COWPER, William (1665-1723)

Career before 1705

As a young man Cowper developed an enviable reputation for eloquence both as an advocate and as a member of the Commons. His oratory was so highly regarded that Thomas Wentworth, 2nd Baron Raby (later earl of Strafford) once declared that ‘people would go to hear causes in which they had no concern to have the pleasure to hear such good language’. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F57, Lord Raby to Cowper, 28 July 1704. Arthur Maynwaring^‡ thought less highly of him. Considering Cowper alongside John Somers, Baron Somers, he concluded: ‘their education has been narrow and they are both cautious, which makes them thought wise. But there is more wisdom in doing a bold, resolute action, when rightly timed, than there is in trimming and finding out expedients.’ Add. 61460, f. 160.

Cowper’s career prospects owed a great deal to his political allegiances. Like his father he was associated with independent (country) whiggery and imbued with deeply anti-Catholic sentiments. His ideology was based on a desire to uphold the Revolution settlement and to ensure the safe succession of the house of Hanover. As he later declared to Princess Sophia ‘I was one of those who have had the honour for a long time past constantly to have adhered to that opinion for excluding a popish successor even while it was unfashionable and decried by those that were in authority’. Lords of Parliament: studies 1714-1914 ed. R.W. Davis, 31; Stowe 222, 380. Nevertheless William III’s somewhat reluctant agreement to Cowper’s promotion as king’s counsel only a year after being called to the bar seems to have owed more to his mother’s ability to exploit the Cowpers’ long association with the earls of Shaftesbury and Bedford than to his own early defection to the Williamite cause. Add. 75366, S. Cooper to countess of Shaftesbury, 14 Feb. 1688-9, S. Cooper to Halifax, 18 and 20 Mar. [?1689]. He subsequently lent his legal talents to the new regime in ways that suggested a somewhat flexible attitude to legal principles and moral scruples. He played a leading role in securing the passage of the bill of attainder against Sir John Fenwick^‡, bt. putting forward arguments that have been described as ‘an effort to wrap judicial murder in a cloak of legality.’ ODNB. Despite his reputation for being an affectionate and devoted husband, Cowper’s sexual morals seem to have been similarly flexible and lent credibility to the Tory slur that he had tricked his mistress, Elizabeth Culling, into a sham marriage. Cowper did father her children but there is no evidence to substantiate (or deny) the claim of a marriage. Nevertheless the belief that Cowper had committed bigamy and/or espoused polygamy became something of an article of faith amongst his Tory opponents. Swift referred to him as ‘Will Bigamy’ and he was roundly criticized for it by Delariviere Manley in both The Secret History of Queen Zarah and, more particularly, in The New Atlantis. Swift, Works, iii. 25, 57; Selected Works of Delarivier Manley, ed. R. Carnell, i. 129, ii. 130-31. His reputation was not helped by rumours of other dalliances. An obscure reference to a quarrel between ‘the Lord C-r’ and his wife over ‘his freedom with Lady Ma. V-re’ in 1709 probably refers to Cowper, who had certainly had a relationship with one of the Vere sisters at the time of his second marriage. Diary of Mary Countess Cowper (1864), 34-38; Verney ms mic. M636/54, R. Cowper’s relationship with Lady Arran was said by some to have caused Lady Cowper to become seriously ill in the autumn of 1713. Add. 61463, ff.108-9.

As a member of the Middle Temple, Cowper may have developed an early connection with Somers. He certainly attracted Somers’ attention once he began to practise and it was at Somers’ suggestion that he stood for election to the Commons. He was soon identified with the policies of the Junto Whigs, supporting the financial policies of Charles Montagu, later earl of Halifax, and developing links to the circle of (amongst others) Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland. Sunderland’s chaplain, the future bishop Charles Trimnell, who championed the Whig cause in Convocation, named his son in honour of Cowper and invited him to stand godfather. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F57, Trimnell to Cowper, 4 Aug. 1700. Cowper’s ability to maintain a friendship with Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, was also useful and enabled him to remain in good standing at court after Anne’s accession.

The scandal surrounding his brother Spencer’s alleged involvement in the death of Sarah Stout undermined the Cowper interest at Hertford, and in 1701, after a brief and half-hearted flirtation with Totnes, William Cowper was returned on the interest of Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, at Bere Alston. Occasional differences with the Junto over policy issues, such as the question of a standing army, enabled Cowper to portray himself as a man of studied impartiality, striving for what he repeatedly called ‘the true English interest’ rather than short-term party advantage, but such differences did not go deep. Cowper remained close to the Junto even when it had fallen from power. It was Somers who persuaded Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, to offer Cowper a seat at Totnes and Cowper deployed his considerable legal and oratorical skills in support of Somers during the attempted impeachment. He also supported the Whig leadership during the dispute over the Aylesbury men (Ashby v. White) in 1704.

The need to reconstruct the ministry, and dissatisfaction with the Tory lord keeper, Nathan Wright, led to rumours of Wright’s imminent replacement early in 1705. It was however by no means clear who should take his place. As Sir William Simpson put it, ‘it is strange conduct to let a lord keeper know for a year together that he is to be turned out before anybody knows who is to be put in his place’, but rumours identifying Cowper as the new lord keeper were beginning to circulate even as Simpson was writing. Marlborough-Godolphin corresp., 418 n.3; HMC Townshend, 331. It was ‘confidently reported’ at the end of June that Cowper was to be the man and Cowper’s receipt of ‘caresses’ from the Junto at a meeting in August suggested that the appointment was a foregone conclusion. Despite this, individuals on both sides of the party divide were said to be reluctant to see him promoted: Somers because he was jealous of his former protégé and fearful of a Whig split, and Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, because, like the queen, he preferred a moderate Tory instead. Add. 72490, f. 52; KSRL, Methuen-Simpson corresp. Ms c163, Methuen to Simpson, 3 July 1705. In mid-September Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, wrote as though Cowper’s appointment was all but decided but even after the dismissal of Wright in early October, there was some uncertainty about whether the seal was to go to Cowper or into commission. Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. 498-99; Add. 70022, ff. 348-49; Add. 72509, f. 104. His ultimate appointment was, as Cowper well knew, attributable to the efforts of Godolphin and the ‘unseen hand’ of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, rather than the Junto. In later life, Sarah duchess of Marlborough, the Junto’s patroness, admitted that her attempts to sway the queen in his favour had done more harm than good, though the queen remembered the subject only being brought up by the duchess on one occasion. F. Harris, A Passion for government: the life of Sarah duchess of Marlborough, 120; Gregg, Queen Anne, 206. Not surprisingly he became known as one of ‘the lord treasurer’s Whigs’. Determined to appear as a man of principle rather than party, Cowper lost no time in distancing himself from his erstwhile allies, declaring that he owed little to the Junto and that nothing in his life was as valuable as ‘this privilege of drawing a little nearer to those great men I have always loved and admired at a distance out of their sight’. Cowper, Diary, 4; Add. 61135, f. 1. Later remarks show that he now regarded Godolphin as his patron. Add. 70220, Cowper to R. Harley, 23 Aug. 1707. He also told himself that he had accepted the post out of the purest motives: to give himself ‘the opportunity of endeavouring steadily to promote such men only as I judged in the true interest of England.’ Cowper, Diary, 12. Nevertheless despite his protestations and continuing discord between the duumvirs and the Junto, Cowper remained on good terms with Somers. He re-employed three of Somers’ secretaries and in the summer of 1708 wrote him a fulsome letter of thanks for ‘the great favour and honour of your picture’, done by fellow Kit Kat member, Sir Godfrey Kneller. HMC Downshire, i. 843; Surr. Hist. Cent., Somers, 371/14/E26.

Cowper’s appointment was marked by the composition of a satire by one Brown (who was later pilloried for his trouble). Bodl. MS Eng. misc. c. 116, f. 6. His selection as lord keeper was the more remarkable for his comparative youth. His boyishness was said to have been emphasized by his habit of wearing his own hair rather than a wig. The queen remarked on this and encouraged him to trim his locks lest ‘the world would say she had given the seals to a boy’. Gregg, Queen Anne, 206; Cowper, Diary, 1-3. Previous incumbents of the office had been older and more experienced than Cowper who was still only 40 years of age, although as one newsletter writer put it ‘he has a sufficiency of parts and learning to supply his want of years.’ Add. 70075, newsletter, 13 Oct. 1705.

Lord Keeper 1705-07

In a letter of 11 Oct. 1705 Thomas Bateman reported that Cowper had been declared lord keeper the night before. It was, however, only on the morning of 11 Oct. that Cowper was informed of his appointment by Godolphin and Halifax and it was to them that he made his acceptance. He accepted the place conditionally on having the same money for equipage (£2,000) and salary (£4,000 a year) as had been given to his predecessor and with a promise of a peerage at the next promotion. He saw the queen later that day and was sworn into office at a meeting of the council the same evening. When he told the queen that he intended to go into the country for the weekend she encouraged him to do so, warning him that otherwise he would be besieged with solicitations for places. After the weekend he noted that he had disposed of all the places within a few hours, recording with some satisfaction that he had not reserved any to himself or taken ‘the value of one farthing reward.’ Add. 72498, f. 130, Add. 72490, f. 58; Cowper, Diary, 1-3. His determination to avoid any hint of corruption led to his wary refusal to accept the customary new year’s gifts the following January, on the grounds that ‘no court or judge in England or elsewhere’ was in receipt of such gifts and in the hope that ‘it doth me more credit and good than hurt, by making secret enemies’. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F23, Cowper to his father, 2 Jan. 1706; Cowper, Diary, 30. He worried, unnecessarily as it turned out, that Godolphin would disapprove, ‘as spoiling in some measure a place which he had the conferring.’ Cowper, Diary, 29. Yet the sacrifice was not quite as selfless as it appeared. Cowper’s financial notes make it abundantly clear that the fees of office, over and above his salary, made the post a highly profitable one; and if the diarist John Evelyn is correct he had also taken steps to obtain the promise of a pension of £2,000 a year if and when he lost office, as compensation for giving up his practice. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F69; Evelyn Diary, v. 611.

Cowper’s first procession to Westminster Hall as lord keeper was described as ‘the most noble cavalcade… that ever was known’ with a train of some 60 coaches. Add. 70075, newsletter, 23 Oct. 1705. So very public a demonstration of the resurgence of Whig political fortunes provided ‘no small mortification’ to the Tories who witnessed it. KSRL, Methuen-Simpson corresp. Ms c163, Methuen to Simpson, 30 Oct. 1705. Further honours were predicted for him, including the earldom of Oxford and marriage to the eldest daughter of Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset. Verney ms mic. M636/53, Cary Stewkeley to Viscount Fermanagh, 3 Nov. Although not yet a member of the House of Lords, it was his function to preside over its sittings and it may well have been his influence that saw the restoration of the empty ritual of ‘The old method of entering on the journal, the appointing receivers and triers of petitions on the Lords Journals’. Cowper, Diary, 7-8.

Despite Cowper’s previous political affiliations, moderate Tories in the ministry were confident that his primary loyalty was to the court and that he would use his new powers in their favour. Early in November Godolphin asked Cowper to use his influence over the independent Whig lawyer Peter King^†, later lord chancellor as Baron King, at the time a member of the Commons, to prevent the introduction of a projected place bill. The ministry feared that the popularity of such a bill amongst the country wings of both parties would threaten the success of their attempts to attract the support of the court Tories, the existing fragile coalition being described by Halifax as ‘mixing oil and vinegar’. Cowper, Diary, 11-12. Cowper undertook to do so, convincing himself that it was

unseasonable to join with the malignant party (though in a thing right in itself and popular); because they would have the main credit of it, and would get new life and vigour from thence to give the public more trouble by things not so reasonable as that; and therefore they are not to be assisted in any thing that is not necessary for the public good. A small amendment of the constitution is better wanted, than that they, who mean ruin to the constitution, should get strength by the credit of mending it. Cowper, Diary, 10-11; Add. 70285, Godolphin to Harley, 6 Nov. 1705.

His half-hearted attempt to dissuade King was completely unsuccessful and did not prevent the controversy over the ‘whimsical clause’ in the regency bill the following January.

Soon after his appointment he also began to refashion local commissions of the peace. This attracted letters such as the one from Thomas Coventry, 2nd earl of Coventry, that recommended the removal of several ‘furious zealots in the high church party’ who had been made justices by Nathan Wright. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F154, Commissions of the peace, English counties, Norfolk to Yorkshire, Coventry to Cowper, 30 Jan. 1706. He sought Marlborough’s orders on the composition of the Oxfordshire commission and on one occasion promised to remove a magistrate who opposed the Marlborough interest there. Add. 61135, f.3; Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. 966. He was also prepared to take Harley’s advice on the appointment of magistrates in areas close to the latter’s territorial base. Add. 70220, Cowper to Harley, 20 June 1707. After the Union he was asked for advice on how to establish justices of the peace in Scotland. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Cromartie to Cowper, 24 May 1709. Prompted by Godolphin, he paid considerable attention to the instructions to be given to the assize judges going on circuit. He noted that the queen had been displeased by ‘seditious invective’ against her and her government made in the course of assize sermons and urged the judges not only to discountenance such remarks but to encourage grand juries to present them as libels. Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. 498-99; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F150, draft letter, Cowper to judges, 24 Feb. 1706. His standing with the queen was not, however, sufficiently strong to give him total control of the crown’s extensive patronage of church livings. Anne was willing to allow him to bestow livings worth less than £40 a year but, not surprisingly in view of her Tory sympathies, insisted on retaining the disposal of the more valuable ones for herself. She opined that ‘the Crown can never have too many livings at its disposal, and therefore, though there may be some trouble in it, it is a power I can never think reasonable to part with.’ Her decision to do so (prompted by Harley) depressed Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, who thought the queen was too easily influenced by the ‘importunity of the women and hangers on at court’. Tenison wanted to work with Cowper ‘to get that matter into a proper method.’ Cowper, Diary, 14, 19; Add. 61417, ff.17-18; R.A. Sundstrom, Sidney Godolphin, 150. Given the expressions repeatedly used in patronage approaches to Cowper, it is fairly clear that ‘a proper method’ involved rewarding Whig rather than Tory clerics. As his friend William Wake, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of Canterbury), made clear many years later, the criteria for promotion included establishing that candidates were ‘entirely in the same notions and interests with ourselves’. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F62, Wake to Cowper, 18 July 1710. Cowper’s decision in 1708 to resolve the long running dispute over the charter of Bewdley by issuing a new one would similarly come under fire as a partisan political act designed to ensure the election of a Whig candidate.

Cowper’s continuing professional and personal relationship with Somers was reflected in his involvement in the discussions of a committee of the House considering defects in the laws. The committee was chaired by Somers and specifically asked for Cowper’s assistance. LJ, xviii. 55. An account of the proceedings by Cowper’s close ally William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, makes it clear that Cowper and Somers worked together on the project against lord chief justice Holt who wanted to allow equitable issues to be argued in the common law courts. Their efforts resulted in a statute (Somers’ Act) which imposed major changes on judicial procedures in courts of equity and common law. The alliance of the two men was also seen in their efforts to amend procedures for private bills. On 16 Jan. 1706 Sunderland remarked on the ‘suspicious contents’ of a private bill that had been introduced into the House. Cowper commented similarly on another. Nicolson considered his remarks irregular, probably because as a commoner, Cowper was not a member of the House and therefore should not have made anything approaching a speech. Nevertheless he returned to the subject on 12 Feb. when a bill for the sale of the estates of John Barnes deceased was introduced to the House. Cowper ‘laid such an emphasis on the peccant parts of the breviat, that the Lords took notice of the roguery; and threw it out with indignation.’ Somers then made a speech against the ‘perfunctory and careless passing of such bills’ and it was agreed that a committee of the whole should ‘consider of the best means to prevent the increase of private bills in Parliament, and the surprizing the House in their proceeding thereupon’. Nicolson London Diaries, 351, 353, 361, 362, 376; 4 Anne, c. 16; LJ, xviii. 99. As a result the House agreed to a new and comprehensive series of standing orders to govern the passage of private bills. LJ, xviii. 105-6. As a commoner Cowper should not have participated in the debates of the committee but he may have been consulted in framing the new orders because they were intended to reduce the business of the House and hence the fee income for himself and other officers of the House.

In the spring of 1706 Cowper joined with other leading Whigs in what was effectively a letter-writing campaign to the Electress Sophia designed to deter her from accepting an invitation from the Tories, or ‘discontented party’, to visit England, which he dismissed as ‘a sudden unaccountable zeal, contrary to known principles, affected merely for popularity’. Cowper, Diary, 13. He went on to promise his support for the Hanoverian succession:

being fully persuaded it is impossible to be in the true interest of England and not to be a fast friend to that succession, which the sense of the kingdom hath so often declared to be its only defence from the most deplorable condition a people can be reduced to. Stowe 222, f. 380.

He also took his place as one of the commissioners for the Union with Scotland, working closely with Somers. At the same time Cowper’s personal life was also becoming complicated because of his relationship with Mary Claverin. Her well-connected Whig gentry family were based in the north-east but she herself lived in London with her aunt, the widow of Thomas Wood, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. The relationship resulted in a potential conflict of interest for Cowper since the Claverings were involved in a long running chancery suit; one of the appeals heard in the House in January 1706 resulted from this business. LJ, xviii. 66. Perhaps it was the fear of being accused of partiality that led the couple to keep their marriage secret, or perhaps it was because of the somewhat indecent haste with which the marriage took place, barely 18 months after the death of Cowper’s first wife. It was not publicly acknowledged until February 1707.

Despite his acceptance of the seals, Cowper remained deeply suspicious of secretary of state, Robert Harley. It is possible that his dislike of Harley stemmed from memories of the battle over Somers’ impeachment; whatever its origin, it coloured relations between the two men from the outset of the new ministry. Early in December 1705 discussions over the disputed Hertford election had led Cowper to perceive ‘a menace from him, that he would do all he could underhand to spoil the Hertford business.’ A fortnight later Cowper recorded his view that Harley’s conduct in securing a reduction in the amount of reward offered for the discovery of the printer responsible for circulating the Memorial of the Church of England suggested that ‘the Secretary knew or conjectured who were the authors and had no mind they should be discovered.’ Cowper, Diary, 25, 29. Harley’s examination of suspects did little to dispel Cowper’s suspicions. Cowper criticized Harley’s interrogation technique, commenting, ‘He extreme bad at it; if not designedly, to hinder the Discovery’. J.A. Downie, Robert Harley and the Press, 86; Cowper, Diary, 36.

Cowper, along with Marlborough, Godolphin and Sunderland, was present at a meeting in January 1706 designed to reconcile differences between Harley and the Junto Whigs Somers and Halifax when:

Harley took a glass, and drank to love and friendship & everlasting union and wished he had more Tockay to drink it in (we had drunk two bottles, good, but thick). I replied, his white Lisbon was best to drink it in, being very clear. I suppose he apprehended it (as I observed most of the company did) to relate to that humour of his, which was, never to deal clearly or openly, but always with reserve, if not dissimulation, or rather simulation; & to love tricks even where not necessary, but from an inward satisfaction he took in applauding his own cunning. If any man was ever born under a necessity of being a knave, he was. Cowper, Diary, 33.

Despite this incident Cowper affected to believe that his behaviour towards Harley in public was supportive. In August that year he told John Holles, duke of Newcastle, whom he approached as a mediator, that ‘I have most unfeignedly kept terms with him and endeavoured to possess my friends with an opinion of his fitness to serve, and the good qualities I have observed in him since I had the honour to serve.’ In contrast, he felt that Harley had ‘become less kind to me than he used to be’ and had ‘altered his mind as to my interests.’ HMC Portland, ii. 195. Cowper’s thwarted ‘interests’ were probably to do with his desire for a peerage and it was not until November that Harley, apparently acting on a ‘hint’ from Newcastle sought Marlborough’s assistance in securing a title for Cowper. HMC Bath, i. 115; HMC Portland, ii. 198. At the beginning of December preparations for Cowper’s ennoblement were well advanced and Cowper had received demands for just over £360 for the various fees that accompanied acceptance of his new honour. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F60, R. Harley to Cowper, 1 Dec. 1706, DE/P/F52, Fees due the queens servants on the creation of a baron, n.d. [Dec. 1706], charges of passing the Rt Honble the lord keeper’s patent, Dec. 1706. The letters patent creating him a peer were dated 14 Dec. and a writ of summons was issued to him the following day. He took his seat as a member of the House for the first time on 30 December. His peerage came as part of a general promotion involving the creation of three new marquessates, five new earldoms and another barony as well as a dukedom for the electoral prince, Prince George, duke of Cambridge (later King George II). In spite of his new dignity Cowper remained lord keeper for the time being. He was not sworn in as lord chancellor until the following July. LJ, xviii. 190-91; Daily Courant, 5 Dec. 1706.

From the Union to Sacheverell, 1707-10

By virtue of his position as presiding officer, Cowper was almost always present when the House of Lords was in session, yet for the same reason much of his activity there remains invisible. On 14 Feb. 1707 he was registered as the holder of the proxy of the ailing John Colepeper, 3rd Baron Colepeper, probably for use in divisions over the articles of Union with Scotland, in which Cowper had a considerable political investment. He had played a prominent role in the initial meeting of the commissioners for Union in April 1706 and continued to be a point of focus for those eager to secure alterations to the projected legislation in advance of the session of April 1707. NAS, GD18/3131, 3134. Cowper’s part in the bishoprics crisis of 1707 is obscure although his constant attendance at meetings of the cabinet council suggests that he must have been involved, as does his comment to his old school friend, Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, of how ‘we live here in dread of our vacant church preferments… falling into ill hands: there is all care that can be taken to prevent it, by those whose opinions will have the most effect’. Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS fc 37, vol. 10, no. lxi. Cowper’s political predilections as well as his characterization as one of the lord treasurer’s Whigs makes it likely that he weighed in against the promotion of Tory candidates. Late in 1706 he was already involved in attempts to dissuade the queen from making a ‘fatal mistake’ by appointing a Tory to the vacant bishopric of Exeter, warning that ‘if that step should be taken false it would not be in the power of any leading men to bring the Parliament to act quickly and with good effect the next session.’ HMC Portland, ii. 200.

In the meantime relations between the duumvirs and Harley continued to deteriorate. A sign of this was Godolphin’s informal meetings with Cowper at Windsor Castle, on 1 and 8 Sept. in which they discussed the conduct of the war (including the shift towards the Spanish theatre of war and a descent on the French coast), and the difficulties of securing the queen’s consent to the entry of Junto Whig ministers into her cabinet and the bishoprics’ crisis. Cowper provided a first draft of a queen’s speech for the forthcoming session. H. Snyder, ‘The Formulation of Foreign and Domestic Policy’, HJ, xi. 157-60; Herts. ALS, D/EP F135. In the same month Cowper acted as go-between, delivering a letter from Godolphin remonstrating with Harley for his partisan support of Francis Atterbury, dean of Carlisle (later bishop of Rochester) in his dispute with William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, and accusing him of disturbing public business. HMC Bath, i. 180; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F60, R. Harley to Cowper, 12 Sept. 1707. In February 1708 he joined with other leading ministers, including Marlborough and Godolphin, and the ‘Argathelians’ (those Scots representative peers who followed John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], earl of Greenwich in the English peerage), in protesting against the third reading of the act for rendering the Union of the two kingdoms more entire and complete. The protesters complained that the abolition of the Scottish Privy Council was too precipitate and that the powers given to justices of the peace breached the articles of union. In this he was for once acting against Somers who had argued in favour of its early abolition. LJ, xviii. 450-1; Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS fc 37, vol. 13, no. xix. Cowper’s loyalty to the ministry was also demonstrated by his role in persuading the queen to grant a British peerage (the dukedom of Dover) to James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S]. Cowper, Diary, 52. That same month he was instrumental in assisting Bishop Nicholson to secure support for his Cathedrals bill, an issue which once again saw him in alliance with Somers who had drafted the bill. Nicolson London Diaries, 47. Harley’s removal from office must have brought Cowper considerable satisfaction, since the consequent purge of Harley’s followers also removed Sir Simon Harcourt, later Viscount Harcourt. Cowper believed that Harcourt was being groomed by Harley to replace him as lord chancellor. This certainly chimed with the intelligence being given to Manchester by Joseph Addison^‡. Beinecke Lib. OSB MSS fc 37, vol. 13, no. xxxiii.

In May 1708 Cowper was present at the cabinet meeting at which it was agreed to instruct the judges to take bail in the sum of £10,000, plus four sureties for £5,000 apiece, for James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], who had been arrested in connection with the failed Franco-Jacobite invasion. In so doing Cowper became party to the agreement brokered between the Whigs and Hamilton for the election of Squadrone members as representative peers for Scotland in the 1708 elections. Add. 61499, f. 2. The Whigs were successful in the elections to the Commons too, prompting an angry Harley, referring to the affair of the Bewdley charter, to ask whether Cowper’s exploitation of his office ‘has not taken more towns by force than our army will by storm this campaign?’ and ‘whether it would not have been as honest to have sent a congé d’élire naming the men to Parliament as to force charters to the same purpose?’ Add. 70333, Harley, Questions, .n.d. Nor did Cowper neglect his own family interests, taking care to ensure the support of fellow Whig Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, for the re-election of his brother at Bere Alston. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F100, draft, Cowper to Stamford, 14 Apr. 1708. He was less successful in his own locality. The Tories were successful in Hertfordshire despite Cowper’s efforts, which included abandoning his court for several days in the middle of term in order to assist the campaign there. HMC Downshire, i. 857-8.

Ironically the very success of the Whigs made the ministry more unstable as Godolphin came under increasing pressure to reward the Junto. Cowper’s letter to Newcastle of October 1708 showed that he now occupied a crucial position in the ministry’s political management. With the Tories likely to capitalize on the tensions between the Junto and the duumvirs, he notified Newcastle of the date of the new Parliament and encouraged him to attend, urging him to undertake ‘the good and now necessary work of preventing a division among honest men’. Add. 70502, f. 63. On 16 Nov. he informed the House of the queen’s commission for opening Parliament, prompting a debate as to whether the order was to be read to the upper House only. When it was concluded that the Commons ought to be summoned to hear the commission read, it fell to Cowper to instruct the lower House to return to their chamber to elect a new speaker. LPL, MS 1770 (Wake diary), f. 69.

On 21 Jan. 1709, despite his role in the earlier alliance of the Whigs with Hamilton, he voted in favour of Queensberry’s right to vote in the elections for Scottish representative peers. SHR, lviii. no. 166 pt. 2. 172-74. The following month he joined with Godolphin and others to reject a suit brought by William Johnston, marquess of Annandale [S]. An undated and possibly later addition to Cowper’s diary recorded his suspicions about the sincerity of the French commitment to the peace negotiations and consequent disagreement with Godolphin, ‘nothing but seeing such great men believe it could ever incline me to think France reduced so low as to accept such conditions’. He was also worried about Marlborough’s request to be appointed captain-general for life, declaring ‘that a commission during life, is a new instance and liable to malicious constructions’. Add. 72488, ff. 47-48, 49-50; 61164, ff. 195-96; Cowper, Diary, 41.

The Sacheverell trial and its aftermath, 1710

The ministry was already tottering when it made the disastrous decision in November 1709 to prosecute Henry Sacheverell. Within a month there were rumours that the ministry was about to break up and that Thomas Wharton, earl (later marquess) of Wharton, was leading a campaign to remove both Godolphin and Cowper. Cowper himself was said to be giving ‘wing and credit’ to such talk. Nevertheless shortly before Christmas Cowper was said to think that he was secure for the time being and when in January 1710 Marlborough stormed out of a meeting with the queen, Cowper and Somers both attempted to mediate between them. HMC Ancaster, 438; HMC Downshire, i. pt 2, 884; Add. 72488, ff. 66-67, 68-69; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1410. In March he was deeply involved in attempts to secure the passage of the treason bill with minimal concessions to the Scots. Argyll’s attempt to secure a provision allowing the accused a list of witnesses before trial was opposed by Cowper, Godolphin and Somers whilst a decision to postpone discussion of Scottish settlements saw Cowper and Godolphin on the opposite side to Somers and Sunderland. Nicolson London Diaries, 488-89.

The same month Cowper presided over the trial of Henry Sacheverell. He was prominent in the debates of 16 Mar. arguing in defence of resistance theory. He rejected impatiently proposals that the Lords should be permitted to cast their votes article by article. Having in the earlier stages of the proceedings emphasized to Sacheverell how ‘indulgent’ the peers had been in allowing him counsel and in permitting him to be bailed he now made plain his impatience with Sacheverell’s defence. Unsurprisingly, he voted with the majority to convict but the unpopularity of the verdict intensified ministerial instability. In May, apparently failing to realize that the duchess of Marlborough’s relationship with the queen was part of the problem, Cowper used his wife’s friendship with the duchess in an attempt to persuade her to use her influence over the queen. State trial of Dr Henry Sacheverell, ed. B. Cowan, 46-47, 88, 94-95, 203; Add. 61463, f. 71. In June Cowper supervised plans to print an account of the Sacheverell trial by the Whig printer Jacob Tonson. As early as April it had been speculated that Tonson may have paid as much as £1,500 for the rights, though some thought Cowper had made ‘a present of it to him’. Cowper took care to ensure that all the resolutions made between the conclusion of the evidence and the verdict should be included ‘to show the great care and deliberation with which the Lords proceeded and the method they went in.’ Add. 72495, f. 1; Add. 72540, f. 201; Christ Church, Oxf. Wake Mss, 17, f.

The dismissal of Sunderland in June prompted Cowper to describe the political situation as the result of ‘great art, skill, and application, and a wonderful deal of intrigue’; he also joined with other leading Whigs—Godolphin, Somers, Newcastle, William Cavendish, duke of Devonshire, Orford, Halifax and Henry Boyle, later Baron Carleton—in an effort to prevent Marlborough from throwing up his command in response to this ‘great mortification’ and thus precipitating a dissolution of Parliament. HMC Portland, ii. 212; Add. 61134, ff. 202-3. Matters were not helped by the scandal surrounding the involvement of Cowper’s chaplain and servant in a ‘knavish business’ concerning the administration of the assets of an elderly man by means of a possibly fraudulent commission of lunacy issued by Cowper in his capacity as head of chancery. Verney ms mic. M636/54, R. Palmer to R. Verney, 20 June 1710. Although Parliament was not dissolved until September 1710, the removal of Harley from the commissions of the peace for Middlesex and Herefordshire may have been a last-ditch effort on Cowper’s part to limit his influence in the anticipated general election. Harley wrote to Cowper complaining about it on 2 Aug., and despite his protestations to the contrary, he clearly found his removal deeply insulting, although he professed to be mollified by Cowper’s explanations, in which he laid the blame for the decision elsewhere. HMC Portland, iv. 563; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F60, R. Harley to Cowper, 2, 4, 6 Aug.1710.

The dismissal of Godolphin in August and his replacement by a commission dominated by Harley himself was promptly followed by the appointment of the Harleyite defector Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, as envoy to Hanover, which the displaced Whigs initially believed was a precursor to an announcement of his appointment as Marlborough’s replacement. Harley was determined to try and keep Cowper and Halifax within the ministry though he admitted that negotiating with them was difficult because it was impossible to bring them ‘out of general terms to particulars’. The appointment of Cowper as lord lieutenant of Hertfordshire that month may have been part of his strategy, but it certainly came as a surprise to Harley’s supporters who had expected the post to go instead to the young James Cecil, 5th earl of Salisbury, and it is likely that Cowper’s nomination pre-dated the ministerial changes as he had signalled his willingness to serve in that post during the minority of William Capell, 3rd earl of Essex, the previous February. Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. 1597-99; HMC Portland, ii. 213, iv. 563; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F54, countess of Essex to Cowper, 21 Feb. 1710. The report of Harley’s emissary, Robert Monckton^‡, that Cowper‘expressed his gratitude to you with tears in his eyes and gave so elegant a turn to the assurance he gave me of his affections and fidelity to your service that he said whether he was kept in or put out should be inviolable’ may have referred to Harley’s allowing the appointment to stand. Add. 70278. Although Harley must have been well aware of Cowper’s participation in private meetings called by Somers, he was encouraged to believe that he could win him over. Cowper’s influence, added to that of Newcastle and Halifax, whose support he believed he had already won, would, he hoped, bring in the bulk of the Whigs. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F56, Somers to Cowper, n.d. [July or August 1710]; HMC Portland iv. 571-73. Sir John Cropley^‡, however, thought it thoroughly uncertain how either Cowper or Somers intended to respond to the new situation. Sunderland was equally convinced of Cowper’s loyalty to Marlborough and Cowper recorded that he had refused to negotiate via Monckton because to do so ‘while I had my place would look like a desire to save it’. Perhaps he was also influenced by personal dislike of Monckton, who had offended him in the Commons. TNA, PRO 30/24/21/165; Add. 61127, ff. 111-13; Cowper, Diary, 42; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Newcastle to Cowper, 1 Nov. 1710.

In the midst of this manoeuvring Cowper continued to employ his interest. He expressed his satisfaction that Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S], had recovered sufficiently to ensure that he would be able to ‘bear a great part in the ensuing elections’. NAS, GD 158/1179/1. Negotiations between Harley and Cowper continued into September and Halifax added to the pressure on Cowper to remain in office, declaring that by doing so he would provide a buffer against the Tories. He begged him not to ‘throw away that buckler which God has put into your hands to defend our laws and liberties’. But both sides remained highly suspicions of each other. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 16 Sept. 1710. Cowper used his time in office to minimize Whig losses where possible. According to one of Harley’s correspondents, he appeared to be about to pass a commission of the peace for Hampshire which would leave the Whig Charles Powlett, 2nd duke of Bolton, in the office of custos rotulorum even though Bolton had recently been dismissed as lord lieutenant in favour of a Tory candidate. Such a move it was thought might be a deliberate stratagem (‘a piece of fineness’) to suggest that Bolton had been restored to the queen’s favour. For his part Cowper told Monckton that he could not stay in office because ‘things were too far gone towards the Tories’ and warned that ‘in case of a Tory Parliament, Mr Harley would find himself borne along into measures he might not like.’ Add. 70289, f. 48; Cowper, Diary, 42. When Harley intervened directly to persuade Cowper to remain in place, he was informed that the lord chancellor had long wished to resign:

being weary of my place; that being so indifferent towards it I was not prepared to bear much for it; that I had already tasted mortifications from Ld [Dartmouth William Legge, 2nd Baron later earl of Dartmouth], encouraged, as I had reason to believe from [blank]; that things were plainly put into Tories’ hands; a Whig game, either in whole or part, impracticable; that to keep in, when all my friends were out, would be infamous; that in a little time, when any Tory of interest would press for my place, he must needs have it; that it was necessary a man in that place, who had so much to do and judge of, should sit easy in his mind as to the circumstances he was in; that it was impossible I should be so, during measures I could not but think hurtful to the public, and contrary to the true interest of my country; and on the whole desired him not to think of continuing me, but only to prepare the queen to believe my true professions, that I would always endeavour to serve her, to assist her against any hard attempts on either side, and to live well with the ministry when I was out of place, if they pleased to allow me that favour. Cowper, Diary, 43.

Harley refused to believe him and for the next two days Cowper was pursued by Monckton. Cowper may have encouraged this continued courting, for he allowed Monckton to share his coach back to London on 21 Sept. though he was saved from a further harangue by the presence of his trainbearer. His distrust of Harley cannot have been helped when, on his return, he received a summons to a meeting of the Privy Council which he believed had been delayed deliberately ‘that I might have as little notice as possible.’ Cowper, Diary, 45. As Cowper anticipated, the purpose of the meeting was to announce the dissolution of Parliament. He took with him notes for a speech opposing this but was prevented from making it. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F122, Heads of a speech.

Although the queen had initially been reluctant to appoint Cowper, she was now even more reluctant to lose him. Both Cowper and Somers appear to have established an unlikely rapport with the queen, who was sincere in thinking highly of them. Gregg, Queen Anne, 321, 323; Swift, Works, viii. 142. Cowper recorded in his diary that on 22 Sept. (after yet another session with Monckton) he had offered her his resignation five times and that it was refused each time:

The reason of all this importunity, I guess, proceeded from the new ministry being unprepared of a successor that would be able to execute the office well; Sir Simon Harcourt having chose to be attorney general and her not knowing if he would take it; her having been informed I executed the office well; the ministers not having thought to removing me as yet, and so not prepared… Mr Harley and Duke [Shrewsbury Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury] being afraid of the old Torys overrunning ’em, and willing for a while at least to have a little counterbalance, if they should disagree; so much to my dissatisfaction I returned home with the seal. Cowper, Diary, 45-46.

Cowper did extract from the queen a promise that she would accept his resignation the next day. Anxious to retain the confidence of a crucial ally, Harley told Newcastle ‘that all has been done that was possible to assure him of support and to persuade him’ and blamed Cowper’s resignation on ‘some rash engagements’. HMC Portland, ii. 220. For his part Cowper was equally concerned to retain the respect and friendship of Newcastle, who had instructed him not to resign. He explained that the circumstances provided as ‘forcible a cause of my going out as if I had been actually removed’ and hastened to contrast his experience with Newcastle’s:

you are sure to be always wanted and courted while there is any the least pretence to the true interest of England; but I had reason to think the reprieve offered me could not possibly be of any long continuance, though I believe it proceeded from an unfeigned kindness towards me[.] HMC Portland, ii. 221.

Harley may still have had hopes of persuading him to change his mind. Harcourt was reluctant to accept the post of lord keeper and was not named as his replacement until 16 October. The following day the duchess of Marlborough, apparently unaware of the appointment, seems still to have been worrying that the queen might have persuaded Cowper to something ‘contrary to right and reason’ although she also expressed confidence that ‘he does not intend to leave his old friends.’ Marlborough-Godolphin corresp. 1649.

Out of office 1710-14

As Speaker of the House, Cowper had rarely missed more than a single day per session. Now that he was no longer in office his attendance fell markedly. During the session of 1710-11 he was present on 70 per cent of sitting days. He probably still exerted considerable influence over procedural issues, since his expertise was clearly superior to that of Harcourt, now the reluctant custodian of the seals as lord keeper. His willingness to offer advice to the House helped to reinforce perceptions that his commitment to the Whigs did not overcome his impartiality. This was reflected in an incident in November 1710 when he defended the lord keeper’s conduct in response to a complaint from an unknown member of the House, who had objected that Harcourt should not have introduced the newly elected representative peers of Scotland to the queen because he was not himself a peer. Timberland, ii. 281.

Nevertheless, with the Whigs out of power Cowper now found himself under attack for his past conduct. On 18 Dec. he suffered the ignominy of having a chancery decree overturned without a division. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs, 47, f. 105. The following day the now Tory-dominated Commons considered the disputed return of members for Bewdley and voted to overturn the 1708 charter. Cowper accurately ‘expected much dirt to be, unjustly, God knows, thrown at me’ but went off to sit for his portrait ‘secure and content with my innocence and right conduct… my mind being so easy, as that I could depend it would not discompose my looks.’ Cowper’s confidence was not entirely justified. He was criticized by several members of the Commons, though his record was defended by Robert Walpole^† (later earl of Orford) who was at pains to emphasize that Cowper was ‘spotless and unblemished, and that nobody ever discharged that high trust so well that have gone before, or will come after him in it’. Cowper, Diary, 50; Add. 72500, ff. 47-48.

Still a central figure among the Whigs, Cowper’s advice was sought by his former colleagues. He advised Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, to make an ambivalent response to the advances that had been made to him by the new ministry and encouraged Marlborough to behave with dignity: ‘to be all submission to the queen; none to any of his enemies; but to behave rather higher that he would if they had not the ascendant and to stand and fall by that conduct.’ Cowper, Diary, 47, 52. He was also still constantly approached with clerical patronage requests. In January and February 1711, along with other senior Whigs he was deeply involved in attempts to defend the former ministry from the Tory attack over the conduct of the war in Spain. He contributed forcefully to the debate, insisting in the course of the attempt to censure Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], that ‘in things essential to justice, the ordinary forms of courts of judicature ought to be observed’. Such sentiments stand in marked contrast to those that he had expressed during the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡ some 15 years earlier. He entered seven protests or dissents to the various resolutions of the House condemning the conduct of Galway, Tyrawley and James Stanhope^† (later Earl Stanhope) and the consequent address to the queen. Timberland, ii. 281, 283, 301, 303, 308-26; LJ, xix. 190, 191, 193, 213, 219; Bodl. On 27 Feb. together with Somers and other moderate Whigs he was present at a meeting organized by Bishop Nicolson to plan the parliamentary campaign in support of James Greenshields. Two days later he was present when Greenshields’ case was considered by the House but his motion that the lord keeper should ask that nothing relating to the sentence of the presbytery should be mentioned in the debates was rejected. Nicolson London Diaries, 551; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, ff. 153-4. From 20 Mar. he held the proxy of fellow Whig, Henry Herbert, 2nd Baron Herbert of Chirbury, and on 26 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the estate bill of William and Edward Hubbald. On 10, 12 and 17 May he was as one of the managers of the conference with the Commons on amendments to the bill for preserving white and other pine trees in America and for the conferences to consider the bill for the preservation of game.

Cowper was absent from the House for the final four weeks of the session during which his proxy was held by Halifax. In the latter stages of the session it was rumoured that Harley meant to reach out to the Junto by offering places to Cowper and Somers, but no such offers were forthcoming. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. Letters Quarto, 5, f. 192; Add. 61461, ff. 122-23. During the recess Cowper was consulted as a possible arbitrator in the dispute over the estate of the recently deceased Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland. He also became involved in more behind the scenes negotiations over the composition of the ministry when Somerset approached him for advice on his possible resignation after failing to recover his seat in the cabinet council. Cowper advised him to resign but noted that the duke had hoped to be told to stay. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 2 Aug. 1711; DE/P/F56, Somerset to Cowper, 28 Aug. 1711.

During the 1711-12 session Cowper’s attendance rose to 81 per cent of sitting days. Questions relating to the war continued to dominate political life, although a new domestic crisis was threatened by the bestowal of a British peerage on Hamilton. Like other Whigs Cowper was upset by the queen’s speech with its reference to endeavours to secure peace ‘notwithstanding the arts of those who delight in war’. This was interpreted as a slight on Marlborough and ‘looked like a libeller in a garret, with a reflection on a general; and not like a Queen, who should not have thundered in that way.’ LJ, xix. 335; Diary of Sir David Hamilton, ed. P. Roberts, 33. During December 1711 Cowper spoke with the queen on both issues. Although he was thought to be prepared to vote in favour of the No Peace without Spain motion in the abandoned division of 8 Dec. and told the queen that he could not vote with the ministry, he appears to have taken no part in the debate and to have abstained. However he assured the queen that he would vote in favour of Hamilton, unless convinced to the contrary by what was said in debate. He noted with some satisfaction in his diary that she had expressed her opposition to the creation of any more peers, the House being ‘already full enough’. Once again he appears to have been silent in the debate. Verney ms. mic. M636/54, R. Palmer to R. Verney, 11 Dec. 1711; Cowper, Diary, 53; Letters of Lord Balmerino to Harry Maule ed. Cylve Jones, (Scot. Hist. Soc. xii), 143. Cowper’s abstentions may have encouraged others to believe that he could be persuaded to support the new ministry. He was certainly represented abroad as one who sought to win Harley over, ‘reducing all things again into the right channel’. HMC Portland, v. 156-58. Nevertheless, he voted with the opposition in opposing the adjournment on 2 Jan. 1712 and later in the session joined with his old colleagues, Somers and Halifax, in speaking in favour of William Carstairs’ petition against the patronage bill, but to no effect. Wentworth pprs. 237-34; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 6. f. Although he had not been present when the committee to consider the bill relating to the estate of the deceased James Annesley, 2nd earl of Anglesey, had been nominated, John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham (who had an interest in the estate through his marriage to the widow of the 3rd earl) entreated his presence at the meeting of the committee on 4 Mar. because of ‘the just opinion I have of your great ability and equity’. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F56, Buckingham to Cowper, 3 Mar. 1712. The proxy of Charles Finch, 4th Baron Winchilsea, was registered in his favour on 18 January. This may have been intended for use in connection with the vote on the address to the crown, but cannot have been employed, as Winchilsea was present in the House on that and the following day. Cowper was given the proxy of John Hervey, Baron Hervey, later earl of Bristol, on 1 Mar. (vacated 4 Mar.), that of Somerset on 3 Mar. (vacated 17 Mar.) and of Godolphin from 28 Mar. (vacated 13 May). On 19 May he held Colepeper’s proxy. Colepeper had been absent from Parliament since December 1711 and would not return until the following year. Proxies had been marshalled on both sides for the debate on the bill to enquire into grants passed since the Revolution. Cowper was one of those to speak against it. Timberland, 371.

Cowper also participated in the debate of 28 May on the address to the queen to overturn the orders restraining James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from pursuing an active campaign against the French. He voted in favour of the address and entered the protest when the motion was rejected. PH, xxvi. 164, 180; Timberland, ii. 374. During June he used his friendship with the queen’s physician, Sir David Hamilton, to secure an audience in order to make his opposition to the proposed peace known. Together with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, he was reported to have spoken ‘very handsomely and well’ in the debate of 6 June following the queen’s speech announcing the peace. Cowper, Diary, 54; Christ Church, Oxf. Wake Mss, 17, f.329. The phrase ‘handsomely and well’ appears to have been something of a euphemism for a furious row with Strafford (as Raby had since become). Strafford, who had served as ambassador at the Congress of Utrecht, accused members of the House of undermining the peace effort by encouraging the allies to believe that there was a strong pro-war party in England. In the course of his rebuttal Cowper declared that Strafford:

had been so long abroad, that he had almost forgot not only the language, but the constitution of his own country. That according to our laws it could never be suggested as a crime in the meanest subject, much less in any member of that august assembly to hold correspondence with our allies… whereas it would be a hard matter to justify, and reconcile, either to our own laws, or to the laws of honour and justice, the conduct of some persons, in treating clandestinely with the common enemy without the participation of the allies. Timberland, ii. 375.

When the Whigs lost the vote on their attempted amendment to the address on the peace by a spectacular margin, Cowper joined them in yet another protest. The reasons, like those for the protest of 28 May, were later ordered to be obliterated from the Lords Journal. LJ, xix. 474, 479, 481; Timberland, ii. 377-80.

An exchange of letters with Halifax that August underlined the difficulties of their political situation and of dealing with ‘a foolish deluded people.’ Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 7 Aug. 1712. By December 1712 rumour suggested that Cowper might be moving towards the ministry after all; in January 1713, however, when Halifax put him (prematurely) on standby for the queen’s death, he was probably hoping for a Whig revival triggered by the Hanoverian succession. NAS, GD248/561/47/45; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Halifax to Cowper, 24 Jan. In February 1713, Oxford (as Harley had become), still hopeful of winning Cowper over, included his name on a list of peers to be canvassed before the session. In March he invited Cowper to St James’s to discuss the issues of the day, stressing his own determination to uphold the Protestant succession. There seem to have been several such meetings between Oxford and leading Whigs. Cowper’s own account of the meeting suggests that Oxford emphasized his support for the Protestant succession and the steps he had taken to ensure it. Oxford had brought written notes, and it is possible that what was under discussion was a Whig proposal to bar the pretender form the succession even if, as many Tories hoped, he were to renounce the Catholic faith. Whether Oxford seriously contemplated supporting such an attempt is unclear. Cowper noted that Oxford spoke ‘as always, very dark and confusedly’ and that he accused Marlborough and the recently deceased Godolphin of being deep in the pretender’s designs. Cowper, Diary, 54-6; Nicolson London Diaries, 602; J. Swift, Letters, written by the late Jonathon Swift, D.D. Dean of St Patrick’s Dublin; and Several of his Friends From the year 1703 to 1740, (1706), i. 167-75, Swift to Mrs Dingley, 21 Mar. 1713; HMC 7th Rep. pt. i. 508. Despite his uncertainty about Oxford’s motives, only a fortnight later he was arranging another meeting with the lord treasurer, specifying that ‘it may be with as little observation as possible’. Just a month later, on the other hand, he was seen arriving at a meeting with his Whig allies at which Nottingham was also present. Add. 70220, Cowper to Oxford, 30 Mar. 1713; Add. 70316, H. Speke to W. Thomas, 15 Apr. 1713.

During the 1713 session Cowper was present on nearly 82 per cent of sitting days. On 9 Apr., together with Nottingham and Halifax he spoke against an address to the queen in response to her speech. A few days later (20 Apr.) he visited the queen to discuss foreign policy and his opposition to the peace. Swift, Letters (1766), i. 175-82, Swift to Mrs Dingley, 7-12 Apr. 1713; Cowper, Diary, 57. The same month he was approached by Patrick Hume, Lord Marchmont [S], for his assistance in dealing with a Scottish appeal involving his nephew-in-law, Sir Alexander Don who, according to Marchmont, was ‘fixed in good principles’ and promoted them in Scotland. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F55, Marchmont to Cowper, 22 Apr. 1713. In May Oxford predicted that Cowper would oppose the eighth and ninth articles of the French commercial treaty. In June he opposed the ministry over the malt bill too, joining with Nottingham to assert that the tax amounted to ‘a breach of faith and honour’ with the articles of Union. As far as his concerns over the treaty of commerce went, part of Cowper’s preoccupation was with the way in which it encouraged the queen to be seen to associate herself with a party. She should, he informed David Hamilton, be ‘neuter’ and leave such matters to be debated in Parliament. Letters of Lord Balmerino to Harry Maule, 160; Davis, Lords of Parliament, 32.

The strength of Cowper’s continuing commitment to the Whigs was demonstrated in August 1713 when he, together with Somers and Lady Sunderland stood godparents to the infant son of Charles Trimnell, bishop of Norwich. He was also deeply involved in electioneering, both for the Commons and for the Scots representative peers who were to sit in the Lords. Yet in December his apparent ability to set political issues to one side enabled him to act as an arbitrator in a complex dispute involving Oxford and the estate of the deceased duke of Newcastle. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F57, Trimnell to Cowper, 8, 18 Aug. 1713, DE/P/F54, Islay to Cowper, 25, 31 Aug., 1 Oct. 1713, DE/P/F55, Dr Harris to Cowper, 8, 18 Aug. 1713, DE/P/F97, duke of Newcastle’s case, DE/P/F60, Harley to Cowper, 11 Feb. 1714; HMC Townsend 340.

During the first session of 1714 Cowper was again present on over 81 per cent of sitting days and between 1 and 17 Mar. he held the proxy of Charles Bodvile Robartes, 2nd earl of Radnor. This may have been for use in the debates over an attack on the Whigs responsible for the union negotiations contained in a pamphlet, The Public Spirit of the Whigs. As one of the Union commissioners Cowper had a personal as well as a political interest in punishing the author. He chaired the committee that drew up an address to the queen on the subject and entered a protest when the House rejected an amendment that implied the pamphlet had backing from the ministry. LJ, xix. 635. On 12 Mar. Charles Beauclerk, duke of St Albans, sent his proxy to Cowper expressing his confidence that Cowper would use it well and asking him to enter it ‘when you judge there will be occasion for it’. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F53, St Albans to Cowper, 12 Mar 1714 NS. It was registered on 23 Mar. and vacated at the end of the session. On 3 May Cowper reported from the committee to draw an address to the queen seeking her intervention to protect the liberties and privileges of the Catalans. He was briefly absent in mid-April, entering a proxy in favour of Halifax on the 13th before returning to the House the following day. The business considered on 13 Apr. included several issues that might have prompted the proxy: papers relating to the 1711 peace negotiations and the second reading of a place bill. Matters relating to the affairs of the deceased Lord Mohun were probably also of interest as Cowper had advised the dowager Lady Mohun on the conduct of her case. Add. 61454, ff. 162-3. Nottingham predicted that Cowper would vote against the bill to prevent the growth of schism. Cowper indeed signed a protest against its passage on 15 June and received messages of thanks from prominent dissenters for his opposition to it. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F57, D. Williams and others, 7 June 1714. He held the proxy of Hugh Cholmondeley, earl of Cholmondeley, from 22 June, which, like that of St Albans, was vacated at the end of the session. On 5 July he chaired a committee to draw up an address to the queen on the state of trade, which was effectively a revival of previous attacks on the ministry over the handling of the commercial treaty. The next day he took a prominent role in questioning Arthur Moore^‡. Two days later he entered a protest over the failure of an attempt to make a representation to the queen alleging that the benefit of the Asiento contract had been obstructed by those seeking personal advantage from it. LJ, xix. 746, 756; Add. 72501, ff. 143-4; HP Commons 1690-1715, iv. 914.

Return to office, 1714-23

The death of Queen Anne in August 1714 transformed Cowper’s political fortunes. Cowper had steadfastly supported the Hanoverians and like his wife he had probably been in regular contact with the court at Hanover for several years. He was now expected to receive an appropriate reward. Countess Cowper Diary, 1; Add. 72509, ff. 208-9. Even before the arrival of the new king he had received fulsome letters of praise from Bolingbroke whose expressions of thanks for the way in which Cowper had executed ‘a harsh commission’ suggest that it was Cowper who communicated the former secretary’s dismissal from office. Oxford also wrote offering his services. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F56, Bolingbroke to Cowper, 4 and 11 Sept. 1714; DE/P/F56, Oxford to Cowper, 5 Sept. 1714. On 21 Sept. Cowper drafted the king’s first speech to the first meeting of the new Privy Council; he was appointed lord chancellor the same day. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F122, draft of King’s speech. His wife was appointed lady of the bedchamber to the princess of Wales. She translated into French the briefing document that Cowper had prepared for the king on the state of English political parties and gave it to the Hanoverian minister, Andreas Gottlieb von Bernstorff, on 24 October. Countess Cowper Diary, 7. This ‘impartial history of the parties’ asserted that the Whigs supported the Hanoverian succession and constitutional government whilst the Tories were Jacobites who ‘would greedily swallow the cheat and endeavour by all possible means to put in practice again their old notions of divine, hereditary and indefeasible right by a restoration of the person in whom by their opinion the right is.’ Despite their political differences Oxford sought Cowper’s support in retaining his offices as warden of Sherwood Forest and custos of Radnorshire. It is perhaps indicative of the care with which Cowper cultivated an air of disinterested public service that he replied in a vein that appeared to be supportive but which firmly denied his ability to be of assistance. Cowper’s studied impartiality did not prevent him from recommending the removal of James II’s former attorney general, Thomas Powys, from his post as one of the justices of king’s bench. His fellow Whigs certainly believed that his recommendations for judicial appointments would be influenced by political considerations. When Francis Godolphin, 2nd earl of Godolphin, wrote in support of a candidate for a Welsh judgeship, he said very little about his client’s legal ability, stressing instead that ‘His opinion as to public matters is what your lordship could wish it to be and his conduct (in his sphere) has always been of a piece with his opinion.’ Herts. ALS, DE/P/F132, Impartial History of the Parties (draft), DE/P/F60, Oxford to Cowper, 14 Oct. 1714, DE/P/F149, Godolphin to Cowper, 8 Jan. 1715; Add. 70214, Cowper to Oxford, 15 Oct. 1714.

During the election campaign that followed the dissolution of Parliament Cowper was again involved in selecting and promoting Whig candidates. Herts. ALS, DE/P/F53, J. Boteler to Cowper, 10 Oct. 1714; London Pols. 1713-17: Mins. of a Whig Club 1714-17 ed. H. Horwitz, (London Rec. Soc. xvii), 30. Cowper’s second period of office and his subsequent resignation and leadership of the opposition to the Sunderland Stanhope ministry will be covered in the next volume of this work.