BOLLES, Sir John, 4th Bt. (1669-1714), of Scampton, Lincs.

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



1690 - 1702

Family and Education

b. July 1669, o. surv. s. of Sir John Bolles, 3rd Bt., of Scampton by his 2nd w. Elizabeth, da. of Sir Vincent Corbet, 1st Bt.†, of Morton Corbet, Salop.  educ. Christ Church, Oxf. matric. 1683; G. Inn 1680. unmsuc. fa. as 4th Bt. 3 Mar. 1686.

Offices Held

Dir. land bank 1696.1

Commr. navigation of Aire and Calder 1699.2


Sir John was descended from a cadet branch of a family which had been settled in Lincolnshire since the 13th century, and had represented the county in the Parliaments of Edward III. Its fortune had been secured in the early 17th century by Sir George Bolles, alderman and lord mayor of London, who acquired by marriage the estate of Scampton, near Lincoln. By the reign of Charles II the Bolleses had also gained properties in Yorkshire, and were said to be worth £3,000 p.a. The Member’s grandfather, Sir Robert, had stood successfully for Lincoln in 1661 and Bolles himself was returned there in 1690, although yet to reach his majority. At the outset of his career he was identified by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) as a Whig, but soon established himself as a Country Tory, becoming an active committeeman and teller. Unfortunately, the madness which gripped him in later life has cast a shadow over his earlier political career, obscuring the fact that for a time he ranked among the most industrious of opposition members. For certain, the pro-Jacobite rantings which earned him notoriety in the last years of William’s reign should not be regarded as proof of an enduring attachment to the exiled court. To some extent he was a victim of the party strife of that age, deliberately provoked into outbursts by both Whigs and Tories as they sought to score political points off each other.3

In the first session of the 1690 Parliament Bolles twice acted as a teller, in favour of the introduction of a bill to naturalize foreign Protestants, and against a bill to settle a private charity. Although only 20, on 2 May he was prepared to confront the parliamentary veteran Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt., over the published ‘black list’ of those who had voted against the transfer of the crown, an exchange which saw Seymour teasingly label the young Member ‘a great original’. Sir John did not make any significant contribution to Commons’ business in the second session, but in April 1691 was classed as a Country supporter by Robert Harley*. In the 1691–2 session he chaired a committee on a private bill, and on 27 Feb. 1692 spoke in favour of a measure allowing Quakers to affirm. In the next session he both argued and told on 27 Feb. 1693 against the bill to indemnify those who had ordered extraordinary measures in defence of the kingdom at the time of the threatened French invasion in 1692. Three days earlier he had moved for a postponement of the Newark election hearing, and on 9 Mar. presented a tradesmen’s petition for an address to the King to enforce the laws against hawkers and pedlars. He was also involved with two private estate bills, and in the session of 1693–4 aided the passage of further such measures, plus a naturalization bill. He also served once as teller: on 23 Apr. 1694 when he made an unsuccessful attempt to block the bill to regulate hackney carriages.4

In the 1694–5 session Bolles played a more conspicuous role in promoting Country initiatives. Most notably, he was prominent in support of the place bill, telling on 28 Nov. in favour of committal, and chairing the ensuing committee of the whole in December. His eight other tellerships covered a wide range of issues, although principally relating to supply matters. Perhaps wishing to keep his political allies in the House, he told on 11 Feb. 1695 against granting a leave of absence for Country Member Salwey Winnington, and on 13 Apr. acted in favour of going into committee on the bills to punish several corrupt Members. On 1 May he was one of the unsuccessful tellers against a motion to adjourn all committees save that preparing articles of impeachment against Lord Carmarthen.

Bolles was re-elected for Lincoln in 1695 though he lost the county election. He petitioned the House against the shire return, but the matter was never reported by the elections committee. At the opening of the session he proposed Robert Harley for chairman of the committee of elections and privileges, but as the Country Whigs had already agreed with the Court to support (Sir) John Hawles*, the new solicitor-general, Harley left the chamber to avoid a contest. Bolles was very active in this session, as exemplified by his serving as teller on no less than 17 occasions. The measure which appears to have absorbed his greatest attention in the early part of the session was a bill for regulating elections, a matter of great concern for Country politicians. He also told against appointing a day to determine the double return at Mitchell. Throughout the session he displayed interest in the regulation of the law, presenting a bill to reform courts of Equity, being first-named to a committee on a petition concerning the reduction of crime, and telling against a bill to enforce legislation relating to unlicensed marriages and the registration of births. He was also keen to contribute on coinage issues, and featured in proceedings against the Company of Scotland. Remaining fast to his political allies, he was the principal manager of a bill to reverse a former judgment against Sir William Williams, 1st Bt.*, and unsuccessfully told in favour of upholding the privilege complaint of the Tory Sir Nathaniel Napier, 2nd Bt. Moreover, he acted as a teller to block the inclusion of the Whig Sir William Scawen in the committee to investigate the East India Company’s accounts. In January 1696 he was listed as a probable opponent of the government in a division on the proposed council of trade. Commercial matters preoccupied him during the rest of the session, for he chaired a committee on the petition of several Bristol merchants, was one of the Members detailed to review reactions to the bill to suppress hawkers and pedlars, and told against the engrossment of the bill to relieve creditors and prevent escapes. Furthermore, he was closely involved with the conferences sparked by the Lords’ amendments to the bills to prohibit trade with France, and to encourage the Greenland trade. In February he chaired the committee on the bill appointing oaths for Ireland, and at the end of the month refused the Association. In March he was a teller in favour of an unsuccessful proposal to set the price of guineas at 24s., and was listed as voting against the Court on a motion to fix them at 22s. On 28 Mar. he carried up the mutiny bill, and told in support of considering amendments to the bill to encourage seamen. Three days later, for the second time this session, he told against the adjournment of committees, and on 1 Apr. acted as teller in support of their revival. He subsequently acted as teller against a clause offered to the bill to establish a land bank, and went on to become one of the directors of the abortive scheme, having invested £3,000. He piloted through the House a measure designed to prevent Catholics disinheriting their Protestant heirs, even though he had earlier acted as a teller against a motion for a supply to relieve poor French Protestants. He also featured in connexion with three private estate bills and a naturalization bill.5

In the session of 1696–7 Bolles was soon into his stride, telling on 26 Oct. against the House going into a committee of the whole to consider a supply for carrying on the war, and on 3 Nov. in favour of referring to the committee of supply the reports of the accounts commissioners on the deficiencies of funds. He predictably voted against the attainder of Sir John Fenwick†, and, no doubt resentful over the failure of the land bank, was active against the Bank of England. On 7 Nov. he told in favour of ordering the Bank to lay before the House an account of its debts, later chaired the committee inspecting its books, and was a teller again on 26 Mar. 1697 against passing a bill to enlarge its capital. He was also anxious to promote debate on the coinage, and told on 3 Mar. against amending a resolution concerning the cider duty. Somewhat surprisingly, he acted as a teller to deny a leave of absence to the Country Tory Sir Richard Temple, but this may have again been a move to maintain anti-Court strength in the Lower House. On 20 Mar. he told against naming the Member who had spoken in a conference against the bill to prohibit the wearing of wrought silks. Earlier that month he had chaired the committee on the Whitby harbour bill, probably eager to maintain the commercial viability of the North Sea ports, on which his county heavily depended. Displaying a habitual interest in estate bills, he oversaw the passage of three such measures, and was an obvious nominee for the committee to study procedure in the passage of private legislation. In April he chaired a committee of inquiry into abuses in the navy victualling board.

During the next session Bolles was once again a thorn in the Court’s side, telling on 21 Dec. 1697 in favour of recommitting a resolution to vote the King a civil list of £700,000 for life. He was named to the drafting committee for a bill to regulate the militia, and was closely involved with fiscal legislation, chairing a committee of the whole on Acts relating to Exchequer bills, and being appointed to the committee to draft a bill to lessen interest rates, which he later presented. He also brought in a bill to appropriate the malt duty, and later told for adjourning the report on the bill to prevent the clipping of coin. On the 8th of that month he contributed to a debate on the instruction to the committee of supply to consider the charge of guards and garrisons. Prominent among his seven nominations to drafting committees in this session was that to prepare a bill for vacating all grants of Irish forfeitures made since 1688. However, on 20 Jan. he told against laying before the House an account of crown grants since 1660. Still a keen advocate of law and order, he was one of the committee to draft a bill to prevent robberies, and was later named to the inquiry into the security of post sent to Members. His partisan spirit was demonstrated on 4 Feb. when he told against a motion condemning a petition against the return of the Court Whig Sir Rushout Cullen, 3rd Bt., at Cambridge. Seven days later he was a teller in support of the resolution fixing the debt owed to the Prince of Denmark. On 28 Mar. he told to obstruct the passage of a bill to preserve timber in the New Forest, having earlier backed a bill to enforce Acts prohibiting the destruction of enclosures. He subsequently acted as chairman over naval arrears. Trade again appeared a personal priority, since he was appointed to the drafting committee on a bill to prevent imports by royal vessels, chaired the committee of the whole on the bill confirming the privileges of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and reported from the inquiry into the books of the East India Company. However, his main interest lay with the trial of the French merchants impeached for illegal trade with France during recent hostilities, and he gained nominations to several committees relating to that matter. He only concerned himself with one private estate bill in this session, but did advance local legislation in its last weeks, presiding over the speedy passage of a bill to establish a waterworks at Alverstoke, Hampshire.6

At the general election of 1698 Bolles not only campaigned at Lincoln, but also appeared at Newark to back John Rayner* against the Court Whig Sir Francis Molyneux, 4th Bt.* He only managed to secure his own return, after which he was classed as a Country supporter, and his name appeared in a probable forecast of opponents of the standing army. At the opening of the session he opposed the Court candidate for the Speakership, Sir Thomas Littleton, 3rd Bt., but to no avail. Once again conspicuous in Country ranks, he was appointed to the committee to prepare the disbanding bill, spoke on 23 Dec. in debate on its committal, and on 14 Jan. 1699 unsuccessfully moved the disbandment of ‘the Scotch regiment’. Four days later he asserted that ‘all without doors’ were for reducing the military, observing that ‘in the late war you were saved from an invasion without an army’. Moreover, on 16 Feb. he seconded Harley’s motion to allow £4 for each man at sea. He again promoted electoral reform, being named to the committee to prepare the bill to examine the clerk of the crown’s petition concerning the returns. He took a prominent part in the opposition attack on placemen, complaining on 10 Feb. that several Members were ineligible to sit under the terms of the 1694 Lottery Act. He later chaired the committee on the whole on the place bill, acted as a teller for its engrossment, and carried it up to the Lords. His animus against the ministry was also evident on 1 Mar., when he told to uphold the return of the Tory William Gower at Ludlow. As usual his legislative activity ranged widely, beginning with an appointment to the committee to draw up a bill to preserve game. Other drafting committees included those to prepare bills to regulate the militia, and to fix the determination of the Act prohibiting the import of bone-lace. Early in the session he had been approached to support a proposed scheme for the navigation of the Dee, but had refused. Nevertheless, he was appointed on 23 Mar. as a commissioner for the Aire and Calder Navigation Act. He thrice acted as a teller, against an amendment to the report on the state of the navy, to block the second reading of a private naturalization bill, and against changing a clause in a supply bill. More notably, he was named as one of the Members to manage the ballot for the commissioners to inquire into the Irish forfeitures, and was a predictable selection for the committee to draft the address against continuing the Dutch guards.7

Bolles seems always to have been regarded as something of an eccentric but during the summer of 1699 he began to betray symptoms of serious mental instability. At the Lincoln assizes he was sitting on the bench with Justice Gould

and took upon him to govern the court, which the judge reprehending him for, he told him he was a Member of Parliament, that he stood up for the liberties of England, and would bring the judge upon his knees at the bar of the House of Commons. The judge committed him and ordered an indictment to be drawn up against him; but at the earnest intercession of the justices, it was let fall, who said no other bill could be found against him, but that he was distracted as sometimes happens when he falls into drinking and wants sleep.

The reaction of Secretary of State James Vernon I*, who in a letter to the King wished that Bolles’ madness had ‘appeared upon record as well as it does in many other places’, indeed suggests that Sir John was already regarded as very unpredictable. His condition did not prevent him from returning to take his usual active part in the Commons in the ensuing session. During a debate on the Prince of Denmark’s debt on 12 Dec., he finished a long speech by suggesting an address to the King to remove Bishop Burnet as tutor to the Duke of Gloucester, on the grounds that Burnet, in his Pastoral Letter, had ‘hinted that his present Majesty came in by conquest’. Although this sally seems to have been greeted with much approval as well as laughter, an attempt to press the matter home on the following day failed, when he seconded the motion of Sir John Pakington, 4th Bt., to oust Burnet. On 18 Dec. Bolles acted as teller against a motion that the Whig placeman Foot Onslow had been duly elected for Guildford, and on 10 Feb. 1700 did so again to uphold the Tory interpretation of the franchise at Orford. Five days later he urged the House to put the motion of Sir Richard Cocks, 2nd Bt., to resume all royal grants, observing that ‘evil and wicked counsellors [are] about the King’. The following month he successfully moved an address asserting that no action should be taken in relation to Captain Kidd until the next session, which proposal was seen as ‘in pique to my lord chancellor’ (Sir John Somers*). He appeared to show great concern for social legislation, gaining nominations to committees to examine ways of setting the poor to work, and to search for precedents relating to petitions over prison abuses. Moreover, he twice acted as a teller in connexion with moves to prohibit the export of corn. His other principal interest was the bill to apply the Irish forfeitures to public use, twice telling against additional clauses, and being named on 8 Apr. to the conference committee on that measure.8

Bolles’ political career reached a climax in the first Parliament of 1701. He was quick to show his party colours, telling on 14 Feb. against including an expression of commitment to European peace in an address to the King. On 21 Feb. was appointed to the drafting committee on a bill to resume crown grants made since 1684, and on the 28th presented a petition in support of the return of Sir Cleave More, 2nd Bt.*, at Liverpool, despite having previously advised More against such an appeal. During February he had also been listed among those likely to support the Court in agreeing with the committee of supply’s resolution to continue the ‘Great Mortgage’. But his moment of glory came on 11 Mar., when, during debates on the Act of Settlement, he was the first to name the Electress Sophia as successor, in a pre-emptive Tory strike to forestall the Whig Lord Spencer (Charles*). According to Burnet, the Tories chose Bolles specifically because he was known to be ‘disordered in his senses . . . which seemed to make it less serious when moved by such a person’. Having thus ‘stole the crown from his lordship’, he was subsequently called to the chair of the committee on the bill. William Cowper* articulated Whig distaste for this move, observing that

the King having . . . earnestly recommended that bill to Parliament in his speech from the throne, the Tories for fear of losing the King’s favour did not endeavour to reject it, but set themselves to clog it . . . and to show their contempt and aversion whenever it came on . . . and by calling Sir J[ohn] B[olles] to the chair of the committee for that bill, who was then thought to be distracted, and was soon after confined for being so.

This opinion was confirmed by Bonet, who wrote that when the Tories

n’ont pu le faire tomber sous quelque prétexte populaire ils l’ont traité d’une manière peu serieuse, et ils ont mis à la tête du comité qui devoit presider sur ce sujet un personage peu estimé afin de se moquer de ceux qui disoient que ce Bill étoit une pierre de touche pour connoître les Jacobites.

Very much at the forefront of the Tory offensive, on 17 Mar. Bolles joined with Seymour to lambast the Partition Treaties, likening their division of Europe to ‘robbing on the highway’. On 15 Apr. he moved for the impeachment of Samuel Shepheard I*, who had been expelled from the House for his dubious electioneering activities on behalf of the New East India Company, and ‘by his grin afterwards reflected upon the proceedings against Sir Charles Duncombe’. On 9 May he ‘talked a long time foolishly against a war and our debts’. His six nominations to committees of inquiry gave him the opportunity to advance several Tory causes, he being named to committees to translate correspondence relating to the Partition Treaties, and to examine the destruction of woodland in Enfield Chase, doubtless hoping to embarrass the Whig Lord Stamford on the latter issue. Moreover, on 15 May he moved for an address to the King to ensure that cut timber remained on the Chase. However, only two days earlier he had told to uphold the return of the Whig William Walmisley at Lichfield. He resumed a more customary stance on 20 May, when he took the opportunity of a debate on the exclusion of customs commissioners from the House to reflect on the way in which Hon. Henry Boyle ‘was altered by being a lord of the Treasury and chancellor of the Exchequer’, for which observation Boyle ‘jestingly’ proffered thanks. In this month he again revealed an interest in prison reform, being nominated to the conference committee on the bill regulating the gaols of the Fleet and King’s Bench. On 30 May, after he had made reference to charges formerly levelled against Lord Coningsby (Thomas*), the latter quipped that ‘Bolles might do anything in any place safely, for he always carried his privilege about him’. In June Sir John was used by a section of the Tories to force a reconstitution of the commission of accounts, the absent Thomas Coke* being informed that during the committee hearings on the accounts bill on 6 June

Musgrave [Sir Christopher, 4th Bt.] and the rest slunk off one after another: the committee was very thin at last: then it was gravely proposed by Lowndes [William] to throw aside the postponed clauses [constituting the general commission] and was seconded by others of the Court. This management being gross, we had no way left but to blow up Bolles, who went off like a bomb, to the amazement of Robin [Robert Harley] and Ranelagh [Richard Jones]. He told them of millions unaccounted for, and of bargains made to cover ’em.

Four days later Bolles told in favour of a clause for the accounts bill to maintain the powers of the commissioners to investigate military debts and prizes. He was later blacklisted with other High Tories for having opposed the preparations for war.9

Bolles’ prominence over the Act of Settlement ensured him much publicity in the run-up to the second election of 1701, with both Whig and Tory propagandists casting him as a madman in order to satirize each other’s policies. Successfully returned once more for Lincoln in November 1701, even by his own busy standards he had a most active Parliament. In January 1702, having chaired the committee on expiring laws, he was appointed to draft three separate bills to continue a miscellany of statutes. Interestingly, one of them was the Quaker Affirmation Act, and several Friends were ordered to attend him prior to his presentation of the aforementioned bill. The other bills concerned Acts to exempt apothecaries from parish offices, and for the punishment of vagrants, the first of which he steered through the House. Given his Tory credentials, he was a predictable selection to request the High Churchman Dr George Smalridge to preach to the House on the anniversary of Charles I’s execution. On 28 Jan. he joined in the debate in committee on the abjuration bill, but delivered his most memorable political diatribe of the session at a Holborn tavern four days later. One witness, Cheek Gerard, testified that as he and two friends were drinking,

about ten, Sir John Bolles . . . came into their company; he appeared to have been drinking and pretty warm. Some discourse happening about elections, Sir John Bolles took occasion to say that there had been a letter intercepted, which was in order to turn him out of his corporation. This brought in some discourse about the King as if his Majesty endeavoured to hinder his election. Sir John being hot upon this subject said he did not value the King at all. Speaking of the pretended Prince of Wales, Sir John took occasion to commend him for a comely youth. Upon some discourse one of the company told Sir John he hoped there was nobody besides of his opinion, to which he replied, ‘Yes, there was, the majority of the House of Commons’.

He was also said to have claimed that he had turned down an offer to become lord treasurer, prompting another observer to recall ‘the ridicule of his expectation a year or two ago of being Speaker, and the great preparations he made towards it’. The information was forwarded to the secretary of state, but no action was taken.10

The scandal did not appear to diminish Bolles’ contribution to Commons’ business. He gained swift appointment to drafting committees on a private estate bill, and another bill to repair Whitby harbour, both of which he managed through the House. Despite his celebrated outburst at the Lincoln assizes, he was named to draft a bill to qualify j.p.s and deputy-lieutenants. Maintaining pressure on placemen, on 10 Feb. he moved that Sir Henry Furnese should not be allowed to sit in the House as a trustee for the circulation of Exchequer bills. However, the very next day, when Cocks moved for a supply from the pensions and lands granted by the crown since 1660, Bolles proposed that 4s. in the pound be raised instead. On 17 Feb. he raised the question of ‘the impeachments’ in a committee considering Commons’ rights, and two days later unsuccessfully proposed an additional clause to the abjuration bill ‘for the Church test’. Later on the 19th he spoke against the bill, arguing that it would disturb loyal subjects with tender consciences. Remaining true to his party, he voted on 26 Feb. 1702 for the resolution justifying the Lower House’s proceedings on the impeachment of William’s Whig ministers in the preceding Parliament. On 7 Mar. when it was known that the King was dying, he made ‘many foolish, insolent’ remarks ‘as that the King was locked in a box and only in the hands of a few Dutch lords’, and moved to adjourn for two days, a proposal construed as a Tory attempt to obstruct the passing of the abjuration and money bills. Outraged opponents demanded that he appear at the bar, and he was also interrupted by a message from the Lords requesting the House to continue sitting. Despite some Tory support, the motion was defeated, as was another attempt at adjournment later that day, which Bolles also favoured. The following day he ‘talked at his usual mad rate’ when the House discussed a conference with the Lords on the King’s demise, and was appointed to the committee to draw up the address of condolence and congratulations to Queen Anne.11

The advent of the new reign saw Bolles quickly embrace the court. Whether the new ministry wished to accommodate him was an altogether different matter, his ranting during discussion on 9 Mar. of the chair of ways and means prompting yet more calls for him to be brought to the bar. When the House came to consider a supply for the new Queen he at first indicated privately to Cocks that he would oppose any attempt to grant her the civil list for life. However, when the matter was debated in committee on 16 Mar. Bolles ‘proposed to continue the £50,000 she had and to give her for life what the King had’, a notable shift in political stance. An exasperated Cocks noted two days later that Bolles ‘talked like a fool’ in debate on the Abjuration. On 30 Mar., he moved the Address, and on two consecutive days in April he was involved in scenes in the House. On the 17th, he clashed with John Smith I after the latter had criticized the drafting of an Irish bill brought in by Bolles concerning the entailing of estates on Protestants. Bolles replied that Smith’s charges were false. This prompted calls for Sir John to be sent to the bar, but ‘at last he was ordered and advised by his friends to ask pardon of Mr Smith and the House, which he did very awkwardly in his place, for he said if he had done anything to offend either the House or that gentleman he was sorry for it’. The following day ‘in his foolish, mad way’ he made a fierce attack on Lord Sunderland, castigating him for having changed his religion and calling him a pimp. He was stopped in mid-speech by several Members, and was even rebuked by the Speaker. Sunderland’s son, Lord Spencer, then rose to say that though in the past Bolles had ‘often reflected upon his father’, he had not thought ‘anybody minded what he said’, but now felt he must reply. There was a move to censure Bolles, but Musgrave came to his defence and moved the House to other business. Bolles was involved in yet another row on 1 May, this time with Seymour, who had urged the recommittal of the Albemarle Buildings bill on grounds that the business was so shady that a solicitor had to be taken out of Newgate to handle it. Bolles answered that

he had known many an honest man kept in Newgate when those that deserved to go thither went at large. This occasioned a violent laughter and Sir Edward Seymour justly, though foolishly, took it to himself and said in answer . . . ‘I have known men less mad in Bedlam than those that are out’. Up stood Bolles the second time and the House would have him speak and then he said out of the Proverbs, ‘injustice and oppression make a wise man mad’.

In the latter stages of the session he was involved in no fewer than five private bills for relief from the Irish Forfeitures Resumption Act. Moreover, he was first-named to the committee on a private estate bill, and chaired the committee on a naturalization bill. He offered on 12 May a petition from the conspirators Counter and Bernardi pleading for banishment rather than imprisonment, but the bill to continue their incarceration was passed.12

On 1 June Bolles was arrested for speaking ‘scandalous and treasonable words of the Queen’, and soon afterwards an order was issued for a doctor to have regular access to him. The date of his release from custody is not known, but in late July it was reported that he had travelled to Lincolnshire in order to contest Lincoln against the Tory Sir Thomas Meres*. Such was his notoriety by this date that Defoe urged his defeat, observing

          Blaspheming Bolles to his fen ditches sent
          To bully justice with a Parliament.

He did not gain a seat, but was certainly at liberty the following August. Although free, his deteriorating mental health prevented him taking any further part in public life, and in April 1707 Sir Hans Sloane found him ‘much disordered in his understanding and unable to hold discourse reasonably for any long time upon any subject without talking to himself or aloud of matters incoherent and impertinent’. Sloane considered there was little chance of his recovery and in 1709 an Act, describing Bolles as ‘a lunatic’, was passed to enable lands to be sold for the payment of his debts. He died intestate on 23 Dec. 1714, and was buried at St. Swithin’s, London. He having remained a bachelor, his property passed to his only sister, Sarah Bolles, and was sold soon after her death in 1746.13

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Authors: Paula Watson / Perry Gauci


  • 1. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Bank of Eng. pprs. 31.1.7, f. 98.
  • 2. CJ, xii. 606.
  • 3. C. Illingworth, Scampton, 41–43; Her. and Gen. ii. 120.
  • 4. Grey, x. 112; Luttrell Diary, 198, 446, 450, 473.
  • 5. Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/059/4, Robert Yard* to Alexander Stanhope, 3 Dec. 1695; Advocates’ mss, Bank of Eng. pprs. 31.1.7, f. 95.
  • 6. Cam. Misc. xxix. 358.
  • 7. CJ, xiii. 108; VernonShrewsbury Letters, ii. 226; Cam. Misc. 380, 385, 394; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 47/132, Vernon to Duke of Shrewsbury, 14 Jan. 1699; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 482; Chester RO, M/L/4/545, Peter Shakerley* to Henry Bennett, 19 Jan. 1699.
  • 8. VernonShrewsbury Letters, 337–8; Cocks Diary, 41–2; Luttrell, 592; Som. RO, Sanford mss DD/SF/1047a, notes of debate, 15 Feb. 1700; Montagu (Boughton) mss 48/46, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 16 Mar. 1700.
  • 9. Liverpool RO, Norris mss 920NOR 1/78, 83, 86, William Clayton* to Richard Norris*, 6, 22, 28 Feb. 1701; Burnet, iv. 499–500; Yale Univ. Beinecke Lib. Osborn Coll. Blathwayt mss, box 21, William Blathwayt* to [?George Stepney], 11 Mar. 1701; G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 89; Add. 30000 E, f. 183; Tindal, 451–2; Cocks Diary, 96, 188, 138, 154–5; HMC Cowper, ii. 428.
  • 10. Tindal, 497; Taunton-Dean Letter from E. C. to J. F. at Grecian Coffee-House [1701]; Soc. of Friends Lib. mins. of meetings for sufferings, 253; Cocks Diary, 190; CSP Dom. 1700–2, pp. 499–501, 505.
  • 11. Cocks Diary, 207, 211, 220, 235–6, 237; Strathmore mss at Glamis Castle, box 70, folder 1, bdle. 2, newsletter 19 Feb. 1702.
  • 12. Cocks Diary, 241–2, 249, 269, 270–1, 276; Strathmore mss, box 75, bdle. 1, newsletter 31 Mar. 1702.
  • 13. CSP Dom. 1702–3, pp. 119, 509; Northants. RO, Isham mss IC 4221, Hon. Charles Bertie I* to Sir Justinian Isham, 4th Bt.*, 27 July 1702; Poems on Affairs of State, ed. Ellis, vi. 424; Add. 4075, f. 241; 4078, f. 303; HMC Lords, n.s. viii. 273; Illingworth, 49–50.