under William as a measure of self-preservation, he was said by Lloyd to be even now prepared to serve James, and to do what was in his power to induce Russell to bring over the fleet (ib. pp. 481–2; [Clarke's] Life of James II, ii. 520–1; and Dalrymple, iii. 234). It has, however, been contended that the ‘Nairne Papers,’ on which the entire above set of statements rests, are not authentic, and that Lloyd's report in particular, if not a later forgery, was concocted at St. Germains by Melfort and Lloyd. Unfortunately no external evidence has been adduced to support this theory, plausible in itself, beyond the assertion of the jacobite second Earl of Ailesbury that William III permitted Shrewsbury, Marlborough, and Godolphin to correspond with Middleton at St. Germains so as to inspire a false confidence in James II and his advisers (see article by Colonel A. Parnell on ‘James Macpherson and the Nairne Papers’ in English Historical Review, vol. xii. April 1897).
Immediately after Shrewsbury's acceptance of office he was made a K.G. (25 April), and created Marquis of Alton and Duke of Shrewsbury (30 April). He was now regarded as head of the administration; and with William III's departure in May for the continental campaign of 1694 began a correspondence which lasted more or less continuously till his withdrawal from office in 1700. During the king's absences from May to October 1695 and 1696 Shrewsbury was one of the lords justices appointed to conduct the government of the kingdom. Queen Mary had died in December 1694. Shrewsbury's zeal in her service had unmistakably been animated by the chivalrous sentiment which formed part of his curiously composite nature; but the assertion of the unscrupulous ‘Jack’ Howe, vice-chamberlain up to 1692, that she cherished a tender passion for Shrewsbury, and that she would certainly have married him had she outlived King William (see Dartmouth's note to Burnet, v. 453), appears to be mere gossip, with perhaps a suspicion of malice (cf. Correspondence, pp. 218–19).
Shrewsbury's correspondence in 1694–5 (ib. pp. 55 seq. and 189 seq.) is very largely occupied with the party purpose of upholding Russell's management of his Mediterranean command; but in 1696 it shows him to have taken a zealous and effective part in the efforts made to raise the public credit and to obtain supplies by means of bank loans, although the largest share in the modicum of success which attended them belongs to Godolphin. Yet in the middle of this year Shrewsbury was thoroughly alarmed by the discovery of the so-called ‘assassination plot;’ the king frankly communicated to him the charge of complicity in Jacobite intrigues brought by one of the conspirators, Sir John Fenwick, in order to save his life, against himself and Godolphin. From this time onwards, vehemently pleading ill-health, he kept away from London and from the active exercise of the duties of his office (see Correspondence, pp. 145–65; cf. Dalrymple, iii. 258–61, and Burnet, iv. 309 n. Later, 3 Feb. 1699–1700, he protested to Rochester, with a view to settling at Cornbury, that he had ‘no decent place to live in;’ see Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 345; many of his letters are dated from Eyford in Gloucestershire, described by Macaulay as a small country seat in one of the wildest districts of the south of England). King William had readily accepted his explanation of his dealings with Middleton, though, if the theory noticed above were correct, no explanation would have been necessary. Fresh charges were brought against him in the summer of 1696 by an informer named Matthew Smith (fl. 1696) [q. v.], and, though he was cleared of them by an inquiry in the House of Lords, he could not bring himself to confront either his personal or public responsibilities. Even after Fenwick's execution, in January 1697, he remained in the country, and took no leading part in the negotiations preliminary to the peace of Ryswick, while resenting the king's reserve concerning them (Correspondence, pp. 316 seq. 380–2). He continued to ask permission to resign his office, and the king continued to press him to retain it (ib. pp. 171 seq.), till finally the latter suggested as a via media that he should exchange the secretaryship of state for the lord chamberlainship vacated by Sunderland. In October 1699 Shrewsbury accepted the less responsible post, without, however, abandoning his attitude of abstention. He was hereupon successively offered by the king the offices of lord treasurer and of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, the latter, which he was to hold together with the office of groom of the stole, being particularly pressed upon him. In fact he was allowed his choice of any employment under the crown (ib. p. 182). But his ill-health—he suffered much from blood-spitting, which he attributed to a fall from his horse—and his unwillingness to take an active part in public life continued; and on 20 June 1700 he went out of office. The king, whose patience had been unexampled, had in the end yielded to his solicitations, and he was at last free. During a few months he lingered in England, seeking in vain to bring about the harmony between
