FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[A]"Love" here means the Chief.

[A]"Love" here means the Chief.

[The conductors of theCeltic Magazinein their prospectus, and in their first number, state that "they will at all times be ready to receive contributions from both sides on any question connected with the Highlands, and of interest to Highlanders." In whatever light the subject of the following remarks may be viewed, it will readily be admitted that it has an interest for Highlanders sufficient to entitle it to temperate discussion in these pages]:—

TheGame Laws in Scotland, as our readers are aware, consist chiefly of various statutes designed to secure to landed proprietors what the common law, while it leaves them without the means of effectually securing, declares them entitled to, the exclusive possession and use of their land. The common law maxim, that an owner is entitled to the sole enjoyment of his own ground, the legislature has practically given effect to from time to time by passing various enactments pointing to that end. These somewhat numerous statutes are almost identical in effect in the three kingdoms, to which some of them extend; nor does the common law throughout materially vary. It is not our intention, however, to emulate Sir Roger de Coverley, whose explanations of the Game Acts used to gain great applause at quarter sessions, by entering upon a minute analysis of them here. We mean to confine ourselves simply to a critical examination of the various attacks to which they have been subjected, and an endeavour to make a brief and impartial survey of their effect on the prosperity of the Highlands.

In entering upon the consideration of adverse criticisms, we find that they are easily resolved into two classes:—First, there are those as to what opponents term the unnecessary severity and injurious influence of the Game Laws upon poachers; and secondly, the injury indirectly effected by them upon tenant-farmers, agricultural and pastoral.

Sympathy for the poacher is frequently proclaimed by anti-game law agitators. They will tell you that the disposition to pursue game is inherent in human nature; that the indulgence of this irrepressible propensity ought to be regarded with a lenient eye: that game cannot be identified as property, and that the man who takes it should not be considered or treated as a thief; dilating the while on the sad misfortunes that an occasional lapse into the fields in search of a hare or a rabbit may bring upon an agricultural labourer and his family, ultimately it may be involving them in ruin. These arguments, however, though at first sight appearing to have some foundation in reason, do not satisfactorily stand the test of serious scrutiny. They are such as could be brought to bear for what they are worth against the operation of almost all repressive laws in the kingdom. Smuggling, for instance, is not generally looked upon as a breach of the moral law, nor does it present itself to common eyes in an odious light; yet it is a crime punishable by penal laws for the sakeof increasing revenue. The man who takes his own agricultural produce and converts it into a wholesome and refreshing beverage for his own domestic use is liable to a very much heavier penalty than he who steps on to his neighbour's property and puts out his hands to take what he has neither laboured for nor purchased. In the one case we can imagine an honest industrious labourer, actuated only by a desire for the comfort of himself and his family, manufacturing his own goods into nourishing and sustaining ale, heavily punished for his untaxed enjoyment of the bounties of Providence; whereas, in the other case, the poacher, as a rule, is a person with a turn for idleness, an aversion to all honest and steady labour, and a taste for luxurious indulgences above his means, who persists in illegally invading another's property in the pursuit and seizure of its produce.

This character is specially applicable to the poaching class in the Highlands. Any one familiar with prosecutions in poaching cases there must see that the offenders brought up for trial form a limited list of mean-spirited cringing creatures, upon whom any sort of sympathy would be sadly thrown away, whose faces are well known to the procurator-fiscal as they appear in rather regular succession in the dock. It may be said that almost nine poaching prosecutions out of ten are instituted against old and habitual offenders, who calculate, like blockade runners, that a few successful raids will enable them cheerfully to pay the fines inflicted on the occasions of their capture. As deer-stalking and grouse shooting, to be effective, require day-light, and pheasant breeding is the exception not the rule in the north, cases of night poaching, the worst and most severely punishable, are of unfrequent occurrence, while fines of two pounds, the highest that can be inflicted for day poaching, in the most aggravated cases, is not heavy enough even when coupled with costs to make habitual and systematic poaching an altogether unprofitable occupation. We have no difficulty therefore in saying that the Game Laws do not press with undue severity upon the labouring classes in the Highlands, by whom, on the whole, poaching is now an offence rarely committed; and we believe that in saying so we express the opinion of those classes themselves. Any complaints that have been made have not proceeded from them but from third parties who have endeavoured to range themselves as pretended friends to compass their own ends. There is just one direction in which we might hint that improvement is possible. We would wish to see a sliding scale of fines legalised, by which lighter penalties would be exigible for first offences and repeated transgressions less leniently punishable than at present.

We have now to consider that more vexed and intricate portion of our subject, the operation of the Game Laws upon the position of the tenant-farmer. This we have stated to be indirect, because, in reality, many of the results complained of might be continued in existence independently of the operations of these laws. The points at issue between landlord and tenant, over which such torrents of discussion have been poured, are really questions of contract been individuals, which could and would arise, were the Game Laws abolished. But as complaints are coupled with ademand for the abolition of these laws as a panacea, we cannot avoid briefly examining their relation to the interests of agriculture. Whether owing to bucolic trust in the friendly intentions of a Conservative Government, or to hopelessness of there being any advantages derivable therefrom, it is worthy of observation that the recent agitation on this question, as well as on the kindred subjects of unexhausted improvements and hypothec denominated by Mr Hope in his observations in "Recess Studies," "Hindrances to Agriculture," have now entered upon a quiescent phase. A few years ago an agricultural dinner was no sooner eaten by the assembled agriculturists than the Game Laws were tabled with the toddy, and both hotly, and in some cases ably discussed. But a change for the better is now noticeable in the atmosphere of Cattle Club Meetings and Wool Fair dinners whereat the voices of game preservers may even be heard amid applause. Monotony was the rock on which the agitation was in danger of being shipwrecked, and as the results did not appear to be commensurate to the labour, as the stone seemed to be rolled up the hill in vain, so far as concerned the passing of any favourable parliamentary measure, swords have again been turned into more useful ploughshares, and spears into less ornamental pruning hooks. The opportunity is therefore not an unfavourable one for a calm survey of the situation.

It is a well-known principle in jurisprudence that a contract between two parties capable of contracting in respect to a subject matter known to both, if adhered to by either, is inviolably binding; and with the free action of this principle as between parties, except in a matter of life and death, the legislature always has had, and we confidently believe, always will have a delicacy in interfering. If there is no vital principle, or specialty in a contract between landlord and tenant in regard to an heritable subject, such as an arable farm, that necessarily takes it out of the list of ordinary contracts, no Government would seriously entertain or assist the passing of a measure for imposing fetters upon one of the parties to that contract, exceptional legislation to obtain an advantage for the lessee to the detriment of the lessor. Are there then such specialties? Tenant-farmers allege (1) that land is not an ordinary subject of contract owing to the extent being limited, and is a possession the owners of which stand in the relation merely of national trustees, bound to administer in the way most beneficial to the people; (2), that tenants are not capable of contracting on equal terms with their landlords, and that the weaker party should receive legislative protection in the shape of an inalienable right to ground game; and (3), that in being compelled to sign game preservation clauses, the subject matter of that part of their agreement is one the full extent of which must, from its nature, be unknown to them. To this reply is made—(1), That the possession of land is no more a monopoly than the possession of cattle or any other commodity, that is continually in the market and sold to the highest bidder; that the fact of the supply being limited, and necessarily in the hands of the few, in comparison with the many who wish to use it, is no reason why exceptional restrictions should be placed on its being let out for hire, but rather the reverse; as well might the possessors of money, who are few in comparison with those who wish to borrow it, bestatutorily bound to lend it out at less than it would otherwise bring; and that those who invest money in land, having no contract with the State, cannot be interfered with by the State in the management of it in the way they believe most advantageous to themselves; (2), that farmers as a rule, and particularly those who make the greatest noise about the Game Laws, are quite capable of attending to their own interests in any contract with proprietors as to leasing of land; that if they are glad to obtain it on the proprietors' terms, that is occasioned by the legitimate operation of the laws of supply and demand, which equally affect all other contracts; and that to give them an inalienable right to ground game, which they would immediately convert into money value by sub-letting, would simply amount to confiscation of part of the enjoyment of property, and in effect amount to depriving proprietors of a considerable part of the equivalent for which they gave their money; and (3), that when a tenant makes an acceptable offer for a farm, he does so after the fullest investigation as to its capabilities and disadvantages, and with a good knowledge of the amount of game on the ground, and the damage likely to be occasioned thereby; and, as thus, the amount of rent offered is fixed by him after all these points have received due consideration at his hands, he is precluded from afterwards crying out against the one-sidedness of his contract. It will thus be seen that there is just as much to be said on the one side as the other; and clamour notwithstanding, we believe, the day is still distant when the legislature will step in to interfere with free contract between landlord and tenant, by laying down conditions which even both parties with their eyes open, and of mutual consent, will not be allowed to alter. In other words, in an age when the cry is for freedom from all special advantages to owners of land, such as hypothec and entail, so as to place it on an open footing with all other subjects, it would be strange, indeed, were exceptional legislation required for the lessees of land to give them the special advantages which the spirit of the age denied to their landlords. Are we to have landlord right levelled down while tenant right is to be levelled up? We have yet to see it. It cannot, however, in fairness be denied that there are certain circumstances in which the tenants' third complaint above-mentioned is just and reasonable. While a tenant is strictly tied down under the conditions of his lease to a certain rotation of cropping, and various other regulations regarding his use of the land, the proprietor is left practically unfettered as to the extent of increase of game that he may allow to take place. Immunity in such an event is secured to the latter, either by a clause to that effect in the lease or by the prudent reluctance of the tenant to pursue his landlord through court after court in the knowledge that even the extra-judicial expense of such procedure would quickly amount to more than the ultimate damages awarded, if awarded at all, and that the feelings engendered by the contest would stand in the way of a renewal at the expiry of the lease. There is here, undoubtedly, a manifest hardship to the tenant, for which the legislature would be justified in passing a remedial measure. It would quite consist with the acknowledged and equitable principles of jurisprudence that cheap and speedy redress for the tenant against such uncontemplated and undue increase of game should be providedby legislative enactment. All wrongs have their remedies; but the remedy in such a case is not the giving an inalienable right to ground game to the tenant, as that would amount to a wronging of the landlord, who might wish to reserve such right at any cost of compensation to the tenant for damage really inflicted. What is desirable is, that such damage should be assessable, and the value thereof recoverable with the least possible trouble and expense to the tenant. We think that this could be most effectually secured by the statutory appointment in each county of a competent, impartial, and reliable assessor whose duty it would be to inspect and record the amount of game existing on every farm in that county at the entry of the tenant, and who would be bound at any future season on the application, either of the proprietor or of the tenant, to re-inspect that farm and report as to whether there was any appreciable increase in the stock of game thereon, and if so to issue an award and valuation of the amount of damage thereby occasioned, the amount of which the tenant would be legally entitled to deduct at payment of the next half-year's rent. The expense of this inspection, according to a fixed scale of charge, should be payable by the landlord where damages were found exigible; but, otherwise, where the tenant's claim was decided to be unfounded, the whole expense would, in equity, be payable by him to the assessor. Of course, there are objections that can be raised to the adoption of this, as of any other proposed compromise; but on a careful consideration they will not be found insuperable. Enthusiasts there are and will remain who will demand that an inalienable right to ground game be gratuitously conferred upon them. But by the great majority of agriculturalists who think temperately it is agreed that the only possible settlement of the ground game question is one of compromise. We have been credibly informed that in the counties of Forfar and Caithness, farmers, to whom the right to ground game had been made over, after short experience of the unexpected trouble and expense connected with the due keeping down of hares and rabbits, had entreated their landlords to relieve them of the burden, which they had at first unreflectingly and gladly assumed.

The damage done by game on agricultural farms in the Highlands is altogether inconsiderable in affecting the agricultural prosperity of the country. Our opinion is that if the truth were fairly told farmers would confess that where the shoe pinches is in the pressure of high rents caused by their own mutual competitions for farms, rather than the trifling damage done by game. The bringing forward of the game question has been merely the trotting out of a stalking horse. There were no complaints of game or game laws in the good old times when the rents were low. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers were rejoiced to furnish the laird with a good day's sport, in the fruits of which they generally participated. Game must have done as much harm then as now, but farmers in those days did not feel pushed to meet the rent day. They could live on a smaller income; they did not seek or require the same luxuries, and had less outlay in labour. Of course, a great deal has happened since then, but it cannot be said that for this the lairds are entirely to blame. Then to rent a farm was synonymous with making money; now it as often means losingit. With higher rents, the result of a keener demand, a farmer's profits have been sadly diminished, and he too often exerts his ingenuity in discovering grounds of deduction from a rent he feels to be burdensome. On the sound enough principle of abolishing special privileges of all kinds he can fairly advocate the abolition of hypothec, but when in the same breath he turns his back upon that principle by calling for the creation of the extraordinary privilege of an inalienable right to ground game, he asks too much and has every probability of getting too little.

There is no necessity for saying anything in reply to the attacks of a few pastoral tenants or large sheep farmers. It is now matter of history that by repeated and uncontradicted assertion a comparatively small and uninfluential sheep-farmer clique had thoroughly convinced themselves, and almost persuaded a portion of the public, that deer forests were responsible for all the misery and poverty in the Highlands, for all the cruel evictions which were carried out to make room, not for deer, but for those very farmers who made such a noise. Having succeeded in infecting some impressionable people, including not a few writers in the press who knew as little of a deer forest and its surroundings as they did of the great Sahara, there was at one time some danger of the outcry becoming general; but the report of the Parliamentary Commission so completely exposed the nakedness of the land, so thoroughly demonstrated the absence of anything like reasonable foundation for complaint, as to convince even the most extreme politician of the utter absurdity of the position assumed. The cry never did find an echo in the heart of the Highlander. He knew too well that the same justice had been meted out to him and his by the predecessors of those very farmers, as they themselves were then receiving at the hands of the wealthy Sassenach. He knew that the evil of depopulation had been accomplished in the Highlands, not by the introduction of deer, but of sheep on a large scale by Lowland farmers before ever deer forests had come to be considered a source of revenue. It was, therefore, somewhat amusing to the Highland people to witness the descendants of these Lowlandnovi hominessmitten upon the thigh and roaring lustily. The only bribe they promised allies was the offer of mutton a twentieth of a penny per pound cheaper, and Highlanders refused to be bought over at that price, especially as its payment was more than doubtful. The deer forest agitation has died a natural death. Peace to its ashes.

We have hitherto confined ourselves to discussing the so-called disadvantages of the Game Laws: we have yet to consider the facts on the other side of the question, by which those disadvantages are altogether overbalanced. As the space allotted to us in this Magazine, however, has its limits, we will meanwhile content ourselves with enumeratingseriatima few of the manifold benefits accruing to the Highlands from Game Laws and game. These are—(1), The great increase of rental from land, which is manifestly beneficial, not only to the proprietors, but to all classes in the country in which they spend their incomes; (2), The residence in the Highlands for so many months yearly of wealthy sportsmen, who, if game were unpreserved and consequently non-existent, would have no inducement soto reside; (3), The remunerative employment afforded by those sportsmen to the labouring classes; (4), The profits made by shopkeepers and others in the various Highland towns, by supplying the requirements of such sportsmen; (5), The opening up of the country by railways, which could not have been remuneratively effected for years yet to come in the Highlands without the traffic afforded by the conveyance of sportsmen and their belongings; (6), The advancement of civilization in the north, by the opening up of roads and the building of handsome Lodges in remote localities, and the circulation of money involved in the execution of these improvements.

This enumeration might be extended to various minor details, but we think we have said enough to satisfy every candid and impartial reader that a very serious blow would be inflicted upon the prosperity of the Highlands by the abolition of the Game Laws—laws which are by no means the antiquated and useless remains of feudalism so strongly denounced by Radicalism run mad. The truth of this need not be altogether left to abstract speculation. We have a crucial instance in the case of the American Republic, where the absence of such laws was felt to be so prejudicial to the general welfare that game regulations were passed much more stringent than in this country, and where, at present, as Mr J.D. Dougall in his admirable treatise on "Shooting" informs us, "there exist over one hundred powerful associations for the due prosecution of Game law delinquents, and these associations are rapidly increasing, and appear to be highly popular." "Here," he adds, "we have one struggling Anti-Game Law League: in the States there are over one hundred flourishing Pro-Game Law Leagues. The cry of a party here is:—Utterly exterminate all game as vermin; leave nothing to shoot at. The increasing general cry across the Atlantic is:—Preserve our game and our fish for our genuine field sports." So long as our Game Laws continue to increase the prosperity of the country without infringing upon the liberty of the people, they stand in little need of defence; are not much endangered by attack.

EVAN MACKENZIE.

Itis happy for the present age that the ancient manners and customs, which were practised in the Highlands and Islands under the Feudal system, have long since fallen into oblivion. It would fill volumes to relate the numerous practices which were then resorted to by the feudal lords, many of which were cruel in themselves, and entailed great hardships on their submissive vassals who were bound to obey. As the chiefs had full power over the life and death of their retainers, such of them as betrayed any disobedience or opposition to the stern demands of their superiors, rendered themselves liable to the severest punishment, and frequently to nothing less than the penalty of death. The national laws of Kings and Queens had then but little influence in checking or counteracting the peremptory enactments of Feudalism.

The following striking instance of the remarkable practices alluded to will furnish a specimen to the readers of theCeltic Magazine, of what took place in Skye, not much more than a century and a half ago.

No sooner did the death of a tenant take place than the event was announced to the laird of the soil. The Land-Stewart, or ground-officer, incurred the displeasure of his master unless that announcement were made no later than three days after it had occurred. Immediately after the deceased farmer had been consigned to the grave, the disconsolate widow, if he had left one, was waited upon by a messenger from the landlord, to deliver up to him the best horse on the farm, such being reckoned then the legal property of the owner of the soil. This rule was as unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians. On large and extensive farms the demand was submitted to without much complaint, by the widow, children, or heirs of the deceased, but it pressed hard upon the occupiers of small tenements of land, and particularly so on helpless widows. But whoever refused, or attempted to evade this heartless enactment, forfeited every right to their farms in future, and became liable to have all their goods and chattels confiscated to the laird. It frequently happened that a poor farmer had but one horse, yet even this circumstance did not mitigate the cruelty of the practice; for the solitary animal was taken away, and frequently so to the great distress of the younger branches of the orphan family, who mourned bitterly, and often shed tears for the loss of their favourite animal.

A circumstance took place in the parish of Strath, which was, it is said, the means of abolishing this abominable rule. About the beginning of the seventeenth century a farmer, of the name of Mackinnon, was gathered to his fathers in the parish, and after his interment the laird's messenger visited the afflicted widow, and, as usual, demanded the best horse on her little farm. Her husband having been a kinsman of the laird, and expecting, in her distress, to receive some sympathy from her chief, and at all events, some relaxation of that rule which had been all along so resistlessly put in force, she showed much reluctance to part with the animal. Seeing this, the officer became more and more determined to have it. The widow, in the same manner, became more and more determined in her refusal, and appealed to him in vain to submit the case to the decision of her chief. The officer was inexorable, and becoming incensed at the woman's pertinacity he turned from words to blows, and inflicted some severe wounds on the helpless female to the effusion of blood. She, however, retaliated, and through desperation, assuming more courage, addressed her little son, a boy of four, that stood weeping by her side, and said to him in her own emphatic vernacular:—

"Cha mhac mar an t-athair thu, a' Lachlainn Oig,Mar diol thu le fuil droch caithreamh do mhàthar;'S mar smàil thu gu bàs, le diòghaltas air chòir,Am borb-fhear fiadhaich so, am mòrtair gu'n nàr!"Literally translated:—"Thou art not a son like the father, my young Lachlan,Unless thou requite with blood the ill-treatment of thy mother;And unless thou dash to death, with due revenge,This fierce and savage fellow—this bare-faced murderer!"

Literally translated:—

"Thou art not a son like the father, my young Lachlan,Unless thou requite with blood the ill-treatment of thy mother;And unless thou dash to death, with due revenge,This fierce and savage fellow—this bare-faced murderer!"

The mother's charge to her boy cannot be said to be tempered with much Christian feeling or principle, yet it was according to the generally cherished practices of the system under which she lived. Then it was that might was right, and revenge bravery. But to return to the subject—the widow's cries and tears, excitement and eloquence, were all in vain. The officer made off with the horse and delivered it to his chief.

Matters went on in this way, in various quarters, for a considerable time, until at length, and about twenty years thereafter, the same officer appeared on the same errand at a neighbouring widow's door, and deprived her as usual of her best horse. The circumstance was brought under the notice of Lachlan Og, and having been, no doubt, frequently reminded of the cruelty inflicted by that official on his mother, was determined to embrace the present befitting occasion for displaying his dire revenge. It may be stated that young Lachlan was noted in the district for his great agility and muscular strength. He made no delay in pursuing the officer, and having come up to him at the distance of some miles, he seized him by the neck and sternly demanded the widow's horse, reminding him, at the same time, of the treatment inflicted by him on his mother twenty years before. The officer stood petrified with fear, seeing fierceness and revenge depicted so very unmistakably in young Mackinnon's face. Yet still he grasped the animal by the halter, and would not permit his youthful assailant to intermeddle with it. The strife commenced, and that in right earnest, but in a few moments the officer fell lifeless on the ground. Mackinnon, seizing his dirk, dissevered the head from the body, and washed it in a fountain by the wayside, which is still pointed out to the traveller as "Tobar a' chinn," or "The Well of the Head." He then, at once, mounted the horse, and galloped off to the residence of his chief, carrying the bloody head in his left hand on the point of his dirk. His appearance at the main entrance, with the ghastly trophy still bleeding in his hand, greatly alarmed the menials of the mansion. Without dismounting he inquired if Mackinnon was at home, and being told that he was, he said, "Go and tell my Chief that I have arrived to present him with the head of his officer 'Donnuchadh Mor,' in case that he might wish to embalm it and hang it up in his baronial hall as a trophy of heartlessness and cruelty." The message was instantly delivered to the laird, who could not believe that such a diabolical deed could be perpetrated by any of his clan, but still he came out to see. On his appearance in the court, Lachlan Og dismounted, did obeisance to his chief, and prominently exhibited the dripping head, by lifting it up on his dirk. "What is this, Lachlan, what murder is this?" asked the excited chief. Lachlan explained the whole in full detail, and related the circumstances of the present transaction, as well as of the inhuman treatment which his mother had received when he was a child. The chieftain pondered, paused, and declared that these cruelties had been practised unknown to him. He granted a free pardon to Lachlan Og, appointed him his officer in room of Donnuchadh Mor, and issued an edict over all his estate that thereafter neither widow nor orphan, heir, nor kindred, would ever be deprived by him of their horse, or of any other part of their property.

SGIATHANACH.

COLONEL 79th CAMERON HIGHLANDERS.

[Continued].

Chapter IV.

These acts of loyalty by the Highlanders in recognition of their Stewart Princes were not long concluded when the same virtue was called into action to defeat the intentions ofother rebels(as they were rudely termed) from disputing the authority of the British Sovereign, or dismembering any portion of his territory in the American colonies. An abridged outline of what came to be the War of Independence may not be out of place or uninteresting even at this distant date.

North America had been chiefly colonised by the British people—the settlements of the Dutch and French were few and unimportant. The colonists were in the enjoyment of liberal institutions, and the country being fertile, the population rapidly increased; while, at the same time, immigrants from Europe continued to arrive annually on its shores. The mother country being oppressed with debt, it was proposed to make her Transatlantic subjects contribute a portion towards her relief. This resulted in the imposition of a stamp duty on various articles. The Americans would neither afford assistance, nor would they sanction the taxation proposed to be placed on tea, &c.; and at a meeting of Congress resolutions of separation were adopted, followed by the Act of Declaration of Independence. George III. and his Parliament determined on chastising the recusants, and hence the commencement of the American Civil War. Jealousy of Great Britain, and a desire to humble her, induced France to join the Americans, as also did Spain. Against the combined efforts of these allies, however, the British sustained unsullied their ancient renown. The war continued with alternate successes, and disappointments to the contending parties for about six years, at the end of which honourable peace was concluded between them, and America was henceforth declared an Independent State; and in acknowledgment of the able services rendered to her, the colonists elected General Washington as the first president of the new Republic.

During the progress of the war the Americans were guilty of many acts of cruelty to whomsoever fell into their hands, some of which fell to the share of Alan Cameron. The Royal Highland Regiment, to which he was attached, was stationed in Quebec when Canada was threatened with invasion by General Arnold at the head of 3000 men. The colonel of Alan's regiment (Maclean) who had been detached up the river St Lawrence, returned by forced marches and entered Quebec without being noticed by Arnold. The fortifications of the city had been greatly neglected, and were scarcely of any use for the purposes of defence. The strength of the British within its walls was under 1200, yet they repulsed the repeated attacks of the American generals. Here it was that Alan Cameron came for the first time into hostile contact with the enemy, and both his regiment and himselfacquitted themselves with great gallantry—on one occasion in particular, when an assault was made by Generals Arnold and Montgomery, in which the latter was killed and the other wounded. Arnold foiled in this attempt, established himself on the heights of Abraham, thus blockading the town and reducing the garrison to great straits; but this was all he succeeded in, as he was beaten in every attempt to gain possession of the lower town, by the intrepid gallantry of Colonel Maclean and his Highlanders.

On the approach of spring General Arnold despairing of success, withdrew his forces, raised the siege, and evacuated the whole of Canada. Released from this defence the battalion entered on enterprises in different parts of the province, and to enable it to do so more effectually, Colonel Maclean transformed a limited number of it into a cavalry corps, for out-post duties and otherwise acting asscouts. Of this body Alan Cameron got the command. Daring and sometimes over-zealous, he often led himself and his company into situations of desperate danger. On one occasion they were surrounded by a strong force of the enemy, from which they escaped with the utmost difficulty, and only by the personal prowess of each individual and the fleetness of their steeds. The Americans communicated with the British commander to the effect that "this fellow (Alan) and his men had been guilty of theunmilitary proceeding of tampering with the native Indians in their loyalty to American interests," stating a determination of vengeance as the consequence. It is not known whether Alan was apprised of this charge or not; at any rate he continued his incursions for some time. The threat was not unintentional, as the succeeding events proved, and an unfortunate opportunity enabled the enemy to give it effect. Alan and nearly one-half of his company were seized. The latter they made prisoners of war, but committed him to the jail of Philadelphia as a common felon, where he was kept for two years and treated with the most vindictive harshness. This proceeding was denounced by the British General as "contrary to all military usage," but his representations proved unavailing.

The ardent nature of the imprisoned Highlander chafed under restraint, and finding no hope of release he was constant in vigilance to procure his escape. This he was at last enabled to effect through his jailer having neglected to fasten the window of his place of confinement, which was on the third storey. His ingenuity was put to the severest test. He, however, managed to tie part of the bed-clothes to the bars of the window, and descended with its aid. The blanket was either too short, or it gave way; anyhow Alan came to the ground from a considerable height, and being a heavy man, in the fall he severely injured the ankles of both feet. In this crippled state he was scarcely able to get away to any great distance, but somehow managed to elude the search of his enemies.

Although the Americans, as a nation, were in arms against Great Britain, still among them were many families and individuals who were slow to forget their ties of kinship with the people of the "old country," and Philadelphia contained many possessing such a feeling. Alan, on his first arrival in that country, became acquainted with and obtained the friendship of more than one of these families. To the house of one of them, in his emergency, he decided on going. This was a Mr Phineas Bond (afterwards Consul-General in that city) who received the prisoner without hesitation, and treated him with the utmost consideration. Alan, however, before he would accept shelter and hospitality, explained to Mr Bond his condition and how he became a prisoner, adding that he merely desired rest for a day or two to enable him to escape towards the British cantonments. Mr Bond made him welcome and promised him every assistance. Both were fully impressed with the danger and delicacy of their position, and Alan like an honourable soldier was now more anxious about that of his host than his own. He, therefore, embraced the very first opportunity of relieving his chivalrous friend of so undesirable a guest.

Without entering into details as to the nature of his escape, it is enough to state that after frequent chances of being recaptured, he arrived at a station where some British troops were quartered. Among these were some officers and men with whom he had served in the early part of the campaign, but he had become so altered in condition that they scarcely believed him to be the Alan Cameron they knew. His relative (Colonel Maclean) sent his aide-camp to have him conveyed to head-quarters, on arrival at which he was most attentive to do everything that could be done. Medical inspection however, pronounced Alan unfit for active service for at least a year. This was disappointing news to him, as he feared his career in the army was likely in consequence to come to an untimely end. Colonel Maclean recommended him to repair at once to Europe and procure the most skilful advice for the treatment of his wounds and broken limbs. Alan concurred and returned to England on sick leave, where he arrived in 1780.

He had not been many months at home when news arrived of the conclusion of the war; and with that happy consummation Colonel Maclean's corps was reduced, the officers were placed on the "provincial list"—a grade not known in the army at the present day—Government, in addition to their pay, giving them and the other men grants of lands in the following proportions—5000 acres to a field officer; 3000 to a captain; 500 to a subaltern; 200 to a sergeant; and a 100 to each soldier. These conditions were applicable only to those who remained in or returned within a given time to the colony. In the case of absentees one-half of the above number of acres was the extent of the grants, but they were allowed to sell their lots. As Alan had been promoted to the rank of Captain he had 1500 acres which he turned into cash. This capital and his pay was the only means possessed by this "provincial officer." He was, however, only one of many similarly situated on the termination of the American War.

Chapter V.

The transport ship brought home other invalids besides Alan Cameron, one of whom, Colonel Mostyn, and himself came to be on terms of warm friendship. This gentleman, descended from one of the best families in Wales, and having many relatives resident in London, was of considerableservice to Alan in the matter of introductions to the society of these relations and other friends. "American officers," as those returned from the war, were termed, were welcomed wherever met with. Among them Alan was not the least distinguished, perhaps the more so on account of his unfortunate adventure with his Lochaber adversary in the duel; and his subsequent distinguished career in America.

At the house of one of Colonel Mostyn's relatives, Alan met a young lady who was destined not many months after to become his wife. This was the only child of Nathaniel Philips of Sleebeich Hall, Pembrokeshire. The heiress of a wealthy squire was beyond Alan's expectations; besides he understood there were more than one aspirant for her hand, who were themselves possessors of many broad acres, therefore it could scarcely occur to the mind of the "provincial officer" to enter the lists against such influential competitors. However that may be, Alan's success with the lady may have been much the same as that of another with Desdemona: "Her father bade me tell the story of my life, the battles, sieges, and fortunes I had passed. I ran it through, even from my boyish days; of the moving accidents by flood and field; of the hair-breadth 'scapes and the imminent deadly breach; and of being taken by the insolent foe. To these things would Desdemona seriously incline, and devour up my discourse. When I did speak of some distressful stroke, that I had suffered, she gave me a world of sighs. She wished she had not heard it; but bade me, if I had a friend that loved her, I should teach him how to tell my story, andthatwould woo her." Duke—"I think this tale would win my daughter too."

Alan Cameron became the favoured suitor of Miss Philips, but both felt the barrier of the Squire's consent to be insurmountable. Nor was there any circumstance likely to arise in favour of Alan's worldly position to make him acceptable to Mr Philips as his son-in-law. Honourable conduct acted on Alan's feelings, and directed the proper course to be pursued. He made his visits to the house of their mutual friend less often and at greater intervals. Squire Philips was at the time, and had for some few years, been a widower; and it was reported and believed that he was contemplating a second marriage. Moreover, the intended spouse was scarcely yet out of her teens, while he was past middle age, and his daughter was also her senior. Her father's intentions created disappointment, if not dissatisfaction in Miss Philips' mind, which, it is alleged, was one of the causes that moved her not to view elopement with serious objection. There is no record of the occurrence to guide further reference than that Alan Cameron and Miss Philips had betaken themselves to Gretna Green without the knowledge or consent of her father, where marriages were solemnised without the preliminary formalities necessary at Hanover Square. Notwithstanding that a pursuit ensued either by the parent or other friends, it was not successful in interrupting the marriage of the runaway pair.

Instead of returning to London with his bride, Alan went towards the capital of his native country, where he and his wife remained for several months. It now, however, became almost a necessity that he would get into some office, the emoluments of which would add to hisslender income. After some delay he was fortunate in getting an appointment through the intercession of a friend with whom he had served in America. This appointment was on the militia staff of one of the English counties. Alan retained it until the fortune of events reduced the displeasure of the father-in-law to that state when mutual friends thought they could do something to induce the Squire to forgive and forget. These friends did not fail to take advantage of this state of feeling, and embraced the opportunity to obtain for Alan an interview with his wife's father, which resulted, as desired by all, in full forgiveness to both son and daughter. This reconciliation, like the wooing of Miss Philips, was also somewhat after the manner of that of Desdemona's father, who replied, "I had rather adopt a child than get it. Come hither. I do give thee that with all my heart, which—but thou hast already—with all my heart, I would keep from thee. For your sake I am glad I have no other child, thy escape would teach me tyranny." This act of grace was important to Alan, as the allowance to his wife, which followed, enabled them to live in affluence in comparison with their past state.

Squire Philips had not married at the time rumour had formerly assigned, but he did enter into that state, and that after he had become a sexagenarian. By the second marriage the Squire—unlike the father in the play—"had another child." This child is yet living, in the person of the venerable Dowager Countess of Lichfield, herself the mother of a numerous family of sons and daughters, including the present peer, as also the wife of the noble lord the member for the county of Haddington.

(To be Continued).

Highland Melodies.—The Gaelic Society of London finding that regret has been frequently expressed that the plaintive melodies of the Highlands should be allowed to pass away, have, we are glad to learn, taken steps to preserve them in a permanent form, and are now preparing for publication a selection of the best and most popular airs. The verses will be given in Gaelic and English, and the pianoforte accompaniments are arranged with special attention to their distinctive characteristics by Herr Louis Honig, Professor of Music, London; while slight variations are introduced to render the melodies more acceptable to the general taste. Editions of the Dance Tunes of our country are numerous, but the Gaelic vocal airs, set to music, have not hitherto been attainable. The issue is limited to 250 copies, which the Society are patriotically supplying at cost price—namely, 10s 6d per copy; or free by post to the Colonies for 12s. We feel assured that this want has only to be known to secure the necessary number of subscribers for the few remaining copies.

THE "ARYAN ORIGIN OF THE CELTIC RACE AND LANGUAGE."

Theabove is the title on the outside of a book by the Rev. Canon Bourke, president of St Jarlath's College, Tuam, Ireland. The book is in every respect a wonderful and interesting one to the Celt, at home and abroad, whether he be Scotch or Irish. Time was when the Scottish Celt looked with great suspicion on his Irish cousin, while the Irishman had no great love for his Scottish neighbour. Even yet a good deal of this feeling prevails, particularly among the uneducated.

Our own experience, however, has been that the Irish Celt is not behind the Scotch Gael in generosity and all the other virtues which are the special characteristics of the race. The book before us is in several respects calculated to strengthen the friendship which is being rapidly formed, and which ought to subsist among the intelligent of each of the two great branches of the Celtic family—Scotch and Irish. Frequent references of an appreciating and commendable kind are made in this work to the labours of Scotchmen in the field of Celtic literature. Canon Bourke, like a true-hearted son of Ireland, with that magnanimity characteristic of the race, holds out his right hand to every Scottish scholar in the field of Celtic or Keltic research, and says in effect—Cia mar a tha thu? Buaidh gu'n robh air d'obair!

Although the "Aryan Origin of the Celtic Races and Language" is all the title on the cover, inside the book, the title is much more comprehensive, consisting, as it does, altogether of 27 lines. But even this large and comprehensive title-page does not give anything like an adequate idea of the extent and variety of the contents of the book. Taking it up with the expectation of finding a learned treatise on the Aryan origin of the Celtic race and Celtic languages one will be disappointed; but no one will be disappointed with the work as a whole, for though its contents do not bear throughout on the above subject, they are all thoroughly Celtic; and as a collection of Celtic gleanings, will well repay a perusal. It is, indeed, a sort of Celtic repository—the writer's Celtic reading for many years being apparently thrown into a crucible, and having undergone a certain process there, are forged out into the handsome and bulky volume before us. It has, however, all the appearance of having been very hastily got up. Indeed, in the preface, which is dated, "Feast of the Nativity of the B.V.M., 1875," we are told that a mere accident has given the first impulse to the composition of the work, and that accident appears to have been that at a social meeting of Irish clergymen in 1874 the subject of conversation turned on the language and antiquities of Ireland.

After doing justice to the "Four Masters," of whom Irishmen are,with good reason, so very proud, the decay of the Gaelic language in Ireland is alluded to, and the cause of that decay described at some length, and it is pointed out that, in consequence of this neglect, when an Irish patriot appeals to the sentiment of his race, the appeal must be made, not in the language of old Ireland, but in the language of the conquering Saxon. Father Mullens in his lament for the Celtic language of his countrymen "must wail his plaint in Saxon words and Saxon idiom, lest his lamentation should fall meaningless on the ears of Ireland." And this decay Father Mullens pathetically describes:—

Back to Index Next