CHAPTER XXXVIII.

A.D. 1746-1747.

BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--George II., 1727-1760.

Commission of _Oyer and Terminer_--Trial of prisoners--Francis Townley--Jemmy Dawson--Lords Kilmarnock, Cromarty, and Balmerino--Execution of these noblemen--Other executions--Trials at Carlisle and York--Trial and execution of Mr. Ratcliffe--Trial and execution of Lord Lovat--Act of Indemnity passed.

Whilst the issue of the contest remained doubtful, the government took no steps to punish the prisoners who had fallen into their hands at Carlisle; but after the decisive affair of Culloden, when there appeared no chance of the Jacobite party ever having it in their power to retaliate, the government resolved to vindicate the authority of the law by making examples of some of the prisoners.

As it was intended to try the prisoners at different places for the sake of convenience, an act was passed empowering his majesty to try them in any county he might select.

On the 24th and 25th of June bills of indictment were found against 36 of the prisoners taken at Carlisle, and against one David Morgan, a barrister, who had been apprehended in Staffordshire. The court then adjourned till the 3d of July, on which day the prisoners were arraigned. Three only pleaded guilty. The rest applied for a postponement of their trials on the ground that material witnesses for their defence were at a considerable distance. The court in consequence ruled that in cases where witnesses were in England the trial should be put off to the 15th of July, and where they were in Scotland, to the 25th of the same month.

The court accordingly met on the 15th of July, and proceeded with the trial of Francis Townley, Esquire, before a grand jury, at the court-house, Southwark. This unfortunate gentleman had been colonel of the Manchester regiment. He was of a respectable family in Lancashire. Obliged to retire to France in 1728, he had obtained a commission from the King of France, and had served at the siege of Philipsburgh under the Duke of Berwick, who lost his life before the walls of that place. He continued sixteen years in the French service; and after his return to England had received a commission to raise a regiment. A plea was set up by his council, that holding a commission in the French service he was entitled to the benefit of the cartel as well as any other French officer, but this was overruled, and he was found guilty. On the next and two following days eighteen other persons, chiefly officers in the said regiment, were brought to trial. Five were attainted by their own confession of high treason, twelve on a verdict of high treason of levying war against the king, and one was acquitted. These seventeen persons, along with Townley, were all condemned to death, and nine of them, including Townley, were selected for execution on the 30th. The rest were reprieved for three weeks.

Kensington common was the place destined for the execution of these unfortunate men, most of whom met their fate with fortitude and resignation. The execution was accompanied with the disgusting and barbarous details usual at that time in cases of treason.

Two singular and interesting circumstances occurred at this execution. The one was the attendance of a younger brother of Lieutenant Thomas Deacon’s, of the Manchester Regiment, and one of those who had obtained a reprieve. At his own request he was allowed to witness the execution of his brother in a coach under the charge of a guard. The other was one of a very affecting description. Hurried away by the impetuosity of youth, James Dawson, one of the sufferers, the son of a Lancashire gentleman, had abandoned his studies at St. John’s college, Cambridge, and had joined the Jacobite standard. He and a young lady of good family and handsome fortune were warmly attached to each other, and had Dawson been acquitted, or, after condemnation, found mercy, the day of his enlargement was to have been that of their marriage. When all hopes of mercy were extinguished, the young lady resolved to witness the execution of her lover, and so firm was her resolution, that no persuasions of her friends could induce her to abandon her determination. On the morning of the execution she accordingly followed the sledges to the place of execution in a hackney coach, accompanied by a gentleman nearly related to her, and one female friend. She got near enough to see the fire kindled which was to consume that heart she knew was so much devoted to her, and to observe the other appalling preparations without committing any of those extravagances her friends had apprehended. She had even the fortitude to restrain her feelings while the executioner was pulling the cap over the eyes of her lover; but when he was thrown off she in an agony of grief drew back her head into the coach, and, crying out, “My dear, I follow thee, I follow thee;--sweet Jesus, receive both our souls together!” fell upon the neck of her female companion, and instantly expired.[1283]

The principal witness against Townley, Deacon, Dawson, and others, was Samuel Maddock, an ensign in the same regiment, who, to save his own life, turned king’s evidence against his former comrades.[1284]

The individuals next proceeded against were persons of a higher grade. The Marquis of Tullibardine escaped the fate which awaited him, having died of a lingering indisposition in the Tower on the 9th of July; but on the 23d of that month the grand jury of the county of Surrey found bills for high treason against the Earls of Kilmarnock, and Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino. Lord-chancellor Hardwicke was appointed Lord High Steward for the trial of these peers. The indictments being certified, the house of lords fixed the 28th of July for the day of trial. Accordingly, on the day appointed the three lords proceeded from the Tower towards Westminster-hall, where the trial was conducted with great pomp and ceremony.

After the indictments had been read, the Earls of Kilmarnock and Cromarty pleaded “guilty,” and threw themselves entirely upon the king’s mercy. Before pleading to his indictment, Lord Balmerino stated that he was not at Carlisle at the time specified in the indictment, being eleven miles off when that city was taken, and he requested to know from his grace if it would avail him any thing to prove that fact. Lord Hardwicke said that such a circumstance might, or might not, be of use to him; but he informed him that it was contrary to form to permit him to put any questions before pleading to the indictment, by saying whether he was guilty or not guilty. His grace desiring his lordship to plead, the intrepid[1285] Balmerino apparently not understanding the meaning of that legal term, exclaimed, with great animation, “Plead! Why, I am pleading as fast as I can.” The lord-high-steward having explained the import of the phrase, the noble baron answered, “Not guilty.”

The trial then proceeded. Four witnesses were examined. One of them proved that he saw Lord Balmerino ride into Carlisle on a bay horse the day after it was taken by the Highlanders--that he saw him afterwards ride up to the market-place with his sword drawn at the head of his troop of horse, which was the second troop of Charles’s body guards, and was called Elphinstone’s horse. Another witness deponed that he saw his lordship ride into Manchester at the head of his troop, and that he was there when the young Chevalier was proclaimed regent. Two other witnesses proved that his lordship was called colonel of his troop, that he always acted in that station, gave orders on all occasions to his officers, and that he was in great favour with Prince Charles. The evidence on the part of the crown having been finished, the lord-high-steward asked the prisoner if he had any thing to offer in his defence, or meant to call any witnesses. His lordship replied that he had nothing to say, but to make an exception to the indictment which was incorrect in charging him with being at Carlisle at the time it was taken by the Highlanders. The peers then resolved to take the opinion of the judges upon the point, and these were unanimously of opinion, that, as an overt act of treason and other acts of treason had been proved beyond contradiction, there was no occasion to prove explicitly every thing that was laid in the indictment; and that, of course, the prisoner’s objection was not material. The peers then unanimously found Lord Balmerino guilty of high treason, after which, the other two lords were brought to the bar, and were informed by the lord-high-steward, that if either of them had any thing to move in arrest of judgment, they must come prepared on the Wednesday following at eleven o’clock, and state their objections, otherwise sentence of death would be awarded against them. The three lords were then carried back to the Tower in coaches, and the axe, which was in the coach with Lord Balmerino, had its edge pointed towards him.

The court accordingly met again on Wednesday the 30th of July, when the lord-high-steward addressed the prisoners; and beginning with Lord Kilmarnock, asked him if he had any thing to offer why judgment of death should not be passed against him. His lordship stated, that having, from a due sense of his folly, and the heinousness of his crimes, acknowledged his guilt, he meant to offer nothing in extenuation, but to throw himself entirely on the compassion of the court, that it might intercede with his majesty for his royal clemency. He then, in a somewhat humble speech, urged several reasons why he should be treated with clemency, expressing great contrition for having, somewhat against his own inclination, joined in the “unnatural scheme.” He concluded by stating, that if after what he had stated their lordships did not feel themselves called upon to employ their interest with his majesty for his royal clemency, that he would lay down his life with the utmost resignation, and that his last moments should “be employed in fervent prayer for the preservation of the illustrious house of Hanover, and the peace and prosperity of Great Britain.”

The Earl of Cromarty began a most humiliating but pathetic appeal, by declaring that he had been guilty of an offence which merited the highest indignation of his majesty, their lordships, and the public; and that it was from a conviction of his guilt that he had not presumed to trouble their lordships with any defence. “Nothing remains, my lords,” he continued, “but to throw myself, my life, and fortune, upon your lordships’ compassion; but of these, my lords, as to myself is the least part of my sufferings. I have involved an affectionate wife, with an unborn infant, as parties of my guilt, to share its penalties; I have involved my eldest son, whose infancy and regard for his parents hurried him down the stream of rebellion. I have involved also eight innocent children, who must feel their parent’s punishment before they know his guilt. Let them, my lords, be pledges to his majesty; let them be pledges to your lordships; let them be pledges to my country for mercy; let the silent eloquence of their grief and tears; let the powerful language of innocent nature supply my want of eloquence and persuasion; let me enjoy mercy, but no longer than I deserve it; and let me no longer enjoy life than I shall use it to deface the crime I have been guilty of. Whilst I thus intercede to his majesty through the mediation of your lordships for mercy, let my remorse for my guilt as a subject; let the sorrow of my heart as a husband; let the anguish of my mind as a father, speak the rest of my misery. As your lordships are men, feel as men; but may none of you ever suffer the smallest part of my anguish. But if after all, my lords, my safety shall be found inconsistent with that of the public, and nothing but my blood can atone for my unhappy crime; if the sacrifice of my life, my fortune and family, is judged indispensably necessary for stopping the loud demands for public justice; and if the bitter cup is not to pass from me, not mine, but thy will, O God, be done.”

When the lord-high-steward addressed Lord Balmerino, he produced a paper, and desired it might be read. His grace told his lordship that he was at liberty to read it if he pleased; but his lordship replied that his voice was too low, and that he could not read it so distinctly as he could wish. One of the clerks of parliament, by order of the lord-high-steward, then read the paper, which was to this effect:--That although his majesty had been empowered by an act of parliament, made the last session, to appoint the trials for high treason to take place in any county he should appoint; yet, as the alleged act of treason was stated to have been committed at Carlisle, and prior to the passing of the said act, he ought to have been indicted at Carlisle, and not in the county of Surrey, as the act could not have a retrospective effect. His lordship prayed the court to assign him counsel to argue the point. The peers, after consideration, agreed to his petition for counsel, and at his request assigned him Messrs. Wilbraham and Forrester, and adjourned the court to the 1st of August.

The three prisoners were again brought back from the Tower. On that day the lord-high-steward asked Lord Balmerino if he was then ready by his counsel to argue the point, which he proposed to the court on the previous day. His lordship answered, that as his counsel had advised him that there was nothing in the objection sufficient to found an arrest of judgment upon, he begged to withdraw the objection, and craved their lordships’ pardon for giving them so much trouble. The prisoners then all declaring that they submitted themselves to the court, Lord Hardwicke addressed them in a suitable speech, and concluded by pronouncing the following sentence:[1286]--“The judgment of the law is, and this high court doth award, that you, William, Earl of Kilmarnock; George, Earl of Cromarty; and Arthur Lord Balmerino, and every of you, return to the prison of the Tower from whence you came: from thence you must be drawn to the place of execution: when you come there, you must be hanged by the neck, but not till you are dead; for you must be cut down alive; then your bowels must be taken out and burnt before your faces; then your heads must be severed from your bodies; and your bodies must be divided each into four quarters; and these must be at the king’s disposal. And God Almighty be merciful to your souls.” Then the prisoners were removed from the bar, and after taking a cold collation which had been prepared for them, were carried back to the Tower in the same order and form as before.

The Earl of Kilmarnock immediately presented a petition to the king for mercy, and also another, a copy of the first, to the Prince of Wales, praying his royal highness’s intercession with his majesty in his behalf; and a third to the Duke of Cumberland for a similar purpose. In this last mentioned petition he asserted his innocence of charges which had been made against him, of having advised the putting to death of the prisoners taken by the Highland army before the battle of Culloden, and of advising or approving of an alleged order for giving no quarter to his majesty’s troops in that battle. In the petitions to the king and the Prince of Wales, the earl declared that he had surrendered himself at the battle of Culloden, at a time when he could have easily escaped; but he afterwards admitted that the statement was untrue, and that he was induced to make it from a strong desire for life; that he had no intention of surrendering; and that, with the view of facilitating his escape, he had gone towards the body of horse which made him prisoner, thinking that it was Fitz-James’s horse, with the design of mounting behind a dragoon. These petitions were entirely disregarded.

The Earl of Cromarty, with better claims to mercy, also petitioned the king. In support of this application the countess waited upon the lords of the cabinet council, and presented a petition to each of them; and, on the Sunday following the sentence, she went to Kensington-palace in deep mourning, accompanied by Lady Stair, to intercede with his majesty in behalf of her husband. She was a woman of great strength of mind, and though far advanced in pregnancy, had hitherto displayed surprising fortitude; but on the present trying occasion she gave way to grief. She took her station in the entrance through which the king was to pass to chapel, and when he approached she fell upon her knees, seized him by the coat, and presented her supplication, fainted away at his feet. The king immediately raised her up, and taking the petition, gave it in charge of the Duke of Grafton, one of his attendants. He then desired Lady Stair to conduct her to one of the apartments. The Dukes of Hamilton and Montrose, the Earl of Stair and other courtiers, backed these petitions for the royal mercy by a personal application to the king, who granted a pardon to the earl on the 9th of August.

The high-minded Balmerino disdained to compromise his principles by suing for pardon, and when he heard that his fellow-prisoners had applied for mercy, he sarcastically remarked, that as they must have great interest at court, they might have squeezed his name in with their own. From the time of his sentence down to his execution, he showed no symptoms of fear. He never entertained any hopes of pardon, for he said he considered his case desperate, as he had been once pardoned before. When Lady Balmerino expressed her great concern for the approaching fate of her Lord, he said, “Grieve not, my dear Peggy, we must all die once, and this is but a few years very likely before my death must have happened some other way: therefore, wipe away your tears; you may marry again, and get a better husband.” About a week after his sentence a gentleman went to see him, and apologising for intruding upon him when he had such a short time to live, his lordship replied, “Oh! Sir, no intrusion at all: I have done nothing to make my conscience uneasy. I shall die with a true heart, and undaunted; for I think no man fit to live who is not fit to die; nor am I any ways concerned at what I have done.” Being asked a few days before his execution in what manner he would go to the scaffold, he answered, “I will go in the regimentals which I wore when I was first taken, with a woollen shirt next my skin, which will serve me instead of a shroud to be buried in.” Being again asked why he would not have a new suit of black, he replied, “It would be thought very imprudent in a man to repair an old house when the lease of it was near expiring; and the lease of my life expires next Monday.” The king could not but admire the high bearing and manly demeanour of this unfortunate nobleman; and when the friends of the other prisoners were making unceasing applications to him for mercy, he said, “Does nobody intercede for poor Balmerino? He, though a rebel, is at least an honest man.” According to Walpole, Balmerino was “jolly with his pretty Peggy” almost to the very last.

On the 11th of August an order was signed in council for the execution of the Earl of Kilmarnock and Lord Balmerino, and on the 12th two writs passed the great seal, empowering the constable of the Tower to deliver their bodies to the sheriffs of London, for execution on Monday the 18th. The order for their execution on the 18th of August having been announced to the unfortunate noblemen by Mr. Foster, a dissenting clergyman, Lord Kilmarnock received the intelligence with all the composure of a man resigned to his fate, but at the same time with a deep feeling of concern for his future state. Balmerino, who perhaps had as strong a sense of religion as Kilmarnock, received the news with the utmost unconcern. He and his lady were sitting at dinner when the warrant arrived, and, being informed of it, her ladyship started up from the table and fainted away. His lordship raised her up, and, after she had recovered, he requested her to resume her seat at table and finish her dinner.

On the Saturday preceding the execution, General Williamson, at Kilmarnock’s desire, as is supposed, gave him a minute detail of all the circumstances of solemnity and outward terror which would accompany it.

Balmerino was not actuated with the same feeling of curiosity as Kilmarnock was to know the circumstances which would attend his execution, but awaited his fate with the indifference of a martyr desirous of sealing his faith with his blood. The following letter, written by him on the eve of his execution, to the Chevalier de St. George, strikingly exemplifies the cool intrepidity of the man, and the sterling honesty with which he adhered to his principles:--

“SIR,--You may remember that, in the year 1716, when your Majesty was in Scotland, I left a company of foot, purely with a design to serve your Majesty, and, had I not made my escape then, I should certainly have been shot for a deserter.

“When I was abroad I lived many years at my own charges before I ask’d any thing from you, being unwilling to trouble your Majesty while I had any thing of my own to live upon, and when my father wrote me that he had a remission for me, which was got without my asking or knowledge, I did not accept of it till I first had your Majesty’s permission. Sir, when His Royal Highness the Prince, your son, came to Edinburgh, as it was my bounden and indispensable duty, I joyn’d him, for which I am to-morrow to lose my head on a scaffold, whereat I am so far from being dismayed, that it gives me great satisfaction and peace of mind that I die in so righteous a cause. I hope, Sir, on these considerations, your Majesty will provide for my wife so as she may not want bread, which otherwise she must do, my brother having left more debt on the estate than it was worth, and having nothing in the world to give her. I am, with the most profound respect, Sir, your Majesty’s most faithful and devoted subject and servant,

“BALMERINO.”[1287]

“TOWER OF LONDON, } _17th August, 1746_.” }

On Monday, the 18th of August, great preparations were made on Tower-hill for the execution. At ten o’clock the block was fixed on the stage, covered with black cloth, and several sacks of sawdust were provided to be strewed upon the scaffold. Soon after the two coffins were brought and placed upon the scaffold. Upon Kilmarnock’s coffin was a plate with this inscription, “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollatus 18º Augusti, 1746, ætat. suæ 42,” with an earl’s coronet over it, and six coronets over the six handles. The plate on Balmerino’s coffin bore this inscription, “Arthurus Dominus de Balmerino, decollatus 18º Augusti, 1746, ætat. suæ 58,” surmounted by a baron’s coronet, and with six others over the handles.

These preparations were completed about half-past ten, when the sheriffs, accompanied by their officers, went to the Tower, and, knocking at the door, demanded “The bodies of William, Earl of Kilmarnock, and Arthur, Lord Balmerino.” General Williamson thereupon went to inform the prisoners that the sheriffs were in attendance. When told that he was wanted, Lord Kilmarnock, who had just been engaged in prayer with Mr. Foster, betrayed no fear, but said, with great composure, “General, I am ready; I’ll follow you.” On leaving the Tower, Kilmarnock and Balmerino met at the foot of the stair. They embraced each other, and Balmerino said, “I am heartily sorry to have your company in this expedition.” The ill-fated noblemen were then brought to the Tower-gate, and delivered over to the sheriffs. When the prisoners were leaving the Tower, the deputy-lieutenant, according to an ancient usage, cried, “God bless King George!” to which Kilmarnock assented by a bow, but Balmerino emphatically exclaimed, “God bless King James!” The prisoners were then conducted to the house fitted up for their reception, and, being put into separate apartments, their friends were admitted to see them. When the prisoners arrived at the door of the house, some persons among the crowd were heard asking others, “Which is Lord Balmerino?” His lordship, overhearing the question, turned a little about, and, with a smile, said, “I am Balmerino, gentlemen, at your service.”

About eleven o’clock Lord Balmerino sent a message to Lord Kilmarnock requesting an interview, which being consented to, Balmerino was brought into Kilmarnock’s apartment. The following dialogue, as reported by Mr. Foster, then ensued. Balmerino--“My lord, I beg leave to ask your lordship one question.” Kilmarnock--“To any question, my lord, that you shall think proper to ask, I believe I shall see no reason to decline giving an answer.” B. “Why then, my lord, did you ever see or know of any order signed by the prince, to give no quarter at Culloden?” K. “No, my lord.” B. “Nor I neither; and therefore it seems to be an invention to justify their own murders.” K. “No, my lord, I do not think that inference can be drawn from it; because, while I was at Inverness, I was informed by several officers that there was such an order, signed ‘George Murray;’ and that it was in the duke’s custody.” B. “Lord George Murray! Why, then, they should not charge it upon the prince.” After this conversation the prisoners tenderly saluted each other, and Balmerino, after bidding his friend in affliction an eternal and happy adieu, added, with a countenance beaming with benignity, “My dear lord, I wish I could alone pay the reckoning and suffer for us both.”

Lord Kilmarnock appeared to be most anxious to impress upon the minds of those who were with him the sincerity of his repentance for the crime for which he was about to suffer. He declared himself fully satisfied with the legality of King George’s title to the crown, and stated that his attachment to the reigning family, which had suffered a slight interruption, was then as strong as ever. He spent a considerable time in devotion with Mr. Foster, till he got a hint from the sheriffs that the time was far advanced, his rank as an earl giving him a melancholy priority on the scaffold. After Mr. Foster had said a short prayer, his lordship took a tender farewell of the persons who attended him, and, preceded by the sheriffs, left the room followed by his friends. Notwithstanding the great trouble he had taken, in accordance with the wish of Mr. Foster, to familiarise his mind with the outward apparatus of death, he was appalled when he stepped upon the scaffold at beholding the dreadful scene around him, and, turning round about to one of the clergymen, said, “Home, this is terrible!” He was attired in a suit of black clothes, and, though his countenance was composed, he had a melancholy air about him, which indicated great mental suffering. Many of the spectators near the scaffold were so much affected by his appearance that they could not refrain from tears, and even the executioner was so overcome that he was obliged to drink several glasses of spirits to enable him to perform his dreadful duty.

Mr. Foster, who had accompanied his lordship to the scaffold, remained on it a short time in earnest conversation, and having quitted it, the executioner came forward and asked his lordship’s forgiveness in executing the very painful task he had to perform. The unhappy nobleman informed the executioner that he readily forgave him, and presenting him a purse containing five guineas, desired him to have courage. His lordship then took off his upper clothes, turned down the neck of his shirt under his vest, and undoing his long dressed hair from the bag which contained it, tied it round his head in a damask cloth in the form of a cap. He then informed the executioner that he would drop a handkerchief as a signal for the stroke about two minutes after he had laid his head down upon the block. Either to support himself, or as a more convenient posture for devotion, he laid his hands upon the block. On observing this the executioner begged his lordship to let his hands fall down, lest they should be mangled or break the blow. Being told that the neck of his waistcoat was in the way, he rose up, and with the help of Colonel Craufurd, one of his friends, had it taken off. The neck being now made completely bare to the shoulders, the earl again knelt down as before. This occurrence did not in the least discompose him, and Mr. Home’s servant, who held the cloth to receive his head, heard him, after laying down his head the second time, put the executioner in mind that in two minutes he would give the signal. He spent this short time in fervent devotion. Then, fixing his neck upon the block, he gave the fatal signal; his body remained without the least motion till the stroke of the axe, which at the first blow almost severed the head from the body. A small piece of skin which still united them was cut through by another stroke. The head, which was received into a scarlet cloth, was not exposed, in consequence, it is said, of the earl’s own request, but along with the body, was deposited in the coffin, which was delivered to his friends, and placed by them in the hearse. The scaffold was then strewed over with fresh sawdust, and the executioner, who was dressed in white, changed such of his clothes as were stained with blood.

The first act of this bloody tragedy being now over, the under-sheriff went to Balmerino’s apartments to give him notice that his time was come. “I suppose,” said his lordship on seeing this functionary enter, “my Lord Kilmarnock is no more.” Being answered in the affirmative, he asked the under-sheriff how the executioner had performed his duty, and upon receiving the account, he said, “then it was well done, and now, gentlemen, (continued the inflexible Balmerino, turning to his friends,) I will detain you no longer, for I desire not to protract my life.” During the time spent in Kilmarnock’s execution Balmerino had conversed cheerfully with his friends, and twice refreshed himself with a bit of bread and a glass of wine, desiring the company to drink him “a degree to heaven.” Saluting each of his friends in the most affectionate manner, he bade them all adieu, and leaving them bathed in tears, he hastened to the scaffold, which he mounted with a firm step.

The strong feeling of pity with which the spectators had beheld the handsome though emaciated figure of the gentle Kilmarnock gave place to sensations of another kind, when they beheld the bold and strongly-built personage who now stood on the stage before them. Attired in the same regimentals of blue turned up with red which he had worn at the battle of Culloden, and treading the scaffold with a firm step and an undaunted air, he gloried in the cause for which he suffered, and forced the assembled multitude to pay an unwilling tribute of admiration to his greatness of soul. His friends, on beholding the apparatus of death, expressed great concern; but his lordship reproved their anxiety. His lordship walked round the scaffold, and bowed to the people. He then went to the coffin, and reading the inscription, said it was correct. With great composure he examined the block, which he called his “pillow of rest.” He then put on his spectacles, and, pulling a paper from his pocket, read it to the few persons about him, in which he declared his firm attachment to the house of Stuart, and stated that the only fault he had ever committed deserving his present fate, and for which he expressed his sincere regret, was in having served in the armies of the enemies of that house, Queen Anne and George I. He complained that he had not been well used by the lieutenant of the Tower, but that having received the sacrament the day before, and read several of the Psalms of David, he had forgiven him, and said that he now died in charity with all men.

Calling at last for the executioner, that functionary stepped forward to ask his forgiveness, but Balmerino interrupted him, and said, “Friend, you need not ask my forgiveness; the execution of your duty is commendable.” Then, presenting him with three guineas, his lordship added, “Friend, I never had much money; this is all I have, I wish it was more for your sake, and I am sorry I can add nothing else to it but my coat and waistcoat.” These he instantly took off, and laid them down on the coffin. He then put on the flannel waistcoat which he had provided, and a tartan cap on his head, to signify, as he said, that he died a Scotchman; and going to the block, placed his head upon it in order to show the executioner the signal for the blow, which was by dropping his arms. Returning then to his friends, he took an affectionate farewell of them, and, surveying the vast number of spectators, said, “I am afraid there are some who may think my behaviour bold; but,” addressing a gentleman near him, he added, “remember, Sir, what I tell you; it arises from a confidence in God, and a clear conscience.”

Observing at this moment the executioner with the axe in his hand, he went up, and, taking it from him, felt the edge. On returning the fatal instrument, Balmerino showed him where to strike the blow, and encouraged him to do it with resolution, “for in that, friend,” said he, “will consist your mercy.” His lordship, then, with a countenance beaming with joy, knelt down at the block, and extending his arms, said the following prayer:--“O Lord, reward my friends, forgive my enemies, bless the prince and the duke, and receive my soul.” He then instantly dropt his arms. The executioner, taken unawares by the suddenness of the signal, hurriedly raised the axe, and missing his aim, struck the ill-fated lord between the shoulders, a blow which, it has been said, deprived the unfortunate nobleman of sensation; but it has been averred by some of the spectators, that Balmerino turned his head a little round upon the block, gnashed his teeth, and gave the executioner a ghastly stare. Taking immediately a better aim, the executioner gave a second blow, which almost severed the head from the body, and deprived the noble victim of life. The body having fallen from the block, it was instantly replaced, and the executioner, once more raising the fatal weapon, finished his task. The head was received in a piece of red cloth, and deposited along with the body in the coffin, and being put into a hearse, was carried to the chapel of the Tower, and buried with that of Lord Kilmarnock, near the remains of Lord Tullibardine. Mr. Humphreys, curate of the chapel, read the funeral service, and when he came to the words, “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” two gentlemen, friends of the deceased, took up the spades and performed the office of the grave-diggers.

For a time the unhappy fate of the two lords almost exclusively engaged the attention of the public; and in private circles, as well as in the periodicals of the day, the conduct and bearing of the unfortunate noblemen were viewed and commented upon according to the partialities and feelings of the parties. By the whigs, and generally by all persons of a real or affected seriousness of mind, Kilmarnock was regarded as a perfect model of the dying Christian, who, though he had been guilty of base ingratitude to the government, and had told a falsehood at his trial, had fully atoned for his offences by his contrition; whilst his companion in suffering was looked upon as an incorrigible rebel, who had braved death with an unbecoming levity. The Jacobites, however, and even some of the friends of the revolution settlement, whilst they could not but admire the calm resignation of Kilmarnock, heartily despised the cringing pusillanimity which he displayed to soften the resentment of the government. Balmerino was viewed by them in a very different light. Whilst the Jacobites looked upon him as an illustrious martyr, who had added a lustre to their cause by his inflexible intrepidity and the open avowal of his sentiments, the other section of his admirers applauded his courage, and paid a just tribute to his honesty. The more dispassionate judgment of posterity has done ample justice to the rectitude and magnanimity of this unfortunate nobleman.

The next victims to the offended laws were Donald Macdonald, of the Keppoch family, who had served as a captain in the regiment of that chief, Walter Ogilvy, a young man of good family in Banffshire, a lieutenant in Lord Lewis Gordon’s regiment, and James Nicolson, who had kept a coffee-house in Leith. These three, with one Alexander Macgrowther, who also held a commission in the Highland army, were taken at Carlisle. When brought to the bar of the court at St. Margaret’s-hill, the three first pleaded guilty, and begged for mercy; but Macgrowther attempted to defend himself on the ground that he was forced into the insurrection by the Duke of Perth against his will, having as a vassal no power to withstand the commands of his superior.[1288] This defence, corresponding in very many cases with reality, and which was also made by many of the Scotch prisoners, was overruled. On the 2d of August these four persons were condemned, and Macgrowther having been afterwards reprieved; the remainder suffered on Kennington-common, on the 22d of the same month. Macdonald and Nicolson were executed in their Highland dress. The same revolting process of disembowelling, &c., practised upon the bodies of Townley and his companions, was gone through; but the spectators were spared the revolting spectacle, which was witnessed on that occasion, of cutting down the prisoners whilst alive.

At Perth, on the 19th of September, Captain Crosby, who had deserted from the British army in Flanders, and come to Scotland with the French troops, was hanged, and two deserters were shot. A singular incident happened on this occasion. To carry the sentence against Crosby into execution on the day appointed, the hangman of Perth was secured in the town prison; but having apparently no certainty that he would perform his painful duty, the hangman of Stirling was sent for by the magistrates, who, upon his appearance, liberated the timorous functionary. The hangman immediately fled the place. Captain Crosby was brought to the place of execution on the appointed day, but before the time for throwing him off arrived, the executioner dropt down dead. After remaining a considerable time at the place of execution the guard was returning with Crosby to the prison, when an infamous criminal, who was a prisoner in the jail, offered to hang the captain for a reward of ten guineas and a free pardon. The authorities having acceded to the demand of this ruffian, Crosby was immediately carried back to the place of execution, and suffered with great fortitude.[1289]

The sittings at St. Margaret’s-hill were resumed on the 23d of August, and were continued from time to time for about two months. Bills were found against thirty-two persons, besides Lord Macleod and Secretary Murray; but these last were not brought to trial. Of the thirty-two tried no less than twenty-two were convicted at different times, all of whom received sentence of death on the 15th of November. Of these, eight of the principal were ordered for execution on the 28th of that month. Among these were Sir John Wedderburn, John Hamilton, Andrew Wood, Alexander Leith, and James Bradshaw. Sir John Wedderburn had acted as receiver in the counties of Perth and Angus of the ale and malt arrears raised by the Highland army; Hamilton had been governor of Carlisle; Wood, a youth of two-and-twenty, had distinguished himself as a volunteer in Roy Stewart’s regiment; Leith had served as a captain in the Duke of Perth’s regiment, and though old and infirm, had been remarkable for zeal and activity; and Bradshaw had shown his devotion to the cause of the Stuarts by giving up a lucrative business as a merchant in Manchester, and expending all his wealth to promote it. He entered the Manchester regiment; but thinking that he could be of more use by marching with the Highland army into Scotland than by remaining at Carlisle, he joined Lord Elcho’s corps, and was taken prisoner after the battle of Culloden.

On the morning of the execution two of the prisoners of the name of Farquharson and Watson obtained a reprieve, as also did one Lindsay, just as he was about to step into the sledge. The effect upon this man’s feelings, when his pardon was announced, was such, that his life appeared for a time in danger. The five prisoners were then drawn to the place of execution in two sledges, where their doom was sealed. Bradshaw read a paper, in which he declared that he had joined “the king’s forces” from a principle of duty only, and that he never had reason since to be convinced that he had been mistaken; but that, on the contrary, every day’s experience had strengthened his opinion that what he had done was right and necessary. He stated that he had had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the most ungenerous enemy he believed ever assumed the name of a soldier,--“the pretended duke of Cumberland, and those under his command,” whose inhumanity, he observed, had exceeded every thing he could have imagined, “in a country where the name of a God is allowed of.” He expressed his firm conviction, that the order attributed to Charles to give no quarter was “a malicious, wicked report, raised by the friends of the usurper” to excuse the cruelties committed by his troops in Scotland. After a high eulogium upon the qualifications of the prince, the paper concluded with a prayer for the preservation of “King James the Third, the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of York.”

Besides the trials at Southwark, other trials took place at Carlisle and York, chiefly of prisoners taken at Culloden. No less than 382 of these unfortunate beings had been brought to Carlisle; but as the trial of such a great number of persons, with a view to capital punishment, might appear extremely harsh, and would be inconvenient, a proposal was made to the common prisoners, who formed the great mass, that, with certain exceptions, only one in every twenty, chosen by lot, should be tried, and that the remainder should be transported. This proposal was acceded to by a considerable number. By this means the number for trial was reduced to 127, who were immediately separated from the others, and with the exception of two--Sir Archibald Primrose and Captain Hay--thrust into one room in the keep of the castle, where their miseries induced many to hatch futile plots for escape.[1290]

The judges adjourned to the 9th of September; and, in the mean time, they repaired to York, where the grand jury found bills against 75 persons confined there. The judges resumed their sittings at Carlisle for the trial of the prisoners there, on the 9th of September, on which, and the two following days, the prisoners, against whom bills had been found, were arraigned. Bills were found against 15 more on the 12th, making a total of 134. Of these, 11 pled guilty when arraigned; 32 entered the same plea when brought to trial; 48 were found guilty, of whom 11 were recommended to mercy, 36 acquitted, 5 remanded to prison till further evidence should be procured, and 1 obtained delay on an allegation of his being a peer. The judges resumed their sittings at York on the 2d of October, and sat till the 7th. Of the 75 persons indicted, 2 pled guilty when arraigned, 52 when brought to trial, and 16 were found guilty, 4 of whom were recommended to mercy. All these received sentence of death. Five only were acquitted.

Of the 91 prisoners under sentence at Carlisle, 30 were ordered for execution; 9 of whom were accordingly executed at Carlisle on the 18th of October.[1291] Six were executed at Brampton on the 21st of the same month, and 7 suffered at Penrith. Seven out of the 30 were reprieved, and 1 died in prison. All those who were executed underwent the usual process of unbowelling.

Among those who suffered at Carlisle on October 18th, were Major Donald Macdonald of Tynedrish--he who, short-sighted, unwittingly allowed himself to be made prisoner after the battle of Falkirk. He was one of the first to join Prince Charles after his landing, and it is supposed that Sir Walter Scott had him in his mind, when he drew the character of Fergus M’Ivor, in _Waverley_. Another was the brave and chivalrous laird of Kinloch-Moidart, described as a plain honest man, exceedingly cool-headed, and fitted for either the cabinet or the field, but unable to resist the persuasions of his brother Æneas Macdonald, the Paris banker, who accompanied Charles to Scotland--and the fascination which the prince seems to have exercised on those whom he personally addressed. An acquaintance of Macdonald’s visited him when he was confined a prisoner in Edinburgh Castle, and asked him how he came to engage in so desperate an undertaking, which never had a probability of success? “I myself was against it,” he replied; “but, Lord man, what could I do when the young lad came to my house?”[1292]

On the 1st of November 10 of the prisoners condemned at York suffered in that city, and on the 8th of the same month, 11 others suffered the same fate. Another prisoner suffered on the 15th November. The work of death closed at Carlisle on the 15th of December by the immolation of 11 more victims.

Out of the 77 persons who thus suffered, it is remarkable that, with the solitary exception of Lord Kilmarnock, they all maintained, to the very last, the justice of the cause for which they suffered. The more enthusiastic among them even openly declared that they would continue to support the claim of the exiled family to the crown if set at liberty.

Notwithstanding this useless waste of human blood, the government did not consider the work of destruction complete till the lives of two individuals, who lay more especially under its ban, were sacrificed, as the last atonement to public justice. These were Charles Ratcliffe and Lord Lovat. The former was a younger brother of the Earl of Derwentwater, who suffered in 1716, and whose title Mr. Ratcliffe had assumed. He had been engaged in the former insurrection, taken at Preston, and condemned, but made his escape out of Newgate; and after passing some years in France and Italy, married the Countess of Newburgh at Paris. He had visited England privately in 1733, and returned again two years thereafter, when he appeared openly in public. Soliciting his pardon without success, he returned to France, where he remained till November, 1745, when he was made prisoner on board a French vessel, on her way to Scotland with supplies for Prince Charles. He was arraigned at the bar of the court of king’s bench on the 21st of November, 1746, upon his former sentence; but he refused either to plead or to acknowledge the authority of the court, on the ground that he was a subject of France, where he had resided thirty years, and honoured with a commission in the service of his most Christian majesty. Being brought to the bar next day, his former sentence being read over to him, he pleaded that he was not the person therein mentioned; but his identity being clearly established, he was ordered to be executed on the 8th of December. His aunt, Lady Petre, did every thing in her power to save him, or at least to procure a respite till his lady should arrive from Paris, but without success. Some demur seems, however, to have existed, as the preparations for his execution were so long delayed, that the carpenters were obliged to work on the scaffold on Sunday the day before the execution, and all the following night.

The preparations for his execution were somewhat the same as those in the cases of Kilmarnock and Balmerino. He was dressed in a suit of scarlet, faced with black velvet trimmed with gold, a gold-laced waistcoat, and wore a white feather in his hat. When he came upon the scaffold he took a tender farewell of his friends, and after spending about seven minutes in prayer on his knees, he rose, and pulling off his clothes, went forward to the block, on which he placed his head to try how it fitted. He then spoke to the executioner as if giving him directions, and kneeling down again, and fixing his head upon the block, in about two minutes he gave the signal to the executioner, who, as in the case of Balmerino, did not complete his work till he had given the third blow. The head was received in a scarlet cloth. Without the levity of Balmerino, Mr. Ratcliffe displayed the same manly fortitude and contempt of death exhibited by that unfortunate nobleman. He died, as he had lived, a Catholic; and so warmly was he attached to the faith of his ancestors, that when some zealous Protestant objected to him that some of the tenets of his religion were contrary to reason, he is said to have wished, that for every such tenet, the belief of which was required by the church, there were twenty, that he might have a larger field for exercising his faith.[1293] His body was delivered over to his friends, and interred by them, on the 11th of November, at St. Giles’s-in-the-fields, near the remains of his brother.

The last scene of this bloody tragedy ended with the trial and execution of the aged Lord Lovat, who had been confined in the Tower since the 15th of August. He was impeached by the House of Commons on the 11th of December, and was brought to the bar of the House of Peers on the 18th, when the articles of impeachment were read to him.[1294] At his own desire, four gentlemen were assigned him for counsel, and he was appointed to put in answers to the articles of impeachment on or before the 13th of January. The trial, which was appointed to take place on the 23d of February, was postponed to the 5th, and afterwards to the 9th of March, on which day it commenced. The articles of impeachment were in substance, that he had compassed and imagined the death of the king,--that he had corresponded with the Pretender, accepted a commission from him to be a lieutenant-general of his forces, and another to be general of the Highlanders, and that he had accepted a patent from the Pretender creating him Duke of Fraser,--that he had met with armed traitors, and had raised great numbers of armed men for the service of the Pretender and his son, and had traitorously levied a cruel and unnatural war against his majesty,--that he had sent a treasonable letter to the son of the Pretender when in arms within the kingdom,--that he had also sent treasonable letters to other persons, then openly in arms against the king,--that he had assisted the rebels in their traitorous designs, and had sent his eldest son, and many of his name, family, and dependents, to the assistance of the Pretender’s eldest son, and had given them instructions in the prosecution of the rebellion,--and finally, that he had traitorously, both in person and by letters, held correspondence with the eldest son of the Pretender, and with divers persons employed by him, and particularly with Murray of Broughton, the two Lochiels, John Roy Stewart, Dr. Cameron, and others. To all these charges Lord Lovat gave a pointed denial.

They were, however, fully established by the strongest proofs. The written evidence consisted of papers found in his lordship’s strong box, besides some letters which he had written to Prince Charles, the last of which having come into the hands of Murray of Broughton, in his capacity of secretary to the prince, were basely delivered up by him to save his own worthless life. Lord Lovat exerted all his ingenuity to evade the force of the evidence; but the proofs of his criminality were too clear to admit of any doubt. His lordship objected to the admissibility of Murray as a witness, on the ground that he was attainted by act of parliament made in the previous session, and that he had not surrendered himself in terms of the act. Having stated that he had several objections against the witness, one or two of which he considered essential, a discussion ensued as to whether all these objections should not at once be stated. As giving a fair sample of the manner in which the trial was conducted, the argument on both sides, on the point alluded to, is here given:--

“MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--My lords, I observe that the noble lord at the bar said that he had several objections to the examining this witness, and that one or two of them were essential; but the noble lord has not mentioned more than one. I presume, my lords, it would be proper that he should name all his objections at once, that the managers may have an opportunity of answering them all, and receiving your lordships’ judgment upon the whole; therefore, if he has any other objections to offer, it would be proper he should mention them now to your lordships. LORD LOVAT.--My lords, I submit it to your lordships that that is a very odd proposition. I give your lordships an essential one now, and when that is answered I have another. I am not to be directed by those who are my _persecutors_. LORD-HIGH-STEWARD.--My Lord Lovat, you are not to be directed by your accusers, but by the lords who are your judges; and the course of proceeding in this and all other courts is, that a person, who objects to any witness, should name all his objections at the same time; and it is the more material in this court, as it tends to prevent the trouble of making several unnecessary adjournments. LORD L.--My lords, as this objection is very essential, I pray that it may be answered before I make another. LORD TALBOT.--If this is a material objection to the witness, then there will be no occasion for any other; but if it is an immaterial one, then your lordships may go into any other; but the way proposed by the managers may be very detrimental to the unhappy person at the bar. LORD H. S.--Your lordships hear what is proposed; and the question is, whether the noble lord at the bar shall name all his objections now, or take them up one by one. SIR WILLIAM YONGE, (one of the managers from the commons.)--My lords, I should hope that, in any course of proceeding, where objections of this kind are made, they should be made all together; for if they are made separate, we must consequently make distinct answers to them all, which may oblige your lordships to adjourn often to the chamber of parliament, which will create a great and unnecessary delay of time: and my lords, there can be no objection to his naming the whole at once, since they will all be distinctly considered by your lordships, and undoubtedly receive distinct answers. I therefore humbly insist, that he may be obliged to name all his objections at once. MR. NOEL, (another manager.)--My lords, what we are now upon is no point of law at all: it is simply, whether the noble lord at the bar as is usual should not name all his objections at once? When he does name them, then to such as are clear points of law he must be heard by his counsel; but at present, my lords, we are upon a question concerning the course of proceeding, whether he shall name them all at once, that they may be taken into consideration at the same time? My lords, one thing struck me in a very extraordinary manner:--It was said by the noble lord at the bar, that he was not to be directed by his _persecutors_. My lords, we are no persecutors; we persecute no man; we are intrusted by the commons, who carry on this prosecution against the noble lord at the bar for treason, and we prosecute for the preservation of the king’s government and the laws of the land. LORD L.--My lords, I said I was not to be directed by those who accused me. Your lordships cannot expect I can say what I have to offer in an eloquent manner. My lords, should the saving of a little time be a reason for taking away a person’s life? I hope these will not act like the parricides who took off the head of both kingdoms in a day by their prosecution. I am a peer of this land, and I think no excuse of saving time should be allowed as a reason to destroy me. LORD H. S.--My Lord Lovat, the lords will use all the deliberation, and give you all the time that is requisite for your defence; but I must beg your lordship will have so much consideration as to keep your temper, and not suffer yourself to be hurried into passion, for that may greatly prejudice you in making your defence. Your lordship will find the advantage in your defence by keeping your temper. LORD L.--I give your lordship my humble thanks: and since your lordships will not allow me counsel, I have spoke the little nonsense I had to say; but now your lordships shall hear me say nothing out of temper. LORD H. S.--My Lord Lovat, the question now is, whether you shall name all your objections at once? I must acquaint your lordship that that is the rule in the courts below, that if several objections are made to a witness, they are all named at once, in order to prevent unnecessary delays. LORD L.--My lords, to show how much I desire to save time, though, according to the course of nature, my time can be but short, I am so far from desiring to give your lordships trouble, or to prolong time, that I do insist upon this objection to the witness, and rely upon it as the only material objection.”[1295]

The managers having offered to prove, by the record of the court of King’s bench, that Mr. Murray had surrendered himself within the time prescribed, the question whether the record should be received in evidence, was argued at great length by the counsel for Lord Lovat, and the managers on the part of the prosecution. Having decided that the record might be read and given in evidence, Lord Lovat offered to falsify the record, by proving, in opposition to the averment therein contained, that Mr. Murray had not surrendered himself as required by the act of parliament. The court, however, decided that the record of the court of King’s bench, which was, nevertheless, literally untrue, could not be falsified by oral evidence.

Being called upon to make his defence on the sixth day of the trial, Lovat gave in a long paper, in which he commented with great severity upon the witnesses, whose testimony he maintained was not to be credited. He designated Secretary Murray as “the most abandoned of mankind, who, forgetting his allegiance to his king and country, had, according to his own confession, endeavoured to destroy both, like another Catiline, to patch up a broken fortune upon the ruin and distress of his native country. To-day stealing into France to enter into engagements upon the most sacred oath of fidelity; soon after, like a sanguinary monster, putting his hand and seal to a bloody proclamation, full of rewards for the apprehending of the sacred person of his majesty, and lest the cup of his iniquity had not been filled, to sum up all in one, impudently appearing at their lordships’ bar to betray those very secrets which he confessed he had drawn from the person he called his lord, his prince and master, under the strongest confidence.” “Thus far,” he concluded, “I thought it my duty, in vindication of myself, to trouble your lordships, and without further trespassing upon your patience, freely submit my life, my fortune, my honour, and what is dearest of all, my posterity, to your lordships.”[1296]

After the managers for the prosecution had addressed the court, Lord Lovat was withdrawn from the bar. The whole peers present--117 in number--unanimously found his lordship guilty. Lord Lovat was then called back to the bar, and informed by the lord-high-steward of the judgment of the court. Being brought up next day to receive his sentence, he addressed the court in a long speech, in which he gave a rambling recital of his services to the house of Hanover; and after receiving sentence, he implored their lordships and the managers of the commons to recommend him to the mercy of his majesty. Before leaving the bar, he said, “God bless you all, and I bid you an everlasting farewell. We shall not meet all in the same place again. I am sure of that.”

“The public were ravenous with curiosity about the great Leviathan that had been at last so effectually hooked, and it was necessary to fill the ear of London with details of his previous history, as well as anecdotes of his conduct since his capture. Many of them are fabulous, and many not worth preserving, but a few are too characteristic to be passed over. They may be announced by an incident not mentioned in the contemporary accounts, but preserved by tradition. On his return from the House of Lords to the Tower, an old woman not very well favoured, had pressed through the crowd and screamed in at the window of the coach, ‘You’ll get that nasty head of yours chopped off, you ugly old Scotch dog,’ to which he answered, ‘I believe I shall, you ugly old English b----,’ paying her back with the feminine of the masculine epithet she had applied to him. The major of the Tower coming to visit him and ask how he did, he answered, ‘Why, I am about doing pretty well, for I am preparing myself, sir, for a place where hardly any majors, and very few lieutenant-generals go;’ this was a more distinct hint than that given to the House of Lords.”[1297]

On the 2d of April the sheriffs of London and Middlesex received a warrant for his execution, which was appointed to take place on the 9th. His lordship, it is said, petitioned the king that he might be despatched by the maiden, the Scottish instrument of decapitation; but his application was not attended to. His approaching fate did not in the least discompose him, and though in the eightieth year of his age, his spirits never flagged, nor was his natural vivacity in any degree diminished. He said, the day before his execution, that he was never at any time in better spirits; and he told Dr. Clark, his physician, that the Tower was a better recipe for upholding them than the emetics he used to give him.[1298] Though regardless of death, and even occasionally facetious on the circumstances of his coming exit, he was not indifferent to the consolations of religion, and cheerfully availed himself of the spiritual assistance of a Catholic priest. Early on the morning of the execution, 1,200 troops drew up on Tower-hill, and all the preparations were gone through as in the former instances. About an hour before the execution, a serious accident occurred, in consequence of the fall of a large scaffolding with 400 persons, by which eighteen were killed on the spot, and many bruised and crippled. When Lovat heard of it his cool remark was,[1299] “The more mischief the better sport.” When he arrived at the scaffold, Lovat was obliged, from infirmity, to obtain the assistance of two persons in mounting. He displayed, to the very last, his characteristic fortitude, or rather bravado, and, with great coolness, felt the edge of the axe, with the sharpness of which he declared himself satisfied. On looking round and observing the great crowd, he said, “God save us,--why should there be such a bustle about taking off an old gray head that cannot get up three steps without two men to support it.”[1300] He gave the executioner ten guineas, advised him to perform his duty firmly, and take a good aim, and told him that if he mangled his shoulders, he would be displeased with him. In conversation he used frequently to cite passages from the classics; and, on the present occasion, he repeated the celebrated saying of Horace,--“_Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori_,” as peculiarly applicable to the cause for which he was about to suffer. After spending some time in devotion, this remarkable man laid his head down upon the block with the utmost composure, and the executioner struck it off at a single blow. His lordship had given directions that his body should be carried to Scotland, and his friends had removed it to an undertaker’s in the Strand preparatory to its being sent down; but, by order of government, it was interred at St. Peter’s in the Tower, in the same grave with Lords Kilmarnock and Balmerino.

Whilst these executions could not fail to impress the disaffected with a strong idea of the power and inclination of government to uphold and maintain the authority of the law, they were calculated by their number and severity rather to excite a thirst for vengeance, than to inspire that salutary fear which it is the object of punishment to promote. During these executions, a scheme was concocted to arrest the arm of the law by seizing and carrying off the person of the Duke of Cumberland, and retaining him as a hostage for the lives of the prisoners. The originators of this bold design went from London to Paris, and laid their plan before Charles shortly after his arrival from Scotland, and offered to make the attempt; but Charles refused to sanction it, and the scheme was dropped.[1301]

By way of conciliating the offended feelings of the nation, the government got an act of indemnity passed in June, 1747, granting a pardon, with certain exceptions, to all persons who had been engaged in the rebellion; but these exceptions were so numerous as to divest the act of all pretensions to the character of grace or favour. Besides all persons attainted of high treason by act of parliament or judgment, or conviction of high treason by verdict, confession, or otherwise, upwards of eighty persons were specially excepted by name.[1302]

FOOTNOTES:

[1283] Shenstone has commemorated this melancholy event in his plaintive ballad of ‘Jemmy Dawson.’

[1284] _Carlisle in ’45_, p. 244.

[1285] “He is,” says Walpole, “the most natural, brave old fellow I ever saw: the highest intrepidity, even to indifference. At the bar he behaved like a soldier and a man; in the intervals of form, with carelessness and humour.... At the bar he plays with his fingers upon the axe, while he talks to the gentleman gaoler; and one day, somebody coming up to listen, he took the blade and held it like a fan between their faces. During the trial a little boy was near him, but not tall enough to see; he made room for the child, and placed him near himself.”

[1286] As will be seen, the more barbarous and ignominious part of the sentence was not carried into effect; Kilmarnock and Balmerino were put to death by simple decapitation.

[1287] The original of the above letter, from which this copy was taken, is among the _Stuart Papers_, and is written in a remarkably bold and steady hand. The Chevalier sent a copy of this letter to Charles on 20th January, 1747. “I send you,” says he, “a copy of poor Lord Balmerino’s letter. I shall inquire about his widow, and send her some relief if she stands in need of it.”--_Stuart Papers._ James was as good as his word. See Mr. Theodore Hay’s letter to Secretary Edgar, of 10th June, 1747, and Lady Balmerino’s receipt, 18th May following, for £60, in the _Stuart Papers_. The letter of Lord Balmerino, and the circumstances of his death, are feelingly alluded to in a letter written by Lady Balmerino to the Chevalier, from Edinburgh, on 15th June, 1751:--“Before my dear lord’s execution, he leaving this world, and having no other concern in time but me, wrote a letter to your Majesty, dated 17th August, 1746, recommending me and my destitute condition to your Majesty’s commiseration and bounty. You are well informed of his undaunted courage and behaviour at his death, so that even your Majesty’s enemies and his do unanimously confess that he died like a hero, and asserted and added a lustre which never will be forgot to the undoubted right your Majesty has to your three realms. He had the honour to have been in your Majesty’s domestick service in Italy, and ever preserved, before his last appearance, an inviolable, constant attachment to your royal house and interest, which at last he not only confirmed by his dying words, but sealed it with his blood, than which a greater token and proof it is not of a subject to give of his love and fidelity to his sovereign.”

[1288] “The general plea and defence of the prisoners at Carlisle was that they were _forced_ into the rebellion--_i.e._, they were put under influences by clanship and such like, morally equivalent to force.”--_Carlisle in ’45_, p. 257.

[1289] True Copies of the Papers wrote by Arthur Lord Balmerino and others, published in the year 1746.

[1290] _Carlisle in ’45_, p. 247-50.

[1291] One of them, Cappock, (created Bishop of Carlisle by Charles,) made a long speech in support of the claims of the house of Stuart. He prayed for “King James,” Prince Charles, and the rest of the Stuart family, called King George an usurper, and when found guilty, he thus addressed his fellow-prisoners at the bar:--“Never mind it, my boys; for if our Saviour was here, these fellows would condemn him.” Observing Brand extremely dejected, he said to him, “What the devil are you afraid of? We shan’t be tried by a Cumberland jury in the other world.”--_Scots Mag._ vol. viii. p. 498.

[1292] _Carlisle in ’45_, pp. 254 and 266.

[1293] Boyse, p. 176.

[1294] The Laird of Macleod, in a letter to Lord-president Forbes, dated 18th December, 1746, says, “I saw unhappy Lovat to-day. Except for the feebleness of his limbs, his looks are good. He asked me several general questions, and particularly about you;--said he was resigned, and ready to meet his fate, since it was God’s will;--asked after his children, &c.” In another letter to the president, written two days thereafter, he again alludes to his lordship:--“Lovat behaved well at the bar of the house of peers, and they say with spirit. Granville and Bath spoke very strongly with regard to the seizure of his estate and effects; and that matter is ordered to be rectified, except in so far as private creditors come in the way.” Sir Andrew Mitchell, however, who was more of a courtier than Macleod, viewed matters in a different light. In a letter to the president, 26th December, 1746, he remarks, “Your lordship will have heard an account of Lord Lovat’s behaviour; and, therefore, I shall not trouble you with the particulars; only, I must observe, there was neither dignity nor gravity in it: he appeared quite unconcerned; and what he said was ludicrous and buffoonish; but his petition for the restoration of his effects, &c., was bold and well worded; which, however, would have been passed over without notice, had not Lord Granville bounced, and Lord Bath vapoured, and procured an order to be entered in the Journals, and have by that acquired to themselves a sort of popularity, which you know they very much wanted. No Scots nobleman spoke on this occasion; they are prudent and cautious. God bless them!”--_Culloden Papers._

[1295] Trial published by order of the House of Peers. London, 1747.

[1296] He made several appeals calculated to move commiseration for his grey hairs. “My lords,” he said, at the commencement, “I have not had the use of my limbs these three years; I cannot see, I cannot hear; and I beg, if your lordships have a mind I should have any chance of my life, that you will allow either my counsel or solicitors to examine my witnesses, and to cross-examine those produced on behalf of the crown, and to take notes.” If he had been tried, on the charges brought against him, in Scotland forty-six years earlier, he would have been allowed this privilege; but the rules of English law confined the assistance of counsel, in cases of treason, to purely legal questions. At the conclusion of the second day he complained of the hardships of the early daily attendance to one of his infirm constitution, and said, “I must therefore beg that your lordships will indulge me with a later hour and some respite; otherwise I shall die at your bar,” but the request seems to have been unheeded. Another appeal of the same description, in which he said, “I fainted away thrice this morning before I came up to your lordships’ bar; but yet was determined to show my respect to your lordships, or die upon the spot,” produced a respite of a day.--Burton’s _Life of Lovat_, p. 257.

[1297] Burton’s _Lovat_, pp. 262, 263.

[1298] _Culloden Papers_, p. 302.

[1299] Burton’s _Lovat_, p. 265.

[1300] Burton’s _Lovat_, p. 265.

[1301] Vide Letter in the _Stuart Papers_ from the Rev. Myles Macdonell to the Chevalier de St. George, dated St. Amiens, 4th May, 1747.

[1302] Among these were the Earls of Traquair and Kellie, Robert Maccarty, styling himself Lord Clancarty, Sir James Stewart of Good Trees; Sirs John Douglas, James Harrington, James Campbell, William Dunbar, and Alexander Bannerman; Archibald Stewart, late provost of Edinburgh, Chisholm of Comar, Cameron of Dungallon, Drummond of Bochaldy, Fraser of Foyers, Farquharson of Bulmarrell, Fraser of Avochnacloy, Dow Fraser of Little Garth, Fraser of Browich, Fraser of Gortuleg, Gordon of Abochie, Grant of Glenmoriston, Hunter of Burnside, Hay younger of Rannus, Irvine of Drum, Macdonald of Barisdale, M’Gregor of Glengyle, Macleod of Raasay, Gilbert Menzies, younger of Pitfodels, Moir of Stonywood, Æneas Macdonald, James Macdonald, brother to Kinlochmoidart, Macdonell of Glengarry, Macdonald of Glenco, Robertson of Strowan, Robertson of Faskally, Robertson of Blairfetty, Stuart of Kynnachin, Turner, younger of Turner-hall, &c., &c.

Among those formerly attainted and excepted in the above-mentioned act, were the following, viz., Lords Pitsligo, Elcho, Nairne, and Ogilvy, Lord George Murray, Lord Lewis Gordon, Lord John Drummond, ---- Drummond, eldest son of Lord Strathallan, the Master of Lovat, Graham of Duntroon, Sir William Gordon of Park, Gordon of Glenbucket, young Lochiel, Dr. Cameron, Cameron of Tor Castle, young Clanranald, Lochgarry, young Barisdale, Macdonald of Glencoe, Macpherson of Cluny, Maclachlan of Castle Lachlan, Mackinnon of Mackinnon, Stewart of Ardshiel, Lockhart, younger of Carnwath, Oliphant of Gask and his eldest son, Graham of Airth, Roy Stewart, Farquharson of Monalterye, Hay of Restalrig, &c.