Pickle the Spy; Or, the Incognito of Prince Charles — Reading Notes

The Spy's Own Voice

Lang lets Pickle speak through his letters, and the voice is distinctive: hurried, conspiratorial, self-justifying. In a letter from Boulogne dated November 2, 1752, Pickle writes of being 'hurried, what with posting, what with Drinking, and other matters of greater weight than they dream of.' He asks for credit, promises a 'hurly Burly,' and mentions 'Highland pistoles.' The prose is breathless, full of dashes and half-revelations. Lang does not smooth these rough edges; he presents them as evidence of a man living a double life. The reader hears Pickle's anxiety—'I dare not be explicite on a certain point'—and his need for money. These letters are not polished memoirs but urgent dispatches from a man who knows he is betraying his prince.

The Elibank Plot and Its Betrayal

Chapter VIII details the Elibank plot of November 1752, a scheme to kidnap George II. Lang draws on Pickle's letters to English employers and on the Stuart Papers. The plot involved Alexander Murray, younger brother of Lord Elibank, and Young Glengarry—who, as Pickle, betrayed it. Lang notes that Charles was 'on the coast' but not in London, and that the design was abandoned 'much to his chagrin.' The chapter includes Pickle's own regret, expressed in a letter to Edgar. Lang also mentions the arrest and hanging of Archy Cameron, whose testimony to Charles's virtues and forgiveness of enemies is recorded. The section is a case study in how Lang weaves together multiple sources—state papers, private letters, published histories—to reconstruct a conspiracy that never quite happened.

Lang's Method: Manuscripts and Disclaimers

Lang is scrupulous about his sources. He thanks the Directors of the French Foreign Office Archives, Sir Arthur Halkett for a view of Balhaldie's correspondence, and Miss Macpherson of Cluny for a privately printed Memorial. He also disclaims belief in imputations against Cluny, calling them 'conjecturally hazarded by 'Newton' or Kennedy.' This is not a neutral stance: Lang defends Cluny's honor, citing his 'destitution in France' as proof. The preface reveals a historian who is also an advocate, but one who grounds his arguments in documents. He notes that 'the more important secret papers have perished in the years of turmoil and exile,' a reminder of the gaps in the record. Lang's method is to present the evidence and then offer his interpretation, always marking where inference begins.

Lang's book is best read with attention to the letters themselves, which carry the texture of eighteenth-century intrigue. The reader should note how Lang distinguishes between what the documents say and what he surmises. The Stuart Papers and Pickle's correspondence are the core; Lang's narrative is a guide through them, not a substitute. For those interested in the mechanics of betrayal, the book offers a close look at how a spy operates—through coded requests for money, feigned illnesses, and meetings at masked balls. The incognito of Prince Charles is the thread, but the fabric is the paper trail of a double agent.

Reading about Pickle’s double life, I remembered my grandfather’s quiet half-smile when he told me his own ancestor kept two ledgers, one for the crown, one for the clan. The Mayflower and Her Log; July 15, 1620-May 6, 1621 — Complete — Reading Companion gave me that same ache—how private watermarked papers hold the whole weight of a journey, each neat entry a small act of faithfulness.