‘The King’s turnspit was a member of Parliament’: And other Tales from the Expanded Database of Court Officers 1660–1837

Abstract

In February 1780, Edmund Burke rose in the House of Commons to explain the impending loss of America and rail against political corruption in the speech on Economical Reform. Among the speech’s most effective rhetorical refrains was to remind the honourable members, repeatedly, that true reform of a corrupt, expensive and antiquated royal administration was impossible because ‘The King’s turnspit was a member of parliament’. But was he? The answer lies in the Database of Court Officers. Since 2005, the Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, hosted by Loyola University Chicago, has sought to provide an authoritative source for the career histories of every salaried member of the British royal household for this period. Prior to 2019 it included only the servants of the sovereign’s household, but in that year, it was expanded to include the forty-nine satellite courts of the various queens (consort, mother and dowager), as well as princes and princesses of the blood — a total of 21,000 officers and servants overall. The household, among its many ceremonial, social, and domestic functions, provided places for peers and members of Parliament — the vehicle of political influence and corruption that Burke decried and sought to reform. This article introduces the expanded database and establishes the size, expense, and opportunities for patronage of the combined royal households (sovereign’s and satellite courts) across the period. It concludes with an analysis of the number of peers and members of Parliament who held household office over time with a view towards establishing 1) the identity of the offending turnspit; and 2) whether the ‘corruption’ Burke called out (i.e., the contingent of peers and MPs with positions at court) was really so large or decisive as he and other reformers alleged, determining that it was neither of those things.

Notes

1 The author would like to thank Andrew Barclay, Liesbeth Geevers, Lily Cate Gunther-Canada, Wendy Gunther-Canada, Philip Mansel, Paul Seaward, Jonathan Spangler and the anonymous reader for The Court Historian for their wise criticism and advice on this article, and James Rubino and Rachel Talley for their help in-putting data from the Database of Court Officers [hereafter DCO] into the Excel spreadsheets upon which it is based. He also received indispensable assistance from Sir John Sainty, his original mentor and partner in this endeavour, who drafted many of the lists and indexes upon which the DCO is based; Sarah Deas, Annah Hackett, Charles Rooney and Lydia Wassman who drafted a number of satellite household lists; David Dennis, Kyle Roberts and George K. Thiruvathukal for essential technical support in uploading the database; Mary Addyman, Sophie Chessum, Erin Griffey and Newton Key for facilitating access to primary materials; and the Throckmorton family and the National Trust at Caughton Court for allowing him to examine a unique and essential establishment of the household of James, duke of York in their possession.

2 The Parliamentary History of England From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London, 1814), [hereafter PH] XXI, col. 33. The Duke of Richmond, in his address on the state of the nation in 1779, had made a similar connection: ‘The public expenditure, he said, was lavish and wasteful, to a shameful degree. Oeconomy, the most rigid and exact oeconomy, was become absolutely necessary … it is become indispensably necessary to adopt that true oeconomy, which, by reforming all useless expences, creates confidence in government, gives energy to its exertions, and provides the means for their continuance.’ PH XX, cols. 1257-8.

3 The physical and menial nature of much household service has made it easy to trivialize the institution in the eyes of its critics. In May 1815, George Tierney defended his motion for an examination of the civil list as follows: ‘As to the charge which had been brought against him as wishing to interfere with the internal arrangements of the household---with the scullions, turnspits, and he knew not what, it was foreign from his thoughts.’ The Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Present Time (London 1815) [hereafter PD] XXXI, col. 207.

4 For a brief summary of the country critique of the civil list as laid out in Burke’s speech, see E. A. Reitan, ‘The Civil List in Eighteenth Century British Politics: Parliamentary Supremacy versus the Independence of the Crown’, Historical Journal 9 (1966), pp. 320-2.

5 PH XXI, cols. 33-4. For other humorous assaults on the royal household, see ibid., cols. 65-6, 542-5; XXIII, col. 122.

6 PH XIX, cols. 175-8: Lord Talbot, during a debate in the Lords on arrears of the Civil List, 16 April 1777 expressed ‘how difficult it is to reform the menial servants of his Majesty’s household, when the profits are enjoyed by persons of a certain rank, and services performed by another. The fact I allude to, is, that one of the turnspits in his Majesty’s kitchen was, and I believe still is, a member of the other House. The poor man who performed the duty had 5l. a year for his trouble. Many similar instances might be mentioned.’

7 L. Namier and J. Brooke (eds), The House of Commons 1754–1790 (London, 1964), vol. III, pp. 670-1; R.G. Thorne (ed.), The House of Commons 1790–1820 (London, 1985), consulted online 10 February 2022 (WYNN, Thomas, 1st Baron Newborough [I] (1736-1807), of Glynllifon, Caern. | History of Parliament Online); Database of Court Officers 1660–1837, comp. R. O. Bucholz, J. C. Sainty et al. (1997-98, 2005, 2020): http://courtofficers.ctsdh.luc.edu/), Household Below Stairs List 2 sub Turnbroaches of the Kitchen; Master Index sub Wynn.

8 Wynn’s father was Sir John Wynn, deputy cofferer of the household circa 1743; while his grandfather, Sir Thomas Wynn, was clerk of the green cloth, in whose patronage field the turnbroaches lay, from 1727 to 1749. Indeed, the certificate of appointment indicates that Sir Thomas was the recommender: The National Archives/Public Record Office, [hereafter TNA/PRO], LS 13/201, f. 127v. This would seem to seal the identification — and deepen the degree of corruption. Admittedly, the remuneration for the place was but £30 per annum: TNA/PRO, LS 13/55.

9 Quoted in Namier and Brook, House of Commons 1754-1790 III, 670-71.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 TNA/PRO, LS 13/184, p. 137; TNA/PRO, LS 2/36.

13 See R. O. Bucholz, Introduction to Officials of the Royal Household, 1660–1837, Part I, comp. J. C. Sainty and R. O. Bucholz (1997), passim. For sale of office, see idem, ‘Venality at Court: Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Sale of Household Office, 1660–1800’, Historical Research 91 (2018), pp. 63-97.

14 See, for example, the debates over the civil list in 1971: after listing the thirty-three officers of the Queen Mother’s household, Willie Hamilton, member for Fife-West, posed the following question: ‘I ask the House: what the blazes do they all do? What do the ladies of the Bedchamber do that the women of the Bedchamber do not do? Why all the extras? Why all the reserves? No football team has so many reserves—three extra ladies of the Bedchamber, six extra women of the Bedchamber. What size of bedchamber is this? How many of them are paid?’ Hansard HC Deb (14 December 1971), vol. 828 cols. 347-48 available at CIVIL LIST (Hansard, 14 December 1971) (parliament.uk) consulted 11 February 2022. See also HC Deb (19 May 1971) vol. 817, cols. 1269-71 available at ELIZABETH, R. (Hansard, 19 May 1971) (parliament.uk), consulted 10 February 2022; HC Deb (20 May 1971) vol 817, cols. 1533-53 available at CIVIL LIST (SELECT COMMITTEE) (Hansard, 20 May 1971) (parliament.uk) consulted 10 February 2022; HC Deb (21 December 1971) vol 828, cols. 1323-81 available at CIVIL LIST BILL (Hansard, 21 December 1971) (parliament.uk) consulted 10 February 2022; HC Deb (19 January 1972) vol. 829, cols. 495-554 available at CIVIL LIST BILL (Hansard, 19 January 1972) (parliament.uk) consulted 10 February 2022. Debates over the Sovereign Grant Bill of 2011, which fundamentally reshaped the royal finances, were more decorous and respectful: see, especially, the comments of Edward Balls at the Second Reading, Hansard HC Deb (14 July 2011) vol. 531, col. 571 available at Sovereign Grant Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament consulted 10 February 2022. For the progress of and debate on the bill, see Hansard HC Deb (30 June 2011), vol. 530, cols. 1144-72 available at Civil List - Hansard - UK Parliament consulted 10 February 2022; HC Deb (14 July 2011), vol. 531, cols. 531-83 available at Sovereign Grant Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament consulted 10 February 2022; HL Deb (3 October 2011), vol. 730, cols. 960-71 available at Sovereign Grant Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament consulted 10 February 2022; HL Deb (18 October 2011), vol. 731, col. 155 available at https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2011-10-18/debates/9e3c32de-b9f5-4c1e-982f-68e0b78bafe3/Lords consulted 10 February 2022.

15 Officials of the Royal Household, 1660–1837, Parts I and II (Officeholders in Modern Britain vols XI and XIII). For an explanation of this categorization, see R. O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford, 1993), Appendix 1, pp. 255-6.

16 The more complete online versions of the sovereign’s household may be found at either http://courtofficers.ctsdh.luc.edu/ or https://www.british-history.ac.uk/office-holders/vol11. Apart from a different graphic and organizational scheme, the information contained on the two sites was, until 2020, identical. However, a revised and expanded DCO, adding officers and servants of satellite households of the royal family, the occasion of this article, was uploaded to the Loyola site in March 2020. These files have been supplied to BHO; it is hoped that they will be posted on its version of the website in future.

17 Available here: http://courtofficers.ctsdh.luc.edu/

18 TNA/PRO, E 407/1-2; LC 1/1-20; LC 3/2-22, 24-33, 73; LC 3/54-5; LC 3/56-70; LC 5/166; LC 7/1; LS 2/1-63; LS 13/7-10; LS 13/31-69; LS 13/197-204; LS 13/252-67; Staffordshire Record Office [hereafter SRO], Dartmouth MSS. ox D (w) 1778 (Stables Establishments 1669, 1682, 1685); Royal Archives, Windsor [hereafter RAW], MOH PB 1, EB 1-4, WB 1-5; A. Ashbee and J. Harley (eds), The Cheque Books of the Chapel Royal, 2 vols (Abingdon, 2018); E. and J. Chamberlayne, Angliae Notitia: or, the Present State of England (London, 22 edns, 1669–1704); J. Chamberlayne, Magnae Britanniae Notitia (London, 16 edns 1708–55); G. Miège, The New State of England (London, 6 edns, 1691–1707); idem., The Present State of Great Britain (London, 11 edns, 1707–48); The Court and City Register (London, 17 edns, 1743-1770); The Royal Kalendar (London, 66 edns, 1769–1837); The Present State of the British Court (London, 1720). The only really significant gaps in our knowledge of appointments to the sovereign’s household are for the subordinate Stables servants 1660–1667 and yeomen of the guard 1812–1837.

19 The personnel of the satellite households have been determined by examination of British Library [hereafter BL], Additional Manuscripts [hereafter Add. MS.] 15897, ff. 8-16, 33-43, 54-55; Add. MS. 17870-17893; Add. MS. 18958, ff. 3-13v; Add. MS. 24397-24398; Add. MS. 27543, f. 3; Add. MS. 28721, f. 3; Add. MS. 33045, ff. 21-192; Add. MS. 37836, ff. 1-12; Add. MS. 38863, ff. 11-12; Add. MS. 61492, ff. 232-251v; Add. MS. 74066, nos. 66-69; Add. MS. 75388-75389; Add. MS. 78269, ff. 66-69; Egerton MS. 3492; Stow MS. 564, ff. 2-15; 566; TNA/PRO, SP 29/1, f. 129; 26, f. 115v; 98, f. 212; 151, f. 139; T 38/509, 526-545; National Library of Scotland, Adv. MS 31.1.22; William Andrews Clark Library, Los Angeles California, Register of Appointments, Household of Mary II 1689–1694; notes taken and kindly lent by Prof. Erin Griffey on Duchy of Cornwall Office, London Roll 743; Hertfordshire R.O., Panshanger, MS. D/E Na 02; John Rylands Library, University of Manchester, NP 35; SRO, Dartmouth MSS. ox D (w) 1778/V/132-33; Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, Reymes Papers 865/438, 441; RAW EB 14, 18, 20-27, 30, 43, 48; Worcestershire R.O., Throckmorton Papers, Caughton Court CR 1998/SS2/1; Chamberlayne, Angliæ Notitia (1669–1707); Chamberlayne, Magnæ Britanniæ Notitia (1708–55); Miège, New State of England (1691–1707); idem., Present State of Great Britain (1707–48); Court and City Register (1743–1770); Royal Kalendar (1769–1837); Present State of the British Court; HMC VIII App., pp. 277-281; J. C. M. Weale (ed.), Registers of the Catholic Chapels Royal and of the Portuguese Embassy Chapel, 1662–1829 (Leeds, 1941), pp. xxix-xxxiii.

20 To be exact, the DCO comprises entries on 21,108 individual household servants conveyed over 4,364 pages. The word ‘every’, above, should be qualified by the fact that it has not yet been possible to find reliable sources for the household of Henry, duke of Gloucester during its brief existence in the summer of 1660.

21 This figure is the result of the work of two Loyola undergraduate interns, Messrs. Jeffrey Lynch and Aidan Kyle.

22 If we restrict the inquiry to those who held office concurrently with their parliamentary service, the proportions are far lower: 539 Westminster MPs and 385 peers in the English, British or United Kingdom House of Lords, or 2.6 per cent and 1.8 per cent, respectively, of the personnel encompassed in the DCO.

23 For this insight, I am indebted to my Loyola colleague, Professor Jo Hays.

24 A. Barclay, ‘Charles II’s Failed Restoration: Administrative Reform Below Stairs, 1660–4’, in E. Cruickshanks (ed.), The Stuart Courts (Thrupp, Stroud, Gloucestershire, 2000), pp. 158-70. See also C. D. Chandaman, The English Public Revenue 1660–1688 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 262-4, 268, 270-3, and chap. 6, passim. For the relationship among size of establishment, expenditure, and the resultant need for retrenchment, see also Bucholz, Officials of the Royal Household/DCO, Introduction.

25 A. Barclay, ‘The Impact of James II on the Departments of the Royal Household’, PhD thesis (Cambridge University, 1993). Admittedly, necessity forced the revival of some places over the next few years, inflating the establishment to 864 by Michaelmas 1688.

26 See H. Smith, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 1714–1760 (Cambridge, 2006), esp. chapter 2; Bucholz, Introduction, Officials of the Royal Household/DCO, especially Figures 5-6, pp. xcvii-xcviii, the latter herein revised and expanded to include the expense of satellite courts as Figure 2. Sources for Figure 2: For the period 1660–88, the tables of Exchequer issues to Household departments in Chandaman, English Public Revenue, App. 3, pp. 350-1, 354-5, 358-9, 362-3, adding figures for ‘Household,’ ‘Wardrobe,’ ‘Chamber,’ ‘Privy Purse,’ ‘Master of the Horse,’ ‘Works,’ ‘Building in Windsor Castle,’ ‘Parks,’ ‘Extraordinary Repairs,’ ‘Robes,’ ‘Revels,’ ‘Jeweller,’ ‘Goldsmith,’ ‘Stables,’ ‘Tents and Toils,’ ‘Gentlemen Pensioners,’ ‘Liveries,’ ‘Messengers,’ ‘Grooms of the Chamber,’ ‘Queen Consort,’ ‘Queen Mother,’ and ‘Prince of Wales,’ and sources for officers paid at the Exchequer, noted below. Because most of the revenue awarded to Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza and James, duke of York came in form of grants of land or concessions out of the Wine Licenses, Post Office, etc., that did not pass through the Exchequer, the author has been forced to rely on fragmentary accounts and rough estimates provided by E. Griffey, On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence at the Stuart Court (New Haven, 2015), p. 202; J. Miller, James II: A Study in Kingship (New Haven, 2000), p. 42; and Chandaman, English Public Revenue, pp. 111-2, 115, 208n. For the period 1688–1838, tables of Exchequer issues contained in H.W. Chisholm, ‘Accounts of Public Income and Expenditure 1688–1868,’ Parliamentary Papers 1868-9, vol. 35 (366), pt. i, pp. 4-391; pt. ii, pp. 8-81, adding, for 1688–1785, figures for ‘H. M.'s Privy Purse,’ ‘H. M.'s Household,’ and ‘Works;’ for 1785–1831 figures for Classes 1 (King's Privy Purse only), 4 and 5; for 1831–8, figures for Classes 1 (King’s Privy Purse only), 2 and 3; for all periods, issues to additional members of the royal family; and the additional sources noted below. These sources do not distinguish the salaries paid at the Exchequer to household servants from the general account of salaries so paid. This information has been derived for the period 1660–1714 from TNA/PRO, E 403/2203-14 (Exchequer Issues on Debentures); BL, Add. MS 18765, ff. 57-80; and the records of issues in W.A. Shaw (ed.), Calendars of Treasury Books (London, 1904-1962), vols I-XXXI, esp. vol. V, pp. 904, 968, 1006. For the reign of George I, Beattie’s average of £29,040 has been used (J. M. Beattie, The English Court in the Reign of George I [Cambridge, 1967], p. 112). For the period 1729–45 see the tables of issues in Calendar of Treasury Books and Papers [hereafter CTBP] (London, 1897–1903), 1729–30, pp. 278-94, 539-606; CTBP 1731–4, pp. 152-97, 308-52, 468-515, 631-78; CTBP 1735–8, pp. 97-144, 239-81, 397-448, 569-622; CTBP 1739–41, pp. 134-96, 358-418, 564-616; CTBP 1742–5, pp. 158-207, 388-432, 600-42, 793-826; for the period 1752-69, Journals of the House of Commons [hereafter CJ], 32, pp. 466-597; for 1769–76, ibid. 36, pp. 337-98; for 1784–6, ibid. 41, pp. 638-46; for 1786–91, ibid. 46, pp. 594-6; for 1791–5, ibid. 47, pp. 774-81; for 1796–9, ibid. 54, pp. 271-4, 279-82, 287-90; for 1799–1802, ibid. 57, pp. 751-4, 759-62, 767-70; for 1803–4, ibid. 59, pp. 637-40; for 1804–11, ibid. 67, pp. 791-829; for 1812–15, ibid. 70, pp. 926-7; for 1815–16, ibid. 71, pp. 950-2; for 1820–30, ibid. 86, pp. cclxiv-cclxix; for 1830–8, Parliamentary Papers [hereafter PP] 1837–8, xxiii, pp. 27 and following. For the periods 1727–9 and 1745–52 an average based on expenditure during the years 1729–45 (£32,433) has been used. For 1776–83, the average for the period 1760–76 (£33,851) has been used; for 1798–1800, an average for 1795–8 (£14,555); for a three-quarter gap 1811–12, 3/4 of the annual average figure for 1810–11 and 1812–13 (£11,467) has been used. For 1816–20 the estimate contained in CJ, 71, pp. 960-1 and implemented by 56 Geo. III, c. 46 (£,10,655) has been used.

27 See Bucholz, Officials of the Royal Household, Introduction.

28 For example, the household of the short-lived James, duke of Cambridge 1663–67 employed just twelve servants as did that of the soon to emigrate James, prince of Wales in 1688. That for Lady Katherine (1671) employed five, for Lady Isabella (1677–80), seven. As Figure 3 indicates, the longer-lived Mary and Anne accumulated larger establishments. The figure presents these households in order of establishment, but depicts them at their greatest size, peak years being indicated in parenthesis.

29 The households of James II, Mary Beatrice and their children continued, of course, at St. Germain-en-Laye: see the definitive work of Edward Corp, especially A Court in Exile: the Stuarts in France 1689–1718 (Cambridge, 2009). Servants of Mary II and George of Denmark were pensioned off and sometimes found places in the main household.

30 While the Prince Regent and the royal dukes maintained impressive lists of artists and chaplains, important sources of career patronage and advancement for those so listed, these appear to have been, for the most part, unsalaried, their service occasional.

31 Compare the murky financial arrangements of Henrietta Maria, Catherine of Braganza and James duke of York with those of, say, Princess Amelia, the duke of Cumberland or any of the children of George III: DCO, Introductions to Household lists for those personages; Chandaman, English Public Revenue, pp. 26n, 111-2, 117, 120, 121, 261, 336-7; Chamberlayne, Angliae Notitia [1669 1st ed.], p. 311; TNA/PRO, LS 13/7-9; LS 13/32; SP Dom. 29/47 no. 117; R. Latham and W. Matthews (eds.), The Diary of Samuel Pepys (London, 1970), vol. III, pp. 234-5; R. Hutton, The Restoration: a Political and Religious History of England and Wales 1658–1667 (Oxford, 1985), p. 189; F. C. Turner, James II (New York, 1948), p. 69n; J. Miller, James II: a Study in Kingship (New Haven, 2000), p. 42; H. W. Chisholm, ‘Accounts of Public Income and Expenditure 1688–1868,’ PP 1868–9, 35 (366), pt. i, pp. 4-391; pt. ii, pp. 8-81, usefully summarized pp. 607-16. Admittedly, as with the later Stuarts, the latter does not include income that did not pass through the Exchequer.

32 PH XXI, col. 347

33 The honourable exceptions may be found in note 34, below, especially the work of Holmes, McCahill and Large. See also B. W. Hill, ‘Executive Monarchy and the Challenge of Parties 1689–1832: Two Concepts of Government and Two Historical Interpretations’, Historical Journal 13 (1970), pp. 379-401; D. A. Rubini, ‘Party and the Augustan Constitution 1694–1716: Party and the Politics of the Executive’, Albion 10 (1979), pp. 193-208; and, especially, the critique in J.C.D. Clark, ‘The Decline of Party 1740–1760’, English Historical Review 93 (1978), pp. 499-527.

34 Sources, Figures 6-9: DCO compared to G. E. Cokayne, V. Gibbs and H. A. Doubleday (eds.), The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom (14 vols, London, 1910-59); The History of Parliament 1660–1832, Introductions by B. D. Henning, D. W. Hayton, R. Sedgwick, J. Brooke, R. G. Thorne, D. R. Fisher, and R. Paley (1964–2016); G. S. Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London, 1967), pp. 121, 360, 436-9; idem., The Making of a Great Power: Late Stuart and Early Georgian Britain: 1660–1722 (London, 1993), pp. 44, 165, 407; G. M. Ditchfield, ‘The House of Lords in the Age of the American Revolution’, in C. Jones, (ed.), A Pillar of the Constitution: The House of Lords in British Politics, 1640–1784 (London, 1989), Table 1, p. 201; M.W. McCahill, The House of Lords in the Age of George III (1760–1811) (Chichester, 2009), Tables 4.1, pp. 99-100, 5.1, p. 130; idem., ‘The Party of the Crown’, Parliamentary History 28 (2009), esp. p. 213; D. Large, ‘The Decline of the Party of the Crown 1783–1837’, English Historical Review 78 (1963), pp. 684-85, 690; B. W. Hill, The Growth of Political Parties 1689–1742 (London, 1976), p. 190; J. Hoppit, Land of Liberty: England 1689–1727 (Oxford, 2000), pp. 44, 165, 409; J. B. Owen, The Eighteenth Century 1714–1815 (London, 1974), p. 103; G. Williams and J. Ramsden, Ruling Britannia: A Political History of Great Britain 1688–1988 (London, 1990), p. 8; D. Beales, From Castlereagh to Gladstone 1815–1885 (London, 1969), p. 80.

35 For 1660–1715, see R. Paley, ‘The Size of the House’, Table 1.2, Introduction, The House of Lords 1660–1715 (London, 2016), vol. I, p. 34; for 1762–1783, see Ditchfield, ‘The House of Lords in the Age of the American Revolution’, Table 1, p. 201. (It is assumed that Ditchfield's Column 2, ‘Total No. of Peers Entitled to Attend at Start of Session’, includes bishops and Scottish representative peers); for 1760–61 and 1784–1810, see McCahill, The House of Lords in the Age of George III, Table 4.1, pp. 99-100; for 1830, see Large, ‘Decline of the Party of the Crown’, English Historical Review 78 (1963), p. 691, n. 6.

36 See J. V. Beckett and C. Jones, ‘Introduction: The Peerage and the House of Lords in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries’, in Jones (ed.) A Pillar of the Constitution, p. 5; A. Hanham, ‘The Politics of Chivalry: Sir Robert Walpole, the Duke of Montagu and the Order of the Bath’, Parliamentary History 35 (2016), p. 271; R. Eagles, ‘“A Reward for so Meritorious an Action”? Lord Hervey’s Summons to the House of Lords and Walpole’s Management of the Upper Chamber (1727–42)’, Parliamentary History 39 (2020), pp. 147-8.

37 C. Jones, ‘The Division that Never was: New Evidence on the Aborted vote in the Lords on 8 December 1711 on “No peace without Spain”’, Parliamentary History 2 (1983), pp. 191-202; idem., ‘“The scheme lords, the necessitous lords and the Scots lords”: the Earl of Oxford’s Management of the “Party of the Crown” in the House of Lords, 1711–14’, in C. Jones (ed.), Party and Management in Parliament, 1660–1784, (Leicester, 1984), pp. 123-67; idem, ‘Lord Oxford’s Jury: The Political and Social Context of the Twelve Peers, 1711–12’, Parliamentary History 24 suppl (2005), pp. 9-42.

38 See notes 33 and 34 for such estimates as the author has been able to uncover, esp. McCahill, House of Lords in the Age of George III, Table 5.1, p. 130, which offers ten estimates of the size of the government interest in the Lords ranging from 1761 to 1807.

39 Diary of Mary, Countess Cowper, Lady of the Bedchamber to the Princess of Wales 1714–1720 (1864), p. 161. For the first ‘Leicester House’ opposition 1717–20, see Hoppit, Land of Liberty?, pp. 402-3, 414-7; W. A Speck, Stability and Strife: England 1740–1760 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977), pp. 121, 196. For the second, see ibid., pp. 236-8, 251; A. Newman, ‘Leicester House Politics, 1748–1761’, English Historical Review 76 (1961), pp. 577-89; R. Eagles, ‘Frederick, Prince of Wales, the “Court” at Leicester House and the “Patriot” Opposition to Walpole c. 1733–1742,’ The Court Historian 21 (2016), pp. 140-56. See also M. W. McCahill, ‘The House of Lords in the 1760s’, in Jones (ed.), A Pillar of the Constitution, pp. 166-187 for the unreliability of ‘the party of the Crown’ in the 1760s and idem., ‘House of Lords in the Age of George III’, pp. 137-40, 147 across the whole of that reign.

40 See, for example, McCahill, ‘House of Lords in the 1760s’, pp. 175-83; Ditchfield, ‘House of Lords in the Age of the American Revolution’, pp. 211-12.

41 Large, ‘Decline of the Party of the Crown’, pp. 684-5, 690; McCahill, ‘Party of the Crown’, esp. p. 213.

42 See notes 33 and 34.

43 I am grateful to Dr Andrew Barclay for suggesting these questions.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

R. O. Bucholz

R. O. Bucholz

R. O. Bucholz is Professor of History at Loyola University Chicago. He is the author or co-author of several books, including The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford, 1993) and the Project Director of The Database of Court Officers 1660–1837 (http://courtofficers.ctsdh.luc.edu/).