Page images
[ocr errors]

Is your toes trode off?' said I. No,' said he. Then give me your place, and I'll take care of my toes.' But they are going to fire,' said he. Then it 's time for you to march off,' said I ; ‘for I can stand fire. I wish your troops may do as well.'

On which he sneaked off, and gave me his place. I paid some visits, and went to see Greenwich Hospital, which is a ridiculous fine thing. The view is very pretty, which you see just as well in a rary-show glass. No wonder the English are transported with a place they can see about them.

“ Kensintoun Palace looks better within than without, and there is some very fine marbles, pictures, and mirrors in it. But I could not see the private apartment of the old goodman [George II.] which they say is a great curiosity. There are a small bed with silk curtains, two sattin quilts and no blanket, a hair mattress; a plain wicker basket stands on a table, with a silk night-gown and night-cap on it; a candle with an extinguisher; some billets of wood on each side of the fire. He goes to bed alone, rises, lights his fire and mends it himself, and nobody knows when he rises, which is very early, and is up several hours before he calls anybody. He dines in a small room adjoining, in which there is nothing but very common things. He sometimes, they say, sups with his daughters and their company, and is verry mery, and sings French songs, but at present he is in very low spirits. Now, this appearance of the King's manner of living would not diminish my idea of a king. It rather looks as if he applied to business, and knew these hours were the only ones he could give up to it without having the appearance of a recluse, and that he submitted to the pagantry rather than make it his only business."

Mrs. Calderwood on English dinners is especially notable as well as quotable :-"As for their victualls they make such a work about, I cannot enter into the taste of them, or rather, I think they have no taste to enter into. The meat is juicy enough, but has so little taste, that, if you shut your eyes, you will not know by either taste or smell what you are eating. The lamb and veall look as if it had been blanched in water. The smell of dinner will never intimate that it is on the table. No such effluvia as beef and cabbage was ever found at London.” (Alas / alas !) “The fish, I think, have the same fault. As for the

salmond, I did not meddle with it, for it cut like cheese. Their turbet is very small by ours, but I do not think it preferable. Their soll is much smaller, and not so much meat on them; they are like the least ever you saw ; were it not that they are long and narrow, I should think them common flounders. Their lobsters come from Norway or Scotland.”

The views of Mrs. Calderwood on the future of Scottish trade may excite a smile among Glasgow merchants and shipbuilders, particularly as coming from the pen of one whose brother was a master in the principles and exposition of political economy :-“Most of the reproaches our country meets with can only be the want of inquiry or reflection. I once thought that Scotland might carry on a greater trade than it does, from its advantageous situation for the sea; but if they should import, who is to take it off their hands? There is no country behind them to supply who has not the advantage of seaports, which is the case of Holland, who has all Germany to supply; neither have they a great demand at home, like England, which is a great country, and most part of it inland, that must be supplied from the trading towns on the coast. Or to what country can they transport their merchandise, when they have imported more than serves themselves, that cannot be as cheap served by nearer neighbours? They have no East India goods, which are almost the only goods that are demanded by all the world; so that no country which has not one or more of these advantages can ever become a country of great trade.”



PROMINENT as he was in his day, influential too, and useful withal, Andrew Stuart of Torrance almost requires a process of restoration to be made familiar to present-day readers. To all Scotland, and England too, for the matter of that,

he was known in his own time as an accomplished lawyer of indefatigable industry and of undaunted courage, as a politician unswerving to the principles he professed, and, as a member of society, distinguished by birth and education. Andrew Stuart was indeed no common man. He carried two elections for his native county of Lanark; he was Keeper of the Signet, and Commissioner of Trade and Plantations; he fought a duel with a lawyer so eminent as Thurlow, afterwards Lord Chancellor ; and he was an exact historian and antiquary, when neither branch of learning was cultivated with exactness or even with thoughtfulness. But it was in the great “ Douglas Cause” he won his spurs, and with this stupendous law-plea his name must remain for ever associated as the supreme working agent in the interest of the infant Duke of Hamilton and his guardians. That he was unsuccessful in the final Court of resort militates nothing against the prudent zeal and weighty knowledge of the agent on whose shoulders the Case against the house of Douglas largely rested. Lord Mansfield himself, "long enough his country's pride,” did not quail more under the envenomed attacks of Junius than under the brisk fire of Stuart directed by common sense, and arising from a knowledge of the Case far more profound than his own, Chief-Justice though he was. Although considerable obliquy was incurred in high quarters during the progress of the suit, men like Dunning, Wedderburn, and Adam Ferguson did not fail to do justice to the high honour and the gallant zeal, almost romantic in its self-denial, with which the Hamilton agent carried on the case through its intricate windings and varied fortunes. Second son of Archibald of Torrance (who was the seventh son of Alexander), by Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Andrew Myreton of Gogar, Andrew Stuart was educated for the law, and passed as a W.S., or Writer to the Signet, 1759. He early secured official notice, fully as much, however, from his own ability as from the accident of his connection with a branch not far removed from the main stem of the ancient Royal house of Scotland. Having for some years carried through much of the Edinburgh business connected with the Hamilton estates, it was found, on the early and unexpected death of James, sixth Duke, in March, 1758, that Mr. Stuart was named in his settlement as one of the guardians

[ocr errors]

of his son, James George, seventh Duke, then only three years old, and he naturally fell thereby to be the chief agent in carrying on the business portion of the trust. The other guardians were the wife of the deceased Duke, or DowagerDuchess as she came to be called (the second of the three “beautiful” Miss Gunnings, mother of the boy, and afterwards Duchess of Argyll, and mother of the sixth and seventh Dukes of that house); Alexander, sixth Earl of Galloway; and William Mure of Caldwell, afterwards a Baron of Exchequer. " Ah! that Baron Mure,” threatened the Duchess of Douglas on one occasion, and, shaking her dainty little fist in the air, as if in the face of the guardian of her antagonist“Ah! that Baron Mure, if I catch him, I'll mak' him as barren a muir as ony in Scotland.” On the death of Archibald, first and only Duke of Douglas, in July, 1761, a somewhat eccentric old nobleman, who had married Miss Margaret Douglas, of Mains, late in life, but left no issue, the guardians of Archibald Stewart, a reputed surviving son of his sister, Lady Jane Douglas, proceeded without delay to vest him in the feudal right of his uncle's estate by getting him served heir of entail before a jury of competent witnesses. The case was one of unusual delicacy, clear proof being required that Archibald Stewart, then 13 years of age, was a surviving twin born in Paris when his mother, the deceased Lady Jane, was 50 years of age. The jury found in favour of Lady Jane's reputed son, who soon after completed his title by a charter from the Crown, and thereupon entered formally into possession of the wide Douglas estates in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and other counties. Dissatisfied with the verdict of the jury, the guardians of the Duke of Hamilton resolved to investigate the matter thoroughly in his interest, and also of his brother, Lord Douglas Hamilton, as heirs-male of the Duke of Douglas through his great-great-grandfather, Lord Selkirk. Andrew Stuart now commenced his researches in earnest ; nor was he long in submitting important results to his brother guardians. His discoveries appeared to himself and his colleagues to amount to nothing short of a proof that the whole story of the pretended birth, as set forth in the service of Mr. Douglas, was an absolute fraud; and in December, 1762, an action was raised in the Criminal Department of the

[ocr errors]

his son.

Parliament of Paris, accusing Sir John Stewart of Grandtully, husband of Lady Jane, and Mrs. Hewitt, her travelling companion, of the crime of partus suppositio, or procuring false children when in France. This action was taken secretly against Sir John, and the witnesses bound over to give evidence in Scotland, while the charge, being of a criminal nature, precluded him from interfering in favour of

As instructed by Stuart, the Hamilton lawyers now took up the position that Lady Jane was never confined at all; in particular, that she was not confined in the house or in the presence of Madame La Brunne, inasmuch as no such person existed ; and that there was imposture, mystery, and concealment regarding the movements of all the principal parties in and around Paris during the July of 1748. Stuart was also able to establish on indubitable evidence the all-important fact that two children, answering to the description of the twins, were stolen from their parents in Paris on or about the date in question. In due course, in the summer of 1767, the great Cause " came before the Court of Session, or “The Fifteen,” as it was commonly called, the “advising” taking up seven days in July. On the 15th the Court gave judgment, when seven voted on each side. Lord-President Dundas thereupon gave his casting vote in favour of the pursuer, the Duke of Hamilton. Among the lawyers engaged at one time or another in the case, besides many elevated to the Bench during its progress, were, for the pursuer, Andrew Crosbie, the reputed original of Scott's “Counsellor Pleydell," Sir Adam Ferguson, Sir David Dalrymple, afterwards Lord Hailes, and Thomas Miller, then Lord-Advocate, afterwards Lord Justice-Clerk; for the defender (Douglas), Islay Campbell, Robert Macqueen, afterwards Lord Braxfield, Francis Garden, afterwards Lord Gardenston, and James Boswell, friend of Johnson, a contributor to the prolific literature of the contest in the form of what he called “The Essence of the Douglas Cause.” Following this failure in the Court of Session, an appeal was immediately entered upon for Mr. Douglas before the House of Lords. A year and six months afterwards (27th February, 1769), a decision was given in that last Court of Appeal in favour of Mr. Douglas as pursuer, which secured him the estates as lineal heir of Duke Archibald.

« PreviousContinue »