Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:21:03.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sir Robert Walpole, the Church of England, and the Quakers Tithe Bill of 1736*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Stephen Taylor
Stephen Taylor
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Church of England has received little attention either as an issue or as a force in mid-eighteenth-century politics. The contrast with the immediate post-revolutionary decades, when the Church and churchmen were at the centre of political debate, is striking. This development has been explained in terms of the achievement of political stability, one manifestation of which was the transition from the whig–tory dichotomy of the reign of Anne into a court–country one by 1725, with the issues dividing the two parties losing both ideological and political significance. Among the debates which were ‘overtaken by events’ was religion which ‘ceased to be a central issue of political debate’. Indeed, Geoffrey Holmes has argued that the decline of religious controversy began with the Sacheverell trial, claiming that most of the eighteenth century was characterized by ‘spiritual inertia’ and ‘religious tranquillity, within the framework of an Erastian polity’. Such views accord well with the secularist interpretation of the enlightenment, epitomized by Peter Gay's portrayal of it as ‘a volatile mixture of classicism, impiety, and science’, and they have been little challenged by ecclesiastical historians. Norman Sykes may have vindicated the pastoral and administrative standards of the Georgian Church, but the overwhelming impression remains one of Stability and intellectual torpor.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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 Ward, W. R., in Georgian Oxford: university politics in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 1958)Google Scholar, did point to the close relationship between religion and politics, but its implications have been left unexplored.

2 Speck, W. A., Stability and strife. England 1714–60 (London, 1977), pp. 104–6Google Scholar; idem, ‘Whigs and tories dim their glories: English political parties under the first two Georges’, in Cannon, John (ed.), The whig ascendancy (London, 1981), pp. 51–75Google Scholar; Dickinson, H. T., Liberty and property. Political ideology in eighteenth-century England (London, 1979), pp. 121–5Google Scholar.

3 Owen, J. B., The eighteenth century, 1715–1815 (London, 1974), p. 113Google Scholar.

4 Holmes, G. S., The trial of Dr Sacheverell (London, 1973), pp. 275–6Google Scholar.

5 Gay, Peter, The enlightenment: an interpretation (2 vols., London, 1964), 1, 8Google Scholar; Sykes, Norman, Church and state in England in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1934), p. 330Google Scholar and passim; Greaves, R. W., On the religious climate of Hanoverian England (Inaugural lecture, Bedford College, London, 1963), pp. 3–5Google Scholar.

6 Porter, Roy, ‘The enlightenment in England’, in Porter, Roy and Teich, M. (eds.), The enlightenment in national context (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gilley, Sheridan, ‘Christianity and enlightenment: an historical survey’ History of European Ideas, 1 (1981), 103–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Colley, Linda, In defiance of oligarchy. The tory party 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 104–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robbins, Caroline, The eighteenth century commonwealthman (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), ch. VIIICrossRefGoogle Scholar; Browning, Reed, The duke of Newcastle (New Haven, 1975), pp. 79, 329–30Google Scholar; The works of the reverend Thomas Newton, D.D., late lord bishop of Bristol and dean of St Paul's, London (3 vols., London, 1782), 1, 78Google Scholar.

8 Coxe, William, Memoirs of the life and administration of Sir Robert Walpole, earl of Orford (3 vols., London, 1798), 1, 25Google Scholar. In what appears to be Walpole's notes for his speech on the 1736 motion to repeal the Test Act, he concludes with a reference to Sacheverell. Cambridge University Library, Cholmondeley (Houghton) MS 76, no. 8.

9 ‘My Case in Relation to the Ministry and the Whigs’, n.d., Gibson papers, StAndrews, University Library, MS 5219Google Scholar.

10 ‘Draughts of two letters prepared during Archbishop Wake's indisposition; and when it was understood that the Archbishopric would be offered to me; being before the affair of the Quakers’ Bill', Gibson papers, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California, bound volume, no. 13. I should like to thank Dr M. A. Goldie for informing me of the existence of this collection.

11 Arnall, William, A Utter to the reverend Dr Codex (London, 1734), pp 12–13Google Scholar; An apology for Dr Codex, humbly addressed to the Doctor (London, 1734), p. 12Google Scholar; Authentick memoirs of the life and conduct of the reverend Dr Codex: from his infancy to the present time…By a presbyter of the Church of England (London, 1735), p. 21Google Scholar.

12 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5219; ‘Queries concerning the Bishops and Clergy’, n.d., Gibson papers, Bodleian Library, MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 31–2.

13 Historical Manuscripts Commission. Manuscripts of the earl of Egmont. Diary of Viscount Percival afterwards first earl of Egmont, 11, 262.

14 Sykes, Norman, Edmund Gibson, bishop of London, 1669–1748: a study in politics and religion in the eighteenth century (London, 1926), pp. 91–117Google Scholar; Gibson to Bishop Hare, 4 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5312–3; MS 5219.

15 For Gibson the strengthening of the whig administration was itself a benefit to the Church, believing ‘“That there is noe way to preserve the Church, but by preserving the present Establishmt in the State; and That there is far greater probability that the Tories will be able to destroy our present Establishmt in the State, than that the Dissenters will be able to destroy our Establishmt in ye Church.”’ Gibson to Bishop Nicolson, 3 Dec. 1717, Gibson-Nicolson correspondence, Bodleian Library, MS Add. A. 269, fo. 72.

16 For the rise of anti-clericalism, see Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5219; Gibson papers (Huntington), bound volume, no. 13. For Queen Caroline in 1727, see Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5200, 5201, 5202. For a brief account of the Rundle affair, see Sykes, Gibson, PP 155–9.

17 Kendrick, T. F. J., ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the old whigs and the bishops, 1733–6: a study in eighteenth-century parliamentary politics’, Historical Journal, XI (1968), 421–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, N. C., Two early political associations. The Quakers and the Dissenting Deputies in the age of Sir Robert Walpole (Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar.

18 Kendrick, , ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the old whigs and the bishops’ pp. 421, 426, 429, 438Google Scholar.

19 Hunt, , Political associations, p. 92Google Scholar.

20 Cf., Hill, B. W., The growth of parliamentary parties 1680–1742 (London, 1976), pp. 212–13Google Scholar. Therefore, I do not agree with Kendrick that the policy of the 1736 session was designed to secure the ‘Old Whigs’ to a faltering ministry. Indeed, Kendrick's ‘Old Whig’ faction seems more imaginary than real. Ignoring the judgement of Caroline Robbins, to whom he expresses a debt for describing old whig ideology, that they never acted together as a political group, he names five M.P.s as prominent ‘Old Whigs’. Of these William Glanville [Hythe] and John Conduitt [Southampton] were consistent supporters of Walpole, while Walter Plumer [Appleby] and Robert Ord [Mitchell] were both leading opposition whigs. The loyalty of the ministerialists was not in doubt, and it seems implausible that the opposition whigs would have been won over by a few minor concessions to dissent. The fifth, Sir Joseph Jekyll, despite his links with the ministry through his position as Master of the Rolls and his marriage ties with Lord Hardwicke, maintained a staunch independence and actually opposed the Tithe Bill. Kendrick, , ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the old whigs and the bishops’, pp. 432n, 433nGoogle Scholar; Robbins, , Eighteenth century commonwealthman, p. 383Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission. Manuscripts of the earl of Onslow, p. 470; Linnell, C. L. S. (ed.), The diaries of Thomas Wilson, D.D., 1731–7 and 1750, son of Bishop Wilson of Sodor and Man (London, 1964), pp. 156–7Google Scholar.

21 Printed copies of the 1731 Tithe Bill, 1733 Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, and 1733 Church Rates and Repairs Bill are reproduced in Lambert, Sheila (ed.), House of Commons sessional papers of the eighteenth century (147 vols., Wilmington, Delaware, 1975), VII, 33–4, 123–6, 119–22Google Scholar. A manuscript copy of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill of 1734, which was very similar to that of 1733, can be found in Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 246, no. 17.

22 Journals of the house of commons, XII, 567.

23 H.M.C., Egmont diary, 11, 233; C.J., XXII, XXIII, XXIV.

24 C.J., XXII, 567; Sedgwick, R., The house of commons 1715–54 (2 vols., London, 1970), 1, 603–4Google Scholar; 11, 272–3.

25 Library, Guildhall, Minutes of the Dissenting Deputies, 1, 14 01 1736Google Scholar, quoted in Hunt, , Political associations, pp. 149–50Google Scholar. Walpole's opposition made the defeat of the dissenters' attempt inevitable, and Holden correctly interpreted his statement as a warning not to proceed, despite Walpole's advice of early 1735, that although he ‘did not judge this a proper time…he would not desire the Dissenters to put off the intended application any longer but leave it to them if they saw fitting to make the attempt the next Sessions’. M.D.D., 1, 6 Mar. 1735, in Hunt, , Political associations, p. 146Google Scholar.

26 C.J., XXII, 623. The Commons' printed bill is reproduced in Lambert (ed.), Sessional papers, VII, 255–8. It passed into law as 9 Geo. II, c. 36.

27 Savidge, A., The foundation and early years of Queen Anne's Bounty (London, 1955), pp. 97–106Google Scholar; Best, G. F. A., Temporal pillars. Queen Anne's Bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Church of England (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 107–10Google Scholar; Sedgwick, R. (ed.), Some materials towards memoirs of the reign of George II, by John, Lord Hervey (3 vols., London, 1931), II, 536Google Scholar; SirRobinson, Thomas to Carlisle, Lord, 24 04 1736, Historical Manuscripts Commission. Manuscripts of the earl of Carlisle, p. 169Google Scholar.

28 C.J., XXII, 658–78; Journals of the house of lords, XXIV, 652–3; Cox, Nicholas, Bridging the gap. A history of the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy over 300 years. 1655–1978 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 60–3Google Scholar.

29 Colley, , Oligarchy, pp. 109–10Google Scholar; Jones, M. G., The charity school movement: a study of eighteenth-century Puritanism in action (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 110–34Google Scholar.

30 C.J., XXII, 635, 603. The Bill's full title was ‘a Bill to inlarge, amend and render more effectual, the Laws now in being, for the more easy Recovery of Tythes, Church Rates, and Oblations, and other Ecclesiastical Dues, from the People called Quakers’. It is printed in Lambert, (ed.), Sessional papers, VII, 259–66Google Scholar.

31 7 & 8 Wm. III, c. 6 and 7 & 8 Wm. III, c. 34.

32 Hunt, , Political associations, pp. 62–4Google Scholar, 72–83; The parliamentary history of England. 1066–1803 (36 vols., London, 1806–1820), IX, 1180–1Google Scholar.

33 C.J., XXII, 612, 623; The parliamentary diary of Edward Harley, Cambridge University Library, Add. MS 6851, fo. 57; Library of the Society of Friends, Minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings, XXVI, 11th 4th mo., 1736 (i.e., 11 June 1736), quoted in Hunt, , Political associations, p. 88Google Scholar.

34 Harley diary, fos. 59–60; Robinson, to Carlisle, , 24 04 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 169Google Scholar; M.M.S., XXVI, 12th 10th mo., 1735, in Hunt, , Political associations, p. 84Google Scholar. For Hardwicke's support of the Mortmain Bill, see also his ‘Notes of what was intended to have been spoke in the House of Lords, in case there had been a debate on the merits of ye bill’, in Harris, George, The life of Lor Chancellor Hardwicke; with selections from his correspondence, diaries, speeches, and judgments (3 vols., London, 1847), 1, 308–12Google Scholar.

35 Coxe, , Walpole, I, 478Google Scholar. In 1734 the whigs had lost both county seats by a very narrow margin, but won at Norwich after a tough contest.

36 Newcastle, to Walpole, Horace, 24 05 1734, Coxe, , Walpole, III, 168Google Scholar; Carteret to Marchmount, 15 June 1734, A selection from the papers of the earls of Marchmount…Illustrative of events from 1685 to 1750 (3 vols., London, 1831), 11, 28Google Scholar.

37 Sedgwick, (ed.), House of commons, I, 43, 46Google Scholar. Compare these figures with the growth of the opposition by seventy-three in 1727–33. Ibid., pp. 37, 42, 44, 91.

38 C.J., XXII, 328, 331; Robinson, to Carlisle, , 14 04 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, pp. 147–8Google Scholar.

39 Although Walpole also believed that Jacobitism posed a genuine threat, he was not beyond cynically using it for the same purpose. See, Fritz, Paul, The English ministers and Jacobitism between the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 (Toronto, 1975), pp. 99–108Google Scholar.

40 C.J., XXII, 485; H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 174; L.J., XXIV, 548–9.

41 M.D.D., 1, 6 Mar. 1735, 14 Jan. 1736, in Hunt, , Political associations, pp. 146, 149–50Google Scholar. For a suggestion that Walpole may have personally favoured repeal of the Test Act, see Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fo. 85.

42 C.J., XXII, 628; Parliamentary history, IX, 1046; Harley diary, fo. 61; H.M.C., Egmont diary, II. 243–4.

43 Harley diary, fo. 61. See n. 25 above.

44 The old whig: or, the consistent protestant, 2, 20 Mar. 1735. See, Robbins, , Eighteenth century commonwealthman, pp. 241–2Google Scholar.

45 The occasional paper upon the subject of religion and the Church establishment; and the present attempts against them (London, 1735), I 3Google Scholar.

46 Ibid. I, 9–10; II, 7.

47 Ibid. II, 5, 9–10.

48 Parliamentary history, IX, 1124–5, 1144–6. Mary Ransome argues than these reports ‘give a fair indication of the arguments used on both sides’. ‘The reliability of contemporary reporting of the debates of the house of commons, 1727–41’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Researck, XIX (1942–1943), 67–79Google Scholar.

49 Parliamentary history, IX, 1180–1, 1197–9; An answer to the country parson's plea against the Quakers Tithe Bill (London, 1736), pp. 28, 101Google Scholar; John, , Hervey, Lord, The Quaker's reply to the country parson's plea against the Quakers Bill for tythes (London, 1736), pp. 4, 6–7, 10, 16, 21, 31Google Scholar.

50 A letter to the lord bishop of London: occasioned by disputing with a Quaker (London, 1737), pp. 48–56Google Scholar.

51 Parliamentary history, IX, 1181; Answer to the country parson's plea, pp. 8, 19. This argument was used by the Quakers in 1737 to demonstrate the moderation of their request. A vindication of a book, intituled, A brief account…To which are added, remarks on the poor vicar's plea (London, 1737), p. 128Google Scholar.

52 Parliamentary history, IX, 1209–10; Howard, Charles to Carlisle, , 1 04 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 163Google Scholar; Foster, Michael, An examination of the scheme of Church power laid down in the Codex juris ecclesiastici Anglicani &c (London, 1735), pp. 38, 5Google Scholar. In 1735 Foster, who came from a dissenting background, was recorder of Bristol. He later became a famous high court judge. Dodson, M., life of Sir Michael Foster, Knt. (London, 1811), pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Dictionary ofnational biography, XX, 60–1. It was in 1736 that Hardwicke made his famous judgement in the case of Middleton v. Croft, that canons did not apply to the laity unless they had been approved by parliament. See, Croft, C. E., ‘Philip Yorke, first earl of Hardwicke – an assessment of his legal career’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1983, pp. 92–105Google Scholar. For Gibson's reaction to this judgement, see, Sykes, Norman, From Sheldon to Seeker: aspects of English church history 1660–1768 (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 203–4Google Scholar.

53 Ward, , Georgian Oxford, pp. 83–96, 141–2Google Scholar; Somerset to Hardwicke, 2 Apr. 1736, B.L. Add. MS 35585, fo. 326. When a visitation of the universities was again discussed in 1749, Newcastle, now Chancellor of Cambridge, was strongly opposed to its inclusion. Newcastle to Bishop Sherlock, 21 Jan. 1749, B.L. Add. MS 32718, fo. 31.

54 Harley diary, fo. 59.

55 H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 255. It is not clear why Egmont described it as ‘Lord Clarendon's clause’. It is possible that he was calling Lord Cornbury, M.P. for Oxford University, by his father's ing title in error, or that Clarendon, as High Steward of Oxford University, helped to draft the clause, which, according to the tory M.P. Edward Harley, was drawn up as a compromise with the help of the colleges. Harley diary, fos. 59–60; Ward, , Georgian Oxford, p. 159Google Scholar.

56 H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 255–6.

57 Harley diary, fo. 60.

58 Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 538Google Scholar.

59 Harley particularly noted the support of ‘Sandys & the Patriots’ for the Mortmain Bill. Harley diary, fo. 58.

60 H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 271, 507;Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 157Google Scholar.

61 The parliamentary journal of William Hay, Northamptonshire Record Office, MS L(e) 732–5, unfoliated. Hay's speech was delivered on 30 April at the report stage, when he was a teller against engrossing the Bill. C.J., XXII, 698.

62 Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 156Google Scholar.

63 Colley, , Oligarchy, pp. 106–10Google Scholar.

64 Parliamentary history, IX, 1161–2.

65 Ibid. 1163.

66 Journal of Hay, William; Parliamentary history, IX, 1164Google Scholar; Harley diary, fos. 62–3.

67 Harley diary, fos. 57–8.

68 Sedgwick, (ed.), House of commons, II, 27Google Scholar;Colley, , Oligarchy, p. 70Google Scholar; Harley diary, fo. 60.

69 Parliamentary history, IX, 1214–6.

70 Journal of William Hay; Howard to Carlisle, 22 Apr. 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 168.

71 C.J., XXII, 670, 683, 699, 700. It may have been this lack of verbal opposition that encouraged St Aubin to send his speech to The gentleman's magazine, VI (1736), 365Google Scholar.

72 C.J., XXII, 472, 667.

73 Gibson to Walpole, n.d., Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5297; MSS 5304–5.

74 C.J., XXII, 655–73. The only petition against the Bill to have survived is that of the clergy of Middlesex to the house of lords. House of Lords Record Office, Main papers, 6 May 1736.

75 Linnell, C. D. (ed.), The diary of Benjamin Rogers rector of Carlton, 1720–71 (Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society xxx, Streatley, nr. Luton, 1950), p. 68Google Scholar.

76 Read's weekly journal, 610, 15 May 1736; St James's evening post, 4115, 20 May 1736; London evening post, 1329, 25 May 1736; Gibson to clergy of London, n.d., Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fo. 112.

77 Hunt, , Political associations, pp. 64–72Google Scholar;Sherlock, Thomas, ‘The country parson's plea against the Quakers Tythe-Bill: humbly addressed to the Commons of Great-Britain assembled in parliament’, in Papers relating to the Quakers Tythe Bill (London, 1736), pp. 23, 38Google Scholar. Sherlock's pamphlet was ‘reckoned the best for the Clergy’. Morpeth to Carlisle, 4 Apr. 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 165. An examination of a book… intituled A brief account… So far as the clergy of At diocese of London are concerned in it. To which is added the poor vicar's plea against the Quakers Bill (London, 1737), pp. 101–2Google Scholar. This pamphlet was one of a number, published between 1737 and 1742 in response to requests from the bishops, to answer the Quakers' contention that the clergy were proceeding from vexatious and oppressive motives. Gibson to anon., 5 Feb. 1737, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fo. no.

78 Sherlock, , ‘Country parson's plea’, pp. 25–8Google Scholar; Gibson, Edmund, ‘Remarks upon a bill now depending in parliament… for the more easy recovery of tythes, church-rates, and oblations, and other ecclesiastical dues from the people called Quakers: And also remarks upon a printed paper, intided, The case of the people called Quakers’, in Papers relating to theQuakers Tythe Bill, pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

79 Sherlock, ‘Country parson's plea’, p. 35; Gibson papers (St Andrews) MS 5330; Gibson papers (Bodleian) MS Dep. c. 238, fos 55–61.

80 Vann, R. T., The social development of English Quakerism 1655–1755 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 162–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Webster, William, The clergy's right of maintenance vindicated from scripture and reason (London, 1726)Google Scholar.

82 Delany, Patrick, An essay towards evidencing the divine original of tythes (London, 1748)Google Scholar;Prideaux, Humphrey, The original and right of tythes, for the maintenance of the ministry in a Christian church truly stated (London, 1736 edn)Google Scholar. Swift was also reluctant to abandon the claim to divine right.Landa, Louis A., Swift and the Church of Ireland (Oxford, 1954), p. 129Google Scholar.

83 Prideaux, Original and right of tythes, ‘To the reader’.

84 Ibid. pp. 35–6, 204.

85 Ibid. chs. IV and V.

86 The English works of Sir Henry Spelman Kt…and the life of the author. By the right reverend father in God Edmund lord bishop of London (2nd edn, London, 1729), unpaginated.

87 Sherlock, , ‘Country parson's plea’, p. 23Google Scholar.

88 Thomas Seeker's speech to the Lords on the Tithe Bill, Seeker papers, Lambeth Palace Library, VII, fos. 326, 328; Sherlock, , ‘Country parson's plea’, pp. 22–5, 32–5Google Scholar; H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 254.

89 For Swift's articulation of this fear in the context of Irish tithe legislation of 1733, see Landa, , Swift and the Church of Ireland, pp. 131–2Google Scholar.

90 Warburton, William, The alliance between church and state, or the necessity of an established religion, and a test law demonstrated, upon the fundamental principles of the law of nature and nations (London, 1736)Google Scholar. Warburton, however, was very unorthodox in his views, and, on his own admission, few agreed with him. The works of William Warburton (7 vols., London, 1788), II, 269Google Scholar. Cf. Greaves, R. W., ‘The working of the alliance. A comment on Warburton’, in Bennett, G. V. and Walsh, J. D.(eds.), Essays in modern English church history (London, 1966), p. 163Google Scholar.

91 Gibson, Edmund, Codex juris ecclesiastic: Anglicani (London, 1713), intro. p. 17Google Scholar; idem, The dispute adjusted about the proper time of applying for a repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts. By shewing that no time is proper (London, 1732), pp. 13–15Google Scholar; ‘Positions touching the Rights of ye Civil Power in matters of Religion’, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 42–3.

92 Gibson, Codex, intro. pp. 18–19.

93 Potter, John, A discourse of church-government: wherein the rights of the Church and the supremacy of Christian princes are vindicated and adjusted (London, 1707)Google Scholar.

94 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5330.

95 Sherlock, ‘Country parson's plea’, pp. 30Google Scholar, 32. See also, An examination… To which is added, The poor vicar's plea, pp. 103–17.

96 Gibson to Walpole, n.d., Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5297.

97 Parliamentary history, IX, 1219–20; House of Lords Record Office, Proxy book, 1736. Maddox of St Asaph had not yet taken his seat in the Lords. Kendrick, in suggesting that Gibson's quarrel with Walpole caused a division in episcopal ranks, fails to take notice of proxies. ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the old whigs and the bishops’ pp. 442–3.

98 Abbey, C. J., The English church and its bishops 1700–1800 (2 vols., London, 1887), II, 35Google Scholar; Sykes, , Church and state, p. 73Google Scholar; Hibbert-Ware, S., The history of the college and collegiate church of Manchester (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1830), 11Google Scholar, 82–7; Peploe to Newcastle, 7 Nov. 1739, B.L. Add. MS 32692, fos. 448–9.

99 Hoadly, B., ‘A charge delivered to the clergy, at the bishop's pastoral visitation of the diocese of Winchester, in the year 1736’, in Hoadly, J. (ed.), The works of Benjamin Hoadly, D.D. (3 vols., London, 1773), in, 487–93Google Scholar.

100 L.J., XXIV, XXV; Sykes, Norman, William Wake, archbishop of Canterbury, 1657–1737 (Cambridge, 1957), II, 98–9Google Scholar; Ward, , Georgian Oxford, pp. 97–8Google Scholar.

101 Wilmot, J., The life of John Hough (London, 1812), p. 59Google Scholar; Gibson to Walpole, n.d., Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5285. But Francis Hare also seems to have been offered York. Hare to Walpole, 2 Nov. 1734, Cholmondeley (Houghton) correspondence, no. 2326a.

102 Hervey, Memoirs, II, 541, 547–8; Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5201; Anderson, Robert, Memoirs of the life and writings of John Potter, D.D. lord archbishop of Canterbury (Edinburgh, 1824), p. IXGoogle Scholar. For Potter's jealousy of Gibson after the former's elevation to Canterbury, see Gibson papers (Huntington), bound volume, nos. 1 and 8.

103 Hervey, Memoirs, II, 533.

104 Parliamentary history, IX, 106, 115–16; Autobiography of Archbishop Secker, Lambeth Palace Library, fo. 26, quoted by Greaves, ‘Working of the alliance’, p. 173.

105 Hough to Gibson, 14 June 1735, 27 Aug. 1735, 25 Oct. 1735, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 58–9, 56–7, 54.

106 Secker to Philip Doddridge, 21 Feb. 1745,Humphreys, J. D. (ed.), The correspondence and diary of Philip Doddridge, D.D. (5 vols., London, 1829–1831), IV, 381–2Google Scholar; Hough to Gibson, 24 Nov. 1742, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 238, fos. 26–7; Abbey, , English church, p. 63Google Scholar.

107 Humphreys, (ed.), Correspondence of Doddridge, III, 325–8Google Scholar; Nuttall, Geoffrey, Calendar of the correspondence of Philip Doddridge, D.D. (1702–51) (London, 1979), p. 281Google Scholar.

108 Gibson to Hough, n.d., Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 60–1;The works of Thomas Secker, LL.D. (6 vols., London, 1811 edn), v, 355–99Google Scholar.

109 L.J., xxiv, 672; Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 157Google Scholar.

110 Robinson to Carlisle, 24 Apr. 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 168.

111 The weekly miscellany, 174, 17 Apr. 1736; 178, 15 May 1736.

112 H.M.C., Egmont diary, n, 244; Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 158Google Scholar.

113 ‘Queries concerning the Bishops and Clergy’, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fo. 31; Gibson to Walpole, 27 Apr. 1734, Cholmondeley (Houghton) correspondence, no. 2161. This pamphlet has also been attributed to Thomas Gordon, another ministerial propagandist.

114 Gibson to Hare, 13 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5312–13; Gibson to Walpole, n.d., MS 5285a. See also, Gibson to Walpole, Cholmondeley (Houghton) correspondence, no. 2106; Gibson to Walpole, n.d., Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5286, 5287.

115 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5219; ‘Queries concerning the Bishops and Clergy’ Gibson papers (Bodleian), MSDep. c. 237, 63. 31. Among Walpole's papers there is an anonymous manuscript, entitled ‘Considerations upon the present state of things, chiefly in relation to the church and clergy’, warning Walpole of the likely defection of the bishops if the court engaged in 'unchurchlike Steps'. Cholmondeley (Houghton) MS 78, no. 43.

116 Archbishop Boulter to Gibson, 20 May 1735, Christ Church, Oxford, MS 173, fo. 354; Gibson to Berkeley, 9 July 1735, B.L. Add. MS 39311, fo. 31; Gibson to Hough, n.d., Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 60–1.

117 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5304–5; ‘Conduct of ye Bps in relation to ye Quakers Bill’, MS 5306; ‘Queries sent to the ministry on Occasion of their Resentment against the Bench of Bishops’, Gibson-Nicolson correspondence, MS Add. A. 269, fo. xi.

118 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5304–5; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 552Google Scholar. Gibson's letter, however, was dated 9 March 1736. Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 238, fo. 53.

119 Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, pp. 154, 157Google Scholar; Hare to Gibson, 7 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5314.

120 Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 533Google Scholar.

121 ‘The bishop of London's Complaints of ill usage, in the false Representations that have been made of him and his Conduct’ Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5218; ‘Complaints on the part of the Bishop of London’, MS 5302.

122 Hare to Gibson, 7 Aug. 1736, ibid. MS 5314; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 544–6Google Scholar.

123 Gibson-Nicolson correspondence, MS Add. A. 269, fo. xi; Gibson to Hare, 10 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5315.

124 Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 157Google Scholar; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 532Google Scholar; Gibson to Hare, 4 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5312–13; ‘The Bishop of London' Complaints of ill usage’, MS 5218.

125 Wilcocks to Newcastle, 21 Nov. 1735, Public Record Office, State papers, 36/37, fo. 76.

126 H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 266–7.

127 Morpeth to Carlisle, 3 Apr. 1736, H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 165.

128 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5304–5. The first reading took place on 17 March. The second reading, after being postponed twice, took place on 12 April. According to Sheila Lambert, the normal interval between the first and second reading of a public act was ‘seven sitting days’. Bills and acts. Legislative procedure in eighteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1971), p. 81Google Scholar.

129 M.M.S., XXVI, IIth 4th mo., 1736, in Hunt, , Political associations, pp. 88–9Google Scholar.

130 Parliamentary history, IX, 1160–1.

131 They have been identified by comparing the Commons' printed bill with the engrossed bill in House of Lords Record Office, Parchment collection, 4 May 1736.

132 Parliamentary history, IX, 1160–1.

133 C.J., XXII, 699.

134 Parliamentary history, XI, 1219–20.

135 Ibid. 1179–219; H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 272.

136 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MSS 5218, 5302, 5303; Hare to Gibson, 7 Aug. 1736, MS 5314

137 ‘My last letter to Sr. R. We.’ Gibson papers (St Andrews), M S 5299; Gibson to Newcastle, 26 Sept. 1740, B.L. Add. M S 32695, fo. 150.

138 L.J., XXXIV, 628.

139 H.L.R.O., Proxy books.

140 Gibson to Walpole, n.d., Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5299.

141 Hare to Gibson, 2 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5311; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 546–8Google Scholar;Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 154Google Scholar.

142 Hare to Gibson, 7 Aug. 1736, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5314.

143 Venn, R. to Grey, Z., 29 05 1736, B.L. Add. MS 5831, fo. 181Google Scholar; Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, pp. 158, 169, 178Google Scholar; H.M.C., Egmont diary, 11, 322. For Hervey's claim that he was instrumental in Potter's, promotion, see Memoirs, II, 546–8Google Scholar.

144 Benson to Samuel Johnson, 9 Mar. 1736, Herbert, and Schneider, Carol (eds.), Samuel Johnson, President of King's College. His career and writings (4 vols., New York, 1929), 1, 86Google Scholar; Benson to Gibson, 23 July 1736, Gibson papers (Huntington), bound volume, no. 23. Kendrick, quoting a letter from Benson of 15 December 1736, uses him to demonstrate the ease with which the bishops returned to the ministerial fold. The letter, however, was not to Walpole, but to Sir Archer Croft, a defeated candidate in the 1734 elections, as is clear from the preceding letter in the Walpole papers. ‘Sir Robert Walpole, the old whigs, and the bishops’, p. 444; Cholmondeley (Houghton) correspondence, nos. 2643, 2644.

146 Seeker's, reports of debates in the house of lords 1735–1745, B.L. Add. MS 6043Google Scholar.

146 H.M.C., Egmont diary, II, 342; III, 24.

147 Linnell, (ed.), Diaries of Thomas Wilson, p. 188Google Scholar; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 547–8Google Scholar; Sherlock, to Newcastle, , 4 09 1743, B.L. Add. MS 32701, fo. 96Google Scholar.

148 B.L. Add. MS 5831, fo. 182; Potter, to Newcastle, , 2 01 1744, Add. MS 32702, fo. 4Google Scholar; Newcastle, to Gibson, , 21 07 1747, Gibson papers (Huntington), bound volume, no. 29; B.L. Add. MS 32710Google Scholar, fo. 408; Add. MS 32711, fo. 61.

149 Hough to Gibson, 27 Aug. 1735, Gibson papers (Bodleian), MS Dep. c. 237, fos. 56–7.

150 Free and candid disquisitions relating to the Church of England, and the means of advancing religion therein (London, 1749)Google Scholar; Blackburne, Francis, The confessional: or, a full and free inquiry into the rights, utility, edification, and success, of establishing systematical confessions of faith and doctrine in Protestant churches (London, 1766)Google Scholar.

151 Dickinson, H. T., Walpole and the whig supremacy (London, 1973), pp. 79–80Google Scholar.

152 Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5219.

153 E.g., Townshend to Gibson, 24 May 1731, Gibson papers (St Andrews), MS 5283.

154 George Home, high churchman and Hutchinsonian, who became bishop of Norwich under George III, noted that men like him stood no chance of preferment. Commonplace book, Home papers, Cambridge University Library, Add. MS 8134/B/1, p. 2.

155 Hervey, Memoirs, I, 151 and passim; Langford, Paul, The excise crisis. Society and politics in the age of Walpole (Oxford, 1975), pp. 83–6Google Scholar.