III Leicester House Politics, 1750–60, from the Papers of John, Second Earl of Egmont

Aubrey N. Newman

doi:10.1017/S0068690500000416

III Leicester House Politics, 1750–60, from the Papers of John, Second Earl of Egmont

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2009

Aubrey N. Newman

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

‘Leicester house’, those politicians associated with the Prince of Wales' court in Leicester Square Fields, played an important part in the development of the concept of ‘Opposition’ during the eighteenth century, and particularly between 1717 and 1760. There were several periods when this faction was particularly active, and these activities have acquired peculiar importance for many historians in view of the supposed intentions of George III of putting into effect precepts urged either at his own court as Prince of Wales or at that of his father, Frederick. As a result, considerable attention has been paid to the activities of Leicester House, and particularly to Frederick and his colleagues. Although Frederick was active, politically, between 1737 and 1751, it was after 1746 that he was virtually head of the Opposition, and it is in this period that he becomes most interesting, perhaps because it is for these years that there exists a body of documents illustrating his activities in such detail that it is possible to ascertain the nature of his plans. None of Frederick's own papers survive, and the documents in the Royal Archives at Windsor are derived from the records of his earlier associates. His principal associate after 1749 was John Perceval, second Earl of Egmont, whose father's diaries were published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission some forty years ago. Egmont was a Lord of the Bedchamber to the Prince and was the last in a series of favourites intended as future Prime Ministers, so that the papers drawn up in consultation between the two undoubtedly represent the intentions and plans of the Prince in these years and especially in the spring of 1750, to which period many can be dated from internal evidence.

Type: Research Article
Information: Camden Fourth Series , Volume 7: Camden Miscellany Vol. XXIII , December 1969 , pp. 85 - 228

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068690500000416 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1969

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

^{page 85 note 1} See my article, ‘Leicester House Politics, 1749–51’, English Historical Review, LXXVI (1961), pp. 577–89Google Scholar, and Foord, Archibald S., His Majesty's Opposition, 1714–1830, Oxford, 1964, pp. 267–79.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 2} For further details see ‘Leicester House Politics’, p. 578Google Scholar, and references there cited.

^{page 87 note 1} 7 and 8 William III cap. 27, 1696; 6 Anne cap. 41, 1707.

^{page 87 note 2} See Fitzmaurice, Lord Edward, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, 1875–1876, I, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} See Reitan, E. A., ‘The Civil List in Eighteenth Century British Polities’, Historical Journal, IX (1966), pp. 318–37CrossRef Google Scholar, and Binney, J. E. D., British Public Finance and Administration, 1774–92, Oxford, 1958, p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} See Williams, Basil, Carteret and Newcastle, Cambridge, 1943.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} See ‘Leicester House Politics’, p. 581Google Scholar, and references there cited.

^{page 92 note 2} The writing of such memorials seems to have been a favourite pursuit of Leicester House politicians. For one compiled by Robert Nugent, one of Dodington's associates, see 19 November 1747, Marchmont Diary. Sir George Rose, (ed) A Selection from the Papers of the Earls of Marchmont, 1831, I, pp. 231–32.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} This corresponds to Foord's references to Egmont No. 277. See Foord, , op. cit., p. 473Google Scholar, and note.

^{page 96 note 1} The quarrel was not, however, on the occasion of the birth of Frederick's son (1738), but his daughter's (1737).

^{page 104 note 1} The earlier version has here these marginal notes:

1 Immediately upon the news the K. will send Ld Egmont notice and will come to his House—and thence with three or four of his servants nearest of hand go to St James—Ld Ch. Justice Wills to come as soon after as possible.

2. Dr Lee to be sent to, to go to the Ld Mayor and Aldermen to summon a court, and proclaim the K.

Ld Egmont to demand by warrant the seals from the Chancellor. Ld Ch. Justice Wills to go by message in writing to tell the Duke of Cumberland that he is to be no more Captain Genl. and that the 1st Regt of Guards which he commands should be given to P. Edward.

Lt Coll Drury to have a Regt—Ligonier to be in the place of Drury.

Speaker to be sent to immediately to assemble the H. of Commons—and acquainted who to move and second the address.

^{page 105 note 1} In the earlier version this marginal note:

The Seals sent for from the Chancellor, by a message in writing from the King carried by Lord Egmont.

The Seals sent for from the Duke of Bedford, and given immediately to Lord Harrington that very day.

The Duke of C. Regt given Lt Coll Drury. Duke's Regt, given P. Edward.

^{page 106 note 1} In the earlier version Lord Harrington was to hold the seals and Lord Bathhurst was to head the Admiralty. The choice of peers would obviate the need to vacate seats in the House of Commons.

^{page 109 note 1} In the earlier version, ‘The person intended for the chief direction in the House of Commons…’

^{page 110 note 1} In the earlier version, the jointure was fixed at £100,000 a year.

^{page 116 note 1} These deletions in the original.

^{page 176 note 1} Left blank in the manuscript.

^{page 177 note 1} In February, 1746.

^{page 182 note 1} See introduction, pp. 90–91.

^{page 184 note 1} Queen Anne.

^{page 185 note 1} For a detailed analysis of the Prince of Wales' use of his Household appointments, see Newman, A., ‘The Political Patronage of Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales’, Historical Journal, II, 1958, pp. 68–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 191 note 1} See Dodington's Journal.

^{page 192 note 1} Cf. Document X.

^{page 194 note 1} Cf. Document XVII.

^{page 198 note 1} Sedgwick, R. R., Letters from George III to Lord Bute, 1939, p xiGoogle Scholar, prints a medical opinion on possible causes of Frederick's death.

^{page 199 note 1} Including documents IV–VII.

^{page 199 note 2} Document VIII.

^{page 202 note 1} His sisters Catherine and Frances were married to Henry Pelham and Richard Arundel.

^{page 204 note 1} During the earlier part of the year Leicester House had launched an attack on General Anstruther and the Mutiny Bill. Cf. Walpole, Horace, Memoirs of the last ten years of the Reign of George the Second, 1822, I, 36.Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 1} A call of the House of Commons.

^{page 207 note 1} Deleted in the original.

^{page 207 note 2} Idem.

^{page 213 note 1} Identification unknown.

^{page 214 note 1} Edward Walpole.

^{page 219 note 1} This despite Lord George Sackville's condemnation under George II.

^{page 227 note 1} Israel Mauduit, Considerations on the Present German War, 1760.Google Scholar

Article contents

III Leicester House Politics, 1750–60, from the Papers of John, Second Earl of Egmont

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests