Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection: Edward Russell, Earl of Orford

Edward Russell, Earl of Orford, a “proud, acrimonious, restless, and violent” man with “considerable abilities”[1] played an integral role in the unfolding of the Glorious Revolution and the deposing of James II.  He was one of the seven signatories of the Invitation to William, the very document that led to William’s invasion of England.[2]  In fact, Russell was the person sent to raise the prospect of an invasion to William—an encounter that led to the creation of the Invitation in the first place.  His actions after the deposing of James were of great significance as well as he captured what many consider to be the definitive victory against the deposed James and French fleet in the subsequent War of Grand Alliance.

BACKGROUND:

            Born to Edward Russell in 1653, Edward Russell, 1^st Earl of Orford, joined an older brother, William Russell, 1^st Duke of Bedford.[3] He would later marry his brother’s third and youngest daughter, Lady Margaret Russell, in 1691, but the two would have no offspring.[4]  As a member of the Royal Navy, he was named lieutenant of the “Advice” at the age of 18, only to be promoted to captain the following year.[5]  He was, in fact, one of the first of the English gentlemen bred to the sea in a time of little formal naval training.[6] He continued service in the Royal Navy until 1683, including active service from 1672 to 1673 in the North Sea during the Third Anglo-Dutch War and also operations in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates from 1676 to 1682.[7]  In 1683, he became unemployed as a result of the Russell family falling into the King’s disfavor after allegations of William Lord Russell’s[8] involvement in the Rye House Plot.[9] 

THE INVITATION TO WILLIAM:

In April of 1688, Russell traveled to the Hague to meet with William, Prince of Orange in hopes of securing his assistance in deposing James, who had begun intensifying his Roman Catholic policies. In 1687, James had dismissed his Anglican brothers-in-law from the positions of earls of Clarendon and Rochester.[10]  In that same year, a papal nuncio was officially accredited to St. James’s palace and the Roman Catholics had gained use of Magdalen College, Oxford.[11]  James had dissolved Parliament in July of 1687 and by September had started campaigning among Protestant dissenters in hopes of using their assistance to secure a Parliament more to his liking.[12]

Perhaps even more inflammatory to his opposition though, was James’s issuing of the Declaration of Indulgence.  He originally issued the document in April of 1687, using his suspending power to render ineffective laws punishing Roman Catholics and other Protestant dissenters.[13]  Then, in April of 1688, James ordered his Declaration of Indulgence reissued.  And to add insult to injury, on May 4, 1688, he further ordered the Declaration to be read in every Anglican Church.[14]   In response, the Archbishop and six of his bishops authored a petition to James, attempting to persuade him to withdraw the order. When this petition was later published, James had the seven bishops arrested and tried for seditious libel,[15]  which even further angered his growing group of opposition. Additionally, the Queen’s unexpected pregnancy, announced in November of 1687, raised the prospect of a Roman Catholic heir to the throne and thus caused grave concern among most Protestants.[16]

As of April 1688, however, William had not conveyed his opinions regarding these events any further than indicating via a pamphlet that he opposed the repeal of the Test Act but supported the relaxation of the penal laws.[17]  Russell, therefore, set out for La Hague with hopes of ascertaining William’s intents.[18]  In Burnet’s words, “He had a good pretence for coming over to Holland, for he had a sister then living in it.  He was desired by many of great power and interest in England to speak very freely to the prince and to know positively what might be expected from him.”[19]  While there, Russell told William of the public’s general dissatisfaction with James II and suggested that he travel to England with troops to call the people to arms.[20]  William, however, took a more cautious approach; he wanted to be delivered a formal invitation asking him on the behalf of England to come and save the nation and religion. [21]  According to Macaulay:

[William] knew well that many who talked in high language about sacrificing their lives and fortunes for their country would hesitate when the prospect of another Bloody Circuit was brought close to them.  He wanted, therefore, to have, not vague professions of good-will, but distinct invitations and promises of support subscribed by powerful and eminent men.[22]

Russell, though, did not believe that many people could be trusted with their plans to depose the King, so the two agreed to compromise; William would be content with only a few signatures as long as these were signatures of some of the most prominent statesmen.[23]  Having reached this agreement, Russell returned to London.[24]

Upon his return, Russell began searching for men suitable to serve as signatories to the Invitation.  He found that recently unfolded events made his task easier than he could have anticipated; the reissuing of the Declaration, the order for it to be read in every Anglican Church, and the Bishops’ arrests had all occurred in Russell’s absence.  As noted before, these events had led to a heightened level of anxiety and a sense of urgency among James’s opposition, and thus Russell recruited some of England’s most influential statesmen with relative ease.[25] 

He first approached Charles Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury.[26]  Shrewsbury assented and thus became the youngest of the signatories, being only 28 years of age at the time the invitation to William was sent.[27]  Russell also approached and succeeding in recruiting Richard Lumley, later 1^st Earl of Scarborough.[28]

Among the signatories, however, Russell’s right hand man was Henry Sidney, Earl of Romney.[29]  Both Sidney and Rusell were motivated, at least in part, by a desire to avenge the blood of family members whom James had ordered executed.[30]  Sidney’s brother, Colonel Algernon Sidney, had also been implicated in the Rye House Plot, charged with high treason and executed,[31] as had Russell’s first cousin, William Lord Russell. Together, Russell and Sidney recruited the remainder of the Immortal Seven (as the group of signatories would later be named). 

Sidney first attempted to recruit the Marquis of Halifax, but this attempt proved unsuccessful.[32]  He then approached prominent politicians such as the earls of Danby and Devonshire and the bishop of London, all of whom agreed to join the cause.[33]  The earl of Nottingham, also approached by Sidney, at first agreed to participate, but later recanted.[34] 

Sidney’s approach of three military men, though not resulting in additional signatures to the invitation to William, had one of the most profound effects on the sequence of events to unfold.[35]  Trelawny, Kirk and the lord Churchill were these three men, and according to Burnet they were some of the best officers in the English armed forces.[36]  Although they declined to sign the Invitation, these men nonetheless made apparent their support of William.  On August 4, Churchill wrote to William:

Mr. Sidney will let you know how I intend to behave myself:  I think it is what I owe to God and my country.  My honour I take leave to put in your royal Highness’ hand, in which I think it is safe.  If you think there is anything else I ought to do, you have but to command me, and I shall pay an entire obedience to it, being resolved to die in that religion that it hath pleased God to give you both the will and power to protect.[37]

John Childs, author of The Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution, claims that these assurances quite likely persuaded William to invade more than any other singular event.[38] 

On June 30, 1688 the Invitation asking William to depose James II was sent.[39]  Although the composer’s identity remains undetermined, it is known that Sidney served as transcriber, and the invitation was signed by the Immortal Seven, with each signatory having been assigned a particular number to use in lieu of his actual name.[40]  In the letter, the Immortal Seven assured William nineteen-twentieths of the English people wished for a change in their country.  This number appears to be the first tell-tale sign of a conspiracy against James II.[41] In the fall of 1687 James had distributed an opinion poll in an attempt to determine whether or not the nation would support a repealing of the Corporation and Test Acts so as to prevent punishment of dissenters from the Church of England (i.e. so as to protect the Roman Catholics). Evidence suggested that the replies to this questionnaire were concerted[42]  but they were, nonetheless, the basis of the Immortal Seven’s assertion that “your Highness may be assured there are nineteen of twenty of the people throughout the kingdom who are desirous of change.”[43]

The Invitation also assured William that these same dissatisfied citizens would be willing to help effect such a change if they could secure William’s help, but that without it, they feared they would be killed before they could form any type of military body.[44]  , Moreover, William was also assured that many officers and other members of England’s military forces, such as the three Sidney had asked to sign the letter (Trelawny, Kirk and Churchill), were also discontented with the state of affairs and would join forces with him as well.[45] 

The Invitation reached William the Friday after the Bishops’ acquittal and after days of deliberation, it was determined that he should set sail.[46]  After an initial attempt to embark was rendered unsuccessful because of weather, William successfully put to sea on the November 1 of 1688.[47]  Russell and Sidney both accompanied him on the voyage.[48]

THE UNIQUE NATURE OF MILITARY BETRAYAL:

As William set out on that voyage to England, he most likely did not anticipate any resistance on the behalf of the English navy.[49]  Russell, now a member of the Immortal Seven, had originally been an Admiral in that very navy.  Herbert, the deliverer of the invitation, had been high in the James’s favor until 1687, at which point he was dismissed from his posts because of his refusal to agree to the repeal of the Test Act and penal laws.[50]  As an Admiral, Herbert had promoted over half the officers in the navy, and no doubt William anticipated that many of these officers would join his ranks as a result, following their former leader.[51]

In actuality, however, only a handful of military persons actually crossed sides after William’s arrival in England.[52]  Speck estimates that only about 1,000 of James’s 25, 000 men actually deserted their posts.[53]  These desertions, however, had a disproportionate impact on James’s morale.[54]  James considered himself to be a military man; he had not appointed a Lord High Admiral or Board of Admiralty, but had instead kept the chief direction of maritime affairs under his own control.[55]  By doing so, he had, in fact, succeeded in bringing the navy to a much more efficient state than it had been in at the time of his accession.[56]  As a result, James depended on these military forces to a great extent in his reign and trusted them to defend him.  Thus, he considered these desertions, starting with Churchill and Cornbury, but no doubt including Russell and Herbert, to be the worst kind of betrayal.[57]      

In fact, in a letter to Lord Feversham, commander in chief of his armed forces, James laments, “If I could have relied upon all my troops, I might not have been put to this extremity I am in, and would at least have had one blow for it.” Yet again, the impact these desertions had on James’s morale was in the broadside he published to justify his flight to France.  There, James emphasized the desertions as the crucial source of his downfall.[58] 

RUSSELL’S ROLE IN THE WAR OF GRAND ALLIANCE:

After William’s accession to the English throne, Louis XIV of France supported a counterrevolution in Ireland in an attempt to keep William from leading troops to the Continent. In 1689, Russell served in the Channel, enforcing a total blockade of France.  James’s and Louis’s hopes of a counterrevolution, were frustrated in 1690 with defeat at the battle of the Boyne.[59]  Russell was subsequently promoted to admiral of the fleet.[60] 

In 1692, perhaps in response to James’s urges to do so, Louis determined to send an expedition to England.[61]  James urged this expedition because he thought: 1) most of his former mariners would remember him fondly, and 2) at least some of those that normally would not so be inclined, would now look on him more fondly because they had come to detest the new men in power.[62] He had, therefore, convinced himself that the English fleet would not oppose him or his invasion.

Russell was one of James’s “chief dependences” in this line of reasoning as he had “never ceased to assure the Jacobite emissaries that he was bent on effecting a Restoration.”[63]  Russell considered himself and his faction neglected by William and thus had for a short period of time entertained the idea of punishing William by reestablishing James as King.[64]  As a result, James thought that he could depend, if not on Russell’s entire cooperation, at the very least his “connivance.”[65]  As Russell excelled at connivance—many claim it was but second nature to him—James thought that with this assistance a French fleet could easily convey an army to English shore.[66] 

What James did not know, however, was that Russell’s feelings had undergone a sudden and drastic change.  The near prospect of an invasion and the publication of his unapologetic and unforgiving Declaration telling Englishmen what they should expect if his invasion were to be successful were most likely responsible for Russell’s change of heart;[67] professional spirit and party spirit blazed strong in Russell, and though he may have been willing to betray his sovereigns, he would under no circumstances be so willing to betray his country.[68]  Russell had remarked, “I wish to serve King James.  The thing might be done, if it were not his own fault.  But he takes the wrong way with us.  Let him forget all the past:  let him grant a general pardon; and then I will see what I can do for him.”[69]  At this point, the man to whom Russell was speaking made references to the honors and rewards Russell would receive.  Russell, however, interrupted with, “I do not wish to hear anything on that subject.  My solicitude is for the public.  And do not think that I will let the French triumph over us in our own sea.  Understand this, that if I meet them I fight them, aye, thought His Majesty himself should be on board.”[70]  Word of this conversation reached James, but he seemed unconcerned by it.[71]  He believed that even if Russell were unwilling to cooperate with him, the new Admiral would not be able to turn his men against their former Admiral.[72]

Russell and the Battle of La Hogue (or Barfleur):

Russell did fight the French as he predicted.  Not only did he fight, he fought relentlessly, and the result of this fighting was perhaps his most marked achievement.  On May 15, 1692 a large number of officers were assembled at St. Helen’s on board of the Britianna, from which flew Russell’s flag.[73]  There, Admiral Russell read to them a letter from the Queen, which she had composed in response to rumors of disloyalty in the navy reaching her from France.[74]  These rumors pointed to certain officers the French were depending on for cooperation.[75] 

The Queen was in a difficult situation; she had to decide whether it was more dangerous to trust these suspected persons or to remove them and thus cause a division among the remaining members of the navy.  She decided to leave the suspected persons, but also to have a letter read to them which addressed the issue.[76]  In the letter, penned by Secretary and read to the troops by Admiral Russell, spoke of the allegations but informed the officers that the Queen refused to suspect them.[77]  The officers were assured that she instead placed her full reliance on them.[78]  This calculated plan worked magically.  Most of the accused officers were guilty of nothing more than angry, rash talk—that kind of talk that emerges after several pints of ale but is all but forgotten the next morning.[79]  If accused, surely many would have become traitors.  When reassured of the Queen’s confidence in them, however, whatever bit of disloyalty they were harboring was dispelled and they became enthusiastically loyal.[80]   They signed an address, beseeching the Queen to rest assured that they would venture their lives in defense of her rights, English freedom, and the Protestant religion.[81]

Only hours after the meeting on the Britannia, Tourville’s French squadron was spotted from the cliffs of Portland.[82]  A messenger took the news to Russell and the morning of May 17, 1692 the allied fleet, composed of both English and Dutch vessels, took to sea.[83]  Thus began the Battle of La Hogue. 

Tourville had but a mere forty four ships, no doubt depending in large part on Jacobite desertions at the critical moment.[84]  He struck across the Channel towards La Hogue, and was within a few leagues of Barfleur on the morning of May 19 when he saw the great armament of the allies on the eastern horizon.[85]  By eight that morning, the two battle lines were formed, and at eleven the firing began.[86]  According to Macaulay, “It soon became clear that the English, from the Admiral downwards, were resolved to do their duty.  Russell had visited all ships and exhorted all his crews.”[87]  He instructed these crews, “If your commanders play false, overboard with them, and with myself the first.”[88] 

At first, circumstances seemed to favor the French; they were only facing half the allied fleet, and after five hours Tourville determined that enough had been done and began to draw off.[89]  This retreat, however, quickly turned into a desperate flight as the wind turned in favor of the allies.[90]  Approximately twenty of the smallest French ships made their getaway through the perilous rocks of the Race of Alderney, and the bulkier vessels fled to the Cotentin.[91]  The Ambitious, which Tourville had moved to after the practical destruction of his original vessel (the Royal Sun), managed to take refuge in the Bay of La Hogue along with twelve others.[92] 

There, in the Bay of La Hogue, Russell was preparing for attack.  The French had been drawn into shallow water and were resting near the army camp that was destined for invasion.[93]  In the early morning of May 23 a flotilla consisting of sloops, fireships, and two hundred boats rowed toward Fort Lisset, where six of the French vessels were moored.[94]  Tourville ordered his men to arm their boats so he could lead them to meet the opposition.[95]  His boats, however, “turned and fled in confusion” and the ships were abandoned.[96]  The English boarded the men of war, set them on fire and subsequently retreated.[97]  The next morning at eight, however, they returned to finish off the job:

James…and Tourville looked on in helpless despondency while the second conflagration proceeded.  The conquerors, leaving the ships of war in flames, made their way into an inner basin where many transports lay.  Eight of these vessels were set on fire.  Several were taken in tow.  The rest would have been either destroyed or carried off, had not the sea begun to ebb.  It was impossible to do more; and the victorious flotilla slowly retired, insulting the hostile camp with a thundering chant of “God save the King.”[98]

Thus concluded, on May 24, 1692, the Battle of La Hogue.  It was the first great English victory over the French since the day of Agincourt and the first check that had ever been given to Louis XIV, and was no doubt one of, if not the, most decisive battle of the war.[99]

The remainder of the War of the Grand Alliance:

After a short retirement (inevitable because of his complete inability to work with the Tories, who William refused to altogether shun), Russell was appointed to the command of the fleet as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1694.[100]  Taking advantage of Louis XIV’s inability to maintain a great fleet in the Channel, Russell followed the French into the Mediterranean and confined them to Toulon for the rest of the war.[101]  He also cooperated with the Spanish army in Catalonia before returning to England in 1695.[102] He was created earl of Orford in 1697 and for the rest of his life filled “posts of easy dignity and emolument.”[103] He died on November 26, 1727, his title becoming extinct upon this childless death.[104] 

Works Cited

Aubrey, Philip.  The Defeat of James Stuart’s Armada, 1692.  Leicester:  Leicester University Press, 1979.

Burnet, G.  History of My Own Time.  Vol. 4.  Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1833.  6 vols.

Childs, J.  The Army, James II and the Glorious Revolution. New York:  St. Martin’s Press, 1980.

Dalrymple, J. Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland.  Vol. 2.  London:  Farnborough, 1970.  3 vols.

“Edward Russell Earl of Orford.” Classic Encyclopedia, based on the 11^th ed. of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 24 Nov. 2007.

“Edward Russell Earl of Orford (1653-1727).” Online Encyclopedia. 24 Nov. 2007. Originally appearing in Volume V20, Page 254 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.

Howell, T.B.  A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783. Vol. 9, London:  Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green, 1816.  21 vols.

“James II." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 6  Dec.  2007.

Kidd, Charles, “The Revolutionaries, A Guide to the Seven Signatories.”  <http://lol172.50webs.com/pages/revolutionaries.html>.

"Leopold I." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 1 Dec. 2007  

Macaulay, T.  History of England.  Ed. Firth, C.H. 6 vols. London:  Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1914.

“Selections from the Invitation to the Prince of Orange, June 30, 1688.”  Jacobite Heritage.  24 Nov. 2007.

Speck, W.A..  “The Orangist Conspiracy Against James II.”  The Historical Journal  30.2 (1987):  453-462.

---

[1]Macaulay, p. 375.