We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
In the past twenty years there has been a renaissance in Jacobite studies in Britain and North America. It started with the publication in 1970 of Romney Sedgwick's The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1715–1754, in which the post-1715 Tory party was resurrected from the untimely death to which earlier historiography had consigned it in the face of the so-called Whig hegemony under Walpole and his successors. This section of Sedgwick's volumes was the work of Eveline Cruickshanks, who not only showed that there had been an active Tory party under Walpole, but also claimed that it had been essentially a Jacobite party. Dr. Cruickshanks has, since 1970, produced a book, several articles, and essays expanding her thesis. She has been joined in the quest for Jacobites by many others, and the flow of work on Jacobitism seems unabated. This body of work has, however, left other historians with a good deal of unease, not only over the conclusions reached, but also the methodology used and the sources upon which these conclusions are based (most notably the uncritical use of the Stuart Papers in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle).
I would like to thank David Hayton and Stephen Taylor for reading an early draft of this essay. My ideas about Mary Caesar and her writings, as a source for the history of Jacobitism, owe a great deal to the work of Valerie Rumbold, though she would not necessarily share my views on Jacobite historiography. I wish to thank Dr. Rumbold for allowing me to read her essay, “The Jacobite Vision of Mary Caesar,” before publication and for answering my queries arising from it. Quotations from the Stuart Papers in the Royal Archives, Windsor Castle, are by the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen.
1 The most comprehensive critique has been Colley's, LindaIn Defiance of Oligarchy: the Tory Party, 1714–60 (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 A brief but excellent analysis of the problems of Jacobite historiography and the sources involved can be found in Gregg, Edward, Jacobitism (London, 1988), pp. 5–7Google Scholar. See also Monod, Paul K., Jacobitism and the English People, 1688–1788 (Cambridge, 1989). pp. 1–12Google Scholar.
3 The present author hopes to publish a full study of Cowper's opposition group.
4 They were mainly radical nonconformists (mostly Quakers) in the 1690s and early 1700s. For an example, Charlwood Lawton, see Erskine-Hill, Howard, “Literature and the Jacobite Cause: Was There a Rhetoric of Jacobitism?” in Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1789, ed. Cruickshanks, Eveline (Edinburgh, 1982), pp. 51, 63n 27Google Scholar. For a later example, George Heathcote, see Sedgwick, Romney, The House of Commons, 1715–1754, 2 vols. (London, 1970), 2: 121–22Google Scholar.
5 Colley, , In Defiance of Oligarchy, pp. 49, 313Google Scholar.
6 Foord, A. S., His Majesty's Opposition, 1714–1830 (Oxford, 1964), p. 74Google Scholar.
7 John, Lord Campbell, The Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal of England, 8 vols., 2nd. ser. (London, 1846–1869), 4: 380–429Google Scholar; Realey, C. B., The Early Opposition to Sir Robert Walpole, 1720–1727 (Lawrence, Kans., 1931)Google Scholar.
8 Foord, , His Majesty's Opposition, p. 74Google Scholar.
9 Sometimes rendered “Berford” in the Stuart Papers.
10 Cruickshanks, Eveline, “Lord North, Christopher Layer and the Atterbury Plot: 1720–23,” in The Jacobite Challenge, ed. Cruickshanks, Eveline and Black, Jeremy (Edinburgh, 1988), pp. 96, 101, 105 ns 17–18Google Scholar. Walpole's opinion was recorded by Dudley Ryder. See also Sedgwick, , House of Commons, 1: 108–09Google Scholar for Walpole's comment in 1743 that “Lord Cowper himself had been reconciled to the Pretender” (also from Ryder's diary).
11 Rumbold, Valerie, “The Jacobite Vision of Mary Caesar,” in Women/Writing/History, 1640–1740, ed. Grundy, Isobel and Wiseman, Susan (London, 1992)Google Scholar. See also Rumbold, , Women's Place in Pope's World (Cambridge, 1989), ch. 8Google Scholar. All unacknowledged quotations in the following section are from “The Jacobite Vision of Mary Caesar.”
12 B.L., Add. MS. 62558 (Mary Caesar's book), f. 1. She heard of Oxford's death on 30 May 1724, so ff. 1–17 were possibly written in June or shortly thereafter. The references to Cowper appear on ff. 10–16 and 27.
13 See the case of the third Earl of Essex in Rumbold, Women's Place in Pope's World, ch. 8. See also Monod, , Jacobitism and the English People, pp. 289–91Google Scholar for other examples of the cult of memorabilia, including portraits, among Jacobites.
14 B.L., Add. MS. 62558, f. 16. See also “Mr Cesar had the Honor and Pleasure of a perfect Friendship with that great Man” (f. 15).
15 See, e.g., Hertfordshire Record Office, D/EP F31, Panshanger Papers, pp. 258–59, diary of Sarah, Lady Cowper (1706). I am indebted to David Hayton for this reference.
16 Windsor Castle, Royal Archives, Stuart Papers 65/16 [hereafter cited as R.A., S.P.], printed in Sedgwick, , House of Commons, 1: 109–13Google Scholar, and Fritz, P. S., The English Ministers and Jacobitism Between the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745 (Toronto, 1975), pp. 147–55Google Scholar (both printings are incomplete, though the second is more extensive). The Stuart papers reveal the author of this list to be John Hay who confessed to the Earl of Mar that “it was entirely out of my head a paper with names of persons that wished him [the Pretender] well” (R.A., S.P. 64/134, 5 Jan. 1723). I owe this last reference to David Hayton.
17 B.L., Add. MS. 62558, f. 15.
18 Foord, , His Majesty's Opposition, p. 74Google Scholar. Monod, (Jacobitism and the English People, p. 290Google Scholar) puts an unwarranted Jacobite slant on this incident by describing Cowper's reaction to the portrait as “awe-struck.”
19 B.L., Add. MS. 62558, ff. 11–12.
20 Cowper's declaration was delivered to the House of Commons on 30 March 1723 (B.L., Add. MS. 27980, f. 6), and published as a four-page pamphlel. It is reprinted in Cobbett's, Parliamentary History of England… 1066 to…1803, ed. Cobbett, William, 36 vols. (1806–1820), 8: 204–05Google Scholar.
21 Atterbury's denial can be found in his final speech at his trial before the Lords in May 1723, which was published. Hutcheson's declaration was also delivered to the Commons on 30 March 1723 (B.L., Add. MS. 27980, f. 6), was published in a pamphlet similar to Cowper's and is reprinted in Cobbett's Parl. Hist., 8: 205–06Google Scholar, as is Atterbury's defense (ibid., pp. 268–90).
22 House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, ed. Lambert, Sheila, 147 vols. (Wilmington, Del., 1975), 3: 29Google Scholar. Layer's evidence on the club with his list of names is in ibid., p. 191. Dr. Cruickshanks claims (“Layer and the Atterbury Plot,” p. 96) that a manuscript list of the club exists in Lord Townshend's papers at Raynham Hall, which includes the Duke of Wharton. She speculates that his name was left off the published list “either out of regard for his father's memory, or because the Government hoped he had not entirely burnt his boats,” implying that he was a Jacobite at this time. It is true that at the time of Atterbury's trial Wharton had rejoined the opposition in the Lords (he had supported the ministry from December 1721), but he did not finally throw in his lot with the Pretender until sometime in 1724 or 1725.
23 Bennett, G. V. (The Tory Crisis in Church and State, 1688–1730: The Career of Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester [Oxford, 1975], pp. 223–41)Google Scholar gives the most accurate and convincing account of the Atterbury plot to date, but he did not use the Lords' report.
24 House of Lords Sessional Papers, ed. Torrington, F. W., 60 vols. (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1978), vol. 1718–19 to 1724–25, p. 143Google Scholar. Several members of the Lords who signed these protests were not Jacobites, the most notable being Archbishop William Dawes of York, a leading Hanoverian Tory, and acknowledged to be so by a Jacobite source printed in the Lords' report (ibid., p. 155). The author of this source has been shown to be Atterbury (see below p. 691, and note 37).
25 Lords Sessional Papers, 1718–1719 to 1724–1725, p. 141Google Scholar.
26 Cruickshanks, , “Layer and the Atterbury Plot,” pp. 94–95Google Scholar.
27 The only direct mention of Cowper by name in the Lords' report is in the letter quoted on p. 155, referred to in note 24 above.
28 Orrery's position on the fringe of the main Jacobite group at this time explains his uncertainty as to the identity of those “going to do a rash thing in favour of the Pretender.” Like Wharton, who was not a Jacobite at this time, OrTery had supported the Prince of Wales while the latter was in opposition between 1717 and 1720, and like Wharton he did not follow the prince upon his reconciliation with the Court in April 1720. I thank Dr. Hayton for allowing me to consult his unpublished History of Parliament biography of Orrery. He is working (with Stephen Taylor) on a critique of Jacobite historiography that will include the Atterbury Plot.
29 See above, p. 683, and note 10.
30 The conversation was reported by Layer. The figures were 200 Tories and 90 “Grumble-tonians” (i.e. dissident Whigs), see Commons Sessional Papers, p. 137. Cowper disowned the statement under oath (Cobbett's Parl. Hist., 8: 404–05Google Scholar), while Foord dismissed the figures as moonshine (His Majesty's Opposition, p. 75).
31 B.L., Add. MS. 34713, f. 56 (Lord Chancellor Macclesfield's abbreviated notes on Atterbury's trial).
32 Neynoe worked on the newspaper The Freeholder (Cruickshanks, , “Layer and the Atterbury Plot,” p. 100Google Scholar). No newspaper published the Lords' protests between 1720 and 1723, but several editions did appear in pamphlet form, and The Freeholder did publish “A Complete Collection of Protests” on 13 March 1722 (see advert in Post Boy, 8–10 March 1722).
33 R.A., S.P. 100/45, Milton [Hamilton] to [James], [endorsed 1723].
34 For Hamilton, see Cruickshanks, , “Layer and the Atterbury Plot,” p. 100Google Scholar. Hamilton left England for France the day that Neynoe was drowned (R.A., S.P. 100/45), and regarded Neynoe as a knave and a fool. For Neynoe's pitiful attempt to use Walpole, see Bennett, , Tory Crisis, pp. 252–53Google Scholar.
35 There is, however, one reference to the possibility of Lady Cowper harboring Jacobite sympathies; James Hamilton reported in November 1721 that she, along with Lord Parker and Judge Fortescue, had requested, through the Duchess of Hamilton, portraits of the Pretender and his wife (R.A., S.P. 55/152, Milton to Stone [the Pretender], 27 Nov. 1721, n.s.).
36 Cowper's name, along with the names of most of the major politicians, appears in several Jacobite ciphers from the time of Queen Anne to his death (R.A., S.P. Box 5/13–101, passim).
37 Atterbury's letter, dated 12 February 1722, is printed in Lords Sessional Papers, vol. 1718–19 to 1724–25, p. 155. A copy is in R.A., S.P. 57/163. It is endorsed “Copie of a letter from London said to be wrote with a designe to be intercepted by the government.” For the identification of the author as Atterbury, see Bennett, , Tory Crisis, pp. 239–40Google Scholar. For Mar to the Pretender, see R.A., S.P. 58/140, quoted in ibid., p. 240.
38 For the background to this document, see ibid., pp. 261–62. It is printed in Commons Sessional Papers, p. 288.
39 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F186, ff. 7–12, “The Declaration of John Semple….” Another copy can be found at P. R. O., S.P. 35/33/313.
40 Though Cowper's name was to be found in some Jacobite ciphers (see note 36), his name was absent from those employed by the minor plotters, see copies in P.R.O., S.P. 35/39/433–45, and copies made by Lady Cowper in Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F186, ff. 1–6.
41 Scottish Record Office, GD 220/5/1000/11, Montrose Papers, 23 March 1723.
42 Sedgwick, , House of Commons, 1: 32, 64–65, 108–09Google Scholar.
43 Bennett, , Tory Crisis, pp. 225–31Google Scholar; Townend, G. M., “The Political Career of Charles Spencer, Third Earl of Sunderland, 1695–1722” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 274, 282–87Google Scholar.
44 R.A., S.P. 60/88, [James] to [Lansdowne], 28 June 1722. This letter implies that Sunderland did not write to the Pretender, and there is no evidence elsewhere in the Stuart papers to suggest he did.
45 See Jones, Clyve, “Jacobites under the Beds: Bishop Francis Atterbury, the Earl of Sunderland and the Case of the Westminster School Dormitory of 1721,” British Library Journal (forthcoming)Google Scholar.
46 H.M.C., Portland MSS, 7: 299–300Google Scholar; B.L., Add. MS. 70145 (formerly Loan 29/67), Edward Harley jr. to Abigail Harley, 22 June 1721.
47 P.R.O., S.P. 35/23/170, 35/24/15, Coningsby to [Stanhope], 30 November, 7 December 1720.
48 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F193, f. 90, 28 May 1721.
49 See Jones, Clyve, “William, 1st Earl Cowper, Country Whiggery, and the Leadership of the Opposition in the House of Lords, 1720–1723,” in The House of Lords, 1720–1900, ed. Davis, Richard W. (forthcoming)Google Scholar.
50 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F193, f. 90.
51 Ibid., F186, f. 25, bottom half of a draft letter.
52 See details of Cowper's ideology in Jones, “Cowper, Country Whiggery, and the Opposition in the House of Lords.”
53 For Oueen Anne's valuing his honesty, see The Diary of Sir David Hamilton, 1709–1714, ed. Robert, Philip (Oxford, 1975), pp. 36, 39, 41, 47, 53Google Scholar.
54 Hertfordshire R.O., D/EP F57, f. 61, Wharton to [Cowper], 24 April 1720; see also B.L., Stowe MSS, 242, f. 209, Wharton to [Atterbury], [c. late Sept. 1721]. Though not a Whig, Orrery also found himself in a similar position having been a member of the Prince's party (see note 28).
55 H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 35, 9 September 1721Google Scholar.
56 The immediate reason for his leaving London in March 1723 appears to have been his son's wedding in York on 23 April (B.L., Add. MS. 27980, f. 29, newsletter of 27 April 1723).
57 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., 8: 334–47Google Scholar; Bennett, , Tory Crisis, p. 272Google Scholar.
