Taking this supposition to be correct, a conjecture might be hazarded, in the absence of any authentic information on the subject, from the present possessors of the domains of the family of Innerwick, who Sir William Ashton was. Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton was Lord Advocate in the reign of King Charles II., and afterwards a Lord of Session, at the very time when Colonel Hamilton above mentioned was abroad. He seems to have been the founder of his family; and in this respect, as well as his having been a great lawyer, bears a remarkable resemblance to Sir William Ashton. He died without male issue, (another coincidence,) and in possession of the very estate which belonged to the Hamiltons of Innerwick, which his posterity still enjoy. From the want, however, of written memoirs of the family at Dirleton, or a knowledge of the manner in which they acquired their estates, any conjecture which can be founded on these circumstances must be entirely hypothetical.
Though silent regarding the house of Ravenswood, the subject of the story has received considerable elucidation from a note[41] annexed to the Review of it in the Edinburgh Monthly Review for August, 1819, wherein it is stated, that Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters of the first Lord Stair. This nobleman was certainly the only lawyer at that period who enjoyed the power and influence said to have been possessed by Sir William Ashton; and the circumstances mentioned in the above note, as related in Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe’s edition of “Law’s Memorialls,” particularly the expression made use of by the bride, of “Take up your bonnie bridegroom,” may, if well authenticated, be considered as decisive of the question. It is difficult, however, to trace any connection between Lord Stair and the family of Innerwick, or that he ever was in possession of their property. In this view of the case, the parallel between Ravenswood and Hamilton of Innerwick does not hold so well. But if the identity of Sir William Ashton with Lord Stair be considered as established, there was another family in more immediate contact with him, in the history of which there are several events which seem to indicate that the Author had it in his eye in the representation he has given of the Ravenswoods; unless, as is very probable, he has blended the history of both together in the manner that best suited his purpose. He indeed admits that he has disguised facts and incidents, for the obvious purpose of making the application less pointed to the real personages of the tale. The family here alluded to is that of Gordon, Viscount Kenmure, in Galloway, between which and the Lords of Ravenswood there are several points of resemblance. For instance, the barony of Gordon, in Berwickshire, where the Gordons had their first settlement in Scotland, and which continued for a long time in this branch of the name, is in the immediate vicinity of Lammermoor, and probably suggested the idea of laying the scene in that neighbourhood. The names of the Castle (or Barony) and of the Barons themselves, were the same. Their history was “interwoven with that of the kingdom itself,” a well-known fact. The Viscount of Kenmure[42] was engaged in the civil wars in the reign of King Charles I.,[43] and was forfeited by Cromwell for his steady adherence to that monarch. In him also the direct line of the family suffered an interruption, the title having at his death devolved on Gordon of Penninghame, who appears to have been much involved in debt, and harassed with judicial proceedings against his estate. This latter again espoused the sinking side in the Revolution of 1688, and commanded a regiment at the battle of Killiecrankie. These coincidences are too remarkable to be overlooked. And it may be added, in further illustration, that Lord Stair, on being advanced to an earldom about this period, took one of his titles from the barony of Glenluce, which once belonged to a branch of the house of Kenmure.
It was formerly mentioned, that the Author admits his having disguised dates and events, in order to take off the application to the real personages of the story, which they must otherwise have pointed out. Of this sort are several anachronisms which appear in the work, such as a Marquis of A. (evidently Athol, from the letter to Ravenswood dated at B. or Blair), when the Tory Ministry of Queen Anne got into power, which was only in 1710, when M. Harley succeeded Lord Godolphin as Treasurer; whereas the nobleman here alluded to was a Duke so far back as 1703. The time at which the events really took place must also have been long prior to this period, for Lord Stair died in 1695; and the change in administration by which Sir William Ashton lost his influence probably refers to Lord Stair’s removal from his office in 1682.
It may here be remarked, that the family of Stair was by no means so obscure and insignificant as that of Sir William Ashton is represented to have been. They possessed the barony of Dalrymple[44] in the reign of King Alexander III.; they acquired the barony of Stair by marriage in 1450. They made a considerable figure during the reign of Queen Mary; and took an active part in the Reformation along with the confederate lords who had associated in defence of the Protestant religion. It must be admitted, however, that they made a greater figure at this time, and during a subsequent period, than they ever did before.
Note annexed to the Review of the Bride of Lammermoor, in the Edinburgh Monthly Review for August, 1819—referred to in the foregoing Conjectures.
“The reader will probably feel the interest of this affecting story considerably increased, by his being informed that it is founded on facts. The particulars, which have been variously reported, are given in a foot-note to Mr. Sharpe’s edition of ‘Law’s Memorialls,’ p. 226; but are understood to have been sometimes told in conversation by the celebrated Poet to whom public opinion assigns these Tales. The ingenious author, whoever he is, has adopted that account of the circumstances which Mr. Sharpe deems less probable. The prototype of Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters of James, first Lord Stair, by his wife Margaret, daughter of Ross of Balneil, County of Wigton, a lady long reputed a witch by the country people in her neighbourhood, and considered as the cause, per fas et nefas, of the prosperous fortunes of the Dalrymple family. However this may have been, there was also ascribed to her supposed league with Satan, or her extreme obduracy, the miserable catastrophe now alluded to. The first version of the story in Mr. Sharpe’s note decidedly and directly implicates the old lady and her potent ally in the murder of her daughter on the night of her marriage, which had been contracted against the mother’s will; and, according to this account, it is the bridegroom who is found in the chimney in a state of idiocy. The other edition, which is that of the Tale, seems to require nothing beyond the agency of human passions wrought up to derangement. According to it, the young lady, as in the case of Lucy, was compelled to marry contrary to her inclination, her heart having been previously engaged elsewhere. After she had retired with her husband into the nuptial chamber, and the door, as was customary, had been locked, she attacked him furiously with a knife, and wounded him severely, before any assistance could be rendered. When the door was broken open, the youth was found half dead upon the floor, and his wife in a state of the wildest madness, exclaiming, ‘Take up your bonnie bridegroom.’ It is added, that she never regained her senses; and that her husband, who recovered of his wound, would bear no questions on the subject of his marriage, taking even a hint of that nature as a mortal affront to his honour. The coincidence of circumstances, and the identity of expression used by the bride, are much too striking to be purely accidental, and altogether deserved to be noticed, though at the hazard of making a long note. Lady Stair, it may not be irrelevant to state, was conspicuous in her time for what Mr. Sharpe denominates, ‘her violent turn towards Conventicles, and the fostering of silenced preachers in her house,’—peculiarities quite of a piece with the attachments and habits of Lady Ashton. Of the prejudices and malignity of her enemies, we may form some opinion from the satiric lines upon her long-wished-for and timely death, which Mr. Sharpe very justly denominates most unchristian. Let the epitaph contrived for her bear testimony:—
‘Here lyes our Auntie’s coffin, I am sure,
But where her bodie is I cannot tell,
Most men affirm they cannot well tell where,
Unless both soul and body be in h——.