Available from Boydell and Brewer
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Number of Qualified Electors:
Number of voters:
between 1,300 and 1,600
|10 Mar. 1690||ROBERT WALLER||1284|
|Double return of Henry and Edward Thompson.|
|HENRY THOMPSON declared elected, 17 May 1690|
|25 Oct. 1695||TOBIAS JENKINS|
|20 July 1698||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.||1238|
|29 Jan. 1701||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.|
|3 Dec. 1701||TOBIAS JENKINS||784|
|SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.||1245|
|12 Aug. 1702||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.|
|16 May 1705||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.||1282|
|12 May 1708||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.|
|15 Oct. 1710||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.|
|4 July 1711||BENSON re-elected after appointment to office|
|7 Sept. 1713||SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON, Bt.||1368|
As the social and judicial focus of Yorkshire, and the seat of the archbishop, York was the most important urban centre in the county. Its population of about 12,000 made it one of the six or seven largest towns in England. The city government was that of a regular corporation, by mayor, aldermen and a common council of 72 ‘principal inhabitants’, though ‘the mayor has the honour here, by ancient prescription, of being called my Lord’. The corporation also had two sheriffs and an ‘upper house’ of 24 former sheriffs. The city won the admiration of contemporary visitors, being compared with London both as to the ‘hurry, and rattling of hackney coaches’, and the fact that ‘a man converses here with all the world as effectually as at London’. However, despite the fact that York merchants could ‘trade directly to what part of the world they will’, importing ‘what they please almost from where they please’, ‘there is no trade indeed, except such as depends upon the confluence of the gentry’. This want of trade meant that York was less wealthy than other towns of equivalent status, was unable to support its populace, and was being overtaken, in economic terms, by the towns of the West Riding. This was in part owing to the jealously guarded privileges and restricted membership of York’s trade guilds, which stunted much of the potential for economic growth. With its large population and the right of election being in the freemen, York had a greater number of voters than most other boroughs. It was estimated that only seven English boroughs had larger electorates during Anne’s reign, while several county electorates were smaller. Thus York was considered the most prestigious borough seat in the county, a fact reflected in the frequency of election contests. Local politics were highly charged, with regular weekly assemblies, which became delineated between the Tory meeting on Mondays, and the Whig meeting on Thursdays. The size of the electorate also made management difficult, in view of the potential for a greater number of independent voters, and expensive, in terms of the costs of ‘importuning the existing freemen and . . . creating new ones’. With no increase in population, the legitimate admissions to freemen were probably just sufficient to make good any ‘natural wastage’. On average six new freemen were admitted each year by redemption, 25 following apprenticeship, and 28 by patrimony. However in election years these figures could increase dramatically. The York electorate also tended to be more independent because, although certain significant interests attempted to influence elections, most notably the Marquess of Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) in the 1690s, the most significant potential influence, Archbishop Sharp, was actively opposed to such interference. In view of the archbishop’s stance, the corporation itself probably enjoyed the single most important interest.7
In all there were five contested elections in York during the period, the first occurring in 1690. Initially, the three potential candidates were Carmarthen’s son the Earl of Danby (Peregrine Osborne†), and two local men, Alderman Edward Thompson and his nephew Henry Thompson, both Whig merchants. Sir William Robinson, 1st Bt., who had some interest in the city but was not standing on this occasion, had ‘desired his friends to give their voices for Mr Henry Thompson who is now labouring to make an interest in the city’. George Prickett, who had decided against standing, informed Carmarthen that he had
upon all occasions moved the electing of the Earl of Danby, and declared my resolution to give my own vote and interest for our two last Members [Danby and Edward Thompson] to serve again in the next Parliament; therefore I think (with submission to your Lordship) I cannot in justice now begin to set up an interest for myself, but will continue the promoting my Lord Danby’s interest as much as I can; the lord mayor, aldermen and greatest part of the common council have, at a meeting, agreed to give their votes for the Earl of Danby, but what the mobile will do we cannot yet know, they are so numerous and unstable . . . If the Earl of Danby and Alderman Edward Thompson should join their interest they would undoubtedly carry it, but if all the three competitors do stand upon their single interests it will make the election more doubtful and put my Lord Danby under a necessity of being seen in person at the election.
Sir John Hewley, a York MP in 1679 and 1681, was also said to be supporting Danby. However the appearance of a fourth potential candidate, Robert Waller, a long-serving local government official and sometime Whig who appears to have attached himself to the Carmarthen interest, complicated matters further. On 22 Feb. Prickett wrote to Christopher Tancred* explaining the latest developments:
I believe you have a true account of Alderman Waller’s letter. When it was read to the common [council] they said [that] seeing [as] the Marquess of Carmarthen had not yet given any answer to my lord mayor’s letter they would suspend their giving any answer to Alderman Waller’s request to be chosen a Member of Parliament till the election was nearer, and I believe the greatest part of them thought it a great vanity in him to think of being elected.
At the same time Prickett was more candid with Tancred than he had been with Carmarthen about the possible outcome of the election:
It is too great a matter for me to undertake to give you a true state of my Lord Danby’s interest, as you desire. I dare not do it least I be mistaken, because you know ours is a popular election; but of this I dare be confident that he will have the votes of my lord mayor and all the aldermen, except one, and of . . . the greatest part of the common [council] . . . I do think my Lord has a very good interest in the city and if he comes down and be present at the election I am persuaded he will be chosen, but yet the [mobile?] (who have all them voices) are so unstable and wavering . . . If my Lord Danby will not come down I doubt we shall not be able to choose him in his absence; I believe Alderman Waller’s standing will be no great hinderment to my Lord, and as for Alderman Edward Thompson and Mr Henry Thompson it is probable one of them will be left out if my Lord come down; I would not for anything my Lord should come down and be baffled in it, and therefore will not advise him coming.
The summoning of Danby to the Lords on 3 Mar. returned the election to a three-way contest, with Waller topping the poll. Shortly afterwards Waller wrote to Carmarthen, informing him
that (notwithstanding all the artifices, false reports and reflections of and upon me by my adversaries and their instruments, and notwithstanding the throwing away of their money in treats and other sinister means) at our election on Monday last, after a poll demanded by the other parties, which lasted from nine in the morning until seven at night, there were 1,284 polled for me and 841 for each the other (to wit the two Thompsons) so I am sure to be one. But the sheriffs are not yet resolved what to do about them, having taken time to examine their books, and see if they can decide the matter, but I hope they will return them both; and then I believe it will be adjudged of these two . . . that the younger [Henry] will [prove] the better Member.
Waller’s wish was fulfilled, and York corporation ordered that the books containing the names of all the freemen were to be delivered into the custody of the town clerk to be taken to London for the use of the Thompsons before the elections committee. Amid counter-allegations by the Thompsons’ respective counsels that each candidate had received votes from persons not qualified as freemen, including ‘one Chamley, who was dead before the poll’, the House agreed that Henry Thompson was duly elected.8
The pivotal role of the corporation in elections was reflected in their active participation in the work of their representatives at Westminster. In December 1692 Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt., brought in a bill ‘to take away the custom within the province of York by which a woman shall have her share of her husband’s personal estate, though he hath made a settlement on her before and even contrary to a man’s own will yet she shall have her part’. Waller opposed the bill, and in what may have been a related occurrence, the corporation sent him York’s Elizabethan charter ‘to be made use of on behalf of the city’, as the other charters were already in London. In the same month the corporation also appointed a committee of aldermen and common councillors ‘to consider about the freedoms of this city’. The committee’s deliberations resulted in an order for restricting ‘foreigners’ from purchasing freedom, because of the financial burden placed upon the city in maintaining such men and their families who had subsequently fallen into poverty. In January 1694 further restrictions were placed upon the admission of strangers to freedoms, on the grounds that it was prejudicial to the existing inhabitants. The corporation’s close watch on their MPs was signalled again at the end of 1693 when the lord mayor wrote to Waller:
I have your several letters with the votes of the House but hope that it is not the whole work our Members have to do, for those I can have from our common intelligence upon more easy terms. It is hoped your end is, and will be, to take care of religion and property and to act so as may tend to the peace and welfare of the nation.
He also informed Waller that the corporation had made arrangements to send a present of ale to Waller and Henry Thompson, and that as ‘soon as we are in cash we will remember our high steward [Carmarthen]. At present we are hard set to keep out of debt.’ By June 1694 the corporation appear to have been in better financial circumstances, as they ordered their MPs to invite Carmarthen (now Duke of Leeds) to visit the city. Leeds thanked the lord mayor for the invitation, but regretted that ‘his occasions’ did not permit him to accept.9
The following year neither Waller nor Henry Thompson contested the York election. Henry Thompson may have stood aside in favour of his uncle, Edward, while Waller’s defeat in the mayoral election in November 1694 may have weakened his own resolve. However, three days before the election Waller was still believed to be standing: Robert Harley* received a report that Edward Thompson would be chosen, though Waller would be opposed by Tobias Jenkins, who, although a Yorkshireman, had only recently been admitted to the freedom of the corporation. However, Waller did not stand and Edward Thompson and Jenkins were returned unopposed.10
As before, the new MPs co-operated closely with the corporation. In February 1696 the corporation ordered that an address be sent to the two MPs, to congratulate the King on his deliverance from the late conspiracy. On the 18th the ‘mayor and commonalty’ of York petitioned the Commons, stating that much of their trade depended on the navigation of the Ouse and that the bill to make the Derwent in Derbyshire navigable would be prejudicial to York. On 21 Mar. the corporation ordered that a petition be sent to the Commons for the removal of a clause relating to the custom of York, which hindered persons from disposing of their personal estates by their wills. These petitions marked the beginning of protracted activity by the corporation and MPs in relation to both issues. In an unrelated matter, in July the lord mayor received a letter from the Treasury refuting allegations that Edward Thompson had converted to his own use £600 issued from the Treasury for the relief of the poor in York. Unfortunately for the poor, no money had been issued at all. The question of river navigation was returned to the following year, when, in December, the corporation appointed a committee to consider what should be written to the borough’s MPs regarding ‘the cutting the river Ouse’. On 1 Feb. 1698 Thompson acted as a teller against the motion for committing a bill for making the Don navigable, while on 1 Mar. a petition was presented in the Commons from the mayor and commonalty of York against the Aire and Calder navigation bill, on the grounds that it would hinder the direct passage from York to Hull on the Ouse. On 25 May the corporation sent £50 to Thompson as expenses for his soliciting against the Aire and Calder bill. The following month the citizens of Leeds complained that the bill was held up in the Lords while a report was made on the effect this bill would have on the traffic on the Ouse: ‘we find our opponents (the citizens of York) boast of this delay, hoping that the King will put an end to this session of Parliament before the gentlemen can make their report’. Probably because of his role in opposing this bill, Thompson was said to have been acclaimed on his return to York in July in a manner
the like never having been seen there before; and indeed the reception was but answerable to the character of so worthy a gentleman as the alderman, who has signalized himself so eminently in the service of his country, and the present government, so good a magistrate, and so faithful a representative of so great a city.11
Thompson’s supposed popularity did not ensure his re-election in 1698, especially as Robinson, who had previously sat for Northallerton, decided to stand for the city. Robinson, who had been made a freeman of York in December 1697 and elected an alderman in June 1698, represented a very serious challenger. In the poll Robinson was returned with Jenkins, who was also elected an alderman the following day. Thompson, who had appealed in vain to Archbishop Sharp for support, petitioned against the result, alleging that Jenkins was returned through illegal practices, including giving money to purchase freedoms after the dissolution of the last Parliament and the issuing of writs, and that the lord mayor had threatened that those who voted for the petitioner would have dragoons quartered upon them and would be turned out of any places they held. Thompson also claimed that he had been denied a scrutiny. However, nothing came of this petition. As before, the new MPs were expected to do the bidding of the corporation, which in February 1699 petitioned against the revived Aire and Calder bill. Around this time the MPs began to take it in turns to report to the corporation each week, and when, in March, Jenkins went to Hampshire to attend the funeral of his father-in-law, the 1st Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett†), Robinson reported on proceedings in Parliament instead. The continuing concern over river navigation resulted in a York petition for a bill to make the Ouse navigable. Robinson and Jenkins were ordered by the Commons to bring in a bill to this effect, which Jenkins presented, though it was eventually lost after the second reading was postponed.12
Prior to the January 1701 election it became apparent that Jenkins was not standing, as it was noted beforehand that ‘Wednesday next will Sir William Robinson and [Edward] Thompson be chosen parliamentmen’. The two men were returned unopposed. It is possible that Jenkins did not stand because he was elected mayor of York for that year. However, Robinson’s tenure as mayor in 1700 does not appear to have affected his position as an MP, and Jenkins was re-elected in December 1701 while still mayor. Robinson was also returned in December in a contested election. The defeated candidate, the recorder of York, Marmaduke Prickett (Thompson had died in August), had not been expected to win, and did not petition. At this time, in what was predominantly a Whig initiative, 16 constituencies gave their newly elected MPs written instructions. In the case of York these instructions had been drawn up prior to the election:
The King . . . having thought it reasonable in this extraordinary juncture, to dissolve the late Parliament, and to call a new one, that he might give his subjects the opportunity to choose such persons to represent them, as they may judge likely to bring to effect their just and pious purposes, according to their several and unanimous addresses: we of this city, in order thereunto, having chosen you, gentlemen, to be our representatives, do hereby recommend to you in particular . . . that care be taken of his majesty’s person and honour . . . [and that he] be effectually assisted in supporting such alliances as he has, and shall make, for the preservation of the liberties of Europe, the prosperity and peace of England, and for reducing the exorbitant power of France.
The instructions also focused on the more effectual and easy execution of the laws against profaneness and immorality, that the Sabbath be more devoutly observed, that the condition of the poor be considered, and that care be taken of the Protestant religion.13
The death of William III the following year necessitated another election, in which Robinson and Jenkins were returned unopposed. Once again, they were kept busy by the concerns of the corporation. On 16 Oct. 1703 proposals were made to the corporation for obtaining an act of Parliament for establishing a court of conscience in York. Before taking a resolution ‘upon a matter of such moment’, Robinson was desired to write to the MPs for such corporations as already had a court, to be informed of the ‘conveniencies and inconveniencies’. On 1 Nov. it was agreed, at the request of the common council, that a petition be preferred the next session of Parliament in the name of the corporation, for leave to bring in a bill. The corporation had prepared a draft bill, though a debate in committee over the registrar of the court delayed transmission of the draft to their MPs. The corporation also ordered that a clause recently prepared by the committee, for taking away the custom of York concerning the disposal of estates by wills, be sent to the Members in order to get it inserted in some appropriate legislation the next session. This clause related to the act opposed by Waller in 1693. On 30 November a letter from Jenkins was read at a corporation meeting, in which he asked whether the clause was to be added to some other bill or to be made a bill on its own. It was agreed to leave this to the discretion of himself and Robinson. The petition for the court bill was read in the Commons on 16 Dec. It emphasized the fact that York ‘abounds with poor tradesmen and other indigent persons who for want of the like law are daily arrested and held to special bail for little inconsiderable debts, to the great prejudice of our city’. Robinson and Jenkins were ordered by the House to prepare the bill. On 26 Jan. 1704 a petition from York was read for another bill, this time to deal with the custom of York. Once again Robinson and Jenkins were ordered to prepare the bill. The following month the corporation agreed to raise the money necessary for defraying the costs of both bills, including settling a bill due to a ‘Mr Close’ for soliciting for the custom bill. However, while Robinson and Jenkins managed to steer the custom bill through the House successfully, the court bill was unsuccessful. Undeterred, the corporation ordered another petition for the court to be prepared. It was presented on 15 Nov. 1704, when Robinson and Jenkins were ordered once again to prepare the bill. The next day they wrote to inform the corporation that ‘leave having been given for bringing in a bill according to the petition sent us, we have ordered the clerk to send . . . a copy of a bill [to you] . . . though different from the bill which miscarried the last session’. They then offered reasons why it might be opposed, though ‘your lordship may assure the city from us, we shall use our utmost endeavours to advance this bill in its progress through our House. We both desire our services to our brethren.’ However, for unknown reasons, the corporation decided on the 20th to tell Robinson and Jenkins to have the bill withdrawn.14
During 1704 and early 1705, with an election on the horizon, there was a noticeable increase in the number of freemen being created. While the 57 apprentices who took their freedom at this time could be viewed as legitimate cases, they still represented more than a 100 per cent increase in York’s annual average. More significantly, 71 were given freedom by patrimony, an increase of approximately 150 per cent. However, only seven were created by redemption. The most significant new freeman was Robert Benson, who was admitted on 27 Apr. 1705, several weeks prior to his candidacy in the election. He was elected as an alderman in May. Jenkins was Benson’s uncle, and appears to have stood down in favour of his nephew. However, this did not prevent a contest, as Prickett stood once again, as did Robinson. Although it was believed to be ‘hard to say who will carry it’ as all three candidates had ‘made a good interest’, Robinson and Benson were returned, and, as before, Prickett did not petition. Benson was the first Tory, albeit a moderate one, to sit for York in this period. However, the manner of his coming in did not suggest that his election could be construed as a significant victory for the Tory party at a time when there was a national swing to the Whigs in the larger boroughs. However, he was returned again in 1708 along with Robinson in an uncontested election. A satirical poem suggests that they were untroubled by the appearance of any other prospective candidates. However, success did not distract either man from the need to maintain good relations with the electorate. In November 1708 it was proposed at a corporation meeting to hold an annual horse race in Clifton and Roecliffe, near the city. Robinson not only gave ‘liberty that the race shall be run in the said ground’, but also said he would ‘build a convenient bridge at his own charge for the purpose’. The following year Benson donated £250 to the corporation, ‘being the moiety of a stock he has upon the profits of the locks made upon the . . . Aire and Calder’, ‘it being his pleasure and mind’ that the annual interest should be applied towards the maintenance and support of the Boys Charity School, with Robinson being made one of the trustees. During this time Robinson also pressed for the removal of a regiment from York, at the behest of the lord mayor and aldermen. However, the demands of being a York MP troubled Robinson on occasion. In early 1710 he expressed a desire to retire from public life for reasons of ill-health, age, and the
vast trouble in discharging the duty of a Parliament man. So many different interests to please while in the place I serve for, so much expected to be done for the citizens or their friends during the sessions of Parliament that one’s never quiet, scarce [even] to attend their own affairs, or indulge themselves in a rest.
Despite these feelings, Robinson stood for re-election in 1710, and was returned unopposed with Benson once again. It was reported that following the election Benson ‘was met and received at his winning into the city from London with the greatest honours that ever were paid any gent’. In 1711 Benson had to be re-elected due to his appointment as chancellor of the Exchequer, though no one contested his seat on this occasion.15
However, in view of the prestigious nature of a York city seat, it was not surprising that the quiet of the previous two elections was broken in 1713. Benson, having been raised to the peerage in July, was ineligible to stand, but it appears he backed Jenkins in his place. With Robinson defending his seat, a contest became unavoidable as Robert Fairfax, a newcomer to Yorkshire politics who had served for 20 years in the navy and was classed as a Tory in the Worsley list, decided to stand also. In July 1712 Fairfax had informed Robert Harley (now Lord Oxford) that ‘I have for some months prepared for a journey to York, in order to cultivate an interest there against the next election’. Before the election there was a significant increase in the creation of freemen once again, with 57 by apprenticeship and 128 by patrimony. Fairfax seemed to direct his campaign specifically against Jenkins, so that while Robinson’s position at the top of the poll was never threatened, Fairfax and Jenkins ran a close race, with Fairfax emerging victor by only 30 votes. With such a close poll it was not surprising that Jenkins objected, demanding a scrutiny of the poll immediately after the election. When this proved unsuccessful he petitioned Parliament. A corporation account of his case recorded that Jenkins asserted that the sheriffs and their officials had been supporters of Fairfax, and had excluded many of Jenkins’ legitimate voters, while allowing illegal votes to be cast for Fairfax. It was also alleged that Fairfax’s agents were given money for purchasing drink for voters. However, Jenkins’ election campaign had not been particularly clean either, as Fairfax had been informed three days before the poll, that
the lord mayor . . . has made a great number of freemen . . . of late on purpose to serve his friend [Jenkins] at the election. I can assure you that all the freemen that were made since the teste of the writ that their votes are void and will not be allowed in Parliament so you may stand upon it at the election and let there be a query . . . on their names in case they are allowed to vote.
Fairfax’s correspondent also informed him after the election that ‘you need not in the least fear Mr Jenkins’ petition, for you will find many more friends in the House than he will do’. Whatever the reasons, the petition made no headway.16
Fairfax’s success was short-lived, as the death of Queen Anne gave Jenkins an early opportunity to recontest the seat, and gave the Whigs the opportunity to reassert their control in the borough. Before the 1715 election a total of 220 apprentices were given their freedom, while 267 were admitted by patrimony. Coupled with an accommodation between Jenkins and Robinson, whereby Robinson’s supporters gave their second vote to Jenkins, Fairfax was well beaten. However, the creation of so many freemen proved a costly business, Jenkins claiming that the election cost himself and Robinson £1,500. As late as 1719 Robinson still owed about £400 for the creation of freemen, and the ‘procuring and management of county freemen’, in 1714–15. The antiquarian Francis Drake, writing several years later, noted that ‘about 400 freemen were made to serve a turn [in 1714–15], at the expense of one of the candidates. The introduction of so many poor people into the city is sensibly felt by it now, and will be so hereafter.’17
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Ivar McGrath
- 1. Quinn thesis, 257-8; W. A. Speck, Tory and Whig, 131.
- 2. Egerton 3337, f. 182.
- 3. W. Yorks. Archs. (Leeds), Newby Hall mss NH2482, York polls, 1689–1741.
- 4. Ibid; Quinn, 286.
- 5. Newby Hall mss NH2482; Quinn, 286.
- 6. Newby Hall mss, NH2483, York polls, 1689–1741; York City Archs. E40/54, mins. concerning election of MPs, Sept. 1713.
- 7. Quinn, 232–4, 236, 257–9; Defoe, Tour ed. Cole, 638–9, 642; Bodl. Willis 15, f. 101; J. Taylor, A Journey to Edinburgh, 50–51, 66; William and John Blathwayt Diary 1703 ed. Hardwick, 21; Speck thesis, 412; Life Abp. Sharp, i. 121–6.
- 8. Egerton 3337, ff. 168, 170, 182; York City Archs. B39, corp. house bk. 1688–1700, f. 13.
- 9. Luttrell Diary, 293, 340, 377; corp. house bk. 1688–1700, ff. 46, 57–59, 73, 79; York City Archs. class E, Bk. 85, copy letters 1663–1718, Andrew Perrott to Waller, 2 Dec. 1693.
- 10. N. Yorks. RO, Worsley mss ZON13/1/115, Joel Savile to [Thomas Worsley I*], 12 Nov. 1694; Add. 70018, ff. 94–95; corp. house bk. 1688–1700, f. 94.
- 11. Corp. house bk. 1688–1700, ff. 97–98, 110, 113; Worsley mss ZON 13/1/67, William Lowndes* to mayor of York, 29 July 1696; Post Man, 6–8 Aug. 1696; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/1/14, mayor, recorder and others of Leeds, to Lord Lonsdale [Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. II*], 8 June 1698; Flying Post, 21–23 July 1698.
- 12. Corp. house bk. 1688–1700, ff. 109, 113–14; Life Abp. Sharp, 126; Quinn, 279, 296.
- 13. Pprs. of Sir William Chaytor (N. Yorks. RO, publ. no. 33), 80, 87; Quinn, 236–7; Speck, Tory and Whig, 29–30; Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 298; Flying Post, 25–27 Nov. 1701; Add. 30000 E, f. 408.
- 14. York City Archs. B40, corp. house bk. 1692–1706, ff. 157–60, 166, 189–90, 195; E40/151, of conscience draft bill [1703/4]; E40/52, Robinson and Jenkins to [‘my lord’ mayor], 16 Nov. ; Taylor, 66.
- 15. Quinn, 237, 240, 259–60, 286; corp. house bk. 1692–1706, f. 204; 1706–19, ff. 39, 53; Speck, 105; N. York RO, Dawnay mss, ZDS/X/2, epistle about the election race, 1708; Camb. Univ. Lib. Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss 644, Robinson to [?], 24 May [c.1708]; Add. 70421, [Robert] to Lord Harley (Edward*), 28 Oct. 1710.
- 16. Quinn, 237–8, 260, 263; Add. 70197, Fairfax to Oxford, 12 July 1712; York City Archs. E40/54, minutes concerning the election of MPs, Sept. 1713; E40/55, Jenkins’ case, 1713; Northumb. RO, Blackett mss ZBL 190, Newby letterbk. 1713–14, [Sir Edward Blackett*] to [Fairfax], 4 Sept. 1713, [?Mar. 1714].
- 17. Quinn, 238–40, 260, 264–5, 267–8.