Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:18:37.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The new opposition in the house of lords, 1720–3*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Clyve Jones
Clyve Jones
Affiliation:
Institute of Historical Research, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article looks at the membership and organization of the opposition that emerged in the house of lords between 1720 and 1723 under the leadership of William, 1st Earl Cowper. The origin of this new opposition lay in the political reaction to the extensive corruption exposed by the bursting of the South Sea Bubble, which brought together a coalition of dissident whigs and tones (both Hanoverian tories and Jacobites) who proceeded to attack the ministries of the earl of Sunderland and of Viscount Townshend and Robert Walpole for their supposed corrupt administration. The hallmark of the new opposition was the extensive campaign of protests against the opposition's defeat in votes, protests which were entered (with reasons) into the Journals of the House, and which were then published in the form of broadsheets, pamphlets, and newsletters as propaganda in an appeal to public opinion. This was the first time an opposition had indulged in an extensive and sustained campaign of influencing the public outside Westminster. This campaign required a high level of organization. This Cowper provided in imitation of some of the new management techniques being developed by the ministry to control the house of lords, plus a new feature – the daily pre-sitting meetings of the leadership to concert tactics. The legacy of the new opposition was the preservation of the concept of a loyal opposition as an acceptable part of British political life.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 309 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The term ‘Cowper's cabal’ is constantly used by Chammorel and Destouches in their reports to the French government, now in the Archives du Ministère des Affairs Etrangères, Correspondence Politiques d' Angleterre at the Quai d' Orsay (seeRealey, C. B., The early opposition to Sir Robert Walpole, 1720–1727 [Lawrence, Kansas, 1931], p. 82)Google Scholar. For reasons which will become clear when I discuss the organization of Cowper's opposition group I think ‘cabal’ is a misnomer, based on a misunderstanding of British politics by a French observer.

2 HMC, Portland MSS, VII, 310, William Straford to Lord Harley, 14 Dec. 1721. See also HMC, Carlisle MSS, p. 37, Vanbrugh to Carlisle, 16 Nov. 1721.

3 HMC, Polwarth MSS, III, 30, Carteret to Polwarth, 13 Jan. 1721.

4 See, e.g. Foord, A. S., His majesty's opposition, 1714–1830 (Oxford, 1964), pp. 64, 75, 98, 102Google Scholar;Plumb, J.H., Sir Robert Walpole (2 vols., 1956–1960), I, 370–1Google Scholar; Bennett, G. V., The tory crisis in church and state, 1688–1750: the career of Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester (Oxford, 1975), pp. 231–2Google Scholar;Colley, Linda, In defiance of oligarchy, the tory party, 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 64–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.Cowper's opposition appears, however, not to.have made it into the textbooks, e.g. Williams, Basil, The whig supremacy, 1714–1760 (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar; Speck, W. A., Stability and strife: England, 1714–1760 (1977)Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g.Bennett, , Tory crisis, p. 225Google Scholar.

6 Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, Stuart Papers [hereafter RA, SP] 51/76, [James Hamilton] to [the Pretender], 21 Jan. 1721. See also ibid. 51/80 [Strafford] to [the Pretender], 23 Jan. 1721.

7 Cobbett's parliamentary history of England…, ed. Cobbett, William (36 vols., 1806–1820), VII, 647Google Scholar.

8 For a full discussion of the ideology of Cowper and the new opposition see Clyve Jones, ‘William, 1st Earl Cowper, country whiggery, and the leadership of the opposition in the house of lords, 1720–1723’, in The house of lords, 1720–1900 ed. Richard W. Davis (forthcoming).

9 For the dissent see LJ, XXI, 290.

10 RA, SP 46/93, 1 May 1720.

11 Ibid. 46/92, to [the Pretender], 25 April 1720. Caesar gives 23 April as the date of the reconciliation. However, Mrs Clayton, a close friend of the princess of Wales, gives it as 22 April (RA, Georgian additional MS 28, fo. 59).

12 RA, SP 46/110, to [the Pretender], 6 May 1720.

13 Ibid. See also ibid. 46/111, same to [same], 6 May 1720; and 46/118, [Arran] to [the Pretender], 10 May 1720.

14 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F57 (Panshanger papers), fo. 61, 24 April 1720. The young duke looked upon Cowper as his political mentor and in January 1721 confessed his pleasure at being introduced on the public stage under Cowper's wing (ibid. fos. 67–8, to [Cowper], 2 Jan. 1721). This relationship of master and pupil was commented upon (HMC, Carlisle MSS, p. 37, Vanbrugh to Carlisle, 16 Nov. 1721).

15 B.L., Stowe MS 242, fo. 209, Wharton to [Atterbury], n.d. [but late Sept. or early Oct. 1721].

16 Diary of Mary Countess Cowper… 1714–1720, ed. Cowper, C. C. S. (1864), pp. 144, 146–50, 154, 166, 168, 172–3Google Scholar. There were rumours in early 1721 that Cowper would join the whig ministry (HMC, Portland MSS, v, 615–16). Though not prepared to work with the tories politically, Cowper was not averse to working personally with some of them (notably Trevor) in a legal context (Lambeth Palace MS 1770, Archbishop Wake's diary, 12 May 1720).

17 The post-Bubble chaos may have also helped Cowper overcome his distaste for some of the disgruntled whigs who were to join his opposition, e.g. Lechmere, (see Diary of Countess Cowper, p. 165)Google Scholar.

18 P.R.O., SP 35/40/423–4 (in Bishop Atterbury's hand), printed below.

19 The M.P.s were William Shippen, Sir John Pakington and William Bromley. For these three see Sedgwick, Romney, The house of commons, 1715–1754 (2 vols., 1970), 1, 493–4; 11, 321, 422–3. They serve to remind us that the new opposition had a Commons' dimension to it, in which Cowper's brother, Spencer Cowper, played an important roleGoogle Scholar.

20 This analysis of speeches is based on Cobbett's parl. hist., VII–VIII, together with such sources as the extensive collection of newsletters found in B.L., Add. MSS 27980, 47076–7.

21 B.L., Stowe MS 750, fo. 386, Abingdon to [Orrery], 11 Nov. 1721, and fo. 388, Wharton to Abingdon, 11 Nov. [1721].

22 HMC, Portland MSS, v, 556, newsletter, [7 Dec. 1721, misdated 19 Feb. 1718].

23 This can be seen from the letters in Cowper's papers in the Hertfordshire R.O. It is significant that there is virtually no mention of Atterbury in Cowper's correspondence.

24 HMC, Portland MSS, v, 556; RA, SP 56/78, [Robert Freebairne] to [John Hay], 20 Dec. 1721; his last protest was signed on 20 Nov. 1721, and his first upon his return to the opposition on 2 May 1723.

25 Dawes left London on 11 March (The Weekly Journal or Saturday Post, 16 March 1723, p. 1348); the marriage took place on 9 April (B.L. Add. MS 27980, 63. 29, newsletter, 27 April 1723).

26 Besides Cowper, Wharton and Coningsby, Lechmere, who joined them in 1722, proved a frequent speaker and protester.

27 Even the duke of Newcastle, a member of government, equated the opposition with the tories (B.L., Add. MS 32686, fo. 353, to Townshend, 18 Oct. 1723).

28 Jones, Clyve, ‘Jacobitism and the historian: the case of William, 1st Earl Cowper’, Albion, XXIII (1991), 681–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 I owe this information to David Hayton who has written an, as yet, unpublished biography of Orrery for the 1690–1715 section of the History of Parliament.

30 He signed 25 of the 27 protests in 1721–2 (only Strafford signed all 27), and 24 of the 33 in 1722–3 (Foley, Scarsdale and Strafford signed 30).

31 Early on the opposition attracted the support of some important court whigs such as Somerset and Kent. The Jacobite trials seem to have pushed them back into supporting the administration.

32 The number of those who signed more than half the possible protests grew from 20 in 1720–1 and 1721–2 to 28 in 1722–3, while the number of those who signed more than a quarter of all protests grew from 23 in 1721–2 to 36 in 1722–3.

33 Realey, , Early opposition, pp. 82, 85Google Scholar. Cowper's words were recorded by Carteret and conveyed to the French ambassador.

34 RA, SP 57/163. It was printed in the Lords' report on the Jacobite conspiracy (House of lords sessional papers, ed. Torrington, F. W. [60 vols., Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1978], vols. 1718–19 to 1724–5, p. 155)Google Scholar. For an identification of the author of this anonymous letter as Atterbury, see Bennett, , Tory crisis, pp. 239–40Google Scholar.

35 See Clyve Jones, ‘Jacobites under the beds: Bishop Francis Atterbury, the earl of Sunderland and the case of the Westminster School dormitory of 1721’, British Library Journal (forthcoming).

36 See Jones, Clyve, ‘The house of lords and the growth of parliamentary stability, 1701–1742’, in Britain in the first age of party, 1680–1750: essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes, ed. Jones, Clyve (1987), pp. 96–101Google Scholar.

37 Those not protesting were Stafford, Thanet, Nottingham, Rochester, Plymouth, Barnard and the Bishop of St Davids.

38 The attendance was 94 (LJ, xxi, 602–4): in the division 86 voted, with the opposition mustering 22 votes. Of these 17 protested.

39 For the letters see note 21, above.

40 Holmes, Geoffrey, British politics in the age of Anne (1967, 2nd edn, 1987), pp.307–9Google Scholar.

41 Jones, Clyve, ‘The parliamentary organization of the whig junto in the reign of Queen Anne: the evidence of Lord Ossulston's diary’, Parliamentary History, X (1991), 164–82Google Scholar.

42 French report quoted and translated in Realey, , Early opposition, p. 86Google Scholar; HMC, Portland MSS, v, 555 (newsletter, [6 Dec.]). Colley errs in making these important meetings weekly rather than daily (Defiance of oligarchy, pp. 63–4, 315 n. 30), basing her claim on Jacobite evidence published in the house of commons’ report on the Jacobite plot (see Cobbett's parl. his., VIII, 206), which can be totally discredited (see Jones, , ‘Jacobitism and the Historian’, pp. 686–90)Google Scholar.

43 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F53, fo. 18, Bathurst to [Cowper], [20 June 1721] See also ibid. F55, fo 75 (Wharton to Cowper), fo. 77 (Bathurst to Cowper); F59, fo. 57 (Lady Cowper to her husband).

44 LJ, XXI, 578, 584, 591. Cowper had last sat at the House on 26 May (ibid. p. 531).

45 Foster, Elizabeth Read, The house of lords, 1603–1649: structure, procedure, and the nature of its business (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1983), pp. 55, 207Google Scholar.

46 This analysis is based on a tabulation of all protests between 1685 and 1800 compiled and kindly supplied to me by Dr G. M. Ditchfield of the University of Kent at Canterbury.

47 B.L., Add. MS 47076, fo. 339.

48 HMC, Lords MSS, new ser. x, 11.

49 E.g. by Atterbury on 13 Feb. 1722 (B.L., Add. MS 47076, fo. 321, newsletter, 15 Feb. 1722).

50 See Jones, ‘Cowper, country whiggery, and the leadership of the opposition’.

51 By the present author in error, see Jones, , ‘House of lords and the growth of parliamentary stability’, p. 102Google Scholar.

52 Realey, , Early opposition, p. 82Google Scholar.

53 B.L., Add. MS 47076, fo. 339.

54 Ibid. fo. 325, newsletter, 20 Feb. 1722, reporting the debate of 19 Feb. See also Sunderland's objections voiced on 13 Feb.(Cobbett's parl. hist., VII, 969).

55 See A complete collection of the protests of the Lords, ed. Rogers, J. E. Thorold (Oxford, 3 vols., 1875), 1, 97, 110, 150, 156–8, 172–3, 204–5, 209–17Google Scholar.

56 B.L., Add. MS 47076, fo. 336, newsletter, 3 March 1722.

57 This periodical first published a protest in 1711; it then published those on the peace with France in 1712, on the Schism Bill in 1714, the Septennial Bill in 1716, and on the Mutiny Bill and the Bristol Workhouses Bill in 1718 (1, 113–16; III, 341–5; vn, 525–8; XI. 452–7; XV, 206–8, 214–17, 325–6).

58 B.L., Add. M S 47076, fo. 337, 8 March 1722.

59 See Lowe, W. C., ‘The house of lords, party an d public opinion: opposition use of the protest, 1760–82’, Albion, XI (1979), 143–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lowe's claim that the period 1760–82 saw the first development of the protest as a form of public propagand a is clearly mistaken. The 22 years only produced 61 protests, with the highest number in one session being only seven.

60 This analysis is partly based on a n examination of the published protests which I have traced. I n this I have been helped by a computerized search of the files of the Eighteenth Century Short Title Catalogue at the British Library. But even this bibligraphical aid is not complete (I have traced several protests which are not included), and it seems highly likely some published protests, particularly single broadsheets, have not yet been traced.

61 I have thoroughly searched the Burney Collection of newspapers at the British Library (which, however, is not a complete collection of all those published) for the years 1720–23. N o newspapers printed the text of a protest during these years. See.Jones, Clyve, ‘Opposition in the house of lords, public opinion, newspapers and periodicals, 1720–23; Lord Cowper's campaign of protests’, Journal of Newspaper and Periodical Hist, VIII, no. 1 (1992), 51–5Google Scholar.

62 For the advertisements upon which this analysis is based see the Post Boy, 6–8, 8–10, 10–13 March 1722; the Daily Post, 8 Marc h 1722; the Weekly Journal or Saturday Post, 17 March 1722; the Daily Courant, 29 an d 31 May 1723.

63 Philip Neynoe, one of the Jacobite plotters questioned by the ministry in 1722, worked for the Freeholder (see Cruickshanks, Eveline, ‘Lord North, Christopher Layer an d the Atterbury plot: 1720–23’, in The Jacobite challenge, eds. Cruickshanks, Eveline and Black, Jeremy [Edinburgh, 1988], p. 100)Google Scholar, and claimed in his evidence before a committee of the privy council that he ha d been responsible for publishing many protests. He was however a proven liar, so little credence should therefore be placed upon his testimony (see Jones, , ‘Jacobitism and the historian’, pp.690–2)Google Scholar. None the less, he may have been a contact with the press for the Jacobite members of the opposition.

64 For Strafford an d the City see Black, Jeremy, ‘Giving life to the honest part of the City: the opposition woo the City in 1721’, Historical Research, LX (1987), 116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 See XVIII (1722), 175, 293. Several of the protests published in 1723 have not yet been traced in pamphlet form.

66 B.L., Add. MSS 47076–7 (Jan. 1721 to March 1723), 27980 (March 1723 to March 1724). These volumes, together with the others in the series, undoubtedly form the largest and most complete collection of newsletters to have survived for the eighteenth century.

67 In 1739 a clerk of the Parliament Office was found to have supplied a copy of a protest (and possibly of a minority list) to a printer, who distributed his publication around the London coffee houses(LJ, xxv, 314–16, 404, 414).

68 Colley, , In defiance of oligarchy, pp. 54–70Google Scholar.

69 Ibid. pp. 62, 315 n. 25.

70 National Library of Wales, Penrice and Margam MS L1029, quoted in ibid. p. 63.

71 B.L., Stowe MS 251, fos. 5–7, 14, Townshend to Walpole, 28 July 1723 n.s., copy of Walpole to Townshend, 23 July 1723. The three tories had approached Walpole through Bolingbroke. Even as late as October Newcastle was hoping Lechmere could be secured ‘for if we can get him the Tories in our Town can make no head, now they have lost Lord Cowper’ (B.L., Add. MS 32686, fo. 353, to Townhend, 18 Oct. 1723).

72 RA, SP 74/58, to [the Pretender], 10 May 1724; 82/18, to [same], 7 May 1725.

78 For ad hoc conferences see, e.g., ibid. 80/84, [Wharton] to [the Pretender], 25 Feb. 1725; 82/3 [same] to [same], 1 May 1725; 125/115, [James Hamilton] to [James Edgar], 5 March 1729; Box 1/130, [Andrew Cockburn] to [Edgar], [between 13 and 28 Feb. 1735].

74 Quoted in Colley, , In defiance of oligarchy, p. 210Google Scholar.