LOWTHER, Sir John, 2nd Bt. II (1655-1700), of Lowther Hall, Westmld.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 25 Apr. 1655, 1st s. of Col. John Lowther† of Lowther (d.v.p. s. of Sir John Lowther, 1st Bt.†) by his 1st w. Elizabeth, da. and coh. of Sir Henry Bellingham, 1st Bt., of Hilsington, Westmld.; half-bro. of William Lowther I*. educ. Kendal g.s. 1668; Sedbergh 1669; Queen’s, Oxf. 1670–2; I. Temple 1671, called 1677; travelled abroad (France) 1672–4. m. 3 Dec. 1674 (with £5,000), Katherine (d. 1713), da. of Sir Henry Frederick Thynne, 1st Bt., of Kempsford, Glos., 5s. (2 d.v.p.) 9da. (4 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 1668; gdfa. as 2nd Bt. 30 Nov. 1675. cr. Visct. Lonsdale 28 May 1696.1
Custos rot. Westmld. 1678–May 1688, Oct. 1688–d.; ld. lt. Cumb. and Westmld. 1689–94; gov. Carlisle Mar.–Dec. 1689; freeman, Portsmouth 1699.2
PC 19 Feb. 1689–d.; vice-chamberlain of Household 1689–Feb. 1694; first ld. of Treasury Mar.–Nov. 1690, ld. of Treasury 1690–2; commr. for inspecting hospitals and houses of charity 1691, appeals for prizes 1694–6, of appeal in Admiralty cases 1697; ld. privy seal 18 May 1699–d.; ld. justice 30 May–18 Oct. 1699, 27 June 1700–d.3
Gov. Ironmakers’ Co. 1693; commr. Greenwich Hosp. 1695; gov. Charterhouse by 1700.4
Lowther was the representative of a long-established and prominent family based in north-west England, whose record of parliamentary service dated back to the 14th century, but his attainment of high office in the early 1690s was quite unprecedented in his family’s history. As vice-chamberlain of the Household, a Treasury lord and leading government spokesman in the Commons, Lowther has been described as ‘the real linchpin’ of the ministry of the Marquess of Carmarthen (Sir Thomas Osborne†) and the Earl of Nottingham (Daniel Finch†), being ‘loyal to both leaders’. Lowther owed his rise in the first instance to his relationship with Carmarthen, a political alliance and personal friendship that was to last from the Revolution until Lowther’s death. Though not privy in 1688 to the plans of Lord Danby (as Carmarthen then was) for a northern rising, Lowther eagerly took the opportunity afforded by the confusion of late 1688 to try to secure Cumberland and Westmorland against the possibility of action by Catholic troops garrisoned at Carlisle. Obstructed in his wishes by his local rivals Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt.*, and Sir George Fletcher, 2nd Bt.*, Lowther appealed to Danby to assist an attempt to take the Carlisle garrison, and, though this request was denied with the consequence that the town surrendered to Musgrave, his enthusiasm for Danby’s cause appears to have endeared him to the Yorkshire nobleman, who was reported in December 1688 to have assured Lowther that he would be appointed governor of Carlisle. This promise was kept early in 1689, and Lowther was also named vice-chamberlain and appointed lord lieutenant of Cumberland and Westmorland. Additionally, he was included on the Privy Council, and in the Convention he acted as part of Carmarthen’s ‘Tory group’. His relationship with Carmarthen was undoubtedly one of the main reasons for his rapid promotion following the Revolution, his loyalty to the lord president in the early 1690s leading one modern historian to comment that Lowther ‘had been firmly tied to Carmarthen’s apron strings’. Of equal importance was the favourable opinion William III rapidly formed of the Westmorland baronet, Lowther having little trouble accepting the new King. Having supported Exclusion, been a prominent member of the opposition in the 1685 Parliament, an opponent of James’s Catholicizing policies in the late 1680s, and a supporter of the Revolution itself, Lowther appears to have suffered few pangs of conscience during the constitutional debates of the Convention. In the summer of 1689 he came to William’s attention following the debates on the bill of succession, in which Lowther opposed naming the Electress Sophia as the next in line to the throne after children of Queen Mary or Princess Anne. The Marquess of Halifax (Sir George Savile, 4th Bt.†), the cousin of Lowther’s wife, recorded that William heard that Lowther had explained this stance in terms of his desire to see members of William’s family succeed, and Halifax observed that ‘this was a seasonable compliment and was the introduction to Sir John’s being so well with the K[ing]’. Lowther was to retain William’s favourable opinion, and the importance of the relationship for Lowther’s advancement is clear from both his memoirs and correspondence.5
Though consistent in his opposition to the Court in the 1680s, Lowther was nevertheless regarded as a Tory by his contemporaries, and when returned to the 1690 Parliament was classed as a Tory and supporter of the Court by Carmarthen. As the Court’s leading spokesman in the Commons and a Treasury lord until 1692, Lowther presented to the Commons many of the Court’s requests for supply, and on numerous occasions was called upon to defend these requests and the government’s conduct of the war. His performance of these duties seems, however, to have accorded as much with his own convictions as the responsibilities of office. Lowther’s hostility to the growth of French power in Europe had been evident as early as 1677, and was to remain constant throughout his life. His Memoirs of the Reign of James ii, written in the autumn of 1688, placed the events of the Revolution firmly within the context of an impending European war, and he was to remain a steadfast supporter of the Nine Years War. His response in 1697 to complaints concerning impressment, that ‘I am very hopeful that peace will make the raising seamen unnecessary, but the way to have peace is to provide for war’, typified his attitude. Despite his personal commitment to the Continental war and the new regime, Lowther found it difficult to manage the Commons effectively, a failure which owed as much to his own weaknesses as to any difficulties inherent in the task, for as Macaulay has written, Lowther’s ‘tongue . . . was not sufficiently ready, nor was his temper sufficiently callous for his post’, and he possessed ‘neither the adroitness to parry, nor fortitude to endure, the gibes and reproaches to which he was exposed’. Lowther’s stiff and formal style in parliamentary debate became a target for satirists, one of whom lampooned him in the following terms:
As rich in word as he is poor in sense
An empty piece of misplaced eloquence
With soft voice and moss-trooper’s smile
The widgeon from the Commons would beguile;
But he is known, and ’tis hard to express
How they deride his northern genteelness
While he lets loose the dull insipid stream
Of his set speeches, made up of whipped cream.
Lowther found such harsh criticism difficult to accept, and in a memoir written in 1695 he asked
what man that hath bread to eat can endure, after having served with all the diligence and application mankind is capable of, and after having given satisfaction to the King from whom all officers of state derive their authority, after acting upright to all men, to be baited by men who do it to all people in authority indifferently, either to carry on faction or gain employments, to be judged ex post facto of matters purely discretionary, that if success do not happen then is a man arraigned and condemned by the evidence drawn from prudential topics, never discovered till the events brought them to light, which is a wisdom that every man may arrive at; and by these men nothing ever allowed for the unforeseen accidents that happen, whereby the best laid designs and best digested councils do miscarry very often.
Lowther’s frustration at the problems of office and the Court’s need to strengthen the ministry led him to relinquish his posts between 1692 and 1694, but his support for the Court remained constant.6
The examination of Lowther’s parliamentary activity is complicated by the presence in the House of his cousin Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt., of Whitehaven, but given the former’s role as a Court manager it is nevertheless possible to allocate a large amount of parliamentary activity to the Westmorland Lowther. It is highly likely, for example, that it was the Treasury lord who proposed Sir John Trevor, the Court candidate, as Speaker at the opening of Parliament on 20 Mar., and that it was he who took a leading role in the session’s debates upon the crown’s ordinary revenue. Enthusiasm to see this matter settled led him to move, during the debate of 22 Mar. on the King’s Speech, that the revenue be given immediate consideration, but his proposal was quickly criticized by Musgrave, Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt., and others as too precipitate. Although Lowther protested that he had not intended ‘to surprise the House’, his motion that the committee be appointed for the following day was defeated. It seems likely that he nevertheless continued to take a leading role in the debates on this matter. During the debate in the committee of supply on 27 Mar., for example, he declared that the King’s ‘rescuing you from arbitrary government, and restoring you to your religion and laws’ demanded an appropriate response from the Commons, and moved that the ordinary revenue be settled upon the new monarchs for life. He answered criticism that his motion was irregular and responded to allegations of ministerial failing by declaring that ‘while there are governments, there will be miscarriages, while men are men’, and urged Members to support the request of a King without whom ‘there can be no preservation of the Protestant religion’. Though his motion to settle the entirety of the ordinary revenue on the new monarchs for life was unsuccessful, Lowther again extolled William’s virtues the following day, this time in response to Musgrave’s motion that the hereditary excise should be annexed to the crown and the remaining parts of the revenue then considered. Supporting Musgrave’s motion, Lowther informed the committee that ‘no instance can be given of a prince who has done so much for his people, for so short a time as he has been here’, and later in the debate supported a motion by Lord Ranelagh (Richard Jones) that the hereditary revenue be settled on William and Mary for life, following which the motion was accepted the same day by both the committee and the House. The ordinary revenue being settled, the supply committee of 31 Mar. turned to Lowther’s request that Members consider the supply for meeting the costs of the war. His motion prompted consideration of alleged mismanagement of money previously granted for this purpose, with Musgrave proposing that without an account of the disposition of money previously granted, the government should be limited to borrowing on credit clauses up to a limit of £500,000. The animus between the two Westmorland Members became apparent with Lowther asking ‘if religion and laws will be safe under such a motion’ and whether ‘other men have other prospects than I have’, a direct reference to Lowther’s doubts regarding Musgrave’s loyalty to the new regime. The Treasury accounts of monies received, presented the same day were subject to criticism from Paul Foley I. Lowther’s difficulties continued the following day, when he informed the committee of the shortage of funds in the Treasury, bemoaned the inadequate sums voted for the war by the Convention, asked Members that they ‘first consider what must be necessary for their own preservation’, before moving that £1.4 million be granted to ‘carry on the war’. Though Lowther’s request came under attack, it being urged by some Members that only £1 million be granted, the committee ‘took a middle way and pass[ed] a vote for £1,200,000’.7
Indications of Lowther’s partisan allegiance are difficult to discern in his other parliamentary activities. His Tory sympathies can be glimpsed in his contributions to the debates upon London, on 8 Apr. condemning a plan for radical reorganization of the capital’s government, and on the 24th when he spoke against giving new privileges to the corporation and in favour of the Tory-sponsored address thanking the King for his alterations to the London lieutenancy. Lowther’s speech of 2 May in favour of voting as a breach of privilege Anthony Rowe’s* publication of a list of MPs who had voted against the throne being declared vacant prior to the 1690 election, can also be seen as an indication of partisan sympathies. But far stronger than his Tory attitudes was the evidence of Lowther’s loyalty to the Court and to the King. When Lowther had opposed granting new privileges to the corporation of London on 24 Apr. he had cast his objections in terms of a desire to preserve the prerogative of the crown. Further, on 9 Apr., he had joined the Whigs in opposing Tory attempts to commit the bill to recognize the acts of the Convention, successfully proposing that the bill receive its third reading the same day. His divergence from the Tory mainstream was further apparent on the 24th when he supported the proposal by Hon. Thomas Wharton to impose an oath of abjuration on all office-holders, Lowther speaking in favour of an instruction to the committee on this bill that those who would not take this oath should be denied the benefit of habeas corpus. He was almost certainly the Sir John Lowther among those named later the same day to draft the bill. By the second-reading debate two days later, however, Lowther’s stance had changed, owing, as Lowther informed the House, to ‘the example of a great man of authority’. It is uncertain whether the great man in question was, as Anchitel Grey* suggested, Carmarthen or, as Roger Morrice postulated, the King, but Lowther now expressed ‘a great deference to unity’ which such a bill would jeopardize, and instead suggested that the Commons ‘model’ the bill in order to demonstrate its loyalty to William without threatening such unity. On 28 Apr., following the Commons’ defeat of the abjuration bill two days previously, Lowther proceeded to support a similar compromise measure, suggesting that a bill to secure the monarchs should suspend habeas corpus for ‘all in authority’ who were unwilling to forswear James II. He informed the House that the ‘safety of the nation’ depended on such a bill, pointing out that the defeat of the Abjuration had been widely publicized abroad and that this measure was needed to prevent the wrong impression being created by this rejection. He was probably the Sir John Lowther nominated the following day to draft a bill to secure the government. His loyalty to the Court was further demonstrated by three interventions during May in favour of the regency bill, and by his defence of Carmarthen from a Commons attack initiated the same month by Seymour. He opposed Seymour’s motion of 13 May for a committee of the whole on ways to preserve the peace of the nation during William’s absence, arguing that such a debate could ‘create apprehensions in the people’ and encourage enemies of the government. When this committee met the following day he joined his fellow Court manager Sir Henry Goodricke, 2nd Bt., to defend Carmarthen from the attack led by Seymour, Lowther rebutting criticisms of Carmarthen’s actions in the 1670s by emphasizing the lord president’s loyal service since the Revolution and attacking those Tories who had assisted the quo warranto policy of Charles II. Assisted by divisions among the Whigs, the motion for an address against the lord president was comfortably defeated.8
Named to the council to advise the Queen during William’s absence during the summer of 1690, Lowther regularly attended both the Cabinet Council and the Treasury. As first lord of the Treasury, Lowther’s workload appears to have been heavy and his correspondence from this time illustrates the difficulties he found in supplying the King’s demands for money to finance the war. Lowther informed William of his concern that attempts to borrow upon the hereditary revenue would meet with little success, and on at least one occasion was forced to advance ‘what money I was able upon my own credit’. Although diligent in the performance of his duties, contemporary doubt concerning his capacity to cope with his responsibilities is suggested by the Queen’s own assessment of Lowther at this time as ‘a very honest but weak man, yet chief of the Treasury’.9
Lowther nevertheless maintained his role as a principal Court spokesman in the Commons, being listed by Carmarthen shortly before the start of the 1690–1 session as a ‘manager of the King’s directions’, and though a lack of parliamentary reporting makes his contribution to this session difficult to assess, it seems that he again played a prominent role in managing the Court’s requests for supply. On 9 Oct. he presented to the House states of the war and the public accounts. It appears from a contemporary satire that he joined Goodricke in taking the lead for the Court in the initial debates upon supply, but little else can be said of his contribution on this issue. Though the House readily approved the King’s requests, the debates over ways and means proved more difficult, and Lowther later complained that much of the supply was provided for ‘upon funds of four or five years’ distance’. These difficulties may explain the rumours circulating in late October that Lowther was to be elevated to the Lords and appointed secretary of state in place of Lord Shrewsbury, thus making room for Lord Godolphin (Sidney†) at the Treasury. Godolphin did indeed succeed Lowther as first lord in November 1690, but though rumours still persisted that Lowther would be appointed secretary, he in fact remained at the Treasury as second lord, and therefore as chief Treasury spokesman in the Commons. On 16 Dec. he was removed from the Cabinet Council. The same day it was reported that he ‘retired into the country’ being ‘lately disgusted at some matters’. He later wrote that his wish to resign at this time was denied him by the King who ‘forced me to take a present of 2,000 guineas which he gave me with his own hands, and sent me a message by the Duke of Leeds [as Carmarthen later became] that if I desired any honour he would give it me’. Though absent from London, in December Lowther was naturally included in Carmarthen’s list of probable supporters, and in another of Carmarthen’s lists was classed as a Court supporter.10
Remaining at his country seat throughout the winter, Lowther returned to London in March 1691. He quickly resumed his place in the Cabinet Council but does not appear to have taken up his duties as second lord of the Treasury, a fact which casts doubt on his later denials of allegations that he had been angered at being displaced at the head of the Treasury. In April he fought a duel following a challenge from a customs officer who had been replaced in 1689 by his uncle Richard Lowther†. Lowther was ‘dangerously wounded’, following which his assailant was forced to flee, ‘it being a great misdemeanour to challenge a Privy Councillor’. Little more was heard of the incident, however, and Lowther stayed in London during the summer. At the time of the duel it had been rumoured that Lowther was to be removed from the Treasury but no such action was taken, and on the eve of the 1691–2 session Lowther remained the most senior member of the Treasury Board in the Commons and one of the Court’s leading speakers in the Lower House.11
Although the diary of Narcissus Luttrell* allows greater insight into the parliamentary debates of the 1691–2 session, Luttrell rarely differentiated between the baronets of Lowther and Whitehaven. The continuing role of the former in managing the Commons for the Court suggests, however, that the lion’s share of speeches (save for those on the navy and the East India trade, issues in which an interest was more likely to have been taken by the merchant and member of the Admiralty Board Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I) can be attributed to the Treasury lord. It is certain, for example, that it was he who took a leading role in the Commons’ debates on supply. On 6 Nov., he responded to Foley’s request for information regarding England’s alliances, and the troop quotas imposed by these alliances, by confirming only the existence of the alliances and of their general intention to prevent any individual ally making any peace until France’s borders were reduced to those agreed in the Treaty of the Pyrenees. He also seems to have moved on 18 Nov. that the Commons go into a committee of supply rather than consider the treason trials bill. His motion was defeated, but following the debate on the bill and an agreement in the committee of the whole upon the amount to be granted to the navy, Lowther moved that the army estimate be referred to the committee of the whole then sitting. His motion was carried despite the opposition of Foley and Musgrave. When the committee resumed its deliberations the following day Lowther opened the debate by emphasizing the ‘great importance’ of the subject before them, the military abilities of the King, the danger France posed to England and ‘all Europe’, and the need to support the nation’s confederates, before moving the acceptance of the entire estimate. Lowther’s lengthy speech was immediately followed, however, by one from Musgrave, pointing out that the army estimate had not in fact been read; and though the 65,000 men the Court requested were granted, Lowther bore the brunt of much of the opposition’s anger when, on the 25th, it was discovered that this number did not include officers. Lowther argued that it had been ‘plainly the intention’ of the estimate that officers were not included in the 65,000 and that the reduction in the army consequent upon the inclusion of officers in this number would lead William ‘to be either beaten, or [to] come off with a dishonourable peace’. Despite ferocious opposition attacks, attempts to include officers in the 65,000 failed. Lowther was also successful, in alliance with Richard Hampden I, a fellow Treasury commissioner, in preventing Foley from carrying a proposal that the estimate for the army in Ireland be financed from the Irish revenue, and Lowther’s proposal to refer the question of whether the Irish revenue could bear this charge to a select committee was grudgingly accepted by the opposition. Lowther intervened twice more during the prolonged examination of the army estimates, speaking on 28 Nov. against renewed attempts to have officers included in the 65,000 men voted by the committee, and two days later criticizing the examination of the list of general officers as needlessly casting a ‘reflection upon them’. He unsuccessfully opposed the proposal of Clarges and Musgrave that the pay of the general officers be referred to a select committee, and it seems probable that he was the Sir John Lowther appointed the same day to the committee appointed to examine the charge of the army, including the list of general officers.12
On 1 Dec. 1691 the commission of accounts presented their report to the Commons, prompting Sir John Thompson, 1st Bt., to comment that ‘we were told last session “country gentlemen understood not accounts”, and now it seems the commissioners of the Treasury do not’. Stung by such criticism, Lowther’s thin-skinned nature was clearly demonstrated as he responded by raising the matter of a seditious toast Thompson was reported to have made the previous year, and by stating plainly that ‘I am not fit for my place in the Treasury. I shall be much easier out of it, and I hope I shall leave it.’ Despite this admission he nevertheless embarked on a lengthy attack on the commission’s investigations, claiming that their figures contained ‘several mistakes’, omitted material information, and that the commissioners exaggerated net government income by nearly £1.5 million. Such accusations led the commissioners Clarges and Sir Robert Rich, 2nd Bt., to counter-attack, Clarges asking if Lowther should be called to the bar for his allegations against the commissioners and Rich alleging that Lowther had clearly not read the accounts. Lowther again defended the Court from the claims of the commissioners when the report received further consideration on the 12th, and on the same date he supported Edward Russell’s proposal that all officers earning over £500 p.a. apply the excess to the war.13
Despite the attack on him occasioned by the report of the commissioners of accounts, Lowther remained committed to the Court when the debates upon supply for the coming year resumed. His hostility to opposition attempts to pare back government spending was evident when the select committee on the army estimates reported to the House on 15 Dec., Lowther defending the payment of the English rate of pay to Dutch troops in English employ rather than the lower Dutch rate. As well as his activity on fiscal matters, Lowther also took an interest in two monetary measures. A manuscript in the papers of Edward Clarke I* suggests that Lowther may have been the Member who introduced, on 23 Dec., the bill to prevent the export and increase the import of bullion, and his concern for such matters was again evident on 8 Jan. 1692 when he supported the second reading of the bill to reduce interest rates, perhaps encouraged by the hopes of the bill’s advocates that such a measure would increase trade and consequently customs revenues. Lowther also attacked opposition attempts to place a greater proportion of the Irish estimates on the Irish revenue, arguing on 1 Jan. that the estimates of the yield of Irish taxation were hopelessly optimistic, and when this committee reported the following day he joined with other Court Members to defeat attempts by Clarges and Foley to reduce the size of the Irish army. Lowther was less successful, however, when the House moved to the consideration of ways and means, during the initial stages of which he was consistently hounded by Foley. On 6 Jan., for example, Foley challenged Lowther’s estimate of the yield of the excise revenue, the committee preferring Foley’s figures; and in the same debate Lowther argued that the civil list was unable to bear any charge towards the cost of the war, only to be opposed by Foley, who contended that £200,000 could be charged for this purpose. Lowther suffered a further reverse on 11 Jan. when, after a ‘long debate’, the committee preferred Foley’s estimate of the yield of the customs to Lowther’s, and the following day the committee passed a proposal by John Smith I and Foley that £200,000 be charged to the civil list towards the cost of the war. Later in the same debate, however, Lowther joined his Treasury colleague, Hampden, in advocating that a select committee be appointed to hear proposals regarding Foley’s scheme to raise £1.2 million ‘upon a fund of perpetual interest’, and when the committee of the whole reported this to the House the same day, Lowther was the first-named Member appointed to such a committee. The tension between Lowther and Foley had by no means dissipated. Lowther’s support of Foley’s proposal of the 12th was based solely on the opinion that any proposal which had a realistic chance of easing the government’s financial difficulties deserved proper consideration, and on the 15th the two resumed their more usual rivalry when Lowther’s request for an 18-month extension of the excise was rejected in favour of Foley’s proposal of a further grant of one year. Lowther’s concern to find methods to fund the war effort led him to support the proposal for a poll tax, though he made it clear, when Seymour proposed the bill on 18 Jan., that he thought such a measure ‘an unequal sort of a tax’. His primary concern in the ensuing debates on this measure was to add caution to what he considered were Members’ unrealistic expectations of the yield from the tax (18, 28 Jan., 10, 16 Feb.), though in the debate of 19 Jan. he demonstrated a desire to protect the interests of Cumberland and Westmorland by highlighting how the distinctive nature of the tenure of many tenant farmers of the ‘northern counties’ would make the poll tax a particular burden. This concern may have prompted his proposal later in the same debate that ‘a fund for a perpetual interest’ be raised instead of the poll tax, a suggestion rejected as irregular during consideration on the poll bill in a committee of the whole. Despite his lukewarm attitude towards the measure, he joined a number of Court supporters on 18 Feb. in preventing opposition attempts to have the bill, now passed, lie on the table of the Commons until the Lords agreed to begin consideration of the forfeited estates bill which they already had before them.14
If Lowther’s role at the Treasury indicates that it was he who took a leading role in the debates concerning financial matters in the 1691–2 session, his staunch loyalty to the new regime and to the Court suggests that it was he who spoke in a number of other debates. On 5 Dec., for example, he joined Clarges in opposing an amendment to the Irish oaths bill which would have allowed Catholic lawyers to practise after taking only the oath of allegiance; and four days later he advocated that the Commons pursue the allegations of Jacobitism made by the informer William Fuller, an indication, perhaps, of Carmarthen’s determination to use these allegations to distract his political enemies, and in response to rumours that Lowther’s rival Musgrave was to be implicated by Fuller’s evidence. It should also be noted, however, that when Fuller failed to deliver proof of his allegations, Lowther supported Seymour’s motion of 24 Feb., condemning him as ‘a notorious impostor’. Lowther’s opposition in the new year to the Lords’ amendment of the treason trials bill should be viewed in the light of his care to preserve the King’s prerogative and, perhaps, a desire to prolong the dispute between the two Houses in the hope that a bill opposed by the Court would therefore fall, but the simpler explanation of loyalty to the new regime explains his support on 19 Feb. for the bill to prevent correspondence with enemies of the crown. A similar concern was evident three days later when he opposed the Quaker affirmation bill on the grounds that they were a group ‘not well affected to this government’ who had assisted the policies of James II.15
The difficulties the Court had experienced in the 1691–2 session led to rumours of possible ministerial changes at the beginning of the year. In the light of the prolonged debates concerning supply, Lowther’s evident unease in the face of opposition attacks, and his own dislike of his post, few were surprised when the King replaced him at the Treasury with Seymour. Lowther later claimed that his departure from the board was at his own request, and in February Harley reported to his father that Lowther had indeed quit the Treasury ‘voluntarily’. Rumours that he was to be elevated to the peerage resulted in nothing, Luttrell recording that Lowther had ‘excused himself’ from this ‘honour’. He returned north, demonstrating his continued loyalty to the crown during May through his implementation of a Privy Council order for disarming Catholics, though the later stages of the summer saw him suffering ill-health. Included during 1692 upon two lists of placemen, it seems that despite Lowther’s removal from the Treasury he was at the very least consulted upon the management of the Commons, as shortly before the new parliamentary session the Earl of Rochester (Laurence Hyde†), in a memorandum to the King concerning the coming session, made reference to Lowther’s opinion that ‘nobody can know, one day, what the House of Commons would do the next’, and that the House could be persuaded to make good the shortfall of the poll tax. Still vice-chamberlain of the Household, Lowther’s shedding of Treasury responsibility did not herald any diminution in his attachment to the Court. His political outlook is clearly demonstrated from his later comments on the situation in October upon the King’s return from the Continent:
he found discontent and faction higher than ever, as if the quieting of Scotland, the reducing of Ireland and the victory at sea had served only to encourage private men to endeavour public disturbances. Everything was complained of, sometimes with seeming justice and good reason, but oftener factiously and without any ground . . . these murmurs were blown up by those that were in the interests of the late King James, by those that were called Commonwealth men, but most of all, by those who desired to be in the greatest offices and employments, who would make themselves necessary by undervaluing other people’s administration, and by their constant calumniating other people, making it almost impossible to serve the public.
Though it remains difficult to distinguish his parliamentary activity in the 1692–3 session from that of his namesake, the Whitehaven baronet, Lowther’s loyalty to the Court suggests that it was he who was the more frequent speaker in this session.16
It seems likely, for example, that it was Lowther who, on 10 Nov. 1692, supported the call of other Court speakers to include a promise of supply in the Address, and who was a regular contributor to the subsequent debates on supply and ‘advice’ to the King. On 15 Nov., for example, he may have supported Foley’s proposal, concerning the date for the first sitting of the supply committee, to preserve the principle of considering grievances before supply while initiating consideration of the latter issue earlier than the more extreme Members of the opposition wished. A similar desire to expedite consideration of supply was evident on 25 Nov. in the unsuccessful motion, probably made by Lowther, that the military estimates be referred the same day to the supply committee, and he was definitely the Lowther who, on 2 Dec., successfully opposed Musgrave’s proposal that, the navy estimate having been passed, the House should proceed to consider ways and means of financing the navy rather than consider the army estimate. The following day Lowther opposed attempts led by Harley and Clarges to pass a resolution in keeping with the King’s Speech, to keep 20,000 men in England, arguing that the total number of troops should be resolved upon first. Though his opposition was unsuccessful, his speech demonstrates his concern that the demands of the Court be met by the Commons:
There never was a greater power than that of France since the days of Charlemagne the Great nor a greater alliance and confederacy formed against him than now, and I would not do anything to break it. We are under this union, and therefore I would give no jealousy to any of our allies, for if when we are united we are not able to master him, what shall we do when we are left alone? As to the war in Flanders I do think we can do nothing in it; it is running our heads against a wall. He must be attacked in another place and that I am for, and not for so great an army in Flanders. But first I am for taking care of ourselves and to provide for our own safety, but before I think it ought to be agreed in general what forces you should have.
Two weeks later it was probably Lowther who suggested, unsuccessfully, that Clarges’ proposal for additional duties be referred to a select committee. That Lowther’s position on monetary matters remained unchanged since the last session was demonstrated on 31 Dec. by his support for the bill to prevent the export of bullion, arguing that although outflows caused by trading deficits were inevitable, those caused by speculation were not. It is likely that it was he who, on 9 Jan. 1693, opposed Hon. John Granville’s attempt to tack to the land tax bill a clause extending the commission of accounts, and who seven days later proposed a clause for the ‘million fund’ bill, that the interest payable on the annuities could be increased should the entire million not come in at the initial rate. Nominated on 17 Jan. to manage the conference with the Lords upon their amendment to the land tax bill, Lowther also intervened in the ways and means debates of February, arguing on the 13th that ‘a good part of the taxes you have given are imaginary and depend on credit, and it is very doubtful whether they come in or not’; and on the 15th he probably joined Charles Montagu and Henry Herbert to support transferring £200,000 of the amount to be raised on ‘continued impositions’ to East India goods.17
Lowther was also a regular contributor to the Commons’ debates on ‘advice’ to the King. It was probably Lowther, for example, who on 23 Nov. 1692 defended the employment of foreign general officers, suggesting that English candidates for the posts would soon emerge and that the current generals should not be removed. It was certainly he who three days later parried the charge that the Cabinet Council amounted to a ‘cabal’ whose management of affairs was ‘dangerous’ by asking ‘what will foreigners say to this? I have heard foreign ministers say “that ’tis better for their affairs in England than any where else, because once a year the Parliament sits”; and without the charge of intelligence, they know all our affairs.’ His speech ended with a typical comment that he would ‘rather be at home’ than remain on the Privy Council. When the advice committee turned, on the 30th, to consider the report on the descent of the previous summer, Lowther opposed Thomas Wharton’s motion that the King employ only those who ‘come up both to the principles and his Majesty’s right to this government’, arguing that the King knew his own interest well enough, and praising William for being ‘firm to the Protestant religion and averse to the French’. Lowther’s opposition to Wharton’s obvious attack on de facto supporters of the government was, however, balanced by his criticism in the same speech of the law’s weakness in dealing with those who refused to take the oaths. His opposition to Whig attempts to use the advice hearings to attack Nottingham’s management of the previous summer’s descent was again evident on 5 Dec. when he spoke against a motion aimed at Nottingham, arguing that Members were ‘running too fast’ and should reserve their judgment until they were fully informed on the matter. It is likely that it was Lowther who opposed on 16 Dec. a proposal to address the King against the employment of the Dutch in the Tower, and it was certainly he who on the 20th renewed his opposition to Whig attacks on Nottingham, his moderate instincts being demonstrated by his profession of admiration for Admiral Russell and his contention that Nottingham had ‘done all that is possible for man for your service, and I doubt not is very faithful to your government’. This even-handed approach was emphasized in the debate of 11 Jan. 1693 upon the report on the ‘advice’ committee, when Lowther opposed a Tory-sponsored resolution critical of the Whig-dominated Admiralty Board.18
Lowther’s support for the prerogative led him during this session to become a leading critic of many of the Country measures sponsored by opposition Members. This was probably first demonstrated during the debates upon the revived treason trials bill. Given his later opposition to Country proposals, it seems likely that it was Lowther who on 18 Nov. 1692 opposed this legislation as likely to ‘weaken this government and be a benefit only to the enemies of this government’, and who in a committee of the whole on the bill ten days later pointed to numerous failed prosecutions for disaffection as a reason why a ‘bill to make prosecution more difficult’ should not be passed. Lowther argued that ‘if liberty go beyond its bounds, ’tis no more so, but licence’, and supported the Court line that the measure should not take effect until the end of the war. It was certainly Lowther who, on 22 Dec., opposed the place bill, attempting to stir up inter-House rivalry by arguing that such a measure ‘puts all the power into the Lords’, and he was also conspicuous during debates upon the triennial bill. At its first reading on 28 Jan. 1693, Lowther condemned the bill as ‘designed to throw dirt upon it [Parliament] who have been so steady and firm to the government’, and he again attempted to raise discontent with the Lords, asking why the Commons alone should have its sittings regulated. Having opposed the bill on 2 Feb., Lowther attempted to have the annual session clause removed during a committee of the whole on the measure five days later, arguing that it would allow the Lords a dominant position over the Commons, and he proposed an amendment to retain the monarch’s prerogative to dissolve Parliament. Both these proposals having been narrowly defeated, Lowther described the bill, when the committee reported on the 9th, as ‘the greatest blow imaginable’ to the present government, and again defended the prerogative and raised the familiar spectre of a dominant Lords as the bill passed its third reading, though to no avail. Lowther’s hearty support for William’s government was also demonstrated at other times during the session. In December 1692 he supported Sir John Somers’ bill to preserve the government, and on 21 Jan. 1693 attempted to moderate the Commons’ attack on Bishop Burnet’s Pastoral Letter, opposing the motion that it be burnt by common hangman, on the grounds that it could provoke a dispute with the Lords. He also supported the Court upon the indemnity bill, probably defending this measure on 27 Feb., and certainly doing so two days later. Two further speeches can with certainty be attributed to Lowther: on 20 Jan. he opposed the royal mines bill, perhaps echoing the concern expressed by King’s counsel earlier the same day that the bill intruded upon the royal prerogative, and on 6 Mar. he spoke in favour of the bill to reverse a writ of fine granted in the 1680s against Lord Pembroke (Thomas Herbert†).19
Included in the spring of 1693 in Samuel Grascome’s list of placemen, Lowther returned to the north for the summer, and a letter dating from June reveals his positive view of England’s prospects in the conflict with France: ‘there is no such thing as security in this world, especially in war, and when we have so formidable an enemy as the French King, but truly I think we have not much more to fear than he, and I think I may say much less than any other state now in war with him’. In November there was rumour that Lowther was being recommended by Carmarthen for the secretaryship left vacant by Nottingham’s dismissal. Lowther was not appointed, however, which perhaps was due as much to Carmarthen’s declining influence and the King’s turn to the Whigs as to Lowther’s unwillingness to assume new responsibilities. On 7 Nov. 1693 he may have supported Hon. Goodwin Wharton’s adjournment motion, and during the debate on the King’s Speech five days later, one of the Sir John Lowthers argued that Members were as yet unable to allocate blame for the naval miscarriages of the previous summer. The obvious similarity of this speech with the arguments deployed by Lowther of Lowther in the debates on naval miscarriages in the previous session strongly suggest that it was he who made this speech. He asserted that ‘the Treasury have had no assistance from the commissioners of accounts’ and, though he claimed that he was ‘indifferent’ to whether supply or ‘faults’ were considered first, he urged that the two issues be taken together, and implored the House not to ‘ruin the nation’ by their actions. Lowther may have defended the Tory admirals from attacks by the Whigs when naval miscarriages were considered on 22 and 29 Nov., but his continuing support for the Court is suggested by a speech probably made by him in the committee on the land forces on 12 Dec., when he joined other Court supporters in proposing a vote on the general principle of augmenting the number of troops before examining the actual number. The Court successfully carried this debate, and two days later (in a speech misdated the 11th by Anchitell Grey*), it seems likely to have been Lowther who embarked upon a passionate and lengthy defence of the Court’s requests:
You have a powerful enemy, that carries all before him, and his government is absolutely opposite to yours, and the Protestant religion. All his successes have not discouraged the confederates by discontinuing what they have allowed formerly, either at sea or land. No successes of the enemy have made the Duke of Hanover hearken to propositions of peace; nor in Germany, not the barbarity of destroying one of their greatest cities, as he would do this city . . . why should they have consideration for us, if we have none for them? . . . it is said, ‘we can defend ourselves, if all the world were against us’. But it is plain, this concerns England; for the King of France has England in his eye, no other way but to be great at sea; not Holland, nor Germany, but England is in his eye – If the Dutch be for him, and against us, we cannot cope with him . . . if he make a descent upon you, and come fresh out of his harbours, he may land where he pleases. No naval force can defend you, as an alteration of wind may defend you . . . let us consider this as Protestants, and I move this short question, ‘that the land-forces may be increased to the number of 94,000’.
The Court carried the question without a division. The 16th may have seen Lowther contribute to the debate upon the procedure for the impeachments of Sir Charles Porter* and Lord Coningsby (Thomas*). It also seems likely that it was the baronet of Lowther who opposed attempts to revive triennial legislation, speaking on 28 Nov. against the bill initiated in the Commons. In the debate of 18 Dec. upon a similar measure sent from the Lords, Lowther expressed his opposition to the clause requiring annual sessions, and in the new year he defended the King’s veto of the place bill, arguing on 26 Jan. 1694 that condemnation of ‘evil counsellors’ was difficult as ‘who they are will be a dispute forever’, and bemoaning the effects of party conflict. The committee appointed to prepare an address critical of the veto reported the same day but its harshly critical tone led to the appointment of another committee to amend the address, from which Lowther reported. On 1 Feb. he defended the King’s ‘gracious’ answer to the Commons’ address on the veto. The session also saw him appointed, on 3 Jan., to draft a bill for the registration of seamen, presenting the bill 10 days later.20
No further activity can be attributed to Lowther in this session, and it may be that he left London at some point during February 1694. It was at this time that he resigned his post of vice-chamberlain, and though Lowther’s wish to retire from government office had long been evident, Bonet reported the belief that his resignation had been prompted by changes in the London lieutenancy favourable to the Whigs; another report indicates that it was due to Lowther’s unease at the general shift to the Whigs evident in the ministry. The meeting with William at which Lowther resigned was reported to have ended with the baronet ‘assuring his Majesty of continuing to serve him with the same zeal’, and Luttrell reported that Lowther then retired ‘into the country’. Following his resignation a warrant was issued on William’s express order to pay Lowther £2,400, the King claiming that he had always intended that Lowther should receive £600 p.a. in addition to the ‘ancient profits’ of the vice-chamberlain’s place. Returning to Lowther in May, he also resigned the lieutenancies of Cumberland and Westmorland, and his withdrawal from political affairs at this time was emphasized by his lack of activity in the 1694–5 session. No parliamentary activity can be attributed to him during this session, and it is likely that the poor health of his wife prevented him travelling to London. On 12 Dec. he was granted indefinite leave of absence. Lowther’s political stance on the eve of the 1695 election was clearly demonstrated by his response to a letter from the Duke of Leeds requesting that in the interests of the unity of the Churchmen, Lowther would join interests with Musgrave at the next Westmorland election. Lowther lamented that through the parliamentary attacks on Leeds
we give the greatest wound to the Church of England they can possibly. That ’tis the divisions among the members of it that have brought it to that low and hazardous condition it is in, that nothing can cure the disease but a perfect good understanding among ourselves. And I, for my own part, not only out of deference to your Grace’s opinion, but out of the conviction I am under of the necessity of it, will contribute all I can towards it. But certainly, it is not that good understanding alone that can preserve us. The King must be of our side and the argument that we will not choose him, which your Grace hath heard so often urged, must be removed, or that good understanding will without doubt ruin it more surely and more suddenly. Men may have reason for their fears, as circumstances now stand, of the Church’s downfall, but ’tis actually undone in my opinion if the King be not supported.
Consequently, Lowther demanded that Musgrave must, in return for a joint return, declare that he was willing at the meeting of the new Parliament to ‘vote such a supply for carrying on next year’s war as shall be demanded without any disputing’. Musgrave’s refusal to do so led Lowther to join with Sir Richard Sandford, 3rd Bt.*, and after a vigorous campaign, succeeded in excluding Musgrave from Westmorland, and even opposed Musgrave’s eventual return at Appleby.21
Though his memoirs later claimed that he remained in retirement from May 1695 until the spring of 1698, Lowther was in London for the 1695–6 session, taking an interest in three of the most controversial issues that came before the House. Before the debate and divisions of 31 Jan. 1696 concerning the proposed council of trade, Lowther was forecast as likely to support the Court, and it was probably the baronet of Lowther who spoke during the debate in favour of vesting in the King the power of nominating members of the proposed council, informing MPs that if this proposal was adopted, ‘the resolution concerning the new oath would not be insisted upon’. Lowther was, however, unable to find a seconder, and when the question of imposing an abjuration oath upon members of the proposed council was put, Lowther was among the Court-inclined Members who left the Commons rather than support this imposition. Lowther was also keenly interested in the issue of the recoinage. He appears to have been one of the Court supporters who at the end of November 1695 opposed Edward Clarke I’s proposal that clipped money ‘go by weight’, despite the King’s support for Clarke’s measure. By the debate of 1 Jan., however, Lowther had altered his opinion and, according to one report, ‘acknowledged himself convinced of the necessity of having clipped money go by weight’ and proposed that this money should be recalled ‘all at once throughout all England’. Lowther’s interest in the issue was also evident the following month when the Commons proceeded to consider the price of guineas, as he sent a manuscript explaining his thinking on this issue, via Archbishop Tenison, to John Locke, a paper which Locke commented upon and returned to Tenison by the end of the month. Between Tenison’s sending Lowther’s manuscript and Locke’s reply Lowther had opposed, in the debate of 13 Feb., fixing the price of guineas, joining John Grobham Howe and Seymour in arguing that this would be determined by the availability of silver coin. Locke claimed that his comments upon Lowther’s manuscript undermined Lowther’s central assumptions regarding the coinage, and though the impact of this upon Lowther is difficult to establish with certainty, it is the case that in March he voted with the Court for setting the price of guineas at 22s. Lowther’s other significant contribution of the session came when the Association was introduced on 27 Feb., his speech on this occasion demonstrating the qualified opposition to abjuration oaths which he had adopted since his opposition to such an oath in 1690. Lowther declared that
I am sorry this Association is brought in; it seems the work of an enemy to divide us, when we have need of the greatest union; I do not speak this to intimate that I will not sign it, for I will, and did it, but only to signify to you that I believe it may have very ill consequences at this time.
Lowther was listed as having signed the Association immediately.22
Lowther’s desire to leave the Commons had been demonstrated during the campaign of 1695 when he wrote to his cousin Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I, that he had decided ‘to beg an honour of the King’, and asked that this be communicated to Leeds. Lowther had decided that the time had come to request a peerage, following five years of speculation that he was to be elevated to the Lords, and he later explained that his ‘principal design’ in making such a request was ‘obscurity and privacy’ and ‘by the usual indulgence of the House of Lords to their members, I hoped to enjoy my quiet’. In May 1696 he was duly created Viscount Lonsdale, using his new title in correspondence two weeks before his creation was official, and his natural humility, tinged with fatalism, was evident in his subsequent comment ‘far be it for me to think better of myself for this honour upon me . . . by how much we are raised higher, so much the more cautious we ought to be in our conduct, both as our faults become more conspicuous and as they minister an ill example to others’. Lonsdale’s attendance in the Upper House was infrequent, though he remained active in local politics. In March 1698, following rumours that he would be appointed secretary of state or lord chamberlain, he successfully ‘excused’ himself when closeted by the King and asked to accept a government post. In May 1699, however, he was appointed lord privy seal and added to the lords justices. His health, never strong, went into steep decline in the spring of 1700, however, and he died at Lowther on 10 July, being succeeded by his eldest son. Despite Lowther’s consistent support for the Court and for William III, contemporaries still viewed him primarily as a Tory. His inadequacies as a Court manager in the early 1690s have led historians to see a contrast between his personal virtues and his political failings, though for one contemporary, at least, these personal qualities were the essence of his political standing. On hearing of Lonsdale’s fatal illness, Hon. James Brydges* wrote: ‘if he dies his party will lose one of the greatest supports they have, since he was certainly a man very eminent for many great qualities, which, joined with the opinion the world had of his integrity, could not fail adding very great strength to the side he was of’.23
Ref Volumes: 1690-1715
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison
- 1. H. Owen, Lowther Fam. 64–65, 198.
- 2. CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 47; R. East, Portsmouth Recs. 372.
- 3. CSP Dom. 1690–1, pp. 240, 473; 1694–5, p. 204; 1695, p. 112; 1697, p. 511.
- 4. Sel. Charters, 229; Add. 10120, f. 233; Al. Carth. 62.
- 5. K. Feiling, Tory Party, 280; Egerton 3336, ff. 18–19, 36–37; HMC Dartmouth, i. 245; A. Browning, Danby, i. 422; A. McInnes, Robert Harley, 66; Foxcroft, Halifax, ii. 225; EHR, xxx. 91–97; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 831–2, Lonsdale to Earl of Portland, 13 Feb., 11 Mar. 1698–9; HMC Lonsdale, 112, 114–16.
- 6. HMC Le Fleming, 136, 347; Mems. of James II (1808), 2–3, 32–47; Macaulay, Hist. Eng. 1797–8; Poems on Affairs of State ed. Cameron, v. 200; EHR, 95–96.
- 7. Grey, x. 1, 4–5, 8–9, 12, 14, 17–19, 23–26, 28, 30–31; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/053/1, James Vernon I* to Alexander Stanhope, 1 Apr. 1690.
- 8. Grey, 44, 46–47, 52, 66, 68, 72, 74, 84, 91–92, 103–4, 111, 119–20, 129, 144, 144a; H. Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 55; Morrice ent’ring bk. 3, p. 138.
- 9. HMC Finch, iii. 378–89; Add. 38146, ff. 59–60, 66, 70, 132, 155–6; Mems. Mary Queen of Eng. 30.
- 10. Poems on Affairs of State, 254–69; Horwitz, 62–63; EHR, 95–96; Trinity, Dublin, Lyons (King) coll. 1995/97, B. Barnett to George Clarke*, 28 Oct. 1690; Bodl. mss Don. c.40, ff. 115–16, 161; Trinity, Dublin, Clarke mss 749/3, John Ellis* to Clarke, 8 Nov. 1690; HMC Portland, iii. 452; Atterbury Epistolatory Corresp. i. 15; HMC Le Fleming, 307; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 150.
- 11. EHR, 96; PRO NI, De Ros mss D638/13/10, John Pulteney* to Coningsby, 13, 15 Jan. 1690–1; Add. 34095, f. 295; HMC Finch, 389–412; Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 146, 165, 211; Luttrell, 210; HMC Portland, 463.
- 12. Luttrell Diary, 4, 10, 24–26, 28–29, 31, 39–40, 41, 47, 49, 51–52, 88, 91–92, 175; Grey, 184–6.
- 13. Luttrell Diary, 58–59, 77; Grey, 192–5, 198, 216; Horwitz, 72–73.
- 14. Luttrell Diary, 82, 101, 105, 112–15, 117, 121–2, 124–5, 131, 139–40, 160, 180, 190, 193; Som. RO, Sanford mss DD/SF 2928, Clarke’s notes, 1691; Northern Hist. xii. 116–17.
- 15. Luttrell Diary, 63, 69, 129, 195, 198, 204; Horwitz, 71; Bodl. Carte 130, f. 333.
- 16. Horwitz, 76; EHR, 96; HMC Portland, 490; Luttrell, 373, 376; HMC Le Fleming, 330; CSP Dom. 1691–2, pp. 410, 411; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L2/5, Ld. Lonsdale to Henry Lowther, n.d.
- 17. Luttrell Diary, 216, 229, 260, 283–4, 288, 326, 343–4, 356, 368, 404, 419–20, 424.
- 18. Ibid. 253, 257, 275, 295, 325, 331, 363; Grey, 277.
- 19. Luttrell Diary, 236, 265, 315, 335, 376, 380, 392, 398, 405–6, 408, 412, 450, 455, 468; Grey, 288–9, 300.
- 20. Lowther Corresp. ed. Hainsworth, 34; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 4641, Lowther to [Sir Daniel Fleming†], 14 June 1693; Luttrell, iii. 221; BL, Verney mss mic. 636/47, John* to Sir Ralph Verney, 1st Bt.†, 9 Nov. 1693; Grey, 314–15, 325, 327, 329, 337, 358, 361, 368, 370, 377, 384; HMC 7th Rep. 219.
- 21. Horwitz, 128; Stanhope mss U1590/059/3, Robert Yard* to Stanhope, 27 Feb. 1693–4; U1590/053/2, Vernon to same, 15 Feb. 1693–4; Luttrell, iii. 270; Cal. Treas. Bks. x. 532, 571, 1301; EHR, 97; CSP Dom. 1694–5, p. 197; HMC Lonsdale, 105; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/1/41, Lowther to [Leeds], 26 May 1695; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Timothy Banks to James Grahme*, 14 Oct. 1695; HMC Le Fleming, 338; HMC Portland, 567; Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 4860, Lowther to [Fleming], 18 Oct. 1695; HMC Downshire, i. 578.
- 22. EHR, 97–98; BL, Trumbull Misc. mss 32, acct. of debate, [31 Jan. 1696]; Stanhope mss U1590/059/5, Yard to Stanhope, 11 Feb. 1695–6; Devonshire mss at Chatsworth House, Finch-Halifax mss box 3, Nottingham to Hon. Heneage Finch I*, 14 Dec. 1695; Horwitz, 162–3, 168; Locke Corresp. ed. de Beer, v. 498–9, 531–2, 550–2, 580–1; viii. 325, 341; HMC Hastings, ii. 295.
- 23. Lowther Corresp. 241–2; Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 4983, Lonsdale to Fleming, 14 May 1696; D/Lons/L2/5, Lonsdale to Henry Lowther, n.d.; HMC Le Fleming, 344, 347, 349; EHR, 97; Horwitz, 267; PCC 155 Noel; HMC Cowper, ii. 400.