Difficulties with Identification of Individuals

In identifying individuals there can often be problems. This is down to a number of factors.

A) The limited number of surnames, as compared with the individuals shown. This would apply principally to what may be called the' Mac ' names and other clan names such as Grant, Fraser, Stewart, Gordon, and the like.

B) The well-known variations in the spellings of those names, which were undoubtedly the result partly of ignorance and illiteracy on the part of the men themselves, and partly of the attempt of English or non-Gaelic speaking clerks to render them phonetically. Numerous cases have been found in the preparation of Lists in which other evidence has proved that what at first appeared to be two men subsequently proved to be a single individual whose name had been spelt in various ways.

C) There are also some rather unexpected examples of alterations of names in successive references to the same individual, which may depend on the same cause or to the clerk's failure to catch and retain the sound. As an instance, we find Farquharson sometimes spelt Ferguson, thus confusing two totally distinct surnames.

D) Another difficulty is the tendency that undoubtedly existed in dealing with names with the terminal ' son.' For example a Donaldson, during his career in prison, will be shown sometimes under that name and sometimes as a Donald, and has had to be identified by other means. William and Williamson, Roberts, Robertson, and Robinson are other examples of this tendency ; and individuals are frequently shown as bearing these surnames indifferently.

As might be expected, the group of "Mac" names is the one which affords the largest field for speculation and study. Apart from the fact that they lend themselves to every possible type of error in transliteration, there are many whose form, in the State Papers, is not explicable merely on the assumption that they are the result of errors in spelling.

The most obvious explanation is that such inexplicable names are not, and never were, surnames in our sense of the term ; they were probably peculiar to the individuals who bore them, to distinguish them from other persons, all of whom had a common surname, and perhaps the same Christian name, and must be regarded as individual names which have suffered, like the clan names proper, at the hands of ignorant clerks.

Aliases:- Another very common source of difficulty in the identifying of individuals arises from the use of an ' alias.' As an example, in a petition in favour of certain of his Parishioners in Tilbury Fort the Rev. James Robertson, minister of Lochbroom, includes in his list ' Alexander M'Kenzie alias Roy. John Oge alias M'Kenzie. Donald Roy alias Leslie.' (S.P.Dom., 94-241.)

Christian Names:- Christian names also give rise to difficulties in identification. It is unlikely that a man whose name was Alexander would be shown in a Jail Return or a State Paper as John ; but it is quite likely that a Donald would be shown sometimes as Daniel; and this confusion often occurs. Hugh, Ewen, and Evan were often used indiscriminately; Ranald and Ronald were spelt as his fancy struck the clerk; and Roderick and Roger, Patrick and Peter, were liable to be confused.

It is interesting to notice that phonetic renderings of Christian names are sometimes more accurate than the modern accepted spellings. Thus' Farcher ' or' Ferecher ' is probably a more correct expression of the sound than ' Farquhar,' having regard to the fact that there is no ' Q ' in Gaelic.

Foreign Names:- Another type of difficulty is exemplified by the case of ' Don Rodrigo Ferral' of the Spanish army, who was found to be the same as ' Roger O'Farrell,' an Irishman. In this case the identity was discovered by the fact of one of the State Papers being written both in French and in English ; the name appears in these in its two forms.

Errors in Transcription:- In some cases, in the process of handing of lists of prisoners from prison to prison, names have become mutilated to an extent which renders identification very difficult. As an example, there was a Banffshire man taken at the fall of Carlisle who is shown in one Return as James ' Streethead ' ; he is almost certainly identical with James' Strutherd,' who is shown in the same prison in another list and was taken at the same time. In the compilation of the combined Lists the first surname, ' Streethead,' has been assumed to be another form of the second.

Identification Factors:- While admitting that it is practically impossible to be quite certain in every case of the identification of an individual prisoner, it may be stated that, generally speaking, the number of doubtful cases can be materially reduced. The lists in the Scottish Jail Returns and in the various classes of State Papers contain items of information about each or nearly each man, which, taken together, help to identify him. This information, in a complete case, would consist of the place and date of capture, regiment, previous history as regards prisons since capture, and places and dates, disposal, also age, normal employment and residence. The more of these ' identification factors' that are available, the easier it is to trace an individual.

Dates and places of capture and confinement are another obvious means of proving that two individuals bearing the same Christian and surname are meant, instead of representing the same individual. A John Grant in the transport Wallsgrave, for example, could not be the same John Grant in the Pamela, provided the returns for both ships were dated on the same day. The homes and ages of individuals again are a most important aid to identification; they are only rarely given, but, when they are, they have sometimes provided the final argument in identification. Finally, where a prisoner's regiment is stated, an additional aid is provided; though here it must be noted that the names of regiments, especially clan regiments, were themselves liable to variation.

For example, a Grant of Glenmoriston might have ' Grant's' entered in the regimental column of a Jail Return, but he might, in a later return, be shown as belonging to ' Glengarry's.' The explanation is that the individual often only knew the designation of the comparatively small unit in which he was serving, although that unit was really merely one company of a ' regiment,' and, in this case, the Grants of Glenmoriston served in Glengarry's regiment. Innumerable instances of this confusion of units occur.

Dependence on a single one, or even two of the various identification factors, may lead to a wrong conclusion; but, when three or more factors are available, room for doubt diminishes ; and when all the factors differ from each other, it may be regarded as certain that the Records are referring to two individuals, not one.

The importance of extreme care in the compilation of the List, so as not to show two men when there is really one, is obvious, if only for the reason that the number of prisoners would be rendered larger thereby than it actually should be.

Clan Names:- The identification of individuals bearing Clan names in a Gaelic-speaking area requires careful treatment. Many highlanders took clan names. Thus at the capture of Carlisle there were 17 John Grants taken. Identifying these individuals requires the use of other factors such as place of origin, age, occupation, natural features etc.

Names of French Prisoners:- The names of French prisoners also present considerable difficulties in identification, whether the individuals concerned were really native Frenchmen or Scots in the French Service. In the case of both difficulties arise. In the first place the French lists present remarkable misspellings of Scottish and British names generally; °n the other hand, when Scottish and English clerks attempted to take down the names of Frenchmen or French-speaking Scots, still more remarkable errors crept in. (Ref:- Scottish History Society, Prisoners of the 45, Volume I Pages 257-268)

Problems with Identifying Prisoners held in York Castle.

1) George Bain & George Bean The records show George Bain as a 25 year old labourer from Aberdeenshire, who had joined Ogilvy's Regiment and was captured at Carlisle. He was held at Carlisle and York and transported to Antigua on 5th May 1747 on board the Veteran. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26, 81-88, 94-275, 96-124; P.R., 3621-3) George Bean is shown as "Taken in actual rebellion". He was held at York and was transported to Antigua on 5th May 1747. There is no record of a George Bean on the Veteran's transport list.(Ref:- S.P.D. 81-88; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; T.B.P. 327-109) It is almost certain that these were the same person.

2) Alexander Cameron & Alexander Cameron & Alexander Cameron There are three Alexander Camerons listed at York. The first is a 16 year old labourer from Lochaber who was in Lochiel's Regiment. He was apparently deserting when captured. He was released under general pardon in 1747. (Ref:- J.R., Edinburgh; S.P.D. 8129; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; T.B.P., 327109; P.R., 3621-3 The second prisoner is a 19 year old labourer from Lochaber, who was captured at the fall of Carlisle and was listed for transportation in March 1747. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26, 91-84; P.R., 3621-3) The third prisoner is stated to be from Lochaber and was captured at the fall of Carlisle. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26, 81-88). It is then stated that nothing was known of his fate. Could the last two prisoners be the same person? There is insufficient evidence to be absolutely sure.

3) Dougal Campbell & Dougal Campbell The first Dougal Campbell is said to be an 18 year old servant from Lochaber. He was held at Whitehaven, Carlisle and York and was listed for transportation to Antigua on 5th May 1747. (Ref:- S.P.D., 85-122, 92-201; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; T.B.P., 327-109; P.R., 3621-3) The second prisoner is listed as an 18 year old servant from Argyll. He was held at Carlisle and York and was also listed for transportation to Antigua on 5th May 1747. (Ref:- S.P.D., 85-122; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; T.B.P., 327-109; P.R., 3621-3) Could these be the same person? There is only one Dougal Campbell shown on the transportation list for the Veteran transport ship. Again there is insufficient evidence to be absolutely sure.

4) Elizabeth Clavering & Elizabeth Grant Elizabeth Clavering is listed as being the wife of Edmund Clavering who was also a prisoner at York, but who was executed on 1st November 1746. She is stated to be from Banff. "Brown, thin, a seamstress". (Ref:- T.B.P. 327-109) She petitioned for release (Ref:- S.P.D., 103-17) She is listed for Transportation to Antigua on 5th May 1747.

Elizabeth Grant is listed as being a seamstress from Banff, captured at the fall of Carlisle. (Ref:- S.P.D., 81-88, 91-84; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; P.R. 3621-3)

In her book "Damn Rebel Bitches: The Women of the 45", Maggie Craig states that Elizabeth Grant from Banff, who was held at York Castle Prison, married Edmund Clavering, also a prisoner at the Prison. Thus Elizabeth Grant and Elizabeth Clavering are the same person.

5) David Goyner & David Joyner (Joiner) David Goyner is listed as nothing known of him or his fate apart from him being held at Carlisle and York. (Ref:- S.P.D., 81-88) David Joyner (Joiner) is said to be from Aberdeen. He was captured at the fall of Carlisle. He was in Grant's Regiment. He was held at Carlisle and York and was listed for transportation to Antigua on 5th May 1747. (S.P.D., 79-26, 91-77; Scots Mag., Oct. 1746, 486; T.B.P., 327-109; P.R., 3621-3) It is almost certain that these were the same person.

6) John M'Lachlan & James M'Lachlan James M'Lachlan is shown as being from Banff. He was in Glenbucket's Regiment and was captured at the fall of Carlisle. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26) He was held at Carlisle and York. At his trial on 2nd October 1746 at York he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death, but was reprieved (Ref:- Scots Mag., 1746, 483, 543; S.P.D., 88-42; P.R., 3625-21) He was pardoned on enlistment in Admiral Boscowen's force, 22nd July 1748. John M'Lachlan is also shown as being from Banff. He was in Glenbucket's Regiment and was captured at the fall of Carlisle. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26). At is trial he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death, but was reprieved. (Ref:- Scots Mag., 1746, 483, 543; S.P.D. 88-42; P.R., 3625-21) He was pardoned on enlistment in Admiral Boscowen's force, 22nd July 1748. Only James M'Lachlan is shown on the list of prisoners from York who enlisted in Boscowen's force. It is almost certain that these were the same person.

7) David Roe & David Row (Rue) David Roe is listed as being "Once an Officer of the Customs". "Taken in actual rebellion". (Ref:- S.P.D., 81-88). He pleaded guilty at his trial at York and was sentenced to death 2nd October 1746. He was hung 8th November 1746. (Ref:- Scots Mag., 1746, 483, 543; Baga, Ixix. 190). David Row (Rue) is listed as a gentleman. Customs officer from Anstruther, Fife. "Joined the Rebels at the first and carried Arms with them into England. Prisoner at Carlisle." (Ref:- P.C., 68). He was probably captured at the fall of Carlisle on 30th December 1745. He was at the battle of Prestonpans. He pleaded guilty at his trial at York, on 2nd October, 1746, and was sentenced to death. (Ref:- Macbeth Forbes, 12; S.P.D., 88-14. Undoubtedly these are the same person.

8) James Stewart & John Stewart James Stewart is listed from Aberdeen, and was in Grant's Regiment. He was captured at the fall of Carlisle (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26, 81-88) John Stewart is listed as an 18 year old labourer from Aberdeen. He was in Glenbucket's Regiment and was captured at the fall of Carlisle. He was listed for transportation to Antigua on 5th May 1747. (Ref:- S.P.D., 79-26, 91-77; Scots Mag., Oct 1746, 486; T.B.D., 327-109; P.R. 3621-3). It is highly possible that these were the same person.