No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
George III, peerage creations and politics, 1760–1784*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2010
Abstract
This article looks at the political role of the royal prerogative to create and promote British peers in the period 1760–1784. It argues that during the first two decades of his reign George III maintained his original intention that peerage creations should befew in number and isolated from short-term political influences, but that during the prolonged political crisis that unfolded at the end of the American War of Independence, the king's power to create peers became deeply embroiled in politics. Not only were all eight of the peerages created in 1782–1783 influenced by political considerations, this aspect of the royal prerogative became itself the topic of parliamentary discussion. It was in this context of recent creations and heightened interest in the royal prerogative that George III's refusal to make peers proved to be an effective tactic in his struggle with the Fox-North coalition. Especially damaging was the coalition's inability to secure Lord North's promotion to the upper house. Once the coalition had been dismissed, George HI used his prerogative in an overtly political fashion to strengthen the younger Pitt in both houses of parliament.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
1 See, for example, Cannon, John, The Fox-North coalition: the crisis of constitution, 1782–1784 (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 82–3, 100–3, 137Google Scholar; Brooke, Jonn, King George III (London, 1972), p. 241Google Scholar; and Downs, Murray S., ‘George III and the royal coup of 1783’, The Historian, XXVII (1964), 56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Turberville, A. S., ‘The young Pitt and the house of lords’, History, New Series, XXI (1936-1937), 35–48Google Scholar; Richards, Gerda C., ‘The creation of peers recommended by the younger Pitt’, American Historical Review, XXXIV (1928-1929), 47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ehrman, John, The younger Pitt: the years of acclaim (New York, 1969), pp. 348–51Google Scholar.
3 See especially McCahill, Michael W., ‘Peerage creations and the changing character of the British nobility, 1750–1830’, English Historical Review [E.H.R.], XCVI (1981), 259–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cannon, John, Aristocratic century. The peerage of eighteenth-century England (Cambridge, 1984), ch. 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beckett, J. V., The aristocracy of England, 1660–1914 (Oxford and New York, 1986), ch. 3Google Scholar; and Jones, Clyve, ‘“Venice preserv'd; or a plot discovered”: the political and social context of the Peerage Bill of 1719’, in A pillar of the constitution. The house 0f lords in British polities, 1640–1784, ed. Jones, Clyve (London, 1989), pp. 79–112Google Scholar.
4 For example, Clark, J. C. D., English society 1688–1832. Ideology, social structure andpolitical during the ancien regime (Cambridge, 1985), p. 210Google Scholar, and Pares, Richard, King George III and the politicians (Oxford, 1953), p. 35Google Scholar.
5 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the laws of England (4 vols., Oxford, 1765-1769), I, 261–2Google Scholar.
6 Thomas, P. D. G., ‘Thoughts on the British constitution by George III in 1760’, Historical Research, LX (1987), 362Google Scholar. On Queen Anne's mass creation, see Gregg, Edward, Queen Anne (London, 1984), pp. 348–51Google Scholar.
7 Duke of Bedford to Thomas Brand, 9 Oct. 1763, Woburn MSS, XLVIII, fo. 150; George III to the marquess of Rockingham, [5 June 1766], The correspondence of King George the Thirdfrom to December 1783, ed. SirFortescue, John (6 vols., London, 1927-1928), I, 355Google Scholar.
8 George III to the earl of Bute, [28 April 1763], Letters from George III to Lord Butt, 1736–1766, ed. Sedgwick, Romney (London, 1939), p. 231Google Scholar.
9 Plumb, J. H., New light on the tyrant George III (Washington, 1978), pp. 5–16Google Scholar.
10 George III to the earl of Northington, 12 Mar. and [24 Nov.] 1766, Correspondence of George III, I, 220, 416; SirNamier, Lewis (ed.), Additions and corrections to Sir John Fortescue's edition of the correspondence of King George the Third (vol. I), (Manchester, 1937), pp. 66–7Google Scholar; Journals of the House of Lords [L.J.], XXXIII, 174.
11 For example, George III to Lord North, 11 May and 30 May 1776, Correspondence of George III, III, 360, 365.
12 George III to the duke of Grafton, 10 Oct. 1766, ibid. I, 403.
13 This figure derives from a survey of G[eorge], E. C[ockayne]., The complete peerage, ed. Gibbs, Vicary et al. (13 vols., London, 1910-1959)Google Scholar and does not include peerages held by members of the royal family or the title given George II's mistress, the countess of Yarmouth (d. 1778), which was limited to her life only. In addition, two British peerages merged into higher or more senior titles. The size of the peerage was not affected to this extent, however, for special remainders in other titles belonging to the last holders of five of the extinct peerages passed peerages of lesser rank or seniority to commoners.
14 The handiest list of creations is to be found in Turberville, A. S., The house of lards in the XVIIIth century (Oxford, 1927), pp. 509–12Google Scholar. Turberville, however, omitted a handful of new creations who did not take their seats in the house of lords: William Courtcnay, created Viscount Courtenay 6 May 1762; Allen Lord Bathurst, created Earl Bathurst 27 Aug. 1772; and William DeGrey, created Baron Walsingham 17 Oct. 1780 (Complete peerage, XII, 334, n, 28–9, XII, pt. 2, 233–4). In addition, three baronies with special remainders were granted to existing peers: Pelham of Sunnier to the duke of Newcasde (4 Apr. 1762), Dude of Tortworth to Lord Ducie of Moreton (27 Apr. 1763); and Dinevor to Earl Talbot (17 Oct. 1780).
15 , Turberville, House of lords in the XVIllth century, pp. 510, 513Google Scholar; Complete peerage, IV, 725.
16 Ilchester, Lord, Henry Fox, first Lord Holland. His family and relations (2 vols., London, 1920), II, 258Google Scholar; Ayling, Stanley, The Elder Pitt (New York, 1976), pp. 354–6Google Scholar. Both Fox and Pitt had earlier secured peerages for their wives.
17 For example, when Lord Hillsborough was forced out as American secretary in 1772, he was given a British earldom (earl of Suffolk to Earl Gower, 6 Aug. 1772, Public Record Office [P.R.O.], Granville MSS, 30/29/1/14, fo. 653). For an example of a peer declining such a consolation prize, see duke of Grafton to Lord Monson and reply, 27 Sept. and 1 Oct. 1776, in Memoirs of the marquess of Rockingham and his contemporaries, ed. earl of Albemarle, (2 vols., London, 1852), II, 17–18Google Scholar.
18 I omit Charles Yorke, who was to be raised to the peerage and the woolsack at the time of the transition from the Grafton to the North administration and who died before his patent (as Baron Morden) was sealed. The king did not extend the barony to his son. See Williams, Basil, ‘The eclipse of the Yorkes’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd series, III (1908), 144–50Google Scholar.
19 Legal peerages included those given to Lords Camden (1765), Apsley (1771), Thurlow (1778), Loughborough (1780), Walsingham (1780), Ashburton (1782), and Grantley (1782). In addition, Lord Chancellor Henley was advanced to the earldom of Northington in 1764 and Lord Mansfield, C.J., was made earl of Mansfield in 1776.
20 Lord North to George III, [3 Apr 1778], Correspondence of George III, IV, 95.
21 See the correspondence, mostly between North and the king, Mar.-June 1778 (ibid. 87–162); as well as Charles Jenkinson to George III, 15 May 1779, George III to North, 17 May 1779 (ibid. 342–3); North to George III and reply, 23 Apr. 1780 (ibid, v, 50–1). Perception that the number of legal peerages was increasing provoked hostile comment. Two years after the Wedderburn and DeGrey peerages, the belief that John Dunning's peerage occasioned a similar reward for Sir Fletcher Norton caused Lord Sackville to remark: ‘It is ridiculous to me how favour to one lawyer assists his brother’ (letter to Gen. John Irwin, 31 Mar. 1782, Historical Manuscripts Commission [H.M.C.], Stopford-Sackvillt MSS, I, 14). The Morning Chronicle (12 Apr. 1789) slyly accused the ministers of plotting to weaken the house of lords by ‘disgracing its proceedings with all the low quibbling of Westminster Hall’.
22 See, for example, George Grenville to the earl of Hertford, 12 June 1764, in The Grewills Papers, ed Smith, W. J. (4 vols., London, 1852-1854), II, 352–3Google Scholar; Rockingham to the duke of Newcastle, 13 June 1765 and Newcastle to Thomas Townshend, 1 Aug. 1765, British Library [B.L.], Newcastle Papers, Additional MS 32968, fos. 374, 392.
23 Newcastle to Rockingham, 26 July 1765, and ‘Names…’, 28 July 1765, B.L., Add. MS 32968, fos. 265, 315.
24 Of the other three, Lord Digby's British peerage went back to a promise made through Henry Fox in 1763 and was already overdue (Rockingham to Newcastle, 13June 1765, B.L., Add. MS 32968, fo. 374; SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John [eds.], The history of parliament. The house ofcommons, 1754–1790 [3 vols., Oxford, 1964], II, 324)Google Scholar. Radnor's earldom was also the redemption of an earlier royal promise (Viscount Folkestone to Rockingham, 18 July 1765, Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments [W.W.M.], Sheffield City Libraries, RI-467). Chief Justice Pratt's elevation to the peerage as Lord Camden was intended ‘to propitiate Pitt’ and thus might be considered at least partly political (, Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, III, 323)Google Scholar.
25 George III to Bute, [ante May 1776], Correspondence of George III, VI, 199–200.
26 Viscount Weymouth to George III, 12 Ma y 1776, George III to Lord North, 17 Sept. 1776, ibid, III, 360–1, 393; Hertford to George III, [3 May 1782], ibid. 1, 27; , Namier, Additions and corrections, p. 12Google Scholar.
27 See the correspondence between the king and North, 30 May–2 June 1776, ibid. 365–72.
28 North to John Robinson, 7 Sept. 1780, H.M.C.. Abergavemy MSS. p. 36.
29 See, for example, George III to the earl of Chatham, 25 Nov. 1766, The correspondence of William Pitt, earl of Chatham, ed. Taylor, W. S. and Pringle, J. H. (4 vols., London, 1838-1840), II, 75Google Scholar, and Rockingham to George III, 5 June 1766, Correspondence of George III, 1, 355; , Brooke, King George III, p. 313Google Scholar. See also , Brooke, ‘Introductory survey’, House of commons, I, 99–102Google Scholar.
30 Walpole to Lord Holland, 15 Aug. 1767, The Tale edition of Horace Walpole's correspondence, ed. Lewis, W. S. et al. (48 vols., New Haven, 1937-1983), xxx, 247Google Scholar. Walpole was acting as go-between with the duke of Grafton in Holland's quest for an earldom. Though Grafton, through Walpole, assured Holland thai he could secure the earldom and spoke of ‘a certain promise of iu being done at the end of the session’, Holland never obtained the promotion.
31 ‘I would never hurt them by putting the juniors of them over the seniors’, George III to Bute, [28 Apr. 1763], Letters from George III to Bute, p. 231. See also the king's letter to Bute of 18 Apr. 1764, ibid. p. 237.
32 George III to Grafton, 26 Sept. 1766 (copy), Chatham MSS, P.R.O. 30/8/33, fo. 78. Eighteen years later, when Shelburne was offered a marquessate, the younger Pitt told him that the king had reserved the highest rank in the peerage for the royal family (Pitt to Shelbume, 31 Oct. 1784, Lansdownc MSS (microfilm), William L. Clements Library, Box 61, fos. 160–1).
33 Some senior viscounts felt that the value of an earldom had been cheapened by the number of recent elevations. See Charles Townshend to Rockingham, 9 Aug. 1765, W.W.M., R1–478; Viscount Townshend to Grafton, 9 Oct. 1766, Grafton MSS, West Suffolk Record Office, 423/461.
34 Of the 45 men raised to the peerage by George III before 1784, only nine (controlling 17 seats) can be classified as borough-patrons. These (with seats controlled) were Lords Boston (i), Melcombe (3), Holland (4), Brownlow (i), Folcy (2), Harrowby (1), Sackvillc (2), Grantle y (1), and Sydney (2). See SirNamier, Lewis, The structure of politics at the accession of George III (and edn, London, 1968), pp. 144–8Google Scholar, and Christie, Ian R., The end of Worth's ministry, 1780–1789 (London, 1958). PP. 54–7Google Scholar.
35 , Hchester, Henry Fox, first Lord Holland, II, 315–19, 349Google Scholar.
36 On the doctrine of abeyance and baronies by writ, see the appendix by Doubleday, H. A. in Complete peerage, IV, 691–749Google Scholar.
37 Biographical studies of Sir Francis Dashwood, Lord Le Despenser, and Norborne Berkeley, Lord Botetourt, do not indicate such influence. See Betty Kemp, SirDashwood, Francis. An eighteenth-etntmy independent (London and New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Towers, Eric, Dashwood. The man and the myth (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Little, Bryan, ‘Norborne Berkeley: Gloucestershire magnate’, Virginia magazine of history and biography, LXIII (1955), 379–409Google Scholar; , Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, II, 85–6, 300–1Google Scholar.
38 North to George III, 28 Feb. [1775], Correspondence of George III, III, 182; George III to North, 28 Feb. 1775, ibid. 183. The other termination of abeyance came in 1780 in favour of Lady PritcilU Bertie, elder sister and principal heiress to the fourth duke of Ancaster, the previous holder of the title (Complete peerage, I, 219; George III to North, 6Jan. 1780, Correspondence of George III, v, 5).
39 For example, Nathaniel Curzon originally applied to have the abeyant barony of Powis called out in his favour; he was instead created Baron Scarsdale (Curzon to Bute, 9 and 31 Nov. 1760, ibid. 1, 5, 12). George Pitt, the most relentless of peerage aspirants, staked his claim to an abeyant barony long before his creation as Baron Rivers (George Pitt to George III, [5 Oct. 1765], ibid, in, 412–15).
40 In 1766 Shelburne, then a secretary of state, applied unsuccessfully for a British earldom (Shelburae to Chatham, [28 Oct. 1766], PRO. 30/8/56, fo. 54).
41 See, for example, the letters from Lord Digby to Lord Holland, 23 May to 7 Aug. 1765, which chronicle the delay and uncertainty even after the king's consent had been obtained: Holland House MSS, B.L., Add. MS 51423, fos. 187, 203–5, 207, 209, 212–13, 221 226, 231.
42 , Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, II, 112–13Google Scholar; Grafton to Bedford, 23 Mar. 1769, Woburn MSS, LVIII, fos. 28–9. As was often the case, the king did not extend the promise of a peerage to Brand's son.
43 Memoirs of the reign of King George the third, ed. Barker, G. F. Russell (4 vols., London, 1894), III, 163Google Scholar. For a similar characterization prior to the creations of 1776, see The last journals of Horace Walpole, ed. Steuart, A. F. (2 vols., London, 1910), I, 541Google Scholar. See also George III's letter to Bute, written sometime before May 1776, Correspondence of George III, Vi, 199–200.
44 Rockingham to Newcastle, 13 June 1765, B.L., Add. MS 32967, fo. 374; Suffolk to Gower, 13 Aug. 1772, P.R.O. 30/29/1/14, fo. 659.
41 A correspondent of the Gentleman's Magazine, XLVI (1776), 210–11Google Scholar, expressed the view that the peerage was already too large and particularly condemned ‘this new mode’ of granting peerages to the wives and sons of Scottish peers. However, a contributor to the Scots Magazine, XXXVIII (1776), 601Google Scholar, argued that extinctions and mergers of peerages that would take place within a few years would limit the net increase in the size of the peerage to one: ‘no great addition in a reign of seventeen years’. See also , Walpole, Last journals, I, 541–4Google Scholar.
45 Selwyn to the earl of Carlisle, 11 Oct. [1775], H.M.C., Cartislt MSS, pp. 294–5.
47 Nathaniel Ryder, created Baron Harrowby, was said to owe his peerage to a promise given his father, who had died before George II could order his patent (Walpole, Last journals, 1, 543). The promise was renewed during the Chatham administration (, Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, III, 388)Google Scholar. Sir Jeffrey Amherst's peerage had been promised him in 1768 when he unwillingly gave up his absentee governorship of Virginia (Long, J. C., Lord Jeffery AmJurst, soldier of the king [New York, 1933], pp. 212–13)Google Scholar. The persistent George Pitt, finally created a peer as Lord Rivers, claimed to have had a promise since the early 1760s (, Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, III, 282–3)Google Scholar.
48 , Christie, End of North's ministry, pp. 54–5Google Scholar. In addition one of the promoted peers, the new earl of Ailesbury, controlled four seats.
49 Ditchfield, G. M., ’The house of lords in the age of the American Revolution’, in Pillar of the constitution, p. 209Google Scholar.
50 George III to John Robinson, 21 Aug. 1780, B.L., Robinson Paper*, Add. MS 37835, fo. 147; Walpolc, Lastjournals, n, 330. In addition to the six new peers created, Earl Talbot was given a barony with a special remainder in favour of his daughter.
51 George III to North, 25 Sept. 1780, Correspondence of George III, v, 135.
52 None of the new peers is to be found in Christie's list of borough patrons in 1780 (End of North's ministry, pp. 54–5).
53 Mackesy, Piers, The coward of Minden. The affair of Lord George Sackville (London, 1979), p. 259Google Scholar.
54 Ibid. pp. 253–9. Mackcsy points out that Sackville's alleged homosexuality should be borne in mind when considering the ‘strange hostility’ that he aroused.
55 George III to North, 15 June and 10 Sept. 1779, Correspondence of George III, IV, 356, 432.
56 According to Nathaniel Wraxall, who cites Germain as his source, the latter persuaded the king to create him a viscount instead of a baron by pointing out that a barony would leave him junior in rank to his former undersecretary (Walsingham), lawyer (Loughborough), and his father's page (Amherst): Historical and posthumous memoirs of Sir Nathanial William Wraxall, 1772–1784, ed. Wheatley, Henry B. (5 vols., London, 1884), II, 176–8Google Scholar. The Morning Chronicle, 8 Feb. 1782, attributed the viscountcy to the fact that as the son of a duke, Lord George took precedence before a baron ‘and would, by creation [as a baron] have been receding in his consequence“.
57 The political memoranda of Francis, fifth duke of Leeds, ed. Browning, O., Camden Society, New Series (London, 1884), pp. 53–8Google Scholar.
58 Cobbett, William, The parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803 (36 vols,. London, 1813), XXII, 999–1006Google Scholar; Morning Chronicle, 8 Feb. 1782; Selwyn to Carlisle, 7 Feb. [1782], H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 571.
59 Selwyn to Carlisle, 8 Feb. [1782], ibid. p. 572.
60 For example, Sir George Savile to , Rockingham, [8 Feb. 1782], Memoirs of the marquess of Rockingham, II, 443–4Google Scholar: ‘It seems a nail to drive’.
61 Selwyn to Carlisle, II Feb. [1782], H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 573.
62 Parliamentary history, XXII, 1006–27; Morning Chronicle, 19 Feb. 178a.
63 On the formation of the second Rockingham administration, see O'Gorman, Frank, The rise of party in England. The Rockingham whigs, 1760–1782 (London, 1975, pp. 446–56Google Scholar; and , Cannon, Fox-North coalition, pp. 1–10Google Scholar.
64 ‘Hints by Lord Thurlow’, [10 Mar. 1782], Thurlow transcripts, B.L., Egerton MS 2232, fo. 47; Morning Chronicle, 28 Mar. 1782; Caledonian Mercury, 1 Apr. 1782.
65 Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, Lift of William, earl of Sfulburne (2nd edn, 2 vob. London, 1912), II, 319Google Scholar.
66 Memorandum on negotiations, [Mar. 1782], W.W.M., Ri-2019b; Shelburne to George III, 27 Mar. [1782]. Correspondence of George III, v, 420. Mention of the peerage for Norton during the negotiations casts doubt on Wraxall's story that the peerage was an afterthought, only demanded by the Rockinghams after Shelburne secured a peerage for Dunning (Memoirs, 11, 258–61). See also note 21 above.
67 Morning Chronicle, 30 Mar. 1782.
68 Selwyn to Carlisle, I Apr. [1782], H.M.C., Carlisle MSS, p. 621.
69 , Walpole, Last journals, a, 429Google Scholar.
70 Keppel to Rockingham, 2 Apr. 1782, W.W.M., R1–2024; Keppel to Shelburne, 28 Mar. 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic). Box 23, fo. 7; Dowager Countess Cornwallis to Hon. William Cornwallis, 6 Apr. 1782, H.M.C., Various collections, vi, 331. Keppel did give the king credit for making him a viscount instead of a baron. See Keppel to William Lee, 8 [April] 1782 Lee MSS, William L. Clements Library, I, fo. 66.
71 Shelburne to George III, 17 Apr. 1782, Correspondence of George III, v, 462.
71 Among those mentioned as likely candidates for new creations in the spring of 1782 were John Crewe, Thomas Pitt, Thomas Coke, Sir Harbord Harbord, Sir John Lowther, Sir George Savile, William Weddell, Lord John Cavendish, John Parker, Sir John Eden, Sir Thomas Dundas, Sir John Rous, John Elwes, William Wilberforce, William Baker, and Sir Jospeh Mawbey: Morning Chronicle, 28 Mar. and 12 Apr. 1782, Caledonian Mercury, I and 3 Apr. 1782; Edward Malone to the earl of Charlemont, 8 June 1782, H.M.C., Charlemont MSS, I, 408. Judging from the entries in Namier and Brooke, House of commons, II and III, only Harbord, Mawbey, Parker, Pitt, Rous and Wilberforce appear to have had closer ties to Shelburne.
72 Shelburne to George III, 19 Ma y 1782, George III to Shelburne, 20 May 1782, Shelburne to George III, 20 May 1782, George III to Shelburne, 21 May 1782, Correspondence of George III, vi, 34–9; Keppel to Shelburne, 23 May 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 23, fo. 38; Keppel to Rockingham, 29 Ma y 1782, W.W.M., RI-2103.
73 Parliamentry history, XXIII, 59–63.
74 Ibid, XXIII, 85–9. There was little doubt that Rodney would accept a peerage and hii aon quickly supplied the title he desired: George Rodney to Shelburne, 24 May 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 23, fo. 7. Rodney felt he had deserved a peerage in 1780 after his capture (and controversial occupation) of St Eustatius. In 1782 he was disappointed that he received a barony rather than a viscountcy or earldom. See David Spinney Rodney (London, 1969), pp. 379, 410.
75 Shelburne to George III, 92 May 1782, Correspondances of George III, vi, 42.
77 See Holmes, Geoffrey S., ‘The Hamilton affair of 1711–12, a crisis in Anglo-Scottish relations’, E.H.R., LXXVII (1962), 257–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 This situation accounts for the urgency with which British peerages were sometimes sought by or for heirs to Scottish titles before 1782. See, for example, Viscount Irvine to Chatham, 29 Dec. 1766, P.R.O. 30/8/46, fo. 47, and Lord Garlics to Bedford, 5 Jan. 1767, Woburn MSS, LV, fo. 4.
79 George III to Bute, [Nov. 1760], Litters from George III to Butt, pp. 48–50; The Devomshiret Diary, eds. Brown, Peter D. and Schweizcr, Karl W., Camden 4th Series, XXVII (1982), pp. 56–8Google Scholar.
80 L.J., xxxvi, 470, 486–7, 499, 515–18, 527; Morning Chromicle, 6–8 June 1782.
81 , McCahill, ‘Peerage creations and the changing character of the British nobility’, pp. 263–4Google Scholar.
82 Earl of Buchan to William Pitt, 24 July 1782, Shelbume-Lacaita papers, William L. Clements library; Buchan to Shelburne, 25 July 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 36, fo. 142.
83 Morning Chronicle, 15 June 1782.
84 Lord Inchiquin to Shelburne, I and 27 Aug. 1782; Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 52, fos. 15, 19; Lord John Murray to Shelburne, 13 Sept. 1782, ibid, box 58, fo. 126; George Manners Sutton to Shelburne, 10 Dec. 1782, ibid, box 63, fo. 119; Lord Kensington to Shelburne, 16 Oct. 1782, ibid, box 53, fo.41. The closest Shelburne seems to have come to an affirmative response was an implied promise to Lord De Ferrars that he would be included if any new earls were made: De Ferrars to Shelburne, 11 Sept. 1782, ibid, box 45, fo. 18.
85 Shelburne to George III and reply, 31 July 1782, Correspondence of George III, VI, 92–3; George III to Shelburne, 4 July 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 20, fo. 162. In addition to the correspondence published in Correspondence of George III, there are some 37 letters written during this period from the king to Shelburne in the Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 20.
86 At the beginning of the session Shelburne wrote to 163 peers requesting their attendance and support, having eliminated those believed to be clearly in opposition. See the list in Shelburne Papers, William L. Clements Library, CLXVI, fos. 261–2.
87 Sir Herbert Mackworth to Shelburne, 6 July 1782, Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 56, fo. 9. Though earlier an opponent of the ‘influence of the Crown’, Shelburne was by this time inclined to favour reforms that increased governmental efficiency in preference to those that aimed primarily at weakening the monarchy. See Norris, John, Shelburne and Reform (London, 1963), chs. x-xii and p. 293Google Scholar.
88 Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne, II, 263.
89 George III to Weymouth, 4 Mar. 1783, Correspondence of George III, VI, 259. Rawdon was the king's aide-de-camp. He had recently returned from successful, if controversial, service in America. A loyalist regiment that he raised there, the Volunteers of Ireland, was briefly added to the Irish establishment but disbanded in 1783.
90 Ashburton's account of his interviews with the king is in Lansdowne MSS (Mic). box 103, and is reprinted in rather garbled form in , Fitzmaurice, Lift of Sholburns, II, 253–61Google Scholar; the quotation is from Thomas Pitt's memorandum for the king, [?a8 Mar. 1783], Corespondance of George III, IV, 31–19.
91 George III to [Ashburton], 2 Apr. 1783 (copy), Lansdowne MSS (Mic), box 20, fo. 290, printed in , Fitzmaurice, Life of SJuiburne, II, 262Google Scholar, where it is incorrectly given as addressed to Shdburne. See also the king's letter to Lord Temple, 1 Apr. 1783, Contsponinut ofGtorgt III, VI, 329–30.
92 For example, the York Commant, 25 Mar. 1783, reported that three promotions and six new peerages were contemplated and that North ‘to a certainty’ would be called up to the lords, presumably in his father's barony.
93 Memorandum by the king, [1 Apr. 1783], Corespondance of George III, VI, 328–9.
94 Wraxall twice states that the king told the ministers unambiguously that he would not create peers on their recommendation (Memoirs, III, 51, 62).
95 Debrett, John, The Parliamantry Rtgister (14 vols., London, 1784), XI, 104–5Google Scholar.
96 Ibid. p. 135.
97 Caledonian Mercury, 14 and 17 May 1783, 6 Aug. 1783, 18 Oct. 1783.
99 Jenkinson to John Robinson, 24 Sept. 1783, H.M.C., Abergavemy MSS, p. 60.
100 , Namier and , Brooke, House of commons, III, 263–4Google Scholar.
101 North to the earl of Northington, 11 July 1783, quoted in ibid, II, 399.
102 Fox to the earl of Upper Ossory, 13 Aug. 1783; Richard Fiupatrick to Upper Ossory, a6 July 1783: Memorials and correspondence of Charles James Fox (4 vob., London, 1853), II, 199–300Google Scholar.
103 Jenkinson to Robinson, 24 Sept. 1783, H.M.C., Abergaoenny MSS, p. 60.
104 George III to North, 15 Sept. 1783, Correspondence of George III, VI, 447–8.
105 Pitt to William Wyndham Grenville, 10 Sept. 1783, H.M.C., Fortescue MSS, 1, 319.
106 Caledonian Mercury, 21 May 1783, 16 and 24 Aug. 1783; Camden to Grafton, 29 Aug. 1783, W.S.R.O. 423/805.
107 Fox to Lisburne, 25 Nov. 1783, B.L., Egt. MS 2136, fo. 232.
108 John Cannon feels that North's absence may have contributed to the coalition's defeat in the lords in the crucial first division on the India bill on 15 Dec. 1783: ‘It is possible that his vast experience could have turned the few votes needed’ (Fox-North coalition, pp. 137–8).
109 Walpole to the countess of Upper Ossory, 30 Dec. 1783, Walpole Correspondence, XXXIII, 430–1. Walpole apparently based his statement on a report in the London Chromicle, 97–30 Dec. 1783, that Hertford had rejected a dukedom and that seven coalitionists had refused British peerages (ibid. 4300.). There does appear to have been tome foundation for the reports of peerages offered and declined. See , Cannon, Fox-North coalition, pp. 159–60Google Scholar.
110 In addition to Thomas Pitt, peerages went to Henry Frederick Thynne, Edward Eliot, and the duke of Northumberland (a barony with remainder to his second son). For the promises, see Sir Thomas Egerton to George III, 28 Jan. 1784, and George III to William Pitt, 28 Mar. 1784, The later correspondence of King Georgt III, ed. Aspinall, Arthur (4 vols., Oxford, 1962-1968), 1, 38, 46Google Scholar. When Thomas Pitt decided on a different title than the one he originally submitted, the king remarked, ‘It must be a matter of great indifference to me by what title Mr Thomas Pitt is advanced to a seat in the House of Lords’ (letter to Sydney, 29 Dec. 1783, ibid. p. 14). Such a statement would have been most unlikely in the first two decades of the reign and may indicate that the king was developing a more detached attitude towards peerage creations.
111 Quoted in , Cannon, Fox-North coalition, p. 156Google Scholar.
112 For the new peerages, see the list in Turberville, A. S., The hornse of lords in the age of reform, 1784–1837 (London, 1958), pp. 444–5Google Scholar. Collectively, those given peerages or promotions in the first five months of 1784 were thought byJohn Robinson to influence decisively the election of 23 MPs: The parliamentary papers of John Robinson, 1774–1784, ed. Laprade, W. T., Camden Society, 3rd series, XXXIII (1922), 106–7Google Scholar.
113 See, for example, Gentleman's Magazine, LIV (1784), 576–8Google Scholar.
114 , Wnucall, Memoirs, III, 255Google Scholar.