GRAHME (GRAHAM), James (1650-1730), of Levens Hall, Westmld.

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



1685 - 1687
1702 - 1708
1708 - 1727

Family and Education

bap. 3 Apr. 1650, 2nd s. of Sir George Grahme, 2nd Bt., of Netherby, Cumb. by Lady Mary, da. of James Johnston, 2nd Earl of Hartfell and 3rd Earl of Annandale [S]; bro. of Sir Richard Grahme, 3rd Bt.†, 1st Visct. Preston.  educ. Westminster; Christ Church, Oxf. 1666.  m. (1) lic. 23 Nov. 1675, Dorothy (d. 1700), maid of honour to Duchess of York, and from 1671 Queen Catherine of Braganza, da. of Hon. William Howard (4th son of Thomas, 1st Earl of Berkshire), 3s. d.v.p. 2da. (1 d.v.p.); (2) lic. 4 Mar. 1702, Elizabeth (d. 1709), da. of Isaac Barton of All Hallows, Barking, Essex, merchant, wid. of George Bromley of the Middle Temple, s.p.1

Offices Held

Capt. Douglas’s ft. (French army) 1671–3, R. English regt. (French army) 1673–4; capt. of ft. Earl of Carlisle’s (Charles Howard†) regt. 1673, Duke of York’s regt. 1675; capt. Coldstream Gds. 1675–8; lt.-col. of ft. Ld. Morpeth’s (Edward Howard†) regt. 1678–9; keeper of privy purse to Duchess of York by 1679 and to James II as Duke of York and King 1679–88; keeper of Pirbright Walk, Windsor Forest 1680; ranger and keeper of Bagshot park, Windsor Forest 1682–9; master of buckhounds 1685–9.2

Freeman, Portsmouth, 1678, New Windsor, 1685, Appleby 1703; burgess, Edinburgh 1679, Stirling and Linlithgow 1681; alderman, New Windsor 1685–Oct. 1688, Appleby 1703; mayor, New Windsor, 1686–7, Appleby 1705–6, 1717–18.3

Freeman, E. I. Co. 1689.4


Before the Revolution Grahme’s advancement had proceeded smoothly. A brief military career was followed by an advantageous marriage which gave him access to the court, and from the late 1670s he was a leading figure in the household of the Duke of York, after 1685, James II. Described by one modern historian as a prominent member of the ‘Anglican-Tory circle’ at James’s court, Grahme’s bright prospects were blighted in 1688. Slipping into the Jacobite underworld of the early 1690s, he was accused of high treason and later claimed that his misadventures in this period had placed his finances under an intolerable strain from which he struggled to recover. He did not return to the mainstream of political life until the end of William’s reign, and did not re-enter Parliament until the accession of Queen Anne. Grahme became the correspondent and confidant of many of the leading members of a younger generation of Tories such as Robert Harley*, Henry St. John II*, William Bromley II* and John Ward III*, but though his surviving papers are voluminous they reveal little of his political career after the Revolution.5

The early 1690s were particularly turbulent for Grahme. As a leading member of the Household, Grahme accompanied James II to Rochester in December 1688 and although he did not join James in France his son accompanied the departing monarch. In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution Grahme took responsibility for the management of James’s affairs in England, an obligation that led him, or so he claimed, to sustain considerable financial losses. Shortly after departing for France James transferred £10,000 of East India Company stock and £3,000 of Royal African Company stock to Grahme. Grahme later claimed that this transfer was compensation for a loan of £6,000 he had made to James shortly before, but it may be that James entrusted Grahme with the task of selling these shares and forwarding the money to France. Whichever interpretation is correct, the disposal of these shares brought Grahme a great deal of trouble. In March 1689 the East India Company refused to transfer to Grahme the £7,000 of stock granted to James after he became king, though the £3,000 of stock James had purchased as a private citizen was placed in Grahme’s name, as was James’s Royal African stock. Grahme later claimed that sales of the stocks that had been transferred to him yielded £18,000 to 1691, but in 1690 the attorney-general had initiated bills in the court of Exchequer against Grahme for the proceeds of the share sales and against the companies who had transferred shares to him. The fate of these bills is uncertain. The East India and Royal African companies both replied that the transfer of shares had been legal, but Grahme later complained that he had been required to repay the £18,000 profit made on the shares by 1691, and to transfer the remaining shares to the crown. The shares which remained unsold, including the £7,000 of disputed East India stock, were transferred to the crown, so that by May 1691 Grahme had satisfied the government in respect of the remaining East India stock. At this point his brother-in-law Craven Howard* entered into bonds for £2,964 in payment of the balance of the money owed by Grahme on the shares that had been sold. Grahme struggled throughout the 1690s to meet this debt, unsuccessfully negotiating to sell William III the lease of Bagshot Park, Surrey which he had been granted by King James. Grahme finally assigned the property to Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, in 1699 and in the same year mortgaged some of his Westmorland estates to Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt.*, for £3,000, which enabled him to clear the debt relating to the shares. The dispute over James’s shares was not the only financial legacy of the 1680s which bedevilled Grahme after the Revolution. Between 1691 and 1694, for example, he was prosecuted by a lacemaker for the payment of bills accumulated in the 1680s by King James in connexion with hunting, and throughout the 1690s Grahme was pressed for payment of a debt of £1,250 in relation to the issuing of healing medals in James’s reign, though the latter debt was cancelled by Queen Anne in 1703.6

The other legacy of Grahme’s service in James’s household was his involvement in Jacobite conspiracy during the 1690s. The ‘Anglican-Tory circle’ at the exiled court, which had also included Grahme’s brother Viscount Preston, his former mistress the Countess of Dorchester and the Earl of Dartmouth (George Legge†), was prominent in the Jacobite underground of the early 1690s. The capture of Lord Preston in March 1690 led to Grahme’s own arrest and the seizure of his Westmorland estates ‘upon the notion of his being a papist’, and, though he was released on this occasion, in June the following year a warrant was issued for Grahme’s arrest on suspicion of ‘abetting and adhering to his Majesty’s enemies’. The following month Secretary Nottingham (Daniel Finch†) wrote to William with details of an offer made by Grahme and Dorchester to provide information on Jacobite conspiracies, Grahme having told Nottingham that he was prepared to take the oaths to the new regime as

though he has done all he could to serve King James, yet, since there is no further possibility of doing him any good, but the quarrel is now more immediately between England and France, he will behave himself as becomes a true lover of his country, and a faithful subject of your Majesty’s . . . This is what he says, but I guess, that the taking the oaths necessary to entitle him to your Majesty’s general pardon, this is at least one motive to induce him to his present resolution. He says he will never be an evidence, nor name any person, but promises me he will tell anything he hears about French designs.

Grahme also suggested that he should take the oaths in secret to facilitate his operation as a government agent. Grahme was released, but the evidence given by Preston following his arrest in January 1691, as he attempted to leave for France to serve as James’s secretary of state, caused a proclamation for Grahme’s arrest to be issued. Preston’s evidence implicated his brother, Grahme’s house at Bagshot allegedly having been used by the conspirators as a meeting place, and Grahme responded by offering to ‘serve the government if they will serve me’ and appealing to Nottingham to remember his previous service to the regime. In February 1692 Grahme was granted a royal pardon. Only three months later, however, the government again ordered his apprehension. He surrendered himself at the end of May, and in November the court of King’s bench continued him on his recognizance. Grahme nevertheless maintained his connexions with St. Germain, where his younger brother Fergus was employed, and in December 1693 informed the exiled court that King James ‘must infallibly succeed’ if he invaded before the following March, but it appears that by early 1695 Middleton, the Jacobite secretary of state, no longer trusted Grahme, fearing that he was a government spy. Grahme’s Jacobite activity declined notably from the mid-1690s; although he was imprisoned in the Fleet at the time of the Assassination Plot he took the oaths to William III in September 1701.7

Grahme appears to have spent much of his time from the mid-1690s in quiet retirement at Levens Hall, which he had purchased for £24,000 in 1688, carrying out a number of renovations. Although he claimed that the financial problems associated with his service at King James’s court dogged him throughout the 1690s, his extensive Westmorland and Cumberland estates have been estimated to have been worth slightly over £1,000 p.a. in the 1690s, and therefore provided a sound base upon which to establish an interest in Westmorland politics. Related to the Westmorland Musgraves by the marriage of his aunt, Grahme first concerned himself with parliamentary elections in 1695 when he supported the candidacy of Sir Christopher Musgrave for Westmorland, but did not engage himself again until his son stood for the county in the summer of 1700. In the course of the campaign allegations were made, supposedly by Sir Daniel Fleming†, that Grahme and his son were Catholics, and though Grahme denied these claims they dogged his son’s campaign. The Westmorland by-election never took place, but Henry Grahme was returned for the county in the first election of 1701. Grahme himself stood at Appleby in December 1701, having the support of Lord Thanet (Thomas Tufton†) and owning burgages there himself, but was defeated. He was nevertheless asked by Kendal corporation to promote a petition of the town’s weavers against the use of workers who had not served a full apprenticeship. At the election following Anne’s accession Grahme was elected at Appleby, a success which led Lord Godolphin (Sidney†) to offer his congratulations.8

Grahme was not an active Member. Though the poem The Golden Age Restor’d commented, in the course of an attack upon the Tory ascendancy in the new ministry, that ‘Grahme is at hand the Members to reward’, there is no record of Grahme speaking in the 1702 Parliament. Grahme took care to oppose the Whig interest in Cumberland at the summer assizes, though in September Lord Weymouth (Thomas Thynne†) stressed the need for his attendance at the start of the 1703–4 session and asked him to ‘muster up all his parliamentary colleagues’ in the north-west, warning him that ‘you never yet knew the Whigs throw up the game’. Grahme’s Toryism was demonstrated by his inclusion in December on a list of Henry St. John’s closest parliamentary colleagues, but his only significant activity in this session was to manage through the Commons the militia bill and an estate bill. In March 1704 he was included in a forecast of those thought likely to support the Earl of Nottingham over the Scotch Plot. Despite his inactivity in the House in April he was being talked of as a potential comptroller of the army accounts. Grahme’s wide-ranging connexions at Court and among the Tories were demonstrated by the letter of congratulation he sent to Harley upon the latter’s appointment as secretary of state and by the warm letter of thanks he received in return, though Grahme was reported to have taken offence at Whig jubilation at the fall of the High Tories evident in the newspapers that reached Westmorland and to have circulated a paper on the subject at the quarter sessions. Grahme’s fondness for the country was again evident on the eve of the 1704–5 session when John Ward III wrote urging him and his son to attend a meeting at the Fountain tavern a week before the session was due to commence, but if Ward hoped that Grahme’s Toryism would commit him to support the Tack he was to be disappointed. On 30 Oct. Grahme was forecast as an opponent of this measure, and on 28 Nov. he assured Bishop Nicolson of Carlisle that he would not support the Tack. Nicolson described Grahme as ‘entirely under the influence of Mr Secretary Harley’, and the combination of the secretary’s influence and the place in Prince George’s household held by Grahme’s son are sufficient explanation of Grahme’s decision not to vote for the Tack. Grahme’s relationship with Harley also led the secretary to use him as an intermediary in attempts to persuade the Duke of Hamilton to support a union treaty, Harley no doubt wishing to take advantage of Grahme’s links to the Scottish aristocracy through his mother.9

Grahme was returned unopposed for Appleby in 1705. Classed, somewhat oddly, as ‘Low Church’ in an analysis of the new Parliament, he soon found himself under pressure in relation to the forthcoming vote on the Speaker. Ward informed Grahme of the contest in prospect between John Smith I and William Bromley II and called Smith’s kissing the Queen’s hand ‘a broad sign to you old courtiers’, while St. John wrote that Harley and Godolphin both expected to see Grahme at the beginning of the session. Faced with the choice between alienating the Court and betraying his Tory instincts Grahme attempted to avoid an invidious choice and informed his patron Thanet of his opinion that the election of Bromley was so certain that he felt able to remain in the country to deal with local affairs. Thanet, however, replied that ‘I should be a little troubled’ if the vote on the Speaker ‘should be lost by any person that my interest had been employed to promote being of the assembly’. In this situation, when he was under pressure from both the Court and his Tory friends, Grahme’s partisan loyalties proved the stronger, and on 25 Oct. he voted against the Court candidate for Speaker. Grahme’s only other significant act in this session was his nomination on 9 Mar. 1706 to a conference with the Lords upon a breach of privilege, but shortly after the prorogation he began to discover that his vote of the previous October had not been forgotten. In April the Treasury lords rejected the petition of Grahme and Charles Howson, first lodged in 1704, to be leased lands in Lincolnshire, and in July his son was removed from his Household post. Grahme’s poor financial position meant that such setbacks were keenly felt. Though his income had been supplemented since 1702 by the £400 p.a. his wife was reported to receive from Lord Halifax (Charles Montagu*), Grahme borrowed over £5,000 between 1705 and 1707, including a £2,000 mortgage to Christopher Musgrave*, and in light of these financial problems his efforts to have his son restored to a profitable place come as little surprise. An undated letter from Godolphin to Harley described a visit from Grahme at which the lord treasurer told Grahme that ‘whenever he will please to serve the Queen I shall be willing to serve him, but not till then, for . . . no professions, nor no real service to myself, can make amends for opposing the Queen’. Grahme’s attempts to atone for his vote against John Smith continued in October when he wrote to Godolphin to complain of his usage by the Court, but received short shrift from the lord treasurer, who replied that ‘I know not how grateful my new friends as you call them may prove. I doubt whether it will be in my power to show them as much kindness as to those whom you reckon the old ones, but if I can, I am sure it won’t be in their power to be less grateful for it.’ Although Grahme was in London between December 1706 and February 1707 he paid little attention to parliamentary affairs, at least in part because of his son’s death in January, but his recorded activity notably increased in the 1707–8 session. On 8 Dec. he posed a number of questions relating to the Spanish war which prompted a series of resolutions calling for the Commons to consider this matter on the 13th. However, when on that day St. John and Hon. James Brydges had presented information pertaining to the Spanish campaign, Grahme moved that the debate be postponed until the 18th. Then, on the 18th, after Bromley and Ralph Freman II had moved for further papers on the Spanish war, Grahme proposed a further delay until 17 Jan. James Vernon I* reported that this indicated the Tory intention of ‘favouring Lord Peterborough, and laying the blame of the miscarriages elsewhere’. Grahme’s increasing hostility to the Court was also indicated by his support for the abolition of the Scottish privy council, and in a list of early 1708 he was classed as a Tory. Grahme’s Tory fervour in this session was also evident in his refusal to support the bill, sponsored by Bishop Nicolson in order to settle a dispute between himself and the Tory dean of Carlisle, Francis Atterbury, to clarify the statutes of cathedrals and collegiate churches. During the debates on this measure Grahme ‘stood neuter’, much to the disgust of his friend Nicolson.10

In 1708 Grahme stood successfully for the Westmorland seat previously held by his son, and shortly after his election was urged by Ward to come up early for the session as ‘there will be some very material points at first opening’. Grahme was inactive in the 1708 Parliament, but he remained close to a number of prominent Tories and it was later claimed by Lord Coningsby (Thomas*) in his History of the Parties (1716) that Grahme played an important role in the machinations surrounding the change of ministry in 1710. Coningsby wrote that in January 1710 Grahme carried a message ‘from the heads of the High Church party’ to Godolphin that ‘if he [Godolphin] would leave my Lord Marlborough [John Churchill†] and come into the Queen’s measures, who resolved to abandon the Whigs, they would rather take him for their head than Harley, who had made the same offer to them’. Coningsby further claimed that he was ordered by Godolphin to carry on ‘frequent interviews’ with Grahme regarding this offer, and that Godolphin’s negotiations with the ‘High Church’ only ceased in June, when Dartmouth’s appointment as secretary of state made clear Harley’s influence at Court. Coningsby’s claims are not corroborated by any other source. Grahme’s acquaintance with such leading Tory figures as Nottingham, Weymouth and Bromley would have made him a possible intermediary for such negotiations, but several caveats must be entered. Grahme had a very cordial relationship with Harley, and it must also be remembered that Grahme had suffered disappointment at Godolphin’s hands in 1706. It is also the case that Grahme does not appear to have borne any particular animus against Marlborough. In 1709, for example, Marlborough assisted Grahme’s request for a licence for the return of his brother Fergus from France, and Grahme’s nephew had served as Marlborough’s aide-de-camp since 1704. Consequently the veracity of Coningsby’s account could be called into question. What is undeniable is that in early 1710 Grahme voted against the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell, a vote which one of Grahme’s correspondents claimed had ‘made even your enemies your friends . . . in Cumberland’.11

Grahme was returned unopposed for Westmorland in 1710. Though classed as a Tory in the ‘Hanover list’ Grahme does not at this time appear to have shared the common Tory animosity to Marlborough, having written to the commander-in-chief in September that he was ‘heartily pleased at all your successes and hope at your return you will find all honest men so too’. Grahme’s activity notably increased in the 1710–11 session, and his Toryism was demonstrated on a number of occasions. Having become a member of the October Club, on 19 Feb. 1711 he proposed that the report into the abuses in the victualling office be considered before supply, but failed to find a seconder for his proposal. He also told on 24 Apr. against a writ being issued for a by-election at Cockermouth after the unseating of James Stanhope, and at the end of the session was listed among the ‘worthy patriots’ who had detected the mismanagements of the previous administration, and as a ‘Tory patriot’ who had opposed the continuation of the war. His Tory loyalties did not, however, account for all his parliamentary activity in this session. He did not, for example, share the sympathy for the place bill evident in many of his fellow October Club members, preferring to support the ministry; on 29 Jan. he told against the third reading of this bill. On 10 Feb. he was the only Tory to support the Squadrone Whig Mungo Graham* in the debate upon the Kinross-shire election, the latter action probably due to the Grahmes’ unsubstantiated claim to share a common ancestor with the Grahams, dukes of Montrose. The session also saw Grahme tell against a petition of the inhabitants of St. Botolph’s, London being referred to committee (27 Feb.), and in March he supported his friend Bishop Nicolson during the Commons’ investigation of Nicolson’s activities in the Carlisle election of 1710. Grahme’s finances had been in a parlous state since 1709, the need to provide a marriage portion of £4,000 for his daughter causing him to mortgage part of his Westmorland estates to Bromley in this year and to consider selling Levens. With his friend Harley now lord treasurer and Earl of Oxford, Grahme began a series of appeals for financial assistance. In July 1711 he wrote requesting ‘the Queen’s goodness and your favour, to be kept from sinking’, attributing his current problems to the losses he had made on James II’s stocks in the 1690s, the cost of maintaining his children and his brother Fergus, and being ‘persuaded by a great man to try my fortune again, and concern myself in elections’. In December Bromley wrote to Oxford that Grahme ‘wants a little money to stay certain proceedings until he can by selling raise enough to clear with his creditors’. In October 1711, however, Grahme wrote to Lord Weymouth ‘that no private interest of my own nor particular regard to any particular person shall ever alter or lessen my zeal for the Church and monarchy’. There is no record of Oxford making any payment to Grahme before or during the 1711–12 session and in late 1711 Grahme entered into negotiations to sell his burgages at Appleby and two more of his Westmorland properties to Lady Lonsdale, receiving £4,120 when this sale was completed in 1713. Grahme’s most notable contribution to this session was his defence of Marlborough and Adam de Cardonnel* from accusations of corruption. He spoke in defence of the former in the debate of 25 Jan. 1712 on the commission of accounts report on bread contracts, and on 19 Feb. he told against the motion that Cardonnel’s actions had been corrupt. The attack upon Marlborough and Cardonnel had been led by members of the October Club, and given that the Court had sacrificed Marlborough to the back-bench Tories it seems likely that Grahme’s support stemmed from favours previously received from the commander-in-chief, and perhaps from a fear that the investigation of corruption could at some point implicate his own nephew. His other major concern in this session was the bill to continue the militia. He was appointed to draft this bill on 28 Jan., presented it on 2 Feb. and chaired the committee of the whole upon it on 14 Feb. He returned to Levens for the summer, and in October wrote to Oxford, urging him to

advance, encourage and countenance able and virtuous men, remembering what was complained of in the time of those you succeed. Then able and honest men, on some design or other, were purposely suppressed . . . beware of turn, serving and cunning men, place them not in stations of moment, put able and honest men who certainly will be ours rather than advance any otherwise because they say they are yours.

The letter ended with Grahme again requesting financial assistance, and by December he was writing to Oxford to apologize that in a previous letter ‘I said too much’. Grahme walked a fine line between support for the Court and loyalty to other interests in the 1713 session. Having been a teller on 21 Apr. in favour of the Commons going into a committee of ways and means, he told on 19 May for recommitting amendments made to the malt bill. These amendments had been supported by the Court in the previous day’s committee of the whole upon the bill, and Grahme’s decision to oppose the Court on this occasion, and perhaps jeopardize his hopes of financial assistance from Oxford, is perhaps most readily explicable in terms of an unwillingness to see the Scots retain preferential treatment. Despite this action Grahme wrote to Oxford later the same month requesting financial aid, without which he would be ‘ruined forever’. Given Grahme’s need for assistance from the Court his attitude to the French commercial treaty is not surprising. After renewing his request for financial aid on 13 June, he voted five days later for the French commerce bill.12

Grahme’s financial problems continued. He was forced to borrow £460 from Lord Chandos in the summer of 1713, and, although he was again returned unopposed in 1713, in January the following year he renewed his request to Oxford for financial assistance, claiming to have been promised a sum which had not yet been forthcoming. Oxford finally gave Grahme £200 in April. Grahme was generally inactive in the 1714 session, though he spoke on the Court side in the committee of supply on 12 May, and no significant action on his part is recorded for the short second session of the Parliament. He was classed in the Worsley list as a Tory who would on occasion vote with the Whigs, but in two comparisons of the 1713 and 1715 Parliaments was listed simply as a Tory. He was successful in the 1715 Westmorland election and remained in the Commons until 1727. He died at the estates of his son-in-law and nephew the Earl of Berkshire at Charlton, Wiltshire on 26 Jan. 1730, his monumental inscription describing him as a ‘faithful’ servant of Charles II and James II, and as ‘an unworthy but true member of the Church of England . . . and a sincere lover of monarchy’. He was succeeded in his estates by Lord Berkshire.13

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison


  • 1. Scots Peerage ed. Paul, vii. 101–2; London Mar. Lic. ed. Foster, 573; J. Bagot, Col. James Grahme, 3.
  • 2. DNB; Scots Peerage, 102; Bagot, 38; Cal. Treas. Bks. vii. 655; Evelyn Diary, iii. 529–30.
  • 3. R. East, Portsmouth Recs. 363; Bagot, 38; First Hall Bk. (Windsor Hist. Recs. i), 51, 169; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A, min. bk. 3, 4 Oct. 1703.
  • 4. Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxxxv. 135.
  • 5. A. P. Barclay, ‘Impact of King James II on Depts. of Royal Household’ (Cambridge Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1993), 23–27, 193–7.
  • 6. Bagot, 6–8, 34; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. 135–6; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 330; Cal. Treas. Bks. ix. 1170, 1731; x. 200–1, 258, 711, 717, 783; xi. 361, 362–3; xii. 105, 124; xvii. 40, 306; xix. 355; James Grahme, Esq. Appellant, Francis Stamper, Respondent . . . the Respondent’s Case (1693).
  • 7. Barclay thesis, 27, 216; HMC Le Fleming, 252; HMC Finch, ii. 310, 391–2; iii. 9–10, 149, 325–6, 330, 334, 337–8, 351–5; iv. 195; Dalrymple Mems. iii(2), 60–62; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 172, 230, 356, 448, 627; iii. 24; v. 95; Luttrell Diary, 70–72; Orig. Pprs. ed. Macpherson i. 464, 468–9, 512; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 332.
  • 8. Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxxxv. 132, 133; lxxxvi. 275; HMC Le Fleming, 337; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss WD/Ry 5548, Grahme to Mr Battersby, 9 Sept. 1700; 5583, same to [–], 15 Nov. 1700; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Timothy Banks to Grahme, 5 Feb. 1701[–2]; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 336, 337.
  • 9. Add. 29588, ff. 480–1; 29589A, ff. 101–2; 61611, f. 115; Poems on Affairs of State ed. Ellis, vi. 500; W. A. Speck, Birth of Britain, 56; Speck thesis, 116; Luttrell, v. 414–15; HMC Portland, iv. 85, 171–2; Bagot mss, Harley to Grahme, 1 June, 5 Sept. 1705, Ward to same, 3 Oct. 1705; Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 237, 242, 247; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 339; P. W. J. Riley, Union, 149.
  • 10. Bagot mss, Ward to Grahme, 10 Aug. 1705, Godolphin to same, 21 Sept. 1706, Bp. Nicolson to same, 30 Apr. 1708; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxviii. 124; lxxv. 137; Bull. IHR, xxvii. 21–22; Nicolson Diaries, 445; Cal. Treas. Bks. xix. 191; xx. 197; Luttrell, vi. 66; Add. 70285, Godolphin to Harley, n.d.; Speck, 129–30; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 48/171, James Vernon I to Duke of Shrewsbury, 13 Dec. 1707; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 298; G. V. Bennett, Tory Crisis 1688–1730, pp. 90–91, 96–97.
  • 11. Speck thesis, 41; Nicolson Diaries, 483; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxviii. 128–9; Archaeologia, xxxviii. 12–17; Add. 61303, ff. 23, 27–28; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 342.
  • 12. Add. 61303, f. 29; BL, Trumbull Alphab. mss 54, Ralph Bridges to Sir William Trumbull*, 19 Feb. 1710–11; Trumbull Add. mss 136 bdle. 1, same to same, 25 Jan. 1711–12; SRO, Montrose mss GD220/5/808/17, 18, [Graham] to [Ld. Montrose], 10, 13 Feb. 1711; Nicolson Diaries, 560; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxxxv. 137–8; Trumbull Add. 70229, Grahme to Oxford, 27 May, 27 Dec. [1711], 29 Oct. [1712], 22 Dec. 1712; HMC Portland, v. 14, 133, 292, 295; Bath mss at Longleat House, Thynne pprs. 26, f. 201; Parlty. Hist. i. 52–53.
  • 13. Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. ser. 2, lxxxv. 138; Bagot mss, Weymouth to Grahme, 11 Sept., 24 Dec. 1713, 5 Jan. 1713–14; Add. 70229, Grahme to Oxford, 15 Jan. [1714]; 70033, money disbursed by Oxford 1712–14, [July 1714]; Trumbull Misc. mss 52, James Johnstone to Trumbull, 14 May 1714; Scots Peerage, 102; Bagot, 36; PCC 64 Auber.