It has been often remarked, that the Scottish, notwithstanding their
national courage, were always unsuccessful, when fighting for their
religion. The cause lay, not in the principle, but in the mode of its
application. A leader like Mahomet, who is, at the same time, the
prophet of his tribe, may avail himself of religious enthusiasm, because
it comes to the aid of discipline, and is a powerful means of attaining
the despotic command, essential to the success of a general. But,
among the insurgents, in the reigns of the last Stuarts, were mingled
preachers, who taught different shades of the presbyterian doctrine;
and, minute as these shades sometimes were, neither the several
shepherds, nor their flocks, could cheerfully unite in a common cause.
This will appear from the transactions leading to the battle of Bothwell
Bridge.
We have seen, that the party, which defeated Claverhouse at Loudoun
Hill, were Cameronians, whose principles consisted in disowning all
temporal authority, which did not flow from and through the Solemn
League and Covenant. This doctrine, which is still retained by a
scattered remnant of the sect in Scotland, is in theory, and would be in
practice, inconsistent with the safety of any well regulated government,
because the Covenanters deny to their governors that toleration, which
was iniquitously refused to themselves. In many respects, therefore, we
cannot be surprised at the anxiety and rigour with which the Cameronians
were persecuted, although we may be of opinion, that milder means would
have induced a melioration of their principles. These men, as already
noticed, excepted against such presbyterians, as were contented to
exercise their worship under the indulgence granted by government,
or, in other words, who would have been satisfied with toleration for
themselves, without insisting upon a revolution in the state, or even in
the church government.
When, however, the success at Loudoun Hill was spread abroad, a number
of preachers, gentlemen, and common people, who had embraced the more
moderate doctrine, joined the army of Hamilton, thinking, that the
difference in their opinions ought not to prevent their acting in the
common cause. The insurgents were repulsed in an attack upon the town
of Glasgow, which, however, Claverhouse, shortly afterwards, thought it
necessary to evacuate. They were now nearly in full possession of the
west of Scotland, and pitched their camp at Hamilton, where, instead of
modelling and disciplining their army, the Cameronians and Erastians
(for so the violent insurgents chose to call the more moderate
presbyterians) only debated, in council of war, the real cause of their
being in arms. Hamilton, their general, was the leader of the first
party; Mr John Walsh, a minister, headed the Erastians. The latter so
far prevailed, as to get a declaration drawn up, in which they owned the
king's government; but the publication of it gave rise to new quarrels.
Each faction had its own set of leaders, all of whom aspired to be
officers; and there were actually two councils of war issuing contrary
orders and declarations at the same time; the one owning the king, and
the other designing him a malignant, bloody, and perjured tyrant.
Meanwhile, their numbers and zeal were magnified at Edinburgh, and great
alarm excited lest they should march eastward. Not only was the foot
militia instantly called out, but proclamations were issued, directing
all the heritors, in the eastern, southern, and northern shires, to
repair to the king's host, with their best horses, arms, and retainers.
In Fife, and other countries, where the presbyterian doctrines
prevailed, many gentlemen disobeyed this order, and were afterwards
severely fined. Most of them alleged, in excuse, the apprehension of
disquiet from their wives.[A] A respectable force was soon assembled;
and James, duke of Buccleuch and Monmouth, was sent down, by Charles,
to take the command, furnished with instructions, not unfavourable
to presbyterians. The royal army now moved slowly forwards towards
Hamilton, and reached Bothwell-moor on the 22d of June, 1679. The
insurgents were encamped chiefly in the duke of Hamilton's park, along
the Clyde, which separated the two armies. Bothwell-bridge, which is
long and narrow, had then a portal in the middle, with gates, which the
Covenanters shut, and barricadoed with stones and logs of timber. This
important post was defended by three hundred of their best men, under
Hackston of Rathillet, and Hall of Haughhead. Early in the morning, this
party crossed the bridge, and skirmished with the royal van-guard,
now advanced as far as the village of Bothwell. But Hackston speedily
retired to his post, at the western end of Bothwell-bridge.
[Footnote A: "Balcanquhall of that ilk alledged, that his horses were
robbed, but shunned to take the declaration, for fear of disquiet from
his wife. Young of Kirkton--his ladyes dangerous sickness, and bitter
curses if he should leave her, and the appearance of abortion on his
offering to go from her. And many others pled, in general terms, that
their wives opposed or contradicted their going. But the justiciary
court found this defence totally irrelevant."--Fountainhall's
_Decisions_, Vol. I. p. 88.]
While the dispositions, made by the duke of Monmouth, announced his
purpose of assailing the pass, the more moderate of the insurgents
resolved to offer terms. Ferguson of Kaithloch, a gentleman of landed
fortune, and David Hume, a clergyman, carried to the duke of Monmouth
a supplication, demanding free exercise of their religion, a free
parliament, and a free general assembly of the church. The duke heard
their demands with his natural mildness, and assured them, he would
interpose with his majesty in their behalf, on condition of their
immediately dispersing themselves, and yielding up their arms. Had the
insurgents been all of the moderate opinion, this proposal would have
been accepted, much bloodshed saved, and, perhaps, some permanent
advantage derived to their party; or, had they been all Cameronians,
their defence would have been fierce and desperate. But, while their
motley and misassorted officers were debating upon the duke's proposal,
his field-pieces were already planted on the eastern side of the
river, to cover the attack of the foot guards, who were led on by Lord
Livingstone to force the bridge. Here Hackston maintained his post with
zeal and courage; nor was it until all his ammunition was expended, and
every support denied him by the general, that he reluctantly abandoned
the important pass.[A] When his party were drawn back, the duke's army,
slowly, and with their cannon in front, defiled along the bridge,
and formed in line of battle, as they came over the river; the duke
commanded the foot, and Claverhouse the cavalry. It would seem, that
these movements could not have been performed without at least some
loss, had the enemy been serious in opposing them. But the insurgents
were otherwise employed. With the strangest delusion, that ever fell
upon devoted beings, they chose these precious moments to cashier their
officers, and elect others in their room. In this important operation,
they were at length disturbed by the duke's cannon, at the very first
discharge of which, the horse of the Covenanters wheeled, and rode off,
breaking and trampling down the ranks of their infantry in their flight.
The Cameronian account blames Weir of Greenridge, a commander of the
horse, who is termed a sad Achan in the camp. The more moderate party
lay the whole blame on Hamilton, whose conduct, they say, left the world
to debate, whether he was most traitor, coward, or fool. The generous
Monmouth was anxious to spare the blood of his infatuated countrymen, by
which he incurred much blame among the high-flying royalists. Lucky it
was for the insurgents that the battle did not happen a day later, when
old General Dalziel, who divided with Claverhouse the terror and hatred
of the whigs, arrived in the camp, with a commission to supersede
Monmouth, as commander in chief. He is said to have upbraided the
duke, publicly, with his lenity, and heartily to have wished his own
commission had come a day sooner, when, as he expresses himself, "These
rogues should never more have troubled the king or country."[B] But,
notwithstanding the merciful orders of the duke of Monmouth, the cavalry
made great slaughter among the fugitives, of whom four hundred were
slain. Guild thus expresses himself:
Ei ni Dux validus tenuisset forte catervas,
Vix quisquam profugus vitam servasset inertem:
Non audita Ducis verum mandata supremi
Omnibus, insequitur fugientes plurima turba,
Perque agros, passim, trepida formidine captos
Obtruncat, saevumque adigit per viscera ferrum.
_MS. Bellum Bothuellianum._
[Footnote A: There is an accurate representation of this part of the
engagement in an old painting, of which there are two copies extant;
one in the collection of his grace the duke of Hamilton, the other at
Dalkeith house. The whole appearance of the ground, even including a few
old houses, is the same which the scene now presents: The removal of the
porch, or gateway, upon the bridge, is the only perceptible difference.
The duke of Monmouth, on a white charger, directs the march of the party
engaged in storming the bridge, while his artillery gall the motley
ranks of the Covenanters. An engraving of this painting would be
acceptable to the curious; and I am satisfied an opportunity of copying
it, for that purpose, would be readily granted by either of the noble
proprietors.]
[Footnote B: Dalziel was a man of savage manners. A prisoner having
railed at him, while under examination before the privy council, calling
him "a Muscovia beast, who used to roast men, the general, in a passion,
struck him, with the pomel of his shabble, on the face, till the blood
sprung."--FOUNTAINHALL, Vol. I. p. 159. He had sworn never to shave his
beard after the death of Charles the First. This venerable appendage
reached his girdle, and, as he wore always an old-fashioned buff coat,
his appearance in London never failed to attract the notice of the
children and of the mob. King Charles II. used to swear at him, for
bringing such a rabble of boys together, to be squeezed to death, while
they gaped at his long beard and antique habit, and exhorted him to
shave and dress like a Christian, to keep the poor _bairns_, as Dalziel
expressed it, out of danger. In compliance with this request, he once
appeared at court fashionably dressed, excepting the beard; but, when
the king had laughed sufficiently at the metamorphosis, he
resumed his old dress, to the great joy of the boys, his usual
attendants.--CREICHTON'S _Memoirs_, p. 102.]
The same deplorable circumstances are more elegantly bewailed in
_Clyde_, a poem, reprinted in _Scotish Descriptive Poems_, edited by Dr
John Leyden, Edinburgh, 1803:
"Where Bothwell's bridge connects the margins steep,
And Clyde, below, runs silent, strong, and deep,
The hardy peasant, by oppression driven
To battle, deemed his cause the cause of heaven:
Unskilled in arms, with useless courage stood,
While gentle Monmouth grieved to shed his blood:
But fierce Dundee, inflamed with deadly hate,
In vengeance for the great Montrose's fate,
Let loose the sword, and to the hero's shade
A barbarous hecatomb of victims paid."
The object of Claverhouse's revenge, assigned by Wilson, is grander,
though more remote and less natural, than that in the ballad, which
imputes the severity of the pursuit to his thirst to revenge the death
of his cornet and kinsman, at Drumclog;[A] and to the quarrel betwixt
Claverhouse and Monmouth, it ascribes, with great _naiveté_ the bloody
fate of the latter. Local tradition is always apt to trace foreign
events to the domestic causes, which are more immediately in the
narrator's view. There is said to be another song upon this battle, once
very popular, but I have not been able to recover it. This copy is given
from recitation.
[Footnote A: There is some reason to conjecture, that the revenge of the
Cameronians, if successful, would have been little less sanguinary than
that of the royalists. Creichton mentions, that they had erected, in
their camp, a high pair of gallows, and prepared a quantity of halters,
to hang such prisoners as might fall into their hands, and he admires
the forbearance of the king's soldiers, who, when they returned with
their prisoners, brought them to the very spot where the gallows stood,
and guarded them there, without offering to hang a single individual.
Guild, in the _Bellum Bothuellianum_, alludes to the same story, which
is rendered probable by the character of Hamilton, the insurgent
general. GUILD'S _MSS._--CREICHTON'S _Memoirs_, p. 61.]
There were two Gordons of Earlstoun, father and son. They were descended
of an ancient family in the west of Scotland, and their progenitors were
believed to have been favourers of the reformed doctrine, and possessed
of a translation of the Bible, as early as the days of Wickliffe.
William Gordon, the father, was, in 1663, summoned before the privy
council, for keeping conventicles in his house and woods. By another act
of council, he was banished out of Scotland; but the sentence was never
put into execution. In 1667, Earlstoun was turned out of his house,
which was converted into a garrison for the king's soldiers. He was not
in the battle of Bothwell Bridge, but was met, hastening towards it, by
some English dragoons, engaged in the pursuit, already commenced. As
he refused to surrender, he was instantly slain. WILSON'S _History
of Bothwell Rising--Life of Gordon of Earlston, in Scottish
Worthies_--WODROW'S _History,_ Vol. II. The son, Alexander Gordon
of Earlstoun, I suppose to be the hero of the ballad. He was not a
Cameronian, but of the more moderate class of presbyterians, whose sole
object was freedom of conscience, and relief from the oppressive laws
against non-conformists. He joined the insurgents, shortly after the
skirmish at Loudoun-hill. He appears to have been active in forwarding
the supplication sent to the duke of Monmouth. After the battle, he
escaped discovery, by flying into a house at Hamilton, belonging to one
of his tenants, and disguising himself in female attire. His person
was proscribed, and his estate of Earlstoun was bestowed upon Colonel
Theophilus Ogilthorpe, by the crown, first in security for L.5000,
and afterwards in perpetuity.--FOUNTAINHALL, p. 390. The same author
mentions a person tried at the circuit court, July 10, 1683, solely for
holding intercourse with Earlstoun, an intercommuned (proscribed) rebel.
As he had been in Holland after the battle of Bothwell, he was probably
accessory to the scheme of invasion, which the unfortunate earl of
Argyle was then meditating. He was apprehended upon his return to
Scotland, tried, convicted of treason, and condemned to die; but his
fate was postponed by a letter from the king, appointing him to be
reprieved for a month, that he might, in the interim, be tortured for
the discovery of his accomplices. The council had the unusual spirit
to remonstrate against this illegal course of severity. On November
3, 1653, he received a farther respite, in hopes he would make some
discovery. When brought to the bar, to be tortured (for the king had
reiterated his commands), he, through fear or distraction, roared like a
bull, and laid so stoutly about him, that the hangman and his assistant
could hardly master him. At last he fell into a swoon, and, on his
recovery, charged General Dalziel and Drummond (violent tories),
together with the duke of Hamilton, with being the leaders of the
fanatics. It was generally thought, that he affected this extravagant
behaviour, to invalidate all that agony might extort from him concerning
his real accomplices. He was sent, first, to Edinburgh castle, and,
afterwards, to a prison upon the Bass island; although the privy council
more than once deliberated upon appointing his immediate death. On 22d
August, 1684, Earlstoun was sent for from the Bass, and ordered for
execution, 4th November, 1684. He endeavoured to prevent his doom by
escape; but was discovered and taken, after he had gained the roof of
the prison. The council deliberated, whether, in consideration of this
attempt, he was not liable to instant execution. Finally, however, they
were satisfied to imprison him in Blackness castle, where he remained
till after the Revolution, when he was set at liberty, and his doom of
forfeiture reversed by act of parliament.--See FOUNTAINHALL, Vol. I. pp.
238, 240, 245, 250, 301, 302.