others to direct him. Hence though often fertile in resource and ingenious in plan, he was always a brilliant amateur; and, though sometimes unlucky, he was never really the equal of such generals as Condé or Luxembourg.
In diplomacy William was as uniformly successful as in war he was the reverse. His unity of aim and constancy of purpose make him one of the greatest of modern diplomatists. He held together his ill-assorted coalition, and finally concluded peace at Ryswick in September 1697. Louis restored all his acquisitions since 1678, except Strassburg, and recognized William as king of England. During the subsequent years William tried to arrange a partition treaty with France, by which the domains of the childless Charles II. of Spain were to be divided at his death. But on the death of Charles in 1700 the whole heritage was left to France. William endeavoured to oppose this, and used Louis’s recognition of James Edward the “Old Pretender” as king of England (September 1701) to set the English people in a flame. War was already declared in 1702, but William, who had long been ailing, died from the combined effects of a fall from his horse and a chill on the 8th of March 1702. It was truly tragic that his doom should have come at the moment when he had once more drawn together a great alliance in Europe, and when he possessed a popularity in England such as he had never before enjoyed.
In viewing William’s character as a whole one is struck by its entire absence of ostentation, a circumstance which reveals his mind and policy more clearly than would otherwise be the case. No one can doubt his real belief in religion in spite of many moral failings or weaknesses. He was an unfaithful husband and often treated his wife with scant consideration; he was too fond of Dutch favourites like Keppel or worthless women like Lady Orkney. When it suited his interests he sanctioned the systematic corruption of members of parliament, and he condoned massacres like those at the Hague or in Glencoe. On the other hand he did not hesitate to inflict considerable injury on his own people, the Dutch, by the terms of the treaty with England (1689), when it became clear that only in this way could England's co-operation be secured. The Dutch criticism on him has been that he might have done more to reform the clumsiness of their constitutional procedure, and thus given them some return for the crippling expenses of the war. English criticism avers that he ought to have recognized more fully the system of party government, and to have done more to promote our colonial and commercial development. Military historians point out that he sometimes sacrificed great advantages to impetuosity; naval experts that he sometimes threw away great opportunities by indifference. Some of these criticisms are rather beside the mark, but were all true, they would not impair his essential greatness, which lay in another sphere. The best proof of his real powers of statesmanship is that the peace of Utrecht was subsequently made on the broad lines which he had laid down as the only security for European peace nearly a dozen years before its conclusion. While he lacked in diplomacy the arts of a Louis XIV. or the graces of a Marlborough, he grasped the central problems of his time with more clearness, or advanced solutions with more ultimate success, than any other statesman of his age. Often baffled, but never despairing, William fought on to the end, and the ideas and the spirit of his policy continued to triumph long after the death of their author.
Original Authorities.—Gilbert Burnet, History of my Own Time. ed. O. Airy (London, 1897); William Carstares (The King’s Secretary) Papers, edited by J. McCormick (London, 1774); Queen Mary, Letters with Those of James II. and William III., ed. R. Doebner (Leipzig, 1886); Lettres et mémoires, edited by Countess Bentinct (London, 1880); duke of Portland, Hist. MSS. Comm. Report, xv. App. pt. iv. (London. 1897); Shrewsbury Correspondence, ed. W. Coxe (London, 1821); Shrewsbury MSS.—Hist. MSS. Comm. Rep. xv. vol. ii. pts. i . and ii. (London, 1903); Letters, ed. P. Grimblot (2 vols., London, 1848).
Modern Works (see also under James II.).—Dr Paul Haake, Brandenburgische Politik in 1688–1689 (Kassel, 1896); Marquis of Halifax, Life, H. C. Foxcroft (2 vols.. London, 1898); Macaulay, History, vols, i.-vi.; Essays, vols, i.-iii. (London, 1898); Baroness Nyevelt, Court Life in the Dutch Republic (London, 1906); F. A. J. Mazure, Histoire de la revolution de 1688 (3 vols., Paris, 1848).
WILLIAM IV. (1765–1837), king of England, third son of George III., was born at Buckingham Palace on the 21st of August 1765. In 1779 he was sent to sea and became a midshipman under Admiral Digby. Next year he sailed under Rodney and took part in the action off Cape St Vincent (16th of January 1780). During the rest of the war the young prince saw plenty of service, for which he imbibed a strong liking, and so laid the foundation of his popularity. On the conclusion of the war he travelled in Germany, visiting Hanover and Berlin, where he was entertained by Frederick the Great. In 1785 he passed for lieutenant; next year he was made captain and stationed in the West Indies. Shortly after 1787, being tired of his station, he sailed home without orders, and was punished for his insubordination by being obliged to stay at Plymouth till his ship was refitted, when he again sailed for the West Indies.
In 1789 he was made duke of Clarence. When war was declared against the French republic in 1793, he strongly supported it and was anxious for active employment; but, though he was made rear-admiral of the red, he could obtain no command. Thus condemned to inactivity, he amused or revenged himself by joining the prince of Wales and the duke of York in their opposition to the king. He threw himself into the dissipation's of society, and his hearty geniality and bluff, sailor-like manners gained him popularity, though they did not secure him respect. He took his seat in the House of Lords, where he defended the extravagances of the prince of Wales, spoke on the Divorce Bill, vehemently opposed the emancipation of slaves and defended slavery on the ground of his experience in the West Indies. Meanwhile he formed a connexion with Mrs Jordan, the actress, with whom he lived on terms of mutual affection and fidelity for nearly twenty years, and the union was only broken off eventually for political reasons. During all this period the prince had lived in comparative obscurity. The death of Princess Charlotte in 1817 brought him forward as in the line of succession to the crown. In 1818 he married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, a lady half his age, without special attractions, but of a strong, self-willed nature, which enabled her subsequently to obtain great influence over her husband. On the death of the duke of York in 1827 the duke of Clarence became heir to the throne, and in the same year he was appointed lord high admiral. In discharging the functions of that office he endeavoured to assume independent control of naval affairs, although his patent precluded him from acting without the advice of two members of his council. This involved him in a quarrel with Sir George Cockburn, in which he had to give way. As he still continued to act in defiance of rules, the king was at length obliged to call upon him to resign.
On the 25th of June 1830 the death of George IV placed him on the throne. During the first two years of his reign England underwent an agitation more violent than any from which it had suffered since 1688. William IV. was well-meaning and conscientious; but his timidity and irresolution drove ministers to despair, while his anxiety to avoid extremes and his want of insight into affairs prolonged a dangerous crisis and brought the country to the verge of revolution. Immediately after his accession the revolution of July broke out in France and gave a great impulse to the reform movement in England. The king, though he called himself an “old Whig,” did not dismiss the Tory ministry which had governed the country during the last two years of his brother's reign; but the elections for the new parliament placed them in a minority. Within a fortnight of the opening of parliament they were beaten on a motion for the reform of the civil list, and resigned. Lord Grey undertook to form a ministry, with the avowed intention of bringing in a large measure of reform. This was not in itself displeasing to the king, who had liberal tendencies, and a few years before had supported Catholic emancipation. But, when the struggle in parliament began, his disinclination to take up a decided attitude soon exposed the government to difficulties. The first Reform Bill was introduced on the 1st of March 1831; the second reading was carried on the 21st of March by a majority of one. Shortly afterwards the government were beaten in committee,
