CAMPBELL, John (1695-1777), of Calder (Cawdor), Nairn, and Stackpole Court, Pemb.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 1695, 2nd s. of Sir Alexander Campbell, M.P. [S], yr. of Calder, by Elizabeth, da. of Sir John Lort, 2nd Bt., of Stackpole Court by Lady Susanna Holles, da. of John, 2nd Earl of Clare, sis. and h. of Sir Gilbert, 3rd and last Bt. educ. L. Inn 1708; Clare, Camb. 1711. m. 30 Apr. 1726, Mary, da. and coh. of Lewis Pryse, of Gogerddan, Card., 3s. 3da. suc. mother to Pemb. estates 1714; and gd.-fa. Sir Hugh Campbell, M.P. [S], to estates in Nairnshire, Inverness-shire, and Argyll 1716.
Ld. of Admiralty 1736-42, of Treasury 1746-54.
Campbell was related through his maternal grandmother to Henry Pelham and the Duke of Newcastle, and on his father’s side to the Duke of Argyll, and the Earls of Breadalbane and Moray. A year after his father’s death in 1697 his mother inherited the Lort estates in Wales which thereafter became the family home. He received an English education, studied law, but apparently never practised. On the death of his elder brother, c.1711, he became the heir of his grandfather, the thane of Cawdor, who during the 1715 rising sent a contingent to join the rebels, but contrived to escape the forfeiture of the Calder estates. The fact that his name was among those sent to the Pretender in 1721 as a probable supporter in the event of a rising confirms the statement made many years later by the 2nd Lord Hardwicke: ‘Old Campbell had been originally a Jacobite but after his conversion acted uniformly with the Whigs’.1
Having acquired by marriage additional estates in Wales, Campbell sold the islands of Islay and Jura to Daniel Campbell for £12,000. Returned for Pembrokeshire in 1727, he voted with the Opposition on the arrears of the civil list in 1729, but thereafter with the Government, attaching himself successively to Walpole and Pelham. In 1730 he spoke and voted for the Hessians; in January 1731 he was selected to move the Address. In 1732 he spoke in support of Walpole’s salt duty bill but voted with the Opposition for the bill requiring Members to swear to their qualifications at the Speaker’s table, though he strongly opposed Pulteney’s motion for a committee to inquire into all Members’ qualifications, declaring that it was
liable to very ill consequences in exposing the estates of 500 gentlemen to the narrow and critical examination of a few gentlemen who might possibly find some flaw, or fancy so, in their titles and disquiet them in their possessions. That this is an inquisition the like of which was never heard.
In 1733 he spoke against another qualification bill introduced by the Opposition, voted for the excise bill, and defended Sir Robert Sutton. Moving the Address in 1734 he was called on by the Opposition
to answer why he put in words to the Address which were not contained in the heads agreed to yesterday. Whereupon he said something to justify himself, but did not deny the liberty he had taken.
After some argument Walpole agreed tha