent his troops to fight on his behalf in Ireland. Britain, therefore, fought against Louis as a Jacobite, not against Louis as a danger to Europe.

It was

This comes out clearly in William's war. not very popular, and it was not successful enough to William's War excite enthusiasm. William was always Unpopular. being defeated. It was true that he had generally fewer men, and that he was clever enough to prevent the French generals gaining much by their victories. Yet it was hard to feel proud of a war in which all that could be said was that William had done his best, and that the defeats had not turned out so disastrous as had been expected. In reality it was a great achievement for William to hold his ground

at all. But this was not understood; so when Louis made peace at Ryswick, and admitted William's title to be King of England, his British subjects were satisfied that enough had been done. That they had no wish to carry on an eternal war with Louis was shown by the next step which Parliament took; it began to reduce the army, and sent away William's Dutch guards.

After the Treaty of Ryswick the great powers had Louis Breaks agreed upon an elaborate division of the his Promises. Spanish dominions, by which the French claimant was to get little. Within three years Louis broke through the treaty, and accepted the whole inheritance of Spain for his grandson. William saw there was more urgent need for war than ever before. Parliament, however, would not listen to him. Had Louis been prudent it is likely that Britain would have remained neutral. But Louis took a false step. James II. died, and Louis recognized his son as James III., King of England.

This piece of impudent interference set everyone against him. On all sides war was demanded: it was necessary to avenge the insult, to teach Louis that he could not by his word make or unmake British kings. Thus the war which began in Anne's reign was very different from that of William. It was popular instead of unpopular; and beyond this, it was brilliantly successful instead of being dubious and indecisive; William never won a pitched battle against the French; Marlborough never lost one.

Much has been written against Marlborough, and with justice. He was greedy for money; he had played the traitor over and over again; Marlborough. he betrayed James II., who had been a good friend to him; he plotted to betray William III.;