Rather more than a hundred years ago the whole kingdom was disturbed
by the judicial proceedings which were taken with reference to the
succession to the ancient honours of the great Scotch house of
Douglas. Boswell, who was but little indisposed to exaggeration, and
who is reported by Sir Walter Scott to have been such an ardent
partizan that he headed a mob which smashed the windows of the judges
of the Court of Session, says that "the Douglas cause shook the
security of birthright in Scotland to its foundation, and was a cause
which, had it happened before the Union, when there was no appeal to a
British House of Lords, would have left the fortress of honours and of
property in ruins." His zeal even led him to oppose his idol Dr.
Johnson, who took the opposite side, and to tell him that he knew
nothing of the cause, which, he adds, he does most seriously believe
was the case. But however this may be, the popular interest and
excitement were extreme; the decision of the Court of Session in 1767
led to serious disturbances, and the reversal of its judgment two
years later was received with the most extravagant demonstrations of
joy.
In the beginning of the eighteenth century, Archibald, Duke of
Douglas, wore the honours of Sholto, "the Douglas." His father, James,
the second Marquis of Douglas, had been twice married, and had issue
by his first wife in the person of James, earl of Angus, who was
killed at the battle of Steinkirk; and by his second of a son and
daughter. The son was the Archibald just mentioned, who became his
heir and successor, and the daughter was named Lady Jane. Her
ladyship, like most of the women of the Douglas family, was celebrated
for her beauty; but unhappily became afterwards as famous for her evil
fortune. In her first womanhood she entered into a nuptial agreement
with the Earl of Dalkeith, who subsequently became Duke of Buccleuch,
but the marriage was unexpectedly broken off, and for very many years
she persistently refused all the offers which were made for her hand.
At length, in 1746, when she was forty-eight years old, she was
secretly married to Mr. Stewart, of Grantully. This gentleman was a
penniless scion of a good family, and the sole resources of the
newly-wedded couple consisted of an allowance of £300 per annum, which
had been granted by the duke to his sister, with whom he was on no
friendly terms. Even this paltry means of support was precarious, and
it was resolved to keep the marriage secret. The more effectually to
conceal it, Mr. Stewart and his nobly-born wife repaired to France, and
remained on the Continent for three years. At the end of that time
they returned to England, bringing with them two children, of whom
they alleged the Lady Jane had been delivered in Paris, at a
twin-birth, in July 1748. Six months previously to their arrival in
London their marriage had been made public, and the duke had stopped
the allowance which he had previously granted. They were, therefore,
in the direst distress; and, to add to their other misfortunes, Mr.
Stewart being deeply involved in debt, his creditors threw him into
prison.
Lady Jane bore up against her accumulated sorrows with more than
womanly heroism, and when she found all her efforts to excite the
sympathy of her brother unavailing, addressed the following letter to
Mr. Pelham, then Secretary of State:--
"SIR,--If I meant to importune you I should ill deserve the
generous compassion which I was informed some months ago you
expressed upon being acquainted with my distress. I take
this as the least troublesome way of thanking you, and
desiring you to lay my application before the king in such
a light as your own humanity will suggest. I cannot tell my
story without seeming to complain of one of whom I never
will complain. I am persuaded my brother wishes me well,
but, from a mistaken resentment, upon a creditor of mine
demanding from him a trifling sum, he has stopped the
annuity which he had always paid me--my father having left
me, his only younger child, in a manner unprovided for. Till
the Duke of Douglas is set right--which I am confident he
will be--I am destitute. Presumptive heiress of a great
estate and family, with two children, I want bread. Your own
nobleness of mind will make you feel how much it costs me to
beg, though from the king. My birth, and the attachment of
my family, I flatter myself his Majesty is not unacquainted
with. Should he think me an object of his royal bounty, my
heart won't suffer any bounds to be set to my gratitude;
and, give me leave to say, my spirit won't suffer me to be
burdensome to his Majesty longer than my cruel necessity
compels me.
"I little thought of ever being reduced to petition in this
way; your goodness will therefore excuse me if I have
mistaken the manner, or said anything improper. Though
personally unknown to you, I rely upon your intercession.
The consciousness of your own mind in having done so good
and charitable a deed will be a better return than the
thanks of
JANE DOUGLAS STEWART."
The result was that the king granted the distressed lady a pension of
£300 a-year; but Lady Jane seems to have been little relieved thereby.
The Douglas' notions of economy were perhaps eccentric, but, at all
events, not only did Mr. Stewart still remain in prison, but his wife
was frequently compelled to sell the contents of her wardrobe to
supply him with suitable food during his prolonged residence in the
custody of the officers of the Court of King's Bench. During the
course of his incarceration Lady Jane resided in Chelsea, and the
letters which passed between the severed pair, letters which were
afterwards produced in court--proved that their children were rarely
absent from their thoughts, and that on all occasions they treated
them with the warmest parental affection.
In 1752, Lady Jane visited Scotland, accompanied by her children, for
the purpose, if possible, of effecting a reconciliation with her
brother; but the duke flatly refused even to accord her an interview.
She therefore returned to London, leaving the children in the care of
a nurse at Edinburgh. This woman, who had originally accompanied
herself and her husband to the continent, treated them in the kindest
possible manner; but, notwithstanding her care, Sholto Thomas Stewart,
the younger of the twins, sickened and died on the 11th of May 1753.
The disconsolate mother at once hurried back to the Scottish capital,
and again endeavoured to move her brother to have compassion upon her
in her distress. Her efforts were fruitless, and, worn out by
starvation, hardship, and fatigue, she, too, sank and died in the
following November, disowned by her friends, and, as she said to
Pelham, "wanting bread."
Better days soon dawned upon Archibald, the surviving twin. Lady Shaw,
deeply stirred by the misfortunes and lamentable end of his mother,
took him under her own charge, and educated and supported him as
befitted his condition. When she died a nobleman took him up; and his
father, having unexpectedly succeeded to the baronetcy and estates of
Grantully, on acquiring his inheritance, immediately executed a bond
of provision in his favour for upwards of £2500, and therein
acknowledged him as his son by Lady Jane Douglas.
The rancour of the duke, however, had not died away, and he stubbornly
refused to recognise the child as his nephew. And, more than this,
after having spent the greater portion of his life in seclusion, he
unexpectedly entered into a marriage, in 1758, with the eldest
daughter of Mr. James Douglas, of Mains. This lady, far from sharing in
the opinions of her noble lord, espoused the cause of the lad whom he
so firmly repudiated, and became a partisan so earnest that a quarrel
resulted, which gave rise to a separation. But peace was easily
restored, and quietness once more reigned in the ducal household.
In the middle of 1761, the Duke of Douglas was unexpectedly taken ill,
and his physicians pronounced his malady to be mortal. Nature, in her
strange and unexplained way, told the ill-tempered peer the same tale,
and, when death was actually before his eyes, he repented of his
conduct towards his unfortunate sister. To herself he was unable to
make any reparation, but her boy remained; and, on the 11th of July
1761, he executed an entail of his entire estates in favour of the
heirs of his father, James, Marquis of Douglas, with remainder to Lord
Douglas Hamilton, the brother of the Duke of Hamilton, and
supplemented it by another deed which set forth that, as in the event
of his death without heirs of his body, Archibald Douglas, _alias_
Stewart, a minor, and son of the deceased Lady Jane Douglas, his
sister, would succeed him, he appointed the Duchess of Douglas, the
Duke of Queensberry, and certain other persons whom he named, to be
the lad's tutors and guardians. Thus, from being a rejected waif, the
boy became the acknowledged heir to a peerage, and a long rent-roll.
There were still, however, many difficulties to be surmounted. The
guardians of the young Hamilton had no intention of losing the
splendid prize which was almost within their grasp, and repudiated the
boy's pretensions. On the other hand, the guardians of the youthful
Stewart-Douglas were determined to procure the official recognition of
his claims. Accordingly, immediately after the duke's decease, they
hastened to put him in possession of the Douglas estate, and set on
foot legal proceedings to justify their conduct. The Hamilton faction
thereupon despatched one of their number to Paris, and on his return
their emissary rejoiced their hearts and elevated their hopes by
informing them that he was convinced, on safe grounds, that Lady Jane
Douglas had never given birth to the twins, as suggested, and that the
whole story was a fabrication. They, therefore, asserted before the
courts that the claimant to the Douglas honours was not a Douglas at
all.
They denied that Lady Jane Douglas was delivered on July 10, 1748, in
the house of a Madame La Brune, as stated; and brought forward various
circumstances to show that Madame La Brune herself never existed. They
asserted that it was impossible that the birth could have taken place
at that time, because on the specified date, and for several days
precedent and subsequent to the 10th of July, Lady Jane Douglas with
her husband and a Mrs. Hewit were staying at the Hotel de Chalons--an
inn kept by a Mons. Godefroi, who, with his wife, was ready to prove
their residence there. And they not only maintained that dark work had
been carried on in Paris by the parties concerned in the affair, but
alleged that Sir John Stewart, Lady Jane Douglas, and Mrs. Hewit, had
stolen from French parents the children which they afterwards foisted
upon the public as real Douglases.
The claimant, and those representing him, on their part, brought
forward the depositions of several witnesses that Lady Jane Douglas
appeared to them to be with child while at Aix-la-Chapelle and other
places, and put in evidence the sworn testimony of Mrs. Hewit, who
accompanied the newly-wedded pair to the continent, as to the actual
delivery of her ladyship at Paris upon the 10th of July 1748. They
also submitted the depositions of independent witnesses as to the
recognition of the claimant by Sir John (then Mr.) Stewart and his
wife, and produced a variety of letters which had passed between Sir
John Stewart, Lady Jane Douglas, Mrs. Hewit, and others as to the
birth. They also added to their case four letters, which purported to
emanate from Pierre la Marre, whom they represented to have been the
accoucheur at the delivery of Lady Jane.
Sir John Stewart, Lady Jane's husband, and the reputed father of the
claimant, died in June 1764; but, before his decease, his depositions
were taken in the presence of two ministers and of a justice of the
peace. He asserted, "as one slipping into eternity, that the defendant
(Archibald Stewart) and his deceased twin-brother were both born of
the body of Lady Jane Douglas, his lawful spouse, in the year 1748."
The case came before the Court of Session on the 17th of July 1767,
when no fewer than fifteen judges took their seats to decide it.
During its continuance Mrs. Hewit, who was charged with abetting the
fraud, died; but before her death she also, like Sir John Stewart,
formally and firmly asserted, with her dying breath, that her evidence
in the matter was unprejudiced and true. After a patient hearing seven
of the judges voted to "sustain the reasons of reduction," and the
other seven to "assoilzie the defender." In other words, the bench was
divided in opinion, and the Lord President, who has no vote except as
an umpire in such a dilemma, voted for the Hamilton or illegitimacy
side, and thus deprived Archibald Douglas, or Stewart, of both the
title and the estates.
But a matter of such importance could not, naturally, be allowed to
remain in such an unsatisfactory condition. An appeal was made to the
House of Lords, and the judgment of the Scottish Court of Session was
reversed in 1769. Archibald Douglas was, therefore, declared to be the
son of Lady Jane, and the heir to the dukedom of Douglas.