Available from Boydell and Brewer
Right of Election:
in the burgage holders
Number of Qualified Electors:
95 in 1695
Number of voters:
91 in Jan. 1701, 116 in 1702, 78 in 1710, 97 in 17131
|15 Feb. 1690||HON. WILLIAM CHEYNE|
|HON. CHARLES BOYLE|
|13 Dec. 1694||SIR JOHN WALTER, Bt. vice Boyle, called to the Upper House|
|1 Nov. 1695||SIR WILLIAM TWISDEN, Bt.|
|SIR CHRISTOPHER MUSGRAVE, Bt.|
|23 Dec. 1697||SIR JOHN WALTER, Bt. vice Twisden, deceased|
|9 Aug. 1698||GERVASE PIERREPONT|
|SIR JOHN WALTER, Bt.|
|8 Jan. 1701||GERVASE PIERREPONT||91|
|Sir John Walter, Bt.||45|
|9 Dec. 1701||GERVASE PIERREPONT||90|
|29 July 1702||GERVASE PIERREPONT||98|
|Sir Richard Sandford, Bt.||3|
|19 May 1705||JAMES GRAHME|
|WILLIAM HARVEY I|
|20 May 1708||EDWARD DUNCOMBE||63|
|5 Oct. 1710||EDWARD DUNCOMBE||71|
|Sir Charles Kemys, Bt.||22|
|27 Aug. 1713||THOMAS LUTWYCHE||72|
|SIR RICHARD SANDFORD Bt.||55|
|William Harvey II||39|
Appleby Castle physically dominated the adjoining borough, and the castle interest exerted considerable influence over Appleby elections. The castle had formed part of the extensive Westmorland estates of the Cliffords, lands which in 1676 passed to the earls of Thanet. The Clifford estate also brought with it the hereditary shrievalty of Westmorland, and the substantial interest afforded by this inheritance was wielded in this period by the Tory 6th Earl of Thanet (Thomas Tufton†). Thanet’s influence at Appleby was sufficient to secure at least one seat for his nominees at every election between the Revolution and Hanoverian succession, and on a number of occasions he was able to return both Members. This electoral success was founded upon the ownership of a significant proportion of the borough’s votable burgages, but Thanet was not the only figure of political note who possessed such property. The Tory James Grahme of Levens Hall also owned a number of burgages, over 20 in 1701, but this posed little threat to Thanet as the two Tories invariably joined interests. The possession of burgages by other local notables was, however, a greater menace to Thanet’s interest. The Lowthers of Lowther had exerted some influence at Appleby in the 1670s and 1680s, but after the Revolution a more substantial challenge was posed by the Lords Wharton, a long-established Westmorland family. From 1700 the 5th Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*) made strenuous attempts to secure one of the borough’s seats, and, though these efforts were only intermittently successful, Wharton’s involvement created considerable competition for electoral support at Appleby. Both interests cultivated voters through extensive treating and the provision of minor government places, and the purchase of burgages became a priority. Wharton’s challenge to Thanet also resulted in frequent clashes within the corporation over the choice of Appleby’s mayor, who acted as parliamentary returning officer. The mayor was elected annually by the borough’s 16-strong common council, and the fierce and frequent contests for this post meant that from 1701 the political temperature in Appleby was rarely given chance to cool between parliamentary elections.3
During the 1690s, however, Appleby experienced little electoral controversy. In 1690 the representation was shared, apparently amicably, between the Thanet and Wharton interests. Hon. William Cheyne had, with the help of Thomas Wharton, been returned for the borough at a by-election in July 1689, and he retained his seat. Cheyne was returned with Hon. Charles Boyle I, almost certainly the Thanet candidate as he was the nephew of Thanet’s deceased elder brother. During the following decade Thanet established a firm grip upon both seats. In December 1694, following Boyle’s elevation to the Lords, Thanet’s nephew and fellow Tory Sir John Walter, 3rd Bt., was returned unopposed. Both outgoing Members stood aside at the 1695 election, allowing Appleby to be used to ensure the return of two men whose presence in Parliament was judged vital by leading Tories. On 28 Oct. it was reported that Sir William Twisden, 3rd Bt., a Kentish Tory whom the Duke of Leeds (Sir Thomas Osborne†) was keen to see returned to the Commons, was to stand at Appleby, but that the identity of the other candidate had been ‘made a secret till the day of the election’. At the election two days later the mystery candidate was revealed to be Sir Christopher Musgrave, 4th Bt. Musgrave had served as Westmorland’s knight of the shire in the 1690 Parliament, but faced with the determined opposition of Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. II*, at the 1695 county election he obtained Thanet’s support at Appleby. Lowther was said to have carried his hostility to Musgrave to the length of opposing his return here as well, but the only evidence of a contest was a report that at the election ‘Sir Christopher had 60 votes out of 75’, a report which could apply to the results of either a poll or a canvass. Following Twisden’s death in 1697 Walter was again elected, and in 1698 Walter was returned unopposed in alliance with Thanet’s uncle, Gervase Pierrepont.4
In August 1700 Wharton was elected an alderman of Appleby. Musgrave remarked that the Junto peer ‘would not take that for nothing’, and Wharton’s election indeed heralded a determined attempt to end Thanet’s domination of Appleby elections. Thanet responded quickly to this threat and wrote to the corporation in support of the election of Musgrave as mayor, but Wharton proved to be a more diligent manager of the corporation. When Thanet, for example, had denied an Anglican living to the son of an alderman, Wharton had quickly stepped in to offer an alternative preferment, and such careful attention to the corporation contributed to the election as mayor of the Westmorland Whig Sir Richard Sandford, 3rd Bt. Within the month a Cumberland Whig was stating that in light of Sandford’s victory ‘I suppose it is in order to set up somebody against the next election’. In expectation of such a challenge Thanet’s managers initiated a vigorous campaign to secure the re-election of Pierrepont and Walter, and on his return home one night at the end of November, after a particularly bibulous day’s canvassing, one of Thanet’s tired and emotional agents ‘tumbled over the bridge ledge’ into the River Eden and drowned. By this time Wharton had named his nephew, Wharton Dunch, as his candidate at the forthcoming election, and he spared no effort in canvassing the borough. These endeavours bore fruit at the poll when, despite the presence in the court of election of such leading Tories as Musgrave and Grahme, Dunch defeated Walter for the second seat by one vote, Pierrepont easily heading the poll. Walter petitioned the House against this narrow defeat, his case being referred to the elections committee. Detailed preparations were made to rebut Walter’s claims, and a case was prepared alleging that Thanet’s managers had bribed numerous voters and had threatened to remove the assizes from the borough if voters refused to support both of Thanet’s candidates. Challenges were also prepared against the qualification of a number of Walter’s voters, but the petition was never reported.5
Wharton’s determination to defend the seat his interest had gained in January 1701 was evident at the mayoral election later that year. This was carried by one of his leading followers in the borough, a success which one Tory observer claimed had been achieved by Wharton’s supporters holding the election two hours prior to the usual time. In the following months Thanet clearly demonstrated his determination to reverse the setback he had suffered in January, but his efforts were handicapped by uncertainty as to his candidates. Though Walter’s decision not to stand had been made public by the middle of November, Thanet remained uncertain whether Pierrepont wished his name to be put forward. Thanet therefore offered his support to Grahme, but on the understanding that should Pierrepont stand he would be Thanet’s first candidate. He also insisted that Grahme return from London to canvass in person. Grahme and Pierrepont had not, however, been announced as Thanet’s candidates by the middle of November, a failing that Thanet’s agent felt was jeopardizing the chance of securing the second seat. The candidacies of Grahme and Pierrepont were not confirmed to Appleby’s voters until the end of the month, and this was quickly followed by a letter of endorsement from William Nicolson, the archdeacon of Carlisle, and a comprehensive canvass of the borough by the stewards of both Thanet and Grahme. Grahme’s prospects were harmed, however, by the circulation of a broadside questioning both his Protestantism and his loyalty to the government. Such allegations were fuelled by the clerk of Grahme’s steward ‘speaking . . . ill words of the government and who was or ought to be King’. The man in question was gaoled and, after consultation with the secretary of state, indicted for seditious words. As a consequence, a number of voters were only prepared to pledge support for Pierrepont. Grahme’s prospects were probably further undermined by his failure, occasioned by the ill-health of his wife, to canvass in person, though his son Henry* canvassed Appleby for his father when not conducting his own campaign for the county. The interest of Pierrepont and Grahme was also hindered, according to Thanet’s steward, by the failure to convey empty burgages to faggot voters and the tardiness of Thanet and Grahme in the purchasing of available burgages – two activities which Wharton’s interest had engaged in with vigour. The consequence was that Pierrepont and Dunch were again elected, Grahme falling short of Dunch’s total by 10 votes while the local man Richard Braithwaite received a small number of votes. The Whig success indicated by Dunch’s re-election was emphasized by the presentation of instructions to the borough’s Members urging that they vote for the supplies necessary for William III to honour his alliances; support provision for the nation’s debts; and ‘discountenance all private animosities and such disputes, which may promote divisions at home, and encourage our enemies abroad’. That the cause of Grahme’s defeat lay in large part in failures of management is suggested by the fact that of the 24 of his tenants who voted at this election, ten failed to vote for both Tory candidates, but he nevertheless petitioned against Dunch’s return. Grahme’s petition turned upon the alleged partiality of the mayor. It was joined by a petition from ‘several burghers of Appleby’ claiming that Pierrepont and Grahme had used ‘several unlawful practices’ at the previous election, and that in consequence Dunch and Braithwaite should have been returned. The case was never reported.6
In the months following the second 1701 election Thanet’s steward Thomas Carleton emphasized the importance to Dunch’s success of Wharton’s ability to provide minor government places to Appleby’s leading burghers, and the advantage to that interest of having secured the mayoralty. Carleton claimed that Wharton’s influence with local excise officers was such that prior to the election brandy had been seized from supporters of Pierrepont and Grahme, while those in Wharton’s interest had been spared such distraints. He also alleged that at the recent sessions the clerk of the peace, Richard Baynes, Wharton’s principal agent at Appleby, had indicted a number of Pierrepont and Grahme supporters for minor infringements. Carleton therefore urged Thanet, Grahme and Musgrave to use the influence he believed they had gained following the accession of Queen Anne to secure places for their supporters at Appleby. He also advised that such patronage be concentrated upon the members of the common council and their family, common council members being the electorate for the mayor. Hopes of diminishing Wharton’s interest in the corporation were also raised by the discovery that the mayor and deputy mayor, both supporters of Wharton’s interest, had failed to take the oaths within the period required by the 1661 Corporation Act. Carleton investigated this question further and came to the conclusion that Appleby was in fact acting without a charter, it having been surrendered in 1685 and the subsequent charter (granted by James II) having been declared illegal. Carleton’s eagerness to pursue this case does not appear to have been shared by other members of the Thanet interest, but the 1702 election was nevertheless fiercely contested. Canvassing had begun soon after news reached the borough of the death of William III, and Carleton’s urging that government patronage be used to bolster the Thanet interest appears to have been successful, as in 1701 and 1702 Thanet, Grahme and Musgrave were able to find 24 employments for their supporters, 12 of which were in the excise. Wharton’s supporters countered with the declaration that in order to secure Dunch’s election they were prepared to spend £500 on treating. Two of Wharton’s stewards were sent to Appleby to assist the canvassing, and it was again claimed that Baynes made use of his authority as clerk of the peace to harass those unwilling to support Dunch. Both sides also attempted to purchase additional burgages in the months before this election. Grahme’s increased determination at this election is suggested by the fact that he spent £150 as opposed to an expenditure of £56 at the contest of December 1701, and such efforts reaped their reward with Grahme’s defeat of Dunch for the second seat. The success of Pierrepont and Grahme was achieved despite a number of Dunch’s voters refusing to support either Tory candidate, instead voting for Sandford and John Dalston, the incumbent mayor and son of the borough’s representation in the Cavalier Parliament.7
The triumph of Pierrepont and Grahme in 1702 had been achieved despite the fact that the mayoralty had remained in the hands of a Wharton supporter. Thanet, Grahme and Carleton nevertheless appreciated that securing dominance within the corporation was necessary if the Wharton interest was to remain in eclipse, and for the following two years a contest was waged for control of the corporation, with both sides treating extensively and continuing their endeavours to obtain places for their supporters. At the mayoral election of October 1702 an attempt was made to elect Wharton, a proposal that was objected to by Thanet’s and Grahme’s adherents who protested that Wharton was unwilling to visit the borough to take the necessary oaths or exercise the office. The consequence was the continuation in office of the mayor elected in October 1701, and the matter of the 1702 mayoral election was referred to the Privy Council. The assault upon the Wharton interest in the corporation continued the following year, when Musgrave was forwarded for the mayoralty and Grahme was touted for election as alderman, both with the support of Thanet. Wharton’s supporters endeavoured to obstruct Musgrave and Grahme, arguing that no mayor could be elected until the case before the Council had been resolved. When this failed, a council meeting was held by the Wharton interest while supporters of Musgrave were out of the borough at a local fair. This meeting proceeded to remove supporters of Grahme and Musgrave from the common council, actions later reversed by the full council. In their desperation Wharton’s supporters suggested the 11-year-old Richard Lonsdale as a rival candidate to Musgrave, though this plan appears to have been short-lived and the candidacy of the Earl of Carlisle (Charles Howard*) was advocated instead. All such endeavours were unsuccessful, however, and in October 1703 Musgrave secured the mayoralty and Grahme was elected alderman. The mayoralty was retained by supporters of Thanet and Grahme in July 1704 upon Musgrave’s death, and again in October that year. Unsuccessful attempts were made on both occasions to secure the mayoralty for Wharton, or alternatively to have Grahme elected mayor, which would have prevented him from standing at the forthcoming parliamentary election. The defeat of Wharton’s interest in the corporation had been allied with continuing attempts to answer the desire of local notables for places of profit, with Thanet and Grahme finding such offices for 19 men between 1703 and 1705, so that at the 1705 election the stage was set for the confirmation of Tory dominance at Appleby. As early as April 1704 Pierrepont had made known his intention to stand down at the next election, and Thanet settled upon the Tory William Harvey I as Pierrepont’s replacement, and Harvey and Grahme stood on a joint interest. Wharton appears to have recognized the downfall of his interest at Appleby, as Dunch concentrated his electoral efforts on the Yorkshire borough of Richmond, and Grahme and Harvey were returned unopposed.8
In October 1705 Grahme himself was elected mayor, and the following year the office was retained by supporters of Grahme and Thanet. In 1707, however, Wharton, aware that the mayor elected at this time would serve as returning officer at a parliamentary election in 1708, made a concerted effort to re-establish his position in the corporation. With the Junto in the ascendant in national politics, Wharton was able to deploy patronage to bolster his interest on the common council, and in August 1707 journeyed to Wharton Hall where he offered an invitation to the common council. Similar treating of the common council had been undertaken by Thanet’s steward Carleton, and by the end of October the two sides had reached a stalemate over the question of the mayor. Only the diehard supporters of the Junto peer’s interest on the common council were prepared to elect Wharton without receiving a promise that he would attend the corporation to take the required oaths, but if such an assurance was forthcoming those in the Thanet–Grahme interest, a majority of the common council, were prepared to acquiesce in the election of Wharton. Otherwise they intended to insist upon the election of Carleton. In the absence of any pledge from Wharton the majority of the common council proceeded to elect Carleton, but, fearing Wharton’s anger and possible legal action should he take this office, Thanet’s steward did not press his case for assuming the mayoralty. The mayoral staff remained in the hands of the Thanet–Grahme supporter elected in 1706 until Wharton visited Appleby in April 1708. Accompanied by Nicolson, now bishop of Carlisle, Wharton demanded at a council meeting of 14 Apr. that he be tendered his oaths of office and, despite opposition from Carleton, his demand was met. Having secured the mayoralty, Wharton had established a strong position from which to renew his challenge for one of the parliamentary seats. Canvassing for this election had started at the beginning of 1708, though Thanet’s steward again felt hindered by his master’s failure to name his candidates early. In March Joseph Musgrave*, son of Sir Christopher and like him a Tory, announced his intention to stand, but this candidacy was declared without the foreknowledge of Thanet, whose nomination of the Tory Edward Duncombe was not made public until the following month. Thanet nevertheless ordered his agents to canvass for both Musgrave and Duncombe, the latter of whom had made known his inability to attend the election, in opposition to Wharton’s candidate Nicholas Lechmere, a Whig lawyer. Wharton’s efforts proved successful at the poll, however; although Duncombe headed the poll, Lechmere defeated Musgrave for the second seat, a defeat attributed by both Thanet and Musgrave’s brother to the ‘knavery’ and inadequacy of Carleton’s campaigning.9
In the year following this electoral success Wharton took pains to maintain his interest at Appleby, retaining the mayoralty in October 1708. The following year this office was gained by Carleton, but Wharton nevertheless continued to cultivate his interest, obtaining army commissions for five of his supporters. Such efforts were, however, undermined by the aftermath of the trial of Dr Sacheverell. In June 1710 Duncombe presented an address from the borough expressing ‘our abhorrence and detestation’ of ‘the novel doctrine of resistance’, and attesting its resolution to choose Members who would affirm ‘your Majesty’s undoubted right to the throne’ and defend ‘the government in Church and State as by law established’. The expression of such staunchly Tory sentiments boded ill for Lechmere’s prospects at the next election, and the High Church tide of 1710 appears to have galvanized Thanet’s electoral efforts. By July 1710 Thanet had decided upon his two candidates, Duncombe and the Tory lawyer Thomas Lutwyche. Thanet expressed the hope ‘that [the] corporation will choose members suitable to their address’ and informed Carleton of his determination that those who had been loyal ‘to the Church and to the government’ should receive official favour, requesting that after the election he be sent ‘a list of such of the corporation as are qualified for the excise’. That Wharton was not prepared to yield timidly to Thanet’s interests was clear at the beginning of August when he attempted to detach a number of voters from Thanet’s interest by securing the place of ‘distributor of the stamps in Westmorland’ for an Appleby inhabitant. By the end of the month it had become known that Lechmere would not enter the lists at Appleby, but it was suggested that Wharton would nominate one of the Berties, probably Hon. Albemarle*. Instead of supporting a Whig, however, Wharton preferred to back the candidacy of Joshua Blackwell, an attorney who had gained land near Appleby by marriage and had become an alderman of the borough, a place he allegedly owed to Wharton’s support. At first Blackwell forwarded his name as an independent candidate but he quickly gained the support of Wharton, despite the fact that Blackwell’s ‘principles’ were held in high esteem by the Tory Earl of Nottingham (Daniel Finch†). As James Grahme’s friend John Ward III* informed Nottingham, it was clear Wharton had realized that, given the prevailing political climate, it was impossible to prevent the election of two Tories at Appleby, but that if he could secure Blackwell’s election Wharton would prevent Thanet from gaining both seats. Ward appealed to Nottingham to use his influence with Blackwell to have him leave the field clear for Duncombe and Lutwyche, and though it took two letters from Nottingham, and additional pressure from Gilfrid Lawson*, in the middle of September Blackwell acquiesced to Nottingham’s request. Blackwell’s withdrawal forced Wharton to put forward his nephew Sir Charles Kemys, 4th Bt.*, but he was comprehensively defeated by Duncombe and Lutwyche. Kemys petitioned, alleging bribery on the part of the sitting Members and questioning the qualification of a number of their voters, but the petition did not emerge from committee.10
The success of Duncombe and Lutwyche in 1710 had been based upon the possession of the mayoralty by Thanet’s steward and the large number of burgages held by the Tories Thanet and Grahme. By the time of the next election, however, the second of these strengths had been undermined. Grahme had been experiencing severe financial problems since at least 1709, and in 1711 had attempted to sell his burgages first to Thanet and then to Carleton. Neither was able to meet Grahme’s price and the property was instead sold in 1713 to the 2nd Viscount Lonsdale. Carleton immediately forecast that Lonsdale would use the interest he had gained to forward the election of his younger brother, but instead Lonsdale joined with Bishop Nicolson, Carlisle, Wharton and Sir Christopher Musgrave, 5th Bt*, to nominate Sandford. Though a Tory, Musgrave had been persuaded to support the Whig Sandford in return for Carlisle’s agreement not to oppose Musgrave at Carlisle. Thanet was characteristically slow in naming his candidates. He resolved to support Lutwyche again while dropping Duncombe, who had voted against the French commerce bill. In June he instructed Carleton to tour the borough ‘to caution voters not to be engaged but [to] reserve their votes for that worthy gentleman [Lutwyche] and such who were zealous for the government and Church’. By August Thanet had settled upon William Harvey II, son of Appleby’s Member of the 1705 Parliament, but Harvey’s father noted that ‘my son is likely to be met with some opposition at Appleby’ and Sandford’s candidacy was continued. At the end of August Lutwyche appealed to Grahme to appear at the election to support Harvey, but such endeavours proved in vain, as Lutwyche and Sandford headed the poll with Harvey third and a local notable receiving 18 votes. On 3 Mar. 1714 Harvey petitioned against Sandford’s return, while on the same date 13 of Appleby’s ‘burghers’ petitioned against the return of Lutwyche, complaining of the partiality of the mayor and bribery by Lutwyche’s agents. Both petitions were referred to committee but were never reported.11
Authors: Eveline Cruickshanks / Richard Harrison
Unless otherwise stated this article is based upon R. Hopkinson, ‘Elections at Appleby 1701–15’ (Newcastle-upon-Tyne Univ. B.A. dissertation, 1968), and Hopkinson thesis, 121–5, 160–74, 182–3.
- 1. Northern Hist. xv.99
- 2. All polls taken from Hopkinson, ‘Elections at Appleby’, 113.
- 3. Northern Hist. 97, 109; Robbins thesis, 189.
- 4. Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L1/1/41, Lowther to [Leeds], 26 May 1695; Add. 46554–9, Leeds to Ld. Lexington, 21 Sept. 1695; 46525, f. 60; Lowther Corresp. ed. Hainsworth, 443; HMC Downshire, ii. 578; Bagot mss at Levens Hall, Timothy Banks to Grahme, 1 Nov. 1695.
- 5. Cumbria RO (Kendal), Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A min. bk. 3, 3, 6 Aug., 30 Sept. 1700; Add. 70289, Musgrave to Robert Harley*, 8 Aug. 1700; HMC 10th Rep. IV, 334–5; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/2/3, James* to Sir John Lowther, 2nd Bt. I*, 12 Sept., 15 Oct. 1700; D/Lons/W1/21, Sir John Lowther I to Carlisle, Dec. 1700; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Le Fleming mss, Henry to Sir Daniel Fleming†, 5 Dec.1700 (Horwitz trans.); WD/Ry 5609, Alan Chambre to same, 11 Jan. 1700[–1].
- 6. Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A min. bk. 3, 3, 6 Oct. 1701; Bagot mss, Banks to Grahme, 9 Oct., 27 Nov. 1701, Thanet to same, 16 Nov. 1701; Bagot mss, Carleton to same, 20, 29 Nov., 1 Dec. 1701; CSP Dom. 1700–2, p. 469; Flying Post, 20–23 Dec. 1701 (Speck trans.).
- 7. Bagot mss, Carleton to Grahme, 2, 14 Mar. 1701–2, 30 Mar. 2, 20, 26 Apr., 29 May 1702, ‘persons preferred by the Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Thanet, Sir Christopher Musgrave and James Grahme, Esqr. since the year 1701’, [Dec. 1707], Carleton to [Grahme], 11, 16, 20 Apr. 1702, same to Musgrave, 11 Apr. 1702; Bagot mss, James Lamb to same, 5 Feb., 21 Mar. 1701[–2]; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, lxvi. 302; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/L13/11/Appleby election 1723, acct. of Mr Baynes, 3 Nov. 1714; W. A. Speck, Tory and Whig, 60.
- 8. Bagot mss, Carleton to Grahme, 7 Nov. 1702, 16, 20, 23 Sept., 27 Oct. 1703, 17 Feb. 1703–4, 22 Sept. 1704, 11 May 1705, ‘persons preferred by the Right Honourable Thomas, Earl of Thanet, Sir Christopher Musgrave and James Grahme, Esqr. since the year 1701’, [Dec. 1707]; Bagot mss, William Harvey I to Grahme, [?], 28 Apr. 1704, Thanet to Grahme, 12 Apr. 1705; Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A min. bk. 3, 19 Oct. 1702, 3, 5 Aug., 2 Oct. 1704; CSP Dom. 1703–4, p. 39; Bath mss at Longleat House, Thynne pprs. 26, f. 506; 25, f. 142.
- 9. Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A min. bk. 3, 1 Oct. 1705, 30 Sept. 1706, 14 Apr. 1708; Bagot mss, Carleton to Grahme, 28 Apr., 7 Aug., 2, 8 Oct., 18 Dec. 1707, 4 Jan., 1 Mar. 1707–8, 24 Apr., 3, 9 May 1708; Bagot mss, Christopher Musgrave* to Grahme, 15, 27 May 1708; Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. ser. 2, iv. 30, 38; Nicolson Diaries ed. Jones and Holmes, 464.
- 10. Appleby bor. recs. WSMB/A min. bk. 3, 4 Oct. 1708; Bagot mss, Carleton to Grahme, 23 Dec. 1709, 17 Aug. 1710 (Speck trans.); Bagot mss, William Bromley II* to Grahme, 28 July 1710; A Collection of the Addresses . . . since the Impeachment of the Rev. Dr Henry Sacheverell (1711), ii. 5; Add. 70208, Ward to Harley, 8 Aug. 1710; HMC Portland, iv. 578; Leics. RO, Finch mss box 4950, Ward to Nottingham, 31 Aug. 1710, Blackwell to same, 8, 10 Sept. 1710; Lonsdale mss D/Lons/W2/1/43, James Lowther to William Gilpin, 9 Sept. 1710.
- 11. Bagot mss, Carleton to Grahme, 5 July, 22 Nov. 1711, 5 Jan., 20 Mar. 1711–12, 12 Mar. 1712–13, 22 Aug. 1713; Bagot mss, William Harvey I to Grahme, 11 Aug. 1713; Cumbria RO (Kendal), Hothfield mss, Carleton to Lutwyche, 6 June 1713; Add. 70331, ‘account of some northern elections’, 27 July 1713.