|
THE Honourable
Harry Maule of Kelly, a gallant soldier and an accomplished
historical antiquary, in his ‘Epistle to the Reader,’ prefixed to
his ‘Registrum de Panmure,’ says, ’I have read over a good many
Histories and Genealogies of Families in Scotland, some in
manuscript, others printed, and have examined and compared some of
them with what I found in Publick Records and in the chartularies
of our Bishopricks and Abbays, and found many of them stuffed and
filled with fables, falsehoods, and errours, and written to
flatter the persons now concerned, and so became to doubt of
everything contained in them. Therefor, that I might not fall in
the errour or impose on the Readers, I resolved to make a Register
of all the Charters, authentic Writes, or documents that had been
collected from those of the above Families [those of Maule de
Valoniis and Brechin], that the readers may make their own
judgment of them, and not depend on anything I say or others may
have said some hundreds of years after the time they write of.’
The materials which
Mr. Maule, with the assistance of his second son, James Maule,
thus collected for the ‘Registrum de Panmure,’ have been employed
by him with great care and a strict regard to historical accuracy.
Mr. James Maule, in mentioning his reasons for giving a history of
the illustrious family to which he belonged, says that ‘having
designed to write the history of some one of our Scots families,
like those done abroad, which nobody has ever yet attempted, I
pitched on that of the family of Panmure: not but that of Hamilton
had borne greater offices and higher honours, Douglas more
renowned for military actions, and several others more in history
for alliances, cadets, offices, &c.; but in the family of Panmure
I found, 1st. An antiquity not to be paralleled, being as ancient
in Scotland as any name ever there found, as ancient in England as
the Conquest, an age before we have any thing certain of Scots
families, and traced in France a century above that. 2do. Their
continuing in a male line so great a time as seven hundred and
sixty years, and five hundred and upwards enjoying the same
principal barony and style of Panmure in Scotland, in a direct
line. 3tio. The nobleness and grandeur of their original. 4to. The
great variety which their history affords to engage a reader; for
having flourished in France, England, and Scotland, they are
concerned in the wars of all these three kingdoms, the Holy Wars,
the wars of Italy, Greece, and Hungary. They have enjoyed peerages
and dignities in all these kingdoms, had offices by which the
great places of all the three are treated of; and by their
alliances the noblest families of France, the Low Countries,
England, Scotland, and Ireland are mentioned, and the different
characters and fortunes of Valoignes and Brechin enrich the story
and render it agreeable. 5to. Beside their ancient military virtue
and loyalty and love to their country, in later times for all
public and private qualities the family of Panmure has produced
sexcentas viritutes virorum, as in D. of Halicarnassus, &c.
6to. The compleat and full documents still preserved of that
family, which would have been so difficult in some others to get.
[Registrum de Panmure,
I. lxxvii., lxxviii. Edited by John Stuart, LL.D.]
The character and
exploits of the members of this ancient and powerful family fully
bear out the eulogium of its historian.
The MAULES are a
family of Norman origin and derive their surname from the town and
lordship of Maule, in Normandy, which for four centuries were in
possession of the family. Many graphic sketches of the various
members of the house in these early days are to be found in the
‘Chronicle of Ordericus,’ and it is interesting to notice that the
prominent features of their characters closely resemble those of
their descendants in Scotland in later times. Of PETER OF MAULE,
who flourished towards the close of the eleventh century, it is
recorded ‘that he was much beloved by his tenants and neighbours,
because his manners were frank, and he did not strengthen himself
with craft and deceit. His alms were bountiful, and he delighted
in giving. But he had no liking for fasts, and as far as it was in
his power shunned having anything to do with them.’ ANSOLD,
Peter’s son, was tall and powerful in person and a most gallant
soldier, having, when a youth, joined the brave Duke Guiscard in
his expedition into Greece, and fought gallantly in the battle
near Duratzo, in which Alexius, Emperor of Constantinople, was
defeated and put to flight, on the 18th of October, 1081. ‘He was
constant in attending the services of the Church. His habits were
strict and frugal. He never tasted apples in an orchard, grapes in
a vineyard, or nuts in the woods, taking food only when the table
was spread at regular hours. Fasting and all bodily abstinence he
both praised and practised in his own person. He made no predatory
excursions, and while husbanding his own property, he was careful
to make payment of what was due from it for tithes, firstfruits,
and alms. He not only gave nothing to strollers, buffoons, and
dancing girls, but would have no kind of intercourse or familiar
conversation with them.’ Of all the knights of Maule the
chronicler relates that they gave freely to the Church, during
their lives, of their lands and substance; the order of monks was
treated by them with great respect, and at the hour of death their
aid was earnestly sought for the salvation of their souls. The
last of the Norman Maules was killed at the battle of Nicopolis,
in Hungary, fought against the Turks in the year 1398. His great
estates went to his daughter, who married Simon de Morainvilliers,
Lord of Flacourt. They next passed by marriage to the Harlays of
Sancy, and the heiress of that great family married the Marquis of
Villeroy, grandfather to the Marshal and Duke of Villeroy.
Several centuries
before the extinction of the male line of the family in Normandy,
a junior branch of the Maules had taken root in Scotland. A son of
Peter, the first Lord Maule of that name, accompanied William the
Conqueror into England, and received from him a part of the
lordship of Hatton de Cleveland, in Yorkshire, and other extensive
estates. ROBERT DE MAULE, one of his sons, became attached to
David, Earl of Huntingdon, afterwards David I. of Scotland, and
obtained from him a grant of lands in Midlothian. His eldest son,
WILLIAM DE MAULE, was with King David at the Battle of the
Standard, A.D. 1138, and received from that monarch a gift of the
lands of Fowlis, in the Carse of Gowrie. He died without male
issue, and the line of succession was carried on through ROGER
MAULE, his younger brother—the progenitor of the Maules of Panmure.
His grandson, SIR PETER MAULE, married Christian, only child and
heiress of William de Valoniis, [Note: received an email from
Hugh VS McIntyre
to say that Christian had two sisters, Lora and Isabella, and an
illegitimate brother, William.] the representative of a great
Norman family whose immediate ancestor settled in Scotland at the
end of the reign of Malcolm IV., and was appointed by William the
Lion High Chamberlain about 1180. Sir Peter obtained with her the
baronies of Panmure and Benvie in Forfarshire, and other estates
both in England and Scotland, thus uniting the fortunes of two
ancient and influential houses. He had two sons, WILLIAM—by whom
he was succeeded—and SIR THOMAS, who was a soldier of
distinguished valour and ‘a most audacious knight in mind and
body.’ His character has been oftener than once reproduced in the
family. He was governor of Brechin Castle, the only fortress in
the north which shut its gates against Edward I. in his progress
through the country in 1303. ‘Trusting to the strength of the
walls, the governor made no account of the war machines brought
against them. The King of England’s men incessantly threw stones
against the walls without effect. Sir Thomas held the castle for
twenty days against the assaults of the English army, and was so
confident of its strength that he stood on the ramparts and
contemptuously wiped off with a towel the dust and rubbish raised
by the stones thrown from the English battering engines.’ [Wallace
Papers, p.21] But he was at last mortally wounded by a splinter
broken from the wall by the force of a stone missile. ‘While he
lay expiring on the ground, being asked if the castle should now
be surrendered, he cursed the men as cowards who made the
suggestion.’ [Matthew of Westminster, p.446] The garrison,
however, capitulated next day. Henry de Maule of Panmure, the
nephew of this gallant soldier, fought on the patriotic side in
the War of Independence, and was knighted for his services by King
Robert Bruce. Sir Thomas Maule, the head of the family at the
commencement of the fifteenth century, fought under the banner of
the Earl of Mar at the sanguinary battle of Harlaw, in August,
1411, along with the chivalry of Angus and Mearns, and was among
the slain. As the old ballad says—
‘The knicht of
Panmure, as was sene,
A mortel man in armour bricht;
Sir Thomas Murray stout and kene,
Left to the world their last gude-nicht.’
His
posthumous son, THOMAS MAULE, notwithstanding his infancy, was
served heir to his father in 1412, in virtue of an Act of
Parliament which was passed permitting this service in the case of
heirs in nonage whose fathers had fallen in
that battle.
At this period, the
lordship of the ancient family of the Barclays of Brechin should
have fallen to Sir Thomas Maule, who was grandson of Jean Barclay,
the heiress of their estates. He was only able, however, to obtain
possession of a comparatively slender portion of the property, the
lordship itself being annexed to the Crown on the forfeiture of
Walter Stewart, Earl of Athole, who was executed for his
complicity in the conspiracy which led to the assassination of
James I., in 1437. The Earl, on the day of his execution, formally
acknowledged that he had held the lordship only by courtesy since
the death of his wife, Elizabeth Barclay, and that it belonged by
right to Sir Thomas Maule. But the policy of the late King, to
diminish the power of the great nobles, was carried out by his
successor, and like the earldoms of Mar and Strathearn, the
greater part of the Barclay estates was appropriated by the
sovereign.
Sir Thomas, who
died in 1450, was succeeded by his son, who bore the same name.
His first wife was Elizabeth Lyndsay, daughter of Alexander, first
Earl of Crawford. Connected with this marriage and the subsequent
repudiation of the lady by her husband, Commissary Maule relates
an incident which throws great light on the morals of that period.
It appears that Sir David Guthrie, who had married the sister of
Sir Thomas Maule, after she had borne him a number of children
desired to get rid of his wife, and sued for a divorce before the
Consistory Court of St. Andrews, on the plea that she was related
to him within the prohibited degrees—a common pretext at that time
for the dissolution of the marriages of ill-matched couples. The
ecclesiastical court readily lent their sanction to this device,
and Sir David Guthrie was allowed to put away his wife. The Earl
of Crawford, it appears, had assisted Sir David in procuring this
divorce, and ‘thearfor Sir Thomas Maule did tak sic indignatione
at the Earle that he did repudiat his wyf, albeit ane innocent
woman, and to quhome no man could reproche any notoure fault. Sche
liveit long after him.’ Sir Thomas took for his second wife
Catherine Cramond, daughter of the Laird of Aldbar. After his
marriage Sir Thomas, when ‘rydand at the huntes neir to the Green
Lawe of Brechin, suddanlie became blind and lost his sight,
quharfor he was called the blind knight.’
ALEXANDER MAULE,
the eldest son of Sir Thomas,
predeceased his father. ‘He was ane prodigal man,’ says Commissary
Maule, ‘not given for the weil of his house, quharthrowe his
father, conceivit ane evil opinione of him, and thairfor put him
not in fea but [except] of Cameston, and of ane annuel of sax
lib., to be liftit out of the baronie.’ Alexander and his second
son left the country about the year 1498. ‘The cause why the said
Alexander past furth of Scotland,’ says the Commissary, ‘is said
to be ane haitret he consavit against his wyf and hir frindis for
hir misbehaveor. Alexander took gryt somes of money with him, as
we have by tradition, as lykwayes that he past to England; but
thereafter never word was of them. It is thought they had fallen
into the hands of brigands, quha for the money they had, had
murdered them: his son Sir Thomas, quha did succeed to the
heritage, did many years after look for his home-cominge, and it
is said that there did never ane schip come into the Tay, but he
looked for his father, or word fra him.’
SIR THOMAS,
the son and successor of this
ill-fated laird, was noted for his generosity to the Church, and
appears to have been somewhat turbulent in his youth. ‘It is
said,’ wrote the Commissary, ‘that he was subject to women: for
ane indignation he consevit against Ihon Liddel of Panlathyne, he
burnt the said Ihon’s hail biggen; quharupon he did obtain ane
remission under the gryt seale, quharen is contenit the hail
narrative of the matter and causs of the said remission; yet
afterwards he became verie penitent of this, as lyk of all other
offences of his youth committed against God and nychbours, as may
be easily perseavid by sundry donations to religious housis, and
pilgramages done by him.’ One of these pilgrimages was made to the
shrine of St. John of Amiens, in Picardy. His donations to the
‘religious houses’ must have been unusually liberal, for we are
told that ‘he obtanit ane letter of con-fraternity fra the general
vicar of the Minorites, that he and his wyf and children should be
participant of their whole prayers, suffrages, and divine service,
not only of those of that order quha at the present time were
within the realm of Scotland, but also of all them quha were
dispersit threw the hail parts of Christendom, and not only of the
brethren of Sanct Francis, quhom we call Grayfreres, but also of
the Sisters of Saincte Clara.’
The Commissary
proceeds to mention a curious incident which occurred one day,
when Sir Thomas was hunting in company with several other
gentlemen. His greyhound caught, and, as was supposed, killed a
hare, which was hung by ‘one of the laird’s servants to his
saddle’s tore [pummel]. A little after there was another hare
found, who would not rise for them. At last, he that had the hare
at his saddle-tore loosed her and flung her at that hare that
would not rise out of her seat for them. Both of them ran away
without a turn, and both of them escaped with their lives without
a turn.’
Sir Thomas Maule
fell fighting under the royal banner in the bloody field of
Flodden. According to the account of Commissary Maule, Sir Thomas
was exceedingly corpulent, ‘and therefore was not able, by reason
of the great press, to draw his sword; whairfor the Laird of
Guthrie drew it furth to him, and he fell with the greater part of
his friends and vassals.’
ROBERT MAULE,
the eldest son of Sir Thomas by his
first wife, succeeded to the family estates when he was only
sixteen years of age. He assisted the Earl of Lennox in his
unsuccessful attempt in 1526 to rescue James V. out of the
hands of the Douglases, for which he afterwards got remission from
the King. Two years later he obtained a royal license, dispensing
with his attendance at all musters or meetings of the estates, on
account of the faithful services which he had rendered to his
Majesty. He belonged to the party who resolutely opposed the
scheme for the marriage of the infant queen Mary to Edward Prince
of Wales, and in 1547 was taken prisoner, and severely wounded
when defending his house of Panmure against an English force,
assisted by some traitorous Scotsmen. He was conveyed by sea to
London, and imprisoned for two years in the Tower, but was
ultimately released at the solicitation of the Marquis d’ Elbœuf,
the French ambassador to Scotland. Some picturesque notices of the
personal appearance and character of Robert Maule are given in the
family MS. ‘He was ane man of comlie behaviour, of high stature,
sanguine in collour, both of hyd [skin] and hair, colerique of
nature, and subject to suddane anger; ane natural man, expert in
the lawes of the country, of gude language, expert in counting of
genalogies. During his first wyfe’s time, he did cause build the
house of Panmore as it is at this day. He was very temperate of
his mouth, but given to lecherie, ane able man on foot, and ane
gude horseman; lyket weil to be honorable in apparel and weil
horsed, mickel honorit with his nychbours, and in gude estimation.
He had great delight in hawkine and hunting. He took plesure in
playing at the football, and for that cause the moor of Bathil was
appointed, and during his days it was not casten, but only
reservit for that game.
Lykeways he exerciset the gowf [golf] and offtimes past to Barry
Links, when the wadfie [stake] was for drink. If he tint [lost] he
never wad enter in ane browster house, but causit ane of his
servants to gang and pay for all.’ After the death of his wife he
became very penitent of his former lyfe, and embraced the Reformed
religion. He had with him at syndry times the ministers that then
were chiefest in the country, to wit Paul Meffane and Ihone
Brabner. This Ihone was a vehement man, inculcating the law and
pain thereof, but Paul Meffane was ane mair myld man, preaching
the evangel of grace and remission of Jesus in the blude of
Christ. His youngest son begotten on his first wyfe, called
Robert, ane godlie person, given to reading of the Scripture, did
nychtlie walk beside his father, instructing him in the chief
points of religion, for he was ane man that had been brought up
rudely without letters, so that he could neither read nor write.’
He died in the year 1540, and was succeeded by his eldest son—
THOMAS
MAULE, at that time in his twentieth year. Robert Maule was
evidently resolved that his son should not suffer as he had done
from the want of education, for the family historian mentions that
from the time Thomas was seven years of age ‘he was sent to
Edinburgh, to ane Robert Leslie, quha was ane famous man of law in
that time, and also held the chief innes of the hail towne for
noble men. Hereafter, coming to be ane young man, he did wait on
Cardinal David Beaton, and was contracted in marriage with his
daughter. But on ane day cuming riding in companie out of Arbroath
with King James the Fyft, the king did call him asyde, quha having
afore heard of the contract, said to him, "Marrie never ane
priest’s geat" [child], whereupon that marriage did cease.’ He
subsequently married a daughter of George Haliburton of Pitcur,
the widow of John Ogilvy of Balfour. ‘The year following his
marriage, in the month of September, was the battle of Pinkie,
where he was in the Earl of Angus’s battle, but the victory
inclining to England they fled, and had ane great impediment of
the water, quhilk was dammed behind them, for they did all wade
the same, quhilk made them heavy and unable to flee, wherethrow
great slaughter did ensewe of our people. After Thomas had past
the water, he did cast off his jack, and had impediment to get it
fra him, by reason he had his purse under his oxter [armpit],
quhilk did stay the offcoming of the same: yet at the pleasure of
God he was relevit of
it, and took the nearest way on foot to Edinburgh, with his sword
in his hand and a steel bonnet on his head. The Englishmen
followed fast on horseback, quha till eschew them, and being tyrit
and heavie with wading the water, entered in the cornyard of
Brunstane, where finding ane great cherrie tree, clamb up in the
thickest of the branches thereof, and he scarcely settlet, there
enters twa Englishmen on horse within the yard, and looked up and
down if they could find any man, but as God willed he was not
perceivit. In this meantime, while as they were bowne away forth
of the yard, there fell fra ane of them something, but what it was
he could not perceive, but appearit to be ane purse. The
Englishman being on horse drew his sword, and had mickel ado to
get up the same upon the point thereof; quhilk space Thomas was in
great fear: he said he never thought ane tyme so long. But
thereafter, they riding away he past to Edinburgh, where finding
syndrie of his folks, remainit there all night, and on the morn
passed to the Queensferrie and came home that way. His father
hearing of the defeat was in ane mervillous fear and perplexitie,
for his wyfe was now known to be with child, the lands not
tailzeit [entailed]: if she had been deliverit of ane daughter the
house should have gone fra the name, so that his father neither
did eat nor sleep, and nane of his domestiques durst almaist come
in his presence, for he had in mind the field of Flodden, where
his father, Sir Thomas, was slane, as also the Harlaw, where Sir
Thomas Maule was slane, and nane of his name living in lyfe: and
except his wyfe had been deliverit of ane son the name had been
altogether extinguishit: and by and attour this he did bear ane
singular luve and favour to his son.’ Thomas Maule was afterwards
taken prisoner along with his father, when Panmure I-louse was
captured by the English. He took part in the battle of Hadden-rig,
a few miles east of Kelso, where, in 1542, an English army,
assisted by the Douglases, was completely defeated by the Earls of
Huntly and Home, but young Maule was carried off by the fugitives
and kept for some time at Morpeth. After the death of James V. he
was set at liberty by order of Henry VIII. The murder of Darnley
seems to have had the effect of alienating him from the Queen, for
he became a zealous supporter of the Regent Moray and of the cause
of the infant King.
The family
historian gives a graphic picture of Thomas Maule’s personal
appearance and pursuits. ‘He was ane fair man,’ he says, ‘of
personage lyke to his father, of ruddie collour, his hair
red-yellow, and his beard; of ane liberal face and blythe
countenance, never for na adversitie dejected. In mind, given to
honest pastime, but chiefly to hunting and hawking, in the quhilk
he took sic delight that he would ride all day at the same,
fasting, except in the morning he would take ane drink of aile,
and thereafter ane lytel acquavite, and continue to the evening
without either meat or drink, and at his first coming hame at even
would call for ane drink. Na fair day almost through the hail year
but he was on horseback, even in his old age, except on the
Sunday.’ It appears that when he was a young man an accident which
befel a favourite hawk on a Sunday made him ever after avoid
amusing himself on that day. ‘Thirty years before his death he
never did ryde with ane cloak, but a coat alane, in the cauldest
weather in winter, and wald never lyght to gang for heat, and
coming to ane water, when as it drew near even, wald lyght fra his
horse, and in the cauld frost wald wash his hawk’s supper, and
never shrink for cauld; and then coming hame wald call for ane
drink before ever he came to the fire. He was ane man not curious
of the world, and wald rather suffer loss of gudes than enter in
pley with his neighbours.’
This excellent
specimen of a stout and hardy old Scottish laird died A.D. 1600,
in the seventy-ninth year of his age. ‘Ane lytil before his death,
after the laird of Pitcur and his son the young laird had taken
their leave, he causit put out all the dogs out of his chalmer,
and then causit ishewe all the persons that were therein, except
his son Thomas Maule, then confessit his sins to God, thereafter
said the Belief and the Lord’s Prayer; whilk done he willed them
all to gang to their supper in the hall, except ane woman to
attend on him, and immediately after they are set down his speiche
fails him and he gives up the ghost! The lady his wyf thereafter
wald suffer no man or woman to touch him but herself; sche closed
his eyes and streiked him, syne did wyne [wind] him with her awen
hand’s, with ane womanlie countenance and courage, never shedding
any tears, but uttering some few words in her commendation of his
honest and loving heart, albeit I at the writing hereof could not
do it without gretine [weeping].’
The lady of whom
Commissary Maule writes in such glowing terms was Thomas Maule’s
second wife. He married first, in 1526,
Lady Elizabeth Lindsay, daughter of
David, Earl of Crawford, who left no family; and secondly, in
1546, Margaret Haliburton, with whom he lived fifty-two years, who
bore him eight sons and three daughters, and survived her husband
two years. ‘She was,’ says her son, ‘ane religious and godly
woman, mikil given to prayer and reading of the Word, luving and
benign to all persons, almousful to the poor and needy, delytit
mikel to talk of auld histories, knew the hail genealogie of hir
father’s house, as also of hir mother’s, gave meat and drink with
ane marvellous cheerful countenance, loved all godlie and honest
men, detested vice: ane sober and chaste woman.’ It may be said of
this lady, as of the virtuous woman described in the Book of
Proverbs, ‘her children arise up and call her blessed.’
PATRICK MAULE,
the eldest son of this worthy
pair, was educated at the parish school of Kettins, then at
Dundee, and finally at Montrose, where at twelve years of age he
married the daughter of the celebrated John Erskine of Dun,
Superintendent of Angus, ‘ane very religious and honourable man.’
Patrick ‘was mikil inclynit to policy and honesty, very kind to
hail friends. He repaint the house of Panmure that before by
negligence was ruinous, but being left with ane small rent, his
lands all for the maist part wadset [mortgaged], could not perform
sic honest enterpryses as he had in head. He was, as his father
and forbears, mikil given to hawking and hunting, and never did
want for that effect hawks and dogs. He was ane man of mid
stature, of ane mild countenance, rib-nosed, and black-haired. He
lived but short time after his father, and deceased the first day
of May, anno 1605.’
ROBERT,
the fourth son of Thomas Maule and
Margaret Haliburton, was Commissary of St. Andrews and a learned
and judicious antiquary, who, besides the interesting history of
the family quoted above, wrote a treatise in Latin, ‘De
Antiquitite Gentis Scotorum,’ a dissertation, on the Culdees, and
other works. THOMAS, the fifth son, was the father of
Lieutenant-Colonel Maule, who settled in Ireland, and from him was
descended Henry Maule, who was successively Bishop of Cloyne,
Dromore, and Meath.
Patrick Maule was
succeeded by his only son, PATRICK, first Earl of Panmure, who at
the time of his father’s death was only nineteen years of age.
Notwithstanding his youth, he was one of the few Scotsmen that
were selected to accompany James VI. when he went, in April, 1603,
to take possession of the English throne. By good management,
assisted by royal grants, he was able to ‘quit and relieve, piece
and piece, parts of his estate, till at length it pleased God to
bless him with great lands and honour and a long life. He held the
office of Lord of the Bedchamber both to James VI. and Charles I.
In 1625 he obtained from Charles the lordship of Colleweston, in
Northamptonshire, ‘for his good and faithful services to the
King’s father,’ and in the year 1629 he received from the same
monarch a gift of the keepership of the Great Park of Eltham. He
purchased from the Earl of Mar the lordship of Brechin and Navar
in 1639, and in 1642 he bought from the Earl of Dysart the Abbacy
of Arbroath. As might have been expected, Patrick Maule fought on
the royal side during the Great Civil War, and was rewarded by
Charles for his fidelity and zeal with his elevation to the
peerage by the title of EARL OF PANMURE and LORD BRECHIN AND NAVAR.
He remained with the King during his imprisonment at Holmsby and
Carisbrook. Commissary Maule records a very striking incident
which took place at the parting between the King and his devoted
follower.
‘He was the last
servant that stayed with him, and stayed even until that unlawful
Parliament did put him from him. The King himself told Panmure
that the order for his departure was come. Panmure asked his
Majestie what he should do in it. His Majestie told him, There is
no help, but you must obey; but deal with him that has the warrand
for a continuation for two or three days, quhilk he got granted to
him. Panmure’s servant that was there with him told me when
Panmure took his leave of his Majestie he did that quhilk he never
saw him do, nor heard of any that ever saw him do the like, quhilk
was he burst out in tears; and the King was standing and his back
at ane open window; and when the tears came in the King’s eyes he
turned him about to the window a little while till he settled, and
prayed God to bless him, for he knew him to be a faithful servant;
and called for his man and gave him a kiss of his hand and said,
"John, thou hast a faithful master." This John Duncan, who was
Panmure’s man all the time, and had been long with him before,
told me this.’
The Government of
the Commonwealth imposed on the Earl the exorbitant fine of £2,500
sterling for himself and of £2,500 for his son Henry, who
commanded a regiment in the army of ’the Engagement’ for the
rescue of Charles and also at the battle of Dunbar. But the Earl’s
fine was ultimately restricted to £4,000, and that of his son to
£1,000. Lord Panmure, who was now advanced in years, took no
active part in the cause of Charles II. when he came to Scotland,
but he sent £2,000 to the royal coffers, and his eldest son, Lord
Brechin, fought for Charles both at Dunbar and at Inverkeithing,
where he was wounded. The aged peer survived to witness the
Restoration, and died in December, 1661. He left a manuscript
history of the patriot Wallace, ‘whose deeds of unselfish devotion
and lofty daring,’ says Dr. Stuart, ‘he himself aspired to emulate
throughout his whole course.’ He was three times married, but left
surviving offspring—four daughters and two sons—only by his first
wife, a daughter of Sir Edward Stanhope of Grimstone, in
Yorkshire. His eldest son, GEORGE, LORD BRECHIN, became second
Earl of Panmure on his father’s death, and carried out his
predecessor’s intention of building a new house at Panmure. He
married the eldest daughter of John Campbell, Earl of Loudon, Lord
High Chancellor, who bore him nine children, of whom four sons and
one daughter died young. This close connection with one of the
leaders of the Covenanting party does not appear to have had any
influence on the politics of the Panmure family. The eldest
surviving son, GEORGE, third Earl, was a Privy Councillor to
Charles II. and James VII. He was succeeded in his titles and
estates by his brother, JAMES MAULE of Ballumbie, a staunch
Royalist and a Privy Councillor to James VII., but who was ‘laid
aside’ from the Council on account of his opposition to the
abrogation of the penal laws against Popery. This treatment,
however, did not prevent him from advocating the cause of King
James at the Convention of Estates in 1689, and when it was agreed
to settle the crown on William and Mary, the Earl, along with his
brother, Harry Maule, of Kelly, left the assembly and never again
attended a meeting of the Scottish Estates.
Although the two
brothers appear to have formed a low and just opinion of their
nephew, the Earl of Mar, when that weak and vacillating nobleman
raised the Jacobite standard at Braemar, the loyalty of Panmure
and Harry Maule to the cause of the Stewarts made them at once
take part in the rebellion. With a view, it is said, of increasing
the number of retainers whom he led into the field, the Earl
bought the lands of Edzell, Glenesk, and Lethnot from David
Lindsay, the last of the Edzell family. He proclaimed the
Chevalier as King at the market cross of Brechin. The Earl and his
brother look part in the indecisive battle of Sheriffmuir, 15th
November, 1715, where the former commanded a battalion of foot.
Harry Maule, and several other gentlemen volunteers, fought on the
right wing of the Highlanders, where the royal troops fled on the
first fire. Immediately after the close of the battle, a report
reached him that the Earl, who appears to have been on the left of
Mar’s army, which was worsted and driven back, was wounded and
taken prisoner, and was lying in a cot-house on the field. He
resolved at once to attempt his brother’s rescue, and asked Mar to
send a party of soldiers with him, ‘but could not obtain it, and
Mar only sent Clephan with a compliment to Panmure, and Mar
himself immediately marched off. Then Mr. Harie asked the
assistance of all the other troops he met with, but none of their
officers would venture on it, they thought it so perilous. Then
Mr. Harie undertook it himself, with two or three domestics, by
which he ran the risque of having both himself and brother in the
enemies’ hands at once, and so his family ruined and children
utterly abandoned; and Mar, besides the ingratitude to his two
uncles, risked the King and party’s losing two of the most
considerable men they had.’ Harry Maule, with his servants and a
Dr. Blair, a medical man, after inquiring at several cot-houses,
at length found the Earl, ‘the six dragoons who guarded him having
fled upon the noise of Harry’s approach, taking his small party
for a great body coming up by the noise that their horses’ feet
made upon the hard and shingly road. When Mr. Harie came in, he
found him lying on a very sorry bed, near a fire, with the green
apron about his head, and two Highland plaids about his body. Mr.
Harie asked him how he was, and desired him to go along with him;
but he refused, saying that he was not able, and that he would
faint if he either walked or rode. Mr. Harie urged him by telling
him that if they stayed any time they would be all taken
prisoners; but he would not consent. Upon which Mr. Harie desired
the doctor to persuade him, who got him to consent by telling him
that his wounds would not be the worse. Upon which he consented,
and Mr. Harie’s valet, Jo. Robertson, drew on a pair of boots upon
his legs, and in the same dress they found him in, set him upon a
horse, Jo. Fraser leading it, John Robertson walking upon his one
side, and Malcolm on the other, mid-leg in snow and ice. By the
way he took a hearty dram out of a flask that Robertson had at his
side, and so carried him to Ardoch. It’s believed that if they had
stayed a little longer they had all been taken, for it’s reported
that not long after a party of 80 horse came to carry him to
Stirling or Dumblain.’
The capture and rescue of the Earl
are commemorated in the old Jacobite ballad on the battle—
‘Brave Mar and
Panmure
Were firm I’m sure,
The latter was kidnapt awa’, man.
With brisk men about
Brave Harry retook
His brother and laughed at them a’, man.’
On the suppression
of the rebellion, Lord Panmure followed the Chevalier to the
Continent. He was, of course, attainted of high treason, and his
honours and estates were forfeited to the Crown. It is said that
the restoration of his estates—rented at £3,456, the largest of
the confiscated properties—was twice offered him by the Government
if he would return home and take the oath of allegiance to the
House of Hanover, but he firmly adhered to the Stewart dynasty. An
Act of Parliament, however, was passed to enable the King to make
such provision for the Countess of Panmure (a daughter of the Duke
of Hamilton) as she would have been entitled to had her husband
been dead.
The disposal of the
forfeited estates of the Jacobite lords and lairds cost the
Government no small trouble. Their property was, by Act of
Parliament, vested in the Sovereign for the use of the public, and
Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the condition of
these lands, with a salary of £1,000 a year—an enormous official
income at that time in Scotland, when the judges of the Court of
Session received only £500. Sir Richard Steele, the essayist, who
was one of the Commissioners, writing to his wife, says of his
official visit to Edinburgh, ‘You cannot imagine the civilities
and honours done me there; and never lay better, ate or drank
better, or conversed with men of better sense than there.’ But
though Steele himself was a favourite with the Edinburgh citizens,
they, as well as the great body of the Scottish people, had a
strong prejudice against the Commissioners, and thwarted them in
every possible way. The Court of Exchequer had forestalled them by
ordering the sheriffs of the various counties to enter into
possession of the estates and levy the rents, as by the law of
Scotland they were entitled to do. The creditors of the forfeited
proprietors endeavoured to secure payment of their debts by
attaching the estates in the ordinary course of law. The friends
and relatives of the dispossessed lairds brought forward all sorts
of pretended claims, and presented petitions for sequestration to
the Court of Session, which were readily granted, and factors, who
were usually the nominees of the pretended creditors, were
appointed to manage the estates. The Commissioners complained
bitterly, and not without reason, of this mode of procedure. They
mention, among many other examples, the case of the estates of
Stirling of Keir, worth £900 a year, which had been sequestrated
at the instance of two maltmakers and a blacksmith, one of the
tenants on the estate, and an Edinburgh shopkeeper. No details
were given as to the sums altogether due to them, and no evidence
of the debts was produced. The Court appointed as factor Walter
Stirling, Writer to the Signet, the law agent of the dispossessed
proprietor, and who, say the Commissioners, ‘is also remarkable
for his disaffection to the Government, and was imprisoned during
the late rebellion for keeping correspondence with the rebels.’
The Earl of Carnwath had a rental of £1,000 a year from his
estate, which was burdened with a jointure of £150 per annum to
his mother, Dame Henrietta Murray. The lady herself was appointed
factor, and thus the estate was ‘taken by the Lords of Session out
of the King’s person and put into the person of the said Dame
Henrietta Murray, for behoof of some few who pretend, but no ways
appear, to be creditors on the said estate.’ The factor who was
nominated by the Court to take charge of the Earl Marischal’s
estates, worth £2,384 a year, was Thomas Arbuthnott, merchant,
Peterhead, who was actually engaged with the Earl in the
rebellion. John Lumsden, W.S., agent of the Earl of Panmure, was
appointed factor on his Lordship’s estates. ‘He sorely tried the
Commissioners. He employed under him all the late Earl’s officers
who had been most active in the rebellion, and appointed the
servants of the Countess his bailees in the Baronial Court.’
The Commissioners
at last succeeded in getting the sequestrations set aside, but a
new device was immediately tried to baffle their efforts to obtain
possession of the forfeited estates. It was contended that the
lands did not really belong to the late ostensible owners, and
claimants for them sprang up in all quarters. The Court of Session
was by no means unwilling to lend its aid to the promotion of this
scheme, and paid little regard to consistency in the judgments
which it pronounced. Seaforth’s estates were by one decree
declared to belong in full and absolute right to Kenneth Mackenzie
of Assynt, by another to William Martin of Harwood, by a third to
Hugh Wallace of Inglestone. The estates of the Earl of Mar, the
leader of the rebellion, were successively awarded to four of
these pretended owners, and Viscount Kenmure’s to five.
Even when the Commissioners were put in possession, they
discovered to their disappointment and annoyance that their
difficulties seemed as great as ever. The tenants on many of the
estates, who were as staunch Jacobites as their masters, refused
to recognize in any form the authority of the Act of Parliament in
the factors appointed by the Commissioners, and continued to pay
their rents to the late, and as they believed, the proper
proprietors. The clansmen of Seaforth regularly transmitted their
rents to their chief during his exile in France, and successfully
resented the attempts of the Government agent, supported by a
detachment of soldiers, to force his way into their territory. The
tenants on the Panmure estates were induced by the Countess and
her factor, Mr. George Maule, to subscribe blank bills for all
arrears, and also a blank bond for two years from 24th June, 1715,
nearly four months before the battle of Sheriffmuir.
The forfeited
estates of the Maule and other Jacobite landlords were at length
prepared for sale in 1719 and 1720, but it was very difficult, if
not hopeless, to find purchasers in Scotland for so large an
amount of landed property. In this extremity the ‘Company of
Undertakers for raising the Thames Water, in York Buildings,
London, in England,’ came to the assistance of the Government. A
mania at that time prevailed for speculation and joint-stock
companies, and the company referred to opened a subscription ‘for
raising a joint-stock and fund of £1,200,000 for purchasing
forfeited and other estates in Great Britain, by a fund for
granting annuities on lives, and for assuring lives.’ The
subscription lists were speedily and eagerly filled up, and the
whole sum provided for. ‘Peers and bishops, country gentlemen and
merchants, stockjobbers and adventurers, alike lustful of gain,
crowded to place their names upon the lists,’ and in the course of
a few months the ten-pound shares of the company rose to £305.
In the autumn of
1779, the Commissioners advertised for sale by auction the estates
of Viscount Kilsyth, Mr. Craw of East Reston, the Earl of Winton,
and the Earl of Panmure; and Mr. Robert Hacket and Mr. John Wicker
were sent down to Scotland by the York Buildings Company to attend
the sales. The Winton estates were bought by them on the 6th of
October, for the sum of £50,300.
The 9th of October
was the day fixed for the sale of the Panmure estates, the most
valuable of all the property in the hands of the Commissioners. A
strenuous effort was made to buy them back on behalf of the
family. The Countess had protested against the sale, with the
active sympathy and concurrence of two of the judges of the Court
of Session, but the Commissioners determined to proceed. The.
estates, consisting of twelve baronies, and nearly as many
parishes, including the patronage of fifty-three churches, were
exposed for sale on the day appointed at the upset price of
£57,032 11s. 1½d. ‘Mr. James Maule,
servant of Mr. Harry Maule, of Kelly,’ brought up the price to
£60,300, in opposition to Mr. Hacket, agent for the York Buildings
Company, ‘when, his competition becoming dangerous, the
Commissioners asked whether he was prepared with cautioners. He
replied that he was not, and an altercation ensued. The
Commissioners offered to stop the running of the sandglass till he
obtained security, but he said that he would require two or three
days for the purpose. The sale was thereon proceeded with. Mr.
Hacket bade £100 more, and the estate was knocked down to him at
£60,400. The dispute provoked a considerable amount of comment,
and is referred to in the party literature of the day.
While the
hereditary estates of the family had thus passed into the hands of
strangers, the Earl, who in early life had shown a taste for
historical pursuits, was solacing himself in his exile by
collecting valuable manuscripts and records, which are now at
Panmure. He and his nephew made a pilgrimage to the place where
the Maules had flourished in France for generations before they
migrated to Scotland. James Maule sent a most interesting account
of their visit to the old castle and village of Maule, and of the
evidence which they found for establishing the connection of the
Scottish with the French house. They also discovered that a barony
of Panmure formed part of the possessions of the French Maules, as
well as of their Scottish representatives. The Earl died at Paris,
April, 1723, in his sixty-fourth year, without issue.
His brother,
HARRY MAULE, succeeded him as representative of the family. He and
his brother’s widow, a lady of great energy and strength of
character, who survived till 1731, obtained from the York
Buildings Company long leases of the two chief mansion houses. He
settled at Brechin Castle, while the Countess took up her residence
at Panmure. ‘There seems,’ says Dr. Stuart, ‘to have been no doubt
among the chief members of the family that sooner or later the
inheritance of their forefathers would be recovered, and the
leases in question secured the possession of their residences till
that happy time arrived.’ Mr. Harry Maule resembled his brother,
both in his political principles and historical tastes, and
extensive collections were made by them of chronicles,
chartularies, and documents bearing on the history of Scotland,
which are now preserved in the library at Brechin Castle. During
his exile in Holland, after the suppression of the rebellion,
Harry Maule’s son says he ‘did there employ his time in such
studies as might be most useful to him; tho’ he had studied the
law of nature and nations before, he read Grotius,
.De Jure pacis et belli,
four times over, with the best
commentaries, by which he became so versed in the public law that
scarce any question could be stated to him but he immediately gave
Grotius and the other famous authors’ opinions without opening a
book. He also improved himself in the feudal law, having read
Struvius and many of the German lawyers on that subject. Then he
applied himself to be well versed in the present state of Europe,
the pretensions of each prince, their acquisitions, and what they
were founded on. Another study he pursued very closely; that was
the canon law and the fathers.’ After Mr. Maule’s return to
Scotland, the knowledge which he had thus acquired was turned by
him to good account in the controversy which broke out in the
Episcopal Church respecting the ‘Usages.’ It is a pleasant
picture, as Dr. Stuart remarks, to contemplate Harry Maule in his
picturesque old castle of Kelly, amid the historical collections
which have made him famous, preparing the interesting history of
his ancestors, devoting his efforts to the recovery of the family
honours and estates, and surrounded by sons of high promise, who
sympathised, and took part, with their father in his tastes and
labours. Harry Maule was twice married. His first wife, a daughter
of the Earl of Wigton, bore him three sons and two daughters. For
his second wife he took a sister of John Lindsay, Viscount Garnock,
by whom he had five sons and one daughter. A number of his
children died in infancy, and none of them married, with the
exception of his daughter Jean. Harry Maule died in 1734.
JAMES MAULE,
the eldest son of the first marriage,
was a young man of the highest promise and possessed remarkable
historical attainments. He was associated with his father in the
collection and arrangement of the documents in the ‘Registrum de
Panmure.’ He contemplated the preparation of a history of his
family, and had sketched out a plan for the work in a most
judicious form. His scheme for the institution of a library of
reference in Edinburgh showed that his ideas on this subject were
far in advance of those of his contemporaries. He purposed also to
publish a peerage, a complete collection of Scottish historians, a
history of Scotland, and political memoirs treating of the ancient
and modern state of the country. But all these projects, and his
plans for the improvement of the family estates, were cut short by
the untimely death of this accomplished youth in 1729. His brother
WILLIAM then became his father’s heir. He entered the army at an
early age, served in several campaigns in the Low Countries, and
was engaged in the battles of Dettingen and Fontenoy. He
ultimately attained the rank of general. In 1735 he was elected a
member of Parliament for the county of Forfar, and continued to
represent it till his death. In 1743 he was created a peer of
Ireland, by the titles of Earl of Panmure of Forth, and Viscount
Maule of Whitechurch.
Meanwhile, through
mismanagement and flagrant jobbery, the York Banking Company had
come to ruin; and, in 1764, Lord Panmure purchased from their
creditors the estates of the Maule family in Forfarshire for the
sum of £49,157 18s. 4d. sterling. On his death, without issue, in
1782, his titles became extinct. JEAN, the eldest daughter of
Harry Maule, had married, in 1726, George, Lord Ramsay, eldest son
of William, fifth Earl of Dalhousie, and the Panmure estates, in
terms of the entail, went to George, eighth Earl of Dalhousie,
their second son, in life rent. On his death, in 1787, they passed
to the Honourable WILLIAM RAMSAY, his lordship’s second son, then
a youth in his sixteenth year, who assumed the name and arms of
Maule of Panmure. In 1789 he entered the army as a cornet in the
11th Dragoons, and afterwards raised an independent company of
foot, which was disbanded in 1791. The politics of his family were
Tory; but Mr. Maule, who was a great admirer of Mr. Fox, joined
the Whig party, and at the general election of 1796 he was elected
member for Forfarshire in the Whig interest. He continued to
represent that county until 1831, when he was raised to the
peerage by the title of Baron Panmure of Brechin and Navar.
Mr. Maule was a
very remarkable character, and during his early and middle life,
his name and eccentric doings, in one form or another, were almost
continually before the public, whom he alternately surprised and
scandalised by his systematic defiance of decorum and conventional
usages. He was possessed of excellent natural abilities, which
had, however, been only imperfectly cultivated; but his natural
shrewdness stood him well instead of acquired knowledge. ‘He is
the most long-headed fellow,’ wrote of him Mr. Hunter, of
Blackness, in Forfarshireland, and of the soundest judgment too
(if he did not sometimes let his passion get the better of him) of
any person of his years whom I know, and has more brains than his
whole family beside.’ Unfortunately, Mr. Maule’s passion did very
often get the better of him. He was unmeasured both in his likings
and dislikings, ‘devotedly attached to those who did not thwart
him, implacable to those who did;’ liberal and kind to those who
came in contact with him only in the affairs of public life, but
most arbitrary and despotic in his behaviour to his own family. He
would brook no opposition to his will, and was vindictive and
unrelenting to those who thwarted him or refused to submit to his
authority. He was ultimately at variance with all the members of
his family, and the verdict of public opinion unhesitatingly
pronounced him in the wrong. On the other hand, he was an
excellent landlord, and was highly popular among his numerous
tenantry and the labourers on his estates, whom he treated with
great liberality. In 1839 his tenantry erected a handsome column,
105 feet high, on the Downie Hills, in Forfarshire, as a memorial
of their respect for him as their landlord. Mr. Maule’s generosity
was a very conspicuous feature of his character. He bestowed a
pension on the widow of Charles James Fox, the great statesman;
and he also conferred an annuity of fifty pounds on the widow of
Robert Burns, which was continued until the eldest son of the poet
was enabled to provide for his mother, and the further assistance
of her benefactor was respectfully declined. He enlarged the
public schools of Brechin, and erected a hall, fitted up in the
most tasteful manner, with library and apparatus, and beautiful
paintings, at his sole expense, for the Mechanics’ Institute of
that burgh. His acts of benevolence indeed were unceasing, and
advancing years, while they tended somewhat to mitigate his
animosities and soften his character, served to widen the channels
of his munificence.
During Mr. Maule’s
early years Forfarshire was noted for the ‘perilous hospitalities’
of its lairds; and the letters of Mr. Hunter, who belonged to that
class, and was an intimate friend of Mr. Maule, abound in
references to the hard drinking which was frequent in his society.
Writing on the 26th of August, 1806, he says, ‘we had a most
dreadful day at Brechin Castle; one of the most awful ever known,
even in that house. What think you of seven of us drinking
thirty-one bottles of red champagne, besides Burgundy, three
bottles of Madeira, &c., &c.? Nine bottles were drank by us after
Maule was pounded. He had been living a terrible life for three
weeks preceding.’ Messrs. Murray and Longman, the eminent
publishers, were at different times taken by Mr. Hunter on a tour
among the Forfarshire lairds, and frequently dined at Brechin
Castle. The mode of life practised there seems to have completely
upset the orderly system of these worthy bibliopolists. Mr. Murray
was present at ‘the dreadful day’ at Brechin Castle, and
‘contrived,’ says Hunter, to take his share of all the drink that
was then and there consumed; ‘but he has since paid for it very
dearly. He has since been close at home at Eskmount (the seat of
Mr. Hunter, senior) very unwell.’ Mr. Longman fared no better than
his brother publisher. ‘He was taken ill on Saturday,’ wrote Mr.
Hunter, from Brechin Castle, October 3rd, 1804; ‘next morning he
was much worse, and we were at one time afraid he was in for a
fever. He lay in bed all that day, but next day was greatly
better, having starved himself for a day. On Monday he was still
sick; however, the day being fine, we made him rise, and got him
safe to Eskmount that night. There he is at present, careening,
and the ladies take the best care possible of him. These
Englishers will never do in our country.’ It was not without good
reason that a London merchant, of formal manners and temperate
habits, was roused to indignation at the attempt made by his host—
a Forfarshire laird—to practise such unpleasant conviviality. The
poor man quitted the table when the drinking set in hard, and
stole away to take refuge in his bedroom. The company, however,
were determined not to let the worthy citizen off so easy, but
proceeded in a body, with the laird at their head, and invaded his
privacy by exhibiting bottles and glasses at his bed-side. Losing
all patience, the wretched victim gasped out his indignation,
‘Sir, your hospitality borders on brutality.’
It is amusing to
observe from Mr. Hunter’s letters that one of the hospitable
mansions in which ‘Maule and Company’ dined and spent the night
was Balnamoon, the owner of which was the hero of a well-known
anecdote illustrative of the manners of that day. He was returning
on horseback from a convivial party, and on hearing himself fall
into the stream which he was crossing, he called out to his
servant, ‘John, what was that that played plash? ‘I wot na,’
replied John, ‘unless it were your honour.’ It is told of the same
worthy that on a similar occasion, when his hat and wig had been
blown off, he indignantly refused the latter when it was restored
to him, exclaiming, ‘John, this is no my wig; this is a
wat wig.’ John coolly rejoined, ‘Ye’d better tak’ it, sir, for
there’s na wale [choice] o’ wigs in Munrimmon Moor,’ and induced
the laird to resume the dripping covering. It need excite no
surprise that it seems to have been the entertainment given by
this drouthy laird to Mr. Maule and Company which finally
prostrated the London booksellers.
It was usually when
Mr. Maule and his roystering friends had taken more liquor than
they could carry discreetly that they played their pranks, which
though not looked upon then in the same light that they would be
nowadays, were regarded with disapprobation and deep regret by the
sober and respectable class of the community. Forfar, the county
town of the shire, was the scene of many of the bacchanalian
exploits of the lord of Brechin Castle and his associates.
[Forfar has long
had an evil reputation for the insobriety of its inhabitants, and
it is a curious fact that almost all the traditionary anecdotes of
that place, from the earliest times down to the present day, refer
to drinking or to public-houses. The town, as Robert Chambers
remarks, may thus be said to resemble in some measure a certain
Edinburgh lawyer of the last age, of whom it was alleged that
whenever or wheresoever met or seen, he was always either going to
a tavern, or in a tavern, or coming from a tavern, or thinking of
going to a tavern. In Frank’s Northern Memoirs, published
two hundred and thirty years ago, there is a lengthened account
given of a famous case which had shortly before that date occurred
at Forfar. A brewster’s wife having one day ‘brewed a peck o’ maut,’
which she expected a party of topers to consume, set the liquor
out at the door to cool. A neighbour’s cow soon after coming past,
scented the savoury contents of the cauldron, and, turning to,
began to solace herself with a draught. The liquor was good, and
‘aye she winkit, and aye she drank,’ until she finished the browst.
The luckless owner of the ale, who came out just in time to see
the last dregs disappear down crummie’s capacious throat, had no
recourse but to try what the law could do for her, and she
accordingly brought the case in regular form before the bailies.
But the worthy magistrates, as became Forfar authorities, having a
proper sympathy for all—man or beast—who loved good liquor,
decided the case against the complainant, on the ground that, by
the immemorial custom of Scotland, nothing is ever charged for a
standing drink, otherwise called a dock-an-doris, or
stirrup-dram, and seeing that the cow had swallowed the browst in
place and manner according, her owner ought to be absolved from
the charge. In former days Forfar was a good deal inconvenienced
by a loch in its immediate vicinity, which the inhabitants were
anxious to drain, but they long delayed the undertaking on account
of the great expense which it would entail on them. At a public
meeting held to discuss the measure, the Earl of Strathmore said
that he believed the cheapest method of draining the loch would be
to throw a few hogsheads of good whisky into the water and set the
‘drunken writers of Forfar’ to drink it up. The loch was
ultimately drained, but to what extent the legal gentlemen of the
town contributed to this result history saith not.]
Occasionally,
however, they played their pranks in other places, where they were
not regarded with the same indifference or complacency as they
were at Forfar. They had sometimes to be condoned by such acts of
liberality as procured for Mr. Maule the designation of the
‘Generous Sportsman,’ and relieved him from many an awkward
scrape. On one occasion he and two or three kindred spirits
happened to dine at an inn in Perth, and, as usual, sallied out
after nightfall in quest of adventures. The street lamps having
attracted their notice, they began to break them with their
sticks, till in a short time the whole city was in total darkness.
Next morning, on learning that the magistrates were met in full
conclave to consider what steps should be taken to punish the
outrage which had been committed overnight, Maule calmly repaired
to the Council Chamber, and informed the offended authorities that
having recently come to visit the Fair City, he was quite ashamed
to see the shabby-looking lamps in its streets, which were really
a disgrace to so fine a town. He had therefore demolished the
whole, with the view of presenting to the corporation at his own
expense a new and handsome set of lamps. The astonished
magistrates had no resource but to accept the apology and the
gift.
There were other
amusing anecdotes told of Mr. Maule, which represent him as
mingling benevolence with a display of humour and a love of fun,
instead of as a member of Parliament and a great landowner
behaving, like a mischievous schoolboy. The Highland chairmen of
Edinburgh were proverbial in his day for their insatiable fondness
for ‘filthy lucre.’ The excessive greed of these worthies
happening to become the subject of conversation one day among a
few gentlemen, Mr. Maule alleged that they were not so difficult
to satisfy as was said, and took up a bet that they could be
contented with liberal remuneration. The wager was accepted, and
Mr. Maule sent for a sedan chair, and gave orders that he should
be conveyed a short distance down the Canongate. On alighting, he
rewarded his bearers with a guinea, feeling quite confident that
they would be more than satisfied with such a handsome donation.
One of them turning over the ‘yellow Geordie’ in his hand, as if
to make sure that it was genuine, said, ‘But could her honour no
shuist gie’s the ither sixpence to get a gill?’ Mr. Maule
good-humouredly produced the ‘ither sixpence’ in the expectation
of gaining his bet, but a demand on the part of the other chairman
for ‘three bawbees of odd shange to puy snuff,’ put him out of all
temper, and thoroughly convinced him of the impossibility of
satisfying a Highland chairman.
Walking through his
plantations one day, his lordship was attracted by the sound of
some one felling wood. ‘What are you about there?’ he said to a
young man whom he caught in the act of levelling a stately tree,
while a cart and horse were at hand to carry away the trunk. ‘Do
ye na see what I’m about?’ answered the fellow with the utmost
assurance. ‘Nae doot ye’ll be ane o’ the understrappers frae the
big hoose.’ Amused at the nonchalance and effrontery of the clown,
Lord Panmure said, ‘What if Maule were to come upon you?’ ‘Hout,
man! he wadna say a word; there’s no a better hearted gentleman in
a’ the country; but as I am in a hurry, I wish ye wad lend me a
hand, man.’ To this request his lordship good humouredly
consented, and when the tree had been securely placed on the cart,
the jolly rustic prepared to reward his assistant with a dram in a
neighbouring public-house. This offer was declined, but the youth
was invited to call next day at the castle and ask for Jamie the
footman, who would treat him to a dram out of his own bottle. The
countryman readily accepted the invitation, and called according
to promise; but to his astonishment and confusion, instead of
meeting the footman, he was ushered with great ceremony into the
presence of Lord Panmure and a company of gentlemen. ‘My man,’
said his lordship, walking up to him, ‘next time you go to cut
wood, I would advise you first to ask Maule’s permission.’
With this gentle reprimand he dismissed the terrified depredator,
though not without having given instructions that he should be
well entertained in the hall.
In order that he
might obtain an intimate knowledge of the character and habits of
his tenantry and workmen, Lord Panmure occasionally amused himself
by visiting them in the character of a mendicant, so completely
disguised as to render recognition impossible. Some curious
stories are told respecting his behaviour while in this guise. His
habits, indeed, were those of a past generation, and it is not
easy to understand how they could have been maintained down to the
middle of the nineteenth century.
Lord Panmure was
twice married. His first wife was Patricia Heron, daughter of
Gilbert Gordon, Esq., of Halleaths, who bore him three sons and
five daughters. This lady—who is described by Mr. Hunter as ‘the
wisest, most judicious, best-tempered, best-dispositioned,
sensible, and good woman in the whole circle of my acquaintance
‘—died in 1821, and in the following year his lordship married
Miss Elizabeth Barton, by whom he had no issue. He died in 1852,
and was succeeded by the eldest of his three sons—
FOX MAULE, second
Baron Panmure and eleventh Earl of Dalhousie. He was born in 1801,
was educated at the Charterhouse, entered the army as an ensign,
and after serving for several years in Canada on the staff of his
uncle, the eighth Earl of Dalhousie, he retired in 1831 with the
rank of captain. He commenced his political career in 1835, when,
after a very keen contest, he was elected member for the county of
Perth. He subsequently represented successively the Elgin Burghs
and the Burgh of Perth. On the return of the Melbourne Ministry to
office in 1835, Mr. Maule was made UnderSecretary for the Home
Department; in 1841 he held for a short period the office of
Vice-President of the Board of Trade; in 1842 he was chosen Lord
Rector of the University of Glasgow; and on the downfall of Sir
Robert Peel’s Administration in 1846 he became Secretary at War,
with a seat in the Cabinet. In February, 1852, he exchanged this
office for the Presidency of the Board of Control. The dissolution
of the Russell Ministry, however, soon followed, and on the death
of his father in the course of the same year, Mr. Maule was
elevated to the House of Lords. Lord Panmure had no seat in the
Coalition Cabinet, under the Earl of Aberdeen, but when it fell to
pieces during the war with Russia, and Lord Palmerston became
Prime Minister, he resumed his former office of Secretary at War,
somewhat modified in form, the duties of which he discharged with
great ability and untiring energy until the overthrow of Lord
Palmerston’s Administration in 18588. Lord Panmure was appointed
Lord-Lieutenant of Forfarsh ire in 1849; Keeper of the Privy Seal
and K.T. in 1853. On the death of his cousin, the Marquis of
Dalhousie, in 1860, he succeeded to the titles of Earl of
Dalhousie, Baron Ramsay of Kerington, and Baron Ramsay of
Dalhousie.
Lord Dalhousie was
a noted example of the truth of the saying, ‘It runs in the
blood.’ The prominent features of the Maules and Ramsays, physical
and mental, during the last six centuries were conspicuous in his
character. He was a reproduction, in short, of the famous Scottish
patriots of the fourteenth century—Sir Thomas Maule and Sir
Alexander Ramsay—modified and softened by the tastes and habits of
the present age. The Earl was possessed of great natural
shrewdness and sagacity, indomitable courage, and a most resolute
will, which it was by no means easy or safe to oppose. He was a
most trusty friend and a dangerous foe. He had in him many of the
qualifications of a great general, and there can be no doubt that
if he had remained in the army he would, like several of his
predecessors, have attained the highest military rank. He carried
with him into civil life some of the best qualities of a
soldier—order, promptitude, and energy. His administrative
abilities were of a high order. He was a shrewd and accurate judge
of character, knew whom to employ and to trust, and kept a sharp
eye on the doings of his subordinates. In his own person he was an
example of indefatigable industry and unwearied diligence in the
discharge of his official duties. He was habitually at work long
before sunrise, and during the Crimean War, like his chief, Lord
Palmerston, often turned night into day. Though he had no
pretensions to eloquence, Lord Dalhousie was a ready and powerful
debater. His style was clear, terse, and vigorous; he had a good
voice, and his delivery was natural, distinct, and telling. On
being told of the success of Fox Maule’s maiden speech in the
House of Commons, Professor Pillans, who strove hard to improve
the elocution of his pupils, exclaimed, with pardonable pride, ‘It
was I who taught the boy to speak.’ Lord Dalhousie took a deep
interest in the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland, especially in
the controversy which terminated in the disruption of the
Established Church. As became his ancestry, he was a zealous and
steady friend of civil and religious liberty, and was a staunch
supporter of the Free Church. From its origin he held the office
of ruling elder in that denomination, and his courageous advocacy
of its principles in the House of Commons, against an overwhelming
majority, composed not only of Conservatives but of many Whigs,
ought to be held in grateful remembrance. No man ever acted more
consistently on the maxim of Lord Belhaven, ‘All for the Church
and a little less for the State.’
Lord Dalhousie died
6th July, 1874, without issue. The elder of his two brothers, the
Hon. Lauderdale Maule, a gallant officer, was Assistant
Adjutant-General of the Forces in the Crimea, and died, unmarried,
of cholera in the camp near Varna, on the 1st of August,
1854, greatly lamented. William Maule, the
youngest son, died in 1859, leaving a family
of daughters, two sons having predeceased him. The family titles
and estates passed to Admiral George Ramsay, grandson of the
eighth Earl, and are now possessed by his son, John William
Ramsay, thirteenth Earl of Dalhousie, a young nobleman of great
promise, who was a Lord-in-waiting to the Queen under Mr.
Gladstone’s Government. |
