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

Right of Election:

‘in the householders not receiving alms’

Number of Qualified Electors:


Number of voters:

about 320 in 16951


14 Feb. 1690Sir Thomas Lee, 1st Bt.  
 Thomas Lee  
6 Apr. 1691Simon Mayne  vice Sir Thomas Lee, deceased186 
 James Herbert I115 
21 Oct. 1695Sir Thomas Lee, 2nd Bt.182 
 James Herbert I178 
 Simon Mayne162 
 William Farrer [?]1502 
23 July 1698Sir Thomas Lee, 2nd Bt.168108
 James Herbert I158107
 Simon Mayne157100
 Robert Dormer1491043
  LEE's election declared void, 7 Feb. 1699  
22 Feb. 1699Robert Dormer  
 Sir Thomas Lee, 2nd Bt.  
6 Jan. 1701Sir Thomas Lee, 2nd Bt.  
 James Herbert I  
 Simon Mayne  
24 Dec. 1701Sir Thomas Lee, 2nd Bt.  
 James Herbert I  
 Simon Mayne  
17 July 1702Sir John Pakington, Bt.  
 James Herbert I  
 Simon Mayne  
21 Dec. 1702Simon Harcourt vice Pakington, chose to sit for Worcestershire  
 Sir Richard Temple, Bt.  
24 Nov. 1704Sir Henry Parker, Bt. vice Herbert, deceased  
 Simon Mayne  
2 May 1705Sir John Wittewronge, Bt.184 
 Simon Mayne175 
 Sir John Pakington, Bt.151 
 Simon Harcourt1504 
3 May 1708Sir John Wittewronge, Bt.163 
 Simon Mayne210 
 John Essington1615 
7 Dec. 1709Sir John Wittewronge, Bt.171 
 James Herbert II1316 
3 Oct. 1710Simon Harcourt169 
 John Essington170 
 Sir John Wittewronge, Bt.133 
 Simon Mayne1327 
24 Aug. 1713Simon Harcourt165 
 John Essington163 
 Nathaniel Meade162 
 John Deacle1588 

Main Article

Aylesbury went to the polls at every general election in the period 1690–1715 except for the first, and even then a contested by-election occurred within 14 months. If Aylesbury was to attain a certain notoriety in Anne’s reign as a result of the Ashby v. White case, this was only the most obvious manifestation of party conflict. The strongest interest in parliamentary elections should have belonged to the Tory, Sir John Pakington, 4th Bt., a resident of Worcestershire but who was also the lord of the manor of Aylesbury and as such having the right to name the returning officers (the constables) at his court leet. Normally, such power would decisively tip the scales in any electoral conflict, but in Buckinghamshire it merely forced the Whigs, led by Hon. Thomas Wharton* (later Lord Wharton), to develop a series of expedients to negate Pakington’s advantage. Strategies involved manoeuvring to intrude constables more favourable to Whig candidates, and various attempts to poll or disqualify voters accused of receiving alms in the previous year. Such contests were then open to appeal to the Commons. Wharton was usually able to force a contest because the Whigs and their Dissenting allies were quite strong in the town. An edge was given to the conflict, by the personalities involved, High Church Tory versus Whig zealot. This inevitably coloured the conflict with Richard Steele* writing in 1715 that ‘several of the poorer inhabitants have for many years past been influenced by the lord of the manor to vote for persons that were either Jacobites or rank Tories’.9

In 1690, Pakington, like his father and grandfather, preferred to engage in Worcestershire politics, leaving the field clear for the long-serving Member, Sir Thomas Lee, 1st Bt., and his eldest son, also Thomas, who resided at Hartwell, adjacent to the borough. Both were Whigs. The death of Sir Thomas Lee in mid-February 1691, in the middle of a parliamentary recess, saw an extended campaign to succeed him, even before the writ was moved on 31 Mar. By 1 Mar. Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Bt.†, could report that ‘Mr [Simon] Mayne’s party increases much and that they drink very hard’. At that stage Mayne’s potential challengers were Sir Roger Hill*, and James Herbert I. In the end Herbert faced Mayne in a fascinating duel between two government supporters. Mayne was the son of a regicide and a Whiggish office-holder in the victualling board. Both Comptroller Wharton and Lord Colchester (Richard Savage*) accompanied him on election day. Herbert was the Tory son-in-law of Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†), then chief minister. Although presumably backed by Pakington, Herbert’s known backers included the Earl of Bridgwater and, on the day, his brother-in-law, Lord Danby (Peregrine Osborne†), and Lord Carnarvon. Danby notably told Wharton that ‘a jockey’s whip became him better than a white staff’. Such was the ferocity of the campaigning that families such as the Dormers were divided, Robert Dormer for Herbert and his brother Fleetwood* for Mayne, and it was reported to have cost Mayne £400 and Herbert £230. Mayne won ‘by 70 in his own books and by 40 in theirs’. Rumours abounded that even before the election Mayne had hired three leading barristers in preparation for a parliamentary battle over the seat and Herbert duly petitioned at the first opportunity on 28 Apr. and again on 22 Oct., claiming a majority of the qualified voters. At the report of the committee of elections on 28 Jan. 1692 it transpired that Herbert’s main allegation had been wholesale bribery by his opponent, especially by agents of Thomas Lee (now the 2nd Bt.) and Wharton. However, Mayne’s agents were acquitted of bribery and he was declared duly elected.10

According to Sir Ralph Verney, writing in September 1695, Mayne’s interest had been damaged by his opposition to the poor fishing in local rivers and hunting for game. Thus, in order to bolster his support a ‘great feast’ was held on 14 Sept. at Aylesbury, attended by Sir Thomas Lee, Wharton, ‘Mr Denton’ (probably Alexander I*) and 14 other gentlemen. Ten days later, the Earl of Clarendon (Henry Hyde†) was ‘confident’ that Pakington was not pre-engaged and would back a nominee of the Earl of Abingdon (who had married the heiress of Sir Henry Lee, 3rd Bt., of Quarrendon, situated only a mile and a half to the north-west of Aylesbury). In the event some of the principal inhabitants invited Herbert to stand and he was backed by the Marquess of Carmarthen (Peregrine Osborne) and the Earls of Carnarvon and Abingdon. It seems that Herbert’s decision to challenge Lee and Mayne was taken only a few days before the election, and that of his partner, a Mr Farrer (probably William, a local lawyer), only on the day of the poll. The Whigs on the other hand had prepared meticulously, taking care to use their local power to gain control of the returning officers. At the quarter sessions held on 10 Oct., chaired by Fleetwood Dormer, the existing bailiffs were discharged, only eight days before the end of their term of office, and replaced by Wharton nominees. After the poll was declared, Lee was the clear victor, with Herbert 16 ahead of Mayne or ‘at least 37 of good voices’. Although a scrutiny was taken, the constables delayed declaring Herbert duly elected until pressured by Carmarthen. Mayne petitioned on 25 Nov. 1695, alleging that Herbert’s majority was made up of voters in receipt of alms and those not paying to the ‘Church and poor’. At the report of the committee of elections on 28 Jan. 1696 it was noted that the petitioner could show no evidence ‘to prove the right of election so restrained’ to scot-and-lot payers, which would have excluded all those with houses worth under 50s. a year. Allegations of intimidation were made, including letters written by Pakington in Herbert’s support, and of irregularities over the appointment of the constables. Against this Mayne’s friends were alleged to be in control of Bedford’s charity, and to be frightening the recipients (poor householders) out of their votes – they having been allowed to vote previously. In the end the franchise was deemed to lie in householders not receiving alms and Herbert was voted duly elected. One contemporary saw this as evidence of the growing influence of the Duke of Leeds (Sir Thomas Osborne) over the Commons, for the report was attended by 370 MPs, but only 150 remained in the chamber for the public business.11

At the general election of 1698 Lee and Mayne faced Herbert and Robert Dormer. Wharton again backed Mayne and Lords Carnarvon and Abingdon attended Herbert. The result was a victory for Lee and Herbert: three petitions followed on 12, 16 and 22 Dec.; Mayne against Herbert, Dormer against Lee and one from some inhabitants of the town against Lee. Mayne’s complaint was based on the actions of the constables in refusing to poll many of his supporters. Both petitions against Lee stressed that ‘illegal practices’ had been used to procure a majority of votes. The committee hearing on the matter began on 16 Jan. 1699, and was ‘like to last two or three days’. In fact it continued for longer, finishing on 27 Jan. with the Herbert-Dormer ticket emerging victorious by 175 votes to 80. Indeed, so long did matters take that on 24 Jan. the Commons had to empower the committee to alter the date of other hearings already set. Lee’s sister wrote on 31 Jan. to Sir Edward Harley* setting out the case for the House to overturn the committee’s decision. She maintained that her brother had a majority of votes even if the objections put forward by Dormer’s counsel were accepted. Further, she noted that many of Dormer’s voters had signed Lee’s return, and that Dormer had changed the basis of his petition wherein he had acknowledged Lee’s majority, albeit unduly procured, to a stance in which ‘he doth endeavour to prove himself to have the majority and that he was duly chosen’. When the committee reported on 7 Feb. 1699, the House agreed to the resolution that all the votes of the Bedford charity men and any others in receipt of alms should be disqualified. Much evidence had been given, especially about who was in receipt of alms from the Bedford charity. In the event the House voted Herbert duly elected. However, the resolution declaring Lee not duly elected was lost by 166 votes to 139 and its corollary, that Dormer was duly elected, lost by 152 votes to 146. Consequently, a new writ was ordered, whereupon Dormer defeated Lee at the ensuing by-election. Lee petitioned on 6 Mar. 1699, but no report was forthcoming from the committee of elections.12

At the general election of January 1701 Aylesbury became caught up in the calculations surrounding the county election. Robert Dormer switched sides and stood for knight of the shire as a Whig, resigning his interest in the borough to Lee. In return, Lee and Mayne cavassed for Dormer against Sir John Verney* (2nd Bt. and later Lord Fermanagh) in the county. Lee was returned, but Mayne lost to Herbert and did not petition. The second election of 1701 was virtually a repeat of the first, but on this occasion Mayne petitioned, on 3 Jan. 1702, and was backed up by a second petition on the 6th from some inhabitants of the town: both complained that the constables had arbitrarily rejected qualified voters. However, Parliament was dissolved before the issue was decided.13

After the accession of Queen Anne, Pakington chose for once to put up at Aylesbury and was returned in absentia with Herbert. Although there was much talk of Mayne joining with a ‘Mr Grennel’, probably Richard Grenville†, who ‘has no interest anywhere further than his money’, he eventually stood single. A number of householders petitioned on Mayne’s behalf on 26 Oct. 1702, again claiming that the constables had refused to poll duly qualified voters. This petition was withdrawn on 9 Dec., and two days later Pakington precipitated a by-election by choosing to sit for Worcestershire. The Tories were again victorious, Simon Harcourt II defeating Sir Richard Temple, 4th Bt.* 14

The 1703–4 session saw the culmination of the celebrated Ashby v. White case. Its origins lay in Whig attempts to neutralize Pakington’s control of the constables at Aylesbury. As Steele later acknowledged, the suit was carried on at Wharton’s expense and direction. At the election of January 1701, Matthew Ashby had been refused the right to vote by the constables on the grounds that he was a ‘poor indigent person’, whom the overseers of the poor were trying to have removed from the parish (he having been similarly refused in 1698). Ashby sued the constables for damages at the assizes and won £5, although he had claimed £200. This was an attempt by Wharton to intimidate future constables by threatening them with financial penalties if they failed to do his bidding. The constables appealed to Queen’s bench on the grounds that the matter lay outside the jurisdiction of the courts, being a matter for the House of Commons. In Michaelmas term 1703, the Queen’s bench judges overturned the assizes verdict by 3–1 (with the Whig lord chief justice, Sir John Holt†, in the minority), ruling that ‘no such action did by law lie against the defendants’. Ashby thereupon applied for a writ of error on 17 Nov., taking the matter before the House of Lords, where the Whigs had their main strength and where Wharton had previously proved himself adept at manipulating legal causes, particularly over the possession of lead mines in Yorkshire (see Squire, Robert). On 14 Jan. 1704 the Lords found for Ashby, voting that:

by the known laws of this kingdom, every freeholder, or other persons having a right to give his vote at the election of Members, to serve in Parliament, and being wilfully denied, or hindered to do so, by the officer, who ought to receive the same, may maintain an action in the Queen’s court against such officers, to assert his right and receive damages for the injury.

The Commons responded to this threat to their privileges by appointing a committee on 17 Jan. to search the Lords’ Journals for their proceedings on this case and that of Soames v. Barnardiston, and on the following day to inspect the Queen’s bench judgment. At this point Sir Charles Hedges* wrote that ‘the judgment in the Aylesbury cause has a little inflamed matters’, a considerable understatement considering the tone of the debate in the committee of the whole on the 25th. Both John Brewer and Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, commented on Wharton’s involvement, and the committee came to a series of resolutions endorsed by the House on the following day. Most important, they voted that:

according to the known laws and usage of Parliament, it is the sole right of the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament, to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members.

This applied to ‘the qualification or right of any elector, or any person elected’; otherwise the returning officers would be exposed ‘to multiplicity of actions, vexations suits and unsupportable expenses and will subject them to different and independent jurisdictions, and inconsistent determinations in the same cause, without relief’. Ashby was voted guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House, but was not ordered into custody. However, the lawyers acting for him were warned that to pursue the case further would be a breach of the privileges of the Commons. The Lords took their time in preparing their response; a long report produced on 27 Mar. reasserted the right of electors to sue for damages should they be wrongly deprived of their right to vote. The resolutions based on this report were then ordered to be printed. The Commons had adjourned for a week on the 27th and when they reconvened on 3 Apr. Parliament was prorogued before they could complete their response.15

Informed commentators such as James Vernon I* were not convinced that the matter had ended there, predicting that a new session would see the arguments revived. Indeed, the recess saw a number of pamphlets published on the controversy. At this point Ashby dropped out of the picture, although in April 1704 the Whig attorney Richard Meade moved a writ of certiorari removing the proceedings of Ashby’s settlement case from the quarter sessions to Queen’s bench. Meade’s role was of greater importance, because although White’s lawyer had been served with the resolutions of the Commons on the case in March 1704, he announced in July that he would embark on other suits for damages against the constables at the assizes. On 21 Nov. a complaint was made to the House that Meade had proceeded in the Ashby v. White case to enter the reversal of judgment ordered by the Lords. Furthermore, on the 23rd it was reported that several more actions had been begun against the constables at Buckinghamshire assizes. Hedges was hopeful at this point that a breach between the Houses could be avoided, but when the Commons again took up the matter on 5 Dec. the House examined the five plaintiffs in the new suit, John Paty, John Oviat, John Paton jnr., Henry Basse and Daniel Horne (several of whom had been refused the right to vote in 1698 as Bedford charity men), and ordered them into Newgate for contempt of the privileges of the House; Meade was similarly ordered into custody of the serjeant-at-arms. Needless to say, all those confined were maintained in considerable style at Wharton’s expense. This was a wise move on Wharton’s part for on 2 Feb. the five men were examined by the Commons as to Wharton’s role in the Aylesbury election: they refused to answer the questions and were returned to Newgate. On 12 Feb. 1705 four distinguished Whig lawyers – Alexander Denton II*, Nicholas Lechmere*, James Montagu I* and Francis Page* – applied to Queen’s bench for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the imprisoned men, which was rejected by 3 to 1 (Holt again in the minority). Two of the Aylesbury men petitioned the Queen for a writ of error on the Queen’s bench judgment, which, if granted, would have brought the case before the Lords. Secretary Robert Harley* cleverly played for time by referring the matter to all the judges. Meanwhile on 24 Feb. the Commons was informed of

endeavours to bring a writ of error on the proceedings in the court of Queen’s bench upon a habeas corpus granted there for the persons committed by this House to Newgate for breach of their privilege, and thereby to bring the commitments of this House under the examination of the House of Peers.

In response, the Commons voted to address the Queen against granting a writ of error in these circumstances, as it would ‘tend to the overthrowing the undoubted rights and privileges of the Commons of England’. They further resolved that those lawyers who had assisted in prosecuting either the writ of habeas corpus or the writ of error were ‘disturbers of the peace of the kingdom and guilty of fomenting differences between the Houses’. A committee was appointed to discover the identity of those involved. Two days later, two solicitors, William Lee and John Harris, and then the four lawyers were each voted guilty of a breach of privilege and sent into custody of the serjeant. At the same time the five Aylesbury men were transferred into the serjeant’s custody, no doubt to forestall their release. The Aylesbury men promptly petitioned the Lords for protection for themselves and their legal representatives, which the Lords took into consideration on 27 Feb. In a series of resolutions the Lords maintained ‘that every free Englishman, who is imprisoned by any authority whatsoever, has an undoubted right by his agents or friends to apply for, and obtain a writ of habeas corpus in order to procure his liberty by due course of law’, and resolved that such a writ of error ‘is not a writ of grace, but of right’. A free conference between the Houses was held on the 28th, where William Bromley II and (Sir) Simon Harcourt I, two of the Commons’ managers, ‘did not fail to take hold of all occasions to reflect on my Lord Wharton, whom they look’d upon as the main actor in this affair’. Repeated conferences failed to break the deadlock between the two Houses, and, finding all business at a standstill, on 14 Mar. the Queen prorogued Parliament without granting the writ of error.16

Meanwhile, local politics continued as normal, Simon Harcourt II succeeding in delivering his charge as chairman of the bench at Aylesbury quarter sessions in October 1704, at the height of the controversy over the Aylesbury case and the occasional conformity legislation. Harcourt felt he had come off well considering that he had been painted as the ‘most barbarous man on earth’, and that ‘the Saints were not displeased with it nor with my management there’. The following month saw a fierce struggle in Aylesbury at a by-election precipitated by Herbert’s death in November. Pakington’s father-in-law by his first marriage, (Sir) Henry Parker (2nd Bt.), ‘carried it by three against’ Mayne and was present to vote for the Tack on 28 Nov.17

The furore over the Aylesbury case and the Tack presaged a fierce contest at the 1705 election. On this occasion Mayne was joined by Sir John Wittewronge, 3rd Bt., who presumably stood with Wharton’s encouragement and assistance. Wittewronge certainly expected the sheriff, Henry Andrews, to facilitate his success, writing to him on 21 Jan. 1705 that he had declared his candidature, ‘depending on your friendship and being satisfied in your undersheriff’. Harcourt was again a candidate, his son noting as early as the first week in January 1705, ‘we are very much pestered with Aylesburians this Christmas and I believe those gentlemen give us the more of their company upon the approach of a new election’. Harcourt’s partner was Pakington, who spent almost £20 on a trip to Aylesbury in early March. In April Pakington’s steward reported a Whig attempt to convene a special petty sessions designed to remove Pakington’s constables for ‘misdemeanours’, if no new ones were named at the court leet. His assessment of electoral prospects was optimistic, for ‘upon the most exact scrutiny we have not lost one voice . . . although the struggle is very earnest on both’. However, an outstanding bill of £47 from the previous by-election threatened to damage the Tory interest. The Whigs, too, were confident, it being reported that one Whig partisan had predicted, ‘we’ll send you Mr Mayne the son of one of the glorious judges of King Charles the first’. Initial reports suggested that the election had seen a double return, but this proved not to have been the case with Mayne and Wittewronge being named on the indenture. Furthermore they received a paper of ‘instructions’ from the electors which encouraged the new Members to grant ‘necessary and timely supplies’ for the war; provide for the security of the Protestant religion by suppressing popery and by preserving the Toleration; and uphold the rights, liberties and privileges of the people, an important consideration given ‘some late proceedings relating to this borough’, the last being a critical reference to the Commons’ actions over Ashby v. White. Proceedings at the quarter session at Aylesbury in July suggest that the election may have seen some violence, as several men were fined for riot and assault on Sir Roger Hill and Richard Hampden II*, while William Lee (one of the Whig constables), among others, was acquitted of an attack on William Spencer (one of Pakington’s constables). With Pakington safely returned for Worcestershire, only Harcourt petitioned on 14 Nov. 1705, alleging that the precept had been delivered to the wrong constables and that he and Pakington had a majority of those duly qualified to vote and had been returned by the legal constables, only for the High Sheriff Andrews to refuse to accept it. No action was taken on the petition after it was referred to the committee of elections.18

The 1708 election saw Mayne top the poll easily, with Wittewronge narrowly defeating John Essington. The Tories had failed to find Essington a partner, applying too late to William Gore*, from nearby Tring (whose father was a London mercer and therefore probably known to Essington, as clerk of the Mercers’ Company) and then approaching William Wrightson. Essington petitioned on 27 Nov., claiming that he had been duly elected, but that two of the constables had manipulated the franchise on behalf of Wittewronge and that, although two of the constables had returned him, the under-sheriff had refused to accept their indenture. Essington renewed his petition on 26 Nov. 1709 and the case was ordered to be heard at the bar, with the sheriff for 1708 asked to attend. However, four days later he was given leave to withdraw the petition as a by-election was pending, Wittewronge having gained a colonelcy in the army. Wittewronge was re-elected, defeating James Herbert II*, son of the Member who had died in 1704.19

The tables were turned in 1710, when Essington joined with Harcourt to defeat Mayne and Wittewronge. As one Tory noted, Wharton must have been ‘mortified’ to lose both Members at Aylesbury. A rather elliptical comment from Sir Thomas Cave, 3rd Bt.*, in September 1712 that ‘I’m not a little pleased with Lord Wharton’s luck at Aylesbury, and may they never succeed better’, may refer to a manoeuvre in readiness for the next election. In 1713 Essington and Harcourt faced ‘barbarous’ opposition from the Whigs. Cave thought that the Whigs would field Henry Neale* in company with Nathaniel Meade† of the Temple, the nephew of the attorney involved in the Aylesbury case and the son of a Quaker linen-draper. In fact Meade’s partner was John Deacle†, a wealthy woollen draper, who threatened to spend £1,000 to gain a seat. Initial reports suggested victory for Deacle and Meade, but Whig sources complained that the Tory constables disallowed Whig votes to manufacture a majority. Meade and Deacle petitioned on 3 Mar. 1714, but to no avail. However, the two defeated candidates triumphed in 1715 over Harcourt and Philip Herbert*, brother of James Herbert I and uncle of James Herbert II.20

Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Stuart Handley


  • 1. BL, Verney mss mic. 636/48, Sir Ralph to John Verney, 15 Sept. 1695.
  • 2. Stowe 304, f. 208.
  • 3. Figures calculated from CJ, xii. 489-90.
  • 4. Boyer, Anne Annals, iv. 15.
  • 5. Daily Courant, 5 May 1708.
  • 6. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 520–1.
  • 7. Eng. Post, 3–5 Oct. 1710.
  • 8. Flying Post, 27–29 Aug. 1713.
  • 9. Wharton Mems. 44.
  • 10. Verney mss 636/45, Sir Ralph to John Verney, 1 Mar. 1690[–1], John to Sir Ralph Verney, 12 Mar. 1690[–1], 14 Apr. 1691; Add. 70015, ff. 40, 44.
  • 11. Verney mss 636/48, Sir Ralph to John Verney, 15 Sept. 1695, Lady Gardiner to Sir Ralph Verney, 22 Oct. 1695; Add. 18675, f. 39; Stowe 304, ff. 206–10; BL, Trumbull Misc. mss 58, John Ellis* to Sir William Trumbull*, 3 Feb. 1695–6.
  • 12. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 142; Verney mss 636/50, (Sir) John Verney to Dr Woodhouse, 23 July 1698; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 47/133, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 17 Jan. 1698[–9]; Luttrell, iv. 477; Add. 70019, ff. 62–64.
  • 13. Verney Letters 18th Cent. i. 159; Verney mss 636/51, Lady Gardiner to (Sir) John Verney, 13, 23 Dec. 1700, 1 Jan. 1700–1; Verney to Ld. Cheyne (William*), 19 Dec. 1700.
  • 14. Add. 29579, f. 403; Verney mss 636/52, Lady Gardiner to (Sir) John Verney, 9, 16, 30 July, 29 Dec. 1702; Luttrell, v. 250.
  • 15. Wharton Mems. 44, 51, 55; State Trials, xiv. 695–800; Party and Management ed. C. Jones, 90–5, 104.
  • 16. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 257–8; Bucks. Sess. Recs. ii. 419; Party and Management, 95–103; State Trials, 800–87; Add. 61121, f. 49.
  • 17. Bodl. Ballard 10, f. 118; Tanner 305, f. 231; Verney Letters 18th Cent. 168.
  • 18. Huntington Lib. Stowe mss, STT 2569, 2571, Wittewronge to Andrews, 30 Dec. 1704, 21 Jan. 1704–5; Ballard 10, f. 120; Hereford and Worcester RO (Worcester, St. Helen’s), Hampton mss 705:349/BA5117/2/ii/9, acct.; BA5117/3/ix/3, Thomas Smith to Lady Pakington, 6 Mar. 1704–5; 705:349/BA4657/i/100, Goodere Charlton to same, n.d. [May 1705]; Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 488n.; Flying Post, 10–12 May 1705; Boyer, iv. 15–16; W. A. Speck, Birth of a Nation, 87–88; Bucks. Sess. Recs. iii. 15.
  • 19. Nottingham Univ. Lib. Mellish pprs. Me157–96/53, Wrightson to Joseph Mellish, 24 Apr. 1708
  • 20. Post Boy, 3–5 May 1710; Northants. RO, Isham mss IC 3759, John to Sir Justinian Isham, 4th Bt.*, 7 Oct. 1710; Verney Letters 18th Cent. 241; Verney mss mic. 636/55, Cave to Fermanagh, 6, 10 Aug. 1713, Fermanagh to Ralph Verney†, 6 Aug. 1713, Harcourt to Fermanagh, 15 Aug. 1713; Flying Post, 27–29 Aug. 1713.