JAMES DRUMMOND, STYLED DUKE OF PERTH.

In a history of the House of Drummond, compiled in the year 1681, by

Lord Strathallan, the author thus addresses his relative, James, Earl of

Perth, on the subject of their common ancestry:

"Take heire a view of youre noble and renowned ancestors, of whose blood

you are descended in a right and uninterrupted male line; as also of so

many of the consanguinities and ancient affinities of youre family in

the infancy thereof, as the penury of our oldest records and the credit

of our best traditions has happily preserved from the grave of oblivion.

The splendor of your fame," he adds, "needs no commendation, more than

the sune does to a candle; and even a little of the truth from me may be

obnoxious to the slander of flattery, or partiality, by reason of my

interest in it. Therefore I'll say the less; only this is generally

known for a truth, that justice, loyaltie, and prudence, which have been

but incident virtues and qualities in others, are all three as inherent

ornaments, and hereditary in yours."[207]

Such praise far exceeds in value the mere homage to ancient lineage.

With these noble qualities, the race of Drummond combined the courage to

defend their rights, and the magnanimity to protect the feeble. This

last characteristic is beautifully described in the following words:

"For justice, as a poor stranger, often thrust out of doors from great

houses, where grandeur and utility are commonly the idolls that's

worshipped,--_quid non mortalia pectora cogis?_--has always found

sanctuary in yours, which has ever been ane encouragement to the good, a

terror to the bad, and free from the oppression of either."

To this magnanimous spirit were added loyalty to the sovereign, and

prudence in the management of private affairs; a virtue of no small

price, for it rendered the House of Drummond independent of Court

favour, and gave to its prosperity a solid basis. "The chiefs of this

family lived," says their historian, "handsomely, like themselves; and

still improved or preserved their fortunes since the first founder."

The origin of this race is, perhaps, as interesting as that of any of

the Scottish nobility, and has the additional merit of being well

ascertained.

After the death of Edward the Confessor, the next claimant to the Crown,

Edgar Atheling, alarmed for his safety after the Norman Conquest, took

shipping with his mother Agatha, and with his two sisters, Margaret and

Christiana, intended to escape to Hungary; but owing to a violent storm,

or, as the noble historian of the Drummonds well expresses it, "through

Divine Providence," he was driven upon the Scottish coast, and forced to

land upon the north side of the Firth of Forth. He took shelter in a

little harbour west of the Queen's Ferry, ever since called St.

Margaret's Hook, from Edgar's sister Margaret, who, for the "rare

perfectiones of her body and mind," was afterwards chosen by Malcolm

Canmore, to the great satisfaction of the nation, for his Queen.

Margaret was therefore married to the Scottish monarch at Dunfermline in

the year 1066.

This alliance was not the only advantage derived by the young and exiled

English King from his accidental landing in Scotland. Penetrated with

gratitude for former services conferred upon himself by Edward the

Confessor, Malcolm supported the cause of Edgar, and received and

bestowed upon his adherents lands and offices, in token of kindness to

his royal guest. Hence some of the most potent families in the kingdom

had their origin.

Amongst the train of Edgar Atheling at Dunfermline was an Hungarian,

eminent for his faithful services, but especially for his skilful and

successful conduct of the vessel in which the fugitives had sailed from

England. He was highly esteemed by the grateful Queen Margaret, who

recommended him to the King; and, for his reward, lands, offices, and a

coat of arms suitable to his quality, were conferred on him, together

with the name of Drummond.

It was about this period that surnames were first introduced, and that

patronymicks were found insufficient to designate heroes. Since the new

designations were often derived from some office, as well as the

possession of lands and peculiar attributes, the Hungarian obtained his

name in consequence of his nautical skill; Dromont, or Dromond, being,

in different nations, the name of a ship, whence the commander was

called Dromount, or Dromoner.

The first lands bestowed upon the Hungarian were situated in

Dumbartonshire, and in the jurisdiction of the Lennox; a county full of

rivers, lochs, and mountains, "emblematically expressed," says Lord

Strathallan, "in the coats of arms then given to him, wherein hunting,

waters, hounds, inhabitants wild and naked, are represented." To these

gifts was added the office of Thane, Seneschal, or Stuart Heritable of

Lennox,--names all meaning the same thing, but altering with the

times.[208]

The Hungarian, whose Christian name is conjectured to have been Maurice,

was then naturalized a Scot; and all the parts of his coat-armour were

contrived to indicate his adventures, his name, office, and nation. He

died in an encounter near Alnwick Castle, fighting valiantly, in order

to avenge the surprise of that place by William Rufus, in 1093.

The records of the family of Drummond were for several generations

defective after the death of Maurice; but there exists no doubt but that

he was the founder of a family once so prosperous, and afterwards so

unfortunate. The name of Maurice was preserved, according to the

Scottish custom of naming the eldest son after his father, for many

succeeding generations.

The family continued to increase in importance, and to enjoy the favour

of royalty; and the marriage of the beautiful Annabella Drummond to

Robert the Third, King of Scotland, produced an alliance between the

House of Drummond and the royal families of Austria and Burgundy. In

1487 James the Third ennobled the race by making John Drummond, the

twelfth chief in succession, a Lord of Parliament. As the annals of the

race are reviewed, many instances of valour, wisdom, and unchangeable

probity arise; whilst some events, which have the features of romance,

diversify the chronicle. Among these is the story of the fair Margaret

Drummond, who has been celebrated by several of our best historians.

Between Margaret and James the Fourth of Scotland an attachment existed.

They were cousins; and a pretext was made by the nobles and council, on

that account, to prevent a marriage which they alleged to be within the

degrees of consanguinity permitted by the Canon law: nevertheless, under

promise of a marriage, Margaret consented to live with her royal lover,

and the result of that connexion was a daughter. This happened when

James was only in his sixteenth year, and whilst he was Duke of Rothsay;

yet the monarch was so much touched in conscience by the engagement, or

betrothal, between him and the young lady, that he remained unmarried

until the age of thirty, about a year after the death of Margaret

Drummond.

That event, it was surmised, was caused by poison; the common tradition

being that a potion was provided for Margaret at breakfast, in order to

free the King from his bonds, that he might "match with England." "But

it so happened," says the narrative,[209] "that she called two of her

sisters, then with her in Drummond, to accompany her that morning, to

wit, Lilias, Lady Fleming, and a younger, Sybilla, a maid; whereby it

fell out all the three were destroyed with the force of the poyson. They

ly burried in a curious vault covered with three faire blue marble

stones, joyned closs together, about the middle of the queir of the

cathedral church of Dumblane; for about this time the burial-place for

the familie of Drummond at Innerpeffrie was not yet built. The monument

which containes the ashes of these three ladyes stands entire to this

day, and confirms the credit of this sad storie."

The daughter of Margaret Drummond, Lady Margaret Stuart, was well

provided for by the King; and was married, in the year 1497, to Lord

Gordon, the eldest son of the Earl of Huntley, "a gallant and handsome

youth." From this union four noble families are descended; the Gordons,

Earls of Huntley; the Countess of Sutherland; the Countess of Atholl,

who was the mother of Lady Lovat; and Lady Saltoun. James the Fourth

testified his regret for the death of his beloved Margaret, and his

solicitude for her soul's benefit, in a manner characteristic of his age

and character. In the Treasurer's accounts for February 1502-3, there

occurs this entry, "Item, to the priests that sing in Dumblane for

Margaret Drummond, their quarter fee, five pounds:" and this item,

occurring regularly during the reign of James the Fourth, "Paid to two

priests who were appointed to sing masses for Margaret in the cathedral

of Dumblane, where she was buried," marks his remembrance of his

betrothed wife.

One of the greatest ornaments of the ancient House of Drummond was

William Drummond, a descendant of the Drummonds of Carnock, son of Sir

John Drummond of Hawthornden, and author of the "History of the Five

James's," Kings of Scotland.[210] The friend of Drayton, and of Ben

Jonson, this man of rare virtues presents one of the brightest examples

of that class to which he belonged, the Scottish country-gentleman.

True-hearted, like the rest of his race, Drummond was never called forth

from a retirement over which virtue and letters cast their charms,

except by the commotions of his country. His grief at the death of

Charles the First, whom he survived only one year, is said to have

shortened his days.

In 1605, the title of Earl of Perth was added to the other honours of

the family of Drummond,[211] who derived a still further accession of

honour and repute by the probity and firmness of its members in the

great Rebellion. Like most of the other Scottish families of rank, they

suffered great losses, and fell into embarrassed circumstances on

account of heavy fines exacted by Oliver Cromwell. The house, Castle

Drummond, was garrisoned by the Protector's troops, and the estates were

ravaged and ruined. Yet the valiant and true-hearted descendants of

those who had been thus punished for their allegiance, were ready again

to adopt the same cause, and to adhere to the same principles that had

guided their forefathers.

In the person of James Drummond, fourth Earl of Perth, who succeeded his

father the third Earl, in 1675, several high honours were centred. He

was made, by Charles the Second, Justice-General, and afterwards Lord

High Chancellor of Scotland. He continued to be a favourite with James

the Second; and in 1688, when James fled from England, the Earl of

Perth, endeavouring to follow him, was thrown into prison, first at

Kirkaldy, and afterwards at Stirling, until the privy council, upon his

giving security for five thousand pounds, permitted him to follow his

royal master. From James, the Earl received the title of Duke, which his

successors adopted, and which was given to them by the Jacobite party,

of which we find repeated instances in the letters of Lord Mar. His son,

Lord Drummond, succeeded to all the inconveniences which attend the

partisans of the unfortunate. Returning from France, in 1695, he was

obliged to give security for his good conduct, in a large sum. In

consequence of the assassination plot, the vigilance of Government was

increased, and, in 1696, he was committed to Edinburgh Castle. During

the reign of William, a system of exaction was carried on with respect

to this family.

"In a word," says the author of Lochiell's Memoirs, himself a Drummond,

speaking of James Lord Drummond, "that noble lord was miserably harassed

all this reign. He represented a family which had always been a blessing

to the country where it resided; and he himself was possessed of so many

amiable qualities, that he was too generally beloved not to be suspected

by such zealous ministers. He was humble, magnificent, and generous; and

had a certain elevation and greatness of soul that gave an air of

dignity and grandeur to all his words and actions. He had a person

well-turned, graceful and genteel, and was besides the most polite and

best bred lord of his age. His affability, humanity, and goodness gained

upon all with whom he conversed; and as he had many friends, so it was

not known that he had any personal enemies. He had too much sincerity

and honour for the times. The crafty and designing are always apt to

cover their vices under the mask of the most noble and sublime virtues;

and it is natural enough for great souls to believe that every person of

figure truly is what he ought to be, and that a person of true honour

thinks it even criminal to suspect that any he is conversing with is

capable of debasing[212] the dignity of his nature so low as to be

guilty of such vile and ignoble practices. None could be freer of these,

or indeed of all other vices, than the noble person I speak of. The

fixed and unalterable principles of justice and integrity, which always

made the rules of his conduct, were transmitted to him with his blood,

and are virtues inherent and hereditary in the constitution of that

noble family."[213]

Lord Drummond was afterwards engaged in the insurrection of 1715: he

was attainted, but escaped to France, and, dying in 1730, left the

inheritance of estates which he had saved by a timely precaution, and

the empty title of Duke of Perth,[214] to his son James Drummond, the

unfortunate subject of this memoir.

Such was the character borne by the father of James, Duke of Perth. This

ill-fated adherent of the Stuarts was born on the eleventh of May 1713;

and three months afterwards, on the twenty-eighth of August, his father

deemed it expedient to execute a deed conveying the family estates to

him, by which means the property, at that time, escaped forfeiture. Like

many other young men under similar circumstances, this young nobleman

was educated at the Scottish College of Douay, consistently with the

principles of his family, who were at that time Roman Catholics.

In his twenty-first year, the young Duke of Perth came over to Scotland,

and devoted himself, in the absence of his father, to the management of

his estate. It is probable that his own inclinations might have led him

to prefer the occupations of an elegant leisure to the turmoils of

contention; but, be that as it may, it was not reserved for the head of

the House of Drummond to rest contentedly in his own halls.

The nearest kinsmen of the young nobleman were active partisans of the

Chevalier St. George. His brother, Lord John Drummond who had been

confirmed in all his devotion to the cause by his education at Douay,

had entered the service of the King of France, and had raised a regiment

called the Royal Scots, of which he was the Colonel. He was destined to

take an active share in the events to which all were at this time

looking forward, some with dread, others with impatience. But his

influence was less likely to be permanent over his brother, than that of

the Duke's mother, whose wishes were all deeply engaged in behalf of

James Stuart.

This lady, styled Duchess of Perth, was the daughter of George first

Duke of Gordon, and of Lady Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Gordon, who, in

1711, had astonished the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh by sending

them a silver medal with the head of the Chevalier engraved upon it. The

Duchess of Perth inherited her mother's determined character and

political principles; for her adherence to which she eventually

suffered, together with other ladies of rank, by imprisonment.

These ties were strong inducements to the young Duke of Perth to take an

active part in the affair of 1745, and it is said to have been chiefly

on his mother's persuasions that he took his first step. But there was

another individual, whose good-faith to the cause had been proved by

exertion and suffering; this was the brave William, Viscount

Strathallan, who possessed higher qualities than those of personal

valour and loyalty. "His character as a good Christian," writes Bishop

Forbes, "setting aside his other personal qualities and rank in the

world, as it did endear him to all his acquaintances, so did it make his

death universally regretted."[215]

Lord Strathallan was the eldest surviving son of Sir John Drummond of

Macheany, whom he had succeeded in his estates; and, in 1711, became

Viscount Strathallan, Lord Madertie, and Lord Drummond of Cromlix, in

consequence of the death of his cousin.[216] He had engaged in the

rebellion of 1715, and had been taken prisoner, as well as his brother,

Mr. Thomas Drummond, at the battle of Sheriff Muir; but no proceedings

had been instituted against him. His escape on that occasion, as well as

the part which his kinsman, the Earl of Perth, took on that eventful

day, are thus alluded to in an old ballad entitled the Battle of the

Sheriff Muir.

"_To the tune of the 'Horseman's Sport.'_

"Lord Perth stood the storm; Seaforth, and lukewarm

Kilsyth, and Strathallan, not sla', man,

And Hamilton fled--the man was not bred,

For he had no fancy to fa', man.

So we ran, and they ran; and they ran, and we ran;

And we ran, and they ran awa', man."[217]

Lord Strathallan joined the standard of Prince Charles in 1745, and

afterwards acted an important part in the events of that period. He was

not only himself a zealous supporter of the Stuarts, but was aided in

no common degree by his wife, the eldest daughter of the Baroness Nairn

and of Lord William Murray,--in his schemes and exertions. Lady

Strathallan inherited from her mother, a woman of undoubted spirit and

energy, the determination to act, and the fortitude to sustain the

consequences of her exertions. But there was still another individual,

not to specify various members of the same family, whose aid was most

important to the cause of the Jacobites.

This was Andrew Drummond, one of the family of Macheany, and uncle of

Lord Strathallan. He was the founder of the banking-house of Drummond at

Charing Cross, which was formed, as it has been surmised, for the

express purpose of facilitating supplies to the partisans of the

Chevalier. This spirited member of the family remained unchanged in his

principles during the course of a life protracted until the age of

eighty-one. His part in the great events of the day was well known, and

meanly avenged by Sir Robert Walpole, who, in the course of the

insurrection, caused a run upon the bank. The concern, backed by its

powerful connections, stood its ground; but the banker forgave not the

minister. When the tumults of 1745 were at an end, Mr. Drummond so far

yielded to the dictates of prudence as to go to court: he was received

by George the Second, to whom he paid his obeisance. But when the

minister, anxious to conciliate his stern and formidable foe, advanced

to offer him his hand, Mr. Drummond turned round, folded his hands

behind his back, and walked away. "It was my duty," he said afterwards,

"to pay my respects to his Majesty, but I am not obliged to shake hands

with his minister!"

On the young James Drummond Duke of Perth, as chief of the House of

Drummond, the eyes of the Jacobites were turned, with expectations which

were, to the utmost of the young nobleman's power, fulfilled. It was by

his mother's desire that he had been educated in France, where he was

confirmed in the principles of the Romish faith. He possessed, indeed,

some acquirements, and displayed certain qualities calculated to inspire

hope in those who depended upon his exertions that he would prove a

valuable adherent to the cause. Naturally courageous, his military turn

had been improved by a knowledge of the theory of war: his disposition

united great vivacity to the endearing qualities of benevolence and

liberality; he had the every-day virtues of good-nature, mildness, and

courtesy. His pursuits were creditable to a nobleman. He was skilled in

mathematics, an elegant draughtsman, a scholar in various languages, a

general lover of literature, and a patron of the liberal arts. Nor was a

fondness for horse-racing, in which he indulged, and in which his horses

frequently bore away the prize, likely to render him unpopular in the

eyes of his countrymen. But there were some serious drawbacks to the

utility of the young nobleman as a public man.

His health, in the first place, was precarious. When a child, a barrel

had been rolled over him, and a bruise was received in his lungs, to the

effects of which his friends attributed a weakness and oppression from

which he usually suffered at bed-time; when "he usually," as a

contemporary relates, "took a little boiled bread and milk, or some such

gentle food."[218] This was an inauspicious commencement of an active

and anxious career. It was afterwards discovered, that with all his

acquirements and accomplishments, and with his natural gallantry, the

Duke was no practical soldier.

In obtaining an influence over the minds of his countrymen, the young

Duke possessed one great advantage. He was descended from a House noted

for the highest principles of honour.[219]

"To give the reader an undeniable proof of the generous maxims of that

House," says the author of Lochiell's memoirs, "it will be proper to

notice, that, by the laws of Scotland, no person succeeding to an estate

is, in a legal sense, vested in the property until he serves himself

heir to the person from whom he derives his title. The heir often took

the advantage of this when the creditors were negligent, and passing by

his father, and perhaps his grandfather, served heir to him who was last

infefted; for unless they were actually seised of the estate according

to the forms of law, they were no more than simple possessors, and could

not encumber the land with any deed or debts; whereby the heir got clear

of all that intervened betwixt himself and the person whom he

represented by his service. This was an unjustifiable practice, which

the diligence of creditors might always have prevented; and which is now

wholly prevented by an act of parliament obliging every one possessing

an estate to pay the debts of his predecessors, as well as his own,

whether representing them by a service or not.

"But the House of Perth was always so firmly attached to honour and

justice, that there are no less than fifteen retours, descending

lineally from father to son, extant among their records.

"Now a retour is a writ returned from the Court of Attorney, testifying

the service of every succeeding heir; and is therefore an

unexceptionable evidence of paying his predecessor's debts, and of

performing his obligations and deeds. Such has been, and still is, the

uniform practice of the truly noble Lords of the House of Montrose and,

perhaps, some others of the ancient nobility have followed the same

course, which will not only entail a blessing upon their family and

posterity, but will likewise be a perpetual memorial of their integrity,

honour, and antiquity."

The young Duke of Perth fully maintained this high character of honour

and liberal dealings, and as a landholder and a chief, he would, had he

been spared, have proved himself a valuable member of society. He was,

relates an historian, a father to the poor;--and the interval of ten

years between his return to Scotland and the Rebellion was engaged in

establishing manufactures for the employment of his tenantry, and in

acts of beneficence. Unhappily, it was not long before political

combinations diverted the attention which was so well bestowed in the

improvement of his country.

In the beginning of the year 1740, seven persons of distinction signed

the association, engaging themselves to take arms, and to venture their

lives and fortunes for the Stuarts. Among these was the Duke of Perth.

This association was committed to Drummond of Bochaldy, who, besides,

carried with him a list of those chiefs and chieftains who, the

subscribers thought, were willing to join them, should a body of troops

land from France. This list contained so great a number of names, that

Murray of Broughton, in his evidence at the trial of Lord Lovat, said he

considered it to be "a general list of the Highlands;" a palpable

refutation of the reasoning of those who have represented the Jacobite

insurrection as a partial and factious movement.

The Duke of Perth had now irrevocably pledged himself to engage in the

cause, which required a very different character of mind to that which

he seems to have possessed. Like the unfortunate Lord Derwentwater, he

was calculated to adorn a smooth and prosperous course; but not to

contend with fiery spirits, nor to act in concert with overbearing

tempers. Averse to interference, and retiring in his disposition, the

Duke was conceived, by those who mistook arrogance for talent, to have

been possessed of only limited abilities. The friend or relative who

composed the epitaph to his memory inscribed on the Duke's tomb at

Antwerp, has borne testimony to the strength of his understanding. All

have coincided in commending the honour and faith which procured him the

respect of all parties, and the chivalric bravery which won him the

affection of the soldiery.

It is a melancholy task to trace the career of one so high-minded, so

gentle, and so formed to adorn the peaceful tenour of a country life,

through scenes of turmoil, disaster, and dismay; and, during the

continuance of arduous exertions, to recall the slow and certain

progress of a fatal disease, which progressed during hardships too

severe for the delicate frame of this amiable young man to sustain

without danger.

The younger brother of the Duke, Lord John Drummond, was constituted of

different materials. Courteous, honourable, and high-minded, like his

brother, he added to those attributes of the gentleman a strong capacity

for military affairs, to which he had applied himself from his earliest

youth. Intrepid and resolute, the roughness of the soldier was softened

in this fine martial character by an elegance and ease of manner which

sprang from a kind and gentle temper. The energy of Lord John Drummond's

mind was shown by the enlistment of the Scottish Legion, under the

protection of Louis the Fifteenth. In him the soldiers always knew that

they had a sure, and firm friend: like his brother, when on the

conquering side, clemency and humanity were never, even in the heat of

victory, forgotten by the young general. Individuals like these lamented

and unfortunate brothers give a mournful interest to the history of the

Jacobites.

The Duke of Perth was one of the most sanguine of those who desired to

see Charles Edward land on the coast of Scotland. Of the representations

which induced the Prince to take that step, and especially of the part

taken in the affair by the well-known Murray of Broughton, various

accounts have been given. From Mr. Home we learn, that Mr. Murray used

every argument in his power to deter the Prince from invading Scotland

without a regular force to support him. This account was doubtless the

version which the Secretary himself gave of his part in the business.

The statement of Lord Elcho differs greatly from that of Mr. Home.[220]

"Mr. Murray," says Lord Elcho, "in the beginning of the year 1745, sent

one young Glengarry to the Prince with a state of his affairs in

Scotland, in which it is believed he represented everybody that had ever

spoke warmly of the Stuart family, as people that would join him if he

came."[221] After Mr. Murray's own visit to France, he had an interview

with all the members of the Association, and there detailed to them the

conference he had had with the Prince. The Duke of Perth was the only

person who did not, in that council, expressly declare against the

Prince's coming to Scotland without assistance from France.

The battle of Fontenoy, on the eleventh of May 1745, in which the

British army was cut to pieces, encouraged, nevertheless, the ardent

spirit of Charles to proceed in his enterprise. The number of regular

troops in Scotland he well knew, was at that time inconsiderable; and he

had, as he conceived, from the representations of Murray, no other

opponents than the British army. He was, probably, wholly ignorant of

the powerful enemies who afterwards co-operated against him in the

south-western parts of Scotland.[222]

The Duke of Perth had already, in the beginning of the year, received,

as well as others, his commission. He was appointed General of the

forces in the north of Scotland, and was therefore one of the most

important personages for Government to seize. The Duke was at that time

at Drummond Castle, a place only exceeded in beauty and splendour, in

the Highlands, by Dunkeld and Blair. The aspect of this commanding

edifice is one which recalls the association of ancient power and

princely wealth. Beneath its walls is an expanse of a magnificent and

varied country, combining all those features which characterize lands

long held in peace by opulent and liberal possessors. "Noble avenues,

profuse woods," thus speaks one of unerring accuracy, "a waste of lawn

and pasture, an unrestrained scope, everything bespeaks the carelessness

of liberality and extensive possessions; while the ancient castle, its

earliest part belonging to the year 1500, stamps on it that air of high

and distant opulence which adds so deep a moral interest to the rural

features of baronial Britain."[223]

From the castle it was now attempted to make the Duke of Perth a

prisoner; but since it would have been impossible to detain a Chief,

prisoner in his own halls, and among his own retainers, a stratagem,

peculiarly revolting to the Highland code of honour, was adopted to

ensnare the young nobleman.

Two Highland officers, Sir Patrick Murray and Mr. Campbell of Inverary,

were employed in this transaction, and a warrant was given to them to

apprehend the Duke of Perth. This they knew to be impossible without a

large force; they therefore condescended to lower the character of

Scotchmen, by violating the first principles which regulate the

intercourse of gentlemen. They were base enough to abuse the

hospitality of the kind and ready host who had often welcomed them to

Drummond Castle.

One day, these gentlemen sent the Duke word that they should dine with

him; he returned, in answer, that he should be proud to see them. On the

twenty-sixth of July, 1745, they went, and were entertained at dinner

with the liberal courtesy which always shone forth under that roof. One

of the Duke's footmen, meantime, having espied an armed force about the

house, called his Grace to the door of the room, and begged him to take

care of himself. This caution was even repeated more than once; but the

Duke, trusting that others were like himself, only smiled, and said he

did not think that any gentleman "could be guilty of so dirty an

action." But he found that he was mistaken. After dinner, when the

officers had drunk a little, they took courage to inform the Duke of

their errand; and, to confirm their statement, one of them drew the

warrant out of his pocket. The Duke behaved with great presence of mind;

he received their summons calmly, but begged permission to retire to a

closet in the room where they were sitting, to get himself ready. This

was assented to: the Duke went into the closet, in which, however, there

was a door; he opened it and, slipping down a flight of stairs, escaped

to a wood adjacent to his Castle. This wood was already surrounded by an

armed force, and he was obliged to crawl on his hands and feet to avoid

being observed by the sentinels. In such a situation he was hindered and

wounded by briers and thorns, and at last was obliged to hide himself in

a dry ditch from his pursuers. They were, indeed, misled by the servants

at the Castle, who, upon their inquiring for the fugitive, declared

that he had gone away on horseback. The officers however on their return

to Crieff, where they were quartered, passed so near the place where he

lay, that he heard what they were saying. When all the soldiers were out

of sight, he sprang up; and seeing a countryman with a pony, having no

bridle, but only a halter about its neck, he begged to have the use of

it, and his request was granted. After this, he first rode to the house

of Mr. Murray of Abercairney, and afterwards to that of Mr. Drummond of

Logie. Here he was saved by one of those presentiments of evil which one

can neither explain nor deny. In the dead of night he was awakened by

his host, who begged the Duke to take refuge elsewhere; for fears, which

he could not account for, haunted his mind. The fugitive arose from his

bed, and set off elsewhere. Shortly afterwards the house was invaded by

a party of armed men, who came to search for him, but retired

disappointed. His next meeting with his faithless guest, Sir Patrick

Murray, was on the field of Gladsmuir, when the treacherous officer was

made prisoner. The Duke then took his revenge with characteristic

good-humour; for, after saluting the captured officer, he said

smilingly, "Sir Patie, I am to dine with _you_ to-day."[224]

After his escape from Logie, the Duke of Perth crossed over to Angus,

incognito, and, attended only by one servant, rode through the north

country without molestation, and arrived at the camp of Prince Charles.

Here he met the afterwards celebrated Roy Stuart, then a captain of

Grenadiers in Lord John Drummond's' regiment. That officer had embarked

at Helvoetsluys for Harwich, where he had scarcely arrived before the

ship in which he had sailed was searched by authority of a Government

warrant.

Charles Edward was at this time at Castle Mingry, whence accounts had

travelled to the capital of his arrival and projected hostilities. It

was long before his intentions were even believed; and, when believed,

they were treated at first with contempt. The Duke of Argyll, who was

then at Roseneath, had an intercepted letter of the Prince's put into

his hands, addressed to Sir Alexander Macdonald, together with a copy of

one to the Laird of Macleod. The Duke hastened to Edinburgh, and laid

these papers before Mr. Craigie the advocate. "What a strange chimera,"

said Craigie, laughing, "is it to suppose a young man with seven persons

capable of overturning a throne!" "His landing with seven persons only,"

replied Argyll gravely, "is a circumstance the more to be feared."[225]

Sir John Cope, nevertheless, long delayed obeying the orders of

Government to march northwards, although great pains were taken by some

of the Whig party to magnify the danger, and to add to the terrors of

the foe. Reports were even stated, in the presence of the magistrates,

of a camp in Ardnamirchan, which was a large Scots mile in

circumference,--of several ships of war hovering near the coast,--of

cannon of an enormous size; whilst the young Chevalier was described as

one of the strongest men in Christendom. All agreed that the invader had

chosen the period of his enterprise judiciously. Scotland contained but

few forces, and those were newly levied men, sufficient in number

merely to garrison the forts and to overawe smugglers.

Never was a country less prepared to receive an invasion,[226] and

General Cope's blunders soon encouraged the hopes of the Jacobites,

until they were elated beyond measure. The sanguine Charles Edward

pledged the General's health in a glass of brandy: "Here's a health to

Mr. Cope!" he cried, in the presence of his forces; "and, if all the

Usurper's generals follow his example, I shall soon be at St. James's."

The toast was given by the private soldiers, to whom whiskey was

distributed to drink it. Well furnished with artillery, of which the

insurgents were destitute, General Cope might have obtained an easy

victory, or at any rate have dispersed the Jacobite army. Happy would it

have been for Scotland, had the rebellion thus been extinguished, before

the brave had sunk in civil strife, or loyal hearts been broken in the

silent agony of imprisonment! Many acts of heroism, numberless traits of

fortitude, would indeed have been lost to the mournful admiration of

posterity; but the vigorous hand, which crushes a hopeless struggle in

its outset, is ever, in effect, the hand of mercy.

From this time the Duke of Perth shared in the short-lived triumph of

his Prince. He marched with the army to Dunkeld, where, supping in the

house of James, Duke of Atholl, who retired at their approach, the

unfortunate Charles Edward forced a gaiety which he was said, at that

time, not to feel; asked for Scottish dishes; and, having picked up a

few words of Gaelic, pledged the Highland officers in that tongue. The

Duke of Perth attended in the triumphant entrance into Perth on the

fourth of September. This was the first town of consequence that Charles

Edward had visited; and his appearance, mounted on a fine horse

presented to him by Major Macdonell, and dressed in a superb suit of

tartan trimmed with gold, produced a great impression upon the assembled

multitude, who greeted him with loud acclamations. He was conducted in

triumph to the house of Viscount Stormont, the eldest brother of the

celebrated Earl of Mansfield. Lord Stormont, though friendly to the

cause, was not disposed to risk his life and property for the Stuarts.

He withdrew from the dangerous honour of entertaining the Prince, yet

left his family to receive him with all loyalty, and the Chevalier took

up his abode at Lord Stormont's. It was an antique house with a wooden

front, which stood on the spot now occupied by the Perth Union Bank,

near the bottom of the High-street.[227] The evening was closed by a

ball given by the Prince to the ladies of the town. The Prince, probably

wearied by the day's proceedings, danced only one dance, and then

withdrew. His bed, it is said, was prepared by the fair hands of Lord

Stormont's sister.

On the following day a different scene took place, for all was not

compliment that Charles encountered in the loyal town of Perth. Mass

having been celebrated publicly, Charles was as publicly rebuked by a

minister of the Kirk, who reminded him of his father's failure in the

last Rebellion, which he attributed to his adherence to Popery, to

"which he had sacrificed his crown." "I prefer," replied the young

Chevalier boldly, "a heavenly crown to an earthly one!"[228]

The Duke of Perth had summoned many of his tenants to meet him at Blair,

where he required them to bring all the rent due, under pain of

punishment; and he now ordered them also to carry arms to the extent of

their power. He is said to have insisted upon his privilege as Chief,

with a degree of rigour which, when his power was exerted to force his

tenants into a course of certain peril, cannot be justified. Unhappily,

the practice was of too frequent occurrence among some of the chieftains

to permit us entirely to dismiss it as a calumny. The amiable Lord

Derwentwater, the brave Lord Southesk, as has been remarked elsewhere,

and proved by letters and contemporary statements, were not free from a

similar charge. The following anecdote is so little in accordance with

the forbearance assigned to the Duke of Perth both by enemies and

friends, that it must, however, be read with distrust. It is related by

James Macpherson:[229] speaking of the compulsory measures adopted, he

says, "To this oppression of the Duke of Perth's likewise several

submitted (such are the terrors of arbitrary power). Three however

resisted, declaring that besides the inconvenience which the neglect of

their affairs would subject them to, and the danger of the undertaking,

it was against their conscience to assist the cause of Popery against

the true religion of their country; to which one of them had the

boldness to add, he was sorry to see his Grace embarked in such a cause.

Upon this, the Duke, flying into a rage, snatched up a pistol which lay

in his tent, and immediately shot the poor man through the head. After

which the other two made their escape from him, and one from the camp,

the other being pursued and killed by one of the rebels, who was witness

to the whole transaction."

Whilst the army remained at Perth, a singular incident occurred, which

seems to prove that the subsequent surrender of Edinburgh was by no

means unexpected by Prince Charles.[230]

One evening, when Macpherson was on duty as one of the Prince's guards,

a person came to the camp, and was by his desire conducted to the

presence of the Chevalier. A long conference ensued, at which the Duke

of Perth and the Marquis of Tullibardine were present. Soon after the

departure of this stranger, it was rumoured that Edinburgh was to be

betrayed to the Jacobites, and that they were to take possession in a

few days. There must, therefore, have been some secret communication.

In the memorable events which followed this rumour, the Duke of Perth

continually shared. He rode by the side of Charles Edward when the

gallant adventurer, leaving Perth on the eleventh of September, crossed

the Firth at the Frew, and passed so near the walls of Stirling, that

the balls fired upon him and his forces from the castle fell within

twenty yards of the Prince. He proceeded on the march, commenced by the

Chevalier with the sum of only one guinea in his pocket, until they

arrived at Gray's Hill, a place two miles west of Edinburgh. Here

deputies from the town arrived to treat with Charles. "I do not treat

with subjects," was the Chevalier's reply; whilst the Duke of Perth

added, "The King's declaration, and the Prince's manifesto, are such as

every subject ought to accept with joy."

Meantime, a company of volunteers under the command of Captain Drummond,

a gentleman of very different political sentiments to those of the

majority of this name, had assembled in the College yard, when, after

being addressed by their gallant leader, they proffered their services

to aid the dragoons stationed in the city, under the command of General

Guest, in repelling the Jacobites. On Sunday, the fire-bell sounding in

the time of Divine service, emptied all the churches; and the people,

rushing into the streets, beheld the volunteers drawn up in the Lawn

Market, awaiting the arrival of the dragoons, with whom they were

prepared to march out of the town to repel the rebels. But this gallant

resolution was not put into execution; and a force of two thousand

strong, not half of the soldiery having fire-locks, was suffered to

force their way into a town garrisoned by two thousand seven hundred

soldiers, all well supplied with arms and ammunition.

That Edinburgh was surrendered by the treachery of its Provost, seems

beyond all doubt. Archibald Stewart, who held that office at this

critical moment, gave many indications of perfidy or cowardice, which

have been duly related, although with little comment, by historians.

Notwithstanding that the approach of the insurgents had been by measured

paces, and that they had advanced so leisurely as to spend some hours

lying on the bank of a rivulet near Linlithgow, no preparations for

defence had been made, although it was the wish of many of the

inhabitants to resist the Jacobite army. It had been found that all the

calms, or moulds for bullets, had been bought up; ladies having gone to

the shops where they were made, to purchase them. When the danger became

proximate, the Provost merely remarked, that, if the enemy wished to

enter, he did not know how they could be prevented. He viewed the

fortifications, it is true, and rummaged up some grenades that had lain

in a chest since 1715. But the most suspicious incident occurred during

a meeting of the Town Council, when a Highland spy, having a letter in

his hand, was apprehended, and brought before the assembly. The letter

was given to the Provost, who hurried it into his pocket, and in great

haste broke up the assembly.[231] In all the deliberations for the

defence of the city, it was perceived that Mr. Provost Stewart was a

dead-weight upon any measures of vigour; and nothing could have been

done to preserve Edinburgh from surrendering, unless he had been

absolutely bound in chains. Yet this unworthy magistrate, so faithless

to his trust, so discreditable an instrument of the Jacobite cause, was

afterwards acquitted, after a trial of four days, by the Lords

Justiciary.

The progress of that cause now appeared such as to promise success to

the future exertions of its partisans. On the seventeenth of September,

the Prince received the news that Edinburgh was taken, and a stand of

one thousand arms seized; a circumstance which added greatly to the joy

of the insurgents, who stood in need of arms. "When the army came near

town," writes Lord Elcho, "it was met by vast multitudes of people, who

by their repeated shouts and huzzas expressed a great deal of joy to see

the Prince. When they came into the suburbs, the crowd was prodigious,

and all wishing the Prince prosperity; in short, nobody doubted but that

he would be joined by ten thousand men at Edinburgh, if he could arm

them. The army took the road to Duddingston: Lord Strathallan marching

first, at the head of the horse; the Prince next, on horseback, with the

Duke of Perth on his right, and Lord Elcho on his left; then Lord George

Murray, on foot, at the head of the column of infantry. From

Duddingston, the army entered the King's Park, by a breach made in the

wall. Lord George halted some time in the park, but afterwards marched

the foot to Duddingston; and the Prince continued on horseback, always

followed by the crowd, who were happy if they could touch his boots, or

his horse furniture. In the steepest part of the road going down to the

Abbey, he was obliged to alight and walk; but the mob, out of

curiosity, and some out of fondness, to touch him or kiss his hand, were

like to throw him down: so, as soon as he was down the hill, he mounted

his horse and rode through St. Anne's Yard into Holyrood House, amidst

the cries of six thousand people, who filled the air with their

acclamations of joy. He dismounted in the inner court, and went up

stairs into the gallery; and from thence into the Duke of Hamilton's

apartments, which he occupied all the time he was at Edinburgh. The

crowd continued all night in the outer court of the Abbey, and huzzaed

every time the Prince appeared at the window. He was joined, upon his

entering the Abbey, by the Earl of Kelly, Lord Balmerino, Mr. Hepburn of

Keith, Mr. Lockhart younger of Carnwath, Mr. Graham younger of Airth,

Mr. Rollo younger of Powhouse, Mr. Stirling of Craigbarnet, Mr. Hamilton

of Bangor, Sir David Murray, and several other gentlemen of distinction:

but not one of the mob, who were so fond of seeing him, were asked to

enlist in his service; and, when he marched to fight Cope, he had not

one of them in his army."[232]

The Prince, who was thus received with acclamations into the home of his

forefathers, was at this time in the bloom of youth, being in the

twenty-fifth year of his age. Neither the agitation produced by the

events of that critical day on his sensitive temper, nor the fatigue of

the previous march to a young soldier, could diminish the grace of his

deportment, nor hide the natural majesty of his carriage. "The figure

and presence of Charles Stuart," even Home remarks, "were not

ill-suited to his lofty pretensions." He was in height about five feet

ten inches, of a slender form; his features were aquiline; his

complexion, though ruddy from the Highland air, was naturally fair. He

had the pointed chin, and small mouth in proportion to his other

features, of Charles the First. The colour of his eyes has been

variously described; being, according to some, "large rolling brown

eyes," whilst in many of his portraits he is depicted as having full

blue eyes.[233] The hair of Charles Stuart was concealed under a "pale

peruke;" but, is said to have been red, or, according to most of his

portraits, of a sandy hue. As he rode, with extreme grace, upon a fine

bay gelding presented to him by the Duke of Perth, the bystanders

remarked that an "irregular smile," as one of them has expressed it,

lighted up, by fits, a countenance which told but too plainly every

emotion of the heart. An anxious, watchful look was, at times, directed

to those around and near him; and, in particular, rested on the face of

Lord Elcho, who, though a gallant officer, the Prince may perhaps have

too well conjectured, was not, even at that early period, a sincere and

firm adherent. To the Duke of Perth, on the contrary, the ill-fated

young Chevalier showed a marked respect, and sat for some moments on

horseback in St. Anne's Yard, whilst the Duke, like "an intelligent

farmer, informed him of the different nature and produce of the

different parcels of ground."[234] Dressed, as he was, in the Highland

garb,--a blue sash wrought with gold coming over his shoulder, a green

velvet bonnet with a gold lace round it on his head, a white

cockade,--the cross of St. Andrew on his breast, his hand resting on a

silver-hilted sword, and a pair of pistols on his saddle;--associated in

the minds of all around him with the remembrance of Scotland in her

independence, and of Scottish monarchs in their greatness, the

enthusiasm which was inspired in a slow, but ardent people cannot be a

matter of surprise. Long did the remembrance of that day continue to be

cherished, in mingled pride and sorrow! It is true, the opinions of men

differed according to their secret bias. The Jacobites, who looked on

the young Prince, compared him to Robert the Bruce, to whom he bore,

they fancied, a resemblance. The Whigs beheld in him the gentleman of

fashion, but not the hero and the conqueror. All parties seem to have

remarked the dejection and languor of his manner as he prepared to enter

the palace of Holyrood.

It was, indeed, impossible, from the deportment of Charles on his first

introduction into Scotland, or from his conduct whilst his affairs

prospered, to comprehend the strength of his determination, or to

calculate upon his power of endurance. In prosperity he was, it is true,

brave, courteous, often amiable, often generous, but sometimes betraying

the petulance and obstinacy which historians have been fond of

considering as hereditary propensities in the heroic young man, but

which are the common attributes of the inexperienced and the spoiled. In

adversity he was meek, grateful, magnanimous; capable of forgetting his

own unparalleled sufferings, in considering those of others; never

breathing an accent of revenge; rising above fortune. He resembled

Charles the Second more in his hatred of shedding blood, than in his

vices, which were in the young Chevalier the effect of circumstances,

rather than of a depraved nature. He had the fortitude of Charles the

First: in truth, and right intention he exceeded both of these his

ancestors; and in this, as in other respects, he showed more of the

Scottish character, more of the true sense of Highland honour, than any

of his immediate predecessors in the Stuart line. Naturally gay, though

variable; quick and shrewd, rather than deep or strong in intellect;

easily to be flattered, too easily led by some, too wilful in resisting

the counsels of others,--as a Prince, as the head of a Court, he soon

won upon the affections of the people who beheld him; but there were

vital defects mingled with his great and good qualities, which well

verified the saying of the Whigs, "that he would prove neither a hero

nor a conqueror."

As the Prince walked along the piazza close to the apartment of the Duke

of Hamilton, a gentleman stepped out of the crowd, and, drawing his

sword, raised his arm aloft, and walked up stairs before Charles Edward.

The remarkable person who thus signalized his loyalty was James Hepburn

of Keith, a gentleman of learning and intelligence, whose Jacobitism was

of a more enlightened description than that of the party with whom he

thus identified himself. Since the insurrection of 1715, in which, when

a very young man, he had been engaged, Mr. Hepburn had become a

professed Jacobite. Yet he disclaimed the hereditary, indefeasible right

of Kings, and condemned the measures of James the Second. Cherishing

even these opinions, he had nevertheless kept himself during twenty

years ready to take up arms for Charles Edward, from a hatred to the

Union between England and Scotland, a measure which he deemed injurious

and humiliating to his country. Idolized by the Jacobites, beloved by

some of the Whigs, a "model of ancient simplicity, manliness and

honour,"[235] the accession of Hepburn to the Jacobite cause was

lamented by those who esteemed him, and who saw in his notions of the

independence of Scotland only a visionary speculation.

The entrance of Prince Charles had taken place early in the day: soon

after noon he was proclaimed Regent at the ancient Cross of Edinburgh,

and his father's manifesto was read in the same place. Six heralds in

their robes, with a trumpet, came to the Cross, which was surrounded by

the brave Camerons in three ranks. The streets and windows were crowded

to excess; whilst David Beato, a writing-master in Edinburgh, read the

papers to the heralds. The beautiful Mrs. Murray of Broughton sat on

horseback with a drawn sword in her hand beside the Cross, her dress

decorated with the white ribbon which was the token of adherence to the

House of Stuart. Whilst these events took place, a spectator in the

crowd, viewing clearly that all was the show of power, without the

substantial capacity to perpetuate it, resolved to write the history of

what, he foresaw, would be a short-lived though perhaps fierce contest.

He was not mistaken. This individual was Alexander Henderson.

The following account is given by Lord Elcho of the Chevalier's court

during the short time that he inhabited Holyrood House.[236]

"The Prince lived in Edinburgh, from the twenty-second of September to

the thirty-first of October, with great splendour and magnificence;--had

every morning a numerous court of his officers. After he had held a

council, he dined with his principal officers in public, where there was

always a crowd of all sorts of people to see him dine. After dinner he

rode out, attended by his life-guards, and reviewed his army; where

there were always a great number of spectators, in coaches and on

horseback. After the review he came to the Abbey, where he received the

ladies of fashion that came to his drawing-room. Then he supped in

public; and generally there was music at supper, and a ball afterwards.

Before he left Edinburgh, he despatched Sir James Stewart to manage his

affairs in the country and solicit succours."

This remarkable scene was soon followed by the battle of Preston Pans.

The memorable words of Charles Edward before the victory, "I have flung

away the scabbard!" were followed by a total rout of the King's troops.

The Duke of Perth was appointed Lieutenant-general of the forces. After

the engagement which ensued, when the heat of the contest was over, he

distinguished himself in a manner in which every brave and loyal man

would wish to imitate his example,--by saving the lives of the

combatants. His tenantry, commanded by Lord Nairn, were among the most

eager of the combatants on that day. When the defeat of the King's

troops was manifest, a terrible carnage ensued. Some of the conquered

threw down their arms, and begged for quarter, which was refused them;

others, who fled into the enclosures, were murdered; and all who were

overtaken were cut in the most cruel manner by broad-swords and Lochaber

axes.

The kind-hearted Duke of Perth, seeing this slaughter, made a signal to

Cameron of Lochiel to stop the impetuosity of his men; and sent his

aid-de-camp, or, as he was then called, his gentleman, for that purpose.

No sooner had the Duke done this, than he sprang himself upon a fleet

bay mare, a racer, which had won the King's plate at Leith some years

before; and, taking a Major of the King's troops along with him, "shot

like an arrow through the field," and saved numbers: as also did his

gentleman, Mr. Stuart.[237]

But these efforts were insufficient to prevent a cruel and terrible

destruction of some of the bravest and best of the British officers. In

the battle of Preston Pans fell the famous Colonel Gardiner. His fate

was, it is said, envied by General Cope, who, witnessing the destruction

of his army, wished to have died on the field.

Whilst the Highlanders were carried away to the house of Colonel

Gardiner, close by, the young Chevalier stood by the road-side, having

sent to Edinburgh by the advice of the Duke of Perth for surgeons. At

this moment, Henderson, that spectator of the proclamation who had

resolved to write a history of the war, having slept at Musselburgh,

only at two miles' distance, the night before, stepped forward to take a

survey of the field. "It was one scene of horror, capable," writes this

historian,[238] "of softening the hardest heart, being strewed not so

much with the dead as with the wounded: the broken guns, halberts,

pikes, and canteens showing the work of the day. In the midst of this

distressing spectacle, an act of mercy shone forth, like a light from

Heaven." "Major Bowles," continues Henderson, "of Hamilton's Dragoons,

being dismounted, the enemy fell upon and wounded him in eleven

different places; and just as some inhuman wretch was fetching a stroke,

which perhaps would have proved mortal, Mr. Stuart threw up his sword

and awarded the blow."

From Preston Pans Charles Edward rode to Pinkie House, a seat of the

Marquis of Tweedale. In the elation of victory, a consideration which

can alone excuse the disregard of the sufferings of others which the

foregoing narrative states, the Prince is said to have left the bulk of

the wounded upon the field until the next day, when they were brought in

carts to the infirmary of Edinburgh. The neighbourhood was afterwards

scattered over with the wounded who recovered, and who begged throughout

the country, where they met with kindness and humanity from all, except

from the Adventurers, as they were called. Such is the testimony of one

who has not failed to bear witness to acts of humanity where they really

existed; and it would be unfair to suppress the statements of

contemporaries on either side of the question. At the same time, this

account is wholly at variance with the deep sorrow afterwards betrayed

by Charles when he spoke of the sufferings of the Scottish people on his

account; nor is it consistent with the sensibility and humanity evinced,

as the same historian avows, by the Duke of Perth.[239]

Upon the return of Prince Charles to Edinburgh, in order to carry on

affairs with every appearance of royalty, he appointed a council, who

met every day at Holyrood House at ten o'clock for the despatch of

business. The members of this council were the two Lieutenants-general,

the Duke of Perth, and Lord George Murray, who had been appointed in

conjunction with the former; Secretary Murray; Sullivan,

Quarter-master-general; Lord Pitsligo, Lord Elcho, Sir Thomas Sheridan,

and all the Highland chiefs.

The fine characteristics, and powerful mind of Lord George Murray, and

the prominent part which he took in the insurrection, demand a long and

separate account. Among the rest of this ill-starred council, the

principal members in point of rank, if not of influence, were Alexander,

Lord Forbes of Pitsligo, who, after the battle of Preston, joined the

Prince's standard with a troop of a hundred horse. The character of this

nobleman gave his example a great influence among all who knew him, and

who respected the ardent piety, bordering upon fanaticism, which

characterized his religious sentiments, and the heartfelt earnestness

of his political opinions. Early in life this venerable man had sworn

allegiance to William the Third, and taken his seat in Parliament; he

became, however, an opponent to the Union, and, from the period of that

measure, his course was a decided system of calm and steady adherence to

Jacobite principles. He engaged in the rebellion of 1715, yet by the

forbearance of Government was permitted to retain his title and estate.

He now again embarked in the same adventurous cause, leaving the study

of moral philosophy, on which he had written several essays, and the

security of a private career, for the sake of conscience. No hope of

gain, no inducement of ambition, lured this adherent of Charles Edward

to the standard of the Stuarts. Aged, and so infirm that he was

compelled by his bodily weakness to accept the generous proposal of

Charles Edward to travel on all the marches in the Prince's carriage,

whilst the Chevalier walked at the head of his army, Lord Pitsligo again

came forward at what he conceived to be the dictates of duty. His

example drew many others into the undertaking. Of course, his subsequent

history closed in the usual melancholy manner: his life was, it is true,

spared; but his estates were forfeited, and his title extinguished. He

died at Auchiries, in Aberdeenshire.

David, Lord Elcho, who held also a place in the council, and who was

colonel of the first troop of Horseguards, was the son of James, fourth

Earl of Wemyss, and of Janet the daughter of Colonel Francis Charteris

of Amisfield, whose immense property was afterwards vested in the Wemyss

family. Lord Elcho was at this time only twenty-four years of age, and

therefore his appointment to the colonelcy of the horse was a signal

compliment to his abilities. Of his personal character much may be

gleaned from his unpublished narrative, written in a dry, caustic, and

uninspiring style; and penned by one who seems to have desired to do

justice, but whose personal dislike to the young Chevalier over-masters

his inclination to the cause. Notwithstanding a plain disapproval of

many measures, and a marked conviction of the wilfulness of his young

leader, Lord Elcho was true to the cause which he had adopted. His

account of the manner in which the council of the Regent, as he was

styled, was conducted, is so characteristic, not only of those to whom

he refers, but of his own mind, that I shall give it in the unvarnished

phraseology in which he composed it.[240]

"The Prince in his council used always first to declare what he was for,

and then he asked everybody's opinion in their turn. There was one-third

of the council whose principles were, that Kings and Princes can never

either act, or think wrong; so, in consequence, they always confirmed

whatever the Prince said. The other two-thirds, who thought that Kings

and Princes thought sometimes like other men, and were not altogether

infallible, and that this Prince was no more so than others, begged

leave to differ from him, when they could give sufficient reasons for

their difference of opinion, which very often was no hard matter to do;

for as the Prince and his old governor, Sir Thomas Sheridan, were

altogether ignorant of the ways and customs in Great Britain, and both

much for the doctrine of absolute monarchy, they would very often, had

they not been prevented, have fallen into blunders which might have hurt

the cause. The Prince could not bear to hear anybody differ in sentiment

from him, and took a dislike to everybody that did; for he had a notion

of commanding this army, as any general does a body of mercenaries, and

so let them know only what he pleased, and they obey without inquiring

further about the matter. This might have done better had his favourites

been people of the country; but they were Irish, and had nothing at

stake. The Scotch, who ought to be supposed to give the best advice they

were capable of giving, thought they had a little right to know, and be

consulted in what was for the good of the cause in which they had so

much concern; and, if it had not been for their insisting strongly upon

it, the Prince, when he found that his sentiments were not always

approved of, would have abolished his council long ere he did. There was

a very good paper sent one day by a gentleman in Edinburgh, to be

perused by this council. The Prince, when he heard it read, said that it

was below his dignity to enter into such a reasoning with subjects, and

ordered the paper to be laid aside. The paper afterwards was printed

under the title of the Prince's Declaration to the People of England,

and is esteemed the best manifesto published in those times; for the

ones that were printed at Rome and Paris were reckoned not well

calculated for the present age."

Before the Prince had left Edinburgh, intrigues had begun to distract

his councils. "An ill-timed emulation," remarks an eye-witness of the

rebellion, "soon crept in, and bred great dissension and animosities:

the council was insensibly divided into factions, and came to be of

little use, when measures were approved of, or condemned, not for

themselves, but for the sake of their author."[241] Unhappily, the Duke

of Perth, amiable, but inexperienced and unsuspecting, confided in one

whose machinations, guided by an unbounded love of rule, eventually

accelerated the ruin of the cause.

The very name of Murray of Broughton recalls with a shudder the

remembrance of selfish ambition and treachery. This unprincipled man,

private secretary to Charles Edward, had a remarkable influence over the

young Chevalier's mind; an influence acquired during a long and intimate

acquaintance abroad. "He was," observes Mr. Maxwell, "the only personal

acquaintance the Prince found in Scotland." To a desire of having the

sole government of the Prince's council he "sacrificed what chance there

was of a restoration, although upon that all his hopes were built." The

expedition to Scotland and England was, according to the same authority,

the entire suggestion of Murray; and the credit of that success which

had hitherto attended the attempt, was now solely attributed to the

secretary's advice. "The Duke of Perth," adds the same writer, "judging

of Murray's heart by his own, entertained the highest opinion of his

integrity, went readily into all his schemes, and confirmed the Prince

in the esteem he had already conceived for Murray."

The man whom Murray most dreaded as a rival was Lord George Murray, the

coadjutor with the Duke of Perth in the command of the army; and it soon

became no difficult task, not only to persuade Prince Charles, who knew

but little personally of Lord George, that that impetuous but honest man

was a traitor, but also to inspire the amiable Duke of Perth with

suspicions foreign to his generous nature. Few of the calm spectators of

the struggle were very sanguine as to its result; but the moderate hopes

which they dared to entertain were all dashed to the ground by the

unbridled love of sway which the secretary indulged, and which filled

him with a base and bitter enmity towards men of talent and influence.

Too truly is the effect of his representations told in these few and

simple words, written by one who was devotedly attached to the misled,

confiding Charles, upon whose ignorance of the world Murray condescended

to practise.[242]

"All those gentlemen that joined the Prince after Murray, were made

known under the character he thought fit to give them; and all

employments about the Prince's person, and many in the army, were of his

nomination. These he filled with such as he had reason to think would

never thwart his measures, but be content to be his tools and creatures

without aspiring higher. Thus, some places of the greatest trust were

given to little insignificant fellows; while there were abundance of

gentlemen of figure and merit that had no employment at all, and who

might have been of great use, had they been properly employed. Those

that Murray had thus placed, seconded his little dirty views: it was

their interest, too, to keep their betters at a distance from the

Prince's person and acquaintance. These were some of the disadvantages

the Prince laboured under during this whole expedition."

As soon as the expedition into England was decided, a gentleman was

dispatched to France to hasten the assistance expected from that

quarter. The first intention of the insurgents was to march to

Newcastle, and give battle to General Wade; then to proceed, if the

Prince proved victorious, by the eastern coast to England, in order to

favour the expected landing of the French upon that side. This scheme

was overruled by Lord George Murray, with what success history has

declared. It was natural, when all was lost, for those who wished well

to the cause, to retrace their steps, and to desire that any measures

had been adopted, rather than those which had proved so disastrous: but

this is the common feeling of regret, and cannot be relied on as the

sober dictate of judgment.

On his departure from Edinburgh, the young Chevalier was followed by the

good will of many who had viewed his arrival with regret. The people,

says Maxwell of Kirkconnel, "were affected with the dangers they

apprehended he might be exposed to, and doubtful whether they ever

should see him again."[243] "Everybody was mightily taken," adds the

same writer, "with the Prince's figure and personal behaviour. There was

but one voice about them." What was still more important, the short

duration of military rule exercised by Charles Edward had been so

conducted as to create no disgust. The guard of the city had been

entrusted to Cameron of Lochiel, the younger; and under his firm and

judicious controul, the persons and effects of the citizens, had been as

secure as in time of peace. "The people had the pleasure of seeing the

whole apparatus of war, without feeling the effects of it."[244] Day

after day some new and graceful instance of the humanity and kindness of

the young Chevalier's disposition had transpired. At this period of his

life there was a degree of magnanimity in the sentiments of one, of

whose principles despair, and the desertion of his friends afterwards

made such a wreck. The following trait of this ill-fated young man is

too beautiful--it reflects too much credit, through him, upon the party

of whom he was the head--to be omitted; more especially as the narrative

from which it is taken is not in the hands of general readers.

"But what gave people the highest idea of him was, the negative he gave

to a thing that very nearly concerned his interest, and upon which the

success of his enterprise perhaps depended. It was proposed to send one

of the prisoners to London, to demand of that court a cartel for the

exchange of prisoners taken and to be taken during this war, and to

intimate that a refusal would be looked upon as a resolution on their

part to give no quarter. It was visible a cartel would be of great

advantage to the Prince's affairs: his friends would be more ready to

declare for him, if they had nothing to fear but the chance of war in

the field; and, if the Court of London refused to settle a cartel, the

Prince was authorised to treat his prisoners in the same manner that the

Elector of Hanover was determined to treat such of the Prince's friends

as might fall into his hands. It was urged, a few examples would compel

the Court of London to comply. It was to be presumed that the officers

of the English army would make a point of it. They had never engaged in

the service, but upon such terms as are in use among all civilized

nations, and it would be no stain on their honour to lay down their

commissions if these terms were not observed; and, that, owing to the

obstinacy of their own Prince. Though this scheme was plausible, and

represented as very important, the Prince could never be brought into

it; it was below him to make empty threats, and he would never put such

as those into execution; he would never, in cold blood, take away lives

which he had saved in heat of action at peril of his own."[245]

On the thirty-first of October, the Prince set out from Holyrood House

in the evening, amid a crowd of people assembled to bid him farewell. On

the following day he joined one column of his army at Dalkeith. The army

marched in two columns, by different roads, to Carlisle: that which the

Prince commanded, and which was conducted by Lord George Murray, was

composed of the Guards, and the Clans; Charles Edward marched on foot at

the head of the Highlanders, and the Guards led the van. The other

column went by Peebles and Moffat, having with them the artillery and

heavy baggage. It was composed of the Atholl brigade, the Duke of

Perth's regiment, Lord Ogilvie, of Glenbucket, and Roy Stuart's

regiment. The greater part of the horse was commanded by the Duke of

Perth. A week afterwards these two columns were re-united, and the

troops were quartered in villages to the west of Carlisle.

On the thirteenth of October the town of Carlisle was invested by the

Duke of Perth and Lord George Murray, with the horse and Lowland

regiments. The conduct of the Duke of Perth, during the siege of five

days which ensued, has been a subject of eulogy for every writer who has

undertaken to relate the affairs of the period. The siege was attempted

in the face of many difficulties, the Prince having no battering cannon;

so that, if the town had been well defended, it would have been found

impossible to reduce it: still, being a place of great strength, and the

key to England, he resolved to make the attempt.

It was in this undertaking that the Duke of Perth reaped the benefit of

his scientific knowledge of the art of war, and that he showed a degree

of skill as well as of military ardour, which would, had his life been

spared, have rendered him an excellent general. The castle of Carlisle,

built upon the east angle of the fortifications, was of course the

object of his attack. On Tuesday, the thirteenth of October, after his

return from Brampton, where the Prince remained with the Clans to cover

the siege, the Duke began his operations. His officers had forced four

carpenters to go along with them in order to assist in erecting the

batteries. In short, all ablebodied men were seized on by the

insurgents, and those who had horses and ladders were constrained to

carry them to the siege of Carlisle.

The Duke then "broke ground," to use a military expression, about three

hundred yards from the citadel, at the Spring Garden; and encountered

the fire of the cannon from the town, approaching so near that the

garrison even threw grenadoes at them. On Wednesday, the trenches were

opened, and were conducted by Mr. Grant, chief engineer, whose skill was

greatly commended. On Friday morning, batteries were erected within

forty fathoms of the walls. During all this time the cannon and small

arms from the castle played furiously, but with so little destruction to

the besiegers, that only two men were killed.

The weather was so intensely cold, that even the Highlanders could

scarcely sustain its inclemency; yet the Duke of Perth and the Marquis

of Tullibardine, the one delicate in constitution, the other broken and

in advancing age, worked at the trenches like any common labourer, in

their shirts. On the Friday, when the cannon began to play, and the

scaling-ladders were brought out for an assault, a white flag was hung

out, and the city offered to surrender. An express was sent to the

Chevalier at Brampton; whose answer was, "that he would not do things by

halves," and that the city had no reason to expect terms, unless the

castle surrendered also. That event took place, in consequence,

immediately; and the capitulation was signed by the Duke of Perth, and

by Colonel Durand, who had been sent from London to defend Carlisle. In

the afternoon of the same day, the Duke of Perth entered the town, and

took possession in the name of James the Third, whose manifesto was

read; the mayor and aldermen attending the Duke, the sword and mace

being carried before them.

The Duke of Perth won many of those who were enemies to Charles Edward,

over to his cause, by the humanity and civility with which he treated

the conquered citizens, over whom he had the chief command until Charles

arrived. But even the important advantage thus gained could not still

the animosities which had been kindled in the breasts of those who ought

to have laid aside all private considerations for the good of their

common undertaking. Hitherto Lord George Murray and the Duke of Perth

had had separate commands, and had not interfered with each other until

the siege of Carlisle. Here the Duke had acted as the chief in command;

he had directed the attack, signed the capitulation, and given orders in

the town until the Prince arrived. This was a precedent for the whole

campaign, and it ill-suited the fiery temper of Lord George Murray to

brook it tamely. There was, indeed, much to be said in favour of Lord

George's alleged wrongs, in this preference of one so young and

inexperienced as the Duke of Perth. In the first place, Lord George was

an older Lieutenant-General than his rival; nor could it be agreeable to

his Lordship to serve under a man so much his inferior in age and

experience. "Lord George," observes Mr. Maxwell, "thought himself the

fittest man to be at the head of the army; nor was he the only person

that thought so. Had it been left to the gentlemen of the army to choose

a general, Lord George would have carried it by vast odds against the

Duke of Perth." But there was still another pretext, which was insisted

upon as a reason less offensive to the Duke of Perth, whose gentle and

noble qualities had much endeared him even to those who did not wish to

see him chief in command; this was his religious persuasion. It was

argued that, at that time in England, Roman Catholics were excluded from

all employments, civil and military, by laws anterior to the Revolution;

it was contended that these laws, whether just or not, ought to be

complied with until they were repealed; and that a defiance of these

laws would confirm all that had been heard of old from the press and

from the pulpit, of the Prince's designs to subvert both Church and

State: neither could it be alleged in excuse for the young Prince, that

a superiority of genius or of experience had won this distinction, in

opposition to custom, for the Duke of Perth.

Whilst these murmurs distracted the camp, immediately after the

surrender of Carlisle, Lord George Murray resigned his commission of

Lieutenant-General, and informed the Prince that thenceforth he would

serve as a volunteer. Upon this step, Mr. Maxwell, who seems to have

known intimately the merits of the case, makes the following temperate

and beautiful reflection.[246] "It would be rash in me to pretend to

determine whether ambition, or zeal for the Prince's service, determined

Lord George to take this step; or, if both had a share in it, which was

predominant: it belongs to the Searcher of hearts to judge of an action

which might have proceeded from very different motives."

Under these circumstances, violent discussions took place in the army;

and the result was, the wise resolution on the part of a certain

officer, not improbably Mr. Maxwell himself, to represent the

consequences of these altercations to the Duke of Perth. The undertaking

was one of delicacy and difficulty; but the individual who undertook it

had not miscalculated the true gentlemanly humility, the real dignity

and disinterestedness, of the gallant man to whom he addressed himself.

The narrative goes on as follows:

"A gentleman who had been witness to such conversation, and dreaded

nothing so much as dissension in a cause which could never succeed but

by unanimity, resolved to speak to the Duke of Perth upon this

ungrateful subject. He had observed that those that were loudest in

their complaints were least inclined to give themselves any trouble in

finding out a remedy."

"The Duke, who at this time was happy, but not elevated, upon his

success, reasoned very coolly on the matter. He could never be convinced

that it was unreasonable that he should have the principal command; but

when it was represented to him, that since that opinion prevailed,

whether well or ill founded, the Prince's affairs might equally suffer,

he took his resolution in a moment; said he never had anything in view

but the Prince's interest, and would cheerfully sacrifice everything to

it. And he was as good as his word; for he took the first opportunity of

acquainting the Prince with the complaints that were against him,

insisted upon being allowed to give up his command, and to serve

henceforth at the head of his regiment."

After his resignation, the Duke of Perth sank gracefully into the duties

of the post assigned to him. But his ardour in the cause was unsubdued;

and he was frequently known, during the march from Carlisle to Derby, to

ride down three horses a day when information of the enemy was to be

procured.

The short sojourn of the Prince at Derby, and the inglorious retreat,

have been detailed by the various biographers and historians of that

period; but, amongst the various accounts which have been given, that

which is contained in a letter from Derby has not hitherto been

presented to the reader, except in a collection rarely to be met with,

and now but little known.[247]

On Wednesday, the 4th of December (1745), two of the insurgents entered

the town, inquired for the magistrates, and demanded billets for nine

thousand men, and more. A short time afterwards the vanguard broke into

the town, consisting of about thirty men, clothed in blue faced with

gold, and scarlet waistcoats with gold lace; and, being "likely men,"

they made a good appearance. They were drawn up in the market-place, and

remained there two hours; at the same time the bells were rung, and

bonfires were lighted, in order to do away with the impression that the

Chevalier's vanguard had been received disrespectfully. About three

o'clock Lord Elcho, on horseback, arrived at the head of the

Life-guards, about one hundred and fifty men, the flower of the army,

who rode gallantly into the town, dressed like the vanguard, making a

very fine display. The Guards were followed by the main body of the

army, who marched in tolerable order, two or three abreast, with eight

standards, mostly having white flags and a red cross; the bag-pipers

playing as they entered. Whilst they were in the market-place, they

caused the Chevalier to be proclaimed King, and then asked for the

magistrates. These functionaries appeared without their gowns of office,

having cautiously sent them out of the town; a circumstance which was

with some difficulty excused by the insurgents.

In the dusk of the evening Charles Edward arrived: he walked on foot,

attended by many of his men, who followed him to Exeter House, where the

Prince remained until his retreat northwards. Here he had guards placed

all round the house, and here he maintained the semblance of a Court, in

the very heart of that country which he so longed to enter.

The temporary abode of Charles Edward still remains in perfect repair,

and much in the same state, with the exception of change of furniture,

as when he held levees there. Exeter House at that time belonged to

Brownlow, Earl of Exeter, whose connexion with the town of Derby was

owing to his marriage with a lady of that city. The house stands back

from Full Street, and is situated within a small triangular court. An

air of repose, notwithstanding the noise of a busy and important town,

characterizes this interesting dwelling. It is devoid of pretension; its

gables and chimneys proclaim the Elizabethan period. A wide staircase,

rising from a small hall, leads to a square, oak-panelled drawing-room,

the presence-chamber in the days of the ill-fated Charles. On either

side are chambers, retaining, as far as the walls are concerned, much of

the character of former days, but furnished recently. One of these

served the Prince as a sleeping-room; the rest were occupied by his

officers of state, and by such of his retinue as could be accommodated

in a house of moderate size. The tenement contains many small rooms and

closets, well adapted, had there been need, for concealment and escape.

The back of Exeter House is picturesque in the extreme. The character of

the building is here more distinctly ancient; and its architecture is

uniform, though simple. Beyond the steps by which you descend from a

spacious dining-room, is a long lawn, enclosed between high walls, and

extending to the brink of the river Derwent. A tradition prevails in

Derby, that, after the retreat, one of the Highland officers who had

been left behind, hearing of the approach of the Duke of Cumberland's

army, escaped through this garden, and, plunging into the river, swam

down its quiet waters for a considerable distance, until he gained a

part of the opposite shore where he thought he might land without

detection. Another more interesting association connects the spot with

the poet Dr. Darwin, who is said to have planted some willows which grow

on the opposite side of the river to Exeter House.

Here Charles remained for some days. The Dukes of Atholl and Perth, and

the other noblemen who commanded regiments, together with Lady Ogilvie

and Mrs. Murray of Broughton, were lodged in the best gentlemen's

houses. Every house was tolerably well filled; but the Highlanders

continued pouring in till ten or eleven o'clock, until the burgesses of

Derby began to think they "should never have seen the last of them." "At

their coming in," says the writer of the letter referred to, "they were

generally treated with bread, cheese, beer and ale, while all hands were

aloft getting supper ready. After supper, being weary with their long

march, they went to rest, most upon straw-beds, some in beds." On Friday

morning, only two days after the minds of the inhabitants had been

agitated by the arrival of the Jacobites, they heard the drums beat to

arms, and the bag-pipers playing about the town. It was supposed that

this was a summons to a march to Loughborough, on the way to London; but

a very different resolution had been adopted.

The Prince's council had, the very morning before, met to advise their

inexperienced leader as to the steps which he might deem it advisable to

take. The memorable decision to return to the north was not arrived at

without a painful scene, such as those who felt deeply the situation of

the Chevalier could never forget. The sentiments with which the ardent

young man listened to the proposal are thus detailed by Mr. Maxwell. The

statement at once exonerates the Prince of two faults with which his

memory has been taxed, those of cowardice and obstinacy. To a coward the

great risk of advancing would have appeared in strong colours. An

obstinate man would never have yielded to the arguments which were

proffered. The description which Maxwell gives of the Prince's

flatterers is such as too fatally applies to the generality of those who

have not the courage to be sincere.[248]

"The Prince, naturally bold and enterprising, and hitherto successful in

everything, was shocked with the mention of a retreat. Since he set out

from Edinburgh, he had never a thought but of going on, and fighting

everything he found in his way to London. He had the highest idea of the

bravery of his own men, and a despicable opinion of his enemies: he had

hitherto had reason for both, and was confirmed in these notions by some

of those who were nearest his person. These sycophants, more intent upon

securing his favour than promoting his interest, were eternally saying

whatever they thought would please, and never hazarded a disagreeable

truth."[249]

The Duke of Perth coincided, on this occasion, with Charles in wishing

to advance; or, to use the words of Lord George Murray, "the Duke of

Perth was for it, since his Royal Highness was."[250] It now seems to be

admitted that the judgment of the strong mind of Lord George Murray was

less sound in this instance than the opinion of those who were more

guided by feeling than by reflection, less cautious than the sagacious

General, less willing and less able to balance the arguments on either

side.[251]

"There are not a few," remarks Mr. Maxwell, "who still think the Prince

would have carried his point had he gone on from Derby. They built much

upon the confusion there was at London, and the panic which prevailed

among the Elector's troops at this juncture. It is impossible to decide

with any degree of certainty whether he would or would not have

succeeded; that depended upon the disposition of the Army, and of the

City of London, ready to declare for the Prince."

Never had the soldiery been in greater spirits than during their stay at

Derby; but the deepest dejection prevailed, when, in spite of some

manoeuvres to deceive them, they found themselves on the road to

Ashbourn. The despair and disgust of the Prince were as painful to

behold, as they were natural. He had played for the highest stake, and

lost it. Yet one there was who could look on the drooping figure of the

disconsolate young man as he followed the van of the army, and attribute

to ill-humour the dejection of that ardent and generous mind. The

following is an extract from Lord Elcho's narrative.

"Doncaster.--The Prince, who had marched all the way to Derby on foot at

the head of a column of infantry, now mounted on horseback, and rode

generally after the van of the army, and appeared to be out of humour.

Upon the army marching out of Derby, Mr. Morgan, an English gentleman,

came up to Mr. Vaughan, who was riding in the Life-guards, and after

saluting him said, 'D---- me, Vaughan, they are going to Scotland!' Mr.

Vaughan replied, 'Wherever they go, I am determined, now I have joined

them, to go along with them.' Upon which Mr. Morgan said with an oath,

'I had rather be _hanged_ than go to Scotland to _starve_.' Mr. Morgan

_was hanged_ in 1746; and Mr. Vaughan is an officer in Spain."[252]

In six days afterwards the Jacobite army arrived at Preston, and from

this place, where the Prince halted, he sent the Duke of Perth to

Scotland to summon his friends from Perth to join him, in order to renew

the attack upon England. The Prince was resolved to retire only until he

met that reinforcement, and then to march to London, be the consequence

what it would.[253] But this scheme, so dearly cherished by Charles, was

impracticable. The Duke of Perth, taking with him an escort of seventy

or eighty horse, set out for Kendal. He was assailed as he passed

through that place by a mob, which he dispersed by firing on them, and

resumed his march; but near Penrith he was attacked by a far more

formidable force in a band of militia both horse and foot, greatly

superior in numbers to his troops, and was obliged to retire to Kendal.

On the fifteenth he rejoined the Prince's army, after this fruitless

attempt. The retreat of the Prince's army, managed as it was with

consummate skill by Lord George Murray, continued without any division

of the forces until they had passed the river Esk. There the army

separated; and the Duke of Perth commanding one column of the army took

the eastern line to Scotland, while Charles marched to Annan in

Dumfrieshire.

The siege of Stirling is the next event of note in which we find the

Duke of Perth engaged. He here acted again as Lieutenant-General, and

commanded the siege. Here, too, the valour and fidelity of two other

members of his family were again proved. Lord John Drummond, who had

landed in Scotland while the Jacobites were at Derby, with the French

brigade, was slightly wounded in the battle of Falkirk. He had the

honour of being near the Prince in the centre of the battle with his

grenadiers; and it was on his artillery and engineers that the Chevalier

chiefly depended for success in reducing Stirling. Lord Strathallan had

also assembled his men, and joined the army.

While the Prince's army were flushed with the victory of Falkirk, the

alternative of again marching to London, or of continuing the siege of

Stirling, was discussed. The last-mentioned plan was unhappily adopted;

and the Duke of Perth called upon General Blakeney to surrender. The

answer was, that the General had always hitherto been regarded as a man

of honour, and that he would always behave himself as such, and would

hold out the place as long as it was tenable. Upon this, fresh works

were erected; and Monsieur Mirabel, the chief engineer, gave it as his

opinion that the castle would be reduced in a few days. The unfortunate

result of that ill-advised siege, and the consequent retreat of the

Prince from Stirling, have been, with every appearance of reason, as

much blamed as the retreat from Derby. It was a fatal resolution, and

one which was not adopted by the Prince without sincere reluctance, and

not until after a strong representation, signed at Falkirk by Lord

George Murray and by all the Clans, begging that his Royal Highness

would consent to retreat, had been presented to him. The great desertion

that had taken place since the battle was adduced as a reason for this

movement; and the siege of Stirling, it was also urged, must necessarily

be raised, on account of the inclemency of the weather, which the

soldiers could hardly bear in their trenches, and the impaired state of

the artillery.[254]

The winter was passed in a plan of operations, for which the generalship

of Prince Charles, or rather the able judgment of Lord George Murray,

has been eulogized. Making the neighbourhood of Inverness the centre,

from which he could direct all the operations of his various generals,

the Prince employed his army of eight thousand men extensively and

usefully. The siege of Fort William was carried on by Brigadier

Stapleton; Lord George Murray had invested Blair Castle; Lord John

Drummond was making head against General Bland; the Duke of Perth was in

pursuit of Lord Loudon. This portion of the operations was attended with

so much difficulty and danger, that Charles must have entertained a high

opinion of him to whom it was entrusted.

Lord Cromartie had been already sent to disperse, if possible, Lord

Loudon's little army; but that skilful and estimable nobleman had

successfully eluded his adversary, who found it impossible either to

entice him into an action, or to force him out of the country. Lord

Loudon had taken up his quarters at Dornoch, on the frith which divides

Rosshire from Sutherland. Here he was secure, as Lord Cromartie had no

boats. It was therefore deemed necessary to have two detachments; one to

guard the passage of the frith, the other to go by the head of it. This

was a matter of some difficulty, for the Prince had at that time hardly

as many men at Inverness as were necessary to guard his person. It was,

however, essential to attack Lord Loudon, whose army cut off all

communication with Caithness, whence the Prince expected provisions and

men. In this dilemma an expedient had been thought of some time

previously, and preparations had been made for it; but the execution was

extremely dangerous. Mr. Maxwell gives the following account of it:[255]

"All the fishing-boats that could be got on the coast of Moray had been

brought to Findhorn; the difficulty was, to cross the frith of Moray

unperceived by the English ships that were continually cruizing there:

if the design was suspected, it could not succeed. Two or three

North-country gentlemen, that were employed in this affair, had

conducted it with great secrecy and expedition. All was ready at

Findhorn when the orders came from Inverness to make the attempt, and

the enemy had no suspicion. Moir of Stoneywood set out with this little

fleet in the beginning of the night, got safe across the frith of Moray,

and arrived in the morning at Tain, where the Duke of Perth, whom the

Prince had sent to command this expedition, was ready. The men were

embarked with great despatch, and by means of a thick fog, which

happened very opportunely, got over to Sutherland without being

perceived. The Duke of Perth marched directly to the enemies' quarters,

and, after some disappointments, owing to his being the dupe of his good

nature and politeness, succeeded in dispersing Lord Loudon's army: and

this era, in the opinion of Mr. Maxwell, is the finest part of the

Prince's expedition." Henceforth, all was dismay and disaster.

The affairs of Charles Edward had now begun visibly to decline, for

money, the sinews of the war, was not to be had; and the military chest,

plundered, as it has been stated, by villains who robbed the Prince by

false musters, was exhausted. The hopes of the Chevalier were in the

lowest state, when the intelligence reached Inverness that the Duke of

Cumberland was advancing from Aberdeen to attack his forces. Upon

receiving these tidings, the Prince sent messengers far and wide to call

in his scattered troops, expecting that he should be strong enough to

venture a battle.

The Duke of Perth, who at that time commanded all the troops that were

to the eastward of Inverness, was planted near the river Spey. When the

enemy approached, he retired to Elgin. On the same day, the twelfth of

April 1746, the Duke of Cumberland passed the Spey, and encamped within

three or four miles of Elgin.

This retreat of the Duke of Perth has been severely condemned. It

appears, however, that he, and Lord John Drummond who was with him,

could not muster two thousand five hundred men. The river, which was

very low, was fordable in many places; so much so, that the enemy might

march a battalion in front. The Duke had no artillery, whilst the enemy

had a very good train. There was no possibility of sending

reinforcements from Inverness; above all, says Mr. Maxwell, "nothing was

to be risked that might dishearten the common soldiers on the eve of a

general and decisive action."

But the same candid and experienced soldier acknowledges that the Duke

of Perth remained too long at Nairn, whither he retired, and where the

Duke of Cumberland advanced within a mile of the town, and followed the

retiring army of Perth for a mile or two, though to no purpose, the

foot-soldiers being protected by Fitzjames's Horse. The delay at Nairn

has, it is true, been excused, on the grounds of a command from Prince

Charles to the Duke of Perth and his brother not to retire too hastily

before Cumberland, but to keep as near to him as was consistent with

their safety. This message "put them on their mettle, and well-nigh

occasioned their destruction." The Duke of Perth continued to retreat,

until he halted somewhat short of Culloden, where the Prince arrived

that evening, and took up his quarters at Culloden House.[256]

The following day was the fifteenth of April, the anniversary of that on

which the Duke of Cumberland, the disgrace of his family, the

hard-hearted conqueror of a brave and humane foe, first saw the light.

It was expected that he would choose his birth-day for the combat, but

the fatal engagement of Culloden was deferred until the following

morning.

The battle of Culloden was prefaced by a general sentiment of despair

among those who shared its perils.

"This," says Mr. Maxwell,[257] referring to the morning of the

engagement, "was the first time the Prince, ever thought his affairs

desperate. He saw his little army much reduced, and half-dead with

hunger and fatigue, and found himself under a necessity of fighting in

that miserable condition, for he would not think of a retreat; which he

had never yielded to but with the greatest reluctance, and which, on

this occasion, he imagined would disperse the few men he had, and put an

inglorious end to his expedition. He resolved to wait for the enemy, be

the event what it would; and he did not wait long, for he had been but a

few hours at Culloden, when his scouts brought him word that the enemy

was within two miles, advancing towards the moor, where the Prince had

drawn up his army the day before. The men were scattered among the woods

of Culloden, the greatest part fast asleep. As soon as the alarm was

given, the officers ran about on all sides to rouse them, if I may use

the expression, among the bushes; and some went to Inverness, to bring

back such of the men as hunger had driven there. Notwithstanding the

pains taken by the officers to assemble the men, there were several

hundreds absent from the battle, though within a mile of it: some were

quite exhausted, and not able to crawl; and others asleep in coverts

that had not been beat up. However, in less time than one could have

imagined, the best part of the army was assembled, and formed on the

moor, where it had been drawn up the day before. Every corps knew its

post, and went straight without waiting for fresh orders; the order of

battle was as follows: the army was drawn up in two lines; the first was

composed of the Atholl brigade, which had the right; the Camerons,

Stuarts of Appin, Frazers, Macintoshes, Farquharsons, Chisholms, Perths,

Roy Stuart's regiment, and the Macdonalds, who had the left."

The Highlanders, though faint with fatigue and want of sleep, forgot all

their hardships at the approach of an enemy; and, as a shout was sent up

from the Duke of Cumberland's army, they returned it with the spirit of

a valiant and undaunted people.

The order of battle was as follows: the right wing was commanded by Lord

George Murray, and the left by the Duke of Perth; the centre of the

first line by Lord John Drummond, and the centre of the second by

Brigadier Stapleton. There were five cannon on the right, and four on

the left of the army.[258]

The Duke of Perth had therefore, from his important command, the

privilege of spending the short period of existence, which, as the event

proved, Providence allotted to him, in the service of a Prince whom he

loved; whilst he had the good fortune to escape that responsibility

which fell to the lot of his rival, Lord George Murray. The influence

which that nobleman had acquired over the council of war had enabled him

far to eclipse the Duke of Perth in importance; but it was the fate of

Lord George Murray to pay a heavy penalty for that distinction.

But not only did the amiable and high-minded Duke of Perth calmly

surrender to one, who was esteemed a better leader than himself, the

post of honour; but he endeavoured to reconcile to the indignity put

upon them the fierce spirit of the Macdonalds, who were obliged to cede

their accustomed place on the right to the Atholl men. "If," said the

Duke, "you fight with your usual bravery, you will make the left wing a

right wing; in which case I shall ever afterwards assume the honourable

surname of Macdonald."[259] The Duke's standard was borne, on this

occasion, by the Laird of Comrie, whose descendant still shows the

claymore which his ancestors brandished; whilst the Duke exclaimed

aloud, "Claymore!"[260] Happy would it have been for Charles, had a

similar spirit purified the motives of all those on whom he was fated to

depend!

The battle was soon ended! Half-an-hour of slaughter and despair

terminated the final struggle of the Stuarts for the throne of Britain!

During that fearful though brief[261] space, one thousand of the

Jacobites were killed; no quarter being given on either side. Exhausted

by fatigue and want of food, the brave Highlanders fell thick as autumn

leaves upon the blood-stained moor, near Culloden House. About two

hundred only on the King's side perished in the encounter. During the

whole battle, taking into account the previous cannonading, the

Jacobites lost, as the prisoners afterwards stated, four thousand men.

But it was not until after the fury of the fight ceased, that the true

horrors of war really began. These may be said to consist, not in the

ardour of a strife in which the passions, madly engaged, have no check,

nor stay; but in the cold, vindictive, brutal, and remorseless

after-deeds, which stamp for ever the miseries of a conflict upon the

broken hearts of the survivors.

"Exceeding few," says Mr. Maxwell, "were made prisoners in the field of

battle, which was such a scene of horror and inhumanity as is rarely to

be met with among civilized nations. Every circumstance concurs to

heighten the enormity of the cruelties exercised on this occasion; the

shortness of the action, the cheapness of the victory, and, above all,

the moderation the Prince had shown during his prosperity,--the

leniency, and even tenderness, with which he had always treated his

enemies. But that which was done on the field of Culloden was but a

prelude to a long series of massacres committed in cold blood, which I

shall have occasion to mention afterwards."[262]

The Chevalier, leaving that part of the field upon which bodies in

layers of three or four deep were lying, rode along the moor in the

direction of Fort Augustus, where he passed the river of Nairn. He

halted, and held a conference with Sir Thomas Sheridan, Sullivan, and

Hay; and, having taken his resolution, he sent young Sullivan to the

gentlemen who had followed him, and who were now pretty numerous.

Sheridan at first pretended to conduct them to the place where the

Prince was to re-assemble his army; but, having ridden half a mile

towards Ruthven, he there stopped, and dismissed them all in the

Prince's name, telling them it was the Prince's "pleasure that they

should shift for themselves."

This abrupt and impolitic, not to say ungracious and unsoldier-like

proceeding, has been justified by the necessity of the moment. There

were no magazines in the Highlands, in which an unusual scarcity

prevailed. The Lowlanders, more especially, must have starved in a

country that had not the means of supporting its own inhabitants, and of

which they knew neither the roads nor the language. It is, however, but

too probable, that various suspicions, which were afterwards dispelled,

of the fidelity of the Scots, induced Charles to throw himself into the

hands of his Irish attendants at this critical juncture.[263]

The Duke of Perth, with his brother Lord John Drummond, and Lord George

Murray, with the Atholl men, and almost all the Low-country men who had

been in the Jacobite army, retired to Ruthven, where they remained a

short time with two or three thousand men, but without a day's

subsistence. The leaders of this band finding it impossible to keep the

men together, and receiving no orders from the Prince, came to a

resolution of separating. They took a melancholy farewell of each other,

brothers and companions in arms, and many of them united by ties of

relationship. The chieftains dispersed to seek places of shelter, to

escape the pursuit of Cumberland's "bloodhounds:" the men went to their

homes.

Such is the statement of Maxwell of Kirkconnel, relative to the Duke of

Perth: according to another account, the course which the Duke pursued

was the following:--

He is said to have been wounded in the back and hands in the battle, and

to have fled with great precipitancy from the field of battle. He

obtained, it is supposed, that shelter which, even under the most

dangerous and disastrous circumstances, was rarely refused to the poor

Jacobites. The exact spot of his retreat has never been ascertained; yet

persons living have been heard to say, that in the houses of their

grandfathers or ancestors, the Duke of Perth took refuge, until the

vigilance of pursuit had abated. The obscurity into which this and other

subjects connected with 1745 have fallen, may be accounted for by the

apathy which, at the beginning of the present century existed concerning

all subjects connected with the ill-starred enterprise of the Stuarts;

and the loss of much interesting information, which the curiosity of

modern times would endeavour in vain to resuscitate, has been the

result.

Tradition, however, often a sure guide, and seldom, at all events,

wholly erroneous, has preserved some trace of the unfortunate wanderer's

adventures after all was at an end. As it might be expected, and as

common report in the neighbourhood of Drummond Castle states, the Duke

returned to the protection of his own people. To them, and to his

stately home, he was fondly attached, notwithstanding his foreign

education. On first going from Perth to join the insurrection, as he

lost sight of his Castle, he turned round, and as if anticipating all

the consequences of that step, exclaimed, 'O! my bonny Drummond Castle,

and my bonny lands!'

The personal appearance of the Duke was well known over all the country,

for he was universally beloved, and was in the practice of riding at the

head of his tenantry and friends, called in that neighbourhood 'his

guards,' to Michaelmas Market at Crieff, the greatest fair in those

parts; where thousands assembled to buy and sell cattle and horses. He

was therefore afterwards easily recognised, although in disguise.

"Sometime after the battle of Culloden," as the same authority

relates,[264] "the Duke returned to Drummond Castle, where his mother

usually resided; and lived there very privately, skulking about the

woods and in disguise; he was repeatedly seen in a female dress,

barefooted, and bare-headed. Once a party came to search the castle

unexpectedly; he instantly got into a wall press or closet, or recess of

some sort, where a woman shut him in, and standing before it, remained

motionless till they left that room, to carry on the search, when he got

out at a window and gained the retreats in the woods. After he had

withdrawn from Scotland, and settled in the north of England, he

occasionally visited Strathearn."

In one of these visits he called, disguised as an old travelling

soldier, at Drummond Castle, and desired the housekeeper to show him the

rooms of the mansion. She was humming the song of "the Duke of Perth's

Lament," and having learnt the name of the song he desired her to sing

it no more. When he got into his own apartment he cried out, "This is

the Duke's own room;" when, lifting his arm to lay hold of one of the

pictures, she observed he was in tears, and perceived better dress under

his disguise, which convinced her he was the Duke himself.[265]

For some time the Duke continued these wanderings, stopping now and then

to gaze upon his Castle, the sight of which affected him to tears. "It

was now," says the writer of the case of Thomas Drummond, "that for

obvious reasons, to elude discovery, the report of his death on

shipboard or otherwise, would be propagated by his friends and

encouraged by himself." It is stated upon the same evidence, that

instead of sailing to France, as it has been generally believed, the

Duke fled to England; that he was conveyed on board a ship and landed at

South Shields, a few miles only distant from Biddick, a small

sequestered village, chiefly inhabited at that time by banditti, who set

all authority at defiance. Biddick is situated near the river Wear, a

few miles from Sunderland; it was, at that time, both from situation and

from the character of its inhabitants, a likely place for one flying

from the power of the law to find a shelter; it was, indeed, a common

retreat for the unfortunate and the criminal. That the Duke of Perth

actually took refuge there for some time, is an assertion which has

gained credence from the following reasons:--

In the first place: "In the History, Directory, and Gazette of the

counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the town and counties of

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by William Parson and William White, two volumes,

1827-28, the following passage occurs relating to Biddick, in the parish

of Houghton-le-Spring:--

"It was here that the unfortunate James Drummond, commonly called Duke

of Perth, took sanctuary after the rebellion of 1745-6, under the

protection of Nicholas Lambton, Esq., of South Biddick, where he died,

and was buried at Pain-Shaw."

In the case of Thomas Drummond, (on whom I shall hereafter make some

comments,) letters stated to be from Lord John Drummond are referred

to, and quoted in part. These are said to have been addressed by Lord

John Drummond from Boulogne, to the Duke at Houghton-le-Spring. The

passage quoted runs thus: "I think you had better come to France, and

you would be out of danger; as I find you are living in obscurity at

Houghton-le-Spring. I doubt that it is a dangerous place; you say it is

reported that you died on your passage. I hope and trust you will still

live in obscurity." These expressions, which it must be owned have very

much the air of being coined for the purpose, would certainly, were the

supposed letters authenticated, establish the fact of the Duke's retreat

to Houghton-le-Spring.

Upon the doubtful nature of the intelligence, which was alone gleaned by

the friends and relatives of the Duke of Perth, a superstructure of

romance, as it certainly appears to be, was reared. The Duke was never,

as it was believed, married; and in 1784 the estates were restored to

his kinsman, the Honourable John Drummond, who was created Baron Perth,

and who died in 1800, leaving the estates, with the honour of

chieftainship, to his daughter Clementina Sarah, now Lady Willoughby

D'Eresby.

In 1831, a claimant to the honours and estates appeared in Thomas

Drummond, who declared himself to be the grandson of James Duke of

Perth; according to his account, the Duke of Perth on reaching Biddick,

took up his abode with a man named John Armstrong, a collier or pitman.

The occupation of this man was, it was stated, an inducement for this

choice on the part of the Duke, as in case of pursuit, the abyss at a

coal-pit might afford a secure retreat; since no one would dare to

enter a coal-pit without the permission of the owners.

The Duke, it is stated in the case of Thomas Drummond, commenced soon

after his arrival at Biddick, the employment of a shoemaker, in order to

lull suspicion; he lost money by his endeavours, and soon relinquished

his new trade. He is said to have become, in the course of time, much

attached to the daughter of his host, John Armstrong, and to have

married her at the parish church of Houghton-le-Spring, in 1749. He

resided with his wife's family until his first child was born, when he

removed to the boat-house, a dwelling with the use and privilege of a

ferry-boat attached to it, and belonging to Nicholas Lambton, Esq. of

Biddick; who, knowing the rank and misfortunes of the Duke, bestowed it

on him from compassion. Here he lived, and with the aid of a small

huckster's shop on the premises, supported a family, which in process of

time, amounted to six or seven children; two of whom, Mrs. Atkinson and

Mrs. Peters, aged women, but still in full possession of their

intellect, have given their testimony to the identity of this shoemaker

and huckster to the Duke of Perth.[266]

The papers, letters, documents and writings, a favourite diamond ring,

and a ducal patent of nobility, were, however, "all lost in the great

flood of the river Wear in 1771;" and the Duke is said to have deeply

lamented this misfortune. It is not, however, very likely that he would

have carried his ducal patent with him in his flight; and had he

afterwards sent for it from Drummond Castle, some of his family must

have been apprised of his existence.

It is stated, however, but only on hearsay, that thirteen years after

the year 1745, the Duke visited his forfeited Castle of Drummond,

disguised as an old beggar, and dressed up in a light coloured wig. This

rumour rests chiefly upon the evidence of the Rev. Dr. Malcolm, LLD.,

who, in 1808, published a Genealogical Memoir of the ancient and noble

House of Drummond; and who declared, on being applied to by the family

of Thomas Drummond, that he had been told by Mrs. Sommers, the

daughter-in-law of Patrick Drummond, Esq., of Drummondernock, the

intimate friend of the Duke of Perth, that the Duke survived the events

of the battle of Culloden a long time, and years afterwards, visited his

estates, and was recognised by many of his "trusty tenants."[267] A

similar report was, at the same time, very prevalent at Strathearn; and

it has been positively affirmed, that a visit was received by Mr. Græme,

at Garnock, from the Duke of Perth, long after he was believed to be

dead. At this time, it is indeed wholly impossible to verify, or even

satisfactorily to refute such statements; but the existence of a report

in Scotland, that the Duke did not perish at sea, may be received as an

undoubted fact.[268] In 1831, when the case of Thomas Drummond was first

agitated, Mrs. Atkinson and Mrs. Elizabeth Peters, the supposed

daughters of James Duke of Perth, were both alive, and on their

evidence much of the stability of the case depended. The claimant,

Thomas Drummond, who is stated to have been the eldest son of James, son

of James Duke of Perth, was born in 1792, and was living in 1831 at

Houghton-le-Spring, in the occupation of a pitman. Much doubt is thrown

upon the whole of the case, which was not followed up, by the length of

time which elapsed before any claim was made on the part of this

supposed descendant of the Duke of Perth. The act for the restoration of

the forfeited estates was not passed, indeed, until two years after the

death (as it is stated) of the Duke of Perth, that is, in 1784; yet one

would suppose that he would have carefully instructed his son in the

proper manner to assert his rights in case of such an event. That son

lived to a mature age, married and died, yet made no effort to recover

what were said to be his just rights.[269]

Such is the statement of those who seek to establish the belief that the

Duke of Perth lived to a good old age, married, had children, and left

heirs to his title and estates. On the other hand, it is certain that

it was generally considered certain, at the time of the insurrection,

that the Duke died on his voyage to France; and it was even alluded to

by one of the counsel at the trials of Lord Kilmarnock and Lord

Balmerino in August 1746, when the name of the Duke of Perth being

mentioned, "who," said the Speaker, "I see by the papers, is dead." But

it _is_ certainly _remarkable_, that neither Maxwell of Kirkconnel, nor

Lord Elcho, the one in his narrative which has been printed, the other

in his manuscript memoir, mention the death of the Duke of Perth on the

voyage, which, as they both state, they shared with him. So important

and interesting a circumstance would not, one may suppose, have occurred

without their alluding to it. "All the gentlemen," Lord Elcho relates,

"who crossed to Nantes, proceeded to Paris after their

disembarkation;"[270] but he enters into no further particulars of their

destination. His silence, and that of Maxwell of Kirkconnel, regarding

the Duke of Perth's death, seems, if it really took place, to have been

inexplicable.

All doubt, but that the story of the unfortunate Duke's death was really

true, appears however to be set at rest by the epitaph which some

friendly or kindred hand has inscribed on a tomb in the chapel of the

English Nuns at Antwerp, commemorating the virtues and the fate of the

Duke, and of his brother Lord John Drummond. This monumental tribute

would hardly have been inscribed without some degree of certainty that

the remains of the Duke were indeed interred there.