¹ Some of the more illustrious members of the ‘Old’ or ‘Real’ Whigs under William III and Queen Anne were Walter Moyle, Robert Molesworth, Andrew Fletcher, John Trenchard, John Toland, Benjamin Hoadly and Matthew Tindal. Miss Robbins, Caroline, in The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives an excellent study of their ideas and activities, but does not consider their parliamentary role in any detail.

² Ibid. pp. 6, 97, 273; Williams, Basil, Stanhope, A Study in Eighteenth-Century War and Diplomacy (Oxford, 1932), pp. 390–4Google Scholar

³ Since his role in the management of Dr Sacheverell's impeachment in 1710, Walpole was determined that Whigs must always avoid giving churchmen any cause for regarding them as their enemies. Coxe, William, Memoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, Earl of Orford (London, 1798), I, 25.Google Scholar

⁴ For a study of Bishop Gibson's part in the formation of the Church—Whig alliance, see Sykes, Norman, Edmund Gibson (Oxford, 1926).Google Scholar His more recent work William Wake (Cambridge, i9S7)gives a muchfuller and more accurate account. See ibid. 11, 116–24, 138–4 144–7

⁵ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5200 (Gibson to the Duke of Newcastle, n.d.); MS. 5219 (‘My Case in Relation to the Ministry and the Whigs’, n.d.); MS. 5312 (Gibson to Hare, 3 August 1736).

⁶ Such a policy had been originated by Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury from 1695 to 1715, but the Whig politicians before Walpole had failed to see that Whig influence among the clergy could not grow significantly as long as they neglected the religious orthodoxy of their clerical colleagues. Without reassurance on this point, the average parson would be driven by fear of heresy into the arms of the Tories. See Archbishop Wake's MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford, Epist. 17, Miscellaneous Papers and Letters, 1: 1683–1714, fo. 228 (Gibson to Wake, 12 August 1709). See also Sykes, Edmund Gibson, pp. 89–91, 117–22, 280–1.

⁷ Plumb, J. H., Sir Robert Walpole, 11: The King's Minister (London, 1960), 97;Google ScholarSykes, Norman, Church and State in England in the XVIIIth Century (Cambridge, 1934), pp. 49–50, 77–84;Google ScholarWilliams, Basil, ‘The Duke of Newcastle and the Election of 1734’ in English Historical Review, xII (1897), 467–70Google Scholar

⁸ Robbins, , Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, pp. 98, 273–4Google Scholar

⁹ Gibson expected the ministers to kill anti-clerical proposals so quickly that the Old Whigs would have no chance to debate them and no forum to expound their dangerous opinions to gain further support. Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5209 (Gibson to Townshend, n.d.). In March 1725, Arthur Onslow, an Old Whig who was to be elected Speaker of the House of Commons in 1728, introduced a motion ‘to restrain the two Universities…from purchasing new Advowsons and Presentations to Benefices’, but the ministers acted promptly to prevent debate. Chandler, Richard, ed., The History and Proceedings of the House of Commons from the Restoration to the Present Time (London, 1742–43), vi, 337.Google Scholar At another time, Sir Robert Walpole suppressed a detailed scheme from a ‘Mr. Thompson, Merchant in Bow Lane’, for the secularization of £110,000 of the Church's annual income. Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., MS. 78, fos. 1 and 2.

¹⁰ During the 1731 session, the Old Whigs introduced a Tithe Bill which would have greatly restricted the clergy's rights to collect tithes. The debates produced a pamphlet controversy between Bishop Sherlock and William Arnall, a ministerial journalist, and the clergy's right to tithes was everywhere called into question. Although the bill was easily defeated, Gibson disliked the publicity which the Old Whigs gained. Commons Journal, xxi, 650 (26 February); Edward Carpenter, Thomas Sherlock (London, 1936), pp. 106–10; Sykes, , Edmund Gibson, pp. 145, 149.Google Scholar In the same session, the opposition tried to introduce a Bill to Prevent the Translation of Bishops, but the ministers successfully rejected it. Cobbett, William, ed., Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England (London, 1806–1820), vin, 857–8Google Scholar

¹¹ Although the ministers obtained the introduction of the Tobacco Excise Bill by a vote of 266 to 205 on 14 March, their majorities declined steadily until they reached sixteen on 5 April, and at this point Walpole decided to withdraw the bill. Cobbett, Parl[iamentary] Hist[ory,]. VIII, 1313; Commons Journal, xxII, 105; H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 1, 342, 354. For a good survey of these events, see Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, n, 239 ff.

¹² The Church Courts Bill, introduced on 9 April, would have virtually ended the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts by providing alternative procedure in the temporal courts. The Church Rates and Repairs Bill, introduced on 25 April, would have deprived the clergy of their traditional supervision of all ecclesiastical buildings and of their authority in setting and collecting Church rates and assessments. Commons Journal, xxn, 37, 127, 179—80.

¹³ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, I, 365; John Lord, Hervey, Some Materials Towards Memoirs of the Reign of King George II, ed. by Sedgwick, Romney (London, 1931), 1, 181–2Google Scholar

¹⁴ When the opposition surprised the Court on 3 May by a motion to investigate the disposition of the South Sea Company director's estates, the ministers suffered a defeat by a vote of 35 to 31. Despite strenuous lobbying by the Court, they were again defeated on 24 May, this time in a scheduled debate, by a tie vote of 75 to 75. Cobbett, Part. Hist. IX, 106, 10

¹⁵ Although there were twenty-six bishops, including the two archbishops, in the House of Lords, two of them did not support the government. William Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, had refused to take part in parliamentary affairs since the ministry had transferred its confidence to Gibson in 1723. Sykes, , William Wake, II, 145.Google Scholar Dr Reynolds, Bishop of Lincoln, had defected to the opposition soon after his translation from Bangor in 1723.

¹⁶ The Church Courts Bill had received a second reading on 18 April. On 17 May, amendments were adopted after the Church party had been defeated in a division by 115 to 51. The next day, the bill was read for a third time and passed without a division. Commons Journal, XXII, 120, 153, 155–6Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Church Rates and Repairs Bill had received a second reading in the Commons on 2 May, but it was rejected on its third reading on 25 May without a division. Ibid, xxn, 127, 161.

¹⁸ Despite three weeks of intensive lobbying by the Court since its second defeat on 24 May, the ministers defeated this motion of censure only by the narrow margin of five votes. Gentleman's Magazine, II (Supplement, 1733), 705–6;Google Scholar H.M.C. Carlisle MSS., 119. Sir Robert was very worried that the King might think he was no longer powerful enough to remain First Minister, since the defeats on the South Sea affair had occurred so soon after the excise controversy. Hervey, Memoirs, 1, 197. The clearest description of this episode is found in Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, 11, 275–9.

¹⁹ The Church Courts Bill had its first reading in the Lords on 22 May; its second reading was scheduled to take place on 28 May, but nothing more was heard of the bill this session. Lords Journal, xxiv, 275. Norman Sykes erred in stating that the bill had received its second reading on 23 May (Edmund Gibson, p. 151). The ministry's debt to the bishops was mentioned scornfully in a popular doggerel. See ‘The Bishop or no Bishop: or, The Disappointed Doctor’ (London, n.d.) in Bishop Gibson's Pamphlet Collection, Sion College, Blackfriars, London, xv, 17.

²⁰ Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., MS. 78, fo. 43 (‘Considerations upon the present State of things, chiefly in relation to the Church and Clergy’).

²¹ The motion to repeal the Septennial Act was defeated on 13 March by a vote of 247 to 184. Commons Journal, xxn, 279; Cobbett, Parl. Hist, ix, 479–82. If the act had been repealed, the government would have been forced to hold elections more frequently than once every seven years. Since the Old Whigs had strongly advocated more frequent elections, the opposition hoped that they would attract their support. Robbins, , Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, pp. 109–10.Google Scholar However, many leading Old Whigs, like John Conduit and William Glanville, voted with the ministers against repeal. Political State of Great Britain, XLVIII, 543–56 (December 1734).

²² Commons Journal, xxII, 262, 277, 281, 288Google Scholar

²³ Hervey, Memoirs, I, 242–3. The Court carried its major legislation by majorities that ranged from 24 to 43, a great improvement on those of the previous session, but the opposition vote held fairly firm at its maximum of 62.

²⁴ Lord Chesterfield, one of the leaders of the opposition, asserted that they had won 240 seats in the new House. In the eighteenth century, it was impossible to tell with any certainty how large a majority the government would have before the House actually convened. A Selection from the Papers of the Earls of Marchmont, in the Possession of the Right Honble Sir George Henry Rose, Illustrative of Events from 1685 to 1750 (London, 1831), II, 44 (27 08 1734)Google Scholar. Lord Carteret predicted that they would be strong enough to replace Arthur Onslow as Speaker; once the new House had met, however, they were afraid to contest his re-election. Ibid. 11, 28.

²⁵ Lord Egmont wrote: ‘It was surprising to the Court that in the beginning of the Parliament, and when the affair was only to address his Majesty, the minority should be within 16 of the number that approved the Excise Scheme’. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, I, 146.

²⁶ Cobbett, Part. Hist, IX, 924.

²⁷ Commons Journal, XXII, 389.Google Scholar

²⁸ Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, 11, 244.

²⁹ It was long believed that a First Minister could not survive if his majorities fell below sixty in a major division. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 1, 146.

³⁰ Commons Journal, XXII, 485Google Scholar; H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 174.

³¹ Four days before the Bishop of Gloucester (Dr Sydall) died, Gibson wrote to Walpole and protested the rumoured appointment of Rundle. Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., Letter no. 2106 (Gibson to Walpole, 18 December 1733). Two leading London clerics also protested to Gibson against the expected nomination. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, n, 2, 23–4, 136. For a brief survey of the Rundle1 affair, see Sykes, , Edmund Gibson, pp. 136, 155–8Google Scholar

³² Rundle was chaplain to Bishop Talbot at Salisbury; he went to Durham in 1721 when the bishop was translated there and was soon made a prebendary. Rowden, Alfred W., The Primates of the Four Georges, p. 255.Google Scholar In 1732, when he was still Solicitor-General, Lord Talbot had asked Walpole to give Rundle ‘a little Bishoprick’, so his own honour was also involved Cholmondeley(Houghton)MSS., Letterno. 1933(CharlesTalbotto, Walpole, 8Decemberi732).

³³ Gordon was a staunch Old Whig who had worked with John Trenchard to produce The Independent Whig, a polemic anti-clerical publication, and Cato's Letters, which advocated Old Whig political opinions. Laprade, William T., Public Opinion and Politics in Eighteenth-Century England (New York, 1936), p. 353;Google ScholarRobbins, , Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, pp. 88—9, 333–4.Google Scholar Walpole had entrusted the general supervision of all ministerial newspapers to Gordon. Hanson, Laurence, The Government and the Press, 1695–1763 (London, 1936), pp. 106—7Google Scholar

³⁴ Reprinted in Gentleman's Magazine, IV (March 1734), 152–3. Gibson was known as ‘Dr. Codex’ because of the title of his learned study of canon law which he had published in 1713.

³⁵ Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., Letter no. 2161 (Gibson to Walpole, 27 April 1734). Gibson angrily complained about the ‘virulence with which it is written’ and about the part that the Lord Chancellor played in the affair. The bishop was particularly annoyed by the indulgence that the ministers showed towards the author and publisher of the pamphlet. Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5287.

³⁶ Hervey, , Memoirs, 11, 401Google Scholar

³⁷ Apparently Gibson took the initiative to suggest to Walpole that he delay making the appointment until after the elections had been held to prevent further damage to the ministerial cause. Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5286–7.

³⁸ The virulence of the pamphlet war can be seen from the titles of the publications and from the fact that they continued to appear even after Rundle had accepted an Irish bishopric. Sykes, , Edmund Gibson, pp. 426–7.Google Scholar Many Church-Whigs were so shocked by the ministry's refusal to curtail the Old Whigs attacks that they openly supported opposition candidates at the polls in the general election; however, Gibson seems to have campaigned as fervently as ever for the government. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 270; Hervey, Memoirs, II, 399–404.

³⁹ Gentleman’s Magazine, IV (12 1734), 704;Google Scholar Hervey, Memoirs, II, 404–5.

⁴⁰ Dr Rundle was given the Irish diocese of Londonderry, while Dr Martin Benson was appointed to Gloucester and Dr Thomas Secker to Bristol. Although these men had all been protégés of the late Bishop Talbot, the Lord Chancellor was so incensed by his failure to obtain Gloucester for Rundle that he refused to wish ‘those two Bishops joy when they came to wait upon him after their nomination’. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 11, 137.

⁴¹ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 11, 153. Since William Talbot had gained his seat in a disputed election contest on 28 January through ministerial support, his defection was the first indication of the Lord Chancellor's opposition. Commons Journal, XXII, 331Google Scholar

⁴² Lord James Cavendish defected in the same division. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 153.

⁴³ Marchmont Papers, II, 65—6Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Political State of Great Britain, XLVIII, 3–7 (07 1734)Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Although the House of Lords divided on more occasions during this session than it had for many years, the opposition failed to menace the Court's control. The ministerialists enjoyed a maximum majority of 52 and further majorities in the 40s on nine other occasions. Only twice did their majority fall below 30, and both of these were minor divisions.

⁴⁶ Early in February 1735, the leaders of the opposition conferred with Lord Talbot about the best method to unseat the newly elected ministerial Scottish peers on charges of bribery. The Lord Chancellor was very cordial and showed no reticence about conspiring with Walpole's enemies to defeat the government. However, the Lords dismissed the petition which was finally presented by a vote of 99 to 52. Marchmont Papers, II, 55—6;Google ScholarCobbett, , Part. Hist. IX, 793 (28 02)Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Bernard Lord Manning, The Protestant Dissenting Deputies, ed. Greenwood, Ormerod (Cambridge, 1952), p. 2Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The Dissenters had made their requests in November 1732 and again in December 1734. Hunt, N. C., Two Early Political Associations: The Quakers and Dissenting Deputies in the Age of Sir Robert Walpole (Oxford, 1961), pp. 134–5Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Minutes of the Dissenting Deputies, 1, 6 March 1734/5, cited in Hunt, , Two Early Political Associations, p. 146Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For a detailed account of their preparations, see ibid. pp. 146–53.

⁵¹ Boulter Correspondence, Christ Church, Oxford, II, fo. 351 (Boulter to Gibson, 20 March 1734/5). Boulter was an archbishop in the Irish Church.

⁵² Ibid. II, fo. 354 (Boulter to Gibson, 20 May 1735).

⁵³ Minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings, XXVI, 12th day, 10th month, 1735, cited in Hunt, Two Early Political Associations, p. 84.

⁵⁴ Minutes of the Meeting for Sufferings, XXVI, 11th day, 4th month, 1736. Ibid. p. 85.

⁵⁵ Hervey, Memoirs, II, 531.

⁵⁶ Gibson-Nicolson Papers, Bodleian MS. Add. A269, fo. xi (‘Queries—sent to the Ministry on the occasion of their Resentment against the Bench of Bishops for their unanimous opposition ag^st the Quakers Bill’).

⁵⁷ Weekly Miscellany (24 07 1736), no. 187.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5304. This memorandum in Gibson's own hand gives the sequence of events during the negotiations with the ministers. Since the article in the Weekly Miscellany (no. 187, 24 July 1736), is, for the most part, a verbatim reproduction of Gibson's account, it was probably written by him, or under his direction. The same article appeared also in the Gentleman's Magazine (July 1736), VI, 401–2. Dr Sykes does not refer to either source in his biography of Gibson.

⁵⁹ On 28 January, the opposition's motion for an investigation of the ordinary naval estimates was rejected by 256 to 155. In the previous year, the same motion had been defeated by 198 to 160. Commons Journal, XXII, 535;Google Scholar XXII, 389. While the evidence is not conclusive, the significant increase in ministerial strength was apparently a direct consequence of the new liberal policy towards the Old Whigs and Dissenters.

⁶⁰ In 1734 and 1735, despite the precarious position of the government following the excise crisis when its majorities were much smaller, the ministers had imposed the whip and obtained a grant of £4,000 on each occasion. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 233.

⁶¹ The petition was rejected by 127 to 124. Commons Journal, XXII, 567.Google Scholar Lord Egmont was particularly disturbed by the result, since the chapel was not used primarily for religious purposes but as ‘the burial place of our Kings’. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 233.

⁶² Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 546Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid. II, 546.

⁶⁴ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5299 (‘My last letter to S^r R. W(alpol)^e’).

⁶⁵ Cobbett, , Parl. Hist, IX, 1056–7Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Since 1731 the leadership of the parliamentary Old Whigs had passed to the more active hands of William Glanville, although the aged John Conduit and Sir Joseph Jekyll were still regarded as titular leaders. Born William Evelyn, Glanville was a member of Parliament for Hythe, a borough under the influence of both the Treasury and the Admiralty. Namier, Sir Lewis, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (London, 1957), p. 121.Google Scholar Despite his zeal for Old Whig measures, Glanville continued to support Walpole.

⁶⁷ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, III, 142; Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, II, 246.

⁶⁸ The vote was 184 to 100. Commons Journal, XXII, 611 (4 03)Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cobbett, Parl. Hist, ix, IIII.

⁷⁰ Hervey, , Memoirs, III, 691Google Scholar

⁷¹ Jekyll was married to a sister of Lord Somers, a member of the Whig Junto. The anticlerical Lord Hardwicke, Lord Chief Justice, was his nephew and eventually his heir. ‘ In religion he was probably a freethinker like his friends Whiston, Clarke and Onslow’ (Robbins, Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, pp. 79, 280).

⁷² H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 242. The House then ordered Jekyll, William Glanville, Walter Plumer and Robert Ord to prepare and bring in such a bill. Cobbett, Parl. Hist, ix, IIII (5 March). Plumer, member for Appleby, was, like Glanville, a notorious Old Whig. He had sponsored the Tithe Bill of 1731. Commons Journal, XXI, 650;Google Scholar Free Briton, no. 80 (10 June 1731). Robert Ord, member for St Michael, was a personal follower of William Pulteney, a leader of the opposition. Owen, John B., The Rise of the Pelhams (London, 1957), p. 28,Google Scholar note 2.

⁷³ William Plumer made the motion for repeal; he was supported by Samuel Holden, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Lord Polwarth and Alderman Heathcote. Chandler, History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, iv, 161 ff.; Cobbett, , Parl. Hist, ix, 1046 ff.Google Scholar William Plumer, member for Hertfordshire, was a Dissenter and an Old Whig. He should not be confused with Walter Plumer, who sponsored the Mortmain Bill. SirLewis, Namier and Brooke, John, The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754–1790 (London, 1964), III, 303.Google Scholar Holden, member for East Looe, was chairman of the Dissenting Deputies’ committee; Lawson, member for Cockermouth, has been described as a ‘soi-disant country Whig’ with a professed dislike for the Court. Archibald S. Foord, His Majesty's Opposition, 1714–1830 (Oxford, 1964), p. 119. Polwarth, member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was the son of the Earl of Marchmont, one of the Scottish peers who had broken with Walpole in 1733 and had failed to win re-election to the Lords. Heathcote, member for Southwark, was a spokesman for London business interests. Although he had gained a seat in the last Parliament in a disputed election contest through ministerial support, he had become a staunch opponent of the government soon afterwards. He was an ardent anti-clericalist who had been the chief sponsor of the Tithe Bill in 1731. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 1, 27–9; Free Briton, (10 June 1731) no. 80; Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, II, 146; Robbins, , Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, p. 274;Google ScholarHenderson, Alfred James, London and the National Government, 1721–1742 (Durham, North Carolina, 1945). PP. 148, 169Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Political State of Great Britain, XLVI, 458 (11 1733)Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., MS. 76, fo. 8, n.d.

⁷⁶ Fraser, Alexander C., ed. The Works of George Berkeley (Oxford, 1871), IV, 244Google Scholar (Gibson to Berkeley, 7 February 1735/6).

⁷⁷ Cobbett, , Parl. Hist. IX, 1046Google Scholar

⁷⁸ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 243–4.

⁷⁹ Commons Journal, XXII, 629 (12 03);Google Scholar Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5304, Section 9; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 531–2Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5304.

⁸¹ Ibid. MS. 5218 (‘The Bishop of London's Complaints of I11 Usage, in the false Representations that have been made of him and his Conduct’).

⁸² Gibson MSS., Bodleian MS. Dept. C238, fo. 53. An exact copy of the circular letter was published in the Weekly Miscellany (24 June 1736), no. 187.

⁸³ Although Lord Hervey reports that this meeting took place on 13 March, Bishop Hare, in a much more detailed account, suggests that it occurred on 14 March; however, Hervey gives the impression that there was only one meeting ever held. Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5314 (Hare to Gibson, 7 August 1736); Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 531Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Writing to Gibson several months after his rupture with Walpole, Bishop Hare said: ‘…I came to ye meetings and concurred with my brethren in what was proposed; which I should never have done, had I suspected it would have given offence, which I had no apprehension it would, when ye mover was one in such credit with Sir Robert and whom I knew to be so well intentioned of him.’ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5314 (Hare to Gibson, 7 August 1736).

⁸⁵ Ibid.; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 531.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5311 (Hare to Gibson, 2 August 1736).

⁸⁷ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5304. This interesting document, in Gibson's own hand, is a detailed defence of his actions in 1736.

⁸⁸ Robert Butts, Bishop of Norwich and a protégé of Lord Hervey's, had gone directly from the bishops’ meeting to tell his patron what had passed there. At once, Hervey informed Walpole. Butts detested Gibson for having opposed his elevation to the episcopate several years before. Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 532–3.Google Scholar It appears that Walpole received similar information from a member of the Talbot faction. The Diaries of Thomas Wilson, D.D., 1731–37 & 1750, ed. by C. L. S. Linnell (London, 1964), p. 154.

⁸⁹ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5302 (‘Complaints on the part of the Bishop of London’); MS. 5303 (‘The Case of the Bishop of London's retiring from publick Business’); MS. 5304.

⁹⁰ Ibid. MS. 5314 (Hare to Gibson, 7 August 1736).

⁹¹ Ibid. MS. 5311 (Hare to Gibson, 2 August 1736).

⁹² Ibid. MS. 5302 (‘Complaints on the part of the Bishop of London’).

⁹² Gibson denied that he had sent his letter about the Tithe Bill to his own clergy before the other bishops had acted. Hervey said that Gibson was guilty of a ‘flat lie’, since he obtained ‘an original letter of the Bishop of London's to one of his clergy of a date three days prior to the meeting’. It should be noted that Gibson did not deny having composed the letter before the bishops had met; he merely denied having sent it. Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 533–4;Google Scholar Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5218 (‘The Bishop of London's Complaints of I11 Usage, in the false Representations that have been made of him and his Conduct’).

⁹⁴ Gibson MSS. (St. Andrews), MS. 5314 (Hare to Gibson, 7 August 1736).

⁹⁵ Ibid. MS. 5304.

⁹⁶ Ibid. MS. 5297 (Gibson to Walpole, n.d.). Obviously this was the letter which Lord Hervey says made Walpole so angry. Although the bishop had expressed his resentment in a moderate manner, Hervey states that Walpole wrote a bitter reply which he later tore up. Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 534Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Gibson MSS. ‘An Answer to the Objection of My Breaking Abruptly with Sir R. Walpole’. This document, listed in Sykes, , Edmund Gibson, as III, fo. 62Google Scholar (see p. 411), was apparently one of several which were lost in 1928 when the Gibson papers were divided up and sold. It cannot now be found among the Gibson MSS. on file at St Andrews, Lambeth Palace, or the Bodleian Library.

⁹⁸ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5299 (‘My last letter to S^r R. W(alpol)e’).

⁹⁹ Although it appears that Walpole decided to make use of this opportunity afforded by Gibson's opposition to the Quakers' Tithe Bill to free himself of the bishop, he did not originally support the Quakers with that objective in mind. Dr Hunt, however, believes that Walpole ‘deliberately engineered this breach’ by using the Quakers' Tithe Bill to alienate Gibson. Such an interpretation is only possible if the role of the Old Whigs in Parliament is ignored. See Hunt, , Two Early Political Associations, pp. 92–9Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 403Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5311 (Hare to Gibson, 2 August 1736).

¹⁰² Ibid. MS. 5314 (Hare to Gibson, 7 August 1736).

¹⁰³ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 403Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Hoadly had been the cause of the ‘Bangorian controversy’ in 1717 when, as Bishop of Bangor, he had denied all authority to the visible Church in a sermon before the King. To protect him from censure, the government had ended Convocation. It was not permitted to meet again for business for more than a hundred years. See Every, George, The High Church Party, 1688–1718 (London, 1956), pp. 162–6;Google ScholarSykes, , Church and State, pp. 292–6;Google ScholarSykes, , William Wake, I, 161–5, 181–2, 190Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 398Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Laprade, , Public Opinion and Politics, p. 355.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Gibson-Nicolson Correspondence, Bodleian MS. Add. A269 (Gibson to Nicolson, 10 December 1717). In 1717 the Whig ministers had postponed their plan to repeal the Occasional Conformity and Schism Acts, when they learned that the bishops were unanimously opposed. Wake was certain that, if the bishops remained united in their determination on any issue, no government could oppose them for long, since no ministers ‘who bid such free defiance of the established church will long be able to stand against the interest of it’. King Correspondence, Trinity College, Dublin (Wake to King, 1 June 1717), cited in Sykes, William Wake, II, 116. It was at this time that Gibson attracted the attention of the Whig ministers by his willingness to repudiate Wake's leadership and support a more liberal policy towards the Dissenters under the aegis of Lord Stanhope. Ibid. II, 116—24.

¹⁰⁸ Because Wake had refused to follow the lay Whigs submissively, Gibson accused him of ‘turning Tory’. The same charge could have been justly made against the Bishop of London in 1734 and 1736. In fairness to Gibson, however, it should be noted that in 1717 he had adhered firmly to his belief that, above all, the Whig government must be preserved. If the Tories had gained power, they would have destroyed the state and thereby inadvertently brought ruin to the Church; at least, this was Gibson's line of reasoning. Gibson-Nicolson Correspondence, Bodleian MS. Add. A269 (Gibson to Nicolson, 10 December 1717).

¹⁰⁹ Commons Journal, XXII, 623 (10 03).Google Scholar Leave had been granted to bring in the bill on 5 March. Cobbett. Part. Hist, ix, IIII.

¹¹⁰ In 1730 Arthur Onslow, the Old Whig Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr Glanville, Justice Probyn and Mr Temple had discussed the problem and had suggested legislation very similar to the Mortmain Bill. H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 1, 108.

¹¹¹ Ibid. 1, 242, 262.

¹¹² Commons Journal, XXII, 650 (2 04).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Torbruck, John, ed. A Collection of the Parliamentary Debates in England (1668–1741) (London, 1739–42), xiv, 8 (5 04)Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Commons journal, XXII, 672 (5 04).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid. XXII, 676, 678.

¹¹⁶ Ibid. XXII, 680 (8 April); H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 255.

¹¹⁷ Commons Journal, XXII, 686 (15 04). The vote was 176 to 72.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Commons Journal, XXII, 688 (19 04).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Total alienations since 1696 had amounted to £57,571. Of this, £22,005 had been for ‘religious’ institutions including the two universities, while £35,566 had been for secular causes. The only alienations that were allowed other than by royal licence were those made directly to Queen Anne's Bounty; these were used to augment the income of the poorer clergy. The King's report is printed in full in ibid. XXII, 708–10.

¹²⁰ Savidge, Alan, The Foundation and Early Years of Queen Anne's Bounty (London, 1955), p. 83.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Typical comments about the Church and clergy being too rich can be found in H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 1, 108; II, 233; H.M.C. Carlisle MSS., p. 131.

¹²² Bishop Sherlock's pamphlet was entitled ‘The Country Parson’s Plea against the Quakers' Bill for Tythes' (London, 1736). See Carpenter, , Thomas Sherlock, pp. 116–20.Google Scholar

¹²³ H.M.C. Carlisle MSS., p. 165 (Lord Morpeth to his father the Earl of Carlisle, 3 April 1736).

¹²⁴ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 254 (4 April).

¹²⁵ Cobbett, Pad. Hist. IX, 1159 (21 April). The vote was 202 to 96. The bill had been committed on 12 April by a vote of 221 to 84. Ibid. IX, 1157–8.

¹²⁶ The Church party argued that originally the bill had granted a more ‘easy Recovery of Tythes’ from Quakers in cases where the tithe was less than £10, but under the amended bill all cases where the total value of the tithes was not in question, regardless of the amount involved, would be determined by the justices of the peace without right of appeal. Cobbett, Parl. Hist, ix, 1160–1.

¹²⁷ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 268. The vote was 152 to 48. No other source gives the result of this division.

¹²⁸ Cobbett, , Part. Hist, IX, 1118.Google Scholar The bill had received its first reading on 16 April. Torbruck, , Parliamentary Debates, xiv, IIGoogle Scholar

¹²⁹ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 536.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Harris, George, The Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke (London, 1847), I, 308Google Scholar (‘Notes for Speech on Mortmain Bill’). This is the speech which Hardwicke presumably delivered, although all reports of it in regular sources of debates are unusually inadequate.

¹³¹ H.M.C. Carlisle MSS., p. 169.

¹³² Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 536;Google ScholarTorbruck, , Parliamentary Debates, xiv, 55Google Scholar

¹³³ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 536Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Savidge, , Queen Anne's Bounty, 104–6.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Cobbett, Part. Hist, ix, 1119.

¹³⁶ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, II, 269, 271.

¹³⁷ Cobbett, Part. Hist, ix, 1179 ff. The bill had had its final reading on 4 May.

¹³⁸ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 537.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Like many men favourable to the Old Whigs, Lord Hervey was bitterly annoyed by the opposition of Talbot and Hardwicke. He accused them of ‘desiring to make their peace with the clergy’ and of courting popularity ‘with men of their own profession’ who preferred ‘power and profit’ to justice. Ibid. 11, 537.

¹⁴⁰ Those bishops who voted against the Quakers' Tithe Bill with their dioceses and dates of appointment were: Martin Benson (Gloucester, 1735), Robert Butts (Norwich, 1733), Edward Chandler (Durham, 1730), Nicholas Claggett (St Davids, 1732), Robert Clavering (Peterborough, 1729), Henry Egerton (Hereford, 1724), Edmund Gibson (London, 1723), Francis Hare (Chichester, 1731), John Harris (Llandaff, 1729), John Potter (Oxford, 1715), Richard Reynolds (Lincoln, 1723), Thomas Seeker (Bristol, 1735), Thomas Sherlock (Salisbury, 1734), Richard Smallbrooke (Lichfield, 1731) and Joseph Wilcocks (Rochester, 1731)

Those bishops who failed to vote either in person or by proxy were: Lancelot Blackburn (York, 1724), Charles Cecil (Bangor, 1734), Sir George Fleming, Bart. (Carlisle, 1735), Thomas Green (Ely, 1723), Benjamin Hoadly (Winchester, 1734), John Hough (Worcester, 1717), Isaac Maddox (St Asaph, 1736), Samuel Peploe (Chester, 1726), William Wake (Canterbury, 1716), Stephen Weston (Exeter, 1724), John Wynne (Bath and Wells, 1727). Maddox of St Asaph had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords. Political State of Great Britain, LII, 504–5 (November 1736).

¹⁴¹ See infra, 424.

¹⁴² Cobbett, , Part. Hist, ix, 1220 (12 05).Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5218 (‘The Bishop of London's Complaints of I11 Usage, in the false Representations that have been made of him and his Conduct’). Gibson had just cause to feel that he had been deliberately made a scapegoat. Apparently Dr Blackburn, Archbishop of York, had taken a major part in organizing and directing the bishops' meetings. Wilsom Diaries, p. 157; Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 532.Google Scholar The favour shown to Dr Potter, Bishop of Oxford, was particularly irksome to Gibson, since he had also been one of the bishops’ leaders. In 1737 he was made Archbishop of Canterbury, a post that Gibson had been promised many times by Walpole before the rupture. Gibson MSS. (St Andrews), MS. 5313 (Gibson to Hare, 4 August 1736).

¹⁴⁴ Ibid. MS. 5297 (Gibson to Walpole, no date but obviously written in March 1736). It is possible that the defection of these bishops so early in the conflict convinced Walpole that he could be free of Gibson without turning the whole bench against him and endangering his control of the Lords. Within the next few weeks he found that he was able to detach eight or nine others from Gibson, enough to discredit the bishop as leader of the Church-Whigs.

¹⁴⁵ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 539.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Cholmondeley (Houghton) MSS., MS. 2644 (Benson to Walpole, 15 December 1736).

¹⁴⁷ Wilson Diaries, pp. 156, 169, 178.

¹⁴⁸ Hervey, , Memoirs, II, 542–4; III, 703, 719–20;Google ScholarCarpenter, , Sherlock, Thomas, p. 69Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Although the Old Whigs had achieved little except the passing of the Mortmain Act, they were apparently not discouraged. Their leader William Glanville accepted the post of Commissioner of the Irish Revenues in 1737 and continued to support the government. Owen, , Rise of the Pelhams, p. 51,Google Scholar notes 1 and 2.

¹⁵⁰ B.M. Add. MSS. 32,906, fo. 387 (Duke of Newcastle to Bishop Hoadly, 31 May 1760). In this letter, Newcastle boasts about the policy which he always pursued of ignoring theological opinions in all ecclesiastical promotions.

¹⁵¹ H.M.C. Egmont Diary, 11, 323 (December 1736).

¹⁵² B.M. Add. MSS. 32,701, fo. 96 (Sherlock to the Duke of Newcastle, 4 September 1743).