sign in sign up
<<
Home , Atterbury Plot, Bishop of Rochester, Francis Atterbury, Joseph Wilcocks, Robert South, Seven Bishops

JACOBITES UNDER THE BEDS: , THE EARL OF SUNDERLAND AND THE SCHOOL DORMITORY CASE OF 1721

CLYVEJONES

IN British Library, Harleian MS. 7190 there is a list of names which at first glance seems puzzling, even to an historian of early eighteenth-century Britain.-^ The initial clue to its identification comes from the words 'For the Bp of Rochester' and ' Ag[ain]st' at the foot of the two columns of names. A quick check of the numbers of names reveals that this is a division list of those in the who voted for and against Bishop Francis Atterbury's appeal against a Court of Chancery decision to proceed to trial over the building of a new dormitory for . The vote on 16 May 1721 went in Atterbury's favour by 26 to 24. The curious nature of the list arises from an analysis of those who supported and those who opposed the Bishop. Atterbury (fig. i) was a high and leading (though secret) advocate in of the restoration of the Stuart Pretender (James Francis Edward, son of James II). Thus is seems strange that those who voted for him in the hst included several of the high officers of state in the Whig administration, including the 'prime minister', the Earl of Sunderland, while some of Atterbury's opponents were his fellow Jacobites. Was this curious state of affairs merely a result of the peers and voting according to their understanding of the pros and cons of the legal case, putting aside all political considerations; or was this one of those legal cases which occasionally become inextricably entangled with politics? If the latter, then clearly it was a case which caused politicians to break the usual bonds of Whig and Tory, government and opposition.^ It was not unknown for legal cases in the House of Lords to be dominated by party considerations; such cases always aroused considerable contemporary interest.^ As we shall see, however, the Westminster School dormitory case was more interesting and more politically complex than most. One result of this interest was the production of this division list (such lists for private legal cases are very rare).^ This document enables historians to analyse the political background to the case, which involved the relationship

35 Fig. I. Francis Atterbury, by Sir , engraved by H. T. Ryall; Edmund Lodge, Portraits of Illustrious Personages... (, 1835), vol. x, pi. 12. io8i5.f 12 36 between the Whig Sunderland and the Jacobites - an area of some dispute amongst students of early eighteenth-century political parties.^

II The legal case resulting from the decision to build a new dormitory for Westminster School (or College) has received scant attention from historians, though its central importance in the relationship between Francis Atterbury, who became (and ) in 1713, and the Chapter of Westminster has been recognized.^ It is probable that Atterbury's personality and temperament - irascible, combative, and unable to suffer fools gladly, conditions worsened by recurrent fits of gout which clouded his judgement^ - exacerbated the situation and that any other person would have handled the problem so that it did not explode into a full-blown legal case before the House of Lords. However, the Dean's colleagues in the Chapter, the twelve prebendaries of Westminster, and the others involved in the case (most notably Dr Robert Freind, Headmaster of Westminster School from 1711 and one-time friend and Westminster schoolfellow of Atterbury's) were no angels. Political and theological differences divided them and set some of them apart from Atterbury. , for example, who became in 1718, was a staunch Whig who was, no doubt, appalled by Atterbury's high Tory (not to say Jacobite) politics. Atterbury had come to Westminster from Christ Church, Oxford, where he had been Dean, and before that from the Deanery of Carlisle. In this latter place he had clashed violently over the statutes of the cathedral with the equally stubborn Bishop ,^ a disagreement which had led directly to an Act of Parliament settling the disputed statutes of all the cathedrals of the new (post-) foundation. Atterbury also came to Westminster with the reputation of a pugnacious propagandist. He had been the leading figure on the High Church side in the Convocation controversy, championing the Lower, Tory dominated House, against the Upper House, largely composed of Whig bishops. Thus personality, politics and theology became inextricably mixed and lifted what was essentially a minor private matter onto the national political stage. Atterbury, however, seems to have come out of the feud better than his opponents, particularly at the level of Chapter politics - his motive and actions when the case reached Parliament are more open to question - showing ' a genuine concern for the College as a whole; while the opposing prebendaries, in the main, sought to protect their own private interests'.^

Ill The dispute originally arose from a bequest in 1710 of £1,000 for a new lodgings for the forty Queen's scholars at Westminster School.^** The money had been left by Sir Edward Hannes, physician to Queen Anne and former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford and an old boy of the school. Hannes's will of 5 May 1708 stipulated that the lodging be erected 'in such a Place as the Dean and Chapter should direct', the Chapter having first

37 consulted Sir Christopher Wren and of Christ Church (who died in 1710). Before the legacy was paid, however, it was unsuccessfully challenged in the Court of Chancery by Hannes's heir. It was not until July 1711 that Harcourt confirmed the terms of the will. In the meantime Dean Sprat of Westminster, Bishop of Rochester (Atterbury's predecessor, who was to die in 1713), had encountered opposition (so the respondents - the anti-Atterbury side - in the later case claimed) from some of the prebendaries, and in April 1711 these opponents had signed an instrument stating their case against building a new lodging. Sprat did in fact decide in favour of not building anew because the legacy of ;£ 1,000, upon the expert advice of Wren, was considered insufficient for the job (/;i,5oo being estimated for the rebuilding). However, the money would allow a thorough repair and partial rebuilding of the existing accommodation (see no. 3 in fig. 2). Thus in March 1712 an act of the Chapter confirmed this decision^^ and the Attorney General, on behalf of the scholars, preferred a petition to this effect to the Lord Chancellor. A year later in April 1713 the Lord Chancellor finally agreed to the restoration of the old building, but Dean Sprat died before work could begin. The new Dean, Atterbury, quickly took the opposite view, and carried a majority of the Chapter with him. In January 1714, upon the prospect of raising contributions to finance the new lodging, an order was made by the Chapter for the dormitory to occupy part of the College garden (see nos. i and 2 in fig. 2).^^ The respondents later claimed that this order was forgotten for five years until the designs for the new building emerged in 1718. The other side in the case - the appellants, led by Atterbury - stated that part of these five years had been occupied in raising the extra money, and that by December 1718, when the Chapter confirmed the earlier order to build anew, enough money had been raised. Contributions, rather surprisingly considering Atterbury's known political stance, were headed by King George I with ;(;i,ooo and the Prince of Wales with £500.^^ Atterbury further claimed that Robert Freind, one of the chief opponents of the Dean's scheme, had agreed along with the Chapter to the new designs revealed in 1718. The respondents counter-claimed that their agreement had been tricked out of them, and had passed the Chapter in the unavoidable absence of two members. Consequently in May 1719 the respondents exhibited a bill in Chancery against the new building, and on 18 and 20 June 1720 Lord Chancellor Parker heard the case and decreed that it should proceed to full trial in the Court of King's Bench to decide who had rights over the College garden. It was in order to prevent this further proceeding that Atterbury and his supporters appealed to the House of Lords. They asked for a ruling in their favour and the award of costs against the respondents. The case came before the Upper House on 28 March 1721 when the counsel for the appellants, Thomas Lutwyche and Charles Talbot, were heard.^* The counsel for the respondents, Philip Yorke and Spencer Cowper, were heard on the following day.^^ Two adjournments took place on 18 April and 4 May, and finally on 16 May the Lords ordered the decree in Chancery reversed, declared the College garden a more proper place for the dormitory than the present site, and dismissed the Attorney General's bill in favour of the respondents.'1"6

38 Fig2. Plan of Westminster School showing the College Garden and the Site of'The new intended Dormitory', c. 1718, by W. Dickinson and J. Kipp: Muniment 24877A. By courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. Key: i. The College garden; 2. The new intended dormitory; 3. The present old dormitory; 4. Dr Onley's house; 5. Mr Sub Dean Evans's house; 6. Dr Dent's house and garden; 7. Mr Farrar's house; 8. Dr Freind's house (indicated as 'now in the possession of Mrs Berisford'); 9. Mr Burch's house 'where Dr Friend now dwells'; 10. Dr Broderick's house; 11. Mr Archdeacon Sprat's house; 12. Dr Cannon's bouse; 13. Dr Bradford's house; 14. Dr Gee's house; 15. Dr Lynford's house

The case essentially revolved around the various parties' interest in the College garden. According to Atterbury Mr Allen had been granted a lease of part of the land belonging to the School and it had been stipulated in the lease that a new building could be erected on that land. Further Allen had been financially compensated for this restriction on his lease. Sometime between 1715 and 1718 the Headmaster, Robert Freind, had purchased Mr Allen's lease including the restriction. Freind claimed that this restriction and the building itself reduced the value of the lease. Atterbury said that Allen's compensation for the restriction had been reflected in Freind's purchase price. The prebendaries opposed to the new dormitory further claimed that the College houses which they occupied abutted onto the garden (see nos. 4-6 and 8 in fig. 2), that the garden was for their recreation and that the new building would destroy this facility.^'

39 They also claimed that the dormitory would darken their houses and encroach upon other lodgings in the area to the detriment of their light and air. Atterbury, after making slight adjustments to the plans to take some of these objections into account, rebutted his opponents' pessimistic claims. The new building would only occupy a very small part of the garden, and would provide far better facilities for the scholars, and would lead to their moral improvement, for the present lodgings were much more publicly accessible (see no. 3 in fig. 2, which could be reached directly from Great Dean's Yard) than the proposed new dormitory and thus provided greater temptations. The membership of the Chapter divided evenly for and against and only Atterbury's casting vote had pushed the new plans forward. The respondents' case was brought by the Attorney General on behalf of five prebendaries - Nicholas Onley, Thomas Dent, Thomas Lynford, and Samuel Bradford - together with Headmaster Robert Freind and William Farrar. Farrar was involved, like Freind, as a leasor of College land (see no. 7 in fig. 2). He was the Whig M.P. for Bedford as well as chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and thus a not inconsiderable political figure. ^^ The pohtical complexion of this group was mixed: Bradford and Farrar were Whigs, while Onley was probably Tory (he voted so in the 1705 Middlesex election^''), and Robert Freind appears to have encouraged at the school, while his brother, John, was an intimate friend of Atterbury, moved in high Tory circles and was involved in the Jacobite plot of 1721-22, becoming M.P. for Launceston in 1722.^^ The group, however, employed two Whig lawyers as counsel before the Lords. Atterbury's supporters in the case were Michael Evans, a prebendary and sub-Dean of Westminster since 1702 (described in the printed case as clerk), and three other prebendaries, Lawrence Broderick, Robert Cannon and Henry Walker. The political complexion of this group is harder to define. We can be fairly sure that Cannon was Whiggish in his opinions, being appointed sub-Almoner by George I in 1716 and Dean of Lincoln in 1721. He was also a strong opponent of both high and low Church parties, and condemned Bishop Hoadley's extreme Erastian view in the Bangorian controversy of 1717.^^ The nine prebendaries directly involved in the case did not represent the full complement of the Chapter. Besides Dean Atterbury there were three other prebendaries in 1721: John Watson, Thomas Manningham, and (the latter two were both Whigs). In the dispute they had divided as follows: Manningham in support of Atterbury and Wilcocks against, with Watson remaining neutral. However when the House of^ Lords pressed Watson to come to a decision, he opted for Atterbury's side.^^ The reason why none of these latter three were involved as appellants or respondents was presumably Watson's wish for neutrality and the fact that both Manningham and Wilcocks had been appointed prebendaries in 1720 and 1721 respectively and were, therefore, not involved in any of the original decisions. Several other prebendaries had been involved in the early disputes, but by the time the case had reached the Lords they had died. They were (d. 1716), James Sartrens (d. 1713), and Samuel Barton (d. 1715), all of whom had opposed the new dormitory and, along with Onley,

40 Gee, Bradford and Dent, had entered a protest in April 1711 against any proceeding with the building before its being discussed in Chapter.^^ Atterbury had, however, two supporters amongst the deceased prebendaries, namely (d. May 1720, son of Dean Sprat and presumably carrying on his father's wishes), and Jonathan Kimberley, Dean of Lichfield (d. 1719). The latter had sent a certificate of concurrence in the projected new building to Chancery in 1719 shortly before his death, and in a covering letter to Atterbury stated: I am sorry to find your Lordship meets with any opposition in the placing of the new dormitory in the College Orchard. I tho[ugh]t the whole Body [of the Chapter] had approved of it, after the plan of it was drawn and proposed to them: I am sure all those tbat I discoursed with about it seemed to be pleased with it then. However they came to alter their judgements ^^

Though the alignment of prebendaries on either side of the case can only be partly put down to political motive, there is no question that the Chapter split firmly along the line of seniority. The four longest serving prebendaries - Onley (appointed 1672), Dent (1694), Lynford (1700) and Gee (1701) - opposed Atterbury, along with Bradford appointed in 1708. The Dean's supporters were the junior prebendaries - Evans (1702), Broderick (1710), Cannon (1715) and Barker (1716). Even the dead prebendaries fitted this pattern: South (1663), Sartrens (1688) and Barton (1696) opposed, while Kimberley (1711) and Sprat (1713) supported. The neutral Watson who finally went over to Atterbury had been appointed in 1715. How far this division along lines of seniority reflected any personal animosities to the new Dean it is difficult to say. Many of the opponents had declared their opposition to Dean Sprat's original plans. What is certain is that the less than clear political positions of the prebendaries involved in the case were reflected in the House of Lords where a lord's party allegiance was to prove no guide to the way he voted.

IV The year 1720 had started well for the Whig administration of the Earl of Sunderland and his colleague Earl Stanhope. On 25 April there had been a formal reconciliation within the royal family between the King and the Prince of Wales. The quarrel, which had originated three years earlier, had led to the Whig schism when Walpole and his brother-in-law Viscount Townshend had left the ministry, along with a considerable body of supporters in both Houses of Parliament. The schism had placed great parliamentary strains on the administration of Sunderland and Stanhope, which on occasions faced the combined opposition of schismatic Whigs, the followers of the Prince of Wales, and the .^^ The ending of the royal quarrel was prompted by the reconciliation of the two sections of the Whig party, which was followed by Walpole and Townshend rejoining Sunderland's ministry and most, though not all, of the schismatic Whigs and the Prince's followers supporting the government.^^ Three years of intermittent but bitter opposition had not well fitted the new ministerial colleagues for

41 working together. Personal animosity still remained and, coupled with the ambitions of Walpole and Townshend to oust Sunderland, it boded ill for the future. The storm of the South Sea Bubble broke upon the slender structure of the government in August 1720. As it grew worse the King and Sunderland hurried back from Hanover to face the greatest crisis of the new dynasty since its accession in 1714. Besides having to restore public credit shattered by the Bubble, the administration had to cope with the anger of the nation against the monied interests and speculators who, it was felt, had caused the collapse. Initially the anger was directed at the Directors of the , but soon it became apparent that some of the political elite had benefited from its involvement in the fever of speculation. This involvement was perhaps illegal and certainly unethical. The finger of suspicion pointed to, amongst others, Sunderland and the King himself ^^ Sunderland, as First Lord of the Treasury, had little financial expertise and depended on his subordinates for the administration of his department. However, he bore responsibility for the South Sea crisis. His wish to reduce the national debt led him to accept the risky scheme proposed by the Directors of the South Sea Company and to push it through Parliament. The undertaking also promised to be personally lucrative to Sunderland. When disaster struck he acted promptly but had to rely on Walpole's financial acumen to plan the recovery. This dependence led to major concessions by Sunderland to his rival including the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury. The deaths of Sunderland's colleagues Stanhope and Secretary of State James Craggs, and the disgrace of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer John Aislabie, deprived the Prime Minister of much of his support within the ministry and enabled Walpole and Townshend further to consolidate their position. Sunderland, however, retained his great influence over the King and his control of the House of Lords. The latter enabled him to defeat the upper chamber's enquiry into the South Sea Company. Sunderland had no such influence over the Commons which was dominated by Walpole. This weak position in the lower House was the reason why Sunderland sought an alliance with various sections of the Tory party in order to form a new parliamentary coalition. Sunderland's aims were first to save his own skin by defeating the Commons' enquiry into the Bubble, and secondly to outmanoeuvre Walpole and regain full control of the ministry. It was a dangerous game as working with the Tories risked alienating the King, Sunderland's major prop. Walpole for his part realized that the control of the present House of Commons was the key to his survival, and he therefore needed to perpetuate the existing Parliament. Sunderland's best course, on the other hand, would have been to dissolve Parliament in 1721 and hope the ensuing general election would sweep his new coalition to power.^^ Sunderland's first approach for support from the Tories was to certain leading members of the party in the House of Lords in January 1721, notably Harcourt, Trevor, Carleton and Atterbury. ^^ With the support of some of these along with that of the Duke of Argyll and his brother, the Earl of Ilay, Sunderland was able to weather the storm in the Lords over the Bubble by giving the impression that the government was doing all

42 it could to seek out and punish those responsible for the catastrophe. At the same time he was trying to cover the tracks of his own involvement. ^*' The first crucial question in the Lords which saved Sunderland was carried in his favour by 63 to 28 votes on 9 January 1721, the Tory Harcourt voting with the ministry. Sunderland was, however, unable to prevent the Lords' enquiry revealing that bribery, in the form of over half a million pounds' worth of fictitious stock, had been given to prominent politicians to help pass the necessary legislation through Parliament. The entire ministry came under suspicion, but Sunderland's part in the whole affair remained unclear. In the debate on 15 February there were indications that he may have received £50,000 worth of stock.^^ It was now that Sunderland's negotiations with the Tories really paid dividends. Atterbury personally intervened in the debate to save Sunderland from a tricky question from Lord Mountjoy which could have led to further damaging 19 enquiries Sunderland's position was much less secure in the Commons. On i6 February little doubt was left in the House's first report that Sunderland had indeed received the £50,000 worth of stock, while his supporters. Treasury Secretary Charles Stanhope and Aislabie, were strongly imphcated. Sunderland's efforts helped to save the former from the wrath of the Commons, but the latter was expelled the House and sent to the Tower. Early March saw the Commons' secret committee focusing its attentions directly on Sunderland, and it drew up a series of resolutions against him. The debate took place on 15 March in a very full House. Though several Tories spoke against Sunderland,^^ many voted for him,^* and after a long debate he was saved by a vote of 233 to 172.^^ Sunderland was later reported as saying 'that whenever an English Minister had but 60 majority in a house of Commons he was undone',^^ but this proved a pessimistic remark for he was to survive as Prime Minister until his untimely death in April 1722. Besides using Tory support to save himself from the parliamentary enquiries, Sunderland had the more positive aim, according to his recent biographer, of outmanoeuvring Walpole in the Commons by reorganizing his own Whig followers, under Daniel and William Pulteney, into a coalition with the Tories and then to dissolve Parliament in the summer of 1721 to obtain a more favourable Lower House through a general election.^^ While Sunderland approached numerous factions within the Tory party, hjs most serious overtures were to Harcourt and Carleton. In the summer of 1721 Carleton became Lord President of the Council and Harcourt was created a viscount. Sunderland's approaches to the other Tories 'were often contradictory and ultimately unworkable and were not characterised by the seriousness that marked his treating with Harcourt and Carleton'.^^ His aim with these other groups was to gain a tactical advantage to defeat proceedings against him in the Lords and Commons and to forestall any attempt by Walpole and Townshend to come to terms with any elements of the Tory party.^^ Bishop Atterbury was one of those so approached. He had responded by helping Sunderland in the Lords but, as his recent biographer has written, 'it is inconceivable that Sunderland had any serious intentions to assist the Jacobites, but he was alive to the advantages that could be derived from keeping up their expectations'."" This opinion

43 was shared by many contemporaries. Even the Pretender himself concluded that 'I own I never had any opinion at all of Lord Sunderland's wishing me well'." As a quid pro quo for Atterbury's help Sunderland was prepared to back the Bishop in his legal dispute over the new dormitory for Westminster School. One unfriendly observer saw what was going on: Atterbury 'by snivelling and cringing to Lord S[underland] has got him to prevail with the Chancellor [Parker] to speak against his own order [in Chancery in favour of proceeding to trial]'."^^ Meetings between the Bishop and Sunderland carried on into April 1721 and Atterbury continued to support Sunderland in the Lords, even speaking on behalf of Aislabie. An analysis of the support and opposition Atterbury received in the Lords on 16 May in the vote on the dormitory case underscores the interpretation that Sunderland had no serious intentions of working with the Jacobites. There was much distrust in Tory ranks of Atterbury and his relations with Sunderland. Some regarded the Bishop as having sold his political soul for a mess of potage.^^ Sunderland, on the other hand, 'had secured Atterbury's assistance at a bargain price'.** Sunderland strung the Bishop along in the hopes of Tory support in the general election he planned for the summer of 1721, while scuppering the possibility of an episcopal alliance with Walpole, or any other Whig minister."*^ As it turned out Sunderland was unable to carry out a dissolution of Parliament in 1721 against Walpole's opposition (if he ever intended to do so), and, though this was a setback, Sunderland's negotiations with the Tories had saved his position at the centre of the administration while, in the opinion of Carteret, having not 'lost any ground with the King'. In the circumstances, Carteret thought, 'this affair has been well managed'.^^ Though Sunderland continued to negotiate with certain sections of the Tory party well into the autumn of 1721, and even proved himself active on behalf of some Tory candidates in the 1722 general election, particularly in Scotland,*^ the Jacobites, as well as other sections of the Tory party, had become suspicious of his motives. William Bromley on Sunderland's death wrote that he, Bromley, 'could not reconcile his [Sunderland's] actions with his intentions'.^^ Indeed during the summer of 1721, Atterbury himself abandoned any hope of further help from Sunderland. By the opening of Parliament in November 1721, the Bishop was fully committed to the opposition group in the Lords led by Cowper whose objective was to harry the ministry at every appropriate opportunity.*^ Both sides had, however, something to show for their uneasy relationship: Sunderland had saved his political skin and Atterbury had saved his dormitory.

The clandestine negotiations that the Whig ministers were conducting with sections of the Tory party amidst the political chaos of the aftermath of the South Sea Bubble proved a fertile ground for rumours. The sudden deaths of both the elder Craggs and Stanhope in mid-February 1721 added to the speculation: would Sunderland survive in

44 office, and who would be in the new administration ? The Harley family, who were Tory but disliked Atterbury, and their friends had their collective ears to the ground. On 17 February they were aware of Sunderland's approaches to Harcourt, Carleton and Trevor, the latter claiming to have refused the Great Seal.^** The previous day, William Stratford of Christ Church, Oxford (former tutor to Lord Harley), had hd'^ of a very extraordinary appeal of'Ruffe's [Rochester's].'' As far as I can judge of those things, I believe one of that nature was never brought into the House [of Lords]. Methinks those who are most his creatures should be ashamed of appearing for him in it. I know not upon what prospect he brings it on. I hope your Lordship will solicit heartily for Bob [Freind].

Here was the germ of a forecast of part of what would happen in the dormitory case before the Lords on 16 May: that many Tories, including some of Atterbury's fellow Jacobites, would not support him. Nonetheless the Harleys were often too optimistic in their forecasts. For example on 17 February 1721 Thomas Harley reported that 'Lord Trevor has not been at the House all this session, and I question if he will like them well enough to come at all this session, he is quite off with Harcourt and the Bishop'.'^^ As it turned out Trevor was to vote for Atterbury, receiving the Bishop's effusive thanks for his support.^* Despite the disarray displayed by the Whig administration which presented the Tories with a major opportunity for concerted opposition in Parliament, in the winter and spring of 1720-1 the Tory party appeared demoralized and factious and unable to unite behind any one figure. Sunderland used this state of affairs to his advantage in his negotiations with several of these factions. Besides trying to win over individuals to the idea of a coalition government, he also tried to prevent any return of cohesion to the Tories. Only the collapse of Tory hopes of gaining anything from Sunderland in the summer and autumn of 1721 opened the way for a degree of Tory unity in the Lords under the leadership of Cowper. The former disunity amongst the Tories in the spring of 1721 was clearly reflected in the division over the Westminster School dormitory. The motives underlying the voting of individuals on 16 May 1721 can, for the most part, only be speculated upon as very little direct evidence has survived.^^ It must also be kept in mind their vote might have been cast as a result of their consideration of the merits of the legal case.^^ However, several strands emerge from the background to the vote that suggest that party politics did play a considerable role. The political allegiances of all of the forty-nine peers and bishops listed in the division list can be identified in terms of Whig or Tory. Of these forty-nine, ten Whigs (all peers) and fifteen Tories (thirteen peers and two bishops) supported Atterbury, while sixteen Whigs (nine peers and seven bishops) and eight Tories (seven peers and one bishop) opposed him. Four of the ten Whigs who supported the Bishop held senior offices of state, namely Sunderland, Townshend, Carteret and Parker. We know from a report of Edward Harley Jr that Sunderland had persuaded Lord Chancellor Parker to change his mind over his decree in Chancery of 20 June 1720 that the case should proceed to trial.^^ Carteret was a close associate of the Prime Minister and was, no doubt, influenced by 45 him. It may seem odd, however, that Sunderland's opponent in the ministerial in- fighting, Townshend, should follow the Prime Minister's lead, until one remembers that Townshend and Walpole had also been engaged in approaches to Atterbury. Townshend may have thought that his support would at least indicate to the Bishop that Sunderland was not his only Whig hope. It is not known how far the Prime Minister's influence extended over the other Whigs who voted for Atterbury. At least one. Clarendon, was receiving a pension from the administration, and though from a Tory background he had been effectively a Court Whig since 1714.^^ One minister did oppose Atterbury: Westmoreland, the First Lord of Trade and Plantations. It is no surprise that not a single Whig bishop voted for Atterbury. At this time the episcopal bench was being remodelled by Sunderland in the image of the Whig ministry. By September 1721 the Prime Minister could boast that 'we now have nineteen Wig Bishops, out of the 26, which is a pretty reasonable proportion'.^^ Though the Whig bishops had had a reputation since Anne's reign of pohtical obedience to their party,^'' the repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts in 1718 and their reaction to the Quakers' Tithe Bill in 1736 showed that in ecclesiastical matters they were prepared to defy the party and the ministry.^^ Thus the eight bishops (seven Whigs and the one Tory, Gastrell of Chester) who voted against Atterbury may have taken the case on its legal merits, though it is highly hkely that personal, pohtical and theological animosity to the Bishop of Rochester played a role in the Whig bishops' defiance of the Prime Minister's known position.^^ Of the two Tory bishops who supported Atterbury, Trelawney of Winchester was a long-standing friend while Robinson of London, as , had been in the ministry which promoted Atterbury to the bench. Of the Whig peers who opposed the Bishop, some (most notably Cowper) were already involved in the new mixed-party opposition to the ministry in the Lords, while others were to join later in the year. Many of the Tory supporters, or future supporters, of this new group led by Cowper, such as Strafford, Lichfield, Trevor, Bathurst, Foley,* Ashburnham and Compton, voted for Atterbury. The reason may have been that the new opposition's campaign against the ministry would not generate a full head of steam until the autumn of 1721 (when, significantly, Atterbury himself joined), and these Tories may have felt the pull of loyalty to Atterbury stronger than their inclination to oppose the ministry on what was a private cause. Some of the Tories had, as we have seen, been in negotiations with Sunderland and this may well have accounted for the votes of Harcourt, Carleton and Trevor for Atterbury. Some of the Whig opponents of the Bishop regarded themselves as independent Whigs who followed their own inclinations, even if they accepted pensions from the ministry. An example was Lord Warrington.^^ In addition, the confused situation within the ministry with the constant jockeying for power may have loosened ministerial control over some peers, particularly the control of the Prime Minister, whose future political career was in doubt in the spring of 1721. The Tory supporters and opponents of Atterbury are more difficult to analyse. If the Whig party was in a state of disarray, the Tories were no better. The Harley family 46 certainly opposed the Bishop, for personal and political reasons, and because several members of the family were on good terms with the Headmaster of Westminster, Robert Freind. It is clear from their correspondence that Lord Harley and Edward Harley Jr lobbied for Freind and his fellow respondents.^" The results, however, seem to have been inconclusive, for those peers previously associated with Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, split evenly in the vote. The Jacobites also seemed to have been unable to act as a group, splitting their votes between both sides, but with a majority for the Bishop. The problem of identifying Jacobites (because the treasonable nature of their cause led to dissembling) makes a precise analysis of their voting impossible. Even those individuals who were in direct contact with the Pretender and his agents abroad may not have been fully committed Jacobites. Some people clearly moved in and out of Jacobitism as the mood or circumstances suited them: the Duke of Wharton is the classic example of this. We can, however, be fairly sure that Arran and Strafford (along with Atterbury) were committed to the Pretender's cause in 1721, while several others, such as Lichfield, Northampton, Bathurst and Compton, may have sympathized. All these supported the Bishop. Possible Jacobite sympathizers on the other side included Bingley, Hay, Scarsdale, Uxbridge and Leominster.^^ One major Jacobite absent from the vote on 16 May was Lord North and Grey, who was to be arrested in 1722 for his complicity in the . Insufficient evidence, however, could be found against him and he was released in 1723. We now know that he was fully committed to the Jacobite cause,^^ but he strongly opposed Atterbury over the dormitory and the Bishop later confessed that the case would probably have been lost had North and Grey not been called away at the crucial time.^^ This lack of unanimity amongst Atterbury's fellow Jacobites in relation to his case may well betray a deep rift within the group over Atterbury's association with Sunderland. If some Jacobites would not support one of their leaders over this case, would they have supported Sunderland's proposed coalition? Apprehension over Sunderland's true commitment to Jacobitism probably underlay this division within the group. Some Jacobites had undoubtedly seen through the Prime Minister's negotiating position. ^^ That the elder anti-Jacobite statesman of the Tory party, the Earl of Nottingham, voted against Atterbury would have been no surprise to those members of the Lords who had witnessed on 29 March the 'very hot and long Engagement [which] passed between them to the great Diversion of the House'. There was at least one other 'warm Contest', on 3 April, between the two over the dormitory case,^^ and personal animosity, as well as political differences, certainly played a large part in Nottingham's vote. If poHtics, rather than mere legal considerations, played a significant part in the voting on 16 May 1721, and it almost certainly did for a number of peers and bishops, then the division list reflects the flux within the two parties current in the immediate aftermath of the South Sea Bubble. Both parties betrayed severe signs of disarray and the traditional division between Whig and Tory showed some instability with members of both parties prepared to switch allegiances. The summer of 1721 saw the settling of the financial chaos left by the Bubble and the ending of the trust some Tories had placed in

47 the blandishments of the Whig ministers. The logic of party politics began to reassert itself with the Tories becoming more united in their opposition to the ministry and the development of a new opposition coalition between themselves and the dissident Whigs led by Cowper. The ministry was to remain unsettled until after the death of Sunderland in April 1722, when Walpole and Townshend were left largely in possession of the field with only Carteret, Sunderland's protege, as a major threat. He was to be neutralized in 1724 when he was sent to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant.^" The Westminster School dormitory case throws into relief the various party and factional configurations at a transitional time in parliamentary politics. We are lucky to have, in the form of a division list, a map which allows us to read more clearly some of the political contours created by the South Sea Bubble.

THE LIST The division list gives a total of forty-nine names, one short of the fifty which, according to the official figures for the division,^^ actually voted. It is possible, though unlikely, that the official figures are wrong."^ What is more likely is that the compiler of the list (the hand has not been identified) omitted one name. This name is unlikely to have been Atterbury himself who, though recorded as present that day," would have most likely refrained from voting in his own case according to the custom of the House. This ban would also have applied to Bishop Bradford of Carlisle, who is also recorded as present but whose name does not appear on the list. Edward Harley Jr had written to his aunt that 'I heartily wish my old master [Freind] a complete victory','* but Freind and his associates failed by a very narrow majority. This was probably more by bad luck than anything else, as ninety lords were recorded as attending the House that day. It may seem odd that only slightly over half of them bothered to vote in this case, but two factors should be kept in mind. First, the figure of ninety represents all those lords who were present at any time during that day's sitting, and as the dormitory case came before the House towards the end of the day's sitting it is probable that many lords had left the chamber by that stage. Some, of course, may have deliberately absented themselves being uninterested in the case, or because they felt unqualified to judge its merits, or because they did not wish to become involved in a case with such a high pohtical profile.''^ This latter reason may account for not only the absence of four ministers from the vote (Devonshire, Kingston, Newcastle and Argyll, all of whom were recorded as present), but also for the fact that only one of the thirteen Scottish peers present voted.'^ The Scots tended not to become involved in the affairs of the . William Stratford, however, thought that Atterbury had gained his cause through 'the desertion of some Scottish peers'.^^ Secondly it should be kept in mind that, by their very nature, legal cases tended to interest only a small proportion of the membership of the House, particularly as they often involved the reading of long, difficult and tedious documents before the House, though this does not appear to have been true in this case, when attendance was very high on the two days when the evidence was read.^^ Consequently in the vast majority of private cases the voting figures tended to be low. The exceptions were if the case had generated a good deal of public interest which had impinged upon the members of the House, ^^ or if there was a political dimension to the case. Such a one was the Westminster School dormitory case, and an overall voting figure of fifty was in fact high for a private legal case (though with the political ramifications, the figures may be considered low in this particular instance). BL, Harl. MS. jigo,f. 310: those lords voting for and against the appeal of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, over building a new dormitory for Westminster School, 16 May 1721.

Sunderland [W] Falmouth [W] Townshend [W] Bingley [T] Carteret [W] Mansel [T] London B[isho]p [Robinson] [T] Uxbridge [T] Cadogan [W] [Ducie] Morton [W] Harcourt [T] Cooper [Cowper] [W] Newborougb [W] Chester B[ishop] [Gastrell] [T] Carlton [T] Gloster B[ishop] [Willis] [W] Litchfieia [T] Peterborough B[ishop] [Kennett] [W] Winchester B[ishop] [Trelawney] [T] Bangor B[ishop] [Hoadley] [W] Arran [Butler of Weston]'° [T] Exeter B[ishop] [Blackburn] [W] Northampton [T] Kinnoul [Hay] [T] Straiford [T] Nottingham [T] Trevor [T] Scarsdale [T] Bathurst [T] Warrington [W] Chancellor [Parker] [W] Bridgewater [W] Clarendon [W] Lincoln B[isho]p [Gibson] [W] Delawar [T] Salisbury B[isho]p [Talbot] [W] Compton [T] Bristol B[isho]p [Boulter] [W] Ashburnham [T] Peterborough [W] Foley [T] Bristol [W] Ferrars [W] Clinton [W] Tenham [W] Westmoreland [W] Montague [W] Lempster [Leominster] [T] Say and Seal [T]

For the B[isho]p of Rochester Ag[ain]st

Quotations from the Stuart Papers in the Royal Richard Mortimer, and Tony Trowles for their Archives, Windsor Castle, are by the gracious help. This article has benefited from being read in permission of Her Majesty The Queen. I am grateful earlier drafts by Frances Harris, Susanna Smith, and to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for allowing Stephen Taylor. I should also like to thank Andrew me to publish material from the Westminster Abbey Hanham for his help over Archibald Hutcheson, Muniment, and to the Keeper of the Muniment, M.P., and Susanna Smith for lending me a copy of 49 her thesis (see below, n. 8), which is largely 7 Bennett, Tory Crisis, p. 138. concerned with the architectural history of the 8 See C. Jones and G. Holmes (eds.). The London dormitory. Diaries of William Nicolson, Bishop of Carlisle, 1 BL, Harleian MS. 7190, f. 310, printed below at 1702-1718 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 428-33. Atter- p. 49. I should like to thank Peter Barber of bury was involved in 1715 in a dispute in the the British Library for drawing this list to my Westminster Chapter over his proposal to attention. replace the exiled Jacobite Duke of Ormond as 2 For the political fluidity at this time see C. Jones, High Steward of Westminster with his brother, 'The New Opposition in the House of Lords, the Earl of Arran. The opposing faction, led by 1720-1723', Historical Journal, xxxvi (1993), pp. Samuel Bradford, wanted the Whig Duke of 309-29. Newcastle. The Chapter seems to have split 3 E.g., 'nothing has passt in the House of Lords along lines similar to those in the dormitory but the hearing of Causes one of them has made dispute. See S. Smith, 'Architects, Patrons some noise because it seem'd to be made a Party and Politics, 1710-1730' (University of London matter': BL, Add. MS. 22221, f 117, Bathurst M.A. thesis, 1994), pp. 33-4- See also S. Smith, to Stratford, [May 1714], printed in J. J. 'The Westminster Dormitory', in E. Corp (ed.). Cartwright (ed.). The Wentworth Papers 1705- Lord Burlington - The Man and his Politics: i73g (London, 1883), p. 380. See also the Bishop Questions of Loyalty (Lewiston, N.Y., and of London's cause over the living of Hammer- Lampeter, 1998), pp. 51^0. smith which Wharton and some other Whigs 9 Carpenter, House of Kings, p. 201. tried to turn into a party matter; BL, Add. 10 The following summary of the history of the MS. 72495, f. I (formerly Trumbull MS., Alph. dispute and the legal cause is largely based on the LIV, unfoliated), Ralph Bridges to Sir William printed cases of the appellants (Atterbury and Trumbull, 3 Apr. 1710. his supporters) and the respondents (Atterbury's 4 For one of only two other such lists known for opponents) distributed to the members of the the first half of the eighteenth century see BL, Lords by both sides in an attempt to influence Add. MS. 61336, f 103; and Frances Harris, their voting. Copies, annotated by Philip Yorke, ' Parliament and Blenheim Palace: The House of later Lord Chancellor and ist Earl of Hardwicke, Lords Appeal of 1721', Parliamentary History, and one of the respondents' lawyers, can be viii (1989), pp. 43-62. found in BL, Add. MS. 36147 (Hardwicke's 5 The dormitory case is very briefly dealt with in legal papers), ff. 92-97; while a second copy of G. V. Bennett, The Tory Crisis in Church and the respondents' case, annotated by Bishop State, 1688-1730: The Career of Francis of Peterborough, is in BL, Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester (Oxford, 1975), Lansdowne MS. 1037, fF. iir-112 (I owe this pp. 201-4, 229; and G. M. Townend, 'The reference to Stephen Taylor). Further infor- Political Career of Charles Spencer, Third Earl mation on the background to the cause can be of Sunderland, 1695-1722' (University of Edin- found in a selection of the records of the Dean burgh Ph.D. thesis, 1985), p. 296. For a full and Chapter of Westminster printed in A. T. critical analysis of Sunderland's negotiations B[olton], 'The New Dormitory, Westminster with the Jacobites in 1721 see C. Jones, 'Whigs, School, 1708-31. Sir Chr. Wren and Lord Jacobites and Charles Spencer, Third Earl of Burlington, Architects', The Wren Society, xi Sunderland', English Historical Review, cix (1934), pp. 35-45 plus accompanying plates. (1994), pp. 52-73. For a critique of my views, 11 B[olton], 'New Dormitory', pp. 38-9. and my reply, see E. Cruickshanks, 'Charles 12 Ibid., p. 39. Spencer, Third Earl of Sunderland, and Jaco- 13 Ibid. bitism', and C. Jones, 'Evidence, Interpretation 14 Thomas Lutwyche was also Tory M.P. for and Definitions in Jacobite Historiography: A Appleby, a former member of the high Tory Reply to Eveline Cruickshanks', English His- October Club, who voted against the Whig torical Review, cxiii (1998), pp. 65-76, 77-90. government in all the recorded divisions after 6 Bennett, Tory Crisis, pp. 203-4; E. Carpenter, A 1714. Charles Talbot was Whig M.P. for House of Kings: The History of Westminster Tregony, Solicitor General to the Prince of Abbey (London, 1966), pp. 197-205. Wales in 1717, and a consistent supporter of the administration. In 1733 he became Lord Chan- 24 W.A.M., 24864, Kimberley to [Atterbury], 25 cellor. See R. Sedgwick, The House of Commons, Mar. 1719. The certificate is at 24865. 1715-1754, 2 vols. (London, 1970), vol. ii, pp. 25 See, e.g., C. Jones, 'The Impeachment of the 231,461; D.N.B. Earl of Oxford and the Whig Schism of 1717: 15 Philip Yorke was the Whig M.P. for Lewes and Four New Lists', Bulletin of the Institute of Solicitor General, 1720-4. Spencer Cowper was Historical Research, Iv (1982), pp. 66-87. the Whig M.P. for Truro, Attorney General to 26 Several of the Prince of Wales's followers felt the Prince of Wales, 1714-27, and had gone into unable to join the new administration, e.g. Lord opposition to the government in 1718 upon his Cowper and the Duke of Wharton. This small brother's resignation as Lord Chancellor. In group of dissident Whigs soon joined with the March 1721 he seconded the motion in the Tories in a new opposition to the Whig Commons that part of the South Sea inquiry administration. See C. Jones, 'New Opposition concerning Sunderland should proceed without in the House of Lords'. For a critique of my delay. See Sedgwick, House of Commons, vols. i, position on this point, and my reply, see E. p. 590; ii, p. 569. Cruickshanks, 'Lord Cowper, Lord Orrery, the 16 Lords Journals, vol. xxi, pp. 488-9, 496, 512, Duke of Wharton, and Jacobitism', and C. 522; B[olton], 'New Dormitory', p. 41. Jones, '1720-23 and All That: A Reply to 17 For the area of the garden lost to the new Eveline Cruickshanks', Albion, xxvi (1994), pp. dormitory (roughly 15 per cent) compare plates 27-40, 41-53. 13 and 14 in Wren Society, xi. 27 For Sunderland see below, pp. 42-4; for the King 18 For Farrar see Sedgwick, House of Commons, vol. see J. Carswell, The South Sea Bubble (London, ii, pp. 26-7. i960), pp. 115, 124-7, 231, 238, 256. 19 A Exact Copy of the PoU...Eor the County of 28 This and the following sections are largely based Middlesex ...28th of May 1705 (London, 1705), p. 73; entered as ' Dr Nicolas Onley' of on Townend, 'The Political Career of... Sun- Westminster, he voted for Warwick Lake and derland', pp. 273-305. This is the most recent, Hugh Smithson. detailed and convincing account of Sunderland's final two years of power. The only slight qualm 20 P. K. Monod, Jacobitism and the , I have about Townend's interpretation is how 1688-1788 {Cambridge, 1989), p. 274. For John Freind see Sedgwick, House of Commons, vol. ii, sincere Sunderland's commitment was to a 1721 PP- 53-4; for his brother Robert, and Onley, general election. Townend believes he was Dent, Lynford, Gee and Bradford see D.N.B. sincere but was thwarted by Walpole. I feel his 21 For Cannon see D.N.B. stated commitment may have merely been a further play to bamboozle the Tories. They 22 Each member of the Chapter had to give his opinion on whether he approved of the new certainly came to believe this. dormitory in the garden or not in writing for the 29 See, e.g., H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v, pp. case before the Lords: see BL, Add. MS. 70237 614-16; Carlisle MSS., pp. 31-2. (unfoliated) (formerly Loan 29/143), Edward 30 See Townend, 'The Political Career of... Harley Jr to the Earl of Oxford, 4 Apr. 1721, Sunderland', pp. 281-2 for details. printed in Stephen Taylor and Clyve Jones 31 Lords Journals, vol. xxi, pp. 431-2. (eds.), Tory and Whig: The Parliamentary Papers 32 See BL, Add. MS. 47029, ff. 46-47: Lord of Edward Harley, 3rd Earl of Oxford, and Percival to Charles Dering, 17 Feb. 1721. William Hay, M.P. for Seaford, 1716-1753, 33 Speakers against Sunderland were from all Parliamentary History Record Series, i (Wood- sections of the Tory party, from Jacobite to bridge, 1998), pp. 230-1. The document was Hanoverian Tory, e.g. Grey Neville, Archibald drawn up 4 April and delivered to the House on Hutcheson (a gadfly M.P., who often supported 18 April 1721. See House of Lords Record the Whigs), William Shippen, and Sir Thomas Office, Main papers 637 (d), 8 Feb. 1721. Hanmer (Townend, 'The Political Career of... 23 Westminster Abbey Muniments [cited hereafter Sunderland', p. 286). as W.A.M.], 24867. A copy of this protest was 34 See, e.g., BL, Add. MS. 47029, ff. 55-56: delivered to Atterbury in the Chapter by Dent Percival to Dering, 15 Apr. 1721; Royal Arch- on 21 Feb. 1718. ives, Windsor Castle, Stuart Papers 53/15: newsletter, i6 Mar. 1720/1; H.M.C., Portland 49 See Jones, 'New Opposition in the House of MSS,, vol. vii, p. 295. Lords'. 35 Commons Journals, vol. xix, p. 482. Despite all 50 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v., pp. 614-15: the Prince of Wales's followers voting against Edward Harley Sr and Thomas Harley to Lord Sunderland (H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v, p. Oxford, 17 Feb. 1721. 619), many Whigs supported him, while others 51 Ibid., vol. vii, p. 290: to Lord Harley, 16 Feb. remained neutral, or felt that the evidence was 1721. insufficient to convict him (Townend, 'The 52 The Harley name for Atterbury was a short form Political Career of... Sunderland', p. 287). of Roffen, the Latin name for the bishopric of 36 H.M.C., Egmont Diary, vol. ii, p. 130. Rochester. 37 See Townend, 'The Political Career of... 53 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v, p. 615: to Sunderland', pp. 294-5. Oxford; see also ibid., pp. 615-16: Lord Harley 38 Ibid., p. 296. to Oxford, 18 Feb. 1721. 39 For Walpole's contact with the Tories and 54 BL, Add. MS. 61684, f 27 (formerly Blenheim Atterbury see sources cited in ibid., p. 403, n. Palace MS. F1-31): Atterbury to [Trevor], [30 112. Mar. 1721]. Bennett, {Tory Crisis, p. 227, n. 4) misattributes this letter as written to Sunderland, 40 Ibid., p. 296. This sound opinion, based on a but the contents and its original classification long study of Sunderland's character and career, leave no doubt that it was written to Trevor. contrasts with the speculation by Sedgwick 55 An analysis of those peers and bishops who were {House of Commons, vol. ii, pp. 32, 64-5, 108-9) old boys of Westminster School, and of their that the fact of his negotiations with the Jacobites sons who had attended the school, shows that and supposed letters of thanks from the Pre- this factor had no bearing on the result, as such tender found in his papers after his death, proves lords were fairly evenly distributed on both sides he was a Jacobite. For a refutation of this see of the division: seven lords (who between them Jones, 'Whigs, Jacobites and Charles Spencer, had three sons who had or were attending Third Earl of Sunderland', pp. 60—9. Westminster) voted for Atterbury, with five 41 Royal Archives, Stuart Papers, 60/88: [the lords (who had six sons) voting against the Pretender] to [Lord Lansdowne], 28 June 1722. Bishop {The Record of Old Westminsters..., 42 H.M.C, Portland MSS., vol. v, p. 619; [Edward comp. G. F. Russell Barker and A. H. Stenning, Harley Jr] to Abigail Harley, 19 Mar. 1721 (also 2 vols. (London, 1928)). Of the ministers pr^ent printed in Taylor and Jones (eds.), Tory and on the 16 May 1721, four had attended Whig, p. 229). Westminster (Carteret, Devonshire, Newcastle 43 See, e.g., H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. vii, pp. and Sunderland), of whom two voted, both for 293-4; BL, Add. MS. 70237: Edward Harley Jr Atterbury (Carteret and Sunderland). to Oxford, 4 Apr. 1721, printed in Taylor and 56 The 93 peers and bishops who had attended the Jones (eds.), Tory and Whig, p. 230-1. House on each of the two days (28 and 29 44 Townend, 'The Political Career of... Sunder- March) on which the evidence was heard on both land', p. 296. sides attest to the great interest the case aroused, 45 For some evidence that Walpole, Townshend, for it was virtually the only business of the Carteret, and Parker had clandestine contacts House on both occasions. Further a great deal of with the Tories at this time see H.M.C., Portland evidence was read (sixty documents for Roches- MSS., vol. vii, pp. 299-300; BL, Add. MS. ter's side on the 28th and fourteen, three of 70145 (formerly Loan 29/67): Edward Harley Jr which were in Latin, for the Attorney General to Abigail Harley, 22 June 1721, printed in on the 29th), which again leads to the conclusion Taylor and Jones (eds.), Tory and Whig, p. 236. that the members of the House took a particular 46 BL, Add. MS. 32686, ff. 185-187: to Newcastle, interest in the case. Why then did only 50 of the 22 Aug. 1721. 90 attending on 16 May (only 49 of whom appear 47 Townend, 'The Political Career of... Sunder- on the division list - see below p. 49) vote in land', pp. 298-9, 302-3. the case? Of the 41 who do not appear on the 48 H.M.C., Tefith Report, p. 344: to James division list, twelve had not been present on Graham, 22 Apr. 1722. either 28 or 29 March to hear the evidence and may, therefore, have felt unable or unwilling to pp. 24-44; and S. Taylor, 'Sir , vote (though, of course six who did vote had also the Church of England and the Quakers' Tithe not been present on both days - the Bishop of Bill of 1736', Historical Journal, xxviii (i985)> London, the Duke of Montagu, and Lords PP- 51-77- Lichfield, Ferrers, Teynham, and Ducie Mor- 62 In the case of Bishop Gastrell, it was almost ton). A further six who do not appear on the certainly personal animosity which caused him division list had only been present on one of the to vote against Atterbury. The latter's behaviour two days on which evidence was heard (tTiough at Christ Church had shattered the friendship again of those who voted three had only been between the two men which had begun at present on one day - the , and Lords Say and Sele, and Clinton). Of those Westminster School (Bennett, Tory Crisis, pp. remaining of the 41 who do not appear on the 27, 52, 67, 144, r47, 156, 159)- list, 23 had heard the evidence on both 28 and 29 63 See J. V. Beckett and C. Jones, 'Financial March and yet failed to vote. Ten of these were Improvidence and Political Independence in the Scots who, by custom, did not normally vote in Early Eighteenth Century: George Booth, 2nd English legal cases, and two were directly Earl of Warrington (1675-1758)', Bulletin of the involved in the case - the Bishops of Rochester John Rylands University Library., Ixv (1982), pp. and Carlisle - who, again by custom, would not 8-35- be expected to vote. Thus we are left with eleven 64 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vols. v, p. 619; vii, peers who had heard the evidence on both days pp. 290, 293-5, 297-8; BL, Add. MS, 70237: and chose not to vote. Part of the reason for these Edward Harley Jr to Oxford, 4 Apr. 1721, 'abstentions' is probably the politically sensitive printed in Taylor and Jones (eds.), Tory and nature of the case: many (both Whigs and Whig., pp. 230-1. Tories) may not have wanted to appear to be 65 Despite much new work in the field, it is often endorsing the Whig ministry's negotiations with difficult to decide who was a Jacobite. The secret Atterbury and the Jacobites, and the rather nature of the Pretender's cause led to deliberate obvious 'pay off' of part of the ministry obfuscation and this is reflected in the surviving supporting the Bishop in his case. For the evidence. The best source is obviously the Stuart attendance figures and a Hst of the evidence Papers, but even these are bedeviled by in- given, see Lords Journals., vol. xxi, pp. 488-9, accurate and wildly optimistic assessments of 520-1; House of Lords R.O., Manuscript who was a Jacobite (this exaggeration is in the Minutes of the House, 28, 29 Mar., 16 May nature of all exiled movements). In the absence 1721. of evidence of direct correspondence, however, 57 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v, p. 619. one must rely to some extent on these assess- 58 See J. C. Sainty, The Origins of the Office of ments. There is a list, probably in the Duke of Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, Wharton's hand (Royal Archives, Stuart Papers House of Lords Record Office Memorandum 83/89), and probably from 1725 (it is undated No. 52 (1974), p. 3. but bound in that year's sequence) which Paul 59 BL, Add. MS, 32686, f. 204: to Newcastle, 21 Fritz (The English Ministers and Jacobitism Sept. 1721. Between the Rebellions ofiji^ and iy4S (Toronto, 60 G, Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne 1975). PP' 160-1, where it is printed inaccurately (London, 1967; 2nd edn, 1987), pp. 399-400. with nine names missing) claims is a list of See Henry St John's comment that 'if a vote Jacobite support amongst the peerage. All the should be proposed to un-Bishop them, he believed they would concurr in it': BL, Add. names classified in this article as Jacobites are on MS, 72495, f. ii8v (formerly Trumbull Add. this list with the exception of Hay. He had, MS. 136), Ralph Bridges to Sir William however, been arrested in 1715 on suspicion of Trumbull, 18 Jan. 1712. Jacobitism. 61 See G. M. Townend, 'Religious Radicalism and 66 See E. Cruickshanks, 'Lord North, Christopher Conservatism in the Whig Party under George I: Layer and the Atterbury Plot: 1720-23', in E. The Repeal of the Occasional Conformity and Cruickshanks and J. Black (eds.). The Jacobite Schism Acts', Parliamentary History., vii (1988), Challenge (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 91-106. 53 67 The revelation comes in Atterbury's final speech undoubtedly got from Carpenter's House of at his own trial in 1723 and is reprinted in Kings, p. 201. This mistake has been perpetuated Cobbett, Parl. Hist., vol. viii, p. 274. North and in Townend, 'The Political Career of...Sun- Grey had not been at the House since 29 April, derland', p. 296. but he had attended the two days of evidence on 73 Lords Journals, vol. xxi, pp. 520-1. 28 and 29 Mareh (see above n. 56). 74 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. v, p. 619. 68 Jones, 'Whigs, Jacobites and Charles Spencer, 75 See above n. 56. Third Earl of Sunderland'. 76 Eleven were Scottish representative peers, while 69 BL, Add. MS. 70237: Edward Harley Jr to Kinnoull (who voted) and Argyll sat by virtue of Oxford, 4 Apr. 1721, printed in Taylor and their British and English peerages as Baron Hay Jones (eds.), Tory and Whig., pp. 230-1. and Earl of Greenwich respectively. 77 H.M.C., Portland MSS., vol. vii, p. 298: to 70 See D. Hayton, 'Walpole and Ireland', in J. Lord Harley, 24 May 1721. Black (ed.), Britain in the Age of Walpole 78 See above n. 56. (London, 1984), pp. 102-12. 79 Two such cases were the Duke of Norfolk's 71 J. C. Sainty and D. Dewar, Divisions in the House divorce bill of 1693 and Montague v. Bath of of Lords: An Analytical List 1685 to 1857., House 1694. See Eveline Cruickshanks, D. Hayton and of Lords Record Office Occasional Publications, C. Jones, 'Divisions in the House of Lords on no. 2 (1976). the Transfer of the Crown and Other Issues, 72 It was not uncommon for differing voting figures 1689-94: Ten New Lists', Bulletin of the to be circulated by contemporaries in an age Institute of Historical Research, liii (1980), pp. when the proceedings of the Lords were 5^87. protected by privilege. Bennett {Tory Crisis, p. 80 The Earl of Arran, an Irish peer, sat by right of 229) gives voting figures of 28 to 26, which he his English peerage. Baron Butler of Weston.

54