this allegation,
Mr. Ford, the Under-Sheriff, who was on the scaffold, observes, "the
authors of these attacks being concealed are unworthy of other notice,
since nothing is easier to an ingenious and unprejudiced mind, than to
distinguish between the subject and the man: my Lord Kilmarnock was
happily educated in right principles, which he deviated from, and
repented; whereas, the great, though unhappy Balmerino, was unfortunate
in his,--but, as he lived, he died."[394]

The characters of these two noblemen, who, in life, held a very
dissimilar course, until they cooeperated in arms, are strongly
contrasted. To Kilmarnock belonged the gentle qualities which enhance
the pleasures of society, but often, too, increase its perils: the
susceptible, affectionate nature, not fortified by self-controul; the
compassionate disposition, acting rather from impulse than principle.
Infirm in principle, his rash alliance with a party who were opposed to
all that he had learned to respect in childhood; and whom he joined,
from the stimulus of a misdirected ambition, cannot be justified. To
this, it was generally believed, he was greatly incited by the
persuasions of his mother-in-law, the Countess of Errol.

Whilst we bestow our cordial approbation on those who engaged in civil
strife from a sense of duty, and from notions of allegiance, which had
never been exterminated from their moral code, we condemn such as,
attaching themselves to the Jacobite party, outraged their secret
convictions, betrayed the trusts of Government, and violated the promise
of their youth. Such a course must spring either from selfishness, or
weakness, or from a melancholy union of both. In Lord Kilmarnock it was
far more the result of weakness than of self-interest: his fortunes were
desperate, and his mind was embittered towards the ruling government:
his admiration was attracted by the gallantry and resolution of those
who adhered to the Chevalier: his sense of what was due to his rank, and
the consciousness of high descent, coupled with empty honours and real
poverty, stimulated him to take that course which seemed the most likely
to regain a position, without ever enjoying which a man may be happy,
but which few can bear to lose. This was his original error; he joined
the standard of Charles Edward,--but he was no Jacobite. He fought
against his own convictions, the hereditary and ineffaceable
prepossessions implanted in the heart by a parent.

From h