WHARTON, Hon. Goodwin (1653-1704), of Soho Square, Westminster, Mdx. and Waddesdon, Bucks.

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



Oct. 1679 - Jan. 1681
23 Dec. 1689 - 1690
1690 - 1695
1695 - 1698
1698 - 25 Oct. 1704

Family and Education

b. 8 Mar. 1653, 2nd surv. s. of Philip, 4th Baron Wharton, by Jane, da. and coh. of Arthur Goodwin† of Winchendon, Bucks.; bro. of Hon. Henry† and Hon. Thomas Wharton*.  educ. Protestant Academy at Caen 1663–4; travelled abroad (France, Italy, Germany and Holland) 1664–6. unm.; 2s. illegit. (1 d.v.p.).1

Offices Held

Capt. and brevet col. Ld. Macclesfield’s Horse Feb. 1694–Mar. 1704; ld. of Admiralty Apr. 1697–9.

Chairman of the cttees. of elections and privileges 28 Nov. 1696–8.

Commr. taking subscriptions to land bank 1696.2


Much has been made of the rather incredible episodes recorded by Wharton in his autobiography, such as his pursuit of buried treasure, the locations for which were retailed to him by fairies, and his liaison with Lucretia, alias Mrs Mary Parish, who apart from her superior connexions with the underworld kingdom of the fairies, conceived 106 children by Wharton in 19 years. His visions and hallucinations may, perhaps, have been the result of his deep-sea diving exploits, but the exotic has tended to obscure his career in the Commons which Wharton himself rarely thought important enough to commit to his diary, although other evidence shows him to have been a man of some political significance.3

By 1690 Wharton had moved to a house in Soho Square, which he shared with Sir Thomas Travell* and Mary Parish. Having failed to act any part in the Revolution of 1688, and being overlooked for military preferment as a consequence, Wharton had been returned to the Convention for Westmorland in a by-election. At the general election of 1690 he desisted in his campaign for re-election in Westmorland and was defeated at Cockermouth. However, the family interest at Malmesbury provided him with a seat and he was classed as a Whig by Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†). During this Parliament he proved to be one of the most active Members in the House, and a more frequent speaker than his brother. On 14 Apr. 1690 he acted as a teller in favour of taking into custody the pretended mayor of Plympton, who had favoured the Tory candidates in the recent election. On the 24th, he spoke in favour of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, when instructions were given by the House to the committee drafting the abjuration bill. During the second reading debate on this bill, on the 26th, Wharton argued for the appointment of a separate day to consider an accusation against a Member, rather than divert the current debate. On 9 June he obtained a private interview with the Queen at Whitehall in which he exhorted her ‘not to follow arbitrary counsels and advised her to put out my Lord Nottingham’ (Daniel Finch†), the Tory secretary of state. Nothing much is known of his activities in the 1690–1 session, but towards the end of December he noted in his diary: ‘I made several speeches . . . which I know were well approved of and my interest in the House was not the least’, and that ‘I fell pretty hard sometimes on the courtiers and their designs, but still in a way not to be censured but commended’. With his hopes of a place still unfulfilled he added, before the King left for Holland in January 1691, ‘I did not kiss his hand nor take my leave’. Robert Harley* in April 1691 classed him as a Court supporter.4

In the new session Wharton acted as a teller on 14 Nov. 1691 against referring a petition for an estate bill to a committee. On 30 Nov. he spoke in the committee of the whole considering supply to note that the King’s name should not be used to influence debates in the Commons and to support moves to refer the estimates to a select committee. On 1 Dec. he suggested that since bribery had been proved on both sides in the Chippenham election, the guilty candidates should be incapacitated from being elected during the Parliament, a proposal which if accepted would no doubt have paved the way for the straightforward election of the Whig Thomas Tollemache*, a friend of his brother. On the 3rd, when the Commons considered the state of the public accounts and discussed secret service payments to MPs, Wharton thought that ‘if it comes to any great sum . . . it may endanger the government’, and so he supported moves to declare that Members who received money from such sources were betrayers of their country, and that the secret service accounts should be laid before the House, as in Charles II’s reign. On the 12th he opposed the Lords’ amendment to the treason trials bill which sought to give those who were impeached copies of the indictments against them. On the 24th he was successful in proposing a rider to the land tax bill to ensure that the treasurer of the navy paid bills in course. He noted in his diary for December 1691: ‘I also sometimes spoke in Parliament, though not too often and was not ill esteemed with the Country party.’ On 15 Feb. 1692 he strongly supported a move by Country MPs to tack a clause to the poll bill establishing a commission of accounts, saying ‘that it was necessary, the people being dissatisfied’. His performance prompted him to record: ‘my interest in the House this session was superior to anybody’s’. On the 23rd he was appointed to the conference committee on the mutiny bill, reporting reasons to be used at the conference the following day.5

In a list of March–December 1692 Lord Carmarthen classed Wharton as a Court supporter, but while he backed the government over such matters as supply he joined in attacks on Tory ministers and espoused some traditional Country Whig measures. When Parliament reassembled on 10 Nov. 1692, Wharton proposed that the commissioners of accounts present a state of the nation’s income and expenditure. On the following day he made his position clear on the controversial naval actions of the preceding summer by demanding to know why the French fleet was not pursued, but seconding a motion of thanks to Admiral Edward Russell*, another of his brother’s associates, whereby he sought to blame Nottingham for the naval failures. On the 12th he asked why Sir John Ashby ‘had fallen short of his duty’ in not pursuing Tourville when he broke off from the French fleet, which led to the admiral being called before the Commons. On 19 Nov., when Ashby appeared before the House, Wharton put several questions to him and later in the day opposed a motion to thank the admiral on the grounds that Ashby was only doing his duty. Furthermore, in the ‘advice’ committee on the 21st, he made a long speech criticizing the poor counsel given to the King, the use of a small Cabinet, and having only a single secretary of state. He also brought in the militia, the London lieutenancy and the quarrel between Queen Mary and Princess Anne. Later in the debate he thought that any address to the King on the employment of men at the Admiralty should stress the necessity for seamen rather than question the ‘fidelity’ of the existing commission, and he suggested that two objectives of policy should be to prevent the French from trading with Denmark and Sweden and to foster the use of privateers. On the 23rd, when the debate on advice continued, Wharton criticized the conduct of Dutch officers at the battle of Steenkerk – ‘we want not foreign officers, we have natives fit for employment. Nothing but an English army can preserve our English liberties and properties. Encourage them to be entirely English, from the soldiers to the officers’ – and felt it necessary ‘that the world may see the English are able to officer their own armies’. He later returned to this theme, criticizing Count Solmes and praising General Tollemache. On the 26th, again on advice, Wharton returned to his criticism of Secretary Nottingham:

things are concerted in the Cabinet, and then brought to the Council; such a thing resolved in the Cabinet, and brought and put upon them, for their assent, without showing any of the reasons. That has not been the method of England. I am credibly informed, that it has been complained of in Council, and not much backed there. If this method be, you will never know who gives advice.

Later that day he sided with those who thought it a matter of privilege when the Admiralty called George Churchill* before them to explain remarks he had made in the Commons. On the 28th Wharton supported the motion that the bill for regulating treason trials should not take effect until after the end of the war. The next day he acted as teller against a motion for the committee of the whole on supply to sit again on 1 Dec. At the end of November he referred in his diary to ‘my having spoken much this session’, and on 30 Nov. he again criticized Nottingham, this time for licensing a pamphlet which appeared to portray the King as a conqueror, and moved ‘that you will address to his Majesty to remove from his councils those men who have declared by their principles that they are not for this government’. On 3 Dec. Wharton supported the Court’s army estimates: ‘I am for the whole number that Flanders may not be lost’, and because the fleet could not protect England from invasion if it had to cope with the combined naval strength of France and Holland. On the 10th he spoke against agreeing with the elections committee over the Bridgwater election, but the House declared George Balch elected without a division. At the second-reading stage of the abjuration bill on the 14th Wharton favoured committal because it ‘may be made a good bill’, but he appears to have made a tactical error in the heat of the moment, for as Bonet put it, ‘un des zéles du parti (Wharton le cadet) gâta tout’, that the bill was a means to turn out the enemies of the government, and the following speaker saw it as the ‘getting of places’. On the 20th he was appointed to a conference committee concerning papers relating to the summer’s abortive naval descent on the French coast. When it was reported to the House he intervened to suggest that John Smith I had not spoken to the question in seeking to have the thanks of the House voted to Russell, and that the Commons should concentrate on the motion moved by Comptroller Wharton to address the King to remove Nottingham, whom the Lords were seeking to absolve from responsibility for the previous summer’s naval fiasco. Ten days later Wharton acted as a teller against a request from the Lords for another conference on the descent, preferring instead to reply by the Commons’ own messengers. Also on the 30th he successfully opposed the passage of the bill extending the time for those persons involved in developing the convex lights.6

On 10 Jan. 1693, at the report stage of the land tax, Wharton offered a clause to enforce the payment of bills in course by the navy office, which was accepted, and supported a clause suspending pensions for the duration of the war, provided it exempted those under £50 p.a. The next day he supported an unsuccessful motion to advise the King ‘to constitute a commission of the Admiralty of such persons as are of known experience in maritime affairs’. On the 18th he acted as a teller in favour of considering on the 20th the bill to regulate the East India trade. On the 20th, when a complaint was made against Bishop Burnet’s Pastoral Letter, Wharton supported moves to send for the licenser and printer of the tract, and the following day supported those who claimed that precedents justified setting up a select committee to look further into the matter. On the 23rd, after Burnet’s work had been ordered to be burnt, Wharton sought to procure the same fate for the Bishop of St. Asaph’s Discourse of God’s ways of Disposing of Kingdoms, but this was rejected. On the 25th, at the report of a conference with the Lords on Burnet’s libel, there being no space left in the Lords’ address to insert the ‘Commons’, Burnet supported a declaratory vote condemning the tract along the same lines. In February, Wharton spoke repeatedly for the triennial bill, supporting its committal on the 2nd, as ‘the bill is to provide against two extremes: Parliaments not too long and Parliaments not too frequent’. In the committee of the whole on the bill on the 7th he spoke for the first clause, arguing that Parliament should sit each year to do business (as was the law already), and telling for its retention. Two days later he acted as teller for the bill’s third reading. On the 14th, after committal of the public accounts bill, he responded to Harley’s complaints by suggesting that the House give the commissioners the powers they lacked. On the 22nd he severely censured the ‘great abuses’ in the administration of Ireland; and two days later backed an address calling for an Irish parliament to enact bills to preserve that kingdom, supporting the proposal for an address setting forth the abuses and mismanagements in the Irish administration, and being named to the resultant committee. When he reported this address on 4 Mar. it was notable for its criticism of Irish grants. On 23 Feb. he supported a rider to the bill for the preservation of game, that every Protestant should be able to keep a musket in his house for his defence. On 1 Mar. he expressed his distaste for the Lords’ indemnity bill at its second reading, noting that the only good it contained was the preamble that stated it would not establish a precedent. The following day, at the report stage of the bill encouraging privateers, he offered a clause that privateers going to the Mediterranean should be allowed to carry half their tonnage in goods. On the 8th he contended that absent MPs, like William Culliford, should not avoid being held to account for their misdemeanours by pleading parliamentary privilege. On the 10th, with little business to attend to, Wharton suggested continuing with the Commons’ advice to the King, probably on the subject of taxation and the use to which it was put.7

On the opening day of the 1693–4 session, 7 Nov., after the House had agreed to take into consideration the King’s Speech on the 13th, Wharton successfully proposed the adjournment of the Commons until that day. Although this move was favourable to the Court, it did not presage a change of political course: Wharton was still keen in his pursuit of Tory ministers as can be seen in the debates over the responsibility for the loss of the Smyrna fleet. On 17 Nov. he acted as teller for adding the words ‘and treacherous’ to the motion that there had been ‘a notorious’ mismanagement in the loss of the Smyrna fleet. On the 22nd he sought to ask the three admirals (Henry Killigrew*, Sir Clowdesley Shovell* and Sir Ralph Delaval*) in joint command of the English fleet what provisions they had on board, and thereby ascertain whether the absence of adequate supplies caused the fleet to depart from its convoy duties. On the 27th he was a teller against a resolution that the fleet had enough supplies for Sir George Rooke* to convoy ships beyond the Toulon as well as the Brest fleet (and therefore in favour of Rooke’s action in leaving the fleet when he did). Two days later he was a teller again, this time in favour of the question that the three admirals in charge of the fleet had received information by 11 May 1693 on the movements of the Brest fleet. Following this he was a teller on 6 Dec. for a motion of censure on Killigrew, Shovel and Delaval. Next day, he told against a motion to send Lord Falkland (Anthony Carey*) to the Tower for obstructing the commissioners of accounts. On 18 Dec. in the committee of the whole on the Lords’ triennial bill he was against postponing discussion on the clause about holding an annual Parliament because it was ‘so much the right of the people’, and spoke later in favour of annual Parliaments. On the 20th he told against a supply resolution allowing £60,000 for hospitals and contingencies for 1694, £147,000 being agreed upon eventually.8

On 17 Jan. 1694 Wharton told against a clause in the land tax bill which provided for four third-rates for convoy duty, and on the 22nd against retaining this whole clause relating to cruisers. On 26 Jan. he was appointed to the committee to address the King on the veto of the place bill, and the following day was named to prepare a new conclusion, speaking in the debate in favour of a cautious response. Then, on 1 Feb., he told against a move to request a further answer from the King to the address on the use of the veto, and advised caution in any further communication with the crown. On the 14th, he acted as teller for a motion to go into a committee of ways and means the next day. On 15 Mar. he told for an unsuccessful motion to go into a committee of the whole on the general naturalization bill, and the next day told against adjourning the supply bill on salt duties, which led to an early date for considering it. Late March saw him report a bill dealing with Lord Stawell’s debts and reporting from a conference with the Lords upon it on 5 Apr. On the 23rd he told in favour of the passage of the bill regulating hackney coaches.9

In February 1694 Wharton had been given a troop in the regiment of his friend, Lord Macclesfield (Charles Gerard*), an appointment often attributed to his political connexions and to his service in the Commons rather than to any military prowess. This lack of experience did not prevent him from accompanying the expedition to Brest during the summer of 1694 and offering advice to his superiors, or for that matter blaming himself for the death of its commander, Tollemache, and 300 men before the murderous fire of the French batteries. At his further suggestion, the fleet proceeded to bombard and severely damage Dieppe and Le Havre. Lord Berkeley, the admiral in charge, wrote to Sir John Trenchard* to seek permission to put into execution another plan of Wharton’s for ‘putting towns under contribution to excuse them from being bombarded’, adding ‘Mr Goodwin Wharton who is here has a working head, and contributions run into it confoundedly’. However, his plans to burn down Dunkirk and Toulon were turned down. His conduct at sea did his reputation no harm, a satirical poem from the autumn contrasting his bravery before Brest with his father’s alleged cowardice at Naseby when he allegedly took refuge in a sawpit. In August, following a quarrel with Travell, Wharton removed with Mrs Parish to a house in Tothill Street, Westminster so as not to be troubled with Sir Thomas Travell’s ‘ill carriage’.10

At the beginning of the 1694–5 session, when the Commons took into consideration the King’s Speech on 19 Nov., Wharton was among those who pressed for an early vote in favour of granting a supply. On the 20th he ended a silence in the House by remarking on the failure of the Treasury lords to give an account of their affairs, and pondered on what had happened to the money voted previously, given that the soldiers in the field were ready to starve. He acted as a teller on 26 Jan. 1695 against retaining a reference to the King’s ‘heirs’ in the place bill. Further, on 28 Feb., he told against receiving a report from the committee on ways and means, thereby paving the way for the actual committee to sit instead. On 1 Mar. he took the chair of the committee of the whole on the mutiny bill, reporting it on 2 Apr. and being named that day to draft a clause relating to the quartering of troops. At the beginning of March the Earl of Sunderland, ‘the first minister’, had told Wharton that the King ‘spoke very kindly of me in public’, but when he asked for a command in Flanders the answer was unfavourable. However, this connexion may explain why Wharton’s name appeared on a list of this session as a ‘friend’ of Henry Guy*, one of Sunderland’s associates. The session also saw Wharton quarrel with his father, who ‘took occasion to fall out with me very much and to retract all subsistence from me because I would not tell him who I was married to and produce my children’. Since he had not been through a form of marriage to Lucretia, rather than introduce her to his father, he ‘was advised to tell him my wife was dead’, which satisfied Lord Wharton who reinstated Goodwin’s allowance.11

Wharton stood successfully for both Cockermouth and Malmesbury in 1695, retaining his seat for the latter to allow his brother time to strengthen his interest before resigning it on 17 Nov. 1696. On 9 Jan. 1696 he acted as a teller on the right of election at East Grinstead (where he had sat in 1679) in support of the Whig petitioners. He was forecast as likely to vote for the government in the division on the proposed council of trade on 31 Jan., and spoke in the debate to call Robert Price to order for comments concerning abjuration oaths which were interpreted to mean that Members ought to repent of the oath they had taken to William III. At this point in the session his father died, the main effect of which was to make Wharton financially more secure. He was back in the Commons on 24 Feb., when he was named to the conference committee on the King’s Speech on the Assassination Plot, playing a key role in bringing in the Association and signing it twice as Member for Malmesbury and Cockermouth. On 11 Mar. he acted as a teller in favour of adding words relating to the relief of poor French Protestants to the motion to defray the civil list expenses for 1696, and later that month voted for fixing the price of guineas at 22s.12

On 20 Oct., the opening day of the 1696–7 session, Wharton was first-named to the committee of elections and privileges, and on the 24th James Vernon I* wrote that at the first meeting, scheduled for the 26th, ‘it will be endeavoured to put Mr Wharton in the chair’. On the 27th Robert Yard* reported that this had duly occurred. In November Wharton chaired the committee of the whole on the bill remedying the ill state of the coinage, which he reported on the 18th. He was active, too, in support of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick†, although he spoke on 13 Nov. in favour of allowing the defendant’s counsel further time. However, on the 17th he had acted as a teller in favour of committing the bill, after having spoken strongly in its support:

a gentleman told you, that the law of God and man was not to condemn a man but upon two witnesses; but there are many instances to the contrary . . . the rules of Westminster Hall are, when a man is brought upon his trial, the jury are all to be upon oath; by which oath they are to make a true judgment according to law. This is not the case here . . . Here is a bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick of high treason: if I reject the bill I do declare him not guilty, and if I do think him guilty, I do declare against my own judgment; for my judgment here is not bound as a man’s judgment upon a jury: for his judgment is bound up to proof, according to law, and my judgment is bound up of my own belief. This is the proof I must go by: and I think every man is bound in justice and duty to his country, as he believes Sir John Fenwick to be guilty, to be for the commitment of this bill.

He also voted for the bill at third reading on the 26th, answering the charge that the Commons was breaching the recently enacted treason trials bill by arguing that the procedure there was for Westminster Hall, whereas this bill was for Parliament to decide upon, and that the evidence of Fenwick’s guilt was ‘full and convincing’. He made his first report from the committee of privileges on 28 Nov. in the case against Sir Isaac Rebow. On 30 Nov. he presented a bill to encourage persons to surrender their wrought plate to be coined. He also chaired a committee of the whole on supply, concerning the deficiencies in the cost of the recoinage, from which he reported on 17th and 23rd. On 29 Dec. he received leave to go into the country for three days.13

On his return in January 1697, Wharton remained just as busy. He was first-named to draft a bill preventing the buying and selling of offices, which he managed through the Commons. In his diary he recorded its failure in the Upper House: ‘the Lords and the judges were themselves most scandalously and openly against it’. On 8 Feb. he moved for a general naturalization bill, acted as a teller for leave to bring it in and was first-named to the drafting committee. He duly presented it on the 19th ‘but it miscarried in our House’. On 9 Feb. he reported from the committee on the petition of the hackney coachmen and on the 13th told in favour of filling immediately the vacancy which had occurred in the commission of accounts. In March he chaired the mutiny bill (9th), carrying it up on the 16th. In April, he was reported to have been made a lord of the Admiralty with a salary of £1,000 p.a. as a mark of royal favour to the Whig Junto, the warrant confirming this being passed in June. He commented at the time, ‘I was by the persuasion of my friends brought into the Admiralty, the King doing it because he could not avoid it, and I told him I would not have taken it but only to serve him, it was a place of that troublesome nature’. Troublesome it certainly was, as Wharton spent the summer working at the Admiralty and no doubt discussing the emerging peace terms with which he was reported to be not entirely happy, particularly if the French retained Luxembourg and Strasbourg.14

Wharton’s new office saw him included in the Tory satire Advice to a Painter as a corrupt placeman, and as if to emphasize the point he was one of the principal speakers on 10 Dec. 1697 against Harley’s motion to disband the army. The gist of his argument was that since Lord Dartmouth (George Legge†) had failed to prevent the invasion flotilla of 400 flat-bottomed boats in 1688, it would be unwise to rely on the navy alone. One week later, in the committee of the whole on the fleet, Wharton supported Harley’s proposal for 10,000 seamen, computing that together with the ordinary charges this would ‘come near to a million’, which was agreed by the House. Also in December he was nominated to draft a bill regulating the militia (17th). On 6 Jan. 1698 he told in favour of passing the bill continuing the imprisonment of those involved in the Assassination Plot, and on the 20th was named again to draft a bill preventing the buying and selling of offices, which he presented to the Commons on 4 Feb. On the 28th he presented the naval estimates to the House. On 25 Mar. he was struck down by two fits of apoplexy, which paralysed his left arm. He remained very ill for some weeks, and was prayed for in Covent Garden where he was a member of the congregation. James Vernon I reported to Shrewsbury on 19 May: ‘Goodwin Wharton creeps about again; he came this afternoon to my house to make a visit; he is a maimed, weak creature.’ Nevertheless, he was put up for Buckinghamshire at the general election by his brother, and, although originally intended for Cockermouth, he withdrew in favour of Harry Mordaunt. He was successful for Buckinghamshire and was classed as a member of the Court party in about September 1698.15

By November 1698, it was reported that Wharton was better than expected, and he had recovered sufficiently to take his place in the Commons by January 1699. On the 18th he voted against the disbanding bill. On the 19th he was named to draft a bill for a register of deeds, presenting it on 3 Feb. The same day Wharton spoke in the committee of supply against the attempt to cut the number of men necessary to man the fleet to 12,000, believing that at least 13,000 were needed. He spoke again on 10 Mar. in committee on the state of the navy, but thereafter his parliamentary activities fell off sharply. Indeed, it was during this session that Walter Moyle* flippantly remarked on the decline of the Whigs: ‘have they lost their wisdom with Goodwin Wharton’s apoplexy?’. In May he resigned from the Admiralty and in August was again reported ‘dangerously ill’. In the next session, on 18 Feb. 1700, he spoke in the debate in which Lord Somers (Sir John*) was attacked for accepting fee-farm rents, and seconded Lord Hartington in asking for Harley to frame a motion setting rules for the future conduct of ministers.16

Returned again for Buckinghamshire in January 1701, Wharton was active in defending the Whigs accused of advising the King to sign the Partition Treaty, criticizing John Grobham Howe on 24 Mar. for characterizing the treaty as a combination of three thieves robbing a fourth, as language not fit for a tavern or bawdy house. On 16 Apr. when the address for the removal of the Whig lords was reported, Wharton ‘made a long oration declaring the necessity of some vigorous votes, that the eyes of Europe were upon us and that our slow motions were censured’, and advocating the addition of words opposing the union of France and Spain as a threat to the peace of Europe (which was put and lost on the previous question). September 1701 saw him applauded in print for promoting the publication of the Kentish Petition and he was duly returned for Buckinghamshire in November.17

Wharton was classed as a Whig in December 1701. There are no references to speeches in this session, but we know that he was in the House on 17 Apr. 1702. He was absent from the division on the abjuration oath on 13 Feb. 1703 and was ill at the end of the month. In March Mrs Parish died, but he was well enough to visit the court at Windsor in August. In March 1704 he resigned his commission in the army owing to ill-health. Deserted by his friends and by his ‘very mad and rebellious’ son Hezekiah, he died on 25 Oct. 1704 and was buried three days later. By his will, dated 30 Sept., he left his lands in Cumberland, his personal estate at Riskins, Buckinghamshire, his house in St. Giles-in-the-Fields and four tenements in Lloyd’s Court, plus £1,100 in bills to his ‘dear and lawfully begotten son, Hezekiah Wharton’, but on 7 Mar. 1705 the name was corrected by a commission to ‘Wharton, alias Knowles’, and a curator was appointed to receive the rents of Waddesdon for him for three years. Hezekiah, an army officer, had died before probate was granted to Elizabeth Lloyd, 7 Dec. 1711, as residuary legatee.18

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Stuart Handley


  • 1. J. Kent Clark, Goodwin Wharton, 1, 9–10.
  • 2. CJ, xii. 508.
  • 3. Clark, 316; info. from Mrs Z. Cowan.
  • 4. Clark, 250, 265; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss 3751, Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I* to Sir Daniel Fleming†, 17 Feb. 1689[–90]; Grey, x. 74, 80; Add. 20007, ff. 74, 78.
  • 5. Luttrell Diary, 53–54, 75, 93; Grey, 199; Add. 20007, ff. 81, 82; Clark, 276.
  • 6. Luttrell Diary, 216, 219, 228, 230, 241, 243–4, 252, 255, 263, 265, 275, 291, 308, 316, 330, 340; H. Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 105–7; Grey, 244, 253, 260, 265–8, 278–9, 283; Bodl. Carte 130, ff. 339–40; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 2385, 2387, 2389, accts. of debates, 23, 26, 21 Nov. 1692; Ranke, vi. 184, 198; Add. 20007, f. 85.
  • 7. Luttrell Diary, 358, 364, 377, 380, 382, 387, 398, 406, 421, 438, 444, 447–8, 456, 459, 471, 475; Grey, 307; Horwitz, 111.
  • 8. BL, Verney mss mic. 636/47, John Verney* (Ld. Fermanagh) to Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Bt.†, 9 Nov. 1693; Grey, 369–70.
  • 9. Grey, 386.
  • 10. J. Childs, Army of Wm. III, 62; Clark, 289–93; CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 224; Poems of Affairs of State ed. Ellis, v. 436–7.
  • 11. Bodl. Carte 76, f. 531; Verney mss mic. 636/48, John to Sir Ralph Verney, 21 Nov. 1694; Add. 20007, ff. 88, 89; Clark, 297.
  • 12. BL, Trumbull Add. mss. 32, debate, 31 Jan. 1696; HMC Hastings, ii. 254.
  • 13. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 46/11, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 24 Oct. 1696; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/059/5, Yard to Alexander Stanhope, 27 Oct. 1696; Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. v. 1023–4, 1088, 1148.
  • 14. Stanhope mss U1590/059/6, Yard to Stanhope, 9 Feb. 1696/7, 20 Apr. 1697; Post Man, 22–24 Apr. 1697; Add. 20007, f. 90; Clark, 308; Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 162a, Blanchard to Portland, 27 July/6 Aug. 1697.
  • 15. Poems of Affairs of State, vi.25; Cam. Misc. xxix. 356; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 507; Montagu (Boughton) mss 46/166, 92, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 17 Dec. 1697, 26 Mar. 1697[–8]; Clark, 313–4; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 28–29, 82; Egremont mss at Petworth House, Ld. Wharton to Somerset, 22 July 1698.
  • 16. Verney mss mic. 636/50, Anne Nicholas to (Sir) John Verney (2nd Bt.), 25 Nov. 1698; Cam. Misc. xxix. 388–9, 392, 393; Moyle Works, 15; London Post, 21–23 Aug. 1699; Cocks Diary, 56.
  • 17. Cocks Diary, 71, 100; A Letter to a Modern Dissenting Whig (1701), 23.
  • 18. Cocks Diary, 269; Clark, 320, 323–6; Verney Letters 18th Cent. i. 220; Lipscomb, Bucks. i. 544; PCC 60 Gee.