MANLEY, John (1655-1713), of Truro, Cornw.

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



1695 - 1698
Dec. 1701 - 1708
1708 - 1710
1710 - 16 Dec. 1713

Family and Education

bap. 23 Mar. 1655, 1st s. of John Manley† of Bryn y Ffynnon, Wrexham, Denb. by Margaret, da. of Isaac Dorislaus, DD, envoy to States General in 1648, of Maldon, Essex.  educ. G. Inn 1671, called 1678, bencher 1706.  m. 19 Jan. 1679 (with £4,000), Anne, da and coh. of Edward Grosse of Truro, 2da. (1 d.v.p.); 1s. 1da. illegit.  suc. fa. 1699.1

Offices Held

Freeman, Liskeard and Truro 1685; sub-commr. prizes at Plymouth 1702–Apr. 1705; surveyor-gen. of crown lands Sept. 1710–d.2

Stannator, Tywarnhaile 1703, Tywarnhaile and Foymore 1710.3


Manley’s father, who had represented Denbigh Boroughs in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament and Bridport in the Convention of 1689, was an extreme Whig, as was Manley’s younger brother Isaac, who served for many years as postmaster-general in Ireland. However, the senior branch of the family had been strongly Royalist and Manley appears to have followed their political views. A year after being called to the bar, Manley married a Cornish heiress with substantial property in Truro and the advowson of St. Pinnock, near Liskeard. He became legal adviser to the 1st Earl of Bath (John Granville), and consequently became a freeman of Truro and Liskeard in 1685 when these corporations were remodelled, as well as ‘a champion for’ Lord Bath in his long dispute with Ralph Montagu† over the Albemarle estates. Standing at Truro in 1689 on Bath’s recommendation and where he had a successful legal practice, Manley’s election was subject to a double return and he was not seated by the House. He may have been the ‘Mr Manley’ arrested on a charge of high treason later that year. About this time he entered into a bigamous marriage with his cousin Mary de la Riviere Manley, whose father, Sir Roger Manley, had recently died, but Manley later abandoned her. Defeated at Truro at the general election of 1690, he petitioned, but eventually withdrew his case in December 1691. He may have been the ‘Mr Manley’ reported in August 1693 by Secretary Trenchard (Sir John*) to be living at Brussels, apparently engaged on ‘a project of making all sorts of apparel proof against water’, but in fact keeping ‘a constant correspondence with the Jacobites here’.4

Returned unopposed at Bossiney, probably on the duchy interest in 1695, Manley soon became an influential and active Member. On 14 Dec. he was teller against a motion that the elections committee appoint a day for a hearing on the Mitchell election. On 15 Jan. 1696 he was named to draft a bill to regulate abuses in select vestries, which he presented on 6 Feb. but which never emerged from committee. A similar fate befell the bill he was ordered to draft on 28 Jan. to ascertain the jurisdiction of courts baron and to regulate the proceedings of inferior courts, which he presented on 17 Feb. He was forecast as likely to oppose the government in the division on the proposed council of trade on 31 Jan., when he acted as teller against a motion that commissioners of trade be excluded from membership of the House. In February, he acted as teller against an amendment to the land tax bill (3rd), and against a motion that the franchise at Dunwich lay in non-resident as well as in resident freemen, which favoured the Tory petitioners (12th). He refused to sign the Association in February. On 20 Mar. he told for a motion fixing the price of guineas at 25s., and on the 26th in favour of a clause to fix the price of guineas at 24s. Not surprisingly he was then listed as voting against the Court in fixing the price of guineas at 22s. On 23 Mar. he told against engrossing a bill to prevent the escape of debtors and for the better relief of creditors. On 3 Apr. he reported from the committee to consider complaints about halfpence and farthings to which he had been added on 23 Jan.

In the 1696–7 session, Manley took a prominent part in the proceedings on Sir John Fenwick’s† attainder. On 9 Nov. 1696 he was a teller against according the attainder bill a second reading. In the course of the debates he was ordered to be sent to the Tower for saying ‘it would not be the first time that people have repented their making their court to the government at the hazard of the liberties of the people’. He petitioned to be discharged from his imprisonment on the 12th and was released. Reports tying Manley with Samuel Grascome’s pamphlet dealing with the recoinage, which was voted a seditious libel by the Commons on 28 Oct., proved to be false. Back in the House on 16 Nov. he supported Fenwick’s counsel in opposing admitting as evidence the examination of Cardell Goodman, who had fled to France and was not available as a witness, arguing:

It is true, the rules of Westminster Hall are not binding to the legislative power, but I would not have the legislative power to be governed by the private sense of any man whatsoever, but by those rules that are the rules of justice and common equity. God forbid that we should, upon suppositions, suppose ourselves out of all the rights of law! I never heard any gentleman of the long robe, before the learned serjeant at the bar, assert that an examination before a justice of the peace could be read against a man for his life.

Later in the day he also spoke against using the record of Cook’s conviction as evidence, arguing that proponents of the attainder bill ‘tell us we are not to be guided by the rules of Westminster Hall, but we are to be governed by the rules of justice and we are not at this time to seek a way to the King’s favour by voting against a criminal for high treason’. He duly acted as a teller on this occasion. On the 17th he spoke against examining Fenwick about his informations which had implicated several Members. Finally, on the 25th he made a long speech against the passage of the bill:

I am so young a Member, I know not what methods are observed in Parliament that I may in some measure make them a rule to me. The law of England requires two witnesses upon the greatest reason, and it is not only the policy of England, but the general consent (in this case) of the whole world and it is grounded upon the law of God.

From this he asked

who are entrusted by the people, to have an equal care for the liberty of the people? We are to take care of his Majesty’s life and government; and the reason is, because upon him and his government, the public safety does depend. It is Salus Populi is the great reason that the law takes such care of the King; and as we are to do nothing to the detriment of the King, so we are to do nothing for the King that may be of detriment to the people.

Not surprisingly he was listed as voting against the Fenwick attainder bill on that day.5

Manley’s activity in other issues during the 1696–7 session is indicated by the many occasions when he acted as a teller: for the passage of the bill for regulating elections (19 Dec.); against passing the bill to attaint persons accused of high treason who had fled to France (7 Jan. 1697); in favour of tacking a clause to the land tax bill imposing a landed qualification on Members (26 Jan.); against engrossing a bill prohibiting imports of Indian silks and calicoes (1 Feb.); against leave to bring in a general naturalization bill (8 Feb.); against passing the heavily amended bill appointing commissioners of accounts (15 Feb.); against giving a second reading to the malt bill (15 Mar.); and against engrossing a bill imposing duties on wines (3 Apr.). He was less involved in legislative matters, being named to only two drafting committees. However, his influence as a back-bencher was considerable: when on 4 Jan. 1697 the Commons voted an address against pardoning a coin-clipper named Thomas White, James Vernon I* surmised that it had been ‘procured I suppose by Manley, who is one of the committee to inquire into the miscarriages of the warden of the fleet’.6

Manley was equally busy in the 1697–8 session, although involvement in legislation again took a back seat to tellerships and debate. The 12 occasions on which he was teller covered a multitude of issues. The most important were against a motion that all crown grants since 1660 be laid before the House (20 Jan. 1698); in favour of condemning receiving Exchequer bills on bills of exchange (22 Feb.); in favour of amending the reasons to be offered at a conference on the bill punishing Charles Duncombe* (10 Mar.); against engrossing the coal duties bill (30 Apr.); and three times on the Two Million Fund in June. In addition to his tellerships he was involved in the drafting of two bills, one of which, concerning Ledgingham’s invention of a hand pump, had its origins in a report Manley made from a committee on 6 May. He did not stand at the general election of 1698, when he was classed as a member of the Country party ‘out’ of Parliament. His father’s death in 1699 brought him nothing but debts, and he failed to regain his seat at Bossiney in January 1701. He may also have stood unsuccessfully at Bridport.7

Manley returned to the Commons following his unopposed election for Bossiney in December 1701. He was classed as a Tory by Robert Harley*. He acted as teller on 29 Jan. 1702 for a motion that the Earl of Peterborough was guilty of indirect practices in the Malmesbury election. In the debate on the second reading of the abjuration bill on 19 Feb., Sir Richard Cocks, 2nd Bt.*, reported that after Lord Coningsby (Thomas) had suggested that proposals by Heneage Finch I were designed to accommodate ‘the humour and palate of those who could not digest the abjuration oath’, Manley ‘a silly hot fellow cried him to the bar’, but without success. He voted for the motion vindicating the Commons’ proceedings in the impeachment of William’s ministers on 26 Feb. His main involvement in this session concerned the Irish forfeited estates. On 3 Feb. he was teller against a motion that petitions already received relating to Irish forfeitures should be reviewed before others were accepted. On 14 Mar. he ‘moved to encourage popery in Ireland to keep up two parties in order to continue them under the English yoke’. On 26 Mar. he told in favour of leave to bring in a bill for the relief of the Jacobite banker, Sir Daniel Arthur, and was subsequently involved in managing a further seven forfeitures bills. On the 28th, Cocks noted:

Mr Manley stood at the bar with a report relating to some of the Irish bills. He complained of the Speaker’s ill usage in letting him stand so long there and never giving him an opportunity to report. He went from the bar up to the Chair and gave the Speaker some hard words. Sir Rowland Gwynne said the Speaker behaved himself well in the Chair, and that it was neither for the honour of the Speaker nor the House to have the Chair bullied . . . Mr Manley excused himself in his place and said he only told the Speaker that he thought it hard that the bill he had in his hand should suffer for no reason but because he was the reporter.

Cocks commented that Manley had previously been sent to the Tower for one ‘such little bauble’, whereas other Members had not ‘the least censure’ for similar conduct.8

Returned unopposed at the general election of 1702, Manley was listed as voting on 13 Feb. 1703 against the Lords’ amendments to the bill for enlarging the time for taking the oath of abjuration. He took a leading part in the parliament of tinners which met at Truro in September 1703, it being unusual for someone who was not Cornish-born to be elected a stannator. Manley was more active in the 1703–4 session, although he recorded no tellerships. He was nominated to three drafting committees, but did not manage any of the resultant bills. He continued to be active in debates. In the committee of the whole on the manning of the fleet, on 27 Nov. 1703, he suggested ‘apprenticing land boys for sending vagabonds and sturdy beggars to sea’, and when the committee renewed its deliberations on 4 Dec., pronounced himself ‘against teaching foreigners to be as good seamen as we are’. His other main recorded interest was the bill appointing commissioners of accounts. On 24 Feb. 1704 he was named to count the ballot, reporting the results to the House on the following day. Subsequently he was named to the conference committee with the Lords on the bill, reporting back twice to the Commons. In the following session he was forecast by Harley as a probable supporter of the Tack in November, Lord Treasurer Godolphin (Sidney†) using William Lowndes* to ‘get Manley’ on the issue. On the 25th he told for the motion to excuse Henry Manaton, who was absent from a call of the House. He voted for the Tack three days later, as a result of which he lost his place as sub-commissioner of prizes at Plymouth, worth £300 p.a. Although the Dutch envoy thought he ought to sit for St. Germains (St. Germans) ‘à cause de la conformité du lieu où est le prince de Galles’, Manley was one of the few Tackers who was unopposed at the general election of 1705.9

Classed as ‘True Church’, Manley voted on 25 Oct. against the Court candidate as Speaker. He was more active in this session, being named to draft a private bill and to two conference committees as well as managing the estate bill of the 4th Lord Bulkeley (Richard*) through its later stages in the Commons. The number of his tellerships also revived, reaching five by the end of the session: two related to election petitions, two to the land tax, and one on 14 Dec. 1705 relating to the Lords’ resolution that the Church was not in danger. In the debate on the proceedings of the parliament of Scotland on 4 Dec. he was one of the Tories who refrained from supporting an address asking the Queen to summon the Electress Sophia to England as a means of embarrassing the administration. On 8 Dec. he was in favour of referring the Lords’ resolution on the Church to a committee, and later that day warned that the Queen might be mistaken in her choice of ministers. He spoke twice during the debates on the second reading of the regency bill on 19 Dec, and on 10 Jan. 1706 opposed the treason clauses in the bill. Two days later he joined other Tories in wishing to safeguard the ‘place clause’ of the Act of Settlement, and also warned in relation to the regents that ‘seven kings could repeal the Act of Succession’. On the 15th he warned of the need to ensure a full Parliament, including those Members for Devon and Cornwall, pointing out that ‘the scars of the Rump [are] upon all gentlemen’s families to this day’. On the 19th he spoke twice on the composition of the regency, and on the 21st declared that he regarded the place clause as the only good part of the bill.10

Manley missed the start of the 1706–7 session, being reported as still at Bath in December. At the end of January 1707 he had a quarrel with Thomas Dodson*, an army officer, in the Sun Tavern, Westminster, as a result of which they fought a duel in which Manley, although hit in the arm, inflicted such severe wounds that his opponent reputedly died from them a few months later. He was active again in the Commons by mid-March 1707, and on the 28th told against a private bill. Having been named to an inquiry committee on piracy in the East and West Indies, he reported from the committee on 8 Apr. His only other tellership was on 24 Apr. against a Lords’ amendment to the bill to obviate the danger caused by the amount of gunpowder being brought into London. In the 1707–8 session Manley was much busier: indeed one of the Scottish Members referred in December to ‘Mr Bromley [William II*], Manley and others, the heads of the Tories’. In February 1708 he told twice, once on a matter relating to Irish forfeitures (9th), and once in favour of an amendment to an elections bill (19th). On 3 Mar. he reported from a committee on a petition from the purchasers of Irish property from Lord Bophin, subsequently managing the bill for their relief through most of its stages in the Commons. He reported on two other matters: from the committee investigating complaints that Welsh judges were demanding presents (9 Mar.), and from a conference on the bill enforcing the completion of St. Paul’s (1 Apr.). In March he recorded four more tellerships: in favour of a clause in the bill to encourage trade to America (17th); twice in favour of the bill imposing duties on worsted yarn (22nd and 23rd); and in favour of a clause excluding naval officers from voting in the election of Scottish representative peers (24th). Early in 1708 he was classed as a Tory.11

Manley was re-elected in 1708, although he changed constituency to Camelford. He does not appear to have been active in the 1708–9 session. His estranged ‘wife’ Mary de la Riviere Manley was arrested in November 1709 as the suspected author of New Atlantis, wherein she attacked many of the leading figures in the Whig Junto, and was reported as having ‘lived separate from her husband, a Parliament man, for a considerable time’. Yet they certainly continued to move in the same circles, for Mrs Manley was shortly to embark upon a successful literary career as one of the chief contributors to Swift’s Examiner, which for a short time she edited. In the 1709–10 session Manley managed the estate bill of Anthony Hammond*, through all its stages in the Commons, carrying it to the Lords on 16 Mar. Not surprisingly he voted against the impeachment of Dr Sacheverell. The following month Manley was returned for two stannaries to the parliament of tinners. However, despite the highly charged political atmosphere, he never attended. At first it was reported that he ‘had better things in view’, but then on 22 Apr. in view of the fact that he was indisposed in London and not able to attend, he was ordered to be discharged and a fresh election held.12

Manley was seen by Robert Harley as a fairly important Member following the ministerial changes of 1710. A memorandum, dated 12 Sept., detailing places ‘immediately necessary’ to give to MPs before the election, included Manley as surveyor-general, and he was duly appointed before the end of the month at a salary of £200 p.a. He then went ‘post’ to Cornwall in order to deliver a letter from George Granville*, the key Tory election manager and candidate for knight of the shire, to the gentry meeting at Liskeard on 4 Oct., and then signed the circular letter emanating from this meeting in support of Granville and John Trevanion*. Nor did his electioneering stop there, for on several occasions Granville delegated to Manley the task of providing Harley with full accounts of Cornish electoral matters. Returned unopposed for Bossiney in 1710, he was classed as a Tory in the ‘Hanover list’. When William Bromley II was chosen Speaker of the new Parliament, (Sir) Thomas Hanmer II (4th Bt.) declared that the security of the Church of England was inseparable from that of the state and was sorry to say he had witnessed ‘the very naming of the Church scoffed at’, Manley leading the cheers of ‘hear him’. On 27 Nov., when 200 Tory MPs supped at the Fountain Tavern in the Strand in order to settle on the choice of a chairman of the committee of elections, Manley and Thomas Medlycott* were the two candidates put forward, but, as Swift reported, ‘the company could not agree and parted in an ill humour’. Manley recorded seven tellerships in this session including against committing a place bill (21 Dec.); against referring the Tregony election petition to the elections committee (10 Jan. 1711); against an amendment to the bill for repealing the Act prohibiting commerce with France as it would have allowed foreigners to import French wines into Great Britain (10 Mar.); and, with Robert Walpole II, in favour of adjourning the report of the committee on the bill regulating Scottish linen manufactures (19 May). Indeed, on this last issue, according to George Lockhart*, Manley observed

that the sum of the present debate amounted to this, viz that whatever was or may be the laws of Scotland, yet now that she was subject to the sovereignty of England, she must be governed by England’s maxims and laws, and Ireland must not be ruined to humour a few North British Members,

for which Lockhart called him to order. He was also among the appointees to draft a bill declaring attacks on Privy Councillors to be a felony without benefit of clergy (14 Mar.). Not surprisingly, his name appears on the list of ‘worthy patriots’ who helped to detect the mismanagements of the previous administration. However, there is some evidence that Manley was used by Harley to ensure that the hunt for the perpetrators of the misdeeds of the Whig ministry did not get out of hand. On 14 Apr. when the report of the investigation into the invitation to the poor Palatines was debated Manley was in favour of adjourning the debate following its adoption of the general condemnation of those who had advised and promoted the invitation, rather than name the guilty parties, such as the Earl of Sunderland (Charles, Lord Spencer*). Ten days later, when the House dealt with the army accounts, it was reported that Manley was one of those influenced by Harley who was ‘against the question today and for Mr Brydges [Hon. James*]’.13

Manley’s key role as a loyal ministerialist under Harley can be seen in his correspondence in November 1711 with the Duke of Beaufort, one of the High Tories becoming restive at Harley’s management. Manley’s requests to the Duke to come up to London in order to support the government were resisted by Beaufort, who nevertheless acknowledged Manley’s efforts:

I know that my dear Manley is of so good an inclination towards some of my acquaintance, as to believe everything they say, but let him remember how often they have told him and made use of him as a person to keep me easy, while both he and I were deceived, and then think that it does neither become a bold Cornishman and a relation to the Welsh to be caught so often in the same gin. I can’t omit reminding you of an expression you frequently used last winter: ‘all will be well before the Parliament rises. If not I’ll own that I am deceived, and for your sake, my Lord, nobody else will trust them.’ These are your own words, which you will remember.

The 1711–12 session was Manley’s busiest yet in terms of legislative activity. In his official capacity as surveyor-general he spoke against the bill renewing the duties embodied in the Whitehaven Harbour Act, but his arguments were comprehensively rebutted by James Lowther*. On 17 Dec. he was first-named to draft the recruiting bill which he afterwards managed through the House, carrying it to the Lords on 27 Feb. 1712. He then took over management of the mutiny bill. He was named to committees for drafting four other measures, but only took a managerial role in the bill for the relief of one Colonel Alexander. He was a teller on 24 Jan. 1712, against amending the motion of censure against the Duke of Marlborough (John Churchill†) which followed an intervention in the debate which was critical of the Duke, and again, on 24 Mar., in favour of a supply resolution for a duty on soap. When the Whigs pressed home an attack on the ministry by denouncing the restraining orders given to the Duke of Ormond, Manley was one of the leading speakers who leapt to the government’s defence on 30 May, turning the tables on its opponents and suggesting that William Pulteney* be sent to the Tower. On 10 June he attacked the preface to four sermons published by the Whig bishop of St. Asaph, which criticized the peace as tending ‘to create discord and sedition’, after which it was ordered to be burnt by the common hangman.14

In the autumn of 1712 Manley was again used to bolster the Tory interest in Cornwall, being sent to ensure the choice of a favourable mayor of Truro, in preparation for the next election, and was again employed by Granville (now Lord Lansdown) to keep Harley (now Lord Oxford) informed of developments. There is evidence, however, that he was not in the most robust of health, for in December 1712 Swift reported his belief that Manley was ‘not to live a month’. Nevertheless, he was in attendance at the start of the session. In the debate on the Address on 10 Apr., he was one of the ministry’s chief speakers in defence of the peace. When he answered William Pulteney, he inadvertently called him ‘my Lord’, for which honour Pulteney ironically thanked him. He was also one of the chief speakers in favour of the treaty of commerce with France in June 1713, and naturally voted for the bill confirming its 8th and 9th articles on the 18th. Manley was named to three drafting committees in this session, but undertook no management of legislation, apart from the presentation of a bill on 18 June for explaining the act authorizing the collection of duties for Greenwich Hospital. His sole tellership, on 28 May, was to favour a clause to debar Quakers from voting in parliamentary elections. Although he was returned for Bossiney in 1713, Lansdown reported to Oxford on 10 Dec. that ‘poor Jack Manley, being sensible how near he is to his end, has made it one of his dying requests to me that I would convey to your lordship his last wishes for your prosperity’. Boyer reported his death on 14 Dec. 1713, referring to him as ‘a leading man among the High-Church party’. Other evidence points to his death on 16 Dec. Both his legal wife, as well as his bigamous one, survived him. His Whig brother, Isaac, also continued in office, Manley having made strenuous efforts to protect him after 1710.15

Ref Volumes: 1690-1715

Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Stuart Handley


  • 1. St. Stephen’s Walbrook (Harl. Soc. Reg. xlix.), 26; Westminster Abbey Reg. (Harl. Soc. x), 16; C5/520/80; info. from Fidelis Morgan.
  • 2. CSP Dom. 1685, pp. 66, 72; Bull. IHR, xli. 186; Cal. Treas. Bks. xxiv. 84.
  • 3. J. Tregoning, Stannary Laws, 18; R. Inst. Cornw. Tonkins’ mss hist. Cornw. ii. 244.
  • 4. Polsue, Complete Paroch. Hist. Cornw. iv. 83; D. Manley, Adventures of Rivella (1714), 64; CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 114; DNB (Manley, de la Riviere); Nottingham Univ. Lib. Portland (Bentinck) mss PwA 1418, Trenchard to [Portland], 15 Aug. 1693.
  • 5. Cobbett, Parlty. Hist. v. 1030, 1047, 1054, 1121–2; Vernon–Shrewsbury Letters, i. 54.
  • 6. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 46/47, Vernon to Shrewsbury, [c.4 Jan. 1697].
  • 7. Som. RO, Sanford mss DD/SF 3110, John Freke to Edward Clarke I*, 24 Dec. 1700.
  • 8. Cocks Diary, 220, 244, 273.
  • 9. NMM, Sergison mss SER/103, ff. 450–2, 454–6; Bull. IHR, 182, 184; Bath mss at Longleat House, Portland pprs. misc. mss, f. 196; Speck thesis, 315; Add. 17677 AAA, f. 213.
  • 10. G. Holmes, Pol. in Age of Anne, 114; Cam. Misc. xxiii. 31, 42, 44, 49, 53–54, 59, 62, 64, 69, 74, 77, 80.
  • 11. Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Ld. Gower (Sir John Leveson Gower, 5th Bt.*) to James Grahme*, 14 Dec. 1706; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 11; Roxburgh mss at Floors Castle, bdle. 739, William Bennet* to Roxburgh, 16 Dec. 1707.
  • 12. HMC Downshire, i. 883; Swift v. Mainwaring ed. Ellis, pp. xxv, xxxiii; Tonkins’ mss hist. Cornw. 244, 248.
  • 13. Add. 70332, Harley’s memo. 12 Sept. 1710; 70204, Alexander Pendarves* to Harley, 7 Oct. 1710; 70099, circular letter, 4 Oct. 1710; 61461, f. 108; Cal. Treas. Bks. xxiv. 465; HMC Portland, iv. 623; SRO, Montrose mss GO220/5/807/2, Mungo Graham* to Montrose, 25 Nov. 1710; Lockhart Pprs. i. 330; NSA, Kreienberg despatch 17 Apr. 1711.
  • 14. Beaufort mss at Badminton House, letter bk. 1710–14, Beaufort to Manley, 7, 24 Nov. 1711; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/44, Lowther to William Gilpin, 18 Dec. 1711; Oldmixon, Hist. Eng. (1735), 488; Huntington Lib. Q. xxxiii. 169; D. Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Pol. 110; Cobbett, vi. 1155.
  • 15. HMC Portland, v. 229; Swift Stella ed. Davis, 37, 125, 289–90, 585; Hervey Letters Bks. i. 355; Boyer, Pol. State, v. 389; vii. 50; Add. 70288, Lansdown to Oxford, 10 Dec. 1713; Folger Shakespeare Lib. Newdigate newsletter 17 Dec. 1713.