Highland garb, in any of its peculiar forms, highly penal.1

Many objections, indeed some which appealed to compassion, and others founded upon utility, were urged against this interdiction of an ancient national costume. It was represented that the form of the dress, light, warm, and convenient for the use of those who were accustomed to it, was essentially necessary to men who had to perform long journeys through a wild and desolate country; or discharge the labours of the shepherd or herdsmen among extensive mountains and deserts, which must necessarily be applied to pasture. The proscription also of a national garb, to which the people had been long accustomed, and were necessarily much attached, was complained of as a stretch of arbitrary power, especially as the law was declared to extend to large districts and tracts of country, the inhabitants of which had not only refrained from aiding the rebellion, but had given ready and effectual assistance in its suppression.

Notwithstanding these reasons, and notwithstanding the representation of the loyal chiefs that it was unjust to deprive them of the swords which

1 This was a very harsh regulation, affecting the feelings and the habits of many who had no accession to the rebellion, or who had taken arms to resist it. Yet there was a knowledge of mankind in the prohibition, since it divested the Highlanders of a dress which was closely associated with their habits of clanship and of war. In like manner, I am informed, that in some provinces of Italy the peculiar dress of the banditti is prohibited to be worn even at masquerades, as it is found to excite by association a liking to the freebooting trade.

they had used in the Government's defence, it was judged necessary to proceed with the proposed measure, as one which, rigidly enforced by the proposed severity of Government, promised completely to break the martial spirit of the Highlanders, so far as it had been found inconsistent with the peace and safety of the country at large. A law was accordingly passed, forbidding the use of what is called tartan, in all its various checkers and modifications, under penalties which, at that time, might be necessary to overcome the reluctance of the Highlanders to part with their national dress, but which certainly now appear disproportioned to the offence. The wearing any part of what is called the Highland garb, that is, the plaid, philabeg, trews, shoulder-belt, or any other distinctive part of the dress, or the use of any garment composed of tartan, or parti-coloured cloth, made the offender liable, for the first offence, to six months' imprisonment; and for the second, to transportation to the colonies. At the same time, the wearing or even possession of arms subjected a Highlander to serve as a common soldier, if he should prove unable to pay a fine of fifteen pounds. A second offence was to be punished with transportation for seven years. The statute is 20th George II. chap 51.

Whatever may be thought of these two statutes, not only restraining the use of arms under the highest penalties, but proscribing the dress of a whole nation, no objection can be made to another Act of Parliament, passed in the year 1748, for abolishing the last effectual remnant of the feudal

system, viz., the hereditary jurisdictions throughout Scotland. These last remains of the feudal system I have repeatedly alluded to, as contrary alike to common sense, and to the free and impartial administration of justice. In fact, they vested the power of deciding all ordinary actions at law in the persons of great landholders, neither educated to the legal profession, nor in the habit of separating their own interests and passions from the causes which they were to decide as judges. The statute appointed sums of money to be paid as a compensation to the possessors of those judicial rights, whose existence was inimical to the progress of a free country. The administration of justice was vested in professional persons, called Sheriffs-depute (so called as deputed by the Crown, in contradistinction to the Sheriffs principal, formerly enjoying jurisdiction as attached to their patrimony). Such a Sheriff-depute was named for each county, to discharge the judicial duties formerly exercised by hereditary judges.

This last Act was not intended for the Highlands alone, its influence being extended throughout Scotland. By the Act of 20th King Geo. II. cap. 5, all tenures by wardholding, that is, where the vassal held lands for the performance of military service, were declared unlawful, and those which existed were changed into holdings for feu, or for blanch tenures, that is to say, either for payment of an annual sum of money, or some honorary acknowledgment of vassalage,-so that it became impossible for any superior or overlord, in future,

to impose upon his vassals the fatal service of following him to battle, or to discharge the oppressive duties of what were called hunting, hosting, watching, and warding. Thus, although the feudal forms of investiture were retained, all the essential influence of the superior or overlord over the vassal or tenant, and especially the right which he had to bring him into the field of battle, in consequence of his own quarrels, was in future abrogated and disallowed. The consequence of these great alterations we reserve for the next chapter.

CHAPTER LXXXVII.

Allowance granted by France to Charles's Followers-Removal of the Prince from France-Miss Walkinshaw— Charles's Visit to London-Jacobite Intrigues-Death of Prince Charles-and of his Brother, Cardinal Duke of York-Changes effected in the Highlands by the Measures adopted in consequence of the Rebellion-Decay of the System of Clanship-the Jacobites become reconciled to the House of Hanover-Restoration of the Forfeited Estates-The Highland Garb again permitted to be worn -Introduction of Store-Farming-Improvement in the Commerce of Scotland.

BEFORE giving a farther account of the effect produced on Scotland and its inhabitants by the Disarming Act, the Jurisdiction Act, and other alterations adopted into the law of Scotland, in consequence of the insurrection of 1745, we may take some notice of the melancholy conclusion of Charles Edward's career, which had commenced with so much brilliancy. There are many persons like this unfortunate Prince, who, having failed in an effort boldly made and prosecuted with vigour, seem afterwards to have been dogged by misfortune, and deprived, by the premature decay of the faculties they once exhibited, of the power of keeping up the reputation gained at the beginning of their career.