In the year 1795, a serious disturbance broke out in
Glasgow, among the Breadalbane Fencibles. Several men having been
confined and threatened with corporal punishment, considerable
discontent and irritation were excited among their comrades, which
increased to such violence, that, when some men were confined in the
guard-house, a great proportion of the regiment rushed out and forcibly
released the prisoners. This violation of military discipline was not to
be passed over, and accordingly measures were immediately taken to
secure the ringleaders. But so many were equally concerned, that it was
difficult, if not impossible to fix the crime on any, as being more
prominently guilty. And here was shown a trait of character worthy of a
better cause, and which originated from a feeling alive to the disgrace
of a degrading punishment. The soldiers being made sensible of the
nature of their misconduct, and the consequent necessity of public
example, several men voluntarily offered themselves to stand trials
and suffer the sentence of the law as an atonement for the whole.
These men were accordingly marched to Edinburgh Castle, tried, and four
condemned to be shot. Three of them were afterwards reprieved, and the
fourth, Alexander Sutherland, was shot on Musselburgh Sands. The
following demi-official account
of this unfortunate misunderstanding was published at the time:
"During the afternoon of Monday, when a private of the Light-company of
the Breadalbane Fencibles, who had been confined for a military
offence, was released by that company and some other companies who had
assembled in a tumultuous manner before the guard-house, no person
whatever was hurt, and no violence offered; and however unjustifiable
the proceedings, it originated not from any disrespect or ill will to
their officers, but from a mistaken point of honour, in a particular set
of men in the battalion, who thought themselves disgraced by the
impending punishment of one of their number. The men have, in every
respect, since that period, conducted themselves with the greatest
regularity, and strict subordination. The whole of the battalion seemed
extremely sensible of the improper conduct of such as were concerned,
whatever regret they might feel for the fate of the few individuals, who
had so readily given themselves up as prisoners, to be tried for
their own and others misconduct."
On the march to Edinburgh, a circumstance occurred,
the more worthy of notice, as it shows a strong principle of honour and
fidelity to his word and to his officer in a common Highland soldier.
One of the men stated to the officer commanding the party, that he knew
what his fate would be, but that he had left business of the utmost
importance to a friend in Glasgow, which he wished to transact before
his death; that, as to himself, he was fully prepared to meet his fate;
but with regard to his friend, he could not die in peace unless the
business was settled; and that, if the officer would suffer him to
return to Glasgow, a few hours there would be sufficient, and he would
join him before he reached Edinburgh, and march as a prisoner with the
party. The soldier added, "You have known me since I was a child; you
know my country and kindred, and you may believe I shall never bring you
to any blame by a breach of the promise I now make, to be with you in
full time to be delivered up in the Castle."
This was a startling proposal to the officer, who was a judicious humane
man, and knew perfectly his risk and responsibility in yielding to such
an extraordinary application. However, his confidence was such, that he
complied with the request of the prisoner, who returned to Glasgow at
night, settled his business, and left the town before day-light to
redeem his pledge. He took a long circuit to avoid being seen,
apprehended as a deserter, and sent back to Glasgow, as probably his
account of his officer's indulgence would not have been credited. In
consequence of this caution, and the lengthened march through woods and
over hills by an unfrequented route, there was no appearance of him at
the hour appointed. The perplexity of the officer when he reached the
neighbourhood of Edinburgh may be easily imagined. He moved forward
slowly indeed, but no soldier appeared; and unable to delay any longer,
he marched up to the Castle, and as he was delivering over the
prisoners, but before any report was given in, Macmartin, the absent
soldier, rushed in among his fellow prisoners, all pale with anxiety and
fatigue, and breathless with apprehension of the consequences in which
his delay might have involved his benefactor.
In whatever light the conduct of the officer (my
respectable friend Major Colin Campbell) may be considered, either by
military men or others, in this memorable exemplification of the
characteristic principle of his countrymen,—fidelity to their word,—it
cannot but be wished that the soldier's magnanimous self-devotion had
been taken as an atonement for his own misconduct, and that of the
whole, who also had made a high sacrifice, in the voluntary offer of
their lives for the conduct of their brother soldiers. Are these a
people to be treated as malefactors, without regard to their feelings
and principles? And might not a discipline, somewhat different from
the usual mode, be, with advantage, applied to them?