CORNWALLIS, Charles (1655-98)

CORNWALLIS, Charles (1655–98)

suc. fa. 13 Apr. 1673 (a minor) as 3rd Bar. CORNWALLIS

First sat 15 Feb. 1677; last sat 25 Feb. 1698

bap. 28 Dec. 1655, 3rd but 1st surv. s. of Charles Cornwallis, 2nd Bar. Cornwallis, and Margaret (d.1669), da. of Sir Thomas Playsted of Arlington, Suss. educ. privately. m. (1) 27 Dec. 1673 (with £10,000 or £12,000), Elizabeth (d.1681), da. of Sir Stephen Fox‡, paymaster of the forces, sis. of Stephen Fox†, later earl of Ilchester, and of Charles Fox‡, 4s. (3 d.v.p.); (2) 6 May 1688, Anne (d.1732), suo jure duchess of Buccleuch [S], wid. of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, 1s. d.v.p., 2da. (1 d.v.p.). d. 29 Apr. 1698; will 9 Oct. 1697, pr. 5 Aug. 1698.1

PC 1 Mar. 1692; 1st ld. of the Admiralty 1692-3; commr. appeal for prizes 1694,2 1695,3 appeal in Admiralty cases 1697.

Ld. lt. Suff. 1689-d.; high steward, Ipswich 1692.

Cornet, king’s tp. of Horse Gds. 1673.

Associated with: Culford Hall, Suff.; Brome Hall, Suff. and St James’s, Westminster, London.

Unlike his predecessors, Cornwallis had no previous parliamentary experience prior to inheriting the peerage. Succeeding to the barony as a minor in 1673, Cornwallis continued the family’s colourful tradition. He earned a reputation as a gambler and a ‘young spendthrift’ who would wager ‘as much as anyone would trust him, but was not quite so ready in paying’.4 While still underage he was tried for murder but went on to forge a career for himself in the House as a politician of some stature. As such he was frequently active as chairman both of select committees and of committees of the whole House.

Cornwallis’ spendthrift habits appear early on to have led him into financial difficulties. He may have been travelling abroad around the time of his succession but by May 1673 it was said that his debts amounted to at least £20,000, which seems to have made the family contemplate packing him back off again.5 Necessity no doubt turned him into a ‘fortune-hunter’, and shortly after his succession to the barony it was reported that he was on the verge of making a financially advantageous marriage (through the mediation of Sir John Duncombe‡) to Elizabeth Fox. The marriage was said to be worth £10,000 as well as six years’ board (presumably in the Fox household). In addition, Duncombe had secured the young peer a cornet’s commission in the Horse Guards worth £400 a year.6 Several years later, it was commented that Sir Stephen Fox had not been ‘easily persuaded’ to agree to the terms.7 In January 1674, Cornwallis sought a private bill to settle his estate, to enable him to pay off his debts and to provide for his brothers and sister.8 The committee, which was chaired on three occasions by Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury, summoned a number of interested parties, including Duncombe and Sir Stephen Fox, all of whom agreed that ‘the bill was to Cornwallis’ advantage’, while one witness, Mrs. Ashburnham, stated that it was ‘the only way for the preservation of Cornwallis and his estate’.9 The bill, steered through the Commons by Sir Charles Harbord‡, passed both Houses but failed to achieve royal assent before Parliament was prorogued in February 1674.10 Although Fox took his paternal role seriously and frequently paid Cornwallis’ gambling debts whilst delivering a stern lecture, the young peer seems to have been unwilling to retrench.11 Cornwallis undertook lavish building projects, including the construction of much-admired gardens and canals at the family seat of Culford. Thus by 1689, despite having by then married the widowed Anne Scott, duchess of Buccleuch, he was once again in severe financial straits. Hs self-assessment for taxation purposes that year recorded that he was ‘so far from having any personal estate’ that he was in debt.12 His tortured finances were subsequently complicated by those of his second wife.13

Cornwallis’ improved financial position in the immediate aftermath of his marriage to Charlotte Fox enabled him to continue his libertine existence and over Christmas 1674 he was said to have won £1,700 at play, £800 of which he promptly refunded. He was also said to be in negotiation with Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, for the post of master of the queen’s horse, for which it was thought he was to pay £5,000 or £6,000.14 Unsuccessful in securing that position, by April 1675 Cornwallis was thought to be competing against Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and Thomas Lennard, earl of Sussex, for the office of lord chamberlain to the queen, rendered vacant by the previous holder being dismissed for striking one of the yeomen of the guard.15 In the event, neither of these posts proved forthcoming, but Cornwallis remained a prominent courtier and the baptism of his son Charles, later 4th Baron Cornwallis, in June 1675 took place in the presence of the king, James*, duke of York, and Cornwallis’ future wife Anne, duchess of Monmouth (who all stood godparents).16 The following month it was feared that Cornwallis and at least one other notable was lost aboard the yacht, Katherine, which had been part of a flotilla including a yacht carrying the king that had run into bad weather. The rumour proved false and Cornwallis was back at court by the autumn.17

Having inherited the family interest at Eye in Suffolk (which was shared with the Reeves of Thwaite), Cornwallis appears to have struggled to make his presence felt in the November 1675 by-election triggered by the death of his uncle. Although he expressed clear ‘disgust’ at the attempted intrusion of George Walsh‡, his behaviour towards Sir Charles Gawdy‡ was more ambiguous. The king appears to have been eager to see how far Cornwallis’ interest would stretch on Gawdy’s behalf, but in the event Gawdy did not stand and chose to put his weight behind Reeve. The episode caused Sir Ralph Verney‡ to comment on Cornwallis’ behaviour that he had been ‘necessitated to be kinder’ to Gawdy ‘than ever intended. Courtiers have fine ways to come off and on at pleasure’.18

In May 1676 Cornwallis’ rakish behaviour resulted in tragedy. In company with Charles Gerard, the future 2nd earl of Macclesfield, both of them ‘somewhat distempered in drink’ he was involved in a late-night scuffle that resulted in the death of Captain Wilkes’ young manservant, Robert Clarke. The assault was vicious and Cornwallis and Gerard were said not only to have broken the boy’s neck but subsequently trampled on him, breaking his hip. One source had it that the affair had begun with an argument with a sentinel, which had ended peacefully, but that Gerard had subsequently exchanged insults with a serving lad and then assaulted Clarke, mistaking him for the other boy. Another reported that the men had been on the prowl intent on murdering a sentry and when thwarted in this had resorted to setting on the boy instead.19 Gerard was thought ‘most to blame’ but Cornwallis was also believed to be ‘too, too culpable’. In spite of this, initial reports suggested that they had been cleared in King’s Bench when no one appeared against them. A few days later, though, it was reported that the Middlesex grand jury had found the bill against them paving the way for Cornwallis’ committal to the Tower on 21 June in advance of his trial (though, according to one observer, this was merely ‘for form’s sake’).20 Parliament was not in session and the resulting trial was conducted in the court of the lord high steward (Heneage Finch, later earl of Nottingham) before a selection of peers appointed by the crown.21 The 35 peers, according to Verney, would undoubtedly ‘not be unkind’ to Cornwallis.22 Of the peers summoned to try Cornwallis, Robert Montagu, 3rd earl of Manchester, Denzil Holles, Baron Holles, and Richard Arundell, Baron Arundell of Trerice, absented themselves.23 The trial began on the 30th with Finch delivering an impassioned reminder to those assembled that the privilege of the nobility to be tried by one’s peers should in no way blind them to their judicial responsibilities. In the presence of the royal family and ‘a great multitude … so much that several gave £20 apiece for a hearing place at the trial’, Cornwallis was found not guilty by a large majority. A handful of the jury found for manslaughter: Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), Ailesbury, Robert Bertie, 3rd earl of Lindsey, Arthur Annesley, earl of Anglesley, William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, and George Berkeley, 9th Baron (later earl of) Berkeley. According to some lists Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, also voted for manslaughter.24 Andrew Marvell‡ commented that the status of the occasion muted the response to the verdict: onlookers did not break out into the ‘clamorous applause’ which often greeted acquittals.25 The commission for Cornwallis’ trial was later produced in the House on 13 May 1679 as a precedent.26 In November 1676 Cornwallis’ co-defendant Gerard was pardoned.27

1677-88

On 15 Feb. 1677, the first day of the new parliamentary session, Cornwallis finally took his seat in the House of Lords. His parliamentary career, of 21 years, was marked by frequent attendance and involvement in the business of the House, particularly after the Revolution, when he was frequently employed as a committee chairman. During his first session in the Lords, he attended over 91 per cent of sittings, was named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions and to 12 select committees on a wide range of issues. Following the brief prorogation Cornwallis took his seat once more at the opening of the ensuing session on 23 May, after which he was present on 60 per cent of sitting days and named to nine committees. Having quit the session in early July, Cornwallis left London. He was in Bath by the end of September.28

Arriving at the House on the eighth day of the autumn 1678 session (29 Oct.), Cornwallis thereafter attended nearly 73 per cent of sittings, during which he was named to two select committees. He was almost at once plunged into the business surrounding the Popish Plot, so much so that on 30 Oct. his wife (ensconced in Suffolk) was advised by her mother, ‘If I write but little and your lord not at all you must not wonder at it; for the House of Lords is but now up and he desired me to excuse him for he feared he should not have time to write’. Early the following month, with the Lords sitting late on the question of whether to demand York’s removal from the king’s presence, Lady Fox wrote to her daughter again, excusing her neglect while emphasizing ‘how busy a place this is and how full everybody is of this damned plot’. In a subsequent letter she assured Lady Cornwallis that once the bill excluding Catholics from sitting in Parliament was passed ‘your lord will come to you’.29 Despite the assurances, Lady Cornwallis was made to wait a while longer. In December Cornwallis informed one acquaintance about the search for arms in the house of Richard Tasborough, at which he reported that he had been told ‘only a pocket pistol’ had been found.30 On 20 Dec. he dissented from the resolution to agree with committee amendments to the supply bill (disbanding the army). Six days later, in the division on the bill, Cornwallis voted against the Lords’ amendment relating to the payment of money into the exchequer and again registered his dissent against the resolution to insist on the amendment. Danby, one of the peers who had found the youthful Cornwallis guilty of manslaughter, could expect no favours from this recruit to the country political grouping; on 23 Dec. Cornwallis dissented from the resolution that Danby should not withdraw following the reading of articles of impeachment. On the 27th he voted in favour of Danby’s committal and registered his dissent from the majority decision in Danby’s favour.

The elections to the new Parliament found Cornwallis eager to exert his interest in Suffolk. The earlier by-election at Eye in November, at which there was no obvious Cornwallis family candidate, had resulted in the election of Sir Charles Gawdy.31 Cornwallis (now firmly within the Shaftesbury camp) deserted Gawdy and Robert Reeve and backed his own candidates.32 Almost two weeks before the election Gawdy’s mother remained pessimistic about her son’s chances against the Cornwallis candidates George Walsh (no longer an object of Cornwallis’ disgust) and Cornwallis’ uncle Sir John Duncombe (an enemy of Danby who had been forced out of government in 1676). Lady Gawdy complained that her son’s expenses would have been minimal (and not, as it turned out, the equivalent of a whole year’s income) were it not for Cornwallis who ‘with all his force opposed him’.33 Nonetheless, both Duncombe and Walsh withdrew on the eve of the poll and the anti-exclusionists Reeve and Gawdy were returned for the borough.34 Cornwallis contemplated the election result with ‘great regret’; it transpired that he refused to share the interest having been ‘offered one voice but he would have both or none’. Lady Gawdy believed that he had withdrawn his candidates rather than face defeat and had gone straight up to London ‘to procure a new election, [making] some cavil at a word in the precept’.35 There is no evidence to support her accusation, but it is clear that by the time of the next election in August 1679, Cornwallis had strengthened his political oversight of the borough.

As the new Parliament approached Danby, calculating levels of support in Lords, listed Cornwallis as one of his opponents. On 6 Mar. 1679, Cornwallis attended the opening of Parliament and was then present for every sitting of the abortive session. He was again present on 15 Mar. at the opening of the new session but attended only 33 per cent of sittings. He was named to two select committees, including that to receive information on the Plot. His attendance was cut short by ill health. On 12 Apr. it was reported that Cornwallis had contracted smallpox and he was still unwell when the House was called over on 9 May.36

By early summer he appears to have rallied. The Grimston family were said to be travelling to his seat at Brome at the end of June, and later that summer he involved himself in the electoral campaign at Eye in opposition to Gawdy.37 Writing in August Lady Gawdy insisted that her son would stand again in spite of Cornwallis’ efforts ‘to put him by’ by keeping ‘open house for all corners of the town, ever since he came to Brome’ declaring his mission ‘to disappoint’ Gawdy.38 Bringing in his courtier brother-in-law Charles Fox‡ to partner George Walsh, Cornwallis determined to oust the sitting Members by using the recorder of Eye, Thomas Edgar, as his electoral manager. Efforts to secure support on both sides revealed a range of voting incentives including ‘a trunkful of gold’ and a leg of mutton. Cornwallis was said to have refused the sale of alcohol in the town to court supporters. Lady Gawdy declared her son elected by the narrow margin of ten votes but the result was a double return, which was followed by a series of legal suits that preceded the Commons’ decision on the outcome.39 Lady Gawdy continued to report into October the ‘great malice’ her son experienced from Cornwallis as well as further electoral manipulation. According to her, Cornwallis ‘does daily endeavour to embroil the town of Eye in troubles and suits, after ... new bailiffs are chosen in full court, he has made choice, both of freemen and two other bailiffs, such as may refuse to return my son by the seal.’40

By mid November 1679, the hearing on the controverted election had been postponed ‘several times’ and it was unclear whether Cornwallis or Sir Stephen Fox would appear in the matter. Later that month it was reported that the king had displayed his backing for Gawdy in council and ‘for those as Sir Charles appeared for, which is the bailiffs of Eye’.41 The resulting struggle within the borough was still ongoing the following summer when Lady Gawdy gloated that her son had not only wrested a fine from Thomas Edgar but that Cornwallis had not ‘triumphed over him according to his endeavours’.42 It was not until 8 Dec. 1680 that the result was finally confirmed in favour of Cornwallis’ candidates, Fox and Walsh.43

Cornwallis, meanwhile, was back in London for the start of the new session on 21 Oct. 1680. Thereafter he attended 85 per cent of sittings, was named to all three sessional committees and to four select committees. On the second day of the sitting, with Charles Henry Kirkhoven, earl of Bellomont [I] (sitting as Baron Wotton), he introduced Robert Leke, who had been summoned by a writ of acceleration as Baron Deincourt (later 3rd earl of Scarsdale). On 11 Nov. Cornwallis examined the Journal and on the 13th, following orders of the House to vacate the proceedings of February 1677, Cornwallis was one of those who presided over the alteration of the Journal.

On 15 Nov. Cornwallis, an ardent exclusionist, voted against the rejection of the first reading of the exclusion bill and subsequently dissented from the resolution to reject the measure. Despite this, on the 23rd he voted against the appointment of a committee to consider, in conjunction with the Commons, the state of the kingdom. In two further divisions that session, he voted alongside adherents of the country party: on 7 Dec. 1680 he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason and on 7 Jan. 1681 registered his protest in the division on the impeachment of lord chief justice, Sir William Scroggs.

Following the dissolution of Parliament, the general election at Eye on 26 Feb. 1681 saw the two Cornwallis candidates (Duncombe and Walsh) defeated by a strongly Tory electorate (the corporation having been manipulated by the senior bailiff) who again returned Gawdy and Reeve. Cornwallis’ associates duly complained of an abuse of electoral practice, but the brief duration of the ensuing Parliament prevented investigation.44 Cornwallis travelled to Oxford for the Parliament that assembled on 21 Mar., taking his seat the following day and thereafter attending on each of the remaining days. On the 26th he registered his protest against the resolution to proceed against Edward Fitzharris by common law rather than impeachment. Cornwallis attended the funeral of Prince Rupert, who sat in the House as duke of Cumberland, in November 1682, carrying the train of William Craven, earl of Craven.45 In September 1684 he sent a pack of his hounds to Ireland for James Butler, duke of Ormond ‘to have a trial of them’, though their departure was delayed by the quest for a new huntsman.46

Following the accession of James II, perhaps as a consequence of the Tory stranglehold over the corporation, Cornwallis appears to have no attempt to exert his interest in the March 1685 general election at Eye.47 He attended the start of the new Parliament on 19 May and thereafter attended for 88 per cent of sittings. He was named to four select committees and took a prominent part in the business of the House, chairing committees and acting as a teller in divisions. On 1 June he was one of the tellers in the privilege case Greenville v. Hunt.48 In June and July he told in a further three divisions. On 25 June he was one of the tellers for a division over hearing counsel in the cause in Eyre v. Eyre, which resulted in a tied vote. Although it was ordered to hear the cause again the next day, the business was not taken up until November. On 27 June he told in the division on the timing of the select committee on the reviving acts bill, and on 1 July he told on the division over appointing a date to hear the cause relating to the privilege of Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon.49 During the recess, on 12 Aug. Cornwallis tried twice to call on George Savile, marquess of Halifax, to thank Halifax for the efforts he had made on Cornwallis’ behalf relating to a patent for a stewardship. The following day he wrote to Halifax, ‘like an ill debtor’ to seek further assistance over the patent, which seems to have also been claimed by Robert Shirley, 8th Baron (later Earl) Ferrers.50

Cornwallis was present on 20 Nov. at the abrupt end to the session and on 10 May 1686 and 15 Feb. 1687 attended the House for further prorogations. In the midst of these Cornwallis was involved in an exchequer suit to recover arrears of rent in two of his manors in Scole, Norfolk.51 In June 1687 it was rumoured that Cornwallis (widowed in 1681) was to marry Anne Scott, duchess of Buccleuch [S]. There may then have been a lull in the affair but late in July ‘discourse’ of the rumoured match had ‘revived’.52 On 6 May 1688 they were married; three weeks later, having taken up residence with Sir Stephen Fox, the new couple waited on the king and queen and kissed hands to mark the event.53 Fox subsequently struggled to dissociate himself from a financial dispute between the duchess and the family of John Hay, 2nd marquess of Tweeddale [S], excusing himself on the grounds of his relation to the duchess’ new husband.54

Cornwallis was unequivocally opposed to the king’s catholicizing policies and during 1687 was twice listed as being opposed to the repeal of the Test Act. At the start of January 1688 he was listed by Danby as a certain opponent of the king in the House of Lords. His movements at the time of the invasion in November are uncertain, but he took his place in the House on 24 Dec. when he was prominent among the Williamites in debate that day. In response to calls to discover whether or not James had fled, Cornwallis argued that there should be no delay in seeing to the settlement of affairs and in summoning a free Parliament. He was present again for the Christmas Day meeting in the Lords and was one of those summoned to the audience with Prince William on 28 December.55

The Revolution and after

Cornwallis was present for the start of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689 and marked his commitment to the new regime by attending the session for nearly 93 per cent of sittings. The session saw Cornwallis increasingly involved in the procedural business of the House. During the first session, he was named to all three sessional committees and to 48 committees, including the committee on the reversal of the attainder of William Russell‡, Lord Russell and the trials of peers bill (a matter about which he had personal experience). He chaired select committees on 23 occasions.

Throughout the proceedings on the settlement of the crown, Cornwallis backed the resolutions supporting the establishment of the new regime. On 31 Jan. 1689 he voted in favour of the declaration of the prince and princess of Orange as king and queen and dissented from the resolution to reject the Commons’ assertion that the throne was vacant. In the abdication debates of 4 and 6 Feb. he voted consistently in favour of James’ abdication. On the 4th he again dissented from Lords’ resolutions not to concur with the Commons. His status as a prominent supporter of the new regime was confirmed with appointment as lord lieutenant (and custos rotulorum) in March.

Alongside of his activities on behalf of the new monarchs, Cornwallis took a prominent role in other business. On 1 Feb. and again on 4 Mar. Cornwallis acted as one of the tellers in the division on the clause in the trial of peers bill. On 23 Apr. he chaired the select committee of both the Yarmouth pier bill and Cooke’s bill, reporting back to the House from the first the following day.56 Having chaired the select committee on enabling the commissioners of the Great Seal on 11 May, he reported back four days later and was subsequently involved in the conference with the Commons.57 At the end of May he was nominated one of the managers of three conferences with the Commons on the additional poll bill. He was named one of the managers of further conferences considering the bill on 20 June and 21 June 1689. On 4 June, with Charles North, 5th Baron North, he introduced his kinsman, John Ashburnham, Baron Ashburnham. On 13 June Cornwallis registered his proxy in favour of Henry Herbert, 4th Baron Herbert of Chirbury. Cornwallis was rarely absent during the session, particularly at this time, but he missed ten days of the session after 13 July (for which he was given leave of absence). This was the only occasion on which he was recorded as having either given or received a proxy.

Cornwallis was also concerned with the perceived Catholic threat. During March, April and May 1689 he was named a manager of the conferences with the Commons on legislative measures against Roman Catholics.58 Throughout the session, Titus Oates was the focus of much attention. Cornwallis had acted as one of the tellers in an early division on the reversal of the judgments against Oates on 1 April. Oates’ subsequent attempt to rehabilitate his reputation was threatened when, on 25 May, he was accused of a breach of parliamentary privilege. Cornwallis proved a loyal supporter of Oates’ case. He acted as one of the tellers in the division on Oates’ paper and subsequently registered his protest against the resolution that the paper The case of Titus Oates constituted a breach of privilege.59 On 31 May Cornwallis voted in favour of the reversal of the two judgments of perjury and registered his protest in response to the majority vote against Oates. On 6 July the Commons brought up a bill to reverse the judgments; Cornwallis again supported Oates and on 10 July dissented from all negative resolutions on the bill to reverse the perjury judgments. On 12 July he told against the question in the division on Oates and registered his protest against the vote to agree with the amendments and proviso proposed by the select committee. At the end of July he was again involved in a conference and divisions on the Oates bill, dissenting from the resolution not to hold a second conference with the Commons and, on 30 July, again acting as a teller for the division whether to adhere to the amendments in the reversal of judgments. Cornwallis registered his protest when the majority voted to adhere to those amendments.

On 28 June 1689 Cornwallis reported from the committee considering the bill for removing the council of the marches (which he had chaired on four separate occasions).60 In the third week of July he was added to all existing select committees. On 26 July he reported from the committee for privileges on the order (of the previous 8 June) regarding absent lords, confirming that the committee, which he had chaired on 11 June, could find no precedent for taking a lord into custody for absence but that lords had been fined instead.61 The month of August was no less busy. On 2 Aug. Cornwallis, having chaired the select committee four times, reported on the militia bill, with amendments regarding the ordering of forces.62 On 2 and 5 Aug. he was named one of the managers of two conferences on the attainder bill (having chaired the committee on 27 July and 3 Aug.) and on 10 Aug. reported from the committee on the bill concerning the estates of the deceased George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham (again having chaired the committee on eight occasions).63 The same day he told in the division over whether to direct the committee considering the bill for prohibiting trade with France to draw up a clause granting to the king power to dispense with the act, in case his allies failed to follow suit with the prohibition. The motion was rejected. On 14 Aug. he reported from a committee of the whole House on the bill to appropriate certain duties to pay the States General of the United Provinces for their expenses during the king’s invasion expedition and on the 17th told in the division on leaving out a clause in the report on the small tithes bill. He attended the session for the last time on 20 Sept. when the House was adjourned.

Classed as an opponent of the court in the list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690 by the marquess of Carmarthen (as Danby had become), Cornwallis took his place in the chamber five days after the start of the new session on 28 Oct. 1689. He was present for 82 per cent of sittings. He was again named to a number of committees and appears to have been active on a number of these, evidenced by the fact that he was added, on 15 Nov. to the committee on clandestine marriages and on 19 Nov. to all existing committees. On 23 Nov., after a division on the bill for declaring the rights of the subjects and settling the succession, he registered his protest against the rejection of a proviso requiring royal pardons for impeachments to have the approval of both Houses of Parliament. On 25 Nov. the House heard that, contrary to both his privilege of peerage and his privilege of Parliament, Cornwallis’ servant had been arrested the previous month.64 Those employed in the arrest were ordered to be attached. Although they were discharged from their restraint on 16 Dec., it was not until 22 Jan. 1690 that Miles Bayspoole, the man at whose suit the servant had been arrested, was finally discharged. In the meantime, Cornwallis continued to play an active role in the management of committees, chairing the committee for the papists’ toleration bill at the opening of December, and on 11 Jan. he was involved with the committee considering a case between Nathaniel Reading and the commissioners for the Hatfield Level.65

On 14 Jan. 1690, perhaps reflecting on his own experiences, Cornwallis registered his protest against the resolution that it was the ancient right of peers to be tried for capital offences only in a full Parliament. The following day Cornwallis reported back to the House from the committee on duties on coffee, tea and chocolate. During January he chaired the select committee on legislation against Catholics.66 Cornwallis registered a further dissent on the 23rd, after a division on the bill to restore corporations to their ancient rights and privileges. A majority in the House followed legal opinion, but Cornwallis and Delamere dissented from the resolution to remove from the first enacting clause the words confirming the illegality of charter surrenders under Charles II and James II. Cornwallis did not subscribe the second fuller protest.

Cornwallis’ increased activity in the House was mirrored in the subsequent general election. On 8 Mar. 1690, Cornwallis’ Whig nominee, Thomas Davenant‡, was returned for Eye together with the Tory Henry Poley‡.67 The county election saw victory for both of Cornwallis’ candidates, Sir Samuel Barnardiston‡ (‘the old troubler of Israel’) and Sir Gervase Elwes‡. Cornwallis, capitalizing on the ‘slow proceedings’ of the Suffolk Tories, secured interests for Barnardiston and Elwes before the Tory candidates had even put in an appearance. The defeated Tories, Sir John Playters and Sir Robert Davers, supported by ‘the whole body of the gentry’ including Henry FitzRoy, duke of Grafton and Thomas Jermyn, 2nd Baron Jermyn, could only grumble that the Presbyterian Barnardiston had monopolized the Dissenting vote, culminating in a victory for the ‘fanatic rabble’ over ‘the better part of the county’. One Tory complained that Cornwallis had ‘nobody but rabble and relations’ with him and that even the militia captains and his own deputy lieutenants opposed his candidates. Certainly, the poll was turbulent with the Tories insulted as ‘papists’ and their clerical supporters as ‘black-coated rogues’. Cornwallis was at the forefront of the subsequent entrenchment of Whig dominance when the county bench was purged of numerous Tories including the defeated Playters. Edmund Bohun, one of the dismissed magistrates, bemoaned this attack on the more active Suffolk Tories, which left only ‘the trimmers and those that would not act at all; and put in Whigs of mean estate and education, or gentlemen of little or no spirit’. Sir Robert Rich‡, Henry Heveningham‡ and Charles Whitaker‡ were instrumental in the purge, but it is clear that Cornwallis would have gone even further in his ruthless advocacy of the Whig cause.68

Cornwallis took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690. He attended the session for nearly 98 per cent of sittings and reported back from two committees: those concerning the bills for regulating the practice of law and to vest forfeitures in the crown.69 He chaired one committee, on the cause Macclesfield v. Starkey.70 On 3 Apr. he was noted as having offered a clause to the committee of the whole considering the recognition bill. According to Morrice he:

did make rehearsal of most that was in the good recognition bill brought in at first by the Duke of Bolton [Charles Powlett, the former 6th marquess of Winchester], and then meddled not with recognizing neither the Parliament nor the king, but provided severe pecuniary penalties to be laid upon those that shall either write, print, or speak contrary thereunto.71

On 11 Apr. he was one of the tellers in the division on the resulting crown and Parliament recognition bill. He chaired a committee of the whole on the law (reform) bill on 30 Apr. and took part in the debate on 2 May on the second reading of the abjuration bill. He registered his protest on 13 May against the resolution not to allow the corporation of London more time to be heard by their counsel. The same day he was named one of the managers for the conference on the regency bill. At its first reading five days previously, he had been one of those to pose a question of the judges, whose advice had been sought about the Commons’ amendments to the bill. In May he signed the arrest warrant for Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntington, on charges of high treason.72 He chaired a committee of the whole on 21 May on the Test Bill, was present for the last day of the session on 23 May and on 7 July attended the House for the prorogation.

Towards the end of July Cornwallis suffered the loss of his youngest child. He was out of town at the time but hastily summoned back to assist his wife, who was said to have been overtaken with ‘excessive grief’.73 The duchess immersed herself in her continuing financial dispute with Tweeddale in which she refused to do anything ‘but what the strictest law will oblige her to’. Cornwallis’ return home was not thought likely to persuade her to take a different course.74

Cornwallis attended the House on 28 July, 8 Sept. and 12 Sept. 1690 for two prorogations and an adjournment and again on 2 Oct. for the start of the new session. Thereafter he attended for nearly 80 per cent of sittings, chairing and reporting back from four select committees: on thatched houses in Marlborough, to free the estate of Sir Samuel Barnardiston, the militia, and for the relief of poor prisoners. He also reported back from a fifth: the bill to prohibit all trade and commerce with France.75 On 6 Oct. 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. He chaired the committee for privileges on the case of Arthur Herbert, earl of Torrington, reported back to the House and on 21 Oct. told in the division on whether the judges be asked their opinion in the case of Torrington’s committal.76 Five weeks later he again told in the division on whether Thomas Burrows be taken into custody in the cause Dod v. Burrows and on 17 Dec. in the division on adjourning the debate in the same cause.

On 30 Dec. 1690, in a special ballot during the passage of the bill to appoint commissioners for public accounts, Cornwallis received 47 votes (the greatest number) and was duly appointed as one of four commissioners, together with John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford and Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester. The following day the four each thanked the House for the honour of having been chosen but requested to be excused. It was resolved subsequently that peers seeking to be excused might be permitted to do so. On 2 Jan. 1691 Cornwallis offered a proviso to the committee of the whole on half landsmen in the navigation act suspension bill.77 Three days later, the day that Parliament was adjourned, Cornwallis was nominated one of the managers of four conferences on the bill for the suspension of the navigation and corn acts. He also told in the division on agreeing with the amendment in the report on the French trade prohibition bill.

Cornwallis next attended on 2 Nov. 1691, 11 days after the start of the next session. In this particularly active period in his parliamentary career, he attended 88 per cent of sittings, was named to approximately 35 committees of which he chaired 20 on 34 separate occasions and reported back from 23. On 24 Nov. he reported from the committee of the whole on the trials for treason regulation bill and again on 2 Feb. 1692 from the bill against adhering to their majesties’ enemies. He also acted as teller on a number of divisions during the session: on 2 Nov. in the division of the committee of the whole House on the clandestine marriages bill, on 13 Nov. in the division of whether to dismiss the appeal in the cause Dashwood v. Champante, on 7 Dec. 1691 for the contents in the division on engrossing the report in Goodwin’s estate bill, on 27 Jan. 1692 in the division to amend a clause in the report on the public accounts bill and on 24 Feb. 1692 in the division on referring the cause to the exchequer in Tooke v. Lord Chief Baron Atkins.

In a list compiled between the middle of December 1691 and end of January 1692 William Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, noted Cornwallis among those he believed in favour of his bill for being restored to properties in the county palatines of Chester and Lancaster.78 On 17 Dec. Cornwallis was named one of the managers of the conference on the treason bill. The following day he reported back from the committee of the whole considering the excise bill and chaired the committee for Pember’s estate bill. He reported back from the latter on 22 December. During February 1692 he was named one of the managers of four conferences on the public accounts bill and one conference on the small tithes bill. On 3 and 6 Feb. he reported from the committee for privileges on the case earl of Rochester v. Lord Grey of Warke (Ford Grey, later earl of Tankerville).

Privy councillor and minister

On 1 Mar. 1692 Cornwallis was appointed a privy councillor as a consequence of his ‘zeal ... in the late session of Parliament’.79 In April he was appointed a commissioner for prizes. He was also appointed first lord of the Admiralty in place of Thomas Herbert, 8th earl of Pembroke, as part of a ministerial reshuffle that favoured the Whigs.80 He attended the House on 11 July acting as one of the commissioners to announce the prorogation.

As the head of the navy, Cornwallis received frequent bulletins from the fleet on their engagements with the French.81 More importantly, he found himself in the middle of an ongoing feud between two of his colleagues. With Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and Edward Russell, later earl of Orford, at loggerheads and many senior officers in the navy angry with Nottingham’s instructions, Cornwallis attended a cabinet council meeting in Portsmouth on 3 Aug. in an attempt to salvage the naval campaign by holding a council of war after the flag officers refused to cover an assault on St Malo.82

On 22 Aug. 1692 Cornwallis attended the House for the prorogation, an act of which he profoundly disapproved. When Parliament eventually reconvened in November, the problem of funding the navy now acute, Carmarthen recorded Cornwallis’ earlier warning ‘had the Parliament met when summoned this summer upon the victory at sea, they would have given anything: English people being puffed up with success, which when forgot, as it soon is, their zeal will cool; so that consequently, by this time, it will be forgot quite, which will prove of ill consequence to your affairs’.83

Cornwallis was in the House on 4 Nov. for the start of business and attended the session for 85 per cent of sittings. On 9 Nov., with James Brydges, 8th Baron Chandos, he introduced Henry Capell, Baron Capell of Tewkesbury. The same day he reported from the committee for privileges on the complaint of those Lords under bail from King’s Bench on charges of high treason; the committee had spent some time on the matter and found ‘many difficulties’ that required further deliberation. During the session Cornwallis chaired and reported back from a number of both select committees and committees of the whole on a variety of business, including the butter and cheese bill, the bills for frequent parliaments and for the land tax.

On 7 Dec. he registered his protest against the resolution not to propose to the Commons a joint committee of both Houses to consider the state of the nation and on 22 Dec. he was named to the committee for inspecting the journals to examine previous conferences with the Commons. On the 31st he voted against committing the place bill. On New Year’s Day 1693, Cornwallis was forecast as being a likely opponent of the divorce bill for Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. He voted against the first reading of the bill on the 2nd and against the passage of the place bill on the 3rd. Cornwallis acted as a teller for two divisions: on 13 Jan. 1693 in the division on dissolving the injunctions in the cause Governors of Birmingham School v. Hicks and on 23 Jan. in the division on reversing the decree in Bowtell v. Appleby.

In the third week of January 1693, news circulated that Cornwallis was to quit his post at the Admiralty in protest against the king’s most recent appointments of admirals to command the fleet, two of which were accused of Jacobitism by the Whigs.84 His departure from the Admiralty did not interrupt his attendance of the Lords, where he continued to make his presence felt. On 31 Jan. he subscribed the protest against the resolution not to proceed with the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, and on 4 Feb. he voted Mohun not guilty of murder. Four days later he dissented from the resolution not to add a rider to the bill for reviving and continuing laws relating to searches of the House of Lords. Cornwallis was present for the prorogation on 14 Mar. and for further prorogations on 2 May, 19 Sept. and 26 Oct. 1693.

On 7 Nov. he attended for the start of the new session and was present thereafter for 77 per cent of sittings. He reported back to the House from two committees: on Henry Cavendish, the son of William Cavendish, 4th earl of Devonshire, and on the bill for the better discipline of the navy. On 14 Nov. he presided at a session of the committee for petitions.85 On 5 Jan. 1694 he dissented from the resolution not to insist on the Lords’ amendment to the place bill, on 8 and 12 Feb. he was named one of the managers of conferences on intelligence of the sailing of the Brest fleet and on 17 Feb. he voted in favour of reversing chancery’s dismission in the cause Montagu v. Bath.

Over the summer of 1694 Cornwallis offered John Moore, of Norwich, the use of Brome hall during Moore’s forthcoming visitation of his diocese.86 Cornwallis himself was in London by the end of the summer and on 18 Sept. attended the House as one of the commissioners for the prorogation. He was missing from the two subsequent prorogation days but took his seat again on 12 Nov. for the start of the new session. He attended 92 per cent of sittings and was again prominent presiding over a number of committees. He chaired and reported back from two select committees but also reported from a number of committees of the whole, including six sessions of committees of the whole for the trials for treason bill and five sessions considering the bill to make wilful perjury a felony.87 On 12 Nov. 1694, with Robert Bertie, Baron Willoughby of Eresby (later duke of Ancaster), he introduced Henry Herbert, Baron Herbert of Chirbury.

During the session Cornwallis was named one of the managers of numerous conferences with the Commons. On 16 and 23 Feb., and 15 Apr. and 20 Apr. he was involved in conferences on the trials for treason bill. On 19 Mar. he joined with Rochester and Stamford in the debates over the succession of baronies by writ, opposing the rights of collateral heirs to claim a writ of summons, but was not among those subscribing the subsequent protest.88 During April he was involved in two conferences on the East India Company: on 13 Apr. on the bill to oblige Sir Thomas Cooke‡ (the ‘dictator’ of the company) to account for monies received and on 24 Apr. for Cooke’s examination.89 Cornwallis was also nominated as a manager of conferences on the bill to continue existing laws and that concerning privateers.

Following the dissolution Cornwallis was active in employing his interest. He was said to have joined with the lord keeper (Somers) in pressing the cause of Sir Samuel Barnardiston (at the king’s desire) on Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, though Godolphin claimed to be ignorant of the king’s orders in the matter. This was probably related to Barnardiston’s petition for money he was owed out of the exchequer. In the election at Eye, Cornwallis fielded his son Charles as running mate for Thomas Davenant. The Whigs swept the board, with the younger Cornwallis replacing the Tory Henry Poley. The Tories did not even contest the county, where Barnardiston and Sir Gervase Elwes both retained their seats.

The new Parliament opened on 22 Nov. 1695. Uncharacteristically, Cornwallis arrived at the House one month after the start of the session and thereafter attended 73 per cent of sittings. He reported from four committees of the whole: on the relief of poor prisoners, highways, regulating parliamentary elections and the militia. On 23 Dec., in a debate in a committee of the whole House on the treason bill, Cornwallis was noted by Huntingdon as having proposed a panel of jurors of the peers to be included in the legislation. The bill passed by majority of 17.90

Cornwallis acted as teller on 28 Jan. 1696 in a division of the committee of the whole House on agreeing with the resolution in the East India Company bill, on 9 Apr. on calling in counsel in the wrought silks bill and on 25 Apr. in agreement with the amendment in the report on the juries regulation bill. On 24 Feb. he was named one of the managers of a conference on the king’s speech about the assassination plot and on 6 Apr. in the conference on the privateers bill. On 11 Mar. the House had ruled that the Lords would receive no new private bills but would consider only those that came up from the Commons, with the sole exception of a new bill from Cornwallis. It seems likely that this referred to the bill enabling his wife to develop land in the parish of St Martin-in-the-fields, which received its first reading on 13 March.

Cornwallis returned to the House at the opening of the new session on 20 Oct. 1696, after which he attended 83 per cent of sittings and reported from a number of committees, most of them committees of the whole, including those considering bills to prevent trade in offices, and counterfeiting coin. On 26 Nov. he told in the division concerning the retention of a standing order in the matter of the Lords answering in the Commons; four days later, he was named one of the managers of a conference requested by the Commons concerning the Lords’ resolution concerning the ease of the subject. On 3 Dec. he was granted a period of absence (taken over the Christmas break). Eleven days later he reported from the select committee (which he had chaired on two occasions) on the bill for the ease of the subject against privilege of Parliament.91

On 18 Dec. the House debated the second reading of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick‡ for high treason. The proceedings lasted until midnight, and it was Cornwallis who requested that candles should be brought into the House while the House adjourned for refreshment. The House, duly lit, resumed 30 minutes later.92 In further proceedings, one lengthy debate of six hours ranged Nottingham against the Whigs, among them Cornwallis, Thomas Tenison, of Canterbury and Gilbert Burnet, of Salisbury.93 In the debate on the third reading (23 Dec. 1696), Cornwallis argued in response to the lord president’s (Leeds’s) assertion that Fenwick was not a major player among the Jacobites that the main danger lay in allowing criminals to escape and that if defects in the law were not addressed the result would be more conspirators.94 On 23 Dec. he voted (as expected) in favour of the Fenwick attainder. On 10 Feb. 1697 he told in the division on the second reading the Smith marriage bill, on 5 Mar. was nominated one of the managers of the conference on the bill to prohibit India silks and on 10 Apr. the conference on the bill to prevent the buying and selling of offices.

On 24 Apr. 1697 Cornwallis was granted the honour of Eye with its accompanying landholdings (and rents).95 He seems to have attempted to capitalize on his good standing by speaking on behalf of Sir Stephen Fox and recommending that he be appointed to the Privy Council ‘to save the present disgrace’ of being removed from office.96 The elections that followed the dissolution saw the entrenchment of Whig domination in Eye. The Cornwallis influence was strengthened by the acquisition of further properties as well as by the granting of a new borough charter. When Thomas Davenant died in December 1697, Cornwallis oversaw his replacement at a by-election by the Whig Joseph Jekyll‡, probably on Somers’ recommendation. Somers had been introduced to the House 11 days earlier by Cornwallis and Charles Berkeley, 10th Baron (later 2nd earl of) Berkeley.97 Despite attempts by the duchess of Lauderdale to recruit the opposition support of Tory Lionel Tollemache‡, 3rd earl of Dysart [S], the Cornwallis interest at Eye was sustained for the remainder of his life.98

On 3 Dec. 1697 Cornwallis attended the start of the new session; he attended 22 per cent of all sittings. On 4 Jan. 1698, he reported back for the last time from a committee of the whole, on the bill against corresponding with James II and his adherents. Cornwallis attended the House for the final time on 25 February.

Cornwallis died of a fever at the age of only 42 two months later. He named as the executors of his will his wife and her two sons, James Scott, earl of Dalkeith [S], and Lord Henry Scott. The will confirmed a quadripartite indenture of 18 Jan. 1677 regarding estates in Cleveland, North Yorkshire, which were limited in their use to Sir Stephen Fox, Sir John Duncombe and John, Baron Ashburnham for 500 years to be held in trust to the upper limit of £6,000, now bequeathed for the benefit of Isabella Scott, his young daughter by the duchess of Buccleuch and, in the case of her prior death, to his son Charles. A dispute over the will resulted in a lawsuit (Scott v. Cornwallis).99 Cornwallis was buried on 5 May 1698 at Brome.

B.A./R.D.E.E.

  • 1 TNA, PROB 11/448.
  • 2 CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 204.
  • 3 CSP Dom. 1695, Addenda 1689-95, pp. 111-12.
  • 4 Grammont Mems. 210.
  • 5 Verney ms mic. M636/26, Lady A. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, 1 May [1673].
  • 6 POAS, i. 366; Verney ms mic. M636/26, Lady A. Hobart to Sir R. Verney, bt. 7 Aug. [1673].
  • 7 Verney ms mic. M636/38, Sir R. to J. Verney, 12 June 1684.
  • 8 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/353; HMC 9th Rep. 32-38; LJ, xii. 605.
  • 9 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, pp. 49-52.
  • 10 CJ, ix. 308-9; LJ, xii. 619.
  • 11 Grammont Mems. 210.
  • 12 HMC Egmont, ii. 205; Chatsworth, Halifax Collection, B.53.
  • 13 Add. 43377 N, f. 76; HALS, DE/GH/456, 457.
  • 14 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 31 Dec. 1674, 4 Jan. 1675, J. to E. Verney, 7 Jan. 1675.
  • 15 Ibid. J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 28 Apr. 1675; HMC 7th Rep. 464b.
  • 16 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 3 June 1675.
  • 17 Add. 75354, ff. 115-17; HMC Laing, i. 405.
  • 18 HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 401; Verney ms mic. M636/28, Lady V. Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1675; Sir R. Verney to Lady V. Gawdy, 23 Nov. 1675.
  • 19 HEHL, EL 8419; State Trials, vii. 143-58; Bodl. Carte 60, ff. 170-1; Verney ms mic. M636/29, J. to E. Verney, 1 July 1676; HMC Hastings, ii. 170; TNA, PRO 31/3/133, ff. 16-20.
  • 20 HMC Townshend, 45; Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to E. Verney, 22 May, 5 June, 12 June, 19 June 1676.
  • 21 HMC Le Fleming, 127-8.
  • 22 PA, BRY/98/p.460; Verney ms mic. M636/29, Sir R. to E. Verney, 5, 12 and 19 June 1676.
  • 23 HEHL, EL 8419.
  • 24 Verney ms mic. M636/29, J. to E. Verney, 29 June and 1 July 1676; Essex Pprs. (Cam. Soc. ser. 3, xxiv) 59, 61; HEHL, EL 8419; State Trials, vii. 143-58; Bodl. Carte 60, ff. 170-1; HMC Egmont, ii. 47; Impartial Account of the Trial of the Lord Conwallis [sic] his Case (1679).
  • 25 Add. 70120, A. Marvell to Sir E. Harley, 1 July 1676.
  • 26 HMC 11th Rep. II, 31.
  • 27 HEHL, HM 30314 (12, 13).
  • 28 Verney ms mic. M636/32, W. Page to Sir R. Verney, 28 Sept. 1678.
  • 29 TNA, PRO 30/11/279, nos. 63, 64, 99.
  • 30 HMC 11th Rep. ii. 84.
  • 31 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 400-2.
  • 32 Suff. RO, Ipswich Branch, EE2/L2/7/e; Swatland, 123.
  • 33 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 6 Feb. and 20 Mar. 1679; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 400-2.
  • 34 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 400-2, ii. 247-8, iii. 665.
  • 35 Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 27 Feb. 1679; Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 27 Feb. 1679.
  • 36 NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2800; Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 21 Apr. 1679.
  • 37 Verney ms mic. M636/32, J. to Sir R. Verney, 30 June 1679.
  • 38 Ibid. M636/33, Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, [received 12 Aug. 1679].
  • 39 Ibid. Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 27 Aug. 1679; Swatland, 123; HP Commons 1660-90, i. 400-2, ii. 247-8, iii. 665.
  • 40 Verney ms mic. M636/33, Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 2 Oct. 1679.
  • 41 Ibid. Dr. W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1679; C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 17 Nov. 1679.
  • 42 Verney ms mic. M636/34, Lady Gawdy to Sir R. Verney, 10 June 1680.
  • 43 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 400-2.
  • 44 Ibid.
  • 45 E. Warburton, Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, iii. 557.
  • 46 HMC Ormonde, vii. 270.
  • 47 HP Commons 1660-90, i. 402.
  • 48 HMC 11th Rep. ii. 320.
  • 49 HMC Lords, i. 290, 320.
  • 50 Notts. Arch. Savile of Rufford, DD/SR/212/36/11.
  • 51 TNA, E134/2&3Jas2/Hil13.
  • 52 HMC 7th Rep. 504; Verney ms mic. M636/42, Dr. H. Paman to Sir R. Verney, 14 June 1687; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 252.
  • 53 HMC Buccleuch, i. 348; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 43, f. 114.
  • 54 NLS, ms 7011, f. 43r.
  • 55 Add. 75366, Halifax note, 24 Dec. 1688; HMC Lords, ii. 12; Kingdom without a King, 157-8, 165, 168.
  • 56 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, p. 63.
  • 57 Ibid. 71; LJ, xiv. 211.
  • 58 LJ, xiv. 164, 171, 176, 179, 205; HMC Lords, ii. 78.
  • 59 LJ, xiv. 221.
  • 60 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 86, 93, 101, 118.
  • 61 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/3, p. 17.
  • 62 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 171, 176, 183.
  • 63 HMC Lords, ii. 228; PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 161, 162, 174, 177 183, 195, 219, 224.
  • 64 HMC Lords, ii. 364.
  • 65 Ibid. i. 323, ii. 386.
  • 66 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 366, 368, 372.
  • 67 HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 554-5.
  • 68 Bodl. Tanner 27, f. 110; Verney ms mic. M636/55, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 19 Feb. 1690; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 543.
  • 69 LJ, xiv. 480, 504.
  • 70 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 402, 404; HMC Lords, iii. 30.
  • 71 Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 420.
  • 72 HMC Lords, iii. 23, 34, 87; Eg. 3347, ff. 4-5.
  • 73 NLS, ms 7012, f. 125r.
  • 74 Ibid. ff. 127r-7v.
  • 75 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/4, pp. 456, 488, 509, 510, 511.
  • 76 PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/3, p. 63.
  • 77 HMC Lords, iii. 249.
  • 78 Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9.
  • 79 Timberland, i. 411.
  • 80 Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 77.
  • 81 Rawdon pprs. 365.
  • 82 Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 3 Aug. 1692; Rev. Pols. 132.
  • 83 Dalrymple, Mems. iii. pt. 2, bk. 7, pp. 262-4; pt. 3, bk. 1, p. 20.
  • 84 Bodl. Carte 79, f. 474; Hatton Corresp. ii. 188; Horwitz, 109.
  • 85 PA, HL/PO/CO/7/3.
  • 86 Cambs. RO, 17/C1.
  • 87 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 235, 238, 249, 287.
  • 88 Add. 29565, f. 545.
  • 89 HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 700.
  • 90 HMC Hastings, iv. 318-19.
  • 91 PA, HL/PO/CO/1/5, pp. 414, 415.
  • 92 WSHC, 2667/25/7.
  • 93 Bodl. Carte 109, ff. 69-70.
  • 94 Staffs. RO, Persehowse pprs. D260/M/F/1/6, ff. 96-98.
  • 95 Suff. RO, Ipswich Branch, EE2/T/3.
  • 96 UNL, PwA 1256.
  • 97 Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 318.
  • 98 HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 554-5.
  • 99 TNA, PROB 18/25/133.