k and Kinsale. In 1691 he was sent again into
Flanders, in order to act under the immediate orders of William, who was
then, with heroic constancy, contending with the still superior forces
of France; but hardly had he landed there when he was arrested, deprived
of all his commands, and sent to the Tower of London, along with
several of the noblemen of distinction in the British senate.

Upon this part of the history of Marlborough there hangs a veil of
mystery, which all the papers brought to light in more recent times have
not entirely removed. At the time, his disgrace was by many attributed
to some cutting sarcasms in which he had indulged on the predilection of
William for the continental troops, and especially the Dutch; by others,
to intrigues conducted by Lady Marlborough and him, to obtain for the
Princess Anne a larger pension than the king was disposed to allow her.
But neither of these causes are sufficient to explain the fall and
arrest of so eminent a man as Marlborough, and who had rendered such
important services to the newly-established monarch. It would appear
from what has transpired in later times, that a much more serious cause
had produced the rupture between him and William. The charge brought
against him at the time, but which was not prosecuted, as it was found
to rest on false or insufficient evidence, was that of having, along
with Lords Salisbury, Cornbury, the Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Basil
Ferebrace, signed the scheme of an association for the restoration of
James. Sir John Fenwick, who was executed for a treasonable
correspondence with James II. shortly after Marlborough's arrest,
declared in the course of his trial that he was privy to the design, had
received the pardon of the exiled monarch, and had engaged to procure
for him the adhesion of the army. The Papers, published in Coxe, rather
corroborate the view that he was privy to it; and it is supported by
those found at Rome in the possession of Cardinal York.[3] That
Marlborough, disgusted with the partiality of William for his Dutch
troops, and irritated at the open severity of his Government, should
have repented of his abandonment of his former sovereign and benefactor,
is highly probable. But it can scarcely be taken as an apology for one
act of treason, that he meditated the commission of another. It only
shows how perilous, in public as in private life, is any deviation from
the path of integrity, that it impelled such a man