The Dukes (56 page)

She could be as abrupt as anyone born to the style. If she found a bore amongst her guests, she would go to the chair in which he was comfortably installed, shake him by the hand, and say, "I'm sorry you're going. Do come again," pull him out of the chair and propel him backwards out of the door.
²⁴
She died in 1960.

The Duke's last wife was Mrs Conner (
nee
Felton), whom he married in 1965. She used to be the housekeeper at the block of service flatlets where the Duke lived, and she hailed from Streatham. The Duke lived in a succession of council flats or bedsitting-rooms all his life. For forty-five years he was an undischarged bankrupt, thereby forfeiting his right to sit in the House of Lords or to participate in the coronation ceremonies of 1937 and 1953. He was finally dis­charged from bankruptcies in 1964. For a while, he and his duchess ran a tea-shop in Rye. Leinster eventually took his seat in the Lords for the first time on 15 July 1975: he had been Duke for more than half a century.

Meanwhile, the Mallaby-Deeleys flourished, and the Leinster estate dribbled away. They sold Carton, the principal family seat in County Kildare, in 1951; the purchaser was Lord Brocket, the brewer. The heir, Lord Kildare (May Etheridge's son), had to give his permission for the sale, which he did in exchange for being allowed to live at another family property, Kilkea Castle, with enough cash to renovate it. He lived there from 1949 to 1960, and his children were born there. It then became an American hotel, specialising in "group tours", and is now a health farm. With the proceeds from the sale, Lord Kildare bought a comfortable house in Oxfordshire, which was not his to sell, but which he occupied by virtue of a smaller conditional settlement of the Leinster Trust. (It is furnished entirely with the con­tents of Carton, and hung with family pictures, which belonged, of course, like everything else, to the Mallaby-Deeleys.)

The 7th Duke of Leinster died in London in March. 1976, at the age of eighty-three. Even in death he was pursued by insatiable publicity.

Before he could be left in peace, and the errors of his life forgotten, his very title was challenged by a claimant living near San Francisco, California, whose name was Leonard Fitzgerald. (Murmurs had been heard from him earlier than this, but they now reached a crescendo.) Mr Fitzgerald's claim to be the rightful Duke was based upon an assertion that he was the son of the 6th Duke who was supposed to have died an invalid in Edinburgh in 1922, but who in fact emigrated and lived until 1967. According to this version of events, the 1922 death certificate referred to another brother, Frederick, whose existence had been kept quiet, and whose name was changed to 'Maurice' on the certificate, while the real Maurice had run away on a cattle boat to the New World. (Why this should happen, no one has seen fit to explain, and fanciful stories that the man in Edinburgh was an hermaphrodite do nothing to render it more plausible.) Were this true, then the genuine Duke of Leinster had been living in Wyoming, leaving the title and family problems of his younger brother. Throughout 1976, newspapers picked at the story repeatedly, while the new Duke kept silent, protecting his family as best he could from ill-informed gossip.

The final word was given in September 1976 when the Lord Chan­cellor instructed that a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords be issued to the 8th Duke of Leinster. The Duke took his seat on 21st October 1976. The Lord Chancellor is not known to behave frivolously in such matters, and one may well conclude that the San Francisco claimant will be lost in historical perspective.

During his father's lifetime, the 8th Duke was unable to settle part of the estate on other members of the family, but was obliged to watch it diminish to vanishing point, powerless to intervene. Now that he has inherited, the entire family estate has reverted to him, or what is left of it, and the Mallaby-Deeleys have no further interest. He has worked all his life, knowing that he was not entitled to a penny from the estate, and he continues to work now. He is Chairman of C.S.E. Aviation, at Oxford, the largest air training school in Europe. He has never borne resentment against the Mallaby-Deeley family. He recognised that his father made a bad deal, and Sir Harry a good one, and has never thought it a productive exercise to chastise anyone for a gamble which cost him the greater part of his inheritance.

references

1.
    
Complete Peerage.

2.
   
Cecil Woodham-Smith,
The Great Hunger,
p. 42.

3.
   
D.N.B.

4.
    
Complete Peerage.

5.
    
Duke of Leinster,
The Earl of Kildare,
p. 307.

6.
   
ibid.,
309.

7.
   
D.N.B.

8.
   
Brian Fitzgerald,
Emily Duchess of Leinster,
p. 141.

9.
    
Walpole, XIX, 241-2.

10.
    
13 February, 1747. British Museum Additional MSS, 32710,

F. 201.

11.
     
Fitzgerald,
op. cit.,
p. 204.

12.
    
D.N.B.

13.
   
Journal
of Elizabeth Lady Holland, Vol. I, p. 187; D.N.B.

14.
   
ibid.,
p. 188.

15.
    
Barrington's
Historic Memoirs,
quoted in Fitzgerald,
op. cit.,

p. 274.

16.
    
Complete Peerage.

17.
    
Town and Country,
Vol. VIII, p. 569.

18.
    
Creevey
Papers,
Vol. II, p. 191.

19.
    
Harriette Wilson,
Memoirs,
Vol. I, pp. 211, 253, 282.

20.
   
Edith Marchioness of Londonderry,
Frances Anne
, p. 24.

21.
    
Edith Marchioness of Londonderry,
Retrospect,
p. 16.

22.
   
Anita Leslie,
Edwardians in Love,
p. 263.

23.
    
The Times,
23rd December 1922; 9th January, 23rd January,

16th March, 26th April, 9th, 15th, 16th and 29th May 1923.

Duke of Bedford,
A Silver-plated Spoon,
pp. 172-3.
g.

9 Clash of the Clans

Duke of Argyll; Duke of Atholl; Duke of Roxburgh
e

Scottish dukes for the most part regard themselves as chieftains first, and as dukes only second. The flattery of a title cannot bend a man's vanity if he already carries an eminence among his own people far above that which could be bestowed by any monarch. Ian Campbell, for example (born 1937), though Duke of Argyll twice and a host of other dignities besides, is above all Mac Cailein Mhor ("Son of the great Colin"), a Celtic honour which his family has held since 1280, and by virtue of which he is chief of Clan Campbell.

The clans have a bloody history. That they have survived the slaughter at all is due to the fact that illegitimacy was no bar to membership; there were always more "Campbells" to take over. Added to which if a man lived on Campbell land he was obliged to become one of the family and adopt the Campbell name. ("Campbell" originally meant "the man with the crooked mouth".)

Clan Campbell gained ascendancy over the others by brute tenacity in the first place, reinforced by shrewd political cunning. The Campbells had quick brains, could turn every circumstance to their own advantage, probe every situation, and not hesitate at all to change skins, chameleon-like, when it suited them. By the fifteenth century they had immense authority in Scotland, and in the sixteenth were closely involved with Mary Queen of Scots. It was the time of their deepest ruthlessness. "The Scottish nobles from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century were probably the most turbulent, rapacious and ignorant in Europe . . . resolute champions of indefensible privileges."
¹

We have to jump a few hundred years and begin our story at the point where they came into contact with our other characters, Atholl and Roxburghe, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when all three were ranged in the bitter quarrel over religion. Two-thirds of church plunder had fallen into the hands of Scots noblemen, which largely accounted for their rabid Protestantism; self-interest more than anything else was behind it. The events under Charles I finally led to dukedoms for them all. It started with a Prayer Book.

Foolishly unaware of the stern power of Scots dogmatism, Charles I attempted to impose upon Scotland a new Prayer Book which in tone sounded suspiciously close to the detested Popish liturgy. The first solemn reading took place in St Giles's Church in Edinburgh in July 1637, and the ceremony quickly turned into a riot. Footstools were hurled across the church amid a din of outraged religious pride. Within hours, a surge of feeling had swept through the capital that startled the King. He offered to amend certain passages, he insisted on his own hatred of Popery, he sought to placate and compromise. But the Scots would be satisfied with nothing less than the withdrawal of the new Prayer Book, and of that implacability was born the attitudes which were set towards inevitable collision.

In 1638 a solemn Covenant was drawn up, a bond by which the Scots would "adhere to and defend the aforesaid true religion, and forbear the practise of all novations in the matter of the worship of God till they be tried and allowed in free Assemblies or Parliaments". On 28th February the Covenant was read in the church of Blackfriars in Edinburgh, after which it was signed by masses of Scots, from the highest in the land to the frenzied crowd, some of whom cut a vein for their ink. The first to sign was the ancestor of another of our ducal families, the Earl of Sutherland. The signatories and supporters were henceforth known as the "Covenanters", and their opponents the "Royalists". Though they did not say so, and though they still pledged loyalty to the King (if he would mend his ways), the Covenanters were starting a revolution. In the ensuing Civil War, the Earl of Roxburghe was for the King, while his son and heir Harry joined the Covenanters (the Earl even had to take refuge in the Mayor's house in Newcastle to escape the murderous wrath of his own son). The Earl of Atholl was also Royalist. The Marquess of Hamilton was for the King, and the Earl of Montrose was first for the Covenanters, then for the King, for his loyalty to whom he suffered one of the most hideous deaths in Scottish history at the hands of Argyll and the Covenanters. As for Argyll, after some initial hesitation he became the leader of the rebellious faction. His father had warned the King that he was "a man of craft and subtlety and falsehood, and can love no man; and if he ever finds it in his power to do you a mischief he will be sure to do it".
²
Certainly his career supports his father's bad opinion of him, for he moved from one firmly held principle to another with the consistency of blancmange.

Argyll's first
prise de position
was at the General Assembly of 1638, which developed almost haphazardly into a revolutionary gathering. The King had sent a Royal Commissioner (Hamilton) to declare the Assembly dissolved, whereupon the delegates decided to take no notice, and to proceed as if nothing had happened. From that moment, of course, the Assembly was treasonable. Argyll came off his fence and declared himself by repudiating the Royal Commissioner. Since he had an army of thousands at his command, he was immediately adopted as the leader of the Covenanters.

By 1641 Argyll was made a Marquess to ensure his loyalty and in 1651 he placed the crown on Charles II’s head at Scone. But he had acquiesced under Cromwell, his loyalties were, to say the least, in question, and Charles did not trust him. In 1660, at the Restoration, Argyll tried to seek conciliation with the King, but it was too late. Mindful perhaps of Argyll's remorseless, vengeful and savage treat­ment of his enemy Montrose, whose body had been hacked into little bits and whose withered hand had been nailed up outside the the King's window, Charles thought the only place for this barbarian was in prison. He had proved that his word was as substantial as the wind. His own explanation for his tergiversations was that he was a "distracted man in a distracted time", but such pleading was insufficient to save him. He was tried for High Treason, imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle, and executed at the Market Cross of Edin­burgh in 1661. His behaviour as he went to his end was the most admirable episode of his life. He was calm, dignified, polite, totally without rancour, delivered a long lucid speech before he died, and afterwards it was found that his stomach had completely digested the partridge he had eaten not long before, a sure sign of an equable mood. His head was placed on a spike on the Tolbooth, the same spot where Montrose's head had previously been on display. It remained there for three years, the object of loathing by those who came to see it. Clarendon said he was "a person of extraordinary cunning". He was the only Scottish noble to be executed at the Restoration. With his death, Scotland heaved a sigh. As Churchill has written, "We may admire as polished flint the convictions and purposes of the Scots Government and its divines, but one must be thankful never to have been brought into contact with any of them."
³

The 9th Earl of Argyll, restored to his father's earldom in 1663, though not to the marquessate, was in total opposition to his father most of his life. The Marquess had even had to ask for an English garrison to protect him from the ravages of his son's attacks on his lands (as Roxburghe had sought protection from
his
son). The new earl was personally in charge of Charles II in Scotland, and behaved very decently towards him (much to the annoyance of his father). He tried to effect the inconceivable by reconciling the House of Argyll with the House of Montrose; he was godfather to Montrose's son. But the age-old enmity with the House of Atholl continued.

James II resented the power wielded by Argyll in the Highlands, where he was nicknamed "King Campbell", and further loathed him for being the leader of the Protestant cause. There was no way in which the King and the Earl could be friends. James eventually secured his downfall by making an issue of his refusal to subscribe to the Test Act, which was insufficiently anti-Popish for him. He was accused, found guilty of High Treason, and sentenced to death. "I know nothing of the Scotch law, but this I know, that we should not hang a dog here, on the grounds on which my lord Argyle has been sentenced," said Halifax.
⁴
This was in 1681. He was imprisoned, and while awaiting execution, he escaped in the disguise of a page, with the help of his step-daughter. His last years were devoted to supporting the Monmouth rebellion, at first from exile in Holland, and later in Scotland. He was captured and beheaded in 1685, on the same spot as his father twenty-four years previously.

The next in line was created 1st Duke of Argyll in 1701, followed very shortly by the 1st Duke of Atholl and the 1st Duke of Rox- burghe. The Atholls and the Roxburghes had been pursuing their own destinies while the House of Argyll had disgraced itself twice in two generations. The Marquess of Atholl, so created in 1676, together with a sonorous list of other titles which began the unrivalled collec­tion of honours possessed by this family, was a firm Royalist. He took up arms in support of Charles II, rose to prominence after the Restoration, and was instrumental in tickling the wounds of Argyll's disgrace. It was he who had captured Argyll, plundered his lands, and captured his son Charles, who had sent round the fiery cross to raise the Clan Campbell; Atholl intended to hang him at his father's gate at Inveraray Castle, and was only prevented from this barbar­ous act by the intervention of the Privy Council. Contemporaries did not think highly of Atholl, who resembled the Argylls in being equivocal and unreliable. Macaulay called him "the falsest, the most fickle, the most pusillanimous of mankind". In fairness to Atholl, such qualities appear not to be unique among Scottish families; the more one reads of the chieftains and the earls, the more one is convinced that there is hardly a dependable or constant man among them. One brilliant exception was his son, the 1st Duke of Atholl (1660-1724), who at least was true to his word.
"Sa parole est inviolable,"
said a contemporary. Most importantly, he was a powerful supporter of William of Orange.

The 1st Earl of Roxburghe had accompanied James I to England on his accession to the throne in 1603, and had been a Royalist in the Civil War. His son and heir Harry Ker was with the Covenanters. He, incidentally, died of a bout of heavy drinking, thus creating havoc in the Roxburghe succession, the complications of which are felt to this day. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th Earls of Roxburghe made no significant mark on the course of events, but the 5th Earl was a man of some eminence, and it was he who became 1st Duke of Roxburghe in 1707. He, too, was a powerful supporter of William of Orange.

These three men, then, had in common their commitment to William of Orange, their espousal of Whig principles, their descent from irascible tribal warriors. And they founded three ducal houses.

* * *

The 1st Duke of Argyll was closely identified with William of Orange. He joined him in The Hague and travelled with him to England. He administered the coronation oath to William and Mary. His father and grandfather had been executed for treason, and he was determined at all costs to avoid the same fate. He enjoyed himself, and saw no cause to diminish the sum of life's pleasures. Though married, he lived apart from his wife, and died "in the arms of his whore" after a riotous life. It should not be forgotten, however, that he was chief of Clan Campbell at the time of their most shameful hour. In 1692 thirty-eight members of the Clan Macdonald were murdered, some in their sleep, by Campbells who had accepted the Macdonald offer of hospitality for the night. It is the blackest of clan treacheries, and it has come to be known as the Massacre of Glencoe.

The 2nd Duke of Argyll (1678 or 1680 to 1743) possessed all the cunning of his wily ancestors, yet added some leavening of his own. He was a brilliant military man, serving under Marlborough from 1708 to 1710 with some distinction, and eventually rising to the position of Field Marshal. His military reputation at the beginning of the eighteenth century was second only to that of Marlborough himself. This, however, did not satisfy him. He considered that only the sole command of the army would be commensurate with the dis­tinction his family deserved. Anything less was a slur. He conse­quently nursed a gnawing hatred for Marlborough, based on jealousy.

Argyll was in love with the military life, he envied Marlborough
's
exalted position, he saw him as a rival. No opportunity to do a dis­service to his superior was ever missed. Marlborough was led to write: "I cannot have a worse opinion of anybody than of the Duke of Argyll."
⁵

Obviously, the Duke was ruled by extremes of passion. Hot- tempered, proud, and impetuous, he was profoundly conscious of being the senior representative of a clan already 500 years old, and would not consider humility to be appropriate. Swift thought him ambitious and covetous, but such was only the surface. Family pride was his motive, more than personal ambition.

Argyll's own contribution to the family characteristic was an aston­ishing oratorical power, since when the Dukes of Argyll have more than once been among the most accomplished speakers of their time. The 2nd Duke's influence in state affairs was attributable in some measure to the power of his voice, which carried conviction as well as persuasion. His word (like the Duke of Atholl's) was sacred, alto­gether "free of the least share of dissimulation", said Lockhart. In this at least he departed from the traditions of his forbears.

The 3rd Duke of Argyll (1682-11761) took less after his brother the 2nd Duke than after his father the 1st Duke, who, it is remem­bered, died in the arms of his whore. This Argyll also had a mistress, to whom he left all his property in England, and by whom he fathered an illegitimate son. She was Mrs Ann Williams, and the boy was known as William Campbell. By his wife, the Duke had no children at all, so that his titles passed to a distant Campbell, and the bastard William had more common descendants who no doubt live in England now. The Duke was said to treat his wife badly, prefer­ring the company of his cats, and there was even a rumour that he murdered her and buried her under the stairs. Talking of cats, Walpole says that it would be barbarous to send any to Argyll, "he will shut them up and starve them, and then bury them under the stairs with his wife"." There is no evidence whatever for this insinu­ation, and the Duchess was in fact interred in a perfectly regular manner; but for Walpole to repeat a rumour, it must have been in circulation already, and there must have been some reason to believe it. Walpole also said he had a "mysterious dingy nature", and that he lived darkly, like a wizard. The general belief in his strangeness, and in his wife's odd death, was strong enough to set tongues wag­ging again when he provoked a duel between Lord Coke and Henry Bellenden, both brothers-in-law, because one had been rash enough to voice the current suspicion. "I have no doubt but a man who would dispatch his wife would have no scruple at the assassination of a person that should reproach him with it," commented Walpole.
⁷