ROBERT HARLEY'S PARLIAMENTARY

APPRENTICESHIP:

1690-1695

TED ROWLANDS

W I L L I A M ' S 1690 Parliament has a claim to a particular place in the development ofparliamentary procedure and processes. From 1690 began the unbroken record of annualsessions. The House of Commons met from late October or early November throughuntil March, six days of the week, breaking only briefly for Christmas. Facing anunprecedented burden of business arising from one of the most intense wars the nationhad fought, members spent more time in session than their predecessors. The Housebegan sitting at eight or nine a.m., followed by afternoons and evenings in the committeeofthe whole. A host of other committees were appointed, usually meeting in the PaintedChamber at four p.m. But two new major activities were added to the traditionalfunctions of supply and legislation, the examination ofthe estimates and the scrutiny ofthe accounts. This increase in parliamentary scrutiny, with the regularity and intensity ofthe sessions, created a new parliamentary chemistry, encouraging a greater degree oforganization and an ability to assess members' attitudes. Robert Harley, even during thishis parliamentary apprenticeship, contributed substantially to the new pattern ofparliamentary activity. His parliamentary papers, the correspondence to and from hisfamily, his kinsmen, the Foleys, and new-found political allies. Sir Thomas Clarges andSir Christopher Musgrave, provide a particular insight into the post-Revolutionparliamentary system.^

^Eat^ Sleep and Parliament^

Harley's description of his Westminster life to his wife shortly after his election to theConvention Parliament in 1689 set the pattern. His letters home until her death inDecember 1691 were peppered with excuses:

I hope dearest heart will excuse my haste. I am sure of you knowing my true affection to you howI long to see you; how I am filled with busitiess from morning to night would you pardon me. "

It became worse after his election to the commission of accounts in December 1690, forhe did not return home to Brampton for an astonishing eighteen months. Elizabeth wasleft to complain, ' It is a very great trouble to me that I had no letter. I am sorry I hearnothing of you coming down. I do believe you have quite forgotten me. I am out of hope

173

of seeing you down..., ' but Robert did not return home. The family occasionallycommuted to London but it was Sir Edward Harley, having failed to hold the county seatin 1690, who attended to Harley's family, doting on his daughter-in-law. It was he nother husband who sat at her bedside during her fatal illness in December 1691. Harleyremained at Westminster, staying away from the House for a respectful few days beforeexplaining that he had to attend the debates on the accounts commission's report.^Burnet later described Harley as 'a man much turned to politics, a man of great industryand application, and knew forms and the records of Parliament so well that he wascapable both of lengthening out and perplexing debates.' Harley himself admitted to hisfather at Christmas 1692:

I promised myself the two days ofthe recess to have gained time enough to have opened my armsat large unto that bosom. But my time is not my own to dispose with. What is relaxation to othersI cannot...*

Occasional bouts of ill health kept him away from the house for a day or so, thoughone intriguing early letter hints at his later predilection - to drink. In June 1691 he hotlydenied rumours which had filtered back to Brampton Bryan: ' I can solemnly declarethat I have not been in any public house - except just at time of dining since I came outofthe country. ''̂ Justifiably he could claim that the major part of his time was spent incommittee. 'The House hath sat very late. It is now past 8 o'clock. I have just dined andmust attend committee after.' His letters are filled with such explanations. The 'smart'or 'warm' debates of five or seven hours became a feature of Harley's parliamentary life.

He shared them chiefly with his uncle by marriage, Paul Foley, and two new-foundpolitical allies. Sir Thomas Clarges and Sir Christopher Musgrave. Contemporaries werestruck by this strange political alliance; Musgrave and Clarges, royalist High Church,anti-exclusionists, the Harleys and Foleys parliamentarian, Presbyterian and Whigexclusionists. The Harley/Foley political affinity had been cemented by Robert Harley'smarriage to Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Foley of Witley. That did not mean thefamilies always saw eye to eye. Harley's father-in-law supported the Court on manyoccasions, causing rifts particularly with his brother, Paul Foley - between 'the Temple'and 'Essex St.' (Paul Foley's residence). Sir Edward Harley lamented these divisions,though he himself felt hurt and irritated by the Foleys' failure to accept their countyresponsibilities for the militia. Differences also arose between the families over theWeobley by-election in May 1691.^

Robert Harley did not identify with the pre-Revolution Whig tradition, and certainlyafter 1690 despised the 'Court Whigs' personified by Thomas, Lord Wharton,studiously refusing his father's prodding to pay his respects to the Lord. He dehberatelyeschewed what he considered as factious politics associated with pre-1689 divisions,which occasionally broke out during the 1690 Parliament. As early as March 1691 hecould 'find fault on both sides' and occasionally distanced himself from 'the tenacioushumour of our friend' (Paul Foley). His single-minded objective was to build aconsensus which crossed previous party divides to 'unite Whigs and Tories in

174

endeavouring to be frugal by good management.' Harley's growing relationship withClarges and Musgrave began in the first weeks of his arrival in the House. In the Springof 1691 after Harley had informed Musgrave of the Treasury's success in attractingfunds the latter revealingly replied: ' I am glad money comes in so well because it willfree us from censure if affairs do not succeed..."

The early sessions ofthe 1690 ParHament were the formative days in the creation ofa post 1688 'country' party, though that term does not altogether satisfactorily describethe total nature of the group's activities. One other characteristic bound the group - afascination for parliament itself and a belief in the power of parliament and ofparliamentary control. Clarges and Musgrave brought their experience of the CavalierParliament of the 1670s to the problems and issues facing the post-Revolution House.Hariey was a willing pupil. They raised the levels and dimensions of parliamentaryactivity from the traditional concept of redress before supply into a complex series ofprocedural and tactical linkages between estimates, supply, accounts, which in turn werefrequently linked to legislative demands. A Court supporter. Sir Robert Howard,recognized this objective as early as July 1691. He reported 'a design by a very greatparty by which the war on both land and sea should be managed by a committee ofparliament. The intelligence seems to be made to grow by the manner ofthe proceedingof the Commission of Accounts who, in many ways exceed their powers.' Howard'ssuspicions exaggerated the existence of 'a great party' but he rightly identified theessential characteristics of a group and its belief in parliamentary scrutiny and control.This 'parliamentarianism' found new opportunities in the scrutiny of estimates andaccounts.^

Opening the eyes of the Country Gentlemen

The Court had volunteered to present detailed estimates and supported the establishmentof an accounts commission as a means of reassuring members and facilitating approvalof expenditure levels unprecedented in parliamentary history. The army and navyestimates totalling four million pounds and rising to five million during the 1690Parliament exceeded all previous demands. Charles II's army had not exceeded 19,000men and cost (̂̂ 235,000. William's rose to 65,000 and cost more than ^£2,200,000.Members were also asked to find £600,000 to pay off William's invasion costs, and newannual subsidies of £20,000 and £95,000 to the Elector of Prussia and Duke of Savoy.The ' double forward commitment' of fighting both on land and sea createdunprecedented economic tensions, disrupting the nation's traditional trade flows;remittances to sustain the army abroad more than wiped out the country's pre-Revolution half million pound balance of payments surplus.^

The estimates presented on 15 October 1690 itemized expenditure in amazing detail,from the daily pay of generals to the cost of horse-shoes. Confronted with such anindigestible maze of figures the House set up to examine them and the accounts a 'select'and 'private' committee which quickly fell under the control of Clarges, Musgrave and

175

Foley. Harley had not yet taken the oath, locked in a disputed return for the RadnorBoroughs with Sir Rowland Gwynne. When he did on 13 November he was immediatelyadded to the committee, surely at Foley's behest. He reported home on his first day thathe had been 'at the Committee of Accounts [and Estimates] until 8 o'clock'.^^

The Court viewed the committee's work with increasing alarm. William had alreadybeen prompted to address parliament for a second time in the session (25 November) tourge approval ofthe Civil List. As Harley told his father, 'the King was a little displeasedthe motion of supply for the civil list was so far opposed'. When the estimatescommittee made its final report on 20 December the King again intervened specificallyto appeal for the naval supply and the building of new ships. Harley had to report theCourt's success in obtaining approval for thirty ships though not before the House hearda blistering condemnation by Foley of the state of the nation's accounts and PaymasterRanelagh's obstructive responses, exchanges foreshadowing future conflict between theCourt and the accounts commission. Harley's labours in his first committee may havedelivered paltry results, but had proved useful and timely experience. Just how timelybecame evident a couple of days later when the House came to elect the new commissionof accounts. ^̂

The establishment of an accounts commission had been agreed during the first sessionof the 1690 Parliament, the House having actually elected nine members just beforeprorogation. A bill had been reintroduced in the Autumn and its progress had beenclosely linked to the estimates debates. On 22 December the House proceeded in anamazingly direct way (with each member placing his nomination in a glass on the table)again to choose nine members. Sir Robert Rich, a Court supporter, topped the poll;Clarges and Foley came joint second and, surprisingly, Robert Harley, a member ofmonths' parliamentary experience, was elected as the ninth commissioner. 'To be acommissioner was much unexpected by one as undeserved and was not solicited for meby my relations in the House', he protested to his wife. One contemporary explained thatall was 'carried by party'. Certainly opinion had shifted since May when the Courtcarried a majority of commissioners. In the December poll they were in a minority.Members had clearly identified Clarges and Foley together as good champions of'frugalmanagement' and while Harley had been quick to deny his success could be attributedto his relatives, he had obviously benefited from his association with Foley. Members hadlooked to experience, and their most recent experience had been that ofthe estimates andaccounts committee which had reported only two days previously. Alongside his wife'suncle, Harley had obviously demonstrated his potential in his first major committee.

J. A. Downie has already described the establishment ofthe commission and its earlyendeavours.^'^ By the standards of the day they worked with extraordinary diligence,meeting almost daily at nine a.m. Attendance rarely fell below seven or eight until theSummer, and illness accounted for most absences. As the junior member Harley wasexpected to hold the fort. He had to adjust and reorganize his life. ' I cannot yet find aprivate place to have my books and hide myself,' he complained to an increasinglydissatisfied wife. For, despite his professions of weariness, his failure to return home

176

reflected as much his desire to remain at the centre of affairs absorbed in his new roleas commissioner ofthe accounts. ̂ ^

Harley, therefore, remained at Westminster throughout the Summer of 1691 and wasable to gauge the mood of members, drifting back in late October. Gloomily he forecast,'the gentlemen came up with no other apprehension than to give all that is asked'.However, during the opening session Foley launched another scathing attack on themanagement of the war which Harley claimed 'hath opened the eyes of some of thegentlemen...' He shrewdly assessed that the Court potentially 'held a majority if theytook pains to govern'. Consequently it was vital to concentrate upon the immediateissues of the war, the expenditure, waste and abuses, steering that fine line betweenlegitimate critical scrutiny and outright opposition to the war. He had no patience withthose who wished to pursue older party or factious feuds. When the debate on the navyled by Clarges initially concentrated on Russell's position he sharply observed to hisfather, 'Alas how few have the ability to see or the integrity to pursue the commongood...'. As he observed a little later the ' labours of honest gentlemen' had to be directed'to remedies proposed before persons are fallen on'. His objective remained throughoutthis parliament to unite Whigs and Tories against the Court in 'endeavours to be frugalby good management'; estimates committees and the public accounts commission wereto be the parliamentary instruments.^*

Harley's contribution during the 1691/2 session revealed these priorities. He paidvirtually undivided attention to the estimates, accounts and the supply bills. Werehistorians dependent upon Anchitell Grey's diary, Harley would scarcely have beensighted. From Luttrell's diary, the Commons Journal and his own correspondence,however, his particular contribution emerges. Rarely leading in debate, he played asupporting role to Foley and Clarges, reminding members of a key point, or pressing aprocedural and tactical suggestion. Above all, he was very much the committee man.

The Court had submitted an army estimate of £2,256,000 and naval costs totalling£1,855,000. Suspicious of waste and corruption in the army, the House noted thatarmy payments were not 'according to the effectiveness or the muster rolls with greatwaste of the treasure'. A five-man committee was appointed, consisting of four of theaccounts commissioners plus Musgrave. Harley may well have chaired the meeting forhe presented the committee's bill on false musters and for better discipline nine dayslater. Despite numerous Court interventions the opposition also succeeded in appointinga committee to inspect the navy estimates. Harley became its chairman which drew fromhis brother Edward the admiring observation: 'the favour and acceptance that goodnessof God has given my brother in the House is extraordinary and much taken notice'.^^When on 14 November Harley presented the committee's findings a long debate ensuedthough 'every question was carried against the court' including that on the shipbuildingprogramme; 'the danger of the precedent of letting something slip into the estimatescarried it against the ships', Harley informed his father.^^

Harley had equally high hopes of a similar exercise upon the army for 'the naming65,000 men has given great distaste and is probably repented of before this'. The army

177

estimates became the subject of a seven week long dog fight during which the oppositionchallenged the size of the army, the number of officers, foreign generals' pay and thefinancing of the army in Ireland. Lowther expressed the Court's frustration on i8November when he declaimed that the House had 'sat near a month and hardly doneanything in it [with the question of supply] when the King's occasions call so much forit. In former sessions this House sat de die in diem upon the same, but now it is a hardmatter for the King's business to get one day'. The opposition was still able to blockprogress arguing that a general debate on the land forces, 'how and when they are to beemployed', should precede the appointment of a private committee to look into details.^^

Harley and others, however, suffered a serious setback when, eventually, they didlaunch their assault on the size ofthe army, illustrating that difficult and fine distinctionbetween criticism of the management of, as opposed to outright opposition to the waritself. Foley misread the mood and prompted a biting and effective rejoinder from SirJohn Guise: 'He [Foley] knows not what belongs to the army; he has not been used tothese things.' Guise painted an alarming scenario ofthe French overwhelming Holland.' I t will be a fine thing to have it appear that for carrying on the war vigorously this yearyou thought it fit to disband about 30,000 men.' Harley and Granville attempted torescue the situation, moving that the committee ofthe whole proceed item by item beforeagreeing any total. The House, however, endorsed the Court's demand for 64,924 men.̂ ^

Despite this defeat new opportunities arose as the Court first had to admit that thegrand total did not include the officers and then had to accept yet another committee toinvestigate the army in Ireland and the contribution that kingdom could make to costs.The Court successfully beat off an attempt to include the 11,000 officers within the 65,000in one ofthe largest divisions ofthe session (176-151). They enjoyed less success whenthe committee of the whole house accepted a wrecking amendment by Clarges to theIrish estimates which proposed a drastic reduction to levels of Charles I's time. AsHarley reported home (30 December), 'The House sat extreme late and after manydivisions and several hours of debate the military establishment was reduced to itsancient form to great savings.' He, nevertheless, recognized the fragility of such a successcarried in a thin house (92-61) and, following yet another direct appeal from the King,'The House after many divisions' disagreed with the committee of the whole. Therewere, in fact, three votes: 176-100, 150-93, 145-88. Despite the comparative success ofthe Court in carrying an army estimate of £1,935,780, the exhaustive debates and theprocedural wrangles over the army estimate had no such parliamentary precedent. Norhad the work of the public accounts commission which Harley and his fellowcommissioners had been simultaneously undertaking.^**

''Your Weighty Employment^''^^

Sir Edward Harley's description of his son's service on the accounts commission wascertainly justified. Harley wrote home on 24 November 1691: ' I have not had any partof time at my disposal examining...the accounts prepared for Parliament requires both

178

attendance & diligence, I bless God the great part of the work is finished this night thovery late.''̂ ^ It had, indeed, been a busy and wearying parliamentary year for Harley towhich a week later was added the distress of his wife's sudden and fatal illness. Asremarked above, he remained at Westminister, staying away from the House for arespectful few days before reappearing to attend the lengthy debates on the commission'sreport. The House clearly found it indigestible and, unlike the estimates which presentedmembers with specific decisions on future expenditure, the audited acounts related tomoney spent. It was only later, in 1695, when the commission exposed the corruptionof Treasury Secretary Henry Guy and Speaker Trevor that the House paid urgentattention to its work. Ironically, the significance ofthe new commission lay initially notin its findings but in its very existence. The Court and its placemen had not enjoyed theexperience of probing and questioning by the commissioners. The bill to renew their remitbecame a major legislative battleground between Court and 'country'. Renewal becamea part ofthe parliamentarian's programme, and the bill the first in a legislative line thatran through the Place and Triennial Bills to the proposed parliamentary committee fortrade in 1695/6.

Harley reported home the most significant alteration to the commission. ' I t was, bysome, intended to proceed to a new ballot but upon the votes the two Admirals [Richand Austen] were excluded with a vote and only 7 to continue.' The removal of the twoplacemen finally confirmed the commission's essentially opposition role, 'the front benchofthe country party'. Harley describing the supply debates (11 and 12 January 1691/2)saw it himself in such terms: 'Monday and yesterday, long debate between thecommissioners ofthe Treasury and those ofthe Account about the values ofthe revenuehas been concluded to the satisfaction of the House.' The very nature of the changes inthe composition ofthe commission made the bill to renew it an even greater Court target.The Lords offered radical amendments 'covertly designed to spoil the bill' by addingcommissioners of their own. The Commons could at least unite on such an intrusion bythe Lords' 'meddling with money'.^^

Contingency plans had also been made to save the bill. As Edward Harley predictedand Robert confirmed in a letter of 12 February, arrangements were being made to tacka renewal clause to the Poll Bill. Clarges, absent from the House through illness, advisedHarley that, 'while tacking had been complained of about a clause not altogetherpertinent to the matter ofthe bill', a clause 'to renew or continue an act may be properlybrought without reproach'. The Poll Bill, having completed the committee stage hadbeen 'kept from being reported' to the House, Harley explained to his father, and in a'lively' five-hour debate the renewal clause was added to the Poll Bill (134-104) despiteall the 'vigor' and 'endeavour' ofthe Court. Surprisingly, it was also despite the votesof two of the Foley family, Harley's own father-in-law, Thomas, and kinsman Philip,that Harley's 'weighty employment' as a commissioner of accounts continued foranother session.^^

179

Ftg. I. Robert Harlcy, ist Earl of Oxford, by Sir Godfrey Kncller. By courtesy ofthe Trustees ofthe British Museum

180

''Advice is your business^

Sir Thomas Clarges, 21 November 1692.

The 1692/3 session witnessed a significant shift in tactics and approach as the oppositionsought to conduct a new session-long enquiry into the conduct ofthe navy, alongside anexhaustive examination of the estimates and launched new legislative demands in theform of the Place and Triennial Bills. They built intricate procedural patterns linkingthe progress of one item of business to another, and in doing so raised parliamentaryactivity to higher dimensions. In an interesting pre-session assessment sent inSeptember 1692 to Brampton Bryan where Harley had briefly returned, Foley arguedthat there were 'only three ways thought on':

1. To reduce the Army only to a defence at home making the Navy as strong as may be.2. To making our Army strong enough by itself to make a descent upon France and thecommand and officers may be as such as are likely to pursue to effect.3. The middle between these extremes to endeavour to keep off a general excise or let the Courtotherwise get what they can of supply and manage all themselves at their peril as hitherto.The first will depend upon the Confederation standing or breaking. The second upon the termswhat may be consented unto to encourage it. The third will be the effect of no agreement. Ageneral excise is driven at and to begin with malt but it is hoped it will not succeed. Some hadrather give 6s. on land."*

Many would have conceded a six shilling land tax (two shillings above the tax agreed)to head off a general excise. The land tax, at least, remained under local control assessedby county commissioners, that was by members themselves. During the course of theparliament the struggle over supply became a confrontation between the Treasury and theaccounts commissioners. As Harley described on 7 February 1693, 'there began a greatdebate between the heads ofthe Treasury and Commissioner of Accounts. That gave thelatter an opportunity to vindicate themselves against several industrious whispers...'.Three days later he again reported, ' I think the commissioners ofthe Treasury have usedthe commission of accounts so unkindly who have found out all the money hitherto ... '.̂ ^Despite such protestations it remained vital for the opposition to retain the supplyinitiative for anything seemed better than the evils of a leather excise duty which angeredthe tanners of Herefordshire and Leominster. Harley received their grateful thanks whenhe finally helped to turn around the majorities the Court had mounted in favour of suchan excise. Yet he and other critics paid a heavy political price. The alternative was thecreation of a Bank of England which offered the court a £1,200,000 rescue package.Within twelve months Foley was organizing a petition against the bank, but neither thatnor their own proposed land bank could undermine the new bank, the most profoundfinancial innovation ofthe parliament. ̂ ^

Foley had concluded his September 1692 letter by telling Harley that his company was'much desired'. Harley's company certainly became crucial to the opposition'soperations. During the 1692/3 session he emerged from his supporting role to be a majorparliamentary leader. His speeches became longer, clearly prepared in considerable

181

detail. He also recognized the need for changes in tactics. Like Clarges he seized uponthe terms of the King's opening address. ' I t seems other than his former ones,' heinformed his father and on 15 November he reported, ' I t hath been a very busy day. Wedelivered our accounts, read and ordered for Monday. Saturday was appointed toconsider the King's speech in relation to give them advice. A very long debate aboutadvice having preference in time before supply but carried without a division.' TheHouse paid little attention to the accounts report (which they had also presentedpersonally to the King), preferring to concentrate on the conduct of naval affairs andthe estimates."'

When the estimates totalling a little over £4,200,000 were presented, Harleyimmediately signalled the change of approach. On this occasion 'he desired they may bereferred to a committee ofthe whole house and not go round about as done last session'(that is into a private or select committee).^** This tactical switch perhaps refiected thelearning experience ofthe previous sessions and a belief that the estimates should becomea part of the general indictment of the management of the war conducted in thecommittee of the whole on 'advice'. It meant, in effect, that the seven lengthy sessionson 'advice' were interspersed with six exhaustive sessions on the estimates (29November, i, 2, 3, 6 and 9 December). The House did not go into a committee of waysand means until 13 December when the opposition promptly introduced the first of twomajor bills, the Place Bill. Some of the most intense and 'warm' debates of theparliament occurred in late November and early December 1692. In the 'committee ofadvice', a five-hour debate attended by about 400, a resolution was carried withoutdivision that the King should constitute a commission of the Admiralty of personsknowledgeable of maritime affairs. Following Foley's comprehensive denunciation on 26November, the House further resolved 'to advise Their Majesties to prevent the likemischiefs for the future by employing men of known ability and integrity', though it didnot follow the more radical suggestion that 'all persons who gave advice may set theirhand to it by way of assent to or dissent from it'. Harley, however, could report horne,' I t is now very late and we are but just risen...I hope the event of this day wil be of greatbenefit to the public. ''̂ ^

He could not report equal satisfaction over the results of their labours on the estimates.Despite deploying every possible procedural device over a four-day period (29November, i, 2 and 3 December) to delay and stall the army estimates by referring eachitem approved in committee to the whole house and by seeking to split the estimates,debating first the 20,000 men required for home defence, the Court eventually carriedits estimates (some £188,000 less than the original demands). The opposition was left tosavour their symbolic victory (147-118) of reducing the Secretary of War's daily payfrom three pounds to twenty shillings. Harley was left in despair. As he explained to hisfather on 3 December:It is now past eleven and I have but just got home. It was the longest debate on one question thatever I knew. The weight ofthe debate on one side lay with seven or eight against all the placementhough they acquired their point...'"

182

Harley, concluding that the army estimates had been carried by the 'purchased votesofthe placemen, thereupon signalled the Place Bill, introduced by Sir Edward Husscyon 13 December. This bill, followed by the Triennial Bill in January, represented abroadening ofthe opposition's parliamentary agenda. Ironically, exhaustive examinationof the estimates had had the effect of crowding out key legislation dear to the hearts ofmany of the Court's critics. In the remaining two sessions legislation took tacticalprecedence over the estimates. While the accounts commission's reports in 1695 exposedthe corruption of and brought down Treasury Secretary Guy and then Speaker Trevor,the £5,000,000 estimate went through relatively comfortably. Uncharacteristically,Harley had to admit as early as November 1693 that he had not been through theestimates. He also concentrated on the Place, Triennial and Treasons and Trial Bills.

The renewal of the commission of accounts, the Place and Triennial Bills, were tiedto supply progress. Harley had held out little hope of the first Place Bill introduced inDecember 1692. Indeed, the introduction of a Triennial Bill appears to have beendesigned as a substitute for the Place Bill.̂ '" If placemen could not be removed, theyshould at least be subject to the regular wrath of the electorate. Harley became closelyinvolved in the progress ofthe bill, speaking at length on the first reading ofthe first billon 28 January 1692/3 and acting as teller for the majority (210-132). In a typicalHarleian manner he gloomily forecast that every effort would be made to 'clog' the billand on 4 February confessed 'great distrust ofthe success ofthe bill. Others think it issure which is without grounds. The art of this day is putting it off from Monday toTuesday'. Despite the fact that every clause of this 'very short bill alone had a debateof many hours' it was carried with only two amendments though finally fell to William'sveto.^^ Sir Edward Harley, re-elected to the House in February 1692/3, witnessed hisson's powerful advocacy ofthe second Triennial Bill. He wrote home admiringly to hisdaughter, Abigail:

Tbe great debate yesterday about the triennial parliament the Lord was pleased to enable yourbrother to speak and also the mercy to me to hear

That bill also failed.However, at the beginning ofthe 1694/5 session something of a bargain appears to

have been struck, possibly as a result ofthe series of meetings and contacts made betweenShrewsbury, Harley and Foley. An estimate of nearly £4,900,000 was agreed upon,Foley himself proposing an army estimate of £2,500,000 (the original Court demand hadbeen £2,705,000). Harley himself introduced a third Triennial Bill which, on thisoccasion, William did not veto.^^ The Triennial Bill represented very much theparliamentarians' programme though they also attracted support from a number ofCourt Whigs anxious for an early election; and at least they gained Harley's father-in-law's vote as well as that of the Herefordshire placeman John Dutton Colt.^"

Harley had served his parliamentary apprenticeship in the legislative committees, thenewly formed public accounts commission and, above all, in the detailed examination ofthe estimates. The examination of the estimates had become an intrinsic part of the

183

parliamentary session and timetable, establishing the rights of members to scrutinize andeven pare prospective government expenditure. Such a process was indivisible from thepolitics of the period, and the degree of attention reflected political priorities of themoment. The estimates became an opposition's opportunity to exploit or even bargainover. Members ofthe 1690 House of Commons began to do both, thus beginning a longtradition which eventually, in the late nineteenth century, achieved formal recognition.The right of exhaustive examination of the estimates was exchanged for twenty supplyday debates on topics chosen by the opposition. Harley, Foley, Clarges and Musgravehad recognized that parliamentary opportunity and wove the estimates debates intoa detailed tactical and procedural pattern linked to the traditional functions of grantingsupply and legislating.

One other striking characteristic of Harley's political and parliamentary careeremerged in the 1690 Parliament, his dislike for faction or party. From these early dayshe held this lifelong aversion, though it was as much an aversion towards Wharton andother Court Whigs. He could even find 'fault on both sides' when his own uncle bymarriage and close political confidant, Paul Foley, was involved. He distanced himselffrom the various factions against Russell and Carmarthen and even those againstNottingham in the 1692/3 session. In an interesting surviving draft speech, probablydelivered in November 1693, he declared:

I think the senseless name of parties hath almost ruined us. The nation will grow so wise at lastas not to have any party but to joyne to support ourselves against any party that would destroythis government.^^

Yet, paradoxically, Harley himself made a contribution to party. During the course ofthe exhaustive detailed examination of the estimates and accounts he and others forgedtogether a core of members who accepted their leadership as champions of 'frugalmanagement'. There is little evidence that many of that 'country' core did not followthe same leadership upon the broader political and constitutional proposals representedby the main legislative initiatives of 1692—5. As our 1968 study revealed on three verydifferent issues (the price of guineas, the council of trade, and the attainder of Sir JohnFenwick) the majority ofthe members ofthe 1695 Parliament voted consistently. Thatconsistency of behaviour had been gradually shaped during the complex debates on theestimates, accounts and supply in the 1690 Parliament.'^^

The 1690 House of Commons had been Harley's parliamentary apprenticeship. Thatpersonal apprenticeship had happened to coincide with the historic apprenticeship oftheHouse of Commons itself, collectively learning the techniques of detailed scrutiny andcontrol through 'estimates', 'supply' and 'audit'. However, from these emerged oneother significant feature of post-Revolution politics. Regular sessions, long daily sittings,the need to carry the House on the estimates as well as supply, increased the importanceof those members who could sway the House. Management ofthe Commons 'Danbystyle' was no longer suflficient. It required parliamentary and political skills deployedweek in, week out. From such needs and requirements there emerged an alternative route

184

to power, the parliamentary route. During the course of the 1690 Parliament RobertHarley both discovered and began to chart that parliamentary route to power.

1 Harley's correspondence covering 1690-5 isprimarily found in BL, Loan 29, as follows:29/185-8, which were partially calendared in theRoyal Commission on Historical Manuscripts[H.M.C], Report on the Manuscripts of HisGrace the Duke of Portland [Portland] (London,1892-1931), vol. iii; 29/135-6, correspondencefrom the Foley family; 29/141-2, Sir EdwardHarley's correspondence with Robert and othermembers of the family; 29/79, further lettersfrom Robert Harley to his father; 29/164,Harley's correspondence with his first wifeElizabeth until her death in December 1691.

2 For the series of letters excusing himself and forhis wife's complaints, see Loan 29/164, 21Mar., II, 14, 21 Apr., 8, 12, 22 May 1691; andLoan 29/144.

3 Sir Edward to Robert Harley, 21, 24, 27 Nov.1691, Loan 29/141; Robert to Sir EdwardHarley, 12 Dec. 1691, Loan 29/79; H.M.C.Portland, vol. iii, p. 483. See also Sir Edward'saccount of Elizabeth Harley's death in Loan29/85.

4 Robert to Sir Edward Harley, 27 Dec. 1692,Loan 29/186, f 236.

5 H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p. 468.6 For family differences over the Treason and

Abjuration Bill, see H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p.510; for differences over the Weobley by-election, see Loan 29/185, ff. 72, 81; and Loan29/141.

7 Loan 29/185, ff. 20-2; H.M.C. Portland, \o\. iii,pp. 460-1.

8 Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, May1690-October 1691 (London, 1898), p. 465.Eetter to the King, 31 July 1691.

9 For the comparative size of the army in CharlesII's and James II's reign, see John Childs, TheArmy, James II and the Glorious Revolution(Manchester, 1980), pp. 1-15; Loan 29/282,'Abstract of Forces paid out of England in theyears 1689, 1690, 1691, 1692, 1693'; for thelatest study of the impact of the war on theeconomy, see D. W. Jones, War and the Economyin the Age of William III and Marlborough(Oxford, 1989).

10 Loan 29/185, f 359.

11 H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p. 453; H. Horwitz(ed.). The Parliamentary Diary of NarcissusLuttrell, /6gi-i6g3 [Luttrell, Diary] (Oxford,1972).

12 J. A. Downie, 'The Commission of PublicAccounts and the formation of the CountryParty', English Historical Review, xci (1976), pp.33-51-

13 Loan 29/164.14 Loan 29/185, ff. 32, 238, 243.15 Ibid., fF. 242-3.16 H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p. 482.17 Luttrell, Diary, pp. 25-7; Robert to Sir Edward

Harley, 14 Nov. 1691, H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii,p. 482.

18 Luttrell, Diary, p. 30.19 Ibid, pp. 47-9; Loan 29/185, f 256; Loan

29/79-20 Sir Edward to Robert Harley, 22 Jan. 1691/2,

Loan 29/141.21 Loan 29/185, f 253.22 Loan 29/79.23 On the battle over the renewal of the accounts

commission, see the series of letters. Loan29/186, ff. 9-31 ; Edward to Sir Edward Harley,16 Feb. 1691/2, Loan 29/186, f 30.

24 Loan 29/135/7.25 Loan 29/287, ff. 20-1.26 Robert to Sir Edward Harley, 9 Jan. 1694/5,

Loan 29/188, f i; H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p.550; for an account of the establishment of theBank of England, see H. Horwitz, ParliamentaryPolicy and Politics in the Reign of William III(Manchester, 1977), pp. 143-69; and D. W.Jones, op. cit., pp. 12-15.

27 Luttrell, Diary, pp. 227-31; Loan 29/186, f.196.

28 Luttrell, Diary, p. 260.29 Loan 29/186, ff. 216-17.30 Luttrell, Diary, pp. 266-93; Loan 29/186, ff.

221-3; H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p. 508.31 Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, pp.

123-4-32 Edward to Sir Edward Harley, 7 Jan. 1692/3,

H.M.C. Portland, vol. iii, p. 511.

185

33 For Harley's almost daily account ofthe progress 36 Loan 29/187, f 22.of the Triennial Bill, see the series of letters, 37 Loan 29/27.Loan 29/187, ff, 11-22, 38 I. Burton, P. Riley and E. Rowlands, Political

34 I-I,M.C. Portland, vol. iii, pp. 548-9. Parties in the Reigns of William III and Anne:35 For a detailed account of these meetings, see The Evidence of Division Lists, Bulletin ofthe

Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics, pp. Institute of Historical Research, Special Sup-138-9. plement 7 (London, 1968).

186