CHAPTER XLI.

Proceedings which followed Culloden, their cause and consequences--Influence of clan-feeling--Lord Lovat and the Frasers--Parliamentary measures--Disarming Act--Act against the Highland dress--Abolition of Hereditary Jurisdictions--The Scottish Episcopalians--Effect of these measures--The Old Jacobites--The Jacobite Songs--Whig Songs--Sir Walter Scott--Jacobitism at the present day--Queen Victoria--Innovations, and their probable consequences.

The harsh military proceedings which followed the battle of Culloden, of which we have already endeavoured to give the reader an idea, seem to have completely crushed the spirit out of the poor, and, in many cases, innocent Highlanders. The Duke of Cumberland and his subordinates exercised, as we have seen, no discrimination in the selection of their victims, laying their bloody clutches on chiefs and people, him who had been “out” and him who had not; it was sufficient to bring slaughter, slavery, or ruin on a man and his family, if he bore upon or about him any mark of Highland origin or connection,--wore a kilt, or could not justify himself in English. The end which it was intended to accomplish by these cruel and saddening measures, was no doubt in the main highly desirable; it was well to let it be distinctly known once for all, that the divine hereditary right of ruling could be conferred only by the people, and that these would bestow the post of king on him who could fill it best, and who would by no caprices of his own obstruct the progress of the nation. It was assuredly right and absolutely necessary that the Highlanders should be made clearly to understand that they lived in the middle of the 18th century, and were only a very small part of a great nation which was leading the march of the world’s progress, and that, instead of doing their best to pull their country back a century, they should lend the aid of the many valuable and noble qualities with which they were endowed, but which were running comparatively waste, to enable Britain to keep her proud position in the van of the nations, and help the world on in its glorious course of progress, to try to stop which would certainly lead to their own destruction. It was, we say, high time that such a splendid race of men should be roused out of self-satisfied slumber and brought to their senses, but surely there was some gentler method of effecting this than by thrusting a sword into their hearts or blowing out their bewildered brains; their tendency to rebellion was no disease which required to be “stamped out,” but merely the result of much unoccupied energy, which only required proper direction in order to become a blessing instead of a curse to their fellow-countrymen. No one, possessing ordinary human feeling, can regard the proceedings which followed Culloden, and which were continued for many months, with any feelings but those of pity, sadness, and horror, combined with loathing at those who were so inhuman as to carry out the bloody work of wholesale butchery and ruin. We of the present day regard the Highlanders of ’45 as a chivalrous, impulsive, simple-minded race, who really wished to do no one any harm, and perhaps we are to a certain extent right. But, as at the time of the massacre of Glencoe, their southern fellow-countrymen looked upon them as a pestiferous race of semi-barbarians, enemies to progress, “thieves and lawless limmers,” who, like vermin, should be annihilated, or at least for ever incapacitated from doing harm to any but themselves. This seems especially to have been the case with the Duke of Cumberland, who was utterly incapable of regarding the Highlanders in any other light than as a set of barbarous villains, to whom no mercy ought to be shown. Writing, April 4, 1746, to the Duke of Newcastle, he says, “All in this country are almost to a man Jacobites, and mild measures will not do. You will find that the whole laws of this ancient kingdom must be new modelled. Were I to enumerate the villains and villanies this country abounds in, I should never have done.” And again, July 17, “I am sorry to leave this country in the condition it is in; for all the good that we have done is a little blood-letting, which has only weakened the madness, but not at all cured it; and _I tremble for fear that this vile spot may still be the ruin of this island and of our family_.” From a man of Cumberland’s character, cherishing such feelings as the above towards an enemy in his power, what other course of conduct was to be expected than that which he followed, more especially when it is remembered that these feelings must have been considerably aggravated by the defeats which the royal army had already sustained. On this last account the royal soldiers themselves must have cherished more than usually bitter feelings towards their opponents; for what can be more chagrining to regularly disciplined troops than to be routed by a wretchedly armed rabble of half naked, untrained men, in which light the royal army must have regarded the Highlanders. These special causes, added to the insatiable thirst for blood which seems to take possession of a victorious army, sufficiently account for the inhuman, heartless, and uncalled for treatment of the Highlanders after the battle of Culloden. Good as the end was, the means was utterly unjustifiable and abhorrent.

The end, however, was accomplished. The spirit of the Highlanders was totally broken; they were left completely prostrate, broken hearted, and bleeding, with no power left of further disturbing the peace of the kingdom, and with little inclination, at least among the great majority of the clansmen, to lend their aid towards another rising. Indeed, it is well known that, so far as the mass of the clansmen, as distinguished from the chiefs and tacksmen, were concerned, they were entirely the tools of their superiors, and were ready, according as their chiefs ordered, either to espouse the cause of Prince Charles, or to be loyal to the existing government. There is not a better instance of the indifference of the common Highlanders as to whom they fought for, than the conduct of the clan Fraser in the rebellion of 1715. At the time this rebellion broke out, Lovat was in France, the headship of the clan being assumed by Mackenzie of Fraserdale, who favoured the cause of the Stuarts, and who had joined the Earl of Mar at Perth with 400 of the Frasers, many other members of the clan remaining neutral till the pleasure of Simon, their real chief, should be known. Lovat returned from France, espoused the side of King George, in which he was immediately followed by the neutral Frasers, while those who were in the camp of Marr left it to a man, and joined themselves to him whom they regarded as their rightful chief. Such was the strength of the clannish principle, and such the indifference of the majority of the Highlanders as to which side they espoused, so long as they pleased their chief, to please whom, they had been taught from their infancy, was the first and great commandment, to offend him being little better than banishment or death. To say the least, then, how utterly indiscriminating and shameful was the cruel conduct of “Butcher” Cumberland and his assistants.

The cruel and unconstitutional method of punishing the Highland rebels, and crushing the sting out of them, adopted by Cumberland, was at length put a stop to about the month of August, the Civil Courts successfully asserting their supremacy over military licence and coercion. Parliament set itself to devise and adopt such measures as it thought would be calculated to assimilate the Highlands with the rest of the kingdom, and deprive the Highlanders of the power to combine successfully in future against the established government. To effect these ends, Parliament, in 1746 and 1747, passed various Acts, by which it was ordained that the Highlanders should be disarmed, their peculiar dress laid aside, and the heritable jurisdictions and wardholding abolished.

Marshal Wade, in 1725, seems really to have succeeded in confiscating a very considerable number of good, useful arms, although the pawky Highlanders managed to throw a glamour over even his watchful eyes, and secrete many weapons for use when occasion should offer. Still, that arms were scarce in the Highlands after this, is shown by the rude and unmilitary character of the weapons possessed by the majority of the rebel army previous to the battle of Prestonpans; there, many of the Highlanders were able to exchange their irregular and ugly, but somewhat formidable weapons for government firelocks and bayonets. Still Culloden, and the merciless oppression which followed, more than annulled all that the Highlanders had gained in this and other respects by their previous success; so that those who had the enforcing of the disarming Act would have comparatively little work to do, and were not likely to meet with much opposition in performing it. Severe penalties were threatened upon any who dared to keep possession of weapons after the Act came in force; for the first offence the delinquent was liable to a heavy fine, to be sent to serve as a soldier in America, or, if unfit for service, to be imprisoned for six months. Seven years’ transportation followed the second offence.

There can, we think, be no doubt as to the wisdom and prudence of this Act if judiciously and thoroughly carried out, although the penalties certainly do seem too severe. It seems to have accomplished its purpose: “the last law,” says Dr. Johnson,[1368] “by which the Highlanders are deprived of their arms, has operated with efficacy beyond expectation ... the arms were collected with such rigour, that every house was despoiled of its defence.” Not only was this disarming of the Highlanders effectual in preventing future rebellion, but also helped considerably to soften and render less dangerous their daily intercourse with each other. Formerly it was quite a common occurrence for the least difference of opinion between two Highlanders--whose bristling pride is always on the rise--to be followed by high words and an ultimate appeal to weapons, in which the original combatants were often joined by their respective friends, the result being a small battle ending in one or more deaths and many wounds. The Disarming Act tended to make such occurrences extremely rare.

There is certainly great room for doubting the wisdom which prompted the enactment that followed the above, enforcing the discontinuance of the peculiar dress of the Highlanders. By this Act, “Any person within Scotland, whether man or boy (excepting officers and soldiers in his majesty’s service), who should wear the plaid, philibeg, trews, shoulder belts, or any part of the Highland garb, or should use for great coats, tartans, or parti-coloured plaid, or stuffs, should, without the alternative of a fine, be imprisoned for the first conviction for six months, without bail, and on the second conviction be transported for seven years.”[1369] Of all the medicines administered by the government physicians to the Highlanders at this time, this was certainly the most difficult for them to swallow, and the one least calculated to serve the purpose for which it was intended. As to the other enactments made by government to keep down rebellion, the Highlanders could not but feel that those in power were only doing what common prudence dictated. But this interference in a matter so personal and apparently so harmless as that of dress, this prohibition of a costume so national, ancient (at least in fashion), and characteristic as that of the Highlanders, seemed to them an act of mere wanton and insulting oppression, intended to degrade them, and without purpose, to outrage their most cherished and harmless prejudices. They seem to have felt it as keenly as any officer would feel the breaking of his sword or the tearing off of his epaulets, or as the native troops, previous to the Indian mutiny, felt the imposition of greased cartridges. It humbled and irritated them far more than did any of the other acts, or even than the outrages and barbarities which followed Culloden; instead of eradicating their national spirit, and assimilating them in all respects with the Lowland population, it rather intensified that spirit, and their determination to preserve themselves a separate and peculiar people, besides throwing in their way an additional and unnecessary temptation to break the laws. A multitude of prohibitory statutes is always irritating to a people, and serves only to multiply offences and demoralize a nation; it is generally a sign of weakness and great lack of wisdom in a government. This enactment as to the Highland dress was as unwise as religious intolerance, which is invariably a nurse of discord, a promoter of sectarianism. This Act surrounded the Highland dress with a sort of sacred halo, raised it into a badge of nationality, and was probably the means of perpetuating and rendering popular the use of a habit, which, had it been left alone, might long ere now have died a natural death, and been found only in our museums, side by side with the Lochaber axe, the two-handed sword, and the nail-studded shield.

The sagacious President Forbes--to whom, had the government perceived clearly the country’s true interest, they would have entirely intrusted the legislation for the Highlands--had but a poor opinion of the dress bill, as will appear from the following letter of his to the Lord Lyon, dated July 8, 1746:--“The garb is certainly very loose, and fits men inured to it to go through great fatigues, to make very quick marches, to bear out against the inclemency of the weather, to wade through rivers, and shelter in huts, woods, and rocks upon occasion; which men dressed in the low country garb could not possibly endure. But then it is to be considered, that, as the Highlands are circumstanced at present, it is, at least it seems to me to be, an utter impossibility, without the advantage of this dress, for the inhabitants to tend their cattle, and to go through the other parts of their business, without which they could not subsist; not to speak of paying rents to their landlords. Now, because too many of the Highlanders have offended, to punish all the rest who have not, and who, I will venture to say, are the greatest number, in so severe a manner, seems to be unreasonable; especially as, in my poor apprehension, it is unnecessary, on the supposal the disarming project be properly secured; and I must confess, that the salvo which you speak of, of not suffering the regulation to extend to the well-affected Clans, is not to my taste; because, though it would save them from hardships, yet the making so remarkable a distinction would be, as I take it, to list all those on whom the bill should operate for the Pretender, which ought to be avoided if possible.”[1370] General Stewart perhaps speaks too strongly when he remarks, that had the whole Highland race been decimated, more violent grief, indignation, and shame, could not have been excited among them, than by being deprived of this long inherited costume. However, it should be remembered that all this was the legislation of upwards of 120 years ago, that the difficulties which the government had to face were serious and trying, that those who had the making of these laws were totally ignorant of the real character of the Highlanders, and of the real motives which urged them to rebellion, and that even at the present day legislative blunders do occasionally occur.

The means by which the Highlanders endeavoured to elude this law without incurring a penalty, were ingenious and amusing. Stewart tells us that, “instead of the prohibited tartan kilt, some wore pieces of a blue, green, or red thin cloth, or coarse camblet, wrapped round the waist, and hanging down to the knees like the fealdag.[1371] The tight breeches were particularly obnoxious. Some, who were fearful of offending, or wished to render obedience to the law, which had not specified on what part of the body the breeches were to be worn, satisfied themselves with having in their possession this article of legal and loyal dress, which, either as the signal of their submission, or more probably to suit their own convenience when on journeys, they often suspended over their shoulders upon their sticks; others, who were either more wary, or less submissive, sewed up the centre of the kilt with a few stitches between the thighs, which gave it something of the form of the trousers worn by Dutch skippers.” The Act at first appears to have been carried out with rigid strictness, these ingenious attempts at evading it being punished somewhat severely; but, if we may judge from a trial which took place in 1757, the administrators of the law had by that time come to regard such breaches with a lenient eye. Although no doubt the law in course of time became practically obsolete, it was not till 1782 that it was erased from the statute book. Since then “tartans and kilts an’ a’, an’ a’,” have gradually increased in popularity, until now they have become “the rage” with all classes of society, from John o’Groats to Land’s End; tartan plaids, of patterns which do great credit to the ingenuity of the manufacturers, are seen everywhere adorning the graceful forms of ladies, and the not so long since proscribed kilt being found not unfrequently displaying itself in the most fashionable London Assemblies. _Tempora mutantur._

By far the most important measure adopted by government for the improvement of the Highlands was the abolition of the Hereditary Jurisdictions, which lay at the root of many of the evils that afflicted that country, and to which, in a great degree, the rebellion owed the measure of success that attended it. Before these jurisdictions were abolished, a Highland chief was as absolute a potentate over the members of his clan as any eastern pasha or African chief is over his abject subjects. The power of “pit and gallows,” as it was called, which belonged to each of these petty sovereignties--for such they were practically--gave the chief absolute command of the lives and liberty of his followers. The only thing he lawfully could not do was to banish; but even this prohibition he managed to evade by giving his victims the alternative of “emigration”--as it was mildly called--or death. This is not the place to enter into a minute account of the origin and working of this curious system, so utterly inconsistent with the spirit of a constitutional government like that of Britain; but any one can perceive that such a power as this in the hands of a discontented chief, especially when complemented by the high notions which a Highlander had of the obedience due to the head of the clan, must have been dangerous in the highest degree to the peace and progress of the country. There is no doubt that this coercive power was frequently brought into play in the late rebellion; indeed, the only plea urged by a great majority of the common Highlanders, when tried at Carlisle and elsewhere, was that they were forced into rebellion against their wills. Of course a prudent chief would be careful not to carry his power beyond due bounds, at least so far as the members of his own clan were concerned, for there was a point in the scale of oppression which even the strong spirit of clanship could not stand. No doubt the power thus entrusted to the chiefs may at one time have served a good purpose. When the country was in a turbulent and unsettled state, when communication between the different parts of the country was tedious, expensive, and hazardous, when it was difficult for the strong arm of the law to reach to a remote, rugged, and inaccessible district like the Highlands, where life and the rights of property were as little regarded as they are at the present day in Ireland,--perhaps this putting of the power of a judge in the hands of the chief men of the various districts, was the only practicable substitute for the direct administration of justice by those to whom this duty properly belonged. In reality, the justice meted out was of the roughest kind, and continually liable to be modified by the interests of the administrator, or any of his many friends. “That such a system should have been tolerated into the middle of the 18th century, after Somers, Hardwicke, and Forbes had occupied the bench, may seem incredible, but it is true.”[1372] It was assuredly high time that such an anomalous state of matters should be done away with.[1373]

An Act for the abolition of the Hereditary Jurisdictions was passed in March 1747, and came in force a year after. Of course some other plan for the administration of the laws had to be devised. “At the head of the arrangements for carrying justice throughout the land, the system begun in England in the reign of Henry II., for sending the royal courts at fixed intervals through the provinces, was adopted. Nominally there had been circuits or justice-ayres, but they were not systematically held, either at stated intervals of time, or so as to bring up before them the revisal of the administration of justice in all the districts. This, indeed, was impossible while the hereditary jurisdictions remained, but now regular circuits were to take place biennially, and the country was so partitioned into districts, that the higher offences were systematically brought up from the most remote provinces for adjudication. The exceptional hereditary jurisdictions, such as the regalities, were abolished, and the smaller authority exercised in baronial courts was restricted to trifling matters. The sheriff courts, locally commensurate in their authority with the boundaries of the counties, were taken as the foundation of a system of local tribunals, presided over by responsible judges. These, which were hereditary, were to be yielded to the crown; and ever since the passing of the act, the sheriff of each county has been appointed like the other judges, for life, removeable only for misconduct.”[1374]

Of course, as these jurisdictions, besides conferring influence and power, were sources of emolument[1375] to the holders of them, and as they had been sanctioned in the treaty of Union, it was considered only fair that some compensation should be allowed by the country to those who profited by them; in fact, they had to be bought up. The holders of the jurisdictions appear to have been asked to send in the amount of their claims to the Court of Session, which was authorised to fix the price to be paid. Of course, those who were convicted or attainted for having taken part in the late rebellion, had no claim, as their estates were forfeited to the Crown, and they themselves deprived of all their privileges. Those who were about to part with their ancient powers were determined to make the most of them now that they were no longer to be a perpetual source of emolument and influence. The aggregate sum asked by the proprietors from government as the price of their jurisdictions was more than three times greater than that which the Court of Session deemed a fair price. There may be some truth in what Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh says in his _Antiquarian Notes_[1376]:--“Of course, the amounts ultimately paid bore not the slightest proportion to the claims, but they did bear some proportion to the politics of the holders, just as these happened to be friendly to government or the reverse.” Argyll, for the Justice-Generalship of Argyll, asked £15,000, for the Sheriffdom £5000, and for various small regalities other £5000, making £25,000 in all; from this the Court of Session deducted only £4000, allowing him for his various offices and jurisdictions what would then be considered the munificent sum of £21,000. Besides receiving this sum, the duke was appointed, in exchange for his office of Hereditary Justiciar of Scotland, Lord Justice-General, head of the Justiciary Court. The Duke of Montrose, for his various regalities, and the Sheriffdom of Dumbarton, demanded £15,000, but did not get above one third of that sum; nor did the Dukes of Buccleuch and Athole, who each modestly valued his various offices at £17,000. The Duke of Gordon’s claim amounted to £22,300, the Earl of Sutherland’s to £10,800, Breadalbane’s to £7000, Moray’s to £14,000, Findlater’s to £5,500. The smallest sum claimed for a Highland jurisdiction was by Evan Baillie, of Abriachan, for the Bailliary of Lovat, which he modestly valued at £166; Munro, Sheriff-Clerk of Inverness, claiming the same sum for that office combined with the Clerkship of the regality of Lovat. The total amount claimed for the whole of the jurisdictions was upwards of £490,000, which the Court of Session cut down to a little over £150,000.[1377] The sum was well spent in doing away with so many sources of petty tyranny and injustice, in the abolition of a system inconsistent with the spirit of the British constitution in the middle of the 18th century, calculated materially to hinder progress and to aid rebellion.

The abolition of these jurisdictions in the Highlands, and along with them the power and paternal authority of the Highland chiefs, effected a complete change in the social life of that part of the country, led at first to considerable discontent and confusion, and was the indirect means of bringing much suffering and hardship on the subordinate dignitaries and commonalty of the clans. Some such consequences were to be expected from the breaking up of a system which had held sway for many generations, and the substitution of a state of matters to which the people were altogether unused, and which ran counter to all their prejudices and traditions; still, as in the case of every reformation, individual suffering was to be looked for, and in the course of time, as will be seen, matters gradually righted themselves, and the Highlands became as progressive and prosperous as any other part of the country.

Another much needed measure adopted by government was the abolition of a remnant of feudality, the kind of tenure known as “wardholding.” “By this relic of ancient feudality, military service had remained down to that juncture the condition under which lands were held by one subject from another. Efforts were of course made to bring land into commerce, by substituting pecuniary arrangements for such services, but the ‘wardholding’ was so essentially the proper feudal usage, that the lawyers held it to be always understood, if some other arrangements were not very specifically settled. It had become the means of very oppressive exactions or ‘casualties,’ arising out of those conditions--such as minority--where the military service could not be performed. But by the act of 1746, arrangements were devised for converting all the superior’s privileges into reasonable pecuniary claims.”[1378]

Another means taken by government to extinguish the seeds of rebellion and prevent its future occurrence, was the enactment of more stringent laws in reference to the Scottish Episcopalians, among whom Jacobite sympathies were almost as strong and as universal as among their Roman Catholic brethren. Their partiality to the house of Stuart was no doubt in a great measure owing to their strong belief as a class in divine right of government, both in Church and State, and to a conviction that seems to have prevailed among them that the restoration of the Stuarts meant the restoration of the supremacy, or at least establishment of episcopacy in Scotland. The Stuarts had not more devoted adherents than the Episcopalians in the kingdom, nor any who, amidst many petty, irritating, and even severe enactments, continued longer to adhere to their first love. Indeed, there is good reason for believing that at the present day, among many Scottish Episcopalians, especially in the Highlands, there are still many Jacobites in sentiment and sympathy, although, as a principle of action, Jacobitism is undoubtedly dead and gone, never to be resuscitated.

As this party, though not numerous, was not less formidable from its rank and wealth than from the _esprit de corps_ with which it was animated, the attention of the legislature was directed towards it, and a strong measure was resorted to, which nothing could justify but necessity. This was an act by which it was ordained that any episcopal clergyman officiating after the 1st of September 1746, without having previously taken the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and assurance, or without praying once during the performance of worship for the king, his heirs, and successors, and for all the royal family, should for the first offence suffer six months imprisonment, for the second be transported to the American plantations for life, and, in case of returning from banishment, be subjected to perpetual imprisonment. By another enactment it was declared that no peer of Scotland should be capable of being elected one of the representative peers, or of voting at such election, and that no person should be capable of being elected a member of parliament for any shire or burgh, who should within the compass of any future year be twice present at divine service in an illegal episcopal meeting-house in Scotland. Several other severe Acts were passed against Episcopalians, and these were not allowed to remain a dead letter, but were acted upon in several instances.[1379] The devoted Episcopalians bore their privations with becoming fortitude, by yielding to a necessity which they could not control, but they submitted only because they were unable to resist.

Still there is no doubt that even at the present day there are not a few hereditary adherents of the Scottish episcopal church, whose sympathies are all Jacobite, and who have never taken kindly even to the present dynasty.

After the death, in January 1788, of Prince Charles Edward, whose brother the cardinal could leave no lawful descendant, the Scottish bishops felt they could conscientiously recognise the Hanoverian government, and therefore issued an intimation to the clergy and laity of their church, announcing that they had “unanimously agreed to comply with and submit to the present government of this kingdom, as vested in the person of his Majesty King George the Third.” They also resolved “to testify this compliance by uniformly praying for him by name in their public worship, in hopes of removing all suspicion of disaffection, and of obtaining relief from those penal laws under which this church has so long suffered.”[1380]

The forfeited estates were annexed to the Crown, and placed in the hands of the court of exchequer, who appointed commissioners to apply their produce to the improvement of the Highlands. In course of time, as will be seen in the history of the clans, government wisely restored to most of the unfortunate families the estates foolishly thrown away by their representatives in 1745.

The effect of all the measures above referred to was, of course, immediately to annul all possibility of further active resistance, although, no doubt, they tended to intensify and perpetuate Jacobitism as a sentiment, and change into a sort of living reverence or worship the feeling of loyalty towards Prince Charles which had animated most of the Highland chiefs and incited them to rebellion. The idea of endeavouring to repeat the experiment of ’45 seems not to have been entirely abandoned by some of the more obstinate Jacobites even up to the time of Charles’s death, although after the accession of George III.,--in whose reign the stringent measures adopted after 1745 were gradually relaxed, and efforts made for the improvement of the Highlanders,--the embodiment of many Highland regiments, the gradual dissolution practically of the old relation between the chief and his clan consequent on the abolition of the heritable jurisdictions, and the general progress of the country, Jacobitism became, as we have said above, a matter of mere sentiment, a feeling of tenderness almost akin to love, often finding expression in song in the melting language of the tender passion. Prince Charles was known to most of the Jacobites both in the Highlands and elsewhere only from the brief episode of 1745-6, in which he played the chief part, and in which he appeared to them as the handsome, brave, chivalrous, youthful, fair-haired, warm-hearted heir, come to recover that inheritance from which he was most unjustly excluded by a cruel usurper. His latter degraded life most of them knew nothing of, and even if they had been told of it, they most probably would have regarded the tale as a vile calumny; their love for “Bonnie Prince Charlie” was blind as the love of an impetuous youth for his first mistress, and they would allow no flaw to mar the beauty of that image which they tenderly cherished in their heart of hearts. This sentimental Jacobitism, as we have said already, prevailed extensively among all classes of society for very many years after all idea of actively asserting it had died out of the land.[1381] These Jacobites, who were generally of a somewhat social turn, in their private meetings, gave expression to their feelings in various ways, known only to themselves; indeed, there appears to have been a sort of freemasonry tacitly established among them, having signs, and words, and customs unknown to the great outside Whig world. One of their favourite methods, for example, of toasting Prince Charles at their feasts, was to drink to the health of “the king,” at the same time passing the glass in their hands over the water-bottle, to signify that they meant not King George, but him “over the water.”

What more than anything else, perhaps, tended to nourish and keep this feeling alive was the great body of song which was born of Jacobitism, and which dates from the time of Charles I. down almost to the present day. These songs are of all kinds, tender, humorous, pathetic, sarcastic, indignant, heroic, and many of them cannot be matched as expressions of the particular feelings to which they are meant to give utterance. The strength and character of the Jacobitic feeling can be well ascertained by a study of these songs, of which we believe there are some hundreds, many of them of high merit, and some, as we have said, not to be matched by the songs of any country. Indeed, altogether, this outburst of song is one of the most remarkable phenomena connected with Scottish Jacobitism, for most of them are Scotch both in language and authorship, and most of the tunes borrowed or adapted from the Gaelic, which has furnished to Scotland some of its richest song music. These songs not only show the intensity of the loyalty of the Jacobites towards the Stuart family, and their hatred of the reigning dynasty and of all Whigs, but also show that all along they had felt themselves to be the weaker party, unable to show their loyalty by their deeds, and compelled to let their energy escape in taunt and sarcasm. The Whigs have, indeed, a few, very few songs, which are artificial and cold, altogether devoid of the fire, the point, the perfect _abandon_, the touching tenderness, the thorough naturalness, which characterise those of their opponents. No one ever thinks of singing those Whig songs now-a-days; few know aught of them save industrious collectors.[1382] The Jacobite songs, on the other hand, both those which were written when Jacobitism was at its height, and those which are merely the outcome of modern sentiment, are, wherever Scotch songs are sought after and appreciated, scarcely less popular than the matchless love-songs in which the language must ever live. Who, when he hears some of these Jacobite gems sung, Protestant and Whig though he be to the core, is not for the nonce a Jacobite, ready to draw his sword if he had one, to “Wha wadna fight for Charlie;” feel delighted at the defeat of the Whig gudeman in “Hame cam’ our gudeman at e’en;” or shed a tear to the mournful verse of “Wae’s me for Prince Charlie?” With such a powerful instrument in their hands as this body of song, not only evidencing the intensity of the sentiment, but so well calculated to touch the feelings, excite the tenderness, and rouse the indignation of all who were capable of being influenced by music, it seems surprising that Jacobitism, as a principle of action, was not more prevalent even than it was, and did not, inspired by these songs, accomplish greater things. But the very fact that there were so many songs, may account for this lack of important deeds. The muses, Burns has said, are all Jacobites, and it would seem at any rate that all the best song writers of the country had enlisted on the unfortunate side; and it will be found, on the other hand, in scanning the account of the last rebellion, that those who joined in it were little given to forethought or to weighing the consequences of their actions, little able to regulate or lead any great enterprise, but influenced chiefly by imagination and impulse. There were, indeed, one or two superior to all the others in calibre, foresight, and aptitude to command, but these had little chance of being attended to when their power was not absolute among so many harebrained, thoughtless adventurers. In 1745, had there been at the head of the rebels one thoroughly able, experienced, iron-willed, thoughtful general, who had absolute command of the whole expedition, matters might have turned out very differently, especially when in these songs he had instruments far more powerful to incite than any threats or promises of reward. It is far from us to say that the bravery of the Jacobites evaporated in a song: their whole history would give such a statement the lie; but we think had there been less singing and song-making and more attention to stratagem and dry military business and diplomacy generally, they would have been more likely ultimately to have placed their idol on the throne. However, as General Stewart well remarks, “when it is considered how many feel and how few reason,” the power of this popular poetry to stir up sympathy in behalf of the cause for which it was written will be easily understood.[1383]

The great majority of these songs are in the Scottish language, a few of them being translations from the Gaelic, but most of them original; the authors of very few of them are known, a feature which they have in common with many of the oldest and richest of our Scotch songs. Any one who may wish to form an idea of their merit and multitude will find the best of them collected in Hogg’s two volumes of _Jacobite Relics_.

Some of the finest of these songs are perhaps better known than any others in the language; many of them, however, are known only by name, and many of them known at all but to a very few. Among those generally known and now commonly adapted to non-Jacobite sentiments, we may mention “My ain country,” the song of the home-sick exile, “Here’s a health to them that’s awa’,” “Over the seas and far awa’,” “Will he no come back again,” “Charlie is my darling,”--of which there are an ancient and a modern set, the latter by James Hogg,--“Farewell to Glen Shalloch” (from the Gaelic), “Hey Johnnie Cope,” perhaps one of the most popular humorous songs in the language, “The wee wee German lairdie,” full of genuine Scotch humour and irritating sarcasm, “This is no my ain house,” “O’er the water to Charlie,” “Welcome royal Charlie,” and “The bonnie house o’ Airly,” as old as the days of Montrose and Argyll. One of the most touchingly pathetic and most popular of these old songs is the well-known “Will he no come back again,” and equally popular is that, perhaps, most heroic and stirring of them all, “Wha wadna fecht for Charlie.”

Not a few of the Jacobite songs, as we have said, are from the Gaelic, and, as might be expected, they display little of the humour, pawkiness, and rollicking sarcasm which characterise many of the Scotch songs; they mostly evince a spirit of sadness and pensiveness, some show a heroic determination to do or die in the cause of Charlie, while others are couched in the language of adoration and love. One of the most characteristic and most poetical of these Gaelic songs is _Maclean’s Welcome_, which we take the liberty of quoting here:--

“Come o’er the stream, Charlie, dear Charlie, brave Charlie, Come o’er the stream, Charlie, and dine with Maclean; And though you be weary, we’ll make your heart cheery, And welcome our Charlie and his loyal train. We’ll bring down the track deer, we’ll bring down the black steer, The lamb from the breckan, and doe from the glen; The salt sea we’ll harry, and bring to our Charlie, The cream from the bothy, and curd from the pen.

Come e’er the stream, Charlie, &c. And you shall drink freely the dews of Glen-Sheerly, That stream in the star-light when kings do not ken; And deep be your meed of the wine that is red, To drink to your sire, and his friend the Maclean.

Come o’er the stream, Charlie, &c. Our heath-bells shall trace you the maids to embrace you, And deck your blue bonnet with flowers of the brae; And the loveliest Mari in all Glen-M’Quarry Shall lie in your bosom till break of the day.

Come o’er the stream, Charlie, &c. If aught will invite you, or more will delight you, ’Tis ready, a troop of our bold Highlandmen Shall range on the heather with bonnet and feather, Strong arms and broad claymores three hundred and ten.”

One of the best known and most admired of this class of Jacobite songs is “The Lament of Flora Macdonald,” beginning, “Far over yon hills of the heather so green,” of which we here quote the last verse:--

“The target is torn from the arms of the just, The helmet is cleft on the brow of the brave, The claymore for ever in darkness must rust, But red is the sword of the stranger and slave; The hoof of the horse, and the foot of the proud Have trod o’er the plumes on the bonnet of blue. Why slept the red bolt in the breast of the cloud, When tyranny revell’d in blood of the true? Fareweel, my young hero, the gallant and good! The crown of thy fathers is torn from thy brow.”

Some of those whose titles are well enough known are “The White Cockade,” of which we give a verse or two:--

“My love was born in Aberdeen, The bonniest lad that e’er was seen; But now he makes our hearts fu’ sad, He’s ta’en the field wi’ his white cockade. O he’s a ranting roving blade! O he’s a brisk and a bonny lad! Betide what may, my heart is glad To see my lad wi’ his white cockade.

I’ll sell my rock, I’ll sell my reel, My rippling-kame, and spinning-wheel, To buy my lad a tartan plaid, A braid sword, durk, and white cockade. O he’s a ranting roving blade,” &c.[1384]

Another great favourite with the old Jacobites over their cups was, “The King shall enjoy his own again.”

Did space permit we could quote many more, remarkable for pathos, humour, wit, sarcasm, and heroic sentiment, but we must content ourselves with the following. What can be more touching than “Carlisle Yetts”:--

“White was the rose in his gay bonnet, As he faulded me in his broached plaidie; His hand, whilk clasped the truth o’ luve, O it was aye in battle readie! His lang lang hair, in yellow hanks, Wav’d o’er his cheeks sae sweet and ruddie; But now they wave o’er Carlisle yetts, In dripping ringlets clotting bloodie.

My father’s blood’s in that flower tap, My brother’s in that harebell’s blossom; This white rose was steeped in my luve’s blood, And I’ll aye wear it in my bosom.

* * * * *

When I came first by merrie Carlisle, Was ne’er a town sae sweetly seeming; The white rose flaunted owre the wall, The thristled banners far were streaming. When I came next by merrie Carlisle, O sad sad seem’d the town, and eerie! The auld auld men came out and wept: ‘O maiden, come ye to seek your dearie?’

* * * * *

There’s ae drop o’ blood atween my breasts, And twa in my links o’ hair sae yellow; The tane I’ll ne’er wash, and the tither ne’er kame, But I’ll sit and pray aneath the willow. Wae, wae, upon that cruel heart, Wae, wae, upon that hand sae bloodie, Which feasts on our richest Scottish blood, And makes sae mony a dolefu’ widow!”

Hogg, however, is of opinion that this may be indebted for much of its beauty to the genius of Allan Cunningham.

Of “Cumberland and Murray’s descent into Hell,” which appears to be but little known, Hogg justly says, that “of all the songs that ever were written since the world began this is the first; it is both so horrible and so irresistibly ludicrous.” It is a pity that the author of a poem so full of fire, and hate, and lurid wit is totally unknown; the heartiness of the hate displayed in it, as well as the wealth of unearthly fancy, ought to have recommended it to the approval of Dr. Johnson, had he known of it. Of course Cumberland is the hero of Culloden; Murray is Secretary Murray, who turned king’s evidence against his comrades in the trials after the rebellion, and thus earned for himself the bitterest hate of all Jacobites.

“Ken ye whare Cleekie Murray’s gane? He’s gane to dwall in his lang hame. The beddle clapt him on the doup, ‘O hard I’ve earned my gray groat. Lie thou there, and sleep thou soun’; God winna wauken sic a loon.’

* * * * *

He’s in a’ Satan’s frything-pans, Scouth’ring the blude frae aff his han’s: He’s washing them in brunstane lowe; His kintra’s blude it winna thow: The hettest soap-suds o’ perdition Canna out thae stains be washing.

Ae devil roar’d, till hearse and roopit, ‘He’s pyking the gowd frae Satan’s pu’pit!’ Anither roar’d, wi’ eldritch yell, ‘He’s howking the keystane out o’ hell, To damn us mair wi’ God’s day-light!’ And he doukit i’ the caudrons out o’ sight.

He stole auld Satan’s brunstane leister, Till his waukit loofs were in a blister; He stole his Whig spunks, tipt wi’ brunstane, And stole his scalping-whittle’s whunstane; And out o’ its red-hot kist he stole The very charter-rights o’ hell.

Satan, tent weel the pilfering villain; He’ll scrimp your revenue by stealing, Th’ infernal boots in which you stand in, With which your worship tramps the damn’d in, He’ll wile them aff your cloven cloots, And wade through hell fire in your boots.

Auld Satan cleekit him by the spaul, And stappit him i’ the dub o’ hell. The foulest fiend there doughtna bide him, The damn’d they wadna fry beside him, Till the bluidy duke came trysting hither, And the ae fat butcher tried the tither.

Ae deevil sat splitting brumstane matches; Ane roasting the Whigs like bakers’ batches; Ane wi’ fat a Whig was basting, Spent wi’ frequent prayer and fasting. A’ ceas’d when thae twin butchers roar’d, And hell’s grim hangman stopt and glowr’d.

‘Fy, gar bake a pie in haste, Knead it of infernal paste,’ Quo’ Satan; and in his mitten’d hand He hynt up bluidy Cumberland, And whittled him down like bow-kail castock, And in his hettest furnace roasted.

Now hell’s black tableclaith was spread, Th’ infernal grace was reverend said; Yap stood the hungry fiends a’ owre it, Their grim jaws gaping to devour it, When Satan cried out, fit to scunner, ‘Owre rank a judgment’s sic a dinner!’”

Not a few of these old Jacobite songs, with little or no alteration in the words, are sung at the present day as pure love-songs, few ever dreaming that they were meant for anything else when first composed: nothing more than this shows the intensity and tenderness of the feeling entertained by the Scotch Jacobites to their hero and idol, Bonnie Prince Charlie. The well-known and apparently perfectly harmless song, “Weel may the keel row,” belongs to this class; and who would ever smell treason in the touching strain “For the sake o’ somebody.”

One of the sweetest and tenderest of all the Jacobite songs is undoubtedly “Wae’s me for Prince Charlie,” beginning “A wee’ bird cam’ to our ha’ door,” and well known to all who have the least knowledge of Scottish song. Yet this song was written only about thirty or forty years ago by Mr. William Glen, a Glasgow merchant; and it is well known that many of the finest of Aytoun’s _Lays_ are animated by this spirit of Jacobitism, showing how much calculated to touch the feelings and rouse the imagination of any one of an impulsive, poetic temperament, is the story of “Bonnie Prince Charlie,” as it is popularly told in song and story.

Perhaps it may be only fair, as a set off to the above, to give one or two of the best Whig songs:--

HAUD AWA FRAE ME, DONALD.

“Haud awa, bide awa, Haud awa frae me, Donald, Your principles I do abhor; No Jacobites for me, Donald. Passive obedience I do hate, And tyranny I flee, Donald; Nor can I think to be a slave, When now I can be free, Donald.

Even Highland Maggie, though she’s bred Up under tyranny, Donald, No sooner you her rights invade, Than she’ll a rebel be, Donald. For all that you can say or do, I’ll never change my mind, Donald; Your king takes so much of your heart, To me you’ll ne’er be kind, Donald.”

A LITANY.

“From the lawless dominion of mitre and crown, Whose tyrannies now are absolute grown, So that men become slaves to the altar and throne, And can call neither bodies nor souls their own, _Libera nos, Domine_.

From a reverend bawling theological professor, From a Protestant zealous for a Popish successor, Who for a great benefice still leaves a lesser, And ne’er will die martyr, nor make good confessor, _Libera nos, Domine_.

From deans and from chapters who live at their eases, Whose lechery lies in renewing church-leases, Who live in cathedrals like maggots in cheeses, And lie like abbey-lubbers stew’d in their own greases, _Libera nos, Domine_.

From an altar-piece-monger who rails at Dissenters And damns Nonconformists in the pulpit he enters, Yet all the week long his own soul he ventures, By being so drunk that he cutteth indentures, _Libera nos, Domine_.

From fools, knaves, and villains, prerogative Tories, From church, that for the Babylon whore is, From a pretended prince, like pear rotten at core is, From a court that has millions, yet as old Job poor is, _Libera nos, Domine_.”

That the Jacobite songs tended largely to nourish and perpetuate Jacobite sympathies long after all idea of endeavouring to restore the Stuart dynasty had been abandoned, all must admit who know anything of Scotch social life during the latter part of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries. In the early part of the latter century, an additional and most powerful instrument in the cause of sentimental Jacobitism came into play, in the shape of the poems, and especially the novels of Sir Walter Scott, on whose bold imagination and strong sympathy with chivalry and the days of old, the story of the young prince and the misfortunes of the Stuarts and their adherents generally, appear to have taken a strong hold. The very first of the Waverley Novels presented the history of the ’45 in its most fascinating aspect, and painted its hero in the most attractive colours, as the handsome, chivalrous, high-minded, but unfortunate prince. In one or two of Scott’s other novels the same episode is made use of, and with such bewitching power as only the Wizard of the North could exercise. The influence of these matchless fictions continues unabated, and as it is from them that most people derive their knowledge of the last rebellion, and of the Stuarts and their cause, it is no wonder that even at the present day there exists a wide-spread, tender sympathy for the unfortunate race, a sort of sentimental Charlie-worship, adoring as its object the ideal presented by Scott, filled in with some of the most attractive and touching features from the sweetest and most popular of the songs. With perhaps no exception, this admiration of Prince Charlie and the other heroes of ’45 is of the same nature as the unthinking admiration of the “good old days” generally, of King Arthur and his knights, of the days of chivalry, of Robin Hood and his merry men, and of the bold Rob Roy; he would be looked upon as a harmless imbecile, who should ever talk of doing aught to restore any of the institutions of these old times, which are as likely to find active partisans as is the restoration of the Stuart dynasty.

However, that Jacobitism still runs in a few old families as something more than a sentiment, as something like an ideal politico-religious creed, cherished as the remnant of the Cameronians cherish the ancient covenant, we have good reason to believe. These families are, practically, perfectly loyal to the present government and the present sovereign, and would as soon dream of taking to cattle-lifting as to rebellion; but still they seem to regard the Stuart dynasty as their first love, the love of their impulsive youth, with whom a closer relation was impossible. The creed of these modern Jacobites we may be permitted to state, in the words of one who has ample opportunities of mixing with them and knowing their sentiments. “As a principle of action,” he writes, quoting the words of a noble lord, “it is dead and gone, but in sentiment and sympathy there are still lots of us.” He himself proceeds:--“I quite agree with him. We claim, with the late Professor Aytoun, to be _White-Rose Scots_, Tories in some things but not in others--some of us Tories--some I daresay Radicals--none of us _Whigs_; all of us animated by an abhorrence of Macaulay’s History as an audacious libel on our forefathers and their principles.” In another letter he says:--“The question you ask, as to whether we would now stand up for any of the descendants of Prince Charles, is one I have no difficulty in answering. We should not. I cannot say we have any great love for the present royal family; they cross our feelings and prejudices in many ways, by marriages in Lent, and alliances with Campbells!! But were the time of trial to come (and a contest between monarchy and republicanism may come in this country sooner than many expect), Queen Victoria would find none more loyal--I could almost venture to say, none _so loyal_--as those whose sympathies go with the former enemies of her race. To us she represents ‘the powers that be, as ordained of God,’ and we must bear a good deal at their hands. Queen Victoria herself certainly does appreciate the Highlands and Highlanders. Our loyalty is a matter of principle, not of preference, and might be found to wax the warmer, as that of others--when subjected to a strain by the royal family running counter to their ideas and prejudices--waxed cold.” Indeed Jacobitism, as an active principle, is as much a thing of the past as clan-feuds, cattle-lifting, and active religious intolerance.

Her present Majesty has done more to win the hearts and command the loyalty of the Highlanders than ever did any of her predecessors, by taking up her residence yearly in their midst, and in many other ways showing her trust in and love for them, and her unbounded admiration for all that is Highland. As is well known, before her widowhood, her favourite plaid was one of Stuart tartan of a special pattern. If any section of her Majesty’s subjects is at all inclined to use occasionally expressions savouring of disloyalty, it is that of which one or two Cockney newspapers are the mouthpieces, the grievance being that the Queen spends so much of her time in the Highlands. The loyalty and love of the Highlanders, and of all Scotchmen, have been for ever intensified by the recent marriage of one of the Queen’s daughters to the son and heir of one of the oldest and greatest Highland chiefs.[1385]

So far as the record of external strife or inward feud constitutes history, that of the Highlands may be said to end with the battle of Culloden in 1746. By many, however, the period from that date onwards will be considered as of far more interest and importance than all the previous centuries put together; for in the years succeeding the last rebellion are witnessed the struggle of lawlessness with law, of semi-barbarism with civilization, the gradual but rapid breaking-up of the old patriarcho-feudal way of ruling men and regulating property, on which the whole social life of the Highlands was based, and the assimilation of that district in all respects to the rest of the kingdom of which it forms a part.

That innovations such as were of necessity forced upon the Highlands should be adopted without a struggle, without resistance, without hardship to many, was not to be expected. No thoughtful person could expect that there could be accomplished without many difficulties and mistakes the abolition of a system which had maintained its sway for many centuries, and the introduction of a new one so little adapted to the character stamped on the Highlander under the former, and in every respect so contrary to the ideas and prejudices which had been transmitted from father to son for many generations. Any sudden change of an old-established system, by which the every-day life of thousands of people is regulated, would in any case almost inevitably lead at first to disorder and a certain amount of hardship. It was to be looked for that, in the case of the Highlands, which in many respects were centuries behind the rest of the country, there would be much trouble and confusion before they could be brought up to the stand-point of their Lowland fellow-countrymen. Such was the case. It took very many years--indeed, the process is still going on--before the various elements got settled into their places according to the new adjustment of matters. There were, of course, many interests to be attended to, and necessarily many collisions and misunderstandings between the various classes; often no doubt unnecessary hardness, selfishness, and want of consideration for inferiors on one side, as frequently met on the other by unreasonable demands, and a stubborn and uninformed determination to resist the current of change, and not to accommodate themselves to inevitable innovations. The old clan-system, with the idea which it nourished of the close relation between the various grades of the clan, of the duty of the chief to support his people, and of the people to do the will of the chief, must be abolished, and the Highlander must be taught, each man to depend entirely upon himself and his own exertions, and to expect nothing from any man but what he could pay for in labour or money. Of course it would be hard for a Celt to put himself on the same footing in this respect with the low-minded, greedy, over-reaching Saxon; but it had to be done, and, like many other things which seemed hard to face, has been done, and the process is still going on, and probably will go on, till there be not only an assimilation in habits and ways of living and thinking, but till the two races be so fused or blended together by intermarriage and otherwise, that there shall be neither Celt nor Saxon, but a mixed race superior to either, combining the best qualities of each, the fire, the imagination, the dash, the reverence, the heart of the Celt, with the perseverance, clear-headedness, patience, fairness, capacity for business, head of the Saxon. Ere long, no doubt, the two will become one flesh, and their separation and strife a tale of bygone days.

FOOTNOTES:

[1368] Johnson’s _Journey_, ed. 1792, p. 126.

[1369] _Stewart’s Sketches_, b. l. p. 116.

[1370] _Culloden Papers_, p. 289.

[1371] The difference between the fealdag and the philibeg is, that the former is not plaited.

[1372] Burton’s _Scotland after Revolution_, v. ii. p. 405.

[1373] To give the reader a notion of the evils which flowed from these irregular jurisdictions, we quote the following from the old Statistical Account of the Parish of Abernethy, in Inverness-shire:--“A few instances will be enough to mention, in case the reader should imagine that these things were lately done in Tippoo Sultan’s dominions. One of them lived in this parish, named Robert Grant, commonly called Bailie More. It is said he used to hang people for disobliging him. He seldom called juries. He hanged two brothers on a tree within a thousand yards of this town, and buried both in one grave, on the road side. The grave and stones above it are still visible. Another, named James Grant, commonly called Bailie Roy, who lived long in this parish, hanged a man of the name of Stuart, and after hanging him, set a jury on him, and found him guilty. The particulars are too long to be inserted here. The bailie had many reasons for being in such a hurry. The man was, unluckily for him, wealthy, and abounded in cattle, horses, sheep, and goats, all of which were instantly driven to the bailie’s home; Stuart’s children set a-begging, and his wife became deranged in her mind, and was afterward drowned in a river. It is not very long since. This same Bailie Roy, on another occasion, hanged two notorious thieves, parboiled their heads, and set them up on spikes afterward. At another time he drowned two men in sacks, at the bridge of Billimon, within a few hundred yards of this manse, and endeavoured to compel a man from Glenmore, in the barony of Kincardine, to assist him and the executioners he had with him in the business, which the man refusing to do, the bailie said to him, ‘If you was within my regality, I would teach you better manners than to disobey my commands.’ This bailie bought a good estate. There was another of them, called Bailie Bain, in this country, who became so odious that the country people drowned him in Spey, near the church of Inverallan, about two miles from hence. They took off his boots and gloves, left them on the bank, and drove his horse through a rugged place full of large stones. The tract in the sand, boots, &c., discovered what had become of him; and when a search was made for him down the river, a man met the party near the church of Cromdale, who asked them what they were searching for, they answered, for the bailie’s body, upon which he said, ‘Turn back, turn back, perhaps he is gone up against the river, for he was always acting against nature.’”

[1374] Burton’s _Scotland after Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 535.

[1375] “As their power was great, and generally abused, so many of them enriched themselves. They had many ways of making money for themselves, such as 1. The Bailie’s Darak, as it was called, or a day’s labour in the year from every tenant on the estate. 2. Confiscations, as they generally seized on all the goods and effects of such as suffered capitally. 3. All fines for killing game, black-fish, or cutting green wood, were laid on by themselves, and went into their own pockets. These fines amounted to what they pleased almost. 4. Another very lucrative perquisite they had was what was called the Herial Horse, which was, the best horse, cow, ox, or other article, which any tenant on the estate possessed at the time of his death. This was taken from the widow and children for the bailie at the time they had most need of assistance. This amounted to a great deal on a large estate.”--_Old Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. xiii. pp. 151-152.

[1376] P. 243.

[1377] See Fraser-Mackintosh’s _Antiquarian Notes_, p. 242.

[1378] Burton’s _Scotland after Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 537.

[1379] Among others, the Rev. John Skinner, well known as the author of the song of “Tullochgorum,” was a sufferer: he was imprisoned for six months.

[1380] Dunbar’s _Social Life in Former Days_, 1st series, p. 390.

[1381] When the Princess of Wales, mother of George III., mentioned, with some appearance of censure, the conduct of Lady Margaret M’Donald, who harboured and concealed Prince Charles, when in the extremity of peril, he threw himself on her protection; “And would not you, madam,” answered Prince Frederick, “have done the same, in the same circumstances? I am sure--I hope in God you would.” Captain Stuart of Invernahoyle’s singular remark was not, it seems, quite without foundation. A gentleman, in a large company, gibed him for holding the king’s commission, while, at the same time, he was a professed Jacobite. “So I well may,” answered he, “in imitation of my master: the king himself is a Jacobite.” The gentleman shook his head, and remarked, that the thing was impossible. “By G--,” said Stuart, “but I tell you he is, and every son that he has. There is not one of them who (if he had lived in my brave father’s days) would not to a certainty have been hanged.”--Hogg’s _Jacobite Relics_.

[1382] “We find that the whole of national song during that period inclined towards the ancient dynasty, and the whole force of the ludicrous, the popular, and the pathetic, volunteered in the Jacobite service. It is beyond question that the merit of these Jacobite songs eclipsed, and still eclipses, every attempt at poetry on the other side, which has produced little beyond a few scraps of verses in ridicule of the bare knees, the kilts, and bad English of the Highlanders.”--Stewart’s _Sketches_, vol. i. p. 100.

[1383] “These songs are a species of composition entirely by themselves. They have no affinity with our ancient ballads of heroism and romance, and one part of them far less with the mellow strains of our pastoral and lyric muses. Their general character is that of a rude energetic humour, that bids defiance to all opposition in arms, sentiments, or rules of song-writing. They are the unmasked effusions of a bold and primitive race, who hated and despised the overturning innovations that prevailed in church and state, and held the abettors of these as dogs, or something worse--drudges in the lowest and foulest paths of perdition--beings too base to be spoken of with any degree of patience or forbearance. Such is their prevailing feature; but there are amongst them specimens of sly and beautiful allegory. These last seem to have been sung openly and avowedly in mixed parties, as some of them are more generally known, while the others had been confined to the select social meetings of confirmed Jacobites, or hoarded up in the cabinets of old Catholic families, where to this day they have been preserved as their most precious lore.”--Hogg’s _Jacobite Relics_.

[1384] The gentleman referred to in a former note appends the following:--

“There is also an Irish version of the ‘White Cockade.’ It has been translated from the Irish by J. J. Callanan. The following is the last verse:--

‘No more the cuckoo hails the spring, The woods no more with the stanch-hounds ring; The song from the glen, so sweet before, Is hushed since Charlie left our shore. The prince is gone, but he soon will come, With trumpet sound, and with beat of drum: Then up with shout, and out with blade-- We’ll stand or fall with the white cockade.’

Lover, commenting on this song in his _Lyrics of Ireland_, tells the following anecdote in connection with Ireland, and its devotion to the White Rose:--“The celebrated Lord Chesterfield, who governed Ireland with rare ability and liberality in 1744, when told by an alarmist that ‘the Papists were dangerous,’ replied that he had never seen but one dangerous Papist, and that was Miss ----, a particularly lovely woman. This lady, sharing in the gratitude and admiration of the Roman Catholics, wished to show the Earl how thoroughly she could overcome political prejudices, and on a public occasion at Dublin Castle wore a breast knot of Orange ribbon. The earl, pleased at the incident, requested Lord Doneraile, celebrated for his wit, to say something handsome to her on the occasion. The request occasioned the following _impromptu_:--

‘Say, little Tory, why this jest Of wearing Orange on thy breast, Since the same breast, uncover’d, shows The whiteness of the rebel rose.’”

[1385] In connection with the above subject, our Jacobite correspondent has communicated to us the following anecdote. He does not vouch for its truth, but he states that he had it on very good authority. On one occasion, when her Majesty’s guests had been enjoying themselves, in scattered groups, in the pleasure-grounds around Balmoral, the conversation chanced to turn, amongst one of those groups, on Jacobite songs and Jacobite music. One of the ladies, known for her knowledge of Jacobite melodies, and for her skill in the execution of them, was asked to favour her companions with a specimen. The party having retired to a distance from the rest of the company, the lady sung her song. The echoes of the music reached, it is said, the quick ears of the Queen, who went at once to the spot whence it proceeded. And no one, it is added, enjoyed the melody more. One of the company having ventured to express surprise that the Queen could so enter into the spirit of a song which seemed to reflect so much on the present dynasty, her Majesty is said to have stated, as the representative of the family of Bonnie Prince Charlie, no one could be a greater Jacobite than herself; and that she considered all the songs in praise of “the Auld Stuarts” as songs in praise of her own ancestors.

END OF VOL. I.

INDEX.

Abercromby, Sir Ralph, his portrait, ii. 372; Major-General, at Ticonderoga, 338; his expedition against the West Indies, 362; Egypt, 366; his fatal wound, 372.

“Abercrombie Robinson,” The, its voyage with the 91st, ii. 732.

Aberdeen, Montrose’s march upon it, i. 169; Covenanters expelled from, 172; Farquharson’s “Hieland Men” at, 174; Covenanters at, 187; battle and sack of, 188; deputation from, to Montrose, 202; Covenanting officers killed at, 246.

Aberdeen, Old, view of, i. 246.

Aberdeenshire Highland Regiment, or Old 81st, ii. 565.

Aberdour, in Aberdeenshire, i. 39.

Aboukir taken by the British ii. 367.

Aboyne, the viscount’s force, i. 161; appointed lieutenant of Highlands, 173; landing in Aberdeen, 173; proclamation to Covenanters, 173; his escape from Carlisle, 208; Montrose deserted by him, 229; interview with Montrose, 234; escape, 254.

Achnacarry, the seat of Cameron of Lochiel, engraving of it, i. 709.

A fin (“to the end”), the motto of the Ogilvy, ii. 319.

Agricola in Britain, i. 3; his invasion of Scotland, 6; his voyage and death, 9.

Agriculture in the Highlands, ii. 9.

Ahmednuggur, this fortress attacked and taken, ii. 575; taken (1803), 627; the Hon. Mrs Stewart Mackenzie’s memorial slab to the 78th in the Pettah wall, 628.

Ahwaz, captured (Apr. 1, 1857), ii. 665, 666.

Aire, The, the fight here in 1814, ii. 729.

Alba or Scotland, i. 34.

Alba de Tormes, the allies’ retreat from, ii. 584; the battle of, 760.

Alban or Scotland, i. 26; note, 34.

Albania or Scotland (note), i. 34, 50.

Albany, Count of, this title is assumed by Prince Charles, i. 758.

Albany, Duke of, i. 69; Regent, 71; his victory at Harlaw, ii. 140.

Albany’s Highlanders, _see_ 72nd.

Albinn or Britain, i. 17.

Alexander III., his coronation at Scone, i. 61; his portrait, 62.

Alexander of the Isles, Inverness destroyed by, i. 73; he surrenders to James I., 73.

Allahabad, the 78th proceed thither, ii. 667; Havelock’s march against the insurgents, 667; the 79th here (1867), 716.

Alma, the battle of the, 42nd, ii. 410; the 79th, 711; the 93rd, 785; --the River, the position of the Russians, 711; --Medals, their distribution, 417.

Almarez, Lord Hill carries, ii. 381; the 92nd here (1812), 760.

Alpine, Siol, several clans, ii. 242.

Alum Bagh, The, the sick and wounded guarded here, ii. 676.

Am Freiceadan Dubh (“the Black Watch”), the Gaelic name of the 42nd, ii. 324.

Amoaful, the battle here, ii. 804.

Anderson, General Paul, the 78th receive new colours and accoutrements from his estate, ii. 659.

Anglo-Norman jurisdiction, i. 59.

Anglo-Saxon colonisation of Scotland, i. 56.

“Another for Hector,” origin of the saying, i. 324.

Anrias or Ross, Clan, its history, crest, arms, and motto, ii. 235.

Anson, Hon. Mrs George, she presents new colours to the 74th Highlanders, ii. 608.

Antonine, Wall of, map and profile of, i. 10; stone from, 11.

Antwerp, allied commanders’ object against (1811), ii. 651.

Arapiles, Los, near Salamanca, ii. 583; Pakenham’s obstinate fight here, 383.

Ard Choille (“the wooded hill”), motto and slogan of the Macgregors, ii. 243.

Ardoch Moor, i. 7; battle of, 8; view of Roman Camp at, 15.

Ardvraick Castle, Montrose imprisoned here, i. 268; view of, 269.

Argaum, battle of (1803), ii. 633.

Argyll, i. 34; settlement of Scots from Ireland here, 33; the proper orthography (note), ii. 177.

Argyll, Campbell, the clan, history, arms, crest, and motto, ii. 175.

Argyll, Archibald, the 5th Earl, ii. 179.

Argyll, 2nd Duke of, portrait, i. 472.

Argyll, the 7th Earl of, his portrait, i. 338; defeated at Glenlivet, 109; the 8th Earl and 1st Marquis, his portrait, 178; defeated at Tippermuir, 184; at Aberdeen, 188; at Fyvie, 192; his conduct towards Montrose, 271; declines to serve in the Scots army in England, 289; declaration of the 9th Earl against Government. _See_ Campbell, Clan.

Argyll, 1st Marquis of, arrested, i. 332.

Argyll Highlanders, or Old 74th Highland Regiment, their history, ii. 519.

Argyllshire Highlanders, the 91st Princess Louise’s Regiment, _see_ Ninety-first.

Argyll’s Stone (note), i. 339.

Arinez, the action here in 1813, ii. 596.

Arkaig, Loch, view of, i. 709.

Armour, ancient Caledonians’, i. 5.

Army sub-districts of Highland Regiments, _see_ Brigade Centre.

Arriverète, the battle here (1814), ii. 762.

Arroyo de Molinos, the battle here, ii. 496.

Ashantee Campaign (1874), map, ii. 803.

Ashantee War, volunteers from the 79th share in its dangers, ii. 721.

Assaye, battle and plan of, ii. 574, 631.

Athole, 2nd Duke of, with President Forbes at Blair Castle, i. 323; the 4th Duke raises a regiment in 1778, ii. 522; note from the 7th Duke on the death of Dundee, i. 376; his accepting the care of the monument to the fallen of the 42nd, ii. 435.

Athole Highlanders at Culloden, i. 663.

Athole Highlanders, _see_ 77th Regt., Old.

Athole, Marquis of, created duke, i. 410.

Athole, Stewarts of, their descent, ii. 300.

Attainted estates, i. 478.

Audaces juvo (“I favour the brave”), scroll motto of the Buchanans, ii. 281.

Audentes Fortuna juvat (“fortune aids the daring”), Mackinnon’s motto, &c., ii. 256.

Augustus, Fort, view of, i. 485.

Auldearn, battle of, i. 210.

Aut pax aut bellum (“either peace or war”), motto of Gunn, &c., ii. 278.

Badajoz, its siege and capture, ii. 581.

Bagh, “garden,” of frequent occurrence in Indian names, ii. 530.

Bagpipe, history of, in Highlands, ii. 109.

Bagpipe-playing in the Highlands, i. 312.

Baird, Major-General, his portrait, ii. 482; commands against Hyder Ali, 481; at the assault on Seringapatam, 570; commands at the Cape of Good Hope, 778.

Balaklava, battle of, ii. 418, 713, 785.

Balloch, Donald, Lord of Isla, i. 76; sends his own head to Edinburgh, ii. 141.

Balmerino, his letter to the Chevalier de St George, i. 726; his execution, 727.

Balmoral, Highland residence of Her Majesty, steel engraving of, i. 775.

Balnagowan, Ross of, and Pitcalnie, their claims to the chiefship, ii. 237.

Bangalore, the storming in 1791, ii. 527.

Bannockburn, battle of, i. 63.

Bannockburn House--Prince Charles passes a night here, i. 616.

Bards’ influence on the Highlanders, i. 315.

Bareilly, its final reduction, ii. 686.

Bayonne--the battle in 1813, ii. 729; last action of the Peninsular war, ii, 763.

Bede, the Venerable, i. 20, 22; dialect, 21.

Belhaven, “the fiery Lord,” i. 411.

Ben, beann, ban, bean, bain, bane,--literally “white, beautiful;” applied to amountain, it refers to the snow-cap, ii. 216.

Bengal army--the mutiny, ii. 666.

Beresford, Major-General, at Buenos-Ayres, ii. 488; at the siege of Badajoz, 496; his brigade in 1808, 727.

Bergen-op-Zoom, attack on, ii. 451.

Berridale, Lord, prosecution of, i. 126; imprisoned, 137-8; and his creditors, 145; his wounds at Charlestown, ii. 521.

Bithoor, its evacuation before Hope-Grant, ii. 420; the march against, 674.

“Birkenhead,” wreck of the, ii. 604.

Bi se mac an t’slaurie (“Be thou son of the crook”), the scroll motto of the Maclaurins, ii. 279.

Bishops, Scottish, Anti-Popery mandates to their clergy (1745),