John Douglas of Broughton
In 1671 William Murray (then Sir William Murray, Baronet)
on his own resignation received a Crown charter of all the Broughton
lands, in which charter they were of new erected into a barony to be
called the barony of Broughton, the manor place of Littlehope, commonly called Broughton, to be the principal messuage.
The tenure was changed from ward to taxed ward, the sum of L200
being fixed for ward and non-entry, the same for relief, and 1000
merks for marriage. The feu-duty was 1d. Scots, and permission was
given to hold a fair yearly on 22nd September.
The lands thus
acquired, which included the whole parish with the exception of
one-half of Burnetland and one-fourth of Broughton Shiels, remained
with the Murrays until 1719. Three years before that Alexander
Murray had a tack of the teinds of the parish from John, Earl of
Wigtown, who was patron of Stobo, Drumelzier, Dawyck, and Broughton,
for three periods of nineteen years each, and for an annual payment
of L200.
In 1719 Alexander Murray sold the whole property of
Broughton, Peebleshire, to John Douglas (son of
William, first Earl of March),
between whom and his brother, James Douglas of Stow, there was a
mutual entail whereby Broughton and Stow were destined to the
survivor and his heirs, whom failing the heirs of their late
brother, the Earl of March. James Douglas of Douglas of Stow died
unmarried before 1732. John Douglas of Broughton, who was M. P. for
Peeblesshire in 1722 and 1727, also died unmarried in 1732. In
terms of the destination clause in the entail, William, second Earl
of March, succeeded both to Broughton and Stow, but John Douglas had
died so deeply involved in debt that the Earl of March, in order to
safeguard his own possessions, applied to the Court for a warrant to
sell for the benefit of the creditors.
This process was
instituted in 1734, and the petitioners were the Earl of March, who
was a minor at the time, and Charles, Duke of Queensberry and Dover,
his tutor in law. Among those called for their interest as creditors
were: - Isabella, Mary, and Jean Douglas, the Earl's sisters; John
Horsburgh of that Ilk; John Borthwick, late of Stow (then of
Trottenshaw); John and Patrick Murray, sons of the deceased Sir
David Murray of Stanhope; Margaret Murray, daughter of Sir David
Murray, and her husband, Mr. Thomas Hay, advocate. The debts due by
John Douglas are not separately stated in the proceedings, but they,
along with the debts due by the Earl's father, reached the large
figure of £205,827 16s. 8d. Scots, on which the annual interest was
£10,291 7s. 8d. The rental of Broughton is given at £4332 8s. 4d.
Scots, made up thus: - £74 of house rents, £3817 10s. 8d. of rents
from land paid in money (including a feu-duty of £13 6s. 8d. from
the other half of Burnetland), rents paid in produces, etc., 12
bolls of bear and 48 of meal at £6 5s. per boll, 12 capons at 12s,
62 hens at 6s. 8d. and 7s., and 57 carriages at 13s. 4d.
It
may be of interest to show how the selling price was calculated. On
the depositions of James Naesmyth of Earlshaugh and John Sibbald of
Burnetland, the property was held to be worth 22 years purchase of
the free rental 'in respect there is a good mansion house.' The free
rental was ascertained by deducting one-fifth in respect of teinds
(£866 9s. 8d.) and the feu-duty of £2 16s. 10d. paid for Broughton
Shiels. There remained £3463 1s. 10d., which at 22 years resulted in
£76,188 Os. 4d. But, as we have seen, there was a tack of the teinds
at a rental of £200; the minister's stipend was £408 11s. 4d. in
money and 13 bolls victual at £6 5s., a total of £489 16s. 4d.; and
the schoolmaster's salary was £40. These payments amounted yearly to
£729 16s. 4d., whereas the teind rental as above was £866 9s. 8d.,
and accordingly there was a balance of free teind left of £136 13s.
4d., which in view of the length of the tack was calculated at 15
years purchase, or £2050. This sum added to £76,188 0s. 4d. fixed
the selling price at £78,238 0s. 4d. At that price Broughton was
exposed for sale and sold - there was only one offerer - to William
Veitch, W.S., acting on behalf of John Murray, second son of Sir
David Murray of Stanhope (by his second marriage), and as he was a
minor he was represented in the decree which followed by his
curators - Lady Margaret Scott, his mother; Sir John Scott of Ancrum,
Baronet; Alexander Muirhead of Lenhouse and James Erskine.
When the 2nd Earl of March
died in 1731, John Douglas of Broughton, was appointed guardian to
his nephew, William, 3rd Earl of March, and later
4th Duke of Queensberry.
However, John died in 1732, and so his cousin
Charles 3rd Duke of
Queensberry was served 'tutor-at-law' as the nearest 'agnate'
He and his brother, James, died unmarried.
See also:
Broughton estateNote:
The principal interest in the Peeblesshire constituency belonged
to the earls of March, who as hereditary sheriffs were able to
control the elections. An unsuccessful attempt to break this
control in 1727 was made by Sir James Nasmyth, whose petition on
the grounds of the partiality of the sheriff made no progress.
However, after the 2nd Earl of March’s death, leaving an infant
son, in 1731, followed by that of his brother, the sitting
Member, John Douglas, a year later, Nasmyth obtained the support
of the deputy sheriff for the ensuing by-election, at which he
was returned. The petition of his opponent Sir Alexander Murray,
3rd Bt., of Stanhope, a former Member for the shire under Queen
Anne, alleging irregularities in the election of the praeses and
appointment of the sheriff clerk, was rejected. At the 1734
election an apparently neutral deputy sheriff returned both
Nasmyth and Murray, each of whom had been chosen at separate
meetings. On petition Murray withdrew, leaving Nasmyth to be
elected.1 No opposition was offered in 1741 or in 1747, when
John Dickson was brought in by the 3rd Earl of March, now of
age.
Any contributions will be
gratefully accepted
Errors and Omissions
|
|
The Forum
|
|
What's new?
|
|
We are looking for your help to improve the accuracy of The Douglas
Archives.
If you spot errors, or omissions, then
please do let us know
Contributions
Many articles are stubs which would benefit from re-writing.
Can you help?
Copyright
You are not authorized to add this page or any images from this page
to Ancestry.com (or its subsidiaries) or other fee-paying sites
without our express permission and then, if given, only by including
our copyright and a URL link to the web site.
|
|
If you have met a brick wall
with your research, then posting a notice in the Douglas Archives
Forum may be the answer. Or, it may help you find the answer!
You may also be able to help others answer their queries.
Visit the
Douglas Archives Forum.
2 Minute Survey
To provide feedback on the website, please take a couple of
minutes to complete our
survey.
|
|
We try to keep everyone up to date with new entries, via our
What's New section on the
home page.
We also use
the Community
Network to keep researchers abreast of developments in the
Douglas Archives.
Help with costs
Maintaining the three sections of the site has its costs. Any
contribution the defray them is very welcome
Donate
Newsletter
Our newsletter service has been temporarily withdrawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
