you in every thing." Marlborough in his answer made it clear that he was firmly linked with Godolphin, and must press quite as ardently this concession to the Whigs. But still the Queen refused to yield. "So perverse and so obstinate "her Prime Minister

writes.

The Whig chiefs, much incensed at the inability of Godolphin which they mistook for unwillingness, planned a bold manoeuvre in sign of their resentment. The election of the sixteen Scottish Peers at Holyrood, the last of all the elections in order of time, was still to come. It might be possible by a sudden COUP DE MAIN to defeat the candidates brought forward by the Court. But for this purpose the Whigs by themselves were not sufficiently strong; they must combine with some leading Tories, nay even Jacobites of Scotland. A fitting instrument for this design appeared in the Duke of Hamilton. He was now, as we have seen, a prisoner in the Tower, as strongly suspected of dealings with the exiled family. Three great Whig noblemen, Newcastle, Halifax, and Wharton, now declared to the Government their conviction of his innocence and their readiness to be his bail; and on their bail accordingly the Government consented to release him. The Duke at once set out for Edinburgh, well provided with secret instructions from his new allies. It is not at all to the credit of Sunderland, that although one of the Cabinet Ministers he appears to have been a party to this whole intrigue.

By the time, however, that the Duke of Hamilton arrived in Edinburgh and concerted measures with his friends, another Duke-His Grace of Queensberry, as Secretary of State for Scotland-had obtained some clue to the design, and was able so far to counteract it

that it only in part succeeded. Of the candidates favoured by the Whigs and Tories in alliance, no more than six were elected; the other ten were supplied from the Court list.

This party entanglement in Scotland was the more perplexing to the Ministers since that country then afforded so many other elements of strife. A great ferment had of course prevailed among the people while invasion was in prospect, and it continued long after all idea of invasion passed away. The Government, on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, had made numerous arrests. Edinburgh Castle was crowded with prisoners, who were sent off to London in three detachments, each guarded by a body of dragoons. They comprised some of the men of most mark in the country, as for example the Duke of Gordon, the Earls of Errol, Seaforth, and Nithisdale, Cameron of Lochiel, and Stirling of Keir. Nearly all were, it may be said, more than suspected of secret dealings with the Court of St. Germain's.

It was certainly most justifiable in the English Ministers, after their recent and great alarm, to seize these well known adversaries, and seek for proofs to convict them of their treason. But there was one case for which no such defence can be pleaded, the arrest of Lord Belhaven. We have seen how bold and how able was the part which he took against the Scottish Union. He stood forth on that occasion as the uncompromising opponent of the Ministers. But it required such tremulous nerves as Lord Godolphin's to suppose him on that account a plotter against the throne.

The entire list (upwards of forty in all) is given in Tindal's History, vol. iv. p. 554.

Neither in this reign nor in the preceding had he ever swerved from his loyalty to the Sovereign or his zeal for the Hanover Succession. To cast him into prison, as though a Jacobite conspirator, was a wanton insult to the old adversary of Dundee, the soldier of Killiecrankie; and he felt it deeply. His confinement was not indeed long protracted, since, after two months, being brought up to London, he was recognised as innocent and released on bail. But the insult had preyed on his ardent spirit, while his burly frame had suffered from the want of exercise. On the very day of his release he was seized with a brain fever, and in four days more expired. He was but fifty-one years of age.2

As regards the other prisoners, it was found that no overt act could be brought home to them, and that their confinement must be terminated as soon as the Habeas Corpus Act revived. Under these circumstances, and after some delay, nearly all were admitted to bail. Only Stirling of Keir, Seton of Touch, and a few other gentlemen of Stirlingshire, were put on trial for High Treason. It was shown that they had assembled in arms towards the time of the expected landing; but still their purpose was not manifest, and the Jury returned a verdict of "Not Proven."3

Besides these prisoners there were others taken on board the Salisbury, and sent like the rest from Scotland to London. They comprised Lord Griffin, Colonel Francis Wauchope, and two sons of the Earl of Middleton. Lord Griffin had already been attainted by

2 A good sketch of Lord Bel-| Europe, 1708, p. 436–445. haven's life and character will be 3 State Trials, vol. xiv. p. 1395. found in the Complete History of

outlawry for High Treason during the last reign; and sentence of death was now in due form passed upon him. But it was not thought desirable to inflict that extreme penalty on a man already advanced in years and of a high personal character. He was not expressly pardoned, but he received a respite, which was continued from month to month, until he died a natural death in the Tower about two years afterwards.

This clemency however gave great offence to the Whig chiefs. Incensed as they grew more and more at the continued non-acceptance of Somers, they looked on all Ministerial measures with jaundiced eyes. We find Sunderland in a confidential letter at this period inveigh bitterly against what he calls "the villainous management of Scotland, and in particular the pardoning Lord Griffin." And he adds: "These are such proceedings that if there is not a just spirit shown in Parliament we had as good give up the game, and submit to my Lord Treasurer and Lord Marlborough's bringing in the Prince of Wales." 4

The accusation comprised in the last few lines may well astonish the reader who bears in mind the twofold relation in which the accuser stood to the accused. Sunderland was not merely the son-in-law of Marlborough but also his Cabinet colleague. Was there then the least shadow of ground for the suspicions which he had formed? Certainly not, if he intended to imply any design against the reign of Anne. But as regards the state of things after her decease it seems likely, considering the past connection of both Marl

Earl of Sunderland to the Duke | Letters by Sir Henry Ellis, has of Newcastle, Aug. 1708. This been appended as a note to the document which was first published later editions of Burnet (vol. v. p. in the Second Series of Original 351).

borough and Godolphin with the Court of St. Germain's, that they may have regarded the succession of her brother as a chance not wholly unwelcome. There was a singular conversation of Marlborough which took place about a month before this letter, but of which it is scarcely possible that Sunderland can have had any knowledge. Lieutenant General de Biron, subsequently a Marshal of France, was among the prisoners of Oudenarde. On the day after the battle the Duke, with his invariable courtesy to captives, invited him to dinner. When thus at table, Marlborough suddenly turned to him and asked him news of the Prince of Wales as serving with Vendome; and added his apologies for giving that Prince no higher title. "We shall not quarrel upon that," said Biron in great surprise, "for even in our army he is called only the Chevalier de St. George ;" and he then proceeded to speak of James in the highest terms of praise. The Duke listened to him very attentively and answered, “You give me great pleasure by telling me so much good of him, for I cannot help feeling a great interest in that young Prince;" and having said so much he began at once to talk of something else. Biron went back to Paris on his parole a few days afterwards, and repeated this conversation in confidence to his friend the Duke de St. Simon.5

The Whig chiefs with unabated perseverance were still pursuing their favourite object of Somers. Their next step was to threaten the Queen, that if she did not yield upon this point they would, as soon as Parliament met, bring up again the question of inviting to England by an Address some member of the House of Hanover;

Mém. de St. Simon, vol. vi. p. 262.