almost sufficient to discredit his story that he had been entrusted with confidential communications to Atholl, and in any case his known enmity against Atholl ought to have put Queensberry on his guard. The only adequate explanation seems to be that Queensberry was so irritated at Atholl's support of the act of security as to be ready to welcome any feasible means of securing his expulsion from office. There is doubtless exaggeration in Lovat's subsequent statement that Atholl was ' notoriously the incorrigible enemy of King James,' but there is no reason to suppose that he was then engaged in secret intrigues with St. Germains. Having been informed of Lovat's machinations by Ferguson the plotter [see Ferguson, Robert], Atholl presented a memorial to the queen, which was considered at a meeting of the Scots privy council at St. James's on 18 Feb. (printed in Caldwell Papers, i. 197-203). Although it was clear that Queensberry had, as regards the particular incident, been made the dupe of Lovat, Atholl found it impossible to clear himself from all suspicion, and consequently resigned his office. There seem to have been other reasons for doubting his loyalty. According to Burnet, he was not averse to a proposal that the ' Prince of Wales ' should be recognised as the successor of Queen Anne {Own Time, ed. 1838, p. 746). But whatever may have been his previous sympathies, his treatment by the whigs did, according to Lockhart, ' so exasperate him against the court ' that he ' became a violent Jacobite,' used all means to 'gain the confidence of the cavaliers,' and 'affected to be the head of that party and outrival Hamilton' (Papers, i. 73). He strongly opposed the union in 1705, and on 1 Sept. proposed a clause prohibiting the commissioner from leaving Scotland until the repeal of the act of the English parliament declaring the subjects of Scotland aliens. On the rejection of the clause he, with eighty members, entered his protest, and he also protested against the clause leaving the nomination of the commissioners with the queen. He continued his strenuous opposition to the union throughout all the subsequent discussions. Burnet states that 'he was believed to be in foreign correspondence and was strongly set on violent methods' to oppose it (Own Time, p. 800), and this is confirmed by Lockhart (Papers, i. 73). Through John Ker of Kersland [q. v.] negotiations were begun with the Cameronians to induce them to co-operate with the Jacobites in resisting the union by force, and the Duke of Atholl had undertaken to hold Stirling, when, according to Ker's account, Ker himself was induced by the arguments of Queensberry to dissuade the Cameronians from proceeding further (Ker, Memoirs, pp. 30-4). Notwithstanding his opposition to the union, Atholl did not decline 1,000l. offered to him by way of compensation for the imaginary evils it might entail upon himself personally.
Nathaniel Hooke (1664-1738) [q.v.], during his subsequent dealings with the Scottish Jacobites, found it impossible to obtain any definite promises from Atholl (see Negotiations, passim). At the time of the Jacobite expedition of 1708 Atholl was attacked by illness either real or feigned. On the failure of the enterprise he was summoned to appear before the council at Edinburgh, but sent a physician to swear that he was so ill as to be unable to obey the summons (Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 298). Thereupon the dragoons were ordered to seize his castle of Blair, but the order was countermanded upon 'just certificate of his dangerous illness' (ib, p. 300), and he was not further proceeded against. On the return of the tories to power in 1710, Atholl was chosen one of the Scots representative peers, and he was again chosen in 1713. On 7 Nov. 1712 he was named an extraordinary lord of session, and in 1713 he was rechosen keeper of the privy seal. In 1712, 1713, and 1714 he acted as lord high commissioner to the general assembly of the kirk of Scotland. Although on the death of Queen Anne he proclaimed King George at Perth, he was nevertheless deprived of the office of lord privy seal. As at the revolution, so at the rebellion of 1715, the house of Atholl was divided against itself. Atholl and his son Lord James were with the government, but his sons, William, marquis of Tullibardine [q. v.l, Lord George [q. v.], and Lord Charles [q. v.], followed the banner of the Chevalier.
On 27 July 1715 Atholl sent a letter to the provost of Perth offering to supply, if required, two or three hundred men to guard the burgh at the town's charge (Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th Rep. App. pt. viii. p. 67). He also on 7 Sept. sent to Argyll information of Mar's movements, informing him at the same time that he would stop Mar's passage through his territory, and would guard the fords and boats on the Tay between Dunkeld and Loch Tay (ib. p. 67). Moreover, on 9 Oct. he wrote to the Earl of Sutherland beseeching him to come with all expedition to Atholl with what men he could collect, and assuring him that if he could bring between two and three thousand men he would soon recover the north side of the Forth (ib. p. 68), but to this letter he received no reply (ib.
