DOUGLAS, James (1662-1711)

DOUGLAS, James (1662–1711)

styled 1671-82 Visct. Drumlanrig [S]; styled 1682-95 earl of Drumlanrig and Sanquhar [S]; suc. fa. 28 Mar. 1695 as 2nd duke of QUEENSBERRY [S]; cr. 26 May 1708 duke of DOVER

RP [S] 1707–8

First sat 6 Nov. 1707; last sat 4 June 1711

b. 18 Dec. 1662, 1st s. of William Douglas, duke of Queensberry [S], and Isabel, da. of William Douglas, mq. of Douglas [S]. educ. Glasgow Univ. 1676; travelled abroad 1680-4. m. 1 Dec. 1685, Mary (d. 2 Oct. 1709), da. of Charles Boyle, 2nd Bar. Clifford of Lanesborough, 4s. (1 d.v.p.) 5da. (3 d.v.p.). KG 18 June 1701. d. 6 July 1711; will 8 June 1711, pr. 16 July 1711.1

Lt.-col. King’s Own R. Horse [S] 1684-8; col. Scots Life Gds. 1688-95.

Commr. borders [S] 1684, exchequer [S] 1684–8, 1690–6, treasury [S] 1692-1702, 1705-8, auditing accts. of treasury [S] 1696, vis. univs. [S] 1697, trade [S] 1698, Union with England 1702–3, 1706; PC [S] 1684-8, 1689-1708; gent. of bedchamber 1689-1702; ld. treasurer [S] 1693; ld. privy seal [S] 1696-1702, 1705-9; extraordinary ld. of session [S] 1696-d.; ld. high commr. to parl. [S] 1700, 1702, 1703, 1706; sec. of state [S] (jt.) 1702-4, 1705-8, (sole)1709-d.; PC 1707-d.; jt. kpr. of signet [S] 1709-d.2

Burgess, Glasgow 1680, Edinburgh 1684; provost, Dumfries 1683; commr. supply, Dumfriess. 1696, 1698; steward, Kirkcudbright stewartry, 1698–1707.3

Associated with Drumlanrig Castle, Dumfriess.; Sanquhar Castle, Dumfriess.; Queensberry House, Canongate, Edinburgh; Pall Mall, Westminster; Albemarle St., Westminster.

Likenesses: oil on canvas, by G. Kneller, c. 1703–5, Govt. Art. Coll.; oil on canvas, attrib. J. B. de Medina, c. 1685, National Galleries of Scotland, PG 2045; marble effigy by J. Van Nost, 1711 (Durrisdeer ch. Dumfriess.); oil on canvas, by unknown artist, National Galleries of Scotland, PG 1171.

As the dominant figure in Scottish politics 1698-1710, and a principal architect of the Union, Douglas inevitably generated strong opinions. A man of great personal charm, and a formidable strength of character which enabled him to withstand crises in public and private life, he cultivated a reputation as a statesman and a patriot, but to a Jacobite anti-unionist like George Lockhart‡, he possessed no virtue: disloyal not only to the royal line that had raised his family but also to his country, he promoted ‘every proposal and scheme for enslaving Scotland, and invading her honour, liberty, and trade, and rendering her obsequious to the measures and interest of England’. According to Lockhart, Douglas was both avaricious and slothful, and a dissembler who hid a ruthless and vengeful spirit: ‘inwardly a very devil’.4 Those who looked to him as a patron and political leader naturally saw him differently, as ‘the best natured, friendly man’ they ever knew.5 But they were not blind to the harder aspects of his character, and could see beneath the fair words to the realpolitik: one of his closest followers, John Clerk‡, observed that Douglas was ‘a complete courtier, and partly by art, and partly by nature, he had brought himself into a habit of saying civil and obliging things to everybody’.6

The Douglas family constituted the largest magnate interest in the south-west of Scotland, but their wealth and power owed more to the fruits of royal favour than to their vast estates. Lord Drumlanrig and his father had been heavily involved in Charles II’s repression of the covenanting movement, Drumlanrig in a military capacity as lieutenant-colonel in the regiment of John Graham, Viscount Claverhouse [S], but Queensberry subsequently fell out of favour with King James. At the Revolution Queensberry attempted to lever concessions from James while, as an insurance policy, Drumlanrig quickly switched sides, being the first Scotsman of high rank to declare for the prince of Orange. The strategy was politically successful — both Queensberry and Drumlanrig acquired office — even if henceforth it was difficult for the Douglases to present themselves as either indisputably Episcopalian (as they once had been) or Presbyterian (as they now claimed to be). After succeeding his father, the 2nd duke of Queensberry, by skilfully negotiating a course between the rival political interests in Scotland, including bouts of opposition when he deemed it tactically necessary, secured advancement to the position of lord privy seal, and in 1700 commissioner to the parliament summoned after the collapse of the Scottish colony at Darien.7 Although a substantial investor himself in the Darien fiasco, he had no qualms about fending off patriotic protests.8 By the end of King William’s reign he had consolidated his family’s political interest by absorbing several smaller groupings, and by the judicious use of patronage had established an ascendancy in Scottish politics.

Queensberry resumed his place as parliamentary commissioner on the accession of Anne: his main priorities were to ensure the recognition of the queen’s authority and to empower her to appoint commissioners to negotiate a union, both of which he achieved easily after the secession of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], and the bulk of the ‘country party’ opposition. The only controversy occurred over the proposal for an oath of abjuration, which Queensberry managed to suppress.9 He then left for London, where in November he led the Scottish commissioners in abortive negotiations for a union. 

Continued as commissioner in the new Parliament, which met in 1703, Queensberry sought to neutralize the ‘country party’ opposition by detaching the pro-Jacobite ‘cavaliers’ with promises of a share in government and a toleration for Episcopal clergy.10 This was not his own idea, but was foisted on him by his great rival John Murray, duke of Atholl, and the lord chancellor, James Ogilvy, earl of Seafield [S] (later 4th earl of Findlater [S]). When the cavaliers reverted to their alliance with Hamilton, Queensberry explained this to the English lord treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, Baron Godolphin, as the effect of ‘encouragement by some of the queen’s servants’, that is to say Atholl and Seafield.11 As the session threatened to descend into chaos, he was instructed to withhold the royal assent to the act of security, which embodied opposition proposals to secure Scotland’s religion and liberties, so provoking members that he was obliged to order a prorogation without a supply.12

Queensberry moved against his enemies by drawing attention to what he identified as ‘ill designs amongst us’, a vaguely defined Jacobite conspiracy, the evidence for which he was searching out: the political character of the witch-hunt was clear from the fact that Atholl’s name soon came up.13 Queensberry sought not only to besmirch Atholl’s reputation, with the intention of having him eventually charged with treason, but also to win back ‘Presbyterian’ elements of the country party.14 But his key witness was the notorious Jacobite, Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat [S], who was working to discover, and probably manufacture, evidence. One observer saw this as evidence of Queensberry’s true nature: ‘let the world think what they pleased of the good and debonair nature of the duke of Queensberry ... he was of such a vindictive temper that if he could get all your necks, who he conceived opposed him, he would not fail to do it’.15 At the same time Atholl was trying to make political capital out of the failure of the 1703 parliament, to secure Queensberry’s dismissal.16

By December 1703 the ‘Scotch Plot’ was a focus of political interest in England, with Queensberry paying court to both Whigs and Tories, as well as repeating promises to the ministry that ‘he’ll undertake to get all done here to the humour of the court if the queen will give him an absolute trust and ... oblige her other ministers to concur with him’.17 He was also playing both sides in Scotland, using the opportunity provided by the debates at Westminster over the second occasional conformity bill to ingratiate himself with the archbishop of Glasgow. It was reported that Queensberry ‘continues ... in his mighty cajoling of the archbishop of Glasgow and ... swears with all the solemn oaths in the world that he hates the Presbyterians and that he is not upon a Presbyterian foot’. 18 Eventually, some members of the House of Lords tried to begin an inquiry into the ‘Scotch Plot’, only to be foiled on 16 Dec. by an intervention by Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, which was ‘looked upon as being done by him for the sake of the duke of Queensberry’.19 Instead, the Cabinet made its own inquiries, and on 17 Dec. the queen informed the House of

designs carried on in Scotland by emissaries from France, which might have proved extremely dangerous to the peace of these kingdoms, as you will see by the particulars which shall be laid before you as soon as the several examinations relating to this matter can be fully perfected and made public without prejudice.

The following day a secret committee, consisting entirely of Whigs, was appointed to examine witnesses. More evidence was coming to light of Lovat’s machinations and the design to implicate Atholl.20 But while the Lords pursued the inquiry, the Commons appointed their own committee to examine the Lords Journals ‘as to their proceedings in relation to the examination of any persons who are discovered to have a design against her Majesty’s government’, and addressed the queen, expressing concern at what they saw as a violation of the royal prerogative by the upper House. The affair became the subject of a quarrel between the two Houses, which effectively postponed until February 1704 the point at which the promised papers could be laid before the Lords.

While Lords and Commons were at odds the first steps were taken to replace Queensberry as commissioner by John Hay, 2nd marquess of Tweeddale [S], leader of the ‘Presbyterian’ wing of the country opposition, the so-called ‘new party’ (later known as the Squadrone Volante). One of their number, George Baillie‡, still felt that Queensberry would hold on to office because of his new friendship with the Whig Junto: ‘the lords who support him will have it so and by the management of the plot they have got a hand of the Court.’ Hamilton took the same view: ‘there’s no outbidding the duke of Queensberry unless we will be as great villains as we think him’.21 The report of the committee of inquiry on 22 Mar. did not immediately compromise Queensberry, since it produced four resolutions, validating the idea of a conspiracy, inferring that uncertainty over the succession had encouraged the plotters, calling for a settlement of the crown of Scotland in the house of Hanover, and promising to promote a union. However, despite the feeling in ministerial circles that Queensberry was the man to carry the succession, the episode had soiled his reputation, and on 5 May news reached Edinburgh that he had been dismissed.22 He reacted with sang froid, having taken care to ensure that he would be paid his salary and expenses in full, though among his supporters there were fears — unfounded as it turned out — that he would be impeached.23

With Queensberry taking his party into opposition, Tweeddale failed to carry the queen’s instructions, including the succession, which Queensberry’s followers did much to frustrate while their leader kept his distance.24 The session demonstrated that Scottish business could not be carried on without him. In 1705 Tweeddale was replaced as commissioner by John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], with Queensberry’s support, the price of which was a return to office as lord privy seal, much to the queen’s disgust, since she now regarded him as untrustworthy, and doubted whether he was in fact of any use in Scotland as he was so disliked there; she told Godolphin that Queensberry’s ‘last tricking behaviour’ had ‘made him more odious to me than ever’.25 But although Hamilton observed sourly that ‘we are irretrievably flung into Queensberry’s ministry’, the duke did not achieve the complete dismantling of the ‘new party’ administration for which he had pressed.26 He did not appear at the beginning of the session, possibly because of ill health, although Lockhart interpreted his absence as a stratagem: Queensberry was ‘desirous to see how affairs would go, before he ventured himself in a country where he was generally ... abhorred; and therefore he sent the duke of Argyll down as commissioner, using him as the monkey did the cat in pulling out the hot roasted chestnuts’.27 Even after he arrived his supporters did not at first prove reliable, but eventually his intervention was crucial in securing the vote to appoint commissioners for a union treaty, and he exerted his influence to shape the membership of the commission.28 He was adamantly opposed to the idea that it should represent all parties in Scotland, ‘for ... it will be impossible to do ... any kind of business with a jumble’, with the result that the Court party dominated.29 Although Queensberry had led the Scottish side himself in the previous negotiations this responsibility was now given to Seafield, and in his absence, to Queensberry’s lieutenant, John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar. However, it was clear that Queensberry was now ‘the only great man’, in effect entrusted by Godolphin with the management of Scotland (and so far identified with the treasurer’s interest as to forfeit the friendship of the Junto, who allied instead with the Squadrone).30 He attended all but one of the joint meetings of commissioners, and made sure that he was paid handsomely for so doing; indeed, he appeared to the English ministers to be ‘full of unreasonable demands’.31 His only recorded contribution to the discussions came on 12 June, concerning Scottish representation in the British Parliament, when, according to John Clerk, he made a speech that was ‘easy, felicitous and brief’.32 At the same time, he was in constant attendance on the queen, having already been designated as commissioner to the parliament which would ratify the treaty.33

When Parliament assembled Queensberry recommended the treaty for ratification, reminding his audience that the commissioners ‘were limited in the matter of church government’, and adding that he was ready to consent to anything further that was judged to be necessary, for that purpose, after the Union. Despite vehement opposition, inside and outside parliament, Queensberry maintained his poise: when ‘ill-used’ in debate, he, ‘with a great deal of temper suffered ... preferring the public peace to all his private resentments; and by this prudence, prevented those who desired to have things exasperated’.34 In the Edinburgh streets he was insulted and threatened, and on one occasion engulfed by the mob and ‘almost knocked down by stones, and would surely have been killed if his guards had not hurried him off’.35 In the face of this intimidation, he was said to have shown ‘as much cheerful bravery in the action, as he had calmness and temper in the Parliament’.36 He was also faced with a family catastrophe, when his eldest surviving son James, an ‘idiot’ who was kept locked up in Holyrood Palace, escaped and murdered a cook boy, whose body he was said to have roasted on a spit and begun to consume before being restrained. It says much for Queensberry’s fortitude that he continued his work as commissioner. His handling of the parliament may not have been decisive in securing the passage of the Union, but was important in containing resistance. As usual, he ensured that he would be appropriately recompensed; of the £20,000 sterling provided by the English government to settle arrears due to Scottish office-holders and pensioners, over £12,300 went to Queensberry’s own pocket.37

After ratification came the selection of Scottish representatives to the first Parliament of Great Britain. Queensberry tried at first to postpone this till after the prorogation but the Squadrone, who had come into the Union in alliance with the Junto and hoped to profit politically, pushed for a quick decision. Queensberry’s main concern, which he achieved, was to prevent Hamilton being included. 38 The list was dominated by his own adherents, which furnished the Squadrone with another grievance, since they alleged that he had gone back on promises to them.39 Having been rewarded for his efforts by appointment to the new British Privy Council and the award of an annuity of £3,000 (from the revenues of the Post Office) for 30 years, Queensberry set out for London on 3 April.40 John Clerk, who accompanied him, testified that he ‘was quite otherwise treated in England than he had been in Scotland’, ‘everywhere caressed and received with great acclamations of joy’, and greeted near London by ‘all the queen’s ministers and the members of both Houses of the English Parliament’. Clerk also noticed how, despite her previous aversion to him, Queensberry had now become ‘more and more a favourite of the queen.41 Some were suspicious: the duchess of Marlborough, for one, opposed the idea that Queensberry should be brought into the Cabinet, as he earnestly desired:

nobody should go there that is not in all respects what one would desire, unless there is a necessity of it; and I have known several things of him I do not like, besides that he is so near relation to [Lord Rochester], and I believe he has been sufficiently gratified already for any service he has ever done.42

The Squadrone were also resentful that Queensberry monopolized royal favour, and prepared to take action against him in the British Parliament.43

In the analysis of Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S] of 1707 Queensberry was noted as ‘for the Revolution Not of principle But if the court will which he will follow’. The same list indicated that seven peers (Mar, Seafield, Hugh Campbell, 3rd earl of Loudoun [S], David Wemyss, 4th earl of Wemyss [S], John Dalrymple, 2nd earl of Stair [S], Archibald Primrose, earl of Rosebery [S] and David Boyle, earl of Glasgow [S]) and five of the Members returned to the Commons from Scotland in 1707 (Archibald Douglas‡, John Murray‡, John Pringle‡, John Stuart‡ and William Douglas‡), could be influenced by him. Queensberry took his seat in the Lords on 6 Nov. 1707, when he was named as one of the triers of petitions, and appointed to the committee of privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal. He was present on 28 Jan. 1708 when the Commons sent up a bill to abolish the Scottish Privy Council, a calculated attack by the Squadrone on his domination of Scottish business, since its passage would mean the abolition of the Scottish secretaryship.44 As he was present on 5 Feb. he was almost certainly one of the ‘Scotch Lords’ who in the committee of the whole supported an unsuccessful amendment to postpone abolition until October 1708. A cold caught at the queen’s birthday celebrations on 6 Feb. kept him away when the bill passed its third reading, so he was unable to sign the protest, to his chagrin.45 He returned to the House on 14 February. In all, he attended on 78 days of the session, 73 per cent of the total. Having been reappointed lord privy seal for Scotland with a salary of £2,000 p.a., on 26 May he was granted the first British peerage after the Union, as duke of Dover, despite the disapproval of the duke of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, who wrote to his wife: ‘I am entirely of your opinion that this last mark of favour ... might have been spared’.46 On a list of about May 1708 of the first Parliament of Great Britain, Queensberry was marked as a Whig, with a qualifying +, the significance of which is unknown.

In preparation for the elections Queensberry had preliminary discussions with Hamilton about co-operation in the choice of representative peers, which came to nothing, Hamilton blaming Queensberry’s insistence on including ‘an unreasonable number’ of his own ‘set’. The two men also quarrelled over Hamilton’s claim to a British peerage: according to Hamilton, ‘Queensberry hindered it’; while Queensberry declared that ‘he did in all in his power to procure it and that preferable to his own patent’.47 Hamilton then came to an agreement with the Squadrone and the Junto to oppose the ‘old court party’ in the elections, which pushed Queensberry and his followers into feverish activity. Queensberry was particularly concerned at the way in which the Whig secretary of state, Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, was making use of the queen’s name to advance Hamilton’s interest, and complained to Godolphin, adding that Sunderland was also stealing the Court party’s credit for interceding with government to help the Scottish peers arrested for suspected complicity with the planned Jacobite uprising, a ploy his henchmen had used to secure votes.48 At the peers’ election Queensberry voted in person for his own list, and also cast a proxy. Hamilton immediately protested against his participation on the grounds that he was a peer of Great Britain, and was supported in doing so by the Squadrone.49 After consultations with the Junto, the objection was taken to the Lords.50

Queensberry had intended to leave Edinburgh on 24 June and return to London, but on 5 July he was still there ‘not being yet in a condition to write’ himself, although he hoped to begin his journey on 7 July.51 He was introduced into the Lords as duke of Dover on 19 Nov. 1708 by Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, and James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, but without a word of complaint from the Squadrone or the Junto, to Godolphin’s surprise.52 While the treasurer looked on Queensberry as an ally against the Junto, Marlborough remained suspicious, considering him ‘a very dangerous false man’: ‘I did ever think him a very knave. I wish you may not find him so’.53 On 18 Jan. 1709 Hamilton presented a protest against Queensberry’s right to vote in the peers’ election as contrary to the Scottish Act which had established the manner of election. Three days later the matter was debated. Mar reported that ‘The Junto and all they could make of their folks were against him; the treasurer and all who depend on him and the Court independent of the Junto for him.’ What proved decisive, however, was the fact that the ‘Tories were divided and none for him but those who were particular acquaintances of him or his friends and even some of those against him’, a consequence of the fact that Queensberry’s followers in the Commons had voted the day before against the Tory Sir Simon Harcourt, later Viscount Harcourt, in an election case. So when the question was put ‘the duke’s vote was lost by seven’ (57-50), and the House resolved that a Scottish peer ‘claiming to sit in the House of Peers by virtue of a patent passed under the great seal of Great Britain after the Union, and who now sits in the Parliament of Great Britain, had no right to vote in the election of the sixteen peers’. Queensberry is not recorded on the division list and probably did not vote himself.54

Shortly afterwards, having heard that there were plans to give Queensberry a seat in the Cabinet, Marlborough told his wife that ‘you may depend upon my doing all that is in my power to hinder his coming into so dangerous a place’.55 He believed he could rely on the Junto to prevent this, since they had strongly opposed Queensberry’s right to vote in the peers’ election, and in an effort to undermine further his influence in Scotland had suggested to Godolphin that there should be ‘a third Secretary in order to get Scots business into the Cabinet which was now done by a private whisper’. Godolphin replied that he had already advised the queen to appoint Queensberry as her third secretary, with a Cabinet place, alongside two promotions for the Squadrone, which left the Junto nonplussed and capable of only half-hearted expressions of disapproval.56 However, the responsibilities of the third secretary were initially confined to domestic business, foreign affairs remaining the province of the secretaries for the northern and southern departments, so that Tweeddale’s son could console himself with the likelihood that Queensberry ‘will do no more in Scotland than any other secretary’.57 The Squadrone then began to complain publicly ‘that there should be a Scots secretary, which occasioned much of our former slavery which they say was to be removed by the Union and all such badges of distinction’, from which it was alleged that ‘there is nothing less intended than the overturning of all that’s done and by those who appeared forward in it’.58

Queensberry was present in the Lords on 16 Mar. for the second reading of a bill ‘for improving the Union’, the main purpose of which was to extend the English treason laws to Scotland. He joined the other Scots peers on 18 Mar. in the minority in a division in committee against inserting into the bill the titles of the English statutes.59 On 23 Mar. he acted as a teller on whether to resume the House; and as a teller again on 26 Mar., in voting for an amendment to give the accused a list of witnesses five days before the trial, according to Scottish practice. On 28 Mar. he signed a protest against the rejection of a rider which provided that all those accused of treason should receive a copy of the indictment at least five days before the trial, and then signed a protest against the passage of the bill itself. It was returned from the Commons with two additional clauses, including the provision for making available the list of witnesses, and these were considered on 14 April. The Junto lord Charles Montagu. Baron Halifax, offered a further amendment to delay implementation until after the death of the Pretender. It was noted that in the debate ‘all the Scots went one way’, against Halifax’s amendment, but that Seafield ‘whisper[ed] to Queensberry’, and then ‘spoke backward and forward but concluded that though he was not for delaying the effect of the clause until after the Pretender’s death yet he was for doing it till a peace’, possibly a tactic decided in advance by Queensberry and Godolphin.60

During this session Queensberry’s attendance became more sporadic; he attended on 57 days, 62 per cent of the total. Moreover, as his wife’s health deteriorated during the summer, he attended only five Cabinet meetings between July and November. Her death on 2 Oct. 1709 ‘after a long sickness’, was a devastating blow and accelerated the decline in his political activity.61 He resumed his seat on 25 Nov., but attended only seven times before the end of the year. He was, however, more assiduous at Cabinet, missing only one meeting between 13 Nov. 1709 and 26 Jan. 1710. He was recorded as present in the Lords on nine occasions in January. Neither Godolphin nor Marlborough fully trusted him: it was the strength of his political following that kept him in office, as well as Godolphin’s realisation that the only feasible replacement would be a Squadrone nominee.62 After the end of January Queensberry did not attend either the Lords or the Cabinet for a month. However, he was present throughout the Sacheverell trial. On 8 Mar. Godolphin recorded that Queensberry would ‘be right in the matter of Sacheverell’, and he duly voted him guilty on 20 March.63 The very next day, he was prevailed upon by Somerset to go back into the chamber and vote with the opposition in ameliorating the punishment to be inflicted on the doctor rather than abstain as he had intended.64 Thereafter he missed only two sittings until the series of prorogations which began on 5 April. All in all, he attended on 42 days of the session, 45 per cent of the total. He attended the prorogations on 18 Apr. and 5 June and was also present at every Cabinet meeting before the dismissal of Sunderland as secretary in June, a development which resulted in an increase in his departmental responsibilities to include some foreign business. In July Marlborough thanked him ‘for the account you give me of the distribution of the business in the secretary’s office.’65

During August there were conflicting reports about possible differences between Queensberry and Mar over the forthcoming election in Scotland with the likelihood that an agreement would be made with Hamilton, and even Atholl, by the incoming Tory ministry.66 There were rumours that Queensberry was ‘not pleased with present proceedings’ and might well ‘fall in again with the Whigs’, though, supple as ever, he was able to make an accommodation with the Tories (through his connexions with prominent Tory peers like Rochester and Ormond, and survived the ministerial revolution intact.67 Despite being declared ineligible to vote in the peers’ election, he was said to have obtained a proxy during the preparations, but did not participate.68 The electoral alliance brokered by Mar with Argyll, Hamilton and Atholl, was not to his taste, and he was said to be ‘mad that he has not been more regarded’.69 In fact, he was not in the confidence of either side in England, and at this point seems to have been primarily concerned to protect himself and his closest friends.70 Nevertheless his name appeared on a list drawn up on 12 Sept. by Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, of Lords to be provided for. According to another list of 3 Oct. 1710 he was expected to support the new ministry.

On 8 Aug. 1710, a newsletter reported that Queensberry after being ‘seized with an indisposition on the road’, had ‘continued at Durham being better is expected in town the latter end of the next week.’71 When John Clerk return to London from Bath in the autumn of 1710, he noted in his journal that ‘instead of the satisfaction I expected to find ... by seeing my dear friend the duke of Queensberry in perfect health’ he had ‘found him dying’.72 On 30 Sept. it was being assumed that Queensberry would travel to Scotland for the peerage election scheduled for 10 Nov., but a report on 7 Oct. observed that he would not be attending.73 Indeed, he was in Whitehall on 17 Oct. 1710 when he wrote to Marlborough on a patronage matter.74 Nevertheless, Queensberry rallied, and so long as he retained the secretaryship and his pension of £3,000 a year, was prepared to swallow resentment.75 He attended eight of the 12 sittings before the Christmas recess in 1710, although there were rumours in December that he would be replaced by Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay.76 On 2 Jan. 1711 he brought a message from the queen with news of the allied defeat at Brihuega and was named to the committee to draw up an address of thanks. On 12 Jan. during the inquiry into the conduct of the war in Spain, he voted against the resolution that the previous Whig ministry had approved of an offensive campaign and was therefore responsible for its failure, not surprisingly, perhaps, since he had been a member of the Cabinet at the time.77 On 14 Jan. 1710 Richard Dongworth informed William Wake, bishop of Lincoln, that Queensberry was ‘not disaffected’ to Episcopalianism.78

After 9 Feb. 1710, Queensberry did not attend again until 1 Mar. when he opposed Whig attempts to delay a hearing on the petition from the Scottish Episcopalian minister James Greenshields against a conviction for using the Church of England liturgy. His administrative role was being reduced, as the chief minister, Robert Harley, by-passed him, but he attended Cabinet meetings and was present when Guiscard made his unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Harley.79 During March and April he only attended the Lords six times. This number increased to eight in May, when there was renewed speculation about his losing office.80 On 21 May he registered a proxy in favour of Loudoun, but was able to attend again from 26 May. He last attended on 4 June. All in all he was present on 42 days of the session, 37 per cent of the total. Following the end of the session it was reported that Queensberry would marry the widow of John Leveson Gower, Baron Gower, a daughter of John Manners, duke of Rutland, but death intervened.81 He died on 6 July 1711 ‘at his house in Albemarle Street ... after he had, for some days, been afflicted with the iliac passion, or misere, which baffled all the remedies that were administered’.82 According to Mar, he ‘died ... handsomely, both like a gentleman and a Christian’, his last thoughts reserved for family and friends.83 His remains were carried north to be buried ‘among his ancestors’ at Durisdeer, Dumfriesshire.84 The Queensberry dukedom passed to his second surviving son, Charles Douglas, 3rd duke of Queensberry, a charter of novodamus in 1705 having amended the entail. Care had also been taken that the British dukedom should descend directly to Charles by a special remainder in the patent. His will provided for several executors, including his political ally, Glasgow, and his brother-in-law, Henry Boyle, the future Baron Carleton.

G.M.T./D.W.H./S.N.H.

  • 1 TNA, PROB 11/522.
  • 2 CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 453; CSP Dom. 1691-2, pp. 166-7; CSP Dom. 1696, pp. 32, 120, 167, 173, 195; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 538; CSP Dom. 1698, pp. 405, 432; CSP Dom. 1702-3, p. 454; CTB ix. 330; CTB xvii. 971; CTB xxii. 237; CTB xxiii. 78, 487; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 554.
  • 3 Scot. Rec. Soc. lvi. 216; Scot. Rec. Soc. lxix. 159; HMC Portland, x. 187-9, 460.
  • 4 Lockhart Pprs. i. 44-45.
  • 5 HMC Portland, v. 43.
  • 6 J. Clerk, Mems. (Scot. Hist. Soc. ser. 1, xiii), 44.
  • 7 P.W J. Riley, K. William and Scot. Politicians, 13, 90, 111, 113.
  • 8 A.I, Macinnes, Union and Empire, 181.
  • 9 Lockhart Mems. 15-16.
  • 10 Ibid. 27, 30.
  • 11 Riley, Union, 49-51, 61-62; Edinburgh UL, Laing mss, La. 180. 9c, 50a–c; Lockhart Mems. 30–1.
  • 12 Crossrig Diary, 126, 131, 133; Lockhart Mems. 39.
  • 13 Drumlanrig, Buccleuch mss, bdle. 1202, Queensberry to queen, 1 Sept. 1703; NLS, ms 3415, pp. 68-69; ms 14414, f. 188.
  • 14 Scottish Cath. Archs. Blairs Coll. mss, BL 2/83/11; NLS, ms 7021, f. 83.
  • 15 NLS, ms 7021, f. 81.
  • 16 NLS, ms 7104, ff. 74-75; 14414, ff. 193-4, 199; HMC Laing, ii. 8-9.
  • 17 NLS, ms 7104, ff. 85-86; NRS, GD 205/34/2/17.
  • 18 NLS, ms 14414, f. 200; 7021, ff. 77, 82.
  • 19 NLS, ms 7021, f. 87.
  • 20 Scottish Cath. Archs. BL 2/83/15.
  • 21 Marchmont Pprs. iii. 263-7; NRS, GD 406/1/7919; GD 205/34/2/22.
  • 22 NRS, GD 205/34/2/24; GD 406/1/7988; NLS, ms 7104, f. 77; 14415, f. 11.
  • 23 Seafield Corresp. 373; Riley, Union, 90; NRS, GD 21/334/1.
  • 24 Riley, Union, 92.
  • 25 Q. Anne Letters ed. Brown, 159-61.
  • 26 NLS, ms 1032, f. 38; 1033, f. 13; Seafield Letters, 19, 36.
  • 27 NRS, GD 406/1/5291; Seafield Letters, 54; Lockhart Letters, 13-14; Lockhart Pprs. i. 113-14.
  • 28 Seafield Letters, 44-45, 59, 61, 65, 67, 91; Lockhart Letters, 16-17.
  • 29 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 243-7; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto 4, f. 65; C.A. Whatley, Scots and Union, 234; Riley, Union, 176-7.
  • 30 NRS. GD 18/3131/13; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 270.
  • 31 Riley, Union, 175; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 651.
  • 32 J. Clerk, Hist. Union (Scot. Hist. Soc. ser. 5, vi), 86.
  • 33 Clerk, Mems. 62.
  • 34 Defoe, Hist. Union (1786), 215-16, 294, 299.
  • 35 Clerk, Hist. Union, 101-2; Lockhart Pprs. i. 164, 166; Defoe, 366-7.
  • 36 Defoe, 238-9.
  • 37 Riley, Union, 256-7; Whatley, 266-7.
  • 38 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 373-4.
  • 39 Baillie Corresp. 188; Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 33-35.
  • 40 CTB xxi. 272.
  • 41 Clerk, Hist. Union, 200-1.
  • 42 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 793-4.
  • 43 NRS, GD 18/3135/10, 12; NLS, ms 14415, f. 150.
  • 44 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 423; Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 93-94, 98.
  • 45 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 427.
  • 46 CTB xxii. 237; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 991.
  • 47 NRS, GD 112/39/217/1, 10, 19.
  • 48 Buccleuch mss, bdle. 1202, Queensberry to Godolphin, 14 June 1708.
  • 49 NLS, ms 1026, ff. 28, 56; Priv. Corr. D.M. ii, 258-9.
  • 50 NLS, ms 1026, f. 49.
  • 51 Add. 28055, ff. 410-11; Bodl. ms Eng. lett. d. 180, ff. 188-9.
  • 52 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1027, 1154.
  • 53 Burnet, v. 399-400; HEHL, LO 8862; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1177, 1197.
  • 54 SHR, lviii. 161-71.
  • 55 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1177, 1208.
  • 56 NRS, GD 158/1117/ 4/1–2; GD 112/39/224/9, 11.
  • 57 Burnet, v. 400; NLS, ms 7021, f. 153.
  • 58 Wodrow letters Quarto 5, f. 24.
  • 59 Haddington mss at Mellerstain, 3, Baillie to wife, 19, 21 Mar. 1709.
  • 60 NLS, ms 7021, f. 171.
  • 61 Pol. State, ii. 458.
  • 62 Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 143-4; NRS, GD 158/1117/3.
  • 63 Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1431-2; B. Cowan, State Trial of Dr. Sacheverell, 75, 98.
  • 64 G. Holmes, Trial of Sacheverell, 227, 229; Kent HLC (CKS), Stanhope mss U1590/C9/31, Cropley to Stanhope, [March 1710].
  • 65 Add. 61392, f. 84; Add. 61136, ff. 155-6.
  • 66 NLS, mss 7021, f. 247.
  • 67 Wodrow letters. Quarto 5, f. 55; Wodrow, Analecta, i. 286, 319; Lockhart Pprs. i. 319.
  • 68 Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii. 122; NLS, ms 1026, f. 62.
  • 69 Wodrow letters Quarto 5, f. 65.
  • 70 Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 150–1; D. Szechi, Jacobitism and Tory Pols. 63.
  • 71 Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 8 Aug. 1710.
  • 72 Clerk, Mems. 76.
  • 73 NLS, mss 7021, ff. 246-7.
  • 74 Add. 61136, ff.161-2.
  • 75 Jones, Party and Management, 161, 166.
  • 76 Wentworth Pprs. 161; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 664; NRS, GD 220/5/807/7-8, 11a.
  • 77 NLI, Inchiquin pprs, ms 45306/1.
  • 78 Christ Church, Oxf, Wake mss 5, ff. 13-14.
  • 79 Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 161–3, 166; HMC Portland, iv. 669-70.
  • 80 NRS, GD 112/39/254/12; Scot. Hist. Soc. Misc. xii, 133.
  • 81 BL, Verney ms mic. M636/54, M. Lovett to Lord Fermanagh, 23 June, 7 July 1711.
  • 82 Pol. State, ii. 456.
  • 83 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 491.
  • 84 Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 47, ff. 271-2; Daily Courant, 7 Aug. 1711.