Chapter III (3)

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.