CAMPBELL, John (1680-1743)

His celebrated family history, and his own achievements, civil and military, invested Argyll with a public reputation that was at odds with his private character. A fellow Scottish Whig, Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, wrote that ‘his family will not lose in his person, the great figure they have made for so many ages ... [he] having all the free spirit, and good sense natural to the family’. Macky, Mems. 189. But, as a political enemy, the Jacobite George Lockhart^‡, observed, Argyll’s personality was more suited to military rather than political life: he had a ‘cheerful, lively temper’, was incapable of dissimulation, and was ‘extremely forward in effecting what he promoted and designed’, qualities which could make him a formidable parliamentary debater, but which could also make him arrogant, irascible and quarrelsome. He was also said to be ‘entirely led by his ambition’, which vaulted beyond his abilities. Lockhart Pprs. 110; Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. ii. 502; Burnet, vi. 33, 59–60. Moreover, in times of crisis he allowed himself to be guided by his brother Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay, which proved a mixed blessing. Ilay was more astute, but, being equally hot-tempered and, if possible, even more greedy and ambitious, was likely to commit the family to rash decisions. In consequence, the political course that Argyll followed was unpredictable: he zig-zagged between parties, made alliances and then discarded them. In matters of statecraft, although he was steadfast to the Protestant succession, he was not so firm in his commitment to Union. Manifold English connections made him a unionist by temperament. He was always anxious to play a part on a wider, British, stage, and contemptuous of expressions of narrow Scottish patriotism, but at the same time he was conscious of his Highland roots, and was a vociferous critic of the failure of English ministers to discharge their responsibilities to North Britain.

At the age of only 14, at his father’s request, Lorne (as Argyll was styled before inheriting the dukedom) was given the colonelcy of the regiment raised by his family after the Revolution. In 1696 and 1697 he and his tutor were granted passes to travel to Flanders, possibly to enable Lorne to spend time with his troops. CSP Dom. 1696, p. 459; CSP Dom. 1697, pp. 19, 135. Once the regiment was disbanded following the peace of Ryswick, he embarked on a European tour. He was commissioned again in the army in the War of the Spanish Succession, serving with distinction in the campaigns of John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, and gaining a reputation for bravery if not for talent as a strategist. At the beginning of the war Marlborough reported that he had given ‘great assurances of his duty to the queen, and that he shall always desire to be governed by me’. Lorne was overseas at the time of his father’s death but arrived back in England toward the end of October. A later newsletter remarked that the deceased duke was the ‘first of three descents that has died in his bed’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 256; Add. 28055, f. 70; Add. 70075, newsletters, 28 Oct. 1703, 14 Oct. 1707. After succeeding to the dukedom, and its hereditary offices, his father’s place as an extraordinary lord of session and colonelcy of the Scots Guards, Argyll took his seat in the Scottish parliament in July 1704. APS, xi. 124. In that session, he gave general support to the queen’s business, and especially the settlement of the Hanoverian succession, though he showed little sympathy for the ‘new party’ (later known as the Squadrone Volante, or Squadrone for short) headed by the commissioner John Hay, 2nd marquess of Tweeddale [S], and spoke loudly against them (his violence being put down to inexperience). HMC Laing, ii. 69–71, 75 80; NAS, GD 406/1/6939, 8101. His concern for the succession was undoubtedly genuine (a Jacobite agent reported him to be ‘absolutely sold to the English’), but his support for government was also driven by aversion towards other magnates in opposition. N. Hooke, Secret Hist. (1760), 66; W. Fraser, Cromartie Corresp. i. 251, 351. Despite his youth, the family’s prestige and extensive connections made him an obvious choice to succeed Tweeddale as commissioner when the ministry was reconstructed over the following winter, given the political undesirability of other candidates. Typically, he made a number of demands, relating to appointments and dismissals, before he would accept, the burden of which was the exclusion of the Squadrone. Even afterwards he pushed for more for himself, including an English peerage. NAS, GD 406/1/5341; Lockhart Letters, 15; Seafield Letters, 45–46; P.W.J. Riley, Union, 130–31, 134–5. In November 1705 it was rumoured that he was to be made earl of Bristol, though it was also acknowledged that this might be challenged by members of the Digby family and in the event, Argyll was granted the earldom of Greenwich instead. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 45, ff. 91, 93. He now found himself working with James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S], whom he hoped to supplant as leader of the ‘old court party’. Baillie Corresp. 69; NAS, GD 406/1/9724; Riley, Union, 126–30. His instructions were to settle the succession, and, if a treaty of Union with England were agreed, to ensure that the nomination of commissioners be left to the queen. Q. Anne Letters, ed. Brown, 161–2; HMC Laing, ii. 114. The parliamentary arithmetic, and especially the hostility shown towards Argyll by the Squadrone, worked against a settlement of the succession, which at first so exasperated the duke that he contemplated resignation, but it was decided to concentrate instead on securing union. Eventually, as a result of the shifting positions of factional interests, and in particular a crucial intervention by James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], Argyll was able to secure not only agreement for a treaty but for the nomination of the Scottish commissioners to be left to the queen. Seafield Letters, 20, 38–44, 47, 60–62, 64, 67, 82-83; Riley, Union, 136–52; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 235; Crossrig Diary, 171.

Earl of Greenwich and the Union

Though his success as commissioner was largely owing to the advice of the lord chancellor, James Ogilvy, earl of Seafield [S] (later 4th earl of Findlater [S]), and the solid support of Queensberry’s faction, Argyll ignored their contribution. He accepted at face value the praise showered upon him, and the reward of an English peerage, though he did not get the post of commander-in chief in Scotland which he had requested. Seafield Letters, 91; J. Clerk, Mems. (Scot. Hist. Soc. xii), 55; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 504. He therefore remained in his customary state of dissatisfaction, anxious in particular that Queensberry should not usurp his position at the head of government in Scotland. Riley, Union, 173–74. He took his seat at Westminster as earl of Greenwich on 4 Dec. 1705, and was only recorded as absent from the Lords on seven occasions before the end of the session. In all he attended on 63 per cent of sitting days. His numerous committee nominations, besides a raft dealing with private bills, included the committees enquiring into the state of the navy, and the keeping of public records; and to prepare addresses to the queen concerning ‘scandalous rumours’ about the safety of the Church of England, and naval manpower. In February he was noted as attending the levee of the Junto lord, Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton. Nicolson London Diaries, 369. Once the session was over he returned to his regiment, seeing action at Ramillies in June, in which he ‘acquired a great deal of honour’. According to one report he was ‘the second or third man who with his sword in his hand broke over the enemy’s trenches’ while commanding the Scots brigade. Argyll’s gallantry on the battlefield came after he had been replaced as parliamentary commissioner by Queensberry, and his brother omitted from the treaty commission, a double provocation; so, when he received a letter from Queensberry’s political lieutenant John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar, suggesting that he return to Scotland to assist in promoting the treaty, he proved hard to persuade. Marlborough was deputed to convince him to undertake the mission but warned the lord treasurer, Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godolphin, that Argyll was ‘so very fickle, that should he go with a resolution from hence to go thither, it is great odds, but his mind would change on the road’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 33, 43, 76; HMC Portland, iv. 309; Riley, Union, 177, 256; NAS, GD 124/15/393/3; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 263–4, 267; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. ii. 651, 655. Argyll unsurprisingly put his objections somewhat differently holding out for some promise of further promotion. He declared himself surprised that the lord treasurer ‘should think of sending me up and down like a footman from one country to another without ever offering me any reward’, and would return when ‘justice’ was done him. Thus it was only in September, having been promoted major-general at Marlborough’s behest, that he ‘promised to ... serve the queen in the affair of the Union’. NAS, GD 124/15/442; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 270, 279; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 659, 662. Even then he was reported to have a raft of further demands: according to the Squadrone Member of the Commons, George Baillie^‡, these included:

his regiment for his brother, the pay of major-general (for he has only the name), the [governorship of] the castle of Edinburgh, and command of the forces [in Scotland], £1,000 a year quit rents here, that is £1,500 to support the charge of earl of Greenwich; and is very angry with the answer he got, that nothing of that nature could be done until after the Parliament opens ... many says it is uncertain which part he’ll act. Baillie Corresp. 162.

In fact matters were resolved with a single concession: an earldom for Archibald (Ilay), who, it was thought, had been stoking up his brother’s discontent for his own purposes. Seafield Letters, 96; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 286–87, 291, 295. Once the patent was granted Argyll ‘did his part very well indeed’ in support of the Union, though showing some concern for the maintenance of the security of the Presbyterian establishment. NAS, GD 158/1151; Seafield Letters, 101; HMC Portland, viii. 259–60; Riley, Union, 330; Crossrig Diary, 181–82.

Argyll left Edinburgh in February 1707, still discontented. He was said to be ‘not in good humour’ with the court party, though disinclined to join up with any other group. He was also concerned as to whether, as the holder of an English title, he would be permitted to vote in the election of representative peers. If not, ‘he would either be an English duke before the Union or quit the queen’s service’. He was also angry that Queensberry and his friends ‘would not concert a list of the 16 peers to be chosen for the first Parliament of Great Britain and go soon into the election, and there to seclude the Squadrone or a part of them’. However, he was able to ensure the selection of three of his nominees, including his brother. NAS, GD 124/15/487/2; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 367-68, 374. On 12 Feb. 1707 he took his seat at Westminster, in time for the start of proceedings on the treaty, and he was named to the committee of 6 Mar. to draw up an address of thanks to the queen for the Union. Subsequently he was named to eight private bill committees. He was present in all on 37 per cent of all sitting days, but only attended four times between 25 Mar. and the dissolution, quitting the session early on 2 Apr., possibly because he had been detailed by the queen to carry to Hanover a copy of the Act of Union. When he returned to his regiment, Marlborough was wary of him, having been warned by his duchess about Argyll’s character. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 154; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 780. In the analysis of Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S] of 1707 he was described as ‘for the Revolution by interest if a court lead him not off’; he could, it said, be expected to influence William Kerr, 2nd marquess of Lothian [S], John Gordon 16th earl of Sutherland [S], Hugh Campbell, 3rd earl of Loudoun [S], John Dalrymple, 2nd earl of Stair and Ilay in the Lords and John Campbell^‡ and Daniel Campbell^‡ in the Commons.

Argyll took his seat in the first Parliament of Great Britain on 23 Oct. 1707. He was present a week later for the queen’s speech, and was named to the committee of privileges. In all, he attended 86 per cent of sitting days in the session. To many people’s surprise, he supported the Squadrone’s bill ‘for rendering the Union ... more ... complete’, which among other things abolished the Scottish Privy Council, a volte-face that Mar ascribed to his ‘anger at the Court for not providing his brother immediately’. NAS, GD 112/39/210/16; HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 419–20. However, he quickly reversed his position, apprehending a threat to his heritable jurisdictions. A. Cunningham, Hist. GB, ii. 139; Atholl mss at Blair Atholl, 45/7/206. He attended for the first and second readings, and on 5 Feb. 1708, in committee stated ‘his dislike of the bill’, but ‘used some words that occasioned [Laurence Hyde,] the earl of Rochester to pass a gentle censure upon ’em as tho’ they were too rough for that place’. In response, Argyll assured the House that ‘he could not forbear delivering his opinion when he thought the good of the nation was concerned in it’. Vernon–Shrewsbury Corresp. iii. 341–42; Addison Letters, ed. Graham, 90. He protested against the passage of the bill as a breach of the Union. This marked a general shift back towards co-operation with Queensberry, and Argyll’s uncle, John Campbell^‡, reported that the duke was afraid that in retribution the ‘Squadrone intends to lay him low’. NAS, GD 18/3140/11; GD 112/39/211/27. Argyll continued to attend regularly until the very day that Parliament was prorogued: he was appointed to eight private bill committees and to the committee which prepared an address of loyalty on the news of an imminent Jacobite invasion of Scotland.

The 1708 Parliament

Argyll was noted as a Whig in a printed list of party classifications from the beginning of May 1708. Because he was with his regiment at the time of the peers’ election in June Argyll voted by proxy for the court party ticket. The Squadrone protested against his proxy, on the grounds of his English peerage title, and the more technical issue of the way the document had been prepared. NLS, ms 1026, ff. 7, 9, 11. Although the Lords began their proceedings on the protests as soon as the new Parliament met, Argyll did not take his seat until 21 Jan. 1709, the day of the crucial vote on whether Queensberry was entitled to participate in the election following the grant of a British dukedom. Argyll, probably conscious of the potential implications for the validity of his own vote, divided with the minority for Queensberry. Concern for his personal position was to prove redundant, since the enquiry did not follow up this issue. His attendance during the remainder of this session was more erratic than usual, with him present in all on just 45 per cent of sitting days (though he was still named to 15 private bill committees). At the beginning of February Argyll was commanded to attend the Privy Council to be sworn a member. Add. 61652, f. 115. His parliamentary activity focused on the proposed extension of the English treason laws to Scotland in another bill for ‘improving the Union’. In a committee of the whole on 19 Mar. he spoke against the insertion into the bill of the relevant English statutes and three days later, again in committee, proposed that, as in Scottish law, defendants in treason trials should receive a list of the witnesses against them 15 days in advance of their trial. In the debate the number of days was reduced to five or two, the Scots supporting the longer period, which was carried against the court on a division. The lord treasurer (Godolphin) and two leading members of the Whig Junto then successfully ‘moved for the throwing out the whole clause, as making a dangerous change (at this juncture) in the laws of England’. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters iii, George Baillie to his wife, 19 Mar. 1709; Nicolson London Diaries, 488. On 26 Mar. the Tory Francis North* , 3rd Baron Guilford, proposed a further amendment in committee that prisoners be given a list of witnesses five days after a bill was found by the grand jury’, but despite support from ‘all the Scots’, including Argyll, this was rejected. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters iii, Baillie to his wife, 26 Mar. 1709. Then on 28 Mar., when the bill was reported, a rider was offered in the same form as North’s amendment: Argyll protested at the refusal to read the rider a second time and again when the bill passed its third reading. It was left to the Commons to amend the bill, among other things to give prisoners 10 days’ notice of the witnesses. These changes were considered in the Lords on 14 Apr., when the Whigs proposed delaying the implementation of the new clauses until the death of the Pretender, Argyll and his fellow Scots voting against. NLS, ms 7021, f. 171. Argyll attended the House for the last time on 19 Apr., the day before the prorogation.

Argyll again served with the army in the summer of 1709 and fought at Malplaquet, with conspicuous gallantry. NLS, ms 7021, f. 188. In the immediate aftermath, Marlborough (temporarily reassured of Argyll’s ‘friendship’) recommended him to the queen for the order of the garter, a mark of favour which would obviously have been of political advantage to the ministry. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1398. The queen wrote to Marlborough in mid-October conveying her approbation, though asking that Argyll should not as yet be informed of his prospective honour. Shortly after, when the queen informed Argyll herself that he was to have the next vacancy in the garter, she enjoined him to secrecy. It was not until March 1710 that Argyll was eventually installed. Q. Anne Letters, 285–6; Add. 61101, ff. 159-60, 163-64. In the meantime Marlborough infuriated both Campbell brothers by refusing to allow Ilay to exchange one regiment for another. When Marlborough antagonized the queen by requesting the captain-generalship for life, Argyll, who was trying in vain to ingratiate himself with her, poured fuel on the flames, suggesting to her, among other things, that should Marlborough retire, there were those at hand (such as himself) who could easily replace him. Marlborough now felt that ‘I cannot have a worse opinion of anybody else’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1432, 1434, 1446; Wodrow, Analecta, i. 285, 293; Wentworth Pprs. 146–47.

Argyll resumed his parliamentary seat on 17 Nov. 1709, but made little contribution to this session beyond the proceedings on the Sacheverell impeachment. In February he was noted as the only Scots peer present to decline to vote in the first division relating to the Greenshields case, though he then seems to have joined with the rest of his compatriots in voting in favour of sending for the minutes. NAS, Mar and Kellie, GD 124/15/975/1. The focus of the session, though, was on Sacheverell. Argyll was included in the committees of 15 Dec. to consider methods of proceedings on impeachments; of 18 Feb. 1710, to allocate tickets for Sacheverell’s trial; of 1 Mar. to enquire into the public disorder surrounding the case; and of 13 Mar. to inspect precedents for impeachments. When several Junto members (as well as Godolphin) sought the arrest of Judge Powell for bailing one of those engaged in the night of rioting, Argyll spoke in Powell’s defence, a stance that provoked a heated exchange with Wharton. A letter of 8 Mar. also credited Argyll with being one of those to ‘have hindered the pushing of several things’ aimed at by the Junto. HMC Portland, vi. 534-5; NLS, ms 7021, ff. 207-8. On 14 Mar., though, Argyll and his brother joined the Junto in voting that impeachments need not specify ‘the particular words supposed to be criminal’. Argyll justified his decision to vote with the majority on this matter as being that ‘he would have impeachments easy, since that was the only way of reaching some Great Men above any other method of law’. In the debates of 18 Mar. Argyll was to the fore in insisting that the Lords should be asked to vote whether Sacheverell was guilty or not guilty, rather than expressing their vote (as the Junto wanted) in the form of content or not content. He voted Sacheverell guilty, having earlier in the proceedings delivered a characteristically blunt speech in which he declared that ‘the clergy, in all ages, have delivered up the rights and liberties of the people, and preached up the king’s power ... and therefore they ought not to be suffered to meddle in politics’. NLS, ms 7021, f.209; State Trial of Dr Henry Sacheverell, ed. B. Cowan, 71, 72, 202; G. Holmes, Brit. Pols. 106. By this time he was in contact, through intermediaries, with Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, to whom he explained that he had to vote Sacheverell guilty for several reasons: because he had publicly stated the sermon ‘deserved censure’; because he was fearful of ‘promoting a High Tory scheme’ rather than simply undermining the ministry; and because he was afraid that by not doing so ‘he should prejudice his interest in Scotland’. But he was willing to oppose harsh penalties, such as the denial of ecclesiastical preferment while Sacheverell was under suspension. Argyll also hoped that in return for pressing a mild censure he might be rewarded with a dukedom, for which he believed Hamilton was also angling, a proceeding that left him ‘a little uneasy’. At the same time, he recognized that the promotion of Scots peers to British dukedoms might create difficulties for the queen, so appears to have concluded it was best that the matter ‘rest as it is’. HMC Portland, iv. 537-39; Holmes, Trial of Sacheverell, 228–29; Lockhart Pprs. i. 315. When Charles Howard, earl of Carlisle, proposed to the House that Sacheverell should be suspended from preaching or holding ecclesiastical preferment for seven years, and subjected to three months’ imprisonment in the Tower, Argyll countered this by suggesting that Sacheverell should only be sentenced to a year’s deprivation. Add. 72494, ff. 171-72. Argyll’s desertion of the Junto over the question of Sacheverell’s censure, along with his brother and two other English peers, was credited by Marlborough as the principal reason for the administration’s defeat on the matter. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1440. It was presumably in an effort to retain his support that Argyll was at last granted a garter. The grant upset Edward Russell, earl of Orford, who certainly saw it as a ploy ‘to bring him into humour again’. Add. 61367, f. 137; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1456. If this was so it did not work. He was recorded as attending on four more occasions before Parliament was prorogued, after which he rejoined his regiment. Godolphin now thought him an ‘inveterate’ enemy, as did Marlborough, and before long Argyll was corresponding with Harley directly. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1464, 1471, 1499; HMC Portland, iv. 548–49, 569.

The 1710 Parliament

Because of his own lack of discretion, Argyll’s involvement with Harley’s intrigues against the Godolphin ministry became common knowledge during the summer. By the beginning of October he was regarded in Scotland as having become ‘a grand Tory’. Wodrow, i. 286; NAS, GD 24/5/70; Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1473–5; Priv. Corr. D.M. i. 312; NAS, GD 170/630/5. He certainly welcomed Godolphin’s fall and it seems to have been towards the end of August of this year that he wrote to Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, congratulating him for Godolphin’s removal, by which he considered ‘the queen and her subjects had regained their liberty’. He also noted Somerset’s pivotal role in bringing the change about. After the dissolution on 21 Sept. he was appointed general of foot. He was apparently furious on hearing a rumour that the governorship of Edinburgh castle was to be given to Hamilton, but this came to nought. West Suss. RO, Petworth House Arch./15, Argyll to Somerset, 29 [Aug] n.y.; Luttrell, vi. 633; HMC Portland, vii. 17. Ilay co-ordinated election preparations with Hamilton and Queensberry’s representatives on his behalf. The Squadrone boycotted the election, so the agreed slate was carried unanimously. Argyll not only participated but took it upon himself to direct proceedings, ‘producing a list, and openly telling the peers, the queen would have these men chosen’. NLS, ms 1026, ff. 62; NAS, GD 406/1/8111; HMC Portland, iv. 633; x. 349. Taking his seat in the Lords two days after the session opened, he was named to the committee to prepare the loyal address. On 28 Nov. he ‘violently’ and successfully opposed the motion to give the thanks of the House to Marlborough, who, he said, ‘deserved none either as plenipotent[iary] or general, for that he had played away the best troops of the army against the walls of a few insignificant towns’. Bolingbroke Corresp. ed. Parke, i. 78; Wentworth Pprs. 159; NAS, GD 220/5/807; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, f. 61; Burnet, vi. 32. The animosity between the two generals was such that Argyll fought a duel with one of Marlborough’s aides-de-camp, who had declared in public that he had ‘forsaken his old friends’ and in particular had ‘proved ingrate to Marlboro[ugh]’. Hamilton Diary, ed. Roberts. 24; NAS, GD 124/15/1020/15; Scot Hist. Soc. Misc. xii, 126; Wentworth Pprs. 185. But, although Argyll hoped to replace Marlborough as captain-general, he was instead made commander-in-chief of the allied forces in Spain, upon which he sold his foot regiment for a reported £7,000, and was given an annuity of £3,000 a year ‘as a mark of royal grace and favour’, which continued to be paid until 1714. CTB 1710, p. 554; xxvii. 547; Jones, Party and Management, 164. Nevertheless, he was still said to be ‘full of disappointments’, both on his own account, disliking his new posting, and on his brother’s, who coveted the post of secretary of state for Scotland. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, ff. 63, 65; NAS, GD 406/1/5707; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 694; Bolingbroke Corresp. i. 239–42; HMC Portland, iv. 686–87; Wodrow, i. 318.

Following the allied defeat at Brihuega, the Tories launched an enquiry into the previous conduct of the war in Spain, especially the campaign of 1707 which had culminated in the disaster at Almanza. On 9 Jan. 1711, in a committee of the whole, Argyll displayed impatience at what he felt were prevarications by witnesses, and crossed swords with Whig speakers. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 955. He and the other Scottish peers helped to pass a resolution vindicating the conduct of Charles Mordaunt, 3rd earl of Peterborough. When two of the generals charged with advising an offensive war and thus contributing to the defeat, Charles O’Hara, Baron Tyrawley [I], and James Stanhope^† (later Earl Stanhope), petitioned the House on 11 Jan., Argyll made several hostile interventions, criticising Tyrawley, Stanhope and Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], and defending Peterborough. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, iii, Baillie to his wife, 11 Jan. 1710/11; W. Pittis, History of the Present Parl. (1711), 24, 31, 35, 38, 40, 42, 45; Wentworth Pprs. 176–77. The petitions were rejected and the Lords then resolved, on a division, that Tyrawley, Stanhope and Galway had been responsible for the military failures, ‘all the Scots’ voting with the majority. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, iii, Baillie to his wife, 13 Jan. 1710/11. The next day the spotlight was turned on the ministers, who were said to have ‘approved and directed’ the offensive. In a debate attended by the queen, incognita, Argyll first clashed with the Junto Lord Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, over the phrasing of the question, and then answered Marlborough’s attempt to justify the way the war in Spain had been prosecuted, adding a criticism of the decision to give command in Spain to the Huguenot Galway rather than Richard Savage*[1021], 4th Earl Rivers, ‘as for what related to the Earl Rivers, it was certainly a fault to prefer an unfortunate foreigner before a peer of Great Britain.’ Pittis, History of the Present Parl. 59–60; Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 974, 975, 977. Lockhart noted that the speech had disappointed the Whigs, who hoped that Argyll’s discontents would incline him to their side. Lockhart Pprs. i. 390–94. When the question was put, ‘all the Scots’ voted that the ministers in 1707 bore responsibility for the failures in the Spanish theatre. Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, iii, Baillie to his wife, 13 Jan. 1710/11. Argyll exploited the moment to propose that the House ‘pass a compliment’ on Peterborough for his ‘great and eminent services’ under ‘difficulties and discouragements’. He was said to be ‘busy mortifying the late ministry’ and ‘mighty zealous for the new ministry’. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 981; NAS, GD 45/14/352/2; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, f. 102. In relation to Scottish issues, however, his Presbyterian loyalties meant that he was awkwardly placed, as he showed when opposing the petition presented to the House by the Episcopalian minister James Greenshields against a conviction for using the liturgy of the Church of England. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, ff. 118, 153; Wodrow, i. 316. Argyll did his best to forestall debate, allegedly offering Greenshields ‘£200 and Irish preferment for his dropping it’. Nicolson London Diaries, 531. On 5 Feb. he also abstained in a division on a bill sponsored by English High Tories, to repeal the General Naturalization Act of 1709, which enabled Whig and Court peers to throw it out. Jones, Party and Management, 145. His last appearance in the Lords this session was on 19 Mar., after which he travelled to Spain as ambassador extraordinary as well as commander-in-chief. He added little to his reputation either as a general or a diplomat, though he explained his failures by complaining of a lack of resources. Post Boy, 20–22 Mar. 1711; Burnet, vi. 59–60; Bolingbroke Corresp. i. 325, 366–67. As early as June 1711 he was begging to be recalled, or, as he put it, released ‘from the galley in which I am chained’, a position he reiterated with such vehemence (combining complaints of the difficulties of the post with grievances at having missed opportunities for promotion), that Oxford (as Harley had since become) began to be concerned that Argyll was becoming his ‘enemy’. HMC Portland, v. 17, 73, 100, 141; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, iv, Baillie to Montrose, 4 Nov. 1711.

Argyll returned to England in March 1712. Evening Post, 22–25 Mar. 1712. He took his seat in the House on 24 Mar. and was in all present on just under a quarter of all sitting days in the session. Although he had previously given assurances that ‘misunderstandings’ between himself and Oxford (since promoted lord treasurer) would not give any advantage to the latter’s enemies, and had boasted that he was to be ‘made easy’, on 22 May he opposed the land grants resumption bill, a move interpreted by some observers as a sign that he was tacking towards the Whigs. HMC Portland, v. 152; Wentworth Pprs. 289–90; Jones, Party and Management, 148. Six days later he spoke and voted with the court in the debate over the ‘restraining orders’ recently issued to Marlborough’s successor as captain-general, James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, but he probably saw this simply as another opportunity to strike at Marlborough. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 5, f. 183; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters, v, Baillie to Roxburghe, 22 May 1713; W. Pittis, History of the 2nd Sess. of the Present Parl. (1712), p. 85; PH xxvi. 168–69; Burnet, vi. 425. In a meeting of Scottish peers he was said to have reacted angrily when some of his compatriots regretted not being able to do more for ‘toleration and episcopacy in Scotland’, and to have ‘put his hand to his sword, and swore that he would fight against episcopacy in Scotland as well as against the duke of Marlborough in England’. He opposed both the toleration (episcopal communion) bill and the bill to restore patronages. Wodrow, i. 319; ii. 34. In the case of the latter he secured an amendment in the Lords insisting that only Presbyterians were to be presented to livings. When it was objected that this was understood by the phrase ‘qualified ministers’ in the bill, he commented, ‘that after the steps taken since the Union with respect to the Church of Scotland, they behoved to have all things clearly expressed, and nothing could be depended on that was implied’. Wodrow Corresp. 275, 277.

Argyll embarked for the Mediterranean again in August 1712, with instructions to wind up the British war effort there. In the meantime he had been appointed as commander-in chief of the forces in Scotland, and governor of Edinburgh castle: promotions insufficient to assuage his disappointment at being passed over for the captain-generalship. In conversation with the Whig journalist Arthur Maynwaring^‡, an intimate of the duchess of Marlborough, he declared his contempt for the ‘rascals’ about the queen, and his fears for the safety of the Protestant succession: ‘the family of Stuart owed his family two heads, which they had taken from it; and he neither could nor would serve any of them, except the queen’. Priv. Corr. D.M., ii. 82–83. He then started back in December, by a route which took him to Paris, on ‘the queen’s business’, and was afforded a ‘private audience’ by Louis XIV. TNA, SP 78/154/72, 90, 100; CTB 1711, p. 75; Macpherson, ii. 367–68; Bolingbroke Corresp. iii. 550; Boyer, Anne Annals, v. 34. But he soon began to show a different face to the Tory ministry. In February 1713 he became involved in a heated dispute with the secretary of state, Henry St John, Viscount Bolingbroke, before the queen in Cabinet. Bolingbroke had taken exception to amendments put forward by the Dutch to the Barrier Treaty, upon which Argyll told him ‘how much Britain was obliged to the Dutch and that Britain and the States of Holland were under God the great bulwark of the Protestant religion’. When Bolingbroke proposed an amendment to the treaty to replace the words ‘her Majesty’s heirs being Protestant’ by ‘the heirs of her Majesty’s own body being Protestants’, Argyll observed ‘that he acted rather like the minister of the Pretender than like a minister of Queen Anne’s and that if there were not a man in Britain to impeach him of high treason he would do it’. He further said ‘that he would do it in a more public place for he knew his transactions in France and that he could condescend upon time and place when he had his private conferences with the Pretender’. The matter dropped, but when it became public knowledge, Argyll’s ‘free and bold speaking’ served to ‘animate the Whigs’ and to make Argyll ‘very popular so that he is huzzaed ... by the mob’. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 6, f. 66; Bolingbroke Corresp. iii. 489. But a Jacobite agent reported that he ‘begins to be obstreperous’ and that he had declared he would do no more for Oxford until given the deceased duke of Hamilton’s place (either master-general of the ordnance or ambassador to Paris). Macpherson, ii. 404.

Argyll took his seat in the Lords at the opening of the new session on 9 Apr. 1713 after which he was present on 79 per cent of all sitting days and attended regularly as a crisis unfolded in Anglo-Scottish relations over the bill introduced into the Commons to extend the malt tax to Scotland. The Scots were infuriated at what they considered yet another violation of the Union treaty, and Argyll attended a meeting on 26 May of Scottish members in both Houses to discuss their response. He led the chorus demanding a move to dissolve the Union, and was despatched with Mar and two members of the Commons to acquaint the queen of the decision of the meeting to move for a bill for this purpose. The next day another meeting agreed that the motion would be made in the Lords. Argyll was ‘for beginning instantly to let the court see they could and dared to oppose them’. Lockhart reported that Argyll and Ilay ‘roar and exclaim bloodily against the Union, and seem very positive that the Whig Lords would join to dissolve if our peers would help in the meantime to stop the ministry’. Argyll was said to be ‘night and day with the [Whigs]’. Lockhart’s explanation was that ‘the two brothers, finding that their court decays, are making this noise and opposition to force the ministry into their ways’. Lockhart Letters, 76, 80; HMC Laing, ii, 169, 170; Lockhart Pprs. i. 429, 432; Macpherson, ii. 414, 496; NLS, ms 25276, f. 65. On 1 June Argyll supported the motion for a bill to dissolve the Union, speaking ‘very handsomely, long and violently’, or, as another Scottish observer put it, ‘like an angel’. Scot Hist. Soc. Misc. xii, 155–6; NAS, Morton mss, GD 150/3461/9. His first concern was his own vindication. He noted that ‘he was by some reflected on as if he was disgusted and had changed sides, but that he despised those persons, as much as he undervalued their judgments’. He also conceded that ‘it was true he had a great hand in making the Union: that the chief reason that moved him to it was the securing the Protestant succession; but that he was satisfied that might be done as well now, if the Union were dissolved’. Speaking as a peer both of England and Scotland, ‘he believed in his conscience, it was as much for the interest of England as Scotland to have it dissolved; and if it were not, he did not expect long to have either property left in Scotland, or liberty in England’. He concluded by attacking the malt duty as unjust and unequal: ‘if this tax were collected in Scotland, it must be done by a regiment of dragoons’. Later in the debate the subject of the Pretender was raised, and Argyll remarked that he ‘knew not what name to call him by, his name being now as uncertain as his parents’. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 1217–19; Lockhart Pprs. i. 435–36. After the motion was rejected there was no attempt to revive the proposal to dissolve the Union. Argyll then unavailingly opposed the second reading of the malt bill, speaking ‘very well’ in committee on 8 June, before signing the protest which condemned it as a violation of the Union and an unfair burden on Scotland. Scot Hist. Soc. Misc. xii, 158–61; BLJ, xix. 168. As expected, he also opposed the French commercial treaty, declaring that he would ‘hazard all his posts rather than consent to that is so destructive to his country’. Wentworth Pprs. 337; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 7, f. 168. He was drawing ever closer to the Whigs, and encouraging others, such as the Hanoverian Tory Arthur Annesley, 5th earl of Anglesey, to follow his example. It was rumoured in Scotland that he was about to resign all his offices and perquisites, but he was persuaded out of such a precipitate step by his brother Ilay. Macpherson, ii. 495–96; Wodrow, ii. 275.

The 1713 Parliament and after

In preparation for the forthcoming Parliament Argyll spoke to the queen about the election of representative peers and the danger posed by the likely inclusion of several ‘avowed Jacobites’ on the court list. He added that ‘he suspected even some persons about her Majesty’. But he failed to convince, nor did he receive encouragement when he asked directly for an employment for his brother. Ilay’s failure to secure election as a representative peer completed the family’s break with the ministry. In November 1713 Argyll was assuring the Hanoverian envoy, Schütz, that Oxford ‘could not be depended on; that he knew him better than anyone, from his own experience; and that he was very sure, that he exerted himself with all his might against the succession, and for the Pretender’. He also said that:

he constantly spoke to the queen about the succession; but, however frequently, could never obtain any answer from her ... he was not well received by her Majesty. He ascribed the cause of this, to the malicious reports which had been made to her of his conduct, and he entreated her to let him know what he was accused of, that he might exculpate himself by informing her of the truth; but having never been able to obtain that favour, he conjured her to compare the freedom and the boldness, with which he always told her his opinion concerning affairs in general, and concerning his diffidence of some persons who had the honour of approaching her frequently with the manner in which they spoke to her, in order to judge who acted most honourably to her. But still he had no answer. Macpherson, ii. 507, 511–12.

Argyll took his seat in the Lords on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on over 85 per cent of all sitting days. He quickly emerged as one of the leading critics of the ministers, working closely with the Whigs. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 8, f. 70; G. Flint, Hist. Last Parl. (1714), 42. On 2 Mar. he was named to the committee to prepare an address offering a reward to discover the author of the pamphlet, The Public Spirit of the Whigs (widely known to be the work of Swift). When the committee reported, ministers and their friends said nothing of authorship, but Argyll ‘turned himself towards my lord treasurer’, and said, ‘that noble lord was well acquainted with him [the author] and that himself had frequently dined with him at the earl’s table nay had been drunk with him there’. BLJ, xix. 170. He signed a protest after the defeat of a further Whig amendment to the address. During a debate on 17 Mar. on the peace with Spain, he made ‘a very fine speech’ criticising the government’s failure to safeguard the interests of the Catalans, who, he said, ‘were a people possessed of as great privileges, as any in the world, and not less than ours. They had a parliament which only had the power of raising money, and they could call their ministers to an account for the misapplication of it’. Tyranny was ‘an infectious weed, and spreads. Scarce any nation have their liberties left but our own, and certainly it is our interest to establish, or to restore liberty wherever we can’. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 8, f. 69. He distinguished himself again on 5 Apr. when the House considered the danger to the Protestant succession. To a remark by Oxford that the peace had been the most advantageous possible, he responded by denouncing the ‘shameful’ desertion of the allies, and exposed the weak condition of France, where he himself had lately seen ‘marks of a general desolation’. As for the Hanoverian succession, he ‘firmly believed’ it to be ‘in danger from the present ministers, whom he durst charge with maladministration, both within these walls, and without’. He offered to prove that Oxford ‘had yearly remitted £4,000 to the highland clans of Scotland, who were known to be entirely devoted to the Pretender, in order to keep them under discipline, and ready for any attempt’. Likewise the recent remodelling of the army, and the dismissal of officers known to be loyal to the Protestant succession ‘were clear indications of the designs in hand’. It was ‘a disgrace to the nation, to see men, who had never looked an enemy in the face, advanced to the posts of several brave officers, who, after they had often exposed their lives for their country, were now starving in prison for debt, for want of their pay.’ Naturally he voted against the motion that the Hanoverian succession was not in danger. He was then named to the committee to prepare an address calling for a proclamation of a reward to anyone apprehending the Pretender, and on 8 Apr. he supported a Whig motion that the House inquire into the money paid to the Highland clans. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 1336, 1339; Wentworth Pprs. 366, 373-74, 375; Lockhart Letters, 95; BLJ, xix. 171. Outside the House, he was also doing what he could to bring Hanoverian Tories into outright opposition. Macpherson, ii. 585, 587. Such behaviour inevitably resulted in dismissal from all his posts, though he was able to raise £10,000 by the sale of his Guards commission. NAS, GD 3/5/897; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow pprs. letters Quarto, 8, f. 81. He confirmed his alienation from the Tories on 15 June by signing a protest when the schism bill passed its third reading. The day before the prorogation he subscribed another protest at the Lords’ refusal to address to the queen complaining that the benefits of the Asiento had been ‘greatly obstructed, by unwarrantable endeavours to gain private advantages to particular persons’.

When he heard of the queen’s deteriorating health on 30 July Argyll, accompanied by the duke of Somerset, presented himself at the Privy Council without being summoned, and insisted that the queen be examined by her physicians so that they could give an account of her illness in writing. The intervention of the two dukes proved instrumental in helping precipitate a solution to the power vacuum left by Oxford’s dismissal a few days before. Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, was appointed lord treasurer and, on a motion of Somerset and Argyll, ‘it was agreed, that all Privy Councillors, in or about London, without distinction should attend; which the ... friends to the house of Hanover, did that very day’. After the queen’s death Argyll was found to have been named as one of the lords justices to govern the country until the arrival of the new king. He attended the Lords on five occasions during the brief session called in the wake of the queen’s death, including 25 Aug., the day Parliament was prorogued. Restored by George I as commander-in-chief in Scotland and governor of Minorca, he was soon observed at Marlborough’s levee, the two men acting as if there had never been any quarrel between them; but the rapprochement did not last long. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 1368–69; Wentworth Pprs. 422, 440.

Argyll was raised to a dukedom in the British peerage in 1719. The remainder of his political and parliamentary career will be dealt with in the second part of this work. He died on 4 Oct. 1743, at Sudbrook, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. His brother Ilay succeeded him in the dukedom of Argyll.