‘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.

Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, was one of the Secretaries of State in Queen Anne's Tory administration of 1710–14 which sought to bring an end to the increasingly burdensome War of the Spanish Succession. Employing somewhat dubious means, he and his ministerial colleagues eventually made peace with France by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713; a treaty which paid more attention to the interests of Great Britain than to those of her allies, the Dutch and Austrians. In seeking peace at almost any price Bolingbroke and his colleagues faced a particular problem with the former Spanish territory of the Southern Netherlands (or Flanders). The Dutch were particularly interested in this territory because they hoped to secure possession of strong fortresses there which would provide them with a secure barrier against a sudden attack by the French. The Austrians, for their part, hoped to gain this territory as part of the Emperor's inheritance of former Spanish possessions. Britain herself was concerned to serve her allies in this territory at least. She also had commercial interests in Flanders and had long sought an effective barrier to French efforts to expand into the Low Countries. These concerns were reflected in Bolingbroke's correspondence with Charles, Earl of Orrery, one of his Tory friends, who was appointed in 1711 as the Queen's envoy-extraordinary to the States General in The Hague and to the Council of Flanders in Brussels. Orrery served in this capacity for most of 1711. In late 1712 he returned to these duties and served there for a further year

Ane Account of ane Embassie performed by William Steuart Commendator of Pittenweim And mr John Skeen

To England[,] Denmark[,] And Princess of Germanie in Anno 1590[.]

WE departed from Edinburgh the 9t day of Junij 1590. came yat night to Berwick lodged in mr Andersones[,] Humainlie receaved, Be Sir John Selbie Master porter, And Sir William Reid capitaine[.] 10. day in the morning we receaved the bankett from Sir Henric wodringtoun marschell and Governour deput. Theraster the samyn day wee tooke the post at 9 hours befoirnoon – Toward lundoun In maner follouing[:]

These Memorandums &c would have been put into the the [sic] fire, but after consideration I thought they might be useful to any one who should Edit the Memoir, as they contain parts of political matters alluded to in other places, and shew the views which I and others took of them. They are preserved only for this purpose. When they have been used in this way they should be destroyed.

• Acknowledgements 108

• List of Abbreviations 109

• Introduction 110

• Editorial Procedure 115

• Text 116

Although the authors of the journals and speeches reproduced below all came from the East Midlands and were loosely related to each other, they offer three widely differing viewpoints of the proceedings of the House of Commons during the parliamentary sessions of 1604 and 1606–7. The Rutland manuscript concentrates on the privilege dispute over election returns which dominated the opening weeks of the 1604 session, while Sir Robert Cotton was chiefly concerned to record procedural precedents for use in subsequent Parliaments, and Sir Edward Mountagu focussed on the House's legislative activity.

• Introduction 137

• Text 145