_Causes of Disaffection: Risings of 1715 and 1745._
NO reasonable historian of the present age would maintain that
the Union was not a wise and beneficial measure; yet such were the
circumstances of the Scots, that nearly half a century passed ere they
were able to take the full advantage of it. So vast a change could
not be effected without rousing passions and bitter feelings in the
hearts of many, which nothing but time could efface. To give a brief
exposition of the causes of this will be the aim of the present chapter.
It was the earnest desire of the Scots to obtain equal commercial
rights which made the Union possible and endurable. Prior to the Union
the Scots were permitted to trade only where the English Government
thought fit; while after it there was no limitation――their ships might
trade with the remotest quarters of the world. Another very important
arrangement was the coinage. In 1708 the Scottish coins were finally
called in, and preparations were made for a coinage exactly on the
method of the English mint. Thus one of the good results of the Union
was soon obtained; as the convenience and advantage of only one coinage
and standard of money for the Island is obvious.
Although the Scots relinquished their separate legislative power, they
gained a position and share in the government of a larger nation, and
in the honour and glory of the British Empire. As they retained their
own laws and legal organisations, and their religious and educational
institutions, the great change implied in the Union embraced many
elements of moral advantage. Scottish nationality and patriotism
have continued essentially unimpaired, but much of its prejudice and
narrowness, which the strife of preceding ages had generated, has been
slowly thrown off. It is always true that a people’s own country and
affairs are of prime importance to them; yet a people which limited
all their faculties and energies to the internal affairs of their own
country, would be emphatically characterised as a narrow-minded and
unsympathetic community. If all our political institutions and social
organisations were expressly framed and exclusively directed to this
one end, it would manifest a weak and contemptible ideal of humanity.
From these and many other considerations, it appears that the Union
afforded inestimable moral benefits.
The Union conferred many advantages, but it also entailed disadvantages,
in political and legislative relations. It might be assumed that the
united deliberation and counsel of the British Parliament would be more
competent to frame wise and useful legislative measures than a Scottish
Parliament. This would depend on the accuracy of the information
which the British Parliament possessed concerning the opinions and
convictions of the Scottish people and of their institutions, as, from
a lack of this, it has occasionally inflicted pain and injustice on
the people. An instructive instance occurred after the rising of 1715,
touching the disposal of the forfeited estates. Parliament placed the
control of the matter in the hands of a Commission, which proceeded to
sell the estates. A number of creditors, however, who had claims on the
estates applied to the Court of Session, and sequestration was granted.
The Commissioners entirely failed to understand this proceeding, and
complained to the Government that they were prevented from discharging
their duty by a body calling itself the Court of Session; and therefore
they asked the Government to increase their powers. The British
Parliament passed an act which ignored the jurisdiction of the Court of
Session, in direct violation of the stipulations of the Union, and in
spite of the protest of the Scotch judges.
In finance and fiscal arrangements the British Parliament has not
generally treated Scotland worse than England. Although, for a
generation or two after the Union much irritation was caused by
changes and rearrangements in this branch of government, of which a few
examples may be narrated. Ale was a staple necessary in the domestic
economy and trade of the nation. At the time of the Union there was no
malt tax in Scotland, but there was a duty on liquor. In 1713 a malt
tax of 6 pence per bushel was imposed upon Scotland, though the Scotch
members in both Houses of Parliament determinedly opposed it. At this
date there were upwards of five thousand maltsters in Scotland; and
in June the tax was ordered to be enforced. “But such was the general
and determined resolution of the inhabitants not to submit, that the
officers of excise for several years were everywhere refused access to
survey and charge the duty; and that when charged it was never paid,
nor could it be recovered by proceedings at law, as the justices of
peace in all the counties refused to act. The consequence was that,
during the twelve years after the 24th of June 1713, while the tax
continued at 6 pence per bushel, the duty actually levied amounted to
a mere trifle, and fell considerably short of the necessary expense
attending this branch of the revenue.”
In 1724, the Government wished to raise £20,000 by a tax on Scotch
ale. Parliament passed an Act proposing to levy 6 pence per barrel
on ale instead of the malt tax, and to exclude the Scots from the
bounty on exported grain, which was to be continued in England. The
nation vehemently resented the proposal, and protested against it. The
Jacobites used every means to fan the wrath of the people against the
Government, and there were signs of an outburst of violence. It was
relinquished, and a malt tax of 3 pence per bushel imposed. As £20,000
had to be drawn from the Scots, it was enacted that, if the tax of 3
pence failed to produce the amount, it must be made up by a surcharge
on maltsters.
The Act came into operation in June, 1725, and the citizens of Glasgow
manifested a sullen attitude when the excisemen were preparing to
enforce it. The following day they appeared in crowds on the streets;
and the magistrates having failed to disperse them, a party of soldiers
were called into the city. Shouts were raised against Campbell of
Shawfield, their member of parliament, who was suspected of having
assisted the Government. They said, as he had already betrayed them,
now he was to enslave them beneath a military yoke, and slay them if
they resisted. At night they attacked his house and laid it in ruins.
Next morning the mob appeared and jeered at the soldiers on guard; and
their Commander ordered them to turn out and form square, and, without
the authority of the Provost, commanded them to fire on the crowd.
Eight of the citizens were killed and many wounded. The crisis was
reached. The people ran to an old armoury, and having armed themselves,
at once presented so threatening a front that it was feared all the
soldiers would be massacred, but the officer marched them to Dumbarton.
A regiment of infantry, seven troops of dragoons, and a company of
Highlanders, from General Wade’s force, were sent into Glasgow, and
quietness was restored. Criminal proceedings were instituted, and the
magistrates of Glasgow were seized and imprisoned in Edinburgh. The
charges against them were abandoned; but a few of the rioters were
punished. The captain in command of the party who fired upon the crowd,
was tried and condemned, but received a royal pardon. The citizens of
Glasgow were deeply offended; while the Jacobites were jubilant.
In Edinburgh the opposition to the malt tax assumed a determined form.
All the brewers resolved to cease brewing. The Lord Advocate lodged a
complaint against them in the Court of Session, and the Court ordered
them to proceed with their work as usual. They refused, and some of
them were imprisoned; but at last they yielded. These proceedings were
only the first of a series of excise difficulties which continued for
more than a hundred years. In some parts in the north and west the
practice of smuggling whisky was quite common till well into the first
quarter of the present century. The smuggling brew houses were often
beside a fresh spring or stream of water, in out of the way glens and
hill sides, where no one could find them without searching carefully;
but in general they were small and rudely constructed. The whisky
smuggler usually stored his malt in a square pit on a hill among long
heather and at some distance from his brewing house.
From the date of the malt tax riots, till about the end of the
eighteenth century, smuggling in various kinds of goods was rather
common in Scotland, although the burgesses of the trading burghs
generally protested against it. “In place of pursuing fair trade, they
universally, with the exception of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and a few other
places, took to smuggling; their small stock they invested in goods
that bore high duties, and under the favour of running these secretly
on our wide and ill-guarded coasts, they flattered themselves that
they should soon grow rich, profiting at least off the high duty, which
by running they were to save.... The smuggler was the favourite. His
prohibited high duty goods were run ashore by the boats on whatever
part of the coast he came near; when ashore, they were guarded by the
countrymen from the custom-house officers; if seized, they were rescued,
and if any seizure was retained and tried, the juries seldom failed to
find for the defendant.”¹
¹ Lockhart’s _Papers_, Volume II., pages 162‒168: _Some
Considerations on the Present State of Scotland_; Clelland’s
_Annals of Glasgow_.
The chief aim of the Jacobite party was to encourage the discontent
of the people, and to frustrate the policy of the Whig government.
In Scotland they were still a strong party, numbering among their
adherents some of the nobles and many of the gentry, and the body
of the episcopal clergy, who in the northern parts of the country
commanded considerable influence. Their plots and schemes to restore
the exiled house of Stuart were incessant; while other occasions
of irritating the Scots naturally arose in connection with the new
revenue system. The English introduced their own modes of collecting
duties and customs, and what was far more offensive, the taxes were
greatly increased. The Jacobites loudly proclaimed that what they had
predicted――the ruin of the nation――was coming to pass.
Shortly after the Union some disputes arose between the Established
Church and the episcopal clergy, which strengthened the Jacobite party.
In 1710, the Whig government fell, and was succeeded by the Tories, and
this change had some influence upon the affairs of the nation. Reports
had been spread that Englishmen living in Scotland could not have the
English service read to them, or their children baptised, without going
to a presbyterian minister and signing the Confession of Faith. In 1712,
the Imperial Parliament passed an act of toleration for the episcopal
denomination in Scotland, in the exercise of their worship; and also
repealed an act of the Scotch parliament against irregular marriages
and baptisms. The act was carried in both Houses of Parliament by a
large majority. But one clause of it required that the episcopal and
presbyterian clergy both, should take the oath of adjuration, and pray
for the Queen by name. By another clause of the act, the authority of
the Established Church was limited to her own members, the power of
summoning dissenters before her courts under penalties was taken from
her.
The Government directly passed another bill which restored the right of
patronage. This point, as we have seen, had been repeatedly considered
by the Church since the Reformation; and from the date of the act of
Queen Anne’s government to a recent period, patronage has been a source
of the bitterest disputes and divisions in the Church of Scotland.
It was introduced and passed by the influence of the Jacobite party,
and it succeeded admirably in augmenting the disturbing elements
in Scotland. Burnet expressly states that clauses were put into
the toleration act with the intention of provoking the Scotch
presbyterians. “One clause put into it occasioned great complaints;
the magistrates, who by the laws were obliged to execute the sentences
of the judicatories of their Church, were by this act required to
execute none of them. It was reasonable to require them to execute no
sentences that might be passed on any for doing what was tolerated by
this act, but the carrying this to a general clause took away the civil
sanction, which in most places is looked on as the chief, if not the
only strength of Church power. Those who were to be thus tolerated were
required, by a day limited in the act, to take the oath of adjuration;
it was well known that few, if any of them, would take that oath; so,
to cover them from it, a clause was put in this act requiring all the
presbyterian ministers to take it, since it seemed reasonable that
those of the legal establishment should be required to take that which
was now to be imposed on those who were only to be tolerated. It was
well understood that there were words in the oath of adjuration to
which the presbyterians excepted.” Regarding the patronage act, he
says: “By these steps the presbyterians were alarmed, when they saw the
success of every motion that was made on design to weaken and undermine
their establishment.”¹
¹ _Parliamentary History of England_, Volume VI., pages
1126‒1129; Lockhart’s _Memoirs_, Volume I., pages 378‒387;
_History of His Own Time_, Volume VI., page 98.
As many of the patrons were Episcopalians, it was feared that they
might use their right of presentation to advance the interest of
their own party; and the vaunting tone of the Jacobites gave colour to
this suspicion. The most obnoxious part of the Toleration Act was the
adjuration oath, imposed upon all the ministers; and those who took it
abjured the Pretender, but promised to support the succession to the
Crown as settled by specified acts of the English Parliament. According
to these acts, the occupant of the throne must belong to the communion
of the Church of England; and this was an obstacle to the presbyterians,
because if they took it, they implicitly sanctioned a form of church
polity which they repudiated. As the law required that the oath should
be taken, many of the ministers were greatly annoyed. At last it was
concluded to give an explanation of the sense in which they understood
it, and then take it under protest; but a number of them declined to
take it under any conditions, and in the end the government ceased to
enforce it. A few years later, the oath was altered and a new form
adopted, containing a plain declaration of allegiance to the Hanover
settlement, and a renunciation of the title of the banished dynasty,
thus freeing it from the objectionable features of the former oath.¹
¹ _Acts of the General Assembly._
In the latter years of Queen Anne’s reign, the Jacobites had been
gaining ground in Scotland, but they had very little hold upon England;
hence they made the northern part of the United Kingdom the field of
their subsequent attempts to restore the exiled family. The Queen died
on the 1st of August, 1714; thereupon the Elector of Hanover ascended
the throne, under the title of George I. The accession of the new
king was received with general satisfaction among the Presbyterians of
Scotland, and he endeavoured to deserve their support. When the General
Assembly met in May, 1715, he thanked them for the expression of their
loyalty, and explicitly stated that he would maintain the Church of
Scotland in all her rights and privileges.¹
¹ _Ibid._
Though the Jacobites were not prepared for active operations themselves,
they had hopes of external aid. The Earl of Mar, as we have seen,
was on the Whig side at the Union proceedings, but he was a shifty
politician, and was Secretary of State for Scotland in the Tory
Government of Bolingbroke. While in this office, he was entrusted with
the distribution of sums of money among the Highland clans, voted by
the government, for keeping them quiet; this gave him some influence
over the chiefs, and partly explains their readiness to enter into his
scheme of restoring the Pretender. If Mar himself had obtained full
recognition from George I., and a post in his government, which he
anxiously desired, he would not have headed a rising of the Jacobites;
but on finding himself neglected, he then determined to be revenged.
Mar left the Court of George I. in the beginning of August 1715, landed
in Fifeshire, and proceeded to Braemar, whence he issued invitations
to the chiefs to join him in a hunting party in his forest of Mar. He
reached Invercauld Castle on the 22nd of August; and on the 26th he
met his followers and friends in Braemar. He was joined by the Marquis
of Huntly, the Marquis of Tullibardine, and the Earls of Seaforth,
Southesk, Nithsdale, Stormont, Earl Marischal, and other nobles, and a
number of the Highland chiefs. As the rising spread some of the nobles
in the North of England joined it, Mar himself assuming the chief
command.
Mar unfurled the standard of revolt on the 6th of September, at
Castletown of Braemar, and marched by Dunkeld. He entered Perth on the
28th with an army of five thousand men, which was soon increased. In
November there were fourteen thousand men in arms for the Stuart cause.
But Mar had little military skill, and remained too long inactive in
Perth. The body of the insurgents who were operating in England under
the command of Forster, encountered the royal troops at Preston, on
the 12th of November, and were completely defeated, and many of the
Scots and their leaders were taken prisoners. The following day, the
insurgents under Mar, and the royal army under the Duke of Argyle,
fought the battle of Sheriffmuir near Dunblane, which was indecisive;
as the loss was nearly equal on each side, both claimed the victory.
The result, however, was that Mar drew back his army to Perth, where
his force soon melted away to a few thousands. James VIII., the
Pretender, landed at Peterhead on the 22nd of December, and was
proclaimed King at Aberdeen, Montrose, Dundee, and other places. He
suffered from attacks of ague in his progress southward, and reached
Perth on the 6th of January, 1716. His presence inspired no new hope;
as this representative of the Stuart line had not the mien of a man
likely to lead an army to victory and glory. Preparations were made,
however, for his coronation at the historic burgh of Scone, on the
23rd of January; but when that day came, the royal army under Argyle
had begun their march on Perth, and James was thinking seriously of
flight.¹
¹ _Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of Mackintosh_, by
Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, pages 413‒414; _Mar Papers_.
The hapless prince and his army commenced their retreat on the 30th
of January, 1716, and marched by Dundee to Montrose, where on the 4th
of February, James and the Earl of Mar went aboard a French vessel,
and sailed for France. The insurgent army was rapidly diminishing as
it proceeded northward, and on reaching Aberdeen, it was disbanded
on the 7th of February. Thus ended a project begun without requisite
preparation, conducted without energy or skill, and leading to nothing
but suffering and ruin to a portion of the people.
Lenient counsel towards the insurgents prevailed in Scotland, and few
of them were judicially punished. But the English took the punishment
of the prisoners and those implicated in the rising into their own
hands. A large number of all ranks of men were executed, while hundreds
were sent to the plantations to drag out a wretched life in slavery.
Several of the higher prisoners escaped from prison, and fled for
their lives, amongst whom were Forster, Lord Nithsdale, and Mackintosh
of Borlum. The estates of upwards of forty families in Scotland were
forfeited, and justice and revenge were at last appeased.¹
¹ _Culloden Papers_, Number 69; _Lancaster Memorials_; _A
Faithful Register of the Late Rebellion_; Rae’s _History of
the Rebellion_; _Historical Memoirs of the House and Clan of
Mackintosh_, by Alexander Mackintosh Shaw, page 433, 1880.
Naturally, the episcopal clergy in Scotland had always leaned to the
side of the exiled house, and when the temporary restoration came, they
could not resist the temptation, and openly sided with the Pretender,
and prayed for his success. The government therefore proceeded to
prosecute them; and those who occupied chapels were summoned in groups
before the magistrates, and tried under the Toleration Act: their
chapels were shut, and some of them imprisoned, until they complied
with the provisions of the act. Any of the old episcopal ministers who
still occupied parish churches, were summoned before their presbyteries,
and, if found guilty were deposed. In the diocese of Aberdeen alone,
upwards of thirty of these ministers were deprived. Indeed, they were
prosecuted with great and unnecessary severity.¹
¹ Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III.,
pages 373‒377.
But the Jacobites were not daunted by the failure of the rising. On
the contrary, they continued to plot and scheme for the restoration
of those whom they regarded as the right and lawful line of kings.
Although after the accession of George I., the Jacobites had little
voice in the British Parliament, yet beyond the walls of St. Stephens
they commanded a local influence in several quarters of the country.
Soon after the suppression of the insurrection, the government adopted
measures to secure the peace of the Island. An act was passed for
disarming the Highlanders, embracing the counties to the north of
the Forth, and the Highland districts of the West. But the act did
not attain its object; as it merely imposed penalties, rising to
transportation, against those found guilty of appearing in arms;
and as no means were provided for enforcing disarmament, the act was
inoperative. In 1725, another disarming act was passed, which ordered
each clan to be summoned to appear at a fixed place and deliver up
their arms. The execution of the act was entrusted to General Wade, who
imagined that he had performed the task effectively; and informed the
King that the Highlander had now become a simple peasant with his staff
in his hand. He also stated that if the system of roads and fortresses
proposed by him were made, any future rising of the Highlanders would
be impossible; but subsequent events proved that the General’s sanguine
anticipations were false.¹
¹ Burt’s _Letters_; _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, Volume
III.
He erected two forts, one at Inverness, and the other at the western
end of loch Ness, called Fort-Augustus; while among the remote glens
square towers were built, in which small garrisons were placed. But
the great work of General Wade was the system of military roads which
he made in the Highlands; ten years being occupied in constructing
these. The main line of the system proceeded from Perth north-westward
by Dunkeld and Blair-Athol, thence through Drumnouchter and other
mountainous moorlands, onward to Inverness; while a subsidiary road
started from Stirling through Crieff, thence through Glen Almond, past
Loch Tay, and joined the main road at Dalnacardoch. Another great road
passed from shore to shore, through the valleys in which the Caledonian
Canal was afterwards formed, and connected Inverness with Fort-Augustus
and Fort-William. A branch road connected Fort-Augustus with the main
Highland road. Afterwards the system was extended, by branches passing
by Loch Lomond and Callander to the main Highland road; and other
branches were made in the district to the north-west of Inverness, and
the chain of lakes between the east and west coasts. These roads were
constructed ‘for military purposes’.
The clan form of polity, with some of the feudal elements superposed
upon it, was continued in the Highlands till after the rising of 1745;
but it has to be remembered that the Lowland nobles also formally
retained their hereditary jurisdiction over their vassals up to the
same date. A lord of regality in any quarter of Scotland possessed a
despotic power. The regality was a little kingdom in itself, within
the larger one which the King was supposed to rule; and it is mainly
in these hereditary customs and habits, in some parts of the Lowlands
as in the Highlands, that the causes of the rising of 1745 should be
sought. In the seventeenth century and the early part of the eighteenth,
the Scots were extremely poor, and it was only after the abolition of
hereditary jurisdictions, and other feudal usages of a lawless age,
that the people had a fair chance of obtaining wealth from their
industry. While these local powers, spread throughout the country,
could disturb the peace of the kingdom, and render the executive
authority of the government uncertain and fluctuating, the progress of
industry, the accumulation of wealth, and the advance of civilisation,
were very slow; but in a comparatively short time the Union enabled the
Scots to surmount the greater part of these obstacles.
Yet these great changes could not be effected in a day or a year. Hence
among the social causes of the rising may be enumerated the prejudices
still existing against the Union; the poverty of the nobles and the
people; the power of the Highland chiefs and of the nobles over many of
the people; and a general disaffection towards England――the residue of
a mass of animosities and antipathies――the natural growth of centuries
of war and strife between the two nations. A kind of half-romantic and
indescribable leaning towards the ancient line of kings undoubtedly
existed, and still exists in the nation. There were other special
causes, but those mentioned were the chief, which made rebellion
possible; while, on the other side, the unprepared condition and
culpable neglect of government, allowed the Prince and his followers
for a time to appear in a career of success.
When Prince Charles landed in the western islands in the middle of
July, 1745, his prospects of success were indeed dreary, as it was
some time before he could find a single man to give him the least hope
that a rising was possible. The Highland chiefs whom he first met and
consulted all spoke against the enterprise. But the young Prince was
naturally full of hope and faith in his destiny, and determined to
recover the throne of his ancestors. After repeated efforts he induced
a number of the chiefs to promise him support, and Lochiel, the chief
of the Camerons, the Macdonalds of Boisdale, Glengarry, Keppoch, and
many others joined him. On the 19th of August he unfurled his standard
in Glenfinnan, with upwards of a thousand men around him. Next morning
they commenced their march, and were soon joined by other chiefs and
their followers. As the only regular army in the kingdom, under General
Cope, was moved from Edinburgh to Inverness, Prince Charles resolved
to advance on the capital. He entered Perth on the 4th of September,
and there his army was largely reinforced. Parties were sent into the
neighbouring counties of Forfar and Fife to proclaim the Pretender,
levy money, and enlist men. At Perth Lord George Murray joined the
Prince, and was appointed a lieutenant-general of the army. On the
11th Charles recommenced his march southward, crossed the Forth, and
continuing his advance, on the 17th he took possession of Edinburgh,
and proclaimed King James.
By this time Cope had returned from Inverness, and was landing his
troops at Dunbar. But the insurgents anticipated his action and
advanced to meet him. The Highland army, numbering about two thousand
men, marched from Edinburgh; and on the 21st of September attacked the
royal army at Preston, completely defeated it, and Cope fled in haste
to Berwick. Many prisoners and much booty fell into the hands of the
victors. Charles with his army re-entered Edinburgh in triumph; and he
assumed all the functions of sovereignty. He held his Court at Holyrood
Palace and acted as King of Scotland. His Council consisted of Lord
George Murray, lieutenant-general; James Drummond (called Duke of
Perth), lieutenant-general; Sullivan, quartermaster-general; Mungo
Murray, secretary; Lord Pitsligo; Lord Elcho; and all the Highland
chiefs. But Charles’s difficulties were only beginning. He had failed
to take the Castle of Edinburgh, and comparatively few of the Lowland
people supported his cause.
Full of confidence in his destiny, Charles assembled his troops at
Dalkeith on 2nd of November, and, with an army of about six thousand
men, commenced to march on London. They entered England on the 8th,
and took possession of Carlisle on the 15th, and levied a large
contribution from the citizens. Leaving a garrison in the castle, they
resumed the march on the 22nd, but few recruits joined the Prince in
his progress southwards. They reached Manchester on the 27th, where
about two hundred recruits joined his standard. Thence the army pushed
forward to Derby, within one hundred and twenty miles of London; but
at this point, the leaders of the army received intelligence which
convinced them of the hopelessness of attempting to continue the march
on London, as there was no indication of a great movement on Charles’s
side in England. The position of the insurgents was extremely critical;
as there were three armies in the field against them, two between
them and Scotland, and one posted for the defence of London. Immediate
retreat seemed to be their only chance of saving themselves from
destruction. But Prince Charles was exceedingly unwilling to turn back,
and bitterly protested against such a proposal; he had great confidence
in the divine right and the justice of his cause, and persisted in
advancing to the culmination of his destiny. The retreat was ordered,
however, and on 6th of December the army turned towards Scotland,――Lord
George Murray undertaking the charge of the rear. The rank and file
of the army rent the air with cries of indignation; they could have
endured to be defeated by superior numbers, but to retreat without
striking a blow, was an insufferable disgrace.¹
¹ Lockhart’s _Papers_, Volume II., page 468; _et seq._; Homes’
_History of the Rebellion of 1745_, Chapter VII., 1802.
When the insurgents returned to Scotland, they found that Edinburgh was
in the possession of the government, and defended by a strong force,
and that in other parts of the country bodies of troops were organised
and prepared to act against them. But they retreated successfully,
passing through Dumfries, and entered Glasgow on the 24th of December,
wearied and tattered with their long march. They exacted a large
contribution of clothing and shoes from the city, and, after staying
a week, proceeded to Stirling. On the 17th of January, 1746, they
attacked and defeated a royal force commanded by General Hawley, at
Falkirk. The Duke of Cumberland was commissioned to extinguish the
rising; the work was congenial to him, and he executed it thoroughly.
He arrived at Edinburgh in the end of January, with an army of ten
thousand men, and a train of artillery, and proceeded northward.
While Charles’s army was attempting to reduce Stirling, they received
tidings of Cumberland’s advance. The insurgents then commenced
a retreat, and reached Crieff on the 2nd of February. There they
separated into two divisions――one, under the Prince himself, moved
by Blair-Athol, and the other, under Lord George Murray, proceeded
by Montrose and Aberdeen. It was arranged that they should meet at
Inverness. Cumberland proceeded to Aberdeen, and rested his army till
the spring. On the 8th of April, he began his march northwards along
the coast, in connection with a victualling fleet which sailed parallel
with his army; and on the 14th he reached Nairn.
By this time Prince Charles’ army was suffering severely from constant
exposure and want of food. The men were much exhausted, and at the
utmost did not number more than five thousand, and one hundred and
fifty horse. They formed on a moor beyond the enclosures of Culloden
House; but the most experienced chiefs earnestly entreated Charles to
avoid a battle or remove to a better position, yet he was deaf to all
reason and insisted on an immediate action.
The Duke continued his march, and came in sight of the insurgents.
On the 16th of April, 1746, he began the battle by a cannonade which
committed much havoc in the insurgents’ ranks. The Highlanders became
impatient and advanced to the attack; and after an heroic charge and
a severe but brief combat, the clansmen were defeated by the weight
of superior numbers, and many of them were mercilessly massacred in
the pursuit. The victors then began an indiscriminate slaughter of
all those supposed to be disaffected to the Government, or in any way
connected with the rising. The Duke of Cumberland and General Hawley
have entailed on themselves eternal infamy by the extreme cruelties
which they inflicted upon the defenceless and innocent inhabitants of
the Highlands.
There was great rejoicing in London over the victory at Culloden; but
many people who were not Jacobites, were much shocked by the details of
the cruelties and sufferings inflicted on the Celtic population. After
the battle the feeling of the Highlanders was expressed in ballads such
as these:――
“Fair lady, mourn the memory
O’ all our Scottish fame;
Fair lady, mourn the memory
Ev’n of the Scottish name;
How proud were we of our young prince,
And of his native sway;
But all our hopes are past and gone,
Upon Culloden day.
There was no lack of bravery there,
No spare of blood or breath,
For, one to two, our foes we dar’d,
For freedom or for death.
“The bitterness of death is past,
Of terror and dismay;
The die was risked, and foully cast,
Upon Culloden day.
* * * * *
What is there now in thee, Scotland,
To us can pleasure give?
What is there now in thee, Scotland,
For which we ought to live?
Since we have stood, and stood in vain,
For all that we hold dear;
Still have we left a sacrifice,
To offer on our bier.
But there is naught for us or ours,
In which to hope or trust,
But hide us in our father’s graves,
Amid our father’s dust.”¹
¹ Mackay’s _Jacobite Songs_, pages 209‒211. This song is
translated from the Gaelic one, entitled “Culloden Day,” and
sung to a tune of the same name.
A few lines of another ballad may be quoted:――
“Ochon! ochon! the fatal day,
The day of dark despair.
* * * * *
The flower o’ a’ the Highland clans――
Their like we’ll never see――
Lay strecket in their bloody plaids,
Cauld on Culloden lee.”
This was the last of the risings of the Celts against the Government.
Henceforth they had to seek other fields for the exercise of their
energy and powers. A considerable number of the Highlanders found
an honourable career in the British army, in which they have never
disgraced their standard in the hour of danger. They have contributed
much to the power and glory of the United Kingdom; for upwards of
a hundred years the Highland regiments have been characterised by
obedience and fidelity to their commanders, loyalty to the throne, and
faithful service to the Empire. Let us simply mention their service on
the battlefields of the Vimiera, Corunna, Badajos, Salamanca, Vittoria,
Toulouse, and Waterloo; their memorable action and heroic endurance
under the scorching sun on the blinding sands of Africa; their services
in the East and West, at Alma, Balaklava, Sebastopol, and Lucknow. For
courage and bravery in the hour of peril and battle they have never
been surpassed.
The subsequent social changes in the Highlands will be treated in the
next volume; but it may be observed that, despite the injustice, the
oppression and suffering inflicted upon the Celtic people during a
period of six centuries, they have shown a readiness to appreciate the
benefits and blessings of civilisation. They have contributed important
elements to art and literature. In every quarter of the world they have
distinguished themselves in the fields of enterprise and industry.
Politically, it was best that the Island should be under one supreme
Government; as this enhanced the strength, the confidence, and the
security of the people. After many ages of internal war, this blessing
of political union and peace was at last obtained. Thus a position and
a career was opened to the people of the United Kingdom, such as few
nations have ever enjoyed. It is much to be desired that the people of
Ireland would recognise the great utility of the Imperial Parliament
of Britain. If I might venture a word for the whole Celtic inhabitants
of Britain and Ireland, I would earnestly urge the necessity of
recognising the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; for on this the
welfare and progress of the people ♦depends. When the Irish have become
as reconciled to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as the Welsh
and the Scots have long been, we may look forward with reasonable hope
to a time of greater prosperity, of happiness and higher civilisation
for the Irish people. Let us all endeavour in a spirit of honesty and
justice to contribute to this result.
♦ “dedepends” replaced with “depends”