The Rise of the Pelhams

163 Pages·1957·19.299 MB·English

by  John Owen

THE RISE
OF THE PELHAMS
by
JOHN B. OWEN
D.PHIL.
Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford
METHUEN & CO LTD
3 6 ESSEX STREET· STRAND· LONDON WC2
First published in I95
7
TO
PEGGY
without whose assistance, encouragement, and self-sacrifice
this could never have been written
________
s
b- -S'- 7 c.>'"tl 0 ...
! l
'
'
.
I.I
CATALOGUE NO. 5836/u
PRINTED AND MADE IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
BUTLER AND TANNER LTD, FROME AND LONDON
I
CONTENTS
I THE PASSING OF A REGIME I
December 1741-February 1742
II THE RAW MATERIAL-PERSONNEL OF THE HOUSE OF
41
COMMONS AT THE TIME OF WALPOLE'S FALL
III THE BIRTH OF AN ADMINISTRATION 87
February-July 1742
126
IV THE HEY-DAY OF AN ADMINISTRATION
July 1742-May 1743
159
V THE DECLINE OF AN ADMINISTRATION
May-December 1743
VI THE DEMISE OF AN ADMINISTRATION 200
December 1743-November 1i44
239
VII THE GHOST OF AN ADMINISTRATION
November 1744-February 1746
298
VIII THE EMERGENCE OF A REGIME
February 1746-June 1747
APPENDIX: MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
1741-1747 321
343
INDEX
vii
PREFACE
SINCE Archdeacon William Coxe published his Memoirs of the
Administration of the Right Honourable Henry Pelham in 1829
,) there has been no serious attempt to study in detail the political
history of the years immediately following the fall of Sir Robert
Walpole. Admittedly, Coxe's ability as an historian was con
siderable; and he had the advantage of access to many documents
which have since disappeared, notably the Campbell Papers and
part of the Pelham Papers. Yet there is perhaps some excuse for
a re-examination of English politics in the l74o's. Firstly, Coxe
was almost completely blind by 1829, and was unable to check
the transcriptions of letters made by his amanuensis, John Ry lance.
The printed correspondence is therefore much less accurate than
that which appears in his earlier works; and occasionally important
letters are overlooked. Secondly, he devoted very little attention
to the important period between the fall of Walpole and August
1743, when Henry Pelham was appointed First Lord of the
Treasury. Finally, and most significantly, he was fundamentally
concerned with the leading political figures of the day, and made
no attempt to follow the vagaries of the rank and file of the House
of Commons who, in the last resort, could make or break a
ministry.
The primary aim of the present volume is to take into considera
tion the political behaviour of these independent back-benchers,
who constituted a majority of the Lower House. Consequently, it
is based above all on the personal biographies of the 686 indi
viduals who sat in the Commons during the life of the Parliament
which assembled on l December 1741 and was dissolved on
17 June 1747· Relatively little of this vast mass of biographical data
is directly reproduced in the following pages; but its collection was
the essential pre-requisite to the study of a period which is ante
I cedent to the age of coherent group, still more party, organization.
I should like here to acknowledge my very considerable debt
to those who have made my work possible. Begun under a Post
Graduate Scholarship from the University of New Zealand, it
could never have been completed without further financial
assistance from the governing body of Canterbury University
College, N.Z., from Balliol College, and from the British Council.
II To the Master of Balliol my special thanks are due for his warm
advocacy of my cause.
lX
r-::====:-.=======--------------------------~~~~~--:-::.----~~--~~~-~~-- l
x PREFACE
I am further indebted to the Duke of Devonshire, the late Duke
of Bedford, the Marquis of Cholmondeley, and Mr ~umph.ry
FitzRoy Newdegate, for allowing me to make use of their. family CHAPTER I
manuscripts; to the Warden of Rhodes House, for toleratu~g my
early ignorance and giving me every encouragement when it was THE PASSING OF A REGIME
most needed; to the Principal of Lady Margaret .Hall •. 1:'1.r R. R.
Sedgwick, and Mr J. Steven Watson, for constructive cnt1c1sm and DECEMBER 1741-FEBRUARY 1742
many helpful suggestions; and to Sir Lewis Namier, for ~enerously
placing at my disposal his incomparabl~ ~nowled.ge of e1ght~enth­ THE annals of the British Parliament afford many instances both
century politics, and for constantly ass1stmg me ~n the solut10n of of long periods of quiescence rudely shattered by unexpected
the many problems which a work .o~ this nature 1.nvolves. If there crises, and of curious little pockets of calm in the midst of bitter
is any merit in my book, the credit is largely theirs; for the many conflict. In the members themselves this subjection to the un
deficiencies, I alone am responsible. certain whimsicalities of the political system bred a corresponding
My deepest obligation is acknowledged on another pag;e. oscillation between unbounded confidence and excessive caution.
J. B.O. So it was in 1741. The dying days of one Parliament and the
opening days of another were marked by heated attacks on the
LINCOLN COLLEGE
sadly divided administration of Sir Robert Walpole, and the
OXFORD intervening general election was keenly and closely contested. Yet
December 19 55 when by the end of June its clamour and excitement had sub
sided, the summer and autumn passed in strangely contrasting
quiet which lasted until the assembly of the new Parliament on
1 December. This period of unnatural calm and its apprehended
consequences Were noted by Horace Walpole:
The politics of the age are entirely suspended; nothing is men
tioned; but this bottling them up, will make them fly out with the
greater violence the moment Parliament meets.1
It may seem surprising that Walpole's opponents, whose
members and abilities had steadily increased since 1733, and who
had undoubtedly improved their position at the recent election,
should have adopted an attitude of guarded caution; that they
should in fact have been less confident than Sir Robert himself.
Yet those who for the past few years had conducted the frequent
attacks on his administration could hardly help being chastened
by the repeated failure of their ventures, nor could they justifiably
regard the election of 1741 as a forthright condemnation of
Walpole's policy. In each of the last three years their destructive
energies had been gathered for a supreme effort. In 1739 the wide
spread animosity towards Spain, both in Parliament and in the
country, had encouraged the Opposition assault on the Convention
of the Pardo, which had temporarily thwarted the ill-advised
1 Walpole: Letters, I, 109.
l
THE PASSING OF A REGIME 3
2 THE RISE OF THE PELHAMS
shadow the more restricted naval and colonial combat with Spain.
belligerency of the English nation. If the rejection of this attack by
All these factors encouraged Walpole's adversaries to take their
a mere 28 votes in a House of nearly 500 members [260 v. 232] 1
most drastic step, and in February 1741 motions were tabled in
was a salutary warning to Wal pole, it could scarcely be described
both Houses for an address to the King asking him to dismiss Sir
as a triumph for his opponents, nor could they derive much com
Robert from his counsels for ever. Who could have foreseen that
fort from the reports that 'many of the majority in private con
out of this unprecedented threat to his power Walpole was to gain
versation wished for war, and reproached the minister for want of
one of the outstanding victories of his career? Even the most
courage'. 2 Their position seemed further weakened when in
sanguine of his opponents had scant hopes of success in the House
October 1739 Walpole, not for the first time, bowed to the
of Lords, but the defeat of their motion in the Commons by the
inevitable and grudgingly concurred in the declaration of hostilities
ove.rwhelming majority of 184 votes [290 v. 106] 1 was a blow from
against Spain. Yet, had they but known it, his action at that time
which they had not yet recovered when Parliament was dissolved
was a more effective solvent of his power 3 than all their censure
a few months later.
motions and back-stairs intrigues. Meanwhile in 1740 a new focus
The chief reason for the collapse of their attack was the diver
for attack had to be found, and the imminence of a general election
suggested the proposal of a Place Bill. Even in the eighteenth gence .o~ opinion and action between the 'Whig' wing of the
Opposit10n and a section of the 'Tories'.2 The Whigs, dominated
century, politicians could not afford entirely to ignore the suscepti
rather than led by John, 2nd Baron Carteret, in the House of
bilities of the electors, and Administration supporters who repre
Lor.ds, and by William Pulteney in the Commons, had managed
sented the more open constituencies could be expected to have
severe qualms at opposing what had long been accepted as one of du:mg th~ previous !ew years ~o m~ii:itain a somewhat uneasy
alliance with the Tones under Sir Wilham Wyndham. But these
the orthodox 'popular' measures of the time. Counting on numer
two groups had little in common,3 and with the death in 1740 of
ous abstentions and probably even a few outright desertions from
Wyndham, whose ability and moderation had been the best
among the more independent members on the Administration side
of the House, the Opposition brought forth their Bill in February gua~antee of cont.inued union, the cleavage began to appear. The
Tones, not wantmg power thems.elves, and distrusting Pulteney
and failed to carry it by only 16 votes [222 v. 206].4
If the narrowness of their defeat on this occasion inspired the and Carte~et as much as they distrusted Walpole, disliked the
Opposition to gather their forces for still greater efforts, the ill pers~mal. b_ias of the motions against the minister and deprecated
the implicit attempt to condemn him without a fair trial. Conse
success which attended the Administration's prosecution of the
quently 55 members wh? usually voted with the Opposition, and
war with Spain seemed to furnish them with even more incisive
weapons. The excitement that had greeted Admiral Vernon's most ?f whon:i were ~ones, contented themselves with abstaining
on this occas10n, while a further 28 carried their disgust to the
capture of Porto Bello in the West Indies in November 1739
extent of casting their votes in Walpole's favour.4
changed to consternation when it became known that his conquest
was useless and had to be abandoned. Nor did the news, in the After such a. dis~strous defeat, which not only gave a marked
boost to the dwmdlmg morale of the Administration but also bred
summer of 1740, that Haddock and Norris had failed to prevent
a bitterness within the Opposition ranks that long' outlasted this
French and Spanish fleets from combining and sailing to the West
particular division, one might have expected Walpole's opponents
Indies, serve to strengthen the waning confidence in theAdministra
to enter the ensuing elections at a serious disadvantage. But while
tion. Finally in December 1740 Frederick of Prussia, by invading
the electoral structure of eighteenth-century England was not
Silesia, was instrumental in entangling England in a continental
impervious to repercussions of major parliamentary conflicts on
conflict in support of the Queen of Hungary that was soon to over-
matters of foreign and domestic policy, it could hardly be expected
1 Hist. MSS. Comm., Egmont Diary, III, 31-2.
2 Add. MS. 9200, f. 63. 1 Comm. Journ., XXIII, 648.
•3 ICnofmram, .p J. o3u9r·n ., XXIII, 438. The comparatively small House on such an im- 2 A r~-defi?i~ion of these much misused terms is essential, but for the sake of
convemence 1t 1s deferred to the next chapter.
portant occasion suggests many abstentions, and John Hedworth (Durham 3 Infra, pp. 73-5.
County), Sir William Middleton (Northumberland), and Henry Archer (War
•Add. MS. 9200, ff. 72-3; Coxe: Walpole, III, 563; Egmont Diary III 192'
wick), all of whom normally supported Walpole, on this occasion voted against
and Gentleman's Magazine, 1741, p. 232. ' ' '
him. On Archer's defection, see Egmont Diary, III, 102.
THE PASSING OF A REGIME 5
4 THE RISE OF THE PELHAMS
its ~sual disadvantage. Yet when the results became known it was
that seats would be won or lost on the result of a single division
o~vi.ous to even the most sanguine of Walpole's supporters that the~
in the House of Commons. Even the ill-feeling that undoubtedly
mmis~e_r had suffered. a further check to his power. There was a
existed between the two main groups of the Opposition had little
W. su~pnsmg i:ost-election reluctance to discuss the results, to
effect at the polls. Apart from orc.estershire, w~ere two of the
estimate their over-all effects, or to outline the attitudes to be
so-called 'Patriot' Whigs waxed md1gnant at findmg themselves
adopted for the approaching session. Both sides contented them
successfully opposed no~ by ~w? of. Walpole's ~en but by. t_wo
selves with l?er:eral expressions of limited and cautious confidence
Tories there was no senous dissipation of effort m the Opposition
1 and the maJonty preferred to await the assembly of Parliament
camp. Disunity could becom.e very. obviou~ in a crowded House of
?e~ore committing themselves too deeply. But some of those most
Commons but in the constituencies the issues were largely per-
mti_mately concerned could not re~ist t~e temptation to compute
' sonal ones' between the electors and the candidates as individuals,
t~eir probable strength, though their estimates show an even wider
not as members of a specific group or party. These issues ~ere of
divergenc~ .than one. would expect. George Bubb Dodington,
course very variable. A member's success at ~he polls might be
~hose pohti~al behaviour. h~~ always been dictated by considera
determined in the last resort by the length of his purse, the favo~r
tions of parliamentary maJont1es, and whose opinion had therefore
of a borough patron, the tangible benefits he had b~stowed on ~is
an almost professional status, confided to the Duke of Argyll that
constituents, his personal prestige in the locality, or (ii: the counties
out of 485 1 Engli~h and Welsh .members who could be expected •
and more open boroughs) his support of, ~r antagomsm. to~ards,
to attend the openmg of the sess10n, the Opposition could reason
the existing ministry. More often than not 1t was~ combmation of
ably hope for a majority of eight or nine. To these he added a
these factors that ensured his return. Of the candidates so chosen,
further.ad".a~tag: o~ six from among the Scottish members,2 giving
all but a handful could broadly be classified as supporters of either
the anti-mmistenahs~s a total lead of some 14 or 15. But this figure
Administration or Opposition. But there was in the eighteenth
was colo:rred by J:?odmgton's usual wishful thinking and eagerness
century, as Sir Lewis Namier has shown, ~complete a~sence of !O
share m the spoils of office, as is shown by the comfort he derives
'party' as we know it to-day, or even as it existed m the nme~eenth
m the san:e !etter from the fact that the ministers estimated the
century. The Opposition, like the Administration, was a thmg of
Court maJo.nty as not more than 16.3 The Duke of Newcastle,
shreds and patches. In a House of Commons composed for th.e
":hose caut10us nature favoured a less optimistic appraisal pre
most part of ·independent self-returning country gentlemen 1t
dicted that the Administration's advantage would be 14·4 whereas
could hardly be otherwise. 'Administration' and 'Opposition' then
Walpole was quite confident !~at he had at least 40 votes' to spare.5
serve merely to distinguish between those members who f ~r ~he
Wh~t then was the true position, and how far were the elections
time being gave a general support to the measures of the ~xis~mg
a tnumph for the Opposition?
ministry, and those who for various reasons saw fit to mamtam a
The only divi~ion lists known for the Parliament of 1734-41 are
reasonably consistent attitude of disappr?val towards those sa1?e
those fo~ th~ votmg on the Spanish Convention in 1739 and on the
measures. In neither case was there anythmg of the clear-cut umty
Place Bill m 1740, but from these (together with five further
and discipline that characterizes the modern descendants of these
highly amorphous groups. . . . 1. Dodingt.on to Argyll, 18 June 1741, quoted in Coxe: Walpole, III, 567. He
The Administration in 1741 entered th~ hst.s feehr:g ~h.at it h~d arrives at this figure by deducting 28 from the total number of members return
to some extent atoned for its gradually dwmdlmg maJ?nt1es by its able ~or England and Wales, because of double elections, double returns post
elhect110n deaths, absences overseas, etc. His knowledge was neither compl~te nor
sweeping victory of the previous February, and hopmg that the w o ly accurate.
advantages of royal patronage would _more ~han COJ?pensate for the • Actua~l)'., Scotland returned 19 Administration supporters and 23 opponents.
The remammg three returns-were double ones.
unpopularity it had gained f~om its ~ms-~andlmg of t~e ~ar
3 Coxe: Walpole, III, 577.
situation. The Opposition, lackmg the directmg and co-ordu:~atmg 'Add. MS. 35876, ff. 138-<). This is a list of Administration and Opposition
control of the Treasury, could be expected to face the election at sup~orters, computed county by county. As usual with Newcastle's lists this
ohe IS not free from error. There were, as stated, four double returns but 'only
tC r.eekwere from Scotland, the other being from the Wiltshire b~rough of
1 George Lyttelton and Viscount Deerhurst (eldest son of the Earl of Coventry) nc 1ade.
were opposed by the two Tories, Edmund Lechmere and Edmund Pytts. Infra, 6 Walpole: Letters, I, 134; Egmont Diary, III, 257.
p. 74·
THE PASSING O.F A REGIME 7
6 THE RISE OF THE PELHAMS
election had .reduced the ministry's majority from approximately •.
division lists for the previous Parliament) 1 and from scattered
material on individual members,2 it is possible to determine the 42 to approximately 18,1 a loss of only twelve seats.
It seems evident from the foregoing that the general election of
general allegiance of virtually all those in the House of Commons in
1741 was very far from a landslide; that in fact it reflected to a
1741. The vagaries of the independent country gentlemen make
very difficult accurate prediction on a specific issue, but i~ would lesser extent than one would no~mally expect, and certainly less
seem that, immediately before the dissolution of Parliament, than that o~ 1734, the natural swmg away from an administration
that had er:Joyed power for many years. Considering the abilities
Walpole could in a full House count on a majority of approxi-
and numerical strength of the Opposition in the old Parliament
' mately 42.a Analysis of the 1741 election results is further com
the d~vision~ and. ~ifferences of opinion within the ministry, ancl
plicated by the appearance of 148 new members who have no
the difficulties arismg out of the complex foreign situation the
previous voting records by which their affiliations can be deter
l~ss of a mere twelv~ ~eats might be regarded as almost a dioral
mined. But a detailed study of the individual biographies of these
victory for the Admimstration. Indeed, had it not been for the
men, together with various general information about the elec
tireless efforts of the Prir:ce _of Wales and the Duke of Argyll, who
tions,"' makes it possible to define their politics with reasonab:e
routed the Government m its hereditary strongholds of Cornwall ·
certainty. A careful examination of the 553 members 5 returned m
and Scotla?d, Walpole might well have improved his position, for
the original writs suggests that 28? ?f th~m car: be regard:d. as
elsewhere m the country he more than held his own.2
giying a general support to the Admims~rat10n, w~ile the remammg
267 were more likely to oppose.6 This means m effect that the After t~e minister had fallen from power in 1742, a few con
temporaries tended to place the entire blame on the elections of
i These were for the voting on the payment of Civil List arrears, 1729; the the previous year, and because of this quite unjustifiable assertion
Hessian Troops, 1730; the Standing Forces, 1732; the Excise Bill, 1733; and the
Walpole's two chief -electoral magnates, the Duke of Newcastle
repeal of the Septennial Act, 1734·
2 See especially Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., Lists of Members, 21 an~ the Earl of Islay_, have some~imes been depicted as betraying
November 1739 and 18 November [1740]. . . . their leader by ~llowmg the elections under their control to go by
a My investigations suggest 300 members as Admm1strat10n supporte_rs and
258 as opponents. Of course there were many of the 300.who had oc~as10nally default.3 B:r~ it is abundantly clear that the limited gains made by
voted with the Opposition, and of the 258 who had from time.to time s_1ded with the \)pposit10n can be explained in a perfectly natural manner and
the ministers. But nearly all of them had behaved with sufficient consistency to reqmre n~ search for _hidden intrigues and betrayals. In poi~t of
justify their classification as either 'for' or 'against'.Walpole's minist.ry. In only
9 cases is there any reasonable room for doubt, ai;id m all these th<; ev~dence sug fact there is not the slightest reason to suspect either Newcastle or
gests that by 1741 they were more inclined to favour than to cnt1c1ze the Ad Islay. Newcastle's correspondence 4 illustrates beyond all shadow
ministration. I have accordingly regarded them as 'doubtful' supporters, and of doubt that he was exerting himself to the utmost in the com •
included them within the 300. The members concerned. are. Solo~on Ashley
(Bridport) Albemarle Bertie (Boston), John Howe (Wiltshire), Sir Thomas paratively few constituencies where his influence was decisive and
Lowther (Lancaster), John Myddleton (Denbigh Town), John Neale (Coventry),
James Oglethorpe (Haslemere), Sir John Ramsden (Appleby), and John Yorke
have abstained or voted against Walpole in the few weeks before his fall but
(Richmond). th~ subsequent political ~onduct ?f most of the others was very erratic. '
• See especially the lists in Add. MS. 35876, ff. 138-9; Add. MS. 33002,
The above figures give a maJonty of 19, but the determination of double
ff. 454, 456; and Gentleman's Magazine, 1741,. pp. 227-:31, 310-~6. The latter
attempts to classify all the members, but contains many maccurac1es, due partly returns redu~ed this to 18, and makes possible accurate comparison with the
prev10us Parliament.
to typographical errors and partly to ignorance. 2 In Cornwall the number of ministerial supporters decreased from 27 to 17
0 The remaining 5 members were accounted f?r by 4 d.ouble returns-for and m Scotland from .31 to 19, a ve.ry considerable and unexpected defeat. But
Cricklade (involving 2 members); and Berw1ck-sh1re, Haddmgton. burghs, and
Selkirk burghs (each involving l ). When, after the assembly of Parliament, these ceolusenwt1~ie;s~,e atnhde mproap fourrt1th0enr o2f1 ,A dtomgme1tshterra wt~iothn Wmaelmesb earnsd rtehmea Ciniendq uthe eP soarmts,e lions s1e4s
elections were finally determined, 2 Administration supporters and 3 opponents
and gam.s were restricted to only one or two seats. Only in Kent Berkshire and
were returned. Dorset! m each of which the .Admi?istration lost three seats, and in Hamp~hire
• Again, I have included within the ranks of the A;dministration supp_orters
and W1hshire, where they gamed six and four respectively, was there any major
the names of 12 members whose allegiance, for vanous reasons, falls m the
change m representat10n. In all, the loss of 22 seats in Cornwall and Scotland
'doubtful' category, viz. Lord Vere Bertie (Boston), Lord Fortrose (Inverness
was. partially compensated for by a gain of ten seats in the remaining constitu
burghs), Lord Granby (Grantham), Sir Thomas Lowther (Lancaster), Ja~es
encies.
Lumley (Arundel) William Mellish (East Retford), John Myddleton (Denbigh
County), James Oglethorpe (Haslemere), John Page (Chichester), William ~ See Charles Hanbury Williams: Works, I, 28-9; Basil Williams: The Life of
Powlett (Winchester) Sir John Ramsden (Appleby), and John Yorke (Rich W~llzam Pitt, .I, 86-7; Earl of Ilchester: Henry Fox, 1st Lord Holland, I, 79-80.
See especially Add. MSS. 32696, 32697 (passim).
mond). Of these, only Fortrose, Lowther, Mellish, and Powlett are known to
2
8 THE RISE OF THE PELHAMS THE PASSING OF A REGIME 9
in every one of which he was successful.1 As for Islay, he foui:id Lord Falmouth,1 the activity and address of their agents,2 and the
himself for the first time opposed in Scotland by his mercurial indolence and tinskilfulness of those employed by the Court, 3 were
fire-brand brother, the Duke of Argyll, who carefully played on remarkable. The pecuniary penalty inflicted on Edinburgh, 4 and the
the many prejudices which the Scots had developed against the attempts for further punishments were resented nationally, and the
Duke of Argyll was successfully assiduous in inflaming those resent
Administration. Walpole himself always stoutly denied that Islay
ments. The prevailing opinion has been, that secret service money
had been responsible for his defeat in Scotland, and continued till
was chiefly engrossed by the concerns of Hanover;5 that in resent
his death to hold the Earl in the highest regard.2
ment of resolutions advantageous to the Queen of Hungary, for which
The results of the election of 1741 then were significant only he unreasonably deemed the minister culpable, the King of Prussia
because the minister's majority in the previous House of Commons remitted £zo,ooo to his enemies; that Walpole's expences in 1734 had
was so exiguous that even small losses were likely to make his disabled him from significant exertions this year.6 Nothing was done
position in the new one untenable. An interesting commentary on in order to procure popularity, but much the contrary. The fleets and
the election is given by a well-informed contem~~rary, the Rev. incampments of this and the preceding year were none of them
Henry Etough, whose intimate knowledge of politics owed much visited by His Majesty. His impatience to visit his German dominions
prohibited him not only from remaining here till the greater part of
to his personal friendship with Walpole.3
the elections were finished, but would not permit him to wait the
Soon after this the Parliament was dissolved. In the choice of a new issue of the important one at Westminster. Wager 7 was taken to
one the minister's enemies were successful in Cornwall and Scotland, attend him from the middle of the poll, which occasioned all the
a circumstance which had not happened to any of his predecessors in consequent mobbings and mismanagements. Such proceedings, in
power. The interest of the Prince in his Duchy assisted by that of the place of the Court's residence produced the worst effects in all
other future elections, and were irreparably mischievous when
1 In 1741 Newcastle nominated to the four seats at ~ldborough a~d Borough- controverted in the House of Commons.
bridge while after considerable pains he was chiefly instrumental in the return
of two' members for Lewes, and one each for Newark, East Retford, and Not Apart altogether from the problems posed for Walpole by the
tingham. In conjunction with the Treasury, he controlled a further two seats at results of the general election, 1741 saw a further deterioration in
Hastings, two at Seaford, and one at Rye. . the foreign situation. In the West Indies, the lack of co-operation
2 Islay's behaviour is convincingly vindicated by the Re':'. ~-Ienry Etough. m J
Add. MS. 9200, ff. 125, 211. e.g. 'Islay gave pro.ofs ?f supen~nty and dexterity, between Admiral Vernon and General Wentworth (who had
was assiduous in his attendance and abundant in his profess10ns of esteem and
regard. Excepting in the last Parliament he answered the minister's principal 1 In 1741 Hugh Boscawen, 2nd Viscount Falmouth, appears to have had the
purpose, by bringing up not only such Lords, but such <;:ommone~s, for whose dominating interest in the return of two members for Truro, and one each for
right voting he could be answerable. In this he had no difficulty w1~h regard to Penryn, St Mawes, and Tregony. He had of course the financial backing of the
the peers; but the difficulties in the choice of Commoners .were insuj:>erable. Prince.
How this [was] owing to his brother's madness and folly, which he.had infused 2 The other chief agent of the Prince in the Cornish elections was Thomas
into all parts of the nation, h~s be~n separate\y observed. N~r was 1t m the pow~r Pitt, the elder brother of William.
of the Minister to supply him with money in any proport10n to the degree, in 8 The chief Administration agent in Cornwall was Richard Edgcumbe of
which it was then more than ever wanted. He has been generally blamed and Mount Edgcumbe, Devon, who was raised to the peerage in 1742, partly as a
bitterly accused for being false to his trust, but this seems. a vel)'. unreasonable reward for his election services, and partly to prevent enquiry into those services
suspicion. His connections with Wa~j:>ole were such'. that 1t was impossible for by a House of Commons for the moment intent on persecuting the fallen Wal
him to be insensible that the demoht10n of the Minister should not prove des pole. In 1741 he seems, with Treasury assistance, to have been responsible for
tructive to the extent and supremacy of his own power. . ·. . Mr Alexan~er For the return of two members for Lostwithiel and one for Fowey, as well as return
rester, the lawyer, once told me an anecdote of Sir R. a l~ttle before his de~th. ing himself for the Devonshire borough of Plympton. At Grampound, Bossiney,
He was engaged in a trust with Mr Tryon of Colly Weston in Northamptonslure, and Penryn, where he appears in the past to have had a considerable influence, he
an old Tory. The purposes of the t~st were fini~hed, and. it was intended to p~t was unsuccessful.
an end to it. Sir R's infirmitys made 1t extremely inconvenient to t~avel, and their • In connection with the Porteous riots in that city in 1737·
meeting was at Houghton. They dined tete a tete. After dinner Sir .R. said, "Mr 6 Etough repeatedly stresses the little assistance that Walpole gained from the
Tryon, you and I have acted upon very different princip.les all our hves, but n?w secret service fund in 1741; cf. Add. MS. 9200, ff. 138, 144· Walpole himself
party considerations are over with both of us, Y?U m~st indulge me; let me dnnk complained to Etough that 'there was a niggardliness, or rather a total refusal of
two toasts." His first was the Duke of Devonshire, his second the Duke of Argyll money for elections'.
[i.e. the former Islay]: "Now", says he, "toast whom rou please. A\l the re.st of 6 cf. Add MS. 9200, f. 122. 'In the former general election he had spent
the world are equal to me." This shows the opinion Sir R. had of his steadiness £60,000 of his own money; for the latter where they were more essentially
and friendship to the last hour of his life.' . wanted, he had neither money nor credit remaining.'
s Add. MS. 9200, f. 74. Etough's views are developed at greater length in 7 Sir Charles Wager, at that time First Lord of the Admiralty. On the West
ff. 138-40, 143-4, and 196-'7. minster election, see Egmont Diary, III, 219-20.
IO THE RISE OF THE PELHAMS THE PASSING OF A REGIME II
succeeded on Cathcart's death to the command of the land forces) his German lands if they were attacked because of his support of
contributed much towards the ill-success of the attacks on the J::Io~se of Austria,1 the King was completely subdued by the
Carthagena in April and on Cuba during the last months of the proximity of a large French army. He therefore retained the above
year. The dismal failures in this sphere of hostilities provided the au~iliaries fo~ his own serv~ce, dropped all notion of taking any
Opposition with a useful weapon, especially as Vernon, one of the act10n that might pr~voke either France or Prussia, and finally in
more vocal of Walpole's opponents, did not hesitate to attach all September, once agam contrary to the advice of his ministers at
the blame to inadequate support from the Administration. . home, agreed wit? France to a treaty f~r the neutrality of Hanover. 2
In Europe too, affairs could hardly have taken on a gloomier . E".en . the pacifi.c Wa.lpole "'.as disconcerted at the possible
aspect. Walpole had done his utmost to persuade the Queen of implicat10ns of !~is polic:y:, which brought once again into the
Hungary to cut her losses and come to ter~s with. Frederick, b?t forefront of politics the disagreeable aspects of the Hanoverian
the obvious enthusiasm for her cause, both m Parliament 1 and m associations of the reigning dynasty, and in addition had serious
the country, together with Carteret's private assurances to Ostein 2 repercussions both at Vienna and at The Hague. The Queen of
of the belligerent temper of the English nation, determined ~aria Hungary was convinced that England too was about to desert her
Theresa to persist in her struggle. But although Frederick's while the Dutch, already the despair of the English envoy at Th;
victory at Mollwitz in April failed to shake this resolution, events Hague, became even more suspicious and dilatory.a The final blow
in France soon revealed the perils of her position. The successes of came from the north wher~ Russia, at first prepared to give active
Prussia finally gave the dominant influence in French politic~ to support to the Court of V1e?-na, was prevented from so doing by
the war party under Belleisle, who forthwith proceeded t? put mto Sweden w.ho, at the promptmg of France, declared war on her in
practice a scheme for the formation of a league to dismember July. A smgle ray of hope came from the truce in October 4
Austria and place the Elector of Bavaria on the Imperial throne. 3 between Maria Theresa, who felt unable to cope with both Prussia
The immediate result of these new developments was the and France, and Frederick, suspicious as usual of the motives of
advance into Germany of two French armies, each of some 30,000 his allies. But this was a meagre grain of comfort, and Walpole
men. The first, under Belleisle and Broglie, joined the Bavarians could scarcely have faced his new Parliament in more disadvan
and invaded Austria with such success that the King of Poland tageous circumstances.
(who was also Elector of Saxony), already fearful of antagonizing A ~efea.t at the P?lls, .however narrow, combined with a rapidly
Prussia, determined to desert Maria Theresa. By December the detei:10ratm~ war s~tu~t10n, could hardly be expected to promote
joint army had captured Prague. The second French force, under cordial relat10ns withm the Administration itself. Differences of
Maillebois, entered Westphalia in August in order to keep a opinion among the members of the ministry had long been a
watchful eye on Hanover and the United Provinces. George II, popular topic of conversation. As early as 1737 Lord Hervey had
despite the protests of his ministers, had crossed in May to his been maliciously insinuating to Walpole that Newcastle and Hard
German dominions, intent among other things on expediting the wicke were plottin~ to overthrow him;5 the following year Boling
despatch of 12,000 Danish and Hessian troops to the Queen of br?ke was sugges~11:1~ to _wyndhar:i !he expediency of exploiting
Hungary in accordance with England's treaty oblig.ations, and. on this suspected d1v1s10n m the mm1sterial ranks;s and with the
facilitating the movements of the English forces which were bemg development of the Spanish crisis in 1739 all London was said to
held at home in readiness to embark as soon as the King gave the be aware of the split in the Cabinet. 7 These rumours were doubtless
word. Unfortunately neither aim was long to be pursued. Although
1.T~is pro~ise was made in the Address-in-Reply to the King's Speech
secure in the knowledge that Parliament had guaranteed to protect
notifym~ Parliament of the measures intended for the support of Austria (see
1 On 14 April Parliament voted a subsidy of £300,000 for the purpose of Parl. Hist., XII, 154).
2 Add. MS. 35407, ff. 74-5 89-9i.
ass2i sTtihneg AMuasrtirai aTnh Aermesbaa.s sador in London. On Carteret ,s approaches to hi. m m. 3 Ibid., f. loo. '
1741, see H. Walpole to Cumberland, c. April 1741 (quoted in Coxe: Lord : Arranged b~ Lord J:Iyndford, the British Envoy to the Court of Berlin.
Walpole, II, 9-10). . Lor~ Hervey s Memoirs (ed. R. R. Sedgwick), III, 92, 102, l 12, 256, 258.
a The first concrete manifestations of this plan were the Franco-Prussian 6 Bolmgbroke to Wyndham, 3 February 1738 (quoted in Coxe: Walpole III
507). . ' ,
alliance of 25 May, and the Treaty of Nymphenburg between France, Spain,
and Bavaria on 28 May. 7 R. Trevor to H. Walpole snr, 28 August 1739 (quoted in ibid., III, 542).
..........................................
~~~----------