William Nicolson was the son of a Cumberland clergyman whose career may have suffered both from his royalist sympathies and his accommodation with the Presbyterian settlement. Although of little wealth, Nicolson was sent to Queen’s College, Oxford, where he was of sufficient scholarly promise to be elected to the foundation as a taberdar. He seems to have made visits to London to engage with its intellectuals, including Robert Hooke; there he attracted the notice of another Cumberland clergyman’s son and Queen’s man, Sir Joseph Williamson‡, who paid for him to spend 1677-8 in Germany. If Williamson intended Nicolson for a diplomatic career, his protégé did not follow his lead, but instead returned to Oxford. Nevertheless his German experience was formative: he enjoyed writing asides in idiosyncratic German in his diaries and his sense of familiarity with the country may have encouraged his later sympathies with the House of Hanover. He also assisted Williamson with the reorganization of state papers, anticipating his later activities on a Lords’ committee, and became the first holder of the lectureship in Anglo-Saxon at Queen’s established by Williamson. Nicolson’s exploration of the antiquity of English institutions of church and government was commensurate both with his clerical vocation and the pursuit of rational enquiry demonstrated in his friendships with natural philosophers. However, his energies were directed away from linguistic scholarship towards another project which promised (misleadingly) to be more commercial, The English Atlas: he contributed to one (1680) and wrote two (1681-2) of the four published volumes, drawing lightly on his brief personal experience of Germany and more heavily on secondary sources. Although 11 volumes had been planned, in 1685 the bookseller Moses Pitt, the project’s initiator, was arrested for debt and the prospect of a long-term monetary reward dried up.
Early career in church and local politics
As archdeacon in Carlisle, Nicolson associated himself with the Musgraves, to whom he was distantly related on his mother’s side, and the Grahmes, who were directly represented at Carlisle Cathedral by the dean, William Grahme. Nicolson dedicated his sermon on the accession of James II to Philip Musgrave‡, clerk of the Privy Council and son of the Member for Carlisle in the preceding and ensuing Parliaments, Sir Christopher Musgrave‡ (from 1687 4th bt.). Carlisle’s loyalty, he wrote, ‘has been sufficiently signalized in her being owned by the Musgraves’.
a prince and princess ... in whom we are ready enough to acknowledge all accomplishments that we can wish for in our governors, provided their title to the present possession of the crown was unquestionable; and therefore ... we should rather greedily catch at any appearance of proof that may justify their pretensions, than dwell upon such arguments as seemingly overturn them.Nicolson, Letters on Various Subjects ed. Nichols, i. 7-8.
Nicolson intervened regularly in parliamentary elections in Cumberland and Westmorland. In Sept. 1695 he sent letters on behalf of the bishop, Thomas Smith, bishop of Carlisle, to the clergy of the deanery of Westmorland urging that they support the re-election of Christopher Musgrave‡, second son of the 4th baronet, in Carlisle. Nicolson made his and Smith’s support for Musgrave be known though other channels in the diocese, though without success.
At the same time as he was aligned with the Tory Musgraves in Cumberland and Westmorland, Nicolson was associated through his antiquarian pursuits with a circle of clergymen who would become Whigs as the party boundaries hardened in Anne’s reign. These included a fellow Queen’s College man and Westmorland native, Edmund Gibson†, the future bishop of London, and later William Wake, who would become archbishop of Canterbury under the Hanoverians, as well as White Kennett† (later bishop of Peterborough). The 1690s Convocation controversy marked the start of Nicolson’s philosophical (if not practical) movement away from Toryism. Nicolson’s great scholarly endeavour, The English Historical Library, published in three volumes between 1696 and 1699, comprised a historical survey of available sources for the history of the English state and church. Nicolson’s impolitic assessments of the work of some of his contemporaries attracted resentment. Edmund Gibson attributed his friend’s free expression to a naiveté born of ’having lived so long out of the world’, presumably referring as much to the distance between Cumberland and London as to his distance from regular contact with ecclesiastical and political discussion.
Nicolson himself would find himself embroiled in controversy with Atterbury, who attacked his scholarship, as well as Wake’s, in The Rights, Powers and Privileges of an English Convocation (1700). In a letter to William Elstob of 3 Feb. 1701, Nicolson explained that the preface to his Scottish Historical Library would refute the allegations of Atterbury, ‘this foul-mouthed preacher’ who had accused Nicolson of misrepresenting the office of king’s chaplain by translating a term found in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle as ‘hired clerk’.
Nicolson had intervened in the county election for Westmorland in January 1701 behind the Tory Henry Grahme‡ who was elected despite being accused of catholicism, a rumour which Nicolson told the diocesan clergy was an ‘impudent slander’.
Before the winter 1701 election in Carlisle Nicolson again suggested that James Lowther was a nonconformist, although the allegation failed to prevent Lowther’s return.
Bishop of Carlisle
Nicolson immediately found himself mired in controversy as a result of Atterbury’s hostility (stoked again by a comprehensive response to the 1701 second edition of Atterbury’s The Rights, Powers and Privileges of an English Convocation, in his Letter to the Reverend Dr White Kennet[t]†, the future bishop of Peterborough). On learning of his appointment he had written to the University of Oxford requesting that he proceed DD by diploma, as advised by Edmund Gibson, now one of the domestic chaplains of Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury. Gibson also wrote to Arthur Charlett, master of University College, asking for confirmation that this was correct form.
to upbraid the queen ... [and] ... by this clamour, to have stopped my consecration; fondly imagining that a doctor’s degree was a necessary qualification for the order of a bishop ... I hope all the rest of my Oxford friends will think me unblameable if, under the pressure of so severe a treatment, I sought a redress (of her majesty’s honour, as well as my own) in another university; where I had a reception as unanimously obliging as I could wish.Bodl. Ballard 4, f. 16.
James Lowther decided not to contest the 1702 election in Carlisle, mainly because he had become unconfident about the support of the earl of Carlisle. Nicolson supported the candidacy of Sir Christopher Musgrave’s son Christopher Musgrave. On 21 July, six days before the election, Nicolson was visited by the campaign managers for Thomas Stanwix‡, who had unsuccessfully challenged James Lowther in the previous two elections. They assured him they would also support Musgrave and ‘be directed by [Nicolson] hereafter’. Despite this, Nicolson subsequently expressed dismay that the mayor and aldermen at the election failed to support Musgrave, leaving Stanwix in the lead and Musgrave taking the second seat.
The Parliament of 1702
In Gibson’s words, September found Nicolson ‘straitened in time between the business of your diocese and the approach of the Parliament’; he told Nicolson that Sharp would ‘do what he can to make [Nicolson’s late arrival at Parliament] pass easily at court, and among the bishops’, especially the junior ones, although he reminded Nicolson that the queen was ‘of course to be applied to for leave.’ Nicolson’s reply, that he intended to return to London in the middle of November, was appreciated in a letter from Gibson of 17 Oct., which also outlined the issues facing the new Parliament and the uncertainty over the new reign’s political direction: ‘the common opinion is, that the great competition will lay between the [John Churchill,] earl of Marlborough and [Sidney Godolphin, Baron] Lord Godolphin on one side and my Lord R[ocheste]r on the other’, with the former being supported by some of the former allies of William III.
Nicolson discussed ‘Convocation broils’ over dinner with Sharp on 24 Nov. 1702. The lower House of the Canterbury Convocation (in which Nicolson did not sit, being a member of the northern province) was engaged in a series of challenges to the authority of the upper House, attributed by Nicolson to what he termed the ‘Atterburian faction’.
The occasional conformity bill was sent up to the Lords on 2 Dec. 1702. Nicolson prepared to deliver a speech on 3 Dec. in support of the measure, convinced that the occasional conformist was sealing his own damnation by using the sacrament ‘for secular ends and purposes’.
Nicolson often read prayers in the Lords, even after losing his position as the most junior bishop; on 23 Jan. 1703, whilst serving on a select committee on the military expedition of the previous summer, he was called out at the start of the sitting to perform the office.
correspondents at Edinburgh begin generally to despair of a union. They think our Parliament never intends them any favours, since it has not yet called Sir E.S. [Sir Edward Seymour‡] to account for his lewd reflection on the poverty of their nation. If this be the first step that we must make, I shall as much despair of our ever coming together.Thoresby Letters. ii. 38.
On 4 Jan. 1704 Nicolson was summoned to attend the House; he almost certainly obtained official leave of absence, although the printed Journal does not record this.
On 10 July Nicolson heard ‘from a great many hands, certain news of Her Majesty’s having given the deanery of Carlisle to (my kind friend) Dr Atterbury’. Nicolson learned of Godolphin’s assurance to Sharp that the queen intended to give Atterbury ‘a better preferment when an occasion shall happen for it’, remarking in this diary that this ‘will likewise give her an opportunity of pleasing the bishop of Carlisle’.
Nicolson arrived in London on 24 Oct. 1704 to resume his seat in Parliament and to begin a hectic round of socio-political meetings and dinners. He attended the House on 25 Oct., the second day of business, and thereafter for 77 per cent of sittings, often reading prayers.
Nicolson opposed the tacking of the occasional conformity bill to the land tax and on 28 Nov. 1704 was visited serially by Richard Musgrave‡ and James Grahme who each assured him neither would vote for the tack; Nicolson thought ‘the former might possibly pay some deference to my opinion in this matter’ but that Grahme was entirely directed by Harley.
Nicolson dined at various points over December with Henry Compton, bishop of London (who gave him a tour of the latter’s impressive gardens and greenhouses), Nathaniel Crew, Tenison, Sharp, Gibson and Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester.
On 6 Jan. 1705 Nicolson told Thomas Coke‡ of Melbourne that he consented to the Melbourne rectory bill, which ratified an agreement made in 1701 with Nicolson’s predecessor Thomas Smith to turn Melbourne rectory into a freehold property.
The Parliament of 1705
The dissolution of 5 Apr. 1705 was followed by fiercely contested elections. In the city of Carlisle, Nicolson now (along with the earl of Carlisle) backed Halifax’s younger brother, Sir James Montagu‡.
We shall send and give commissions to several other strangers, most of which have commands in the army. Would these gentlemen quarter themselves and their troops amongst us, they might be a security against those apprehensions we are under of danger from the north: but (I confess) I see no occasion we have for their proffered service in another capacity. Yet this is tendered in such a manner as not to be refused.Glos Archives D 3549 6/2/8, W. Nicolson to J. Sharp, 19 May 1705.
By mid–June, Musgrave was complaining to Nicolson of corrupt practices by Stanwix but was finding it hard to produce evidence of overt bribery.
Nicolson was just as preoccupied with cathedral affairs: the highfliers were now entrenched in the cathedral, represented by Atterbury and Hugh Todd. Todd, a canon of Carlisle and a former fellow Anglo-Saxonist of Nicolson’s in Oxford, was ambitious but was not thought of great merit by Nicolson and had ‘met with discouragements in his private offers of himself’ when seeking nomination as a proctor for the York provincial convocation before the diocesan election on 12 June.
Before the new Parliament opened James Lowther sought Nicolson’s support in opposing a bill for the development of Parton Harbour; Nicolson, in his capacity as a justice of the peace, agreed to sign a certificate against it.
Nicolson’s own loyalties were themselves difficult to characterize this session. He was appointed to the committee on the address to the queen requesting that she lay before them an account of proceedings in the Parliament of Scotland concerning the succession to the crown and the union of the kingdoms on 12 November. On 3 Dec. Nicolson, Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury and Humphrey Humphreys, bishop of Hereford, dined with Tenison where they resolved that each bishop say something of the state of their own diocese at the ‘Church in danger’ debate expected for 6 December. On 4 Dec. 1705, while the Lords were in committee on the bill to naturalize Princess Sophia, Nicolson left the House to dine at the invitation of Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, a keen collector of antiquarian artefacts. Two days later he attended the House for the ‘Church in danger’ debate, but in the event did not speak in it.
Later on 27 Dec., following dinner with Sharp, he asked Gibson about a letter from the Electress Sophia to Tenison quoted by John Thompson, Baron Haversham, in his Vindication of his Speech in Parliament; Gibson confirmed the existence of a correspondence but knew nothing particularly of this letter.
The committee for records met again on 16 an 18 January. Peter Le Neve, Norroy king of arms, showed Nicolson ‘the pretended homage of Malcolm [III of Scotland]’, the meaning of which Nicolson had disputed in print in 1704 with William Atwood. Atwood had argued that this document showed Scotland was rightly subject to England; Nicolson had accurately pointed out that Malcolm had only paid homage for the lands he held in fee.
Nicolson joined his fellow-members of the records committee, Rochester, Somers, Halifax and Ralph Grey, 4th Baron Grey of Wark, at the state paper office on 14 Feb., where they found it in better order than before.
On 19 Feb., prompted by Wharton, he presented to the House petitions from the gentlemen and freeholders of Cumberland against the Parton Harbour bill. In promoting Parton as an alternative seaport to Whitehaven the bill struck against established interests in the country including those of James Lowther‡ and the diocese.
The cathedral dispute entered a new phase when Hugh Todd (acting on Atterbury’s instructions) presented Nicolson’s sister at the consistory court on a charge of adultery.
Despite Nicolson’s support for the union with Scotland he was anxious that a bill for the security of the Church should be passed, lobbying Tenison on the subject on 4 Jan. 1707, and asking him on 12 Jan. whether the House should be moved to introduce a bill on the security of the Church the next day.
The Parliament of 1707-8 and the Cathedrals Bill
Nicolson had been forewarned of the difficulties he would face in the diocese by a visit in London from Atterbury on 12 Mar. 1707, who renewed his protests about Nicolson’s proposed visitation of Carlisle Cathedral.
The row delayed Nicolson’s arrival for the next session of Parliament, though he expected to attend, sending through Gibson on 2 Sept. a message to Humphrey Humphreys that he would greet him at the first Parliament of the United Kingdom with a ‘salute ... as a brother Briton, in British’.
Nicolson did not appear in the House of Lords until 7 Jan. 1708. He attended 61 per cent of sittings during the session. On his first day back, he received further encouragement from Somers, Sunderland and Halifax and relaxed in the evening at the Globe tavern with his fellow Cumberland-men Joseph Musgrave and Philip and Joseph Tullie, discussing the plight of silk weavers in the face of competition from cloth imported by the East India Company.
Todd’s case was argued in common pleas on 26 Jan. 1708. Nicolson seemed satisfied with the arguments of his counsel Chesshyre and Sir Joseph Jekyll‡ but was dismayed by the decision by three of the judges, Lord Chief Justice Thomas Trevor, later Baron Trevor, Sir John Blencowe‡ and Robert Tracy, that the case should be heard on 6 February. The fourth judge, Sir Robert Dormer‡, argued that common pleas was not the correct venue for the case which should be heard by way of appeal as in ‘the ordinary method of ecclesiastical procedure.’ The next day Nicolson found the gout-stricken Tenison ‘unwilling to stir so much as his tongue for me, till it will be too late’ while Chesshyre urged an unwilling Nicolson to build his case upon defence of the statutes.
The prospects for Nicolson’s court case looked bleak when Jekyll refused both Nicolson’s second breviat and a fee on 4 Feb., promising to support ‘my bill’ in the Commons instead. On 6 Feb. Trevor, Blencowe, and Tracy (the latter ‘most immoderately’) gave their judgment in favour of Todd and so prevented Nicolson from making his visitation.
On 11 Feb., the day after the issuing of the writ of prohibition, and the same day on which there was ‘sure news of the quitting of Secretary Harley’, Atterbury came, ‘in a peaceful temper’ to visit Nicolson, and spent some hours with him. Two days later, Nicolson learned from William Cowper, Baron Cowper that Sharp was opposed to the cathedrals bill on the grounds that the court of common pleas had decided against it, and that he had persuaded the queen to agree with him. Cowper promised to ‘set her right’. Moore and Wake were ‘secured’ on 14 Feb., but Cowper advised the adjourning of the committee on the bill until 19 Feb. so that all the judges could be present, as the best way to win over the queen. Copies of Nicolson’s printed case arrived on 17 Feb. and he began distribution. Sharp told him of his opposition in person.
Nicolson moved immediately to lobby the Commons for the bill. On 20 Feb. he gained Tenison’s permission to distribute the archbishop’s letter of 2 Feb. among Members.
In his visits on that day, Nicolson learned that Harley intended to orchestrate anticlerical sentiment in opposition to his legislation, and would argue that ‘the passing of this bill into a law will put the election of 28 members in the hands of the bishops’. Nicolson secured the services of Peter King† (later Baron King) to steer the bill through the lower House, though the latter expressed some sympathy with Todd. Furthermore, when Nicolson learned on 26 Feb. that Atterbury had printed and was distributing a pamphlet objecting to the bill, he rapidly composed Short Remarks on a Paper of Reasons against the Passing of the Bill and had it printed that night.
The opposition to Nicolson’s bill in the Commons was led by Harley, Harcourt, John Sharp‡, the son of the archbishop (their conduct was reported to Nicolson as ‘intemperate’) and Henry St John, later Viscount Bolingbroke, all of whom had recently resigned from the government. Nicolson’s principal allies were the Whigs King, Sir John Holland‡ and Sir James Montagu. Nicolson collected the statutes of the ‘new cathedrals’ from Lambeth on 1 Mar. and that evening entertained Members who supported the bill at the Dog tavern. The next few days were spent ‘coach[ing] about… soliciting’, revising Wake’s draft of a letter in favour of the bill and circulating this and another by Nicolson which he referred to as his Case of the Twelve Cathedrals.
Nicolson was ‘accosted by Dr Todd’ on 19 Mar., and the next day, when the bill had passed the royal assent, Nicolson and Todd effected a formal reconciliation in the presence of Sir James Montagu and James Grahme, the latter having been unsupportive on the bill, much to Nicolson’s frustration.
The Parliament of 1708
Nicolson was listed as a Whig in the printed list of the first parliament of Great Britain. Despite his apparent change of party allegiance, Nicolson’s electioneering was still deeply informed by his local influences and allies. In his cathedral city, Nicolson had been sympathetic to Christopher Musgrave’s candidacy, but on 15 Apr. he told Richard Aglionby that Musgrave would need the approval of the earl of Carlisle, Sir James Montagu and Joseph Reed, the Whig leader of Carlisle’s butchers’ company. Nicolson recorded, perhaps sympathetically, a Carlisle alderman’s hope that ‘one dry election will help to change interests’ on 6 May; he turned down an offer of money for Musgrave’s campaign ‘till fairer prospect’ on 10 May.
Over the summer Nicolson was engaged in enforcing the laws against Catholics, with the support of the earl of Carlisle as lord lieutenant. Gilfrid Lawson (whose denials that he was a Catholic left the question ‘as cloudy as ever’), though, threatened to make public his disapproval, and Nicolson complained to Wake in early August about the lack of enthusiasm shown by magistrates for taking Catholics into custody.
Nicolson’s departure for London was further delayed by appalling weather conditions, but despite lingering thick snow he set out on horseback on 26 Jan. 1709, taking a coach only once he had reached Ware on 5 Feb., arriving in London later the same day.
On 25 Feb. the bill for preserving and enlarging the harbour of Whitehaven was first read in the Lords, promoted by James Lowther as a response to the Parton Harbour Act. On 4 Mar. Nicolson interpreted the duke of Somerset’s actions in the House as ‘kindness’ to the bill, but the following day Somerset ‘hardly allowed’ the bill to pass a committee of the whole. On 12 Mar., Nicolson recorded the passage of the bill, much to his own and Lowther’s satisfaction.
Concerned in Scottish Episcopalian affairs, Nicolson drew up a paper on 9 Apr. at the solicitation of one James Gordon relating to the Aberdeen clergy for James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S] and duke of Dover, and Henry Compton.
Nicolson’s correspondence with Wake over 1709-10 concerned with the plight of the Palatine protestants, Scottish ecclesiastical affairs and his ongoing feud with Atterbury, who favoured him with yet another ‘elegant harangue against resisting of the powers’.
any sort of colourable pretence ... to deny her Majesty’s subjects, of our communion, the same privileges ... which we allow to others of theirs. If the extemporary prayers of Presbyterians pass current on this side of the Tweed, why should not the episcopal set forms be likewise received on the other ... provided, that they who officiate are equally conformable to the civil government?
Nicolson was confident that although Greenshields’s petition for toleration of Episcopalian worship might offend the Scottish ‘high-fliers’ (‘for the birds are common to both climates’) the people would accept that an objection ‘savours nothing of that friendly intercourse which is most likely to nourish and strengthen the tender Union’ and was particularly concerned that Wake have no hand in condemning Greenshields’s petition, but would delay its consideration to avoid offending the Scots.
Nicolson had also learned of course of Henry Sacheverell’s notorious sermon and the impeachment proceedings against him. On 5 Jan. 1710 he forwarded to Wake his thoughts on legal precedents, judging that ‘what’s delivered from the pulpit would fall as improperly’, in the first instance, ‘before the great council and judicature of the nation; were it not ... that the causing of a seditious sermon to be printed and published changes the nature of the transgression’.
Nicolson began his next diocesan visitation after Easter 1710 in a far more congenial atmosphere given Atterbury’s absence and Todd’s career ambitions which rendered him temporarily quiescent.
Nicolson learned from Lord Carlisle on 8 July 1710 that Harley intended to seek support for his new ministry through elections for a new Parliament. He assured James Lowther of an ‘easy election’ in the event of a dissolution.
Despite Nicolson’s claim that Cumberland had never been ‘much infected with the common contagion’ of Tories riding on support for Dr Sacheverell, the campaign began to reflect the prevailing Tory electoral momentum.
After the news of the dissolution on 21 Sept., campaigning began in earnest and Nicolson became more nervous. He wrote on 5 Oct. to Lowther that he wished the latter back in the north ‘since after the opposition raised to such a height at Carlisle and Cockermouth, nothing can be secure till over’.
The Parliament of 1710
Nicolson returned to London on 8 Dec. 1710. He dined with James Greenshields on 11 Dec. who told him that only two of the Scottish representative peers, Alexander Montgomerie, 9th earl of Eglinton [S] and John Elphinstone, 4th Lord Balmerinoch [S], could be counted as ‘truly Episcopal’ (supporting the Protestant succession), and thought that the Jacobite bishop of Edinburgh, Alexander Rose, had too strong an influence on the others.
Nicolson attended 52 per cent of sittings that session, where much of his time was taken up with the struggle against Samuel Gledhill’s petition against the Carlisle election the previous year, and James Greenshields’s petition for the Lords to hear his case against the city magistrates of Edinburgh. He was one of the two archbishops and 17 bishops who attended the St Stephen’s dinner at Lambeth on 26 December.
During his visit to Balmerinoch on 27 Dec. 1710, Nicolson had learned that Rochester had been warning court supporters of ‘warm work’ ahead on Spanish affairs.
The voting on the Spanish campaigns continued over late January and early February. Nicolson’s diary implies that on 24 Jan. he voted against the motion that the earl of Galway’s conduct had dishonoured Great Britain. On 3 Feb. he voted against a motion that implied neglect by the Junto ministry and twice protested against the resolution that the army’s Spanish establishment at the time of Almanza lacked sufficient manpower and resources.
On 20 Feb. 1711 Nicolson obtained ‘tacit leave’ to attend the Commons for the debate on Gledhill’s petition, where a chair was provided for him; but Gledhill’s friends, led by the Tory October Club, successfully adjourned the debate for three weeks by 154 to 151 votes, which to Nicolson was ‘leave given for the man’s running away’. Nicolson’s supporters, the Cumberland Members James Lowther and Gilfrid Lawson, were the tellers against the adjournment. Attending the Lords on 21 Feb., Nicolson was ‘much complimented’ for the problems he was undergoing and concerted efforts were made by a discreet Wake and by Harley to prevent Gledhill’s success. On 22 Feb. Nicolson was visited by Balmerino to discuss Greenshields’ case and by Gilfrid Lawson with news that Nicolson’s brother-in-law Edward Carlile was among the witnesses called by Gledhill. Greenshields showed Nicolson the proofs of the printed edition of his case on 25 February.
Nicolson was joined at his lodgings the next day by Somers, Cowper, Hough, Evans and Charles Trimnell, bishop of Norwich, to discuss Greenshields’s appeal. They agreed to keep any proposed legislation on religious toleration ‘to the civil part, without touching on the authority of the Kirk’, since the Whig grandees wanted to avoid alienating the Scottish Presbyterians. On 1 Mar. 1711 the House reversed the decree of the Edinburgh magistrates against Greenshields unanimously, the overwhelming majority of bishops (all 20 present in Nicolson’s account) in agreement. The following day John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, in a select committee meeting where both were present, suggested to Nicolson that the queen should provide for Greenshields in England. Nicolson now began to canvass support for religious toleration in Scotland and on 5 Mar. discussed the issue with Eglinton and Balmerinoch, although the latter was not yet in favour of legislation.
The next day, as a result of these proceedings, Nicolson received a flurry of ‘compliments’ (some of congratulation, others of condolence) from John Evans, Sunderland, Somers, Halifax, Cowper, Montagu, Lowther and Lawson.
Nicolson dined at Montagu’s with a number of his Commons’ supporters on 19 Mar. 1711, including Lawson, John Hutton‡, a ‘Mr Foley’ (probably Thomas Foley‡), Simon Harcourt, John Laugharne‡ and ‘Mr Wortley’, probably Edward Wortley Montagu‡. Montagu then took him to Lord Carlisle’s where he also met James Grahme and Charles Cornwallis, 4th Baron Cornwallis; it was also agreed that Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury should introduce him to the queen. The next day Greenshields and two colleagues conveyed the thanks of the bishop of Edinburgh for Nicolson’s help in relieving Scottish Episcopalians, and perhaps more welcome, Balmerinoch and John Murray, duke of Atholl [S], apologized for the conduct of the Scottish Members in voting against him in the Gledhill case. On 21 Mar. Nicolson visited Lowther to collect material for his planned vindication of himself from the Commons vote. Castlecomer assured him that the vote against him was actually ‘a deadly blow to the October-men’. Other Members expressing their sympathy included William Churchill‡ and Joshua Churchill‡. Archbishop Sharp assured him that his son John Sharp had lent his support in the Commons. This was not in fact the case, but Nicolson does not seem to have borne a grudge against his metropolitan for trying to smooth over the matter.
Alongside Gledhill and Greenshields, Nicolson’s other activities continued; he attended the committee for records on 22 Mar. 1711 and read prayers in the Lords that day. He examined the Lords Journals up to the end of January. On 28 Mar. he attended the House for the last time that session, although the next day he was at the committee for records where he obtained a promise from Halifax and Parker that they would procure a warrant to seize papers from the Rolls Chapel which were in a ‘lame condition’. On 2 Apr. he waited on Carlisle and Wharton, and the latter introduced Nicolson to Shrewsbury, to whom Nicolson gave his statement on the Gledhill case; Shrewsbury agreed to show it to the queen. Later that day he dined with Trimnell, Kennett, Gibson, Lancelot Blackburne†, the future archbishop of York and Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Winchester, at Chelsea ‘where nobly entertained, as friends to the old establishment and ministry’. On 3 and 4 Apr. he sat on the Journal committee, chairing it on the latter day, then he registered his proxy in favour of John Evans, which was vacated at the end of the session. On 5 Apr. Nicolson left London in the York coach, missing the last two months of parliamentary business.
Nicolson returned to Rose Castle on 14 Apr. 1711 and made a hero’s entry into Carlisle on 23 April.
testified their abhorrence at the rascally treatment I had from these villains; by giving me another of a different kind. The chief of the clergy and magistrates of the diocese met me at a dozen miles distance from my old home, and near twenty from Carlisle whence the officers of the garrison ... advanced two or three miles, with most of the inhabitants of any note. The mayor and aldermen received me at their utmost limits, in their formalities. At our entrance into the city we had nine great guns, and a guard of musketeers, and marching thence to the mayor’s house ... was entertained with a banquet of wine and sweetmeats.Wake mss 17, f. 275; Nicolson, London Diaries, 568.
In a letter to Wake of 30 Aug. Nicolson acknowledged that any episcopal reshuffle was unlikely to lead to his translation even if Tenison or Henry Compton should die to ‘make way ... for the needy’.
The Gledhill affair was also far from over. On 10 Dec. 1711 the still disgruntled Gledhill (perhaps hoping that the new Tory ministry would be even more sympathetic) re-presented his petition complaining of Nicolson’s intervention in the election, now claiming that several of his supporters had been illegally disenfranchised after Nicolson had bribed and threatened voters. On 19 Dec. Nicolson had been forecast as voting with the opposition on the peerage case of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] and the following day duly voted against the sitting of any Scottish peer by right of a British title created after the Union. On 2 Jan. 1712 he attended the House for the introduction of the 12 new Tory peers. In early January he dined mostly with old associates: with Gibson on 2 Jan.; with Gilfrid Lawson, the Tullie brothers and Sir James Montagu on 3 Jan.; with the antiquary Robert Sanderson on 4 Jan.; and with eight other bishops—Fleetwood, Burnet, Hough, Moore, now translated to Ely, Talbot, Evans and Trimnell—at Trelawny’s home in Chelsea on 5 January. In the same period he was visited by Greenshields and visited Lord Carlisle on 3 Jan., and visited Christopher and Sir Christopher Musgrave on 4 Jan. Two Quakers visited him on 10 Jan. ‘with proposals for making their Yea and Nay oaths in law’ in anticipation of discussion over the renewal of the 1696 Affirmation Act. On 16 Jan. Sir Christopher Musgrave visited to make ‘hearty offers of friendship’ to Nicolson and the earl of Carlisle, in the hope that Montagu’s election would be declared void and that he would find himself with a new electoral opportunity. Nicolson visited Montagu to tell him of Musgrave’s ‘false news’ the next day. On 23 Jan. Lowther visited ‘in good hopes’ of Montagu’s success. Nicolson spent much of both 30 and 31 Jan. with Greenshields, waiting on Eglinton and Cromarty on the second day, both of whom confirmed their support for toleration for Scottish Episcopalians. On 1 Feb. Gledhill’s second petition was defeated by nearly 30 votes in the Commons’ committee of elections.
The Quaker issue returned on 9 Feb. when Francis Bugg visited Nicolson with a pamphlet relating to the petition on affirmations which had been rejected that day by the Commons. On 12 Feb. Greenshields visited Nicolson to discuss what proved to be a ‘tedious’ committee on the Scottish toleration bill the next day, in which Nicolson (in opposition to Cowper and nine bishops) spoke against the ninth clause, which extended Episcopalian exemption from the censure of the Kirk to Presbyterians by prohibiting a magistrate from executing an ecclesiastical censure against anyone of either denomination. It was, Nicolson argued, ‘destructive of all ecclesiastical discipline’. Greenshields warned Nicolson on 15 Feb. that the Commons would refuse the inclusion of an abjuration oath in the toleration bill. Nicolson was also lobbied for Lowther’s Whitehaven bill, which extended the terms of his earlier act for the development of this port; Lowther visited Nicolson with ‘farther solicitations’ on 21 Feb., the day of the bill’s second reading. Gledhill’s petition on the Carlisle election came before the Commons on 23 Feb., the day after Montagu had read the committee chairman’s report with Nicolson; the committee’s judgment was confirmed by a majority of 15.
Gibson asked Nicolson to keep Tenison informed of ‘how matters go in North Britain’, particularly the reactions of the Church of Scotland to events in Parliament.
His major concern, though, was the ‘stupid’ level of political discourse in the diocese, ‘so little affected with occurrences of the public’ that the justices of Cumberland had to postpone an address to the queen about recent foreign policy until they had received explanations from Utrecht over whether the peace was ‘general’ or ‘separate’.
On 16 Nov. 1712 Nicolson’s wife Elizabeth, upon whom he had deeply relied, not only emotionally but particularly regarding communication with the diocese when in London, died after a long illness.
The Parliament of 1713 and after
The parliamentary elections of autumn 1713 saw marked changes of fortune. In Carlisle, a disillusioned Montagu did not seek re-election, while Sir Christopher Musgrave was voted in with Thomas Stanwix, although the absence of any contest probably reduced Nicolson’s need to involve himself. This was not the case with the Cockermouth election where he was prepared to support the sitting candidate James Stanhope. Nicolson wrote to Lowther that
one that has been so remarkable buffeted (by your honourable house) for intermeddling in elections, ought not to be fond of thrusting into such crowds, and yet so little impression has that discipline had on me, I would venture very far to serve so good and great a man as General Stanhop[e]. What measures Lord L[onsdale] will think proper on this occasion, I cannot tell; but am very sure that his lordship is very heartily in the interests of this excellent person. You’ll have about half a dozen votes from this neighbourhood, as I am told. If Mr Lawson magnifies the general as much at Cockermouth tomorrow as he did at Carlisle yesterday, he’ll have no hand in the defeat of him: and I hope the burghers will (by this time) have so far recovered their senses as to see the disgrace they must bring upon themselves by quitting so honourable a representative.Cumb. RO, D/Lons/W2/3/13, Nicolson to J. Lowther, 8 Sept. 1713.
Despite Nicolson’s support Stanhope was pushed into third place behind the Tory Joseph Musgrave and Whig Nicholas Lechmere†, the future Baron Lechmere.
Nicolson had informed Gibson that he would return to London before the opening of Parliament, but he became preoccupied with domestic matters, including the unexpected rejection of his marriage proposal by Lady Hasell, a relative of the cathedral dean, Thomas Gibbon.
Nicolson’s parliamentary behaviour during the passage of the schism bill has occasioned much speculation due to conflicting and missing evidence. On 31 May Tenison asked Nicolson to attend the House for the debates.
Nicolson remained at home, perhaps preparing for the necessary parliamentary elections, and did not attend the brief Parliamentary session in August. On 19 Aug., he warned Sir Christopher Musgrave that he would oppose him if he stood for election in Carlisle, as he had decided to support ‘a worthy person’ nominated by Carlisle to stand alongside Stanwix. Musgrave assented reluctantly.
His lordship was pleased to enclose a list of the late additional justices, and of the 19, I marked about half a dozen (amongst whom were two baronets, Sir C[hristopher] M[usgrave] and Sir Ch[arles] D[alston] whose quality, I thought, entitled them to be continued. Mr Appleby was the only person unnamed, whom I took the liberty to recommend. Nor did I propose the restoring of any, saving Mr. Gilpin and Mr Th[omas] Lamplugh’.
Sir Christopher Musgrave, Nicolson told Lowther, had ‘a hankering’ to be elected for Westmorland; ‘the enterprise’, he added, would be ‘difficult’. Doubting that there would be a dissolution before Christmas since it would be inconvenient to have elections during the holidays, he judged that the reasonable stability of the county bench should ‘prevail with men to be peaceable and good humoured’. The Cumberland election passed without contest, Nicolson informing Lowther of ‘that unanimous choice which … this county have already made of yourself and Mr Lawson for their representatives’.
Nicolson resumed his seat in the new Parliament of March 1715. Nicolson’s political and parliamentary career after 1715 will be examined in the next phase of this work. He eventually accepted translation to Ireland as bishop of Derry in March 1718. On 14 Feb. 1727 he died of apoplexy, shortly after being nominated to the archbishopric of Cashel. He left six children. His two surviving sons had also entered the Church; the eldest, Joseph, was chancellor of Lincoln and the younger, John (named joint executor with Nicolson’s daughter Catherine), had a living in Ireland.