A CURIOUS STORY OF THE STUARTS.

THE Viscount D'Arlincourt, who not very long since visited Scotland, gives us the following strange and romantic history of the Brothers Stuart, regarded by the descendants of those who fought and fell in the cause of "Prince Charlie," as the grandsons of the young Chevalier.

"I quitted Inverness for the mansion of Colonel Hugh Bailie. Red Castle not only possessed for me the interest of a beautiful situation, but also that of historical recollections. It was the last Scotch castle which obstinately resisted Cromwell. Charles Edward was there a short time before his defeat; the chamber occupied by him has been preserved. I begged permission to sleep there, and found myself within the same walls where the heir of the Scottish kings must once have felt his heart beat with the hope and memory of the past; for he was there surrounded by his faithful Highlanders, and until then fortune had appeared to smile upon him. Alas! Culloden was at hand.

"On joining the breakfast party next morning, my thoughts were engrossed by recollections of 1745. I spoke of the emotions I had felt in Charles Edward's chamber.

"You are doubtless come hither,' said one of his guests, to visit his grandchildren?'

"His grandchildren!' I repeated, with an exclamation of surprise.

"They live very near here,' he resumed.

Nothing can be more interesting than their mysterious abode; it is called Eilan Aigais.'

"But,' said I, 'the tomb of Cardinal York, in St. Peter's, at Rome, bears the celebrated inscription, 'Here lies the last of the Stuarts."

"They who commanded the inscription you mention to be placed there had doubtless their own reasons for doing so. But go and see the descendants of Charles Edward; they are the two handsomest men in this part of the country. Nature has loaded them with her favours. Education, wit, talents-they are deficient in none of them; they would have been worthy of a throne.'

66

My curiosity was excited. I passed the remainder of the day in making inquiries respecting the brothers Stuart, for whom a general interest is manifested in the north of Scotland, and the following details were related

to me :

"Charles Edward, it was said, had a son from his marriage with the Princess of Stolberg, Countess of Albany. This fact, which has not been published in history, is contradicted by official statements, but attested by authentic documents; some of these last I have seen, but I will not venture to speak of them. As to the following details, which have been published in different compilations, I may repeat them without scruple.

"A Scottish doctor, named Cameron, being at Florence, in Italy, a stranger of high rank sent to him, begging him to visit a noble lady, who was dangerously ill. A promise of secrecy as to what he might see was exacted from him, and his eyes were blindfolded before he was admitted to the presence of her who required

his care. On arriving at the place where he was expected, Dr. Cameron beheld a lady lying on a bed. She had just given birth to a son. A nurse, as well as a priest, had been summoned thither; the portrait of Charles Edward, set round with precious stones, lay on a table; and at the end of the room was the Prince himself.

"The doctor wrote and signed a detailed statement of the fact. It is affirmed that this declaration is one of the documents in the possession of the brothers Stuart. There still exists a picture painted at the time (I am not authorized to say where it is), which represents Charles Edward in the act of entrusting his son to Admiral Hay, to be brought up in secret at a distance from him. The Admiral is standing on board ship— his wife is on the shore; with one knee bent to the ground, she is receiving the child from the Prince, and the vessel awaits them.

"But why did Charles Edward and the Countess of Albany so carefully conceal the existence of their son ? Why did they confide him to an Admiral of the name of Hay, that he should be brought up away from them? The answer is as follows:-The Prince wished to place his child in safety until he attained his majority; he was convinced that the life of a new heir of the Stuarts would be attempted; moreover, he desired that he should be kept in ignorance of his birth, that his education and early years might not be disturbed by thoughts of the sceptre and the throne; he would not have enlightened him, except favourable circumstances had rendered such a proceeding necessary.

"But after the death of her husband, why did not the Countess of Albany reveal the secret of the existence of another Stuart? In reply to this, it is stated that the Countess of Albany, the mistress of Alfieri, and

a woman of little principle, had received considerable sums as a reward for her continued silence. There is nothing surprising in this conduct of her, who, after having been the wife of Charles Edward, became the mistress of Alfieri, and ended by contracting a third marriage with a painter of Montpellier, called Fabre.

"The son of Charles Edward, adopted by Admiral Hay, whose name he bore, married, it is said, contrary to the will of his mother; he became the father of two sons, who are the brothers Stuart. He caused them to be brought up in Scotland, and retired himself into Italy, where he still lives in the strictest seclusion. It is pretended, that, bound by a solemn oath, he has forbidden his children ever to reveal their origin, at least, during his life. They, therefore, will neither publish, nor permit to be published, any of their papers or titles; nevertheless, they openly assume their grandfather's name; the eldest signs himself John Sobieski Stuart, and the second, Charles Edward Stuart. The former bears a striking resemblance to Vandyke's portrait of Charles the First, but is much handsomer; the other is the living image of the Pretender. They have in their possession most valuable and remarkable articles; the orders of Charles Edward, his clothes, watch, jewels, hair, flags, arms, and portrait. I was shown the chest. where the heir of the Highlanders usually kept his money, his precious stones, and his papers, locked up; this chest, originally a present from Francis I., is admirably carved. It still contains title-deeds.

"Let us conclude with some extracts from an article in the Catholic Magazine.'

"Was Cardinal York really the last of the Stuarts? It is generally maintained that he was; but has the statement been proved? No.

"Numerous testimonies bear witness to the contrary.

The life of Charles Edward, from the time of the battle of Culloden until long after his marriage with the Princess of Stolberg, is little known, and shrouded in mystery. There is no ground for denying the possibility of an heir of the Stuarts being still alive. Prince Charles Edward had a thousand reasons for concealing the existence of a son, particularly that of wishing to secure his life from those who would have had an interest in his death.

"We have been permitted to glance at a correspondence of the most important and remarkable nature, by which it is proved that Cardinal York was by no means the last descendant of the Stuarts. Direct heirs of Charles Edward still exist.

66

Napoleon, previous to the late disasters of the empire, heard the brothers Stuart spoken of; he wished to see them and attach them to his person; the young Scots fought beneath his colours. One day on the field of battle, Napoleon detached his cross from his buttonhole, and gave it himself to John Sobieski. Afterwards, it is said, the titles of which they hold possession were laid before the eyes of Charles X., who was much struck by them. A report spread that he had thoughts of reestablishing the Order of Malta, and that one of them Iwould have been made Grand Master. The brothers Stuart, surnamed the handsome Scots, were received everywhere with great distinction. A number of orders cover the breast of the elder, and in his Scottish costume, adorned with his numerous decorations, and enveloped in mystery, he appears surrounded with a magic

charm.

"What conclusion is to be drawn from all this? I am not called on to decide. I may be asked, What is your opinion on the subject?' I shall give no other answer to this question than the sentence which is in