Page:Hutton, William Holden - Hampton Court (1897).djvu/161

Rh January 1692 he heard the news that Glencoe had submitted and taken the oath. On the 16th he signed the order for the extirpation. Of the men being punished as robbers there is not the slightest proof. It is most unlikely that the King, who had followed the matter with so much attention, would affix his signature in two places to the order for their extirpation without reading it over. Nor did William ever express displeasure at the deed; and in his pardon to Stair the "manner of execution" alone is referred to as worthy of condemnation.

May we not then conclude, with Mr. Paget, keenest of historical detectives, that the King "had not the excuse, poor as it may be, that he was urged on by personal wrong and animosity, like Breadalbane, or by chagrin and disappointment at the failure of a particular scheme, like the Master of Stair;" and that there is no room for doubt that his "signature was affixed to the order with full knowledge of the facts, and that his intention was to strike terror into the Highlanders by the 'extirpation'—[and there is no question as to the meaning of the word here, as there is in the case of the Rohillas, where Macaulay takes an exactly opposite view to the one he maintains in the Glencoe affair]—of a clan too weak to offer any effectual resistance, but important enough to serve as a formidable example." Glencoe certainly will not be forgotten by Scotsmen when they judge the character of William III.; and side by side with it they will place his refusal of aid to the colonists of Darien.