A Short History of Scotland
- -
- 100%
- +
The tradition constantly given in various forms that Keppoch charged alone, “deserted by the children of his clan,” is worthless if sworn evidence may be trusted.
As for the unhappy Charles, by the evidence of Sir Robert Strange, who was with him, he had “ridden along the line to the right animating the soldiers,” and “endeavoured to rally the soldiers, who, annoyed by the enemy’s fire, were beginning to quit the field.” He “was got off the field when the men in general were betaking themselves precipitately to flight; nor was there any possibility of their being rallied.” Yorke, an English officer, says that the Prince did not leave the field till after the retreat of the second line.
So far the Prince’s conduct was honourable and worthy of his name. But presently, on the advice of his Irish entourage, Sullivan and Sheridan, who always suggested suspicions, and doubtless not forgetting the great price on his head, he took his own way towards the west coast in place of joining Lord George and the remnant with him at Ruthven in Badenoch. On April 26 he sailed from Borradale in a boat, and began that course of wanderings and hairbreadth escapes in which only the loyalty of Highland hearts enabled him at last to escape the ships that watched the isles and the troops that netted the hills.
Some years later General Wolfe, then residing at Inverness, reviewed the occurrences, and made up his mind that the battle had been a dangerous risk for Cumberland, while the pursuit (though ruthlessly cruel) was inefficient.
Despite Cumberland’s insistent orders to give no quarter (orders justified by the absolutely false pretext that Prince Charles had set the example), Lochgarry reported that the army had not lost more than a thousand men. Fire and sword and torture, the destruction of tilled lands, and even of the shell-fish on the shore, did not break the spirit of the Highlanders. Many bands held out in arms, and Lochgarry was only prevented by the Prince’s command from laying an ambush for Cumberland. The Campbells and the Macleods under their recreant chief, the Whig Macdonalds under Sir Alexander of Sleat, ravaged the lands of the Jacobite clansmen; but the spies of Albemarle, who now commanded in Scotland, reported the Macleans, the Grants of Glenmoriston, with the Macphersons, Glengarry’s men, and Lochiel’s Camerons, as all eager “to do it again” if France would only help.
But France was helpless, and when Lochiel sailed for France with the Prince only Cluny remained, hunted like a partridge in the mountains, to keep up the spirit of the Cause. Old Lovat met a long-deserved death by the executioner’s axe, though it needed the evidence of Murray of Broughton, turned informer, to convict that fox. Kilmarnock and Balmerino also were executed; the good and brave Duke of Perth died on his way to France; the aged Tullibardine in the Tower; many gallant gentlemen were hanged; Lord George escaped, and is the ancestor of the present Duke of Atholl; many gentlemen took French service; others fought in other alien armies; three or four in the Highlands or abroad took the wages of spies upon the Prince. The £30,000 of French gold, buried near Loch Arkaig, caused endless feuds, kinsman denouncing kinsman. The secrets of the years 1746-1760 are to be sought in the Cumberland and Stuart MSS. in Windsor Castle and the Record Office.
Legislation, intended to scotch the snake of Jacobitism, began with religious persecution. The Episcopalian clergy had no reason to love triumphant Presbyterianism, and actively, or in sympathy, were favourers of the exiled dynasty. Episcopalian chapels, sometimes mere rooms in private houses, were burned, or their humble furniture was destroyed. All Episcopalian ministers were bidden to take the oath and pray for King George by September 1746, or suffer for the second offence transportation for life to the American colonies. Later, the orders conferred by Scottish bishops were made of no avail. Only with great difficulty and danger could parents obtain the rite of baptism for their children. Very little is said in our histories about the sufferings of the Episcopalians when it was their turn to be under the harrow. They were not violent, they murdered no Moderator of the General Assembly. Other measures were the Disarming Act, the prohibition to wear the Highland dress, and the abolition of “hereditable jurisdictions,” and the chief’s right to call out his clansmen in arms. Compensation in money was paid, from £21,000 to the Duke of Argyll to £13, 6s. 8d. to the clerks of the Registrar of Aberbrothock. The whole sum was £152,237, 15s. 4d.
In 1754 an Act “annexed the forfeited estates of the Jacobites who had been out (or many of them) inalienably to the Crown.” The estates were restored in 1784; meanwhile the profits were to be used for the improvement of the Highlands. If submissive tenants received better terms and larger leases than of old, Jacobite tenants were evicted for not being punctual with rent. Therefore, on May 14, 1752, some person unknown shot Campbell of Glenure, who was about evicting the tenants on the lands of Lochiel and Stewart of Ardshiel in Appin. Campbell rode down from Fort William to Ballachulish ferry, and when he had crossed it said, “I am safe now I am out of my mother’s country.” But as he drove along the old road through the wood of Lettermore, perhaps a mile and a half south of Ballachulish House, the fatal shot was fired. For this crime James Stewart of the Glens was tried by a Campbell jury at Inveraray, with the Duke on the bench, and was, of course, convicted, and hanged on the top of a knoll above Ballachulish ferry. James was innocent, but Allan Breck Stewart was certainly an accomplice of the man with the gun, which, by the way, was the property neither of James Stewart nor of Stewart of Fasnacloich. The murderer was anxious to save James by avowing the deed, but his kinsfolk, saying, “They will only hang both James and you,” bound him hand and foot and locked him up in the kitchen on the day of James’s execution. 41 Allan lay for some weeks at the house of a kinsman in Rannoch, and escaped to France, where he had a fight with James Mor Macgregor, then a spy in the service of the Duke of Newcastle.
This murder of “the Red Fox” caused all the more excitement, and is all the better remembered in Lochaber and Glencoe, because agrarian violence in revenge for eviction has scarcely another example in the history of the Highlands.
CONCLUSION
Space does not permit an account of the assimilation of Scotland to England in the years between the Forty-five and our own time: moreover, the history of this age cannot well be written without a dangerously close approach to many “burning questions” of our day. The History of the Highlands, from 1752 to the emigrations witnessed by Dr Johnson (1760-1780), and of the later evictions in the interests of sheep farms and deer forests, has never been studied as it ought to be in the rich manuscript materials which are easily accessible. The great literary Renaissance of Scotland, from 1745 to the death of Sir Walter Scott; the years of Hume, a pioneer in philosophy and in history, and of the Rev. Principal Robertson (with him and Hume, Gibbon professed, very modestly, that he did not rank); the times of Adam Smith, of Burns, and of Sir Walter, not to speak of the Rev. John Home, that foremost tragic poet, may be studied in many a history of literature. According to Voltaire, Scotland led the world in all studies, from metaphysics to gardening. We think of Watt, and add engineering.
The brief and inglorious administration of the Earl of Bute at once gave openings in the public service to Scots of ability, and excited that English hatred of these northern rivals which glows in Churchill’s ‘Satires,’ while this English jealousy aroused that Scottish hatred of England which is the one passion that disturbs the placid letters of David Hume.
The later alliance of Pitt with Henry Dundas made Dundas far more powerful than any Secretary for Scotland had been since Lauderdale, and confirmed the connection of Scotland with the services in India. But, politically, Scotland, till the Reform Bill, had scarcely a recognisable existence. The electorate was tiny, and great landholders controlled the votes, whether genuine or created by legal fiction – “faggot votes.” Municipal administration in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was terribly corrupt, and reform was demanded, but the French Revolution, producing associations of Friends of the People, who were prosecuted and grievously punished in trials for sedition, did not afford a fortunate moment for peaceful reforms.
But early in the nineteenth century Jeffrey, editor of ‘The Edinburgh Review,’ made it the organ of Liberalism, and no less potent in England than in Scotland; while Scott, on the Tory side, led a following of Scottish penmen across the Border in the service of ‘The Quarterly Review.’ With ‘Blackwood’s Magazine’ and Wilson, Hogg, and Lockhart; with Jeffrey and ‘The Edinburgh,’ the Scottish metropolis almost rivalled London as the literary capital.
About 1818 Lockhart recognised the superiority of the Whig wits in literature; but against them all Scott is a more than sufficient set-off. The years of stress between Waterloo (1815) and the Reform Bill (1832) made Radicalism (fostered by economic causes, the enormous commercial and industrial growth, and the unequal distribution of its rewards) perhaps even more pronounced north than south of the Tweed. In 1820 “the Radical war” led to actual encounters between the yeomanry and the people. The ruffianism of the Tory paper ‘The Beacon’ caused one fatal duel, and was within an inch of leading to another, in which a person of the very highest consequence would have “gone on the sod.” For the Reform Bill the mass of Scottish opinion, so long not really represented at all, was as eager as for the Covenant. So triumphant was the first Whig or Radical majority under the new system, that Jeffrey, the Whig pontiff, perceived that the real struggle was to be “between property and no property,” between Capital and Socialism. This circumstance had always been perfectly clear to Scott and the Tories.
The watchword of the eighteenth century in literature, religion, and politics had been “no enthusiasm.” But throughout the century, since 1740, “enthusiasm,” “the return to nature,” had gradually conquered till the rise of the Romantic school with Coleridge and Scott. In religion the enthusiastic movement of the Wesleys had altered the face of the Church in England, while in Scotland the “Moderates” had lost position, and “zeal” or enthusiasm pervaded the Kirk. The question of lay patronage of livings had passed through many phases since Knox wrote, “It pertaineth to the people, and to every several congregation, to elect their minister.” In 1833, immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, the return to the primitive Knoxian rule was advocated by the “Evangelical” or “High Flying” opponents of the Moderates. Dr Chalmers, a most eloquent person, whom Scott regarded as truly a man of genius, was the leader of the movement. The Veto Act, by which the votes of a majority of heads of families were to be fatal to the claims of a patron’s presentee, had been passed by the General Assembly; it was contrary to Queen Anne’s Patronage Act of 1711, – a measure carried, contrary to Harley’s policy, by a coalition of English Churchmen and Scottish Jacobite members of Parliament. The rejection, under the Veto Act, of a presentee by the church of Auchterarder, was declared illegal by the Court of Session and the judges in the House of Lords (May 1839); the Strathbogie imbroglio, “with two Presbyteries, one taking its orders from the Court of Session, the other from the General Assembly” (1837-1841), brought the Assembly into direct conflict with the law of the land. Dr Chalmers would not allow the spiritual claims of the Kirk to be suppressed by the State. “King Christ’s Crown Honours” were once more in question. On May 18, 1843, the followers of the principles of Knox and Andrew Melville marched out of the Assembly into Tanfield Hall, and made Dr Chalmers Moderator, and themselves “The Free Church of Scotland.” In 1847 the hitherto separated synods of various dissenting bodies came together as United Presbyterians, and in 1902 they united with the Free Church as “the United Free Church,” while a small minority, mainly Highland, of the former Free Church, now retains that title, and apparently represents Knoxian ideals. Thus the Knoxian ideals have modified, even to this day, the ecclesiastical life of Scotland, while the Church of James I., never by persecution extinguished (nec tamen consumebatur), has continued to exist and develop, perhaps more in consequence of love of the Liturgy than from any other cause.
Meanwhile, and not least in the United Free Church, extreme tenacity of dogma has yielded place to very advanced Biblical criticism; and Knox, could he revisit Scotland with all his old opinions, might not be wholly satisfied by the changes wrought in the course of more than three centuries. The Scottish universities, discouraged and almost destitute of pious benefactors since the end of the sixteenth century, have profited by the increase of wealth and a comparatively recent outburst of generosity. They always provided the cheapest, and now they provide the cheapest and most efficient education that is offered by any homes of learning of mediæval foundation.
1
A good example of these Celtic romances is ‘The Tain Bo Cualgne.’
2
The best account of Roman military life in Scotland, from the time of Agricola to the invasion by Lollius Urbicus (140-158 A.D.), may be studied in Mr Curie’s ‘A Roman Frontier Post and Its People’ (Maclehose, Glasgow, 1911). The relics, weapons, arms, pottery, and armour of Roman men, and the ornaments of the native women, are here beautifully reproduced. Dr Macdonald’s excellent work, ‘The Roman Wall in Scotland’ (Maclehose, 1911), is also most interesting and instructive.
3
For the Claims of Supremacy see Appendix C. to vol. i. of my ‘History of Scotland,’ pp. 496-499.
4
Lord Reay, according to the latest book on Scottish peerages, represents these MacHeths or Mackays.
5
‘Iliad,’ xviii. 496-500.
6
As Waleys was then an English as much as a Scottish name, I see no reason for identifying the William le Waleys, outlawed for bilking a poor woman who kept a beer house (Perth, June-August, 1296), with the great historical hero of Scotland.
7
See Dr Neilson on “Blind Harry’s Wallace,” in ‘Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association,’ p. 85 ff. (Oxford, 1910.)
8
The precise date is disputed.
9
By a blunder which Sir James Ramsay corrected, history has accused James of arresting his “whole House of Lords”!
10
The ballad fragments on the Knight of Liddesdale’s slaying, and on “the black dinner,” are preserved in Hume of Godscroft’s ‘History of he House of Douglas,’ written early in the seventeenth century.
11
The works of Messrs Herkless and Hannay on the Bishops of St Andrews may be consulted.
12
See p. 38, note 1.
13
Knox gives another account. Our evidence is from a household book of expenses, Liber Emptorum, in MS.
14
As to the story of forgery, see a full discussion in the author’s ‘History of Scotland,’ i. 460-467. 1900.
15
There is no proof that this man was the preacher George Wishart, later burned.
16
A curious controversy is constantly revived in this matter. It is urged that Knox’s mobs did not destroy the abbey churches of Kelso, Melrose, Dryburgh, Roxburgh, and Coldingham: that was done by Hertford’s army. If so, they merely deprived the Knoxian brethren of the pleasures of destruction which they enjoyed almost everywhere else. The English, if guilty, left at Melrose, Jedburgh, Coldingham, and Kelso more beautiful remains of mediæval architecture than the Reformers were wont to spare.
17
This part of our history is usually and erroneously told as given by Knox, writing fifteen years later. He needs to be corrected by the letters and despatches of the day, which prove that the Reformer’s memory, though picturesque, had, in the course of fifteen years, become untrustworthy. He is the chief source of the usual version of Solway Moss.
18
The dates and sequence of events are perplexing. In ‘John Knox and the Reformation’ (pp. 86-95) I have shown the difficulties.
19
The details of these proceedings and the evidence for them may be found in the author’s book, ‘John Knox and the Reformation,’ pp. 135-141. Cf. also my ‘History of Scotland,’ ii. 58-60.
20
See ‘Affaires Etrangères: Angleterre,’ xv. 131-153. MS.
21
Mary’s one good portrait is that owned by Lord Leven and Melville.
22
I have no longer any personal doubt that Mary wrote the lost French original of this letter, usually numbered II. in the Casket Letters (see my paper, “The Casket Letters,” in ‘The Scottish Historical Review,’ vol. v., No. 17, pp. 1-12). The arguments tending to suggest that parts of the letter are forged (see my ‘Mystery of Mary Stuart’) are (I now believe) unavailing.
23
I can construe in no other sense the verbose “article.” It may be read in Dr Hay Fleming’s ‘Reformation in Scotland,’ pp. 449, 450, with sufficient commentary, pp. 450-453.
24
It appears that there was both a plot by Lennox, after the Raid of Ruthven, to seize James – “preaching will be of no avail to convert him,” his mother wrote; and also an English plot, rejected by Gowrie, to poison both James and Mary! For the former, see Professor Hume Brown, ‘History of Scotland,’ vol. ii. p. 289; for the latter, see my ‘History of Scotland,’ vol. ii. pp. 286, 287, with the authorities in each case.
25
Of these versions, that long lost one which was sent to England has been published for the first time, with the previously unnoticed incident of Robert Oliphant, in the author’s ‘James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery.’ Here it is also demonstrated that all the treasonable letters attributed in 1606-1608 to Logan were forged by Logan’s solicitor, George Sprot, though the principal letter seems to me to be a copy of an authentic original. That all, as they stand, are forgeries is the unanimous opinion of experts. See the whole of the documents in the author’s ‘Confessions of George Sprot.’ Roxburghe Club.
26
Colkitto’s men and the Badenoch contingent.
27
Much has been made of cruelties at Aberdeen. Montrose sent in a drummer, asking the Provost to remove the old men, women, and children. The drummer was shot, as, at Perth, Montrose’s friend, Kilpont, had been murdered. The enemy were pursued through the town. Spalding names 115 townsmen slain in the whole battle and pursuit. Women were slain if they were heard to mourn their men – not a very probable story. Not one woman is named. The Burgh Records mention no women slain. Baillie says “the town was well plundered.” Jaffray, who fled from the fight as fast as his horse could carry him, says that women and children were slain. See my ‘History of Scotland,’ vol. iii. pp. 126-128.
28
Craig-Brown, ‘History of Selkirkshire,’ vol. i. pp. 190, 193. ‘Act. Parl. Scot.,’ vol. vi. pt. i. p. 492.
29
‘Act. Parl. Scot.,’ vol. vi. pt. i. p. 514.
30
Hume Brown, vol. ii. p. 339.
31
The Boot was an old French and Scottish implement. It was a framework into which the human leg was inserted; wedges were then driven between the leg and the framework.
32
Many disgusting details may be read in the author’s ‘Life of Sir George Mackenzie.’
33
Hume Brown, ii. 414, 415.
34
Dr Hay Fleming finds no mention of this affair in the Minutes of the Societies.
35
All this is made clear from the letters of the date in the Stuart Papers (Historical Manuscript Commission).
36
In addition to Saint Simon’s narrative we have the documentary evidence taken in a French inquiry.
37
See ‘The King over the Water,’ by Alice Shield and A. Lang. Thackeray’s King James, in ‘Esmond,’ is very amusing but absolutely false to history.
38
‘The Porteous Trial,’ by Mr Roughead, W.S.
39
See the author’s ‘History of Scotland,’ iv. 446-500, where the evidence is examined.
40
‘Register of Decreets,’ vol. 482.
41
Tradition in Glencoe.