Nottingham Letters Addendum: University of 170 Figure 1: Copy of Father Grant’s letter to A. M. —1st September 1751. The recipient of the letter is here identified as ‘A: M: —’. Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, University of Nottinghan. 171 Figure 2: The recipient of this letter is here identified as ‘Alexander Mc Donell of Glengarry Esqr.’. Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, University of Nottinghan. 172 Figure 3: ‘Key to Scotch Names etc.’ (NeC ¼ Newcastle of Clumber Mss.). Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, University of Nottinghan. 173 Figure 4: In position 91 are the initials ‘A: M: —,’ which, according to the information in NeC 2,089, corresponds to the name ‘Alexander Mc Donell of Glengarry Esqr.’, are on the same line as the cant name ‘Pickle’. Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections, University of Nottinghan. Notes 1 The Historians and the Last Phase of Jacobitism: From Culloden to Quiberon Bay, 1746–1759 1. Theodor Fontane, Jenseit des Tweed (Frankfurt am Main, [1860] 1989), 283. ‘The defeat of Culloden was followed by no other risings.’ 2. Sir Geoffrey Elton, The Practice of History (London, [1967] 1987), 20. 3. Any subtle level of differentiation in the conclusions reached by participants of the debate must necessarily fall prey to the approximate nature of this classifica- tion. Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites. Britain and Europe, 1688–1788 (Manchester, 1994), 1–6. 4. Murray G. H. Pittock, The Myth of the Jacobite Clans (Edinburgh, 1995), 14. 5. Lawrence Stone, ‘The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History’, Past & Present, 85 (1979), 3–24, 9. 6. Szechi, The Jacobites, 4–6. 7. Typical for this strand of pessimism bordering on outright rejectionism is Basil Williams, who maintained that the Jacobites ‘lost their last chance, even then a small one, of carrying the country by surprise’, when Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester, failed to convince the dying Queen Anne’s Tory ministry of recalling James Stuart from exile in 1714. Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714–1760 (Oxford, [1939] 1962), 150. 8. Edward Gregg, Jacobitism (London, 1988), 24. 9. In reference to the ‘Glorious Revolution’, J. G. A. Pocock warns of historical vindication by hindsight, observing that ‘only because it [an English civil war] did not recur are we able to look upon the Highland War which ended at Glencoe and the Irish War which ended at Limerick as marginal in their significance’. There is probably some truth in what Pocock argues. Obviously, the chance of a ‘Fourth Civil War’ in England after the Dutch invasion was forestalled by William’s victory in Ireland; conversely, and where I beg to differ, a Jacobite victory in the Celtic fringes of Britain and Ireland would have proven conducive to, and would have decisively influenced, any later conflict in England, if only because of its potential strategic and logistic value. J. G. A. Pocock, ‘The Fourth English Civil War: Dissolution, Desertion and Alternative Histories in the Glorious Revolution’, Government and Opposition, 23, 2 (1988), 151–66, 153. For an example of a counterfactual scenario in which William of Orange’s invasion was bound to fail, and the consequences of the Henrican Reformation were, of course, reversed, see Conrad Russell, ‘The Catholic Wind’, in Conrad Russell, Unrevolution- ary England (London, 1990), 305–8. Russell’s main point was, not unlike Pocock’s, to demonstrate that though ‘[i]t is not in the nature of such imaginative work to prove that James II might have defeated William in 1688 . it will make us pause for some time before we make the opposite assumption’. Russell, ‘The Catholic Wind’, 305. 10. William Speck, The Butcher. The Duke of Cumberland and the Suppression of the 45 (Caernarfon, [1981] 1995), intro., 1. For a recent cinematic example in which the ‘lost cause model’ features prominently, see the documentary by Bob Carruthers, The Jacobites (Cromwell Films Limited, 1995). 174 Notes 175 11. Colley’s representation of a loyal Tory opposition was her response to Dr Eveline Cruickshanks’ thesis of a strong Jacobite commitment within the Tory party. More recently, Professor Jeremy Black has criticized Colley’s argument stating that ‘[s]uch a view would have found little support from George I and George II, both of whom believed that although individual Tories were loyal and could be trusted, the party as a whole was factious and disloyal’. Linda Colley, Britons. Forging the Nation, 1707–1837 (New Haven, 1992), intro., 4–5, 7. Also see In Defiance of Oligarchy. The Tory Party, 1714–1760 (Cambridge, 1982); Jeremy Black, The Collapse of the Anglo-French Alliance, 1727–1731 (Gloucester, 1987), 6. For Cruickshanks’ thesis see note 44. 12. Colley, Britons, 72. Also see Colley’s accompanying endnote (no. 45) to this state- ment, where she maintains: ‘[i]n the sense that many of the keenest chroniclers of Jacobitism in the twentieth century have come from firmly Scottish Nationalist, Roman Catholic or High Tory backgrounds. This is scarcely surprising since anti- Unionist Scots, Catholics, and High-Tories – not Tories in general – were at the heart of active Jacobitism in the eighteenth century.’ I am not certain this is true for most modern revisionist scholars of Jacobitism, whose works have been published since the 1970s, and, except for the obvious historiographical divergence based on the possibly different training or historical tradition, I have had no reason to suspect such partisan inclinations in the works of modern Jacobite scholars, such as Dr F. J. McLynn, Dr D. Szechi, or those of the prolific Professor J. Black. Also see Szechi, The Jacobites, 2–3, for a similar exercise in discreditation aimed at Sir Charles Petrie, in whose case the charge of enthusiasm, if not partisan bias, is probably more permis- sible than if it had been levelled at the modern optimists. 13. David Cannadine, ‘The State of British History,’ Times Literary Supplement,10 October (1986), p. 1,140, quoted in Szechi, The Jacobites,7. 14. See Speck, The Butcher, preface, ix–x. 15. Colley, Britons, 367–8; Colley, In Defiance of Oligarchy, 291; William Speck, Stability and Strife. England 1714–60 (London, 1977), intro., 1, 4, 7 16. Szechi, The Jacobites, 4; Bruce Lenman, The Jacobite Risings in Britain, 1689–1746 (Aberdeen, [1980] 1995), 287. 17. Lenman, Jacobite Risings, 288. Lenman is not the first, and surely not the last, historian to suggest that a restored Stuart dynasty would constitute but a satellite in the French political orbit. Conversely, Frank McLynn observes that the Duc de Noailles and the Comte de Maurepas advised Louis XV against supporting Charles in December 1746, fearing that ‘if restored he would be a more dangerous enemy to France than George II ever was’. Philip C. Yorke, The Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, 3 vols (Cam- bridge, 1913), I, 432; Frank J. McLynn, Bonnie Prince Charlie. Charles Edward Stuart (Oxford, [1988] 1991), 315. For French fear of the prospect of a restored Charles Edward shortly before the outbreak of the Seven Years’ War, see BL Eg. Mss 3465, ff. 161–6. ‘Extract of a letter from Lille the 15th Decemr. 1755’, enclosed in Michael Hatton to Robert D’Arcy, 4th Earl of Holdernesse, 19 December 1755. 18. Lenman, Jacobite Risings, 291. 19. Bruce Lenman, The Jacobite Clans of the Great Glen, 1650–1784 (Aberdeen, [1984] 1995), 177–212, and see especially 178, where the author writes: ‘there was no absolute barrier, in many cases, between Highland Jacobites and the House of Hanover, except the latter’s understandable suspicion of recent rebels’. 20. Paul Fritz, The English Ministers and Jacobitism between the Rebellions of 1715 and 1745 (Toronto, 1975), 7, 35, 97. See also his preface, vii–viii. 176 Notes 21. Ibid., 34. 22. E´amonn O´ ’Ciardha, previously of Clare Hall, Cambridge, in a private communi- cation. 23. Fritz, The English Ministers and Jacobitism, 64. 24. Gregg, Jacobitism, 25. 25. On a general point of evidence, Sir Geoffrey Elton reminds us of the patchy and frail nature of our own knowledge when he tell us that the object of the study of history is not the past, but the documents and other artifacts which have survived the vicissitudes of time. Geoffrey Elton, The Practice of History (London, [1967] 1987), 20. 26. Gregg, Jacobitism,6. 27. Eveline Cruickshanks, ed., Ideology and Conspiracy: Aspects of Jacobitism, 1689–1759 (Edinburgh, 1982), intro., 1. 28. Eveline Cruickshanks, ‘Charles Spencer, Third Earl of Sunderland and Jacobitism’, English Historical Review, 450 (1998), 65–76, 68. 29. Colin Kidd, Subverting Scotland’s Past. Scottish Whig Historians and the Creation of an Anglo-British Identity, 1689–c.1830 (Cambridge, 1993), especially 77. See also Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (New York and London, [1931] 1965), 9–33, 105. 30. Allan I. Macinnes, Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603–1788 (East Linton, 1996), 162. 31. Pittock, Myth of the Jacobite Clans, 14. 32. Niall Ferguson, ‘Virtual History: Towards a ‘‘Chaotic’’ Theory of the Past’, in Niall Ferguson, ed., Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals (London, 1997), 1–90, 74. 33. Pocock, ‘The Fourth English Civil War’, 157. 34. Ferguson, ‘Virtual History’, 19. See also J. C. D. Clark, Revolution and Rebellion. State and Society in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Cambridge, [1986] 1990), 10. 35. Jeremy Black, ‘Could the Jacobites Have Won?’, History Today, 45, 7 (1995), 24–9, 28. 36. Frank J. McLynn, The Jacobites (London, [1985] 1988), 119.