political art. Statesmen, even of the
highest rank and reputation, made no concealment of the fact that
whenever occasion required they were ready to state the thing which was
not, either in private conversation or in public debate. Nothing could
exceed or excuse the boundless duplicity of Marlborough, but it must be
owned that even William the Third told almost as many falsehoods to
Marlborough as Marlborough could have told to him. At a time when
William detested Marlborough, he yet occasionally paid him in public
and in private the very highest compliments on his integrity and his
virtue. Men were not then supposed or expected to speak the truth. A
statesman might deceive a foreign minister or the Parliament of his own
country with as little risk to his reputation as a lady would have
undergone, in later days, who told a lie to the custom-house officer at
the frontier to save the piece of smuggled lace in her trunk.

[Sidenote: 1714--Harley]

If a man like William of Nassau could stoop to deceit and falsehood for
any political purpose, it is easy to understand that a man like Harley
would make free use of the same arts, and for personal objects as well.
Harley's political changes were so many and so rapid that they could
not possibly be explained by any theory consistent with sincerity. It
was well said of him that "his humor is never to deal clearly or
openly, but always with reserve, if not dissimulation, and to love
tricks when not necessary, but from an inward satisfaction in
applauding his own cunning." He entered Parliament in 1689, and in
1700 was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. At that time, and for
long after, it was not an uncommon thing that a man who had been
Speaker should afterwards become a Secretary of State, sitting in the
same House. This was Harley's case: in 1704 he was made principal
Secretary of State. In 1708 Harley resigned office, and immediately
after took the leadership of the Tory party. In about two years he
overthrew the Whig administration, and became the head of a new
government, with the place of Lord High Treasurer, and the title of
Earl of Oxford. {31} His craft seems only to have been that low kind
of artifice which enables an unscrupulous man to cajole his followers
and to stir up division among his enemies. His word was not to be
relied upon by friend or enemy, and when he most affected a tone of
frankness or of candor he was least to be trusted. As Lord S