Available from Boydell and Brewer
Number of Qualified Electors:
estimated between 1,530 and 1,6801
Number of voters:
between 996 and 1,2052
|26 Feb. 1690||SIR JOHN LOWTHER, Bt.|
|SIR CHRISTOPHER MUSGRAVE, Bt.|
|7 Nov. 1695||SIR JOHN LOWTHER, Bt.|
|SIR RICHARD SANDFORD, Bt.|
|12 Nov. 1696||WILLIAM FLEMING vice Lowther, called to the Upper House|
|18 Aug. 1698||SIR RICHARD SANDFORD, Bt.|
|15 Jan. 1701||HENRY GRAHME||585|
|SIR CHRISTOPHER MUSGRAVE, Bt.||523|
|Sir Richard Sandford, Bt.||519|
|Sir Daniel Fleming||1123|
|10 Dec. 1701||SIR RICHARD SANDFORD, Bt.||652|
|Sir Christopher Musgrave, Bt.||5254|
|4 Aug. 1702||HENRY GRAHME||737|
|SIR CHRISTOPHER MUSGRAVE, Bt.||712|
|Sir Richard Sandford, Bt.||299|
|30 Nov. 1704||WILLIAM FLEMING vice Musgrave, deceased|
|5 June 1705||HENRY GRAHME|
|20 Feb. 1707||MICHAEL FLEMING vice Grahme, deceased|
|27 May 1708||DANIEL WILSON||986|
|12 Oct. 1710||JAMES GRAHME|
|8 Sept. 1713||JAMES GRAHME|
Electoral conflict in Westmorland stemmed from the influence of party which itself had two roots, the national prominence and political identities of the county’s leading political figures and the strong partisan sentiments of many of the other families and individuals possessed of significant electoral interests. The first of these factors was most clearly demonstrated by the disputes between Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. II, and Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt., as their rivalry in the Commons came to dominate the conduct of the 1695 election and led to sharp political division in the county. Though Lowther died in 1700, the conflict between these two interests dominated the elections of 1701 and 1702, and can be seen as broadly Tory and Whig respectively. Musgrave remained the leading Tory figure, while Whigs prominent in national politics such as Lord Carlisle (Charles Howard*) and Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*) dominated the county’s Whig interest. All the families active in Westmorland elections in this period can be accorded a party identity. The Lowthers, of both Lowther and Whitehaven, the Flemings of Rydal Hall and the lords Wharton all used their interests to support first Sir John Lowther II and later the Whig interest, while the Musgraves of Edenhall and the Grahmes of Levens Hall joined the county’s hereditary sheriff the Earl of Thanet (Hon. Thomas Tufton†) to support Tory candidates. After the death of Musgrave in 1704, however, the effect of party upon Westmorland elections was diluted. Divisions among the county’s Whigs, stemming in large part from personal rivalries and ambitions, combined with the desire of the Grahmes to avoid contested elections, which would undermine their already weak financial position, to mitigate the impact of the partisan alignments that nevertheless remained among Westmorland’s political elite. The consequence was that after 1702 only one election was taken to the poll and by the end of the period a de facto compromise had been established, leading to the return of one Tory and one Whig.7
The 1690 election passed peacefully. Lowther and Musgrave both made individual applications for support, Lowther declining to stand on a joint interest with Musgrave, though he also made it known that he intended to remain neutral should Westmorland’s other Convention Member, Hon. Goodwin Wharton*, contest Musgrave’s return. Lowther’s decision, possibly a rebuff to Musgrave, also served to discourage Wharton from standing, and Lowther and Musgrave were returned unopposed. There was, however, considerable ‘enmity’ between the two knights of the shire. Lowther later claimed that this originated in Musgrave’s opposition to Lowther’s attempt in 1684 to exchange lands in Leicestershire for crown lands in Westmorland, but the political views of the two men had diverged notably during James II’s reign and led to disagreements between the two during the Revolution. During the 1690 Parliament the political differences between Lowther and Musgrave were increasingly evident. Lowther’s role as Court manager and Musgrave’s hostility to the costs of William III’s involvement in the Nine Years War meant that the two regularly clashed during the consideration of supply, and as Musgrave’s opposition to the ministry became increasingly implacable the two men were found almost invariably on opposite sides. The consequences of this for the 1695 election are evident in a letter from Lowther to the Duke of Leeds (Sir Thomas Osborne†), written in May of that year. Lowther agreed on the need for the Church of England interest to unite but argued that this would not be sufficient to gain royal confidence if the King was unsure as to its loyalty. Lowther followed this with what can only be a reference to an attempt by Leeds to have him join with Musgrave at the next Westmorland election:
I much doubt whether the gentleman your grace mentions be of that opinion and will give sufficient and open assurance he will be for those measures, and for maintaining our present forces till a safe peace can be obtained, without which, as I am sure, he would not be of your grace’s opinion, so neither would the Church, the public or your grace receive any advantage from any understanding that did not conduce to that end. But on the contrary, an union that had not that for foundation and principle would prejudice public and the cause we wish well to, would weaken me in my country and render me an uncertain and irresolute man in departing from the declaration I have made, that I will serve no more unless I may have a partner of the same principles with myself. Men that only know the provocations I have had, may think my resentments have other reasons for their foundation, but he knows the contrary by my offer of service to him and actually removing all opposition to his being chosen here, when in the Convention Parliament he seemed to join heartily in the same interests with us and even now, when perhaps it may be difficult for either himself or his son to be chosen here. If your grace can procure from him such an assurance as may justify me, of his entering firmly into these measures, I will do all I can in the performance of your grace’s commands.
Lowther’s rejection of Leeds’s appeal demonstrated that, though Lowther continued to regard himself as a Tory, he was not prepared to stand on a joint interest with a man with whom he had disagreed so regularly, and on issues of such consequence, throughout the previous Parliament. This opposition, both its vehemence and its early demonstration, took Musgrave unawares. By September Musgrave was complaining of the allegations, circulated by Lowther, that he had ‘been consulting with great Jacobit[e]s’ and ‘openly allied himself to the non-juring party’, a reference to the assistance Musgrave was undeniably receiving from James Grahme. Rather than take a partner to oppose Lowther, however, Musgrave still hoped to be able to persuade him to support their joint return, and crucial to Musgrave’s hopes was the stance taken by Sir Daniel Fleming†, a partisan moderate with considerable local prestige and a significant electoral interest. Fleming favoured the return of Lowther and Musgrave, and Musgrave was keen for Fleming to make this opinion public and thereby put pressure upon Lowther to end his opposition to Musgrave. Lowther was also aware of the importance of Fleming’s influence and wrote to him requesting that he remain neutral in the election, citing a previous promise. Musgrave and the archdeacon of Carlisle, William Nicolson, both appealed to Fleming to write in support of Musgrave’s candidacy, but though Fleming prepared a circular letter recommending the return of Lowther and Musgrave he marked it ‘not sent, only intended’. Instead, at a meeting on 27 Sept., Fleming informed Musgrave of his intention to remain neutral. Fleming’s decision may have been influenced by hostility to Musgrave’s proposal that Fleming’s son William, whose relationship with his father at this time was one of low-intensity conflict, marry one of his daughters in return for declaring his neutrality in the county election. Lowther responded to Fleming’s decision by announcing his intention to stand in alliance with the 19-year-old Sir Richard Sandford, 3rd Bt. Lowther and Musgrave were both present at the October sessions, where the former, though he ‘acquitted Sir Christo[pher] from being disaffected to the government’, responded to requests that he join with Musgrave by saying that he was prepared to do so only if ‘Sir Christopher should . . . declare that he will at the first vote such a supply for carrying on the next year’s war as shall be demanded without any disputing’. Musgrave refused to give such an assurance, replying that he was ‘perfectly in the interest of the Established Church and his present Majesty’ and was prepared to vote ‘such supplies as on the debate of the House should be thought necessary’. Having publicly declared his unwillingness to accept Lowther’s terms, Musgrave faced the prospect of defeat for the second seat by Sandford, whose youth particularly irritated him, and at the end of October Musgrave was returned for Appleby on Thanet’s interest. Musgrave was still expected to contest the county, but instead of attending the county election he preferred to go to Carlisle to support the candidacy there of his son Christopher*. The wisdom of this decision was implicitly queried by Grahme’s steward who wrote that Musgrave ‘had the finest appearance of freeholders and the best sort too that has been known at any election, and if he had gone through with it he had carried it by a great number of votes’. Lowther and Sandford were returned unopposed, though William Fleming later claimed that he had been pressed on the day of the election to put forward his name. Following their election Lowther and Sandford were presented with an address requesting them readily to vote sufficient supplies to carry on a vigorous war with France.8
The elevation of Lowther to the peerage in 1696, as Lord Lonsdale, necessitated a by-election, but the Court–Country antagonisms evident in 1695 had subsided. The only candidate was William Fleming, who received the warm and enthusiastic backing of Lonsdale. Support was less forthcoming from Fleming’s father, who was particularly angered at his son’s failure to inform him of his candidacy before it had become public knowledge. The summer sessions saw Sir Daniel make his disapproval of his son’s candidacy clear by a ‘public demonstration’, his fear being that ‘when young men’s head[s] are filled too full of public politics, it often prejudices their own private concerns’. Nevertheless Fleming was returned unopposed. The 1698 election was similarly calm. Archdeacon Nicolson’s suggestion that Christopher Musgrave be returned for the county ‘to restore peace to the neighbourhood’ was rejected by Lonsdale, who claimed that though he was ‘ready and anxious to heal all breaches and will support a Musgrave if there is a vacancy . . . I cannot turn against the present friendly Members’. Sir Christopher Musgrave was returned for Oxford University and Lonsdale ensured that his uncle Richard Lowther† would not offer his services. Despite unfounded reports that Grahme had been elected, Sandford and Fleming were returned unopposed.9
At the end of the 1699–1700 session Fleming’s seat on the excise commission became incompatible with Membership of the Commons, and his decision to retain his place initiated a fiercely contested campaign during which it became apparent that the Court–Country division evident in 1695 had developed into a Whig–Tory polarity. The first candidate to make his intentions known was Henry Grahme, son of James, who quickly received the enthusiastic support of Sir Christopher Musgrave. It was suggested that the severe illness of Lonsdale would ‘allay all former heats’ and allow a peaceful election, but the unrealistic nature of such hopes was demonstrated by the response of Lord Carlisle, lord lieutenant of Westmorland, to James Grahme’s request to support his son. Having refused Grahme’s application, Carlisle wrote of his wish to see a Member returned who ‘will make it their concern to preserve the government, and serve the country’, and instead placed his interest at the disposal of Richard Lowther, whom Lonsdale had recommended shortly before his death in July. James Grahme criticized Carlisle’s advocacy of Lowther, expressing his surprise that despite his lack of estate in Westmorland Carlisle was attempting to utilize the influence of the lieutenancy in Lowther’s favour. However, with the support of Carlisle and Wharton, and with Lady Lonsdale involving herself in the election despite the urging of her Tory brother Lord Weymouth (Thomas Thynne†) that she remain neutral, in August Lowther’s prospects of success were thought to be good. His circular letter highlighted the care that his local origins and knowledge would allow him to take in the House of the county’s interest and that he ‘hath been so well affected to King William and his Majesty’s government both in church and state’. The corollary of this was the circulation of allegations that the Grahmes were Catholics and, by implication, disaffected, rumours which James Grahme was forced to contradict in a circular letter. This letter did not limit itself to countering the rumours bedevilling the candidacy of his son, but also condemned Lonsdale’s recommendation of Lowther as ‘a very improper legacy to his country as I never heard that knights of the shire were disposed of by will’; criticized Carlisle’s involvement in the election; and extolled the virtues of ‘men that have no employments’, a pointed reference to Lowther’s place in the customs. With the public declaration in September of Thanet’s support for Henry Grahme, the partisan division of the county’s leading figures was complete, and the vigour of the campaign led one observer to write that ‘half the pains was not taken at the Revolution as is now for gaining an interest’. Concern was expressed about the perceived inadequacies of Lowther’s campaigning, but Lowther himself remained confident of success. Allegations of Grahme’s Catholicism continued to circulate, and in November Lowther’s interest was enhanced by an address of support to the voters from a number of ‘considerable freeholders’, including Sir Daniel Fleming. Preparations for the by-election were superseded at the end of the month, however, by news of an imminent dissolution. Initially Lowther was unwilling to stand, so that it seemed likely that Sandford would be returned unopposed with Henry Grahme, but the possibility of such a compromise collapsed in the face of the determination to pursue partisan ends. This was first evident in the address of the Westmorland clergy, apparently organized by Archdeacon Nicolson, requesting that Sir Christopher Musgrave allow his name to go forward for the county. Musgrave consented, and his candidacy was the catalyst for a vigorously contested election. Sir Daniel Fleming considered offering himself as a candidate, though he contented himself with writing letters in support of Sandford, and Lowther made known his resolution to stand. By the end of December Musgrave and Grahme had begun to canvass for a joint interest, but divisions had occurred among Westmorland’s Whigs. Carlisle and Lady Lonsdale had assumed that Lowther had withdrawn from the election and accordingly threw the full weight of their support behind Sandford, Lowther’s decision to stand the election reportedly infuriating Lady Lonsdale. Eight days before the election Fleming was still writing to freeholders requesting their support for Sandford ‘and such other person as you shall judge fittest’. The poll further demonstrated Fleming’s support for Sandford when he ‘appeared . . . with great vigour and authority’ to demand whether Musgrave would choose to sit for the county or Oxford University. Musgrave’s refusal to answer this question was reported to have ‘dissatisfied the country’, and Fleming duly voted for Grahme and Sandford. Grahme comfortably topped the poll with Musgrave defeating Sandford for the second seat by only four votes. Lowther’s intermittent candidacy was reflected in his poor showing, and Fleming’s prominence in support of Sandford led over 100 voters to award him their second votes although there is no record that Fleming formally offered his services. More than four out of five voters polled along party lines. It was claimed that Sandford’s defeat was owing to a number of his supporters being prevented by snow from reaching the election, and to the polling of unqualified voters from Kendal. Sandford delayed petitioning in the expectation that Musgrave would choose to sit for Oxford University rather than Westmorland, and when Musgrave eventually did the reverse, Sandford dropped the idea altogether.10
The county’s political divisions were emphasized during the summer of 1701 by the new Tory Members’ attempt to obtain favourable alterations to both the county’s land tax commissioners and commission of the peace. With the assistance of the Earl of Rochester (Laurence Hyde†) Musgrave was able to effect the removal of two Whig justices and significant alterations in the land tax commission. The partisan nature of these divisions became apparent in the autumn when Musgrave and Wharton clashed over the wording of the county address. Drafted by Musgrave, this address condemned Louis XIV’s recognition of the Pretender as an attempt to set up ‘another pretended king’, a phrase seized upon by Wharton and others as implying that William III was the other pretended king. Although the disagreement over this address soon blew over it, augured ill for the second election of the year. By September Sandford had begun canvassing, and once the dissolution was announced in November Carlisle began writing in support of Sandford making it known that he was ‘all for keeping out Sir Christopher Musgrave and rather than fail would have Sir Richard Sandford and Grahme join’. Sandford campaigned vigorously upon a joint interest with John Dalston, a member of a minor family of Westmorland gentry, and was reported to have informed one meeting of freeholders that the dissolution had occurred as ‘the King did not love the last Parliament’. Grahme and Musgrave again joined as candidates of the shire’s Tory interest, and though Grahme’s application was diligent the reluctance of Musgrave to follow suit was described by one election agent as a ‘very fatal blow’. The efforts of Sandford and Grahme were rewarded, with Musgrave’s desultory campaigning placing him at the bottom of the poll. Despite the split return of one Whig and one Tory four out of five freeholders again voted along party lines and following the declaration of the result Sandford was alleged to have ‘charged the last House of Commons with matters I shall not name but was fully answered’ by Grahme. Following the election Thanet’s steward questioned the tenurial status of a number of voters, but these claims were not pursued in a petition.11
The divisions of December 1701 remained evident in the new year. At the beginning of March Thanet’s steward wrote to James Grahme of his fear that the justices removed the previous year would be restored, and expressed the hope that Musgrave would be able to secure the custos rotulorum’s place currently held by Wharton. Such manoeuvring was given greater urgency by the death of William III, but by the end of the month it was a supporter of Grahme and Musgrave who was writing of his concern that ‘the enemy has actually taken the field whilst you and your allies lie in garrison’, and of his fear that ‘a tardy application may endanger your interest by giving your friends occasion to suspect they are neglected’. Initially it seemed that Musgrave and Grahme would contest the election against Sandford and Robert Lowther, but Richard Lowther’s enthusiasm for the election of his son quickly waned and, despite Wharton’s attempts to bolster his resolution, Robert’s candidacy was short-lived. The three remaining candidates all campaigned vigorously: Sandford supported by Carlisle, Wharton and Lady Lonsdale, while Grahme and Musgrave added their interests to those of Thanet and the Earl of Sussex. The quarter sessions in April witnessed ‘great heats’ between the rival interests over the address of condolence and congratulation to be presented to the Queen, and efforts were also made by Archdeacon Nicolson to secure an appropriate address from the county’s clergy to be sent to Thanet for presentation to the Queen. Nicolson also took steps to speak to the clergy in an attempt to persuade them to support Grahme and Musgrave. Sandford was eventually joined on the Whig interest by William Fleming who resigned his place at the excise in order to contest the election. By the summer sessions Sandford and Fleming were campaigning together, but though they were diligent in their application the combined strength of the interests supporting Grahme and Musgrave and the comprehensive campaign mounted by the Tories proved too great. This was graphically demonstrated on the morning of the poll when Musgrave and Grahme entered Appleby at the head of ‘above 400 horse’, while in the afternoon James Grahme rode in accompanied by ‘about 500 horse’. Nearly two-thirds of freeholders voted for Musgrave and Grahme, only 83 of the 1,007 freeholders voting across party lines, and Grahme and Musgrave carried the poll by an overwhelming margin.12
Continuing animosity between Westmorland’s Whigs and Tories was evident in the summers of both 1703 and 1704. In August 1703 James Grahme informed Secretary Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) of Whig activity at the assizes, and in 1704, after the resignation of Nottingham, Fleming was removed from Westmorland’s commission of the peace, at the instance of the county’s Tories, for commenting to the deputy sheriff that ‘I hoped the Queen now saw the error of employing some men’. The by-election caused by the death of Musgrave in July 1704 was not, however, contested along party lines. By the beginning of August Robert Lowther had begun writing for support at the forthcoming by-election and by the middle of the month Sandford and Fleming were both reported to have also begun canvassing. The prospect of three Whig candidates contesting one seat clearly concerned the leaders of the county’s Whigs. In August Lady Lonsdale had written to Lowther asking him to desist in favour of Fleming; had informed Lowther that Wharton had made a similar request to Sandford; and had written that Fleming had agreed to stand aside at the general election and support the return of Lowther and Sandford. This proposal was accepted. It was thought initially that Sir Christopher Musgrave’s son Joseph* would stand as a Tory candidate but Musgrave quickly discovered that James Grahme’s inclination was to support the claims of Lowther, and though Lowther withdrew in favour of Fleming Musgrave felt that the opposition had been allowed too long to establish their interest and decided to withdraw and keep his powder dry for the following year’s general election. Fleming was returned unopposed.13
Shortly after his election Fleming met a number of freeholders and requested them to support Lowther at the next election. He discovered, however, that ‘very few liked the proposal and several declared that if he [Fleming] stood himself they would not be assigned over’, a setback that foreshadowed the difficulties that the Whig agreement of 1704 was to face. Canvassing for the general election began as soon as the by-election ended, but by 16 Dec. the proposed joint interest between Joseph Musgrave and Henry Grahme had foundered upon the inability of Musgrave and James Grahme to ‘adjust the matter of their joint expense at the approaching election for Westmorland’. Musgrave stood by his decision in the face of criticism from Nottingham and Thanet, though some canvassing in his interest continued into early 1705. Henry Grahme stood singly, but it seems that Lowther and Sandford were unable to agree upon joining their interests. In April Wharton wrote to Lowther that
it hath been all along a trouble to me to find that Sir Richard Sandford and yourself have not had that mutual confidence in one another that I should have thought you reasonably might have had. I wish to God I could have credit enough with both of you, to prevail with you both to stand and fall together, ’tis what I have often said to him here, when he hath complained of your not having mentioned him as you sent round the country, and ’tis what I can, therefore, with the more freedom now say to you, and I will hope that now you are both in the country together, you will both join heartily and in good courage, in serving one another, to serve the public by opposing the common enemy.
Wharton’s attempt to impose party unity upon the county appears, however, to have been ineffective, as in May it was being conjectured that Sandford would join with Grahme, and in the same month hopes of a united Whig interest were further undermined by Fleming’s decision to renege upon his agreement not to stand. Fleming’s decision came too late, however, to influence significantly the course of the election, which had resolved itself into a contest between Lowther and Sandford for the second seat. Lowther attempted to use Sandford’s election upon Carlisle’s interest for Morpeth to sabotage his rival’s campaign, but the day before the election Lady Lonsdale, Lowther’s leading supporter, was reported to be ‘doubtful’ of her kinsman’s success. However, Grahme and Lowther were returned, it being unclear if Sandford pursued his candidacy to a poll. The breakdown of party interests at this election is clearly indicated by a local Whig’s condemnation of Sandford ‘for deserting the interest that has been his only support at all former elections’, and foreshadowed the tempering of party divisions by more personal considerations which became characteristic of Westmorland elections for the remainder of the period.14
The by-election prompted by Grahme’s death in January 1707 saw nothing in the way of partisan activity. Having unsuccessfully approached his nephew Daniel Wilson, William Fleming, who wrote to at least one freeholder of the need to make ‘a good election to assist to get a good settlement of the Union with Scotland’, indicated his desire to stand, health permitting. However, shortly before the election Fleming announced the candidacy of his younger brother Michael, an army officer who had served at Namur, reporting to Robert Harley* that suggestions that he would stand himself had merely been a ruse to deter other candidates and secure his brother’s unchallenged election. Less than four months later James Grahme, Lowther and Wilson had begun canvassing against the next general election. Applications to freeholders continued into the new year, when it became apparent that though Lowther and Wilson were both Whigs their canvassing was primarily for single votes, only rarely pressing freeholders to ‘reserve the other’. As in the previous general election Wharton attempted to have the two Whig candidates form a joint interest, but this proposal was not made until April 1708 by which time Wilson felt bound by his previous undertaking to ‘his friends he would join with none’. Grahme’s interest suffered a significant blow when Nicolson, now bishop of Carlisle, made known that, due to Grahme’s abstention during the 1707–8 session upon Nicolson’s cathedrals bill, he intended to remain ‘neuter’ in the election. Eleven days before the poll Lowther confidently forecast his ‘interest to be much better than either Colonel Grahme’s or Mr Wilson’s’ and suggested that Grahme would withdraw without a poll. However, another observer noted that Lowther’s actions in relation to the county’s book of rates had lost him support and the day before the poll a clergyman thought all three candidates had ‘an equal strength’. Lowther’s ‘rudeness and unaccountable deportment’ had led the Flemings to withdraw support for his candidacy, and this may have proved crucial, as Grahme defeated Lowther for the second seat by less than 100 votes. Lowther, however, preferred to blame what he saw as the partiality of the returning officer, alleging that the deputy sheriff had gone ‘up and down the country to solicit . . . for Mr Grahme’, admitted 150 unqualified voters in Grahme’s interest and denied the vote to 200 of Lowther’s supporters. He complained that ‘this treatment must always be expected so long as Westmorland labours under the grievous misfortune of having an hereditary sheriff’ and made known that he was considering petitioning against Grahme’s return. As Lowther’s appointment to a place in the Ordnance meant that even if his petition were successful he would have to stand for re-election, he decided against petitioning, though at least one Lowther supporter who was denied his vote launched a court case against the deputy sheriff.15
The greater calm of the 1710 election appears to have been due in large part to Grahme’s financial problems. Though his finances had been unhealthy from the 1690s onwards the extent of Grahme’s difficulties became apparent in 1709 when he began to look for a buyer for Levens Hall. Grahme avoided a sale, but his finances remained shaky at the time of the election. The desire to avoid this expense is the most likely explanation for the report of August 1710 that Grahme ‘has taken great concerns to magnify the good services . . . of his present colleague’ despite the unwillingness of Wilson’s father to see his son stand again. Wilson’s undeniable Whiggery led ‘the heads of the High Party’ of Cumberland and Westmorland to propose that the Tory Sir Christopher Musgrave, 5th Bt., stand against him, but Grahme made it known that he hoped that Wilson’s ‘eyes will be opened by the next Parliament’ and without Grahme’s support Musgrave’s candidacy was quickly withdrawn. Wilson, supported by his father, by Grahme and by William Fleming, was returned unopposed with Grahme. A similar scenario unfolded at the next election. By October 1712 Musgrave had declared his intention to stand for Westmorland the following year, but Grahme rebuffed his proposal of a joint interest, and the baronet instead struck a deal, much to the irritation of Thanet, to come in at Carlisle upon the interest of Lord Carlisle, on condition that Musgrave assisted the Whig interest at Appleby. Grahme and Wilson, who despite Grahme’s hopes of 1710 had remained a loyal Whig, were again returned at an uncontested, and consequently cheap, election.16
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison
Unless otherwise stated this account is based on Hopkinson thesis, 74–98.
- 1. Northern Hist. xv. 98
- 2. Ibid.
- 3. Bull. IHR, xlviii. 82
- 4. Ibid.
- 5. Ibid.
- 6. Daily Courant, 7 June 1708.
- 7. Northern Hist. 96–97, 113, 115.
- 8. HMC Le Fleming, 266, 267, 337, 338; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 3731, Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I*, to Sir Daniel Fleming, 11 Feb. 1689[–90]; 3733, Sir George Fletcher, 2nd Bt.*, to same, 13 Feb. ; 3753, Fleming to Sir John Lowther I, 6 Mar. 1689[–90]; Musgrave to Fleming, 15 Sept. 1695; Sir John Lowther II to same, 15, 25 Sept. 1695; 4841, Musgrave to same, 19 Sept. 1695; Fleming to Westmld. freeholders, ; 4884, William to Sir Daniel Fleming, 27 Jan. 1695–6; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L2/5, Lonsdale to Henry Lowther, n.d.; D/Lons/L1/1/41, Sir John Lowther II to [Leeds], 26 May 1695; Add. 70289, f. 32; 70018, ff. 94–95; HMC Portland, iii. 567; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Musgrave to James Grahme, 12, 16, 30 Sept. 1695, Timothy Banks to same, 5, 14 Oct., 1, 11 Nov. 1695; Devonshire mss at Chatsworth House, Finch-Halifax pprs. box 2 no. 5, Francis Gwyn* to [Hon. Heneage Finch I*], 7 Oct. 1695; Flying Post, 16–19 Nov. 1695.
- 9. Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 4983, 5058, Lonsdale to Sir Daniel Fleming, 14 May, 13 Nov. 1696; 5845, [William Fleming] to same, 8 Oct. 1696; 5253, Nicolson to same, 27 Apr. 1698; 5258, Henry Fleming to same, 25 July 1698; HMC Le Fleming, 343, 345, 351, 352; Finch-Halifax pprs. box 4, Gwyn to Ld. Halifax (William Savile*), 10 Aug. 1698.
- 10. Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 5525, 5539, James Grahme to Sir Daniel Fleming, 6 July , 6 Aug. 1700; 5534, Musgrave to freeholders of Kendal, 15 July 1700; 5535, Carlisle to same, 30 July 1700; 5580, Sir Daniel Fleming et al. to Westmld. freeholders, 23 Nov. 1700; 5594, Fleming to same, 10 Dec. 1700; 5595, Thomas Heblethwaite to [–], 16 Dec. 1700; 5601, 5627, Sandford to Fleming, 24 Dec. , ; 5606, Fleming to freeholders of Grasmere, 7 Jan. 1700[–1]; 5630, same to Carlisle, 12 Feb. 1700[–1]; Bagot mss, [Weymouth] to James Grahme, 21 July 1700, Carlisle to same, 27 July , [–] to [Westmld. freeholders], , Grahme to [same], 9 Sept. 1700, John Hall to Grahme, 14 Sept. 1700, Lowther to same, 10 Dec. 1700; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W1/2/27, [Sir John Lowther I] to Carlisle, 12 Aug. 1700; D/Lons/L1/1/44, Weymouth to Lady Lonsdale, 27 Aug. 1700; D/Lons/L1/1/46, Sir John Lowther I to same, 29 Aug. 1700; D/Lons/W2/2/3, James* to Sir John Lowther I, 3, 12 Sept., 26 Dec. 1700; D/Lons/W1/20, Sir John Lowther I to [William] Atkinson, 28 Sept. 1700; D/Lons/W1/21, same to Carlisle, Dec. 1700, 23 Jan. 1700–1; D/Lons/W2/2/4, James to Sir John Lowther I, 6 Mar. 1700[–1]; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, lxvi. 294–7; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 335; Bull. IHR, 87; Bodl. Ballard 9, ff. 38–40.
- 11. Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/4, James to Sir John Lowther I, 17 May, 19, 23 Aug., 4 Sept., 13 Nov. 1701; L. K. J. Glassey, Appt. JPs, 143; Add. 40775, ff. 47, 57, 138; Hopkinson thesis, 180; Ballard 6, f. 63; Bagot mss, Banks to James Grahme, 14 Sept., 9 Oct., 24, 27 Nov. 1701; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 48/141, James Vernon I* to Shrewsbury, 17 Oct. 1701; Letters . . . to and from William Nicolson ed. Nicholas, 223; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Carleton mss, Thomas Carleton to [James Grahme], 29 Nov. 1, 18 Dec. 1701, 2 Mar. 1701–2 (Speck trans.); Bull. IHR, 87.
- 12. Carleton mss, Carleton to James Grahme, 2, 14, 21, 30 Mar., 2, 11, 16, 20 Apr., 29 May 1701–2, same to [Musgrave], 11 Apr. 1702, same to Thanet, 6 Aug. 1702 (Speck trans.); Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/5, James to Sir John Lowther I, 26 Mar. 1702; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, xlvi. 302; ii. 171–2; Add. 29588, f. 47; Bull. IHR, 88.
- 13. Add. 29589 A, f. 101; 61611, f. 115; 70335, cabinet minutes, 16 July 1704; W. A. Speck, Tory and Whig, 81; Bagot mss, Lowther to [–], 1 Aug. 1704; Bath mss at Longleat House, Thynne pprs. 26, f. 106; 25, f. 142; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L, Lady Lonsdale to Lowther, 10 Aug. 1704; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, ii. 205, 207–8; HMC Portland, iv. 125; Carleton mss, Carleton to James Grahme, 2 Dec. 1704 (Speck trans.).
- 14. Carleton mss, Carleton to Grahme, 2, 16 Dec. 1704, 18, 29 Jan., 22 Feb. 1704–5, 3, 11 May 1705 (Speck trans.); Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 259, 276; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/4/stray letters (Wharton), [Wharton] to [Lowther], 24 Apr. 1705; D/Lons/W2/2/8, James to Sir John Lowther I, 3 May, 16 June 1705; HMC Le Fleming, 355; HMC Portland, 175; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, iii. 9, 11; Bagot mss, Lowther to [–], 26 May 1705.
- 15. Bagot mss, William Fleming to Mr Ingesson, 7 Feb. 1706[–7], Banks to Grahme, 30 June 1707, Christopher Musgrave to same, 15 May, 13 July 1708, Weymouth to same, 8 June 1708, Gilfrid Lawson* to same, 9, 10 Sept. 1708; Add. 700197, Fleming to Harley, 23 Feb. 1706[–7]; Carleton mss, Carleton to Grahme, 22, 29 Jan., 5, 14, 21 Feb., 1 Mar. 1707–8, 24 Apr., 3, 16 May 1708 (Speck trans.); Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, xlvi. 310; D/Lons/L1/4/stray letters (Wharton), Henry Fleming to [Wharton], 26, 31 May 1708, Lowther to [same], 31 May 1708; Hopkinson thesis, 213–14.
- 16. Carleton mss, Carleton to Grahme, 23 Dec. 1709 (Speck trans.); HMC Portland, 565, 578; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/43, William Gilpin to James Lowther, 26 Aug., 26, 28 Sept. 1710; Bagot mss, Fleming to Grahme, 30 Aug., 26 Sept. 1710, John Aislabie* to same, 21 Oct. 1712, Weymouth to same, 24 Dec. 1713.