L30/11/263/1

Correspondence:

12 Jun 1781

From: 1781 To: 1781

Letter gave pain, particularly from uneasiness Bell must feel. The past 20 years have been ignorant of affairs of Marchmont family, never wishing to interfere. Debt of £300 was at particular request of Polwarth when he could not get money from Scotland; never imagined ladyship would have trouble about repayment. Thought there would be an equal dividend for creditors. If any could have been postponed, it seemed reasonable that Paterson should have been the one, as he knew he was not to lose from the unhappy event. Why should he be preferred? That hurts. If presumed to offer opinion, proper method would be to put affairs into the hands of some person who might recover what funds Polwarth was entitled to and pay creditors equally so far as possible. As to private friendship between Polwarth and son, which Ladyship says was ruinous to all sides, sorry to think so, but fully persuaded it was not, and that Berwickshire politics was only made a pretence for what was long ago intended. Lord Marchmont never had just cause of offence against either his son or grandson. In charity I hope he was deceived, but when a plan was formed to make another person tyrannise over everyone connected with the family, it was time to resist. Correspondence between Polwarth and son will show that neither of them meant to be wanting in duty or respect to Lord Marchmont; and last election must justify them both in what my son told Lord Marchmont that Sir J P's unpopular character would occasion the loss of the interest in Berwickshire. Could explain better in conversation.

item

Marchmont, Hugh, 3rd Earl,
Polwarth,
Hume-Campbell, Alexander,
Marchmont,
Paterson

CORRESPONDENCE, debt