No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Fall of the Godolphin Ministry
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2023
Extract
Much has been written about the fall of Robert Harley in 1708, little about the fall of the Godolphin ministry in 1710. Yet a comparison of the two events casts a flood of light upon the nature of politics in the reign of Queen Anne. This is especially true if the historian asks the question: why did Robert Harley succeed in 1710 where he failed in 1708? For succeed he assuredly did in 1710 and fail he certainly did in 1708. On the first occasion he suffered loss of office and humiliation; two years later he drove Godolphin and the Whigs from office bag and baggage.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The North American Conference on British Studies, 1982
Footnotes
*
I am grateful to Professor Henry Snyder for his helpful criticisms of this article.
References
1 For the fall of Robert Harley see Godfrey Davies, “The Fall of Harley in 1708,” English Historical Review, LXVI (1951), pp. 246-54; G.S. Holmes and W.A. Speck, “The Fall of Harley in 1708 Reconsidered,” English Historical Review, LXX (1965), pp. 673-98; and Henry Snyder, “Godolphin and Harley: A Study of Their Partnership in Politics,” The Huntington Library Quarterly, XXX (1967), pp. 241-71. There are no similar studies of the fall of the Godolphin ministry.
2 Davies, “Fall of Harley,” E.H.R., LXVI, pp. 250-51, 253.
3 Holmes and Speck, “Fall of Harley Reconsidered,” E.H.R., LXXX, 685-98.
4 Snyder, “Godolphin and Harley,” H.L.Q., XXX, 263-71.
5 Geoffrey Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London, 1967), pp. 201, 209.
6 G.V. Bennett, The Tory Crisis in Church and State 1688-1730, (Oxford 1975), 121. H.T. Dickinson (Bolingbroke [London, 1970], p. 70) is even more explicit: “the ministerial revolution of 1710 was achieved neither in parliament nor in the country at large, but at Court and through secret negotiations.“
7 Keith Feiling, in A History of the Tory Party (Oxford, 1924), p. 413, and Sir Tresham Lever, in Godolphin: His Life and Times (London, 1952), p. 221, regard Rivers's appointment as Harley's first step to power: G.N. Clark, in The Later Stuarts (Oxford, 1934), p. 217, and G.M. Trevelyan, in England Under Queen Anne, Vol. Ill (London, 1934), p. 62, view Shrewsbury's appointment as the first step in the disintegration of the ministry; J.R. Jones, in Country and Court: England 1658-1714 (London, 1978), p. 338, and J.H. Plumb, in Sir Robert Walpole: the Making of a Statesman (London, 1956), pp. 155-56, view Sunderland's dismissal as the first decisive blow.
8 Holmes and Speck,“Fall of Harley Reconsidered,” E.H.R., LXXX, 695-97; Snyder, “Godolphin and Harley,” H.L.Q., XXX, 270 (where Henry Snyder shows that Harley was prepared to replace Marlborough as commander with the Elector of Hanover).
9 Stratford to Harley, 8 Aug, and 8 Oct. 1708, B.L. Loan 29/158/7; Harley to Stratford, 20 Aug. and 10 Oct. 1708, B.L. Loan 29/158/7; Bromley to Harley, 12 Oct 1708, B.L. Loan 29/127.
10 William Coxe, Memoirs of the Duke of Marlborough (London, 1893), II, 291; Nottingham to Bromley, 15 Nov. 1708, Finch MSS, Box 4950, Bundle 23, Leicestershire Record Office.
11 H.M.C., Bath, I, 191, 195, 196; Harley to Newcastle, 22 Oct. 1708, Holies MSS Pw 2/95, Univ. of Nottingham Library; Sarah Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence (London, 1838), I, 206-08, 393; H.M.C. Portland, IV, 538. Angus Mclnnes ﹛Robert Harley: Puritan Politician [London, 1970], pp. 112-20.>has written an excellent account of Harley's winning over the Tories and Court Whigs. Alexander Cunningham ﹛History of Great Britain [London, 1787], II, 281) states that Harley also won over the Duke of Ormond, a Tory, and the Duke of Hamilton, a Scottish peer.
12 Trevelyan, England Under Anne, III, 43; Lever, Godolphin, p. 220; Henry Horwitz, Revolution Politicks. The Career of Daniel Finch Second Earl of Nottingham, 1647-1730 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 218.
13 Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence, I, 158; Harley to Dr. Stratford, 2 Dec. 1709, B.L. Loan 29/121/3. Though no contemporary source names Harley as the author of this advice, he was in London by January 10 and two later sources name him as the author of this advice (Jonathan Swift, “Memoirs Relating to That Change Which Happened in the Queen's Ministry in the Year 1710,” in Herbert Davis and Irving Ehrenpreis, eds., The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift [Oxford, 1953], VIII, 117, and Lord Coningsby, “History of Parties,” Archaeologia, XXXVIII, 9.)
14 Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (London, 1980), p. 300. Peter Wentworth wrote on January 27 (B.L. Add. MSS 31,143, f. 447), ‘“Tis said the Queen has taken up the resolution to tell both Lord T and Lord M that all places as they fall she will have them filled by persons that shall own the obligation to her and not to them….“
15 Henry Snyder, ed.,77ie Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence (Oxford, 1975), 111,1413. Johann Hoffmann, the Imperial Resident, wrote (Onno Klopp, Der Fall Des Houses Stuart [Wien, 1887], XIII, 376), “By promoting Colonel Hill the Queen makes public that a chambermaid has as much credit and influence in military matters as her Captain-General.“
16 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1412.
17 Edward Gregg asserts (Queen Anne, p. 302) that Somers (as well as Sunderland) favored a parliamentary address for Abigail's removal, but neither of the sources he cites (Klopp, Der Fall Des Houses Stuart, XIII, 378 and Thomas Lediard, The Life of John Duke of Marlborough [London, 1737], III, 21) supports his assertion. In fact, Somers opposed the address as disrespectful and unconstitutional (Coxe, Marlborough, III, 19; Cunningham, History of Great Britain, II, 279-80.)
18 Coxe, Marlborough, III, 9-17; Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1408-19.
19 James J. Cartwright, ed., The Wentworth Papers (London, 1883), p. 104. Though Marlborough deleted the threat to resign from his letter, he came to London to support Sunderland's strategy of a parliamentary address. See Henry Snyder, “The Duke of Marlborough's Request of his Captain-Generalcy for Life: A Re-Examination,” Society for Army Historical Research, Journal, Vol. 45 (1967), pp. 78-81.
20 Coningsby, Archaeologia, XXXVIII, 11.
21 George Lockhart, The Lockhart Papers (London, 1817), p. 317.
22 Cartwright, Wentworth Papers, p. 103.
23 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1409.
24 Coningsby, Archaeologia, XXXVIII, 10; [Nathaniel Hooke], Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough (London, 1742), pp. 230-31.
25 H.M.C., Portland, IV, 535-37. Henry St. John promptly complained to Harley that his place in the scheme—as Secretary at War—was no higher than the office in which he had previously served (Ibid, p. 536).
26 For Shrewsbury's reluctance see his letter to Somerset of April 9th printed in Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence,lll, 1463n.
27 Geoffrey Holmes, The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell (London, 1973), pp. 224-39; Dyer's N.L., B.L. Loan 29/321, 2 Febr. 1710.
28 Cropley to Stanhope, 23 April 1710, Stanhope MSS 34/16, Kent R.O.
29 Sarah Churchill, Private Correspondence, I, 301-02.
30 James Brydges to John Drummond, 20 May 1710, Huntington Library Stowe MSS 57, Vol. 3.
31 [White Kennet], The Wisdom of Looking Backward (London, 1715), p. 31; Dyer's News Letter, 2 May 1710, B.L. Loan 29/321.
32 William Bromley to James Graham, 22 April and 13 May, Leven MSS, Kendall R.O.; Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence, I, 314. In June Peter Wentworth observed (Wentworth Papers, p. 117), “The talk continues of changes at Court, though now it dwindles only to removal of Sunderland…and among other reasons that are given that there is not a more thorough rout, is that Harley and Rochester are not agreed who shall fill the vacancies.“
33 Godfrey Davies and Clara Buck, “Letters on Godolphin's Dismissal in 1710,” Huntington Library Quarterly,,111, 240.
34 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1497, 1509, 1512.
35 Jonathan Swift, “Some Considerations,” Prose Works, VIII, 103.
36 Philip Roberts, ed., The Diary of Sir David Hamilton 1709-1714 (Oxford, 1975), p. 9; Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1492, 1497.
37 Ibid, p. 1527; Hamilton, Diary, p. 11.
38 J.P. Kenyon, Stuart England (Penguin Books, 1978),p. 325; Geoffrey Holmes, British Politics, p. 379.
39 B.L. Loan 29/10/20. Harley's phrase, “Tell the reason of that saying” is, of course, open to the interpretation that Holmes gives it; but such an interpretation contradicts Harley's conduct and other remarks.
40 B.L. Loan 29/10/19.
41 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1512-13, 1515-16; L'Hermitage, B.L. Add. MSS 17, 677 DDD, f. 524. Anglesey was also unacceptable to part of the Tory party; the Duke of Leeds and the Duke of Buckingham opposed his having the Seals (Bromley to Graham, 28 June 1710, Leven MSS, Kendal R.O.). Peter Wentworth reported (B.L. Add. MSS 31, 143, f. 505) that “Anglesea was pitch[ed] upon, but disappointed] by some disagreement among the Tories themselves.“
42 H.M.C., Portland, IV, 543.
43 Dartmouth's note to Burnet, History of His Own Time, VI, 7; H.M.C., Rutland, II, 190.
44 J.H. Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability in England (London, 1967), p. 154.
45 Henry Horwitz, Parliament, Policy, and Politics in the Reign of William III (Manchester, 1977), pp. 59,109,128, 257, 297; Trevelyan, England Under Anne, I, 274, 335, II, 328. James Brydges wrote Godolphin (28 May 1710), H.L. Stowe MSS 57, vol. 3), “as I owe the progress I have made in business and the improvement of my estate to your joint [Marlborough's and Godolphin's] goodness, so in case of those changes at Court, which are talked of, when your service calls for it, I shall lay down my employments with as much cheerfulness as I first came into it … .“
46 Coxe, Marlborough, III, 77, 78, 88, 91, 111-12.
47 T. Forster, Original Letters of Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Anthony Lord Shaftesbury (London, 1830),p. 261.
48 Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence, I, 315; William Coxe, Memoir of Sir Robert Walpole (London, 1798) II, 26-27; Snyder, Marlborough- Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1467, 1479,1509, 1512-13, 1514-15, 1516,1520-21, 1528; H.M.C., Portland, II, 210-11.
49 James Brydges to George Brydges, 2 June 1710, H.L. Stowe MSS 57, vol. 4.
50 Klopp, Der Fall Des Hauses Stuart, XIII, 433, 438.
51 Sir John Cropley to Stanhope, 17 June 1710, Stanhope MSS 34/16, Kent R.O. Professor Plumb (Walpole, I, 156n) takes the antecedent for “this desperate stroke” to be the ministers’ resignation; I find it more likely that it refers to Sunderland's dismissal.
52 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1471; Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence, I, 324.
53 Ibid, I, 318.
54 [Hooke], Conduct of the Duchess of Marlbolrough, p. 259.
55 Coxe, Marlborough, III, 93; Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1532, 1534-5, 1541, 1542, 1545, 1549.
56 Ibid, III, 1532,1534, 1548,1595; W. Jessop to Newcastle, 4 July 1710, Holies MSS, Pw/138, University of Nottingham Library; Dyer's N.L., 4 July 1710, B.L. Loan 20/321; Coxe, Marlborough, III, 100; H.M.C., Portland, II, 212-213. The Elector of Hanover also protested against the dissolution of parliament (Winston Churchill, Marlborough: His Life and Times [London, 1947], Book Two, p. 738).
57 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1543, 1553; Cox, Walpole, II, 31.
58 W.A. Speck estimates (Tory and Whig [London, 1970], p. 113) that the Whig majority in the 1708 Parliament was 69.
59 Abel Boyer, History of Queen Anne (London, 1735), p. 473; Davies and Buck, “Letters on Godolphin's Dismissal,” H.L.Q., III, 228. Brian Hill has written a judicious, thorough account of these events; see “The Change of Government and the Loss of the City,” The Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., XXIV, No. 3, pp. 395402.
60 H.M.C., Portland, VII, 1.
61 Klopp, Der Fall Des Hauses Stuart, XIII, 438.
62 Abel Boyer, The History of the Reign of Queen Anne, digested into Annals, IX (London, 1711), 235.
63 H.M.C., Bath, III, 437.
64 Daniel Defoe, Secret History of the October Club, Part /(London, 1711), p. 26.
65 W. Jessop to Newcastle, 18 July 1710, Holies MSS Pw 2/139, University of Nottingham Library; H.M.C., Portland, II, 211-12; Burnet, History of His Own Time, VI, 11.
66 H.M.C., Portland,!!, 213. Halifax wrote Marlborough (Cox, Marlborough, III, 298), “I took great pains and went great lengths to prevent it [Godolphin's dismissal], but found at last that was the only obstacle to an accommodation that might not have been overcome. I thought nothing else worth contending for without it.“
67 Holmes, British Politics, pp. 192-93.
68 B.L. Loan 29/10/19.
69 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1520, 1540, 1547, 1563, 1568, 1575.
70 B.L. Loan 29/10/20.
71 H.M.C., Bath, I, 198; H.M.C., Portland, II, 21344.
72 Hill, “Change of Government,” Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd Ser. XXIV, 403.
73 Among others James Lowther (to Gilpin, 8 August 1710, Lonsdale MSS, Carlisle R.O.), James Brydges (H.L. Stowe MSS 57, vol 4, fols. 112-13), William Bromley (to Graham, 13 Aug., Leven MSS, Kendal R.O.), and the Earl of Sunderland (Coxe, Marlborough, III, 306).
74 Lowther to Gilpin, 10 August 1710, Lonsdale MSS, Carlisle R.O.; H.M.C., Portland,!!, 213; Bromley to Graham, 1 Sept. 1710, Leven MSS, Kendal R.O.
75 H.M.C, Portland, IV, 563.
76 H.M.C., Portland, II, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219; Cropley to Shaftesbury, P.R.O. 30/24/21; B.L. Loan 29/160/8.
77 H.M.C., Portland, II, 214, 215, 217, 219, IV, 571.
78 B.L. Loan 29/160/8.
79 James Ralph, The Other Side of the Question (London, 1742), pp. 445-46. Ralph's account of Whig tactics in August finds some confirmation in Edward Harley's more polemical account (H.M.C., Portland, V, 650), and even more in James Lowther's remark to William Gilpin (12 August 1710, Lonsdale MSS, Carlisle R.O.), “These new Managers will be hard set to keep up the Public Credit or hold the Staff long.“
80 Cartwright, Wentworth Papers, pp. 135, 138.
81 H.M.C., Portland, II, 217; B.L. Loan 29/238, f. 364. On 22 August Somers wrote to the Duke of Montrose (Auchmar MSS GD 220/5, Edinburgh R.O.), “I am sorry to find Your Grace's opinion to concur with our other friends as to the little prospect there is of any success in endeavouring at a good election of Parliament….“
82 H.M.C., Portland, II, 218, 219, 220. J.H. Plumb suggests (Walpole, I, 167) that Harley was so desperate to keep Lord Cowper as Lord Chancellor that he threatened suicide unless Cowper promised to stay. But a careful reading of page 45 of Cowper's Diary, which he cites, merely shows that Robert Monckton said that Newcastle might commit suicide if Cowper did not promise to stay.
83 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1632.
84 St. John to Charles, Earl of Orrery, Bodleian MS. e. 180, f. 9; H.M.C., Portland, II, 215.
85 Though Harley skillfully detached the juntilla lords from the junto, the juntilla lords had few adherents in the Commons. As Count Gallas observed of the new ministers on August 11 (Klopp, Der Fall Des Hauses Stuart, XIII, 476), “They have no real party behind them, but support themselves upon the favor of the Queen.“
86 H.M.C, Portland, II, 219.
87 Klopp, Der Fall Des Houses Stuart, XIII, 438.
88 Davies and Buck, “Godolphin's Dismissal,” H.L.Q., III, 230-31.
89 Snyder, Marlborough-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1544.
90 B.L. Loan 29/196, f. 84; H.M.C., Portland, VII, 11; Foley to Harley, 23 August 1710, B.L. Loan 29/136.
91 H.M.C., Portland, V, 650-51.
92 Klopp, Der Fall Des Hauses Stuart, XIII, 586.
93 Cartwright, Wentworth Papers, pp. 135-36.
94 H.M.C., Portland, 11,218, IV, 584, VII, 16; Walter Graham, ed., The Letters of Joseph Addison (Oxford, 1941), p. 234.
95 L'Hermitage, B.L. Add. MSS 17,677 DDD, f. 590v; Bromley to Graham, Leven MSS, Kendal R.O.
96 “12 Sept: 1710,” B.L. Loan 29/10/19.
97 Rochester replaced Somera, Buckingham Devonshire, and St. John John Boyle. The Admiralty and Great, Seal were put into commission; Ormond replaced Wharton in Ireland. In order’ to prepare the proclamation for the dissolution, Harcourt had replaced Montague on September 16 as attorney-general.
98 H.M.C., Portland, II, 219.
99 Holmes, British Politics, p. 380. James Craggs wrote to Sir Thomas Erie on September 23 (Erie MSS 2/12, f. 34, Churchill College), “The changes go on merrily but I find both Whigs and Tories out of Humour and Moderation is again set up in Mixture of both kinds. Mr. Smith and Russell Roberts are made Tellers, and they say William Drake and Mr. Aislaby are to be added to Sir George Bing and Sir John Lake [Leake] for the Admiralty.“
100 The Private Diary of William First Earl Cowper (Eton, 1833), pp. 43-44.
101 H.M.C, Portland, II, 219.
102 Speck, Tory and Whig, p. 113; for a fuller analysis of the 1710 election, see Speck, Ibid, pp. 85-94.
103 See particularly the complaints of Viscount Dupplin (H.M.C., Portland, IV, 558-59, 564, Sir Robert Davers (Ibid, 590), the Earl of Orrery (Ibid, 600), Dr. Stratford (Ibid, VII, 20), Elizabeth Duchess of Hamilton (B.L. Loan 29/133/9, 7 October 1710), the Duke of Beaufort (H.M.C., Portland, IV, 611); Thomas Coke (Ibid., IV, 612), and the Scottish Tories (George Lockhart, Lockhart Papers, I, 319).
104 Swift, “Enquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen's last Ministry,” Works, VIII, 143.
105 Faults on Both Sides, in Somers Tracts, XII, 695-96, 700; The Observator for 11-14 October (IX, No. 78) summarized the arguments of Faults on both Sides for its readers. Abel Boyer (Annals, IX, 248) also believed that the court “designed to carry things fair and even between both Parties, and therefore wished only for such a Majority of the High Church in the House of Commons as might countenance the New Scheme.“
106 Holmes,Sac/ieoere//,pp. 248-55; Burnet, History of His Own Time,VI, 13-14; Alexander Cunningham, The History of Great Britain (London, 1787), II, 305; Abel Boyer, Annals, IX, 248-49; Dyer's N.L. for 7 October, B.L. Loan 29/321; James Craggs to Stanhope, 13 October 1710, Stanhope MSS 73/18, Kent R.O.
107 Boyer, Annals, IX, 249; George Granville to the Gentlemen of Cornwall, 29 September 1710, Buller MSS BO/23/63, Cornwall R.O.
108 Boyer, Annals, IX, 249.
109 Quoted in Mary Ransome, “The General Election of 1710” (University of London M.A. thesis, 1938), p. 128.
110 Duchess of Marlborough, Private Correspondence, I, 402. Both Mary Ransom (“General Election of 1710,” p. 128) and W.A. Speck (Tory and Whig, pp. 85-87) agree that public opinion swamped court influence. W.A. Speck adds that though the court won every election but that of December 1701 during these years, “it was only because it went with public opinion.“
111 Craggs to Erie, 14 October 1710, Erie MSS 2/12, f. 35, Churchill College; Brydges to Leigh, H.L. Stove 57, IV, 201.
112 Anonymous, The Secret History of Arlus and Odolphus (London, 1710), p. 6. George Lockhart (Lockhart Papers, I, 320) observed: “When the Parliament was assembled, in November 1710, it soon appeared that there was a great majority of Tories; and all the former little subdivisions of the two grand parties were united and made two opposites, viz. Whigs and Tories.“
113 Bennett, Tory Crisis, pp. 121-22; Holmes, British Politics, pp. 205-09; Jennings, Party Politics (Cambridge, England, 1961), II, 31; Keir, The Constitutional History of Modern Britain Since 1485 (Princeton, N.J., 1960), pp. 281-82, 287; Dickinson, Bolingbroke (London, 1970), p. 70; Jones, Country and Court (London, 1978), pp. 337-38; Walcott, English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), p. 153.
114 Gregg, Queen Anne, pp. 300, 315; Plumb, Walpole, I, 157.
115 Snyder, Marlboro ugh-Godolphin Correspondence, III, 1580 n. 4, 1598.
116 Coxe, Marlborough, III, 77, 78, 88, 91, 111-12; Churchill, Marlborough, II, 746; Trevelyan, England Under Queen Anne, III, 39; Mclnnes, Robert Harley, pp. 115-16.