OGILVY, James (1663-1730)

A pragmatist who naturally gravitated to government, James Ogilvy, 4th earl of Findlater and 1st earl of Seafield, was a shrewd and subtle politician and also a capable man of business, qualities which made him perennially attractive to English ministers and thus a permanent feature of Scottish administrations in the reigns of William III and Anne. In the words of the Jacobite George Lockhart^†, ‘he was finely accomplished ... but withal so entirely abandoned to serve the court measures, be they what they will, that he seldom or never consulted his own inclinations, but was a blank sheet of paper, which the court might fill up with what they pleased’. Lockhart Pprs. i. 52. Gilbert Burnet, bishop of Salisbury, characterized him as one who ‘affects plainness, and sincerity in his conversation, but is not sincere; is very beautiful in his person, with a graceful behaviour, smiling countenance, and a soft tongue’. Macky Mems. 182. Several Williamites shared this view; but there were others of a similar political kidney, including the influential Presbyterian divine William Carstares, with whom Ogilvy was able to forge an enduring personal friendship, and during his rise to prominence under King William he was unusual in being ‘well spoken of’ by all factions. Carstares SP, 731, 766, 780; Seafield Corresp. 177–8.

James Ogilvy did not become the heir to the earldom of Findlater until the death of his elder brother Walter in 1699. Seafield Corresp. 265. As the younger son of an earl with limited resources, Ogilvy was ‘bred a lawyer’. Lockhart Pprs. i. 52. His material prospects improved following Walter’s conversion to Catholicism in 1688, when their father excluded Walter from the succession to the family estates. Seafield Corresp. 42-3. During the 1689 convention, Ogilvy ‘said most about the crown being declared vacant’ and voted against the resolution that James VII had forfeited the crown. NAS, GD406/1/6345. Ogilvy does not seem to have especially marked himself out as part of the opposition, and his inclusion in a list of lords of session submitted by Sir James Montgomerie of Skelmorlie to James VII, to take office should the Montgomerie plot succeed, was a reflection of the broad base of the coalition Montgomerie sought to form rather than a sign of Ogilvy’s commitment to Jacobitism. Ogilvy reinvented himself as a ‘Revolutioner’, became sheriff of Banffshire in 1692, and was brought into government in 1693 by secretary of state James Johnston^‡. CSP Dom. 1691–2, pp. 261, 533. He explained to his father in a letter of 28 Feb. that he and his neighbours in Banffshire must understand that he would ‘look to the king’s interest so long as I am sheriff’ and in another of 29 Mar. that his father could not expect money from his son to support his journey to Parliament unless he promised to ‘comply with the Presbyterian interest, and to concur with the circumstances of the times’. Seafield Corresp. 97, 99. At the end of 1695 he could write to the Presbyterian divine William Carstares asking him to express his ‘humble duty’ to Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland, whom Carstares advised on political affairs, and that he was ‘entirely his lordship’s servant’. Carstares SP, 258.

In 1698, Ogilvy was appointed president of Parliament; in anticipation of his taking up this role he was created Viscount Seafield [S]. NAS, PA2/37, f. 90v-91. He pursued a policy of tolerating the opposition rather than always indulging the interests of his magnate allies James Douglas, 2nd duke of Queensberry [S], and Archibald Campbell, 10th earl (later duke) of Argyll [S], refusing to join them in submitting a list of opponents in Parliament of whom the king should make ‘examples’ because ‘I being his Majesty’s immediate servant, am unwilling to enter into any concert without his direction.’ He was anxious to assure the court that he knew his authority depended on royal patronage above the goodwill of his territorially powerful colleagues. Carstares SP, 441. During 1699 he persuaded the chancellor, Patrick Hume, earl of Marchmont [S], of the merits of a union of Scotland and England, arguing for the benefits of efficient government and independence from magnate factions. Marchmont Pprs. iii. 178. He distanced himself from the enthusiasm shown for the Darien scheme, for which he was remembered as ‘visibly against the interest of his country’. Lockhart Pprs. i. 52. On 12 July 1700, however, he intervened with William to secure the king’s good offices to help the returning Darien colonists led by Captain Robert Pincarton, who had been captured at sea, transported to Andalusia, tried and sentenced to death. Seafield Corresp. 303-4; Carstares SP, 554. He subsequently emphasized the support of William for the development of Scottish trade in a letter to Carstares. Seafield Corresp. 319. Seafield shared in the peerage promotions given to leading Scottish ministers in June 1701. His advancement to an earldom was justified to his father on the grounds that ‘Carmichael would needs be an earl, and my Lord Seafield was forced to take on too to keep his rank with him, being already a step before him.’ Seafield Corresp. 332.

Seafield continued to prosper under Queen Anne: his management of the 1702 parliamentary session was rewarded in November by promotion to the lord chancellorship, followed by his appointment in 1703 as the queen’s commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland despite being ‘a person not very grateful to that [Presbyterian] party’. Add. 70075, Newsletter, 2 Feb. 1703. Seafield distanced himself from the Presbyterian interest by forming a coalition between the court party and the cavaliers, traditional supporters of the Stuarts, which saw cavaliers replace Presbyterians on the Privy Council. Lockhart Pprs. i. 57; W. Fraser, Cromartie Corresp. i. 187–8. The strategy succeeded in removing doubts which lingered in Scotland over Parliaments beginning with the 1689 convention and the legality of Anne’s succession to the crown. However, it was seen as a failure in London, partly because Queensberry as lord high commissioner was unable to credibly reinvent himself as a patron of the court-cavalier alliance and fell back on Presbyterian support. Seafield’s relationship with the English ministry, headed by Sidney Godolphin, Baron Godolphin (later earl of Godolphin), lord treasurer, and John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, relied on his ability to deliver the political union of the two kingdoms. NLS, ms 3420, fos. 19r-20v. Seafield subsequently distanced himself from Queensberry, along with other senior office holders including John Murray, duke of Atholl [S], and George Mackenzie, earl of Cromarty [S] the three (amongst others) were made Knights of the Thistle following the end of the session, a sign of Anne’s continued support and of the isolation of Queensberry. Burnet, v. 100n. Also after the end of the session, Seafield pointed out in a memorandum the opportunities a fractured Scottish situation offered for a lasting settlement, by awarding places more broadly and (on more doubtful ground) reducing salaries as new appointments were made. Godolphin’s sense of the superiority of England’s wealth and governance was flattered at the same time as Seafield argued that the majority of Scottish opinion was ‘firm in [Revolution] principles’ on which ‘the security of the British government does now stand.’ HMC Laing, ii.44-5. By 2 Nov. 1703, Seafield was reputedly ‘more in favour at court than ever he was’. Seafield Corresp. 365.

Seafield’s frustration at the inability of the court party to win a majority in Parliament led him to see an opportunity in the visit of an opposition delegation to London in March 1704 drawn from the Presbyterian wing of the country party. This included John Ker, 5th earl (later duke) of Roxburghe, John Leslie, 9th earl of Rothes, and George Baillie^‡ of Jerviswood. Marchmont Pprs. iii. 263. Seafield negotiated with Roxburghe and Baillie, while maintaining Queensberry in office until he was sure that a new administration could be formed. The strategy was documented in two sets of formal instructions to Seafield from the queen, both dated 5 Apr. 1704: one short and public urging the settlement of the succession on Sophia of Hanover and the employment of ‘men of quality and interest’; and another, longer, secret, set which authorized the reconstruction of the Scottish ministry under his correspondents’ candidate, John Hay, 2nd marquess of Tweeddale [S], as commissioner, on the understanding that Tweeddale would carry the Protestant succession through Parliament and in exchange be allowed to impose limitations on the crown. HMC 14th Rep. III, 194-5.

On 23 Apr. 1704, Seafield arrived in Edinburgh as chancellor making ‘the most splendid entry that has been seen here since the duke of York came down commissioner.’ Add. 70075, newsletter, 29 Apr. 1704. Queensberry was dismissed at the end of May and Tweeddale appointed. Roxburghe and Rothes were incorporated into the ministry in October, Seafield at this point ceding the chancellor’s office to Tweeddale. Post Man and the Historical Account, 1331, 17-19 Oct. 1704. However, impasses over the Protestant succession and trade arrangements between the two kingdoms meant that this ministry would never meet Parliament. A solution emerged between Roxburghe, Seafield and Godolphin, to rearrange the Scottish ministry to include another faction alongside the ‘New Party’ of Roxburghe and his colleagues. By 11 Jan. 1705 Seafield had met Godolphin and Marlborough to explain a proposal developed with Roxburghe to make John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], commissioner. On 30 Jan. Roxburghe claimed to Baillie that Seafield was ‘prodigiously out of humour’, determined to resume the position of chancellor, and in danger of coalescing with Queensberry, but this may have been a ruse to ensure Baillie’s continued support for the project. Baillie Corresp. 40-41. Godolphin supported Seafield’s return as chancellor and requested that he offer the commission to Argyll first ‘that you may have the government of him, as far as he is capable of being managed.’ NLS, ms 3240, Godolphin to Seafield, 31 Jan. 1705. Godolphin’s ominous caveat concerning Argyll proved well-judged; though for the time being Roxburghe’s description of Seafield as ‘the greatest villain in the world’ on 1 Feb. recognized that the new settlement was designed to give Seafield more political freedom and that he might shortly cast his New Party allies aside. Baillie Corresp. 42.

Seafield resumed the chancellorship on 9 Mar. 1705. Baillie recognized that the reconstruction was ‘wholly projected’ by Seafield. Seafield’s ambiguity and the selective information that he provided about both parties in correspondence allowed him to manipulate the situation in what he saw as the best interests of the administration as well as giving him the opportunity of distancing himself, if the arrangements collapsed. Baillie Corresp. 49-51. On 24 Mar. he wrote to Godolphin that he found the New Party’s attitude to continuing in government ‘diffident’ as while they continued to express ‘a great deal of regard’ towards the queen, they were unwilling to act with the current lord high commissioner; yet failure to make terms with them would leave the government’s Scottish policy at the mercy of the opposition. Seafield Letters, 15-18. The same day, James Johnston^‡ wrote to Baillie that Seafield had realized too late that he could have exploited the stand-off between parties to allow for his own elevation as commissioner. Baillie Corresp. 62-3. Seafield was quickly disillusioned by what he saw as Argyll’s excessive encouragement of aggrieved members of the old party and warned Godolphin that Argyll would not take his advice. Seafield Letters, 23-4. Roxburghe meanwhile wrote to Baillie that he should ensure that Seafield was ‘so dipped with us as that he may not be able to get off again’. Baillie Corresp. 70.

Seafield’s letters to Godolphin in April 1705 took the character of a primer on the dangers of government by party in Scotland as he sought to secure those in the old party who might ‘bring this kingdom to some settlement’ without also losing all of those who ‘push to have all the employments in their own hands’. His position on the continued service of the New Party was that he would ‘speak plainly’ to Argyll, and (in May) that he ‘heartily wish[ed] success whoever be employed, and my endeavour shall not be wanting to serve the queen.’ Seafield Letters, 34-35. On 5 May Godolphin told Seafield that he should persuade the New Party to state their concurrence with government measures so that Argyll could not remove them as he intended. NAS, GD248/572/7/11. Seafield was left balancing the need for a stable and inclusive ministry with the possibility that Argyll might resign if he did not get his own way, which would have left Seafield’s goal of a rapprochement with England, even if one short of union, more remote. Baillie Corresp. 98. Seafield opted for Argyll, and the New Party was turned out of office in June despite the queen’s reported unhappiness both with the decision and with her own reliance on Argyll. Seafield’s reputation and freedom of manoeuvre were damaged and he recognized the need for Queensberry’s return from London to act as a more efficient limit on Argyll’s authority. NAS, GD248/572/7/14; Seafield Letters, 54.

Seafield lauded his own limited successes such as the votes of 6 July 1705 concerning the settlement of the crown in the Protestant line: the servants of the crown and their supporters were not able to win the vote on limitations to be placed on a Protestant successor, but won that on proceeding by overtures rather than by resolves with the support of the New Party (now out of office and dubbed the Squadrone Volante) and Queensberry. Even so, Seafield told Godolphin that the crown was left weak in Parliament, the cavaliers were likely to succeed in reducing the crown’s income from customs, and that any treaty on the succession with England was likely to be hedged with preconditions. Seafield Letters, 55-56. By 18 July, Argyll had given up on any measure relating to the succession succeeding in that session of parliament; Seafield conceded to Godolphin that his management had been confounded. Seafield Letters, 60-61.

The Union, 1705-7

Godolphin’s request that Seafield obtain any act that Parliament might agree to authorizing the negotiation of a treaty with England left Seafield dependent on Queensberry. On 31 July 1705 he summarized in Parliament his belief in a union with England based on four points: security of the Protestant religion; ‘trade and other advantages… which no other kingdom could afford’; and ‘freedom and liberty’. ‘I saw no other method for securing our peace, the two kingdoms being in the same island, and foreign assistance was both dangerous to ourselves and England.’ Seafield Letters, 63-65. In the debates on the treaty, the rights of Parliament and the condition of the crown Seafield spoke of the chaos across Great Britain which would ensue if Parliament limited the royal prerogative, recalling the civil wars of the 1640s and the conquest of Scotland by Oliver Cromwell^‡. Seafield Letters, 75. Seafield lost that argument, nomination of the Privy Council and officers of state being placed in the estates by a majority of 16. Seafield Letters, 76-77. More than ever, Seafield was dependent upon support from London, though on 28 Aug. the act for the treaty with England passed its first reading in part because of Squadrone abstentions gained through conversations with Roxburghe. NAS, PA2/39, f. 20-20v; Seafield Letters, 82-83. A vote on 31 Aug. was regarded by Seafield as a success not just because it saw off a joint cavalier and Squadrone attempt to hinder the treaty commissioners from accepting an incorporating union, but because it detached Marchmont from the Squadrone, though Seafield’s need to remark upon it perhaps indicated how glad he could be of even the smallest victory. NAS. PA2/39, f. 31v-32; Seafield Letters, 84-85. Seafield naturally supported vesting the nomination of the commissioners for the treaty in the queen: it was carried, to his surprise, with the help of a speech from James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S]. Seafield Letters, 87. Roxburghe told Baillie (12 Sept.) he thought Godolphin would prevent Seafield from too close an alliance with Queensberry and keep open a relationship with the Squadrone. Baillie Corresp. 123. However, Seafield’s correspondence of late September suggests his priority was balancing the interests of Argyll and Queensberry and bringing more of their allies into office to ensure the smooth passage of the treaty with England. Seafield Letters, 88-91.

Following the repeal of the clauses hostile to Scots and Scottish interest in the English Aliens Act of 1705 in November, Seafield seems to have genuinely believed that there was now a fair chance that the Scots could strike a good bargain over a union. Carstares, Carstares SP, 737–8. Lockhart claimed to Hamilton on 1 Jan. 1706 that he thought Seafield naïve and that his ‘passive obedience’ would not be enough to manage hostility to the union from ‘the high-flown Whigs’. Lockhart Letters, 25.

Seafield led the Scottish delegation in the treaty negotiations, and then as chancellor, he presided over the 1706-7 Parliament, in which his personal diplomacy helped to persuade waverers to support the treaty of union. HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 273. John Erskine, 22nd earl of Mar, though, thought him indecisive, and led an intervention by supporters of the court on 4 Nov. 1706 to force Seafield to assert himself against long opposition speeches. HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 312; NAS, PA6/36, 157, f. 15-15v. With the Whig Junto now the principal London influence on Scottish affairs, Seafield’s longstanding relationship with Godolphin was of limited use and somewhat restrictive; on 11 Nov. he appealed to his ‘best friend’ to allow him to write to the Junto lords Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, and John Somers, Baron Somers, in order to ‘prevent differences among all friends of the Union’. Seafield Letters, 103. Although conventionally the chancellor only voted when a casting vote was necessary, Seafield requested specifically that his name appear in the printed lists of those who divided on 4 Nov. in agreement with the first article, and on 16 Jan. 1707 for ratification of the treaty. Riley, Union, 330, 335.

The first Parliament of Great Britain

Queen Anne told Seafield by letter on 28 Jan. 1707 that ‘the great share you have had in bringing this great affair about, deserves more thanks then I can express’ and assured him of her continuing friendship. NLS, ms 1095. ‘Everybody’ consented to Seafield’s inclusion among the representative peers chosen to sit in the first Parliament of Great Britain. HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 371. In May, Seafield was also appointed to the British Privy Council, along with other senior office-holders of the court party. In the 1707 analysis by Marchmont, he was described as ‘sicut [i.e., just as] Queensberry’, and it was said that, among Members of the Commons, Francis Montgomerie^‡ ‘may be apt to follow’ him, his brother, Patrick Oglivy^‡ and Sir George Allardice^‡ ‘will be influenced’ by him, and that Alexander Abercrombie^‡ would be influenced by him or John Dalrymple, 2nd earl of Stair. He took his seat in the Lords on 23 Oct. 1707, and attended 93 per cent of sittings. On 6 Nov. he was named to the committee of privileges. Early in the session he was included in the committees to examine a petition from London merchants on trade and shipping and to receive proposals for encouraging privateers in the Caribbean (both 19 Nov.), to prepare the loyal address in response to the queen’s speech (18 Dec.) and to draft an address on the state of the fleet and the war in Spain (19 Dec.). He was a natural choice for the committee named on 20 Dec. to prepare a bill to establish a court of exchequer in Scotland, and when on 22 Dec. ‘a scheme of the constitution’ of each of the existing exchequer courts was required, Seafield was asked to prepare the Scottish version. Seafield delivered his statement on 30 Dec. but it was not ‘so full (particularly as to the revenue)’ as that delivered by the lord chief baron of the exchequer relating to England. Seafield was requested to provide a new draft using the lord chief baron’s model, which he delivered on 6 Jan. 1708. HMC Lords, n.s. vii. 573–4.

On 28 Jan. 1708 the Lords received from the lower House a Squadrone-sponsored bill to abolish the Scottish Privy Council. Seafield had been warned in a letter the previous month from George Meldrum, minister of the Church of Scotland at Aberdeen, that such a measure might ‘occasion both confusion and discontent… by intrusions’ without the opportunity for redress. Seafield Corr., 437. It also endangered the position of the court party in Scotland. Seafield was present for all stages of the bill: in committee of the whole on 5 Feb. he was among 45 who favoured postponing abolition until 1 Oct. 1708, against the 50 who voted for abolition on 1 May, and on 7 Feb. he signed the protest against the passage of the bill as a violation of the Act of Union.

Seafield was nominated to seven private bill committees during February 1708. On 4 Mar. he was named to the committee to draw up a loyal address at the time of the threatened invasion by France. On 5 Mar. his assistance was again required by the committee preparing the Scottish exchequer court bill: with James Graham, duke of Montrose [S], and Tweeddale, he was asked to draft a clause to facilitate the continuance of some of the existing functions of the Scottish exchequer and assume some of the powers of the former Scottish lords of the treasury, which he presented to the committee on 8 March. HMC Lords, n.s. vii. 576. He was present for all the stages of the bill, except its second reading on 13 Mar., the Lords making their final amendments on 1 Apr., the day the bill received the royal assent. Following the decision that the post of lord chancellor of Scotland was redundant following the Union, he was made lord chief baron of the Scottish exchequer instead on 13 May. HMC Mar and Kellie, i. 392; TNA, T 17/1, ff. 326-7, 22 Mar. 1708; SP 57/27, ff. 146-9, 13 May 1708.

The second Parliament of Great Britain, 1708-10

Seafield attended the representative peers’ election at Holyroodhouse on 17 June 1708, where he stood successfully on the court list, and himself voted for other court candidates. He also cast two proxies, for his kinsman David Ogilvy, 3rd earl of Airlie [S], and for Henry Alexander, 5th earl of Stirling [S]. NLS, ms 1026, ff. 23, 30, 33. The court were unable to prevent Hamilton and the Squadrone gaining four seats: Seafield explained in a letter to Godolphin that the ‘high Tories’ had blamed Seafield, Queensberry, Mar and Hugh Campbell, 3rd earl of Loudoun, for the transportation of prisoners to London, alienating them from the court; army officers allegedly thought that the queen favoured the opposition; and the ‘other party had assurance of a majority in the House of Lords that would support them in any protestations or objections that they would make’. He also credited the opposition as having been better organized than the court (and in particular Godolphin) in gathering the proxies of Scottish peers resident in England, and that it was believed that ‘the prisoners’ would only win favour through ‘some certain lords’, suggesting an alliance between the squadron and the junto. Edinburgh Univ. Lib. Laing mss La.I. 180. 4b.

Seafield was confident that the election would not be invalidated, but Roxburghe and Rothes protested that as chief baron of the exchequer Seafield was ineligible to vote or stand in the election, just as judges of the English exchequer, on which the new Scottish exchequer was modelled, could not sit in the Lords. Rothes and Montrose also queried the eligibility of his proxies on technicalities. NLS, ms 1026, ff. 7–10, 49, 56. Seafield himself protested against Marchmont’s proxy on behalf of David Colyear, earl of Portmore [S]. NLS, ms 1026, f. 8r. The several objections were collected into a memorial for consideration by the ministers in London; on 22 July 1708 they decided that Seafield could not be an elected peer and lord chief baron of the exchequer. NLS, ms 1026, f. 49. This verdict was repeated in a formal memorial, drawn up in August by Marchmont, which reiterated that because Seafield was both a baron of the court of exchequer and a judge ‘assistant to the House of Lords... he cannot elect or be elected himself he cannot vote as proxy’. NLS, ms 1026, f. 56v. Seafield’s objection to Portmore’s proxy was dismissed as there was no requirement for the paper used to be stamped or sealed. NLS, ms 1026, f. 58r.

Seafield took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Nov. 1708. He attended 96 per cent of sittings, a proportion reached by overcoming opposition. On 18 Nov. a petition was presented against his election by Marchmont, William Johnston, marquess of Annandale, John Sutherland, 16th earl of Sutherland [S] and William Ross^†, 12th Lord Ross [S], arguing again that Seafield’s being chief baron prevented him sitting as a representative peer in the Lords. As there were a number of other petitions, they were all considered together in a single enquiry. The papers relating to the peers’ election did not arrive from Scotland until 23 Dec. The day after the petition against Seafield was presented it was reported that he was ‘laying down his chief baronship’, and would be granted instead a pension of £3,000 out of the revenues of the Post Office. Proceedings nevertheless continued, and on 10 Jan. 1709 the petition was read, Seafield being then included in the committee to which the papers were referred. Post Boy, 21–23 Dec. 1708; NLS, ms 14413, f. 162. When his case came to be considered in committee on 22 Jan. his resignation as chief baron was taken to answer the objection and the protest was noted but without any action taken. Seafield also defended Queensberry’s right to take part in the election after being created a British peer as duke of Dover. In the division of 21 Jan. 1709, he voted in favour of the right of peers of Scotland who had been created peers of Great Britain following the Union to participate in the election of representative peers, but was in a minority. SHR, lviii. 173. On 28 Jan., when the Lords considered whether a peer of Scotland who had taken the oaths within Edinburgh Castle was qualified to vote in the election, Seafield spoke on the question of whether the sheriff of Midlothian had any jurisdiction within Edinburgh Castle. He said that the ‘ancientest jurisdiction is a sheriff’s. The sheriff has a concurrent jurisdiction with others. Where kings had castles, they kept them in a constable, but it gives him no jurisdiction in civil matters… I have a constabulary, I have no power to judge—of rights.’ HMC Lords, n.s. viii. 4. The House resolved by 56 votes to 52 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 who are to represent the peers of Scotland in parliament.’ On 29 Jan. the committee inquiry into the election of Scottish representative peers was instructed to re-calculate the votes cast in accordance with the resolutions of the Lords on the several petitions brought against the original ballot, and on 1 Feb. the result was reported, leaving Seafield with 49 rather than 56 votes but enough to keep his seat. At this time the appointment of a Scottish secretary of state was in the balance, Godolphin wishing to appoint Queensberry against opposition from the Squadrone and their allies the Junto. The Marlboroughs, who detested Queensberry, were agreed that Seafield was a more attractive proposition: but as he would have been dependent on the Squadrone, he was unacceptable to Godolphin. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. iii. 1208.

Seafield was present in the Lords on 1 Mar. 1709 when the judges were ordered to prepare a bill to extend the English law of treason to Scotland. On 11 Mar. the bill was read the first time. Mar reported that Seafield spoke alongside Loudoun and himself against a proposal concerning appeals, but Annandale and other Scots joined with the majority in supporting it. NAS, GD124/15/946/8. In a debate on 18 Mar. Seafield joined other Scots peers in arguing that the English statutes should be enumerated in the bill, the first of several interventions in committee, culminating on 25 Mar. in his support for an amendment to provide that, in a modified version of existing Scottish practice, those accused of treason should be given a list of witnesses five days before the trial. HMC Lords, n.s. viii. 286–7; Nicolson, London Diaries, 487-9; Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, iii. G. Baillie to his wife, 26 Mar. 1709. After the amendment was rejected in committee there was an attempt to revive it on 28 Mar. in the form of a rider to the bill, and when this too was lost by 40 votes to 25, Seafield was one of the 24 who signed the protest complaining that the decision was prejudicial to the safety of the subject. He also supported the protest against the passage of the bill, as detrimental to the Union. The Commons then made additions to the bill, including a clause requiring a list of witnesses to be provided ten days before the trial. On 13 Apr., the day before these additions were to be considered by the Lords, a meeting was held at Seafield’s house to prepare a response, attended by Godolphin and some of Queensberry’s followers. In the debate on 14 Apr., Charles Montagu*[1803], Baron Halifax, spoke against the new clauses and proposed amending them so as not to come into effect until after the death of the Pretender. Tweeddale’s heir Charles Hay^†, styled Lord Yester, later 3rd marquess of Tweeddale [S], observed ‘Seafield whisper to Queensberry ... and then Seafield spoke backward and forward but concluded that though he was not for delaying the effect of the clauses till the P[retender’s] death yet he was for doing it till a peace, so certainly he and treasurer understood other’. NLS, ms 7021, f. 171. Against the opposition of ‘all the Scots’, Halifax’s proposal was accepted. Nicolson London Diaries, 498.

Seafield went to London in Nov. 1709 in full expectation, it was said, of replacing Queensberry as Scottish secretary. Not only were the Junto still deeply hostile to Queensberry, Godolphin was also beginning to doubt him. NAS, GD406/1/5578. However, while Seafield was reportedly ‘most in favour’ with Marlborough and Godolphin and ‘appear[ed] very well’ with the Junto, he lacked sufficient personal interest to overcome Queensberry’s advantages and needed the support of the Squadrone. NLS, ms 7021, f. 195; Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, iii. Baillie to his wife, 14 Dec. 1709. A scheme to manipulate Seafield into becoming the Squadrone’s intermediary with Godolphin and thereby enabling the removal of Queensberry was considered, but postponed. NAS, GD158/1117/3.

Meanwhile, Seafield was present when the next session opened on 15 Nov. 1709. He attended 94 per cent of sittings. He was included in the committee for the preparation of the address. He was also a member of the committee of privileges and the sub-committee for the orders and customs of the House and the Journal. In November he was named to two private bill committees and on 13 Dec. to the committee to inquire into ‘the method of keeping records and public papers in offices. On 15 Dec. he was appointed to the committee to consider the impeachment of Dr Henry Sacheverell. He spoke in the debate of 16 Feb. 1710 on James Greenshields’s case, arguing (in the words of Mar) that it was ‘an ecclesiastical matter but did not dip far in the cause.’ NAS, GD124/15/975/1. On 18 Feb. he was appointed to the committee responsible for the allocation of tickets for Sacheverell’s trial, and on 28 Feb. to the committee of inquiry into the riots in London. He attended throughout the trial, voting Sacheverell guilty on 20 Mar., and also that he should not receive any ecclesiastical preferment during his three years’ suspension. Seafield was named on a further five private bill committees before the end of the session.

During the political crisis of 1710 Seafield stuck closely to Godolphin. On 30 June Godolphin characterized the appeal he wanted Marlborough to make to ‘all your North Britons in the army’ as ‘joining with my Lord Seafield’ at elections either to the Lords or Commons. Godolphin forwarded reports on the electoral situation in Scotland and in England from Seafield to Marlborough through the summer. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. iii. 1552, 1567, 1597, 1612. This contributed to a distancing from Queensberry, who reportedly thought Seafield ‘the greatest rogue alive’; Queensberry, led by his crony Mar, was realigning himself with the Tories, and especially with Robert Harley, afterwards earl of Oxford. Priv. Corr. D.M. i. 210. Seafield was expected by Lord Yester to join with the Squadrone in supporting Marlborough, Godolphin and the Junto. NLS, ms 7021, f. 223. In June Seafield returned to Edinburgh and despite the absence of a date for a general election began soliciting for votes. On 24 July he wrote to John Campbell, earl of Breadalbane, that ‘I find myself obliged in duty both to the queen and my country to endeavour to be elected, and I having the honour to be your lordship’s relation and come of your family do presume to take the freedom to apply to your lordship among the first and to desire your vote for me as one of the sixteen’, receiving a cautiously favourable response. NAS, GD112/39/242/13; GD248/560/45/33. He corresponded with Godolphin and Marlborough over the management of the election in their interest. Add 61136, ff. 159-60; HMC 14th Rep. III. 210-11, 224. By this time, however, it was clear that Seafield was increasingly isolated amongst the Scots peers. He was excluded from the discussions between Hamilton, Mar, Loudoun, Argyll and Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay [S], in London where the list of court candidates was drawn up. During the early summer Seafield corresponded with Godolphin over the possibility that he would receive a British peerage. NAS, GD248/22/36. Promises of support for Seafield, and for Marlborough and Godolphin, could be conditional. Atholl on 16 Aug. said that he would ‘do what kindness’ he could if Seafield could secure his arrears of salary from Godolphin. Elsewhere he advertized his availability to Mar. NAS, GD248/572/5/1/10; GD124/15/999/2.

There was suspicion and expectation that Seafield would join with the Squadrone. On 8 Aug. 1710 George Hay, styled Viscount Dupplin [S] (later Baron Hay and 8th earl of Kinnoull [S]), reported to his father-in-law Harley that Seafield was ‘very busy caballing at Edinburgh with the Squadrone’. HMC Portland, iv. 558. On 7 Oct. Lord Yester advised his father that ‘the old Scots ministry is for a mixed list excluding all Squadrone but one or two and Seafield in particular’. NLS, ms 7021, f. 247r. Yester wrote again on 19 Oct. warning that ‘Seafield is not to be trusted too much’. NLS, ms 14413, f. 114r. On 25 Oct. Seafield’s kinsman and ally Airlie informed him that as he was ‘informed by persons of credit and honour, that your lordship is engaged with those, who are very much suspected to have designs opposite to her majesty’s interest’ he could not give him his proxy. NAS, GD248/560/44/40. Outmanaged and seemingly unwilling to make an arrangement with the Squadrone, Seafield bowed to the inevitable. He attended the peers’ election on 10 Nov., unlike the Squadrone who boycotted it, and voted for the court list from which he himself had been omitted. HMC Portland, iv. 630; NLS, ms 1026, f. 62, 64–65.

The 1710 Parliament

By 14 Dec. 1710 Seafield was in London to pay his court to the new ministry. HMC Portland, iv. 645. On 1 Jan. 1711 he was reportedly ‘very well received’ but ‘vilified by all the ministry… there is no appearance of his getting in amongst them which he would gladly be at if possible.’ NAS, GD248/560/46/1. In the first half of January Seafield made three visits to Harley’s house; at only the first was Harley present, but after the third Seafield wrote to express his gratitude for being seen by the first lord of the treasury and that he was ‘most ready to serve’ him. Add. 70027, f. 12. It was believed at this time that Seafield was to ally with the English Tory elite by marrying Rebecca, daughter of Sir Josiah Child^†, bt., and widow successively of Charles Somerset^†, marquess of Worcester, and John Granville, Baron Granville of Potheridge, but the marriage did not take place. Add. 70145, E. Harley to A. Harley, 20 Jan, 1711; Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, iii. G. Baillie to his wife, 23 Jan. 1711. Though out of Parliament, Seafield retained his involvement in politics, assuring John Elphinstone, 4th Lord Balmerino [S], that he had diverted Ilay from introducing a Scottish toleration act, though Balmerino preferred to think his own influence had been more powerful. NAS, GD45/14/352/6. He was still counted with ‘my Lord Godolphin’s friends’ on 1 May, and it was thought he had failed to negotiate a marriage with Harley’s daughter for his eldest son James Ogilvy^†, Viscount Reidhaven (later 5th earl of Findlater [S] and 2nd earl of Seafield [S]). Add. 61136, f. 135; NAS, GD45/14/352/8. That month, however, it was again rumoured that he would receive a British peerage, marking Harley’s elevation to the lord treasurership and the earldom of Oxford. Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, iii. G. Baillie to his wife, 12 May 1711. This did not come to pass, but Seafield had established friendly relations with Oxford who secured him the continued payment of his pension when that was called into question. On 24 Jan. 1712 Seafield (who still signed by this title despite having succeeded the previous year to his father’s earldom of Findlater, by which he was usually addressed) acknowledged that the vote excluding Scottish peers from sitting in the Lords under British titles—‘a fatal stroke and sentence of perpetual incapacity’—left the Scottish peers dependent on the queen and on ‘supporting your lordship’s administration’. Add. 70294, Seafield to Oxford, 24 Jan, 1712. Oxford was now keen to bring him back into government. Riley, Eng. Ministers and Scot. 235–6.

The first opportunity for Findlater to recover his seat came in spring 1712, after the death of William Keith, 8th Earl Marischal [S]. He wrote to Oxford, promising to serve ‘faithfully’ if elected, and also to the queen, expressing his desire to serve her as a representative peer or to vote for ‘any other you please to name’. HMC Portland, x. 197–8; HMC Roxburghe, 225. Hamilton wrote to Findlater on 26 June pledging his support; Mar followed on 28 June promising to support Findlater and make ‘easy’ James Livingstone, 5th earl of Linlithgow [S], who had earlier expected Mar’s support for the place. NAS, GD248/580/1/11/1; GD248/580/1/11/3. Mar assured his brother Hon. James Erskine^‡, Lord Grange SCJ that ‘the queen is to be obeyed & I can live very well with Seafield’. NAS, GD124/15/1047/13. The Squadrone reacted with some bafflement but Baillie saw Findlater’s election as a compromise between Mar and Argyll and noted that he ‘pretends fair to the Squadrone’ and ‘it must work a change that may turn to account’. Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, v. G. Baillie to Montrose, 1 July 1712. The unity of the Scots peers behind a court candidate was almost assured, but Findlater’s correspondence with Hamilton and his brothers Charles Douglas, 2nd earl of Selkirk [S], John Hamilton, earl of Ruglen [S], and George Hamilton, earl of Orkney [S], shows that he was careful enough not to be seen taking the support of former adversaries for granted. NLS, ms 1032, f. 116v; ms 1033, f. 124r-5v. He was elected on 14 Aug. by ‘a unanimous concurrence of 32 peers present and 23 proxies’.HMC Portland, v. 211. However, ‘none of the Squadrone were present or sent proxies’. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow letters Quarto 6, f. 203r. In the following October he procured addresses from Banffshire, and from the burghs of Banff and Cullen, praising the ‘wise and diligent ministry’ for achieving a ‘safe and honourable peace’. Scots Courant, 20–22 Oct. 1712. Mar wrote to him in November, hoping ‘we are on the same bottom and that we shall both go the same way in the queen’s service.’ NAS, GD248/561/47/34.

Findlater took his seat in the House on prorogation day of 13 Jan. 1713 and that same day his son-in-law Charles Maitland^†, 6th earl of Lauderdale [S], presented his vote by proxy in the election in Edinburgh of a new Scottish representative peer James Livingston, 5th earl of Linlithgow [S], following Hamilton’s death the previous November. Findlater continued to sit in a further six prorogations throughout February and March and in that latter month presented the loyal addresses to the queen from the burghs of Inverurie and Kintore. Scots Courant, 16-18 Mar. 1713; 20-23 Mar. 1713. The session met for business on 9 Apr. when Findlater was named once more to the committee of privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal; he attended 90 per cent of the session’s sitting days. He was also included in five private bill committees during the session. However, his involvement in routine parliamentary business was soon to be overshadowed by the crisis arising from the attempt to extend the malt tax to Scotland, which provoked immense anger among Scots in both houses. At a meeting with Scots members of the Commons on 11 May, Findlater was proposed by Balmerino as ‘the man to call us together about the malt tax’. NAS, GD45/14/352/16. The meeting took place within two days and the peers and commoners, with Findlater as their presiding officer, agreed to petition the queen and Parliament for redress. The Scots lords and Members met again on 26 May and agreed to inform the queen of their intention to move in the Lords for a dissolution of the Union. The queen told her physician Sir David Hamilton that despite her ‘uneasiness’ she was at least relieved to find that Findlater was to make the motion, considering him ‘fitter than anyone’ to do it. Hamilton Diary, 55. At a meeting of the Scots peers at the lodgings of Archibald Primrose, earl of Rosebery [S] on 28 May, Findlater was reportedly asked to drink his own health; perhaps struck by being the head of a consensus of a kind which had eluded his own management of the Scottish parliament, he proposed as a toast ‘the earl of Findlater’s a much honester man than the earl of Seafield.’ NAS, GD45/14/352/18. At the same time he declared himself unwilling to follow Argyll’s recommendation, that the Scots should join the Whigs in opposition on a permanent basis, arguing with Mar and Loudoun that ‘the Whigs would be as much against us as the Court’. Lockhart Letters, 80. Following the meeting Findlater and the Scots peers moved to the Lords where he offered a motion to set a day to take into consideration the ‘state of the nation’, which was approved. Macpherson, Orig. Pprs. ii. 414. On the morning of the appointed day, 1 June, all the Scots peers gathered at Mar’s house to agree the wording of the motion which Findlater was to present, ‘for bringing in a bill for dissolving the Union’. Findlater then read out ‘the heads of his speech which were our grievances which induced us to make this motion’. In the afternoon he opened the debate with a long and ‘handsome discourse’, as one observer remembered it, ‘represent[ing] the grievances of the Scottish nation, which he reduced to four heads’: the abolition of the Scottish Privy Council; the extension of the English treason laws to Scotland; the decision on the Hamilton case which prevented Scottish peers who were given British peerages from sitting in the Lords; and, finally, the malt tax, ‘which would be the more insupportable to them now, in that they never bore it during the war, and had reason to reap and enjoy the benefits of peace’. NAS, GD45/14/352/19; Wentworth Pprs. 331 Findlater omitted the motion itself from the end of his speech, an omission apparently arranged at the meeting at Mar’s house, and had to be prompted to read it. Cobbett, Parl. Hist. vi. 1216; NAS, GD45/14/352/19. His hesitancy might have been an indirect way of acknowledging the administrative and legal difficulties of repeal, a situation acknowledged in Oxford’s reply to the motion. After a long debate the question was put on whether to allow further time for discussion, which was rejected. One Scot in London hoped the episode ‘will have the effect to make Scotland get an ease of the malt tax.’ NAS, GD 248/561/48/41. The malt bill was then given its first and second readings on 3 and 5 June. Findlater joined those who on 5 June supported a proposal to postpone the second reading. It was referred to a committee of the whole House which met on 8 June. NAS, GD45/14/352/22. Findlater was said to have spoken ‘very well’ against the bill but to no avail as Balmerino’s amendment removing the imposition in Scotland of a duty of 6d per bushel of wheat from the bill was rejected by 64 votes to 56. Findlater signed the protest arguing that the bill was an unjust imposition on Scotland and violation of the Union treaty. After the debate Balmerino recorded that he and Findlater had been told by Peregrine Osborne, 2nd duke of Leeds 9and Viscount Osborne of Dunblane [S]), ‘that we must be pleased and for that purpose that an act of parliament must be made to rectify that affair of our peerage. Seafield said that would do well.’ NAS, GD45/14/352/24. No such bill, though, was forthcoming. In late June Balmerino’s letter to Henry Maule referring either to the debates in the House on the Union or later conversations, said that Findlater ‘and all that spoke’ said that despite their support for the Union in 1706-7, since then ‘it had been so managed’ that they wished only to dissolve it. NAS, GD45/14/352/26.

Findlater continued to attend the House until the end of the session. On 25 June 1713 he was named to the committees on the queen’s remembrancer’s books and the port books relating to trade and commerce with France since 1660, and the African trade. On 27 June he was appointed to the committee on the Melton rectories bill, and on 30 June to consider the ‘method ... of demanding supplies by the Crown’. He was also included in two private bill committees in July.

The Parliament of 1713

In September 1713, as part of the reconstruction of his ministry by which Oxford hoped to recover his political ascendancy, Findlater was reappointed lord chancellor of Scotland, despite the post having earlier been deemed to have lapsed and the lord chancellor of Great Britain, Simon Harcourt, Baron Harcourt, being opposed to its revival. Add. 70049, f. 93. While James Stewart, 5th earl of Galloway [S], hailed Findlater’s appointment to it as ‘a good antecedent to the dissolution of our present bondage’, Findlater’s appointment was intended to tighten Oxford’s management of Scotland. NAS, GD248/561/49/28. The lord president of the court of session, Sir Hew Dalrymple, was also opposed and objected to Findlater signing the appointment of interlocutors when Dalrymple was ill and unable to exercise his office, disputing that Findlater was in fact the chancellor of Scotland. HMC 14th Rep. III, 225, 226. Findlater’s Post Office pension (which had not always been paid regularly since 1710) was reduced to £1,000, but the lord chancellor’s salary of £2,000 made up the difference, and Oxford promised to pay his arrears. HMC Portland, v. 345, 466; x. 210–11; Add. 70049, f. 115; Jones, Party and Management, 164.

Findlater assisted Mar in the management of the peers’ election on 8 Oct. 1713, at which he cast his own vote and the proxies of Airlie and David Murray, 5th Viscount Stormont [S], and was chosen unanimously with the rest of the court list. The Squadrone again boycotted the election. HMC Portland, v. 345; NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow letters Quarto 7, f. 182r; W. Robertson, Procs. Relating to Peerage of Scot. 65–66. Findlater took his seat on 2 Mar. 1714, attending 92 per cent of sittings, and was again named to the committee of privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal. Four days later he was appointed to the committee to prepare an address for a proclamation of a reward for the discovery of the author of The Public Spirit of the Whigs. On 2 Apr. he was named to another drafting committee for an address, this time to thank the queen for her ‘endeavours, that the Catalans might have the full enjoyment of all their just and ancient liberties secured to them’. Three days later came the motion that ‘the Protestant succession is not in danger’, and Findlater acted as a teller in favour of adding the words ‘under her Majesty’s government’. He was appointed to the committee preparing addresses for a proclamation for a reward for the apprehension of the Pretender, and to thank the queen for the peace. He also was named to five private bill committees during the session. Although listed as a likely supporter of the schism bill, Findlater was one of four Scottish peers who voted on 7 June for an amendment that ‘the Dissenters’ allowance to teach Latin and other academic learning’ would continue, and two days later voted for another Whig amendment, to exempt schoolmistresses, though he did not support a further proposal to permit appeals from justices of the peace. NLS, Advocates’ mss, Wodrow letters Quarto 8, f. 133; Haddington mss, Mellerstain Letters, vi. Baillie to wife, 10 June 1714. On 17 June he was appointed to the committee examining the petition of Sir Andrew Kennedy and his son John, conservators of the Scottish staple at Campvere (Veere) in the Netherlands, for damages previously awarded by the House against the Argathelian member, Sir Alexander Cumming^‡, bt. He chaired the committee and reported from it on 7 July, the Lords agreeing that the Kennedys should receive a new commission. On 8 July he was a teller against an unsuccessful opposition motion for an address denouncing ‘unwarrantable endeavours to gain private advantages to particular persons’ over the Asiento. HMC Lords, n.s. x. 498. Seafield’s pension arrears remained unpaid, and although he still professed loyalty to Oxford, on 10 July he expressed anxiety that without some payment he could not support the expense of living in London. HMC Portland, x. 218, 307.

Findlater returned to the Lords when it met on 1 Aug. 1714, following Queen Anne’s death, and five days later was named to the committee to draw up an address of condolence on the queen’s death and congratulation on George I’s accession. He was also chosen on 9 Aug. to serve on the committee of privileges and the sub-committee for the Journal and, though absent at the next meeting three days later, he attended every day thereafter until the prorogation on 25 Aug., sitting in 73 per cent of the sittings of the short session.

Findlater wrote to a friend in Oct. 1714, ‘I have fallen with the queen’s whole administration both in England and Scotland’, but even though he had lost all his offices he was determined that ‘I shall ever continue firm to the established government’, and he remained loyal to the Hanoverians. NAS, GD248/561/51/22. He was not chosen as a representative peer again until 1722. The remainder of his parliamentary career will be dealt with in the second part of this work. He died at Cullen on 15 August 1730, and was buried there.