ACCOUNTS OF THE CONDUCT OF SARAH, DUCHESS OF MARLBOROUGH, 1704-1742

FRANCES HARRIS

SARAH, Duchess of Marlborough's self-justifying narrative of her years at Court, An Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough^ attracted a considerable amount of attention at its first publication in 1742, and has since frequently been used as an historical source. For not only had she been the wife of one of Queen Anne's chief ministers and the close associate of several others, she was also the intimate for many years of the Queen herself, and an active figure in Whig politics in her own right. The Duchess made it clear that the Conduct was compiled, not from her recollections in old age, but from writings of a much earlier date. Three of these are specifically mentioned in the introductory paragraphs: an account of *the unhappy differences between queen Mary and her sister', which she had written about forty years before for Bishop Burnet's wife; a defence of the management of her Court offices under Queen Anne, drawn up after her dismissal in 1711, with a view to publication; and a narrative of her political conduct and her loss of Queen Anne's favour, composed with 'the assistance of a friend, to whom I furnished materials'.^ All three of these accounts are now among the Blenheim Papers at the British Library, together with several related items which the Duchess does not mention. Most survive in more than one copy, some in as many as five or six drafts or versions, and in general these manuscript originals, for all their repetitiveness, political bias, and obsessive self-justification, are of considerably more importance than the much-expurgated published compilation. Although biographers of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough, and other historians of the period, have made use of these documents, certain basic facts about them, including the chronology and purpose of their composition, the identity and contributions of the Duchess's various collaborators, and the relationship of the narratives to one another, have never been fully established. Perhaps this is not surprising in view of the quantity of material involved, and the disorganized state in which it has always been kept. In 1718 the Duchess sent a box containing a random selection of these manuscripts to her friend Mary Godolphin, wife of the Provost of Eton, with an invitation to read them through; and she added: I know you are a person of such order that you will laugh to see any body keep their things in no better way then I have don, but I am allways now in some sort of hurry as I usd to bee Fig. I. Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough. Miniature from life by Bernard Lens the Younger, 1702 (By courtesy of the Victoria and Albert Museum) at court, and all I can do is to put these papers by as they come up, being mix'd with a great many other things, and hope to get some body to place them as they should bee some summer when I happen to have a good deal of time in the country.^ It is clear that this systematic arrangement was never fully carried out, either in the Duchess's lifetime or afterwards. In 1815 the manuscripts were discovered among 'a large mass of loose papers' in a closet at Blenheim Palace, after William Coxe's arrangement of the main archive there was complete. Coxe put them together in bundles,^ but without attempting a detailed reorganization. In a note to the first draft of her narrative for Mrs. Burnet, the Duchess herself, in old age, has recorded the loss of several pages. These were still mislaid when the packet containing the draft arrived at the British Library, and in the course of sorting were found in one of the other bundles.''^ There were several similar instances in which closely related documents, or portions of a single document had become separated, making accurate comparison and description very difficult. Coxe's catalogue of these manuscripts, together with his annotations on the originals and on the partial transcripts made for his biography of the ist Duke of Marlborough, have remained the basis for most subsequent references to the documents.^ But his descriptions, although helpful as far as they go, leave several questions unanswered, and can occasionally be misleading. The manuscripts, arranged as far as possible in order of composition, now occupy six volumes of between 121 and 274 folios apiece: Add. MSS. 61421-6. Some related items, in the form of copies of, and annotations to the correspondence of Queen Anne and the Duchess, have been placed with the letters to which they refer, at Add. MSS. 61414-18. The following account of the composition of these manuscripts is intended to supplement the description of the volumes in the British Library catalogue, and to indicate the basis of the present arrangement. As the Duchess recorded in the Conduct, the first of her narratives (Add. MS. 61421) was written for her friend Elizabeth Burnet, third wife of Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury. The two women had strong Whig sympathies in common, but Mrs. Burnet's Vonderfull partiality' for King William and Queen Mary was a challenge to the Duchess (fol. i). Accordingly, in November 1704, she set herself to compose an account of her own part in the Revolution of 1688, and of Queen (then Princess) Anne's subsequent quarrels with the King and Queen. The narrative centred round Anne's refusal in 1692 to comply with their demands for Sarah's dismissal from her household. Its purpose was twofold: to persuade Mrs. Burnet that the Princess had been genuinely ill-used by the King and Queen, and to criticize the conduct of two Tory ministers, the Earls of Rochester and Nottingham, who had failed to side with her. By the end of 1704, in fact, the Duchess's own relations with Queen Anne had become very strained,^ but she was anxious to conceal this as long as possible, and the narrative contains no hint of it. The first draft, however, dated from her Lodge in Windsor Park (fol. i), was written during one of the long, brooding, and solitary absences from Court, which were to become increasingly common as her favour with the Queen declined. The following year her friend Lord Bradford, remonstrating with her for another such absence, remarked, 'I shrewdly suspect you are wryting another History, I cannot possibly imagine what else can keep you there soe long'.*^ The greater part of the draft is written in the Duchess's headlong scrawl on sheets of ordinary letter-paper (fols. 5-54, 59-60). Only a few leaves at the end are in the more legible handwriting of her two favourite amanuenses, her steward Charles Hodges (fols. 57-8),^ and chambermaid, Judith Forster (fols. 61-70).^ It was obviously composed without prior planning, several incidents and copies of documents being interpolated out of chronological sequence, just as they happened to be recollected: 'tis my first essay and therefore I hope you will excuse it', the Duchess apologized at one point (fol. 58^). Alterations and additions at the beginning of the narrative (fols. 1-16) indicate that at first she had intended a much shorter account, probably consisting of annotated copies of correspondence concerning the quarrel. But characteristically she warmed to her task as she progressed. Her later admission, *when I am writing I run on as if I were speaking ... in my strange scrawl, when at the sitting down I dont design to say very much', gives a very fair picture of her style and method of composition. ^^ The extensive quotation of letters and documents in support of her statements was to remain a characteristic of all her subsequent narratives, and in the Duchess's eyes a vital adjunct to them. 'It shows the exact truth of the whole proceeding', she told Mrs. Burnet, 'and will be a meanes some time or other of makeing it knowne, when by some better hand tis put in order' (fol. 58^). This adaptation by a *better hand' was to be many years in the future, but the comment is an interesting indica- tion that even at this early stage the Duchess was contemplating something like the Conduct. Mrs. Burnet's offer to make a list of passages 'where I think a litle more charity may with reason be admitted', suggests that she was not entirely convinced by the Duchess's version of events. But she did praise the lively spontaneity of style, and added flatteringly: the Bishop really compaired you to one of the most celebrated Historians and says he hopes you will write the memoiers of your whole observations so far as within your own knowledg. He is sure it would be very valuable. Understandably, in view of the freedom with which she had criticized certain individuals, the Duchess was anxious that her draft should not come into unauthorized hands, and Mrs. Burnet reassured her on this point.^^ But the Duchess did have copies made (e.g. fols. 71-136) for the benefit of a few close friends. The Earl of Bradford was evidently one. The Whig leader Lord Halifax, like Mrs. Burnet, reserved judgement about the subject-matter ('I will not deny that I was sorry there was such a Story to be told'), but praised the unstudied style. Another friend. Lady Arundell, afterwards Countess of Pembroke, urged Sarah not to restrict the circulation of the narrative, for 'I think it would be so much more for your servise to have it known'. ^^

10 The most significant reaction came in 1708 from Arthur Maynwaring, the Duchess's political confidant and future collaborator. By this time her relations with Queen Anne had degenerated completely and publicly, following the discovery that her cousin Abigail Masham had supplanted her in the Queen's favour. Maynwaring particularly remarked on the letters of 1692 quoted in the narrative, in which Anne had begged Sarah not to leave her service: I think verily some time or other your Grace wou'd do well to put the Queen in mind of some of her Expressions, and desire to know what you have done to make them not true. I was much taken with that godly one, where she begs you for Christ Jesus sake not to leave, and wishes she may never see the face of Heaven if she consents to it. ^^

This advice, which well illustrates Maynwaring's mischief-making role in the later stages of Sarah's relations with the Queen, was to be taken by the Duchess very much to heart. Her relations with the Queen continued to worsen. Finally, after a particularly acrimonious dispute in October 1709, she composed a long letter, or rather series of narratives, for the Queen, intended to demonstrate that she had not deserved to lose her favour. She began with quotations from the Queen's early letters, with their professions of devotion and acknowledgements of her services. She reviewed the events of the previous reign and detailed the advantages she had made from the Queen's favour, with emphasis on her own moderation in refusing those gifts which had seemed too generous. Lastly she set out the causes of her loss of favour, which she attributed to political differences, made irreconcilable by the intrigues of Abigail Masham and Robert Harley (Add. MS. 61418, fols. 20-53). In many ways this was the Conduct in embryo. The Duchess herself described it as 'this history' (fol. 44), a term she was to use repeatedly of later versions of her vindication, and she circulated copies of it to her friends, together with other self-justifying narratives. ^'^^ But at the time her growing obsession with this written self-justification only served to alienate the Queen still further. With the downfall of the Whig ministry during the latter half of 1710, the Duchess's dismissal from her Court offices became increasingly predictable, and criticism of her conduct towards the Queen more and more outspoken. In June 1710, hearing that *they talk of me att the backstairs as if I were a Rober', she began to send out a series of standard letters to her acquaintances, insisting that she had made only modest gains from her years of royal favour, and defending her management as Mistress of the Robes and Keeper of the Privy Purse. In the former office, in fact, she claimed to have saved the Queen 'a vast summ of money', variously computed at ;£8o,ooo and £100,000. In support of these assertions she was able to cite several early letters from the Queen. But her trump card was a letter of 1706 from Robert Harley, the chief agent of the ministerial changes, in which he had praised the frugality of her management and enclosed for comparison a list of the greater expenditure of former Robes officers. ^^ When these preliminary exercises in self-defence were later expanded into a series of

II full-scale vindications, the material supplied by Harley was invariably given great prominence. At about the same time, the Duchess began to compose a series of short narratives (Add. MS. 61422), chiefly recounting episodes in her own and her family's loss of favour. Chronologically these begin with her discovery of Abigail Masham's rivalry in 1707, but internal evidence shows that most, if not all, were written between 1710 and 1712.1^ Some are in the Duchess's own hand, others in those of her servants, Charles Hodges and Judith Forster. Most survive in more than one copy or version. The subjects range from petty Court squabbles (with Abigail Masham over their Kensington lodgings, with the Duchess of Somerset over seating at the Sacheverell trial, with the Queen over removal from St. James's Palace) to important political crises, such as Marlborough's confrontation with the Queen over the disposal of the Earl of Essex's regiment in January 1710, and the dismissals of the Whig ministers and of the Duchess herself in the ensuing twelve months. They include several graphic accounts of Sarah's last interviews with the Queen. Coxe treated these narratives as if they were written specifically for the instruction of the Queen's doctor. Sir David Hamilton, who acted as intermediary between the Queen and Duchess in the last months of 1710.^"^ In fact Hamilton was only one of several correspondents to whom the documents were circulated, and their purpose was a more general one, as Sarah herself explained: I have learnt from my dear baught experience, that for one reason or an other so few people relate any thing exactly true, that I allways have made a servant write down matter of fact, as soon as any thing has passed, that my enemys may take as a handle to misrepresent me.^^

Close friends such as the Lord Treasurer Godolphin's sister, Mrs. Boscawen, whom the Duchess suspected of being influenced by hostile gossip, received bundles of these narratives to read and pass on.^^ Towards the end of 1710 there was more than gossip to contend with. Henry St. John's Letter to the Examiner ([London], 1710), for instance, attacked the Duchess for her insolent behaviour to the Queen; while Simon Clement in his Harleyite tract. Faults on Both Sides (London, 1710), accused her of persecuting her cousin, 'a modest, discreet, inoffensive, virtuous Gentlewoman', and of turning her out of her lodgings at Kensington. When these publications came to the Duchess's notice, she sent copies of several of her narratives to her friends. Lord and Lady Cowper. 'I see so many lies spread about me every day', she explained, '. . . that I can't have so much patience as not to justify myself \^^ Nevertheless, she was cautious about her circulation of some of these items. At the end of the year she told Sir David Hamilton that several of her acquaintance had seen 'the exact method I put the Robes in', but narratives concerning the Queen personally were shown only to 'those I can trust with my soul, and your self'.^^ At a very early stage the Duchess foresaw the relationship of these documents to what would eventually become her Conduct. By the end of June 1710 she was describing them as contributions to 'the history of Mrs Morley' or 'the famous history that is to

12 ^^ As the title suggested, this was to be a complete account of her relationship with Queen Anne. Quotations from the Queen's early letters, with their professions never to part with her, and incidents from the Duchess's narratives, such as an unfulfilled promise to bestow her Court offices on her daughters, were to be given particular prominence. For the immediate purpose of this proposed 'history' was not self-defence, but blackmail. The long narrative of October 1709 must have warned the Queen of the use Sarah might make of their early correspondence. On 12 June 1710, in a last letter to the Duchess, she had asked for the return of all her 'strange scrawles'. The request was repeated by her Lord Chamberlain, the Duke of Shrewsbury, who referred specifically to the Queen's fears of publication. According to the Duchess's later and possibly disingenuous account:

I presently began to think, that tho' I never had entertain'd any such design as the Queen suspected, yet it would not be at all unjust or unreasonable for me to make so much use of her fears, as to preserve myself by them, if I could, from any barbarous usage.

She therefore replied that she would make public use of the letters, only if the Queen forced her to it by a summary dismissal. At the same time, she took care to secure the letters, 'hearing that the two Dukes [Shrewsbury and Somerset] had a mind to force them from me'.-^^ By this time Sarah's chief means of communication with the Queen was the long, self-justifying correspondence which she conducted with Sir David Hamilton (Add. MS. 61423, fols. 1-90). On 10 July 1710 he spoke to the Queen of my Lady Marlborough's Design to Print, and in it would be contayn'd what would reflect upon her Majesty's Piety, such as breaches of Promise and Asseverations ... I said this might be remedy'd by not provoking her in the Method of dismissing her ... for the Duchess said she took more pleasure in justifying herself, than your Majesty did in wearing your Crown, and that she wonderd that when your Majesty was so much in her Power, you should treat her so.^

These threats were revived when Swift, in the Examiner of 23 November 1710, compared the Duchess to a lady's maid who had appropriated large sums of her mistress's money. The journal was known to be written with the direction of the Queen's new ministers. On 28 November Sarah wrote to Hamilton that the public insinuation was too much for human nature to bear, when it is so much in my power to publish other papers of a very different kind, I doe not mean those that are full of professions of endless kindnesse . . . but those in which Mrs Morley has acknowledged my care and frugality in her servise (Add. MS. 61423, fols. 16V-17.)

The Queen was alarmed by the reminder, remarking to Hamilton that 'if it was seen or printed. That she wished never to see heaven, if ever she parted from her, how reflecting that would be' (it is interesting that this was the letter to which Maynwaring had

13 drawn attention). Hamilton was instructed to persuade the Duchess not to go ahead with her plans for publication.^^ But she coolly pointed out that: if I am removed without any perticular fault objected it will give a sanction to all the villanous lyes that have been publish'd of me, and consiquently force me to all manner of things that I can think of in my own vindication. (Add. MS. 61423, fol. 80.)

On 9 January 1711, knowing that her dismissal was imminent, she had careful copies made of several of the Queen's early letters, which contained the strongest professions never to part with her. Citing two of these to Hamilton the next day, she commented darkly, 'such Things are in my Power, that if known by a Man, that would apprehend, and was a right Politician might lose a Crown'.^^^ In spite of these wild threats, the Queen demanded her resignation a few days later. In retaliation, when submitting her final Privy Purse accounts immediately afterwards, the Duchess claimed the massive back payment of an annuity of ^£2,000 which she had refused in 1702. It has been suggested that the Queen agreed to this, on condition that the Duchess did not carry out her threats of publication.^^ If such an agreement was reached, it did not hinder Sarah from embarking almost at once on the first version of her 'history of Mrs Morley'. Giving advance notice of it to Lady Cowper in March 1711, she remarked that she had 'a hundred Letters' from the Queen, which would 'look well in this extraordinary History, where it will appear she did all manner of Injustice to me, and put me away, without any manner of Reason'. On the other hand, she did not seem in a hurry to publish this work, explaining that she owed it to her descendants to put her vindication on record, and that it would be brought out 'if not before, after my death'.^^ But it is possible that her threats of immediate publication had been largely an unsuccessful bluff. Having been cautious hitherto even about the private circulation of her narratives, she must have been aware that so questionable a proceeding as publication would have done as much damage to herself and to the Duke, who had another year's command ahead of him, as to the Queen. The Duchess had never intended to compile her history by herself. She was not convinced by her friends' praise of her unstudied style, and too well aware that her methods of presentation were often disorganized and repetitious. She seems, in fact, to have had general reservations about female authorship: 'if Some have succeeded well in it, others have exposed themselves by it too much, to Encourage a woman to venture on being an Author'.^^ Consequently, although she supplied most of the material for the different versions of her vindication, she always employed a more experienced male collaborator to formalize the style and presentation. In normal circumstances, Maynwaring would have been her obvious choice. He was aware of her plans, and had already assisted in the writing of one of her most important short narratives (Add. MS. 61422, fols. 49-52)- But during the first half of 1711 he was seriously ill,^° and the Duchess turned instead to Gilbert Burnet, the widower of her former close friend (fig. 2). Having encouraged her in 1704 to write her complete

14 Fig. 2. Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, 1643-1715 (By courtesy of The National Portrait Gallery) memoirs, he was now ready to assist her with the experience gained from writing his own history. Two versions of the vindication composed by Burnet survive in the Blenheim Papers: one in his own hand (Add. MS. 61423, fols. 110-53), and the other (fols. 154-79) a more legible copy with corrections by the Duchess. The greater part of this work was written during the spring and summer of 1711. Lady Hyde, one of Queen Anne's Ladies of the Bedchamber, is referred to as Countess of Rochester (fol. 126), a title she assumed on 2 May 1711; and in July 1711 the Duchess herself mentioned 'her Majesty's history which is now writing'.^i Burnet first produced an introductory section (fols. 110-18),^^ which he sent to her for approval. She seemed moderately satisfied, and promised to send him more of her papers so that he could proceed with his task.^^ When Godolphin visited the West Country in June and again in August 1711, he was entrusted by the Duchess with packets of manuscripts to deliver to Burnet at Salisbury.^ What Burnet produced from them was the first attempt at a complete history of the Duchess's relations with the Queen, beginning with their childhood acquaintance, and ending with Sarah's dismissal. Its chief interest now lies in the account of their early relationship. From this one learns, for instance, of Sarah's boredom from the very beginning with Anne's dull company, and of their first political disagreement, over the Rye House plot executions. Burnet must have had these details from the Duchess herself, but no earlier version by her survives among the Blenheim Papers. For events after her discovery of Abigail Masham's favour with the Queen in 1707, Burnet's account has little independent value. Comparison shows that he was relying almost entirely on the short narratives composed by the Duchess in 1710. Sarah bluntly endorsed the finished work 'not well don' (fol. 179^). In the first place, she did not consider it downright enough in its condemnation of her rivals at Court. The obligations of Abigail Masham's family to her had not been sufficiently emphasized, she complained, while her voluminous criticisms of the Dukes of Somerset and Shrewsbury and their wives had been omitted altogether (fol. 186). Burnet had certainly produced an orderly and coherent narrative, but the over-all impression was of a somewhat perfunctory compilation, and not of the complete and polished history which she had hoped for. He had made no attempt, for instance, to revise and incorporate the account originally written for his wife in 1704. Instead he merely remarked that the quarrel in William's reign was 'fully related ... in another paper and therefor I will say no more of it here' (fol. 123). Similarly, he did not trouble to copy out the letters and documents which the Duchess considered so vital a part of her vindication, but simply added the instruction 'Here insert . . .' in the appropriate places. His use of the Queen's letters was, in any case, more cautious than Sarah had anticipated. Worst of all, through an omission of her own, he had given no account at all of her dismissal. His narrative ended in mid-air with the comment: 'Here the last scene of your being turned out must be particularly set forth with all its circumstances, for I find no mention of it in any of the Papers sent me' (fol. 153). Before the Duchess had seen Burnet's account in its entirety, there was an incident

16 which temporarily revived her impulse to use it, not simply to justify herself to posterity, but as a weapon against the Queen. When Sarah vacated her St. James's lodgings in May 1711, the Queen complained that in the process she had removed or damaged several fittings which did not belong to her. Furious at the accusation, the Duchess obtained a declaration to the contrary from the housekeeper of the Palace, and commented vindictively to James Craggs:

I think the greatest use I shall make of this note, is ... that it will look very well in her majesty's history which is now writing to have what she said so plainly proved to be false by her own servant, and I am in great hopes that she and I may both live to bee in such a condition as that I may send her the whole account to shew her what a worthlesse and infamous charecter she has . . .^^

She composed two of her brief narratives on the subject, incorporating the housekeeper's note (Add. MS. 61422, fols. 167-82), but in the event was so dissatisfied with Burnet's history that she had no further additions made to it. Nevertheless, it was to be of use at a later date. The Duchess's comments to Lady Cowper and to Craggs indicate that she had not intended to publish this account of her personal relations with the Queen at once, even if she had been quite satisfied with it. But she had always circulated her narratives relating only to financial matters more freely than those which concerned the Queen, and Swift's accusation in the Examiner still rankled (as late as the Conduct of 1742 it was to be singled out for mention). Since the accusation had been made in print, she could claim with some justification that she was entitled to publish her defence. Marlborough's dismissal at the end of 1711 on charges of corruption, with the accompanying press campaign against both of them, must have provided a fresh incentive. By this time Maynwaring (fig. 3) was sufficiently recovered from his illness to help her. He was an experienced pamphleteer, and as Auditor of Imprests, well qualified to present an argument based on financial calculations. Replying to Swift in the Medley of 4 December 1710, he had remarked that when the time came for a defence of the Duchess, it would be easy 'to shew that the Person ingeniously meant, in the pretty Tale of the Lady^s Woman, was the most faithful and just Servant that ever any Lady had'. In 1712, working to the Duchess's instructions, he attempted to make this claim good. The several versions of this vindication which survive (Add. MS. 61424) provide interesting evidence of her relationship with her collaborators. The letters she had written to her friends in 1710 concerning her conduct in financial matters, and a further account of 1711, possibly compiled for Burnet (Add. MS. 61424, fols. r-24), were not detailed enough for her present purposes. But she expanded them into a set of 'instructions' (fols. 27-36), and two detailed narratives for Maynwaring's use. The first of these narratives (fols. 38-55) concerned her method of keeping accounts as Mistress of the Robes and Keeper of the Privy Purse, and the second (fols. 58-63), the value of the grants she had received from the Queen, and her policy of not taking money for titles and Court appointments. 'I put as many things together as I can think

17 Ftg. J. Arthur Maynwaring, 1668-1712 (By courtesy of The National Portrait Gallery) of out of the old papers', she told Maynwaring, 'that you may Judg with the least trouble to your self what is proper to make use of in what is design'd' (fols. 31^-2). Robert Harley's letter of 1706, with its enclosed hst of Robes expenditure (fols. 19-24), was of course to be cited in this vindication. To supplement it, the Duchess enlisted the help of Lancelot Burton, Deputy Teller of the Exchequer, and an old acquaintance from the days when both of them had been members of the Duke of York's household. Knowing that he had access to financial records, the Duchess asked him to provide her with details of the Robes expenditure of Queen Anne before her marriage, and of Queen Mary 11.^^ The resulting lists (fols. 46-55), and calculations based on them, were to appear in this and all subsequent versions of her vindication. Rachel Thomas, the Duchess's under-officer of the Robes, produced further detailed figures for Maynwaring, covering the whole of her term of office (fols. 83-4). It is significant, however, that in all these preparations for a vindication intended specifically for publication, the Duchess avoided making quotations from, or even references to, the letters in which the Queen had formerly praised her conduct in office. Her remark that she would be ready to declare all the gifts she had ever received from the Queen, 'but that I am in doubt whether it would not bee said to bee disrespectfull' (fol. 34^), indicates a similar discretion. In this, she may have been acting on Maynwaring's advice.^^ The most interesting suggestion in her instructions to Maynwaring was that there should be not one, but two separate publications. The first was to be a 'paper of facts' about financial matters, 'to which I am to put my name', the second to come out upon that as if it came from some body that had a mind to doe Justice and to put things in a right light to the Publick . . . and in that paper I would tell the whole story of the four brothers and sisters that I took into my care, adding the husband Mr Masham . . . (fol. 32.) This account would also justify her long periods of absence from Court. But the full story of the events leading up to her dismissal would be deferred until 'this whole story is told which must some time or other bee made plain to the world tho as late as I can, for the sake of my posterity' (fol. 33^). In pursuance of this suggestion, the Duchess did draw up a very detailed narrative of her early dealings with Abigail Masham and other members of the Hill family (Add. MS. 61422, fols. 194-8). But Maynwaring must have dissuaded her from what amounted to a public attack on the Queen's favourites. Although the vindication which he put together for her deals with her absences from Court, it makes no mention of the Hills. There are two manuscripts of this vindication in Maynwaring's handwriting: a rough draft (fols. 64-82), based on the Duchess's paper of instructions, with emendations from her two narratives; and a more fairly written version (fols. 88-99). These are presented as if from the Duchess herself, and correspond closely to her own texts. The chief changes are in favour of greater stylistic regularity. A few more corrections of the same kind were apparently made by her friend. Dr. Samuel Clarke, Rector of St. James's Piccadilly (fols. 86-7), and incorporated into Maynwaring's second version.

19 There is one further version of the vindication (fols. 103-11), which has a rather less obvious connection with this series of manuscripts. Headed 'A second letter to a friend', it is fairly written in a clerk's hand, and represents itself as a sequel to an earlier published letter defending the Duke of Marlborough. But apart from a transposition into the third person and a little new material on Queen Mary's Robes, it is based closely on Maynwaring's text. The author states, moreover, that he not only writes with the Duchess's 'Knowledge and Approbation, but that even she herself wou'd have publish'd this account, if the common Rules and Forms of the World had allow'd it' (fol. 103^). This version probably resulted from the Duchess's misgivings about personal authorship. In February 1712 she sent the vindication in its original form to Lord Cowper, and asked his opinion about a suitable means of adapting it for pubhcation:

for tho' it is put together as if it were from myself to make my Friends understand it, I don't like to be an Author, and I fancy some body that has sence might turn it some way to make it usefull without exposing me. She suggested that such an adaptation could be given the necessary authority by a preliminary statement that 'I had seen it, and therefore it must be true, or I would not have suffer'd it to have been writ'.^^ The 'letter' version exactly fulfilled these proposals. But in the meantime, Robert Walpole had been asked for his opinion of Maynwaring's manuscript, and he advised firmly against immediate publication, warning the Duchess that in the current atmosphere of party hostility, the vindication, 'though 'twas a very good one', would only serve to provoke further attacks from the Tory press.^^ She accepted his advice, and the 'great bundle' of papers returned to her by Maynwaring'"' joined the growing pile of her vindication manuscripts. Maynwaring himself died a few months later. By circulating her draft justifications amongst so many of her friends, the Duchess ran a constant risk of their unauthorized publication, and there is evidence that the 'Second letter to a friend' only narrowly escaped this fate. In 1742 John Oldmixon reminded her of a version of Maynwaring's vindication which had come into his hands nearly thirty years before: 'it was surreptitiously copy'd, and the Copy brought to an Acquaintance of mine, to have it printed and sold, expecting thereby to make very great Profit'. Warned by Oldmixon of the intended 'Fraud' as she was about to leave for the Continent to join her husband in self-imposed exile, the Duchess ordered him to deliver the copy to her son-in-law. Lord Sunderland. Oldmixon accordingly did so, 'with an Attestation, that it had not been copy'd in Whole, or in Part, excepting Mr. Harley^ Letter to your Grace'.'^^^ The 'Second letter to a friend' does in fact have a note at the end, signed by Old- mixon and by the copyist Thomas Wood, certifying that it was the only copy known to them, 'besides that already given to her Grace'. It is possible that Oldmixon, a close journalistic associate of Maynwaring, had been involved in recasting his manuscript

20 into letter form, and very probable that this was the version saved from pirated pubU- cation. Before leaving for the Continent in February 1713, the Duchess dehvered her vindication manuscripts to her lawyer, John Woodford, for safe keeping. By the end of April she was settled at Frankfurt, and a month later she sent a message, requesting him to forward 'all the papers that concern my accounts'. But he was first to take copies, in case the originals should be lost in transit. Since '7 or 8 parcells' of manuscripts were involved, it is not surprising that this commission took more than four months to execute."*^^ In the meantime the Marlboroughs had the company of a certain 'Mr Hutchinson', who, according to the Duchess, was 'a good while with us at Frankford every day very civilly treated'. Discussions with this person, who was probably the lawyer and business agent Archibald Hutcheson (or Hutchinson),'^^ so stimulated her that she began yet another version of her vindication (Add. MS. 61425). In the absence of her letters and papers, however, she found herself wanting 'many advantages of making it so perfect as I hope to some time or other' (fol. i). Originally this version was intended purely for Hutcheson's benefit. The first draft was headed 'Memorandums for Mr Hutchinson', altered after they had parted, to 'A letter to Mr Hutchinson'. In a later endorsement to the work, the Duchess noted that it was compiled for her by a 'Mr Priest' (fol. 146). She had engaged this 'Mr Priest' as a domestic chaplain and confidential secretary before she left England, on the recommendation of Marlborough's former Chaplain-General, Dr. Francis Hare."^ For reasons that are not clear, Coxe repeatedly refers to him as 'Mr St. Priest'.'^^ In fact he is identifiable as Whadcock Priest, a Cambridge graduate and former chaplain of King's College, where the Marlboroughs' son had been educated. Hare himself had been a Fellow of King's. Whadcock Priest was appointed to a prebend at Ely in March 1714 ('on a view of marrying Bishop Moore's Daughter'), and took his D.D. at the same time. The 'Mr Priest' who assisted the Duchess with her vindication made a brief trip to England to secure preferment at precisely this date, and after his return was referred to as 'Doctor Priest'."^ There are several versions of Priest's vindication. The first, that written for Hutcheson (fols. 1-23), is a rough draft; the second (fols. 24-54) a fair copy of it in another hand, with numerous corrections and additions by the Duchess and Priest. In the third (fols. 55-91), a version fairly written by Priest, all references to Hutcheson have been omitted and the title is changed to 'An Account of some Matters of Fact which relate to The Dutches of Marlborough's Conduct at Court'. The purpose of the vindication is by this time acknowledged to be the far more basic one of satisfying the Duchess's brooding preoccupation with the causes of her disgrace; or as Priest put it on her behalf: that I might not quite forget the several circumstances of my behaviour in the service of her Majesty, and might gratify my inclinations in recollecting the passages of my own innocence or satisfy any friend that might desire to see an account of them. (fol. 55.)

This version was written in or shortly after October 1713, by which time the

21 Marlboroughs had moved to Antwerp (fol. 55), and the papers sent for by the Duchess had at last arrived from England. Priest tacked on some of these new items, which included the lists of Robes expenditure made use of by Maynwaring, in an appendix (fols. 85-91). In a final version (fols. 107-45), he expanded this material and incorporated it into the main text. Priest's narrative is methodically divided into three sections. The first concerns the Duchess's management as Mistress of the Robes and Keeper of the Privy Purse; the second the financial advantages she had made from Queen Anne's favour; and the third, the events leading up to her dismissal. The first two topics had already been covered by Maynwaring. The third, on the Duchess's instructions, had been deferred by him till a later date, although she had of course dealt with it herself in her series of short narratives, some of which had been used by Burnet. In spite of this. Priest's version does have an independent value, arising chiefly from the Duchess's fresh recollection of the subject-matter for his benefit. She herself states that the papers sent from England did not arrive until the greatest part of the vindication had been written down 'by the help of my memery only' (fol. 85). Although in his discussion of financial matters. Priest eventually had access to the same documents as Maynwaring, the account he produced from them was more detailed than that of 1712, particularly in its calculations of Robes expenditure. But it is the third section of his narrative, dealing with the Duchess's last years at Court, which differs most markedly from previous versions. Some episodes, such as the crisis over the disposal of the Essex regiment, are omitted altogether. Others, Sarah's last interview with the Queen, for example, include some details not to be found in earlier or later versions. During the Queen's lifetime at least, this section remained a confidential document. In the third version of Priest's narrative the first two sections, dealing with financial matters, end near the bottom of a page, and the final section begins on a fresh leaf. At the foot of the second section a note has been added by a different amanuensis: 'as for what relates to the mannor of my leaving the Court, that is a part the Queen's honour is so much concerned in, that I cant tell it without saying more, than tis at present fitt I should' (fol. 64^). It is clear that on some occasions the Duchess circulated the first two sections by themselves, keeping the more confidential matter private. She was pleased with Priest's version of her vindication, provisional as it was, and on his visit to England early in 1714 he took a copy of it with him to show to her friends.''^^ In a letter to Charlotte Clayton, she wished him success in the preferment 'he went over for ... but whatever happens hee can never fail of having a very true friend as long as I live, who will endeavour to serve him in any thing that lyes in my power'."^ Priest, however, did not live long enough to benefit by her patronage. Only a few months after the Marlboroughs' return to England he contracted smallpox, and died at Cambridge early in January 1715."*^^ The Marlboroughs were officially restored to favour at the Court of George I. Nevertheless, the Duchess began her preparations almost at once for the definitive justification of her conduct, to which both Maynwaring and Priest had referred. A

22 fresh spur was provided by 'the injustice, and, I may say, ingratitude of the whigs', some of whom were now disposed to blame her conduct for the downfall of their cause in the previous reign. ^° The aims of this new vindication, as she explained in the Conduct, were therefore to give an account of my conduct with regard to parties, and of the successful artifice of Mr Harley and Mrs Masham, in taking advantage of the Queen's passion for what she called the Church, to undermine me in her affections. She added that 'in this undertaking I had the assistance of a friend, to whom I furnished materials' (p. 6). The identity of this friend has never been established. The Duchess does not mention him by name, referring to him simply as 'the historian' or compiler of her 'history'. Coxe was unable to identify him, and at one point confused him with 'St. Priest'.^^ But he did have transcripts made of the latter part of the 'history', together with some later notes on it by the Duchess. Excerpts from these transcripts have been published out of their original order, with the misleading editorial title, 'Characters of her contemporaries; by the Duchess of Marlborough'.^^ Various conjectures have been made about this 'work'. A note by Coxe, identifying a person referred to indirectly in the text, has been mistaken for an attribution to Francis Atterbury, while the Duchess's references to 'the historian' in her notes have led one editor to suppose that she was commenting on Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Time.^^ In fact, with access to the complete original manuscript of the 'history' (now Add. MS. 61426), the identity of'the historian' is not difficult to determine. The work has no title, but has been referred to by its opening words, 'The Characters oi Princes are hardly ever truly known'. ^ In old age the Duchess described how she had had a copy made of the original manuscript, 'that I might shew it when I would to anybody without Prejudice to the Historian, who had writ it all with his own Hand. And, if I had not writ it over again, possibly somebody might have known it'. This in itself indicates that he was a person of some importance. The copy, according to the Duchess, had 139 pages. ^^ The manuscript in the Blenheim Papers, with 249 numbered leaves and numerous alterations by the author, is clearly the original from which this copy was taken. The handwriting is that of the low church controversialist, Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop of Bangor (fig. 4). That he should have become the Duchess's historian is not surprising. She had been delighted with his Whig propaganda in 1710, had lent him money, and interested herself in his promotion in the Church, even claiming later that he owed his bishopric to her influence. Hoadly's letters certainly acknowledge his obHgations to her.^^ In the preparatory task of sifting through her papers, he probably had the assistance of his friend. Dr. Samuel Clarke. Of an annotation on one of the manuscripts, Sarah has written: 'I fancy it is something the late Docter Clarke write to give to the historian, for he was one of my Councellours in all that I derected to be don.' Clarke also made a few corrections to Hoadly's finished text.^"^

23 Fig. 4. Benjamin Hoadly, Bishop successively of Bangor, Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester, 1676-1761 (By courtesy of The National Portrait Gallery) Hoadly's history was put together during the very early years of George I's reign. The final section, in the form of an appendix, is dated 25 July 1715, and this may well represent the completion date of the whole work. It was certainly finished by 1718, when the Duchess told Mrs. Godolphin of her vindication 'which is allready written in five books'. ^^ The original binding of Hoadly's manuscript has disappeared, but it is still sewn in five sections (fols. r-50; 51-120; 121-70; 171-210; 211-49), ^^he last of which has an initial leaf numbered '5'. In addition, Hoadly compiled a supplementary volume, which is not among the Blenheim Papers at the British Library, although its contents can be deduced from the Duchess's numerous references to it. She called it 'the Book of Records', 'the Book of Vouchers', or simply 'the Brown Book', explaining that it contained a number of original letters of Queen Anne and others, accompanied by the 'observations of the first Historian'. These were intended to serve as 'vouchers' to the history.^^ In 1718, referring to her vindication 'in five books', she declared her intention to 'leave an anuity in my family which shall oblig them to keep the vouchers to this history*, the most important of which had been 'made fast in a book'. And again, many years later: I have preserved all origenal leters, and papers and vouchers to this history to prove the exact truths in it if ever it comes to be printed, which I think is necessary not only from the unaccountable things which it relates, but because I have seen so many falsitys written of those things that I knew to be so my self. She added, 'I know of no history but this, that has vouchers'.^ In relating the Duchess's history, Hoadly adopted the rather improbable persona of an old courtier, who was in her confidence, and had been able to 'observe things very exactly, without being much observed myself (fol. 2). Evidently the Duchess had retained her dislike of direct authorship. In old age she made the further oblique remark: 'Whoever reads this account will wonder why I put on so many Masks in the History, but they were not fit to be seen from me.'^^ She was chiefly referring to its very frequent and outspoken criticisms of Queen Anne. In view of the advantages which she and her family had derived from the Queen's favour, these criticisms could not decently be seen to come directly from her, although she had certainly encouraged Hoadly to include them at the time.^^ They also account for her care not to reveal his authorship. Hoadly set out, as Burnet had done, to give a complete account of the Duchess's years at Court, and Burnet's rejected draft was certainly among the materials with which she furnished him. Of the early stages of Sarah's relations with Anne, for instance, Burnet had written: She loved me to a passion and often said it was a constant joy to her to see me, and as constant an uneasines to let me go from her. We were for many hours shut up together daily and when I made my escapes and was with other company she said she envied them and desired to possesse me wholly. (Add. MS. 61423, fol. 120.)

25 Hoadly's version was simply a paraphrase of this:

They were shut up together, for many hours, daily . . . To see the Dutchess mas a Constant Joy\ and to part with Her, for never so short a time, a constant Uneasiness: as the Princess's own frequent Expressions were. This work'd, even to the jealousy of a Lover. She us'd to say. She desired lo possess Her wholy: and could hardly bear that she should ever escape from this Confinement, into any other Company. (Add. MS. 61426, fol. 5.)

The more specific emphasis on an unnatural element in the Queen's feeling is typical of Hoadly's hostile presentation of her character. It is clear from a full comparison of the two works, that for the main incidents concerning the Duchess Hoadly relied on Burnet as a source, rather than on the series of preliminary narratives which Burnet had used, or on the version by Priest which followed. One indication of this is Hoadly's omission of a detailed account of the Duchess's dismissal. Burnet had not supplied this because the Duchess had failed to send him her narratives on the subject. Priest had described the episode in some detail. It seems, therefore, either that Hoadly did not see these accounts, or that he simply found it more convenient to adapt Burnet's ready-made history, than to reconstruct the narrative afresh from the Duchess's now confused mass of papers. Nevertheless, there is much in Hoadly's history which is not to be found in Burnet's, including a more extensive use of Marlborough's correspondence with Queen Anne and Robert Harley, and far more direct criticism of individuals, such as the Dukes of Somerset and Shrewsbury and their wives. The omission of this by Burnet had of course been one of the Duchess's chief sources of dissatisfaction. Hoadly was also given a freer hand than any of the Duchess's former collaborators, and there is a good deal in his history which is of his own composition. For this reason, care is necessary when using it as a source. It can be misleading to assume that all the opinions expressed in it are those of the Duchess herself. The following 'apparently conceited' passage, for instance, has been cited in a recent biography as very significant evidence of Sarah's personal priorities at her first coming to Court: She was very young, and very beautifull: and had a Capacity and Spirit, great enough not to stand in need of those advantages, as well as not to depend upon them. (fol. 4.)^^

In fact the Duchess positively disapproved of this passage, striking it through in the original manuscript, and directing that it should be omitted if ever Hoadly's history was made public, together with 'all the Compliments the historian is pleas'd to make me'.*^ Clearly it represented Hoadly's ideas, and not her own. Hoadly was also responsible for several of the more striking character sketches in the history. In the Conduct of 1742, there is oblique mention of Robert Harley, 'whom I indeed should be at a loss to describe, but of whom a friend of mine, many years ago, drew the following just character' (p. 261). The quotation which follows is taken verbatim from Hoadly's history (fols. 134-5). Also probably attributable to Hoadly are the long, satirical, and often quite irrelevant digressions concerning high church

26 ecclesiastics, such as John Sharp, Archbishop of York, whose 'Eyes flamed very remarkably at Publick prayers', though he preached 'with a Cadence of Voice purely Mechanical', and Dr. Henry Sacheverell, with his 'good assurance; clean Gloves; white handkerchiefs well managed', and 'other suitable accomplishments'. Again these passages have been ascribed to the Duchess, ^^ but they are traceable to nothing in her earlier writings, and are more likely to represent Hoadly's view of his professional rivals. Although Hoadly may not have used Priest's account of the events leading to Sarah's dismissal, he certainly had access to those parts of the chaplain's narrative which related to financial matters. For a defence of the Duchess's conduct in this respect, Hoadly referred his readers to 'a Paper [published some time ago and now] annex'd to these Memoirs' (fol. 19: the square-bracketed words have been crossed through by Hoadly). The appendix thus referred to forms the fifth 'book' of Hoadly's history, and is a close paraphrase, even to the very similar title, of the first two sections of Priest's narrative. He had dealt with the subject so thoroughly that further rewriting was evidently considered unnecessary. The Duchess was at first very pleased with the 'method and stile' of Hoadly's work, telling Mrs. Godolphin that if it was not published in her own lifetime, she would certainly arrange for it to be brought out after her death. ^^ But as the remaining thirty years of her life went by, she came to see more and more cleariy that the history could not be published as it stood. Hoadly had mentioned her quarrels with the Court in William's reign 'only where he could not avoid it', and consequently had not offered much justification for her conduct at that period. Nor had he been prepared to repeat her accusations of disloyalty against certain of the Whig leaders in connection with the ministerial changes of 1710. But the Duchess had accepted such omissions as inevitable, given her choice of historian. 'He was very partial to the Whigs', she remarked, 'being one himself'.^"^ Much more of a problem were her own changes of heart about some of the chief characters in the history. A series of violent quarrels with her son-in-law, Sunderland, between 1717 and 1720 caused her to obliterate all her former complimentary references to him. ^^ On the other hand, the Duke of Somerset, for whom no condemnation could be too emphatic at the time Hoadly was writing, had won the Duchess over in her widowhood by his proposals of marriage and subsequent steady friendship. She retracted her former criticisms of his political conduct, and as a result substantial portions of the history had to be deleted or rewritten. ^^ Most important of all was the modification of the Duchess's views about Queen Anne. It is clear that by the 1730s, Queen Caroline, her favourite Mrs. Clayton, and the prime minister Sir Robert Walpole, had largely superseded Queen Anne, Abigail Masham, and Robert Harley as the chief objects of the Duchess's political criticism. Reviewing Hoadly's history in the late 1730s, she remarked: the Historian has made a character of the Queen that I think is too severe . . . For I really think she meant well . . . And one thing I will say more, that she was as good as an Angel and as wise as Solomon in comparison of some that I have had the Honour to know.

27 And again, referring to Abigail Masham: I think the mischiefs that have been done since by queen Caroline assisted in all vile things by Mrs Clayton are much greater, and seems impossible to be recover'd."^" To demonstrate this, and as a kind of sequel to her history of Queen Anne, she put together a libellous collection of anecdotes entitled 'Queen Caroline's History', although only tables of contents for this now survive amongst the Blenheim Papers (Add. MS. 61418, fols. 222-6). More creditably, the process of finishing Blenheim Palace seems to have given the Duchess, perhaps for the first time, a genuine appreciation of what she and her family owed to Queen Anne's generosity. It was in recognition of this that she commissioned the Rysbrack statue of the Queen in 1735, and prepared a eulogistic inscription for it (intended to reflect indirectly on Queen Caroline), of which an engraving was published in 1738.^^ 'I have a satisfaction in showing this respect to her', the Duchess told her granddaughter, 'because her kindness to me was real'.*^^ But having made this acknowledgement, she realized that if Hoadly's history were ever published as intended, it would be 'very difficult to reconcile the character he has given her with that I have given her on the statue at Blenheim'.^^ Unable to bring herself to destroy the manuscript, she decided that the only possible course was 'to leave my executors to doe what they Judg best with it, for it is not fitt that I should ever make it public'.^""^ The obvious solution to all these problems, a revision of the history, had proved difficult. Clarke was dead, Hoadly had dropped her acquaintance as a result of her feud with Queen Caroline, and when the Duchess approached Voltaire with the project on his visit to England in the late 1720s, she is said to have found his independence of judgement about her own conduct too great a drawback. ^^ She did attempt a greatly abridged version of the history herself at the end of the i73os.^^ But it was not, apparently, until about 1740, when she was past her eightieth year, that the historian Nathaniel Hooke (fig. 5) was recommended to her as a successor to Hoadly. Alexander Pope and her executor Lord Chesterfield (probably the unnamed nobleman to whom the Conduct was addressed) both seem to have been instrumental in this introduction."^"^ As a result she was finally able to embark on her preparations for a full version of her vindication, which would be suitable for publication in her own lifetime. To supply the major omission from Hoadly's history, she had a modified version prepared of the narrative originally written for Mrs. Burnet in 1704. Part of this (Add. MS. 61421, fols. 137-56) is in the handwriting of her steward, Christopher Loft, and part (fols. 157-62) in that of her secretary. Dr. James Stephens. In her copy of Hoadly's history, she crossed through items to be 'alter'd or left out'. These included most of the criticisms of Queen Anne and the compliments to herself. Some notes of her own were appended, 'to reconcile, as far as I can, the different characters of Queen Anne'. Her general instruction to Hooke was to emphasize that the Queen 'had naturally no Vice, but unfortunately fell into very bad Hands'. Further details followed concerning the Whig leaders, as 'information to the historian to give characters'. "^^

28 Fig. 5. Nathaniel Hooke, d. 1763 (By courtesy of The National Portrait Gallery) Hooke was evidently spared the task of sorting through the whole 'sadly garbled' mass of the Duchess's papers, but the anecdote which has the bedridden Dowager dictating the Conduct directly to him without notes"^^ is misleading. The introduction itself acknowledges that his main task was to put certain existing accounts together in a connected form. Those specified are the narrative of 1704, the defence of her conduct in office, compiled after her dismissal, and Hoadly's history. The narrative of 1704 underwent the least alteration. Hooke was chiefly concerned to present it in a more orderly form. In the process, however, he did omit some significant material, and for this reason the manuscript versions retain their value. Among the details excluded were revelations of the Duchess's states of mind, which were evidently considered too candid for publication: her near panic, for instance, at the Revolution (Add. MS. 61421, fol. 6), and her suspense during the dispute over the Princess's independent income, when the conflicting pressures on her were so great, that 'I really thought I should have been madd' (fol. 11). Also omitted was an important passage from the later manuscript version, concerning Marlborough's advance prepara- tions for the Revolution (fol. 145^). For events before 1688 and after Queen Anne's accession, Hooke relied chiefly on Hoadly's history. The only substantial matter not obviously derived from this source, nor from any other in the Blenheim Papers, is the heavily ironical account of Tory strategy in relation to the Occasional Conformity Bill, early in the reign (pp. 137-47). Hooke quotes many letters in full which Hoadly only paraphrased or summarized, and includes a few letters which Hoadly did not use. He also makes far more exaggerated claims for the Duchess's influence with the Queen on behalf of the Whigs, than either Burnet or Hoadly had dared to do at the time. But these were clearly designed to reinforce her accusations of 'injustice' and 'ingratitude' against the Whig leaders. In private she was quite prepared to admit that in the late queens time, tho I was a favourit, without the help of the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin I should not have been able to do any thing of any consiquence and the things that are worth naming will ever bee don from the influence of men.^° But the most notable differences between Hoadly's history and the Conduct are Hooke's large-scale omissions. These include most of the criticisms of particular individuals and all attempts to discredit the Queen. This latter pohcy involved the deletion of whole episodes (such as her relationship with her first favourite. Miss Cornwalhs), and the severe curtailment of most others. The only comment on the Queen's conduct was that specifically allowed by the Duchess: she 'always meant well, how much soever she might be blinded or misguided' (p. 244). Hooke's version of the Duchess's years at Court was followed by an appendix concerning her conduct in her offices (pp. 272-316). Although this is said (p. 272) to be based on Maynwaring's account of 1712, a comparison with all previous versions makes it quite clear that Hooke was chiefly using Hoadly's appendix as his source. This, as already indicated, was in turn derived from Priest's vindication. Maynwaring's

30 account had been less detailed than all of these. Indeed, it was the elaborateness of Hooke's appendix, compared with the obvious abridgement of his account of the Duchess's relations with Queen Anne, which prompted a disappointed Horace Walpole to describe the Conduct as 'rather the annals of a wardrobe than a reign'.^^ The first edition of the Conduct, printed by James Bettenham for George Hawkins in 1742, is well known and has been reprinted in this century. But it seems to have been generally overlooked that there was a simultaneous large-paper edition printed for private distribution amongst the Duchess's friends, and that some copies of this have a forty-seven page 'Postscript' of additional material. ^^ This 'Postscript', like the main body of the Conduct, was based on a set of much earlier manuscripts. After a quarrel with her two surviving daughters, Henrietta, Duchess of Marlborough, and Mary, Duchess of Montagu, in 1722, Sarah began to compose what became known as her 'Green Book'. The purpose of this long account of the misdemeanours of her children and grandchildren was at first to counter gossip about her relations with them, and later to explain to her executors why so many members of her family had been excluded from her will. But over the years its emphasis shifted. Henrietta died in 1733, and in 1742 the Duchess was reconciled, after years of estrangement, with her one remaining daughter.^^ The chief character of the 'Green Book' became her spendthrift grandson, Charles, 3rd Duke of Marlborough. In 1738 their quarrels culminated in a Chancery suit over the ist Duke's will, and it was as a result of this publicity that the Duchess decided to compile the 'Postscript' narrative, drawing largely on material from her 'Green Book'. It begins with an explanation of the rst Duke's intentions regarding his will, supported by quotations from his letters to herself. This is followed by a description of the lawsuit, in which the 3rd Duke had attempted to break through the provisions of the will, and discredit her trusteeship of the Marlborough estates. Finally, there is an account of her relations with him and his family, designed to enforce a sense of his ingratitude to her. The narrative ends with his decision to join Walpole's administration in 1738, 'in Contradic- tion to what he knew to be her Sentiment' (p. 47). Perhaps the Duchess realized that the further public parading of this family quarrel would reflect little credit on either party. At the last minute, when the 'Postscript' was actually in print, she decided not to release it for general distribution with the Conduct, but to show it instead only to a few close friends, because they were 'so near Relations that woud be Exposed by it'.^ The final version of the 'Green Book' is not among the Blenheim Papers, but a large collection of manuscripts from which both it and the 'Postscript' were compiled is at Add. MS. 61451. Having fulfilled an intention of more than thirty years' standing, the Duchess rested content. *I have done what I had great pleasure in', she remarked when taxed with criticisms of the Conduct, 'vindicated myself by incontestable proofs from the vile aspersions that had been thrown upon me by the rage of parties'.^^ But this, of course, is what she had not done. As attempts at self-defence, her various narratives make disturbing, and even pathetic reading. Their sheer quantity, and the

31 'curious orderly incoherence' of those of her own composition, have been plausibly cited by one biographer as evidence of a mental disturbance amounting to paranoia.^*^ In their obsessive and often irrelevant detail there is much that is unintentionally more damaging to herself than the original 'aspersions' ever could have been. If there were no other evidence, her accounts of her confrontations with Queen Anne, for example, would make the reasons for her loss of favour only too clear. Yet the same qualities which make the narratives ineffective as self-defence contribute to their interest as history, and whatever the psychological compulsion behind her outpourings, the Duchess had witnessed and participated in much that was worth recording. It was with the instinct of an historian, and not simply as a friend and partisan, that Burnet had urged her to complete the account of her years at Court. He was sure, as his wife had reported, that 'it would be very valuable'.

1 Pages 5-7; references are to the first edition, 13 'Monday past one' [1708], Add. MS. 61459, fol- printed by James Bettenham for George 53^- Hawkins, 1742. 14 Letters: to Sir D. Hamilton (?), 16 June 1710, 2 Letter of 3 November 1718, A. W. Thibaudeau Add. MS. 61423, fols. 1-8; from Jael Boscawen, (ed.), Catalogue of the Collection of. . . Alfred 15 October, 20 November 1710, Add. MS. 61441, Morrison (London, 1883-92), vol. iv, p. 154. fols. 93, 99-100; to Lady Cowper, 31 August 3 W. Coxe's catalogue of the 'G' manuscripts. Add. 1710, Hertfordshire Record Office, Panshanger MS. 61710, especially fol. 2. MSS. F228, pp. 35-57. I am grateful to Lady 4 Most of the draft, now Add. MS. 61421, fols. Ravensdale and to the County Archivist, Mr. 1-70, was at Gi-io, but fols. 16-23 "^^^e at Peter Walne, for permission to use the Pans- G1-17. hanger MSS. 5 Add. MS. 61710; annotations to Add. MSS. 15 Letters: to Sir D. Hamilton (?), 16 June 1710 61421-6 and Add. MSS. 9121-2 (transcripts), and n.d. [1710], Add. MS. 61423, fols. 1-8, passim. Cf. Historical Manuscripts Commission, 11-12; to Gilbert Burnet, 29 June 1710, Bod- 8th Report, pt. i (1881), pp. i4-i5> 26; William leian Library Add. MS. A 191, fols. 1-2; from King (ed.). Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marl- Mrs. Boscawen, 15 October 1710, Add. MS. borough (London, 1930), pp. xix-xxiv; Winston 61441, fol. 93; to Robert Jennens, 4 December S. Churchill, Marlborough: His Life and Times 1710, Letters of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (London, 1947), vol. i, p. 991. . . . at Madresfield Court (London, 1875), pp. 6 Edward Gregg, Qtieen Anne (London, 1980), 18-24, 123-5. pp. 188-93. 16 The first narrative, describing events of 1707, 7 Letter of 25 May [1705], Add. MS. 61474, fol. mentions the Essex regiment crisis of 1710. 17 W. Coxe, Memoirs of John, Duke of Marlborough 134- (London, 1818-19), vol. iii, p. 345; Coxe's list at 8 Cf. examples of his handwriting at Add. MSS. Add. MS. 61423, fols. 108-9. 61347, fol. 12 and 61477, fol. 9. 9 Cf. examples of her handwriting at Add. MS. 18 To Mrs. Boscawen, 6 November 1710, Evelyn 61472, fols. 82-9, 167^, and the Duchess's state- MSS., Christ Church, Oxford. I am grateful to ment. Add. MS. 61418, fol. 103^, that she the Trustees of the will of Major Peter George employed her chambermaid to copy her papers. Evelyn for permission to quote from these manu- scripts. 10 To Sir David Hamilton, 10 December 1710, Add. 19 Letters: from Mrs. Boscawen, 15 October, 4, 11, MS. 61423, fol. 56^. 20, 23 November 1710, Add. MS. 61441, fols. 11 Letter of [November 1704], Add. MS. 61458, fol 27. 93-101; to Mrs. Boscawen, 6 November 1710, Evelyn MSS.; from Francis Hare, i December 12 Letters of Halifax, 8 April 1705, Add. MS. 61458, 1710, Private Correspondence of Sarah, Duchess of fol. 157, and Lady Arundell, 15 June [1706-8], Marlborough (London, 1838), vol. ii, p. 62. Add. MS. 61456, fol. 128. 20 Jonathan Swift, The Examiner, and Other Pieces Establishment of the Duke of York's household, Written ijio-u (ed. Herbert Davis, Oxford, 1682, Add. MS. 38863, fol. 3^. 1941), p. 225; S. Clement, Faults on Both Sides 37 For a report of Maynwaring's advice to her about (London, 1710), p. 34; letters of 31 August and the letters, though from a hostile source, see 8 November 1710, Panshanger MSS. F 228, pp. Gilbert Burnet, History of His Own Time (ed. 35-7, 108. M. J. Routh, Oxford, 1823), vol. iii, p. 281, 21 Letter of 5 December 1710, Add. MS. 61423, Dartmouth's note. fol. 33- 38 'Friday at noon' [8 February 1712], Panshanger 22 Letter to Sir D. Hamilton (.'), 26 June 1710, MSS. F 228, p. 79. Add. MS. 61423, fol. 9; 'Memarandoms concern- 39 Note by the Duchess, Add. MS. 61424, fol. 100; ing the history of Mrs. Morley, June the 31th cf. B.L., Egerton MS. 2543, fol. 365, and Con- [«V] 1710', Add. MS. 9092, fol. 131^ (an endorse- duct, pp. 5-6. ment belonging to her letter to Arthur Mayn- 40 Maynwaring to the Duchess, [July 1712.^], Add. waring, I July 1710, Add. MS. 61461, fols. MS. 61461, fol. 164. 67-70). Cf. letter from William Talbot, 41 J. Oldmixon, Memoirs of the Press (London, 13 November 1710, Add. MS. 61475, fol. 1742), sig. A4. 31^ 42 Duchess to Craggs, 21 May/i June, 30 Septem- 23 Letter from the Queen, 12 June 1710, Add. MS. ber/ii October 1713, StoweMS. 751,fols. 44"^-5, 61418, fol. 106; Priest's vindication, 1713, 88. Woodford is referred to in this correspond- Add. MS. 61425, fol. 135; note by the Duchess, ence as ''i,-^''; a key to the cipher is at Add. MS. Add. MS. 61418, fol. 73. 61575, fol- 64. 24 Philip Roberts (ed.). The Diary of Sir David 43 Duchess to Charlotte Clayton, 20/31 March Hamilton iyog-iji4 (Oxford, 1975), p. 12 (cited 1714, Add. MS. 61463, fol. 123. For Hutcheson below as Hamilton Diary). and the Marlboroughs' acquaintance with him, 25 Hamilton Diary, p. 20, 30 November 1710; note see Romney Sedgwick, The House of Commons by the Duchess to letter of 5 December 1710, 1715-1754 (London, 1970), vol. ii, pp. 163-4; Add. MS. 61423, fol. 34. Marlborough to Newcastle, 18 January 1715, 26 Copies of the Queen's letters by the Duchess and Add. MS. 32679, fol. 19; H.M.C., yth Report Charles Hodges, endorsed with the date of (1879), Ormonde MSS., p. 814 (as Hutchinson). copying, are at Add. MS. 61414, fols. 164, 187, 44 Hare to Marlborough, 29 January 1713, Private 193; cf. Hamilton Diary, pp. 26-7, 10 January Correspondence, vol. ii, pp. 89-90. 1711. 45 Add. MSS. 61423, fol. 189 and 61425, fols. 27 E. Gregg, op. cit., p. 329. 148-9; cf. W. King, ed. cit., pp. xx-xxi, and 28 To Lady Cowper, Sunday 11 March [1711], David Green, Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough Panshanger MSS. F 228, p. 76; Burnet's vindica- (London, 1967), pp. 179, 189. tion, 1711, in W. S. Churchill, op. cit., vol. i, 46 J. and J. A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses (Cam- p. 991. bridge, 1922, etc.); John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae 29 Burnet's vindication, in W. S. Churchill, op. cit., Anglicanae (London, 1716), p. 77 (B.L. 4705.i.7, vol. i, p. 991; cf. Maynwaring's vindication, Add. with manuscript notes); Duchess to Mrs. Clay- MS. 61424, fol. 64; Conduct, p. 5. ton, 20/31 March 1714, Add. MS. 61463, fol. 30 Maynwaring to Lord Coningsby, 13 March, 122^; Marlborough to Craggs, 12/23 May 1714, 5 June 1711, Add. MS. 57861, fols. 158, 163. Stowe MS. 751, fol. 92. The Cambridge Univer- 31 To James Craggs, 28 July 1711, B.L., StoweMS. sity Subscription Book 1691-1724, fol. 117 con- 751, fol. 7. tains an example of Whadcock Priest's signature 32 Printed from the copy at fols. 154-9, i" W- S. which corresponds closely to the handwriting in Churchill, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 991-7. Add. MS. 61425; I am grateful to the Keeper of 33 To Burnet, [May-June 1711], Private Corre- the University Archives, Mrs. D. M. Owen, for spondence, vol. ii, pp. 114-15. this reference. 34 Godolphin to Burnet, 13 June 1711, Bodleian 47 Hare to the Duchess, 20 October 1713, 15 April Add. MS. A 191, fol. 35. 1714, Add. MS. 61464, fols. 66, 67; a copy of 35 28 July 1711, Stowe MS. 751, fol. 7. Priest's narrative, entitled 'An account of some 36 Priest's vindication. Add. MS. 61425, fol. i; matters of fact which relate to the Dutchess of

33 Marlborough's conduct at Court wrote by her Hoadly's character of the Queen at Add. MS. Grace when abroad to some friends in England', 61426, fols. 203-10. is at Panshanger MSS. F 229, fol. 70 fF. 63 I. Butler, op. cit., p. 55, quoting from a copy of 48 20/31 March 1714, Add. MS. 61463, fol. Hoadly's history at Althorp. 122^. 64 Duchess's notes. Add. MSS. 61426, fols. 4, 250; 49 James Bentham, The History and Antiquities of 9122, fol. 189. the . . . Cathedral Church of Ely, 2nd edn. (Nor- 65 Add. MS. 61426, fols. 41-6, 157; I. Butler, op. wich, 1812), p. 259. cit., p. 141; Geoffrey Holmes, The Trial of Doctor 50 Conduct, pp. 6, 122; Duchess to Lady Cowper, Sacheverell (London, 1973), p. 12. 26 February 1716, Panshanger MSS. F 63, fol. 66 [November 1718], Add. MS. 54225, fol. 150. 136. 67 Notes of 1740, Private Correspondence, vol. ii, 51 Coxe's notes. Add. MS. 61426, fol. 271, and p. 148. Private Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 125. 68 Duchess's correspondence with Sunderland, 52 Transcripts at Add. MS. 9122, fols. 150-89, Add. MS. 61443, fols. 99-147, and her narrative partially printed in Private Correspondence, vol. at 61418, fols. 206-8. Cf. deleted passages. Add. ii, pp. 116-61, and W. King, ed. cit., pp. 225- MS. 61426, fols. 57-8, 181. 69. 69 Duchess to Somerset, 2 January 1724, Devon 53 Add. MS. 9122, fol. 170, referring back to fol. Record Office, Seymour of Berry Pomeroy MSS. 167; W. King, ed. cit., pp. xxiii-xxv. (I am grateful to Col. Pennington-Ramsden for 54 Coxe's note. Add. MS. 61426, fol. 271; E. Gregg, permission to refer to these manuscripts); D. op. cit., e.g. p. 415, note 76. Green, op. cit., p. 245. Cf. deleted passages. 55 Add. MS. 9122, fol. 188. Coxe's transcripts of the Add. MS. 61426, fols. 137-42, 150. history, cited here and in note 52 above, were 70 To Lady Hardwicke, [i73-?]> Add. MS. 35853, taken from this copy, which is not among the fol. 31^; note at Add. MS. 61462, fol. 171. Blenheim Papers at the British Library. 71 Letter to Lord Stair, 1738, W. King, ed. cit., 56 Hoadly's letters to the Duchess, 1719-27, Add. pp. 273-6; Katherine Thomson, Memoirs of MS. 61464, fols. 161-85, especially her endorse- Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough (London, 1839), ment on that of 6 August 1719, fol. 163; E. vol. ii, pp. 519-20; a copy of the engraving is Gregg, op. cit., pp. 188-9; Duchess to Mayn- bound with the Conduct in B.L., 292.i.ii. waring, I July 1710, Add. MS. 61461, fol. 68, 72 24 June 1735, Gladys Scott Thomson (ed.). concerning Hoadly's Thoughts of an Honest Tory Letters of a Grandmother (London, 1943), p. (London, 1710). 5 ^ .. 57 Duchess's note. Add. MS. 61418, fol. 171^; 73 Notes of 1740, Private Correspondence, vol. ii, p. Clarke's corrections. Add. MS. 61426, e.g. fols. 145; cf. note at Add. MS. 61426, fol. 251. 54 and 94. Cf. 'Memorandums concerning the 74 To Lady Evelyn, 17 October 1736, Evelyn History . . .' apparently in Clarke's hand. Add. MSS. MS. 61426, fol. 269. 75 Endorsements on Hoadly's letters. Add. MS. 58 'Wednesday' [November 1718], Add. MS. 61464, fols. 163, 182; 'Memoirs of M. de Vol- 54225, fol. 150. taire', Arthur Friedman (ed.). Collected Works 59 Notes to letters of Queen Anne, Add. MSS. of Oliver Goldsmith (Oxford, 1966), vol. iii, pp. 61414, fol. 198, 61417, fol. 95^; a copy of part 253-4- of the Book of Vouchers is at Add. MS. 35853, 76 Draft at Add. MS. 61426, fols. 254-65; copy, fols. 32-3. The original is probably at Althorp; sent to Lady Hardwicke, at Add. MS. 35853, fols. see Iris Butler, Rule of Three (London, 1967), 23-33- pp. 113, 206. 77 Letters to the Duchess, [1740.?], [22 October 60 To Mrs. Godolphin, [November 1718], Add. 1741?], G. Sherburn (ed.). The Correspondence of MS. 54225, fol. 150; to Lady Evelyn, 17 October Alexander Pope (Oxford, 1956), vol. iv, pp. 1736, Evelyn MSS.; cf. Conduct, p. 8. 258-9, 366; Chesterfield to Lord Marchmont, 61 To Lady Hardwicke, [i73-?]» Add. MS. 35853. 24 April 1741, Bonamy Dobree (ed.). The Letters fol. 31^ of Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chester- 62 Cf. her 'Hints towards a charecter of [Queen field (London, 1932), vol. ii, pp. 449-50. The Anne]', Add. MS. 61422, fols. 199-202, with nobleman of the Conduct is improbably identified

34 as Walpole's son-in-law. Lord Cholmondeley, in 82 There is a copy of the complete work at B.L., K. Thomson, op. cit., vol. i, pp. xii-xiii. G.14844. 78 Notes of 1740 and after. Add. MS. 9122, fols. 83 See their correspondence at Add. MS. 61450, i7O''-89, partly printed in Private Correspond- especially fols. 180-92. ence, vol. ii, pp. 145-61. 84 To John Scrope, [26 April 1744], Add. MS. 79 W. King, ed. cit., pp. xxi-xxii. 61467, fol. 180. 80 To Humphrey Fyshe, 4 July 1727, Add. MS. 85 To Thomas Cooke, 6 April 1742, Private 61444, fol- 139''- Correspondence, vol. ii, p. 482. 81 H. Walpole, A Catalogue of Royal and Noble 86 Kathleen Campbell, Sarah, Duchess of Marl- Authors of England, 3rd edn. (Dublin, 1759), borough (London, 1932), p. 309. p. 258.

35 § §

I .s

H.

(U

3 O

<7i 3 S r