Chapter III: Part 3

On joining, Daniel was attached to the first troop of Life Guards, of which Lord Elcho was colonel, but on the retreat from Derby he was transferred to the second troop of the same regiment, which was commanded by the Hon. Arthur Elphinstone, who about three weeks later succeeded his brother as sixth Lord Balmerino. Daniel conceived a great affection and admiration for his colonel, yet in his laudatory account he mentions a painful characteristic of the times. A gentleman, and a scholar who could recite pages from the Classics, Lord Balmerino was of a noble personage and had the courage of a lion. Moreover he never failed in his military duties. His ‘sole and predominant passion’ was for hard drinking. But for this weakness, ‘he would have shone with the same lustre in the army as he afterwards did on the scaffold.’

In the narrative there is no affectation of impartiality. Daniel is constantly comparing the iniquities of his enemies with the virtues of his friends. There is a curious incident mentioned by him when referring to the death of Sir Robert Munro of Foulis at the battle of Falkirk. He says (page 198), ‘among the slain were . . . Sir Robert Munro, who was heard much to blaspheme during the engagement, and as a punishment for which, his tongue was miraculously cut asunder by a sword that struck him directly across the mouth.’ This is rather a startling statement concerning the end of one whom Dr. Doddridge has depicted as a type of the Christian soldier.[75] There seems, however, no necessity to doubt the truth of Daniel’s statement as representing the talk of the Highland camp; for it must be remembered that Sir Robert had served for many years with the army in Flanders whose strong language was proverbial. With the Highlanders on the other hand, profanity was not a common failing, and they may have been shocked at expletives which to an old campaigner were but unmeaning commonplaces of military expression.

Doddridge gives a certain amount of confirmation to Daniel’s story. He tells that when Sir Robert’s body was found the day after the battle, his face was so cut and mangled that it was hardly recognisable.

Daniel on joining the Jacobite army had been befriended by the Duke of Perth, and naturally he heartily disapproved of Lord George Murray. His dislike and distrust are shown frequently in his narrative. He tells, too, how his chief, Lord Balmerino, quarrelled with Lord George; how the hardships the cavalry endured in the campaign nearly drove the men to mutiny, the blame being thrown on the general. Such unreasoning accusations must have made Lord George’s life, hard as it was, more difficult than it would have been had officers and men been really disciplined.

There is another charge which Daniel makes against Lord George Murray--a charge which raised much controversy amongst the Jacobites--namely, the responsibility for fighting the battle of Culloden.

Daniel says: ‘Contrary to the Prince’s inclination, Lord George Murray insisted on standing and fighting that day. The Prince, notwithstanding his great inclination to avoid fighting, was at last obliged to give way to the importunity of Lord George Murray, who even used terms very cutting in case of refusal.’ This attempt to fix the responsibility on Lord George is contrary to impartial evidence, as may be seen by careful examination of contemporary documents.[76] Lord George was against fighting, his scheme being to retire to the mountains, very much as proposed by the Marquis D’Eguilles. The Prince surely must have known this, yet we find that while hiding in South Uist he told Neil Maceachain that ‘he blamed always my Lord George as being the only instrument in loseing the battle, and altho’ that he, the morning before the action, used all his rhetorick, and eloquence against fighting, yet my Lord George outreasoned him, till at last he yielded for fear to raise a dissension among the army, all which he attributed to his infidelity, roguery, and treachery.’ One can only surmise that in his anger against Lord George Murray, the Prince’s recollection of what had actually happened had become confused, and, surrounded by flatterers even in his flight, he had brought himself to lay the responsibility on his Lieutenant-General.

The controversy, which long raged among the Jacobites, may be set at rest once and for all from the report of the Marquis D’Eguilles to Louis XV. D’Eguilles was the accredited envoy of the King of France to the itinerant Court of Prince Charles Edward. On his return to France after a year’s confinement as a prisoner of war, he wrote an official report of his mission to the French king. It is a State document, preserved in the archives of the French Government, but apparently it has never been examined by any British historian. From the text of that document, an extract from which is here given, it will be seen that on the Prince, and the Prince alone, lay the responsibility of fighting the battle of Culloden.

[Sidenote: French Envoy’s Official Report to Louis XV. on the Battle of Culloden]

Le prince, qui se croyait invincible, parce qu’il n’avait
pas encore été vaincu, défié par des ennemis qu’il méprisait
trop, voyant à leur tête le fils du concurrent de son père,
fier et haut comme il l’était, mal conseillé, peut-être trahi,
oubliant en ce moment tout autre projet, ne put se résoudre à
lui refuser un seul jour le combat. Je lui demandai un quart
d’heure d’audience en particulier. Là, je me jetai en vain à ses
pieds; je lui représentai en vain qu’il lui manquait encore la
moitié de son armée, que la plupart de ceux qui étaient revenus
n’avaient plus de boucliers, espèce d’armes défensives, sans les
quelles ils ne sauraient combattre avec avantage; qu’ils étaient
tous épuisés de fatigue, par une longue course faite la nuit
précédente; que depuis deux jours plusieurs n’avaient pas mangé,
faute de pain; qu’il fallait se réduire à défendre Inverness;
qu’il serait même encore plus prudent de l’abandonner et de
mettre entre les ennemis et nous la rivière, auprès de laquelle
cette ville est batie; qu’au pis-aller nous entrerions dans les
montagnes voisines; que c’était là qu’il serait véritablement
invincible; que nous y resterions les maîtres de la partie de la
côte où devait arriver le secours d’armes et d’argent que nous
attendions; que dès que nous l’aurions reçu, nous marcherions
vers l’Angleterre par cette même côte, ainsi qu’il avait été
convenu; que plus les ennemis se seraient avancés vers nous, et
plus il leur serait difficile en rebroussant chemin, d’arriver à
Londres avant nous; que c’était la prise de cette grande ville
qui devait faire son unique objet; que les succès qu’il pourrait
avoir ailleurs n’auraient jamais rien de décisif, tandis que tout
allait être perdu sans ressource dans une heure, s’il venait à
être battu.

Enfin, le trouvant inébranlable dans la résolution prise de
combattre à quelque prix que ce fût, je fis céder mon penchant à
mon devoir. Je le quittai pour la première fois, je me retirai en
hâte à Inverness, pour y brûler tous mes papiers, et y songer aux
moyens de conserver à votre Majesté la partie de ses troupes qui
ne périrait dans l’action.

Je vis avant la fin du jour le spectacle le plus frappant de la
faiblesse humaine: le prince fut vaincu en un instant. Jamais
déroute plus entière que la sienne.

TRANSLATION

The Prince who believed himself invincible because he had not
yet been beaten, defied by enemies whom he thoroughly despised,
seeing at their head the son of the rival of his father;
proud and haughty as he was, badly advised, perhaps betrayed,
forgetting at this moment every other object, could not bring
himself to decline battle even for a single day. I requested
a quarter of an hour’s private audience. There I threw myself
in vain at his feet. In vain I represented to him that he was
still without half his army; that the great part of those who
had returned had no longer targets--a kind of defensive armour
without which they were unable to fight with advantage; that
they were all worn out with fatigue by a long march made on the
previous night, and for two days many of them had not eaten at
all for want of bread; that it was necessary to fall back to
defend Inverness; that it would be even more prudent to abandon
that town, and to place between the enemy and ourselves the
river near which this town is built; that if the worst came
to the worst, we might betake ourselves to the neighbouring
mountains--there it was that he would be truly invincible; there
we would remain masters of that part of the coast, at which
supplies of arms and of money ought to be arriving, and as soon
as these reached us, we should march towards England by that
same coast as had already been arranged; that the more the enemy
should advance towards us, the greater would be their difficulty
to retrace their steps so as to get to London before us; the
capture of that great city should be made his one object, for
successes that he might achieve elsewhere would have no decisive
value, while, in a single hour, all would be lost without hope of
recovery if he should chance to be beaten.

In the end, finding him immovable in the resolve he had taken
to fight at any cost, I made my desire yield to my duty. I left
him for the first time. I retired in haste to Inverness, there
to burn all my papers, and there to think over the means of
preserving for your Majesty that portion of the [French] troops
which might survive the action. I saw before the end of the day,
the most striking spectacle of human weakness--the Prince was
vanquished in an instant; never was a defeat more complete than
his.

THE WANDERINGS OF PRINCE CHARLES IN THE HEBRIDES

This narrative by Neil Maceachain, the guide of Prince Charles and Flora Macdonald over the seas to Skye, appeared in the _New Monthly Magazine_ for 1840. As a magazine article three-quarters of a century old is nearly as inaccessible as a manuscript, the Council of the Society authorised its inclusion in this volume as a fitting addition to the numerous narratives of the ’Forty-five collected by the Society.

In the magazine the article is prefaced with a note by the editor, Theodore Hook, who states that it was purchased from a hairdresser in Paris who claimed to be the son of the writer, and who, as Hook believed, must have been a son of Neil Maceachain. This, however, was impossible, as Neil had but one son who survived infancy--a son who had a far more distinguished career.

The fact is that when Neil died, his son was in garrison at Calais. The father’s papers were made over to the custody of a Mr. Macnab, a Highland exile residing in France. At the Revolution, Macnab was imprisoned, his effects were seized and scattered, and Neil Maceachain’s papers were lost. Probably at that time the vendor had obtained the manuscript.

My attention was drawn to the paper about twenty years ago, and I determined to find out what its claims to authenticity might be. In one of my journeys through the Outer Hebrides, when compiling the _Itinerary of Prince Charles_,[77] I was accompanied by the late Father Allan Macdonald, priest of Eriska and Dean of the Isles. We took a copy of the article with us, and traced on the spot the wanderings here described. We were much gratified; local tradition as well as topography completely corroborated the narrative. It could only have been written by one thoroughly acquainted with the islands. There could be no doubt of its genuineness, and it must have been written by Neil Maceachain.

In the _Itinerary_ there is a short account of Neil, to which the reader is referred. Briefly, he was one of the Macdonald-Maceachains of Howbeg, in South Uist, a sept of the Clanranald. Neil was educated in France for the priesthood, but abandoned his intention of taking orders, and returned to South Uist, where he acted as parish schoolmaster and tutor in the family of Clanranald, who then resided at Nunton in Benbecula. The old chief attached Neil to Prince Charles when in hiding in the islands, believing that his scholarship, his knowledge of languages, and his accomplishments as a musician might be useful to the Prince.

It must be remembered that the narrative can be accepted as trustworthy only for the occasions on which Neil was actually with the Prince. He met him on his first arrival at Benbecula, but he did not accompany him on his journey to Harris and Lewis; he was, however, again with him on his return to Benbecula and South Uist. Neil’s accounts, therefore, of the Prince’s adventures when away from South Uist are only from hearsay and not to be entirely depended on. In the _Itinerary_ I followed for that part of the Prince’s wanderings the narrative of Donald Macleod of Gualtergil, who was then his companion and guide.

Not the least interesting portion of the narrative is the account of the meeting between Flora Macdonald and Prince Charles. So much fiction mingles with accounts of the incident, in prose, in verse, and in pictures, that it is well to get the simple facts of the story. There were no English soldiers in the Hebrides; the duty of hunting the Prince was entrusted to the independent companies of Highlanders generally referred to as the Macdonald, Macleod, and Campbell militia. It must be remembered, however, that the Navy was relentless in the pursuit. Flora’s stepfather, Hugh Macdonald, was one of the chief men of the Sleat Clan which supported the Government, while Flora herself was a Clanranald.[78] She had been educated in her childhood with Clanranald’s family, and later she had been a good deal with Sir Alexander and Lady Margaret Macdonald in Edinburgh. Flora was dearly loved by both the families, and was a very suitable person to conduct Prince Charles from Clanranald territory to Skye. Moreover, the moment was opportune, for Sir Alexander Macdonald was in attendance on the Duke of Cumberland at Fort Augustus, and Lady Margaret, who had taken the utmost interest in the Prince and had secretly sent him comforts to South Uist, was at home at Monkstat.

Hugh Macdonald has always been suspected of collusion with the Prince,[79] but this is the only narrative in which the fact is stated categorically. Charles declared that he felt safe while he was with the Macdonalds.[80] Flora had but one meeting with Charles Edward in South Uist, on June 21st, when the plan of escape to Skye was arranged (p. 251). They met again on the evening of Saturday, June 28th, at Benbecula, whence Flora, Neil, and the Prince went by boat to Skye. Sunday night was spent at Kingsburgh’s house, and the narrative breaks off at the interesting moment when the party was on the way from Monkstat to Kingsburgh. What happened after that is found in various narratives of _The Lyon in Mourning_. Briefly, the Prince spent the night at Kingsburgh House. Next day, he walked to Portree, changing his female clothes in a wood on the road. The Prince walked by private paths and Flora rode by the main highway. At Portree the Prince said farewell to Flora for ever.

Such is the story, and it needs no embellishment. Flora’s services to the Prince were matchless; she saved him at the moment when General Campbell with his militia and a naval expedition were on the point of capturing him. She herself was taken prisoner a few days later.[81]

At Portree Neil Maceachain also said farewell to Prince Charles, who with Malcolm and Murdoch Macleod went that night to the island of Raasa. The following day the Prince returned to Skye, and left two days later for the mainland. Thus finished his wanderings in the Hebrides.

Neil evaded capture after the escape of Prince Charles from Skye; in September he rejoined him at Arisaig, and in the ship _L’Heureux_ accompanied the Prince to France. There he joined the French army, at first as a lieutenant in the Regiment d’Albanie, of which the command was given to Lochiel, and afterwards in the Scots regiment of Lord Ogilvy, the Jacobite exile. Ogilvy’s regiment was disbanded after the Peace of Paris in 1763, and Neil passed the rest of his life, first at Sedan and afterwards at Sancerre, in the province of Berry, on a pension of three hundred livres (about £30). He died at Sancerre in 1788. When he left Scotland Neil dropped the name of Maceachain, retaining only that of Macdonald.

His only son became famous as one of Napoleon’s generals--Marshal Macdonald, Duke of Tarentum.

NARRATIVE OF LUDOVICK GRANT OF GRANT

In 1745 Sir James Grant was the head of the family. His father at the Revolution had taken the side of King William, and had been a member of the Convention of Estates which declared King James’s forfeiture. He had raised a regiment and had incurred heavy expenses in the service of the new Government, but in spite of frequent applications no repayment had ever been made to him. Sir James’s elder brother, Alexander, succeeded his father. He was a distinguished soldier, who served the Government faithfully, and rose to the rank of Brigadier-General. In the ’Fifteen he was Lord-Lieutenant of Banff and Inverness, and was appointed Captain of Edinburgh Castle. In 1717 he was informed that the Government had no further occasion for his services. He died in 1719, and was succeeded by his brother James, who by a special grant inherited the baronetcy of his father-in-law, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss. Sir James Grant was member of parliament for the county of Inverness from 1722 to 1741, when a quarrel with Duncan Forbes of Culloden forced him to relinquish the constituency. He then became member for the Elgin burghs, for which he sat until his death in 1747. Although Sir James was a Whig in politics, it may be that at one time he had dealings with the Jacobite Court. It is remarkable that in 1721, while the Atterbury Plot was being hatched, and at the very time that Christopher Layer was in Rome on that business, Sir James Grant was created a peer by the Chevalier.[82]

On his arrival in Scotland, Prince Charles wrote to Grant requesting his co-operation in much the same terms as he wrote to known Jacobite adherents.[83] Sir James, who was now sixty-six years old, determined to keep out of trouble. He handed over the management of his clan and property to his eldest son, Ludovick, and on the pretext of attending to his parliamentary duties, he went to London, where he remained throughout the Rising.

Before leaving Scotland, Sir James pointed out to his son that the family had received scant reward for eminent services in the past, and he advised him that whatever happened the clan should not be subdivided. He strongly opposed Duncan Forbes’s scheme of independent companies. The clan should remain passive, prepared to defend its own territory, and only act in the event of its being attacked. This policy Ludovick carried out, and in doing so incurred the grave suspicion of the Government. It is indeed difficult to believe that, until the final retreat of the Jacobites and the approach of Cumberland, the acting Chief of the Grants was not sitting on the fence.

The Grant estates were in two distinct portions, those around Castle Grant in Strathspey and those in Urquhart and Glenmoriston on the western side of Loch Ness. Although the Strathspey Grants were accounted a Whig clan, the Grants of Urquhart and Glenmoriston were notoriously Jacobite. When the Rising took place, Ludovick Grant wrote to his outlying retainers, not forbidding them to join the Prince, but peremptorily forbidding them to move without his sanction. Eventually they went ‘out’ in spite of his orders, but the Strathspey men stood loyally by their chief.

The whole story of the rising in Urquhart and Glenmoriston and the action of Ludovick Grant towards the Government and his clansmen has been told within recent years in a most interesting volume by Mr. William Mackay,[84] to which the reader is referred. The narrative printed here is Grant’s own _apologia_ to the Government, prepared with legal assistance after the Rising. The text tells its own story, but four points may be referred to here, points which it gave Ludovick Grant much trouble to explain. First, when Sir John Cope marched north in August 1745 he passed within ten miles of Castle Grant, yet the young chief neither visited him nor sent him assistance.[85] Second, when President Duncan Forbes asked him to furnish two independent companies for the service of Government, he declined, on the ostensible ground that two companies were too insignificant a contingent for so important a clan as the Grants. He eventually was persuaded to send one company,[86] whose only service was to garrison Inverness Castle under Major George Grant, Ludovick’s uncle. The castle surrendered to Prince Charles in February after two days’ siege, and the commandant was dismissed the service. Third, Grant marched his men to Strathbogie to attack Lord Lewis Gordon’s men in December without orders from Lord Loudoun, then commanding in the north,[87] for which he incurred Lord Loudoun’s censure. Fourth, when Grant had gone to Aberdeen in March, five of his principal gentlemen made a treaty of neutrality[88] with the Jacobites under Lord George Murray and Lord Nairn, by which the Prince’s people were to get supplies from the Grant country in return for protection from raiding.

This narrative is occasionally referred to in Sir William Fraser’s _Chiefs of Grant_, but is not included in that work. The text is printed from the original manuscripts in the Public Record Office.

THE CASE OF THE REV. JOHN GRANT AND OF GRANTS OF SHEUGLY

To show his zeal for the Government after Culloden, Ludovick Grant marched his Strathspey men, eight hundred strong, into Urquhart and Glenmoriston, and under threat of fire and sword arrested his clansmen who had been ‘out.’ The fighting men were handed over to the Duke of Cumberland, and most of them were transported. Grant of Sheugly and his eldest son had not actually been out but were accused of urging their people to join the Jacobites. They were sent to London as prisoners along with the Reverend John Grant, minister of Urquhart. Ludovick asserted to the Duke of Newcastle that the minister ‘was at all their consultations and never attempted to dissuade the people from joining the rebells, but on the contrary gave over praying for his Majesty, and after the battle of Culloden he concealed some of the rebells and had their money in keeping.... Mr. Grant concealed from me where three of the rebells were hid by his direction....’[89]

The reader will find the minister’s own story in the text, and must judge of its truth. Perhaps Grant protests too much, for Mr. Mackay informs me that the tradition of the parish is that he was a thorough Jacobite. It is perfectly evident, however, that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General thought lightly of the case both against the minister and young Sheugly, or they would never have remitted them to the court at Edinburgh, when it was notorious that no Scottish jury would convict a Jacobite.

The prisoners, on December 4th, ‘sisted [surrendered] themselves in court [at Edinburgh] to answer for alleadged Rebellion and all such matters as on his Majesty’s behalf should be objected against them.’[90] They were admitted to bail and there the matter ended.

The Presbytery records show that no ecclesiastical proceedings were taken against the minister, though probably that does not mean much. At that time it may well be believed that every minister and elder in the Highlands sympathised with the hunted Jacobites. The only minister of the Church of Scotland who was dealt with for disloyalty in the ’Forty-five was Thomas Man, minister of Dunkeld. He was tried before the Commission of General Assembly in May 1747. The libel against him was found relevant, and the charges partly confessed or found proven. The sentence was gentle--five months’ suspension from his duties.[91]

The manuscript of this case is preserved in the Record Office.

GROSSETT’S MEMORIAL AND ACCOUNTS

Walter Grossett[92] of Logie was the grandson of a certain Alexander Grossett, or Grosier, or Grosiert, a Frenchman, who came over to Great Britain in the Civil Wars and served King Charles I. in the army. He settled in Scotland, and died there, leaving a son Alexander. This son purchased the small estate of Logie, near Dunfermline. He was an ardent Covenanter, and retired to Holland at the time of the persecutions. Alexander left an only son, Archibald, who married Eupham Muirhead, a daughter of the laird of Bredisholm, in North Lanarkshire, by whom he had three sons; of these Walter was the eldest. Through his mother, he was a cousin of Sir John Shaw of Greenock, and was also nearly connected with the families of Lord Blantyre and the Earl of Cathcart.

In 1745 this Walter Grossett was Collector of Customs at Alloa, an office he had held for seventeen years. He was exceedingly active in his vocation, and very successful in the prosecution of smugglers. A short time before the Rising, at great risk to himself, he made one of the largest seizures of smuggled tobacco ever made in Scotland, thus enriching the Treasury by several thousand pounds.[93] Early in the ’Forty-five, eight days before Prince Charles entered Edinburgh, Grossett was commissioned by Lord Advocate Craigie to seize the boats and shipping on the northern shore of the Firth of Forth to prevent their falling into the hands of the Jacobite army, then assembling at Perth. Apparently his performance gave satisfaction, for he was promoted to be Collector at Leith, and he was constantly employed thereafter by the military authorities and the Lord Justice-Clerk, both in executive work and in secret service. His services were so highly approved by the Duke of Cumberland that H.R.H. promised him ‘his countenance on every occasion.’[94] After the suppression of the Rising, he was employed by the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State, to collect evidence for the prosecution of the rebel lords and other Jacobite prisoners, and to escort the witnesses for the prosecution to London. For his services to Government he was promoted to the office of Inspector-General of Customs in 1747, on the recommendation of the Duke of Cumberland.[95]

Grossett must have been a man of great personal courage, for he went about with his life in his hand. On one occasion, it is related, he saved the life of his cousin Sir John Shaw by entering the Jacobite camp (it is not stated when or where) and carrying him off in the disguise of a Jacobite officer.[96] His enemies, whether Jacobites or smugglers, perhaps both, wreaked terrible vengeance on his house and his family, treating his wife so harshly that she died shortly afterwards.[97]

It is pleasant to find on record a friendly action of Grossett to a condemned prisoner. Patrick Murray, a goldsmith of Stirling, was taken prisoner at Airdrie in November 1745 by some country people. To Grossett, who was present, he declared that he surrendered in accordance with Marshal Wade’s proclamation of 30th October offering his Majesty’s clemency to all rebels who would surrender before 11th November.[98] Grossett had been summoned to Murray’s trial at Carlisle as a witness for the defence, but was prevented from being present owing to his secret services detaining him in London. Murray was tried on September 24th, 1746, found guilty, and condemned to death. The terms of his surrender were not pled at his trial, and Grossett sent in a memorial stating the facts of the arrestment:[99] it was of no avail, Murray was executed on November 15th.

Grossett tells the story of his executive work and of the expenses he incurred in the pages printed in this volume. He mentions that he gave evidence in 1747 at the trial of Lord Provost Archibald Stewart for losing Edinburgh to Prince Charles, but he does not mention the lines in which he is held up to shame and ridicule, along with the magistrates and the clergy of Edinburgh, in a poem published after the trial, which was burned by the hangman, and which brought the printer to the pillory and to ruin:

‘And stupid Gr--t next must take the field,
And He, (with fifty,) swore he would not yield,
To those brave Hundreds (who deserv’d the rope,)
That did beat Thousands under Sir J--n C--pe.’[100]

Judging from the report of the Duke of Cumberland’s Secretary and the Solicitor to the Treasury (p. 400), Grossett’s claim for £3709 was justified. I have, however, failed to discover if the sum was actually paid, and family papers throw some doubt on this. In a memorandum by his eldest son it is stated that he was a sufferer for his services to Government by many thousand pounds. This may mean that his claim was never liquidated, though after the report of the official scrutineers that hardly seems probable. It is more likely that young Grossett refers to the legal expenses incurred by his father in defending himself against the ‘scandalous Libells and groundless and vexatious lawsuits,’ which he had to meet as the result of his anti-Jacobite and anti-smuggling zeal, together with the loss of professional perquisites referred to on pp. 336 and 337.[101]

A gauger has always been a most unpopular personage in Scotland, and Grossett rendered himself doubly odious by his action as informer against the unfortunate Jacobite prisoners. He was the victim of shoals of frivolous actions in the courts, brought by persons determined to wear him out in law expenses. He was strongly advised by the Secretary of State to leave the country and go abroad for a few years, and he was told that the Treasury would give him full pay as Inspector-General during his absence on leave. How long this leave on full pay continued I do not know, but Grossett went to Italy. His wife had been a Miss de Vlieger, the daughter of a Dutch merchant and Government financier, and it may be that this fact stimulated Grossett to international financial enterprise. Along with the Earl of Rochfort, British minister at the Sardinian Court, and other gentlemen, he entered into silver and copper mining adventures in Savoy, which proved utter failures. He returned to England a completely ruined man, and died broken-hearted, in 1760, at his son’s house in London.

Walter Grossett had been heir-presumptive to his uncle, John Muirhead of Bredisholm, the last of the male representatives of that ancient family and of the Muirheads of that Ilk. Muirhead had helped Grossett in his mining speculations, and had become so involved that he was obliged to sell the reversion of the estate in order to live. He wished the property kept in the family, so he sold it to Walter Grossett’s nephew, the son of his youngest brother, James, a prosperous merchant of Lisbon, who assumed the name of Muirhead. James’s son John married a granddaughter of Lord George Murray--Lady Jean Murray, daughter of the third Duke of Atholl.[102] He is the ancestor of the family which, in the female line but retaining the name of Muirhead, still possesses the property of Bredisholm.

Grossett’s second brother, Alexander, was a captain in Price’s regiment, and served on the staff at the battle of Culloden, where he was killed under circumstances related in the text (p. 336). His wife and children are on the list of recipients of gratuities from a Guildhall Relief Fund collected for sufferers in the campaign of the ’Forty-five (see Appendix, p. 429). The entry reads, ‘Captain Grossett’s widow and 4 children, £150.’ It was the largest individual sum distributed.

Grossett’s narrative seems truthful and straightforward. Although presented in the unusual form of a commercial invoice, it is particularly interesting and useful in giving details of minor events of the campaign not generally mentioned, or at least not detailed elsewhere. He, however, would convey the impression that his enterprises were always successful, which was not the case. For instance, the Jacobites were successful in securing the passage of the Firth of Forth, yet Grossett does not make the reader understand this in his long account of the operation at pp. 353-358, and the same applies to other passages. Yet the description does not differ more from the Jacobite accounts than in modern times do the descriptions of operations as narrated by opposing belligerent generals.[103]

Two services he was employed on are worthy of special notice--the release of the officers on parole (p. 364), and his participation in the distribution of the Guildhall Relief Fund (p. 374). The former service had been originally destined by Hawley for the company of Edinburgh volunteers under the command of John Home (author of _Douglas_), by whom it was indignantly refused.[104] The latter, which is described in the Appendix, is particularly interesting at the present time of war, when similar funds are being distributed for similar purposes.

The manuscripts of the ‘Memorial,’ the ‘Narrative,’ and ‘The Account of Money’ are in the Record Office. A remarkable coincidence procured the Correspondence printed on pp. 379-399. After the ‘Narrative’ was in type, my friend, Mr. Moir Bryce, President of the Old Edinburgh Club, sent me a packet of letters, most of them holograph, to look over and see if there was anything of interest in them. To my surprise and gratification, I found they were the identical original letters that Grossett quotes as authority for his transactions. Mr. Bryce, who had purchased the letters from a dealer, knew nothing of the history of their ownership. He subsequently generously presented me with the collection. The Report of Fawkener and Sharpe was lent to me by Miss Frances Grosett-Collins, Bredisholm, Chew Magna, Somerset. Miss Grosett-Collins also kindly lent me some family papers from which, along with documents preserved in the Record Office and the British Museum, these brief notes of her ancestor’s career have been compiled.

ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLES OF PRESTON, FALKIRK, AND CULLODEN

This is a beautifully written manuscript of sixty-two folios, small quarto, by Andrew Lumisden, private secretary to Prince Charles when in Scotland. Certain documents bound up with the manuscript give its history. It was originally written for the information of John Home, author of the tragedy of _Douglas_, when engaged in writing his history of the Rebellion. After Home’s death, it was presented by his nephew, John Home, W.S., to Macvey Napier, Librarian of the Signet Library. In 1840 Napier presented it to Mr. James Gibson Craig, W.S., because, as he says in a letter, he ‘has a just taste and value for such documents.’ On Mr. Gibson Craig’s death in 1886, it passed into the collection of his partner Sir Thomas Dawson Brodie, Bart. On his death, it came into my possession by purchase.

Andrew Lumisden was a grandson of Andrew Lumisden, episcopal minister of Duddingston, who was ‘outed’ at the Revolution. In 1727 the latter was consecrated bishop of Edinburgh, and died six years later. The bishop’s third son, William, was educated for the bar, but he ‘went out’ in 1715, and, refusing to take the oaths to Government after that Rising, he was unable to follow his profession, but practised in Edinburgh as a Writer or law agent. He married Mary Bruce, a granddaughter of Robert Bruce, third of Kennet. To them were born two children, (1) Isabella born in 1719, who, in 1747, was married to the young artist Robert Strange, whom she had induced to join Prince Charles’s Life Guards, and who afterwards became the most famous British engraver of his time, and was knighted by George III.; and (2) Andrew, born in 1720, the author of this ‘Account.’

Andrew followed his father’s profession of Writer, and when Prince Charles came to Edinburgh in 1745 he was, on the recommendation of his cousin Sir Alex. Dick of Prestonfield, appointed private secretary to the Prince, and accompanied him throughout the campaign. After Culloden he was attainted. He concealed himself for some weeks in Edinburgh, escaped to London, and thence to Rouen. Here at first he suffered great privation, but succeeded in obtaining a French pension of 600 livres, which relieved his immediate wants. In 1749 he went to Rome, and in the following year he was appointed Assistant Secretary to the Old Chevalier. On the death of James Edgar, in 1762, he succeeded him as Jacobite Secretary of State. The Old Chevalier died in 1766, and Lumisden was for a time continued in his office by Charles. The great object of Charles’s policy was to be acknowledged by the Pope as King of Great Britain, a title which Clement XIII. refused him in spite of a powerful appeal by Cardinal Henry, Duke of York, to his Holiness.[105] Charles, smarting under the indignity, became intensely irritable, and gave himself up more and more to self-indulgence. In December 1768 Lumisden, along with two other Scottish officials, was summarily dismissed for refusing to accompany his royal master to an oratorio when that master was intoxicated.[106] Leaving Rome, he settled in Paris, where he moved in the highest literary and artistic circles. In 1773 he was allowed to return to Great Britain, and five years later he received a full pardon.

Lumisden, who was never married, continued to spend much of his time in Paris, accounted ‘a man of the finest taste and learning,’ living the life of a dilettante, and paying frequent visits to London and Edinburgh.

There is a pleasant anecdote told of him at this time, which reflects the kindly feeling borne by King George III. to irreconcilable Jacobites. It is very similar to the well-known story of King George’s message to Laurence Oliphant of Gask, told by Sir Walter Scott in the Introduction to _Redgauntlet_. It must be remembered that to their dying day both the laird of Gask and Andrew Lumisden never referred to King George except as the Elector of Hanover. The story of Lumisden is told in a family paper[107] by his great-niece Mrs. Mure (_née_ Louisa Strange), and may be given in that lady’s own words.

A valuable library was about to be dispersed in Paris, which
contained a rare copy or edition of the Bible, and George III.
commissioned his bookseller, Mr. Nichol, to procure it for him
at a certain limit as to price. Mr. Nichol, intimate with Mr.
Lumisden, whose literary character qualified him to pronounce
as to the authenticity and value of this work, employed him to
examine, and, on approval, to make this purchase, which he did,
obtaining it at a far lower price than had been mentioned. The
king, delighted with his acquisition, asked Mr. Nichol how he
had managed to get it. Mr. Nichol replied he had ‘applied to
a friend of his much connected with literature, whom he could
trust,’ etc., etc. ‘Well, but who is your friend,’ said the
king, ‘I suppose he has a name?’ ‘A gentleman named Lumisden,
your Majesty,’ said Mr. Nichol. ‘Oh!’ replied the king, ‘the
Prince’s secretary.’ The king, with true courtesy, never called
Charles Edward aught but ‘the Prince.’ ‘Yes, your Majesty,’ said
Mr. Nichol shyly, ‘the same.’ ‘Well, Nichol,’ said the king, ‘I
am much obliged by the trouble Mr. Lumisden has taken; pray,
make him my compliments, and tell him so; and I should like to
send him some little token of this. What shall it be?’ Nichol
suggested ‘a book, perhaps,’ and it is said the king laughed and
said, ‘Oh, yes! a book, a book! that would suit you!’ However,
the message was sent, and Mr. Lumisden’s reply was, that he
should be gratified by the possession of a copy of Captain Cook’s
_Voyages_, then just published, in which he took a deep interest,
and considered they owed their success to the individual
patronage given them by the king himself.

A very handsome copy of Anson’s and Cook’s _Voyages_, in nine
quarto volumes, was sent to Mr. Lumisden by the king. They were
left by Mr. Lumisden to my father [Sir Thomas Strange], and he
bequeathed them to his son James, now Admiral Strange, in whose
possession they are. [Written in 1883.]

In 1797 Lumisden published a volume at London entitled _Remarks on the Antiquities of Rome and its Environs ... with Engravings_, his only literary legacy excepting this account of the battles in Scotland. I have failed to discover at what period of his life this manuscript was written.

Lumisden died in Edinburgh in 1801. His usual lodging had been in the Luckenbooths, the very heart of the old town, but he had recently changed his quarters to the then new Princes Street, and to the very newest part of that street, the section west of Castle Street. To the imagination it seems strangely incongruous, yet as a link between the past and the present not entirely unfitting, that this aged partisan of the House of Stuart, probably the last Scottish gentleman who personally served that dynasty whose capital was the ancient city, should meet his death in the newest part of that modern street which is the glory of the Edinburgh that the Stuarts never knew.

ORIGINS OF THE ’FORTY-FIVE

PAPERS OF

JOHN MURRAY OF BROUGHTON

A COPY OF ORIGINAL PAPERS written by JOHN MURRAY, Esq., Secretary
to the Young Pretender, containing a History of the first Rise
and Progress of the Late Rebellion from the End of the year 1742
to 1744.

_N.B._--The original is written by Mr. Murray’s own hand and
was found after the Battle of Culloden, and seems to have been
originally design’d as Memoirs, etc.

_Copy of a shattered Leaf belonging to the original Manuscript_

[Sidenote: Edgar to Murray]

During all this winter[108] my Lord T[ra]q[uai]r,[109] as I observed before, was at London with Lord Semple[110] and Mr. Drummond,[111] and the gentlemen in the Highlands immediately concerned in his Majesties affairs were employed in cultivating his interest amongst their vassals and neighbours, which was the more easily done as the most part of that country are naturally Loyal and at the same time ... run so high against the Government, that any scheme proposed ... was most acceptable. It seems after his Lordship had been there sometime, he wrote a letter to his Majestie, in answer to which I received one enclosed to me from Mr. Edgar,[112] dated the 5th of July 1742, which was this.... It is a long time since I had the pleasure of writting to you which has been occasioned by my knowing you was informed of everything by Bahady, and that being the case I did not care to ... venture all ... time when I shall ... to say to you as I ha ... view of recommending them ... for Lord [Tra]q[uai]r to your care ... of it with much satisfaction ... to assure you of my best respect and of the longing I have to tell you by word of mouth how much I am yours. As Lord T[ra]q[uai]r has been lately at London and knew there how things were going it is useless for me to enter here ... matters and as the King has particular directions to give you ... sent I shall add nothing ... but by his Majesties Com ... kind compliments ... that the family a ... I am with all my h....

After his Lordships return ... taken to inform the Highlands of the favourable situation there seemed to ... from the information he had got from Lord Semple and Drummond ...

_The rest of this page torn away._

_Copy of another shattered Leaf_

Which message tho’ they began to languish a little, yet kept up their spirits. As nothing is more common than for people to believe what they wish and hope for, however specious the encouragement may be. Upon Mr. Drummond parting with His Lordship at London, he assured him he would write particularly whatever Resolutions the Cardinal[113] should come to after his arrival, imagining, as he said, that the promises they had gott in England from the King’s friends there would suffice to determine the old man to act strenuously in his Majesty’s favours; upon which we waited impatiently to hear from him. In the beginning of Winter Locheal came to town with whom I had occasion often to converse on these subjects, and always found him the man the most ready, and willing chearfully to enter into any scheme that would conduce to His Majesty’s interest: and must here declare that I really believe he is the most sincere honest man the Country produces, without the least shew of self interest. After several months had passed without my hearing from Rome, or any letters coming from My L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r received one from Mr. Drummond about the beginning of December and dated . . . of . . . which alarmed us very much, as it gave us ground to believe that things were much nearer Action, than we had any notion of, and indeed it seemed to us only fitt to be written a few weeks before a descent; but to make the reader Judge, I shall here insert a letter itself.

Copy Mr. Drummond’s letter to the Earl of T[ra]q[uai]r dated the 1742.

_The rest awanting._

_Copy of another torn Leaf in Manuscripts_

As there was nothing in this letter but a general assurance of the French Design without either specyfying the number of the Troops, Arms, Money, Ammunition or even the fixed time, My Lord T[ra]q[uai]r and the Laird of Lochiel[114] considering how unprepared the Country was to join in any such attack attempt, and that from the contents of the letter it was impossible to give any positive directions to the Gentlemen of the Highlands, together with the near prospect they had of a landing, which must of necessity have proved abortive had it really happened. They thought it absolutely necessary they should be presently informed of everything, but the difficulty was how to accomplish it. There was no opportunity to write, the time of an answer uncertain, and from the indistinct letter already received they had no great reason to expect anything in writing very satisfactory ... upon which I offered to go ... and then learn distinctly ... the Resolutions of the ... fully informed ... but as this was not to ... having the opinion of ... who were the most ... in his Majesties Interest ... a letter wrote by ... which went to him by ... likewise one to S[ir] J[ames] C[ampbell][115] their advice and opinion, and during the intervall we had severall conversations all tending to acquaint us particularly of what had been carried on for sometime before by Lord Semple, Mr. Drummond and then received by me as one of these who had been the first in the Country to form a Concert, binding themselves by oath not to discover their schemes to any but one of themselves, or the persons agreed upon to be received amongst them by the Consent of the whole.

I had for a long time before been pretty well acquainted with who were the principle people concerned in all the present transactions, without knowing there had ever been any such formal Combination. I gave my word of honour faithfully to keep these secrets, and then they told me the rise of the Story what assurances they had given the French by the hands of Drummond and Lord Semple after making terms with the King himself, that nobody should be acquented with their procedure without their consent. I was like wise informed

_The rest of this Page not legible._

The weather at this time happening to be very stormy, the express did not return for two weeks longer than we expected; but upon receiving his Lordships answer which he approved of the proposal, I sett about making ready to sett off, and accordingly took journey about the 10 or 12 of Jany. 1743, upon the pretence of talking with the Duke of Queensberry[116] then at London concerning a process I had with the Earl of March,[117] to whom his Grace had been Tutor-in-law.