One of the seminal moments of Pulteney’s career occurred at the end of the parliamentary session on 31 May 1725 when he was dismissed from his post as cofferer of the household, on account of his opposition earlier in the session, most notably over the Civil List bill. There followed a period of opposition which ended only with the resignation of Sir Robert Walpole from the Treasury on 3 February 1742. Pulteney then entered the Cabinet, but consistent with his oft-repeated pledge not to take office, he did not take an administrative post. On 14 July, the penultimate day of the 1741-2 session, he was raised to the earldom of Bath, taking his seat in the Lords on the following day.

Pulteney lost a lot of popularity when entering the House of Lords, and he failed twice to attain major office in the years following: he was overlooked in favour of Henry Pelham, as first lord of the Treasury, upon the death of the earl of Wilmington in July 1743 and failed to construct a ministry when the Pelhams and most of their colleagues resigned in February 1746. From then on, his political career is deemed to have been over and he spent his time in ‘retirement’.

However, there was another side to Pulteney, related to the accumulation of power and influence. On the very day he took his seat in the Lords, a bill to prevent the marriage of lunatics received the royal assent. This was managed through the Commons by Pulteney’s long-term associate Phillips Gybbon and served to offer some protection to Pulteney’s investment in the reversion of the estates of the Newport, earls of Bradford.

The heir to the estates of Pulteney’s friend, Henry Newport, 3rd earl of Bradford (1683-1734) was Bradford’s illegitimate son, John Newport, whose mother Ann Smyth was on her deathbed. The reversion of Bradford’s estates had been granted to Pulteney (in return for paying for Newport’s maintenance and the debts of the third earl). Now Newport could not be married off by unscrupulous operators for the estates. Similarly, the third earl’s brother, Thomas Newport, who succeeded to the title as 4th earl of Bradford, was a certified lunatic.

The Bradford estates were destined for Pulteney’s son, William, Viscount Pulteney, who pre-deceased his father in June 1763. Sir Lewis Namier detailed the battle waged by Bath to become lord lieutenant of Shropshire following the accession of George III. Bath used his connexions with the new king and John Stuart, 3rd earl of Bute, to overcome the claims of his rival, Henry Arthur Herbert, created Baron Herbert of Chirbury in 1743 and promoted earl of Powys in 1748. In 1736 when Ann Smyth had petitioned for a bill to allow her son (at the time known as John Harrison) to be adopt the surname Newport, the first two-names on the drafting committee were Herbert and Pulteney, with Herbert managing the bill through the House.

The death of Viscount Pulteney did not end Bath’s interest in the Bradford estates. On 21 March 1764 a bill received the royal assent allowing the guardians of John Newport to make leases of his estates during his lunacy. It was managed through the Lords by Pulteney’s ally, Samuel Sandys, Baron Sandys, and through the Commons by John Rushout, the future Baron Northwick (son of Pulteney’s friend, Sir John Rushout, 4th bt.).

Bath turned 80 on 22 March, but continued to exhibit considerable vigour, sitting on eight of the 18 days remaining in the session, including on 2 April despite being begged by Lady Elizabeth Montagu ‘not to lose all this lovely morning in the House of Lords’ [https://emco.swansea.ac.uk/emco/letter-view/1297/]. Following the end of the session, Bath travelled to Shropshire, where he reviewed the militia at the end of May. Upon his return to London, he fell asleep in a garden, caught a fever and died on 7 July 1764.

The dynastic implications of Bath’s actions become clear if we look beyond the contemporary criticism levelled at him for leaving his estate to his elderly brother, General Harry Pulteney. In fact, the descent of the estates followed the intentions laid down by Henry Guy in his will of 1711 (which provided the basis of Bath’s wealth). Guy’s list of remainders ended with the male heirs of Daniel Pulteney, Bath’s cousin.

The ultimate beneficiary in 1767 was Frances Pulteney, daughter of Daniel and the wife of William Johnstone, who took the name Pulteney after Frances succeeded to the Pulteney estates. This William Pulteney succeeded his brother (Sir James Johnstone) as 5th baronet in 1794 and spent over 30 years as MP for Shrewsbury. His daughter and heir, Henrietta, was created successively Baroness Bath (1792) and countess of Bath (1803). Upon her marriage to Sir James Murray, 7th bt. in 1794 he also took the name Pulteney.

SNH

The recent riots engulfing parts of Britain have rekindled interest in the propensity of the populace to riot during the eighteenth century – the Sacheverell riots of 1710, the Porteous Riots of 1736 and the Gordon Riots of 1780, being three examples that spring to mind. The latter took place in June 1780, taking their name from the principal instigator of the disorder, Lord George Gordon (1751-93), MP for Ludgershall, who was charged with high treason, but acquitted in February 1781.

Lord George was the third son of Cosmo Gordon, 3rd duke of Gordon, and Catherine, daughter of Alexander Gordon, 2nd earl of Aberdeen. This article provides some family background to the main actor in the drama, focussing mainly on his two elder brothers, who were in Scotland when the riots occurred.

Gordon’s eldest brother was Alexander (1743-1827), 4th duke of Gordon, a Scottish representative peer from 1767 to 1784, and from 1784 earl of Norwich in the British peerage. He was married to Catherine (1748-1812), younger daughter of Sir William Maxwell, 3rd bt., ‘a great beauty but no fortune’, according to the duchess of Portland [University of Nottingham Library, Pw F 801]. Subsequently, she became a society figure and hostess for Henry Dundas and his friend William Pitt the Younger when Prime Minister in the late 1780s. The couple split in the 1790s, and after the death of the duchess, Gordon married his long-time mistress, Jean Christie, mother of five of his eight illegitimate children.

The duke of Gordon was heavily involved in trying to secure a seat for his youngest brother in the House of Commons. Preparations seem to have begun in 1772 for Lord George’s campaign for Inverness-shire. However, the sitting MP, Simon Fraser, son of the notorious Lord Lovat, executed after the Jacobite rebellion of 1745-6, kept his seat after a negotiation which saw Gordon returned instead for the venal borough of Ludgershall, owned by George Selwyn.

Selwyn sold his seats at Ludgershall to the ministry, so with Lord North in agreement, and the duke of Gordon presumably paying – hence his comment in 1776 that he had given it to his brother ‘as a free gift without laying you under any restriction whatsoever’, Gordon was safely elected as an MP. [NRS, GD224/655/7/2] However, his conduct there soon caused comment. In April 1778 Gordon was said to have ‘rather looked mad in the House last night’, where ‘his abuse of Lord North was in regard to the bargain about the borough he comes in for’. [A. and H. Tayler, Lord Fife and His Factor … 1729-1809 (1925)] Consequently, an analysis of the forthcoming election in 1780, noted that Lord George Gordon had no chance of being re-elected for Ludgershall, and indeed, he never sat in the House again.

Initial reports in London suggested that both the duke of Gordon and another brother, Lord William, were attempting to raise their clans in Scotland in support of Lord George. These rumours turned out to be false, though, the opposite being the case. Indeed, the duke made sure that there was no disorder and wrote to the king to assure him of his loyalty. [Jones Letters, ed. G. Cannon, i. 412] The duke did, however, travel to London to begin the organization of his brother’s defence, arranging visits to the Tower from his sister, the dowager countess of Westmorland, and George Gordon, 3rd earl of Aberdeen.

Informed observers were unsure as to whether Lord George’s his actions could be deemed treasonable. On 13 June Lady Spencer was informed that ‘the lawyers seem to be of opinion, that Lord George Gordon cannot be convicted of high treason’. The duke himself was nervous as the date of the trial approached, writing on 26 Jan. 1781, ‘God grant it was well over. I am in great anxiety about him I do assure you but I hope all will go right’. [NRS, GD44/43/248/9] His brother’s ultimate acquittal on 6 February 1781 had surprisingly little effect on the duke’s career. He remained involved in politics and achieved office in the 1790s as a supporter of the government.

The other brother, Lord William Gordon (1744-1823) was originally perceived as ‘one of the most accomplished young noblemen of the age’, [Namier and Brooke, ii. 519], but his career was sent into turmoil by his scandalous elopement in February 1769 with Lady Sarah Bunbury, sister of Charles Lennox, 3rd duke of Richmond, with whom he had already had a daughter. Lady Sarah eventually went to reside with her brother and was divorced in 1776. Having been described in March 1769 by one commentator as ‘odd to a degree, and certainly a little mad (several of his family are shut up)’, and by another as ‘a beggar and mad’ [Leinster Correspondence, i. 568, 570], Lord William seems to have escaped abroad for a few years.

Upon Lord William’s return his brother, the duke, managed to secure his return in a by-election for Elginshire in April 1779, which he retained in the general election the following year. in March 1781, he married Frances Ingram Shepheard, daughter and coheiress of Charles, 9th Viscount Irwin, who resided at Temple Newsam, near Leeds, a convenient staging post for visiting Scotland. In 1784 he transferred to Inverness-shire, and after a two-year break, he was returned for Horsham, on the interest of the dowager Viscountess Irwin.

As for Lord George Gordon, upon his release he continued to agitate for political change, was eventually cast adrift by his family in 1785 and two years later converted to Judaism. He died in Newgate prison on 1 November 1793.

Biographies of Lord William Gordon can be found in both The House of Commons 1754-90, edited by Namier and Brooke, and The House of Commons 1790-1820, edited by R. Thorne. Lord George Gordon features only in Namier and Brooke. The Duke of Gordon will be covered in the forthcoming House of Lords 1715-90 volumes and in the planned volumes on The House of Lords 1790-1832.

SNH

A commemoration of Clyve’s work is taking place on 20 September, 2-5pm – booking via the IHR website.

Before the pandemic struck, Clyve Jones had become an iconic figure at the History of Parliament. He would visit the History’s offices in Bloomsbury Square, to pick up his correspondence and work on Parliamentary History Texts and Studies or attend Parliamentary History meetings. He had his own chair, which had to be manoeuvred about the building for his comfort, and the House of Lords section had a gizmo which converted his floppy disks into usable files.

However, Clyve’s relationship with the History of Parliament went back much further, and his work on parliamentary history back to his student days at Lancaster when he worked under Austin Woolrych.

Clyve and the History entered my life shortly after I began my Ph D. under the supervision of Professor Geoffrey Holmes at Lancaster in 1982.

When Geoff first mentioned the History to me, he barely differentiated Eveline Cruickshanks and David Hayton, working on the House of Commons 1690-1715, from Clyve – then a librarian at the Institute of Historical Research – regarding the trio as engaged in fundamentally the same pursuit. This was helped by the proximity of the two institutions: the History of Parliament, based then in Tavistock Square, (and latterly in Woburn Square and Bloomsbury Square) was just around the corner from the IHR located in Senate House in Russell Square.  With the British Library housed in the British Museum round the corner, and the Public Records Office a few minutes away in Chancery Lane, the IHR proved to be a hub for the historical profession and a wonderful resource for research students like myself, with Clyve acting as the focal point in bringing people together.

One of the most important initiatives in parliamentary history, also began in 1982 – the publication of Parliamentary History. A Yearbook. Subsequently Parliamentary History, Eveline was the editor, but both Clyve Jones and David Hayton were on the editorial committee. In the first volume Clyve contributed an essay co-authored with Geoffrey Holmes and a piece in the “Notes and Documents” section with Edward Gregg (South Carolina). Clyve succeeded Eveline as editor in 1986, and continued in that role until 2014, when he became editor of the Texts and Studies sub-series.

With work on the House of Commons 1690-1715 in full flow and the new journal up and running, many other projects took shape with Clyve very much at the centre of the process. This continued even after the publication of that section in 2002. Clyve had shared with Geoffrey Holmes a belief in the importance of the House of Lords in the period after 1660, so he again was a significant source of advice and provider of information and references to the History’s volumes on the House of Lords 1660-1715 (2016) edited by Ruth Paley and its successor volumes on 1715-90 currently under progress under the editorship of Robin Eagles.  

Research trips were undertaken by Clyve, Eveline and David to various archives, both public and private, and even to the U.S.A. (the full extent of which were revealed by Professor John Philips on one of his visits to London, when he told the tale of Eveline’s fluffy pink pullover). Additional staff joined the 1690-1715 section, notably Andrew Hanham, Perry Gauci and Mark Knights and collaborators such as Edward Gregg, Richard Davis (Washington, St. Louis), Sir John Sainty (House of Lords RO), Stephen Taylor (a Scouloudi fellow at the IHR and then Reading, latterly Durham), John Beckett (like Clyve, a Lancaster graduate) were all brought into the mix.

Some significant collaborative projects were undertaken. Clyve and David Hayton, edited A Register of Parliamentary Lists 1660-1761 (1979) and A Register of Parliamentary Lists 1660-1761 A Supplement (1982), both published by the University of Leicester, under the general editorship of Aubrey Newman, a major contributor to the 1715-54 and 1754-90 sections on the House of Commons. They were joined by Grayson Ditchfield in editing the expanded, British Parliamentary Lists, 1660-1800 (1995).

Collections of essays edited by Clyve followed, most notably Party and Management, 1660-1784 (1984), and A Pillar of the constitution: the House of Lords in British politics, 1640-1784 (1987), plus Hanoverian Britain and Empire: essays in memory of Philip Lawson, edited by Clyve in collaboration with Stephen Taylor and Richard Connors (1998). A short history of parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland, edited by Clyve in 2009, shows in its list of authors the collaborative nature of the project. Most of the History of Parliament’s annual lectures also found their way into the pages of Parliamentary History. Most fittingly of all was the volume of Parliamentary History, 39/1 (2020), Peers and politics, c. 1650-1850: essays in honour of Clyve Jones, edited by Richard A. Gaunt and D. W. Hayton.

Clyve retained his Lancaster links, forging a lasting partnership with Geoffrey Holmes which saw them edit The London Diaries of William Nicolson Bishop of Carlisle 1702-1718 (1983). Clyve also edited

Britain in the first age of party, 1684-1750: essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes (1987), the launch party for which was held in the IHR, and Parliamentary History, 28/1 (2009) entitled British Politics in the Age of Holmes. Geoffrey Holmes’s British Politics in the Age of Anne 40 Years On (2009), which included the unpublished lecture by Geoffrey, ‘Tom Wharton and the Whig Junto: Party Leadership in Late Stuart England’, which Clyve had first heard at the Lancaster History Society in 1968.

Similarly, Clyve was fundamental, along with Ella Holmes, Bill Speck and Stephen Taylor in ensuring that some of Geoff Holmes’s unpublished work was made available to scholars. Geoff’s original intention had been to publish a study of Robert Harley’s ministry of 1710-1714, but this was unfinished. Eventually, a typescript was produced, The Great Ministry (2005) and copies made for private circulation (both the History of Parliament and IHR have copies). Later, Parliamentary History, 29/3 (2010) published the first two chapters, edited by Bill Speck.

All in all, everyone involved in researching parliamentary history knew Clyve, and most have benefited from his efforts to see such research published. The History of Parliament will miss his input and visits.

A commemoration of his work will take place under the auspices of the IHR and Parliamentary History on 20 September, 2-5pm – booking via the IHR website.

S.H.

It is particularly satisfying when the various sections of the History of Parliament allow the fortunes of one family to be traced through time. The Southwell family of Kings Weston, Gloucestershire, can be followed through each section of the House of Commons from 1660-1790 and then the 1715-90 section of the House of Lords.

The first member of the family to sit in the Commons was Sir Robert Southwell (1635-1702), who sat for Penryn in Cornwall from 1673-79, and again in 1685. Southwell’s father, also Robert (died 1677) had been involved in administration in Ireland since 1631. Southwell began his public service as a clerk to the privy Council in 1664, and during his career he accumulated many offices in both Ireland and England, and served on numerous diplomatic missions. By 1672 he had purchased a property in Spring Gardens, Westminster, and in 1679 he purchased Kings Weston in Gloucestershire, a place convenient for taking frequent trips to Ireland. He was buried at Henbury, near Kings Weston in 1702.

His son Edward Southwell (1671-1730) succeeded to some of his father’s offices and became an Irish MP in 1692. He served in the Dublin Parliament until his death, either for Kinsale or Trinity College. Shortly after his father’s death he was elected to serve for Rye in the English Parliament. He retained his seat until 1708, and later served for Tregony in Cornwall and Preston in the British Parliament. Andrew Hanham summed him up for the History as ‘a particularly polished example of the class of middling administrators who, though having no particular aspiration to the highest bureaucratic offices, nevertheless served with exemplary skill and industry.’ [House of Commons, 1690-1715, v. 528].

His son, Edward Southwell (1705-1755) was an Irish MP for Downpatrick 1727-1755 and served for Bristol 1739-54. He was more of a sinecurist, but made a step-up in the marriage stakes, his bride being the daughter of Edward Watson, Viscount Sondes, and the sister of the 2nd and 3rd earls of Rockingham.

His son Edward Southwell (1738-1777) sat for Kinsale in the Irish parliament (1761-8), and Bridgwater 1761-63 and Gloucestershire 1763-76. Interestingly, he took office as steward of the manor of East Hendred, which allowed him to relinquish his seat and stand successfully for the county. The death on 28 February 1775 of Margaret Tufton, one of the coheirs of Thomas Tufton, 6th earl of Thanet, countess of Leicester by marriage, and suo jure Baroness de Clifford, raised the prospect that Southwell would again have to relinquish his seat, upon elevation to the House of Lords. There were several claimants to the title, which took some time to resolve, although George III quickly went to the nub of the question when he told Lord North that:

“the Earl of Salisbury and Lady Egmont having for their families seats in the House of Lords are out of the question, the decision must lie between Mr. Southwell and the dowager countess of Gower, the former being descended from the eldest sister and having an estate sufficient to support the dignity seems to have a prior claim to favour.”

[Correspondence of George III, ed. Fortescue, iii. 183, George III to North, 28 February 1775]

After due consideration, Southwell was summoned by writ on 17 April 1776 and took his seat as 20th Baron de Clifford on 24 April. His short tenure of a seat in the Lords was ended when he died in France on 1 November 1777. His widow was to become the governess to Princess Charlotte of Wales, the only child of the future George IV.

His son, Edward Southwell (1767-1832), succeeded as 21st Baron de Clifford, taking his seat on 21 April 1789 and last attending in 1831. He was succeeded by his niece Sophia Coussmaker (1791-1874) as 22nd Baroness de Clifford, wife of John Russell, a nephew of the 6th duke of Bedford.

SNH

Further reading
The House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning (1983)
The House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. E.C. Cruickshanks, S.N. Handley and D.W. Hayton (2002)
The House of Commons 1715-1754, ed. R. Sedgwick (1970)
The House of Commons 1754-1790, ed. L.B. Namier and J. Brooke (1964)
The House of Lords 1715-1790, ed. R.D.E. Eagles (forthcoming)

In August 1714, the head of the Legge family was William, earl of Dartmouth, who was remarkably well-connected among the moderate Tories. In 1700 he had married a daughter of Heneage Finch, earl of Aylesford, brother of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham. Aylesford’s other daughter had married in 1703 Robert Benson, later Baron Bingley.

Dartmouth had served in government throughout the reign of Queen Anne, rising to become secretary of state in the administration of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, in 1710 and lord privy seal in 1713. He was in the latter post at the Hanoverian Succession and served as an ex officio lord justice in August and September 1714. Upon George I’s arrival in September he lost his office and was not included in the new Privy Council. He took his demotion with a certain degree of equanimity, retiring to his Staffordshire estate, before returning for the opening of the new Parliament in March 1715. He opposed Oxford’s impeachment and the Septennial bill, after the passage of which he ceased attending. Dartmouth’s main activity in the next session in 1717 was the preparation and implementation of plans for the defence of Oxford, who was acquitted on 1 July 1717.

Thereafter his parliamentary attendance was sporadic and increasingly rare. There were rumours of a rapprochement with the ministry in 1722, related, no doubt, to the payment of his salary arrears from the previous reign. But this was followed by a sustained burst of activity in 1723 when he joined the opposition campaign led by William Cowper, Earl Cowper, focusing particularly on the bill of pains and penalties against Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester.

In February 1726 there were intimations that Dartmouth was seeking reconciliation with the ministry, when he voted with the Court against a provocative opposition address aimed at re-stating Parliament’s right to veto the defence of the monarch’s foreign dominions. Rapprochement was delayed by the fall-out from the general election following George II’s accession.

In 1727 Dartmouth’s heir, Viscount Lewisham, was set up by Lord Bruce as one of the MPs for Great Bedwyn, Wiltshire. He was returned in second place, only to see his election overturned by the Commons on 26 Mar. 1729, when William Sloper was seated instead. Bruce and Dartmouth took this personally, and resolved to stay away from the Court, ending any immediate possibility of a rapprochement. Lewisham died in 1732, leaving a young son, William, the future 2nd earl of Dartmouth, and a widow, who married in 1736, as her second husband (and his second wife), Francis North, 7th Baron North and 3rd Baron Guilford, later earl of Guilford, becoming the step-mother of the future Prime Minister (Lord North) until her death in 1745.

As well as protecting the interests of his grandson, Dartmouth still had his younger children to provide for. His absence from the Lords and the parliamentary opposition cannot have harmed the career prospects of his three younger sons. Dartmouth’s most definite turn toward the ministry came in 1739 when, although he only attended on four days, he voted for the Court over the Convention of Pardo on 1 March 1739, and left his proxy for the last few days of the session with the Whig grandee, William Cavendish, 3rd duke of Devonshire.

Dartmouth’s second son, Heneage, had embarked on a legal career, being called to the bar in July 1728. Significantly, his appointment as a KC came in February 1740. Thereafter, he rose to be counsel for the Admiralty in February 1743, a post which he relinquished only upon appointment as a baron of the Exchequer in June 1747. His accompanying honour of serjeant-at-law was sponsored by the Pelham brothers.

His third son, Henry (later Bilson) Legge, had been destined for the church, but after a spell as a volunteer in the navy, he sought a career in administration. In 1733 Edward Walpole, second son of Sir Robert, had introduced Henry Legge to his father, prompting a letter from Dartmouth thanking him for his kindness. Legge became secretary to Walpole in 1736, in his capacity as chancellor of the exchequer. When in 1739 Walpole was unable to secure the junior secretaryship of the treasury for him, he ensured he became secretary to the lord lieutenant of Ireland.

Henry Legge became an MP in November 1740 for a Cornish borough, and in April 1741 secured the coveted junior secretaryship to the treasury. In the 1741 General Election he transferred to Orford, where he remained MP until 1759. He became an Admiralty lord in 1745 and returned to the treasury in 1746. At the time of his father’s death in December 1750 he was treasurer of the navy and a privy councillor.

The fourth son, Edward, entered the navy in 1726, progressing from lieutenant in 1734 to captain four years later. He was in command of a squadron in the West Indies when he died in September 1747. Before the news of his death reached England in December, he was elected MP for Portsmouth. In his will, he named his fellow captain, George Anson, as executor, but after his death the recently ennobled Baron Anson renounced his role in favour of Legge’s brother, Heneage.

When Dartmouth wrote his will in January 1748, following the death of his son, Edward, he made his countess, executor, and his two sons-in-law, Lord North and Sir Walter Bagot, bt. joint trustees. At the time of his death in December 1750, both his surviving sons were well-established in the regime, one as a judge, and the other as a front-line politician. His grandson would later achieve major office under his stepbrother, Lord North.

SNH

Further Reading
J.B. Owen, The Rise of the Pelhams (69)
J.H. Plumb, The Growth of Political Stability (167-8)
Linda Colley, In Defiance of Oligarchy (62)

Thomas Lindsay, archbishop of Armagh, died in the summer of 1724, after a long illness. Although William King, archbishop of Dublin, was widely expected to succeed to the Primacy, he was passed over in favour of Hugh Boulter, bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ Church in Oxford. Boulter came to embody the ‘English interest’ in the Irish Church and in Irish politics in general, as was demonstrated in his published correspondence covering his early period as archbishop of Armagh, Letters written by His Excellency Hugh Boulter…to several ministers of state in England, and some others: Containing an account of the most interesting transactions which passed in Ireland from 1724 to 1738 (1770). In 2016 a new edition was published, with an extensive introduction, edited by Kenneth Milne and Patrick McNally. This blog seeks to add to the account of his early career in this volume (written by Milne) and the biography of Boulter in the Oxford DNB (authored by McNally).

One of the most interesting aspects of Boulter’s early life was his marriage, which took place on 12 November 1719, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Charles Savage of Mark Lane, a mere three days before his consecration as bishop of Bristol (15 November). Thomas Hearne, the Jacobite chronicler of Oxford affairs, described Boulter’s bride as the ’daughter of Mr. Savage, a packer in Mark Lane’. The ‘packer’ in question was Charles Savage, who described himself in his April 1729 will, as a merchant. However, he was still ‘a packer’ bequeathing all his packing equipment to his youngest son, Samuel. The will revealed the extent of his wealth, leaving his wife £10,000 and adding £1,000 to the portions of £3,000 given to his four daughters. His Mark Lane property was given to his eldest son, Charles Savage, junior, along with £6,000 in addition to the sums already given to him; the second son, William, received £5,000 and Samuel £4,000. It seems likely that Boulter was only able to marry once he had proved capable of providing Elizabeth Savage with a standard of living consistent with her wealthy background. A bishopric and a plumb deanery were sufficient to meet the demands of her father, especially as he retained his rectory of St. Olave, Southwark in commendum for three years.

Elizabeth Savage’s brother, Charles junior, is of considerable interest, as he is described in the introduction to the correspondence as an advisor in ‘currency’ matters to the archbishop of Armagh (Letters, p. 29). Having succeeded his father, Savage became very successful, serving as a director of the East India Company 1725-9, 1731-2, and then as a director of the Bank of England 1733-43, 1747-60, serving as deputy-governor 1743-5 and governor 1745-7.

During his early career Boulter associated with a group of Whig Churchmen, many of whom became senior members of the episcopal bench. In 1698 he was ordained by John Hough, bishop of Oxford (later of Lichfield and Coventry and then of Worcester); in 1716 he preached Edmund Gibson’s consecration sermon as bishop of Lincoln and succeeded him as archdeacon of Surrey. At Boulter’s own consecration, Archbishop Wake was assisted by Gibson, Hough, Richard Willis of Gloucester (later bishop Salisbury and Winchester) and William Talbot of Salisbury (later bishop of Durham). When the episcopate divided in May 1721 over Bishop Atterbury’s plans for a dormitory in Westminster School, Boulter was joined in the lobby of those opposing Atterbury’s scheme by (among others) Gibson, Talbot, Willis, White Kennett, bishop of Peterborough, Benjamin Hoadly, bishop of Bangor (later Winchester) and Lancelot Blackburne, bishop of Exeter (later archbishop of York).

Boulter’s career in the British House of Lords is briefly dealt with in the introduction to Boulter’s Letters, where it is stated that on 9 March 1721, he was the only bishop to vote against the engraftment bill for the South Sea Company (p. 38 note 39). The source for this is the Lords Journal for that date, which shows that the protest against the committal of the bill was actually signed by John Hervey, earl of Bristol, not the bishop. Similarly, it is stated that on 17 January 1723 Boulter ‘supported the right of the Quakers to affirm’ (p. 37 and note 36). The source for this is Cobbett’s Parliamentary History, vii. 945, which lists those protesting on 17 January 1722 against the decision to reject a petition from the London clergy against the Quaker affirmation bill. Again, the protester is the earl of Bristol, although two Tory bishops Archbishop Dawes of York and Atterbury of Rochester did join the protest.

Boulter did not sign any protests during his time in the British House of Lords. Significantly, Boulter also cast his vote in May 1721 in favour of reversing the decree in the cause of the duke of Marlborough against Strong, joining Hoadly of Bangor, Talbot of Salisbury, Blackburne of Exeter and Gibson of Lincoln. This put him in the good books of Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, and he was the recipient of several gifts of bucks from her park in the following years.

Boulter died in London on 27 September 1742 during a rare visit to England.

SNH

Further Reading:
The Boulter Letters, ed. Kenneth Milne and Patrick McNally (Four Courts Press, 2016)

Derby has many claims to be a quintessential 18th-century town – at least when it comes to History. It claims the first factory in England – the Lombe Silk Mill, which now hosts the acclaimed Museum of Making, located near to what is now the Cathedral, with its family monuments to the Cavendish family and to the painter Joseph Wright (of Derby). Nearby is a modern statue of Charles Edward Stuart, erected at the expence of the late Lionel Pickering (at that time owner of Derby County FC) – and much approved of by the late Dr. Eveline Cruickshanks, doyen of Jacobite studies (and a long-serving contributor to the History of Parliament).

Derby (or, perhaps, Swarkestone) was the farthest point south reached by the Jacobite army of the Young Pretender (Charles Edward Stuart) in December 1745. This event is commemorated every year with a re-enactment of the skirmish that took place between red-coats and highlanders. The Museum and Art Gallery used to have a room re-creating the fatal council meeting when it was decided to retreat northwards. It is currently being transformed into a room dedicated to the ’45, while retaining the original oak panelling from Exeter House: the venue of the fateful meeting which led to the retreat from Derby.

The works of William Hogarth (1697-1764) shown in the exhibition, begin as early as 1724 with an engraving of “Masquerades and Operas (The Bad Taste of the Town)”. This critiques foreign entertainments and the associated neglect of classic English authors (including Shakespeare and Dryden), whose discarded works are carted about as waste paper. An early painting from c.1728 (usually to be found in Birmingham’s Museum and Art Gallery) depicts “A Scene from the Beggar’s Opera” by John Gay. Hogarth’s painting was much influenced by his father-in-law, Sir James Thornhill, MP for Weymouth and Melcombe Regis from 1722-1734, a ministerial supporter, and notable foe of Hogarth critics such as William Kent and Richard Boyle, 3rd earl of Burlington.

Satire is not surprisingly well represented – with an engraving from “A Rake’s Progress” showing “The Rake’s Levée. Other highlights include the six oil paintings depicting “Marriage A-la-Mode” and “The Humours of an Election,” engravings from 1755-8, shortly after the General Election of 1754, which had seen a vastly expensive contest for Oxfordshire.

There are many portraits from the ’45 and its aftermath: Flora MacDonald c.1749 by Allen Ramsay; an etching of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, from 1746, when Hogarth intercepted the prisoner at St. Albans en route for London and his trial for high treason. There are also portraits of Charles Edward Stuart, in October 1745 by Ramsay; William Augustus, duke of Cumberland in 1732 by Hogarth; and Henry Benedict Stuart (the future cardinal), c.1732 by the studio of Antonio David. Also represented is Hogarth’s portrait from 1741 of William Cavendish, marquess of Hartington, the future 4th duke of Devonshire: a man with close Derby connexions.

Documents are also exhibited. There is a letter from Charles Edward to his father, the Old Pretender (James Edward Stuart) – originally sent to the Museum upon its opening in 1873 by Queen Victoria – which was written from Edinburgh on 22 Oct. 1745 (o.s.). The printed subscription list of 28 Sept. 1745, denouncing the rebellion and signed by 167 men, headed by William Cavendish, 3rd duke of Devonshire, his heir Hartington, and Hartington’s fellow knight of the shire for Derbyshire, Sir Nathaniel Curzon, 4th bt, and the mayor of Derby, Samuel Cooper.

Accompanying exhibits by Hogarth are a host of associated objects, such as fans depicting Charles Edward and the duke of Cumberland; a Jacobite garter; a Cumberland teapot; and a white cockade worn at Culloden.

The exhibition is rounded off by Hogarth’s notorious satirical portrait of John Wilkes, engraved in 1763. Fittingly, Wilkes died in 1797, 100 years after Hogarth’s birth. Coincidently, it was also the year Joseph Wright of Derby died (Wright’s father was born the same year as Hogarth, 1697; and his mother died the year of Hogarth’s death, 1764).

For those fortunate enough to live in Derby, the Museum hosts a large collection of the works of Joseph Wright. Apart from, that is, one of Wright’s most famous paintings, “The Orrery”, which for the duration of the exhibition has been loaned to the Foundling Museum in London, in return for Hogarth’s, “The March of the Guards to Finchley”.

For those unfortunate enough to have missed the exhibition, there is a catalogue compiled by Jacqueline Riding with contributions from Lucy Bamford.

SNH

Following the death of the queen, according to the Act of Regency of 1706, a group of regents, both appointed and ex officio, took over running the country. On 1 September the Privy Council set up a committee composed of 15 councillors (all members of the House of Lords except for the marquess of Annandale) to look into the Coronation. At their first meeting on the 3rd, there was discussion about the Coronation medal, with Master of the Mint, Sir Isaac Newton’s designs being rejected. The chosen design bore the inscription ‘the Nobles and the People Consenting.’

Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, had been one of those to attend the meeting, although the effort led to him suffering from bouts of sudden vomiting. His age led to some modifications to the ceremonial. He did not join the procession from Westminster Hall to Westminster Abbey, but met the king at the door. A concession was also made to the king’s assumed poor grasp of English when it was decided to conduct most of the ceremony in Latin, which all the main participants could understand.

The aged Tenison, primate since 1694, was the key to the ceremony. He had spent the previous year secluded in Lambeth, protecting his health and ensuring that he out-lived the ailing queen. The chief fear was that if Tenison died the queen would appoint a high church Tory, or even a Jacobite, to succeed him.

Tenison’s age may have been a factor in several missteps during the ceremony. The two bishops traditionally assigned to assist the monarch as supporters, the bishops of Bath and Wells and Durham were subjected to several humiliations. First, they were unable to accompany the king under his canopy by ‘colonels and military men’ thrusting them out of the way. Then, Tenison refused to let them take communion with the king, forcing them to bow to both altar and monarch and retire as gracefully as possible. [Marshall, George Hooper, 130-1].

One of the Countess of Cowper’s companions felt that Tension overdid his demands for the congregation’s consent, asking: ‘does the old fool think that anyone here will say no to his question, when there are so many drawn swords.’ [Cowper Diary, 3-5]. However, Tenison was hardly responsible for the Sicilian and Venetian ambassadors quarrelling over their positions in the gallery reserved for foreign ministers, or for the collapse of some scaffolding which killed over 20 people.

Two other bishops had important roles during the Coronation. Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester was widely believed to harbour Jacobite sympathies, and indeed had been rumoured to have offered to don his episcopal robes and proclaim the Pretender on the queen’s death. Ironically, as he was also dean of Westminster, he was assigned a key role in crowning the new monarch.

The other prominent bishop was William Talbot, of Oxford (later to be translated to Durham), a kinsman of the lord chamberlain, Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, who was selected to preach the Coronation Sermon. Taking his text from Psalm 118: 24-25, ‘this is the day which the Lord hath chosen, we will rejoice and be glad in it’, Talbot propounded the view that divine providence had directed events towards the accession of King George. The Jacobite commentator Thomas Hearne denounced it as:

very poor, silly, flattering stuff. Unbecoming a Christian, and a scholar, and shows him to be a cringing, time-serving man, and a great rebel and a rogue

Hearne, iv. 422

The Coronation certainly captured the imagination of the elite. The countess of Mar irked her sister, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, by referring to preparations for the event. Tickets were much sought after. The Whig lawyer, Alexander Denton, ended a letter to Lord Wharton about Buckinghamshire politics with a request for a ticket, while the earl of Oxford provided tickets for his nephews. Nevertheless, it was expected to be a gruelling occasion. Peers had to be in place in the House of Lords by 8 a.m. wearing their robes and coronets, with proceedings continuing until late in the afternoon.

Members of the Lords were summoned to attend by individual letters sent out on 6 October by the earl of Suffolk in his role as deputy Earl Marshal. Matters were complicated by the announcement on 19 October of the Coronation honours list. This added five new (British) barons, a viscount and eight new earls, many of them already peers but rewarded with promotions to higher titles. These creations and promotions took their place in the Coronation procession according to their new rank.

Total attendance among the members of the House of Lords can be estimated with reference to The Whole Ceremony of the Coronation (1715), which suggested that about 130 to 135 members of the House of Lords attended (including all but three of those honoured on the previous day). Counting is not straightforward as many peers held official positions and appeared twice in the lists. Catholic peers were not invited, but stalwarts of Queen Anne’s last ministry turned out. Not only Oxford, but Lord Harcourt, the duke of Ormond and Viscount Bolingbroke all graced the occasion, the last having failed in previous attempts to wait upon the king. As he paid homage, the king asked who it was, and upon being told, Bolingbroke ‘turned round and bowed three times down to the very ground’. [Cowper Diary, 3-5].

Of the 16 Scottish Representative Peers elected in 1713, ten attended the Coronation, as did 22 Scottish non-representative peers. With the bishoprics of Ely and Gloucester vacant, 24 bishops were invited. Blackall of Exeter and Lloyd of Worcester did not sit after the Hanoverian Succession and were absent, as were Nicolson of Carlisle and Manningham of Chichester. Fleetwood of St. Asaph and Tyler of Llandaff ought to have been present, as both were seeking promotion, but they do not appear to have attended either.

A banner raised on the roof of Westminster Abbey served as a signal for the guns in Hyde Park and at the Tower of London to commence their salute. Medals were distributed to the crowd and the procession returned to Westminster Hall for dinner and the traditional appearance of the champion. Much fatigued the members of the House of Lords retired to their abodes.

SNH

Further Reading:
Diary Mary Countess Cowper, Lady of the Bedchamber to the Princess of Wales, 1714-1720 (1864)

Find the inaugural blog of our Coronation series here.

Read more blogs from our coronation series here.

Upon leaving office Prime Ministers have long sought to reward their most important advisers in what has become known as a “resignation honours list”. The first to do so formally was Lord Rosebery in 1895, but eighteenth-century Prime Ministers were no different. After serving in government for decades Thomas Pelham-Holles, duke of Newcastle, had a number of obligations towards his closest advisers and family members, as he sought to provide for their future well-being.

When Newcastle resigned on 11 Nov. 1756, to facilitate the formation of the administration of the 4th duke of Devonshire and William Pitt, rumours surfaced in the press that he had retired with a pension of £6,000 per annum. To counteract these, Newcastle had several notices inserted in newspapers denying that he had asked or received any grant of place or pension for himself. In this Newcastle was being politically astute for he wished to avoid obligations for the future; as he had written to his friend the earl of Hardwicke on 2 November, ‘I would ask nothing that would not leave us free hereafter.’ [BL, Add. 32836, f. 540]

If Newcastle chose not to take anything for himself, he was eager to assist some of his followers. Henry Fox, who had just resigned as secretary of state, noted on 13 November that Newcastle had ‘got his dukedom entailed on Lord Lincoln, and four reversions of great value granted to Shelley, Pelham, Jones and West and has made Sir G. Lyttelton a peer.’ [Campbell, Correspondence,221-2]. By the end of the month, Horace Walpole was able to scoff at Newcastle’s selflessness:

here is a list of his disinterestedness. The reversion of his dukedom for Lord Lincoln: this is the only duchy bestowed by the present King: … Mr. Shelley, the Duke’s nephew, has the reversion of Arundel’s place. Mr. West has a great reversion for himself and his son: your little waxen friend, Tommy Pelham, has another reversion in the Customs. Jones, the Duke’s favourite secretary, and nephew of the late Chancellor, has another. Not to mention the English barony for Sir George Lyttelton, and the Irish earldom for Mr. O’Brien

Walpole Correspondence, xxi. 26

Let us examine this veritable catalogue of honours in more detail.

Most important for Newcastle was the grant of a new dukedom of Newcastle under Lyne. Without heirs, Newcastle’s existing dukedom of Newcastle upon Tyne would die with him. This new grant was entailed upon his nephew and heir the earl of Lincoln (son of his sister Katherine, who had married the eldest daughter of his brother Henry Pelham). The origin of the title seems to have come from Lincoln, who suggested it in case there was a problem with re-using Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Another nephew, John Shelley, son of Newcastle’s sister, Margaret Pelham, who had married Sir John Shelley, 4th bt, was given the reversion to the clerkship of the pipe, to which he succeeded in 1758. Shelley had been brought into the Commons for East Retford in 1751 and had designs on marrying his cousin, Mary, daughter of Henry Pelham. In spite of being picked out by Newcastle, he did not remain loyal when the duke found himself in opposition, becoming a devotee of William Pitt and even acquiring the nickname ‘the little commoner’ because of the way he ‘aped’ Pitt (known as the ‘Great Commoner).

Newcastle’s secretary, James West, Member for St. Albans, who had been a long-time servant of both Newcastle and Henry Pelham, received the reversion of the auditorship of the land revenues for himself and his son. The son inherited the post in 1775, retaining it until his death in 1795.

Newcastle’s cousin, from the Stanmer branch of the family, Thomas Pelham, Member for Sussex (already a commissioner of trade) was given the reversion of the surveyor-generalship of the customs of London, which fell to him in 1773, and which he retained until his death in 1808. Upon Newcastle’s death in 1768 he inherited the Pelhams’ estates in Sussex and the Pelham barony. He was created earl of Chichester in 1805.

Another secretary, Hugh Valence Jones, MP for Dover, served faithfully as Newcastle’s amanuensis, got a reversion to the comptrollership of the customs, which he held from 1780-1800. His mother was the sister of Newcastle’s greatest ally, the long serving Lord Chancellor, Hardwicke.

Sir George Lyttelton, 5th bt, MP for Okehampton, one of the original ‘Cobham’s Cubs’ had not followed Pitt into opposition and had served as Newcastle’s Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1755-6. According to Horace Walpole, his ‘warmest prayer was to go to heaven in a coronet’, and he was created Baron Lyttelton of Frankly on 18 November 1756.

Percy Wyndham O’Brien, MP for Cockermouth, was also a treasury lord under Newcastle in 1755-6. He received an Irish peerage as earl of Thomond in December 1756, but this may have owed more to the initiative of the duke of Devonshire, who offered him the peerage, than to Newcastle. He continued to sit in the Commons until his death in 1774.

Newcastle had lived up to his reputation for administrative effectiveness. All his recipients (or their families) were thus well rewarded in his “resignation honours list”.

SNH

Further reading:

R. Browning, The Duke of Newcastle (1975)

Correspondence of John Campbell MP, with his family, Henry Fox, Sir Robert Walpole and the Duke of Newcastle, 1734-1771, ed. J.E. Davies, Parliamentary History Texts and Studies, 8 (2013).

J.C.D. Clark, The Dynamics of Change: the crisis of the 1750s and the English party system (1982)

L. Namier and J. Brooke, History of Parliament: the Commons 1754-1790

Corruption and impeachment are terms that have been much in the news, especially with regard to former President Donald Trump, who was impeached, and former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who was threatened with it. But what happened to those found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours?

Here we follow the aftermath of the last impeachment of a political figure in the eighteenth century, before the process was revived for Warren Hastings in 1787. After a ten-day trial in May 1725, Thomas Parker, earl of Macclesfield, at various times MP for Derby, lord chief justice and lord chancellor, was found guilty of corruption during his tenure as lord chancellor, a post from which he had resigned on 4 January. This case has recently proved popular with historians interested in corruption, such as Mark Knights (see his book, Trust and Distrust (2021).

Following the guilty verdict, Macclesfield survived several votes adopting more severe penalties, but was fined £30,000 and sent to the Tower until he paid it. Fortunately, Macclesfield had wealthy friends, not least the dowager duchess of Marlborough, who were able to facilitate the transfer of such a sum, so that he was released two months later. The day after his release, he visited the duchess of Marlborough at her house in St. James’s Park. He then removed to Shirburn Castle, his Oxfordshire seat.

Many commentators have followed Arthur Onslow (the future Speaker of the House of Commons) in describing Macclesfield as retiring from public life after his release from the Tower. This is only true in so far as Macclesfield remained at Shirburn Castle in 1726, a wise move considering that Parliament continued to debate issues arising from the Chancery scandal. Indeed, there were some attempts during the passage of such bills as the Act for the relief of suitors in Chancery and the Act for better securing the monies and effects of the suitors in Chancery, to exact further punishment on him. However, in general, further attacks on Macclesfield were discounted by MPs on the grounds that the Lords had already set his punishment.

Since Macclesfield had escaped permanent expulsion from the Lords, he remained eligible to sit. He duly made his return at the opening of the session in January 1727 and thereafter retained a significant presence in the chamber. He was regularly summoned to the ministry’s pre-sessional meetings (convened to discuss upcoming business) and had his pension from the Crown restored in 1729. He spoke on the ministerial side in several debates in the House of Lords in 1730-1731.

Macclesfield did not limit his public appearances to Parliament. In April 1727, he joined a number of prominent grandees in carrying the pall at the funeral of Sir Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey. Like Newton, a member of the Royal Society, Macclesfield attended its meetings, sometimes in company with his son (a future President). He also attended at Court, where his recital of some poetry before Queen Caroline in September 1730 ensured a wider audience for the ‘thresher’ poet, Stephen Duck. This royal entree may seem surprising when one considers Macclesfield’s former role, as lord chief justice, in drawing up the opinion that George I had had the right to oversee the upbringing of George and Caroline’s children when Prince and Princess of Wales. However, by this time they were the reigning monarchs and, no doubt, more appreciative of such a ruling, not least given their fractious relationship with Prince Frederick.

Macclesfield was widely perceived as avaricious. Indeed he was thought to have had ‘a constitutional weakness’ for amassing vast sums of money. This facet of his character has the ring of truth about it and is understandable in the light of the struggles borne by his father in financing his education. A series of letters exist from his father to his father-in-law in the 1680s in which the future Macclesfield’s father sought funds to enable the young Parker to study at Cambridge. In turn, Macclesfield was intent upon providing his son, George, with financial security. During the negotiations surrounding his appointment as lord chancellor in 1718, Macclesfield negotiated the reversion of the first vacancy among the four tellers of the Exchequer for his son (with a pension of £1,200 in the interim). As a strategy for financial security this was a masterstroke, for George Parker became a teller in 1719 and only relinquished the post upon his death in 1764.

Macclesfield died on 28 April 1732, at his house in Soho Square, a mere 11 days after his last appearance in the House of Lords. He was buried at Shirburn Castle, the residence he had purchased in 1716, and which housed a magnificent library, only recently dispersed by auction at Sotheby’s.

SNH

Further reading:

Mark Knights, Trust and Distrust: Corruption in office in Britain and its Empire 1600-1850 (Oxford, 2021)