SACHEVERELL, William (c.1638-91), of Morley, Derbys. and Barton, Notts.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1660-1690, ed. B.D. Henning, 1983
Available from Boydell and Brewer



24 Nov. 1670
Mar. 1679
Oct. 1679
1690 - 9 Oct. 1691

Family and Education

b. c.1638, o. surv. s. of Henry Sacheverell of Barton by Joyce, da. and h. of Francis Mansfield of Huggleston Grange, Leics. educ. G. Inn 1667, called 1679. m. (1) bef. 1662, Mary (d. 19 Aug. 1674), da. of William Staunton of Staunton, Notts. 5s. (4 d.v.p.) 4da.; (2) 18 Dec. 1676, Jane, da. of Sir John Newton, 2nd Bt. of Culverthorpe, Haydor, Lincs. and Barrscourt, Glos. 3s. 3da. suc. fa. 1662.1

Offices Held

Commr. for assessment, Notts. 1663-74, Derbys. 1673-4, Derbys., Notts., Oxon and Wilts. 1689-90; j.p. Notts. 1664-77, Feb. 1688-?d.; commr. for recusants, Derbys. 1675; dep. lt. Notts. Feb. 1688-?d.; commr. for inquiry into recusancy fines, Notts., Derbys. and Lincs. Mar. 1688.2

Ld. of Admiralty Feb.-Dec. 1689.


Sacheverell’s ancestors had been leading landowners in Derbyshire since the 12th century, and had represented the county under the Lancastrians, though not a regular parliamentary family. Sacheverell’s father, who inherited the Derbyshire property from a cousin in 1657, had been named a commissioner for the associated counties at the Outbreak of the Civil War; but he seems to have taken no part in the war, though he appears on all the local commissions from 1648 onwards. Little is known of Sacheverell’s early years, except that he was an eye-witness of the Dutch attack on the Medway, and six months later, at an unusually advanced age and with a family, he entered Gray’s Inn, no doubt to prepare himself for a political career. With a rental of some £3000 p.a., he never needed to practise as a lawyer, but he acquired a collection of constitutional precedents which he greatly valued. He entered Parliament in 1670 as Member for Derbyshire after defeating George Vernon at a sensational by-election. But at Westminster the court party was in the ascendant, and he showed little enthusiasm in his first session, defaulting in the roll-call on 16 Jan. 1671. He Supported Thomas Lee I in an argument with the Speaker on 17 Mar., but it was not until the next session that he overcame his unimpressive appearance and made his mark in the House. He helped to draw up the answer to the King’s message on the suspending power, and moved for the dismissal of all recusants from military commands, a proposal from which developed the Test Act. On 22 Mar. 1673 he seconded William, Lord Cavendish, in an attack on Lord Treasurer Clifford (Thomas Clifford):

We had gone very far in supplying the King, and publicly by our bill owned the fears we had from the growth of Popery; that it was inconsistent now to put all this money into the hands of a favourer of the Popish party; and that we ought to make a humble address to his Majesty to remove that great officer from the trust.

In the autumn session he took the lead in objecting to the enfranchisement of Newark, and proclaimed himself ‘one of those that think giving of money one of the greatest grievances. It seems to him that those villainous councillors that persuaded the King to make this war have deceived him.’ In October he was appointed to the committee to draw up an address against the Duke of York’s marriage. Sacheverell was distinguished by Sir William Temple as a member of the most violent party in the Commons. Lord Conway approached him on behalf of the new lord treasurer in vain, and when Parliament reassembled he demanded the removal of the surviving members of the Cabal. ‘It seems it was agreed by the Cabal, as long as they had money, no Parliament, and had they any, we had not been here now.’ He was appointed to the committee to consider charges against Arlington, although he had repeatedly denied that there were sufficient grounds for it. As chairman of the committee to peruse the Act imposing a duty on legal proceedings, he brought in an explanatory bill on 24 Jan. 1674. With (Sir) William Coventry and Henry Powle he was ordered to take care of the general test bill. He opened the proceedings of the grand committee on grievances on II Feb. with a complaint about the new Scottish army law, and his name stands first in the list of those entrusted with inspecting it. He was also appointed to the committee to investigate the condition of Ireland. He had clearly become one of the acknowledged leaders of the country party in the Lower House, and at the sudden end of the session, he was one of the ‘guilty commons’ who sought refuge in the City.3

In the Spring session of 1675, Sacheverell was appointed to the committees to draw up an address for the removal of Lauderdale and to consider bills to prevent Papists from sitting in Parliament and to facilitate the conviction of recusants. As chairman of the committee which translated extracts from the Parliament Rolls, he moved unsuccessfully for the printing of precedents against prorogation before completion of business. He was severe upon Burnet when he appeared before the House to give evidence against Lauderdale, and the historian retaliated by omitting all mention of Sacheverell among the leaders of the Opposition. On 24 Apr. he asserted that ‘moneys that are brought into the Exchequer are conveyed out into private hands and private treasuries. The revenue is now so great, the nation is able to bear no more charge.’ He thought that a charge of treason was warranted by some of the circumstances of the lord treasurer’s attempt to invalidate the marriage of Bridget Hyde, in order to secure her fortune for Peregrine Osborne. As one of the committee which inspected the Lords’ Journals, he expounded the case of Shirley v. Fagg; he took part in six conferences, and described himself as zealous in the disputes with the Upper House, though his speeches were moderate both in language and substance. With Sir William Hickman he acted as teller for the motion to receive no more bills that session. He also helped to draft the second address for the recall of British subjects from French service and the bill to appropriate the customs to the use of the navy. This proposal he pursued in the autumn session, which he began by doubting whether there was any need for a supply. He served on the committees to report on dangerous books and to prepare another bill for hindering Papists from sitting in Parliament. He resisted the building of 30 warships from first to last, declaring that he ‘would have the appropriation of the customs annexed, or he shall not give his vote for one farthing; and this bill to be so altered, and not to be brought in till the good and necessary bills we have in hand be also passed here’. On 8 Nov. he moved that no further taxation should be proposed that session, and favoured the adjournment of the House without beginning the debate on supply. He opposed the lifting of the ban on Irish cattle, as damaging to Derbyshire and most other counties. He was again appointed to the committee for the recall of British subjects in French service, and helped to manage a conference. On 13 Nov. he reproved the negligence of the Government in failing to arrest Father St. Germain, subsequently serving on the committee for an address. He was appointed to the committee for the better preservation of the liberty of the subject, and helped to manage the conference for avoiding the revival of dissensions between the Houses.4

Sacheverell was one of the three Derbyshire Members whom Sir Richard Wiseman had no hopes of; while Shaftesbury marked him ‘thrice worthy’. But when Parliament met again in 1677, Sacheverell took rather a different line from the latter, agreeing that so long a prorogation was illegal, but suggesting that it should be regarded as an adjournment, which was accepted by the House in order to save the bills which had been under discussion. After the four opposition peers had been sent to the Tower, he cautiously desired that ‘gentlemen will tell him beforehand, if its not your pleasure that he should go on in this debate’, and sat down. In the debate on illegal exactions on 22 Feb., he offered to substitute ‘resist’ for ‘withstand’ in the bill, and was named to the committee to consider it. Next day, in the committee of grievances, he declared:

He sees to-day what he hoped never to have seen; that, after four or five years of malproceedings in Westminster Hall, courts of justice are precarious ... The judges, now having their patents durante bene placito, do as the Court directs.

He helped to draw up the address on the growth of French power, and to manage a conference. On 16 Mar., fixing his eye on Secretary Williamson, he introduced Harrington’s petition against his committal by the Privy Council: ‘He loves plain English, and hopes other gentlemen do so too. As this case seems to him, if it be allowed, there needs neither Star Chamber nor oath ex officio.’ When the Newark election came up again, he fought the charter with his usual tenacity, acting as teller against it in the division on 21 Mar. Sacheverell was not personally intolerant. It seems to have been in his time that a memorial was set up in Morley Church to a recusant cousin of his, extolling the Pope and the Orthodox Roman faith; but opening the debate on 4 Apr. on the proposal to repeal the bulk of the Penal Laws, he said:

This bill from the Lords is a toleration of Popery, and puts but 12d. a Sunday difference betwixt the best Protestant and severest Papist ... The laws have declared priests and Jesuits dangerous to the government, and yet they shall not suffer death, etc. He fears not the danger of this bill in this King’s time, but hereafter one inclinable to Popery will not execute the priests and Jesuits.

This was the first hint within Parliament of the policy of exclusion. In the debate on foreign policy on 21 May, Sacheverell made a characteristic speech:

He thinks the nation may be preserved without expense of blood or treasure. He proposes, fairly and calmly, that the thing may be opened, and that we may take the safest and securest way for the nation, either by peace or war. Unless such alliances are made as we addressed for, ‘tis in vain to make war, and run into hazard with potent neighbours, as we did before, when we wanted alliances.

Two days later he attacked the Popish interest in the Council, though exempting Henry Coventry from the charge, and was appointed one of the managers of a conference on alliances.5

Sacheverell carried his opposition to dubious taxation into the country, and resigned from the commission of the peace, seemingly in protest against the dismissal of Robert Pierrepont. Quite exceptionally for a man of his wealth and standing, he was omitted from the last assessment commissions of Charles II’s reign. When Parliament met on 28 Jan. 1678, he launched a devastating attack on the Speaker for adjourning the House in two previous sessions against its own wishes, which made even the brazen Edward Seymour squirm. He spoke in favour of reducing France to her frontiers of 1659 and helped to draft an address to that purpose. He voiced his suspicions of the Government in a speech of uncanny prescience on 6 Feb:

When money is once got, we may not have a Parliament ever after; as in that precedent of Henry VII which I mentioned peace was then made between the French and him, though in great haste for war, as we are now ... Then they made their private articles that a Parliament should not be called for three years.

The proposed ban on French imports, which would have simultaneously damaged French commerce and English revenue, strongly appealed to him; he was one of the Members ordered to bring in a bill for that purpose, but on 27 Feb. he complained that ‘the committee scarce ever sat’. He was elected chairman of a committee to draft a clause appropriating the fines for infringement of the ban to the use of the navy. He helped to prepare reasons for a conference on the growth of Popery. In the debate on the treaties on 2 May, he said:

Perhaps we shall be called knaves and fanatics for our pains; and now, when ’twas all our opinion to show the King the state of the nation, then ‘’twas like 1641’. But now we must not be frightened with bugbears, prerogative, and 1641.

Anybody who advised the King against an alliance with the Emperor, Spain and the Dutch should ‘be judged as enemies to your Majesty and people’, he said, and on 7 May he was appointed to draw up an address for the removal of counsellors. On 6 June he proposed an inquiry into ‘what great sums have gone out of the Exchequer for Secret Service by privy seals’. He was appointed a manager of the conference on 20 June about the crisis in the Nymwegen negotiations.6

Sacheverell was appointed to most of the important committees in the last session of the Cavalier Parliament, including the inquiry into the Popish plot, acting as chairman for the examinations of Coleman and Samuel Atkins. He helped to draw up reasons for a conference on the plot on 31 Oct. and the articles of impeachment of Lord Arundell of Wardour, while taking part during November in drafting eight addresses. On the address for the withdrawal of the Duke of York from the King’s presence, he said:

I have read a little in the law, but I would have the gentlemen of the long robe tell me whether any degree or quality whatsoever of any subject can patronize any correspondence with the King’s enemies? Or whether the King and Parliament may not dispose of the succession of the Crown, and whether it be not praemunire to say the contrary?

On 6 Nov. he moved for the printing of Coleman’s letters, and three days later he alone had the courage explicitly to demand exclusion, and expose the hollowness of the King’s promises of limitations on a Popish successor. Sacheverell’s biggest coup was due to William Williams, who enabled him to produce a list of commissions to Roman Catholic officers countersigned by Williamson. The House ordered the secretary to the Tower, but he was released by the King next day, much to his indignation. He protested at the Lords’ amendment exempting the Duke of York from the bill to hinder Papists from sitting in Parliament:

I wonder they should offer such arguments. The heir apparent was never excepted from taking oaths for preservation of the King’s person. Show me that ever he was. I wonder why, when the preservation of the King’s person is the case, the Duke should be excepted.

With Thomas Bennett he acted as teller against the amendment On 21 Nov. He was one of the five Members given special responsibility for the impeachment of the other four Popish lords on 5 Dec. Two days later at his suggestion the Elizabethan Act of Association was read to the House, and he moved that it should be felony for foreigners, as well as Papists, to appear in arms. He took an active part in conferences with the Lords about disbandment. On 14 Dec. he was appointed to the committee of secrecy, and, after speaking in favour of Danby’s impeachment, he was among the Members ordered to prepare it. Altogether he was named to 207 committees in this Parliament, most of them for public bills or affairs of state, acted as teller in ten divisions, and made over 170 speeches.7

Sacheverell was re-elected unopposed to the three Exclusion Parliaments. He was marked ‘worthy’ by Shaftesbury, and received 300 guineas from the French embassy. In the first Exclusion Parliament he was again very active, with 35 committees (over half of them procedural) and 59 speeches. He took a special responsibility for instructing new Members. He gave the lead in protesting against the King’s refusal of Seymour as Speaker, but he pushed his constitutional objections too far for the patience of the House. When a compromise had been reached in the appointment of William Gregory, he said: ‘I differ from those who think that this point of right of choosing our Speaker, etc. is now quiet, and I stand up only to give my reason for it, why I differ, and then I will withdraw’. Whereupon ‘the House with great neglect cried out, "Go, go".' As chairman of the committee of secrecy to inquire into the Popish Plot he made three reports on the examination of minor figures. He was appointed to the committee for secrecy against Popery. He played a prominent part in the attempt to bring Lord Danby to trial, but on constitutional and political, not personal grounds:

I am not of opinion that to remove ministers from the King will better our condition, unless those maxims of state they govern by be removed. Whoever comes to be a minister follows the same maxims of state. All our misfortune arises from the late times. When the King came home, his ministers knew nothing of the laws of England but foreign government, things managed by a premier minister of state.

On the other hand he was determined to establish the invalidity of Danby's pardon, which, if it was allowed, would in his view make the King absolute. He was one of six Members sent to ask the lord chancellor how it was obtained, after which he told the House: 'It is visible that this pardon, and the manner of gaining it, is as dark as the crimes it had pardoned'. He was appointed to the committee for the attainder, and the secret committee to take evidence. He helped to draw up the address for the execution of the condemned priests. On 30 Apr. he spoke against giving thanks to the King unless the limitations on the authority of a Popish successor came into force immediately: 'this speech is merely to delude the people with security when there is none'. He spoke in favour of an address for the removal of Lauderdale, which he helped to draw up. He also helped to prepare for the conference on 8 May about the trial of the lords in the Tower, but he was highly dissatisfied with its outcome. 'You must show your resentment that the Commons will not suffer the House of Lords to trample upon them', he told the House. 'Perhaps their judicature is one of the greatest grievances of the nation.' He was responsible for the notorious resolution that no commoner should be permitted to appear before the Lords as councel for Danby. On the same day he moved that Speaker Gregory should be sent to the Tower for carrying the supply bill to the Upper House without explicit instructions, and was appointed to the committee to search out precedents. He was also appointed to assist in drawing up the address for raising the militia in and around London. On 10 May he moved that Charles Bertie* should be ordered to produce his secret service accounts. He was named to the joint committee on the trial of Danby and the five Popish lords. When the new Privy Councillors asked for supply for the navy, Sacheverell opposed any grant until Lauderdale had been dismissed and the lords in the Tower brought to trial. He was among the Members instructed to bring in the exclusion bill, and he voted for it on the second reading. On 20 May he moved to take Samuel Pepys* and Anthony Deane* into custudy, and three days later suggested interrogating (Sir) Stephen Fox* about pensions. But no doubt the achievements which pleased him most were his report on 26 May giving reasons for objecting to the Lords' proposals for the conduct of the trials, which was pubished as a pamphlet, and his speech in the conference the same day.8

Sacheverell opposed the Derbyshire petition for the sitting of Parliament in January 1680 on the grounds that 'the Court is not sufficiently starved'. When the second Exclusion Parliament met, he was appointed to the committee on the address demanding full pardons for Popish Plot informers. In the debate on abhorring, he said: It is time to let the judges know that, if they will not do their duty, you will make them do their duty, and inform the King that they have not. I would therefore resolve that it is the undoubted right of the subject to petition the King to reform grievances, and address by petition.' He resisted Temple's attempt to broaden the debate to the international scene: State the question for redressing disorders at home, before you leap into anything abroad'. But he was appointed to the committee on the address for supporting the Protestant religion at home and abroad as well as to that for the inquiry into abhorring. On 6 Nov. he drew the attention of the House to the Elizabethan statute against Protestant dissenters, and was made chairman of the committee for its repeal. He took part in the conference on the Irish plot, and helped to draft three addresses, for expediting the trial of the Popish lords, for the removal of office if Jeffreys, and to represent the dangerous state of the kingdom. He spoke in favourof the impeachment of Sir Francis North*, but he was clearly losing patience with the anti-Popish hysteria on his side of the House:

Though I agree to thus much as is done, yet not upon the single foot of Popery, etc. I cannot think you do right to the nation if you do not decalre how we came by our misfortunes. It is not only Popery, but the ministers have a mind to have all in their own power and set up arbitrary government.9

'Exceptionally prudent and far-sighted', Sacheverell perceived the Tory reaction long before his colleagues. From the beginning of December, he fell silent in the House, and was appointed to only one more important committee, to search out precedents for the committal to custody of persons under impeachment on 9 Jan. 1681. Altogether, he was appointed to 23 committees in this Parliament, and made 19 speeches; but he was reported to have lost influence, and at Oxford he became totally inactive, though he might have been expected to express indignation at the 'mislaying' of his bill on behalf of Protestant dissenters at the end of the last Parliament. But he was anything but passive out of Parliament. He took the lead in fighting the surrender of the Nottingham charter, after warning Lord Chancellor of Nottingham (Heneage Finch I*) of his intention. Roger Morrice wrote enthusiastically: 'It is a very great and national concern that he is engaged in. It was altogether incredible that he should have proceeded so far.' But ultimately Sacheverell was indicted for riot; North conducted the trial with exemplary fairness, acknowledging his 'loyalty and good affection to the Church and Crown', and not hesitating to rebuke the prosecution. Sacheverell, on his part, pleaded his moderation at Oxford; he was fined 500 marks and bound over to good behaviour. Undaunted, he prepared with Anchitell Grey* to contest Derbyshire in the Whig interest in 1685, but was disqualified by the sheriff on a technicality.10

Sacheverell was noted as one of the ablest parliamentarians in opposition to James II, with a useful interest in Derbyshire. He was not regarded as untrustworthy, but like Silius Titus* he became a Whig collaborator in the latter part of the reign, though he refused to act in county office. No adequate explanation is forthcoming for this uncharacteristically incautious commitment; but it may be that Sacheverell calculated that any Parliament, however carefully packed, was likely to play the King's game for long. Religious enthusiasm he is unlikely to have felt; but the opening of municipal and other office to dissenters could only help the Whigs. He was approved as court candidate for Nottinghamshire in September 1688:

Mr Sacheverell has been open and free with our agents, and declared himself hearty to your Majesty's interest, and assured them there were several persons of quality that yet conceded themselves to his knowledge were so too, a list of which had come, but they durst not trust the postmaster there.

Less excusable is his failure to lift a finger for the Protestant cause when such prominent local Whigs as Cavendish and Sir Scrope Howe* took up arms. Perhaps he was too good a constitutionalist to be a ready revolutionary. Retribution was exacted at the general election, when the Derbyshire electorate rejected him by 600 votes, and he was able to secure a seat only in the pocket borough of his disciple William Ashe*.11

Sacheverell was again very active in the Convention, in which he was appointed to 89 committees and made 45 recorded speeches. In debate on the state of the nation on 29 Jan. 1689 he said:

Since God hath put this opportunity into our hands, all the world will laugh at us if we make a half settlement ... Secure this House that Parliaments be duly chosen and not kicked out at pleasure; which never could have been done without such an extravagant revenue that they might never stand in need of Parliaments. Secure the right elections and the legislative power.

In pursuance of this programme he was appointed to the committee to bring in a list of the essentials for the better securing of religion, laws and liberties. He helped to prepare reasons on the state of the throne and to manage conference with the Lords. On 22 Feb. he was appointed junior lord of the Admiralty. On 25 Feb. he urged that the oaths prescribed by the Corporations Act should be abolished. He was uneasy about the suspension of habeas corpus, but helped to prepare the bill and served on the committee. He was appointed to the committee of inquiry into the authors of grievances, and to that for preparing the militia bill. His was the first name on the committees for altering the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and he later helped to prepare reasons for a conference. He spoke in favour of supply om 22 Mar., but only for six months at a time. On 24 Apr. he was given special responsibility for bringing in a militia bill. His name again stands first in the list of the committee for restoring corporations on 2 May. He was assigned to prepare reasons on the removal of Papists from London and on the poll tax, and to manage a conference on the toleration bill. He was appointed to the inquiry into the delay in relieving Londonderry. He was one of five Members ordered on 7 June to inspect Privy Council registers about the trial of the Seven Bishops, and was named to the committees for the impeachment of the Jacobite propagandists, for considering the Lords' amendments to the bill of rights, and for preparing the indemnity bill. 'When the law has been perverted and religion violated, I would never forgive them', he said on 15 June. With (Sir) Thomas Clarges* and (Sir) Joseph Tredenham* he was sent on 25 June to discover from Lord Nottingham (Daniel Finch*) the grounds for the warrant against Peregrine Osborne. He helped to draw up an address for permission to inspect the Privy Council registers again, this time for entries relating to Ireland, and took part in a conference on Titus Oates. With Sir John Guise* and William Williams* he was sent to inspect the minute books of the Irish committee on 17 July. He was also appointed to conferences on the duties to be imposed on the Whiggish drinks, coffee, tea and chocolate, and on the tithes bill.12

When Parliament reassembled in the autumn, Sacheverell was named to the committees to inquire into military expenditure and the miscarriages of the war. Now openly at odds with other members of the Government and with the King's policy of a coalition, he said:

I will do the utmost service I can in raising the two millions I proposed and thereby put him into a capacity to save himself and us, if he please to come into his own interest, etc. I will also endeavour by all means possible to have the bill for settling the rights of the subject passed.

On the proposal to exact £500 forfeiture from those who had taken office under the dispensing power, he spoke to exempt 'poor men in corporations'. He was one of the five Members appointed to receive informations about abuses in victualling the navy, and his was the first name on the committee ordered to consider the mutiny bill sent down from the Lords. He was named to the committee to draw up the address inquiring about the responsibility for the appointment of Commissary Shales. He opened the debate on 2 Dec. on the King's message, and, in the course of a speech in which he announced his impending retirement from office, moved that no MP should be nominated to examine the condition of the army in Ireland. He proposed that £140,000 from the royal aid should be appointed to the use of the navy, and in spite of the protests of the Court Whig John Hampden* was authorized with John Somers* to bring in a clause to this effect. He was appointed to the committees to consider the state of the revenue and to draft an address for provision for Princess Anne, whose patent he opposed 'very strongly and very fervently'. But Sacheverell's most notable achievement in this Parliament followed the brief Christmas adjournment, when he introduced a new clause in the bill for restoring corporations, to exclude from municipal office for seven years anybody responsible for surrendering a charter without the consent of the majority of the corporation. In committee he brought in a proviso to except Nottingham; but the clause was further emended on the floor of the House to omit the reference to the majority, and on the crucial division in a thin House he did vote for it himself. He is said to have declared that if he could not get a third reading of his own clause in a full House, he would never show his face in Parliament again; but in spite of further restricting it to surrenders before the judgment against London he was unsuccessful. He was appointed to the committee for imposing a general oath of allegiance. On the instructions to the committee for the indemnity bill, he proposed that exception should be made for individuals, not categories.13

Sacheverell sat for Nottinghamshire in the first session of the Officiers' Parliament, but died on 9 Oct. 1691. His son and successor Robert represented Nottingham in six Parliaments. Speaker Onslow, partly on the basis of family tradition, partly from reading Sacheverell's speeches, noted that he was very eminent among the opposition MPs of his period, and inferior to few in his abilities. Even in summary, his speeches have a certain individuality, the majority ending with a clear and forceful motion. It is unfortunate for his reputation that he died comparatively young in the shadow of two resounding failures: Whig collaboration with James II, and the clause which, rather unfairly, bears his name. On the other hand he has good claims to be considered originator of the Test Act and the first exclusionist. A modern historian sums him up: 'a man of extreme views, coldly and rationally expressed'.14

Ref Volumes: 1660-1690

Author: John. P. Ferris


  • 1. Vis. Notts. (Thoroton Soc. rec. ser. xiii), 24-25; Thoroton, Notts. i. 101; Nichols, Leics. iv. 754; Misc. Gen. et Her. n.s. i. 191; S. Fox, Church of St. Matthew, Morley, 17.
  • 2. HMC Finch, ii. 46; Cal. Treas. Bks. viii. 1806; HMC Downshire, i. 327.
  • 3. Sir George Sitwell, First Whig, 3, 162, 191; J. C. Cox, Derbys. Churches, iv. 336-9; Dering, 99, 149; Add. 36707, f. 20; Grey, ii. 74, 188-9, 202, 315, 328, 413; vii. 36; Essex Pprs. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xlvii), 131, 161; CJ, ix. 296, 300, 307; Williamson Letters (Cam. Soc. n.s. ix), 157.
  • 4. CJ, ix. 321, 339, 340, 352, 375; Grey, iii. 21, 31, 36, 77, 142, 265, 296, 411, 429, 435; iv. 7.
  • 5. Grey, iv. 66-67, 82, 136, 140, 261, 266, 335-6, 356, 366; CJ, ix. 394, 398; Finch, 15 Feb. 1677; Cox, op. cit. 336-7.
  • 6. HMC Finch, ii. 46; Grey, v. 5, 11, 30, 101, 210, 320, 332, 345; vi. 68; CJ, ix. 428, 435, 447, 464, 477, 502.
  • 7. CJ, ix. 523, 531, 533, 540, 541, 542, 549, 555, 561; Grey, vi. 148-9, 172-3, 192, 216, 237, 244, 333, 335, 358.
  • 8. Dalrymple, Mems. i. 383; Grey vi. 405; vii. 2, 35, 40, 159-60, 199, 222, 228, 260, 292, 311, 316; HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 357; v. 90, 115-16; HMC Finch, ii. 77; CJ, ix. 576, 586, 604, 613, 617, 620; Clarke, James II, i. 548.
  • 9. HMC Ormonde, n.s. iv. 576; CJ, ix, ix. 640, 641, 648, 650, 653, 655, 660; Grey, vii. 370, 375; viii. 69-70, 100.
  • 10. J. R. Jones, First Whigs, 158-9; HMC Ormonde, n.s. v. 561; HMC Finch, ii. 169-70; R. Morrice, Entering Bk. 1, pp. 356, 440; North, Lives, i. 287; Lincs. RO, Monson mss 7/14/131, George Newton to Sir John Newton, 7 Apr. 1685.
  • 11. Hist. Jnl. iii. 69-70; Add. 36707, f. 20; Add. 40621, f. 1; CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 273; 1689-90, p. 6.
  • 12. Grey, ix. 33, 110-11, 133, 186, 321; CJ, x. 15, 20, 38, 93, 120, 127, 143, 204, 217, 268.
  • 13. Morrice, 2, pp. 654-5; 3, pp. 32, 43-44, 74, 84; Grey, ix. 401, 466-7, 510-11, 538; CJ, x. 282, 296, 303, 312; Macaulay, Hist. 1781.
  • 14. Burnett, ii. 93; K. H. D. Haley, Shaftesbury, 486.