Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1690-1715, ed. D. Hayton, E. Cruickshanks, S. Handley, 2002
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Right of Election:

in the burgesses

Number of Qualified Electors:


Number of voters:

124 in 1694, rising to 183 in 1713


24 Jan. 1694JOHN BYROM vice Standish, deceased83
 Bertie Entwistle38
 John Warren12
 Alexander Rigby71
 Sir Edward Chisenhall13
 Bertie Entwistle23
 Sir Alexander Rigby73
 James Anderton24
 William Banks1
 Mr Bold1
 Sir Edward Chisenhall1
 Peter Shakerley14
13 Jan. 1701SIR ROGER BRADSHAIGH, Bt.102
 Emmanuel Scrope Howe67
 Sir Alexander Rigby395
29 Nov. 1701SIR ROGER BRADSHAIGH, Bt.105
 Orlando Bridgeman806
 Sir Alexander Rigby83
 Sir Edward Chisenhall5
 Emmanuel Scrope Howe2
 Mr Banks1
 Mr Roper17
 Orlando Bridgeman76
 Hon. Heneage Finch578
22 Apr. 1713GEORGE KENYON vice Henry Bradshaigh, deceased 
3 Sept. 1713SIR ROGER BRADSHAIGH, Bt.126
 James Barry, Earl of Barrymore [I]87
 Orlando Bridgeman189

Main Article

Situated in the heart of the south-west Lancashire coalfield, Wigan was an expanding, early industrial town. The Haigh mines, the most important in the district, were owned by the Bradshaighs of Haigh Hall, whose prominent role in corporation affairs during the Restoration had allowed them to establish a dominant interest in the borough, being always strong enough to command one seat in this period and frequently both. Wigan’s rectory, held in commendam with the bishopric of Chester until 1707, included the lordship of the manor, and consequently the rectory, the advowson of which was owned by the Bridgemans of Castle Bromwich, held a significant interest in the borough. The Stanleys of Knowsley, earls of Derby, also had an interest in the borough based upon their local prominence, and the earls Rivers carried some influence at Wigan by virtue of land owned in the locality. The strength of these established interests deterred carpet-baggers, and the story of Wigan elections in this period is of a struggle of rival interests to prevent the Bradshaighs taking both seats.10

The Wigan franchise, never determined by the Commons before 1832, lay in the corporation by prescription. The borough contained both burgesses and freemen, the franchise being in the former, the status of freeman granting only economic rights. Although burgesses were divided into in- and out-, all were elected and sworn by the same process and their status depended on their current abode. In-burgesses totalled just over 100 in this period, and the out-burgesses between 150 and 200. The borough was governed by a biannual court leet held at Michaelmas and Easter where charges were laid and heard by a leet jury upon which all in-burgesses were allowed to sit. The leet jury also elected all new in-burgesses and elected the candidates, or benchers, who were to go forward for election as mayor, in which the entire body of burgesses was entitled to vote. The mayoral elections were of immense electoral importance in Wigan, as the power to create an unlimited number of out-burgesses was vested in the office.11

Wigan had been particularly harshly dealt with by the Catholicization policy of James II, and the spirit of Protestant unity evident in the borough at the close of 1688 appears to have been maintained through 1689 and until the election of 1690, when the Anglican Sir Richard Standish, 1st Bt., stood for the borough with the support of Lancashire’s leading Dissenter, the Hon. Hugh Willoughby. Standish’s election was secure, and the contest for the remaining seat lay between Peter Shakerley, utilizing the Bradshaigh interest, at his disposal as guardian of the 15-year old Sir Roger, in addition to having the support of the 9th Earl of Derby, and Sir Edward Chisenhall, Wigan’s surviving Convention Member. The combined might of the Bradshaigh and Stanley interests proved too much for Chisenhall, who withdrew before a poll. Standish’s death in December 1693 drew a number of interested parties to the borough. (Sir) Alexander Rigby, a London merchant from a Lancashire family, considered standing, but eventually opted to keep his powder dry for the next general election. The Whig lord lieutenant, Lord Brandon (Charles Gerard*), attempted to promote the candidacy of Colonel Edward Matthews, an army officer stationed with his regiment in Lancashire since 1690 to help deal with suspected disaffection, and enlisted the support of Willoughby, now Lord Willoughby of Parham. Matthews was, however, unable to establish an interest in the borough, and the contest lay between John Byrom of nearby Prescot, the borough’s recorder Bertie Entwistle, and John Warren, former justice of the court of session of Chester. Warren’s candidature was still-born, and the contest lay between Byrom and Entwistle. Byrom was supported by the Bradshaigh interest and was ‘neither niggard of purse nor fair speeches’, comfortably defeating Entwistle with ‘a great many more [votes] than he made use of’.12

At the mayoral election in the following October Shakerley was attacked by supporters of Entwistle for his assumption of the mayoralty, alleging that the only reason he had ignored the expected rotation of aldermen in the post was fear that the intended mayor ‘would tender the oaths to the non-jurors’. Shakerley denied these allegations, claiming that Entwistle and his allies were motivated by bitterness regarding the defeat of the previous January, and a legal challenge to his mayoralty was not pursued. These divisions foreshadowed a contentious parliamentary election in 1695. Although only 20, Bradshaigh stood, on a joint interest with Shakerley, and this Tory pairing found itself opposed by Rigby, his interest in the borough bolstered by the support of Brandon, now Earl of Macclesfield, and other notable Lancashire and Cheshire Whigs. Macclesfield sent one of his servants to Wigan to organize Rigby’s campaign to ‘keep out an ill man’, Shakerley, and Rigby certainly campaigned vigorously, ‘drinking hard for the place’. It was later alleged that Macclesfield had threatened the borough that if it did not ‘elect Mr Rigby for one of their burgesses there should be two troops of horse quartered upon them’, and that Rigby had so influenced the wife of one in-burgess that she had told her husband that ‘if he did not vote for Mr Rigby he should never come within the sheets with her’. Bradshaigh’s management and interest proved, however, to be more than a match for Rigby who, despite the support on polling day of Lord Willoughby, Hon. Charles Stanley* and Hon. James Stanley*, trailed Shakerley by 19 votes. Over half of the burgesses who attended cast their votes for Bradshaigh and Shakerley, while only one in four voted for Rigby and Bradshaigh and less than one in ten plumped for Rigby. The casting of 15 votes for Chisenhall and two for Entwistle, all in alliance with votes for Rigby, clearly indicates the hostility of a section of the borough to both Bradshaigh and Shakerley, but it was obviously a minority opinion despite the violent outbursts of Rigby’s supporters on the night after the poll. Rigby petitioned against the return of Shakerley, claiming undue practices and that Shakerley was ‘a Jacobite, an enemy to the government’. Shakerley made meticulous preparations to defend his return, but in early 1696 he decided that discretion was required and agreed to stand aside at the next election in return for Rigby dropping his petition.13

Any hopes that this agreement would lead to a cooling of political heats in the borough proved to be misplaced. In December 1697 the corporation, under the influence of Bradshaigh and Shakerley, petitioned William III to appoint George Kenyon recorder of the borough, alleging that Entwistle’s claim to the post was invalid as his appointment was under the charter granted by James II, and since revoked. With an election due inside 12 months it appears that Bradshaigh and Shakerley were determined to undermine Entwistle, who had supported Rigby in 1695. Rigby and Macclesfield organized and presented a counter-petition to the King supporting Entwistle’s right to the post in January 1698, claiming that he was objected to because he questioned the legality of certain local rates, and for his ‘zeal and affection to your Majesty and his vigorous opposition of a disaffected party’. The issue was referred to the attorney-general, and during his deliberations the Wigan populace became intimately involved in the dispute, with party feeling reaching such levels that in March 1698 Bradshaigh received a report that Entwistle’s supporters ‘have made their public entry with holly bushes in their hats’ as a badge of allegiance. Despite the intervention of Macclesfield with Lord Chancellor Somers (Sir John*), and the attorney-general’s judgment that the corporation had been levying illegal rates, a warrant was issued in May 1698 for Kenyon’s appointment.14

The bitter divisions laid bare by this dispute dominated the 1698 election. The Easter leet, the last opportunity to elect new burgesses before the election, was the occasion of disputes between Bradshaigh’s and Rigby’s supporters, and the attempt in July by a number of Rigby’s followers to force Bradshaigh to accept Rigby as his fellow Member proved fruitless. Bradshaigh stood in alliance with Orlando Bridgeman, son of the patron of Wigan rectory, and their vigorous campaign saw them safely returned despite the introduction of James Anderton* into the contest to prevent Bridgeman benefiting from the second votes of any of Rigby’s followers. Only a quarter of the voters exercised their franchise in favour of Rigby and Anderton or plumped for Rigby, and the victory of Bradshaigh and Bridgeman was built on the strong backbone of the support of nearly half the voters, though the fact that one in six burgesses supported Rigby and Bradshaigh shows that the faction favouring compromise in July remained a significant group in the borough, possibly indicative of a growing hostility to the Bradshaigh interest’s control of both seats. The reasons why four burgesses cast votes for individuals not standing at this election are obscure. Defeat was not accepted meekly by Rigby and his followers. Ten days after the poll closed, Rigby’s supporters stormed the adjourned hearing of the Easter leet and proceeded to elect 30 new burgesses. The gesture was futile however, as the Michaelmas leet declared these actions illegal and proceeded to elect 26 new burgesses in the Bradshaigh interest. Equally unsuccessful was the petition lodged by Rigby on 12 Dec. 1698, and renewed on 24 Nov. 1699, only for Rigby’s claims of undue practices to be dismissed on 13 Jan. 1700 upon the grounds that his two petitions differed in form.15

By the time of the first election of 1701 the political map of Wigan had been transformed, with the alliance of the Bradshaigh and rectory interests that had served Bradshaigh and Bridgeman so well in 1698 being replaced by a rivalry between them. The reasons for the split between Bradshaigh and Bridgeman are obscure, but what is clear is that from about 1700 Bradshaigh began to drift into the orbit of the Whig hierarchy in Lancashire, and that at the same time his previous Toryism was replaced by an allegiance to the Court which often manifested itself in Bradshaigh voting with the Whigs in the Commons until 1710, when his loyalties were transferred to the Tory ministry of Robert Harley*. Bridgeman remained a committed Tory, however, and this may account for the conflict between the former allies in January 1701. Bradshaigh stood in alliance with his relation by marriage, Emmanuel Howe, while Bridgeman campaigned alone, using Wigan’s curates as his election agents. Sir Thomas Standish, 2nd Bt., son of the deceased Member, canvassed, but when the poll started on 13 Jan. Bradshaigh, Bridgeman and Howe were the only candidates. Bridgeman defeated Howe for the second seat by nine votes, Howe’s defeat being blamed upon ‘all Lord Rivers’ [Richard Savage*] tenants [voting] against him [Howe] contrary to the desires of Rock Savage’. The cause of Howe’s defeat lay in the fact that although 63 of the 147 voters supported Bradshaigh and himself, 35 voted for Bradshaigh and Bridgeman while 32 of Bridgeman’s supporters cast their second votes for Rigby, despite the latter’s failure to campaign actively, to ensure that Howe gained no advantage from Bridgeman standing alone. Bradshaigh had again topped the poll, but, now opposed by the rector’s interest, his previous ability to secure both Wigan seats was successfully challenged.16

Bradshaigh did not take kindly to this rebuff, and the Easter and Michaelmas leets were dominated by his efforts to bolster his interest through manipulation of the corporation. In April Bradshaigh prevailed with the mayor to exclude a number of Bridgeman’s burgesses from the leet jury, and his manipulation of the mayoral election the following October caused one Bridgeman supporter to call ‘the [leet] jury a parcel of bastards’. Bridgeman’s family even considered taking legal action against Bradshaigh. Bradshaigh had succeeded in securing his interest before the second election of 1701, and used this influence to secure the election of Rigby in place of Bridgeman, a victory achieved despite over a quarter of the electorate voting for Bradshaigh and Bridgeman.17

Bradshaigh continued to treat in the borough, and in April 1702 presented the corporation’s address in celebration of Anne’s accession, but his interest was still challenged in the July election. Again standing in alliance with Rigby, he found himself confronted by the assembled ranks of Lancashire Toryism. The newly appointed chancellor of the duchy, Sir John Leveson Gower, 5th Bt.*, declared against Rigby, and Hon. Henry and Hon. Edward Finch*, younger brothers of the Earl of Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) and out-burgesses resident in nearby Winwick where Henry was rector, were prominent in the opposition to Bradshaigh and Rigby. The hostility of local Tories to the Bradshaigh–Rigby partnership was countered by the support the two Whig candidates received from the new Earl of Derby (Hon. James Stanley*), but Bridgeman still defeated Rigby, in large part because ‘all Mr Bridgeman’s friends gave single votes’. Of the 173 voters, 51 plumped for Bridgeman, demonstrating a unity of purpose that clearly indicates the depth of hostility in the borough at this point to Bradshaigh’s control of both seats, and the determination of local Tories to prevent the return of two Whigs.18

Bradshaigh’s dominance of the corporation was quickly reasserted, and by the 1705 election he was secure enough to forward the candidacy of Emmanuel Howe, confident that if his own attempt to gain election for the county failed he would still have the second seat at Wigan to fall back on. Bradshaigh’s defeat in the shire election and subsequent return for Wigan proved that his confidence was well placed. The peaceful election of 1705 was not, however, indicative of political torpor in the borough. Between 1703 and 1707 the corporation and the rector (Nicholas Stratford until 1706 and subsequently Edward Finch) were engaged in a bitter lawsuit over the right of nomination of Wigan’s parish clerk, a dispute that ended in victory for Finch at the assizes in September 1707 and the subsequent imprisonment of the corporation’s candidate. This success for the rector appears to have strengthened, or at the very least emboldened, the Bridgeman interest at Wigan so that it vigorously contested the 1708 election. The rector’s nephew, Hon. Heneage Finch II*, joined with Orlando Bridgeman to oppose the Whig pairing of Sir Roger and Henry Bradshaigh, and Gower (now Lord Gower), recently removed from the duchy, was enlisted to place pressure on burgesses who had served him during his tenure as chancellor. Despite these efforts, however, the Bradshaigh brothers were comfortably ahead of their Tory rivals when the polls closed. Over 80 per cent of the 177 Wigan burgesses who attended voted for one or other of the party tickets, indicating a high level of identification among the borough’s voters with the two parties, though whether their allegiances were to Whig and Tory or Bradshaigh and rectory is less clear.19

The animosities generated by these clashes remained high until the end of Anne’s reign. The conflict between the Bradshaigh-dominated corporation and a Bridgeman interest based upon the rectory found expression first in a conflict over the right of nomination of churchwardens between 1708 and 1709, and then in a protracted dispute over the corporation gallery in the parish church. In April 1709 Finch pulled the gallery down to make room for an organ, an action he justified by citing the original licence which had allowed the gallery’s erection only until the parish could afford to rebuild the organ pulled down by Parliamentarian troops in the 1650s. The affront to the corporation was obvious, and, financed and guided by Bradshaigh, it embarked upon a lengthy lawsuit. This dispute exacerbated the divisions within the borough and was only settled by a decision in the court of delegates in Finch’s favour in June 1712. The gallery controversy may even have become a replacement for the political conflict previously expressed in the borough’s court leet and parliamentary elections, for the 1710 election passed without comment or incident. The Bridgeman interest was either unable, due to the strength of a Bradshaigh interest which dominated the corporation and had the backing of the Earl Rivers, or unwilling, in the light of the Bradshaighs’ support for Harley’s new ministry, to challenge their return. The electoral dominance that the Bradshaigh interest had established by 1710 was in no way a reflection of slackening tensions within the borough.20

The cost to Bradshaigh of financing the corporation’s legal action had been considerable, seriously worsening his already weak financial position. Necessity led him into dependence upon Harley and support for his ministry onwards from 1710 onwards. When his brother’s death in 1712 led him, with the support of Rivers and the chancellor of the duchy Lord Berkeley of Stratton, to forward George Kenyon for the vacant seat, he assured the lord treasurer of Kenyon’s loyalty to the ministry. The writ for the by-election was not, however, issued until 1713, by which time Rivers had died and control of his lands in the north-west had been assumed by the Earl of Barrymore (James Barry*), who had married Rivers’ only daughter in 1706. Barrymore contemplated standing at the by-election with the support of Bridgeman and Finch, but decided against expenditure on what was a short-term investment with the looming general election, and instead embarked upon establishing an interest for this election. By May 1713 Barrymore was writing to the Wigan out-burgesses, his efforts aided by the High Tory knight of the shire, Richard Shuttleworth. Kenyon and Bradshaigh campaigned on a joint interest, their conflict with Barrymore reflecting many of the divisions current in the Tory party between High Tories and Oxford’s supporters. Both interests campaigned earnestly among the in- and out-burgesses, Barrymore being aided by Bridgeman, Finch and, it was later alleged, letters ‘from considerable persons above to their party friends here’. Kenyon and Bradshaigh relied on the Bradshaigh interest and the activities of their relations to secure their return, Kenyon meeting with some opposition among the Liverpool out-burgesses on account of his vote in favour of the bill confirming the 8th and 9th articles of the French commercial treaty. Despite such pockets of opposition, and irritation in the borough ‘that Sir Roger should assume upon himself to impose one, without the town’s consent’, the interest of Bradshaigh and Kenyon appeared to many observers to be strong enough to defeat Barrymore. Kenyon and Bradshaigh exploited the support of local Whigs for their campaign, with Sir Henry Hoghton, 5th Bt.*, lending them his backing and one vote even being pledged to Kenyon ‘unless a Whig stand’. They proved too strong for Barrymore, despite the vain attempt to prevent the second votes of Barrymore’s supporters going to Kenyon or Bradshaigh through the late addition of Bridgeman to the poll. The election was exceptionally violent, with large-scale brawling in the streets on the day before polling, leading to an order by the mayor, Bradshaigh’s brother William, for the presentation of 13 Barrymore supporters at the next quarter sessions, and when the polls closed Kenyon had defeated Barrymore for the second seat by a comfortable margin. Over half the votes cast had been for Bradshaigh and Kenyon, but 30 of the 183 voters had supported Bradshaigh and Barrymore, and another 30 had plumped for Barrymore, figures which indicate that hostility to Bradshaigh’s controlling both seats had indeed motivated a significant minority of electors.21

The anger of Barrymore’s supporters at this defeat was evident in the mayoral election of October 1713, when, the Bradshaigh interest alleged, they seized the town hall and roamed the streets attacking burgesses in the Bradshaigh interest, forcing the corporation to hold the mayoral election on 3 Oct. in an alderman’s house instead of the town hall. Barrymore and his supporters claimed that this amounted to stripping them of their franchise as burgesses, and initiated a lawsuit against the corporation alleging that the election was invalid and illegal. The corporation responded with proceedings against Barrymore’s supporters for riot in connexion with both the parliamentary and mayoral elections. This legal battle ran parallel with the contest in the Commons attendant upon the Barrymore–Bridgeman petition against the return of Bradshaigh and Kenyon, claiming that they were not qualified to serve as MPs under the terms of the Landed Qualification Act. Bridgeman soon withdrew from the petition, but Barrymore continued to cause Bradshaigh and Kenyon alarm until his failure to sign the petition was noticed by the House, leading to its rejection, and the Commons’ refusal to grant him leave to petition again. Barrymore remained determined to secure a seat at Wigan, however. He had started canvassing for the next election by January 1714, in case the Commons declared the 1713 election void, and when his petition was rejected he continued treating. His persistence appears to have wearied Kenyon. It seems he decided that the cost and trouble of maintaining his interest at Wigan was too great in August, but continued to canvass support as, in the words of his brother-in-law, ‘the best way for making peace, is by preparing for war’. Accordingly, when the suggestion was first made that he withdraw in favour of Barrymore, in return for payment by Barrymore of the bills Kenyon had accrued in the lawsuits concerning the parliamentary and mayoral elections, Kenyon responded with indignation. By December he had, however, agreed to quit the borough in favour of Barrymore on precisely these terms, a decision greeted with anger by Bradshaigh, who commented bitterly that Kenyon had ‘sold the town for £300 to Lord Barrymore’.22

Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison


  • 1. NLS, Crawford mss 47/3/78, burgess list, 1684; Wigan RO, Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/133/1–3, mayoral pollbk. 2 Oct. 1725.
  • 2. Crawford mss 47/2/578, pollbk.
  • 3. Lancashire RO, Kenyon mss DDKe/66, pollbk.
  • 4. Kenyon mss DDKe/66, pollbk.
  • 5. Crawford mss 47/3/20, pollbk.
  • 6. Kenyon mss DDKe/66, pollbk.
  • 7. Crawford mss 47/3/21, pollbk.
  • 8. Crawford mss 47/3/22, pollbk.
  • 9. Kenyon mss, DDKe/66, poll bk.
  • 10. J. Langton, Geog. Change and Industrial Revol.; Defoe, Tour ed. Cole, ii. 676–7; G. T. O. Bridgeman, Hist. of the Church and Manor of Wigan (Chetham soc. ser. 2, xv-xviii); VCH Lancs. iv. 70–73.
  • 11. Bull. John Rylands Lib. xxxvii. 128–30.
  • 12. Catholic Hist. Rev. xxviii. 404–6; Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/61/1; HMC Kenyon, 236, 282–3; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry/HMC/3740 R[ichard] Fleming to [Sir Daniel Fleming†], 16 Feb. 1689[–90]; Chester City RO, Earwaker mss CR63/2/691/74, Sir Willoughby Aston, 2nd Bt., to Sir John Crewe, 25 Jan. 1689[–90]; Bellingham Diary ed. Hewitson, 107; Kenyon mss DDKe/9/66/21, Rigby to Roger Kenyon*, 12 Dec. 1693; DDKe 9/66/25, Thomas Kenyon to same, 31 Dec. 1693.
  • 13. Crawford mss 47/3/100, legal opinion of Sir Thomas Powys*, c.1694; Kenyon mss DDKe/66, informations, c.1695, brief for Mr Shakerley, c.1695; DDKe/9/71/41–42, Bradshaigh to Roger Kenyon, c.1695; DDKe/9/69/12, Shakerley to same; Cheshire RO, Shakerley mss DSS/399, Richard Kuerden to Shakerley, c.1695, Gerard Ford to same, 10 Nov. 1695; Liverpool RO, 920MD 174, Sir Willoughby Aston diaries, 7 Nov. 1695; HMC Kenyon, 394–5, 397.
  • 14. SP 44/275, f. 142; SP 34/447, f. 182; PC 2/77, pp. 142, 146; Crawford mss 47/3/7, petition of Wigan corporation, c.1697; 47/3/6, petition, c.1698; HMC Kenyon, 423–4; Surr. RO (Kingston), Somers mss 371/14/L22, Macclesfield to Somers, 21 May 1698.
  • 15. Kenyon mss, DDKe/9/99/21/-22, Shakerley to George Kenyon, 1, 2 July 1698; DDKe/9/131/59, same to William Farrington, 2 Aug. 1698; DDKe/66, Bridgeman’s response to Rigby’s petition, c.1698; Crawford mss 47/3/181, petition, July 1698; Staffs. RO, Bradford mss D.1287/18/15, John* to Sir John Bridgeman, 26 July 1698, same to Orlando Bridgeman, 26 Aug. 1698, same to Sir John Bridgeman, 26 Aug. 1698; Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/80/1–4, 7–8; HMC Kenyon, 425.
  • 16. Aston diaries, 23 Dec. 1700, 8, 13, 17 Jan. 1700[–1]; Norris Pprs. (Chetham soc. ser. 1, ix), 60.
  • 17. Bradford mss D.1287/18/15, John to Orlando Bridgeman, 6 May 1701, same to Zachary Taylor, 7 June 1701, same to Sir John Bridgeman, 2 May 1701, same to Orlando Bridgeman 4 Nov. 1701; Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/85/6, 86/10; AB/Wigan oaths of allegiance bk., f. 78; Lancs. RO, Bradford mss DDBm/9/2, Thomas Waite to Bp. Stratford, 12 Oct. 1701, Stratford to Sir John Bridgeman, 12 Nov. 1701.
  • 18. Post Boy, 25–28 Apr. 1702; London Gazette, 27–30 Apr. 1702; Add. 28889, f. 19; Cheshire RO, Arderne mss DAR/F/33, Samuel Daniel to [?], 31 July 1702.
  • 19. Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/90/16, 98/7, 107/4; Bradford mss DDBm/9/5, Wigan corporation to Bp. Stratford, 29 Oct. 1703, Taylor to same, 19 Nov. 1703; DDBm/9/2, same to same, 12 May 1704; Kenyon mss DDKe/9/101/1, Thomas to George Kenyon, 18 Jan. 1704[–5]; DDKe/9/101/28, Bradshaigh to same, 22 Jan. 1706; DDKe/9/132/33, John Sumner to [?], 15 Feb. 1707[–8]; HMC Kenyon, 441–2.
  • 20. Crawford mss H2/3/32, bp. licence, 20 Aug. 1680; 47/3/55, informations, 19 Apr. 1709; 47/3/56, legal opinion of (Sir) Thomas Parker*, 12 May 1709; 47/3/58, corporation libel, c.1712; 47/2/558, Robert Peirson to Bradshaigh, 25 Sept. 1711; HMC Kenyon, 442–3; Bradford mss DDBm/9/6 box 1, William Holland to Finch, 10 July 1710, faculty, 25 June 1712; Prescott Diary (Lancs. and Cheshire Rec. Soc. cxxvii), 267–8, 271, 273.
  • 21. Add. 70213, Bradshaigh to Oxford, 9 July 1712; HMC Kenyon, 448–9, 452–3; Kenyon mss DDKe/9/102/120, Thomas to George Kenyon, 10 May 1713; DDKe/9/102/122, Thomas Marsden to same, 18 May 1713; DDKe/66, informations, c.1713/14; Shakerley mss DSS/399, John Hurleston to Shakerley, 13 May 1713, Lawrence Booth to same, 1 June 1713; Crawford mss 47/2/281, George Kenyon to Bradshaigh, 15 July 1713; 47/3/24–5, legal orders, 4 Sept. 1713; HMC Portland, v. 327.
  • 22. Wigan bor. recs. AB/CL/110/11, 13; Crawford mss 47/3/27, protest of burgesses, 3 Oct. 1713; 47/3/28, case of Wigan corporation, c.1713; 47/2/1, Thomas Ashurst to Bradshaigh, 30 Oct. 1713; 47/3/38, George Kenyon to Robert Hollinshead, 11 Dec. 1714; HMC Kenyon, 451, 457; Shakerley mss DSS/399, Richard Wroe to Shakerley, 9 Jan. 1713–14; Bull. IHR. xxxvi. 214; Kenyon mss DDKe/9/102/136, Roger to George Kenyon, 26 Aug. 1714.