The unfortunate nobleman who is the subject of this Memoir, could boast
of as long line of ancestors as most families in Europe. Among his
forefathers were men eminent for loyalty, and distinguished for bravery,
and of honour as untainted as their blood; but when William, fourth Earl
of Kilmarnock, succeeded to his title, there was little except this high
ancestry to elate him with pride, or to raise him above dependence upon
circumstances.
The Earl of Kilmarnock derived his title from a royal borough of the
same name, in the shire of Cunningham in Ayrshire; and, in former times
when the chieftainship was in repute in that part of Scotland, that
branch of the family of Boyd, or Boyde, from whom the Earl was
descended, claimed to be chiefs.
The greatness of the Boyd family commenced with Simon, the brother of
Walter, first High Steward of Scotland, and founder of the Monastery of
Paisley, in 1160. Robert, the son of Simon, is designated in the
foundation church of that monastery, as nephew of Walter, High Steward;
and is distinguished on account of his fair complexion, by the word
Boyt, or Boyd,[316] from the Celtic Boidh, signifying fair, or yellow.
"He was," says Nisbet, "doubtless, predecessor to the Lords Boyd, and
Earls of Kilmarnock."[317]
The family of Boyd continued to flourish until, in the fifteenth
century, it was ennobled by James the Third, who owed to one of its
members, Sir Alexander Boyd of Duncow, esteemed to be a mirror of
chivalry, an inculcation into the military exercises, which were deemed,
in those days, essential to the education of royalty. But the sunshine
of kingly favour was not enjoyed by the Boyds without some alloy. Robert
Boyd of Kilmarnock, who was raised to the peerage, under the title of
Lord Boyd, and whose eldest son was created Earl of Arran, experienced
various vicissitudes. He died in England, in exile; and his brother, Sir
Alexander, perished in 1469, on a scaffold, erected on the Castle Hill
of Edinburgh. The fortunes of the family were, however, restored in the
person of Thomas, Earl of Arran, who married the eldest sister of King
James the Third. The beautiful island of Arran was given as the dower of
this lady: and her husband, who is said in the Paston Letters to have
been a "light, clever, and well-spoken, fair archer; devoutest, most
perfect, and truest to his lady, of Knights," enjoyed a short gleam of
royal favour. His vicissitudes, however, befel him whilst on an embassy
in Denmark, his enemies undermined him at home: he was driven to wander
in foreign countries, and died at Antwerp, where a magnificent monument
was erected to his memory, by Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. His
title was attainted, but his property was restored to his son; and in
1655, the title of Earl of Kilmarnock was added to that of Lord Boyd,
which alone seems to have been retained by the family during the
intervening generations.
During the reign of Charles the First, his descendants were considered
to be steady Royalists; but, notwithstanding their claiming descent from
the Stuarts, the views and principles of the family in the troublous
period of the Revolution of 1688, underwent a total change. William, the
third Earl of Kilmarnock, and the father of the unhappy adherent of
Charles Edward, took the oaths of allegiance to the reigning family, and
supported the Treaty of Union; joining at first the party entitled the
_Squâdrone volante_; but eventually deserting them for the Whigs. When
the Insurrection of 1715 broke out, this nobleman plainly manifested
that the notions which had actuated his ancestor to join the association
at Cumberland in favour of Charles the First, were no longer deemed
valid by him. The superiority of the Burgh of Kilmarnock having been
granted in 1672 to his ancestors, the Earl summoned the inhabitants of
the Burgh to assemble, and to arm themselves in support of Government.
At the general meeting of the fencible corps at Cunningham, Lord
Kilmarnock appeared, followed by five hundred of his men, well armed,
and so admirably trained, that they made the best figure on that
occasion among the forces collected.[318] In compliance with orders
which he received from the Duke of Argyll, Lord Kilmarnock marched with
his volunteers to garrison the houses of Drummakil, Cardross, and
Gastartan, in order to prevent the rebels from crossing the Forth.
Unhappily for the fortunes of his family, the Earl died two years
afterwards: and in the year 1717, his son, then a boy of fourteen years
of age, succeeded to his title.
The mother of the young nobleman still survived: she was the Lady
Eupheme, daughter of William, eleventh Earl of Ross; and one child only,
the Earl of Kilmarnock, had been the issue of her marriage.
The youth, whose fate afterwards extorted pity from the most prejudiced
spectators of his fate, was educated in the principles of the Scottish
Church. These, as the chaplain who attended Lord Kilmarnock in the last
days of his existence observes, are far from "having the least tendency
to sedition," and a very different bias was apparent in the conduct of
the Presbyterian ministers during the whole course of the insurrections
of 1745. The young nobleman appears to have imbibed, with this
persuasion, a sincere conviction of those incontrovertible, and
all-important truths of Christianity which, happily, the contentions of
sect cannot nullify, nor the passions of mankind assail. "He always
believed," such is his own declaration, "in the great truths of God's
Being and Providence, and in a future state of rewards and punishments
for virtue and vice." He had never, he declared at that solemn moment
when nothing appeared to him of consequence save truth, "been involved
in the fashionable scepticism of the times." As he grew up, a character
more amiable than energetic, and dispositions more calculated to inspire
love than to insure respect, manifested themselves in the young
nobleman. He was singularly handsome, being tall and slender, and
possessing what was termed by an eyewitness of his trial, "an extreme
fine person;" he was mild, and well-bred, humble, and conscientious. It
is true, that in his hours of penitence he recalled, with anguish, "a
careless and dissolute life," by which, as he affirmed, he reduced
himself to great and perplexing difficulties; he repented for his "love
of vanity and addictedness to impurity and sensual pleasure," which had
"brought pollution and guilt upon his soul, and debased his reason, and,
for a time, suspended the exercise of his social affections, which were,
by nature, strong in him, and, in particular, the love of his country."
Such was his own account of that youth, which, deprived of the guidance
of a father, with high rank and great personal attractions to endanger
it, was passed, according to his own confession, in dissipation and
folly. It appears, nevertheless, that he was greatly respected by his
neighbours and tenantry, who were not, perhaps, disposed to judge very
severely the errors of a young and popular man.
When only eleven years of age, Lord Kilmarnock, then Lord Boyd, had
appeared in arms for Government with his father; on which occasion he
conducted himself so gracefully as to attract the admiration of all
beholders.[319] His early prepossessions, granting that they may have
accorded with those of his father, were, however, soon dissipated when
he allied himself with a family who had been conspicuous in the Jacobite
cause. This was the house of Livingstone, Earl of Linlithgow and
Calendar; George, the fourth Earl, having, in 1715, been engaged in the
insurrection under Lord Mar, had been attainted, and his estate of one
thousand two hundred and ninety-six pounds yearly forfeited to the
Crown. Nor has this forfeiture ever been reversed; and the present
representative of the family, Sir Thomas Livingstone, of Westquarter and
Bedlormie, remains, notwithstanding an appeal in 1784 before Lord
Kenyon, then Attorney-General, a commoner.[320]
Lady Anne Livingstone, who was the object of the young Lord Kilmarnock's
choice, is reported to have been a woman of great beauty, and, from her
exertions in her husband's behalf, appears to have possessed a fine,
determined spirit. Although her father's title was not restored, she had
sufficient interest, in 1721, to obtain from the English Government a
lease of the forfeited estates for fifty-nine years, at the rent of
eight hundred and seventy-two pounds, twelve shillings per annum.[321]
This was, no doubt, a source of considerable pecuniary benefit to her,
and also of assistance, very greatly required by Lord Kilmarnock, who
was in impoverished circumstances. Honours, indeed, centered in him, but
were productive of no real benefit. By the grandmother of his wife, the
Lady Margaret Hay, sole surviving daughter of Charles the twelfth Earl
of Errol, he had a claim to that Earldom, which, coupling with its
dignity that of the hereditary High Constable of Scotland, descended in
the female line, and after the death of a brother in infancy,
constituted the Lady Anne Livingstone a Countess of Errol in her own
right. Thus, Lord Kilmarnock had, to borrow Horace Walpole's expression,
"four earldoms in him," Kilmarnock, Errol, Linlithgow, and Calendar; and
yet he is said to have been so poor, as "often to have wanted a dinner."
But to this mode of expression we must not entirely trust for accuracy.
With the inheritance of the Earldoms of Errol, and of Linlithgow, and
Calendar, there came a stock of old Jacobite principles; Lord Linlithgow
had, indeed, suffered what was perhaps worse than death for his
adherence to James Stuart. The Earl of Errol, the grandfather of Lady
Kilmarnock, had led a more prudent course. Still he was a hearty
Jacobite, and though, as Lockhart declares, he did not at first make a
"great outward appearance," yet he was much trusted by the party; his
family had always been favourable to the Stuarts, and he was, also,
generally considered to cherish similar sentiments.[322] He had,
nevertheless, taken the oaths to Government in 1705; yet on the alarm of
an invasion in 1708, he was deemed so dangerous a person that he was
sent as a prisoner to Edinburgh Castle, where he died.
The love suit of Lord Kilmarnock was not likely, under his impoverished
circumstances, to prosper uninterruptedly. When he succeeded to his
estate he had found it much encumbered, and a considerable portion of
the old inheritance alienated. Lord Kilmarnock's disposition was not
formed for economy; he was generous even to profusion, and, as we have
seen had not escaped the temptations incident to his age. His addresses
to the Lady Anne Livingstone are said to have been prompted by his
necessities; her fortune was deemed considerable; and her family, well
knowing the state of the Earl's affairs, regarded his proposals of
marriage unfavourably. But the young nobleman during the course of his
courtship, and in opposing these objections, formed an interest in the
heart of the young lady. He was, indeed, a man born to charm the
imagination of the romantic, if not at that period of his youth, to
rivet affection by esteem. In his boyhood, although he made some degree
of progress in classical attainments, and even in philosophy and
mathematics, thus proving that natural ability was not wanting, he was
far more successful in attaining mere accomplishments, which add a
powerful charm to comeliness and symmetry than in mastering more solid
studies. He became an adept in fencing, in riding, in drawing, and also
in music; and acquired the distinctive and comprehensive designation, of
being "a polite gentleman."[323]
Disgusted with the cold discussions on settlements and rent rolls, and
disregarding maternal cautions, Lady Anne soon followed the dictates of
her own heart. She married the young and handsome nobleman without her
mother's consent, and a tardy sanction to the union was wrung from Lady
Livingstone only when it was too late to withhold her approval.
The marriage was not, it was said by those who were disposed to
scandalize the Earl of Kilmarnock, productive of happiness. The young
Countess was possessed, indeed, of beauty, wit, and good sense: but her
husband, if we may accredit the memoirs of his life, gave her much cause
to complain of his conduct. They lived, however, as the same doubtful
authority states, "if not happily, at least civilly together." Such is
the statement of a contemporary writer; it must, however, be adopted
with just as much allowance as we give to similar reports raised by
party writers in the present day: and it will be shown[324] not to
accord with the dying declarations of Lord Kilmarnock. "I leave behind,"
he wrote to his agent, "in Lady Kilmarnock, what is dearest to me."[325]
Subsequently to his marriage, Lord Kilmarnock's necessities and the
additional burden of a family induced him to apply to the English
Government for a pension, founded, as it is probable, on his father's
services to Government in 1715. But this statement, and the conditions
upon which the bounty was given are left in obscurity. "Whether," says
the anonymous biographer of Lord Kilmarnock, "my Lord Kilmarnock's
pension was a ministerial bribe, or a royal bounty, is a question I
cannot determine with any certainty; but I have reason to suspect the
former, since few pensions, granted by a certain administration, that of
Sir Robert Walpole, deserved the latter." The same writer truly
observes, that little or no dependance is to be placed on that loyalty
which wants the support of bribes and pensions. "The practice," he adds,
"is too general, and a defection of this kind of men may be fatal to
the state."[326] The pension, as it appears from Horace Walpole's
letters, was taken from Lord Kilmarnock by Lord Wilmington. "Lord
Kilmarnock," he writes to Sir Horace Mann, "is a Presbyterian, with four
earldoms in view, but so poor since Lord Wilmington's stopping a pension
that my father had given him, that he often wanted a dinner."[327]
In the last days of his existence the Earl, indeed, acknowledged that
the state of his affairs was, in part, the reason of his defection from
Government. He attributed it, (though, it must be stated, under the
pressing arguments of a minister of religion who considered what he
termed "rebellion" as the most heinous sin,) to the great and pressing
difficulties into which he had brought himself, by extravagance and
dissipation: and declared, according to the account of his spiritual
guide, that the "exigency of his affairs was very pressing at the time
of the rebellion; and that, besides the general hope he had of mending
his fortune by the success of it, he was also tempted by another
prospect, of retrieving his circumstances if he followed the Pretender's
standard."[328]
Until the commencement of the insurrection of 1745, Lord Kilmarnock
enjoyed the possession of Dean Castle, a very ancient edifice, situated
about half a mile north east of the town of Kilmarnock, in Ayrshire. "It
is," says Grose in his Antiquities of Scotland, "at a small distance
from the main road leading from Kilmarnock to Stewarton, and consists of
a large vaulted square tower, which seems to have been built about the
beginning of the fifteenth century: this is surrounded by a court and
other buildings more modern."[329] Such is the description of Dean
Castle before the year 1735; when, to add to Lord Kilmarnock's other
necessities, it was partially destroyed by fire, leaving only a ruin
which he was too much impoverished even to restore to its former
habitable state. In the "great square tower," referred to by Grose, and
of which a view is preserved in his work on Scotland, the Boyd family
had dwelt in the days of their greatness, when one of their race was
created Earl of Arran. In that tower had the Earl imprisoned his royal
wife, the Lady Margaret, sister of James the Third, who was divorced
from him, pleading, as some say, a prior contract with the Lord
Hamilton, to whom she was afterwards united, taking to him the Isle of
Arran as her dower.
It does not appear that the Earl of Kilmarnock was originally in the
confidence of the Jacobite party: and their designs were not only
matured, but far in full operation before he took an open or active part
in the Stuart cause. It happened, however, that when Charles Edward
resided at Holyrood, the Countess of Kilmarnock was living in Edinburgh.
Her beauty, and the gaiety of her manners, attracted the admiration of
the young Prince, who bestowed no small portion of attention on the
fascinating daughter of one of his father's adherents. Lady Kilmarnock
was as much attached to pleasure as the young and beautiful usually are:
she delighted in public diversions, and led the way to all parties of
amusement. Her ambition, no less than her early prepossessions
conspired, it is said, to make her a Jacobite; and she hoped, by the
favour of Charles Edward, to obtain the restoration of her father's
title. Her entreaties to the Earl of Kilmarnock to join the standard of
the Prince were stimulated, therefore, by a double motive; and, indeed,
to a generous and romantic mind, there required neither the inducements
of ambition, nor of gratified vanity, to espouse that part which seemed
most natural to the Scotch. After the battle of Preston Pans, Lady
Kilmarnock's persuasions took effect: her husband presented himself to
the young Chevalier, who received him with every mark of esteem and
distinction, declared him a member of the privy council, raised him to
the rank of a general, and appointed him colonel of his guards.[330]
Another occurrence is, however, stated to have had a considerable
influence in forming the Earl's decision.
During the course of the conflict, he met, at Linlithgow, that
incomparable man, and excellent officer, Colonel Gardiner. This
individual, whose character forms so fine a relief to the party-spirited
and debased condition of the British army in the time of George the
Second, was a native of Linlithgowshire, having been born at Carriden,
in the year of the Revolution, 1688. His life commencing in that
important era, had been one of events. He had first entered the Dutch
service; then had served in Marlborough's army at Ramilies. Until this
incident of his life, the young soldier, then only nineteen, had run a
course of dissolute pleasure, and had obtained, from the frankness and
gaiety of his disposition, the name of the _happy rake_. Being in the
Forlorn hope, he was wounded, and left in a state hovering between life
and death, on the field, and in state of partial insensibility, from
which he was aroused at times to perfect consciousness.
The ball which had struck Gardiner, had entered his mouth; and without
breaking a single tooth, or touching the forepart of his tongue, had
passed through his neck, coming out above an inch and a half on the left
side of the vertebræ. He was abandoned by Marlborough's troops, who,
according to their custom, left the wounded to their fate, while they
pursued their advantages against the French.
In this state, the first serious emotions of gratitude, the first
convictions of a peculiar Providence suggested themselves to the mind of
the young officer: and although they did not, for some years, produce an
absolute amendment of life, they laid the foundation of his future
conversion, and of that exemplary piety and purity which extorted
admiration even in a dissolute age. After being present at every battle
that Marlborough had fought in Flanders, Colonel Gardiner had signalized
his courage in the Insurrection of 1715; and in 1745 he was again
ordered to the north to meet the Jacobite forces near Edinburgh.[331]
It was during this, his last campaign, when broken by ill health and
premature age, for this brave and good man despaired of the restoration
of peace to his country, that he supped in company with Lord Kilmarnock,
at Linlithgow. Colonel Gardiner's prognostications had long been most
gloomy. "I have heard him say," declared Dr. Doddridge, "many years
before the Scottish Insurrection, that a few thousands might have a
fair chance for marching from Edinburgh to London, uncontrolled, and
throw the whole kingdom into an astonishment." This opinion was derived
from his knowledge of the defenceless state of the country, and the
general prevailing disaffection. And the pious, but somewhat distrustful
views of Gardiner led him to assign yet more solemn reasons for his
anticipations of evil. "For my own part, though I fear nothing for
myself, my apprehensions for the public are very gloomy, considering the
deplorable prevalency of almost all kinds of wickedness among us; the
natural consequences of the contempt of the Gospel. I am daily offering
up my prayers to God for this sinful land of ours, over which His
judgments seem to be gathering; and my strength is sometimes so
exhausted with those strong cries and tears, which I pour out before God
upon this occasion, that I am hardly able to stand when I arise from my
knees."[332]
Imbued with these convictions, Colonel Gardiner, when he was retreating
at Linlithgow with the troops under his command, spoke unguardedly to
Lord Kilmarnock of the prospects of the English army, and thus confirmed
the wavering inclination of that ill-fated nobleman to follow Charles
Edward.[333] The decisive step was not, it appears, taken until after
the battle of Preston Pans, in which Colonel Gardiner, who had a
mournful presentiment of the event of that engagement, fell, after a
deportment truly worthy of the British soldier, and of the Christian.
This brave officer, after having received two wounds, fought on, his
feeble frame animated by the almost supernatural force of strong
determination. As he headed a party of foot who had lost their leader,
and cried out, "Fire on, my lads, fear nothing;" his right-arm was cut
down by a Highlander who advanced with a scythe, fastened to a pole. He
was dragged from his horse; and the work of butchery was completed by
another Highlander, who struck him on the head with a broadsword:
Gardiner had only power to say to his servant, "Take care of yourself."
The faithful creature hastened to an adjoining mill for a cart to convey
his master to a place of safety. It was not until two hours had elapsed,
that he was able to return. The mangled body, all stripped and
plundered, was, even then, still breathing; and the agony of that
gallant spirit was protracted until the next day, when he expired in the
house of the minister of Tranent.
This digression, introducing as it does, one of the _real_ heroes of
this mournful period, may be pardoned.
According to the evidence on his trial, Lord Kilmarnock first joined the
standard of Charles Edward on the "banks of the river which divides
England from Scotland;"[334] but Maxwell of Kirkconnel mentions that the
Earl marched from Edinburgh on the thirty-first of October, 1745, at the
head of a little squadron of horse grenadiers, with whom were some
Perthshire gentlemen, who, in the absence of their own commander, were
placed under the conduct of Lord Kilmarnock.[335] After this decisive
step, Lord Kilmarnock continued to follow Charles during the whole of
that ill-fated campaign, which ended in the battle of Culloden. During
the various events of that disastrous undertaking, his character, like
that of many other commanders in the Chevalier's army, suffered from
imputations of cruelty. That this vice was not accordant with his
general disposition of mind, the minister who attended him on his
death-bed sufficiently attests. "For myself," declares Mr. Foster, "I
must do this unhappy criminal the justice to own, that he _never_
appeared, during the course of my attendance upon him, to be of any
other than a soft, benevolent disposition. His behaviour was always mild
and temperate. I could discern no resentment, no disturbance or
agitation in him."[336] So gentle a character is not the growth of a
day; and if ever Lord Kilmarnock were betrayed into actions of violence,
it must have been under circumstances of a peculiar nature.
Among other charges which were specified against him, was a
participation in the blowing up of the church of St. Ninian's, in the
retreat from Stirling. But when, in the retirement of his prison
chamber, the unfortunate nobleman reviewed his conduct, and confessed
the errors of his life, he fully and satisfactorily cleared himself from
the heinous imputation implied in this work of destruction. When the
army of Charles were retiring from Stirling he was confined to his bed
ill of a fever. The first intimation that he had of the blowing up of
the tower of St. Ninian's was the noise, of which he never could obtain
a clear account. By the insurgents it was represented as accidental:
"this can I certainly say, as to myself, that I had no knowledge before
hand, nor any concurrence in a designed act of cruelty." Such was Lord
Kilmarnock's declaration to Mr. Foster.
Another instance of barbarity also laid to the charge of the Earl was,
his alleged treatment of certain prisoners of war who were intrusted to
his care in the church of Inverness. He was accused of stripping these
unfortunate persons of their clothes. Upon this point he admitted that
an order to deprive the prisoners of their garments for the use of the
Highlanders was issued by Charles Edward: that the warrant for executing
this order was sent to him. He did not, as he declared, enter the church
in person, but committed the office of execution to an inferior officer.
The prisoners, as might be expected, refused to submit to this
indignity; upon which a second order was issued, and their clothes were
taken from them. The well-timed remonstrance of Boyer, Marquis
D'Eguilles, who had been sent by the court of France in the character of
Ambassador to Charles Edward, arrested, however, the act of cruelty,
which not even extreme necessity can excuse. This nobleman had arrived
some time previously at Montrose, bringing in the ship in which he
sailed, arms and a small sum of money,[337] and his influence, which was
exerted in behalf of the captives, was happily considerable. He
represented to the Earl of Kilmarnock, that the rules of war did not
authorise the outrage which was contemplated. Lord Kilmarnock, convinced
by his remarks, repaired to Charles Edward, leaving heaps of the clothes
lying in the streets of Inverness, with sentinels standing to guard
them. By the arguments which he addressed to the Prince, these garments
were restored to their unfortunate owners; and a great stain on the
memory both of Charles and of his adherent was thus partially effaced.
Of such a nature were those imputations which were charged upon Lord
Kilmarnock; but they appear to have met with only a transient credence;
whilst a general impression of his gentleness, and a prevailing regret
for his fate endured as long as the memory of the dire contest, and of
its tragical termination, dwelt in the recollection of those who
witnessed those mournful times.
After the battle of Culloden, the prisoners were immediately set free.
The Duke of Cumberland, as he entered Inverness, taking his road amid
the carcasses of the dead strewed in the way, called for the keys of the
prisons, and with his own hands released the captives there, and,
clapping them on the shoulders as they came down stairs, exclaimed,
"brother soldiers, you are free."[338] Unfortunately his compassion was
of a party nature, and was only aroused for his own adherents.
At Culloden, fatal to so many brave men, Lord Kilmarnock was spared only
to taste much more deeply of the pangs of death than if he had met it in
battle. His fate had, indeed, been anticipated by the superstitious; and
it was considered a rash instance of hardihood in the unfortunate
nobleman to resist an omen which, about a year before the rebellion had
broken out, is said to have happened in his house.
One day, as the maid who attended usually upon Lady Kilmarnock was
inspecting some linen in an upper room of Dean Castle, the door of the
apartment suddenly opened of its own accord, and the view of a bloody
head, resembling that of Lord Kilmarnock, was presented to the
affrighted woman. As she gazed in horror, the head rolled near her. She
endeavoured in vain to repel it with her foot. She became powerless, but
she was still able to scream; her shrieks brought Lord Kilmarnock and
his Countess to the chamber. The apparition had vanished; but she
related succinctly the story "which, at that time," says the historian
who repeats it,[339] "Lord Kilmarnock too much ridiculed, though it
could have been wished that he had been forewarned by the omen. Such was
the superstition of the times, in which ignorance and credulity found
such ready supporters."
At Culloden, this ill-fated nobleman occupied a post not far from the
Prince, in the rear of whom was a line of reserve, consisting of three
columns, the first of which, on the left, was commanded by Lord
Kilmarnock; the centre column by Lord Lewis Gordon and Glenbucket; and
the right by the justly-celebrated Roy Stewart. In the opposite ranks,
an ensign in the royal regiment, was his son, Lord Boyd. During the
confusion of the fight, when half-blinded by the smoke, the unhappy Lord
Kilmarnock, as if fated to fulfil the omen, mistook a party of English
Dragoons for FitzJames's Horse, and was accordingly taken prisoner. He
was led along the lines of the British infantry. The vaunted beauty of
his countenance, and the matchless graces of which so much has been
said, were now obliterated by the disorder of his person, and his
humiliating position. His hat had been lost in the conflict, and his
long hair fell about his face. The soldiers as he was led along stood in
mute compassion at this sight. Among those who thus looked upon this
unfortunate man was his son, Lord Boyd, who was constrained to witness,
without attempting to alleviate, the distress of that moment. When the
Earl passed the place where his son stood, the youth, unable to bear
that his father should be thus exposed bareheaded to the storm which
played upon the scene of carnage, stepped out of the ranks and taking
his own hat from his head, placed it on that of his father. It was the
work of an instant, and not a syllable escaped the lips of the agitated
young man.[340]
Lord Kilmarnock was carried from the moor, which already, to use the
words of an eyewitness among the Government troops, "was covered with
blood; the men, what with killing the enemy, dabbling their feet in the
blood, and splashing it about one another, looked like so many
butchers."[341] Never, did even their enemies declare, was a field of
battle bestrewn with a finer, perhaps with a nobler race. "Every body
allowed," writes one of Cumberland's officers, "that men of a larger
size, larger limbs, and better proportioned, could not be found." The
flower of their unhappy country; hundreds of these had not yet been
blessed with the repose of death, but were left to languish in agony
until the next day, when they were butchered by the orders of
Cumberland. One of them, John Alexander Fraser, in the Master of Lovat's
regiment, was rescued by Lord Boyd from destruction. A soldier had
struck him with the butt of his musket, intending, according to the
orders given, to beat out his brains. The poor wretch, his nose and
cheek-bone broken, and one of his eyes pierced, still breathed when this
young nobleman passed him. He observed the poor creature, and ordered
his servants to carry him to a neighbouring kiln, where, in time, his
wounds were cured. "He lived," observes Mr. Chambers, "many years
afterwards, a dismal memorial of the cruelties of Culloden."[342]
According to one account, Lord Kilmarnock owed his escape from the field
of battle with his life to the brave and generous Lord Ancrum, who
delivered him to the Duke of Cumberland; and the same narrative adds,
that the Duke issued orders that no one should mention the Earl's
imprisonment to his son, but considerately imparted the intelligence to
the young man himself. It is only fair to mention this redeeming trait
in a man who had so many awful, and almost inexpiable sins to answer for
at the last day, when not our professions of kindness, but our acts of
mercy or of wrong will be placed before a solemn and final account.
After his surrender at Culloden, the Earl of Kilmarnock was conveyed to
London. That metropolis, in some of its most attractive features, was
well known to him: he had frequently resided there for several months
during the year, and had associated with the friends of government who
were near the court. He was now to view it under a very different
aspect; and during the period which elapsed between his surrender and
his trial, he had ample time to weigh the respective value of that
society which had formerly so much delighted him, and in which, it is
said he "had affected to talk freely of religion;" and of those great
truths which were now his only source of support.
Whatever may have been his early errors, the remaining days of Lord
Kilmarnock were characterized by gentleness to those who were placed in
authority over him; forbearance to those who slandered him, and
submission to God. Unable to conquer a natural intense love of life, he
assumed no pretended intrepidity:[343] yet manifested a still greater
concern for his character, than for his fate. Society in general, as
well as the annalists of the times, mourned for him, and with him; and
many who beheld his doom, would have sacrificed much of their own
personal safety to avert the close of that tragic scene. But these were
not times when the generous might venture to interfere with
security.[344]
Two noblemen, differing greatly in character from Lord Kilmarnock,
shared his imprisonment: Arthur, sixth Earl of Balmerinoch, or, as it is
usually spelled Balmerino, (pronounced Balmérino), and George, Earl of
Cromartie.
Of these individuals, Lord Balmerino, although an uncultured soldier,
has excited by far the greatest interest. He was descended, like most
of his associates from an ancient family. It was of German origin,[345]
first known in Scotland in the reign of Robert Bruce, to whose sister, a
German Knight, sirnamed Elphingston, or Elphinstone, was married. Such
was the esteem in which Robert Bruce held his foreign brother-in-law,
that he gave him lands in Midlothian, which still bear the name of
Elphinstone.[346] Hence was he called Elphinstone of that Ilk--a mode of
expression employed in Scotland to prevent the repetition of the same
name. In process of time certain estates which a descendant of the
German Knight acquired at Arthbeg, in Stirlingshire, were also endowed
with that surname; and, during several centuries, the martial and hardy
race to whom those lands belonged continued in the same sphere, that of
private gentlemen, chiefs of the House of Elphinstone. They were
remarkable, in successive generations, for that bold and manly character
which eventually distinguished their ill-fated descendant, Arthur
Balmerino, and which, in time, extorted applause from the most
prejudiced politicians of the opposite party. Alexander Elphinstone, in
the reign of David the Second, might have emulated the supposed deeds of
Guy Earl of Warwick; he rivalled him in gigantic figure, in immense
strength, and knightly prowess. His disposition was not only martial,
but chivalric; for, conscious of extraordinary power, "he was more
able," says a writer of the last century, "to overlook an affront, than
men less capable of resenting it." His son, inferior in bodily strength,
equalled him in military exploits, which distinguished indeed a
succession of the Elphinstones of that Ilk.[347] At Flodden, John
Elphinstone, who was created a Lord of Parliament by James the Fourth,
was killed by the side of his royal master, and being not unlike to that
monarch in face and figure, his body was carried to Berwick by the
English, who mistook it for that of the King.[348] In the reign of James
the Sixth, James, the second son of the third Lord Elphinstone, was
created a Baron by the name and title of Lord Balmerino. He rose to high
honours in the State; but the first disgrace that befell the family
occurred in this reign. This was the marriage of John, the second Lord
Balmerino, to Jane Ker, sister of the infamous Ker, Earl of Somerset,
and favourite of James the Sixth, who, for his sake, denounced a curse
on his posterity, which seems, says the writer before quoted, "to have
followed them and the nation ever since."
Like most of the noble families in Scotland, the house of Balmerino
became impoverished during the civil wars; and when the father of Arthur
Elphinstone succeeded to his title, he found his estates wofully
diminished. He was, however, one of those men who were capable, by
ability and prudence, of redeeming the fortunes of his family.
Circumstances were, indeed, adverse to the prosperity of any whose
loyalty to the Stuarts was suspected. Lord Balmerino was prudent, but he
was sincere. He was "a man of excellent parts, improved by reading,
being, perhaps, one of the very best lawyers in the kingdom, and very
expert in the Scottish constitution; he reasoned much and pertinently in
Parliament, and testifying, on all occasions, an unshaken loyalty to his
Prince, and zealous affection to his country, he gained the esteem and
love of all good men."
Such was the father, of whom this noble character was drawn, to whom
Arthur, Lord Balmerino, owed his being. Such was the man whom it would
have been the wiser policy of the British Ministry to have conciliated,
on the accession of George the First, but whose son they drove into an
act of imprudence by their distrust and injustice.
The first wife of John, fourth Lord Balmerino, was the daughter of Hugh,
Earl of Eglintoun, and, consequently, she was connected with some of the
most strenuous supporters of the Stuart cause in the kingdom of
Scotland. By her he had two sons, Hugh, who was killed in 1708, at the
siege of Lisle, and James, who was educated to the profession of the
law. Upon the death of this lady, Lord Balmerino married Anne, daughter
of Ross, the last Archbishop of St. Andrews, and by her had two sons:
Arthur, who became eventually Lord Balmerino, and Alexander, who died in
1733, unmarried; and a daughter, Anne, who died also unmarried. The
subject of this memoir may, therefore, be deemed the last of the House
of Balmerino.[349]
Arthur Elphinstone was born in the year 1688. He had, until late in
life, no expectation of succeeding to the title of his father after the
death of Hugh, there being still an elder brother, James. The
characteristics of all this branch of the Elphinstone family appear
almost invariably to have been those of honour and justice, and James
resembled his father in the integrity of his principles. The following
character is drawn of him by a contemporary writer: "He was rather a
solid pleader than a refined orator; but he understood the law so well,
and preserved the chastity of his character so tenderly, by avoiding
being concerned in any scandalous actions, that he was listened to with
great attention by the bench, at a time when it was filled by the most
eminent lawyers that ever appeared in Scotland."
The abilities of this able and conscientious man soon raised him to the
bench, where he discharged his duties with that high and nice sense of
integrity which can only be described by the word honour. He never mixed
party-spirit with his judgments: he lent himself to no ministerial
purposes. The dignity of the judge was preserved in his manly and
courageous character: and such was his application to business, that his
court was thronged with practitioners when those of other judges were
nearly deserted.
Arthur, his younger brother, possessed not his application, but
displayed much, nevertheless, of the natural ability of his family. "He
was not much acquainted with books; and though he was rich in repartee,
yet he never affected to reason." Such is the remark of a contemporary
writer. Yet who might not envy the clear, undisturbed intellect which
showed him, in a moment of peculiar temptation, the value of plain
dealing, and the inestimable price of a good conscience?
Some members of a family seem fated to suffer for the others. Arthur
Elphinstone was educated in the principles which brought him to the
scaffold: they were those of his father and brother, who were both
fortunate enough to preserve them in their own breasts, and yet not to
encounter trouble on that account. And, during the reign of Queen Anne
the family appear to have been deemed so well affected, as to procure
them promotion, not only in civil but military service. When very young,
Arthur Elphinstone obtained the command of a company of foot in Lord
Shannon's regiment, on the accession of George the First. His real
opinions were, however, manifested by his resignation of his commission;
and by his joining the standard of Lord Mar, under whom he commanded a
company, and served in the battle of Sherriff Muir. By throwing up his
commission, he escaped being punished as a deserter, and was allowed to
retire to the Continent. According to some accounts, he went first to
Denmark; by others it is said, that he entered at once into the French
service. He remained, at all events, twenty years in exile from his
family; but in 1733, an event occurred, which greatly increased the
natural desire which his father, declining in strength, had long
cherished of again beholding his son. Alexander Elphinstone, the younger
brother of Arthur, died at Leith, two years before the Insurrection
broke out. This young man had had the misfortune in 1730, to fight a
duel, shortly after which his adversary, Lieutenant Swift, had died of
his wounds. The combat took place on the Links of Leith; the affair was
notorious, and Alexander had been threatened with a prosecution, which
was not, however, put into execution.
This painful circumstance, coupled with Alexander Elphinstone's death,
may have naturally added to the wish which Lord Balmerino entertained,
to rescue his exiled son from the sentence of outlawry under which he
stood, and to restore him again to his home. Probably the desire of
perpetuating honours which had been gained by legitimate exertions, may
have been contemplated by the aged nobleman when he revolved in his mind
how he could compass the safe return of his younger, and surviving son,
to Scotland. James, the heir to the title, great as was the lustre which
his abilities and integrity shed upon it, was not likely to perpetuate
more honours, having no children by his wife Elizabeth Carnegie,
daughter of David, fourth Earl of Northesk.
It is one of the innumerable instances of human short-sightedness, that
the very recall of Arthur Elphinstone to Scotland was the cause of the
extinction of family honours, and of that line in which they rested.
According to some accounts, he remained abroad until the general Act of
Indemnity, from which he was not excepted, took effect:[350] but by
others it is stated, that his father, having made a strong application
to Government, obtained a free pardon for his son. If such were the
case, there seems a degree of ingratitude in again joining the enemies
of Government, which one can scarcely reconcile with the generous
character of this brave man.
He was in Switzerland when he received a summons to return to his native
country. His conduct upon the arrival of this intelligence was honest
and candid towards him, to whom, according to his notions, he owed
allegiance. He wrote to the Chevalier (St. George) and laid open the
circumstances of the case before him; stating that he should not accept
the proffered pardon without his permission. James answered this
explanation with his own hand; and not only gave Arthur Elphinstone
permission to return to Scotland, but informed him that he had ordered
his banker at Paris to pay his travelling expenses. Thus authorized,
Arthur returned home, welcomed by his aged father with a satisfaction
which happily was not destined to be alloyed by any adverse
circumstances during the lifetime of the venerable nobleman.
Thus was this ill-fated man restored to that land which probably,
although long severed from its glens and mountains, he had not ceased to
love. He was now of middle age, being in his forty-fifth year; but his
disposition, in spite of his long residence among foreigners, was still
thoroughly Scotch. He was as undaunted by danger as any of his valiant
ancestors had been, consequently he had no need to have recourse to
guile; in short, falsehood would have been impossible to that frank
nature. He was blunt in speech, but endowed with the kindest heart that
ever throbbed in the dungeons of that grim fortress in which his manly
career was closed. He had not, however, the prudence which is
characteristic of his countrymen: and which, once well understood, is as
distinct from selfishness and craft as their martial vehemence has
generally been from cruelty. A service in foreign campaigns had not
lessened his ideas of honour; which were perhaps more truly cherished
among military men on the Continent, than at that period in England. Few
British troops, for example, ever proved themselves more worthy of the
name of soldiers than the Hessians who served in Scotland in 1745. To
the fine and soldierly attributes of Lord Balmerino, to an intrepidity
almost amounting to indifference, to a warm and generous heart, were
united that ready and careless humour which accord so well with the
loftier qualities of the mind, and certainly rather enhance, than
detract from the charm of graver attributes of character.
In appearance, Lord Balmerino was strongly contrasted with the
fellow-sufferer with whom his name is indelibly associated. "His
person," writes a contemporary, "was very plain, his shape clumsy, but
his make strong: and he had no marks of the polite gentleman about him.
He was illiterate in respect of his birth; but rather from a total want
of application to letters, than want of ability."[351] His manners are
said to have been natural, if not courtly; his countenance only inferior
in its ungainliness to that of Lovat, but, expressing, we may suppose, a
very different temper of mind, harsh as were its features, it
captivated, as well as that of the handsome Kilmarnock, female
regard.[352]
According to some statements, Lord Balmerino married in 1711, before the
first Insurrection;[353] but no distinct allusion to a connection of so
early a period is to be found in the authenticated narratives of his
life. It was not, it seems evident, until after his return from
Switzerland, that he married Margaret, daughter of Captain
Chalmers--"the pretty Peggy," who was at once his solace and his sorrow
when in the Tower of London. In 1736, the father, whom he had returned
to cheer in his decline, died at his house in Leith, and was buried at
the family seat at Restalrig in Leith. His son James, succeeded to the
title.[354]
When the intelligence arrived, that Charles Edward had landed in
Scotland, Arthur Elphinstone hastened to the standard of the Prince. On
the thirty-first of October, 1745, he marched from Edinburgh, on the
expedition to England, having the command of a troop of horse, not
complete, in number about forty.[355] His military talents were well
known, for he had distinguished himself in several campaigns in
Flanders.[356] But, as he took into the field only his menial servants,
no very important posts were entrusted to him; and his career appears
not to have been signalized by any remarkable military exploits. In
short, it may be truly said of him as of Dr. Donne by Izaak Walton, that
"nothing in his life became him like the leaving it."
After joining the insurgent army, Lord Balmerino engaged in all the
various movements of that enterprise. After the siege of Carlisle he
entered that city at the head of his troop, with pipes playing, and
colours flying, having been at twelve miles' distance when the town was
taken; he then proceeded in the fatal expedition to Derby, and returned
a second time to Carlisle, preceding in his march the main body of the
army towards Scotland. He was present at the battle of Falkirk, but did
not engage in it: some of the cavalry having been kept as a _corps de
reserve_ in that engagement. His participation in that day's victory
was, however, afterwards imputed to him as an act of rebellion, although
he was merely drawn up in a field near the field of battle, in company
with Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Pitsligo. The body which he commanded,
went by the name of Arthur Elphinstone's Life Guards.[357]
A few weeks before the battle of Culloden, the elder brother of Arthur
Elphinstone, James Lord Balmerino, died, leaving the title which he had
enjoyed for so short a period, to the brother, who was then engaged in
so perilous a course. This accession of honour brought with it little
increase of fortune, but rather the responsibility of succeeding to
encumbered estates. Of these most had, indeed, passed into other
families. To the first Lord Balmerino charters of numerous lands and
baronies had been given; Barntoun, Barrie, Balumby, Innerpeffer,
Balgregie, Balmerino, Dingwall, &c., were among his possessions. In
1605, the barony of Restalrig, in South Leith, was sold to Lord
Balmerino by the noted and profligate Robert Logan, Baron of Restalrig,
to whose family that now valuable property, including the grounds lying
near the river, had belonged, until the days of the Queen Regent, Mary.
This estate, on which Lord Balmerino's father resided, appears to have
been almost the only vestige of the former opulence of this branch of
the Elphinstone family.[358] His embarrassed circumstances are deemed by
some writers to have had a considerable share in deciding Lord Balmerino
to join in a contest in which he had so little to lose; but it appeared,
in the hour of trial, that his principles of allegiance to the Stuarts
had been unaltered since the days of his youth, and that they were alone
sufficient to account for the part which he adopted. At the battle of
Culloden Lord Balmerino was made prisoner by the Grants, to whom, as one
of the witnesses on his trial affirmed, he surrendered himself. He was
conveyed to Castle Grant, and from thence to London, to the same dreary
fortress in which Lord Kilmarnock was likewise immured. The fate of
these two unfortunate men, hitherto but little dependant on each other,
was henceforth associated, until the existence of both was closed on the
scaffold.
George, the third Earl of Cromartie, was the only one of their
fellow-prisoners who was arraigned and tried with Kilmarnock and
Balmerino. He had taken even a more decided part in the insurrection
than Balmerino, having raised four hundred of his clan, who were with
him in the battle of Falkirk. His son, the young Lord Macleod, was also
in the Jacobite army, and both father and son were surprised at
Dunrobin, by a party of the Earl of Sutherland's militia, on the
fifteenth of April, and taken prisoners. Lord Cromartie had, as well as
Lords Kilmarnock and Balmerino, strong ties to life, strong claims upon
his reason to have withheld him from a hazardous participation in a
cause of peril. He had been married more than twenty years to Isabel,
daughter of Sir William Gordon, and had by her a numerous family. For
this nobleman, a powerful interest was afterwards successfully exerted.
These three noblemen were brought to London early in June. They were
shortly afterwards followed by about eight hundred companions in
misfortune. Of these, who arrived in the Thames on the twenty-first of
June, about two hundred were left at Tilbury Fort; while six hundred
were deposited in the various prisons of the metropolis. From henceforth
scenes of distress, and even of horror, were daily presented to the
prisoners. The Marquis of Tullibardine expired soon after his arrival at
the Tower; Lord Macleod, with happier fate, rejoined his father; Mr.
Murray of Broughton, who was treated with a distinction, at that time,
unexplicable, was also lodged in the same fortress. Those who were led
to expect the severest measures, might envy the calm departure of the
good old Marquis of Tullibardine; but all hearts bled when the gallant
Colonel Townley, a Roman Catholic gentleman of distinction, was dragged
on a sledge, along with other prisoners, to Kennington, his arms
pinioned; insulted by a brutal multitude, and there hanged. The horrid
barbarities of this sentence being fulfilled on his body, which was
still breathing, the hangman preparing to take out the heart and bowels,
struck it several times on the chest, before life (and perhaps
consciousness) was wholly extinct.
Day after day, the awful tragedies were repeated, exceeding any similar
displays of power since the days of the Tudors. Each of these _martyrs_,
as the voice of their own party pronounced them, in their last moments
declared, that "they died in a just cause--that they did not repent of
what they had done--that they doubted not their deaths would be
avenged." When, after nine executions had taken place in one morning,
the heart of the last sufferer was thrown into the fire, a savage shout
from the infuriated multitude followed the words "God save King George!"
The unfortunate man who had just perished was a young gentleman, named
Dawson, a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge. He had for some
time been engaged to a young lady of good family, and great interest had
been made to procure his pardon. The lovers were sanguine in their
expectations, and the day of his release was to have been that of their
marriage.
When all hope was at an end, the young lady, not deterred by the
remonstrances of her kindred, resolved upon following Mr. Dawson to the
place of execution. Her intention was at length acceded to: she drove in
a hackney-coach after the sledges, accompanied by a relative, and by one
female friend. As the shout of brutal joy succeeded the silence of the
solemn scene, the words "My love,--I follow thee,--I follow thee!"
burst from the lips of the broken-hearted girl. She fell on the neck of
her companion, and, whilst she uttered these words, "Sweet
Jesus!--receive our souls together!" expired.[359] Recitals of these
domestic tragedies, proofs of the unrelenting spirit of government,
tended to break the firmness of some of those who survived.
Lord Cromartie sank into dejection; Kilmarnock's fine and gentle nature
was gradually purified for heaven. Balmerino rose to heroism.
The prisons were crowded with captives; the noblemen alone were
committed to the Tower; even two of the Scottish chiefs were sent to
Newgate; the officers were committed to the new gaol, Southwark; the
common men to the Marshalsea. Meantime, strong and prompt measures were
determined upon by Government.
Bills of indictment for high treason were found against Lord Kilmarnock,
the Earl of Cromartie, and the Lord Balmerino, by the grand jury of the
county of Surrey: a writ of certiorari was issued for removing the
indictments into the House of Peers, on the twenty-sixth of June, and
their trial was appointed to take place on the twenty-eighth of July
following. Westminster Hall was accordingly prepared for the trials, and
a high steward appointed in the person of the justly celebrated Lord
Hardwicke.
On the petition of Lord Kilmarnock, Mr. George Ross was engaged as his
solicitor, with permission to have free access to him at all times. On
the appointed day the trials commenced. Westminster Hall was fitted up
with unprecedented magnificence; and tickets were issued by the Lord
Chamberlain to the Peers, to give access to their friends. At eight
o'clock in the morning, the Judges in their robes, with the
Garter-King-at-Arms, the Usher of the Black Rod, and the
Serjeant-at-Arms waited on the Lord High Steward at his house in Ormond
Street: Garter in his coat of the king's arms, and Black Rod, having the
white staff attended them. After a short interval the procession to
Westminster Hall began: Lord Hardwicke, designated during the term of
the trial as "his Grace," came forth to his coach, his train borne, and
followed by the chief judges and judges. His coach was preceded by his
Grace's twenty gentlemen, uncovered, in five coaches two and two; by the
Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Black Rod. The heralds occupied the back seats
of his Grace's coach; the judges in their coaches followed. As the
procession entered the Palace-yard, the soldiers rested their muskets
and the drums beat, as to the Royal Family.
Meantime, the Peers in their robes were assembled; the Lord High Steward
having passed to the House, through the Painted Chamber, prayers were
read; and the peers were called over by Garter-King-at-Arms. The Lord
Steward, followed first by his four gentlemen attendants, two and two;
and afterwards by the clerks of the House of Lords, and the clerks of
the Crown; by the Peers, and the Peers' sons, proceeded to Westminster
Hall, the Lord Steward being alone uncovered, and his train borne by a
page.
Proclamation for silence having been made by the Lord Steward's
serjeant-at-arms, the commission was read, the lords standing up,
uncovered. Then his Grace, making obeisance to the lords, reseated
himself; and Garter, and the Black Rod, with their reverences, jointly
presented the white staff, on their knees, to his Grace. Thus fully
invested with his office, the Lord Steward took his staff in his hand
and descended from the woolsack to a chair prepared for him on an ascent
before the throne.
The three lords had been brought during this time from the Tower. The
Earl of Kilmarnock was conveyed in Lord Cornwallis's coach, attended by
General Williamson, Deputy Governor of the Tower; the Earl of Cromartie,
in General Williamson's coach, attended by Captain Marshal; and Lord
Balmerino in the third coach, attended by Mr. Fowler, Gentleman Gaoler,
who had the axe covered by his side. A strong body of soldiers escorted
these carriages.
The three lords being conducted into the Hall, proclamation was made by
the Serjeant-at-Arms that the Lieutenant of the Tower should bring his
prisoners to the bar, the proclamation being made in this form:--"Oyez,
oyez, oyez, Lieutenant of the Tower of London, bring forward your
prisoners, William Earl of Kilmarnock, George Earl of Cromartie, and
Arthur Lord Balmerino, together with the copies of their respective
commitments, pursuant to the order of the House of Lords."
Then the lords were led to the bar of the House by the
Lieutenant-Governor, the axe being carried before them with its edge
turned from them. The prisoners, when they approached the bar, made
three reverences, and fell upon their knees. Then said the Lord High
Steward your "lordships may arise;" upon which the three lords arose and
bowed to his Grace the High Steward, and to the House, which compliment
was returned by the Lord High Steward, and by the Peers.
Thus began the trial; "the greatest, and the most melancholy scene,"
wrote Horace Walpole to Sir Horace Mann, "that I ever saw. As it was the
most interesting sight, it was the most solemn and fine; a coronation is
but a puppet show, and all the splendour of it idle; but this sight at
once feasted one's eyes, and engaged one's passions;"--a signal avowal
for one whom a long continuance in the world's business, and, perhaps,
worse, its pleasures, had hardened. A hundred and thirty-nine lords were
present, making a noble sight on their benches, and assisting at a
ceremony which is said to have been conducted with the most awful
solemnity and decency throughout, with one or two exceptions.[360]
The Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, who presided on this occasion, has been
justly deemed one of the brightest ornaments of the woolsack. The son of
an attorney at Dover, as Philip Yorke, he had risen to the highest
offices of the law, by his immense acquirements, and his incomparable
powers of illustration and arrangement. By his marriage with a niece of
the celebrated Lord Somers, he strengthened his political interest,
which, however, it required few adventitious circumstances to secure.
Three great men have expressed their admiration of Lord Hardwicke almost
in similar terms: Lord Mansfield, Burke, and Wilkes. "When his lordship
pronounced his decrees, wisdom herself might be supposed to speak."[361]
In manner, he was usually considered to be dignified, impressive, and
unruffled; and his intentions were allowed to be as pure and elevated,
as his views were patriotic.
On this eventful day, since we cannot reject the testimony of an
eye-witness of discernment, we must believe that party spirit, which had
usually so little influence over his sense of justice, swayed the
prepossessions of Lord Hardwicke. At all events, it affected his
treatment of the unhappy men to whom he displayed a petulance wholly
derogatory to his character as a judge, and discreditable to his
feelings as a man. "Instead of keeping up the humane dignity of the law
of England, whose character is to point out any favour to the criminal,
he crossed them, and almost scolded at any offer they made towards
defence." Such is the remark of Horace Walpole.[362] Comely in person,
and possessing a fine voice, Lord Hardwicke had every opportunity, on
this occasion, of a graceful display of dignity and courtesy; yet his
deportment, usually so calm and lofty, was obsequious, "curiously
searching for occasion to bow to the minister, and, consequently,
applying to the other ministers, in a manner, for their orders;--not
even ready at the ceremonial." Notwithstanding, Lord Hardwicke, on his
death-bed, could with confidence declare "that he had never wronged any
man." The unhappy Jacobites seem, indeed, to have been considered
exceptions to all the common rules of clemency. None of the Royal
Family were present at the trial, from a proper regard for the feelings
of the prisoners, and also, perhaps, from a nice sense of the
peculiarity of their own condition.
After the warrants to the Lieutenant of the Tower were read, the Lord
High Steward addressed the prisoners, telling them that although their
crimes were of the most heinous nature, they were still open to such
defences as circumstances, and the rules of law and justice would allow.
The indictments for high treason were then read: to these, Lords
Kilmarnock and Cromartie pleaded guilty; but when the question was put
to Lord Balmerino, he demanded boldly, but respectfully to be heard,
objecting to two clauses in the indictment, in which he was styled
"Arthur Lord Balmerino, of the town of Carlisle," and also charging him
with being at the taking of Carlisle, when he could prove "that he was
not within twelve miles of it." Not insisting upon these objections, and
the question being again put to him, he then pleaded, 'not guilty.' Lord
Kilmarnock and Lord Cromartie were removed from the bar, and the trial
of Balmerino began. It was prefaced by addresses from Sir Richard Loyd,
king's counsel, and from Mr. Serjeant Skinner, who made, what was justly
considered by H. Walpole, "the most absurd speech imaginable," calling
"Rebellion, surely the sin of witchcraft," and applying to the Duke of
Cumberland the unfortunate appellation of "Scipio."[363] The Attorney
General followed, and witnesses were afterwards examined, who fully
proved, though accused by Balmerino of some inconsistencies, his acts of
adherence to the Chevalier; his being present in towns where James
Stuart was proclaimed King; his wearing the regimentals of Prince
Charles's body guards; his marching into Carlisle at the head of his
troops, with a white cockade in his cap; his presence at the battle of
Falkirk, in a field with Lords Kilmarnock and Pitsligo, who were at the
head of a corps of reserve. Six witnesses were examined, but there was
no cross-examination, except such as Balmerino himself attempted. The
witnesses were chiefly men who had served in the same cause for which
the brave Balmerino was soon to suffer. After they had delivered their
testimony, the "old hero," as he was well styled, shook hands cordially
with them. In one or two instances, as far as can be judged by the
answers, the evidence seems to have been given with reluctance. Lord
Balmerino being asked if he had any thing to offer in his defence, he
observed that none of the witnesses had agreed upon the same day as that
which was named in the indictment for being at Carlisle; and objected to
the indictment, that he was not at the taking of Carlisle as therein
specified. His objections were taken into consideration; the Lords
retired to their chamber, and there consulted the judges whether it be
necessary that an overt act of high treason should be proved to have
been committed on the particular day named in the indictment.
The answer being in the negative, every hope of acquittal was
annihilated for Balmerino. He gave up every further defence, and
apologised with his usual blunt courtesy for giving their Lordships so
much trouble: he said that his objections had been the result of advice
given by Mr. Ross, his solicitor, who had laid the case before counsel.
The question was then put by the Lord High Steward, standing up,
uncovered, to the Lords, beginning with the youngest peer, Lord Herbert
of Cherbury; "whether Arthur Lord Balmerino were guilty of high treason,
or not guilty?" An unanimous reply was uttered by all those who were
present; "guilty upon my honour." Lord Balmerino, who had retired while
the question was put, was then brought back to the bar to hear the
decision of the Lords. It was received with the intrepidity which had,
all throughout the trial, characterised the soldier and the man. During
the intervals of form, his natural playfulness and humour appeared, and
the kindness of his disposition was manifested. A little boy being in
the course of the trial near him, but not tall enough to see, he took
him up, made room for the child, and placed him near himself. The axe
inspired him with no associations of fear. He played upon it, while
talking, with his fingers, and some one coming up to listen to what he
was saying, he held it up like a fan between his face and that of the
gentleman-gaoler, to the great amusement of all beholders. And this
carelessness of the emblem of death was but a prelude to the calmness
with which he met his fate. "All he troubled himself about," as a writer
of the time observed, "was to end as he begun, and to let his sun set
with as _full_ and _fair_ a light as it was possible."[364] During the
time that the Lords were withdrawn, the Solicitor-General Murray, and
brother of Murray of Broughton, addressed Balmerino, asking him "how he
could give the Lords so much trouble," when he had been told by his
solicitor that the plea could be of no use to him? The defection and
perfidy of Murray of Broughton were now generally known; and the
officious insolence of his inquiry was both revolting and indiscreet.
Balmerino asked who this person was, and being told, exclaimed, "Oh! Mr.
Murray, I am extremely glad to see you. I have been with several of your
relations, the poor lady, your mother, was of great use to us at
Perth."[365] An admirable and well-merited rebuke. He afterwards
declared humorously that one of his reasons for not pleading guilty was,
"that so many fine ladies might not be disappointed of their show."
Besides the interest which at such a moment the grave dignity of
Kilmarnock, contrasted with the lofty indifference of Balmerino, might
excite, there was some diversion among the Peers, owing to the
eccentricity of several of their body. Of these, one, Lord Windsor,
affectedly said when asked for his vote, "I am sorry I must say, _guilty
upon my honour_." Another nobleman, Lord Stamford, refused to answer to
the name of Henry, having been christened Harry. "What a great way of
thinking," remarks Horace Walpole, "on such an occasion." Lord Foley
withdrew, as being a well-wisher to poor Balmerino; Lord Stair on the
plea of kindred--"uncle," as Horace Walpole sneeringly remarks, to his
great-grandfather; and the Earl of Moray on account of his relationship
to Balmerino, his mother, Jane Elphinstone, being sister to that
nobleman.[366]
But the greatest source of amusement to all who were present was the
celebrated Audrey, or to speak in more polite phrase, Ethelreda, Lady
Townshend, the wife of Charles, third Viscount Townshend, and the
mother of the celebrated wit, Charles Townshend. Lady Townshend was
renowned for her epigrams, to which, perhaps, in this case, her being
separated from her husband gave additional point. When she heard her
husband vote, "_guilty upon my honour_," she remarked, "I always knew
_my_ Lord was _guilty_, but I never knew that he would own it upon his
_honour_." Her sarcastic humour was often exhibited at the expense of
friend or foe. When some one related that Whitfield had recanted, "No,
madam," she replied, "he has only _canted_." And when Lord Bath ventured
to complain to this audacious leader of fashion, that he had a pain in
his side, she cried out, "Oh! that cannot be, you have _no side_."