XXXVIII. A.D. 1746-1747
BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--George II., 1727-1760.
Commission of Oyer and Terminer--Trial of prisoners--Francis Townley--Jemmy Dawson--Lords Kilmarnock, Cromarty, and Balmerino--Execution of these noblemen--Other executions--Trials at Carlisle and York--Trial and execution of Mr. Ratcliffe--Trial and execution of Lord Lovat--Act of Indemnity passed.
Whilst the issue of the contest remained doubtful, the government took no steps to punish the prisoners who had fallen into their hands at Carlisle; but after the decisive affair of Culloden, when there appeared no chance of the Jacobite party ever having it in their power to retaliate, the government resolved to vindicate the authority of the law by making examples of some of the prisoners.
As it was intended to try the prisoners at different places for the sake of convenience, an act was passed empowering his majesty to try them in any county he might select.
On the 24th and 25th of June bills of indictment were found against 36 of the prisoners taken at Carlisle, and against one David Morgan, a barrister, who had been apprehended in Staffordshire. The court then adjourned till the 3d of July, on which day the prisoners were arraigned. Three only pleaded guilty. The rest applied for a postponement of their trials on the ground that material witnesses for their defence were at a considerable distance. The court in consequence ruled that in cases where witnesses were in England the trial should be put off to the 15th of July, and where they were in Scotland, to the 25th of the same month.
The court accordingly met on the 15th of July, and proceeded with the trial of Francis Townley, Esquire, before a grand jury, at the court-house, Southwark. This unfortunate gentleman had been colonel of the Manchester regiment. He was of a respectable family in Lancashire. Obliged to retire to France in 1728, he had obtained a commission from the King of France, and had served at the siege of Philipsburgh under the Duke of Berwick, who lost his life before the walls of that place. He continued sixteen years in the French service; and after his return to England had received a commission to raise a regiment. A plea was set up by his council, that holding a commission in the French service he was entitled to the benefit of the cartel as well as any other French officer, but this was overruled, and he was found guilty. On the next and two following days eighteen other persons, chiefly officers in the said regiment, were brought to trial. Five were attainted by their own confession of high treason, twelve on a verdict of high treason of levying war against the king, and one was acquitted. These seventeen persons, along with Townley, were all condemned to death, and nine of them, including Townley, were selected for execution on the 30th. The rest were reprieved for three weeks.
Kensington common was the place destined for the execution of these unfortunate men, most of whom met their fate with fortitude and resignation. The execution was accompanied with the disgusting and barbarous details usual at that time in cases of treason.
Two singular and interesting circumstances occurred at this execution. The one was the attendance of a younger brother of Lieutenant Thomas Deacon’s, of the Manchester Regiment, and one of those who had obtained a reprieve. At his own request he was allowed to witness the execution of his brother in a coach under the charge of a guard. The other was one of a very affecting description. Hurried away by the impetuosity of youth, James Dawson, one of the sufferers, the son of a Lancashire gentleman, had abandoned his studies at St. John’s college, Cambridge, and had joined the Jacobite standard. He and a young lady of good family and handsome fortune were warmly attached to each other, and had Dawson been acquitted, or, after condemnation, found mercy, the day of his enlargement was to have been that of their marriage. When all hopes of mercy were extinguished, the young lady resolved to witness the execution of her lover, and so firm was her resolution, that no persuasions of her friends could induce her to abandon her determination. On the morning of the execution she accordingly followed the sledges to the place of execution in a hackney coach, accompanied by a gentleman nearly related to her, and one female friend. She got near enough to see the fire kindled which was to consume that heart she knew was so much devoted to her, and to observe the other appalling preparations without committing any of those extravagances her friends had apprehended. She had even the fortitude to restrain her feelings while the executioner was pulling the cap over the eyes of her lover; but when he was thrown off she in an agony of grief drew back her head into the coach, and, crying out, “My dear, I follow thee, I follow thee;--sweet Jesus, receive both our souls together!” fell upon the neck of her female companion, and instantly expired.[1283]
The principal witness against Townley, Deacon, Dawson, and others, was Samuel Maddock, an ensign in the same regiment, who, to save his own life, turned king’s evidence against his former comrades.[1284]
The individuals next proceeded against were persons of a higher grade. The Marquis of Tullibardine escaped the fate which awaited him, having died of a lingering indisposition in the Tower on the 9th of July; but on the 23d of that month the grand jury of the county of Surrey found bills for high treason against the Earls of Kilmarnock, and Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino. Lord-chancellor Hardwicke was appointed Lord High Steward for the trial of these peers. The indictments being certified, the house of lords fixed the 28th of July for the day of trial. Accordingly, on the day appointed the three lords proceeded from the Tower towards Westminster-hall, where the trial was conducted with great pomp and ceremony.
After the indictments had been read, the Earls of Kilmarnock and Cromarty pleaded “guilty,” and threw themselves entirely upon the king’s mercy. Before pleading to his indictment, Lord Balmerino stated that he was not at Carlisle at the time specified in the indictment, being eleven miles off when that city was taken, and he requested to know from his grace if it would avail him any thing to prove that fact. Lord Hardwicke said that such a circumstance might, or might not, be of use to him; but he informed him that it was contrary to form to permit him to put any questions before pleading to the indictment, by saying whether he was guilty or not guilty. His grace desiring his lordship to plead, the intrepid[1285] Balmerino apparently not understanding the meaning of that legal term, exclaimed, with great animation, “Plead! Why, I am pleading as fast as I can.” The lord-high-steward having explained the import of the phrase, the noble baron answered, “Not guilty.”
The trial then proceeded. Four witnesses were examined. One of them proved that he saw Lord Balmerino ride into Carlisle on a bay horse the day after it was taken by the Highlanders--that he saw him afterwards ride up to the market-place with his sword drawn at the head of his troop of horse, which was the second troop of Charles’s body guards, and was called Elphinstone’s horse. Another witness deponed that he saw his lordship ride into Manchester at the head of his troop, and that he was there when the young Chevalier was proclaimed regent. Two other witnesses proved that his lordship was called colonel of his troop, that he always acted in that station, gave orders on all occasions to his officers, and that he was in great favour with Prince Charles. The evidence on the part of the crown having been finished, the lord-high-steward asked the prisoner if he had any thing to offer in his defence, or meant to call any witnesses. His lordship replied that he had nothing to say, but to make an exception to the indictment which was incorrect in charging him with being at Carlisle at the time it was taken by the Highlanders. The peers then resolved to take the opinion of the judges upon the point, and these were unanimously of opinion, that, as an overt act of treason and other acts of treason had been proved beyond contradiction, there was no occasion to prove explicitly every thing that was laid in the indictment; and that, of course, the prisoner’s objection was not material. The peers then unanimously found Lord Balmerino guilty of high treason, after which, the other two lords were brought to the bar, and were informed by the lord-high-steward, that if either of them had any thing to move in arrest of judgment, they must come prepared on the Wednesday following at eleven o’clock, and state their objections, otherwise sentence of death would be awarded against them. The three lords were then carried back to the Tower in coaches, and the axe, which was in the coach with Lord Balmerino, had its edge pointed towards him.
The court accordingly met again on Wednesday the 30th of July, when the lord-high-steward addressed the prisoners; and beginning with Lord Kilmarnock, asked him if he had any thing to offer why judgment of death should not be passed against him. His lordship stated, that having, from a due sense of his folly, and the heinousness of his crimes, acknowledged his guilt, he meant to offer nothing in extenuation, but to throw himself entirely on the compassion of the court, that it might intercede with his majesty for his royal clemency. He then, in a somewhat humble speech, urged several reasons why he should be treated with clemency, expressing great contrition for having, somewhat against his own inclination, joined in the “unnatural scheme.” He concluded by stating, that if after what he had stated their lordships did not feel themselves called upon to employ their interest with his majesty for his royal clemency, that he would lay down his life with the utmost resignation, and that his last moments should “be employed in fervent prayer for the preservation of the illustrious house of Hanover, and the peace and prosperity of Great Britain.”
The Earl of Cromarty began a most humiliating but pathetic appeal, by declaring that he had been guilty of an offence which merited the highest indignation of his majesty, their lordships, and the public; and that it was from a conviction of his guilt that he had not presumed to trouble their lordships with any defence. “Nothing remains, my lords,” he continued, “but to throw myself, my life, and fortune, upon your lordships’ compassion; but of these, my lords, as to myself is the least part of my sufferings. I have involved an affectionate wife, with an unborn infant, as parties of my guilt, to share its penalties; I have involved my eldest son, whose infancy and regard for his parents hurried him down the stream of rebellion. I have involved also eight innocent children, who must feel their parent’s punishment before they know his guilt. Let them, my lords, be pledges to his majesty; let them be pledges to your lordships; let them be pledges to my country for mercy; let the silent eloquence of their grief and tears; let the powerful language of innocent nature supply my want of eloquence and persuasion; let me enjoy mercy, but no longer than I deserve it; and let me no longer enjoy life than I shall use it to deface the crime I have been guilty of. Whilst I thus intercede to his majesty through the mediation of your lordships for mercy, let my remorse for my guilt as a subject; let the sorrow of my heart as a husband; let the anguish of my mind as a father, speak the rest of my misery. As your lordships are men, feel as men; but may none of you ever suffer the smallest part of my anguish. But if after all, my lords, my safety shall be found inconsistent with that of the public, and nothing but my blood can atone for my unhappy crime; if the sacrifice of my life, my fortune and family, is judged indispensably necessary for stopping the loud demands for public justice; and if the bitter cup is not to pass from me, not mine, but thy will, O God, be done.”
When the lord-high-steward addressed Lord Balmerino, he produced a paper, and desired it might be read. His grace told his lordship that he was at liberty to read it if he pleased; but his lordship replied that his voice was too low, and that he could not read it so distinctly as he could wish. One of the clerks of parliament, by order of the lord-high-steward, then read the paper, which was to this effect:--That although his majesty had been empowered by an act of parliament, made the last session, to appoint the trials for high treason to take place in any county he should appoint; yet, as the alleged act of treason was stated to have been committed at Carlisle, and prior to the passing of the said act, he ought to have been indicted at Carlisle, and not in the county of Surrey, as the act could not have a retrospective effect. His lordship prayed the court to assign him counsel to argue the point. The peers, after consideration, agreed to his petition for counsel, and at his request assigned him Messrs. Wilbraham and Forrester, and adjourned the court to the 1st of August.
The three prisoners were again brought back from the Tower. On that day the lord-high-steward asked Lord Balmerino if he was then ready by his counsel to argue the point, which he proposed to the court on the previous day. His lordship answered, that as his counsel had advised him that there was nothing in the objection sufficient to found an arrest of judgment upon, he begged to withdraw the objection, and craved their lordships’ pardon for giving them so much trouble. The prisoners then all declaring that they submitted themselves to the court, Lord Hardwicke addressed them in a suitable speech, and concluded by pronouncing the following sentence:[1286]--“The judgment of the law is, and this high court doth award, that you, William, Earl of Kilmarnock; George, Earl of Cromarty; and Arthur Lord Balmerino, and every of you, return to the prison of the Tower from whence you came: from thence you must be drawn to the place of execution: when you come there, you must be hanged by the neck, but not till you are dead; for you must be cut down alive; then your bowels must be taken out and burnt before your faces; then your heads must be severed from your bodies; and your bodies must be divided each into four quarters; and these must be at the king’s disposal. And God Almighty be merciful to your souls.” Then the prisoners were removed from the bar, and after taking a cold collation which had been prepared for them, were carried back to the Tower in the same order and form as before.
The Earl of Kilmarnock immediately presented a petition to the king for mercy, and also another, a copy of the first, to the Prince of Wales, praying his royal highness’s intercession with his majesty in his behalf; and a third to the Duke of Cumberland for a similar purpose. In this last mentioned petition he asserted his innocence of charges which had been made against him, of having advised the putting to death of the prisoners taken by the Highland army before the battle of Culloden, and of advising or approving of an alleged order for giving no quarter to his majesty’s troops in that battle. In the petitions to the king and the Prince of Wales, the earl declared that he had surrendered himself at the battle of Culloden, at a time when he could have easily escaped; but he afterwards admitted that the statement was untrue, and that he was induced to make it from a strong desire for life; that he had no intention of surrendering; and that, with the view of facilitating his escape, he had gone towards the body of horse which made him prisoner, thinking that it was Fitz-James’s horse, with the design of mounting behind a dragoon. These petitions were entirely disregarded.
The Earl of Cromarty, with better claims to mercy, also petitioned the king. In support of this application the countess waited upon the lords of the cabinet council, and presented a petition to each of them; and, on the Sunday following the sentence, she went to Kensington-palace in deep mourning, accompanied by Lady Stair, to intercede with his majesty in behalf of her husband. She was a woman of great strength of mind, and though far advanced in pregnancy, had hitherto displayed surprising fortitude; but on the present trying occasion she gave way to grief. She took her station in the entrance through which the king was to pass to chapel, and when he approached she fell upon her knees, seized him by the coat, and presented her supplication, fainted away at his feet. The king immediately raised her up, and taking the petition, gave it in charge of the Duke of Grafton, one of his attendants. He then desired Lady Stair to conduct her to one of the apartments. The Dukes of Hamilton and Montrose, the Earl of Stair and other courtiers, backed these petitions for the royal mercy by a personal application to the king, who granted a pardon to the earl on the 9th of August.
The high-minded Balmerino disdained to compromise his principles by suing for pardon, and when he heard that his fellow-prisoners had applied for mercy, he sarcastically remarked, that as they must have great interest at court, they might have squeezed his name in with their own. From the time of his sentence down to his execution, he showed no symptoms of fear. He never entertained any hopes of pardon, for he said he considered his case desperate, as he had been once pardoned before. When Lady Balmerino expressed her great concern for the approaching fate of her Lord, he said, “Grieve not, my dear Peggy, we must all die once, and this is but a few years very likely before my death must have happened some other way: therefore, wipe away your tears; you may marry again, and get a better husband.” About a week after his sentence a gentleman went to see him, and apologising for intruding upon him when he had such a short time to live, his lordship replied, “Oh! Sir, no intrusion at all: I have done nothing to make my conscience uneasy. I shall die with a true heart, and undaunted; for I think no man fit to live who is not fit to die; nor am I any ways concerned at what I have done.” Being asked a few days before his execution in what manner he would go to the scaffold, he answered, “I will go in the regimentals which I wore when I was first taken, with a woollen shirt next my skin, which will serve me instead of a shroud to be buried in.” Being again asked why he would not have a new suit of black, he replied, “It would be thought very imprudent in a man to repair an old house when the lease of it was near expiring; and the lease of my life expires next Monday.” The king could not but admire the high bearing and manly demeanour of this unfortunate nobleman; and when the friends of the other prisoners were making unceasing applications to him for mercy, he said, “Does nobody intercede for poor Balmerino? He, though a rebel, is at least an honest man.” According to Walpole, Balmerino was “jolly with his pretty Peggy” almost to the very last.
On the 11th of August an order was signed in council for the execution of the Earl of Kilmarnock and Lord Balmerino, and on the 12th two writs passed the great seal, empowering the constable of the Tower to deliver their bodies to the sheriffs of London, for execution on Monday the 18th. The order for their execution on the 18th of August having been announced to the unfortunate noblemen by Mr. Foster, a dissenting clergyman, Lord Kilmarnock received the intelligence with all the composure of a man resigned to his fate, but at the same time with a deep feeling of concern for his future state. Balmerino, who perhaps had as strong a sense of religion as Kilmarnock, received the news with the utmost unconcern. He and his lady were sitting at dinner when the warrant arrived, and, being informed of it, her ladyship started up from the table and fainted away. His lordship raised her up, and, after she had recovered, he requested her to resume her seat at table and finish her dinner.
On the Saturday preceding the execution, General Williamson, at Kilmarnock’s desire, as is supposed, gave him a minute detail of all the circumstances of solemnity and outward terror which would accompany it.
Balmerino was not actuated with the same feeling of curiosity as Kilmarnock was to know the circumstances which would attend his execution, but awaited his fate with the indifference of a martyr desirous of sealing his faith with his blood. The following letter, written by him on the eve of his execution, to the Chevalier de St. George, strikingly exemplifies the cool intrepidity of the man, and the sterling honesty with which he adhered to his principles:--
“SIR,--You may remember that, in the year 1716, when your Majesty was in Scotland, I left a company of foot, purely with a design to serve your Majesty, and, had I not made my escape then, I should certainly have been shot for a deserter.
“When I was abroad I lived many years at my own charges before I ask’d any thing from you, being unwilling to trouble your Majesty while I had any thing of my own to live upon, and when my father wrote me that he had a remission for me, which was got without my asking or knowledge, I did not accept of it till I first had your Majesty’s permission. Sir, when His Royal Highness the Prince, your son, came to Edinburgh, as it was my bounden and indispensable duty, I joyn’d him, for which I am to-morrow to lose my head on a scaffold, whereat I am so far from being dismayed, that it gives me great satisfaction and peace of mind that I die in so righteous a cause. I hope, Sir, on these considerations, your Majesty will provide for my wife so as she may not want bread, which otherwise she must do, my brother having left more debt on the estate than it was worth, and having nothing in the world to give her. I am, with the most profound respect, Sir, your Majesty’s most faithful and devoted subject and servant,
“BALMERINO.”[1287]
“TOWER OF LONDON, } 17th August, 1746.” }
On Monday, the 18th of August, great preparations were made on Tower-hill for the execution. At ten o’clock the block was fixed on the stage, covered with black cloth, and several sacks of sawdust were provided to be strewed upon the scaffold. Soon after the two coffins were brought and placed upon the scaffold. Upon Kilmarnock’s coffin was a plate with this inscription, “Gulielmus Comes de Kilmarnock, decollatus 18º Augusti, 1746, ætat. suæ 42,” with an earl’s coronet over it, and six coronets over the six handles. The plate on Balmerino’s coffin bore this inscription, “Arthurus Dominus de Balmerino, decollatus 18º Augusti, 1746, ætat. suæ 58,” surmounted by a baron’s coronet, and with six others over the handles.
These preparations were completed about half-past ten, when the sheriffs, accompanied by their officers, went to the Tower, and, knocking at the door, demanded “The bodies of William, Earl of Kilmarnock, and Arthur, Lord Balmerino.” General Williamson thereupon went to inform the prisoners that the sheriffs were in attendance. When told that he was wanted, Lord Kilmarnock, who had just been engaged in prayer with Mr. Foster, betrayed no fear, but said, with great composure, “General, I am ready; I’ll follow you.” On leaving the Tower, Kilmarnock and Balmerino met at the foot of the stair. They embraced each other, and Balmerino said, “I am heartily sorry to have your company in this expedition.” The ill-fated noblemen were then brought to the Tower-gate, and delivered over to the sheriffs. When the prisoners were leaving the Tower, the deputy-lieutenant, according to an ancient usage, cried, “God bless King George!” to which Kilmarnock assented by a bow, but Balmerino emphatically exclaimed, “God bless King James!” The prisoners were then conducted to the house fitted up for their reception, and, being put into separate apartments, their friends were admitted to see them. When the prisoners arrived at the door of the house, some persons among the crowd were heard asking others, “Which is Lord Balmerino?” His lordship, overhearing the question, turned a little about, and, with a smile, said, “I am Balmerino, gentlemen, at your service.”
About eleven o’clock Lord Balmerino sent a message to Lord Kilmarnock requesting an interview, which being consented to, Balmerino was brought into Kilmarnock’s apartment. The following dialogue, as reported by Mr. Foster, then ensued. Balmerino--“My lord, I beg leave to ask your lordship one question.” Kilmarnock--“To any question, my lord, that you shall think proper to ask, I believe I shall see no reason to decline giving an answer.” B. “Why then, my lord, did you ever see or know of any order signed by the prince, to give no quarter at Culloden?” K. “No, my lord.” B. “Nor I neither; and therefore it seems to be an invention to justify their own murders.” K. “No, my lord, I do not think that inference can be drawn from it; because, while I was at Inverness, I was informed by several officers that there was such an order, signed ‘George Murray;’ and that it was in the duke’s custody.” B. “Lord George Murray! Why, then, they should not charge it upon the prince.” After this conversation the prisoners tenderly saluted each other, and Balmerino, after bidding his friend in affliction an eternal and happy adieu, added, with a countenance beaming with benignity, “My dear lord, I wish I could alone pay the reckoning and suffer for us both.”
Lord Kilmarnock appeared to be most anxious to impress upon the minds of those who were with him the sincerity of his repentance for the crime for which he was about to suffer. He declared himself fully satisfied with the legality of King George’s title to the crown, and stated that his attachment to the reigning family, which had suffered a slight interruption, was then as strong as ever. He spent a considerable time in devotion with Mr. Foster, till he got a hint from the sheriffs that the time was far advanced, his rank as an earl giving him a melancholy priority on the scaffold. After Mr. Foster had said a short prayer, his lordship took a tender farewell of the persons who attended him, and, preceded by the sheriffs, left the room followed by his friends. Notwithstanding the great trouble he had taken, in accordance with the wish of Mr. Foster, to familiarise his mind with the outward apparatus of death, he was appalled when he stepped upon the scaffold at beholding the dreadful scene around him, and, turning round about to one of the clergymen, said, “Home, this is terrible!” He was attired in a suit of black clothes, and, though his countenance was composed, he had a melancholy air about him, which indicated great mental suffering. Many of the spectators near the scaffold were so much affected by his appearance that they could not refrain from tears, and even the executioner was so overcome that he was obliged to drink several glasses of spirits to enable him to perform his dreadful duty.
Mr. Foster, who had accompanied his lordship to the scaffold, remained on it a short time in earnest conversation, and having quitted it, the executioner came forward and asked his lordship’s forgiveness in executing the very painful task he had to perform. The unhappy nobleman informed the executioner that he readily forgave him, and presenting him a purse containing five guineas, desired him to have courage. His lordship then took off his upper clothes, turned down the neck of his shirt under his vest, and undoing his long dressed hair from the bag which contained it, tied it round his head in a damask cloth in the form of a cap. He then informed the executioner that he would drop a handkerchief as a signal for the stroke about two minutes after he had laid his head down upon the block. Either to support himself, or as a more convenient posture for devotion, he laid his hands upon the block. On observing this the executioner begged his lordship to let his hands fall down, lest they should be mangled or break the blow. Being told that the neck of his waistcoat was in the way, he rose up, and with the help of Colonel Craufurd, one of his friends, had it taken off. The neck being now made completely bare to the shoulders, the earl again knelt down as before. This occurrence did not in the least discompose him, and Mr. Home’s servant, who held the cloth to receive his head, heard him, after laying down his head the second time, put the executioner in mind that in two minutes he would give the signal. He spent this short time in fervent devotion. Then, fixing his neck upon the block, he gave the fatal signal; his body remained without the least motion till the stroke of the axe, which at the first blow almost severed the head from the body. A small piece of skin which still united them was cut through by another stroke. The head, which was received into a scarlet cloth, was not exposed, in consequence, it is said, of the earl’s own request, but along with the body, was deposited in the coffin, which was delivered to his friends, and placed by them in the hearse. The scaffold was then strewed over with fresh sawdust, and the executioner, who was dressed in white, changed such of his clothes as were stained with blood.
The first act of this bloody tragedy being now over, the under-sheriff went to Balmerino’s apartments to give him notice that his time was come. “I suppose,” said his lordship on seeing this functionary enter, “my Lord Kilmarnock is no more.” Being answered in the affirmative, he asked the under-sheriff how the executioner had performed his duty, and upon receiving the account, he said, “then it was well done, and now, gentlemen, (continued the inflexible Balmerino, turning to his friends,) I will detain you no longer, for I desire not to protract my life.” During the time spent in Kilmarnock’s execution Balmerino had conversed cheerfully with his friends, and twice refreshed himself with a bit of bread and a glass of wine, desiring the company to drink him “a degree to heaven.” Saluting each of his friends in the most affectionate manner, he bade them all adieu, and leaving them bathed in tears, he hastened to the scaffold, which he mounted with a firm step.
The strong feeling of pity with which the spectators had beheld the handsome though emaciated figure of the gentle Kilmarnock gave place to sensations of another kind, when they beheld the bold and strongly-built personage who now stood on the stage before them. Attired in the same regimentals of blue turned up with red which he had worn at the battle of Culloden, and treading the scaffold with a firm step and an undaunted air, he gloried in the cause for which he suffered, and forced the assembled multitude to pay an unwilling tribute of admiration to his greatness of soul. His friends, on beholding the apparatus of death, expressed great concern; but his lordship reproved their anxiety. His lordship walked round the scaffold, and bowed to the people. He then went to the coffin, and reading the inscription, said it was correct. With great composure he examined the block, which he called his “pillow of rest.” He then put on his spectacles, and, pulling a paper from his pocket, read it to the few persons about him, in which he declared his firm attachment to the house of Stuart, and stated that the only fault he had ever committed deserving his present fate, and for which he expressed his sincere regret, was in having served in the armies of the enemies of that house, Queen Anne and George I. He complained that he had not been well used by the lieutenant of the Tower, but that having received the sacrament the day before, and read several of the Psalms of David, he had forgiven him, and said that he now died in charity with all men.
Calling at last for the executioner, that functionary stepped forward to ask his forgiveness, but Balmerino interrupted him, and said, “Friend, you need not ask my forgiveness; the execution of your duty is commendable.” Then, presenting him with three guineas, his lordship added, “Friend, I never had much money; this is all I have, I wish it was more for your sake, and I am sorry I can add nothing else to it but my coat and waistcoat.” These he instantly took off, and laid them down on the coffin. He then put on the flannel waistcoat which he had provided, and a tartan cap on his head, to signify, as he said, that he died a Scotchman; and going to the block, placed his head upon it in order to show the executioner the signal for the blow, which was by dropping his arms. Returning then to his friends, he took an affectionate farewell of them, and, surveying the vast number of spectators, said, “I am afraid there are some who may think my behaviour bold; but,” addressing a gentleman near him, he added, “remember, Sir, what I tell you; it arises from a confidence in God, and a clear conscience.”
Observing at this moment the executioner with the axe in his hand, he went up, and, taking it from him, felt the edge. On returning the fatal instrument, Balmerino showed him where to strike the blow, and encouraged him to do it with resolution, “for in that, friend,” said he, “will consist your mercy.” His lordship, then, with a countenance beaming with joy, knelt down at the block, and extending his arms, said the following prayer:--“O Lord, reward my friends, forgive my enemies, bless the prince and the duke, and receive my soul.” He then instantly dropt his arms. The executioner, taken unawares by the suddenness of the signal, hurriedly raised the axe, and missing his aim, struck the ill-fated lord between the shoulders, a blow which, it has been said, deprived the unfortunate nobleman of sensation; but it has been averred by some of the spectators, that Balmerino turned his head a little round upon the block, gnashed his teeth, and gave the executioner a ghastly stare. Taking immediately a better aim, the executioner gave a second blow, which almost severed the head from the body, and deprived the noble victim of life. The body having fallen from the block, it was instantly replaced, and the executioner, once more raising the fatal weapon, finished his task. The head was received in a piece of red cloth, and deposited along with the body in the coffin, and being put into a hearse, was carried to the chapel of the Tower, and buried with that of Lord Kilmarnock, near the remains of Lord Tullibardine. Mr. Humphreys, curate of the chapel, read the funeral service, and when he came to the words, “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” two gentlemen, friends of the deceased, took up the spades and performed the office of the grave-diggers.
For a time the unhappy fate of the two lords almost exclusively engaged the attention of the public; and in private circles, as well as in the periodicals of the day, the conduct and bearing of the unfortunate noblemen were viewed and commented upon according to the partialities and feelings of the parties. By the whigs, and generally by all persons of a real or affected seriousness of mind, Kilmarnock was regarded as a perfect model of the dying Christian, who, though he had been guilty of base ingratitude to the government, and had told a falsehood at his trial, had fully atoned for his offences by his contrition; whilst his companion in suffering was looked upon as an incorrigible rebel, who had braved death with an unbecoming levity. The Jacobites, however, and even some of the friends of the revolution settlement, whilst they could not but admire the calm resignation of Kilmarnock, heartily despised the cringing pusillanimity which he displayed to soften the resentment of the government. Balmerino was viewed by them in a very different light. Whilst the Jacobites looked upon him as an illustrious martyr, who had added a lustre to their cause by his inflexible intrepidity and the open avowal of his sentiments, the other section of his admirers applauded his courage, and paid a just tribute to his honesty. The more dispassionate judgment of posterity has done ample justice to the rectitude and magnanimity of this unfortunate nobleman.
The next victims to the offended laws were Donald Macdonald, of the Keppoch family, who had served as a captain in the regiment of that chief, Walter Ogilvy, a young man of good family in Banffshire, a lieutenant in Lord Lewis Gordon’s regiment, and James Nicolson, who had kept a coffee-house in Leith. These three, with one Alexander Macgrowther, who also held a commission in the Highland army, were taken at Carlisle. When brought to the bar of the court at St. Margaret’s-hill, the three first pleaded guilty, and begged for mercy; but Macgrowther attempted to defend himself on the ground that he was forced into the insurrection by the Duke of Perth against his will, having as a vassal no power to withstand the commands of his superior.[1288] This defence, corresponding in very many cases with reality, and which was also made by many of the Scotch prisoners, was overruled. On the 2d of August these four persons were condemned, and Macgrowther having been afterwards reprieved; the remainder suffered on Kennington-common, on the 22d of the same month. Macdonald and Nicolson were executed in their Highland dress. The same revolting process of disembowelling, &c., practised upon the bodies of Townley and his companions, was gone through; but the spectators were spared the revolting spectacle, which was witnessed on that occasion, of cutting down the prisoners whilst alive.
At Perth, on the 19th of September, Captain Crosby, who had deserted from the British army in Flanders, and come to Scotland with the French troops, was hanged, and two deserters were shot. A singular incident happened on this occasion. To carry the sentence against Crosby into execution on the day appointed, the hangman of Perth was secured in the town prison; but having apparently no certainty that he would perform his painful duty, the hangman of Stirling was sent for by the magistrates, who, upon his appearance, liberated the timorous functionary. The hangman immediately fled the place. Captain Crosby was brought to the place of execution on the appointed day, but before the time for throwing him off arrived, the executioner dropt down dead. After remaining a considerable time at the place of execution the guard was returning with Crosby to the prison, when an infamous criminal, who was a prisoner in the jail, offered to hang the captain for a reward of ten guineas and a free pardon. The authorities having acceded to the demand of this ruffian, Crosby was immediately carried back to the place of execution, and suffered with great fortitude.[1289]
The sittings at St. Margaret’s-hill were resumed on the 23d of August, and were continued from time to time for about two months. Bills were found against thirty-two persons, besides Lord Macleod and Secretary Murray; but these last were not brought to trial. Of the thirty-two tried no less than twenty-two were convicted at different times, all of whom received sentence of death on the 15th of November. Of these, eight of the principal were ordered for execution on the 28th of that month. Among these were Sir John Wedderburn, John Hamilton, Andrew Wood, Alexander Leith, and James Bradshaw. Sir John Wedderburn had acted as receiver in the counties of Perth and Angus of the ale and malt arrears raised by the Highland army; Hamilton had been governor of Carlisle; Wood, a youth of two-and-twenty, had distinguished himself as a volunteer in Roy Stewart’s regiment; Leith had served as a captain in the Duke of Perth’s regiment, and though old and infirm, had been remarkable for zeal and activity; and Bradshaw had shown his devotion to the cause of the Stuarts by giving up a lucrative business as a merchant in Manchester, and expending all his wealth to promote it. He entered the Manchester regiment; but thinking that he could be of more use by marching with the Highland army into Scotland than by remaining at Carlisle, he joined Lord Elcho’s corps, and was taken prisoner after the battle of Culloden.
On the morning of the execution two of the prisoners of the name of Farquharson and Watson obtained a reprieve, as also did one Lindsay, just as he was about to step into the sledge. The effect upon this man’s feelings, when his pardon was announced, was such, that his life appeared for a time in danger. The five prisoners were then drawn to the place of execution in two sledges, where their doom was sealed. Bradshaw read a paper, in which he declared that he had joined “the king’s forces” from a principle of duty only, and that he never had reason since to be convinced that he had been mistaken; but that, on the contrary, every day’s experience had strengthened his opinion that what he had done was right and necessary. He stated that he had had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the most ungenerous enemy he believed ever assumed the name of a soldier,--“the pretended duke of Cumberland, and those under his command,” whose inhumanity, he observed, had exceeded every thing he could have imagined, “in a country where the name of a God is allowed of.” He expressed his firm conviction, that the order attributed to Charles to give no quarter was “a malicious, wicked report, raised by the friends of the usurper” to excuse the cruelties committed by his troops in Scotland. After a high eulogium upon the qualifications of the prince, the paper concluded with a prayer for the preservation of “King James the Third, the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of York.”
Besides the trials at Southwark, other trials took place at Carlisle and York, chiefly of prisoners taken at Culloden. No less than 382 of these unfortunate beings had been brought to Carlisle; but as the trial of such a great number of persons, with a view to capital punishment, might appear extremely harsh, and would be inconvenient, a proposal was made to the common prisoners, who formed the great mass, that, with certain exceptions, only one in every twenty, chosen by lot, should be tried, and that the remainder should be transported. This proposal was acceded to by a considerable number. By this means the number for trial was reduced to 127, who were immediately separated from the others, and with the exception of two--Sir Archibald Primrose and Captain Hay--thrust into one room in the keep of the castle, where their miseries induced many to hatch futile plots for escape.[1290]
The judges adjourned to the 9th of September; and, in the mean time, they repaired to York, where the grand jury found bills against 75 persons confined there. The judges resumed their sittings at Carlisle for the trial of the prisoners there, on the 9th of September, on which, and the two following days, the prisoners, against whom bills had been found, were arraigned. Bills were found against 15 more on the 12th, making a total of 134. Of these, 11 pled guilty when arraigned; 32 entered the same plea when brought to trial; 48 were found guilty, of whom 11 were recommended to mercy, 36 acquitted, 5 remanded to prison till further evidence should be procured, and 1 obtained delay on an allegation of his being a peer. The judges resumed their sittings at York on the 2d of October, and sat till the 7th. Of the 75 persons indicted, 2 pled guilty when arraigned, 52 when brought to trial, and 16 were found guilty, 4 of whom were recommended to mercy. All these received sentence of death. Five only were acquitted.
Of the 91 prisoners under sentence at Carlisle, 30 were ordered for execution; 9 of whom were accordingly executed at Carlisle on the 18th of October.[1291] Six were executed at Brampton on the 21st of the same month, and 7 suffered at Penrith. Seven out of the 30 were reprieved, and 1 died in prison. All those who were executed underwent the usual process of unbowelling.
Among those who suffered at Carlisle on October 18th, were Major Donald Macdonald of Tynedrish--he who, short-sighted, unwittingly allowed himself to be made prisoner after the battle of Falkirk. He was one of the first to join Prince Charles after his landing, and it is supposed that Sir Walter Scott had him in his mind, when he drew the character of Fergus M’Ivor, in Waverley. Another was the brave and chivalrous laird of Kinloch-Moidart, described as a plain honest man, exceedingly cool-headed, and fitted for either the cabinet or the field, but unable to resist the persuasions of his brother Æneas Macdonald, the Paris banker, who accompanied Charles to Scotland--and the fascination which the prince seems to have exercised on those whom he personally addressed. An acquaintance of Macdonald’s visited him when he was confined a prisoner in Edinburgh Castle, and asked him how he came to engage in so desperate an undertaking, which never had a probability of success? “I myself was against it,” he replied; “but, Lord man, what could I do when the young lad came to my house?”[1292]
On the 1st of November 10 of the prisoners condemned at York suffered in that city, and on the 8th of the same month, 11 others suffered the same fate. Another prisoner suffered on the 15th November. The work of death closed at Carlisle on the 15th of December by the immolation of 11 more victims.
Out of the 77 persons who thus suffered, it is remarkable that, with the solitary exception of Lord Kilmarnock, they all maintained, to the very last, the justice of the cause for which they suffered. The more enthusiastic among them even openly declared that they would continue to support the claim of the exiled family to the crown if set at liberty.
Notwithstanding this useless waste of human blood, the government did not consider the work of destruction complete till the lives of two individuals, who lay more especially under its ban, were sacrificed, as the last atonement to public justice. These were Charles Ratcliffe and Lord Lovat. The former was a younger brother of the Earl of Derwentwater, who suffered in 1716, and whose title Mr. Ratcliffe had assumed. He had been engaged in the former insurrection, taken at Preston, and condemned, but made his escape out of Newgate; and after passing some years in France and Italy, married the Countess of Newburgh at Paris. He had visited England privately in 1733, and returned again two years thereafter, when he appeared openly in public. Soliciting his pardon without success, he returned to France, where he remained till November, 1745, when he was made prisoner on board a French vessel, on her way to Scotland with supplies for Prince Charles. He was arraigned at the bar of the court of king’s bench on the 21st of November, 1746, upon his former sentence; but he refused either to plead or to acknowledge the authority of the court, on the ground that he was a subject of France, where he had resided thirty years, and honoured with a commission in the service of his most Christian majesty. Being brought to the bar next day, his former sentence being read over to him, he pleaded that he was not the person therein mentioned; but his identity being clearly established, he was ordered to be executed on the 8th of December. His aunt, Lady Petre, did every thing in her power to save him, or at least to procure a respite till his lady should arrive from Paris, but without success. Some demur seems, however, to have existed, as the preparations for his execution were so long delayed, that the carpenters were obliged to work on the scaffold on Sunday the day before the execution, and all the following night.
The preparations for his execution were somewhat the same as those in the cases of Kilmarnock and Balmerino. He was dressed in a suit of scarlet, faced with black velvet trimmed with gold, a gold-laced waistcoat, and wore a white feather in his hat. When he came upon the scaffold he took a tender farewell of his friends, and after spending about seven minutes in prayer on his knees, he rose, and pulling off his clothes, went forward to the block, on which he placed his head to try how it fitted. He then spoke to the executioner as if giving him directions, and kneeling down again, and fixing his head upon the block, in about two minutes he gave the signal to the executioner, who, as in the case of Balmerino, did not complete his work till he had given the third blow. The head was received in a scarlet cloth. Without the levity of Balmerino, Mr. Ratcliffe displayed the same manly fortitude and contempt of death exhibited by that unfortunate nobleman. He died, as he had lived, a Catholic; and so warmly was he attached to the faith of his ancestors, that when some zealous Protestant objected to him that some of the tenets of his religion were contrary to reason, he is said to have wished, that for every such tenet, the belief of which was required by the church, there were twenty, that he might have a larger field for exercising his faith.[1293] His body was delivered over to his friends, and interred by them, on the 11th of November, at St. Giles’s-in-the-fields, near the remains of his brother.
The last scene of this bloody tragedy ended with the trial and execution of the aged Lord Lovat, who had been confined in the Tower since the 15th of August. He was impeached by the House of Commons on the 11th of December, and was brought to the bar of the House of Peers on the 18th, when the articles of impeachment were read to him.[1294] At his own desire, four gentlemen were assigned him for counsel, and he was appointed to put in answers to the articles of impeachment on or before the 13th of January. The trial, which was appointed to take place on the 23d of February, was postponed to the 5th, and afterwards to the 9th of March, on which day it commenced. The articles of impeachment were in substance, that he had compassed and imagined the death of the king,--that he had corresponded with the Pretender, accepted a commission from him to be a lieutenant-general of his forces, and another to be general of the Highlanders, and that he had accepted a patent from the Pretender creating him Duke of Fraser,--that he had met with armed traitors, and had raised great numbers of armed men for the service of the Pretender and his son, and had traitorously levied a cruel and unnatural war against his majesty,--that he had sent a treasonable letter to the son of the Pretender when in arms within the kingdom,--that he had also sent treasonable letters to other persons, then openly in arms against the king,--that he had assisted the rebels in their traitorous designs, and had sent his eldest son, and many of his name, family, and dependents, to the assistance of the Pretender’s eldest son, and had given them instructions in the prosecution of the rebellion,--and finally, that he had traitorously, both in person and by letters, held correspondence with the eldest son of the Pretender, and with divers persons employed by him, and particularly with Murray of Broughton, the two Lochiels, John Roy Stewart, Dr. Cameron, and others. To all these charges Lord Lovat gave a pointed denial.
They were, however, fully established by the strongest proofs. The written evidence consisted of papers found in his lordship’s strong box, besides some letters which he had written to Prince Charles, the last of which having come into the hands of Murray of Broughton, in his capacity of secretary to the prince, were basely delivered up by him to save his own worthless life. Lord Lovat exerted all his ingenuity to evade the force of the evidence; but the proofs of his criminality were too clear to admit of any doubt. His lordship objected to the admissibility of Murray as a witness, on the ground that he was attainted by act of parliament made in the previous session, and that he had not surrendered himself in terms of the act. Having stated that he had several objections against the witness, one or two of which he considered essential, a discussion ensued as to whether all these objections should not at once be stated. As giving a fair sample of the manner in which the trial was conducted, the argument on both sides, on the point alluded to, is here given:--
“MR. ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--My lords, I observe that the noble lord at the bar said that he had several objections to the examining this witness, and that one or two of them were essential; but the noble lord has not mentioned more than one. I presume, my lords, it would be proper that he should name all his objections at once, that the managers may have an opportunity of answering them all, and receiving your lordships’ judgment upon the whole; therefore, if he has any other objections to offer, it would be proper he should mention them now to your lordships. LORD LOVAT.--My lords, I submit it to your lordships that that is a very odd proposition. I give your lordships an essential one now, and when that is answered I have another. I am not to be directed by those who are my persecutors. LORD-HIGH-STEWARD.--My Lord Lovat, you are not to be directed by your accusers, but by the lords who are your judges; and the course of proceeding in this and all other courts is, that a person, who objects to any witness, should name all his objections at the same time; and it is the more material in this court, as it tends to prevent the trouble of making several unnecessary adjournments. LORD L.--My lords, as this objection is very essential, I pray that it may be answered before I make another. LORD TALBOT.--If this is a material objection to the witness, then there will be no occasion for any other; but if it is an immaterial one, then your lordships may go into any other; but the way proposed by the managers may be very detrimental to the unhappy person at the bar. LORD H. S.--Your lordships hear what is proposed; and the question is, whether the noble lord at the bar shall name all his objections now, or take them up one by one. SIR WILLIAM YONGE, (one of the managers from the commons.)--My lords, I should hope that, in any course of proceeding, where objections of this kind are made, they should be made all together; for if they are made separate, we must consequently make distinct answers to them all, which may oblige your lordships to adjourn often to the chamber of parliament, which will create a great and unnecessary delay of time: and my lords, there can be no objection to his naming the whole at once, since they will all be distinctly considered by your lordships, and undoubtedly receive distinct answers. I therefore humbly insist, that he may be obliged to name all his objections at once. MR. NOEL, (another manager.)--My lords, what we are now upon is no point of law at all: it is simply, whether the noble lord at the bar as is usual should not name all his objections at once? When he does name them, then to such as are clear points of law he must be heard by his counsel; but at present, my lords, we are upon a question concerning the course of proceeding, whether he shall name them all at once, that they may be taken into consideration at the same time? My lords, one thing struck me in a very extraordinary manner:--It was said by the noble lord at the bar, that he was not to be directed by his persecutors. My lords, we are no persecutors; we persecute no man; we are intrusted by the commons, who carry on this prosecution against the noble lord at the bar for treason, and we prosecute for the preservation of the king’s government and the laws of the land. LORD L.--My lords, I said I was not to be directed by those who accused me. Your lordships cannot expect I can say what I have to offer in an eloquent manner. My lords, should the saving of a little time be a reason for taking away a person’s life? I hope these will not act like the parricides who took off the head of both kingdoms in a day by their prosecution. I am a peer of this land, and I think no excuse of saving time should be allowed as a reason to destroy me. LORD H. S.--My Lord Lovat, the lords will use all the deliberation, and give you all the time that is requisite for your defence; but I must beg your lordship will have so much consideration as to keep your temper, and not suffer yourself to be hurried into passion, for that may greatly prejudice you in making your defence. Your lordship will find the advantage in your defence by keeping your temper. LORD L.--I give your lordship my humble thanks: and since your lordships will not allow me counsel, I have spoke the little nonsense I had to say; but now your lordships shall hear me say nothing out of temper. LORD H. S.--My Lord Lovat, the question now is, whether you shall name all your objections at once? I must acquaint your lordship that that is the rule in the courts below, that if several objections are made to a witness, they are all named at once, in order to prevent unnecessary delays. LORD L.--My lords, to show how much I desire to save time, though, according to the course of nature, my time can be but short, I am so far from desiring to give your lordships trouble, or to prolong time, that I do insist upon this objection to the witness, and rely upon it as the only material objection.”[1295]
The managers having offered to prove, by the record of the court of King’s bench, that Mr. Murray had surrendered himself within the time prescribed, the question whether the record should be received in evidence, was argued at great length by the counsel for Lord Lovat, and the managers on the part of the prosecution. Having decided that the record might be read and given in evidence, Lord Lovat offered to falsify the record, by proving, in opposition to the averment therein contained, that Mr. Murray had not surrendered himself as required by the act of parliament. The court, however, decided that the record of the court of King’s bench, which was, nevertheless, literally untrue, could not be falsified by oral evidence.
Being called upon to make his defence on the sixth day of the trial, Lovat gave in a long paper, in which he commented with great severity upon the witnesses, whose testimony he maintained was not to be credited. He designated Secretary Murray as “the most abandoned of mankind, who, forgetting his allegiance to his king and country, had, according to his own confession, endeavoured to destroy both, like another Catiline, to patch up a broken fortune upon the ruin and distress of his native country. To-day stealing into France to enter into engagements upon the most sacred oath of fidelity; soon after, like a sanguinary monster, putting his hand and seal to a bloody proclamation, full of rewards for the apprehending of the sacred person of his majesty, and lest the cup of his iniquity had not been filled, to sum up all in one, impudently appearing at their lordships’ bar to betray those very secrets which he confessed he had drawn from the person he called his lord, his prince and master, under the strongest confidence.” “Thus far,” he concluded, “I thought it my duty, in vindication of myself, to trouble your lordships, and without further trespassing upon your patience, freely submit my life, my fortune, my honour, and what is dearest of all, my posterity, to your lordships.”[1296]
After the managers for the prosecution had addressed the court, Lord Lovat was withdrawn from the bar. The whole peers present--117 in number--unanimously found his lordship guilty. Lord Lovat was then called back to the bar, and informed by the lord-high-steward of the judgment of the court. Being brought up next day to receive his sentence, he addressed the court in a long speech, in which he gave a rambling recital of his services to the house of Hanover; and after receiving sentence, he implored their lordships and the managers of the commons to recommend him to the mercy of his majesty. Before leaving the bar, he said, “God bless you all, and I bid you an everlasting farewell. We shall not meet all in the same place again. I am sure of that.”
“The public were ravenous with curiosity about the great Leviathan that had been at last so effectually hooked, and it was necessary to fill the ear of London with details of his previous history, as well as anecdotes of his conduct since his capture. Many of them are fabulous, and many not worth preserving, but a few are too characteristic to be passed over. They may be announced by an incident not mentioned in the contemporary accounts, but preserved by tradition. On his return from the House of Lords to the Tower, an old woman not very well favoured, had pressed through the crowd and screamed in at the window of the coach, ‘You’ll get that nasty head of yours chopped off, you ugly old Scotch dog,’ to which he answered, ‘I believe I shall, you ugly old English b----,’ paying her back with the feminine of the masculine epithet she had applied to him. The major of the Tower coming to visit him and ask how he did, he answered, ‘Why, I am about doing pretty well, for I am preparing myself, sir, for a place where hardly any majors, and very few lieutenant-generals go;’ this was a more distinct hint than that given to the House of Lords.”[1297]
On the 2d of April the sheriffs of London and Middlesex received a warrant for his execution, which was appointed to take place on the 9th. His lordship, it is said, petitioned the king that he might be despatched by the maiden, the Scottish instrument of decapitation; but his application was not attended to. His approaching fate did not in the least discompose him, and though in the eightieth year of his age, his spirits never flagged, nor was his natural vivacity in any degree diminished. He said, the day before his execution, that he was never at any time in better spirits; and he told Dr. Clark, his physician, that the Tower was a better recipe for upholding them than the emetics he used to give him.[1298] Though regardless of death, and even occasionally facetious on the circumstances of his coming exit, he was not indifferent to the consolations of religion, and cheerfully availed himself of the spiritual assistance of a Catholic priest. Early on the morning of the execution, 1,200 troops drew up on Tower-hill, and all the preparations were gone through as in the former instances. About an hour before the execution, a serious accident occurred, in consequence of the fall of a large scaffolding with 400 persons, by which eighteen were killed on the spot, and many bruised and crippled. When Lovat heard of it his cool remark was,[1299] “The more mischief the better sport.” When he arrived at the scaffold, Lovat was obliged, from infirmity, to obtain the assistance of two persons in mounting. He displayed, to the very last, his characteristic fortitude, or rather bravado, and, with great coolness, felt the edge of the axe, with the sharpness of which he declared himself satisfied. On looking round and observing the great crowd, he said, “God save us,--why should there be such a bustle about taking off an old gray head that cannot get up three steps without two men to support it.”[1300] He gave the executioner ten guineas, advised him to perform his duty firmly, and take a good aim, and told him that if he mangled his shoulders, he would be displeased with him. In conversation he used frequently to cite passages from the classics; and, on the present occasion, he repeated the celebrated saying of Horace,--“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” as peculiarly applicable to the cause for which he was about to suffer. After spending some time in devotion, this remarkable man laid his head down upon the block with the utmost composure, and the executioner struck it off at a single blow. His lordship had given directions that his body should be carried to Scotland, and his friends had removed it to an undertaker’s in the Strand preparatory to its being sent down; but, by order of government, it was interred at St. Peter’s in the Tower, in the same grave with Lords Kilmarnock and Balmerino.
Whilst these executions could not fail to impress the disaffected with a strong idea of the power and inclination of government to uphold and maintain the authority of the law, they were calculated by their number and severity rather to excite a thirst for vengeance, than to inspire that salutary fear which it is the object of punishment to promote. During these executions, a scheme was concocted to arrest the arm of the law by seizing and carrying off the person of the Duke of Cumberland, and retaining him as a hostage for the lives of the prisoners. The originators of this bold design went from London to Paris, and laid their plan before Charles shortly after his arrival from Scotland, and offered to make the attempt; but Charles refused to sanction it, and the scheme was dropped.[1301]
By way of conciliating the offended feelings of the nation, the government got an act of indemnity passed in June, 1747, granting a pardon, with certain exceptions, to all persons who had been engaged in the rebellion; but these exceptions were so numerous as to divest the act of all pretensions to the character of grace or favour. Besides all persons attainted of high treason by act of parliament or judgment, or conviction of high treason by verdict, confession, or otherwise, upwards of eighty persons were specially excepted by name.[1302]
FOOTNOTES:
[1283] Shenstone has commemorated this melancholy event in his plaintive ballad of ‘Jemmy Dawson.’
[1284] Carlisle in ’45, p. 244.
[1285] “He is,” says Walpole, “the most natural, brave old fellow I ever saw: the highest intrepidity, even to indifference. At the bar he behaved like a soldier and a man; in the intervals of form, with carelessness and humour.... At the bar he plays with his fingers upon the axe, while he talks to the gentleman gaoler; and one day, somebody coming up to listen, he took the blade and held it like a fan between their faces. During the trial a little boy was near him, but not tall enough to see; he made room for the child, and placed him near himself.”
[1286] As will be seen, the more barbarous and ignominious part of the sentence was not carried into effect; Kilmarnock and Balmerino were put to death by simple decapitation.
[1287] The original of the above letter, from which this copy was taken, is among the Stuart Papers, and is written in a remarkably bold and steady hand. The Chevalier sent a copy of this letter to Charles on 20th January, 1747. “I send you,” says he, “a copy of poor Lord Balmerino’s letter. I shall inquire about his widow, and send her some relief if she stands in need of it.”--Stuart Papers. James was as good as his word. See Mr. Theodore Hay’s letter to Secretary Edgar, of 10th June, 1747, and Lady Balmerino’s receipt, 18th May following, for £60, in the Stuart Papers. The letter of Lord Balmerino, and the circumstances of his death, are feelingly alluded to in a letter written by Lady Balmerino to the Chevalier, from Edinburgh, on 15th June, 1751:--“Before my dear lord’s execution, he leaving this world, and having no other concern in time but me, wrote a letter to your Majesty, dated 17th August, 1746, recommending me and my destitute condition to your Majesty’s commiseration and bounty. You are well informed of his undaunted courage and behaviour at his death, so that even your Majesty’s enemies and his do unanimously confess that he died like a hero, and asserted and added a lustre which never will be forgot to the undoubted right your Majesty has to your three realms. He had the honour to have been in your Majesty’s domestick service in Italy, and ever preserved, before his last appearance, an inviolable, constant attachment to your royal house and interest, which at last he not only confirmed by his dying words, but sealed it with his blood, than which a greater token and proof it is not of a subject to give of his love and fidelity to his sovereign.”
[1288] “The general plea and defence of the prisoners at Carlisle was that they were forced into the rebellion--i.e., they were put under influences by clanship and such like, morally equivalent to force.”--Carlisle in ’45, p. 257.
[1289] True Copies of the Papers wrote by Arthur Lord Balmerino and others, published in the year 1746.
[1290] Carlisle in ’45, p. 247-50.
[1291] One of them, Cappock, (created Bishop of Carlisle by Charles,) made a long speech in support of the claims of the house of Stuart. He prayed for “King James,” Prince Charles, and the rest of the Stuart family, called King George an usurper, and when found guilty, he thus addressed his fellow-prisoners at the bar:--“Never mind it, my boys; for if our Saviour was here, these fellows would condemn him.” Observing Brand extremely dejected, he said to him, “What the devil are you afraid of? We shan’t be tried by a Cumberland jury in the other world.”--Scots Mag. vol. viii. p. 498.
[1292] Carlisle in ’45, pp. 254 and 266.
[1293] Boyse, p. 176.
[1294] The Laird of Macleod, in a letter to Lord-president Forbes, dated 18th December, 1746, says, “I saw unhappy Lovat to-day. Except for the feebleness of his limbs, his looks are good. He asked me several general questions, and particularly about you;--said he was resigned, and ready to meet his fate, since it was God’s will;--asked after his children, &c.” In another letter to the president, written two days thereafter, he again alludes to his lordship:--“Lovat behaved well at the bar of the house of peers, and they say with spirit. Granville and Bath spoke very strongly with regard to the seizure of his estate and effects; and that matter is ordered to be rectified, except in so far as private creditors come in the way.” Sir Andrew Mitchell, however, who was more of a courtier than Macleod, viewed matters in a different light. In a letter to the president, 26th December, 1746, he remarks, “Your lordship will have heard an account of Lord Lovat’s behaviour; and, therefore, I shall not trouble you with the particulars; only, I must observe, there was neither dignity nor gravity in it: he appeared quite unconcerned; and what he said was ludicrous and buffoonish; but his petition for the restoration of his effects, &c., was bold and well worded; which, however, would have been passed over without notice, had not Lord Granville bounced, and Lord Bath vapoured, and procured an order to be entered in the Journals, and have by that acquired to themselves a sort of popularity, which you know they very much wanted. No Scots nobleman spoke on this occasion; they are prudent and cautious. God bless them!”--Culloden Papers.
[1295] Trial published by order of the House of Peers. London, 1747.
[1296] He made several appeals calculated to move commiseration for his grey hairs. “My lords,” he said, at the commencement, “I have not had the use of my limbs these three years; I cannot see, I cannot hear; and I beg, if your lordships have a mind I should have any chance of my life, that you will allow either my counsel or solicitors to examine my witnesses, and to cross-examine those produced on behalf of the crown, and to take notes.” If he had been tried, on the charges brought against him, in Scotland forty-six years earlier, he would have been allowed this privilege; but the rules of English law confined the assistance of counsel, in cases of treason, to purely legal questions. At the conclusion of the second day he complained of the hardships of the early daily attendance to one of his infirm constitution, and said, “I must therefore beg that your lordships will indulge me with a later hour and some respite; otherwise I shall die at your bar,” but the request seems to have been unheeded. Another appeal of the same description, in which he said, “I fainted away thrice this morning before I came up to your lordships’ bar; but yet was determined to show my respect to your lordships, or die upon the spot,” produced a respite of a day.--Burton’s Life of Lovat, p. 257.
[1297] Burton’s Lovat, pp. 262, 263.
[1298] Culloden Papers, p. 302.
[1299] Burton’s Lovat, p. 265.
[1300] Burton’s Lovat, p. 265.
[1301] Vide Letter in the Stuart Papers from the Rev. Myles Macdonell to the Chevalier de St. George, dated St. Amiens, 4th May, 1747.
[1302] Among these were the Earls of Traquair and Kellie, Robert Maccarty, styling himself Lord Clancarty, Sir James Stewart of Good Trees; Sirs John Douglas, James Harrington, James Campbell, William Dunbar, and Alexander Bannerman; Archibald Stewart, late provost of Edinburgh, Chisholm of Comar, Cameron of Dungallon, Drummond of Bochaldy, Fraser of Foyers, Farquharson of Bulmarrell, Fraser of Avochnacloy, Dow Fraser of Little Garth, Fraser of Browich, Fraser of Gortuleg, Gordon of Abochie, Grant of Glenmoriston, Hunter of Burnside, Hay younger of Rannus, Irvine of Drum, Macdonald of Barisdale, M’Gregor of Glengyle, Macleod of Raasay, Gilbert Menzies, younger of Pitfodels, Moir of Stonywood, Æneas Macdonald, James Macdonald, brother to Kinlochmoidart, Macdonell of Glengarry, Macdonald of Glenco, Robertson of Strowan, Robertson of Faskally, Robertson of Blairfetty, Stuart of Kynnachin, Turner, younger of Turner-hall, &c., &c.
Among those formerly attainted and excepted in the above-mentioned act, were the following, viz., Lords Pitsligo, Elcho, Nairne, and Ogilvy, Lord George Murray, Lord Lewis Gordon, Lord John Drummond, ---- Drummond, eldest son of Lord Strathallan, the Master of Lovat, Graham of Duntroon, Sir William Gordon of Park, Gordon of Glenbucket, young Lochiel, Dr. Cameron, Cameron of Tor Castle, young Clanranald, Lochgarry, young Barisdale, Macdonald of Glencoe, Macpherson of Cluny, Maclachlan of Castle Lachlan, Mackinnon of Mackinnon, Stewart of Ardshiel, Lockhart, younger of Carnwath, Oliphant of Gask and his eldest son, Graham of Airth, Roy Stewart, Farquharson of Monalterye, Hay of Restalrig, &c.
XXXIX. A.D. 1747-1748
BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--George II., 1727-1760.
Arrival of Prince Charles at Paris--Meeting with his brother --Reception at Fontainebleau--He returns to Paris--Memorialises Louis--Admonished by his father as to his conduct in France --Charles retires to Avignon--Treatment of Lord G. Murray--His journey to Spain--Return to Paris--Prince Henry made Cardinal --Charles’s pecuniary and other difficulties--His advisers --Congress and peace of Aix-la-Chapelle--Charles and his father protest against the treaty--Charles refuses to quit the French territories--His arrest--Conducted out of the French dominions --Arrival at Avignon.
As soon as the French court received intelligence of the return of Charles to France, they gave orders to prepare the castle of St. Antoine for his reception. He was met near Paris on the 15th of October, (N. S.,[1303]) by his brother and a considerable number of the nobility, who conducted him to his appointed residence. The meeting between the two brothers, who had not seen each other for nearly three years, was of a most affecting description, and the persons who were present declared that they had never before witnessed such a moving scene. Charles at first sight did not know Henry, but the latter at once knew the prince, who is described by his brother as not in the least altered in his appearance since he last saw him, only that he had “grown somewhat broader and fatter.”[1304]
Louis with his court was at this time residing at Fontainebleau, and as Charles was impatient to see him, he sent Colonel Warren thither with instructions to Colonel O’Brien, the accredited minister of the Chevalier de St. George at the court of France, to request an audience. Some difficulties were started at first by the French ministers on the subject of this demand, but the king at last consented to see Charles and his brother, but stipulated that they should preserve a sort of incognito.[1305] Louis in fact had become tired of the war, and that he might not widen the breach between him and the court of London by appearing to recognise the pretensions of the exiled family, he had resolved not to receive the sons of the Chevalier at his court as princes of England. James, who was fully aware of this policy of the French court, thus argues the matter with Charles, who naturally felt indignant at the mode of his reception; “I am far from saying but that the king of France might have done a great deal more for you; but after all, we must consider the vast expenses he is at during the war, and the system he has certainly laid down to himself of not treating you and your brother as princes of England, which system I own shocked me at first, and seems preposterous in the present situation of affairs; but when one considers the uncertainty of the events of war, and that if we are not restored before a peace, the king of France cannot but continue to acknowledge the elector of Hanover as king of England, and by consequence treat us no more as princes of England; we cannot but own that it is wise in him, and in a certain sense even kind to us, not to expose himself and us to a possibility and necessity of ceasing to treat us according to our birth, after having once done it.”[1306]
If Louis had been actuated by the motive thus charitably imputed to him, the reasoning of James would have been plausible enough; but Charles, who had both before and during his expedition experienced the hollowness of the French policy, could not fail to perceive that his father had formed an erroneous idea of Louis’s intentions. As by the treaty of Fontainebleau he had been recognised by that monarch as prince regent of Scotland, Charles had good reason to complain of the mode in which he was to be received by his most Christian majesty; but he repressed his feelings of disappointment on the occasion, and yielded to a necessity which it was not in his power to control. He resolved, however, to neutralize the effect which his appearance at court as a private person might have upon the people by getting up a splendid equipage, and proceeding to Fontainebleau in great state.
Accordingly, on the day fixed for his reception at court, Charles left the castle of St. Antoine, accompanied by a number of his friends in coaches and on horseback. The cortege was on the whole very grand; but Charles himself attracted particular attention by the superbness of his dress. His coat was of rose-coloured velvet, embroidered with silver, and lined with silver tissue. His waistcoat was of rich gold brocade, with a spangled fringe set out in scollops. The cockade in his hat and the buckles of his shoes were studded with diamonds. The George at his bosom, and the order of St. Andrew, which he wore at one of the button-holes of his waistcoat, were illustrated with large diamonds. “In fine,” observes an enthusiastic eye-witness, “he glittered all over like the star which they tell you appeared at his nativity.” Louis received Charles with great kindness, and, embracing him, said, “My dearest Prince, I thank Heaven for the very great pleasure it gives me to see you returned in good health after so many fatigues and dangers. You have proved that all the great qualities of the heroes and philosophers are united in you, and I hope that you will one day receive the reward of such extraordinary merit.” The queen, likewise, welcomed him with every demonstration of good-will and affection. He had never been at the court of France before, and every person was extremely desirous of seeing a prince of whom they had heard so much. As Charles retired from the palace, the whole court crowded about him, and complimented him so highly upon the fame of his exploits, that they could scarcely have testified greater joy, or expressed themselves in warmer terms, had the dauphin himself been engaged in the same dangerous expedition, and returned from it in safety.[1307] Charles, it is said, afterwards returned to the palace, and supped with the king, queen, and royal family; and all his attendants were magnificently entertained at several tables, which had been appointed for them according to their rank.
Though the conduct of the French court towards Charles had been deceptive, yet it is understood that Louis was not so bad as his ministers in this respect; and besides, he appears to have entertained a warm regard for Charles personally. It is believed that Louis would have given proofs of his esteem by embarking with spirit in the cause of the exiled family; but he was controlled by his ministers, who certainly never were serious in their professions. Of the sincerity of the queen, however, there cannot be the least doubt. She and Charles’s mother had passed many of their juvenile years together, and had contracted a warm attachment to each other, which had remained unaltered during the life of the latter. In Charles she now beheld the favourite son of her late friend, whom he strongly resembled, and she looked upon him with a maternal tenderness, which was enhanced by the reputation of his exploits, and the knowledge of the sufferings he had endured. Whenever he came to court, she is said to have conversed with him for whole hours together, during which she would make him relate his adventures to herself and her ladies, all of whom were frequently bathed in tears with the affecting recital.
Within a day or two after his arrival at Fontainebleau, Charles wrote to Louis requesting the honour of a private audience on the subject of his affairs, which appears to have been granted, as three days thereafter, namely, on the 25th of October, the prince requested another interview, for the purpose of delivering into the king’s own hands a short memoir in relation to his affairs.[1308] Unable to obtain a satisfactory answer, Charles left Fontainebleau, and took up his residence with his brother at Clichy, in the neighbourhood of Paris. His company was much sought after by the fashionable circles of that gay metropolis, but he kept himself comparatively retired. He appeared at the opera for the first time on the 30th of October, and was received by the audience with clapping of hands, which continued till the commencement of the opera, and was renewed at the conclusion.[1309]
Though surrounded by men of integrity, who had suffered proscription for his sake, Charles does not appear to have consulted any of them in his difficulties, nor to have honoured them with the least share of his confidence. Shortly after his return to France he wrote to his tutor, Sir Thomas Sheridan, who, after escaping to France, had repaired to Rome, requesting him to join him at Paris; and in the meantime he availed himself of the equivocal services of George Kelly. Sir Thomas, however, saw Charles no more, having died soon after the receipt of his pupil’s letter. Charles then adopted Kelly as his confidant, but he appears to have been in every way unworthy of such a mark of distinction.[1310]
Some time after Charles’s return to Paris, Louis removed his court from Fontainebleau to Versailles, where the prince and his brother met with a cordial reception from the royal family and the persons about the court, but Charles could not obtain any distinct pledge of support. This result was anticipated by his father, who had a just perception of the policy of France in his regard. “I am afraid,” says James to the prince, “that you will have little reason to be satisfied with the court of France, and that you will not have less need of courage and fortitude in bearing and suffering in that country than you had in acting in Britain.” Apprehensive of the impetuosity of Charles’s temper, he most earnestly recommended him to conduct himself with patience and prudence, and warned him of the consequences which might ensue by adopting a different course. This admonition, however, was thrown away upon Charles.
Resolved to put the sincerity of the French court to the test, Charles presented a memorial to Louis on the state of his affairs. In this paper he drew the attention of the French king to Scotland, which he represented as on the eve of destruction; and he stated, that as the government appeared resolved to confound the innocent with the guilty, it was reasonable to conclude that the discontent of the nation would be general, and that if he was enabled to enter upon another enterprise the number of his adherents would be tripled. He also stated that he would be deceiving his most Christian majesty were he to say that he could again subdue Scotland after his friends had been destroyed, and that if the opportunity was then lost the king of France might for ever renounce any expected aid to his arms by a revolution in that country,--that he had always had numerous partisans in Scotland, though he had never had a sufficient supply either of money, provisions, or regular troops, and that if he had been well provided with only one of these three helps, he would still have been master of Scotland, and probably also of England,--that if he had had three thousand regular troops he would have penetrated into England immediately after the battle of Preston, and as George II. was then absent from the kingdom, and the English troops in Flanders, he could have marched to London without opposition,--that had he been supplied with provisions he could have pursued General Hawley after the battle of Falkirk, and destroyed all his army, which was the flower of the British troops. Finally, that if he had received two months earlier only the half of the money which his majesty had sent him, he would have fought the Duke of Cumberland on equal terms, and he would certainly have beaten him, since with four thousand men only he had kept victory in suspense, though opposed by an army of twelve thousand. Having thus stated the causes to which the failure of his expedition was owing, Charles proposed that Louis should furnish an army of eighteen or twenty thousand men, which he stated he would employ usefully for their mutual interests, which he considered inseparable.[1311]
Charles appears to have conducted himself, hitherto, with great moderation; but as no notice was taken of his demand for troops, he grew violent and imperious. The French ministry had, by order of Louis, granted a sum of sixty-two thousand nine hundred livres for the relief of such of Charles’s adherents as had arrived in France,[1312] and Louis himself now offered him a pension suitable to his rank; but he refused to accept it. James, who was fully informed of the circumstances of Charles’s behaviour, thus expostulates with him:--“The truth is, I dread your feeling severely one day the consequence of your present conduct towards the court of France; for although, on account of the obligations they owe you, they may, out of a certain prudence and policy dissemble for a time, yet by gaining the ill-will of those ministers, and by carrying things too high, you will sooner or later certainly feel the bad effects of it; whereas, had you received what the king of France lately offered you, it was still putting yourself in the possession of feeling the effects of his generosity, and you would have probably got much more in time in some shape or another.”[1313] Count D’Argenson also was very complaisant to Charles; but James cautioned him not to infer therefrom, that his conduct was approved of by that minister.
Waiting upwards of two months, and receiving no answer to his memorial, Charles addressed a letter to Louis on the 12th of January, in which, after alluding to the favours his majesty had granted to his companions in misfortune, which he regarded as a new proof of his majesty’s generosity towards his family, he stated that his object in coming to the court of France was to propose a plan of an expedition, which would be much more advantageous for both parties than the former;--that this object alone occupied all his thoughts, and that every other step which had been proposed to the king of France to promote his personal interests, had been done without his sanction. He concluded a longish letter, written in his usual loud style, by telling Louis that as he could not appear in the way in which he was persuaded his majesty wished in his own heart to see him, he would retire to some place where his present condition would be of less consequence, and where he would be always ready to concur with the king of France in such steps as might contribute to his glory, and the restoration of his family to their just rights, and he trusted his majesty would approve of his resolution. He added, that if, during his absence, the king of France should find it convenient to think seriously of another expedition, he would immediately return to the court on being informed of his majesty’s wish, and that, in the meantime, he would appoint a person at Paris who had his entire confidence to negotiate in his behalf with the king of France and his ministers.[1314]
As neither Louis nor his ministers had any intention of entering into Charles’s views, they must have been well pleased with his determination to retire from Paris, where his presence had become exceedingly annoying; but some of his adherents regarded such a step with different feelings, as they thought it would be highly injurious to his interests. Among those who took an active part in opposing this resolution, was young Lochiel. No man was more firmly bent upon another attempt than this high-minded chief, and instead of thinking with Charles, that no expedition should be undertaken without a large force, he was for accepting any succours that could be obtained. Some time after his arrival at Paris, he had opened a correspondence with the Chevalier de St. George, in which he represented to him that the misfortunes which had befallen his cause, though great, were not irretrievable, provided timely measures were adopted for checking the depopulating system which the English government seemed to have adopted. He stated that the ruin of the Scottish adherents of the exiled family would dispirit their friends in England so much, that a restoration would become extremely difficult, if not impracticable, and that, at best, it could only be effected by an army superior to all the forces of the government; whereas, if ten regiments only were landed in Scotland before the Highlands were depopulated, not the Highlanders merely, but all other Scotchmen of spirit would unite in their support, and give so much employment to the troops of the government, that the English Jacobites might, with little assistance, be in a condition to shake off the yoke. He, therefore, advised the Chevalier to accept of whatever succours might be offered. Acting upon principles of the purest disinterestedness, Lochiel was opposed to every proposal which might seem to imply an abandonment of the cause which he had espoused, and when informed by Charles that an application had been made to the French court for a regiment to Lord Ogilvy, he told him that he disapproved of it, as such an application might make the court of France regard the affairs of the exiled family to be more desperate than they really were, and might prevent them from granting a body of troops for a new expedition. Charles seemed to concur in this view; but Lord Ogilvy having obtained a regiment, Charles proposed to ask one for Lochiel also. He objected, however, to the application being made, and told his royal highness that Lord Ogilvy, or others, might incline to make a figure in France, but that his ambition was to serve his country, or perish with it. Charles remarked that he was doing every thing in his power to forward his cause, and persisting in his resolution to procure a regiment for his faithful friend, Lochiel consented to accept of it if obtained, from respect to the prince, though he declared his determination to share the fate of the people he had undone, and if they were to be sacrificed to the vengeance of the government, to fall along with them.[1315] Lochiel now endeavoured to persuade Charles to remain at Paris, and represented to him the bad consequences that might ensue to his affairs by retiring; but his resolution was fixed.
Charles had in fact resolved to pay a visit to the king of Spain, and his retirement to Avignon, whither he announced his intention to proceed, was a mere blind to conceal his design from the court of France. The Chevalier, desirous in the present posture of his affairs of paying his court to his Catholic majesty, had been, for some time, applying for permission to send his youngest son to Spain. He announced his intention to Charles, and stated that he considered it would be for his interest, that while one of his sons was in France, the other should be in Spain.[1316]
When James felt so uneasy in reference to Charles’s deportment towards the French ministry, as to write him repeated remonstrances on the subject, it may be supposed that he would have been gratified at his resolution to retire to Avignon, more particularly as the Chevalier’s agents at Paris, who had been discarded by Charles, would have probably regained the little influence they had with the French court; but James was equally disappointed with the prince’s friends at Paris at Charles’s determination. In a letter which he wrote to the prince in answer to one from the latter, dated the 21st of January, stating his intention to retire to Avignon, James stated the great concern which he felt, at a step of which he could not comprehend the meaning, and that nothing, in his opinion, could justify it but a resolution on the part of the king of France not to allow him to remain in that kingdom.
Charles left Paris for Avignon about the end of January, 1747. During his stay at Paris, he had evinced a laudable anxiety to mitigate the sufferings of his companions in misfortune by acts of kindness; but there was one among them who met with neither sympathy nor gratitude at his hands. This was Lord George Murray, who had sacrificed more for him than any other individual then living. Aware of this feeling of Charles towards him, Lord George did not visit Paris on his arrival in Holland in December; but, after some stay, proceeded to Rome to pay his respects to the Chevalier de St. George. Charles, however, appears to have expected him at Paris; and in the event of his arrival there during his absence, he left written instructions with his brother Henry, to do every thing in his power to get him arrested and committed to prison.[1317]
Shortly after Charles’s departure his brother, Henry, received a notification from his father, of his intention to send him to Spain. He immediately sent a copy of the Chevalier’s letter to Charles, and stated his regret at the prospect of being removed to such a distance from his brother; but instead of thanking him for this kind expression of his feelings, Charles returned him a very petulant answer. He informed him that, while in Scotland, he had formed a design of going to the court of Spain himself, and that he had left Paris with that intention,--that having resolved to make the journey, he had not asked leave from his father for fear of being refused,--and that he intended to go and return with all imaginable privacy. He entreated Henry, by all the ties of brotherly affection, and by the regard which he had for his success of the cause, not to start from Paris though he should get leave, until the result of Charles’s journey was known. He requested him to confide the secret of his journey to the king of France upon receipt of his next letter, and to represent to Louis that he had suddenly taken the resolution of making a journey to Spain after his arrival at Avignon. Henry, whose character was extremely mild and conciliating, stated, in reply, that he had communicated “the king’s letter” to him as soon as he had received it, and that his province in that, as in every thing else, was blind obedience; but he observed, that his father could not foresee Charles’s resolution, and that if his going to Spain would change the system Charles seemed to have proposed to himself, he would not make use of any leave he might obtain without receiving farther orders, which, he was convinced, would be to remain at Paris, whenever his father knew of Charles’s determination to proceed to Spain.
Accompanied by Kelly, Dr. Cameron, and two or three domestics, Charles left Avignon early in 1747, and repaired to Madrid; but his reception appears to have been cold and formal, and he did not even see the queen-dowager, whom he was particularly anxious to meet. Alluding to this visit, the Chevalier observes to Charles, “I am much more concerned than surprised you had not a better reception in Spain; but I am in hopes your going thither will be of no ill consequence, provided you manage your matters in a proper manner on your return to Paris.”[1318]
In a memoir which Charles presented to Caravajal on the 6th of March, to sound the intentions of the Spanish court, he requested to be informed, in the event of the king of France agreeing to fit out an expedition in his favour, what aid his Catholic majesty would contribute in its support. He required that 30,000 fusils and 10,000 sabres should be set apart for his use in a convenient place, in order that when occasion required he might obtain them at once in a quiet manner. That two or three small ships should be got ready as soon as possible, and loaded with grain, to be sent to Scotland under the charge of a gentleman he would send along with them. That the king of Spain should give him commissions for three Scotch regiments, which, when completed, should be formed into a brigade.[1319] In answer to these demands, Caravajal stated, that his master could spare no ships of war to assist in the expedition, as he had only seventeen in Europe, that some of these were disabled, and that the rest were employed in the Italian war; that as to arms, orders would be given to manufacture the required number; and that arrangements would be made for carrying his demand for a supply of grain into effect. Finally, that as to the proposal about the regiments, he believed his majesty would give his consent to it.
After remaining four or five days at Madrid, Charles retired to Guadalaxara till he should obtain a definitive answer on the subject of raising the regiments. His Catholic majesty at last consented, but stipulated that none but Scotchmen should be admitted into these regiments, a condition which, under existing circumstances, rendered their formation impracticable.[1320] Finding his journey thus in a manner unavailing, Charles returned to Paris, where he arrived on the 24th of March.
It is probable that Charles’s return to Paris was hastened by a remonstrance sent to him by Lochiel on the subject of his retirement to Avignon. This zealous chief represented to the prince that peace was the topic of general conversation, and as there existed a universal desire for it in France, there was reason to believe that George II. and his allies would obtain any terms they might ask in relation to Charles. He proposed,[1321] that if Charles could not obtain from France such an embarkation of troops as would enable him to land in England and overturn the government at one blow, he should endeavour to get an embarkation for Scotland, where the disposition of the people was still so favourable, that if he could return to the Highlands with artillery, arms, and ammunition, and only four or five battalions of foot, he believed he would not only relieve his distressed friends, and save the remainder of the country from ruin, but deliver all Scotland from the slavery to which he supposed it would soon be reduced.
Charles accordingly renewed his application to Louis and his ministers, but did not succeed in bringing “these people to reason,” as he himself expresses it, or in other words, prevailing on them to accede to his demand. Baffled again in his attempt to induce the French government to engage actively in his cause, Charles contemplated a matrimonial alliance with the czarina, with the view of engaging her in his interest; but his father, to whom he communicated his design, considered it impracticable, and Charles appears to have immediately dropt it.
Notwithstanding the untoward appearance of his affairs, Charles was by no means discouraged; but the promotion of his brother to the cardinalate, which took place about three months after his return from Spain, damped his spirits. Henry had every reason to be dissatisfied with Charles’s conduct towards himself personally; but he made no complaints, and it was only owing to the peevish way in which Charles alluded to him in his letters to his father that James became apprised of his dislike to his brother.[1322] Being of a pious disposition, Henry became desirous of embracing the ecclesiastical state, and resolved to repair to Italy to consult his father upon the subject. As he knew that Charles would object to his departure from Paris, and might possibly take measures to prevent it, he went off without informing him. Charles complained to his father of Henry’s leaving Paris without acquainting him; but whilst James admitted that it was certainly not according to rule that Henry should have gone away without taking leave of Charles in person, he said he could not blame him for it under existing circumstances.
The first notice which Charles received of the intended promotion of his brother was by a letter from his father, dated from Albano on the 13th of June, 1747.[1323] Charles was both grieved and enraged when he received this intelligence, and shut himself up for several hours to give vent to his sorrow or vexation. Hitherto Charles had drunk the health of his father and brother every day at dinner, but he now discontinued that of Henry, and forbade every person about him ever to mention his name in his presence.[1324] The friends of the family regretted exceedingly this step on the part of Henry, which they considered a very imprudent one, so far as the expected restoration of the Stuarts was concerned, as it narrowed their prospects of success; but neither Henry nor James had any ambition for a crown, and the latter intended, if the succession opened, never to assume the diadem.[1325] Both the pope and James notified to the king of France the design of presenting Henry with a cardinal’s hat, and Louis in return signified his approbation of the step.
Among other subjects of uneasiness which pressed heavily upon Charles at this time, was the state of his pecuniary concerns. He still resolutely refused to receive any pension from the French court, and it was perhaps owing to this refusal that the French ministry showed no disposition to pay the allowances which had been granted to his adherents. To relieve the prince’s immediate necessities, his father had sent him an order on Waters, his banker at Paris, for fifteen thousand livres, significantly observing, however, that as Charles had refused the pension which Louis had offered, the Chevalier presumed that he had some other resource to supply his wants. James, however, had taken care that the obstinacy of his son should not stand in the way of Louis’s bounty, and he accordingly directed O’Brien his agent to draw the pension which Charles had refused, to apply the third part thereof for the use of his son, Henry, whilst in France, and to lay out the other two-thirds in the way he should be afterwards directed.[1326] Mr. John Grahame,[1327] in a letter to the Chevalier de St. George, represents the prince as having no visible means of subsistence, and that he could compare his “situation to nothing better than an immense labyrinth, out of which he had not a bit of thread to conduct him.” Charles was too proud to ask his father for aid; but the latter, on hearing of his difficulties, ordered O’Brien to pay forty thousand livres into O’Sullivan’s hands on his account, out of the sum he had drawn on account of Charles’s pension. The prince, however, consistently declined the money, knowing the source whence it came.
In the circumstances in which he was thus placed by his own obstinacy, Charles, who never displayed much generosity towards those who had offended him, was not in the best possible mood to exercise the virtue of forgiveness. His father had repeatedly written him in relation to his threatened seizure of Lord George Murray, and had strongly inculcated the propriety of forgiving a man who had suffered so much in his cause; but Charles disregarded these paternal admonitions. Lord George was very desirous to effect a reconciliation, by making every reasonable submission that could be required of him, and for this purpose left Rome for Paris, where he arrived on the 10th of July. Charles was then living at St. Ouen, in the neighbourhood of Paris, and Lord George having, the day after his arrival, ascertained the place of his residence, intended to proceed thither early on the 12th, to pay his respects to the prince. His lordship was, however, prevented from carrying his intention into effect, by a message from Charles, who, hearing of his arrival in Paris, sent Mr. Stafford, one of his household, to Lord George, to inform him that it was the prince’s wish that he should not appear at St. Ouen, but that he would do well to leave Paris as soon as he could. Lord George requested Stafford to acquaint the prince that he had come to France with no other design but to pay his respects to him, and that he would punctually obey his orders by leaving France.
Notwithstanding frequent disputes with the French ministers, Charles always endeavoured to keep on good terms with their master; and when he defeated the confederates at Laffeldt, he wrote a letter expressive of the great joy he felt on the occasion. As every victory gained over the allies appeared favourable to his cause, he cannot be well blamed for entertaining such a feeling; but the existence of this document subverts the idea generally entertained, that Charles never expressed any satisfaction at the conquests of the French in Flanders. He was no doubt solicitous that Great Britain should maintain her honour in the field and on the ocean; but his patriotism was not so disinterested as to make him prefer that honour to the crown for which he was contending. It was not until he saw that he could no longer depend upon France for aid that his patriotism was roused.
Much as Charles trusted to his personal powers for negotiation, he soon found that it was no easy matter to bring the ministers of Louis “to reason;” and that, to be successful, it was necessary to obtain the aid of some experienced politician. He accordingly looked about him for one in whom he could repose his confidence, and fixed upon Lord Marischal as the person most likely to answer his wishes. To this nobleman, who was then living at Treviso, Charles despatched a letter in the month of August, in which he stated that his father had left him entire master, to employ such persons as were most agreeable to him, and that he might easily believe his first choice would light upon him. He informed him that his desire was that his lordship should join him with all convenient speed, and that he had too good an opinion of his loyalty and regard for his bleeding country to make him have the least doubt of his compliance, especially since all the causes of discontent which his lordship might heretofore have had, were now quite removed. Highly complimentary as this letter was, Lord Marischal declined the honour intended him. He stated that he had not retired from public life till he saw how useless his services were, and must have been had they been continued; and that the broken state of his health required that he should pass the rest of his days in quiet.[1328]
Disappointed in his advances to Lord Marischal, Charles gave himself up entirely to the direction of George Kelly, his secretary, who, it is alleged, was personally obnoxious to the French court. To counteract the rising power of this new favourite, the pernicious influence of whose counsels some of the adherents of the exiled family were already beginning to feel, Sempil, one of the Chevalier’s agents at Paris, by desire of Lochiel and Drummond of Bochaldy, drew up and forwarded a representation to James in the month of June 1747. The Chevalier, who was not a bad judge of mankind, foreseeing the bad consequences that would follow if Kelly was allowed to guide the councils of the prince, had cautioned Charles against his interference shortly after his return from Scotland; but the prince attributed his father’s dislike to Kelly to the misrepresentations of his enemies. In a letter, alluding to some complaints made by Charles against his brother, James observes, “What you now write to me is manifestly the product of Kelly’s malice ... as long as you are directed or influenced by him, depend upon it nothing will go well with you, and you will never have a moment’s quiet yourself.”[1329]
These admonitions, which were repeated after Drummond’s communication, were, however, thrown away upon Charles, who clung to his secretary with as great pertinacity as ever. This predilection for Kelly, if the statement of Sempil is to be credited, ruined the prince’s negotiations with the French ministry, who, according to him, would have entertained a proposal made by the Marquis de Puyzieux, of embarking a force for Scotland on the dissolution of the British parliament; but the design was given up, because the persons in whom Charles seemed to repose his confidence were obnoxious to the French court, and were considered unworthy of trust.[1330]
Whilst the French government evaded Charles’s demand for a supply of troops, it acceded in other respects to his wishes. A regiment was given to Lochiel,[1331] the arrears of the gratuities granted to the Scotch exiles were paid up, and a fixed allowance of thirty-six thousand livres per annum was granted to them, the appropriation of which was left entirely to the prince. Having thus provided for his friends, the French ministry thought that Charles’s repugnance to a pension might be overcome; and accordingly M. de Lally, who was directed to communicate to him the largess granted to his adherents, was also appointed to sound him on the subject of an allowance to himself. Charles, writing to M. de Puyzieux, observed, that he would accept with pleasure even the smallest favour his majesty was disposed to grant; but he begged that nothing should be given him in name of a pension, and that he should be permitted to deny to his English friends, even face to face, that he was in the receipt of it.[1332] It thus appears that Charles’s objection to a pension did not proceed from any disinclination to receive the money, but from an apprehension that the circumstance of his becoming a pensioner of France would injure him with his English friends. It is not known whether the French government acted upon Charles’s suggestion.
It was the policy of the French court, whilst the war lasted, to keep up appearances with the exiled family, so as to encourage the belief that it really intended to aid in its restoration. This notion was strengthened by the appointment of Lord Ogilvy and Lochiel to the command of regiments; and the fears of an invasion after Charles’s return to France are said to have delayed for a time the embarkation of the British troops for Flanders. This system of intimidation would in all probability have been persevered in had not France become tired of a war which had exhausted her treasury, destroyed her commerce, and almost annihilated her navy. The confederates were equally weary of a war in which they had reaped neither honour nor advantage, and they therefore gladly availed themselves of an offer of pacification made by France. The belligerent powers accordingly agreed to hold a congress, which was opened at Aix-la-Chapelle in March 1748.
Charles now saw that all hope of an immediate restoration was at an end, and must have perceived, from the strong desire which existed in France for peace, and the low state to which that kingdom was reduced by the war, that his interests would form no bar in the way of a general pacification.
The first public step which Charles took to mark his displeasure with the conduct of the French government, in suing for a peace, was of a very decided character. When the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle was about to assemble, he gave instructions to the Sieur Roettier to strike a medal with his head, and the inscription, “Carolus Walliæ Princeps” (Charles Prince of Wales); and on the reverse the figure Britannia and a fleet of war-vessels, with the significant motto, “Amor et Spes Britanniæ” (The Love and Hope of Britain).
When the medal appeared it created a great sensation in France, and many of the French nobility were deeply offended at the device and motto, which they regarded as an insult offered to the nation. The prince of Conti, in particular, who was accounted one of the proudest men in all France, showed his chagrin on the occasion. Meeting Charles one day in the Luxembourg Gardens, Conti observed to Charles, with an air of pleasantry, under which a sneer was observed to lurk, that the device of his medal was not just so applicable as some persons might at first suppose, as the British navy had not shown any particular friendship for him. Charles, who at once perceived the censure, immediately replied, “That is true, Prince! but I am, nevertheless, the friend of the navy against all its enemies; as I shall always look upon the glory of England as my own, and her glory is in her navy.” About the time the medal was struck Charles sat for his portrait to Tocqué, the eminent painter, which was immediately engraved by Wille, the celebrated engraver, with the title “Carolus Walliæ Princeps.”
On the 30th of April, the preliminaries of a general peace were signed by the ministers of Great Britain, France, and the United Provinces, the basis of which was a general restitution of the conquests which had been made during the war. A suspension of arms almost immediately followed the signing of the preliminaries. Charles was not aware that the preliminaries had been signed till some time after the suspension of arms, and he consoled himself with the vain hope that peace was not so near at hand as was generally supposed.[1333]
During the negotiations Charles still went to court, though not so frequently as before, and always endeavoured to avoid any personal interviews with the king; but when informed of the signing of the preliminaries, he gave up his visits entirely. His father, and the adherents of his family, expected that he would no longer remain in a kingdom which was now again to sacrifice the interests of his house; but instead of evincing any disposition to depart, he gave a decided indication of fixing himself in Paris, by hiring a splendid hotel upon the Quai de Theatin for himself and his principal friends, in order, as he said, to be near the opera, play-house, and the other places of public diversion in Paris. To show how little he regarded the proceedings at Aix-la-Chapelle, he appeared much gayer than usual, and when any person alluded, in his presence, to the congress, he seemed not to regard the matter, and waived the subject by singing or introducing some different topic of conversation.
To show, however, that he was not indifferent to his rights, Charles drew up a protest against any stipulation which might be entered into by the contracting parties, contrary to these rights, of which he sent a copy to the king of France, enclosed in a letter from himself. The Chevalier de St George, in ignorance of Charles’s protest, also published one in his own name, agreeably to a practice which he and his father, king James II., had followed, whenever any treaty with Great Britain was entered into.
After the preliminaries were signed, Louis took an early opportunity of intimating to Charles that he had renewed the engagements which he and his grandfather had formerly come under to the British government, in relation to the House of Stuart; but Charles, in his protest, entirely overlooked the stipulation which regarded his intended expulsion from the French territories. Louis probably expected that this hint would have been sufficient to induce Charles to quit France, but, as he indicated no intention to remove, the Marquis de Puyzieux, by desire of the king, sent a requisition in writing, to which he demanded an answer. Charles returned an evasive answer to M. de Puyzieux’s note the same day.
After this answer, matters appear to have remained in statu quo till October, on the 7th of which month the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was finally concluded and signed. By this treaty the contracting parties agreed, without any limitation, to a literal insertion of the fifth article of the quadruple alliance, by which it was stipulated that neither the “Pretender,” nor any of his descendants, should be allowed to reside within the territories belonging to any of the parties to the treaty. Meanwhile Louis was looking out for a suitable asylum for Charles Edward. Knowing that the prince had declared that he would never return to Italy, he directed M. de Courteille, his envoy to the Cantons of Switzerland, to ask a residence for Charles in the city of Fribourg. The regency complied with the request, but Mr. Barnaby, the British minister to the Helvetic body, violently opposed the plan, and presented a remonstrance to the magistracy of Fribourg, couched in such terms as to draw upon him the censure of the regency.
The next person selected by Louis to act as negotiator with Charles was the Cardinal de Tencin, who was supposed to have some influence with him. The cardinal delivered the message with which he had been intrusted in the most delicate manner, and endeavoured to convince Charles, by a variety of arguments, of the regret the king felt at having been obliged to accede to the objectionable articles of the treaty. To reconcile Charles to the measure, the cardinal, it is said, hinted that the treaty might possibly be of short endurance, and that the prince might afterwards return to France with brighter prospects, but the cardinal left Charles without obtaining any satisfaction. Desirous of avoiding extremities, the king waited about two weeks in expectation that Charles would depart; but being informed that he made no preparations for his departure, he sent the Duke de Gesvres, the governor of Paris, with a message similar to that delivered by the cardinal. The duke, however, got as little satisfaction as the cardinal, and on a second interview, the prince absolutely refused to quit the country, and told the duke that there was a treaty prior to that of Aix-la-Chapelle between him and the king, from which he could not depart with honour.
The British ministry had for some time been urging the French court to fulfil that part of the treaty which related to the expulsion of the prince from the French territories; and the hostages[1334] complained that his being permitted to appear at all public places of amusement was as an insult to their sovereign, and an infringement of the treaty. Louis, therefore, sent the Duke de Gesvres a third time to expostulate with Charles on the 6th of November; but Charles again evaded a direct answer to the duke’s demand to quit France. Charles afterwards sent him an explicit answer in writing, in which he stated that it was with much regret he found himself compelled in defence of his own interests to oppose the intentions of the king on this occasion, and that he had already apprised his majesty of his design by a letter which he had written to M. de Puyzieux as far back as the 20th of August. He requested the duke to assure his majesty in the strongest terms that he would retain towards him during his life all the sentiments of respect and attachment which he had formerly expressed.[1335]
Louis was much annoyed at Charles’s obstinacy, as he felt great repugnance to push matters to extremities with a prince who could plead in his own justification a violation of a solemn contract which the king of France had entered into with him three years before. As he had, however, contracted with Charles merely in his character of prince regent, it appears to have occurred to Louis that he would save his honour if he obtained an order from the Chevalier de St George, requiring Charles to leave his dominions before having recourse to physical force. He therefore despatched a courier to Rome with a letter to the Chevalier, giving an account of the prince’s conduct, and requesting James to interpose his parental authority to induce Charles to leave his dominions. That James might be fully assured of the prince’s determination to remain in France contrary to his wishes, Louis also sent him Charles’s letter to the Duke de Gesvres.
The messenger returned to Paris early in December with a letter from James to the king of France, inclosing another to Charles, which, after perusing, he was requested to despatch to the prince. After complaining of Charles’s conduct towards himself, James told him that he saw him on the brink of a precipice, and that he would act the part of an unnatural parent if he did not do everything that depended upon him to save him from falling, and that he therefore found himself obliged to order him as his father and king to conform himself without delay to the wishes of the French king, by leaving his dominions with a good grace.
This letter Louis sent by the Duke de Gesvres to Charles, the duke at the same time carrying a letter from Louis, which is said to have contained a blank order to be filled up by the prince himself for a yearly allowance. Charles told the duke that he wanted no pecuniary favours from his majesty, and that it was not consistent with honour to comply with his demand to leave the French territories. The duke urging Charles to reconsider his resolution, the latter grew impatient, and told him that he would in future decline receiving any communications from any person but the king himself. The duke told him the thing was impossible, unless indeed he expected, what he could scarcely suppose he did, that his majesty was to come to the Quai de Theatin in person. “In short, then, sir,” said Charles, “I have nothing farther to say than what I have said already,--pardon me, I have some business.” With these words Charles left the room, leaving the duke in amazement.
Long before the French public were aware of the intentions of their government in relation to the prince, the fame of his exploits, in connection with the fact of his being a descendant of Henri Quatre, had endeared him to the French nation; but when they found that he was to be sacrificed by their sovereign to state necessity, their admiration for his person was heightened into enthusiasm, and they looked upon the approaching struggle between Louis and his kinsman with feelings of the deepest interest. Every person was desirous to see a prince who had the courage to brave the grand monarch in his own capital, and whenever Charles appeared upon the public walks, he was followed by the assembled multitudes. When he entered the theatre, all eyes were directed towards him, and the performance was allowed to pass off unheeded by the audience. Charles alone seemed to make light of his misfortunes, and evinced the gaiety of his spirits by talking in an easy, cheerful, and affable manner to the young noblemen, by whom, on these occasions, he was always surrounded.[1336]
After trying every possible means to induce Charles to quit the French territory without effect, the ministry pressed the king to arrest him, and send him by force out of the kingdom. Louis was naturally averse to such a strong proceeding; but as he saw he could not fulfil the stipulation of the treaty regarding the exiled family in any other way, he reluctantly signed an order for his arrest. When putting his name to the warrant, he felt the extreme delicacy of the act, and pathetically exclaimed, “Poor prince! how difficult it is for a king to be a true friend!” This order, which was signed at three o’clock in the afternoon, was blazed all over Paris before evening. One of the prince’s retinue, who heard the intelligence, brought it to him; but Charles would not believe it. “Pish! pish!” he exclaimed, “an idle romance; they know I will obey my father.” Though no official notice was sent to Charles of the order, yet it is understood that means were taken to apprise him of his situation; and on the morning of the 10th of December, while walking in the Tuilleries, he was informed by a person of distinction that he would certainly be seized that very day if he did not prevent it by an immediate departure; but, instead of taking the hint thus kindly given him, he seemed to treat the intelligence as chimerical, and turning to one of his followers, gave directions that a box should be hired for him that night at the opera-house.
To carry the warrant into effect, no less than 1200 of the guards were in the course of the day drawn out, and posted in the court of the Palais Royal; a great number of sergeants and grenadiers, in cuirasses and helmets, filled the passages of the opera-house; and the police were placed in all the streets leading to it, to stop any carriages that might attempt to pass. Six intrepid sergeants of the grenadiers were ordered to seize the prince. Two companies of grenadiers took post in the court-yard of the kitchens, where the Duc de Biron, colonel of the French guards, disguised, waited in a coach to see the issue of the enterprise. The Mousquetaires, a body of French horse-guards, had orders to be ready to mount on horseback; troops were posted upon the road from the Palais Royal to Vincennes; hatchets and scaling ladders were prepared, and locksmiths directed to attend, in order to take the prince by escalade, in case he should throw himself into some house, and there attempt to stand out a siege. A physician named Vernage, and three surgeons, were also ordered to be in readiness to dress such of the troops as might be wounded. These extensive preparations can only be accounted for on the supposition that the government was apprehensive that an attempt would be made by the Parisians to rescue the prince.
Charles received several notes during the day, giving him notice of the measures taken for securing him; but he resolved to brave the danger. He accordingly left his hotel in his carriage, accompanied by three gentlemen of his household, at a quarter after five o’clock, for the opera-house, and, in passing through the street St Honoré, was warned by a friendly voice not to proceed, as the opera-house was beset. He proceeded onwards, however, and on entering the cul-de-sac, leading to the opera-house, the barriers were drawn, and the doors of the opera-house shut. On alighting from his coach, he was instantly surrounded by the six sergeants, disguised as tradesmen, who seized his person, and, lifting him off the ground, carried him through the porte cochère, at the end of the passage which led into the court-yard of the Palais Royal. M. de Vaudreuil, major of the blue guards, who, with some officers, had remained behind the gate, then approached his Royal Highness, and said, “Monseigneur, I arrest you in the name of the king, my master.” Charles, without betraying any emotion, answered that the manner was a little too violent. The sergeants, thereupon, carried him into a room on the ground floor of the palace, possessed by a surgeon of the Duke of Orlean’s household. The major demanding his arms, Charles presented his sword, but suspecting that he had other weapons about him, the sergeants, by De Vaudreuil’s order, searched his person, and found a pair of pocket pistols and a penknife, of which they took possession. Charles remarked that he had carried a pair of pistols about with him ever since he returned from Scotland. The major had provided himself with thirty-six ells of black silk ribbon[1337] with which to tie the prince, and on hearing him give directions to that effect, Charles offered his parole that he would hurt neither himself nor any other person, and added that he thought so many persons were quite sufficient to guard one unarmed man without resorting to such a step. The major consulted the Duke de Biron, who ordered that the prince should be bound. Charles was accordingly tied in five different places. In this situation he was put into a hired coach, attended by the major and two captains of the blue guards, and was driven, under a strong guard, to the castle of Vincennes, into which he was received by his friend M. de Chatelet, the governor, who placed him in a small upper apartment in the Tower, and treated him as well as his duty permitted him. The only person who remained with him in his confinement was Neil Mac Eachan, who had attended him in his perilous journey from Uist to Skye. Charles had borne the indignity offered him with great composure, the disgrace attending which, he told M. de Vaudreuil, could only affect his master; but after he found himself shut up in the castle, his feelings were overcome, and he is said to have clasped his hands together and to have burst into tears. “Ah! my faithful mountaineers,” he pathetically exclaimed, “from you I never would have received such treatment. Would to God I were still among you!” Meanwhile the three gentlemen who had attended Charles to the opera were also seized, and five others, who were by chance at his house, and all his servants were sent to the Bastile; his hotel was taken possession of by the lieutenant of police.[1338] Next day all the prince’s French servants were released.
The arrest of the prince created an extraordinary sensation in Paris; and next morning all the public places of the city were covered with pasquinades, which had been put up during the night, reflecting, in very severe terms, upon the conduct of the king and his ministers for their treatment of the prince. One of these was in the form of an order from King George, directed to Louis of Bourbon, as his viceroy, commanding and requiring him to seize, and, if necessary, to tie the person of Charles Edward Stuart, and to conduct him out of the kingdom of France; and that, if Louis should continue to please his master as he had hitherto done, he should be continued, by the king of England, in the viceroyalty of his kingdom of France. These placards were exceedingly annoying to the French court, and were torn down by the police with as great expedition as possible.
Charles was kept in confinement till the 14th December, on which day, in consequence of a correspondence which had passed between him and the king on that and the previous day, he was allowed to walk a few hours in the gardens. Having tendered his parole to leave the French territories without guards, Charles was released at seven o’clock, in the morning of Sunday the 15th, and departed for Fontainebleau, in a coach, under the charge of a commandant of musketeers. Messrs. Stafford and Sheridan, two gentlemen of his household, who had been set at liberty, followed him in two post-chaises. The remainder of Charles’s domestics were released a few days afterwards. On reaching Fontainebleau, Charles despatched a facetious note to a M. de Boile at Paris, requesting him to inform his friends that he carried himself well, that his head had never been off his shoulders, and that it was still upon them. From Fontainebleau Charles proceeded, by easy stages, to Avignon, where he arrived on the morning of the 27th of December, disguised in the uniform of a French officer of musketeers. He had received a letter from his father on the road, and four days after his arrival he despatched an answer acquainting him that he was “in perfect good health, notwithstanding the unheard-of barbarous and inhuman treatment” he had met with.[1339]
FOOTNOTES:
[1303] It is to be attended to, that in alluding to Charles’s proceedings on the continent the New Style is followed.
[1304] Letter among the Stuart Papers.
[1305] Letter from O’Bryen to the Chevalier, 17th October, 1746, in the Stuart Papers.
[1306] Letter from the Chevalier to Charles, 6th January, 1747.--Stuart Papers.
[1307] Authentic Account. The writer of this account, who states that he obtained his information from an eye-witness, says that when Charles arrived at Paris he could not be prevailed upon to take any refreshment, but instantly proceeded to Versailles, to see the king, and that though Louis was at that time engaged in council on some affairs of importance, he immediately quitted it to receive him. He then relates the interview as above stated, and says that Charles was afterwards publicly received at Fontainebleau in the character of the Prince Regent of England, Scotland, and Ireland. It is certain, however, that the first time that Charles met Louis after his return to France was at Fontainebleau, and it is equally certain that he was never recognised at court as a British prince.
[1308] Both these letters will be found among the Stuart Papers.
[1309] Letter from O’Brien to the Chevalier de St. George, 31st October, 1746, among the Stuart Papers.
[1310] Of the unlimited confidence which these two favourites enjoyed with Charles the Stuart Papers afford abundant proofs. Sheridan in fact directed every thing when Charles was in Scotland, and it was solely owing to his aversion to a hill campaign,--the fatigue of which he said he could not endure,--that Lord George Murray could not prevail upon Charles to desist from engaging the Duke of Cumberland at Culloden; yet so great was the ascendency which Sir Thomas had acquired over the mind of Charles, that the ruinous result which ensued did not in the least weaken it. Edgar announced Sheridan’s death to Charles in a letter dated 2d December, 1746, and sent along with it all the papers found in Sir Thomas’s repositories having relation to the Prince or his affairs, among which was a sketch of a dying speech which Sir Thomas had prepared in case he had been taken and executed. Dr. King insinuates, from the ignorance of Charles, that Sheridan was in the pay of the English government; but it would be doing injustice to the memory of the favourite to believe him guilty of such baseness without direct proofs of his criminality. The Doctor’s words are: “His (Charles’s) governor was a protestant, and I am apt to believe purposely neglected his education, of which, it is surmised, he made a merit to the English ministry; for he was always supposed to be their pensioner. The Chevalier Ramsay, the author of Cyrus, was Prince Charles’s preceptor for about a year; but a court faction removed him.” The illiterateness of Charles is very perceptible in his ignorance of the orthography of French and English. Both in style and orthography they contrast most unfavourably with those of his father, whose epistolary correspondence cannot fail to give the reader a favourable idea of his literary acquirements. Though James appears to have had a good opinion of Sir Thomas, yet after his death he complained bitterly to Charles, in a long and very interesting letter, (that of 3d February, 1747, in the Stuart Papers,) of the conduct of the favourite, and in general of the other persons who obtained the Prince’s confidence. It was James’s deliberate conviction that their object was to corrupt Charles, by withdrawing him from his “duty to God in the first place, and to him in the second!” The sequel of Charles’s unfortunate history seems to confirm this opinion. A most unfavourable sketch of the character of Kelly, the new favourite, is given by Father Myles Macdonell, his own relative, for which see the Father’s letter to the Chevalier de St. George, 4th May, 1747, in the Stuart Papers.
[1311] There are two copies of this memoir among the Stuart Papers. One of them written in the first person, and holograph of the prince, is titled, “Memoir to ye F. K. from me of 10th Nov. 1746.” The other is titled, “Ancien Project de Memoire,” and is written in the third person.
[1312] Statements showing the division of this money, will be found in the Stuart Papers.
[1313] Letter from the Chevalier to Charles, 6th January, 1747.--Stuart Papers.
[1314] Letter from Charles to Louis, 12th January, 1747, in the Stuart Papers. Sir James Stewart appears to have been the person Charles intended to appoint, as there is a draught of a commission in his hand-writing among these papers, bearing the date of 29th December, 1746.
[1315] Letter from Lochiel to the Chevalier de St. George, of 16th January, 1747, among the Stuart Papers.
[1316] Letter from the Chevalier to Prince Charles, 13th January, 1747.
[1317] This circumstance, so disgraceful to the memory of Charles, is mentioned in a letter from Prince Henry to his father, dated Paris, 30th January, 1747, under the signature of John Paterson, a name sometimes assumed by Henry, when corresponding in cipher. The original letter is among the Stuart Papers.
Lord George’s arrival at Rome was announced to Charles by the Chevalier, in a letter dated 21st March, 1747. The following extract places James’s character in a very favourable point of view: “I must tell you that I was much surprised t’other day at the arrival of Lord George Murray in this place. After having absconded many months in Scotland, he found means to come to Holland, and from thence by Venice here. By what Bramston, (the corresponding name of O’Sullivan,) says, I am sorry to find that you have not been pleased with him, but tho’ I questioned Bramston much about him, yet I own I don’t see any motive to suspect his fidelity and loyalty. People may have an odd, and even a wrong way of thinking, and may even fail in something towards ourselves, but may be men of honour and honesty with all that; so that considering his birth, and the figure he made in your service, and that you had never writ to me about him yourself, I thought it would be very wrong in me not to receive him with all kindness, and even distinction. I don’t know how long he will stay here, or how he proposes to dispose of himself, but I understand he has a mind to bring over his lady, and to live privately with her in some retired place. He is publicly here, for he has no measures to keep; and I must do him the justice to say that he never speaks of you but with great respect, and even eloge.” See also the letters among the Stuart Papers from the Chevalier to Charles of 25th April, and 2d and 9th May, 1747, copied also from the original copies in the same collection. All of them, as far as they relate to Lord George, will be read with pleasure, but particularly the first.
[1318] Letters among Stuart Papers.
[1319] Vide Memoir, among the Stuart Papers.
[1320] Stuart Papers.
[1321] Letter from Lochiel to Charles, 23d February, 1747, among the Stuart Papers.
[1322] See the Chevalier’s repeated remonstrances on this subject in his letters to Charles.
[1323] Stuart Papers.
[1324] Father Macdonell’s letter to the Chevalier of 15th July, 1747, among the Stuart Papers.
[1325] Letter from James to Charles, 13th January, 1747. See also two extremely interesting letters of 3d April, 1747, and 28th January, 1748, which also throw considerable light on the domestic differences which existed between Charles and his father.--Stuart Papers.
[1326] Letter from James to Charles, 17th February, 1747, among Stuart Papers.
[1327] This gentleman had been long in the service of the Chevalier de St. George. His father acted as solicitor in Scotland to James II. He was knighted by the Chevalier, and acted for a considerable time as his secretary of state. He was with Prince Henry at Paris, and on his departure for Rome entered Charles’s household. He afterwards became a Roman Catholic. He went to Rome in 1759, at the desire of the Chevalier to act as his Secretary.
[1328] Vide Charles’s letter, and the answer, among the Stuart Papers.
[1329] Letter of 10th February, 1747.
[1330] Vide the two papers presented by Sempil to the Chevalier de St. George in February 1748, among the Stuart Papers.
[1331] Charles wished his father, on Lochiel’s appointment, to present the chief with a patent of peerage, which, with other patents, had been made out but kept latent. This James declined, as he thought that, by declaring Lochiel’s patent, he would disgust many deserving people, and particularly the other Highland chiefs. He very properly observed that Lochiel’s interest and reputation in his own country, and his being at the head of a regiment in France, would give him more consideration there than any empty title he could bestow.--Letter from James to Charles, 7th November, 1747, among Stuart Papers.
[1332] Letter to M. de Puyzieux, among the Stuart Papers.
[1333] Letter, Charles to his father, 13th May, 1748, Stuart Papers.
[1334] The Earl of Essex and Lord Cathcart, hostages sent to France until the restitution by Great Britain of Cape Breton.
[1335] Letter,--Charles to the Duke de Gesvres, among the Stuart Papers.
[1336] Authentic Account, p. 51.
[1337] Another account (G. Charles’s Transactions in Scotland) says that the material for binding was ten ells of crimson silk cord. This looks far more probable; if the major wished to make the binding of the prince effectual, “silk ribbon” would have been ridiculous. Still the anonymous letter referred to below is so circumstantial as to call it “a black ribbon, three fingers broad, and thirty-six ells long.”
[1338] Authentic Account, p. 63. Anonymous letter to Dr. Meighan, among Stuart Papers.
[1339] Stuart Papers.
XL. A.D. 1748 TO PRESENT TIME
BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:--
George II., 1727-1760. George III., 1760-1820. George IV., 1820-1830. William IV., 1830-1837. Victoria, 1837--
Departure of Prince Charles from Avignon incognito--Visits London--Proposed marriage with a Princess of Hesse-Darmstadt--Charles’s reported change of religion--Arrest and execution of Doctor Cameron--Negotiations between Charles and his Jacobite friends in England--Result--Negotiations resumed, and finally broken off--Death of the Chevalier--Marriage of Charles--His death--Character--Death of Cardinal York--Descendants of the Stuarts--“Charles Edward and John Sobieski Stuart.”
The city of Avignon, in Provence, which Charles selected for his place of abode, did not at this time form a part of the French dominions, but belonged to the pope. On the death of George I. the Chevalier de St. George had taken up his residence in this city, that he might the better be enabled to correspond with his friends in England; but he was soon obliged to retire across the Alps, in consequence, it is understood, of an application from the British government to the court of Rome. To expel the Stuarts from the French territories, whilst, by a sort of geographical subtlety, they were allowed to reside almost in the heart of France, was certainly an absurdity; and had Charles remained for any length of time at Avignon, it is probable that, as in the case of his father, he would soon have been forced to look out for another asylum; but, to the astonishment of all Europe, he left Avignon incognito, after a residence of about two months, and went whither nobody could tell.
Attended only by Colonel Goring, and one or two unliveried servants, Charles left Avignon in a travelling chaise, and proceeded on the road to Lyons. The prince and Goring passed for French officers, who, on the conclusion of the peace, had obtained leave to visit their friends--Charles taking the name of the Count D’Espoir.[1340] What his motives were for taking this step have not been ascertained; but it is probable that one of his objects was an interview with the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, with whose daughter, the Princess Charlotte Louisa, he contemplated a matrimonial alliance.
After passing through Lyons, Charles hired another chaise, and proceeded to Strasbourg. From Strasbourg it is supposed that Charles went to Paris, as it is quite certain that, in the month of May, he visited that capital.
Of Charles’s wanderings, during the several years that he continued to roam on the continent, no satisfactory account has yet appeared; but recent researches have thrown some light on this obscure part of his history. It has been long known that during this period he visited Germany, spent some time privately in Paris, but resided chiefly in the dominions of his friend the Duc de Bouillon, where, surrounded by the wide and solitary forest of Ardennes, his active spirit sought, in the dangerous chase of wolves and bears, some compensation for the military enterprise from which he was excluded.[1341] Secretary Edgar, who corresponded frequently with “the dear wild man,” as he jocularly styled Charles, considered the prince’s incognito as one of the most extraordinary circumstances that had ever occurred, so great was the secrecy with which it was for several years preserved.
After his departure from Paris, the first trace that can be discovered of him is in September 1750, when he visited London.[1342] His object in coming over appears to have been to establish a regular correspondence with his friends in England, to ascertain the probability of a rising in his favour, and to fix with them upon a proper place for landing arms, &c. Before his departure he applied to his father for a renewal of his powers as regent, which James reluctantly granted.[1343] If he found matters in a favourable train, he intended to issue a declaration in which he was to offer to refer the funds to a free parliament; and to encourage the army to join him, he was to show the nullity of the oaths they had taken to the “Elector.”[1344] Charles arrived in London in the month of September, and went immediately to the house of Lady Primrose. Her ladyship sent a note to Dr. King, a zealous Jacobite, desiring to see him immediately. On the doctor’s entering the house, Lady Primrose led him into her dressing-room, and presented him to the prince. Dr. King was surprised at seeing him, and still more astonished when informed of the motives which had induced him to hazard a journey to England at such a juncture. According to Dr. King, whose statement is fully supported by documents among the Stuart Papers, the impatience of the prince’s friends who were in exile had formed a scheme which was impracticable; but although it had been as feasible as they had represented it to him, yet no preparation had been made to carry it into execution. Charles was soon convinced that he had been deceived, and after a stay in London of only five days, returned to the continent.[1345]
As Charles studiously concealed from his father all his designs and movements, the latter was entirely ignorant of his contemplated marriage with the daughter of the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt. The Chevalier had suggested, in 1747, a marriage with one of the Duke of Modena’s daughters, from which family his mother had sprung; but Charles appears not to have relished the proposed match. He now urged upon him the necessity of marrying, so as to secure the succession of the family; for he could not think the prince so selfish as to consider himself only in all he did and suffered.
Though he could not but feel disappointed at the result of his journey to England, Charles did not despond, and he now resolved to sound the dispositions of the courts of Berlin and Stockholm. As Lord Marischal had resided about three years in Berlin, and was, through the interest of Field-marshal Keith, his brother, on the best footing with his Prussian majesty, it occurred to Charles that, by availing himself of the services of that nobleman, whom he looked upon as “an honest man,” Frederick might be induced to espouse his cause. Accordingly he despatched Colonel Goring to Berlin, in June 1751, with a letter to Lord Marischal. After consulting with his lordship, Goring was directed to proceed to Sweden.[1346] Of this mission nothing farther is known. An interview which took place between Lord Marischal and Goring, and another probably with the prince himself at Paris, in September following, are involved in the same obscurity. About this time Charles received notice that one Grosert, collector of the customs at Alloa, had left Scotland with an intention to assassinate him. This information was brought to France by Robertson of Blairfetty, who had been in Scotland. Grosert is said to have been married to a German woman, the daughter of the milliner of George I.[1347]
No trace can be discovered of Charles’s wanderings, after his return from London, till the 5th of April 1752, when he was seen by a gentleman of the name of Mackintosh at Campvere, in the island of Middleburg, where he remained four days.[1348] He is said to have revisited London in the course of the following year, and to have formally renounced the Catholic religion in a chapel in Gray’s Inn Lane under his own name of Charles Edward Stuart; but for this statement there appears to be no sufficient authority.[1349] Dr. King, who corresponded with Charles for several years, makes no allusion to this visit, nor is there the least trace of it to be found among the Stuart Papers. The story of a third visit, on occasion of the coronation of George III., at which Charles is said to have attended, rests on the authority of a letter of David Hume, written in 1773. As to his reported change of religion, a rumour was generally prevalent in 1752--a year before the date of his alleged apostacy at London--that Charles had become a Protestant; but its accuracy was doubted of by some of his friends.[1350] It is certain, however, that Charles was not disposed to imitate the self-denial of his father and grandfather, who preferred their faith to a crown.[1351]
In consequence of the state of comparative security which the British government enjoyed after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, it became less vigilant than before in watching the motions of the exiled adherents of the house of Stuart. Some of them accordingly ventured, from time to time, to revisit their native country and friends. Amongst others, Dr. Cameron came over in 1749 to recover part of a large sum of money which had been left by Charles in charge of Macpherson of Cluny when he quitted Scotland. He made a second journey to Britain in 1753, for what particular purpose is not certainly known, although it is supposed his visit had some connection with a scheme for another rising, then under the consideration of the Jacobites, but which luckily was nipped in the bud. Having been apprehended in Scotland, he was carried to London, confined to the Tower, and his identity being proved in the court of king’s bench by several witnesses, he received sentence of death, and was barbarously executed at Tyburn. He conducted himself with manly fortitude and decorum, and his fate was generally pitied.[1352] Some of the best wishers to the Government thought the sacrifice of this unfortunate gentleman a most unnecessary and wanton act at such a juncture, and at such a distance of time from the period of his attainder.[1353] It is said that King George himself, as he reluctantly signed the warrant for Cameron’s execution, exclaimed, “Surely there has been too much blood spilt upon this account already!”
Down to 1754 Charles kept up a regular communication with his friends in England, several of whom visited him personally, and though they saw many reprehensible things in his conduct, yet they were willing to make every allowance for the peculiarities of his situation. There was one circumstance, however, which they could not overlook. When in Scotland, Charles had a mistress named Clementina Walkinshaw, who, by all accounts, possessed no great attractions, bodily or mental. Some years after he was sent out of France he sent for this woman, who managed to become acquainted with all his plans, and was trusted with his most secret correspondence. As Miss Walkinshaw had a sister who acted as housekeeper to Frederick, Prince of Wales, at Leicester house, all the persons of distinction in England attached to Charles grew alarmed, being apprehensive that this paramour had been placed in his family by the English ministers. They, therefore, despatched a gentleman, named M’Namara, to Paris, where Charles then was, with instructions to insist upon Miss Walkinshaw’s removal for a certain time from his presence. Mr. M’Namara, who was a man of excellent understanding, urged the most powerful reasons, and used all the arts of persuasion to induce him to comply, but to no purpose. M’Namara then informed him that an immediate interruption of all correspondence with his most powerful friends in England, and the ruin of his interest, would be the certain consequence of his refusal; but Charles was inflexible. M’Namara staid some days in Paris beyond the time prescribed, in hopes of ultimately prevailing; but all his entreaties and remonstrances were ineffectual. At parting, M’Namara could not help exclaiming, with great indignation, “What has your family done, Sir, thus to draw down the vengeance of Heaven on every branch of it, through so many ages?” During his conferences with M’Namara, the prince declared that he had no violent passion, or, indeed, any particular regard for Miss Walkinshaw, and that he could see her removed from him without any concern; but that he would not receive directions for the regulation of his private conduct from any man alive. When M’Namara returned to London and reported Charles’s answer to the gentlemen who had sent him to Paris, many of whom were persons of the first rank, and all of them men of fortune and distinction, they were amazed and confounded, and resolved at once to break with him.[1354]
Lord Marischal was then residing at Paris as ambassador from the king of Prussia to the court of Versailles, and was apprised by M’Namara of everything that passed between him and the prince. Had M’Namara’s mission been successful, his lordship, whose services Charles was anxious to obtain, meant, on the expiration of his embassy, to have entered Charles’s household; but disgusted with the conduct of the prince, who even had the ingratitude to threaten to publish the names of his English friends, he declined to take any farther interest in his affairs, and embracing the mediation of the king of Prussia, reconciled himself to the British government.[1355]
When, in the following year, a war with France seemed inevitable, some of his French friends petitioned the French court to take advantage of this favourable opportunity to make one more attempt to restore the Stuarts. Charles himself came to France, and appears to have made exertions in his own behalf, but the time was consumed in fruitless negotiations, and Charles returned to Italy and the retirement of private life. It seems to be with this attempt that a document contained among the Stuart Papers is connected. This document purports to be notes of a statement made by a deputation, sent over to Prince Charles, at a conference with him, drawn up at his own desire; it is dated August 15, 1755. If this document is authentic, and there seems to be no reason to believe otherwise, the deputies must have lectured the prince on his conduct most fearlessly and outspokenly, and in a manner to which princes are mostly strangers.
It is not known what reception the deputation met with, or how this message was received by him; but, at his desire, the address was committed to writing, and sent to him. Charles returned an indignant answer, informing his “friends” that reason might, and he hoped should, always prevail with him, but his own heart deceived him if threats or promises ever would. He despised, he said, the malice of those who aspersed his character, and considered it below his dignity to treat them in the terms they deserved. He told them he had long desired a churchman from his friends to attend him, but that his expectations had been hitherto disappointed.[1356]
Though Charles at first affected not to feel the indignity offered to him by the French government, yet it is certain that it left upon him an indelible impression, soured his disposition, and tended to confirm into a habit the propensity to tippling which he contracted during his long and exhausting wanderings in the Highlands. Indeed, his mind, which never was of the strongest or noblest type, appears to have been quite unhinged. During his long incognito he scarcely ever corresponded with his afflicted father,--a silence which he said was not owing either to neglect or want of duty, but because his situation was such that he could do nothing but vent “imprecations against the fatality of being born in such a detestable age.”[1357] Led away by his passions, and reckless of the feelings or wishes of others, he would suffer no control; and so infatuated did he become, that in resisting the admonitions of his friends, he thought he was pursuing a course honourable to himself, and dutiful towards the “honest man,”--his father;[1358] but James was not to be misled by such false notions, and hinted, that though he was happy to find Charles in such sentiments, yet it was possible that what he might think for the best might be otherwise. “Do you,” he asks the prince, “rightly understand the extensive sense of honour and duty from which you say you will never go astray? If you can,” he continues, “keep up to that rule, you will then be really an honest man, which is the new name you give me, and with which I am much pleased, since it is a title I value more than all those which vanity can desire, or flattery invent. It is a title we are all obliged to pretend to, and which we may all, without vanity, think we deserve, and unless we deserve it, we, in reality, can neither be happy in the next world, nor even in this, because peace and tranquillity of mind is only the share of honest men. The best wish I can therefore make you, is that you may yourself long deserve and enjoy that title it would be the most effectual means of drawing down God’s blessing upon you.”[1359]
After the estrangement of his friends, Charles appears to have given up all thoughts of restoration, and resided chiefly at Avignon till shortly before the death of his father, on December 31, 1766, when he returned to Italy, fixing his abode at Florence. The Chevalier had, for several years, been in a declining state of health, and, for two years before his death, had been confined to his bed-chamber. His remains were carried to the church of the parish where he had resided, and were decorated with all the insignia of royalty. Over the bed was this inscription:--“Jacobus Magnæ Britanniæ Rex, Anno MDCCLXVI.” The body lay in state three days, during which none but the Italian princes and British subjects were admitted into the church. The corpse was then removed in procession to St Peter’s church to be interred. By his will, the Chevalier left his real estate, which yielded about forty thousand crowns per annum, exclusive of pensions, to Prince Charles. He also left him a box of jewels belonging to the crown of Poland, formerly pledged to the Sobieski family, if not redeemed. The jewels belonging to his own family he directed to be divided between Charles and Henry.
From the state of comparative seclusion in which the Chevalier passed the most part of his life, his personal history is less known than either that of his father, or his son, Charles Edward. His character, to judge from his correspondence and the many acts of individual kindness he showed towards his exiled adherents, was benevolent and estimable. He seems to have been better acquainted with the principles of the English constitution than any of his race, and would, had he been called to empire, have very possibly eschewed the dangerous rock of the prerogative on which his grandfather and father split. His boast was not merely that he was an Englishman, but that, to use an Italian phrase, there was not “a greater Englishman than himself.”[1360]
After his father’s death, Prince Charles retired to Albano, near Rome, where he appears to have lived in great seclusion till the year 1772, when the court of Versailles, desirous for its own selfish purposes to prevent the male line of the house of Stuart from becoming extinct, negotiated a marriage between him and the young princess Louisa Maximiliana Carolina of Stolberg-Gedern; and the three Bourbon courts all concurring in the match, a suitable allowance was settled by them on the prince and his wife. Charles, who, in consequence of the refusal of the court of Rome to recognise the titles which his father had assumed, had taken that of the Count of Albany, which when a youth he had used on his travels through Italy, took up his residence upon his marriage in the neighbourhood of Florence, whither he was invited by the grand duke of Tuscany. The marriage was unfortunate. Charles had lived too long single to enjoy connubial happiness; and his mind, soured by misfortune and degraded by dissipation, unfitted him for the discharge of the domestic virtues.[1361] An English lady who saw Prince Charles at Rome in 1770, describes him thus:--“The Pretender is naturally above the middle size, but stoops excessively; he appears bloated and red in the face, his countenance heavy and sleepy, which is attributed to his having given in to excess of drinking, but when a young man he must have been esteemed handsome. His complexion is of the fair tint, his eyes blue, his hair light brown, and the contour of his face a long oval; he is by no means thin, has a noble person and a graceful manner. His dress was scarlet, laced with broad gold lace; he wears the blue riband outside of his coat, from which depends a cameo, antique, as large as the palm of my hand, and he wears the same garter and motto as those of the noble St George in England. Upon the whole, he has a melancholy, mortified appearance.”[1362]
Charles and the princess lived together uncomfortably till 1780, Charles, it is said, often treating his youthful, beautiful, accomplished, and gentle wife with the greatest brutality. In 1777 she became acquainted with the great Italian dramatist Alfieri, and the two immediately conceived for each other a passionate, lasting, and comparatively pure love; for while her husband lived there is every reason to believe that she remained faithful to him. The princess left Charles in 1780, and took up her residence with his brother the cardinal at Rome, but shortly after removed from that to Baden and ultimately to Paris, where Alfieri joined her, and they separated no more. On her husband’s death, it is understood that she was privately married to Alfieri, who died in 1803, she surviving him upwards of twenty-one years. When Tuscany fell under the dominion of Bonaparte, he ordered the princess, then living in Florence, (she having incurred his displeasure), to repair to Paris. She was afterwards allowed to return to Florence, where it is said she made a left-handed marriage with a French historical painter, named Francis Xavier Fabre, the friend of Alfieri, whom upon her death she appointed her universal executor.
About 1785, Charles, who must have felt himself at this time a lonely, homeless, disappointed old man, took to live with him his daughter, Charlotte, by Miss Walkinshaw, who was born about 1760. Little is known of this lady; she, however, appears to have been of a gentle disposition, and we would fain hope that her presence and companionship helped much to soften the misanthropy and soothe the bitter spirit of the disappointed aspirant to the British throne. Shortly after his daughter came to live with him, Charles removed to Rome, where in January 1788 he was prostrated by paralysis, and after an illness of three weeks died on the 31st. He was buried royally in the church of his brother at Frascati, the body, however, being afterwards removed to St Peter’s at Rome. Some time before his death, he legitimatized his daughter, and as the last act of his shadowy sovereignty, created her Duchess of Albany, leaving her the greater part of his private property.[1363] Even down to the time of his death, it would seem he had not entirely relinquished the hope of one day sitting on the throne of his ancestors, for, according to Lord Mahon, he used to keep under his bed a strong box with 12,000 sequins, ready for the expenses of his journey to England whenever he might suddenly be called thither.[1364] His daughter, so far as is known his sole descendant, survived him only one year.
Whilst Charles’s partisans have painted him in the most glowing colours of admiration, as the paragon of all that is noble and high-minded, others have represented him as a man devoid of any good and generous feeling,--as despotic, revengeful, ungrateful, and avaricious,--having, in short, all the vices without one of the redeeming virtues of his race. Paradoxical as the assertion may be, there is some truth in both delineations; but considerable abatements must be made from the exaggerated eulogies of the one party, as well as from the sweeping condemnation of the other. There were, in fact, as has been well observed, two Charles Edwards. The hero of 1745 was a generous and high-minded youth, who, notwithstanding some constitutional defects, merited a better destiny; but the Charles Edward of a subsequent period was a degraded man, who, dispirited by misfortune and soured by disappointment, lost all command over himself, and became the sport of his passions. He retained, however, to the close of his existence, a vivid recollection of his early exploits, and frequently betrayed genuine emotion on hearing any allusion to Scotland and the Highlanders.
When Charles was ill in 1784, his brother the cardinal, supposing him to be on his death-bed, drew up a paper maintaining his pretensions to the British crown, which, he declared, were in no way prejudiced or renounced by his retention of the incognito title, Cardinal Duke of York. A copy of this document he sent to the pope, cardinals, and various foreign ministers. When his brother the prince did die, and Henry was left the last and sole representative of the royal Stuart race, he caused a medal to be struck bearing the inscription, “Henry IX., King of England, by the grace of God, but not by the will of men.” This, however, was all the cardinal ever did to maintain his right divine to the throne from which his grandfather fled. He appears to have been perfectly contented with his life as a Roman cardinal, to have been generous and gentle in disposition, and to have performed his duties faithfully as a minister of the Catholic Church, although in his own house he is said to have insisted upon a strict observance of all the etiquette usual in the residence of a reigning sovereign. He had many rich livings both in Italy and France, but of most of these and of all his wealth and treasures, literary, antiquarian, and curious, he was despoiled by the emissaries of the French revolution in 1798, when he took refuge in Venice infirm and destitute. His case was represented to his successful relative George III., who immediately, and in as delicate a manner as possible, generously settled on the cardinal a pension for life of L.4000 a year. The cardinal returned to Rome in 1801, and resided there till his death in 1807, aged 82 years. He was buried in St Peter’s, beside his father and brother, “and a stately monument, from the chisel of Canova, but at charge, as I believe, of the House of Hanover, has since arisen to the memory of JAMES THE THIRD, CHARLES THE THIRD, and HENRY THE NINTH, KINGS OF ENGLAND--names which an Englishman can scarcely read without a smile or a sigh! Often at the present day does the British traveller turn from the sunny height of the Pincian or the carnival throngs of the Corso, to gaze in thoughtful silence on that sad mockery of human greatness, and that last record of ruined hopes!”[1365]
Henry of York, as we have said, was the last scion of the direct line of the royal house of Stuart, although he was by no means the last of the Stuarts, as the genealogy of nearly every royal and princely house of Europe can testify. Much valuable information on this point is contained in Mr. Townsend’s Descendants of the Stuarts, where the reader will meet with many interesting and a few strange and startling facts. The Stuart blood, it would seem, enriches the veins of every Christian sovereign of Europe, and among the European noble families will be found many princes who, by the now ignored and we hope never to be revived, principle of divine hereditary right, are nearer heirs to the British throne than the Prince of Wales. The heir-of-line of the Stuarts is, we believe, Francis, ex-Duke of Modena, the heiress presumptive being his niece, Maria Theresa, wife of Prince Louis of Bavaria. Great Britain, however, is as likely to assert her right to the allegiance of the United States as is any of the many descendants of the Stuarts to endeavour to establish a claim to the throne of England, to the prejudice of the reigning family. The Lady who at present occupies the throne of Britain, and in whose veins runs a large share of the ancient Stuart blood, has won her way to the hearts of all classes of her subjects, Highland and Lowland, by her true nobility of character, genuine womanliness, and anxious interest in the welfare of her people, as effectually as did the young Chevalier by his youthful thoughtless daring, fascinating manners, and feigned enthusiasm for all that was Highland. Still the ancient spirit is not dead, and probably never will die, so long as Gaelic and Lowland Scotch is understood in the land, and so long as there exists such a superabundance of Jacobite songs unmatched for pathos and humour, and set to music which cannot fail to touch the heart of the “canniest Scot” that ever tried to overreach his neighbour. This sentimental Jacobitism, initiated by Scott, appears to be getting stronger and stronger every year, and pervades all classes of society from the “queen on the throne to the meanest of her subjects;” it has, indeed, become now to a certain extent fashionable, no doubt owing largely to the example set by the greatest lady in the land, in her love and admiration of the Highlands and Highlanders. Tartans, not very many years ago proscribed and forbidden to be worn under severe penalties, and regarded as barbarous and vulgar, have now become the rage, and are as indispensable to every Scottish family, Highland or Lowland, as its crest or its family ghost.
Before dismissing entirely the Stuart family, which latterly was so intimately associated with the Highlands, it may not be out of place to mention that only a few years ago, two young men made their appearance in Scotland, holding themselves forth as legitimate grandsons of Prince Charles. Their story, set forth in an inflated, misty style, after the manner of romantic novelists, will be found in a work published by them in 1847, entitled, Tales of the Century, or Sketches of the Romance of History between the years 1746 and 1846. There can be no doubt that John Sobieski and Charles Edward Stuart, the names by which these gentlemen made themselves known to the public, have no connection whatever with the royal Stuarts: it is certain that Prince Charles Edward Stuart left behind him no legitimate offspring. The story told by them in the above publication, however, was to the effect that their father, instead of being a son of Admiral Allen, as was commonly supposed, was a son of Prince Charles and the Princess Louisa, whose birth was kept secret through fear of the Hanoverian family, and who was intrusted to Admiral Allen, and passed off by him as his own son.[1366] It is not at all improbable that they themselves believed their own story, and were, strictly speaking, no impostors; at all events, they appear to have met with considerable sympathy in the form of hospitality and subscriptions to their publications, for besides the book above mentioned and a volume of poems, they published a large and expensive work, splendidly illustrated, entitled, The Costume of the Clans, a copy of which was ordered at the time for her Majesty’s library. To judge from the introduction to this last book, occupying about the half of the work, written in a most painfully lofty style, and having an amusing look of learning by being crammed full of small type notes and enigmatical references, one would be almost inclined to think that they were weak-minded enough to believe that it was possible, even in the middle of the 19th century, in the reign of Queen Victoria, to incite the loyal Highlanders to enact a second ’45.[1367]
John Sobieski Stuart generally resides in London, where he is to be met with in good society under the title of “Count D’Albanie.”
FOOTNOTES:
[1340] “Letter from H---- G----, Esquire, one of the gentlemen of the bed-chamber to the young Chevalier, and the only person of his own retinue that attended him from Avignon, in his late journey through Germany and elsewhere, &c., to a particular friend. London, 1750.”
[1341] Klose’s Memoirs of Prince Charles, vol. ii. p. 199.
[1342] Charles alludes to this visit in a note dated 1st July, 1754, in his own hand-writing, among the Stuart Papers.
[1343] Stuart Papers.
[1344] See a curious memorandum, dated 3d May, 1750, among the Stuart Papers. From this document it is evident that Charles thought that the French ministry were bribed by the British government to withhold assistance from him.
[1345] King’s Political and Literary Anecdotes, p. 197:--“He came,” says Dr. King, “one evening to my lodgings and drank tea with me. My servant, after he was gone, said to me, ‘that he thought my new visitor very like Prince Charles.’ ‘Why,’ said I, ‘have you ever seen Prince Charles?’ ‘No, sir,’ replied the fellow, ‘but this gentleman, whoever he may be, exactly resembles the busts which are sold in Red Lion Street, and are said to be the busts of Prince Charles.’ The truth is, these busts were taken in plaster of Paris from his face. I never heard him,” adds the doctor--who, however, cannot be received as an altogether unbiassed reporter--“express any noble or benevolent sentiment, the certain indications of a great soul and a good heart; or discover any sorrow or compassion for the misfortunes of so many worthy men who had suffered in his cause. But the most odious part of his character was his love of money.... I have known this gentleman with 2000 Louis d’ors in his strong-box pretend he was in great distress, and borrow money from a lady in Paris who was not in affluent circumstances. His most faithful servants, who had closely attended him in all his difficulties, were ill rewarded. To this spirit of avarice may be added his insolent manner of treating his immediate dependants, very unbecoming a great prince, and a sure prognostic of what might be expected from him if ever he acquired the sovereign power.”
[1346] See the letter to Earl Marischal and the instructions to Goring, both dated 21st June, 1751, among the Stuart Papers.
[1347] Letter from Sir James Harrington, dated 6th August, 1751, among the Stuart Papers.
[1348] Letter, Mr. Donald Mackintosh to Secretary Edgar, dated from Civita Vecchia, 6th February, 1754.--Stuart Papers.
[1349] He is said on this occasion to have called without previous notice on Lady Primrose, and to have walked into the room, where she and others were playing cards, being announced by the servant under another name. After he left it was remarked how like he was to the prince’s portrait which hung in the very room into which he entered. He is said on this occasion to have used so little precaution that he went abroad undisguised in daylight, walking once through St. James’s, and taking a turn in Pall Mall. This story looks very like another version of his visit in 1750. See George Charles’s Transactions in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 470.
[1350] See among the Stuart Papers a letter from Secretary Edgar to Mr. William Hay, 26th September, 1752, and that from Mr. Hay’s letter to Edgar, October 1752. Charles seems to have been desirous after this to have none but Protestants about him. He sent an order to Avignon, in November 1753, to dismiss all his “Papist servants.” He kept at this time a French mistress, and having quarrelled with her, he discarded her because she was “a Papist too.” The following note, also, in the prince’s hand, appears on the back of a letter of Waters the banker, of 26th June, 1754:--“My being a Protestant I can prove to be an advantage to the Papist, and my terrible situation not to be incapable to attempt any plan either against my honour or interest, seeing them that are so far from my country.” At this time (June 1754) Charles was living in Paris incognito.
[1351] See his answer to the deputation that waited on him in the year 1755:--
“As to his religion,” says Dr. King, “he is certainly free from all bigotry and superstition, and would readily conform to the religion of the country. With the Catholics he is a Catholic, with the Protestants he is a Protestant; and to convince the latter of his sincerity, he often carried an English Common Prayer-book in his pocket, and sent to Gordon (whom I have mentioned before), a non-juring clergyman, to christen the first child he had by his mistress, Mrs. Walkinshaw.”
[1352] Klose’s Memoirs of Prince Charles, vol. ii. p. 208.
[1353] The French government settled a pension of 1200 livres per annum upon his widow, and granted an annual allowance of 400 livres to each of his two sons who were in its service, in addition to their pay.
[1354] King’s Political and Literary Anecdotes, p. 264, et seq.
[1355] Several letters between Charles and Lord Marischal will be found among the Stuart Papers. The most interesting are one from his lordship, without signature, 15th April 1754, another also without signature, 18th May 1754, and Charles’s answer of the latter date.
[1356] Stuart Papers.
[1357] Letter to Edgar, 24th March 1754.
[1358] Letter,--Charles to Edgar, 12th March, 1755.
[1359] Letter to Charles, 14th April, 1755, among Stuart Papers.
[1360] Letter to Charles of 3d February, 1747.
[1361] Lord Mahon thinks that Charles had contracted a disparaging opinion of the tender sex in general. Among the Stuart Papers is the following written by Charles about the time of his marriage:--“As for men, I have studied them myself, and were I to live till fourscore, I could scarcely know them better than now, but as for women, I have thought it useless, they being so much more wicked and impenetrable.” “Ungenerous and ungrateful words,” justly exclaims Lord Mahon; “surely as he wrote them, the image of Flora Macdonald should have risen in his heart and restrained his hand.”--Mahon’s England, v. iii., p. 527.
[1362] Letters from Italy by an Englishwoman, London, 1776. Quoted by Lord Mahon.
[1363] Klose’s Memoirs, v. ii., p. 241.
[1364] Mahon’s England, v. ii., p. 528.
[1365] Mahon’s England, v. iii. p. 529.
[1366] See the whole story set forth and conclusively refuted in the Quarterly Review for June 1847.
[1367] A gentleman of Jacobite sympathies, to whom this part of the work has been submitted, appends the following note:--
“It is but justice, however, to these gentlemen to say, that they have never made any loud or noisy assertion of their claims, leaving, what they believe to be, the fact of their descent to be indicated, rather than asserted in the work above mentioned. It is understood, also, that they do not encourage much reference being made to those claims, which they consider to amount only to the fact of their being descended from Prince Charles, not to any ‘Divine Right’ to the throne in virtue of that descent; that right having been forfeited, they believe, by the fact of themselves and their ancestors having been Roman Catholics--the nation having declared for a Protestant succession. It looks also as if they depended on the strength of truth, or what they believe to be truth, that they have never answered the criticisms of the Quarterly reviewer, whilst at the same time it is understood that they maintain that they could answer him, if they were so minded. They bore a high character during their residence in the Highlands of Scotland, which character they still retain. It is some time since the writer of this note has seen them, but the resemblance which their features bore to the features of the ancient Stuart race used to be remarked by all who knew them. This, however, would not prove much. Even the Quarterly reviewer does not allege that they were conscious or knowingly impostors.”