Search just our sites by using our customised search engine

Unique Cottages | Electric Scotland's Classified Directory

Click here to get a Printer Friendly PageSmiley

The Great Historic Families of Scotland
The Maules

THE Honourable Harry Maule of Kelly, a gallant soldier and an accomplished historical antiquary, in his ‘Epistle to the Reader,’ prefixed to his ‘Registrum de Panmure,’ says, ’I have read over a good many Histories and Genealogies of Families in Scotland, some in manuscript, others printed, and have examined and compared some of them with what I found in Publick Records and in the chartularies of our Bishopricks and Abbays, and found many of them stuffed and filled with fables, falsehoods, and errours, and written to flatter the persons now concerned, and so became to doubt of everything contained in them. Therefor, that I might not fall in the errour or impose on the Readers, I resolved to make a Register of all the Charters, authentic Writes, or documents that had been collected from those of the above Families [those of Maule de Valoniis and Brechin], that the readers may make their own judgment of them, and not depend on anything I say or others may have said some hundreds of years after the time they write of.’

The materials which Mr. Maule, with the assistance of his second son, James Maule, thus collected for the ‘Registrum de Panmure,’ have been employed by him with great care and a strict regard to historical accuracy. Mr. James Maule, in mentioning his reasons for giving a history of the illustrious family to which he belonged, says that ‘having designed to write the history of some one of our Scots families, like those done abroad, which nobody has ever yet attempted, I pitched on that of the family of Panmure: not but that of Hamilton had borne greater offices and higher honours, Douglas more renowned for military actions, and several others more in history for alliances, cadets, offices, &c.; but in the family of Panmure I found, 1st. An antiquity not to be paralleled, being as ancient in Scotland as any name ever there found, as ancient in England as the Conquest, an age before we have any thing certain of Scots families, and traced in France a century above that. 2do. Their continuing in a male line so great a time as seven hundred and sixty years, and five hundred and upwards enjoying the same principal barony and style of Panmure in Scotland, in a direct line. 3tio. The nobleness and grandeur of their original. 4to. The great variety which their history affords to engage a reader; for having flourished in France, England, and Scotland, they are concerned in the wars of all these three kingdoms, the Holy Wars, the wars of Italy, Greece, and Hungary. They have enjoyed peerages and dignities in all these kingdoms, had offices by which the great places of all the three are treated of; and by their alliances the noblest families of France, the Low Countries, England, Scotland, and Ireland are mentioned, and the different characters and fortunes of Valoignes and Brechin enrich the story and render it agreeable. 5to. Beside their ancient military virtue and loyalty and love to their country, in later times for all public and private qualities the family of Panmure has produced sexcentas viritutes virorum, as in D. of Halicarnassus, &c. 6to. The compleat and full documents still preserved of that family, which would have been so difficult in some others to get. [Registrum de Panmure, I. lxxvii., lxxviii. Edited by John Stuart, LL.D.]

The character and exploits of the members of this ancient and powerful family fully bear out the eulogium of its historian.

The MAULES are a family of Norman origin and derive their surname from the town and lordship of Maule, in Normandy, which for four centuries were in possession of the family. Many graphic sketches of the various members of the house in these early days are to be found in the ‘Chronicle of Ordericus,’ and it is interesting to notice that the prominent features of their characters closely resemble those of their descendants in Scotland in later times. Of PETER OF MAULE, who flourished towards the close of the eleventh century, it is recorded ‘that he was much beloved by his tenants and neighbours, because his manners were frank, and he did not strengthen himself with craft and deceit. His alms were bountiful, and he delighted in giving. But he had no liking for fasts, and as far as it was in his power shunned having anything to do with them.’ ANSOLD, Peter’s son, was tall and powerful in person and a most gallant soldier, having, when a youth, joined the brave Duke Guiscard in his expedition into Greece, and fought gallantly in the battle near Duratzo, in which Alexius, Emperor of Constantinople, was defeated and put to flight, on the 18th of October, 1081. ‘He was constant in attending the services of the Church. His habits were strict and frugal. He never tasted apples in an orchard, grapes in a vineyard, or nuts in the woods, taking food only when the table was spread at regular hours. Fasting and all bodily abstinence he both praised and practised in his own person. He made no predatory excursions, and while husbanding his own property, he was careful to make payment of what was due from it for tithes, firstfruits, and alms. He not only gave nothing to strollers, buffoons, and dancing girls, but would have no kind of intercourse or familiar conversation with them.’ Of all the knights of Maule the chronicler relates that they gave freely to the Church, during their lives, of their lands and substance; the order of monks was treated by them with great respect, and at the hour of death their aid was earnestly sought for the salvation of their souls. The last of the Norman Maules was killed at the battle of Nicopolis, in Hungary, fought against the Turks in the year 1398. His great estates went to his daughter, who married Simon de Morainvilliers, Lord of Flacourt. They next passed by marriage to the Harlays of Sancy, and the heiress of that great family married the Marquis of Villeroy, grandfather to the Marshal and Duke of Villeroy.

Several centuries before the extinction of the male line of the family in Normandy, a junior branch of the Maules had taken root in Scotland. A son of Peter, the first Lord Maule of that name, accompanied William the Conqueror into England, and received from him a part of the lordship of Hatton de Cleveland, in Yorkshire, and other extensive estates. ROBERT DE MAULE, one of his sons, became attached to David, Earl of Huntingdon, afterwards David I. of Scotland, and obtained from him a grant of lands in Midlothian. His eldest son, WILLIAM DE MAULE, was with King David at the Battle of the Standard, A.D. 1138, and received from that monarch a gift of the lands of Fowlis, in the Carse of Gowrie. He died without male issue, and the line of succession was carried on through ROGER MAULE, his younger brother—the progenitor of the Maules of Panmure. His grandson, SIR PETER MAULE, married Christian, only child and heiress of William de Valoniis, [Note: received an email from Hugh VS McIntyre to say that Christian had two sisters, Lora and Isabella, and an illegitimate brother, William.] the representative of a great Norman family whose immediate ancestor settled in Scotland at the end of the reign of Malcolm IV., and was appointed by William the Lion High Chamberlain about 1180. Sir Peter obtained with her the baronies of Panmure and Benvie in Forfarshire, and other estates both in England and Scotland, thus uniting the fortunes of two ancient and influential houses. He had two sons, WILLIAM—by whom he was succeeded—and SIR THOMAS, who was a soldier of distinguished valour and ‘a most audacious knight in mind and body.’ His character has been oftener than once reproduced in the family. He was governor of Brechin Castle, the only fortress in the north which shut its gates against Edward I. in his progress through the country in 1303. ‘Trusting to the strength of the walls, the governor made no account of the war machines brought against them. The King of England’s men incessantly threw stones against the walls without effect. Sir Thomas held the castle for twenty days against the assaults of the English army, and was so confident of its strength that he stood on the ramparts and contemptuously wiped off with a towel the dust and rubbish raised by the stones thrown from the English battering engines.’ [Wallace Papers, p.21] But he was at last mortally wounded by a splinter broken from the wall by the force of a stone missile. ‘While he lay expiring on the ground, being asked if the castle should now be surrendered, he cursed the men as cowards who made the suggestion.’ [Matthew of Westminster, p.446] The garrison, however, capitulated next day. Henry de Maule of Panmure, the nephew of this gallant soldier, fought on the patriotic side in the War of Independence, and was knighted for his services by King Robert Bruce. Sir Thomas Maule, the head of the family at the commencement of the fifteenth century, fought under the banner of the Earl of Mar at the sanguinary battle of Harlaw, in August, 1411, along with the chivalry of Angus and Mearns, and was among the slain. As the old ballad says—

‘The knicht of Panmure, as was sene,
A mortel man in armour bricht;
Sir Thomas Murray stout and kene,
Left to the world their last gude-nicht.’

His posthumous son, THOMAS MAULE, notwithstanding his infancy, was served heir to his father in 1412, in virtue of an Act of Parliament which was passed permitting this service in the case of heirs in nonage whose fathers had fallen in that battle.

At this period, the lordship of the ancient family of the Barclays of Brechin should have fallen to Sir Thomas Maule, who was grandson of Jean Barclay, the heiress of their estates. He was only able, however, to obtain possession of a comparatively slender portion of the property, the lordship itself being annexed to the Crown on the forfeiture of Walter Stewart, Earl of Athole, who was executed for his complicity in the conspiracy which led to the assassination of James I., in 1437. The Earl, on the day of his execution, formally acknowledged that he had held the lordship only by courtesy since the death of his wife, Elizabeth Barclay, and that it belonged by right to Sir Thomas Maule. But the policy of the late King, to diminish the power of the great nobles, was carried out by his successor, and like the earldoms of Mar and Strathearn, the greater part of the Barclay estates was appropriated by the sovereign.

Sir Thomas, who died in 1450, was succeeded by his son, who bore the same name. His first wife was Elizabeth Lyndsay, daughter of Alexander, first Earl of Crawford. Connected with this marriage and the subsequent repudiation of the lady by her husband, Commissary Maule relates an incident which throws great light on the morals of that period. It appears that Sir David Guthrie, who had married the sister of Sir Thomas Maule, after she had borne him a number of children desired to get rid of his wife, and sued for a divorce before the Consistory Court of St. Andrews, on the plea that she was related to him within the prohibited degrees—a common pretext at that time for the dissolution of the marriages of ill-matched couples. The ecclesiastical court readily lent their sanction to this device, and Sir David Guthrie was allowed to put away his wife. The Earl of Crawford, it appears, had assisted Sir David in procuring this divorce, and ‘thearfor Sir Thomas Maule did tak sic indignatione at the Earle that he did repudiat his wyf, albeit ane innocent woman, and to quhome no man could reproche any notoure fault. Sche liveit long after him.’ Sir Thomas took for his second wife Catherine Cramond, daughter of the Laird of Aldbar. After his marriage Sir Thomas, when ‘rydand at the huntes neir to the Green Lawe of Brechin, suddanlie became blind and lost his sight, quharfor he was called the blind knight.’

ALEXANDER MAULE, the eldest son of Sir Thomas, predeceased his father. ‘He was ane prodigal man,’ says Commissary Maule, ‘not given for the weil of his house, quharthrowe his father, conceivit ane evil opinione of him, and thairfor put him not in fea but [except] of Cameston, and of ane annuel of sax lib., to be liftit out of the baronie.’ Alexander and his second son left the country about the year 1498. ‘The cause why the said Alexander past furth of Scotland,’ says the Commissary, ‘is said to be ane haitret he consavit against his wyf and hir frindis for hir misbehaveor. Alexander took gryt somes of money with him, as we have by tradition, as lykwayes that he past to England; but thereafter never word was of them. It is thought they had fallen into the hands of brigands, quha for the money they had, had murdered them: his son Sir Thomas, quha did succeed to the heritage, did many years after look for his home-cominge, and it is said that there did never ane schip come into the Tay, but he looked for his father, or word fra him.’

SIR THOMAS, the son and successor of this ill-fated laird, was noted for his generosity to the Church, and appears to have been somewhat turbulent in his youth. ‘It is said,’ wrote the Commissary, ‘that he was subject to women: for ane indignation he consevit against Ihon Liddel of Panlathyne, he burnt the said Ihon’s hail biggen; quharupon he did obtain ane remission under the gryt seale, quharen is contenit the hail narrative of the matter and causs of the said remission; yet afterwards he became verie penitent of this, as lyk of all other offences of his youth committed against God and nychbours, as may be easily perseavid by sundry donations to religious housis, and pilgramages done by him.’ One of these pilgrimages was made to the shrine of St. John of Amiens, in Picardy. His donations to the ‘religious houses’ must have been unusually liberal, for we are told that ‘he obtanit ane letter of con-fraternity fra the general vicar of the Minorites, that he and his wyf and children should be participant of their whole prayers, suffrages, and divine service, not only of those of that order quha at the present time were within the realm of Scotland, but also of all them quha were dispersit threw the hail parts of Christendom, and not only of the brethren of Sanct Francis, quhom we call Grayfreres, but also of the Sisters of Saincte Clara.’

The Commissary proceeds to mention a curious incident which occurred one day, when Sir Thomas was hunting in company with several other gentlemen. His greyhound caught, and, as was supposed, killed a hare, which was hung by ‘one of the laird’s servants to his saddle’s tore [pummel]. A little after there was another hare found, who would not rise for them. At last, he that had the hare at his saddle-tore loosed her and flung her at that hare that would not rise out of her seat for them. Both of them ran away without a turn, and both of them escaped with their lives without a turn.’

Sir Thomas Maule fell fighting under the royal banner in the bloody field of Flodden. According to the account of Commissary Maule, Sir Thomas was exceedingly corpulent, ‘and therefore was not able, by reason of the great press, to draw his sword; whairfor the Laird of Guthrie drew it furth to him, and he fell with the greater part of his friends and vassals.’

ROBERT MAULE, the eldest son of Sir Thomas by his first wife, succeeded to the family estates when he was only sixteen years of age. He assisted the Earl of Lennox in his unsuccessful attempt in 1526 to rescue James V. out of the hands of the Douglases, for which he afterwards got remission from the King. Two years later he obtained a royal license, dispensing with his attendance at all musters or meetings of the estates, on account of the faithful services which he had rendered to his Majesty. He belonged to the party who resolutely opposed the scheme for the marriage of the infant queen Mary to Edward Prince of Wales, and in 1547 was taken prisoner, and severely wounded when defending his house of Panmure against an English force, assisted by some traitorous Scotsmen. He was conveyed by sea to London, and imprisoned for two years in the Tower, but was ultimately released at the solicitation of the Marquis d’ Elbœuf, the French ambassador to Scotland. Some picturesque notices of the personal appearance and character of Robert Maule are given in the family MS. ‘He was ane man of comlie behaviour, of high stature, sanguine in collour, both of hyd [skin] and hair, colerique of nature, and subject to suddane anger; ane natural man, expert in the lawes of the country, of gude language, expert in counting of genalogies. During his first wyfe’s time, he did cause build the house of Panmore as it is at this day. He was very temperate of his mouth, but given to lecherie, ane able man on foot, and ane gude horseman; lyket weil to be honorable in apparel and weil horsed, mickel honorit with his nychbours, and in gude estimation. He had great delight in hawkine and hunting. He took plesure in playing at the football, and for that cause the moor of Bathil was appointed, and during his days it was not casten, but only reservit for that game. Lykeways he exerciset the gowf [golf] and offtimes past to Barry Links, when the wadfie [stake] was for drink. If he tint [lost] he never wad enter in ane browster house, but causit ane of his servants to gang and pay for all.’ After the death of his wife he became very penitent of his former lyfe, and embraced the Reformed religion. He had with him at syndry times the ministers that then were chiefest in the country, to wit Paul Meffane and Ihone Brabner. This Ihone was a vehement man, inculcating the law and pain thereof, but Paul Meffane was ane mair myld man, preaching the evangel of grace and remission of Jesus in the blude of Christ. His youngest son begotten on his first wyfe, called Robert, ane godlie person, given to reading of the Scripture, did nychtlie walk beside his father, instructing him in the chief points of religion, for he was ane man that had been brought up rudely without letters, so that he could neither read nor write.’ He died in the year 1540, and was succeeded by his eldest son—

THOMAS MAULE, at that time in his twentieth year. Robert Maule was evidently resolved that his son should not suffer as he had done from the want of education, for the family historian mentions that from the time Thomas was seven years of age ‘he was sent to Edinburgh, to ane Robert Leslie, quha was ane famous man of law in that time, and also held the chief innes of the hail towne for noble men. Hereafter, coming to be ane young man, he did wait on Cardinal David Beaton, and was contracted in marriage with his daughter. But on ane day cuming riding in companie out of Arbroath with King James the Fyft, the king did call him asyde, quha having afore heard of the contract, said to him, "Marrie never ane priest’s geat" [child], whereupon that marriage did cease.’ He subsequently married a daughter of George Haliburton of Pitcur, the widow of John Ogilvy of Balfour. ‘The year following his marriage, in the month of September, was the battle of Pinkie, where he was in the Earl of Angus’s battle, but the victory inclining to England they fled, and had ane great impediment of the water, quhilk was dammed behind them, for they did all wade the same, quhilk made them heavy and unable to flee, wherethrow great slaughter did ensewe of our people. After Thomas had past the water, he did cast off his jack, and had impediment to get it fra him, by reason he had his purse under his oxter [armpit], quhilk did stay the offcoming of the same: yet at the pleasure of God he was relevit of it, and took the nearest way on foot to Edinburgh, with his sword in his hand and a steel bonnet on his head. The Englishmen followed fast on horseback, quha till eschew them, and being tyrit and heavie with wading the water, entered in the cornyard of Brunstane, where finding ane great cherrie tree, clamb up in the thickest of the branches thereof, and he scarcely settlet, there enters twa Englishmen on horse within the yard, and looked up and down if they could find any man, but as God willed he was not perceivit. In this meantime, while as they were bowne away forth of the yard, there fell fra ane of them something, but what it was he could not perceive, but appearit to be ane purse. The Englishman being on horse drew his sword, and had mickel ado to get up the same upon the point thereof; quhilk space Thomas was in great fear: he said he never thought ane tyme so long. But thereafter, they riding away he past to Edinburgh, where finding syndrie of his folks, remainit there all night, and on the morn passed to the Queensferrie and came home that way. His father hearing of the defeat was in ane mervillous fear and perplexitie, for his wyfe was now known to be with child, the lands not tailzeit [entailed]: if she had been deliverit of ane daughter the house should have gone fra the name, so that his father neither did eat nor sleep, and nane of his domestiques durst almaist come in his presence, for he had in mind the field of Flodden, where his father, Sir Thomas, was slane, as also the Harlaw, where Sir Thomas Maule was slane, and nane of his name living in lyfe: and except his wyfe had been deliverit of ane son the name had been altogether extinguishit: and by and attour this he did bear ane singular luve and favour to his son.’ Thomas Maule was afterwards taken prisoner along with his father, when Panmure I-louse was captured by the English. He took part in the battle of Hadden-rig, a few miles east of Kelso, where, in 1542, an English army, assisted by the Douglases, was completely defeated by the Earls of Huntly and Home, but young Maule was carried off by the fugitives and kept for some time at Morpeth. After the death of James V. he was set at liberty by order of Henry VIII. The murder of Darnley seems to have had the effect of alienating him from the Queen, for he became a zealous supporter of the Regent Moray and of the cause of the infant King.

The family historian gives a graphic picture of Thomas Maule’s personal appearance and pursuits. ‘He was ane fair man,’ he says, ‘of personage lyke to his father, of ruddie collour, his hair red-yellow, and his beard; of ane liberal face and blythe countenance, never for na adversitie dejected. In mind, given to honest pastime, but chiefly to hunting and hawking, in the quhilk he took sic delight that he would ride all day at the same, fasting, except in the morning he would take ane drink of aile, and thereafter ane lytel acquavite, and continue to the evening without either meat or drink, and at his first coming hame at even would call for ane drink. Na fair day almost through the hail year but he was on horseback, even in his old age, except on the Sunday.’ It appears that when he was a young man an accident which befel a favourite hawk on a Sunday made him ever after avoid amusing himself on that day. ‘Thirty years before his death he never did ryde with ane cloak, but a coat alane, in the cauldest weather in winter, and wald never lyght to gang for heat, and coming to ane water, when as it drew near even, wald lyght fra his horse, and in the cauld frost wald wash his hawk’s supper, and never shrink for cauld; and then coming hame wald call for ane drink before ever he came to the fire. He was ane man not curious of the world, and wald rather suffer loss of gudes than enter in pley with his neighbours.’

This excellent specimen of a stout and hardy old Scottish laird died A.D. 1600, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. ‘Ane lytil before his death, after the laird of Pitcur and his son the young laird had taken their leave, he causit put out all the dogs out of his chalmer, and then causit ishewe all the persons that were therein, except his son Thomas Maule, then confessit his sins to God, thereafter said the Belief and the Lord’s Prayer; whilk done he willed them all to gang to their supper in the hall, except ane woman to attend on him, and immediately after they are set down his speiche fails him and he gives up the ghost! The lady his wyf thereafter wald suffer no man or woman to touch him but herself; sche closed his eyes and streiked him, syne did wyne [wind] him with her awen hand’s, with ane womanlie countenance and courage, never shedding any tears, but uttering some few words in her commendation of his honest and loving heart, albeit I at the writing hereof could not do it without gretine [weeping].’

The lady of whom Commissary Maule writes in such glowing terms was Thomas Maule’s second wife. He married first, in 1526, Lady Elizabeth Lindsay, daughter of David, Earl of Crawford, who left no family; and secondly, in 1546, Margaret Haliburton, with whom he lived fifty-two years, who bore him eight sons and three daughters, and survived her husband two years. ‘She was,’ says her son, ‘ane religious and godly woman, mikil given to prayer and reading of the Word, luving and benign to all persons, almousful to the poor and needy, delytit mikel to talk of auld histories, knew the hail genealogie of hir father’s house, as also of hir mother’s, gave meat and drink with ane marvellous cheerful countenance, loved all godlie and honest men, detested vice: ane sober and chaste woman.’ It may be said of this lady, as of the virtuous woman described in the Book of Proverbs, ‘her children arise up and call her blessed.’

PATRICK MAULE, the eldest son of this worthy pair, was educated at the parish school of Kettins, then at Dundee, and finally at Montrose, where at twelve years of age he married the daughter of the celebrated John Erskine of Dun, Superintendent of Angus, ‘ane very religious and honourable man.’ Patrick ‘was mikil inclynit to policy and honesty, very kind to hail friends. He repaint the house of Panmure that before by negligence was ruinous, but being left with ane small rent, his lands all for the maist part wadset [mortgaged], could not perform sic honest enterpryses as he had in head. He was, as his father and forbears, mikil given to hawking and hunting, and never did want for that effect hawks and dogs. He was ane man of mid stature, of ane mild countenance, rib-nosed, and black-haired. He lived but short time after his father, and deceased the first day of May, anno 1605.’

ROBERT, the fourth son of Thomas Maule and Margaret Haliburton, was Commissary of St. Andrews and a learned and judicious antiquary, who, besides the interesting history of the family quoted above, wrote a treatise in Latin, ‘De Antiquitite Gentis Scotorum,’ a dissertation, on the Culdees, and other works. THOMAS, the fifth son, was the father of Lieutenant-Colonel Maule, who settled in Ireland, and from him was descended Henry Maule, who was successively Bishop of Cloyne, Dromore, and Meath.

Patrick Maule was succeeded by his only son, PATRICK, first Earl of Panmure, who at the time of his father’s death was only nineteen years of age. Notwithstanding his youth, he was one of the few Scotsmen that were selected to accompany James VI. when he went, in April, 1603, to take possession of the English throne. By good management, assisted by royal grants, he was able to ‘quit and relieve, piece and piece, parts of his estate, till at length it pleased God to bless him with great lands and honour and a long life. He held the office of Lord of the Bedchamber both to James VI. and Charles I. In 1625 he obtained from Charles the lordship of Colleweston, in Northamptonshire, ‘for his good and faithful services to the King’s father,’ and in the year 1629 he received from the same monarch a gift of the keepership of the Great Park of Eltham. He purchased from the Earl of Mar the lordship of Brechin and Navar in 1639, and in 1642 he bought from the Earl of Dysart the Abbacy of Arbroath. As might have been expected, Patrick Maule fought on the royal side during the Great Civil War, and was rewarded by Charles for his fidelity and zeal with his elevation to the peerage by the title of EARL OF PANMURE and LORD BRECHIN AND NAVAR. He remained with the King during his imprisonment at Holmsby and Carisbrook. Commissary Maule records a very striking incident which took place at the parting between the King and his devoted follower.

‘He was the last servant that stayed with him, and stayed even until that unlawful Parliament did put him from him. The King himself told Panmure that the order for his departure was come. Panmure asked his Majestie what he should do in it. His Majestie told him, There is no help, but you must obey; but deal with him that has the warrand for a continuation for two or three days, quhilk he got granted to him. Panmure’s servant that was there with him told me when Panmure took his leave of his Majestie he did that quhilk he never saw him do, nor heard of any that ever saw him do the like, quhilk was he burst out in tears; and the King was standing and his back at ane open window; and when the tears came in the King’s eyes he turned him about to the window a little while till he settled, and prayed God to bless him, for he knew him to be a faithful servant; and called for his man and gave him a kiss of his hand and said, "John, thou hast a faithful master." This John Duncan, who was Panmure’s man all the time, and had been long with him before, told me this.’

The Government of the Commonwealth imposed on the Earl the exorbitant fine of £2,500 sterling for himself and of £2,500 for his son Henry, who commanded a regiment in the army of ’the Engagement’ for the rescue of Charles and also at the battle of Dunbar. But the Earl’s fine was ultimately restricted to £4,000, and that of his son to £1,000. Lord Panmure, who was now advanced in years, took no active part in the cause of Charles II. when he came to Scotland, but he sent £2,000 to the royal coffers, and his eldest son, Lord Brechin, fought for Charles both at Dunbar and at Inverkeithing, where he was wounded. The aged peer survived to witness the Restoration, and died in December, 1661. He left a manuscript history of the patriot Wallace, ‘whose deeds of unselfish devotion and lofty daring,’ says Dr. Stuart, ‘he himself aspired to emulate throughout his whole course.’ He was three times married, but left surviving offspring—four daughters and two sons—only by his first wife, a daughter of Sir Edward Stanhope of Grimstone, in Yorkshire. His eldest son, GEORGE, LORD BRECHIN, became second Earl of Panmure on his father’s death, and carried out his predecessor’s intention of building a new house at Panmure. He married the eldest daughter of John Campbell, Earl of Loudon, Lord High Chancellor, who bore him nine children, of whom four sons and one daughter died young. This close connection with one of the leaders of the Covenanting party does not appear to have had any influence on the politics of the Panmure family. The eldest surviving son, GEORGE, third Earl, was a Privy Councillor to Charles II. and James VII. He was succeeded in his titles and estates by his brother, JAMES MAULE of Ballumbie, a staunch Royalist and a Privy Councillor to James VII., but who was ‘laid aside’ from the Council on account of his opposition to the abrogation of the penal laws against Popery. This treatment, however, did not prevent him from advocating the cause of King James at the Convention of Estates in 1689, and when it was agreed to settle the crown on William and Mary, the Earl, along with his brother, Harry Maule, of Kelly, left the assembly and never again attended a meeting of the Scottish Estates.

Although the two brothers appear to have formed a low and just opinion of their nephew, the Earl of Mar, when that weak and vacillating nobleman raised the Jacobite standard at Braemar, the loyalty of Panmure and Harry Maule to the cause of the Stewarts made them at once take part in the rebellion. With a view, it is said, of increasing the number of retainers whom he led into the field, the Earl bought the lands of Edzell, Glenesk, and Lethnot from David Lindsay, the last of the Edzell family. He proclaimed the Chevalier as King at the market cross of Brechin. The Earl and his brother look part in the indecisive battle of Sheriffmuir, 15th November, 1715, where the former commanded a battalion of foot. Harry Maule, and several other gentlemen volunteers, fought on the right wing of the Highlanders, where the royal troops fled on the first fire. Immediately after the close of the battle, a report reached him that the Earl, who appears to have been on the left of Mar’s army, which was worsted and driven back, was wounded and taken prisoner, and was lying in a cot-house on the field. He resolved at once to attempt his brother’s rescue, and asked Mar to send a party of soldiers with him, ‘but could not obtain it, and Mar only sent Clephan with a compliment to Panmure, and Mar himself immediately marched off. Then Mr. Harie asked the assistance of all the other troops he met with, but none of their officers would venture on it, they thought it so perilous. Then Mr. Harie undertook it himself, with two or three domestics, by which he ran the risque of having both himself and brother in the enemies’ hands at once, and so his family ruined and children utterly abandoned; and Mar, besides the ingratitude to his two uncles, risked the King and party’s losing two of the most considerable men they had.’ Harry Maule, with his servants and a Dr. Blair, a medical man, after inquiring at several cot-houses, at length found the Earl, ‘the six dragoons who guarded him having fled upon the noise of Harry’s approach, taking his small party for a great body coming up by the noise that their horses’ feet made upon the hard and shingly road. When Mr. Harie came in, he found him lying on a very sorry bed, near a fire, with the green apron about his head, and two Highland plaids about his body. Mr. Harie asked him how he was, and desired him to go along with him; but he refused, saying that he was not able, and that he would faint if he either walked or rode. Mr. Harie urged him by telling him that if they stayed any time they would be all taken prisoners; but he would not consent. Upon which Mr. Harie desired the doctor to persuade him, who got him to consent by telling him that his wounds would not be the worse. Upon which he consented, and Mr. Harie’s valet, Jo. Robertson, drew on a pair of boots upon his legs, and in the same dress they found him in, set him upon a horse, Jo. Fraser leading it, John Robertson walking upon his one side, and Malcolm on the other, mid-leg in snow and ice. By the way he took a hearty dram out of a flask that Robertson had at his side, and so carried him to Ardoch. It’s believed that if they had stayed a little longer they had all been taken, for it’s reported that not long after a party of 80 horse came to carry him to Stirling or Dumblain.’

The capture and rescue of the Earl are commemorated in the old Jacobite ballad on the battle—

‘Brave Mar and Panmure
Were firm I’m sure,
The latter was kidnapt awa’, man.
With brisk men about
Brave Harry retook
His brother and laughed at them a’, man.’

On the suppression of the rebellion, Lord Panmure followed the Chevalier to the Continent. He was, of course, attainted of high treason, and his honours and estates were forfeited to the Crown. It is said that the restoration of his estates—rented at £3,456, the largest of the confiscated properties—was twice offered him by the Government if he would return home and take the oath of allegiance to the House of Hanover, but he firmly adhered to the Stewart dynasty. An Act of Parliament, however, was passed to enable the King to make such provision for the Countess of Panmure (a daughter of the Duke of Hamilton) as she would have been entitled to had her husband been dead.

The disposal of the forfeited estates of the Jacobite lords and lairds cost the Government no small trouble. Their property was, by Act of Parliament, vested in the Sovereign for the use of the public, and Commissioners were appointed to inquire into the condition of these lands, with a salary of £1,000 a year—an enormous official income at that time in Scotland, when the judges of the Court of Session received only £500. Sir Richard Steele, the essayist, who was one of the Commissioners, writing to his wife, says of his official visit to Edinburgh, ‘You cannot imagine the civilities and honours done me there; and never lay better, ate or drank better, or conversed with men of better sense than there.’ But though Steele himself was a favourite with the Edinburgh citizens, they, as well as the great body of the Scottish people, had a strong prejudice against the Commissioners, and thwarted them in every possible way. The Court of Exchequer had forestalled them by ordering the sheriffs of the various counties to enter into possession of the estates and levy the rents, as by the law of Scotland they were entitled to do. The creditors of the forfeited proprietors endeavoured to secure payment of their debts by attaching the estates in the ordinary course of law. The friends and relatives of the dispossessed lairds brought forward all sorts of pretended claims, and presented petitions for sequestration to the Court of Session, which were readily granted, and factors, who were usually the nominees of the pretended creditors, were appointed to manage the estates. The Commissioners complained bitterly, and not without reason, of this mode of procedure. They mention, among many other examples, the case of the estates of Stirling of Keir, worth £900 a year, which had been sequestrated at the instance of two maltmakers and a blacksmith, one of the tenants on the estate, and an Edinburgh shopkeeper. No details were given as to the sums altogether due to them, and no evidence of the debts was produced. The Court appointed as factor Walter Stirling, Writer to the Signet, the law agent of the dispossessed proprietor, and who, say the Commissioners, ‘is also remarkable for his disaffection to the Government, and was imprisoned during the late rebellion for keeping correspondence with the rebels.’ The Earl of Carnwath had a rental of £1,000 a year from his estate, which was burdened with a jointure of £150 per annum to his mother, Dame Henrietta Murray. The lady herself was appointed factor, and thus the estate was ‘taken by the Lords of Session out of the King’s person and put into the person of the said Dame Henrietta Murray, for behoof of some few who pretend, but no ways appear, to be creditors on the said estate.’ The factor who was nominated by the Court to take charge of the Earl Marischal’s estates, worth £2,384 a year, was Thomas Arbuthnott, merchant, Peterhead, who was actually engaged with the Earl in the rebellion. John Lumsden, W.S., agent of the Earl of Panmure, was appointed factor on his Lordship’s estates. ‘He sorely tried the Commissioners. He employed under him all the late Earl’s officers who had been most active in the rebellion, and appointed the servants of the Countess his bailees in the Baronial Court.’

The Commissioners at last succeeded in getting the sequestrations set aside, but a new device was immediately tried to baffle their efforts to obtain possession of the forfeited estates. It was contended that the lands did not really belong to the late ostensible owners, and claimants for them sprang up in all quarters. The Court of Session was by no means unwilling to lend its aid to the promotion of this scheme, and paid little regard to consistency in the judgments which it pronounced. Seaforth’s estates were by one decree declared to belong in full and absolute right to Kenneth Mackenzie of Assynt, by another to William Martin of Harwood, by a third to Hugh Wallace of Inglestone. The estates of the Earl of Mar, the leader of the rebellion, were successively awarded to four of these pretended owners, and Viscount Kenmure’s to five. Even when the Commissioners were put in possession, they discovered to their disappointment and annoyance that their difficulties seemed as great as ever. The tenants on many of the estates, who were as staunch Jacobites as their masters, refused to recognize in any form the authority of the Act of Parliament in the factors appointed by the Commissioners, and continued to pay their rents to the late, and as they believed, the proper proprietors. The clansmen of Seaforth regularly transmitted their rents to their chief during his exile in France, and successfully resented the attempts of the Government agent, supported by a detachment of soldiers, to force his way into their territory. The tenants on the Panmure estates were induced by the Countess and her factor, Mr. George Maule, to subscribe blank bills for all arrears, and also a blank bond for two years from 24th June, 1715, nearly four months before the battle of Sheriffmuir.

The forfeited estates of the Maule and other Jacobite landlords were at length prepared for sale in 1719 and 1720, but it was very difficult, if not hopeless, to find purchasers in Scotland for so large an amount of landed property. In this extremity the ‘Company of Undertakers for raising the Thames Water, in York Buildings, London, in England,’ came to the assistance of the Government. A mania at that time prevailed for speculation and joint-stock companies, and the company referred to opened a subscription ‘for raising a joint-stock and fund of £1,200,000 for purchasing forfeited and other estates in Great Britain, by a fund for granting annuities on lives, and for assuring lives.’ The subscription lists were speedily and eagerly filled up, and the whole sum provided for. ‘Peers and bishops, country gentlemen and merchants, stockjobbers and adventurers, alike lustful of gain, crowded to place their names upon the lists,’ and in the course of a few months the ten-pound shares of the company rose to £305.

In the autumn of 1779, the Commissioners advertised for sale by auction the estates of Viscount Kilsyth, Mr. Craw of East Reston, the Earl of Winton, and the Earl of Panmure; and Mr. Robert Hacket and Mr. John Wicker were sent down to Scotland by the York Buildings Company to attend the sales. The Winton estates were bought by them on the 6th of October, for the sum of £50,300.

The 9th of October was the day fixed for the sale of the Panmure estates, the most valuable of all the property in the hands of the Commissioners. A strenuous effort was made to buy them back on behalf of the family. The Countess had protested against the sale, with the active sympathy and concurrence of two of the judges of the Court of Session, but the Commissioners determined to proceed. The. estates, consisting of twelve baronies, and nearly as many parishes, including the patronage of fifty-three churches, were exposed for sale on the day appointed at the upset price of £57,032 11s. 1½d. ‘Mr. James Maule, servant of Mr. Harry Maule, of Kelly,’ brought up the price to £60,300, in opposition to Mr. Hacket, agent for the York Buildings Company, ‘when, his competition becoming dangerous, the Commissioners asked whether he was prepared with cautioners. He replied that he was not, and an altercation ensued. The Commissioners offered to stop the running of the sandglass till he obtained security, but he said that he would require two or three days for the purpose. The sale was thereon proceeded with. Mr. Hacket bade £100 more, and the estate was knocked down to him at £60,400. The dispute provoked a considerable amount of comment, and is referred to in the party literature of the day.

While the hereditary estates of the family had thus passed into the hands of strangers, the Earl, who in early life had shown a taste for historical pursuits, was solacing himself in his exile by collecting valuable manuscripts and records, which are now at Panmure. He and his nephew made a pilgrimage to the place where the Maules had flourished in France for generations before they migrated to Scotland. James Maule sent a most interesting account of their visit to the old castle and village of Maule, and of the evidence which they found for establishing the connection of the Scottish with the French house. They also discovered that a barony of Panmure formed part of the possessions of the French Maules, as well as of their Scottish representatives. The Earl died at Paris, April, 1723, in his sixty-fourth year, without issue.

His brother, HARRY MAULE, succeeded him as representative of the family. He and his brother’s widow, a lady of great energy and strength of character, who survived till 1731, obtained from the York Buildings Company long leases of the two chief mansion houses. He settled at Brechin Castle, while the Countess took up her residence at Panmure. ‘There seems,’ says Dr. Stuart, ‘to have been no doubt among the chief members of the family that sooner or later the inheritance of their forefathers would be recovered, and the leases in question secured the possession of their residences till that happy time arrived.’ Mr. Harry Maule resembled his brother, both in his political principles and historical tastes, and extensive collections were made by them of chronicles, chartularies, and documents bearing on the history of Scotland, which are now preserved in the library at Brechin Castle. During his exile in Holland, after the suppression of the rebellion, Harry Maule’s son says he ‘did there employ his time in such studies as might be most useful to him; tho’ he had studied the law of nature and nations before, he read Grotius, .De Jure pacis et belli, four times over, with the best commentaries, by which he became so versed in the public law that scarce any question could be stated to him but he immediately gave Grotius and the other famous authors’ opinions without opening a book. He also improved himself in the feudal law, having read Struvius and many of the German lawyers on that subject. Then he applied himself to be well versed in the present state of Europe, the pretensions of each prince, their acquisitions, and what they were founded on. Another study he pursued very closely; that was the canon law and the fathers.’ After Mr. Maule’s return to Scotland, the knowledge which he had thus acquired was turned by him to good account in the controversy which broke out in the Episcopal Church respecting the ‘Usages.’ It is a pleasant picture, as Dr. Stuart remarks, to contemplate Harry Maule in his picturesque old castle of Kelly, amid the historical collections which have made him famous, preparing the interesting history of his ancestors, devoting his efforts to the recovery of the family honours and estates, and surrounded by sons of high promise, who sympathised, and took part, with their father in his tastes and labours. Harry Maule was twice married. His first wife, a daughter of the Earl of Wigton, bore him three sons and two daughters. For his second wife he took a sister of John Lindsay, Viscount Garnock, by whom he had five sons and one daughter. A number of his children died in infancy, and none of them married, with the exception of his daughter Jean. Harry Maule died in 1734.

JAMES MAULE, the eldest son of the first marriage, was a young man of the highest promise and possessed remarkable historical attainments. He was associated with his father in the collection and arrangement of the documents in the ‘Registrum de Panmure.’ He contemplated the preparation of a history of his family, and had sketched out a plan for the work in a most judicious form. His scheme for the institution of a library of reference in Edinburgh showed that his ideas on this subject were far in advance of those of his contemporaries. He purposed also to publish a peerage, a complete collection of Scottish historians, a history of Scotland, and political memoirs treating of the ancient and modern state of the country. But all these projects, and his plans for the improvement of the family estates, were cut short by the untimely death of this accomplished youth in 1729. His brother WILLIAM then became his father’s heir. He entered the army at an early age, served in several campaigns in the Low Countries, and was engaged in the battles of Dettingen and Fontenoy. He ultimately attained the rank of general. In 1735 he was elected a member of Parliament for the county of Forfar, and continued to represent it till his death. In 1743 he was created a peer of Ireland, by the titles of Earl of Panmure of Forth, and Viscount Maule of Whitechurch.

Meanwhile, through mismanagement and flagrant jobbery, the York Banking Company had come to ruin; and, in 1764, Lord Panmure purchased from their creditors the estates of the Maule family in Forfarshire for the sum of £49,157 18s. 4d. sterling. On his death, without issue, in 1782, his titles became extinct. JEAN, the eldest daughter of Harry Maule, had married, in 1726, George, Lord Ramsay, eldest son of William, fifth Earl of Dalhousie, and the Panmure estates, in terms of the entail, went to George, eighth Earl of Dalhousie, their second son, in life rent. On his death, in 1787, they passed to the Honourable WILLIAM RAMSAY, his lordship’s second son, then a youth in his sixteenth year, who assumed the name and arms of Maule of Panmure. In 1789 he entered the army as a cornet in the 11th Dragoons, and afterwards raised an independent company of foot, which was disbanded in 1791. The politics of his family were Tory; but Mr. Maule, who was a great admirer of Mr. Fox, joined the Whig party, and at the general election of 1796 he was elected member for Forfarshire in the Whig interest. He continued to represent that county until 1831, when he was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Panmure of Brechin and Navar.

Mr. Maule was a very remarkable character, and during his early and middle life, his name and eccentric doings, in one form or another, were almost continually before the public, whom he alternately surprised and scandalised by his systematic defiance of decorum and conventional usages. He was possessed of excellent natural abilities, which had, however, been only imperfectly cultivated; but his natural shrewdness stood him well instead of acquired knowledge. ‘He is the most long-headed fellow,’ wrote of him Mr. Hunter, of Blackness, in Forfarshireland, and of the soundest judgment too (if he did not sometimes let his passion get the better of him) of any person of his years whom I know, and has more brains than his whole family beside.’ Unfortunately, Mr. Maule’s passion did very often get the better of him. He was unmeasured both in his likings and dislikings, ‘devotedly attached to those who did not thwart him, implacable to those who did;’ liberal and kind to those who came in contact with him only in the affairs of public life, but most arbitrary and despotic in his behaviour to his own family. He would brook no opposition to his will, and was vindictive and unrelenting to those who thwarted him or refused to submit to his authority. He was ultimately at variance with all the members of his family, and the verdict of public opinion unhesitatingly pronounced him in the wrong. On the other hand, he was an excellent landlord, and was highly popular among his numerous tenantry and the labourers on his estates, whom he treated with great liberality. In 1839 his tenantry erected a handsome column, 105 feet high, on the Downie Hills, in Forfarshire, as a memorial of their respect for him as their landlord. Mr. Maule’s generosity was a very conspicuous feature of his character. He bestowed a pension on the widow of Charles James Fox, the great statesman; and he also conferred an annuity of fifty pounds on the widow of Robert Burns, which was continued until the eldest son of the poet was enabled to provide for his mother, and the further assistance of her benefactor was respectfully declined. He enlarged the public schools of Brechin, and erected a hall, fitted up in the most tasteful manner, with library and apparatus, and beautiful paintings, at his sole expense, for the Mechanics’ Institute of that burgh. His acts of benevolence indeed were unceasing, and advancing years, while they tended somewhat to mitigate his animosities and soften his character, served to widen the channels of his munificence.

During Mr. Maule’s early years Forfarshire was noted for the ‘perilous hospitalities’ of its lairds; and the letters of Mr. Hunter, who belonged to that class, and was an intimate friend of Mr. Maule, abound in references to the hard drinking which was frequent in his society. Writing on the 26th of August, 1806, he says, ‘we had a most dreadful day at Brechin Castle; one of the most awful ever known, even in that house. What think you of seven of us drinking thirty-one bottles of red champagne, besides Burgundy, three bottles of Madeira, &c., &c.? Nine bottles were drank by us after Maule was pounded. He had been living a terrible life for three weeks preceding.’ Messrs. Murray and Longman, the eminent publishers, were at different times taken by Mr. Hunter on a tour among the Forfarshire lairds, and frequently dined at Brechin Castle. The mode of life practised there seems to have completely upset the orderly system of these worthy bibliopolists. Mr. Murray was present at ‘the dreadful day’ at Brechin Castle, and ‘contrived,’ says Hunter, to take his share of all the drink that was then and there consumed; ‘but he has since paid for it very dearly. He has since been close at home at Eskmount (the seat of Mr. Hunter, senior) very unwell.’ Mr. Longman fared no better than his brother publisher. ‘He was taken ill on Saturday,’ wrote Mr. Hunter, from Brechin Castle, October 3rd, 1804; ‘next morning he was much worse, and we were at one time afraid he was in for a fever. He lay in bed all that day, but next day was greatly better, having starved himself for a day. On Monday he was still sick; however, the day being fine, we made him rise, and got him safe to Eskmount that night. There he is at present, careening, and the ladies take the best care possible of him. These Englishers will never do in our country.’ It was not without good reason that a London merchant, of formal manners and temperate habits, was roused to indignation at the attempt made by his host— a Forfarshire laird—to practise such unpleasant conviviality. The poor man quitted the table when the drinking set in hard, and stole away to take refuge in his bedroom. The company, however, were determined not to let the worthy citizen off so easy, but proceeded in a body, with the laird at their head, and invaded his privacy by exhibiting bottles and glasses at his bed-side. Losing all patience, the wretched victim gasped out his indignation, ‘Sir, your hospitality borders on brutality.’

It is amusing to observe from Mr. Hunter’s letters that one of the hospitable mansions in which ‘Maule and Company’ dined and spent the night was Balnamoon, the owner of which was the hero of a well-known anecdote illustrative of the manners of that day. He was returning on horseback from a convivial party, and on hearing himself fall into the stream which he was crossing, he called out to his servant, ‘John, what was that that played plash? ‘I wot na,’ replied John, ‘unless it were your honour.’ It is told of the same worthy that on a similar occasion, when his hat and wig had been blown off, he indignantly refused the latter when it was restored to him, exclaiming, ‘John, this is no my wig; this is a wat wig.’ John coolly rejoined, ‘Ye’d better tak’ it, sir, for there’s na wale [choice] o’ wigs in Munrimmon Moor,’ and induced the laird to resume the dripping covering. It need excite no surprise that it seems to have been the entertainment given by this drouthy laird to Mr. Maule and Company which finally prostrated the London booksellers.

It was usually when Mr. Maule and his roystering friends had taken more liquor than they could carry discreetly that they played their pranks, which though not looked upon then in the same light that they would be nowadays, were regarded with disapprobation and deep regret by the sober and respectable class of the community. Forfar, the county town of the shire, was the scene of many of the bacchanalian exploits of the lord of Brechin Castle and his associates.

[Forfar has long had an evil reputation for the insobriety of its inhabitants, and it is a curious fact that almost all the traditionary anecdotes of that place, from the earliest times down to the present day, refer to drinking or to public-houses. The town, as Robert Chambers remarks, may thus be said to resemble in some measure a certain Edinburgh lawyer of the last age, of whom it was alleged that whenever or wheresoever met or seen, he was always either going to a tavern, or in a tavern, or coming from a tavern, or thinking of going to a tavern. In Frank’s Northern Memoirs, published two hundred and thirty years ago, there is a lengthened account given of a famous case which had shortly before that date occurred at Forfar. A brewster’s wife having one day ‘brewed a peck o’ maut,’ which she expected a party of topers to consume, set the liquor out at the door to cool. A neighbour’s cow soon after coming past, scented the savoury contents of the cauldron, and, turning to, began to solace herself with a draught. The liquor was good, and ‘aye she winkit, and aye she drank,’ until she finished the browst. The luckless owner of the ale, who came out just in time to see the last dregs disappear down crummie’s capacious throat, had no recourse but to try what the law could do for her, and she accordingly brought the case in regular form before the bailies. But the worthy magistrates, as became Forfar authorities, having a proper sympathy for all—man or beast—who loved good liquor, decided the case against the complainant, on the ground that, by the immemorial custom of Scotland, nothing is ever charged for a standing drink, otherwise called a dock-an-doris, or stirrup-dram, and seeing that the cow had swallowed the browst in place and manner according, her owner ought to be absolved from the charge. In former days Forfar was a good deal inconvenienced by a loch in its immediate vicinity, which the inhabitants were anxious to drain, but they long delayed the undertaking on account of the great expense which it would entail on them. At a public meeting held to discuss the measure, the Earl of Strathmore said that he believed the cheapest method of draining the loch would be to throw a few hogsheads of good whisky into the water and set the ‘drunken writers of Forfar’ to drink it up. The loch was ultimately drained, but to what extent the legal gentlemen of the town contributed to this result history saith not.]

Occasionally, however, they played their pranks in other places, where they were not regarded with the same indifference or complacency as they were at Forfar. They had sometimes to be condoned by such acts of liberality as procured for Mr. Maule the designation of the ‘Generous Sportsman,’ and relieved him from many an awkward scrape. On one occasion he and two or three kindred spirits happened to dine at an inn in Perth, and, as usual, sallied out after nightfall in quest of adventures. The street lamps having attracted their notice, they began to break them with their sticks, till in a short time the whole city was in total darkness. Next morning, on learning that the magistrates were met in full conclave to consider what steps should be taken to punish the outrage which had been committed overnight, Maule calmly repaired to the Council Chamber, and informed the offended authorities that having recently come to visit the Fair City, he was quite ashamed to see the shabby-looking lamps in its streets, which were really a disgrace to so fine a town. He had therefore demolished the whole, with the view of presenting to the corporation at his own expense a new and handsome set of lamps. The astonished magistrates had no resource but to accept the apology and the gift.

There were other amusing anecdotes told of Mr. Maule, which represent him as mingling benevolence with a display of humour and a love of fun, instead of as a member of Parliament and a great landowner behaving, like a mischievous schoolboy. The Highland chairmen of Edinburgh were proverbial in his day for their insatiable fondness for ‘filthy lucre.’ The excessive greed of these worthies happening to become the subject of conversation one day among a few gentlemen, Mr. Maule alleged that they were not so difficult to satisfy as was said, and took up a bet that they could be contented with liberal remuneration. The wager was accepted, and Mr. Maule sent for a sedan chair, and gave orders that he should be conveyed a short distance down the Canongate. On alighting, he rewarded his bearers with a guinea, feeling quite confident that they would be more than satisfied with such a handsome donation. One of them turning over the ‘yellow Geordie’ in his hand, as if to make sure that it was genuine, said, ‘But could her honour no shuist gie’s the ither sixpence to get a gill?’ Mr. Maule good-humouredly produced the ‘ither sixpence’ in the expectation of gaining his bet, but a demand on the part of the other chairman for ‘three bawbees of odd shange to puy snuff,’ put him out of all temper, and thoroughly convinced him of the impossibility of satisfying a Highland chairman.

Walking through his plantations one day, his lordship was attracted by the sound of some one felling wood. ‘What are you about there?’ he said to a young man whom he caught in the act of levelling a stately tree, while a cart and horse were at hand to carry away the trunk. ‘Do ye na see what I’m about?’ answered the fellow with the utmost assurance. ‘Nae doot ye’ll be ane o’ the understrappers frae the big hoose.’ Amused at the nonchalance and effrontery of the clown, Lord Panmure said, ‘What if Maule were to come upon you?’ ‘Hout, man! he wadna say a word; there’s no a better hearted gentleman in a’ the country; but as I am in a hurry, I wish ye wad lend me a hand, man.’ To this request his lordship good humouredly consented, and when the tree had been securely placed on the cart, the jolly rustic prepared to reward his assistant with a dram in a neighbouring public-house. This offer was declined, but the youth was invited to call next day at the castle and ask for Jamie the footman, who would treat him to a dram out of his own bottle. The countryman readily accepted the invitation, and called according to promise; but to his astonishment and confusion, instead of meeting the footman, he was ushered with great ceremony into the presence of Lord Panmure and a company of gentlemen. ‘My man,’ said his lordship, walking up to him, ‘next time you go to cut wood, I would advise you first to ask Maule’s permission.’ With this gentle reprimand he dismissed the terrified depredator, though not without having given instructions that he should be well entertained in the hall.

In order that he might obtain an intimate knowledge of the character and habits of his tenantry and workmen, Lord Panmure occasionally amused himself by visiting them in the character of a mendicant, so completely disguised as to render recognition impossible. Some curious stories are told respecting his behaviour while in this guise. His habits, indeed, were those of a past generation, and it is not easy to understand how they could have been maintained down to the middle of the nineteenth century.

Lord Panmure was twice married. His first wife was Patricia Heron, daughter of Gilbert Gordon, Esq., of Halleaths, who bore him three sons and five daughters. This lady—who is described by Mr. Hunter as ‘the wisest, most judicious, best-tempered, best-dispositioned, sensible, and good woman in the whole circle of my acquaintance ‘—died in 1821, and in the following year his lordship married Miss Elizabeth Barton, by whom he had no issue. He died in 1852, and was succeeded by the eldest of his three sons—

FOX MAULE, second Baron Panmure and eleventh Earl of Dalhousie. He was born in 1801, was educated at the Charterhouse, entered the army as an ensign, and after serving for several years in Canada on the staff of his uncle, the eighth Earl of Dalhousie, he retired in 1831 with the rank of captain. He commenced his political career in 1835, when, after a very keen contest, he was elected member for the county of Perth. He subsequently represented successively the Elgin Burghs and the Burgh of Perth. On the return of the Melbourne Ministry to office in 1835, Mr. Maule was made UnderSecretary for the Home Department; in 1841 he held for a short period the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade; in 1842 he was chosen Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow; and on the downfall of Sir Robert Peel’s Administration in 1846 he became Secretary at War, with a seat in the Cabinet. In February, 1852, he exchanged this office for the Presidency of the Board of Control. The dissolution of the Russell Ministry, however, soon followed, and on the death of his father in the course of the same year, Mr. Maule was elevated to the House of Lords. Lord Panmure had no seat in the Coalition Cabinet, under the Earl of Aberdeen, but when it fell to pieces during the war with Russia, and Lord Palmerston became Prime Minister, he resumed his former office of Secretary at War, somewhat modified in form, the duties of which he discharged with great ability and untiring energy until the overthrow of Lord Palmerston’s Administration in 18588. Lord Panmure was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Forfarsh ire in 1849; Keeper of the Privy Seal and K.T. in 1853. On the death of his cousin, the Marquis of Dalhousie, in 1860, he succeeded to the titles of Earl of Dalhousie, Baron Ramsay of Kerington, and Baron Ramsay of Dalhousie.

Lord Dalhousie was a noted example of the truth of the saying, ‘It runs in the blood.’ The prominent features of the Maules and Ramsays, physical and mental, during the last six centuries were conspicuous in his character. He was a reproduction, in short, of the famous Scottish patriots of the fourteenth century—Sir Thomas Maule and Sir Alexander Ramsay—modified and softened by the tastes and habits of the present age. The Earl was possessed of great natural shrewdness and sagacity, indomitable courage, and a most resolute will, which it was by no means easy or safe to oppose. He was a most trusty friend and a dangerous foe. He had in him many of the qualifications of a great general, and there can be no doubt that if he had remained in the army he would, like several of his predecessors, have attained the highest military rank. He carried with him into civil life some of the best qualities of a soldier—order, promptitude, and energy. His administrative abilities were of a high order. He was a shrewd and accurate judge of character, knew whom to employ and to trust, and kept a sharp eye on the doings of his subordinates. In his own person he was an example of indefatigable industry and unwearied diligence in the discharge of his official duties. He was habitually at work long before sunrise, and during the Crimean War, like his chief, Lord Palmerston, often turned night into day. Though he had no pretensions to eloquence, Lord Dalhousie was a ready and powerful debater. His style was clear, terse, and vigorous; he had a good voice, and his delivery was natural, distinct, and telling. On being told of the success of Fox Maule’s maiden speech in the House of Commons, Professor Pillans, who strove hard to improve the elocution of his pupils, exclaimed, with pardonable pride, ‘It was I who taught the boy to speak.’ Lord Dalhousie took a deep interest in the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland, especially in the controversy which terminated in the disruption of the Established Church. As became his ancestry, he was a zealous and steady friend of civil and religious liberty, and was a staunch supporter of the Free Church. From its origin he held the office of ruling elder in that denomination, and his courageous advocacy of its principles in the House of Commons, against an overwhelming majority, composed not only of Conservatives but of many Whigs, ought to be held in grateful remembrance. No man ever acted more consistently on the maxim of Lord Belhaven, ‘All for the Church and a little less for the State.’

Lord Dalhousie died 6th July, 1874, without issue. The elder of his two brothers, the Hon. Lauderdale Maule, a gallant officer, was Assistant Adjutant-General of the Forces in the Crimea, and died, unmarried, of cholera in the camp near Varna, on the 1st of August, 1854, greatly lamented. William Maule, the youngest son, died in 1859, leaving a family of daughters, two sons having predeceased him. The family titles and estates passed to Admiral George Ramsay, grandson of the eighth Earl, and are now possessed by his son, John William Ramsay, thirteenth Earl of Dalhousie, a young nobleman of great promise, who was a Lord-in-waiting to the Queen under Mr. Gladstone’s Government.

 Return to the Great Historic Families of Scotland