FURNESE, Sir Henry (1658-1712), of Waldershare, Kent, and Dover Street, Westminster

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



1698 - 14 Feb. 1699
3 Jan. - 19 Feb. 1701
Dec. 1701 - 30 Nov. 1712

Family and Education

b. 30 May 1658, 1st s. of Henry Furnese of Sandwich by Anne, da. of Andrew Gosfright of Sandwich.  m. (1) 11 Nov. 1684, Anne (d. 1695), da. of Robert Brough, linen draper, of St. Lawrence Jewry, London, 1s.; (2) 1 Dec. 1697, Matilda, da. of Sir Thomas Vernon*, wid. of Anthony Balam, 1da.  suc. fa. 1672; kntd. 8 Oct. 1691; cr. Bt. 27 June 1707.1

Offices Held

Apprentice, Drapers’ Co. 1672, master 1694–5; sheriff, London and Mdx. 1700–1; common councilman, London 1691–4, alderman 1711.2

Member, R. Fishery Co. [I] 1692; commr. taking subscriptions to Bank of England, 1694, dir. 1694–7, 1699–Apr. 1700, Nov. 1700–2; ?commr. Birth, Marriages and Deaths Act 1695, Greenwich Hosp. 1695; trustee, circulating Exchequer bills 1697–1701, receiving loan to Emperor 1706, poor Palatines 1709; dir. New E. I. Co. 1698–1703; member, Russia Co. 1699, Levant Co. 1699. 3


From humble origins, Henry Furnese rose to be the most important government financier in England between 1705 and 1710. Historians may have exaggerated his low birth: although his father only reached the rank of sergeant in Cromwell’s dragoons, on settling in Sandwich, Henry snr. married the daughter of Andrew Gosfright, jurat of the port and mayor in 1636–7. Furnese’s alleged early penury appears to have been inferred from his father’s bankruptcy, and from the work of Augustan satirists keen to highlight the lowliness of his birth and the vulgarity of his plebeian manners. In fact Furnese’s apprenticeship to a London hosier in the year of his father’s death may not have been evidence of poverty, but rather the making of him, because his master was one of his Gosfright uncles, many of that family appearing in the records as quite well-to-do tradesmen. Indeed, Furnese was following in the footsteps of two of his Gosfright cousins who were entered as apprentices in 1667 and 1670 respectively. This wider family network may explain how Furnese was able to take the all-important initial steps up the ladder of London commerce. His Gosfright relations certainly traded to Flanders and Italy, where Furnese was to exploit his own trading contracts as a means of remitting money for the allied armies. Moreover his uncle George Gosfright was in 1678 deputy-paymaster to the forces in Flanders under the command of the Duke of Monmouth.4

Politically, Furnese was a committed Whig, and this, too, he may have picked up from his own father and his Gosfright relatives. The restoration of Charles II saw his uncle George Gosfright in trouble with the Privy Council and having in March 1661 to post a bond of £500 for good behaviour. In 1668 George was reported to be shipping seditious tracts from Rotterdam to London, and the Exclusion Crisis saw him under suspicion of propagating the myth that the King had been married to the Duke of Monmouth’s mother. A friend of Titus Oates, he was arrested at the time of Monmouth’s rebellion. Furthermore, he was a Dissenter. This brings us to the question of Furnese’s own religious beliefs. He was married by Edmund Calamy snr., the Nonconformist divine, although the ceremony was recorded in the register of St. Lawrence Jewry. Obviously by that date Furnese had prospered sufficiently to set up a separate household, although little is known about his trading activities. That he continued to prosper is indicated in verses describing the parade of the City’s volunteer regiment of horse during the lord mayor’s show in 1689, where Cornet Furnese’s rich trappings were seen as ‘mighty presumptuous’.5

In the early 1690s Furnese concentrated on the trade to Flanders, even importing fine linen and lace for the use of the King. He also supported the war effort by clothing several regiments and helping to finance a galley for use against the French. His communications network was already second to none, for it was Furnese who brought King William the first notice of the capitulation of Limerick, for which he was rewarded with a jewel reputed at the time to be worth £10,000 (but only valued at £200 when it was stolen in 1695) and a knighthood. In January 1692 three peers voted for him in the Lords’ ballot for commissioners of accounts. Furnese’s Irish interests extended to subscribing towards the cost of a dinner at Merchant Taylors’ Hall in February 1692 in honour of General Ginkel, Lord Cutts (John*) and other officers who had served in the campaign, and to joining the newly incorporated Royal Fishery Company of Ireland. When 300 pieces of his cloth were seized by the customs he attempted to get a grant of the King’s moiety for himself, just one incident of many which led to rumours that he was engaged in smuggling prohibited goods. He enjoyed loaning money to the government, but clearly saw that there were many ways in which astute men could make a fortune out of war: in November 1692 Lord Coningsby (Thomas*) was informed from Ireland that Furnese was attempting ‘to get a grant for clothing all the King’s forces, as well as those here’. Furnese even found time to wager heavily on the outcome of siege warfare in Flanders, his superior information allowing him to increase his chances of success; political bets, such as the failure of the French to take Charleroy, netted him a reputed £2,500 from ‘Jacobites’ at the end of 1692.6

If proof were needed of Furnese’s position in London mercantile society, his elevation in February 1694 to the London lieutenancy certainly provided it. Further recognition came in July when he was elected to the first directorate of the Bank of England (in 23rd place), having subscribed £3,000. Evidence uncovered by the Commons relating to the attempt to bribe the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, over the London orphans bill, revealed that Furnese was one of the eight commoners appointed to the committee set up by the City to discover a way in which the debts due to the orphans of the city could be satisfied. No doubt his burgeoning wealth was also a recommendation for his appointment in March 1695 to the first board of governors of Greenwich Hospital. His connexion with the Bank saw him attend the Treasury in May regarding the use of the Bank for transmitting money to pay the forces in Flanders, a development of great significance for the future. All was not well, however, as it was reported to Sir William Trumbull* in June that customs officers at Gravesend had been unfaithful in their trust ‘particularly in compliance with the intrigues of Sir Henry Furnese in his smuggling’. Other information suggested that the packet boats had been used by Furnese, particularly when John Wildman† ran the Post Office.7

The years 1696–7 saw an important change in the method by which money was remitted to the army in Flanders. In March 1696 Furnese was one of the directors who represented to the Treasury the Bank’s unwillingness to remit money on the credit of tallies. The following year, he was one of those employed in a private capacity to send funds, his chief collaborator being Sir Theodore Janssen†. In April 1697 he was elected a trustee for circulating Exchequer bills, a post worth £200 p.a. initially, rising to £400 p.a. in 1698. In May 1697 he subscribed £2,000 to the fund. The following year saw him heavily engaged in setting up the New East India Company (having sold his stock in the Old Company at some point after 1693), the aim being to raise £2 million for the government in return for a parliamentary charter giving the interlopers a monopoly of the trade for 31 years. Much depended on the ability of men such as Furnese to overcome the scepticism of the King and some of his ministers by demonstrating that a loan of such magnitude could be raised without difficulty. In the event £1,200,000 was pledged within a fortnight and Furnese was the intermediary used by such people as James Vernon I*, when he sought to subscribe on behalf of the Duke of Shrewsbury. In July Furnese’s role was recognized by the subscribers, when they elected him a director of the New Company. The same month he was returned for Bramber at the general election. When Parliament sat his return was the subject of a petition on 12 Dec. 1698 and he was accused of bribery. Given the battle between the two East India Companies, his election was bound to be controversial and in the event his enemies were able to secure his expulsion on 14 Feb. 1699, on the grounds, as James Lowther* put it, that he was ‘acting as receiver and manager of the subscription of the new East India Company’. At least one contemporary felt that Furnese had welcomed expulsion on these grounds rather than waiting to be thrown out for bribing the electorate. During his short spell in the House he was classed as a placeman on a list of September 1698, as a Court placeman on a comparative analysis of the old and new Parliaments, and on 18 Jan. 1699 he voted against the third reading of the disbanding bill.8

In February 1700 Furnese was involved in remitting £120,000 to Holland to pay off a debt to the States General. In June, together with Robert Beachroft, he was set up for sheriff of London, both men ‘being gentlemen of known loyalty and ability’. Having been elected, Furnese was then reported at the end of the month to be ‘very ill at Bristol, he being gone thither to drink the water of the hot well near that city’. This excursion may account for reports that he had attempted to fine off for the office, but in July he gave bond to perform his duties. Thus, he presided in September over the election of lord mayor, which saw the sheriffs declare the Whig Sir Thomas Abney* and the moderate Tory Sir William Hedges elected, only for Sir Charles Duncombe* to demand and then to top a poll, before the court of aldermen chose Abney as mayor. Furnese was much criticized for his handling of this heated election, but in mitigation Matthew Prior* pointed out that the Court had singularly failed to give any guidance as to which party it favoured. In October the court of aldermen declined to invite the King to a feast, even though Furnese offered ‘£400 for himself and £400 for his brother sheriff towards the charge’. When Furnese did organize a banquet in Drapers’ Hall in November, over 400 attended (L’Hermitage reported the number as 600), including many Whig peers, MPs and the Treasury lords. November 1700 also saw Furnese return as a director of the Bank, replacing one of the two deceased directors, Sir James Houblon* or Thomas Goddard, who both died in late October 1700.9

On 3 Jan. 1701, polling day at Sandwich, Furnese was admitted a freeman of the corporation ‘by birth’ and duly returned as MP for the borough. The defeated Tory candidate, John Michell II*, attempted to unseat Furnese by petitioning. Michell not only alleged bribery, but claimed that Furnese was ineligible to sit by virtue of his office as sheriff of London and because of his interest in managing several parliamentary funds. Upon receipt of the petition, the Commons voted to consider on 17 Feb. the relevant ‘place clause’, that no Member be concerned ‘in farming, collecting or managing any monies, duties or aids’ granted to the King. Preparatory to this, on the 15th the House ordered the commission constituting the trustees for circulating Exchequer bills to be laid before them, and when the matter finally came before the Commons on the 19th, the House brushed aside Furnese’s defence, that as a trustee for the subscribers’ money he did not come within the scope of the clause, and expelled him. Sir Richard Cocks, 2nd Bt.*, saw the matter in party terms, since the Tory Sir Joseph Herne* had escaped a similar fate in the preceding Parliament when he had also been named as a trustee. Outside the House, Furnese was a representative of the Bank when it told the Treasury in June 1701 that it did not wish to ‘meddle’ in remittances to Holland, but this did not deter him from offering to undertake the business on a personal basis. He was also a subscriber of £100 to the corporation of the poor of the City, an institution dominated by Whig and Dissenting interests.10

Furnese resigned his post as a trustee for circulating Exchequer bills on 14 Nov. 1701, three days after the dissolution, and was thus able to put up at Sandwich, appealing to the voters on the grounds of both birth and personal sacrifice, he having ‘quitted a trust of £400 p.a. profit for your service’. He was returned at the top of the poll. In December 1701 Robert Harley* listed him as a Whig, and it was no doubt partly because of his political affiliations that an attempt was made to have him expelled the House a third time. Sir John Bolles, 4th Bt., moved on 10 Feb. 1702 that by virtue of being a trustee for the circulation of Exchequer bills Furnese was ineligible to sit in the Commons. However, extracts from the Treasury minutes laid before the House on 21 Feb. showed that Furnese had resigned his post before the election, and any attempt to take the matter further was baulked on 24 Feb. by the presentation of a medical certificate from Furnese claiming that he was too ill to attend in his own defence. Furnese was still in poor health on 8 Mar. when he informed Sandwich corporation of the King’s death, although he did promise to attend the Commons ‘constantly, health permitting’. Re-elected in 1702, Furnese was a nominee of the New Company on the directorate of the united East India Company, a place he retained for only one year.11

In the 1702–3 session, Furnese voted on 13 Feb. 1703 for agreeing with the Lords’ amendments to the bill enlarging the time for taking the oath of abjuration. His activities in the Commons were no doubt limited by his increasing involvement in the remittance of funds to the army in Flanders and Portugal. Almost every month in 1703 the Treasury minutes reveal Furnese tendering for contracts to remit money, along with references to loans to the government on various taxes, all of which seems to have yielded him a handsome profit. Such activity continued in 1704, with mention also being made of remittances and a clothing contract for the army in Portugal. However, he did show concern for the needs of his constituents. In February 1704 the corporation wrote to thank him for a gift of coals and ‘pulpit clothes’, and he responded to requests which saw him waiting on the secretary of state, Sir Charles Hedges*. He was also keen to ensure that the corporation made adequate preparations to celebrate the victory at Blenheim, deputing his brother-in-law Branch to represent him on that occasion. He was forecast as a probable opponent of the Tack, and did not vote for it on 28 Nov. 1704. An important area was indicated on 11 Nov. by his nomination to a committee to draft a bill to restrain commerce with France more effectually, especially in the receipt and negotiation of French bills of exchange, an area in which he was an acknowledged expert. It was also one of his main arguments against some of his rivals in the remittance trade, along with the view that one contractor could obtain better rates of exchange than a multitude. When the Treasury finally heeded his advice, Furnese benefited personally because he signed a contract in February 1705 giving him a six-month monopoly of all remittances to the Low Countries, Germany and Portugal, for which he was allowed a commission of 11s. for every £100 transferred.12

Returned again at the 1705 election, Furnese was classed as ‘Low Church’ in an analysis of the new Parliament, and on 25 Oct. 1705 voted for the Court candidate as Speaker. He was clearly becoming ever more closely identified with a ministry increasingly preoccupied by the war effort, as one might expect given his central role in ensuring that the money to pay the army was actually sent abroad. It was this powerful position which led him to write to the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) in December 1705 about what can only be described as warfare by financial means, and more particularly the need to persuade the Dutch to prevent the French supplying their forces in Italy by bills of exchange drawn on Amsterdam and in Brabant and Flanders by the transfer of specie from thence to Antwerp. Should this continue, Furnese foresaw a shortage of money for the allied forces, with serious consequences for the war effort (and his own business). March 1706 saw him appointed to the commission of the peace in Kent in recognition of his growing estate in the county. Also in March he was appointed a trustee of the £250,000 loan being raised for the Emperor on security of revenues in Silesia, and then one of the seven managers of the subscription. A measure of his importance to government may be gleaned by the fact that he had to seek permission from the Treasury on 3 Sept. to go into the country for two to three weeks. October and November 1706 saw a dispute between Furnese and the paymaster of the forces abroad, Hon. James Brydges*, over remittances, and more particularly Furnese’s plans to use Antwerp in addition to Amsterdam as a means of transmitting the funds. Brydges came off second best, and was vitriolic on the subject of Furnese’s conduct, writing on 18 Oct. to William Cadogan* (who was Brydges’ confederate, along with Adam de Cardonnel* in an alternative scheme), ‘Sir Henry hath upon this occasion shown a malice that I could not have imagined anyone could have been capable of, much less one who loves his interest and pursues it by all such sorts of methods as he doth’. The explanation, according to Brydges, was Furnese’s anger at not being ‘admitted into the partnership as he expected, if the army had marched into Italy’. Perhaps the dispute can best be explained by Furnese’s attempts to get a better deal from the Treasury in view of the risks he ran. In December 1706, when Furnese was allowed 12s. per £100, back-dated to August, it transpired that he had been remitting money without a written contract (and hence with no guarantee of repayment) since the previous February.13

In February 1707 Furnese renewed his agreement for a monopoly of remittances to the Low Countries for a further six months. In June he was created a baronet and in September was again writing to Marlborough, this time about the iniquities of the East India Company’s actions in draining England and Holland of £600,000 of silver when it was needed for other purposes. Late November saw him ‘given over by the physicians, his distemper the twisting of the guts’, but he soon recovered and the following month Tower Ward elected him and Sir Charles Peers as their nominees to the aldermanic bench, which plumped for the latter. On two lists of early 1708 Furnese was classed as a Whig. His own self-assessment when soliciting votes from the corporation in 1708 was that ‘I have acquitted myself with loyalty to her Majesty and faithfulness to my country’. He secured re-election easily and seems to have been employed in trying to convince his neighbour from St. Lawrence Jewry, Henry Cornish*, to withdraw from the contest at Shaftesbury. In the new Parliament he had the pleasure of seeing one of his chief persecutors from 1701, Anthony Hammond, expelled from the Commons under the same place clause by which he himself had suffered. Yet again, however, heavy involvement in financial affairs appears to have precluded active work in the Commons, although he did support the naturalization of the Palatines in the first session. Furnese’s influence was now at its apogee: titbits of information from his network of correspondents were traded by others, such as Peter Wentworth, who in June 1709 was keen to tell his brother at third hand what Furnese had said about the prospects for peace. He was still unpopular, even in government circles, Cardonnel writing to Brydges that ‘I have known Sir H. a great many years according to the character you give me of him and I reckon it a great misfortune in your business to be obliged to have anything to do with him’. James Craggs II* may have identified the reason when he told James Stanhope* in August 1709 that such was Furnese’s credit with Lord Godolphin (Sidney†) that ‘’tis not only a difficult, but also a dangerous matter to oppose his schemes’.14

In the 1709–10 session Furnese’s time was taken up in deflecting an attempt by the Bank to regain part of the remittance contract to Flanders and, more important, the fateful decision to impeach Dr Sacheverell. In November 1709 Furnese appears to have been ‘promoted’ within the Kit-Cat Club, whose rotating chairmanship involved hosting a feast, and he was especially keen to invite Marlborough to his own feast held in December. It was around this time that a Kit-Cat meeting was held at Furnese’s house to decide Sacheverell’s fate and contemporaries reported Marlborough’s recruitment to the club. Not surprisingly, Furnese voted for the impeachment of Sacheverell and signed the address of the London lieutenancy abhorring the tumults of ‘Catholics and non-jurors’ during the doctor’s trial. That Furnese retained his power in the dying days of the Whig ministry is shown by a meeting in February 1710 at the Treasury, attended by Marlborough, Robert Walpole II*, Brydges and Cardonnel, at which Furnese received an undertaking that no money ordered for subsistence would be diverted by Brydges towards extraordinary expenses or other uses, unless the lord treasurer so directed. Furnese maintained his iron grip on government remittances until Godolphin’s dismissal, although his early confidence in April about subscriptions to another Imperial loan had lapsed into concern that by June the ‘present situation’ was retarding the loan. In July he sent Marlborough a present of wine, ‘in this melancholy time when all runs counter to what every honest man might reasonably expect’, and expressed ‘great apprehensions of the failure of our public credit’. Furnese was in a difficult position here, torn between the need to support Marlborough’s armies with funds, and the attempt of Whig bankers to coerce the Queen into retaining Godolphin by threatening government credit. In July Marlborough suggested to the lord treasurer that he use Furnese to prevent the haemorrhaging of Dutch money from London. At the first meeting of the new Treasury commission on 12 Aug. 1710, Furnese attended, and both parties agreed to fulfil their existing obligations. However, on the following day Harley wrote to the Duke of Newcastle (John Holles†) that ‘it is most certain there has been great labouring with the Bank and Sir Henry Furnese not to deal’, and that Furnese ‘was turned quite off and pretended to make propositions of accommodation’. On the 14th, Godolphin informed Marlborough that Furnese ‘has continued to give bills for some farther subsistence to your army’. What seems clear from the Treasury records for August was that Furnese continued to bid for remittance contracts, but, apart from the funds for Lisbon, others were preferred. Craggs may have offered the most likely explanation of all this manoeuvring, when he noted that after Godolphin’s dismissal Furnese and Janssen had threatened to renege on an agreement to lend £300,000, but that Godolphin had persuaded them otherwise. As early as 21 Aug. Brydges was certain that ‘the remittances will be taken out of Sir H. Furnese’s hands’, but John Drummond† may have been more realistic when he advised a period of cohabitation to ensure that Furnese is ‘doing something that he may not do mischief till you can do without him’. In the end this was precisely what occurred: the last contract Furnese signed was in November 1710, for remitting money to Portugal, which was not completed until April 1711. This is not to say that Furnese’s conduct in the ministerial crisis in 1710 was approved. Brydges for one believed that ‘what he did in relation to his stopping at once in all ports his credit is so much resented that I question much whether he will not hear of it in Parliament’.15

Furnese’s position in Sandwich was unassailable and in the 1710 election he topped the poll. Somewhat surprisingly, he failed to vote in the London election, presumably because the contests in Kent absorbed all his attention. He was classed as a Whig on the ‘Hanover list’. In April 1711 he was elected an alderman for Bridge Within, a useful piece of news in the hands of Arthur Maynwaring*, who used it to refute the allegation that the Whigs were hated by the people. The 1711–12 session saw Furnese more active, possibly owing to the reduction in his involvement in public finance. He voted on 7 Dec. 1711 for the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion. As a Whig financier, Furnese was an obvious target for Tory attack, and on 26 Feb. 1712 Thomas Harley*, a secretary to the Treasury, was trying to hurry the auditor into processing Furnese’s accounts. On 12 June the Treasury laid before the Commons minutes of Treasury proceedings relating to remittances and also the auditor’s report on Furnese’s remittances to Holland. It was ordered that they should lie on the table until the actual accounts were laid before the House. If this was intended as a prelude to an attack on Furnese, his enemies were thwarted by his death, which occurred before the next parliamentary session. The accounts were eventually cleared in 1717.16

Furnese died on 30 Nov. 1712, of a ‘violent colic’ at his seat at Waldershare, shortly after entertaining the Duke of Marlborough. His will, as might be expected, demonstrated his great wealth, but may also reflect quarrels after 1710 with some of his erstwhile colleagues. Thus a codicil of November 1711 revoked bequests to John Taylor[?*], George Townsend and Moses Berenger (along with a mysterious trust of £1,000 for purposes ‘as I have privately directed or shall privately direct’). The poor of Sandwich gained permanent benefit from his will, £500 being allowed the corporation to purchase lands, with the rents so gained being distributed annually on his birthday. St. Bartholomew’s and St. Thomas’ hospitals, together with the hospital in Bishopsgate street, all benefited by £100. Finally, a monument was to be erected signifying ‘God’s great goodness to me in advancing me to a considerable estate from a very small beginning’, an instruction evidently carried out by his son Sir Robert* in commissioning a ‘towering mass of marble, with its seated female figures, cherubs, and ammonite-like volutes’. The inscription not only paid heed to Furnese’s humble origins, but revealed that ‘being early distinguished by the favour of our great deliverer King William, he faithfully adhered to the cause of liberty and the Protestant interest with a steady and indefatigable zeal’.17

Furnese was an obvious target of critics of the new finance. Although his origins were probably less humble than he himself or his detractors made out, his success in trade and especially public finance was spectacular. Nor did he scruple at investing in land: in 1710 it was noted that, like everyone else, he subsisted on credit, as ‘all his ready money is laid out on land’. He purchased extensively in Kent, initially at Waldershare in the 1690s and then more extensively in Anne’s reign, rebuilding his seat, as well as beautifying local churches in Sandwich and New Romney. All this was based on the ruthless maintenance of his position in the remittance business, which earned him a widespread notoriety: in December 1701 George Petty wrote of the arrival in India of Sir Henry’s brother, George, who he said, had ‘a little of the blood of the Furneses, and more of their impudence’. None the less, Furnese played a unique and vital role in the war effort during Anne’s reign and in the ongoing experiments in public finance.18

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Stuart Handley


  • 1. IGI, London; W. Boys, Hist. Sandwich, 484–6; St. Lawrence Jewry (Harl. Soc. Reg. lxxi), 97, 193; Mar. Lic. Vicar-Gen. (Harl. Soc. xxx.), 181.
  • 2. P. Boyd, Roll of Drapers’ Co. 71; Beaven, Aldermen, ii. 122.
  • 3. CSP Dom. 1691–2, p. 112; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Bank of England pprs. 31.1.7; Beaven, 122; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 709; London Rec. Soc. ii. 114; J. Cooke and J. Maule, Hist. Greenwich Hosp. 8–30; Add. 10120, f. 234; 38871 (unfol.); Boyer, Anne Annals, iv. 127; viii. 41, App.; Cal. Treas. Bks. xii. 8; xvi. 110; Post Boy, 31 July–2 Aug. 1698; Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. li. 106; info. from Prof. R. Walcott.
  • 4. G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 156; G. S. De Krey, Fractured Soc. 145–6; EHR, lxxi. 230; Boys, 424, 484; Swift Works ed. Davis, iii. 151–2; Poems on Affairs of State ed. Ellis, vi. 406–7; Boyd, 78; PCC 86 Cann; Cal. Treas. Bks. v. 1032; CSP Dom. 1678, p. 294; Market and Merchants ed. Roseveare, 650.
  • 5. CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 542; 1667–8, p. 282; 1678–80, pp. 448, 451; info. from Dr M. J. Knights; St. Lawrence Jewry, 97, 193; Poems on Affairs of State ed. Cameron, v. 95.
  • 6. Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 1086, 1653; x. 124, 205 354, 725; xiii. 300; CSP Dom. 1690–1, pp. 495, 548; 1691–2, pp. 3, 112, 210; HMC Lords, iv. 50; Trinity, Dublin, Clarke mss 1267, Robert Yard* to George Clarke*, 17 Oct. 1691; Folger Shakespeare Lib. Newdigate newsletter 7 May 1695; Luttrell, ii. 295, 363, 472–3, 593, 595; Add. 57861, f. 15; Oldmixon, Hist. Eng. 61.
  • 7. CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 21; 1696, p. 285; Luttrell, iii. 269, 342; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 557; CJ, xi. 269; DZA, Bonet despatch 6/16 July 1694; Cal. Treas. Bks. x. 1376; Cooke and Maule, 8–30; Add. 10120, f. 234; HMC Downshire, i. 483–4.
  • 8. Cal. Treas. Bks. x. 1441; xi. 6; xii. 3, 8, 54, 83, 143, 270; xiii. 102, 238, 386; Univ. of London Lib. ms 65, item 3; Bodl. Rawl. A.302, ff. 224–7; H. Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 232–3; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 84–85, 88; Carte 130, f. 396.
  • 9. Cal. Treas. Bks. xv. 47; Post Boy, 20–22, 25–27 June 1700; Luttrell, iv. 660, 662–3, 692, 709, 712; HMC Bath, iii. 421–2; BL, Trumbull Alphab. mss 50, Thomas Bateman to Sir William Trumbull*, 25 Oct. 1700; Add. 17677 UU, f. 358.
  • 10. Centre Kentish Stud. Sandwich bor. recs. Sa/Ac 8, f. 375; Cocks Diary, 82; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 266; Cal. Treas. Bks. xvi. 73, 75; Cal. Treas. Pprs. 1697–1702, p. 497; E. Hatton, A New View of London, 752.
  • 11. Cal. Treas. Bks. xvi. 110; Add. 33512, ff. 179, 183; 38871; Cocks Diary, 207.
  • 12. Cal. Treas. Bks. xviii. 41, 56, 66, 72, 76–77, 89, 364, 390; xix. 4, 17, 19, 29, 43, 49, 59, 72; xx. 76; Sandwich bor. recs. Sa/ZB2/159, corp. to Furnese, 26 Feb. 1703/4; Sa/ZB2/160–2, Furnese to corp., 21 Apr., 10 Aug., 27 Dec. 1704; D. W. Jones, War and Econ. 84–85.
  • 13. Add. 61135, ff. 93, 95; info. from Prof. N. Landau; Daily Courant, 9, 21 Mar. 1706; Luttrell, vi. 24, 28; Marlborough Letters and Depatches ed. Murray, ii. 396; Cal. Treas. Bks. xx. 95; xxi. 9; Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 609–10; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss 57 (1), pp. 4, 40, 47.
  • 14. Cal. Treas. Bks. xxi. 18; Add. 61135, ff. 109–10; 33512, f. 190; Luttrell, vi. 237–8; PRO, 30/24/21/52–53; Parlty. Lists Early 18th Cent. ed. Newman, 80; Boyer, viii. 41, App.; Post Boy, 30 June–2 July 1709; Wentworth Pprs. 90; Stowe mss 57 (4), p. 104; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/O139/9/71/3, Craggs to Stanhope, 3 Aug. N.S. 1709.
  • 15. Cal. Treas. Bks. xxiii. 34; xxiv. 7, 35, 39, 42–44, 99; HMC Portland, ii. 209, 215–16; iv. 583; Duchess of Marlborough Corresp. i. 172, 279; G. Holmes, Trial of Sacheverell, 87; Trumbull Alphab. mss 53, Ralph Bridges to Trumbull, 20 Dec. 1709; N. and Q. ccxvi. 48–49; Add. Ch. 76120; Add. 61135, ff. 113–17; Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 1558, 1603–4; Stanhope mss U1590/O140/12/73/18, Craggs to Stanhope, 9 Sept. N.S. 1710; Stowe mss 57 (4), pp. 3, 150.
  • 16. London Poll 1710, 175; Boyer, Pol. State, i–ii. 266; Swift v. Mainwaring, 384; Cal. Treas. Bks. xxvi. 169; xxxi. 242.
  • 17. Boyer, Pol. State, iv. 368; Add. 17677 FFF, f. 431; Wentworth Pprs. 306; PCC 234 Barnes; Arch. Cant. lxii. 69; P. Parsons, Monuments and Painted Glass in E. Kent, 401–2.
  • 18. HMC Portland, iv. 583; Hasted, Kent, vi. 511; vii. 123, 128, 391, 460, 502, 511; x. 53–54; C. W. Chalklin, 17th Cent. Kent, 203; Add. 59480, f. 66.