Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:07:17.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parties, Connections, and Parliamentary Politics, 1689-1714: Review and Revision*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Henry Horwitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The notion that parliamentary politics in the days of William III and Queen Anne revolved around the conflict of the Whig and Tory parties is deeply rooted in the historiography of the later seventeenth century. Nourished by the many contemporary references to the existence and activities of the Whig and Tory parties, the “two-party concept” had its first flowering in the nineteenth century and came to full blossom in the early decades of the twentieth in the works of W. C. Abbott, K. G. Feiling, W. T. Morgan, and G. M. Trevelyan.

The canons of orthodoxy of one generation of historians, however, have often proved to be little more than the cannon fodder of their successors. In this case, it was one of Abbott's own students, Robert Walcott, who has led the way in the task of reinterpretation. As early as 1941, Walcott — remarking upon the obscurity enveloping accounts of party groupings in the period 1689 to 1714 — advanced the hypothesis that “the description of party organization under William and Anne which Trevelyan suggested in his Romanes Lecture on the two-party system is less applicable to our period than the detailed picture of eighteenth-century politics which emerges from Professor Namier's volumes on the Age of Newcastle.”

Walcott's invocation of Sir Lewis's studies of mid-eighteenth-century politics was, of course, a testimony to the advance in historical methodology that had gained prominence with the appearance in 1929 of The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , November 1966 , pp. 45 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1966

Access options

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

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my thanks to G. S. Holmes of Glasgow University and W. A. Speck of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne whose comments and criticism have contributed no little to the final shape of this essay. H. H.

References

1. For references and a fuller sketch of the development of the “two-party concept,” see Walcott, Robert, “The Idea of Party in the Writing of Later Stuart History,” J.B.S., I (1962), 54–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Walcott, Robert, “English Party Politics (1688-1714),” Essays m Modern English History in Honor of Wilbur Cortez Abbott (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), p. 131Google Scholar.

3. See SirNeale, John, “The Biographical Approach to History,” reprinted in Essays in Elizabethan History (New York, 1958), pp. 226–27Google Scholar; Aydelotte, W. O., “A Statistical Analysis of the Parliament of 1841: Some Problems of Method,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXVII (1954), 142–44Google Scholar.

4. Walcott, Robert, English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1956), p. viCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. See in addition to the works already cited, Walcott, Robert, “Division L'sts of the House of Commons, 1689-1715,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XIV (1936–1937)Google Scholar, and “The East India Interest in the General Election of 1700-1701,” E.H.R., LXXI (1956)Google Scholar.

6. W. R. Fryer observed that Walcott's “view might be summed up as the interpretation of Sir Lewis Namier, extended backwards to this earlier period.” Fryer, W. R., “The Study of British Politics between the Revolution and the Reform Act,” Renaissance and Modern Studies, I (1957), 103Google Scholar.

7. SirNamier, Lewis, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2nd ed.; London, 1957), p. xiGoogle Scholar; Walcott, , English Politics, p. 156Google Scholar.

8. See, however, the laudatory review by Hexter, J. H., A.H.R., XLVII (1941–1942), 329.Google Scholar

9. For example, one reviewer remarked that Walcott's main findings “have generally been accepted.” MacDougall, D. J., “Some Recent Books in British History,” C.H.R., XXXVIII (1957), 140Google Scholar.

10. Wilkes, J. W., William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XIV (1957), 118.Google Scholar

11. Coates, W. H., J.M.H., XXIX (1957), 128–29Google Scholar. And see the reviews by Barnes, D. G., A.H.R., LXII (1956–1957), 192–93Google Scholar; and Murray, J. J., Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCVII (1956), 166.Google Scholar

12. Thomson, M. A., History, new series, XLII (1957), 153.Google Scholar

13. London Times Literary Supplement, LV (1956), 147.Google Scholar Similar reservations were voiced by Hughes, W. H., New Statesman and Nation, new series, LI (1956), 459–60Google Scholar; and Plumb, J. H., E.H.R., LXXII (1957), 126–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Walcott, , “Idea of Party,” J.B.S., I (1962), 61Google Scholar.

15. Ibid.

16. Walcott, Robert, “The Later Stuarts (1660-1714): Significant Work of the Last Twenty Years (1939-1959),” A.H.R., LXVI (1961–1962), 359Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., LXVI, 353.

18. Apart from the Portland MSS (on loan to the British Museum and the University of Nottingham), none of these collections begins to compare in scope with the Newcastle or Hardwicke Papers, but the number of smaller collections is quite considerable—e.g., the Jersey MSS deposited in the Middlesex Record Office, the Downshire MSS deposited in the Berkshire Record Office, and the Dartmouth MSS deposited in the William Salt Library.

19. I refer here only to published work, though I am aware that two volumelength studies to be published shortly—E. L. Ellis's work on the Junto and G. S. Holmes's work on British politics in the age of Anne — have similar implications.

20. See especially Jones, James R., The First Whigs (London, 1961), pp. 1–4Google Scholar. By way of refutation see Walcott, Robert, The Tudor-Stuart Period of English History (1485-1714): A Review of Changing Interpretations [No. 58, A.H.A. Service Center for Teachers of History] (New York, 1964), p. 20Google Scholar.

21. Sperling, J. G., “The Division of 25 May 1711, on an Amendment to the South Sea Bill: A Note on the Reality of Parties in the Age of Anne,” Historical Journal, IV (1961)Google Scholar; Speck, W. A., “The Choice of a Speaker in 1705,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXVII (1964)Google Scholar.

22. Aydelotte, “Statistical Analysis,” ibid., XXVII, 142.

23. Plumb, J. H., “Elections to the House of Commons in the Reign of William III” (Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar; Ellis, E. L., “The Whig Junto in Relation to the Development of Party Politics and Party Organization from Its Inception to 1714” (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar; and Speck, W. A., “The House of Commons 1702-1714 — A Study in Political Organisation” (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1966)Google Scholar.

24. Walcott, , English Politics, p. viGoogle Scholar.

25. Price, J. M., “Party, Purpose, and Pattern: Sir Lewis Namier and His Critics,” J.B.S., I (1961), 84Google Scholar.

26. Walcott, , English Politics, p. 33Google Scholar.

27. For an account of Nottingham, see Horwitz, Henry, “The Political Career of Daniel Finch, Second Earl of Nottingham (1647-1730)” (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar.

28. Walcott, , English Politics, pp. 59-60, 103-04, 115Google Scholar.

29. Ibid., pp. 53-60.

30. Since 1956, four new partial or complete division lists for the 1689-1714 period have been located. That of October 1705 has been published by Speck, , “Choice of a Speaker,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXVIIGoogle Scholar; that of May 1711 by Sperling, , “Division of 25 May 1711,” Historical Journal, IVGoogle Scholar; that of December 1711 by Holmes, G.S., “The Commons' Division on ‘No Peace without Spain’, 7 December 1711,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXIII (1960)Google Scholar; and that of November 1696 will shortly be published by E. Rowlands.

31. Walcott, , English Politics, pp. 56–57Google Scholar.

32. Ibid., p. 68.

33. Ibid., p. 56. Barrington and St. John seem to have been on good terms, for in 1714 Barrington's aid was invoked by patronage seekers trying to reach St. John (now Secretary of State and a peer). West Sussex Record Office, Sir R. Everard to Sir E. Turner, Feb. 15, 1714, Winterton Letters, 277.

34. Walcott, , English Politics, p. 56Google Scholar; Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Time (Oxford, 1833), III, 89Google Scholar. See also Nottingham's own reference to the “ill will to the memory of my father” displayed by the first Lord Guilford. Leicestershire Record Office, Finch MSS, Political Papers 148 (an autobiographical fragment), p. 7.

35. The six consist of the five “Finch candidates” — William Ashbumham (Hastings), William Cage (Rochester), Sir Edward Knatchbull (Rochester), John Michell (Sandwich), and Edward Southwell (Rye) — referred to by Walcott, , English Politics, p. 103Google Scholar, plus George Clarke (Winchelsea) who is described as a “successful Finch nominee” in ibid., p. 220.

36. For Lord Ashburnham's interest at Hastings, see East Sussex Record Office, Ashbumham MSS, 843 passim and 844, p. 34. Lord Ashburnham's other candidate at Hastings in 1702, John Pulteney (also successful), was certainly no friend to Nottingham. Indeed, he was forced to resign his post in the Ordinance in May 1703 after being accused of spreading a libel against the Earl. Horwitz, , “Political Career of Nottingham,” pp. 393–94Google Scholar.

37. East Sussex Record Office, Lord Ashbumham to Southwell, July 11 and 14, 1702, Ashbumham MSS, 844, pp. 35-37.

38. Walcott, , English Politics, pp. 220, 223–24Google Scholar; Bodleian, Hammond's Commonplace Book, Rawlinson MSS, A245, fol. 68.

39. E.g., the meager evidence for Sir Charles Hedges's membership (and hence that of Edward Pauncefoot and John Ellis) in the “Finch connection” referred to by Walcott must be weighed against the views expressed at this time that he was a henchman of the Earl of Rochester. Walcott, , English Politics, p. 210Google Scholar; Algemeen Rijksarchief, L'Hermitage to Heinsius, Jan. 6 and May 5, 1702 (new style), Archief Antonie Heinsius, 792, fols. 18, 217; BM, Sloane MSS, 3516, fol. 49 (a piece of political doggerel directed against Rochester).

40. See the comments on the “Newcastle-Pelham-Townshend-Walpole connection” by Plumb in his review of Walcott's, book, E.H.R., LXXII, 127–28Google Scholar; and by Davies, O. F. R., “The Wealth and Influence of John Holies, Duke of Newcastle 1694-1711,” Renaissance and Modern Studies, IX (1965), 38–40Google Scholar.

41. Walcott, , English Politics, p. 35Google Scholar.

42. Ibid.

43. Horwitz, , “Political Career of Nottingham,” pp. 493–98Google Scholar.

44. Parke, G. (ed.), Letters and Correspondence … of Henry St. John (London, 1798), II, 48Google Scholar, note; Berkshire Record Office, R. Bridges to Sir W. Trumbull, Dec. 14, 1711, Downshire MSS, 136, bundle 1; Holmes, , “Commons' Division on ‘No Peace Without Spain’,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXIII, 227Google Scholar.

45. Northamptonshire Record Office, Nottingham to his wife Anne, Dec. 16 and 26, 1711, Finch-Hatton MSS, 281.

46. Even Nottingham's son-in-law Sir Roger Mostyn and the Earl's cousin Sir Edward Knatchbull (who, six years earlier, had been characterized by Lord Halifax as “a creature of Lord Nottingham”) remained loyal to Oxford—the former until 1713, the latter until the Lord Treasurer's own ouster. BM, W. Bromley to Oxford, Sep. 1, 1712, Portland Loan, 128, bundle 3; Blenheim Palace, Halifax to the Duchess of Marlborough, May 10, 1705, Churchill MSS, E36; Newman, A. N., “Proceedings in the House of Commons, March-June 1714,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXIV (1961), 214Google Scholar.

47. BM, Stowe MSS, 354, fols. 151-52. There is another copy of this list, with annotations by the Duke of Leeds, at BM, Egerton MSS, 3345, bundle 2.

48. BM, Add. MSS, 47087 (no foliation).

49. Horwitz, , “Political Career of Nottingham,” pp. 504–23Google Scholar.

50. Price, , “Party, Purpose, and Pattern,” J.B.S., I (1961), 88–89Google Scholar.

51. Walcott, “Idea of Party,” ibid., I (1962), 55.

52. Walcott, , English Politics, p. 34Google Scholar.

53. Ibid., pp. 156-60; Walcott, , “English Party Politics (1688-1714),” Essays in Modern English History, pp. 82–86Google Scholar.

54. Speck, , “Choice of a Speaker,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXVII, 34–35Google Scholar; Sperling, , “Division of 25 May 1711,” Historical Journal, IV, 202Google Scholar.

55. See explanatory notes in the appendix.

56. Since the compiler uses the symbol x only in the columns containing the names of M.P.s sitting in both the old and the new Parliaments and uses the symbol + in the columns containing the names of members of the 1695-98 Parliament who were not re-elected as well as in those containing the names of the new members of the 1698-1701 Parliament, and since he then adds the numbers of those with x and + together and compares their total with the number of those with √, I have taken the symbols x and + as equivalents.

57. The 1699 list is printed with an explanation by Browning, A., Thomas Osborne Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds 1632-1712 (Glasgow, 1944 and 1951), III, 213–17Google Scholar.

58. For the divisions used in this tabulation, see the notes to Table II below.

59. SirFeiling, Keith, A History of the Tory Party 1640-1714 (Oxford, 1924), p. 331Google Scholar.

60. The eleven members with straight “Tory” records for William's reign are James Brydges (Hereford), Sir Francis Child (Devizes), George Churchill (St. Albans), William Clayton (Liverpool), Sir Thomas Cooke (Colchester), Anthony Duncomb (Hedon), William Ettricke (Christchurch), Francis Godolphin (Helston, 1695-98), Bernard Granville (Lostwithiel, 1695-98), John Miller (Chichester), Robert Payne (Gloucester); the three with straight “Whig” records are Sir Robert Clayton (Bletchingly), Sir John Fagge (Steyning), and Sir William Yorke (Boston).

61. I am indebted to G. S. Holmes for bringing this to my attention.

62. References by contemporaries to the Court-versus-Country orientation of politics at this juncture are quite frequent. See, for example, the letter of Vernon, James cited by Feiling, , History of the Tory Party, p. 329Google Scholar, note 2; Chatsworth House, Robert Harley to Henry Boyle, Nov. 16, 1698, MSS 102.0.

63. The list of those who refused at first to take the Association is printed by Browning, , Danby, III, 194–213.Google Scholar

64. Inclusion of the Nov. 1696 division list would only confirm this point.

65. If one opts for the alternative explanation of the 1698 list — that it was a “Whig-Tory” list — this conclusion is only reinforced.

66. Speck, , “Choice of a Speaker,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXXVII, 35Google Scholar.

67. There is also extant for this Parliament a partial list of “interests” at BM, Portland Loan, 35, bundle 12.

68. See also the comments of Fryer, , “Study of British Politics,” Renaissance and Modern Studies, I, 103–04Google Scholar.

69. William Lord Cheyne (Buckinghamshire and Agmondesham), John Lord Cutts (Cambridgeshire and Newport, Hants.), John Speccot (Cornwall and Saltash), John Tanner (Grampound and St. Germans), Charles Trelawney (East Looe and Plymouth), James Vernon (Penryn and Westminster), Sir Edward Seymour (Exeter and Totness), Sir Rowland Gwynn (Beeralston and Breconshire), Sir Joseph Williamson (Rochester and Thetford), Sir William Thomas (Sussex and Seaford), Charles Fox (Salisbury and Cricklade), Thomas Foley, Jr. (Stafford and Droitwich), Sir John Hawles (Michael and Beeralston), John Morrice (Newport, Cora, and Saltash), and Thomas Morgan (Monmouthshire and Brecon).

70. Montague Drake (Agmondesham), Charles Lord Cheyney (Newport, Corn.), Alexander Pendarves (Penryn), James Mountague (Tregony), John Bagnold (Derby), John Dutton Colt (Leominster), William Tulse (New Lymington), Richard More (Bishop's Castle), George Hungerford (Calne), William Daniell (Marlborough), William Wentworth (Aldborough), Sir Robert Owen (Carnarvon), and Thomas Ravenscroft (Flint).