CHAPTER IV

SECRETARY OF STATE

1705-1708

DIFFERENCE OF GODOLPHIN'S AND HARLEY'S VIEWS-GODOLPHIN'S ALLIANCE WITH THE WHIGS RESULT ON HARLEY'S POSITION-THE DRAWBACK BILL-INCREASING COOLNESS BETWEEN HARLEY AND GODOLPHIN-THE QUEEN AND CHURCH PATRONAGE-ACCENTUATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HARLEY AND GODOLPHIN — HARLEY'S RESIGNATION OF OFFICE HIS DEFINITE ALLIANCE WITH THE TORIES.

TH

'HE last three years of Harley's term of office as Secretary of State form an interesting period in his life, for during it there is to be observed in him a noticeable political development. From an administrator and a leading member of the House of Commons he gradually became the chief of one of the two great parties in the State. Wanting though he did some conspicuous and brilliant qualities which attract popular notice, this development could not have come to pass without personal traits which are by no means common-patience, courage, a capacity to utilise opportunity, and an unfailing tact. Most men would have hesitated to differ from so astute a politician as Godolphin, to oppose so bitter and

capable a group as the Junto which governed the Whigs; few would have perceived so clearly the strength which could be gained by an alliance with the Queen, or would have been willing and able to undertake the irksome and delicate task of securing and retaining her confidence.

The elections of 1705 had resulted in favour of the Whigs, and to this fact is undoubtedly due the first differences between Harley and the Lord Treasurer, which are visible in the spring of 1706, when a distinct cleavage of their views upon an important point of parliamentary support occurred. The Queen's servants, Godolphin states in a letter to Harley (the 22nd of March),' numbered 100 in the House of Commons, the Tories 190, and the Whigs 160. Then, asked the Lord Treasurer, was it the best course to rely on the Whigs, who had been supporting the Administration, or on the Tories, who were apparently adverse to it? He decided that Ministers should keep the 160 and rely on obtaining some stragglers from the 190, who, when "they found themselves disappointed, would willingly make a little fair weather again."

In other words, Godolphin now threw himself distinctly on to the side of the Whigs. But Harley had joined the Cabinet inclining to the Tories. He well knew that the Queen had a personal preference for them, and though he was always longing 1 Harley Papers, ii. 291.

GODOLPHIN AND HARLEY

77

to follow a middle course, the decision of Godolphin rendered it necessary for him to gain some of that influence with the Queen which Godolphin would surely lose. To hope for the support of any Tories at all he must henceforth act to some extent in opposition to the Lord Treasurer, whose determination clearly gave Harley the opportunity of becoming for the time being the parliamentary head of the Tory party. In a sense, therefore, he was unwillingly forced to oppose his chief, and he was certain to incur the enmity of the Whigs if he would not in fact become, as did Godolphin, an ally of their party. He would have preferred to have remained in the Cabinet as a moderate Tory, but the course of strategy determined on by Godolphin forced him to defend his position, and ultimately led to his dismissal from office. If he had followed the practice of more recent times, Harley would in 1706 have handed his resignation to the Prime Minister, but the modern parliamentary and party system was then in its infancy, and Harley acted in consonance with the ideas of the age.

But while Godolphin's decision forced Harley to adopt an attitude in the Cabinet adverse to his chief, it is not clear that he took any steps actively hostile to him. The Drawback Bill of 1707 has been regarded as an instance of Harley's disloyalty to the Lord Treasurer; it may have been an error

of judgment in him to introduce it, but certainly it was an honest attempt to check what Godolphin's biographer has called a "fraudulent and mischievous" transaction, though one which in these days appears perfectly legitimate.

By the Act of Union, the articles of which were signed in February 1706, there was to be free trade between England and Scotland from 1st May 1707. Meanwhile the import duties were lower in Scotland than in England; it was therefore the most natural and business-like thing in the world for goods, as soon as the substance of the Union became known, to be imported in large quantities into Scotland, with a view to their subsequent transmission free of duty across the border. But these transactions aroused the jealousy of English merchants, and were mentioned by De Foe in the spring of 1707 both to Godolphin and to Harley; for De Foe, placed in Scotland to watch the progress of events, and to assist the cause of the Union, overlooked no detail, however slight, which had the least bearing on the momentous matter which was before the two countries. The introduction by Harley of a Bill to prevent the importation of goods into Scotland with a view to their evasion of the English duties immediately followed,' and it was under discussion at so late a period in the session as the month of April 1 Parl. Hist., vi. 580.

THE DRAWBACK BILL OF 1707 79

that a clause was inserted by Harley to give it a retro-active effect. Having regard to the hostility felt by many Scotsmen to the proposed Union, and to the extraordinary sensitiveness for the time being of the Scottish people, Harley's measure was clearly impolitic. He was always on the watch for the movements of public opinion, and well served though he was by De Foe, the expostulations of English merchants, who were near, probably impressed him more than the hostility of the Scotch, who were at a distance.

"I must," said De Foe, writing after the Bill had been put an end to by the closing of the session, "if Parliament had not dropped the Drawback Bill, have fled this country. It is scarce possible to describe to you the disgust that affair gave here."1 Nor did Godolphin himself assert his authority to stop the measure; he regarded it as unwise and nothing more. "I have seen the clause," he says, certainly referring to the retrospective section, "and think it in some particulars impracticable and in others unreasonable, and so I believe it will be thought in the House of Lords, but how you will be able to deal with it in your House I cannot judge.'

For the Lord Treasurer to allow the Bill to proceed at all was in some respects to countenance it, but we must remember that ministerial responsi1 Harley Papers, ii. 407. Harley Papers, ii. 415.