Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, Bart.
Sir Walter Scott, “Hints Respecting an Application for a Reversal of the Attainders,” September 1822
“Sept. 1822.
“A good many years ago Mr
Erskine of Mar, and other representatives of those noble persons
who were attainted for their accession to the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745, drew
up a humble petition to the King, praying
that his Majesty, taking into his royal consideration the long time which had
since elapsed, and the services and loyalty of the posterity of the attainted
Peers, would be graciously pleased to recommend to Parliament an Act for
reversing all attainders passed against those who were engaged in 1715 and
1745, so as to place their descendants in the same situation, as to rank, which
they would have held, had such attainders never taken place. This petition, it
is believed, was proposed about the time that an Act was passed for restoring
the forfeited estates, still in possession of the Crown; and it was imagined
that this gracious act afforded a better opportunity for requesting a reversal
of the attainders than had hitherto occurred, especially as it was supposed ![]()
| JACOBITE PEERAGES—1822. | 223 |
![]()
that the late Lord Melville, the great adviser of the one
measure, was equally friendly to the other. The petition in question, however,
it is believed, never was presented to the King—it having been understood that
the Chancellor, Lord Thurlow, was hostile
to it, and that, therefore, it would be more prudent not to press it then. It
is thought by some, that looking to his
Majesty’s late paternal and most gracious visit to his
ancient kingdom of Scotland, in which he seemed anxious to revive and encourage
all the proud recollections of its former renown, and to cherish all
associations connected with the events of the olden times, as by the display of
the Regalia, by the most distinguished attention to the Royal Archers, and by
other similar observances, a fit time has now arrived for most humbly
soliciting the royal attention to the state of those individuals, who, but for
the conscientious, though mistaken loyalty of their ancestors, would now have
been in the enjoyment of ancient and illustrious honours.
“Two objections might, perhaps, occur; but it is hoped
that a short statement may be sufficient to remove them. It may be thought,
that if the attainders of 1715 and 1745 were reversed, it would be unjust not
to reverse all attainders which had ever passed in any period of the English
history—a measure which might give birth to such a multiplicity of claims for
ancient English Peerages, forfeited at different times, as might affect
seriously the House of Lords, so as both to render that assembly improperly
numerous, and to lower the precedency of many Peers who now sit there. To this
it is submitted, as a sufficient answer, that there is no occasion for
reversing any attainders previous to the accession of the present royal family,
and that the proposed Act might be founded on a gracious declaration of the
King, expressive simply of his ![]()
| 224 | LIFE OF SIR WALTER SCOTT. | |
![]()
wish to have all attainders reversed, for offences against
his own royal house of Hanover. This limitation would at
once give ample room for the display of the greatest magnanimity on the part of
the King, and avoid the bad consequences indicated in the objection; for, with
the exception of Lords Derwentwater and
Widdrington, who joined in the
Rebellion of 1715, the only Peers who ever joined in any insurrection against
the Hanover family were Peers of Scotland, who, by their restoration, in so far
as the families are not extinct, could not add to the number of the House of
Lords, but would only occasion a small addition to the number of those already
entitled to vote at the election of the Sixteen Representative Peers. And it
seems plain, that in such a limitation, there would be no more injustice than
might have been alleged against the Act by which the forfeited estates, still
in the hands of Government, were restored; while no compensation was given for
such estates as had been already sold by Government. The same argument might
have been stated, with equal force, against the late reversal of the attainder
of Lord Edward Fitzgerald; it might have
been asked, with what sort of justice can you reverse this attainder, and
refuse to reverse all attainders that ever took place either in England or
Ireland? But no such objection was made, and the recommendation of the King to
Parliament was received almost with acclamation. And now that the family of
Lord E. Fitzgerald have been restored to the rights
which he had forfeited, the petition in the present case will, it is hoped,
naturally strike his Majesty with greater force, when he is pleased to
recollect that his lordship’s attainder took place on account of
accession to a rebellion, of which the object was to introduce a foreign force
into Ireland, to overturn the Constitution, and to produce universal misery;
while the elder attainders ![]()
| JACOBITE PEERAGES—1822. | 225 |
![]()
now
in question were the results of rebellions, undertaken from views of
conscientious, though mistaken loyalty in many individuals, who were much
attached to their country, and to those principles of hereditary succession to
the Throne in which they had been educated, and which, in almost every
instance, ought to be held sacred.
“A second objection, perhaps, might be raised, on the
ground that the reversal of the attainders in question would imply a censure
against the conduct of that Government by which they were passed, and
consequently an approval, in some measure, of those persons who were so
attainted. But it might as well be said that the reversal of Lord E. Fitzgerald’s attainder implied a
censure on the Parliament of Ireland, and on the King, by whom that act had
been passed; or that the restoration of an officer to the rank from which he
had been dismissed by the sentence of a court-martial, approved of by the King,
would imply a censure on that court, or on that King. Such implication might,
at all events, be completely guarded against by the preamble of the proposed
Act—which might condemn the Rebellion in strong terms—but reverse the
attainders, from the magnanimous wish of the King to obliterate the memory of
all former discord, so far as his own house had been the object of attack, and
from a just sense of the meritorious conduct and undoubted loyalty of the
descendants of those unfortunate, though criminal individuals. And it is humbly
submitted, that as there is no longer any Pretender to his Majesty’s
Crown, and as all classes of his subjects now regard him as both de jure and de facto the only
true representative of our ancient race of Princes—now is the time for such an
act of royal magnanimity, and of Parliamentary munificence, by which the honour
of so many noble houses would be ![]()
| 226 | LIFE OF SIR WALTER SCOTT. | |
![]()
fully restored; while, at
the same time, the station of the representatives of certain other noble
houses, who have assumed titles, their right to which is, under the present
law, much more than doubtful, would be fully confirmed, and placed beyond the
reach of objection.”
Henry Dundas, first viscount Melville (1742-1811)
Scottish politician, president of the board of control (1793-1801), secretary of war
(1794-1801); first lord of the Admiralty (1804-05).
Lord Edward Fitzgerald (1763-1798)
After serving in the American war and becoming an Iroquois chieftain he became a leader
of the United Irishmen and was killed during the 1798 rebellion. His life was written by
Thomas Moore (1831).
James Radcliffe, third earl of Derwentwater (1689-1716)
English Jacobite whose title was attainted for his participation in the 1715 rising; he
became the subject of legend following his execution at the Tower of London.
