Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Number of Qualified Electors:


Number of voters:

3,285 in 17151


5 Mar. 16902SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.  
 Sir Francis Winnington  
6 Nov. 1695EDWIN SANDYS  
10 Aug. 1698SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.1402 
 Thomas Foley6933 
22 Jan. 1701WILLIAM WALSH1101 
 Sir Thomas Rous,8004 
26 Nov. 1701WILLIAM BROMLEY1401 
 William Walsh12805 
5 Aug. 1702SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.  
 William Bromley  
23 May 1705SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.1814 
 William Walsh1692616627
3 Dec. 1707SIR THOMAS COOKES WINFORD, Bt. vice Bromley, deceased  
19 May 1708SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.  
18 Oct. 1710SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.  
16 Sept. 1713SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, Bt.  

Main Article

The greater gentry monopolized the representation of Worcestershire between 1690 and 1715, albeit in a series of bitterly contested elections. The same families had dominated the county in the Restoration period and were to retain their influence into the Hanoverian period, which saw most of them ennobled. The role of the largely absentee peerage seems to have been to exert influence in favour of one of these gentry families, rather than to impose one of their own relations, kinsmen or nominees. The most influential peers were the Earl, later Duke, of Shrewsbury (lord lieutenant throughout the period), the earls of Coventry (successively custodes until 1710), and the Earl of Plymouth. Two lords created in the 1690s, Somers (Sir John*) and Herbert (Henry*) cannot be discounted either, because of the formidable political drive each of them possessed. However, the most active member of the House of Lords in terms of Worcestershire electioneering was William Lloyd, the zealous Whig bishop of Worcester from 1699 to 1718.

In February 1690, Thomas Foley I wrote to his old ally Sir Edward Harley* to inform him that ‘Sir Francis Winnington* and I yet have no opposition’. Indeed, the view that the Whigs would repeat their triumph of a year earlier and be returned unopposed was widely accepted. Thus Somers, in Worcester on the eve of the county election following his return for the city on 4 Mar., reported to John Locke that ‘I doubt not but Mr Foley and Sir Francis Winnington were chosen, which may be looked upon as good fortune, for there would have been danger from any pretenders, as far as I can find, by the sense of the country’. In entering this caveat Somers proved remarkably prescient for the following day Sir John Pakington, 4th Bt., ‘came unexpectedly into the field with 200 or 300 gentlemen and freeholders and demanded the poll against Mr Foley’. Pakington’s late candidature was a response to his defeat at Droitwich by Philip Foley*, which he blamed on a breach of trust by Thomas Foley I. It also caused a postponement of the county poll for just over a week owing to the imminence of the assizes. On 10 Mar. Lord Bellomont [I] (Richard Coote*) predicted a violent and expensive poll, costing each candidate £2,000. When the poll eventually took place some of the gentry ‘cried up Captain Sandys [Samuel†], and joined with Sir John against the other two’, thereby uniting the two families that had shared the representation in the Cavalier Parliament. Sandys then desisted, leaving Pakington to defeat Winnington rather than Foley.8

Five years later Foley appeared to be under pressure once again. ‘Mighty Tom’, as he was known, was ‘charged with being the first mover of the coal tax, a crime sufficient in these parts to overthrow the greatest Goliath’. In these circumstances he was probably relieved when Pakington declined to stand. Several possible candidates were mentioned for the vacant seat, the most important being Sir James Rushout, 1st Bt.*, Foley’s partner in the Convention of 1689, who sounded out Lord Keeper Somers on the matter. In the event Rushout was less concerned with self-promotion than in aiding his relatives, first his cousin, William Bromley I, who was facing difficulties at Worcester, and then his son-in-law, Edwin Sandys (son of Samuel), who was eventually returned with Foley. A possible Tory replacement for Pakington never got beyond the discussion stage, with Sir Edward Sebright, sheriff in 1685, and a ‘Mr Coventry of Snitterfield’, probably Gilbert Coventry, later 4th Earl of Coventry, the most likely candidates. With the election agreed, all that remained was for the Foley clan to survive a bout of collective nervousness brought on by the spectre of another ‘great opposition’ arising on the eve of the poll.9

At the beginning of July 1698 Sir Charles Lyttelton, 3rd Bt.†, predicted a ‘great struggle’ for the county, listing five probable candidates, Foley, Pakington, William Walsh, William Lygon and a son of Sir Nicholas Lechmere†, a baron of the Exchequer. The last three, he thought, would have the support of the lord lieutenant, although Walsh alone secured Shrewsbury’s endorsement ‘and his influence upon the gentry and clergy’. Foley’s relatives were evidently perturbed by such a possibility, so much so that they attempted to secure Shrewsbury’s neutrality by reminding his confidant, James Vernon I*, that Foley ‘had stuck by the Court and divided from his relations in all votes of consequence, and particularly for supplies’. Foley’s position was indeed precarious. The preceding Parliament had revealed his equivocal attitude to the emerging Whig Junto, now the dominant force in the ministry. Furthermore, his practice of raising money locally in order to lend it to the government at a higher rate was perceived as the act of a dependent courtier. Worse still, he was suspected of promoting the Act prohibiting the import of foreign iron, a measure favourable to his own ironworks. Finally, it was said that ‘he lives in the country but very little and when he does but very meanly, and has the repute of a hard landlord’. Foley’s fate was virtually sealed by the re-emergence of Pakington, no doubt provoked rather than cowed by his removal from the lieutenancy for refusing the voluntary Association. The poll merely served to humiliate Foley, who was forced to withdraw after the first day, leaving his opponents to magnify the extent of their victory.10

Before the next general election in January 1701 the workings of Worcestershire politics were affected by a change in personnel at the apex of county society. In 1699 Bishop Lloyd was translated to Worcester, thereby ushering in a period of intense ecclesiastical involvement in electoral politics. The same year saw a new Earl of Coventry, the 2nd Earl being more Whiggishly inclined than his father. Finally, the Duke of Shrewsbury went abroad, thereby depriving the county of its natural leader, and a man of sufficient authority to conciliate the opposing parties. His presence was missed almost immediately, as no undisputed mechanism now existed to convene a gentry meeting to avoid a contest at the approaching election. In 1698 the proximity of the assizes and Shrewsbury’s authority had surmounted any problems. His absence now enabled Walsh to avoid an assembly of the gentry, ostensibly on the grounds that no one had the authority to call it and because it contravened the rights of the freeholders, but in reality because he feared it might legitimize a challenge to his position. In the absence of a gentry meeting, various candidates were put forward. At the assizes Sebright had ‘paraded’ Thomas Savage of Elmley Castle, who had recently married the 1st Earl of Coventry’s widow, but Savage cited the general disinclination to divide the county as his reason for not standing. Thomas Foley III also had thoughts of putting up, no doubt with the aim of restoring his family’s interest. He hoped for a conjunction with Pakington, but found the Tory baronet only willing to assist his candidature ‘underhand’, unless the ‘gentlemen’ sanctioned a joint interest. Eventually, a third candidate emerged, in the person of Sir Thomas Rous, 4th Bt., of Rous Lench, the son of a knight of the shire during the Protectorate. His avowed intention was to displace Walsh, ‘Sir John Pakington having behaved himself so well that there was no objection to him’. The initial response to the intervention of Rous was to close ranks behind the outgoing Members in order to avoid a contest. Thus, one group including Sir Francis Russell†, Sir Thomas Haslewood, ‘Mr Nanfan’ (presumably Nanfan Bridges†), ‘Mr Winnington’ (?Salwey*) and ‘almost all the clergy’, who had been against Walsh previously, declared for the existing Members. However, a group of influential Whigs including Lygon, Lechmere and Richard Dowdeswell* favoured calling a gentry meeting. Ultimately, the Tories held such a meeting, attended by 16 or 17 gentlemen, which endorsed Rous, unless Walsh agreed to stand aside at the next election. Walsh refused on the grounds that he could not consult his supporters before the poll, particularly Lord Coventry, who was out of the county. Following this rebuff, Pakington joined with Rous, only to lose his customary place at the top of the poll because his new alliance so disobliged Russell and his friends that they plumped for Walsh.11

After the prorogation of the opening session of the 1701 Parliament, the Worcestershire Whigs joined in the campaign to persuade William III that a dissolution would result in a new legislature more in tune with the King’s views on the French threat. To this end an address was drawn up at the quarter sessions and sent to London for presentation to the King on his return to England. The address referred to the encouragement given to Louis XIV by those politicians ‘who were instruments of tyranny in the late reigns’, and who had been carrying on the same ‘pernicious designs’ more covertly since William’s accession. The signatories then pledged that

whenever your Majesty shall think fit to desire the immediate sense of the people in Parliament we will use our utmost endeavours to send such representatives as shall effectually enable your Majesty to protect the Protestant religion, maintain the balance of Europe, and reduce the exorbitant power of France.

The address was reportedly signed by 24 deputy lieutenants and magistrates and caused some controversy by appearing in print before presentation to the King, no doubt as part of the Whig propaganda effort. Walsh certainly understood the purpose of the address. In his report to Somers on its progress he gave a detailed assessment of the Whigs’ prospects in each Worcestershire constituency. In the county, the main Whig objective was to defeat Pakington. Encouragingly, Walsh was able to report that both he and William Bromley I had declared their candidatures at the quarter sessions. However, Thomas Foley III, who had signed the address despite ‘finding great fault in the wording’, was also interested in standing. This opened up the prospect of an alliance between Foley and Pakington with the aim of uniting the Presbyterian and High Church interests. Rather than being intimidated by such a venture, Walsh was able to welcome it as the stimulus to overcome the mistrust between Bromley and himself. The division between them was a serious threat to Whig hopes of winning both seats. Its basis appears to have been a mutual fear that Pakington was so strong that the only effect of a joint interest was to hand the second seat to the other man. Sir Joseph Jekyll* saw this division as a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if the Whigs cast single votes it could only help Pakington:

I think nothing can prejudice the public here but the difference between him [Walsh] and the gentlemen that appeared against him the last time [Lygon et al.]; and as to Mr Bromley’s part of it, if not for all the others, I am confident your lordship [Somers] may compose it.

If Somers did attempt to mediate, he clearly failed, as pledges in support of both Whig candidates were quite rare. Thus Pakington crept in between the two Whigs with a little help from the Foleys: Bromley ‘had 100 and odd more than Sir John and Sir John 15 more than Mr Walsh. Sir John had the election given him only by Mr Thomas Foley [III] of Witley, if it had not been for him he had had 300 too short.’ Encouraged by the narrowness of his defeat Walsh petitioned, but the King’s death and consequent dissolution prevented Parliament from adjudicating. One other aspect of the election was a portent for the future: Bishop Lloyd played a full role in the attempts to unseat Pakington. According to Lyttelton, Pakington ‘had almost all the clergy’s votes against him, influenced by the bishops of Worcester and Oxford’, no doubt owing to his recent bill against the translation of bishops. Lloyd also ordered his secretary to write to the bailiffs of his manors soliciting votes for Bromley and Walsh and offering the view that ‘his lordship does not think him [Pakington] as fit a person to the King and country as either of the other two’. Pakington’s response was a declaration setting forth his support for the constitution, the Church of England and the Toleration Act and outlining his service for the county.12

The general election of 1702 was essentially a re-run of the previous contest. As Bromley himself put it: ‘I fear there is no prospect of success without a good understanding amongst those who are against Pakington.’ Lyttelton again expected a vigorous campaign featuring a fight between two pairs of candidates, with Foley and Pakington opposing Bromley and Walsh. As before, Foley decided to stand elsewhere, and a late attempt by Sir John Talbot† to enter the lists proved abortive. Walsh delayed a public declaration of his intention to stand in the hope of enticing Bromley into a joint candidature, justifying his reticence on the grounds that he had previously been criticized for being too forward. In a letter to the bishop of Oxford in April 1702 Walsh outlined his fear that Bromley’s supporters were opposed to a joint interest because they had come to a secret agreement with Pakington. Rumours such as these proved particularly vexatious to Walsh as he believed that most of Bromley’s credibility as a candidate had originally come from his own willingness to back him. Furthermore, Walsh was discomforted by accusations that he was a Socinian, which he believed originated with Pakington. The mistrust between Walsh and Pakington came to a head at the quarter sessions held in June 1702 when swords were drawn over the provenance of an incriminating letter, allegedly penned by Walsh to his rival and dropped in a coffee-house, the contents of which were used to advantage by the Tories. Fortunately, as Lyttelton recounted, ‘no great mischief has happened yet’. To this catalogue of attempts to influence the electorate must be added Bishop Lloyd’s contribution, which began with a letter asking Pakington to stand down, otherwise the full weight of episcopal influence would be used to induce the clergy to vote against him. When Pakington ignored this request, the bishop responded by circulating letters in which he castigated the Tory baronet for publishing libels against the bishops and for suggesting that Lloyd was the author of The True Character of a Churchman (written in fact by Richard West), which had attacked men of Pakington’s ilk. The Bishop had certainly found The True Character congenial as it was dispersed around the county by his son and other church officials to ministers and churchwardens. On the other hand, Lloyd had been upset by some other printed and manuscript tracts which proliferated during the campaign, the most notable of which was Henry Sacheverell’s Character of a Low Church Man, which lambasted Lloyd and lionized Pakington. When the new, Tory-inclined, Commons assembled, Pakington complained of Lloyd’s actions and secured a vote in his favour on 18 Nov. 1702 (see PAKINGTON, Sir John, 4th Bt.). With the failure of Walsh and Bromley to combine, all three candidates in effect stood singly. Lyttelton felt that Lloyd’s efforts had harmed Bromley because the Tories would not risk Pakington’s defeat by casting a second vote in his favour, even though he was ‘much more acceptable’ than Walsh. Mary Cocks (sister of Lord Somers) reported the result in the following terms: ‘Mr B[romley] lost his election, he was 83 short of W[alsh] and W[alsh] 170 odd short of P[akington].’ According to her analysis Bromley had fallen between two stools: too many Whigs believed the rumour spread by Walsh that Bromley had joined Pakington, while too many Tories believed the opposite, that Bromley was in alliance with Walsh.13

Rumours of a possible dissolution in December 1703 sent agents scurrying about the county to secure the interests of their respective candidates. Pakington’s supporters were keen to gauge the impact of his recent speech on the second occasional conformity bill. Some of his supporters were worried lest it had been reported inaccurately, but at least one Tory felt it had been an astute move, since it would galvanize the Church party into action, while Pakington’s supporters among the Dissenters would remain unaffected, for they were mobilized by his influential friends not by his own efforts. The optimistic assessment was probably the correct one because Pakington used similar religious symbols during the 1705 election campaign. Indeed, he marched into Worcester with ‘a banner carried before him, whereon was painted a Church falling, with this inscription: For the Queen and Church, Pakington’. Enough people saw the contest in Pakington’s terms, ‘between the Church and the Presbyterians’, for him to defeat Walsh by well over 100 votes. Significantly, the more moderate Bromley topped the poll, attracting support from both the other candidates. It would seem that Bromley’s supporters worked hard but successfully to secure a pact with Pakington, although much of the canvassing was done as secretly as possible to avoid losing the second votes of Walsh’s supporters. However, perhaps the most serious threat to Pakington was the Whig manoeuvre to rush the writ to Worcester while he was absent, campaigning in Aylesbury. It failed when the messenger carrying the writ was delayed. The election was preceded by at least one printed tract, described by Arthur Charlett as ‘a scurrilous pamphlet’ aimed at Pakington. Furthermore, a letter written by Pakington to Lloyd in June 1705 implied that the bishop had not been slow to criticize Pakington’s character or to threaten his dependants with eviction or with legal action before the ecclesiastical courts. However, no complaint was made to the Commons on this occasion, possibly owing to the changed political balance of the new House.14

Partisan feelings were still running high in January 1706 when Lord Coventry denounced to the new lord keeper, William Cowper*, the ‘arbitrary practices’ of some Worcester justices. However, the commission was merely widened to include some of Coventry’s nominees. The death of Bromley in August 1707 again threatened a divisive contest. Walsh, already in the House, opted for a subtle strategy aimed at the general election, scheduled for no later than May 1708 under the Triennial Act. He backed another Whig, Sir Thomas Cookes Winford, 2nd Bt., in the hope of uniting the Whig interest, previously split between Bromley and himself. The Tories hoped to unveil Samuel Pytts as their candidate after discussions held at Bromley’s funeral. However, as there was some support for Thomas Savage the matter was put off, probably to the assizes where, presumably, Pytts was fixed upon. Once it became clear that both parties would field candidates, attempts were made to reach an accommodation. The prime mover was Anthony Lechmere*, a friend of Bromley and thus a plausible mediator. He proposed that one of the candidates should stand down and that at the next general election both Cookes Winford and Pytts should be promoted by the gentry for the peace of the county. Pakington presumably would be asked to withdraw in the interests of unity. Pytts was amenable to the proposal provided that he was the candidate selected at the by-election. Cookes Winford was less happy, on the grounds that it would deprive the freeholders of their rights. At this point, Lechmere was asked about the genesis of his plan, which it then transpired had originated with Bishop Lloyd, and was probably aimed at securing Pakington’s removal. This ended all hope of an agreement, as a dismayed Thomas Foley III recorded:

by this you see our country is like to be in as great a flame as formerly, and though the generality of the gentlemen seemed inclined to live neighbourly and to have the country quiet, yet the heats etc. of one or two persons who pretend to moderation have prevented that which would certainly have been for the advantage of both gentlemen who stand now.

As the campaign got under way in earnest, Cookes Winford proved the stronger, obtaining support from former Bromley supporters and from some Tories, such as his father-in-law (Sir) Henry Parker*. Faced with the prospect of defeat at the polls, Pytts withdrew.15

The death of Walsh in March 1708 removed one of the more controversial figures from the Worcestershire scene. It certainly simplified the electoral situation, allowing Whig and Tory, in the shape of Pakington and Cookes Winford, to divide the representation in an agreement confirmed at a gentry meeting convened by Shrewsbury, newly returned from Italy. The only other candidates mentioned were Pytts and Sir Charles Lyttelton (or his son), but neither of these men could hope to match Pakington’s appeal. A contest was likewise avoided in 1710 with the unopposed return of Pakington and Pytts. The absence of a Whig candidate is somewhat surprising given that a ‘packed’ grand jury had issued a very Whiggish address in June 1710. Possibly Cookes Winford was discouraged by the Tory revival attendant upon the Sacheverell trial, together with the death of the Earl of Coventry and his replacement as custos by the Tory Lord Plymouth, and Shrewsbury’s leading role in Robert Harley’s* new ministry. The only question appears to have been whether the rout of the Whigs would persuade Pakington to retire to repair his poor health and battered finances. Not surprisingly, he did not wish to be out of Parliament at this juncture. The same Members were returned in 1713, the only hint of a Whig challenge coming from Sir John Rushout, 4th Bt.*, who stood and lost at Evesham instead. Only in 1715 did Worcestershire politics revert to its pattern of three-cornered contests when the Whig Thomas Vernon†, standing singly, outpolled Pytts.16

Author: Stuart Handley


  • 1. Hereford and Worcester RO (Worcester, St. Helen’s), Vernon mss 705: 7/BA7335/139/37, pollbk.
  • 2. The election was held later.
  • 3. Add. 29579, ff. 44–45, which suggests that the poll was taken before the city poll.
  • 4. Ibid. f. 254.
  • 5. Barré thesis, 14.
  • 6. Post Man, 26-29 May 1705
  • 7. London Post, 30 May 1705
  • 8. Add. 70014, f. 290; 29578, f. 302; P. King, John Locke, 235–6; Epistolary Curiosities ed. Warner, i. 141–2; Bodl. Ballard 35, f. 50v; Bath mss at Longleat House, Thynne pprs. 13, f. 259.
  • 9. Surr. RO (Kingston), Somers mss 371/14/J4–7, Rushout to Somers, 3, 10 Aug., 28 Oct., 4 Nov. 1695; Add. 70227, Thomas Foley III to Harley, 25 Oct., 4, 7 Nov. 1695; 70018, f. 85.
  • 10. Add. 29579, ff. 34, 38, 44–45; VernonShrewsbury Letters, ii. 118–19; Shrewsbury Corresp. 536, 540, 541.
  • 11. Somers mss 371/14/B18–19, Walsh to Somers, 4, 7 Dec. 1700; HMC Portland, iii. 639; Add. 29579, ff. 242, 254, 472; Beaufort mss at Badminton House, Coventry pprs. 503, i. 2, p.3, gentry meeting, 15 Jan. 1700[–1]; 503:1:2, Pakington to Ld. Coventry, 23 Dec. 1700, Rous to same, 17 Jan. 1701; 503, i. 2, p. 5, Walsh to Mr Turner, 15 Jan. 1701; 503, i. 2, p. 6, ‘Walsh’s answer to Rous’s proposals’; Glos. RO, Hardwicke Ct. mss, Lloyd pprs. box 74/18, ‘some observations on the election to be held on 5 Aug. 1702’.
  • 12. Flying Post, 14–16 Oct. 1701; VernonShrewsbury Letters, iii. 157–8; HMC Portland, iv. 24–25; Somers mss 371/14/B20–21, Walsh to [Somers], 26 Oct., 15 Dec. 1701; 371/14/01/12, Jekyll to same, 24 Aug. 1701; Hereford and Worcester RO (Worcester, St. Helen’s), Cal. Wm. Lygon letters 27, Lygon to Bromley, 6 Sept. 1701; Hereford and Worcester RO (Hereford), Foley mss E12/F/IV/BE, R. Baker to Philip Foley, 28 Nov. 1701; Add. 29579, ff. 338, 342; Hereford and Worcester RO (Worcester, St. Helen’s), Hampton mss 705: 349/4657/iii/p. 7, Charles Stephens to [Pakington], 13 Feb. 1701[–2]; Evans Diary (Worcs. Hist. Soc.), 57; Beaufort mss, Coventry pprs. 503, i. 2, p. 2, ‘Pakington’s answer to the papers . . . against him’.
  • 13. Cal. Wm. Lygon letters 52, 56–57, Bromley to Lygon, 19 Mar. 1701[–2], 7, 11 Apr. 1702; Add. 29579, ff. 367, 369–70, 377, 394, 401, 407; Northumberland mss at Alnwick Castle, 21, ff. 145–6, Walsh to [bp. of Oxford], 15 Apr. 1702 (two letters); Beaufort mss, Coventry pprs., bp. of Oxford to [Ld. Coventry], 21 Apr. 1702; L. K. J. Glassey, Appt. JPs, 156; Somers mss 371/14/B22, Walsh to [Somers], 22 July 1702; 371/14/01/9, Mary Cocks to same, [10 Aug. 1702]; Hardwicke Ct. mss, Lloyd pprs. box 74/18, ‘some observations . . .’; box 74, anon. to Bp. Lloyd, n.d.; G. Holmes, Trial of Sacheverell, 18; Chandler, iii. 206–9; CJ, xiv. 12, 37, 39, 46.
  • 14. Hampton mss 705: 349/4657/iii/16, Stephens to Pakington, 5 Jan. 1703[–4]; 705: 349/BA4657/iii/20, Thomas Gibson to same, 17 Dec. 1703; 705: 349/BA4657/i/75, p.57, M. Tomkins to [Lady Pakington], Apr. 1705; 705: 349/BA4657/i/76, 57i, Pytts to same, 4 May 1705; ii, Edward Goodere* to same, 4 May 1705; Beaufort mss, Coventry pprs. drawer 30, Walsh to Ld. Coventry, 23 Dec. 1703; Bodl. Rawl. D.863, ff. 89–90, newsletter; Cal. Wm. Lygon letters 105, Bromley to Lygon, 9 Dec. 1704[sic; 1705], 108, 111, Lygon to Bromley, 26 Jan., 3 Feb. 1704[–5]; Ballard 11, f. 81; Hearne Colls. i. 125.
  • 15. Glassey, 177–8; Somers mss 371/14/L29, Walsh to Somers, 18 Aug. 1707; HMC Portland, iv. 437; Beaufort mss, Coventry pprs. 503, i. 2, p. 4, Cookes Winford to Ld. Coventry, 24 Nov. 1707.
  • 16. Hampton mss 705: 349/BA4657/i/54, p. 41, Parker to Pakington, 7 Apr. 1708; 705: 349/BA4657/i/135, Robert Prest to Lady Pakington, 30 June 1710; 705: 349/BA4657/53, Thomas Lyttelton to Pakington, 30 Jan. 1709[–10]; Cal. Wm. Lygon letters 332, Pakington to Lygon, 24 June 1710; Ballard 21, f. 226; Vernon mss 705: 7/7335/139/37 pollbk. 1715.