trouble on account of the melancholy story of my two brothers, who
had the misfortune to be murthered in the space of three dayes by
Lieutenant Sinclair, then in the regiment of Prestoun, in the year
1708. Your Grace was at the paines to be informed of the whole case,
and the murtherer, being a man of quality, had many to intercede for
him; your justice did overcome all other considerations and indeed
nothing could be more worthie of the great character your Grace has,
and the glorious name you must leave to posterity, than the
punishment of so cruel and bloodie a fact; but the criminal escaped,
and the sentence of death pronounced by the court-martial, and
confirmed by your Grace, was not executed; and I, having done all I
could to bring the murtherer of my unfortunate brothers to condign
punishment, was satisfied to pursue him no further, tho' the
atrocity of the crime committed against the law of nations would
have affoarded me ground to have prosecuted him in any country where
he could have been found. But to my surprize and sorrow, I have of
late been informed that Lieutenant Sinclair has added to the
repeated murthers the impudence of returning, an officer in a
Prussian regiment, to the army, where he was condemn'd, as it were
to affront justice, and glory in what he has done. I am wel
persuaded, that if his guilt had been known to the King of Prussia
or his Generals, his Majesty would not have suffered so odious ane
offender to be entertained in his service. Nor can the Generals or
Ministers of Prussia have anything to plead, why a sentence
pronounced by a British court-martial against one of hir Majesty's
subjects, and confirmed by your excellency her Generall should not
now be executed. I am confident your Grace will not sufferr publick
justice to be insulted in that affair, and I doe in the most humble
and earnest manner begg that your Grace would cause apprehend the
murtherer, that justice may be done upon him for his barbarous and
bloodie crimes. I had about two years ago four brothers, of whom I
may without vanity say, they were very gallant gentlemen; two were
murthered by Lieutenant Sinclair; the third died in the roome with
one of these, partly of his wounds received before Lille, and
pairtly out of griefe for his brothers' misfortunes, so that the
offender is not innocent even of his blood; the fourth was killed at
the battle of Mons. The blood of these that were barbarously slain,
call for vengeance; the law of God and nature requires it. They had,
and I in their name have a claime, in a particular manner, to your
Grace's justice, they having been all four under your Grace's
command; forgive it to my natural affection, if I use arguments with
your Grace to do an act of justice when the whole world, and I in
particular, have such proofs of the greatness of your minde and
virtue, I shall only add my most sincere and humble acknowledgement
of your Grace's justice and dispatch in the melancholie affair, of
which I shall ever retain the most gratefull sense; and remain under
the strictest tyes of dutie, with the most profound respect, my
Lord, your Grace's most humble, most obedient, obliged, and faithful
servant," &c.
With this letter, and some memorials of Sir John Schaw's public service,
end all known appeals for justice on the murderer. But conscience
avenged the crime. Many years afterwards, when living in opulence upon
his patrimonial estate at Dysart in Fife, the Master received from an
humble individual a bitter, though involuntary reproach. When preparing
to cross the Frith, he stopped at an inn in order to engage a running
footman to attend him. Detested by his neighbours, and ever in dread of
the Schaws, Sinclair preserved a sort of incognito. A youth was
presented for his approval. The Master inquired of the young candidate
what proof he could give of his activity, on which this remarkable reply
was given: "Sir, I ran beside the Master of Sinclair's horse when he
rode post from the English camp to escape the death for which he was
condemned for the murder of the two brothers." "The Master," adds Sir
Walter Scott, "much shocked, was nearly taken ill on the spot."[228]
During the insurrection of 1715, the Master of Sinclair took at first an
active part, and became the commander of a company of Jacobite gentlemen
of Fife. He joined the Earl of Mar at Perth,[229] and was employed in an
expedition which gained some credit to the Jacobites. Some arms having
been brought out of Edinburgh for the use of the Earl of Sutherland, and
being put on board a ship at Leith, the Earl of Mar resolved to
intercept these supplies. The wind being contrary, the master of the
vessel thus loaded had dropped into Brunt Island, and had gone into the
town on that island to see his family. A party of four hundred horse and
as many foot was meantime detached on the second of October, 1715, and
arrived at the island about midnight. They pressed all the boats in the
harbour, and boarded the vessel, carrying off three hundred and six
complete stand of arms, together with a considerable number which they
found in the town. This expedition was skilfully contrived and managed,
the horse surrounding the town whilst the foot ransacked it; and the
invasion was made so silently that the Duke of Argyle gained no tidings
of it.[230]
After this exploit the Master of Sinclair returned to the camp at Perth,
there to promote, if not actually to originate, divisions which were
fatal to the cause which he had espoused. Lord Mar, in his letters,
charges him, indeed, distinctly with being the very source of the
dissensions which soon sprang up among the Jacobite chiefs.[231] The
temper of Sinclair could ill brook submission to the Earl of Mar, whom,
as a General, he soon ceased to respect; and for whose difficult
situation he had no relenting feelings. "The Master," writes Sir Walter
Scott, "who was a man of strong sense, acute observation, and some
military experience, besides being of a haughty and passionate temper,
averse to deference and subordination, soon placed himself in opposition
to the general, whom he seems to have at once detested and
despised."[232]
The unfortunate result of the siege of Preston, soon brought to light
the discontents which the Master had nourished among the followers of
Mar. Parties had, indeed, for some time agitated the camp. When the
disasters in England gave them a fresh impulse, and Lord Mar feelingly,
and perhaps not too severely, described the influence of Sinclair when
he bitterly describes him as "a devil in the camp, known in his true
colours when calamity had befallen those with whom he was in
conjunction." It was henceforth in vain that Mar, to use his own
expression, "endeavoured to keep people from breaking among themselves
until the long-expected arrival of the Chevalier should, it was hoped,
check the growing jealousies in the camp;" a party arose, headed by Lord
Huntley, Lord Seaforth, and the Master of Sinclair, who soon obtained
the name of the Grumbler's Club, and who rendered themselves odious to
the sincere and zealous Jacobites.
Lord Huntley appears from Lord Mar's representations, "to have been
completely under the influence of the Master." "Lord Huntley," writes
Lord Mar, "is still very much out of humour, and nothing can make him
yet believe that the King is coming. He intends to go north, under the
pretext of reducing Lord Sutherland, and his leaving us at this time, I
think, might have very bad effects, which makes me do all I can to keep
him. The Master of Sinclair is a very bad instrument about him, and has
been most to blame for all the differences amongst us. I am plagued out
of my life with them, but must do the best I can."[233]
Lord Huntley, however, continued to manifest the greatest disgust and
suspicion of Lord Mar, often refusing to see him, and, though still
lingering at Perth, threatening continually to leave the camp and go
northward.
Lord Sinclair, meantime, having heard of these factions, and being
sincerely affected to the cause of the Stuarts, wrote to his son "a
sharp letter about his behaviour," and a visit of explanation from the
Master instantly followed. During his absence there was a revulsion of
feeling among the Grumblers, and some contrition was expressed by them
for the part that they had acted; but the fiend returned, and the
malcontents quietly relapsed.[234]
The news of James's certain arrival silenced, for a time, all
complaints; but again they revived. Lord Mar seems to have had some
misgiving of this, when he wrote, "Those that made a pretext of the
King's not being landed, are now left inexcusable, and if those kind of
folks now sit still and look any more on, they ought to be worse treated
than our worse enemies." Yet it appears by a subsequent letter, that the
grievances of which the General complained so bitterly, were not cured
even by the presence of the Chevalier; that those who had made a
pretext of his absence to complain and despond, desponded still, and
that, in fact, the malady was so deep-seated as to be incurable.
It may be urged, in vindication of the Master, who obviously aggravated
the spirit of the Grumblers, that the event proved that his
apprehensions were well founded. It was, indeed, natural for an
experienced officer who had served under Marlborough, to view with
dissatisfaction and suspicion the feeble and tardy movements of Lord
Mar. Yet a hearty well-wisher to any cause would have abstained from
infusing distrust into those counsels which, whether wise or foolish,
were destined to guide the adherents of the party. A man of honour will
enter, heart and soul, into what he undertakes, or not enter at all. The
conduct of Sinclair was that of a mean, morose spirit; and it is but
fair to conclude that his motives for adopting the name of Jacobite were
either those of personal advancement, or arose out of an enforced
compliance with the wishes of his father.
Whilst Sinclair was thus undermining the welfare of the party to which
he nominally belonged, his determined enemy, Sir John Schaw, after
assisting the Duke of Argyle in defending Inverness against the
insurgent troops, was marching with Lord Isla to rejoin the Duke of
Argyle in his march towards Perth. It so happened that Lord Isla and his
friends reached Sherriff Muir at the very moment when the Government
troops and the Jacobites were about to join in battle. "Sir John," says
Sir Walter Scott, "though he had no command, engaged as a volunteer; and
we may suppose his zeal for King George was heightened by the
recollection that the slayer of his brothers fought under the opposite
banners." He behaved himself with distinguished courage, receiving a
wound on his arm, and another in his side.[235] He was, at this time,
the only surviving brother out of four, his brother Thomas having been
slain at the siege of Mons a year after the death of the others. A month
before Sir John Schaw had joined the Duke, Lady Schaw, the daughter of
Sir Hugh Dalrymple, and a woman of singular energy and spirit, assembled
the Greenock companies in arms, and telling them that the Protestant
religion, with their laws, liberties, and lives, and all that was dear
to them as men and Christians, were in hazard by that unnatural
rebellion, exhorted them to conduct themselves suitably to the occasion.
The conduct of Sinclair at the battle of Sherriff Muir was not
inconsistent with his former life. He remained, in that engagement,
stationary, with the Marquis of Huntley, at the head of the cavalry of
Fife and Aberdeen; hence the lines in the old song on Sherriff Muir.
"Huntly and Sinclair
They baith play'd the Tinkler,
With consciences black as a craw, man."
Upon the return of the Jacobite army to Perth, where they waited, as
Scott remarks in a tone of mournful reprobation of Mar, "until their own
forces should disperse, those of their enemy advance, and the wintry
storm so far subside as to permit the Duke of Argyle to advance against
them," Sinclair was the chief promoter of a scheme formed by the
Grumblers for a timely submission to Government. Instigated by their
wishes, an attempt was made by Lord Mar to procure, through the Duke of
Argyle's mediation, some terms with Government; but it failed, and those
who had embarked in the cause were obliged to provide, as they best
might, individually for their safety. The whole tenour of Sinclair's
conduct was such as to draw down upon him the severest invectives of his
party. In one of the poems of the day he is thus described:
"The master with the bully's face,
And with the coward heart,
Who never fail'd, to his disgrace,
To act a coward's part,
Did join Dunbogue, the greatest rogue,
In all the shire of Fife,
Who was the first the cause to leave,
By counsel from his wife."
The Master quitted the insurgent party at Perth, and joined the Marquis
of Huntley at Strathbogie; thence he proceeded as a fugitive through
Caithness and Orkney, with a few friends, who, like himself, were
hopeless of pardon. After wandering in these remote districts for some
time, the Master and his friends seized upon a small vessel and fled to
the Continent. The Marquis of Huntley, more fortunate than his
political ally, obtained his full pardon in consideration of his having
left the rebels in time.[236]
The Master of Sinclair married, afterwards, the widowed Countess of
Southesk, whom he probably met when on the Continent, since it appears
that the Countess, for some time subsequent to the death of her husband,
lived at Brussels. In referring to this union, it may not be improper to
give some account of the family into connection with which it brought
the Master of Sinclair.
James Carnegie, Earl of Southesk, the first husband of the lady whom the
Master of Sinclair married, was descended from David Carnegie, an
eminent lawyer, who in 1616 was raised to the dignity of Lord Carnegie
of Kinnaird, and in 1623 was created, by Charles the First, Earl of
Southesk. Like most of those families who had been elevated by the
Stuarts to the peerage, the house of Carnegie retained a strong sense of
their duty of allegiance to the Crown; and the first Earl of Southesk
suffered for his principles by imprisonment and the extortion of a fine
of three thousand pounds from his estates in the time of Cromwell.
James, the fifth Earl of Southesk, although nearly allied by his
mother's side to the Maitlands, Earls of Lauderdale, had retained as
great an affection for the Stuarts as his ancestors had manifested. Of
the personal qualities of this nobleman little is generally known,
except that he has been designated, "Brave, generous Southesk!"--of his
fate, and of the subsequent fortunes of his family, still less is to be
ascertained. Some few particulars which are to be derived from the State
Papers are discreditable to the memory of this nobleman. Like several
other Jacobite noblemen who have been mentioned elsewhere, Lord Southesk
did not hesitate to summon his tenants to follow him to the field in the
most peremptory terms. His commands fell heavily, in one instance, upon
a poor man who lived on the Earl's estate, and bore also the name of
James Carnegie. This unlucky man was a natural son of Charles, the late
Earl of Southesk, and was therefore a brother of the present Earl James.
Like all dependants in those days, he seems to have entertained a deep
sense of his obligation to serve and to obey the head of the family; and
his obedience was probably ensured by the tie of blood, however
unacknowledged as constituting a claim between him and the Earl of
Southesk. James Carnegie exercised the profession of a surgeon in the
neighbourhood of Kinnaird, then the territory of Lord Southesk, and was
employed by the Earl, who appears to have entertained considerable
opinion of his skill. When the Insurrection of 1715 broke out, it would
have been consistent with the character of a "brave and generous man" to
have left this humble practitioner free to follow his own wishes, and
not to have embroiled him in the dangers of that disastrous undertaking.
A further claim upon the Earl's forbearance was the personal defect of
the poor surgeon, who was lame, and short in stature. He was
nevertheless ordered to meet Lord Southesk, at a certain place of
rendezvous, on a certain day. A compliance was expected as a matter of
course, for James Carnegie was a yearly pensioner of his noble and
powerful brother, and refusal was ruin.[237] Nevertheless, the surgeon
ventured on this occasion to judge for himself. He had, it appears, from
his subsequent declaration, been ever well affected to the reigning
Government and attached to the Revolution interest and, by his
disapprobation of the Insurrection of 1715, had given umbrage to his
nearest relations. Upon the command of Lord Southesk being issued to
follow him to the camp at Perth, Carnegie would have fled and hidden
himself but for the illness of his wife; he afterwards took refuge in
the house of Lord Northesk, but his seclusion was of no avail. The
following letter from Lord Southesk, the original of which is in the
State Paper Office, affords a curious insight into the despotism
exercised by the little kings of the Highlands over their subjects:--
"James,--
"After what I both wrote and spoke to you, I did not think you would
have made any furder difficultys of going to Perth with me. I know
very well your wife's circumstances are to be pityd; however, since
you have a pension from me, and served me since you have had any
business, there is nobody of your employment in this country that I
can put any confidence in, whatever may happen to me. Therefore I
desire you may make no furder excuses; and if you can't be ready to
wait upon me from Kinnaird upon Monday, I desire you may follow me
upon Teusday; if you do not, you will for ever disoblige
"SOUTHESQUE."
"Kinnaird, Sept. 17, 1715."
"I desire you may come and speak with me this night, or to-morrow,
at furdest."
"The Case of James Carnegie," also in the State Paper Office, furnishes
a supplement to this peremptory summons.
"The Case of James Carnegie showeth, that though he lived in a country
and amongst men the most notoriously disaffected of any in Scotland, he
had, ever since his appearance in the world, espoused the Revolution
interest, and given proofs of his affection to it, as would appear more
fully in a declaration from the Presbytery of Brichen, in whose bounds
he resided, and from another from Mr. John Anderson, his parish
minister. That upon the first suspision of the treasonable designs of
the rebells, Mr. James Carnegy would have set off and gone south, had
not his wife's dangerous state (thought to be dying) obliged him to
remain. That after the rebellion broke out, he firmly withstood all
solicitations to join it, his neighbours and friends there threatening
to burn house and land. He being disappointed of going south, attempted
to retire to Ethie, Lord Northesk's house in Forfarshire. He could not
remain concealed, the rebells being possessed of all the passes in the
country. Finding himself blocked up amongst his enemies, to avoid the
execution of the threatenings against him, he was induced, to his shame
and regret, to go to Perth, but permitted none of his dependants or
tennents to accompany him, and went with no arms but what gentlemen were
in the habit of wearing. In order to give no support to those traiterous
designs, he feigned illness at Coupar of Angus, but they forced him to
go."
The issue of this affair was mournful. At the battle of Sherriff Muir
where the Earl of Southesk appeared with three hundred men, the
unfortunate nobleman was supposed to be slain. His faithful, though
reluctant attendant, James Carnegie, was taken prisoner as he was
looking over the field of battle in order to find the body of his lord.
He was carried into prison at Carlisle, whence considerable exertions
were made for his release, not only by his own representations, but by
the mediation of Sir James Stewart, the governor of the castle. What was
the result, whether the blameless victim of the will of others was
released, or whether he sank among the many who could not sustain the
hardships of their fate, does not appear.[238]
The Earl of Southesk, although it was reported he had been killed,
rallied his men, and retreated with the Marquis of Tullibardine, the
Earl Marischal and several heads of clans to the mountains, to shelter
themselves from the pursuit of the Government troops. Some of these
chieftains afterwards made their escape to Skye, Lewis, and other of the
north-western islands, till ships came to their relief and carried them
abroad.[239] What was the fate of the Earl of Southesk afterwards is not
known: neither what became of his descendant.[240] He had married the
Lady Margaret Stewart, daughter of the Earl of Galloway, and by her,
according to some accounts, he had two sons; according to a contemporary
Scottish peerage, he had one child only. His widow also went on the
Continent, and the mention of her name by her brother, the Earl of
Galloway, in a letter written at Clery in France,[241] without that of
her husband, in May 1730, appears to indicate that she was then a widow,
and not married again.[242]
How long Lady Southesk lived, the wife of the Master of Sinclair, is
dubious. He survived her, and married afterwards, Emilia the daughter of
Lord George Murray, brother of the Duke of Atholl. This intimate
connection with one of the principal leaders of the Rebellion of 1745,
did not, however, induce the Master to enter a second time into a course
towards which he had, perhaps in truth, no sincere good will.
Upon his flight to the Continent, the Master of Sinclair was outlawed,
and attainted in blood for his share in the Insurrection of 1715. His
father being still alive, and not having taken an active part, his
estates escaped forfeiture, and Lord Sinclair endeavoured so to dispose
of them as to prevent their becoming the property of the Crown. It was
necessary, on this account, that Lord Sinclair should disinherit his
eldest son; and "as it would," says Sir Walter Scott, "have been highly
impolitic to have alleged his forfeiture for treason as a cause of the
deed, the slaughter of the Schaws was given as a reason for his
exheredation." The following is a clause of the deed by which the end
was to be accomplished:
"This new diposition of the family estate is explained and qualified by
the second deed, being a back bond running in the names of the said
James and William Sinclairs, which set forth that their father had been
induced to grant a disposition of his estate in their favour, and to
pass over their elder brother, to prevent all inconvenience and hazard
whatsoever which the rents of the said Lord Sinclair, his heritable
estate, or his moveables, might be liable to, if they were settled in
the said Master's person, '_on accompt of the said Master of Sinclair
his present circumstances, by means of an unfortunate quarrel that some
years ago fell out between the said Master and two sons of the deceased
Sir John Schaw of Greenock_; therefore," the deed proceeds to state, "it
was reasonable that they, James and William Sinclair, should grant a
back bond of settlement, binding themselves to manage the property, when
they should respectively succeed to it by advice of friends, overseers,
and managers,--viz. Sir John Erskine of Alva, Bart., Sir William Baird
of New Baith, Bart., Mr. John Paterson, eldest lawful son to the
deceased Archbishop of Glasgow, their brother-in-law--Sir John Cockburn
of that Ilk, Bart., and Mr. Mathew Sinclair of Hermiston, their uncles.
The said James and William Sinclair, as they should respectively succeed
to the estate, were obliged to make certain necessary expenditure to the
family for behoof of the Master; and the said James and William Sinclair
became also bound, in case the Master, their brother, should become free
of his present inconveniences, or should have a family of lawful
children, then, and in that case to convey the estate to the said
Master, or to his said children, at the sight of his trustees."[243]