Available from Boydell and Brewer
Number of Qualified Electors:
Number of voters:
at least 2,011 in 1702
|6 Mar. 1690||Sir George Fletcher, Bt.|
|Sir John Lowther, Bt.|
|25 Oct. 1695||Sir George Fletcher, Bt.|
|Sir John Lowther, Bt.|
|3 Aug. 1698||Sir George Fletcher, Bt.|
|Sir John Lowther, Bt.|
|21 Jan. 1701||Richard Musgrave|
|10 Dec. 1701||Sir Edward Hasell|
|29 July 1702||Richard Musgrave||1126|
|Sir Wilfred Lawson,||980|
|30 May 1705||George Fletcher|
|26 May 1708||James Lowther|
|1 Nov. 1710||James Lowther|
|16 Sept. 1713||James Lowther|
That Cumberland experienced only one contested election during this period is suggestive of a degree of electoral calm which in fact only existed during the 1690s, as canvassing became intense from 1700 onwards. Numerous families took a keen interest in, and exerted a significant influence upon, shire elections, and it is possible to attribute party identities to the leading players in county politics. The Lowthers, of both Whitehaven and Lowther, the Howard earls of Carlisle, the Duke of Somerset and the lords Wharton were the dominant Whig figures in county elections, all of whose interests were based on their Cumberland estates. The aristocratic nature of the constituent elements of Cumberland’s Whig faction contrasted notably with the county’s Tories. With Lord Sussex generally unwilling to venture into electoral matters, Cumberland Toryism was dependent upon a number of significant gentry families such as the Lawsons of Brayton, the Musgraves of Hayton and the Penningtons of Muncaster. To portray the development of county elections solely in partisan terms would, however, be misleading. Though it is clear that the leading figures of all the interests listed above can be given party labels and, to varying extents, were conscious of such distinctions, partisan considerations could be, and frequently were, subordinated to family interests and personal ambition. The electoral slumber of the 1690s gave way to political conflict which in the elections of 1701 and 1702 was essentially determined by partisan considerations. Thereafter Whig and Tory identities were diluted, perhaps in part owing to the absence of a leading Tory figure after the death in 1704 of Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt.* 2
That all three elections in the 1690s were uncontested owed much to the standing and authority of the sitting Members Sir George Fletcher, 2nd Bt., and Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I, knights of the shire from 1661 and 1665 respectively. They were respected figures with significant local estates, and partisan moderates inclined to support the Court, and the confidence of Sir John Lowther in their combined interest is indicated by his absence from the county at each of these elections. Both men were, however, careful to apply themselves to such conventions as the writing of circular letters and requests to the local elite for electoral support, and Fletcher paid particular care to establishing the support of the sheriff, the county’s returning officer, and to have the elections held at Salkeld Yates, near his Cumberland residence. The only notable intrusion of national politics into these elections came in 1695 when, upon the initiative of Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. II*, Fletcher and Lowther were presented with an address from the county’s freeholders requesting that in the House they should give
assistance for the raising of such supplies as are necessary for the support of his Majesty’s government for the maintaining of the forces now in pay, by sea and land, and for carrying on the war with vigour till a safe and honourable peace can be obtained, and to raise the same by such ways and means as shall be most easy to [the] subject and most expeditious.
Fletcher’s and Lowther’s confidence in their interest was clearly demonstrated in 1698 when, even before knowing Fletcher’s intentions, Lowther began to write for support at the forthcoming election on the presumption that Fletcher would stand. Once Fletcher had confirmed this intention, Lowther left the management of the election to his fellow candidate and his estate steward, and the two were again returned unchallenged.3
In April 1700 rumours of a possible dissolution had led to suggestions that Lowther did not intend to stand again and that in such circumstances the Tory Sir William Pennington, 1st Bt., intended to offer his services, but such considerations were overtaken in July the same year by Fletcher’s death. The vacancy and the possibility that the county Tories would wish to supply Fletcher’s successor led Lowther, at the request of the Whig lord lieutenant Lord Carlisle (Charles Howard*, Viscount Morpeth), to propose to the sheriff in August that a county meeting be called the following month to resolve on a candidate to replace Fletcher, a delay which Lowther hoped ‘will afford time to think of what persons are most firm to this government’ and allow Lord Carlisle to return to the county to influence this choice. Attempts to postpone the nomination of any candidate until Carlisle could return to Cumberland may have been influenced by what Lowther described as the need ‘not too hastily to engage’ for a candidate given ‘this late heavy blow we have all received in the sudden death of the Duke of Gloucester’. However, by the middle of August interest had begun to be made on behalf of Richard Musgrave, a Tory and kinsman of the leading opposition figure, Sir Christopher Musgrave. Musgrave’s father, Sir Richard Musgrave, 2nd Bt., who had declined standing in favour of his son, claimed that Carlisle’s letter, requesting that no candidate declare themselves until the county meeting, only arrived after he had been ‘solicited . . . by several of all my neighbours and relations’, and Carlisle’s letter to Sir Christopher Musgrave upon the by-election elicited no response at all. Although Lowther and Carlisle had begun to lobby for the interest of such Whig peers as Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*) and the Duke of Somerset, Musgrave and his Tory supporters were able to steal a march upon Carlisle owing to the lord lieutenant’s absence from the county and the consequent delay in naming a candidate. Musgrave’s candidacy was also aided by the decision taken by Sir George Fletcher’s son, Sir Henry Fletcher, 3rd Bt.†, who was shortly to declare himself a Catholic, to decline standing. Carlisle did not arrive in Cumberland until 7 Sept. His personal involvement prompted complaints, voiced in characteristically vociferous manner by Sir Christopher Musgrave, about ‘peers meddling in elections’, but at the county meeting of 17 Sept. Carlisle and a number of the county’s leading Whig gentry resolved to support the candidacy of Gilfrid Lawson of Brayton, and in a letter to Cumberland’s freeholders pointedly recorded ‘the care that my Lord Carlisle hath taken to preserve an unanimity . . . by proposing a general meeting’. Suggestions that Lawson’s cousin Sir Wilfred Lawson, 2nd Bt.*, would offer his services came to nothing. Canvassing for Lawson and Musgrave continued through the next three months, the difficulty the Lowthers found in obtaining support from some of their dependent freeholders balancing the resolution of Somerset to commit himself to Lawson’s cause. The aristocratic origin of much of Lawson’s support continued to irk Sir Christopher Musgrave, who at the county sessions was said to have invoked ‘Magna Carta, the petition of right and the late law about elections’ to condemn the interference of peers in elections. Indeed, by November Carlisle was concerned that Richard Musgrave’s early entry to the lists had allowed him to establish an insurmountable advantage. However, the news of a likely dissolution combined with the unwillingness of Lowther to continue as knight of the shire, on the grounds of ill-health, allowed the parliamentary aspirations of both Lawson and Musgrave to be satisfied. Carlisle was content to have the representation of the county shared, though he made it clear that should Musgrave take a partner Lawson would follow suit. The two were returned unchallenged when the general election took place in January 1701.4
The county had divided upon broadly partisan lines during the long campaign which followed Fletcher’s death and the animosities and conflict engendered persisted into the conduct of the second election of 1701. A vital difference in the December election, however, was the position of Gilfrid Lawson. In March it was reported that Lawson ‘never gives us one vote but goes continually with Sir C[hristopher] M[usgrave]’, and Lawson’s Toryism, which may have been at least in part responsible for the rumours of April that he was to marry a daughter of Sir Christopher Musgrave, led him to forfeit the support of the Whig interests which earlier in the year had secured his election. The concern of Cumberland’s political leaders in the summer of 1701 to protect their interests is suggested by the prolonged wrangle between Sir Christopher Musgrave and Lord Carlisle concerning the composition of the Cumberland commission of the peace, during the course of which Musgrave called on the assistance of Lords Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) and Rochester (Laurence Hyde†). Musgrave only obtained a small number of alterations favourable to the Tories, however, and his lack of success in this matter augured ill for the outcome of the December election. By November 1701 it had become known that Lords Carlisle, Somerset and Wharton intended to oppose both Lawson and Richard Musgrave at the forthcoming election, with Carlisle having approached George Fletcher, an army officer and second son of Sir George, and Sir Edward Hasell, a Cumberland knight, as the Whig standard bearers. When Lawson visited Lord Carlisle to request his electoral backing the lord lieutenant replied frankly, ‘that he could never be for one that differed from him in opinion so much in voting’. Little is known of Richard Musgrave’s activities at this time, but Lawson certainly contemplated contesting the election before deciding at the end of November to remain in London and ‘not stir’. There is no evidence that the return of Fletcher and Hasell was contested, but the bitterness of county politics was clearly demonstrated by a broadside, dating from the day of the Cumberland return, in the form of a will made by the county. This squib left the shire’s ‘dying liberties, properties, privileges and immunities’ to Lord Carlisle ‘for the supporting and maintaining his grandeur at court’; Cumberland’s senses were entrusted to ‘be managed by the friends of the impeached lords’; while the ‘remainder of our reason we bequeath unto the Lord Wh[arto]n and Lady L[onsda]le’. A proviso was added, that ‘we intend to revoke [this will] at another dissolution’.5
The conduct of the 1702 election clearly demonstrated the desire of the county’s Tory interest to reverse the defeat of the last election. William iii’s sudden death threw the Whigs into confusion. A meeting of Cumberland and Westmorland’s Whig Members, held in the middle of March at Lord Carlisle’s London house, found that, though it was already known that Sir Wilfred Lawson and Richard Musgrave were likely to stand at the election, Fletcher and Hasell were both unwilling to continue in the House. Fletcher was prevailed upon to forward his name, but finding a partner was to prove more difficult. Carlisle indicated his willingness to support either Carlisle’s Whig Member James Lowther or Thomas Lamplugh*, who had been active in the Wharton interest at Cockermouth since the 1690s and had sat for that borough since February 1702. A further meeting at Lord Wharton’s town house also failed to settle on a partner for Fletcher, with both Lowther and Lamplugh being unwilling to participate in an election where ‘great opposition’ was expected. Lowther was further discouraged by the fear that Fletcher would be out of the country on military service at the time of the election, thereby imposing a greater burden of campaigning upon his partner. At the end of the month, however, the situation was transformed by the decision of Lady Lonsdale, whose actions in Westmorland during the first 1701 election had revealed her to be a Whig, to support the candidacy of Sir Wilfred Lawson, who though he had supported the return of his cousin Gilfrid in December 1701 had married the niece of Lonsdale’s deceased husband. Carlisle agreed to follow Lady Lonsdale’s lead on condition that Lawson gave an undertaking that ‘he might be relied upon in his voting in the House’, and the decision of both Carlisle and Wharton to endorse Lawson’s candidacy suggests that such an assurance was forthcoming. Cumberland’s leading Whigs were united behind the joint candidacy of Lawson and Fletcher, and in the middle of April William Nicolson, recently appointed bishop of Carlisle, wrote that ‘things here look towards war in the county’. By June Richard Musgrave’s father, assisted by Sir Christopher Musgrave, had succeeded in obtaining the post of vice-admiral of Cumberland and Westmorland, motivated according to James Lowther by the belief that ‘it will give them a reputation in the country towards carrying the elections’, and Richard Musgrave joined with his fellow Tory Gilfrid Lawson to oppose Fletcher and Sir Wilfred. Shortly before the election both Musgrave and Gilfrid Lawson were removed from the commission of the peace, but this indication of official disfavour could not prevent Musgrave topping the poll and Gilfrid Lawson being returned for the second seat, his cousin Sir Wilfred having had 46 votes disallowed, upon scrutiny of the poll, on the grounds that the burgage tenure of the freeholds they claimed disqualified their right to vote. Sir Wilfred’s petition, presented to the House on 24 Oct. and claiming that his cousin’s return was owing to the application of ‘undue means’ to the sheriff, never emerged from committee.6
The three elections of 1701 and 1702 had all demonstrated the potency of partisan considerations in Cumberland politics, the importance of which were further illustrated at the assizes of 1703 when the county’s Whigs were reported to have attempted unsuccessfully to pass an address calling for the removal of Tory justices. From the 1705 election, however, the unity of component interests of the county’s Whigs and Tories began to fragment. The first suggestion that this was to be the case came at the end of 1704 when James Lowther’s forecast that Musgrave and Gilfrid Lawson would stand again and be confronted with two rival candidates proved to be ill-founded, Lawson having begun making interest solely for his own return. Lamplugh’s ‘talk’ of offering himself for the county came to nothing, and by February 1705 the only other candidate was George Fletcher, who was due to return from his military duties on the Continent to begin making an interest. By the end of the month, in a development described by James Lowther as ‘odd’, it became known that Fletcher and Musgrave intended to join against Lawson. The reasons are obscure. It may be that following Lamplugh’s decision not to stand Cumberland’s Whigs were unable to find a suitable candidate to pair with Fletcher and consequently decided to join Musgrave, who had failed to support the Tack, in an attempt to exclude Lawson, who was a Tacker. It should be borne in mind, however, that on hearing of these developments Bishop Nicolson, who had lobbied Members to oppose the Tack, and Christopher Musgrave*, who had failed to vote for the measure in the crucial division of 28 Nov. 1704, resolved to promote the candidacy of Joseph Musgrave*, a younger son of Sir Christopher Musgrave (who had died in 1704), and a staunch Tory, as partner to Lawson. Joseph Musgrave’s candidacy does not appear to have been pursued and, with Lord Carlisle publicizing his support for Richard Musgrave and Fletcher, the quarter sessions in April saw Cumberland’s Tories make another attempt to canvass support for a Tory partner for Lawson. On this occasion a younger son of Sir William Pennington was proposed to join with Lawson. Bishop Nicolson recorded that at a dinner attended by the county’s ‘gentlemen and clergy’ a ‘proposal [was] made for the peace of the county’, but that ‘these failing . . . war proclaimed’. Hostilities were brief. The proposed candidacy of Pennington’s son amounted to little, and Lawson was infuriated at the beginning of May by the decision of the sheriff, a cousin of Richard Musgrave, to hold the election at Salkeld Yates, near Fletcher’s estates. Lawson explained to Christopher Musgrave:
I am disappointed in my expectation of a civil and fair treatment from the sheriff, who removed his county court to Carlisle, and then to Salkeld Yates, a place upon the edge of this county, which you know to be a very large one, for several must come above 50 miles, and when they come there, can only meet with three or four straggling cottages, on the edge of a large moor, no place of accommodation being nearer than Penrith, which is four miles off. They do insist that this is the most usual place, Sir George Fletcher and Sir John Lowther being frequently elected there, which Sir George did for his own convenience, not meeting with any opposition at the latter end of his days. But all contested elections have been held in the centre of the county. I would very nigh double Mr Musgrave if the election was in the middle of the county, yet can’t prevail with the freeholders to go so far, and the sheriff has given me such a taste of what I must expect, that I shall trouble myself no further in that matter.
Lawson informed the sheriff on 25 May of his intention to desist, leaving Fletcher and Musgrave to be returned unopposed.7
The blurring of partisan distinctions evident in 1705 occurred again three years later. As early as March 1707 James Lowther, who had inherited his father’s extensive Cumberland estate and who now aspired to the county seat held by his father for nearly 40 years, had approached Bishop Nicolson for support at the next election. Lowther may have been preparing the ground for the possibility that the Union would precipitate a general election later that year, but, although Parliament was not dissolved, he continued to take soundings as to the likely candidates at the election due in 1708, confiding to his steward in September 1707 that ‘I should be willing to offer my service if those that approve my voting in the House would do their part to make it easy to me’. Clearly, he was hoping to secure the support of such Whig peers as Lord Carlisle, Lady Lonsdale ‘and others of the same side’. By November Lowther had received the support of Lady Lonsdale and Lord Wharton, and though Carlisle’s opinion was still not known Lowther was convinced that ‘I don’t see whom the party can set up without making me one’. He was, however, concerned that if he stood with Fletcher then Cumberland’s Whigs ‘will endeavour to secure him [Fletcher] in the first place’ so that Lowther could be defeated should Gilfrid Lawson decide to stand. This emphasis upon the interaction of personal and partisan considerations was confirmed in December when Carlisle wrote to Wharton that they should ‘use our endeavours’ for Lowther and Fletcher, while conceding that they were unlikely to stand upon a joint interest. Carlisle’s confirmation to Lowther that he would support first the return of Fletcher and then that of Lowther only served to enhance Lowther’s concern that, due to Fletcher’s desire to see an uncontested and therefore inexpensive election, he would eventually be excluded from the county seats by a deal between Fletcher and Lawson, though he did speculate that Fletcher would, on the grounds of ill-health, decline standing and thereby allow the unchallenged return of himself and Lawson. Fletcher was, however, unwilling to yield his seat and by January 1708 Lowther was reporting that Fletcher ‘does all he can to discourage me from standing’. Lowther claimed that Fletcher was falsely stating that Richard Musgrave would stand again with Fletcher in the hope that this would prompt Lowther to withdraw from the election, at which point Fletcher would be able to secure an unchallenged return with Lawson. Despite the cracks in Whig unity, Gilfrid Lawson remained convinced that Lowther and Fletcher would ‘join ag[ain]st me’ to thwart his attempt to regain his county seat, but Lawson’s fear that party loyalty would overcome personal jealousy and ambition proved ill-founded. Rumours abounded for several months as to the intentions of, and levels of support for, the three candidates. Lowther’s correspondence with his steward reveals a particular concern at the possibility that Fletcher would join with Musgrave, and this proposed alliance of the Tory Musgrave and the Whig Fletcher merely reflected the confused pattern of interests at the election. Lowther and Fletcher both had the support of such prominent Whig peers as Carlisle and Wharton, yet neither was prepared to form a joint interest, and Fletcher’s willingness to stand with Musgrave, or at the very least use Musgrave as a means of removing Lowther from the contest, was mirrored by the bi-partisan nature of Lowther’s support, which ranged from the Whigs, Bishop Nicolson and the Duke of Somerset, to the Tory Sir William Pennington. Pennington even proposed that Lowther form a joint interest with Lawson, and though this came to nothing Lowther continued to enjoy Pennington’s support and in February added to it that of Christopher Musgrave. The consequence was that Fletcher, Lawson and Lowther all campaigned singly, while the leading figures in county politics pursued varying lines. The Tory Richard Musgrave advocated the return of Fletcher while his father supported Lawson and Lowther; Bishop Nicolson, the Penningtons and the Musgraves of Edenhall declared in favour of Lowther and Lawson; the Whig peers Carlisle and Wharton worked for the return of Fletcher and, if possible, Lowther; Lowther alone received the support of Lady Lonsdale and the Duke of Somerset. Lowther was wary of following to its logical conclusion his readiness to accept support from those Tories who wished to defeat Fletcher and formally joining with Lawson. This unwillingness was grounded in a fear that to do so would jeopardize his support among the county’s Whigs, and indeed Fletcher attempted to spread rumours of an imminent conjunction of Lawson and Lowther in order to draw off Lowther’s Whig support. The failure of Fletcher’s tactics was apparent from the gathering strength of Lowther’s interest and the apparent weakness of Fletcher’s. The letters Fletcher sent into the county at the end of February and beginning of March announcing his intended candidacy appear to have met an unfavourable response. By the middle of March Lowther was writing of Fletcher’s possible withdrawal, and suggestions that Fletcher would support the return of Musgrave with Lawson to spite Lowther only ended with Fletcher’s death at the end of the month. In April Lawson was able to write that he and Lowther ‘shall have no opposition in the county’ and his confidence proved well-founded. The apparent calm of an uncontested election in which the county seats were divided between a Whig and Tory Member was in fact the result of a protracted and at times byzantine election campaign.8
The Tory backlash of early 1710 led Lowther to express concern that at the next election Lawson would join with Richard Musgrave and form a Tory pairing to exclude Lowther. Lowther paid little heed to Lawson’s claims ‘that he is against anybody standing to make a contested election’, but by May he thought that Lawson was ‘divided between the desire of coming in easily for the county and the pleasure of excluding me’. Lowther’s concerns were enhanced by fear that his ‘standing out against the violent proceedings of both parties’ in the previous Parliament would cost him support from the county’s Whig peers, and he contemplated withdrawing from the county election and standing instead at Cockermouth. The truth is difficult to discern, but Lowther’s fears of renewed Tory activity in Cumberland were confirmed at the April sessions when Musgrave proposed what Bishop Nicolson described as ‘a seditious address . . . of th[e] modish cut, “hereditary” in [the] text’. Though these efforts were unsuccessful, in July another observer recorded that Lawson was promoting what was likely to be a controversial address. Nicolson successfully opposed this address, which he recorded was ‘every syllable in the doctor’s language’, and forecast that the county would again return Lowther and Lawson. Lowther was less confident, and his fears were heightened by a report that a meeting of ‘heads of the High Party’ of Cumberland and Westmorland had resolved that Lawson should join with another Tory, conjectured by Lowther’s agent to be Musgrave, who in May had succeeded his father to the baronetcy. However, a meeting at the assizes on 31 Aug. of such local notables as Lord Carlisle, Nicolson, Lawson and Lowther’s steward reached an agreement that neither Lowther nor Lawson would ‘directly nor indirectly assist a third [candidate]’, following which the prospect of a Musgrave candidacy rapidly receded, though Lowther remained wary of Musgrave reviving his interest. Lowther was correct in anticipating the unwillingness of Cumberland’s Tories to acquiesce in his return with Lawson, but he had misidentified the main threat. This came instead from Pennington, who in the middle of October, prompted by Lowther’s decision to support the return of Nicholas Lechmere* at Cockermouth, began to canvass for the return of Sir Christopher Musgrave, 5th Bt.*, the Tory grandson of the fourth baronet, with Lawson. Though they forced Lowther’s agents to make detailed plans against any ‘surprise’ on the day of the election, Pennington’s efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful without the support of Lawson who abided by the agreement of August and wrote to Pennington asking him to desist. Lawson and Lowther were returned unopposed.9
Lowther’s concern for the security of his electoral position was clear at various times during the 1710 Parliament. In both 1711 and 1712 he expressed concern that plans were afoot to oust him in favour of a Tory candidate, and by May 1712 he was convinced that ‘nothing but the fear of being out himself can hinder Mr L[awso]n from attempting to throw me out’. By the beginning of the following year Lowther had decided that Sir Christopher Musgrave was unlikely to stand in Cumberland, but nevertheless remained wary of Lawson’s intentions. The tension between the two Members was evident in their attempts to outdo each other in representing to the government the county’s concern over the burden of the window tax, but by the end of March Lawson was soliciting the support of Lord Lonsdale (now 21) for the return of both himself and Lowther, a joint interest already approved by Lord Carlisle. Lonsdale agreed to support Lawson on condition that he ‘join heartily’ with Lowther ‘against any that may offer to stand’, a requirement to which Lawson willingly acceded, so that by the end of April the two were writing joint letters of application to the county. This unexpected alliance can probably be attributed to two factors. It may be that Lawson wished to avoid the inconvenience and expense of a contested election, but it is also true that by the 1713 session Lawson had grown increasingly disillusioned with the ministry, so that in June Lowther recorded that Lawson had ‘voted with us all session and was very zealous against the French bill’. Lawson’s hostility was given further expression the following month when he attempted to redraft the Cumberland address of thanks for the peace ‘in a much lower style’, and, though it was subsequently claimed that as Cumberland was ‘five in six High Church . . . it is generally believed Sir Christopher Musgrave with the charge of £400 or £500 at most would have thrown out Mr Lawson had he stood’, Lawson and Lowther were returned unopposed.10
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison
This account is based on Hopkinson thesis, 100–20.
- 1. Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, ii. 176.
- 2. Northern Hist. xv. 96–97.
- 3. Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W1/15, Sir John Lowther I to Cumb. freeholders, 11 Feb. 1689[–90]; D/Lons/W1/1/15, Thomas Tickell to Sir John Lowther I, 16 Feb., 2 Mar. 1689–90; D/Lons/W1/17, Sir John Lowther I to Thomas Tullie, 9 July 1698; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 3731, Sir John Lowther I to Sir Daniel Fleming†, 11 Feb. 1689[–90]; 3733, Sir George Fletcher to same, 13 Feb. ; 4864, address, [25 Oct. 1695]; Lowther Corresp. ed. Hainsworth, 232, 236, 243–5, 627–30, 633, 638, 653; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 350; HMC Le Fleming, 352; Stowe 747, f. 99 (Horwitz trans.).
- 4. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/3, James to Sir John Lowther I, 20 Apr., 24 Aug., 14 Sept., 22 Oct. 1700; D/Lons/W1/20, Sir John Lowther I to Cumb. sheriff,  Aug. 1700, same to [John] Aglionby, 12 Aug. 1700, same to Sir Wilfred Lawson, 23 Sept. 1700; D/Lons/W1/27, [same] to Ld. Carlisle, 12 Aug. 1700, Sir Richard Musgrave to John Gale, 16 Aug. 1700, [Sir John Lowther I] to Ld. Carlisle, 12 Aug. 1700; D/Lons/W2/3/7, Sir Richard Musgrave to [Sir John Lowther I], 17 Aug. 1700, Ld. Carlisle to same, 9 Nov. ; D/Lons/L1/1/46, Sir John Lowther I to Ldy. Lonsdale, 29 Aug. 1700, justices and gent. of Cumb. to Cumb. freeholders, 17 Sept. 1700, William Atkinson to Sir John Lowther I, 21, 30 Sept. 1700, John How to same, 28 Sept. 1700; D/Lons/W1/21, Sir John Lowther I to Ld. Carlisle, 18 Nov. 1700, 23 Jan. 1700[–1]; D/Lons/W2/1/21, Sir John Lowther I to James Lowther, 28 Nov. 1700; HMC Le Fleming, 355; Howard mss at Castle Howard J8/1/680, Sir Richard Musgrave to Ld. Carlisle, 17 Aug. 1700; 681, 683, Lancelot Simpson to same, 22, 31 Aug. 1700; Ld. Somerset to Ld. Carlisle, 2 Oct. 1700; Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 5543, Richard Musgrave to Sir Daniel Fleming, 2 Sept. 1700; 5546, Michael Fleming* to same, 8 Sept. 1700; Ld. Carlisle to Gilfrid Lawson, 7 Dec. 1700.
- 5. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/4, James to Sir John Lowther I, 27 Mar., 12 Apr., 19 Aug., 13, 15, 25, Nov. 1701; D/Lons/L1/1/46, Sir John Lowther I to Ldy. Lonsdale, 5 Apr. 1701; D/Lons/L parl. pprs., broadside, 10 Dec. 1701 (Horwitz trans.); L.K.J. Glassey, Appt. JPs, 147; Add. 40775, f. 46.
- 6. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/5, James to Sir John Lowther I, 14, 19, 26 Mar. 1701[–2], 2, 23 June 1702; D/Lons/W1/21, Sir John Lowther I to Ldy. Lonsdale, Apr. 1702; D/Lons/W1/27, George Fletcher to [Sir John Lowther I], 21 Apr. ; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, lxvi. 301; ii. 169–70, 173, 175–6; Leconfield mss at Cockermouth Castle, box 169, Pennington to Joseph Relfe, 24 July 1702 (Speck trans.).
- 7. Add. 29589 A, f. 101; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/7, James to Sir John Lowther I, 30 Dec. 1704; D/Lons/W1/28, Gilfrid Lawson to Sir John Lowther I, 2 Jan. 1704–5; D/Lons/W2/2/8, James to Sir John Lowther, 8, 20, 27 Feb., 1 Mar. 1704[–5]; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, ii. 220; iii. 1, 4–5, 8, 10; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Lawson to Christopher Musgrave, 9 May 1705.
- 8. Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 425; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/40, James Lowther to William Gilpin, 3, 12, 17 Apr., 20 Sept., 15 Nov., 16 Dec. 1707; D/Lons/L1/4/stray letters (Wharton), Ld. Carlisle to [Ld. Wharton], 13 Dec. ; D/Lons/W2/1/41, Lowther to Gilpin, 22, 27 Jan., 3, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, 28 Feb., 2, 6, 13, 16 Mar. 1707[–8]; Leconfield mss box 169, [Joseph Relfe] to [?], 4 Mar. 1707–8 (Speck trans.); Bagot mss, Lawson to [James Grahme*], 24 Apr. 1708.
- 9. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/43, Lowther to Gilpin, 19 Jan., 18, 21 Mar. 1709[–10], 23 May, 8 June, 31 Aug., 9, 14 Sept., 5 Oct. 1710, Gilpin to Lowther, 26 Aug. 1710; D/Lons/W2/1/56, John Spedding to Lowther, 11, 25, 29 Oct. 1710; Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 17, ff. 256, 259, 265; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, xxxv. 125, 131, 133–4, 137; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 342; HMC Portland, iv. 565.
- 10. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/44, Lowther to Gilpin, 14 Apr., 15 Dec. 1711; 45, same to same, 13 May, 8 Nov. 1712; 46, same to same, 8, 24 Jan., 7 Feb., 3 Mar. 1712[–3], 31 Mar., 2, 7, 14, 21, 23 Apr., 20 June 1713; D/Lons/W2/3/13, Lowther and Lawson to freeholders, 23 Apr. 1713; HMC Portland, v. 304–5, 322.