After this, little more need be said.[350] From the mere mention of such

things, the mind recoils with disgust. The reader of the history of that

time sickens and faints at the contrivances by which these abject

creatures sought to stifle public opinion, and to ruin, for ever, a

gallant and high-spirited people. But now, as before, they laboured in

vain. More yet was, however, to be borne. The short reign of James II.

was ushered in by an act of singular barbarity. A few weeks after this

bad man came to the throne, all the children in Annandale and Nithsdale,

between the ages of six and ten, were seized by the soldiers, separated

from their parents, and threatened with immediate death.[351] The next

step was, to banish, by wholesale, large numbers of adults, who were

shipped off to unhealthy settlements; many of the men first losing their

ears, and the women being branded, some on the hand, some on the

cheek.[352] Those, however, who remained behind, were equal to the

emergency, and were ready to do what remained to be done. In 1688, as in

1642, the Scotch people and the English people united against their

common oppressor, who saved himself by sudden and ignominious flight. He

was a coward as well as a despot, and from him there was no further

danger. The bishops, indeed, loved him; but they were an insignificant

body, and had enough to do to look to themselves. His only powerful

friends were the Highlanders. That barbarous race thought, with regret,

of those bygone days when the government had not only allowed them, but

had ordered them, to plunder and oppress their southern neighbours. For

this purpose, Charles II. had availed himself of their services; and it

could hardly be doubted, that if the Stuart dynasty were restored, they

would be again employed, and would again enrich themselves by pillaging

the Lowlanders.[353] War was their chief amusement; it was also their

livelihood; and it was the only thing that they understood.[354] Besides

this, the mere fact that James no longer possessed authority,

wonderfully increased their loyalty towards him. The Highlanders

flourished by rapine, and traded in anarchy.[355] They, therefore, hated

any government which was strong enough to punish crime; and the Stuarts

being now far away, this nation of thieves loved them with an ardour

which nothing but their absence could have caused. From William III.,

they feared restraint; but the exiled prince could do them no hurt, and

would look on their excesses as the natural result of their zeal. Not

that they cared about the principle of monarchical succession, or

speculated on the doctrine of divine right.[356] The only succession that

interested them, was that of their chiefs. Their only notion of right,

was to do what those chiefs commanded. Being miserably poor,[357] they,

in raising a rebellion, risked nothing except their lives, of which, in

that state of society, men are always reckless. If they failed, they

encountered a speedy, and, as they deemed it, an honourable death. If

they succeeded, they gained fame and wealth. In either case, they were

sure of many enjoyments. They were sure of being able, for a time at

least, to indulge in pillage and murder, and to practise, without

restraint, those excesses which they regarded as the choicest guerdon of

a soldier's career.

[350] 'In 1684, the Scottish nation was in the most distressing and

pitiable situation that can be imagined.' ... 'The state of

society had now become such, that, in Edinburgh, attention to

ordinary business was neglected, and every one was jealous of his

neighbour.' _Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_,

vol. i. p. 307.

[351] 'Upon the 10th of March, all freeholders, heritors, and gentlemen

in Nithsdale and Annandale, and, I suppose, in most other shires

of the kingdom, but I name those as being the scene of the

severities now used, were summoned to attend the king's standard;

and the militia in the several shires were raised. Wherever

Claverhouse came, he resolved upon narrow and universal work. He

used to set his horse upon the hills and eminences, and that in

different parties, that none might escape; and there his foot went

through the lower, marshy, and mossy places, where the horse could

not do so well. The shire he parcelled out in so many divisions,

and six or eight miles square would be taken in at once. In every

division, the whole inhabitants, men and women, young and old,

without distinction, were all driven into one convenient place.'

... 'All the children in the division were gathered together by

themselves, under ten years, and above six years of age, and a

party of soldiers were drawn out before them. Then they were bid

pray, for they were going to be shot. Some of them would answer,

Sir, we cannot pray.' ... 'At other times, they treated them most

inhumanly, threatening them with death, and at some little

distance would fire pistols without ball in their face. Some of

the poor children were frighted almost out of their wits, and

others of them stood all out with a courage perfectly above their

age. These accounts are so far out of the ordinary way of mankind,

that I would not have insert them, had I not before me several

informations agreeing in all these circumstances, written at this

time by people who knew the truth of them.' _Wodrow's History of

the Church of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 255, 256.

[352] 'Numbers were transported to Jamaica, Barbadoes, and the North

American settlements; but the women were not unfrequently burnt in

the cheek, and the ears of the men were lopt off, to prevent, or

to detect, their return,' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iv.

p. 162. 'Great multitudes banished,' _Wodrow's History of the

Church_, vol. iv. p. 211. In July 1685, 'the men are ordered to

have their ears cropt, and the women to be marked in their hand.'

p. 217. 'To have the following stigma and mark, that they may be

known as banished persons if they shall return to this kingdom,

_viz._ that the men have one of their ears cut off by the hand of

the hangman, and that the women be burnt by the same hand on the

cheek with a burned iron.' p. 218. These are extracts from the

proceedings of the privy-council.

[353] 'James II. favoured the Highland clans,' Note in _Fountainhall's

Scottish Affairs_ from 1680 till 1701, p. 100. He could hardly do

otherwise. The alliance was natural, and ready-made for him.

[354] Except robbing, which, however, in one form or other, is always a

part of war. In this, they were very apt. Burnet (_History of his

own Time_, vol. i. p. 67) pithily describes them as 'good at

robbing;' and Burton (_Lives of Lovat and Forbes_, p. 47) says,

'To steal even vestments was considerably more creditable than to

make them.' Otherwise, they were completely absorbed by their

passion for war. See _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_,

vol. ii. pp. 175, 176, London, 1845.

[355] 'Revenge was accounted a duty, the destruction of a neighbour a

meritorious exploit, and rapine an honourable employment.'

_Browne's History of the Highlands_, vol. iv. p. 395. 'The spirit

of rivalry between the clans kept up a taste for hostility, and

converted rapine into a service of honour.' _Thomson's Memoirs of

the Jacobites_, vol. ii. p. 229.

[356] Hence, looking, as they did, merely at the physical qualities of

individuals, the appearance of the Pretender in 1715 disgusted

them, notwithstanding his splendid lineage. See some excellent

remarks in _Burton's History of Scotland_, from 1689 to 1748,

London, 1853, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199. At p. 383, Mr. Burton justly

observes, that 'those who really knew the Highlanders were aware

that the followers were no more innate supporters of King James's

claim to the throne of Britain, than of Maria Theresa's to the

throne of Hungary. They went with the policy of the head of the

clan, whatever that might be; and though upwards of half a

century's advocacy of the exiled house' (this refers to the last

rebellion in 1745) 'had made Jacobitism appear a political creed

in some clans, it was among the followers, high and low, little

better than a nomenclature, which might be changed with

circumstances.' Since Robertson, Mr. Burton and Mr. Chambers are,

I will venture to say, the two writers who have taken the most

accurate and comprehensive views of the history of Scotland.

Robertson's History stops short where the most important period

begins; and his materials were scanty. But what he effected with

those materials was wonderful. To my mind, his History of Scotland

is much the greatest of his works.

[357] A curious description of their appearance, given by the _Derby

Mercury_ in 1746 (in _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_, vol.

iii. p. 115), may be compared with the more general statement in

_Anderson's Prize Essay on the Highlands_, Edinburgh, 1827, p.

128. 'Cattle were the main resources of the tribe--the acquisition

of these the great object of their hostile forrays. The precarious

crops gave them wherewithal to bake their oaten cakes, or distil

their ale or whisky. When these failed, the crowded population

suffered every extreme of misery and want. At one time in

particular, in Sutherland, they were compelled to subsist on broth

made of nettles, thickened with a little oatmeal. At another,

those who had cattle, to have recourse to the expedient of

bleeding them, and mixing the blood with oatmeal, which they

afterwards cut into slices and fried.'

So far, therefore, from wondering at the rebellions of 1715 and

1745,[358] the only wonder is, that they did not break out sooner, and

that they were not better supported. In 1745, when the sudden appearance

of the rebels struck England with terror, and when they penetrated even

to the heart of the kingdom, their numbers, even at their height,

including Lowland and English recruits, never reached six thousand men.

The ordinary amount was five thousand;[359] and they cared so little

about the cause for which they professed to fight, that, in 1715, when

they numbered much stronger than in 1745, they refused to enter England,

and make head against the government, until they were bribed by the

promise of additional pay.[360] So, too, in 1745, after they had won the

battle of Preston-pans, the only result of that great victory was, that

the Highlanders, instead of striking a fresh blow, deserted in large

bodies, that they might secure the booty they had obtained, and which

alone they valued. They heeded not whether Stuart or Hanoverian gained

the day; and at this critical moment, they were unable, says the

historian, to resist their desire to return to their glens, and decorate

their huts with the spoil.[361]

[358] Several writers erroneously term them 'unnatural.' See, for

instance, _Rae's History of the Rebellion_, London, 1746, pp. 158,

169: and _Home's History of the Rebellion_, London, 1802, 4to,

p. 347.

[359] 'When the rebels began their march to the southward, they were not

6000 men complete,' _Home's History of the Rebellion in the Year

1745_, 4to, p. 137. At Stirling, the army, 'after the junction was

made, amounted to somewhat more than 9000 men, the greatest number

that Charles ever had under his command,' p. 164. But the actual

invaders of England were much fewer. 'The number of the rebels

when they began their march into England was a few above 5000

foot, with about 500 on horseback.' _Home_, p. 331. Browne

(_History of the Highlands_, vol. iii. p. 140) says: 'When

mustered at Carlisle, the prince's army amounted only to about

4500 men;' and Lord George Murray states that, at Derby, 'we were

not above five thousand fighting men, if so many.' _Jacobite

Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745_, edited by Robert Chambers,

Edinburgh, 1834, p. 54. Another writer, relying mainly on

traditional evidence, says, 'Charles, at the head of 4000

Highlanders, marched as far as Derby.' _Brown's History of

Glasgow_, vol. ii. p. 41, Edinburgh, 1797. Compare _Johnstone's

Memoirs of the Rebellion_, 3rd edit., London, 1822, pp. xxxvii.

xxxviii. 30-32, 52. Johnstone says, p. 60, 'M. Patullo, our

muster-master, reviewed our army at Carlisle, when it did not

exceed four thousand five hundred men.' Afterwards, returning to

Scotland, 'our army was suddenly increased to eight thousand men,

the double of what it was when we were in England.' p. 111.

[360] 'Orders were given to proceed in the direction of Carlisle, and

recall the detachment sent forward to Dumfries. The Highlanders,

still true to their stagnant principles, refused obedience.' ...

'Pecuniary negotiations were now commenced, and they were offered

sixpence a day of regular pay--reasonable remuneration at that

period to ordinary troops, but to the wild children of the

mountain a glittering bribe, which the most steady obstinacy would

alone resist. It was partly effective.' _Burton's History of

Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 168. 'And from this day, the Highlanders

had sixpence a head per day payed them to keep them in good order

and under command.' _Patten's History of the late Rebellion_,

London, 1717, p. 73. See also, on the unwillingness of the

Highlanders to enter England, _Rae's History of the Rebellion_,

London, 1746, 2d edit. pp. 270, 271. Browne says (_History of the

Highlands_, vol. ii. pp. 300, 304): 'The aversion of the

Highlanders, from different considerations, to a campaign in

England, was almost insuperable;' but 'by the aid of great

promises and money, the greater part of the Highlanders were

prevailed upon to follow the fortunes of their commander.'

[361] 'Few victories have been more entire. It is said that scarcely two

hundred of the infantry escaped.' ... 'The Highlanders obtained a

glorious booty in arms and clothes, besides self-moving watches,

and other products of civilisation, which surprised and puzzled

them. Excited by such acquisitions, a considerable number could

not resist the old practice of their people to return to their

glens, and decorate their huts with their spoil.' _Burton's

History of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 465. Compare _Home's History of

the Rebellion_, p. 123. This was an old practice of theirs, as

Montrose found out, a century earlier, 'when many of the

Highlanders, being loaded with spoil, deserted privately, and soon

after returned to their own country.' _Wishart's Memoirs of the

Marquis of Montrose_, Edinburgh, 1819, p. 189. So, too, Burnet

(_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 272): 'Besides, any

companies could be brought down from the Highlands might do well

enough for a while, but no order could be expected from them, for

as soon as they were loaded with plunder and spoil, they would run

away home to their lurking holes, and desert those who had trusted

them.' See also p. 354. A more recent writer, drawing a veil over

this little infirmity, remarks, with much delicacy, that 'the

Highlanders, brave as they were, had a custom of returning home

after a battle.' _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_, London,

1845, vol. i. p. 122. Not unfrequently they first robbed their

fellow-soldiers. In 1746, Bisset writes: 'The Highlanders, who

went off after the battel, carried off horses and baggage from

their own men, the Lowlanders.' _Diary of the Reverend John

Bisset_, in _Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. i. p. 377,

Aberdeen, 1841, 4to.

There are, indeed, few things more absurd than that lying spirit of

romance, which represents the rising of the Highlanders as the outburst

of a devoted loyalty. Nothing was further from their minds than this. The

Highlanders have crimes enough to account for, without being burdened by

needless reproach. They were thieves and murderers; but that was in their

way of life, and they felt not the stigma. Though they were ignorant and

ferocious, they were not so foolish as to be personally attached to that

degraded family, which, before the accession of William III., occupied

the throne of Scotland. To love such men as Charles II. and James II.,

may, perhaps, be excused as one of those peculiarities of taste of which

one sometimes hears. But to love all their descendants; to feel an

affection so comprehensive as to take in the whole dynasty, and, for the

sake of gratifying that eccentric passion, not only to undergo great

hardships, but to inflict enormous evil upon two kingdoms, would have

been a folly as well as a wickedness, and would convict the Highlanders

of a species of insanity alien to their nature. They burst into

insurrection, because insurrection suited their habits, and because they

hated all government and all order.[362] But, so far from caring for a

monarch, the very institution of monarchy was repulsive to them. It was

contrary to that spirit of clanship to which they were devoted; and, from

their earliest childhood, they were accustomed to respect none but their

chiefs, to whom they paid a willing obedience, and whom they considered

far superior to all the potentates of the earth.[363] No one, indeed, who

is really acquainted with their history, will think them capable of

having spilt their blood on behalf of any sovereign, be he whom he might;

still less can we believe that they would quit their native land, and

undertake long and hazardous marches, with the object of restoring that

corrupt and tyrannical dynasty, whose offences smelt to heaven, and whose

cruelties had, at length, kindled the anger even of humble and

meek-minded men.

[362] 'Whoever desired, with the sword, to disturb or overturn a fixed

government, was sure of the aid of the chiefs, because a settled

government was ruinous to their power, and almost inimical to

their existence. The more it cultivated the arts of peace, and

throve on industrially created well-being, the more did it drive

into an antagonist position a people who did not change their

nature, who made no industrial progress, and who lived by the

swords which acquired for them the fruits of other men's industry.

With their interests, a peaceful, strong government was as

inconsistent as a well-guarded sheepfold with the interest of

wolves.' _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 105, 106.

'The Highlanders, in all reigns, have been remarkable for

disturbing the established government of Scotland by taking up

arms on every invasion for the invaders.' _Marchant's History of

the present Rebellion_, London, 1746, p. 18. See also _Macky's

Journey through Scotland_, London, 1732, p. 129; and a short, but

very curious, account of the Highlanders, in 1744, in _The

Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. ii. pp. 87-89.

[363] An observer, who had excellent opportunities of studying their

character between the rebellion of 1715 and that of 1745, writes,

'The ordinary Highlanders esteem it the most sublime degree of

virtue to love their chief, and pay him a blind obedience,

although it be in opposition to the government, the laws of the

kingdom, or even to the law of God. He is their idol; and as _they

profess to know no king but him_ (I was going farther), so will

they say, they ought to do whatever he commands, without inquiry.'

_Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland_, edit. London,

1815, vol. ii. pp. 83, 84. 'The Highlanders in Scotland are, of

all men in the world, the soonest wrought upon to follow their

leaders or chiefs into the field, having a wonderful veneration

for their Lords and Chieftains, as they are called there: _Nor do

these people ever consider the validity of the engaging cause_,

but blindly follow their chiefs into what mischief they please,

and that with the greatest precipitation imaginable.' _Patten's

History of the Rebellion_, London, 1717, p. 151. 'The power of the

chiefs over their clans was the true source of the two rebellions.

The clansmen cared no more about the legitimate race of the

Stuarts, than they did about the war of the Spanish succession.'

... 'The Jacobite Highland chiefs ranged their followers on the

Jacobite side--the Hanoverians ranged theirs on the side of

government. Lovat's conduct was a sort of _experimentum crucis_;

he made his clan Hanoverian in one rebellion, and Jacobite in

another.' _Burton's Lives of Lovat and Forbes_, p. 150. Compare

the change of side of the Mackintoshes, in _Browne's History of

the Highlands_, vol. ii. p. 285. Even so late as the American war,

the sovereign was deemed subordinate to the chief. 'One Captain

Frazer from the northern district, brought down a hundred of his

clan, all of the name of Frazer. Few of them could understand a

word of English; and the only distinct idea they had of all the

mustering of forces which they saw around them, was that they were

going to fight for King Frazer and George ta Three.' _Penny's

Traditions of Perth_, pp. 49, 50, Perth, 1836.

The simple fact is, that the outbreaks of 1715 and 1745 were, in our

country, the last struggle of barbarism against civilization. On the one

side, war and confusion. On the other side, peace and prosperity. These

were the interests for which men really fought; and neither party cared

for Stuarts or for Hanoverians. The result of such a contest in the

eighteenth century, could hardly be doubtful. At the time, the

rebellions caused great alarm, both from their suddenness, and from the

strange and ferocious appearance of the Highland invaders.[364] But the

knowledge we now possess, enables us to see, that, from the beginning,

success was impossible. Though the government was extremely remiss, and,

notwithstanding the information it received, allowed itself on both

occasions to be taken by surprise, there was no real danger.[365] The

English, not being particularly enamoured either with the Highlanders or

with the Stuarts, refused to rise;[366] and it cannot be seriously

supposed, that a few thousand half-naked banditti had it in their power

to prescribe to the people of England what sovereign they should obey,

and under what sort of government they should live.

[364] Which gave rise to a report that they were cannibals. 'The late

Mr. Halkston of Rathillet, who had been in this expedition' (the

Rebellion of 1745), 'told Mr. Young that the belief was general

among the people of England, that the Highlanders ate children.'

_Johnstone's Memoirs of the Rebellion_, 3rd edit. London, 1822,

p. 101. Such a rumour, notwithstanding its absurdity, was made

somewhat plausible by the revolting conduct of the Highlanders in

the first rebellion of 1715, when they committed, in the Lowlands,

horrible outrages on corpses which they dug up. See the

contemporary evidence, in _Correspondence of the Rev. Robert

Wodrow_, published by the Wodrow Society, vol. ii. pp. 86, 87, 93.

'They have even raised up some of my Lord Rothes's children and

mangled their dead bodies' ... 'till the stench put them away.' In

1745, they signalized their entrance into England in the following

manner. 'The rebels, during their stay in Carlisle, committed the

most shocking detestable villanies; for, not contented with

robbing families of their most valuable effects, they scrupled not

to act their brutal insolence on the persons of some young ladies,

even in the presence of their parents. A gentleman, in a letter to

his friend in London, writes thus: "That, after being in a manner

stripped of every thing, he had the misery to see three of his

daughters treated in such a manner that he could not relate it."'

_Marchant's History of the present Rebellion_, London, 1746,

pp. 181, 182.

[365] Even when they had penetrated to Derby, the best informed of their

own party despaired of success. See the Jacobitical account in

_The Lockhart Papers_, London, 4to, 1817, vol. ii. p. 458: 'The

next thing to be considered of, was what was now to be done; they

were now at Derby, with an army not half the number of what they

were reported to be, surrounded in a manner with regular troops

on all sides, and more than double their number. To go forward,

there was no encouragement, for their friends (if they had any)

had kept little or no correspondence with them from the time they

entered England.' The Chevalier de Johnstone, who took an active

part in the Rebellion, frankly says, 'If we had continued to

advance to London, and had encountered all the troops of England,

with the Hessians and Swiss in its pay, there was every

appearance of our being immediately exterminated, without the

chance of a single man escaping.' _Johnstone's Memoirs of the

Rebellion in 1745 and 1746_, p. 79.

[366] Lord George Murray, the commander-in-chief in 1745, was unwilling

to advance far south of Carlisle, 'without more encouragement from

the country than we had hitherto got.' See his own account, in

_The Jacobite Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745_, edited by R.

Chambers, Edinburgh, 1834, p. 48. But his prudent advice was

overruled. The Highlanders pressed on; and that happened, which

any one, tolerably acquainted with England, might have foreseen.

Johnstone (_Memoirs of the Rebellion_, p. 70) says, 'In case of a

defeat in England, no one in our army could by any possibility

escape destruction, as the _English peasants were hostile towards

us in the highest degree_; and, besides, the army of Marshal Wade

was in our rear, to cut us off from all communication with

Scotland.' And at p. 81, 'In every place we passed through, we

found the English very ill disposed towards us, except at

Manchester, where there appeared some remains of attachment to the

house of Stuart.' The champion of arbitrary power would find a

different reception now, in that magnificent specimen of English

prosperity, and of true, open-mouthed, English fearlessness. But a

century ago, the men of Manchester were poor and ignorant; and the

statement of Johnstone respecting them is confirmed by Home, who

says, 'At Manchester, several gentlemen, and about 200 or 300 of

the common people, joined the rebel army; _these were the only

Englishmen (a few individuals excepted) who joined Charles in his

march through the country of England_.' _Home's History of the

Rebellion in 1745_, London, 1802, 4to, p. 145. In 1715, the

English equally held back, except at Manchester. See _Patten's

History of the late Rebellion_, London, 1717, pp. 89, 108.

After 1745, there was no further interruption. The interests of

civilization, that is, the interests of knowledge, of liberty, and of

wealth, gradually assumed the upper hand, and reduced men like the

Highlanders to utter insignificance. Roads were cut through their

country; and, for the first time, travellers from the south began to

mingle with them in their hitherto inaccessible wilds.[367] In those

parts, the movement was, indeed, very slow; but, in the Lowlands, it was

much more rapid. For, the traders and inhabitants of towns were now

becoming prominent, and their authority helped to neutralize the old

warlike and anarchical habits. Towards the end of the seventeenth

century, a taste for commercial speculation sprung up, and a large amount

of the energy of Scotland was turned into this new channel.[368] Early in

the eighteenth century, the same tendency was displayed in literature;

and works on mercantile and economical subjects became common.[369] A

change in manners was also perceptible. About this period, the Scotch

began to lose something of that rugged ferocity which had distinguished

them of old. This improvement was evinced in several ways; one of the

most remarkable being an alteration, which was first observed in 1710,

when it was noticed that men were leaving off armour, which had hitherto

been worn by every one who could afford it, as a useful precaution in a

barbarous, and therefore a warlike society.[370]

[367] The establishment of roads caused great displeasure. Pennant, who

visited Scotland in 1769, says, 'These publick works were at first

very disagreeable to the old chieftains, and lessened their

influence greatly: for by admitting strangers among them, their

clans were taught that the Lairds were not the first of men.'

_Pennant's Tour in Scotland_, 4th edit. Dublin, 1775, vol. i.

p. 204. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, this feeling

began to die away. 'Till of late, the people of Kintail, as well

as other Highlands, had a strong aversion to roads. The more

inaccessible, the more secure, was their maxim.' _Sinclair's

Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. vi. p. 244, Edinburgh,

1793.

[368] 'Soon after the establishment of the revolution settlement, the

ardent feelings of the Scottish people were turned out of their

old channels of religious controversy and war in the direction of

commercial enterprise.' _Burton's Criminal Trials in Scotland_,

vol. i. p. 104. Compare _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol.

iv. pp. 286, 287, 418; and the note (at p. 419): 'The lords and

commons of Scotland were then desirous of getting into trade.'

This is under the year 1699. In 1698, Fletcher of Saltoun writes:

'by no contrivance of any man, but by an unforeseen and unexpected

change of the genius of this nation, all their thoughts and

inclinations, as if united and directed by a higher power, seemed

to be turned upon trade, and to conspire together for its

advancement.' _First Discourse on the Affairs of Scotland_, in

_Fletcher of Saltoun's Political Works_, Glasgow, 1749, p. 57. At

this, the clergy were uneasy. In 1709, the Reverend Robert Wodrow

expresses an opinion, in one of his letters, that 'the sin of our

too great fondness for trade, to the neglecting of our more

valuable interests, I humbly think will be written upon our

judgment.' _Wodrow's Correspondence_, Edinburgh, 1842, 8vo, vol.

i. p. 67. In the same year, some ships being taken by the French,

part of the loss fell upon Glasgow. Thereupon, Wodrow writes:

'It's said that in all there is about eighty thousand pound

sterling lost there, whereof Glasgow has lost ten thousand pound.

I wish trading persons may see the language of such a Providence.

I am sure the Lord is remarkably frouning upon our trade, in more

respects than one, since it was put in the room of religion, in

the late alteration of our constitution.' _Wodrow's Analecta_,

vol. i. p. 218, 4to, published by the Maitland Club.

[369] Laing (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 296), under the year

1703, says: 'Ever since the projected settlement at Darien, the

genius of the nation had acquired a new direction; and as the

press is the true criterion of the spirit of the times, the

numerous productions on political and commercial subjects, with

which it daily teemed, had supplanted the religious disputes of

the former age.' Unfortunately for Scotland, they were by no means

supplanted. Still, the movement was great, and not to be mistaken.

[370] 'It was only in 1710, that they began to throw off their armour,

and allow the soldier to merge into the quiet and industrious

craftsman.' _Penny's Traditions of Perth_, p. 335, Perth, 1836.

This particularly applies to the citizens of Perth.

To trace the general progress in its various parts, or even to indicate

the immediate consequences, would require a separate volume. One of the

results is, however, too conspicuous to be passed over in silence, though

it does not deserve all the importance that has been attached to it. This

is, the abolition of hereditary jurisdictions, which, after all, was but

a symptom of the great movement, and not a cause of it; being itself due,

partly to the growth of the industrial spirit, and partly to that

diminution of the power of the aristocracy, which had been visible as

early as the beginning of the seventeenth century. During many ages,

certain persons of noble birth had enjoyed the privilege of trying

offences, and even of inflicting capital punishment, simply because their

ancestors had done so before them; the judicial power being, in fact,

part of their patrimony, and descending to them like the rest of their

property.[371] An institution of this sort, which made a man a judge,

not because he was apt for the office, but because he was born under

particular circumstances, was a folly which the revolutionary temper of

the eighteenth century was not likely to spare. The innovating spirit for

which that age was remarkable, could hardly fail to attack so

preposterous a custom; and its extinction was facilitated, both by the

decline of the nobles who possessed the privilege, and by the rise of

their natural opponents, the trading and commercial classes. The decay of

the Scotch nobility, in the eighteenth century, may be traced to two

special causes, in addition to those general causes, which were weakening

the aristocracy nearly all over Europe. With the general causes, which

were common to England and to most parts of the Continent, we are not now

concerned. It is enough to say, that they were entirely dependent on that

advance of knowledge, which, by increasing the authority of the

intellectual class, undermines, and must eventually overthrow, mere

hereditary and accidental distinctions. But those causes which were

confined to Scotland, had a more political character, and though they

were purely local, they harmonized with the whole train of events, and

ought to be noticed, as links of a vast chain, which connects the present

state of that singular country with its past history.

[371] On these 'hereditary or proprietary jurisdictions,' which conferred

the right, or, I would rather say, the power, of putting people to

death, see _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 425, vol.

ii. p. 402. The technical term for so monstrous a privilege, was

the right 'of pit and gallows.' _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in

Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 94; and _Mackenzie's Laws and Customs of

Scotland in Matters Criminal_, pp. 70, 100, 187, 210. This meant,

that men were to be hung, and women to be drowned. See also

_Arnot's History of Edinburgh_, p. 224; _Fountainhall's Notes of

Scottish Affairs_, p. 139; _Hume's History of the House of

Douglas_, vol. i. p. 346; _Lettice's Scotland_, p. 271;

_Sinclair's Scotland_, vol. i. p. 417, vol. iv. p. 478, vol. vi.

pp. 195, 258, vol. viii. pp. 129, 348, vol. xiii. p. 563,

vol. xiv. p. 34, vol. xvii. pp. 442, 600, vol. xviii. p. 473.

The first cause was the union of Scotland with England, in 1707, which

struck a heavy blow at the Scotch aristocracy. By it, the legislature of

the smaller country was absorbed in that of the larger, and the

hereditary legislators suddenly sunk into insignificance. In the Scotch

parliament, there were a hundred and forty-five peers, all of whom,

except sixteen, were, by the Act of Union, deprived of the power of

making laws.[372] These sixteen were sent off to London, and took their

seats in the House of Lords, of which they formed a small and miserable

fraction. On every subject, however important to their own country, they

were easily outvoted; their manners, their gesticulations, and

particularly their comical mode of pronouncing English, were openly

ridiculed;[373] and the chiefs of this old and powerful aristocracy found

themselves, to their utter amazement, looked on as men of no account, and

they were often obliged to fawn and cringe at the levee of the minister,

in order to procure a place for some needy dependent. Their friends and

relations applied to them for offices, and generally applied in vain.

Indeed, the Scotch nobles, being very poor, wanted for themselves more

than the English government was inclined to give, and, in the eagerness

of their clamour, they lost both dignity and reputation.[374] They were

exposed to mortifying rebuffs, and their true position being soon known,

weakened their influence at home, among a people already prepared to

throw off their authority. To this, however, they were comparatively

indifferent, as they looked for future fortune, not to Scotland, but to

England. London became the centre of their intrigues and their

hopes.[375] Those who had no seat in the House of Lords, longed to have

one, and it was notorious, that the darling object of nearly every Scotch

noble was to be made an English peer.[376] The scene of their ambition

being shifted, they were gradually weaned from their old associations.

Directly this was apparent, the foundation of their power was gone. From

that moment, their real nationality vanished. It became evident that

their patriotism was but a selfish passion. They ceased to love a country

which could give them nothing, and, as a natural consequence, their

country ceased to love them.

[372] Laing (_History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 345) says, that in 1706,

'the commons in the Scottish parliament were 160; the peers 145.'

Of these peers, the Treaty of Union declared that 'sixteen shall

be the number to sit and vote in the House of Lords.' _De Foe's

History of the Union between England and Scotland_, London, 1786,

4to, pp. 205, 538. The English House of Lords consisted of 179

members. See _The Lockhart Papers_, London, 1817, 4to, vol. i. pp.

343, 547. It was impossible to mistake the result of this sweeping

measure, by which, as was said at the time, 'Scotland was to

retrench her nobility.' _De Foe's History of the Union_, p. 495.

Compare p. 471: 'The nobility being thereby, as it were, degraded

of their characters.' In 1710, a Scotchman writes in his journal:

'It was one of the melancholyest sights to any that have any sense

of our antient Nobility, to see them going throu for votes, and

making partys, and giving their votes to others who once had their

oun vote; and I suspect many of them reu the bargain they made, in

giving their oun pouer away.' _Wodrow's Analecta_, vol. i. p. 308.

[373] The Scotch, consequently, became so eager to do away with this

source of mirth, that even as late as the year 1761, when the

notorious lecturer, Sheridan, visited Edinburgh, 'such was the

rage for speaking with an English accent, that more than three

hundred gentlemen, among whom were the most eminent in the country

for rank and learning, attended him.' _Ritchie's Life of Hume_,

London, 1807, p. 94. It was, however, during about twenty years

immediately after the Union, that the Scotch members of

Parliament, both Lords and Commons, were most jeered at in London,

and were treated with marked disrespect, socially and politically.

Not only were they mocked and lampooned, but they were also made

tools of. In September 1711, Wodrow writes (_Analecta_, vol. i. p.

348, 4to, 1842): 'In the beginning of this (month), I hear a

generall dissatisfaction our Nobility, that wer at last

Parliament, have at their treatment at London. They complean they

are only made use of as tools among the English, and cast by when

their party designes are over.' The next year (1712), the Scotch

members of the House of Commons met together, and expressed their

'high resentment of the uncivil, haughty treatment they mett with

from the English.' _The Lockhart Papers_, London, 1817, 4to, vol.

i. p. 417. See, further, _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii.

p. 27. 'Without descending to rudeness, the polished

contemporaries of Wharton and St. John could madden the sensitive

and haughty Scots by light shafts of raillery, about their

pronunciation or knowledge of parliamentary etiquette.' Some

curious observations upon the way in which the Scotch pronounced

English, late in the seventeenth century, will be found in

_Morer's Short Account of Scotland_, London, 1702, pp. 13, 14. The

author of this book was chaplain to a Scotch regiment.

[374] Among many illustrations with which contemporary memoirs abound,

the following is by no means the worst. Burnet, as a Scotchman,

thinks proper to say that those of his countrymen who were sent to

parliament, 'were persons of such distinction, that they very well

deserved' the respect and esteem with which they were treated. To

which, Lord Dartmouth adds: 'and were very importunate to have

their deserts rewarded. A Scotch earl pressed Lord Godolphin

extremely for a place. He said there was none vacant. The other

said, his lordship could soon make one so, if he pleased. Lord

Godolphin asked him, if he expected to have any body killed to

make room? He said, No; but Lord Dartmouth commonly voted against

the court, and every body wondered that he had not been turned out

before now. Lord Godolphin told him, he hoped his lordship did not

expect that he should be the person to propose it; and advised him

never to mention it any more, for fear the queen should come to

hear of it; for if she did, his lordship would run great risk

never to have a place as long as she lived. But he could not

forbear telling every where, how ill the lord treasurer had used

him.' _Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. v. p. 349, Oxford,

1823. Compare the account, in 1710, in _Wodrow's Analecta_, vol.

i. p. 293. 'Argyle is both picked (_i.e._ piqued) at Marlburrou,

and his brother Yla, for refusing him a regiment; and Godolphin

should have said to the queen that my Lord Yla was not to be

trusted with a regiment! The Earl of Marr was one of the greatest

cronnies Godolphine had, till the matter of his pension, after the

Secretary office was taken from him, came about. Godolphine caused

draw it during pleasure; Marr expected it during life, which the

Treasurer would not yield to, and therefore they brake.' The

history of the time is full of these wretched squabbles, which

show what the Scotch nobles were made of. Indeed, their rapacity

was so shameless, that, in 1711, several of them refused to

perform their legislative duties in London, unless they received

some offices which they expected. 'About the midle of this moneth,

I hear ther was a meeting of severall of our Scots Peers, at the

Viscount of Kilsyth's, where they concerted not to goe up to this

parliament till peremptorly writ for; and (also) some assurance be

given of the places they were made to hope for last session and

have missed.' _Wodrow's Analecta_, vol. i. p. 365. In 1712, the

same Scotchman writes (_Analecta_, vol. ii. p. 8): 'Our Scots

Peers' secession from the House of Peers makes much noise; but

they doe not hold by it. They sometimes come and sometimes goe,

and _they render themselves base in the eyes of the English_.' See

also a letter 'concerning the Scots Peerage,' in _Somers' Tracts_,

vol. xii. p. 607, edit. Scott, London, 1814, 4to.

[375] A Scotch writer, twenty years after the Union, says: 'Most of our

gentlemen and people of quality, who have the best estates in our

country, live for the most part at London.' _Reasons for improving

the Fisheries and Linen Manufacture of Scotland_, London, 1727, p.

22. I do not know who wrote this curious little treatise; but the

author was evidently a native of Scotland. See p. 25. I have,

however, still earlier evidence to adduce. A letter from Wodrow,

dated 9th of August 1725, complains of 'the general sending our

youth of quality to England:' and a letter to him, in 1716,

describes the Anglicizing process going on among the Scotch

aristocracy, only nine years after the Union. 'Most of our Lords

and others here do so much depend on the English for their posts,

and _seeking somewhat or other_, that their mouths are almost

quite stopped; and really _most of them go into the English way in

all things_.' _Wodrow's Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 196, vol.

iii. p. 224. The Earl of Mar lost popularity in Scotland, on

account of the court he paid to Lord Godolphin; for, he 'appears

to have passed much more time in intrigues in London than among

the gardens of Alloa.' _Thomson's Memoirs of the Jacobites_, vol.

i. p. 36. Even Earl Ilay, in his anxiety to advance himself at the

English court, 'used to regret his being a Scots peer, and to wish

earnestly he was a commoner.' _Letters of Lord Grange_, in _The

Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. iii. p. 39, Aberdeen, 4to,

1846.

[376] Indeed, their expectation ran so high, as to induce a hope, not

only that those Commissioners of the Union who were Scotch peers

should be made English ones, but that 'the whole nobility of

Scotland might in time be admitted.' _Laing's History of

Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 346. Compare _The Lockhart Papers_, vol. i.

pp. 298, 343: 'the Scots Peerage, many of whom had been bubled

with the hopes of being themselves created British Peers.' Also

_The Gordon Letters_, in _The Miscellany of the Spalding Club_,

vol. iii. pp. 227, 228.

Thus it was that this great tie was severed. In this, as in all similar

movements, there were, of course, exceptions. Some of the nobles were

disinterested, and some of their dependents were faithful. But, looking

at the Lowlands as a whole, there can be no doubt that, before the middle

of the eighteenth century, that bond of affection was gone, which, in

former times, made tens of thousands of Scotchmen ready to follow their

superiors in any cause, and to sacrifice their lives at a nod. That

spirit, which was once deemed ardent and generous, but which a deeper

analysis shows to be mean and servile, was now almost extinct, except

among the barbarous Highlanders, whose ignorance of affairs long

prevented them from being influenced by the stream of events. That the

proximate cause of this change was the Union, will probably be denied by

no one who has minutely studied the history of the period. And that the

change was beneficial, can only be questioned by those sentimental

dreamers, with whom life is a matter rather of feeling than of judgment,

and who, despising real and tangible interests, reproach their own age

with its material prosperity, and with its love of luxury, as if they

were the result of low and sordid desires unknown to the loftier temper

of bygone days. To visionaries of this sort, it may well appear that the

barbarous and ignorant noble, surrounded by a host of devoted retainers,

and living with rude simplicity in his own dull and wretched castle,

forms a beautiful picture of those unmercenary and uncalculating times,

when men, instead of seeking for knowledge, or for wealth, or for

comfort, were content with the frugal innocence of their fathers, and

when, protection being accorded by one class, and gratitude felt by the

other, the subordination of society was maintained, and its different

parts were knit together by sympathy, and by the force of common

emotions, instead of, as now, by the coarse maxims of a vulgar and

selfish utility.

Those, however, whose knowledge gives them some acquaintance with the

real course of human affairs, will see that in Scotland, as in all

civilized countries, the decline of aristocratic power forms an essential

part of the general progress. It must, therefore, be esteemed a fortunate

circumstance, that, among the Scotch, where that power had long been

enormous, it was weakened in the eighteenth century, not only by general

causes, which were operating elsewhere, but also by two smaller and more

special causes. The first of these minor causes was, as we have just

seen, the Union with England. The other cause was, comparatively

speaking, insignificant, but still it produced decided effect,

particularly in the northern districts. It consisted in the fact, that

some of the oldest Highland nobles were concerned in the rebellion of

1745, and that, when that rebellion was put down, those who escaped from

the sword were glad to save their lives by flying abroad, leaving their

dependents to shift for themselves.[377] They became attached to the

court of the Pretender, or, at all events, intrigued for him. That,

indeed, was their only chance, their estates at home being forfeited. For

nearly forty years, several great families were in exile, and although,

about 1784, they began to return,[378] other associations had been formed

during their absence, and new ideas had arisen, both in their own minds,

and in the minds of their retainers. A fresh generation had grown up, and

fresh influences had been brought to bear. Strangers, with whom the

people had no sympathy, had intruded upon the estates of the nobles, and

though they might receive obedience, it was an obedience unaccompanied by

deference. The real reverence was gone; the homage of the heart was no

more. And as this state of things lasted for about forty years, it

interrupted the whole train of thought; and the former habits were so

completely broken, that, even when the chiefs were restored to their

forfeited honours, they found that there was another part of their

inheritance which they were unable to recover, and that they had lost for

ever that unreserved submission, which, in times of yore, had been

willingly paid to their fathers.[379]

[377] The Chevalier de Johnstone, in his plaintive remarks on the battle

of Culloden, says: 'The ruin of many of the most illustrious

families in Scotland immediately followed our defeat.'

_Johnstone's Memoirs of the Rebellion in 1745_, p. 211. He, of

course, could not perceive that, sad as such ruin was to the

individual sufferers, it was an immense benefit to the nation. Mr.

Skene, referring to the year 1748, says of the Highlanders: 'their

long-cherished ideas of clanship gradually gave way under the

absence and ruin of so many of their chiefs.' _Skene's

Highlanders_, vol. i. p. 147.

[378] 'About 1784, the exiled families began to return.' _Penny's

Traditions of Perth_, p. 41. See also _Macpherson's Annals of

Commerce_, vol. iv. p. 53. In 1784, 'a bill passed the Commons

without opposition,' to restore the 'Forfeited Estates' in the

north of Scotland. See _Parliamentary History_, vol. xxiv. pp.

1316-1322. On that occasion, Fox said (p. 1321) the proprietors

'had been sufficiently punished by forty years' deprivation of

their fortunes for the faults of their ancestors.'

[379] Dean Ramsay, in his _Reminiscences_ (5th edit. Edinburgh, 1859,

p. 57), notices that, owing to 'transfers of property and

extinction of old families in the Highlands, as well as from more

general causes,' the old clannish affection 'is passing away.' But

this intelligent observer has not indicated the connexion between

so important a fact and the Rebellion of 1745. In 1792, Heron

writes: 'The prejudices of clanship have almost died away.' ...

'The dependents of the family of Kenmure are still attached to its

representative with much of that affection and respect with which

the tribes of the Highlands have _till lately_ been accustomed to

adhere to their lord.' _Heron's Journey through the Western

Counties of Scotland_, 2nd edit. Perth, 1799, vol. i. p. 248,

vol. ii. p. 154. See also the remarks made, in the same year, in

_Lettice's Letters on a Tour through various parts of Scotland_,

London, 1794, p. 340. To trace the movement back still further,

Pennant writes, in 1769: 'But in many parts of the Highlands,

their character begins to be more faintly marked; they mix more

with the world; and _become daily less attached to their chiefs_.'

... 'During the feudal reign, their love for their chieftain

induced them to bear many things, at _present intolerable_.' These

two important passages are in the 4th edition of _Pennant's Tour

in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 194, vol. ii. p. 307, Dublin, 1775. They

prove that, twenty-four years after the Rebellion of 1745, the

decay of affection was so manifest, as to strike a candid and

careful, but by no means philosophic, observer. For Pennant to

have discerned these changes, they must already have risen to the

surface. Other and corroborative evidence will be found in

_Sinclair's Account of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 545, Edinburgh,

1792; and vol. iii. pp. 377, 437, vol. xiii. p. 310, vol. xv.

p. 592, vol. xx. p. 33.

Owing to these circumstances, the course of affairs in Scotland, during

the eighteenth century, and especially during the first half of it, was

marked by a more rapid decline of the influence of the higher ranks than

was seen in any other country. It was, therefore, an easy task for the

English government to procure a law, which, by abolishing hereditary

jurisdictions, deprived the Scotch aristocracy, in 1748, of the last

great ensign of their power.[380] The law, being suited to the spirit of

the times, worked well; and in the Highlands, in particular, it was one

immediate cause of the establishment of something like the order of a

settled state.[381] But in this instance, as in every other, the real

and overruling cause is to be found in the condition of the surrounding

society. A few generations earlier, hardly any one would have thought of

abolishing these mischievous jurisdictions, which were then deemed

beneficial, and were respected, as belonging to the great families by

natural and inalienable right. Such an opinion was the inevitable result

of the state of things then existing. This being the case, it is certain

that, if the legislature had, at that time, been so rash as to lay its

hand on what the nation respected, popular sympathy would have been

aroused, and the nobles would have been strengthened by what was intended

to weaken them.[382] In 1748, however, matters were very different.

Public opinion had changed; and this change of opinion was not only the

cause of the new law, but was the reason of the new law being effective.

And so it always is. They, indeed, whose knowledge is almost confined to

what they see passing around them, and who, on account of their

ignorance, are termed practical men, may talk as they will about the

reforms which government has introduced, and the improvement to be

expected from legislation. But whoever will take a wider and more

commanding view of affairs, will soon discover that such hopes are

chimerical. They will learn that lawgivers are nearly always the

obstructors of society, instead of its helpers; and that, in the

extremely few cases in which their measures have turned out well, their

success has been owing to the fact, that, contrary to their usual custom,

they have implicitly obeyed the spirit of their time, and have been, as

they always should be, the mere servants of the people, to whose wishes

they are bound to give a public and legal sanction.

[380] _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 535-537. _Struthers'

History of Scotland_, Glasgow, 1828, vol. ii. pp. 519-525.

[381] Macpherson (_Annals of Commerce_, vol. iii. p. 259) says, 'This

excellent statute may not unfitly be termed a new magna charta to

the free people of Scotland.'

[382] I cannot, therefore, agree with Macpherson, who asserts, in his

valuable work, that the abolition of these jurisdictions 'should

undoubtedly have been made an essential preliminary of the

consolidating union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland,

concluded forty years before.' _Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_,

vol. iii. p. 257. Compare _De Foe's History of the Union between

England and Scotland_, pp. 458, 459, London, 1786, 4to.

Another striking peculiarity of Scotland, during the remarkable period

we are now considering, was the sudden rise of trading and manufacturing

interests. This preceded, by a whole generation, the celebrated statute

of 1748, and was one of the causes of it, in so far as it weakened the

great families, against whom that statute was directed. The movement may

be traced back, as I have already noticed, to the end of the seventeenth

century, and it was in active operation before the first twenty years of

the eighteenth century had passed away. A mercantile and money-making

spirit was diffused to an extent formerly unknown, and men becoming

valued for their wealth as well as for their birth, a new standard of

excellence was introduced, and new actors appeared on the scene.

Heretofore, persons were respected solely for their parentage; now they

were also respected for their riches. The old aristocracy, made uneasy by

the change, did every thing they could to thwart and discourage these

young and dangerous rivals.[383] Nor can we wonder at their feeling

somewhat sore. The tendency which was exhibited, was, indeed, fatal to

their pretensions. Instead of asking who was a man's father, the question

became, how much he had got. And certainly, if either question is to be

put, the latter is the more rational. Wealth is a real and substantial

thing, which ministers to our pleasures, increases our comfort,

multiplies our resources, and not unfrequently alleviates our pains. But

birth is a dream and a shadow, which, so far from benefiting either body

or mind, only puffs up its possessor with an imaginary excellence, and

teaches him to despise those whom nature has made his superiors, and who,

whether engaged in adding to our knowledge or to our wealth, are, in

either case, ameliorating the condition of society, and rendering to it

true and valuable service.

[383] In 1740, 'the rising manufacturing and trading interests of the

country' were 'looked down upon and discouraged by the feudal

aristocracy.' _Burton's Lives of Lovat and Forbes_, p. 361.

This antagonism between the aristocratic and trading spirit, lies in the

nature of things, and is essential, however it may be disguised at

particular periods. Therefore it is, that the history of trade has a

philosophic importance in reference to the progress of society, quite

independent of practical considerations. On this account I have called

the attention of the reader to what otherwise would be foreign to the

objects of the present Introduction; and I will now trace, as briefly as

possible, the beginning of that great industrial movement, to the

extension of which the overthrow of the Scotch aristocracy is to be

partly ascribed.

The Union with England, which was completed in 1707, produced immediate

and striking effects on trade. Its first effect was, to throw open to the

Scotch a new and extensive commerce with the English colonies in America.

Before the Union, no goods of any kind could be landed in Scotland from

the American plantations, unless they had first been landed in England,

and paid duty there; nor even, in that case, might they be conveyed by

any Scotch vessel.[384] This was one of many foolish regulations by which

our legislators interfered with the natural course of affairs, and

injured the interests of their own country, as well as those of their

neighbours. Formerly, however, such laws were considered to be extremely

sagacious, and politicians were constantly contriving protective schemes

of this sort, which, with the best intentions, inflicted incalculable

harm. But if, as seems probable, one of their objects, in this instance,

was to retard the improvement of Scotland, they were more than usually

successful in effecting the purpose at which they aimed. For, the whole

of the western coast, being cut off from direct intercourse with the

American colonies, was debarred from the only foreign trade it could

advantageously follow; since the European ports lay to the east, and

could not be reached by the inhabitants of Western Scotland without a

long circumnavigation, which prevented them from competing, on equal

terms, with their countrymen, who, sailing from the other side, were

already near the chief seats of commerce. The consequence was, that

Glasgow and the other western ports remained almost stationary; having

comparatively few means of gratifying that enterprising spirit, which

rose among them late in the seventeenth century, and not daring to trade

with those prosperous colonies which were just before them across the

Atlantic, but from which they were entirely excluded by the jealous

precautions of the English parliament.[385]

[384] 'Whereas Scotland had, before this, prohibited all the English

woollen manufactures, under severe penalties, and England, on the

other hand, had excluded the Scots from trading with Scots ships

to their colonies in America, directly from Scotland, and had

confiscated even their own English ships trading to the said

colonies from England, if navigated or manned with above one-third

Scots seamen,' &c. _De Foe's History of the Union_, p. 603. In

1696, the wise men in our English Parliament passed a law, 'that

on no pretence whatever any kind of goods from the English

American plantations should hereafter be put on shore, either in

the kingdoms of Ireland or Scotland, without being first landed in

England, and having also paid the duties there, under forfeiture

of ship and cargo.' _Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_, vol. ii.

p. 684. Certainly, the more a man knows of the history of

legislation, the more he will wonder that nations should have been

able to advance in the face of the formidable impediments which

legislators have thrown in their way.

[385] 'A spirit for commerce appears to have been raised among the

inhabitants of Glasgow between the periods of 1660 and 1707, when

the union with England took place.' ... But, 'whatever their trade

was, at this time, it could not be considerable; the ports to

which they were obliged to trade, lay all to the eastward; the

circumnavigation of the island would, therefore, prove an almost

insurmountable bar to the commerce of Glasgow; the people upon the

east coast, from their situation, would be in possession of almost

the whole commerce of Scotland.' _Gibson's History of Glasgow_,

p. 205, Glasgow, 1777.

When, however, by the Act of Union, the two countries became one, these

precautions were discontinued, and Scotland was allowed to hold direct

intercourse with America and the West India Islands. The result which

this produced on the national industry, was almost instantaneous, because

it gave vent to a spirit which had begun to appear among the people late

in the seventeenth century, and because it was aided by those still more

general causes, which, in most parts of Europe, predisposed that age to

increased industry. The west of Scotland, being nearest to America, was

the first to feel the movement. In 1707, the inhabitants of Greenock,

without the interference of government, imposed on themselves a voluntary

assessment, with the object of constructing a harbour. In this

undertaking, they displayed so much zeal, that, by the year 1710, the

whole of the works were completed; a pier and capacious harbour were

erected, and Greenock was suddenly raised from insignificance to take an

important part in the trade of the Atlantic.[386] For a while, the

merchants were content to carry on their traffic with ships hired from

the English. Soon, however, they became bolder; they began to build on

their own account; and, in 1719, the first vessel belonging to Greenock

sailed for America.[387] From that moment, their commerce increased so

rapidly, that, by the year 1740, the tax which the citizens had laid on

themselves sufficed, not only to wipe off the debt which had been

incurred, but also to leave a considerable surplus available for

municipal purposes.[388] At the same time, and by the action of the same

causes, Glasgow emerged from obscurity. In 1718, its enterprising

inhabitants launched in the Clyde the first Scotch vessel which ever

crossed the Atlantic; thus anticipating the people of Greenock by one

year.[389] Glasgow and Greenock became the two great commercial outlets

of Scotland, and the chief centres of activity.[390] Comforts, and,

indeed, luxuries, hitherto only attainable at enormous cost, began to be

diffused through the country. The productions of the tropics could now be

procured direct from the New World, which, in return, offered a rich and

abundant market for manufactured goods. This was a further stimulus to

Scotch industry, and its effects were immediately apparent. The

inhabitants of Glasgow, finding a great demand among the Americans for

linen, introduced its manufacture into their city in 1725, whence it

extended to other places, and, in a short time, gave employment to

thousands of workmen.[391] It is also from the year 1725, that Paisley

dates its rise. So late as the beginning of the eighteenth century, this

rich and prosperous city was still a straggling village, containing only

a single street.[392] But, after the Union, its poor, and hitherto idle,

inhabitants began to be moved by the activity which they saw on every

side. Gradually, their views expanded; and the introduction among them,

in 1725, of the manufacture of thread, was the first step in that great

career in which they never stopped, until they had raised Paisley to be a

vast emporium of industry, and a successful promoter of every art by

which industry is nurtured.[393]

[386] 'The importance of the measure induced the inhabitants of Greenock

to make a contract with the superior, by which they agreed to an

assessment of 1_s._ 4_d._ sterling on every sack of malt, brewed

into ale, within the limits of the town; the money so levied to be

applied in liquidating the expence of forming a proper harbour at

Greenock. The work was begun at the epoch of the Union, in 1707;

and a capacious harbour, containing upwards of ten Scottish acres,

was formed by building an extensive circular pier, with a straight

pier, or tongue, in the middle, by which the harbour was divided

into two parts. This formidable work, the greatest of the kind, at

that time, in Scotland, incurred an expence of more than 100,000

marks Scots.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 807, London,

1824, 4to. _In M'Culloch's Geographical and Statistical

Dictionary_, London, 1849, vol. i. p. 930, it is stated, that 'the

inhabitants took the matter (1707) into their own hands, and

agreed with their superior to assess themselves at a certain rate,

to build a proper pier and harbour. The work was finished in 1710,

at an expence of 5,555_l._'

[387] 'The trade of Greenock has kept pace with the improvements made on

its harbour. The union of the kingdoms (1707) opened the colonies

to the enterprising inhabitants of this town, and generally of the

west of Scotland; but it was not till 1719 that the first vessel

belonging to Greenock crossed the Atlantic.' _M'Culloch's

Geographical and Statistical Dictionary_, vol. i. p. 930.

[388] 'Such was the effect of the new harbour in increasing the trade,

and the population, of the town, that the assessment, and port

dues, cleared off the whole debt before 1740, and left, in that

year, a clear surplus of 27,000 marks Scots, or 1,500_l._

sterling.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 807. 'After the

Union, however, the trade of the port increased so rapidly, that,

in the year 1740, the whole debt was extinguished, and there

remained a surplus, the foundation of the present town's funds, of

27,000 marks.' _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol.

v. p. 576, Edinburgh, 1793.

[389] 'By the Union, however, new views were opened up to the merchants

of the city; they thereby obtained the liberty of a free commerce

to America and the West Indies, from which they had been before

shut out; they chartered English vessels for these voyages, having

none at first fit for the purpose; sent out cargoes of goods for

the use of the colonies, and returned home laden with tobacco. The

business doing well, vessels were built belonging to the city, and

in the year 1718, the first ship, the property of Glasgow, crossed

the Atlantic.' _Denholm's History of Glasgow_, p. 405, 3rd edit.

Glasgow, 1804. Brown (_History of Glasgow_, vol. ii. p. 330,

Edinburgh, 1797) says, that the Glasgow merchants 'chartered

Whitehaven ships for many years:' but that, 'in 1716, a vessel of

sixty tons burden was launched at Crawford's dike, being the first

Clyde ship that went to the British Settlements in America with

goods and a supercargo.' But this date is probably two years too

early. Mr. M'Culloch, in his excellent _Geographical and

Statistical Dictionary_, London, 1849, vol. ii. p. 659, says: 'But

for a while, the merchants of Glasgow, who first embarked in the

trade to America, carried it on by means of vessels belonging to

English ports; and it was not till 1718 that a ship built in

Scotland (in the Clyde), the property of Scotch owners, sailed for

the American colonies.' Gibson, also (_History of Glasgow_, 1777,

p. 206), says: 'In 1718, the first vessel of the property of

Glasgow crossed the Atlantic.' And, to the same effect,

_Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 498,

Edinburgh, 1793.

[390] The progress was so rapid, that, in a work printed in 1732, it is

stated, that 'this city of Glasgow is a place of the greatest

trade in the kingdom, especially to the Plantations; from whence

they have twenty or thirty sail of ships every year, laden with

tobacco and sugar; an advantage this kingdom never enjoyed till

the Union. They are purchasing a harbour on the Frith, near

Alloway, to which they have but twelve miles by land; and then

they can re-ship their sugars and tobacco, for Holland, Germany,

and the Baltick Sea, without being at the trouble of sailing round

England or Scotland.' _Macky's Journey through Scotland_, pp. 294,

295, 2nd edit. London, 1732. The first edition of this book was

also printed in 1732. See _Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica_, vol. i.

p. 631 m., Edinburgh, 1824, 4to.

[391] Gibson, who was a Glasgow merchant, says, in his _History of

Glasgow_, p. 236, 'that the commerce to America first suggested

the idea of introducing manufactures into Glasgow, is to me very

evident; and that they were only attempted to be introduced about

the year 1725 is apparent.' Denholm (_History of Glasgow_, p. 412)

says: 'The linen manufacture, which began here in the year 1725,

was, for a long time, the staple, not only of this city, but of

the west of Scotland.' Compare _Heron's Journey through the

Western Counties of Scotland_, Perth, 1799, vol. ii. p. 412.

[392] 'Consisting only of one principal street about half a mile in

length.' _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. vii.

p. 62. But the local historian mentions, with evident pride, that

this one street contained 'handsome houses.' _Crawfurd's History

of the Shire of Renfrew_, part iii. p. 305, edit. Paisley, 1782,

4to.

[393] _Denholm's History of Glasgow_, pp. 546, 547; and _Sinclair's

Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 62-64. See also,

on the rise of Paisley, _Heron's Journey through the Western

Counties of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 399, 400; _Pennant's Tour in

Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 144; and _Crawfurd's History of the Shire

of Renfrew_, part iii. p. 321. At an earlier period, Paisley was

famous in a different way. In the middle ages it swarmed with

monks. Keith (_Catalogue of Scotch Bishops_, p. 252, Edinburgh,

1755, 4to) tells us that, 'it formerly was a Priory, and

afterwards changed into an Abbey of Black Monks.'

Nor was it merely in the west, that this movement was displayed. In

Scotland generally, the spirit of trade became so rife, that it began to

encroach on the old theological spirit, which had long been supreme.

Hitherto, the Scotch had cared for little except religious polemics. In

every society, these had been the chief subjects of conversation; and on

them, men had wasted their energies, without the least benefit either to

themselves or to others. But, about this time it was observed, that the

improvement of manufactures became a common topic of discourse.[394] Such

a statement, made by a well-informed writer, who witnessed what he

relates, is a curious proof of the change which was beginning, though

very faintly, to steal over the Scotch mind. It shows that there was, at

all events, a tendency to turn aside from subjects which are inaccessible

to our understanding, and the discussion of which has no effect except to

exasperate those who dispute, and to make them more intolerant than ever

of theological opinions different from their own. Unhappily, there were,

as I shall presently point out, other causes at work, which prevented

this tendency from producing all the good that might have been expected.

Still, so far as it went, it was a clear gain. It was a blow to

superstition, inasmuch as it was an attempt to occupy the human mind with

mere secular considerations. In a country like Scotland, this alone was

extremely important. We must also add, that, though it was the effect of

increased industry, it, as often happens, reacted upon, and

strengthened, its cause. For, by diminishing, however little, the

inordinate respect formerly paid to theological pursuits, it was, in the

same proportion, an inducement to ambitious and enterprising men to

abstain from those pursuits, and to engage in temporal matters, where

ability, being less fettered by prejudice, has more scope, and enjoys

more freedom of action. Of those men, some rose to the first rank in

literature; while others, taking a different but equally useful turn,

became as eminent in trade. Hence, Scotland, during the eighteenth

century, possessed, for the first time, two powerful and active classes,

whose aim was essentially secular--the intellectual class, and the

industrial class. Before the eighteenth century, neither of these classes

exercised an independent sway, or could, indeed, be said to have a

separate existence. The intellect of the country was absorbed by the

church; the industry of the country was controlled by the nobles. The

effect which this change produced on the literature of Scotland will be

traced in the last chapter of the present volume. Its effect on industry

was equally remarkable, and, for the well-being of the nation, was

equally valuable. But it does not possess that general scientific

interest which belongs to the intellectual movement; and I shall,

therefore, in addition to the evidence already given, confine myself to a

few more facts illustrative of the history of Scotch industry down to the

middle of the eighteenth century, by which time there was no longer any

doubt that the flood of material prosperity had fairly set in.

[394] The author of _The Interest of Scotland Considered_, Edinburgh,

1733, says (p. xvi.) that since 1727, 'we have happily turned our

eyes upon the improvement of our manufactures, which is now a

common subject in discourse, and this contributes not a little to

its success.'

During the seventeenth century, the only Scotch manufacture of any

importance was that of linen, which, however, like every other branch of

industry, was very backward, and was exposed to all sorts of

discouragement.[395] But, after the Union, it received a sudden impetus,

from two causes. One of these causes, as I have already noticed, was the

demand from America, consequent upon the trade of the Atlantic being

thrown open. The other cause was, the removal of the duty which England

had imposed upon the importation of Scotch linen. These two

circumstances, occurring nearly at the same time, produced such effect on

the national industry, that De Foe, who had a wider knowledge of the

details of trade than any man of that age, said that it seemed as if, for

the future, the Scotch poor could never lack employment.[396]

Unfortunately, this was not the case, and never will be, until society is

radically changed. But the movement which provoked so bold a remark from

so cautious an observer as De Foe, must have been very striking; and we

know, from other sources, that, between 1728 and 1738, the manufacture of

linen for exportation alone was more than doubled.[397] After that

period, this and other departments of Scotch industry advanced with a

constantly accelerating speed. It is mentioned, by a contemporary who was

likely to be well informed, that, between 1715 and 1745, the trade and

manufactures of Scotland increased more than they had done for ages

before.[398] Such a statement, though valuable as corroborating other

evidence, is too vague to be entirely relied on; and historians, who

usually occupy themselves with insignificant details about courts and

princes and statesmen, desert us in matters which are really important,

so that it is now hardly possible to reconstruct the history of the

Scotch people during this, the first epoch of their material prosperity.

I have, however, gathered a few facts, which appear to rest on good

authority, and which supply us with something like precise information as

to dates. In 1739, the manufacture of linen was introduced into

Kilbarchan,[399] and, in 1740, into Arbroath.[400] From the year 1742,

the manufactures of Kilmarnock date their rise.[401] In 1748, the first

linen was manufactured in Cullen;[402] and in the same year in

Inverary.[403] In 1749, this great branch of industry and source of

wealth was established, on a large scale, in Aberdeen;[404] while, about

1750, it began to diffuse itself in Wemyss, in the county of Fife.[405]

These things happening, within eleven years, in parts of the country so

distant from each other, and so totally unconnected, indicate the

existence of general causes, which governed the whole movement; though in

this, as in all instances, every thing is popularly ascribed to the

influence of a few powerful individuals. We have, however, other proofs

that the progress was essentially national. Even in Edinburgh, where

hitherto no claims had been respected except those of the nobles or

clergy, the voice of this new trading interest began to be heard. In that

poor and warlike capital, a society was now first established for the

encouragement of manufactures; and we are assured that this was but a

single manifestation of the enthusiasm which was generally felt on the

subject.[406] Coinciding with this movement, and indeed forming part of

it, we can discern the earliest symptoms of a monied class, properly so

called. In 1749, there was established, at Aberdeen, the first county

bank ever seen in Scotland; and, in the very same year, a similar

establishment was formed at Glasgow.[407] These represented the east and

the west, and, by the advances which they were able to make, each

assisted the trade of its own district. Between eastern and western

Scotland, the intercourse, as yet, was difficult and costly. But this

likewise was about to be remedied by an enterprise, the mere conception

of which would formerly have excited ridicule. After the Union, the idea

arose of uniting the east with the west by a canal, which should join the

Forth to the Clyde. The plan was deemed chimerical, and was abandoned. As

soon, however, as the manufacturing and commercial classes had gained

sufficient influence they adopted it, with that energy which is

characteristic of their order, and which is more common among them than

among any other rank of society. The result was, that, in 1768, the great

work was fairly begun;[408] and the first step was taken towards what, in

a material point of view, was an enterprise of vast importance, but, in a

social and intellectual point of view, was of still superior value,

inasmuch as, by supplying a cheap and easy transit through the heart of

the most populous part of Scotland, it had a direct tendency to make

different districts and different places feel that each had need of

others, and thus encouraging the notion that all belonged to one common

scheme, it assisted in diminishing local prejudice and assuaging local

jealousy; while, in the same proportion, by enticing men to move out of

the narrow circle in which they had habitually lived, it prepared them

for a certain enlargement of mind, which is the natural consequence of

seeing affairs under various aspects, and which is never found in any

country in which the means of travelling are either very hazardous or

very expensive.

[395] Morer, who was in Scotland in 1688 and 1689, says: 'But that which

employs great part of their land is hemp, of which they have

mighty burdens, and on which they bestow much care and pains to

dress and prepare it for making their linen, the most noted and

beneficial manufacture of the kingdom.' _Morer's Short Account of

Scotland_, London, 1702, pp. 3, 4.

[396] 'The duties upon linen from Scotland being taken off in England,

made so great a demand for Scots linen more than usual, that it

seemed the poor could want no employment.' _De Foe's History of

the Union between England and Scotland_, p. 604. Compare

_Macpherson's Annals of Commerce_, vol. ii. p. 736: 'a prodigious

vent, not only in England, but for the American plantations.' This

concerns a later period.

[397] 'The surplus of linen made above the consumption, was, in 1728,

2,183,978 yards; in 1738, 4,666,011.' _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol.

i. p. 873. On the increase between 1728 and 1732, see the Table in

_The Interest of Scotland Considered_, Edinburgh, 1733, p. 97. In

a work published in 1732, it is stated that 'they make a great

deal of linnen all over the kingdom, not only for their own use,

but export it to England, and to the Plantations. In short, the

women are all kept employ'd, from the highest to the lowest of

them.' _Macky's Journey through Scotland_, London, 1732, p. 271.

This refers merely to the women of Scotland, whom Macky represents

as much more industrious than the men.

[398] In 1745, Craik writes to Lord Nithisdale, 'The present family have

now reigned over us these thirty years, and though during so long

a time they may have fallen into errors, or may have committed

faults, (as what Government is without?) yett I will defy the most

sanguine zealot to find in history a period equal to this in which

Scotland possessed so uninterrupted a felicity, in which liberty,

civil and religious, was so universally enjoyed by all people of

whatever denomination--nay, by the open and avowed ennemys of the

family and constitution, or a period in which all ranks of men

have been so effectually secured in their property. Have not

trade, manufactures, agriculture, and the spirit of industry in

our country extended themselves further during this period and

under this family than for ages before?' _Thomson's Memoirs of the

Jacobites_, London, 1845, vol. ii. pp. 60, 61.

[399] _Crawfurd's History of the Shire of Renfrew_, part ii. p. 114.

[400] _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 341,

compared with vol. xii. pp. 176, 177.

[401] _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 483.

[402] _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. xii. p. 145.

[403] _Ibid._ vol. v. p. 297.

[404] _Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen_, vol. ii. pp. 199, 200.

[405] _Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. xvi. p. 520:

'About the year 1750.' I need hardly say, that some of these

dates, depending upon tradition, are given by the authors

approximatively.

[406] 'Betwixt the year 1750 and 1760, a great degree of patriotic

enthusiasm arose in Scotland to encourage arts and manufactures;

and the _Edinburgh Society_ was established in 1755 for the

express purpose of improving these.' _Bower's History of the

University of Edinburgh_, vol. iii. pp. 126, 7.

[407] 'The first county-bank that anywhere appeared, was the Aberdeen

Bank, which was settled in 1749: it was immediately followed by a

similar establishment in Glasgow during the same year.' _Chalmers'

Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 9, 4to, 1824. Kennedy (_Annals of

Aberdeen_, 4to, 1818, vol. ii. p. 195) says: 'Banking was

originally projected in Aberdeen about the year 1752, by a few of

the principal citizens who were engaged in commerce and

manufactures. They commenced business, upon a limited scale, in an

office on the north side of the Castle Street, issued notes of

hand, of five pounds and of twenty shillings sterling, and

discounted bills and promissory notes, for the accommodation of

the public.' It is uncertain if Chalmers knew of this passage; but

he was a more accurate writer than Kennedy, and I, therefore,

prefer his authority. Besides, Kennedy vaguely says, 'about the

year 1752.'

[408] 'After having been frequently proposed, since the Union, this

canal was at length begun in 1768, and finished in 1790. The trade

upon it is already great, and is rapidly increasing.' _Sinclair's

Statistical Account of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 279, 280,

Edinburgh, 1792. See also vol. xii. p. 125; _Irving's History of

Dumbartonshire_, 1860, 4to, p. 247; and an interesting

contemporary notice in _Nimmo's History of Stirlingshire_,

Edinburgh, 1777, pp. 468-481. In 1767, Watt was employed as a

surveyor. See _Muirhead's Life of Watt_, 2nd edit. London, 1859,

p. 167.

Such was the state of Scotland towards the middle of the eighteenth

century; and surely a fairer prospect was never opened to any country.

The land was at peace. It had nothing to fear, either from foreign

invasion, or from domestic tyranny. The arts, which increase the comfort

of man, and minister to his happiness, were sedulously cultivated; wealth

was being created with unexampled speed, and the blessings which follow

in the train of wealth were being widely diffused; while the insolence of

the nobility was so effectually curbed, that industrious citizens could,

for the first time, feel their own independence, could know that what

they earned, that likewise they should enjoy, and could hold themselves

erect, and with a manly brow, in the presence of a class before whom they

had long crouched in abject submission.

Besides this, a great literature now arose, a literature of rare and

surpassing beauty. To narrate the intellectual achievements of the Scotch

during the eighteenth century, in a manner at all commensurate with their

importance, would require a separate treatise, and I cannot now stop even

to mention what all educated persons are at least partly acquainted with;

each student recognizing the value of what was done in his own pursuit.

In the last chapter of this volume, I shall, however, attempt to give

some idea of the general results considered as a whole; at present, it is

enough to say, that in every branch of knowledge this once poor and

ignorant people produced original and successful thinkers. What makes

this the more remarkable, is its complete contrast to their former state.

Down even to the beginning of the eighteenth century, Scotland could only

boast of two authors whose works have benefited mankind. They were

Buchanan and Napier. Buchanan was the first political writer who held

accurate views respecting government, and who clearly defined the true

relation between the people and their rulers. He placed popular rights on

a solid basis, and vindicated, by anticipation, all subsequent

revolutions. Napier, equally bold in another department, succeeded, by a

mighty effort of genius, in detecting, and pushing to its extreme

consequence, a law of the progression of numbers, which is so simple and

yet so potent, that it unravels the most tedious and intricate

calculations, and, thus economizing the labours of the brain, has saved

an enormous and incalculable waste. These two men were, indeed, great

benefactors of their species; but they stand alone, and if all the other

authors Scotland produced down to the close of the seventeenth century

had never been born, or if, being born, they had never written, society

would have lost nothing, but would be in exactly the same position as it

now is.

Early, however, in the eighteenth century, a movement was felt all over

Europe, and in that movement Scotland participated. A spirit of inquiry

was abroad, so general and so searching, that no country could entirely

escape from its action. Sanguine men were excited, and even grave men

were stirred. It seemed as if a long night were about to close. Light

broke forth where before there was nothing but darkness. Opinions which

had stood the test of ages were suddenly questioned; and in every

direction doubts sprung up, and proofs were demanded. The human mind,

waxing bold, would not be satisfied with the old evidence. Things were

examined at their foundation, and the basis of every belief was jealously

scrutinized. For a time, this was confined to the higher intellects; but

soon the movement spread, and, in the most advanced countries, worked

upon nearly all classes. In England and in France, the result was

extremely beneficial. It might have been hoped, that in Scotland

likewise, the popular mind would gradually have become enlightened. But

not so. Time rolled on; one generation succeeded another; the eighteenth

century passed away; the nineteenth century came; and still the people

made no sign. The gloom of the middle ages was yet upon them. While all

around was light, the Scotch, enveloped in mist, crept on, groping their

way, dismally and with fear. While other nations were shaking off their

old superstitions, this singular people clung to theirs with undiminished

tenacity. Now, indeed, their grasp is gradually slackening, but with

extreme slowness, and threatening reactions frequently appear. This, as

it always has been, and still is, the curse of Scotland, so also is it

the chief difficulty with which the historian of Scotland has to contend.

Everywhere else, when the rise of the intellectual classes, and that of

the trading and manufacturing classes, have accompanied each other, the

invariable result has been, a diminution of the power of the clergy, and,

consequently, a diminution of the influence of superstition. The

peculiarity of Scotland is, that, during the eighteenth century, and even

down to the middle of the nineteenth century, the industrial and

intellectual progress has continued without materially shaking the

authority of the priesthood.[409] Strange and unequal combination! The

country of bold and enterprising merchants, of shrewd manufacturers, of

far-seeing men of business, and of cunning artificers; the country, too,

of such fearless thinkers as George Buchanan, David Hume, and Adam Smith,

is awed by a few noisy and ignorant preachers, to whom it allows a

license, and yields a submission, disgraceful to the age, and

incompatible with the commonest notions of liberty. A people, in many

respects very advanced, and holding upon political subjects enlightened

views, do, upon all religious subjects, display a littleness of mind, an

illiberality of sentiment, a heat of temper, and a love of persecuting

others, which shows that the Protestantism of which they boast has done

them no good; that, in the most important matters, it has left them as

narrow as it found them; and that it has been unable to free them from

prejudices which make them the laughing-stock of Europe, and which have

turned the very name of the Scotch Kirk into a by-word and a reproach

among educated men.

[409] I will quote, in a single passage, the opinions of an eminent

German and of an eminent Scotchman. 'Dr. Spurzheim, when he last

visited Scotland, remarked that the Scotch appeared to him to be

the most priest-ridden nation in Europe; Spain and Portugal not

excepted. _After having seen other countries, I can understand the

force of this observation._' _Notes on the United States of North

America by George Combe_, vol. iii. p. 32, Edinburgh, 1841.

I shall now endeavour to explain how all this arose, and how such

apparent inconsistencies are to be reconciled. That they may be

reconciled, and that the inconsistencies are merely apparent and not

real, will be at once admitted by whoever is capable of a scientific

conception of history. For, in the moral world, as in the physical world,

nothing is anomalous; nothing is unnatural; nothing is strange. All is

order, symmetry, and law. There are opposites, but there are no

contradictions. In the character of a nation, inconsistency is

impossible. Such, however, is still the backward condition of the human

mind, and with so evil and jaundiced an eye do we approach the greatest

problems, that not only common writers, but even men from whom better

things might be hoped, are on this point involved in constant confusion,

perplexing themselves and their readers by speaking of inconsistency, as

if it were a quality belonging to the subject which they investigate,

instead of being, as it really is, a measure of their own ignorance. It

is the business of the historian to remove this ignorance, by showing

that the movements of nations are perfectly regular, and that, like all

other movements, they are solely determined by their antecedents. If he

cannot do this, he is no historian. He may be an annalist, or a

biographer, or a chronicler, but higher than that he cannot rise, unless

he is imbued with that spirit of science which teaches, as an article of

faith, the doctrine of uniform sequence; in other words, the doctrine

that certain events having already happened, certain other events

corresponding to them will also happen. To seize this idea with firmness,

and to apply it on all occasions, without listening to any exceptions, is

extremely difficult, but it must be done by whoever wishes to elevate the

study of history from its present crude and informal state, and do what

he may towards placing it in its proper rank, as the head and chief of

all the sciences. Even then, he cannot perform his task unless his

materials are ample, and derived from sources of unquestioned

credibility. But if his facts are sufficiently numerous; if they are very

diversified; if they have been collected from such various quarters that

they can check and confront each other, so as to do away with all

suspicion of their testimony being garbled; and if he who uses them

possesses that faculty of generalization, without which nothing great can

be achieved, he will hardly fail in bringing some part of his labours to

a prosperous issue, provided he devotes all his strength to that one

enterprise, postponing to it every other object of ambition, and

sacrificing to it many interests which men hold dear. Some of the most

pleasurable incentives to action, he must disregard. Not for him, are

those rewards which, in other pursuits, the same energy would have

earned; not for him, the sweets of popular applause; not for him, the

luxury of power; not for him, a share in the councils of his country; not

for him, a conspicuous and honoured place before the public eye. Albeit

conscious of what he could do, he may not compete in the great contest;

he cannot hope to win the prize; he cannot even enjoy the excitement of

the struggle. To him, the arena is closed. His recompense lies within

himself, and he must learn to care little for the sympathy of his

fellow-creatures, or for such honours as they are able to bestow. So far

from looking for these things, he should rather be prepared for that

obloquy which always awaits those, who, by opening up new veins of

thought, disturb the prejudices of their contemporaries. While ignorance,

and worse than ignorance, is imputed to him, while his motives are

misrepresented, and his integrity impeached, while he is accused of

denying the value of moral principles, and of attacking the foundation of

all religion, as if he were some public enemy, who made it his business

to corrupt society, and whose delight it was to see what evil he could

do; while these charges are brought forward, and repeated from mouth to

mouth, he must be capable of pursuing in silence the even tenor of his

way, without swerving, without pausing, and without stepping from his

path to notice the angry outcries which he cannot but hear, and which he

is more than human if he does not long to rebuke. These are the

qualities, and these the high resolves, indispensable to him, who, on the

most important of all subjects, believing that the old road is worn out

and useless, seeks to strike out a new one for himself, and, in the

effort, not only perhaps exhausts his strength, but is sure to incur the

enmity of those who are bent on maintaining the ancient scheme

unimpaired. To solve the great problem of affairs; to detect those

hidden circumstances which determine the march and destiny of nations;

and to find, in the events of the past, a key to the proceedings of the

future, is nothing less than to unite into a single science all the laws

of the moral and physical world. Whoever does this, will build up afresh

the fabric of our knowledge, re-arrange its various parts, and harmonize

its apparent discrepancies. Perchance, the human mind is hardly ready for

so vast an enterprise. At all events, he who undertakes it will meet with

little sympathy, and will find few to help him. And let him toil as he

may, the sun and noontide of his life shall pass by, the evening of his

days shall overtake him, and he himself have to quit the scene, leaving

that unfinished which he had vainly hoped to complete. He may lay the

foundation; it will be for his successors to raise the edifice. Their

hands will give the last touch; they will reap the glory; their names

will be remembered when he is forgotten. It is, indeed, too true, that

such a work requires, not only several minds, but also the successive

experience of several generations. Once, I own, I thought otherwise.

Once, when I first caught sight of the whole field of knowledge, and

seemed, however dimly, to discern its various parts and the relation they

bore to each other, I was so entranced with its surpassing beauty, that

the judgment was beguiled, and I deemed myself able, not only to cover

the surface, but also to master the details. Little did I know how the

horizon enlarges as well as recedes, and how vainly we grasp at the

fleeting forms, which melt away and elude us in the distance. Of all that

I had hoped to do, I now find but too surely how small a part I shall

accomplish. In those early aspirations, there was much that was fanciful;

perhaps there was much that was foolish. Perhaps, too, they contained a

moral defect, and savoured of an arrogance which belongs to a strength

that refuses to recognize its own weakness. Still, even now that they are

defeated and brought to nought, I cannot repent having indulged in them,

but, on the contrary, I would willingly recall them, if I could. For,

such hopes belong to that joyous and sanguine period of life, when alone

we are really happy; when the emotions are more active than the judgment;

when experience has not yet hardened our nature; when the affections are

not yet blighted and nipped to the core; and when the bitterness of

disappointment not having yet been felt, difficulties are unheeded,

obstacles are unseen, ambition is a pleasure instead of a pang, and the

blood coursing swiftly through the veins, the pulse beats high, while the

heart throbs at the prospect of the future. Those are glorious days; but

they go from us, and nothing can compensate their absence. To me, they

now seem more like the visions of a disordered fancy, than the sober

realities of things that were, and are not. It is painful to make this

confession; but I owe it to the reader, because I would not have him to

suppose that either in this, or in the future volumes of my History, I

shall be able to redeem my pledge, and to perform all that I promised.

Something, I hope to achieve, which will interest the thinkers of this

age; and something, perhaps, on which posterity may build. It will,

however, only be a fragment of my original design. In the two last

chapters I have attempted, and in the two next chapters I shall still

further attempt, to solve a curious problem in the history of Scotland,

which is intimately connected with other problems of a yet graver import:

but though the solution will, I believe, be complete, the evidence of the

solution will, most assuredly, be imperfect. I regret to add, that such

imperfection is henceforth an essential part of my plan. It is essential,

because I despair of supplying those deficiencies in my knowledge, of

which I grow more sensible in proportion as my views become more

extensive. It is also essential, because, after a fair estimate of my own

strength, of the probable duration of my life, and of the limits to which

industry can safely be pushed, I have been driven to the conclusion, that

this Introduction, which I had projected as a solid foundation on which

the history of England might subsequently be raised, must either be

greatly curtailed, and consequently shorn of its force, or that, if not

curtailed, there will hardly be a chance of my being able to narrate,

with the amplitude and fulness of detail which they richly deserve, the

deeds of that great and splendid nation with which I am best acquainted,

and of which it is my pride to count myself a member. It is with the

free, the noble, and the high-minded English people, that my sympathies

are most closely connected; on them my affections naturally centre; from

their literature, and from their example, my best lessons have been

learnt; and it is now the most cherished and the most sacred desire of my

heart, that I may succeed in writing their history, and in unfolding the

successive phases of their mighty career, while I am yet somewhat equal

to the task, and before my faculties have begun to dwindle, or the power

of continuous attention has begun to decay.