Before entering on the personal
history of a man whose adventures
carried him through all the strata of
social life, from the feathered savage
of the Prairies to the industrious burgess
in small-clothes, let us give a
few incidental notices of that crime—kidnapping,
or man-stealing,—his subjection
to which was the opening
scene of his eventful career. We can,
perhaps, scarcely point to a more
distinct type of feebleness in the
law of any country than the frequency
of this crime. In that community
where the people, marked off by any
distinction in race or appearance—where
persons born in serfdom, or
of a particular line, or speaking a
peculiar language—are doomed to
slavery, the laws may be unjust and
barbarous in the extreme, but it does
not follow that they are feeble. The
slavery exists by them, not in spite of
them. It is in the country where the
person, free by the law, is seized, and,
in defiance of the law, held in forced
bondage, in obedience to the interest
or the malevolence of individuals,
that this characteristic of feebleness
is so prominently developed. The
purloiner of coin or plate can only
be tracked by external incidents;
there is nothing in his connexion with
the property that in itself proclaims
his crime. The horse and cattle-stealer
have to deal with less silent
commodities; but even the objects of
their depredations are not placed in
an unnatural position by ownership,
and have no voice wherewith to proclaim
their custodier's dishonesty. But
the man who holds another in possession
in a free country, is a criminal
in the eye of every one who sees him
exercise his ownership; and he carries
about with him a perpetual witness
and accuser, who is under the strongest
inducements to be ever vigilant
and ever active. The law under
which common thefts are practised, is
only that which does not see far into
a millstone; but the law under which
kidnapping may be pursued with impunity,
is deaf, and blind, and, paralytic.
Owing to the strong central
administration of justice in England,
it does not appear that this crime was
ever very prevalent in the south.
We find, indeed, in Whitelock's Memorials,
under the date of 9th May
1645—"An ordinance against such
who are called spirits, and use to
steal away and take up children, and,
bereave their parents of them, and
convey them away." The measure
then adopted, which will be found
among the ordinances of the Long
Parliament, shows us that it had become
customary to seize children and
carry them out of the country, to be
employed as slaves in the plantations,
or probably to be sold to the Mediterranean
pirates. The ordinance says,
"Whereas, the houses of Parliament
are informed that divers lewd
persons do go up and down the city
of London and elsewhere, and in a
most barbarous and wicked manner
steal away many little children, it is
ordered by the Lords and Commons,
in Parliament assembled, that all officers
and ministers of justice be hereby
straitly charged and required to be
very diligent apprehending all such
persons as are faulty in this kind,
either in stealing, selling, buying, enveigling,
purloining, conveying, or receiving
children so stolen, and to keep
them in safe imprisonment till they
may be brought to severe and exemplary
punishment. It is further ordered,
that the marshals of the Admiralty
and the Cinque Ports do immediately
make strict and diligent search
in all ships, and vessels upon the river,
and at the Downs, for all such children,
according to such directions as
they have, or shall receive from the
committee of the Admiralty and Cinque
Ports." The few reports we have of
English cases of kidnapping are too
profusely dressed up with technicalities
to permit us to see the naked
facts. Shower reports the case of
Lees v. Dassigny, the 34th of Charles
II. An English common-law reporter
never condescends to know the year
of the Christian era; he knows only
that of the king's reign, and if he had
to mention the foundation of the Turkish
empire, he would mark it as the
28th Edward I.; while the discovery
of America would as undoubtedly be
an event of the 8th Henry VII. When
we turn to our chronological tables,
we find that the 34th of Charles II.
means the year 1682. How far the
pleadings throw any light on the
adventures of the youth who had been
kidnapped and sent abroad, the reader
may judge from a fair specimen:—"They
sue an homine replegiando in
the name of the young Turbett; and
after an alias and a pluries, they get
an elongatus est per quendam Philippum
Dassigny infra nominatum. This
was to the Sheriff of London, whereas
the defender never lived in London,
but at Wapping, in Middlesex," &c.
The effect of the pleading, of which
this is the commencement, was,
that the accused might be bailed,
"and on security to bring home the
boy in six months, death and the perils
of the seas excepted, he was discharged
on bail. In Trinity term the
boy came home, and being brought
into court was delivered to the father;
but they never proceeded." Sir Thomas
Raymond gives us the further
information, that the kidnapper was
a merchant trading to Jamaica, and
that the victim "was a scholar at
Merchant Taylor's school, and a hopeful
young youth."[11] An act of King
William's reign shows that the offence
was still prevalent, by imposing penalties
on the masters of vessels leaving
people behind in "his Majesty's plantations
or elsewhere." It appears to
have been almost solely for the foreign
market that kidnapping was practised
in England. The cultivated and populous
character of the country, the
power of the laws, and the perpetual
vicinity of a kind of parochial municipalities,
probably rendered the forcible
seizure and imprisonment of individuals
within the country too difficult
and dangerous an operation to have
been frequently accomplished by force;
though the fatal facilities for confinement
in lunatic asylums may have
frequently made them the living tombs
of those whom the rapacity, or the
malignant passions of others, have
doomed to imprisonment. Yet, were
we to take foreign novelists as true
painters of English manners, we would
find in Madame Cotin's Malvina, that
a French beauty having secured the
affections of an English duke, his
powerful relations seize her after she
has become his wife, and lock her up
in a turret of their private castle,
where, though the neighbouring physician
and the clergyman visit her,
and all the world knows that she is
imprisoned, no one dares to interfere
in her behalf; and her fate is only
balanced by that of her husband,
whom the Attorney-General transports,
by a writ of Habeas Corpus, to
the West Indies. Somewhat similar,
if our memory serves us right, are the
notions of British liberty embodied
in Walladmor, the story got up to
pass as a Waverley novel at one of
the Leipsic fairs, where, in the year
1818, the Lord Lieutenant is found
committing every person with whom
he quarrels to his private dungeons
in his own castle.
We need no writers of romance to
find instances of kidnapping in Scotland
before the Union. The vast
solitudes which frequently separated
inhabited districts from each other,
the feudal fortalices scattered hither
and thither, the weakness of the
crown, the judicial powers possessed
by many of the barons; and we may
add to this, the spirit of clanship,
which surrounded every Highland
chief with an army of retainers, as
faithful to the preservation of his
secrets as they were relentless in
avenging his feuds—all conspired to
render it too easy for a powerful individual
to adopt such a form of outrage
against his enemy. Not that the practice
was pursued in the manner of a
sordid trade, as we have found it followed
in England, and as we shall
find that at a later period it was
adopted among ourselves. The Scots
had no colonies to be supplied with this
species of living merchandise; and in
truth the human animal has seldom
been with us so valuable a commodity
in the home market, as greatly to raise
the cupidity of his neighbour.
Those who ventured on kidnapping
flew at high game. A young or a
superannuated king requiring the aid
of able counsellors, nay, sometimes a
monarch in the vigour of his power,
would be the object of such an attempt.
Among lesser personages, statesmen
offensively powerful, dignified
churchmen about to issue ecclesiastical
censures, and judges of the Court
of Session prepared to give adverse
decisions, were in great request, and
eagerly sought after. Alexander Gibson
of Durie, for some time a principal
clerk of session, and afterwards a judge
in that court—lawyers know him
as the author of a folio volume of reports
of more than average unreadability—was
a special victim, having
been twice successfully spirited away.
In 1604, George Meldrum, younger of
Dumbreck, was tried for several acts
of this description, of one of which
Durie, then "ane of the clerks of our
sovereign Lord's Council and Session,"
was a victim. Among those
whom the kidnapper took to his assistance
were—"John Johnston, called
Swyne-foot," and some other worthies,
comprehensively described as
"ane company of common and notorious
thieves, brigands, and murderers,"
who assembled "with swords,
hagbuts, and pistolets." Durie was
residing in St Andrews, and it appears
that his enemy employed "ane fellow
called Craik, the said George Meldrum's
own man," to watch his motions.
He was riding, as it would
appear, on the bank of the Firth of
Tay, opposite to Dundee, accompanied
by a brother barrister and his servant,
when the ambuscade "treasonably
put violent hands on their persons,"
and "took them captives and prisoners."
Their captor "reft fra them
their purses, with certain gold and
silver being therein, extending to the
quantity of three hundred merks or
thereby"—an act which the indictment
reproachfully mentions as specially
unworthy of "ane landed man."
Meldrum proceeded with his captive
through Fifeshire to Kinghorn, on the
Forth; thence, crossing over to Leith,
he marched through Edinburgh, "passing
the palace gate of Holyroodhouse"—a
circumstance to which the indictment
alludes as a powerful illustration
of the audacity of the transaction.
The party then proceeded through
Lothian and Tweeddale across the
Border "unto England, to George
Ratcliff's house, where they detained
him captive and prisoner for the space
of eight days or thereby."[12] Thus
was this high official conveyed a distance
of about a hundred miles, not
only through the most populous and
fertile part of the kingdom, but
through the centre of the metropolis,
under the very shadow of the throne;
and that not by any of the great
barons who could command an army
of followers, but by a petty country
gentleman, aided by a few Border
freebooters.
The second private captivity of
Durie was accomplished on the principle
on which an elector is sometimes
abstracted. It was for the purpose
of defeating his adverse vote on
the bench in a cause then before the
court. Sir Walter Scott mentions
the incident in the notes to the "Border
Minstrelsy;" and the reader who
remembers his picturesque and spirited
narrative may perhaps be amused by
seeing how the same event appears in
the sober garb of a reporter of decisions.
Forbes, in his "Journal of the
Session," says—
"Some party in a considerable action
before the session, finding the Lord Durie
could not be persuaded to think his plea
good, fell upon a stratagem to prevent
the influence and weight that his lordship
might have to his prejudice, by causing
some strong masked men kidnap him in
the Links of Leith at his diversion on a
Saturday afternoon, and transport him to
some blind and obscure room in the country,
where he was detained captive without
the benefit of daylight a matter of
three months—though otherwise civilly
and well entertained—during which time
his lady and children went in mourning
for him as dead. But after the cause
aforesaid was decided, the Lord Durie was
carried back by incognitoes, and dropped
in the same place where he had been
taken up."[13]
During the civil wars of the seventeenth
century, the victorious party
frequently found it difficult to dispose
of their captives. In England many
of them were sent to the plantations;
and perhaps the idea which this practice
communicated to the public, of
the value of captives transported to
the colonies, may have first instigated
those acts of kidnapping against which
we have found the Long Parliament
protesting. Scotland had no such
means of disposing of her prisoners,
whose numbers were frequently very
inconvenient. Many of them were
sent abroad to be soldiers under those
continental leaders who were considered
on the same side with the victorious
party at home; others were
subjected to a sort of slavery in this
country; but wherever their lot might
be cast, their captivity would be very
apt to be abbreviated by some revolution
in the fortunes of war. A person
who preserved accurate notes of political
events as they passed under his
eye, kept the following very business-like
account of the distribution of the
common soldiers taken in the battle in
which Montrose was made prisoner:—
"Tuesday, 21st May [1650].—This
day the two hundred and eighty-one
common soldiers taken at Kerbester,
that were in the Canongate prison—the
house ordains forty of them, being
forced from Orkney, and have wife
and children, to be dismissed. The
house gives six of them, being fishers,
to the lieutenant-general; also other
six fishers of them, given by the parliament
to the Marquis of Argyle;
and six of them being lusty fellows,
given to Sir James Hope, to his lead-mines.
The remnant of them the
house gives to the Lord Angus and
Sir Robert Murray, to recruit the
French regiments with, to be transported
out of the country to France."[14]
It may be questioned if these gifts
were very valuable to their receivers,
or if the coerced labour they inferred
was worth possessing. Certainly so
little valuable was the mere human
being to the community, some thirty
years afterwards, that the liberal
and patriotic Fletcher of Saltoun
pleaded hard for the establishment
of slavery in Scotland, not as a privilege
to the aristocracy, but as a boon
to "so many thousands of our people
who are, at this day, dying for want
of bread." He saw that sheep and
oxen, being property, were cared for
and kept alive, and, by a process of
reasoning which he seemed to consider
a very natural one, he thought
that he had but to convert his fellow
beings into property, to let them be
also cared for. Yet, like all men
who conceive social paradoxes, he
was haunted by the shadow, cast
before, of the revulsion of common
sense against his proposal, and thus
anticipated the obloquy it would incur.
"I doubt not that what I have
said will meet, not only with all the
misconstruction and obloquy, but all
the disdain, fury, and outcries, of
which either ignorant magistrates or
proud lazy people are capable.
Would I bring back slavery into the
world? Shall men of immortal souls,
and by nature equal to any, be sold
as beasts? Shall they and their posterity
be for ever subjected to the
most miserable of all conditions, the
inhuman barbarity of masters, who
may beat, mutilate, torture, starve,
or kill, so great a number of mankind
at pleasure? Shall the far
greater part of the commonwealth be
slaves, not that the rest may be free,
but tyrants over them? With what
face can we oppose the tyranny of
princes, and recommend such tyranny
as the highest virtue, if we make
ourselves tyrants over the greatest
part of mankind? Can any man,
from whom such a thing has escaped,
ever offer to speak for liberty? But
they must pardon me if I tell them,
that I regard not names but things;
and that the misapplication of names
has confounded every thing."[15]
His plan of social reorganisation
was, that "every man of a certain
estate in this nation should be obliged
to take a proportional number of the
poor, and employ them in hedging and
ditching his grounds, or any other
sort of work," while the young were
to be "educated in the knowledge of
some mechanical art." Here we have
one of the earliest undoubted expositions
of communism. But Fletcher
called things by their accepted names,
and for Saint Simon's industriel and
chef, we have slave and owner; for
Fourier's Phalanges we have gangs.
Nor does the illustrious patriot flinch
from describing in their proper harsh
colours the coercive means necessary
for thus keeping society in fetters.
We recommend to M. Louis Blanc the
passage where he says:—"These
things, when once resolved, must
be executed with great address, diligence,
and severity; for that sort
of people is so desperately wicked,
such enemies of all work and labour,
and, which is yet more amazing, so
proud, in esteeming their own condition
above that which they will be
sure to call slavery; that, unless prevented
by the utmost industry and
diligence, upon the first publication
of any orders necessary for putting
in execution such a design, they will
rather die with hunger in caves and
dens, and murder their young children,
than appear abroad, to have
them and themselves taken into such
a kind of service."
There is spirit—almost sympathy
in this picture of the desperation
of savage liberty; and the enthusiasm
with which the lover of his
own freedom describes the love of
the poor outcasts for theirs, sounds
as if it gave the lie to the sincerity
of the project. It seems to have had
no supporters. The state of "the
labour market" did not make the
possession of human beings a desirable
investment, and landed gentlemen
were not anxious to become the
owners of their poorer neighbours, for
the general good of the community.
Kidnappings and deportations for
political purposes, still continued to
be occasionally practised. One memorable
instance was the far-famed
story of Lady Grange, to which we
propose to dedicate a separate notice,
in virtue of our having perused some
documents with which the world at
large does not seem yet to be acquainted.
There is little doubt that
occasionally a person who showed a
disposition to impart dangerous Jacobite
secrets was spirited away to
France, to give an account of his
views and intentions, under circumstances
in which he might not be so
likely to forget the obligations he had
incurred to the exiled house. Generally
speaking, however, kidnapping
was worthless in a commercial sense;
though Lovat, whose actions were
scarcely in conformity with any particular
social rule, choosing to have
in his service a well-trained London
footman, without paying him, got
possession of his person, and kept it
as safe in his own custody at Castle
Dounie as if he had taken him to
Algiers.
It was, however, when the Scottish
trade with the plantations began to
open up, soon after the Union, that
the disgraceful practice of kidnapping
and transporting children became
prevalent. The power possessed by
many of the chiefs, as independent
local judges, with but a nominal
responsibility to the control of the
crown or the intervention of the
supreme courts, gave facilities for
this traffic, which poor human nature
seems to have been incapable of resisting.
The victims were sometimes
persons tried and convicted before
the hereditary tribunal; and since
they must be punished, it were pity
to allow an opportunity to be lost,
by which the infliction might be
turned to the profit of the judge or
his friends. Thus we find Lovat,
desirous to propitiate the favour of
Duncan Forbes, offering his brother
a gift of "a few Strathglass rogues,"
clansmen of his next neighbour and
hereditary enemy, whom he had
caught in his own domain, and convicted
in his own court. He had at
first proposed to send them to America;
but, as they are "handsome fellows,"
he offers them to Forbes, for his
nephew's Dutch regiment. "I shall
send them to him," says the accommodating
chief, "without any expense
in keeping of them; for I will
send immediately orders to carry
them south with a guard. There is
a captain there of Arthur's regiment,
who will receive them and deliver
them to Arthur; and I'll send him
other two Camerons that are in your
prison—tall fellows; and five such
good men will do him more service,
now that the Dutch expect
a war, than thirty men next
season."[16]
It was in reference to such practices
that the engineer officer, who,
while employed in laying out the military
roads through the Highlands, preserved
so many shrewd remarks on
the manners of the people, added the
following to his budget:—
"When any ship in these parts is bound
for the West Indies, to be sure, a neighbouring
chief, of whom none dares openly
to complain, has several thieves to send
prisoners to town.
"It has been whispered their crimes
were only asking their dues, and such-like
offences; and I have been well
assured they have been threatened with
hanging, or at least perpetual imprisonment,
to intimidate and force them to
sign a contract for their banishment,
which they seldom refused to do, as
knowing there could be no want of witnesses
against them, however innocent
they were; and then they were put on
board the ship, the master paying so
much a head for them. Thus two purposes
were served at once—viz.: the
getting rid of troublesome fellows, and
making money of them at the same
time."[17]
But our more immediate concern,
in the present instance, is with no
frightful feudal baron, presiding over
chains and dungeons, in the mysterious
recesses of his own solitary
moated tower. The offenders exposed
in Peter Williamson's history,
were grave, sober burghers—bailies
and town-councillors of one of the
most worshipful and respectable corporations
in the United Kingdom—men
of peace, staid in their demeanour,
cautious in their walk of life—careful
not to rub their smooth, well-brushed
broad-cloth against any impure
thing. Their proceedings had
the fairest and most innocent appearance:
men of industry and business
themselves, keepers of their bonds
and engagements, they were but
somewhat rigid in exacting industry
and punctual performance of obligations
from others. "Kidnapping,"
"crimping," "deforcement," "slavery,"
were words unknown in their
vocabulary,—they did but hire servants:
it was nominally for a period of
years, it might happen to be virtually
for life; it might be to bear the burden,
under a tropical sun, in the
steaming swamps of the Antillas—still
it was a mere contract. They
would have been frightened by
the name of a slave-ship, but they
meekly acknowledged that they
freighted vessels "in the servant
trade," with "cargoes of boys."
"For them alone did seethe
A thousand men in troubles wide and dark:
Half-ignorant, they turn'd an easy wheel,
That set sharp racks at work to pinch and peel."
Many years had passed over the
guilty traffic, ere an accident having
disturbed the placid surface it assumed
to the world, some men of
honour, courage, and high station resolved
to probe its mysteries; and
discovered that the sleek burgesses,
by their corporate authority, had
been able noiselessly to accomplish
as wide and devastating a tyranny
as ever had been revealed by the
dungeons of some mouldering baronial
tower to frighten this world against
feudality.
Peter Williamson was born at
Hirnley, in the parish of Aboyne,
Aberdeenshire, the clergyman of which
mentions him in the statistical account,
along with the celebrated Father
Innes, and Ross, the author of "the
Fortunate Shepherdess," as one of
the eminent men connected with his
parish.[18]
The district, though situated on the
slopes of the higher Grampians, has
not, within the reach of history, been
inhabited by Celts, and Williamson's
name speaks to his Saxon
origin. He says he was, "if not of
rich, yet of reputable parents;"
and they evidently belonged to a poor
and frugal, but independent class,
who may still be found rearing their
humble fortunes on those somewhat
sterile uplands, neither as masters
nor as servants, but each independently
farming his own croft. One
of the witnesses, examined more than
twenty years afterwards, said "he
knew James Williamson having a
plough going in Upper Balnacraig,
to the best of the deponent's remembrance,
and heard he had
likewise a plough going in Hirnley,
when he lived there; and that
he was in such circumstances as to
keep his children and his family,
without their being obliged to beg
their bread." We take the brief history
of his seizure from Peter's own
narrative.
"I was sent to live with an aunt at
Aberdeen, where, at eight years of age,
playing on the quay, with others of my
companions, being of a stout, robust constitution,
I was taken notice of by two
fellows belonging to a vessel in the harbour,
employed (as the trade then was)
by some of the worthy merchants of the
town, in that villanous and execrable
practice called kidnapping; that is, stealing
young children from their parents,
and selling them as slaves in the plantations
abroad. Being marked out by those
monsters of iniquity as their prey, I was
easily cajoled aboard the ship by them,
where I was no sooner got, than they
conducted me between the decks, to some
others they had kidnapped in the same
manner. At that time I had no sense
of the fate that was destined for me, and
spent the time in childish amusements
with my fellow-sufferers in the steerage,
being never suffered to go upon deck
while the vessel lay in the harbour,
which was till such a time as they had
got in their loading, with a complement
of unhappy youths for carrying on their
wicked commerce."[19]
We shall take our further notices
of this occurrence from a very different
source—a huge bundle of papers,
chiefly printed, consisting of the documents
connected with the long train
of litigation in which Williamson
was subsequently involved, owing to
the publication of the passage we have
just cited. The papers consist of
pleadings, accounts, letters, and the
testimonies of witnesses—a sort of
mass in which it is clear from the
beginning that one cannot fail to find
curious things by boring holes through
it here and there. We are not aware
that this valuable source of information
about the manners of the place
and period has ever been heretofore
applied to literary uses, with the exception
of some references made to it,
in a curious and very able compendium
of provincial lore, called "The Book of
Bon Accord, or a guide to the city of
Aberdeen;" a work which, like
"Tooke's diversions of Purley," not
unknown to collectors of juvenile circulating
libraries, appears to have been
christened with some peculiar object of
hiding the learning and ingenuity of its
contents under a frivolous exterior.
At the time when legal investigations
were commenced, Williamson
was a man in middle life, who had
gone through adventures and vicissitudes
enough for a century of ordinary
human existence. The first step was
to identify the trained travelled man
with the poor boy who had mysteriously
disappeared from the streets of
Aberdeen; and the next to prove the
act of kidnapping. Several witnesses
remembered Williamson; he was described
by them as "a rough, ragged,
bumble-headed, long, stourie clever
boy, by which is meant a growthy
boy;" and "a stout, clever, rough
loon, and very ill to guide, and very
ragged till he got clothes." A neighbour
of the old crofter said he believed,
"upwards of four years before the
battle of Culloden, it was the general
report of the country, that when the
said Peter Williamson was a little
boy going with a clipped head, he was
taken at Aberdeen, and carried to
Philadelphia with several other boys."
He remembered conversations with
the youth's father, who complained
that "he came into Aberdeen seeking
his son Peter, but they would not let
him near hand him; that his son
Peter was in a barn in Aberdeen, and
they would not let him speak with
him;" and, "that the merchants in
Aberdeen had carried away his son to
Philadelphia, and sold him for a
slave"—observing, that it was commonly
rumoured that several merchants
there, whom he named, "did
deal in that way of carrying away
boys;" and he concluded by saying
"he saw the father shed many salt
tears on that account." The session
clerk, who had been at Peter's baptism,
recognised him when he saw
him, as "the same identical Peter
Williamson at whose baptism he had
been present," and confirmed the
story of his father's having attempted
in vain to get access to him in the
barn, characterising the old man's
lamentation as "very sore and
grievous." Mr Fraser of Findrac, a
neighbouring proprietor, "knew several
of James Williamson's children,
and had heard it was the
practice of some of the merchants of
Aberdeen to kidnap young children,
and send them to the plantations to
be sold as slaves. He heard in the
country that the said James Williamson
or his wife had gone into Aberdeen,
and one of their sons called
Peter Williamson had followed; and
that James Smith, saddler in Aberdeen,
had picked up the said Peter;
and the deponent heard he was either
put in prison, or put on board a ship,
till the ship sailed; it was the voice
of the county that James Williamson
and his wife regretted, or made a
clamour for the loss of their son, not
knowing what was become of him."
The investigation brought to light
some other cases, and gradually
opened up the whole mystery of iniquity.
One old woman, the miller's
widow, who remembered that Peter
"was sent into Aberdeen, to be under
his aunts, his mother being dead, and
that soon thereafter he was missing,"
said that in the parish of Aboyne
"they were generally afraid to send
their boys on errands to Aberdeen,
for fear they should be carried off."
Some witnesses remembered having
in their youth made marvellous escapes;
and Alexander Grigson, domestic
at Aboyne Castle, had a story
to tell, "that about twenty years ago,
he and another boy were coming from
the mill of Crathie, where they had
been seeking their meat; and near to
a birch wood, near to the Kirk of
Crathy, three countrymen on horseback
came up with them, but the
deponent knew none of them; and
they asked him and the other boy
that was along with him, if they
would go with them, and they would
clothe them like gentlemen; but the
deponent being elder than the other
boy, made answer that they would
not go along with them, for it struck
the deponent in the head that perhaps
he and the other boy were to be
carried abroad, in respect a rumour
prevailed in the country that young
boys were carried abroad at that time."
The men threatened force; and the
boys, who could not fail then to have
the blackest notions of their intentions,
took to their heels while the kidnappers
were tying their horses, and
defied discovery in the recesses of
the old forest of Mar, which, fortunately
for them, skirted the road.
This incident may have been a trick
to frighten two country lads. Another,
recorded by a chairman in Edinburgh,
has a more business-like appearance.
"In the year 1728 or 1729, he
went to Aberdeen to see an uncle and
an aunt, who lived there; and whilst
he was there he was carried up to a
house by a person whom he did not
know, where he got a dram and a
piece of biscuit, and was promised a
new coat and great encouragement, if
he would agree to go over to America
with the other lads that were engaged
to go there; that he signified his
willingness to agree to the proposal;
that upon this he was desired to go
and come back to his breakfast again;
but when he told this to some of the
countrymen of his acquaintance, they
told him that he was a fool, for he
would be sold to the blacks, and they
would eat him; that upon this he
resolved immediately to leave the
town, which he did."
It appeared that those who endeavoured
to recover their children were
threatened with coercive measures;
and the poor people seem to have been
impressed with the conviction, that
they were in the hands of an overwhelming
power, with which it would
be vain to contend. Thus one individual,
having recovered possession of
his son, met the captain of the transport
vessel in the street, who bade
him send back the youth, otherwise
he might expect unpleasant consequences.
Therefore he "promised
and engaged to return his said son,
which he accordingly did. Depones,
that if he could have hindered his son
from going to America he would have
done it; and if he had known as much
then as he does now, he would have
done it. Depones, that before he
promised to return his son to the said
ship as above, he was himself threatened
to be put into the Tolbooth."
The line of defence adopted by the
kidnappers was, that no one was forced,
in the first instance; that each boy
was the object of a distinct agreement,
either with his parents or with himself;
and the subsequent coercion
employed towards them, which could
not be denied, was thus interpreted
to be a judicious protection by the employers
of the property they had fairly
acquired. But the very evidence
given by their own emissaries—almost
every sentence bearing in its bosom a
general assurance that nothing illegal
was done—is quite sufficient in the
description of minute facts to support,
if not confirm, the darkest suspicions.
Thus one of the crimps, desiring to
excite some feeling against the exiles,
as a graceless inconsiderate class, unworthy
of sympathy, said "that such
persons, whether boys or older people,
whom the deponent engaged to go to
America on board the said ship, the
Planter, after they had been—some
four, some five, some six weeks
clothed and maintained by him at
the expense of his employers, were
endeavouring to desert and run away,
and were tampered with, or decoyed
to engage or take on with other people
in the town of Aberdeen, who were,
at the very same time, engaging and
indenting servants to America; and,
in order to prevent their being so decoyed,
the older people so engaged by
the deponent were put in prison, and
the younger people were put into the
workhouse or poor's hospital." There
was, it seems, much competition in
the trade; and, at the same time, the
live commodity had a propensity to
remove itself from the custody of its
owners. Thus might the employment
be termed a doubly hazardous one;
and a certain scrupulous citizen, who
had grave doubts about the propriety
of joining the speculation, though he
wished to be a part-owner of the ship
in which it was conducted, gave this
account of his hesitation: "Having
been informed that servants had been
indented by Ragg and his owners to
go on board of his said ship to America,
and the deponent not inclining to be
concerned in that servant trade, proposed
to Ragg to hold a share of the
ship if he was to have no concern of
that adventure of the servants, as he
was an utter stranger to any merchandise
or trade in that way; to which
Robert Ragg said, that he could not
have any concern with the ship without
having a concern in the servants,
which made him break up any farther
communing with Ragg about the
matter." But this witness was an
instance of the instability of good
resolutions: he was strongly pressed
by friends for whom he had a high
esteem; the profits and advantages
of the undertaking—but that, of course,
was a secondary matter—were largely
spoken of in support of these importunities,
"to hold a share in the same
way as the other owners had done, as
well in the adventure of the servants
as in the ship,—to which importunities
the deponent at last yielded." Not
less tell-tale is a letter by the captain
of the vessel, written in a spirit of
honest indignation to one of the parties
involved in the legal proceedings.
"Dear Sir,—I am favoured with yours
of the 28th September, and am sorry
you are put to trouble about one Williamson.
I do not remember any of that
name that went out in the Planter, and
am certain, if he is not mentioned in the
account of what was got for the servants'
indentures," [that is to say, of course, for
the sale of the 'servants' themselves,]
"if even he was ever indented, he must
have run away at Aberdeen, or at Cape
May, where the ship was lost: and I am
sure there was no servant in that ship but
what was legally attested before they
went from Aberdeen. I cannot tell if any
register is kept at Philadelphia of the sale
of servants, but I imagine not."
These admissions, that the "servants"
required coercion; that they
were confined in the public prison and
other convenient places; and that they
were sold, are of course, amply confirmed
by the witnesses on the other
side. A witness, William Jamieson,
had a pathetic little history of his own
to tell. He lived in the village of Old
Meldrum, in the year 1740, and he
had then a son John, between ten and
eleven years old. One evening his
boy did not come home; and in the
course of his anxious inquiries, next
day, about the missing youth, he was
told by some neighbours, "that they
saw a man, whom they said was a servant
to John Burnet, late merchant
in Aberdeen, who was commonly
called Bonny John, with the deponent's
said son, and two other boys,
much about the same age, travelling
towards Aberdeen, and that his son
would be sent to the plantations."
The kind of alarm that would be
conveyed to the father's heart by
such an intimation, may be imagined;
and the poor villager, surrounded by
people among whom a dread of this
species of kidnapping had become a
panic, would be little relieved from
his anxieties, by hearing the neighbours
describe the horrors of the slavery
to which such of their offspring as underwent
the calamity of capture were
subjected, and lament their utter feebleness
to resist the strong hand, fortified
by law and authority, by which the injury
was perpetrated. Jamieson, however,
resolved to make an effort for
his son. He went presently to Aberdeen,
and saw Burnet, who apparently
transacted too large a business in the
"servant trade," to be conscious of so
small an item in the account as the
villager's son, "and told him that
he had several boys, but did not know
whether the deponent's son was
amongst them; but said, though he
was, the deponent would not get him
back, because he was engaged with
him." The "deponent"—a word
which in Scotland is the technical
term for witness; we are sorry that
it is necessary to use it so often, but
we cannot help it—after his interview
with the great kidnapper, wandered
along the broad links or downs
on the sea-shore, "where he had been
informed the boys were out getting
the air." There "he observed a great
number of boys—he thinks about
sixty: that they were attended by a
man who, the deponent was informed
by the people of the town, was employed
for the purpose by the said
John Burnet; that this man had a
horsewhip, and the deponent observed
him striking the boys therewith, when
they went out of the crowd." The poor
man saw his own boy John in the
little herd, and joyfully hailed him.
The boy, by a natural impulse, ran to
his father, and said he would gladly
follow him home if he dared. "Immediately
upon this, the person who
was Mr Burnet's overseer, came up
and gave the boy a lash with his whip,
and took him by the shoulder and
carried him amongst the rest, and
immediately drove them off." The
father kept company with the procession,
and thus describes its progress.
"When the boys were marching up
to the barn, the deponent kept pace
with the overseer, who followed immediately
after the boys, entreating
of him to get liberty to speak to his son;
who answered him that he should get
leave to speak to him by-and-by, when
they were come to the barn; but when
they came there the overseer locked the
door, and refused the deponent access;
that he never saw his son after this.
That the deponent in passing through
the town of Aberdeen, after his son
was so locked up from him, was told
by several tradespeople, and others
to whom he had told the story of his
son, that it would be in vain for him
to apply to the magistrates to get his
son liberated, because some of the magistrates
had a hand in those things,
as well as the said John Burnet; upon
which the deponent went home."
A very characteristic record of these
transactions still remained in the books
and accounts of the parties implicated.
Among these documents, one of the
witnesses, denominated "Walter Scott,
writer to the signet," produces "the
ship book," apparently the same which
some of the witnesses more descriptively
call "the kidnapping book." It
is needless to say whose father it was
who possessed this curious document.
The investigation occurred in 1762—nine
years before the birth of Sir Walter;
and it was perhaps one of the last
ideas that would have ever occurred to
his respectable parent, that it was worth
while communicating to his offspring
any information from a mere merchant's
account book, which had been
placed in his hands in the usual routine
of his business, and probably
afterwards forgotten. Yet what a
lively history might have been woven
out of its dry materials, had it remained
among the other lumber in
George Square, to be rummaged out
by the lame boy! Mr Scott was the
agent for the kidnappers. It is satisfactory
to observe that he appears to have
been too honest an agent for their purposes;
for we find that he transmitted
to them this book by post, in order
that it might be exhibited in the course
of the arbitration, to which we shall
hereafter allude; but his employers
knew their own interest too well to
produce it, until they were subsequently
compelled to do so.
The extracts from the books transferred
to the papers before us, are of
course those only which have some
reference to the case of Peter Williamson;
thus—
| "Jan. 8, 1743. To a pair of stockings | s. | d. |
| to Peter Williamson | 0 | 6 |
| To a woollen cap to ditto | 0 | 5 |
| 13, To five days of ditto | 1 | 3 |
And a more emphatical entry—
| "To the man that brought Williamson | 1 | 6 |
Listing appears to have been the
slang, or, more properly speaking, the
business term for kidnapping, and the
price of the operation passes through
a scale of sums, graduated probably
to the difficulty of the task. Thus,
while Williamson was procured for
1s. 6d., there is an entry "To a Serjeant
for listing Mackie, 5s.;" while on
the other hand, there is only "1s. 4½d.
to Lighton and a soldier for listing
Robert Paterson." There is one sweeping
charge of a guinea, "to Maclean,
sent to the country to list servants,"—amount
of business done not stated,
but it must have been considerable, as
there are occasional entries of "cash
sent to the country to Maclean."
Sometimes sums are entered as paid
to the parties themselves—as 5s. "to
Margaret Robertson, when listed;" yet
this can scarcely have been a voluntary
operation on Margaret's part, as
the immediate succeeding item is 1s. 6d.
"to the wright on board and one of
the boys for listing her." Five shillings
are entered as "to two soldiers
for listing Allardyce." He must have
been a difficult boy to catch, as there
is a further entry of 2s., as "cash
they spent with him."
This item introduces us to a dark feature
in the expenditure of the kidnappers,—the
sums that appear to have
been spent by them in vicious indulgences
to their young captives, to prevent
the tedium of their imprisonment,
from driving them to desperate
efforts for their escape. We
have thus,—"to the boys to play at
cards, 1s.;" and in another place, "to
the boys to drink, when put in the
workhouse, 1s.; to six packs of cards
to them, 9d." It is almost a relief in
the perusal of these heartless business-like
columns—every red line of which
has the hard outline of premeditated
cruelty—to read of 1s. 6d. being paid
"to the piper for playing in the
workhouse two days." But in the
neighbourhood of this, there are some
entries which we dare not copy.
There is a candid explicitness about
these accounts, which we must confess
that we have not sufficient virtuous
courage to imitate, by transferring to
our columns some charges, of which
we would yet fain give our readers an
idea. The person who kept the books
no doubt "called a spade a spade;"
and, indeed, he bestowed on many
other things their ordinary vulgar
nomenclature. We tremble in approaching
his most explicit declarations; we
almost fear reproach in offering to the
reader an extract of an item, in which
he has been very decorous, considering
the subject; but such an item! who
shall explain its meaning? Here it
is—"To Colonel Horsie for his concubine,
£1!"
Some entries referring to "the boys
in the Tolbooth," or, more briefly, the
prisoners," remind us, were this necessary,
that these accounts related to
persons kept in bondage. Other parts
indicate the comprehensive nature of
the business done in "the servant
trade." Thus, on the 12th of May,
there is a charge of 7s. 6d. "to three
days' board of ten servants from the
Tolbooth;" and on the same day,
"to five days' board of thirty-four
servants, £2, 2s. 6d." The latter
number is frequently repeated in the
account, and probably represents the
stock of one considerable holder. It
was estimated by the witnesses that
sixty-nine were transported in one
cargo in 1743; "and when," says a
writer already alluded to, "it is considered
that the trade was carried on
to an equal extent for nearly six years,
it is impossible to estimate the number
of unhappy beings carried off at
less than six hundred.[20]
We have endeavoured in our account
of these transactions to be
sternly and rigidly prosaic,—perhaps
our readers may think we have no
great merit in accomplishing such a
resolution, but we also take merit for
having adhered to the facts attested
with impartial accuracy. To afford
some relief to the plainness of our
detail, we shall wind it up by treating
the reader to a part of the eloquent
and denunciatory exordium of Williamson's
counsel, Maclaurin, brother
of the great mathematician.
"Persons of every character, sex, and
age, were kidnapped,—men, women, half-grown
lads, and infants, some of them not
above six years old. The whole country
was in terror and consternation, afraid to
let their children go near Aberdeen, and
trembling for fear of a kidnapping excursion
from that place. The unfortunate
creatures that had been wheedled or
pressed into the service, were at first
confined in a barn or workhouse, where
they had a piper to play to them, and
cards allowed them, in order to hinder
them to think, or meditate their escape;
but that they soon attempted, and one or
two of them with success; upon which
the rest were shut up in the Tolbooth.
"During their confinement, the parents
and other relations of those who had
been enticed or forced away, flocked to
Aberdeen in hopes of effectuating their
release,—hopes which they would never
have entertained had they reflected that
the town-clerk and one of the bailies were
deeply interested to thwart them. Accordingly,
no entreaties or solicitations
availed; and those who seemed too importunate
were threatened themselves
with banishment, incarceration, and other
distress. It will readily occur that it is
much easier to imagine than describe the
scenes which it is in proof ensued; for
nothing more piteous and moving can
well be figured than to see fathers and
mothers running frantic through the
streets, crowding to the doors and windows
where their children were imprisoned,
there giving them their blessing, taking
farewell of them for ever, and departing
in anguish and despair, imprecating
curses upon those who were the authors
of their misery."
So much for the first step,—the
catching of the prey.
We have some farther testimony to
the judicious strictness with which the
worshipful merchants protected their
property after it was stowed away;
but we do not hear that their "cargo
of young lads," as one of them calls
it in a confidential letter, was insured.
William Wilson, one of the sailors,
testified, however,—"that there were
several men in the ship besides the
sailors, and also several boys and
girls; that he saw these boys and girls
put on board; that they were brought
to the ship in a boat, and were
guarded by a number of porters from
Aberdeen, who continued to guard
them all night till the ship sailed, going
home always in the morning and
returning at night; that during the
day they were guarded by the ship's
crew, the one half of whom did the
duty of the ship, and the other half
took care of the boys and girls, notwithstanding
whereof two of them
made their escape. Some of these
boys appeared to the deponent to be
about fourteen years of age, some to
be about sixteen or eighteen, and
others not to exceed ten or twelve
years of age; that after the boys were
put on board, the hatches of the ship
were put down and locked every night,
both while the ship continued in the
harbour of Aberdeen, and afterwards
when she was at sea."
It will naturally occur to the reader,
that though the magistrates and other
public officers of a corporation might
combine together to perpetrate such
acts, they could not carry their
authority across the Atlantic, or compel
the governors of the foreign possessions
of the crown to acknowledge
the brand of slavery they had set upon
their captives. This naturally suggested
itself to us from the beginning, as
throwing a doubt over the essential
movements of the transaction; but it
was speedily cleared away by discoveries
very creditable to the ingenuity,
if to no other quality, of these astute
burgesses. Every captive was indented
in the presence of a magistrate,—the
captor himself, of course, or
some other person engaged in "the
servant trade"—and that for a limited
number of years. The indenture was
certified and transmitted to the place
of destination. This expedient brought
each captive within the colonial code,
which applied very rigorous rules to
indented emigrants,—rules which
virtually placed them in the category
of slaves. These harsh regulations
were justified by the circumstance that
the class generally consisted of convicts—indenture
being the form in
which criminals obtained the alternative
of transportation as a mitigation
of some more dreaded punishment.
When the emigrant arrived at Virginia,
the ceremony by which he was
sold was an assignment of his indenture.
This could, of course, only convey
a right to the labour of his body
for a limited period; but as the convict
emigrants required to be under a
very potent discipline, powers were
put into the hands of the planters by
which they were enabled to protract
the indented period; and Williamson
himself describes with apparent accuracy,—"the
children sent off and
sold, no doubt to cruel masters, whose
ill treatment obliges them often-times
to elope to avoid slavery; and as there
is no probability of making their
escape, as they are always taken and
brought back, and for every day they
are away from their master they serve
a week, and for every week a month,
and for every month a year; besides
obliged to pay all costs and charges
that is advertised for apprehending
them, which will probably bring him
in a slave for four or five years longer
at least."
We shall now, in the briefest shape,
give an outline of Williamson's adventures,
as detailed by himself, between
his removal from the country,
and his return to vex his oppressors
with multiform litigation.
The vessel stranded on a sand bank
at the mouth of the Delaware, and was
for some time deserted by its crew,
the cargo of boys being left to an anticipated
fate, which Williamson says
he often in his subsequent miseries
wished had really overtaken them.
Being afterwards taken on shore, they
were relieved by a vessel sailing to
Philadelphia, where they were sold
"at about £16 per head." "What
became of my unhappy companions,"
says Williamson, "I never knew; but
it was my lot to be sold to one of my
countrymen, whose name was Hugh
Wilson, a North Briton, for the term
of seven years, who had in youth
undergone the same fate as myself....
Happy was my lot in falling
into my countryman's power, as
he was, contrary to many others of
his calling, a humane, worthy, honest
man. Having no children of his own,
and commiserating my unhappy condition,
he took care of me until I was
fit for business." He was allowed by
his indulgent master occasionally to
attend a school, where he picked up
some crumbs of education; and finally,
at the age of seventeen, he became the
old gentleman's heir. After a few
vagrant years he married, and settled
as a substantial planter near the forks
of the Delaware. He was in a place
much exposed to the inroads of the
French Indians, who, he tells us, in
the spirit of the military profession to
which he was subsequently attached,
"generally appeared in small skulking
parties, with yellings, shoutings,
and antic postures, instead of trumpets
and drums." In one of these
inroads they burned his comfortable
dwelling and substantial steadings,
and carried him off captive. All the
world knows what is conveyed in the
simple statement of such a fact; and
Williamson's description of the tortures
he underwent impart little additional
horror to the simple announcement
of his seizure. It is possible to
discern people's nature in their own
account of their actions; and not unfrequently
do we see the brave man in
the description of dangers avoided, as
we do the poltroon in the exaggerated
account of those courted and overcome.
Williamson's narrative conveys
the irresistible impression that
he was a man of eminently firm nerve,
undying hope, and unconquerable energy—such
a character as the Indian
tribe would respect, and, after a
sufficient trial, desire to incorporate
with itself. Hence, while others are
slowly slaughtered, Williamson is still
permitted to live, struggle, and endure.
In the difference between his
own trials, terrible as they were, and
the ignominious brutalities heaped on
a poor fellow captive, who met his fate
with gentleness, prayers, and weeping,
we see the indication of the savage
respect paid to the unbroken spirit of
the Aberdonian, whose body they
might rend inch by inch, but whose
spirit remained firm and impenetrable
as his native granite. At length, after
several months of wandering, he made
his escape; and the manner in which
he did so was in keeping with his resolute
spirit. He planned no stratagems,
and consulted no confederates, but fled
outright; and, though naked, emaciated,
and ignorant of the country, defeated
his pursuers by sheer fleetness
of foot and endurance of fatigue. Profusely
bleeding—without even such a
verdant show of clothing as Ulysses
endowed himself with when he met
Nausica—emaciated to the last extremity,
he somewhat astonished and
also alarmed a female neighbour by
an unceremonious morning call, dropping
exhausted on the floor ere he
could communicate or receive intelligence.
Little need had he too speedily
to recover his faculties; the first news
he heard was that his broken-hearted
wife had not long survived the calamity
of his capture. He seems to
have now acquired a decided taste for
vagrant habits, mingled with a spirit
of vindictive animosity towards the
Indians, against whom he records
several exterminating onsets with a
sort of horrible relish. He enlisted himself
as a soldier. But American warfare
then allowed a far wider latitude
for varied military operations than the
ordinary experience of the ranks: and
sometimes he was an Indian warrior,
patiently unravelling and following up
a trail; at another time we find him
commanding a detachment of colonists
as one versed in the native mode of
fighting, with the rank and emoluments
of a lieutenant. In his little
book he details his various military
adventures with much spirit and
apparent truthfulness. We have from
his pen a description of one enterprise,
which is a little romance in
itself. A lover, hearing that the
home of the object of his affections has
been desolated, and his beloved carried
off by a band of one of the most
formidable of the tribes of predatory
Indians, in his frantic zeal raises a
party of adventurers, with whom he
tracks their path. He arrives just in
time to save the damsel from the worst
horrors of such a fate, and the marauders
are put to the sword. The
whole narrative has an animation and
interest not unworthy of Cooper, who
appears to have been acquainted with
Williamson's book, and may not improbably
have derived from it a part
of his information about the military
operations of Vaudreuil and Montcalm
with the Indians in the French interest.
Williamson was indeed a captive at
that capitulation of Oswego which has
cast so deep a stain on the honour of
this commander, and he was soon
afterwards sent to England as an exchanged
prisoner. He complains that,
on his voyage, "though the French
behaved with a good deal of politeness,
we were almost starved for want of
provisions." He arrived at Plymouth
in November 1765, and, owing to a
severe wound in one of his hands, was
discharged as incapable of farther
service.
No longer able to apply his energies
to Indian warfare, he looked around
him for that employment which in
his native country would best supply
its place, and found it to be—literature.
He published "A Brief Account
of the War in North America,
showing the principal causes of our
former miscarriages; as also the
necessity and advantage of keeping
Canada, and maintaining a friendly
correspondence with the Indians."
This pamphlet is dated in 1760; and
we here mention it, that we may not
allow it to interrupt the narrative of
the somewhat momentous consequences
of a little book which he published
two years later, with the title
"French and Indian cruelty exemplified,
in the Life and various Vicissitudes
of fortune of Peter Williamson:
containing a particular account
of the manners, customs, and dress,
of the savages; of their scalping,
burning, and other barbarities committed
on the English in North
America, &c., &c." Mr Williamson
was somewhat prolix in his title
pages, and we cannot inflict the
whole of this one on the reader. It
was dedicated, with considerable sagacity,
to William Pitt. In the frontispiece
there is a full-length portrait
of "Mr Peter Williamson, in
the dress of a Delaware Indian."
Much as Catlin's book and other
works have tended to make us acquainted
of late with Indian customs,
the drapery of this portrait carries
with it a decided appearance of accuracy,
and attention to detail. The
face is probably a likeness. Divest it
of the feathered head-gear, it is that
of a hard-featured inhabitant of the
north-east coast, somewhat impregnated
with an air of fierceness and
excitement. Contemplate the entire
figure: it is certainly a very fair
representation of the Indian, such as
we have seen him in the few importations
exhibited in this country. For
several years this representation was
one of the main attractions of the
booksellers' windows in Scotland;
and many an infant has the careless
parent or ignorant nurse frightened
into constitutional nervousness, by
the intimation that the wild man,
whose picture had been seen during
the morning walks, would appear to
the infant in the dark, and visit his
misdeeds with some mysterious punishment.
Besides the occupation of
the literary man, Williamson pursued
that of the actor. During the day
he sat behind a stall, vending his account
of his adventures—in the evening
he rehearsed them in the largest
room of some popular tavern; where,
like Catlin, he made the people
acquainted with the costume and
habits of the people, of whom he had
acquired that acute experience which
boys are said to have obtained of the
boundary marks where they have
been whipped.
In a moment of infatuation, the
magistrates of Aberdeen, finding that
the interest attached to Williamson's
narrative and exhibitions subjected
them to unpleasant reflections, resolved
to punish him. He had migrated
northwards, creating a little
public curiosity and wonder wherever
he went, until, on reaching his native
city, he was brought before the magistrates,
charged with a libel on the
community, contained in that passage
descriptive of his seizure on the pier
of Aberdeen, which has been already
quoted. The magistrates, being at
once the prosecutors and the judges,
had little difficulty in committing
him; and he was thus very roughly
awakened from a dream in which he
"began to think himself happy in
having endured these misfortunes, a
recital of which promised to put him
in a more prosperous situation than
he had ever hoped for." The stock
in hand of his books, amounting to
three hundred and fifty copies, was
seized and burned in the market-place
by the common hangman, and he
was committed to prison until he
should sign a recantation of the passage
containing the account of the
kidnapping. The mind that bore up
against the fiercest cruelties of the
savages, seems to have bowed before
these judicial terrors. In the centre of
the torturing hordes, without a civilised
eye to look on him, he acquired the stern
virtues of those on whom he looked—
"Impassive, fearing but the shame of fear,
A stoic of the woods, a man without a tear."
Among his own people, beneath
the shield of British justice, with a
public to whom oppression never
appeals in vain he sank unmanned;
and in utter prostration of spirit he
signed the recantation in the terms in
which it was desired, and marched
out of prison a heartbroken and ruined
man.
But the cup of the iniquities of his
oppressors was now full, and their
hour of retribution was at hand. The
blow dealt against them was not so
severe as injured justice might have
required, but it was dealt with an
ignominious scorn that made compensation
for its want of severity. There
were at that time many men of high
spirit and great attainments in the
Scottish bar. They knew that the
age they belonged to was one, in which
the safety of the public liberties was
intimately allied with the independence
of the bar. It was not an
uncommon practice for a few of the
ablest and most popular advocates to
unite together in vindication of the
victim of some formidable system of
oppression; and, fortunately for Williamson,
his case attracted their generous
interest. Andrew Crosbie, the
prototype of Scott's Pleydell, threw
his whole energies, and they were not
small, into this cause. The pleadings
at our bar at that time were full of
philosophy, general declamation, and
poetry; and we have before us some
papers from Crosbie's pen which are
brilliant and pleasing specimens of
this class of forensic rhetoric. At
the present day the rhetoric of the law
appeals only to the jury, and in the
shape of vocal oratory. In the days
of our grandfathers it was addressed
to the learned bench, and was embodied
in carefully prepared written
pleadings. The intellectual rank of
the audience to be influenced, and the
medium of communication, would thus
naturally invest the pleadings of these
old lawyers with a literary turn, not
equalled in the corresponding productions
of this age. So we find that
Crosbie bursts open the case with
these well-turned periods:—
"That liberty which the constitution
of this country considers as its
favourite object, is the result of the
due equipoise which our law has
established between the authority of
magistrates and the rights of the people.
As the relative duties of society
must be enforced by the magistrate,
and compliance with the laws exacted
from the citizens by means of his
authority, all the power that is necessary
for these salutary purposes is
bestowed upon him; and, in the due
execution of it, he is not only entitled
to the protection of the law, but is an
object of its veneration. Yet the
same principles that have thus armed
him with authority, for the benefit of
society, have wisely imposed on him
a restraint from abusing it."
The result of these proceedings was,
that, in 1762, the Court unanimously
awarded to Williamson damages to
the extent of £100; and it was declared
that, for this sum as well as
£80 of costs, the guilty individuals
should be personally liable, "and that
the same shall be no burden upon the
town of Aberdeen." A corporation
is a sort of ideal object; it has no
personality; it has been pronounced,
by a high authority, to have no conscience;
it has just one reality about
it—it has a purse. Into this purse its
members may have been accustomed,
from time to time, to dip for the deeds
done by them in the flesh—that is,
in their corporeal, not their corporate
capacity. Perhaps the law, in
countenancing this arrangement, considered
that the members of a corporation
must be so essentially wound up
in its interests, that parting with the
money of the corporation—that is,
with the money of the public—was
as great a punishment for their own
individual delicts as parting with their
own. Be this as it may, the Court
decreed that, on this occasion, the
public of Aberdeen should not pay for
the outrage inflicted on Williamson.
Now let us behold the ingenuity with
which these worshipful gentlemen
baffled the Court, and made the public
pay after all. There were certain
dues collected by the magistrates, as
deputies of the Lord High Admiral of
the Coast. It appears that this high
official might have applied the sums
so levied to his own use, but he had
ceased for some considerable time to
exact them, and, by consuetude, they
had been added to the revenues of the
corporation. Now, if the Lord High
Admiral had set covetous eyes on this
fund, to apply it to his own domestic
purposes, the act might have been
considered one of unutterable meanness—perhaps
the corporation would
have resisted it. But, on the other
hand, to demand a portion of this
money, and use it for getting the
members of the corporation out of a
scrape, was a highly public-spirited
act. The High Admiral assigned
£180 from this fund, to pay the damages
and costs to Williamson:[21] it
need not be said, that of course this
application was suggested to him by
persons who had the best reason to
believe that the corporation would not
resist it, and that all the business
arrangements for his operation on the
fund were simplified to his hand.
Having been so far successful, Williamson,
who seems to have had an
insuperable objection to half-measures,
raised an action of damages against
his kidnappers. It has been asserted,
though we do not know on what authority,
that the Crown was desirous
to institute criminal proceedings
against them, but that they were protected
by a clause of indemnity in
some act of parliament. Williamson
boldly laid his damages at £1000.
His perseverance drove his adversaries
to a series of extraordinary, and in
this country, fortunately, unprecedented
measures. They persuaded Williamson
that it would be for the mutual
advantage of the parties to have the
matter settled by arbitration, without
the costly intervention of the Court
of Session. He adopted the advice,
and the decision fell to be given by
James Forbes of Shiels, Sheriff-Substitute
of Aberdeenshire, acting as
oversman. We are introduced to this
gentleman's convivial character in a
most startling manner, by the statement
of counsel that the Sheriff's
mother, Lady Shiels, "died about the
4th of November, and there can be no
doubt that he would get a hearty dose
at her burial." It was accordingly on
that occasion that the worthy judge
appears to have commenced a series
of potations, under the pressure of
which he speedily followed his parent
to the grave. Williamson's affair came
through his hands in the very climax
of his convivial fit; and both parties
seem to have considered it their duty
to minister assiduously to these furious
cravings, which ever cried with the
Cyclop "Δος μοι ἑτι προφρων."
Williamson was not backward in
contributing to the Sheriff's conviviality.
His own account of his motives
was, that knowing Forbes to be
prepared to decide unfairly, he wished
to keep him so hard at his beloved
pursuit of drinking, that he should
have no opportunity of exercising his
other avocation of judging. Accordingly,
he employed a friend "to tenchel
and drink" the Sheriff—or, as it
is elsewhere expressed, "to drink him
hard;" in fact, the operation is talked
of quite in an abbreviated and technical
form, as a common proceeding in
the way of business in the Sheriff
Court. The drouthy crony who performed
this duty seems to have taken
to it with the same disinterested zeal,
with which Kean sat up three nights
drinking with a friend under depression,
for the purpose of keeping up his
spirits. The favoured individual must
have felt his task coming light to his
hands, when he found the Sheriff in a
tavern "busy at hot punch about
eleven o'clock forenoon." An attempt
was made on him by the enemy, but
Williamson and his drinking assistant
carried him off in triumph to the
"New Inn" to dinner, where, however,
they were obliged to submit to
the presence of the other party, who
held a hospitable competition with
them in plying the Sheriff with the
liquor which he loved. Here they all
"sat close drinking, as is the phrase
in that part of the country, helter skelter—that
is, copiously and alternately
of different liquors—till 11 o'clock at
night, when Forbes, by this time dead-drunk,
was conveyed home by his two
servant maids, with the assistance of
George Williamson, Gerard, and the
Pursuer." This is the counsel's history
of the day, and that it is not an
exaggerated one, we may infer from
an average quotation from the evidence:
one of the witnesses thus concludes
his narrative:—
"Depones, that from four o'clock in the
afternoon to eleven o'clock that night,
they all drunk what they call in Aberdeenshire
Helter Skelter, alternately of
different liquors, and plentifully, in such
a way that the Sheriff in particular was
very drunk, and the deponent himself was
also drunk. That the Sheriff's two servant
maids came for him with a lantern
to carry him home, and came into the
room where the company was, and staid
there some time—fully a quarter of an
hour—and got some drink, but what it
was he cannot tell. That the Sheriff
called for a good part of the liquor which
was drunk. That at last the deponent
assisted to carry home the Sheriff, who
was not able to walk; and either the pursuer
or Mr Gerard assisted the deponent
in so doing; and the two maids went
before him with a lantern, and placed
him in his easy-chair in his bedroom, and
then the Sheriff called upon his maids to
give the company drink, which the maids
refused to give, and then they came away
and left him."
Next day the enemy took possession
of Forbes by a coup de main. They
seized him in bed, half through his
drunken sleep, and conveyed him to a
favourite houf, kept by a man with the
historical name of Archibald Campbell.
There "tea and coffee were called for
to breakfast, but as these insipid liquors
were not to Forbes's mind, a
large dose of spirits, white wine, and
punch was administered to him, with
cooling draughts of porter from time
to time." The kidnappers hired a
whole floor of the inn for that eventful
day—it was the last on which the reference
remained valid, so that if it
passed without a decision, the question
went back to the Court of Session;
and the worthy confederates gave express
instructions that Williamson was
not to obtain access to their conclave,
and that Forbes was to be denied to
him. That sport of fortune became
naturally alarmed when he heard that
Forbes was not at home; and knowing
instinctively where else he was
likely to be, searched for him "in all
the taverns in town," as Seldon tells
us that the King of Spain was searched
for in London when he was outlawed.
One of the waiters, in his evidence,
stated that Williamson came to the
house and "inquired at the deponent
if Shiels was there, to which he answered,
in obedience to the orders he
had received from collector Finlayson,
that Shiels was not there; that on
this the pursuer left Mr Campbell's
house, and (having returned in about
an hour) he insisted with the deponent
that Shiels was in the house, and that
it was to no purpose to deny him, for
that he knew by the deponent's face
that he was there. But deponent still
denied that Shiels was in the house."
Deponent was, unfortunately for his
professional prospects, not sufficiently
brazen-faced for a waiter. The Sheriff
was soon brought "up to the mark."
Cards were introduced, and they had
a roaring day of it. For the sake of
appearances, at the time when he was
making up his judicial mind, the
Sheriff retired to a room alone. Here
a message was conveyed to him from
his sister, intimating that he had made
an appointment for that day, and the
time to keep it had arrived. "Whereupon,"
says a witness, "Shiels touched
his nose with his finger, and said
'Jode'—a by-word of his—'Davie, you
see from whence this comes'—that
Shiels returned for answer to his servant
that he could not go, being engaged
about peremptory business."
He first spoke about awarding "a
trifle" to Williamson. In the end he
gave a decision entirely against his
claim; and the confederates considered
this so great a triumph, that next
morning, being Sunday, they were
reported to have read the "Decree
Arbitral" to a circle of impatient well-wishers
on the "Plainstones" or market-place,
while the citizens were on
their way to church. After having
pronounced the decree, the Sheriff,
according to the testimony of one witness,
"was very merry and jocose,
and engrossed a good deal of the conversation;"
and the waiter who refused
Williamson admission to him had to
testify that "he conveyed him home
to his own house, as he had done many
a night besides that."
There were many picturesque little
incidents in the whole affair. Thus
we are told by one witness, in a
very pathetic strain, of abortive efforts
made by the Sheriff to go through the
public market-place from one tavern
to another. "In a little the Sheriff
and the deponent came down to go to
the New Inn; and upon the Sheriff's
observing that there were too many
people upon the exchange, and that
he was too far gone in liquor to cross
the street, he turned in again to John
Bain's, and afterwards made another
attempt of the same kind, and returned
for the same reason; and a little
after two o'clock they made a third
attempt, and, observing that the exchange
was thin of people, they went
over to the New Inn." Discreet Sheriff—he
had achieved the Greek sage's
problem of knowing himself! But
other people knew him, too; and thus
the hostess of the inn, being asked if
"when Shiels was once drunk, he did
not keep in a hand—that is, he continued
drunk for some days," answered,
that "she has observed Shiels as in
drink at one time and to continue so
for several days after, and that was
too commonly his case; that it is
her opinion, when Shiels was in
liquor, by flattering of his vanity, he
might be very easily induced to do
things which he would not otherwise
do; and the deponent has had occasion
to see several instances of this
sort, by which she means that she has
heard Shiels, when in liquor, promise
to do things which she believes he
would not have done if sober; nor
does the deponent remember or know
that ever Shiels did do any of these
things when sober that he said he
would do when in liquor."
But there are two sides to all questions;
and as human nature has a tendency
towards extremes, there were
some people prepared to testify to the
supernatural and alarming intenseness
of the Sheriff's sobriety. It was, we
believe, a townsman of this same Sheriff
who, when thrown from his horse,
being asked by a sympathising lady
who was passing, if he were hurt?
answered in the intenseness of his
politeness—"Oh! no, mem! quite the
reverse—quite the reverse." So it
appeared in the eyes of some of his
friends that Forbes was not merely as
sober as a judge, but upon the whole
a good deal more sober than a well-constituted
judge ought to be—if he
had any blemish, it was on the reverse
side of intoxication. One of the several
landladies whose establishments
he frequented—not the lady already
quoted—was especially eloquent on this
point. "At dinner-time they only
drank a bottle of wine and half a
mutchkin of punch [the witness makes
no allusion to the consumption before
and after.] Mr Forbes also drank tea
in the deponent's house, and she had
occasion to see Mr Forbes at breakfast
and dinner, and when he went out of
her house when the company parted
after supper at night; and upon all
these occasions he, Mr Forbes, was
perfectly sober, and sufficiently capable
of business, and when he went out of
her house, she remembers perfectly,
she turned in to her servants and said,
that she never knew Mr Forbes sit so
long in her house on so little drink;
and she added, God grant that neither
Mr Forbes nor she might be fey." So
awful and portentous was his sobriety!
Another witness who testified to the
production of so many items of liquor
that it makes one giddy to read the
list, winds up by saying—"After
drinking a few glasses, they were told
that supper was on the table in another
room, to which they moved: That
after supper they drank a moderate
quantity of wine, and punch, and parted
sober about eleven o'clock: That
the deponent had a particular proof of
Mr Forbes's sobriety after supper, by
his maintaining, with great spirit and
elocution, one side of a problematical
question that occurred in the company."
The law is extremely averse to review
the decision of an arbiter. He
may be stupid and careless; he may
have utterly misunderstood both the
law and the facts; but the parties have
adopted the reference as a succedaneum
to litigation, and they "must
stand the hazard of the die." In a
few instances, however, where there
has been gross corruption, or a palpable
combination against one of the
parties, the law has interfered to
reverse the proceedings. The case of
Peter Williamson is one of these
instances; and on the 3d of December
1768, some years after the poor
Sheriff-Substitute had bidden himself
from his disgrace by drinking himself
into the grave, the Court awarded
Peter Williamson damages to the
extent of £200 against the persons
who, nearly thirty years previously,
had spirited him away from the pier
of Aberdeen.
The subsequent career of Peter
Williamson, though not all directly
our present purpose, is so inviting
that we cannot pass it over. He was
one of those men who, with no settled
purpose of life, have their brains
perpetually spinning forth projects,
and their hands perpetually putting
them in operation. Wherever external
circumstances placed him, there
his internal nature predestined him
turn the opportunities afforded him to
the best account. We have seen him
exercising the isolated energies of the
self-sustaining savage in the wilderness;
we shall now see him regulating
the complex wheels of mutually dependent
civilisation. One of his
earliest projects was announced, in
1762, through a letter in the Edinburgh
Courant. The drain of able-bodied
men by the war had, he stated,
prompted him to endeavour to discover
some labour-saving machine,
to facilitate the operations of the harvest;
and he had at considerable
expense invented an engine which
would, "in the hands of a single man,
do more execution in a field of oats
in one day, and to better purpose,
than it is in the power of six shearers
to do. This machine," he continues,
"is now completed, and is constructed
in such a manner that, when the corn
is tolerably thick, it will cut down
near a sheaf at a stroke, and that
without shaking the grain, or disordering
the straw, besides laying down
the corn as regularly as the most
expert shearer can do." The machine
possessed other qualifications far too
numerous to be recapitulated here;
and though the inventor protested that
"neither vanity nor conceit," but the
sole desire to serve the public, prompted
him to expatiate on its merits, it is
not absolutely necessary, at the present
day, to join in all his anticipations
of its wonderful influence on the
amelioration of mankind. We are
no authority on the abstruse practical
subject of reaping-machines; but justice
to our hero renders it right to say
that his invention found a place in
agricultural nomenclature, as "the
basket-scythe."[22] We have already
mentioned some of his achievements
in literature. He published a pamphlet
on the Militia: and, contemporaneously
with the invention of the scythe,
we find him advertising, along with
his account of his adventures, that
"Commissions from the country will
be punctually answered for this and
all other sorts of books; as also stationery-ware
of all sorts;" and in
connexion with this general announcement
of a stationery-establishment,
he enlarges on another book, apparently
of his own composition, called
"A General View of the Whole
World; containing the Names of the
principal Countries, Kingdoms, States,
and Islands,—their length, breadth,
and capital cities, with the longitude
and latitude; also the produce, revenue,
strength, and religion of each
country." This encyclopedia, political,
statistical, and theological, was
to be had for six shillings sterling.
From such comprehensive themes we
find him descending to the object of
the following curious advertisement,
dated 9th April 1772:—
"This day was published, price one
shilling the pack, and sold by Peter
Williamson, printer, in the head of Forester's
Wynd, Edinburgh, the Impenetrable
Secrets which is called Proverb-Cards,
containing excellent sentiment,
and are so composed, that they discover
the thoughts of one's mind in a very
curious and extraordinary manner. The
explanation of the secret is given gratis
with the pack; each set consists of
twenty cards, and ten lines upon each
card."[23]
We may here, perhaps, have traced
to its invention the well-known toy
called "Conversation-Cards," which
has enlivened many a little Christmas
party. If this be so, the debt of
youth in general, to the poor kidnapped
boy, is not small.
In 1776 he started a weekly periodical
called "The Scot's Spy, or
Critical Observer," which appears to
have been continued through the following
year with the title of "The
New Scot's Spy." In the mean time,
he kept a tavern, over the door of
which he advertised himself as "from
the other world." It appears to have
been for some time in the Parliament
Square, and subsequently in the interior
of the Parliament House itself,
part of the wide area of which was
partitioned into booths. Every now
and then he was dropping before the
public some invention great or small.
Now it was a "new invented portable
printing-press;" next, marking-ink
for linen, "which stands washing,
boiling, and bleaching, and is more
regular and beautiful than any needle."
But the chief monument of his energy
was the establishment of a penny
post-office for the city of Edinburgh,
which he supported as a private
speculation. It appears to have been
soon after the year 1780 that he commenced
this undertaking, and contemporaneously
with it he published
a Street Directory. One might suppose
that the post-office, the directory,
and the tavern, with an occasional
invention or pamphlet, would
form sufficient occupation, not only for
one head, but one family. Williamson,
however, must have all his fires
full of irons; and so we find that his
wife and daughter had to appear
before the public as busy as himself
in their own department. On the
cover of his directory it is intimated,
that "Mantua-making is carried on
in all its branches as formerly," by
"Mrs Williamson and daughter;"
who, lest any means of exercising
their craft should pass them, by reason
either of its insignificance or its
gravity, are made to state, that they
"engraft silk, cotton, thread, and
worsted stockings; make silk gloves,
and every article in the engrafting
branch, in the neatest manner, and on
the most reasonable terms; likewise
silk stockings washed in the most
approved style; also grave-clothes
made on the shortest notice."
One would naturally imagine that all
these professions of activity must have
indicated a thrifty, industrious, moral,
happy home. Alas, no! In 1789
Williamson was obliged to divorce his
second wife, the mother of several
children; and the revolting details of
the inquiry show too plainly that the
degraded woman pursued another profession
besides those efforts of decent
industry which her husband advertised
to the world. She, on her part,
charged her husband with having
acquired tipling habits, and keeping
low dissipated company; while she
stated that, notwithstanding the considerable
sums that passed through his
hands in the course of his various speculations,
his family were frequently
subjected to great privations. The
inquiries connected with the divorce
exhibit throughout, tokens of sordid
squalor, which show that Williamson
was little fitted to seize the tides of
fortune that so frequently ran in his
favour, or to direct his energies into
any satisfactory path of self-advancement.
Active and turbulent as he had
been—dreaded, admired, nay, respected
for his services as a citizen—he had
never bettered his condition, or risen
above the rank of the vagabond. His
total want of early education may have
unfitted him to take advantage of his
opportunities. "The reader," he says,
in one of his pamphlets, "will be here
asking what school I was brought up
at? I shall only tell them, that the
extent of it was upwards of four thousand
miles, and the height thereof as
high as the heavens, governed by
Indians of many nations; and regular
education is no way taught among
them, but handed down from one
generation to another; and their records
are kept, marked with tomahawks on
the outside of trees, and can be distinguished
by themselves for centuries
back." It might be a sublime school—but
not a hopeful seminary for sober
citizens. Yet, among Kay's exquisitely
hard etchings there is a portrait
of Peter, from which it is evident that
lie must have been a very handsome
worshipful-looking man, with that
well-fed self-assured air—that corporation
dignity of manner, and citizen
urbanity, if one may use the expression,
which beseem the corporate
officer. Nature and the tailor seem
at the moment to have united to represent
in his person a Deacon at
least, if not a Bailie. He is depicted
in conversation with Abyssinian Bruce,
and as saying to the haughty Lord of
Kinnaird—"There is more truth in
one page of my Edinburgh directory,
than in all your five volumes 4to; so,
when you talk to me, don't imagine
yourself at the source of the Nile."
Poor Williamson's eventful life came
to an end on the 19th January 1769.