\SER,LORD LOYAT AND TIMES THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SIMON FRASER, LORD LOVAT HIS LIFE AND TIMES simon fraser in his prime. {After Le Clare.) [Frontispiece. Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat HIS LIFE AND TIMES HY W. C. MACKENZIE, F.S.A. (Scot.) AUTHOR OK "A SHORT HISTORV OF THE SCOTTISH HIGHLANDS "HISTORY OK THE OUTER HEBRIDES," ETC. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS LONDON CHAPMAN & HALL, Ltd. 1908 DA PREFACE Since Dr. Hill Burton wrote, about sixty years ago, his account of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat (avowedly as a dark background to his " Life " of Duncan Forbes of Culloden), a good deal of additional matter, much of it still un- printed, has become available. I have made considerable use of the new material, more particularly of the Additional Manuscripts in the British Museum. I have also drawn largely upon Major Eraser' s Manuscript (published in 1889 by Lieut-Colonel Alexander Fergusson) — which is a valuable authority when used with discrimination. This manuscript was known to Dr. Hill Burton, but he was not aware of the circumstances that gave to it the special value which it possesses ; moreover, it came into his hands too late for adequate use in the preparation of his biography. Lovat's " Memoirs," written by himself in French, and admir- ably translated by William Godwin, furnish many supple- mental details, which, when sifted in the light of other contemporary records of undoubted credibility, are found, on the whole, to be substantially accurate in essentials. The same remark cannot justly be made about the contem- porary so-called " Lives," which were written at a time when the public wanted, and received, sensational accounts of Lovat's career. It must have been one of these 685444 vi PREFACE " Lives " that Voltaire desired to be sent to him. They are all more or less untrustworthy, and I have practically ignored them. I have to acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. William Burns and Mr. William Mackay, both of Inverness, for useful hints relating to Lovat matters. Mr. Burns has written a series of stimulating letters on Simon Fraser, and Mr. Mackay has published, in the "Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness," a quantity of highly interesting Lovat correspondence. The index has been kindly pre- pared by Mr. J. Parker Anderson, late of the British Museum, to whom my thanks are due for the admirable manner in which the work has been performed. I have thought it desirable to deal in greater detail with the earlier and little-known part of Simon Fraser's life than with the later and well-known portion. A full knowledge of his younger days is necessary for an ade- quate comprehension of the events of his old age, with which the general reader is more conversant. My object has been to write an interesting narrative of Lovat's remarkable career, based upon the most reliable material that I have been able to find, and divested of all prejudice. It has been my desire to appear neither as an advocate nor an opponent, but simply as a narrator and an interpreter. I have not attempted either to whitewash or to blacken Lovat's character ; the latter, indeed, has already been done so effectively, that any further attempt in that direction would be a work of supererogation. It may be a matter of opinion whether, after all, Simon Fraser is worthy of a biography ; but it can scarcely be denied that the part he played in shaping British history entitles PREFACE vii him to a place in the gallery of British politicians. And should this narrative of his eventful experiences throw any- additional light upon the troubled times in which he lived, its purpose will have been well served. W. C. MACKENZIE. London, 1908. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Simon Fraser in his Prime . After Le Clare. Archibald, ist Duke of Argyll . Mary of Modena James, 2nd Duke of Queensberry Major James Fraser of Castle Leather John, iith Earl of Mar James Francis Edward, the Old Chevalier . By permission of the Editor of the Celtic Monthly, Glasgow John, 2ND Duke of Argyll . William, 5TH Earl of Seaforth . By permission of Colonel Stewart-Mackenzie of Seaforth. Prince Charles Edward Stuart "Bonnie Prince Charlie." Duncan Forbes of Culloden Simon Fraser in his Old Agf. After Hogarth. FACING PAG8 Frontispiece 37 86 112 212 230 245 260 282 319 333 SIMON FRASER, LORD LOVAT HIS LIFE AND TIMES CHAPTER I The ancestors of Simon Fraser were the Frisales, or Frisels, the old form of spelling the name of Fraser. In all likelihood, the Frisales came over with William the Norman. But one of the earliest of their genealogists — a clergyman of the seventeenth century — tells us that "about the year 1060, came the Frasers into Scotland." 1 This would appear to suggest a pre-Norman ancestry, unless the Frisales, like the Macleans at the Flood, had " a boat of their own " and crossed the Channel inde- pendently. Their name figures in the Roll of Battle Abbey, and their Norman origin is indisputable. 2 Even Celtic enthusiasts, who sweep all and sundry Highland families into their Gaelic net, have been compelled to give the Frasers up. One of them, a well-known writer on Highland subjects, attempted, indeed, to show that the name was probably derived from the Gaelic Friosal, " the race of the forest," but the etymology and the idea it conveys are alike delusive. The Frasers of old were never remarkable for the guilelessness characteristic of children of the forest. Rather did they show their Norman ancestry by the facility with which they " conquessed " — 1 Wardlaw MS. (Scott. Hist. Society, vol. 47, p. 50). 2 Skene's Highlanders of Scotland (MacBain), p. 378. B 2 SIMON FRASER to use the quaint old Scots word — the estates of their neighbours. The Norman way of acquiring property in Scotland was twofold : the sword and the heiress. When one means failed, the other succeeded, and when both failed, grants by friendly kings of kindred blood transformed needy Norman adventurers into great territorial magnates and founders of powerful families, who lorded it over their native neighbours. Thus, even in the Highlands of Scot- land, where the Celtic race maintained its independence against the vigorous Anglo-Saxons long after the Low- lands had become largely assimilated by speech and race with the people south of the Tweed, Norman families gradually established themselves, and some of their descendants are to-day among the most Celtic in spirit of the Highland families. Of these families one of the foremost are the Frasers. Their first settlement in Scotland was in East Lothian. Thence they migrated to Tweeddale, where, by means of native ability — and a judicious marriage with the heiress of Tweeddale — they acquired considerable possessions and influence, as the ruins of no fewer than four castles testify. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Tweeddale Frasers reached the zenith of their fame in the persons of Sir Simon Fraser, the High Sheriff of Tweeddale, and his more renowned son, also named Simon, the gallant soldier and the faithful companion of Wallace in the War of Independence with England. The younger Simon suffered in London the ignominious death of a traitor, or the glorious death of a patriot — according to the contem- porary standpoint, whether English or Scottish — though at the present day no difference of opinion can exist. The Frasers gradually found their way to the north- east, establishing branches of their family in Aberdeen- shire and Inverness-shire. The first of the northern Frasers was Sir Andrew, uncle of Sir Simon, the patriot. SIMON ERASER % He married a wealthy heiress of Caithness, and their son was Simon, the first of the Frasers of Lovat He, too, married an heiress, the daughter of the Earl of Orkney and Caithness, through whom, by her mother, a daughter of Graham of Lovat, he acquired the property of Lovat (with the fortress of Beaufort and the subsidiary fortalice of Lovat) which had anciently belonged to the Bissets, another Norman family whose ambition and unrulincss led to their undoing. From the first Fraser of Lovat is derived the Gaelic patronymic of the clan, viz. : — MacShimi (son of Simon). This Simon, with his two brothers, was killed at the battle of Halidon Hill in 1333. His son, Hugh, was the first Lord Fraser of Lovat. The ninth Lord Fraser, also named Hugh, had six sons, the fourth of whom was Thomas of Beaufort, whose second son, by Sybilla, daughter of John Macleod of Macleod, was Simon, the subject of this biography. 1 The exact date of Simon Fraser's birth is uncertain, but the evidence shows that it must have been about 1676. This is the date given in his " Memoirs," and although it is contradicted by the view accepted by all historians that he was eighty years of age when he was executed in 1747, there is conclusive evidence that he was about nine years younger. There are no records of his boyhood, a fact which leaves a good deal to the imagination ; but Murray of Broughton tells us that he was educated by his uncle, Macleod. Almost certainly he received his early educa- tion at the Grammar School of Inverness. He entered 1 Skene's Highlanders. Anderson's Historical Account of the Family of Fraser. Mackenzie's History of the Frasers. In the celebrated Lovat peerage case, decided in the Court of Session in 1730, Simon Fraser's opponents rested their claim that the estate was a female fief, on the assertion, which was disproved, that the Bissets had borne the title of Lord Lovat, and that a daughter and only child of Bisset was married to a Fraser, from whom it descended to the heirs of line, and, consequently, to the claimant, the daughter of Hugh, eleventh Lord Fraser of Lovat. Simon Fraser's researches in Scottish history contributed towards the upsetting of this theory. (See Memorial of Simon, Lord Lovat, Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases.) 4 SIMON FRASER King's College, Aberdeen, in 1691, which would make his age fifteen at the date of entry, thus corresponding with the known period of life (twelve to sixteen years of age) at which students entered Aberdeen University about the end of the seventeenth century. He graduated Master of Arts in 1695. 1 He had just begun the study of Civil Law when his aspirations were directed into another channel. To specu- late on a man's future had he followed this or that career, instead of the actual one of his choice, is a useless though attractive occupation. In some instances, a strong bent of mind in a certain direction affords a sure guide to the path of successful effort. In others, there is no clearly defined mental bias upon which to base a scheme of life. Simon Fraser belonged to the former class. It may be confi- dently postulated that had he chosen the Bar or the Pulpit of his native country as a profession, the highest honours that either career could offer would have been placed well within his reach. His dialectical skill would have won for him renown in the one direction, and his powers of persuasion in the other. He might have very well ended his days as Lord President of the Court of Session, or as Moderator of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland. When Simon entered King's College, his elder brother Alexander had been dead two years. The latter was a youth of great promise. He graduated at Aberdeen University in 1679, and in 1683 received the freedom of the Royal burgh of Inverness. He fought under Dundee at the battle of Killiecrankie, where he led the Frasers, and was wounded at the battle, or during the subsequent attack on Dunkeld. He was carried home by his clansmen in a litter, and died on November 20, 1689. There is a story told that after Killiecrankie he killed a piper or a fiddler, 1 Letter from Mr. P. J. Anderson, Aberdeen University Library {Inverness Courier, January 14, 1908.) SIMON FRASER 5 at a wedding or a funeral (the accounts vary), and fled to Wales, where he married and left a family. This story formed in 1885 the basis of an unsuccessful claim upon the Lovat estates by an alleged descendant of Alexander. But the register of the parish of Kirkhill was accepted as conclusive evidence of the death of Alexander in 1689 ; in which year, consequently, Simon became his father's heir. 1 To an ambitious youth — and Simon was nothing if not ambitious — this change in his prospects must have opened up a vista of future greatness which had previously seemed to be beyond his grasp. For the shot which laid his brother low was the signal for Simon's elevation to the male heirship of the great Lovat estates. It was true that the tempting fruit which dangled from the family tree might never fall into his father's lap, nor into his. There were others ready to pluck it when ripe, or even before it was ripe. His father's nephew, Hugh, was then in posses- sion of the property and the title as eleventh Lord Fraser of Lovat. Hugh was a weak, amiable man, "of contracted understanding," according to Simon's blunt estimate of his character. His early years had been spent under the tutelage of his maternal uncle, Sir George Mackenzie, of Tarbat (afterwards the first Earl of Cromartie) ; and he continued during his lifetime to be under the influence of stronger natures than his own. He married — it is more accurate to say that he was married to — Lady Amelia Murray, daughter of John, Marquis of Atholl, and sister of Lord John Murray, afterwards created Earl of Tullibardine, and (on his father's death) first Duke of Atholl. By Lord Hugh's contract of marriage, dated May 18, 1685 (con- firmed by charter, dated February 22, 1694), he resigned 1 Letter from Mr. William Burns, solicitor, Inverness {Inverness Courier, December 3, 1907). Simon says that his brother was the first in the North to join Dundee, whom he helped materially with provisions, and with whom he remained until he was "carried home in a litter " (Addl. MSS. 31253 ft". 4, 5), 6 SIMON FRASER the lordship and barony of Lovat and others in favour of the male issue of his marriage with Lady Amelia, or of any other marriage ; in default of whom, to any heirs by this marriage, with a preference to the eldest daughter, without division, if she married a husband bearing the name of Fraser. Lord Hugh is said to have had three sons, all of whom died young. The eldest of his four daughters, who appears to have been born in 1686, and, like her mother, was named Amelia, was thus constituted the preferential and sole heiress if she fulfilled the condition laid down by the contract. This, then, was the position at the time when Simon Fraser had completed his course of philosophy at King's College, and was about to commence the study of Civil Law. 1 He was a diligent student. He tells us that he " read ten hours every day." Yet, in his old age, he affected to hold his University education in low esteem. "Idle college learning," he called it. " I have no benefite," he says, " by the four years that I most slav'd in my Life at the College, but a little taste of Logics and Philosophy." But the truth is, that the study of " Logics and Philo- sophy " gave his mind a certain bent which, for good or ill, influenced his career to an appreciable extent. He had little leisure to brood over his grievances. But they existed notwithstanding. And it required the assistance of all the philosophy he had acquired at King's College to enable him to bear them with equanimity. He must have felt that he was being juggled out of his rights by the Murrays. His weak-minded cousin had just confirmed his contract of marriage, the practical effect of which was to exclude Simon's father and himself from the title and property of which they were the rightful heirs. A chit of a girl was to be the head of the clan Fraser, instead of a spirited young man brimming over 1 Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. Anderson, p. iiS. Mackenzie, p. 210. SIMON FRASER 7 with feudal ardour. Conscious of his own natural parts, he was condemned to be a poor hanger-on to the skirts of nobility, instead of being a great territorial magnate, with the lives and fortunes of hundreds of warlike Frasers at his unchallenged and complete disposal. True, there was a way round : the old Norman and Celtic way of marrying the heiress. But she was only eight years of age, and her relations might have other views for her. Already the astute mind of Simon Fraser was hatching schemes for the preservation of his rights. It is not too much to assert that, until finally the desire of his heart was gained, his actions were dominated by one governing motive, to which all political considerations, all family ties, all the demands of honour itself, were subordinated. He had determined that if he lived, the estates and the title of Lovat should one day be his. Those estates were indeed well worth fighting for. They stretched for miles on both sides of Loch Ness. On the south-east side was Stratherrick, a broad plain lying between the hills which skirt the loch, and the mountains on the borders of Badenoch and Strathdearn. Two centuries ago a bleak, hillocky, hard-looking country, like the granite of which it is mainly composed, it has since undergone improvements in common with the rest of the Highlands. Contrasting with the bleakness of this valley, the Foyers country in its vicinity offers the traveller the scenic delights afforded by the sylvan beauty of Killin, and the " whitening sheet " of the celebrated falls, their picturesqueness modified at the present day by the exigencies of aluminium. Protected at one end by the romantic pass of Inverfarikaig, and at the other by the towering bulk of Corryarrick, Stratherrick, at the end of the seventeenth century, was vulnerable only at ono point, which, in 171 5, was strengthened by the erection of Fort Augustus. An excellent place of refuge for a 8 SIMON FRASER fugitive ; and such Simon Fraser found it to be in his hour of need. But the principal part of the Lovat property lay on the north-west side of Loch Ness. The Aird MacShimi, or Lovat's Aird — so called to distinguish it from other airds, or heights, in the same quarter — is situated on the Inver- ness-shire border of the Beauly Firth, and Beaufort — the appanage of a younger son, and thus the incontestable property of Simon Fraser's father — lies between the towns of Inverness and Beauly, the latter in the heart of the Aird country. A rich, fertile tract at the present day, the Aird, two centuries ago, was a relatively desirable possession, and with the other extensive pertinents of Lovat situated on both sides of Loch Ness, formed one of the finest properties in the North of Scotland. The valley of the Beauly, or Beaulieu, fittingly received its name from the most beautiful queen who ever sat on the Scottish throne. Rejecting the commonplace suggestion of Celtic etymologists that the name is derived from a Gaelic word signifying the "town of the ford," we accept the more romantic signification associated with it by tradition. It is one of the most lovely straths in that part of Scotland where beautiful valleys abound. The high-terraced banks of the river Beauly converge towards the west, where the foaming waters leap through a rocky gorge in the picturesque falls of Kilmorack. On the slopes of the hills, birch-clad and fir-clad, the hand of the industrious cultivator has left its mark. The heights of Strathglass and Glenstrathfarar form a rugged back- ground on the western horizon. The giant Ben Wyvis keeps guard on the north over the peaceful valley. Towards the mouth of the river, a plain of lowland rich- ness stretches eastwards ; and the gentle slopes of the Beauly Firth display the same signs of agricultural wealth. Yonder, near the banks of the river, are the ruins of the ancient Priory of Beauly (founded by John Bisset of SIMON FRASER 9 Lovat), where the French monks of the order of Valli- scaulium, brought to Scotland in the thirteenth century, tilled the land, educated the people, and strove to maintain among their wild and lawless neighbours, a life of austerity and virtue. Of old the God's-acre of the Fraser chiefs, the shadow of its influence was thrown over the market town of Beauly, whose ancient Gaelic name is Balmanach, the town of the monks. Such was the property which was as the apple of Simon Fraser's eye. It would be doing him an injustice to suppose that what he coveted was mainly the revenue of this fertile (but debt-burdened) land. Nothing is clearer than the fact that his aims were more comprehen- sive. He was not indifferent to the advantages of wealth — far from it — but he was no mere money-grubber. To be acknowledged as my Lord Lovat ; to have the means of helping his friends and crushing his foes ; to be looked up to as the head of the Fraser family ; to acquire the despotic power that Celtic feudalism conferred upon the chiefs of the powerful clans ; these appear to have been the motives that urged him to risk everything in acquiring what his old father seems, on the whole, to have regarded as a tinsel title and a troublesome estate. There is a good deal to be said for Simon's point of view. When the feudal system flourished in the High- lands, it was imperative that a clan should be ruled by a man of physical and mental vigour, capable of leading his men in tribal or insurrectionary warfare. If the rightful male heir were incapacitated for leadership by youth or infirmity, he was set aside in favour of a more competent chief. A chieftainess was unthinkable. If a woman happened to be the heiress, the only thing to be done was to get her married as quickly as convenient, and, if possible, to the nearest male heir. That was the later method, for in ancient times, previous to the advent of feudalism, the operation of the law of gavel operated to 10 SIMON FRASER exclude females from acquiring property. Thus the claims of young Beaufort were fortified, alike by the persistence of patriarchal notions among his clansmen, and by the practical inconveniences that resulted from the clan being ruled by a woman. Simon Fraser's position was, in fact, unassailable ; for it was supported alike by tradition, by sentiment, and, most important of all, by the law of the land. The barony of Lovat had always been a male fief, and in 1730, the Supreme Court of Scotland upheld the view that, notwithstanding all efforts to prove the contrary, a male fief it continued to remain. 1 1 Riddell on Peerage and Consistorial Law, vol. i. pp. 285-287, and pp. 370-375, where the question is dealt with fully. CHAPTER II THERE were two avenues, by either of which young Beaufort might reasonably hope to reach the goal of his ambition with greater ease than was possible without their assist- ance ; and these avenues were, respectively, the Law and the Army. One was a long and tedious path, whose windings confused the man accustomed to a straight, open road, but offered no obstacles to the man of clear sisht and subtle mind. The other was a short, broad way, leading sometimes to disillusionment and destruction, but frequently to honours and estates. Which of these would be Simon Fraser's choice ? An accident — if there be such a thing as accident in those matters — decided him to throw over the Law and enter the Army. And thus the Bar of Scotland lost a lawyer who might well have proved, in point of ability, a worthy successor to Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, while the British Army gained a recruit who wished to command before he learned to obey. Lord John Murray, the eldest son of the Marquis of Atholl, had received a commission to raise a regiment for the service of William of Orange. Murray was in high favour at Court. His services in the Dundee campaign were not forgotten. He was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland and Commissioner to the Scots Parliament. He was thus the most influential man in Scotland in 1694, and the value of his friendship to a penniless youth like Simon Fraser, whose father had "spent his patrimony," 12 SIMON FRASER was obvious. Murray found that the task he had under- taken of raising a regiment was by no means an easy one. His father was a secret Jacobite, and gave him no coun- tenance. His father's clansmen regarded him as a renegade, and during the Dundee campaign, they had deserted him in a body. In his extremity, he bethought himself of his easy-going brother-in-law, Lord Hugh of Lovat, who had a following of faithful Frasers ready to obey (as he thought) the call of their chief. Therefore he offered Lord Lovat a command in his regiment, a bribe which Lovat accepted. But the faithful Frasers turned their backs on their chief, apparently because they dis- trusted his colonel. Chagrined by the attitude of his clansmen, Lovat declared that he had accepted the com- mission only to bestow it upon his cousin, Simon, whose interests he wished to advance. But Simon was a staunch Jacobite : for he had imbibed " loyalty " with his mother's milk. According to his own statement, he had served under General Buchan, and had been " three times thrown into prison for his exertions in the Royal Cause before he was sixteen." So, if his statement is correct, he had learned something in a rougher school before going to King's College to acquire a knowledge of " Logics and Philosophy." The latter studies had not weakened his loyalty to King James, but they had revealed to him the possibilities and the practical utility of casuistry, as a valuable antidote to the inconvenient insistence of principle. When he took his degree of Master of Arts, he had already attained proficiency in minor arts not prescribed by the Faculty. Accordingly, it was not difficult for him to reconcile his professedly ardent Jacobitism with his acceptance, in 1695, of a commission in the army of King William. Obviously, he found it necessary to explain his incon- sistency. Lord John Murray told him privately (he says), that the regiment he was raising was destined ultimately SIMON FRASER 13 for the service of him whom the Williamites called the Pretender, and the Jacobites, the King. That the Secre- tary of State for Scotland should thus run the risk of placing himself in the power of a youth of nineteen who, he must have foreseen, might one day prove a thorn in the side of the Atholl family, may be conceivable, but is scarcely probable. Simon's story runs that, after having gained his object — a company of Frasers being easily recruited by the heir-apparent — Lord Murray played him the scurvy trick of refusing him his company until he had brought three hundred recruits to the regiment, and even then he was compelled to compensate in money the officer whom he had displaced. In the interval he had to content himself with a lieutenancy of Grenadiers. In 1696, the officers of Lord Murray's regiment were obliged to take the oath of abjuration, which elicited a protest from those of them who were Jacobites. Simon had another private interview with his colonel, who appears to have had little difficulty in overcoming his scruples. But he was not slow to describe Lord Tullibardine's cleverness in getting the better of him, as " infamous " — a favourite adjective of Simon's, by the way. 1 Major James Fraser gives us a much less tangled account of this transaction. He states simply that the " Marquis of Atholl, seeing him (Simon) to be a young man of spirit, and also being the heir male of the family, thought proper to encourage him, and to put him into the army. My Lord Tullabardine, having then a regiment, brought him in to be lieutenant of the Grandineers, where he continued in the years 1694-5." 2 This version has, at least, the merit of straightforwardness and probability ; for it is likely enough that Murray wished to conciliate the Beauforts. Yet, from other sources of information, we are justified in believing that the recruiting story had some 1 Memoirs of the Life of Lord Lovat (1797), pp. 7-18. 2 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. (Fergusson), pp. 102, 103. 14 SIMON FRASER foundation in fact. But by whatever means he obtained the appointment, Simon was now Captain Fraser in the service of Dutch William, the enemy of the Jacobites, the defender of civil liberty, and the bulwark of the Protestant faith. Fairly launched upon the career of a soldier, he had placed his feet on the first rung of the ladder by which he hoped to mount to the height of a well-defined ambition. This young man started out in life with a single aim in view, which he attained after years of patient waiting, clever scheming, and invincible determination. He had not long to wait for his first chance. In March, 1696, his cousin, Lord Lovat, went to London with Lord Murray, to be presented to the King by the latter ; and Simon accompanied them. Lord Lovat stayed in London some months, "and spent some money," with the assist- ance of his young cousin, and other boon companions like Colonel Alexander Mackenzie, brother of the Earl of Seaforth. On March 26, 1696, Lord Lovat signed in London a deed, annulling the disposition of his estates already made, and conveying them to Thomas Fraser of Beaufort as the male heir, in case he himself died without male issue ; * and on the same date, he executed a bond in Simon's favour for 50,000 merks Scots, the consideration for which was "the special love and affection I bear to my cousin, Master Simon Fraser, eldest lawful son of Thomas Beaufort, and for certain onerous causes and others moving me." 2 Simon is accused in " A letter from a gentleman in the City to his friend in the country" (1704) of having forged this deed and two bonds about 1699- 1700. 3 It is a fact that two bonds, each for 50,000 merks, were found among his papers when these were seized in 1703. 4 The forgery, it is stated, was detected by one of the 1 Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. Anderson, p. 118. - Hill Burton's Lovat, p. 49. 3 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. pp. 435, 437. 4 House of Lords Proceedings concerning the Scottish Conspiracy, p. 13. SIMON FRASER 15 lords of the Court of Session, " upon which," says the narrator, "the Captain took them out of his hands and never made more use of them." 1 The death, at Perth, of Lord Hugh on September 4, 1696, was the signal for the rivals to declare themselves. Thomas of Beaufort, as the male heir, immediately assumed the title of Lord Lovat and took possession of the estates, 2 while Simon called himself Master of Lovat. But the Atholl family had other views, especially Lord John Murray, who had recently been created Earl of Tulli- bardine. The eldest daughter of Lord Hugh, now a lassie of ten, was put forward by her relatives as the heiress to the estates and the peerage, the validity of Beaufort's claim being thus denied. At first, Tullibardine tried to effect an accommodation with the Beauforts by diplomatic means. As colonel of the regiment in which Simon Fraser had a company, he flattered the young captain by delicate attentions, with the object of bending him to his will. One night, when Simon was in charge of the Castle guard in Edinburgh, his colonel asked him to join some other men who had assembled at Tullibardine's invitation "to take their bottle." After they had "drunk to a good pitch," Tullibardine produced a document which Simon was desired to sign. Upon being told that it was a formal renunciation of the Lovat estates, Simon flatly and very properly refused to have anything to do with it. Tulli- bardine promised, in consideration of the renunciation, to procure a regiment for him, and to recompense him hand- somely in money. Still Simon refused. Threats were then launched at his head, but they proved as unavailing 1 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 437. The " City gentleman" states that the deed conveying the estates was also made out in Simon's name, and that, like the bonds, it was forged. Curiously enough, Simon states (Memoirs, pp. 25, 26) that Lord Lovat bequeathed his estates to him, not to his father, who, of course, was the male heir. Still another version is given by Simon in Addl. MSS. 327 7- 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Lovat's Memorial to the Earl of Rochester). 16 SIMON FRASER as cajolery. Finally, swords were drawn, and bloodshed was prevented only by the interference of the witnesses of this strange scene. Simon had a parting shot at his colonel before he left his presence. "As for the paltry company I command in your regiment," he said, . . . "you may give it to your footman." Soon afterwards he got himself transferred, by the influence of Sir Thomas Livingstone, to Colonel Macgill's regiment of Grenadiers. 1 Tullibardine took his revenge by having Captain Fraser tried by court-martial immediately afterwards on a charge of high treason. 2 In January, 1695, Simon had written two silly letters, containing some disloyal refer- ences. 3 Tullibardine sent the letters to the King, and, according to Fraser, the court-martial was the result. It seems more likely, however, that the abortive Jacobite plot, in 1696, to surprise Edinburgh Castle, in which Simon, by his own admission, was concerned, may have formed the basis of the charge. In any case, Simon was acquitted. Livingstone, the Commander-in-Chief, be- friended him, believing that the charge was the result of " private pique." 4 Captain Fraser now wrote to his father, urging him to stand firm in his claim to the title and the estates, and soon afterwards went to the Highlands to afford the new Lord Lovat his moral and material support. " He having come north to his own country, a great many of his name joined him, especially his Highlanders ; but such as were landed men in his low country would not join him." 5 Just so : plains and property make for canniness ; hills and poverty for recklessness. It was safer for the prosperous 1 Memoirs, pp. 31-38. Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 105-107. Addl. MSS. 32707. 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Rochester). 3 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 441. 4 Addl. MSS. 3125 1 (Rochester). Correspondence of Colonel Hooke, vol. i. pp. 133, 134. 5 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 107. SIMON FRASER 17 farmers to back the Atholl interest than to espouse the cause of the penniless young officer. The Law Courts were, of course, open to the two Beauforts for the enforcement of their claims. But the law was an expensive luxury which they were unable to afford. Their chances of success in the courts against the Marquis of Atholl and the Secretary of State for Scotland were small. They had right on their side, beyond doubt, but in those days it was easy for interest to tilt the bandage which covered the eyes of Justice. In any case, the Beauforts thought it better to attempt to obtain their end by other means. Had both parties been willing to come to a fair and honourable understanding, the simplest and most satisfactory method of settling the dispute would undoubtedly have been the old Highland way, which had much to commend it. It is certain that Simon Fraser would have agreed with alacrity to take the heiress with the estates, when she had reached a marriageable age. We have no certain knowledge of the inclinations of the young lady herself. But we give Simon every credit for his ability to win her heart by the judicious employment of flattery and sweetmeats. There is a romantic story about his relation with Miss Amelia which grave historians have accepted as correct, but which, unfortunately for Simon's credit as a lady-killer, proves to be fiction. The story is that the two were genuinely attached to one another, and had planned an elopement and a marriage. Fraser of Tenechiel was employed by Simon to carry out the plan — and the maiden. A severe winter night was chosen for the under- taking. Tenechiel was in such a state of nervous anxiety to get the thing over that, notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, he did not allow Miss Amelia time to put on even her shoes or stockings, but walked her bare- footed into the snow. They had not gone far when conscience-stricken, or frightened, or faithless, or all three, C 18 SIMON FRASER he took the girl back, and tamely handed her over to her mother. This extraordinary story necessarily could not have obtained credence had the tender age of the girl been known. Moreover, there is not sufficient evidence to show that an abduction of any kind was ever attempted, and, in any case, there is nothing to connect Simon Fraser with it. It would have been a senseless act to carry off a child of ten in order to extort terms from her protectors ; and even the adventurous mind of the Master of Lovat could scarcely have contemplated the retention of the girl in captivity until she had reached a marriageable age. He himself makes not the remotest allusion to any escapade of the sort. This conclusively proves the falsity of the romantic version, were there no other facts to confute it ; for Simon would undoubtedly have bragged of his con- quest had it been a fact. His silence proves nothing, either way, for or against the version which admits the youth of the heiress, but affirms that there was, notwith- standing, an attempted abduction. Yet Major Fraser, who must have been intimately acquainted with all the circum- stances, is also silent. He tell us, indeed, that " before that time " (the arrival of Simon in the Highlands) the Marquis of Atholl had taken away Miss Amelia to his own home, "by which means he thought to secure the estate against Lord Simon." 1 It was a wise precaution, no doubt, on the part of the Marquis, in view of the fact that he was about to bestow the promise of his granddaughter's hand on a stranger. Apparently Simon Fraser was ruled out of consideration at the outset. Why ? He had every right to be regarded as the most likely suitor. Apart from questions of equity and hatchet-burying, he appeared to be a desirable match for the girl. His birth and breeding were unexception- able ; he was tall and not ill-looking ; he was better 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i, pp. 107, 108. SIMON FRASER 19 educated, probably, than any of the Murrays ; he had shown that he was a man of spirit ; and there was no reason to doubt that he was a man of sense. Finally, by this marriage, the dispute about the estates would be settled in the way that accorded best with Highland traditions, and, concurrently, satisfied fully the demands of justice. It is probable that Simon considered he had a sort of vested interest in Miss Amelia. Yet the maiden's friends would have none of him ; least of all Tullibardine, who had obtained the gift of the ward "in a trustee's name." * It is not too much to say that their opposition to this match affected the whole course of British history during the first half of the eighteenth century. Had Simon Fraser married the heiress, he would probably have settled down as a model laird, and by sheer force of character become the most influential chief in the High- lands, able to direct into whatever channel he saw fit the united fighting forces of the North ; a combination that would have proved irresistible if employed in the interests of the Stuarts. The antagonism of the Murrays towards him appears to have originated with their desire to keep the estates in their own family. By his refusal to renounce his rights, Simon had thwarted this design ; and their object conse- quently was to ruin him. Had he possessed all the virtues of an Admirable Crichton, they would none the less have rejected his matrimonial advances. As guardian of his niece, Tullibardine of course had every right to make as good a match for her as lay in his power ; and from his point of view, a penniless young officer (and a personal enemy of his own) was no great catch. But a sinister complexion is placed upon the attitude of the Murrays by the suggestion, which seems to have some foundation, that their intention was to marry the girl to her cousin, Tullibardine's son. That, also, would have been quite a 1 McCormick, Carstares, p. 29S. 20 SIMON FRASER legitimate plan, had it not entailed, as it certainly did, the unjust aggrandisement of the House of Atholl at the expense of the rightful heir to the estates. The insecurity of their position was evidently felt by the Murrays, for they brought to bear their influence at Court, in con- junction with the machinery of the law, in an attempt to crush young Beaufort before he could become troublesome. The Marquis of Atholl wrote a letter to the principal men of the Clan Fraser, urging them to desert " that rebel " (a " rebel " whom Tullibardine had failed to convict) and deliver him into the hands of the law ; in other words, into the hands of the Murrays. A "true Fraser" and a man of means to rule over and protect them would be found for them by the Marquis, who owns to having made the discovery that the clansmen would have no one but a Fraser as their chief, a practical admission that other views had been contemplated. To this letter, the High- land adherents of Simon returned the spirited answer that " they would have no borrowed chief," Fraser or no Fraser. But the canny "landed men" caught at the proposal of the Marquis, and suggested a visit to the clan by the Master of Saltoun, the heir of Lord Fraser of Saltoun, who was the chief-elect hinted at in Atholl's letter. The Marquis desired them to send the invitation to Lord Saltoun and his son in their own name ; and this was accordingly done. 1 A schism in the clan was thus success- fully created ; and the plan of the Murrays had so far worked to their entire satisfaction. But they had reckoned without Simon Fraser. 1 Memoirs, pp. 43-47. Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 108, 109. CHAPTER III The Beauforts and their adherents were furious at the thought that an interloper was about to come in their midst and lord it over them. A vigorously worded pro- test, addressed to Lord Saltoun and his son, and signed by about fifty of the principal men of the clan (headed by the elder Beaufort), was drawn up, the author of the document being, in all likelihood, the younger Beaufort, who himself carefully kept in the background. The letter plainly intimated to Lord Saltoun that if he or his son accepted the invitation of the pro-Murray Frasers, they would repent it. 1 Ignoring the threat, Lord Saltoun, accompanied by Lord Mungo Murray, a younger son of the Marquis of Atholl, ventured into the country of their partisans, by whom they were hospitably entertained. They appear to have visited the dowager Lady Lovat in Castle Downie (or Beaufort), where she resided, and after being absent from home for several days, Lord Saltoun prepared for the return journey "in great hopes to have his son Lord Lovat," when the heiress had reached a marriageable age. 2 According to Simon Fraser's account, he made more than one attempt to meet Lord Saltoun in order to discuss with him the object of his visit, but Saltoun deliberately evaded a meeting. Consequently Simon was deeply incensed against him. In his view, Saltoun was deliberately attempting to supplant him, and 1 State Trials, vol. xiv. p. 356. Memoirs, pp. 49, 50. 2 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. HO. 22 SIMON FRASER without giving him the opportunity he desired, of telling him to his face what he thought of his conduct. So he resolved to teach the interloping Fraser a lesson which he would never forget. With a following of wild Stratherrick men, well-armed and devoted to their master's interests, he intercepted Lord Saltoun and his party at Bunchrew, near Inverness, soon after the latter, accompanied by Lord Mungo Murray, had set out on his homeward journey. Saltoun's party were superior in numbers to their assail- ants, but they showed no fight, and having meekly surren- dered, were quickly disarmed. They were taken to the tower of Finellan, belonging to a Fraser who was an adherent of Saltoun, and were there kept in close confine- ment until their ultimate disposal had been decided upon. 1 They were useful as pledges, and as a fact, the Govern- ment did not dare to send troops against the Beauforts until the prisoners had been released, and their captors had retired to a secure place. 2 Simon Fraser had now burned his boats with a vengeance. He must have known that he would have to answer for the outrage, and that the first step in the policy of intimidation would have to be followed by others still more perilous. Realizing his danger, he summoned the whole of his adherents to arms, and soon a following of some hundreds of faithful Frasers, sworn on their dirks never to desert the Beauforts, had mustered under the walls of Finellan. The fate of the prisoners was the first thing to be considered. The Frasers had no quarrel with 1 Memoirs, pp. 71, 72. Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. no, III. '- Historical MSS., Commission Report XII., Appendix VIII., pp. 56-5S. Report XIV., Appendix III., p. 136. The Lord Advocate reported that the "wicked men" (the Frasers) "sueer that if they be not indemnified,' they will burn them quick," i.e. Lord Saltoun and his friends. Simon reported to Hill that " my Lady Lovat is with me under capitulation." She had to give him her word of honour that no troops would trouble him "till our treating be over"; otherwise, his pledges "would certainly suffer befor me or myne." The marriage with the dowager terminated the "treaty" in a sensational fashion ! SIMON FRASER 23 young Lord Murray, though they liked not the name of him, nor did they desire to do any injury to the humbler prisoners. But Lord Saltoun, the Lowland Fraser who had basely attempted to steal the birthright of their lawful chief — why, that was another matter. They would at least frighten him out of his wits if they did nothing else. Accordingly, a grim gallows was erected in front of the room in which Lord Saltoun was confined, and the unhappy man was charged to prepare himself for being launched into eternity. He was told that he had but two days to live, and that he would swing in company with one of the recreant Frasers, his partisans, who would be selected from his fellow-traitors by a throw of the dice. This was a pretty prospect, truly, for the man who had left his home a few days previously to secure an heiress and an estate for his eldest son. It is unlikely that there was ever any intention of hanging Lord Saltoun, but he himself believed the end had come. The prospect made him seriously ill. Few men in similar circumstances would feel boisterously gay, but Lord Saltoun's depression took an acute form. " The poor gentleman," says Major Fraser, quaintly, " finding this (his sentence) a hard pill to discheast (sic), contracted a bloody flux of which he almost dyed." He begged for his life, and was granted it on condition of his giving a written undertaking, under a penalty, to renounce all the pretensions of himself or his family to the estates. Glad to escape with an unbroken neck, he was quite ready to promise never again to thrust it into a Lovat noose. After being detained a little time longer, closely guarded, on a neighbouring islet in the Beauly River, the prisoners were released. 1 The outrage committed upon Lord Saltoun and his friends was warmly resented by the Marquis of Atholl, who had little difficulty in obtaining the necessary 1 Memoirs, pp. 71, 72. Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. m, 112. 24 SIMON FRASER authority for dispersing the armed body of men gathered together by the Beauforts. Simon Fraser saw that he was getting into a tight place. He had to get out in the best way possible. But which was the best way ? He consulted his friends, and their advice' (which coincided with his own views) was that, having gone so far, he should go a long step further by marrying, with or with- out her consent, the dowager Lady Lovat, who (he says) professed to everybody that " she loed him." 1 Their argument (suggested probably by Simon himself) seems to have been that the marriage would appease the wrath of the Atholl family, and would ultimately lead to the goal which they all had in view. A curious argument, one would think, but a hot-headed youth of twenty, flushed with victory (and possibly liquor), is not the best judge of what is reasonable. Simon and the dowager were no strangers to one another. He had been a constant visitor at her home during the lifetime of her husband, Lord Hugh, 2 who, clearly, was very fond of him, as weak men frequently are of strong ones. The lady herself was at this time thirty-one years of age (she was born in 1666), so she was not old enough to be his mother, as he unkindly asserts, though perhaps too old to be the wife of an unlicked cub of twenty. Whether she was " dwarfish in her person and deformed in her shape," as he also asserts, we have no means of knowing. When Simon wished to drive an argument home, he was not exact in his choice of language. Whether the dowager " loed " young Beaufort or not, she made a show of resistance to his advances. Perhaps she liked not the manner of the wooing, which is not surprising, although in those days rough courtships were not uncommon. But to keep the prospective bride a 1 Correspondence of Ilooke, vol. i. p. 136. Memoirs, p. 63. 2 Memoirs, p. 63. SIMON FRASER 25 prisoner in her own house, while armed guards prevented any communication with her friends, was not exactly a seductive mode of courtship. Yet that was what Simon Fraser did. What else he did is best described in Major Fraser's words. " The Lady not yielding willingly," says the Major (who, himself, or his brother, must have been present), " there was some harsh measures taken, a parson sent for, and the bagpipe blown up." l The parson was Robert Munro, minister of Abertarff — "a poor sordid fellow," says Arnot, who describes the subsequent trial. The ceremony was performed, and the dowager, willingly or unwillingly, became the wife of young Beaufort. A curious wedding, truly ! According to the deposi- tions of certain witnesses, the skirl of the bagpipes, which were played incessantly, was intended to drown the cries of the unhappy victim. Some of Simon's apolo- gists besides himself, have asserted that she was not an unwilling sacrifice, one of them, a contemporary, stating that " the Lady agreed to be compelled to what she was inclined to, for fear of drawing on herself the resentment of her brother." " The compulsion," he adds, " was a farce to blind the Marquis of Atholl. She was ultimately forced to comply to agree to the punishment of a husband she loved." 2 It is, perhaps, as easy to believe these statements as to credit the assumption that if the brutal violence described at the subsequent trial had really taken place, she, the daughter of one of Scotland's greatest noblemen, the granddaughter of one of England's proudest peers, and the great-granddaughter of a Prince of the Blood of half the countries of Europe, could ever have regarded with feelings other than those of abhor- rence, the author of treatment which a slut from the slums would have resented as an insult to her woman- hood. Yet the dowager Lady Lovat refused at first to 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 114. * A Free Examination, etc., p. 27. 26* SIMON FRASER prosecute her alleged assailant for rape. Moreover, there is evidence to show that whatever her sentiments were before marriage, she became attached to young Beaufort afterwards, and according to the " certain knowledge " of Major Fraser, insisted upon the celebration of a second marriage with him (the minister being Mr. William Fraser of Kilmorack), in order to leave no doubt that she was his lawful wedded wife. 1 The glorious inconsistency of the sex is doubtless a factor that counts in the argument. Some women will forgive, even seventy times seven, gross brutality in the men they love, if their devotion is capable of reaching so sublime a height. But there are some things a woman will not forgive, and it is hard to believe that the acts alleged against Simon Fraser in connection with this marriage are not included in that category. Therefore, if they were true, the amiability of the dowager must have been little short of angelic, or Simon's blandishments in excusing his conduct little short of mesmeric. It is not too much to say that throughout his life, the supposed rape of the dowager met Simon at every turn, and discredited him among his contemporaries, though he lived at a period that was certainly not remarkable for squeamishness. Wherever he went, the story had pre- ceded him, and he had reason to curse the day that the " parson was sent for and the bagpipe blown up." Yet the evidence against him of criminal barbarity is rebutted ; first, by his own indignant denials 2 (which form the least weighty argument) ; secondly, by Major Fraser's state- ment that he was " falsely accused of a rapt " 3 ; and thirdly, and chiefly, by the fact that, the only witness who could prove want of consent not appearing against him, 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 114, 115. Genuine Memoirs, p. 11. - Memoirs, pp. 62, 63. Correspondence of Ilooke, vol. i. pp. 136, 137. Addl. MSS. 31251 (Rochester). 3 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 129. SIMON FRASER 27 the charge was abandoned. 1 " It is to be observed," writes the Earl of Argyll to " Cardinal " Carstares, " that they durst not pursue him for rape " 2 ; and yet the depositions which were taken, and upon which historians have relied, would seem to prove the charge conclusively. When, on a later occasion, Simon's wife was induced to pursue him in Court, the charge was watered down to the modified interpretation of " rapt " in Scots law, which is analogous to the Rape of Proserpine. 3 When the news of the alleged outrage at Castle Downie reached the ears of the lady's friends, the machinery of the Privy Council was at once set in motion by her brother, Lord Tullibardine, for the punishment of young Beaufort. 4 The latter did not await the result. Well he knew that if he were once in Tullibardine's clutches, his honeymoon and his career would simultane- ously be cut short. So he withdrew with his bride to Eilean Aigas, a little island in the Beauly River, well adapted for defence against unwelcome intruders. He was well guarded by his faithful Frasers, whose vigilance defeated all plans to capture him. On one occasion, Lords James and Mungo Murray, from their headquarters at Inverness, attempted to effect a night surprise, with the aid of a faithless Fraser. But Simon, informed by his friends, who sent " men in women's clothes " to warn him, was ready for them, and the danger passed. 5 The King's messenger crept stealthily at night to the 1 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. pp. 441-446. Hugo Arnot's Collection of cele- brated Criminal Trials in Scotland, pp. 79-81. In those pages a full account is given of the charges against the Beauforts and their accomplices, with the result of the trial. 2 McCormick, Carstares, p. 432. 3 Addl. MSS. 3125 1 (Rochester). Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 141. 4 Marchmont Papers, vol. iii. pp. 142-145. Hist. MSS., Com. Report XIV., App. III., pp. 136-139. 5 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 115-119. Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 138. 28 SIMON FRASER riverside opposite Aigas, and left a citation in a cleft stick — a good service, presumably, but a most dangerous proceeding notwithstanding ; much more dangerous than poaching salmon in the Beauly ! Possibly Simon may have used the citation to light his pipe. On the next occasion, the messenger performed his duty with delibera- tion and confidence at the market cross of Elgin, the nearest Lowland town. Had he blown his trumpet or cow's horn at Eilean Aigas, the third blast would probably have been followed by the cropping of his ears, as being manifestly too long. What are called in Scots law "letters of inter- communing" were issued in November, 1697, against the Beauforts and their associates ; such letters being in effect an order, accompanied by threats, to " all our lieges and subjects whatsoever" to treat the accused as pariahs. Further, a reward of two thousand merks was offered for bringing in either or both of the two Beauforts, dead or alive} Meanwhile Simon was " not at home " to his wife's friends. " I am afraid," he writes John Forbes of Culloden, that " they will propose something dangerous to her." So he was careful not to give them the opportunity. His wife, however, was " uneasy till she see them," and Simon confesses that, " I know not how to manage her," and that he has "a hard task at home." Colonel Hill, the Governor of Fort William, writing to Culloden on November 7, 1697, expresses his concern about Beaufort having " played not the fool, but the madman," and states that if Culloden cannot induce Simon to deliver up his wife upon assurance of pardon, he will probably ruin himself and his friends. 2 The Murrays at Inverness spared no pains to get their 1 Somers Tracts, and Arnot (see ante). - Culloden Papers, pp. 23, 24. Simon sent a statement of the Saltoun affair to Hill, who forwarded it to the Chancellor, the Earl of Marchmont (Hist. MSS., Com. Report XII., App. VIII., pp. 56-58). SIMON PHASER 29 sister out of his clutches. They commissioned Culloden, Simon's friend, and Leonard Robertson of Straloch, one of their own partisans, to interview Beaufort at Eilean Aigas, ostensibly to inquire about his wife's health, a report having gained currency that she was dead or dying. Simon received Culloden hospitably, but snubbed Straloch. The lady was produced in order to testify in person to the validity and the happiness of her marriage. On both points she satisfied Culloden, according to Major Fraser, who was present. 1 A day or two afterwards, her brother, accompanied by Lord Forbes from Inverness, and a troop of horse, went to Castle Downie, the dowager's residence, whence Lord Forbes opened negotiations with Simon through Campbell of Calder, Rose of Kilravock, and Colbert of Castlehill, with the object of inducing Beaufort to permit his wife to visit her brothers. The understanding was that if she acknowledged the validity of her marriage, she was to be sent back to her husband. The dowager protested with tears against the proposal, solemnly assuring her husband that he would never see her face again if he acceded to the request. " I know," she said, " that his (her father's) malice will run against you, and that if he gets hold of me, I must decline you as never to be married to you." She asked to be sent to Skye to stay with the Macleods, her husband's relatives, until better days dawned for both of them. But Simon, relying upon Lord Forbes's word, and actuated by prudential motives, insisted upon her going to Castle Downie, asserting that the weather was too severe for a journey to Dunvegan. So, accompanied by the negotiators, with Fraser of Culduthel (the Major's elder brother) and a maid, the unhappy woman left the little island to pay the visit which she dreaded. When the party arrived at Castle Downie, Calder, Kilravock, and Campbell were forcibly prevented from entering, but 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol, i. p. 122. 30 SIMON FRASER Culduthel was admitted with the dowager. When asked whether she was lawfully married to Captain Fraser, she replied in the affirmative, whereupon her brother, Lord James, kicked her (so says the Major), and with a curse demanded if she really owned herself married " to such a villain." Culduthel, "seeing his chiefs lady soe used " (the point of view is interesting), went to the rescue and attacked Lord James, but was overpowered. Next day, Forbes, breaking faith with her husband, ordered her to be sent to her father's house at Dunkeld. The three lairds who had acted as negotiators " got public notaries and stopped her at the Cross of Inverness," where she declared that she was being taken away by force. Refus- ing, says Simon, to pursue him, she was kept by her father in solitary confinement for a year ; and he denied her the use of writing utensils to prevent her from com- municating with her husband. Obviously, she was not a strong-minded female, capable of taking her own part. Perhaps she did not really know her own mind from first to last in this matrimonial transaction. Her foreboding came true. So far as is known, she never met Simon Fraser again. Her perplexed husband, who was much concerned about her " constancy " (to his interests), sent a letter to her by John Fraser (another brother of the Major's), who managed to get it delivered into her hands ; but before she had time to read it, her mother entered the room, and the letter was hastily burned. And poor Fraser, the bearer, got three months in a dungeon for his pains. 1 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 123-127. Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 138-139. Cf. accounts given in Marchmont Papers, p. 145 ; Hist. MSS., Com. Report XIV., App. III., pp. 138-140. The statements of Lord Forbes differ in some essential particulars from those supplied by Simon and Major Fraser. Forbes states that Simon having fled, " the Lady Lovatt came that day to me to her house of Castle Downy," and elected to go with her brothers to Inverness. But he admits that while she stayed the night at a house close by, the people of the neighbourhood made a noise "as if she SIMON FRASER 31 were carried away by violence." He admits also that " the whole country are entirely addicted to him " (Simon). It was the object of Forbes to make it appear that the dowager was an entirely free agent in returning to her people. A letter from " Al. Anderson " to the Lord Chancellor, dated Inverness, December 17, 1697, gives an account of the whereabouts of Simon, with whom were several of the chief men of the Frasers, including Major Fraser, the author of the much quoted MS. They had removed to the remotest parts of Strathglass, which were difficult of access. Every precaution had been taken by them to guard against a surprise, and the country people were all friendly towards them. The garrison at Inverlochy had been reinforced from Fort William, and an attempt to surprise the refugees was to be made. A great storm had interfered with the arrangements. Some of the Frasers wore "the livery of Lord Tullibardine's regiment." CHAPTER IV Simon Fraser was now about to have one of the most exciting periods of his life. A military expedition was sent in February, 1698, to take him and his father, with their accomplices, dead or alive. The result was unsatis- factory from the point of view of the military, for Simon, from his knowledge of the country and the faithfulness with which he was served, baffled all attempts to seize him. He writes in a grandiose style of the ease with which he evaded or defeated "the several regiments of cavalry, infantry, and dragoons " sent against him. Else- where, he says that they ordered " all the forces, horse and foot, then in the kingdom, except the Horse Guards," l against him and his clansmen. But, allowing for these exaggerations, there seems to have been a considerable force in the field. " The Marquis of Atholl then joined the King's forces with eight hundred of his men," says Major Fraser. 2 For a time young Beaufort got the better of them, though his country was ravaged by the Atholl men under Lords James and Mungo Murray. At length the pressure became so great, that he was compelled to fly with some of his chief supporters over the hills to Skye, where he had previously sent his old father for safety. Behind the strong walls of Dunvegan Castle they 1 Memoirs, p. 74. Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 137. 2 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 127. In addition to AtholPs men, there were five troops of dragoons, and Colonel Hill sent two or three hundred of his best men from Fort William (Marchmont Papers, vol. iii. pp. 143, 144)- SIMON ERASER 33 could dwell in security, and under the hospitable roof of Macleod, the elder Beaufort died, a year afterwards (May, 1699). His son erected a monument to his memory, which may still be seen in the Dunvegan Churchyard. The inscription describes his good qualities as a chief, rather than reciting his virtues as a man — a characteristic touch. But that Simon Fraser was devoted to his father there is no manner of doubt. And a wholly good son cannot be a wholly bad man. 1 Before his death, the elder Beaufort figured with his son in a remarkable trial. In June, 1698, an action was commenced against him and twenty of the chief men of his clan, including Simon, for high treason in forming unlawful associations, collecting an armed force, and continuing in arms after being charged by a herald to lay them down. Evidence was also taken to prove a charge of " excessive barbarity " against the younger Beaufort for his treatment of the dowager Lady Lovat ; but, as already stated, the charge was not proceeded with. There remained, however, the charge of high treason. Of course, the accused men did not appear in Edinburgh ; they had no fancy for putting their heads deliberately into a noose. Legal authorities concur in stating that by the ancient law of Scotland, trials for treason could not Z^s held in absence of the accused, and that in exceptional cases where trial after death was admitted by Scottish jurisprudence, the bones of the deceased were actually dug out of the grave and formally presented in Court. During the persecution of the Covenanters, the law was stretched to facilitate the proceedings of the Court of Justiciary ; but from the Revolution down to the present day, the prosecution of the Frasers is said to be the only case on 1 Simon states that his father was wounded at the battle of Dunbar ; that he was " out " with Middleton (the first Earl) ; that he was imprisoned in Cromwell's Fort, Inverness, sentenced to death, and ransomed by the pay- ment of 100,000 merks to the English. Addl. MSS. 31253, fif. 4, 5. D 34 SIMON FRASER record, of proof being led before a jury, a verdict returned, and sentence pronounced forfeiting life and estate — all in the absence of the accused. Even in the case of the Covenanters, the law was stretched with the object of punishing open and manifest rebellion against the Crown, whereas the Beauforts and their associates had done nothing which could be so construed. 1 In September, 1698, the whole of the accused were condemned to death as traitors, with all the horrible concomitants of that sentence, and their arms were " battered upon the cross-trophy." 2 It shows that a little over two hundred years ago, it was possible to drive a coach and four through the law of Scotland if the driver were sufficiently masterful. Incidentally, it may be remarked that when one reads in the Lord Advocate's " Information " of the " roaring of the great bagpipe " (which suggests the Cockney's "'owling of the nightin- gales"), and when one sees it seriously stated that a corojiach is "the ordinary signal for convocating men in arms," one ceases to wonder that what would have been " private rapine " in trews should be " high treason " in kilts. The forfeiture of the Frasers gave rise to great mis- givings. Writing to Carstares on September 6, 1698, Lord Seafield (Tullibardine's colleague) says : " The Earl of Tullibardine has been this week employed in the 1 This matter is fully discussed by Arnot (see ante). See also letters from Argyll to Carstares (McCormick, Carstares, 431-433, 449, 450) concerning the trial. Ross of Balnagown, who was married to Argyll's aunt, was a strong backer of his cousin, Simon, who owed him money, and whose sole "visible estate " was the dowager's jointure. Balnagown went to Edinburgh at Argyll's request, to attend to Simon's interests — and his own. One of Tullibardine's brothers, and three other men, surreptitiously searched Balnagown's lodgings for papers. Argyll states that the prosecution " brought a woman to swear violence done to the lady (the dowager), who saw her not for five days after." In a letter to Balnagown's wife, Argyll refers to the success he has had in serving Simon, whom he calls " Lord Lovatt " (Hist. MSS., Com. Rep. VI., Pt. I. and II., p. 718. ■ Letter, Seafield to Carstares (McCormick, Carstares, p. 441). SIMON FRASER 35 prosecution of the Frasers. There are twenty of them forfaulted in absence. I cannot indeed justify Captain Fraser in his proceedings ; but yet the rendering of so many men desperate is not at all to the interest of the Government." * And Argyll, writing in the same strain on September 27, complains of the illegal proceedings of the Murrays against the Frasers. People, he says, are afraid to complain of their high-handed behaviour: " they threaten so hard and bite so sore." 2 When Simon returned from Skye to his own country, he found it overawed by the Murrays. Recognizing the hopelessness of making a successful stand against the superior forces opposed to him, Simon retired to Strath- errick, having only a body-guard of some fifty men about him for his protection. The Marquis of Atholl, who was now conducting the operations in person, had his spies all over the district, and on discovering that his elusive foe had returned from the west and was now in Stratherrick, resolved to attempt to capture him. Some three hundred men, under Atholl's sons, Lords James and Mungo Murray, and guided by two Frasers, accordingly attempted a night surprise. They had reached their destination before Simon, who was then in Inverness (disguised, no doubt), heard of what was happening. He might easily have escaped to the Aird, where he would have been perfectly safe, but he deter- mined to save Stratherrick if he could. So he sent swift runners to warn his friends, and to appoint a rendezvous where resistance could be successfully organized. Imme- diately afterwards, he set out with one attendant for Stratherrick, where he had the satisfaction of finding that his plan had so far proceeded favourably. Some of his friends, alarmed by the rumours which had reached them about the strength of their foes, were in favour of 1 McCormick, Carstares, p. 437. 1 -#•! P. 45°. 36 SIMON FRASER abandoning the country to the ravagers. But Simon would have none of such timorous counsel, and advocated hanging upon the enemy's flank, if meeting them in the open were found to be impracticable. His representations prevailed. When the Atholl men had encamped for the night in a well-chosen position, their opponents, too weak to attack them until reinforced, sniped them by the light of the camp fires, and thus kept them in a state of constant alarm until the morning, by which time the additional Frasers had arrived. Simon had now assumed the title of Lord Lovat — his father having died a few days previously — and as their chief, his men were consequently more devoted to him than ever. By a stratagem which depended for its success upon the intelligence and quick- ness of one of Lovat's lieutenants, big Alexander — a Keppoch Macdonald— the Atholl men were caught between two fires, and having no stomach for fighting the Frasers, surrendered at discretion. The sons of the Marquis were furious at the thought of surrender, but Major Menzies, who was in command of the party, ran in front of his men " with a white handkerchief or neckcloth tied on a bludgeon, crying out for mercy." By his own admission, Lovat and some of his young men " were peremptory for putting them all to the sword," if they did not choose to defend themselves ; but they were overruled by the older and wiser men of the clan. Before the prisoners were released, however, they were compelled to swear upon a naked sword a terrible oath, by which "they renounced their claims in Jesus Christ and their hopes of Heaven, and devoted themselves to the devil and all the torments of hell, if they ever returned into the territories of Lovat, or occasioned him directly or indirectly the smallest mischief." The captive lords were forced to sign a document, obliging themselves by the same fearsome oath, and under a money penalty, to ARCHIBALD, 1ST DUKE OF ARGYLL. [To face p. 37. SIMON FRASER 37 prevail upon their father, the Marquis of Atholl, and their brother, Lord Tullibardine, to indemnify Lovat for all the injuries they had committed upon him, his friends, and his estates. Why did Simon not detain the two Murrays as hostages ? That would have been the approved method for a robber chief, a condemned traitor, and an arch-ruffian, by all of which names he was branded, to adopt for extorting terms from his enemies. Under all the cir- cumstances, Lords James and Mungo were lucky to have got off so easily. They would certainly have fared worse at the present day, if captured under similar conditions by the mildest of bandit chiefs whose life they had sought. Lovat tells us that he was afterwards blamed for his lenity on this occasion. He gained nothing by it, for although the two lords do not appear to have troubled him further, they failed to " prevail upon " either their father or their brother to give the slightest satisfaction to him. On the contrary, the latter persecuted him more relentlessly than ever. But Lovat had at least the gratifi- cation of seeing the men sent to capture him, compelled to march between the ranks of his followers, " like so many criminals," and quit in this ignominious fashion the Fraser territory by the way they came. He had his men drawn up in two files for the purpose, " in conformity to an example he had read in the Roman history." It was a proud day for Simon. 1 The new Lord Lovat was not altogether without friends at Court. Incomparably the most influential of these was Archibald, tenth Earl and first Duke (creation 1701) of Argyll, who was persona grata with William of Orange. His services in promoting the Revolution were not for- gotten, and he was enabled to repair the shattered fortunes of his family, and restore the prestige of the Campbells in 1 Memoirs, pp. 78-96. Addl. MSS. 31251 (Rochester). The Atholl men seem to have done considerable damage in the Fraser country (see Correspon- dence of Hooke, vol, i. p. 138, and Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 128), 38 SIMON FRASER the west of Scotland. In the Lowlands, the Argylls were esteemed, or feared, as the heads of the Whig and Presbyterian interest, in the consistent support of which they had suffered and died. In the Highlands, they were esteemed, or feared, as the chiefs of the great Clan Campbell. For generations they had dominated their less enlightened neighbours, and pursued an unwaver- ing course of gradual aggrandizement at their expense. MacCailean Mbr (son of Great Colin), the patronymic of the Argylls, was a name to conjure with, not only in the shire from which the family took its name, but in Perth- shire and other parts of the country, where offshoots from the parent stem had taken root and flourished. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Argylls, the Atholls, the Gordons, and the Seaforths (Mackenzies), were the greatest territorial magnates in the Highlands, and the balance of power was so nicely adjusted between them that any disturbance of the equilibrium was regarded as a menace to the public weal. Successive Administra- tions attached considerable importance to the maintenance of the balance. When the Earl of Seaforth — attainted for his share in the risings of 171 5 and 1719 — received his pardon in 1726, one of the chief considerations that influenced the Government was admittedly the soundness of the policy which dictated a continued division of authority between the four noblemen, each of whom was the head of a powerful clan. Such, then, was the position when Simon Fraser turned to the Earl of Argyll for countenance and help. The Houses of Atholl and Argyll were irreconcilable foes. In addition to the hereditary antagonism of interests which could scarcely be avoided, the Marquis of Atholl was particularly obnoxious to Argyll, as being one of the principal instruments in driving his father to ruin and the block. Atholl and his eldest son were also avowed enemies of Lovat. Clearly, therefore, Argyll was a man SIMON FRASER 39 whose friendship Lovat was bound to cultivate. As a fact, he cultivated it most assiduously, and with such success that Argyll took him under his patronage. This was an immense advantage to Lovat, for his patron possessed the entire confidence of King William, who was wont to declare that he got more truth from Argyll than from all the rest of his servants in Scotland. Moreover, Argyll was friendly with " Cardinal " Carstares, the King's Scottish chaplain, concerning whom it was stated that he was "properly Viceroy of Scotland," and that "few Scotsmen had access to the King but by him " ; which was perfectly true. During the life-time of the elder Beaufort, a written appeal (obviously drafted by Simon), signed by " Lovat " and seven of the Fraser gentlemen, was made to Argyll, beseeching him to protect his old relations, faithful friends, dependents, and sword vassals, against impending ruin at the hands of their enemies. Reference is made to " my eldest son's marriage " to the dowager, " by which we have gained a considerable advantage " ; x the very event which Simon subsequently described as " that fatal marriage," which was the cause of all the disasters that had since befallen his " fortune, reputation, and kindred." 3 When this appeal was issued, the time was not pro- pitious for Argyll to interfere. But the trial of the Frasers gave him a pretext for coming to their assistance. On September 3, 1698, he urged upon Carstares — who was no friend to Tullibardine — that the King could not do a more acceptable thing to the generality " than to pardon Simon for the convocation in arms. As to what else, he will stand his tryall. If Tullibardine be allowed to go on ... it may occasion a deal of bloodshed, for if one begin, all the Highlands will in ten days fly together in arms." 3 1 McCormick, Carstares, pp. 434-436. '-' Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 1 36. 3 McCormick, Carstares, p. 433. 40 SIMON FRASER But it was not until the following year that Argyll's representations prevailed, and that Simon was instructed by his patron to lay down his arms and come to London to receive his pardon. He tells us that during the time that he was a hunted outlaw, Atholl employed more than twenty persons to murder him, and that Tullibardine seized his young brother, then at school in Glasgow, and kept him several months in a dungeon, " with witches and sorcerers that were under sentence of death." 1 It is scarcely necessary to say that these statements must be accepted under reserve. 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol, i. p. 140. CHAPTER V KING WILLIAM was easily persuaded that Lovat's treasonable offences had no foundation in fact. Before leaving England on a visit to Holland, he ordered the Earl of Seafield, the Secretary for Scotland, to draw up a pardon. But Seafield, fearing the displeasure of his col- league (Tullibardine), procrastinated, and the King left England without signing the papers. Lovat, afraid of venturing back to Scotland, suddenly resolved upon a visit to the Royal exile at St. Germain. He tells us that his cousin, Sir John Maclean (whose mother was a daughter of John Macleod of Macleod), introduced him to the Duke of Perth, who " received him with open arms and immediately led him to King James," the Queen and her son being also present. The main object of Simon's visit, according to his own showing, was to blacken the character of the Atholl family, and in this he seems to have been fairly successful. The King "grew extremely warm" in his indignation against "that perfidious and traitorous family," which, he added, " I will do everything in my power to extermi- nate." Indeed, so persuasive was Simon that he succeeded in obtaining the signature of James to a document, engag- ing on behalf of himself and his successors, to protect Lovat and his posterity against all their enemies in Scotland, particularly against the Murrays. So solicitous, in fact, was the King for the welfare of his loyal Lovat, that he recommended him to make his peace with the Usurper of Orange in order to save his clan. 42 SIMON FRASER Accordingly, Simon set out for Loo, where Carstares received him cordially and represented his case so effectively to King William, that a pardon was drawn up covering every conceivable crime with which Lovat was charged. Victory now seemed to be well within Simon's grasp, but once more his hopes were disappointed. The treachery of a clansman, whom Lovat suspected of having sold him to Atholl, or the timidity of Lord Seafield, who was afraid of offending Tullibardine, resulted in the sup- pression of the complete pardon, and the substitution of a modified form, which comprehended the charge of treason but excluded the charge of rape. It has been doubted whether even the modified pardon was ever granted, but the actual document was found among Lovat's papers some years later : it embraced within its scope his accom- plices who had been convicted with him of treason. 1 The foregoing is Lovat's account of what took place at St. Germain and at Loo. 2 On the other hand, Lock- hart of Carnwarth asserts that King James "would not during his life allow him (Lovat) to come to the Court of St. Germains." 3 But Lovat's account of his proceedings at St. Germain was apparently submitted to the Duke of Perth, who was in a position to check its accuracy. And it is perfectly true that Lord Seafield, the Secretary, refused to sign his pardon. That was left to the Under- Secretary "at the instance of Mr. Carstares, one of his Majesty's Chaplains then attending him in Holland." 4 Armed with his (modified) pardon, which seems to have been granted in 1699 or 1700, Lovat went home "to enjoy his estate." He tells us that " the whole North of Scotland was so overjoyed for his having got his estate, that he was received like a Viceroy, and a body of horse 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 13. 2 Memoirs, pp. 99-106. 3 Lockhart Papers, vol. i. p. 79. 4 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 437. SIMON FRASER 43 convoying him from one county to another ; and he and his family was so lov'd in the country that the gentry of the shire of Moray ofifer'd him a sum of money to pay the debts of his family without interest for ten years." * Fortunately for the Morayshire gentry, the offer was not accepted. Perhaps the sum offered was insufficient. In the meantime, Lovat had " formed a process with the concurrence of the Lord Advocate" for the sum of "four hundred thousand livres" (!) against Atholl for plundering his estate, and a criminal process for having killed some of his kinsmen. " If King William had lived six months longer," he declares, " the Atholl estate would have been ruined, and the Marquis would have been forced to take a remission from the King for his cruelties without shadow or order of law." 2 The Marquis met this action by reviving the old charge of rape, having meanwhile persuaded his daughter to pursue Lovat for the modified form of "rapt," to which reference has already been made. Lovat tells us that his wife sent him a private message, offering to declare for him before the Court if he would live with her again. Apparently the prospect did not prove alluring to Simon, for he wished to marry a certain "young woman," his family being "weak," i.e. badly off. However, he was quite prepared to meet the charge (all former sentences being suspended during the trial) and set off for Edinburgh with some forty witnesses, "whereof several were Parliament men and ladies of quality, and he had several declarations and letters under the lady's hand, declaring her love to him while he was absent from her." 3 The two ministers who had performed the marriage ceremony on two different occasions were among the witnesses. 4 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 141. 2 Id., p. 138. 3 Id., pp. 141, 142. 4 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 129. 44 SIMON FRASER But the trial never took place. Information reached Argyll that the dowager, under compulsion, was about to disclaim her marriage. Strong hints were given to him that the majority of the judges were against Lovat, and that Simon had no chance. " If he is found to-morrow in Edinburgh," said Sir James Stewart, the versatile Lord Advocate, " I would not give a sixpence for his head." Being strongly of the opinion that his head was worth an inconceivable number of sixpences, Simon very wisely resolved to take no risks. Argyll furnished him with advice, money, and (most useful of all) a swift horse, desiring him to ride with all good speed to his seat at Chirton, near Shields. Argyll subsequently joined him at Chirton, and together they journeyed to London, where Lovat appears to have been a constant visitor at the Earl's house. 1 Simon informs us with great gusto that his advocate protested that he would not appear, until Atholl should acknowledge him as Lord Lovat, and that the Marquis by an order of the Court was compelled to do so. " And the heraulds cited him at the Parliament House door three times ' Lord Lovat,' conform to the form of the Court." But, of course, no Lord Lovat appeared in answer to the summons, and the dowager missed the opportunity of again confronting her inconstant husband. If, as the latter suggests, she was "a woman scorned," her dis- appointment must have been keen. But Simon was anxious to be off with the old love before being on with the new, the latter being "a kinswoman of his own, Mr. Hugh Fraser's daughter, a merchant in London, by whom he was to get £20,000 sterling"; and he suggests this as one reason why he did not stand his trial. 2 In that case, 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 130, 131. Cf. Memoirs, pp. 106-110, and Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 142. The discrepancies between Simon's two accounts look a little suspicious, but Major Fraser's statement is probably correct in substance. 2 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 142, 143. SIMON FRASER 45 the news of the dissolution of his " sham marriage," pro- nounced by the Court of Justiciary, must have been received by him with equanimity, since it left him free to secure the heiress and the £20,000 without delay. Sentence of outlawry was pronounced against him for non-appearance, which was more serious than the nullifica- tion of his marriage ; but Lovat's flight was unfortunate for his reputation. " It fully satisfied the nation," says a contemporary, " of his guilt." * His witnesses made the best of their way home, but they were not suffered to go scatheless. Atholl punished them for their espousal of Simon's cause, by denouncing them as rebels and persecuting them in other ways. They were cited to appear in Edinburgh once a year for seven years — an intolerable hardship to some of them. Finally, "the most part of them were reduced to poverty, and garrisons keept in their houses, and themselves and their children exposed to the mountains and to the charity of good people." As for Simon himself, the only punishment that could be meted out to him, for the moment, took the rather harmless form of tearing his coat-of-arms at the market cross of Edinburgh. 2 From this point commences Lovat's career as an adventurer, willing to sell his services to the highest bidder. We hear no more of the heiress and her £20,000 ; probably she was not ' willin'.' It is well to remember that Simon had been driven into a life of lawlessness by what was afterwards shown to have been an act of injustice ; that he was without money or estates ; that he dared not show his face in his native land ; and that he stood no chance of obtaining redress in the Scottish Courts of Law. He was thus rendered desperate by his mis- fortunes ; and in such circumstances was ready to embark upon any enterprise that offered a reasonable chance of 1 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 437. 2 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 132, 135. 46 SIMON FRASER placing him in possession of his property. Clearly, the sphere of action marked out for him lay in the field of politics. No other career possessed its possibilities for a man richly endowed by Nature for its most exacting demands. His political insight qualified him, under favourable conditions, to mount to the high seats of first- class statesmanship ; but his needy circumstances actually forced him to descend by the back stairs of intrigue to the hireling's place in the nether world of politics. Never were the opportunities more favourable, or the rewards more tempting to the political adventurer, than at the beginning of the eighteenth century. It was a time when political convictions were " unsettled." The favourite posture was sitting on the fence. The popular attitude was that of Micawber. Since the death of the Princess Anne's son, the Duke of Gloucester, in July, 1700, politicians clung to their fences with greater tenacity than ever. The various parties in the State anticipated, some with apprehension, others with hope, but all with concern, the death of King William, whose health was declining. What would happen when the Princess Anne ascended the throne ? Would her affection as a sister prove stronger than her attach- ment to the Protestant succession ? Would the trimmers have to look to St. Germain or to Hanover for the safe- guarding of their interests ? While these questions were agitating England, the sister kingdom was asking others of a more practical nature. Eight winters had blotted out the stains that had reddened the snows of Glencoe with the blood of the slaughtered Macdonalds, but the memory of the deed had not been erased from the minds of the Scottish people. The King was blamed for his connivance at the massacre ; he is still blamed, if not for his connivance, at least for his carelessness. But at this particular juncture (1700), Glencoe for the moment was in the background. In its place was the disastrous Darien fiasco as a popular SIMON FRASER 47 grievance against William and the English nation. The Scottish people were infuriated by the unneighbourly opposition, instigated by trade jealousy, that had ruined the young colony. The Darien scheme was a national undertaking, and the causes of its failure were resented as a national insult. At this crisis, the hopes of the Jacobites in the North ran high. No more Dutch kings for Scot- land : " we'll hae the auld Stuarts back again," was the prevailing sentiment. And as for the " auld enemy " (England), memories of Flodden were once more vivified. Yet, seven years afterwards, England and Scotland entered into an incorporating union. The truth is that the popular clamour in Scotland had little sting in it. The fighting men of the country were in the Highlands, and their chiefs were kept quiet by comfortable pensions. The Lowlands were noisy but harmless. " A whiff of grape shot" would have effectively quelled any attempt to enforce the patriotic sentiments that were so popular. Yet, at one time, there was more than a possibility of a coalition taking place between the "Country" (indepen- dent) party and the " Cavaliers " (Jacobites), against the " Courtiers " or Government party in the Scottish Parlia- ment, having as its ultimate object complete severance from England, and the formation of an alliance with Scot- land's ancient ally, France. The danger passed, but it taught a lesson. Major Fraser refers to his chief, Lovat, as a likely person to " fish in drumly waters." The situation in Eng- land and Scotland in 1700-1 was sufficiently "drumly" (troubled) to give a skilful political fisherman like Simon promise of good sport and lucrative results, if he had the patience to wait for the fish to rise. Meanwhile his funds were running low. A person of his temperament usually has the misfortune to possess extravagant tastes, and if he is unable to gratify them, his state is indeed pitiful. Lovat could not remain for an indefinite time as a hanger-on 48 SIMON FRASER to the bounty of his patron. Argyll was kind to him, but kindness has its limits, especially if the recipient has nothing to offer in return but fulsome flattery. Simon could, and doubtless did, offer cartloads of compliments to his patron while waiting for something to turn up, but he does not appear to have been able to offer anything more substantial. CHAPTER VI TOWARDS the middle of the year 1701, Lovat's finances appear to have reached a very low ebb. We find him on June 20, 1701, writing to Carstares, "having no other door open," complaining of the neglect of his friends, declaring that it is impossible for him to remain in London, " not being able to subsist longer here," and asking for a loan of sufficient money to take him home to Scotland. 1 Carstares would appear to have been a useful auxiliary to the Scots Corporation of his day in helping his distressed compatriots in the metropolis. Apparently he had already promised a loan to Simon, and perhaps it was by his assistance that Lovat was finally enabled to pay a stealthy visit to his friends in the North. But before leaving London, he wrote letters to in- fluential people like the Marquis of Annandale, Lord Teviot, Sir James Stewart, and Major-General Ramsay, all couched in the same strain. The burden of his song was the malice of his enemies, the hardness of his fate, and the strength of his loyalty to King William. His circumstances obliged him to go home to his own country, in order that he might procure some money wherewith to enable him to get his business done with the King, who was then in Holland, "or serve in the army till my hard fate alter." He begged his correspondents for their friendship and protection. 2 It is not difficult to conjecture 1 McCormick, Carstares, pp. 695, 696. ? Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters to Annandale, Teviot, Stewart, and Ramsay). E 50 SIMON FRASER the nature of his business with the King. He wanted a complete pardon and a clear title to his estates ; but that was a boon which William would not, or could not, grant. Simon complained to Carstares of having stayed so long in London and " got nothing done " ; and apparently he might have stayed till the crack of doom without accom- plishing his object. Tullibardine was out of favour at Court, and was no longer Secretary for Scotland, but his influence was still of sufficient weight to checkmate Lovat in any design he might form to evade the results of his outlawry. Simon would have us believe that he went to the Highlands on a special mission from the King. He suggests that William desired Argyll to send him there, in order to exert his influence with the clans on behalf of the Government, war with France being imminent. He was to be rewarded with a regiment, and if he proved active in the service of the King, the latter would free him from the Atholl troubles and pay his family debts. 1 According to this statement, he must have gone to the Highlands not before September, 1701, and it was probably some time later. It is quite conceivable that Argyll, now a duke, may have encouraged his visit to Scotland, hoping that his visit might be productive indirectly of some good. But that Lovat was charged with a mission to the High- land chiefs is by no means probable. Clearly, the main object of his visit was to raise some money for himself. It was not difficult for him to get assistance from his clansmen, who would have willingly starved rather than let their chief want anything they could supply. He tells us himself that he got " all the money his people could spare " after their oppression by Atholl. 2 He appears to have remained in the North for some little time, lording it over the Frasers in the Aird and Stratherrick. A bold 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 143. 2 Id., p. 143. SIMON FRASER 51 outlaw, truly! He snapped his fingers at the law once he was among his own people, for with them he was perfectly safe. He went about the collection of money in a thoroughly systematic fashion. Attended by an armed guard, he levied contributions, ordered the parish ministers to make whatever proclamations he saw fit, and generally carried himself "more imperiously than if he were lord and proprietor " of the estates — which was pre- cisely what he claimed to be, and what the people believed him to be. And yet he only managed to collect a beggarly five or six hundred merks, while the dowager, who was in possession of the property, got no rent at all, the tenants averring that Simon had squeezed them dry. 1 But this sort of thing could not last. Once more the Murrays were on Lovat's track. On February 17, 1702, he was denounced by the dowager at the market cross of Edinburgh for his crime against her, and two days later, the lady petitioned the Privy Council of Scotland for a commission of fire and sword (which was granted) against him. On March 16, 1702, he was denounced as a rebel, and " intercommuned," at the market cross of Inverness. 1 Meanwhile, the death of King William had caused an alteration in Simon's plans. Was his ship about to arrive at last ? She was laden with possibilities, which luck or skill, or both, might easily convert into solid gold. The " little gentleman in velvet " had perhaps done him a good turn. Anyhow, he would be prepared for all contingencies. Apparently, he had these in view when he issued a number of bonds to persons carefully selected for their usefulness, obliging himself (and his brother as cautioner) to pay the sums named on the bonds, which were redeemable at Martinmas, 1708, provided the recipients "should stand faithful " to his interest, " and no otherwise." Some of the bonds were granted on March 7, 1702, the day before the King's death, which would seem to suggest that Simon was 1 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. pp. 446-448. 52 SIMON FRASER looking ahead. The issue of these bonds was an artful move on his part; they bound the holders very effectively to his interest, while affording him a loop-hole (of which in later years he took advantage) to escape payment if he so wished. 1 He tells us that, on hearing of William's death, he got 500 men together, and proclaimed James (the Cheva- lier de St. George, his father, James II., having died on September 16, 1701). He was resolved, he says, " either to perform some distinguished action in his favour, or to make advantageous terms for himself with Queen Anne." As a fact, he did neither the one nor the other. He confesses to have been the victim of a mis- calculation. He believed that the Jacobite party would be immediately in the ascendency. He believed also that the Duke of Hamilton and Tullibardine, the Duke's brother-in-law, would at once show themselves in their true (Jacobite) colours. 2 And in these circumstances, an early display of zeal on his part in the same cause would quickly right his fortunes. He was still, one may perceive, a political neophyte ; he was only entering the school of statecraft. But he proved an apt learner. Before leaving the Highlands, he seems to have sounded some of the chiefs on their readiness to take up arms for the King over the water. He tells us that he induced, not only them, but a "great number of the lords of the Lowlands, with William, Earl Marischal, and the Earl of Errol, Lord Constable of Scotland, at their head," to grant him a general commission to go to St. Germain, with the 1 Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. Fraser of Struy's claim for 4000 merks on a bond dated March 7, 1702, was contested in the Court of Session, and a decision was given in Lovat's favour on November 30, 1744. The action was brought by a son of the grantee, and Lovat produced evidence of the father's gratitude for assistance received from him. It was held for the defence that the interest being illegal, the bond was null. The date of pay- ment (1708) was declared to be the year in or before which the restoration of the Stuarts was expected to be accomplished — a remarkable instance of political prescience, in view of the abortive French invasion of 1708. 2 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 143. Memoirs, pp. 115, 116. SIMON FRASER 53 assurance that they were ready to take up arms, more especially if fortified by the presence of the young King and an officer to command them. 1 In another place, he says that he went to France by the " great intreaty " of the chiefs, and with their " ample commission " for assuring the King (James) and Queen (Mary of Modena) and the King of France, of "their resolutions to expose their lives and fortunes for their King, and for the service of his Most Christian Majesty, who was the only support of the King their Master." 2 It is hardly necessary to say that the latter declaration was framed for the benefit of Louis XIV., whom he was then (1704) currying favour with by all the means at his disposal. Notwithstanding Lovat's statement that " no one will dispute " the truth of his assertions, " except Atholl's creatures," the facts, on the whole, are against him. It is certain that he did not neglect his own interests when visiting his neighbours in the Highlands, for, by his own admission, he appears to have scattered his " insurance " bonds broadcast among those who were likely to be of service to him. But that a commission of the nature described by him was ever granted by the Highland chiefs, as a body, lacks probability, and it is still more unlikely that the " Lowland lords " would accept him as their representative at St. Germain. The fact seems to be that he was "hedging," an art in which he acquired considerable proficiency in later years. If his patron, Argyll, could help him under the new regime, well and good ; if not, he clearly foresaw that St. Germain was the only hope. And if he went to St. Germain, he must have credentials, and he must not go empty-handed. It is probable that some of the chiefs gave certain vague assurances in the course of conversation, but it is doubtful if they went beyond these, since the new Queen was 1 Memoirs, p. 119. 2 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 143. 54 SIMON FRASER a true Stuart, who was popularly believed to be also a good Jacobite. And even Lovat admits that the supposed readiness of his friends to take up arms, was contingent upon the "succours that might be necessary for such an enterprise." There is nothing to warrant the belief that at this stage of his career he had any means, save those of a plausible manner and a glib tongue, of swaying the policy of the Highland chiefs. Some of them were veterans, fighting under Dundee, what time he was struggling with Latin verbs. Some of them were in the camp long before he was in the cradle. But at a later period of his life, he could give points to all of them in the game of politics, and leave them hopelessly outclassed. Lovat seems to have dawdled for some time in London after returning from Scotland. The truth is, he was still waiting for " something to turn up." He subsequently declared to a travelling companion that King William was to have given him a regiment, but Queen Anne was a woman who did not "respect merit." He could hardly have made that discovery unless he had put her appre- ciation of his merits to the test. Writing to the Duke of Argyll on May 2, 1702, he despairs of "saving myself or my kindred in this Government, so I am resolved to push my fortune some elsewhere." The Duke is reproached in this letter with his neglect. "Though your Grace," writes Simon, " had no regard to my person, I still believed that your Grace would save the name of Fraser from ruin." He inveighs against " Lord Tarbat and the Mackenzies . . . bloody enemies of all Campbells," who wished to possess his country and destroy his kindred, which would be " ane evident loss " to the family of Argyll. 1 Argyll and Tarbat were at that juncture in 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letter to Argyll). The gloomy tone of this letter is owing, doubtless, to the news of the marriage of the Lovat heiress to Mackenzie of Fraserdale. Hence the references to the Mackenzies and Lord Tarbat, to whose branch of the clan the bridegroom belonged. SIMON FRASER 55 hostile camps, and the antagonism between them may have been greater at the moment than between Argyll and Atholl. Wherefore, with much skill for so young a man, Lovat played on the string most responsive to the touch. The " bloody Mackenzies " are a change from the monotony of the "cruel Atholl family." By this time, the fact had been clearly brought home to Simon that he had nothing to hope for from the new Administration. His enemies appeared likely to be in the ascendant in Scottish affairs. He had less chance of obtaining a regiment than of adorning a gibbet. Ruin gleamed fitfully before his eyes, and in fancy he saw his patron, the great MacCailean Mbr himself, with one foot over the precipice. " I have now lost my country and my estate," he wails mournfully to Argyll. " I do not," he adds, "value my personal loss, for I can have bread anywhere. But I regret that, after I am gone, there will not be ten Frasers together in Scotland, while there are now fifteen hundred ready to lose their blood for your Grace and your family." This was not mere claptrap. Nothing is clearer than the inordinate clan pride of Lovat. For individual Frasers he may have had, and did have in some instances, the loftiest contempt, but in the affairs of the Clan Fraser collectively, he had ever the most affectionate interest. He may not have been vain of his remarkable attainments as a man, but as Lord Lovat, chief of the Clan Fraser, his vanity was colossal. His foresight in seeking his bread elsewhere than in England was justified by subsequent events. Argyll never regained his old footing at Court. His rivals in the race for the Queen's favour outstripped him. He may have been too independent to join in the rush for place and power, or he may have been simply indifferent, failing health sapping his old energy and ambition. He died at Chirton in September, 1703, of wounds received at a small house in the grounds of his estate, which he left to his 56 SIMON FRASER mistress. The results which flowed from his unhappy married life were a scandal to many, but King William, conscious of his political sagacity and usefulness, never wavered in his friendship for him. Queen Anne may have had different views. Before his death, he had the mortification to see Viscount Tarbat associated with the Duke of Queensberry as Secretary for Scotland ; Tulli- bardine (then the Duke of Atholl), Privy Seal ; while the Earl of Leven (the friend of Argyll and of Lovat, and the Commander of Edinburgh Castle) was among those who were " laid aside." Lovat tells us in his " Memoirs " that Argyll, " who had a tender friendship" for him, warned him against remaining in England. His own head, said the Duke, was by no means safe, and " for a much stronger reason that of Lord Lovat was in great danger " ; therefore, his advice to Simon was to cross the Channel without delay. The latter took leave of " his most faithfully ally and dearest friend with tears in his eyes, and a thousand protestations of gratitude and attachment." Lord Lome disapproved of his father's advice, averring that the Court of St. Germain was unworthy of faithful service, and that, for his part, he would " shed the last drop of his blood " rather than espouse the cause of the dynasty that had oppressed the House of Argyll so grievously. 1 It is at least certain that Lord Lome (afterwards the doughty warrior, " Red John of the Battles," and the illustrious Duke of Argyll) was consistent throughout his career in steadfast opposition to the Stuarts. We have now brought Simon to the point at which every avenue seemed closed to him except the German Ocean. But before he left London, he appeared in the role of a lover under circumstances that are rather obscure. 1 Memoirs, pp. Il6-IlS. CHAPTER VII WHATEVER the distinctive qualities may be that make for success with the fair sex, Simon Fraser appears to have possessed them in an eminent degree. Where the secret of his fascination lay is readily discoverable. When a young man, his looks must have been passable, but he could never have been reckoned handsome, though his figure was well above the middle height. His face was broad, and his neck was short ; his complexion was ruddy ; humour lurked in the corners of his mouth, and the normal expression of his eyes, which were unusually far apart, was a blend of malicious fun and sublime self- confidence. Anyone studying Hogarth's well-known portrait of him in the National Portrait Gallery, painted when Simon was an old man, can form some idea of his appearance when he was young ; but his sitting posture makes him seem stumpy, which we know from other contemporary sources he was not. Allowance must be made for the subjectiveness of Hogarth's portrait, but its revelation of character is in wonderful accord with the temperament displayed by Lovat's actions. No, it was not by his looks that he won the hearts of women ; it must, one feels assured, have been by his insinuating manner, by his abnormal powers of flattery, and by his gift of exciting interest in his personality, and evoking sympathy with his misfortunes. His conquests were not confined to one nationality : he was equally at home with Scotswomen, Englishwomen, and Frenchwomen. 11 Les dames, Monsieur," said Madame de Maintenon KSi SIMON FRASER to him after he had come and seen and conquered in France, " vo us regardent comme tin homme ravissant " — a barbed jeu-de-mots, which must have made Simon wince. His first recorded love-episode was with the dowager Lady Lovat ; but it is only too apparent that whatever love there was, lay on one side only — and it was not on Simon's side. But when he was a hunted outcast in the wilds of Stratherrick, he formed a liaison with a girl of the neighbourhood, one Mary Cameron, who afterwards went to Wales with her child. She was there known as Mary Cameral, and her son, named Alexander, became a miner on attaining manhood. From this miner was descended the John Fraser who, in 1885, unsuccessfully claimed the Lovat title and estates. There may have been a " Scotch marriage " between Simon and Mary Cameron, but in that case, Simon must have committed bigamy, for his marriage with the dowager had not at that time been annulled. 1 These love experiences were not a promising com- mencement for a youth who had just attained his majority. His next adventure in the same field was of a frankly mercenary character, designed to buttress his (financially) " weak " family. He kept a steady eye on the £20,000 which he was to get with the daughter of Hugh Fraser, the rich London merchant. When that match was broken off, if it ever got so far as to be really on, Lovat turned elsewhere for consolation. Just before he left London for France, he was paying court to a lady named " Lucy Jones." Her letters to him show that she had fallen under the spell of his blandishments, thereby incurring, according to herself, the resentment of her "angry friends and malicious brother." Her letters are of some interest, partly for the sentiments they contain, 1 Letter from Mr. W. Burns, solicitor, in Inverness Courier, November 26, 1907. SIMON FRASER 59 but chiefly for the sidelights they throw upon Lovat's character and circumstances. 1 Her first letter, superscribed "pour Monsieur? and dated May 2, 1702, expresses the "confusion" into which she has been thrown by "the surprising ill news which your Lordship has sent me " — the news in question being apparently his imminent departure from England, owing to his depressed circumstances. She desires to see him before he goes, " yet I would have you run no hazard for my satisfaction." She conjures him to write if he cannot see her. " I am distracted," she exclaims, " to think of your misfortunes, and those dangers you are to run through " ..." I shall long extremely to hear you (are) out of your misfortunes, and will pray for anything that will bring you into England again " ..." If you love me, I would have you continue to do so, and pray write frequently to me " . . . " Don't believe that anything can alter me, for I have a great friendship and esteem for you, and will have so whilst I live." She thanks him for a present he has made to her, and she has sent him one in return. " I would have you accept it to oblige me. Nay, further, I would enjoin you to wear it (the present is not named) on your wedding day, and when you (are) going to be married, let me know it, and to whom, that so I may rejoice in your happiness. I'll pray that you may enjoy all those good {sic) which Heaven can give or you can wish for, and after a long enjoyment of earthly, may you be translated to those eternal joys which only love of God and Faith can give us a foretaste of." She hates the thought of "an eternal farewell," but it is "in vain for me to hope otherwise." She desires him in a post- script to burn the letter, which she had some thought of doing herself, "for fear you should think me mad." She ends by bidding him once more adieu, "pour jamais^ je crain" 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Lucy Jones). 60 SIMON FRASEK The handwriting of this correspondent is commonplace, and her age is (literally) uncertain. But the picture pre- sented to the mind is not that of a gushing young girl. Certain passages in her letters are ingenuous enough, but the ingenuousness of some women is like their hair : it may be natural or it may not. The correspondence of Lucy Jones with Lovat presents to the mind a picture of an experienced matrimonial angler, playing a young and vigorous Beauly salmon. A spinsterly simper of self- satisfaction is traceable between the lines of some of her letters, and her sentimentalism is of an unctuous brand, not usually associated with the thoughtlessness of "the young person." A marked trait of her correspondence is the deference she pays to Lovat's views ; the humility, perhaps, of the clever woman who rules with her little finger the man she flatters with a sense of his over- powering superiority. Whoever and whatever she was, it is clear that the relations of Mistress Lucy with Simon were not clearly defined on the date of the first letter, from which extracts have just been taken. In her next letter, dated May 7, she tells him that he may see her when he pleases, but that he is not to come after ten, " for if you do, I must be forced to ask their leave to let you in." She was living with her sister and maid in lodgings, and her landlady, not unnaturally, was a little suspicious of Simon's visits. " I know not," Lucy writes, " how to pray for any wind that will carry you from me, for I fear to be forgot by you, fancying you do not think of coming to England again." There is another reference to Lovat's " troubles," which seem to have weighed upon the lady's mind. Also, her letters to him were usually written in a hurry. "My hast," she says, "has made me mistake and write you a letter upon the same paper that I begun one to the Bishop of Lincoln." In her next letter, dated May 19, we get a glimpse of the cautious manner in which she was feeling her way. SIMON FRASER 61 As the daughter of Jones of " Stratford-atte-Bow " (the seal she employed affords this clue), it was a gratifying honour for her to receive the addresses of my Lord Lovat, whose importance was assuredly not diminished in her eyes by the representations of Lord Lovat himself. If she was impressed by his title, she was apparently still more impressed by the striking talents for the possession of which she gave him credit. Hence, the shy self-deprecia- tion observable in her earlier letters, which gradually wore away as the process of disillusionment set in, or, as is more likely, when her hold over him became more secure. She had not yet passed the earlier stage when she wrote that she was "in abundance of concern whilst I use my pen, you being so great a judge of language." But she had no need to be afraid of Simon's criticism, for she was an apt pupil of his in the art of letter-writing. Her spelling (here corrected) was a trifle shaky in places, but was better than that of the average lady of fashion of the period. " Want of sense," she goes on to say, " not intention, makes my impressions so flat that they serve not to explain my sentiments. This, joined with the ill opinion you have justly conceived of my sex, makes you think me insincere. But your Honour allows exceptions to general rules, and there perhaps I may find room to creep in at, for, indeed, I am put to shift for myself since you cannot understand my meaning by my writing, and I am not able to give you a mathematical demonstration. But if to mean the thing one says is being sincere, then I am sincere, and if what is sincerely spoken ought to be believed, then when I say I respect you, I do speak sincere ; therefore you ought to believe me." She hopes her letter will give him diversion. " I can as patiently bear your laughing at this as at the rest. But I charge you, keep it not a minute after you have read it, for if you do, I will write you dead when you come to town next." She thinks she might have been spared the pains she had 62 SIMON FRASER taken to convince him of her respect, " since if you do love me, it is with reluctance, and because you can't help it, you say. But I boast my conquest, if I have made one, neither will I free you." " Et, mon Dieu" she ex- claims, "what shall I say to you since you entertain thoughts of hating me ? For I find I shall be concerned to part with you." Lovat's departure was like Charles the Second's dying: he took an unconscionably long time to get it over. Lucy's adieus are freely scattered throughout the pages of her letters, before the final parting took place. The difficulties in the way of their meeting increased as his time in England grew shorter. His visits to her were made by stealth and after dark. One summer night, she got the keys of the house — with some difficulty, " for they are used to take them up into their chamber every night." She told them she had " a friend that was going a ship- board, and could not take his leave of me before eleven at night." She sat up till one in the morning, and then the mistress of the house, who was ill, sent for her keys, apprehending that the opening of the door might let in somebody else besides Lucy's friend, " that mought cutt her throat." Lucy was therefore obliged to give up the keys, "with a heavy curse, not being willing that you or I should lie at the mercy of their thoughts." She told him next day he must not come to the house any more, " because they ask my maid five hundred questions about you." She will meet him when it is dark, if he will go to " Mr. Campall," and she hopes that will be " without any danger to you." She would go "distracted " if he should suffer any ill upon her account. She does not know how to express her sorrow for last night's " dissopoynt." She avows that Simon has such power over her " that I know not what I would not say that would please you, and if you leave the town angry with me, and I see you not, expect to hear of my death. I beg of you to take care SIMON FRASER 63 of your life and health. I wait with impatience till night come. Adieu." This letter is addressed not to "My Lord," but to " My dear friend," namely, " Captain John Campbell," alias Simon Fraser. It is clear from this, as well as from the references to his danger which appear in the letters of Lucy Jones, and the necessity imposed upon him of meeting her at untimely hours, that something had happened to make Simon's presence in London no longer safe. He was forced to drop his own name and adopt another (the useful Whig name of Campbell) in order to conceal his identity ; and he dared not venture out until nightfall. It is probable that he was head over ears in debt, and had difficulties with his creditors. And he may have got into other scrapes as well. In one of her letters, Mistress Lucy asks, with rather startling inconsequence, " I would be glad to know whether you was so unlucky as to kill a man in a rencounter." A life of debt, duels, and duns, while not devoid of excitement, might account for Simon's desire to shun the society of his fellow-beings in London, until " the sable goddess " threw her protecting mantle over him. But there is reason to believe that the true cause of his alarm, and of his hasty arrangements for leaving England, was a renewed effort by his old enemy, Tullibardine, to get hold of him. In England he was, of course, free from arrest under the Scottish sentence of outlawry, but Tullibardine seems to have exerted his regained influence, with success, to procure the necessary authority for his apprehension. There is a bare possibility that rumours of the negotiations with the Highland chiefs may have reached the ears of the Government. Ever on the alert, and by no means friendless, Lovat may have received timely notice of what was going on, and may have taken his precautions accordingly. 1 1 Mr. Martin Haile states (Mary of Modena, p. 365) that "Lovat's letters to Lord Nottingham, commencing with his first appearance at St. 64 SIMON FRASER The remaining letters of Lucy Jones carry us down to Simon's arrival at Harwich, where he was to embark for Holland. In one of them she confesses that she is " miserable," without telling him the reason. She can help him, she says, to curse her sex, because they first began to make him miserable. Obviously, she knew the facts (probably with embellishments) about the dowager. There are several references tending to show that Simon was posing as a misogynist ; probably it made him more interesting in the eyes of his charmer. " Till I conversed with you," she confesses, " I had an indifference to all mankind, and was as free as the air I breathed in, and if Fortune will frustrate our design (marriage ?) let her present the smilings (sic) fairest look and make the kindest offer, I will accept none ; live the person I am, and curse her to the end. Would you could hate me," she continues magnanimously, " so it would lessen your mis- fortunes, I could forgive it." Rather, however, would she wish " to see you from under the cloud, the storms blown all over, the sun shining." All this reads as if Miss Lucy were more concerned with the literary structure of her sentences, than with pouring balm into the wounds of her unfortunate lover. Her essay in philosophy does not rise above the commonplace. " Life," she sagely avers, " has such mixtures, that sure all wise people must despise it. It is the mart for fools and carnival of knaves." The succeed- ing sentences have a truer ring. "Would I could say anything to comfort you. I do not, nor will I forget you." She has to be careful where she posts her letters. She would not " put it into this office for fear they should know my hand and seal, and so take it out to give Germain in 1699, prove him to have been the accredited spy of the English Government." I have not been able to discover any letters to support this statement, which appears, also, in Miss Strickland's Lives of the Queens, 1852, vol. vi. fo. 470, where the authority given is Inedited MSS. in the Biblio- theque du Roi. It may be observed that Nottingham was dismissed from office in 1693, and was not again Secretary until 1702. SIMON FRASER 65 my brother or my uncle" — an interesting sidelight on the dangers of correspondence two centuries ago. A post- script to this letter states that the writer "cannot yet guess the author of the dam'd letter sent to my brother." A singular lapse for the pious Lucy ! The Bishop of Lincoln should have been at her elbow. Another letter shows even more forcibly than the fore- going that the imminence of their parting had quickened the pace of the love-making. " If you should prove incon- stant, expect not to see me alive," she says. The very thought of it had almost given her "a fit of sickness," and she had had a headache since she saw him ; but since receiving his letter (which was accompanied by " a noble present ") she had u no complaint, but find myself recover- ing " ..." I fancy you are not without a heart, but have only made an exchange, tho' not so noble, yet as sincere and constant, and to continue yours unalterably for ever. Sure you cannot think that I would dispose of my heart to one and give my person to another." (Had Simon been jealous of some rival ?) " No — when you cease to love me, I will lay aside the thought of marrying, and when you cease to be, I shall despise life and wait with im- patience the separation of soul and body. I am in great concern for the dangers you are like to be in. I pray God protect you, and bring you safe to this place again. It will be a deed of charity in you to let me hear from you when you can, for I must be uneasy whilst I expect you unsafe. Methinks I have a great deal to say to you, but am loth to tire you with so long a letter." One hardly thinks that this style of love-letter would commend itself to the girl of the twentieth century, who is of a more practical turn of mind than her languishing sister of two hundred years ago. But Mistress Lucy, too, could be practical as well as sentimental. Simon had apparently confided to her a proposal for getting his brother, John, married. " I have taken into consideration," she replies, F 66 SIMON FRASER "what you said to me about your desiring to marry your brother, and do think it is the only thing you have left to do, to ruin your own fortune past redemption. Therefore, pray defer those thoughts till we are so happy as to meet again, and then I will deliver my opinion to your more refined judgment, and give you my reasons against his marrying, which may be better done in a discourse than a letter." She concludes by assuring him that she will take " abundance of care " of his heart, " and will not suffer it to seek after a new love." A letter, undated, written by her the day before Simon left London, is addressed to " My Honoured Lord." She does not know how she will bear his absence, when exposed to the " merciless seas and unrelenting foes." Nothing but " frequent hearing " from him will afford her consolation in her grief. She charges him not to be overcome with " malancoly," not that she can flatter herself that it pro- ceeds entirely from his parting with her, though she would fain hope it is partly attributable to that cause. "Yet when I consider how much you have suffered by my sex, it's unreasonable to desire you to respect any of us." Next day, Lovat was off to Harwich. CHAPTER VIII LORD Lovat's "malancoly" proceeded from a different source than that suggested so modestly by Lucy Jones. This is the first allusion to the fits of despondency from which he suffered for years. They increased in intensity and frequency, assuming in time a form of melancholia which his medical men were unable to diagnose. It is not customary to view Lovat in the light of a sentimentalist, but such he was, beyond doubt, though it was not the love of women that stirred his emotions most forcibly. He was not, after all, cast in the mould of the genuine adventurer. He was utterly unable to throw off trouble lightly, or to take good and bad fortune with equanimity. There never was a man who experienced such a variety of the ups and downs of life with so little of the philosopher in his mental equipment. He brooded over his troubles till they were magnified seven-fold, and threatened to overwhelm him. He thought himself the most ill-used mortal on God's earth. The persecutions he suffered at the hands of his enemies ; the misfortunes which had befallen him through no fault of his own ; the ingratitude of his friends, and the malice of his foes — such was the refrain of his plaint, which he inflicted upon his correspondents with the same satisfaction that a garrulous valetudinarian derives from describing his ailments to sympathetic listeners. Lovat was not the type of man who keeps a stiff upper lip when visited by trouble, and resolutely refuses to sap his energies by bemoaning unavailingly the irrevocable past. At the 68 SIMON FRASER root of his mental attitude lay his deep-seated vanity, which, it must be emphasized, was comprehended in the formula, "there is one clan (the Frasers) and Lord Lovat is its chief." Had he not been such an active man all his life, his melancholia would probably have developed a suicidal tendency, and the services of the executioner at Tower Hill would never have been required. Essentially a practical man, Lovat was nevertheless singularly lacking in the control of his mental processes. 1 The last letter from Lucy Jones, addressed to Captain John Campbell, Harwich, suggests that he had been con- templating some rash action. "For God's sake," she urges, "make no strange resolution or act anything that reason forbids." She had been ill, but her health was then better, yet she was extremely uneasy, "because I think my letters have disquieted you." She begs his pardon for anything in her letters that he may have disliked, and reminds him of the sacrifices she has had to make. "My soul," she writes, "has been upon the rack ever since Monday last when this report first broke out " (the nature of the report is not stated). " Have a mind," she goes on, " if you encourage me to cast off my fears, and live hoping that we may both survive our misfortunes." She anticipates, apparently, that Simon may " punish " her by his silence, and adds, " I don't know how I shall bear it, for I do and ever will respect you and continue your friend." The concluding paragraph of her letter suggests that Lovat had made certain proposals to her (marriage ?) which the lady rejected very neatly, consoling him for his disappointment by giving him a sermonette in her best " Bishop of Lincoln " manner. " You say," she writes, " it is in my power to alter your 1 When Lovat was in prison in France, he was ill of a complaint which his medical man stated was grand chagrin. The doctor recommended fresh air and exercise as a cure (Addl. MSS. 31252, f. 281). SIMON FRASER G9 fate. How joyfully, how willingly, how speedily would I change it for to make you happy. But though it is not in mine, yet it is in a Higher Power, who bids us ask and receive. To Him, therefore, I pray that you may be delivered out of your troubles. Adieu. Nothing is impossible, and faith overcometh all things." 1 Certainly, Simon Fraser should have been a better man for his association with this lady. She did not, as might be supposed, give him his dismissal in her last letter. On the contrary, she was much concerned to have their correspondence continued. There was still hope that she might one day be Lady Lovat. But for the present, she was content to remain Lucy Jones. It is unfortunate that we have only one side of this curious correspondence, for Simon's love-letters must have been masterpieces of their kind. The only letter from him in the collection (undated) was written after his arrival at Boulogne, and seeing it was composed when he was in a huffy mood, we are denied a glimpse of what must have been his inimitable love-style. Obviously, Mistress Lucy had wounded his feelings, and he meant to make her realize that she lay under the ban of his displeasure. He signs himself " Jean Campbell," and the letter is addressed to " Mrs. Lucy Jones, to be left at Mr. Green's, a wood- monger, in Milbank, Westminster, London," " My dear L," he writes, " I could not forbear to give you my most sincere respects, and let you know that I am yet alive and safe here. This, perhaps, will be indifferent news to you. However, I can assure you that nobody has a greater veneration for you than your most humble and affectionate servant. My service to Mrs. Anne" (Lucy's sister apparently). " If you will give yourself the trouble to write to me, direct to . . ." 2 Simon had his revenge in 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Lucy Jones). 2 Addl. MSS. 31251. This letter is presumably a copy. Lovat was most careful in drafting and keeping copies of his letters. 70 SIMON FRASER the employment of the word "veneration." One adores one's sweetheart ; one " venerates " one's grandmother. Lovat lingered at Harwich — he stayed at the White Horse — for some time before embarking for Holland. There were special reasons for the delay. Certain financial arrangements had to be made with John Corbusier, his man of business in London, and his friends there were working for him in other directions. There was a question of an embargo upon the Dutch packet. A friend of his, " K.M." (Kenneth Mackenzie, a relative of the Earl of Seaforth ?), inquired on his behalf concerning this difficulty, at the office of the Secretary of State, and was told that no pass was required, "provided I could pass the privateers . . ." " Most of the Scots nobility," writes the same correspondent, "are marched homewards. I hear that my Lord Tullibardine is impowered to prosecute and apprehend the Grand Fornicator of the Aird, Vickimmie." x The allusion was pretty safe, even if the letter fell into the wrong hands, for no one in the Intelligence Department of the Government was likely to know that " Vickimmie" meant MacSkimi ; that MacShimi meant the chief of the Frasers ; or that the chief of the Frasers was " Captain John Campbell," to whom the letter was addressed. The information thus conveyed was a hint and a warning, but, as already suggested, Lovat may have known what was coming, and made his preparations for flight before the storm burst. 2 Another friend, Alexander Houstoun (who was probably a son of the minister of Stratherrick), seems to have acted as Simon's secretary, and wrote him to Harwich about some negotiations then proceeding on his behalf. Hous- toun had complained to Lovat before he left London of being rather shabbily treated by him. He was hard up ; 1 Addl. MSS. 31251. - Lovat stated at his trial that a reward of ,£2000 was offered for his apprehension (Report of Trial, p. 183). SIMON FRASER 71 could not pay his rent (he lived in Cockpit Court, Dean Street), and threatened to part with some obligation of Simon's to save his family from ruin. " If your Lordship pleases, you shall have it upon very reasonable terms." He had performed some valuable services for Lovat in Scotland, for which he seems to have thought that he had not been adequately rewarded. Probably Simon was as impecunious as Houstoun himself, and, equally with him, had been made to realize that "promises and per- formances are often different things." But they must have parted on good terms, for we find Houstoun endeavour- ing to reach Lord Godolphin, then Lord High Treasurer, in Lovat's interest, at the time the latter was waiting at Harwich. As usual, Lovat worked through the Campbells, the negotiators being one Peter Campbell, and Lord Lome — not, it is to be observed, Lome's father, the Duke of Argyll. Houstoun had waited upon Peter Campbell, and delivered some letters with "a short account of your career." It appears that Lome was " in a manner a stranger to Godol- phin," but seemed to be willing to interest himself on Lovat's behalf. Houstoun was to send Lome's answer by next post, but there is no record of the result. 1 The attempt to help Simon was fruitless ; at any rate, he was compelled to continue his journey. It is note- worthy that, far from setting out from Scotland upon his expedition to France " with extreme alacrity," and simply " passing through " England and Holland, as Lovat himself asserts, he left England with extreme reluctance. He fled from London in May, 1702, and, according to his own statement " arrived at Paris with this important commission about the month of Sep- tember, 1702." 2 But this must be wrong, for there is a letter addressed to him at St. Germain, dated July 16, 1702 ; and Sir John Maclean confirms that he came 1 Addl. MSS. 31251. 8 Memoirs, p. 119. 72 SIMON FRASER to France during that month. 1 Owing to the war having just broken out, the way to France by Holland and Flanders was the only one open, and the delays entailed by this circuitous route must in any case have been tedious. The only information we have about his adventures is that, " after several imminent dangers in Holland and in Flanders, too long to be here recounted," he reached his journey's end at the time stated. There is a hint of some of these dangers in a letter to Lovat from one Ramsay, a Scots spy in the service of France, who, with his two children, left Holland a few days after Simon, passing himself off as an Italian merchant. It appears that Lovat had been " particularly noticed " at the Hague, and information given concerning him to the English Resident (Stanhope) "with particulars which surprised me." It was only his flight from the Hague " that night " that secured his safety. Ramsay's letter was addressed to St. Germain, and Lovat was asked to send his reply by Father Maxwell, one of the Scottish priests who were such useful Jacobite agents at that period. 2 That Lovat had communicated to trusty Jacobites in London his intention of going to St. Germain, is shown by the fact that he was charged with a message by one " Frances Hunter " to " Good Lady Mary," by whom was probably meant the Duke of Perth's wife, whose maiden name was Lady Mary Gordon. A son of this Frances Hunter, bound for France (Douay ?), was placed under Lovat's care, and Simon discharged his trust so faithfully that, according to Ramsay's testimony, "little Hunter was dull a day or two after you, by reason of your absence." The boy's mother was very thankful to have the opportunity of sending him to France in such excel- lent guardianship. She congratulates herself on her "extraordinary good fortune" that the "poore child" 1 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery " (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Addl. MSS. 31251. SIMON FRASER 73 should happen to be in such good company as Lovat's. She hopes to hear soon that he (Lovat) has safely reached his journey's end, and "that all may prove according to your wish, and then I may soon see you with the olive branch, which God send." She asks Simon to divert Lady Mary " with some passages of my life of late," and she concludes by begging him to " excus all foltes." l It is difficult to say whether or not Lovat was in possession of accurate information, when he left England, about the state of affairs existing at the Court of St. Germain. He would have us believe that he was not, and that his innocence was taken advantage of by the Duke of Perth and Sir John Maclean, in order to further their own ends. 2 Whether this is correct or not, it is certain that a man like Lovat could not have been long at St. Germain without penetrating the thin veil that divided the courtiers into two hostile parties, one headed by the Earl of Middleton, the Secretary of State, and the other by the Duke of Perth, the Governor of the young King, who was now a boy of fourteen. Middleton, "one of the pleasantest companions in the world," 3 was also one of the astutest of statesmen. Modera- tion was the keynote of his policy ; and intrigue was the weapon of his choice. He was good-tempered, affable, and patient : a man who could wait, and by waiting could win. But the smiling face could look stern, and the soft hand could strike hard when an enemy crossing his path had to be brushed aside. The Duke of Perth was a man of a different tempera- ment. He was an extremist alike in religion and politics, yet withal " tells a story very prettily." 4 He was proud and passionate ; a faithful friend and a dangerous enemy ; and a Stuart partisan who, whatever his faults, never swerved from his devotion to that family. Such a man 1 Addl. MSS. 3125 1. 2 Memoirs, pp. 122, 123. 3 Macky, p. 137. * M, p. 138. 74 SIMON FRASER was not likely to see eye-to-eye with Middleton, and the difference in their view-points was accentuated by personal reasons ; for Middleton became sole Secretary when his colleague, the Earl of Melfort, Perth's brother, was dismissed in disgrace in 1694, for serving Louis XIV. rather than James II., and for communicating State secrets to English correspondents. His disgrace was completed by his banishment in 1701 to Angers by the French King, as the result of an imprudent letter which fell into the hands of the English Government. Perth, the quondam Chancellor of Scotland, was soon made to realize that the Drummond interest was no longer all- powerful at St. Germain. Being jealous of Middleton, he tried to thwart his measures ; and his rival was not slow to retaliate. The struggle between the two men for supremacy in the Council of Mary Beatrice of Modena, the widow of James II., was long and bitter, and was indirectly responsible for much of the failure that attended the Jacobite efforts both in France and Great Britain. The other members of the Council at St. Germain were the Duke of Berwick, the natural son of James II., and Lord Caryll, who was Middleton's (unpaid) colleague, or Under-Secretary. 1 Lovat's cousin, Sir John Maclean, belonged to the Perth faction. Middleton appears to have offended him by giving to another a Court post which he had promised to Maclean. Sir John was the chief of the Macleans of Duart (Mull), a clan of superlatively doughty fighters who were ever ready for a " ploy." The Argylls, the Great Acquisitors, had bought up the debts incurred by Maclean's ancestors and pressed for payment during his minority. For a time his guardians, Maclean of Brolas and Maclean of Torloisk, managed to evade the demand, first by diplomacy and then by force. Eventually the Campbells took possession of Mull, and young Maclean 1 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery" (Scottish Conspiracy). SIMON FRASER 75 was compelled to relinquish his patrimony. He went on his travels, visiting England and France, and in due time became almost inevitably a partisan of James II. after the Revolution. He fought at the siege of Derry, and at the age of nineteen commanded his clansmen on Dundee's right at Killiecrankie. He reached St. Germain in 1693, bringing with him ^"iooo, presumably subscribed for the Cause by Scottish Jacobites. He was a cheery, good-natured man, who dearly loved a joke. Though physically brave, like all the Highland chiefs, he proved weak as water in a great moral crisis which he was fated to face. He was married to Mary, a daughter of Sir ^Eneas Macpherson of Invereshie, a woman of greater strength of character than her husband, over whom, in consequence, she wielded considerable influence. Another Maclean will meet us in dealing with Lovat's career in France. This was Sir John's cousin, Sir Alexander of Otter, a son of the Bishop of Argyll. Sir Alexander fought at Derry, and at Killiecrankie. He bore the brunt of the fighting against the Cameronians at Dunkeld, where he was wounded, his leg being smashed by a musket ball. After the Jacobite resistance in Scot- land had been finally overcome, he found his way to France. " Though a man of excellent parts," says a con- temporary (Hooke), he was "very slippery and not to be rely'd on." He entered the French service as a means of livelihood, but was a constant visitor at St. Germain when not engaged in his military duties. 1 1 Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i., in which a good deal of informa- tion is given about the early career of the two Macleans. The operations in which they were engaged during and immediately after Dundee's campaign are described, pp. 352-376. Sir Alexander appears to have replaced his broken leg with a wooden one ; whence the name of " Stump," by which he called himself when writing to Marshal Villars. Sir John and Sir Alexander were known as "Castor and Pollux." " Pollux " fought a duel with the man who afterwards became the father-indaw of " Castor." Sir J'.ncas Macpherson was the author of " The Loyall Dissuasive," a learned discussion on genealogy, which Sir John supplemented with his " Remarks" (Scott. Hist. Soc, vol. 41). 76 SIMON FRASER Mary of Modena and the boy of her hopes (and her fears) present pathetic figures in the midst of the factious intrigues by which they were surrounded. The pensioner of Louis XIV., Mary Beatrice found her income insufficient to meet the demands made upon it by her needy adherents ; and the want of harmony among them was as distressing to her feelings as their divided counsels were disastrous to her cause. The King of France had behaved with magnificent generosity alike to her husband and to herself. By affording them a safe asylum in his kingdom, and providing them with the means of maintain- ing a semblance of royalty, he had given an example of true hospitality. By his immediate recognition of the claims of the young prince on the death of his father, he had offered a further proof of the pity he felt for the forlorn condition of his guests. There were, of course, political considerations which played a part in his generous actions ; but it must be remembered that if the Stuarts were politically useful to Louis, they were also a source of embarrassment to France. Such were the " drumly " waters into which Simon Fraser had now taken a plunge. CHAPTER IX It was only to be expected that Lovat should place him- self under the guidance of his cousin, Sir John Maclean, who had nine years' experience of St. Germain behind him. Moreover, Perth was an old acquaintance of Simon's ; and he had been in communication with some of the Duke's relatives in Scotland ; among them, his eldest son, Lord Drummond. He was thus committed in a sense to the Perth faction from the start, and was consequently placed in opposition to Middleton, who at first ignored him, or, as Simon puts it, was unaware of his identity. 1 It did not take Lovat long to arrive at the conclusion that, if he was to make his fortune, the sooner he took the road to Versailles the better. But Versailles was unapproachable without proper credentials endorsed by St. Germain. First of all, therefore, he had to reach the Queen-Regent and lay his plans before her, and for this service the good offices of Sir John Maclean and Lord Perth were available. But before he could hope to make real progress, either with the pious but bigoted Mary Beatrice, or with His Most Christian Majesty, it was necessary that he should recommend himself to them by a re-examination of his religious faith, especially in view of the character that he bore for gross immorality. To attempt an analysis of the motives that induce men to change their religion, is to undertake a task which, to say the least, should be approached with the greatest 1 Memoirs, p. 125. 78 SIMON FRASER diffidence. But when material advantages plainly accrue from the change, the concurrence of events must necessarily suggest a suspicion of the sincerity of the conversion. Lovat's new patron, Lord Perth, was a type of convert concerning whom this suspicion was widely held in Scot- land. In his younger days a zealous Presbyterian, he became a still more zealous Episcopalian when he came to the Court of Charles II. ; and when James II. snatched him and his brother Melfort as brands from the burning, the new Chancellor of Scotland developed into an ardent Roman Catholic and a violent supporter of arbitrary government. He was, says the candid Macky, " a thorough Bigot and hath been so in each religion while he professed it." * When his brother, Melfort, was disgraced in 1694, his royal master, more in sorrow than in anger, charged him with hypocrisy in having professed, years before, his conversion to Romanism. Middleton, the opponent of the Drummonds, had a poor opinion of con- verts. " A new light," he used to say, " never comes into the house but by a crack in the tiling"; 2 an unfortunate remark on the part of a man in whose own "tiling" a big H crack " was soon to appear. During the lifetime of James II. Middleton was at the head of the Jacobite "compounders," or those who insisted upon receiving security from the King that upon his restoration the religion and liberties of England should be preserved ; while the " non-compounders," or those who were willing to agree to an unconditional restoration, were headed by Melfort. The latter was a bigoted Catholic, and Middleton was a — what ? Certainly he was not an orthodox Protestant. When it was suggested to him by an earnest proselytizer that it was surely as easy for him to believe in the Real Presence as in the Trinity, he disposed of that argument by asking, " Pray, sir, who told 1 Macky, p. 137, 138. 2 Id., 137. SIMON FRASER 79 you that I believe in the Trinity " ? * James, who trusted him and tried hard to make a Catholic of him, had to give him up. Yet this careless freethinker " found salvation " soon after the death of his master, and in such a manner as to afford legitimate ground for the sneers of the scoffer. He declared that James appeared to him in a vision, and told him that by his prayers he had secured his salvation. The vision had such an effect upon him (there is an element of the miraculous in Lovat's version of it) 2 that immediately he publicly embraced Roman Catholicism, and resigned his post in order to enter a Benedictine convent in Paris, there to receive instruction in the Catholic religion. He professed a desire to retire permanently from politics ; 3 but Mary Beatrice, delighted by his conversion to the faith which lay so near her heart (the first joy she had had since her husband's death, she said), 4 refused her assent. When he resumed the seals, his influence over the Oueen became unbounded. In his Memoirs, Lovat ascribes Middleton's conver- sion (which he flouts as insincere) to a move on the part of that statesman to checkmate his (Lovat's) plans and bring over the Queen to his own views. 5 The date of Middleton's announcement of his conver- sion (whether genuine or not) was August, 1702, 6 the month after Lovat's arrival in France. It is not incon- ceivable that the two events formed links in the same chain of circumstances ; for Middleton's policy and Fraser's 1 Memoirs of Thomas Earl of Ailesbury, vol. i. p. 226. * Memoirs, pp. 129, 130. Sir David Nairnc (a " Middleton " man) attributes Middleton's conversion to the effect of the dying words of James II. (Mac- pherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 594, 595). 3 Addl. MSS. 32707 (Letter from Middleton to Queen Mary). 4 Stuart Papers (Roxburghe Club), vol. i. p. 100. The Queen, writing on August 21, alluded to the conversion as "ce mirac/e," the greatest they had seen in their day. She attributed this "miracle" to the intercession of her late husband. 5 Memoirs, p. 129. 8 Stuart Papers (Roxburghe Club), vol. i. p. 100. 80 SIMON FRASER plans were wholly antagonistic, and the success of the one meant the failure of the other. "To ascribe his (Middleton's) conversion to love of power would be absurd," say the authors of a recent notable book. 1 It would be equally absurd to assert the contrary. Not even "his great estates in England" (they were forfeited, by the way) would have compensated him for the loss of power, had power rather than ease been his sununum bonum. While in his penitent mood, he assured Mary of Modena that he desired to abandon " all for the only thing necessary," because "an old habitual grievous offender (himself) ought to dedicate the short uncertain part of his life to do pennance." He sought to show, by reasons which are not altogether convincing, that he would be doing a disservice to the King (James) by remaining in office, and that it would be better for all concerned that he should spend the remainder of his life in a retreat. 2 But his zeal for a monastic career quickly evaporated when he touched afresh the seals of office ; and he made the discovery that the King could be very well served after all, by a man about whose person clung " the first odour of a conversion " to the Roman Catholic religion "so abominable to the English." 3 The rest of his career showed no decided religious impulse, though he remained faithful to his adopted creed. Simon Fraser's adoption of the same faith was not the result either of a vision or a miracle. Here was a religion, the profession of which would manifestly be of very great advantage to him. Were its merits, therefore, not worth 1 The King over the water, p. 57. Mr. Lang is a whole-hearted admirer of Middleton, and a believer, obviously, in his sincerity. But it is only right that Middleton (like Lovat) should be judged by his actions. Saint-Simon was of opinion that Middleton's object was to regain the Queen's confidence. Oldmixon makes the absurd suggestion that his object was to regain ^100 a year of which Versailles had deprived him. 2 Addl. MSS. 32707 (Letter from Middleton to Queen Mary). 3 Id. SIMON FRASER 81 looking into ? Clearly, yes. If conviction followed examination, and conversion followed conviction, why, then, the accruing results would be excellent. His con- version would win Queen Mary, checkmate Middleton, open the way for material advantages to Versailles, and for spiritual favours to Heaven. Such, probably, were the considerations that presented themselves to Simon's practical mind, as the following circumstances would appear to suggest. We find Brother B. McLoghlan (evidently an Irish religious) addressing him on September 3, 1702, as " My dear soule," and suggesting that he procure a "passport," which will lead him to "eternal happiness." And there is a further letter, dated September 10, from the same friar, showing that Simon had informed him that he was fully persuaded of the truth of the Roman Catholic religion, but was loth to change the persuasion he was born and bred in, "being not as yet convinced but by leading a moral life you may work your salvation therein." This letter (written on seven foolscap pages, with mar- ginal authorities, and many Latin quotations from the Scriptures and the Fathers) recommends Lovat to retire to some " colledge or convent," there to examine his spiritual condition. He cannot hope to find salvation in "that new- found Kirk which was not knowne in ye Kingdome of Scotland, nor elsewhere, when your family was first acknow- ledged noblemen and the more noble by being then Roman Catholicks." The privileges and duties associated with his reception into the " Catholick Apostolic Roman Church" are carefully detailed for Simon's earnest con- sideration. "If," adds the honest friar, "any difficulty hinders your timely conversion, you may soon find several more learned men than I am, and that in all sort of science, especially that of controversie, which hitherto I never made my particular study." ! 1 Addl. MSS. 3125 1 (Letters from Br, McLoghlan). G 82 SIMON FRASER There is nothing to show that Lovat followed the friar's advice and retired to a convent, but that he abjured the Protestant faith and became a Roman Catholic is proved by his own letters, among them one to the Pope. In this letter, he presents himself at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, laments the errors of the " heresy " in which he was born, and assures him of his entire submission to his will, and of his determination to persevere in his devotion to the Church " a V effusion de mon sang" He acknowledges his indebtedness to the Papal Nuncio for the change in his views, and hopes that under the protection of the Holy Father and the King of France, the good work of the Nuncio (in effecting his conversion) will bear fruit in the re-establishment of the King (James) and the Catholic religion in Britain. He winds up with a characteristically pompous flourish : " With this object, I go to hazard my life and my family." l This letter has no date, but the Pope's acknowledg- ment is dated Rome, July 22, 1703 ; 2 that is, about the time, as we shall see, that Lovat was setting out for Scot- land upon an important political mission. The Papal Nuncio, to whom allusion is made in Simon's letter, was the celebrated Gualterio (not yet a Cardinal), who proved one of Lovat's staunchest friends. "This great man," remarks Simon in his Memoirs, "left to the preacher and the confessor the business of converting souls," his domain being the affairs of State. 3 " He never spoke a word to him (Lovat) on the subject of religion," knowing that he was a Protestant ! 4 Gualterio was an able statesman, who successfully maintained the most cordial relations between Versailles 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Draft letter from Lovat to the Pope). Elsewhere, Simon attributes his conversion to the arguments of the Bishop of Meaux and Father Mabillon, a Benedictine (Addl. MSS. 31252). - Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letter from the Pope to Lovat). 3 Memoirs, p. 267. 4 Id., p. 266. SIMON FRASER 83 and the Vatican. His policy received strong backing from the Marquis de Torcy, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Louis XIV., and the son of the great Colbert, who, himself, is said to have been a descendant of the Cuthberts of Castlehill, Inverness. Torcy, who was re- nowned throughout Europe for his astuteness, took Lovat up, apparently on Gualterio's recommendation, and became the main channel through which Simon ultimately reached His Most Christian Majesty. Lovat lived in an age when principles were bartered like stocks and shares to the highest bidder. It was an age in which religion was not a thing to die for, but a thing to make a living by. It was an age in which men's consciences were as elastic as their politics ; and their politics were as changeable as their wigs. The names Whig and Tory, said that stout patriot, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, an honest Radical before his time, " are only used to cloak the knavery of both parties." l Accommo- dating political adventurers are by no means an extinct tribe ; but, nowadays, the principles of politicians are immutable ; it is only their opponents who change. Simon Fraser never concealed from his intimate friends the mainspring of his political actions ; he was out to look after himself. If he performed work, he exacted pay- ment ; if he changed sides, it was for the same reason that a clerk changes his situation — to " better himself." And if he included a change of religion in his scheme of self-advancement, he was only following the example of men who bore a reputation for honour that he never en- joyed. It may, at least, be said for him that at the crisis in a man's life when his genuine religious convictions (if he has any at all) are revealed, Lovat desired and received the last consolations of the religion which he adopted in France. But it is a relief to turn from the sordid crowd of traffickers in principles to the noble figure of the 1 Macky, p. 130. 84 SIMON FRASER Chevalier de St. George himself, who, at length, has had justice done to his character by capable pens. 1 There he stands, a sad but kingly figure, misunderstood during his lifetime, misrepresented after his death. Yet he is the prince who had the crown of Great Britain within his grasp, had he been willing to make merchandise of his religious faith. 1 " The King over the water." CHAPTER X FOR some good reason, Lovat seems for a time to have kept his whereabouts a secret, except from his intimates, and to have called himself by the name of Donald Camp- bell. He was known to his Highland friends at St. Germain as " Donald Don," a free translation of which is " unhappy Donald " — not an inapt name for a man who was always bewailing his troubles. The letters from Sir John Maclean to " Dole Don " are chiefly remarkable for the inventiveness of the writer in his selection of titles for his correspondent : " The most potent and mighty Prince, Dole Don, in the house where hatts and feathers are bedewed with gardez lean " (an echo of old Edinburgh). And, again, in allusion to Lovat's mission from the High- lands : " Dole Don, Ambassadour Extraordinair of the divilish cantons," which does not sound very complimen- tary to the native country of both. Elsewhere, Lovat is addressed by Maclean as the Earl of Invernesse, Sheriff- Principal of the shire " (coming events casting their shadows before), and in another letter, Maclean himself is alluded to as the " Earl of Mull." The address, " For Scots Donald (who) brake the Englishman's heade " is an allusion to Lovat by Maclean, the meaning of which is unexplained. Several of these addresses, some of them fairly lengthy, are written in Gaelic, the employment of that language by the Highlanders at St. Germain being a safeguard of obvious utility. 1 1 Addl. MSS. 3125 1 (Letters from Sir John Maclean). The Earl of Nottingham was nicknamed "Don Diego" and "Don Dismal" owing to his lugubriousness. Possibly, in Lovat's case, the term "Don "may have a Spanish rather than n Gaelic allusiveness ! 86 SIMON FRASER Politically, the Court of Mary of Modena was divided into two main parties, "English" and "Scottish," these names signifying the lines of policy followed by the two sets of adherents. The " English " party, headed by Middleton (himself a Scot), placed their trust in Provi- dence, Godolphin, and Marlborough — especially in Marl- borough. They held that all schemes for the restoration of the exiled family were chimerical and useless, until the death of Queen Anne should pave the bloodless way to a throne prepared for the reception of James III. by his secret friends in England. The " Scottish " party, headed by Perth, favoured a bolder policy. They advocated a rising in Scotland, to be assisted by France with men, and money, and arms. They placed more faith in Highland broad- swords than in English promises. Queen Anne might live to a good old age ; they themselves were weary of exile and tired of poverty : and, above all, there was no guarantee that their rivals were resting their hopes upon a sound basis. They were right : the structure of the Middletonian faith was a house of sand, which in due time was swept away by the rising tide of the German Ocean. The interests of France were bound up with the policy of the Scottish party. Indeed, the immediate aims of Louis would be sufficiently well served by placing James on the thrones of Scotland and Ireland as his subservient ally ; and no better method could be devised for striking a blow at England when occasion called for it. It requires no effort of the imagination to realize the extraordinarily trying position in which Mary of Modena was placed under such circumstances. She was a simple, pious woman, whose grasp of political business was by no means feeble, but whose nature was opposed to chicanery and intrigue. Her chief difficulty lay in discriminating between her real and her nominal friends ; those who were working in her interests, and those who were working in their own. She had strong faith in the disinterestedness MARY OF MODENA. [To face p. 86. SIMON FRASER 87 both of Middleton and Perth, though their policies were diametrically opposed. She was the pensioner of Louis, and dared not offend him ; and under no circumstances would she lay herself open to the charge of ingratitude. Her difficulties did not end here. She had to compose the jealousies, heal the quarrels, assuage the disappoint- ments, and pay the salaries of needy courtiers, who were not always ready to make allowances for the sea of troubles by which she was surrounded. Her Court was rich in everything except in money. It included some of the most intellectual men and the most beautiful women who, in happier days, had exercised unchallenged supremacy in London society. Middleton and Perth, experienced statesmen, were also men of letters. The Carylls, uncle and nephew, were a distinguished couple ; the elder, a man of fine literary talent, and the younger, a poet and dramatist, who was on terms of intimate friendship with Pope and Dryden. There, too, was Anthony Hamilton, from whose graceful pen issued the Memoirs of Count Grammont ; and for whom the amiable Duke of Berwick bore a sincere and steadfast friendship. And when their duties permitted, there also came the Dillons, the MacMahons, the Murrays, the Nugents, the Bulkeleys, and others, who had offered their swords to France for the bread which their lawful King was unable to provide. 1 The women of the Court were still more notable. The Duchess of Tyrconnel (" the fair Jennings " of Grammont's Memoirs), the widow of Sir George Hamilton, never acquired an ascendency over Queen Mary such as that obtained by her sister, the clever Sarah, Duchess of Marl- borough, over Queen Anne. Her rivals in beauty were 1 In one of his letters (1705), written when he was in prison, Lovat alludes contemptuously to those who for sixteen years had deceived St. Germain, and who had no other metier than to flatter the Queen "pour lew pain" (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 282, 283). 88 SIMON FRASER Lady Melfort and the Countess of Errol ; and a link with the Court of Charles II. was provided by Lady Sophia Bulkeley, sister of the celebrated Miss Stuart who fasci- nated the susceptible King by her beauty, and tormented him by her coquetry, ultimately throwing him over for an honourable marriage with the Duke of Richmond. Lady Sophia's daughter, Anne — the fair " Nanette " — was the second wife of the Duke of Berwick, and the sister of Henrietta Bulkeley, the admired of Anthony Hamilton of the Memoirs. Their marriage was prevented by a common poverty. Had Hamilton lived at the present day, he could have set up housekeeping on the proceeds of his novels. Amid this brilliant group, the Queen moved with a mind set upon two main objects : the future condition of her son, and the present state of her soul. Her devo- tional exercises in the convent of Ste. Marie de Chaillot were frequent and rigorous. She believed in her religion with all her might, and the sincerity of her convictions, misguided into a channel of intolerance, resulted in an occasional antagonism between the tender sympathy of the gentle woman and the fierce zeal of the religious bigot. This was the Queen whose favour Simon Fraser had to win before he could hope to make any substantial progress with his scheme. Sir John Maclean entered with enthusiasm into Lovat's plans, and in conjunction with Perth, managed to bring Simon and Mary Beatrice face to face. These Scottish exiles of high degree had to live very economically, and so we find Maclean deprecating the expense of a "black suit" to wait upon the Queen, as being altogether unneces- sary. Ceremony that involved expense had to be dis- pensed with at St. Germain, where money was so scarce. Sir John, who wrote some of his letters in taverns, and was not on the Chevalier's special list for supper parties, had himself been forced to realize the bitterness of the SIMON FRASER 89 man who is down on his luck, and probably his cousin, Lovat, was not a whit better off. The career of both men would probably have taken a different shape had their circumstances been easier. The ardour of Maclean's professions of friendship for Fraser gives warmth and colour to his correspondence. He signs himself, " Yours and your heirs for ever " ; "Your own, In secula, seculorum. Amen" ; " My Deare, I am yours, and yours I will be to all eternity or may God confound me." In one instance he signs himself Mack- gileon More ni Halbin (the great Maclean of Scotland), and adopting the royal style suggested by that title, adds " Given at our Court at the burning of a ffagot this tenth year of our banishment, 1703." Simon is his Vic mo Chri (son of my heart), and Simon's business "is myne as much as my own, or devil runne away with the Castle of Dowart." In four languages (the Gaelic orthography is shaky) he professed his eternal friendship for Lovat, and it is quite likely that at the time he was perfectly sincere. 1 "The junction of two such families," wrote Sir Alexander Maclean to Lovat, " and in fine, your inseparable friend- ship with my cheefe and dearest of men . . . will make your interest and your person as dear to me as his or my own." 2 Yet in a few months afterwards, Sir John Maclean proved himself a false friend to Simon Fraser. There are two allusions in Sir John's correspondence with Lovat which are puzzling. In one of his letters, written apparently about October, 1702, and addressed to Dole Don, he says, " The good wife (Lady Maclean) longs for your return and so does your wife? It is to be observed that Simon at that time lodged with Sir John. In another letter (date uncertain) addressed to Mackimie, he writes : " Your wife was decamped to her former lodging with fire 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir John Maclean). - Id. (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean). 90 SIMON FRASER and sword before I came from Paris." 1 Who was this wife ? Apparently she had a legal right to the title, and if so, when did Lovat marry her? He is known to have been married three times. His first recorded marriage has already been described ; his second took place in 1716 ; and his third in 1733. Was there a fourth, of which hitherto there has been no record? And was the lady Lucy Jones ? The Paris wife cannot have been the dowager, for in the circumstances that hypothesis is untenable. Whoever she was — if she was really his wife ■ — she does not seem to have lived with Lovat long. Whether she left him or died, it is impossible to say. The whole evidence of her very existence rests upon the two allusions quoted. Lady Maclean figures in her husband's letters as an excellent wife, which she doubtless was. She was a promi- nent figure in the Scottish set at Court. " Give my respects to my Lady Maclean," writes Lord John Drummond to her husband. " I'm sorry she did not come here yester- day, since that all the waters were playing, and the garden full of good companie, but yours and hers being wanting, the feste was not compleat." 2 We find the cheery Sir John striving to keep up Lovat's courage as well as his own, when things were not going well with their affairs. "Be not impatient, my deare," he writes to Simon, " we'll ding the devil out of them or they shall doe for us. We'll stick to one another and force them to doe us justice." In another letter he says : " For God's sake, my deare, take care of your health, for that is above all. Let not shagrin disturb you. A firmness of soul must overcome all difficulties." Occasionally, " firmness of soul " seemed to desert himself when his finances were getting into a desperate state ; for part of his annual allowance of 900 livres was overdue. "The Queen," he 1 Addl. MSS. 31252 (Letters from Sir John Maclean). 2 Id. (Letters from Lord John Drummond). SIMON FRASER 91 tells Lovat, " is in a milder humour since her return from Marly. P. (Perth) spoke to her of my businesse. She said, as he told me, the kindest things imaginable of me and familie ; that she would be in despair to doe any- thing would make me discontent ; that, therefore, she would examine her affaires to see what condition they are in, and that at her return from Chaillot, she would give him ane answer. What will become of it, God knows, for I have mett with disappointments enough not to hope for anything." * This extract throws a sidelight upon Maclean's behaviour soon afterwards. He was " weary of his hardships " at St. Germain, and was glad to see the last of it. He tried once before (in 1698) with the consent, he says, of James II., to make his peace with the British Government, but was snubbed by the Ambassador in Paris. 2 Meanwhile, Lovat had no reason to complain of the progress he was making. He and Sir John Maclean had " fixt " the Queen and Perth to their proposals, and all was secured to their satisfaction, "which is the main jobb." By his cleverness in managing affairs, he enlisted the interest, not only of Mary of Modena, but of Gualterio, Torcy, the Marquis de Callieres (a friend of Perth and Louis's Secretary of the Cabinet), Cardinal de Noailles, and — a most important ally — Madame de Maintcnon, 3 who frequently visited Mary Beatrice. With this powerful backing, it was only a question of time for him to succeed in obtaining admittance to the august presence of Louis 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir John Maclean). • McCormick, Carstares, pp. 374, 375. 3 Memoirs, p. 132. A draft letter from Lovat to Louis expresses his sense of the overwhelming honour done to him (Lovat) by the King's consent to an interview. The opportunity afforded full scope for Simon's gift of fulsome flattery : " the greatest man in the universe," he calls Louis. Also, he took advantage of the opportunity to dwell upon the iniquitous treatment of Scot- land by England, and to emphasize the community of interests between France and Scotland : " its Ecossois aiment les Francois toujours t et^aissent beattcoup Us Anglois" (Addl. MSS. 31250, f. 12). h 92 SIMON FRASER the Magnificent himself. The King did him the signal honour of receiving him at a private interview. It is stated by a contemporary that Lovat had prepared a pompous harangue for the edification of His Most Christian Majesty, but losing his nerve, forgot every word of the set speech ; whereupon, he summoned his native readiness to his aid and charmed the King by an extempore address, full of wit and wisdom. 1 It is difficult to imagine Lovat's audacity being stifled by any atmosphere, however op- pressive by its grandeur, but there can be no doubt that, whatever took place at the interview, the impression he left upon Louis was decidedly favourable. " I hope," wrote Sir Alexander Maclean to Lovat, "that your discourse with the G(rand) Mon(arque) will establish not onlie his good opinion of yourself but of all your Highland freindies." 2 The opinion formed by Lovat's Jacobite friends at St. Germain of his qualifications for ingratiat- ing himself with Louis, is stated by David Lindsay, Middleton's secretary, who himself had never met Simon. "He had wit, a good genteel behaviour," and was "very insinuating." 3 Which accounts for much of his success with men and women alike. 1 An Account of the Pedigree and Actions of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, p. 10. 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean). 3 Lindsay's evidence before the House of Lords' Committee (Scottish Conspiracy). CHAPTER XI What were Lovat's proposals to Louis and Mary of Modena ? He professed, in the first place, to be the accredited agent of some of the most influential Highland chiefs, particularly of Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, Sir Donald Macdonald of Sleat, and Robert Stewart of Appin, all of whom assured him that, if assisted by France with money, arms, and troops, they would bring io,ooo men into the field. He prepared a list of Jacobite chiefs (some of whom, he admitted to Sir John Maclean, he had not interviewed) with the righting strength of their clans, which he greatly exaggerated, declaring, in reply to Sir John's remonstrances, that it was necessary to make a good show in order to induce Louis to consider the scheme. According to David Lindsay, Lovat put the number of Highlanders who could be placed in the field at 16,000 men, whereupon Middleton replied that to his knowledge, the whole of the Highlands were not able to bring out half that number ; which was not true. But in any case, added Middleton, it was unreasonable to have anything to do with a man like Lovat. 1 The Highlands being ready to rise, it lay with France to play her part. Five thousand French troops were to embark at Dunkirk and land near Dundee, joining hands with the Highlanders at an agreed rendezvous. Simul- taneously, 500 men were to sail from Brest to the west 1 Sir John Maclean's "Discovery" and Lindsay's evidence (Scottish Con- spiracy). 94 SIMON FRASER coast and seize Fort William. The rest would be easy. The money required for the expedition would be 100,000 crowns, and arms for 20,000 men would have to be supplied. 1 The scheme looked attractive to Louis and his Ministers, and in principle it received their assent. The Duke of Berwick discussed with Lovat and Sir Alexander Maclean many military details, and Marshal de Vauban showed Lovat how Fort William could be scaled by means of folding ladders. 2 Villars, the popular and lucky Marshal of France, was also interested in the project. In a letter to Villars, dated March 1, 1703, from Sir Alexander Maclean — "your own unalterable Stump," he calls himself — the writer comments upon the attitude of Middleton, averring that though "backward in the beginning," lest his "approbation of the affair might not appear a palpable contradiction " of his former views, he was likely to push it with all his might once he got the credit for it. 3 The negotiations had been kept from Middleton's knowledge as long as possible, Lovat fearing that his opposition would ruin the scheme. When, by means of 1 Sir John Maclean's "Discovery" (Scottish Conspiracy). There is in existence (Addl. MSS. 31250, f. 3) a draft of Lovat's suggestions for the assistance required to wage " a vigorous vvarr." Men : Six or seven thousand, including six hundred horsemen and twelve hundred dragoons. Arms : Eighteen thousand stands — " firelocks with bagonets, and not muskets." Ammunition : Sufficient for an army of thirty thousand men, with the necessary artillery, etc., for three garrisons. Money : Forty or fifty thousand pounds. Accoutrements : For a thousand horse and two thousand dragoons. There are also draft memorials to Torcy (prepared apparently in conjunction with the two Macleans), in which the importance of capturing Fort William is dwelt upon. Two thousand Highlanders, it is asserted, were capable of beating six thousand regulars (Addl. MSS. 31250, ff. 21, 25, 3i» 3 2 )- 2 Memoirs, p. 141. Berwick was not at all favourably disposed towards the scheme. Perth desired Lovat to tell Berwick as little as possible, fearing that he would let Middleton know their plans — a thing they were particularly anxious to avoid (Addl. MSS. 31253, f. 10). 3 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean). SIMON FRASER 95 the Queen-Regent, an ostensible reconciliation had taken place between Lovat and Middleton, 1 the latter complained to Simon of this secrecy, but professed to have satisfied himself that the proposals were practicable. 2 Thus every- thing was working smoothly for Lovat, and with Middle- ton's promise that, after the Restoration, his sentence of outlawry would be formally cancelled 3 (a preliminary to substantial rewards), he had every right to congratulate himself upon the results of his diplomacy. The martial spirit of the Scots soldiers at St. Germain was aroused by the prospect of active service in the near future. " God send us," wrote Sir Alexander Maclean, " the occasion of performance, and then the muckle deil take the hind- most." 4 There was a fly in Simon's ointment. He desired to have a commission as major-general. "I am a sincere, honest man," he writes Middleton, " which is all I have to boast of. When I send here for my general officer's commission, let me know if you will allow me to ask you to procure it for me, for the stronger my character and interest is, the more capable I will be to serve the King and your Lordship." 5 The Queen-Regent consulted Sir John Maclean about the propriety of acceding to Fraser's request, and was told that it would be inadvisable. 6 Sir John's advice came to Lovat's ears and caused a coolness, which may have had some bearing upon subsequent events. In the result, Simon got a commission as colonel of foot, to be raised in Scotland, which was signed by James and countersigned by Middleton. 7 1 Memoirs, pp. 137, 13S. * Sir John Maclean's " Discovery." 3 Id. * Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean). 5 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Draft letter, unsigned and unaddressed, but apparently intended for Middleton). 8 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery " (Scottish Conspiracy). 7 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 630. Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 41. Before he left, Lovat had a highly satisfactory interview with the 96 SIMON FRASER The question of the command was an all-important one. Incomparably the best general the Jacobites had at their disposal was the Duke of Berwick, afterwards the hero of Almanza. But it was urged by Lovat against him that he would not be acceptable to Scotsmen, owing to the alleged favouritism he showed to Irish soldiers in the French service. The alleged reason, however, for passing him over was to permit of the command being offered to the Duke of Hamilton, as a bribe to secure his support ; and it was obviously impossible for Berwick to serve under Hamilton. 1 St. Germain had an almost pathetic belief both in the staunchness and the influence of this unreliable nobleman, who never put pen to paper if he could help it, for fear of committing himself. By his attitude on the Darien question, he had acquired a spurious popularity ; and the patriotic sentiments of which he became the leading exponent, had placed him at the head of the Country party, or Nationalists, in Scotland. The Duke, as it turned out, was a broken reed to lean upon, his equivocal Jacobitism lending some colour to Lovat's accusation that " he was devoured with the absurd idea of becoming himself King of Scotland." 2 Suddenly Louis announced his decision, that having regard to the risks involved in embarking upon the enter- prise without the guarantees for effective co-operation in Scotland which he deemed necessary, he would postpone the preparations for a French expedition until more positive assurances from the Highland chiefs were forth- coming. This was a blow to Lovat, who wished to force Queen-Regent and her son. The King (he tells Gualterio) had given him a written promise " de me f aire le premier Comte," and had presented him with his portrait (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 36, 37). The Chevalier's letter may be seen in the autograph department of the British Museum ; it confirms Lovat's statement in every respect. 1 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery " (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Memoirs, p. 173. The idea was not so absurd after all, for Hamilton had something to say for himself as a claimant to the throne. SIM]ON FRASER 97 the pace, but the actual instructions he received com- pletely dissipated his hopes of following that line. He blamed Middleton for having persuaded the Queen-Regent to encourage a cautious attitude on the part of the King of France ; x and his assumption was probably correct. 2 Middleton had a poor opinion of Lovat and of his High- land project, and was ready to disparage both, without expressing his open hostility to a scheme that had already been accepted in principle. Doubtless, it was his honest opinion that the project was foredoomed to failure ; and he appears to have translated his belief into action by encouraging James Murray (a brother of Sir David Murray of Stanhope), who was also being sent to Scotland, ahead of Lovat, to throw discredit upon Fraser's mission. 3 Certainly Murray, when in Scotland, did much to nullify Lovat's efforts, and it is scarcely credible that he would do so without authority. From a memorandum in the handwriting of Sir John Maclean, it appears that, according to the original pro- posals, the French troops to be sent to Scotland were to run as few risks as possible. "There is no hasard to be runne by the French troops that goe," says the memo- randum, " since they shall have pleaces capable of fortifica- tion in their handes, which secures them against all accidents." Stress is laid upon the considerable diversion which a rising in the Highlands would create, since the Government have sufficient experience of the Highlanders not to trust militia against them, "so that not onlie the troops sent from home must oblidge the enimye to detache thrice there number, but they must send thrice the number of the whole bodyc." It is further suggested that should 1 Memoirs, pp. 135, 136. - The Queen-Regent was originally so " ravished " (as Lovat put it) with the proposals for an immediate rising in the Highlands, that she offered to pledge or sell her jewels, in order to promote the undertaking. (Addl. MSS. 31250, f. 10. Memoirs, p. 125). 3 Memoirs, p. 152. H 98 SIMON FRASER there be a difficulty in shipping a large body of French troops, a small number of Irish soldiers, to be supplied with money and arms, could be landed on the west coast near Fort William. 1 This suggests that the co-operation of Ireland in bringing the scheme to fruition had been contemplated. But all military preparations were shelved, pending the results of the missions which it was decided to send to Scotland. James Murray, who was regarded by the Queen- Regent and by Middleton as a thoroughly trustworthy person, was charged with the duty of approaching (more particularly) the Duke of Hamilton, and inducing him and those who acted with him to oppose with all their might the proposed Union of England and Scotland, and the recognition by Scotland of the Hanoverian succession. He was also instructed to define the attitude of France to the Jacobites whom he interviewed. The French were willing to give whatever assistance they could, but were not willing " to venture on matters that are not decisive." Therefore, the friends of James were urged to consult together "to frame a project for a general undertaking. And some person or persons should be sent to St. Germain with credentials signed by the principal undertakers, these credentials to be conveyed to France by being wrapped up in a thin cake of lead, " and dropt in the sea when in danger of being seized." 2 Lovat's instructions are dated February 25, but were signed on May 5, 1703, the object being to make them anterior to the Scottish indemnity offered by Queen Anne. The wording is a model of non-committal drafting ; it is marked by honeyed expressions of gratitude for past services, and by vague promises of support in the future. The Highlanders were to be supplied by France " with everything that can make them appear effectually for us," 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Sir John Maclean's memorandum). ' 2 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 626, 627. SIMON FRASER 99 but only "when the conjuncture is favourable," the decision as to the proper time for action resting obviously with France. Louis had promised to restore the Scottish nation to "all the privileges they formerly enjoyed in France," when, by the exertions of his friends, James was put in possession of his "ancient kingdom" of Scotland. In the meantime, the Highlanders were so to concert matters as to be in readiness " when there is occasion for them " ; and they were authorized to endeavour to attach to the Jacobite interest, " as many as they can of such as are considerable in the nation," by their families or their employments. Highland officers holding commissions from the late King James were authorized to make use of them until new ones were granted. 1 It would appear from these instructions that the only authority with which Lovat was invested was to confirm his Highland brethren in the Jacobite faith, and to beat up fresh recruits. He was specially charged to " shew this paper only to such Highlanders as knew of your coming hither, and have sent to us by you, and such others as you hope to bring to our interest." 2 As Major Fraser says, very properly, the commission was in the main, a sham "to make a nois." 3 The really practical part of the mission was entrusted to Lovat's friend and companion, Captain John Murray (brother of the Laird of Abercairney), whose instructions were very much to the point. Louis had originally wished that a Frenchman should accompany Fraser, and make an independent report. But this proposal involved certain difficulties, and ultimately John Murray — " Jonie Moray " as his friends called him — was chosen for the purpose as a Scot who was also a subject of France. There is no 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 630. 2 Id. Lovat's departure from this instruction constituted a ground of severe complaint against him after his visit to Scotland. 3 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. p. 137. The Major falls into the error of saying that the commission was from the King of France 100 SIMON FRASER ground for the suggestion that he was selected to play the spy on Lovat. Had such been the intention, "Jonie Moray " would certainly not have been the choice of those who had their misgivings regarding Fraser. " When you arrive in Scotland," so ran the instructions to John Murray, "you are to repair straight to the High- lands, there to be introduced by Lord Lovat to chiefs and gentlemen, and to find out what they propose, what they are able to do, what time they can be ready. If there be diversity of opinions, mark the persons that differ with reasons given for so doing. When sufficiently instructed, and of what else may be for service in the Highlands, return thither and give a full account, that we may know what we have to expect when occasion arises for their service." 1 The instructions were signed and sealed at St. Germain on the same day as those issued to Lovat. It will be seen that they are short, precise, and business-like. Upon Murray's reports from Scotland, rather than Lovat's, it was clearly intended that future action should be based. The ambiguous reference to " chiefs and gentlemen " shows that it was intended that Lovat should approach others besides the chiefs of the clans. 2 The period we are dealing with was one in which the trade in England of the political plotter, the spy, and the informer, was in a flourishing condition. It was a trade which was governed by the ordinary laws of commerce. A demand arose, and the supply followed. As with other 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 630. 2 There is a memorandum "to serve as an instruction" to Lovat and Murray, in which the belief is expressed by "His Britannic Majesty" (the Chevalier) that the doughty deeds performed by the Highlanders in the past in the Stuart cause, are a guarantee of their continued faithfulness in main- taining the rights of the ancient monarchy of Scotland against la nouvelle usurpation projettle en Angleterre. John Murray is charged to assure them that if they are ready to rise in sufficient numbers, Louis will countenance the enterprise and send them experienced officers, with money, arms, and munitions (Addl. MSS. 31250, ff. 31, 32). SIMON FRASER 101 trades, when the demand slackened, it was stimulated by fresh devices, calculated to revive the industry. There was little fear of its becoming extinct, so long as money was to be made by informing upon, and political interests were advanced by detecting, the Jacobite sympathizers who were to be found in every grade of society. The most celebrated political schemer of his time was Robert Ferguson, who is said to have been concerned in every plot that was hatched since the Rye House conspiracy. Lovat met him in England, with what result we shall see ; but before Simon left France, he made the acquaintance of a woman who, in her own sphere, was almost as notorious a political schemer as the veteran Ferguson himself. Her name was Frances Fox, and one of the chief plots with which her name was associated, was the conspiracy against King William, for his share in which Sir John Fenwick had suffered death on Tower Hill. Mrs. Fox, whose husband seems to have found the society of other ladies more seductive than that of his own wife, was nevertheless an attractive woman ; other- wise, she would have been unfitted for her trade of political intriguer and spy. Melfort, when Secretary at St. Germain, found her services of considerable value, and appears to have trusted her implicitly. When her patron was dis- missed in disgrace, Mrs. Fox lived for some time in a l ^ yU ^ mo naster y ; but that was a life that hardly suited a woman of her temperament. She found means of ingra- tiating herself with Middleton, and soon gained the con- fidence of that Minister and his wife as completely as she had won the friendship of his predecessor. 1 Lovat tells us that she was constantly employed " passing and re-passing between St. Germain and London, to cu ltivate the pretended commerce between Lord Middleton and those English noblemen who promised to cause the Queen and the Parliament of England to declare for 1 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery " (Scottish Conspiracy). 102 SIMON FRASER James the Third," and who, as Lovat justly remarks, were afterwards " the most zealous partisans of the House of Hanover." * According to Fraser, Mrs. Fox was employed by Middleton — " the great female statesman of the Court of St. Germain," he calls her — " to draw out of Lord Lovat all that he intended to do when he arrived in Scotland." This charge appears to be fully substantiated by subse- quent events. Mrs. Fox had obtained an introduction to Simon, either through Sir John Maclean, who, with his wife, was friendly with her, or through Captain John Murray. Simon describes how she attempted to charm him with her blandishments. "As she had a great deal of wit, she entertained Lord Lovat very agreeably for two hours with the fine qualities of Lord Middleton and the intrigues of the Administration." This conversation took place in Middleton's petite maison near the convent of the Benedictines, "where he often retired in pious seclusion from the world, and held his conferences with Mrs. Fox and his other spies." 2 But Mrs. Fox had met her equal in the arts of dissimulation, and Simon was not to be drawn. Some correspondence which passed between Lovat and Mrs. Fox 'while he was on his journey to England, contains an interesting competition in finesse between the two skilled players. Mrs. Fox sought information from Simon ; and Simon gave her compliments instead. If she was Mrs. Fox, he ought to have been Mr. Fox, for never were pair better matched in cunning. The lady took full advantage of the delightful eclecticism in orthography which marked the period in which she lived, but which (alas !) is no longer permissible. To be precise, the spelling of this charming woman was simply atrocious. " The first and last thought," she writes Simon, " of 1 Memoirs, p. 140. 2 Id., pp. 146, 147. SIMON FRASER 103 every day will be felisitously employed til I am suer that (you are safe) and eaisey att your Lordship's owne home." She begs him not to let " the vast fire of youth, or a mis- taken bravery of soule," lead him into dangers. The liberty she takes in thus charging him to look after himself is " the efect of a senceare conserne and an esteem that will be lasting as my life." She bids him " adue," and prays that " your Lordship be as hapey as you deserve to be." In a postscript she gives him a " cacion " not to say any- thing in any letter concerning her, " but what will bare the sevarest examination, for accedents may hapen that may expos to sencour what is most inacent in it selfe." Captain Murray (apparently) is referred to as her " friend the chocklet man," an allusion to which there is no clue. The reply to this " most charming and obliging letter " is full of Lovatisms. " I must own to you," says Simon, " that in all my life, I found very few of your sex capable of a sincere friendship. But I find so much intire honor, extraordinary knowledge, and good sense in you, that I am convinced you are more capable of true friendship than any of your sex or my own." He is so sensible of his loss in parting so suddenly " with such an excellent friend as you, without having the honour to be well known to you, that my melancholy has occasioned my being ill ever since I took journey." Her friend, the " Jaculat man," he says, is "mightyely concerned " for him, fearing that his "pensive- ness " will kill him. " For all I can do, I am not able yet to recover my spirits or have any inclination to food or company." He intends to stay some days where he is (St. Omer, where he was ill) in the hope of overcoming his indisposition, " for it would be unlucky to dy here when I have so much to do with my life elsewhere." Her " obliging comands " to preserve his life will give him more satisfaction in living than anything else. " I never yet hade such pleasure in living as I hope to have in ye honor of y* friendship." 104 SIMON FRASER "Adieu, most deserving of your sex," he proceeds. " Poor Sir John (Maclean ?) cryed heartily at parting, but his companion (Lady Maclean ?) was very merry, which astonished me mightily, she and your son embracing and laughing." An exchange of compliments, however, was not the object of this correspondence. " I writ ye enclosed," says Lovat, " of busines according to your cypher that you may show to your friend (Middleton ?) and give him the other enclosed line." The reply of Mrs. Fox is dated June 2 (the other letter bears no date). She expresses uneasiness at his ill-health ; his goodness to his friends has caused him to make too great a sacrifice of himself. She reiterates her desire for his welfare : " for I would clame y r friendship in the face of the hole world." She has given her friendship with the greatest confusion, for she would blush to read one line that would not bear the severest test. His last letter was too kind, and yet she dares not chide him for it. She is thoroughly sincere in all she says : " I wish you saw my soule without disgiyes." She wishes him to convince her in his next letter that he believes her " above the comon foleys of our sex," who love to be admired in every season and time. However hastily their friendship had been formed, she would grieve to think " it should ever end, bull with their lives." She pities the honest, worthy " jocklet " man, for she is sure that he must suffer equally with Simon in the illness of the latter. Certain items of news about persons, who figure under assumed names, follow these expressions of friendship, and there is a complaint by the lady about some woman who had been worming informa- tion out of Lovat's man, or eavesdropping at Mrs. Fox's door. 1 By her flattering attentions, Mrs. Fox showed full recognition of the fact that to secure Lovat's full confidence would be an achievement worthy of her cleverness, for it 1 Addl. MSS. 3125 1 (Correspondence with Mrs. Fox). SIMON FRASER 105 would prove a marketable commodity of substantial value. But it does not appear that she succeeded in extracting much information from him. By a contemporary (and a fellow-spy) she is described as "a canny jade and very capable." Lovat was detained for about a month at Calais, waiting for an opportunity of crossing the Channel. At length, with the help of Count de la Tour, Governor of Calais, who bribed the captain of an English packet to carry them as English prisoners of war, Lovat and his party, consisting of Captain John Murray, Colonel Graham, and Major George Fraser, were landed at night, at or near Dover, whence they made their way to London. 1 1 Memoirs, p. 153. In a letter to Gualterio, Lovat takes credit for having, himself, made the arrangements with the English captain. He wrote several letters to the Nuncio during his journey, most of them relating to money matters (Addl. MSS. 31252). CHAPTER XII SlMON Fraser stayed in London only sufficiently long to glean whatever political information was serviceable to him. 1 Accompanied by three servants on horse- back, John Murray and he pushed on to Durham, where they expected a supply of money and fresh horses from Scotland. They had an exciting adventure at North- allerton, owing to the imprudence of a French valet, who got drunk and talked too freely. A Justice of the Peace — the same man who had arrested Law some years before upon his arrival from France — happened to be drinking in the post-house where the travellers were staying, and, scenting reward, had the house surrounded by constables. Lovat was informed of these proceedings by " a gentleman of his clan who was his servant." This Fraser appears to be the "Tomm" whose name occurs in Sir John Maclean's letters ; he figures subsequently as Captain Thomas Fraser, who assisted Lovat in his mission. The action of the Northallerton Justice created an alarming situation, but Simon proved fully equal to it, according to his own account. " Let us cut our way through them or die in the attempt," he proposed to 1 Lovat wrote Gualterio on June 12, stating that he was leaving London on the following day. The "big merchant" (Hamilton?), he says, has lost much of his interest, and will not hazard a sou for their interest. He accuses Sir John Maclean's wife of sending secrets to her father, who sells them to the Government, and counsels caution, because Sir John can conceal nothing from his wife (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 88-93). SIMON FRASER 107 Murray; but "Jonie Moray," being a naturalized French- man (a fact which protected him against violence), declined to take the risk. Thereupon Lovat armed his servants, and, with pistol cocked, prepared for the worst. But he was nothing if not resourceful, and it suddenly occurred to him that the simplest way out of the difficulty would be to pit his wits against those of the Northallerton Justice. He resolved to pass himself off as a brother of the Duke of Argyll, and since he was travelling under his old name of Captain John Campbell (John Campbell of Mamore was a brother of Argyll), and had accompanied the Duke in the past to the North- allerton races, it was not difficult to act the part with convincing skill. When the Justice appeared before Lovat, the latter greeted him effusively. " My dear Sir," he said, " how happy I am to meet you. It is almost two years since I had that pleasure with the Duke of Argyll at the races near this town." Deceived by Simon's confident bearing, the Justice dismissed his suspicions, begged his Lordship's pardon for his intrusion, and forthwith invited him to crack a bottle of wine with him. He ordered the con- stables to go home, and had a bottle of the best Spanish wine (the forerunner of others) sent up to Lovat's room. Simon plied him with liquor, and made him so helplessly drunk that he had to be carried home. The travellers did not wait to ascertain the mature and sober views of the Justice next day. They left the town at once, though the hour was one in the morning. 1 At Durham, Lovat had an interview with some of the leading Roman Catholics of the town. He showed them the picture of James that the King had presented to him, whereupon they fell on their knees, kissed the portrait, and prayed for the original. They desired him to inform James that their co-religionists in the North of England 1 Memoirs, pp. 154-15S. 108 SIMON FRASER were ready to venture their lives in his cause. An Irish- man, one Colonel Butler, to whom he spoke, assured him that it would be easy to enlist the services of five thousand of his countrymen, if they were provided with arms by France. But Lovat produced no concrete evidence in support of these statements when, after his return to France, he reported his proceedings. 1 One transaction essential to his safety he seems to have successfully carried through while in the North of England, and that was, to initiate negotiations for enabling him to travel in Scotland without fear of arrest. He sent messages to the Duke of Argyll and the Earl of Leven, which secured that object most effectively. Exactly what passed during this visit to England and Scotland it is not altogether easy to determine, though the main facts are tolerably plain. We have to decide between the accounts given (a) by Lovat, fighting for his reputation ; {b) by the Duke of Queensberry, fighting for his place ; and (c) by men like Colin Campbell of Glen- daruel, Sir John Maclean, and others, fighting for their lives. But the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords, which was appointed to inquire into the "Scottish Conspiracy," agrees upon one point: that Lovat was a player who always took care to hold the winning card. " Lord, what fools these mortals be ! " Simon Fraser, aged twenty-seven, had long come to that conclusion. We have seen him impersonating Pluto ; we have now to watch his capers as Puck. For the " Scottish Con- spiracy," the " Queensberry Plot," or whatever other name was given to the political sensation in 1703-4 with which Fraser's name was associated, owed its conception to Lovat ; the play was stage-managed by Lovat ; and it was Lovat who alone reaped any advantage from it. 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. (Lovat's memorial to the Queen- Regent). SIMON FRASER 109 It is customary to regard Simon Fraser as a man who would stick at nothing to gain his ends. That view can hardly be accepted as strictly correct. His code of ethics was peculiar, but by no means unique. He frankly con- fessed, some years later, that he would take a " cart-load of oaths " (and break them without compunction) in order to serve his friends. 1 Clearly he was a convert to the doctrine usually attributed to the Jesuits, that the end justified the means. In his view, lying was a fine art which the wise man cultivated as a valuable asset. He himself sounded the whole gamut of the liar's notes. He told big lies and little lies, black lies and white lies ; he was an adept in evasion and inexactitude, in half-truths and quarter-truths. " What is truth ? " he had asked him- self early in life, and failing to receive a satisfactory answer, convinced himself that the quest was equally hope- less and foolish. When he told the truth, he told it because it served his purpose better than a lie ; when he told a lie, he told it for a precisely similar reason. But so far as is known, he applied this standard mainly to public affairs, and in private matters, his word was pro- bably as reliable as that of most of his neighbours. This discrimination in ethical rectitude is not confined to men like Simon Fraser. There are business men who are scrupulously truthful in the home, and utterly un- veracious in the City. There arc politicians who are the soul of honour in the Club, and unprincipled hucksters on the hustings. But there was a point at which Lovat's untrustworthi- ness stopped short, and it was a redeeming trait in his character. He had no scruples in embarking upon an ocean of deceit to serve his own interests, but he was equally ready to serve his friends by the same methods. He had no hesitation in playing with both hands in politics, but he never betrayed his political associates, and 1 Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. p. 18. 110 SIMON FRASER he was generally willing to help his comrades. 1 It may be objected that if any advantage to himself had been derivable from throwing them over, he would have shown no compunction in doing so ; but it would not be difficult to rebut that suggestion. The narrative of his proceedings, of which the so-called " Queensberry Plot" was the fruit, will exemplify the characteristics of which a general survey has just been taken. From the first, Lovat was alive to the fact that the commission entrusted to him was a mere toy wherewith to amuse the Highland chiefs. Neither Versailles nor St. Germain meant business, but Simon had not come over from France for the benefit of his health. His health was indifferent, and his fortunes were shattered ; he was ready to risk the former, by attempting to restore the latter. His trumpery commission was useless for that purpose, and it is obvious that his aspirations soared far beyond it. If only he could carry the Highland chiefs with him, he would place an interpretation upon the commission that would astonish his timid friends across the water. The Queen-Regent had strictly charged him to avoid any attempt to foment a rising, but that was a circumstance which had no great weight with Lovat. He was a believer in the adage that nothing succeeds like success, and was firmly convinced that if he could induce the Highlanders to rise, he would receive the support of France, and would be able to keep the movement alive until the arrival of French assistance. Even if the rising were quelled, he counted, with very good reason, upon the favour of Louis for creating a diversion which could not fail to benefit France. There can be no doubt that his primary object was to ingratiate himself with Louis. For he had been received with greater respect at Versailles than at St. 1 He prepared and sent to Gualterio a memorial on behalf of Sir John Maclean, whose cause he pleaded as warmly as if it were his own (Addl. MSS. 31252, ft". 19, 20). He received a poor recompense for his trouble. SIMON FRASER 111 Germain, and he could have had but little hope of being trusted at the latter Court, so long as Middleton held the reins of office. Moreover, there was no comparison between the rewards which Louis the Magnificent had the power to bestow, and those which Mary the Impoverished was able to grant even to the most faithful of her servants. The party cleavage in the Scots Parliament had been accentuated by the important measures recently under discussion. The "Act of Peace and War," making it unlawful for any sovereign both of England and Scotland, after Queen Anne's death, to declare war without the consent of Parliament, had been carried in the teeth of the Court party by a coalition of the Cavaliers (or Jaco- bites) and the Nationalists. The Scottish Act of Security, reserving to the Parliament of Scotland the right, on the death of Queen Anne, to name her successor to the Scottish Crown, was on a different footing. It was expressly stipulated that the successor should be in the Royal line of Scotland, but that he or she should not be the same person who succeeded to the Crown of England, except under certain definite conditions which safeguarded the honour, the religion, and the commercial interests of the Scottish nation. The Crown of England had already been settled on the House of Hanover, failing issue of Oueen Anne's ; and the consequences of the Scottish Act were therefore likely to prove of the most far-reaching character. Supply had to be wrung from the stubborn Parliament, and concessions were therefore unavoidable ; but the Act of Security was a measure to which the Court party offered uncompromising opposition, and from which the Royal assent was steadfastly withheld. In the course of the debates — which were marked by an extraordinary effervescence of feeling — the Courtiers were deserted by Atholl, Seafield (the Chancellor), and Cromartie (Lord Tarbat, the colleague of Queensberry), who joined the Cavaliers. This secession was bitterly resented by 112 SIMON FRASER Oueensberry, who singled out Atholl, more particularly, for punishment when an opportunity should present itself. Hamilton, the brother-in-law of Atholl and the leader of the Nationalists, was still more obnoxious in the Commissioner's eyes, as his most dangerous political opponent. The Duke of Queensberry, the " proto-rebel" of the Tories ("the first Scotsman to go over to William of Orange," says Lockhart), was a conciliatory type of statesman, who believed in the efficacy of suavity and reasonable accommodation. He was pleasant, tolerant, and popular — "a very friendly, affable man," Sir John Clerk calls him. Yet he was not exempt from the weakness of political animosity. He was sincerely attached to the interests of Queen Anne, and in his eagerness to serve her and punish those who opposed the Courtiers, he was ready to undermine the reputation of his enemies by whatever means he found at his disposal. This was the statesman who received intelligence in August, 1703, during the stormiest passage of his parlia- mentary experience, that a certain person, lately arrived from France, desired to offer information of great value to the Crown, and would call upon Oueensberry if provided with a safe-conduct from England. Queensberry's corre- spondents were the Presbyterian leaders, Argyll and Leven, for the support of whose following in Parliament, the Commissioner not long before had thrown over the Cavaliers. All three — " the Triumvirate of Scotland," Lovat calls them — were united in the desire to unearth Jacobite conspiracies, and to expose certain politicians whose loyalty they suspected, or whose influence they wished to nullify. The mysterious stranger imposed specific conditions. His name was to be kept secret, and a pardon and a promise of some estate for a maintenance were to be t 1 '//<\r U 1 }.,.■:, JAMES, 2ND DUKE OF QUEENSBERry. [To face p. \\2. SIMON FRASER 113 obtained for him. Willing to serve Queen Anne, and eager to score against his political adversaries, Queens- berry agreed to secrecy and a payment in money for any discovery of importance, but could not bind himself to procure a pardon. He would, however, grant a pass to the informer, in order to enable him to come to Scotland. As the result of these negotiations, the man from France appeared before the Commissioner, late in September, after the troublesome House had been adjourned. He proved to be — Simon Fraser. 1 Lovat, in point of fact, was playing a deep game. His circumstances were desperate, and he had resolved upon a desperate remedy. Consider the situation in which he was placed. Letters of fire and sword were out against him. His financial resources were slender. He had a pension from St. Germain, and before he left France he received 500 louis-d'ors ; but his expenses had been heavy, and his money was gone. He had a commission which constituted him a sort of glorified sugar-broker. And to crown his misfortunes, the Lovat estates had now passed, irrevocably as it seemed, out of his hands. For the heiress, first designed to be the bride of young Saltoun, and then of Lord John Hay, 2 ultimately married, in 1702, Alexander, son of Roderick Mackenzie (the Earl of Cromartie's brother), a Judge of the Court of Session, who is better known as Lord Prestonhall. In the same year the bride obtained legal recognition of her right to the title of " Lady Lovat," and simul- taneously, Simon Fraser was declared to be divested of all rights he had, or could pretend to have, to the lands, estates, or lordship of Lovat. Long before — in the year 1669 — Roderick Mackenzie had purchased an apprising against the Lovat estates for the sum of .£1000 Scots (£83 6s. 8d. sterling), and in December, 1702, he 1 Queensberry's Paper (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 McCormick, Carstares, p. 633 (Letter dated September, 1700). I 114 SIMON FRASER obtained a decree from the Court of Session for the property. Subsequently (in February, 1706), he executed an entail in favour of the heirs of his son and Lady Lovat, having previously obtained a Crown charter for the estates. 1 Prestonhall's son styled himself " of Fraserdale " (a fanciful place-name), and both he and his father made every effort, directly and indirectly, to exalt the stag's head above the strawberry leaves ; in other words, to make the Clan Fraser an appendage of the Clan Mac- kenzie. But their efforts were in vain. These proceedings, some of them of recent occurrence, were gall and wormwood to Simon Fraser, who was left to contemplate with impotent rage, the legal jugglery by which he had been cheated out of his just rights. He had a passionate longing to recover his estates, and live among his kindred as a benevolent autocrat. There were two ways of gaining his heart's desire, and two ways only. The first was to force the hand of Louis of France by precipitating a rising, designed to place James on the Scottish (if not the English) throne. If this object could be successfully attained by his help, a pardon, the Lovat estates, and other substantial rewards would be easily within his grasp. And if the effort were made, but failed of success, he would be the recipient, at least, of the bounty of Louis. The other road to the Lovat estates was tortuous, difficult, and dangerous. He would travel by that road, only if he found the straight path hopelessly blocked. If the Jacobite schemes that teemed in his fertile brain should prove abortive ; if Louis of France should turn a deaf ear to his representations ; or if Mary of Modena 1 Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. The deed of entail executed by Prestonhall shows clearly that his object was to graft the Frasers on the Mackenzie stock— surely a foolish attempt on the part of a shrewd lawyer and a Highlander who, presumably, was acquainted with the strength of clan feeling. The curious will find a copy of the deed in Mackenzie's History of the Frasers, pp. 292, 293. SIMON FRASER 115 should refuse to countenance his plans — then, and then only, he would shake the dust of Versailles off his feet, renounce his allegiance to St. Germain, and cultivate Hanover with all the arts of which he was a master. He could, if he would, render services of such value to the British Government as would entitle him to a pardon, a pension, and his estates, if he were able to make good his claim to them. He resolved, therefore, to hedge. In the meantime, he would secure immunity from arrest, check- mate his enemies, and pave the way to future employments from the British Government, by pretending to be an informer. Thus, in the event of the contingency arising that he contemplated, he would be able to readjust his political relations without difficulty. He would tell what- ever lies might be necessary for his purpose, but would give no information that could injure the Jacobite cause or his Jacobite comrades, unless and until stern necessity compelled him to throw over St. Germain and enter the enemy's camp. But for the moment, his most pressing requirements were money and protection. He succeeded in extracting both from the Queen's Commissioner for Scotland, who thus accepted a risk for which, subsequently, a heavy payment was exacted. Fortunately for himself, however, Queensberry had consulted Queen Anne from the beginning of the negotiations. On August n, he wrote Her Majesty, telling her of the communications from Argyll and Leven (without mentioning their names), and receiving her sanction, apparently, to proceed with his investigations. On September 25, he reported to the Queen that he had seen the informer (whose name was kept secret), and the gist of his discoveries was conveyed to her. 1 But he said nothing about the safe-conduct he had granted to Fraser, against whom, as it subsequently transpired, the Privy Council of Scotland, at a meeting held on September 21 and attended by Queensberry, had 1 Queensberry's letters to Queen Anne (Scottish Conspiracy). 116 SIMON FEASER issued, at Atholl's instance, a commission of fire and sword as an intercommuned rebel. 1 It was an awkward circumstance for the High Commissioner. But how could he have arranged an interview with Lovat unless he granted him a pass ? And he was bound to pay for political information. 1 Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 435. The commission was issued in the name of the dowager. CHAPTER XIII Lovat's movements before his interview with Queensberry in Edinburgh were marked at first by necessary circum- spection. He lingered on the Borders, while his friends, protected by the indemnity, pushed on to Edinburgh. But Simon was nothing if not venturesome, and before the Commissioner's pass reached him, he seems to have found his way to Argyllshire, where he met several Jacobite chiefs, notably Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, with his son, the latter a curiously ineffective link between the " Ulysses of the Highlands " and Sir Ewen's hardly less distinguished grandson, the " gentle Lochiel " of the " Forty-five." Robert Stewart of Appin, who was married to Lovat's cousin, acted apparently as his host, and throughout the abortive negotiations that ensued, figures as his most whole-hearted supporter. The Macgregors, headed by their future chief, Drummond of Balhaldies, Lochiel's son- in-law, were also ready to listen to Simon's representations, and the celebrated Rob Roy afterwards admitted that he was cognizant of what was going on behind the scenes. 1 Queensberry's pass was forwarded to the Highlands (the Duke being unaware of his whereabouts), and in due time, Lovat appeared before the Commissioner, after holding consultations with his friends, among whom were 1 Declarations of Campbell of Glendaruel and Captain Macleod (Scottish Conspiracy) ; History of Clan Gregor, vol. ii. pp. 278, 279. In the latter book, there is a record of a Bond by Rob Roy, dated June 22, 1695, submitting to Lord John Murray, one of the witnesses to which is •• Lieutenant Simon Fraser of Beaufort " (vol. ii. pp. 276, 277). 118 SIMON FR AS ER Lieutenant Colin Campbell of Glendaruel, a half-brother of Sir John Maclean, and Captain Neil Macleod, both of them ardent Jacobites, though wearing Queen Anne's uniform. Macleod had met Simon at Durham, and appears to have been employed by him as his advance agent ; he gave Fraser the hospitality of his roof in Edinburgh, and was a helpful friend in other ways. 1 A curious interview took place between Lovat and the Earl of Leven, his old friend and kinsman. Simon would have us believe that he made a Jacobite convert of Leven, and it is a fact that the Earl subsequently commenced a corre- spondence with St. Germain, as Lovat, then in ignorance of the fact, discovered to his sorrow. He tried also, he says, to convert Argyll, whom he subsequently met, but to no purpose ; the outcome, if we are to believe Simon, being a compact of mutual insurance, each securing the other against political eventualities. 2 How much, or how little, Lovat told Leven and Argyll cannot be known, but it is inferentially clear that his efforts were mainly directed to convince them that Hamilton, Atholl, and Cromartie were all in correspondence with St. Germain. Argyll died on September 25, the very day upon which Queens- berry wrote to Queen Anne, reporting the result of his interview with the unnamed informer. Simon seems to have been genuinely attached to his old patron, and with very good reason, for Argyll befriended him to the end. Lovat imposed upon Queensberry with the greatest of ease, but that did not necessarily imply any reflection upon the Minister's perspicacity. He gave a fairly correct account of his own career — with certain reservations. He told a plausible story about the plans of Versailles and St. Ger- main, asserting that Louis had no intention of making his big effort to restore James until his fleet, then under repair, 1 Declaration of Captain Macleod (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Memoirs, pp. 178, 179. Cf. Lovat's memorial to the Queen-Regent (Original Papers, vol. i. p. 645). SIMON FRASER 119 could obtain the mastery of the sea. France was willing to help the cause with money, but, for the present, would send no men. Therefore the Government need be under no immediate apprehensions of a French invasion. Louis and his Ministers were confident of the ultimate success of James, who, they considered, was now " grown-up," and should not wait until the death of Queen Anne before asserting his rights. The Cavaliers in the Scots Parliament were ready to follow Hamilton, the Nationalist, in endea- vouring to "break" the Parliament and raise the country in arms. James Murray was sent over from France to further these views. He (Simon) was not charged with the mission to Hamilton, because the latter was the brother-in-law of Simon's mortal foe, Atholl. The Duke of Perth corresponded with many of the great men, and some in Queen Anne's service were making their peace with Versailles and St. Germain. He himself had seen a letter from Cromartie to Middleton, prophesying the downfall of Queensberry, and the passing of the Secre- tary's seals into his (Cromartie's) sole hands ; promising a general indemnity when that event should happen; and stating that Queensberry had received ^5000 from the family of Hanover — which statement, added Simon, was received with incredulity by Middleton. A spy of Cromartie's had been sent to the Bastille at his (Lovat's) instigation before he left France. 1 Three important letters 1 This "spy " was a law student named Mackenzie, who has something to say for himself. He states that he went to France in 1669, and that when war was declared he wished to return home, but was refused his passport, for no known reason but to serve the ends of "that hideous misanthrope, Beaufford," who misrepresented him to the Ministry to prevent his giving information about his own "turbulent contrivances and conspiracy." He passed fourteen months " in a fulsome and nauseous dungeon in the Basteele at Paris," and was eventually liberated in June, 1704 (Portland Papers, vol. viii. pp. 183, 184). Sir John Maclean stated that one Stephenson, a banker, had been thrown into the Bastille at the instigation of the Duke of Hamilton, to prevent him from disclosing inconvenient secrets (Sir John Maclean's "Discovery"). The Bastille was a useful place for stopping the mouths of talkative people ! 120 SIMON FRASER had been sent by Mary of Modena, one for the Duke of Hamilton, to be delivered by James Murray, the second for the Duke of Gordon, which had already been handed to him, and the third — which he had " found the way to be master of" — for — the Duke of Atholl. The letter was produced by Simon and handed to Queensberry, who sent it to Queen Anne without breaking the seal (that of her father). It was addressed " L. M. Y.," which Lovat interpreted as " Lord Murray," the title by which Atholl was known at St. Germain. Here was, indeed, a fine discovery ! In point of fact, it was a curious medley of truth, half-truth, and falsehood. Some of Lovat's statements were confirmed by informa- tion already in possession of the Government ; some were entirely unsupported by other evidence ; and the remainder seemed to accord with the suspicions already entertained by Queensberry. All were plausible, and all were freely made with an appearance of sincerity. " I am a Protestant," declared Simon. With an air of deep concern, he confessed that he was not easy in his mind about "Popery," and deplored the evils which it might bring upon his native country ! It was only his mis- fortunes that had driven him to the course he had taken in France ; but he would atone for the past by the services he would yet perform for Queen Anne's Govern- ment. He was a man of great consequence, both in the Highlands and in France, and was at the bottom of all the intrigues of St. Germain and Versailles. He would return to France, and in due time come again to Britain, with such information as would enable Queensberry to lay his enemies by the heels. 1 What a simpleton Queensberry was 1 Such seems to be the judgment passed by historians upon the confiding Minister. In support of that view, they point to the absurdity of the supposition that Mary of Modena would 1 Queensberry's Paper (Scottish Conspiracy). SIMON FRASER 121 entrust a letter for the Duke of Atholl to Simon Fraser, of all men in the world. But Lovat was not such a fool as to think that the Commissioner could be deceived by such a palpable improbability. His story, it will be observed, was that he had " found the way to be master of" the letter. Nor was the Minister completely con- vinced that Simon's discoveries were altogether genuine. " I confess," he wrote to Queen Anne, "it is hard to think how one should know or be ready to reveal so much." Had Simon been an artist thoroughly equipped in the field of romance, he would not have aroused the Minister's suspicions by overstating his case, as he seems to have done. But he felt secure in the proofs of his veracity that he was able to produce, and by the same means Queens- berry's suspicions were allayed ; or he pretended to be convinced that they were groundless. The following proved to be the text of the letter, which was dated May 20 : — " You may be sure that when my concerns require the help of my friends, you are one of the first I have in my view. I am satisfied you will not be wanting for anything that may be in your power, according to your promise ; and you may be assured of all such returns as you can expect from me and mine. The Bearer, who is known to you, will tell you more of my friendship to you, and how much I rely on yours for me and those I am concerned for. M." » Bishop Burnet does not doubt the genuineness of this letter, and his suggestion is, that it was written in general terms in order to enable the bearer to direct it, in his discretion, to any of the great nobility to whom it was likely to prove acceptable. 2 The superscription was in a different handwriting from that in which the text was 1 Copy of the letter appears among the papers relating to the Scottish Conspiracy, p. 43. * Burnet's History of his own Time, vol. v. pp. 96, 97. 122 SIMON FRASER written, and this fact seems to lend colour to Burnet's suggestion. Lockhart, on the other hand, did not believe in its genuineness, 1 while the Duke of Perth, the best authority of the three, alludes to it as a " counterfeited " letter. 2 But this adjective may relate to the direction, and not to the text. For how could Lord Lovat have obtained access to the seal of King James ? In whatever manner the letter came into Lovat's hands — whether forged by him, or entrusted to him by Mary Beatrice, or, as seems most likely, secured by him from the actual bearer (John Murray ?) — there seems no reason to doubt that the direction was his handiwork. The dis- closure of the correspondence with St. Germain revealed by the text meant ruin to the person concerned, as Lovat well knew, if his identity could be established. Here, therefore, was a unique opportunity of gratifying his revenge against his most hated enemy, and simultaneously of ingratiating himself with Queensberry. A few strokes of the pen : " L. M. Y ; " nothing more was necessary. For similar reasons, he revealed the existence of the letters addressed to the Dukes of Hamilton and Gordon. Hamilton was a " Middleton " man, and he was Atholl's brother-in-law : two sufficiently good reasons for Simon's enmity. As for the Duke of Gordon, he had snubbed Lovat — the letter to him was delivered by John Murray 3 — and the man who snubbed Lovat had to pay for it sooner or later. For he was morbidly vain, and never forgave a slight. Whatever view may be taken of Fraser's machinations 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. i. p. 82. 2 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 155, 156 (Perth's Narrative of the Scottish Plot). 3 Captain Macleod's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). In view of the fact that that one letter was from the Duke's sister, " Mary Perth," which she asked Simon to read before sealing it (Addl. MSS. 31253, f. 19), it cannot be said the behaviour of His Grace was over-courteous. SIMON FRASER 123 against Atholl, Hamilton, and Cromartie, there is no ground for Lockhart's statement that Oueensberry was at the bottom of the plot. 1 It is one of various allega- tions in his well-known " memoirs," written (as Sir John Clerk, a clear-sighted contemporary, puts it) " in the heat of party rage." The High Commissioner was a dupe, and he may have been a willing dupe ; to assert that Lovat was simply his tool is contrary to fact, for Lovat's was the master mind, and Queensberry was the tool. From Edinburgh, Simon went to the Perthshire High- lands, where he had another meeting with his friends. He had sent Tom Fraser to the Northern Counties, with letters to various chiefs, and with his instructions from St. Germain, but his deputy seems to have met with scant success in furthering his views. The Whig clans were of course out of the question. The Earl of Sutherland was a staunch anti-Jacobite, and clans, like the Mackays, the Rosses and the Munros, were also hopeless. The Duke of Gordon, the " Cock of the North," had refused to see Lovat ; and the Grants and the different branches of Clan Chattan were more than doubtful. The Frasers might be relied upon, and already Simon's brother, with several gentlemen of the clan, had come south to concert necessary measures with the man whom they regarded as their chief. But the great Jacobite clans were cautious. The Macdonalds, with some unimportant exceptions, were reserved, though Sleat and Clanranald were confidently counted upon, Simon having sent them special letters by Tom Fraser. But between Glengarry, one of the most powerful of the chiefs of Clan Donald, and Lovat, there was no love lost, and Simon was not slow to charge him with being his enemy. 2 The Mackenzies were represented by a youth, whose mother, the Countess of Seaforth, was not disposed to take undue risks. The Macleans were 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. i. pp. 78, 79. 2 Memoirs, pp. 8, 9. 124 SIMON FRASER chiefless, and Macleod, the head of Lovat's maternal clan, had just married, or was about to marry, a sister of the new Baroness Lovat, the wife of Mackenzie of Fraser- dale. Moreover, the general conditions were different from those that prevailed when the Highlands were so successfully exploited in the Stuart interest by born leaders like Montrose and Dundee. For the power of the purse was now in evidence, and the chiefs were not indifferent to the attractions of comfortable allowances, which most of them sorely needed. Also, as Lovat reminded Mary of Modena, when urging the efficacy of rewards as a stimulus to effort, they had not forgotten the shabby behaviour of Charles II. when, after the Restora- tion, he ignored his promises to the Highland chiefs who had fought and bled for him. 1 At the end of the seventeenth century, the clans were kept quiet by precisely the same methods as, at the present day, the good behaviour of the wild Pathans is secured by the Government of India. The system of pensioning the chiefs was inaugurated on the advice of Highland advisers like Lords Tarbat and Breadalbane. It met with success, and was perpetuated late in the reign of Queen Anne, from whom, as a Stuart, the Highland Jacobites might fairly claim consideration. But, as in the analogous case of the frontier clans in modern times, cross- currents sometimes divert the bought loyalty of their chiefs into channels of an anti-British character ; so, in the case of the Highlanders, there were disturbing elements which no system of annual allowances could effectively counteract. For there were chiefs whom gold could not buy, and there were chiefs whom pensions could not satisfy. The ignorance that prevailed in the South respecting the North and its inhabitants, was responsible for many of the mistakes that were made by successive Administra- tions in dealing with the Highlands. In London, and 1 Addl. MSS. 31250, ff. 4, 5. SIMON FRASER 125 even in Edinburgh, two hundred years ago, there was far less known about the Highlanders of Scotland than the intelligent Anglo-Indian of Calcutta and Bombay knows about the Highlanders of India to-day. According to the view of the South, the Grampians divided civilization from barbarism. The mountains formed a natural barrier, shutting out from the fertile Low country, hordes of savage robbers, who spoke a language of unparalleled uncouth- ness, and wore a garb of unfashionable scantness. 1 The real facts were far from being in accord with the popular conceptions of them, for the chiefs were men who could generally wield the sword with greater skill than their Lowland compeers, and could frequently wield the pen as well, with a facility acquired from a University training. When they visited Edinburgh or London, they were in no way distinguishable from their aristocratic friends, except by the haughtiness of their bearing and the extravagance of their dress. For they considered themselves the equals in birth of the bluest-blooded of the Sassunach nobility, and the superiors of most of them in the accomplishments that ranked highest in their estima- tion. The gentlemen of the clans modelled their edu- cation and their bearing upon those of their chiefs, and the commoners, unenlightened and uncouth though they were, lived in an atmosphere of cousinship with their leaders, that insensibly dignified their outlook upon life. If the 1 In a memorial to Harley by a Cameronian named William Houstoun, the following passage occurs in a " deduction " of the series of affairs relating to Church and State of Scotland ( 1 704-1 708) : "... the Highlands and Islands, of whom it may be said, as Eusebius of the Romans, ' that God Almighty suffered the Goths and Vandals to ransack the Romans because they were not more zealous in their conversion.' " The West Highlands, according to the writer, were generally "civilized and tolerable"; but the people of the North and East Highlands were either M atheists or Papists." The point of view of a man who wrote about " the Romish frogs " has to be considered in estimating the value of this statement. The Isles, Orkney, Caithness, and Banff, he states, are altogether Gillicrankies ( French sympa- thizers) or Jacobites. He writes hopefully of Strathnaver (Sutherland), Ross, and Moray (Portland Papers, vol. vii. pp. 371-374). 126 SIMON FRASER clan system had its obvious drawbacks, it was not without its compensations. It may be added, that the supposed savagery of the clansmen may be judged by a comparison between the treatment of vanquished foes after Preston- pans and Culloden respectively. In modern times, a journey to Kamchatka is under- taken with less searching of heart than a journey to the Highlands two centuries ago. The average Englishman of that day knew as little about the Macdonalds as his descendant knows about the Mohmands. He would have had as much difficulty in naming the different branches of Clan Chattan, as his modern representative in discriminat- ing between the Baizai and the Khoda Khel. It was a quarter of a century before General Wade carved the face of the Highlands with the peaceful pick and the civilizing spade. It was almost half a century before the clan system received a blow, which felled it like a tree with rotting roots. It was more than a century before Walter Scott unrolled his magic carpet of tartan, that has since conveyed thousands to fairyland. And it was nearly a century and a half before the first railway train puffed through the Highland glens, ploughing its way trium- phantly through the last barriers of isolation, and linking with iron bands the City and the Croft. Such, before Queen Anne was dead, were the High- lands of Scotland, and such were the Highlanders upon whose acknowledged prowess in battle rested the main hopes of Louis of France for embarrassing England at her back-door. At the time Simon Fraser was endeavouring to organize a rising in the Highlands (and thus exceeding his instructions), he was seeking to accomplish what might well have taxed the powers of Dundee himself. Had the clans taken up arms at that juncture, it is easy to see that their chances of success would have been small. They might have held out until assistance reached them from France ; but was there any guarantee that SIMON FRASER 127 French help would be sent ? Above everything, they required a leader of military genius who possessed their confidence. But the leaders who possessed their confi- dence were not men of genius ; and the only soldier of genius whose selection for the command was possible, did not possess their confidence. When, twelve years later, the Highlanders did actually rise, their effort provided a striking object-lesson in the potential value of a competent commander, for the lack of one ruined the enterprise. And in 1703, had the chiefs listened to Simon Fraser's representations and broken out in revolt, Queen Anne might have safely followed the example of her predecessor, who replied to a suggestion for sending reinforcements to Scotland : " There is no need ; Dundee is dead." All this was clearly seen at the council of Jacobites, summoned to meet at Drummond Castle to give a hearing to Lovat and John Murray, who followed Simon from Edinburgh. The meeting was far from being representa- tive, and there was neither enthusiasm nor unanimity. Lord Drummond (Perth's eldest son, and the son-in-law of the Duke of Gordon) and John Murray had met with little or no success in the Lowlands. Thus, both High- lands and Lowlands were on the whole lukewarm, if not antagonistic, and it was difficult to see from what quarter a stimulus was to come, sufficiently strong to engender a general rising. But the rock upon which the council finally split was the question of leadership. Drummond and John Murray could make nothing of Hamilton, who relied upon the Scots Parliament more than upon a Scots army ; for the members could be bribed. Lovat modestly waived his claim to the command, making a virtue of a necessity. Drummond would not accept, wisely fore- seeing the consequences. The name of the Earl of Breadalbane was the most favoured, especially by Lovat, if he could be trusted ; but he was a wily septuagenarian, who would require careful handling. If not the best 128 SIMON FRASER general for waging war, he was certainly the craftiest leader for making peace. Additional names proposed were those of the Duke of Gordon — " a very fine gentle- man," says Macky, " who loves his country and his bottle" — the Earl of Errol, and the Earl Marischal ; but Drummond felt convinced that they would all refuse the offer. It was necessary to have a general to whose command the Scottish nobility would willingly submit, and Drummond plainly hinted that the Duke of Berwick (who, in the following January, became a French subject) was the only possible choice. Until the question of the supreme command was settled, it was useless to discuss an immediate rising. After sitting three days, the con- ference broke up without arriving at any decision, except to commission Lovat to insist upon succour from France as a condition precedent to a Scottish insurrection. It will be seen that Louis and the Scottish Jacobites were mutually anxious that the other side should take the "step that costs." There were two conferences held at Drummond Castle, the second having been convened, possibly, to learn Breadalbane's decision about the com- mand. In the interval, Lovat went disguised to Balloch, where he had an interview with the Earl, subsequently paying yet another visit to Argyllshire. Breadalbane, as might have been expected, refused to commit himself. He was "too old to turn Papist." He would await events before deciding. 1 As the candid Macky puts it, he was " always on the side he can get most by, and will get all he can of both." The same contemporary tells us that Breadalbane was " cunning as a fox, Ivise as a serpent, but slippery as an eel " — a singularly apt delineation of Lovat's character as well. Simon described Breadalbane to Louis of France as un homme solide et tres sage? 1 Declarations by Glendaruel, Captain Macleod, and Robert Ferguson (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Addl. MSS. 31250, f. 46. SIMON FRASER 129 Lovat tells us that he was commissioned to represent the chiefs at St. Germain and Versailles, as being " the only man that the Highlanders would trust " to make con- ditions for them. 1 John Murray was to follow him to France, after sounding the Low country further in conjunction with Drummond. It was proposed that Lieutenant Allan Cameron, a son of Lochiel, should accompany Murray to France, as an additional guarantee of Highland co-operation. 2 After leaving the Highlands, Lovat stayed a day or two in Edinburgh, " being tender." He again saw Queens- berry, who, still in ignorance of Simon's visit to the Highlands, gave him a pass to London and arranged to meet him there. The Commissioner had already paid ,£200 for the information supplied to him, Captain Macleod acting as intermediary and bringing the money to Balhaldie's house, near Stirling, while Lovat was in the Highlands. Leven and Drummond had also contributed between them sums amounting to ^400 as a loan. With what remained of these sums, Simon resumed his south- ward journey, staying with Jacobite friends at Durham, where fresh horses for London were obtained. He dared not take coach or post for fear of being identified. 3 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 647. 2 Captain Macleod's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). 3 Id. Original Papers, vol i. pp. 647, 648. CHAPTER XIV MEANWHILE what of the Middletonian mission to Hamilton and the other patriots ? James Murray had effectively spiked the guns of Lovat and John Murray before their arrival. Also, there is some ground for Simon's accusation that he had given information about the Lovat mission to the authorities, for his nephew, Murray of Broughton (who betrayed Lovat over forty years later), tells us that at Queensberry's desire, his uncle had seen the Minister before Lovat came to Edinburgh, and that he was much caressed by Oueensberry on account of their former intimacy. 1 On the other hand, we have the assertion of James Murray himself that he never spoke to Queensberry, Argyll, or Leven all the time he was in Scotland. 2 So we have to make a choice between the veracity of the uncle and the nephew. The Highland chiefs certainly believed that James Murray had blabbed : Appin (says Simon) volunteered to go to Edinburgh, for the express purpose of cropping his ears and slitting his nose. 3 A caveat must be entered here against a misapprehen- sion, of a kind that has seriously prejudiced Lovat in the eyes of historians. The two Murrays have been hopelessly confused with one another, with the result that the very damaging report of James Murray about Simon and his doings has been attributed to John Murray, Lovat's leal 1 Memorials of Murray of Broughton, p. 15. - Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 659. 3 Memoirs, p. 162. SIMON FRASER 131 comrade and genuine admirer, who, in point of fact, testi- fied in the most unqualified manner to Fraser's zeal and faithfulness. Lovat's conduct during his visit to Scotland in 1703 has consequently been judged in the light of state- ments made by an avowed enemy, who has been mistaken for a disillusioned and unpleasantly candid friend. Mac- pherson, who edited the " Original Papers," was the first to confuse the two Murrays, and his example has been followed by more accurate writers. 1 Lovat was kept busy in London during his stay there. The two men in London in whom he confided were Colin Campbell, of Glendaruel, and William Keith, the nephew of John Murray, who had given him a letter to Keith. He appears to have had a genuine affection for Glen- daruel, and to have trusted him implicitly. The strength of his attachment may be gauged by the violence of his language when he discovered that Glendaruel had betrayed him. Another associate in London was the notorious plotter, Robert Ferguson, who tried to worm his secrets out of him. But Lovat, knowing his man, was on his guard. "He did not trust Ferguson," Glendaruel declared, " but sent for him to know what was passing in town, for that he was very intelligent." 2 Ferguson was probably conscious of his failure, for he admitted after- wards that "of all men," Glendaruel "seemed to be most in Fraser's confidence." 3 Yet the experienced plotter (he had a pension from St. Germain) managed to get at the bottom of Simon's dealings with Queensberry, and he made the most of the discovery. Probably he kept his ears open when his young Jacobite friends were in their 1 Even Mr. Lang, in his " History of Scotland " (vol. iv. p. 94), confuses the two Murrays. His hesitancy as to whether Murray accompanied or preceded Lovat to Scotland is the result of rolling two men into one. Also, in the same paragraph, he" gives the date of Simon's visit as 1707 instead of 1703 ; an uncorrected printer's slip, apparently. 2 Glendaruel's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). * Ferguson's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). 132 SIMOxN FRASER cups, at the taverns where they discussed their affairs ; and undoubtedly he tampered with Simon's Jacobite landlord. Lovat's intimates were cognizant of his visits to Queensberry, and seem to have approved of his success- ful efforts to " amuse " the Minister. 1 He saw the Commissioner several times in London, where he told him for the first time of his visit (or visits) to Argyllshire. But it is incorrect to assert that he betrayed his Highland associates. He lied like a political poster, but he was staunch to his comrades. His story was that his visit to Argyllshire was made with the object of speaking to some of his friends in relation to dis- coveries. 2 In other words, he had gone in the interests of the Government, hoping to induce the Highlanders to supply him with information that would be passed on to Queensberry ! He had not the slightest hesitation in blackening his own character, in order to serve his own ends. Had Queensberry known the real facts, as he did afterwards, it can hardly be supposed that he would have assisted him, as he did, in making his escape from Eng- land. It is not altogether surprising that, in giving an account of his proceedings, Simon should have assumed an air of injured innocence. " Had he not," he asks with some point, "the heads of all the King's friends in his pocket?" 3 And having concealed the main purport, and the due execution of his mission, how could he be deemed a traitor? Even John Murray's name had not once been mentioned by him to Queensberry. 4 This is a view-point to which due weight has not 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 7. Memoirs, pp. 178, 186. Original Papers, vol. i. p. 680. - Queensberry's Paper (Scottish Conspiracy). 3 Memoirs, p. 183. After his return to France, Lovat argued in the same strain, in a letter he wrote to Perth, seeking to show the absurdity of the accusation against him (Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 88, 89). 4 Queensberry's Paper (Scottish Conspiracy). But Lovat (Memoirs, p. 172) states that he asked for and obtained Queensberry's promise not to "disturb " John Murray, who had come " to see his brother and kinsmen." SIMON FRASER 133 been given by Simon's critics, who assume that Lovat — to use a colloquialism — " gave the whole show away." He did nothing of the kind, and it may be doubted whether he gave any really useful information at all that Queensberry was not previously in possession of. It does not appear, indeed, that Queensberry attached much importance to Fraser's stories about the doings at St. Germain or the intentions of Versailles. What really interested the Minister was the pretended discovery of the correspondence carried on between St. Germain and the three statesmen whom he wished to humble. And the further revelations that he expected from Simon after his return to France were concerned mainly, if not entirely, with the same trio of suspected Jacobites. In charging Hamilton with conducting a secret corre- spondence with St. Germain, Lovat spoke the truth. The Duke, in fact, was at the time hand-in-glove with the exiled Court. He was an adroit Parliamentarian, as the Courtiers knew to their cost. His interests coincided with those of St. Germain in resisting abjuration, Hanover, and the Union. But it may be doubted whether his intention was that St. Germain should alone (if at all) reap the reward of successful opposition. According to Macky, he was extravagant in his younger days, and had grown covetous with advancing years. 1 Lovat asserts that he (the Duke) had never spent sixpence of his own in the Jacobite cause. But he was ready enough to ask for money to be ex- pended in bribes. Two letters, dated March 22, 1703, were addressed to the Pope (Clement XL), one by Mary of Modena, and the other by Louis of France, asking the assistance of His Holiness to bribe the Scots Parliament. A copy of a letter (undated and unsigned) from the Duke of Hamilton was enclosed, in which the Duke makes an urgent request (" ne perdez pas un moment") that Louis should send him .£25,000 by some confidential person to 1 Macky on Hamilton, pp. 112, 113. 134 SIMON FR AS ER buy votes. Louis told the Pope that he could not afford the money, owing to the numerous demands on his Exchequer. Obviously, Mary Beatrice could not find it — so would His Holiness kindly oblige ? Hamilton, according to Louis, was a trustworthy man : " he has given time after time assurances of his zeal, and of his fidelity to the King his master." Of course — and this was the point that concerned the Pope — the interests of Holy Church were bound up with those of the Queen-Regent and her son. 1 The Pope responded to the appeal of Louis by pro- viding the money, 2 and we find Queen Mary writing to the Nuncio on April 23, 1703, thanking His Holiness for the great grace he has shown them, and stating that in two days she would send a man to Hamilton and the Bishops. 3 The man alluded to must have been James Murray, who apparently had secret instructions in addition to the official letter. The distribution of the Pope's money explains the partial success of Hamilton's manceuvres in the Scottish Parliament before the House was prorogued in September, 1703. Queensberry cannot but have known of the traffic in votes — he must have been a heavy buyer himself on the other side — and doubtless believed that the money came from a French source. Hence the effusive welcome he gave to Lovat's offers to get at the bottom of the mystery after his return to France. Probably Queens- berry suspected the seceders from the Court party of having been bought by French gold distributed by Hamilton. There is some ground for the suspicion. James Murray's report states that Arran {i.e. Hamilton) " used all imaginable means " to bring Atholl, Cromartie, and Seafield round to his views. 4 Queensberry got 1 Addl. MSS. 15398, ff. 229-233. 2 Martin Haile's James Francis Edward, the Old Chevalier, p. 63. » Addl. MSS. 20293, & 7» 8. 4 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 667. James Murray reported that Hamilton wanted ^25,000 to balance the money to be spent by the Court to carry their measures. He proposed to take a share of this money for himself SIMON F 11 ASER 135 nothing out of James Murray about the money, assuming that he saw him at all. It seems likely that James Murray informed upon Lovat, and Lovat informed upon James Murray, but that neither of them said a word about his own particular mission. By this time all London was talking about a myste- rious conspiracy, in connection with which names of prominent Scottish statesmen were freely mentioned. Nothing certain was known, except that Simon Fraser was playing the part of a villain. But where was Simon ? " Cannot the person who knows where he is, be persuaded to let him be found ? " writes Harley to Carstares, queru- lously. 1 Had they looked for him (during the latter part, at any rate, of his stay in London) in the house of one Thomas Clarke, an apothecary, in Watling Street, opposite St. Austin's Church (the site is now occupied by a ware- house) they would have found him. London was now getting too hot to hold Lovat. Robert Ferguson had informed upon him. On October 25, he sent an interme- diary to Atholl, who was well acquainted with certain of Lovat's doings, the item of information that concerned Atholl most closely being that Queensberry designed to ruin him and his family by means of Fraser. Ferguson reported that the Commissioner had granted Fraser (an intercommuned rebel) money and protection while in Scotland, and that Fraser had been recently in London. 2 to meet his future expenses, the remainder to be spent partly in augmenting and strengthening his party, and partly in purchasing arms (see Chap. XVII.). Murray arrived at St. Germain in February, 1704, so this must be an additional sum of ,£25,000, though the coincidence is rather striking. 1 McCormick, Carstares, p. 719. Carstares wished that Lovat could be brought to speak to " the Treasurer and the Duke (Queensberry) together," little suspecting that Simon and the Duke had already met. "I am told," writes Carstares to Harley (November or December, 1703) "that little encouragement was given to produce him, though some at Court knew he was here" (Portland Papers, vol. viii. p. 314). 2 Memorial to Queen Anne by the Duke of Atholl, January 18, 1704 (Addl. MSS. 27382, f. 99). 136 SIMON FR AS ER It may be assumed that Atholl left no stone unturned to trace the whereabouts of his old enemy, the effects of whose venom he was now about to feel. And yet, accord- ing to William Keith, Simon was at that very time most anxious to effect a reconciliation with Atholl through Keith's mediation ! x If successful, he would have added one more string to his bow, and his relations with the different people whom he was using for his own purposes would have become still more complicated. But Keith, who was looking after an Under-Secretaryship, was not anxious to pose before Atholl as a friend of Simon Fraser. While in London, Simon assumed the name of Captain John Seaton, and there are letters so addressed to him by one Duncan Johnson, of Edinburgh, and others. In one of these letters, Johnson asks Lovat to send him by Glenda- ruel one of his "old weegs," if he can spare it; and in another, he informs him of his belief that Leven had got a " call " to London ; and that he had heard nothing from Lovat's friends in the North since he left. Later, he tells Simon that Leven desired him to say that his "call" had come, and that he would begin his journey in the following week ; and adds the interesting news that he had heard on good authority that Simon's "grand enemy" had received notice of some conferences he had had with friends. He (Johnson) would like Simon to put his "great friends " in mind of the writer, for he is almost the oldest of his station in the regiment. There is a letter, too, from a "John Setton" (Seaton (?) which may have suggested to Simon his adoption of that name for himself) informing Lovat of the despatch of his "malle" by a carrier who comes to the White Horse, Cripplegate. He had had the "malle" weighed, "and it ways seavanty-two pound." 2 This Seaton seems to have been the landlord of the Half 1 Keith's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from " Setton"). SIMON FRASER 137 Moon Inn in Durham, where Lovat doubtless stayed. The worthy Seaton sent the " humble sarvas " of his wife and " the rest of our nebour houd," which suggests that Simon must have made himself at home in Durham. He seems to have been " Hail, fellow ! well met ! " with chance acquaintances everywhere. This correspondence took place in November, 1703, and some of the letters must have missed Simon in London, for he fled from England on November 13. By Queensberry's help he had reached London in safety ; by the same means, he had now to be helped out of it. He had no difficulty in inducing the Minister to procure from the Earl of Nottingham, the English Secretary of State, a passport for himself and three companions to go to Holland. The names on the passport were all assumed, Simon choosing his favourite name of John Campbell, while his companions, Major Fraser, John Eraser (Simon's brother), and Lovat's page (also a Fraser) appeared as Munro, Dickenson, and Forbes. 1 The pass was handed to Glendaruel, described as " a pretty tall, thin, black gentle- man," who gave it to Clarke, Lovat's landlord, to be delivered to Simon, Glendaruel thinking it better " not to take it myself, for fear of being missed." " My dear," he writes Lovat, " for God's sake, take care of yourself. The standing of your family is in your person, and (you must consider) the insupportable loss it would be to your friends if you should distress yourself with melancholy." He asks Simon to tell Queensberry, if he writes to him, that he (Glendaruel) had delivered the pass personally ; they are " so scrupulous " in these matters. 2 With Glendaruel (as his most trusted friend) Lovat left the picture of James (a miniature 3 ?) which he prized so highly, his commission, 1 Atholl's Memorial. Nottingham's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Glendaruel). 8 The Chevalier seems to have distributed among his friends a number of these miniatures. 138 SIMON FRASER and certain papers relating to the Lovat estates. He left, also, several unsealed letters, one of them addressed to Breadalbane, offering him the command (by whose authority deponent sayeth not). Glendaruel burnt the letters after reading them, but gave up the other articles. 1 When Simon's lodgings were searched after he had made his escape, a silver box was found, in which was a com- mission, signed " J.R.," and addressed to Hamilton. 2 The genuineness of this commission, however, was doubted, and Hamilton seems to have suffered no injury by its production. There were good reasons for Simon's hurried flight. For, on November 8, Sir John Maclean, with his wife, her sister, and his two children, had landed at Dover (or Folkestone), and surrendered to the authorities, desiring to be brought before Lord Nottingham to give an account of himself; he wrote, at the same time, to Nottingham and Cromartie telling them what he had done. 3 His account was that he had left France because he was weary of the hardships he had endured. It was pointed out to him that he had delayed coming several months after Queen Anne's indemnity had been published, and had now arrived in such haste that he had brought his wife (who was just recovering from her accouchement) in an open fishing- boat of English nationality, which had been released by the order of the Court of France for the purpose of carry- ing him and his party across the Channel. Further, the indemnity applied to Scotland alone, and he was still liable to be tried for treason under the law of England. 4 1 Glendaruel's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). Lovat was extremely annoyed with Glendaruel for giving up his property (Memoirs, p. 199). He says that Glendaruel took possession of eight horses and other property of the value of ^300, left by Simon in his care (Memoirs, p. 196). 2 Addl. MSS. 2031 1, f. 45 (Letter from Father Farrell to the Duke of Berwick, charging Lovat with being a spy of Queensberry's, and desiring, at Hamilton's request, that he should be arrested). 3 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 6. 4 Id., p. 6. SIMON FRASER 139 Maclean ought surely to have been aware of this fact ; if not, it says much for his ingenuousness. Lovat knew Sir John Maclean from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet. He knew that he was a good- hearted, generous man, but quite lacking in backbone ; uxorious to a degree, and like putty in the hands of his wife. He knew that he was almost penniless, and had no prospect of a maintenance at home. To such a man, the temptation to act dishonourably, in order to save his sick wife and his family from privation, might prove irresistible, if the temptation were sufficiently strong, and the alter- native sufficiently alarming. It was not a question of physical courage, but of moral strength of fibre, and Lovat must have made a shrewd guess that if Lady Maclean's welfare were in one scale, with Sir John's honour and Simon's safety in the other, the first would tilt the balance downwards. So it was time for him to be off. And subsequent events showed the soundness of his judgment. Probably he had ascertained, also, that among Maclean's fellow-passengers was the spy, Mrs. Fox, whose presence in England boded no good to him. During the passage from Gravesend to Holland by a Dutch vessel called the King William, Lovat amused himself at the expense of a son of Mackenzie of Scatwell (Ross-shire), who was a young Oxford student going to Leyden to complete his studies. Simon entered into conversation with young Scatwell, and according to his own account, turned him inside out. " I plainly saw all his Intrals," is Lovat's way of putting it to Queensberry, in a letter from Rotterdam, dated November 29. He asked Scatwell if he knew Simon Fraser of Beaufort, and what was his opinion of him ? "A great fool," was the reply, " to take the advice of those who urged him to do illegal and extravagant things." " I think so, too," was the rejoinder. " He gave a whole discourse of myself," writes Lovat to Queensberry, "so that I was obliged to 140 SIMON FRASER set my patience and wit at work in entertaining a story of myself." Probably Simon heard a more candid opinion of himself during that passage than he had ever heard to his face before. He pretended to the Commissioner that young Scatwell, " who has no great sence," disclosed to him information about Cromartie and Atholl, which confirmed what he had told Queensberry. " If, after all this, the Great Person you have to do with does not believe it, I conclude they are infatuate, and that it is of no use to tell them anything, though never so plain." He ends the letter with a threat. " I do assure you," he tells Queens- berry, " if I can, they will not Sir John Fenwick me. . . . If your Great Friend do not do me justice, I will not in any degree serve him further than I have done already, and I will endeavour to get myself redressed another way." l In other words, if Queen Anne declined to carry out the Minister's vague promises of a pardon and substantial rewards, he would take his wares to another market. Some of his experiences in Rotterdam were of such a nature as to make him irritable, as he seems to have been when he wrote Queensberry. He chose his lodgings with great care, as if dreading discovery. At supper, he spoke against the new Duke of Argyll ; he had probably found him less accommodating than his father. There was a clansman of Lovat's in Rotterdam, a wine merchant, who was unable to give him a private room, but could give him an excellent bottle of wine. To Fraser's, therefore, next day went Lovat and his com- panions, who included young Scatwell, to celebrate their safe arrival in a foreign country, and to drink a glass to auld Scotland. Among the company were a Scots merchant in Rotterdam named Abercromby, and an Aberdonian soldier of fortune named Munro, who had had the misfortune to kill an officer in his native country, and 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, pp. 20, 21. SIMON FRASER 141 had consequently entered the French service. When toasts were proposed, Lovat willingly drank to Seaforth and Cromartie out of compliment to their clansman, Scatwell, but he refused to drink to Argyll. Scatwell, it may be added, afterwards denied having given information of any kind to Simon about Cromartie. 1 Lovat had now changed his name to John Smeaton, and his letters were to be addressed to the care of one Mr. Vincent Neerinx, a merchant in Rotterdam. He was again running short of cash, " that little devil," Corbusier, having forgotten to send a letter of advice about payment of a bill in his possession, for want of which he "cannot get a farthing." When writing to Corbusier himself, he excuses his negligence, and will not hear of his refunding the loss it has caused. " I don't value it," he says ; " nor was money ever my master." Besides his money troubles, his health was indifferent, melancholia having again taken possession of him. Writ- ing to Glendaruel on December 7, he says he is " very well, and I strive to recover from my melancholy every day. And I intreat and conjure you, as you love your soul, body, honour, and friends, strive against melan- choly. For, if anything mine me, it will be grief, so for- sake it, my dear." 2 Four days later, writing to Clarke, he says he has endeavoured to banish his melancholy, but has a fever through drinking bad wine (not Fraser's surely). " I wish," he adds, " I was out of this unwhole- some country." Certainly he did not like Holland. " I rather be hanged," he writes, " in any other country than dye in this." He has caught "a great cold," he tells Clarke, and is " afraid for the ague." He wants to know what is doing in the English Parliament ; how the business of the King of Spain goes there ; and what his physician 1 Scatwell's narrative given by Nottingham (Conspiracy Papers, p. 25). 2 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, pp. 30, 31. 142 SIMON FRASER has to say about his health, which he hopes a better air will recover. 1 According to Clarke's reply, the doctors hoped for a recovery by the assistance of " that air that you are going to " ; but when his health has been fully restored, a return to "your owne native air" would be desirable. The hint had probably a political as well as a medical significance. 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, pp. 31-33. CHAPTER XV In a letter to Glendaruel (December 1 1 ?), whom he addresses as his "dearest of all cousins," Simon says he is confounded to know that Sir John Maclean is a prisoner. Apparently, however, he did not anticipate that Sir John would suffer a lengthy detention. "His only business," he writes, " is to give them fair words till he be in the Highlands, for I rather see him shot and damn'd than that he should do an ill thing." Glendaruel must not tell his half-brother what happened in Scotland, except " in fair generals," since he (Sir John) "knows nothing but what she (Lady Maclean) will know." He urges Glendaruel to keep Maclean " from engaging with either party if he can," but if he must take a side, let it be that of " our friends and not our enemies." " Let him consider not to lose fourteen years' service, and not be prepossessed with a pique, for he will never make anything by that means." 1 Lovat wrote to Maclean himself in a similar sense. He could not understand how Sir John came to throw himself in an open boat, and afterwards give himself up to the Government. His business was to have gone quietly home. " However, my dear, give them fair language " — in order to procure his liberty. " I rather see you buried than you should be guilty" of taking an ill step. He con- jures his correspondent, " as he will be answerable to God and his honour," to keep firm to his master. He eulogizes Glendaruel (the bearer of the letter) as " the prettiest 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 32. 144 SIMON FRASER young fellow alive of the generation," and adds: "you are infatuate if you do not follow his advice, for he is brave and solid." The great thing to remember was that not a word of the " main business " should be revealed. " Take care," he writes, " for Christ's sake, that no con- dition may make you or your friends tell a word of the main business to anybody. Many things may be said that are true and probable, that may do you service without touching the main, which Torture should not oblige to discover . . . Remember your honour and our many resolutions. If you will stand by me, we will force our enemies to give us our own." 1 In another letter to Glendaruel, he asks him to give his service to his "great friend," Queensberry, and to Leven. " If this prevail, I hope they will remember me." But he is not concerned entirely with his own affairs. " For God's sake, my dear," he writes, "push your own affairs now briskly." He tells Glendaruel to put his " great friends " in mind, " that I would take their help to you as an act of friendship to you, and if they do not for you, I am sure I will never do for them, which will be loss to them " (he had already assured Queensberry verbally that he could trust Glendaruel in everything that concerned him). He is still fearful of what Sir John Maclean may be induced to tell his wife, "since he is fully bewitched by that woman," and cautions Glendaruel about disclosing their secrets, for "your brother will tell her all — and there it goes." He holds out hope of his correspondent seeing him next summer, " if I am alive in health, and then I'll do or dye upon the head of it. But I doubt not of doing great and glorious things if I keep my health." He hopes to see Glendaruel enjoy " a great reputation and a plentiful estate," and concludes with the assurance that he is " the creature in the world I love most." 2 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 32. * Id., p. 33- SIMON FRASER 145 In a letter to "Walter Corbet" (Captain Neil Macleod) of December 14, he offers to recommend a mutual friend (Charles Mackinnon) to Queensberry and Leven, and on December 17, he writes Fraser of Culduthel that " if we both live a year, you will see me the greatest Lord Lovat that ever was. I am so already out of my country, and I hope to be so in my country very shortly." 1 He sends Culduthel, and charges him to show to those concerned, a letter addressed to the " Honourable all the gentlemen of the name of Fraser of the Lord Lovat's family," urging upon them the folly of disunion, hoping they will join with him in keeping out their enemies, and in preserving his family and their own name and kindred, and threatening with punishment those who refuse to obey his orders. " I can assure you," he asserts, " I shall have power to do it, and be fit sides with all my enemies if I live a few months." 2 Similarly, he writes to Tom Fraser, urging him to "do gallant things, and do not fear to see me very soon." 3 In a letter to " Smith" (William Keith), whom he calls his " most dear friend," he refers to "this confounded, dangerous journey " in front of him, and asks him to see Sir John Maclean, and conjure him " to do brave, just things." 4 His letter to " Ralphson " (Robert Ferguson) is written in a different strain. He promises to do him " all the justice imaginable with our general and superior officers," and advises him not to be deluded by the pretences of those who wished only to serve their own interests. What his language would have been had he known that Ferguson had informed upon him to Atholl, can only be conjectured ! Alas ! for the fidelity of Simon's friends. Before the month was out, every one of his correspondents (with the exception of his landlord, Clarke) had betrayed him. Clarke was arrested when Simon's lodgings were searched, 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, pp. 33, 34. 2 Id., pp. 34, 35. 3 Id., p. 35- 4 Id., p. 35- 146 SIMON FRASER but nothing could be got out of him. He is described by Father Farrell to the Duke of Berwick as " a very honest man " ; and so he seems to have been. He was, in fact, too honest for the company he had been keeping of late — it would have been better for him had he stuck to his pestle, instead of meddling with Jacobite plots. When Ferguson on one occasion told Glendaruel that Lovat would be sent to the; Bastille for his treachery (" notice would be there before him"), Clarke, who was present, declared that if Simon was perfidious, he would never trust any man again. When informing Lovat of Clarke's arrest and examination by Nottingham, Glendaruel stated that his (Simon's) affairs were " the topic of conversation," and that his friends were prejudiced ; obviously he was beginning to feel uneasy for himself. "You are the common subject of discours in this place," he tells Lovat ; x to which it may be added that the remarks made about him were of a decidedly uncomplimentary character. Sir John Maclean was the first of the batch to make disclosures to the Government ; and it was not long before the others found themselves faced with unpleasant alterna- tives. Not one of them was cast in a heroic mould. Maclean seems to have held out for some time against the methods of persuasion which were employed, but ultimately he found himself unable to resist the pressure brought to bear upon him. The Ministers were forced by public opinion, if for no other reason, to take steps to probe the supposed conspiracy to the bottom, and Sir John Maclean was the most important witness at their disposal. He was compelled to choose between pardon, protection, and a pension on the one hand, and, on the other hand, death for high treason, if convicted, and poverty if he escaped death. One choice implied moral disgrace for himself, and the other physical and mental suffering for his beloved wife. It was a painful dilemma 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Glendaruel). SIMON FRASER 147 for a man of honour. The temptation to take the easier way was strong, and Sir John succumbed to it — as Lovat thought he would. Thus it came to pass that the man who, a few months previously, swore (in four languages) eternal friendship for Simon Fraser, now sold him to save his wife. Had he been a bachelor, he might have stood firm. But he had the grace to be thoroughly ashamed of himself. He stipulated that he should be treated " like a gentleman" by being permitted to give his evidence in private, for he had no desire to appear in public against any man. 1 A fine distinction truly, but Sir John was endeavouring to shield himself, as far as possible, from deserved obloquy. Probably he tried to comfort himself in his shame with the reflection that his quondam friend was beyond the reach of his foes, and could not be injured by his revelations. And, after all, his disclosures did little or no harm to Lovat. But St. Germain ? Well, he was embittered against St. Germain, and was not bound to its interests by the ties of gratitude, though he might well have remembered that Mary Beatrice had got him 2000 livres from Versailles before he left France. 2 He was far from being a master of evasion, like Simon, and his " discovery " bears the stamp of truth. He could not, if he had tried, have spoken in " fair generals " (as Simon coun- selled him to do) while concealing "the main business." What Lovat meant by the " main business " can only be conjectured ; the allusion may be to the provisional plans formed in France for the invasion of Scotland. Simon himself managed to keep his own " main business " a strict secret from Queensberry, while "amusing" the Minister (and himself) with a mixture of truth and fiction. Maclean knew nothing, or, if he knew, said nothing, about Lovat's doings in Scotland. Incidentally, he made the interesting statement that his own instructions were to 1 Sir John Maclean's " Discovery " (Scottish Conspiracy). ■ Id. 148 SIMON ERASER sound Hamilton, Atholl, and the Earl Marischal (Perth's son-in-law), and that he was specially charged by Queen Mary to do his best to reconcile Atholl and Lovat, for it would be doing her " a great service." * The information elicited by Nottingham from Maclean was supplemented later, by the fuller disclosures which he made to the Special Committee appointed by the House of Lords to inquire into the conspiracy. The appointment of this Committee raised a nice constitutional question, the Commons resent- ing the interference of the Lords as an infringement of the Queen's prerogative. There were wheels within wheels in grinding out the material for the prosecution of the guilty. Nottingham was under suspicion as a Jacobite sympa- thizer, and Queen Anne herself was probably not too anxious to probe the conspiracy too deeply. But Atholl and the others implicated were compelled to clear them- selves from the charges brought against them, and the information in their possession enabled them, as they thought, to checkmate Queensberry effectively. The dis- closures of the other informers were of relatively less importance to the Government than those of Maclean. Ferguson seems to have got most of his information from Clarke, whose simple nature was not proof against the artful advances of the old plotter. In suitable company, Ferguson professed to be as ardent a Jacobite as the best of them. According to Ferguson, Simon Fraser told him that he had spoken to Breadalbane, Lochiel, and others, " whose stiles, being more uncouth to me than Arabick, I have forgot." 2 The paper containing Ferguson's information gave great offence to the Lords' Committee ; they called it a "scandalous paper," and they directed the Attorney- General to prosecute him. He was a skilled political pamphleteer, and the freeness, not to say the levity, with which he expressed himself was considered disrespectful 1 Sir John Maclean's "Discovery" (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Ferguson's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). SIMON FRASER 149 to " my lords," who were not going to allow an adventurer like Ferguson to address them as if he were the para- graphist of a " smart " journal. Moreover — and this was no doubt the head and front of his offending — his excur- sion into high politics was probably far from being palatable to them. The details of Simon's doings in England and Scotland were supplied by Glendaruel, Keith, and Macleod, all of whom were coerced into their confessions, the two former by the threat to send them to Scotland for trial, where they would have fared badly. The evidence of David Lindsay, Middleton's Under-Secretary, and of Patrick Oliphant, a soldier of fortune, was of less importance. Lindsay afterwards showed that he was made of good stuff by refusing to be intimidated into giving false information, even to save his life. Glendaruel, Lovat's " dearest of all cousins," declared, " I would to God I had never seen him." x Altogether, Glendaruel cuts a despicable figure in the business. He cringed before his questioners, professing to be sincerely repentant of his connection with the man who had given him his full and unreserved confidence. And as a sign of his repentance, he told everything. It is not surprising that Simon, on learning the truth, should have called him " this unnatural monster, this perfidious traitor, this execrable villain," 2 who had betrayed him. The epithets he bestows upon Sir John Maclean are "the most contemptible of cowards," and "the most worth- less of the human race ; " 3 a distinction which appears to imply that while Glendaruel was in his view an abandoned traitor, his half-brother was a mere fool. He has no hard names for Keith, who, it may be said, used strong language about Simon — calling him a " monster," whose " insatiable malice " had been the cause of " all this villainy and 1 GlendaruePs declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Memoirs, p. 195. 8 Id., pp. 194, 195- 150 SIMON FRASER contrivance " * — but was commendably reticent about essentials. His story was that Simon had forced himself upon his presence, desiring him to intercede for him with Atholl, and that he was unable to shake off the persistent suppliant. One would suppose, from his evidence, that Lovat was some chance and unwelcome visitor, who pestered him with his requests, and refused to take " no " for an answer. The facts, as we know them, were very different. But Keith, seeing the game was up, made a virtue of a necessity, and tried to give his preliminary statements to Atholl and Nottingham the air of a volun- tary confession. He was a good actor, and his assump- tion of virtuous indignation against Simon seems for a time to have successfully covered his withholding of really material information. But he succumbed later on, either to threats or the promise of reward, and confessed that he had been made acquainted with Simon's transactions. Not only so, but he undertook to induce his uncle, John Murray, to come forward and discover all he knew ; yet he pretended that the only scheme that was afoot was to arrange matters so that the Chevalier should reign after Queen Anne. 2 Keith's promise to procure his uncle as an informer proved illusory ; it may have been given merely to "amuse" the Lords and the Ministry (he seems to have been an apt pupil of Simon's), or John Murray was too honest a man to be unfaithful to his trust. As Burnet says, " Keith's design to bring in his uncle was " managed ruinously ; " and it was generally believed that there was no earnest desire for it to succeed." 3 This is probably correct ; for more than one highly-placed person was anxious that the whole thing should be hushed up. A searching investigation into the correspondence between 1 Keith's declaration (Scottish Conspiracy). - Id. 3 Burnet, p. 132. SIMON FRASER 151 St. Germain and its British sympathizers might have had unpleasant consequences for some of them. From the women no information could be extracted. Lady Maclean had nothing to say ; and Mrs. Fox— an adept in what Simon would call "speaking in fair generals" — was of course (on her own showing) entirely innocent of political designs, having come over to England on purely private business. 1 Sir John Maclean stated in his evidence that he tried to draw Mrs. Fox, "she being vain and passionate," but failed in the attempt. That she was sent over by Middleton cannot well be doubted. The Lords' Committee, finding it useless to wait for John Murray's evidence, proceeded to draw up their Report, the Lord Advocate in the meantime ordering the arrest of the Lochiels, father and son, and Appin, and that search be made for the two Murrays and Major Fraser. 2 The report was utterly inconclusive in one sense, because, although the existence of a dangerous conspiracy was admitted, the evidence was of too vague a nature to warrant proceedings being taken against any person. Meanwhile, Atholl had adopted energetic measures to prove to the Queen his innocence of the charges made against him. He carried the war into the enemy's camp by striving to show that Oueensberry had committed a gross breach of duty by assisting Lovat, instead of arresting him, and by employing him to ruin faithful subjects of Her Majesty, such as himself. 3 Although his innocence was acknowledged, he deemed it advisable to resign his office as Lord Privy Seal, in order that no shadow of suspicion should attach to a Minister of the Crown. Against Queensberry there was a strong feeling, in Scotland more particularly, as being the prime mover in a plot designed to trap his political opponents. The 1 Statement by Mrs. Fox (Scottish Conspiracy). 2 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, p. 23. 3 Addl. MSS. 27382, f. 99. Atholl's memorial to Queen Anne. 152 SIMON ERASER ridiculous situation in which he had placed himself led to his resignation as High Commissioner, the Marquis of Tweeddale receiving that appointment, while Cromartie attained his ambition of being sole Secretary for Scotland. But Queensberry was too useful a Minister to remain long in the cold shade of neglect ; and his re-appointment, soon afterwards, to the management of affairs in Scotland under the title of Lord Privy Seal, testified to the depen- dence placed upon him by the Court as a parliamentary tactician of rare ability. The results that flowed from the investigation of the Scottish Conspiracy were of a far-reaching character. A rider to the Lords' Report attributed the existence of the plot, to the encouragement derived from the non- settlement of the succession to the Crown of Scotland in the House of Hanover. This conviction, which was plainly justifiable, provided a strong incentive to push forward the scheme of Union between the two countries, and it ultimately contributed, in no small measure, to the successful accomplishment of that object. CHAPTER XVI UNAWARE of the revelations that were being brought to light about his doings, Lovat was making preparations to reach the French army in Flanders. He found it extremely difficult to obtain the necessary passport from the Hague, owing to the strictness of the regulations ; and on attempting to procure the document, he narrowly escaped arrest. Realizing his danger, he left hurriedly for the frontier, accompanied by his brother and Major Fraser. His friendship with Robert Ferguson in London now stood him in good stead. For the old plotter had given him a letter of introduction to his brother, Major- General Ferguson, who was in command of the troops at Bois-le-duc ; and to Bois-le-duc the party, disguised as Dutch officers, accordingly went. General Ferguson, a Jacobite at heart, received Simon hospitably, and told him of a secret traffic in military secrets between the secre- taries of M. Chamillart, the French Minister for War, and the Dutch Governor of the Bois-le-duc garrison. Subse- quently, Simon turned this information to good account by communicating it to Versailles through Marshal Villeroy. But in the meantime, notwithstanding Ferguson's friend- ship, his own peril was by no means past. The garrison was composed of two Scottish regiments in the Dutch service — those of Orkney and Murray — some officers of which, who were friends of Atholl, soon discovered his presence. There were about a hundred Frasers in these regiments, two of whom recognized their chief, and the 154 SIMON FRASER whole body of the clansmen subsequently visited Lovat's lodging and offered to follow him wherever he went. Genuinely touched by the fidelity of these poor fellows, and alarmed for their safety as well as his own, Lovat warned them of their danger, and ordered them to return to their duty. But the story got abroad that he had come to Bois-le-duc with the object of tampering with the garrison, and Ferguson advised him to consult his own safety by setting out for Antwerp without delay. It was no easy matter to escape detection, and it was only by means of money and the fertility of Lovat's resource that he managed to reach his destination. A Catholic postilion agreed, for a payment of a hundred louis d'ors, to provide three saddle horses and a cart to convey the party. Simon disguised himself as a carter, and his two companions as poor peasants of the country. Behold, therefore, the great Lord Lovat driving his little cart out of the town and passing in safety the numerous sentinels ! Lovat, his brother, and the postilion met outside the town at an appointed rendezvous, but Major Fraser and Simon's page missed their way, and rejoined the others only after their arrival at Antwerp. When about half-way on the road, Lovat and his companions almost blundered into a party of fifty or sixty men. The darkness of the night favoured their escape across the heath, but a threat to blow out the brains of the trembling postilion was found necessary to sustain his courage and save the three from capture. With difficulty they regained the road, and with the assistance of a peasant, at length reached their destination, on 23rd December, where Lovat was warmly welcomed by Villeroy. On his arrival, he wrote to Gualterio charging him to let Versailles and St. Germain know that he was on the road " with good news." l After spending a few days at Antwerp 1 Memoirs, pp. 227-238; Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 649. Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 101-104. SIMON FRASER 155 and Brussels, Simon and his companions set out for Paris, where he arrived early in January, 1704. He was not (as our histories would have us believe) immediately clapped into the Bastille by Louis as a detected traitor. On the contrary, he was at first welcomed by St. Germain and Versailles alike, as a distinguished servant who had performed an arduous duty with faithfulness and prudence. For some months his fate lay in the balance ; honours and fresh employment seemed quite as probable as dismissal and disgrace. The story of his secret contest with Middleton, who was the cause of his ruin, is an instructive study in dissimulation and intrigue. On 3rd January, Lovat, still unaware of the dis- closures being made in England, wrote to Clarke, his London landlord, announcing his arrival in Paris, and sending letters for Keith, Captain Macleod, and Glen- daruel ; his letter to the last-named enclosing a note for the Earl of Leven. He informed his friends that he was ill, but triumphant. " I have not yet seen the great folks," he tells Glendaruel, "only heard from them." He hopes Leven will help Glendaruel to get from Oueensberry the ,£100 he was obliged to borrow. "Tell my great friend " (Queensberry), he says, "that I will do effectually what I promised for him." " I am greater here than ever," he writes Leven, "so that you may assure your friend" (Oueensberry) "that I will do what he asked of me very effectually. Those people " (Hamilton, Atholl, and Cromartie) " carry on things here just as I told him, and that great Person he serves " (Queen Anne) "is much infatuate to trust them. I hope you will not forget me nor let your friend forget me." He informs Keith that "your nephew" (should be "uncle," i.e. John Murray) "is impatiently expected, so send him this, by which I con- jure him to make no delay. . . ." He promises Glendaruel that he will be back " before the spring is past," but is less 156 SIMON FRASER confident in writing Macleod, " I cannot tell," he says, " how long I may stay here." * On the same date (3rd January), Queen Mary wrote the following letter to Simon from St. Germain : — " I was extremely glad to hear that you were com safe to Paris, but am sorry to find by Mr Fraizer and by your owne letter that you are ill in your health. I hope rest and care will restore it to you again and enable you to come hither, for the King and I are very impatient to hear from yourself an account of your journey and of all you have don since you left us, and yett mor to thank you for the great zeale you have shewed for his service and the dangers you have run to serve him. I do assure you wee are more sensible of it than I can expresse it to you, but the King, I hope, will live to shew it you. "Maria R." 2 On the following day (4th January), Middleton warmly welcomed Lovat back, telling him that "the Nuncio that seekes all occasions of oblidging his servants, judg'd well that he could not give me more satisfaction than by telling me of y r safe arrival, after y° apprehensions I had from y c malice of our ennemies. I hope you'll take care of y r health, which is so necessary for our master's service, and be assur'd that none can have a more gratefull sense of y r fav™ nor a greater hon r for y r merit than Y r Lops most obedient humble serv*, "Middleton" 3 It cannot be denied, in face of these letters, that Lovat had every justification for the belief that his position at 1 Scottish Conspiracy Papers, pp. 36, 37. 2 Addl. MSS. 31249, f. 31. Cf. Memoirs, p. 242. s Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Middleton). SIMON FRASER 157 St. Germain was now secure. The letter from the Queen- Regent, especially, must have gratified him exceedingly. The pretence of procuring information for Queensberry had to be kept up until circumstances should determine his future course of action. The Commissioner might be persuaded to pay some of his debts, and his friendship would always be worth retaining. But there is absolutely nothing to show that it was ever proposed, either by him or by Queensberry, that he should supply information on any matters other than those relating to the three noble- men whom he had accused of trafficking with St. Germain. And as he must have known perfectly well, so long as the direction of affairs at St. Germain remained with Middleton, the secrets of that Court would not be revealed to him, and confidential correspondence was not likely to fall into his hands. But in the meantime it would be easy enough to "amuse" the Commissioner until the time came — either to take service with the British Government openly, or, what was much more likely, to tell Queensberry that he had been the victim of a huge Lovatic joke. "Stratagem is lawful in an enemy." Such, forty years later, was Simon's own summing up of his dealings with the High Commissioner. In a memorial submitted to Queen Mary, giving an account of his journey to Scotland and its results, Lovat makes no attempt to conceal the fact that communications had passed between him and Queensberry, who, he says, has always been his "good friend," and was so anxious to secure his services for the British Government that he offered him a pardon, the restoration of his estates, the payment of his debts, a regiment, and a good pension, if he would come over. Of course (Lovat says) he refused these offers, but he was compelled to give the Com- missioner " very fair language," in order to get a pass to London. And (he goes on to say) he told Queensberry in London that, after reporting on his mission in France, 158 SIMON FRASER he would come back and accept his offers. 1 Incidentally, he charged James Murray with having informed upon him and John Murray. Simon's memorial was submitted to the Queen-Regent, and he awaited the result with some anxiety. He desired Middleton, on January 15, to ask the Queen whether she was pleased with it, and whether it would be desirable to make any alterations before submitting a copy to the French Court. He hoped that Middleton would be as good as his word in befriending him. Middleton's reply, on the same date, bade him deal " candidly and sincerely " with Versailles. " It were unfitt," he says, "to conceal any part or circumstance of one's case from a physician." By this time Lovat was on his guard against Middleton, who, he had been assured, was (with Berwick) his deadly enemy, and whose influence at St. Germain, he was well aware, would ruin his projects unless his friends bestirred themselves. 2 Letters from England now com- menced to arrive at St. Germain containing references to Simon, which, as Mary Beatrice reported to the Nuncio, were not only dubious, " but to his positive disadvantage." She was anxious, therefore, to see him, but would suspend her judgment until the arrival of " two men " (the Murrays, no doubt) "whom I expect." Meantime she would not " open herself " too much to Lovat, and she suggested that the Nuncio should act with similar reserve. 3 Particulars of the " Scottish Conspiracy " were also being received at St. Germain, including the report that Lovat had been employed by Queensberry to trap some of the Nationalists, especially Atholl. In the meantime, Lovat's memorial to Mary Beatrice was the subject of a communication from Middleton to 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 648. ■ Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Middleton). Addl. MSS. 31252, f. 105. 3 Addl. MSS. 20293, f. u. SIMON ERASER 159 Torcy, dated January 16. "Although you know I never had a good opinion of him " (Lovat), he writes the French Minister, "yet I did not believe him fool enough to accuse himself. . . . He has not, in some places, been as careful as authors of romance to preserve probability." It is (he says) "as clear as daylight," that Queensberry, Leven, and Argyll wanted to employ Lovat in France as a spy. And, foreseeing that James Murray's report about him would be unfavourable, he tried to forestall him. " If the King (Louis) thinks proper to arrest him, it should be done without noise. His name should not be mentioned any more, and at the same time all his papers should be seized." Two days later (January 18) Middleton again wrote to Torcy, sending him a list of questions, artfully framed, to trap Lovat into incriminating answers. Also, he suggested that Simon's brother, John, who was with him, should be arrested, " even though he should not be guilty, to prevent him making a noise." And on January 20, he sent Lovat's report to the Nuncio, accompanied by a similar list of questions. 1 All this time, Middleton was corresponding with Lovat, and professing to be his friend. On January 19, Simon told him that he had been very ill, and that it added to his distemper (he was suffering from gravel) to hear that the Queen had been giving heed to "the frivolous sug- gestions " of his enemies. He complained of the want of gratitude for the services he had performed. " I believe," he says, " Loyalty is a Rock that none in Brittan who hears my story will hereafter split upon." He compared the services of his family to the Stuarts with those of the Atholl family, plainly hinting that he was being sacrificed in order to please the Murrays. 2 Writing on January 23, Middleton informed him that he had shown his letter to the Queen, whose answer was that three days previously 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 652, 653. 2 Id., vol. i. pp. 653, 654. 160 SIMON FRASER she had seen one of the same date and to the same purpose, and had already replied to it. " Thus," continues Middleton, "tho' an uselesse Toole, I would not faile in answering your letter, being resolved never to faile in paying your lordship that respect which is due to you." 1 On January 25, Lovat again complained to Middleton of the attitude of Mary Beatrice. He was daily informed that the Queen had "but a scurvy opinion" of him. His enemies having more power with her than he possessed, he was determined to meddle no more with any affairs until the King came of age. An undated letter from Middleton to Lovat, which appears to have been written about this time, expressed that Minister's surprise to find, by a letter from Simon to " a lady," that " you had any jealousy of me," but he is not aware of having given any occasion for it. " But when it is explained, I am sure I shall be able to satisfye y r Lo p of my sincerity, being sollicitous in nothing more than your service, and advanc- ing y r hon r and intrest to y e utmost of my powr, ther being nobody hon rS you more than," etc., etc. 2 It is not surprising that Simon, writing on February 5, stated that he was " very much overjoyed " to find that the Minister continued to be his " good friend." He hoped to stay in France till " I confound my calumniators and have satis- faction of them," when they (the Queen and her son) would perhaps give leave to " a man that is suspected as a knave, to retire himself." 3 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Middleton). In this letter Middleton uses the words : "I saw that was enough and withdrew. In Biscoe's " Earls of Middleton " (p. 273), the author (who cannot surely have seen the MS.) quotes them as "I said that was enough and withdrew." On the face of it, this was a disrespectful manner of addressing the Queen. But Biscoe lingers admiringly over the dignified effectiveness of the remark, as a rebuke to the Queen for an imaginary slight which she had cast upon her Minister ! Incidentally, he employs it as a bludgeon with which to belabour Lovat ! It is a curious instance of an author being led completely astray by a mistake over a word. Miss Strickland ("Lives" (1852), vol. vi. p. 470) makes the same mistake. 2 Id, 3 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. p. 656. SIMON FRASER 161 So much for Middleton's professions of friendship! According to a recent book, he was " one of the best and most faithful gentlemen who ever served a king." * Doubt- less he was a faithful servant of James, but towards Lovat he was an arrant hypocrite. And hypocrisy does not form part of the necessary equipment of a "gentleman." Middleton was doing his best to ruin Lovat, then lying on a bed of sickness, while pretending to be his friend. It was surely the more manly and honourable course to tell him of the accusations against him and invite his reply, instead of working secretly to discredit him at St. Germain and Versailles, without giving him an opportunity of defending himself. But Middleton welcomed the chance of sweeping Lovat from his path once for all, and the indecent eager- ness which he displayed in urging the French Government to arrest him, shows that he was ready to seize any weapon that came to his hand to achieve his object. He told Torcy that Lovat had communicated "the whole of his commission" to Argyll, Leven, and Queensberry (a statement for which he produced not a shadow of proof), adding suggestively, "which is a crime that deserves hanging in any country." Lovat's account of his transactions with Queensberry was apparently an ingenuous admission of truckling with St. Germain's enemies. Plainly, Middleton was puzzled to know what to make of it ; he did not believe him " fool enough to accuse himself." But the admission was really more ingenious than ingenuous. For Simon, apparently, did not doubt that the reason he assigned for deceiving the Commissioner would justify his action in the eyes of St. Germain and Versailles, while his candour would vouch for his good faith. And in the event of the news reaching France of his dealings with Queensberry — not an impro- bable contingency, as he must have foreseen — his position would be immeasurably strengthened by his voluntary 1 The King Over the Water (p. 39), by Alice Shield and Andrew Lang. M J62 SIMON FRASER admission, which would thus take the wind out of his adversaries' sails. He was well aware that, in spite of Middleton's statement to Torcy, it was impossible to prove that he had betrayed the interests of France in respect of his mission to the clans ; and he reckoned, no doubt, upon receiving the support of Versailles if he had trouble with St. Germain. Louis and his advisers were not specially concerned with the only matter upon which he had engaged to supply the Commissioner with information. For some time, the issue of the accusations against him was in doubt. He himself attributes his final discomfiture to his illness ; and unquestionably his illness was a serious handicap. But he was not without his friends, both at St. Germain and Versailles. The Duke of Perth and his son, Lord John Drummond, believed in him, and the Nuncio, with Torcy and Callieres, remained unconvinced of his guilt. He had brought with him letters from Stewart of Appin, John Murray, and Lord Drummond, which were of considerable assistance in maintaining his reputation. Appin assured the Queen that the Highlanders were "ready and willing" to rise if they were put "in any condition to appear effectually," and he hoped that Her Majesty would "push affaires as soon as possible. . . . The King's affaires were never so ripe either in the High- lands or Low country." Simon's right to treat for the Highlanders was clearly stated by Appin, but he did not name the chiefs who had authorized him to write the letter. " We intrust," he says, " my Lord Lovat to ask and promise in our behalf what would be necessary for us and what we can do." John Murray's testimony to Simon's good faith was unequivocal, as may be seen by the following extract from his letter : " Having soe worthy a servant of your Majesty as my Lord Lowat to be the bearer, who hath given mee since I came hear demonstra- tions of his zeal and capacitie to serve your Maj : in this country, I need not trouble your Maj : with ane account of SIMON FRASER 163 what has past, since the bearer cane doe it fully, being sent back by y e King's friends." In addition to the letters to Queen Mary, Appin, Murray, and Drummond each addressed a letter to the Nuncio, thanking him for the interest he had taken in Lovat's affairs. Appin hoped that he would back up Simon at St. Germain, and Versailles, " and wee humbly beg your Excellence protectione to him." There was also a letter from Appin to Torcy, assuring him, in the name of the Highlanders, that they were overjoyed to hear of the intention of His Most Christian Majesty to assist them to restore the King, according to the assurance of " the bearer, the Lord Lovat, who is one of y e considerable chiefs of y e Highlanders," and whom they had again sent to assure the King of France, " as well as our own King," that when they received assistance, they would engage . . . " to restore our King, or to be usefull " to Louis. He offered to go to the Court " from all y e Highlanders " (though he had never been abroad) to confirm what Lovat might promise on their behalf. 1 Simon's hand is plainly discernible in this correspon- dence. There is an interesting sequel to it. 1 Addl. MSS. 31249 (Letters from Appin, Murray, and Lord Drummond). CHAPTER XVII THE letters brought by Lovat from Scotland clearh rebutted Middleton's accusation that Simon had proved unfaithful to his mission, which, after all, was the question that concerned the French Court. Major (or Captain) George Fraser spoke up manfully on behalf of his chief. In a memorial, dated February 6, which was obviously intended to influence Versailles in Simon's favour, he emphasized "how zealous and faithful a Frenchman my Lord Lovat is " (he himself was a major in the Franco- Irish regiment of Bourke), and "how courageously and vigorously he went thro' all the Low country as well as the Highlands to invite and dispose the people to rise in arms." 1 On February 9, Lovat addressed a lengthy letter to the Duke of Perth, lamenting that he was made very black to his best friends in France by the Court of St. Germain. He recapitulated his services to the Stuart dynasty, making special reference to the part he played at the age of nineteen in the attempt by Lord Drummond to surprise Edinburgh Castle, and to the personal sacrifices he had since made in the same cause. "All the return 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 85. The services performed by Lovat in the Low Country are purely imaginary, so far as the evidence shows. Major Fraser had difficulty in getting any payment for his services when he returned to France from Scotland. Queen Mary, while denying responsibility, was willing to help him ; " but the month's monye being out, and the next month not very near, she had it not at present." Thus wrote Perth to Lovat, adding : " For my own part, I cannot comand at present a louis d'or." Truly, St. Germain was an impoverished Court. (Addl, MSS. 31253, ff. 3i» 32.) SIMON FRASER 165 I get for this is that I am treated Hk a doge, like villain and traiter " (sic). Boasting of his power over the Highlanders, he assured Perth that if he had told them how he had been treated, " they would fight for the Turk sooner than for a King and Queen that would be advised by those who mal- treat them." For, last year he was called " a villain and ane imposture, and the Highlanders theives and robbers and good-for-nothing els, but they make themselves the streanth of the kingdom." All this was clearly aimed at Perth's rival, Middleton, the head of the " English party," concerning whom he says, " I dare boldly affirm that Jesus Christ will come in the clouds before an Inglis people or party call home the King." Alluding to the charges made against him, he argued that they were palpably absurd, for he had it in his power to have all his confederates in Scotland hanged had he wished to betray them. He was specially concerned that Queen Mary should restore his reputation at the French Court. Obviously, he cared little for what was said of him at St. Germain if he retained the friendship of Versailles. He had forced his brother, he said, to come to France to be bred a Catholic, he himself being a " sincer " son of the Church. With good reason, he desired that the Queen should not believe his accusers without proof or trial. *' I rather she should order me to be broke upon the wheell than suffer my reputation to be torn to pieces." l The true reason why his brother accompanied him to France was that he had made Scotland too hot to hold him. Accompanied by a band of "loose and broken men," he had terrorized the Aird and Stratherrick districts, intimidating the tenantry from paying their rents 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 85-90. Perth gave a warm welcome to Simon on his return, and hoped he would have good health for his own sake and the King's, and, above all, "for the interest of the Catholique religion" (Addl. MSS. 31253, f. 27). Lovat's championship (in France) of the "Catholique religion" was a trump card which he frequently played with great effect, 16*6 SIMON FRASER to the dowager Lady Lovat and her daughter, burning the houses of their agents, and capturing a small party of Grants sent to restore order. 1 The Privy Council had to intervene, and John Fraser was only too ready to place himself at the disposal of his brother Simon when the latter came to Scotland. It is evident that Versailles took Lovat seriously, and accepted in good faith his assurances and those of his friends who had charged him with their messages. Preparations were actually set on foot to give effect to the Scottish recommendations, and Simon's star appeared to be once more in the ascendant. One of the most active participators in the arrangement was Colonel Nathaniel Hooke, who proved a staunch friend to Lovat. Hooke was the son of a Drogheda merchant and was bred a Puritan. He joined Argyll in Holland and subsequently became the chaplain of Monmouth, with whom he landed at Lyme. Becoming a Catholic, he espoused the cause of James II., and served under Dundee in Scotland. He was captured at Chester and sent to the Tower. He remained a faithful Jacobite, and fought at the Battle of the Boyne, afterwards seeking refuge in France, where he was presented with a regiment. In January, 1703, he was made colonel of the Swedish regiment of Count Sparre, and served in Flanders and Moselle. From his experience with Dundee, he was in a better position to gauge the situation in Scotland than his French colleagues, and, being a man who appears to have been scrupulously honest and absolutely trustworthy, his opinions carried weight at Versailles. Although at first reserved towards Hooke, it was not long before Lovat recognized his sterling qualities and his usefulness as a friend. With Torcy unconvinced by Middleton, the Nuncio (whose influence at Versailles was considerable) still willing to befriend him, and Colonel Hooke working to promote his 1 Chambers' Domestic Annals of Scotland, pp. 254-6. SIMON FRASER 167 views, all seemed to be going well. Writing to Hooke on February ii„ Lovat desired him to point out to the Nuncio certain weighty reasons why Major Fraser should be sent back to Scotland. Callieres had asked him (Lovat) to press the Nuncio, who would persuade Torcy of the necessity of sending this officer. The latter had prepared a list of reasons for his proposed visit, the two outstanding objects being to corroborate Lovat's report to the satisfaction of Versailles, and to prepare the Scottish Jacobites for the active co-operation of Louis. That Simon's exclusion from a French invasion of Scotland was not con- templated, is shown by the suggestion that Major Fraser should be empowered to tell the " leading men " in what month they were to expect Lord Lovat with assistance from France. 1 Once more, Simon's hand is plainly traceable in the preparation of this memorial. It is hardly necessary to say that he himself was a particularly active memorialist at this juncture in his affairs. The memorials were carefully drafted (the drafts may still be seen), for they were intended to influence the policy of Versailles. As appeals to the prejudices and the interests of Louis, they were worded with consummate skill, and sly hints at Simon's personal enemies were cleverly interwoven with the text. France and Scotland, he argued, must make common cause against the common enemy, England. Middleton, "a man always attached to England," and the Duke of Berwick, also a pro- Englander, dominated St. Germain, and prejudiced Queen Mary against her best friends. The English faction at St. Germain — "ane uncertain trimming party," as Lovat described them to Mary Beatrice — knew that the interests of Scotland and France were so closely identified that in the event of a Restoration, the ruin of England was inevitable. Hence they were opposed to the co-operation of France and Scotland, and their emissary, James Murray, 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 90-92. 168 SIMON FRASER had striven when in Scotland to show that Lovat and John Murray were the tools of France, " the greatest enemy of their King." In spite of the efforts of Middleton and Berwick to discredit him, he hoped that Louis would see the advantages that would accrue to France if a civil war were stirred up in Great Britain. He would undertake to create a diversion if Louis would only give him a little assistance, and he would leave his brother as a hostage for his fidelity. In any case, he would serve France faithfully all his life. 1 It appears further from the drafts of his memorials, that before leaving France, Lovat had all but secured a sum of 50,000 livres, to be distributed in Scotland by him- self and John Murray in their discretion. The Queen- Regent had told him that she would sell her jewels, if necessary, to obtain the money (the sale of this Queen's jewels is a familiar story), and ultimately, she obtained a promise of the amount from the former of the only two sources to which she could turn, viz. Versailles and Rome. But Middleton and Berwick, distrustful of Simon, inter- vened, and persuaded her that the money would do more harm than good ; so she went to Marly and declined the offer of Louis. Lovat declared on his return to France that if he had received the money, there would be " ten thousand men now in arms for the King." 2 He was a firm believer in the efficacy of hard cash for strengthening the faith of the weaker vessels, and stimulating the conversion of waverers. " Siller," he declared to Lochiel forty years later, "goes far in the Highlands." He might have justly added : " in the Lowlands as well ; and it is not despised even in England." There is some room for speculation concerning the destination of the 50,000 livres had Simon received the money. Possibly he might have adapted to the circumstances, the reply of his " wise " friend Breadal- bane, when desired a few years previously to give an 1 Addl. MSS. 31250, passim. 2 Id., ff. 51-54- SIMON FRASER 169 account of his disbursements to the Highland chiefs : " The money is spent, the Highlands are quiet, and this is the only way of accounting among friends." The arrival of James Murray at St. Germain on February 14, after a journey of five weeks, including some days in Paris, was for the moment a serious blow to Lovat. For Murray's report about him was most damaging. 1 He declared that Queensberry gave Lovat a pass to the High- lands "to treat with the chiefs about taking arms." This was flatly contradicted by Queensberry himself, and is opposed to all the available evidence ; but when Middleton with alacrity submitted the report to Versailles, there was naturally a heavy fall in the value of Lovat memorials. James Murray bore the reputation of being an honest and reliable man, and his opinion of Lovat — "wicked, dangerous, and notoriously to be suspected," are the adjectives he uses — carried much weight. Incidentally, it may be stated that if he was an honest man, he was also an extremely credulous one, as honest men are apt to be when their judgment is badly balanced. He believed and reported a statement by one Adamson, manager of the Lovat estates, that Simon had so little influence in the Highlands that " he would not find one Highlander who would willingly follow him." Yet when Lovat actually appeared in the Highlands eleven years later, those of his clansmen who had joined Mar changed sides and went over to him in a body. The man who could make or believe such a statement about Lovat, was clearly ignorant of the strength of the clan sentiment, and the over- whelming influence of the chiefs. Lovat himself knew better, when he wrote in one of his memorials about les Montagnards qui sofit commandcs par leur chefs qui dis- posent absolument de leur vassaux. 2 Against James Murray's report, Lovat and his friends 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 663-665. ■ Addl. MSS. 31250, f. 19. 170 SIMON FRASER promptly pitted the letters from John Murray, Appin, and Lord Drummond. Which story was to be believed ? Mary Beatrice was now convinced that Lovat had betrayed his mission, but Torcy, the Nuncio, and Louis himself were halting between two opinions. Middleton applied himself to the task of persuading them that James Murray had thoroughly exposed Simon. He was a troublesome fellow, this Lovat, the astute schemer and the Queensberry spy, and he must be got rid of somehow. Hamilton, Atholl, and Middleton were at one on that point. James Murray's report about Hamilton was highly satisfactory up to a point. He had been most successful in hampering the settlement of the succession question, and in winning powerful support for his measures gener- ally. But all this was expensive work, and, in short, more money was wanted. Parliament would meet again in April or May, when the discussion of these supremely important questions would be resumed. The sum of ^25,000 would have to be found if the views of the Jacobites were to prevail. Hanover could bribe heavily ; St. Germain must do likewise. 1 Such being the situation, it was more than ever im- perative to finish off Lovat and his pretensions without delay. The whole story of his relations with the Atholl family was raked up afresh. Anything that could tell to his disadvantage was eagerly seized upon. He was talked about in and around Paris, as he had been talked about in and around London. The plain-spoken Lord Aylesbury (who, by the way, had a poor opinion of Middleton) was particularly virulent against Simon. Writing to Father Saunders, the Confessor of James, on February 25, he says he is certain that Lovat was sent to France by Queensberry. " I gave the character of this 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 666-669. It does not appear that this money was ever found. See ante, concerning the £25,000 already obtained from the Pope. SIMON FRASER 171 Lovat long ago to Madame Fox and others," he states, but they did not believe him until too late. " I acknow- ledge I am too warm when I speak about Lovat." Alluding to Simon's "ill-founded projects," as he calls them, he thinks that such men should be " confined in mad-houses if they are fools, or in the Bastille if they have their senses ! " * On the other hand, we find Lord John Drum- mond telling Simon on February 26, that the sentiments of his father, Lord Perth, towards him were "full of esteem." Perth had remarked to his son that " nobody but such a person as you can gasse {sic) could be capable of ripping up those old calumnies against you." The allusion, of course, is to Middleton. Lord John bids Simon cheer up and try to bear his hardships, be they never so great, "with that firmness and greatness of soul " he is capable of, and has always shown upon all occasions, " which is the virtue of Heros." On the following day, Lord John advises him not to come near St. Germain, "for fear that, being seen by somebody, you might meet with ill offices that way." He tells him that letters received from Scotland state that some papers of his (Lovat's) had been seized in London, upon which Sir John Maclean and Keith were to be tried in Scotland. 2 By this time Lovat had received vague reports about the treachery of some of his friends in London. In a letter to Keith, dated February 13, he tells him of the charges made against him in France, and that Glendaruel had written him that he (Keith) had informed upon him to Atholl. " It's true I told you as my most dear comarad the afaire and Glen(daruel) as my cusine germain. But may I never see God if either O. (Queensbcrry), or L. (Leven) either knew or suspected my speaking to any Scotsman of ye K(ing)'s afaire." He cannot believe that " to gain a post," Keith would ever be guilty of " sacrificing 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 670, 671. - Acldl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Lord John Drummond). 172 SIMON FRASER y r sworn camarad, y* uncle, and all y r Relations." He reminds him that the only use he made of Queensberry was " to get out of ther hands, and it was a demonstration y l I told you allways when I went and for what." If Glendaruel should make discoveries, " no man can trust himself," but he refuses to believe " any ill thing of him," and concludes that the whole story must be a fabrication by Atholl and St. Germain to ruin him. It was reported at St. Germain that Keith's uncle, John Murray, had been arrested, which, says Simon, " confounds me ; for if he came here, his fortune and mine would be made." He entreats Keith to give him " ane account of all matters, y l I may have something to say for my inocency that is so barbarously and treacherously attacked." He concludes the letter with the confident assurance that " y e oathes we gave " of mutual friendship would be kept as sacredly by Keith as they would be all his life by him. 1 There are touches of sincerity in this letter that are worthy of notice. It is quite certain that of all people in the world, Glendaruel and Keith were the last whom Lovat would have suspected of treachery towards him. During the earlier years of his career, he had to experience many a rude shock to his belief in human nature. Simon's money was once more coming to an end. He asked the advice of his friend, Hooke, whether he should represent his financial straits to Versailles while the Court was favourably disposed towards him, "in case circum- stances might them alter." Writing on February 23, Hooke recommended him to wait a little. "The Court (Versailles) must make a resolution very speedily upon the great business. If it is favourable, your lordship will be included. If they will not meddle, your reputation is so very well established with them that they cannot refuse, considering your charges and trouble." 2 To this Simon 1 Addl. MSS, 31251 (Letter (copy?) from Lovat to Keith). 2 Id. (Letters from Hooke). SIMON FRASER ITS replied, thanking Hooke for having helped to restore his reputation, and sending him a memorial for the Nuncio, the object of which was to discredit James Murray. He was also preparing a memorial for Torcy, which the Nuncio revised. The latter told him that he " walked upon glace," and that he should pray to God to be delivered from the malice of such bitter enemies. 1 Well did Simon know that he walked upon glass and that a single slip would be fatal. For his enemies had not finished with him yet. 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. pp, 105, 106. CHAPTER XVIII When the ordinary man is ill, harassed, and in debt, he does not generally choose that time to think of marriage. But Simon Fraser was no ordinary man, and his matri- monial adventures alone would seem to furnish sufficient evidence of the fact. His youthful folly or crime (according to the true nature of the facts) on the occasion of his first marriage, had brought upon him such severe punishment — the cup was not yet full — that his subsequent attitude towards women might well have been marked by extreme caution. Yet his proposed marriage with the daughter of the rich London merchant (Fraser) ; his affair in London with Lucy Jones — whether honourable or otherwise ; and his Paris " wife " — whether he was legally married to her or not — would seem to show that, whatever else he may have been, he was not, in relation to women, the " hideous misanthrope" that he was called by Mackenzie, the law student. And we now find him, in the midst of his troubles, seriously proposing marriage to one of the Scottish aristocrats attached to the Court of St. Germain. He makes no secret of the object of his matrimonial designs. Dynastic reasons, just as if he were a scion of royalty, dictated his proposals. He assures us that, before he left for France, his friends made him promise faithfully to marry in that country, and, if possible, a member of the Perth family. Accordingly, he paid court to a daughter of the Duke of Melfort, then in a convent at St. Germain. His first step was to seek the consent of the SIMON FRASER 175 lady's uncle, the Duke of Perth, through the Duke's son, Lord John Drummond, who was a consistent admirer of Lovat's. The response was not unfavourable. Lord Perth " seems to be pleased with it, and there's nothing now to be done but to have my Lord Melfort acquainted with your resolution." " As for my part," adds Lord John, " I wish for nothing more than to see, beside the friendship your family and ours have contracted, an alliance betwixt them which will oblige equally both to stand by one another in misfortune and prosperity, and will confirm them in their principles of loyalty against all mortals whatever." There were, however, difficulties in the way. " I believe," wrote Drummond on the following day (February 27, 1704), " my Lady Dutchess " (Melfort ? ) " has a gess at, if she does not know, your design. By what I have heard her say to me upon that subject, she is not at all for it, because she does not understand how your former affaire is unlawfull both according to the principals of our religion and common equity." And Lord Perth, after further consideration, was not altogether favourably dis- posed. " He thinks it extraordinary," says his son, " you should think of marriage in the disorders things are like to be in. This need not hinder you to prosecute your designe, if your resolution be unalterable upon that busi- ness." Perth himself proposed to have a talk with Simon on the matter at the house, in Paris, 3 of his sister-in- law, Lady Ann Crouly (a naturalized French subject), who appears to have been Lovat's hostess at the time. Simon was annoyed that there should be any opposition to his proposals, and, in order to reassure him, Lord John told him he was convinced that his father would not be against the marriage " if you can but show how that can be done in conscience, and according to the principals of our religion, in which, I think you told me, the Nuncio found no difficultie." Lady Ann would be " very ridiculous " if she should alter her friendship towards 176 SIMON FRASER Simon, or if she should think that "your attache to her would be less for your being married to one of her Br's family. I doubt not of my Lord Melfort's favourable decision, if the Religion part of it can be made plain." 1 The " religion part of it " was, of course, concerned with the questions relating to the legality or otherwise of Simon's first marriage ; the effectiveness or otherwise of the annulment ; and the Roman Catholic attitude towards divorce. The solution of the difficulty Lovat confided to the care of his friend, the Nuncio ; this was a matter in which his guidance was particularly necessary. The Nuncio referred the question to the doctors of the Sorbonne, who decided that the marriage might lawfully take place. But fresh difficulties arose. The proposed bride wished to become a nun (was it in order to escape Simon ? ) ; the imprudence of the match became increasingly clear to her friends ; and finally the negotiations came to an end. When describing the circumstances to the Marquis de Torcy, Lovat alleged, as one of the reasons for breaking off the match, that his friends dissuaded him from the step, because the Duke of Melfort was not on good terms with Versailles. 2 No sooner had the proposals for this marriage fallen through than Simon sought a bride in another direction. The lady of his choice (or that of his friends !) was a daughter of Colonel Gordon O'Neill, a son of the celebrated Irish rebel, Sir Phelim O'Neill, by Jean Gordon, widow of Claude Hamilton, Baron of Strabane, and daughter of George, second Marquis of Huntly. Colonel O'Neill was thus a cousin of the Duke of Gordon, and of his sisters, Lady Perth, and Lady Ann, wife of Sir Miles Crouly. Miss O'Neill was in this way related both to the Duke of Perth and the Duke of Gordon, and to secure the Drummond-Gordon interest was for Simon a strong 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Lord John Drummond). g Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 249-252 (Lovat's letter to the Marquis de Torcy). SIMON FRASER 177 inducement. Like Lovat himself, they were all poor : the Perths, the Melforts, and the O'Neills ; but they were all of good family, and they all had influence. And at that juncture, these were the main considerations that weighed with Simon. Colonel O'Neill had occupied important posts in Ireland before the Revolution, and after that event, had shed his blood freely in the cause of James II. When all was lost, he entered the French service as colonel of an Irish regiment. O'Neill was in Paris in May, 1704, with his daughter, and negotiations for Lovat's marriage were then in progress. Simon desired the Nuncio to obtain the approval of Versailles and St. Germain, but Gualterio, who probably foresaw the trouble that was soon to befal the eager suitor, counselled delay. Before the marriage could take place, Lovat was packed off to Bourges, and one more of his matrimonial projects came to naught. But even when in prison at Angouleme, he had yet another bride in view. He suggested to Torcy that, if he had his liberty, the Court of Versailles would probably give him permission to marry a certain French lady of good family and a Catholic (whom he names) " for the preservation of his family." 1 That was the main thing ; the perpetuation of the name of Lovat in his family. The personality of the wife was of relatively small importance ; she was to be merely a means to an end. But while these matrimonial schemes were being hastily planned and as quickly abandoned, the toils were being drawn around Lovat by his enemies. The pealing of wedding bells would certainly not have harmonized with the jangle of detraction that was being dinned into 1 Memoirs, p. 335 ; Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 146-147, 249-252. He soon made the discovery, according to his showing, that the prospective bride was the mistress of another man ! He makes this statement in reply to a charge which had been made against him of leading a "scandalous and licentious life" at Angouleme (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 294-5). But the Governor of Angouleme reported that it was Simon's valet who had had an intrigue with the maid of a female prisoner {Id, , ff. 295-6). N 178 SIMON ERASER the ears of his friends and foes alike. The latest report that was spread about him sought to show that he was a sneak, as well as a desperate Highland bandit who had been guilty of shocking enormities. He was accused of having charged Sir Alexander Maclean with inciting him during the previous year to cut Middleton's throat ! 1 This accusation raised a flutter of excitement among Simon's friends. Maclean indignantly denied the truth of the charge. The relations between Simon and Sir Alexander were not really cordial. According to Patrick Oliphant, Maclean had suggested to him (in 1703) that Lovat was untrust- worthy. And we find Lovat writing to Hooke, March 3, 1704, that " I know Sir Alexander to be a very ill man 'twixt man and man ; for he did and said severall things last year that will make me have a bad opinion of him all my life." 2 To all outward seeming, however, they were still close friends. Sir Alexander, for himself and his " High- land wife" (he seems to have just married for the second time), assures Simon — whom he addresses as " The Right Hon : the Earle of Lovat " — that though he cannot claim the same degree of friendship with him as Sir John Maclean, yet, "if you will not be welcome to our little house, the deel run away w* the roofe-try." In another letter (February 27), he suggests that Lovat and he are " too much strangers " to one another " at a tyme when we shoud be takeing just mesures against our enemies. I find y* instead of gaining ground, we lose some daylie, and some of those who were our friends last winter doe grow verie cold, if not worse, at this time." He adds that 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean; Correspon- dence of Hooke, vol. i. pp. 106-108 ; Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 124, 125. In a letter to Gualterio, Simon gives his version of an interview he had had with the Queen-Regent, who, having heard some things prejudicial to Maclean, asked him some questions about Sir Alexander. Simon, " not knowing the cause of these questions," praised Maclean as a brave man and a faithful officer, " though he had his faults." 2 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 106. SIMON FRASER 179 he must now join his company in Germany, since he is only wasting time by remaining at Versailles. Alluding to " your cusin and my cheefe " (Sir John), who, he is told, has been sent down to Scotland as a prisoner, and with him young Keith, he says it is " no small greife " to him that he cannot get leave " to hasard my life in order to rescue him or take represaille for him." He reiterates their community of interests. " I am without hypocrisie or disguise unalterablie yours. Our designs, our intrest, and our inclinations are the same. We have the same enemies, and the same intrest against us." 1 Apparently an effort was being made to breed trouble between Lovat and his friends. But the latter advised Lovat to stand by Maclean in his denial. Sir Alexander himself told him that the Perth family suggested his writing a letter to Maclean, declaring that he had never used the words imputed to him. On receiving this letter, Maclean was prepared to "make those steps y* are fit to be made." It is impossible to say whether the Queen was mistaken in stating that Simon had accused Sir Alexander of inciting him to murder Middleton, or whether, if the accusation was made, the charge was truthful. In his Memoirs, Lovat lays the whole blame on the shoulders of Middleton, who, he says, invented the story, and persuaded the Queen of its truth. 2 About this time, a letter from Lord Drummond, Perth's eldest son, was received from Scotland by his father, in which Lovat was lauded. His enemies immediately declared that Lord Drummond had been imposed upon. Not content with this, they went the length of asserting that the letter was forged. This was a charge that Perth was bound to disprove, and he succeeded in doing so to the entire satisfaction, at any rate, of Lovat's 1 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Sir Alexander Maclean). - Memoirs, pp. 256-259. Lovat suggests that Middleton tried to bribe Maclean, who "was poor." 180 SIMON FRASER friends. 1 The latter now included Cardinal de Noailles, the Archbishop of Paris, a liberal-minded Churchman, who had recently effected an accommodation between the Queen-Regent and Dr. Bentham, the young King's pre- ceptor, who was accused of Jansenist leanings. He used his good offices with the Queen on Lovat's behalf, and apparently with some success. 2 But Middleton was not done with Lovat yet. Whether or not he held the honest opinion that Simon was a rascal, whom it was his duty to expose, it seems clear that he was at the bottom of the machinations against him, and that he continued to vilify his character with the most malignant persistency. Lord John Drummond, a perfervid young Scot, regarded Middleton as an enemy of his native country (" who's greatest honor is to be of it "), and, on the other hand, identified Lovat with the honour and glory of Scot- land. Simon himself writes in a sarcastic vein to the Nuncio about his enemy's religious professions. " If," he says, "it is a mark of the Catholic religion or of a genuine conversion" to cut his throat {de me conper la gorge) while professing all manner of friend- ship for him, as Middleton had done, " I leave to the judgment of your Excellency." 3 Hooke, though a friend of Lovat, believed in Middleton's honesty of purpose. " I beg your Lordship," he writes Lovat, to have a " better opinion of E.M. I cannot think him an ill man, tho' 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 152. Memoirs, pp. 255, 256. Addl. MSS. 31253, ff. 43, 44. Perth was naturally much concerned at the charge of forgery. " My case is to be petty'd evrie way," he wrote Lovat. "The letter (Lord Drummond's) justifies you (Simon) past dispute." Which was precisely the origin of the charge. 2 Addl. MSS. 31251 (Letters from Lord John Drummond). Cardinal de Noailles was a great friend of Middleton's. In his interview with the Cardinal, Lovat told him that the Highlanders, though half of them were Protestants, still prayed to the Virgin and the Saints, and that it would be easy to re-establish the Catholic religion in their midst. " When the chiefs are Catholics, the clansmen will follow them " (which was at best only a half-truth). The Cardinal was "ravished " to hear such good news ! (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 120, 121). 3 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 106. SIMON FHASER 181 mislead." On a later occasion (May, 1704), he told Middleton that he did not believe all that was said about Lovat, and that he continued to have a good opinion of his zeal. 1 " Blessed are the peacemakers " might well have formed Hooke's epitaph ! He believed that James Murray was an honest but prejudiced man, though a Scoto-French- man named Livingstone, newly returned from Scotland, had reported to the Queen-Regent that Murray "fait beaucoap de mal en Ecosse." But Hooke had strong views about " lepeu de secret el la foiblesse " of St. Germain. There was far too much faction at the Court to please the honest soldier. And the lack of secrecy at St. Germain was a byword in Scotland. The triumph of the Middleton faction at St. Germain was complete when, in pursuance of their policy to wait events, they persuaded Mary Beatrice to throw cold water upon the renewed proposals for a French invasion. That a French expedition to Scotland was seriously contem- plated by Louis and his Ministers admits of no doubt, and there is just as little doubt that the preparations were based upon the reports of Lovat and his friends. It is clear, also, that Lovat was to have taken an active part in the scheme. 2 He asserts, indeed, that he was to have headed the rising in Scotland, 3 but that such was the intention is questionable. He was still trusted at Versailles, where he was regarded as a useful agent for the promotion of French interests ; but lacking a com- mission from St. Germain, his standing among the Scottish Jacobites must necessarily have been precarious. No one knew better than Middleton that the interests of Versailles and St. Germain were not identical. France would not send a man or a louis without being well assured that they would serve to embarrass England. That was the primary 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 108. 2 Addl. MSS. 3 125 1 (Letters from Hooke). 3 Memoirs, p. 259, 182 SIMON FRASER object of her assistance, to which the restoration of James was incidental and subordinate. Middleton, as a faithful servant of St. Germain, supported a policy which placed the Stuart interest in the forefront. A Highland rising, in his view, was "visionary"; it might create a diversion in favour of France, but would not place James on the throne. He advocated patience and caution, though he was compelled to recognize ultimately, the force of Sir Alexander Maclean's remark, that "heretical swords will go further than Catholic patience." Yet, his policy, if consistently pursued, was intelligible and patriotic. But we look in vain for consistency in the views of St. Ger- main, which seemed to oscillate between prudence and recklessness, the inevitable result of divided counsels. As will be seen presently, there was a sudden change in the attitude of St. Germain on,ce Lovat was out of the way, which appears to suggest that the vacillation of that Court was due in some measure to personal considerations. But, for the present, much to the surprise of Versailles, the Queen-Regent refused to issue commissions to the British Jacobites to join the French invaders. 1 Lacking the co-operation of St. Germain, a French expedition was foredoomed to failure, and the proposal was therefore temporarily abandoned. Lovat was dis- gusted at the course events had taken, and his rage against Middleton and the Queen-Regent knew no bounds. Once more the cup was dashed from his lips, just as he was about to taste the sweets of success. In a moment of impulsiveness, he addressed an angry letter to Queen Mary, stating he would never draw sword in the Stuart cause so long as she was Regent, but would reserve himself for the time when the King should come of age, or should take over the reins of government. This letter gave deep offence to the Queen. She handed it to Middleton, who declared that it was not only insolent but 1 Memoirs, p. 261. SIMON FRASER 183 treasonable, and so worked upon the feelings of Mary Beatrice that she begged Louis to throw Lovat into the ' Bastille for his impudence. Once more, Simon's friend, Gualterio, came to his rescue. By his influence, combined with that of Cardinal de Noailles, his brother, the Duke de Noailles, and Marshal de Coeuvre, all Lovat's friends, whom the Nuncio engaged to speak for him, Louis was induced to overlook Simon's offence, and, firm in his belief that it was due to the over-zealousness of a thought- less but well-meaning youth, refused to listen to the repeated requests of the Queen-Regent for his punishment. 1 The next device of Lovat's enemies to blast his reputation was the most sinister of all. John Murray had set out from Scotland for France four months previously, but had not yet arrived, and nothing had been heard of him since his departure. What could have happened to him ? " That is easily explained," said the Middleton clique. "Simon Fraser has caused him to be assassinated, lest he should return to France and disclose his treachery." The suggestion had an air of plausibility for those who distrusted Lovat, and even his friends were not unaffected by it. 2 About this time, also, an Irish priest named Farrell, who had spent eight months in an English prison, arrived at St. Germain and made a com- munication to the Duke of Berwick, which the latter passed on to the Queen-Regent. " Your Majesty," wrote Berwick, " will see that he confirms the infidelity of Lord Lovat, and I believe it is absolutely necessary to send a copy of this paper in French to Torcy. The matter is of great importance (' L 'affaire est de grande consequence') and your Majesty may rely that the affairs of the King are ruined if Lovat is not arrested." 3 1 Memoirs, pp. 265-273. * Id., pp. 274, 275. 3 Addl. MSS. 2031 1, f. 45. Berwick never liked Lovat, nor did Lovat like Berwick. Apart from personal considerations, their political views were not in accord. 184 SIMON FBASER The disclosures that moved Berwick to offer this advice really proved nothing in respect of Lovat's fidelity or otherwise. Lord Granard, in the name of Hamilton and his party, had charged Farrell to inform Berwick that Lovat had been sent to France as Queensberry's spy, and that his arrest was therefore desirable. Hamilton was enraged by the discovery in Simon's London lodgings of the commission, whether genuine or spurious, from St. Germain to himself; and was naturally anxious that so notorious a mischief-maker as Lovat should be placed under lock and key. He may have thought that if Simon was Queensberry's spy, his own safety was not worth a day's purchase. With the charge of murder hanging over his head, and with Farrell's communication considerably strengthening the reasonableness of the Queen-Regent's request to Louis for his imprisonment, Lovat was now apparently at Middleton's mercy. But when things looked at their blackest, the unexpected arrival of John Murray dispersed the clouds, and once more Lovat basked in the sunshine of his friends' favour. "The arrival of John Murray," wrote Hooke to Callieres on May 27, " demonstrated the falsehood of the suspicions against Lovat, and the sug- gestion that Lord Drummond's letter was a forgery." 1 John Murray's appearance (he had been compelled to travel by a very circuitous route) greatly disconcerted Lovat's enemies, who had never expected to see him again. His report was entirely favourable to Simon Fraser, and the letters he brought were confirmatory of Simon's statements on the situation in Scotland, He reported that, accompanied by Lord Drummond, he had visited the Highlands ; and he named the chiefs — Sleat, Glengarry, Clanranald, Keppoch (all Macdonalds), Lochiel, Appin, and Balhaldies — whose support might be counted 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 152 (Letters from Hooke to Callieres). SIMON FRASER 185 upon. Incidentally, he declared that Lovat told both him and Drummond of his interviews with Queensberry. 1 The whole story of the intrigues against Lovat at this period, reveals a ferocious unscrupulousness on the part of his enemies in their efforts to destroy him. A good deal has been written (and written without discrimination), about the appalling wickedness of Simon Fraser, but nothing about the unprincipled methods against which he had to contend as best he could. There was no attempt to give him anything approaching fair play. His opponents struck at him in the dark, instead of meeting him in the open. It required a man of his undaunted courage to hold his own against them. That he succeeded in doing so for months after they had started their campaign of calumny against him, affords another proof of his resourcefulness in times of difficulty and danger. But the contest was too unequal to last indefinitely. The patience of Louis of France was at length worn out by the importunities of St. Germain, and he consented to send Lovat out of Paris. 1 Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. pp. 680-682. In his Angoult-me letters, Lovat continued to protest that in " les affaires essentielles" he had maintained, while in Scotland, the closest secrecy, although circumstances had compelled him to dissimulate (Addl. MSS. 31252). There is really no evidence to refute the substantial correctness of that statement. CHAPTER XIX BOURGES (Cher department), nearly a hundred and fifty miles south of Paris, was chosen as the place of Lovat's exile. He arrived there on May 31, 1704, accompanied by his brother John, who, in point of fact, had nowhere else to go. Versailles allowed Simon a modest pension of one hundred crowns a month, but he continued to have " a very empty purse." He had only been three days in Bourges when he complained to Gualterio of the dearness of the living ; he was then residing at the house of the procureur de police. If he could become a student like his brother, and live en pension, his expenses would be materi- ally reduced, but that mode of living would hardly be consonant with the dignity of Lord Lovat. On June 3, he wrote the Queen-Regent bemoaning his "unfortunate destiny," and begging her to forgive and forget his conduct (the allusion, apparently, is to his imprudent letter). He asks the Queen to make John Murray declare on his con- science the truth of what he knows about him. He does not pretend to be a great politician, but he takes God to witness that all he did was " in his weak judgment, in the King's interest." He begs Mary Beatrice to show him the same kindness that he had experienced from her before she received a bad impression of him. It does not appear that this letter elicited any reply. 1 His letters to the Nuncio — and they were fairly numerous — dealt mainly with three subjects : the incom- parable goodness and greatness of His Excellency ; the 1 Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 163-165. SIMON FRASER 187 value of the past and prospective services of Lord Lovat to the French King, his own King, and (a crowning service) to the Catholic religion ; and — his chronic short- ness of cash. He was constantly throwing himself into the arms, or at the feet, of the Cardinal (at that time the Archbishop of Imola), and he sometimes threw his brother at his feet as well. When on his way to England in 1702, he ran so short of cash that more money had to be found, " not without difficulty," through Gualterio and Perth, to enable him to continue his journey. The Nuncio reproached him gently with his extravagance. " In the name of God," he wrote, " be more economical in future." But habits of extravagance in a man like Lovat are difficult to get rid of, and during his stay in Paris and at Bourges, he pestered the good-natured Nuncio with his requests for assistance. Louis sent him three hundred livres to help him to pay his creditors. Lovat used the money for current expenses, and then calmly suggested that Versailles should settle his debts ! Versailles replied by deducting the three hundred livres from his pension. Lovat was furious at this manner of treating " a man of quality " : it was " Men ridicule" he said, and he hoped that if Versailles grudged him his paltry pension, he would at least be suffered to go home to Scotland. 1 But Versailles had no such intention. On the contrary, that Court gave orders soon afterwards to take him from the pleasant society of the amiable Intendant, M. de Roujeault (who was a real friend of Simon's), and give him a taste of genuine prison life. While at Bourges, lamenting his impecuniosity and striving to saddle the French Court with his debts, Simon arranged and paid for a grand fete, which (he says) cost him four or five hundred pistoles (the average value of the pistole was about 16s. sterling). It seems almost incredible that a man who was making such a fuss 1 Addl. MSS, 31252, ff. 172-183, 187, iSS. Cf. Memoirs, p. 293. 188 SIMON FRASER over a paltry three hundred livres (the Hvre was superseded by the franc), and crying out about his debts, should be guilty of, or should have the means for, such extravagance. No wonder the Nuncio scolded him for his carelessness in money matters. The occasion of the fete was the birthday of the Duke of Bretagne, and Lovat excused himself to Gualterio for his extravagance by saying that it was expected of him as a pensioner of Louis, and " the only man of quality in the town." It was a great occasion in Bourges. Simon caused fountains to be set up which spouted free wine. The Te Deum was sung by his direction. There was a display of fireworks at night ; the revellers declared that they would not go home till morn- ing ; and at length the populace of Bourges found itself " lassie de boire" An account of the fete, obviously pre- pared by Lovat, was published and found its way to Versailles. It was a bold attempt on Simon's part to influence Louis the Magnificent in his favour ; but in view of his alleged poverty, it was not without its risks. A copy of the account may still be seen. It states that Lovat had arranged to have a company of the inhabitants of Bourges dressed and armed like his Highlanders, but that there was not sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements. This display (the account goes on to say) would have greatly added to the beauty of the scene, because the Highlanders are dressed "a la Romatne," and their arms consist of " a musket, two pistols, a dirk, a sharp sword three inches broad, and a round shield or buckler." Then follows a eulogy of the Montagnards as soldiers, as loyal subjects of the legitimate King, and as faithful friends of France. 1 The journalistic instinct was strong in Lovat. But these halcyon days could not last. Lovat was far too comfortable, from his enemies' standpoint, and his capacity for doing mischief was still far too formidable. 1 Addl. MSS. 31252, f. 184. Memoirs, pp. 293, 294. SIMON FRASER 189 His wings had been clipped, but he could fly away. He must be caged ; for not until then would his enemies feel safe. Louis was prevailed upon to give effect to these views. He gave orders for the removal of Lovat to the Castle of Angouleme (dep. Charente), there to be confined during the pleasure of His Most Christian Majesty. Simon describes the ignominious manner of his arrest : how the " villain of a prevot " dragged him from his dining-room, and marched him off through the town in broad daylight on a market day ; how be had to bear the "raillery of an insolent and uncivilized mob"; and how "every respectable inhabitant of the city in which he was honoured and esteemed, wept over his misfortune, and the ignominy of his disgrace." Closely guarded, he was put into a "cursed little chaise" accompanied by the prevot, an " enormous porpoise," by whose " unwieldy bulk " he was " in a manner buried alive." Upon his arrival at Angouleme, he was thrust into " a horrible dungeon," where he remained for thirty- five days in total darkness. Finally, by bribing his jailoress, he found the means of communicating with his friends, who soon procured his delivery from the horrors of the dungeon. It was explained that this treatment was due to the blunder of an official, and Torcy issued orders to the Governor to give the prisoner the entire liberty of the Castle, taking his parole not to leave France without the consent of Louis. 1 Lovat attributed his rough usage to St. Germain, but (not unnaturally) he had now a suspicion that every ill which befel him had its origin in that quarter. For three years he was confined at Angouleme, at the end of which period, he was removed to 1 Memoirs, pp. 299-303. Simon does not, however, tell us of the shower of letters with which he bombarded Torcy and Gualterio before this order was issued. He petitioned both with the greatest pertinacity for permission to have the liberty of the town, but this concession, so far as the corre- spondence shows, Torcy refused to grant. His temperament, said Simon, required conversation ! (Addl. MSS. 31252.) 190 SIMON FRASER Saumur in Anjou, where his circumstances were decidedly comfortable. It is not easy to reconcile the foregoing account in the " Memoirs " with statements that appear elsewhere ; but the difficulty is more apparent than real. Mackenzie, the law student whom Lovat caused to be sent to the Bastille in Paris, states that when he was released on June 18, 1704, the French King, convinced of Simon's treachery, had him imprisoned at Angers. 1 We find Callieres telling Hooke on July 26, that the only thing then occupying the attention of St. Germain, was to prove by letters from England the guilt of Lovat, et on neglige le reste? " You have heard, I suppose," writes Perth to Hooke on August 2, "of the narrative of the Scottish plot, and particularly how it is plain that Lord Lovat has given light enough to discover the whole, by designing, by Duke of Queensberry's means to ruin his particular ennemies, Earl Arran and Marquis Athol, and to obtain a pardon from Princesse Denmark for himself and a subsistance. And to effectuate the first, and gain credit to what he said, how he counterfeited a letter from the Queen to Marquis Athol. / believe by this time he is in the Bastille, but however this alters nothing of the main affair. Captain Moray — John I mean — brought enough to convince the Queen, the King of France, and everybody of the cordial design of many in Scotland to venture all for the common interest." 3 From this letter, it appears that Perth was at length 1 Portland Papers, vol. viii. p. 184. * Correspondence of Hooke vol. i. p. 155* * Id., pp. 155-156. Perth's defection was a sad blow to Lovat. He writes Torcy from Angouleme in May, 1705, about the fickleness of the "foible et ingrat, my Lord Perth," who had abandoned him, after being the cause of all his misfortunes. He explains the latter statement by saying that it was Perth who had put him against Middleton, whose enmity had been his ruin. (Cf. Memoirs, pp. 122, 123.) He was now anxious to be reconciled to Middleton — in order, of course, to obtain his release. Lovat's corre- spondent, who told him of Perth's enmity, may have misrepresented "cet pauvre ingrat." (Addl. MSS. 31252.) SIMON FRASER 191 convinced that Simon had arranged with Queensberry to ruin Hamilton and Atholl. This was true enough, but it is a very different matter from the betrayal of his mission to Scotland, with which infamy history has branded his name. It will be observed that to the best of Perth's belief, Simon was then in the Bastille. Forty years later, he himself declared that some of the St. Germain council- lors "had interest enough to get him clapp'd up in the Bastille." He added to this statement, that " upon inquiry into the matter by the French King, my Lord Lovat was soon honourably dismissed ; and not only so, but rewarded with a handsome pension, which was continued with him for his faithful services till he left France in the year 1715 " (should be 1714). 1 In an undated letter to Louis, written after his return to Scotland, Lovat declares that he counts as nothing le cackot, la prisone etroite and the persecution suffered by him during ten years at the instance of St. Germain, as a partisan of His Majesty's august house. 2 Now, Lovat was sent to Angouleme on August 2, the date on which Perth stated his belief that he had been sent to the Bastille. It is obvious that the Bastille, to which he and Simon himself alluded, was not the famous prison in Paris, but the Bastille of Angouleme, whence he was sent to Saumur, which the law student confused with Angers, in the same department (Maine- et-Loire). Meanwhile the echoes of the " Queensberry Plot " were being heard in Scotland. The Earl of Leven was threatened with an attack in Parliament — " some talking of high treason " — for his correspondence with Lovat during the previous year ; and was so impressed with his danger that he besought Harley's assistance to obtain a remission before Parliament sat. He hoped the Queen would be persuaded to " preserve one entirely devoted to 1 Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. 2 Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness, vol. xiv. p. 38. 192 SIMON FRASER her interest and service." l His devotion did not prevent his entering upon a correspondence with St. Germain, as will be seen later. When the Queen's message was presented to the Scots Parliament in July, 1704, by Tweeddale, the Commissioner (afterwards the leader of the "Flying Squadron"), he promised that the House would be placed in possession of evidence relating to the plot. No papers were produced during that session, but the English House of Lords was rated soundly for its inter- ference in the matter. The Act of Security was passed ; Commissioners for the Union were not elected; and recogni- tion of the Hanoverian succession was delayed ; the tactics of the obstructionists thus meeting temporarily with success all along the line. In the following year— the Duke of Argyll having in the meantime succeeded Tweeddale as Commissioner — some progress was made with the business of the plot. But after Atholl and Hamilton had vindicated themselves from the charges that had been made against them, and Atholl had enjoyed the luxury of having his fling at Queensberry, the subject was allowed to drop. Glendaruel and Keith had been summoned to give evidence, but were not called upon to perform an odious task. The " Scottish .Conspiracy " was quietly buried, never to be disinterred, except by inquisitive historians. 2 During this time, St. Germain and Versailles had entered upon a fresh period of activity. On June 22, 1704, a memorial from St. Germain was presented to Torcy and Chamillart, the French Minister for War, which sought to show that it was in the interest of France to take active measures for the restoration of James to the throne of his 1 Portland Papers, vol. iv. pp. 94-95. " The author of the " Genuine Memoirs " puts the matter (p. 19) thus : " But after a great deal of bustle and the expectations of the world had been tried, the thing by degrees grew ridiculous ; and except David Baillie, who stood in the Pillory in Scotland, there was nobody hurt in consequence of this Plot." Baillie was convicted of having forged a letter making certain accusations against Queensberry. SIMON FRASER 193 ancestors — a sudden change in Middleton's attitude. Though rendered harmless, Lovat continued to worry St. Germain. In August, a vessel with despatches for Scotland was detained, in order to carry intelligence about him, "which," said Middleton to Torcy, "is considered in Scotland as an important point." And in November, we find Middleton reporting to Torcy that John Murray, who was now in greater favour than "Jackiline" (James Murray), had been " duped " by Lovat. It was stated that Perth's sister, the Countess of Errol — "a very intriguing, wily lady as any in Britain," as a spy describes her — regarded Simon as a "villain" (the "Memoirs" ascribe to her a very different opinion), but her nephew (Drummond) still " esteemed him an honest man." And John Murray continued steadfast in the faith, thereby incurring much obloquy from his friends, who could not understand his loyalty to Simon. He "grew warm," we are told, on the subject of Lovat. 1 Middleton seems to have been led to believe by his advices from Scotland that the time was now ripe for a French descent — always provided Lovat had nothing to do with it. But Lovat knew better than Middleton the unreliability of St. Germain's correspondents, and from his prison at Angouleme predicted, in a letter to Torcy, the failure of any attempt organized by such " watery-souled " leaders. He proved to be right. In 1705, it was decided to send messengers to Scotland to ascertain what the prospects were. According to Captain John Ogilvie, an old officer of Dundee's, and now a creature of Harley's, the first step was to despatch a ship of thirty-six guns, commanded by one Carron, a Scot, to the North of Scotland. Then Hooke, who had all along taken a keen interest in the proposed diversion in Scotland, was sent to spy out the land. In the negotiations that followed, he had the advantage of the assistance of John Murray and 1 Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 318. O 194 SIMON FRASER his brother Robert. Ogilvie gives Harley a list of the chiefs heading "the disaffected party." Nearly all the names have already appeared in these pages as being in sympathy with a rising. The Highland clans mentioned by Ogilvie are the Camerons, the Macdonalds, the Stewarts, "the whole MacGregors, headed by one Rob Roy, commonly called by that name." The Duke of Gordon, he reports, "will only run on sure grounds." This was the duke of whom Macky remarked, " He hath a great many links in him, but they all do not make a compleat chain." The surprise of Ogilvie's list is — the Duke of Atholl ; " supposed to be but lately joined." 'Ogilvie was evidently in close touch with the Jacobites. " I declare," he says to Harley on a later occasion (after performing a piece of treachery), " I never ran a greater risk since I was born, for had they but in the least suspected me, I had been murdered and never heard more tell of." He then proceeds to ask for more money. "Since the business of Fraser" (he writes in 1706), "our Court of St. Germain will suffer nobody that belongs to them to take any money from Versailles ; " a very proper injunction, one may suppose. Meanwhile Middleton was being kept well-informed by his late secretary, Lindsay, who wrote him every week ; while Lady Middleton maintained a correspondence with Mrs. Fox. 1 Hooke's mission in 1705 was a failure. He did not trust Hamilton (upon whom St. Germain mainly relied), and Hamilton did not trust him. There can be little doubt that he was influenced by Simon Fraser's views 1 Portland Papers, vol. iv. pp. 276, 277 ; Correspondence of Hooke, vol. i. p. 226-230. The latter reference gives the Duke of Perth's instructions to Hooke. Among the noblemen who are capable of bringing a considerable number of men to " the service " of James appears the name of Lord Lovat, "if he were sincere and could be fixt to a principle." This was about the time that Lovat was writing of Perth's tendency to desert his friends after deceiving them by his "grimaces" of sincerity and devotion! (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 284-286). SIMON FRASER 195 about men and things in Scotland, and there is still less doubt that his object (his duty, in fact) was to serve Versailles rather than St. Germain. But this did not suit Hamilton at all, who told Hooke, in effect, that the Scottish Jacobites were not going to put their heads into a noose to help His Most Christian Majesty. The truth is, that Hamilton was tired of these troublesome emissaries from France, who studied chiefly the interests of that country. Better let things drag on until the death of Queen Anne, thought the Duke, and then — well, the next King of Scotland might be a Stuart, or he might be a Hamilton. Hooke and Hamilton had a meeting in the dark — the Duke could thus place his hand upon his heart and swear with a clear conscience that he had never seen Hooke — and the Colonel was left in the dark as to the Duke's intentions. The response of the other Jacobite leaders in the South was equally unilluminating ; they received St. Germain's messages with becoming respect, and either made impracticable suggestions, or contented themselves with vague promises of no real value. These promises were supplemented by a visit to France, some months later, on the part of Charles Fleming, a brother of the Earl of Wigton, whom the Jacobites sent over with a memorial. 1 Hooke's renewed attempt in 1707 was hardly more successful than his previous mission. The story of his negotiations is a well-known episode in Scottish history. On January 16, 1707, came the end of the "auld sang," 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. ii. p. 78. In April, 1705, Lovat from his prison was urging upon Torcy to take advantage of the favourable opportunity which then presented itself, of uniting France and Scotland against England. They make a great noise in the Scottish Parliament, he said, but it is only talk, and leads to nothing. No progress could be made without recourse to arms. He was willing to start the war himself at any time, and again offered to leave his brother in France as a hostage for his fidelity. Queen Anne, he said, prevented the spirit of disaffection from taking deep root by constantly changing her Scottish Ministers (Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 279, 280), 196 SIMON FRASER when the Treaty of Union, carried in the Scots Parlia- ment by bribery, intimidation, and the dictates of com- monsense, received the Royal Assent, and in the popular view, Scottish liberties were sold shamefully and irrevocably. In the opinion of St. Germain and Versailles, the immi- nence of the Union was a fitting opportunity for another mission to Scotland. So, once more Colonel Hooke set forth on his travels, laden with the usual letters, this time from both Courts. Lovat, writing from Angouleme, warned Hooke that he would make nothing of such people as Hamilton or Atholl ; they were noisy enough in Parlia- ment, he said, but would never draw sword for the King. Hamilton showed the white feather so palpably when his opposition to the Union threatened to bring him into trouble, that Lovat's opinion of him was shared by others. Simon's faith, now as ever, lay in the Highland clans, whose services, he was convinced, he could readily secure if he were allowed to go to Scotland. But that was not to be ; and Simon was forced to eat his heart out with impatience while the game of intrigue, at which he was a master, was being played by less skilled diplomatists. Unfortunately for the success of Hooke's mission, the chances of assistance from France were now smaller than ever, the serious reverses recently suffered by his troops having damped the ardour of Louis. But the state of excitement in Scotland over the Union had great possi- bilities, if leaders of sufficient enterprise and influence could be found to direct the popular passion of patriotism into the channel desired by St. Germain and Versailles. But such leaders did not show themselves, and the anger of the people as a political asset was wasted. The Jacobite nobles in the Lowlands were not fired with zeal for the cause ; they were too careful to keep their skins whole and their estates intact, to venture a leap in the dark. There was no Montrose to put his fate to the touch and " win or lose it all." There was no Dundee to SIMON FRASER 197 call upon each cavalier " who loves honour and me " to strike a blow for the King. Instead, there were timid time-servers, fearful of moving a step in the wrong direc- tion, looking in vain for a strong lead from a strong man, ready to shout when others had done the work, and greedy to share the spoil like corbies on a battlefield. Simon Fraser was right : in the Highlands alone was there any hope of the initiative being taken when fighting had to be done. The chiefs were as willing as the others to accept rewards, but they were at least ready to earn them by their good broadswords. Hooke arrived in Scotland in April, 1707, and found that the Jacobites in the Lowlands, like the Court of St. Germain, were hopelessly divided in their views. The women, such as the strong-minded Countess of Errol, the Lord Constable's mother, were more enterprising than the men. But men and women alike looked in vain for a real leader. They had plenty of counsel, some of it from traitors like Ker of Kersland, who used the Came- ronians as pawns in his game of deceit. The Government were seriously alarmed lest the Cameronians should make common cause with the Jacobites. Ker, who professed to be one of the chief shepherds of the Cameronian flock, worked upon Harley's fears so successfully that he was urged to use his influence to induce the Cameronians to issue a manifesto directed against the Jacobites. This was the sort of maze through which Hooke had to pick his way as best he could. He travelled through the country disguised as an English Borderer who had come to Scotland to buy cattle ; while John Murray, owing to his former association with Lovat, was compelled to lurk in the houses of the Earl Marischal and Sir William Keith. In the multitude of counsels there was but little wisdom. No plan equalled in practicability that of Simon Fraser as outlined at Versailles, and General Buchan's 198 SIMON FRASER proposals, admittedly the most workmanlike of those now put forward, were on similar lines. But where at this juncture were the hopes of St. Germain, the Dukes of Atholl, Hamilton, and Gordon? They were all suffering from nervous disorders, ague (of the shaking kind), and what not. They were really too ill to see Hooke ; he must come again some other day, and catch them with some more attractive bait than France was now offering. What hope was there of the crowds of disunited units of which the Scottish Jacobite party was composed, each section distrustful of each, and not sure even of its own leaders, some of whom were malingerers and all of them playing for their own hand ? Yet Hooke persevered, and managed to get some signatures, most of them by proxy, to a document engaging to rise if Louis sent 5000 men and arms, and if James came over to inspire his subjects with confidence. But the really important men were far too careful to put their names to such an incriminating document ; their sympathy had to be taken for granted. 1 Back in France, Hooke succeeded after considerable difficulty, in securing the adhesion of Louis to a plan of invasion. The expected co-operation of 30,000 Scots — an illusory prospect — overcame the reluctance of Louis to take the risk. But delays interposed, and the expedi- tion did not take final shape until 1708, sailing eventually from Dunkirk on March 17 under the command of de Forbin. How bad weather caused further detention ; how the fleet ultimately anchored off Crail, Forbin intending to sail up the Firth of Forth on the following morning ; how an English fleet was discovered close at hand ; how Forbin thereupon cut his cables and sailed for the North ; how adverse weather prevented a landing in the North ; how the fleet returned to Dunkirk, and the 1 For a full account of Hooke's negotiations in 1705 and in 1707, see Correspondence of Colonel Hooke (vols. i. and ii.) ; Hooke's Negotiations ; Portland Papers, vol. iv. pp. 276, 277, 460, 461 (Ogilvie's Reports). SIMON FRASER 199 expedition came to an inglorious end ; are not these things written in every Scottish history-book with a final relegation of the incident to the "might have beens"? It was a near thing, it is true ; but one may be permitted to doubt whether, after all, the French would have been joined by the thousands of fighting men reckoned upon had they succeeded in reaching Edinburgh. They would have had cheers galore, and an entente cordiale between the two nations, reminiscent of the ancient alliance against the common enemy, might have been established. But the man to lead the national rising ? Where, indeed, was he to be found ? James, with Middleton and Perth, accompanied the expedition in the flagship, the Mary. He had the mortifying experience of being almost within a stone's throw of the kingdom of his ancestors, and yet having to return without setting foot on Scottish soil. Middle- ton's two sons were on board the Salisbury, the only French (ex-English) ship captured by Sir George Byng. Had James been taken, there would have been a further addition to the list of " might have beens." CHAPTER XX We left Lovat chewing the cud of bitter reflection at Angouleme and subsequently at Saumur. How he em- ployed his time during this period of enforced retirement we cannot tell. He may have written part of his " Memoirs," and he must have written a great many letters. He asserts that during the three years of his imprisonment at Angouleme, he neither wrote to, nor received a line from, any individual in Great Britain or Ireland ; but his French correspondents may have been numerous. He relates some of his experiences at Angou- leme. He tells us of an Irish priest named O'Daly, who visited him under the assumed name of Captain Macartney, and tried, by means of specious promises, to induce him to escape, with the full intention of betraying him if he made the attempt. But Simon, knowing him to be a tool of his enemies, had him arrested, when his true character was exposed. Wonderful to tell, Queen Mary tried to per- suade the French Court that it was Lovat who had made the proposals to escape, and that it was he who had vilified herself and Middleton, instead of the priest, as Simon declared. So "the wretch," as Lovat calls him, was released, and Simon's credit suffered. 1 He relates, also, the means by which his transfer to Saumur was effected ; his brother John, now apparently in receipt of a pension from Versailles, accompanying him. Two months before Simon left Angouleme, his brother — the Chevalier Fraser, as he was called — joined him with 1 Memoirs, pp. 310-314. Cf. Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 215-217. SIMON FRASER 201 Torcy's permission. 1 Both brothers were befriended by the Marquis de la Frezeliere, of whose family Simon gives us some genealogical details, for were not the houses of Frezeliere in France and Frezel, or Fraser, in Scotland of the same origin ? Indeed, when Simon and the Marquis first met, being the heads of the two houses, they took the opportunity of " renewing their alliance and declaring their affinity" by a formal act of recognition drawn up for that purpose. " Je suis francois d'origine" Lovat informed Louis in one of his memorials ; and, superficially, there was really a good deal of the Frenchman about him. The clan feeling worked to Simon's advantage in effecting his removal from Angouleme, for the Marquis exerted himself on his behalf so zealously as to secure his release. Moreover, Simon assures us gleefully that Queen Mary was compelled, in the interests of truth, to declare in writing to Frezeliere, that "she had nothing to advance against the fidelity of Lord Lovat," and that he was only detained at Angouleme for " some political reasons respect- ing Scotland." 2 In any case, he settled down comfortably at Saumur in October, 1707, his pension of 4000 francs from Versailles, he states, being regularly paid to him for eleven years during his imprisonment and exile, up to the very moment that he left the kingdom of France." 3 1 The Angouleme letters show a tender solicitude on Lovat's part for the welfare of his younger brother — " the innocent child," as he calls him. He did his best to get John a company in the French service (Addl. MSS. 31252). Simon's insistence upon the sacrifices (!) he and his brother had made in coming to France are characteristic ! 2 Memoirs, pp. 315-323. Lovat wrote the Queen-Mother in November, 1704, offering his condolences on the occasion of the illness of James (and artfully touching upon his own misfortunes, especially in having offended the Queen), but his efforts to effect a reconciliation continued to be unavailing. He wrote the Queen again in March, 1705 (with the same result), asking her to bestow upon him the clemency and grace she had shown to others (Addl. MSS. 31252). 3 Memoirs, pp. 329-331. His pension was reduced while he was at Angouleme, the difference being applied to the payment of his Paris debts. It was restored to him in September, 1705 (Addl. MSS. 31252). 202 SIMON FRASER He showered letters upon Torcy during the prepara- tions for the expedition of 1708, prophesying its failure and giving his reasons for doing so. Frezeliere and Gordon O'Neill tried hard to induce James to take Lovat with him, but the Chevalier was firm in his refusal to receive him into favour. His friends, however, brought him the comforting news that Louis was fully resolved to send him to Scotland as a general officer, in the service of France, when the second French army was despatched after the landing of James. 1 But James did not land, and Simon remained at Saumur. The failure of the French expedition turned Lovat's thoughts and those of his friends into another channel. Versailles could do nothing for him ; St. Germain would have no dealings with him. Was he not, therefore, justified in making overtures to those who, he doubted not, would reward him for his services by restoring his estates to him ; or, as he put it, would assist him "in the attainment of his just and lawful design " ? But he dreaded the resentment of Louis. He states that he wrote Torcy, representing to him that an end must be put to his disgrace ; otherwise, he would return to his own country. To that letter he received no reply, but Frezeliere assured him that Torcy privately favoured his views. In the meantime, the Marquis himself got into trouble for insubordinate behaviour, and was thrown into the Bastille, whence, by John Fraser, he sent a pressing message to Simon, beseeching him not to think of flight until his release, lest he should be accused of acting in concert with him. Simon had planned an immediate escape, but abandoned the project in deference to Frezeliere's request. At Saumur there were several English prisoners who were taken at Almanza, among them a subaltern named Jones, " a man of good sense, resolution, and enterprise." Lovat made a confidant of him, and Jones offered to 1 Memoirs, p. 337. SIMON FHASER 203 accompany Simon in his flight, the avowed object of which was to obtain a pardon from Queen Anne through Marlborough and Argyll. After his plans had been changed, Lovat wrote letters to Argyll and others which, on an exchange of prisoners taking place, Jones undertook to deliver ; and he promised, likewise, to assure Marl- borough and Argyll that Simon had been of much service to the English prisoners at Saumur — which was probably the case. The intimacy which sprang up between Lovat and this young officer suggests that the latter may have been nearly related to Simon's old sweetheart, Lucy Jones. After Frezeliere had been released from the Bastille, he served with distinction at Lille and Malplaquet, and the reputation he acquired encouraged him to endeavour to soften the heart of St. Germain towards the exiled Lovat. But his efforts were in vain ; Simon was irretriev- ably ostracized. Despairing of being able to help him, Frezeliere recommended him once more to make his escape to England, and Lovat was in hearty agreement with the advice. All this time he was making free of the house of the Marquis, which was near Loudun (seven leagues from Saumur), where some English officers, captured at Almanza, were confined. Simon induced the Marchioness to show some hospitality to these officers, one of whom, named Hamilton, proved to be sadly lacking in gratitude towards his benefactors. This man, Lovat states, killed a fellow-officer named Bradbury in a duel, receiving himself a wound in the arm. Flying from arrest, he was concealed, at Simon's earnest request, by the Marchioness in her house, where his wound was dressed. Some time afterwards, he fell into the hands of the authorities, and was again helped by Lovat, who be- friended him in various ways until the English prisoners were exchanged. Deceived by Hamilton's expressions of gratitude, Simon confided to him his intention of escaping, 204 SIMON FRASER and gave him letters to Marlborough, Argyll, Queensberry, Wemyss, and Leven, desiring those noblemen to intercede for him with Queen Anne. When Hamilton arrived in England, he went straight to the Dukes of Hamilton and Atholl, and handed them the letters, believing that this was an excellent method of currying favour with them. The letters were immediately sent to the Earl of Mar, who was then Secretary for Scotland. At the earnest request of Simon's enemies, Mar sent the letters to St. Germain, and Middleton bore them to Torcy in triumph. This is Lovat's story, 1 but, as will be shown presently, he was probably mistaken. In 1709, Louis was ready to throw over St. Germain, if by that means he could secure peace. He was still, however, feigning to have another expedition to Scotland in view ; or this idea may have been seriously entertained in order to force the hand of England. Frezeliere, whose reputation was steadily growing, took it into his head to form a plan of invasion of his own, in concert with Lovat. The head of the French Erasers was to be Commander-in- Chief, and the chief of the Scottish clan was to be the second-in-command. The scheme, according to Lovat, was discussed in detail between the two men, but, whatever inclination there may have been on the part of Versailles to consider this or any similar project, was dissipated by the investiture of Douay in 1710 by Prince Eugene. 2 It was apparently while these discussions were proceeding, that Lovat wrote the letters which he confided to Hamilton's care. In his letter to Leven, dated August 20 (N.S.), 1709, he reproaches the Earl for not answering his previous letters, and gives him a hint of the renewed talk of invading Scotland, the carrying-out of the project, or otherwise, depending upon the continuance of the war or the arrangement of peace. In the event of 1 Memoirs, pp. 366-374. * Id., pp. 377-382. SIMON FRASER 205 the scheme being proceeded with, the Earl might rest assured that he would see Lovat soon afterwards, " to live and die with you, at the head of some brave fellows, that will follow me in spite of all mankind." He goes on to say that, if he can ascertain with certainty when the expedition is to start, he will acquaint Leven by " the young lad " (his brother) whom he will send for that purpose. 1 Lovat had not made allowance for the possibility of this letter being used as a weapon against himself. If, as he asserts, he really tried to make a Jacobite convert of Leven in 1703, he sowed his seed in receptive soil ; for Simon's letter, written in 1709, was sent to St. Germain in 171 1, the latter year apparently marking the period at which the Earl definitely turned his coat and commenced to correspond with the exiled Court. It was as if Lovat had thrown a boomerang, which came whirling back and smote him full in the face. Middleton immediately (March 8, 1711) sent a translation of the letter to Torcy, with the remark, " Here, Sir, is a spy of consequence unmasked, and we know very well the means of preventing this correspondence for the future." 2 The letter to Leven seems to have been the only one that came back to France, and everything points to its having been sent by the Earl himself. It will be observed that Middleton suggested the obvious method of preventing such corre- spondence for the future. Lovat assures us that had it not been for the efforts of Torcy and Frezeliere on his behalf, he would have been " shut up between four walls for the rest of his life." 3 The death of Frezeliere in 171 1 was a sad blow to Lovat. So attached was the Marquis to his namesake, 1 Macpherson, Original Papers, vol. ii. pp. 132, 133. 2 Id., p. 133. 3 Memoirs, p. 375. Leven was suspected of being concerned in the attempted invasion of 170S (McCormick, Carstairs, pp. 762, 763). 206 SIMON FRASER that he " bequeathed him, as a mark of his affection, his daughter in marriage, with a considerable part of his estate as a portion." But the lady was too young for a marriage to be practicable, and so another heiress was lost to Simon. 1 The Countess de la Roche Millaye, widow of Frezeliere's cousin, now took Simon up. She appears to have been a woman of charm and influence, and at that moment, Lovat required all the influence that he could command. After peace had been arranged between England and France, the Duke of Hamilton (who was imprisoned after the incident of 1708, but soon found means to make his peace with the Whig Ministry) received, in 17 1 2, the appointment of Ambassador to Versailles. This was a bolt from the blue to Lovat. His first impulse was to fly, but he was dissuaded by the Countess. The tragic and mysterious death of the Duke in Hyde Park, after his duel with Lord Mohun, dissipated the fears of Simon, who has the grace to shed a tear over the memory of his enemy, whose greatest fault, he avers, was his avarice. Lovat turned to the Church next, not for spiritual consolation, but as an agency of conciliation. He engaged in his interests the good offices of Abbe Pouget, the favourite and friend of M. Colbert, Bishop of Montpelier, and brother of Torcy. But the Abbe proved a disappointing ally. He was "captured" by the enemy, and sorrowfully admitted to Lovat that he was forced to believe the accusations made by the other side against him. His efforts at reconciliation had done more harm than good. Perth, and even Torcy, were now definitely against Lovat, 1 Memoirs, p. 384. The Marchioness de la Frezeliere kept up a corre- spondence with Lovat after his return to Scotland. In a letter to him, dated June, 1720, quoted by Mr. Hill Burton (" Lovat," p. 194), she congratulates him on his marriage, using the occasion to allude to a " pledge " left by Simon in France, a child " tres blond et a de votre air.'''' She is certain that the ambition which he disclaims will never die within him, for "elk est Fame des Frezels" SIMON FRASER 207 being convinced that he was making overtures to Queen Anne's Ministers. His case was hopeless. The only advice the Abbe could give him was to retire to a convent for life ! The next Churchman approached by Simon was M. de Crillon, Bishop of Vence, who happened to be sojourning at Saumur. Lovat paid him delicate attentions and won his good-will. The Bishop was on terms of intimacy with Torcy, whose friendship Simon wished, above all things, to retain. Torcy, who was getting wearied of Simon's ambassadors, exclaimed impatiently when de Crillon advocated his cause, "Why, in the devil's name, doesn't he go to Scotland ? " But the Countess de la Roche again intervened, and persuaded him that he would be well advised to wait and see how political events were going to shape. However, he decided to send his brother John home " to act for Lord Lovat's interests," and in 17 13, John Fraser embarked at Nantes for Scotland. 1 It may be safely assumed that he was well laden with letters. Among them was one addressed to Leven, Simon being still unaware of the Earl's change of politics. In this letter, he tells Leven that, being unable himself to leave France, he was sending his brother home to head his clan, in case there should be any stir in Scotland, which he thought probable. His brother was instructed to place himself at the disposal of the Duke of Argyll, whichever side the latter might espouse. This letter Leven promptly sent to James : another boomerang, which shaved off the last shred of Simon's reputation at the Jacobite Court, now removed to the Duke of Lorraine's territory at Bar-le-duc. In his " Memoirs " Lovat ingeniously tries to make his readers believe that the letter was a fabrication. 2 He states that it was a copy in Leven's handwriting, but 1 Memoirs, pp. 391-404. 2 Id., pp.430, 431. 208 SIMON FRASER Major Fraser, who saw the letter, says that " Lord Leven sent back the very letter to the Pretender." l Poor Lovat ! Never was man more unfortunate in his friends. They seemed to betray him without the slightest compunction. Sir John Maclean, Campbell of Glendaruel, and now the Earl of Leven ; all of them his cousins, too ! The latter fact is really the explanation of the unlimited confidence he reposed in their honour. He could be as " close " as the rest of his countrymen, when dealing with strangers, but the sacredness of kinship, in his eyes, removed the seal of secretiveness : it was to him a cherished ideal, which neither treachery nor ingratitude could ever effectively shatter. This sentimentalism was a feature in his character, which has already been commented upon. It explains a good deal of what would otherwise be inexplicable. And it may be added that it was a very human trait, which has much to commend it. Whatever else he was capable of doing, Lovat was never capable of betraying a blood-relation. There remains the question of his overtures for a pardon in London, and his avowed intention of placing himself at Argyll's disposal ; in other words, fighting against the Chevalier de St. George, when a rising took place. Naturally, the discovery of his intention disgusted his former friends, who branded him as a traitor. But it is not easy to see where the treason lies. He had made persistent attempts at reconciliation, only to suffer a rebuff on each occasion. Moreover, was it not due to St. Germain that he had lain for three years in a prison ? And if the advisers of James had their way, would he not at that moment be immured in the Bastille, instead of being only a nominal prisoner at Saumur in the enjoyment of a comfortable pension ? Was he under any obligation to remain faithful to a party that had spurned the offer of his services with contempt ? The truth is, that he had far 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. i. pp. 179, 180. SIMON FRASER 209 greater reason to turn his political coat than many of his contemporaries, whose quick-change tactics have never earned for them the name of traitors. He persevered to the end in his efforts to win back the confidence of the Jacobite Court. When his old friend, Gualterio, returned to France, he showered memorials upon him setting forth his pitiful case. Many of his letters may still be seen, signed, in some cases, " Lord Frezel de Lovat," and one of the last of the series (written in 17 1 3) beseeches the Cardinal to obtain for him one of three favours: (1) a reconciliation with James and the Queen-Mother ; (2) permission to enter the service of France ; or (3) permission to leave the country. 1 He tried to reach Mary Beatrice through her Father Confessor. He endeavoured to get a post in the French army through CallieVes. It was all in vain. Yet he made no attempt to escape from France, the attractive Countess de la Roche, whose " company was the greatest consolation Lord Lovat could experience in the melancholy situation of his affairs," strongly dissuad- ing him from the idea. He tells us that about this time he received letters from " a gentleman of his clan in London," suggesting that if he were willing to pay a thousand crowns to bribe the secretaries of the Earl of Oxford (Harley) and Lord Bolingbroke, a certain Brom- field, a Quaker who had followed King James into France, and was " in a perfect understanding " with Oxford and Bolingbroke, would obtain his pardon. Lovat authorized his friends to pay two, or even three thousand crowns to secure that end. But Bolingbroke received the proposal coldly when approached by Brom- field, and Simon remained at Saumur. 2 Deliverance, 1 Addl. MSS. 31252. Gualterio was always regarded as a bulwark of the Stuart cause. In 1706, his brother, Giovanni Battista, was created Earl of Dundee (!) in the peerage of Scotland by the Chevalier (Stuart Papers, vol. i. p. 204) ; and in 171 1, the Cardinal himself was nominated to succeed Cardinal Caprera as " Protector of England" (/ SIMON FRASER 289 benevolence, but it was almost inevitable that, in course of time, he should quarrel with the high-spirited gentlemen of his clan, whose temper was as fiery and whose blood was as good as his own. He had a serious disagreement with Alexander Fraser of Phopachy, who acted as his factor for three or four years, and was then dismissed from his office by Simon "when his wylde humour came on." Phopachy had made certain payments to him from time to time, and claimed a further sum as due for services rendered. Against his demands, Lovat lodged a counter- claim for monies received by Phopachy but not accounted for by him. The dispute was twice submitted to arbitra- tion and twice decided against Simon. Still he refused to pay, and application was made by Phopachy to the Court of Session to enforce the award. And in 1736 Phopachy's children were still trying to enforce it ! In February, 1725, some months after the second award was given, a night attack was made on Phopachy's house by a gang of desperadoes, who openly avowed that they sought the owner's life. Fortunately for himself, Phopachy was away, but some of his servants were wounded. Two of the housebreakers were apprehended and hanged. Lovat, who was then in London, sought to save their lives ; but Phopachy, justly incensed, refused to listen to any suggestion for compounding the outrage. Major Fraser asserts that the attack was instigated by Simon, 1 but at the trial of the men, though Lovat was clearly suspected, no evidence was given to substantiate this charge. Simon's own version is that " the hellish knave," Phopachy himself, concocted the outrage in order to ruin him (Lovat). 2 Another outrage, also laid to Simon's charge, was the out- come of the Phopachy claim. Lovat's arbitrator was John Cuthbert of Castlehill (was he not a clansman of Simon's former patron, the Marquis de Torcy ?), and soon 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. ii. pp. 93-95. 5 Id., vol. ii. (Pitfirranc MSS.) p. 190. U 290 SIMON FRASER after the award was given, Castlehill's park was invaded by a band of ruffians who " cut to pieces forty-eight milk cows." Major Fraser states that in this affair also, Lovat's was the directing brain, his agent being one John Fraser, or " English Jack " (he lived in London apparently), other- wise known as " little Stratherrick John." The reason for Simon's enmity, according to the Major, was that he suspected Castlehill, his own arbitrator, of having acted in collusion with Phopachy to secure an award against his principal, in consideration of his receiving a share of the spoil. 1 It must be remembered that, in making these charges, the Major was engaged in building up a case against Simon for black ingratitude, and his bias is obvious. He ingenuously suppresses the fact that the decision in the second arbitration was left to an umpire (Munro of Foulis). 2 If an umpire was appointed, it shows clearly that the arbi- trators had disagreed. And if they disagreed, Castlehill must necessarily have supported the justice of Simon's contentions. Why, then, should Simon seek to injure him ? 3 The Major's prejudice is clearly shown when he comes to state his own grievances as a crowning piece of ingrati- tude on the part of his chief. He describes the com- mencement of his disagreement with Lovat over a few bolls of oats. Then came a quarrel about a farm on the Lovat estates, ending in the eviction of the Major, who 1 Major Fraser's MS., vol. ii. pp. 96-98. Lovat charged his Edinburgh lawyer, one Tom Brodie, with having betrayed him in collusion with "the base and villainous arbiters " who had signed a decree (for ^1000) against him. This appears to refer to the first arbitration. (Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xii. p. 381.) - Collection of Papers in Lovat Cases. 3 There are some interesting letters in the Pitfirrane MSS. (Major Fraser's MS. vol. ii. pp. 185-191) concerning these transactions, which tend to rebut the Major's insinuations against Lovat, though the evidence they afford is by no means conclusive. Burt (Letters (1818), pp. 154-156) supports the Major's charges — he does not mention Simon by name, but the allusion to him is unmistakable — and in other parts of his letters is severe on " the chief who sticks at nothing to gratify his avarice and revenge." SIMON FRASER 291 was ultimately forced to take a public-house in Inverness for the support of "his numerous family, children and grandchildren" — an occupation which he avows was "entirely against his graine." If the Major's version of the story is correct, he was certainly badly treated by the man who owed him so much. Simon alludes to him in one of his later letters as being " commonly called Major Cracks for his lies," and stigmatizes him as "that ungrate- ful and unnatural monster that I relieved from beggary." And the Major sums up Simon as " a great, wicked man." In the absence of an impartial account of the transactions that took place between them, it is impossible to pronounce judgment on the merits of the dispute. 1 But the Major lived to see his old chief stripped of his estates and executed as a rebel, while he himself was installed by the Duke of Cumberland as manager for the Government of the Lovat property. 2 Time brought its revenges in the case of each of them, but it is pleasing to observe that, after Lovat's death, the Major acknowledges that, in relation to his late chief, " my passion when I was ill-used might occasion me to speak rashly only from the Teeth outward." 3 Probably there were faults on both sides. Simon's legal knowledge was vastly augmented by the proceedings in the great Lovat Peerage case, in con- nection with which he showed remarkable pertinacity and business ability. On the death of Fraserdale's wife, the question arose, who was the rightful Lord Lovat, and the rightful owner of the estates — Simon Fraser or Hugh Mackenzie, Fraserdale's son. In 1702, the Court of Session had given a decision adverse to Simon, when there was no one to defend his case. 4 The circumstances 1 The Major's case is stated in detail in pp. 99-121 of his MS., vol. ii. 2 Culloden Papers, p. 288. 3 Major Fraser's MS., vol. ii. p. 148. 4 In 1721, 1722, and 1727, at the election of the Scottish representative peers, Lovat's vote was objected to on the ground that the decision of 1702 was unreversed. (Douglas's Scots Peerage (Paul).) 292 SIMON FRASER were now very different. When the question was threshed out afresh in the Supreme Court, Simon had the benefit of the best legal assistance. What was quite as valuable, his lawyers had the benefit of his own untiring industry in preparing a strong case as to law, and his diplomatic skill in influencing the judges as to equity. For years the fight was waged, and in the end Simon won. On July 2, 1730, he writes Culloden exultantly that he had gained his cause that afternoon. " I cannot tell," he adds, "how much I owe to Duncan." 1 And, indeed, Duncan Forbes, then the Lord Advocate, was a tower of strength to him. But Fraserdale could still go to the House of Lords, and a compromise was therefore desirable in order to avoid further litigation. Duncan Forbes did his best to effect a final settlement, but was unsuccessful. His want of success seems to have aroused Lovat's suspicions, par- ticularly in view of the fact that the Lord Advocate was exerting himself on behalf of the Earl of Seaforth, for a grant of the arrears of feu-duty due to the Crown on the Seaforth estates, as a means of livelihood for the repent- ant Jacobite. For Duncan Forbes to help "y* very notorious Rebel Seafort," while Simon's own claim for a similar grant remained unsatisfied, argued in his view a leaning on the part of the Lord Advocate towards all Mackenzies, including Fraserdale and his son. And so we find Simon writing, in May, 1731, that he knows of no friends " Cardinal de Fleury (i.e. Duncan Forbes) and his brother have in this country, but their new allys, y e McKenzies, and some drunken (word illegible) cam- pagnons." To the same correspondent (Andrew Fletcher, Lord Milton) he gives with evident gusto some gossip about dissensions in the Clans Kenneth and Leod. He tells him that Seaforth had visited the Earl of Cromartie (the second Earl) and had been " uncivily us'd " by his host. Cromartie died shortly afterwards (1731), and in 1 Culloden Papers, p. 113. SIMON FRASER 293 order to mark his resentment for the incivility shown to him, Seaforth attended the funeral in a " red jocky coat and brown vest," whereupon Cromartie's son and successor "in Revenge calls himself and all his children McLeods, and hes taken y e arms of McLeod of Lews." The first Earl of Cromartie had taken these arms in order to be independent of Seaforth, " but he was bullied out of y e fancy by this Seafort's Grandfather, who was a bold, rude Highland chief." Lovat then goes on to relate how the new Earl of Cromartie and Macleod had nearly come to blows, the former having called in public "y 8 Laird of McLeod, a cadet of his family." 1 Simon shows his animus against Seaforth by saying, " they (the Mackenzies) call him the greatest and proudest miser on earth. But he governs like an absolut monarch, and mocks them much, and so he soon will all those who have done him service." In the light cf the great national interests in which he himself has been engaged, he professed to hold these petty squabbles and local politics in contempt. " We did laugh heartily," he writes, "at y e great politics of this country." ..." I think I should have Bells hung at my ears," he says elsewhere, if he meddled with local politics. As well might a leopard attempt to change its spots, as Simon Fraser to try to keep out of politics when a game of intrigue was being played. During the progress of his law-suit, and while a final settlement was pending, he turned his penetrative political genius to practical account in his own interests. He was a firm believer in influential backing, and though he was too sagacious to believe that the lords of the Court of Session had their price, he was convinced that they were not im- pervious to pressure, judiciously applied. The Earl of Hay 1 Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). The founder of the Cromartie family was Sir Roderick Mackenzie, the stern Tutor of Kintail, who married the heiress of the Macleods of Lewis. The relative seniority of the latter family and the Macleods of Harris (later of Dunvegan) is of antiquarian interest only, the Lewis family being extinct in the main line, 294 SIMON FRASER was now his patron-in-chief, and Hay's friends were his friends. Charles Erskine, the Solicitor-General (after- wards Lord Tinwald) was on his side; and he frankly admits to him that he had paid assiduous court to Erskine's cousin, Lord Dunn, in order to influence his views. Lord Dunn's reply was that of a cautious Scots lawyer. 1 Another of Simon's legal friends was Andrew Fletcher (the patriot's nephew), Lord Milton. Simon's letters to Milton — he never forgot to inquire about the health of " my good Lady Miltown, and all your charming Lovly children " — are master-pieces of judicious flattery in juxtaposition with requests for personal favours. In 173 1, the then Lord Justice-Clerk, Adam Cockburn, Lord Ormiston, was ill — and he was no friend of Lovat's. " I am inform'd," writes Simon to Milton, " by several y fc the Justice-Clerk is going very fast, and for all his inveterate enmity against me, I am so good a Christian y l I wish him very soon in Heaven ;" 2 a parallel in grim humour to that of the Presbyterian minister, who prayed earnestly that Prince Charlie might soon receive a " Crown of Glory." Simon hoped that Lord Milton would soon wear the gown of "y 1 Ignorant misanthrope"; and his wish was fulfilled, four years later, when Cockburn died and Fletcher succeeded him. But Simon's great friend among the law-lords was the Earl of Mar's brother, James Erskine, who bore the judicial title of Lord Grange. He studiously cultivated the Erskines — "a faithful servant to all the Erskines in the world," he called himself to the Solicitor-General — and he had his reward. Grange and Lovat had certain 1 Hist. MSS., Com. App. Rep. iv. p. 525. 2 Addl.MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). Dr. Alexander Carlyle describes Lord Milton as "a man of great ability in business, a man of good sense and of excellent talent for managing men " (Autobiography, p. 260). He was Hay's right-hand man in Scotland, which fact would easily account for Lovat's friendship with him. The latter showed that he was clever enough to manage this "manager of men." SIMON FRASER 295 characteristics in common. They were both accomplished men of the world. They were both skilled intriguers and artistic dissemblers. Politics appealed to both as the most fascinating career for a man of ability; and religion, according to both, was a subject to be discussed by philosophers and practised by fools. Lord Grange was the leading layman of the strictest section of the Presby- terians. His spiritual experiences were as edifying as his moral character was peccable. He was called a hypocrite ; but there is evidence to suggest that he may have been as much a self-deceiver as a deceiver of others. 1 And this acute lawyer and cultured man of the world was as fervent a believer in witchcraft as the most benighted of mediaevalists. By this time Lovat was a widower, his first wife having died in 1729. Their elder son, who had for his godfather King George, received the advantage of a mother's care during his early years, and became a credit to his name, but the second son, deprived by death of his mother at his birth, grew up neglected and uncontrolled. His father, who was absent in Edinburgh when the boy was born, wrote to Culloden asking him to hold up the baby for baptism, " and make it a better Christian than y° father." 2 When he heard of his wife's death, he wrote a letter to her brother full of genuine sorrow. But even in his grief he was egoistic. "The universe," he says, "could not produce a better wife for my circumstances and temper, the most affectionate and careful wife that ever was born, whose chief care and greatest happiness was 1 Dr. Carlyle was of opinion that Lord Grange was sincere in his religious professions, "for human nature is capable of wonderful freaks" (Autobio- graphy, p. 15). He relates how Grange and his associates passed their time in religious exercises by day and wild debauchery at night (p. 15). He had a poor opinion of Lady Grange, and sneers even at her personal appearance. "Her face," he says, "was like the moon, and patched all over, not for ornament, but use " (p. 14). 2 Culloden Papers, p. 105. 296 SIMON FRASER to please vie in everything." l Simon would have scoffed at the idea of a wife having an individuality and interests of her own, apart from those of her husband. Two years after her death, he was seeking another wife, a daughter of Sir Hew Dalrymple, Lord President of the Court of Session ; but though her friends were willing, the lady was not. In 1733, Simon sought consolation elsewhere — this time with success. His second wife was Primrose, daughter of John Campbell of Mamore, whose son became the fourth Duke of Argyll. It has been stated that he trapped this lady into marriage by decoy- ing her into a house of ill-fame in Edinburgh, where she consented to become his bride in order to avoid a scandal. 3 This appears to be one of several stories fastened by tradition to his memory, but relating in fact to circum- stances and people entirely unconnected with him. 3 The story is utterly improbable, and the present writer has 1 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 298. The allusions in the text to Lovat's " first " and " second " wives, exclude the nullified marriage with the dowager. It is uncertain when the latter died. We find the Countess of Orkney (the favourite of William of Orange, and Swift's " wisest woman he ever knew ") writing on July 22, 1725, as follows: "I am truly concerned for my poor Lady Lovat. She stays in London for no other end but in hopes to get something to carry her to Scotland, and every day she is detained she is less •able to live or to go." (Countess of Suffolk's Letters, vol. i. pp. 189-190.) This " Lady Lovat " is probably the dowager. 2 Chambers's Traditions of Edinburgh (1825), vol. ii. pp. 5-7. 3 Another story of this nature is one which describes a duel fought in Hyde Park between Lovat and the Duke of Wharton. There was " a woman in it," to wit, a Spanish lady, whose name is not stated. According to this story, the duel was fought first with pistols, then with swords. On stepping back to avoid a thrust by Wharton, Lovat tripped against the stump of a tree and fell, but Wharton spared him, and the two parted good friends. In his "Philip, Duke of Wharton," Mr. J. R. Robinson makes no allusion to this incident, but he describes a quarrel and a thwarted duel between Wharton and a Scotch peer, Lord C (pp. 235-242), which may have formed the basis of the Lovat story. It is improbable that a poltroon like the president of the Hell- Fire Club would have had the pluck to meet Lovat, and he would hardly have spared him if he had him at his mercy. Copy of a letter from Wharton to Simon's old friend, Cardinal Gualterio, appears on pp. 158 and 159 of Mr. Robinson's book. SIMON FRASER 297 discovered nothing to support its credibility. Simon would never have dared to play such a trick on a member of the Argyll family, who approved heartily of the match, though it may be doubted whether the lady herself (aged twenty-three) was ardently attached to her elderly bride- groom. During the interval between the death of his first wife and his second marriage, Lovat assisted his friend Lord Grange in getting rid of a troublesome spouse. The abduction of Lady Grange in 1732 is one of the numerous incidents in Scottish history that touch the imagination, owing to the element of mystery that clings to them. Why was Lady Grange abducted ? As a wife, she must have been "gey ill to live wi'," and even after she left her husband, she probably made herself a nuisance to him. Her continued presence in Edinburgh must have contained a serious element of danger, to justify a cautious lawyer like Grange taking the risk of having her secretly and illegally carried away to the almost inaccessible Outer Hebrides. Anyone who has had occasion to examine the evidence, cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the abduction was the result of a carefully arranged plot, in which the principals were Grange, Lovat, Macleod, and Macdonald of Sleat; 1 that Lovat contrived and directed the first part of the abduction ; and that he passed on "the Cargo," as the unfortunate woman was called, to his confederates, one of whom (Macleod) was the proprietor of St. Kilda, where Lady Grange spent the greater part of her captivity. It is quite conceivable 1 Lady Grange's account of the abduction clearly shows Lovat's complicity in the affair : it was his men who carried her off. That Macleod and Macdonald were privy to the abduction is equally clear. The Rev. R. C. Macleod of Macleod has kindly sent me a photograph of a receipt (the original is in Dunvegan Castle) for Lady Grange's board and funeral expenses, and a copy of a letter from one Rory McSweyn, threatening Macleod with exposure for the part played by him in the detention of "the Cargo." Presumably, Grange ultimately refunded the expenses incurred by the abduction and detention. 298 SIMON FRASER that Lovat may have taken all this trouble and risk, and persuaded Macleod and Macdonald to do likewise, entirely out of friendship for Grange, and from that species of gratitude which is defined as " a lively sense of favours to come." The sole object of Grange may have been to save himself from a virago who pestered his life, and was capable, as a daughter of Chiesly of Dairy, of actually taking it. The accepted explanation is, that Grange was involved in treasonable correspondence, the secrets of which were penetrated by his wife. But that is merely a surmise. There is no positive evidence to support it, and Lady Grange herself made no state- ment to lend colour to its probability. The cause of their quarrel is clear enough. Being unhappy at home, Grange sought consolation elsewhere, and his wife dis- covered his amours. 1 Lovat, of course, refused to admit that he had taken a hand in the abduction, though he made no secret of his detestation of "that devil who threatened every day to murder " his " worthy friend " and his children. 2 He was working at this time for the Sheriffship of Inverness, and Grange's help was useful. Particularly useful was his assistance in making a final settlement with Fraserdale. He secured the Sheriffship in 1733, after inducing the Laird of Grant — much against the will of the latter — to relinquish the office in his favour, under a promise that, if desired, he would resign in favour of Grant's son after the next Parliament. 3 He was less successful in coming to an agreement with Fraserdale. The dispute went to arbitration, the arbitrators being Lords Grange and Dunn. 1 There was trouble, apparently, over a London mistress of Grange's, one Fanny Lindsay, who kept a coffee-house in the Haymarket. 2 Proc. Soc. of Antiq., vol. ii. pp. 599, 600. It is quite clear that Lady Grange's children made no effort to effect her release. She had to rely almost entirely upon the assistance of Hope of Rankeillor. 3 Chiefs of Grant, vol. i. pp. 378, 379. Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). SIMON FRASER 299 Not until 1739 was the final decision given, and the sum awarded to Fraserdale made Lovat furious. He denounced the decreet arbitral as " villainous," and roundly abused the arbitrators : he had been " betrayed and sold " by one whom he had " entirely trusted and used rather like a brother than a doer." The man who had thus " treacherously, villainously, and ungratefully betrayed and sold " him must have been no other than his " worthy friend," Lord Grange. 1 The amount of the award is not stated, but the claim was for ;£i2,000, 2 so it may be assumed that the amount was not substantially, if at all, reduced. But after all, he had at length secured a clear title to, and the undisputed possession of, the honours and estates which had formed the object of his life's ambition, and to which every other object had been definitely subordinated. And no sooner had he made the Lovat estates secure in his family, than he turned envious eyes towards the properties of his neighbours, Glengarry and The Chisholm. By means of a wadset (a kind of mortgage), which he paid off, he succeeded ultimately in obtaining possession of Abertarff, held by Glengarry — a property which had formerly belonged to the Frasers. 1 Burton's Lovat, pp. 129, 130. The author does not seem to have suspected that the person so roundly abused was Lovat's friend, Grange. 2 Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). Lovat suggests in a letter to Milton the playing of a pretty game of bluff, with the object of reducing the amount of the claim. CHAPTER XXVIII Simon Fraser's aim was to make himself "the greatest Lord Lovat that ever was." One of his methods was to restore to his family every foot of land that had ever been owned by the Frasers in the Highlands. And as he showed by a letter to Lochiel, written in 1736, to demand redress for an outrage committed by some Camerons, he was fully resolved to protect, by every means at his disposal, his property and his people, from any persons who had the temerity to meddle with them. 1 He was an enlightened improver of land, and managed his affairs with method and shrewdness. He showed his business faculty in the smallest as in the largest matters of daily life, as exemplified in a series of letters to one Alexander Fraser, a merchant in Inverness, whom he addresses as " Cousin Sandy." We find him giving his orders to Sandy about his " meal and bear " (barley) with the most exacting minuteness. One day he complains of a leaky coffee-pot sent by Sandy, and says that the coffee itself is " not worth a sixpence." He tells him that " it's large white coffee, whereas the good coffee is a small greenish or blueish berry." The next day we find him complaining of the previous week's account, the charges being extravagantly high. " I would change twenty merchants of the name of Fraser," he writes, " rather than allow myself to be imposed upon to my knowledge." He threatens to withdraw his custom, " if my business be l , Trans. Gael. Soc, of Inverness, vol. xii. pp. 369, 370. SIMON FRASER 301 troublesome to you. ... I hope in God you or no man else will lose a sixpence at my hands, for I had rather be dead than wrong any man whatever." And a few days afterwards, he sent a present of a salmon to " Cousin Sandy " and his " bedfellow." " His relations with the poorest of his people were marked by kindness and consideration. Generally he had a bag of farthings when he walked abroad, the con- tents of which he distributed among any beggars whom he met. 2 He would stop a man on the road ; inquire how many children he had ; offer him sound advice ; and promise to redress his grievances if he had any. He would pat a boy on the head, and, perhaps, give him half-a- crown if his name was Simon Fraser. He would chat with an old woman, and ask her about her ailments, and supply her, on parting, with snuff from his mull. He would chaff a young woman about her sweetheart, and offer her Lovatic compliments. He was always ready with a joke here, a word of sympathy there, for did he not pride himself upon being the father of his people ? " Were Gaelic wit and humour — of all things the most volatile — translatable," writes Mrs. Grant of Laggan, " the good things said by or to Lovat would furnish a little jest-book." 3 There is another side to the picture. Apart from the practice of low debauchery laid to his charge by an anony- mous contemporary (and hinted at by Mrs. Grant), there is strong evidence to show that Lovat could be a tyrannical despot, as well as a kind and indulgent chief. James Ferguson, the astronomer, was his guest for some months, and has left an account of the daily life at Castle Downie. He tells us that the Castle was a "sort of tower," and that it would have been considered in England only "an indifferent house for a private, plain, country 1 State Papers (Scotland) MS. in Public Record Office. 2 Fraser-Mackintosh Antiq. Notes (2nd series), p. 7. 3 Scott. Hist. Soc, vol. xxvi. pp. 259, 271. 302 SIMON FRASER gentleman." There were " only four apartments on a floor and none large." The house was certainly insignificant in relation to Simon's mode of living. He maintained a Court, says Ferguson, which a number of his leading retainers attended daily. The only sleeping accommodation for the latter, or his servants, was on the floors of the four lower rooms, on which a quantity of straw was spread. There were some- times over four hundred persons "kennelled" there — a tight fit, one would suppose. Ferguson had sometimes seen four, or even six men, hung up by the heels for hours on the few trees around the house. 1 But those were the days of heritable jurisdictions, when the great Highland lairds made free use of the "pit and gallows," and when "Jeddart justice" was meted out not infre- quently to delinquents. The times and the justice alike were rough. An ex-sergeant of the Scots Royals, one Donald Macleod, who took service with Lovat and proved a useful recruiter for the Highland Watch, gives a different impression of Simon's residence. But probably Donald's Celtic imagination coloured his facts when he relates how a servant " flung open the great folding doors ; " and when he alludes to "the spacious hall crowded with kindred, visitors, neighbouring vassals, and tenants of all ranks." He describes Lovat as " a fine-looking, tall man, and had something very insinuating in his manners and address." According to his account, Simon gave him an effusive welcome. He clasped him in his arms, kissed him, and forthwith introduced him to Lady Lovat, who im- mediately called for a bottle of brandy, with which the lady was fervently pledged by " the gentlemen." Simon lived "in all the fulness and dignity of the ancient hospitality," and Macleod's description of a dinner at Castle Downie fully bears out the statement. 1 King's Munimenta Antiqua, Book iii. pp. 175, 176, SIMON FRASER 303 There was great abundance of all kinds of meat — and drink. At the head of the table were the principal guests, the lairds of the neighbourhood, who enjoyed Simon's hospitality fairly frequently. Their drink was claret, and (sometimes) champagne. Next to them were the duinewassels, or gentlemen of the clan, who, holding their lands by tack or lease, were denominated tacksmen. Their drink was port or whiskey punch. Lower down were the tenants or common husbandmen. Their liquor was strong beer. "And below the utmost extent of the table, at the door, and sometimes without the door of the hall, you might see a multitude of Frasers without shoes or bonnets, regaling themselves with bread and onions, with a little cheese, perhaps, and small beer." Such was the heterogeneous company assembled at Lovat's table, and it required the managing genius of a Simon Fraser to play the part of a perfect host, from whom the meanest guest is entitled to the same consideration as the greatest. "Cousin," he would say to a tacksman, " I told my pantry lads to hand you claret, but they tell me ye like port and punch best." " Gentlemen," he would address the commoners, " there is what ye please at your service, but I send you ale because I understand ye like ale best." 1 He pleased them all, and thus displayed the essence of good breed- ing at the smallest cost. The old Highland lady, Mrs. Grant of Laggan (whose account of his career, given from hearsay, is full of inaccuracies) adds a finishing touch to the picture, by declaring that the servants who waited at table had no food except what they carried off in the plates. The consequence was, that the guests had to keep a watchful eye on their plates, for if they laid down their knives and forks and turned to address their 1 Narrative of Donald Macleod, pp. 47, 48. Donald was a Chelsea pensioner, said to have been a hundred and three years of age when he gave his reminiscences. 304 SIMON FRASER neighbours, hey, presto ! the plates were whipped off the table in an instant. 1 Simon was careful enough not to permit any extrava- gance at Castle Downie when he was away from home. There is an interesting series of letters written by him to " Mr." Donald Fraser (he was a Master of Arts) who was the tutor of the eldest son, Simon, in Edinburgh, and to whom sometimes he quotes Virgil, his favourite classical poet. Lovat promised to use his influence to secure for him the living of Fearn, but later on, being wishful to retain Mr. Donald's services, hinted that the honour of teaching the Master of Lovat was greater than that of possessing a Highland charge. His correspondent thought differently, but there was no rupture in their relations. On his return to the Highlands, the tutor was entrusted with the educa- tion of Simon's second son, Alexander — the Brigadier, as his father called him — a youth who is reported to have had a bottle of whiskey at his bedside every night, and who, according to his father, " hardly speaks a word now with- out swearing, cursing, blaspheming, and lying." When Simon went to Edinburgh, in 1740, Mr. Donald was left in charge of his house, and had precise instructions about his expenses. He was to " spare the hens " rather than " the mutton " ; he was to have " two good substantial dishes " when he was alone, and "three dishes when you have strangers ; " he was to drink as much of " the fine ale " as he had a mind, " and when there comes an extraordinary stranger, you may give him a bottle of wine." Also, he was to " take care of my eagle and of my Italian dog." The Brigadier proved too much for Mr. Donald, and it must have been with a thankful heart that he turned him over to his father, who threatened to " see his hips made collops of" and to send him to be "a cow-herd " if he did not mend his ways. Mr. Donald did not become " Abbot of Fearn " (thus Lovat). According to Simon, he was 1 Scott. Hist. Soc, vol. xxvi. p. 260. SIMON FRASER 805 persecuted by " those wicked Crockadales who would go to the Gates of hell to Devoure You," to wit, some members of the Tain Presbytery. But he found peace at length in the seclusion of Killearnan, of which parish he became minister. 1 It might be supposed that the proper person to take charge of the bibulous " Brigadier " would have been his step-mother. But Lovat had only been married to Primrose Campbell five years when they agreed (in 1738) upon a separation. 2 It was an unhappy marriage from the commencement ; a more ill-assorted pair had never been joined together in matrimony. Lady Lcvat's real character is not easy to gauge. By those who were not intimate with her, she was regarded as " a coarse-mannered, homely woman, and so ill-natured that everybody hated her." 3 Simon called her " a mixture of a devil and a daw," and accused her — probably without a shadow of foundation for the charge — of having robbed him in collusion with the minister of Kilmorack, with whom, he asserted, she had an intrigue. 4 Her own brother wrote Lovat in a manner far from complimentary to her. " A good and honest man," he said, " will not give up his friend for the sake of a sister if she is to blame." 5 But we have a very different view of her character by those who knew her in Edinburgh, where she retired in 1740 on a small allowance from her husband. According to this view, she was a generous and pious 1 Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xiii. pp. 136-178. These letters, which were lent to Mr. William Mackay, Inverness, by the Rev. Hector Fraser, Halkirk, Caithness, are of singular interest as a revelation of character. 3 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. pp. 366, 367. 3 Chambers, Traditions of Edinburgh (1825), vol. i. p. 205. 4 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 367, and p. 385. Lovat's wife was admittedly a woman of little or no education (Chambers, vol. ii. p. 5). 5 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 394. Colonel Campbell looked upon " the generality" of women as "weak and passionate." "The best familys have produced bad ones as well as bad men," the inference being that he regarded his sister as a "bad" one. He was trying at the time to induce Lovat to increase Lady Lovat's allowance from ^30 to { icoper annum. X 306 SIMON FRASER gentlewoman, who had a "sweet and pleasing expres- sion," delighted in good deeds, and was eminently patient owing to her fatalistic creed. 1 There is an apparent want of consistency between the two sets of opinions. But the explanation may be that her husband had broken her spirit — she must have been fairly strong-minded to have stood up to him at all — and that her character had been transformed by her troubles. She died in 1796, at the age of eighty-six. It is pleasant to find that when her husband was in the Tower, just before his trial, she offered to take her place by his side, in spite of all that she had suffered at his hands. But in an affectionately appreciative letter, he refused to allow her to make the sacrifice. 2 There are various stories told of his cruelties to her. He is said to have kept her locked in her room, and to have fed her on coarse and scanty fare. Sir Walter Scott relates that he had " heard " that a lady who called at Castle Downie to investigate the truth of the charge of cruelty, discovered that Lady Lovat was in fact " a naked, and half-starved prisoner." 3 Doubtless there was an element of truth in the stories of her ill-usage, though some of them were probably exaggerated. By a seeming contradiction, Simon is said to have " sunk into a state of despondency," after his wife left him, and " we have heard that he lay two years in bed ! " Not only so, but the cir- culation of his blood being defective, he found it necessary to have recourse to animal heat — in the form of buxom young women — to keep him warm. 4 In point of fact, he was particularly active during the rest of his life. Hardly 1 Chambers, Traditions of Edinburgh (1825), vol. ii. pp. 2-4. - Id., vol. ii. p. 12. 3 Quarterly Review for 1816, vol. xiv. p. 326. 4 Chambers, Traditions of Edinburgh, pp. 9, 11. It is stated elsewhere that Lovat used human " warming-pans " for his defective circulation. A contemporary writer says that " he is generally more loaded with clothes than a Dutchman with his nine or ten pairs of breeches." This writer had a bad o pinion of Lovat's character, but being anonymous he cannot f be accepted as a safe guide. SIMON FRASER 307 had his wife set out for Edinburgh, when he followed her to the capital, to transact some pressing matters of business. He gives an entertaining account of his journey to Edinburgh. He was accompanied by his two daughters, the elder of whom afterwards married Ewen Macpherson, younger of Cluny, a celebrated figure in the rising of 1745. They were twelve days on the journey, owing to a suc- cession of breakdowns, Simon's "chariot" being evidently in a sad state of disrepair. But he had the use of General Guest's chariot, in which to make a proper display in Edinburgh. 1 The real object of his visit to Edinburgh was chiefly political, though the ostensible purpose was to sign the necessary documents entailing the Lovat estates on his son. For some years past, he had been immersed in politics, local and national. His quarrel with Duncan Forbes induced him, in 1732, to throw the whole weight of his influence in favour of Sir James Grant, the nominee of the Ministry, against the Forbeses, who were resolved to carry Inverness, Ross, and Nairn. Hay, the repre- sentative of the Ministry in Scotland, had declared against Culloden and his brother, and there was thus an additional incentive for Simon to support the Government candidate. Incidentally, he quarrelled with Brodie of Brodie, the Lyon King-of-Arms, who called himself " my Lord Hay's minister in the North." Brodie accused Lovat of sup- porting Culloden secretly against Grant, and threatened to expose him. " I told him," said Simon, " that he and all the Brodies on earth, joined to all the divels in hell could not blow me up with the Earle of Hay." He was 1 Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6. Cluny, who married Lovat's daughter, appears to have been a bashful lover, but a masterful husband. Simon's views on the match show that his chief desire was to strengthen his position by a useful alliance with a warlike clan like the Macphersons. But he displays a tender solicitude for his daughter's happiness, notwithstanding. (Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xii. pp. 374~378. Letters from Lovat to Lochiel.) 308 SIMON FRASER thankful that " Providence stiffled my passion that I did not send this mad fool to hell as he deserved." After this, we are not surprised at Simon's allusions to Brodie as "y e impertinent King of Beasts," a double-edged witticism in allusion to Brodie's office as Lyon King-of- Arms, which finds broader expression in his threat that, " if he was as stout as any Lyon that was ever in Arabia," he would demand satisfaction after the election. 1 Previous to their quarrel, his name for Brodie was "the Squire," of whom he writes to Milton that his (Brodie's) wife had gone to London by ship, this frugal means of travelling being due to the desire "to make up the 15,000 pds sterling y l they have squander'd at London by quadrilles, feasts, balls, plays, and operas, etc. But if she was my wife, I certainly would give y e skipper (orders) to sail to the West Indies, and leave her queen of St. Lucia, the Duke of Montague's kingdom there, now possess'd by y e polite and courteous french nation, for the Lady does understand the ffrench very well " 2 Lovat became temporarily reconciled to Duncan Forbes late in 1732 — " Duncan and I are now as we were in 171 5 " — but his close friendship with the Grants was nowise impaired. He hoped their union would be "perpetual," so he was again, apparently, trying to ride two horses. His letters show how actively he threw himself into electoral.business in the North. His method of making his influence felt took the form of creating "barons" entitled to vote, of whom he was " resolved to make as many as will make some sort of ballance in my family in case of a,disputed election." 3 These " barons " were a marketable asset, as Grant apparently discovered, judging by his statement that "the Frasers' friendship has not been for nothing, and it seems the continowance of it must be purchased at 1 Chiefs of Grant, vol. i. p. 379. 2 Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). 3 Culloden Papers, p. 131. SIMON ERASER 309 noe little trouble." l When Simon fell into disfavour with the Government, he attributed the displeasure of the Ministry to his having foolishly meddled with elections ; and certainly it would have been to his advantage had he abstained from interference. He was very proud of his company as an appendage to his importance. But field work was not at all to his liking. He tells Lord Milton, in 1732, that he had been " constantly harass'd by a fatigueing campagne ; " he had got ague and rheumatism by his march to Braemar ; but he had pleased his "good general by his conduct at Bredalbin and by showing a handsome company in very good order." His genuine sentiments are given in a con- fidential communication to a friend in Edinburgh, in which he confesses that he is plagued out of his " life and soul " by the "slavish orders" of General Wade, and that he wishes from his heart that he had never seen his company. He alludes to the insubordinate behaviour of the Highland sergeants towards their English officers, and shows con- siderable trepidation at the thought of possible disclosures by Campbell of Craignish, who had served with his company for seven years. He calls Campbell "a very ill man and capable of doing anything," so he begs his friend to find him out, give him Simon's " humble service," learn as much as possible of what he is doing, and what he did " since his arrival in Edinburgh ; and if he did or does designe to make any private information out of malice or tryckery." 2 This letter was written in 1732, and probably marks the beginning of the suspicions of Lovat's fidelity towards the Government, which resulted ultimately in the withdrawal of the favour of the Ministry and the breaking of his company — an event that enraged him beyond measure. 3 1 Chiefs of Grant, vol. i. p. 381. ■ Addi. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). 3 LoYat seems to have been deprived of his company in 1739, in which year, the whole of the Independent Companies, with four additional companies, 310 SIMON FRASER Up to that date, he seems to have acted with complete circumspection in his relations with the Jacobites, although he was in correspondence with the Chevalier about the proposed invasion of 1723. 1 There is nothing to show whether or not he was cognizant of the abortive movement in 1725 among the Jacobites in France, with Bishop Atterbury at their head, for a fresh rising in the Highlands. It was proposed that Seaforth should head this insurrection ; but Seaforth broke with the Chevalier and returned home in the following year. Again, in 1727, there was a further attempt to stimulate a rising in the North, the agents being one Sinclair, a naval officer in the Spanish service, and a person calling himself " Brown " who had been in Scotland before on similar missions. Brown sent letters to the clans making lavish promises of support. He was betrayed by one " R.R." who was employed by Sir Duncan Campbell (of Lochnell ?) as a spy, with Wade's cognizance. Brown's letters " I myself read under favour of manufactoring the covers a little " — so Campbell wrote — and thus Wade was made acquainted with everything that passed. Some of the most important clans were not approached at all by Brown, who seems to have been a brazen-faced adventurer without proper credentials. He asked Glengarry (a most unlikely agent) to take his own " prudent way " in manag- ing to get Lovat over to the " Cause," and to assure Simon were formed into a regiment, the 42nd, which perpetuated the old name of the " Black Watch." Possibly this course was adopted in consequence of dis- coveries made about Lovat's schemes for using the 'militia, ultimately, as a Jacobite force — a supposition which explains the bitterness of his feelings on being checkmated. In 1738, he repeats a statement of Wade, that "the King knows all our tricks and that we must be broke." Wade, he remarks, " roars like a lyon" against the companies (Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 370). And in April, 1739, he states that a certain complaint of Seaforth against Sir Duncan Campbell must "break" them (Id., vol. ii. p. 381). 1 In 1720, James wrote Lovat, assuring him that "a sincere repentance shall ever find me full of clemency, and future service will always blot out the memory of past mistakes." And in 1723, when an invasion of Scotland was contemplated, Lovat received another letter from James, urging him to "do his part." (Haile, The Old Chevalier, pp. 280 and 297.) SIMON FRASER 311 that if he changed sides, the Chevalier would send him his pardon and a patent for his title of Lord Lovat ! * Clearly Brown knew nothing of the relations then existing between the Chevalier and Lovat. The menace of an invasion planned by such an agent — his main proposal was that a landing should be made in the Clyde — did not disturb the Government seriously. Possibly it may have strengthened Lovat's position temporarily, in view of the curious message sent to him, which suggested that his loyalty to the Govern- ment remained unshaken. But Simon's old companion, Major Fraser, had been letting his tongue wag freely since their quarrel, and by the year 1737 Lovat's Jacobite sympathies were being openly discussed. It was one thing to be a professed Jacobite in Scotland before the Union ; it was quite another matter after the Union. The mere hint of a man being an adherent of the " King over the water " was sufficient to jeopardize his security and might well cause his ruin. Therefore Lovat protested vehemently against the imputation, but his protests fell upon deaf ears, though proofs of his guilt were difficult to obtain. He became more than usually irritable, and suspicious even of his best friends. Foyers and Struy, two of his leading clans- men, he called " most despicable idiots." " The false villain," Duncan Forbes, had put Argyll against him, and had instigated " Major Cracks " to tell lies about him, both accusations being purely imaginary grievances. So offended was he with Duncan that at a dinner-party in Inverness, he took " no more notice " of the Lord President " than of a broomstick." 2 But the tolerant Duncan forgave him, and they became fast friends once more, "the unhappy jars now over." Lovat was in close communication with the Chevalier and his agents between 1736 and 1740. An escaped 1 New Spalding Club Papers, vol. i. pp. 1 51-156. - Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. pp. 368, 369. 312 SIMON FRASER Jacobite prisoner, named Colonel John Roy Stuart, seems to have acted as an intermediary between him and James in 1736-7. 1 In 1738-9, Simon was giving assurances to the Chevalier that he could be counted upon in the event of a rising. But until the time was ripe, he was ready, through Brigadier Campbell, to hire out his Frasers to King George at the rate of £■$ 10s. per head 2 — probably the refuse of his clan whom he wished to get rid of at a profit. And he had no compunction in taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, which he did on November 30, 1738. 3 In 1739 ne joined, if indeed he did not found, a Jacobite Association, for the restoration of the Stuarts, the chief members of which, besides himself, were the Earl of Traquair, Lord John Drummond, William Drummond (or Macgregor) of Balhaldies, Lochiel (the younger), Sir James Campbell of Auchinbreck, and others. Balhaldies was deputed by the Association to go to the Chevalier at Rome, and was sent by him to Cardinal Fleury in Paris, whence he returned to Scotland, vid London, where he found the Jacobites to be the mere vapourers that Lovat had always held them to be. 4 While these negotiations were proceeding, Simon paid the visit to Edinburgh in 1740 which has been described. The necessity of this visit will now be plain. Lovat had to meet his Jacobite confederates in secret, and concoct with them a scheme of invasion. He had to pay court to Argyll and Hay, and remove from their minds all suspicions of his disloyalty. He had to place his finger on the political pulse in Edinburgh, and regulate his actions 1 Lovat's Trial, p. 73. - Haile, The Old Chevalier, p. 369. These recruits may have been the men whom Lovat was compelled to furnish to the regiment after the Independent Companies had been broken. He tried to palm off elderly men and undersized recruits on the Government ! (Chiefs of Grants, vol. ii. 399, 400.) 3 Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xiv. p. 276. 4 See Memorials of Murray of Broughton for an account of the proceedings of the Association. SIMON FRASER 313 accordingly. He had to weigh the different factions in the scales of his judgment, and decide into which scale to throw the weight of his influence. Also, legal matters and the education of his son claimed his attention. His interviews with Argyll and Hay were of consider- able importance to him. He joked with the Duke about his (Lovat's) reported Jacobitism — and repeated the joke to Hay when he saw him. But Hay was not in a joking humour. He accused Simon point-blank of being a Jacobite, and said that his house was a hotbed of sedition. Major Fraser, he owned, had informed upon him ; the Jacobites themselves openly said that he was one of them ; and the Prime Minister had received intelligence from abroad of his correspondence with the Pretender. " Damned calumnies and lyes," blustered Lovat, in reply ; Walpole himself had greater reason to be a Jacobite than he had. But Jacobite or no Jacobite, Hay promised to do what he could for him. Simon was charmed with Argyll ; " one of the finest gentlemen now in the world," he described him. 1 Notwithstanding the assurances of Hay, Lovat soon discovered that (to quote himself), " I found I was to expect nothing from this Administration." What he specially desired is not stated, but it must have been the restoration of his Sheriffship and his pension, of both of which, appar- ently, he had been deprived. After careful consideration, he decided to cut himself adrift from the Government interest, and attach himself to the Country party which Argyll had joined. This party contained several personal enemies of his own, but the difficulties resulting from this circumstance were overcome by the adroitness of Lord Grange (now reconciled with his old friend). In January, 1741, Simon was able to inform a correspondent : " You see me embark'd over head and ears with the noble party of the patriots." 2 1 Misc. of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. pp. 6-8. ! Id., vol. ii. pp. 12, 13. 314 SIMON FRASER And the outcome of the new attachment was, that Simon put up Macleod, " a sweet-blooded young fellow," as the Country candidate, in opposition to Grant, the nominee of the Government. He worked for his candidate more vigorously than at any previous election, his device of creating " barons " — at some expense to himself, as he is careful to point out — being put in active and successful operation. Fraser of Fairfield having promised to vote for Grant, and refusing to go back on his word, was stigmatized by Lovat as an " unnatural traitor " (and sundry other compliments of a like nature) for declining to support him in carrying the election for Macleod. In Simon's view, the acme of vituperation was reached when he disowned Fairfield as a Fraser ; henceforward his name was " Grant." Frequently Lovat must have regaled his friend, Lord Grange, with a recital of his grievances against the " un- natural villains " by whom he was surrounded on every side. A confidential conversation between these experts in intrigue must have revealed strange secrets. They were boon com- panions, and " Jupiter " Carlyle has left an account of one of their sprees. Carlyle, then a student, dined with them, on Lovat's invitation, at Lucky Vint's, a celebrated tavern in Prestonpans, the rest of the company being some Frasers, Simon's son, Alexander, and his tutor, John Halket, with whom the young hopeful had just (1741) been placed. Carlyle observed that Grange was particularly anxious to please Lovat, whom he describes as " tall and stately (and might have been handsome in his youth) with a very flat nose. His manners were not disagreeable, though his address consisted chiefly in gross flattery and in the due application of money. He did not make on me the impression of a man of a leading mind. His suppleness and profligacy were apparent." The young student was shocked by the absence of sedateness in the two elderly men. After dinner, they SIMON FRASER 315 grew frisky, and sent for Kate Vint, the landlady's hand- some but frail daughter. They insisted upon dancing a reel with her ; but Lovat's gouty legs were too much for the damsel's sense of gravity, and she fled from the room shrieking with laughter. From Lucky Vint's, the royster- ing old blades went to the " Brigadier's " lodging, where Lovat flattered the landlady, kissed her niece, and gave her "such advices as a man in a state of ebriety could give." Then Grange took him home to supper, and to his private grounds with the secret door, through which, it was whispered, fair consolers were wont to be admitted, though Grange's " minions " asserted that the grounds were used for meditation and prayer. At ten, the two old gentlemen mounted their coach for Edinburgh, "and thus ended a memorable day." * Truly Lovat's vigour was remarkable. Ten years previously, he had declared to Culloden that "the taber- nacle is failing," and he described various symptoms as "so many sounds of trompets y* call me to another world." He had been seriously ill since then, fever, ague, scurvy, and minor ailments having attacked him at different times. And yet, after all his diseases, he was fit and ready at the age of sixty-five to romp with wenches on the floors of taverns. He was a firm believer in the efficacy of the cold bath, and had a passion for dancing, which he never lost. The time was about to arrive when he required all the vigour of body and mind at his command, to meet the most fateful crisis in his eventful experience. That he proved unequal to the demands made upon him is not altogether surprising, when it is considered that he had set to himself a task of successful deception, in the face of evidence that plainly contradicted his statements. 1 Dr. Carlyle's Autobiography, pp. 60, 61. CHAPTER XXIX FOR an account of Lovat's dealings with his associates in the new scheme for the restoration of the Stuarts, we have to rely mainly upon the testimony of John Murray of Broughton, the secretary of Prince Charles Edward. Murray betrayed Lovat in order to save his own miserable life, and his evidence in relation to Simon is decidedly suspect. He had to make out that Lovat was a great villain, in order to palliate his own offence of being a great traitor. He professes to have been very shy of Simon at first ; he was on his guard against " the un- common caresses he always bestowed when he had an intention to pump." 1 Murray had a poor opinion of Balhaldies. He says that Balhaldies was a burden on Lovat, who, wishing to get rid of him, found him em- ployment as the emissary of the Jacobite associates. Lovat (he says) knew that Balhaldies — one of Simon's " Bull-dogs " as he is called — was the only man who would vindicate him to the world. 2 Simon was after a dukedom (of Fraser), and Balhaldies had authority from the Chevalier to promise him the title for his support. The patent for the dukedom was signed on March 14, 1740, 3 and on December 23, 1743, Lovat was appointed 1 Memorials of Murray of Broughton, p. 17. 2 Id., p. 9. 3 Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, p. 56. The full title of the creation was " Duke of Fraser ; Marquis of Beaufort ; Earl of Strath-therrick {sic) ; and Upper ( !) Tarf (Abertarf) ; Viscount of the Aird and Strath-glass ; Lord Lovat and Beaulieu." It looks like a patent drafted in a hurry ! The titles SIMON FRASER 317 by James, " Lord-Lieutenant north of the Spey and to the head of the Spey to the north side of Loch Lochy." l There can be no doubt that for some time before the " Forty-five," Simon was quietly sounding his neighbours as to their intentions, and secretl}' striving to obtain from them assurances of support for the " Cause." " He never failed," says Broughton, "to declare with the strongest asseverations that his principles were . . . always the same ; " and it is probable that his neighbours in the Highlands were thoroughly convinced of the truth of that statement. In public, Simon continued to profess the strongest loyalty to the existing regime : he laughed to scorn the suggestion that he was a Jacobite. He did more : he threatened to fight any one who accused him of such a thing. Rose of Kilravock was the author of a report that Lovat had been deprived of his company, " because I was taking home the Pretender." Simon's reply was sufficiently emphatic. " He is both a fool and a Darned Lyer . . . the silly Coxcome Kilravock." Lovat tells "Cousin Sandy" (May 3, 1745) that he had challenged Rose, who declined to fight. " I would advise him," writes Simon, " to hold his tongue of me, otherwise I will go to the streets of Nairn and Bastonade him with my own hand, which is the only way to treat Lyars and Cowards." 2 Lovat was truly pugnacious in his old age. A fort- night after he wrote so contemptuously of Kilravock, he had a serious quarrel with Lord Fortrose, son and successor of the forfeited Earl of Seaforth, who died in 1740. They were present at a meeting of freeholders, held in Inverness, were sufficiently high-sounding ev^n for Lovat's exalted ideas. Balhaldies left the original patent, for greater safety, with his uncle, old Lochiel, at Boulogne, and brought a copy to Simon. The original appears to have got lost, and in order to pacify Lovat, Prince Charles had to promise to make it good. 1 Ruvigny's Jacobite Peerage, p. 249. 2 State Papers (Scotland) MS. in Public Record Office. 318 SIMON FRASER and in the course of a heated discussion, Lovat gave the lie direct to Fortrose (who was called Seaforth by courtesy), and struck him with his cane. The affront to Seaforth was aggravated by an attack made upon him in the streets of Inverness by one of Lovat's clansmen. Had not Simon apologized and given complete satisfaction to Lord Fortrose, a serious quarrel between the two clans might have arisen from the affair. But Lovat behaved sensibly over the matter ; Seaforth behaved magnani- mously ; and so the incident was closed without bloodshed. 1 Lovat showed much less sense in his behaviour during the great Jacobite rising, commenced in the Highlands three months later. Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, who tells us that he was " well acquainted with Lord Lovite," says that, "he was all his life a cunning, double man, but this dexterity left him a year or two before the Rebellion." He adds that, in his old age, Simon " began to dream and dote, so that in his conduct he committed many great absurdities." 2 This opinion seems to be borne out by the actual occurrences. A great deal has been written about the clever way in which Lovat trimmed, until at length he fell over the fence — on the wrong side. There was really nothing clever about his performance. On the contrary, his acts were marked by such vacillation and futility as showed that the strength of his judgment had become seriously impaired. His efforts to deceive Duncan Forbes and Lord Loudoun were an insult to their intelligence, as at length they hinted to him, after bearing with him very patiently. 3 The landing of Prince Charles Edward in the Outer Hebrides, with nothing to support his pretensions except 1 Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xix. pp. 207-209. 2 Sir John Clerk's Memoirs, p. 209. : ' See the correspondence in Culloden Papers, pp. 209-261, for the wordy uel between Lovat and the Lord President and Lord Loudoun, and in Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xiv. pp. 10-25, for the similar contest between Simon and the latter. PRINCE CHARLES EDWARD STUART. (" Bonnie Prince Charlie.") {To face p. 319. SIMON FRASER 319 complete faith in the attachment of the Highlanders to his family, and illimitable hope in a lucky turn of the wheel of fortune, filled the more cautious friends of the Stuart dynasty with apprehension. Here was a young man who calmly rejected all the accepted ideas that had hitherto governed the Jacobites on both sides of the Channel, when planning an invasion. He was tired of plots that never came to fruition, and of expeditions that consistently failed. The fiasco of 1744 gave the finishing touch to his impatience. The Jacobites were far too slow for this fiery young Stuart, who was a true type of the reckless adventurer, and was ready for any gamble, however heavy the odds were against him. Charles Edward was a complete contrast to his father. He never possessed the solid virtues of the latter, but he had his full share of the showy qualities that ensure popularity. Had the father, instead of the son, landed in the little island of Eriskay, there would have been no ' Forty-five,' for the historian to chronicle. Lovat was furious when he heard of the arrival of the Prince — a " mad and unaccountable gentleman," he called him. He should not be allowed to land, he declared, and if he persisted in landing, no man should join him. This was a blow to some of the more eager Jacobites, who had counted with confidence upon Simon's help and guidance. 1 Duncan Forbes (now the Laird of Culloden as well as the Lord President) believed in August that he had Lovat safe. One day at dinner, he received such assurances from Simon as led him to suggest that " untill the scene should open a little," it would be well if Lovat would " lay himself out to gain the most certain intelligence he could come at " 2 — in other words, to act as a spy on his Jacobite friends. Four days later, Lovat declared to Culloden that he intended to follow the prudent example 1 Memorials of Murray of Broughton, p. 143. j - Culloden Papers, p. 372. 320 SIMON FRASER of Sir Alexander Macdonald, who had decided to adhere to the Government ; " and I verily believe him," added the President. 1 The next day, Simon informed Forbes that he had ordered his people to meet him, to act in defence of the Government — an assurance which induced Culloden to tell Cluny that " if they had any expectations of your friend Lovat, they are vastly mistaken." 2 A few days afterwards, Lovat appears to have weakened perceptibly. " It is very necessary," said Fraser of Gortuleg (Broughton called Gortuleg " a man of very bad character," whom Lovat trusted too much), " that your Lo p write very strong things that I shall communicate to your Lop s people." 3 Here was the beginning of the indecision that ultimately led to Lovat's undoing. To be or not to be : he could not for the life of him decide what course to take. "I fear you have been ower rash in going ere affairs are ripe," he wrote to Lochiel. "... I'll aid when I can, but my prayers are all I can give at present. My service to the Prince, but I wish he had not come so empty-handed. If Duncan Forbes were to find this letter," concluded the writer, " it would be my head to an onion." But Lochiel thought that Lovat was too " deeply dipt " to draw back, and would join when he saw his neighbours take the field. He was wrong. So uncertain was Simon of the safest course to pursue, that he seems to have seriously contem- plated going to France "for the benefit of my health." Certainly he wished to be out of the way, until he could see what shape events were going to take. "The Lord Advocate," he told Lochiel, " plays cat and mouse with me." Lovat himself was engaged in watching another cat — one of the jumping kind. In a letter to the Earl of Stair, dated September 21, he refused a commission for 1 Culloden Papers, p. 376. 2 Id., p. 382. 3 / of this account of his last days. The Gentleman's Magazine for 1 746-7 contains a good deal of interesting matter about him. CHAPTER XXXI The character of Simon Fraser may be judged by either of two standards, the absolute or the relative. It must be acknowledged that in nearly all cases where judgment has been passed upon him, the relative standard has been ignored by his critics. The latter include modern writers of weight, who have not had the opportunity of examining the facts of his career with the care required for an impartial estimate of his character, or who have allowed themselves to be overweighted by the traditional view of the man. " History hardly recalls a baser figure than that of Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat. . . . Seldom perhaps did a more horrible old man meet a more deserved doom." x These quotations are probably not unfair examples of the strictures passed by historians upon Lovat. Generally, as in the instance cited, they are supported by statements of fact, the accuracy of which is in inverse ratio to the strength of the denunciation. Surely there is some lack of a sense of proportion in all this, which is not altogether creditable. The picture presented to readers is one of unrelieved blackness. One looks in vain for a solitary gleam of light. Simon Fraser, according to the accepted view of him, was not only a villain, but a villain without a single redeeming trait in his character. 1 McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, vol. ii. p. 305. " The desperate shuffler and paltry traitor who tried to blow hot and cold ; to fawn on Hanover with one hand (sic), and to beckon the Stuarts with the other." So Lovat is described. 340 SIMON FRASER It would require hardihood of which no one con- versant with the facts of his career could be capable, to argue that the subject of this biography was a good man. He was neither a good man, nor, in the larger sense, a great one. But there are degrees in the badness even of depraved men, just as there are degrees in the rotten- ness of decaying apples. And the facts of Lovat's life afford ample justification for a confident denial of the absurd assertion that he was wicked through and through, without a sound moral spot in the whole of his being. It is permissible to go beyond a merely negative statement of that kind, and to aver that there were qualities in his charac- ter which are regarded as part of the equipment of virtuous men, but which are apt to be overlooked when associated with men who are branded as desperately wicked. Simon Fraser's vices may have obscured his virtues, but the latter existed notwithstanding. His vices have been blazoned on the pages of history, but no place has been found for his virtues. They simply did not exist, say his critics. That there was a dominant principle underlying his tortuous schemes is plain enough. He did not live a life of deceit, because he preferred deceit to candour. He worked in the darkness because it covered his designs ; and the subtle brain in which the designs were bred was stimulated by an active ideal that shaped his whole career. What, then, was the main motive of his life ? It is easy to assert that it was nothing more than a selfish regard for his own interests, with a corresponding disregard for the interests of others. But that solution simply leaves the question unanswered. Beyond doubt, he strove through- out life to use men for his own ends. His knowledge of human nature was profound, and he used that know- ledge incessantly to achieve his purposes. Early in life, he discovered that susceptibility to flattery is a weak- ness to which both sexes are prone in an unsuspected degree. Well did Lovat know that men, as well as women, SIMON FRASER 341 are not exempt from it. And the fruits of his flattery show in unmistakable fashion that his calculation was not at fault. Over and over again, he gained his ends by insinuating this subtle weapon in the most vulnerable part of virile natures, that were impervious to no other methods of attack. These were means of attaining his desires, to which, necessarily, no high-minded man would have stooped, nor indeed any man who had a regard for dignity and truth in the abstract. But Lovat's mind was never troubled by abstract problems. If he wanted a thing, he took the shortest cut to obtain it, and there, for him, was an end of the matter. He was concerned only with what he con- sidered to be the righteousness of the end, and he left the morality of the means to take care of itself. " These fine moral reflections," he wrote on one occasion to his Edin- burgh agent, "are no more than a play of our intellec- tuals. ... I always observed since I came to know anything in the world, that an active man with a small understanding, will finish business and succeed better in his affairs, than an indolent, lazy man of the brightest sense and the most solid judgment." l He studied Scottish history with a narrowness of view which he mistook for patriotism, and he read Machiavelli with a warmth of sympathy that distorted his ethical vision. The one gave a dominating impulse (and some practical assistance) to his career, and the other suggested the methods by which it might be expressed. Had he never studied Scottish history, his aim in life might have run in a different channel, and had he never heard of Machiavelli, his crooked diplomacy might have traversed on straight lines. 2 • Hill Burton's Lovat, pp. 125, 126. 1 " It is necessary " (says Machiavelli in The Prince) . . . " thoroughly to understand the art of feigning and dissembling, for men are generally so simple and so weak, that he who wishes to deceive, easily finds dupes." It was not for nothing that Simon Fraser sat at the feet of such a teacher. 342 SIMON FRASER Above all, his conduct was largely shaped by the spirit of the age in which he lived. Simon Fraser suffered from an obsession, which affected his intellect like a kink in a powerful chain. Possessing a vigorous mind, he suffered it to concentrate upon a fixed idea, the prevalence of which gradually assumed a form of monomania. The feudal principle lay at the root of his conceptions, and it took complete and permanent posses- sion of him. The glorious deeds of his mediaeval ancestors inspired him with a spirit of family vanity that shows itself, sometimes grotesquely, sometimes pathetically, and not infrequently beneficially, in his attitude towards his con- temporaries. But whatever the form of the expression, the sentiment was never absent. The grandiloquence of his ideas ; the inflated periods in which he gave utterance to them ; the sublime self-confidence that marked his actions, all proceeded from the same source. He was MacShimi, the Chief of the great Clan Fraser ; the lineal descendant and the namesake of the celebrated patriot who was the friend of Wallace ; and the modern representative of generations of warriors who had shed their blood for their King and country. " I have always loved to preserve the glory and honour of old and antient families," he said, when contemplating the purchase of a picture of Wallace — which he could not at the time afford to buy. 1 Any family of recent origin was regarded by him with contempt. No family had any title to be regarded with respect unless its roots stretched back to the remote past, " no more" (as he once remarked) "than a mucherom of one night's growth can be called an old oak tree of five hundred years' standing." 2 To be " the greatest Lord Lovat that ever was," sums up his ambition in a nutshell ; a legitimate ambition, it must be admitted, had his standard of greatness been the true one. 1 Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol. xi. p. 341. 2 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 328. SIMON FRASER 343 It was this habit of harking back to ancient times that imbued Lovat with an inveterate hatred of England and of everything English ; and his attachment to France arose, not only because of his French origin, but because of the old alliance between France and Scotland against the common foe. The same sentiment caused him to detest the Union — " cette negotiation infernalle" as he described it in one of his Angouleme letters — with a thoroughness begot of his study of the wars between the two neighbours. Probably he never forgave the English for executing his patriotic ancestor three hundred and seventy years before he was born ! In a remarkable letter to Lord Grange, he writes with much virulence against the English, asserting that they always did, and always would, hate the Scottish people, and that the roots of their dislike stretched back to the War of Independence. 1 He would not allow his children to be educated in England " unless over my belly." He was infected with prcefervidum ingeniiim Scotorum in quite a remarkable degree. Had he lived at the present day, he would have been at the head of every movement for the furtherance of nationalism. He would have been an energetic promoter of Home Rule for Scotland, and a prominent figure in the Celtic revival. He cultivated the Gaelic language assiduously as an expression of the spirit of patriotism. When the question of a tutor for his eldest son was under discussion, he desired to place him with Dr. Patrick Cumming, minister of St. Giles's, Edinburgh, and Professor of Church History in the University. Dr. Cumming was Walpole's guide in Scottish ecclesiastical affairs, and was therefore a useful person to know. He was resolved, he told Cumming, to have his son educated after his own manner, " that is, as a true Scotchman and a Highlander, for I had as rather see him buried as see him bred a thorough Englishman." And when Cumming declined the post, Lovat consulted him about the best man 1 Mar and Kellie Papers, pp. 545-548. 344 SIMON FRASER to select, making a special point of the desirability of the boy's tutor having a knowledge of Gaelic. 1 When, after years of waiting and working with a single aim in view, the object of his earlier life was at length attained, he gave full play to the spirit of feudalism by which he was saturated. He was the belated embodiment of Highland patriarchism. But it was a paternity that exacted the most implicit obedience to his will, however capricious and however tyrannical, in return for the protection which he gave to his clansmen and the provision he made for their comfort. Absolute submission he regarded as the com- plement of effective protection. His quarrels with some of the gentlemen of his clan were simply the clashing of two opposing forces : the spirit of mediaevalism as personi- fied by the chief, and the modern spirit of independence as embodied in his vassals. His attachment to his clan, as Frasers rather than as men, women, and children, was intense, and his voluminous correspondence, 2 which included so much that was bombastic, and diplomatic, and insincere, struck no truer note than his letter of farewell to his clansmen when he thought he was at the point of death in 171 8. That acute observer, Sir John Clerk, who knew his character well, made a true observation when he wrote : " He was a man of a bold, nimbling kind of sense, very vain of his clan, the Fraziers, and ready to sacrifice everything to their interest." 3 1 Hill Burton's Lovat, pp. 213, 214. a Lovat's proficiency as a letter-writer was remarkable. No one could write a letter of felicitation or of sympathy more gracefully when he pleased, nor, when occasion required, was his correspondence lacking in the qualities that stand for well-written business letters. His prose was excellent on the rare occasions when it was simple, unaffected, and comparatively free from adjectives. I have come across some specimens of versification from his pen, but they may as well remain in oblivion. One of them is addressed " To Silvia," and is of the [familiar " Silvian " type : it was written in his callow days. Later in life, he turned his capabilities as a rhymer to practical account, by composing election poetry, though he pretended that the lines were sent to him by a friend. 3 Sir John Clerk's Memoirs, pp. 208, 209. Sir John's view was that of SIMON FRASER 345 He discouraged trade and commerce among his dependents as being antagonistic to feudalism. It was their business to be trained in the use of arms (as in the good old days), and fight for their chief when required to do so. If they learned to trade, they would migrate to commercial centres, and his power would be lessened and his importance diminished. Far better for them to be expert swordsmen, and to maintain a full-bodied nationalism by cultivating their old songs and traditions, and by preserving their language, as the expressions of their patriotism. He was ready enough to speculate and trade on his own account, much as he despised the business. He lost money in the South Sea Bubble ; he bought Royal Bank stock through Lord Milton (who advanced part of the purchase-money) ; and he discussed the chances of embarking profitably upon the herring trade. His feudal spirit was up in arms against the proposal to abolish the Highland dress (1732), and his disappointment with Argyll's attitude on that question was intense. 1 The measure of 1747 for abolishing the hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs struck at the very roots of feudalism. Lovat was then a condemned prisoner in the Tower, but he raged against the Act as if he had a long lease of life before him. He told two Highland lairds who called to take leave of him, that if he had his broadsword, he would not scruple to chop off their heads, if they were concerned in the destruction of that principle which had descended to the chiefs from ancient times. 2 In practice, he was a " professional politician " — one of those men, not unknown even at the present day, who adopt politics as a career, not from a desire to serve their the impartial observer. The most favourable obituary notice on Lovat that I have seen is from his comrade, Balhaldies, who eulogizes him with a heartiness that is creditable to the staunchness of his friendship, if not to the shrewdness of his discernment. 1 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. pp. 305 and 308. 2 Scots Mag. (1747), p. 155. 346 SIMON FRASER country, but as a means of advancing their own interests. He had no patience with the timid type of politician. " He is too cautious in politicks," he writes to Lord Milton of a certain person. " As caution is a very necessary ingredient in all politicks, so, very often, bold stroaks are to be (commended when ?) all cautious measures will go to y e pott. My dear Lord, forgive this dottage in an old worn-out politician." * He lived in times of constant political unrest ; when men wore Stuart coats one day and foreign coats the next ; when they advocated one set of political opinions in public, and a different set in private ; when Ministers trusted by St. Germain sold its secrets to St. James's, and statesmen employed by St. James's coquetted and intrigued with St. Germain ; when, in short, political integrity was as rare as scheming adventurers were plentiful. Simon Fraser was a quick learner in the school of shifty politics. He was differenti- ated from his fellows only by the bold conceptions of which he was the author. If he truckled with both parties, he did no more than men bearing honoured names, whose faults have been glossed over as reflecting the tendency of the times. It would really seem as if, by common consent, the concentrated sins of all the turncoats who were his contemporaries had been heaped upon his shoulders. He stands — not, it is to be hoped, for all time — as the out- standing example of the political tergiversation and its resultant duplicity that characterized the first half of the eighteenth century in British history. Yet there were others ; and Simon Fraser was not the worst of them. While keeping his own interests well before him, he was throughout his life, openly or in secret, a Jacobite in sympathy. He deserted the Stuart cause only when he was driven to the other side in spite of himself. He rejoined the Jacobites after extorting an admission that he had been wronged and ill-used. With his notions of the 1 Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). SIMON FRASER 347 value of birth and rank, and the duty of submission to authority, it would have been strange had he not been a Tory of the Tories. He had not the least sympathy with democratic aspirations, nor with the limited Liberalism professed by the Whigs. The Stuarts represented for him Scottish nationalism ; his ancestors had fought and died for the race ; the principles of absolutism and Divine right with which the dynasty was identified were sacred in his eyes ; and the feudal ideas by which his mind was obsessed clustered around the family that, for centuries, had shackled the Scottish people to their throne by the bonds alter- nately of fear and affection. The crooked methods of his diplomacy obscured the underlying stratum of consistent devotion to the Stuarts, but it was always there, notwith- standing. It was never stronger than when he was posing as a devoted friend of the House of Hanover, and a deter- mined antagonist of the rival dynasty. And it was never so ineffective as when he was balancing it carefully with the personal risks that its expression involved. Indifferent though he was to the morality of the means by which he worked to secure his ends, there is no clearer fact in his life than the consistency of his attachment to the Stuarts. That there was something fundamentally lacking in his moral sense is made apparent by many of his actions. His morality in public affairs was " international " rather than individual ; and he was as ready to defend it with as much cynical casuistry as ever Minister employed to " explain " an unrighteous act. And yet, mirabile dictu, he was a religious man — of the Grange type. He was keenly interested in theological problems, and was capable of holding his own, equally with a Doctor of the Sorbonne as with a Professor of the Kirk. He did not flinch from discussing Church history even with an archbishop, who was afterwards a cardinal. In a lengthy and remarkable letter to Gualterio, written when he was imprisoned at Angouleme, he discourses 348 SIMON FRASER learnedly upon the visible marks of the " true " Church, which distinguish it from the " so-called " Reformed Church. The letter is full of the most pious sentiments, some of which are sufficiently liberal to come with pro- priety from an evangelical pulpit. 1 Gualterio had been preaching patience to him, and he wished to show that he had profited by the advice, as well as to display his zeal for the Catholic faith. That zeal was carefully concealed in Presbyterian Scotland after his return from France. His religious creed was like his politics : he kept it to himself so long as it was dangerous to reveal it. But he had the grace not to profess an enthusiasm for Presby- terianism which he was far from feeling. The parish ministers seem to have troubled him not a little. " I desire and wish," he once said, " to live in peace w l all mankind, except some damn'd Presby 1 ministers who dayly plague me." 2 But what would Gualterio have said had he seen his letter to Lord Milton, in which he wrote, " I really think it is much better to be as easy as I am about all Religions, than to turn criminally mad of an Ignorant zeal of enthusiastick devotion, and as I am resolved never to loose life or ffortuiu to support any priests on earth, I go out of your town towards the North, y l I may not be suspected to be Religious or devote, since that trade is become dangerous." 3 In his last days, just before his execution, there was a revival of his interest in religion and theology, if indeed there had ever been a genuine lapse. He was a Jansenist, not a Jesuit, he declared to a questioner. He discussed psychology with his barber, whose father was a Muggle- tonian. He wrote a last letter to his son, which is a model of evangelical faith and pious injunction. 4 He prayed frequently and earnestly. " I hope my prayers 1 Addl. MSS. 31252, ff. 266-269. 2 Culloden Papers, p. 106. 3 Addl. MSS. 24156 (Milton Collection). * A Candid and Impartial Account, etc., pp. 6-8. SIMON FRASER 349 will be as soon heard as Mr. Whitfield's," he once remarked to Grange. " I am sure they are fully as sincere." l And perhaps they were. When Simon Fraser laid his head upon the block, his complete composure was due to his belief that he had nothing to fear in the life beyond, the existence of which he never questioned. A hypocrite to the last, it may be said. That, however, is hardly a reasonable view. It is not in accordance with human experience for a man to wear a mask, when test- ing the sharpness of an axe which is to chop off his head in a few minutes. Lovat's pride in the fortitude of his race, and his determination to do nothing to disgrace his name, may have carried htm a certain distance, but not, it is allowable to think, all the way. The real man had shown himself before he reached the scaffold. When he was condemned to death, he might well have exclaimed, " Let fall the curtain : the play is ended." It was a strange play from the first act to the last. Seldom did the actor leave the stage. Seldom was the man seen as he really was, even to his intimates ; for, habitually he employed language not to express but to conceal his thoughts. He was surrounded by Highland lairds, who had not a tithe of his experience, or a fraction of his astuteness. They were a proud, quarrelsome, drinking and duelling set, quick to resent insults, real or fancied, but hospitable, generous, and sociable. Duncan Forbes and his brother, John, were remarkable for their drinking feats : the chief amusement of Duncan, when on a journey in his younger days, seems to have consisted in making the landlords drunk at the inns where he stayed. 2 Simon Fraser was more practical ; he made his guests drunk (it has been declared a ) in order to worm their secrets out of them. " The Earl of Cromarty," 1 Mar and Kellie Papers, p. 553. Lovat claimed to be every whit as religious a man as the celebrated preacher. '-' See Appendix to Major Eraser's MS., vol. ii. pp. 159-169. 3 Scott, Hist. Soc, vol. xx vi. p, 261. 350 SIMON FRASER he relates, "after drinking excessively in this house of very good wine for five days, went to Dingwall and fell adrinking of very bad wine, which made him so sick that he had almost died there." * At these Highland houses, the services of the men who carried off the guests to bed were in frequent requisition ; but Lovat was either more abstemious than most of his neighbours, or liquor had little effect upon him. Having so manifest an advantage over his guests, he had every opportunity of turning them inside out, if he wished to do so. It is probably correct to say, that there was not a chief in the Highlands who knew half as much about the private affairs of his friends as Simon Fraser. Why did these men cultivate his society, and seek his friendship ? All accounts agree that he was a delight- ful host : affable, witty, and genial ; but behind these qualities, there must have been something of solid worth. If he was a villain, he was a particularly agreeable one, except when he was in his tantrums, when his language became pure hyperbole. The typical man of craft and guile has complete command over his temper. But Simon Fraser was a hot-blooded Celt, whose anger was volcanic in its eruptions. He said many things in his rage that he must have repented in his calm moments. And some of his actions display a lack of the most ordinary prudence. Would the villain of fiction (the diabolically cunning sort) carefully preserve papers that were sufficient to bring him to the block ? Or would he confide in men who after- wards betrayed him, as Lovat did to his sorrow, even after experience had shown him the danger of his candour ? The truth is, that if Lovat was a villain, his equipment for villainy was defective in material details. Is it con- ceivable that a man without a redeeming trait in his character, would win and retain the affection of an honest and penetrating mind like that of Duncan Forbes ? Or, that the death of an habitually cruel despot would be mourned 1 Trans. Gael. Soc. of Inverness, vol, xii. p, 379. SIMON FRASER 351 by his clansmen, instead of being hailed as a relief ? * Or, that an entirely selfish man would trouble himself to help his friends, as Lovat did on more than one occasion ? He rejoiced with his friends, and he mourned with them ; he strove to reconcile them when they quarrelled ; he pleaded for them when they were pressed for payment of their debts ; 2 and except when he was crossed, he was the most pleasant companion in the world. He was a curious mixture of the mediaeval and the modern. His attitude towards feudalism has already been defined, but some of his methods belong to the twentieth, rather than the eighteenth century. He was admirably fitted to fill the editorial chair of a yellow journal in which strength, rather than accuracy, of statement is the desidera- tum. The wealth of his denunciatory vocabulary was a wasted asset during his time ; but for party purposes at the present day, it would have possessed considerable value. And no one understood better than he did the uses of advertisement. " I sent an account of our rejoicings," he writes, with reference to the marriage of Sir James Grant's son, " that a paragraph may be put in the prints ; otherways we loose our labour? 3 Chambers gives several instances of these " puffs " (all paid for) which, in point of artfulness, are not to be beaten by the most accomplished paragraphists of to-day. 4 This combination in Lovat's character of mediaevalism and modernism affords 1 Hill Burton states (Lovat, p. 250) that his people were "grieved and dis- mayed" by his death; and that one of his clansmen was called " Bairdie," because, in token of his attachment to his chief, he had never allowed his beard to be cut. 2 In one such instance, he quaintly pleaded that the debtor (Bailie Stewart of Inverness) was no more able to pay (Macleod of Cadboll) than " eat the Castle of Inverness" (Collection of papers in Lovat Cases). There is a curious case of an abduction of the daughter of another Inverness Bailie (William Fraser), in which Lovat figures as the\dtus ex machind. But he was an expert in abductions (Fraser-Mackintosh, Antiq. Notes (2nd Series), pp. 93-95). 3 Chiefs of Grant, vol. ii. p. 338. * Domestic Annals of Scotland, pp. 552-554. 352 SIMON FRASER a further illustration of the fact, that he linked the most practical methods to the most pronounced obscurantism. Simon Fraser had a weakness for composing glowing epitaphs, in which his own merits always found a place. In this, as in other ways, he betrayed his passion for posthumous fame. He has secured not fame, but infamy. Yet, with his character set in its true perspective, there is room for belief that the judgment of posterity may be modified. He told his friends that he had made a codicil to his will, by which all the pipers from John o' Groats to Edinburgh were invited to play before his corpse ; and they were to have a handsome allowance. He was sure that the old women in his country would sing a coronach before him. "And then, there will be odd crying and clapping of hands, for I am one of the greatest chiefs in the Highlands." x That was the sort of memorial he desired ; more honourable, in his view, than interment in West- minster Abbey. He omitted to make formal provision for his epitaph, though he may have hoped that his celebrated quotation from Horace would serve that purpose. A short, simple epitaph, threadbare with use, but true to-day as it was true a century and a half ago, may be justly suggested by the moralist as the most appropriate for inscription. And it is this : " Honesty is the best policy." Simon Fraser discovered its truth, when too late to apply its teaching. 1 Scots Mag. (1747), p. 155. INDEX Abertarff, 299 Act of Peace and War, ill Act of Security, Scottish, in Aird country, 8 Alberoni, Cardinal, and the rising of 1719, 280 Angouleme, Castle of, Lovat con- fined there, 189 Annandale, Marquis of, 49 ; and Lovat at Dumfries, 238 Anne, Queen, and Queensberry, 115 Appin. See Stewart, Robert. Argyll, Duke of. See Campbell. Atholl, Duke of. See Murray. Atholl, Marquis of. See Murray. Atterbury, Bishop, 310 Aylesbury, Lord, virulent against Lovat, 170 Barisdale. See Macdonald. Beaufort, Simon of. See Fraser, Simon, Lord Lovat. Beaufort, Thomas of. See Fraser, Thomas. Beauly, Priory of, 8 ; valley of the, 8 Bentham, Dr., 180 Berwick, Duke of, 74, 94 ; advises the arrest of Lovat, 183 ; refuses to go to Scotland, 232 "Black Watch," the 42nd Regiment formed, 288, 309». Bolingbroke, Viscount, goes over to the Stuarts, 225 ; and the Cheva- lier, 245 ; his dismissal, 273 Bourges, Lovat at, 186 Breadalbane, Earl of, 127 Brodie of Brodie, Lyon King of Arms, his quarrel with Lovat, 307 "Brown" and a proposed rising in 1727, 310 Buchan, General, 12 Bulkeley, Lady Sophia, 88 Cadogan, General, succeeds Argyll as Commander-in-Chief in Scot- land, 261 Callieres, Marquis de, 91 ; letter to Hooke, 190 Cameron, Lieut. Allan, 129 Cameron, Donald, "the Gentle Lochiel," his character, 322 Cameron, Sir Ewen, of Lochiel, 93 ; and Lovat, 117 Cameron, Mary, and Simon Fraser, 58 ; her son Alexander, 58 Campbell of Calder, 29 Campbell of Craignish, 309 Campbell, Archibald, first Duke of Argyll, 37 ; takes Lovat under his patronage, 39 ; goes with Lovat to London, 44 ; out of favour at Court, 55 ; dies at Chirton, 55 Campbell, Archibald, Earl of Hay, and third Duke of Argyll, 21 1 ; and James Fraser, 223, 224 ; Lovat's patron • in - chief, 294 ; interview with Lovat in Edinburgh, 313 Campbell, Lieut. Colin, of Glen- daruel, 118, 131 ; betrays Lovat, 149 ; made a major-general by the Chevalier, 285 2 A 354 INDEX Campbell, Sir Duncan, 310 Campbell, John, 2nd Duke of Argyll, and Lovat, 1 18 ; helps Lovat, 239 ; interview with Lovat in Edin- burgh, 313 Campbell, Primrose, Lovat's second wife, 296 ; her character, 305 Caryll, Lord, 74 Carstares, "Cardinal," 39; induces King William to pardon Lovat, 42 Charles Edward, Prince, lands in the Outer Hebrides, 318; meets Lovat, 331 Chevis, Robert, of Muirtown, 283 Chisholm of Knockford, 283 Clanranald. See Macdonald. Clarke, Thomas, an apothecary, Lovat's landlord, 135 ; arrested, 145 Clement XL, Pope, sends money to the Duke of Hamilton, 134 Clerk, Sir John, on Lovat in his old age, 318 ; on the Highland leaders of 1745, 321 Cockburn, Adam, Lord Ormiston, 294 Colbert of Castlehill, 29 Cope, Sir John, 323 ; at Preston- pans, 324 Corbett, Robert, Provost of Dum- fries, and Lovat, 238 Cor busier, John, 141 Cromartie, George, first Earl of, 54 Cromartie, John, second Earl of, 263, 292 Cromartie, George, third Earl of, and the rising of 1 745, 322 Crouly, Lady Ann, 175 Culloden, battle of, 329 Cumberland, Duke of, and Culloden, 329 ; desirous to meet Lovat, 330 ; on Lovat's capture, 332 Cumming, Dr. Patrick, 343 Cuthbert, John, of Castlehill, and Lovat, 289 Dalrymple, Sir David, Lord Advocate, reports on Lovat, 235 Darien Scheme, 47 De Crillon, Bishop of Vence, and Lovat, 207 De Forbin, in command of invading expedition, 198 Downie, Castle, daily life at, 301 Drummond, Lord John, son of the first Duke of Perth, 90, 171, 312 ; letter in praise of Lovat, 1 79 ; opinion of Middleton, 180; at- tempts to surprise Edinburgh Castle, 248 Drummond (or Macgregor), William, of Balhaldies, 312 ; and Lovat, 316 ; his obituary notice on Lovat, 344«. Dumfries, Lovat at, 238 Dunbar, Archibald, of Thunderton, suit against Lovat, 277 Dunn, Lord, 294 Dunvegan Castle, 32 Errol, Countess of, 88 ; opinion of Lovat, 193 Erskine, Charles, Solicitor-General, afterwards Lord Tinwald, 294 Erskine, James. See Grange, Lord. Erskine, John. See Mar, Earl of. Farrell, an Irish priest, 183 Fawkener, Sir Everard, 33l«. ; re- ceives a letter from Lovat, 334 Ferguson, James, the astronomer, at Castle Downie, 301 Ferguson, Major-General, 153 Ferguson, Robert, the plotter, 101 ; tries to worm secrets out of Lovat, 131 ; his information obtained from Clarke, 148 Fletcher, Andrew, Lord Milton, 292 ; a legal friend of Lovat's, 294 j letter from Lovat, 308 Forbes, Duncan, of Culloden, 243 ; and Lovat, 275, 292 ; he and Lovat fast friends, 311; believes that Lovat will adhere to the Govern- ment, 319 ; attempt to capture him, 324 ; correspondence with Lovat, 327 ; plea for clemency to the rebels, 330 INDEX 355 Forbes, John, of Culloden, 240 Fortrose, Lord, his quarrel with Lovat, 317 Fox, Frances, 101 ; employed by Lord Middleton, 102 ; and Lovat, 102 Fraser of Foyers, 311 ; attempts to capture the Lord President, 324 Fraser of Gortuleg, 320 Fraser of Tenechiel, 17 Fraser, Alexander, his career, 4 Fraser, Alexander, an Inverness mer- chant, and Lovat, 300 Fraser, Alexander, of Phopachy, 211 ; dispute with Lovat, 289 Fraser, Alexander, Lovat's second son, 304; his death, 321^. Fraser, Amelia, daughter of Hugh Lord Lovat, 6 ; heiress to the estates, 17; marries Alexander, son of Roderick Mackenzie, 113 Fxaser, Sir Andrew, 2 Fraser, Donald, tutor to Lovat's sons, 3°4 Fraser, Major George, his memorial in Lovat's favour, 164 ; killed at Lerida, 210 Fraser, Hugh, first Lord Fraser of Lovat, 3 Fraser Hugh, ninth Lord Fraser of Lovat, 3 Fraser, Hugh, eleventh Lord Fraser of Lovat, 5 ; goes to London, 14 ; his death, 15 Fraser, Major James, of Castle Leather, 210, 211 ; his adventures on the way to Saumur, 212 ; goes to Versailles and St. Germain, 215 ; received by Mary of Modena, 215 ; interview with the Chevalier, 216 ; and the Duke of Lorraine, 217 ; leaves Saumur with Lovat, 219; returns, 220 ; goes to England with Lovat, 221 ; in London, 222 ; goes to Scotland to get signatures to a petition for Lovat's pardon, 223 ; goes to Scotland with Lovat, 237 ; and Lord Saltoun, 241 ; quarrels with Lovat, 290 ; manager of the Lovat property for the Government, 291 Fraser, John, goes to France with his brother, Lovat, 165 ; removes to Saumur with Lovat, 200 ; goes to Scotland in his brother's interests, 207, 211 ; doings in Scotland, 211 ; joins his brother in London, 224 ; his death, 265 Fraser, Robert, Lovat's secretary, one of the chief witnesses against him, 333 Fraser, Sir Simon, High Sheriff of Tweeddale, 2 ; companion of Wallace, 2 ; first of the Frasers of Lovat, 3 Fraser, Simon, Lord Lovat, his ancestors, I ; his birth and par- entage, 3 ; enters Aberdeen University, 4; a diligent student, 6 ; description of the Lovat pro- perty, 7 ; becomes a lieutenant in the Grenadiers, 1 3 ; his father assumes the title of Lord Lovat, 15 ; tried for high treason, 16 ; captures Lord Saltoun and his party, 22 ; marries the Dowager Lady Lovat, 25 ; his wife kept a prisoner by her father, the Marquis of Atholl, 30 ; attempts to capture him and flight to Skye, 32 ; death of his father, 33 ; forfeiture of the Frasers, 34 ; the Marquis of Atholl attempts his capture, 35 ; the Duke of Argyll his friend, 37 ; goes to St. Germain, 41 ; visits William III. at Loo, 42; returns to Scot- land, 42 ; goes with Argyll to London, 44 ; his marriage dis- solved, 45 ; willing to sell his services to the highest bidder, 45 ; his finances at a low ebb, 49 ; in the Highlands, 50 ; denounced as a rebel, 51 ; proclaims the Chevalier King, 52 ; returns to London, 54 ; his portrait by Hogarth, 57, 333 ; liaison with Mary Cameron, 58 ; letters from Lucy Jones to him, 356 INDEX 59 ; his fits of despondency, 67 ; arrives in Paris in 1702, 71 ; in opposition to Middleton, 77 ; becomes a Roman Catholic, 80 ; introduced to Mary of Modena, 88 ; received by Louis XIV., 92 ; his scheme for an invasion, 93 ; preparations postponed, 96 ; his mission to Scotland, 100 ; corre- spondence with Mrs. Fox, 102 ; arrives in London, 105 ; adven- ture at Durham, 106 ; interview with Queensberry, 113; his move- ments in Scotland, 117; returns to London, 129 ; his visits to Queensberry, 132 ; flies from Lon- don to Holland, 138 ; at Rotter- dam, 140 ; letters to Glendaruel, 143 ; betrayed by his friends, 145 ; arrives in Paris, 155 ; Middleton the cause of his ruin, 155; Col. Nathaniel Hooke his staunch friend, 166; treachery of his friends in London, 171 ; pays court to the daughter of the Duke of Melfort, 1 74 ; negotiations fall through, 1 76 ; proposed marriage with Miss Gordon O'Neill, 176 ; character vilified by Middleton, 180 ; sends an angry letter to Mary of Modena, 182 ; intrigues against him, 183 ; exiled to Bourges, 186 ; his doings there, 187 ; removed to the Castle of Angouleme, 189 ; removed to Saumur, 190 ; turns to the Church for help, 206 ; sends his brother John to Scotland, 207 ; visited by Major James Fraser, 210 ; leaves Saumur with the intention of meet- ing King George, 219 ; returns to dispose of his effects, 220 ; lands at Dover, 221 ; in London, 222 ; a warrant issued for his arrest, 224 ; attempts to obtain a pardon from the Government for him, 235 ; starts for Scotland, 237 ; adven- tures by the way, 238 ; visits the Duke of Argyll, 239 ; meets his clansmen, 243 ; his account of the capture of Inverness, 249 ; prepares a plan of campaign against Sea- forth, 253 ; efforts made to bring him over to the Jacobites, 256 ; his great influence in the North, 257 ; recognition of his services to the Crown, 261 ; his suggestions for pacifying the Highlands, 262 ; correspondence with the Countess of Seaforth, 263 ; granted a full pardon in 1716,264; visits London, 265 ; the escheats gifted to him, 266 ; honour conferred on him, 267 ; quarrels with the Earl of Sutherland, 268 ; correspondence with Alexander Fraser, 269 ; inter- rupted duel with Sir William Gordon, 270 ; marries Margaret Grant of Grant, 27 I; in great favour at Court in 1717, 275 ; has numerous lawsuits, 276 ; dangerously ill in London, 278 ; sends an incriminating letter to Seaforth, 283 ; letter to Gual- terio, 284 ; the Chevalier makes him a major-general, 285 ; assists General Wade in the Highlands, 286 ; troubles with his leading clansmen, 288 ; dispute with Alexander Fraser of Phopachy, 289 ; quarrels with Major Fraser, 290 ; and the Lovat Peerage case, 291 ; his legal friends, 294 ; marries Primrose, daughter of John Campbell of Mamore, 296 ; and the abduction of Lady Grange, 297 ; Sheriff of Inverness, 298 ; a good business man, 300 ; account of the daily life at Castle Downie, 301 ; letters to his son's tutor, 304 ; separates from his wife, 305 j his cruelties to her, 306 ; goes to Edinburgh, 307 ; reconciled to Duncan Forbes in 1732, 308 ; deprived of his company in 1 739, 309 ; in close communication with the Chevalier, 311 ; interviews INDEX 357 with Argyll and Hay, 313; boon companion of Lord Grange, 314; his remarkable vigour, 315 ; made a duke by the Chevalier, 316; pugnacious in his old age, 317 ; his behaviour during the rising in 1745, 318; vacillating conduct in 1745, 322 ; correspondence with Lord Loudoun and Culloden, 327 ; arrested by Lord Loudoun, 328 ; his estate ravaged, 330 ; carried to the west coast, 331 ; taken prisoner by Captain Millar, 332 ; Hogarth paints his portrait, 333 ; a pathetic figure at the bar of the House of Lords, 334 ; his execution, 335 ; buried at Kirkhill, 337 ; delineation of his character, 339- 352 Fraser, Simon, Lovat's eldest son, 304; in the 1745 rising, 326 ; his career and death, 329//. ; and his father, 328 Fraser, Thomas, of Beaufort, 3 ; as- sumes the title of Lord Lovat, 15 ; dies at Dunvegan Castle, 33 Fraser, Captain Thomas, 106 Frasers, the, 1 Frezeliere, Marquis de la, and Lovat, 201 ; thrown into the Bastille, 202 ; serves with distinction at Lille and Malplaquet, 203 ; his death, 205 Krisales, or Frisels, the, 1 < ■-LAUSMUIR. See Prestonpans. Glengarry. See Macdonald. Glenshiel, action at, 281 Godolphin, Lord, 71 Gordon, 1st Duke of, refuses to see Lovat, 123 ; his cautious attitude towards the Jacobites, 194 Gordon, 2nd Duke of. See Hunlly, Marquis of. Gordon of Glenbucket, and Lovat, 252 Gordon, Sir William, interrupted duel with Lovat, 270 Granard, Lord, 184 Grange, Lady, her abduction, 297 Grange, Lord , 294 ; his character, 295 ; in the plot to abduct his wife, 297 ; he and Lovat boon companions, 314 Grant, Mrs., of Laggan, 301 ; her account of Lovat's career, 303 Grant, Sir James, 307 Grant, Margaret, her marriage with Lovat, 271 Gualterio, Papal Nuncio, 82 ; and Lovat, 91 j a bulwark of the Stuart cause, 2097/. ; remarkable letter from Lovat to, 347 Hamilton, Anthony, 87 Hamilton, Duke of, head of the Nationalists in Scotland, 96 ; hand- in-glove with the exiled Court 133 ; receives money from Pope Clement XL, 134 ; no trust in Hooke, 194. ; his death, 206 Higgons, Sir Thomas, Jacobite Secre- tary of State, 215 Highlands, pensioning the chiefs of, 124; condition of, 125 Hill, Colonel, 28 Hogarth, William, and Lovat's por- trait, 57, 333 Hooke, Colonel Nathaniel, his career, 166; mission in 1705 a failure, 194; renewed attempt in 1707 also fails, 195 ; sent to Scotland, 196 Houstoun, Alexander, 70 Hunter, Fiances, 73 Huntly, Marquis of (son of the 1st Duke of Gordon), one of the leading Jacobites, 253 ; attempts to bring Lovat over to the Jacobites, 256 ; his submission, 260 Lay, EAR]. OF. See CAMPBELL, Archibald. Independent Companies formed, 262 ; their usefulness, 287 ; re-organized by General Wade, 2S8 ; formed into the 42nd Regiment, 309?/. Innes, Father, the Queen's Almoner, 2«5 2 A 2 358 INDEX Inverness, captured by the Whig chiefs, 249 "Jacobite Association," the, 312 Jacobites, Council of, at Drummond Castle, 127 James II., King, and Lovat, 41 ; his death, 52 James Francis Edward Stuart, the old Chevalier, 84 ; with invading force of 1708, 199 ; and Major James Fraser, 216; and his sup- porters, 226 ; makes preparations to cross the Channel, 231 ; breach be- tween him and the Duke of Ber- wick ; 246 ; proclaimed at Inver- ness, 248 ; courts Lovat, 257 ; his character, 258 ; dismisses Boling- broke, 273 ; writes to Lovat, 310//. Jones, Lucy, and Simon Fraser, 58 ; her letters to him, 59. Keith, George, the Enrl Marischal, and the rising of 17 19, 280 Keith, Field-Marshal James, 283 Keith, William, 131 ; confession, 149 Ker of Kersland, 197, 274 Kinlochmoidart. See Macdonald. Kirkhill, Lord Lovat buried at, 337 Leven, Eare of, and Lovat, 118; threatened with an attack in Par- liament, 191 ; sends Lovat's letters to St. Germain, 205, 207 Lindsay, David, his evidence, 149 Lochiel. See Cameron, Donald ; Cameron, Sir Ewen. Lorraine, Duke of, and James Fraser, 217 Loudoun, Lord, correspondence with Lovat, 327 ; arrests Lovat, 328 Louis XIV., King of France, his generosity to James II. and Mary of Modena, 76 ; receives Lovat, 92 ; scheme to invade Scotland, 94 ; postpones the invasion of Scotland, 96 : consents to send Lovat out of Paris, 185 ; orders Lovat to be confined in the Castle of Angouleme, 189; agrees to a plan of invasion, 198 ; his death, 245 Lovat, Dowager Lady, and Lord Saltoun, 21 ; marries Simon Fraser, 25 ; anger of her friends, 27 ; goes to Castle Downie, 29 ; kept by her father in solitary con- finement, 30 ; her marriage dis- solved, 45 ; denounces Lovat at the market cross of Edinburgh, 51 Lovat Peerage case, 291 Macdonald of Barisdale, 322 Macdonald of Clanranald, 123, 184; lands with arms, 275 Macdonald of Glengarry, 123, 184, 2 75 ; good reputation as a soldier, 247 Macdonald of Kinlochmoidart, 322 Macdonald, Sir Alexander, of Sleat, 323 Macdonald, Sir Donald, of Sleat, 93 ; driven from Skye, 275 Macgregor, Rob Roy, 117, 282 Macgregory, J., the spy, 233 Mackenzie, Alexander, of Fraserdale, procures a warrant to arrest Lovat's brother, 21 1 ; surrenders and is tried at Carlisle, 266 Mackenzie, Frances. See Seaforth, Countess of. Mackenzie, George, first and third Earls of Cromartie. See Cromartie, Earls of. Mackenzie, Hugh, claimant to the Lovat estates, 291 Mackenzie, John, second Earl of Cro- martie. See Cromartie, Earl of. Mackenzie, Sir John, of Coul, Governor of Inverness, 250 Mackenzie, William, fifth Earl of Seaforth. See Seaforth. Mackenzies, the, in the risings, 254 ; their adhesion to the Stuart cause, 323« • INDEX 359 Mackintosh, Brigadier, proclaims the Chevalier at Inverness, 248 Maclean, Sir Alexander, his career, 75 ; relations between him and Lovat, 178, 246M. Maclean, Sir John, 41 ; his career, 74 ; letters to Lovat, 85 ; friend- ship for Lovat, 89 ; surrenders to the authorities, 138 ; makes dis- closures to the Government, 146 Maclean, Lady Mary, wife of Sir John Maclean, 75 Macleod, Donald, ex-sergeant, and Lovat, 302 Macleod, Lord, in the " I745, r ' 323 Macleod, Captain Neil, 118, 145 Macleods, the, 323;/. McLoghlan, Brother B., letter to Lovat, 81 Macpherson, Ewen, of Cluny, 307 ; Murray of Broughton's opinion of, 322 Maintenon, Madame de, 91 Mar, John Erskine, eleventh Earl of, 230 ; unfurls the standard of rebellion at Braemar, 231 ; his generalship, 247 ; leaves Scotland with the Chevalier, 258 Marlborough, Duke of, and St. Germain, 227 Mary of Modena, wife of James II., 75 j her Court, 86 ; her two main objects, 88 ; and Lovat, 91 j letter to the Duke of Atholl, 121 ; letter to Lovat, 156 ; letter from Lovat gives her great offence, 182 ; her death a sad blow to the Jacobites, 279 Maxwell, Father, 72 Melfort, Earl (afterwards Duke) of, in disgrace, 74 ; a bigoted Roman Catholic, 78 ; Lovat's pro- posed marriage with his daughter, »74 Melfort, Lady, 88 Middleton, Earl of, Secretary of State, 73 ; and the Earl of Perth, 74 ; his religious views, 78 ; be- comes a Roman Catholic, 79 ; and Lovat's scheme to invade Scotland, 95 ; letter to Lovat, 156 ; Lovat's deadly enemy, 158 ; professes to be Lovat's friend, 159 ; hatred of Lovat, 180 ; triumph of his faction at St. Germain, 181 Millar, Captain, captures Lovat, 332 Milton, Lord. See Fletcher, Andrew. Muir Laggan, gathering of chiefs at, 331 Munro, Rev. Robert, 25 Murray, Lady Amelia, 5 Murray, Lord George, at the action of Glenshiel, 281-2 Murray, Lord James (son of the Mar- quis of Atholl), attempts to capture Simon Fraser, 27 ; takes his sister the Dowager Lady Lovat to Castle Downie, 30 ; ravages the Fraser country, 32 ; attempts to capture Simon Fraser, 35 ; obliged to sur- render, 36 Murray, James (Stanhope family), 97, 1 19 ; mission to the Highlands, 130; and the Pope's money, 134 ; arrives at St. Germain, 169 Murray, John (Abercairney family), 99. ic>5> *o6 ; at the Jacobite Council, 127; his testimony to Lovat's good faith, 163 ; report that he was assassinated, 183 ; arrives at St. Germain, 184 ; in great favour at St. Germain, 193 Murray, John, of Broughton, on the Highland chiefs, 322 ; betrays Lovat, 316 ; chief witness against Lovat, 333 Murray, John, Marquis of Atholl, II ; his attempts to crush young Beau- fort, 20 ; resents the outrage on Lord Saltoun, 23 ; attempts to cap- ture Simon Fraser, 35 ; pursues him for outrage on his daughter, 43 ; persecutes his witnesses, 45 Murray, John, Earl of Tullibardine, afterwards first Duke of Atholl, II, 15 : enmity to Simon Fraser, 16; 360 INDEX determines to punish him, 27 ; out of favour at Court, 50 ; attempts to seize Lovat, 63 ; Mary of Modena's letter to, 121 ; and St. Germain, 227 ; declines to lead the insurgents in 17 15, 228 ; a power in the Central Highlands, 229 ; and the rising of 17 15, 276 Murray, Lord Mungo (son of the Marquis of Atholl), 21, 27 ; cap- tured by Simon Fraser, 36 Murray, William, Marquis of Tulli- bardine, son of John, first Duke of Atholl, and the rising of 17 19, 280 ; at Glenshiel, 282 Noaiixes, Cardinal de, 91, 180 Ogilvy, Captain John, 193 Oliphant, Patrick, his evidence, 149 O'Neill, Colonel Gordon, negotiations for the marriage of his daughter; with Lovat, 176 Ormiston, Lord. See Cockburn, Adam. Ormonde, Duke of, goes over to the Stuarts, 225 ; proposal to land in the West of England, 246 Pensions paid to the Highlanders, 230 Perth, first Duke of, 41, 73 ; and Middleton, 74 ; letter from Lovat, 165 ; and Major James Fraser, 215 Pouget, Abbe, 206 Piestonpans, 324 QuEENSBERRY,DuiCEOF,Secretaryfor Scotland, 56; as a statesman, 112; and Simon Fraser, 113; and Queen Anne, 115; sends a pass for Lovat, 117; imposed upon by Lovat, 118; visited by Lovat several times, 132 ; strong feeling against him in Scot- land, 151 ; transactions with Lovat, 161 " Queensberry Plot," the, 10S Ramsay, Major-General, 49 Rattray, Brigadier, arrives with arms at Wester Ross, 260 Reay, Lord, 256 Richmond, Duke of, 330 Rising attempted in 1708, 198 ; a failure, 199 ; of 1715, 231 ; of 1719, 279; in 1725 proposed, 310 ; in 1727 proposed, 310; of 1741;, 318 Robertson of Struan, 322 Roche Millaye, Countess de la, and Lovat, 206 Rose of Kilravock, 29 ; and Lovat, 3'7 Rouen, Highland refugees at, 274 St. George, Chevalier de. See James Francis Edward Stuart. St. Germain, members of the Council at, 74 ; vacillating policy, 182 Saltoun, Lord, 20 ; visits the Dowager Lady Lovat, 21 ; surrenders to Simon Fraser, 22 ; released, 23 Saumur, Lovat confined at, 189, 200 Saunders, Father, 171 "Scottish Conspiracy," the, 108; quietly buried, 192 Seaforth, Countess of, and Lovat, 263 Seaforth, William, Earl of, an ardent Jacobite, 248 ; his submission, 254 ; driven from Lewis, 275 ; and the rising of 17 19, 280; and an in- criminating letter from Lovat, 283 ; pardoned in 1 726, 288 ; breaks with the Chevalier, 310 Sheriffmuir, battle of, 252 Sinclair, a naval officer in the Spanish service, 310 Sleat. See Macdonald. Stair, Lord, on Bolingbroke's dis- grace, 273 Stewart, Sir James, 49 Stewart, Robert, of Appin, 93, 163, 184 j Lo vat's host, 117 INDEX 361 Stratherrick, 7 Stuart, Colonel John Roy, 312, 322 Sutherland, John, sixteenth Earl of, 235 ; his help to Lovat, 237 ; quarrel with Lovat, 268 Tarbat, Lord. See Cromartie, first Earl of. Teviot, Lord, 49 Tinwald, Lord. See Erskine, Charles. Torcy, Marquis de, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 83 ; and Lovat, 91 Traquair, Earl of, 312 Tullibardine, Earl of. See Murray, John, afterwards first Duke of Atholl. Tullibardine, Marquis of. See Murray, William. Tyrconnel, Duchess of, 87 Union, Treaty of, 196 Vauban, Marshal de, 94 Villars, Marshal of France, 94 Wade, General, sent to the High- lands, 286 ; as a road-maker in the Highlands, 288 ; re-organizes the Independent Companies, 288 Wharton, Duke of, reported duel with Lovat, 2967/. Wightman, Major-General, at Inver- ness, 256 ; at the Glenshiel action, 281 William III., King, orders a pardon to be drawn up for Lovat, 41 ; visited by Lovat at Loo, 42 ; his death, 51 Williamson, General, Governor of the Tower, 334 THE END PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY -M5 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 305 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 - Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. o a \M w i\ THE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 1 LOS / ?q X UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 394 288 5