This letter brought the following characteristic reply. It is dated from Inverness, whither the Marquis had repaired.[187]

In addition to the testimony of Lord Elcho, that of Maxwell of Kirkconnel, has considerable weight in Lord George Murray's favour.

"He was censured," observes this excellent writer, "by his enemies as being too tender of a family seat.[188] As I do not know the situation of this Castle, I cannot determine whether it was in his power to blow it up, or whether he had time to do it after he was informed of the march of the Hessians. But he has been so calumniated by the Secretary and his creatures, that nothing less than a direct proof ought to have any weight against him. In this case it is absurd to suspect him, because the family seat could never be in danger. If it was in his power to blow it up, he had only to acquaint the Governor when the mine was ready, and let him send one of his officers to view it; the Governor would certainly have prevented the effecting it and saved the Castle."

"About the same time that the siege of Blair was abandoned, that of Fort William was also raised. It was found, indeed, difficult to make the Highlanders perform the regular duties of a siege; extremely brave in an attack, when allowed to fight in their own way, they were not possessed of that steady valour which is necessary to maintain a post; and it was not easy to keep them long in their quarters, or even at their posts, without action."[189]

The loss of Blair, and the failure of the siege of Fort William, were followed by other misfortunes. Fatal mistakes in the vain endeavour to retrieve a sinking cause ensued. In the midst of his adversity, the young and gallant adventurer, for whom so much blood was shed, supported his spirits in a wonderful manner, and acted, with a heavy heart, the part of the gay and prosperous. He gave balls at Inverness, and even danced himself, which he had declined doing when in the midst of his prosperity at Edinburgh. Those who looked only on the surface of affairs were deceived by his appearance of happiness; but the well informed knew too well that the crisis which was to end the struggle was rapidly approaching. To complete the sad summary of disappointments and misfortunes, it was now ascertained that the expedition from Boulogne, and that from Dunkirk, with which the false-hearted French had so long amused the unfortunate Jacobites, were entirely and perfidiously relinquished.

Lord George Murray, meantime, was ordered to march to Inverness. He was now worn with fatigues, and by the protracted anxieties of his situation. Foreseeing, as he must have done, many of the dangers and difficulties of the contest; observing, on the one hand, his eldest brother, the Marquis of Tullibardine, the adherent of the Stuarts, proscribed, impoverished, a nominal proprietor of his patrimonial estates; on the other, beholding his second brother, the actual Duke of Atholl, cherished by Government, prosperous, honours showered down upon him; what impulses less strong than that of a generous, and fixed principle of fidelity could have maintained his exertions in a service so desperate as that in which he had engaged?

The great deficiency in Lord George Murray's character was the absence of hope; but, independent of that vital defect, his attributes as a soldier and a general cannot fail to excite admiration. His exertions were unparalleled; besides the marching and fatigue that others had to undergo, he had the vast responsibility of command. "Though others were relieved and took their turns," he remarks, "I had none to relieve." On first assuming the command, he received and despatched every express himself; and saw the guards and sentinels settled. In gaining intelligence he was indefatigable; and his discipline was such that the country suffered but little from the visitations of his well-governed forces. But the time was fast approaching when his great abilities, which never ceased to be acknowledged by the whole army, his fortitude, and personal valour were to be put to the severest test.

On the third of April, Lord George Murray joined Charles Edward at Inverness. On the eleventh intelligence was received that the Duke of Cumberland, who had been stationed for some time at Aberdeen, was marching towards Inverness. At first the intelligence of the Duke's approach was received with acclamations of joy; but the circumstances under which the battle of Culloden was eventually fought, and the fatigues and impediments by which it was prefaced, changed that sentiment into one of distrust and despondency.[190]

Upon receiving intelligence of the Duke's approach, expresses were sent in all directions in order to re-assemble the Jacobite forces. Those troops which had been at the siege of Fort William were on their march to Inverness; but Lord Cromartie and his detachment were still at a great distance; the Duke of Perth and Lord John Drummond were at Spey-side, with a considerable body of men and all the horse. These were ordered to retire as Cumberland's army approached. Unhappily, many of the Highlanders, it being now seed time, had slipped away to their homes, and it was, indeed, no easy task to allure them back. The influence of Lord George Murray over the forces continued, nevertheless, unabated. His mode of managing this fine, but rude people, was well adapted to his purpose, and proceeded from an intimate knowledge of their character. "Fear" he considered as necessary as "love." "I was told," he remarks, "that all the Highlanders were gentlemen, and never to be beaten, but I was well acquainted with their tempers." Their chiefs even inflicted personal chastisement upon them, which they received without murmurs when conscious of an offence. But they would only receive correction from their own officers, and never would the chief of one Clan correct even the lowest soldier of another. "But I," observes Lord George, "had as much authority over them all as each had amongst his own men; and I will venture to say that never an officer was more beloved of the whole, without exception, than I was." At any time when there was a post of more danger than another, Lord George, possessing as he did this unbounded influence over the minds of his countrymen, found it more difficult to restrain those who were too forward, than in finding those who were willing to rush into peril.

On Sunday morning, the thirteenth of April, it became a matter of certainty among the Jacobite forces that the enemy had passed the Spey. On the following day, Lochiel joined the army; the Duke of Perth also returned, and the Prince and his forces assembled on an open moor, near Culloden. Many of the officers suggested that it would be desirable to retire to a stronger position than this exposed plain, until the army were all collected, but the baggage being at Inverness, this scheme was rejected. The experienced eye of Lord George Murray soon perceived that the ground which had been chosen was ill-adapted for the Highland mode of warfare, and he proposed that the other side of the water of Nairn should be reconnoitred. But objections were made to any change of position; and, situated as Lord George now was, distrusted by the Prince, and, perhaps, in some measure by others, since the failure at Blair, he was in no condition to contest so important a point. It was afterwards attempted to venture an attack by night. To this proposition not only the Prince, but Lord George and most of the other officers were at first favourable: but, in the evening, it being generally understood that there was no provision for the subsistence of the men the next day, a circumstance attributable to the negligence of the persons employed for the purpose at Inverness, a number of men dispersed in search of food. The forces being thus reduced, Lord George objected, in concert with others, to the projected night march; but Charles Edward, trusting to the bravery of his army, and being for fighting on all occasions, was determined on the attempt. "What he had seen them do, and the justice of his cause, made him too venturous."[191] The attack was, therefore, agreed upon, and Lord George commanding the rear, after marching nearly six miles, found that it would be impossible to attack the enemy before day-break, and, therefore, gave it up, and returned to Culloden about five in the morning.

Fatigued and hungry, the army awaited the approach of the English forces. It was between ten and eleven in the morning when they drew up on the moor, and were placed in order of battle by O'Sullivan. Again Lord George observed to that officer, that the ground was unfavourable: the reply was, that the moor was so interspersed with moss and deep earth, that the enemy's horse and cannon could be of little service to them; and that it was therefore well selected. By this time the young and unfortunate Master of Lovat had joined the forces, but Lord Cromartie was still, by a fatal mistake, absent; and Macpherson, of Clunie, was at three or four miles distance, marching with all possible expedition towards Culloden. The stragglers and others were also collecting, so that, as Lord George conjectured, the army would have been increased by two or three thousand more men that night, or the next day. Stimulated by this reflection, he again looked wistfully to the position beyond the water, and considered that if they passed there, they would probably leave the moors to the enemy, and occupy a better post. But he was overruled.

"I shall say little," writes Lord George Murray, in his journal, "of this battle, which was so fatal." In a memoir, written by Colonel Ker, of Gradyne, an officer of distinguished military reputation, a minute and animated account is, however, given of all the incidents of the eventful fifteenth of April.

Charles Edward having with some difficulty procured some bread and whiskey at Culloden, reposed for a short time after marching all night. In the morning intelligence was brought him that the enemy were in sight. Whilst the army was forming, Colonel Ker was sent to reconnoitre the enemy. On returning, he informed the Prince and Lord George Murray, who was then with him, that the enemy were marching in three columns, with their cavalry on the left, so that they would form their line of battle in an instant. The Prince then ordered his men to draw up in two lines, and the few horse which he had were disposed in the rear towards the wings; the cannon was to be dispersed in the front; this was brought up with difficulty from the want of horses. The ground which had been occupied the day before was too distant for the army to reach; so that they were drawn up a mile to the westward with a stone enclosure which ran down to the water of Nairn, on the right of the first line.

The Highland soldiers, many of whom had been summoned from their sleep among the woods of Culloden, were aroused from among the bushes, and came drowsy, and half-exhausted to the field; yet they formed themselves into order of battle with wonderful dispatch. Unhappily no council of war was held upon the plain of Culloden in the hurry of that day. In addition to the confusion, and want of concert which this omission produced, was a still more injurious circumstance. The army, as has been related, was drawn up in two lines; Lord George commanded the first, which was composed of the Atholl brigade. This regiment was placed by Lord George on the right of the line: unfortunately, the Clan Macdonald, proud and fiery, claimed the precedence. They grounded their assertion of right to the usage of time immemorial; and to their having had it during the two previous battles. Lord George, on the other hand, uncompromising as usual, insisted that in those actions even, his Atholl men had the pre-eminence. The Prince, unable to decide, persuaded the chief of the Macdonalds to waive his claim; but the pride of the Scotch is never subdued; and whilst Macdonald yielded, their men were offended and disgusted with his compliance.

The Duke of Cumberland formed his line of battle at a great distance, and marched in battle order until he came within cannon shot, when he halted, and placed his artillery in different parts in the front. His army, to use a military phrase, outwinged that of Charles, both to the right and left, without his cavalry.[192]

It is not, as Lord George Murray observes, "an easy task to describe a battle." Most officers are necessarily taken up with what is near them, and the confusion, noise, and agitation effectually impede observation. The commencement of the battle of Culloden was obscured by a thick fall of hail and snow, and on this occasion the tempestuous climate of Scotland favoured her enemies, for the Prince's army faced the wind, and encountered the snow-storm in their faces. It was expected that the Duke would begin the attack; and a party of his horse were sent during the interval to reconnoitre the Jacobite army. When they came within cannon shot, loud hurras were heard on both sides; and voices (soon for ever to be silenced) sent up to Heaven expressions of exultation and defiance. The young Chevalier, whilst awaiting that event, rode along the lines to encourage his men, placing himself in a post of danger, in which one of his servants was killed by his side. After some few minutes of solemn expectation, Lord George Murray, who commanded the right of the army, sent Colonel Ker to the Prince to know if he should begin the attack? an answer in the affirmative was returned. As the right was farther distant than the left, Colonel Ker went first to the Duke of Perth who commanded the left, and ordered him to begin; he then rode along the field until he came to the right line, where Lord George Murray received from him a similar command. The Prince then placed himself behind the centre of the army, having the whole of his forces under his eye, and thus being able to send orders on all exigencies.

The cannon of Prince Charles was first heard. It was returned with a firing from the enemy of grape shot, which did great execution.

The Highlanders, who were forbidden to move until the word of command was given, suffered that fire very impatiently. Some of them threw themselves flat on the ground, and a few gave way and ran off.[193] The artillery of the enemy was very well served; that of the Jacobites was managed by common soldiers, the cannoniers belonging to one battery being absent. The contest was in every way unequal; yet the brave insurgents, although ready to drop with fatigue, seemed to forget all their weariness and hunger when the enemy advanced.

At length, after some preliminary manœuvres, the Prince sent orders to Lord George Murray to march up to the enemy. It seemed, indeed, high time to come to a close engagement; for the cannonading of the enemy, which was directed chiefly towards the place which the Prince occupied among the cavalry, was very destructive; yet still Lord George delayed the attack, judging, as it is supposed, that the adversaries were still at too great a distance, and that the strength of his men would be exhausted before they could reach them. There appears also to have been another reason for the delay; Lord George had, on his right, a farm-house, and some old enclosure walls, which the enemy now occupied; and he is conjectured to have been waiting until the Duke of Cumberland's army came up to these walls, which would prevent him being flanked by the dragoons, who were, he observed, mostly on the left. But the Duke did not advance. The Highlanders, who were impatient at the delay, called out loudly to be led on; and at last he gave the command to attack.

His orders were obeyed. As his line began to move, the enemy began a smart fire, which played chiefly upon the Atholl men, and was kept up by a detachment of Campbells, who were stationed behind the enclosure walls. It was the custom of the Highlanders to give a general discharge of their fire-arms, and then to rush, sword in hand, upon their foes: and the only chance of a victory for their party that day, was a general shock of their whole line at once; for the fury and valour of these northern warriors produced results almost incredible. Unhappily, several circumstances destroyed this advantage. The two armies were not exactly parallel to each other, the right of Prince Charles's being nearer to the foe than the left. The impetuosity of the Highlanders was such, that they broke their ranks before it was time to give their fire; their eagerness to come up with an enemy that had so greatly the advantage of them at such a distance, made them rush on with such violence, and in such a confusion, that their fire-arms were of little service.[194] This, it appears, was the disadvantage which Lord George had apprehended. But there was still another inconvenience: the wind, which had favoured the Jacobites at Falkirk, was now against them. They were buried in a cloud of smoke, and felt their enemies without seeing them. In spite of all these obstacles they went, sword in hand, and broke the first line of the enemy; but the second advancing, and firing on them, they gave way, leaving, says one who beheld the terrific scene, "many brave fellows on the spot." The rout, which began on the right of the army, soon became general. The right line was, in fact, beaten before the centre could advance to support it: and the centre of the army gave way, whilst the Macdonalds, who were advancing on the left, seeing themselves abandoned on the right, and exposed to be flanked by enemies who had nothing to oppose them in front, retired also.[195]

Lord George Murray behaved with incomparable valour, as indeed did the whole of the line which he commanded, which was received by the enemy with bayonets. These were the more destructive, as the Highlanders would never be at the trouble, on a march, to carry targets. Yet the Duke's line of battle was broken in several places, and two pieces of cannon were taken.[196] The brave troops whom Lord George commanded marched up to the very point of the bayonets, which they could not see until they were upon them, on account of the smoke which was driven in their faces. As the first line of the English army was broken, and as others were brought up to their relief, some cannon, charged with cartouch shot from their second line, caused Lord George Murray's horse to start and plunge so much, that he thought the animal was wounded: he quitted his stirrups, and was thrown. "After thus being dismounted, I brought up," writes Lord George, "two regiments of our second line, who gave them fire, but nothing could be done; all was lost."[197] The only good effect of the reinforcement was to arrest for a while the pursuit of the cavalry, and thus to save many lives. The field of battle was soon abandoned to the fury of an enemy, whose brutal thirst for vengeance increased as the danger and opposition diminished. Some may consider that the day of Culloden was a day of disgrace to the Highlanders; but to them it was an event of honour, compared with the discredit which it brought upon their foes. To England was the disgrace. It was, at all events, even if we measure the standard of honour by the degree of military success, an inglorious victory. Independent of the inequality of numbers, was the inequality of circumstances; but greater, in many senses, on this occasion, were the conquered, than their conquerors.

The Prince, seeing his army entirely routed, was at length prevailed upon to retire. Most of his horse soldiers assembled round his person; and he rode leisurely, and in good order, for the enemy advanced very leisurely over the ground. "They made," observes Maxwell, "no attack where there was any body of the Prince's men together, but contented themselves with sabering such unfortunate people as fell in their way, single and disarmed." "As the Duke's corps," Lord Elcho relates, "continued to pursue in order of battle, always firing their cannon and platoons in advancing, there were not so many people taken or killed as there would have been had they detached corps to pursue; but every body that fell into their hands got no quarter, except a few whom they reserved for public punishment."

In the flight of the Prince's army, most of the left wing took the road to Inverness; the right wing crossed the water of Nairn, and went to Ruthven of Badenoch; the rest, to the number of five hundred, mostly officers, followed the Prince into Stratherick, where he had stopped about four miles from the field of Culloden. Of the Prince's conduct after the battle, a very painful impression is given by Lord Elcho. "As he had taken it into his head he had been betrayed, and particularly by Lord George Murray, he seemed very diffident of everybody except the Irish officers; and he appeared very anxious to know whether he had given them all higher commissions than they had at their arrival, on purpose that they might get them confirmed to them upon their return to France. He neither spoke to any of the Scots' officers present, nor inquired after any of the absent. Nor, indeed, at any of the preceding battles did he ever inquire after any of the wounded officers. He appeared very uneasy as long as the Scots were about him; and in a short time ordered them all to go to Ruthven of Badenoch, where he would send them orders; but before they had rode a mile, he sent Mr. Sheridan after them, to tell them that they might disperse, and everybody shift for himself the best way he could. Lord George Murray and Lord John Drummond repeated the same orders to all the body of the army that had assembled at Ruthven. The Prince kept with him some of Fitzjames's Horse, and went that night to a house in the head of Stratherick, where he met Lord Lovat and a great many other Scots' gentlemen, who advised him not to quit the country, but to stay and gather together his scattered forces. But he was so prejudiced against the Scots, that he was afraid they would give him up to make their peace with the Government; for some of the Irish were at pains to relate to him, in very strong terms, how the Scots had already sold his great-grandfather to the English: and, as he was naturally of a suspicious temper, it was not a difficult matter to persuade him of it. And he always believed it until the fidelity of the Highlanders shown to him during the long time he was hid in their country, convinced him and everybody else of the contrary."[198]

This history of distrust and ingratitude is, however, to be contrasted with very different statements. When the Prince heard from Colonel Ker, after the battle, that Lord George Murray had been thrown from his horse, but was not wounded, Charles, in the presence of all the officers who were assembled around his person, desired Colonel Ker to find out Lord George, and to "take particular care of him." Nor was there, among the whole number of those writers who witnessed the battle of Culloden, a dissentient voice with regard to the bravery of their Lieutenant-General and to the admirable disposition of his troops. Had he, like Lord Strathallan, sought and found his fate upon the field of battle, his memory would have been exalted into that of a hero.

Two days after the defeat, the Duke of Perth, the Marquis of Tullibardine, Lord George Murray, Lord Ogilvie, Lord Nairn, and several other chieftains and officers met at Ruthven in Badenoch, and discussed the events which had ended in the ruin of their cause. They were unanimous in concluding that the night attack, upon which many persons insisted as practicable, could not have been attempted.[199]

For some time after the battle, hopes were entertained of an effectual rallying of the forces. By a letter from one of the Prince's aides-de-camp, Alexander Macleod, to Clunie Macpherson, on the very day of the battle, it appears that his party soon hoped, or pretended to hope, "to pay Cumberland back in his own coin." A review of the fragment of the army was projected at Fort-Augustus, on the seventeenth of April; and amends were promised to be made for the "ruffle at Culloden."[200] "For God's sake," wrote Mr. Macleod, "make haste to join us; and bring with you all the people that can possibly be got together. Take care in particular of Lumisden and Sheridan, as they carry with them the sinews of war."

To this letter Lord George Murray added some lines, which prove how hopeless, at that moment, he considered any project of rallying; and, indeed, even before the epistle was dispatched to Clunie, the Prince had left Gorteleg, and taken refuge in "Clanranald's country."

Notwithstanding the Prince's flight, Lord George Murray, presuming that he could still make a stand, remained at Ruthven, where a force of between two and three thousand men was assembled. It was found, however, impossible, from the want of provisions, to keep such an army together; and, in a few days, a message from Charles, ordering his ill-fated adherents to disperse, decided their fate. At this epoch Lord George Murray addressed a letter to Charles, certainly not calculated to soothe the feelings of the unfortunate young man, nor to conciliate the bitter spirit which afterwards, during the lapse of years, never abated towards his former General. The letter began thus.[201]

After this preface Lord George, in no softened terms, pointed out what he conceived to be the causes of the failure of the enterprise;—the imprudence of having set up the standard without aid from France; the deficiencies and blunders of Mr. O'Sullivan, whose business it was to reconnoitre the field of battle, but who had not so much as viewed it before the affair of Culloden. He next pointed out the negligence, if not treachery, of Mr. Hay, who had the charge of the provisions. To the disgraceful mismanagement of this important department might, indeed, the ruin of the army be traced. "For my own part," added Lord George, "I never had any particular discussion with either of them; but I ever thought them incapable and unfit to serve in the stations they were placed in."

After these too just remarks, Lord George formally resigned his commission into the Prince's hands. It had, it appears, been his intention to have done so after the failure at Blair; but he was dissuaded by his friends. "I hope your Royal Highness will now accept of my demission. What commands you may have for me in any other situation, please honour me with them."

This letter was dated from Ruthven, two days after the battle of Culloden. The inference which has been drawn from it was, that Lord George did not contemplate the abandonment of the campaign. It appears to have been his opinion that the Highlanders could have made a summer campaign without any risk, marching, as they could, through places in which no regular troops could follow them. They could never starve as long as there were sheep and cattle in the country; and they might probably have carried on an offensive, instead of a defensive war. But Charles, disheartened, as men of over sanguine tempers usually are, in misfortune, to the last degree, resolved on escaping to France. He addressed a farewell letter to the Chiefs, and then commenced that long and perilous course of wanderings in which his character rose to heroism, and which presents one of the most interesting episodes in history of which our annals can boast.

Lord George Murray was long a fugitive from place to place in his native country, before he could find means to escape to the continent. In December (1746) he visited, in private, his friends in Edinburgh, and then embarking at Anstruther, in the Frith of Forth, he set sail for Holland. Whether he ever returned to his native country is doubtful, although it appears, from a letter among the Stuart papers, that he had it in contemplation, in order to bring over his wife and family.

His fate in a foreign land, however embittered by the ingratitude and hatred of Charles Edward, was cheered by the presence of his wife and children, with the exception of his eldest son, who was retained in Scotland, and educated under the auspices of James Duke of Atholl. His first movement after reaching Holland, was to repair to Rome, there to pay his respects to the Chevalier St. George, and to unfold to him the motives of his conduct in the foregoing campaign of 1745. The Chevalier, affectionately attached as he was to his eldest son, was aware of his defects, and sensible of the pernicious influence which was exercised over his mind by the enemies of Lord George Murray; James, who never appears in a more amiable light than in his correspondence, endeavoured to conciliate both parties. His letters to Charles Edward, treasured among the Stuart papers, display kindness and great good sense. His mediation in this instance was, however, wholly ineffectual. After the treacherous conduct of Murray of Broughton, the Prince began even to suspect that Lord George was concerned in the baseness of that individual. This notion was urgently combated by James; at the same time he recommended the Prince, not only as a matter of right, but of policy, to conciliate Lord George, who "owned that he had been wrong towards Charles, but insisted upon his zeal in the Prince's service." "Persons," adds the politic Chevalier, "like him may do both good and hurt; and it is prudent to manage them, and would manifestly be of prejudice could they be able to say their former services had been disregarded." But James addressed himself to one who could never dissimulate. Whatever Charles's errors might be, they were not envenomed by any portion of cunning, and no motive of prudence could soften him towards one whom he unjustly disliked.

Lord George, who expected no favour from the English Government, was, nevertheless, anxious to be "near home." He left Rome in May 1747, and after remaining some time at Bologna, proceeded to Paris.[202] Here Charles was playing that ill-judged and desperate game, which was better suited to a rash impostor, than to the acknowledged descendant of a long line of monarchs. Here he was rapidly effacing the remembrance of the brave and generous wanderer who trusted to the honesty of the Highlanders; who bore his misfortunes as if he had been born in that land of heroes.

The first idea of Charles, upon hearing of Lord George Murray's arrival in Paris, was to imprison him as a traitor. "I hope in God," writes his father to the young Prince, "you will not think of getting Lord George secured after all I wrote to you about him, and will at least receive him civilly." But no intercessions could nullify the indignation of Charles towards his former general.

It was far from Lord George Murray's intention, if we may believe the Chevalier St. George, again to embroil himself in public affairs, or even to remain in Paris. His intention was to live privately in Germany or Flanders, in the hope of being rejoined by his wife. Upon reaching Paris, he informed the Prince of his arrival; and proposed paying his respects to him at St. Omer, where Charles was then living. Late on the evening of the eleventh of July, 1747, a gentleman, who at first refused to give his name, but who afterwards announced himself as Mr. Stafford, called on Lord George to convey to him a message desiring him not to "go near" the Prince, and ordering him to leave Paris immediately. An answer was returned, signifying that the Prince's commands should be obeyed. Lord George left Paris, and he and the unfortunate young man whom he had served, met no more. It is possible that the irritation of Charles was aggravated by the recent intelligence of his brother's having become a cardinal: upon receiving the news of that event he shut himself up for some hours alone. The name of his brother was no longer to be uttered in his presence nor his health drunk at table.[203] Charles was at this time in the power of both the Kellys, who are described by one of his adherents as "false, ambitious, and sordidly avaricious."

After visiting Poland, where he was received by Marshall Belriski as a relation, and where he endeavoured to negotiate the restitution of some crown jewels to James, as in right of the Chevalier's wife, the Princess Sobieski, Lord George settled at Cleves. He changed his name to that of De Valignie, and here he remained in obscurity with his family. "My wife," he writes to the Chevalier St. George, "came here on the tenth of September, 1748, but was soon after seized with an intermitting fever, which has not yet left her. She begs leave to throw herself at your Majesty's feet." In 1750, Lord George removed to Emmerick; here he wrote an account of his campaign, which he addressed to Mr. Hamilton of Bangour; from this, repeated extracts have been given in this memoir of his life. The kindness of James Stuart towards him continued unabated: he recommended him to the notice of the court of France; and consulted him as to the probable success of a future enterprise in Scotland. On such a project Lord George Murray expressed himself cautiously, yet somewhat encouragingly; and declared himself ready to shed the last drop of his blood in the cause. Happily his zeal was not again put to the test. Lord George appears, in his letters, to have cherished in his retirement at Emmerick, a lingering hope that at some future day the Stuarts might make another attempt. He was now in the decline of life, and yearning to behold again the country which he was destined to see no more. "How happily," he writes to Mr. Edgar,[204] "should you and I be to sit over a bottle in Angus, or Perthshire, after a restoration, and talk over old services. May that soon happen!"

Meantime some members of Lord George's family suffered the severest distress. His uncle, Lord Nairn, had, it is true, escaped to France; but Lady Nairn and her daughter, Lady Clementina, were reduced to the utmost penury in Scotland. They remained in their native country, probably with the hope of saving the wreck of their fortunes, until all that the troops had spared was sold, and the money which accrued from the sale was exhausted. Such was the rapacity of the plunderers, that they took even Lady Nairn's watch and clothes. The Government, although in possession of her estate, never gave her one farthing for subsistence, but even made her pay a rent for the garden of one of Lord Nairn's own houses in which she lived. But this is only one instance of that catalogue of cruelties towards the Jacobites, which it would take volumes to detail.

In 1751, Lord George Murray visited Dresden, where, owing to the mediation of James Stuart, he was well received. His letters at this period refer frequently to the exertions which he made for Lord Macleod, the son of Lord Cromartie: to this young man a company was given in Finland, in the Prussian service, and the Chevalier St. George furnished him with his accoutrements and equipage.

The eldest son of Lord George Murray remained, as we have seen, in Scotland; but the second was, through the favour of the Chevalier, recommended to the especial notice of the court of Prussia. The visit of Lord George to Dresden seems to have been chiefly designed to push the interests of this young man, who was introduced to the Count and Countess De Bruhl. The youth was to study the military science and exercises at Dresden, and at the same time to enjoy, in the house of the Pope's Nuncio, the advantage of seeing company, and of forming connections.

Having arranged these affairs, Lord George returned to Emmerick. His wife had left him for Scotland, in order to be confined there; and this event, attended by so much inconvenience, and prefaced by a voyage of twelve days, "put her," as Lord George observed, "somewhat out of countenance, after twenty-three years' marriage." Her return was delayed for some time. "I shall be pretty lonely this winter (1751)," writes Lord George to Mr. Edgar, "for my wife, who was brought to bed of a daughter the middle of September, recovered but very slowly, and now the season of the year is too far advanced for her to venture so long a voyage; besides, she has some thoughts that Lady Sinclair (his daughter) may come with her in the spring." In his solitude, anxieties about his patrimonial property added to the sorrows of the exile. "I am told,"[205] he writes, "that the Duke of Atholl is desirous of selling the roialty of the Isle of Man to the London Government, for which, they say, he is offered fifteen thousand pounds sterling. Had it not been for my situation, I believe he could not have done it without my consent; but, I'm sorry to say it, and it is a truth, that he is full as much my enemy as any of that Government. He has sent my eldest son abroad, but, as I understand, with positive orders not to see nor correspond with me. All this is the more extraordinary that, thirty years ago, before he turned courtier, he seemed to have very different notions. Most people in Britain now regard neither probity nor any other virtue—all is selfish and vainal (venial). But how can I complean of such hard usage, when my royal master has met with what is a thousand times more cruel: he bears it like a Christian hero, and it would ill suit me to repine. I thank the Almighty I never did, and I think it my greatest honour and glory to suffer in so just and upright a cause." Hope, however, of one day returning to Scotland, was not extinct. He thus continues: "Upon receipt of the note you sent me, I have gott the carabin, for which I return you many thanks. I expect to kill a wild bore with it; but I fain hope Providence may still order it that I may make use of it at home, and, if all succeeds to our wishes, how happy should I think myself to send you, when you returned to Angus, a good fatt stagg, shott in the forest of Atholl with your own gun."

Until five years before his death, Lord George still cherished the hope that France would again find it her interest to support the claims of the Stuarts. He had always considered that the support of the French would be decisive of the success of the cause. "Had the ministers of the court of Versailles, ten years ago, been persuaded that the supporting of his Royal Highness the Prince, at the beginning of his attempt, in a proper manner with the best measures they could take for the interest of their master as well as that of the King, our gracious sovereign, I think I do not say too much if I affirm that his Royal Highness would not have failed of success. I had at that time opportunities of knowing the sentiments and way of thinking of most people in Great Britain. Many, very many, wished well to the cause. Great numbers would have looked on, and would have turned to the side that had success. But there is no recalling what is passed. I believe that in France they are convinced now of the error they were in at the time. If ever they resolve to espouse the cause of the royal family it must be in earnest, and their main view must be that. Then there would be no difficulty in adjusting limits in America. I have been much longer upon the subject than I intended. Perhaps zeal has led me too far."

The period was now approaching when Lord George Murray was to close a life of vicissitude and turmoil. He died in 1760 at Medenblinck, in Holland, leaving three sons and two daughters. Upon the death of James Duke of Atholl in 1764, John, the eldest son of Lord George Murray, succeeded to the dukedom, and to the great possessions of the family. He married his first cousin, Charlotte, only daughter and heiress of his uncle, the Duke of Atholl; and in 1765 their Graces sold the sovereignty of the Isle of Man, upon the disposal of which Lord George Murray had expressed much solicitude, to the British Government. The present Duke of Atholl, who succeeded his father in 1830, is the grandson of John, third Duke of Atholl, and the great-grandson of Lord George Murray. The descendants of this justly celebrated man have, therefore, shared a happier fortune than those of many of the other attainted noblemen of his party.

The attainder was not, however, set aside in favour of the son of Lord George Murray without a petition to the King, upon which the House of Lords gave a favourable report, and the objection was overcome.[206] Besides his eldest son, Lord George left two others; James, of Strowan, in right of his mother; George, of Pitkeathly, who became Vice-Admiral of the White—and two daughters; Amelia, first married to Lord Sinclair, and afterwards to James Farquharson, of Inverness; and Charlotte, who died unmarried.

The mind of Lord George Murray was one of great original power, and less dependent upon those circumstances which usually affect the formation of character, than that of most men. He was determined and inflexible in opinions, yet cautious in action. That he was sincere and honourable there can now be little doubt. It was his consciousness of upright intentions which inspired him with contempt for the littleness of others; and with his love of superiority, his self-will and ambition, there was wrought a strong conviction of his own worth, as opposed to the hollowness of some of his party. Throughout all his letters, and in his journal, there is a strong evidence of his confidence in his own powers; of a self-sufficiency too lofty to be called vanity, but which sometimes descends to egotism. To his courage, his energy and perseverance, his military contemporaries have borne unanimous testimony. They seem entirely to have comprehended a character which the unfortunate Charles Edward could never appreciate. They felt the justness of his ascendancy, and discriminated between the bluntness of an ardent and honest mind, careless of ordinary forms, and the arrogance of an inferior capacity. As a soldier, indeed, the qualities of Lord George Murray rose to greatness: so enduring, and so fearless, so careless of danger to himself, yet so solicitous for others. As a general, some great defects may be pointed out in his composition, without detracting from his merits as a private individual.

Let us first turn to the bright side of the picture. In activity and exertion Lord George Murray has not been surpassed even by the more fortunate, although, perhaps, not greater commanders of modern times. He was indefatigable in business, and any one who desired access to him could see him at any hour, whether at meals or in bed. "On some occasions," he remarks, "I have been waked six times a night, and had either orders to write, or letters to answer every time; for as I mostly commanded a separate body of the army, I had many details that, in a more regular army, would belong to different people." Every order, even that which sent an officer to an out-post, was written by his own hand, and explained by him; every contingency that might occur in the execution was canvassed, and every objection that was suggested was answered by himself. The officers, therefore, confiding in their general, performed their duties with cheerfulness, and made their reports with exactness. There was no confusion, nor misapprehension, wherever Lord George presided. As a disciplinarian, he was pre-eminent; no army ever quitted a country with so little odium, nor left behind them such slight memorials of their march, as that of Charles Edward when it returned from Derby. The greatest excess that the Highlanders were known to commit was the seizing horses to carry their baggage, or to carry their sick;—and these it was Lord George's endeavour always to restore, even at a great inconvenience to the soldiers. Even with every precaution it was impossible wholly to restrain plundering, although the General undertook in person to control that evil. "How often," he writes, "have I gone into houses on our marches to drive the men out of them, and drubbed them heartily?"

This able man possessed another great requisite as a commander. He thoroughly understood his materials, he was perfectly acquainted with the temper and disposition of his soldiers. It was the attribute which made Marlborough unconquerable; and, in an army chiefly of Highlanders, it was one of the greatest value. By this Lord George acquired over the members of every respective Clan as much influence as each Chief separately had. His corrections were well applied, and never lessened the confidence nor affections of the soldiery. From the highest to the lowest, the men and officers had a confidence in him, which induced them to apply to him for redress in grievances, and to consider him as an umpire in disputes.

But Lord George was not only a disciplinarian; in his own person, he set the example of a scrupulous honesty. "I never," he writes in his explanation of his conduct, "took the least thing without paying the full value. I thought that I could not reasonably find fault with others in that, if I did not show them a good example."

To the sick and wounded Lord George invariably paid the utmost attention; and, under his guidance, the Highlanders, heretofore so fierce towards each other in their contests, were remarkable for a degree of humanity which was disgracefully contrasted with the barbarity of their conquerors. Such were his general attributes in his military station. Whatever doubts may have existed in the mind of Charles Edward as to the fidelity of his General, are silenced by the long and hopeless exile of Lord George Murray, and by the continued friendship of the Chevalier St. George. No overtures, as in the case of the Earl of Mar, to the British Government, nor efforts on the part of his prosperous and favoured brother, the Duke of Atholl, have transpired to show that in saving Blair, there was a secret understanding that there should be a future reward, nor that any surmise of treachery had opened a door to reconciliation. Charles, be it remembered, was under that daily, hourly influence, which weakens the judgment, and exasperates the passions. His opinion of Lord George Murray must not be accepted as any evidence against one who had redeemed the inconsistencies of his youth by the great exertions of his manhood.

Some vital defects there were, nevertheless, in this General, of powerful intellect, and of earnest and honourable intentions. His character partook too largely of that quality which has raised his country as a nation in all other countries, prudence. For his peculiar situation he was far too cautious. Persevering and inflexible, he was destitute of hope. If it be true, that he entered into the undertaking with a conviction that the cause could never prosper, he was the last man that should have been the general of an army whose ardour, when not engaged in action, he invariably restrained. All contending opinions seem to hesitate and to falter when they relate to the retreat from Derby, the grand error of the enterprise; the fatal step, when the tide served, and the wind was propitious, and an opportunity never to be regained, was for ever lost.

In private society, Lord George Murray is reported to have been overbearing and hasty; his fine person, and handsome countenance were lessened in their agreeableness by a haughty deportment. He was simple, temperate, and self-denying in his habits. In his relations of life, he appears to have been respectable. His letters show him to have enjoyed, at least, the usual means of education offered to a soldier, who entered upon active service at sixteen, or to have improved his own acquirements. They are clear and explicit, and bear the impress of sincerity and good sense.

Distrusted as he was by Charles Edward, and misrepresented by others, we may accord to Lord George Murray the indulgence which he claims from posterity in these, the last words of his vindication:—

"Upon the whole, I shall conclude with saying, if I did not all the good I would, I am sure I did all I could."

JAMES DRUMMOND, STYLED DUKE OF PERTH.

"Take heire a view of youre noble and renowned ancestors, of whose blood you are descended in a right and uninterrupted male line; as also of so many of the consanguinities and ancient affinities of youre family in the infancy thereof, as the penury of our oldest records and the credit of our best traditions has happily preserved from the grave of oblivion. The splendor of your fame," he adds, "needs no commendation, more than the sune does to a candle; and even a little of the truth from me may be obnoxious to the slander of flattery, or partiality, by reason of my interest in it. Therefore I'll say the less; only this is generally known for a truth, that justice, loyaltie, and prudence, which have been but incident virtues and qualities in others, are all three as inherent ornaments, and hereditary in yours."[207]

Such praise far exceeds in value the mere homage to ancient lineage. With these noble qualities, the race of Drummond combined the courage to defend their rights, and the magnanimity to protect the feeble. This last characteristic is beautifully described in the following words:

"For justice, as a poor stranger, often thrust out of doors from great houses, where grandeur and utility are commonly the idolls that's worshipped,—quid non mortalia pectora cogis?—has always found sanctuary in yours, which has ever been ane encouragement to the good, a terror to the bad, and free from the oppression of either."

To this magnanimous spirit were added loyalty to the sovereign, and prudence in the management of private affairs; a virtue of no small price, for it rendered the House of Drummond independent of Court favour, and gave to its prosperity a solid basis. "The chiefs of this family lived," says their historian, "handsomely, like themselves; and still improved or preserved their fortunes since the first founder."

The origin of this race is, perhaps, as interesting as that of any of the Scottish nobility, and has the additional merit of being well ascertained.

After the death of Edward the Confessor, the next claimant to the Crown, Edgar Atheling, alarmed for his safety after the Norman Conquest, took shipping with his mother Agatha, and with his two sisters, Margaret and Christiana, intended to escape to Hungary; but owing to a violent storm, or, as the noble historian of the Drummonds well expresses it, "through Divine Providence," he was driven upon the Scottish coast, and forced to land upon the north side of the Firth of Forth. He took shelter in a little harbour west of the Queen's Ferry, ever since called St. Margaret's Hook, from Edgar's sister Margaret, who, for the "rare perfectiones of her body and mind," was afterwards chosen by Malcolm Canmore, to the great satisfaction of the nation, for his Queen. Margaret was therefore married to the Scottish monarch at Dunfermline in the year 1066.

This alliance was not the only advantage derived by the young and exiled English King from his accidental landing in Scotland. Penetrated with gratitude for former services conferred upon himself by Edward the Confessor, Malcolm supported the cause of Edgar, and received and bestowed upon his adherents lands and offices, in token of kindness to his royal guest. Hence some of the most potent families in the kingdom had their origin.

Amongst the train of Edgar Atheling at Dunfermline was an Hungarian, eminent for his faithful services, but especially for his skilful and successful conduct of the vessel in which the fugitives had sailed from England. He was highly esteemed by the grateful Queen Margaret, who recommended him to the King; and, for his reward, lands, offices, and a coat of arms suitable to his quality, were conferred on him, together with the name of Drummond.

It was about this period that surnames were first introduced, and that patronymicks were found insufficient to designate heroes. Since the new designations were often derived from some office, as well as the possession of lands and peculiar attributes, the Hungarian obtained his name in consequence of his nautical skill; Dromont, or Dromond, being, in different nations, the name of a ship, whence the commander was called Dromount, or Dromoner.

The first lands bestowed upon the Hungarian were situated in Dumbartonshire, and in the jurisdiction of the Lennox; a county full of rivers, lochs, and mountains, "emblematically expressed," says Lord Strathallan, "in the coats of arms then given to him, wherein hunting, waters, hounds, inhabitants wild and naked, are represented." To these gifts was added the office of Thane, Seneschal, or Stuart Heritable of Lennox,—names all meaning the same thing, but altering with the times.[208]

The Hungarian, whose Christian name is conjectured to have been Maurice, was then naturalized a Scot; and all the parts of his coat-armour were contrived to indicate his adventures, his name, office, and nation. He died in an encounter near Alnwick Castle, fighting valiantly, in order to avenge the surprise of that place by William Rufus, in 1093.

The records of the family of Drummond were for several generations defective after the death of Maurice; but there exists no doubt but that he was the founder of a family once so prosperous, and afterwards so unfortunate. The name of Maurice was preserved, according to the Scottish custom of naming the eldest son after his father, for many succeeding generations.

The family continued to increase in importance, and to enjoy the favour of royalty; and the marriage of the beautiful Annabella Drummond to Robert the Third, King of Scotland, produced an alliance between the House of Drummond and the royal families of Austria and Burgundy. In 1487 James the Third ennobled the race by making John Drummond, the twelfth chief in succession, a Lord of Parliament. As the annals of the race are reviewed, many instances of valour, wisdom, and unchangeable probity arise; whilst some events, which have the features of romance, diversify the chronicle. Among these is the story of the fair Margaret Drummond, who has been celebrated by several of our best historians.

Between Margaret and James the Fourth of Scotland an attachment existed. They were cousins; and a pretext was made by the nobles and council, on that account, to prevent a marriage which they alleged to be within the degrees of consanguinity permitted by the Canon law: nevertheless, under promise of a marriage, Margaret consented to live with her royal lover, and the result of that connexion was a daughter. This happened when James was only in his sixteenth year, and whilst he was Duke of Rothsay; yet the monarch was so much touched in conscience by the engagement, or betrothal, between him and the young lady, that he remained unmarried until the age of thirty, about a year after the death of Margaret Drummond.

That event, it was surmised, was caused by poison; the common tradition being that a potion was provided for Margaret at breakfast, in order to free the King from his bonds, that he might "match with England." "But it so happened," says the narrative,[209] "that she called two of her sisters, then with her in Drummond, to accompany her that morning, to wit, Lilias, Lady Fleming, and a younger, Sybilla, a maid; whereby it fell out all the three were destroyed with the force of the poyson. They ly burried in a curious vault covered with three faire blue marble stones, joyned closs together, about the middle of the queir of the cathedral church of Dumblane; for about this time the burial-place for the familie of Drummond at Innerpeffrie was not yet built. The monument which containes the ashes of these three ladyes stands entire to this day, and confirms the credit of this sad storie."

The daughter of Margaret Drummond, Lady Margaret Stuart, was well provided for by the King; and was married, in the year 1497, to Lord Gordon, the eldest son of the Earl of Huntley, "a gallant and handsome youth." From this union four noble families are descended; the Gordons, Earls of Huntley; the Countess of Sutherland; the Countess of Atholl, who was the mother of Lady Lovat; and Lady Saltoun. James the Fourth testified his regret for the death of his beloved Margaret, and his solicitude for her soul's benefit, in a manner characteristic of his age and character. In the Treasurer's accounts for February 1502-3, there occurs this entry, "Item, to the priests that sing in Dumblane for Margaret Drummond, their quarter fee, five pounds:" and this item, occurring regularly during the reign of James the Fourth, "Paid to two priests who were appointed to sing masses for Margaret in the cathedral of Dumblane, where she was buried," marks his remembrance of his betrothed wife.

One of the greatest ornaments of the ancient House of Drummond was William Drummond, a descendant of the Drummonds of Carnock, son of Sir John Drummond of Hawthornden, and author of the "History of the Five James's," Kings of Scotland.[210] The friend of Drayton, and of Ben Jonson, this man of rare virtues presents one of the brightest examples of that class to which he belonged, the Scottish country-gentleman. True-hearted, like the rest of his race, Drummond was never called forth from a retirement over which virtue and letters cast their charms, except by the commotions of his country. His grief at the death of Charles the First, whom he survived only one year, is said to have shortened his days.

In 1605, the title of Earl of Perth was added to the other honours of the family of Drummond,[211] who derived a still further accession of honour and repute by the probity and firmness of its members in the great Rebellion. Like most of the other Scottish families of rank, they suffered great losses, and fell into embarrassed circumstances on account of heavy fines exacted by Oliver Cromwell. The house, Castle Drummond, was garrisoned by the Protector's troops, and the estates were ravaged and ruined. Yet the valiant and true-hearted descendants of those who had been thus punished for their allegiance, were ready again to adopt the same cause, and to adhere to the same principles that had guided their forefathers.

In the person of James Drummond, fourth Earl of Perth, who succeeded his father the third Earl, in 1675, several high honours were centred. He was made, by Charles the Second, Justice-General, and afterwards Lord High Chancellor of Scotland. He continued to be a favourite with James the Second; and in 1688, when James fled from England, the Earl of Perth, endeavouring to follow him, was thrown into prison, first at Kirkaldy, and afterwards at Stirling, until the privy council, upon his giving security for five thousand pounds, permitted him to follow his royal master. From James, the Earl received the title of Duke, which his successors adopted, and which was given to them by the Jacobite party, of which we find repeated instances in the letters of Lord Mar. His son, Lord Drummond, succeeded to all the inconveniences which attend the partisans of the unfortunate. Returning from France, in 1695, he was obliged to give security for his good conduct, in a large sum. In consequence of the assassination plot, the vigilance of Government was increased, and, in 1696, he was committed to Edinburgh Castle. During the reign of William, a system of exaction was carried on with respect to this family.

"In a word," says the author of Lochiell's Memoirs, himself a Drummond, speaking of James Lord Drummond, "that noble lord was miserably harassed all this reign. He represented a family which had always been a blessing to the country where it resided; and he himself was possessed of so many amiable qualities, that he was too generally beloved not to be suspected by such zealous ministers. He was humble, magnificent, and generous; and had a certain elevation and greatness of soul that gave an air of dignity and grandeur to all his words and actions. He had a person well-turned, graceful and genteel, and was besides the most polite and best bred lord of his age. His affability, humanity, and goodness gained upon all with whom he conversed; and as he had many friends, so it was not known that he had any personal enemies. He had too much sincerity and honour for the times. The crafty and designing are always apt to cover their vices under the mask of the most noble and sublime virtues; and it is natural enough for great souls to believe that every person of figure truly is what he ought to be, and that a person of true honour thinks it even criminal to suspect that any he is conversing with is capable of debasing[212] the dignity of his nature so low as to be guilty of such vile and ignoble practices. None could be freer of these, or indeed of all other vices, than the noble person I speak of. The fixed and unalterable principles of justice and integrity, which always made the rules of his conduct, were transmitted to him with his blood, and are virtues inherent and hereditary in the constitution of that noble family."[213]

Lord Drummond was afterwards engaged in the insurrection of 1715: he was attainted, but escaped to France, and, dying in 1730, left the inheritance of estates which he had saved by a timely precaution, and the empty title of Duke of Perth,[214] to his son James Drummond, the unfortunate subject of this memoir.

Such was the character borne by the father of James, Duke of Perth. This ill-fated adherent of the Stuarts was born on the eleventh of May 1713; and three months afterwards, on the twenty-eighth of August, his father deemed it expedient to execute a deed conveying the family estates to him, by which means the property, at that time, escaped forfeiture. Like many other young men under similar circumstances, this young nobleman was educated at the Scottish College of Douay, consistently with the principles of his family, who were at that time Roman Catholics.

In his twenty-first year, the young Duke of Perth came over to Scotland, and devoted himself, in the absence of his father, to the management of his estate. It is probable that his own inclinations might have led him to prefer the occupations of an elegant leisure to the turmoils of contention; but, be that as it may, it was not reserved for the head of the House of Drummond to rest contentedly in his own halls.

The nearest kinsmen of the young nobleman were active partisans of the Chevalier St. George. His brother, Lord John Drummond who had been confirmed in all his devotion to the cause by his education at Douay, had entered the service of the King of France, and had raised a regiment called the Royal Scots, of which he was the Colonel. He was destined to take an active share in the events to which all were at this time looking forward, some with dread, others with impatience. But his influence was less likely to be permanent over his brother, than that of the Duke's mother, whose wishes were all deeply engaged in behalf of James Stuart.

This lady, styled Duchess of Perth, was the daughter of George first Duke of Gordon, and of Lady Elizabeth Howard, Duchess of Gordon, who, in 1711, had astonished the Faculty of Advocates at Edinburgh by sending them a silver medal with the head of the Chevalier engraved upon it. The Duchess of Perth inherited her mother's determined character and political principles; for her adherence to which she eventually suffered, together with other ladies of rank, by imprisonment.

These ties were strong inducements to the young Duke of Perth to take an active part in the affair of 1745, and it is said to have been chiefly on his mother's persuasions that he took his first step. But there was another individual, whose good-faith to the cause had been proved by exertion and suffering; this was the brave William, Viscount Strathallan, who possessed higher qualities than those of personal valour and loyalty. "His character as a good Christian," writes Bishop Forbes, "setting aside his other personal qualities and rank in the world, as it did endear him to all his acquaintances, so did it make his death universally regretted."[215]