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 c.u.mberland 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 G.o.d"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 "Clanra.n.a.ld"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 a.s.sembled. 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]
"May it please your Royal Highness,
As no person in these Kingdoms ventured more frankly in the cause than myself, and as I had more at stake than almost all the others put together, I cannot but be very deeply affected with our late loss, and present situation; and I declare, that were your Royal Highness"s person in safety, the loss of the cause, and the unfortunate and unhappy state of my countrymen is the only thing that grieves me; for I thank G.o.d I have resolution to bear my own family"s ruin without a grudge."
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 ingrat.i.tude 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 G.o.d," 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 rest.i.tution 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 pa.s.sed. 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 n.o.blemen of his party.
The attainder was not, however, set aside in favour of the son of Lord George Murray without a pet.i.tion 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 circ.u.mstances 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 surpa.s.sed 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 canva.s.sed, 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 pa.s.sions. 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 dest.i.tute 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."
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Nisbet"s Heraldry, part iii. p. 205.
[2] In the Life of the Marquis of Tullibardine, vol. i.
[3] See Nisbet"s Heraldry.
[4] Nisbet"s Heraldry, part iii. p. 206.
[5] See a MS. Account of the Highlands of Scotland, British Museum, King"s Library.
[6] "Case of the Forfeited Estates, in a letter to a certain n.o.ble Lord.
London, 1718."
[7] Wodrow"s a.n.a.lecta, vol. iii. p. 232.
[8] See Appendix, No. 1. for a curious original letter from Mr. Spence; for this doc.u.ment I am indebted to my brother-in-law, Samuel Coltman, Esq. It was in the possession of his mother.
[9] "Genuine Memoirs of John Murray, Esq. London, 1746."
[10] "Maxwell of Kirkconnel"s Narrative," p. 4.
[11] Life of James Murray, Esq.
[12] See Atholl Correspondence. Printed for the Abbotsford Club.
[13] Home, p. 31.
[14] Narrative, p. 1.
[15] Life of John Murray, Esq., p. 22.