Viscount Dundee

‘I have not dared to present them (the letters) because that in my Lady’s letter you wished us much joy, and that we might live happy together, which looked as if you thought it a thing as good as done. I am sure my Lady, of the humour I know her to be, would have gone mad that you should think a business that concerned her so nearly, concluded before it was ever proposed to her; and in the daughter’s you was pleased to tell her of my affections to her, and what I have suffered for her; this is very galant and obliging, but I am afraid they would have misconstrued it, and it might do me prejudice; and then in both, my Lord, you were pleased to take pains to show them almost clearly they had nothing to expect of you, and took from them all hopes which they had, by desiring them to require no more but your consent.’

The question of conditions and settlements being thus approached, Claverhouse hastens to affirm his own absolute disinterestedness. ‘I will assure you,’ he writes, ‘I need nothing to persuade me to take that young lady. I would take her in her smock.’ He is not sure, however, of such unselfish and generous treatment from the other side; and he consequently requests the Earl to hold out hopes to them, though without binding himself in any way. ‘When you say you give them your advice to the match,’ he writes, ‘tell them that they will not repent it, and that doing it at your desire, you will do us any kindness you can, and look on us as persons under your protection, and endeavour to see us thrive – which obliges you to nothing, and yet encourages them.’

This plain suggestion of a course which it would tax a casuist’s ingenuity to distinguish from double-dealing and deception, is hardly creditable to Claverhouse under any circumstances. For his sake it may be hoped that the excuse for it lay in the fact that by this time he had really fallen in love, and was, as he said, anxious to win the young lady for her own sake. If such were not the case, there would be an almost repulsive insincerity in his closing appeal, ‘For the love of God write kindly of me to them. By getting me that young lady you make me happy.’

Two months later negotiations were still dragging on – they had now extended, from first to last, through fully three years, from the end of 1678 to the end of 1681. On the 11th of December, Claverhouse again appealed to the Earl to come to some settlement of his affairs, either one way or the other, for, in the meantime, his own age was slipping away, and he was losing other occasions, as he supposed the young lady also was doing. The Grahams, he feared, had gone back to Ireland; and, if it were so, he proposed to invite them to come over to his house in Galloway. But it would be necessary to offer something definite to induce them to do so, for, ‘my Lady Graham was a very cunning woman, and certainly would write back that she would be unwilling to come so far upon uncertainties.’ He therefore further suggested that the Earl should communicate directly with her Ladyship. That ‘they would take it much more kindly, and be far the readier to comply’ was the reason urged for this. But another was hinted. Claverhouse was ashamed to write, not knowing what to say, seeing that after all he had promised on Menteith’s behalf, his Lordship had not yet come to a final decision.

Claverhouse’s letter does not appear to have produced any effect. As late as the beginning of March 1682, matters were still in the same unsettled and unsatisfactory state. The Earl had not yet resolved on any decisive action, and was doubtless endeavouring to make a bargain as favourable as possible to himself, when he received a short but urgent letter from Claverhouse. It asked for an early meeting, and indicated the reason for it in these words: ‘I have had one in Ireland whom I shall bring along with me, and you shall know all. Send nobody to Ireland; but take no new measures till I can see you.’

There are no letters from Claverhouse relative to subsequent negotiations. It appears from other documents, however, that Sir James Graham had come to believe in the existence of a plot between the two suitors, to get the better of both him and the Earl. Everything, he declared, had been contrived by the hand of Claverhouse; and it was his ambitious desire to make himself the head of their ancient family that had brought them all the trouble of my Lord Montrose’s business. There was, he asserted, an agreement that Montrose should use his interest with the Earl for a settlement of his honours and estates upon Claverhouse, who, on his side, had bound himself to make over the estates privately to Montrose. The letter setting all this forth in tones of the bitterest resentment was written from Drogheda in March 1683. Before that, however, Lady Helen had made further matrimonial arrangements impossible. She had married Captain Rawdon, son of Sir George Rawdon, and nephew, as well as heir apparent to the Earl of Conway. And so an Irish gentleman, who was possibly no myth when Montrose wrote about him four years earlier, carried away the lady.

V

MATTERS CIVIL, MILITARY AND MATRIMONIAL

The letters which enable us to trace the course of Claverhouse’s matrimonial negotiations are also the documents upon which we have mainly to depend for our knowledge of his movements during the period immediately subsequent to the ‘circuit’ which he made in the south-western counties after the Battle of Bothwell Bridge. From these we learn that he was in London during the summer of 1680; and a letter from Charles Maitland of Hatton to Queensberry, suggests a probable motive for the journey to town. ‘Claverhouse’s commission as to the rebels’ goods,’ he wrote, ‘is recalled by the Council; so your man will have room for his payment; that ye need not fear.’ This measure, with which, to judge from the tenor of Maitland’s remarks, Queensberry was not improbably connected, appears to have followed upon a charge of misappropriation of public monies, brought against Claverhouse by the Treasurer, and intended to supply an excuse for preventing him from entering into possession of the forfeited estate of Patrick Macdowall of Freugh, bestowed upon him by royal grant in consideration of ‘his good and faithful services.’ It is warrantable to suppose that the immediate object of his journey to London was to appeal from the Council’s decision to the King himself. In any case, there is evidence that he availed himself of his stay in the English capital to bring the matter before his sovereign, and to plead his cause in person. The result may be gathered from a letter addressed by Charles to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, on the 26th of February 1681. ‘As to what you have represented concerning Claverhouse, particularly in reference to the commission granted by you unto him for uplifting and sequestrating not only the rents, duties, and movables belonging to Freugh, but of all the rebels in Wigtownshire who have been in the rebellion, whereof you say he hath made no account yet, we have spoke to him about it, and he doth positively assert, that, while he was in Scotland, he received not one farthing upon that account, and that if anything have since been recovered by those whom in his absence he hath entrusted with the execution of that commission, he believes it to be so inconsiderable as it will not much exceed the charges that must necessarily be laid out in that affair. However, we do expect that he will meet with no worse usage from you, upon that occasion than others to whom you have granted the like commissions.’ The letter also conveyed his Majesty’s ‘express pleasure’ that the Commissioners should remove the stop that was put upon the gift of forfeiture, and should cause the same to be passed in the Exchequer at their very next meeting.

In October 1681, also, Claverhouse was in London; and though there is nothing to show whether his stay there had been continuous, the fact that there is no record of his doings in Scotland during the interval, may be taken as negative, yet strong, evidence of his absence from the country. There is a curious document to prove that, on the 26th of the next month he crossed the Firth of Forth from Burntisland to Leith. It is a poem entitled ‘The Tempest,’ and written by Alexander Tyler, the minister of Kinnettles, who describes it as ‘being an account of a dangerous passage from Burntisland to Leith in a boat called the Blessing, in company of Claverhouse, several gentlewomen, ministers and a whole throng of common passengers upon the 26th of November 1681.’ On the 11th of the following month, Claverhouse dates a letter from Edinburgh; and, from that time, his activity and his influence again begin to be felt.

The Earl of Queensberry, writing from Sanquhar to Lord Haddo on the 2nd of January 1682, reports that in his part of the country all is peaceable, ‘save only that in the heads of Galloway some rebels meet.’ Their numbers being inconsiderable, and their business ‘only to drink and quarrel,’ neither Church nor State need, in his judgment, fear them; still, he is of opinion that ‘the sooner garrisons be placed, and a competent party sent with Claverhouse for scouring that part of the country, the better.’ ‘Besides,’ he adds, ‘I’m told field-conventicles continue in Annandale and Galloway, but all will certainly evanish upon Claverhouse’s arrival, as I have often told.’ It would appear from this, that Captain Graham had returned to Scotland for a special and definite purpose; and this view is borne out by his appointment on the 31st of January to be heritable sheriff of Wigtownshire, in the place of Sir Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw, and heritable bailie of the regality of Tongland, instead of Viscount Kenmure, both the former possessors having been deprived of their commissions in consequence of their refusal to take the prescribed test. In terms of his appointment, Claverhouse was to have jurisdiction within the shire of Dumfries and stewartries of Kirkcudbright and Annandale; but, with regard to these districts, it was specially provided that the powers conferred upon him were in no way to be prejudicial to the rights of the heritable sheriff or steward, and that he was ‘only to proceed and do justice,’ when he was ‘the first attacher,’ that is to say, only in cases with regard to which no legal proceedings had already been taken.

Claverhouse had not long assumed his new duties before he discovered that the ‘rebels’ and ‘conventiclers’ were not the only people with whom he had to deal, and that a task far more difficult than hunting them down or scattering their meetings would be to expose the connivance of some of the leading families, and to check the disorders arising from it. As early as the 5th of March, in a letter to Queensberry, he wrote, ‘Here, in the shire, I find the lairds all following the example of a late great man, and still a considerable heritor among them, which is, to live regularly themselves, but have their houses constant haunts of rebels and intercommuned persons, and have their children baptized by the same; and then lay all the blame on their wives; condemning them and swearing they cannot help what is done in their absence. But I am resolved this jest shall pass no longer here; for it is laughing and fooling the Government; and it will be more of consequence to punish one considerable laird, than a hundred little bodies. Besides, it is juster; because these only sin by the example of those.’

At the date of this communication, Claverhouse had already begun to carry out the policy to which it referred; and a letter written four days earlier supplies important details as to the course which he had adopted. ‘The way that I see taken in other places, is to put laws severely, against great and small, in execution, which is very just; but what effects does that produce, but more to exasperate and alienate the hearts of the whole body of the people? For it renders three desperate where it gains one; and your Lordship knows that in the greatest crimes it is thought wisest to pardon the multitude and punish the ringleaders, where the number of the guilty is great, as in this case of whole countries. Wherefore, I have taken another course here. I have called two or three parishes together at one church, and after intimating to them the power I have, I read them a libel narrating all the Acts of Parliament against the fanatics; whereby I made them sensible how much they were in the King’s reverence, and assured them he was relenting nothing of his former severity against dissenters, nor care of maintaining the established government; as they might see by his doubling the fines in the late Act of Parliament; and, in the end, told them that the King had no design to ruin any of his subjects he could reclaim, nor I to enrich myself by their crimes; and, therefore, any who would resolve to conform, and live regularly, might expect favour; excepting only resetters and ringleaders. Upon this, on Sunday last, there was about three hundred people at Kirkcudbright church; some that for seven years before had never been there. So that I do expect that within a short time I could bring two parts of three to the church.’

But though there seemed to be some hope of influencing the people, if they were left to themselves, Claverhouse was fully alive to the fact that it was vain to think of any settlement so long as their irreconcilable ministers were able to exercise their influence. No sooner was he gone, than they came in, he said, and all repented and fell back to their old ways. With a view to remedying this, he strongly and repeatedly urged the necessity of having a constant force of dragoons in garrison; and, in the meantime, he took vigorous measures to carry out the work entrusted to him. To quote his own summary of a report presented by him to the Committee of the Privy Council, ‘The first work he did, was to provide magazines of corn and straw in every part of the country, that he might with conveniency go with the whole party wherever the King’s service required; and, running from one place to another, nobody could know where to surprise him; and in the meantime quartered on the rebels, and endeavoured to destroy them by eating up their provisions, but that they quickly perceived the design, and sowed their corns on untilled ground. After which he fell in search of the rebels; played them hotly with parties; so that there were several taken, many fled the country, and all were dung from their haunts; and then rifled so their houses, ruined their goods, and imprisoned their servants, that their wives and children were brought to starving; which forced them to have recourse to the safe conduct; and made them glad to renounce their principles, declare Bothwell Bridge an unlawful rebellion, swear never to rise in arms against the King, his heirs and successors, or any having commission or authority from him, upon any pretext whatsomever, and promise to live orderly hereafter.’

Three months of this repressive and coercive policy produced results which Claverhouse himself declared to be beyond his expectation. Writing to Queensberry, on the 1st of April 1682, he said, ‘I am very happy in this business of this country, and I hope the Duke will have no reason to blame your Lordship for advising him to send the forces hither. For this country now is in perfect peace: all who were in the rebellion are either seized, gone out of the country, or treating their peace; and they have already so conformed, as to going to the church, that it is beyond my expectation. In Dumfries, not only almost all the men are come, but the women have given obedience; and Irongray, Welsh’s own parish, have for the most part conformed; and so it is over all the country. So that, if I be suffered to stay any time here, I do expect to see this the best settled part of the Kingdom on this side the Tay. And if those dragoons were fixed which I wrote your Lordship about, I might promise for the continuance of it.

‘Your Lordship’s friends here are very assisting to me in all this work; and it does not contribute a little to the progress of it, that the world knows I have your Lordship’s countenance in what I do. All this is done without having received a farthing money, either in Nithsdale, Annandale, or Kirkcudbright; or imprisoned anybody. But, in end, there will be need to make examples of the stubborn that will not comply. Nor will there be any danger in this after we have gained the great body of the people; to whom I am become acceptable enough; having passed all bygones, upon bonds of regular carriage hereafter.’

The measures adopted by Claverhouse met with the fullest approval of the Government, and the results achieved through them were deemed so satisfactory as to call for special recognition. Wodrow states that on the 15th of May, ‘Claverhouse got the Council’s thanks for his diligence in executing his commission in Galloway.’

Further evidence of the favour in which Claverhouse was held is afforded by the instructions given by the Council to General Dalziel, in view of the military visitation of the shires of Lanark and of Ayr, which he was appointed to hold. He is directed ‘to repair to the town of Ayr, and there to meet with the Earl of Dumfries, and the Commissioners of that shire, where the laird of Claverhouse is to be present, and there to confer with them anent the security of that shire.’ After having complied with this, he is to return to the shire of Lanark, and the laird of Claverhouse with him, ‘and there to consider what further is necessary to be done, as to the settling of the peace of both these shires.’ Finally, when these matters have been fully considered and discussed by them, he and Claverhouse ‘are to come in with all possible diligence, and give an account to the Lord Chancellor’ of their procedure, ‘to be communicated to his Majesty’s Privy Council.’

When Claverhouse was returning from Edinburgh to Galloway, at the conclusion of this mission, there occurred an incident which must have convinced him that, even if, as he said, he had become acceptable enough to the great body of the people, there was a remnant of desperate men, whom his repressive measures had only inspired with a still fiercer hatred of him. His own account of it is contained in a letter to Queensberry, to whom he says: “I thought to have waited on your Lordship before this, but I was stayed at Edinburgh two days beyond what I designed, which has proved favourable for me. Yesterday when I came at the Bille, I was certainly informed that several parties of Whigs in arms, to the number of six or seven score, were gone from thence but six hours before. They came from Clydesdale upon Monday night, and passed Tweed at the Bille, going towards Teviotdale, but went not above three miles farther that way. They stayed thereabout, divided in small parties, most all on foot, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, till Friday morning, when they passed the hills towards Clydesdale. Some say they had a meeting with Teviotdale folks; others would make me believe that they had a mind for me. They did ask, in several places, what they heard of me, and told they were sure my troop was far in, in Galloway. Others say they were flying the West for fear of the diligence the gentry is designed to use for their discovery. I could believe this, were they not returned. I spoke with the minister, and several other people in whose houses they were; but he kept out of the way. They did no prejudice in his house, further than meat and drink. They gave no where that I could learn any account of their design there; only, I heard they said they were seeking the enemies of God, and inquired roughly if anybody there kept the church. The country keeps up this business. I heard nothing of it till I was within two miles of the Bille, and that was from a gentleman on the road, who had heard it at a burial the day before. There was a dragoon all Tuesday night at the change-house at the Bille, and the master of the house confessed to me he let him know nothing of it. They pretend it is for fear of bringing trouble to the country. I sent from the Bille an express to acquaint my Lord Chancellor with it; for I thought it fit the quarters should be advertised not to be too secure, when these rogues had the impudence to go about so.’

Queensberry was as fully convinced as Claverhouse that there had been a plot, which the unforeseen delay in Edinburgh had alone prevented from being put to execution. Writing to the Chancellor a few days later, he said: ‘I doubt not but your Lordship has full account of Clavers’ re-encounter at the Bille. It was good he did not come a day sooner; for certainly their design was against him.’

In the course of the year 1682, the jealousy aroused by Claverhouse’s appointment as Sheriff-Principal of Wigtownshire, and by the special power bestowed upon him to hold criminal courts, culminated in an open quarrel between him and the family of Stair, of which the head was Sir James Dalrymple, who, but a short time previously, had fallen into disgrace, and had been virtually deposed from his office of President of the Court of Session, for not conforming with the Test Act. According to the summary given of the case by Fountainhall, who was one of the counsel for the Stair family, Captain Graham of Claverhouse having imprisoned some of the Dalrymples’ tenants in Galloway for absenting themselves from the parish church and attending conventicles, Sir John, the ex-president’s son, took up the matter, and presented a bill of suspension to the Privy Council, alleging that he, as heritable Bailie of the Regality of Glenluce, within which the peasants lived, had already taken cognizance of their case; and that Claverhouse, not being the first attacher, was precluded by the limitations and restrictions of his commission, from taking action in the matter, and had no claim to the ‘casualities and emoluments of the fine.’

Claverhouse replied that it was he who had first cited the offenders, and that Sir John’s action was collusive. When the matter was first brought before the Privy Council, it was ordained that the imprisoned tenants should be set at liberty, after consigning their fines, which Fountainhall denounces as ‘most exorbitant,’ into the hands of the clerk. The point of jurisdiction was reserved; but in the meantime, the Council administered a reprimand to the Dalrymples, and told them in very plain terms, that ‘heritable Bailies and Sheriffs who were negligent themselves in putting the laws in execution, should not offer to compete with the Sheriffs commissioned and put in by the Council, who executed vigorously the King’s law.’

But it was not Claverhouse’s intention that his opponent should escape so easily. He met the charges made against him with a bill of complaint, in which the gravest accusations followed each other in overwhelming array. The leading counts in the indictment bore that Sir John Dalrymple had weakened the hands of the Government in the county of Galloway, by traversing and opposing the commission which the King’s Council had given Claverhouse; that he had done his utmost to stir up the people to a dislike of the King’s forces there; that he kept disloyal and disaffected persons to be bailies and clerks in his regality, and had not administered the test to them till long after January 1682, contrary to the Act of Parliament; that he had imposed on delinquents mock fines, not the fiftieth or sixtieth part of what the law required, for the sole purpose of anticipating and forestalling Claverhouse; that he and his father had offered Claverhouse a bribe of £150 sterling, out of the fines, to connive at the irregularities of his mother, Lady Stair, of his sisters, and of others; that he had laughed insolently at the proclamation of a court, made by Claverhouse, and had ordered his tenants not to attend it; that he had traduced and defamed Claverhouse to the Privy Council; and that he had accused him of cheating the King’s Treasury, by exacting fines and not accounting for them.

When Sir John Dalrymple’s answers to these charges had been read, the Chancellor gave some indication of the temper and feeling of the Council by reproving him ‘for his tart reflections on Claverhouse’s ingenuity,’ and by denying his right to adduce witnesses, whilst, on the other side, Claverhouse was allowed to call whom he chose, in support of the charges brought by him against Sir John. Fountainhall states that ‘there was much transport, flame, and humour in this cause;’ and he mentions that, at one phase of the proceedings, when Dalrymple alleged that the people of Galloway had turned orderly and regular, Claverhouse, alluding to the latest Edinburgh novelty of the time, replied that there were as many elephants and crocodiles in Galloway as loyal subjects. According to Sir John himself, Claverhouse went much further than a direct denial of his opponents’ assertions, and, in the presence of the Committee of Council appointed to examine witnesses, threatened to give him a box in the ear.