Counter-terrorism and the Prospects of

Human Rights : Securitizing Difference

and Dissent 1st Edition Ipek Demirsu
(Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/counter-terrorism-and-the-prospects-of-human-rights-
securitizing-difference-and-dissent-1st-edition-ipek-demirsu-auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Counter-Terrorism Technologies Peter Lehr

https://textbookfull.com/product/counter-terrorism-technologies-
peter-lehr/

Environmental Human Rights and Climate Change Current

Status and Future Prospects Bridget Lewis

https://textbookfull.com/product/environmental-human-rights-and-
climate-change-current-status-and-future-prospects-bridget-lewis/

The Fundamental Right To Data Protection Normative

Value In The Context Of Counter Terrorism Surveillance
Maria Tzanou

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-fundamental-right-to-data-
protection-normative-value-in-the-context-of-counter-terrorism-
surveillance-maria-tzanou/

Human Duties and the Limits of Human Rights Discourse

1st Edition Eric R. Boot (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/human-duties-and-the-limits-of-
human-rights-discourse-1st-edition-eric-r-boot-auth/
The Disabled Church Human Difference and the Art of
Communal Worship 1st Edition Rebecca F. Spurrier

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-disabled-church-human-
difference-and-the-art-of-communal-worship-1st-edition-rebecca-f-
spurrier/

Reconciling Law and Morality in Human Rights Discourse:

Beyond the Habermasian Account of Human Rights 1st
Edition Willy Moka-Mubelo (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/reconciling-law-and-morality-in-
human-rights-discourse-beyond-the-habermasian-account-of-human-
rights-1st-edition-willy-moka-mubelo-auth/

Talking to Terrorists, Non-Violence, and Counter-

Terrorism: Lessons for Gaza from Northern Ireland 1st
Edition Andrew Fitz-Gibbon (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/talking-to-terrorists-non-
violence-and-counter-terrorism-lessons-for-gaza-from-northern-
ireland-1st-edition-andrew-fitz-gibbon-auth/

When human rights clash at the European Court of Human

Rights: conflict or harmony? 1st Edition Stijn Smet

https://textbookfull.com/product/when-human-rights-clash-at-the-
european-court-of-human-rights-conflict-or-harmony-1st-edition-
stijn-smet/

Victims Stories and the Advancement of Human Rights 1st

Edition Diana Tietjens Meyers

https://textbookfull.com/product/victims-stories-and-the-
advancement-of-human-rights-1st-edition-diana-tietjens-meyers/
Counter-terrorism and the Prospects
of Human Rights
 Ipek Demirsu

Counter-terrorism
and the Prospects
of Human Rights
Securitizing Difference and Dissent
Ipek Demirsu
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Sabanci University
Tuzla, Turkey

ISBN 978-3-319-50801-6 ISBN 978-3-319-50802-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50802-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017931585

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Cover illustration © amornme/Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 PREFACE

Striking the right balance between security and liberties has never been an
easy task for policymakers. Particularly in the context of terrorism marked
by the perception of a ubiquitous threat, the act of balancing seems to be
ever more challenging. The purpose of this book is not to downplay the
consequences of terrorist violence, or the heavy toll of innocent lives and
the suffering of loved ones. On the contrary, as an individual witnessing
the incubus that has come down upon the country I live in, one which we
incessantly fail to wake up from, taking more than 200 lives in a single year
with devastating attacks almost every month, I am more than aware of the
gravity of brute violence. This book seeks to investigate in a critical light
how we respond to such atrocities in a democratic setting, without losing
the spirit of democracy. In an attempt to counter terrorism, established
liberal democracies have been institutionalizing security measures that
corrode the democratic pillars the society is built upon, muddying the
definition of threat to include non-violent displays of difference or dissent,
bypassing principles of due process; meanwhile, other countries still strug-
gling to consolidate their democracies follow their footsteps. In the end,
what the majority of the population is left with is more insecurity in the
public sphere and less guarantees for their liberties.
During the writing of this book, the situation has gone from bad to worst
throughout the world. There have been horrendous attacks in Ankara,
Bagdat, Beirut, Brussels, Dhaka, Istanbul, Nice, Orlando, and Paris. The
realities of the Syrian civil war has demonstrated that we are all intercon-
nected to a magnitude greater than we have previously imagined, as the
horrors of war proved to be not only the concern of the Syrian population

v
vi PREFACE

alone, fleeing their conflict-torn countries, but also ours, the relatively more
‘privileged’ part of the world, living with the bogus sense of security behind
the walls we have erected. As Europe has remained lethargic in finding a
plausible course of action for the growing wave of refugees reaching its
shores in search of a safe future, usually at the risk of their lives, a con-
comitant upsurge in far-right politics channeled diligently by opportunist
demagogues has twisted the public debate, equating refugees with those
they have been running away from. It was precisely in this conjuncture that
the Brexit vote came as a shock to many, who have underestimated the
rising tide of far-right, with the majority of the British population voting to
leave the European Union. The murder of the MP Jo Cox, known for her
advocacy for the rights of minority groups and refugees, by a far-right zealot
tainted the process leading to the referendum. Although the ramifications of
the decision to leave is yet to be seen, British politicians have been on a
number of accounts voicing their discontent with European institutions
previously, inter alia the European Court of Human Rights, mostly in
the context of counter-terrorism for intervening in matters concerning
immigration and deportation of individuals believed to pose a threat to
national security.
In the meantime, the EU has endeavored to externalize its challenge
with the arrival of refugees by revitalizing the Readmission Agreement
with Turkey, promising to liberalize visa requirements for Turkish citizens
in exchange of sending back those refugees who have arrived in Europe
through Turkey. Packaged as ‘reinvigorating’ the long-inert accession
process, the intensifying exchanges between both sides to find a joint
solution to the ‘refugee crisis’ during a period when the human rights
record of Turkey has been persistently deteriorating, was observed with a
skeptical eye by the erstwhile supporters of Turkey’s EU membership bid
and democratization. The delicate peace process and ceasefire in the
southeast region came to a sudden halt in 2015, drifting back to the
escalation of clashes along with long periods of curfew, thousands of
displaced people, and a rising death toll; practices that have been likened
to the infamous 1990s. Against this backdrop, the political space has been
ever more paralyzed, as oppositional figures are increasingly being silenced
by terror-related charges. I must repeat myself in stressing that the threat
of terrorist attacks is real. Yet, so is the impact on our democracy the way
in which we choose to respond to acts of violence, how we talk about
important notions such as ‘threat’ or ‘enemy’, how we opt to frame and
define terror. These choices not only bear implications on security policies
 PREFACE vii

but also how we come to understand the polity we live in. This has indeed
been the case in the aftermath of the shocking coup attempt in Turkey on
the 15 July, 2016, which could have been an devastating blow to Turkish
democracy like its antecedents, fortunately failing to succeed. Many have
rejoiced the prevention of the coup attempt and the victory of democracy
with ripe memories of earlier military coups still in mind. That being said,
the following extended periods of the state of emergency with tens of
thousands of mass arrests have raised serious concerns about the course of
democracy in the country. Once again, this dire experience has demon-
strated that the issue of balancing rights and security will be critical in
determining the future of the political regime.
It is in this troubled murky environment that I have written this book
painstakingly, hoping that it can shed light on how language plays an
indispensable role in shaping policies, and how such policies ultimately
shape the society we live in. To this end, the book is also a plea for the
indivisible and inalienable human rights, with all its imperfections, still the
most reliable anchor of freedoms, not only in terms of European bureau-
cracy and legal formalities, but also how we deliberate fundamental mat-
ters such as security, how we think and talk about the legitimate scope of
sovereignty. I believe human rights continues to be the strongest instru-
ment in the international political arena to challenge the vicious cycle of
violence, and to ensure our democracies do not degenerate into a security
state. The release of the long-awaited Chilcot report and the standstill of
the ‘refugee deal’ between the EU and Turkey due to the perturbing
human rights records of the latter attest to the power such norms still
exert even in key security matters. All in all, by presenting a detailed
comparative analysis of the UK and Turkey, the former an established
democracy while the latter still struggling in its path to democratization,
both hanging on the margins of the EU, the book offers significant
insights on the intersection of counter-terrorism and human rights.
There are a number of influential people that have played a role in my
intellectual life and the materialization of this book that I would like to
share my gratitude. One person who has been important in my early
studies is Dr. Adnan Akçay from Middle East Technical University, who
was the first person to encourage me in questioning established truths and
to search for untold histories. Undoubtedly, the person to whom I owe
my deepening interest in and advocacy for human rights is Dr. Andrew
Fagan from the Human Rights Centre at University of Essex, who has
continued to extend his support in every phase of my studies. I would like
viii PREFACE

to thank Prof. Dr. Meltem Müftüler-Baç from Sabanci University for her
ceaseless guidance, not only throughout my academic life but also life in
general. Her diligence has been inspirational for all her students, including
myself. I would also like to express my gratitude to Prof. Richard Jackson
for his hospitality at the University of Otago National Centre for Peace
and Conflict Studies during my research visit, whose insights have been
invaluable for this research. Another important person in this journey has
been Dr. Bahar Rumelili from Koç University, who has shown me the
strength of this book even before its conception. Moreover, I would like
to thank my editors and my reviewers for their constructive and encoura-
ging inputs that have been indispensable for the book to arrive at its final
version.
Lastly, I would like to thank my dear family and friends, who have been
there at the best of times and the worst of times; but most of all, I owe
special thanks to my extraordinary husband, my inspiration, Dr. Andrea Di
Biase, who has been the biggest support throughout this process.

Istanbul, December 2016 Ipek Demirsu

 CONTENTS

1 Introduction: Counter-terrorism and Human Rights

Norms in World Politics Today 1

2 Sovereignty Between Security and Human Rights Principles 9

2.1 The Concept of ‘Security’ and Its Study 9
2.2 Sovereign Power and the ‘State of Exception’ 19
2.3 International Norms and Human Rights 25
2.4 Terrorism and Counter-terrorism 30
Notes 38

3 The Language of Lawmaking and Its Effects: Mutual

Constitution of Discourse and Policy 41
3.1 Discourse and the Language of Security 42
3.2 Frame Analysis and Policy Frames 46
3.3 Triangulation and Comparative Policy Analysis 50
3.4 The Cases: Turkey and the UK 53
3.5 Validity and Reliability 55
3.6 Adjoining Theory and Methodology 56
Notes 60

ix
x CONTENTS

Part I The Evolution of Counter-terrorism Policies vis-a-vis

Human Right Obligations

4 International Human Rights and Counter-terrorism

in the Post-9/11 World Politics 63

5 (In)security in the Heartland of Liberal Democracy:

An Account of Counter-terrorism Laws and Human Rights
in the UK 69
5.1 Human Rights Legislation in the UK 70
5.2 Counter-terrorism Legislation in the Post-9/11 Era 74
5.3 Counter-terrorism Measures in the Aftermath of 7/7
London Bombings 82
5.4 New Provisions, Old Strategies: Accounting for Lost
Liberties 89
5.5 Conclusion 92
Notes 97

6 Dark Past, Turbulent Future: The Changing Course

of Security Policies and the Status of Human
Rights in Turkey 99
6.1 Human Rights in Turkey and the EU-Accession Process 100
6.2 The Changing Role of the Military in
Turkish Politics 107
6.3 The Course of Counter-terrorism in the Turkish Legal
System 113
6.4 Conclusion 123
Notes 128

7 The Direction of Security Policies in the UK and Turkey:

Different Contexts, Convergent Practices 131
 CONTENTS xi

Part II Securitization, Exceptionalism, and the Language of Rights

in the Making of Counter-terrorism Policies

8 Policy Frames and the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates 143

Notes 149

9 Balancing in the State of Exception: Framing

Counter-terrorism in the UK Legislative Process 151
9.1 Structural Components of the Security Frame 153
9.2 Structural Components of the Rights Frame 171
9.3 Conclusion 187

10 Democratization and National Sensibilities: Framing

Counter-terrorism in the Turkish Legislative Process 191
10.1 Structural Components of the Security Frame 194
10.2 Structural Components of the Rights Frame 211
10.3 Conclusion 227
Notes 229

11 Talking Security and Rights: The Interplay of Policy

Frames in Turkey and the UK 231
Notes 240

12 Conclusion: Reconciling Policy and Discourse 241

Appendix: Codebook 249

Bibliography 253

Index 279
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 9.1 Distribution of keywords in the UK parliamentary debates 152

Fig. 9.2 Distribution of security frame problem roles 155
Fig. 9.3 Distribution of security frame problem locations 156
Fig. 9.4 Distribution of security frame problem mechanisms 159
Fig. 9.5 Distribution of security frame problem intersectionality 162
Fig. 9.6 Distribution of security frame solution roles 164
Fig. 9.7 Distribution of security frame solution locations 166
Fig. 9.8 Distribution of security frame solution mechanisms 169
Fig. 9.9 Distribution of security frame solution intersectionality 170
Fig. 9.10 Distribution of rights frame problem roles 172
Fig. 9.11 Distribution of rights frame problem locations 174
Fig. 9.12 Distribution of rights frame problem mechanisms 175
Fig. 9.13 Distribution of rights frame problem intersectionality 179
Fig. 9.14 Distribution of rights frame solution roles 181
Fig. 9.15 Distribution of rights frame solution locations 183
Fig. 9.16 Distribution of rights frame solution mechanisms 185
Fig. 9.17 Frequency of rights frame solution intersectionality 186
Fig. 10.1 Distribution of key words in Turkish parliamentary debates 193
Fig. 10.2 Distribution of security frame problem roles 195
Fig. 10.3 Distribution of security frame problem locations 198
Fig. 10.4 Distribution of security frame problem mechanisms 201
Fig. 10.5 Distribution of security frame problem intersectionality 202
Fig. 10.6 Distribution of security frame solution roles 203
Fig. 10.7 Distribution of security frame solution locations 206
Fig. 10.8 Distribution of security frame solution mechanisms 208
Fig. 10.9 Distribution of security frame solution intersectionality 209

xiii
xiv LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 10.10 Distribution of rights frame problem roles 212

Fig. 10.11 Distribution of rights frame problem locations 215
Fig. 10.12 Distribution of rights frame problem mechanisms 217
Fig. 10.13 Frequency of rights frame problem intersectionality 219
Fig. 10.14 Distribution of rights frame solution roles 220
Fig. 10.15 Distribution of rights frame solution locations 222
Fig. 10.16 Distribution of rights frame solution mechanisms 224
Fig. 10.17 Frequency of rights frame solution intersectionality 225
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Alternative approaches to security 18

Table 3.1 Structure of a policy frame 48
Table 4.1 International documents on fighting terrorism 64
Table 5.1 Development of Counter-terrorism and Human Rights
Policies in the UK 95
Table 6.1 Development of counter-terrorism and human rights
policies in Turkey 125
Table 8.1 Theory-driven and data-driven codes 147
Table 8.2 Structure of a policy frame 148
Table 9.1 Security frame problem roles 154
Table 9.2 Security frame problem locations 156
Table 9.3 Security frame problem mechanisms 158
Table 9.4 Security frame problem intersectionality 161
Table 9.5 Security frame solution roles 163
Table 9.6 Security frame solution locations 165
Table 9.7 Security frame solution mechanisms 168
Table 9.8 Security frame solution intersectionality 170
Table 9.9 Rights frame problem roles 172
Table 9.10 Rights frame problem locations 173
Table 9.11 Rights frame problem mechanisms 175
Table 9.12 Rights frame problem intersectionality 178
Table 9.13 Rights frame solution roles 180
Table 9.14 Rights frame solution locations 182
Table 9.15 Rights frame solution mechanisms 184
Table 10.1 Security frame problem roles 194
Table 10.2 Security frame problem locations 197
Table 10.3 Security frame problem mechanisms 200

xv
xvi LIST OF TABLES

Table 10.4 Security frame problem intersectionality 201

Table 10.5 Security frame solution roles 203
Table 10.6 Security frame solution locations 205
Table 10.7 Security frame solution mechanisms 207
Table 10.8 Security frame solution intersectionality 209
Table 10.9 Rights frame problem roles 212
Table 10.10 Rights frame problem locations 214
Table 10.11 Rights frame problem mechanisms 216
Table 10.12 Rights frame solution roles 220
Table 10.13 Rights frame solution locations 222
Table 10.14 Rights frame solution mechanisms 224
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AKP Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party)

ATCSA Anti-Terror Crime and Security Act
CECPT Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism
CHP Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (Republican People’s Party)
CSS Critical Security Studies
ECHR European Convention of Human Rights
ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
EU European Union
FATF Financial Action Task Force
HC House of Commons
HM Her Majesty’s
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICIS International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty
IRA Irish Republican Army
ISIL Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
KCK Koma Civaken Kurdistan (Group of Communities in Kurdistan)
PKK Partiya Karkeren Kurdistani (Kurdish Worker’s Party)
SIAC Special Immigration Appeals Commission
SCR Security Council Resolution
TPIM Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
TBMM Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi (Turkish Grand National Assembly)
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
US United States

xvii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Counter-terrorism
and Human Rights Norms
in World Politics Today

Since the end of the cold war, human rights has become the dominant
moral vocabulary in foreign affairs. The question after September 11 is
whether the era of human rights has come and gone.
Michael Ignatieff, New York Times 5 February 2002

In the aftermath of the 9/11 events, with the decision to pass the Anti-
Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 the UK became the only European
country to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights by
introducing the notorious provision of indefinite detention for non-nationals.
The implementation of this provision ensued in HM Belmarsh Prison in
London being referred to as ‘Britain’s Guantanamo Bay’ (Winterman, 2004)
premised on a legal lacuna. In a different setting in Turkey, by the end of 2012
the country has been characterized as the ‘world’s biggest prison for journal-
ists’, most of whom are charged under counter-terrorism legislation, either
allegedly being member of a terrorist organization or promoting such ideals
(Reporters Without Borders, 2012). In a revealing report the Associated Press
has indicated that for arrests due to terror-related crimes, among 350,000
people convicted since 2001 worldwide, Turkey accounted for one-thirds of
such arrests (Mendoza, 2011). As the concept of ‘terrorism’ has come to be

Michael Ignatieff (2002) ‘Is the Human Rights Era Ending?’ New York Times.

© The Author(s) 2017 1

I. Demirsu, Counter-terrorism and the Prospects of Human Rights,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50802-3_1
2 1 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . .

increasingly articulated by government officials, it has created new sites of

‘security’ and new grounds for bypassing core human rights principles.
In world politics today, there is an evident conundrum arising from the
clash of national security interests and human rights obligations, particu-
larly in the post-9/11 era as the concept of terrorism has resuscitated
realist concerns within and across national borders. A growing number of
states are becoming signatories to key international human rights treaties,
while concomitantly pledging loyalty to the ‘War on Terror’ launched by
the US, which often entail contradictory policies. The normative power of
human rights has become an indispensable dynamic in the political arena,
conferring legitimacy to state conduct. Yet, the environment of (in)secur-
ity triggered by the concept of terrorism has produced a perception of
perpetual threat that necessitates extraordinary measures. As the state of
exception becomes the norm in fighting terrorism, it seriously risks debil-
itating the status of fundamental rights and freedoms with long-term
repercussions for the functioning of democracy.
The concept of human rights has become ever more salient in the
political arena since the end of World War II, as a result of and a response
to the arbitrary use of power by governments. The concept has come to
signify a limitation to the employment of state power vis-à-vis its citizenry,
as ‘universal’ and ‘inalienable’ rights that every individual is entitled qua
humans. There is a general acceptance of the moral status of human rights
norms manifested in the fact that every state is part of at least one human
rights instrument and no state dares to openly denounce such rights
(Ruggie, 1983: 98). Many scholars have come to celebrate what has
been termed as ‘the global human rights regime’, with reference to the
various international bodies and conventions that have ingrained these
norms, in addition to the normative power they hold in world politics
(Donnelly, 1999; Brown, 2002; Forsythe, 2000). In this respect, interna-
tional human rights constitute one of the most important normative
apparatuses of our age, by promoting the acceptable scope of state-con-
duct toward its citizens (Freeman, 2002: 94–97). Some have even argued
that the principle of sovereignty has become conditioned upon the pro-
tection of fundamental rights in conferring political legitimacy (Reus-
Smit, 2001; Chowdhury, 2011).
On the other hand, another salient concept that has come to the fore in
international politics particularly since the end of Cold War has been ‘terror-
ism’; a concept that has invoked the notion of national security once again
and resurfaced realist concerns over survival and national interest at the
 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . . 3

expense of democratic principles of human rights. Notwithstanding different

articulations of the term in different national settings, the accentuated
perception of insecurity has culminated in controversial counter-terrorist
measures that suspend established norms. In the last decade, the world has
witnessed some of the most atrocious human rights violations under coun-
ter-terrorist measures, which are likely to have long-term reverberations in
democratic societies. The concept of national security becomes rather elusive
in the context of terrorism, since this notion is associated with non-state
actors and a form of violence that is distinct from conventional warfare.
Hence, the act of defining, circumscribing and addressing this concept is a
process of constitution which bears significant policy outcomes. As put by
Fierke, “[a]rticulating a threat or declaring a war are speech acts that bring a
particular state of affairs into being” (2010: 200).
At this junction, this study undertakes an investigation of the intersec-
tion between democratic norms and national security concerns in the
contexts of Turkey and the UK. It seeks to uncover different mechanisms
involved in governments’ attempts to strike a balance between the entail-
ments of human rights obligations and counter-terrorism policies. To this
end, the study addresses the following questions: Where do human rights
norms stand in an environment of elevated (in)security? How do political
actors seek to balance counter-terrorism and human rights? What are some
salient discursive patterns that resonate across different political settings in
talking about terrorism and rights? Finally, why does the UK as a long-
established liberal democracy display similar tendencies found in a yet
democratizing country like Turkey?
In the fight against terror, the securitization of social and political life,
their exile to the margins of normal politics into the state of exception,
ultimately lead to the bypassing of human rights obligations. The broa-
dened purview of the security apparatus, along with special powers granted
to the executive and security forces, legitimize the suspension of basic
rights and principles of due process. Hence, as governments pay lip service
to human rights norms that are considered as ‘scripts of modernity’
(Krasner, 1999) signaling membership to ‘the civilized nations’ (Evans,
2005; Reus-Smit, 2001; Chowdhury, 2011), they seek to maneuver their
obligations in the context of counter-terrorism through acts of securitiza-
tion. The institutionalization of the state of exception in the long run
yields serious ramifications for the functioning of democracy, where dif-
ference and dissent come to be identified as existential threats to national
security that need to be silenced and eliminated. Nonetheless, the security
4 1 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . .

agenda does not occupy the political space without a challenge: even in the
hard-core realist terrain of fighting terrorism, human rights norms still
exert their moral weight, from political rhetoric all the way to policy-
making. As such, this study argues that the confrontation, negotiation,
and bargaining between the security and the rights narratives at this critical
nexus work to redefine one another, while concomitantly reshaping the
way we understand sovereignty – still primarily through its function to
provide security, yet ever more constrained by the legitimacy of universally
accepted norms.
In this regard, the book focuses on the interplay between language and
policy in an attempt to investigate how these two terrains shape the status
of rights vis-à-vis security. The relationship between counter-terrorism
policies and the security narrative is a mutually constitutive phenomenon:
while the language on terrorism (and hence counter-terrorism) shapes
perceptions of threats to national security, these perceptions are in turn
translated into policy outcomes with real and often severe consequences.
In other words, the legitimization and institutionalization of security
policies are two interconnected processes that reinforce one another.
Conversely, the security narrative is challenged by the discourse of rights
which confronts the stronghold of exceptionalism by invoking commit-
ment to democratic norms and values. These principles are endorsed as
international standards that state parties ought to follow, often signaling
membership to the ‘civilized nations’. As a result, the conflicts and nego-
tiations among these two narratives, at times borrowing from each other’s
symbolic repertoire, ultimately produce policies that shape the ‘balancing’
of human rights and security concerns, as well as redefining the pillars of
sovereignty.
In order to shed light on the intertwined workings of policy development
and political discourse, this study undertakes a dual investigation of the
phenomenon at hand. Employing a multi-method qualitative research
design, the study is comprised of a comparative analysis of policy develop-
ment and a frame analysis of the legislative process to offer a comprehensive
picture of different dynamics at work. Also known as triangulation, this
methodology is conducive to linking discourse to policy output by building
on the centrality of context in the analysis. Thus, the first part of the study
seeks to trace and map out the historical development of human rights and
counter-terrorism policies, in light of international and domestic trends, key
events, and actors involved. Moving on from this background, the second
part of the analysis aims to investigate the official representation of issues
 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . . 5

pertaining to national security and human rights through a frame analysis of

parliamentary debates. This bipartite research design is formulated to address
two cases, namely Turkey and the UK, which convey significant similarities
due to their common experiences with terrorism and their approaches to
counter-terrorism measures. Although the UK is a long-established liberal
democracy while Turkey still strives in its quest for democratization, not only
do both governments adopt similar security policies, but at critical junctures
the UK is taken as a model for counter-terrorism legislation in Turkey. The
comparative analysis demonstrates how such similarities in security policies
are not a coincidence, but rather partly due to the perception of the UK as a
model in counter-terrorism legislation in the eyes of Turkish policymakers,
as a liberal democracy that has underwent parallel experiences. Hence, those
draconian policies in the British legislation, including the ones that have
been revoked, are imported in the Turkish context particularly in the post-
9/11 period. Interestingly, such parallels in the policy output are accom-
panied by similarities in the political discourse, as recurrent concepts,
themes, and arguments travel across both settings. Hence, the contexts of
Turkey and the UK offer valuable insights into the politics of lawmaking and
how this process is informed by language.
As a result, this book attempts to contribute to the existing literature in
this field on several grounds. First, it offers a rigorous analysis of how state
actors seek to balance human rights and counter-terrorism, by linking
policy outputs to dominant discursive representations. There is an appar-
ent lacuna in the international relations (IR) literature when it comes to
the tension between human rights and fight against terror, since it is either
studied in solely legal terms or from a philosophical perspective. In this
regard, the contextual aspect of the interplay between norms and security
concerns remains largely understudied (Balzacq, 2010). While considera-
tions of both power and morality inform one another in concrete processes
of policy formation, cognitive frames prevalent in the cultural pool of
meanings and values shape how issues are to be problematized and in
turn handled with. Therefore, the primary aim and one of the notable
novelties of this research is to unearth how political language plays an
indispensable role in the formulation of security policies, with important
consequences for the status of human rights. Previous studies that have
analyzed securitization in the field of counter-terrorism have not offered a
similar rigorous analysis of the language of rights, which for the most part
has been regarded as merely submissive. Second, by bringing together the
structural components of frame analysis and the analytical tools offered by
6 1 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . .

the qualitative research program ATLAS.ti, the study offers a systematic

analysis of political language that is successfully applied in different set-
tings. As a result, the research demonstrates how similar representational
constructs and policy frames reverberate across both the Turkish and the
British cases through visible discursive patterns. And third, the fact that
this lucid connection between discourse and policy is illustrated in a
comparative analysis between one of the oldest democracies in history
and an EU member in the process of leaving the Union on the one
hand, and an EU candidate country which is still yet striving to consolidate
its democratic institutions on the other, renders the findings even more
compelling.
Lastly, the book demonstrates how counter-terrorism policies have
come to culminate in unforeseen protracted forms of injustice that jeo-
pardize the functioning of democracy in a society. Although the literature
focuses predominantly on notorious forms of rights violation such as
torture or indefinite detention (Lazarus and Goold, 2007), a less palpable
but more pervasive manifestation of such exceptional measures has been
the spillover effect of the security logic to everyday politics and the
democratic process. Therefore, the study illustrates how acts of securitiza-
tion yield serious ramifications for democratic forms of political opposition
as they become more and more entrenched in the legal framework. This
tendency is particularly critical amidst a political environment marked by
worldwide protests in many different social settings as individuals are
becoming increasingly vocal in expressing their discontent against author-
itarian policies. At this juncture, the book also appeals to the field of
freedom of expression and right to protests in illustrating how democratic
manifestations of dissent risk being subsumed by the logic of security as
elements of threat to be silenced and eliminated from the public sphere.
Earlier studies in this field have primarily focused on the issue of migra-
tion; therefore, failing to see how such security policies also risk silencing
of not only difference but also dissent (with the notable exception of
Jackson, 2005), which is explicated both in the policy analysis and the
frame analysis.
In what follows, the first two chapters will highlight the theoretical and
methodological structure of the book, while Part I and Part II will offer
the empirical analysis of the cases. Chapter 2 elucidates alternative
accounts of security in IR and how the notion of ‘securitization’ borrowed
from the Copenhagen school is a useful analytical tool for examining the
language of counter-terrorism, which converge with the conceptualization
 INTRODUCTION: COUNTER-TERRORISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS . . . 7

of the ‘state of exception’ formulated by Giorgio Agamben (2003) that

lies at the heart of the traditional understanding sovereignty in world
politics. This chapter goes on to provide an account of human rights
norms that have come to challenge such traditional understanding, seek-
ing to reconstruct and redefine legitimate sovereign authority. Chapter 3
offers a methodological blueprint for studying the nexus of security and
human rights, by taking into account shared practices in different con-
texts. Predicated on a multi-method qualitative research design, this
chapter delineates the analysis of policy development and policy frames
as two interconnected processes in the cases of Turkey and the UK.
Chapter 5 depicts the historical development of both counter-terrorism
and human rights policies in the UK context since 2000, whilst high-
lighting international trends and key events such as 9/11 as well as 2005
London bombings that have shaped these policies. On the other hand,
Chapter 6 highlights similar policy dynamics in Turkey, explicating the
impact of the EU-accession process in Turkey, especially with respect to
the role of the military and the democratization of the security apparatus.
Unfortunately, this momentum came to a halt in 2006, with backsliding
on human rights and existing anti-terror laws inhibiting the political space.
Part I concludes with Chapter 7 that offers a comparative analysis tracing
similar trends in these two contexts. Lastly, Chapter 9 and Chapter 10
provide a structured frame analysis of parliamentary debates with the
help of ATLAS.ti, pertaining to important counter-terrorism legislation
in the House of Commons and the Turkish Grand National Assembly,
respectively. Once again, at the end of Part II Chapter 11 elicits com-
parative account of discursive patterns and recurrent themes that travel
across both settings, alongside distinctive national narratives and repre-
sentations. The study concludes by bringing together policy outcomes
and framing patterns, with an aim to illustrate how the language and
policy shape and influence each other in the balancing of human rights
and counter-terrorism.
 CHAPTER 2

Sovereignty Between Security

and Human Rights Principles

One of the most salient manifestations of the age-old tension in world

politics between international norms versus security concerns is nowadays
evidently conveyed in the tense relationship between human rights and
counter-terrorism measures. In this nexus, the field of security interests as
the sacrosanct terrain of the realist paradigm is generally conceived to be at
odds with the normative power of human rights principles. While sover-
eignty has come to be defined in terms of national security, a notion that
has resuscitated in the post-9/11 era with the ‘War on Terror’, commit-
ment to fundamental rights and freedoms is increasingly recognized as a
benchmark of sovereignty in contemporary politics. At this juncture, the
question is how do governments balance the often contradictory entail-
ments of fighting terrorism and human rights obligations? This book
argues that the answer to this question does not only carry significant
policy relevance but it is also the platform wherein contesting conceptua-
lizations of sovereignty play out to redefine and reconstruct the latter. In
order to explore various entwined dynamics that are at play in an endeavor
to balance security and rights, this chapter provides a general overview of
the state of the art and offers an alternative vantage point.

2.1 THE CONCEPT OF ‘SECURITY’ AND ITS STUDY

The task of defining the concept of security and circumscribing its contours
used to be the privileged realm of the realist paradigm, with its emphasis on

© The Author(s) 2017 9

I. Demirsu, Counter-terrorism and the Prospects of Human Rights,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-50802-3_2
10 2 SOVEREIGNTY BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES

the military dimension and the security dilemma. Realism has long desig-
nated a trivial role to any form of norms, ideas and values, rendering them as
epiphenomena that are ultimately manifestations of power politics. Realist
scholars view the nation state as the main actor in world politics upholding
their exclusive right to sovereignty, and therefore, international politics (as
implied in the wording) is a domain of state interaction underscored by
competing national interests and power struggles. As famously put by
Waltz, “ . . . discussions of foreign policy have been carried on since 1945,
in the language of political realism-that is, the language of power and
interest rather than of ideals or norms” (1979: 9). Congruently,
Morgenthau indicates that ethics and politics belong to analytically distinct
domains, where the former is evaluated by moral norms and the latter
assessed by its political consequences (Morgenthau, [1967] 1993: 13). In
a realist world order marked by distrust, since there is no higher authority to
resort to, states ultimately pursue security via self-help at the risk of inciting
insecurity on part of other states. Other states or institutions are not to be
trusted, since the anarchic system fuels uncertainty and suspicion regarding
others’ motives (Waltz, 1979). While gains for one actor translates as losses
for another, cooperation through international institutions or regimes is
perceived as promoting the interests of powerful actors, thereby reflecting
the extant power relations (Mearsheimer, 1994). Hence, realism has usually
depicted world politics as premised on an anarchic order where might and
power capabilities are essential in determining each actor’s place.
Although the realist school has historically been the dominant paradigm
in international relations (IR) literature, particularly with respect to security
matters, it has nonetheless remained indifferent toward the growing influ-
ence of international norms and how they exert power through logic of
appropriateness in world politics. As such, this approach fails to explain why a
notion such as human rights that by and large challenges the traditional
understanding of sovereignty and meddles with a state’s relationship with its
citizens on normative grounds has become widely recognized and institu-
tionalized in international politics. This tendency is premised on the main
tenets of realism that on the whole overlook other equally compelling yet less
tangible dynamics in world politics such as beliefs, values, norms, and
identities, in addition to those evident material factors that constitute
national interests. Thus, since the 1980s prominent figures from different
camps of IR theorizing have undertaken to redefine the concept of security
and propose alternative conceptualizations of world politics to those pre-
sented by the realist paradigm. As an ‘essentially contested concept’ security
 2.1 THE CONCEPT OF ‘SECURITY’ AND ITS STUDY 11

has come to be defined in myriad different ways, particularly with respect to

its referent object and perceptions of threat. Three such endeavors come to
the fore, inter alia, those approaches that have challenged cardinal realist
assumptions, namely the Constructivist Security Studies, Critical Security
Studies (CSS), and the Copenhagen School.
To begin with, the constructivist research agenda rests on the assumption
that security is a social construct that is constituted via intersubjective under-
standings, rather than an objective entity to be investigated. This position is
employed by Adler and Barnett (1998), who take up social constructivism in
a way to extrapolate how international communities can replace ‘power’ as
the main source of security in world politics. Borrowing from the Deutschian
concept of security communities, they argue that a common set of values and
understanding of ‘proper behavior’ engender a process of redefining the
concept of power to signify defending those common norms against an
external threat. The main argument is that as states become drawn into
established sets of social relations in a network, their expectations and
behaviors also tend to converge, thereby creating fertile grounds for peaceful
change (Adler and Barnett, 1998: 3–12). As such, Adler and Barnett intro-
duce identities, norms and values as explanatory variables in security studies,
contrary to the power-driven and conflict-laden realist account of world
politics. In this account, the nation state is still taken as the main actor in
the international arena and also the primary object of security.
One of the mainstay arguments of constructivism is that shared iden-
tities, values, and norms can culminate in institutional entities promoting
a common culture of ‘proper’ state behavior. In this sense, Katzenstein’s
constructivist account of security is illustrative of how the perception of
and meanings attributed to central concepts such as security and power
exerts an impact in world politics. Particularly vis-à-vis the liberal and
realist strands of theorizing, Katzenstein evokes ‘culture’, ‘identity’, and
‘norms’ as explanatory concepts that can be applied to the traditional
terrain of military security (Katzenstein, 1996: 4–10). In so doing,
together with Jepperson and Wendt, Katzenstein argues that: (1)
cultural or institutional environments exert an impact on national secur-
ity outlooks; (2) global and domestic settings (pertaining to culture and
norms, rather than material elements) shape state identity; (3) a change
in identity translates as a change in national security agenda; (4) state
identities are intertwined in normative inter-state structures and, finally,
(5) state actions in turn have a bearing on such structures (Jepperson
et al., 1996: 52–53). Through these central assumptions, the impact
12 2 SOVEREIGNTY BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES

of intersubjective understandings and normative considerations on the

traditional military account of ‘security’ are developed.
All in all, the constructivist camp brings into play ideational and norma-
tive factors that have long been absent in the realist paradigm. They aim to
point out the ways in which identities, norms and values come to shape
national interests and security agenda of nation states. Nonetheless, the
constructivist account has been criticized for keeping intact the main realist
premises, such as a positivist research agenda and a traditional conceptualiza-
tion of national security. According to Smith (2005), the constructivist
security studies rests on “a form of rationalism” shared with realism, in
which ideational factors merely work to supplement the material explana-
tions proposed by the latter. A similar point is also made by Wæver (2002),
who maintains that such a dichotomous conceptualization of idealism versus
materialism fails to capture “ . . . in a systematic way . . . why the same cultural
and historical background can sustain highly contradictory foreign policies,
or to explain change, especially discontinuous change” (2002: 22). This
shortcoming is important with regards to explaining changes in policy
orientation and differences in various contexts with similar historical experi-
ences. Second, this line of constructivism is preoccupied with the security of
the nation state, thereby failing to employ a critical angle toward extant
power relations this notion is premised on. Subsequently, by failing to
criticize the conventional conceptualization of ‘national security’ laid down
by the realist school, constructivism tends to overlook security of the indi-
vidual or the society, as pointed out by the CSS approach.
The starting point of CSS is a critique of the realist approach to security,
which is deemed part of the problem of world politics today. Borrowing
from Cox’s distinction of ‘problem solving theories’ versus ‘critical theories’,
CSS considers realism to be “ . . . a textbook exemplar of a problem masquer-
ading as the problem-solver” (Booth, 2005: 4), since it takes into account a
single depiction of reality and endorses predefined questions that entail
predefined answers. Instead, CSS opts to engage with a wider array of issues
that does not privilege extant power-holders as the main political units and
undertakes what is termed as a post-naturalist research agenda that refuses to
equate social sciences with natural sciences (the latter being an attribute of
positivist epistemology) (Ibid.: 10–11). Thus, the definition of security as it
takes place in the CSS approach is defined as the following:

Security is conceived comprehensively, embracing theories and practices at

multiple levels of society, from the individual to the whole human species.
 2.1 THE CONCEPT OF ‘SECURITY’ AND ITS STUDY 13

“Critical” implies a perspective that seeks to stand outside prevailing struc-

tures, processes, ideologies, and orthodoxies while recognizing that all
conceptualizations of security derive from particular political/theoretical
positions; critical perspectives do not make a claim to objective truth but
rather seek to provide deeper understanding of prevailing attitudes and
behavior with a view to developing more promising ideas by which to
overcome structural and contingent human wrongs. (Booth, 2005: 15–16)

Since the political realm is not exempt from considerations of morality, CSS
undertakes the task of discovering possible niches for social progress through
the use of ‘immanent critique’. In line with this stance, security within the
contours of CSS theorizing is conceptualized as “an instrumental value” in
world politics that does not consist of a military dimension, but rather
includes other equally pressing issues such as poverty, environmental degra-
dation, communal identities that are under threat . . . etc. (Ibid.: 23). It is
claimed that the concept can be utilized to promote emancipatory politics if
it is adopted to different issue areas that are not present in the realist agenda.
As put by Booth, “[w]hile never neglecting the military dimension of
security, students of CSS must seek above all to try to overcome the tradi-
tional prioritizing of the victims of politics (wars/tyranny) over the victims of
economics (poverty/oppression)” (Ibid.: 110).
In a similar vein, Buzan (1983) argues that the concept of security is a
multifarious phenomenon that cannot be adequately grasped through a
unidimensional vantage point. Instead, he offers an account of security
that encompasses five interwoven sectors, namely the military sector along
with the political, the economic, the societal, and the environmental
sectors. According to Buzan, the neorealist agenda posits that any for-
mulation of security, be it national or international, is set against the
background condition of anarchy, which in turn endorses three precondi-
tions: states are the main referent object of security, national security is a
relational and interdependent phenomenon, and hence security can only
be relative not absolute (1983: 22–23). Buzan disagrees with this stance,
contending that security has many referent objects on different levels of
actors that cross-cut the abovementioned five sectors, from the subna-
tional individual level to the international system as a whole (Ibid.: 26).
What is novel about this multifarious perspective is that by including the
individual dimension into the analysis, Buzan illustrates the ways in which
the state might be both a major source of and a major threat to the security
of the individual. As such, it can be argued that inter alia two salient
14 2 SOVEREIGNTY BETWEEN SECURITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS PRINCIPLES

themes differentiate CSS from constructivist security studies, namely its

focus on a variety of sectors in addition to the military sector and its critical
stance toward the positivist research agenda. In so doing, CSS is able to
overcome the aforementioned criticisms raised against the constructivist
account in their plea to offer an alternative to the realist paradigm.
One of the most important points raised by the CSS approach pertains
to the dichotomous characterization of ideational factors versus material
factors that is prevalent in constructivist studies, particularly with respect
to the conceptualization of the state. Buzan (1983) offers an alternative
account of the nation state that interconnects these two dimensions of this
political entity. Whilst the physical base of the state is constituted by the
population and the territory, the institutional base comes into being in
order to govern the latter. On the other hand, the ‘idea’ of the state is
significant in acquiring legitimacy which is predicated on the ‘nation’ and
its organizing ideology. As such, Buzan puts forth the issue of ‘national
identity’ as a critical element of the security problematique, despite the fact
that the relationship between the state and the nation is not straightfor-
ward most of the time. Moreover, the official ideology of the state is also
an inextricable component of the legitimacy of the state that is embedded
in the institutional make-up, wherein the grounds for determining rela-
tions between the government and the society are set (1983: 70).
This conceptualization is quite conducive to an analysis of state legiti-
macy in the nexus of international norms versus national security concerns
and operational for acquiring a better grasp of the ideational aspects of the
state apparatus. Building on from this point, it is plausible to investigate
how states acquire legitimacy via the official state ideology and the con-
struction of a ‘national identity’ that supplements the latter. Moreover, it
allows the analyst to inquire in what ways such national interests are
posited as being under threat in a security environment, thereby legitimiz-
ing exceptional measures. Such a framework is largely absent in the realist
account that opts to focus on the material bases of the nation state and
their positioning in the wider international context, with the exception of
classical realism which indeed pays considerable attention to the power
wielded by ideational factors such as state ideology and nationalism1 (Carr,
[1939] 1964; Morgenthau, [1967] 1993).
Lastly, bringing to the fore the indispensable role played by language, the
Copenhagen School defines security as a socially constructed phenomenon,
signifying a state of affairs that comes into being once it is uttered. It is
suggested that “[t]he invocation of security has been the key to legitimizing
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
justice and honour grant, for he already felt that it would be
impossible to refuse them.
Although struck with awe on coming into the presence of their
sovereign, the easy condescension and affability of James soon
restored them to comparative tranquillity; and the widow told her
“plain, unvarnished tale” with such artless simplicity, and moving
pathos, as would have made an impression on a less partial auditor
than his Majesty. When she came to state the result of Mary’s
application to Sir John, she paused, blushed, and still remained
silent. James instantly conjectured the cause, which was confirmed
when he saw Mary’s face crimsoned all over.
Suppressing his indignation, “Well, I shall be soon in Annandale,”
said he, “and will endeavour to do you justice. Look at this
nobleman,” pointing to one in the chamber; “when I send him for
you, come to me where he shall guide. In the meantime, he will find
you safe lodgings for the night, and give you sufficient to bear your
expenses home, whither I wish you to return as soon as possible, and
be assured that your case shall not be forgotten.”
It is generally known that James, with a love of justice, had a
considerable share of eccentricity in his character, and that he
frequently went over the country in various disguises—such as that of
a pedlar, an itinerant musician, or even a wandering beggar. These
disguises were sometimes assumed for the purpose of discovering
the abuses practised by his servants, and not unfrequently from the
love of frolic, and, like the Caliph in the “Arabian Nights,” in quest of
amusement. On these occasions, when he chose to discover himself,
it was always by the designation of the “Gudeman of Ballengeich”. He
had a private passage by which he could leave the palace, unseen by
any one, and he could make his retreat alone, or accompanied by a
disguised attendant, according to his inclination.
On the present occasion, he determined to visit the warden of the
March incog.; and, making the necessary arrangements, he soon
arrived in Annandale. His inquiries concerning the widow and Mary
corroborated the opinion he had previously formed, and learning
where Mary resided, he resolved to repair thither in person,
disguised as a mendicant. On approaching the farmer’s, he had to
pass a rivulet, at which there was a girl washing linen, and a little
observation convinced him it was Mary Morrison. When near, he
pretended to be taken suddenly ill, and sat down on a knoll, groaning
piteously. Mary came instantly to him, tenderly enquiring what ailed
him, and whether she could render him any assistance. James
replied, it was a painful distemper, by which he was frequently
attacked; but if she could procure him a draught of warm milk, that,
and an hour’s rest, would relieve him. Mary answered, that if he
could, with her assistance, walk to the farm, which she pointed out
near by, he would be kindly cared for. She assisted him to rise, and,
taking his arm, permitted him to lean upon her shoulder, as they
crept slowly along. He met much sympathy in the family, and there
he heard the history of Mary and Wallace Maxwell (not without
execrations on the warden for his indolence), and their affirmations
that they were sure, if the king knew how he neglected his duty, he
would either be dismissed or severely punished; although the former
had spoken plainer than others whom James had conversed with, he
found that Sir John was generally disliked, and he became impatient
for the hour of retribution.
Marching back towards Dumfries, James rendezvoused for the
night in a small village called Duncow, in the parish of Kirkmahoe,
and next morning he set out for Amisfield, which lay in the
neighbourhood, disguised as a beggar. Part of his retinue he left in
Duncow, and part he ordered to lie in wait in a ravine near Amisfield
till he should require their attendance. Having cast away his beggar’s
cloak, he appeared at the gate of the warden’s castle in the dress of a
plain countryman, and requested the porter to procure him an
immediate audience of Sir John. But he was answered that the
warden had just sat down to dinner, during which it was a standing
order that he should never be disturbed on any pretence whatever.
“And how long will he sit?” said James.
“Two hours, perhaps three; he must not be intruded on till his bell
ring,” replied the porter.
“I am a stranger, and cannot wait so long; take this silver groat,
and go to your master, and say that I wish to see him on business of
importance, and will detain him only a few minutes.”
The porter delivered the message, and soon returned, saying—“Sir
John says, that however important your business may be, you must
wait his time, or go the way you came.”
 “That is very hard. Here are two groats; go again, and say that I
have come from the Border, where I saw the English preparing for an
incursion, and have posted thither with the information; and that I
think he will be neglecting his duty if he do not immediately fire the
beacons and alarm the country.”
This message was also carried, and the porter returned with a
sorrowful look, and shaking head.
“Well, does the warden consent to see me?” said the anxious
stranger, who had gained the porter’s goodwill by his liberality.
“I beg your pardon, friend,” replied the menial; “but I must give Sir
John’s answer in his own words. He says if you choose to wait two
hours he will then see whether you are a knave or a fool; but if you
send another such impertinent message to him, both you and I shall
have cause to repent it. However, for your civility, come with me, and
I will find you something to eat and a horn of good ale, to put off the
time till Sir John can be seen.”
“I give you hearty thanks, my good fellow, but, as I said, I cannot
wait. Here, take these three groats; go again to the warden, and say
that the Gudeman of Ballengeich insists upon seeing him
immediately.”
No sooner was the porter’s back turned, than James winded his
buglehorn so loudly that its echoes seemed to shake the castle walls;
and the porter found his master in consternation, which his message
changed into fear and trembling.
By the time the warden had reached the gate, James had thrown
off his coat, and stood arrayed in the garb and insignia of royalty,
while his train of nobles were galloping up in great haste. When they
were collected around him, the king, for the first time, condescended
to address the terrified warden, who had prostrated himself at the
feet of his sovereign.
“Rise, Sir John,” said he, with a stern and commanding air. “You
bade your porter tell me that I was either knave or fool, and you were
right, for I have erred in delegating my power to a knave like you.”
In tremulous accents the warden attempted to excuse himself by
stammering out that he did not know he was wanted by his Majesty.
“But I sent you a message that I wished to speak with you on
business of importance, and you refused to be disturbed. The
meanest of my subjects has access to me at all times. I hear before I
condemn, and shall do so with you, against whom I have many and
heavy charges.”
“Will it please your Majesty to honour my humble dwelling with
your presence, and afford me an opportunity of speaking in my own
defence?” said the justly alarmed warden.
“No, Sir John, I will not enter beneath that roof as a judge, where I
was refused admission as a petitioner. I hold my court at Hoddam
Castle, where I command your immediate attendance; where I will
hear your answer to the charges I have against you. In the meantime,
before our departure, you will give orders for the entertainment of
my retinue, men and horses, at your castle, during my stay in
Annandale.”
The king then appointed several of the lords in attendance to
accompany him to Hoddam Castle, whither he commanded the
warden to follow him with all possible despatch.
Sir John was conscious of negligence, and even something worse,
in the discharge of his duty, although ignorant of the particular
charges to be brought against him; but when ushered into the
presence of his sovereign, he endeavoured to assume the easy
confidence of innocence.
James proceeded to business, by inquiring if there was not a recent
incursion of a small marauding party, in which a poor widow’s cow
was carried off, her house plundered, and her son taken prisoner;
and if she did not early next morning state this to him, requesting
him to recover her property.
“Did you, Sir John, do your utmost in the case?”
“I acknowledge I did not; but the widow shall have the best cow in
my possession, and her house furnished anew. I hope that will satisfy
your Majesty.”
“And her son, how is he to be restored?”
“When we have the good fortune to make an English prisoner, he
can be exchanged.”
“Mark me! Sir John. If Wallace Maxwell is not brought before me
in good health within a week from this date, you shall hang by the
neck from that tree waving before the window. I have no more to say
at present. Be ready to wait on me in one hour when your presence is
required.”
The warden knew the determined resolution of the king, and
instantly despatched a confidential servant, vested with full powers
to procure the liberation of Wallace Maxwell, at whatever price, and
to bring him safely back without a moment’s delay. In the meantime,
the retinue of men and horses, amounting to several hundreds, were
living at free quarters, in Sir John’s castle, and the visits of the king
diffusing gladness and joy over the whole country.
Next morning James sent the young nobleman, whom he had
pointed out to the widow at Stirling, to bring her and Mary Morrison
to Hoddam Castle. He received both with easy condescension; when
the widow, with much grateful humility, endeavoured to express her
thanks, saying that Sir John had last evening sent her a cow worth
double that she had lost; also blankets, and other articles of higher
value than all that had been carried away; but, with tears in her eyes,
she said, all these were as nothing without her dear son. Assuring
them that their request had not been neglected, James dismissed
them, with the joyful hope of soon seeing Wallace, as he would send
for them immediately on his arrival.
The distress of the warden increased every hour, for he was a
prisoner in his own castle; and his feelings may be conjectured, when
he received a message from the king, commanding him to come to
Hoddam Castle next day by noon, and either bring Wallace Maxwell
along with him, or prepare for a speedy exit into the next world. He
had just seen the sun rise, of which it seemed probable he should
never see the setting, when his servant arrived with Wallace, whose
liberty had been purchased at an exorbitant ransom. Without
allowing the young man to rest, Sir John hurried him off to Hoddam
Castle, and sent in a message that he waited an audience of his
Majesty.
To make sure of the youth’s identity, the king sent instantly for his
mother, and the meeting called forth all the best feelings of his heart,
for maternal affection triumphed over every other emotion, and it
was only after the first ebullition of it had subsided, that she bade
him kneel to his sovereign, to whom he owed his liberty, and most
probably his life. Wallace gracefully bent his knee, and took Heaven
to witness that both should be devoted to his Majesty’s service.
 James was delighted with the manly appearance and gallant
behaviour of Wallace; and, after having satisfied himself of the
sincerity of his attachment to Mary, he ordered him to withdraw.
He next despatched a messenger for Mary, who, the moment she
came, was ushered into the presence of Sir John; James marking the
countenance of both,—that of Mary flushed with resentment, while
her eye flashed with indignant fire. The pale and deadly hue which
overspread the warden’s cheek was a tacit acknowledgment of his
guilt.
“Do you know that young woman, Sir John? Reply to my questions
truly; and be assured that your life depends upon the sincerity of
your answers,” said the king, in a determined and stern voice.
“Yes, my liege, I have seen her,” said Sir John, his lip quivering,
and his tongue faltering.
“Where?”
“At Amisfield.”
“On what occasion?”
“She came to me for the release of Wallace Maxwell.”
“And you refused her, except upon conditions which were an insult
to her, and a disgrace to yourself. Speak; is it not so?”
“To my shame, my sovereign, I confess my guilt; but I am willing
to make all the reparation in my power; and I leave it to be named by
your Majesty.”
“You deserve to be hanged, Sir John; but when I look on that face,
I acknowledge your temptation, and it pleads a mitigation of
punishment. You know that Mary loves and is beloved by Wallace
Maxwell, whom you have already ransomed; you shall give him a
farm of not less than fifty acres of good land, rent-free, during his
life, or that of the woman he marries; and, further, you shall stock it
with cattle, and every article necessary, with a comfortable dwelling;
—all this you shall perform within three months from this date. If
you think these conditions hard, I give you the alternative of
swinging from that tree before sunset. Take your choice.”
“My sovereign, I submit to the conditions, and promise that I shall
do my best to make the couple happy.”
 Wallace was now called in, when Mary clasped him in her arms,
both falling on their knees before their sovereign. He raised them up
and said, “I have tried both your loves, and found them faithful. Your
Mary is all that you believed her, and brings you a dowry which she
will explain. I shall see your hands united before I leave Annandale,
and preside at the feast. Let your care of the widow be a
remuneration for what she has done for both, and I trust all of you
will long remember the Gudeman of Ballengeich’s visit to
Annandale.”—Edinburgh Literary Gazette.
 THE ALEHOUSE PARTY:
A CHAPTER FROM AN UNPUBLISHED
NOVEL.

By the Authors of “The Odd Volume.”

The night drave on wi’ sangs and clatter,
And aye the ale was growing better.—Burns.

On the evening of that day which saw Mrs Wallace enter Park a
bride, Robin Kinniburgh and a number of his cronies met at the
village alehouse to celebrate the happy event. Every chair, stool, and
bench being occupied, Robin and his chum, Tammy Tacket, took
possession of the top of the meal girnel; and as they were elevated
somewhat above the company, they appeared like two rival provosts,
looking down on their surrounding bailies.
“It’s a gude thing,” said Tammy, “that the wives and weans are
keepit out the night; folk get enough o’ them at hame.”
“I wonder,” said Jamie Wilson, “what’s become o’ Andrew
Gilmour.”
“Hae ye no heard,” said Robin, “that his wife died yesterday?”
“Is she dead?” exclaimed Tammy Tacket. “Faith,” continued he,
giving Robin a jog with his elbow, “I think a man might hae waur
furniture in his house than a dead wife.”
“That’s a truth,” replied Jamie Wilson, “as mony an honest man
kens to his cost.—But send round the pint stoup, and let us hae a
health to the laird and the leddy, and mony happy years to them and
theirs.”
 When the applause attending this toast had subsided, Robin was
universally called on for a song.
“I hae the hoast,” answered Robin; “that’s aye what the leddies say
when they are asked to sing.”
“Deil a hoast is about you,” cried Wattie Shuttle; “come awa wi’ a
sang without mair ado.”
“Weel,” replied Robin, “what maun be, maun be; so I’ll gie ye a
sang that was made by a laddie that lived east-awa; he was aye
daundering, poor chiel, amang the broomie knowes, and mony’s the
time I hae seen him lying at the side o’ the wimpling burn, writing on
ony bit paper he could get haud o’. After he was dead, this bit sang
was found in his pocket, and his puir mother gied it to me, as a kind
o’ keepsake; and now I’ll let you hear it,—I sing it to the tune o’ ‘I hae
laid a herrin’ in saut.’”
Song.
It’s I’m a sweet lassie, without e’er a faut;
Sae ilka ane tells me,—sae it maun be true;
To his kail my auld faither has plenty o’ saut,
And that brings the lads in gowpens to woo.
There’s Saunders M‘Latchie, wha bides at the Mill,
He wants a wee wifie, to bake and to brew;
But Saunders, for me, at the Mill may stay still,
For his first wife was pushioned, if what they say’s true.

The next is Tam Watt, who is grieve to the Laird,—

Last Sabbath, at puir me a sheep’s e’e he threw;
But Tam’s like the picters I’ve seen o’ Blue Beard,
And sic folk’s no that chancie, if what they say’s true.
Then there’s Grierson the cobbler, he’ll fleech an’ he’ll beg,
That I’d be his awl in awl, darlin’ and doo;
But Grierson the cobbler’s a happity leg,
And nae man that hobbles need come here to woo.

And there’s Murdoch the gauger, wha rides a blind horse,

And nae man can mak a mair beautifu’ boo;
But I shall ne’er tak him, for better, for worse,
For, sax days a week, gauger Murdoch is fou.
I wonder when Willie Waught’s faither ’ll dee;
(I wonder hoo that brings the blude to my brow;)
I wonder if Willie will then be for me;—
I wonder if then he’ll be coming to woo?
 “It’s your turn now to sing, Tammy,” said Robin, “although I dinna
ken that ye are very gude at it.”
“Me sing!” cried Tammy, “I canna even sing a psalm, far less a
sang; but if ye like, I’ll tell you a story.”
“Come awa then, a story is next best; but haud a’ your tongues
there, you chiels,” cried Robin, giving the wink to his cronies; “we a’
ken Tammy is unco gude at telling a story, mair especially if it be
about himsel.”
“Aweel,” said Tammy, clearing his throat, “I’ll tell you what
happened to me when I was ance in Embro’. I fancy ye a’ ken the
Calton hill?”
“Whatna daftlike question is that, when ye ken very weel we hae a’
been in Embro’ as weel as yoursel?”
“Weel then,” began Tammy, “I was coming ower the hill—”
“What hill?” asked Jamie Wilson. “Corstorphine hill?”
“Corstorphine fiddlestick!” exclaimed Tammy. “Did ye no hear me
say the Calton hill at the first, which, ye ken, is thought there the
principal hill?”
“What’s that ye’re saying about Principal Hill?” asked Robin. “I
kent him weel ance in a day.”
“Now, Tammy,” cried Willie Walkinshaw, “can ye no gang on wi’
your story, without a’ this balwavering and nonsense about coming
ower ane o’ our Professors; my faith, it’s no an easy matter to come
ower some o’ them.”
“Very weel,” said Tammy, a little angrily, “I’ll say nae mair about it,
but just drap the hill.”
“Whaur, whaur?” cried several voices at once.
“I’m thinkin’,” said Robin, drily, “some o’ the Embro’ folk would be
muckle obliged to ye if ye would drap it in the Nor’ Loch.”
“Ye’re a set o’ gomerals!” exclaimed Tammy, in great wrath. “I
meant naething o’ the sort; but only that I would gie ower speaking
about it.”
“So we’re no to hae the story after a’?” said Matthew Henderson.
“Yes,” said Tammy; “I’m quite agreeable to tell’t, if ye will only sit
still and haud your tongues. Aweel, I was coming ower the hill ae
night.”
“’Odsake, Tammy,” cried Robin, “will ye ne’er get ower that hill?
Ye hae tell’t us that ten times already; gang on, man, wi’ the story.”
“Then, to mak a lang story short, as I was coming ower the hill ae
night about ten o’clock I fell in—”
“Fell in!” cried Matthew Henderson, “Whaur? Was’t a hole, or a
well?”
“I fell in,” replied Tammy, “wi’ a man.”
“Fell in wi’ a man!” said Willie Walkinshaw. “Weel, as there were
twa o’ ye, ye could help ane anither out.”
“Na, na,” roared Tammy, “I dinna mean that at a’; I just cam up wi’
him.”
“I doubt, Tammy,” cried Robin, giving a sly wink to his cronies, “if
ye gaed up the Calton hill wi’ a man at ten o’clock at night, I’m
thinking ye’ll hae been boozing some gate or ither wi’ him afore
that.”
“Me boozing?” cried Tammy. “I ne’er saw the man’s face afore or
since; unless it was in the police office the next day.”
“Now, Tammy Tacket,” said Robin, gravely, “just tak a’ frien’s
advice, and gie ower sic splores; they’re no creditable to a decent
married man like you; and dinna be bleezing and bragging about
being in the police office; for it stands to reason ye wouldna be there
for ony gude.”
“Deil tak me,” cried Tammy, jumping up on the meal girnel, and
brandishing the pint stoup, “if I dinna fling this at the head of the
first man who says a word afore I be done wi’ my story:—And, as I
said before, I fell in—”
Poor Tammy was not at all prepared for his words being so soon
verified, for, in his eagerness to enforce attention, he stamped
violently with his hobnailed shoe on the girnel, which giving way
with a loud crash, Tammy suddenly disappeared from the view of the
astonished party. Robin, who had barely time to save himself from
the falling ruins, was still laughing with all his might, when Mrs
Scoreup burst in upon them, saying, “What the sorrow is a’ this
stramash about?”—but seeing a pale and ghastly figure rearing itself
from the very heart of her meal girnel, she ejaculated, “Gude
preserve us!” and, retreating a few steps, seized the broth ladle, and
prepared to stand on the defensive.
At this moment Grizzy Tacket made her appearance at the open
door, saying, “Is blethering Tam here?”
“Help me out, Robin, man,” cried Tammy.
“Help ye out!” said Grizzy; “What the sorrow took you in there, ye
drucken ne’er-do-weel?”
“Dinna abuse your gudeman, wife,” said Jamie Wilson.
“Gudeman!” retorted Grizzy; “troth, there’s few o’ ye deserve the
name; and as for that idle loon, I ken he’ll no work a stroke the morn,
though wife and weans should want baith milk and meal.”
“’Odsake, wife,” cried Robin, “if ye shake Tammy weel, he’ll keep
ye a’ in parritch for a week.”
“She’ll shake him,” cried the angry Mrs Scoreup; “cocks are free o’
horses’ corn; I’ll shake him,” making, as she spoke, towards the
unfortunate half-choked Tammy.
“Will ye, faith?” screamed Grizzy, putting her arms akimbo. “Will
ye offer to lay a hand on my gudeman, and me standing here? Come
out this minute, ye Jonadub, and come hame to your ain house.”
“No ae fit shall he steer frae this,” cried Mrs Scoreup, slapping-to
the door, “till I see wha is to pay me for the spoiling o’ my gude new
girnel, forby the meal that’s wasted.”
“New girnel!” exclaimed Grizzy, with a provoking sneer, “it’s about
as auld as yoursel, and as little worth.”
“Ye ill-tongued randy!” cried Mrs Scoreup, giving the ladle a most
portentous flourish.
“Whisht, whisht, gudewife,” said Robin; “say nae mair about it,
we’ll mak it up amang us; and now, Grizzy, tak Tammy awa hame.”
“It’s no right in you, Robin,” said Grizzy, “to be filling Tammy fou,
and keeping decent folks out o’ their beds till this time o’ night.”
“It’s a’ Tammy’s faut,” replied Robin; “for ye ken as well as me,
that when ance he begins to tell a story, there’s nae such thing as
stopping him; he has been blethering about the Calton hill at nae
allowance.”
 The last words seemed to strike on Tammy’s ear; who hiccuped
out, “As I cam ower the Calton hill—”
“Will naebody stap a peat in that man’s hause?” exclaimed
Matthew Henderson. “For ony sake, honest woman, tak him awa, or
we’ll be keepit on the Calton hill the whole night.”
“Tak haud o’ me, Tammy,” said Robin; “I’ll gang hame wi’ ye.”
“I can gang mysel,” said Tammy, giving Robin a shove, and
staggering towards the door.
“Gang yoursel!” cried Grizzy, as she followed her helpmate; “ye
dinna look very like it:” and thus the party broke up—
And each went aff their separate way,
Resolved to meet anither day.
 AUCHINDRANE; OR, THE AYRSHIRE
TRAGEDY.

By Sir Walter Scott.

John Muir, or Mure, of Auchindrane, was a gentleman of an

ancient family and good estate, in the west of Scotland, bold,
ambitious, treacherous to the last degree, and utterly
unconscientious,—a Richard the Third in private life, inaccessible
alike to pity and remorse. His view was to raise the power and extend
the grandeur of his own family. This gentleman had married the
daughter of Thomas Kennedy of Barganie, who was, excepting the
Earl of Cassilis, the most important person in all Carrick, the district
of Ayrshire which he inhabited, and where the name of Kennedy held
so great a sway as to give rise to the popular rhyme,—
’Twixt Wigton and the town of Ayr,
Portpatrick and the Cruives of Cree,
No man need think for to bide there,
Unless he court the Kennedie.

Now, Muir of Auchindrane, who had promised himself high

advancement by means of his father-in-law, saw, with envy and
resentment, that his influence remained second and inferior to the
house of Cassilis, chief of all the Kennedies. The Earl was indeed a
minor, but his authority was maintained and his affairs well
managed by his uncle, Sir Thomas Kennedy of Culleyne, the brother
to the deceased earl, and tutor and guardian to the present. This
worthy gentleman supported his nephew’s dignity and the credit of
the house so effectually that Barganie’s consequence was much
thrown into the shade, and the ambitious Auchindrane, his son-in-
law, saw no better remedy than to remove so formidable a rival as
Culleyne by violent means.
For this purpose, in the year 1597, he came with a party of
followers to the town of Maybole (where Sir Thomas Kennedy of
Culleyne resided), and lay in ambush in an orchard through which he
knew that his destined victim was to pass, in returning homewards
from a house where he was engaged to sup. Sir Thomas Kennedy
came alone and unattended, when he was suddenly seized and fired
upon by Auchindrane and his accomplices, who, having missed their
aim, drew their swords and rushed upon him to slay him. But the
party thus assailed at disadvantage had the good fortune to hide
himself for that time in a ruinous house, where he lay concealed till
the inhabitants of the place came to his assistance.
Sir Thomas Kennedy prosecuted Muir for this assault, who,
finding himself in danger from the law, made a sort of apology and
agreement with the Lord of Culleyne, to whose daughter he united
his eldest son, in testimony of the closest friendship in future. This
agreement was sincere on the part of Kennedy, who, after it had been
entered into, showed himself Auchindrane’s friend and assistant on
all occasions. But it was most false and treacherous on that of Muir,
who continued the purpose of murdering his new friend and ally on
the first opportunity.
Auchindrane’s first attempt to effect this was by means of the
young Gilbert Kennedy of Barganie (for old Barganie, Auchindrane’s
father-in-law, was dead), whom he persuaded to brave Cassilis, as
one who usurped an undue influence over the rest of the name.
Accordingly, this hot-headed youth, at the instigation of
Auchindrane, rode past the gate of the Earl of Cassilis without
waiting on his chief, or sending him any message of civility. This led
to mutual defiance, being regarded by the earl, according to the ideas
of the time, as a personal insult. Both parties took the field with their
followers, at the head of about two hundred and fifty men on each
side. The action which ensued was shorter and less bloody than
might have been expected. Young Barganie, with the rashness of
headlong courage, and Auchindrane, fired by deadly enmity to the
house of Cassilis, made a precipitate attack on the earl, whose men
were strongly posted and under cover. They were received by a heavy
fire. Barganie was slain. Muir of Auchindrane, severely wounded in
the thigh, became unable to sit on his horse, and the leaders thus
slain or disabled, their party drew off without continuing the action.
It must be particularly observed that Sir Thomas Kennedy remained
neuter in this quarrel, considering his connection with Auchindrane
as too intimate to be broken even by his desire to assist his nephew.
For this temperate and honourable conduct he met a vile reward;
for Auchindrane, in resentment of the loss of his relative Barganie,
and the downfall of his ambitious hopes, continued his practices
against the life of Sir Thomas of Culleyne, and chance favoured his
wicked purpose.
The knight of Culleyne, finding himself obliged to go to Edinburgh
on a particular day, sent a message by a servant to Muir, in which he
told him, in the most unsuspecting confidence, the purpose of his
journey, and named the road which he proposed to take, inviting
Muir to meet him at Duppill, to the west of the town of Ayr, a place
appointed for the purpose of giving him any commissions which he
might have for Edinburgh, and assuring his treacherous ally he
would attend to any business which he might have in the Scottish
metropolis as anxiously as to his own. Sir Thomas Kennedy’s
message was carried to the town of Maybole, where his messenger,
for some trivial reason, had the import committed to writing by a
schoolmaster in that town, and despatched it to its destination by
means of a poor student, named Dalrymple, instead of carrying it to
the house of Auchindrane in person.
This suggested to Muir a diabolical plot. Having thus received
tidings of Sir Thomas Kennedy’s motions, he conceived the infernal
purpose of having the confiding friend who sent the information
waylaid and murdered at the place appointed to meet with him, not
only in friendship, but for the purpose of rendering him service. He
dismissed the messenger Dalrymple, cautioning the lad to carry back
the letter to Maybole, and to say that he had not found him,
Auchindrane, in his house. Having taken this precaution, he
proceeded to instigate the brother of the slain Gilbert of Barganie,
Thomas Kennedy of Drumurghie by name, and Walter Muir of
Cloncaird, a kinsman of his own, to take this opportunity of
revenging Barganie’s death. The fiery young men were easily induced
to undertake the crime. They waylaid the unsuspecting Sir Thomas of
Culleyne at the place appointed to meet the traitor Auchindrane, and
the murderers having in company five or six servants well mounted
and armed, assaulted and cruelly murdered him with many wounds.
The revenge due for his uncle’s murder was keenly pursued by the
Earl of Cassilis. As the murderers fled from trial, they were declared
outlaws; which doom being pronounced by three blasts of a horn,
was called “being put to the horn, and declared the king’s rebel.”
Muir of Auchindrane was strongly suspected of having been the
instigator of the crime. But he conceived there could be no evidence
to prove his guilt if he could keep the boy Dalrymple out of the way,
who delivered the letter which made him acquainted with Culleyne’s
journey, and the place at which he meant to halt. Muir brought
Dalrymple to his house, but the youth tiring of this confinement,
Muir sent him to reside with a friend, Montgomery of Skelmorley,
who maintained him under a borrowed name amid the desert
regions of the then almost savage island of Arran. Being confident in
the absence of this material witness, Auchindrane, instead of flying
like his agents Drumurghie and Cloncaird, presented himself boldly
at the bar, demanded a fair trial, and offered his person in combat to
the death against any of Lord Cassilis’ friends who might impugn his
innocence. This audacity was successful, and he was dismissed
without trial.
Still, however, Muir did not consider himself safe so long as
Dalrymple was within the realm of Scotland; and the danger grew
more pressing, when he learned that the lad had become impatient of
the restraint which he sustained in the island of Arran, and returned
to some of his friends in Ayrshire. Muir no sooner heard of this than
he again obtained possession of the boy’s person, and a second time
concealed him in Auchindrane, until he found an opportunity to
transport him to the Low Countries, where he contrived to have him
enlisted in Buccleuch’s regiment; trusting, doubtless, that some one
of the numerous chances of war might destroy the poor young man
whose life was so dangerous to him.
But after five or six years’ uncertain safety, bought at the expense
of so much violence and cunning, Auchindrane’s fears were
exasperated with frenzy, when he found this dangerous witness,
having escaped from all the perils of climate and battle, had left, or
been discharged from, the Legion of Borderers, and had again
accomplished his return to Ayrshire. There is ground to suspect that
Dalrymple knew the nature of the hold which he possessed over
Auchindrane, and was desirous of extorting from his fears some
better provision than he had found either in Arran or the
Netherlands. But, if so, it was a fatal experiment to tamper with the
fears of such a man as Auchindrane, who determined to rid himself
effectually of this unhappy young man.
Muir now lodged him in a house of his own, called Chapeldonan,
tenanted by a vassal and connection of his, named James Bannatyne.
This man he commissioned to meet him at ten o’clock at night, on
the sea-sands, near Girvan, and bring with him the unfortunate
Dalrymple, the object of his fear and dread. The victim seems to have
come with Bannatyne without the least suspicion. When Bannatyne
and Dalrymple came to the appointed spot, Auchindrane met them,
accompanied by his eldest son James. Old Auchindrane, having
taken Bannatyne aside, imparted his bloody purpose of ridding
himself of Dalrymple for ever, by murdering him on the spot. His
own life and honour were, he said, endangered by the manner in
which this inconvenient witness repeatedly thrust himself back into
Ayrshire, and nothing could secure his safety but taking the lad’s life,
in which action he requested James Bannatyne’s assistance.
Bannatyne felt some compunction, and remonstrated against the
cruel expedient, saying it would be better to transport Dalrymple to
Ireland, and take precautions against his return. While old
Auchindrane seemed disposed to listen to this proposal, his son
concluded that the time was come for accomplishing the purpose of
their meeting, and without waiting the termination of his father’s
conference with Bannatyne, he rushed suddenly on Dalrymple, beat
him to the ground, and kneeling down upon him, with his father’s
assistance accomplished the crime, by strangling the unhappy object
of their fear and jealousy. Bannatyne, the witness, and partly the
accomplice, of the murder, assisted them in their attempt to make a
hole in the sand with a spade which they had brought on purpose, in
order to conceal the dead body. But as the tide was coming in, the
hole which they made filled with water before they could get the body
buried; and the ground seemed, to their terrified consciences, to
refuse to be accessory to concealing their crime. Despairing of hiding
the corpse in the manner they proposed, the murderers carried it out
into the sea as deep as they dared wade, and there abandoned it to
the billows, trusting that the wind, which was blowing off the shore,
would drive these remains of their crime out to sea, where they
would never more be heard of. But the sea, as well as the land,
seemed unwilling to conceal their cruelty. After floating for some
hours, or days, the body was, by the wind and tide, again driven on
shore, near the very spot where the murder had been committed.
This attracted general attention; and when the corpse was known
to be that of the same William Dalrymple whom Auchindrane had so
often spirited out of the country, or concealed when he was in it, a
strong and general suspicion arose that this young person had met
with foul play from the bold bad man, who had shown himself so
much interested in his absence. Auchindrane, indeed, found himself
so much the object of suspicion from this new crime that he resolved
to fly from justice, and suffer himself to be declared a rebel and an
outlaw rather than face a trial. He accordingly sought to provide
himself with some ostensible cause for avoiding the law, with which
the feelings of his kindred and friends might sympathise; and none
occurred to him as so natural as an assault upon some friend and
adherent of the Earl of Cassilis. Should he kill such a one, it would be
indeed an unlawful action, but so far from being infamous, would be
accounted the natural consequence of the avowed quarrel between
the families. With this purpose, Muir, with the assistance of a
relative, of whom he seems always to have had some ready to execute
his worst purposes, beset Hugh Kennedy of Garriehorne, a follower
of the earl, against whom they had especial ill-will, fired their pistols
at him, and used other means to put him to death. But Garriehorne,
a stout-hearted man and well-armed, defended himself in a very
different manner from the unfortunate knight of Culleyne, and beat
off the assailants, wounding young Auchindrane in the right hand, so
that he wellnigh lost the use of it.
But though Auchindrane’s purpose did not entirely succeed, he
availed himself of it to circulate a report that if he could obtain a
pardon for firing upon his feudal enemy with pistols, weapons
declared unlawful by Act of Parliament, he would willingly stand his
trial for the death of Dalrymple, respecting which he protested his
total innocence. The king, however, was decidedly of opinion that the
Muirs, both father and son, were alike guilty of both crimes, and
used intercession with the Earl of Abercorn, as a person of power in
these western counties, as well as in Ireland, to arrest and transmit
them prisoners to Edinburgh. In consequence of the Earl’s exertions,
old Auchindrane was made prisoner, and lodged in the Tolbooth of
Edinburgh.
Young Auchindrane no sooner heard that his father was in
custody, than he became as apprehensive of Bannatyne, the
accomplice in Dalrymple’s murder, telling tales, as ever his father
had been of Dalrymple. He therefore hastened to him, and prevailed
on him to pass over for a while to the neighbouring coast of Ireland,
finding him money and means to accomplish the voyage, and
engaging in the meantime to take care of his affairs in Scotland.
Secure, as they thought, in this precaution, old Auchindrane
persisted in his innocence, and his son found security to stand his
trial. Both appeared with the same confidence at the day appointed.
The trial was, however, postponed, and Muir the elder dismissed,
under high security to return when called for.
But King James, being convinced of the guilt of the accused,
ordered young Auchindrane, instead of being sent to trial, to be
examined under the force of torture, in order to compel him to tell
whatever he knew of the things charged against him. He was
accordingly severely tortured; but the result only served to show that
such examinations are as useless as they are cruel.
Young Auchindrane, a strong and determined ruffian, endured the
torture with the utmost firmness, and by the constant audacity with
which, in spite of the intolerable pain, he continued to assert his
innocence, he spread so favourable an opinion of his case, that the
detaining him in prison, instead of bringing him to open trial, was
censured as severe and oppressive. James, however, remained firmly
persuaded of his guilt, and by an exertion of authority quite
inconsistent with our present laws, commanded young Auchindrane
to be still detained in close custody till further light could be thrown
on these dark proceedings.
In the meanwhile, old Auchindrane being, as we have seen, at
liberty on pledges, skulked about in the west, feeling how little
security he had gained by Dalrymple’s murder, and that he had
placed himself by that crime in the power of Bannatyne, whose
evidence concerning the death of Dalrympie could not be less fatal
than what Dalrymple might have told concerning Auchindrane’s
accession to the conspiracy against Sir Thomas Kennedy of Culleyne.