English political parties and leaders in the reign of Queen Anne, 1702-1710

Preface

The Age of Anne is one of the most interesting in English history. It was a reign when political parties were in such a state of flux that politicians changed sides with little hesitation; when periodicals began to play a transcendent part in politics; when pamphleteering became the customary method of changing public opinion ; when literary men were usually politicians first of all; when ecclesiastical policies were determined by political exigencies, and church offices considered as a part of the civil service ; when monied men began to take a greater interest in elections and play a larger part in determining national policies ; when the cabinet was rapidly evolving into its present form; when the Protestant succession hung in the balance ; when Scotland joined her southern sister in a firm alliance ; when hatred of France became almost a religion; and when the United Kingdom gained the political and commercial hegemony of Europe that was lost by France at the treaty of Utrecht.

Yet in spite of the interest and importance of this period it has been almost entirely neglected by serious historians for more than a generation. Nearly a half century ago Mahon and Wyon wrote their histories of the reign of Anne, and since that time no attempt has been made to deal with the history of the reign in the light of new materials that have recently become accessible. Even such industrious German scholars as Klopp, Salomon, and Von Noorden have done little to illuminate the domestic side of the first half of the reign, while the more recent of their works is nearly thirty years from the

8 PREFACE

press. Lecky's excellent history deals most cavalierly with the first decade of the century, and is now more than forty years old. Burton's three volumes are sketchy and of little value save for Scottish affairs. The books of Paul, McCarthy, and Mrs. Howitt are pre-eminently popular rather than critical. Trevelyan's account of the reign is surprisingly brief, while the nature of Leadam's scholarly volume precludes any extensive treatment of new materials.

In a reign where the personal element is so important, it is indeed noteworthy that we have so few biographies of the statesmen of the time, and those few far from satisfactory. Even Queen Anne has found no real biographer. With all its limitations, and with its confessedly Jacobite tinge, Miss Strickland's work is probably the best we have, although it was published more than seventy years ago. Such books as P. F. W. Ryan's Queen Anne and her Court are distinctly uncritical. The Duchess of Marlborough has found many apologists and critics, but no biography at once critical and interpretative has been written, despite the efforts of Mrs. Thomson, Mrs. Colville, Molloy, and Reid. The best life of Marlborough is by Coxe, and is now a century old. Roscoe in his life of Harley lacks a proper appreciation of the man, although he has made some use of the valuable Harley Papers. Yet his is the only attempt to tell the life story of one of the most astute politicians of that day. Scholars have been more assiduous in their attention to Bolingbroke, although scarcely more successful. Macknight's book (1863) remains the best, as Sichel in his more recent volumes has failed to make the most of his opportunities. Grodolphin's life by Eliott (1888) is far from satisfying, as the author confessed that much source material was inaccessible to him. Shrewsbury and Somerset, the political enigmas of the epoch, remain still unexplained. Not

PREFACE 9

a single member of the Whig junto has found a worthy biographer and, until such time as the political activities of these five men are investigated, no adequate political history of the period can be written.

For the most part, the older histories of this period have been written largely from the pages of Boyer, Burnet, and the Parliamentary History, with occasional references to available manuscript material. In this monograph additional manuscripts and source materials have been studied in the archives in England and Holland, besides numerous pamphlets and periodicals, and the invaluable reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission.

In a sense this is an attempt to rewrite the history of the first eight years of Anne's reign in the light of the new evidence that has become available in the last thirty years. In places the author has dared to differ from the usual estimates of some of the leading characters of the period. This has necessitated a frequent citation of authorities, for which he craves the reader's indulgence. The controversial nature of a part of his work has also caused him to quote more freely from contemporary sources than would otherwise have been the case.

My acknowledgements should be many. The library authorities at Harvard, Yale, and Columbia Universities have always been more than kind in putting their treasures at my disposal. My thanks are also due to the officials of the British Museum, the Bodleian, and the Rijks Archief for their kindness and consideration. In common with most American students who carry on research in England, I owe far more to the courtesy of Mr. Hubert Hall of the Public Record Office than I can ever repay.

I am greatly indebted to Professor W. P. Trent of Columbia University. He has read the most of my manuscript, and has placed his intimate knowledge of the

10 PREFACE

literature of the period unreservedly at my command. I am also indebted to Professor Charles M. Andrews of Yale for material assistance in revising the manuscript and seeing it through the press. Even more thanks are due to Professor W. C. Abbott also of Yale, who first suggested to me this field of study, for he has at all times kindly encouraged and directed my work. My greatest debt of gratitude is, however, to my wife, who has helped me at all stages in the preparation of this work.

William Thomas Morgan.

Columbia University, March 27, 1919.

Preface Introduction

Contents

Political and Economic Conditions in England in 1702

The Political Influence of the marlboroughs and godolphin (1702-1708) .

The Formation of the ' ' Triumvirate" (1700-1704) .

Introduction

To trace the origin of a political institution is never easy, but the difficulties are peculiarly baffling when one deals with the antecedents of a political party, because of the many factors that enter into its development. The antiquarian might see in the Republican party of the United States nothing more than the lineal descendant of the old Federalists; another scholar might argue that it originated in the feelings aroused by the Fugitive Slave Law; and the man in the street would probably date its origin from Lincoln's election. Today the evolution of the National Unionist party in Great Britain and the People's party in the United States is, for the average voter, probably clothed in equal darkness.

The question of the origin of the Whig and Tory parties in England is similar, but on account of the lapse of time, much more difficult. Daniel Defoe considered the Royalists of the Civil Wars as the embryo of the Tories j 1 another writer on English parties says that the latter part of Charles II 's reign was "an epoch whence we may date not only the rise of the Whig and Tory parties, but also the principles which they severally possess." 2 To this statement Professor W. C. Abbott gives partial assent, finding their origin in the later years of Clarendon's ministry when zealous High Churchman and devout Presbyterian fought each other in the Cavalier Parliament. 3

i Present State of Parties, p. 4 ; Faults on Both Sides, p. 6. See also C. B. E. Kent, Early History of the Tories, p. 11. For a list of abbreviations used in the footnotes see pp. 404-406.

2 George Wingrove Cooke, History of Party, I. 1.

3 ' < History of the Long Parliament of Charles II, " E. H. B., XXI. 44.

Bolingbroke maintained that the Tories date from the dissolution of this same parliament, but Ranke believed that neither party came into full being until the reign of William III. 1

The decision hinges on the connotation of the term, "political party." If it is no more than "organized opinion," as Disraeli so aptly put it, Whigs and Tories may well be considered in existence in fact, though not in name, before the period of the Commonwealth; if to "organized opinion" be added a more or less established body of principles, the date must be placed considerably later than the Restoration ; if we take it to mean the existence of a reasonably permanent policy and a stable following, then the beginning of Queen Anne 's reign is none too late. Even at that time parties were in a very fluid condition compared with those of the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, although the cabinet was slowly assuming a definite form.

Political parties arise as a convenient method of influencing the exercise of the powers of government, but as long as such power rests in the hands of the sovereign, they have little significance. Until the accession of the Stuarts, the crown was the important factor in English government, but under these monarchs the middle classes were aroused at the same time into self -consciousness and revolt. During the Civil Wars, the Parliamentary and Royalist parties became clearly aligned. The latter temporarily disappeared, and the former split into several factions, when Cromwell assumed charge of affairs. During the Interregnum a new Royalist party came into existence. For several years this party met with little opposition, but in 1667 it finally crystallized into a de-

i L. Von Kanke, Hist, of England, V. 291 ; Bolingbroke, Dissertation on Parties, Lecture III. Hallam dates the use of the terms Whig and Tory from the defeat of the Exclusion Bill. Const. Hist., III. 197.

INTRODUCTION 15

mand for the removal of Clarendon, who was essentially the king's prime minister. 1

It is yet scarcely accurate to call either of these factions a true political party, 2 although even as early as the dismissal of Clarendon, they were developing the doctrines of ministerial responsibility and parliamentary supremacy in the sense in which we use them today, and as the years of the Cavalier Parliament increased, the personal opposition to the monarch, as well as to his policies, developed as each successive by-election sent more independent representatives to the lower house. In consequence, the king found it increasingly difficult to have his way, and it became much more of a task to cajole parliament into voting the necessary supplies. In response to its wishes, Charles was compelled to sacrifice Danby as he had Clarendon, and at last he was forced to dissolve it, after its members had served eighteen years. Fortunately for the king, the Popish plot came just when matters looked darkest for the monarchy, because religious fanaticism now blinded many to its worst features, and the strength of the opposition grew weaker during the remainder of the reign.

Charles II was succeeded by James II, against whom all factions united for a season into one, fired with the common purpose of expelling him for his bold attempt to turn the government over to his Catholic supporters. As soon as James was in exile, these elements again separated, as the conditions which necessitated their joint efforts no longer existed. By the time William arrived in London, he found numerous opponents, and before long, despite his tact — which Macaulay doubtless exag-

iW. C. Abbott, supra cit., E. H. E., XXI. 44; Cooke, I. 4-6. See also L. F. Brown, ' ' Religious Factors in the Convention Parliament, " E. H. B., XXII. 51.

2 On this point the Character of a Tory by John Sheffield, later Duke of Buckingham, is both interesting and instructive.

gerates — the new monarch had almost as many enemies as friends. Many who had been anxious that James should be dethroned, were yet unwilling to bestow the crown upon one whose claim was based upon parliamentary caprice rather than upon heredity.

The number of malcontents grew rapidly after Mary's death, which undermined William 's popularity and threw him almost entirely into the hands of those who wished to exalt the power of parliament over the crown. William had no intention of unduly favoring either faction, but he found to his cost that a ministry which took its membership from both sides was impracticable, as it led to interminable quarrels, disturbing the easy administration of public affairs. In fact, William wanted ministers and not a ministry. 1 By 1696 the inveterate hostility of his opponents forced him to ally himself with the advocates of parliamentary supremacy. These were to be found among the Dissenters and urban trading classes, who were looking forward to England's commercial expansion. 2 On the other hand, revenues for the war were most grudgingly given by the landed gentry, who saw little gain in humbling the restless ambitions of Louis XIV as long as they were insured a profitable market for their surplus produce. 3 The non-conformists and monied men who supported the king began to form a fairly stable group, favoring a continuance of the war, and, after 1701, the Protestant succession, while exalting the power of parliament as contrasted with the prerogative. They made entirely too much of this last point when they asked William to dismiss his favorite Dutch guards, so he

i W. M. Torrens, History of Cabinets, pp. 4-7; Kent, pp. 373-6.

2 Present State of Parties, p. 11. Until recently few historians have seen the political significance of their support of the wars waged by William III and Anne.

3 Mary G. Young, ' ' The Management of the Whig Party under Sir Kobert Walpole. " (Yale doctoral dissertation, unprinted.)

INTRODUCTION 17

turned for a brief space to their rivals, who emphasized the power of the king. William was disliked by the High Churchmen, 1 and was unpopular with the faction which he favored because he remained his own prime minister and had little or no regard for their wishes in his conduct of foreign affairs.

Anne's reign is characterized both in its domestic and diplomatic aspects by the constant struggle of these two factions for supremacy. Upon her death, the Whigs, through better organization, gained an ascendancy which was not lost until George III came to the throne determined to increase his prerogative. Even he, astute politician as he was, spent nearly a decade undermining the Whig factions, which had been unable to endure continued prosperity. Such in brief is the story of the two parties in England before 1770.

The purpose of this monograph is to ascertain the part played by Queen Anne in English politics during the period when Godolphin acted as her first minister, and to note the relative influence of the Marlboroughs, Harley, and Godolphin, and the reasons for their downfall. The relations of Harley with the queen and with Defoe will be studied; considerable attention will be paid to the methods employed in parliamentary elections and, in a more general way, the attitude of the junto and the Tory leaders towards the composite ministries that existed under Godolphin will be examined, in an endeavor to discover wherein lay the power of the Marlboroughs on the one hand and of the Whig junto on the other. Through it all we shall seek to find to what extent political leaders controlled parliament, and in what degree they were controlled by it, at a time when sovereignty was gradually, though unconsciously, being transferred from the throne

lEijks Archief, 26^; Stepney Papers, Add. MSS., 7076, f. 154; Coke, III. 132.

to the House of Commons, and the cabinet was slowly evolving into its present form.

The approach is neither from the direction of party development nor that of party politics, but rather from that of the reaction of the individual upon the party, as opposed to the reaction of the party upon the individual. This point of view must be somewhat biographical, and even anecdotal at times, but seems the more necessary because of the fluidity of parties and the loose party allegiance of a large number of the leading statesmen of the day. It was this state of flux which alone permitted the continuance of the non-partisan ministries of Godolphin and the control of government policies by a small group of some half dozen persons.

Chapter I Political And Economic Conditions In England In 1702

Before proceeding to a study of the reign of the last of the Stuarts, it is necessary to visualize the situation in England at the accession of Queen Anne in order to understand the problems she had to face.

Foreign affairs were in a critical condition. The greatest monarch in Europe was Louis XIV, the deadly enemy of William III. They had fought two wars against each other, both of which had proved indecisive, although Louis was forced to recognize William as king of England. In 1700 the French king's acceptance of the will of Charles II of Spain, granting the Spanish throne to his grandson, made another war against the Bourbons inevitable, but England's participation was not assured until Louis broke the treaty of Ryswick by saluting the Pretender as James III. 1 After that insult the English masses were willing to support William in his attempts to humble the French monarch, and he was able to form the Grand Alliance, which isolated Louis, who, except for the Bavarians and the incidental aid received from the Spanish patriots, stood alone against all central and western Europe, particularly the Hapsburgs, Holland, and England. Nevertheless, the French king seemed not unequal to his task, and it was only the genius of the two generals of the Alliance which upset his calculations. English statesmen realized the seriousness of the situa-

i [David Jones], The Life of James II, late King of England, p. 419 (1705) ; Eardwicke State Papers, II. 396.

tion, and did not expect a rapid conclusion of the war. Fortunately for England, William had discovered the latent ability of Marlborough, and made him commander-in-chief in the Netherlands. A short time before his death the king informed Princess Anne that this general was the fittest person to lead her armies and direct her counsels, and for once she was careful to follow William's advice. 1

However serious the military situation might seem, it was further complicated by the unsatisfactory aspect of social and economic affairs. The population of England was practically stationary at five millions, 2 and the previous war had plunged the kingdom deeply into debt, in spite of the fact that William had utilized sources of revenue heretofore untouched. England was not wealthy, because her resources remained largely undeveloped. In agriculture, the fundamental changes which were shortly to revolutionize English rural life had scarcely begun. Jethro Tull had only commenced his experiments with seed drills and deep plowing, which were to mean so much to English farming in the future ; Townshend had not yet forsaken public life to earn the nickname which betokens a fame greater than any he was to win even as first minister; while Bakewell and Coke of Holkham were not to become famous for a generation. 3 Methods of cultivation had changed little for a century; the wasteful open field system persisted in spite of the growth of enclosures; great stretches of fertile lands remained uncultivated, whereas the valiant yeomanry, who had been the pride of

i Thomas Lediard, Marlborough, I. 136; W. Coxe, Marlborough, I. 76.

2 J. Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, II. 68, 634, 674; Sir F. M. Eden, State of the Poor, I. 228. The best account of the social life of the reign is by John Ashton. W. C. Sydney's England and the English in the Eighteenth Century and A. Andrews's The Eighteenth Century are also useful.

s F. W. Tickner, Social and Industrial History of England, pp. 502-3; House of Lords MSS. (H. M. C), (n. s.), V. 70.

England since Crecy and Agincourt, gradually decayed 1 as monied men continued to purchase land for the social esteem which it gave.

As was to be expected, the changes in industry were more marked. The craft gild was already declining and the adventurous entrepreneur was having recourse to the so-called "domestic system," to speed up production for a wider market. Even here, however, the evolution was comparatively slow and the factory system was nearly a century in the future, although Newcomen invented his engine in 1705. In commerce the development was more marked. 2 Moreover, the expansion of England's commerce and the extension of her colonial empire were but well begun, although her jealousy of the Dutch remained bitter and India loomed greater with each successive year. So far the American colonies had been allowed to grow unrestrained, and little thought was given to plans for making them contribute to the wealth and welfare of the mother country. 3

An increase in wealth accompanied these changes. The comparative ease with which subscriptions were obtained for the Bank of England in 1694 shows the mobile capital of the realm ; the willingness of this corporation to loan William money in 1697 emphasizes the same point ; while the facility with which Sir Isaac Newton was able to reform the currency proves it. The manner of the Bank's organization and the nature of its supporters bound it equally to the Revolution and the Whigs, while it provided a most efficient instrument for financing the war. 4

i H. de B. Gibbins, Industry in England, pp. 276-9; E. Fischel, The English Constitution, p. 318.

2 House of Lords MSS. (H. M. C), (n. s.), V. 66-100.

3 C. M. Andrews, "Anglo-French Commercial Kivalry (1700-1750)," A. H. B., XX. 539, 761; Leeky, I. 194; House of Lords MSS. (n. s.), vol. V. xxiii.

* House of Lords MSS. (n. s.), vol. VI. xviii.

Bound up with the war was the question of the church. The Eevolution had been brought on largely by the king's religious fanaticism, and the alignment of political parties had been largely determined by its outcome. James's attempt to strengthen Roman Catholicism had served only to bring persecution upon those whom he wished to serve. Since the Popish plot their plight had been hard enough. From all quarters they were looked upon with the utmost suspicion. It is difficult to account for the terror of Papists manifested by the rank and file of Protestants at a time when the recusants made up less than five per cent of the population, and probably less than one per cent of the people of London held allegiance to the pope. 1 Yet, though all political power had been taken away from the Catholics by the strict laws of Charles II, such fears persisted, forcing the Protestant leaders to invite William to England and exclude all Papists from the throne.

The Anglicans disliked the Dissenters but little less than they did the recusants. They could not forget the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and Clarendon's code was placed between the non-conformist and political preferment. And since the ingenuity of the Dissenter with an elastic conscience found the practice of occasional conformity an easy method of circumventing such acts, despite the loyalty of Presbyterian and Independent, the churchmen loathed them, distrusted their sincerity and feared many of them were republicans in disguise. 2 Another cause of this enmity lay in the fact that the backbone of the non-conformist group was the commercial bourgeoisie, whose wealth and importance were increasing day by day, and would soon rival that of the landed aristocracy, who worshiped according to the

i Great and Good News to the Church of England (1705) ; Burnet, V. 139. 2 Grey 's Debates, II. 134.

Anglican faith. It was in a sense, despite their frequent marriage alliances, a social struggle between the gentry and the trading classes; it was also political, because wealthy merchants were buying up boroughs and making their way into parliament. 1

Under the most favorable conditions the Anglicans would have found it increasingly difficult to check the growing power of the monied classes. Had they been united, they might have succeeded, but they were very far indeed from being in harmony. Since the time of Laud they had been divided into High and Low Church. The former stood for much ceremony in the service and emphasized the teachings of the church fathers, while the latter favored a simpler service and laid less stress on tradition. High Churchmen opposed comprehension, whereas the Low Church group were heartily in favor of some reasonable compromise whereby all but the most radical Dissenters might be brought into the fold. The Highfliers, as the High Churchmen were called, were recruited largely from the conservative country squires, whereas their less zealous brethren were drawn mainly from the leading noble families and the more prosperous merchants.

The Anglican clergy were similarly divided, with the bishops predominantly of Low Church ideas, while the parish priests were High Church. Eelated to these ecclesiastics were the non-jurors, who had refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary. Though few, and with their ranks thinning rapidly, these conscientious divines exerted an influence, through their virulence and ability, out of all proportion to their numbers, and formed a nucleus of a faction of the Tories. All the clergy, indeed, took a great interest in political affairs,

i Ellis Papers, Add. MSS., 28892, f. 276; Hearne, I. 49; Macpherson, I. 603.

particularly in elections, when they exercised no inconsiderable influence over the voters in their local areas. 1

While Anne's accession wrought somewhat of confusion in religious matters, the state of political parties soon became little short of chaotic. During William's reign, two factions of approximately equal strength existed, which for the sake of clearness are hereafter termed Whig and Tory. The latter was made up of several distinct elements, which together probably made up a majority of the English people. Its strength lay in the rural districts among the pleasure-loving landed gentry, whose loyal tenants also belonged to this party. A considerable part of the lawyers and the nobility likewise favored the Tories. In a word, the party contained the upper and lower classes, but "wanted the middle and connecting links." 2 Having developed from the old "Cavaliers," and being thoroughly imbued with the divine right theory, its adherents never entirely gave over their loyalty to the exiled Stuarts, as a majority of them probably upheld the doctrine of ' ' passive obedience and indefeasible hereditary right." They were also, in general, stanch champions of the church, 3 and were conservative in temperament, with a decided weakness for the prerogative and a territorial aristocracy; while they resented the growing influence of the aggressive commercial classes.

During William's reign, the doctrine of passive obedience proved very troublesome to the Tories, inasmuch as it placed them in a position scarcely loyal to the king they had helped to call from Holland. Under Anne, it

i J. Stoughton, Religion in England, pp. 18-9. See also biographies of Bishops Compton, Trelawny, and Atterbury.

2 Kent, pp. 22, 34; see as well Eoger North's Examen, pp. 320-42.

3T. Somerville, Hist, of Polit. Trans., pp. 687-90; May, Const. Hist, II. 21. See also Thomas Papillon, Memoirs of T. Papillon, p. 374.

was to become still more vexatious. As a matter of fact, the party split over the question of the succession. The most extreme Tories were called Jacobites, and they, like the non-jurors, remained first and foremost the champions of the Pretender, whom they wished to bring back to England at any cost. For the most part they were too fearful of treason to plot much, yet it was well for the country that their numbers were so few. 1 Only a trifle less disposed in that way were the Highfliers, to whom the welfare of the church stood in the same relation as the Pretender to the Jacobites. This faction was led by the Anglican clergy, and was powerful both in numbers and influence. 2 Last of all were the Hanoverian Tories, later styled by St. John, "whimsicals," who supported the Protestant succession, even though it meant putting upon the throne an alien who was inclined to be lenient towards Dissenters and Low Churchmen. Among all the Tories, there was little real leadership of a constructive kind, 3 but the chief weakness of the party lay in the irreconcilable attitude of the Jacobite and Hanoverian factions as to the succession after Anne's death.

Even if the Whigs were not thoroughly united, they held more common principles than their rivals, as their support of the Act of Settlement bound most of them together, although there was always considerable intriguing with the Tories. The Whigs came mainly from the trading centers, although their leaders were largely taken from the more prominent noble families. The diminishing class of the yeomanry also supported the Whigs. The previous war had increased the importance of the monied

i Present State of Parties, p. 51; Bolingbroke, Dissertation on Parties; Lecky, I. 141. The Jacobites diminished in numbers when Gloucester died and Louis XIV recognized the Pretender. Coxe, I. 73-5; Kent, p. 409.

2 Nottingham Papers, Add. MSS., 29588, f. 18; cf. Von Noorden, Bolingbroke, p. 97.

group, which had invested so largely in government securities, and were consequently supporting the Bank of England. Marriages between the scions of the nobility and the daughters of wealthy traders were not uncommon and did much to increase the power of the "Whigs by gaining for the merchant class a social standing, which the economic development of England was gradually, but surely, to improve. 1

The commercial classes were mainly Low Churchmen and Dissenters, and were much more kindly inclined towards toleration and comprehension than the Tories, while they had much less reverence for the Anglican clergy. 2 They carried the same ideas into politics, and in 1689, in the Bill of Rights, they insisted upon safeguarding the people against any arbitrary exercise of the prerogative, by making parliament a check upon the king. The Whig liberals went even farther; they championed the cause of civil liberty even at the expense of parliament, if need be. 3 Closely allied to the monied interests, which had risen to power through war, they favored a vigorous prosecution of the struggle against Louis, both on land and sea, while their opponents wished only to retain the mastery of the sea. 4