Chapter XVIII: 465 (2)

There are now few persons, if any, who pretend to this faculty, and the belief in it is almost generally exploded. Yet it cannot be denied that apparent proofs of its existence have been adduced which have staggered minds not prone to superstition. When the connexion between cause and effect can be recognised, things which would otherwise have appeared wonderful and almost incredible, are viewed as ordinary occurrences. The impossibility of accounting for such an extraordinary phenomenon as the alleged faculty, on philosophical principles, or from the laws of nature, must ever leave the matter suspended between rational doubt and confirmed scepticism. The strong-minded but superstitious Dr. Johnson appears, from the following passage, to have been inclined to believe in the genuineness of the faculty. “Strong reasons for incredulity,” says Dr. Johnson, “will readily occur. This faculty of seeing things out of sight is local, and commonly useless. It is a breach of the common order of things, without any visible reason or perceptible benefit. It is ascribed only to a people very little enlightened; and among them, for the most part, to the mean and ignorant. To the confidence of these objections it may be replied, that by presuming to determine what is fit, and what is beneficial, they presuppose more knowledge of the universal system than man has attained; and therefore depend upon principles too complicated and extensive for our comprehension; and that there can be no security in the consequence, when the premises are not understood: that the Second Sight is only wonderful because it is rare, for, considered in itself, it involves no more difficulty than dreams, or perhaps than the regular exercises of the cogitative faculty; that a general opinion of communicative impulses, or visionary representations, has prevailed in all ages and all nations; that particular instances have been given, with such evidence as neither Bacon, nor Bayle, has been able to resist; that sudden impressions, which the event has verified, have been felt by more than own or publish them; that the Second Sight of the Hebrides implies only the local frequency of a power which is no where totally unknown; and that where we are unable to decide by antecedent reason, we must be content to yield to the force of testimony.”[490]

Among the various modes of social intercourse which gladdened the minds and dissipated the few worldly cares of the Highlanders, weddings bore a distinguished part, and they were longed for with a peculiar earnestness. Young and old, from the boy and girl of the age of ten to the hoary-headed sire and aged matron, attended them. The marriage invitations were given by the bride and bridegroom, in person, for some weeks previous, and included the friends of the betrothed parties living at the distance of many miles.

When the bride and bridegroom had completed their rounds, the custom was for the matrons of the invited families to return the visit within a few days, carrying along with them large presents of hams, beef, cheese, butter, malt, spirits, and such other articles as they inclined or thought necessary for the approaching feast. To such an extent was this practice carried in some instances in the quantity presented, that, along with what the guests paid (as they commonly did) for their entertainment at the marriage, and the gifts presented on the day after the marriage, the young couple obtained a pretty fair competence, which warded off the shafts of poverty, and even made them comfortable in after-life.

The joyous wedding-morning was ushered in by the notes of the bagpipe. A party of pipers, followed by the bridegroom and some of his friends, commenced at an early hour a round of morning calls to remind the guests of their engagements. These hastened to join the party, and before the circuit, which sometimes occupied several hours, had ended, some hundreds, perhaps, had joined the wedding standard before they reached the bridegroom’s house. The bride made a similar round among her friends. Separate dinners were provided; the bridegroom giving a dinner to his friends, and the bride to hers. The marriage ceremony was seldom performed till after dinner. The clergyman sometimes attended, but the parties preferred waiting on him, as the appearance of a large procession to his house gave additional importance and eclat to the ceremony of the day, which was further heightened by a constant firing by the young men, who supplied themselves with guns and pistols, and which firing was responded to by every hamlet as the party passed along; “so that, with streamers flying, pipers playing, the constant firing from all sides, and the shouts of the young men, the whole had the appearance of a military army passing, with all the noise of warfare, through a hostile country.”

On the wedding-day, the bride and bridegroom avoided each other till they met before the clergyman. Many ceremonies were performed during the celebration of the marriage rites. These ceremonies were of an amusing and innocent description, and added much to the cheerfulness and happiness of the young people. One of these ceremonies consisted in untying all the bindings and strings about the person of the bridegroom, to denote, that nothing was to be bound on the marriage day but the one indissoluble knot which death only can dissolve. The bride was exempted from this operation from a delicacy of feeling towards her sex, and from a supposition that she was so pure that infidelity on her part could not be contemplated.

To discontinue practices in themselves innocent, and which contribute to the social happiness of mankind, must ever be regretted, and it is not therefore to be wondered at, that a generous and open-hearted Highlander, like General Stewart, should have expressed his regret at the partial disuse of these ceremonies, or that he should have preferred a Highland wedding, where he had himself “been so happy, and seen so many blithe countenances, and eyes sparkling with delight, to such weddings as that of the Laird of Drum, ancestor of the Lord Sommerville, when he married a daughter of Sir James Bannatyne of Corehouse.”[491]

The festivities of the wedding-day were generally prolonged to a late hour, and during the whole day the fiddlers and pipers never ceased except at short intervals, to make sweet music. The fiddlers performed in the house, the pipers in the field;[492] so that the company alternately enjoyed the pleasure of dancing within and without the house, as they felt inclined, provided the weather permitted.

No people were more attached to the fulfilment of all the domestic duties, and the sacred obligation of the marriage vow, than the Highlanders. A violation thereof was of course of unfrequent occurrence, and among the common people a separation was almost unknown. Rarely, indeed, did a husband attempt to get rid of his wife, however disagreeable she might be. He would have considered his children dishonoured, if he had driven their mother from the protection of his roof. The punishment inflicted by the ecclesiastical authority for an infringement of the marriage vow was, that “the guilty person, whether male or female, was made to stand in a barrel of cold water at the church door, after which, the delinquent, clad in a wet canvas shirt, was made to stand before the congregation, and at close of service the minister explained the nature of the offence.”[493] Illicit intercourse before marriage between the sexes was also of rare occurrence, and met with condign punishment in the public infamy which attended such breaches against chastity.

This was the more remarkable, as early marriages were discouraged, and the younger sons were not allowed to marry until they obtained sufficient means to keep a house and to rent a small farm, or were otherwise enabled to support a family.

The attachment of the Highlanders to their offspring, and the veneration and filial piety which a reciprocal feeling produced on the part of their children, were leading characteristics in the Highland character, and much as these mountaineers have degenerated in some of the other virtues, these affections still remain almost unimpaired. Children seldom desert their parents in their old age, and when forced to earn a subsistence from home, they always consider themselves bound to share with their parents whatever they can save from their wages. But the parents are never left alone, as one of the family, by turns, remains at home for the purpose of taking care of them in terms of an arrangement. “The sense of duty is not extinguished by absence from the mountains. It accompanies the Highland soldier amid the dissipations of a mode of life to which he has not been accustomed. It prompts him to save a portion of his pay, to enable him to assist his parents, and also to work when he has an opportunity, that he may increase their allowance, at once preserving himself from idle habits, and contributing to the comfort and happiness of those who gave him birth. I have been a frequent witness of these offerings of filial bounty, and the channel through which they were communicated, and I have generally found that a threat of informing their parents of misconduct, has operated as a sufficient check on young soldiers, who always received the intimation with a sort of horror. They knew that the report would not only grieve their relations, but act as a sentence of banishment against themselves, as they could not return home with a bad or blemished character. Generals M’Kenzie, Fraser, and M’Kenzie of Suddie, who successively commanded the 78th Highlanders, seldom had occasion to resort to any other punishment than threats of this kind, for several years after the embodying of that regiment.”[494]

Nor were the Highlanders less alive to the principles of honesty and fair dealing, in their transactions with one another. Disgrace was the usual consequence of insolvency, which was considered _ex facie_ criminal. Bankrupts were compelled to undergo a singular punishment. They “were forced to surrender their all, and were clad in a party-coloured clouted garment, with the hose of different sets, and had their hips dashed against a stone, in presence of the people, by four men, each taking a hold of an arm or a leg. This punishment was called _Toncruaidh_.”[495]

Such was the confidence in their honour and integrity, that in the ordinary transactions of the people, a mere verbal obligation without the intervention of any writing, was held quite sufficient, although contracted in the most private manner,[496] and there were few instances where the obligation was either unfulfilled or denied. Their mode of concluding or confirming their money agreements or other transactions, was by the contracting parties going out into the open air, and with eyes erect, taking Heaven to witness their engagements, after which, each party put a mark on some remarkable stone or other natural object, which their ancestors had been accustomed to notice.

Accustomed, as the Highlanders were, to interminable feuds arising out of the pretensions of rival clans, the native courage which they had inherited from their Celtic progenitors was preserved unimpaired. Instances of cowardice were, therefore, of rare occurrence, and whoever exhibited symptoms of fear before a foe, was considered infamous and put under the ban of his party. The following anecdote, as related by Mrs. Grant, shows, strongly, the detestation which the Highlanders entertained towards those who had disgraced themselves and their clan by an act of poltroonery: “There was a clan, _I must not say what clan it is_, who had been for ages governed by a series of chiefs, singularly estimable, and highly beloved, and who, in one instance, provoked their leader to the extreme of indignation. I should observe, that the transgression was partial, the culprits being the inhabitants of one single parish. These, in a hasty skirmish with a neighbouring clan, thinking discretion the best part of valour, sought safety in retreat. A cruel chief would have inflicted the worst of punishments--banishment from the bounds of his clan,--which, indeed, fell little short of the curse of Kehama. This good laird, however, set bounds to his wrath, yet made their punishment severe and exemplary. He appeared himself with all the population of the three adjacent parishes, at the parish church of the offenders, where they were all by order convened. After divine service, they were marched three times round the church, in presence of their offended leader and his assembled clan. Each individual, on coming out of the church door, was obliged to draw out his tongue with his fingers, and then cry audibly, ‘Shud bleider heich,’ (i.e.) ‘This is the poltroon,’ and to repeat it at every corner of the church. After this procession of ignominy, no other punishment was inflicted, except that of being left to guard the district when the rest were called out to battle.... It is credibly asserted, that no enemy has seen the back of any of that name (Grant) ever since. And it is certain, that, to this day, it is not safe for any person of another name to mention the circumstance in presence of one of the affronted clan.”[497]

The Highlanders, like the inhabitants of other romantic and mountainous regions, always retain an enthusiastic attachment to their country, which neither distance of place nor length of time can efface. This strong feeling has, we think, been attributed erroneously to the powerful and lasting effect which the external objects of nature, seen in their wildest and most fantastic forms and features, are calculated to impress upon the imagination.

No doubt the remembrance of these objects might contribute to endear the scenes of youth to the patriotic Highlander when far removed from his native glens; but it was the recollection of home,--sweet home!--of the domestic circle, and of the many pleasing associations which arise from the contemplation of the days of other years, when mirth and innocence held mutual dalliance, that chiefly impelled him to sigh for the land of his fathers. Mankind have naturally an affection for the country of their birth, and this affection is felt more or less according to the degree of social or commercial intercourse which exists among nations. Confined, like the Swiss, for many ages within their natural boundaries, and having little or no intercourse with the rest of the world, the Highlanders formed those strong local attachments for which they were long remarkably distinguished; but which are now being gradually obliterated by the mighty changes rapidly taking place in the state of society.

Firmly attached as they were to their country, the Highlanders had also a singular predilection for the place of their birth. An amusing instance of this local attachment is mentioned by General Stewart. A tenant of his father’s, at the foot of the mountain Shichallion, having removed and followed his son to a farm which the latter had taken at some distance lower down the country, the old man was missing for a considerable time one morning, and on being asked on his return where he had been, replied, “As I was sitting by the side of the river, a thought came across me, that, perhaps, some of the waters from Shichallion, and the sweet fountains that watered the farm of my forefathers, might now be passing by me, and that if I bathed they might touch my skin. I immediately stripped, and, from the pleasure I felt in being surrounded by the pure waters of Leidna-breilag (the name of the farm) I could not tear myself away sooner.” But this fondness of the Highlander was not confined to the desire of living upon the beloved spot--it extended even to the grave. The idea of dying at a distance from home and among strangers could not be endured, and the aged Highlander, when absent from his native place, felt discomposed lest death should overtake him before his return. To be consigned to the grave among strangers, without the attendance and sympathy of friends, and at a distance from their family, was considered a heavy calamity; and even to this day, people make the greatest exertions to carry home the bodies of such relations as happen to die far from the ground hallowed by the ashes of their forefathers.[498] This trait was exemplified in the case of a woman aged ninety-one, who a few years ago went to Perth from her house in Strathbrane in perfect health, and in the possession of all her faculties. A few days after her arrival in Perth, where she had gone to visit a daughter, she had a slight attack of fever. One evening a considerable quantity of snow had fallen, and she expressed great anxiety, particularly when told that a heavier fall was expected. Next morning her bed was found empty, and no trace of her could be discovered, till the second day, when she sent word that she had slipt out of the house at midnight, set off on foot through the snow, and never stopped till she reached home, a distance of twenty miles. When questioned some time afterwards why she went away so abruptly, she answered, “If my sickness had increased, and if I had died, they could not have sent my remains home through the deep snows. If I had told my daughter, perhaps she would have locked the door upon me, and God forbid that my bones should be at such a distance from home, and be buried among _Gall-na-machair_, The strangers of the plain.”[499]

Among the causes which contributed to sustain the warlike character of the Highlanders, the exertions of the bards in stimulating them to deeds of valour in the field of battle, must not be overlooked. One of the most important duties of the bard consisted in attending the clans to the field, and exhorting them before battle to emulate the glories of their ancestors, and to die if necessary in defence of their country. The appeals of the bards, which were delivered and enforced with great vehemence and earnestness, never failed to arouse the feelings; and when amid the din of battle the voices of the bards could no longer be heard, the pipers succeeded them, and cheered on their respective parties with their warlike and inspiring strains. After the termination of the battle, the bard celebrated the praises of the brave warriors who had fallen in battle, and related the heroic actions of the survivors to excite them to similar exertions on future occasions. To impress still more deeply upon the minds of the survivors the honour and heroism of their fallen friends, the piper was employed to perform plaintive dirges for the slain.

From the associations raised in the mind by the great respect thus paid to the dead, and the honours which awaited the survivors who distinguished themselves in the field of battle, by their actions being celebrated by the bards, and transmitted to posterity, originated that magnanimous contempt of death for which the Highlanders are noted. While among some people the idea of death is avoided with studious alarm, the Highlander will speak of it with an easy and unconcerned familiarity, as an event of ordinary occurrence, but in a way “equally remote from dastardly affectation, or fool-hardy presumption, and proportioned solely to the inevitable certainty of the event itself.”[500]

To be interred decently, and in a becoming manner, is a material consideration in the mind of a Highlander, and care is generally taken, even by the poorest, long before the approach of death, to provide sufficient articles to insure a respectable interment. To wish one another an honourable death, _crioch onarach_, is considered friendly by the Highlanders, and even children will sometimes express the same sentiment towards their parents. “A man well known to the writer of these pages was remarkable for his filial affection, even among the sons and daughters of the mountains, so distinguished for that branch of piety. His mother being a widow, and having a numerous family, who had married very early, he continued to live single, that he might the more sedulously attend to her comfort, and watch over her declining years with the tenderest care. On her birth-day, he always collected his brothers and sisters, and all their families, to a sort of kindly feast, and, in conclusion, gave a toast, not easily translated from the emphatic language, without circumlocution,--_An easy and decorous departure to my mother_, comes nearest to it. This toast, which would shake the nerves of fashionable delicacy, was received with great applause, the old woman remarking, that God had been always good to her, and she hoped she would die as decently as she had lived, for it is thought of the utmost consequence to die decently. The ritual of decorous departure, and of behaviour to be observed by the friends of the dying on that solemn occasion, being fully established, nothing is more common than to take a solemn leave of old people, as if they were going on a journey, and pretty much in the same terms. People frequently send conditional messages to the departed. _If you are permitted, tell my dear brother, that I have merely endured the world since he left it, and that I have been very kind to every creature he used to cherish, for his sake._ I have, indeed, heard a person of a very enlightened mind, seriously give a message to an aged person, to deliver to a child he had lost not long before, which she as seriously promised to deliver, with the wonted salvo, if she was permitted.”[501]

In no country was “the savage virtue of hospitality” carried to a greater extent than in the Highlands, and never did stranger receive a heartier welcome than was given to the guest who entered a Highland mansion or cottage. This hospitality was sometimes carried rather too far, particularly in the island of Barra, where, according to Martin, the custom was, that, when strangers from the northern islands went there, “the natives, immediately after their landing, obliged them to eat, even though they should have liberally eat and drank but an hour before their landing there.” This meat they called _Bieyta’v_, i.e. Ocean meat. Sir Robert Gordon informs us that it was a custom among the western islanders, that when one was invited to another’s house, they never separated till the whole provision was finished; and that, when it was done, they went to the next house, and so on from one house to another until they made a complete round, from neighbour to neighbour, always carrying the head of the family in which they had been last entertained to the next house along with them.[502]

The removal of the court by Malcolm Canmore to the Lowlands was an event which was followed by results very disastrous to the future prosperity of the Highlands. The inhabitants soon sunk into a state of poverty, and, as by the transference of the seat of government the administration of the laws became either inoperative or was feebly enforced, the people gave themselves up to violence and turbulence, and revenged in person those injuries which the laws could no longer redress. Released from the salutary control of monarchical government, the Highlanders soon saw the necessity of substituting some other system in its place, to protect themselves against the aggressions to which they were exposed. From this state of things originated the great power of the Chiefs, who attained their ascendancy over the different little communities into which the population of the Highlands was naturally divided, on account of their superior property, courage, or talent. The powers of the chiefs were very great. They acted as judges or arbiters in the quarrels of their clansmen and followers, and as they were backed by resolute supporters of their rights, their property, and their power, they established within their own territories a jurisdiction almost independent of the kingly authority.

From this division of the people into clans and tribes under separate chiefs, arose many of those institutions, feelings, and usages which characterised the Highlanders. “The nature of the country, and the motives which induced the Celts to make it their refuge, almost necessarily prescribed the form of their institutions. Unequal to contend with the overwhelming numbers, who drove them from the plains, and, anxious to preserve their independence, and their blood uncontaminated by a mixture with strangers, they defended themselves in those strongholds which are, in every country, the sanctuaries of national liberty, and the refuge of those who resist the oppressions and the dominion of a more powerful neighbour. Thus, in the absence of their monarchs, and defended by their barrier of rocks, they did not always submit to the authority of a distant government, which could neither enforce obedience nor afford protection.”[503]

The various little societies into which the Highland population was, by the nature of the country, divided, having no desire to change their residence or to keep up a communication with one another, and having all their wants, which were few, supplied within themselves, became individually isolated. Every district became an independent state, and thus the Highland population, though possessing a community of customs and the same characteristics, was divided or broken into separate masses, and placed under different jurisdictions. A patriarchal[504] system of government, “a sort of hereditary monarchy founded on custom, and allowed by general consent, rather than regulated by laws,” was thus established over each community or clan in the persons of the chiefs.

As a consequence of the separation which was preserved by the different clans, matrimonial alliances were rarely made with strangers, and hence the members of the clan were generally related to one another by the ties of consanguinity or affinity. While this double connexion tended to preserve harmony and good will among the members of the same clan, it also tended, on the other hand, to excite a bitter spirit of animosity between rival clans, whenever an affront or injury was offered by one clan to another, or by individuals of different clans.

Although the chief had great power with his clan in the different relations of landlord, leader, and judge, his authority was far from absolute, as he was obliged to consult the leading men of the clan in matters of importance--in things regarding the clan or particular families, in removing differences, punishing or redressing injuries, preventing lawsuits, supporting declining families, and declaring war against, or adjusting terms of peace with other clans.

As the system of clanship was calculated to cherish a warlike spirit, the young chiefs and heads of families were regarded or despised according to their military or peaceable disposition. If they revenged a quarrel with another clan by killing some of the enemy, or carrying off their cattle and laying their lands waste, they were highly esteemed, and great expectations were formed of their future prowess and exploits. But if they failed in their attempts, they were not respected; and if they appeared disinclined to engage in hostile rencontres, they were despised.[505]

The military ranks of the clans were fixed and perpetual. The chief was, of course, the principal commander. The oldest cadet commanded the right wing, and the youngest the rear. Every head of a distinct family was captain of his own tribe. An ensign or standard-bearer was attached to each clan, who generally inherited his office, which had been usually conferred on an ancestor who had distinguished himself. A small salary was attached to this office.

Each clan had a stated place of rendezvous, where they met at the call of their chief. When an emergency arose for an immediate meeting from the incursions of a hostile clan, the cross or tarie, or fiery-cross, was immediately despatched through the territories of the clan. This signal consisted of two pieces of wood placed in the form of a cross. One of the ends of the horizontal piece was either burnt or burning, and a piece of linen or white cloth stained with blood was suspended from the other end. Two men, each with a cross in his hand, were despatched by the chief in different directions, who kept running with great speed, shouting the war-cry of the tribe, and naming the place of rendezvous, if different from the usual place of meeting. The cross was delivered from hand to hand, and as each fresh bearer ran at full speed, the clan assembled with great celerity. General Stewart says, that one of the latest instances of the fiery-cross being used, was in 1745 by Lord Breadalbane, when it went round Loch Tay, a distance of thirty-two miles, in three hours, to raise his people and prevent their joining the rebels, but with less effect than in 1715 when it went the same round, and when 500 men assembled in a few hours, under the command of the Laird of Glenlyon, to join the Earl of Mar.

Every clan had its own war-cry, (called in Scottish _slogan_,) to which every clansman answered. It served as a watch-word in cases of sudden alarm, in the confusion of combat, or in the darkness of the night. The clans were also distinguished by a particular badge, or by the peculiar arrangements or sets of the different colours of the tartan, which will be fully noticed when we come to treat of the history of the clans.

When a clan went upon any expedition they were much influenced by omens. If they met an armed man they believed that good was portended. If they observed a deer, fox, hare, or any other four-footed beast of game, and did not succeed in killing it, they prognosticated evil. If a woman barefooted crossed the road before them, they seized her and drew blood from her forehead.

The _Cuid-Oidhche_, or night’s provision, was paid by many tenants to the chief; and in hunting or going on an expedition, the tenant who lived near the hill was bound to furnish the master and his followers a night’s entertainment, with brawn for his dogs.

There are no sufficient data to enable us to estimate correctly the number of fighting men which the clans could bring at any time into the field; but a general idea may be formed of their strength in 1745, from the following statement of the respective forces of the clans as taken from the memorial supposed to be drawn up by the Lord President Forbes of Culloden, for the information of government. It is to be observed, however, that besides the clans here mentioned, there were many independent gentlemen, as General Stewart observes, who had many followers, but being what were called broken names, or small tribes, are omitted.

Argyle, 3000
Breadalbane, 1000
Lochnell and other chieftains of the
Campbells, 1000
Macleans, 500
Maclauchlans, 200
Stewart of Appin, 300
Macdougals, 200
Stewart of Grandtully, 300
Clan Gregor, 700
Duke of Athol, 3000
Farquarsons, 500
Duke of Gordon, 300
Grant of Grant, 850
Mackintosh, 800
Macphersons, 400
Frasers, 900
Grant of Glenmorriston, 150
Chisholms, 200
Duke of Perth, 300
Seaforth, 1000
Cromarty, Scatwell, Gairloch, and other
chieftains of the Mackenzies, 1500
Laird of Menzies, 300
Munros, 300
Rosses, 500
Sutherland, 2000
Mackays, 800
Sinclairs, 1100
Macdonald of Slate, 700
Macdonald of Clanronald, 700
Macdonell of Glengary, 500
Macdonell of Keppoch, 300
Macdonald of Glencoe, 130
Robertsons, 200
Camerons, 800
M’Kinnon, 200
Macleod, 700
The Duke of Montrose, Earls of Bute
and Moray, Macfarlanes, M’Neils
of Barra, M’Nabs, M’Naughtons,
Lamonts, &c. &c. 5600
-----
31,930

There is nothing so remarkable in the political history of any country as the succession of the Highland chiefs, and the long and uninterrupted sway which they held over their followers. The authority which a chief exercised among his clan was truly paternal, and he might, with great justice, have been called the father of his people. We cannot account for that warm attachment and the incorruptible and unshaken fidelity which the clans uniformly displayed towards their chiefs, on any other ground, than the kind and conciliatory system which they must have adopted towards their people; for, much as the feelings of the latter might have been awakened, by the songs and traditions of the bards, to a respect for the successors of the heroes whose praises they heard celebrated, a sense of wrongs committed, or of oppressions exercised, would have obliterated every feeling of attachment in the minds of the sufferers, and caused them to attempt to get rid of a tyrant who had rendered himself obnoxious by his tyranny.

The division of the people into small tribes, and the establishment of patriarchal government, were attended with many important consequences affecting the character of the Highlanders. This creation of an _imperium in imperio_ was an anomaly, but it was, nevertheless, rendered necessary from the state of society in the Highlands shortly after the transference of the seat of government from the mountains. The authority of the king, though weak and inefficient, continued, however, to be recognised, nominally at least, except indeed when he interfered in the disputes between the clans. On such occasions his authority was utterly disregarded. “His mandates could neither stop the depredations of one clan against another, nor allay their mutual hostilities. Delinquents could not, with impunity, be pursued into the bosom of a clan which protected them, nor could his judges administer the laws in opposition to their interests or their will. Sometimes he strengthened his arm by fomenting animosities among them, and by entering occasionally into the interest of one, in order to weaken another. Many instances of this species of policy occur in Scottish history, which, for a long period, was unhappily a mere record of internal violence.”[506]

The general laws being thus superseded by the internal feuds of the clans, and the authority of the sovereign being insufficient to repress these disorders, a perpetual system of warfare, aggression, depredation, and contention existed among them, which, during the continuance of clanship, banished peace from the Highlands. The little sovereignties of the clans “touched at so many points, yet were so independent of one another; they approached so nearly, in many respects, yet were, in others, so distant; there were so many opportunities of encroachment, on the one hand, and so little of a disposition to submit to it, on the other; and the quarrel of one individual of the tribe so naturally involved the rest, that there was scarcely ever a profound peace, or perfect cordiality between them. Among their chiefs the most deadly feuds frequently arose from opposing interests, or from wounded pride. These feuds were warmly espoused by the whole clan, and were often transmitted, with aggravated animosity, from generation to generation.”[507]

The disputes between opposing clans were frequently made matters of negotiation, and their differences were often adjusted by treaties. Opposing clans, as a means of strengthening themselves against the attacks of their rivals, or of maintaining the balance of power, also entered into coalitions with friendly neighbours. These bands of amity or _manrent_, as they were called, were of the nature of treaties of offensive and defensive alliance, by which the contracting parties bound themselves to assist each other; and it is remarkable that the duty of allegiance to the king was always acknowledged in these treaties,--“always excepting my duty to our lord the king, and to our kindred and friends,” was a clause which was uniformly inserted in them. In the same manner, when men who were not chiefs of clans, but of subordinate tribes, thus bound themselves, their fidelity to their chiefs was always excepted. The smaller clans who were unable to defend themselves, and such clans or families who had lost their chiefs, were included in these friendly treaties.[508] Under these treaties the smaller clans identified themselves with the greater clans; they engaged in the quarrels, followed the fortunes, and fought under the greater chiefs; but their ranks, as General Stewart observes, were separately marshalled, and led by their own subordinate chieftains and lairds, who owned submission only when necessary, for the success of combined operations. Several instances of this union will be found in the history of the clans.

As the system of clanship, by ignoring the authority of the sovereign and of the laws, prevented the clans from ever coming to any general terms of accommodation for settling their differences, their feuds were interminable, and the Highlands were, therefore, for ages, the theatre of a constant petty warfare destructive of the social virtues. “The spirit of opposition and rivalry between the clans perpetuated a system of hostility, encouraged the cultivation of the military at the expense of the social virtues, and perverted their ideas of both law and morality. Revenge was accounted a duty, the destruction of a neighbour a meritorious exploit, and rapine an honourable occupation. Their love of distinction, and their conscious reliance on their courage, when under the direction of these perverted notions, only tended to make their feuds more implacable, their condition more agitated, and their depredations more rapacious and desolating. Superstition added its influence in exasperating animosities, by teaching the clansmen, that, to revenge the death of a relation or friend, was a sacrifice agreeable to their shades: thus engaging on the side of the most implacable hatred, and the darkest vengeance, the most amiable and domestic of all our feelings,--reverence for the memory of the dead, and affection for the virtues of the living.”[509]

As the causes out of which feuds originated were innumerable, so many of them were trivial and unimportant, but as submission to the most trifling insult was considered disgraceful, and might, if overlooked, lead to fresh aggression, the clan was immediately summoned, and the cry for revenge met with a ready response in every breast. The most glaring insult that could be offered to a clan, was to speak disrespectfully of its chief,[510] an offence which was considered as a personal affront by all his followers, and was resented accordingly.

It often happened that the insulted clan was unable to take the field to repel aggression or to vindicate its honour; but the injury was never forgotten, and the memory of it was treasured up till a fitting opportunity for taking revenge should arrive. The want of strength was sometimes supplied by cunning, and the blackest and deadliest intentions of hatred and revenge were sought to be perpetrated under the mask of conciliation and friendship. This was the natural result of the inefficiency of the laws which could afford no redress for wrongs, and which, therefore, left every individual to vindicate his rights with his own hand. The feeling of revenge, when directed against rival tribes, was cherished and honoured, and to such an extent was it carried, that there are well authenticated instances where one of the adverse parties has been exterminated in the bloody and ferocious conflicts which the feuds occasioned.

As the wealth of the Highlanders consisted chiefly in flocks and herds, “the usual mode of commencing attacks, or of making reprisals, was by an incursion to carry off the cattle of the hostile clan. A predatory expedition was the general declaration of enmity, and a command given by the chief to clear the pastures of the enemy, constituted the usual letters of marque.”[511] These _Creachs_, as such depredations were termed, were carried on with systematic order, and were considered as perfectly justifiable. If lives were lost in these forays, revenge full and ample was taken, but in general personal hostilities were avoided in these incursions either against the Lowlanders or rival tribes. These predatory expeditions were more frequently directed against the Lowlanders, whom the Highlanders considered as aliens, and whose cattle they, therefore, considered as fair spoil at all times. The forays were generally executed with great secrecy, and the cattle were often _lifted_ and secured for a considerable time before they were missed. To trace the cattle which had been thus carried off, the owners endeavoured to discover their foot-marks in the grass, or by the yielding of the heath over which they had passed; and so acute had habit rendered their sight, that they frequently succeeded, in this manner, in discovering their property. The man on whose property the tract of the cattle was lost was held liable if he did not succeed in following out the trace or discovering the cattle; and if he did not make restitution, or offer to compensate the loss, an immediate quarrel was the consequence. A reward, called _Tasgal_ money, was sometimes offered for the recovery of stolen cattle; but as this was considered in the light of a bribe, it was generally discouraged. The Camerons and some other clans, it is said, bound themselves by oath never to accept such a reward, and to put to death all who should receive it.

Besides those who took part in the _Creachs_ there was another and a peculiar class called _Cearnachs_, a term of similar import with the _Catherans_ of the Lowlands, the _Kernes_ of the English, and the _Catervæ_ of the Romans. The Cearnachs were originally a select body of men employed in difficult and dangerous enterprises where more than ordinary honour was to be acquired; but, in process of time, they were employed in the degrading and dishonourable task of levying contributions on their Lowland neighbours, or in forcing them to pay tribute or _black mail_ for protection. Young men of the second order of gentry who were desirous of entering the military profession, frequently joined in these exploits, as they were considered well fitted for accustoming those who engaged in them to the fatigues and exercises incident to a military life. The celebrated Robert Macgregor Campbell, or Rob Roy,[512] was the most noted of these freebooters.

The cearnachs were principally the borderers living close to and within the Grampian range, but cearnachs from the more northerly parts of the Highlands also paid frequent visits to the Lowlands, and carried off large quantities of booty. The border cearnachs judging such irruptions as an invasion of their rights, frequently attacked the northern cearnachs on their return homewards; and if they succeeded in capturing the spoil, they either appropriated it to their own use or restored it to the owners.

It might be supposed that the system of spoliation we have described, would have led these freebooters occasionally to steal from one another. Such, however, was not the case; for they observed the strictest honesty in this respect. No precautions were taken--because unnecessary--to protect property; and the usual securities of locks, bolts, and bars, were never used, nor even thought of. Instances of theft from dwelling-houses were very rare; and, with the exception of one case which happened so late as the year 1770, highway robbery was totally unknown. Yet, notwithstanding the laudable regard thus shown by the freebooters to the property of their own society, they attached no ideas of moral turpitude to the acts of spoliation we have alluded to. Donald Cameron, or Donald Bane Leane, an active leader of a party of banditti who had associated together after the troubles of 1745, tried at Perth for cattle-stealing, and executed at Kinloch Rannoch, in 1752, expressed surprise and indignation at his hard fate, as he considered it, as he had never committed murder nor robbery, or taken any thing but cattle off the grass of those with whom he had quarrelled. The practice of “lifting of cattle” seems to have been viewed as a very venial offence, even by persons holding very different views of morality from the actors, in proof of which, General Stewart refers to a letter of Field-Marshal Wade to Mr. Forbes of Culloden, then Lord Advocate, dated October, 1729, describing an entertainment given him on a visit to a party of cearnachs. “The Knight and I,” says the Marshal, “travelled in my carriage with great ease and pleasure to the feast of oxen which the highwaymen had prepared for us, opposite Lochgarry, where we found four oxen roasting at the same time, in great order and solemnity. We dined in a tent pitched for that purpose. The beef was excellent; and we had plenty of bumpers, not forgetting your Lordship’s and Culloden’s health; and, after three hours’ stay, took leave of our benefactors, the highwaymen,[513] and arrived at the hut at Dalnachardoch, before it was dark.”[514]

Amid the violence and turbulence which existed in the Highlands, no appeal for redress of wrongs committed, or injuries sustained, could be effectually made to the legal tribunals of the country; but to prevent the utter anarchy which would have ensued from such a state of society, voluntary and associated tribunals, composed of the principal men of the tribes, were appointed. A composition in cattle being the mode of compensating injuries, these tribunals generally determined the amount of the compensation according to the nature of the injury, and the wealth and rank of the parties. These compensations were called _Erig_.

Besides these tribunals, every chief held a court, in which he decided all disputes occurring among his clansmen. He generally resided among them. “His castle was the court where rewards were distributed, and the most enviable distinctions conferred. All disputes were settled by his decision, and the prosperity or poverty of his tenants depended on his proper or improper treatment of them. These tenants followed his standard in war--attended him in his hunting excursions--supplied his table with the produce of their farms--and assembled to reap his corn, and to prepare and bring home his fuel. They looked up to him as their adviser and protector. The cadets of his family, respected in proportion to the proximity of the relation in which they stood to him, became a species of sub-chiefs, scattered over different parts of his domains, holding their lands and properties of him, with a sort of subordinate jurisdiction over a portion of his people, and were ever ready to afford him their counsel or assistance in all emergencies.

“Great part of the rent of land was paid in kind, and generally consumed where it was produced. One chief was distinguished from another, not by any additional splendour of dress or equipage, but by being followed by more dependants, and by entertaining a greater number of guests. What his retainers gave from their individual property was spent amongst them in the kindest and most liberal manner. At the castle every individual was made welcome, and was treated according to his station, with a degree of courtesy and regard to his feelings unknown in any other country.[515] This condescension, while it raised the clansman in his own estimation, and drew closer the ties between him and his superior, seldom tempted him to use any improper familiarities. He believed himself well born, and was taught to respect himself in the respect which he showed to his chief; and thus, instead of complaining of the difference of station and fortune, or considering a ready obedience to his chieftain’s call as a slavish oppression, he felt convinced that he was supporting his own honour in showing his gratitude and duty to the generous head of his family. ‘Hence, the Highlanders, whom more savage nations called savage, carried in the outward expression of their manners the politeness of courts without their vices, and in their bosoms the high point of honour without its follies.’”[516]

It cannot, however, be denied, that the authority of the chief was naturally arbitrary, and was sometimes exercised unduly and with great severity; as a proof of which, there is said to exist among the papers of the Perth family, an application to Lord Drummond from the town of Perth, dated in 1707, requesting an occasional use of his lordship’s executioner, who was considered an expert operator, a request with which his lordship complied, reserving, however, to himself the power of recalling the executioner when he had occasion for his services. Another curious illustration of this exercise of power is given by General Stewart. Sometime before the year 1745, Lord President Forbes dined at Blair castle with the Duke of Athole, on his way from Edinburgh to his seat at Culloden. A petition was delivered to his Grace in the course of the evening, on reading which, he thus addressed the President: “My lord, here is a petition from a poor man, whom Commissary Bisset, my baron bailie (an officer to whom the chief occasionally delegated his authority), has condemned to be hanged; and as he is a clever fellow, and is strongly recommended to mercy, I am much inclined to pardon him.” “But your Grace knows,” said the President, “that, after condemnation, no man can pardon but his Majesty.” “As to that,” replied the Duke, “since I have the power of punishing, it is but right that I should have the power to pardon.” Then, calling upon a servant who was in waiting, his Grace said, “Go, send an express to Logierait, and order Donald Stewart, presently under sentence, to be instantly set at liberty.”[517]

The authority which the generality of the chiefs exercised, was acquired from ancient usage and the weakness of the government; but the lords of regality, and the great barons and chiefs, had jurisdiction conferred on them by the Crown, both in civil and criminal cases, which they sometimes exercised in person and sometimes by deputy. The persons to whom they delegated this authority were called _bailies_. In civil matters the baron or chief could judge in questions of debt within his barony, as well as in most of those cases known by the technical term of possessory actions. And though it has always been an established rule of law, that no person can be judge in his own cause, a baron might judge in all actions between himself and his vassals and tenants, necessary for making his rents and feu-duties effectual. Thus, he could ascertain the price of corn due by a tenant, and pronounce sentence against him for arrears of rent; but in all cases where the chief was a party, he could not judge in person. The criminal jurisdiction of a baron, according to the laws ascribed to Malcolm Mackenneth, extended to all crimes except treason, and the four pleas of the Crown, viz., robbery, murder, rape, and fire-raising. Freemen could be tried by none but their peers. Whenever the baron held a court, his vassals were bound to attend and afford such assistance as might be required. On these occasions many useful regulations for the good of the community were often made, and supplies were sometimes voluntarily granted to the chief to support his dignity. The bounty of the vassals was especially and liberally bestowed on the marriage of the chief, and in the portioning of his daughters and younger sons. These donations consisted of cattle, which constituted the principal riches of the country in those patriarchal days. In this way the younger sons of the chief were frequently provided for on their settlement in life.

The reciprocal ties which connected the chief and his clan were almost indissoluble. In return for the kindness and paternal care bestowed by the former on the latter, they yielded a ready submission to his authority, and evinced a rare fidelity to his person, which no adversity could shake. Innumerable instances of this devoted attachment might be given, but two will suffice. In the battle of Inverkeithing, between the royalists and the troops of Oliver Cromwell, 500 of the followers of the Laird of Maclean were left dead on the field. Sir Hector Maclean being hard pressed by the enemy in the heat of the action, was successively covered from their attacks by seven brothers, all of whom sacrificed their lives in his defence; and as one fell another came up in succession to cover him, crying, “Another for Hector.” This phrase, says General Stewart, has continued ever since a proverb or watchword, when a man encounters any sudden danger that requires instant succour. The other instance is that of a servant of the late James Menzies of Culdares, who had been engaged in the rebellion of 1715. Mr. Menzies was taken at Preston in Lancashire, was carried to London, where he was tried and condemned, but afterwards reprieved. This act prevented him from turning out in 1745: but to show his good wishes towards Prince Charles, he sent him a handsome charger as a present, when advancing through England. The servant who led and delivered the horse was taken prisoner and carried to Carlisle, where he was tried and condemned. Every attempt was made, by threats of immediate execution, in case of refusal, and promises of pardon, on giving information, to extort a discovery from him of the person who sent the horse, but in vain. He knew, he said, what would be the consequence of a disclosure, and that his own life was nothing in comparison with that which it would endanger. Being hard pressed at the place of execution to inform on his master, he asked those about him if they were really serious in supposing that he was such a villain as to betray his master. He said, that if he did what they desired, and forgot his master and his trust, he needed not return to his country, for Glenlyon would be no home or country for him, as he would be despised and hunted out of the glen. This trusty servant’s name was John Macnaughton, a native of Glenlyon in Perthshire.[518]