FREMAN, Ralph II (1666-1742), of Aspenden Hall and Ham(m)ells, Herts.

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



30 Dec. 1697 - 1727

Family and Education

bap. 10 June 1666, 1st s. of Ralph Freman I*.  educ. privately (James Bonnell, Daniel Duckfield); travelled abroad (Holland, France, Italy) 1678–?1684.  m. settlement 17 Feb. 1700 (with £4,000), Elizabeth, da. and coh. of Thomas Catesby of Ecton, Northants., 3s.  suc. fa. 1714.1

Offices Held

Freeman, Hertford 1698, St. Albans Sept.–Nov. 1705.2

Chairman, cttee. of privileges and elections 1710–13.

Commr. taking subscriptions to S. Sea Co. 1711.3


One of the leaders of the Hanoverian Tories in Queen Anne’s reign, Freman nevertheless remains a rather colourless, and in some ways inscrutable, figure. His youth was spent in a hothouse of piety under the influence of his father and of his tutor, James Bonnell, who endeavoured

to give Mr Freman a right sense of his duty to God, and fix the impressions of religion in his mind. They frequently joined together in prayer, and every day their devotions led the way to their studies, the Te Deum and some other psalms being the first business of it.

Freman later admitted that it was Bonnell’s ‘prudent management and good instructions which kept him from following many ill examples of great looseness and immorality; and hindered him from running into mischiefs he should hardly otherwise have avoided’. Though he was surely free from temptation on the first leg of his European tour, when staying with the pious Sir Leoline Jenkins† at Nijmegen, in France he met the beautiful but poor daughter of Sir John Austen, 2nd Bt.*, and hankered after her on his return. He had in fact been contracted at a tender age to marry Dorothy Dicer, the granddaughter of Richard Goulston† of Wyddial, Hertfordshire, himself the grandfather of Freman’s later political ally of the same name. This early match abandoned, Freman told Bonnell that, so far as a wife was concerned, he was ‘willing to be pleased with an agreeable face if not beauty’. However, a later match suggested by the bishop of Durham and one with the daughter of Colonel Silius Titus* both failed to come to fruition, and Freman deferred marriage until 1700.4

Freman’s father had wanted his son to ‘be a scholar if he be capable of it’, but Ralph jnr. entered Parliament in December 1697 at a by-election for Hertfordshire, a seat he was to hold until the accession of George II. His Country views were noted in September on a list of Members returned to the new Parliament and, having been forecast as likely to oppose a standing army, his first recorded speech, on 23 Dec. 1698, was to request a call of the House before MPs reconsidered the disbanding bill. He twice acted as teller on the issue, once on 11 Mar. 1699 in favour of the second reading of the supply bill needed to pay off the army, and again on 20 Mar. against recommitting the address on the King’s request to keep the Dutch guards. Antipathy to the army may also explain his tellership on 20 Apr. against a bill to naturalize a number of officers, since on 19 Jan. he had reported and carried to the Lords a personal naturalization bill and his tutor was the descendant of a Protestant refugee. Freman’s abiding passion was the regulation of elections and of the personnel of the House, combining partisan zeal to return Tories with a concern, engendered by an increasing awareness that the system itself needed reform, for impartiality at the polls and independence of Members in the House. He began a long career nurturing these concerns with his appointment on 10 Jan. to the committee on the return of election writs. The subject involved him as a teller on four further occasions this session: on 9 Feb., in favour of declaring ‘frivolous and vexatious’ a petition by George Rodney Brydges* concerning the Haslemere election; on 10 Feb., against an adjournment of the debate on the expulsion of the Whig James Isaacson*, who had accepted a place of profit; on 1 Mar., on the franchise at Ludlow, in favour of the Country Tory William Gower*; and on 17 Mar., on the franchise at Tamworth. As further demonstration of his own Country views, Freman told on 18 Apr. on an amendment to the bill to include the sheriffs of London and Middlesex as receivers of the land tax. He was equally concerned to prove his allegiance to the Church. Perhaps in response to prompting from Thomas Coke* and from the clergy, who believed him to be their ‘great friend’, he presented a bill on 17 Mar. for continuing the Act for the recovery of small tithes, reporting this measure on the 23rd and carrying it to the Lords two days later. He was involved in national as well as Church finance, and was active on two supply bills this session, reporting on 1 Apr. from the committee on duties on glass, and on 26 Apr. telling in favour of an amendment to the provisions for a duty on paper. Although not known to have owned shares in the Old East India Company, he told on 9 Mar. against the rejection of its bill. His connexion with the Royal Fishery bill, which he presented on 20 Mar., is also not straightforward. It is possible that he was friendly with fellow Country Tory MP Sir Thomas Davall I*, with whom he acted as teller on 17 Mar. and 21 Apr., and who, as MP for Harwich, had a strong interest in fisheries. Alternatively, Freman’s concern may have been to regulate the trade, a suggestion that gains credibility from the fact that he also told on 23 Jan. on an amendment to the bill for prohibiting the distillation of spirit from corn, though that in turn might have stemmed from local pressure from the county’s brewing trade or from a personal interest, since a distiller named ‘Freeman’ was taken into custody after alleging that MPs had been bribed to oppose the bill. Freman also looked after local matters, presenting on 21 Mar. a private bill relating to a Hertfordshire estate, which he was to pursue in subsequent sessions. He was the third named on 16 Nov. 1699 to the privileges and elections committee, but Freman’s significant activity in the 1699–1700 session was limited compared with the previous session, though he told on 1 Jan. 1700 against the election of the Whig John Bright*. A week later he was found to be absent from the House, but was excused after a division.5

In the new Parliament Freman guided a private estate bill through the House, but his chief concern was the resolution of disputed elections in favour of Country Tories, telling to that effect on three occasions: on 15 Apr., against a delay in receiving the report on the East Retford election; on 10 May, against the adjournment of the report on the Lichfield election (where the Churchmen had been involved in a hard-fought contest); and on 28 May, against the election of the Court Whig Lord William Powlett* at Winchester. Despite his Country credentials, Freman seems to have been sympathetic to the new ministers at Court, being forecast in February 1701 as likely to support the Court in agreeing with the supply committee’s resolution to continue the ‘Great Mortgage’. His continued Toryism was evident from the fact that he was later blacklisted as having opposed the preparations for war with France early in 1701. On 3 June he was teller for the minority in favour of allowing defalcations by paymasters of the navy to be used for the public good, and served as teller the next day against reading Somers’ reply to his impeachment. Although he had failed to gain a seat on the commission of accounts, Freman did attract 20 votes, a modest indication of his steadily growing interest in the House.6

Freman retained his seat at the second election of 1701, following which Robert Harley* listed him with the Tories. He had by now established himself as something of a specialist interested in determining controverted elections in favour of Tories. Thus, on 5 Jan. 1702 he told for the minority in favour of hearing the Maidstone election at the bar; on the 29th moved that the Whig petitioners against the Malmesbury election be taken into custody; and on 24 Feb. told against an adjournment during the debate on the Coventry election. Two days later he supported the motion vindicating the House’s proceedings in the impeachments of William III’s ministers. He was keen to quieten Tory concerns about the abjuration bill, being named on 2 Feb. to the committee to draw up reasons for disagreement with the Lords over a voluntary oath, and on 10 Feb. telling against the omission of a clause which declared support for the established constitution and government.7

On his re-election in 1702, Freman immediately wrote to encourage Robert Harley’s own hopes of re-election as Speaker. Anne’s accession had ushered in a political and religious climate in which Freman’s talents could more naturally flourish. On 29 Jan. 1703 he chaired a committee of the whole on brandy running, evidence of his continued interest in the spirit trade, and in January and February assisted in the management of a private bill relating to a Hertfordshire estate. Predictably perhaps, given his earlier record, he voted on 13 Feb. against the Lords’ amendments to the bill for enlarging the time for taking the oath of abjuration. In the autumn of 1703 Harley reported to Lord Treasurer Godolphin (Sidney†) that the failure to restore Freman to the Hertfordshire lieutenancy meant that he was ‘out of humour’, and this dissatisfaction may have been the spur for his renewed zeal in the 1703–4 session. Though he helped guide an estate bill through the House, his concern about the malpractice current in determining the composition of the House again dominated his significant activity, particularly the Aylesbury case. On 21 Jan. 1704 he reported from the committee appointed to search the Journals for precedents, and on the 25th chaired the ensuing debate of the committee of the whole which ended, as he no doubt wished, in a resolution backing the House’s power to determine elections. On the 27th and 28th he chaired another committee of the whole which debated the Lords’ decision contravening this resolution, resulting in a vote against interference from the Upper House. Having apparently developed a taste for conflict with the Whig-dominated Lords, Freman took the chair on 28 Feb. on the contentious Scotch Plot. The following month he was included in Lord Nottingham’s (Daniel Finch†) forecast of likely supporters during the proceedings on the plot.8

Freman’s handling of these issues encouraged him to become very active during the 1704–5 session, which debated all the issues that most concerned him. He confirmed his animosity towards William III’s Whig ministers by telling on 18 Nov. against an adjournment during the proceedings against Lord Halifax (Charles Montagu*) and, as Lady Cowper put it, was one of the ‘Hertfordshire enemies’ spewing forth venom like a dragon against her son William*, a local rival whom they wished to send to the Tower. Freman’s adherence to the Church party was manifest on the 23rd, when he acted as teller in favour of the second reading of the occasional conformity bill. He was forecast as a probable supporter of the Tack, and on the 28th he and his ally William Bromley II told in favour of this measure. On 21 Dec. he told against the second reading for the bill of union with Scotland. He also assisted in the management of two estate bills, and on the last day of the session was sent to the Lords to desire a conference on a naturalization bill. But his primary concern had once again been the determination of the composition of the House. The Commons’ resumption of the Aylesbury case prompted his tellership on 26 Feb. in favour of finding Francis Page* (a lawyer for the Aylesbury men) guilty of a breach of privilege, and two days later Freman was appointed as a manager of the conference over the writs of error issued in the controversy. However, his long experience of election cases had convinced him of the need for more general reform, and he embarked on a campaign to promote place legislation. On 13 Jan. 1705 he obtained leave to introduce a bill designed to exclude office-holders appointed since Charles II’s death, and with a group of like-minded Church Tories such as Bromley, Francis Annesley and his brother-in-law, Charles Caesar, was named to draft it. Since, as one observer suspected, the bill owed its birth to resentment over the loss of the Tack, this combination of names is significant. The bill was presented on 17 Jan. and three days later Freman chaired the committee of the whole on it. When he reported on the 25th, an amendment was defeated which would have extended the bill to include personnel of the armed forces. Two days later, when Freman acted as teller, his bill failed to pass by only six votes.9

Freman had meanwhile been tightening his grip on local politics. By 1704 he had become ‘master’ of his county, thanks partly to the activities of the local Anglican gentry’s Royston Club, and consequently faced no problem at the polls in 1705 despite his prominent support for the Tack. Marked as ‘True Church’ on an analysis of Members, he told on 25 Oct. against the Court candidate for Speaker. He continued to be preoccupied with the question of who should be allowed to sit in the House. He told on 19 Nov. 1705 in favour of putting a motion that the committee of elections should not sit after midnight, and became involved as a teller in determining elections, two of which were local affairs: twice on 24 Nov., on divisions relating to the election of John Gape* at St. Albans; twice again on 6 Dec. (both with Caesar), in favour of the election of Richard Goulston* at Hertford, where Freman was able to vote consistently for the Tory candidate (including Caesar) after his admission as a freeman in 1698; on 11 Dec., against the return of Charles Mompesson* for Old Sarum; and on 17 Jan. 1706, against a motion declaring that Thomas Powell* had not been duly elected at Ludgershall. Moreover, encouraged by the slim margin by which his first attempt at place legislation had been defeated, he told on 13 Dec. 1705 in favour of bringing in a new bill, this time to restrict rather than to forbid the presence of office-holders in the House, a shift that may explain the subsequent involvement of John Aislabie* and Sir Richard Onslow, 3rd Bt.*, in its drafting. Freman presented the bill on 8 Jan. 1706, but it was displaced from the parliamentary agenda by the succession. At the beginning of the session, during a debate on Scotland on 4 Dec. 1705, Freman had supported the proposal that the Queen be addressed to invite to England the heir presumptive, an early indication of his own Hanoverian sympathies, but he and Caesar nevertheless acted as tellers on 19 Dec. against the second reading of the regency bill. On 10 Jan. 1706, having told against a motion to debate the regency bill, Freman made a speech in support of fixing the length of time Parliament would continue after the Queen’s death. Two days later, perhaps with the intention of defeating the whole bill – or perhaps simply wishing to graft onto it the content of his own place bill – he moved to give an instruction to add the clause from the 1701 Act of Settlement which excluded placemen on Anne’s death, and for this to remain in force for six months into the new reign. He was teller for his own motion, which was defeated, though he was then gratified to count a majority in favour of the committee to explain or alter the place clause. He repeated his worries during the resumed debate on 15 and 21 Jan., and expressed concern on the 19th for a separation of royal and executive power in a regency. He considered the Church to be in as much danger as the government, having opened a debate on 8 Dec. 1705 about the Lords’ resolution rejecting such a notion, and been a teller for the minority in favour of referring the matter to a committee of the whole.10

Characteristically, Freman followed this period of intense political involvement with a session in which he figures only occasionally in the printed records, perhaps because by then most of the controverted elections had been decided. The only election dispute on which he was teller was on 23 Jan. 1707, concerning Edward Southwell’s* poll at Rye. Freman guided through the Commons a bill for the repair of highways in his county, but was otherwise content to lower his public profile. This may have encouraged ministers to try to engage him for the Court before the 1707–8 session, but his Country principles were too deeply held, and he and the other Tory leaders approached were ‘not wrought upon by that management’. Indeed, the growing Whig influence at Court seems to have dispelled his lethargy. Perhaps feeling snubbed from being denied his usual place on the Address committee, he offered an explanation of the text ‘which he pretended was to prevent a prejudging of ’em; and to leave ’em free to argue against it if it were their judgment or opinion so to do; but upon hearing the words of his explanation they appeared to be nonsense’. Freman’s purpose in this obscure speech was clarified by one of the Annesleys (Arthur or Francis), who ‘directly’ opposed the clause in the Address relating to the Union. Freman’s hostility to the ministry, and to the Scots, was clear enough on 11 Dec. when he was teller against an amendment to the Union allowing a different system of j.p.s north of the border, and the following day in favour of referring to a committee of the whole the bill repealing the Scottish acts of security. On 18 Dec. he told against an adjournment of the debate which led to the expulsion of John Asgill for a profane publication, and the same day joined Bromley in moving for further papers relating to the war in Spain, in preparation for an attack on the government over the deficiency of forces at Almanza, a charge on which he acted as teller on 24 Feb. His own collection of papers relating to the cost of the war shows how well prepared the Tory attack was. Classed as a Tory in a list of early 1708, Freman told, on 31 Jan. 1708, in favour of an adjournment of the consideration of the report on the East India Company’s supply of £1 million in return for an extension of its privileges. Once more, he concerned himself with the membership of the House. On 22 Dec. he was first-named to a drafting committee for a bill against electoral bribery and corruption, chairing the committee of the whole on the bill and carrying it to the Lords on 27 Feb. On 17 Feb. he had told in favour of the return of the Tory Frederick Tylney* at Whitchurch, and his lack of success may have prompted him to act as teller again on 21 Feb. in support of a suggestion that controverted elections be decided by ballot.11

Immediately after the Queen’s speech opening the new Parliament in 1708, Freman, classed as a Tacker in an analysis of the 1708 election returns, renewed attempts to oppose the terms of the Union by calling for the abolition of the Scottish privy council. On 9 Dec. he is reported to have heard a sermon by Bishop Burnet, which was thought to have had such a good effect on him that he bowed to the wife of his local rival William, now Lord, Cowper. On 22 Nov. MPs reversed their decision in favour of determining disputed elections by ballot, a vote for which Freman acted as teller, but he was determined to press on with electoral reform. Having told on 2 Dec. on the franchise at Reading, he pursued his war against corruption by telling on 23 Feb. 1709 in favour of an account of secret service monies detailing all sums disbursed, rather than just those distributed to Members. His support for legislation against bribery and placemen was again evident in the following session, as he told on 27 Jan. and 4 Feb. for the passage of another bill limiting the number of officers in the House. Appointed on 14 Feb. to prepare a bill against bribery at elections, Freman presented this measure the following day. His Tory sympathies were clearly demonstrated on the 16th when he told against the Whig address to the Queen to send the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) to Holland, and when he voted against the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell.12

At the beginning of the 1710 Parliament, Freman acquired the post he probably most desired, the chair of the committee of elections. With 101 petitions before it, the committee was evidently important in determining the balance of parties in the House, but the large number of Tory gains at the polls may have encouraged him to shed some of his pretence of impartiality, for when the Whigs changed their tune and called for balloting on election decisions, the Church party now rejected what they themselves had formerly supported. Freman’s own bias was blatant in December 1710, when, perhaps also motivated by local antagonisms, he opened the attack on Lord Cowper’s actions over the Bewdley charter, and on 3 Feb. 1711, when he used his position to report, as frivolous and vexatious, the petition of William Thompson III*, a manager in the last session against Sacheverell. In addition to steering this important committee, Freman also guided through the Commons the Members’ qualification bill, which stipulated a minimum £600 p.a. landed income as necessary for election as knight of the shire, and £300 for a borough Member. These and other activities during the 1710–11 session earned him inclusion in printed lists of ‘worthy patriots’ and ‘Tory patriot’ opponents of the continuation of the war. On 2 Jan. 1711 he spoke immediately after Secretary Henry St. John’s (II*) explanation of the Queen’s message about the losses in Spain, and moved for an address of thanks to promise her that Parliament would support whatever measures she considered to be necessary to fight the war, but attacked General James Stanhope’s* conduct of the campaign, and threatened an inquiry, in order to make ‘such an example of the authors of these miscarriages as might put us out of apprehension of being so served again’. He was of course named to the consequent committee, from which he reported on 3 Jan. Six days later he was said to have made general accusations of ‘malversations’ against the recent ministry, and on 28 Apr. was teller in favour of a motion promoted by the October Club (which he joined in February and of which he became a leading member), which attacked the ‘breach of trust’ evident in Lord Godolphin’s administration. On 24 Apr. Freman told against passing the bill for the better preservation of game. Personal interests may have encouraged his tellership on 3 May against a clause in the Mine Adventurers’ Company bill, since his father had leased a lead mine in Derbyshire, and Freman was himself a friend of another Country Tory, Sir Humphrey Mackworth*, who was the company’s deputy-governor.13

There had been speculation since the end of 1710 that Freman would succumb to Court offers. Edward Wortley Montagu* believed that Freman’s qualifications bill had been designed to put off Montagu’s own place bill, a suspicion that suggests that the pursuit of independence in the House could have strong party-political connotations. Freman’s commitment to pure Country principles was also being tested at this time, for during the 1710 Christmas recess he was offered the treasurership of the navy, either by himself or jointly with Caesar. The fact that Freman resumed his seat on 4 Jan. 1711 was interpreted as a sign that the commission had not yet been settled, but it was reported that the delay was only ‘till he has finished his reports as chairman of elections’. Thus, as the session drew to a close in June, there was renewed speculation that the warrant for the post would be made out ‘in Mr Caesar’s name and Mr Freman to have half pay without having his clear estate subjected for security of great sums which that place requires’. If this was true, which seems likely, given that it was ‘generally believed’ that Caesar had accepted the post ‘upon the foot of an understanding with his brother-in-law’, Freman’s rejection of the post was not entirely the principled stand it has appeared to be. His activity dropped off markedly in the two remaining sessions of the 1710 Parliament though he remained in the chair of the elections committee. During the 1713 session he assisted in the early stages of the Enfield highway bill. Whatever the exact nature of his agreement with the Court about the profits of office, Freman’s support for the Hanoverian succession now pushed him into occasional or ‘whimsical’ support for the Whigs. He was one of the Tories who voted on 18 June against the French commerce bill. His dislike of the army was once more apparent on 1 July when he told for the majority against officers being paid over and above their salaries. He also assisted in the management of two private estate bills, one on 4 June for the Bydes, a Hertfordshire family that had made its money from brewing, and the other on 20 June for James, 19th Earl of Salisbury, who had long had Freman’s political backing and who had been appointed lord lieutenant of Hertfordshire in 1712.14

The 1713 election tested Freman’s Qualifications Act, and on 6 Mar. 1714 he chaired the committee of the whole which reported on a mechanism for challenging claims about fulfilment of the Act’s criteria. Listed as a Tory in every categorization of the 1713 Parliament, he was one of the leaders of the Hanoverian wing of the party. On 15 Apr. he chaired the committee of the whole on the state of the nation relating to the succession, and the following day reported its resolution that the Protestant succession was in no danger. On 23 Apr. he was listed as one of the ‘revolters from the Ch[urch] Party’ in his attitude to a similar resolution by the Lords, and on 24 June it was Freman who spoke warmly not only in favour of thanking the Queen for the proclamation offering a reward for the apprehension of the Pretender, but also of increasing the sum, a motion that drew opposition from his erstwhile ally Bromley. His other significant role that session related to economic matters, for on 26 June he chaired the committee of the whole upon the bill to reduce the rate of interest. The Worsley list and two further comparisons of the 1713 and 1715 Parliaments all classed Freman as a Tory.15

Following George I’s accession, Freman again refused a seat on the Admiralty board, but may have done so only to appease the Hertfordshire gentry of the Royston Club, to whom he had ‘so frequently declared [his] opinion that no person who took place could act fairly and candidly for his country’s interest’. Some of them also resented his monopoly of the county seat, which he continued to hold as a Tory until 1727. He died on 8 June 1742, when his estate passed to his eldest son, William. He had earlier made provision for his wife by an estate Act, which mentioned lands held in Essex, but Freman disinherited his younger son, Catesby, on account of what he regarded as Catesby’s scandalous way of life and disrespect. By an endowment of land, Freman set on a firmer footing the provision of Seth Ward’s charity for apprentices, for which Freman’s father had acted as trustee.16

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Mark Knights


  • 1. IGI, Herts.; W. Hamilton, Life and Character of James Bonnell (1808), 13–14; Camb. Univ. Lib. Add. mss 1, f. 66.
  • 2. Herts. RO, Hertford bor. recs. 25/100; St. Albans Pub. Lib. St. Albans bor. recs. 299.
  • 3. Pittis, Present Parl. 349.
  • 4. Hamilton, 14–15; Camb. Univ. Lib. Add. mss 1, f. 69; Mar. Lic. Fac. Off. (Harl. Soc. xxiv), 137.
  • 5. Camb. Univ. Lib. Add. mss 1, f. 42; Cam. Misc. xxix. 380; HMC Cowper, ii. 387; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 487.
  • 6. Yorks. Arch. Soc. Copley mss Box H–J, poll Feb. 1701.
  • 7. Cocks Diary, 228.
  • 8. Add. 70197, Freman to Harley 6 Aug. [1702]; Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. vi. 298–300.
  • 9. Herts. RO, Panshanger mss D/EP/F30, Lady Cowper’s commonplace bk. pp. 312–13; Huntington Lib. Q. xxxix. 52.
  • 10. Cam. Misc. xxiii. 31, 40, 44, 60, 61–62, 71, 73, 78; Herts. RO, Hertford bor. recs. 23/145, 169, 245, 368, 397, 425; Huntington Lib. Q. xxxix. 54.
  • 11. Burnet, v. 339–40; Tindal, Hist. Eng. ii. 38; Staffs. RO, Paget mss D603/K/3/6, R. Acherley to Ld. Paget, 6 Dec. [1706]; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 298; Add. 35868; G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 143–4.
  • 12. Clavering Corresp. (Surtees Soc. clxxviii), 20; Cunningham, Hist. GB, ii. 137.
  • 13. Luttrell, vi. 661; Boyer, Pol. State, i–ii. 160; SRO, Mar and Kellie mss GD/15/1020, Sir James Dunbar, 1st Bt.*, to Ld. Grange (James Erskine†), 12 Dec. 1710; Clavering Corresp. 105; Holmes, 179; SRO, Montrose mss GD/220/5/808/1a, Mungo Graham* to Montrose, 2 Jan. 1711; BL, Trumbull Alphab. mss 54, Ralph Bridges to Sir William Trumbull*, 19 Feb. 1711; NSA, Kreienberg despatch 9 Jan. 1711; Huntington Lib. Q. xxxiii. 163; Northants. RO, Isham mss IC 4864, Freman to Sir Justinian Isham, 4th Bt.*, 15 Mar. [–].
  • 14. Montrose mss 22/5/808/1a, 2, Mungo Graham to Montrose, 2, 4 Jan. 1711; Holmes, 118; Trumbull Alphab. mss 54, John Bridges to Trumbull, 5 Jan. 1711, Ralph Bridges to Trumbull, 8 June 1711; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss 57 (5), pp. 91–92; Add. 57861, f. 162; HMC Portland, iv. 563.
  • 15. Burnet, v. 339; Trumbull Alphab. mss 55, Brydges to Trumbull, 23 Apr. 1714; Add. 47027, f. 133; Cobbett, vi. 1358.
  • 16. Panshanger mss D/EP/F53, f. 38, John Boteler* to Lord Cowper, 10 Oct. 1714; PCC 244 Trenley; HMC Lords n.s. vii. 335.