YELVERTON, Henry (1664-1704)

YELVERTON, Henry (1664–1704)

suc. bro. 17 May 1679 (a minor) as 15th Bar. GREY of RUTHIN (RUTHEN, de RUTHYN); cr. 21 Apr. 1690 Visct. LONGUEVILLE

First sat 10 June 1685; last sat 20 Jan. 1704

b. on or aft. 10 June 1664, 2nd s. of Sir Henry Yelverton‡, 2nd bt. (1633–70) and Susannah (Susan), suo jure Baroness Grey of Ruthin, da. of Charles Longueville†, 12th Bar. Grey of Ruthin; bro. of Charles Yelverton, later 14th Bar. Grey of Ruthin. educ. Eton; Christ Church, Oxf.; travelled abroad (France and Italy) 1683–4.1 m. 11 July 1689, Barbara (d.1763), da. of Sir John Talbot of Lacock‡, 2s. 5da. d. 24 Mar. 1704; will 24 Feb., pr. 1 June 1704.2

Commr. for raising poll money 1690;3 gent. of the bedchamber to Prince George, of Denmark 1702–d.4

Capt. earl of Plymouth’s Regt. of Horse 1686.5

Associated with: Easton Maudit, Northants.; Soho Sq., Westminster.

Likeness: oil on canvas by unknown artist, c.1685–9, National Trust, Lacock Abbey.

Grey of Ruthin succeeded to the title unexpectedly on the premature death of his older brother Charles Yelverton, 14th Baron Grey of Ruthin, in May 1679. Already orphaned, Grey’s education had been entrusted to his brother-in-law Christopher Hatton, Viscount Hatton. At Oxford he was closely supervised by John Fell, bishop of Oxford. In October 1681 his kinsman Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, recommended that he be sent to an academy or to France as he was wasting his time in Oxford but it was not until the beginning of 1683 that Grey embarked on his lengthy foreign tour.6 His time overseas caused both Fell and Hatton considerable qualms. A tendency to mix with the wrong company and an inclination to act rashly caused the young lord difficulties early on.7 Grey’s older brother had narrowly missed being embroiled in a clandestine marriage while in Paris in 1677 and Grey’s sojourn sparked fresh fears of unwanted liaisons. Confident reports that he had married one Miss Lawson proved false but served to encourage Hatton to engineer Grey’s return as soon as possible.8

Despite his brother’s unchallenged succession to the barony, doubts still remained about the title of Grey of Ruthin, which was also claimed by the earls of Kent. In an attempt to stifle any objections, Grey received his summons to Parliament when still underage.9 The warrant, issued on 19 Mar. 1685, made it plain that the intention was for Grey to sit before turning 21, the writ being issued ‘although he wants something of being completely one and twenty years of age, the king being well satisfied not only of the loyalty of his family but of the maturity of his parts and of his ability to serve him and his country’.10 Grey was also allowed his claim to a hereditary right of carrying the spurs at James II’s coronation. Bishop Fell was keen to see Grey’s right observed because, ‘though … bearing a pair of spurs in a procession seem not of great importance, yet since outward ceremonies make the distinctions of the world, ’tis a valuable thing to have an hereditary concern in the greatest solemnity of a nation’. He also hoped that recognition of Grey’s pretensions would ‘supersede a more troublesome dispute with the earl of Kent [Antony Grey, 11th earl of Kent] in the House of Lords about the title of Ruthen’.11 Grey delayed taking his seat until 10 June 1685 (which might indicate that he came of age that day) and he was present on 44 per cent of all sitting days. Thereafter he attended every session but one during his 19-year career in the House.

News of the rebellion of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, found Grey rallying to the king’s defence by raising funds for his cavalry troop, an activity that won the firm approval of Bishop Fell, who clearly viewed the young peer as worryingly flighty. The summer also witnessed interest in finding Grey a wife but here too he failed to toe the family line. Lengthy negotiations with Elizabeth Wilbraham of Newbottle, who came highly recommended as ‘being of parts, and no way deformed’ and sole heiress to an estate worth at least £1,200 in capital, broke down amid general recriminations over Grey’s behaviour in the affair, and annoyance at the interference of his aunt, the countess of Manchester. Fell and Hatton worried that Grey had come under the influence of other counsellors, while Grey’s refusal to commit elicited exasperated expostulations from Fell, who complained that ‘Lord Grey is such a kind of lover, that no account is to be given of him: for not to be satisfied when every thing he desires is offered, is such a greediness, and canine appetite as is to be reckoned among the worst and most incurable diseases.’12 Oblivious, Grey continued to procrastinate and, having finally rejected Elizabeth Wilbraham, he then turned his attention to one of Hatton’s daughters (probably Anna), apparently with the encouragement of Sir Charles Lyttleton.‡ Although his choice pleased Fell and was apparently welcomed by Hatton, once again negotiations failed.13 Anna Hatton married Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, in December of the same year, while Elizabeth Wilbraham married Sackville Tufton‡ in 1686.14 It was not until 1689 that Grey eventually settled for Barbara Talbot.

Despite Fell’s expectation that recognition of Grey’s hereditary role in the coronation would frustrate Kent’s ambitions, Grey’s succession to the barony did spark renewed debate with Kent over claims to the title. It is noticeable that Kent, who had failed to question the previous baron’s title, neglected to intervene immediately on this occasion. Absent from the House on 10 June 1685 when Grey first took his seat, he was present two days later yet still failed to take exception to Grey’s name being entered in the roll of peers until 16 November. The House ordered the matter to be referred to the committee for privileges, which reported back the following day that Grey was rightly summoned to Parliament as lineally descended from Reginald, Lord de Grey. Kent’s conduct is difficult to fathom. It is possible that he had been unwilling to stand in the way of the 14th Baron Grey, with whom he appears to have shared similar political views. The 15th Baron Grey, though, was Kent’s political opposite and this may have inspired the renewed challenge.

Faithful to his family’s traditional adherence to solid Anglicanism, Grey quickly found himself in opposition to the king’s policy of toleration. In December 1685 it was reported that he was one of those to have been removed from their commands in the army and in May 1686 he resigned his commission.15 That summer he busied himself with fitting out his servants with new liveries ordered from France.16 In June 1688 he was one of those proposed as a possible surety for one of the Seven Bishops, Francis Turner, bishop of Ely, and on 15 June he was present in Westminster Hall for their trial. Grey found the close press of people uncomfortable and asked the judges if he might have a seat. Asked by one of the judges what business he had there, Grey replied haughtily that ‘he was there to see justice done to the bishops and had a right to be there being a peer’.17

The summer of 1688 found Grey involved in a new venture for the recovery of gold and silver from wrecks off the coast of St Helena.18 More significantly, he was also recruited into the conspiracy against the king. His inclusion was probably the work of Henry Compton, bishop of London, who may have decided to approach the young lord as a result of his support for the Seven Bishops. In November Grey joined the Northamptonshire rebellion.19 He concealed his intention to join the rebels from his guardian Hatton:

not out of any disrespect to your lordship to whom in gratitude I owe all the respect and service that I am capable of but that I was loath to trouble you with a design which was so hazardous to my self that I was sure it would be a trouble to your lordship.20

On 26 Nov. 1688, Grey, accompanied by George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, Charles Montagu, 4th earl (later duke) of Manchester, and Robert Leke, 3rd earl of Scarsdale, entered Northampton at the head of between 300 and 500 men.21 There they were joined by other insurgents from Buckingham and thence made their way north to join William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, at Nottingham. Grey remained with the Nottingham rebels, forming part of Princess Anne’s bodyguard after her arrival with Bishop Compton, and signed the Association.22 He then joined the progress south to Oxford and on 21 Dec. was present at the gathering of peers in the Queen’s Presence Chamber in Whitehall, where he again put his name to the Association. He attended subsequent sessions of the provisional government on 22 and 25 December.23

Grey took his seat in the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on 63 per cent of all sitting days. Unlike many of his close connections, who opposed James II’s policies but had no wish to see the king deposed, Grey fully supported William and Mary’s adoption as king and queen. He voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons’ desire to insist on the words ‘abdicated’ and that the throne was ‘vacant’, and registered his dissent when this resolution was rejected by the House on 31 Jan. and again on 4 February. On 21 Mar. he entered his protest at the resolution not to add a clause repealing the sacramental test of 1673. Later in the session he voted in favour of reversing Titus Oates’s convictions for perjury.

At the beginning of March 1689 Grey was one of those rumoured to be appointed a colonel of a foot regiment and in September he was granted a 31-year lease of land in St James’s.24 He took his seat in the second session of the Convention on 19 Oct. 1689, following which he was present on three-quarters of all sitting days. He was classed by Thomas Osborne, marquess of Carmarthen (later duke of Leeds), as among the supporters of the court in a list of October 1689 to February 1690. After the dissolution of the Convention, he was active in the elections to the new Parliament. He then took his seat in the new session on 20 Mar. 1690 and again proceeded to attend on three-quarters of all sitting days.25

Grey’s desertion of James II and his support for William and Mary was further rewarded in April with his advancement in the peerage as Viscount Longueville. Some confusion surrounded the creation of this new title. A warrant of 8 Apr. 1690 ordered the drawing up of letters patent for Grey’s creation as Viscount Glamorgan but by 21 Apr. this had been altered to Longueville.26 The reason for the change of title is uncertain but was probably to avoid objections from the Somerset and Granville families. The earldom of Glamorgan had been promised to Edward Somerset, 2nd marquess of Worcester, by Charles I during the Civil War, but the requisite letters patent had never been issued. John Granville, earl of Bath, also claimed that the earldom had previously been in his family, and he had been assured by Charles II that, should the male line of the Worcesters ever fail, it would be restored to the Granvilles in preference to anyone else.27 The alteration of the grant also offered an opportunity to add a special remainder in favour of Longueville’s brother Christopher Yelverton. Yelverton had failed to secure election for Higham Ferrers in February 1690 despite confident predictions that he had secured 50 votes and the recommendation of Louis de Duras, 2nd earl of Feversham, as well as, presumably, his brother’s support.28

Despite Longueville’s failure to reveal his intention to join the rising to Viscount Hatton in 1688, no serious rift appears to have been opened between the two families. In May 1690 Hatton stood godfather to Longueville’s son Talbot Yelverton, later 2nd Viscount Longueville and earl of Sussex, while Longueville undertook to use his influence with Bishop Compton to procure a living for one of Hatton’s retainers.29 Throughout the 1690s, Longueville regularly reported the House’s business to Hatton during the latter’s lengthy absences. He also remained a staunch upholder of the Anglican interest with which Hatton was closely associated. Longueville appears for the most part to have followed Nottingham’s lead in the House and he stood godfather to one of Nottingham’s daughters in 1698.

Longueville returned to the House for the new session on 18 Oct. 1690, following which he was present on 63 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1691 he was one of those to stand bail for one of his wife’s kinsmen, Bruno Talbot, brother of Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, Talbot having been indicted for treason.30 Longueville took his seat in the following session on 27 Oct. 1691, after which he proceeded to attend on 36 per cent of all sitting days. In December he found himself inadvertently the cause of a serious attempt to close the theatres following an assault upon him by guards at the playhouse.31 Having related his experience to the House on 16 Dec., he was strenuously supported by Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, who moved that all playhouses should be suppressed as ‘illegal and tending to the increase of debauchery’.32 Pending the Lords’ investigation, the lord chamberlain was instructed to suspend all performances, and on the next day Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, was ordered to request the king’s permission to forbid soldiers from guarding the playhouses in future. The king acquiesced on 18 Dec. and the following day, in response to a request from the managers of the playhouse, the suspension was lifted. Longueville’s own attitude is uncertain, but near relatives such as Manchester ‘pressed … very much’ for the theatres’ closure.33

Longueville was absent from the House during January and February 1692, during which time his proxy was held by Nottingham. The same year, he was named one of the trustees of an agreement with John Arundell, 2nd Baron Arundell of Trerice, conveying several manors in Devon and Cornwall into the trustees’ hands for raising a portion for Arundell’s daughter, Gertrude. Control of the estates may have offered Longueville the opportunity to exert significant influence in a number of south-western boroughs. Following Arundell’s death, Gertrude’s husband, Peter Whitcombe, entered a complaint against the trustees for failing to observe the terms of the agreement.34

Longueville returned to the House for the opening of the fourth session on 4 Nov. 1692, which was dominated by concerns in both Houses over the conduct of the war and the king’s reliance on foreign generals. Longueville reported to the absent Hatton that ‘I believe the king will not thank them that advised him to ask our advice for we are very free with it.’35 On 7 Dec. he subscribed a protest at the resolution not to propose the establishment of a joint committee with the Commons to consider the state of the nation. His appointment as chairman of the conferences held on 20 and 21 Dec. examining Nottingham’s papers concerning the navy, which had been laid before the House, reflected his support for Nottingham, who was eager to justify his actions before the Lords.36 The following year, Longueville wrote to Hatton to inform him of the king’s proposal of a union with Scotland, which Longueville dismissed as ‘a jest’.37 Certainly, no progress was made in the scheme. In January 1693 he was believed to be in favour of passing Norfolk’s divorce bill and on 2 Jan. he voted in favour of reading the bill. On 19 Jan. he entered his dissent at the resolution not to refer the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill to the privileges committee. In February of the same year Longueville found Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder.

Longueville attended the prorogation day of 26 Oct. 1693 and then took his seat in the new session on 7 Nov., following which he was present on 71 per cent of all sitting days. His involvement with naval affairs in the House continued the following year. On 3 Jan. and again on 15 Jan. 1694 he was named one of the managers of a conference concerning the admirals who had commanded the summer fleet. Meanwhile, in February he entered his dissent at the order to dismiss the petition of Ralph Montagu, earl (later duke) of Montagu, for the court of chancery’s verdict to be laid aside in his dispute with Bath.

Longueville was absent from the opening of the new session and it was not until 31 Jan. 1695 that he took his seat. He was thereafter present on 21 sitting days (17 per cent of the whole). On 30 July he attended the prorogation day and then took his seat once more in the new Parliament on 22 Nov., following which he was present on 53 per cent of all sitting days. He returned to the House for the subsequent session on 23 Nov. 1696 but he then proceeded to attend on just 21 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 30 Nov. he was one of the managers of a conference over waiving and resuming privilege. The following month he entered a series of dissents against the resolution to try Sir John Fenwick‡. He then voted against passing the bill of attainder and registered his dissent when the measure was carried. In refusing to commit Fenwick it is possible that Longueville objected to the dubious use of Parliament to attaint a man who could not be convicted by ordinary process of law, but the true reason for his objections was probably reflected in an undated letter to Hatton in which he commented that there had been ‘many people before the Lords Justices to make out a plot but they have only proved themselves to be rascals’.38

Longueville was absent from the House from 23 Dec. 1696 and did not return until the opening of the third session on 6 Dec. 1698. During his absence William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, held his proxy. The 1698 election found Longueville called upon to join with Hatton in supporting the return of Sir Justinian Isham‡ for Northamptonshire. He ‘endeavoured to serve Sir Justinian’ but, intending to be absent from the county at the time of the election, excused himself from ‘doing him so much service as I otherwise should have’.39 He may well have been distracted by the illness and sudden death of his brother Christopher in July.40 Whatever the limitations of Longueville’s assistance, Isham was duly elected, though the second seat fell to the Whig John Parkhurst‡.41

Longueville took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698. In January 1699 he supported moves to disband the army, reporting to Hatton that the bill had met with so ‘cool a reception’ in the House that ‘the court intend to throw it out of the House of Lords which will make us very popular’.42 All the Northamptonshire Members (with the exceptions of Christopher Montagu‡ and John Parkhurst‡) were also in favour of disbanding and Longueville was convinced that ‘the Commons will enter upon no business till they know the fate of this bill’.43 On 8 Feb. 1699 he voted against the resolution to retain the Dutch guards and entered his dissent when it passed.

In the midst of his parliamentary activities Longueville continued to develop his estates. In April 1699 he petitioned successfully for a grant of a market at Egton in North Yorkshire, which he had acquired in 1686.44 His son and heir, Talbot Yelverton, sold the lordship of the manor in 1730 for £38,000.45 Longueville took his seat in the new session on 29 Nov. 1699, following which he was present on 91 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1700 he was forecast as likely to be in favour of the East India Company continuing as a corporation and the same month he entered his protest at the resolution to agree with the House’s resolutions concerning the colony at Darien. On 18 Mar. he entered his dissent at the passing of the bill to prevent the growth of popery. He was nominated chairman of three conferences in April, the first concerning the bill for removing duties from woollen manufactures and the latter two regarding amendments to the land tax. On 6 Apr. he acted as teller for the vote on the successful amendment offered at the third reading of the forfeited Irish estates bill.

Longueville took his seat in the House for the opening of the 1701 Parliament on 6 February. Present on approximately 69 per cent of all sitting days, on 15 Mar. he entered protests at the resolution to reject the second and third heads of the report relating to the partition treaty and on 20 Mar. he entered a further protest at the resolution not to send the address relating to the treaty to the Commons for their concurrence. The following month he chaired two conferences on the subject of the treaty. On 11 Apr. he was chairman during a committee of the whole concerning Lady Anglesey’s separation act. On 25 Apr. he was again called upon to chair a committee of the whole concerning Dillon’s divorce. Four days later he was teller for the minority supporting the committee’s recommendations. Longueville chaired a select committee concerning the prisons bill on 3 May, and two days later he served as chairman during a committee of the whole deliberating the amendments to the act for regulating the king’s bench and Fleet prisons. The same month, during discussions in a committee of the whole concerning the succession bill, he proposed that an annual income of £4,000 should be made the minimum qualification for all newly created viscounts, while barons should be expected to be in possession of estates of £3,000 p.a. He went on to argue that lands belonging to peers should be inalienable from the peerage.46

Longueville took his seat in the new Parliament on 15 Jan. 1702, after which he was present on 84 per cent of all sitting days. Perhaps unwilling to allow vindictive acts to be passed against the defeated Stuarts, he entered his protest at the bill for the attainder of Queen Mary Beatrice in February 1702 and he also reported back from the conference held concerning the bill to attaint James Edward, the ‘pretended’ prince of Wales. On 24 Feb. he entered his dissent at the resolution to pass the bill for the further security of the queen. The same month he chaired two committees of the whole House concerning the perjury bill.

Prominent as one of the peers that had rallied to her protection in 1688, at the accession of Queen Anne, Longueville was named one of the gentlemen of the bedchamber to Prince George of Denmark. Longueville’s reputation for solid Anglicanism may also have served to recommend him to the queen, though he proved difficult to please with this new appointment. A series of letters between his wife and Sarah, duchess of Marlborough, revealed his concern at the extent of his duties. The senior member of a notoriously sickly family (Longueville’s father and both of his brothers had died comparatively young), Longueville may have been unwilling to overburden himself.47

Despite his disinclination to spend more time at court than was necessary, Longueville continued to be an active participant in the House and was frequently named to chair conferences. He also acted as teller on several occasions. He continued to chair a number of committees of the whole House in 1702 and on 18 Apr. he was nominated to that concerning the Abjuration Oath Alteration Act.48 He took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702, following which he was present on 93 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 Nov. he was appointed one of the members of the Lords to make the necessary preparations for a service of thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral for the recent military successes.49 During the same month, he acted as a member of the court of delegates commissioned to examine a complaint brought by Thomas Coventry, 2nd earl of Coventry, that his step-mother had persuaded Gregory King, Lancaster herald, to display false arms and a false genealogy for her at the funeral of the 1st earl in an attempt to disguise her own menial background.50

On 25 Nov. 1702 Longueville proposed that the House should adjourn following a desultory showing at prayers at the beginning of the day, in spite of an order made the day before. He made his suggestion ‘in resentment of an order not obeyed by those that made it’ but his motion, which is not minuted in the Journal, failed owing to the interposition of Francis Newport, earl of Bradford.51 Two days later, he correctly contradicted a suggestion made by Peter Mews, bishop of Winchester, that as there were only two bishops present in the House, should one leave the chamber the House ought to adjourn. Mews mistakenly believed that the constitution of the House required the presence of both lords spiritual and temporal.52

Following discussion in a committee of the whole of the bill to prevent occasional conformity on 4 Dec. 1702, Longueville was teller for those voting against the amendment permitting those bearing office to receive the sacrament four times a year. The amendment was narrowly rejected, Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, acting as teller for the defeated side. On 22 Dec., Longueville reported back from a committee considering Sir Robert Marsham’s bill and the same day he chaired a committee of the whole considering the land tax, though according to William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, who was one of Longueville’s close acquaintances, few of those present bothered to pay much attention.53 Longueville chaired a committee considering Prince George’s bill following its second reading on 11 Jan. 1703, his nomination perhaps significant given his position in the prince’s household. On 9 Feb. he moved that, in addition to the list of licences granted by Queen Anne to French immigrants, a list of those granted by William III should also be produced, which was agreed to by Nottingham. On 24 Feb. he protested against the House's decision to publish an account of its dealings with the Commons over the occasional conformity bill.

Longueville returned to the House just under three weeks into the new session on 29 Nov. 1703, following which he was present on approximately 19 per cent of all sitting days. In December he entered his dissent at the failure to carry the bill for preventing occasional conformity. He sat for the final time on 20 Jan. 1704 and died at Bath, ‘much lamented’, two months later.54 He left a considerable estate, with lands in Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and North Yorkshire. In his will he made provision for the raising of £14,000 for his daughters’ portions and an annuity for his son Henry Yelverton. Barbara, Viscountess Longueville, was left sole guardian to their young children and Sir John Talbot of Lacock, Gilbert Dolben‡ and William Livesay were constituted overseers. Longueville was succeeded as 2nd Viscount Longueville by his elder son, Talbot Yelverton, later earl of Sussex.

R.D.E.E.

  • 1 Add. 29560, ff. 31–32, 174, 176; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 626.
  • 2 TNA, PROB 11/477.
  • 3 Add. 29564, f. 361.
  • 4 Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 185; Add. 70073–4, newsletter, 6 June 1702.
  • 5 CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 118.
  • 6 Add. 29558, f. 455.
  • 7 Add. 29582, f. 49; Add. 29563, f. 392; Hatton Corresp. ii. 28.
  • 8 Add. 29583, f. 395; HMC Rutland, ii. 85.
  • 9 Add. 29582, ff. 239, 243; CSP Dom. 1685, p. 102.
  • 10 CSP Dom. 1685, p. 102.
  • 11 Add. 29582, f. 247.
  • 12 Add. 29582, ff. 274, 276, 278, 282, 284, 286, 288, 307; Add. 29583, ff. 218, 345.
  • 13 Add. 29582, f. 309; Hatton Corresp. ii. 37.
  • 14 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 137.
  • 15 Add. 70013, f. 306; Verney ms mic. M636/40, C. Bates to Sir R. Verney, 4 May 1686; Add. 75362, Sir W. Coventry to Halifax, 8 May 1686.
  • 16 Add. 72523, ff. 206–7.
  • 17 Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76; Bodl. Carte 76, f. 28; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 284–5.
  • 18 UNL, Pw2, 606.
  • 19 Hatton Corresp. ii. 109, 116; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 479.
  • 20 Add. 29563, f. 395.
  • 21 Add. 29563, f. 342; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 356.
  • 22 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 405, 409.
  • 23 Bodl. ms Eng. hist. d. 307, ff. 12–13; Kingdom without a King, 151, 153, 165.
  • 24 Add. 70014, f. 169; TNA, E367/3498.
  • 25 Northants. RO, IC 1434; Add. 29594, f. 198.
  • 26 CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 545.
  • 27 Add. 70288, copy of declaration by Charles II, 26 Apr. 1661.
  • 28 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 32; Add. 29594, f. 198.
  • 29 Add. 29564, ff. 377–8.
  • 30 Carte 79, f. 341.
  • 31 Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 313.
  • 32 HMC Portland, iii. 485; Add. 70015, f. 272.
  • 33 HMC Portland, iii. 485.
  • 34 TNA, C9/468/89.
  • 35 Add. 29568, f. 160.
  • 36 Rev. Pols. 138.
  • 37 Add. 29567, ff. 139–40.
  • 38 Add. 29567, f. 141.
  • 39 Add. 29569, f. 365.
  • 40 Add. 29568, f. 162.
  • 41 HP Commons, 1690–1715, iv. 473.
  • 42 Add. 29567, ff. 145–6.
  • 43 Ibid. f. 147.
  • 44 CSP Dom. 1699–1700, pp. 147, 236, 389.
  • 45 VCH Yorks. (N. Riding), ii. 345.
  • 46 Add. 30000E, f. 211.
  • 47 Add. 61456, f. 114; Eg. 1695, f. 11, 13.
  • 48 HMC Lords, n.s. v. 28.
  • 49 Ibid. 102.
  • 50 Badminton, Coventry pprs. FMT/B1/1/1/19; FMT/A4/4/8.
  • 51 Nicolson, London Diaries, 133.
  • 52 Ibid. 135.
  • 53 Ibid. 142, 150.
  • 54 Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 3, folder 147, Ellis to Poley, 31 Mar. 1704.