JEKYLL, Sir Joseph (1662-1738), of Westminster

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



14 Dec. 1697 - 1713
1713 - 1722
1722 - 19 Aug. 1738

Family and Education

b. 3 Oct. 1662, 7th s. of John Jekyll, Fishmonger and alderman, of St. Stephen Walbrook, London, being 2nd by 2nd wife Tryphena, wid. of Richard Hill, merchant, of St. Antholin, London.  educ. Islington Nonconformist seminary; M. Temple 1680, called 1687, bencher 1697.  m. ?by 1695, Elizabeth (d. 1745), da. of John Somers of Clifton, Worcs., sis. and coh. of Sir John Somers*, s.p.  Kntd. 12 Dec. 1697.1

Offices Held

C.j. Chester 1697–1717; King’s serjeant 1700; commr. subscriptions to South Sea Co. 1711; master of the rolls 1717–d.; PC 31 July 1717; first commr. of the great seal 7 Jan.–1 June 1725; gov. of Charterhouse July 1738–d.2

Freeman, Ludlow 1697.3

Commr. for building 50 new churches 1715–?d.4


The younger son of a London citizen who was a haberdasher by trade and probably a Nonconformist, Jekyll himself was educated at a Nonconformist school, although in this period he was evidently an occasional conformist and had some sympathy for the Established Church. A practising lawyer, he owed his advancement to the patronage of his brother-in-law, Sir John (later Lord) Somers, whose influence with Lord Sunderland and William III secured Jekyll the office of chief justice of Chester in 1697, with a salary of £500 p.a., and a grant of the manor of Reigate, which it was later alleged he held in trust for Somers. Jekyll was promoted, in 1695 and at a by-election in 1697, as a parliamentary candidate at Orford in Suffolk, where Somers was the recorder, but apparently desisted both times in the face of local opposition. In December 1697 he was knighted and was returned at a by-election for another Suffolk borough, Eye, which he was to represent until 1713. Generally a loyal supporter of the Junto, he eventually became one of their chief spokesmen in the Commons, although on occasion he took an unexpected line. In the 1697–8 session his committee appointments included three concerning the punishment of Charles Duncombe*. He was given leave of absence on 19 Mar. to go on circuit.5

Classed as a placeman in two lists of September 1698, Jekyll voted on 18 Jan. 1699 against the disbandment of the army. In February he drafted and presented a bill to take away all process of capias for debts or damages under 40s., before being given leave of absence on 16 Mar., again to go on circuit. Having returned to Westminster, he spoke on 29 Apr. against the paper bill, probably because of the tacked clause concerning Irish forfeitures which the Court disliked. In the 1699–1700 session he assisted the management of a bill for the navigation of the Dee. An analysis of the House into interests of January–May 1700 noted him as a follower of the Junto.6

In March 1701 Jekyll was appointed to three significant committees, the most important of which was that to prepare the bill for preventing bribery at elections (20th). Through the spring and summer he helped to fight the Commons’ attempt to impeach Somers. In March he had appealed to William Cowper to attend the Commons to assist in countering the Tories’ ‘design’ of attacking Somers in the debate on Captain Kidd’s piracy (28th) and the Partition Treaty (29th). In the latter debate, Jekyll reportedly said that Somers had never approved of the treaty but only applied the seals as he was obliged to do by virtue of his office. On 30 Apr. Jekyll wrote to Somers from Chester to report that he ‘observed pretty unexpectedly in Wales, a great dislike’ of the prosecution against Somers. The grant of Reigate to Jekyll was cited as one of the charges in the articles of impeachment, the third article against the passing of grants being debated on 16 May, when Jekyll said, ‘it never was a crime before and was always practised by lord chancellors and lord treasurers and that had raised most of the great families of England’. When he attempted to speak again in the same debate, the opposition shouted ‘spoke, spoke’, but Speaker Harley allowed him to continue. In a bid to speed up the process of impeachment, Jekyll moved on 3 June to have the report on the conference with the Lords on this subject considered the next day and hoped there would be no undue delay, ‘for that would be unjust’, and added that he hoped they would say they were ready to try Somers. In response to Anthony Hammond’s barbed comment about ‘the relations of criminals’ sitting in the Commons, which was obviously directed at Jekyll, he replied that ‘he minds not what a private opinion is in relation to removing him but that as long as he sits here he will act and speak what is consistent with the trust reposed in him by his count[?ry]’. Henry St. John II* complained to Sir William Trumbull* in a letter of 22 June that Somers had ‘penned with the assistance of Jekyll and [Edward] Clarke [I] all the messages and answers which have been sent down to our House’ on the impeachment. In August, Jekyll was in Worcester, attempting to co-ordinate the Whig campaign for the county elections, when he wrote again to encourage Somers, ‘the country is in an excellent disposition towards the public and have a quick sense of the malice that appeared against your lordship’.7

Classed as a Whig by Harley in December 1701, Jekyll was appointed to committees to draft a bill to provide for the poor (6 Jan. 1702), to draw up reasons for disagreeing with the Lords’ amendments to the bill for attainting the Pretender (2 Feb.) and to prepare the bill for an abjuration oath (21 Mar.). Earlier, on 6 Jan., he had been named to the committee preparing a bill to take the public accounts, which he managed through all its stages in the House, including the committee of the whole which he chaired. He was also appointed to the committee to count the ballot for the resultant commissioners. Possibly motivated to demonstrate his usefulness to the new regime, on 12 Mar. he seconded a motion by the Marquess of Hartington (William Cavendish) for the repeal of the mortmain statutes, to enable the endowment of poor church livings, a move vehemently opposed by the Tories. He was given leave of absence on 21 Mar. to go on circuit, being back by 2 Apr. when he was named to the committee drafting a bill to continue the present sheriffs.8

Jekyll was one of the two judges whom Queen Anne was urged by the Tories to dismiss, but he insisted that his patent gave him a life tenure, and ‘though much threatened with a prosecution, stood it out after the death of King William . . . [and] continued in the office by virtue of his old appointment’. He did not in fact surrender the office until he was made master of the rolls in 1717. His stand had been helped by Lord Godolphin (Sidney†), who wrote to the Duchess of Marlborough on 19 May 1702, ‘I hope I have helped the Queen to a way of saving Sir Joseph Jekyll’. Returned again for Eye in 1702, he was appointed on 10 Dec. 1702 to a committee to redraft the Lords’ amendments to the occasional conformity bill. On 13 Feb. 1703 he voted for agreeing with the Lords’ amendments to the bill for enlarging the time for taking the abjuration oath. A satire of about this date, aimed at the Whigs, could find nothing worse to lampoon than Jekyll’s rise under Somers’ patronage, and an apparent over-insistence on details:

          Jekyll, who was by his own merits raised
          shall justly be by all admir’d and praised.
          Jessop and he with Finch’s tongue shall vie,
          And ev’ry period, ev’ry trope supply.9

In the next session Jekyll reported and carried up a bill for erecting workhouses in Worcester. He made a long speech on 25 Jan. 1704 on the Ashby v. White case, replying to Ralph Freman II, whom he criticized for an over-long speech, much of which ‘has been spent, either in suggestions contrary to what appears before you, or else in questions altogether improper for the consideration of the committee’. Jekyll spoke on the Whig side for the plaintiff, arguing that he had

a right by the common law to choose burgesses for Aylesbury. That right has been invaded, and he has gone to the common law for redress, and from no other power could he have it; for this House, or the committee of elections, cannot give a remedy in this case, that is, cannot make the person injured reparation for the damages done him, by obstructing him in the exercise of his privilege.

On 7 Feb. the Commons heard the Queen’s message signifying her intention of using money paid by the clergy from the first fruits and tenths to help poorer benefices, whereupon Jekyll appeared to go even further and moved that the clergy might be entirely freed from the tax and a different fund raised to augment small livings. His proposal was not taken up, being much opposed by the Tories who argued the clergy should be dependent on the crown. Jekyll was then appointed to the committee to draw up the address on Queen Anne’s bounty, as the new fund was called.10

In the summer of 1704 Jekyll acted as one of the counsel for Lord Halifax (Charles Montagu*) when he was prosecuted in the Exchequer at the instance of the Commons. For this action Jekyll was saved from censure by the Tories on 18 Nov. 1704 by an adjournment of the House, but it may have been annoyance on this account which prompted the House on 27 Nov. to refuse him permission to attend the bar of the Lords in a legal case. He was forecast as an opponent of the Tack and did not vote for it on 28 Nov. He was appointed to committees for drafting bills to introduce an alternative punishment for theft to burning on the cheek (18 Dec.), and to secure England from possible danger of the recent Scottish acts (11 Jan. 1705); and also to inquire into the Aylesbury case and manage a conference on the matter with the Lords (24, 28 Feb.).

Listed as a placeman in 1705, Jekyll was returned again at the general election, when an analysis of the House classed him as a ‘Low Church’ courtier. He voted for the Court candidate for Speaker on 25 Oct. 1705. On 4 Dec. in a committee of the whole on Scotland he recommended that neither the motion to invite the heir to the throne nor one for the chairman to leave the chair should be voted on until the regency bill from the Lords had been considered. He also wanted an instruction that the committee would meet again if that bill failed. At the second reading of the regency bill on 19 Dec. Jekyll spoke in defence of Lord Godolphin against an attack by Charles Caesar. He spoke again in a committee of the whole on the bill on 10 Jan. seconding a motion by Peter King on an amendment to the clause concerning the summoning of Parliament after the Queen’s death. Two days later he opposed a Tory and Country Whig manoeuvre to obstruct the bill with a place clause and he spoke again in three further debates on the bill in January. He voted with the Court against the ‘place clause’ in the bill on 18 Feb. On the same day, he carried up a bill for repairing the Whitchurch to Chester road, which had resulted from his having levied a fine, as chief justice of Chester, for the poor state of the road.11

In the next session Jekyll was appointed to bring in the bill for union with Scotland (11 Feb. 1707) and to draw up the address on the Queen’s speech assenting to the Act of Union (6 Mar.). He wrote to Edward Clarke on 24 Dec. 1706, pressing him to attend the Commons before 13 Jan. 1707, ‘by which time we may expect affairs of very great note in the House and soon after several elections of great consequence’, including that of Philip Gybbon*, a relation of Jekyll’s wife. He was also nominated to draft a bill for regulating the six clerks’ office in Chancery (17 Jan.), and also managed a bill for beautifying Lincoln’s Inn Fields during February.12

In the first Parliament of Great Britain, Jekyll played a significant role in the Junto’s assaults on the ministry. He gave some support to a Junto-inspired attack on 13 Dec. 1707 in a committee of the whole on the merchants’ petition complaining of heavy losses caused by the Admiralty’s failure to provide adequate convoys. When Richard Hampden II moved that the merchants had proved their allegations, ‘Sir Joseph Jekyll . . . said something to it by the way of queries, that looked rather like countenancing the proposers than the proposition’. During debates in the committee of the whole on completing the Union with Scotland in November and December, he supported the opposition and Squadrone motion for the abolition of the Scottish privy council and the standardizing of the powers of Scottish j.p.s with those in England, but when the committee’s report was debated in the House on 11 Dec., changed his mind after a ‘dazzling’ speech by Hon. Sir David Dalrymple, 1st Bt., and instead supported postponing abolition of the privy council. He also supported a Court amendment designed to protect the heritable jurisdictions. Other Whigs failed to follow his example, however, and the Court was defeated. On the same day he was named to the drafting committee for the bill for completing the Union. On 27 Jan. 1708, at the third reading of the bill, the Court again attempted to postpone the abolition of the Scottish privy council but Jekyll reverted to his earlier stance and now voted against its continuation. Two days later, the opposition attacked the ministry over the small number of troops present at the battle of Almanza. This was an opportunity for the Junto to force the Court to bring them into the government, and Jekyll successfully moved an adjournment to 3 Feb. in order to pursue inquiries, thereby rescuing the Court for the moment, but also, as James Vernon I* observed, ‘bringing the matter into larger debate’. When the debate was resumed on the 3rd, he secured general support for his motion to address the Queen: ‘desiring her Majesty to order an account to be brought to them, how it came to pass there were no more troops in Spain at that time and that she would be pleased to take care that the war might be carried on effectually in Spain’. He was first-named to the committee for drafting a bill for extending the Act for the better security of her Majesty’s person and government on 7 Jan., and subsequently managed the bill through the House, chairing the committee of the whole on the 31st. He also supported Bishop Nicolson’s attempts to deal with his rebellious dean, Francis Atterbury, acting as counsel for Nicolson in the case before common pleas in January, then helping to draft the cathedrals bill in February, and speaking for it in the Commons in March. Also, in March he was appointed to draw up two addresses, and to bring in a bill to discharge Scotsmen of superiorities if they opposed the leaders of their clans in rebellion (11th). Not surprisingly, Jekyll was listed as a Whig in early 1708.13

Another list of 1708, with the election returns added, classed Jekyll as a Whig rather than a Court Whig, and indeed the contemporary historian Cunningham noted that during the 1708 Parliament Jekyll often voted against the Court. Before the start of the first session there were rumours that the Junto would prefer Jekyll as Speaker but it was said that he was not favoured by the Court and in the end his name was not put forward. When the Junto were finally admitted into the ministry in 1708 there was some attempt to secure the retirement of Lord Chief Justice Holt (Sir John†) and his replacement by Jekyll, but again without success. In Parliament on 22 Nov., Jekyll went against the majority of the Whigs when he opposed the hearing of all contested elections at the bar of the House. During a debate on Scottish elections on 3 Dec., he objected to a speech by Dougal Stewart criticizing Scots peers for having so ‘easily quitted their privileges at home’, as a slight upon those who had supported the Union, and called upon Stewart to explain himself. He chaired a committee of the whole on improving the union with Scotland on 28 Jan., from which he reported on the following day, and was then appointed to the committee to prepare a bill to extend the laws of high treason to Scotland. On 5 Feb. he was appointed to bring in a bill to naturalize foreign Protestants (for which he voted in this session). He was appointed to six other drafting committees in this session.14

In the next session, Jekyll moved, on 24 Dec. 1709, that the Queen might be addressed to give a preferment to Benjamin Hoadly, who had recently preached against Sacheverell’s sermon. He was named to the committee to prepare a place bill on 25 Jan. 1710 and, rather surprisingly, supported this measure in debate, although it was not favoured by the Junto. On 15 Feb. he followed his more usual course when he spoke in favour of a motion for an address that the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) be sent to Holland forthwith. His main task in this session was as one of the managers of the Sacheverell trial. On 3 Dec. 1709, perhaps afraid that the Whigs might be so sure of themselves over the affair that they would not bother to attend the House, he had ‘made a very warm speech upon the Members not coming to town and attending the great and important service of the nation, there not having yesterday been above 50 in the House’. On 13 Dec. he supported the motion that Dr Sacheverell’s printed sermons were seditious libels and the following day he was appointed to the committee drawing up the articles of impeachment, which later became the committee managing the prosecution. After Christmas this committee met every day at his house. He acted as a teller on 11 Jan. 1710 against a motion to recommit the committee’s report, although he shared some of Somers’ reservations about the impeachment and reportedly ‘thought the article for vindicating the Revolution the only thing worth contending for’. He opened the prosecution’s case on 28 Feb. with a speech lasting about three-quarters of an hour on the first article, in which he argued that ‘if the justice of the Revolution (which is our foundation) be questioned, everything that is built on it is in some degree shaken’. ‘Upon the succession’, he claimed,

depends our present happiness, and future hopes. Hath not this principle of unlimited non-resistance been revived by the professed and undisguised friends of the Pretender? . . . Can it be seasonable to preach this doctrine in the reign of the best of princes, which can be of no use to any but the worst?

He continued by arguing against patriarchal theories of the monarchical power, saying that,

as the law was the only measure of the Prince’s authority, and the people’s subjection, so the law derives its being and efficacy from common consent . . . nothing is plainer than that the people have a right to the law and the constitution. This right the nation hath asserted and recovered . . . several times. There are two famous instances in the knowledge of the present age; I mean that of the Restoration and that of the Revolution . . . My Lords, as that doctrine of unlimited non-resistance was implicitly renounced by the whole nation in the Revolution; so divers Acts of Parliament afterwards passed, expressing that renunciation.

Finally, he poured scorn on Sacheverell’s claim that the 1688 Revolution had not involved resistance, saying that the doctor

brings the late King and the Parliament to witness against any resistance in the Revolution; and yet he has shown by two quotations out of the Prince of Orange’s Declaration . . . that his late majesty was so far from disclaiming resistance that he avowed it, and invited the subjects of this kingdom to join in that resistance . . . as to what he says in relation to the Parliament’s disowning any resistance . . . that appears directly otherwise from several passages in divers Acts of Parliament.

During Sacheverell’s defence, which started on 4 Mar., Jekyll frequently acted as spokesman for the managers, and on 7 Mar. he prevented an attempt by the defence to arrange for Sacheverell to speak after the managers’ reply, saying that if the doctor had ‘anything to say for himself, now is his time, before the Commons’ reply, the Commons claiming it as their right to speak last’. On 9 Mar. he made a long speech opening the reply to the defence in which he claimed that the defence counsel had largely conceded the Commons’ case by admitting the necessity of resistance in certain extreme cases, thereby contradicting the doctor’s adherence to the doctrine of non-resistance. He then went on to defend the idea of justified resistance by copious references to the history of the last 150 years, finally claiming that by resistance ‘we had, and [he] hoped, should always defend our liberty, as we had against foreign armies so too against domestic ones’. Not surprisingly, he was listed as having voted for the impeachment. Given leave of absence for a month on 16 Mar. he was back in the House by 7 Apr. when he attended the Lords’ debate on the trial and, after watching the performance of the Whig Lords, he (mistakenly) concluded ‘the D[octo]r’s business done’. The repercussions of the trial followed him on to the Welsh circuit, where a clergyman named Cornwall, preaching before him, took the opportunity to arraign ‘the late proceedings against Sacheverell . . . reflecting on both Houses of Parliament and ministers of state’, which so offended Jekyll that he caused an indictment to be preferred against him which the grand jury refused to give. The Queen was informed of this and ordered Cornwall to be disciplined by his bishop. Jekyll had to put up with other such incidents and ‘suspected somebody put aqua fortis on his coach braces, for it fell in Bromfield’.15

Jekyll retained his seat at Eye in the 1710 election, apparently without trouble, and along with Somers was one of the Whigs who responded favourably to overtures from Harley to participate in a moderate government, but no invitation was forthcoming. In the new Parliament, he spoke for the Whigs in the debate on the Bewdley election case on 19 Dec. 1710, and on 2 Jan. 1711, in the debate on the address concerning the war in Spain, he agreed with Robert Walpole II in objecting to any plans (which the ministry denied) to transfer troops from Flanders to Spain, but did not support Walpole’s proposal to amend the address to prevent this. He also responded to Ralph Freman II’s attack on General James Stanhope’s* record in Spain, and referred to the opposition’s attacks on Marlborough, saying

that it was very plain how far the humour of parties have been encouraged as that people are ready to condemn a man before he is heard . . . it was a very unaccountable thing that a continued series of success in that gentleman’s conduct might not be able to atone for one misfortune, but the truth was it was no great wonder to see this gentleman so severe when a general elsewhere, who had long served, with successes which were surprising to all the world . . . was like to meet with no better quarter.

On 3 Jan. he was appointed to the committee for drafting a bill for the relief of bankrupts. On 3 Feb. 1711, when the Whig William Thompson III’s petition against the Ipswich election was declared ‘vexatious and frivolous’, Jekyll reportedly said that ‘notwithstanding the bad epithets he heard given the last Parliament, it was never said that they declared a petition frivolous and vexatious and now it would be very strange that this good Parliament should go on in so harsh terms’, and he ‘insisted much’ on the justice and moderation of the last Parliament. This speech, however, only provoked many to supply precedents from the last Parliament. He supported Mungo Graham’s election for Kinross-shire on 11 Feb. against the successful Tory petitioner, Sir John Malcolm, 2nd Bt. In March, he was counsel for the Edinburgh magistrates against the Scottish episcopalian minister, James Greenshields. He was given leave of absence to go on circuit on 16 Mar., and was back in the House by 24 May when he was named to a committee of address on the House’s resolutions regarding such wide-ranging matters as the imprest accountants, public debts, the Palatines and the Bewdley borough charter.16

In the next session, on 12 Nov. 1711 Harley was informed that:

a memorial is preparing to be laid very speedily before the Queen by the Junto lords and their adherents, to represent the ill consequences of the present negotiation for peace . . . and that Sir Joseph Jekyll is employed to draw it, and went out of court this morning early for that purpose.

Jekyll voted for the motion of ‘No Peace without Spain’ on 7 Dec. 1711 and was appointed to the committee to draw up the address thanking the Queen for promising to communicate the peace terms on 17 Jan. 1712. He was one of the leading speakers who defended Marlborough against the criticisms of the commissioners of public accounts on 25 Jan., and on 19 Feb. he and Nicholas Lechmere attacked the proposal to abandon the Barrier Treaty as ‘frenchified’, and that having ‘reproached the French for breach of faith’ it would be despicable to fall ‘into their way of distinguishing between the letter and the spirit of a treaty’. He next spoke, on 1 Mar., against the proposed address criticizing the Allies and the Duke of Marlborough. Given leave of absence on 19 Mar. to go on circuit, he continued to attack the ministry when he returned, opposing a motion on 10 June to burn a volume of sermons by the bishop of St. Asaph because the preface contained an attack on the proposed peace terms. In the last session of the Parliament he spoke against the French treaty of commerce on 13 May 1713, but apparently did not vote against the bill confirming the treaty on 18 June.17

Returned on the interest of the Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett I*) at Lymington in 1713, Jekyll was classed as a Whig in the Worsley list of that Parliament. On 5 Mar. 1714, he criticized William Gore’s proposals for the Address, by which it was obvious that the speech had been disclosed to the Tories prior to its delivery to the House. Jekyll condemned this as ‘dishonourable to the House and her Majesty’ and Jekyll ‘hoped we should never see the like again’. On the Address itself, Jekyll was wary of the proposal to enforce the law against those who said the Protestant succession was in danger under Anne, saying, ‘even the most eager man in the House for peace could not but own that France was not so humbled as to leave the succession, yea, the Protestant religion itself, without danger’. He then ‘took notice of a faction among us that were pretty bold in their insinuations of the right of a pretender’, and ended by moving an amendment to the Address, but it passed unchanged. He spoke in the debate on the address for removing the Pretender from Lorraine on 16 Apr., and on 12 May against bringing in the schism bill, opposing that measure’s third reading on 1 June. When Parliament resumed on 5 Aug. following the Queen’s death, he was appointed to the committee to draft a bill to rectify mistakes in the names of commissioners for the land tax. He was listed as a Whig on two lists comparing the 1713 and 1715 Parliaments. An indication of his importance among senior Whig lawyers was to be seen in reports that while Lechmere was difficult to please, Jekyll would be given early preferment in the new government.18

Jekyll continued as a very active parliamentarian after 1715, but his attitude to the Church apparently hardened over the years and, in a direct reversal of his actions in 1702, he introduced a bill in 1736 aimed at restricting the alienation of land to religious institutions. On the death of his brother-in-law, Lord Somers, in 1716, he acquired the estate and seat of Brookmans, including Bell Bar, in Hertfordshire, to which he later added the manor of Dallington in Northamptonshire and the estate of Tandridge in Surrey. He died on 19 Aug. 1738, distributing his estate among his relations and friends, and his South Sea and East India Company stocks, after his wife’s death, towards paying off the national debt. After his death, he was remembered as ‘a great patron of the freethinkers’, and ‘out of his great zeal for Dissenters’, he left £2,000 to the widows and orphans of Dissenting ministers.19

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Authors: Paula Watson / Sonya Wynne


  • 1. IGI, London; Baker, Northants. i. 131; J. R. Woodhead, Rulers of London (London and Mdx. Arch. Soc.), 98; I. Parker, Dissenting Academies in England, 138; London Mag. 1745, p. 519.
  • 2. Foss, Judges, viii. 127–31; Pittis, Present Parl. 350.
  • 3. Salop RO, Ludlow bor. recs. min. bk. 1690–1712.
  • 4. E. G. W. Bill, Q. Anne Churches, pp. xxiii–xxiv.
  • 5. Woodhead, 132; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, i. 264, 272; Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 46/132, James Vernon I to Duke of Shrewsbury, 28 Aug. 1697; Cal. Treas. Bks. xii. 108, 119, 236; W. Suss. RO, Shillinglee mss Ac.454/1020, 1013–15, John Hooke to Sir Edward Turnor*, 6 Mar. 1696–7, Theophilus Hooke to same, 2, 5, 13 Mar. 1696–7.
  • 6. Montagu (Boughton) mss 47/178, Vernon to Shrewsbury, 29 Apr. 1699; H. Horwitz, Parl. and Pol. Wm. III, 255–6.
  • 7. Herts. RO, Panshanger mss D/EP F55, ff. 59–60; Cocks Diary, 76–77, 130, 159, 162–3; Surr. RO (Kingston), Somers mss 371/14/01/10, 12, Jekyll to [Somers], 30 Apr., 24 Aug. 1701; HMC Downshire, i. 803.
  • 8. Lambeth Palace Lib. ms 2564, p. 407, ‘proceedings in the Commons’, 12 Mar. 1702.
  • 9. Burnet, v. 12; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 185, 187; Huntington Lib. Q. xxx. 245; Poems on Affairs of State ed. Ellis, vi. 522–3.
  • 10. Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. vi. 271–4, 329; Burnet, 122.
  • 11. Luttrell, 488; Duchess of Marlborough Corresp. ii. 222; Cam. Misc. xxiii. 32, 40, 53, 62, 67, 71, 73, 77, 78; Nicolson Diaries, ed. Jones and Holmes, 352–3; John Rylands Univ. Lib. Manchester, Legh of Lyme mss, corresp. Sir Robert Cotton, 1st Bt.*, to [Peter Legh†], 12 Jan. 1705[–6].
  • 12. Som. RO, Sanford mss DD/SF 3109, Jekyll to Edward Clarke I, 24 Dec. 1706.
  • 13. Add. 61459, f. 137; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, iii. 291, 293, 330, 336; Yale Univ. Beinecke Lib. Manchester mss 1987.1.7, p. 7, Joseph Addison* to Ld. Manchester, 27 Jan. 1707–8; EHR, lxvi. 250; Nicolson Diaries, 439, 444–5, 448, 454–5, 458–9, 461; 7th Duke of Manchester, Court and Soc. Eliz. to Anne, ii. 296.
  • 14. Cunningham, Hist. GB. ii. 210; Huntington Lib. Loudon mss LO 8866, [Earl of Mar] to [Loudon], 27 Aug. 1708; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Gilfred Lawson* to [–], 9 Sept. 1708; Trinity, Dublin, Lyons (King) coll. 2003/1304, Francis Annesley* to William King, 11 Oct. 1708; Leics. RO, Finch mss, box 6, bdle. 23, f. 55, William Bromley II* to [Ld. Nottingham (Daniel Finch†)], 2 Oct. 1708; HMC Portland, iv. 490; HMC 7th Rep. 507; Parlty. Lists of Early 18th Cent. ed. Newman, 80; NLS, ms 7021, f. 241.
  • 15. SRO, Hume of Marchmont mss GD158/1117/3, George Baillie* to Earl of Marchmont, 24 Dec. 1709; Bull. IHR, xxxix. 60; HMC Portland, 531, 539; Huntington Lib. Stowe mss 58(5), pp. 124–5; HM 30659, newsletter 6 Dec. 1709; Add. 70420, newsletters 3, 29 Dec. 1709; G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 290; G. Holmes, Trial of Sacheverell, 86, 89, 97, 99, 135–6, 138, 141, 191–2, 196, 213, 235–6; Yale Univ. Beinecke Lib. ‘Acct. of trial of Dr Sacheverell’, 3, 12, 15, 16; State Trials, xv. 96–101; Burnet, 435n; Wentworth Pprs. 115; NLW, Ottley mss 2551, Christopher Baldwyn to Adam Ottley, 12 Apr. 1710.
  • 16. Burnet, 13n; Cowper Diary, 50–51; SRO, Montrose mss GD220/5/808/1a, 18a, Mungo Graham to Duke of Montrose, 2 Jan., 13 Feb. 1711; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto 5, ff. 91–92; SRO, Mar and Kellie mss GD124/15/1020/9, Sir James Dunbar to Ld. Grange, 3 Feb. 1711; Lockhart Pprs. i. 345.
  • 17. HMC Portland, v. 108; BL, Trumbull Add. mss 136, Ralph Bridges to Sir William Trumbull, 25 Jan. 1711–12; NSA, Kreienberg despatches 25 Jan., 4 Mar. 1712; Wentworth Pprs. 268; Christ Church, Oxf. Wake mss 17, f. 329; Cobbett, 1155, 1212.
  • 18. Kreienberg despatch 5 Mar. 1714; Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto 8, ff. 48, 52–53, 95–96, 118; Wentworth Pprs. 350, 424; Cobbett, 1349.
  • 19. Cussans, Herts. xiii–xiv. 285; Baker, 131; Gent. Mag. 1738, p. 436; PCC 217 Brodrepp; HMC 14th Rep. IX, 242; HMC Egmont Diary, ii. 507.