Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromartie, Knight

by John Willcock

CHAPTER III

Unsuccessful Rising in the North—Sir Thomas makes his Peace with the Church—Return of Charles II. to Scotland—Invasion of England—Battle of Worcester—Sir Thomas a Prisoner in the Tower—Makes Friends—Is liberated on Parole—Great Literary Activity—Revisits Scotland—Dies—Later History of the Urquharts of Cromartie—Characteristics of our Author—Glover's Portraits of him.

HORTLY after the news of the execution of Charles I. reached Scotland, a rising on the part of some of the leading Cavaliers in the north took place, with the view of restoring the Royal Family. The most prominent person in this attempt was Thomas Mackenzie of Pluscardine, a younger brother of George, the second Earl of Seaforth, who for nearly ten years past had managed the affairs of the family, and was looked up to, both on account of his ability and also on account of the great territorial influence he represented. He had seen a good deal of service abroad, and was at one time governor of Stralsund.[97] Along with him, and only second to him, was our Sir Thomas Urquhart, to whom even civil war was scarcely more fraught with anxiety and danger than was the life he had been forced to lead for some time past. Together with them were associated eight other Royalists of good standing,—among whom Colonel Hugh Fraser of Belladrum and John Munro of Lemlair had a certain pre-eminence,—and these ten formed a kind of revolutionary committee for the control of the movement they had set on foot, and the government of the district that might become subject to them.

Montrose had determined, on hearing of the execution of the King, to renew the war in Scotland, but Pluscardine and his associates did not wait for his arrival. Charles was beheaded on Tuesday, the 30th of January, 1649, and, by the 22nd of the next month, the Scottish gentlemen in the north had already taken the field, and captured Inverness. Four days after, on Monday, 26th February, a meeting of the Committee of War was held in that town, the minutes of which are still in existence,[98] and contain the name of our author next in order to that of Pluscardine himself.

The Committee passed certain enactments, by which they took into their own hands the customs and excise of the six northern counties—Inverness, Sutherland, Cromartie, Caithness, Nairn, and Elgin. An inventory of all the ammunition of the garrison was ordered to be taken. It was also decided that Sir Thomas's house at Cromartie should be put in a state of defence, and that the work should be carried out by the tenants of Sir James Fraser, a bitter Parliamentarian, and opponent of the Stuarts in the north, and by those of our knight's old enemy, Lesley of Findrassie.[99] It is easy for unregenerate human nature to understand the pleasure with which the members of the Committee of War would give this last order. By another enactment, the Committee declare that they consider it expedient for their safety that the works and forts of Inverness be demolished and levelled with the ground, and they ordain that each person appointed to this work should complete his proportion of it before eight days have passed, "under pain of being quartered upon and until the said task be performed."

On the 2nd of March, Mackenzie of Pluscardine, Sir Thomas Urquhart, and their associates, were proclaimed as rebels and traitors by the Estates of Parliament,[100]—as "wicked and malignant persouns intending so far as in thaine lyes, for their own base ends to lay the foundation of a new bloodie and unnaturall warre within the bowells of this their native country," etc. etc.

On the 1st of March the Commissioners of the General Assembly had written to Pluscardine and his associates expressing their wonder and grief at such a rising in the interests of "the Popish, Prelaticall and Malignant party," and threatening the penalty of excommunication within ten days if they would not "desist from and repent of that horrid insurrection."[101] The reply to this letter came in due time, and was signed by the principal leader in the insurrection, and by some other members of the Clan Mackenzie, and is, it must be confessed, a distinctly prevaricating and hypocritical document. For one sentence at least in it our author was responsible, though he neither signs the letter nor is named in it. His pedantic phraseology reveals his hand in the construction of the reply to the Commissioners' remonstrances and threats.

The letter is addressed "to the Honourable and Right Reverend," and begins as follows:—"Wee have lately received yours of the first of Merch, 1649, for the which and your wisdomes Christian care of ws, and your fatherly admonition to ws, we humbly and heartily rander yow all possible thanks." This lamb-like tone is maintained with admirable gravity all through the epistle, and is combined with a canting phraseology which was meant to be impressive, but which must have entertained any members of the Commission of the General Assembly who originally possessed and still retained a sense of humour. "And quheras [whereas]," so it goes on, "your wisdomes taks it a matter of no lesse wonder then [than] greife that we, being vnder the oath of God and tye of our Nationall Covenant, would make insurrection and take armes against the Lords people, certainly, if it were so, we acknowledge your wisdomes had reason to wonder and to be grieved. And it is no lesse winder and griefe to ws, being wnder the said oath and tye of Covenant, furthering the same with all our power and meanes, and at all occasions desireing nothing els then [than] the enjoying of the liberty of the subject, and proprietie of our goods, intended and promised in and by our Covenant." No one who has read any of Sir Thomas Urquhart's original works can doubt that the next sentence was either composed or revised by him. The two phrases which we have taken the liberty of putting into italics could scarcely have occurred to any other member of the Committee of War. "Yet we find, that evill willers and envyous vnderminers, in a singular and prœtextuous way aiming at our ruine, doe spend the quintessence of their witts to find out means whereby, under specious pretences of the publick [good?] to extermine ws with povertie, and by inventing fresh occasions to make ws odious, and bring ws vpon fresh stages [sic] vnder the base name of Malignancy." It is unnecessary to quote the whole of the letter, but a couple of sentences, which describe what the insurgents had done at Inverness, deserve notice. "But the whole countrey of all degrees, being sensible of the oppression and insolency of the vnnecessary and vnprofitable garison of Innernes to Church or State, did heartily and vnanimously contribute to the demolishing thereof, which being done, all disbanded peaceablie, and the people retired peaceablie to their owne homes, without offence to any nighbour of any degree or condition.... And now, when the said garison is dismantled, we shall be found not only disposed to live peaceablie, bot also ready to obey all publick ordours for the good of the Kingdome." The writers ask that "the taxes and impositions," which pressed with special severity on the class to which they belonged, should be remitted, and liberty given them to lead that religious, peaceful life, to which both by nature and by deliberate choice, they seem to say, they were strongly inclined. The sting of the letter is in its closing words. If these "evill willers" succeed in persuading the Commissioners of Assembly to go on with the sentence of excommunication, as fully deserved, they (the writers) formally appeal against such a decision from the Commission to the next General Assembly.[102]

The ecclesiastical court to which the above letter was sent may have contained a goodly sprinkling of fanatics, but it is certain that in it there were but few, if any, imbeciles; so that the communication from the Committee of War did not succeed in imposing upon those to whom its contents were read. They did not condescend to answer it, but at once issued a pamphlet, entitled A Declaration and Warning to all Members of this Kirk, "to recover, if possible, the disturbers of the peace of God's people out of the snare of Sathan, and to prevent others from falling therein." The document displays very genuine indignation and dismay at the possibility of the negotiations which were being carried on for restoring Charles II. as a "covenanted king" to the throne of his ancestors, being defeated, and of his coming back as an arbitrary ruler and oppressor of the Church. Those who have any doubt about the deterioration of both religion and politics when they are fused together, should read this and other State Papers of the period, and their eyes would be opened. The calm assumption by the writers that political opponents are the enemies of God, the claim to knowledge of the Divine purposes and counsels, the free use of the most sacred words of Scripture, the dark fanaticism which inspires so many of the utterances, and the intense passion which makes so many of them sound like mere raving—all combine to make these documents very painful reading. A circular letter of warning and exhortation was sent to Presbyteries, attempts were made to persuade individuals to disconnect themselves from the insurrectionary movement, and a message of encouragement was sent to Lieutenant-General David Lesley to strengthen his hands in the work of putting it down by fire and sword.[103]

The insurgents, after demolishing the fortifications of Inverness, retired before the troops sent to suppress them, and took refuge among the mountains of Ross-shire. Lesley advanced to Fortrose and garrisoned the castle there, and then proceeded to endeavour to make terms with the leaders of the insurrection. The only one who would listen to no accommodation was Mackenzie of Pluscardine. Immediately on Lesley's return south, he descended from the mountains, and attacked and took the castle of Chanonry. Our Sir Thomas Urquhart was now safely out of the conflict, but our readers may wish to know what became of the insurrectionary movement which he had such a large share in setting on foot, and from which he found it prudent to retire at an early stage.

Mackenzie's force was brought up to eight or nine hundred men by the accession of his nephew, Lord Reay, with three hundred followers. Soon afterwards he was joined by General Middleton and Lord Ogilvie, and advanced into Badenoch, with the view of raising the people in that and the neighbouring districts. In what is called the Wardlaw MS. a very vivid picture is given of the behaviour of the Highlanders from the Reay country, when they poured into Inverness on the morning of Sunday, the 2nd of May, 1649. "They crossed the bridge of Ness," says the Royalist minister of Kirkhill, "on the Lord's Day in time of divine service, and alarmed the people of Inverness, impeding God's worship in the town. For instead of bells to ring in to service I saw and heard no other than the noise of pipes, drums, pots, pans, kettles, and spits in the streets to provide them victuals in every house. And in their quarters the rude rascality would eat no meat at their tables until the landlord laid down a shilling Scots upon each trencher,[104] calling this 'airgiod cagainn' (chewing-money), which every soldier got, so insolent were they."

The campaign was a very brief one. The Royalists, joined by the Marquis of Huntly, attacked and took the castle of Ruthven, but, soon after, being hardly pressed by Lesley, they turned southwards and took up their quarters in Balvenie Castle. General Middleton and Mackenzie were despatched to treat with Lesley, but before they reached their destination, the troops from Fortrose, after a rapid march, surprised the Royalist forces at Balvenie. A fierce engagement took place, in which both sides suffered severely.[105] Eighty of the insurgents fell in defence of the castle. The Highlanders were dismissed to their homes on swearing never again to take up arms against the Parliament; while their leaders were sent as prisoners to Edinburgh, where most of them were set free soon after, on payment of fines, and on giving security that they would keep the peace. By sharp and vigorous action the remaining sparks of insurrection in the north were stamped out, and fresh bodies of troops were stationed in the principal strongholds of that part of the country. Thus ended a rising which would probably have had a very different result, if it had been postponed until the arrival of Montrose.

The same writer[106] who gave an account of the riotous and insolent demeanour of the Highland soldiers in Inverness, furnishes us with a companion-picture—that of them on their way back to their homes after their defeat at Balvenie. It is as follows:—"Next twenty horse, and three companies of foot, were ordered to convey the captives back over the Spey, and through Moray to Inverness, where I saw them pass through; and those men who, in their former march, would hardly eat their meat without money, are now begging food, and, like dogs, lap the water which was brought them in tubs and other vessels in the open streets. Thence they were conducted over the bridge of Ness, and dismissed everyone armless and harmless to his own house. This is a matter of fact which I saw and heard."

The profound feelings of anxiety which this abortive attempt at insurrection had excited in the minds of the ecclesiastical rulers of Scotland are very clearly indicated by the exuberance of joy with which the tidings of the victory at Balvenie were received by the Commission of Assembly.[107] They instantly decided to appoint a solemn Day of Thanksgiving, on the 25th of May, for "the Lord's mercifull defeat of the enemies of the peace of this land."[108] They tacked on a postscript to the above-mentioned Declaration and Warning, containing a statement of the causes of the Thanksgiving, and ordered both to be read from all the pulpits in Scotland. Letters of congratulation were despatched to the victorious officers, and to others who had been faithful in the recent crisis, and full particulars of what had taken place were sent to the Commissioners of Scotland at the Hague, who were engaged in the negotiations with "the young man, Charles Stuart." In the last-mentioned document there is a flicker of grim humour, as the writers send intelligence of the destruction of the hopes which news of the rebellion might have excited in the minds of Charles and his friends. The last sentence in the letter can scarcely have been written or read without a smile. "We have appointed," they say, "the twenty-fift day of Maij for a solemn thanksgiving for this and other late mercies, wherewith we thought good to acquaint yow, that yow manage this to the best advantage of the work in your hands, according as yow shall thinke fitt."[109] It was once said of a good man that he would have been better if he had had a little more of the devil in him; and one is inclined to think more highly of these good men for the touch of malice, which relieves the sombre character of their communication.[110]

The threatened bolt of excommunication was not launched, but our author found it necessary to apply to the Commission of General Assembly in order to make his peace with the ecclesiastical power. Accordingly, on the 22nd of June, 1650, he appeared in Edinburgh before this body, and presented his "supplicatioun" for pardon for the guilt of taking part in the Northern insurrection, and of assaulting and razing the walls of Inverness.

The Commission met, doubtless, in that "little roome of [off] the East Church" of St Giles, which Baillie describes as having been "verie handsomelie dressed for our Assemblies in all time coming,"[111] and from which, three years later, the English officers, under Cromwell's order, ejected the members of the General Assembly. The Commission on that day, when our author appeared before them, consisted of twenty-four members—the most distinguished divines and politicians in Scotland of the Covenanting party. The moderator, or chairman, was Robert Douglas,[112] "a great State preacher," who had been chaplain to the Scots troops in the service of Gustavus Adolphus, and had won the esteem of that monarch, and who in little more than six months' time would officiate at the coronation of Charles II., for whom Sir Thomas Urquhart had prematurely drawn the sword. Beside him was Samuel Rutherford, the Principal of St Andrews, whose fervid piety has found no lack of admirers in every generation since his time. Robert Baillie, the writer of the Letters which contain so many vivid pictures of events in that stirring period; David Dickson, Professor of Divinity in Glasgow, whose name we have heard as one of the deputation to persuade the people of Aberdeen to take the Covenant; and James Guthrie, who died as a martyr, the year after the Restoration, were present there that day. The contrast between these grave, dignified, saintly Covenanting leaders, and the brilliant Cavalier, Sir Thomas Urquhart, is one which, by its picturesqueness, strongly impresses the imagination.

The Commission, after hearing the petitioner's statements, did not, apparently; treat the matter as of very serious moment. The dangerous crisis was over, and they could afford to be merciful. They seem to have condoned the political offence, but referred Sir Thomas to Mr John Annand, minister of Inverness, one of their number, "that he might confer with him concerning some dangerous opinions which, as was informed, he had sometimes vented." If these could be explained away, and no further complicity in disloyal schemes were brought home to him, Mr Annand was empowered, acting at all times under the advice of the Presbytery of Inverness, to receive his public "satisfaction" in the church of that city. How the matter ended we do not know. But there is very little doubt that Sir Thomas's nebulous heterodoxy proved no bar to his being freed from ecclesiastical censure, and that, in due course, according to the custom of that time, he stood, as a penitent, before the congregation of the Parish Church, in that city the walls of which he had assisted to assault and overthrow.

A fortnight after Sir Thomas Urquhart's appearance before the Commission of the General Assembly, Charles II. landed in Scotland, and was accepted, though at first not without deep misgivings, as "covenanted King." The party to which our author belonged was for a time excluded from all share in public life; and even the army, which was to defend the sovereign against the English sectaries, was carefully sifted, to remove those whose presence might bring a curse upon it. So that, though the land resounded with war and the rumour of war, Sir Thomas remained in an enforced quietude in his castle at Cromartie. The effect of the battle of Dunbar (3rd September) was to depress the faction which had excluded the Royalist partisans from the army, and kept the King himself in something very like bondage. Charles II., indeed, is said to have given thanks to God for the victory of Cromwell over the Covenanting forces at this battle, and the only difficulty in the way of believing this statement lies in the fact that he so seldom gave thanks for anything.

The Royalist party now began to rally about their sovereign. Charles II. was crowned at Scone on the 1st January, 1651, and in due time an army, which included many of the so-called Malignants, was ready for trying conclusions once again with the terrible English General. And now for the third time our author took up arms on behalf of the Stuarts. After some months of endless marchings and counter-marchings, in which Cromwell evidently endeavoured to provoke his enemies into a repetition of the blunder by which they had lost the battle of Dunbar, the Scottish forces found an opportunity of marching into England.

The latter, under David Lesley, had taken up a strong position on the height of the Tor Wood, between Stirling and Falkirk, from which they refused to be drawn out to battle; and Cromwell resolved to take up his post on the other side of the Royalist army. Accordingly, he crossed the Forth at Queensferry, and, after defeating an attempt to intercept him at Inverkeithing, reached and occupied Perth. The way to England was now open, and the Scottish army swiftly and silently entered upon it, resolved to stake everything upon a great battle.

Sir Thomas Urquhart left his castle of Cromartie, and took part in this expedition, though apparently he held no position of command in the army, and was very much out of sympathy with many of those who journeyed with him. Indeed, his unfortunate prejudices against the Presbyterian and Covenanting party come out in the statement he makes, that many of those who started out to smite "the Midianites and Philistines," when it came to the push, managed to make their way home, "being loth to hazard their precious persons, lest they should seem to trust to the arm of flesh."[113] The mass of those, however, who formed the Scottish army were of very different mettle, and the battle in which they staked and lost everything was one of the fiercest in the whole of the great Civil War.

The course of their journey southward was through Biggar and Carlisle, and then through Lancashire. To their disappointment, they received no great accession of Royalists, nor of any others who were inclined to join them in the attempt to overthrow the Commonwealth. "They marched," says the historian, "under rigorous discipline, weary and uncheered, south through Lancashire; had to dispute ... the Bridge of Warrington with Lambert and Harrison, who attended them with horse-troops on the left; Cromwell with the main army steadily advancing behind. They carried the Bridge at Warrington; they summoned various Towns, but none yielded; proclaimed their King, with all force of lungs and heraldry, but none cried, God bless him. Summoning Shrewsbury, with the usual negative response, they quitted the London road; bent southward towards Worcester, a City of slight Garrison and loyal Mayor; there to entrench themselves, and repose a little."[114] Yet but slight opportunity for this was given them. The course taken by Cromwell was through York, Nottingham, Coventry, and Stratford-on-Avon, and when he arrived at Worcester with his army from Scotland, and with the county militias, who had risen at his summons, his forces numbered over thirty thousand men as against the enemy's sixteen thousand.

Meantime Sir Thomas Urquhart had taken up his quarters in Worcester, in the house of a Mr Spilsbury, "a very honest sort of man, who had an exceeding good woman to his wife." His luggage, which was stored in an attic, consisted, besides "scarlet cloaks, buff suits, and arms of all sorts," of seven large "portmantles," three of which were filled with unpublished works in manuscript, and other valuable documents—the amount of which he gives us in quires and quinternions, but which need not be repeated here. "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war," sang Milton in his sonnet to the Lord General Cromwell; and perhaps Sir Thomas Urquhart hoped, after achieving victory in war, to win a second set of laurels by means of the contents of the three "portmantles."

On the evening of the 3rd September, the anniversary of the battle of Dunbar, and afterwards to be the date of Cromwell's own death, the battle of Worcester was fought, and the Royalist cause utterly shattered. "The fighting of the Scots," says Carlyle, "was fierce and desperate. 'My Lord General did exceedingly hazard himself, riding up and down in the midst of the fire; riding, himself in person, to the Enemy's foot to offer them quarter, whereto they returned no answer but shot.' The small Scotch Army, begirdled with overpowering force, and cut off from help or reasonable hope, storms forth in fiery pulses, horse and foot; charges now on this side of the River, now on that;—can on no side prevail. Cromwell recoils a little, but only to rally and return irresistible. The small Scotch Army is, on every side, driven in again. Its fiery pulsings are but the struggles of death: agonies as of a lion coiled in the folds of a boa. 'As stiff a contest,' says Cromwell, 'for four or five hours as ever I have seen.'"[115]

The conquered lost six thousand men, and all their baggage and artillery; and Charles only with difficulty, and after many romantic adventures, succeeded in escaping to the Continent when the fight was over. Ten thousand prisoners, including eleven of the Scottish nobility, were taken. The sufferings of many of these brave men were severe in the extreme. Some perished from want of food and from gaol diseases, and large numbers of the survivors were shipped for the plantations, and sold as slaves.

Sir Thomas Urquhart, and, apparently, more than one of his brothers, were among the prisoners, but appeared to have fared better than many of their companions in arms. The greatest of the misfortunes that fell upon him was, in his estimation, the sad fate that overtook his precious manuscripts. The whole story, related in his own inimitable style, may be read in Chapter VI. It is enough to say here that a party of marauders broke into his quarters in search of valuables, that they forced open the "portmantles" and turned their contents out upon the floor, and afterwards carried off the papers to use them for wrapping up articles of plunder, and for lighting their pipes. Fortunately some bundles of these papers were afterwards picked up in the streets and brought back to him, and in due time found their way to the printer's.

After the battle of Worcester, Sir Thomas Urquhart and some of the other Scottish gentlemen who had been taken prisoners there were confined in the Tower of London. He seems to have speedily gained the favour of his captors, and to have been treated with remarkable leniency. Indeed, he speaks in terms of affectionate respect of various officers of the Parliamentary army from whom he had received kindness, and acknowledges courtesies extended towards him by the Lord General himself. Thus he places on record his indebtedness to a "most generous gentleman, Captain Gladmon," for speaking in his favour to the Protector. And of another, whom he calls the Marshal-General, in whose charge he had been placed, he has set down the praise in the following elaborate sentence:—"The kindly usage of the Marshal-General, Captain Alsop, whilst I was in his custody, I am bound in duty so to acknowledge, that I may without dissimulation avouch, for courtesies conferred on such as were within the verge of his authority, and fidelity to those by whom he was intrusted with their tuition [oversight of them] in that restraint, that never any could by his faithfulness to the one and loving carriage to the other bespeak himself more a gentleman, nor in the discharge of that military place acquit himself with a more universally-deserved applause and commendation."[116]

The severity of his imprisonment was soon abated; and he was removed from the Tower to Windsor Castle,[117] and not long after, by the orders of Cromwell, was paroled de die in diem.[118] The comparative liberty he now enjoyed enabled him to repair the loss of his manuscripts after the battle of Worcester, and he set himself to make the best of the fragments he had recovered, and to prepare them for publication, as well as to compose new material. A paragraph in the Epilogue of one of his works, in which he describes his warm appreciation of the measure of freedom he now enjoyed, is worth quoting. "That I, whilst a prisoner," he says, "was able to digest and write this Treatise, is an effect meerly proceeding from the courtesie of my Lord General Cromwel, by whose recommendation to the Councel of State my parole being taken for my true imprisonment, I was by their favour enlarged to the extent of the lines of London's communication; for had I continued as before, coopt up within walls, or yet been attended still by a guard, as for a while I was, should the house of my confinement have never been so pleasant, or my keepers a very paragon of discretion, and that the conversation of the best wits in the world, with affluence of all manner of books, should have been allowed me for the diversion of my minde, yet such all antipathie I have to any kinde of restraint wherein myself is not entrusted, that notwithstanding these advantages, which to some spirits would make a jayl seem more delicious then [than] freedom without them, it could not in that eclipse of liberty lie in my power to frame myself to the couching of one sillable, or contriving of a fancie worthy the labour of putting pen to paper, no more then [than] a nightingale can warble it in a cage, or linet in a dungeon."[119]

Another friend whom Sir Thomas Urquhart found in the time of need was the celebrated Roger Williams, the apostle of civil and religious liberty, and the founder of the settlement of Providence, Rhode Island, and missionary to the Indians. In the Epilogue to the Logopandecteision he thus acknowledges his obligations to him: "[I cannot] forget my thankfulness to that reverend preacher Mr Roger Williams of Providence, in New England, for the manifold favours wherein I stood obliged to him above a whole month before either of us had so much as seen other, and that by his frequent and earnest solicitation in my behalf of the most especial members both of the Parliament and Councel of State; in doing whereof he appeared so truely generous, that when it was told him how I, having got notice of his so undeserved respect towards me, was desirous to embrace some sudden opportunity whereby to testifie the affection I did owe him, he purposely delayed the occasion of meeting with me till he had, as he said, performed some acceptable office worthy of my acquaintance; in all which, both before and after we had conversed with one another, and by those many worthy books set forth by him, to the advancement of piety and good order, with some whereof he was pleased to present me, he did prove himself a man of such discretion and inimitably-sanctified parts, that an Archangel from heaven could not have shown more goodness with less ostentation."[120]

The years 1652 and 1653 form a period of astonishing literary activity on the part of our author, for no fewer than five separate works were then published by him, two of which were of very considerable bulk. The motive that had led him to bring out his two former works—the Epigrams and The Trissotetras—had been a desire to benefit mankind and to advance the glory of his native land. But now he had to consider his own interests, and to exert himself to promote them. Accordingly, his present aim was to convince his captors of his extraordinary merits and gifts, and of the incomparable glory of that family which he had the honour of representing.

In 1652 he issued his ΠΑΝΤΟΧΡΟΝΟΧΑΝΟΝ; or, a Peculiar Promptuary of Time, of which a detailed description is given in Chapter V. The object of this treatise is to show the Protector and the English Parliament that the family of the Urquharts could be traced back, link by link, to the red earth out of which Adam was made, and to suggest how lamentable it would be, if the ruling power extinguished a race which had successfully resisted the scythe of Time, and was capable of rendering great services to the State.

This small treatise was closely followed by a more important production, upon which Sir Thomas's fame as an author largely rests—his ΕΚΣΚΥΒΑΛΑΥΡΟΝ; or, The Discovery of a most Exquisite Jewel. The title of this work is intended to be an abbreviation of a Greek phrase—"Gold from a dunghill"—and contains an allusion to the fact that the first half of it was, in its manuscript form, one of the bundles of paper which the soldiers treated with such disrespect after the battle of Worcester, and which, indeed, was found next day in a kennel of one of the streets of that city. This book, a fuller account of which we give later on, consists of an introduction to a work on a Universal Language, to which is added a rhapsodical panegyric on the Scottish nation, and an account of his fellow-countrymen who had been famous as scholars or soldiers during the previous fifty years.

In the course of the early part of 1652 Urquhart had in some way excited the suspicions of the Government, and in the month of May his papers were seized by the authorities. Nothing treasonable, however, was found among them, and probably the harmless character of his pursuits, which was thus brought to light, made a favourable impression upon the Council of State. For, a few weeks later, he was allowed, in answer to a petition which he presented to the Council, and which was referred to Cromwell, to return to Scotland to arrange his private affairs, and to be absent for five months.[121] The only condition imposed upon him was that during this time he should do nothing to the prejudice of the Commonwealth.

Sir Thomas Urquhart's creditors had been told that he had been killed at the battle of Worcester, and, as he says in his own characteristic way, "for gladness of the tidings [they] had madified [moistened] their nolls to some purpose with the liquor of the grape,"[122] and had possessed themselves of all his property. When they were assured by letters from himself that he was still alive, they claimed payment for debts which had been long discharged, under the impression that the receipts had perished along with other papers after the battle. They even plotted, we are assured, to arrest our author in London, after he had been liberated upon parole. By the thoughtful discretion of a Captain Goodwin, of Colonel Pride's regiment, the receipts in question had been saved out of the spoil of Worcester, and Sir Thomas Urquhart was able to display them to the unjust creditors. "And when," he says, "they saw that those their acquittances ... were produced before them, they then, looking as if their noses had been ableeding, could not any longer for shame retard my cancelling of the aforesaid bonds."[123]

In the midst of so many complaints of the iniquity of creditors, it is gratifying to find Sir Thomas acknowledging that there was one of that class who treated him with forbearance and even with kindness. His thankfulness at discovering this green oasis in the arid desert in which so much of his life had been passed, is expressed in his own characteristic way. "But may," he says, "William Robertson of Kindeasse, or rather Kindnesse (for so they call this worthy man), for his going contrary to that stream of wickedness which carryeth head-long his fellow-creditors to the black sea of un-christian-like dealing, enjoy a long life in this world, attended with health, wealth, a hopeful posterity, and all the happiness conducible to eternal salvation; and may his children after him, as heires both of his vertues and means, derive [transmit] his lands and riches to their sons, to continue successively in that line from generation to generation, so long as there is a hill in Scotland, or that the sea doth ebbe and flow. This hearty wish of mine, as chief of my kinred [kindred], I bequeath to all that do and are to carry the name of Urquhart, and adjure them, by the respect they owe to the stock whence they are descended, for my father's love and mine to this man, to do all manner of good offices to each one that bears the name of Robertson."[124]

His old enemy, Lesley of Findrassie, endeavoured in vain to persuade the officers of the English garrison, then stationed in Urquhart's house at Cromartie, to arrest him as a prisoner of war, and keep him in confinement "till he [Lesley] were contented in all his demands."[125] An attempt was also made to apprehend him at Elgin; but he escaped all these machinations, and, after travelling in safety through many of the principal towns of Scotland, returned to London within the specified time, and gave himself up to the Council of State.

In the course of the year 1653 Sir Thomas Urquhart published the last of his original works—his Logopandecteision, and the translation of the first two books of Rabelais, in connection with which his name is best known. The object of the former of these was to suggest a wonderful scheme for a universal language, with the idea of being restored by the Government to the full possession of his liberty, and of being reinstated in the position of power and wealth, which he maintained was his by hereditary right, in order to carry out the scheme. His hopes and anticipations of success in this appeal to the English Government were not daunted by the fact that to do what he required would need several legislative changes, a reversal of proceedings in Scottish courts of law, and a substantial grant from the Treasury. This, after all, he considered, was a very small price to pay for the benefits he would thereby confer upon the world. That the appeal was not successful needs scarcely be told. Probably in no country in the world, and at no period in history, could any be found more likely to turn a deaf ear to such requests, than such men as Cromwell, Fleetwood, and Overton. Men like these were too practical, and of too hard a nature, to be impressed by any such visionary schemes as those which their prisoner delighted in constructing.

A veil of obscurity hangs over the closing years of our author's life. His last appearance before the public was in the issuing of the books above mentioned. The only further record of him is in the continuation of the Pedigree of the Urquharts, which is contained in the Edinburgh edition of his Tracts. In this we read that "he was confined for several years in the Tower of London; from whence he made his escape, and went beyond seas, where he died suddenly in a fit of excessive laughter, on being informed by his servant that the King was restored."[126] If this account of matters be true, it would seem that Sir Thomas had forfeited some of those privileges which he had won so soon after he had become a State prisoner. It is quite possible that this was in consequence of having joined in some Royalist plot against the Commonwealth and for the restoration of Charles II.

In the preface to the second book of Rabelais, Sir Thomas promises very speedily to translate the three remaining books of that author, so that the whole "Pentateuch of Rabelais," as he calls it, might be in the hands of English readers. But this design was never completed. The translation of the third book was found among his papers, and was published in 1693 by Pierre Antoine Motteux, but it is probable that the editor himself had some share in the work as issued to the public.

Sir Theodore Martin considers that there is a strong presumption against the truth of the above account of Sir Thomas's death, in his entire silence during the long period which elapsed between the publication of his last work and 1660, the date of the Restoration of Charles II. "Men," he says, "so deeply smitten with the cacoëthes scribendi as Urquhart was, do not thus readily cast the pen aside; nor was the lack of a publisher likely to have stood in the way of his literary career. His writings, if for no other cause but the number of his friends, must always have been a safe speculation for a printer, at a time when printing was cheap and readers numerous. But the imperfect state of his translation of Rabelais is perhaps the best evidence of the inaccuracy of the current belief.... Motteux says that Urquhart's version 'was too kindly received not to encourage him to English the three remaining books, or at least the third, the fourth and fifth being in a manner distinct, as being Pantagruel's voyage. Accordingly he translated the third book, and would have finished the whole, had not death prevented him.' This bears hard against the supposition of that event having occurred upwards of six years after the two first books had been given to the world. It is probable that he died much sooner, a victim in all likelihood to that fiery restlessness of spirit,

'Which o'er-informs its tenement of clay,
And frets the pigmy body to decay.'"[127]

This conjecture is, however, improbable. A petition from our author's brother, Sir Alexander Urquhart, is still in existence, in which he asks for a new commission of hereditary Sheriffship of Cromartie to be made out for him, on the ground of his being the eldest surviving son of the Sir Thomas Urquhart who died in 1642.[128] Though this document is undated, it is assigned by the editor of the volume of State Papers in which it is to be found, to August of 1660. If this date be trustworthy, we may be almost sure that the traditional statement as to the year of our author's death is correct.

The cause of his giving up his literary labours, and of omitting to carry through the work of translation on which he had entered, is, of course, unknown to us. His health, physical or mental, may have become seriously impaired, or his spirits may have been too much depressed by the misfortunes that crowded upon him, to allow him to engage in literary work. Indeed, the alleged cause of death from violent agitation of feeling caused by hearing of the Restoration of Charles II., argues in itself a previous condition of great physical weakness.

There seems at first, a certain grotesqueness in such a fatal exuberance of joy in connexion with such an event as Charles II. regaining the crown which his father had lost, and of which in another generation all of his blood were to be deprived. But we have to keep in mind that Sir Thomas was not alone in his folly, if folly it were; for a great wave of exultation swept over the three kingdoms at that time. Our author had, like many of his fellow-Royalists, staked and lost everything he possessed in the defence of the House of Stuart, and one can have little difficulty in understanding how the announcement of the triumph of the cause, which was so dear to him, should have agitated him profoundly.[129]

Sir Alexander Urquhart failed to recover possession of either the barony or the Sheriffship of Cromartie, and a year after the supposed date of his petition, he is said to have ratified his cousin's rights,[130] and in 1663 he formally "disponed" the estate (i.e. his title to it) to Sir John.[131] The new possessors were, however, as unfortunate as their immediate predecessors, for in no very long time they were overwhelmed by distresses like those which had burdened and embittered the lives of our author and his father. In 1682 the celebrated Sir George Mackenzie, whose name, like that of Queen Mary of England, is usually associated with an unenviable epithet, as that of a cruel persecutor,[132] "apprized" the estate from Sir John's[133] son, Jonathan.[134]

No one who knows what this means[135] will be surprised to hear that it soon afterwards passed into his possession. On his elevation to the peerage (1685) as Viscount Tarbat, first Earl of Cromartie, he put his third-born son, Sir Kenneth, into possession of the estate, with the view of establishing a branch of his family to be known as the Mackenzies of Cromartie. This plan was doomed to be defeated, for Sir Kenneth's son George had no family, and sold the estate to Captain William Urquhart of Meldrum in 1741.[136] The lands were again sold to Patrick, Lord Elibank,[137] in 1763, and by him to George Ross of Pitkerrie, nine years afterwards. Mr Ross had amassed a large fortune in England as an army agent,[138] and part of this he expended in the purchase of the estate, and in the extensive improvements which he effected in it. One wishes he had not thought it desirable to pull down the picturesque old castle, which had stood on the mote-hill of Cromartie for three hundred years, and which had sheltered so many generations of the Urquhart family. Let us now, however, return to our author.

In telling the story of Sir Thomas Urquhart's life, some of his most striking peculiarities have been displayed and illustrated, so that no one who has read the foregoing pages is altogether dependent upon what may now be said for forming an estimate of his character. His vanity is perhaps the most striking trait in it; but only a very hard-hearted moralist would call it a vice in his case, for it is as artless as it is boundless, and is combined with so much kindness of heart and generosity of feeling, that we are more entertained by it than indignant at it. No one who looks into his works can doubt the intensity of his patriotism. Indeed, his passionate longing after personal fame is in all cases combined with the wish to confer additional glory upon the land of his birth. His devotion to the Royalist cause[139] is of the purest and most heroic type, and the general tone of his character, as revealed to us in his books, is elevated and noble. At the same time there is an element of the grotesque in it, so that in his disinterested and chivalrous disposition he reminds us of Don Quixote,[140] while in his frequent allusions to struggles with pecuniary difficulties, as well as in his use of magniloquent language, he distinctly recalls Wilkins Micawber. A lively fancy, a strain of genuine erudition beneath his pedantry, and some sparks of insanity, are other elements in his fantastical character. Only a mind like his own could trace the maze of its windings and turnings, and fathom the depths of its eccentricity. In his thoughts "truth is constantly becoming interfused with fiction, possibility with certainty, and the hyperbolical extravagance of his style only keeps even pace with the prolific shootings of his imagination."[141]

It is perhaps expected that one should, in a measure, apologize for the eccentricities of Urquhart's character and literary style, by explaining that he was a humourist. But, unfortunately, humour is a quality in which Urquhart was lacking, unless we understand by the word mere fantastical quaintness of thought and speech. In one passage of his works he speaks with contempt of "shallow-brained humourists,"[142] and we should wrong his ghost by putting him among those whom he abhorred. Not a single trace of that subtle, graceful play of fancy and of feeling which enters into our conception of humour is to be found in his works.[143] His readers may smile as they turn over his pages, but he is always in deadly earnest. The quality of wit he occasionally manifests in the form of keen sarcasm, when he gives full vent to his feelings of scorn and contempt; as when, for example, he describes those who went out to fight, "but did not hazard their precious persons, lest they should seem to trust to the arm of flesh."[144]

He can never give a simple statement of matters of fact. Thus in his account of the Admirable Crichton, instead of saying that the rector of the university addressed a few complimentary sentences to Crichton, and that the latter replied in the same vein, he says: "In complements after this manner, ultro citroque habitis, tossed to and again, retorted, contrerisposted, backreverted, and now and then graced with a quip or a clinch for the better relish of the ear, being unwilling in this kind of straining curtesie to yeeld to other, they spent a full half-hour and more."[145] Everything must be dressed up "with divers quaint and pertinent similes" before it is fit to be introduced to the reader's notice. To quote again from the most accomplished literary critic who has written upon him: "History, philosophy, science, literature are ransacked for illustrations of the commonest subject. His fancy is ever on the alert, and you are constantly surprised by some incongruous image, begotten in its wanton dalliance with knowledge the most heterogeneous. He has always an eye to effect. His own learning must be brought into play, rhetorical tropes must flourish through his periods, 'suggesting to our minds two several things at once,' and, of course, as diverse as possible, that 'the spirits of such as are studious in learning may be filled with a most wonderful delight.'"[146] His style reacts upon and controls his thoughts, and often carries him, as Ariosto's Hippogriff carried Astolfo, up into the skies, whither those are unable to follow him who are mounted on humbler animals, or have no other means than those with which they were born for plodding along the dusty roads of earth.

If we can trust the two engraved portraits of Sir Thomas Urquhart which have come down to us, he was a man of handsome presence, and accustomed to deck himself in all the splendour of costume to which so many of his brother-cavaliers were addicted. George Glover, the famous engraver, drew both the portraits of him which are extant. One of these appears as a frontispiece to the Epigrams and to the Trissotetras. It is a small whole-length, and represents Sir Thomas in rich dress,[147] holding out his hand to receive from some allegorical personage a laurel wreath "for Armes and Artes."[148] On a table beside him are his hat and embroidered cloak. In the vacant spaces on each side of the upper part of the figure are his name and titles: "S^r Thomas Urchard, Knight, of Bray and Udol, etc., Baron of Ficherie and Clohorby, etc., Laird Baron of Cromartie and Heritable Sheriff thereof, etc." The portrait is described as taken from the life, and engraved in 1641;[149] and beneath it is a couplet by W. S., as follows:

"Of him whose shape this Picture hath design'd,
Vertue and learning represent the Mind."

Who W. S. was we do not know. The date forbids our identifying him with the Bard of Avon. He was probably one of those mysterious personages, who were always at hand to write epistles of commendation to works by Sir Thomas, and to testify on their "book-oath" to his gifts and graces.

The second engraved portrait is of great rarity, and only one impression of it is known to be in existence. It was probably meant to be a frontispiece to the unpublished volume of Epigrams described on p. 116, the title of which was to have been Apollo and the Muses, but which never found its way into print. In this engraving Sir Thomas is depicted as seated with great complacency upon Mount Parnassus, in the midst of the Muses, seven of whom are pressing upon his attention wreaths of laurel of which he is worthy, "for Judgment, Learning, witt, Invention, sweetness, stile." At his feet is the sacred fountain of Castalia or Hippocrene, into the waters of which the other two Muses are sportively dipping "sprinklers" or asperges. One of them seems inclined to give Sir Thomas a sprinkling, but refrains, either because it was unnecessary or for fear of spoiling his nice clothes. In the background, the winged horse Pegasus is flying sufficiently low down to allow a woman to pluck a couple of feathers from his wings.[150] These are no doubt intended to provide pens for Sir Thomas's next literary undertaking. In the further distance are several feathered creatures, which are probably meant for poetical swans, but which bear a painful likeness to prosaic geese. At the foot of the picture in one corner we have Apollo, playing on his lyre; and on the ground in front are a half-starved dragon and a snake, writhing in impotent rage, as they witness the triumph of Sir Thomas. We can hardly be mistaken in concluding that these last are symbolical representations of envious and carping critics.

The Poet surrounded by the Muses.

[97] Antiquarian Notes, by C. Fraser-Mackintosh, p. 156.

[98] Antiquarian Notes, pp. 155-158; History of the Clan Mackenzie, by Alex. Mackenzie.

[99] The enactment in question runs as follows:—"It being thought expedient by the said Committee that the house of Cromartie be put in a posture of defence, and that for the doing thereof it is requisite some faill [turf] be cast and led, the said Committee ordains all Sir James Fraser's tenants within the parochins [parishes] of Cromartie and Cullicudden, together with those of the Laird of Findrassie, within the parochin of Rosemarkie, to afford from six hours in the morning to six hours at night, one horse out of every oxengait [= about 13 Scotch acres] daily for the space of four days to lead the same faill to the house of Cromartie." Of this enemy, Sir James Fraser, our author remarked at a later time with regrettable bitterness, that he knew only one good thing about him, and that was that he was dead.

[100] Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vi. 392.

[101] General Assembly Commission Records, 1648-49, p. 220.

[102] General Assembly Commission Records, 1648-49, pp. 249, 250.

[103] General Assembly Commission Records, 1648-49, pp. 252-262.

[104] Strangely enough, in Hope's Anastasius, a Tatar messenger travelling through Asia Minor to Constantinople is described as acting in the same insolent manner. "He would not," says Anastasius, "even after the daintiest meal in the world, forego the douceur he expected for what he used to call the wear and tear of his teeth" (ii. 320).

[105] An account of the battle is given in a letter addressed by the victorious generals, Ker, Halket, and Strachan, to the Moderator of the Commission of Assembly, dated 9th May, 1649. In it they say: "We were in Innernes vpon Sunday at night, when we received intelligence that the enemie were come from Torespay to Balvine, presently to discusse ws (sic). We could not hear from the Livetennent-Generall [Lesley], and the enemy was making himselfe strong in many severall quarters in [the] countrie. We conceived it better to suppresse nor [than] to be suppressed. We in our weak maner beged the Lords direction, that His blissing might wait His owne and our labours, and, with great freedome concluded to march with all expedition to Torispay, intelligence having come certaine that they were lyeing in Balveine at a wood, where we engaged with them; and there the Lord delivered them vnto our hands. We were not abone six score fighting horsemen and tuelfe muskiteires. We had some more, but they were wearied. We have at this tyme about 800 prisoners, betuixt 3 or 4 scoir killed, and tuo or thrie hundred fled. My Lord Rae and all the officers are, according to the capitulatioun, prisoners; the rest are to be conveyed to their countrey, after we receive order from the publick; and therefore we shall expect such further directions from you as you shall thinke fit, for securing and obliging, by oath, such as shall returne to their countrey" (General Assembly Commission Records, 1618-49, p. 263). There is a genuine Cromwellian ring about the phrases "beged the Lord's direction," and "the Lord delivered them vnto our hands," which we cannot help admiring; and there is a beauty of its own in the phrase "with great freedome" in the connection in which it stands.

[106] Wardlaw MS.

[107] The Commission of the General Assembly is each year nominated by that body, and is responsible to it, and is empowered to dispose of all items of business remitted to it, and to act in the interests of the Church during the months between the meeting of the Assembly which nominated them, and that to which they report their proceedings. They are authorised to meet on certain specific days, and oftener, when and where they think fit. The next General Assembly may reverse their sentences, if they have exceeded their powers, or have acted in any way which is considered prejudicial to the interests of the Church.

[108] General Assembly Records, 1648-49, p. 264.

[109] General Assembly Records, 1648-49, p. 270. The instructions given to the Commissioners suggest the process known to us in modern times as "rubbing it in" (the phrase is a technical one).

[110] In March of the following year, 1650, occurred the descent of Montrose on the north of Scotland, which ended so disastrously for him. After spending a few weeks in the Orkneys, where he collected a few recruits, he landed in Caithness, and proceeded into Sutherland, where he suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of Strachan and Halket, the generals who had successfully suppressed the insurrection in the north in the previous year. Montrose was taken prisoner, and was executed in Edinburgh, on Tuesday, 21st May, 1650.

[111] Baillie's Letters (Edinburgh, 1841), ii. 84.

[112] Robert Douglas (1594-1674) had been chaplain to a brigade of Scottish auxiliaries, sent with the connivance of Charles I. to the aid of Gustavus Adolphus, in the Thirty Years' War. He was minister of the second charge of the High Church, Edinburgh, and then of the Tolbooth Church, and was five times Moderator of the General Assembly (1642, 1645, 1647, 1649, and 1651). Wodrow says, "He was a great man for both great wit, and grace, and more than ordinary boldness and authority and awful majesty appearing in his very carriage and countenance." Burnet affirms that he had "much wisdom and thoughtfulness, but was very silent and of vast pride" (Dictionary of Nat. Biog. xv. 347).

[113] Works, p. 279.

[114] Carlyle's Oliver Cromwell, iii. 148.

[115] Carlyle's Oliver Cromwell, iii. 154.

[116] Works, p. 408.

[117] Cal. State Papers, Dom.

[118] Ibid.

[119] Works, p. 408.

[120] Works, p. 419. Roger Williams (c. 1600-c. 1684) was himself a remarkable man. He was a native of Wales, was educated at Oxford, and entered into holy orders; but his aversion to the government and discipline of the Church of England led him to seek for greater freedom in America. He was a strenuous asserter of religious toleration at a time when it was little understood and less practised anywhere. His liberty of thinking and speaking led to his being banished from Massachusetts; and, thereupon, he purchased a tract of land from the Indians, and founded a settlement, which he named Providence. At the time when he generously interceded in favour of Sir Thomas Urquhart, he was residing in London as the agent of the new settlement, of which he was afterwards chosen president. He was on intimate terms with Cromwell, Milton, and other leading Puritans, and consequently would be in a position to render great service to his friend Urquhart.

[121] The leave granted was for five months from the 14th of July, 1652. Before the expiration of this time, Sir Thomas asked for liberty to stay for six weeks longer in Scotland, and this was granted (Acts of Parliament, vol. vi. pt. 2, p. 748b).

[122] Works, p. 377.

[123] Ibid. p. 378.

[124] Works, p. 384.

[125] Ibid. p. 380.

[126] P. 37.

[127] Rabelais, p. xiv.

[128] Cal. State Papers, Domestic, 1660-61, p. 237.

[129] In the preface to a new translation of Rabelais by W. F. Smith, Esq., Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, some doubt is cast upon the above narrative of Sir Thomas's death. Mr Smith remarks, "This looks something like an imitation of Rabelais in his account of the death of Philemon." The reference is to the following passages in Rabelais, who alludes to the story no fewer than three times. In Book i. 10, we read: "Just so the heart with excessive joy is inwardly dilated, and suffereth a manifest resolution of the vital spirits, which may go so farre on, that it may thereby be deprived of its nourishment, and by consequence of life itself, by this Pericharie or extremity of gladnesse, as Galen saith ... and as it hath come to passe in former times ... to Philemon and others, who died with joy." In chap. xx. some more particulars are given of the case: "As Philemon, who, for seeing an asse eate those figs, which were provided for his own dinner, died with force of laughing." But in Book iv. 17, we are told the whole story: "[Neither ought you to wonder at] the death of Philomenes, whose servant, having got him some new figs for the first course of his dinner, whilst he went to fetch wine, a straggling ... ass got into the house, and, seeing the figs on the table, without further invitation, soberly fell to. Philomenes coming into the room, and nicely observing with what gravity the ass eat its dinner, said to his man, who was come back, 'Since thou hast set figs here for this reverend guest of ours to eat, methinks it is but reason thou also give him some of this wine to drink.' He had no sooner said this, but he was so excessively pleased, and fell into so exorbitant a fit of laughter, that the use of his spleen took that of his breath utterly away, and he immediately died." The story is taken from Lucian (μακροβιυι, c. 25) or from Valerius Maximus (ix. 12), in which in the Paris folio edition (1517) the name is given as Philomenes. There is undoubtedly a resemblance between the account of Philemon's death and that of our author, but we think it can only be accidental. The editor of the Edinburgh edition of the Tracts is, as I have said, our only authority for the story of Urquhart's death; but there is no adequate reason for doubting it. He seems to have been well versed in the history of the Urquhart family, which he brings up to date, and must have derived his information from some members of it. It would be strange if in little more than a century after our author's death, an utterly mythical account of it should have sprung up and found a place among the details of family history. According to Lowndes's Bibliographer's Manual, the editor of the volume was David Herd, the well-known antiquary. If this statement be correct, we have all the more reason to rely upon the supplementary information the volume contains, as Herd's acquaintance with Scottish history and biography was very extensive and accurate. In one of the Notes Ambrosianæ (Blackwood's Magazine, September, 1832), a highly extravagant version is given of Urquhart's death. It is intended to be humorous, but is merely flat and silly. Only those can smile at it who have been trained up to believe that the Notes contain exquisite humour, and who have, therefore, been accustomed to welcome passages from it as mirth-inspiring. The statement made in this mention of Urquhart, that his death was caused by excessive alcoholic celebration of the happy event of the Restoration, is utterly baseless and offensive; and it is a pity that in Allibone's Dictionary and in the Dictionary of National Biography this article in Blackwood's Magazine should be referred to as one of the sources of information concerning Urquhart. The author of it had not access to any other account of Sir Thomas's death than that given in the above-mentioned edition of the Tracts.

[130] Acts of Parliament, vii. 70.

[131] Inverness Sasines. The date when Sir Alexander Urquhart received knighthood seems to be approximately fixed by the fact that in a grant under the Privy Seal of 5th March, 1661, he is called Alexander, and in a notice of him of the 29th of the same month and year he appears as Sir Alexander (Acts of Parliament, vii. 93). From the fact that in this year the succession to the estates and hereditary Sheriffship of Cromartie were entered upon by his cousin Sir John Urquhart of Craigfintray, it was taken for granted by the editor of the Tracts (Edinburgh, 1774) that Sir Alexander had died. This error is repeated by Hugh Miller, and by most of those who have made any reference to him. He was still alive in 1667, for during that year he sold his salmon fishings in Over-rak and the King's Water to John Gordon (see also Acts of Parliament, vii. 537). He is spoken of as quondam in a charter of certain lands which had belonged to him, 19th June, 1668. His cousin, Sir John Urquhart, received knighthood about the same time; at least he appears in Parliament as Sir John, 1st January, 1661 (Acts of Parliament, vii. 4).

[132] "There was the Bluidy Advocate Mackenyie, who, for his worldly wit and wisdom, had been to the rest as a god" ("Wandering Willie's Tale" Redgauntlet, chap. xi.).

[133] There is said to have been some tragedy in connection with the death of this Sir John Urquhart. According to Wodrow, as quoted by Hugh Miller, after having posed as an ultra-Presbyterian, he became the friend and counsellor of the Earl of Middleton, Charles II.'s Commissioner for Scotland, under whom Presbyterianism was overturned and Episcopacy set up in its place (1661). Tradition says that "about eleven years after the passing of the Act, he fell into a deep melancholy, and destroyed himself with his own sword in one of the apartments of the old castle. The sword, it is said, was flung into a neighbouring draw-well by one of the domestics, and the stain left by his blood on the walls and floor of the apartment was distinctly visible at the time the building was pulled down" (Scenes and Legends of the North of Scotland, p. 111). Tradition is wrong, however, in saying eleven years after 1661; for on August 7th, 1677, Sir John, along with others, received a commission "for putting the laws against conventicles and other disorders into execution" (Wodrow, ii. p. 366).

[134] On the death of Jonathan's son, Colonel James Urquhart, in 1741, the shadowy honour of the headship of the family passed to the Urquharts of Meldrum, who were descended from the Tutor of Cromartie by a third marriage with Elizabeth Seton, only daughter of Alexander Seton of Meldrum, and ultimately heiress of that estate. The last male representative of this line was Major Beauchamp Colclough Urquhart, who closed a promising career by a heroic death at the battle of Atbara, in the Sudan, on 8th April, 1898. His sister, Isabel Annie, is wife of Garden Alexander Duff, Esq., Hatton Castle, Turriff.

[135] See p. 58.

[136] Pococke, in his Tour through Scotland (1761), says of the castle of Cromartie: "It has fallen into the hands of one Mr Urquhart, who had commanded a Spanish Gally, and died a Convert to Popery; which slip his son, now eighteen years old, has in some degree recovered, by conforming to the Church of England" (p. 176; Scottish History Society).

[137] In the old Statistical Account of Cromartie, and in the preface to the Maitland Club edition of Urquhart's Works, the estate is said to have passed into the hands of Sir William Pulteney.

[138] Mr Ross is mentioned in the Letters of Junius (see those of 29th November and 12th December, 1769). He was succeeded by his nephew, from whom the present proprietor of Cromartie, Major Walter Charteris Ross, is descended.

[139] Our Sir Thomas's memory should be cherished by defenders of the name and fame of Mary Queen of Scots, for he goes so far as to say that "ignorance, together with hypocrisie, usury, oppression, and iniquity, took root in these parts [Scotland], when uprightness, plain-dealing, and charity, with Astrœa, took their flight with Queen Mary of Scotland into England." Probably few of her admirers would be so daring as to assert this, though many of them doubtless would be glad to hear the assertion made.

[140] We take the liberty of extracting those few sentences from the letter of a friend, who has taken great interest in the execution of this work;—"Sir Thomas would have been an original character in almost any surroundings—a kind of literary Quixote, with what may be called a 'parenthetical' genius, branching off at every comma into the fresh images furnished by a teeming imagination. He was more than a translator of Rabelais—he seems to have been a kind of Rabelais himself."

[141] Sir Theodore Martin, Rabelais, p. xix.

[142] See p. 28.

[143] A different opinion is expressed in the preface to W. Harrison Ainsworth's capital novel of Crichton. "Sir Thomas," he says, "is a joyous spirit—a right Pantagruelist; and if he occasionally

'Projicit ampullas et sesquipedalia verba,'

he has an exuberance of wit and playfulness of fancy that amply redeem his tendency to fanfaronade." Our readers have abundance of material before them for coming to a decision upon this question.

[144] See p. 85.

[145] Works, p. 226.

[146] Sir Theodore Martin, Rabelais, p. xx.

[147] In Granger's Biographical Dictionary (1779), this portrait is described erroneously, as Sir Thomas Urquhart is said in it to be dressed in armour. Probably the description was given from memory. In the second volume of Bohn's edition of Rabelais, the frontispiece is a half-length portrait of the translator, evidently reproduced from the above. The effect, however, is highly disagreeable, and the likeness must have produced an unfavourable opinion of our author in the minds of most of those who have looked upon it.

[148] In this engraving, which is our frontispiece, the Greek inscription runs thus: τοις σε πεμψασιυ και προστατασιυ ειχαριστω, and means, "I thank those who sent you and gave the order." These words are, of course, addressed to the messenger who has been commissioned by the Muses to convey the wreath to Sir Thomas. Above the wreath itself is an obscure phrase—Mουσαρυ[μ] στόλοϛ—which is evidently a mixture of Latin and Greek, musarum στολοϛ (=ἀπόστολοϛ?), "messenger of the muses." It may, however, be that στολος is to be taken as "equipment" or "decoration," as referring to the wreath. The courage with which Greek and Latin forms are mixed up, and an old word despatched on its way with a new meaning, of which this brief phrase gives evidence, is highly characteristic of Cromartian Greek. For further illustration of the peculiarities of this local variety or Hellenic speech, see p. 149.

[149] Sir Thomas, therefore, claims by anticipation the titles of Baron and Sheriff, which were afterwards to be his.

[150] This use of the quills is referred to in the following passage in Sir Thomas Urquhart's Epigrams (MS.):—

"The Invocation to Clio.
Book 2.

The "Colophonian Poet" is—"not to put too fine a point upon it"—Homer, who, according to some, was born at Colophos, in Asia Minor. The phrase "Pegasid quill" in this passage strengthens our opinion that this second portrait of Sir Thomas, which we give here, was intended to be a frontispiece to a second volume of poems. The similarity of diction between this "Invocation" and the speeches of Ancient Pistol is very great.

---