House of Stuart, the Earl of Nithisdale, and the Earl Marischal, also
appeared at the time appointed. It was the fortune of the Marquis of
Tullibardine, like that of the Marquis of Huntly, afterwards to appear
in the field unsanctioned by his father, the Duke of Athol, who either
was, or appeared to be, in favour of Government, whilst his son headed
the clan to the number of six thousand. Lord Nairn, the younger brother
of the Marquis, also joined in the undertaking. Of these distinguished
Jacobites, separate lives will hereafter be given in this work: it
therefore becomes unnecessary any further to expatiate upon them here.
Of some, whose biography does not present features sufficiently marked
to constitute a distinct narrative, some traits may here be given.
Charles Earl of Traquair, who hastened to Braemar, was one of those
Scottish nobles who claimed kindred with royalty. He was descended from
Sir James Stewart, commonly called the Black Knight of Lorn, and from
Jane, daughter of John Earl of Somerset, and widow of King James the
First. One of Lord Traquair's ancestors, the first Earl, had levied a
regiment of horse, in order to release Charles the First from his
imprisonment in the Isle of Wight; but, marching at the head of it at
the battle of Preston, he and his son, Lord Seatoun, were taken
prisoners and conveyed to Warwick Castle, where they languished four
years in imprisonment, with the knowledge that their estates had been
sequestered.
Connected with the family of Seatoun, on his mother's side, the Earl of
Traquair had married the sister of Lord Nithisdale, being thus nearly
related to two of those chiefs who gladly obeyed the summons of Lord Mar
to the hunting-field. The Earl of Traquair appears to have escaped all
the penalties which followed the Rebellion of 1715, perhaps because he
does not appear to have taken any of his tenantry into the field.
Less prudent, or less fortunate, William Mackenzie, Earl of Seaforth,
joined the standard of James Stuart with a body of three thousand men.
He was attainted when the struggle was over, and his estates, both in
Scotland and England, forfeited. He escaped to the Continent; but, in
1719, again landed with the Spaniards at Kintail; and was wounded at the
battle of Glenshiels, but being carried off by his followers, again fled
to the Continent, with the Marquis of Tullibardine and the Earl
Marischal. Lord Seaforth was one of those to whom the royal mercy was
shown. George the First reversed his attainder, and George the Second
granted him arrears of the feu duties due to the Crown out of the
forfeited estates. The title has been eventually restored.
James Livingstone, Earl of Linlithgow, was amongst the many who
experienced less clemency than the Earl of Traquair. He had been chosen
one of the sixteen representative peers of Scotland, on the death of the
Duke of Hamilton; and enjoyed the possession of considerable family
estates, which were eventually forfeited to the Crown. He led a band of
three hundred clansmen to the field.
Perhaps one of the most sturdy adherents of the Chevalier St. George was
James Maule, fourth Earl of Panmure. In his youth this nobleman had
served as a volunteer at the siege of Luxembourg, where he had
signalized his courage. In 1686, he succeeded his brother, and added to
the honours of a peerage those of a character already established for
bravery. To these distinctions was added that of being a Privy
Councillor to James the Second; but he was removed upon his opposing the
abrogation of the penal laws against Popery. Whilst thus protesting
against what might then be deemed objectionable innovations, Lord
Panmure was a firm adherent of James, and vigorously supported his
interests in the convention of estates in 1689.
The accession of William and Mary drove this true Jacobite from the
Scottish Parliament. He never appeared in that assembly after that
event, having refused to take the oaths. Of course he disapproved of the
Union; and the next step which he took was to join the standard of the
Chevalier.
After that decisive proceeding, the course of this unfortunate
nobleman's life was one of misfortune, in which his high spirit was
sustained by a constancy of no ordinary character. At the battle of
Sherriff Muir, the brave Panmure was taken prisoner, but was rescued by
his brother Harry, who, like himself, had engaged in the rebellion.
Panmure escaped to France: he was attainted of high treason,--his
estates, which amounted to 3456_l._ per annum, and were the largest of
the confiscated properties, were forfeited, as well as his hereditary
honours. Twice were offers made to him by the English Government to
restore his rank and possessions, if he would take the oath of
allegiance to the House of Hanover; but Panmure refused the proffered
boon, and preferred sharing the fortunes of him whom he looked upon as
his legitimate Prince. When he joined the Jacobites at Braemar, Lord
Panmure was no longer a young, rash man: he was in the sixty-fifth year
of his age. His wife, the daughter of William Duke of Hamilton, was,
after his attainder, provided for by act of Parliament in the same
manner as if she had been a widow. His brother, Harry Maule, of Kellie,
a man of considerable accomplishments, was so fortunate as to be enabled
to return to his native country, and died in Edinburgh in 1734. But Lord
Panmure, like most of the other brave and honest men who preferred their
allegiance to their interest, finished his days in exile, and died at
Paris, in 1723.[74]
Kenneth Lord Duffus was another of those noblemen who had already
established a character for personal bravery. He was a person of great
skill in maritime affairs, and was promoted by Queen Anne to the command
of the Advice ship of war, with which, in 1711, this gallant Highlander
engaged eight French privateers, and after a desperate resistance of
some hours, he was taken prisoner, after receiving five balls in his
body.
He was, however, released in time to engage in the Rebellion of 1715;
and though it does not appear that he took any followers to fight
beneath the Chevalier's standard, he was included in the Act of
Attainder. The intelligence was communicated to Lord Duffus when he was
in Sweden. He resolved immediately to surrender himself to the British
Government, and declared his intention to the British Minister at
Stockholm, who notified it to Lord Townshend, Secretary of State.
Notwithstanding this manly determination, Lord Duffus was arrested on
his way to England, at Hamburgh, and was detained there until the time
specified for surrendering had expired. He thence proceeded to London,
where he was confined more than a year in the Tower, but released in
1717, without being brought to trial. Lord Duffus died, according to
some accounts, in the Russian service; to others, in that of France. He
married a Swedish lady, and attained to the rank of Admiral.[75]
Such were some of those Jacobite chieftains whose history has sunk into
obscurity, partly from the difficulty of obtaining information
concerning their career, after the contest was at an end. Amongst those
who met Lord Mar in the hunting-field, but who afterwards became
neutral,[76] although most of his clan joined in the Rebellion, was the
Earl of Errol, one of a family whose fame for valour was dated from the
time of the Danish invasion. The origin of the House of Errol is
curious, and marks the simplicity of the times. An aged countryman,
named Hay, and his sons, had arrested the progress of the ruthless
conquerors in a defile near Lanearty in Perthshire. The old man was
rewarded by Kenneth the Third with as much land in the Carse of Gowrie
as a falcon from a man's hand flew over until she lighted. The bird flew
over a space of six miles, which was thence called Errol, and which is
still in possession of the family; and the old man and his sons were
raised from the rank of plebeians by the assignment of a coat of arms,
on which were three escutcheons, gules, to denote that the father and
the two sons had been the shields of Scotland. The family grew in wealth
and estimation, and the office of Hereditary High Constable of Scotland
was added to their other honours.
The Countess of Errol, the mother of the High Constable, and sister of
the Earl of Perth, had already taken a decided part in the affairs of
the Jacobite party. When Colonel Hooke had been sent over in 1707 to
Scotland, she had met him at the sea-coast, and had there placed in the
hands of that emissary several letters from her son, expressing his
earnest intention to support the cause of the Chevalier. The Earl of
Errol had also received Hooke at his castle, and had entertained him
there several days, and employed that time in initiating Hooke into the
various characteristics and views of the Jacobite nobility in Scotland.
He was thus deeply pledged to aid the undertaking at that time (the year
1707); and in a letter to the Chevalier, the Earl expressed his hopes
that he might have the happiness of seeing his Majesty, "a happiness for
which," he adds, "we have long sighed, to be delivered from oppression."
The Countess of Errol also addressed a letter to the mother of James
Stuart, as the Queen of England, declaring that the delays which the
Scotch had suffered had not "diminished their zeal, although they had
prolonged their miseries and misfortunes."[77] Whether, upon the rising
in 1715, the views of Lord Errol were altered, or that female influence
had been lessened by some circumstance, does not exactly appear. He kept
himself neutral in the subsequent outbreak, notwithstanding his
appearance at Braemar, and although his clan were for the most part
against the Government.[78] The Earl of Errol died, unmarried, in 1717:
his adherence to his Jacobite principles were not, therefore, put to the
test in 1745.
To these noblemen were united Seaton, Viscount of Kingston, whose
estates were forfeited to the Crown; Livingstone Viscount of Kilsyth,
one of the representative peers, who died an exile at Rome in 1733; Lord
Balfour of Burleigh; Lord Ogilvy, afterwards Earl of Airly, and Forbes,
Lord Pitsligo. This last-mentioned nobleman was a man of a grave and
prudent character, whose example drew many of his neighbours to embark
in an enterprise in which so discreet a person risked his honours and
estate. He was the author of essays, moral and philosophical; and either
from respect to his merits, or from some less worthy cause, his
defection in 1715 passed with impunity. But, in 1745, the aged nobleman
again appeared in the field, infirm as he was: and one of the most
pleasing traits in Charles Edward's noble, yet faulty character was his
walking at the head of his forces, having given up his carriage for the
use of this tried adherent of his father. Attainder and forfeiture
followed this last attempt, but the sentence was reversed by the Court
of Session, from a misnomer in the attainder; and the venerable Lord
Forbes, surviving many who had set out on the same course with him, had
the comfort of breathing his last in his native country. He died at
Auchiries in Aberdeenshire, in 1762.[79]
Several of these noblemen had been long contemplating the possibility of
James's return to Scotland. Like the Earl of Errol, they had been
dissatisfied with the prudence of the Duke of Hamilton, whose policy it
had been to postpone the risk of a precarious undertaking, and whose
foresight was acknowledged when it was too late. Lord John Drummond,
Lord Kilsyth, and Lord Linlithgow, had been all deeply concerned in the
schemes and speculations which had been formed in 1707, on the subject
of the Restoration; but the zeal of Lord Kilsyth had been doubted, from
his intimacy with the Duke of Hamilton, who was then objectionable to
the violent Jacobite leaders.[80]
These chieftains were not unworthy to come into the same field with
Tullibardine, Nithisdale, Marischal, and their brave associates. A still
nobler band of associates was formed in the different members of the
house of Drummond, a family who could boast of being derived from "the
ancient nobility of the kingdom of Hungary:" and from the daughters of
whose house Charles the Second was lineally descended in the ninth and
sixth degree. Well may it be called "the splendid family of Drummond,"
even if we regard only its proud antiquity, or the singular
"faithfulness of the family, or the accomplishments and virtues which
characterised many of its members." Nothing can be finer than the manner
in which the claims of birth are placed before us, in the address of
William Drummond of Hawthornden to "John Earle of Perthe," in his
manuscript "Historie of the Familie of Perthe:"
"Though, as Glaucus sayes to Diomed (in Homer),
'Like the race of leaves
The race of man is, that deserves no question: nor receaves
His being any other breath; the wind in autumn strowes
The earth with old leaves; then the spring the woods with new endowes,'
"yet I have ever thought the knowledge of kindred and genealogies of the
ancient families of a country a matter so far from contempt, that it
deserveth highest praise. Herein consisteth a part of the knowledge of a
man's own selfe. It is a great spurr to vertue to look back on the worth
of our line. In this is the memory of the dead preserved with the
living, being more firm and honourable than any epitaph. The living know
that band which tyeth them to others. By this man is distinguished from
the reasonless creatures, and the noble of men from the base sort. For
it often falleth out (though we cannot tell how) for the most part, that
generositie followeth good birth and parentage."[81] The two members of
the Drummond family who attended Lord Mar in his famous hunting-field
were James Earl of Perth, and William Drummond, Viscount Strathallan.
The Earls of Southesk and Carnwath, the Viscounts Kenmure and Stormont,
and the Lord Rollo, complete the list of Scottish peers who were present
on this memorable occasion. But perhaps the more remarkable feature of
the hunting-match was the arrival of twenty-six gentlemen of influence
in the Highlands, men of sway and importance, of which it is impossible,
without a knowledge of Highland manners, to form an adequate notion. The
constitution of the clans is thus pourtrayed by one who knew it well.
"In every narrow vale where a blue stream bent its narrow course, some
hunter of superior prowess, or some herdsman whom wealth had led to
wealth and power to power, was the founder of a little community who
ever after looked up to the head of the family as their leader and their
chief. Those chains of mountains which formed the boundings of their
separate districts had then their ascents covered with forests, which
were the scene of their hunting-excursions: when their eagerness in
pursuit of game led them to penetrate into the districts claimed by the
chief of the neighbouring valleys, a rash encounter was the usual
consequence, which laid the foundation of future hostilities."[82]
These petty wars gave room for a display of valour in the chiefs, and
led to a mutual dependence from the followers. Alliances offensive and
defensive were formed among the clans, and intermarriages were
contracted between the confederated clans, who governed their followers
by a kind of polity not ill regulated. The chief had the power of life
and death over his large family, but it was a power seldom used. A
chieftain might be cruel to his enemies, but never to his friends. Nor
were those paternal rulers by any means so despotic as they have been
represented to be; of all monarchs their power was the most limited,
being allowed to take no step without permission of their friends, or
the elders of their tribe, including the most distant branches of their
family. The kind and conciliatory system adopted towards their clansmen
accounts for the warm attachment and fidelity displayed towards their
chiefs; and these sentiments were heightened to enthusiasm by the songs
and traditions of the bards, in which the exploits of their heroes were
perpetuated. Still there is nothing, as it has been justly said, so
remarkable in the political history of any country, as the succession of
the Highland chiefs, and the long and uninterrupted sway which they held
over their followers.[83] The system of clanship gives all the romantic
interest which the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745 inspire;--it perfects a
picture which would only otherwise be a factious contention for power;
it was annihilated only after the last of the Stuarts had fled for ever
from the mountains of Scotland.
It was at the head of the clans that the Earl of Mar frequently placed
himself, at the battle of Sherriff Muir: he now welcomed their
chieftains to the field. Among these were General Hamilton, General
Gordon, Glengary, Campbell of Glendarvel, and the lairds of Auchterhouse
and Aldebar.
So great an assembly of those whom the Chevalier afterwards not inaptly
termed "little kings," was by no means unusual at that period. It was
the custom among the lords and chieftains in the Highlands to invite
their neighbours and vassals to a general rendezvous to chase the deer
upon the mountains, and after the diversion was over, to entertain the
persons of note in the castle hall. This expedient would, therefore,
have excited but little attention, had it not been for several years
the practice of the Jacobites to hold these hunting-parties annually, in
order to maintain the spirit of the association, which had been carried
on since the peace of Utrecht.
The halls of Kildrummie received the noblemen and chieftains that day
beneath its roof, and the Earl of Mar addressed his guests in a long,
premeditated harangue. He is described as having little pretension to
eloquence; but his hearers were probably not very fastidious judges, and
from the influence which the Earl acquired over those whom he led on to
the contest, it may be inferred that he understood well how to address
himself to the passions of a Highland audience.
At first the Earl was heard with distrust,--at least if we may credit
the account of one on whom, perhaps, too great a reliance has been
placed.[84]
"It is true, that at first," says Mr. Patten, "he gained little or no
credit among them, they suspecting some piece of policy in him to
ensnare them; but some were weak enough to suck in the poison, and
particularly some of those who were with him at his house, called
Brae-Mar. These, listening to him, embraced his project, and, as is
reported, engaged by oath to stand by him and one another, and to bring
over their friends and dependants to do the like."[85]
The Earl began his harangue by expressing a deep regret for having
promoted the Union, which had delivered his countrymen into the hands of
the English, whose power to enslave them was far too great, and whose
intentions to do so still further were manifest from the proceedings of
the Elector of Hanover ever since he ascended the throne. That Prince
regarded, according to Lord Mar, neither the welfare of his people, nor
their religion, but solely left the management of affairs to a set of
men who made encroachments in Church and State. Many persons, he said,
were now resolved to consult their own safety, and determined to defend
their liberties and properties, and to establish on the throne of these
realms the Chevalier St. George, who had the only undoubted right to the
Crown, who would hear their grievances, and redress their wrongs. He
then incited his hearers to take arms for the Chevalier, under the title
of King James the Seventh; and told them, that for his part, he was
determined to set up his standard and to summon all the fencible men of
his own tenants, and with them to hazard his life in the cause. To this
declaration he added the assurance, that a general rising in England and
assistance from France would aid their undertaking; that thousands were
in league and covenant with him to establish the Chevalier and depose
King George.
To these inducements were added others. Letters from the Chevalier were
read to the assembly, promising to come over in person; with assurances
that ships, arms, and ammunition would be dispatched to their aid.[86]
The proposals of Lord Mar were unfolded with such address, and his
popularity was at that time so great, that one might have supposed an
immediate assent to his schemes would have followed. On the contrary
some degree of persuasion was required: the Highlanders are slow to
promise, but sure to fulfil. The very chieftains who hung back from a
too ready consent, never deserted the cause which they once undertook.
The universal fidelity to the part which they espoused was violated in
no instance during the first Rebellion.
At length the assembled chiefs swore an oath to stand by the Earl of
Mar, and to bring their friends and dependants to do the same. However,
no second meeting was at that time determined upon: every man went back
to his own estate, to take measures for appearing in arms after again
hearing from the Earl of Mar, who remained among his own people with few
attendants. But the Jacobites were not idle during that interval. They
employed themselves in collecting their servants and kindred, but with
the utmost secrecy, until everything was ready to break out. Nor were
they long kept in suspense. On the third of September, another meeting
at Abbone, in Aberdeenshire, was held, and there the Earl directed his
adherents to collect their men without loss of time. He returned to
Braemar, and continued for several days gathering the people together,
until they amounted, according to Reay, to two thousand horse; although
some have said that there were only sixty followers at that time
assembled.[87]
On the sixth of September, the standard of the Pretender was set up at
Braemar, by the Earl of Mar, in the presence of the assembled forces.
The superstitious Highlanders remarked with dismay, that, as the
standard was erected, the ball on the top of it fell off; and they
regarded this accident as an ill omen. "The event," says a quaint
Scottish writer, "has proven that it was no less."[88]
This grave accordance in the verification of the omen, was a feature of
the times and country. "When a clan went upon any expedition," observes
Dr. Brown in his valuable work upon the Highlands, "they were much
addicted to omens. If they met an armed man they believed that good was
portended. If they observed a deer, fox, hare, or any four-footed beast
of game, and did not succeed in killing it, they prognosticated evil. If
a woman, barefooted, crossed the road before them, they seized her, and
drew blood from her forehead." This mixture of fear of visionary evils,
and courage in opposing real ones, of credulity and distrust, strength
and weakness, presents a singular view of the Highland character. It
had, however, in many respects, no inconsiderable influence upon the
contests of 1715 and 1745.
From Braemar the Earl proceeded to Kirk Michael, a small town, where he
proclaimed the Chevalier, and set up his standard. He then marched to
Moulin in Perthshire, where he rested some time, collecting his forces.
It is a remarkable fact, that up to this period the Earl of Mar was
acting without a commission from the Chevalier. The disposition which is
too predominant in society, and which leads men always to add the
bitterness of invective to the mortification of failure, has attributed
to the Earl of Mar, relatively to this commission, a line of conduct
from which it is agreeable to be able to clear his memory. It was not
very long after the meeting in Braemar, that Lord Mar discovered that
there was what he called "a devil" in his camp, in the person of the
Master of Sinclair, whose manuscript strictures upon the unfortunate and
incompetent leader of the Jacobites have contributed to blacken his
memory.
According to the Master of Sinclair, the Earl of Mar produced at the
meeting a forged commission; but this statement is not only contradicted
by Lord Mar's own account, but completely invalidated by the fact that
the commission is in existence, among various other curious documents
and letters, many of which place the character of Lord Mar in a much
fairer light than that in which it has hitherto been viewed. The Earl of
Mar, in a justification of his conduct, printed at Paris, and added to
Patten's History of the Rebellion, gives the following account of the
affair: