Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:31:25.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The House of Lords and Parliamentary Patronage in Great Britain, 1802–1832

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

James J. Sack
James J. Sack
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1980 , pp. 913 - 937
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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 Black book (London, 1820), p. 389Google Scholar.

2 Cartwright, John, Letter to Mr. Lambton (London, 1820), p. 20Google Scholar.

3 Jennings, Louis J., ed., Correspondence and diaries ofthe late Right Honourable John Wilson Croker, 1809 to 1830 (London, 1885), I, 369Google Scholar.

4 ‘The present cabinet in relation to the times’, XXIX (1831), 147Google Scholar.

5 Buckingham to Plunket, 16 May 1818, Plunket papers, National Library of Ireland, Dublin, PC 920.

6 Horner, Leonard, ed., Memoirs and correspondence of Francis Horner, M.P. (Boston, 1853), I, 381Google Scholar.

7 Carpenter, William, Peerage for the people (London, 1841), p. 524Google Scholar.

8 Smith, H. Stooks, Parliaments of England (London, 1850), III, 100Google Scholar; Key to both houses of parliament (London, 1832), p. 307Google Scholar.

9 Carpenter, William, People's book (London, 1831), p. 244Google Scholar.

10 Key to parliament, pp. 397–9, 403–4.

11 Golby, John, ‘A great electioneer and his motives: the fourth duke of Newcastle’, Historical Journal, VIII (1965), 207Google Scholar.

12 Appendix to the first report of commissioners on the municipal corporations of England and Wales, Part IV, Parl. Papers, XXVI (1835), V, 2205Google Scholar.

13 For Norfolk, see Carpenter, , People's book, p. 130Google Scholar. He recovered his Arundel interest during Queen Victoria's reign. Dod, Charles R., Electoral facts, ed. by Hanham, H. J. (Brighton, 1972), p. 8Google Scholar. For Newcastle, see Key to parliament, p. 297; Golby, , ‘A great electioneer’, pp. 208–9Google Scholar.

14 Jennings, , ed., Correspondence of Croker, I, 165Google Scholar.

15 Report on municipal corporations, Part 1, Parl. Papers, XXIII (1835), II, 446Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. II, 141.

17 Ibid. part III, IV, 1959; Carpenter, , People's book, p. 124Google Scholar.

18 Gash, Norman, Politics in the age of Peel (London, 1953), p. 438Google Scholar.

19 Key to parliament, p. 317.

20 Moore, D. C., Politics of deference (New York, 1976), pp. 45–6, 50Google Scholar.

21 See, for example, Cartwright, 's register of patronage in a Letter to Mr. Lambton, pp. 25–30Google Scholar, where he lists, correctly, the second marquess of Buckingham and Lord Carrington as influencing the return of two Bucks M.P.s. Yet, rather inconsistently, he omits a reference to Spencer's return of Althorp for Northants.

22 Chandos expected the duke of Buckingham to pay for his uncontested elections for the county – which at the general election of 1826 amounted to £2,500. Buckingham's private diary, 20 May 1827, Stowe—Grenville papers, Huntington Library, San Marino, California, ST 98. The Fortescue interest in Devon was always an on-again, off-again one and cost the first earl a considerable amount: over £10,000 at the successful general election of 1818 and almost £6,000 at the unsuccessful one in 1820, when Ebrington resigned the poll at the end of the third day. Devon county election bill of 1818, 1262 M/15; Robert Ballment to Ebrington, 2 April 1820, 1262 M/19: Fortescue papers, Devon Record Office, Exeter.

23 Wade, John, Extraordinary black book (London, 1831), p. 244Google Scholar.

24 SirNamier, Lewis and Brooke, John, History of parliament: the House of Commons,1754–1790 (London, 1964), I, 470–1, 497Google Scholar. In the 1850s the eighth duke of Argyll still dominated the county. Dod, , Electoral facts, p. 6Google Scholar.

25 Namier, and Brooke, , House of Commons, III, 159Google Scholar.

26 Ferguson, W., ‘Dingwall Burgh politics and the parliamentary franchise in the eighteenth century’, Scottish Historial Review, XXXVIII (10 1959), 108Google Scholar.

27 This list is contained in Cartwright, 's Abridgment of ‘The English constitution produced and Illustrated’ (London, 1824)Google Scholar.

28 Jennings, , ed., Correspondence of Croker, I, 368–71Google Scholar.

29 Throughout the period, the various Black and Red books put out by radicals to attack, among other victims, sinecure-holders, are interesting though not always soundly organized and collated. They include: McCallum, P. F., Le livre rouge or a new and extraordinary red book (London, 1810)Google Scholar; The extraordinary red book (London, 1816)Google Scholar; Black book (London, 1820)Google Scholar; The new parliament: an appendix to the black book (London, 1826)Google Scholar; Wade, Extraordinary black book. Likewise, there are several similarly inspired tracts such as: Biographical list of the House of Commons, elected in October, 1812 (London, 1813)Google Scholar; Lewis, W. G., Peep at the Commons (London, 1820)Google Scholar; Peep at the peers (London, 1820)Google Scholar; Links of the lower house (London, 1821)Google Scholar.

30 Electoral facts, ed. by Hanham, and Who's who of British members of parliament, ed. by Michael Stenton (Harvester Press, 1976).

31 XXXV (1793), appendix pp. 94–7.

32 Oldfield, T. H. B., Representative history of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1816), VI, 285–95Google Scholar.

33 Cartwright, , Letter to Mr. Lambton, pp. 25–30Google Scholar. If the Irish peers and M.P.s are included the numbers become 97 peers and 200 commoners.

34 C1 (Feb. 1831), 1, 172–3.

35 Porritt, E., Unreformed House of Commons (London, 1903), 1Google Scholar, 309.

36 Tuberville, A. S., House of Lords in the age of reform, 1784–1837 (London, 1958), p.247Google Scholar.

37 Ibid.

38 Cobbett, William, ed., Parliamentary history of England: from the earliest period to the year 1803, XXXIII (1797–1799), 128–9Google Scholar.

39 Porritt, , Unreformed House of Commons, 1Google Scholar, 309.

40 Golby, , ‘A great electioneer’, p. 211Google Scholar.

41 Buckingham to East, 3 May 1828, Box 145; Tindal to Ledbrooke, 17 Nov. 1828, Box 228; Ledbrooke to Chandos, 4 March 1829, Box 225; Stowe–Grenville papers. The whiggish Nugent was given so much money for electoral expenses that the toryish Buckingham accused him of ‘picking my pocket of the Key’, and then leaving Aylesbury borough in the possession of Buckingham's enemies when he resigned in 1832. Buckingham to Thomas Grenville, 14 Nov. 1832, Grenville papers, Buckinghamshire Record Office, Aylesbury, M.F. 632:2. Both the second Earl Fitzwilliam and the third earl of Hardwicke paid election expenses for their close relations. Catalogue of the Fitzwilliam Manuscripts, Fitzwilliam papers, City Library, Sheffield, F 48d; Hardwicke to C. Yorke, 8 March 1810, Hardwicke papers, British Library, Add. MSS 35394.

42 Morland to Buckingham, 14 May 1813, Stowe–Grenville papers, Box 284.

43 Plunket, however, refused the offer. Bedford to Plunket, 19 Nov. 1809, Plunket papers, PC 921. For Macaulay, see Clive, John, Macaulay: the shaping of the historian (New York, 1974), pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

44 Lady Bulkeley to T. F. Lewis, 12 Dec. 1824, Harpton Court papers, National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, C/377.

45 McQuiston, J. R., ‘The Lonsdale connection and its defender, William, Viscount Lowther, 1818–1830’, Northern History XI (1976 for 1975), 170–1Google Scholar, 175.

46 Golby, , ‘A great electioneer’, p. 205Google Scholar. Historians have indeed sometimes wondered whether the M.P. who purchased his seat felt obligated politically to the seller. Owen, J. B., ‘Political patronage in eighteenth century England’, in Triumph of culture: eighteenth century perspectives, ed. by Fritz, Paul and Williams, David (Toronto, 1972), p. 380Google Scholar.

47 Clive, , Macaulay, pp. 139–40Google Scholar.

48 Huch, Ronald K., The radical Lord Radnor (Minneapolis, 1977), p. 7Google Scholar.

49 Memo of a conversation between the duke of Buckingham and Sir E. B. Sugden, 22 April 1831, Fremantle (Cottesloe) papers, Buckinghamshire Record Office, Aylesbury, p. 39.

50 Buckingham to W. Fremantle, 16 Sept. 1822, 18 Feb. 1823, Fremantle (Cottesloe) papers, p. 56.

51 Villiers to Stafford, 16 May 1805, Sutherland papers, Staffordshire Record Office, Stafford, D 868/11/18.

52 Oldfield, , Representative history, V, 152Google Scholar.

53 Jennings, , ed., Correspondence of Croker, 1, 167Google Scholar; Key to parliament, p. 841.

54 Staunton, George Thomas, Memoirs (London, 1856), p. 116Google Scholar.

55 For Newcastle, H. G. Knight in 1815 and Sir William Clinton in 1829. Bean, William W., Parliamentary representation of the six northern counties of England (Hull, 1890), p. 733Google Scholar; Machin, G. I. T., The Catholic question in English politics, 1820 to 1830 (Oxford, 1964), p. 151Google Scholar; Golby, , ‘A great electioneer’, p. 212nGoogle Scholar. For Aylesbury, , Brudenell, J. T. and Bruce, Lord in 1829, Machin, Catholic question, p. 151Google Scholar.

56 Carpenter, , People's book, p. 355Google Scholar.

57 Ibid. pp. 241–2.

58 Machin, , Catholic question, pp. 150–1Google Scholar.

59 Oldfield, , Representative history, IV, 446Google Scholar; Smith, , Parliaments of England, III, 162Google Scholar; Dictionary of national biography under ‘Graham, Thomas’.

60 Gash, , Politics in the age of Peel, p. 226Google Scholar.

61 Key to parliament, p. 292.

62 Brock, Michael, The Great Reform Act (London, 1973), p. 181Google Scholar.

63 For Buckingham, see Sack, James J., ‘Decline of the Grenvillite faction under the first duke of Buckingham and Chandos, 1817–1829’, Journal of British Studies, XV, 1 (1975), 126–8Google Scholar. For Newcastle and Aylesbury, see footnote 55 above. For Stafford, see Horner to Grey, 27 Oct. 1815 (copy), Horner papers, London School of Economics, VI. J. T. Ward, although he emphasizes the importance of family attachments in the attitudes of West Riding landowners towards the corn laws, makes it clear that peers and their heirs were sometimes in fundamental disagreement, for example the thirteenth duke of Norfolk and Lord Arundel and the third marquess of Londonderry and Castlereagh, Lord: ‘West Riding landowners and the Corn Laws’, English History Review, LXXXI, 319 (1966), 262Google Scholar, 268.

64 Porritt, , Unreformed House of Commons, 1, 323Google Scholar.

65 The following are found in Hansard, Thomas Curson, ed., Parliamentary debates. (1) Gower's amendment to the fifth resolution on the Regency, XVIII (1 12 1811), 598–601Google Scholar; Lansdowne, 's amendment on the first resolution on the Regency, XVIII (4 12 1811), 747–8Google Scholar; Lansdowne, 's amendment on the household, XVIII (25 12 1811), 1027–9Google Scholar. (2) Wellesley, 's motion on Roman Catholics, XXIV (1 07 1812), 868–71Google Scholar; Grattan, 's motion for a committee on Roman Catholic claims, XXIV (2 03 1813), 1074–8Google Scholar; on the Catholic relief bill, XXVI (24 May 1813), 361–5. (3) Grattan, 's motion on the Roman Catholic question, XXXIV (21 05 1816), 676–8Google Scholar; Grattan, 's motion on the Roman Catholics, XXXVI (9 05 1817), 438–42Google Scholar; Donoughmore, 's motion on the Roman Catholics, XXXVI (16 05 1817), 678–80Google Scholar. (4) Plunket's motion for a committee on Roman Catholic claims, 2nd ser. IV (28 Feb. 1821), 1030–4; on the Roman Catholic disability removal bill, 2nd ser. V (17 April 1821), 356–9. (5) Burdett, 's motion for a committee on Roman Catholic claims, 2nd ser. XII (28 02 1825), 840–4Google Scholar; 3rd reading of Roman Catholic relief bill, 2nd ser. XIII (10 May 1825), 558–62; 2nd reading of Roman Catholic relief bill, 2nd ser. XIII (17 May 1825), 766–8. (6) Russell, 's motion for repeal of test and corporation acts, 2nd ser. XVIII (26 02 1828), 781–4Google Scholar; repeal of test and corporation acts in Lords, 2nd ser. XIX (23 April 1828), 236–7. (7) Burdett, 's motion on Roman Catholic relief, 2nd ser. XIX (12 05 1828), 675–80Google Scholar; motion, on Roman, Catholic relief bill in Lords, 2nd ser. XIX (10 06 1828), 1294–7Google Scholar. (8) 2nd reading of Catholic bill in Commons, 2nd ser. XX (6 Mar. 1829), 892–6; 3rd reading of Catholic bill in Commons, 2nd ser. XX (30 Mar. 1829), 1633–8; 2nd reading of Catholic bill in Lords, 2nd ser. XXI (4 Apr. 1829), 394–7; 3rd reading of Catholic bill in Lords, 2nd ser. XXI (10 Apr. (1829), 694–7. (9) 2nd reading of reform bill, 3rd ser. III (22 Mar. 1831), 805–16; Gascoyne, 's motion for preserving the present number of English M.P.S, 3rd ser. III (19 04 1831), 1689–1700Google Scholar; 2nd reading of reform bill in Lords, 3rd ser. IX (7 Oct. 1831), 907–18. (10) 2nd reading of reform bill in Commons, 3rd ser. VII (6 July 1831), 465–76; 3rd reading of reform bill in Commons, 3rd ser. VIII (21 Sept. 1831), 339–44; 2nd reading of reform bill in Lords, 3rd ser. IX (7 Oct. 1831), 907–18.

66 Hansard, , ed., Parliamentary debates'.2nd reading of bill of pains and penalties, 2nd ser. III (6 11 1820), 1698–1700Google Scholar; 3rd reading of bill of pains and penalties, 2nd ser. III (10 Nov. 1820), 1744–6.

67 Ibid. Tavistock's motion on the conduct of ministers with regard to the proceedings against the queen, 2nd ser. IV (6 Feb. 1821), 507–11.

68 For purposes of comparison with Table 4, 27 cliental M.P.s were in seeming conflict with their patronal peers on this issue. Yet only 6 M.P.s may have been removed from their constituency for this vote – a far lower percentage (222) than normal for the period.

69 Hansard, , ed., Parliamentary debates: Tavistock's motion on the conduct of ministers with regard to the proceedings against the queen, 2nd ser. IV (6 02 1821), 363Google Scholar.

70 Ibid. 418.

71 Ibid. 2nd reading of reform bill in Commons, 3rd ser. IX (17 Dec. 1831), 547 56; 3rd reading of reform bill in Commons, 3rd ser. XI (22 March 1832), 780 5; 2nd reading of reform bill in Lords, 3rd ser. in (13 April 1832), 453–60; Lyndhurst's motion to postpone the disenfranchising clauses, 3rd ser. xn (7 May 1832), 723–8.

72 Harvey, A. D., Britain in the early nineteenth century (London, 1978), p. 4Google Scholar.

73 Obviously, issue 10 on Table 3 – the votes on the Reform Bill during the summer and autumn of 1831 would not qualify for inclusion on this table because the subsequent general election took place under the reformed franchise.

74 See Owen, , ‘Political patronage’, pp. 374–9Google Scholar; Norton, Philip, Dissension in the House of Commons (London, 1975), pp. 609–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.