CLAYTON, Sir Robert (1629-1707), of Old Jewry, London and Marden Park, Godstone, Surr.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 29 Sept. 1629, 1st s. of John Clayton, carpenter, of Bulwick, Northants. by Alice, da. of Thomas Abbot of Gretton, Northants. m. 26 Dec. 1660, Martha (d. 1705), da. and coh. of Perient Trott, merchant, of London, 1s. d.v.p. suc. partner John Morris† in Bucks. estate 1682; kntd. 30 Oct. 1671.
Member, Scriveners’ Co. 1658, asst. 1670, master 1671–2, transferred to Drapers’ Co. 1679, master 1680–1; alderman, London 1670–83, 1689–d., sheriff 1671–2, ld. mayor 1679–80; gov. Irish Soc. 1692–1706.
Member, Hudson’s Bay Co. 1676, treasurer 1678; asst. R. African Co. 1681; dir. Bank of Eng. (with statutory intervals) 1702–d.1
Member, New England Co. 1683; gov. Bridewell Hosp. 1689; pres. Hon. Artillery Co. 1690–1703; St. Thomas’ Hosp. 1692–d.; vice-pres. London corp. of poor 1698.
Commr. customs 1689–97, taking subscriptions to Bank of Eng. 1694, Greenwich Hosp. 1695; trustee, receiving loan to Emperor 1706.2
Lauded by John Toland as ‘the best and bravest of citizens that ever lived’, Clayton retained a pre-eminent stature among City politicians. His reputation principally rested on the ‘vast riches’ he had built up as a banker, since he had risen from humble beginnings as ‘a poor boy’ of provincial origins to become a ‘prince of citizens’. However, such success was not achieved without controversy, for he had been accused of defrauding his clients, most notably the Duke of Buckingham. Even though impartial observers such as John Evelyn respected his professional integrity, Clayton’s leadership of the City Whigs ensured him further opprobrium, the Tory scribes deriding him as ‘extorting Ishban’. Such slurs did not check his political activity, as he played a key role in the upheavals of the 1680s, moving for an Exclusion bill in the Oxford Parliament, and taking steps to block the return of James II in December 1688. It was thus inevitable that after the Revolution he should be generally regarded as the father of the Whig cause in the capital.3
Such prominence brought Clayton early recognition from William III, who in April 1689 appointed him a customs commissioner. However, his relationship with the court had cooled before the end of the year, and on several subsequent occasions he was reported to have failed to represent the King’s interests in the City. Moreover, in contrast to his prominence before the Revolution, after 1690 he rarely took centre stage at Westminster. Indeed, he appeared an advocate of moderation, particularly in religious affairs, and was attacked by Defoe for failing to give a stronger lead to the Nonconformist cause:
Nor’s his religion less a masquerade,
He always drove a strange mysterious trade,
With decent zeal to church he’ll gravely come
To praise that God which he denies at home.
However, Dissenter John Dunton was more sympathetic towards Clayton’s stance, observing that
he is very much for unity and peace in the Church, but his opinion is that they might be preserved by a mutual forbearance in matters of ceremony, without a rigid imposition of them, for he knows it is equally superstitious to show too much zeal, either for or against them.
Clayton’s politique position may have helped to marginalize him in party circles, but as the City’s premier private banker, the patron of freethinkers such as Toland, Thomas Firmin and Matthew Tindal, and one of London’s greatest philanthropists, he retained an undeniable influence on the affairs of the capital.4
Although Clayton and his Whig allies had enjoyed an unopposed return the year before, the City election of 1690 saw them unable to defeat their Tory challengers. Clayton actually obtained an adjournment of the poll so that he could travel to Bletchingley to ensure his return there. Ever since his purchase of the manor of Bletchingley in 1677 he had enjoyed a decisive influence over elections in the Surrey borough, but on this occasion he still had to overcome opposition from local Tories. His decision to travel to Bletchingley was subsequently vindicated by his poor performance at the London poll, where he could only manage sixth place. Further proof of Tory superiority in the capital came later that month when Clayton was removed as colonel of the City militia. Despite this disappointment, his financial standing in the capital was acknowledged by the Tory Sir Peter Rich†, who cited him as one of ‘the men of interest . . . in common council and elsewhere’. However, he also noted that on a recent occasion Clayton and other Whig financiers had been slow to support a government loan, and hoped that their reticence might gain the Tories an advantage at court. Clayton in fact advanced loans totalling £1,500 in March 1690, but a banker of his stature was evidently expected to set a better example for his City colleagues.5
At the outset of the new Parliament Lord Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) duly identified Clayton as a Whig, and in the ensuing first session party tensions prompted Sir Robert to play a prominent role in the Commons. On 8 Apr. controversy arose over his appointment to the committee to draft a bill to reverse the judgment of quo warranto against the London charter, a selection which recalled his role in the early 1680s as a member of the City committee to oppose the surrender of the charter. He subsequently spoke on 17 Apr. in favour of receiving a petition from the London sheriffs, and five days later sought to ‘obviate all scandal’ on that petition by asserting that it had been drafted in accordance with City procedures. He also took that opportunity to point out several ‘defective’ features of the bill, and warned that not all former officers should regain their places, observing that ‘if all be restored that were before, you may see King James here again if the King go into Ireland’.6
Recent changes in the City lieutenancy caused further friction between the parties, and gave Clayton cause to vent his anger over his dismissal as militia colonel. On 24 Apr. he opposed a motion from Sir Thomas Clarges* to address the King with thanks for the recent alteration of the London lieutenancy, arguing that ‘neither the ablest nor best men were added’ and that ‘many have had a hand in the worst things’. However, this attack was accompanied by a call for reconciliation, for he warned that ‘divisions and parties never did good, nor ever will, of any church or party whatsoever’. Despite this plea, Clayton’s dismissal continued to be a point of contention between rival factions, the Earl of Monmouth drawing attention to it on 7 May when the Lords sat in a committee of the whole on the City lieutenancy. Most significantly, Monmouth identified Clayton as a communicant of the Church of England, and lauded his actions in December 1688 as the man who ‘went and prevented the body of the court of aldermen in waiting on the King [James]’. Such was the outcry over the dismissal that on 12 May the Lords requested the Commons to permit Clayton to appear before them to declare his ‘knowledge’ of the present lieutenancy.7
Only a few days after the end of the session Clayton stood alongside Sir Thomas Pilkington† as a Whig candidate for the mayoralty. Clayton failed to be returned to the court of aldermen, but Pilkington emerged victorious as the London Whigs regained some of the ground recently lost to their rivals. However, in the absence of controversy over City politics, in the second session Clayton played a less prominent role, his significant activity being confined to appointment to a committee to draft a bill to regulate treason trials. His politics were subsequently confirmed in April 1691 by Robert Harley*, who identified him as a Court supporter.8
Having hitherto revealed only limited interest in investing in overseas commerce, prior to the third session of the 1690 Parliament Clayton attended meetings of the interlopers in the East India trade, and on 17 Oct. 1691 was appointed to their committee to draw up a bill for the establishment of a new company. Moreover, in the same month his proprietorial influence in the island of Bermuda was also highlighted, for its governor complained of rumours that ‘Sir Robert orders and disposes everything here, even to the putting in and turning out of governors’. Clayton’s first important action in the new session of Parliament was a motion on 20 Nov. for the reading of the petition of Richard Baldwin, a printer taken into custody for publishing an advice to the House on supplies. He subsequently proved a stubborn opponent of the Old East India Company, speaking ‘strongly’ against it on 27 Nov., and supporting on 2 Dec. the establishment of a new joint-stock company to regulate the trade. He opposed the company again on 18 Dec., and five days later spoke against its proposed security. A bill for the relief of the London orphans predictably received his steady support: he spoke in favour on 3 Dec., and on 29 Jan. 1692 assured a committee of the whole that the City was ‘very willing’ to satisfy the debt to the orphans. Moreover, on 11 Feb. he successfully moved that the City’s waterbailage duty be applied to the fund for orphan relief. He was also concerned for the welfare of impoverished Huguenot refugees, reporting on 13 Feb. from the committee inquiring into their plight, and acting on 24 Feb. as chairman of the committee of the whole to consider a motion to address the King to secure aid for them. His only other significant parliamentary action was a tellership on 16 Feb. for the second reading of a clause to levy a duty on hunting.9
In 1692 Carmarthen included Clayton in his working list of government supporters, and Clayton was certainly active in promoting City loans, making personal advances totalling £3,000 in March and June of that year. Moreover, on 22 Feb. 1693 he loaned a further £2,000 in response to a direct appeal from the ministry to the London common council. On 27 Feb. he acted as a teller in support of hearing the City’s counsel against another bill to relieve the London orphans, the party significance of which was indicated by the opposition of rival teller Sir William Prichard*, a City Tory. He did not feature prominently again in that session, and in the next his only important action was an appointment to the committee to draft another London orphans’ bill. However, acting in his capacity as president of St. Thomas’ Hospital, in January 1694 he lent his support to a petition to the Lords against the Southwark waterworks bill.10
In the course of 1692–3 no fewer than four parliamentary lists cited Clayton as a placeman, while another marked him as a Court supporter who held an office. Further evidence of his support for administration came in June 1694 when, despite the threat to his own City interests, he invested £2,000 in the newly founded Bank of England. Despite such backing, and his appointment as one of the commissioners to take the first Bank subscription, his position at the customs was threatened by a government review. After a meeting of ministers on 14 June, Sir John Somers* reported to the King that Clayton was regarded as of ‘very little use’ as a customs commissioner, a verdict endorsed by Sir John Trenchard* and the Duke of Shrewsbury. However, his value as a financier was acknowledged, Shrewsbury citing him as one of the ‘eminent citizens . . . who all do, or should, promote loans and other services you may expect from the City’. Such utility ensured that Clayton’s name did appear in the new commission issued in August, but his relationship with the Court continued to be a matter for speculation.11
Although Clayton had survived a major test of his political interest, he encountered further difficulties in the subsequent session. On 12 Mar. 1695 the Commons committee inquiring into allegations of bribery concerning the Orphans’ Relief Act of 1694 presented their report, implicating him heavily in the scandal. Most damagingly, he was reported to have been present on 22 June 1694 when 1,000 guineas of City money was paid to the Speaker Sir John Trevor*, and 100 guineas passed to clerk of the House, Paul Jodrell. The committee had been unable to interview Clayton, for he was reported to be ‘ill and out of town’, and on 16 Mar. the House accordingly ordered him to attend to answer these charges. His testimony on 18 Mar. was reported to have only implicated a dead Member, and he subsequently escaped the censure of the House. However, his involvement in such corruption is further suggested by his will, for he bequeathed £50 to Paul Jodrell, describing him as his ‘loving friend’.12
Clayton was given little breathing space before the Upper House called him to account for his actions concerning the Orphans’ Relief Act. The Lords were keen to investigate allegations that the corporation had secured the support of the Marquess of Normanby for the measure by a grant of City property, and that Normanby had also agreed to obstruct the Southwark waterworks bill. As chairman of the City lands committee, Clayton had evidently played an important role in the transaction, and on 10 and 11 Apr. the Commons granted the Lords permission to interview him. He subsequently put up a stubborn defence before the Upper House, declaring that the contract with Normanby had been signed to no other end than ‘that they should make a bargain that should be for the interest of the City’. Although Clayton again escaped punishment, the damage inflicted on his reputation may have led to renewed reports in mid-April of the possible loss of his customs post. However, just before the end of the session, on 20 Apr., he appeared in the House in his official capacity, to present an account of gold and silver exports. Moreover, his appearance on a list drawn up by the beleaguered Treasury official Henry Guy* in this session suggests that at least some government officials regarded him as an ally.13
Despite these attacks Clayton could derive some satisfaction from the current strength of the City Whigs, whose growing influence had been demonstrated in March 1694 when he and other Whig leaders had been reappointed as militia colonels. At the parliamentary election of October 1695 the Whigs overcame all Tory opposition, thereby obviating any need for Clayton to seek election at Bletchingley. He subsequently failed to make any significant contribution to Commons business in the first session, although he was forecast as a likely supporter of the Court on 31 Jan. 1696 on a division concerning the proposed council of trade. In addition, he signed the Association on 27 Feb. and later voted for fixing the price of guineas at 22s. He was more conspicuous in the next session in connexion with fiscal matters, appointed to draft clauses to explain legislation for the prevention of abuses in the minting and circulation of public money. In addition, it was reported that he had brought in a petition calling for greater protection for trade, and in an official capacity on 11 Feb. 1697 he presented an account of informations concerning wool exports.14
At the very end of the 1696–7 session the Duke of Shrewsbury reported that the King was impatient with his financial backers, and had ‘particularly named Sir Robert Clayton as one who neither attended the board, nor encouraged his service in the City by loan or subscription’. Within a few weeks Clayton had been dismissed from the customs commission, after having reportedly ‘given great offence by his appearing to discourage the Exchequer bills’. However, the loss of his office appears to have galvanized his support for William, rather than created any antipathy towards him. In October he informed the lords justices that the City was prepared to advance the government £120,000, and also advised them how to allay mercantile concern for the repayment of the loan. Moreover, he was ready to employ £30,000 of his own fortune to pay off the troops, and in November was actively involved in preparations for the King’s return to London. Despite such activity, the court still dragged its heels when he sought to extend his lease of the royal manor of Kennington, deferring its decision for nearly two years.15
In the third session of the 1695 Parliament Clayton distinguished himself as a supporter of the free-thinkers by acting as a teller alongside Robert Molesworth* on 30 Mar. 1698 to defeat a motion to pass a bill for the suppression of blasphemy and profanity. His presidency of the Irish Society seems to have dictated other contributions to Commons business, for on 9 Apr. he reported from committee on a petition from the citizens of Derry requesting compensation for the town’s losses during William’s Irish campaigns. Moreover, after the House had agreed to seek the crown’s support for the Derry petition, he twice reported, on 2 May and 23 June, from the committee to draft the address to the King. However, his principal concern at that time was undoubtedly the newly founded London corporation of the poor, of which he was the vice-president. One historian has suggested that his concurrent support for the Lustring Company was also motivated by a desire to employ the poor. Such concern was clearly demonstrated by a report on 16 Apr. that Clayton had taken part in an inquiry to establish the superior quality of domestically manufactured lustrings.16
Clayton’s standing in the City was highlighted in May by his appointment as acting mayor in place of the ailing Sir Humphrey Edwin, and later that year he was praised by Toland, who observed that ‘without your advice the most eminent of your fellow citizens will not administer their own share of the magistracy’. However, Clayton did not contest the City poll of 1698, resting content with an unopposed return at Bletchingley. His decision to stand aside may have been taken to allow other Whig candidates the opportunity to gain election, or may even have stemmed from weariness with politics. Ever since the Revolution he had suffered from a kidney infection, and only a few months after the contest he confessed to his nephew that ‘I grow old and cannot bear the fatigue of business as formerly’. On the other hand, political tensions within the Whig party may have forced him to step down. Despite his endeavours to rebuild his interest at court, observers still thought him estranged from the ministry, for at the outset of the first session a parliamentary list identified him as a Country supporter, and another forecast that he would oppose the standing army. On 17 Dec. he was appointed to the committee to draft the disbanding bill, but there is no record of his having voted against the Court in the key division of 18 Jan. 1699. During the session he was reported to be ‘very busy’ in support of the Irish Society in a property dispute with the bishop of Derry. As governor of the Society, he had petitioned the Lords on the matter in the previous Parliament, and did so again on 26 Apr., although with little success. Soon after the end of the session he was charged with ‘peevishness’ over the affair, and James Vernon I* thought him ‘more inclined to provoke and embarrass, than do anything obliging’. He was also belligerent in the cause of the London corporation of the poor, clashing with Sir Francis Child* in May for allegedly discouraging the collection of the rate for its workhouse.17
Clayton remained largely inconspicuous in the next session. More industriously, in March 1700 he clearly supported the introduction of a bill to relieve the London poor, since his surviving papers include various drafts of that legislation. A parliamentary list of early 1700 suggested that he had yet to be reconciled with his former Whig allies, identifying him with the interest of the Old East India Company. Later that year he was reported to have backed the candidacy of the Tory (Sir) Charles Duncombe* for the City’s mayoral contest, having been canvassed by an agent claiming to act in the name of the 2nd Earl of Sunderland. This rumour was regarded as highly suspect, and at the subsequent general election Clayton removed any doubts concerning his politics by standing for London alongside three Whig candidates. He managed to secure fourth place in the poll, but, as had been the case in 1695, his name featured at the head of the return. Further evidence of his support for the Whig cause had been supplied by the preceding Bletchingley election, when John Ward II* was returned, almost certainly on Clayton’s interest. Some electors stubbornly voted for Clayton, but it was clear that he had wished to concentrate his efforts on the City contest.18
In the new Parliament Clayton’s rapprochement with his former allies was quickly acknowledged, for his name appeared on a list of 22 Feb. 1701 as a likely supporter of the Court in agreeing with the resolution of the committee on supply to make good the funding on the ‘Great Mortgage’. Returning to a favourite issue, on 25 Mar. he presented a bill to set the poor to work. More controversially, he was also bracketed with the Court in opposition to the Kentish Petitioners, and was accused of having suppressed a City address in their support. On 14 May he sought to play down the importance of a printed attack on the Commons on that issue, observing that the House ‘did it too much honour to take notice of it’, and that ‘if he had had it, he would have dropped it in a place fit for it’. On 23 May he spoke against the ‘inconveniences’ of mortgaging public supplies to raise supplies for the civil list, and was praised by the Tory Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, for speaking against his ‘own interest’ as a banker.19
At the election of November 1701 Clayton again appeared confident of standing in the City, since he did not seek a seat at Bletchingley. However, a controversy subsequently arose from reports that he had promoted John Toland as a candidate for the Surrey borough, an allegation which Toland vigorously denied. Toland actually thought that the story had been spread to impair Clayton’s electoral chances in the capital, and insisted that his patron had given his interest at Bletchingley to ‘an eminent citizen’, i.e. John Ward II. The dispute appeared to have little impact on Clayton’s City campaign, for he finished fourth, over 1,000 votes ahead of his nearest Tory rival. In the ensuing session he was named to the drafting committee on yet another bill to set the poor to work, and was the only Member appointed on 24 Jan. 1702 to prepare legislation to penalize ‘incorrigible and dangerous rogues’, which he subsequently presented as a bill to punish felons and their accessories. He also reported on 16 Mar. on a petition of six London parishes for a bill to oblige Jews to maintain their Protestant offspring, and later that day was appointed to the committee to draw up the measure.20
Clayton’s identification with the City Whigs was confirmed by the Bank of England elections of 1702, when he became a director for the first time. However, he experienced several disappointments after Anne’s accession, beginning with the loss of his colonelcy in the militia. He then seriously miscalculated when deciding not to secure a seat for himself at Bletchingley in the general election of 1702, for he could only manage fifth place at the parliamentary contest for London. Pre-election forecasts had predicted his return, but the scrutiny which followed the poll disqualified a sufficient number of his votes for Sir Francis Child to finish ahead of him. This defeat proved particularly frustrating, for Clayton was evidently eager to promote the London corporation of the poor in the ensuing session. Among his papers is a short history of the workhouse, dated 5 Nov. 1702 and perhaps in his own hand, which sought to gain exemption for its governors from the penalties of the occasional conformity bill currently under consideration. The account concluded that the bill could ‘prove of very fateful consequence to so good a work’, thereby suggesting that Clayton was not totally insensitive to the Dissenting cause.21
Fortunately for Clayton, one of the Bletchingley seats was soon vacated on the death of John Evelyn I*, and in December 1702 he was back in the House after a convincing by-election victory. He failed to make any contribution to Commons business in the first session, but on 13 Feb. 1703 showed his Whig colours by voting to agree with the Lords’ amendments to the bill to extend the time for taking the abjuration oath. The same month he was reported to have interceded on the City’s behalf with Whig magnate Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*). In the second session he was active in sponsoring a bill to establish more corporations of the poor in the capital, presenting it to the Commons on 10 Jan. 1704. However, having faced increasing opposition for his workhouse scheme since its foundation in 1698, he met with further disappointment, for the bill was lost on a motion for its second reading. On a more successful note, in the third session he lent his support to a bill to separate the parishes of Horne and Bletchingley. His politics were consistent, since on 30 Oct. 1704 he was forecast as a probable opponent of the Tack, and on 28 Nov. he voted against the measure.22
At the ensuing general election Clayton initially sought a seat at Castle Rising, backed by the interest of the Howard family of Ashtead, Surrey. He himself owned lands in Norfolk, and he secured an unopposed return on 14 May 1705. He had already spurned the luxury of a victory at Bletchingley, allowing John Ward II to take his seat there, but campaigned hard in London, where he finished in fourth place as the Whigs gained full revenge for their electoral reverse of three years before. He chose to sit for the City rather than Castle Rising. The 3rd Lord Sunderland (Charles, Lord Spencer*) regarded his success as a gain for the Whigs, and Clayton accordingly voted on 25 Oct. 1705 for the Court candidate in the division for the Speakership. Moreover, the compiler of a parliamentary list alluded to his association with freethinkers such as Toland by citing him as ‘No Church’.23
Clayton made little impact in the new Parliament, probably owing to ill-health. In early November he was reported to be ‘so ill that his physicians have no hopes of his recovery’, and in the following month he suffered the loss of his wife, who had been a constant source of care and support. Her death was said to have left him ‘truly destitute’, and his only ensuing political act of any significance was to support the Court on 18 Feb. 1706 during proceedings on the ‘place clause’ in the regency bill. However, while his Commons activity remained of little moment, right up until his death he was heavily involved in charity work, urging on the completion of building work at St. Thomas’ Hospital only months before his demise. He died on 16 July 1707 at his country residence at Marden, the estate which he had transformed from being ‘a despicable farmhouse’ to a ‘pretty house’ with justly famed gardens. He was buried at Bletchingley, where he had ordered the erection of a sumptuous memorial in honour of his family.24
At his death Clayton’s reputation was still largely determined by his activities before 1689. The epitaph composed by his nephew and heir William Clayton† celebrated the ‘great share’ he had borne of the campaign to preserve the constitution, and his monument bore the legend ‘non vultus instantis tyranni’. Most significant, William also stressed that his uncle had ‘lived in the communion of the Church of England, and in the most perfect charity with all good men, however divided among themselves in opinions’. Clayton himself showed that generosity of spirit in his will, for the deist Matthew Tindal figured among the beneficiaries, and actually signed one of the codicils. Moreover, several years earlier Clayton had testified to his close friendship with the Socinian philanthropist Thomas Firmin by erecting a monument in Firmin’s honour at his Marden estate, having worked closely with him to promote Christ’s Hospitals in Hertford and London, and the workhouse established by Firmin at St. Botolph Aldersgate. In return, the charities duly acknowledged Clayton’s favour, helping him to rebut charges of avarice which continued to be levelled against him by critics such as Defoe. As early as 1701 St. Thomas’ Hospital had erected a statue of him, its inscription declaring him ‘a just magistrate and brave defender of the liberty and religion of his country’. However, it was his vast fortune which maintained the Clayton name in political circles, and his proprietorial control of Bletchingley which ensured that his successors dominated the representation of that borough for the rest of the century.25
Ref Volumes: 1690-1715
Author: Perry Gauci
- 1. J. R. Woodhead, Rulers of London (London and Mdx. Arch. Soc.), 48; Bodl. Rawl. D.51, ff. 31–32; Beaven, Aldermen, ii. 105; K. G. Davies, R. African Co. 379.
- 2. NLS, Adv. 31.1.7, f. 146; Add. 10120, ff. 232–6; Boyer, Anne Annals, iv. 126; W. Kellaway, New England Co. 292; F. T. Melton, Sir Robert Clayton and Origins of English Deposit Banking, 4; Macfarlane thesis, 362.
- 3. Misc. Works of Toland, ii. 288–9; Evelyn Diary, iv. 185; Le Neve’s Knights (Harl. Soc. viii), 270; Beaven, ii. 191; Grey, viii. 309–10; Beddard, Kingdom without a King, 54, 173.
- 4. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 523; G. S. De Krey, Fractured Soc. 61; Poems on Affairs of State, vi. 408; J. Dunton, Life and Errors, 353; M. C. Jacob, Newtonians and English Rev. 220–2, 226.
- 5. BL, Verney mss mic. 636/44, John Verney* (Visct. Fermanagh) to Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Bt.†, 24 Feb. 1690; Manning and Bray, Surr. ii. 302; Luttrell, ii. 25; Dorset RO, Fox-Strangways mss D124, box 235, bdle. 4, Rich to Sir Stephen Fox*, 17 Mar. 1690; Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 1993, 2005.
- 6. SP 29/22, f. 26; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 158; Grey, x. 57–58.
- 7. Grey, x. 67–68; HMC Lords, iii. 48.
- 8. Luttrell, ii. 47.
- 9. Rawl. C.449; CSP Col. 1689–92, pp. 554–8; Luttrell Diary, 33, 44, 56, 58, 88, 92, 163, 181, 184, 191, 205.
- 10. Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 1652; 1752; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 488; HMC 10th Rep.V, 65; Luttrell Diary, 452; HMC Lords, n.s. i. 309.
- 11. Poems on Affairs of State, v. 430; Melton, 210; CSP Dom. 1694–5, pp. 179, 181, 185.
- 12. Add. 17677 PP, ff. 198–9; PCC 165 Poley.
- 13. LJ, xv. 551–2; Add. 46527, f. 82.
- 14. Luttrell, iii. 283; iv. 151.
- 15. Shrewsbury Corresp. 478; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/053/7, James Vernon I to Alexander Stanhope, 4 May 1697; Luttrell, iv. 286, 293; Cal. Treas. Bks. xiii. 3, 162; xv. 131; CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 432, 438, 448, 466.
- 16. Macfarlane thesis, 265–6, 362.
- 17. Luttrell, iv. 386; Misc. Works of Toland, ii. 322; Melton, 208; TCD, Lyons (King) mss 1999/588, [ – ] to Bp. King, 20 Dec. 1698; HMC Lords, n.s. iii. 18, 21, 23; Add. 40774, ff. 34–36; Macfarlane thesis, 330.
- 18. Macfarlane thesis, 332; Vernon–Shrewsbury Corresp. iii. 138.
- 19. Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. v. p. clxxv; Cocks Diary, 127–28, 145.
- 20. Modesty Mistaken , 6–7; Misc. Works of Toland, i. pp. liii–liv.
- 21. Luttrell, v. 193; HMC Portland, iv. 43; BL, Trumbull Alphab. mss 50, Thomas Bateman to Sir William Trumbull*, 24 July, 17 Aug. 1702; Guildhall Lib. ms 20484, acct. of workhouse, 5 Nov. 1702.
- 22. Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 200, 253, 273; Macfarlane thesis, 341.
- 23. PCC 165 Poley.
- 24. Folger Shakespeare Lib. Newdigate newsletters 6 Nov. 1705, 17 July 1707; Misc. Works of Toland, ii. 288–9; E. M. McInnes, St. Thomas’ Hosp. 68; Evelyn Diary, iv. 121–2, v. 425–6; Archaeologia, xii. 187; PCC 165 Poley.
- 25. Manning and Bray, 310–11; PCC 165 Poley; A. U. M Lambert, Godstone, 287; F. M. Page, Christ’s Hosp. Hertford, 24–26; E. H. Pearce, Annals of Christ’s Hosp. 55, 100, 169; Macfarlane thesis, 247–8, 257; Poems on Affairs of State, vi. 408; J. Aubrey, Surr. v. 292–4.