suc. bro. 27 Jan. 1689 as 3rd Bar. COLEPEPER
First sat 30 Jan. 1689; last sat 12 Nov. 1718
bap. 4 Mar. 1641, 3rd but 2nd surv. s. of John Colepeper, Bar. Colepeper, and 2nd w. Judith (1606–91), da. of Sir Thomas Colepeper ‘the elder’, of Hollingbourne, Kent; bro. of Thomas Colepeper, 2nd Bar. Colepeper, and Cheney Colepeper, 4th Bar. Colepeper. educ. unknown. m. 30 June 1707, Frances (1664–1741), da. of Sir Thomas Colepeper ‘the younger’, of Hollingbourne, Kent, s.p. d. 8 July 1719; will 12 Aug. 1710–2 Feb. 1715, pr. 2 Nov. 1719.1
Ensign, coy. of ft. I.o.W. 1667; 2nd lt. RN 1673–4, 1st lt. 1678–9.2
Associated with: Hollingbourne, Kent.
At the death of John Colepeper, 3rd Baron Colepeper, in 1719, his wife and cousin, Frances Colepeper, erected a monument to him in the parish church of Hollingbourne, Kent, ‘to show the great respect she had to the memory of her husband’ and on which she recorded what she thought were his signal achievements. Apart from being ‘the best of Friends and the best of Husbands’ and having been ‘in four Sea-Fights, wherein he behaved with great Courage & Bravery, having his cabin shot to pieces and his commanding officer killed’, his widow boasted that ‘He attended the House of Lords 18 years constantly, with a very small fortune, where he always behaved with steadiness for the good of his King & Country.’3
The 3rd Baron Colepeper did sit in the House ‘constantly’, with an attendance rate of about 95 per cent, for the 18 years from 1689 to 1707, whereafter he continued to attend intermittently until his death in 1719, but with much reduced frequency. And he did subsist there ‘with a very small fortune’, the aspect of his career to which most of his contemporaries drew attention. His status as one of the poorest of the ‘poor lords’ resulted from a long-standing family squabble regarding the provisions that his father John Colepeper, Baron Colepeper, had made for his large family. The first baron’s three sons by his second marriage, Thomas*, (later 2nd Baron Colepeper), John and Cheney* (later 4th Baron Colepeper), all joined their royalist father on the continent in 1651, but Thomas and John appear to have been back in England in 1657–8 when, under instructions from Baron Colepeper, his heir Thomas was assigned to settle various of the family’s Kentish manors on trustees, in order to provide his younger brother with an annuity.4
Baron Colepeper died shortly after he himself had returned to England at the Restoration, and in his will of 3 July 1660 he made extensive financial provisions from his restored estates in Kent, Lincolnshire and Radnor for his six younger children, who were enjoined to trust to the protection and management of their eldest brother, the Baron’s successor, Thomas.5 The 2nd Baron did make his younger brother John an ensign in the company of foot that he commanded in 1667, in his role as governor of the Isle of Wight, and he may have had some hand in ensuring John’s entry into the Royal Navy in 1673, but that was about the limit of his fraternal devotion.6 He did not make the necessary provisions for his younger siblings’ maintenance, settling many of the estates charged with their annuities on himself, and from the early 1670s was engaged in a protracted feud with them over the terms of their father’s will.7
Charles II had assured his old councillor of many years, the 1st Baron Colepeper, that he would protect his children, and one way in which he did this (not being able or willing to pay the sum of £12,000 he had originally promised) was to offer the 2nd Baron the right to fill the vacancies in the six clerks’ office in chancery. John later calculated that a single nomination could garner £5,000, none of which ever went to his annuity, which was badly in arrears.8 When a subcommittee of the Privy Council, consisting of James Butler, earl of Brecknock (better known as duke of Ormond [I]), Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesey, and Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, found in 1676 in favour of John and the other younger Colepepers, the king initially responded by vesting the right of nomination in two trustees for the benefit of John and two of his sisters. This decision was quickly reversed following the vociferous and successful objections of the 2nd Baron, which were aided by his sale of the reversion of the mastership of the rolls (which the 2nd Baron had been granted at his father’s death) to Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). The king and the Council, however, remained sympathetic over the following years to the complaints of the Colepeper children and in October 1680 John himself was given the nomination of one of the vacant six clerks’ places, ‘in fulfilment of the king’s promise to the late Lord Colepeper to provide for his younger children’. Ormond, a referee to whom the case was presented again in 1681, thought that the 2nd Baron ‘treated his brother and sister very unlike such near relations’.9
At his death the 2nd Baron left to his younger brother his title and nothing else, dividing his estate between his legitimate daughter, Katherine, and his two illegitimate children, Charlotte and Susannah. The 3rd Baron set out his long list of complaints against his brother in a series of chancery bills that he brought against the latter’s heirs from 1698, and in his will of August 1710 he made clear his continuing resentment that the estate left to him by his father ‘was by my brother Thomas late Lord Colepeper most unjustly detained from me for above eight and twenty years till the time of his decease and a considerable part thereof hath ever since been and is still as unjustly withheld from me by his daughter and sole executrix Katherine’.10
John inherited this impoverished peerage on 27 Jan. 1689, five days after the commencement of the Convention. The 2nd Baron had been one of William of Orange’s most vocal supporters in the proceedings of the peers in December 1688 and when the 3rd Baron first sat on 30 Jan. 1689 he took up where his brother had left off, vigorously defending William’s pretensions to the throne. He voted to declare William and Mary king and queen on 31 Jan., his second day in the House, and held that James had ‘abdicated’ and that the throne was thereby ‘vacant’, entering his dissent on both 31 Jan. and 4 Feb. when the House rejected that wording. At the crucial vote on 6 Feb. Colepeper joined with the majority in voting through the resolution that James had abdicated and that the throne was vacant.
With William III safely on the throne, Colepeper hardly slackened in his engagement in the Convention Parliament – he was absent on only four occasions across its two sessions – or in his support of the new king. He was named to 59 committees on legislation, and was assigned to consider many bills which furthered the Whig or Williamite agenda. These included the bills to reverse the attainders of a number of Whig martyrs and victims of the Tory revenge of the early 1680s: William Russell‡, styled Lord Russell (8 Mar. 1689), Algernon Sydney (24 Apr.), Alice Lisle (3 May), Henry Cornish (10 June) and Thomas Walcott (8 Nov.). In other legislation involving a perceived Whig hero, Colepeper voted on 31 May in favour of the bill to reverse the two punitive judgments against Titus Oates and, after the bill had been returned from the Commons some weeks later, on 30 July both voted and protested against the House’s resolution to adhere to its amendments to the bill, which appeared to cast doubt on the veracity of the Popish Plot.
In a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690, Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed him as among the supporters of the court, and added the name Groandman next to his: the identity of Groandman has not been determined. In the winter of 1689 he was also placed on the large committees to examine what the Whigs considered to be the judicial murders of Lord Russell, Algernon Sydney and others (6 Nov.) and to investigate the related matter of the subornation of witnesses used to attest to the alleged complicity of a number of Whig peers in the rebellion of James Scott, duke of Monmouth (7 Dec.). Colepeper was also placed on committees for measures to establish the Williamite regime, to counter opposition to it and to prosecute the new war against France, such as the bills to make corresponding with King James a treasonable act (25 Apr.), to suspend habeas corpus for those suspected of such treason (25 May), to attaint those considered to be in rebellion (13 July), to prohibit trade with France (10 Aug.) and to halt the export of arms and ammunition (21 December). On 15 June he was also placed on the drafting committee for an address requesting the new king to repair the military garrisons, to disarm papists and to examine further the dangerous situation in Ireland. Most of his other committee appointments involved numerous estate and naturalization bills.
Colepeper continued to be an assiduous attender of the Parliaments of both William III and Anne, at least in her early years. In total he was present at close to 98 per cent of the sittings of the House during William’s reign. In the king’s first two Parliaments, between March 1690 and July 1698, his attendance level in each of the nine sessions consistently stood between 90 and 96 per cent, apart from an anomalous dip to 87 per cent in the session of 1696–7. He came to 93 per cent of the meetings in the first session, 1698–9, of the following Parliament, but his attendance level again decreased to 88 per cent in 1699–1700, a level he maintained in the Parliament of early 1701. He was back to his usual constant self, at 95 per cent, in the Parliament of the first months of 1702, which saw William III’s death and the accession of Anne.
Throughout these sessions Colepeper continued to be named to almost every select committee established. Other than committee nominations, we have only a few votes and protests by which to gauge his activities and attitudes. On 6 Oct. 1690 he voted against the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonment in the Tower, with Carmarthen adding the comment that he thought he had a pension.11 In the 1691–2 session he acted as a teller in the division of 21 Nov. 1691 (at the third reading of the bill against the clandestine marriage of minors) on the motion, passed in the affirmative, whether a proviso on behalf of the Quakers should stand part of the bill. On 17 Dec. 1691 he chaired and reported from the select committee considering the bill for the payment of the debts of the late Elizabeth Curtis, the only time he appears to have had such a role in committee.12 He formally dissented on 2 Feb. 1692 from the decision not to agree with the Commons in their objections to the House’s amendments to the bill appointing commissioners of accounts. On 16 Feb. he joined 17 other peers in signing the protest against the decision that proxies could not be used in the divisions on the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, arguing that this went against proper parliamentary procedure. In the following session (1692–3) he continued his support for this bill and voted on 2 Jan. 1693 that it be read a second time and committed. In the same period he switched his vote concerning the Place bill, voting on the last day of 1692 to commit the bill, against the opposition of the court, but casting his vote with the court three days later, on 3 Jan. 1693, against the passage of the bill. The pecuniary considerations which may have led to this apparent change of heart are discussed below. On 19 Jan. 1693 he put his name to the dissent from the decision not to refer to the committee for privileges the House’s amendments to the bill for a land tax. On 4 Feb. he was one of only 14 peers to find Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, guilty of murder.
In the session of 1694–5 Colepeper protested on 19 Jan. 1695, with only seven other peers, against the decision not to engross the bill making wilful perjury a felony. He also began his opposition to the claim of Sir Richard Verney, to be declared Baron Willoughby of Broke, by dissenting on 19 Mar. 1695 from a decision of the House which appeared to favour Verney’s claim. He alone continued and strengthened this opposition to Verney’s claim in the session of 1695–6, the first of the new Parliament elected in the summer of 1695. On 17 Jan. 1696 he signed a protest against the decision to hear Verney’s counsel, arguing that the previous Parliament had already determined that Verney had no claim to the title, and on 13 Feb. he further subscribed, with just four others, to the protest against the decision to grant Verney his sought-after writ of summons as Lord Willoughby de Broke.
Earlier in that session, on 16 Dec. 1695, Colepeper had been added to the group of managers who were to discuss in conference the address concerning the Scottish East India Company. In the 1696–7 session he sided with the ministry in the most publicly controversial matter of that period, voting on 23 Dec. 1696 for the attainder of Sir John Fenwick‡. Colepeper was most interested, however, in a private bill that concerned his brother’s contested estate. The disarray of the last Baron Colepeper’s life had already come before the House in January 1690, when the 2nd Baron’s widow brought in a bill to make null and void all of her husband’s wills and conveyances to his illegitimate daughters by Susanna Willis, and to direct his estate to their legitimate daughter, Katherine. Despite some evident sympathy for the abused Lady Colepeper, the House rejected her bill 36 to 35. Colepeper’s stance on this is not recorded, but he probably opposed his sister-in-law’s attempt, for when a bill was introduced in the 1696–7 session which would have allowed Katherine’s husband, Thomas Fairfax‡, 5th Baron Fairfax [S], to compound with the two illegitimate daughters of the late baron for their portions, Colepeper clamoured for his own long-standing claims. The bill was brought up from the Commons on 17 Mar. 1697 and given its first reading in the House eight days later, when it was ordered that Colepeper’s case would be heard, either by himself or his counsel. Arguments both for and against the bill were heard on 7 Apr. and the second reading of the bill was debated on 12 and 13 Apr. but it had not been committed by the time Parliament was prorogued on 16 April. Both Colepeper and Fairfax having waived their privilege, the dispute went to chancery, where in August 1698 Colepeper exhibited a number of bills against Lady Colepeper and her daughter and son-in-law, in which he set out in great detail the ways in which his brother had tried to defraud him of his maintenance. After many delays, chancery decreed on 9 Nov. 1700 that Colepeper was to be paid the arrears, with interest, of the £50 annuity his father had intended for him from the revenue of a number of Kentish manors then in the possession of Lady Colepeper.13 This was the first of a series of decrees in Colepeper’s favour as the case continued to rumble on into the next century. It was still going when Colepeper wrote his will in August 1710.
In the remaining sessions of William’s Parliaments, Colepeper remained a reliable vote for the Whigs. On 15 Mar. 1698 he voted for the Junto bill to punish the former cashier of the excise, Charles Duncombe‡. This session also saw his more frequent involvement as a manager of conferences. On 7 Mar. 1698 he was delegated to manage a conference on the House’s amendments to the bill explaining the system of poor relief. On 24 May he was likewise appointed a manager for the conference, to be held the following day, on the bill for the suppression of blasphemy; a month later, on 20 June, he was assigned to represent the House in a conference on the bill for the Alverstoke waterworks.
In the 1699–1700 session of the 1698 Parliament Colepeper dissented, on 23 Jan. 1700, from the House’s reversal of the judgment in the case of Williamson v. the Crown and the same day opposed the Tory-led bill to maintain the old East India Company as a corporation, both through his vote against adjourning into a committee of the whole to consider further amendments to the bill and by his protest against its passage. Perhaps significantly, around this time he acquired nine shares in the new East India Company, which he seems to have disposed of in 1703.14 On 10 Apr. 1700 he protested against the decision not to adhere to the House’s wrecking amendments to the supply bill, which contained provisions for the resumption of William III’s grants of forfeited Irish lands. The partisan animosity revealed by this bill led to a dissolution. In the new Parliament he was closely connected to the leading actors in the Kentish petition of May 1701, though there is no surviving indication of his own role, if any, in this matter. Two of his cousins and a nephew, who were all later appointed trustees of his estate under the terms of his will, were among those who dared to present the petition to the enraged Commons. Colepeper would undoubtedly have been sympathetic to the petition’s Whiggish sentiments, and on 17 and 23 June 1701 he voted for the acquittal of John Somers, Baron Somers, and Edward Russell, earl of Orford. In the ensuing Parliament of early 1702, on 8 Mar. Colepeper was named a manager, along with the rest of the House, for a conference to discuss arrangements to be made following the death of William III and the accession of Anne.
For the first few parliamentary sessions of the new monarch, Colepeper continued his usual diligent attendance on the House, being present for 87 per cent of the meetings of the 1702 Parliament. In its first session (1702–3) he opposed the Occasional Conformity bill and voted for the Whig amendments to the bill on 16 Jan. 1703. Three days later he also signed a protest against the decision to include a clause in the bill settling a revenue on George of Denmark (and duke of Cumberland) that would enable the foreign-born prince to continue in public employments after the death of the queen, as it seemed implicitly to bar other foreign-born peers (such as William III’s Dutch followers) from the same rights. In the following session, of 1703–4, he voted for the rejection of the bill against occasional conformity on 14 Dec. 1703. On 21 Mar. 1704 he signed the dissent from the resolution not to give a second reading to a rider to the Recruitment bill, which would require churchwardens and overseers of the poor permission to approve of new recruits.
An analysis of the peerage drawn up circa April 1705 listed Colepeper as a supporter of the Hanoverian Succession, and he corroborated this opinion by his known stances in the first session of the new Parliament of 1705–6, when he was absent for only ten sittings. He joined with the Whigs on 6 Dec. 1705, when he voted to agree with the committee of the whole that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration.15 On 11 Mar. 1706, along with the rest of the members present that day, he was assigned to manage two conferences with the Commons on the printed letter from Rowland Gwynn‡ to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, which appeared to support the Tory-inspired ‘Hanover motion’. After that session, however, his attendance dropped precipitously. In the session of 1706–7 he only came to a little over one third of the sittings and he registered the first proxy of his career, on 14 Feb. 1707, to William Cowper, Baron Cowper. He appears to have suffered a ‘sharp sickness in London’ at this time, for on 17 Feb. he drew up a will which he revoked many years after his recovery. Whatever his illness was, it appears to have permanently weakened him, and he never attended more than one-fifth of the sittings in any of the remaining sessions of Anne’s reign. He came to only one meeting in the brief session in April 1707, and only nine in the longer one of 1707–8. Similarly, he was present at seven meetings of the House in 1708–9, but did manage more in 1709–10, when he was present at 19 sittings, all of them in March 1710, so that he could vote Dr Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. Similarly he came to 23 (one-fifth) of the meetings of the first session in 1710–11 of the new Tory-dominated Parliament, and to only 6 in 1711–12, although he made sure he was present on 7 Dec. 1711 to vote in favour of the ‘No Peace without Spain’ clause to the address to the queen. He left the House for that session on 12 Dec. and the following day registered his proxy with Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland. Whig managers were well aware of the importance of his proxy for, as the third reading of the Tory bill to appoint commissioners to examine all of William III’s land grants was postponed to 20 May, special efforts were made to get Colepeper’s proxy ‘from the country’ the day before the vote. His proxy was still formally registered with Sunderland, but that peer had been absent from the House since 17 May, and instead Colepeper, aided and advised no doubt by the Whig managers, transferred his proxy to Cowper, formally registered on 19 May. Colepeper’s hurried proxy proved decisive in defeating the bill as the vote was tied (78 to 78), which amounted to a negative. He was present at only 16 of the meetings of the session regarding the Peace of Utrecht in the spring of 1713, and at 4 in that of spring 1714, in the new Parliament elected in 1713. Having left the House on 3 Mar. 1714 in that session, on 10 Apr. he registered his proxy with Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, perhaps in anticipation of the divisions on the Schism bill, which Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, forecast Colepeper would oppose. Judging by this behaviour, it is very likely that he had also been entrusting his proxy to Whigs in 1707–10 and 1713, but unfortunately the proxy books for those sessions are now missing. He did not attend any of the meetings of Parliament in August 1714 following the death of the queen.
Throughout this long parliamentary career, Colepeper’s poverty became almost proverbial and seems to have been the most salient aspect of his political personality. When asked in September 1689, only a few months after inheriting his title, for a self-assessment of his personal estate, in order to be taxed under the Act for a General Aid to their Majesties, Colepeper was forthcoming about the limitations of his estate:
my personal estate is very inconsiderable. That part of that little I have is put out and secured by mortgage upon lands …. Part is lent to their Majesties upon the security of this Act and so not liable to be taxed. I desire likewise it may be intimated to their Lordships that I have lately paid for my dignity £20, a sum greatly disproportionable to my small fortune.16
He received occasional bounties of £100 or £200 from the crown from 1689 onwards.17 In his notes on his conversations with William III, George Savile, marquess of Halifax, claimed that the king had agreed to let Colepeper have the £200 at Halifax’s own motion, but that this bounty ‘was not very well returned since by my Lord’.18 It is not clear what dissatisfaction Colepeper gave Halifax or William in the early months of 1689 for, judging by his votes in his first few days in the House, as well as his willingness to lend the crown money on the security of the Act, he was already committed to William even before he began to receive such rewards. Certainly his position as a pensioner to the crown made him dependent on the ministry. While on 31 Dec. 1692 he had voted in favour of the commitment of the Place bill, a measure strongly opposed by the court, on 3 Jan. 1693 he switched position and voted against its passage. In the days between the two votes he may well have considered, or been told, that a vote in favour of the bill would damage his position in the crown’s eyes. He was one of seven peers with a dependence on the court who changed their vote between the commitment and the passage of this act.19
The king’s token largesse was to little avail in relieving Colepeper’s reputation for poverty. In May 1695 there was a report that Leeds was trying to ‘debauch’ Colepeper, Robert Hunsdon, 7th Baron Hunsdon, and other noble ‘mumpers’ (contemporary slang for a genteel beggar) by offering them roast beef and ale at ‘Hell’, an eating establishment near Westminster Hall. Another report stated that the new and widely derided lords justices, who ruled the country during William III’s absence on the continent, refused to appear in public because they could find nobody but Colepeper and Hunsdon to bear the sword of state before them on formal occasions. This caused the lords justices to be dubbed ‘the overseers of the poor’.20 Even the small periodic gifts of £100 became less frequent during the reign of Anne, and Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, halted any bounty to Colepeper altogether from 1710 in order to induce him to vote with the Tory ministry. In the last days of this ministry, Hanoverian agents considered giving Colepeper a pension of £400–£500 p.a., Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, assuring them that he ‘has not in the world above £200 year, and that encumbered’, to ensure his support for the Hanoverian Succession. After Anne’s death something was given him to tide him over until the arrival of George I, when it was promised that ‘competent provision for his maintenance’ would be made.21
That ‘competent provision’ was a pension of £600 p.a.22 This undoubtedly cemented Colepeper’s attachment to the new regime and he came to 58 per cent of the first two sessions of George I’s first Parliament, in 1715–16 and 1717, where he continued to vote with the Whigs or assign proxies to Whig peers during his periods of absence. Through his proxy with Lionel Sackville, 7th earl (later duke) of Dorset, he voted for the Septennial bill in April 1716. He was present in the House himself to vote in June 1716 for the bill to establish commissioners to examine the value of the estates of Jacobites and to promote the impeachment of the earl of Oxford in June 1717.23 A more detailed discussion of Colepeper’s activities in George I’s first Parliament will appear in the next phase in this series.
Colepeper died on 8 July 1719 in his house, ‘Brickhouse’, in Hollingbourne. His long will of August 1710 (with a codicil of February 1715) suggests that at the time of his death he may have been better off, or at least have had more assets, than alleged by Sunderland in 1713. Chancery decrees in his favour in his dispute with Lady Colepeper and Lord and Lady Fairfax had certainly helped. In a series of decisions of 1703, 1706 and 1708 it had been determined that Colepeper was owed £2,285 7s. in arrears (with interest) of his annuity of £50 and it had been ordered that that part of the 2nd Baron Colepeper’s estate which had originally been intended for his brother’s provision was to be sold to raise the money.24 By using associates and trustees as purchasers of this land, Colepeper himself was able, by 1710, to gain possession of the Kentish manors of Greenway Court, Morghew and Godden, which had long been in the Colepeper family. He left his modest estate, which included government annuities of £80 and debts owed him totalling £1,378, to his wife, his cousin Frances whom he had married at age 66, after recovering from his illness in 1707. Additional monetary bequests went to godsons and especially to his younger brother Cheney Colepeper, who succeeded him as 4th Baron Colepeper. Colepeper took pains to bequeath to Cheney ‘my parliament robes, as well the ordinary robes as the Coronation robes’, an expression both of the pride that the 3rd Baron took in his long and active parliamentary life and of his and his family’s relative poverty.
C.G.D.L.- 1 TNA, PROB 11/571.
- 2 Pub. of the Navy Rec. Soc. xxvi. 340; CSP Dom. 1673, p. 202.
- 3 Virginia Magazine of Hist. and Biography, xxxiii. 248–9.
- 4 CSP Dom. 1651, p. 529; TNA, C9/469/36; C33/295, ff. 58v–59.
- 5 TNA, PROB 11/301; Virginia Magazine of Hist. and Biography xxxiii. 243.
- 6 CSP Dom. 1667, p. 55.
- 7 Kent HLC (CKS), U23/C1/1–16.
- 8 TNA, C33/295, f. 58v.
- 9 CSP Dom. 1673–5, pp. 380–1; 1675–6, p. 294; 1676–7, pp. 193, 248; 1678, p. 437; 1680–1, pp. 63, 363; Stowe 212, f. 58; Add. 75366, Anglesey to Charles II, 27 Apr. 1681; Bodl. Carte 60, ff. 672–7.
- 10 TNA, C5/205/24; C5/207/13; C9/469/36; C33/295, ff. 58v–59.
- 11 Browning, Danby, iii. 181.
- 12 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, p. 36.
- 13 TNA, C5/205/24; C5/207/13; C33/295, ff. 58v–59v; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 706.
- 14 TNA, PROB 11/571.
- 15 WSHC, Ailesbury ms 3790/1/1, p. 60.
- 16 Chatsworth, Halifax Collection, B.42.
- 17 HMC Lords, iii. 399, n.s. i. 92; CTB, 1693–6, p. 1068; 1696–7, p. 243; 1697, p. 78; 1697–8, p. 127; 1698–9, p. 272; 1699–1700, p. 236; 1702, pp. 521, 750; Bodl. Carte 130, f. 331.
- 18 Halifax Letters, ii. 207–11; Add. 75367, ff. 22v–25r.
- 19 BIHR, liii. 72.
- 20 HMC Portland, ii. 173; Leics. RO, DG7, bdle. 22, Lady Halifax to Nottingham, 23 May 1695.
- 21 CTP, 1714–19, p. 14.
- 22 Add. 61604, ff. 5–10.
- 23 WSHC, Ailesbury ms 3790/1/1, pp. 102, 106–7; BIHR, lv. 81.
- 24 TNA, C33/301, ff. 26, 485; C33/307, f. 42; C33/311, ff. 56, 138.