Archbishop of Canterbury - KU ScholarWorks - The University of ...

Notes 109
Ministry was changed: Walpole's administration was replaced by a
government headed by the earl of Wilmington (16 February 1742), but
the most prominent member was Lord Carteret.
Mr. Pulteney: Sir William (1684-1764), created first earl of Bath on 13
July, 1742, whose acceptance of the peerage destroyed his political
reputation as seen in the ironic epigram:
"Here, dead to fame, lives patriot Will; his Grave—a Lordly-seat;
His Title proves his Epitaph; his Robes—his Winding-sheet."
He was long the outstanding figure in the Whig opposition to Walpole
with whom he had broken in 1725. He was pious but apparently stingy.
According to Horace Walpole, when Carteret had refused to contribute
to a parish subscription, it had been "in the style of Lord Bath" [Horace
Walpole }s Correspondence with Sir Horace Mann, ed. by W.S. Lewis,
Hunting Smith and George L. Lam (New Haven, 1954), III, p. 167: 22
November 1745 o.s.].
Lord Carteret: John Carteret (1690-1763), who was created Earl
Granville in 1744, and was secretary of state 1742-44 with Newcastle as
a colleague. He was both erastian and anticlerical. In 1751 he wrote a
series of dry letters to Seeker, as from one master of irony to another, in
a dispute which Seeker, as bishop of Oxford, had with Reynolds, bishop
of Lincoln, and the dean and chapter of Lincoln about the right of
institution to Thame, of which Carteret was at this time patron (Bodl.
MS dioc. Oxford 653, fol. 45 ff.).
Lord Tweedale: John Hay, fourth Marquis of Tweeddale (c. 1695-
1762), who was elected one of the representative peers for Scotland in
1722 and in later parliaments, and served as secretary of state for
Scotland 1742-46 under Lord Wilmington; at this time he was also
King's commissioner to the Church of Scotland. He was an anti-
Walpole Whig and great friend of Lord Carteret, whose daughter he
married.
FOLIO 32 (1742)
Pension Bill: from 1730-42 five such Pension Bills were introduced,
each designed to enforce legislation already on the statute books. To
support one was to manifest opposition to government, or that spirit of
"independence" of administration which was conventionally approved
of by all but the most hardened courtiers. Seeker seems to have been
exercised in mind by the moral and constitutional issues involved. On
an earlier bill, in the spring of 1740, he had had a long conversation with