Holland, that he never "appeared to have the least "sense that he had committed any error."

It does not seem improbable from Lord Clarendon's account of all that passed respecting Lord Holland that, had he formed a more just estimate of his own conduct during the last two years, and had he acted his part more discreetly and respectfully to the King, he would have been reinstated in the office he had formerly held, as well as in the King's favour and confidence. But he had not unnaturally deemed all submission unnecessary, having received a full assurance from the Queen through Mr. Jermyn' that all his own expectations would be realized.3 "The Queen," says Lord Clarendon, "seeing the King's aversion, forebore to press it, or to own the encouragement she had given "him; nor had she a willingness to oppose so great "a torrent of prejudice as she saw against him, so "that she appeared not to wish what without doubt "she would have been glad of." But the preference both she and Lord Jermyn entertained for Lord Holland, and the encouragement she had given him, indisposed her strongly to Lord Hertford, who was destined. to be his successor, and to whose appointment her consent had not been asked. Thus Lord Hertford once more found that his favour with the King was to be assailed by Court intrigue, and shaken by family influence. Already had his feelings been deeply wounded

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 265.

Mr. Jermyn was about this time created Baron Jermyn.

3 Lord Clarendon thinks he may have exceeded the Queen's commission in the promise made to Lord Holland.

power

by the conduct of the two Princes, and by their over their uncle. On his arrival at Oxford he found the Queen ready to enlist against him-her manner to him was changed, and she received him with marked coldness. He had naturally expected the immediate performance of the King's promise that he should fill the office of Groom of the Stole, but the King was silent on the subject, and Lord Hertford's friends suspected that the silence portended a breach of faith to him by the readmission of Lord Holland to this office. The Queen was eager that Lord Hertford should be persuaded to resign his appointment, and Lord Jermyn even spoke with some temper to Sir Edward Hyde on the subject, saying "how unreasonable a thing "it was for the Marquis, who was master of so great "a fortune, to affect such low preferment, and how generous a thing it would be to quit his pretence." But though Sir Edward Hyde was more favourable than most others at Court to the Earl of Holland being cordially received, he was by no means inclined to join in an intrigue against the just claim of one of the King's most devoted and most important followers. The office had been proposed to Lord Hertford as a proof of the King's wish to secure his constant presence and personal attendance upon himself, and neither the King's offer nor Lord Hertford's p. 264.

66

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv.

2 These intrigues appear to have been very distasteful to many of the "Lords and persons of quality in the town (Oxford), who did not wish to see the Court just filled as it had been, or the Queen herself possessed "of so absolute a power as she had formerly."-Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 265.

acceptance of it could be withdrawn without implying a change of feeling that must have been either lowering to Lord Hertford or offensive to the King.

The political importance of offices at Court must necessarily depend upon the degree to which the exercise of sovereign power remains in the hands of the King himself; doubtless, when legislation practically resides in the two Houses of Parliament, and the responsibility of the Crown falls on the ministers to whom the administration of the government is intrusted, little remains but the honour to those household offices that once derived importance from the easy access they afforded to the ear of the King. Lord Jermyn's attempt to undervalue the office appears to have been founded on its emoluments being unworthy Lord Hertford's acceptance; certainly these (whether paid or not) could but little influence one who like Lord Hertford was rather in a condition to afford assistance in money to the King's cause than to seek any recompence from his regal bounty; but to be near the person of the King was to enjoy both honour and power-honour that was to wipe off the affront put upon him through the instrumentality of the young Princes, and power that enabled him to evince his loyalty by constant attendance and service, by aiding in the counsels and by sharing in the reverses of his royal Master.

The Queen and Lord Jermyn failed in their attempt to make him voluntarily resign what the King had voluntarily offered. Lord Holland persevered in making neither concession nor apology, and the King fulfilled

his promise to Lord Hertford. Lord Holland had probably not expected this result of his silence, and as soon as possible after Lord Hertford's appointment he retired from Oxford to a neighbouring village, and after a few days, under cover of a dark night, and with the help of a good guide, returned to the Parliament's quarters at Uxbridge on the 5th of November.1

Lord Hertford now resigned the office of Governor to the Prince of Wales, and was succeeded in that charge by the Earl of Berkshire. On the 31st of October he was installed Chancellor of Oxford,3 having received from the University the compliment of being chosen in place of Philip Earl of Pembroke.* From the time of Lord Hertford's appointment

Whitelock thus alludes to the jests passed upon the return of the three Earls to the Parliament:

"It was said in drollery that these three Earls had much confirmed "others to continue with the Parliament; for they, having tried both parties, found by experience that this was the best to be in and to "adhere to."-Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 68.

2 Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 350.

"In that capacity he exerted an uncommon stretch of influence. Having a distant relation, Mr. Robert Cary, the Marquis wrote in his "behalf certain letters, which, being read in Convocation, this gentleman was actually created Doctor of Laws in consequence."-Prince's Worthies of Devon,' p. 184.

66

66

4 66 Philip Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery being thought unworthy "to bear the said office by the King and University, forasmuch as he was actually against the former in the present war, and altogether neglected "the other, the King authorised the members thereof to make choice of "another: wherefore they, calling a Convocation on the 24th of October, "did elect for their Chancellor one that had been formerly of Magdalen College, viz. William Marquis of Hertford, Viscount Beauchamp, Baron Seymour, &c.; and on the 31st of the said month they admitted and "installed him in the House of Convocation (then in the north chapel "joining to St. Mary's church) in the presence of the Bishops of Bath and Wells, Salisbury, Rochester, and divers of the nobility that were then "in the University."-Wood's Fasti Oxonienses,' vol. ii. p. 56.

66

66

about the person of the King he seems to have been ever at his side, joining in all those acts that were to support his falling fortunes or restore his former power, but few occasions remain in the records of those times by which to trace his individual opinions or the distinct part he may have borne in the endeavour to resist the troubled stream that was finally to sweep away all to which he had linked his fate.

Lord Hertford's name is to be seen in the list of those who addressed "A Letter to the Lords of the

66

Privy Council in Scotland and Conservators of Peace "touching their expedition into England, and showing "how few Peers were left at Westminster." He was

3

also present at the Parliament summoned to Oxford, and which met on the 22nd of January, 1643-4.2 He was one of those who signed the letter to the Earl of Essex on the 27th of January, and to which were appended the signatures of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, of 43 Peers, and 48 Members of the House of Commons. The object of the letter was to secure the co-operation of Lord Essex in effecting a sure and lasting treaty of peace. It proved wholly unsuccessful, and indeed Lord Essex had before this time much altered in his moderate inclinations and desire of peace. Different causes were surmised as having oc

'Life of Lord Capell, vol. i. p. 284, and Appendix H, vol. ii. p. 204. 2 Ibid., vol. i. p. 285.

Ibid., vol. i. p. 285, and Appendix G, vol. ii. p. 198.

The Parliamentary History, vol. iii. p. 209, gives the date of that letter January 27, whilst in the Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 402, the date is January 29.

> Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 191.