Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T09:26:04.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Government and Church Patronage in England, 1660-1760

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

D.R. Hirschberg
D.R. Hirschberg*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last twenty years we have seen a revolution in the study of later Stuart and early Georgian England. Spurred in great part by Robert Walcott's brave attempt to apply Namierian methods and assumptions to the early eighteenth century, a squadron of able historians has attacked the sociopolitical history of the period, and has given us what might be called a neo-Whig interpretation. Such scholars as Geoffrey Holmes, William Speck, John Western, and recently B.W. Hill and J.P. Kenyon have sifted through the historiographical detritus and discovered that there is much to be saved from the older interpretations.

Most importantly, the new scholarship on the period 1660-1760 has reemphasized a vital political factionalism, whether it be called party strife or merely shifting ideological alliances. English social and political groups apparently stood in a fragile equilibrium at best, rather than in a solid Namierian consensus. Even J.H. Plumb has noted the pressures brought to bear on relatively weak post-Revolution central governments by influential sociopolitical interest groups, pressures that restricted severely the available options for policy and power. E.P Thompson would go farther to claim that factionalism (mainly that of an elite against the rest of society) was so ingrained that only by using repressive means was Sir Robert Walpole's government able to stay in the saddle. Even if some would disagree with Hill's contention that there was always an effective Tory opposition, few deny that debate on issues that were deemed basic—including the form of government, of social organization, and of thought—continued far beyond 1688 or even 1714.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , Fall 1980 , pp. 109 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1980

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.)

References

1 Walcott, R., English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holmes, G.S., British Politics in the Age of Anne (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Speck, W.A., Tory and Whig: The Struggle in the Constituencies, 1701-1715 (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Western, J.R., Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the 1680s (Totowa, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill, B.W., The Growth of Parliamentary Parties, 1688-1742 (Hamden, 1976)Google Scholar; Kenyon, J.P., Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party, 1689-1720 (Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Plumb, J.H., The Growth of Political Stability in England, 1675-1725 (London, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thompson, E.P., Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

2 Sykes, N., Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century (Cambridge, 1934)Google Scholar. For an interesting treatment of a contemporary analysis of the subject, see Greaves, R. W., “The Working of the Alliance: A Comment on Warburton,” in Essays in Modern English Church History, Bennett, G.V. and Walsh, J.D. (eds.), (New York, 1966), pp. 163–80Google Scholar. O'Day, R., “Ecclesiastical Patronage: Who Controlled the Church?” in Church and Society in England: Henry VIII to James I, Heal, F. and O'Day, R. (eds.), (Hamden, 1977), pp. 137–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, asks some of the same questions we do, but for an earlier period.

3 Bennett, G. V., “Preface,” in Bennett, and Walsh, , Essays, p. viGoogle Scholar.

4 Willis, B., A Survey of the Cathedrals, 3 vols. (London, 1742)Google Scholar.

5 This includes all parishes and chapelries except those clearly denoted as destroyed or disused. United parishes are counted as one, unless Willis makes it clear they were served by two clergymen. The category Other consists almost entirely of places that had joint patrons from more than one category. Joanne Montgomery helped to prepare the data in this article.

6 Percentages held of all advowsons in England and Wales (for comparison).

7 Bodl., Canterbury diocese (c. 1685), Sancroft MS 99; Bodl., King's livings in Exeter diocese (c. 1660-1670), Add. MS B4, fols. 67-68; Bodl., Archbishop's livings in Canterbury diocese, 1663, Add. MS C304a, fols. 156-68; Bodl., Livings in the gift of Bishop of Worcester (c. 1685), Tanner MS 140, fol. 147; Bodl., Bishop of London's livings in London diocese (c. 1710), Rawlinson MS B376, fols. 184-87; Bodl., York diocese livings (c. 1660 and c. 1680), Gough MSS Yorks. pp. 3-4; Livings in Kent in the gift of Dean and Chapter of Rochester, 1723, Rawlinson, Richard, The History and Antiquities of the Cathedral Church of Rochester (London, 1723), II, pp. 23–24Google Scholar.

8 PRO, Index to Composition Books, E/331/Index. The six dioceses were chosen for their relatively unbroken records and for the varying shares of establishment and private advowson holdings. The dioceses are Bangor, Carlisle, Durham, Ely, Lichfield and Coventry, and Salisbury.

9 Bodl., Sir Joseph Williamson to Isaac Barrow, 28 August 1676, Tanner MS 39, fol. 175; Bodl., Coventry to Barrow, 11 July 1677, ibid., fol. 177; Bodl., Barrow to Seebold Fabricius (c. September 1677), ibid., fol., 181; Bodl., Thomas Lloyd to Fabricius, 7 September 1677, ibid., fol. 183; Bodl., John, Lord Churchill to William Sancroft, 26 May 1688, Tanner MS 28, fol. 43.

10 Bodl., memorandum by Sir Robert Sawyer (1682-83), Tanner MS 143, fol. 147.

11 Natl. Lib. Wales, memorandum of Adam Ottley (May 1679), Ottley MS 1130; Natl. Lib. Wales, John North to Vernon, 13 May 1679, Ottley MS 1131; Natl. Lib. Wales, M. Babington to Thomas Bainbrigge, 15 May 1679, Ottley MS 1133; Babington to William Forrester, 4 June 1679, Ottley MS 1134.

12 Bodl., Guy Carleton to Leoline Jenkins, 12 February 1683-84, Tanner MS 104, fols. 269-70; Bodl., Jenkins to Sancroft, 23 February 1683-84, ibid., fol. 272; Bodl., Sir John Holt to Sancroft (c. February 1682-83), ibid., fols. 273-74; Bodl., Carieton to Sancroft, 20 July 1678, Tanner MS 149, fol. 137; All Souls' College, Oxford, memorandum of Dean and Chapter of Chichester (c. 1680), MS 204, no. 85. I am grateful to the Warden and Fellows of All Souls', the Honorable Lady Salmond and the Hertfordshire Record Office, and the Marquess of Cholmondeley for permission to use their manuscripts.

13 Bodl., John Sudbury to Gilbert Sheldon, 12 January 1671-72, Tanner MS 144, fol. 136.

14 BL, Edmund Gibson to Duke of Newcastle, 16 May 1747. Add. MS 32,711. fol. 65. Along similar lines, Bishop Philip Yonge refused an unspecified request of Sir Joshua Vanneck after taking advice from Archbishop Thomas Seeker, who held it would abuse the royal dispensing power. B.L. Yonge to Newcastle, 1 December 1763, Add. MS 32,953, fol. 152.

15 Bosher, Robert S., The Making of the Restoration Settlement: The Influence of the Laudians 1649-1662 (rev. ed.; Westminster, 1957), pp. 159–61Google Scholar; Green, I.M., The Re-establishment of the Church of England 1660-1663 (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar, ch. 2.

16 Beddard, Robert A., “The Commission for Ecclesiastical Promotions, 1681-84: An Instrument of Tory Reaction,” Historical Journal X (1967), pp. 11–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Bennett, G.V., “King William III and the Episcopate,” in Bennett, and Walsh, , Essays, pp. 104–31Google Scholar.

18 St. Andrews Univ. Lib., Gibson to Lord Townshend, 16 September 1724, MS 5198.

19 Christ Church, Oxford, Thomas Tenison to William Wake, 11 June 1714, Wake MS Arch. W. Epist. 4, fol. 123; BL, George Lavington to Newcastle, 13 October 1746, Add. MS 32,709, fol. 53.

20 Herts. R.O., Lord Cowper to (Townshend) (c. 28 June 1706), MS D/EP/F173, fol. 73.

21 John Lowther to Daniel Fleming, 29 August 1693, The Flemings in Oxford, Magrath, John Richard (ed.) [Oxford Historical Society, 79] (Oxford, 1924), p. 133Google Scholar; Hardwicke Court, Gloucester, Tenison to John Sharp, 29 April 1697, Lloyd-Baker Sharp MS 77,4/B7.

22 Christ Church, memorandum signed by Lord Carteret (c. 1722), Wake MS Arch. W. Epist. 22, no. 138; Christ Church, William Ayerst to Wake, 28 August 1724, ibid., no. 327; Herts. R.O., memorandum for Cowper, no date, MS D/EP/F177, fol. 41; Cam. Univ. Lib., Gibson to Sir Robert Walpole, 29 August 1730, Cholmondeley (Houghton) Correspondence 1758.

23 Sykes, Norman, “The Duke of Newcastle as Ecclesiastical Minister,” E.H.R., LVII (1942), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Thomson, Mark A., The Secretaries of State, 1681-1782 (Oxford, 1932)Google Scholar, does not even bother to mention the ecclesiastical function, so routine was it.

25 BL, Thomas Sherlock to Charles Longwith, 23 July 1747, Add. MS 41,843, fol. 113. Even when Newcastle was prime minister (1754-56 and 1757-62) he kept his hands on the reins, which no one else particularly wanted. When he agreed to come into the first Rockingham ministry as Lord Privy Seal, part of his price was the control of ecclesiastical preferments. BL, Newcastle to Robert Hay Drummond, 24 July 1765, Add. MS 32,968, fol. 227.

26 Edmund Pyle to Samuel Kerrich, 8 October 1754; Pyle, Edmund, Memoirs of a Royal Chaplain, 1729-1763, Hartshorne, Albert (ed.), (London, 1905), p. 218Google Scholar. It is noteworthy that one of the two bishops he cites as defying the duke is the Bishop of Winchester, Benjamin Hoadly, often maligned as the epitome of episcopal servility.

27 BL, J. Hewitt to Newcastle, 1 March 1760, Add. MS 32,903, fols. 25-26.

28 BL, William Pitt to Newcastle, 29 March 1758, Add. MS 32,878, fol. 420.

29 BL, Lord Rolle to Newcastle, 14 January 1747-48, Add. MS 32,714, fol. 65; BL, Rolle to Newcastle, 7 April 1748, ibid., fols. 444-45; BL, Sir Bourchier Wrey to Newcastle, 5 March 1747/48, ibid., fol. 307; BL, Wrey to Newcastle, 2 June 1748, Add. MS 32,715, fol. 146; BL, Wrey to Newcastle, 29 November 1748; Add. MS 32,717, fol. 365; BL, Wrey to Newcastle, 26 December 1748, ibid., fols. 538-39; BL, Lord Orford to Newcastle, 4 June 1748, Add. MS 32,715, fol. 154; BL, Edward Walpole to Newcastle, 14 June 1749, Add. MS 32,718, fol. 234. This affair is also set out in Barnes, Donald G., “The Duke of Newcastle, Ecclesiastical Minister, 1724-54,” Pacific Historical Review, III (1934), 164–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 BL, Newcastle to Duke of Cumberland (c. March 1760), Add. MS 32,905, fol. 327; BL, Newcastle to Earl of Plymouth, 25 September 1755, Add. MS 32,859. fol. 206; BL, Frederick Hervey to Newcastle, 7 June 1760, Add. MS 32,902, fol. 64; BL, Newcastle to Hervey, 9 June 1760, ibid., fol. 90.

31 BL, Newcastle to Lord Monson, 3 August 1756, Add. MS 32,867, fol. 351. Monson pressed again for Anderson, but to no avail. BL, Monson to Newcastle, 2 October 1756, Add. MS 32,868, fols. 330-31.

32 BL, Newcastle to Yonge, 17 December 1749, Add. MS 32,717, fol. 478.

33 BL, Newcastle to Yonge, 18 June 1766, Add. MS 32,975, fol. 444; BL, Seeker to Newcastle, Add. MS 32,976, fol. 295.

34 BL, Newcastle to Seeker, 6 August 1755, Add. MS 32,858, fols. 67-68; BL, Seeker to Newcastle, 11 August 1755, ibid., fols. 108-09; BL, Seeker to Newcastle, 13 May 1760, Add. MS 32,906, fol. 46. See also Westminster Abbey Muniment Room, Lord Hardwicke to Zachary Pearce, 30 September 1756, MS 64,533.

35 BL, Thomas Herring to Hardwicke, 9 February 1755, Add. MS 35,599, fol. 239, with enclosed memorandum, ibid., fol. 241.

36 BL, Yonge to Newcastle, 25 March 1758, Add. MS 32,878, fol. 362.

37 BL, Edmund Keene to Shally, 26 December 1751, Add. MS 32,725, fol. 570. It is interesting that the advowsons in the crown by right of the Duchy of Lancaster seem to have been kept separate, and out of Newcastle's immediate control.

38 For example, see BL, Newcastle to Matthias Mawson, 3 February 1760, Add. MS 32,902, fol. 42.

39 BL, John Hume to Hardwicke, 5 July 1762, Add. MS 35,597, fol. 126; BL, Hume to Hardwicke, 27 August 1762, ibid., fol. 171; BL, Hardwicke to Hume, 24 August 1762, ibid., fol. 161.

40 BL, Yonge to Newcastle, 30 March 1758, Add. MS 32,878, fol. 437; BL, Lavington to Hardwicke, 8 May 1758, Add. MS 35,595, fols. 188-89.

41 BL, John Conybeare to Newcastle, 20 April 1734, Add. MS 32,869, fol. 302; BL, Hardwicke to Conybeare, 8 January 1754, Add. MS 35,592, fol. 241; BL, Conybeare to Hardwicke, 10 January 1754, ibid., fol. 243.

42 BL, John Potter to Hardwicke, 21 September 1742, Add. MS 35,587, fols. 61-62.

43 For one of the rare cases where we see the duke applying to a private person for a candidate, see BL, Hugh Thomas to Newcastle, 9 June 1760, Add. MS 32,907, fol. 106; BL, Beilby Porteus to Newcastle, 11 June 1760, ibid., fol. 164; BL, Lady Portsmouth to Newcastle, 11 June 1760, ibid., fol. 160. Lady Portsmouth still had the right to name the master of Magdalene College, Cambridge. The duke asked her to nominate someone, but she refused.