124

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

CnAP.

X VII,

both Whigs and Tories thought it, not only the right, hut theduty, of the first magistrate to govern. All parties agreed inblaming Charles the Second for not being his own PrimeMinister: all parties agreed in praising James for being his ownLord High Admiral; and all parties thought it natural andreasonable that William should be his own Foreign Secretary.

It may be observed that the ablest and best informed ofthose who have censured the manner in which the negotiationsof that time were conducted are scarcely consistent with them-selves. For, while they blame William for being his ownAmbassador Plenipotentiary' at the Hague, they praise him forbeing his own Commander in Chief in Ireland. Yet where isthe distinction in principle between the two cases? Surelyevery reason which can be brought to prove that he violated theconstitution, when, by his own sole authority, he made com-pacts with the Emperor and the Elector of Brandenburg, willequally prove that he violated the constitution, when, by hisown sole authority, he ordered one column to plunge into thewater at Oldbridge and another to cross the bridge of Slane.If the constitution gave him the command of the forces of theState, the constitution gave him also the direction of theforeign relations of the State. On what principle then can it bemaintained that he was at liberty to exercise the former powerwithout consulting any body, but that he was bound to exercisethe latter power in conformity with the advice of a minister?Will it be said that an error in diplomacy is likely to be moreinjurious to the country than an error in strategy? Surely not.It is hardly conceivable that any blunder which William mighthave made at the Hague could have been more injurious to thepublic interests than a defeat at the Boyme. Or will it be saidthat there was greater reason for placing confidence in hismilitary than in his diplomatic skill? Surely not. In war heshowed some great moral and intellectual qualities: but, as a