COKE, Thomas (1674-1727), of Melbourne, Derbys.; Melton Mowbray, Leics.; and St. James’s Place, London.

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



1698 - 1700
Dec. 1701 - 1710
1710 - 1715

Family and Education

bap. 19 Feb. 1674, 1st s. of John Coke† of Melbourne by Mary, da. and h. of Sir Thomas Leventhorpe, 4th Bt., of Shingehall, Sawbridgeworth, Herts.  educ. Rotterdam (M. Chauvois) 1688; New Coll. Oxf. 1693; travelled abroad (Low Countries) 1696, 1697.  m. (1) c.June 1698 (with £8,000), Lady Mary Stanhope (d. 1704), e. da. of Philip, 2nd Earl of Chesterfield, 2da.; (2) 15 Oct. 1709 (with £6,000) Elizabeth (d. ?1722), da. of Richard Hales of King’s Walden, Herts., 1s. 1da.  suc. fa. 1692.1

Offices Held

Commr. public accts. 1702; teller of Exchequer May 1704–Dec. 1706; vice-chamberlain of Household Dec. 1706–d.; PC 1708–d.


Coke was a fourth-generation parliamentarian, a sequence begun by his great-grandfather, a secretary of state under Charles I. Little is known of his early years except that in 1688 he was under the tuition of a Frenchman in Rotterdam. Upon his father’s death in Geneva on 7 Jan. 1692 Coke seems to have been left under the guidance of Walter Burdett of Knoyle Hill, a Derbyshire barrister (one of his father’s executors and the third son of Sir Francis Burdett, 2nd Bt., who had been his father’s guardian). His education was completed by two trips to Europe which became very much a rake’s progress. In the summer of 1696 he disappeared from London, telling his sister that he intended to see the north of England, but in fact crossed the Channel to Antwerp and Rotterdam. The following summer he again slipped away to Holland causing great alarm to his sister when he visited King William’s camp. However, the motivation for these trips had less to do with the army than the charms of a mistress about whom several correspondents kept him informed when he returned to England.2

In the early summer of 1698 Coke increased his standing in Derbyshire by contracting a prestigious marriage with the eldest daughter of the Earl of Chesterfield. The fact that his new father-in-law had a seat at Bretby clearly strengthened Coke’s interest when he stood for knight of the shire in the election of July 1698. The possibility of a contest was averted when John Curzon* declined to stand, thus allowing Coke to share the representation with the Marquess of Hartington (William Cavendish*). The two families were probably on good terms at this time because Coke’s father had been the lieutenant-colonel of the regiment raised in 1688 by the Duke of Devonshire (William Cavendish†), and under Hartington’s nominal command. Coke’s early parliamentary career is difficult to disentangle from that of John Cooke*, Member for Arundel 1698–1702, although the survival of some of his papers allows a few insights into measures in which he had a particular interest. Contemporaries entertained few doubts about his political views. Two lists were compiled before the new Parliament met: on the first he was noted as a Country party supporter and on the second as a likely opponent of the standing army. Coke’s position as a county Member also ensured that he carefully scrutinized two of the navigation schemes which were considered by the House during this session. On 3 Jan. 1699 leave was given to bring in a bill to make the Derwent navigable from Derby to the Trent. The bill was promoted by the corporation of Derby, but it faced considerable opposition from Derbyshire landowners and rival corporate towns such as Nottingham and Leicester. Coke seemed genuinely undecided on the merits of the bill, even asking the advice of Hon. Anchitell Grey*, who had been involved in a similar scheme in the 1670s. In truth, Coke was in an invidious position because he possessed an estate at Wilne Ferry, close to the confluence of the two rivers, which would increase in value as a communications centre if the status quo were maintained. On the other hand, to oppose the bill risked alienating freeholders in the town of Derby who constituted a substantial proportion of the shire electorate. In the end Coke seemed to avoid committing himself to the bill, an ambiguous attitude which his opponents at the next election attempted to use to their advantage. Coke’s attitude to the other navigation bill, to make the Trent navigable to Burton, also caused him problems. Initially, as one of the three Members appointed to bring in the bill, his views appeared clear-cut. However, after he received some criticism for his stance he appeared to lapse into a studied neutrality, especially as the Burton promoters were accused of deceiving the riparian landowners. Coke may have been involved in one further piece of legislation during this session. On 27 Feb. 1699 a ‘Mr Cook’ was ordered to prepare a bill in response to a petition from the Old East India Company requesting a bill to secure its right to trade as a separate entity until the end of the royal charter of 1693. ‘Cook’ presented the bill on 3 Mar., but it was rejected at its second reading. Although there is no evidence from this session to identify Coke positively as the Member involved, the measure was widely interpreted as an attempt to distress the government, something to which he would not have been averse at this time.3

Coke missed the beginning of the 1699–1700 session, possibly owing to a fall in which he hurt his leg. Indeed, it is possible that he did not take an active part in proceedings until after the Christmas recess. He may have been responsible for piloting through to the statute book a bill punishing vagrants, given that his correspondence shows him as interested in the problem. This time he was certainly involved in legislation to incorporate the Old East India Company. According to James Vernon I*, ‘Mr Coke of Derbyshire’ presented the bill on 24 Jan. 1700 and managed it through the Commons. He may also have acted as a teller twice during the session in favour of adding clauses to the land tax and Irish forfeitures bill. Coke took an active part in one of the contentious debates which was recorded during this session, on the conduct of Whig ministers with reference to royal grants. On 13 Feb. 1700 he attacked Thomas Stringer* for words spoken in defence of Lord Somers (Sir John*) and then seconded a resolution, moved by his friend Hon. James Brydges*, that any minister obtaining estates from the crown was guilty of a violation of trust. Two days later Coke continued the attack along similar lines, moving to take into consideration a grant to one Railton, allegedly an agent for Charles Montagu*. When Robert Harley* interceded to deflect the attack a frustrated Coke reacted violently, declaring that ‘he would never trust a Presbyterian rogue more’ and threatening that ‘this should be the last motion he would ever make’ before storming out of the House ‘cursing all house meeting dogs, meaning Robert Harley’. On 28 Mar. 1700 he was apparently willing to support Jack Howe’s proposal for seven rather than five (and unpaid) commissioners of accounts. In an analysis of the Commons into ‘interests’ in the first half of 1700, Coke was marked with a ‘Q’, which probably denotes a query, or perhaps opposition.4

When the new Parliament assembled in February 1701, Coke was missing, having been defeated for Derbyshire through the combined efforts of the Whig Lords Hartington and Roos (John Manners*). He also refused the offer of a possible seat at Newton if Thomas Brotherton* died. However, in the year that followed, Coke was able to persuade John Curzon to join with him in a campaign to recapture the shire representation, an ambition they quickly achieved in the election of December 1701. Lord Spencer (Charles*) marked his return as a loss for the Whigs, while another list compiled in December 1701 by Harley included Coke among the Tories, an assessment which ties in with the requests of his friends that he be in London in time to vote for Harley in the election for Speaker. On 2 Jan. 1702 Coke seconded the motion for the Address and was duly appointed (as ‘Mr Cooke’) to the committee ordered to draft it. He was probably named to four drafting committees in January 1702, including the bill re-establishing the public accounts commission. On 24 Jan. 1702 he was a teller against an amendment to a procedural motion that the next meeting of the committee of the whole on the abjuration bill should be after the committee on supply. The tactical considerations surrounding this vote are difficult to disentangle, but Coke was certainly involved in the proceedings on the bill. Indeed, his advocacy of the Tory line in favour of a compulsory oath of abjuration embroiled him in difficulties with some of his less sophisticated constituents, who did not realize that a voluntary oath might hand the Whigs a propaganda victory, and that many Tories regarded oaths taken under duress as not binding. On 26 Feb., when Henry St. John II* proposed that the Commons had not had right done them in the late impeachments, Coke seconded him, albeit ‘in a weaker insipid dreaming way’. Not surprisingly, on that day he was listed as having voted in vindication of the Commons’ proceedings. His interest in economy and accountability led him on 2 Mar., in committee of the whole on the public accounts bill, to propose a clause to provide that the officers in the Dutch regiments should not be paid until their accounts had been stated. On the 4th he dined with Brydges, Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt.*, and others where he was included on a slate for elections for the commission of accounts. On the 7th he told against the committal of a bill to prevent frauds by workers in the woollen, linen and cotton trades. On 12 Mar., when the House took into consideration the Queen’s Speech, he ‘commended the word entirely English and moved to have it [the speech] considered tomorrow’. On 18 Mar. his reputation as a leading Country Member was confirmed by his election as a commissioner of accounts, albeit in seventh place. To the Earl of Chesterfield, this new employment appeared laborious, temporary and ill-paid. However, Chesterfield added, ‘I hope this will be an introduction to something that will be much better’. Coke was probably the ‘Mr Cooke’ who acted as a teller on 28 Mar. in favour of a motion that the Coventry alderman Edward Owen be taken into custody for threatening a messenger of the Commons sent to apprehend several people guilty of malpractice during the Coventry election. He was probably a teller on 8 Apr. against a motion to complete the blanks in the bill for making provision for the Protestant children of the Earl of Clanricarde and Lord Bophin. On 2 May, he moved for an address that no person be an officer in England or Ireland in the new regiments unless born in England, Scotland, Ireland or the dominions, and of English parents, unless currently on the half-pay list: ‘he enforced this by saying it was a shame to have our own want employments and foreigners advanced over their heads’, backing up his motion with the example of a half-pay captain who had had a foreigner advanced over him, but this example was comprehensively rebutted by the secretary at war, William Blathwayt*. Coke then attempted to draw Hon. Harry Mordaunt* into the debate, claiming that almost all the officers in his regiment were French. At the end of the debate he told for his motion, which was only narrowly defeated. Part of the session was taken up with lobbying support for a private bill to give legal force to an agreement Coke had negotiated with the bishop of Carlisle concerning the rectory of Melbourne, adjacent to his seat. The bill was introduced into the Lords on 4 Feb. but was allowed to lapse after its first reading, either owing to the illness of Bishop Smith, who died on 12 Apr., or to shortage of money. Coke’s correspondence suggests that he was kept busy in this session. He invited comments on current legislative proposals through his widespread distribution of the Votes to important constituents and centres of population. For the 1701–2 session he received advice on the land tax; the abortive bill for the ease of sheriffs; the forfeited estates of Vesey and Vernon; poor debtors (from whom he received a petition but did not present); and the bill to prevent perjury, on which he received several clauses relating to barmote courts and the lead trade.5

Coke remained in London until early July 1702, before returning to Derbyshire to attend his election, where he was returned unopposed. By early August he was back at Spring Garden, the office of the commissioners of accounts, where he remained until Parliament opened in October. On 11 Dec., he was a teller against a motion to take into consideration the Queen’s message requesting a grant of £5,000 p.a. out of the Post Office revenue to the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†). On 16 Dec., when the House agreed to inform the Queen of the reason for not complying with her request, Coke told for rejecting a proposed Whig amendment which would have extended a criticism of exorbitant royal grants to those made by Charles II and James II as well as King William. His stance on the controversial first occasional conformity bill can be inferred from a letter from a constituent who informed him that the bill had ‘so envenomed all the Presbyterians that they are making all imaginable interest underhand against you and Mr Curzon against the next election’. On 7 Jan. 1703 his continued rise to prominence in the Commons was emphasized by re-election to the commission of accounts, this time in second place. On 18 Jan. he was ordered to prepare a bill augmenting small vicarages, which never emerged from committee. The only vote recorded for him in this session came on 13 Feb., when he divided against agreeing with the Lords’ amendment to the bill enlarging the time for taking the Abjuration.6

After the first session of the 1702 Parliament Coke was in a position to exploit his growing influence in the House. In company with St. John, Brydges and Harley, he was one of a group of rising men who looked forward to the exercise of office and its rewards. The session of 1703–4 opened quietly enough. During the debate on the contents of the Address, Bonet reported that Coke, a Tory, favoured a general assurance to the Queen rather than specific mention of the treaties with Portugal and Savoy. On 26 Nov. Bonet reported that, on the previous day, Coke had opposed the motion for leave to bring in a second occasional conformity bill, a view which filtered into Derbyshire prompting one of Coke’s correspondents to report to him a rumour that he had voted against the bill. This was perhaps the first indication that Coke was trimming his sails in the hope of preferment. He presented a bill on behalf of his relatives, the Cokes of Trusley, but did not manage the bill because in January 1704 his wife died of a fever a few days after a miscarriage, causing a prolonged absence from the House. On 7 Feb. he wrote to Speaker Harley to ensure that he was not re-elected to the commission of accounts, ‘which in the circumstances I am now in I must of necessity decline, being incapable in person to perform it’. Thus, Coke’s life was thrown into turmoil at the very moment when opportunities were opening up for his circle. He was forced to follow events from afar, but kept in close correspondence with his friends and may have exploited his inaccessibility in order to avoid accepting uncongenial posts. The ministry was certainly keen to accommodate him: on 3 Apr. 1704 Marlborough wrote to him on the subject of employment that ‘I could not leave England with any ease to my mind till I had turned my thoughts to every thing that is possible for placing you in the Queen’s service to your satisfaction’. Coke was spoken of in connexion with a place at the Board of Trade and certainly refused an offer of joint-controller of the army before finally securing ‘a fat sinecure’ as a teller of the Exchequer. By early May he had returned to the capital to obtain his patent and find sureties worth £7,000 to enable him to take up office. Henceforth he regularly appeared on lists of placemen.7

Acceptance of office produced a profound change in Coke’s political attitude. From being a staunch upholder of the Country tradition, he became an archetypal courtier. Possibly the rewards of office were essential to his plans to rebuild Melbourne Hall. The change was noted by contemporaries, one of whom forecast in October 1704 that Coke would oppose the Tack. He was not listed as voting for it on 28 Nov. 1704. His main concerns in this session seem to centre upon three private bills, the most important being the reintroduced bill to confirm his agreement with the bishop of Carlisle in 1701 over the rectory of Melbourne. Although the bill had an uninterrupted passage through both Houses, Coke had to work hard behind the scenes to ensure the agreement of the new bishop, William Nicolson. In January 1705 Coke undertook one of his duties as knight of the shire when he presented a bill to enable a Derbyshire gentleman to settle a jointure on his wife. He also took over from the secretary at war the management of a bill to naturalize the wife of one of Marlborough’s favourites, William Cadogan*, duly reporting the bill on 25 Jan.8

An imminent move by Coke towards the Court had been suspected by some in Derbyshire as early as January 1704, and there were rumours that he would again join forces with Lord Hartington for the county at the 1705 election. In the event Coke was returned again with Curzon. However, there were murmurings of discontent: on 25 July 1705 Lady Anne Pye recorded that since the election Coke ‘is not so revered by the High Church because he had so much declared against it. It is thought they will endeavour to oppose him against next choice, but that is a great way off.’ None the less, there was still some confusion among contemporaries as to his exact political stance: on a list of Members elected to the new Parliament he was classed as a ‘Churchman’. The confusion was probably dispelled on 25 Oct. when he joined many Tory placemen in supporting the Court candidate for Speaker. On 19 Dec. in a debate on the regency bill he intervened in the discussion over some ill-judged comments made by Charles Caesar*, to counsel moderation unless the words were deemed so ‘exaggerated’ as to warrant exemplary punishment. Then on 21 Jan. 1706 he spoke in support of Harley’s suggestion that the debate on the ‘whimsical’ clause be deferred for a day. However, he was not recorded as voting for the Court over the regency bill proceedings on 18 Feb.9

Early in December 1706 Coke exchanged offices with Hon. Peregrine Bertie II*, the vice-chamberlain of the Household. This appointment not only strengthened his ties to the Court, but provided a plausible excuse for staying away from the Commons. Indeed, as Coke discharged his duties conscientiously his post often necessitated his absence. ‘An able, assiduous, and highly versatile vice-chamberlain’, he was awarded £1,000 out of the privy purse owing to his ‘constant waiting and attendance’ on the Queen. Coke’s name appears among 18 names sent by Lord Godolphin (Sidney†) to Harley, dated 26 Oct. 1707, clearly a list of the government managers in the Commons for the coming session. However, Coke was inactive in the 1707–8 session. He was still classed as a Tory on a list compiled early in 1708, but on the dismissal of Harley in February 1708, he failed to resign along with St. John and (Sir) Thomas Mansel I*, despite expectations that he would do so.10

Coke was again returned unopposed for Derbyshire in 1708. After December 1706, he had customarily been referred to in the Journals as ‘Mr Vice-Chamberlain’. However, the mention on 15 Jan. 1709 of a ‘Mr Coke’ as teller for William Hale* in the Bramber election may have been a reference to the vice-chamberlain, since Coke was later in the year to marry Hale’s sister. On 28 Jan. Coke voted for (Sir) Simon Harcourt I when Harcourt was unseated for Abingdon. On 1 Feb. he was a teller again, this time for Crewe Offley* in another election case. On 29 Jan. he was named to a committee to prepare a bill to bring the treason laws in Scotland into line with those in England, but the bill was dropped in the face of Scottish opposition. The Lords then took up a similar bill, which was amended by the Commons to restrict the forfeiture of estates on attainder to the lifetime of the person attainted. The Lords in turn added a further amendment so that the forfeiture would apply to heirs until the death of the Pretender. On 18 Apr. 1709 Coke told for agreeing with this counter-amendment. His one recorded vote in the session was also in support of the Whigs, being in favour of the general naturalization bill. In 1709 Coke was described as ‘that dapper squat gentleman with a tolerable face, poring on a book, and feigning to read it . . . He would willingly be thought a wit: not one of the writers, but brisk at repartee.’ The same writer referred to Coke’s adventures with various women, but in October he married one of the Queen’s maids of honour.11

In the session which began the following month, Coke again seemed to keep a low profile, the only legislation with which he was concerned being a bill to facilitate the passage of sheriffs’ accounts, which he introduced on 14 Jan. 1710. On 15 Feb., during the debate on the address to hasten Marlborough to the peace negotiations, Brydges described Coke’s role as ‘a part that he can best account for’, which suggests that he had acted differently from the rest of the Duke’s friends. Coke himself explained to Brydges that he had opposed the address ‘very early in the debate’, and when ‘the debate turned from being a point of decency to the Queen to the merit of the Duke of Marlborough’ he could not join the rest of the Court in voting for the address, ‘tho’ I was very much provoked to it by the unmannerly behaviour of the Tories’. He then laid down a rule of conduct which was ‘to support the prerogative of the crown’, even though on this occasion he was ‘in bad company’. On the major issue of the session he voted for the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell.12

Coke’s voting record in the 1708–10 Parliament, although explicable in terms of the need to retain his office, nevertheless did not endear him to his Tory constituents. Indeed, they were particularly indignant over his attitude to Sacheverell. He was reported not only to have been against the Doctor, but to have taken ‘several opportunities to show yourself, and to speak, and that very hotly, and when you need not have done it, against him’. He compounded his faults by refusing to leave his post at Court to solicit his election, with the result that his erstwhile partner, Curzon, joined Coke’s own brother-in-law Godfrey Clarke* to oppose him. When Coke did finally travel to Derbyshire to survey the situation at first hand, he declined to force a poll and took refuge in the Cornish borough of Grampound.13

Coke’s new electoral patron was George Granville*, a friend of Harley, a fact which, together with his proven malleability, seems to have enabled him to make a successful transition from a Whig to a Tory ministry and retain his place at court. It is probable that he felt more at ease under a Tory administration. The ‘Hanover list’ of the new Parliament certainly marked him as a Tory. He does not appear to have engaged in much parliamentary activity in the early part of the session, possibly owing to attendance on the Queen, but managed an estate bill when it came down from the Lords, reporting it on 10 May 1711. On 14 May Coke chaired the committee of the whole on the bill for raising the militia, reporting it on 16 May. His Tory stance in this session was confirmed when he was listed as one of the ‘worthy patriots’ who detected the mismanagements of the late ministry. He chaired a committee of the whole on 26 May on a bill for clearing a regiment’s accounts. Continuing ill-health during the summer of 1711 gave rise to doctor’s orders to refrain from drink. He spoke for the Court in the motion of censure against Marlborough in January 1712, although the Duchess had appealed to his wife (whom she claimed to have made a maid of honour) to speak to Coke, who had ‘very many great’ obligations to the Duke, not to be against him in the Commons. During this session he sent a number of letters to Harley (now Lord Treasurer Oxford) concerning the payment of his salary, an incessant importunity that suggests some financial embarrassment at this time, possibly deriving from expense in the refurbishment of Melbourne Hall. In the 1713 session the only important issues which occupied him in the Commons related to the peace. On 18 June he voted in favour of the French commerce bill and in debate exhorted Tory Members to withdraw their opposition since they were only being made the pawns of a faction.14

At the election of 1713 Coke was returned for Grampound, being classed as a Tory on the Worsley list. Nothing of importance was recorded of his activities in the 1714 session, probably owing to his attendance on the Queen at Windsor. However, he did submit a petition to the Lords in June against a bill seeking to amend the Trent Navigation Act of 1698 because he perceived it would prejudice his estate adjoining the river. After the death of the Queen Coke attended the Privy Council which proclaimed George I. He was continued in his office by the new monarch, much to the unease of many Whigs, but did not stand for Parliament in the new reign. He retained his post until his death on 16 or 17 May 1727. In his will of 1722 he made provision for his daughters, with most of his estate going to his son, George Lewis Coke.15

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Author: Stuart Handley


  • 1. HMC Cowper, iii. 156–7; Add. 19253, f. 189b; Beaufort mss at Badminton House, Coventry pprs., Ld. Bindon (Henry Howard*) to [Lady Anne Coventry?], 4 Oct. 1709; Cal. Treas. Bks. xxiii. 413.
  • 2. HMC Cowper, ii. 361–4, 369–70; iii. 156–7; J. T. Coke, Coke of Trusley, 72–73; Cottrell-Dormer mss at Rousham, Charles Caesar’s jnl.; PCC 139 Fane; CSP Dom. 1696, p. 262; 1697, p. 141.
  • 3. HMC Cowper, ii. 348–52, 383–4, 385; BL, Lothian mss, Sir Gilbert Clarke* to Coke, 21 July 1698; Robert Harding to same, 20 May 1700; John Beresford to same, 17 Dec. 1700; W. Woolley, Hist. Derbys. (Derbys. Rec. Soc. vi.), 58; H. Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 254.
  • 4. HMC Cowper, ii. 392–4; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 421; Cocks Diary, 50, 53–54; Som. RO, Sanford mss DD/SF4107(a), notes on debate, 13 Feb. 1699[–1700]; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 48/51, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 28 Mar. 1700.
  • 5. Lothian mss, Ld. Stanhope to Coke, 24 Feb. 1700[–1], Lady Mary Coke to same, [n.d.]; HMC Cowper, ii. 421–2, 443–4, 453–7; iii. 2, 4–5; Cocks Diary, 225, 231, 243, 278–9; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss 26(2), James Brydges*’ diary, 4 Mar. 1702.
  • 6. HMC Cowper, iii. 20.
  • 7. DZA, Bonet despatches 12, 26 Nov. 1703; HMC Cowper, iii. 29, 31–32, 34–36, 163; G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 263; Marlborough–Godolphin Corresp. 288; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 414; HMC Portland, iv. 84; Cal. Treas. Bks. xix. 231, 240.
  • 8. N. Pevsner, Buildings of Eng. Derbys. 278; Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 218–19, 236, 247, 249, 252, 271, 274–5.
  • 9. HMC Cowper, iii. 29–30, 54–55; HMC Portland, iv. 212; Cam. Misc. xxiii. 53, 81.
  • 10. Staffs. RO, Paget mss D603/K/3/6, R. Acherley to Ld. Paget, 3 Dec. 1706; Daily Courant, 5 Dec. 1706; R. Bucholz, Augustan Court, 45; Add. 70338, list 26 Oct. 1707; EHR, lxxx. 697; Stowe mss 57(2), p. 98; Swift Corresp. ed. Williams, i. 69.
  • 11. Bull. IHR, xl. 160; P. W. J. Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scotland, 119–20; Stowe mss 57(3), p. 153; D. Manley, Secret Mems. 183.
  • 12. Stowe mss 58(5), pp. 124–7.
  • 13. Lothian mss, Elizabeth Coke to Coke, 9 Sept. 1710; HMC Cowper, iii. 84–98, 170–1; HMC Portland, iv. 591, 612; Holmes, 264.
  • 14. Stowe mss 57(5), p. 85, James Brydges to Mr Cartwright, 1 June 1711; Add. 70218, Coke to Oxford, 4 Nov. 1711, 16 Feb., 3 Sept. 1712; 17677 GGG, f. 230; 61474, f. 186; Oldmixon, Hist. Eng. 488.
  • 15. HMC Lords, n.s. x. 370; Boyer, Pol. State, viii. 117; xxxiii. 528; Norf. RO, Ketton-Cremer mss, Mrs Katharine Windham to Ashe Windham*, [n.d.], James Windham to same, 28 Sept. 1714; Hist. Reg. Chron. 1727, p. 19; PCC 133 Farrant.