new Act to be subjected to the same penalties as if they were found carrying them on their persons, and the exception formerly made in favor of peers, their sons, and members of Parliament, from summons, was repealed; but the following persons were allowed to carry and have in their possession the undermentioned arms:

Any heritor or life-renter possessed of 4007. Scots, was permitted to use, either by himself or his servants, three firelocks, three pair of pistols, and three swords.

Those possessed of 1000l. Scots, valued rent, or upwards, seven firelocks, seven pair of pistols, and seven swords.

Those possessed of 30007. Scots, or upwards, twelve firelocks, twelve pair of pistols, and twelve swords.

Those possessed of 60007. and upwards, twenty firelocks, twenty pair of pistols, and twenty swords.

Those possessed of 9000l. and upwards, [£750] thirty firelocks, thirty pair of pistols, and thirty swords.

Royal Burghs were to have no more than 200 stand of

arms.

Those who were allowed to retain their arms, were obliged, by September 29, 1748, to qualify themselves by taking and subscribing the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, and the assurance provided to be taken by all persons in office in Scotland. The penalty on disobedience was forfeiture of the arms and a fine of 100%. sterling.

Persons belonging to the Royal Bank and Bank of Scotland, and clerks of the court of session, are especially named, and the reason of this will appear when we recollect that the rents of many of the attainted chiefs were regularly paid and remitted to the continent, and other money transactions, inimical to government, were carried through those houses.

The period for enforcing the law against the dress was enlarged to the 1st of August, 1749, but not as respected the plaid, and philibeg or little kilt, the actual body covering, which were peremptorily denounced after December 25, 1748. It was, with respect to these articles, made lawful "for any of his majesty's subjects whatsover to take up and apprehend all and every person or persons as they shall find wearing the said Highland clothes or garb, or any part thereof, and forthwith carry them before any of his majesty's justices of the peace, or judge ordinary of the place, who are

hereby empowered to try and convict such offender in a summary way;" and instead of the penalties of the 19th Act, every person not being of landed estate, found wearing even part of the dress, was compelled to serve as a soldier in the army.

By the former act his Majesty was empowered to purchase lands in the Highlands for the establishment of schools, "to preserve the peace, and farther civilize the Highlanders." Chaplains and schoolmasters were now required to take certain oaths, and to pray for his Majesty and the royal family by name, otherwise they were liable to imprisonment for six months, and on a second offence to transportation to the plantations for life! But, notwithstanding the severity of this clause, the non-jurants in Scotland long continued to pray for the exiled family; and an Englishman tells us, in his entertaining "Letters," how much he was astonished and offended by finding the people of the episcopal chapel, in Aberdeen, when the name of King George occurred in the prayer, set up a general coughing, spitting, and fidgetting.

By the 20th clause, "for the more effectually suppressing the theft of cattle in the Highlands," it was provided that a witness should not be objected to because he was particeps or socius criminis, nor was the circumstance of his being art and part guilty to be turned as proof against himself.

The act of 1st George I., for encouragement of superiors, vassals, landlords, and tenants, remaining loyal, which allowed the tenant of one guilty of high treason two years' crop rentfree, was now repealed.

Notwithstanding the care with which all those Acts seem to have been drawn out, it was necessary in 1753 to pass another, explanatory of the 19th and 21st George II., which was continued in force, by renewal, from seven years to seven years, until 1782.

It is evident from all this, that not only the arms but the Breacanan of the Gaël were considered badges of rebellion, and the marks of a traitor. It must here be observed, that many of the clans had given decided proofs of their loyalty to the reigning family, and in fact were the principal means of crushing the rebellion in 1746; notwithstanding which, by these acts, they perceived themselves confounded with the rebellious, and subjected to the same vexations, pains, and penalties: a proof that the legislators of that day believed

that it was impossible for any of them to continue long in their loyalty and in their tartans at the same time; that is, in the kilt. Here is a whole people, part only of whose loyalty there was any doubt, deprived of their very articles of necessary apparel, when they could not possibly procure any other cloth than the customary manufacture of the country. To comply at once with this law, the Highlander must have appeared in the primitive nakedness of his Caledonian ancestors, except, indeed, his shirt would answer for everything else!

The poor Gaël were sadly annoyed; but, from the good sense of those in authority, the Act was not latterly very strictly enforced, and many expedients were resorted to in order to evade it. Instead of a tartan kilt, many wore blue, green, or other coloured cloth or camblet; in which way Malcolm Mac Leod, a gentleman whose attentions Dr. Johnson experienced when in the isle of Skye, was dressed. He wore a purple camblet kilt, a black waistcoat, and a green cloth coat, bound with gold cord. Others, more guarded, wrapped the cloth round the waist, and falling to the knees, in manner of the feildag, it resembled a kilt in every thing but the plaiting. Some wags carried a pair of breeches over their shoulder, to comply with the letter of the law; and a more usual plan was to sew the kilt up the centre, which certainly changed the description of garment, and was held no infringement of the statute; for one Mac Alpin, or Drummond Mac Gregor, a native of Braidalban, was acquitted, upon proving his allegation that it was thus sewed up, and therefore no kilt.

The Disarming Act they endeavoured to evade by carrying a short knife in the side pocket of their breeches. It has been remarked with some surprise, that the Highlanders should not avail themselves of the absence in the acts, of any allusion to the bow and arrows which their ancestors had at so short a period previously used with great dexterity. It seems an oversight, but it perhaps shows that the people had no desire to overreach the legislature from obstinacy, when they had no object to serve by so doing. Deer continued to be killed by many with bows and arrows, which are well adapted for this purpose. Many were accustomed to carry small axes, in some cases resembling tomahawks, by their sides; but as no mention is made of the tuagh-cath Lochaber axe, it may be said they might have resumed these ancient arms. The matadh achalaise is not mentioned

or

either, and its position, as the name implies, being under the arm, it could have been easily concealed. The sgiandubh also, which is stuck between the hose and the right leg, is not mentioned; but most Highlanders carried a knife of considerable size in their belt. Many of those old warriors we remember, and never heard that they met with any opposition to this inoffensive representative of their

ancient accoutrements.

"To be compelled to wear a new dress," says Dr. Johnson, "has always been painful: an old gentleman delighting himself with the recollection of better days, related that forty years ago a chieftain walked out attended by ten or twelve followers with their arms rattling." The Doctor was certainly fired with a degree of enthusiasm when among the hospitable and agreeable families in the Highlands and Isles, and his reasoning on the Disarming Acts appears strong and just. To disarm part of the Highlanders could give no reasonable occasion of complaint. Every government must be allowed the power of taking away the treason that is lifted against it. But the loyal clans murmured with some appearance of justice, that after having defended the king, they were forbidden, for the future, to defend themselves; and that the sword should be forfeited which had been legally employed.

"Whether by disarming a people broken into several tribes and remote from the seat of power, more good than evil has been produced, may deserve inquiry. The supreme power in every community has the right of debarring every individual, and every subordinate society, from self defence, only because the supreme power is able to defend them; and therefore where the governor cannot act he must trust the subject to act for himself. These islands might be wasted with fire and sword before their sovereign would know their distress. Laws that place the subjects in such a state contravene the first principles of the compact of authority; they exact obedience and yield no protection."* readers may also refer to the debates on the Scottish Militia Bill, introduced in May, 1782, by the marquis of Graham, in which it will appear that Scotland was left so defenceless that the people meditated arming themselves. Sir Thomas Turner, in opposing this bill, feared that a partial arming would be mischievous, for he had seen three Scottish High

Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland, 8vo. 1775, page 208.

Our

landers, without breeches, drive a whole village in England before them; which they could not have done had the people been equally armed.

It may seem at first sight dangerous to allow numbers of men to collect in bodies, armed as the Highlanders are accustomed to be, but no breach of the peace has taken place in consequence of the repeal of the obnoxious act. When so many different clans, some of whom might be supposed to inherit old prejudices and recollections of mutual injuries, met at Edinburgh, when George IV. visited the capital of Scotland, there were nevertheless no revivals of ancient feud, nor did any contend, except in a generous emulation of loyalty, and of orderly demeanour. Even the late Glengarry could march into Inverness with a dozen of guards carrying drawn swords, without at all endangering the peace of the town.

It has been observed that the use of this dress, from respect for the brave men who had worn it in the service of their country, began to be tolerated. The Highland Society of London, a primary object with which was to wear the ancient dress, was established in 1778, and two of the chief promoters of this patriotic association, one of whom yet lives, had the honour to procure a reversal of the law against the costume of the Scottish mountaineers.

On Monday, June 17, 1782, the marquis of Graham, now the venerable duke of Montrose, moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Act of 19 George II., which prohibited wearing of the ancient Highland dress. It might, he said, at the period it passed, have been necessary, but that necessity no longer existed: the Highlanders had manifested their loyalty and firm attachment to the present Government by numberless exertions, both by sea and land, in its favour. The cause having ceased, the effect would also cease of course, and therefore he hoped the House would not think it improper that the Scots should wish an odious distinction, which had been put on their ancestors on account of principles no longer entertained, to be removed.

The motion was seconded by the Honourable General Fraser, representative of Invernesshire, and the son of Lord Lovat, who had led the clan in the cause of the Stewarts during the rebellion, but who had received the royal pardon, and commanded his Highlanders in the service of government with the greatest honour.