Volume 3 — JAMES DRUMMOND, STYLED DUKE OF PERTH. (continued 2)

Lord Cromartie had been already sent to disperse, if possible, Lord Loudon's little army; but that skilful and estimable nobleman had successfully eluded his adversary, who found it impossible either to entice him into an action, or to force him out of the country. Lord Loudon had taken up his quarters at Dornoch, on the frith which divides Rosshire from Sutherland. Here he was secure, as Lord Cromartie had no boats. It was therefore deemed necessary to have two detachments; one to guard the passage of the frith, the other to go by the head of it. This was a matter of some difficulty, for the Prince had at that time hardly as many men at Inverness as were necessary to guard his person. It was, however, essential to attack Lord Loudon, whose army cut off all communication with Caithness, whence the Prince expected provisions and men. In this dilemma an expedient had been thought of some time previously, and preparations had been made for it; but the execution was extremely dangerous. Mr. Maxwell gives the following account of it:[255]

"All the fishing-boats that could be got on the coast of Moray had been brought to Findhorn; the difficulty was, to cross the frith of Moray unperceived by the English ships that were continually cruizing there: if the design was suspected, it could not succeed. Two or three North-country gentlemen, that were employed in this affair, had conducted it with great secrecy and expedition. All was ready at Findhorn when the orders came from Inverness to make the attempt, and the enemy had no suspicion. Moir of Stoneywood set out with this little fleet in the beginning of the night, got safe across the frith of Moray, and arrived in the morning at Tain, where the Duke of Perth, whom the Prince had sent to command this expedition, was ready. The men were embarked with great despatch, and by means of a thick fog, which happened very opportunely, got over to Sutherland without being perceived. The Duke of Perth marched directly to the enemies' quarters, and, after some disappointments, owing to his being the dupe of his good nature and politeness, succeeded in dispersing Lord Loudon's army: and this era, in the opinion of Mr. Maxwell, is the finest part of the Prince's expedition." Henceforth, all was dismay and disaster.

The affairs of Charles Edward had now begun visibly to decline, for money, the sinews of the war, was not to be had; and the military chest, plundered, as it has been stated, by villains who robbed the Prince by false musters, was exhausted. The hopes of the Chevalier were in the lowest state, when the intelligence reached Inverness that the Duke of Cumberland was advancing from Aberdeen to attack his forces. Upon receiving these tidings, the Prince sent messengers far and wide to call in his scattered troops, expecting that he should be strong enough to venture a battle.

The Duke of Perth, who at that time commanded all the troops that were to the eastward of Inverness, was planted near the river Spey. When the enemy approached, he retired to Elgin. On the same day, the twelfth of April 1746, the Duke of Cumberland passed the Spey, and encamped within three or four miles of Elgin.

This retreat of the Duke of Perth has been severely condemned. It appears, however, that he, and Lord John Drummond who was with him, could not muster two thousand five hundred men. The river, which was very low, was fordable in many places; so much so, that the enemy might march a battalion in front. The Duke had no artillery, whilst the enemy had a very good train. There was no possibility of sending reinforcements from Inverness; above all, says Mr. Maxwell, "nothing was to be risked that might dishearten the common soldiers on the eve of a general and decisive action."

But the same candid and experienced soldier acknowledges that the Duke of Perth remained too long at Nairn, whither he retired, and where the Duke of Cumberland advanced within a mile of the town, and followed the retiring army of Perth for a mile or two, though to no purpose, the foot-soldiers being protected by Fitzjames's Horse. The delay at Nairn has, it is true, been excused, on the grounds of a command from Prince Charles to the Duke of Perth and his brother not to retire too hastily before Cumberland, but to keep as near to him as was consistent with their safety. This message "put them on their mettle, and well-nigh occasioned their destruction." The Duke of Perth continued to retreat, until he halted somewhat short of Culloden, where the Prince arrived that evening, and took up his quarters at Culloden House.[256]

The following day was the fifteenth of April, the anniversary of that on which the Duke of Cumberland, the disgrace of his family, the hard-hearted conqueror of a brave and humane foe, first saw the light. It was expected that he would choose his birth-day for the combat, but the fatal engagement of Culloden was deferred until the following morning.

The battle of Culloden was prefaced by a general sentiment of despair among those who shared its perils.

"This," says Mr. Maxwell,[257] referring to the morning of the engagement, "was the first time the Prince, ever thought his affairs desperate. He saw his little army much reduced, and half-dead with hunger and fatigue, and found himself under a necessity of fighting in that miserable condition, for he would not think of a retreat; which he had never yielded to but with the greatest reluctance, and which, on this occasion, he imagined would disperse the few men he had, and put an inglorious end to his expedition. He resolved to wait for the enemy, be the event what it would; and he did not wait long, for he had been but a few hours at Culloden, when his scouts brought him word that the enemy was within two miles, advancing towards the moor, where the Prince had drawn up his army the day before. The men were scattered among the woods of Culloden, the greatest part fast asleep. As soon as the alarm was given, the officers ran about on all sides to rouse them, if I may use the expression, among the bushes; and some went to Inverness, to bring back such of the men as hunger had driven there. Notwithstanding the pains taken by the officers to assemble the men, there were several hundreds absent from the battle, though within a mile of it: some were quite exhausted, and not able to crawl; and others asleep in coverts that had not been beat up. However, in less time than one could have imagined, the best part of the army was assembled, and formed on the moor, where it had been drawn up the day before. Every corps knew its post, and went straight without waiting for fresh orders; the order of battle was as follows: the army was drawn up in two lines; the first was composed of the Atholl brigade, which had the right; the Camerons, Stuarts of Appin, Frazers, Macintoshes, Farquharsons, Chisholms, Perths, Roy Stuart's regiment, and the Macdonalds, who had the left."

The Highlanders, though faint with fatigue and want of sleep, forgot all their hardships at the approach of an enemy; and, as a shout was sent up from the Duke of Cumberland's army, they returned it with the spirit of a valiant and undaunted people.

The order of battle was as follows: the right wing was commanded by Lord George Murray, and the left by the Duke of Perth; the centre of the first line by Lord John Drummond, and the centre of the second by Brigadier Stapleton. There were five cannon on the right, and four on the left of the army.[258]

The Duke of Perth had therefore, from his important command, the privilege of spending the short period of existence, which, as the event proved, Providence allotted to him, in the service of a Prince whom he loved; whilst he had the good fortune to escape that responsibility which fell to the lot of his rival, Lord George Murray. The influence which that nobleman had acquired over the council of war had enabled him far to eclipse the Duke of Perth in importance; but it was the fate of Lord George Murray to pay a heavy penalty for that distinction.

But not only did the amiable and high-minded Duke of Perth calmly surrender to one, who was esteemed a better leader than himself, the post of honour; but he endeavoured to reconcile to the indignity put upon them the fierce spirit of the Macdonalds, who were obliged to cede their accustomed place on the right to the Atholl men. "If," said the Duke, "you fight with your usual bravery, you will make the left wing a right wing; in which case I shall ever afterwards assume the honourable surname of Macdonald."[259] The Duke's standard was borne, on this occasion, by the Laird of Comrie, whose descendant still shows the claymore which his ancestors brandished; whilst the Duke exclaimed aloud, "Claymore!"[260] Happy would it have been for Charles, had a similar spirit purified the motives of all those on whom he was fated to depend!

The battle was soon ended! Half-an-hour of slaughter and despair terminated the final struggle of the Stuarts for the throne of Britain! During that fearful though brief[261] space, one thousand of the Jacobites were killed; no quarter being given on either side. Exhausted by fatigue and want of food, the brave Highlanders fell thick as autumn leaves upon the blood-stained moor, near Culloden House. About two hundred only on the King's side perished in the encounter. During the whole battle, taking into account the previous cannonading, the Jacobites lost, as the prisoners afterwards stated, four thousand men. But it was not until after the fury of the fight ceased, that the true horrors of war really began. These may be said to consist, not in the ardour of a strife in which the passions, madly engaged, have no check, nor stay; but in the cold, vindictive, brutal, and remorseless after-deeds, which stamp for ever the miseries of a conflict upon the broken hearts of the survivors.

"Exceeding few," says Mr. Maxwell, "were made prisoners in the field of battle, which was such a scene of horror and inhumanity as is rarely to be met with among civilized nations. Every circumstance concurs to heighten the enormity of the cruelties exercised on this occasion; the shortness of the action, the cheapness of the victory, and, above all, the moderation the Prince had shown during his prosperity,—the leniency, and even tenderness, with which he had always treated his enemies. But that which was done on the field of Culloden was but a prelude to a long series of massacres committed in cold blood, which I shall have occasion to mention afterwards."[262]

The Chevalier, leaving that part of the field upon which bodies in layers of three or four deep were lying, rode along the moor in the direction of Fort Augustus, where he passed the river of Nairn. He halted, and held a conference with Sir Thomas Sheridan, Sullivan, and Hay; and, having taken his resolution, he sent young Sullivan to the gentlemen who had followed him, and who were now pretty numerous. Sheridan at first pretended to conduct them to the place where the Prince was to re-assemble his army; but, having ridden half a mile towards Ruthven, he there stopped, and dismissed them all in the Prince's name, telling them it was the Prince's "pleasure that they should shift for themselves."

This abrupt and impolitic, not to say ungracious and unsoldier-like proceeding, has been justified by the necessity of the moment. There were no magazines in the Highlands, in which an unusual scarcity prevailed. The Lowlanders, more especially, must have starved in a country that had not the means of supporting its own inhabitants, and of which they knew neither the roads nor the language. It is, however, but too probable, that various suspicions, which were afterwards dispelled, of the fidelity of the Scots, induced Charles to throw himself into the hands of his Irish attendants at this critical juncture.[263]

The Duke of Perth, with his brother Lord John Drummond, and Lord George Murray, with the Atholl men, and almost all the Low-country men who had been in the Jacobite army, retired to Ruthven, where they remained a short time with two or three thousand men, but without a day's subsistence. The leaders of this band finding it impossible to keep the men together, and receiving no orders from the Prince, came to a resolution of separating. They took a melancholy farewell of each other, brothers and companions in arms, and many of them united by ties of relationship. The chieftains dispersed to seek places of shelter, to escape the pursuit of Cumberland's "bloodhounds:" the men went to their homes.

Such is the statement of Maxwell of Kirkconnel, relative to the Duke of Perth: according to another account, the course which the Duke pursued was the following:—

He is said to have been wounded in the back and hands in the battle, and to have fled with great precipitancy from the field of battle. He obtained, it is supposed, that shelter which, even under the most dangerous and disastrous circumstances, was rarely refused to the poor Jacobites. The exact spot of his retreat has never been ascertained; yet persons living have been heard to say, that in the houses of their grandfathers or ancestors, the Duke of Perth took refuge, until the vigilance of pursuit had abated. The obscurity into which this and other subjects connected with 1745 have fallen, may be accounted for by the apathy which, at the beginning of the present century existed concerning all subjects connected with the ill-starred enterprise of the Stuarts; and the loss of much interesting information, which the curiosity of modern times would endeavour in vain to resuscitate, has been the result.

Tradition, however, often a sure guide, and seldom, at all events, wholly erroneous, has preserved some trace of the unfortunate wanderer's adventures after all was at an end. As it might be expected, and as common report in the neighbourhood of Drummond Castle states, the Duke returned to the protection of his own people. To them, and to his stately home, he was fondly attached, notwithstanding his foreign education. On first going from Perth to join the insurrection, as he lost sight of his Castle, he turned round, and as if anticipating all the consequences of that step, exclaimed, 'O! my bonny Drummond Castle, and my bonny lands!'

The personal appearance of the Duke was well known over all the country, for he was universally beloved, and was in the practice of riding at the head of his tenantry and friends, called in that neighbourhood 'his guards,' to Michaelmas Market at Crieff, the greatest fair in those parts; where thousands assembled to buy and sell cattle and horses. He was therefore afterwards easily recognised, although in disguise.

"Sometime after the battle of Culloden," as the same authority relates,[264] "the Duke returned to Drummond Castle, where his mother usually resided; and lived there very privately, skulking about the woods and in disguise; he was repeatedly seen in a female dress, barefooted, and bare-headed. Once a party came to search the castle unexpectedly; he instantly got into a wall press or closet, or recess of some sort, where a woman shut him in, and standing before it, remained motionless till they left that room, to carry on the search, when he got out at a window and gained the retreats in the woods. After he had withdrawn from Scotland, and settled in the north of England, he occasionally visited Strathearn."

In one of these visits he called, disguised as an old travelling soldier, at Drummond Castle, and desired the housekeeper to show him the rooms of the mansion. She was humming the song of "the Duke of Perth's Lament," and having learnt the name of the song he desired her to sing it no more. When he got into his own apartment he cried out, "This is the Duke's own room;" when, lifting his arm to lay hold of one of the pictures, she observed he was in tears, and perceived better dress under his disguise, which convinced her he was the Duke himself.[265]

For some time the Duke continued these wanderings, stopping now and then to gaze upon his Castle, the sight of which affected him to tears. "It was now," says the writer of the case of Thomas Drummond, "that for obvious reasons, to elude discovery, the report of his death on shipboard or otherwise, would be propagated by his friends and encouraged by himself." It is stated upon the same evidence, that instead of sailing to France, as it has been generally believed, the Duke fled to England; that he was conveyed on board a ship and landed at South Shields, a few miles only distant from Biddick, a small sequestered village, chiefly inhabited at that time by banditti, who set all authority at defiance. Biddick is situated near the river Wear, a few miles from Sunderland; it was, at that time, both from situation and from the character of its inhabitants, a likely place for one flying from the power of the law to find a shelter; it was, indeed, a common retreat for the unfortunate and the criminal. That the Duke of Perth actually took refuge there for some time, is an assertion which has gained credence from the following reasons:—

In the first place: "In the History, Directory, and Gazette of the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and the town and counties of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, by William Parson and William White, two volumes, 1827-28, the following passage occurs relating to Biddick, in the parish of Houghton-le-Spring:—

"It was here that the unfortunate James Drummond, commonly called Duke of Perth, took sanctuary after the rebellion of 1745-6, under the protection of Nicholas Lambton, Esq., of South Biddick, where he died, and was buried at Pain-Shaw."

In the case of Thomas Drummond, (on whom I shall hereafter make some comments,) letters stated to be from Lord John Drummond are referred to, and quoted in part. These are said to have been addressed by Lord John Drummond from Boulogne, to the Duke at Houghton-le-Spring. The passage quoted runs thus: "I think you had better come to France, and you would be out of danger; as I find you are living in obscurity at Houghton-le-Spring. I doubt that it is a dangerous place; you say it is reported that you died on your passage. I hope and trust you will still live in obscurity." These expressions, which it must be owned have very much the air of being coined for the purpose, would certainly, were the supposed letters authenticated, establish the fact of the Duke's retreat to Houghton-le-Spring.

Upon the doubtful nature of the intelligence, which was alone gleaned by the friends and relatives of the Duke of Perth, a superstructure of romance, as it certainly appears to be, was reared. The Duke was never, as it was believed, married; and in 1784 the estates were restored to his kinsman, the Honourable John Drummond, who was created Baron Perth, and who died in 1800, leaving the estates, with the honour of chieftainship, to his daughter Clementina Sarah, now Lady Willoughby D'Eresby.

In 1831, a claimant to the honours and estates appeared in Thomas Drummond, who declared himself to be the grandson of James Duke of Perth; according to his account, the Duke of Perth on reaching Biddick, took up his abode with a man named John Armstrong, a collier or pitman. The occupation of this man was, it was stated, an inducement for this choice on the part of the Duke, as in case of pursuit, the abyss at a coal-pit might afford a secure retreat; since no one would dare to enter a coal-pit without the permission of the owners.

The Duke, it is stated in the case of Thomas Drummond, commenced soon after his arrival at Biddick, the employment of a shoemaker, in order to lull suspicion; he lost money by his endeavours, and soon relinquished his new trade. He is said to have become, in the course of time, much attached to the daughter of his host, John Armstrong, and to have married her at the parish church of Houghton-le-Spring, in 1749. He resided with his wife's family until his first child was born, when he removed to the boat-house, a dwelling with the use and privilege of a ferry-boat attached to it, and belonging to Nicholas Lambton, Esq. of Biddick; who, knowing the rank and misfortunes of the Duke, bestowed it on him from compassion. Here he lived, and with the aid of a small huckster's shop on the premises, supported a family, which in process of time, amounted to six or seven children; two of whom, Mrs. Atkinson and Mrs. Peters, aged women, but still in full possession of their intellect, have given their testimony to the identity of this shoemaker and huckster to the Duke of Perth.[266]

The papers, letters, documents and writings, a favourite diamond ring, and a ducal patent of nobility, were, however, "all lost in the great flood of the river Wear in 1771;" and the Duke is said to have deeply lamented this misfortune. It is not, however, very likely that he would have carried his ducal patent with him in his flight; and had he afterwards sent for it from Drummond Castle, some of his family must have been apprised of his existence.

It is stated, however, but only on hearsay, that thirteen years after the year 1745, the Duke visited his forfeited Castle of Drummond, disguised as an old beggar, and dressed up in a light coloured wig. This rumour rests chiefly upon the evidence of the Rev. Dr. Malcolm, LLD., who, in 1808, published a Genealogical Memoir of the ancient and noble House of Drummond; and who declared, on being applied to by the family of Thomas Drummond, that he had been told by Mrs. Sommers, the daughter-in-law of Patrick Drummond, Esq., of Drummondernock, the intimate friend of the Duke of Perth, that the Duke survived the events of the battle of Culloden a long time, and years afterwards, visited his estates, and was recognised by many of his "trusty tenants."[267] A similar report was, at the same time, very prevalent at Strathearn; and it has been positively affirmed, that a visit was received by Mr. Græme, at Garnock, from the Duke of Perth, long after he was believed to be dead. At this time, it is indeed wholly impossible to verify, or even satisfactorily to refute such statements; but the existence of a report in Scotland, that the Duke did not perish at sea, may be received as an undoubted fact.[268] In 1831, when the case of Thomas Drummond was first agitated, Mrs. Atkinson and Mrs. Elizabeth Peters, the supposed daughters of James Duke of Perth, were both alive, and on their evidence much of the stability of the case depended. The claimant, Thomas Drummond, who is stated to have been the eldest son of James, son of James Duke of Perth, was born in 1792, and was living in 1831 at Houghton-le-Spring, in the occupation of a pitman. Much doubt is thrown upon the whole of the case, which was not followed up, by the length of time which elapsed before any claim was made on the part of this supposed descendant of the Duke of Perth. The act for the restoration of the forfeited estates was not passed, indeed, until two years after the death (as it is stated) of the Duke of Perth, that is, in 1784; yet one would suppose that he would have carefully instructed his son in the proper manner to assert his rights in case of such an event. That son lived to a mature age, married and died, yet made no effort to recover what were said to be his just rights.[269]

Such is the statement of those who seek to establish the belief that the Duke of Perth lived to a good old age, married, had children, and left heirs to his title and estates. On the other hand, it is certain that it was generally considered certain, at the time of the insurrection, that the Duke died on his voyage to France; and it was even alluded to by one of the counsel at the trials of Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Balmerino in August 1746, when the name of the Duke of Perth being mentioned, "who," said the Speaker, "I see by the papers, is dead." But it is certainly remarkable, that neither Maxwell of Kirkconnel, nor Lord Elcho, the one in his narrative which has been printed, the other in his manuscript memoir, mention the death of the Duke of Perth on the voyage, which, as they both state, they shared with him. So important and interesting a circumstance would not, one may suppose, have occurred without their alluding to it. "All the gentlemen," Lord Elcho relates, "who crossed to Nantes, proceeded to Paris after their disembarkation;"[270] but he enters into no further particulars of their destination. His silence, and that of Maxwell of Kirkconnel, regarding the Duke of Perth's death, seems, if it really took place, to have been inexplicable.

All doubt, but that the story of the unfortunate Duke's death was really true, appears however to be set at rest by the epitaph which some friendly or kindred hand has inscribed on a tomb in the chapel of the English Nuns at Antwerp, commemorating the virtues and the fate of the Duke, and of his brother Lord John Drummond. This monumental tribute would hardly have been inscribed without some degree of certainty that the remains of the Duke were indeed interred there.

M. S.[271]

Fratrum Illustriss, Jac. et Joan. Ducum de Perth, Antiquiss. Nobiliss. Familiæ de Drummond apud Scotos, Principum. Jacobus, ad studia humaniora proclivior, Literis excultus, Artium bonarum et liberalium fautor eximius; In commune consulens, Semper in otio civis dignissimus. Mirâ morum suavitate, et animi fortitudine ornatus, Intaminatâ fide splendebat humani generis amicus. In pace clarus, in bello clarior; Appulso enim Carolo P. in Scotiam, Gladio in causâ gentis Stuartorum rearrepto, Veterorum curâ posthabitâ, Gloriæ et virtuti unice prospiciens, Alacri vultu labores belli spectabat; Pericula omnia minima ducebat: In prælio strenuus, in victoriâ clemens, heros egregius. Copiis Caroli tandem dissipatis, Patriâ, amicis, re domi amplissimâ, Cunctis præter mentem recti consciam, fortiter desertis, In Galliam tendens, solum natale fugit. Verum assiduis laboribus et patriæ malis gravibus oppressus, In mari magno, Die natale revertente, ob. 13 Maii, 1746; æt. 33. Et reliquiæ, ventis adversis, terrâ sacratâ interclusæ, In undis sepultæ. Joannes, ingenio felici martiali imbutus, A primâ adolescentiâ, militiæ artibus operam dedit. Fortis, intrepidus, propositi tenax, Mansuetudine generosâ, et facilitate morum, militis asperitate lenitâ. Legioni Scoticæ regali, ab ipsomet conscriptæ, A Rege Christianiss. Lud. XV. præpositus. Flagrante bello civili in Britanniâ, Auxilis Gallorum duxit; Et post conflictum infaustum Cullodinensem, In eadem navi cum fratre profugus. In Flandriâ, sub Imperatore Com. de Saxe, multùm meruit: Subjectis semper præsidium, Belli calamitatum (agnoscite Britanni!) insigne levamen. Ad summos Martis dignitates gradatim assurgens, Gloriæ nobilis metæ appetens, In medio cursu, improvisa lethi vi raptus, 28 Septemb. A.D. 1747, Æt. 33. In Angl. monach. Sacello Antwerpiæ jacet.

The preceding narrative is given to the reader without any further comment, except upon the general improbability of the story. It might not appear impossible that the Duke may have taken refuge in the then wild county of Durham for a time, but that two credible historians, Maxwell of Kirkconnel, and Lord Elcho, assert positively that he sailed for Nantes in a vessel which went by the north-west coast of Ireland; Lord Elcho and Maxwell being themselves on board, seems decisive of the entire failure of the case before quoted. It seems also wholly incredible, that the Duke of Perth, whose rank was still acknowledged in France, and whose early education in that country must have familiarised him with its habits, should have remained contentedly during the whole of his life, associating with persons of the lowest grade, in an obscure village in Durham.

At the time of the Duke of Perth's death in 1747, one brother, Lord John Drummond, was living. This brave man, whose virtues and whose fate are recorded in the epitaph, survived his amiable and accomplished brother only one year, and died suddenly of a fever, after serving under Marshal Saxe at the siege of Bergen-op-Zoom. His services in the insurrection of 1745 were considerable; like his brother, he escaped to France after the contest was concluded. He died unmarried; and two sisters, the Lady Mary, and the Lady Henrietta Drummond, died also unmarried. The mother of James Duke of Perth long survived him, living until 1773. It is said in the case of Thomas Drummond, that she never forgave her son for what she considered his lukewarmness in the cause of the Stuarts, and refused to have any intercourse with him after the failure of the rebellion; but those who thus write, must have formed a very erroneous conception of the Duke's conduct: if he might not escape such a charge, who could deserve the praise of zeal, sincerity, and disinterestedness?

The duchess was one of the most strenuous supporters of the Stuarts, and suffered for her loyalty to them by an imprisonment in Edinburgh Castle. She was committed to prison on the eleventh of February, 1746, and liberated on bail on the seventeenth.

On the forfeiture of the Drummond estates she retired to Stobhall, where she remained until her death, at the advanced age of ninety. She was considered a woman of great spirit, energy, and ability, and is supposed to have influenced her son in his political opinions and actions.

Some idea may be formed of the painful circumstances which follow the forfeiture of estates from the following passage, extracted from the introduction to the letters of James Earl of Perth, Chancellor of Scotland in the time of James the Second, and lately printed for the Camden Society.[272]

"When a considerable portion of the Drummond estates were restored to the heir (no poor boon, though dilapidated, lopped, and impoverished,) he found upon them four settlements of cottages, in which the soldiery had been located after the battle of Culloden, to keep down the rebels. There were thirty near Drummond Castle, another division at Cullander, a third at Balibeg, and a fourth at Stobhall. Demolition might satisfy the abhorrence of the latter three, but what could reconcile him to the outrage under his very eyes, as he looked from his chamber or castle terrace? It was intolerable, and that every trace might be obliterated, he caused an embankment to be made, and carried a lake-like sheet of water over the very chimney tops of the military dwellings. There is now the beautiful lake, gleaming with fish, and haunted by the wild birds of the Highlands; and we believe the deepest diver of them all, could not observe one stone upon another of the cabins which held the ruthless military oppressors left by the Duke of Cumberland a century ago."

The usual accounts of the Duke's movements after the battle of Culloden, state, however, that about a month subsequent to that event, when the fugitive Charles Stuart, in the commencement of his wanderings, landed by accident upon the little isle of Errifort, on the east side of Lewis, he saw, from the summit of a hill which he had climbed, two frigates sailing northwards. The Chevalier in vain endeavoured to persuade the boatmen who had brought him from Lewis, to go out and reconnoitre these ships. His companions judged these vessels to be English; the Prince alone guessed them to be French. He was right. They were two frigates from Nantes, which had been sent with money, arms, and ammunition to succour Charles, and were now returning to France. On board one of them was the Duke of Perth, Lord Elcho, Lord John Drummond, old Lochiel, Sir Thomas Sheridan and his nephew Mr. Hay, Maxwell of Kirkconnel, and Mr. Lockhart of Carnwath, and several Low-country gentlemen, who had been wandering about in these remote parts when the frigates were setting out on their return,[273] and finding that the Prince was gone, and that nothing was to be done for his service, had determined to escape. On the tenth of June these frigates reached Nantes: Lord Elcho affirms that "all arrived safe at Nantes;" one only is said never to have gained that shore. Worn out by fatigues too severe, and, perhaps, the progress of disease being aided by sorrow, the Duke of Perth is generally stated to have died on ship-board on his passage. His malady is understood to have been consumption.

Another celebrated member of this distinguished family, Lord Strathallan, was not spared to witness the total ruin of all his hopes. He fell at the battle of Culloden. The impression among his descendants is, that, seeing the defeat certain, he rushed into the thick of the battle, determined to perish. In 1746 Lord Strathallan's name was included in the Bill of Attainder then passed; but, in 1824, one of the most graceful acts of George the Fourth, whose sentiments of compassion for the Stuarts and their adherents do credit to his memory, was the restoration of the present Viscount Strathallan to the peerage by the title of the sixth Viscount.

It is with regret that we take leave, amid the discordant scenes of an historical narrative, of one whose high purposes and blameless career are the best tribute to virtue, the noblest ornament of the party which he espoused. Modest, yet courageous; moderate, though in the ardour of youth; devout, without bigotry; and capable of every self-sacrifice for the good of others, on the memory of the young Duke of Perth not a shadow rests to attract the attention of the harsh to defects of intention, unjustly attributed to the leader of the Jacobite insurrection.