CARDONNEL, Adam de (1663-1719), of Duke St., St. Margaret’s, Westminster
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
bap. 1 Nov. 1663, 2nd s. of Adam de Cardonnel, collector of customs, Southampton, of Southampton, Hants by Mary, da. and coh. of Nicholas Pescod of Holbury Cadland, Hants. m. (1) 26 Nov. 1711, Elizabeth (d. 1713), wid. of Isaac Teale, apothecary-general of the army, of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, s.p.; (2) aft. Nov. 1714, Elizabeth, da. of René Baudowin of London, merchant, wid. of William Frankland, consul at Biscay (2nd s. of Sir Thomas Frankland, 2nd Bt.*), 1s. 1da.1
Agent, Col. John Hales’s regt. of ft. 1688–?1693; chief clerk to sec. at war by 1692–1702; treasurer, hosp. for soldiers, overseas 1693–?1711, purveyor to the Household c.1700–2; sec. to Duke of Marlborough 1701–?d.; secretary at war to the foreign forces 1702–1711; sec. at war Jan.–Sept. 1710.2
Freeman, Southampton 1699.3
Cardonnel’s family were Protestant refugees from the neighbourhood of Caen in France, where his grandfather had owned the chateau de Cardonnel. It is unclear when the family arrived in England but the earliest records relate to Cardonnel’s uncle, Peter de Cardonnel, and his father, also called Adam, who were granted letters of denization in 1641. Peter, the elder of the two, was a merchant trading in Southampton in the early 1640s. The brothers married two sisters, daughters of Peter’s trading partner, Nicholas Pescod. Adam de Cardonnel senior’s marriage was probably in 1656, the year he was naturalized. The family wealth seems to have been largely lost during the Civil War, when Peter apparently lent Charles I some £20,000, which was never repaid. Adam was given some reward for ‘his good services’ at the Restoration with the post of customer and later collector of customs at Southampton, an office he held for nearly 50 years. He appears to have recovered his finances only very gradually, being imprisoned for debt in the 1660s, while his house consisted of only four hearths in 1662, though this had risen to nine by 1670. He was an elder in the French Church at Southampton for almost 50 years.4
Cardonnel’s father evidently had modest hopes for his second son, one of four surviving brothers and three sisters, as in 1676 he unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the reversion of his post at Southampton for him. Cardonnel is next heard of in 1688 when he purchased a place as agent to Colonel Hales’s new regiment of foot for £200. Sometime afterwards (the exact date is unknown), he entered the office of the secretary at war, William Blathwayt*, and by 1692 had risen to be one of the two chief clerks, thenceforward accompanying the secretary and the King to Flanders for every campaign. After the peace in 1697 Blathwayt continued to go with the King to Holland each summer as acting secretary of state, taking Cardonnel with him. Cardonnel’s post evidently made him some profit as in May 1697 he subscribed £1,000 to the contract for lending money to circulate Exchequer bills. He wrote from Het Loo in July 1699 of his surprise, and disappointment, at the revival in Charles Duncombe’s* fortunes, believing that ‘the City have been very much mistaken in the choice they have made’ for sheriff of London. In 1701 the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†), on being appointed commander-in-chief of the allied forces, made Cardonnel his secretary, one of his chief advantages, besides his experience of the details of military administration, being his fluent command of French (although apparently his talents did not extend to Latin). For the next ten years he accompanied Marlborough on campaign.5
Meanwhile, during the time spent in England Cardonnel tried to obtain a seat in Parliament, to which end he contested Southampton unsuccessfully in December 1699 and January 1701 and finally won a seat there in November 1701, when his return was reckoned by Lord Spencer (Charles*) as a gain for the Whigs and he was listed as a Whig by Robert Harley*. The following year Cardonnel succeeded Blathwayt as secretary at war to the foreign forces, on which Francis Nicholson, governor of Virginia, congratulated him, and hoped that Blathwayt would soon resign his entire post to Cardonnel, which apparently would complete a pact made sometime previously: that Josiah Burchett* would be secretary of the Admiralty, Nicholson governor of Virginia and Cardonnel secretary at war. Cardonnel continued to represent Southampton in 1702, although his absences from England prevented him from playing a very active part in the Commons. He was always acutely aware of the impact on domestic politics of the success or failure of the war and wrote to John Ellis* in October 1702 that the expedition to Cadiz should have landed ‘coûte que coûte’ and, anticipating events, complained that Sir George Rooke* should have surprised the French–Spanish fleet at Vigo, ‘which would have made some amends for this disgrace and have calmed people’s minds a little in England’. In a subsequent letter the news of the success at Vigo had reached him and he hoped it ‘will make our miscarriages there pass over the more easily at home, so as to give no disturbance to the public business’. Returning to England in November, he informed Ellis that his main concern that session was to find a way to get an increase in the estimates for the troops, as many had gone unpaid during the last campaign and Marlborough had promised they would be paid this year. The next summer, when the course of the war appeared to be going badly, Cardonnel was ‘apprehensive it will not answer the expectation of our friends in England, and that we will have foul weather at home this winter’. News of Sir Stephen Fox’s* marriage in old age gave him further cause for reflection, and he wrote to Ellis, ‘you and I must plead for old people’s marrying, for neither of us can do it young’. Back in the House in November 1703, he was again concerned with the estimates for the army and, having inserted additional pay for the general officers and forage and waggon money, had distributed to the managers of the Commons arguments to be used in support of these figures. He then accompanied Marlborough on what was planned as a short trip to Holland to discuss the next campaign at the end of December, but contrary winds prevented their return until 15 Feb. 1704. The delay irritated Cardonnel, who ended one of his letters to Ellis with an outburst, ‘these people are so stupid and are so little sensible of the danger at their doors that one would believe by the little regard they have to their own safety, they were predestined for ruin’. His mood the next summer was no better when he wrote to his friend Matthew Prior* at the end of July, ‘I wish to God it were well over, that I might get safe out of this country’. He seems to have kept on good terms with the Court Tory, Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt.*, who ‘generally meant very well’, and lamented his death in July. The campaign continued into October and Cardonnel wrote again of his desire to be home, ending ‘I am so starved with cold I can hardly hold a pen’. He would no doubt have voted against the occasional conformity bill and the Tack, but was absent in Europe, having at the end of November accompanied Marlborough to Berlin, where he was given a present of 740 ducats by the Prussian king. On his return to The Hague he wrote to Ellis on 16 Dec., thanking him for ‘the best news we have had of a long time, for we were in no little concern on account of the occasional bill’. Back at Whitehall in January, he wrote to his former colleague at the war office, Henry Watkins*, about the plans for Queen Anne’s Bounty and promised that he would use all his influence to have Watkins ‘employed in its distribution’. On campaign again in June 1705, he commiserated with Ellis, who had been sacked from his job as under-secretary of state, ‘for my part, though I have the honour to serve the best of masters and am resolved never to serve another I could heartily wish to be my own man, that I might once in my lifetime have one hour to myself’.6
Re-elected in 1705, Cardonnel was listed as a placeman and a High Church courtier. He was absent from the division on the Speaker in October 1705, being still on the Continent. In November he was at Vienna attending to the business of Marlborough’s grant of the principality of Mindelheim, with some reservations, as he wrote to Watkins: ‘you know I was always of the opinion it would have been much more for his Grace’s honour and interest, at least at home, no such thing had ever been thought of. I cannot help being still of the same mind.’ Once back in England he voted with the Court over the ‘place clause’ of the regency bill on 18 Feb. 1706. Further showing his zeal, on the 20th he attended a committee of elections until past 2 o’clock in the morning.7
The allied armies’ victories in 1706 raised Cardonnel’s morale, and he wrote to Prior, ‘believe me the Devil has no hand in what we are doing; we are guided by a better genius, which I hope, will still help us to mumble and humble the rogues till their great monarch is brought to know himself’. In October of that year he was accused by Sir Henry Furnese* of combining with Paymaster Hon. James Brydges* and William Cadogan* to alter, illegally, the method of paying the army. The charges were not followed up, although they may have given him some alarm, as he wrote on 30 Nov. to Watkins that the ‘treasury’ had dined with him and said that the deputy-paymaster of the forces in Amsterdam, Mr Sweet, was coming over to England, but he had been assured that it was only to assist in settling Lord Ranelagh’s (Richard Jones*) accounts. Brydges and Cadogan certainly colluded in profiteering from the war but it is unclear whether Cardonnel was ever involved in their schemes. A letter from Brydges to Cadogan in the spring of 1707 may indicate that Cardonnel was not involved in one particular plan. Brydges had informed Sweet not to settle the account for forage for the Prussian troops but to leave it to Cardonnel or Cadogan: ‘I added his name that Sweet might not suspect there was any bargain for you alone for it.’ Cardonnel seems to have been suffering from war-weariness by this time, having written to Watkins in January of his discontent with their allies, ‘and could heartily wish we were both well rid of them, one good successful campaign more I hope will [see] us at home for good and all to reap a little quiet fruit of our labours’. But there was to be no rest for Cardonnel and as ever he was inundated with army business. ‘God preserve us from such allies’ he wrote of the Germans in October 1707 and in the same month Marlborough wrote that the bulk of correspondence he was receiving from Sir Charles Hedges* was so great he had handed it all over to Cardonnel.8
Back in England for the next session, Cardonnel again hoped for a quiet life, writing to Watkins on 18 Nov. 1707, ‘our friends the Whigs are very angry at that administration of the Admiralty and are making a bustle in both Houses. I wish it may soon blow over.’ A month later he wrote again, that ‘we seem to be in a sort of lethargy, but I hope our friends will find means to extricate themselves and set all to rights again’. Again his main concern was the army and on 6 Jan. 1708 he informed Watkins that they hoped to succeed in getting an Act for each county to provide a certain number of recruits. Ten days later he had been sitting until 6 o’clock in the evening in the debate on this bill and lamented the lack of progress. On 20 Jan. the bill was thrown out and he wrote, ‘we are in great affliction for the miscarriage of our project’. Further frustration followed and on 3 Feb., after having sat until 8 o’clock in the evening, he wrote that they had been ‘baffled in our affairs of Spain’. The apparent hostility of the House may have influenced the ‘mislaying’ of the papers concerning the claims for losses of horses by the Hanoverian troops, of which Cardonnel informed Watkins the same day. It appears that there had been some debate as to whether they should present these claims, Marlborough believing that not having made similar claims for the English troops this year, it would not have ‘looked well to have taken more care of foreigners than our own people’. A government reshuffle in February 1708 included the removal of Harley, which Cardonnel hoped ‘will set all to rights again’, and the resignation a few days later of Henry St. John II* as secretary at war. Cardonnel informed Watkins on 13 Feb. that he would not be succeeding St. John, but if he entertained any secret hopes of promotion, he was disappointed. He wrote to Watkins on 2 Mar., ‘our alterations at Court are but three days’ wonder and are no more thought of, your humble servant neither thought nor would have accepted of any part of them’. On campaign that year, Cardonnel was pleased with the election results (which included his own uncontested return), but cautious about whether this could be translated to an untroubled session, writing to James Stanhope* in June, ‘our friends pretend they will have a great majority in Parliament; that will depend in a good measure on what we are able to do here this campaign’. Two lists of early 1708, one with the returns for 1708 added, classified Cardonnel as a Whig. In September the same year it was apparently Cardonnel’s report of the action to rescue the relief convoy for the besieged town of Lille which caused Marlborough to ascribe its success to his favourite, Cadogan, who had not arrived until the action was almost over, thereby infuriating General John Richmond Webb*, the real hero of the operation.9
In the winter of 1708–9 Marlborough wrote to the French on the possibility of peace negotiations, mentioning a bribe of 2 million livres, promised to him two years earlier by a French envoy if he would support a peace attempt. While considering this letter the French produced a memorandum dated November 1708 in which the importance of Cardonnel’s influence on Marlborough was mentioned:
Le crédit que Cardonnel a sur son esprit est tel, qu’il est absolument nécessaire de persuader le secrétaire pour réussir auprès du maître. Une somme de 300 mille livres serait utilement employée à cet effet, et le roi consent que M. le duc de Berwick la fasse proposer par celui qu’il choisera pour parler au duc de Marlborough.
Nothing came of these moves. Cardonnel appears to have played little further part in the session, being overseas in January and February 1709.10
Cardonnel anticipated a satisfactory session, writing on 15 Nov. 1709, ‘our sessions opened today with the appearance of a good quiet winter’s campaign’. In January 1710 he was in the middle of high-political intrigues, acting as an intermediary in negotiations between the Court and the Junto in London and Marlborough at Windsor, who was threatening to resign if Abigail Masham was not removed. His own career seemed on the rise in January, when Robert Walpole II* transferred to the treasurership of the navy and Cardonnel was at last made secretary at war, although immediately before the appointment he claimed to be in doubt as to whether he should accept the post or not. The peace negotiations broke down and Cardonnel was needed to serve another campaign in Flanders, so it was arranged that he should continue to act as Marlborough’s secretary while leaving the duties of his new office to be handled by Walpole. Cardonnel was uneasy at this arrangement and now had his own interest in a peace. He wrote to Watkins on 31 Jan. 1710:
between you and me, I should have been as well pleased with a fair quietus. I shall only kiss the Queen’s hand and leave the management of the office to Mr Walpole till I return . . . our affairs here require a peace as much as they do on your side . . . I should be glad to yield something rather than prolong the war.
In Parliament he voted for the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell before returning to the Continent in late February. No sooner had he gone than it was rumoured that he would be replaced by St. John, who, however, disdained to succeed Cardonnel. That spring Brydges and Cadogan involved Cardonnel in their attempts to make money by speculating in stocks with the benefit of inside knowledge of the progress of the peace negotiations. On 26 Mar. 1710 Cadogan wrote to Brydges: ‘Before my leaving The Hague, I took measures with Mr Cardonnel for his writing to you early, regularly and at large what passes in relation to the peace.’ It is, however, unclear whether Cardonnel knew the use to which this information was being put and there is no evidence as to whether or not he himself was playing the market in this way.11
During the summer of 1710 Cardonnel wrote several letters mentioning his longing for peace, and also suffered a serious illness in July and August and was moved from camp to Lille. Marlborough wrote on 2 Aug. to his duchess: ‘poor Cardonnel is very ill at Lille; if he should die, I should have a very great loss’. A subsequent letter containing news of Cardonnel’s recovery expressed Marlborough’s pleasure:
For not only his having my business in his hands, which must have been very inconvenient to have changed, but he is also a very moral, honest man in an age when one meets with so many villains, which makes him the more valuable.
No sooner had Cardonnel recovered his health than a fresh anxiety arose from the political changes in England. On 8 Sept. he wrote to Brydges, thanking him for some news regarding payments for the army: ‘it gives us a little life to see some care is taken of us, after the loss of my Lord Godolphin [Sidney†]’, but he had begun to be inured to the changes as ‘nothing could happen worse after so great a blow’. He also wrote to Horatio Walpole II* that he had heard the Tories ‘are falling out among themselves . . . ’tis the way for honest men to come by their goods again’. His hopes were in vain and it was soon apparent that his post of secretary at war was also at risk. He made some attempt to save the situation, writing to the secretary of state on 11 Sept.:
my lord Duke is pleased to write to you this post to pray that upon the dissolution of Parliament, you will lay a commission before the Queen for me to be secretary at war, having, as you may please to remember, had the honour to kiss her Majesty’s hand for it before my coming away, with her approbation of Mr Walpole’s continuing to act till my return, and as I am in hopes that out of consideration to his Grace, it may be thought fit to continue me in that post, I would be glad to save the trouble of a new election; and, therefore, humbly entreat your favour that the commission may be despatched the first opportunity without any date and remain in your hands till I come home, when the blank may be filled up as it shall be thought proper.
Brydges hoped that Cardonnel would be continued as that would be a means of prevailing on Marlborough not to resign, but Cardonnel’s application was in vain. At the end of September he was dismissed, much to Marlborough’s mortification. St. John, now secretary of state, maintained a polite public face with Cardonnel but on 28 Nov. wrote that Marlborough,
lays great weight on Mr [George] Granville’s* being put into Cardonnel’s employment; has he forgot Britain enough to imagine so little a creature as the latter is capable of filling at this time of day, that post? The Queen’s service would become ridiculous in such hands, and I will adventure to affirm that the state of the war could never be carried through the House of Commons by his secretary. Faction, indeed, will fit any man for any rank, and where that prevails, Cardonnel might be secretary at war.
Cardonnel himself reportedly considered his removal was ‘in revenge’ for the Duke’s ‘neglect’ of Harley’s ‘proposals of commencing a correspondence’.12
Despite these setbacks, Cardonnel was again elected for Southampton in 1710, but his position remained very uncertain. In January he was inclined to believe that Marlborough would not be able to continue in office and wrote that he himself wanted nothing more than to retire. On 11 Jan. Marlborough and Harley met for the first time that session, ‘tête à tête’ at the former’s lodgings, a meeting which Cardonnel hoped would ‘tend toward healing over our unhappy divisions’. Marlborough remained at the head of the army and Cardonnel accompanied him on his last campaign in 1711. Despite the successes of the campaign, it was clear that the Tories were determined to bring down Marlborough, and Cardonnel with him. In August Cardonnel was thought to be ‘under some uneasiness’. By the time he was due to return in November the army was already under investigation by the commission of public accounts and he seemed resigned to whatever fate would bring, writing ‘everything begins to grow so indifferent to me that I shall have very little curiosity how matters go, my only aim . . . will be to retire quietly out of the noise of the world’. Back in England, Cardonnel married the widow of his long-time neighbour in Duke Street, Isaac Teale. On 7 Dec. 1711 he voted for the Whig motion of ‘No Peace without Spain’. Two weeks later, on 21 Dec., the commissioners of public accounts laid before the House their report containing allegations from Sir Solomon de Medina, the army bread contractor from 1707 to 1711, that he ‘gave yearly, on signing the said contracts, a gratuity of 500 gold ducats to Mr Cardonnel, secretary to the Duke of Marlborough, for his trouble and pains in translating the Dutch contracts; and putting the English contracts into form’. The allegation was part of a general attack on Marlborough. In his evidence to the commission Cardonnel had admitted that he had received about £200 on each contract, ‘but would rather have been without anything’. The commissioners also claimed that he had sworn on oath that he had never heard of any gratuities paid by the bread contractor to Marlborough. This was seized on by the commissioners in their report as proof of the falsehood of Marlborough’s claim that such perquisites were customary, since Cardonnel’s ignorance or pretended ignorance showed ‘the great caution and secrecy with which this money was constantly received’ which ‘gives reason to suspect that it was not thought a justifiable perquisite’. Marlborough later refuted, in a published vindication of himself, that Cardonnel had ever sworn any such thing. Three days after the report had been presented, Cardonnel wrote to Cadogan in Holland:
Sir Solomon in the affidavit he has taken declares that he was induced to make this present from what he knew had been practised by his predecessors and this is what my lord Duke’s friends must endeavour to make appear, being, as you remember, the same his Grace mentioned himself in the letters he wrote to the commissioners from The Hague.
Cadogan was instructed to go immediately to The Hague to procure papers from previous bread contractors proving that such gratuities to commanders in chief had been customarily paid. He did not mention the accusation against himself. Cardonnel wrote to Watkins on 25 Dec., sending him a copy of the letter to Cadogan and directing him also to get papers which would prove their case. They ‘must leave no stone unturned’:
You will see by the votes that the commissioners of accounts have since brought their report into the House and that our master and your humble servant are in a manner condemned before they are heard, by which ’tis easy to guess how the stream runs . . . As for myself, if I have common justice even without any favour I can’t think it can have any great consequence, however I am prepared for the worst.
Presumably this refers to the commissioners’ presentation of the depositions on 22 Dec., for further consideration of the report had been put off till January. Cardonnel’s own case was not taken up until February. In the meantime it appears that Marlborough and Cardonnel were badly let down: Watkins was away and did not return in time to be of much help, and, as Cardonnel wrote bitterly in January, ‘I have had not one syllable of answer’ from Cadogan. He wrote to Watkins on 18 Jan. 1712:
If I suffer I take it rather to be an imputation upon my lord Duke than myself, for in all the actions of my life I can never accuse myself of having any way wronged the public, but on the contrary have created myself many enemies by endeavouring to prevent others doing it.
Enclosed in this letter he sent a copy of his defence, in which he wrote: ‘I have served 21 years successively abroad without the least imputation of blame that I am sensible of, and therefore am the more concerned that any reflection should be made upon me in this House.’ He admitted receiving a gratuity from Medina, but ‘for the first three years, not so much as he mentions’. He claimed that he had not received the money for translating or putting the contents into form, since that was done entirely by the Treasury, nor was he the auditor of the bread account, but if in
every campaign from the first day to the last, I am daily employed in procuring orders and letters from the general for the contractor’s service, for escorts for his corn, meal and bread to and from the army and other services and that I never claimed or received the least fee from the contractor, though I was at charge in keeping my own clerks, I hope if on these considerations the contractor freely made me a present, the receiving of it for my daily care and pains will not be imputed to me as a crime.
It is not clear whether this reply was submitted in writing to the Commons or whether it was a draft of the speech Cardonnel made when his case was considered on 19 Feb. In either case his defence was not accepted by the House, which resolved by 128 votes to 100 that his taking a gratuity of 500 ducats annually from the bread contractor was ‘unwarrantable and corrupt’ and by a further vote of 125 to 99 he was expelled the House.13
Cardonnel was particularly incensed by the part played in his downfall by his former employer, Blathwayt. He wrote to Watkins on the day of his expulsion, ‘our friend Blathwayt was pleased to give his helping hand’ and again on 3 Mar. that despite his denials he was ‘positive our master Blathwayt received a present yearly’ from previous bread contractors. He asked Watkins to get certificates from the contractors in The Hague proving this, ‘that I might have it in my power at least to mortify him a little’. His plan was to have the certificates and Blathwayt’s deposition denying he received gratuities inserted in the newspapers in Holland, ‘from whence we might have the better handle to print it here, for everybody concluded that lying declaration did me the most mischief in the House, though right or wrong they were resolved to have me out for my lord Duke’s sake’. Nothing seems to have come of this scheme.14
Presumably Cardonnel did not consider it worthwhile to stand in the 1713 election but, despite his earlier protestations, he did unsuccessfully contest Southampton in 1715. He remained Marlborough’s loyal secretary and in 1715 gave him advice on how to rectify fraud in a clothing contract for the army which had been made public and reflected badly on Marlborough. He died 22 Feb. 1719 and was buried at Chiswick, leaving £35,000 to his son and £10,000 to his daughter.15
Ref Volumes: 1690-1715
Authors: Paula Watson / Sonya Wynne
- 1. Add. 61411, ff. 1, 69; D. C. A. Agnew, Protestant Exiles from France, i. 51, 199–200; ii. 371; CSP Dom. 1675–6, pp. 189, 241, 573; IGI, London; W. S. C. Copeman, Apothecaries of London, 53.
- 2. HMC Lords, iii. 432; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 458; iii. 38; vi. 335; Coxe, Marlborough, i. p. xxii; v. 340; Add. 61412, f. 81.
- 3. Southampton RO, SC3/1/1, f. 249.
- 4. Agnew, 199; Letters of Denization and Acts of Naturalization (Huguenot Soc. of Lond. Pubns. xvii), 64, 70; Bk. of Examinations and Depositions, iv. 1639–44 (Southampton Rec. Soc. Pubns. 1936), 36; Hants Mar. Lic. 1607–1640 ed. Willis, 150; VCH Hants, iii. 293–4; CSP Dom. 1661–2, pp. 504–5; 1665–6, p. 144; 1670, pp. 37, 102; Hants Hearth Tax, 1665 (Hants Rec. Ser. xi), 288, 297; Minute Bk. of the French Church at Southampton (Southampton Rec. Soc. ser. xxiii), 1–51.
- 5. Add. 33618, ff. 27–33; 29555, ff. 25, 64; 28917, f. 222; HMC Lords, iii. 432; I. F. Burton, ‘Secretary at War’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1960), 42–3; Add. 28917 passim; Univ. of London, Ms 65, item 3, subscribers to the contract for circulating Exchequer bills, May 1697; Coxe, i. p. xxii; Wentworth Pprs. 190.
- 6. HMC Portland, iv. 11, 613; Bodl. Carte 288, f. 344; Add 28917, f. 307; 61412, f. 81; 28918, ff. 89, 99, 105, 192, 257, 300, 331, 359; 42176, ff. 59–60, 65, 69; Epistolary Curiosities ed. Warner, 78; HMC Bath, iii. 433–4; Wentworth Pprs. 12.
- 7. Add. 42176, ff. 103, 125.
- 8. HMC Bath, iii. 433–4; Huntington Lib. Q. xv. 22, 35; Add. 42176, ff. 154, 171; HMC 8th Rept. pt. 2 (1881), 91; Coxe, iii. 41.
- 9. Add. 42176, ff. 194, 197, 201, 207, 209, 217, 219, 221, 227; Centre Kentish Stud. Stanhope mss U1590/0138/16, Cardonnel to Stanhope, 27 June 1708; Burnet, v. 378n.
- 10. PRO 31/3/195; Add. 61329, ff. 64–67.
- 11. Add. 42176, ff. 267, 285, 287, 293; Coxe, v. 135–8; HMC Portland, iv. 536; Huntington Lib. Q. xv. 42.
- 12. Add. 38500, ff. 49, 359; 38501, f. 71; 61413, f. 153; Coxe, v. 311, 340; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss 58(6) pp. 212–13; 57(4), p. 119; Burton, 264–5; Duchess of Marlborough Corresp. i. 405; Bolingbroke Corresp. i. 25; HMC Portland, iv. 635.
- 13. Add. 42176, ff. 315, 327, 331–2, 335–6, 341, 343, 345–7; 61411, ff. 1, 23; Bolingbroke Corresp. i. 307; Coxe, 149–61; Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. v. 1049–94.
- 14. Add. 42176, ff. 351–2, 355–6, 361.
- 15. Add. 37362, ff. 167, 175; 61315, ff. 223–4; 33618, ff. 27–33; Hist. Reg. Chron. 1719, p. 10.