FINCH, Heneage (1649-1719)

FINCH, Heneage (1649–1719)

cr. 15 Mar. 1703 Bar. GUERNSEY (GERNSEY, GUARNSEY); cr. 19 Oct. 1714 earl of AYLESFORD

First sat 22 Apr. 1703; last sat 23 Dec. 1718

MP Oxford Univ. 1679; Guildford 1685-7; Oxford Univ. 1689-98, 1701-3

b. 6 Apr. 1649,1 2nd s. of Heneage Finch, later earl of Nottingham, and Elizabeth, da. of Sir William Harvey^‡; bro. of Daniel Finch, later 2nd earl of Nottingham and 7th earl of Winchilsea, Edward^‡ and William^‡ Finch. educ. Westminster; I. Temple 1662, called 1673, bencher 1673; Christ Church Oxf. matric. 18 Nov. 1664, DCL 1683; travelled abroad (Brussels) 1665, 1667.2 m. 16 May 1678 (with £10,000), Elizabeth, da. and coh. of Sir John Banks^‡, bt. of London, 3s. 6da. d. 22 or 23 July 1719; will 20 May 1717, pr. 14 Oct. 1719.3

Attaché to Henry Coventry^‡ as plenip. at congress of Breda 1667; KC 1677; solicitor gen. 1679-86.

Groom of bedchamber 1685-9; PC 1703-May 1708, 13 Dec. 1711-d.; chan. of the duchy of Lancaster 1714-16.

Dep. lt., Kent, Surr. 1702.4

Commr. building 50 new churches, 1711-15.

Associated with: Albury, Surr.;5 Queen’s Square, Westminster6 and Aylesford, Kent.

Likenesses: line engraving (group portrait ‘the bishops’ counsel’), R. White, 1689.

‘Silver-tongued’ Finch had enjoyed a notable career as both a barrister and Member of the Commons before being rewarded with a peerage in 1703. A member of the numerous and well-connected Finch clan, he usually followed the lead of his older sibling, Nottingham, although he was not averse to treading his own path on occasion. He was the more able to do so in part thanks to inheriting a substantial fortune from his father-in-law, which brought with it an interest in Maidstone to add to the interest he already enjoyed in Surrey. A significant contributor to the high Tory faction within Parliament, Finch was respected both as a legal expert and effective orator but seems not to have inspired much personal affection.7 The passing of the years did not mellow him, and once he was in the Lords he proved a frequent signatory of protests and dissents from the House’s resolutions. Swift conceded that Finch was more talented than Nottingham but dismissed him as ‘an arrant rascal’.8

Much of the animosity towards Finch stemmed from the memory of his controversial activities as solicitor general and, particularly, for his role in securing the convictions of William Russell^‡, Lord Russell, and Algernon Sydney^‡, in 1683, though he later made up for this in part by his defence of the Seven Bishops. He was also one of those legal experts consulted by the provisional government in the winter of 1688.9 Elected to the Convention for Oxford University, he joined with his brother in supporting a regency, but having failed to carry the point he resolved to accept the state of affairs and (like Nottingham) supported William and Mary as de facto monarchs. Such a lukewarm attitude did not recommend him to William’s good graces. He was denied significant office throughout the 1690s largely through the king’s personal intervention, and by 1698 he was defeated at Oxford University and replaced by a more ardent Tory candidate.

By the close of William’s reign, Finch’s interest had been reinvigorated. The marriage of one of his daughters to William Legge, 2nd Baron (later earl of) Dartmouth, extended his influence, as did his inheritance of his father-in-law’s Kentish estates, though his appointment as one of the executors of William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, proved to be a more troublesome responsibility.10 The succession of Queen Anne offered both Finch and Nottingham the prospect of a return to office and in June 1702 it was rumoured that Finch was to be raised to the peerage.11 The rumour persisted into the following year when he was at last one of a handful of Tories (and one Whig) to be promoted ‘to help the queen to more votes in Parliament’.12 On 15 Mar. he was created Baron Guernsey and was summoned to the House the same day. Then on 20 Mar. he was admitted as a member of the Privy Council.13 On 22 Apr. 1703 he took his seat in the House, introduced by John West, 6th Baron Delaware, and by his son-in-law, Dartmouth.

Guernsey attended the prorogation day of 4 Nov. and then took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 9 Nov., after which he was present on approximately 85 per cent of all sitting days. In advance of the session he was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, as a likely supporter of his brother Nottingham’s beloved project: the bill for the prevention of occasional conformity. A second forecast later that month repeated this assessment and he voted as expected in favour of adopting the measure in the division held on 14 December. The same day he entered two dissents, first at the resolution not to give the bill a second reading and second at the resolution to reject it. He then registered a further dissent on 14 Jan. 1704 at the decision to reverse the judgment in the cause Ashby v. White. Guernsey proceeded to enter a series of dissents during March, the first of them at the resolution to make known the key to the ‘gibberish letters’ only to the queen and members of the committee examining the ‘Scotch Plot’. On 16 Mar. he registered two more dissents in response to resolutions concerning the replacement of certain of the commissioners for public accounts. On 21 Mar. he entered his dissent from the failure to give a second reading to a rider to the bill for raising recruits for the army and marines; he then subscribed the protest at the passage of the bill without the desired amendment. Four days later, he entered two further dissents at the resolution that the failure to censure Ferguson amounted to an encouragement to the enemies of the crown. Guernsey’s name was included by Nottingham in a list he drew up in 1704 which may indicate support for him over the ‘Scotch Plot’.

Following the close of the session, Guernsey hosted his son-in-law, Dartmouth, at his seat in Kent.14 At the beginning of November 1704 his heir, Heneage Finch^†, later 2nd earl of Aylesford, was elected for Maidstone on the family interest. Guernsey returned to the House three weeks into the new session on 16 November. The following month, on 15 Dec., he spoke again in favour of passing the occasional conformity bill, which was once more before the House. He took the opportunity to tease Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, by quoting passages from the bishop’s Glasgow Dialogues, in which Burnet was ‘very severe upon the Dissenters’, a copy of which he just happened to have to hand for the debate.15 In January 1705 he subscribed to the protest at the rejection of the petition of Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids. The rejection of the petition meant the end of Watson’s battle to avoid the deprivation of his temporalities: earlier that month Guernsey had insisted in conversation with William Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle, that Watson’s deprivation was ‘a hardship on all us ecclesiastics.’16 The following month he was named to the committee to consider the heads for a conference with the Commons over the ongoing dispute over the Aylesbury men.17

Guernsey was listed in an analysis of the peerage compiled in the spring of 1705 as a Jacobite. The identification was almost certainly wrong but such a perception may have contributed to a disappointing run at the polls for those connected with him in the elections held that year. In May it was noted that his ‘bosom friend’ Morgan Randyll^‡ had been defeated at Guildford, a seat Morgan had held for the past 15 years. Guernsey’s son and namesake, Heneage Finch, was similarly unfortunate at Maidstone, where he was unseated in spite of an earlier prediction by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, that both sitting members appeared to be safe.18 Guernsey enjoyed better success in employing his interest at Oxford University, though here too there was some controversy. Prior to the dissolution, Guernsey and his brother, Nottingham, were appealed to by Sir William Whitelocke^‡, who had replaced Guernsey as member for the university. Whitelocke complained that both Guernsey and Nottingham’s names were being used against him by his opponents. Nottingham insisted that he had not countenanced such action, and Whitelocke came away from his meeting convinced that the brothers were ‘really my friends in this matter.’19 He was returned subsequently along with the other sitting member, William Bromley^‡.

Guernsey took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705, after which he was present on 40 per cent of all sitting days. On 30 Nov. he entered his dissent at the failure to give any further instructions to the committee of the whole House considering the bill for securing the queen’s person and the Protestant succession. On 3 Dec. he subscribed two protests against the bill, objecting to the failure to give second readings to riders that sought to protect certain pieces of legislation from the future interference of lords justices; he then subscribed a third protest at the passage of the bill. Three days later he voted against the resolution that the Church was not in danger. He signed a protest against it when the resolution was carried in the affirmative. On 9 Jan. 1706 he voiced his dissent at a judgment in favour of Simon Patrick, bishop of Ely, concerning a property dispute but, unable to secure a seconder, the dissent was not recorded.20 Towards the close of the session, on 11 Mar., he was nominated one of the managers of the two conferences held that day concerning the privilege dispute arising from the letter written by Sir Rowland Gwynne to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford.

Guernsey took his seat in the ensuing session on 3 Dec. 1706, after which he was present on almost 69 per cent of all sitting days. In February 1707 he was involved in a case in the court of delegates.21 The session was dominated by the debates surrounding the security of the Church of England and the passage of the Union bill. In common with the majority of his immediate kin, Guernsey was an opponent of Union and on 3 Feb. he subscribed the protest when the House failed to instruct the committee of the whole considering the bill for securing the Church to insert a clause declaring the Test Act of 1673 to be ‘perpetual and unalterable’. The following month, on 4 Mar., Guernsey voted in favour of giving a second reading to the rider declaring that nothing in the bill should be construed as a declaration in favour of the Presbyterian religion. The same day he entered his dissent at the failure to have the rider included and he dissented again at the passage of the bill. On the final day of the session, 8 Apr., he was nominated a manager of the conference for the vagrants bill.

Guernsey, who had rarely if ever attended council meetings, was one of several individuals removed from the council on 20 May 1707.22 In August he joined a number of Tory grandees attending the assizes at Maidstone for the selection of candidates standing as knights of the shire for Kent. It was determined to set aside William Villiers, Viscount Villiers (later 2nd earl of Jersey), in favour of Percival Hart, though in the event both seats were taken by Whigs at the election the following year.23 Guernsey took his seat at the opening of the new session on 23 Oct. 1707, but he was thereafter present on just 24 of the session’s 107 sitting days. In November he was one of a handful of peers to object to a motion put forward by Stamford for an address to the queen, arguing that the House should instead consider first the state of the nation.24

Following the close, Guernsey was noted as a Tory in a list assessing the political affiliations of members of the House of Lords. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 26 Nov. 1708, after which he was present on a little over two-thirds of all sitting days. Closely involved with co-ordinating a rapprochement between his brother and some of the Whig members during the session, on 2 Dec. he reported to Nottingham the latest proceedings concerning the petition of several of the Scots representative peers against the election results, though he did so from second hand as he was confined to his house with a cold at the time. Guernsey compiled a further report for Nottingham six days later, and on 27 Dec. he wrote to Nottingham again advising him that ‘the trust of Lord Halifax [Charles Montagu, Baron Halifax] requires a meeting’ and undertaking ‘when I go to town I will do what I can’.25 He also took the opportunity to report on an ‘odd kind of debate’ in the House concerning the address congratulating John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, and Prince Eugene, to which Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, had objected, pointing out that the prince should not be included in such an address being a foreigner. Guernsey’s suspicion of the implications of union were once again revealed by his decision to vote in the division held on 21 Jan. 1709 against permitting Scots peers holding British titles to vote in the elections for the Scots representative peers. He joined with Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, in opposing a cause presented to the House by the brother of James Johnston^‡, the Scots-born member for Ilchester.26 Guernsey’s hostility to the encroachment of the Scots brought him into an otherwise unlikely alliance with Sunderland, and at the close of the month Sunderland begged Dartmouth to ensure that his father-in-law and other allies were present at the committee appointed to scrutinize the Scots election returns.27 On 23 Feb. Guernsey reported from the committee for the Lacy estate bill and on 15 Mar. he subscribed the protest when the general naturalization bill was committed.

Guernsey attended the prorogation day on 23 June 1709. The following month Lawrence Hyde, earl of Rochester, announced his intention of waiting on Guernsey and Dartmouth, perhaps as part of an effort to shore up a Tory alliance.28 Guernsey returned to the House for the new session on 5 Dec., after which he was present on just under half of all sitting days. In March he was to the fore in defending Henry Sacheverell, though like a number of Sacheverell’s defenders he acknowledged that the doctor’s sermon had been singularly foolish.29 He was noted among a group of normally adamantine peers reduced to tears by the doctor’s speech on 7 Mar. and he took a leading part with Nottingham in fashioning the Tory response to the impeachment. On 14 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution that it was not necessary to include within the articles of impeachment the particular words deemed criminal and the same day entered a further dissent at the resolution not to adjourn. In his speech, delivered during the marathon session in the Lords on 16 Mar., Guernsey insisted that ‘the Doctor in his sermon has not touched upon the Revolution’ but had rather preached ‘against resistance at the present, a resistance against the powers that be.’ Although his tireless oratory proved too much for the queen, who left the chamber while he was still holding forth, Guernsey’s speech was later printed. He concluded his argument by laying down the gauntlet to his fellows:

Here I am, and here I declare, that the Doctor is so far from being criminal in this point, that I challenge every lord, now sitting in judgment upon him, to prove resistance lawful. For at the same time he does assert it, I will charge him, and impeach him of high treason against the Queen.30

Guernsey subscribed two protests that day, first against putting the question whether the Commons had made good the first article against Sacheverell and second against the resolution that the first article had indeed been established. The following day he protested against the resolution that the Commons had been similarly successful in making good the subsequent articles of the impeachment. Guernsey’s spirited defence of Sacheverell proved singularly ill-considered and he managed to offend the queen with his apparent renunciation of the Revolution.31 On 18 Mar. he voiced his objections to dividing on the question whether Sacheverell was guilty or not guilty of the charges against him, insisting that:

the question, as stated, was not fit to be put in Westminster Hall, because it would subvert the constitution of Parliament, and preclude the peers from their right of giving their judgment, both of the fact, as well as of the law.

He moved instead that the first part of the question, which stated that the Commons had made good articles against the doctor, should be dropped, and proceeded to engage in further debate with Thomas Wharton, marquess of Wharton, as to the nature of the Lords’ role in the impeachment proceedings, insisting that ‘every particular lord was in himself both judge and juror too’. His argument attracted the attention of John Somers, Baron Somers, who as forcefully argued against Guernsey’s conclusions. Guernsey then subscribed the protest at the resolution to limit the peers to a single vote of guilty or not guilty. Unsurprisingly, Guernsey found Sacheverell not guilty of the articles against him on 20 Mar., entering his dissent at the resolution to pass the articles the same day. The following day he dissented once more from the Lords’ resolution to censure Sacheverell. Within days of the verdict Guernsey’s was one of several speeches available in print and being touted on the streets of London.32

The advent of the new ministry headed by Harley and Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, temporarily sundered Guernsey from Nottingham. Guernsey was among the first to wait on Shrewsbury to congratulate him on his return to office, but he was unsuccessful in his efforts to convince Nottingham to do likewise. His action no doubt encouraged Harley to include Guernsey’s name in a memorandum in July of potential office holders in the new ministry; the same month it was rumoured that Guernsey would replace Lewis Watson, 3rd Baron (later earl of) Rockingham, as lord lieutenant of Kent.33 The management of the Finch clan continued to be a prominent feature of Harley’s plans over the summer. It was hoped that the appointment of Guernsey’s sons-in-law, Robert Benson, later Baron Bingley, and of Dartmouth as, respectively, a member of the treasury commission and secretary of state would help to keep both Guernsey and Nottingham from opposing the new ministry.34 Expectations also remained high that Guernsey might be prevailed upon to join them by accepting office as lord keeper or lord chancellor.35 Poor health seems to have been one of the factors that ultimately prevented Guernsey from accepting the offer, though it seems likely that he would have been reluctant to involve himself overtly in a ministry headed by Harley.

In spite of such developments, Guernsey appears to have continued to struggle to exert his interest at a local level. He was again busy in keeping Nottingham informed of developments in the electoral contests.36 In the 1710 election Guernsey’s heir, Heneage Finch, was unsuccessful at Maidstone, and although Guernsey applied to Dartmouth to assist his cousin, Edward Harvey^‡, who was standing for re-election at Clitheroe, it seems to have been another kinsman, John Montagu, 2nd duke of Montagu, rather than Guernsey who was instrumental in securing Harvey’s return.37

Although Guernsey continued to be noted by Harley as a likely supporter of the new ministry in October, the same month Shrewsbury warned that the state of the House of Lords remained poor and that unless something more was done to win over Guernsey and Nottingham they would remain ‘cool’ towards the new administration.38 With matters thus balanced, Guernsey took his seat in the new Parliament on 25 Nov. 1710, after which he was present on over 85 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1711 he was one of those to speak in favour of rejecting the petitions submitted to the House by the former allied commanders, Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and James Stanhope^†, later Earl Stanhope. His objection was based upon a legal nicety concerning the distinction between matters of fact and matters of opinion.39 The same month he joined with his brother, Nottingham, in promoting the passage of the general naturalization act, but when the measure came before the House for a second reading on 5 Feb., it was rejected. This prompted Guernsey to register a further dissent. Guernsey found himself in the minority again on 29 Jan. over an appeal case relating to the prisage of wines.40

In February 1711 Guernsey was one of a number of peers to offer his interest to Sir Thomas Cave^‡, who was seeking election for Leicestershire following the succession of the former member, John Manners, to the dukedom of Rutland.41 Towards the end of the same month, he was involved in an altercation with Bishop Nicolson in the House over the state of the church, with Guernsey arguing that the majority of bishops were no longer of his own opinion and therefore no longer of the same faith.42 The following month, although he probably voted in Greenshield’s favour, he also acted in concert with John Elphinstone, 4th Lord Balmerinoch [S], to prevent the Edinburgh magistrates from being ‘soundly fined’.43 On 9 Mar. he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the safety of the queen’s person. On 10 May he was appointed a manager of the conference considering amendments to the act for the preservation of pine trees in America; two days later he was also named a manager of two conferences considering the bill for the preservation of game. He was then appointed to manage two subsequent conferences on the same business later that month. In June he spoke against the passage of the Scots linen bill, arguing that it would be ‘a hardship to Ireland.’44

By the beginning of the new session at the end of 1711, Guernsey’s already uncertain relations with the ministry had deteriorated further over the progress of the peace negotiations. Having taken his seat at the opening of the session on 7 Dec., the following day he was included among those expected to divide against the ministry and support the presentation of the address insisting on ‘No Peace without Spain’. Although he proceeded to vote with the ministry over the issue of the address, he resolved subsequently to switch his support to the opposition over the measure following a report from committee, arguing that it would be unparliamentary to attempt to alter something that had been approved by the House.45 In an attempt to prevent Guernsey from sliding into opposition, Oxford (as Harley had since become) held out the prospect of membership of the Privy Council. Guernsey accepted and on 13 Dec. he was one of three new councillors to be sworn.46 The distinction did not prevent Guernsey from being the first peer to give voice to his opposition to allowing James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon, nor from voting (as expected) in favour of barring all Scots peers holding post-Union British peerages from sitting in the House.47 In January he divided against the ministry once more, voting against the motion to adjourn the House, though the measure was carried thanks to the addition to the government ranks of a dozen new peers.48

By the beginning of 1712 Guernsey had all but forsaken the ministry and was deeply involved with the new alliance of Junto peers with Nottingham and other high Tories. On 26 Feb. he and Nottingham were active in the House speaking in favour of minor amendments to the abjuration bill, though it was eventually concluded against them.49 That month he attended a ‘great consult’ hosted by Halifax and attended by several other lukewarm supporters of the ministry, among them Hugh Cholmondeley, earl of Cholmondeley, and Henry Grey, duke of Kent.50 On 17 Mar. Guernsey was entrusted with the proxy of Francis Seymour Conway, Baron Conway, which was vacated by Conway’s resumption of his seat on 4 April. He was entrusted with the proxy again a few days later on 13 Apr., which was vacated the following day. Conway’s reason for lodging his proxy with Guernsey is not clear, but it may have been connected to his recent unsuccessful bid to overturn a chancery decree concerning a long-running case with John Sheffield, duke of Buckingham. Despite Guernsey’s apparent move towards his brother and the Whigs, on 28 May he once again rallied to the ministry in opposing the Whig-sponsored motion to order the allied commanders to resume an offensive war and overturn the ‘restraining orders’ that had been imposed on James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond.51

Guernsey was present on six of the days between July 1712 and March 1713 on which Parliament met to be prorogued. In that month his son-in-law, Benson, wrote to Oxford advising him to invite Guernsey to a meeting to be held the following day in the hopes that it might placate Nottingham. By then, however, both men had moved decisively into opposition.52 Having taken his seat in the new session on 9 Apr. (after which he was present on approximately 95 per cent of all sitting days), Guernsey joined with Halifax, Nottingham and his adherent William Dawes, bishop of Chester, in opposing the vote of thanks for the queen’s speech before the House was made aware of the terms of the proposed peace.53 Later in the session he again allied with his brother to join in the calls for the Union with Scotland to be dissolved, and on 13 June he was noted among those expected to oppose the passage of the eighth and ninth articles of the French commerce treaty.54

In July 1713, towards the close of the session, the vestry of St Margaret’s Westminster proposed approaching Guernsey to become a vestryman, only for the new dean (Francis Atterbury, bishop of Rochester) to warn them of the perils of bringing peers in and to remind them that the last time they did so they were soon afterwards faced with the influx of poor Palatines. Atterbury’s attitude, unsurprisingly, caused Guernsey considerable annoyance. The affair appears to have been connected with Atterbury’s thwarted efforts to secure the passage of a new excommunication bill, for which he had hoped to gain the support of both Guernsey and Nottingham.55

Guernsey returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on almost 58 per cent of all sitting days. On 11 Mar. he proposed that a phrase should be added to the address to the queen seeking out the author of the scurrilous pamphlet, The Public Spirit of the Whigs, published anonymously by Jonathan Swift, declaring that ‘the author would have it believed that he was a person that was in the secrets of her majesty’s administration.’56 The motion was rejected by 53 votes to 35. Guernsey entered his dissent at the failure to include his amendment. The following month he acted as one of the tellers in a division held in the committee of the whole concerning the House of Commons’ officers bill. Guernsey was indisposed towards the end of May with a fever.57 On 27 May he was included in a forecast drawn up by his brother as a likely opponent of the schism bill. Although he disagreed with his brother on this point, on 7 June Guernsey registered his proxy with Nottingham, which was vacated when he resumed his place at the end of the month. On 8 July he subscribed the protest at the rejection of the proposal to make a representation to the queen objecting to the manner in which the benefit of the Asiento contract had been obstructed by certain individuals seeking their own personal advantage.

Guernsey took his seat on the second day of the brief session that met shortly after the queen’s death, after which he was present on a further nine days. On 13 Aug. he was entrusted with the proxy of John Carteret, 2nd Baron Carteret (later earl of Granville). The queen’s demise finally offered Guernsey and Nottingham the prospect of a return to office. In October Guernsey was appointed chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster as well as being promoted in the peerage as earl of Aylesford. In December he joined with Rutland and his brother in seeking to unseat Sir Thomas Cave at Leicestershire, but in spite of the coming together of this ‘vast armado’, Cave successfully fought off the challenge and retained his seat the following year.58 Aylesford was noted as one of the Tories still in office in an assessment of 1715 and in 1716 it was rumoured that he was to be made lord chancellor.59 Afflicted by poor health in the final years of his life, Aylesford attended the House for the final time on 23 Dec. 1718. Reported ‘much indisposed’ in the middle of June of the following year, his health declined steadily over the next few weeks. By the close of the month his life was ‘despaired of’ and he finally succumbed in July.60

A lifetime’s service in the law and politics seems not to have left Aylesford in a particularly strong financial situation and in his will he excused his inability to confirm to his wife the £1,000 per annum jointure to which she was entitled by their marriage articles. In place of this, he conveyed to her all his estate real and personal, trusting to her goodness to make suitable provision for his unmarried children. He was succeeded in the peerage by his heir, Heneage Finch, previously styled Lord Guernsey, as 2nd earl of Aylesford.

R.D.E.E.

• 1 CUL, Adv. e. 38, 11.
• 2 Rev. Pols. 4.
• 3 TNA, PROB 11/570.
• 4 CSP Dom. 1702-3, pp. 393-4.
• 5 Evelyn Diary, ii. 77.
• 6 Add. 22267, ff. 164-71.
• 7 HP Commons 1690-1715, iii. 1031.
• 8 Swift, Works ed. Davis et al. v. 281, vii. 11.
• 9 Kingdom without a King, 73, 75, 85, 105, 151, 153.
• 10 Add. 75368, Weymouth, to Halifax, 30 June 1700; Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 10 Oct. 1700; LJ, xviii. 74-75; xix. 519-21.
• 11 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 20 June 1702.
• 12 Add. 40803, f. 96; Add. 61119, f. 101; Verney ms mic. M636/52, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 9 Mar. 1703.
• 13 TNA, PC 2/79, p. II.
• 14 HMC Dartmouth, i. 294.
• 15 Nicolson, 253-4.
• 16 Ibid. 275.
• 17 LJ, xvii. 678.
• 18 Add. 61458, ff. 158-9, 160-1; HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 313.
• 19 Bodl. Rawl. letters 92, f. 300.
• 20 Nicolson, London Diary, 350.
• 21 LPL, ms 1770 (Wake’s Diary), f. 36.
• 22 TNA, PC 2/81, p. 361.
• 23 Add. 61496, f. 92.
• 24 Timberland, ii. 180.
• 25 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950 bdle. 23, letters A38, A40, A44.
• 26 Add. 72488, ff. 49-50.
• 27 HMC Dartmouth, i. 295.
• 28 Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/ii/101, Rochester to Dartmouth, 9 July 1709.
• 29 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 558; State Trial of Henry Sacheverell ed. Cowan, 247.
• 30 G. Holmes, Trial of Dr Sacheverell, 200, 211, 220; Lord Guernsey’s Speech on Passing Sentence on Dr Sacheverell (1710).
• 31 Pols. in Age of Anne, 187.
• 32 Compleat History of the Whole Proceedings … against Dr Henry Sacheverell, (1710), 233-4; State Trial of Henry Sacheverell, 21, 72, 93, 138.
• 33 Rev. Pols. 220; Add. 70331, Harley memo. 1 July 1710; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 9.
• 34 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950 bdle. 23, letter E22.
• 35 Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 634; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, f. 21.
• 36 Leics. RO, DG 7 box 4950 bdle. 23, letter E20.
• 37 Staffs. RO, D(W)1778/I/ii/166, Guernsey to Dartmouth, n.d.
• 38 HMC Bath, i. 199.
• 39 Timberland, ii. 312.
• 40 Nicolson, 539.
• 41 Verney ms mic. M636/54, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 11 Feb. 1711; Leics. RO, Braye mss 2845.
• 42 Nicolson, 551.
• 43 NLS, Wodrow pprs. Wod. Lett. Qu. V, f. 144; Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 127.
• 44 Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 135.
• 45 Verney ms mic. M636/54, R. Palmer to R. Verney, 11 Dec. 1711; Wentworth Pprs. 222-3.
• 46 TNA, PC 2/83, p. 334.
• 47 Wentworth Pprs. 226.
• 48 Bodl. Ballard 20, f. 74.
• 49 Rev. Pols. 235; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters V, Baillie to his wife, 26 Feb. 1712.
• 50 Pols. in Age of Anne, 295.
• 51 C. Jones, ‘The Vote in the House of Lords’, PH, xxvi. 178.
• 52 Add. 70282, R. Benson to Oxford, 8 Mar. 1713.
• 53 Add. 22220, ff. 62-63; Add. 72496, ff. 64-65.
• 54 C. Jones, ‘Party Rage and Faction’, BLJ, xix. 164-5.
• 55 HMC Portland, vii. 157, 159.
• 56 Wentworth Pprs. 360.
• 57 Add. 70032, f. 251.
• 58 Verney ms mic. M636/55, Sir T. Cave to Fermanagh, 6 Dec. 1714.
• 59 Add. 47028, f. 7; Verney ms mic. M636/55, W. Viccars to Lord Verney [sic], 4 Jan. 1716.
• 60 Post Boy, 13-16 June 1719; HMC Dartmouth, i. 325; Weekly Journal, 27 June 1719; Evening Post, 25-28 July 1719.