The Prince entertained no illusions. Without French forces, he told D'Eguilles, "I cannot resist English, Dutch, Hessians, and Swiss." On October [15/26] he wrote his last extant letter from Scotland to King James. He puts his force at 8000 (more truly 6000), with 300 horse. "With these, as matters stand, I shal have one decisive stroke for't, but iff the French" (do not?) "land, perhaps none. . . . As matters stand I must either conquer or perish in a little while."

Defeated in the heart of England, and with a prize of 30,000 pounds offered for his head, he could not hope to escape. A victory for him would mean a landing of French troops, and his invasion of England had for its aim to force the hand of France. Her troops, with Prince Henry among them, dallied at Dunkirk till Christmas, and were then dispersed, while the Duke of Cumberland arrived in England from Flanders on October 19.

On October 30 the Prince held a council of war. French supplies and guns had been landed at Stonehaven, and news came that 6000 French were ready at Dunkirk: at Dunkirk they were, but they never were ready. The news probably decided Charles to cross the Border; while it appears that his men preferred to be content with simply making Scotland again an independent kingdom, with a Catholic king. But to do this, with French aid, was to return to the state of things under Mary of Guise!

The Prince, judging correctly, wished to deal his "decisive stroke" near home, at the old and now futile Wade in Northumberland. A victory would have disheartened England, and left Newcastle open to France. If Charles were defeated, his own escape by sea, in a country where he had many well- wishers, was possible, and the clans would have retreated through the Cheviots. Lord George Murray insisted on a march by the western road, Lancashire being expected to rise and join the Prince. But this plan left Wade, with a superior force, on Charles's flank! The one difficulty, that of holding a bridge, say Kelso Bridge, over Tweed, was not insuperable. Rivers could not stop the Highlanders. Macdonald of Morar thought Charles the best general in the army, and to the layman, considering the necessity for an instant stroke, and the advantages of the east, as regards France, the Prince's strategy appears better than Lord George's. But Lord George had his way.

On October 31, Charles, reinforced by Cluny with 400 Macphersons, concentrated at Dalkeith. On November 1, the less trusted part of his force, under Tullibardine, with the Atholl men, moved south by Peebles and Moffat to Lockerbie, menacing Carlisle; while the Prince, Lord George, and the fighting clans marched to Kelso—a feint to deceive Wade. The main body then moved by Jedburgh, up Rule Water and down through Liddesdale, joining hands with Tullibardine on November 9, and bivouacking within two miles of Carlisle. On the 10th the Atholl men went to work at the trenches; on the 11th the army moved seven miles towards Newcastle, hoping to discuss Wade at Brampton on hilly ground. But Wade did not gratify them by arriving.

On the 13th the Atholl men were kept at their spade-work, and Lord George in dudgeon resigned his command (November 14), but at night Carlisle surrendered, Murray and Perth negotiating. Lord George expressed his anger and jealousy to his brother, Tullibardine, but Perth resigned his command to pacify his rival. Wade feebly tried to cross country, failed, and went back to Newcastle. On November 10, with some 4500 men (there had been many desertions), the march through Lancashire was decreed. Save for Mr Townley and two Vaughans, the Catholics did not stir. Charles marched on foot in the van; he was a trained pedestrian; the townspeople stared at him and his Highlanders, but only at Manchester (November 29- 30) had he a welcome, enlisting about 150 doomed men. On November 27 Cumberland took over command at Lichfield; his foot were distributed between Tamworth and Stafford; his cavalry was at Newcastle-under-Lyme. Lord George was moving on Derby, but learning Cumberland's dispositions he led a column to Congleton, inducing Cumberland to concentrate at Lichfield, while he himself, by way of Leek and Ashburn, joined the Prince at Derby.

The army was in the highest spirits. The Duke of Richmond on the other side wrote from Lichfield (December 5), "If the enemy please to cut us off from the main army, they may; and also, if they please to give us the slip and march to London, I fear they may, before even this avant garde can come up with them; . . . there is no pass to defend, . . . the camp at Finchley is confined to paper plans"—and Wales was ready to join the Prince! Lord George did not know what Richmond knew. Despite the entreaties of the Prince, his Council decided to retreat. On December 6 the clans, uttering cries of rage, were set with their faces to the north.

The Prince was now an altered man. Full of distrust, he marched not with Lord George in the rear, he rode in the van.

Meanwhile Lord John Drummond, who, on November 22, had landed at Montrose with 800 French soldiers, was ordered by Charles to advance with large Highland levies now collected and meet him as he moved north. Lord John disobeyed orders (received about December 18). Expecting his advance, Charles most unhappily left the Manchester men and others to hold Carlisle, to which he would return. Cumberland took them all,—many were hanged.

In the north, Lord Lewis Gordon routed Macleod at Inverurie (December 23), and defeated his effort to secure Aberdeen. Admirably commanded by Lord George, and behaving admirably for an irregular retreating force, the army reached Penrith on December 18, and at Clifton, Lord George and Cluny defeated Cumberland's dragoons in a rearguard action.

On December 19 Carlisle was reached, and, as we saw, a force was left to guard the castle; all were taken. On December 20 the army forded the flooded Esk; the ladies, of whom several had been with them, rode it on their horses: the men waded breast-high, as, had there been need, they would have forded Tweed if the eastern route had been chosen, and if retreat had been necessary. Cumberland returned to London on January 5, and Horace Walpole no longer dreaded "a rebellion that runs away." By different routes Charles and Lord George met (December 26) at Hamilton Palace. Charles stayed a night at Dumfries. Dumfries was hostile, and was fined; Glasgow was also disaffected, the ladies were unfriendly. At Glasgow, Charles heard that Seaforth, chief of the Mackenzies, was aiding the Hanoverians in the north, combining with the great Whig clans, with Macleod, the Munroes, Lord Loudoun commanding some 2000 men, and the Mackays of Sutherland and Caithness.

Meanwhile Lord John Drummond, Strathallan, and Lord Lewis Gordon, with Lord Macleod, were concentrating to meet the Prince at Stirling, the purpose being the hopeless one of capturing the castle, the key of the north. With weak artillery, and a futile and foolish French engineer officer to direct the siege, they had no chance of success. The Prince, in bad health, stayed (January 4-10) at Sir Hugh Paterson's place, Bannockburn House.

At Stirling, with his northern reinforcements, Charles may have had some seven or eight thousand men wherewith to meet General Hawley (a veteran of Sheriffmuir) advancing from Edinburgh. Hawley encamped at Falkirk, and while the Atholl men were deserting by scores, Lord George skilfully deceived him, arrived on the Falkirk moor unobserved, and held the ridge above Hawley's position, while the General was lunching with Lady Kilmarnock. In the first line of the Prince's force the Macdonalds held the right wing, the Camerons (whom the great Wolfe describes as the bravest of the brave) held the left; with Stewarts of Appin, Frazers, and Macphersons in the centre. In the second line were the Atholl men, Lord Lewis Gordon's levies, and Lord Ogilvy's. The Lowland horse and Drummond's French details were in the rear. The ground was made up of eminences and ravines, so that in the second line the various bodies were invisible to each other, as at Sheriffmuir—with similar results. When Hawley found that he had been surprised he arrayed his thirteen battalions of regulars and 1000 men of Argyll on the plain, with three regiments of dragoons, by whose charge he expected to sweep away Charles's right wing; behind his cavalry were the luckless militia of Glasgow and the Lothians. In all, he had from 10,000 to 12,000 men against, perhaps, 7000 at most, for 1200 of Charles's force were left to contain Blakeney in Stirling Castle. Both sides, on account of the heavy roads, failed to bring forward their guns.

Hawley then advanced his cavalry up hill: their left faced Keppoch's Macdonalds; their right faced the Frazers, under the Master of Lovat, in Charles's centre. Hawley then launched his cavalry, which were met at close range by the reserved fire of the Macdonalds and Frazers. Through the mist and rain the townsfolk, looking on, saw in five minutes "the break in the battle." Hamilton's and Ligonier's cavalry turned and fled, Cobham's wheeled and rode across the Highland left under fire, while the Macdonalds and Frazers pursuing the cavalry found themselves among the Glasgow militia, whom they followed, slaying. Lord George had no pipers to sound the recall; they had flung their pipes to their gillies and gone in with the claymore.

Thus the Prince's right, far beyond his front, were lost in the tempest; while his left had discharged their muskets at Cobham's Horse, and could not load again, their powder being drenched with rain. They received the fire of Hawley's right, and charged with the claymore, but were outflanked and enfiladed by some battalions drawn up en potence. Many of the second line had blindly followed the first: the rest shunned the action; Hawley's officers led away some regiments in an orderly retreat; night fell; no man knew what had really occurred till young Gask and young Strathallan, with the French and Atholl men, ventured into Falkirk, and found Hawley's camp deserted. The darkness, the rain, the nature of the ground, and the clans' want of discipline, prevented the annihilation of Hawley's army; while the behaviour of his cavalry showed that the Prince might have defeated Cumberland's advanced force beyond Derby with the greatest ease, as the Duke of Richmond had anticipated.

Perhaps the right course now was to advance on Edinburgh, but the hopeless siege of Stirling Castle was continued—Charles perhaps hoping much from Hawley's captured guns.

The accidental shooting of young AEneas Macdonnell, second son of Glengarry, by a Clanranald man, begat a kind of blood feud between the clans, and the unhappy cause of the accident had to be shot. Lochgarry, writing to young Glengarry after Culloden, says that "there was a general desertion in the whole army," and this was the view of the chiefs, who, on news of Cumberland's approach, told Charles (January 29) that the army was depleted and resistance impossible.

The chiefs were mistaken in point of fact: a review at Crieff later showed that even then only 1000 men were missing. As at Derby, and with right on his side, Charles insisted on meeting Cumberland. He did well, his men were flushed with victory, had sufficient supplies, were to encounter an army not yet encouraged by a refusal to face it, and, if defeated had the gates of the hills open behind them. In a very temperately written memorial Charles placed these ideas before the chiefs. "Having told you my thoughts, I am too sensible of what you have already ventured and done for me, not to yield to your unanimous resolution if you persist."

Lord George, Lovat, Lochgarry, Keppoch, Ardshiel, and Cluny did persist; the fatal die was cast; and the men who—well fed and confident—might have routed Cumberland, fled in confusion rather than retreated,—to be ruined later, when, starving, out-wearied, and with many of their best forces absent, they staggered his army at Culloden. Charles had told the chiefs, "I can see nothing but ruin and destruction to us in case we should retreat." {287}

This retreat embittered Charles's feelings against Lord George, who may have been mistaken—who, indeed, at Crieff, seems to have recognised his error (February 5); but he had taken his part, and during the campaign, henceforth, as at Culloden, distinguished himself by every virtue of a soldier.

After the retreat Lord George moved on Aberdeen; Charles to Blair in Atholl; thence to Moy, the house of Lady Mackintosh, where a blacksmith and four or five men ingeniously scattered Loudoun and the Macleods, advancing to take him by a night surprise. This was the famous Rout of Moy.

Charles next (February 20) took Inverness Castle, and Loudoun was driven into Sutherland, and cut off by Lord George's dispositions from any chance of joining hands with Cumberland. The Duke had now 5000 Hessian soldiers at his disposal: these he would not have commanded had the Prince's army met him near Stirling.

Charles was now at or near Inverness: he lost, through illness, the services of Murray, whose successor, Hay, was impotent as an officer of Commissariat. A gallant movement of Lord George into Atholl, where he surprised all Cumberland's posts, but was foiled by the resistance of his brother's castle, was interrupted by a recall to the north, and, on April 2, he retreated to the line of the Spey. Forbes of Culloden and Macleod had been driven to take refuge in Skye; but 1500 men of the Prince's best had been sent into Sutherland, when Cumberland arrived at Nairn (April 14), and Charles concentrated his starving forces on Culloden Moor. The Macphersons, the Frazers, the 1500 Macdonalds, and others in Sutherland were absent on various duties when "the wicked day of destiny" approached.

The men on Culloden Moor, a flat waste unsuited to the tactics of the clans, had but one biscuit apiece on the eve of the battle. Lord George "did not like the ground," and proposed to surprise by a night attack Cumberland's force at Nairn. The Prince eagerly agreed, and, according to him, Clanranald's advanced men were in touch with Cumberland's outposts before Lord George convinced the Prince that retreat was necessary. The advance was lagging; the way had been missed in the dark; dawn was at hand. There are other versions: in any case the hungry men were so outworn that many are said to have slept through next day's battle.

A great mistake was made next day, if Lochgarry, who commanded the Macdonalds of Glengarry, and Maxwell of Kirkconnel are correct in saying that Lord George insisted on placing his Atholl men on the right wing. The Macdonalds had an old claim to the right wing, but as far as research enlightens us, their failure on this fatal day was not due to jealous anger. The battle might have been avoided, but to retreat was to lose Inverness and all chance of supplies. On the Highland right was the water of Nairn, and they were guarded by a wall which the Campbells pulled down, enabling Cumberland's cavalry to take them in flank. Cumberland had about 9000 men, including the Campbells. Charles, according to his muster-master, had 5000; of horse he had but a handful.

The battle began with an artillery duel, during which the clans lost heavily, while their few guns were useless, and their right flank was exposed by the breaking down of the protecting wall. After some unexplained and dangerous delay, Lord George gave the word to charge, in face of a blinding tempest of sleet, and himself went in, as did Lochiel, claymore in hand. But though the order was conveyed by Ker of Graden first to the Macdonalds on the left, as they had to charge over a wider space of ground, the Camerons, Clan Chattan, and Macleans came first to the shock. "Nothing could be more desperate than their attack, or more properly received," says Whitefoord. The assailants were enfiladed by Wolfe's regiment, which moved up and took position at right angles, like the fifty-second on the flank of the last charge of the French Guard at Waterloo. The Highland right broke through Barrel's regiment, swept over the guns, and died on the bayonets of the second line. They had thrown down their muskets after one fire, and, says Cumberland, stood "and threw stones for at least a minute or two before their total rout began." Probably the fall of Lochiel, who was wounded and carried out of action, determined the flight. Meanwhile the left, the Macdonalds, menaced on the flank by cavalry, were plied at a hundred yards by grape. They saw their leaders, the gallant Keppoch and Macdonnell of Scothouse, with many others, fall under the grape-shot: they saw the right wing broken, and they did not come to the shock. If we may believe four sworn witnesses in a court of justice (July 24, 1752), whose testimony was accepted as the basis of a judicial decreet (January 10, 1756), {290} Keppoch was wounded while giving his orders to some of his men not to outrun the line in advancing, and was shot dead as a friend was supporting him. When all retreated they passed the dead body of Keppoch.

The tradition constantly given in various forms that Keppoch charged alone, "deserted by the children of his clan," is worthless if sworn evidence may be trusted.

As for the unhappy Charles, by the evidence of Sir Robert Strange, who was with him, he had "ridden along the line to the right animating the soldiers," and "endeavoured to rally the soldiers, who, annoyed by the enemy's fire, were beginning to quit the field." He "was got off the field when the men in general were betaking themselves precipitately to flight; nor was there any possibility of their being rallied." Yorke, an English officer, says that the Prince did not leave the field till after the retreat of the second line.

So far the Prince's conduct was honourable and worthy of his name. But presently, on the advice of his Irish entourage, Sullivan and Sheridan, who always suggested suspicions, and doubtless not forgetting the great price on his head, he took his own way towards the west coast in place of joining Lord George and the remnant with him at Ruthven in Badenoch. On April 26 he sailed from Borradale in a boat, and began that course of wanderings and hairbreadth escapes in which only the loyalty of Highland hearts enabled him at last to escape the ships that watched the isles and the troops that netted the hills.

Some years later General Wolfe, then residing at Inverness, reviewed the occurrences, and made up his mind that the battle had been a dangerous risk for Cumberland, while the pursuit (though ruthlessly cruel) was inefficient.

Despite Cumberland's insistent orders to give no quarter (orders justified by the absolutely false pretext that Prince Charles had set the example), Lochgarry reported that the army had not lost more than a thousand men. Fire and sword and torture, the destruction of tilled lands, and even of the shell-fish on the shore, did not break the spirit of the Highlanders. Many bands held out in arms, and Lochgarry was only prevented by the Prince's command from laying an ambush for Cumberland. The Campbells and the Macleods under their recreant chief, the Whig Macdonalds under Sir Alexander of Sleat, ravaged the lands of the Jacobite clansmen; but the spies of Albemarle, who now commanded in Scotland, reported the Macleans, the Grants of Glenmoriston, with the Macphersons, Glengarry's men, and Lochiel's Camerons, as all eager "to do it again" if France would only help.

But France was helpless, and when Lochiel sailed for France with the Prince only Cluny remained, hunted like a partridge in the mountains, to keep up the spirit of the Cause. Old Lovat met a long-deserved death by the executioner's axe, though it needed the evidence of Murray of Broughton, turned informer, to convict that fox. Kilmarnock and Balmerino also were executed; the good and brave Duke of Perth died on his way to France; the aged Tullibardine in the Tower; many gallant gentlemen were hanged; Lord George escaped, and is the ancestor of the present Duke of Atholl; many gentlemen took French service; others fought in other alien armies; three or four in the Highlands or abroad took the wages of spies upon the Prince. The 30,000 pounds of French gold, buried near Loch Arkaig, caused endless feuds, kinsman denouncing kinsman. The secrets of the years 1746-1760 are to be sought in the Cumberland and Stuart MSS. in Windsor Castle and the Record Office.

Legislation, intended to scotch the snake of Jacobitism, began with religious persecution. The Episcopalian clergy had no reason to love triumphant Presbyterianism, and actively, or in sympathy, were favourers of the exiled dynasty. Episcopalian chapels, sometimes mere rooms in private houses, were burned, or their humble furniture was destroyed. All Episcopalian ministers were bidden to take the oath and pray for King George by September 1746, or suffer for the second offence transportation for life to the American colonies. Later, the orders conferred by Scottish bishops were made of no avail. Only with great difficulty and danger could parents obtain the rite of baptism for their children. Very little is said in our histories about the sufferings of the Episcopalians when it was their turn to be under the harrow. They were not violent, they murdered no Moderator of the General Assembly. Other measures were the Disarming Act, the prohibition to wear the Highland dress, and the abolition of "hereditable jurisdictions," and the chief's right to call out his clansmen in arms. Compensation in money was paid, from 21,000 pounds to the Duke of Argyll to 13 pounds, 6s. 8d. to the clerks of the Registrar of Aberbrothock. The whole sum was 152,237 pounds, 15s. 4d.

In 1754 an Act "annexed the forfeited estates of the Jacobites who had been out (or many of them) inalienably to the Crown." The estates were restored in 1784; meanwhile the profits were to be used for the improvement of the Highlands. If submissive tenants received better terms and larger leases than of old, Jacobite tenants were evicted for not being punctual with rent. Therefore, on May 14, 1752, some person unknown shot Campbell of Glenure, who was about evicting the tenants on the lands of Lochiel and Stewart of Ardshiel in Appin. Campbell rode down from Fort William to Ballachulish ferry, and when he had crossed it said, "I am safe now I am out of my mother's country." But as he drove along the old road through the wood of Lettermore, perhaps a mile and a half south of Ballachulish House, the fatal shot was fired. For this crime James Stewart of the Glens was tried by a Campbell jury at Inveraray, with the Duke on the bench, and was, of course, convicted, and hanged on the top of a knoll above Ballachulish ferry. James was innocent, but Allan Breck Stewart was certainly an accomplice of the man with the gun, which, by the way, was the property neither of James Stewart nor of Stewart of Fasnacloich. The murderer was anxious to save James by avowing the deed, but his kinsfolk, saying, "They will only hang both James and you," bound him hand and foot and locked him up in the kitchen on the day of James's execution. {293} Allan lay for some weeks at the house of a kinsman in Rannoch, and escaped to France, where he had a fight with James Mor Macgregor, then a spy in the service of the Duke of Newcastle.

This murder of "the Red Fox" caused all the more excitement, and is all the better remembered in Lochaber and Glencoe, because agrarian violence in revenge for eviction has scarcely another example in the history of the Highlands.



CONCLUSION.

Space does not permit an account of the assimilation of Scotland to England in the years between the Forty-five and our own time: moreover, the history of this age cannot well be written without a dangerously close approach to many "burning questions" of our day. The History of the Highlands, from 1752 to the emigrations witnessed by Dr Johnson (1760- 1780), and of the later evictions in the interests of sheep farms and deer forests, has never been studied as it ought to be in the rich manuscript materials which are easily accessible. The great literary Renaissance of Scotland, from 1745 to the death of Sir Walter Scott; the years of Hume, a pioneer in philosophy and in history, and of the Rev. Principal Robertson (with him and Hume, Gibbon professed, very modestly, that he did not rank); the times of Adam Smith, of Burns, and of Sir Walter, not to speak of the Rev. John Home, that foremost tragic poet, may be studied in many a history of literature. According to Voltaire, Scotland led the world in all studies, from metaphysics to gardening. We think of Watt, and add engineering.

The brief and inglorious administration of the Earl of Bute at once gave openings in the public service to Scots of ability, and excited that English hatred of these northern rivals which glows in Churchill's 'Satires,' while this English jealousy aroused that Scottish hatred of England which is the one passion that disturbs the placid letters of David Hume.

The later alliance of Pitt with Henry Dundas made Dundas far more powerful than any Secretary for Scotland had been since Lauderdale, and confirmed the connection of Scotland with the services in India. But, politically, Scotland, till the Reform Bill, had scarcely a recognisable existence. The electorate was tiny, and great landholders controlled the votes, whether genuine or created by legal fiction—"faggot votes." Municipal administration in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was terribly corrupt, and reform was demanded, but the French Revolution, producing associations of Friends of the People, who were prosecuted and grievously punished in trials for sedition, did not afford a fortunate moment for peaceful reforms.

But early in the nineteenth century Jeffrey, editor of 'The Edinburgh Review,' made it the organ of Liberalism, and no less potent in England than in Scotland; while Scott, on the Tory side, led a following of Scottish penmen across the Border in the service of 'The Quarterly Review.' With 'Blackwood's Magazine' and Wilson, Hogg, and Lockhart; with Jeffrey and 'The Edinburgh,' the Scottish metropolis almost rivalled London as the literary capital.

About 1818 Lockhart recognised the superiority of the Whig wits in literature; but against them all Scott is a more than sufficient set-off. The years of stress between Waterloo (1815) and the Reform Bill (1832) made Radicalism (fostered by economic causes, the enormous commercial and industrial growth, and the unequal distribution of its rewards) perhaps even more pronounced north than south of the Tweed. In 1820 "the Radical war" led to actual encounters between the yeomanry and the people. The ruffianism of the Tory paper 'The Beacon' caused one fatal duel, and was within an inch of leading to another, in which a person of the very highest consequence would have "gone on the sod." For the Reform Bill the mass of Scottish opinion, so long not really represented at all, was as eager as for the Covenant. So triumphant was the first Whig or Radical majority under the new system, that Jeffrey, the Whig pontiff, perceived that the real struggle was to be "between property and no property," between Capital and Socialism. This circumstance had always been perfectly clear to Scott and the Tories.

The watchword of the eighteenth century in literature, religion, and politics had been "no enthusiasm." But throughout the century, since 1740, "enthusiasm," "the return to nature," had gradually conquered till the rise of the Romantic school with Coleridge and Scott. In religion the enthusiastic movement of the Wesleys had altered the face of the Church in England, while in Scotland the "Moderates" had lost position, and "zeal" or enthusiasm pervaded the Kirk. The question of lay patronage of livings had passed through many phases since Knox wrote, "It pertaineth to the people, and to every several congregation, to elect their minister." In 1833, immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill, the return to the primitive Knoxian rule was advocated by the "Evangelical" or "High Flying" opponents of the Moderates. Dr Chalmers, a most eloquent person, whom Scott regarded as truly a man of genius, was the leader of the movement. The Veto Act, by which the votes of a majority of heads of families were to be fatal to the claims of a patron's presentee, had been passed by the General Assembly; it was contrary to Queen Anne's Patronage Act of 1711,—a measure carried, contrary to Harley's policy, by a coalition of English Churchmen and Scottish Jacobite members of Parliament. The rejection, under the Veto Act, of a presentee by the church of Auchterarder, was declared illegal by the Court of Session and the judges in the House of Lords (May 1839); the Strathbogie imbroglio, "with two Presbyteries, one taking its orders from the Court of Session, the other from the General Assembly" (1837- 1841), brought the Assembly into direct conflict with the law of the land. Dr Chalmers would not allow the spiritual claims of the Kirk to be suppressed by the State. "King Christ's Crown Honours" were once more in question. On May 18, 1843, the followers of the principles of Knox and Andrew Melville marched out of the Assembly into Tanfield Hall, and made Dr Chalmers Moderator, and themselves "The Free Church of Scotland." In 1847 the hitherto separated synods of various dissenting bodies came together as United Presbyterians, and in 1902 they united with the Free Church as "the United Free Church," while a small minority, mainly Highland, of the former Free Church, now retains that title, and apparently represents Knoxian ideals. Thus the Knoxian ideals have modified, even to this day, the ecclesiastical life of Scotland, while the Church of James I., never by persecution extinguished (nec tamen consumebatur), has continued to exist and develop, perhaps more in consequence of love of the Liturgy than from any other cause.

Meanwhile, and not least in the United Free Church, extreme tenacity of dogma has yielded place to very advanced Biblical criticism; and Knox, could he revisit Scotland with all his old opinions, might not be wholly satisfied by the changes wrought in the course of more than three centuries. The Scottish universities, discouraged and almost destitute of pious benefactors since the end of the sixteenth century, have profited by the increase of wealth and a comparatively recent outburst of generosity. They always provided the cheapest, and now they provide the cheapest and most efficient education that is offered by any homes of learning of mediaeval foundation.



FOOTNOTES

{2} A good example of these Celtic romances is 'The Tain Bo Cualgne.'

{4} The best account of Roman military life in Scotland, from the time of Agricola to the invasion by Lollius Urbicus (140-158 A.D.), may be studied in Mr Curie's 'A Roman Frontier Post and Its People' (Maclehose, Glasgow, 1911). The relics, weapons, arms, pottery, and armour of Roman men, and the ornaments of the native women, are here beautifully reproduced. Dr Macdonald's excellent work, 'The Roman Wall in Scotland' (Maclehose, 1911), is also most interesting and instructive.

{10} For the Claims of Supremacy see Appendix C. to vol. i. of my 'History of Scotland,' pp. 496-499.

{20} Lord Reay, according to the latest book on Scottish peerages, represents these MacHeths or Mackays.

{27} 'Iliad,' xviii. 496-500.

{36} As Waleys was then an English as much as a Scottish name, I see no reason for identifying the William le Waleys, outlawed for bilking a poor woman who kept a beer house (Perth, June-August, 1296), with the great historical hero of Scotland.

{38} See Dr Neilson on "Blind Harry's Wallace," in 'Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association,' p. 85 ff. (Oxford, 1910.)

{52} The precise date is disputed.

{57} By a blunder which Sir James Ramsay corrected, history has accused James of arresting his "whole House of Lords"!

{61} The ballad fragments on the Knight of Liddesdale's slaying, and on "the black dinner," are preserved in Hume of Godscroft's 'History of he House of Douglas,' written early in the seventeenth century.

{67} The works of Messrs Herkless and Hannay on the Bishops of St Andrews may be consulted.

{71} See p. 38, note 1.

{89} Knox gives another account. Our evidence is from a household book of expenses, Liber Emptorum, in MS.

{91} As to the story of forgery, see a full discussion in the author's 'History of Scotland,' i. 460-467. 1900.

{94} There is no proof that this man was the preacher George Wishart, later burned.

{96} A curious controversy is constantly revived in this matter. It is urged that Knox's mobs did not destroy the abbey churches of Kelso, Melrose, Dryburgh, Roxburgh, and Coldingham: that was done by Hertford's army. If so, they merely deprived the Knoxian brethren of the pleasures of destruction which they enjoyed almost everywhere else. The English, if guilty, left at Melrose, Jedburgh, Coldingham, and Kelso more beautiful remains of mediaeval architecture than the Reformers were wont to spare.

{99} This part of our history is usually and erroneously told as given by Knox, writing fifteen years later. He needs to be corrected by the letters and despatches of the day, which prove that the Reformer's memory, though picturesque, had, in the course of fifteen years, become untrustworthy. He is the chief source of the usual version of Solway Moss.

{106} The dates and sequence of events are perplexing. In 'John Knox and the Reformation' (pp. 86-95) I have shown the difficulties.

{111a} The details of these proceedings and the evidence for them may be found in the author's book, 'John Knox and the Reformation,' pp. 135-141. Cf. also my 'History of Scotland,' ii. 58-60.

{111b} See 'Affaires Etrangeres: Angleterre,' xv. 131-153. MS.

{118} Mary's one good portrait is that owned by Lord Leven and Melville.

{129} I have no longer any personal doubt that Mary wrote the lost French original of this letter, usually numbered II. in the Casket Letters (see my paper, "The Casket Letters," in 'The Scottish Historical Review,' vol. v., No. 17, pp. 1-12). The arguments tending to suggest that parts of the letter are forged (see my 'Mystery of Mary Stuart') are (I now believe) unavailing.

{137} I can construe in no other sense the verbose "article." It may be read in Dr Hay Fleming's 'Reformation in Scotland,' pp. 449, 450, with sufficient commentary, pp. 450-453.

{144} It appears that there was both a plot by Lennox, after the Raid of Ruthven, to seize James—"preaching will be of no avail to convert him," his mother wrote; and also an English plot, rejected by Gowrie, to poison both James and Mary! For the former, see Professor Hume Brown, 'History of Scotland,' vol. ii. p. 289; for the latter, see my 'History of Scotland,' vol. ii. pp. 286, 287, with the authorities in each case.

{156} Of these versions, that long lost one which was sent to England has been published for the first time, with the previously unnoticed incident of Robert Oliphant, in the author's 'James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery.' Here it is also demonstrated that all the treasonable letters attributed in 1606-1608 to Logan were forged by Logan's solicitor, George Sprot, though the principal letter seems to me to be a copy of an authentic original. That all, as they stand, are forgeries is the unanimous opinion of experts. See the whole of the documents in the author's 'Confessions of George Sprot.' Roxburghe Club.

{181} Colkitto's men and the Badenoch contingent.

{182} Much has been made of cruelties at Aberdeen. Montrose sent in a drummer, asking the Provost to remove the old men, women, and children. The drummer was shot, as, at Perth, Montrose's friend, Kilpont, had been murdered. The enemy were pursued through the town. Spalding names 115 townsmen slain in the whole battle and pursuit. Women were slain if they were heard to mourn their men—not a very probable story. Not one woman is named. The Burgh Records mention no women slain. Baillie says "the town was well plundered." Jaffray, who fled from the fight as fast as his horse could carry him, says that women and children were slain. See my 'History of Scotland,' vol. iii. pp. 126-128.

{186a} Craig-Brown, 'History of Selkirkshire,' vol. i. pp. 190, 193. 'Act. Parl. Scot.,' vol. vi. pt. i. p. 492.

{186b} 'Act. Parl. Scot.,' vol. vi. pt. i. p. 514.

{187} Hume Brown, vol. ii. p. 339.

{208} The Boot was an old French and Scottish implement. It was a framework into which the human leg was inserted; wedges were then driven between the leg and the framework.

{225} Many disgusting details may be read in the author's 'Life of Sir George Mackenzie.'

{226} Hume Brown, ii. 414, 415.

{250} Dr Hay Fleming finds no mention of this affair in the Minutes of the Societies.

{254a} All this is made clear from the letters of the date in the Stuart Papers (Historical Manuscript Commission).

{254b} In addition to Saint Simon's narrative we have the documentary evidence taken in a French inquiry.

{264} See 'The King over the Water,' by Alice Shield and A. Lang. Thackeray's King James, in 'Esmond,' is very amusing but absolutely false to history.

{265} 'The Porteous Trial,' by Mr Roughead, W.S.

{287} See the author's 'History of Scotland,' iv. 446-500, where the evidence is examined.

{290} 'Register of Decreets,' vol. 482.

{293} Tradition in Glencoe.

THE END