Turned Up Like a Heron

[Glenn Osborne]

This phrase was a description of some long arms carried by Jacobites when they entered Edinburgh in 1745. This perfectly describes the much older, typical Scottish fowling pieces produced in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But I have always had at least a suspicion there might be an alternative interpretation. What if the phrase actually referred to being turned up (stocked) like a herrings butt or rather a fish tail? This style was common on both English lock and matchlock muskets in the early to mid 17th century in England. In fact, I have two pieces in my collection from noted gunsmith Leonard Day with these type butts and feel they may very well be representative of weapons used in the very early, pre-Prestonpans phase of the rebellion and quite likely the ‘15. I intend to post some photos of these two pieces in the For Sale section but would like to generate some discussion about my pet theory of Herring Butt muskets styles possibly used by early Jacobites. Think this theory carries water? There is not much if any detailed descriptions of any long guns used in the rebellion so much is speculation. But there is always room for a good discussion!

 

[Tacksman45]

This phrase was a description of some long arms carried by Jacobites when they entered Edinburgh in 1745. This perfectly describes the much older, typical Scottish fowling pieces froduced in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But I have always had at least a suspicion there might be an alternative interpretation. What if the phrase actually referred to being turned up (stocked) like a herrings butt or rather a fish tail? This style was common on both English lock and matchlock muskets in the early to mid 17th century in England. In fact, I have two pieces in my collection from noted gunsmith Leonard Day with these type butts and feel they may very well be representative of weapons used in the very early, pre-Prestonpans phase of the rebellion and quite likely the ‘15. I intend to post some photos of these two pieces in the For Sale section but would like to generate some discussion about my pet theory of Herring Butt muskets styles possibly used by early Jacobites. Think this theory carries water? There is not much if any detailed descriptions of any long guns used in the rebellion so much is speculation. But there is always room for a good discussion!

Glenn,

This is a very interesting theory! Specifically, the part about the term "turned up" meaning "stocked," I had not ever thought about that. It is also a good question whether the name refers to heron birds, or herring fish. If the witness did mean herring fish it could refer to the "fishtail" shape of earlier stocks, or it could refer to the bottom of the butt being "fish belly" shaped. The later seems a bit unlikely considering that it is a relatively minor detail about the shape of the stock. I personally like the idea that the witness was referring to French fusil Boucanier, or Dutch club butt fusils, some of which have a wrist and butt which resembles the shape of a heron's neck and back when it is standing on the ground. That brings up another interesting question of how many of these type of weapons could have come to be in the possession of Scottish clansmen? From what I understand these weapons were made to be sent to and sold in these countries colonies, but it seems likely that one way or another some of these would have gotten "siphoned off" to other locations. Food for thought.

 

[Glenn Osborne]

I have been investigating and thinking about this issue for several issues. I've come to the conclusion that the popular notion that the weapons provided the Jacobites were old, semi-cast-offs is probably wrong. Cumberland ordered the French and Spanish muskets recovered after Culloden were to be turned over to the artillery and reissued to his troops. I don't feel he would have done this if they were old or un-serviceable. The only source for long arms pre-Prestonpans was what was brought from France by Antoine Walsh aboard his own ship (the Elizabeth having been damaged and returned to France) and whatever was available at home, mostly fowlers, I opine. So, I have come to the opinion that the weapons used by the end of the rebellion were probably captured 1730 long-land pattern Tower muskets from Prestonpans, French 1734 muskets, and Spanish 1720-30 muskets with miquelet locks on basically French-style stocks. If there were escopetas or Boucaniers, I think they would have been few and owned by individuals. The Jacobite commanders went out of their was to teach the troops a simplified musket drill which would have required at least a rudimentary common arm. There were some Spanish muskets landed in the abortive 1718 adventure and these were likely escopetas but even privately owned fowlers would probably have been French styles as that was very common. Now as to the pre-Prestonpans arms, wow, that's another story. I think it would have been a real zoo of arms of all kinds. Given the historical record of the carnage made by swords at Prestonpans, I'm guessing there were few muskets or fowlers.
The stereotypical Scottish fowlers and other arms of that ilk would have been pretty old at that time. For those interested in seeing what I think of as "herring butt" muskets of an early type, I've posted some pictures of two I have for sale. So maybe early on, but dropped like a hot brannock cake as soon as possible!

 

[Tacksman45]

Glenn,

You are correct that the weapons that were purchased and brought over from France were in good working order. When they were purchased each musket came with a bayonet, sword, cartridge box and the straps and slings for each of them (referred to as a "stand of arms.") The metal would be free from rust, and the locks reworked and repaired. Although these would not have been new they were certainly in working order and serviceable. Also it makes sense that the Duke ordered the captured muskets to be distributed to his men since French muskets were considered to be (and were) very high quality, and many of his Scottish troops such as the Argyle militia were probably in need of muskets. I also agree that before Prestonpans it would have been a "real zoo" of everything from ancient matchlocks handed down from father to son, to Spanish escopetas left over from the last uprising, to the newer muskets brought over by the Prince. I also agree that weapons such as French, Dutch, and English fusils and fowlers would have been privately owned by individual tacksmen or duine-uasals who could have afforded to buy them, these men would have likely had a several ghillies to carry their firearms and other weapons as well.

 

[Glenn Osborne]

Just a point to ponder, one interesting item I ran across in my musings on this subject is the close relationship Antoine Walsh had with the French minister of marine. The Tulle arsenal was the main supplier for the ministry of marine and Antoine bought these arms with borrowed gold. They weren’t supplied by the French government. So, I’ve got some reservations about complete stands of arms being supplied. I’ve got an idea there were only muskets, not complete stands. I’m basing this on there being no mention of cartridge boxes mentioned in any reference I’ve ever read. There are several references to haversacks but no cartridge boxes. I also did some research about about swords furnished by Antoine. One of my contacts in Scotland mentioned there are some French infantry hangers in Scottish family collections attributed to the rebellion. But these are all 1734 mono-lobster hangers, not broadswords (which I had always thought). It really would be interesting to see the collection of arms carried when the Jacobite entered Edinburgh in 1745 but by Culloden, I think the army was much better disciplined in the use of firearms than has previously been credited and the arms carried were pretty much some of the most current models that Antoine could have purchased from Tulle and independent makers. Who really know? But interesting speculations.

 

[MacRob46]

The “heron butt” comment is something I wondered about too. I do not think it refers to the Scottish long guns and assuming it doesn’t then what is the commenter talking about?

While it is tempting to say some of the 17th c. Scottish long guns were in the hands of the Jacobites, it is unlikely they would have been, unless they were the only long guns available, which they apparently were not. The tiny number of surviving guns from the 17th c., 27, of which 13 resided in the armoury of the Grant Earl of Seafield at the time, argues against this. Claude Blair says others may have fallen victim to the disarming act of 1746 although he does not elaborate and my belief is that few of the Scottish pieces did. I firmly believe that the small number of survivors should be attributed to small production.

By that time the newest of these guns, based on the dates inscribed here and there (not necessarily reliable indicators of when they were actually made anyway) were approaching 50 years old. A number had been modified or repaired using parts from other guns (apparently). All of this would make the Jacobite soldier who obtained one look for something newer and more reliable as quickly as possible.

So, what were they? I don’t have a real clue but the discussion is interesting. My apologies for entering late.

 

[Tacksman45]

Just a point to ponder, one interesting item I ran across in my musings on this subject is the close relationship Antoine Walsh had with the French minister of marine. The Tulle arsenal was the main supplier for the ministry of marine and Antoine bought these arms with borrowed gold. They weren’t supplied by the French government. So, I’ve got some reservations about complete stands of arms being supplied. I’ve got an idea there were only muskets, not complete stands. I’m basing this on there being no mention of cartridge boxes mentioned in any reference I’ve ever read. There are several references to haversacks but no cartridge boxes. I also did some research about about swords furnished by Antoine. One of my contacts in Scotland mentioned there are some French infantry hangers in Scottish family collections attributed to the rebellion. But these are all 1734 mono-lobster hangers, not broadswords (which I had always thought). It really would be interesting to see the collection of arms carried when the Jacobite entered Edinburgh in 1745 but by Culloden, I think the army was much better disciplined in the use of firearms than has previously been credited and the arms carried were pretty much some of the most current models that Antoine could have purchased from Tulle and independent makers. Who really know? But interesting speculations.

Glenn,

It is true that there are no mention of cartridge boxes in the '45 that I or anyone I know of have found. We do know from the Penicuik Sketches that (at least some of them) had socket bayonets, but the sketches do not show any belts or scabbards for them, and also they do not show any cartridge boxes. So while it is true that the sketches are not precise, I think it is a safe bet they they did not carry bayonet scabbards and cartridge boxes (they probably just carried the bayonets fixed to the muskets.)

 

[Tacksman45]

The “heron butt” comment is something I wondered about too. I do not think it refers to the Scottish long guns and assuming it doesn’t then what is the commenter talking about?

While it is tempting to say some of the 17th c. Scottish long guns were in the hands of the Jacobites, it is unlikely they would have been, unless they were the only long guns available, which they apparently were not. The tiny number of surviving guns from the 17th c., 27, of which 13 resided in the armoury of the Grant Earl of Seafield at the time, argues against this. Claude Blair says others may have fallen victim to the disarming act of 1746 although he does not elaborate and my belief is that few of the Scottish pieces did. I firmly believe that the small number of survivors should be attributed to small production.

By that time the newest of these guns, based on the dates inscribed here and there (not necessarily reliable indicators of when they were actually made anyway) were approaching 50 years old. A number had been modified or repaired using parts from other guns (apparently). All of this would make the Jacobite soldier who obtained one look for something newer and more reliable as quickly as possible.

So, what were they? I don’t have a real clue but the discussion is interesting. My apologies for entering late.

MacRob,

As always I appreciate hearing your input! I agree with you that few if any of the Scottish National longarms were used at any point during the '45. My personal pet theory is that "turned up like herons" refers to French or Dutch fusils such as Buccaneer fusils or "club butt" fowlers. Glenn has a very interesting theory which is growing on me of what that the term "turned up" actually means which he discusses in the first message of this thread. How likely do you think it is that some French fusil Boucanier, or Dutch club butt fusils could have wound up in the hands of Scottish Clansmen, considering that these were intended to be sent to the colonies?

Thanks!

 

[Jonathan Lovell]

I wish to show something that may be relevant to this discussion if anyone is interested. I recently acquired what I believe is a Scottish doglock from around 1730. This gun certainly fits Glenn Osbornes idea: What if the phrase actually referred to being turned up (stocked) like a herrings butt or rather a fish tail.

Have a look. I would be very interested in any thoughts on this.