Available from Boydell and Brewer
Right of Election:
in the burgage holders
Number of Qualified Electors:
about 260 in 17151
Number of voters:
between 180 and 250 before the scrutiny, between 100 and 210 afterwards
|1 Mar. 1690||Sir Orlando Gee|
|Sir Wilfred Lawson, Bt.||104|
|Hon. Goodwin Wharton||812|
|14 Oct. 1695||Sir Charles Gerard, Bt.|
|Hon. Goodwin Wharton|
|Sir Wilfred Lawson, Bt.|
|4 Aug. 1698||William Seymour|
|21 Jan. 1701||William Seymour||1593||1084|
|Hon. Goodwin Wharton||75||65|
|6 Dec. 1701||Hon. Goodwin Wharton||20||83|
|19 Feb. 1702||Thomas Lamplugh vice Wharton, chose to sit for Buckinghamshire||141||21|
|25 July 1702||James Stanhope||153||109|
|Hon. Goodwin Wharton||96||77|
|21 May 1705||James Stanhope||139||75|
|Hon. Harry Mordaunt||111||73|
|20 May 1708||James Stanhope|
|Hon. Albemarle Bertie|
|17 Oct. 1710||Nicholas Lechmere||180||143|
|Stanhope’s election declared void, 7 Apr. 1711|
|15 May 1711||James Stanhope||103||80|
|9 Sept. 1713||Joseph Musgrave||157||155|
Electoral conflict at Cockermouth revolved around the rivalry among the Duke of Somerset, the Whartons and the neighbouring gentry. The interest of the 6th Duke of Somerset stemmed from his possession of the lordship of the manor, gained in 1682 by his marriage to the heir of the Percy earls of Northumberland. The courts leet and baron which governed the borough were both held under the auspices of the lord of the manor, and though the borough’s bailiff (who acted as returning officer in parliamentary elections) was elected annually by a leet jury comprising 16 burgesses, Somerset was able to exert considerable indirect influence upon this election, an influence mediated through the borough steward, nominated by the lord of the manor. Somerset’s electoral interest was also based upon the nature of the franchise, which lay in ‘burghers who hold land by burgage tenure, and [paid] rent to the lord of the manor’. Each burgage was liable to pay 4d. p.a. to the lord of the manor, with half and quarter burgages paying a proportionate amount which also entitled the holder to vote in elections. The payment of burgage rent was made to the steward and recorded in the rolls of the court leet, so that Somerset and his agents possessed the power to qualify or reject aspiring voters. The importance of the record kept in the court rolls of burgage rents increased after 1701 as contested elections became the norm. Electoral competition led to the splitting of burgages into divisions smaller than quarters, and rather than disqualify such claimants before the poll their votes were taken and a detailed scrutiny of their rights was undertaken after the poll had closed. The result was the disqualification of large numbers of votes, often giving rise to controversy. Somerset was not the only peer to claim an interest at Cockermouth. During the second half of the 17th century the lords Wharton had acquired extensive estates in Cumberland, including 18 Cockermouth burgages and the nearby Cockermouth parklands, giving the family an influence in the borough that was assiduously developed in the 1700s by the 5th Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*). This interest was increased by the support it often, but not invariably, received from the substantial number of Dissenting voters. During the 1710s this vote was variously estimated at 26 or 83, but the importance that contemporaries attributed to the Dissenters in Cockermouth would suggest that the total number was in fact nearer the higher figure. In addition to Somerset and Wharton a number of local gentry families, primarily the Fletchers of Hutton, Lawsons of Isel, Musgraves of Hayton, and Lamplughs of Lamplugh, all exerted some influence upon parliamentary elections by dint of their local status and possession of small numbers of burgages. The conflict in the borough arose from the simple electoral arithmetic of three interests competing to return two MPs. Though Cockermouth elections could be, and on occasion were, based upon partisan rivalry, electoral conflict in the borough was not dependent upon Whig–Tory antagonism. As important as the partisan dynamic was the contest between independent candidates, sponsored by the local gentry and appealing to voters unwilling to allow the borough to fall entirely under the control of either or both aristocratic interests, and the interests of Somerset and Wharton.5
The 1690 election witnessed a fierce three-cornered contest between the interests of the Tory Somerset, who supported the candidacy of the Tory Sir Orlando Gee, the Whig 4th Lord Wharton, who forwarded his son Hon. Goodwin, and that of the neighbouring gentry, represented by Sir Wilfred Lawson, 2nd Bt. The strength of Somerset’s interest was clearly demonstrated as the election quickly developed into a contest between Wharton and Lawson for the second seat, and the support Lawson received from Sir George Fletcher, 2nd Bt., Member for Cumberland, was probably crucial in ensuring his defeat of Wharton. Having been brought into the House upon the family interest at Malmesbury, Wharton did not petition against Lawson’s return, but on 1 Apr. 1690 the bailiff and burgesses petitioned the Commons, claiming that, as Lawson had been serving as sheriff of Cumberland at the time of the last election, he had been ineligible to stand. It requested that Lawson therefore be unseated in favour of Wharton, but no report was made from the elections committee. The 1695 contest developed along similar lines to that of 1690, once rumours were scotched that Thomas Lamplugh, member of a long-established local family and an occasional conformist, would put up. Wharton and Lawson again entered the lists, and Somerset’s candidate on this occasion was his brother-in-law and fellow Tory, Sir Charles Gerard, 3rd Bt. Again the contest lay between Lawson and Wharton for the second seat, and on this occasion contemporary observers were of the opinion that Somerset was lending tacit support to Wharton’s candidacy. It was also reported that Wharton placed great importance upon ‘the assistance of the Presbyterians, whose creature he appears’, and when Wharton defeated Lawson for the second seat it was claimed that he had succeeded by ‘the votes of the Presbyters and Quakers, to which party that gentleman is said to be very much addicted’. Lawson’s petition, claiming that Wharton owed his return to ‘bribery and other undue practices’, was presented to the House on 5 Dec. but never reported from committee.6
In March 1698 Goodwin Wharton suffered ‘a fit of an apoplexy’, and though the forecast that this would prove fatal was unduly pessimistic his ill-health nevertheless created uncertainty as to who would stand on the Wharton interest at the forthcoming election – indeed, Wharton subsequently sat for Buckinghamshire. Contemporaries thought it possible that Richard Lamplugh†, who had been an active supporter of the Wharton interest at previous elections, would forward himself as a candidate, and it was suggested to Somerset’s agents that Lamplugh be approached to discover his intentions. These agents feared, however, that if any arrangement was entered into with Lamplugh, and Wharton subsequently recovered, then Somerset’s interest would be prejudiced. They were also concerned that Lamplugh may not have been a suitable candidate. Lamplugh had supported Exclusion and had close links to the Dissenting community, and it was noted that ‘the most substantial burg[e]rs are true Church men, and (to our observation) have (of late) made their remarks touching the behaviour of Whiggish Members in general and have declared their aversion to have such persons serve in Parliament’. Given this, and the further complication that Sir George Fletcher had informed the borough of his intention to recommend a candidate to Cockermouth, Somerset’s agents resolved to wait upon further developments while continuing to cultivate the Duke’s interest in the borough. While the Somerset interest trod carefully, however, other interests were on the move. By July Fletcher had revealed that his candidate was to be his son George, but found that his son’s prospects were jeopardized by Lamplugh’s active campaigning, for Wharton rather than himself. Fletcher responded by asking his fellow Cumberland Member Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I, Lamplugh’s brother-in-law, to exert pressure on Lamplugh to desist. Lowther was only too willing to do this, informing Fletcher that, though he was not personally involved at Cockermouth, ‘I am collaterally whilst you and I join’ for the county, and by the end of the month was able to report that Lamplugh was ‘abated in his zeal’. Though one of his main agents had been removed from the electoral battle, Thomas Wharton, who in 1696 had succeeded as Lord Wharton, was nevertheless unwilling to forgo his pretensions to one of Cockermouth’s seats. His agents continued to canvass support in the borough, and in July Wharton wrote to Somerset to ‘humbly propose’ that the lord of the manor recommend Hon. Harry Mordaunt*, a kinsman of Wharton who was a Whig and a close political ally of the Junto lord, in an attempt to augment Wharton’s own support for Mordaunt. There is no record of the Duke’s response. Somerset’s candidate was his kinsman William Seymour, a Tory, who was reportedly less than enthusiastic about standing and was in fact recommended to the borough before he had agreed to let his name go forward. As in 1690 and 1695 the return of Somerset’s candidate appears to have been unchallenged and the contest lay between Wharton’s candidate and that of the local gentry. On this occasion the latter proved successful, with Fletcher taking the second seat, it being unclear whether the contest was taken to a poll. The reasons for Mordaunt’s defeat are uncertain, but it may be that at this election the Tory Somerset was unwilling to support the Whig candidate named by Wharton. It is also possible that the withdrawal of the active support of Richard Lamplugh and Wharton’s late arrival at the borough to canvass support, occasioned by his unsuccessful attempts to have Mordaunt elected at Brackley, further weakened Mordaunt’s interest.7
The first election of 1701 proceeded along lines very similar to that of 1698, save that on this occasion the Wharton candidate was Goodwin. As had been the case throughout the 1690s, Somerset’s nominee, again Seymour, was regarded as a certain choice, and what contemporaries anticipated was that Lord Wharton would contest the second seat vigorously so that ‘the contest will be great betwixt Mr W[harton] and Capt. F[letcher]’. Though his father had died in July 1700, Fletcher was determined to defend his seat. He again enjoyed the support of Sir John Lowther I, and in January 1701 Lowther attempted to persuade Richard Lamplugh to end his campaigning for Wharton’s interest. Lowther pointed out that Fletcher had taken care to preserve Cockermouth’s interest in recent meetings concerning the distribution in Cumberland of national taxation, and that Wharton had already been returned for Buckinghamshire. This latter fact may well have hurt Wharton’s prospects, as no doubt did the implicit support lent to Fletcher by the Somerset interest, support which was possibly due to the Tory Somerset’s preference for the more moderate Whiggery of Fletcher over the Junto Whiggery of Wharton. The contest was taken to the poll but Wharton fell short of Seymour and Fletcher by a considerable number both before and after the scrutiny. Though Fletcher was credited with the greatest number of votes following the scrutiny, Seymour, presumably on the grounds that he had topped the poll prior to the scrutiny and, no doubt, as an act of deference to Somerset, was first-named on the return.8
During the first 1701 Parliament Somerset transferred his political allegiance from Tory to Whig. One contemporary observer noted that at this time Somerset ‘strangely altered his opinion’ and had ‘come entirely about’ in his political views, and one of the consequences was a closer relationship between the Somerset and Wharton interests at the second election of the year. Goodwin Wharton and William Seymour again entered the lists, and on this occasion were joined by Thomas Lamplugh, cousin of Richard. The contest was taken to the poll, and the pattern of voting revealed much about the nature of the candidates’ interest. Somerset had continued to promote the return of the Tory Seymour, but the electoral impact of the Duke’s switch from Whig to Tory can be seen in a significant increase in the number of Seymour voters prepared to cast their second votes for Wharton. Lamplugh, on the other hand, drew most of his support from those who had voted for Fletcher at the first election of the year, suggesting that he replaced Fletcher as the candidate of the local gentry. Such an interpretation of Lamplugh’s candidacy is strengthened by the business links between Lamplugh and the Fletchers, ties which dated back to the mid 1690s. The credibility of Lamplugh’s candidacy is clear from the fact that he fell only three votes short of heading the poll prior to the scrutiny, and that following this he still defeated Seymour for the second seat. Wharton topped the poll before and after the scrutiny, but instead of returning Lamplugh with him the bailiff instead returned Wharton and Seymour, justifying the latter’s inclusion by counting in votes which had been deemed ineligible. Such flagrant electoral malpractice, a clear demonstration of the value to the Somerset interest of its influence over the choice of bailiff, would surely have occasioned a petition had not Wharton also been returned for Buckinghamshire. By the end of December it had been made known that Wharton would vacate his Cockermouth seat, and Wharton himself was reported to have pledged himself to support Lamplugh at the consequent by-election. However, rather than recognize that at the general election Seymour had been returned upon precarious grounds and satisfy himself with having returned one of the Cockermouth Members, Somerset instead attempted to capture the second seat. He settled upon the Whig army officer James Stanhope as his candidate, but Stanhope was comprehensively defeated at the poll in February 1702. Lamplugh’s margin of victory exceeded 30 votes prior to the scrutiny and was extended to 50 after it. Analysis of the poll book clearly demonstrates that a large proportion of those who usually voted for the Duke’s candidate supported Lamplugh at this election, a fact which suggests that Lamplugh owed his return to the unwillingness of a significant part of Cockermouth’s electorate to see both seats occupied by Somerset nominees. The other important factor in Lamplugh’s success was the support he, an occasional conformist, enjoyed from the borough’s Dissenting voters. On 14 Mar. Stanhope petitioned against Lamplugh’s return, claiming that Lamplugh had been guilty of ‘illegal practices’ at the election and had polled individuals voting for split burgages. Detailed preparations were made to prosecute these allegations, including a legal brief indicating that Stanhope intended to claim that although quarter burgages had always carried the vote at Cockermouth the ‘scandalous practice’ had developed whereby men were claiming the vote for pieces of burgage land ‘not above two or three yards in length and breadth’. However, no report was made upon this petition.9
Although this defeat clearly rankled with Somerset, it being reported in March that he was ‘angry with everybody that did not help him in the last election at Cockermouth’, at the 1702 election he prudently forwarded just one candidate, Stanhope. Somerset’s agents were diligent in their application to the borough, taking pains to dismiss rumours that Somerset intended to nominate both Stanhope and Seymour, and that Stanhope’s military career would prevent his attendance at the Commons. Lamplugh, having rejected suggestions that he stand instead for the county, also entered the lists, as did Goodwin Wharton. Stanhope comfortably topped the poll, lending credence to the theory that his defeat earlier in the year was connected to the borough’s desire to limit Somerset’s influence to one seat, and Lamplugh narrowly defeated Wharton for the second seat. Wharton’s defeat appears to have been due to the failure to come to an agreement with the Somerset interest, perhaps because of a legal case pending between the Whartons and Somerset concerning the Cockermouth parklands. Despite the narrowness of Lamplugh’s majority at the poll Wharton did not petition against the return, no doubt because he had retained his Buckinghamshire seat.10
Though Lamplugh consistently proved himself a Whig while at Westminster, Wharton was unwilling to accept the rebuff he had suffered at the 1702 election. By the beginning of February 1705 he had declared that he ‘was determined to recommend a very honourable gentleman, who is my relation’, and had written to his agent in Cockermouth requesting ‘the best account you can as to my interest there’. Somerset and Wharton agreed that their candidates, Stanhope and Harry Mordaunt, should stand on a joint interest, but rather than be daunted by this opposition Lamplugh stated his determination to contest the election, again secured the support of George Fletcher, and by the middle of March had made known his opinion that he ‘thinks himself secure at Cockermouth’. Lamplugh’s cause was aided by reports prior to the Cockermouth poll that Mordaunt had been returned at Malmesbury, though it was in fact Mordaunt’s nephew Hon. Henry* who had been successful there. As he had done in 1702, Stanhope topped the poll and prior to the scrutiny Lamplugh, aided by a large number of plumpers, had nine votes more than Mordaunt. Once the poll had been examined, however, Mordaunt was found to have obtained four more legal votes than Lamplugh, but the bailiff nevertheless returned Stanhope and Lamplugh. Wharton’s anger at this ‘strange doing’ led to reports that a petition would be presented to the Commons, but Mordaunt’s return at the Brackley by-election of October appears to have ended such plans. James Lowther* speculated that Lamplugh may have placated Wharton by claiming that his only reason for standing at this election was to secure a bill for the improvement of Parton harbour, and that he would give way to Wharton’s nominee at a subsequent election. Whether this was the case or not, and it should be noted that in January 1706 Lowther reported that Wharton was still ‘incensed against Mr Lamp[lugh]’ and had consequently resolved to oppose the Parton harbour bill when it reached the Lords, Lamplugh did retire from the Commons at the 1708 election. Somerset and Wharton nominated one candidate each, the lord of the manor again supporting Stanhope and Wharton naming his nephew, the Whig Hon. Albemarle Bertie. Though no rival candidate presented himself to the constituency, Wharton took care to have his agents treat the borough ‘by going from house to house and eating and drinking for a week together’. Stanhope and Bertie were returned unopposed.11
The 1710 election witnessed not only a revival of electoral conflict but also a change in its nature. Since the Duke of Somerset’s shift from Tory to Whig the issue of party had played little part in Cockermouth elections, contests arising primarily from the rival claims of Somerset, Wharton and the local gentry to nominate borough Members. In 1710, however, two developments served to alter this pattern of politics. This election saw the revival of a Tory interest in the borough based upon the interests of local gentry who, probably in response to the national swing in the favour of the Tories in the aftermath of the trial of Dr Sacheverell, resolved to throw their full weight behind a Tory candidate. This had become clear by May 1710 when it was suggested that William Musgrave, a Newcastle merchant and brother of the leading Cumberland Tory (Sir) Richard Musgrave* (3rd Bt.), would enter the lists; and though Musgrave refused to stand, (Sir) Richard resolved to recommend John Orfeur, a lieutenant-colonel in the marines whose father had served as Cumberland sheriff in the 1670s. The second development that revived partisan influences at Cockermouth was the support offered to Robert Harley’s* ministerial revolution by Somerset during the first half of 1710. Somerset’s enthusiasm for these changes evaporated quickly following the dismissal in August of Lord Godolphin (Sidney†), and later the same month it was reported that Somerset would again recommend Stanhope to Cockermouth. It is likely, however, that Somerset’s actions prior to this time created a wariness in his relations with Wharton which may well have hindered electoral co-operation between the two in the early stages of the 1710 election. Wharton’s interest at Cockermouth was thought by at least one observer to be ‘precarious’, no doubt due in part to Wharton’s attendance in Ireland until the autumn, but he nevertheless made it known that he would forward the candidacy of Nicholas Lechmere, who like Stanhope had been one of the managers of the Sacheverell impeachment. That the high parliamentary profile of Lechmere and Stanhope and Somerset’s machinations earlier in the year had ramifications in Cockermouth became clear in September, when 22 borough inhabitants wrote to Somerset to state that unless he nominated Stanhope they would feel unable to support the Duke’s candidate. They informed the lord of the manor that their allegiance to Stanhope stemmed from their desire to have Members elected who would ensure that ‘our Christian liberty may be in no danger of being cramped or invaded by immoderate high-flying Churchmen’, a resolution they held irrespective of the recent favour they had observed being shown by the crown to the Tories. Given that Somerset had already settled upon Stanhope as his candidate this demand was unnecessary, but shortly after it was made James Lowther reported that Somerset and Wharton had agreed that Stanhope and Lechmere would stand on a joint interest. The importance of religion in the ensuing campaign was clearly demonstrated in an open letter circulated at the end of September in which ‘Phil. Ecclesiasto’ criticized those Low Church Anglicans prepared to make common cause with ‘separatists and schismatics’ by supporting Stanhope and Lechmere. The letter likewise questioned whether the two Whig candidates were sound members of the Church of England, and urged voters to remember the warnings of Sacheverell’s sermon. This attack also extended to criticizing the ‘republican principles’ of Stanhope and the Whig ministry, endorsing the recent changes in the ministry, and urging voters to demonstrate their independence of the influence of Wharton and Somerset. The committed campaigning of both sides led to a fiercely contested election, with Orfeur’s supporters making an attempt to secure the election as bailiff of an ally of (Sir) Richard Musgrave, and in the two months prior to the poll it was thought that Lechmere was the most vulnerable candidate, a view apparently endorsed by at least one of Orfeur’s leading supporters who wrote urging the Whig James Lowther to support Orfeur and Stanhope. However, at the poll held on 10 Oct. Lechmere captured the first seat, with Orfeur narrowly defeating Stanhope by seven votes for the second. Following a lengthy scrutiny, however, Stanhope was declared to have received eight valid votes more than Orfeur, and was returned with Lechmere.12
In November 1710 (Sir) Richard Musgrave wrote to Robert Harley of what he described as ‘the arbitrary proceedings of some noblemen’s tools’ at the previous Cockermouth election, assured Harley that a petition would be lodged against the return, and asked for his support for Orfeur’s case. Orfeur’s petition against Stanhope’s election was presented to the Commons on 4 Dec. 1710. He alleged that a number of his properly qualified supporters had had their votes rejected by the borough’s bailiff while unqualified voters had been accepted for Stanhope, claims that gained additional support from a petition from several inhabitants of Cockermouth read immediately after Orfeur’s. The inhabitants’ petition alleged that the bailiff who had conducted the 1710 election had been illegally imposed upon the borough by Somerset, who had refused to accept the properly elected choice of the borough’s leet jury and had had his steward ‘reform the jury’ to ensure the return of a bailiff willing to support Somerset’s candidate. The bailiff’s influence had then been used to secure the return of Stanhope. A motion that the petitions be referred to the elections committee was lost by 164 votes to 86, and the case was ordered to be heard at the bar on 13 Feb. 1711. For the remainder of 1710 and the early weeks of 1711 preparations for the hearing of the case went on apace and expensively, Somerset spending over £600 in preparing his case and bringing up witnesses. After three postponements, the House began consideration of the case on 6 Mar. but little progress was made. One account reported that ‘after four hours spent in [the] quibbles of lawyers the consideration of it was adjourned’. The same observer thought this adjournment may have indicated a diminishing desire on Orfeur’s part to prosecute the petition, a belief shared by Somerset. Although on 17 Mar. a motion to continue consideration of the case was defeated, the hearings were resumed ten days later, and concluded on 7 Apr. when the defeat of the motion that Stanhope had been duly elected was immediately followed by the loss of a similar motion in respect of Orfeur. These decisions necessitated a by-election, and the writ was issued, following a division allegedly prompted by ‘a set of warm gentlemen . . . out of prejudice to the General [Stanhope]’, on 24 Apr., though preparations for such a contest had begun by 1 Apr. Orfeur again challenged Stanhope with the support of local Tory gentry, his agents emphasizing to voters that if they did not support Orfeur on this occasion ‘they should be left to the disposal of the two great lords’. Somerset believed that Orfeur’s campaign was mounted not in expectation of victory but in the hope that following a contest he would be able to prove that Stanhope’s agents had been guilty of bribery during the campaign, the general himself being a prisoner in Spain at this time. Somerset consequently instructed his main agent to ‘have a care of treating anybody’. This confidence proved to be misplaced, as on the day of the poll the unscrutinized result gave Stanhope and Orfeur equal numbers of votes, but following the scrutiny Stanhope was found to have a 14-vote majority. Fears that Orfeur would again petition came to nothing.13
In April 1713 James Lowther forecast the unopposed return of Stanhope and Lechmere at the election due later that year, but by August it was clear that Somerset’s agents were anticipating that a third candidate would enter the fray, and Lechmere forecast that should this occur then Stanhope’s absence from Cockermouth would make him the likely loser, and that the general was ‘pretty indifferent’ to such developments as his return had been secured elsewhere. On this occasion the third candidate was the Tory Joseph Musgrave, who gained the support of Somerset’s main local agent and enjoyed the active support of Gilfrid Lawson*. The nature of Musgrave’s candidacy was made clear in a squib which declared him ‘staunch to the Church, and for his country stout . . . he cannot act the Whiggish-Knavish part’, and in a poem which claimed that Musgrave ‘scorns to betray his trust for Duke or Lord’. In contrast to 1710, when Orfeur’s candidacy had led Somerset and Wharton to join interests, Musgrave’s candidacy in 1713 appears to have created confusion among the Whigs. Shortly before the election Lechmere received information that ‘the other two interests join against mine’, and following the poll Somerset claimed that Lechmere’s supporters had cast their second votes for Musgrave. This failure to co-ordinate the Wharton and Somerset interests may have stemmed from a belief that the two Whigs were contesting the second seat, as Musgrave comfortably topped the poll, with Lechmere comprehensively defeating Stanhope for the second seat. Despite Somerset’s displeasure with the result no petition was made against the return.14
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison
Unless otherwise stated this account is based upon P. C. Flack, ‘Parl. Rep. Cockermouth in the Reign of Anne’ (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Univ. B.A. thesis, 1967).
- 1. Bodl. Willis 48, f. 145.
- 2. Bodl. Carte 81, ff. 796, 798 (Horwitz trans.).
- 3. Before scrutiny.
- 4. After scrutiny. (Polls 1701–15 are all taken from Flack, 108.)
- 5. Northern Hist. xv. 96–7, 99–100; Willis, Not. Parl. ii. 210–2; Leconfield mss at Cockermouth Castle, D/Lec, legal brief, [c.Mar. 1702]; Robbins thesis, 199.
- 6. Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 3750, A. Huddleston to Sir Daniel Fleming†, 26 Feb. 1689[–90]; Carte 81, ff. 796, 798 (Horwitz trans.); Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/25, Thomas Tickell to Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I, 2 Mar. 1689–90; Lowther Corresp. ed. Hainsworth, 243–5, 248–9.
- 7. Leconfield mss D/Lec, Charles Heron to Mr Ewart, 26 Mar. 1698, [?] to [?], 31 Mar. 1698; Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 5286, Sir George Fletcher to Fleming, 19 July ; Lowther Corresp. 640–1, 648; Egremont mss at Petworth House, Wharton to Somerset, 22 July 1698; Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 135, 142; BL, Spencer mss, Halifax pprs. box 4, Francis Gwyn* to Ld. Halifax (William Savile*), 10 Aug. 1698.
- 8. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/1/46, Sir John Lowther I to Lady Lonsdale, 29 Aug. 1700; D/Lons/W1/21, same to Ld. Carlisle (Charles Howard*), Dec. 1700, same to [Richard] Lamplugh, 18 Jan. 1700–1, same to William Gilpin, 20 Jan. 1700–1.
- 9. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/4, James to Sir John Lowther I, 13 Nov., 30 Dec. 1701; J. V. Beckett, Coal and Tobacco, 159–60; Leconfield mss D/Lec, legal brief, [c.Mar. 1702].
- 10. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/5, James to Sir John Lowther I, 14, 19 Mar. 1701[–2]; Leconfield mss D/Lec, Joseph Relfe to Somerset, 20 May 1702.
- 11. Leconfield mss D/Lec, Wharton to Richard Baynes jnr., 8 Feb. 1704–5, Relfe to [?], 4 Mar. 1707[–8]; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/8, James to Sir John Lowther I, 20, 27, Feb., 1, 3, 17, 20 Mar. 1704–5, 17, 29, 31 May, 9 June, 12 July, 18 Aug., 11 Oct. 1705; D/Lons/W2/1/40, same to Gilpin, 5 Jan. 1705–6; 41, same to same, 20, 22 Jan. 1707[–8].
- 12. Nicolson and Burn, Cumb. and Westmld. ii. 155; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/43, Lowther to Gilpin, 23 May, 8 July, 15 Aug., 5, 14, 21, 26, 30 Sept., 3, 5, Oct. 1710, [Gilpin] to [Lowther], 26 Aug. 1710; D/Lons/W2/1/56, John Spedding to same, 11 Oct. 1710; G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 226; W. A. Speck, Birth of Britain, 185–6; HMC Portland, iv. 579; Leconfield mss D/Lec, ‘A true copy of a letter from the borough of Cockermouth to the Duke of Somerset’, 14 Sept. 1710, ‘Phil. Ecclesiasto’ to ‘the person it may concern’, 25 Sept. 1710; G. Holmes and W. A. Speck, Divided Soc. 104–5, 123–4.
- 13. HMC Portland, 632; Leconfield mss D/Lec, ‘the proceedings of the election at Cockermouth’, , info. of John Smart and Grace Edward, n.d., Relfe to Somerset, 25 Jan. 1710–11, 28 Apr., 17 May 1711, Somerset to Relfe, 10 May 1711, [Relfe] to Somerset, 21 May 1711, S. M. Gale to Relfe, 1 May 1711, [?] to [?], 1 Apr. 1711; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/C29/28, expenses, 8 Feb. 1710[–11] to 10 Apr. 1711; C9/27, Thomas Micklethwaite to Stanhope, 13 Apr., 30 Nov. 1711; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto 5, f. 156; Northumberland mss at Alnwick Castle, vol. 22, f. 3 (Speck trans.).
- 14. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/46, Lowther to Gilpin, 25 Apr. 1713; D/Lons/W2/3/13, Lechmere to Lowther, 29 Aug., 11 Sept. 1713; Leconfield mss D/Lec, W. Coles to Relfe, 27 Aug. 1713; Ferguson, Cumb. and Westmld. MPs, 95.