KER, John (c. 1680-1741)

KER, John (c. 1680–1741)

suc. bro. 22 Oct. 1696 (a minor) as 5th earl of Roxburghe [S]; cr. 25 Apr. 1707 duke of ROXBURGHE [S]

RP [S] 1707–10, 1715–27

First sat 23 Oct. 1707; last sat 11 July 1727

b. c.1680 2nd s. of Robert Ker (Kerr), 3rd earl of Roxburghe [S] (d.1682), and Margaret, da. of John Hay, mq. of Tweeddale [S], sis. of John Hay, 2nd mq. of Tweeddale [S]; bro. of Hon William Ker‡. educ. travelled abroad (France, Italy) 1701–2.1 m. 1 Jan. 1708, Mary (d.1718), da. of Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, wid. of William Savile, 2nd mq. of Halifax, 1s. KG 10 Oct. 1722. d. 27 Feb 1741.

Sec. of state [S] 1704–5 (jt.), 1716–25; PC [S] 1704–8,2 PC 1709–d.; regent Aug.–Sept. 1714; kpr. privy seal [S] 1714–16; kpr. signet [S] 1716–?;3 ld. justice 1716, 1720, 1723, 1725; dep. high constable [S] 1727.

Commr. supply, Roxburgh, Stirling 1703; burgess, Edinburgh, 1703;4 ld. lt. Roxburgh and Selkirk 1715–d.

FRS 1717; gov. Foundling Hosp. 1739–d.5

Associated with: Floors Castle, Roxburgh; Halifax House, St James’s Sq., Westminster.6

Likenesses: oil on canvas by unknown artist, National Galleries of Scotland, PG 1021; mezzotint by J. Faber, aft. J. Richardson, 1741, NPG D21534.

Intelligent, urbane and cosmopolitan, Roxburghe was showered with compliments by his contemporaries.7 Even a political enemy, George Lockhart‡, praised him as ‘perhaps ... the best accomplished young man of quality in Europe, and had so charming a way of expressing his thoughts that he pleased even those against whom he spoke’.8 In Scotland, he was ‘esteemed by all one of the finest speakers in our parliament’.9 He was also a noted bibliophile.10 It was largely because of his presence and intellect that he was able to rise quickly to leadership of the Scottish political faction known as the Squadrone Volante, or Squadrone for short, ahead of others of his own generation like John Leslie, 9th earl of Rothes [S], his brother Thomas Hamilton† 6th earl of Haddington [S], and James Graham, duke of Montrose [S]; and superseding elder statesmen like Tweeddale, Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S], and George Baillie‡ of Jerviswood. At the same time, there were significant weaknesses of character—principally a high degree of self-regard, issuing in affectation and complacency— which in someone of Roxburghe’s inexperience made him prey to the wiles of more established political figures, by whom he could be outmanoeuvred in times of crisis.11

Doted on by his mother, Roxburghe was indulged in his upbringing, and lacked neither confidence nor a sense of entitlement. When he took his seat in the Scottish parliament (in 1703), he joined Tweeddale in the ranks of the ‘country party’ opposition, but quickly stepped from his uncle’s shadow, with some powerful (if occasionally overcooked) oratorical performances, and played a prominent role in the ‘New Party’ (as the Squadrone were first called), which took over parliamentary management in 1704 from the court party headed by James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S]. According to a Queensberryite, the Squadrone were ‘Whigs in their principles ... keeping firmly in their view the succession of the crown in the house of Hanover’, but at the same time ‘in their hearts they were known to have ... preferments and places in the chiefest degree of veneration’.12 Queensberry’s dismissal had followed a denunciation of him to the queen by a deputation from the opposition, including Roxburghe, for alleged involvement in the ‘Scotch Plot’. However, when pressed by the queen at the same interview on the settlement of the succession, Roxburghe had prevaricated and requested time to consult the Scottish electorate, his party ‘having no instructions about this from their constituents’. 13 This response was of a piece with earlier statements of Whiggish principle: the previous year he had proposed that the Scottish Parliament should not adopt the successor designated in the English Act of Settlement, ‘unless ... there be such condition of government settled and enacted as may secure the honour and independency of the crown of this kingdom, the freedom, frequency, and power of Parliament, and the religion, liberty, and trade of the nation from the English or any foreign influence’.14 When the Squadrone took over responsibility for managing Parliament in Edinburgh, with promises of office (in Roxburghe’s case that of secretary of state) it was on the tacit understanding that the succession would be settled.15 But Roxburghe stuck to his guns and voted on 13 July 1704 for the proposal made by James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], not to ‘proceed to the nomination of a successor, until we have a previous treaty with England, in relation to our commerce, and other concerns’.16 Hamilton was impressed, but more jaundiced observers such as Lockhart and the arch-patriot Andrew Fletcher were prominent in voicing their irritation with Roxburghe’s behaviour. Roxburghe and Rothes subsequently confronted Fletcher over his denunciation of them as ‘the greatest rogues’ and who ‘ought to be despised of all men that in the last parliament stood up for the good of their country now deserted it’.17 Eventually Hamilton too came to the conclusion that he could not trust Roxburghe, who after the session was duly appointed secretary, albeit jointly, with James Ogilvy, earl of Seafield [S] (later 4th earl of Findlater [S]).

Over the winter of 1704–5 Roxburghe found himself at the centre of discussions with the English ministers, lord treasurer Sidney Godolphin, Baron ( later earl of) Godolphin, and John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, over proposals to be made to the Scottish Parliament at its next meeting. It proved to be a rapid political education. He was at first alarmed by the evident English preference for union over a separate settlement of the succession: ‘I am persuaded that an union will be impossible, and that if the succession be brought about, it will be out of fear of an union’. But by March 1705 he was prepared to countenance the idea, pushed towards a greater willingness to accommodate the English ministry by the knowledge that John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S] (later earl of Greenwich in the English peerage), who was to serve as commissioner to the parliament, was ‘doing all he can to get the New Party laid aside’. 18 At this stage Roxburghe was working with Seafield in efforts to sustain the Scottish administration (and according to Seafield, was ‘very ready to follow my advice’), while others of the Squadrone were becoming suspicious that what was intended was the restoration of Queensberry’s ‘old party’. Roxburghe became increasingly perplexed, complaining at a lack of communication from Godolphin, and at times considering himself to be no more than a ‘cipher’.19 Gradually he realized that union would be proposed in spite of his colleagues’ reluctance. He told Baillie that he had been ‘truly confounded, for a treaty is destruction for Scotland, and the New Party knows it, and yet may be forced to go along’.20

Roxburghe was considering how the Squadrone could be persuaded to back union in the forthcoming parliament when he received the unexpected news that he and his colleagues had been dismissed. Frustrated and angry, he temporarily lost his equilibrium, and during the 1705 session fell into another altercation with Andrew Fletcher which resulted in a challenge and would have ended in a duel had it not been interrupted by the arrival of a cavalry detachment (following last-minute efforts by Roxburghe’s second to put the bout off on the grounds that Roxburghe had a bad leg).21 He now decided that he could not stand out against his colleagues and joined the opposition to union.22 On 31 July, following private discussions with Hamilton, he voted for the motion ‘to proceed ... to trade, limitations, and regulations’, rather than going immediately to a discussion of a union treaty, as the court had proposed.23 Godolphin responded with soothing words and vague promises in an attempt to win back Squadrone support, stating how much the queen’s service would depend on Roxburghe and his friends, and requiring them only to support the treaty, not to join with Queensberry.24 He was not entirely successful, but in Roxburghe’s case there is evidence that his words had some effect, notably in the division over the selection of commissioners, in which Roxburghe abstained, dividing from some in the Squadrone and enabling the court view to prevail to leave nomination to the queen.25

On 2 Sept. 1705 Seafield reported a conversation with Roxburghe, who was about to go to Bath for his health. ‘He satisfied me that he had done all he could in his present circumstances with regard to the treaty, for some of the party did not vote, and earl of Marchmont and some others joined with us, whom he thought he could have influenced.’ According to Seafield, Roxburghe promised further assistance, and let slip that he had ‘a desire to be employed’.26 At the same time, in a letter to Baillie, Roxburghe seemed to indicate a reluctance to commit to union. He also said that he was unwilling to meet Godolphin: ‘I have had no word from the lord treasurer, nor do I think it our business to concern ourselves with the lord treasurer, the Whigs, or the Tories’. He gave the impression of a man wrestling with his conscience. Eventually he announced to Baillie his conclusion (presumably couched in terms that were likely to persuade). Irrespective of the Squadrone, union would be approved by parliament: ‘the motives will be trade with most, Hanover with some, ease and security with others, together with a general aversion at civil discords, intolerable poverty, and the constant oppression of a bad ministry, from generation to generation, without the least regard to the good of the country.’ The choice was either union or a Jacobite restoration and ‘there is this to be considered, too, that after an union is fixed, Scotland may probably get the balance in their hands in the English parliament’.27

Although Roxburghe was ready to support the Union he believed it was better for the Squadrone to avoid public commitment, telling Baillie that it was ‘the New Party’s interest to follow rather than lead in this affair’.28 Soon afterwards he left Bath for London, where he saw the queen and Godolphin, who ‘pressed much my Lord Roxb[urghe] to be for the Union and pressed him to say so much’. His answer was that ‘he would know it when it came to be proposed… and would then declare himself for what he should think for the good of the country’. It is possible that his lukewarm response contributed to the decision that the Squadrone would not be represented amongst the Scottish commissioners to the union negotiations. Advised by Baillie of the disadvantages of this course of action—the Squadrone would be left with a choice of opposing the Union or assisting ‘the establishment of the old party’—Roxburghe and the former Scottish secretary, James Johnston‡ (with whom he was working closely) decided to enlist the help of the journalist George Ridpath, an outspoken critic of union, to undermine the reputations of the Scottish commissioners during the treaty negotiations.29 According to Lockhart, Roxburghe admitted his prime concern was to ‘be revenged of the duke of Queensberry’, which he believed could be more easily accomplished with a union.30 Once this smear campaign was under way Roxburghe’s main concern was that the Squadrone should appear unanimously in favour of ratification when the Scottish Parliament met, which in certain individual cases required much effort.31 All doubts were resolved on 15 Oct. 1706 when an attempt was made to delay consideration of the treaty until the Parliament had received the opinions of the shires and burghs. Roxburghe argued boldly that the articles must be dealt with first and to his relief was supported by party colleagues.32 Throughout the debates he gave the court ‘all the assistance they could desire’, speaking and voting a solid unionist line, and doing what he could in the counties in which he had influence to prevent the preparation of local anti-treaty addresses.33

In particular, the debate on 2 Nov. 1706 on the first article was a personal triumph. John Hamilton, 2nd Lord Belhaven [S], in a celebrated speech prophesying the disasters that would afflict Scotland if the treaty were passed, included a pointed reference to the Squadrone: ‘methinks I see Caledonia, like Caesar, slaughtered in the senate house, saying, “Vos mei filii Squadrone Volante”’. In the course of ‘a noble and elegant speech for an incorporating union’, Roxburghe told Belhaven that what he had foretold was fact

but the only reason was the want of an union, seeing by it all these grievances would be redressed, and all these distempers remedied; all our differences and animosities cemented; our trade set upon a right foot; our liberties and privileges, which are now so precarious, secured, and our wealth and strength increased.

Roxburghe then questioned Belhaven’s sincerity. He ‘had entertained the House with his visions and dreams but if he would ingenuously tell his real reasons why he was against an union … he would by that make more proselytes to the cause than his speech could enemies’.34 Two days later Roxburghe wrote to Godolphin to:

beg leave to acknowledge the honour your lordship has been pleased to do me in taking notice of any small assistance I have been able to give in the affair of the Union, and that her Majesty should be pleased to take notice on it is what I can make no suitable acknowledgement of ... Indeed, I am fully satisfied that this Union will not only save her Majesty from a great deal of trouble, but will even add to her glorious reign.35

The Squadrone expected that their leaders would be suitably rewarded, and there was talk of promotions in the peerage.36 Roxburghe himself was said to have requested a place for himself as a lord of session.37 On 25 Apr. 1707 he was raised to a dukedom (three and a half years after it had been rumoured that he was to be made duke of Beaumont), and subsequently was paid £500 in respect of non-existent arrears of salary.38 But by this time the Squadrone had fallen out with Queensberry over the choice of the first 16 representative peers to sit in the united Parliament. Queensberry was understood to have promised that ‘all the lords of the New Party should be chosen’, but Marchmont and Haddington were omitted. The Queensberryite, John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar [S], explained that the electoral arithmetic meant that only three of the five Squadrone lords could have been returned, and, even though he was chosen, Roxburghe ‘carried but very scrimply’, so that if the duke had ‘put more of the New Party in his list … it had disobliged more of our people and consequently made them against the … whole list, by which the whole New Party had been excluded’.39 Such logic did nothing to mollify the Squadrone, who were henceforth at daggers drawn with Queensberry. Roxburghe, in London for the summer, could see no point in showing resentment openly, since the ‘old party’ still enjoyed the backing of Godolphin and Marlborough, and the Junto were offering no more than ‘civilities’.40 But he hoped that the Squadrone, if they acted ‘upon their principles … may be able to make a much greater figure in [the] Eng[lish] Parliament’.41 In an analysis by Marchmont of 1707 he was listed as ‘sicut’ [as] Montrose.

The Union and 1708 Parliaments

Roxburghe took his seat in the Lords on the first day of the Parliament, on 23 Oct. 1707. He was gratified to be at the centre of affairs in England, where he had always cultivated a wide circle of friends.42 Among the Squadrone lords he was always the strongest advocate of close association with the English Whigs, and in his personal life had looked to wed an English heiress.43 This project too he brought to fruition later that winter, when he married the well-connected daughter of the Tory earl of Nottingham, whose hand he had been seeking since at least 1705, when he first entered into marriage negotiations, presumably without disclosing that he was receiving mercury treatment for syphilis.44 Nottingham had been reluctant initially to countenance the match but later came to revise his opinion.45 Roxburghe affected to be wearied by ‘bustling at court’, but the reality was otherwise.46 He attended regularly throughout his first session, being present on approximately 70 per cent of all sitting days. He also frequented the Commons gallery when Scottish disputes spilled over into the lower House; for example on 29 Nov., during the debate on a proposal by Baillie and other Squadrone Members of the lower house to abolish the Scottish privy council, in the teeth of opposition from Queensberry’s followers.47 Roxburghe then organized support for the bill in the Lords.48

The conflict over the council marked the beginning of open warfare against the ‘old party’ and by the time Parliament was dissolved Roxburghe was seeking to forge an electoral pact with Hamilton, who was in custody on suspicion of involvement in the abortive Jacobite invasion. On 25 Apr. 1708 Roxburghe was visited by Hamilton’s brother George Hamilton, earl of Orkney [S], with a message that Hamilton would join with the Squadrone in the forthcoming election if the Junto ‘will bid him’ but would otherwise close with Queensberry. Roxburghe promptly visited John Somers, Baron Somers, who consulted his friends and sent to Hamilton to inform him ‘what are the proper means for him to take in order to be liberated, which the Whig lords are to connive at, but dare not appear openly in, because of appearances’.49 The Junto were convinced that this coup would ‘carry the election of the 16 peers’, and ensured that all the Squadrone lords were in the list agreed with Hamilton. The Junto lord Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, the secretary of state with responsibility for Scottish affairs, went further and dispatched letters north, intended to be ‘shown publicly’, as proof that this alliance enjoyed ministerial, and by extension royal, favour. The recipients were Hamilton and Roxburghe, to whom other Squadrone lords were referred.50 Roxburghe attended the peers’ election personally.51 He was also actively involved in campaigning for his brother’s election to the Commons, though ‘Billy Ker’ proved unsuccessful on this occasion.52 When the result of the peers’ election seemed clear, Roxburghe sent Sunderland a list of those who had been chosen, including himself, and departed for London to confer with the Junto. Roxburghe’s return, and that of his associates, was a hard-fought affair. At least one of his own votes seems to have been owing to the importunity of his father-in-law, Nottingham, who used his interest with Thomas Osborne, duke of Leeds, to secure the vote of Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (Viscount Osborne of Dunblane in the Scots peerage).53 On his arrival in London Roxburghe found Somers absent but he wrote to his disappointed brother to assure him that he would ensure the treasurer (Godolphin) and the Whigs would ‘do what they can to have justice done else some will repent it when the Parliament sits down’.54 The subsequent discussions in London were encouraging, and he told Baillie that there was nothing ‘that the New Party can propose for the good of Scotland that the Whig lords will not, I believe, go into’.55

Roxburghe was present in the Lords at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708, after which he continued to attend on 73 per cent of all days as he and his friends (abetted by Hamilton) pushed to increase their numbers by challenging the elections of four court party peers. Shortly after the opening of the session, Roxburghe’s wife gave birth to an heir. William Legge, 2nd Baron (later earl of) Dartmouth, stood proxy for Nottingham as godfather, with William Ker standing as the other.56 Any pleasure resulting from the birth of a son, however, was put into the shade by political problems. The Junto’s failure to secure changes in the Scottish government gave rise to tension, and on 14 Dec. Roxburghe and other members of the Squadrone, together with Hamilton, had a lengthy conference with representatives of the Junto, to whom they complained, ‘that since the Union everything was done to make Scotland uneasy, and laid down that general that if the same spirit ruled in the administration of the government that had done formerly there was no good to be expected’. The Whigs seemed to agree, but without firm commitments, and suspicion remained. On 21 Jan. 1709 Roxburghe supported Hamilton’s successful objection against Queensberry’s participation in the peers’ election after he had received a British title (as duke of Dover). There followed a scare over the election of Roxburghe and other Squadrone lords, when on the 28th the House resolved that ‘a peer of Scotland, who took the oaths within the castle of Edinburgh, was thereby qualified to give his vote at the election of the sixteen peers’, thus validating a number of court proxies.57 However, ‘the matter was compromised betwixt the Junto and treasurer [Godolphin]’, and the next day the Junto, supported by Godolphin, successfully proposed that ‘all proxies on both sides should be sustained where the nullities were not already determined by the House’.58 When the votes were recalculated Roxburghe’s total was reduced by four, but was still enough for him to retain his seat. 

Queensberry’s appointment as third secretary of state on 3 Feb. 1709 was a further disappointment. Roxburghe, writing to Tweeddale, recounted that, at the turn of the year, ‘the Whig lords was very pressing to have Queensberry’s post taken away’ but that their failure to ‘name a person’ had permitted Godolphin to stall, and eventually to persuade the queen to agree to Queensberry. Whig demands for preferments for the Squadrone to counterbalance his influence in Scotland were answered by the nomination of Montrose to replace him as lord privy seal while Roxburghe and Argyll were sworn as British Privy Councillors. It was also rumoured that Roxburghe might be granted an English office, such as the lord chamberlainship.59 The omission of Hamilton threatened a rupture between the allies, but Godolphin would not hear of Hamilton’s advancement. Neither Roxburghe nor Montrose, perhaps pointedly, answered the summons to appear at council on the day that Queensberry was given the seals. Roxburghe reported that he ‘did all that was possible to prevent the New Party’s being distinguished from Hamilton, but there was no help for it. [The] treasurer knew the consequences of such a division, and so managed it very dexterously’. Despite this Roxburghe was hopeful that Godolphin’s scheme would fail, since ‘Hamilton is still in good terms with the New Party, but enraged at the Whig lords and treasurer’.60

The tension between the Squadrone and the Junto did not subside immediately and there was considerable unease amongst the Scots in March 1709 when English Whigs brought in a bill ‘for improving the union of the two kingdoms’, by extending the English treason laws’ to Scotland. The Squadrone expressed objections privately, and when the bill came to the Lords Roxburghe supported an unsuccessful attempt, in a committee of the whole on 19 Mar., to prevent the insertion of ‘the titles of the English laws. A week later he protested against the rejection of an amendment that the accused be given list of witnesses five days before the trial, and signed another protest when the bill passed its third reading.61 One of his concerns was that Scottish judges would be unfamiliar with English laws ‘which if people are to rebel this summer may prove very heavy to them ... in my humble opinion the doing of this thing in such a hurry is the most vexatious of the whole’.62 The Commons then added two clauses, that forfeitures should not apply to heirs, and that those accused should receive a list of witnesses ten days in advance.63 These were considered by the Lords on 14 Apr. and rather than oppose outright the Junto offered an amendment that the clauses should not take effect till after the death of the Pretender. Roxburghe voted against, but the addition was accepted and the bill returned to the Commons, which altered the date of implementation until three years after the Hanoverian succession, a change that was in turn accepted by the Lords. 64

The effects of the recent tension between the Squadrone and the Junto lingered into the summer and relations between Roxburghe and Baillie were compromised by Baillie’s earlier criticism of the Junto for failing to oust Queensberry. Baillie was alarmed when Roxburghe and Montrose began ‘to take umbrage at my way, and to think it does them hurt’.65 On 30 July 1709 Roxburghe wrote to Montrose from Edinburgh that he ‘had a letter from my lord president [Somers], and another from my Lord Sunderland desiring to know if Mr. Baillie would freely and heartily enter into measures and that if he was disposed, that care should be taken to show that greater equality was meant for the future by doing somewhat to distinguish him.’ Eventually an insistent Roxburghe managed to bring Baillie round. But there were further problems, and Roxburghe became intimately involved on behalf of the Squadrone in negotiations between the Junto and Godolphin. The treasurer was willing to sacrifice Queensberry and replace him with Seafield, a step Roxburghe welcomed since it accomplished his main aim—to dish Queensberry—and would leave the duke’s successor, Seafield, dependent on the Squadrone. With Queensberry out of office, the next election in Scotland would be wide open.66 It required great efforts to convince the Whigs but in the 1709-10 session of Parliament (of which Roxburghe attended three quarters of all sitting days) there was no repeat of the antagonism between the Squadrone and the Junto. However, apart from supporting Sacheverell’s impeachment, Roxburghe did not contribute significantly to proceedings.

In June 1710 Roxburghe advised that his colleagues should write ‘five or six lines of a compliment’ to the new secretary of state, Dartmouth, whom he considered to be ‘an honest and moderate man’.67 Despite this cautious welcoming of one of the new appointments, the extent of the changes clearly worried the Squadrone. Fearing the worst after the ministerial revolution of 1710, the Squadrone decided to boycott the peers’ election in October, though only after Roxburghe and Montrose had been sent on a futile ‘embassy’ to Mar, who was managing the election for the court party, with a proposal to join interests that they did not even take seriously themselves.68 Out of Parliament, Roxburghe remained politically active. While his brother William, who had been returned for Berwick, tacked towards the Tory administration, Roxburghe remained ‘obstinately honest’; loyal to his Whig principles and his Whig allies.69 Much of his energy was expended in a family dispute with the burgh of Dunbar, and in trying to assist William’s army career. But his marital connections ensured his continuing participation in high-political intrigues, and in the autumn of 1711 he was used by the Junto as an emissary to Nottingham (with whom he always got on well in spite of political differences) in the lead-up to the campaign in the Lords against the peace.70 Roxburghe was in London himself in December 1711 and January 1712, endeavouring to stir up Scottish parliamentary opinion over the Hamilton peerage case, and signed the petition presented to the queen on New Year’s Day from Scottish peers protesting their rights.71 In the summer of 1712 the Squadrone were engaged in ‘frequent meetings’ in Edinburgh. Roxburghe hosted ‘a great confluence of the Squadrone’ at his lodgings there, and throughout 1712 and 1713 was busy preparing for elections in Scotland, though in the event the Squadrone decided to repeat their abstention from the peers’ election.72 During the 1714 session Roxburghe and the other Squadrone leaders sent a confidential letter to their followers, acknowledging the need to broaden their ‘bottom’ in Scotland, by working with other opponents of the Tory ministry, including disgruntled ex-Queensberryites, and with Argyll, while emphasising the importance of maintaining a ‘distinction’ from Argyll and avoiding ‘too intimate a concert’.73

Roxburghe’s fidelity to the Hanoverian succession was rewarded by George I, one of whose first actions as king was to appoint him keeper of the great seal of Scotland. Roxburghe thus began a lengthy career in government, which will be dealt with in the second part of this work. He also showed his commitment to the Hanoverians in the field, raising and arming a contingent of troops to counter the Jacobites in 1715 and serving himself as a volunteer at Sheriffmuir.74

Roxburghe died at Floors Castle on 27 Feb. 1741, just over a month after the death of his brother William, and was buried with his ancestors in the church at Bowden, Roxburghshire.75

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

  • 1 Floors Castle, Roxburghe mss, 726; NAS, Hay of Belton mss, Roxburghe to Ld. David Hay, 28 May, 4 Sept. 1701; HMC Buccleuch, ii. 760–61.
  • 2 Lockhart Letters, 6.
  • 3 TNA, SP 54/12/274.
  • 4 Scot. Rec. Soc. lxii. 177.
  • 5 Copy of R. Charter Establishing Hosp. for … Exposed and Deserted Young Children (1739), 4.
  • 6 Dasent, Hist. of St James’s Sq. App. A.
  • 7 A Letter from Mr. Cockburn to the ... Earl of Roxburgh (1705); Macky Mems. 191.
  • 8 Lockhart Pprs. i. 14, 95.
  • 9 HMC Portland, viii. 261.
  • 10 Add. 72494, ff. 48-49.
  • 11 P.W.J. Riley, Union, 86, 295; P.W.J. Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 23.
  • 12 P.W.J. Riley, K. Wm. and Scot. Politicians, 56; Seafield Letters, 2; Lockhart Pprs. i. 69; Clerk Mems. (Roxburghe Club), 47–48.
  • 13 NAS, GD 205/33/3/10/6; Riley, Union, 75–76.
  • 14 Crossrig Diary 117; HMC Laing, ii. 29–35.
  • 15 Q. Anne Letters, ed. Brown, 140.
  • 16 Crossrig Diary, 139; HMC Laing, ii. 68, 71; CSP Dom. 1704–5, p. 62.
  • 17 NAS, GD 406/1/7843; Lockhart Mems. 66; Add. 70075, newsletter, 22 July 1704.
  • 18 Baillie Corresp. 31, 44, 55-56.
  • 19 Seafield Letters, 15, 18, 22, 35–36, 44; Lockhart Letters, 7, 9, 12; Baillie Corresp. 70; Seafield Corresp. 389–90.
  • 20 Baillie Corresp. 97.
  • 21 Seafield Letters, 52, 58; Lockhart Letters, 16, 19; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 234; HMC Portland, iv. 207–9.
  • 22 Clerk Mems. 56.
  • 23 HMC Portland, iv. 198; Crossrig Diary, 167; Seafield Letters, 64–5.
  • 24 Baillie Corresp. 118–19; HMC 14th Rep. III, 208.
  • 25 Seafield Letters, 84–87; HMC Portland, iv. 239.
  • 26 Seafield Letters, 83.
  • 27 Baillie Corresp. 123, 127, 133, 137, 138,139; Riley, Union, 216.
  • 28 Baillie Corresp. 143.
  • 29 Add. 72488, ff. 16-17; Baillie Corresp. 148, 151.
  • 30 Lockhart Pprs. i. 159.
  • 31 Baillie Corresp. 152, 159.
  • 32 Seafield Letters, 97.
  • 33 Burnet, v. 287–88; Seafield Letters, 98; Riley, Union, 334; K. Bowie, Scot. Public Opinion and Union, 132.
  • 34 HMC Portland, viii. 261–2; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 309, 335–36.
  • 35 HMC Laing, ii. 139.
  • 36 Baillie Corresp. 188 .
  • 37 HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 297.
  • 38 Add. 70075, newsletter, 2 Oct. 1703; A. I. Macinnes, Union and Empire, 294.
  • 39 Baillie Corresp. 188; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 372, 374–75.
  • 40 NLS, ms 14413, f. 154.
  • 41 Haddington MSS, Mellerstain letters, 2, Roxburghe to [Baillie] 7 July 1707.
  • 42 Roxburghe mss, 1067, Hon. W. Kerr to countess of Roxburghe, 14 Mar. 1703.
  • 43 Pols. in Age of Anne, 243–4; Roxburghe mss 739, W. Jameson to countess of Roxburghe, 20 May 1707.
  • 44 C. A. Whatley, Scots and Union, 34, 86.
  • 45 Rev. Pols. 214n.
  • 46 Roxburghe mss, 726, Roxburghe to his mother, 3 Apr. 1708.
  • 47 NAS, GD 112/39/210/16.
  • 48 Roxburghe mss, 739, W. Bennet to countess of Roxburghe, 16 Dec. 1707; Atholl mss at Blair Atholl, 45/7/190, 206; Addison Letters, ed. Graham, 90; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 427.
  • 49 Baillie Corresp. 192.
  • 50 NAS, GD 220/5/172/1, 2; GD 124/15/831/20.
  • 51 NLS, ms 1026, ff. 23–24, 28.
  • 52 NLS, Deposit 313/532.
  • 53 Priv. Corr. D.M. ii. 374; Add. 61628, ff. 142, 164-65, 169; Add. 28055, ff. 406-9.
  • 54 Add. 70055, Roxburghe to Hon. W. Ker, 19 July 1708.
  • 55 Baillie Corresp. 193–94.
  • 56 Add. 72488, f. 37; NLS, ms 7021, ff. 138-39.
  • 57 NLS, ms 14415, ff. 168, 176; LJ, xviii. 622.
  • 58 NLS, ms 7021, f. 151.
  • 59 NLS, ms 7021, ff. 157-58.
  • 60 Add. 61129, ff. 27-8; NLS, ms 7021, ff. 153-54; ms 14413, ff. 165-66.
  • 61 NLS, ms. 14415, f. 186; Haddington MSS, Mellerstain letters, 3, Baillie to his wife, 19, 26 Mar. 1709.
  • 62 NLS, ms 14413, f. 167.
  • 63 Haddington MSS, Mellerstain letters, 3, Baillie to his wife, 7 Apr. 1709.
  • 64 NLS, ms 7021, ff.171, 172.
  • 65 Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, 3, Baillie to his wife, 24 Jan. 1709.
  • 66 NAS, GD 220/5/206/2-3; GD 158/1117/3.
  • 67 NLS, ms 7021, f. 122.
  • 68 HMC Portland, x. 349; Roxburghe mss, 767, Roxburghe to his mother, ‘Monday 12 a clock’ [1710]; NLS, ms 1026, f. 62.
  • 69 Roxburghe mss, 796, 1063, Hon. W. Ker to countess of Roxburghe, 7 Feb. 1710[/11], 24 Dec. 1711; NAS, GD 220/298/5a.
  • 70 Roxburghe mss, 1061, Roxburghe to his mother, 13 Feb. 1710/11; 726, same to same, 22 Mar. 1710/11; 797, same to same, 10 July [1711]; 767, same to same, 18 Nov. [1712]; 756, same to same, 3 Apr. 1714; 750, same to same, 19 Sept. [?1711]; Rev. Pols. 214, 230.
  • 71 Pols. in Age of Anne, 339; S.H.S. Misc. xii, 158; HMC Laing, ii. 167.
  • 72 NAS, GD 248/561/47/11; Atholl mss, 45/10/60; Roxburghe mss, 767, Roxburghe to his mother, 20 Oct. [1712]; HMC Portland, v. 291; x. 303.
  • 73 NAS, GD 220/5/3231a.
  • 74 Roxburghe mss, 1059, Hon. W. Ker to countess of Roxburghe, 1 Oct. 1714; TNA, SP 54/8/67; Douglas, Scots Peerage, vii. 350.
  • 75 Daily Gazetteer, 19 Jan. 1741; London Evening Post, 3-5 Mar. 1741.