Local Government in England :

Centralisation, Autonomy and Control

1st Edition Colin Copus
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/local-government-in-england-centralisation-autonomy
-and-control-1st-edition-colin-copus/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Patterns of Local Autonomy in Europe Andreas Ladner

https://textbookfull.com/product/patterns-of-local-autonomy-in-
europe-andreas-ladner/

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

Local Government and Urban Governance in Europe 1st

Edition Carlos Nunes Silva

https://textbookfull.com/product/local-government-and-urban-
governance-in-europe-1st-edition-carlos-nunes-silva/

Contracting for Services in State and Local Government

Agencies Second Edition Curry

https://textbookfull.com/product/contracting-for-services-in-
state-and-local-government-agencies-second-edition-curry/
Wind Farm Noise: Measurement, Assessment, and Control
1st Edition Colin H. Hansen

https://textbookfull.com/product/wind-farm-noise-measurement-
assessment-and-control-1st-edition-colin-h-hansen/

Smart Geospatial Practices and Applications in Local

Government-An Altogether Different Language 1st Edition
David A. Holdstock (Author)

https://textbookfull.com/product/smart-geospatial-practices-and-
applications-in-local-government-an-altogether-different-
language-1st-edition-david-a-holdstock-author/

Education Across the United Kingdom 1944–2017: Local

Government, Accountability and Partnerships Robert
Mccloy

https://textbookfull.com/product/education-across-the-united-
kingdom-1944-2017-local-government-accountability-and-
partnerships-robert-mccloy/

Community and Autonomy in Southern Oman Marielle Risse

https://textbookfull.com/product/community-and-autonomy-in-
southern-oman-marielle-risse/

Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching: New

Research Agendas 1st Edition Alice Chik

https://textbookfull.com/product/autonomy-in-language-learning-
and-teaching-new-research-agendas-1st-edition-alice-chik/
 Local
Government
in England
Centralisation ,
Autonomy
and Control

c o l i n c o p u s
M a r k r o b e r t s
r a c h e l W a l l
Local Government in England
 Colin Copus • Mark Roberts • Rachel Wall

Local Government in
England
Centralisation, Autonomy and Control
Colin Copus Mark Roberts
De Montfort University Leicester Business School
Leicester, United Kingdom De Montfort University
Leicester, United Kingdom
Rachel Wall
De Montfort University
Leicester, United Kingdom

ISBN 978-1-137-26417-6    ISBN 978-1-137-26418-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-26418-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930264

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

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
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 pub-
lisher 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: © RonTech2000, Johanna Parkin / Getty Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: 236 The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW,
United Kingdom
 Preface

It is commonplace for academics from England attending conferences

with overseas colleagues to make strenuous claims that local government
in our country exists in the most centralised system and experiences the
greatest level of central control. We are used to winning these arguments
hands down. One of the authors, however, recently attended a conference
where colleagues from Portugal and Poland both developed a spirited—
but ultimately futile—case that it was local government in their respective
countries that experienced the greatest centralisation and central con-
trol. After a convincing England victory in that argument but leaving the
encounter muttering under the breath ‘how dare they’, the decision was
made to write this book.
The authors of this book are staunch defenders of the freedom of local
government, all three of us have worked in local government and two
of us have been councillors. Not only have we studied centralisation and
its consequences, we have worked on a day-to-day basis in local govern-
ment, politically and managerially, and have experienced the pernicious
effects of centralisation. As academics we have also been able to lord it
over our overseas colleagues at conferences by challenging anyone to a
centralisation dual, as the English contingent always wins this fight. So,
our Portuguese and Polish colleagues have thrown down a gauntlet we
could not but do anything other than pick up.
There is, of course, a very serious reason for writing this book. Local
government exists in an environment of constant pressure and control
from the centre, and while the intensity of that environment can, and
does, alter over time, it is never fundamentally challenged or changed.

v
vi PREFACE

As we wrote the book, we did so in the midst of yet another central

government-­ inspired devolution exercise, with devolution deals being
struck and undone as we continued to write. Through the process of put-
ting the book together, an intense debate was taking place between central
and local government and groups of councils as they negotiated com-
plex deals and sought to forge new entities known as combined authori-
ties. The debate also raged over whether or not the combined authorities
should be headed by a directly elected mayor—a usual sticking point for
councils in most of the negotiations.
What struck us throughout that debate was that the narrative used by
the centre (and by local government) continued to reflect what we as
academics detected as a centralist foundation and a desire to reshape and
reformulate local government for central purpose. It was for that reason
we decided to use the concept of policy narratives as a way of understand-
ing why it is that not only can the centre promise to decentralise while
simultaneously doing no such thing, but also how it can use devolution to
exert even greater control over local government. The term devolution is
a politically loaded one and may mean no more than the decentralisation
of functions, responsibilities and some budgets, rather than the handing
down of political and governing power and capacity. Understanding the
narrative becomes important to understanding exactly what is going on.
We also wrote the book to explore and understand why it is that local
government is so often complicit in its own demise, despite protesta-
tions to the contrary. In doing that, we decided to investigate how far the
absence of a powerful alternative localist narrative meant local government
was always particularly wrong footed when trying to articulate its position
to the centre. As a consequence, we determined to develop a narrative of
muscular localism that was not merely a response to centralist arguments
and therefore shaped by them, but a narrative which set out a fundamen-
tally different role for local government and a fundamentally different set
of relationships between local and central government. In the book, we
rest for the development of that narrative on our love of local government,
and our normative approach is therefore an unashamed one. Not only
have we sought to understand and articulate the pervasive and pernicious
strength of the centralist view about local government, we are intent on
providing local government with a method of reshaping the nature of the
debate.
Centralisers and localisers exist across the political spectrum, but they
vary in how far they would take their particular arguments, and of course,
 PREFACE vii

they differ among themselves in the role they perceive that local govern-
ment should have in the overall governing system. In developing our argu-
ments and our vision of a muscular localism, we offer a localised state as
the foundation for a new way of articulating the role of local government.
We have no doubt that what we offer will frighten many, be unworkable
to most and be of little practical use to others, or so it may seem. In devel-
oping our narrative, however, we borrow from different local government
systems—most of what we argue exists somewhere to some degree: we
have merely packaged it together to provide local government with a mus-
cular localist narrative. In addition, we just enjoyed writing the stuff.
We are, however, in writing this book determined to provide local gov-
ernment and localists with something of value and use and something
which they can employ to shape their arguments and strengthen their
position. Our view is that there is a need for a radically new narrative
to reformulate the working of government and from which the debates
about the role of local government can take a different turn. We hope we
have provided that material and a rationale on which it can rest. If so, then
we would have provided some practical assistance to local government.
A few thanks to be made: first we would all like to thank Professor
Steve Leach, who set us on the road to writing the book and whose advice
and guidance throughout were invaluable to the project. Then from me,
thanks to my wife Julia and two daughters, Emma and Harriet, for their
support and also to my new grandson, Reggie, for not crying too much
during the finishing stages of the book. Next from Rachel who would like
to mention the unstinting support she has received from her father Garry
and from her closest friend Stefanie which she found invaluable during the
writing process. Mark wants to put on record his sincere thanks to his wife
Sylvia for her patience and support and his three granddaughters Yasmin,
Lucia and Riley, for being there.
Finally the three of us would like to say thank you to our colleagues,
Filipe Teles from Aveiro University Portugal and Pawel Swianiewicz from
Warsaw University Poland, for throwing down the challenge to see which
of us has the most centralised system and where local government suffers
the most. After reading this book, you will see that we win.

Colin Copus
Mark Roberts
Rachel Wall
Leicester, England
 Contents

1 Centralisation: The Constant Struggle 1

2 Policy Narratives in Local and National Government 37

3 Fragmentation and Centralisation 57

4 Mergers and Acquisitions: Narratives, Rhetoric and

Reality of Double Centralisation Through Structural
Upheaval 85

5 Devolution Today: Revolution or Submission? 113

6 The Ties That Bind 139

7 Conclusion: Localism and Centralism—A Constant

Conflict or Time for Change? 165

Bibliography 185

Index 203

ix
 List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Devolution and decentralisation 15

Fig. 4.1 New unitary councils 2009 100
Fig. 5.1 Key decentralisation policies since 1998 116
Fig. 5.2 Review of agreed devolution deals to date (15 May 2016) 125
Fig. 5.3 Devolved powers and functions of new combined authority
mayors131

xi
 List of Tables

Table 4.1 The legislative reductions of local government 89

Table 4.2 English council populations, by council type 90

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Centralisation: The Constant Struggle

Introduction
To understand the value of local government and what centralisation
means to the relationship between a nation-state and its disparate geo-
graphical communities of place, we must understand the purpose of local
government. To understand the purpose of local government, a simple
starting point is to understand those words that used to describe sub-­
national, politically representative bodies: local government. The reason-
able assumption is that it will be ‘local’ that is connected to, based in or
reflective of, identifiable geographical communities of place, and that it
will be government, that is, it will be politically representative and with
sufficient governing power and capacity to be able to take authoritative
and binding decisions within its field of competence. In other words, local
government is a product of a governing system which has grown from the
bottom up, rather than as a result of from devolution from the centre, or
from the mere decentralisation of functions, tasks and responsibilities (see
Bogdanor 1999, 2001, 2009; Hazell 1999, 2010; Hoggett 1987; Burns
et al. 1994). While the growth of a state-wide governing system from the
bottom up may reflect a process of nation and state building that is now
confined to the past, with more modern states, for example, those emerg-
ing out of post-communist Eastern Europe or African states (Mann 1986;
James 1996), taking a more top-down approach, assuming a bottom-up
development provides a context within which to explore centralisation and
localism.

© The Author(s) 2017 1

C. Copus et al., Local Government in England,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-26418-3_1
2 C. COPUS ET AL.

Such an initial and simple attempt to set up a dichotomy from which

to explore the purpose of local government will be developed and exam-
ined throughout the book so as to understand, particularly in the English
context, the process, effects and implications of a centralised governing
system over a localised one. It will also help explain how, in England,
we have lost any real sense of local government being about the govern-
ment of identifiable communities of place, to such an extent that the in
vogue term ‘place shaping’ is seen as something local government must
do, rather than what it is—a unit of government shaped by its place (see,
Lyons 2007). In addition, understanding the tussle between centralisation
and localism and between centralists and localists, as a way of defining the
purpose and value of local government, is the contribution local govern-
ment makes, or can make if it is allowed, to broader concepts such as lib-
erty, good governance and local self-government—the latter can be seen
as distinct from representative local government (Toulmin Smith 2005)
and will be explored in more detail in Chap. 3.
Throughout the development of local government in England, there
has been a constant tussle between pressures of centralisation and localism
(Chandler 2007), and some of those pressures are ideological or attitudinal,
rather than generated by economic, social, moral, political or technological
factors. The pressures which provide a centralising or localising direction
in government will be explored in more detail throughout the book, but
those pressures also include globalisation, urbanisation, Europeanisation,
austerity, increasing public demand and economic downturn, all of which
have often resulted in the institutional restructuring of local politics
(Kersting and Vetter 2003; Berg and Rao 2005; Denters and Rose 2005;
Magre and Betrana 2007; Elcock 2008; Wollmann 2008). That restruc-
turing of local politics and government is inspired by the centre and where
the centre cannot control—because it lacks the constitutional and legal
powers—it can cajole, through financial and other inducements.
While the book tracks the international pressures that result in a cen-
tralising or localising response from political communities at the local,
regional and national level, it focuses its main attention on local govern-
ment in England. The book leans on the nature of political interaction in
unitary and federal states, to illuminate and elucidate the debate and to
provide an understanding of how the arguments about centralisation and
localism can travel across and within national boundaries. Moreover, the
antidote to centralisation we develop unashamedly lends from thinking of
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 3

local government as a form of very local state, as will be seen particularly

in Chaps. 6 and 7.
The book has been written for seven reasons. First, the current
Conservative government (and its predecessor coalition Conservative and
Liberal Democrat government, 2010–2015) placed devolution at the cen-
tre of its policy towards local government. During the passage of the coali-
tion government’s (2010–2015) devolution Bill into law, Greg Clarke,
then minister of state at the department of Communities and Local
Government, made the following statement in the House of Commons,
which is worth repeating at length:

For the best of a century, most Bills that have passed through this House
have taken power from communities and councils and given more power to
Central Government, or in some cases to European government. This is an
historic Bill, not just for the measures it contains but for what it represents.
It is about striking out in a different direction. Power should be held at the
lowest possible level. We want this to be the first Parliament for many years
that, by the end of its Sessions, will have given power away.
That is true for many of the Bill’s provisions—the community right to
challenge; the community right to bid for assets of public value; the abo-
lition of regional spatial strategies; the introduction of neighbourhood
planning—but nowhere is it more significant than in clause 1, which deals
with the general power of competence. The general power of competence
changes the default position. Currently, local government exists to do the
things that central government requires it to do. Clause 1 turns that default
position upside down. Local government can do the things that it thinks are
right, unless they are positively banned. What is not forbidden is permitted.
The question for councils is not, “Can we do this?” but, “How can we make
it happen?”. (Greg Clark, House of Commons, 7th November 2011)

Indeed, Part one, chapter one, clause one, section one of the Act boldly
states that: “A local authority has power to do anything that individuals
generally may do”.
We use a concept of policy narrative developed from Roe (1994)
throughout this book, and when a Conservative government was returned
in 2015, George Osborne the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued to
be one of the most powerful and vocal narrators of the ‘devolution’ and
the regional ‘Powerhouse’ storyline. In his speech to the Conservative
Party conference in October 2015, Osborne made a statement in praise of
4 C. COPUS ET AL.

devolution, which, as we are interested here in exploring the language and

reality of devolution, is also worth repeating at length:

There’s a building, not too far from here that reminds us of what local govern-
ment used to mean.
Look at Manchester Town Hall, in all its neo-gothic splendour.
It was built as a place of power -a great civic cathedral, where the decisions
affecting this city would be taken—not remitted to a committee in London.
But over the decades, the wings of local government were clipped again and
again by all parties, most especially ours.
Almost everything, from the amount they could spend…
… to the taxes they could keep…
… to the work they undertook…
… was determined in Whitehall.
It’s time to face facts.
The way this country is run is broken.
People feel remote from decisions that affect them.
Initiative is suffocated.
Our cities held back.
There’s no incentive to promote local enterprise.
It’s time we fixed it.
And I’ll work with anyone, from any political party, to make that happen.
That’s why we’re devolving more power to Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
That’s why the people of Greater Manchester will elect their first ever Mayor, in
just eighteen months’ time.
That’s why just last Friday we reached agreement on a new elected mayor across
the whole of South Yorkshire.
We’re putting the power into the Northern Powerhouse.
But we can go much, much further, here in the north and around the country.
While everyone knows this country has to live within its means—and that
means savings in local as well as national government—I want to make sure
that as we make these necessary savings we use this moment to undertake far-­
reaching reform.
Right now we have the merry go-round of clawing back local taxes into the
Treasury and handing them out again in the form of a grant.
In my view, proud cities and counties should not be forced to come to national
government with a begging bowl.
So I am announcing this:
Today I am embarking on the biggest transfer of power to our local government
in living memory.
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 5

We’re going to allow local government to keep the rates they collect from business.
That’s right, all £26bn of business rates will be kept by councils instead of being
sent up to Whitehall.
Right now, we collect much more in business rates than we give back in the
main grant.
So we will phase out this local government grant altogether.
But we will also give councils extra power and responsibilities for running their
communities.
The established transfers will be there on day one, but thereafter, all the real
growth in revenue will be yours to keep.
So this is what our plan means.
Attract a business, and you attract more money.
Regenerate a high street, and you’ll reap the benefits.
Grow your area, and you’ll grow your revenue too.
And to help local people do that I want to make another announcement today.
We’re going to abolish the uniform business rate entirely.
That’s the single, national tax rate we impose on every council.
Any local area will be able to cut business rates as much as they like…
…to win new jobs and generate wealth.
It’s up to them to judge whether they can afford it.
It’s called having power and taking responsibility.
And for those big cities with elected mayors, like London, Manchester and now
Sheffield, I will go even further.
Provided they have the support of the local business community, these mayors
will be able to add a premium to the rates to pay for new infrastructure and
build for their cities’ future.
Yes, further savings to be made in local government, but radical reform too.
So an end to the uniform business rate.
Money raised locally, spent locally.
Every council able to cut business taxes.
Every mayor able to build for their city’s future.
A new way to govern our country.
Power to the people.
Let the devolution revolution begin.

(http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/full-text-george-
osbornes-2015-conservative-conference-speech/)
The Cities and Devolution Act rapidly followed and was granted Royal
Assent in January 2016. So, we now have a Localism Act and a devolu-
6 C. COPUS ET AL.

tion Act, the direction of travel, however is clearly top down. Given the
priority placed on devolution as a policy tool, it is necessary therefore to
test the veracity and strength of the ‘devolution revolution’ as it is being
implemented in England and to assess if it is indeed a revolution or simply
revisionism shaped by a policy narrative. Indeed, given historical trends in
England (Chandler 2007), we need to know if the current government’s
devolution revolution is a historical hiccup or whether, as the current
political debate could lead one to believe: we are all localists now.
The second reason for writing the book is that the international trends
identified above create conditions within which debates about the value
of centralism and localism can be located and developed and which can
embolden centralists, within whichever type of political system they
inhabit. Thirdly, it has become commonplace for commentators to narrate
England as the most centralised country across the globe. It is necessary
therefore, to explore if centralisation is so extensive, if we have done it so
well and so completely and if it is a process and a way of governing that has
damaged local government and democracy. After than exploration we then
need to examine what solutions can be developed to reverse centralism as
a governing and political doctrine. Especially as it can be a policy narra-
tive which suits both major political parties: Conservative and Labour.
Fourth and linked to this last point, one of the authors was involved in an
exchange on twitter in which he made the comment ‘England is the most
centralised country in Europe’. That comment was challenged by a col-
league who tweeted in reply the comment: ‘no, Portugal is the most cen-
tralised country’; another colleague tweeted in reply: ‘come to Poland’.
That twitter exchange has prompted an exploration and justification of
why England is the most centralised state and what can be done about it.
Fifth, we need to understand the nature of the debate between cen-
tralisation and localism and the nature of the narratives and storylines
which have developed around the two concepts. Moreover, we need to
understand how the narratives of centralism and localism are deployed by
the supports of both concepts to influence public and policy thinking. By
understanding the power and use of the competing policy narratives, we
may be able to predict the outcome of the ongoing debate between cen-
tralisers and localisers. As a consequence we can assess whether we are see-
ing the revitalisation of English local government so that it becomes both
more local and more like a government, or whether the slow demise of
local government, local politics and local democracy is likely to continue.
Sixth, as academics operating in our Research Excellence Framework
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 7

driven world, we obviously want to add to theory, knowledge, conceptu-

alisation and modelling (but do not let that put the non-academic reader
off of progressing beyond that statement). Above all we want to influence
how local government is perceived by the public, the media, policy-makers
and by local government itself, and we want to strengthen the role of local
government in the government of the country. No mean feat, then!
Before moving on, we need to quickly review, in the next section, the
purpose or point of local government, a question which will be addressed
more fully throughout the book, so as to provide a context for our explo-
ration of centralism and localism. Differing views to that purpose and
point find different expressions and deploy different language as a way
of convincing others of a particular case, and it is those cases we seek to
explore in depth. The third section examines, again briefly, the nature of
the debate and key policy narratives of localism and centralism, to produce
a definition of these two concepts that will be employed throughout the
book. The fourth section sets out the structure of the book

What’s the Point of Local Government?

English local government is a dual-purpose institution. It provides an
additional layer of democracy, political representation and engagement to
Parliamentary politics, and it allows for the diversity of political views and
opinions expressed by communities to find outlet in an authoritative and
elected body. Moreover, as thinkers such as De Tocqueville, Mill, Toulmin
Smith and the Webbs have variously argued, to differing degrees and from
different ideological and time-bound pers;pectives, that local governing
institutions are essential to freedom, liberty, a potential protective barrier
to an over powerful central state. Moreover, they are an integral part of
any democratic system. Within a representative system of government,
representative institutions have a premium over a wider interpretation
of local democracy—that is the myriad of interactions that take place
between citizens and communities within the confines of the boundaries
of any one council. Local democracy is a linked but distinct concept from
local government, both with a place in the overall democratic fabric of a
society. But, those bodies legitimised by the public vote (councils) and
their members—councillors—are in a legitimised governing position to
make a choice between competing demands and about the reconciliation
of competing views within the locality. It is therefore necessary to separate,
not conflate local government and local democracy.
8 C. COPUS ET AL.

As well as a politically representative and governing institution, local

government is also responsible for the provision of public services vital
to nations where the state has taken the major responsibility for social
welfare, social cohesion and the development of infrastructural integrity.
Councils, of course, need not be direct providers of public services, and
the neo-liberal policy narratives that pervade much thinking about local
government have seen councils experiment with a range of delivery options
and agendas such as commissioning, outsourcing, shared services delivery
agreements between councils and shared chief executives to co-ordinate
joint working as well as reduce salary commitments. Whatever innovations
are made in the delivery of public services by councils, they are made more
often as a necessity rather than a policy choice that, everything remain-
ing equal, reflected a political choice taken by any one council. In other
words, financial, political and legal controls by the centre direct the politi-
cal choices taken by local government.
In addition, the dual role of governor and public service provider
generates a tension, as it cannot be assumed that the roles are mutu-
ally compatible or that they respond to the same stimuli. Nor can it be
assumed that political representation, governing and decision-making, or
the expression of local values and views, can be achieved through a set of
institutions designed primarily to administer, oversee and be responsible
for the provision of public services. It is the assumption that local govern-
ment, in England, is about the provision or oversight of services, almost
to the exclusion of its wider political and governing role and that the latter
is less important than, or indeed only possible because of, the former, that
is itself the cause of much of what is currently wrong about the debates
about the purpose of local government. Indeed, it is such assumptions
shaped by the dominant policy narratives that have already resulted in
terms such as ‘unviable’ being banded about around the financial prob-
lems being experienced by West Somerset Council and other district
councils. The sounds can be heard of the exponents of ever larger local
government sharpening their knives to hack away at that part of England
to pursue the chimera that larger local government is inherently better.
Such a one-dimensional view of local government ignores its governing
and representative functions.
It is the notion that local government is primarily, if not exclusively,
about the provision of public services that has served to hinder the devel-
opment of English councils as politically powerful local centres of govern-
ment that are meaningful and relevant to local people and that matter as
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 9

institutions of government to local communities. Moreover, it is that nar-

rative tapping into the erroneous assumption that bigger is better that has
resulted in England having some of the largest units of local government
in Europe. Moreover, rather than representing geographically distinct and
identifiable communities, many council boundaries pull together a num-
ber of communities and distinct geographical areas to collect together in
one place the size of population deemed necessary for the provision of
efficient and effective public services.
The consequences of these dominant narratives and their taken-for-­
granted assumptions about local government have resulted in a disjunc-
ture between councils and communities and, ironically, a central concern
about levels of engagement between communities and councils, which
central government has itself created. As political representation and gov-
ernment has, in this country, a clear geographical link—MPs elected for
constituencies, councillors elected for wards or divisions (not at large elec-
tions across a council)—then a premium must be placed on local govern-
ment as the reflection of identifiable geographical communities. It is not
for that reason alone that local government should reflect clearly identifi-
able communities. If councils are to be meaningful entities that reflect a
popular perception of a place that councils then can shape as a governing
body, that place has to be a recognisable one, one that responds to a reality
of place—not an administrative convenience that is narrated in techno-
cratic rather than democratic terms the issue and discourse of place, merg-
ers and local government size is explored fully in Chap. 4. It will be argued
in that chapter that it is almost as though there is a deliberate policy to
remove councils from place, people, culture, history, and traditions, so
these factors are no longer displayed as councils continue the journey to
being simple providers or overseers of public services and not politically
representative and governing institutions. An added bonus to some is that
the more and more meaningless local government becomes, the easier
and easier it is to continue the policy of mergers and amalgamations until
those seeking big local government are satisfied. But, the question remains
at what scale will the promoters of big local government become satisfied,
and when they are, we will any longer have a system that could be called
‘local’ government.
As we are exploring ‘localism’, one feature must give us concern, how
do we make our councils local and why are we constantly following a path
that takes us in the opposite direction. A direction which takes us further
from concepts of local and localism and which refuses to give all but the
10 C. COPUS ET AL.

scantest regard to the ‘government’ in ‘local government’. We have seen

how local government is a dual-purpose organisation: responsible for the
provision of public services while at the same time providing opportuni-
ties for political involvement and the expression of political diversity from
the centre. Yet, these two roles are not treated equally, and the tension
between the needs for efficient and effective service provision has over-
shadowed the role of councils in the governing fabric of the nation. We
have arrived at the current shape of English local government through
a number of government-inspired investigations into local government.
The Herbert Commission (1960) and the Maud (1967), Redcliffe-Maud
(1969) and Widdicombe (1986) Committees sought to reconcile the
competing tensions between questions of service delivery and manage-
ment and the democratic and political role played by local government.
While not ignoring nor minimising the careful balancing act which
these government-inspired reviews had to undertake and the analysis and
debates that they conducted about the appropriate population size for
councils which allowed for efficient and effective services as well as pro-
viding community cohesion and democratic control and accountability of
local authorities, the result of any subsequent central government-inspired
re-organisation was the same—larger councils created by a process set in
motion, by central government. But, it is a process in which local gov-
ernment is often complicit, and it is a process which has a supporting
narrative which reflects centralist views—held nationally and locally—and
which is met by an opposing more localist set of storylines. It is necessary
therefore in order to understand the possible future of local government
in England, and what general lessons can be drawn from that for local
government more broadly, to understand the ways in which localism and
centralism are narrated. Indeed, for clarity in the book, we need to briefly
set out the possible interpretations and meanings of the terms to construct
a definition that will be employed in the book. We need to do that to
understand the principles which form the bedrock of arguments about the
role, purpose and place of local government within the overall governing
system and set within the modern context. In so doing we can see whether
there is a consistent set of views about local government held by policy-­
makers and politicians, locally and nationally, and if there is, how are those
views identified when they may be couched in a new language or discourse
to suit shifting circumstances. We now turn briefly to examine the nature
of the debate between localism and centralism to provide a definition that
will underpin the rest of the book.
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 11

Centralism and Localism: The Nature of the Debate

As one of the tasks of the book will be to examine the policy narratives
which have developed and been employed around the concepts of cen-
tralisation and localism, it is necessary to set out how those terms will be
defined for the purposes of the book. Constructing a definition is particu-
larly necessary because few argue overtly for centralisation by employing
the term ‘centralisation’ itself. While the word localism is used freely and
interchangeably with devolution and decentralisation—the latter again
often being used with little distinction in meaning (devolution and decen-
tralisation are explored in Chap. 5 where we examine the current govern-
ment’s devolution policy in more detail). A distinction needs to be made
between the competing concepts of centralism and localism because local-
ism provides a conceptual counter-point to centralism in a way that the
term decentralisation or indeed devolution does not. Indeed, decentralisa-
tion is not the opposite of centralism; rather it is a reaction to it.
Devolution and decentralisation are concepts which are often conflated
and used interchangeably in policy and academic literature providing for
unhelpful differing and overlapping definitions for both terms. Where
some scholars (Bogdanor 1999, 2009; Hazell 1999; Burns et al. 1994)
have provided explanations of devolution and decentralisation which allow
the two terms to be perceived as separate concepts, others such as Crook
and Manor (1998) have similarly conceived devolution to be the transfer
of powers, but position devolution alongside deconcentration (the reloca-
tion of administrative functions) underneath an overarching umbrella of
decentralisation. For the purposes of this book, the terms devolution and
decentralisation will be viewed as separate and differing concepts, where
devolution implies a substantial transfer of political power and autonomy
as a result of a significant shift in the relationship between central and local
government and decentralisation describing only the transfer of author-
ity to exercise functions, responsibilities, tasks and finances from one tier
to another in accordance with national policy objectives and motives of
political expediency within central government.

Devolution
Much of the literature on devolution examines the concept through the
lens of particular political events, perhaps the most prevalent being devo-
lution to the home nations of the United Kingdom. It is here that the
12 C. COPUS ET AL.

words of the former Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, become
particularly relevant, in which he stated that ‘devolution is a process, not
an event’ (1999). Interestingly, the word devolution has frequently been
used to describe particular events, yet attempting to clarify what devolu-
tion means in principle remains challenging, resulting in a rather stark lack
of consensus on what the word devolution really describes in theoretical
terms. Does the term devolution simply explain the transfer of administra-
tive functions, or does it go beyond this and imply substantive devolution
of power from the centre? Rather, do we actually mean a significant shift
in the relationship between the two tiers of government?
The devolutionary trend witnessed in many European states was
resisted in the United Kingdom until the 1990s (Keating 1998; Hazell
2000). Devolution in the United Kingdom developed over the course
of the twentieth century in two key dimensions: administrative, followed
by political. Administrative devolution in this period can be traced back
to the establishment of territorial government departments for both
Scotland and Wales, exercising a considerable range of responsibilities in
relation to their respective nations under the supervision of Westminster.
Political devolution, by comparison, has since resulted in (for Scotland
only) the formation of a devolved institution with legislative powers. The
Scottish government has its own First Minister, Cabinet and Civil Service.
England meanwhile enjoyed only limited administrative devolution during
this period in the form of Regional Development Agencies and Regional
chambers (Mackinnon et al. 2010). Within this context, a political defini-
tion of devolution has developed which centres on territorial and con-
stitutional relations between two different levels government, where the
term devolution can be understood as the transfer of power(s) from one
political authority to a subordinate political authority on a geographical
basis, in order to provide a degree of self-government (Bogdanor 1999,
2009; Agranoff 2004).
The process of evolution in the United Kingdom is designed to be a
policy response to particular political pressures of the 1990s, namely, a ris-
ing nationalist sentiment, within Scotland and Wales and Scotland in par-
ticular, to establish a Scottish Parliament and a long period of Conservative
government through the 1980s and 1990s which gave a spur to Celtic
nationalism (Trench 2007). For Trench, this process embodied a signif-
icant shift in the constitutional and territorial landscape of the United
Kingdom, wherein elected political entities were established, possessing
a substantial degree of political and administrative power and autonomy.
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 13

While Trench recognises that the power and autonomy of the devolved
nations is contingent, due to the entrenchment of parliamentary sover-
eignty, devolved institutions within this context still retain a degree of
power which allows them to develop their own policies and are able to
exercise significant influence on areas of policy at both the national and
supranational levels.
While devolution does not go as far as Federalism in providing a divi-
sion of powers between two levels of government of equal status, it estab-
lishes a specific constitutional relationship between those levels while, in
principle, maintaining the sovereignty of Parliament. This entrenchment
of Parliamentary sovereignty rests in the fact that any legislation enacted
to establish a devolved institution can be repealed or amended in the same
way as any other statutes. In spite of this ‘shadow of hierarchy’ (Héritier
and Lehmkuhl 2008 cited in Swenden and McEwen 2014), Bogdanor’s
conception of devolution as a means to provide self-government, even if
within the confines of central legislation, is perhaps most significant when
considering the ways in which devolution and decentralisation can be dis-
tinguished from one another; power vs. authority.

Decentralisation
Decentralisation is a complex and multi-faceted concept which is used
across a range of disciplines. For the purposes of this book, there are two
types of decentralisation that are particularly useful to examine: political
decentralisation and administrative decentralisation (Pollitt et al. 1998).
Political decentralisation, linking closely to concepts of pluralism and
representative democracy, is concerned with decentralising the politi-
cal processes of decision-making to elected representatives and enhanc-
ing participation and the role that citizens and local actors play in those
processes. By contrast administrative decentralisation seeks to reorgan-
ise authority, responsibility and resources for public service provision to
lower levels of government or to managers and appointed bodies (ibid.).
Decentralisation can therefore be broadly understood as the transfer of
certain public functions—but not necessarily power—from the central
government and its agencies to subordinate units or levels of government
(Burns et al. 1994).
Pollitt (2005) brings a paradox to our attention, in that there is a per-
petual struggle between centralisation and decentralisation where the
two often occur simultaneously, and uses the example of education in the
14 C. COPUS ET AL.

United Kingdom to illustrate this point. In the 1980s, both the Grant
Maintained Schools initiative and the Local Management of Schools ini-
tiative allowed for schools to opt of local authority control and take direct
control of their budgets. Yet, the same period saw the 1988 Education Act
introduced a highly prescriptive and detailed national curriculum which
gave central government an excessive degree of control over what was
actually taught within individual classrooms (Pollitt 2005).
The paradox between centralisation and decentralisation is evident
within current devolution to English local government. While the Cities
and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 implies a move towards
stronger local government in England and a shift from the centralised
Westminster model, typically what Whitehall gives it must also taketh
away. Some 30 years later, we are now simultaneously witnessing a drive by
the current Education secretary to convert primary and secondary schools
in England to independent, centrally funded academies, which operate
outside the sphere of influence of local authorities. The Housing and
Planning Act is set to have a sizably negative impact on local social housing
capacity, and Fire and Rescue policy is moving from the Department for
Communities and Local Government into the remit of the Home Office.

Organising the concepts

It is useful, for the purposes of the book, to try and draw clear distinctions
between these two complex and overlapping concepts, and so the figure
below (Fig. 1.1) provides a summary of the academic literature explored
above.
The first distinction is between power and authority; both political and
administrative decentralisation provide differing degrees of authority and
have the potential to enhance decision-making for subordinate tiers of
government, bodies or individuals, thus in turn augmenting the political
legitimacy of the state (Kopric 2016). On the other hand, political devo-
lution goes beyond this to transfer legislative power to newly formed or
existing political institutions, underpinned by the legitimacy held through
election. The second distinction, and the one perhaps most relevant to the
current devolution to English local government, is that between political
and administrative devolution, where the latter only involves responsibili-
ties and functions being devolved, and where it does go beyond this to
provide greater power, these tend to be limited in scope.
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 15

Decentralisaon
Polical · Authority and decision-making
are decentralised.
· Enhancing parcipaon and
role of cizens and local
actors.
· Enhancing the polical
legimacy of the state.
Administrave · Authority is decentralised to
managers and/or appointed
bodies, who act as local
offices of the central state
administraon.
Devoluon
· Establishment of elected polical
instuons with legislave
powers, deriving their own
polical legimacy.
· Reforms the constuonal
relaonship between different
ers of government.
· Responsibility, funcons and
resources devolved to territorial
bodies under central supervision.
· Limited powers are transferred, if
at all.

Fig. 1.1 Devolution and decentralisation

In 2012 Lord Heseltine’s report, No stone unturned: in pursuit of

growth, made a series of recommendations which focused on boosting
economic growth. To achieve that aim, he argued that power needed to be
devolved to the English regions—a narrative (see chapter X) which forms
the central pillar of the current reforms to English local government.
Despite being repeatedly and misleadingly referred to as a ‘devolution
revolution’ by government and commentators, it is evident that what we
are currently observing in English local government is not a genuine wave
of the political devolution of power, but rather a fragmented and incon-
sistent pattern of the decentralisation (or limited devolution) of authority
over specific projects and financial incentives aimed at both addressing
economic growth, nationally and locally, and further streamlining of pub-
lic service provision—both of which are for the benefit of political expedi-
ency at the centre. Devolution revolution? This claim is open to significant
scrutiny (examined in detail in Chap. 5).
Localism, on the other hand, sets up a different conceptual under-
standing of the role of the state both centrally and locally and certainly
posits a relationship between the centre and the localities that prefer-
ences the latter (see below). Thus, we have two policy narratives which
are mutually incompatible, and many who would claim to be localists
are simply stating a preference for decentralisation or some degree of
devolution.
16 C. COPUS ET AL.

Understanding a Centralist View

In examining the centralist perspective, we can find no better starting point
than the findings of the Widdicombe Committee (1986:46) to explain
what might be considered the contemporary view of the position of local
government, certainly in the English context, but which reflects central-
ist thinking elsewhere. The report of the Committee of Inquiry into the
Conduct of Local Authority Business (Widdicombe) boldly stated that:

Although local government has origins pre-dating the sovereignty of

Parliament, all current local authorities are the statutory creations of parlia-
ment and have no independent status or right to exist. The whole system of
local government could lawfully be abolished by Act of Parliament. Central
government is not itself sovereign, and indeed its powers are—or may be—
circumscribed by Parliament just as much as those of local government. In
practice however central government is drawn from the political party with a
majority in Parliament and its de facto political strength is accordingly much
greater than that of local government. (HMSO 1986: 45, para 3.3)

The committee went onto comment:

The position of local government in our political system is therefore gov-

erned by constitutional convention as well as by the simple fact that it derives
its existence and powers from Parliament. It would however, be wrong to
assume that such constitutional convention amounts to or derives from any
natural right for local government to exist. It is a convention based on,
and subject to, the contribution which local government can bring to good
government
It follows that there is no validity in the assertion that local authorities
have a ‘local mandate’ by which they derive authority from their electorate
placing them above the law. The electoral basis of local authorities lends
added authority to actions they take within the law, and to any proposals
they may make for changes to the law, but does not provide a mandate to act
outside or above the law. Local authorities may properly lobby for changes
in the law, but in their day-to-day conduct of affairs they must act within
the law as it stands.
(Widdicombe Committee 1986: 46, paras 3.5 and 3.6)

Such a statement is not an out-of-the-ordinary position on local govern-

ment within unitary states, nor is it unusual in Federal systems where con-
trol of local government is passed from the national government to state
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 17

(or regional) governments. So, is it really a statement of centralisation

rather than a description of a political and governing system, especially
given that at the time the committee reported, central and local govern-
ment were indeed locked in the mandate wars? That is during the 1980s
a number of left-wing labour councils were challenging the supremacy
of central government and the policies of the then Thatcher government
(see Livingstone 1987; Blunkett and Jackson 1987; Carvel 1984). Even
in those heated political circumstances, the committee did recognise that
some systems of government—normally with written constitutions—
would legally entrench ‘the existence of those institutions that are most
important to their political system, so they cannot be removed by a simple
vote of the legislature’ (1986: 45, para 3.4). It also noted that because
Parliament did indeed have the power and right to abolish local govern-
ment, it was not automatically acceptable that it should do so.
What Widdicombe postulated was then, that in England, local govern-
ment lacks even the most basic constitutional protection, including the
right to continued existence. It is central government that decides the
shape, size, responsibilities, powers and functions of councils; it is central
government which can, and does, abolish individual councils, or entire
layers of local government, or create new types of councils when it deems
that circumstances, or politics, or policy, requires such a change. The
British unitary system is based on top-down Parliamentary sovereignty,
not a bottom-up citizen democracy, and thus does not have to respect the
institutions of local government.
But, policy narratives of centralisation and the arguments over its
meaning and direction do not stem just from the 1980s and the time of
the Widdicombe report. Throughout the history of the development of
local government in England, central government has vacillated between
a laissez-faire attitude through varying degrees of concern and control—
sometimes developing piecemeal in reaction to the needs of particular
services or certain political circumstances and at other times displaying a
more ideological edge to a vision of government and the role of local gov-
ernment within it (see Sharpe 1970; Jones 1986; Chandler 1989, 2007;
Wilson 2003). Growing public sector responsibilities developed during
the Victorian period which saw the development of a wide range of bodies
charged with public duties that impinged on the public purse and which
were designed towards securing what today would be called the ‘wellbe-
ing’ of local communities. Improvement boards, Poor Law Guardians or
Local Boards of Health, to mention a few, existed alongside municipal
18 C. COPUS ET AL.

corporations, shared responsibilities for various aspects of public infra-

structural development and the emerging welfare state. Elected councils
working in conjunction with other elected bodies and non-elected public
bodies, to secure public improvement is not a new feature and pre-dates
our understanding of governance and governance networks.
With the increase in local public expenditure, the increase in local
responsibility for public services and the increase in central concern for
welfare and national infrastructure developed an increasing desire to con-
trol local government. We see the first real steps taken to provide a central
point of government oversight and monitoring of local government with
the formation of the Local Government Board by an Act of Parliament in
1871. The Board took over the responsibility for local government from
various ministries and centralised the oversight of local government into
one central place, and this process forms an essential part of the transfor-
mation of the relationships between central and local government from
partner to agent (see Bellamy 1988). Crucially, Bellamy recognises the
increasingly ‘statist’ policy narrative defining the nature of local gov-
ernment as propagated by the Webbs, for example (see Webbs 1920),
Chadwick and Bentham, and she notes that this narrative is presented as a
positive one with social change and progress at its heart. It is an account
however, which saw local government as increasing a barrier to such prog-
ress and as failing as partner and therefore requiring a radical change in its
position, to one of agent of the centre. In her review Bellamy notes the
language of the time in regard to local government as dismissive, critical
and deeply disdainful and one where storylines were developed to describe
local government such as corruption, particularism, inefficiency, local fail-
ures of imagination and ability—terms, which until very recently, have
found echoes in current day central usage. Bellamy (1988: 15) reminds us
that Bulpitt had previously noted that at this point:

The centre lacked the support of any positive coherent doctrine of an inde-
pendent community orientated state … Moreover the place of Parliament in
the political culture acted as an obstacle to theorising about the state. As a
result laissez-faire many (sic) have lost its former intellectual hegemony. But
nothing more positive or coherent arose in its place. (Bulpitt 1983: 124)

Bulpitt (1983) also displayed the importance of how central governments

respond at critical social, economic and political times, or critical junc-
tures. While Bulpitt stressed the conservatism of central political elites,
 CENTRALISATION: THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE 19

even at critical points, when it comes to local government, that conser-

vatism can and has been of a radical kind and in some cases betrayed the
often localist tendencies of local Conservatives (Young 1994). Bulpitt’s
notion of the dual polity, and the political division of labour between high
politics at the centre and low politics in the localities, meant that local
government could at times operate in greater degrees of freedom. The
role it took in this account was not to disturb the centre-periphery settle-
ment (Bulpitt 1983: 55), but the framework within which the centre and
peripheries operate is not a static one (ibid: 56), and while the centres
‘operational code’ for relationships with the peripheries may not always be
known (ibid: 57), local government will certainly know when it has oper-
ated outside that code.
Bulpitt (1983: 64–65) provides here power models through which to
understand centralisation: coercive model—where threats, or the use of
threats, are used against non-centre players; an authority model—the cen-
tre is able to dominate because non-centre players accept that it has the
legitimate right to act and therefore acquiesce to centre policy—and in
this model we see the acceptance by local government of its agency role;
the capital city bargaining model where the localities articulate their views
to the centre and attempt to obtain what they want through a bargaining
process; and the central autonomy model where the centre distances itself
from the peripheries to focus on high politics and in this model the cen-
tre isolates itself from peripheral concerns. In any case, the centre retains
the dominant role, and it is the centre which can therefore select which
model of power it wishes to operate. If the centre lacks the constitutional
position to simply adopt a new approach, then it may need to negotiate
and bargain to achieve the relationship it requires between the centre and
localities, but such bargaining will, overtime, have a cumulative effect on
the relationship between the centre and the peripheries.
Centralism rests on not just changing the nature of the relationship
between local and central government from partner to agent, or develop-
ing a new operational code, or even having the constitutional freedom
to adopt a new power model and approach, it also rests on preparing the
ground for such a transformation. That preparation requires the devel-
opment of a different suite of policy narratives about local government
and about key features of its purpose, role, functions, structure, size and
abilities—both in terms of what it can do and how good it is at doing
it. Centralisation then required its own narrative justification and set of
stories to shift the terms of the debate. Yet, it would be fair to say that
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the receipt of a letter from Mr Coventry, a respectable farmer in the
neighbourhood, in which that gentleman offered to engage their son
for a few years, as a companion and tutor to his children. This was an
offer which his parents were too prudent to reject, particularly as it
might prove the means of future patronage as well as of present
emolument. It was therefore immediately agreed upon, that William
should himself be the bearer of their letter of acceptance, and
proceed forthwith to his new residence. On this occasion he was
admonished anew; but the advices were different from those
formerly given, and were delivered by a different person. His mother
was now the principal speaker; and, instead of warning him against
the snares that are laid for youth in a great city, she furnished him
with some rude lessons on the principles of good-breeding,
descending to a number of particulars too minute to be enumerated
here. William listened to her harangue with becoming reverence and
attention, and on the following morning, for the first time, bade
farewell to his affectionate parents.
On the afternoon of the same day, he arrived at Daisybank, where
he was welcomed with the greatest cordiality. His appearance was
genteel and prepossessing, and it was not long before his new friends
discovered, that the slight degree of awkwardness which at first clung
to his manners, proceeded more from bashfulness and
embarrassment than natural rusticity. But as he began to feel himself
at home, this embarrassment of manner gradually gave place to an
easy but unobtrusive politeness. Indeed it would not have been easy
for a youth of similar views, at his first outset in life, to have fallen
into more desirable company. Mr and Mrs Coventry were proverbial
among their neighbours for the simplicity and purity of their
manners, and they had laboured, not unsuccessfully, to stamp a
similar character upon the minds of their children. Their family
consisted of two sons and two daughters, the former of whom were
confided to the care of William.
Mary, the eldest of the four, now in her sixteenth or seventeenth
year, was in every respect the most interesting object at Daisybank.
To a mind highly cultivated for her years, she united many of those
personal graces and attractions which command little homage in the
crowd, but open upon us in the shade of retirement, and lend to the
domestic circle its most irresistible charms. In stature she scarcely
reached the middle size. To the beauty derived from form and colour
she had few pretensions; yet when her fine blue eyes moistened with
a tear at a tale of distress, or beamed an unaffected welcome to the
stranger or the friend, he must have been more or less than man who
felt not for her a sentiment superior to admiration. Hers, in a word,
was the beauty of expression—the beauty of a mind reflected, in
which the dullest disciple of Lavater could not for a moment have
mistaken her real character. Her education had been principally
conducted under the eye of her parents, and might be termed
domestic rather than fashionable. Not that she was entirely a
stranger to those acquirements which are deemed indispensable in
modern education. She had visited occasionally the great metropolis,
though, owing to the prudent solicitude of her parents, her residence
there had been comparatively short, yet probably long enough to
acquire all its useful or elegant accomplishments, without any
admixture of its fashionable frivolities.
From this hasty portraiture of Miss Coventry, it will be easily
believed that it was next to impossible for a youth nearly of the same
age, and not dissimilar in his dispositions, to remain long insensible
to charms that were gradually maturing before his eyes, and
becoming every day more remarkable. Fortunately, however, the idea
of dependence attached to his situation, and a temper naturally
diffident determined him to renounce for ever a hope which he
feared in his present circumstances would be deemed ungrateful and
even presumptuous. But this was waging war with nature, a task
which he soon found to be above his strength. He had now, therefore,
to abandon the hope of victory for the safety of retreat, and content
himself with concealing those sentiments he found it impossible to
subdue. Yet so deceitful is love, that even this modest hope was
followed with disappointment. One fine evening in June, when he
was about to unbend from the duties of the day, and retire to muse
on the amiable Mary, he encountered the fair wanderer herself, who
was probably returning from a similar errand. He accosted her in
evident confusion; and, without being conscious of what he said,
invited her to join him in a walk to a neighbouring height. His
request was complied with in the same spirit it had been made in, for
embarrassment is often contagious, particularly the embarrassment
arising from love. On this occasion he intended to summon up all his
powers of conversation, and yet his companion had never found him
so silent. Some commonplace compliments to the beauty of the
evening were almost the only observations which escaped his lips,
and these he uttered more in the manner of a sleep-walker than a
lover. They soon reached the limit of their walk, and rested upon an
eminence that commanded the prospect of an extensive valley below.
Day was fast declining to that point which is termed twilight, when
the whole irrational creation seem preparing for rest, and only man
dares to intrude upon the silence of nature. Miss Coventry beheld the
approach of night with some uneasiness, and dreading to be seen
with William alone, she began to rally him upon his apparent
absence and confusion, and proposed that they should immediately
return to the house. At mention of this, William started as from a
dream, and being unable longer to command his feelings, he
candidly confessed to her the cause of his absence and dejection. He
dwelt with much emotion upon his own demerit, and voluntarily
accused himself for the presumption of a hope which he never meant
to have revealed until the nearer accomplishment of his views had
rendered it less imprudent and romantic. He declared that he would
sooner submit to any hardship that incur the displeasure of her
excellent parents, and entreated that, whatever were her sentiments
with regard to the suit he was so presumptuous as to prefer, she
might assist him in concealing from them a circumstance which he
feared would be attended with that consequence. To this tender and
affectionate appeal, the gentle Mary could only answer with her sighs
and blushes. She often indeed attempted to speak, but the words as
often died upon her lips, and they had nearly reached home before
she could even whisper an answer to the reiterated question of her
lover. But she did answer at last; and never was a monarch more
proud of his conquest, or the homage of tributary princes, than
William was of the simple fealty of the heart of Mary.
In the bosom of this happy family William now found his hours
glide away so agreeably that he looked forward with real regret to the
termination of his engagement. His condition was perhaps one of
those in which the nearest approach is made to perfect happiness;
when the youthful mind, unseduced by the blandishments of
ambition, confines its regards to a few favourite objects, and dreads a
separation from them as the greatest of evils. The contrast between
the patriarchal simplicity of his father’s fireside, and the comparative
elegance of Mr Coventry’s parlour, for a season dazzled him with its
novelty; while the ripening graces of Mary threw around him a
fascination which older and more unsusceptible minds than his
might have found it difficult to resist. In his domestic establishment
Mr Coventry aimed at nothing beyond comfort and gentility. William
was therefore treated in every respect as an equal, and was never
banished from his patron’s table to make room for a more important
guest, or condemned to hold Lent over a solitary meal, while the
family were celebrating a holiday.
All our ideas are relative, and we estimate every thing by
comparison. Upon this principle, William thought no female so
lovely or amiable as Miss Coventry, and no residence so delightful as
Daisybank. And he would not have exchanged his feelings, while
seated on a winter evening amidst his favourite circle, scanning, for
their amusement, a page of history, or the columns of a newspaper,
while the snugness and comfort that reigned within made him forget
the storm that pelted without, for the most delicious paradise an
eastern imagination ever painted.
It will thus readily be imagined, that the saddest day of our tutor’s
life was that on which he parted from this amiable family. He had
here, he believed, spent the happiest moments of his existence, and
instead of rejoicing that he had passed through one stage of his
apprenticeship, he dwelt upon the past with pleasure, and looked
forward to the future with pain.
Fortune, however, presented an insuperable obstacle to his
spending his days in the inaction of private study; and he knew that
he could neither gain, nor deserved to gain, the object of his
affection, without establishing himself in life, by pursuing the course
which had been originally chalked out to him. After, therefore,
“pledging oft to meet again,” he bade adieu to Daisybank, loaded
with the blessings of the best of parents, and followed with the
prayers of the best of daughters. He now paid a farewell visit to his
own parents; and, after remaining with them a few days, he
proceeded to Edinburgh, and for a short period felt his melancholy
relieved, by the thousand novelties that attract the notice of a
stranger in a great city. But this was only a temporary relief, and as
he had no friend in whom he could confide, he soon felt himself
solitary in the midst of thousands. Often, when the Professor was
expatiating upon the force of the Greek particles, his imagination
was hovering over the abodes he had forsaken; and frequently it
would have been more difficult for him to have given an account of
the lectures he had been attending, than to have calculated the
probability of what was passing at a hundred miles’ distance. But this
absence and dejection at last wore off; and as he possessed good
natural talents, and had been an industrious student formerly, he
soon distinguished himself in his classes, and before the usual period
was engaged as a tutor in one of the best families in Scotland.
This event formed another important era in his life. His prospects
were now flattering; and as vanity did not fail to exaggerate them, he
soon dropped a considerable portion of his humility, and began to
regard himself as a young man of merit, to whom fortune was lavish
of her favours. In his leisure hours he was disposed to mingle much
in society, and, as his manners and address were easy and engaging,
scarcely a week elapsed that that did not add to the number of his
friends. The affections, when divided into many channels, cannot run
deep in any, and, probably, for every new acquaintance whom
William honoured with his esteem, it required a sacrifice of
friendship at the expense of love, and produced some abatement of
that devotion of soul which accompanies every true and permanent
attachment. At Daisybank he had seen a simple favourite of the
graces, but here he beheld the daughters of wealth and of fashion,
surrounded with all the gloss of art, and soon began to waver in his
attachment, and even to regard his engagement as little more than a
youthful frolic. Still this temper of mind was not attained without
many struggles between love and ambition, honour and interest; nor
could he ever for a moment commune with himself, without feeling
remorse for his inconstancy and ingratitude. He could not annihilate
the conviction, that Miss Coventry was as faithful and worthy as ever,
and had she been present to appeal to his senses, it is probable he
might have been preserved from the crime of apostasy. But these
were fits of reflection and repentance which repetition soon deprived
of their poignancy. The world, the seductive world, returned with all
its opiates and charms, to stifle in his bosom the feelings of honour,
and obliterate every trace of returning tenderness. After this he
became less punctual in his correspondence with Miss Coventry, and
in place of anticipating the arrival of her letters, as he was wont to
do, he allowed them to be sent slowly to his lodgings, opened them
without anxiety, and read them without interest. Of all this
inconstancy, ingratitude, and neglect, the simple Mary remained a
silent, though not unconcerned spectator. Kind and generous by
nature, and judging of others by herself, she framed a thousand
excuses for his negligence; and when he did condescend to write to
her, answered him as though she had been unconscious of any
abatement in his attentions.
Matters remained in this uncertain state for the space of three long
years—at least they seemed long to Miss Coventry—when William
received his licence as a preacher. He now therefore thought of
redeeming a pledge he had given to the minister of his native parish,
to make his first public appearance in his pulpit; and after giving due
intimation, he departed for the parish of ——, with his best sermon in
the pocket of his best coat. The account of his visit spread with
telegraphic despatch, long before telegraphs were invented, and was
known over half the county many days before his arrival. This was
another great and eventful day for his mother. She blessed
Providence that she had lived to see the near fulfilment of her most
anxious wish, and rising a little in her ambition, thought she could
now die contented, if she should see him settled in a living of his
own, and be greeted by her neighbours with the envied name of
grandmother.—As William was expected to dine with his parents on
his way to the parsonage, or, as it is called in Scotland, the manse, of
——, great preparations were made for his reception, and for the
appearance of the whole family at church on the following Sunday.
Mrs Arbuthnot drew from the family-chest her wedding-gown, which
had only seen the sun twice during thirty summers; and her
husband, for the first time, reluctantly applied a brush to his holiday
suit, which appeared, from the antiquity of its fashion, to have
descended, like the garments of the Swiss, through many successive
generations of the Arbuthnots.
The little church of H—— was crowded to the door, perhaps for the
first time, long before the bellman had given the usual signal. Mr
Coventry, though residing in a different parish, had made a journey
thither with several of his family, for the purpose of witnessing the
first public appearance of his friend. In this party was the amiable
Mary, who took a greater interest in the event than any one, save the
preacher, was aware of.
 William, on this occasion, recited a well written discourse with
ease and fluency, and impressed his audience with a high opinion of
his talents and piety. Some of the elder of them, indeed, objected to
his gestures and pronunciation, which they thought “new fangled”
and theatrical; but they all agreed in thinking him a clever lad, and a
great honour to his parents. His mother was now overwhelmed with
compliments and congratulations from all quarters, which she
received with visible marks of pride and emotion. Mr Coventry
waited in the churchyard till the congregation had retired, to salute
his friend, and invite him to spend a few days at Daisybank. Mary,
who hung on her father’s arm, curtsied, blushed, and looked down.
She had no well-turned compliment to offer on the occasion, but her
eyes expressed something at parting, which once would have been
sweeter to his soul than the applause of all the world beside.
Ambition, from the beginning, has been the bane of love. War and
peace are not more opposite in their nature and effects than those
rival passions, and the bosom that is agitated with the cares of the
one has little relish for the gentle joys of the other. William beheld in
the person of Miss Coventry all he had been taught to regard as
amiable or estimable in woman; but the recollection of the respect
that had been shown him by females of distinction, mixed with
exaggerated notions of his own merit, made him undervalue those
simple unobtrusive graces he once valued so highly, and think almost
any conquest easy after he had been settled in the rich living of B——,
which had been promised him by his patron.
On the following day he paid a visit to Daisybank, and received the
most cordial welcome from a family who sympathised almost equally
with his parents in his prospects and advancement. During his stay
there, he had frequent opportunities of seeing Miss Coventry alone,
but he neglected, or rather avoided them all; and when rallied on the
subject of marriage, declaimed on the pleasures of celibacy, and
hinted, with a good deal of insincerity, his intention of living single.
Although these speeches were like daggers to the mind of her who
regretted she could not rival him in inconstancy and indifference,
they produced no visible alteration in her behaviour. Hers was not
one of those minds in which vanity predominates over every other
feeling, and where disappointment is commonly relieved by the
hatred or resentment which it excites. Her soul was soft as the
passion that enslaved it, and the traces of early affection are not
easily effaced from a mind into which the darker passions have never
entered.
William bade adieu to Miss Coventry without dropping one word
upon which she could rear the superstructure of hope, and carried
with him her peace of mind, as he had formerly carried with him her
affections. From that hour she became pensive and melancholy, in
spite of all her efforts to appear cheerful and happy. She had rejected
many lovers for the inconstant’s sake, but that gave her no concern.
Her union with him had been long the favourite object of her life,
and she could have patiently resigned existence, now that its object
was lost. But she shuddered at the thought of the shock it would give
her affectionate parents, for the softer feelings of our nature are all of
one family, and the tenderest wives have ever been the most dutiful
daughters.
It was impossible for Mary long to conceal the sorrow which
consumed her. Her fading cheeks and heavy eyes gave daily
indications of what her lips refused to utter. Her parents became
deeply alarmed at these symptoms of indisposition, and anxiously
and unceasingly inquired into the cause of her illness; but her only
answer was, that she felt no pain. The best physicians were
immediately consulted upon her case, who recommended change of
air and company; but all these remedies were tried without effect.
The poison of disappointment had taken deep root in her heart, and
defied the power of medicine.
Her attendants, when they found all their prescriptions ineffectual,
began to ascribe her malady to its real cause, and hinted to her
parents their apprehensions that she had been crossed in love. The
good people, though greatly surprised at the suggestion, had too
much prudence to treat it with indifference, and they left no means
untried, consistent with a regard for the feelings of their child, to wile
from her the important secret. At first she endeavoured to evade
their inquiries; but finding it impossible to allay their apprehensions
without having recourse to dissimulation, she confessed to her
mother her attachment to William, concealing only the promises he
had made to her, and every circumstance that imputed to him the
slightest degree of blame. At the same time she entreated them, with
the greatest earnestness, that no use might be made of a secret which
she wished to have carried with her to the grave. This was a hard task
imposed upon her parents. They felt equally with herself the extreme
delicacy of making the disclosure; but, on the other hand, they
contemplated nothing but the probable loss of their child; an event,
the bare apprehension of which filled their minds with the bitterest
anguish. After many anxious consultations, Mr Coventry determined,
unknown to any but his wife, to pay a visit to William, and ascertain
his sentiments with regard to his daughter.
Upon his arrival at Edinburgh, he found that his friend had
departed for the manse of B——, with which he had been recently
presented. This event, which in other circumstances would have
given him the liveliest pleasure, awakened on this occasion emotions
of a contrary nature, as he feared it would make his now reverend
friend more elevated in his notions, and consequently more averse to
a union with his daughter. He did not, however, on that account
conceal the real object of his journey, or endeavour to accomplish his
purpose by stratagem or deceit. He candidly disclosed his daughter’s
situation and sentiments, requesting of his friend that he would open
to him his mind with equal candour; and added, that although he
held wealth to be an improper motive in marriage, and hoped that
his daughter did not require such a recommendation, in the event of
this union, whatever he possessed would be liberally shared with
him.
On hearing of the situation of Miss Coventry, William became
penetrated with the deepest remorse; and being aware that his
affection for her was rather stifled than estranged, he declared his
willingness to make her his wife. These words operated like a charm
upon the drooping spirits of the father, who embraced his friend with
ardour, and besought him immediately to accompany him home,
that they might lose no time in making a communication, which he
fondly hoped would have a similar effect upon the spirits of his
daughter.
They departed accordingly together, indulging in the pleasing hope
that all would yet be well; but on their arrival at Daisybank, they
were seriously alarmed to hear that Miss Coventry had been
considerably worse since her father left home. She was now entirely
confined to her chamber, and seemed to care for nothing so much as
solitude, and an exemption from the trouble of talking. As soon as
she was informed of the arrival of their visitor, she suspected he had
been sent for, and therefore refused to see him; but upon being
assured by her mother, who found deceit in this instance
indispensable, that his visit was voluntary and accidental, she at last
consented to give him an interview.
On entering the room, which had formerly been the family parlour,
William was forcibly struck with the contrast it exhibited. Every
object seemed to swim before his sight, and it was some moments
before he discovered Miss Coventry, who reclined upon a sofa at the
farther end of the room. He advanced with a beating heart, and
grasped the burning hand that was extended to meet him. He
pressed it to his lips and wept, and muttered something incoherent
of forgiveness and love. He looked doubtingly on Mary’s face for an
answer,—but her eye darted no reproach, and her lips uttered no
reflection. A faint blush, that at this moment overspread her cheek,
seemed a token of returning strength, and inspired him with
confidence and hope. It was the last effort of nature,—and ere the
blood could return to its fountain, that fountain had closed for ever.
Death approached his victim under the disguise of sleep, and
appeared divested of his usual pains and terrors.
William retired from this scene of unutterable anguish, and for a
long period was overwhelmed with the deepest melancholy and
remorse. But time gradually softened and subdued his sorrow, and I
trust perfected his repentance. He is since married and wealthy, and
is regarded by the world as an individual eminently respectable and
happy. But, amidst all his comforts, there are moments when he
would exchange his identity with the meanest slave that breathes,
and regards himself as the murderer of Mary Coventry.—J. M‘D., in
Blackwood’s Magazine, 1817.
 ADAM BELL.

By James Hogg, the “Ettrick Shepherd.”

This tale, which may be depended on as in every part true, is

singular, from the circumstance of its being insolvable, either from
the facts that have been discovered relating to it, or by reason; for
though events sometimes occur among mankind, which at the time
seem inexplicable, yet there being always some individuals
acquainted with the primary causes of these events, they seldom fail
of being brought to light before all the actors in them, or their
confidants, are removed from this state of existence. But the causes
which produced the events here related have never been accounted
for in this world; even conjecture is left to wander in a labyrinth,
unable to get hold of the thread that leads to the catastrophe.
Mr Bell was a gentleman of Annandale, in Dumfriesshire, in the
south of Scotland, and proprietor of a considerable estate in that
district, part of which he occupied himself. He lost his father when he
was an infant, and his mother dying when he was about 20 years of
age, left him the sole proprietor of the estate, besides a large sum of
money at interest, for which he was indebted, in a great measure, to
his mother’s parsimony during his minority. His person was tall,
comely, and athletic, and his whole delight was in warlike and violent
exercises. He was the best horseman and marksman in the county,
and valued himself particularly upon his skill in the broad sword. Of
this he often boasted aloud, and regretted that there was not one in
the county whose skill was in some degree equal to his own.
In the autumn of 1745, after being for several days busily and
silently employed in preparing for his journey, he left his own house,
and went to Edinburgh, giving at the same time such directions to his
servants as indicated his intention of being absent for some time.
A few days after he had left his home, one morning, while his
housekeeper was putting the house in order for the day, her master,
as she thought, entered by the kitchen door, the other being bolted,
and passed her in the middle of the floor. He was buttoned in his
greatcoat, which was the same he had on when he went from home;
he likewise had the same hat on his head, and the same whip in his
hand which he took with him. At sight of him she uttered a shriek,
but recovering her surprise, instantly said to him, “You have not
stayed so long from us, Sir.” He made no reply, but went sullenly into
his own room, without throwing off his greatcoat. After a pause of
about five minutes, she followed him into the room. He was standing
at his desk with his back towards her. She asked him if he wished to
have a fire kindled, and afterwards if he was well enough; but he still
made no reply to any of these questions. She was astonished, and
returned into the kitchen. After tarrying about other five minutes, he
went out at the front door, it being then open, and walked
deliberately towards the bank of the river Kinnel, which was deep
and wooded, and in that he vanished from her sight. The woman ran
out in the utmost consternation to acquaint the men who were
servants belonging to the house; and coming to one of the
ploughmen, she told him that their master was come home, and had
certainly lost his reason, for that he was wandering about the house
and would not speak. The man loosed his horses from the plough
and came home, listened to the woman’s relation, made her repeat it
again and again, and then assured her that she was raving, for their
master’s horse was not in the stable, and of course he could not be
come home. However, as she persisted in her asseveration with every
appearance of sincerity, he went into the linn to see what was
become of his mysterious master. He was neither to be seen nor
heard of in all the country. It was then concluded that the
housekeeper had seen an apparition, and that something had
befallen their master; but on consulting with some old people, skilled
in those matters, they learned that when a “wraith,” or apparition of
a living person, appeared while the sun was up, instead of being a
prelude of instant death, it prognosticated very long life; and,
moreover, that it could not possibly be a ghost that she had seen, for
they always chose the night season for making their visits. In short,
though it was the general topic of conversation among the servants
and the people in the vicinity, no reasonable conclusion could be
formed on the subject.
The most probable conjecture was, that as Mr Bell was known to
be so fond of arms, and had left his home on the very day that Prince
Charles Stuart and his Highlanders defeated General Hawley on
Falkirk Muir, he had gone either with him or the Duke of
Cumberland to the north. It was, however, afterwards ascertained,
that he had never joined any of the armies. Week passed after week,
and month after month, but no word of Mr Bell. A female cousin was
his nearest living relation; her husband took the management of his
affairs; and concluding that he had either joined the army, or
drowned himself in the Kinnel, when he was seen go into the linn,
made no more inquiries after him.
About this very time, a respectable farmer, whose surname was
M‘Millan, and who resided in the neighbourhood of Musselburgh,
happened to be in Edinburgh about some business. In the evening he
called upon a friend who lived near Holyrood-house; and being
seized with an indisposition, they persuaded him to tarry with them
all night. About the middle of the night he grew exceedingly ill, and
not being able to find any rest or ease in his bed, imagined he would
be the better of a walk. He put on his clothes, and, that he might not
disturb the family, slipped quietly out at the back door, and walked
in St Anthony’s garden behind the house. The moon shone so bright,
that it was almost as light as noonday, and he had scarcely taken a
single turn, when he saw a tall man enter from the other side,
buttoned in a drab-coloured greatcoat. It so happened, that at that
time M‘Millan stood in the shadow of the wall, and perceiving that
the stranger did not observe him, a thought struck him that it would
not be amiss to keep himself concealed, that he might see what the
man was going to be about. He walked backwards and forwards for
some time in apparent impatience, looking at his watch every
minute, until at length another man came in by the same way,
buttoned likewise in a greatcoat, and having a bonnet on his head.
He was remarkably stout made, but considerably lower in stature
than the other. They exchanged only a single word; then turning both
about, they threw off their coats, drew their swords, and began a
most desperate and well-contested combat.
 The tall gentleman appeared to have the advantage. He constantly
gained ground on the other, and drove him half round the division of
the garden in which they fought. Each of them strove to fight with his
back towards the moon, so that it might shine full in the face of his
opponent; and many rapid wheels were made for the purpose of
gaining this position. The engagement was long and obstinate, and
by the desperate thrusts that were frequently aimed on both sides, it
was evident that they meant one another’s destruction. They came at
length within a few yards of the place where M‘Millan still stood
concealed. They were both out of breath, and at that instant a small
cloud chancing to overshadow the moon, one of them called out,
“Hold, we cannot see.” They uncovered their heads, wiped their
faces, and as soon as the moon emerged from the cloud, each
resumed his guard. Surely that was an awful pause! And short,
indeed, was the stage between it and eternity with the one! The tall
gentleman made a lounge at the other, who parried and returned it;
and as the former sprung back to avoid the thrust, his foot slipped,
and he stumbled forward towards his antagonist, who dexterously
met his breast in the fall with the point of his sword, and ran him
through the body. He made only one feeble convulsive struggle, as if
attempting to rise, and expired almost instantaneously.
M‘Millan was petrified with horror; but conceiving himself to be in
a perilous situation, having stolen out of the house at that dead hour
of the night, he had so much presence of mind as to hold his peace,
and to keep from interfering in the smallest degree.
The surviving combatant wiped his sword with great composure;—
put on his bonnet, covered the body with one of the greatcoats, took
up the other, and departed. M‘Millan returned quietly to his chamber
without awakening any of the family. His pains were gone, but his
mind was shocked and exceedingly perturbed; and after deliberating
until morning, he determined to say nothing of the matter, and to
make no living creature acquainted with what he had seen, thinking
that suspicion would infallibly rest on him. Accordingly, he kept his
bed next morning, until his friend brought him the tidings that a
gentleman had been murdered at the back of the house during the
night. He then arose and examined the body, which was that of a
young man, seemingly from the country, having brown hair, and fine
manly features. He had neither letter, book, nor signature of any
kind about him that could in the least lead to a discovery of who he
was; only a common silver watch was found in his pocket, and an
elegant sword was clasped in his cold bloody hand, which had an A.
and B. engraved on the hilt. The sword had entered at his breast, and
gone out at his back a little below the left shoulder. He had likewise
received a slight wound on the sword arm.
The body was carried to the dead-room, where it lay for eight days,
and though great numbers inspected it, yet none knew who or
whence the deceased was, and he was at length buried among the
strangers in Grayfriars churchyard.
Sixteen years elapsed before M‘Millan mentioned to any person
the circumstance of his having seen the duel, but at that period,
being in Annandale receiving some sheep that he had bought, and
chancing to hear of the astonishing circumstances of Bell’s
disappearance, he divulged the whole. The time, the description of
his person, his clothes, and above all, the sword with the initials of
his name engraved upon it, confirmed the fact beyond the smallest
shadow of doubt that it was Mr Bell whom he had seen killed in the
duel behind the Abbey. But who the person was that slew him, how
the quarrel commenced, or who it was that appeared to his
housekeeper, remains to this day a profound secret, and is likely to
remain so, until that day when every deed of darkness shall be
brought to light.
Some have even ventured to blame McMillan for the whole, on
account of his long concealment of facts, and likewise in
consideration of his uncommon bodily strength and daring
disposition, he being one of the boldest and most enterprising men of
the age in which he lived; but all who knew him despised such
insinuations, and declared them to be entirely inconsistent with his
character, which was most honourable and disinterested; and
besides, his tale has every appearance of truth. “Pluris est oculatus
testis unus quam auriti decem.”
 MAUNS’ STANE; OR, MINE HOST’S TALE.

In the latter end of the autumn of ——, I set out by myself on an

excursion over the northern part of Scotland; and, during that time,
my chief amusement was to observe the little changes of manners,
language, &c., in the different districts. After having viewed, on my
return, the principal curiosities in Buchan, I made a little alehouse,
or “public,” my head-quarters for the night. Having discussed my
supper in solitude, I called up mine host to enable me to discuss my
bottle, and to give me a statistical account of the country around me.
Seated in the “blue” end, and well supplied with the homely but
satisfying luxuries which the place afforded, I was in an excellent
mood for enjoying the communicativeness of my landlord; and, after
speaking about the cave at Slaines, the state of the crop, and the
neighbouring franklins, edged him, by degrees, to speak about the
Abbey of Deer, an interesting ruin which I had examined in the
course of the day, formerly the stronghold of the once powerful
family of Cummin.
“It’s dootless a bonny place about the Abbey,” said he, “but
naething like what it was when the great Sir James the Rose cam to
hide i’ the Buchan woods, wi’ a’ the Grahames rampagin’ at his tail,
whilk you that’s a beuk learned man ’ill hae read o’; an’ maybe ye’ll
hae heard o’ the saughen bush where he forgathered wi’ his joe; or
aiblins ye may have seen’t, for it’s standing yet just at the corner o’
gaukit Jamie Jamieson’s peat-stack. Ay, ay, the abbey was a brave
place ance; but a’ thing, ye ken, comes till an end.” So saying, he
nodded to me, and brought his glass to an end.
“This place, then, must have been famed in days of yore, my
friend?”
“Ye may tak my word for that,” said he. “’Od, it was a place! Sic a
sight o’ fechtin’ as they had about it! But gin ye’ll gang up the trap-
stair to the laft, an’ open Jenny’s kist, ye’ll see sic a story about it,
prented by ane o’ your learned Aberdeen’s fouk, Maister Keith, I
think; she coft it in Aberdeen for twal pennies, lang ago, an’ battered
it to the lid o’ her kist. But gang up the stair canny, for fear that you
should wauken her, puir thing;—or, bide, I’ll just wauken Jamie
Fleep, an’ gar him help me down wi’t, for our stair’s no just that
canny for them ‘t’s no acquaint wi’t, let alane a frail man wi’ your
infirmity.”
I assured him that I would neither disturb the young lady’s
slumber, nor Jamie Fleep’s, and begged him to give me as much
information as he could about this castle.
“Weel, wishin’ your gude health again.—Our minister ance said,
that Soloman’s Temple was a’ in ruins, wi’ whin bushes, an’ broom
an’ thristles growin’ ower the bonny carved wark an’ the cedar wa’s,
just like our ain Abbey. Noo, I judge that the Abbey o’ Deer was just
the marrow o’t, or the minister wadna hae said that. But when it was
biggit, Lord kens, for I dinna. It was just as you see it, lang afore your
honour was born; an’ aiblins, as the by-word says, may be sae after
ye’re hanged. But that’s neither here nor there. The Cummins o’
Buchan were a dour and surly race; and, for a fearfu’ time, nane near
han’ nor far awa could ding them, an’ yet mony a ane tried it. The
fouk on their ain lan’ likit them weel enough; but the Crawfords, an’
the Grahames, an’ the Mars, an’ the Lovats, were aye trying to comb
them against the hair, an’ mony a weary kempin’ had they wi’ them;
but, some way or ither, they could never ding them; an’ fouk said that
they gaed and learned the black art frae the Pope o’ Room, wha, I
mysel heard the minister say, had aye a colleague wi’ the Auld Chiel.
I dinna ken fou it was; in the tail o’ the day, the hale country rase up
against them, an’ besieged them in the Abbey o’ Deer. Ye’ll see, my
frien’ [by this time mine host considered me as one of his cronies],
tho’ we ca’ it the Abbey, it had naething to do wi’ Papistry; na, na, no
sae bad as a’ that either, but just a noble’s castle, where they keepit
sodgers gaun about in airn an’ scarlet, wi’ their swords an’ guns, an’
begnets, an’ sentry-boxes, like the local militia in the barracks o’
Aberdeen.
“Weel, ye see, they surrounded the castle, an’ lang did they besiege
it; but there was a vast o’ meat in the castle, an’ the Buchan fouk
fought like the vera deil. They took their horse through a
miscellaneous passage, half a mile long, aneath the hill o’ Saplinbrae,
an’ watered them in the burn o’ Pulmer. But a’ wadna do; they took
the castle at last, and a terrible slaughter they made amo’ them; but
they were sair disappointed in ae partic’ler, for Cummin’s fouk sank
a’ their goud an’ siller in a draw-wall, an’ syne filled it up wi’ stanes.
They gat naething in the way of spulzie to speak o’; sae out o’ spite
they dang doon the castle, an’ it’s never been biggit to this day. But
the Cummins were no sae bad as the Lairds o’ Federat, after a’.”
“And who were these Federats?” I inquired.
“The Lairds o’ Federat?” said he, moistening his mouth again as a
preamble to his oration. “Troth, frae their deeds, ane would maist
think that they had a drap o’ the deil’s blude, like the pyets. Gin a’
tales be true, they hae the warmest place at his bink this vera minute.
I dinna ken vera muckle about them, though, but the auldest fouk
said they were just byous wi’ cruelty. Mony a gude man did they hing
up i’ their ha’, just for their ain sport; ye’ll see the ring to the fore yet
in the roof o’t. Did ye ever hear o’ Mauns’ Stane, neebour?”
“Mauns’ what?” said I.
“Ou, Mauns’ Stane. But it’s no likely. Ye see it was just a queer
clump o’ a roun’-about heathen, waghtin’ maybe twa tons or thereby.
It wasna like ony o’ the stanes in our countra, an’ it was as roun’ as a
fit-ba’; I’m sure it wad ding Professor Couplan himsel to tell what
way it cam there. Noo, fouk aye thought there was something
uncanny about it, an’ some gaed the length o’ saying, that the deil
used to bake ginshbread upon’t; and, as sure as ye’re sitting there,
frien’, there was knuckle-marks upon’t, for my ain father has seen
them as aften as I have taes an’ fingers. Aweel, ye see, Mauns
Crawford, the last o’ the Lairds o’ Federat, an’ the deil had coost out
(maybe because the Laird was just as wicked an’ as clever as he was
himsel), an’ ye perceive the evil ane wantit to play him a trick. Noo,
Mauns Crawford was ae day lookin’ ower his castle wa’, and he saw a
stalwart carl, in black claes, ridin’ up the loanin’. He stopped at this
chuckie o’ a stane, an’, loutin’ himsel, he took it up in his arms, and
lifted it three times to his saddle-bow, an’ syne he rade awa out o’
sight, never comin’ near the castle, as Mauns thought he would hae
done. ‘Noo,’ says the baron till himsel, says he, ‘I didna think that
there was ony ane in a’ the land that could hae played sic a ploy; but
deil fetch me if I dinna lift it as weel as he did.’ Sae aff he gaed, for
there was na sic a man for birr in a’ the countra, an’ he kent it as
weel, for he never met wi’ his match. Weel, he tried, and tugged, and
better than tugged at the stane, but he coudna mudge it ava; an’,
when he looked about, he saw a man at his elbuck, a’ smeared wi’
smiddy-coom, snightern’ an’ laughin’ at him. The Laird d——d him,
an’ bade him lift it, whilk he did as gin’t had been a little pinnin. The
Laird was like to burst wi’ rage at being fickled by sic a hag-ma-hush
carle, and he took to the stane in a fury, and lifted it till his knee; but
the weight o’t amaist ground his banes to smash. He held the stane
till his een-strings crackit, when he was as blin’ as a moudiwort. He
was blin’ till the day o’ his death,—that’s to say, if ever he died, for
there were queer sayings about it—vera queer! vera queer! The stane
was ca’d Mauns’ Stane ever after; an’ it was no thought that canny to
be near it after gloaming; for what says the psalm—hem!—I mean the
sang—
’Tween Ennetbutts an’ Mauns’ Stane
Ilka night there walks ane.

“There never was a chief of the family after; the men were
scattered, an’ the castle demolished. The doo and the hoodie craw
nestle i’ their towers, and the hare maks her form on their grassy
hearthstane.”
“Is this stone still to be seen?”
“Ou na. Ye see, it was just upon Johnie Forbes’s craft, an’ fouk cam
far an’ near to leuk at it, an’ trampit down a’ the puir cottar body’s
corn; sae he houkit a hole just aside it, an’ tumbled it intil’t: by that
means naebody sees’t noo, but its weel kent that it’s there, for they’re
livin’ yet wha’ve seen it.”
“But the well at the Abbey—did no one feel a desire to enrich
himself with the gold and silver buried there?”
“Hoot, ay; mony a ane tried to find out whaur it was, and, for that
matter, I’ve maybe done as foolish a thing mysel; but nane ever made
it out. There was a scholar, like yoursel, that gaed ae night down to
the Abbey, an’, ye see, he summoned up the deil.”
“The deuce he did!” said I.
“Weel, weel, the deuce, gin ye like it better,” said he. “An’ he was
gaun to question him where the treasure was, but he had eneugh to
do to get him laid without deaving him wi’ questions, for a’ the deils
cam about him, like bees bizzin’ out o’ a byke. He never coured the
fright he gat, but cried out, ‘Help! help!’ till his very enemy wad hae
been wae to see him; and sae he cried till he died, which was no that
lang after. Fouk sudna meddle wi’ sic ploys!”
“Most wonderful! And do you believe that Beelzebub actually
appeared to him?”
“Believe it! What for no?” said he, consequentially tapping the lid
of his snuff-horn. “Didna my ain father see the evil ane i’ the schule
o’ Auld Deer?”
“Indeed!”
“Weel I wot he did that. A wheen idle callants, when the dominie
was out at his twal-hours, read the Lord’s Prayer backlans, an’ raised
him, but coudna lay him again; for he threepit ower them that he
wadna gang awa unless he gat ane o’ them wi’ him. Ye may be sure
this put them in an awfu’ swither. They were a’ squallin’, an’ crawlin’,
and sprawlin’ amo’ the couples to get out o’ his grips. Ane o’ them gat
out an’ tauld the maister about it; an’ when he cam down, the melted
lead was rinnin’ aff the roof o’ the house wi’ the heat; sae, flingin’ to
the Black Thief a young bit kittlen o’ the schule-mistress’s, he sank
through the floor wi’ an awsome roar. I mysel have heard the
mistress misca’in’ her man about offering up the puir thing, baith
saul and body, to Baal. But, troth, I’m no clear to speak o’ the like o’
this at sic a time o’ night; sae, if your honour be na for anither jug, I’ll
e’en wus you a gude night, for its wearin’ late, an’ I maun awa’ to
Skippyfair i’ the mornin’.”
I assented to this, and quickly lost in sleep the remembrance of all
these tales of the olden time.—Aberdeen Censor, 1825.