Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

L’invention de la décentralisation

 | 
Roger Baury
, 
Marie-Laure Legay

– IV – Expériences européennes de participation nobiliaire aux pouvoirs intermédiaires (xviie-début xixe siècle)

The English Jacobite Nobility 1689-1760

Eveline Cruickshanks

Texte intégral

  • 1 Robert Bucholz, The Augustan Court. Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture, Stanford, 1993, p (...)

1Since the Restoration of 1660 the English nobility expected and obtained their share of power in the government at the central and local level. After the civil wars, the Crown and Church lands were returned, but the Royalists whose estates had been confiscated and which had often been sold and resold received no compensation. It was politically and economically wise as the best of the army, navy and civil service in Cromwell’s day were employed in the service of Charles II. Accused of ingratitude by Royalists, Charles did compensate leading royalist families by giving them places in the royal Households. After the Revolution of 1688-89, however, the families who had served in the royal Households in the reigns of James II, Charles II and often in the reign of Charles I, were turned out and replaced by Whigs, some of whom had republican backgrounds1.

2The heads of English noble houses and sometimes their eldest sons, who could be called to the House of Lords by writ, sat in the House of Lords, as well as many but not all of the bishops. Roman Catholic peers had been turned out of the Lords by the 1678 Test Act, but had been active in Parliament and served as ministers before 1678.

  • 2 Dale Hoak, «The Anglo-Dutch Revolution of 1688-89», in Dale Hoak and Mordechai Feingold (eds.), Th (...)
  • 3 Eveline Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, Basingstoke, 2000, pp. 35-61. Eveline Cruickshanks, (...)

3The Dutch invasion of 1688, the Glorious Revolution in the Whig interpretation of history, when a fleet larger than the Spanish Armada of 1588 and an army twice the size of James II’s landed in Devon was a deeply divisive event2. With James II driven out of England and William of Orange insisting on taking the throne, although his Declaration had proclaimed he had no designs on the Crown, thus duping the Tories, Parliament had to settle the government. The Tories fought hard in the Lords to avoid breaking the hereditary succession and making the Crown elective by making William Regent. In the end the Lords voted by four votes only to offer the crown to William and Mary «because the government had to be settled and there was no other way»3.

  • 4 Archives of the Archbishop of Westminster [AAW], B6/200, Memorandum by Captain William Lloyd, St. (...)
  • 5 British Library [BL], Add., Ms 15953, f° 161-162, 168-169. Letters of Philip Stanhope, Second Earl (...)
  • 6 Earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, ed. W. E Buckle, 2 vol., Roxburgh Club, 1890, pp. 276-279.

4The result of all this was to produce a built in Whig majority, as eight bishops including Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and most of the Seven Bishops who had opposed James II’s Declaration of Indulgence, refused to take the oaths recognising William and Mary as King and Queen and became nonjurors and Jacobites. Other nonjuring bishops turned out of the House of Lords apart from Sancroftwere Turner of Ely, Frampton of Gloucester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough and Lloyd of Norwich, all of whom became Jacobites4. They were turned out of the House of Lords and replaced by low church Whig bishops. Lay nonjurors were: Henry Somerset, 1st Duke of Beaufort. a great magnate in England and Wales and one of the wealthiest men therein, Philip Stanhope, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield, grandfather to the celebrated 4th Earl, Princess Anne’s uncle, Henry Hyde, 2nd Earl of Clarendon, John Cecil, 5th Earl of Exeter, Edward 1st Baron Griffin, who went into exile at St. Germain, Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon, who was excluded from the Act of Indemnity in 1690, Edward Henry Lee, 2nd Earl of Lichfield, who had large estates in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, and William Paston, 2nd Earl of Yarmouth, who was sent to the Tower of London on charges of treason in 1690 and 1692. In Dutch propaganda lists Chesterfield, Clarendon and Exeter are described as being in arms for the Prince of Orange in 1688, which is untrue5. These peers, all High Anglicans, were excluded from Parliament. Like the Catholics, nonjurors were condemned to pay double taxes, to be arrested or to have their horses and papers seized whenever there was a Jacobite plot, real or supposed. Thomas Bruce, 2nd Earl of Ailesbury on the other hand, thought he could serve King James best by staying in Parliament and we owe him most of the recorded division lists on the transfer of the Crown in the Lords6. This was the course most Tory Jacobite peers pursued, on the reasoning that, then as in the Interregnum, oaths taken under duress were not binding. The majority of the Jacobite Tory lords could recognise William as king de facto but not de jure. Jacobite lords feared the cupidity of the Earl of Portland, William’s Dutch favourite and his eagerness to get hold of forfeited Jacobite estates after real or sham plots. Catholic peers, such Lord Molyneux, who had large estates in Lancashire and around Liverpool, was an active Jacobite, as was the Earl of Salisbury, a Catholic convert in James II’s reign, who went with his sons to St. Germain. Catholic magnates such as Lord Montagu of Beaulieu could shield Catholic communities around his estates from persecution and in Queen Anne’s reign a least, were able to exercise influence over parliamentary elections.

  • 7 The Stuart Court in Exile, op. cit., pp. 7-13. J.S. Clarke (ed.), Life of James II, 2 vol., London (...)

5William’s policy was to employ mixed ministries of Whig and Tories, with the balance changing towards the Whigs or the Tories at times, but no wholesale proscriptions. This did not prevent Jacobite nobles in 1692 supporting Louis XIV’s attempt to restore James with French troops and Jacobite troops in James II’s service in France, which came to grief at the naval battle of La Hogue. The next major attempt with the prospect of French assistance was in 1696. This was known as the Fenwick Plot, named after Sir John Fenwick, a former army officer and MP. Louis XIV was demanding that those involved should rise in rebellion before the French landed. The Duke of Berwick, James II’s natural son, reported that persons of the highest rank had engaged themselves to support a restoration but they declared themselves unable to «take off the mask» before troops had landed as they would be arrested before they could strike. This was prophetic, as delays in landing led to the arrest of Charles Butler, 2nd Earl of Arran (the Duke of Ormonde’s brother), Thomas, 4th Baron Arundel de Wardour, a Catholic with vast estates in the West Country, Lord Brudenell (a Catholic, son of the 2nd Earl of Cardigan), Charles, 6th Baron Gerrard of Bromley, the 2nd Earl of Lichfield and William Herbert, Viscount Montgomery (brother of William Herbert, 1st Duke of Powis in the Jacobite peerage, an Anglican who was Lord Chamberlain of the Household to James II at St. Germain). Bishop Frampton of Gloucester and Bishop Turner of Ely were arrested also. They were not involved in the scheme by a few army officers to assassinate William III, which was a separate plot. The result made life difficult as the Whigs succeeded in imposing a new oath declaring William ‘rightful and lawful’ as king and renouncing the «pretended» Prince of Wales, which many Tories could not take. It was all very legalistic. For instance the 1st Duke of Leeds, (Danby) persuaded Lord Feversham who had defeated Monmouth in 1685 and had been present at the birth of the Prince of Wales in 1688 that «pretended» referred not to the facts at the birth of the Prince, but of Parliament rejecting his right to the Crown. 1696 was the end of the first phase of Jacobitism7.

  • 8 E Gregg, Queen Anne, London, 1980, p. 122. E. Gregg, «Marlborough in exile 1712-14», Historical Jo (...)

6Queen Anne’s reign produced a period of greater calm. She declared her heart to be «entirely English» and no Jacobite was put to death in her reign. She had reached an agreement with her half-brother James III not to try to regain the crown during her life-time. The English Jacobites obeyed this, although the Scots in 1708 made an attempt to break the Union with Scotland with French help. In the last years of Queen Anne’s reign, Whig army officers planned a coup d’Etat if the Tories tried to repeal the Act of Settlement of 1701 setting the crown on the House of Hanover, 58th in line in the hereditary succession but the nearest Protestant (Lutheran) heirs. Anne’s two Tory chief ministers Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford and Henry St. John, Viscount Bolingbroke, conducted secret negotiations with James III asking him to convert to the Church of England or to dissemble his Catholic faith, but he refused. The Duke of Ormonde, Marlborough’s successor as Captain General in charge of the army, had meetings with Queen Anne who agreed to «bestir» herself on her brother’s behalf, while he started to purge the army of Whig officers, but the process had barely begun when Queen Anne died8.

  • 9 R. Pauli, Zeitschriftdes Historischen Vereins für Niedersachen, 1883, p. 83. This passage has been (...)
  • 10 Paul Langford, «Convocation and the Tory Clergy, 1717-1761», in Eveline Cruickshanks and Jeremy Bl (...)
  • 11 Eveline Cruickshanks, «The Convocation of the Stannaries of Cornwall: The Parliament of Tinners, 1 (...)

7The catastrophe which engulfed the Tory party after 1714 was not foreseen by Oxford, Bolingbroke, or other leading Tories, who assumed that it would be business as usual when the Elector of Hanover ascended the throne. Baron Bothmer, however, the Hanoverian minister, sounded a note of warning when he wrote that the Whigs welcomed George I with «open joy» whereas the Tories «stood sullenly aside or even took the Stuart’s part»9. By the general election of 1715 all Tories had been purged from office at the national or local level. It was as though Charles II had employed royalists only! This was a social revolution as the younger sons of the aristocracy and gentry could no longer be provided for by places in the army, navy (from which Tories were mainly excluded), the civil service and places in the gift of the Crown in the Church and the law. Tory principles were for decentralisation, with more powers to be given to the militias and the commissions of the peace in the counties. Instead, there was greater centralisation leading to a Whig one party state. Tory peers were removed as lords lieutenant of their county which damaged their influence over parliamentary elections and barred from serving in the militias. They were not totally removed from the commissions of the peace (which would have made the system unworkable) but there was always a Whig majority of j.p.s, often men of inferior social status. The Convocation of the Church of England in Canterbury, which had played a leading role in Tory politics in alliance with the Tories in Parliament, was no longer allowed to sit, despite desperate efforts on their part to assemble10. The Parliament of Tinners in Cornwall, which played a crucial part in fixing the price of tin, as well as in Cornish elections to the Westminster Parliament, was no longer allowed to meet11.

  • 12 Archives des Affaires étrangères (Paris), Correspondance Politique, Angleterre, 343, f° 117-118.
  • 13 R. J. Phillimore (ed.), Memoirs and Correspondence of George, Lord Lyttelton, London, 1845, pp. 19 (...)

8Moreover the Whigs began proceedings for the impeachments for treason against Bolingbroke and the Earl of Strafford for their role in negotiating the Peace of Utrecht and against Ormonde for obeying the Queen’s orders for a cessation of hostilities. What would have been treason would have been to have defied the Queen’s orders, of course. The young Louis XV made strong objections to the Anglo-French Alliance of 1716, which reversed previous French foreign policy, but Dubois persuaded him to give his consent by assuring him that a Protestant King would be better able to protect English Catholics than a king of their own religion12. However, the penal laws against Catholics were more strictly enforced after 1715. Anger and frustration at the violence of the Whigs forced the Tories, as Bolingbroke wrote, «into the arms of the Pretender». Bolingbroke remarked that a Prince who «renders his sceptre the rod of one set of men and the tool of another» was but half a king13. To make matters worse, George I and George II were part-time kings as they spent six months of the year in Hanover and, according to the Tories and to many of the Whig opposition, put the interests of Hanover before those of Britain. This did not advance the cause of constitutional monarchy, as was once thought, as leading Whig ministers accompanied them to Hanover and the decisions were taken there.

  • 14 Nicholas Maclean-Bristol, «Which Maclean Betrayed the Jacobites in ‘15?», West Highlands Notes and (...)

9The years between 1715 and 1723 saw continuous attempts by the majority of the Tories to restore the Stuarts. Louis XIV died before the Fifteen Jacobite rebellion, depriving the Jacobites of promised arms. To make matters worst, the Duke of Ormonde’s secretary was bribed to betray the names of the leaders in the west country where the rising was due to start to the Whig government, so that George Granville, Earl of Lansdowne who headed the most prestigious family in Cornwall and had been manager for the Cornish elections in 1710 and 1713, the rest of his family and all the leaders of the rising planned in the West were arrested. All that remained was a local rising of Northumbrian and northern Jacobites, which was easily defeated. The execution and forfeiture of the Earl of Derwentwater, a gifted and handsome young Catholic lord with vast estates in the North caused revulsion in Tory quarters and sparked of many songs, poems and legends14.

  • 15 HMC, Stuart, pp 146-147.

10In the House of Lords, as in the Commons, not all peers can be identified as Jacobites or Hanoverian Tories, but many more can be identified as Jacobites than as Hanoverian Tories. Leading Hanoverian Tories in the upper house were Dawes, archbishop of York and the Earl of Nottingham, who headed a tribe of Finches in Parliament. Nottingham and the Finches were dismissed or went into opposition in 1716 over the inhuman treatment of Jacobite prisoners after the ‘15, when they were incarcerated without food, heat or medical treatment in Chester Castle in the depth of winter, until the Tory gentlemen brought them relief. The 4th Earl of Orrery who sat in the Lords as Lord Boyle, his English peerage, a Hanoverian Tory, resigned his post in George I’ s household in 1716, probably because English members of the King’s household were not allowed to enter George Is bedchamber, and became an active Jacobite after 1717. The Earl of Oxford masterminded the Swedish Plot of 1716-1717 an attempt to pay the troops of Charles XII of Sweden to use his army to restore James II, while the Duke of Ormonde became captain general of the armies of Spain after the 1719 attempt. What is remarkable is the survival and cohesion of the Tory party faced with a Whig one party state. Dislike of Catholicism was real, and there can be few as anti Catholic, as Bishop Atterbury, who was in charge of James III’s affairs in England since 1716. What the Tories asked for and obtained were guarantees to safeguard the Church of England14. Oxford had persuaded James to assume responsibility for the national debt until the death of Queen Anne, so that a restoration would not have undermined the financial revolution15.

  • 16 See The Atterbury Plot, op. cit.
  • 17 Eveline Cruickshanks, «Walpole’s Tax on Catholics», Recusant History, Catholic Record Society, 200 (...)

11The Tories stood for the landed interest, for the protection of the Church of England, opposition to a standing army in time of peace and to taking part in Continental wars to uphold the interests or to defend Hanover. What they advocated was a blue water policy to promote trade and rely on seapower, which appealed to the popular part of the City of London and the large open constituencies. The burst of the South Sea Bubble in 1720, a financial fraud in which George I as governor had been involved and which ruined many people, seemed to offer an opportunity to the Jacobites. The Atterbury Plot 1720-23 was the greatest threat to the Hanoverian regime before the ‘45 rebellion. Under the directions of Bishop Atterbury, who led the opposition in the House of Lords, its leaders were Lord North and Grey, the Earl of Strafford, the Earl of Orrery, all leading Tory speakers in Parliament. Other leaders were Ormonde’s brother, the Earl of Arran, and Lord Lansdowne who was France. They counted on substantial help from the popular part of the city of London, the common council, and from the Jacobite regiments in France and Spain. Apart from the Hanoverian Tory lords, leading Tory peers such as Lord Gower and Lord Bathurst supported the plot. Robert Walpole, the Whig prime minister had suspicions but no proofs, but there were widespread arrests of those Walpole suspected, which were quite illegal as the Habeas Corpus Act had not been suspended. Atterbury and other lords involved had destroyed their papers in good time. Finding no evidence against Atterbury, Walpole seems to have forged the evidence presented at Atterbury’s trial before the House of Lords, where the Whigs had a majority and voted on party lines. Atterbury was condemned to perpetual exile and the Tories were subdued in Parliament for the time being16. The Catholics, who, with the exception of the Duke of Norfolk, had not been involved, were forced to pay a £ 100,000 tax to finance an increase in the Army17.

  • 18 The House of Commons 1715-54, op. cit., pp. 66-67. «Lord Cornbury, Bolingbroke and a Plan to Resto (...)

12Bolingbroke, who had been dismissed as secretary of state by James III, returned to England in 1723, becoming a self proclaimed Hanoverian Tory and trying to detach Lord Bathurst, successfully, and Lord Gower, unsuccessfully, but they were a small group. On the accession of George II in 1727 the Tory Lords with the exception of the 2nd Earl of Oxford, went to court in the hope that the proscription would be ended. George II, however, disliked the Tories as much as his father did and they were disappointed. In the 1730s Bolingbroke then returned to the Stuart option by suggesting that James III should resign his claim to his son, Charles Edward, who should be brought up as an Anglican under the guidance of the Duke of Ormonde. James refused18.

  • 19 Eveline Cruickshanks, The Tories and the Political Untouchables, London, 1979, pp. 44, 55, 77-78, (...)

13The organisation of the Tory party was a Jacobite one. The head of the Tory party was the president of the Honourable Brotherhood, founded by the 2nd Duke of Beaufort in 1709, with Lord Scarsdale as its first President. In 1736 Scarsdale was succeeded by the 2nd Earl of Lichfield. Lichfield was a strong Jacobite: he married his daughter and eventual heir to Viscount Dillon, the head of the most prestigious Jacobite regiment in the French service, while his brother, the Hon Fitzroy Lee offered to take his ship the Princess Royal, over to James III’s son, Prince Charles Edward in the 1744 expedition from France, which was damaged by storms. After Lichfield’s death in 1743, Lord Gower, who had hitherto acted with the Jacobites, succeeded him. On James III’s instructions, the Tories had cooperated with the opposition Whigs to overthrow Walpole on terms which included an end to the proscription of Tories, the repeal of the penal laws passed since 1715 and the calling of a free Parliament (as in 1660), that is an election without the use of government patronage and intimidation. These terms were not observed by the Whigs formerly in opposition. In order to try and divide the Tory party and draw away more moderate Tories to support the new government, Bolingbroke suggested that Lord Gower should ask for many more Tories to be admitted to the commissions of the peace in their counties and that the Tories should coalesce with the Whigs. However, Lord Chesterfield (one of the Whigs now in office) reported: «The Duke of Beaufort has set himself up and the Tories have taken him, for the head of their party, in consequence of which they have excluded Lord Gower from negotiations depending about justices of the peace and put them into the hands of the Duke of Beaufort. The 4th Duke of Beaufort, «a most determined Jacobite», was an able parliamentarian, who had distinguished himself in the Commons as Lord Noel Somerset. After the landing of Prince Charles Edward in Scotland in August 1745, Beaufort, the 3rd Earl of Lichfield, the 5th Earl of Orrery and the 7th Earl of Westmorland (a Whig convert to Jacobitism) in the Lords and Sir John Hynde Cotton and Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, who jointly led the Tories in the Commons, appealed to France to send an expedition to assist the Prince’s advance from Scotland to land in England and pledged themselves to join it as soon as they arrived. This was reasonable enough as in 1696, 1715, and 1722, leading Jacobites including peers had been arrested before they could make a move. In fact there was a French expedition of 12,000 troops getting ready at Calais and Boulogne led by the Duc de Richelieu and the Duke of York, James’s younger son, with Voltaire writing a manifesto, proclaiming that only a restoration of the Stuarts could restore English liberty. But 10 days before it was due to land, the Scottish leaders forced Charles Edward to retreat at Derby on 5 December 1745, destroying any real chance of success19.

  • 20 Political Untouchables, op. cit., chapters 4 and 5. Paul Monod, «A Voyage out of Staffordshire or (...)
  • 21 Marie Peters, Pittand Popularity: The Patriot Minister and London Opinion, Oxford, 1980.

14Although the defeat of the ‘45 was a crushing blow to Jacobitism, it continued with strong manifestations at the Lichfield races in 1747, when Jacobite congregated wearing tartan waistcoats and sashes as a badge of their support for the Prince and when Lord Trentham, Lord Gower’ s heir, was cudgelled. The anniversary dinner of the Independent Electors of Westminster in 1747 was presided over by the 3rd Earl of Lichfield and the 5th Earl of Orrery when the following healths were drunk: “The King (each man having a glass of water in the lefthand, and waving his glass of wine over the water), the Prince, the Duke. There was s strong Jacobite party in the City of London too. It is not surprising that at the Court in London finger bowls were banned, lest any one passed their glass of wine over the water. During his secret visit to London in 1750 Charles Edward had meeting with about 50 of his supporters presided over by the Duke of Beaufort and the Earl of Westmorland. The visit was right in the middle of the Westminster by-election where Lord Trentham, the Whig candidate, was confronted by the Jacobite Independent Electors of Westminster, who wore tartan waistcoats and sashes showing their support for the Prince20. In the Seven Years War, William Pitt Earl of Chatham, conciliated the Tories and delighted the City of London by pursuing a blue water policy, admitted Tories to the militia, and sent back the Hessian and Hanoverian mercenaries the Duke of Newcastle had sent for21. Effective Jacobitism came to an end when George III reversed all the Jacobite attainders and ended the proscription of the Tories. The 3rd Earl of Lichfield became a lord of George III’s Household and Tory Lords once more were lord lieutenants of their county. George III, however resisted any concessions to Catholics and it was not until 1829, in the reign of George IV, that the Duke of Wellington forced Catholic emancipation through Parliament.

Notes

1 Robert Bucholz, The Augustan Court. Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture, Stanford, 1993, pp. 28-35.

2 Dale Hoak, «The Anglo-Dutch Revolution of 1688-89», in Dale Hoak and Mordechai Feingold (eds.), The World of William and May: Anglo-Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688-89, Stanford, 1996, pp. 17-18.

3 Eveline Cruickshanks, The Glorious Revolution, Basingstoke, 2000, pp. 35-61. Eveline Cruickshanks, David Hayton and Clyve Jones, «Divisions in the House of Lords on the Transfer of the Crown and other Issues 1689-94: Ten New Lists», Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LIII, no 127, May 1980, pp. 59-65.

4 Archives of the Archbishop of Westminster [AAW], B6/200, Memorandum by Captain William Lloyd, St. Germain, 23 March [1691]. Eveline Cruickshanks and Edward Corp (eds.), The Stuart Court in Exile, London, 1995, pp. 1-7. Paul Hopkins, «Aspects of the Jacobite Conspiracy in England in the Reign of William III», University of Cambridge, Ph. D. thesis, 1981, pp. 423-452, 478-479.

5 British Library [BL], Add., Ms 15953, f° 161-162, 168-169. Letters of Philip Stanhope, Second Earl of Chesterfield, London, 1832, pp. 338-339.

6 Earl of Ailesbury, Memoirs, ed. W. E Buckle, 2 vol., Roxburgh Club, 1890, pp. 276-279.

7 The Stuart Court in Exile, op. cit., pp. 7-13. J.S. Clarke (ed.), Life of James II, 2 vol., London, 1816, pp. 544-547, 597. Henry Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III, Manchester, 1977, p. 175.

8 E Gregg, Queen Anne, London, 1980, p. 122. E. Gregg, «Marlborough in exile 1712-14», Historical Journal, XV, 1972, p. 599. Historical Manuscripts Commission [HMC], Stuart, pp. 312, 317, 358-363.

9 R. Pauli, Zeitschriftdes Historischen Vereins für Niedersachen, 1883, p. 83. This passage has been translated into English.

10 Paul Langford, «Convocation and the Tory Clergy, 1717-1761», in Eveline Cruickshanks and Jeremy Black (eds.), The Jacobite Challenge, Edinburgh, 1988, pp. 107-122.

11 Eveline Cruickshanks, «The Convocation of the Stannaries of Cornwall: The Parliament of Tinners, 1703-1752», Parliaments, Estates and Representation, VI, 1986, pp. 59-67.

12 Archives des Affaires étrangères (Paris), Correspondance Politique, Angleterre, 343, f° 117-118.

13 R. J. Phillimore (ed.), Memoirs and Correspondence of George, Lord Lyttelton, London, 1845, pp. 196-197.

14 Nicholas Maclean-Bristol, «Which Maclean Betrayed the Jacobites in ‘15?», West Highlands Notes and Queries, 3rd series, no 2, February 2001. Eveline Cruickshanks and Howard Erskine-Hill, The Atterbury Plot, Basingstoke, 2004, pp. 96-97. Romney Sedgwick (eds.), History of Parliament, The House of Commons 1715-54, 2 vol., 1970, p. 507, pp. 31-33. Daniel Szechi, The Great Jacobite Rebellion, Yale, 2006, chapter 7 and pp. 206-208.

15 HMC, Stuart, pp 146-147.

16 See The Atterbury Plot, op. cit.

17 Eveline Cruickshanks, «Walpole’s Tax on Catholics», Recusant History, Catholic Record Society, 2006, pp. 95-102.

18 The House of Commons 1715-54, op. cit., pp. 66-67. «Lord Cornbury, Bolingbroke and a Plan to Restore the Stuarts 1731-35», Royal Stuart Paper XXVII, 1986.

19 Eveline Cruickshanks, The Tories and the Political Untouchables, London, 1979, pp. 44, 55, 77-78, 95-96. Sir G. H. Rose (eds), A Selection of the Papers of the Earls of Marchmont, 2 vol., London, 1831, pp. 340. BL, Add., Ms 32804, f° 309. B. Dobrée (ed.), Letters of Lord Chesterfield, 6 vol., 1932, pp. 597.

20 Political Untouchables, op. cit., chapters 4 and 5. Paul Monod, «A Voyage out of Staffordshire or Samuel Johnson’s Jacobite Journey», in Jonathan Clark and Howard Erskine-Hill (eds.), Samuel Johnson in Historical Context, Basingstoke, 2002, pp. 11-43.

21 Marie Peters, Pittand Popularity: The Patriot Minister and London Opinion, Oxford, 1980.

Auteur

Institute of Historical Research, Université de Londres

© Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540