A.D. 1645-1649.
BRITISH SOVEREIGN:--Charles I., 1625-1649.
Huntly refuses to join Montrose--Aboyne joins and shortly deserts
him--Executions by the Covenanters--Montrose has an interview
with Huntly--Defeat of the Campbells at Callander--Meeting of
the covenanting Parliament--Trials and Executions--Movements
of Montrose and Huntly--General Middleton’s movements--The
King escapes to the Scots army--Orders Montrose to disband
his army--Montrose corresponds with the King--Interview with
Middleton--Disbands his army--Embarks for the Continent--The
Scotch and the King--Proceedings of General Leslie--Defeats Sir
Alexander Macdonald--Surrender of Dunaverty Castle--Leslie in the
Western Isles--Apprehension of Huntly--Risings in Scotland in
behalf of the King--Movements of royalists under Hamilton--Rising
in the West--Enter Edinburgh--Capture of Stirling and flight of
Argyle--Cromwell arrives in Edinburgh--Trial and Execution of the
King--Also of Hamilton and Huntly.
Montrose appeared among his Athole friends at a time the most
unfavourable for obtaining their aid. Many of them were engaged
in the occupation of the harvest, securing, for the support of
themselves and their families, the scanty and precarious crops
which were then upon the ground, and which, if neglected to be cut
down in due time, might be destroyed by unfavourable weather. It
was, besides, little more than a month since they had left him at
Bothwell, for the purpose partly of repairing the damages which had
been committed by Argyle’s men upon their houses, and the interval
which had since elapsed had not been sufficient for accomplishing
their object. Yet, notwithstanding these drawbacks, Montrose
succeeded in inducing about 400 of the men of Athole to join him
immediately, and to follow him to the north in quest of additional
reinforcements; and he obtained a promise that, on his return, the
whole of the Athole Highlanders would join him in a body.
While in Athole, Montrose received promises both from Lord Aboyne
and Sir Alexander Macdonald, that they would speedily join him with
considerable reinforcements; but, growing impatient at Aboyne’s
delay, he resolved to proceed north himself to ascertain in person
the cause of it, and to urge that nobleman to fulfil his promise.
Crossing, therefore, the Grampians, he marched with great haste
through Aberdeenshire, and had an interview with Lord Aboyne, whom he
expected to rouse from his apathy. Montrose, however, soon perceived,
that whatever Lord Aboyne’s own intentions were, he was thwarted by
his father, the Marquis of Huntly, who, on hearing of Montrose’s
success at Kilsyth, had left his retreat in Strathnaver, where he
had passed a year and a half in absolute supineness, and returned to
his own country. The marquis appears to have been filled with envy
towards Montrose, and although, being a royalist in his heart, he
did not care to expose the crown and monarchy to danger to gratify
his spleen and vanity, yet he could not endure to see a man whom he
looked upon as his inferior in rank, monopolize the whole power and
authority in Scotland.
“He was,” says Bishop Wishart, “a man equally unfortunate and
inconsiderate; and, however much he would seem, or was really
attached to the king, yet he often betrayed that interest through
a pride and unaccountable envy he had conceived against Montrose,
whose glory and renown he endeavoured rather to extenuate than make
the object of his emulation. He durst not venture to depreciate
Montrose’s actions before his own people, who had been eye-witnesses
of them, and were well acquainted with his abilities, lest it might
be construed into a sign of disaffection to the king himself.
However, he gave out that he would take the charge of commanding them
himself during the remainder of the war; and in that view he headed
all his own vassals, and advised his neighbours, not without threats
if they acted otherwise, to enlist under no other authority than his
own. They remonstrated against being asked to disobey the commands
of Montrose, who was appointed by the king his deputy-governor
and captain-general of all the forces within the kingdom. Huntly
replied, that he himself should in no way be wanting in his duty to
the king; but, in the meantime, it tended no less to their honour
than his own that it should appear to the king and the whole kingdom
how much they contributed to the maintenance of the war; and this,
he said, could never be done, unless they composed a separate army
by themselves. He spoke in very magnificent terms of his own power,
and endeavoured as much as possible to extenuate that of Montrose. He
extolled immoderately the glory and achievements of his ancestors,
the Gordons; a race, worthy indeed of all due commendation, whose
power had for many ages been formidable, and an overmatch for their
neighbours; and was so even at this day. It was therefore, he said,
extremely unjust to ascribe unto another, meaning Montrose, the glory
and renown acquired by their courage, and at the expense of their
blood. But, for the future, he would take care that neither the king
should be disappointed of the help of the Gordons, nor should they be
robbed of the praise due to their merit.”
Notwithstanding Huntly’s reasoning, some of his clan perceived the
great danger to which the king’s affairs would be exposed by such
conduct, and they did everything in their power to induce him to
alter his resolution. It was, however, in vain that they represented
to him the danger and impropriety of dividing the friends of the
king at such a crisis, when union and harmony were so essentially
necessary for accomplishing the objects they had in view, and
when, by allowing petty jealousies to interfere and distract their
councils, they might ruin the royal cause in Scotland. Huntly lent a
deaf ear to all their entreaties, and instead of adopting the advice
of his friends to support Montrose, by ordering his vassals to join
him, he opposed him almost in everything he proposed by underhand
means, although affecting a seeming compliance with his wishes.
Seeing all their efforts fruitless, those friends who had advised
Huntly to join Montrose declared that they would range themselves
under Montrose’s banner, as the king’s lieutenant, regardless of
consequences, and they kept their word.
The author of the history of the family of Gordon, and Gordon of
Ruthven, author of _Britane’s Distemper_, endeavour to defend Huntly
from these charges made against him by Wishart. They assert that
Wishart has given only one side of the case, and that Huntly acted
as he did from a genuine desire to serve the highest interests of
the king, and through no envy towards Montrose. They lament that
any misunderstanding should ever have arisen between these two
eminent royalists, as it undoubtedly tended materially to prejudice
the cause of the king. No doubt Huntly sincerely wished to serve
the royal cause: but we are afraid that jealousy towards Montrose
helped considerably to obscure his mental vision and prejudice his
judgment.[336]
Among other reasons which induced Montrose to take the speedy step
he did of marching north himself, was a report which had reached
him that the king was to send from England a large body of horse to
support him, and he was most anxious to collect such forces as he
could to enable him to be in a condition to advance to the south,
and unite with this body. In fact, the king had given orders to Lord
Digby and Sir Marmaduke Langdale to proceed to Scotland with a body
of 1,500 horse; but they were, unfortunately, completely defeated,
even before Montrose’s departure to the north, by Colonel Copley at
Sherburn, with the loss of all their baggage. Digby and Langdale,
accompanied by the Earls of Carnwath and Nithsdale, fled to Skipton,
and afterwards to Dumfries, whence they took ship to the Isle of Man.
Notwithstanding the evasions of the Marquis of Huntly, Montrose
succeeded in inducing the Earl of Aboyne to join him at Drumminor,
the seat of Lord Forbes, with a force of 1,500 foot and 300 horse,
all of whom appeared to be actuated by the best spirit. To remove
every unfavourable impression from the mind of Montrose, Aboyne
assured him with great frankness, that he and his men were ready to
follow him wherever he should be pleased to lead them; that they
would obey his orders; and that his brother, Lord Lewis, would also
speedily join him, as he soon did, with an additional force.
On receiving this reinforcement, Montrose turned his face to the
south, and marched towards Mar, where he was to be joined by forces
which Lord Erskine had raised there; but he had not proceeded far,
when Lord Lewis Gordon, under some pretence or other, returned home
with a considerable party of horse, promising to return to the army
the following day. The desertion of Lord Lewis had a most pernicious
influence upon the remainder of Aboyne’s men, who, before the army
had reached Alford, were greatly diminished by desertion. As the
remainder showed great unwillingness to march forward, and as the
desertions continued, Aboyne requested leave of absence, alleging as
his reason, that his father had expressly commanded him to return
to defend his possessions against a party of the enemy who were in
Lower Mar, and who were threatening an attack. The demand of Aboyne
excited the astonishment of Montrose, who remonstrated with him, and
gave many reasons to induce him to remain. He showed that Aboyne’s
apprehensions of danger were groundless, as, with the exception
of a few troops of the enemy’s horse quartered in Aberdeen, there
were no other forces in the north which could disturb his father’s
possessions, and that these horse were too weak to attempt any
thing--that by marching south, the seat of war would be transferred
from the north country, and that, in this way, the Marquis of Huntly
would be relieved altogether of the presence of the enemy--that it
would be impossible to join the royalist forces, which were on their
way from England, without crossing the Forth, and that it was only by
adopting the latter step that they could ever expect to rescue their
brave friends from the fangs of the Covenanters, and save their lives.
Aboyne did not attempt to answer these reasons, which were urged
with Montrose’s peculiar energy, but he requested him to send some
persons who had influence with his father to acquaint him with them.
Donald, Lord Reay, at whose house Huntly had lived during his exile
in Strathnaver, and Alexander Irvine, younger of Drum, Huntly’s
son-in-law, both of whom had been indebted to Montrose for their
liberty, were accordingly sent by him to the Marquis of Huntly,
as the most likely persons he could select to induce Huntly to
allow Aboyne to remain with the army. But all their arguments and
entreaties were to no purpose. Lord Reay was so heartily ashamed
at the failure of his mission, that he declined to return to
Montrose; and Irvine, who brought some evasive letters from Huntly,
frankly declared to Montrose, that he could obtain no satisfactory
explanation from his father-in-law of his real intentions, farther,
than that he remained fixed in his resolution that Aboyne should
return home immediately. After declaring that he parted from Montrose
with reluctance, and promising to join him within a fortnight with a
force even larger than that which he had lately brought, Aboyne left
the army and returned to his father.
Montrose then continued his march through Braemar and Glenshee into
Athole, where he obtained an accession of force. He next proceeded
to Strathearn, where he was met by two messengers,--Captain Thomas
Ogilvie, younger of Pourie, and Captain Robert Nisbet,--who arrived
by different routes, with orders from the king, desiring Montrose to
join Lord George Digby, near the English border, as soon as possible.
On receiving these commands, Montrose immediately sent the messengers
north to the Marquis of Huntly, to acquaint him with the king’s
wishes, in the expectation that the use of his majesty’s name would
at once induce him to send Aboyne south with reinforcements.
While Montrose lay in Strathearn waiting for reinforcements,
intelligence was brought to him that the Covenanters were about
to imbrue their hands in the blood of his friends who had been
taken prisoners after the battle of Philiphaugh. The committee of
Estates, which had accompanied the covenanting army to Glasgow, had
now determined upon this bold and illegal step, for which hitherto,
with the recent exceptions of O’Kean and Laughlane, no example had
been set by either of the belligerent parties in Scotland since the
commencement of the war. They had wisely abstained from staining
the scaffolds with blood, but from different motives. Montrose, in
general, refrained from inflicting capital punishment, and, as we
have seen, often released his prisoners on parole. The heads of the
Covenanters had been deterred by fear alone from carrying their
bloody purposes into execution; but considering that they had now
nothing to fear, they soon appeared in their true colours.
Besides the committee of the Estates, a committee of the kirk held
sittings in Glasgow at the same time, which sittings were afterwards
transferred to Perth, where, after deposing some ministers who
were considered disaffected to the Covenant, because they had not
“mourned” for Montrose’s victory at Kilsyth, they “concerned”
themselves, as Guthry observes, about “the disposition of men’s
heads.” Accordingly, thinking the committee of Estates remiss in
condemning and executing the prisoners, they appointed Mr. William
Bennet, who acted as Moderator in the absence of Mr. Robert Douglas,
and two others of their number, to wait upon the committee of
Estates, and remonstrate with them for their supineness. Guthry
relates, that the deputation reported on their return, in his own
hearing, that some of the lords of the committee slighted the desire
of the committee of the kirk, and that they were likely to have
obtained nothing had not the Earl of Tulliebardine made a seasonable
speech to the effect, “that because he had a brother among those
men, it might be that their lordships so valued his concurrence
with them in the good cause, that for respect of him they were the
more loth to resolve upon the question. But that, as for himself,
since that young man had joined with that wicked crew, he did not
esteem him his brother, and therefore declared that he would take
it for no favour if upon that account any indulgence was granted
him.”[337],[338] This fratricidal speech made those members of the
committee, who had disliked the shedding of blood, hang down their
heads, according to Bennet’s report, and the committee, thereupon,
resolved that 10 of the prisoners should be executed, viz., the Earl
of Hartfell, Lord Ogilvie, Sir Robert Spottiswood, the Honourable
William Murray, brother to the Earl of Tulliebardine, Alexander
Ogilvie of Inverquharity, Sir William Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet,
Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, Adjutant Stewart, and Captain Andrew Guthry.
Apprehensive, however, that Montrose might still be in a condition
to avenge the blood of his friends, the committee did not venture
to carry their sentence into immediate execution upon any of them;
but hearing of the division between Montrose and Huntly, and the
desertion of the Gordons, they thought they might now safely venture
to immolate a few victims at the shrine of the Covenant. Accordingly
three of the prisoners were ordered for execution, viz., Sir William
Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, chief of that name, and Alexander
Ogilvie, younger of Inverquharity, a youth not quite 18 years of age,
who had already given proofs of ability. This excellent young man
was sacrificed to gratify the malignant animosity of Argyle at the
Ogilvies. Sir William was executed at the market cross of Glasgow,
on the 28th of October, and Sir Philip and Ogilvie suffered at the
same place on the following day. Wishart relates a circumstance
connected with Sir William Rollock’s condemnation, which exhibits a
singular instance of the ferocity and fanaticism of the times. He
says, that the chief crime laid to Sir William’s charge was, that
he had not perpetrated a deed of the most villanous and atrocious
nature. Having been sent by Montrose, after the battle of Aberdeen,
with some despatches to the king, he was apprehended by the enemy,
and would undoubtedly have been immediately executed, but for Argyle,
who used all his endeavours to engage him to assassinate Montrose,
and who at length, by threatening him with immediate death, and
promising him, in case of compliance, very high rewards, prevailed
on him to undertake that barbarous office, for which, however, he
secretly entertained the utmost abhorrence. Having thereby obtained
his life and liberty, he returned straight to Montrose and disclosed
the whole matter to him, entreating him, at the same time, to look
more carefully to his own safety; as it could not be supposed that
he, Sir William, was the only person who had been practised upon in
this shameful manner or that others would equally detest the deed,
but that some persons would undoubtedly be found who, allured with
the bait, would use their utmost industry and pains to obtain the
promised reward.[339] Another instance of fanaticism is related by
Guthry, of David Dickson the “bloody preacher,” who, on witnessing
the execution of Nisbet and Ogilvie, was heard to utter the barbarous
expression--“The work goes bonnyly on,” an expression which
afterwards became proverbial.
About the time this tragedy was performing, Montrose crossed the
Forth and entered Lennox with a force of 300 horse and 1,200 foot,
and took up his quarters on the lands of Sir John Buchanan, an
ardent Covenanter, whence he sent out his cavalry every day, who
hovered about Glasgow, and plundered the neighbouring country without
opposition, although the Covenanters had a force of about 3,000
cavalry in Glasgow and the neighbourhood. When Montrose heard of the
execution of his friends, his heart was filled with the most poignant
grief, and he longed for a suitable opportunity to avenge their
deaths, but he was too weak to venture upon an immediate attack.
He sent repeated messengers from his present head-quarters to Sir
Alexander Macdonald to join him; but after hovering several weeks
about Glasgow, like a hawk ready to pounce upon its quarry, he had
the mortification to find, that Macdonald had no intention of ever
again returning to him, and that his expectations of being joined by
the Earl of Aboyne were to be equally disappointed.
Under these untoward circumstances, therefore, and as the winter,
which turned out unusually severe, was far advanced, Montrose
resolved to retire into the north where he could remain undisturbed.
With this view he began his march from the Lennox on the 19th of
November, and crossing the hills of Monteith, which were covered with
snow to a considerable depth, he entered Strathearn, and crossing
the Tay, marched into Athole. Here Montrose received the melancholy
news of the death of his brother-in-law, Archibald Lord Napier of
Merchiston, whom he had left behind him in Athole on account of
indisposition; a man, says Bishop Wishart, “not less noble in his
personal accomplishments than in his birth and descent; a man of
the greatest uprightness and integrity, and of a most happy genius,
being, as to his skill in the sciences, equal to his father and
grandfather, who were famous all the world over for their knowledge
in philosophy and mathematics, and in the doctrine of civil prudence
far beyond them.” Montrose had been accustomed from his earliest
years to look up to this gifted nobleman with feelings of reverential
and filial awe, nor were these feelings impaired as he advanced in
life. He was interred in the Kirk of Blair with becoming solemnity by
Montrose.
When Montrose arrived in Athole, he there found Captain Ogilvie and
Captain Nisbet, who had just returned from the north to give an
account of their embassy to the Marquis of Huntly. They reported that
they found him quite inflexible in his determination not to send
assistance to Montrose, that he had spoken disdainfully to them, and
even questioned the authenticity of the message which they brought
from the king. It was truly grievous for Montrose to see the cause
for which he had fought so long, and for which he had encountered
so many personal risks, thus endangered by the apparently wilful
and fatal obstinacy of an individual who had abandoned his country
and his friends in the most trying circumstances, and skulked in
Strathnaver, without showing any inclination to support the tottering
throne of his sovereign. But Montrose did not yet despair of bringing
the marquis to a due sense of his duty; and as he considered that
it was more expedient, in the present conjuncture, to endeavour to
soothe the wounded pride of the marquis than to use the language of
menace, he sent Sir John Dalziel to Huntly with a message of peace
and reconciliation; intending, if necessary, as soon as circumstances
permitted, to follow him, and enforce by his personal presence, at
a friendly conference, which Sir John was requested to ask from the
marquis, the absolute necessity of such a reconciliation.
As Dalziel was quite unsuccessful in his mission, and could not
prevail upon Huntly to agree to a conference with Montrose, the
latter hastened to put into effect his intention of paying a personal
visit to Huntly, “that nothing might be unattempted to bring him to
a right way of thinking,” and “by heaping favours and benefits upon
him, force him even against his will, to a reconciliation, and to
co-operate with him in promoting the king’s affairs.”[340] Montrose
accordingly left Athole with his army in the month of December,
and marching into Angus, crossed the Grampians, then covered with
frost and snow, by rapid marches, and arrived in Strathbogie,
before Huntly was aware of his movements. To avoid Montrose, Huntly
immediately shut himself up in his castle of Bog of Gicht, on the
Spey, but Montrose having left his head-quarters with a troop of
horse, unexpectedly surprised him very early in the morning before
he had time to secrete himself. Instead of reproaching Huntly with
his past conduct, Montrose spoke to him in the most affable manner,
and apparently succeeded in removing his dissatisfaction so far,
that a plan for conducting the future operations of the army was
agreed upon between them. The reduction of the garrison of Inverness,
which, though strong and well fortified, was but scantily stored
with provisions, and an attempt to induce the Earl of Seaforth to
join them, were the leading parts of this plan. Accordingly, while
Montrose was to march through Strathspey, on his way to Inverness,
it was agreed that Huntly should also advance upon it by a different
road along the sea-coast of Morayshire, and thereby hem in the
garrison on both sides.
In prosecution of this design, Montrose proceeded through Strathspey,
and sat down before Inverness, waiting for the arrival of Huntly.
When marching through Strathspey, Montrose received intelligence
that Athole was threatened with a visit from the Campbells--a
circumstance which induced him to despatch Graham of Inchbrakie and
John Drummond, younger of Balloch, to that country, for the purpose
of embodying the Athole Highlanders, who had remained at home, in
defence of their country. The inhabitants of Argyle, on hearing of
Sir Alexander Macdonald’s arrival in their country, after the battle
of Kilsyth, had fled to avoid his vengeance, and concealed themselves
in caverns or in the clefts of the rocks; but being compelled by the
calls of hunger to abandon their retreats, they had been collected
together by Campbell of Ardkinlass to the number of about 1,200,
and had attacked the Macgregors and Macnabs for favouring Montrose.
Being joined by the Stuarts of Balquidder, the Menzieses, and other
partisans of Argyle, to the number of about 300, they meditated an
invasion of Athole, and had advanced as far as Strathample, with the
intention of carrying their design into execution, when intelligence
was brought to Inchbrakie of their approach. Inchbrakie and Balloch
had by this time collected a body of 700 able-bodied men, and, with
this force, they immediately proceeded to meet the Campbells. These
had laid siege to Castle Ample; but, on being apprised of the advance
of the Athole-men, they retired to Monteith, whither they were hotly
pursued by the Athole-men, who overtook them at Callander, near the
village of Monteith. After crossing the river Teith, they halted and
prepared for battle, having previously stationed a large party of
musketeers to guard the ford.
Having ascertained the strength and position of the Campbells,
Inchbrakie ordered 100 of his men to advance to the ford, as if
with the intention of crossing it, in order to draw the attention
of the Campbells to this single point, while, with the remainder
of his men, he hastened to cross the river by another ford, higher
up, and nearer the village. This movement was immediately perceived
by the Argyle-men, who, alarmed at such a bold step, and probably
thinking that the Athole-men were more numerous than they really
were, abandoned their position, and fled with precipitation towards
Stirling. As soon as the Athole party, stationed at the lower ford,
saw the opposite bank deserted, they immediately crossed the river
and attacked the rear of the retiring Campbells. They were soon
joined in the pursuit by the party which had crossed the higher ford;
but, as the Athole-men had performed a tedious march of ten miles
that morning, they were unable to continue the pursuit far. About
80 of the Campbells were killed in the pursuit. They loitered about
Stirling for some time in a very pitiful state, till visited by
their chief, on his way to Ireland, who, not knowing how to dispose
of them, led them into Renfrewshire, under the impression that as
the inhabitants of that district were friendly to the Covenant, they
would be well received; but the people of Renfrewshire, instead of
showing sympathy for these unfortunate wanderers, threatened to
take arms and cut them down, unless they departed immediately. The
marquis, thereupon, sent them into Lennox, and quartered them upon
the lands of Lord Napier and other “malignants,” as the royalists
were called.[341]
The support of General Leslie’s army being heavily felt by the
people, complaints were made to the Committee of Estates for
retaining such a large body of men in Scotland, without any
necessity, and whose habits and mode of living were so different
from those of the inhabitants of North Britain. The Committee sent
Leslie back to England, retaining only a small brigade under General
Middleton, to watch the motions of Montrose.
The Covenanters, emboldened by recent events, had summoned a
parliament to meet at St. Andrews, which accordingly assembled on
the 26th of November, 1645; and, that the ministers might not be
behind their lay brethren in zeal for the blood of the “malignants,”
the general assembly of the church also met at the same time and
place. It is truly humiliating to find men, no doubt sincerely
believing they were serving the cause of religion, demanding the
lives of their countrymen as a sacrifice which they considered would
be well-pleasing to God; yet, whilst every unprejudiced mind must
condemn the fanaticism of the Covenanters, it must be remembered
that the unconstitutional attempts of the king to force Episcopacy
upon them--a system which they detested,--the severe losses which
they had sustained from the arms of Montrose, and the dread of being
subjected to the yoke of prelacy, and punished for their resistance,
had aroused them to a state of frenzy, over which reason and religion
could have little control.
As a preparative for the bloody scenes about to be enacted, Sir
Archibald Johnston of Warriston, on the day the parliament met,
addressed the house in a long harangue, in which he entreated them
to “unity amongst themselves, to lay all private respects and
interests aside, and to do justice on delinquents and malignants;
showing that their dallying formerly had provoked God’s two great
servants against them--the sword and plague of pestilence--which had
ploughed up the land with deep furrows: he showed that the massacre
of Kilsyth was never to be forgotten, and that God, who was the just
Judge of the world, would not but judge righteously, and keep in
remembrance that sea of innocent blood which lay before his throne,
crying for vengeance on these bloodthirsty rebels, the butchers of
so many innocent souls. He showed, likewise, that the times required
a more narrow and sharp looking into than formerly, in respect that
the house of parliament was become at this present like to Noah’s
ark, which had in it both foul and clean creatures, and therefore he
besought the Estates there now convened by God’s especial permission
and appointment, before that they went about the constitution of
that high court of parliament, that they would make a serious search
and inquiry after such as were ears and eyes to the enemies of the
commonwealth, and did sit there as if there was nothing to say to
them; and, therefore, he humbly desired that the house might be
adjourned till to-morrow at two o’clock in the afternoon, and that
the several Estates might consider what corrupted members were
amongst them, who had complied with the public enemy of the state,
either by themselves or by their agents or friends.”[342]
On the 4th of December, a petition was presented to the parliament
from the prisoners confined in the castle of St. Andrews, praying to
be tried either by their peers, the justice-general, or before the
whole parliament, and not by a committee, as proposed; and they very
properly objected to Sir Archibald Johnston’s sitting as a judge, he
having already prejudged their case; but the house, “in one voice,”
most iniquitously rejected the petition, reserving, however, to the
prisoners still to object to Sir Archibald before the committee, “if
they had not any personal exception against his person.”[343]
As the ministers considered the parliament tardy in their proceedings
against the royalists, the commissioners of the general assembly
presented, on the 5th of December, a remonstrance, praying them
“for justice upon delinquents and malignants who had shed the
blood of their brethren,” and on the same day, four petitions and
remonstrances to the same effect were presented to the parliament,
from the provincial assemblies and from Fife, Dumfries, Merse,
Teviotdale, and Galloway, by a body of about 200 persons. The
parliament, says Balfour, by their president, answered, that they
had taken their “_modest_ petitions and _seasonable_ remonstrances
very kindly, and rendered them hearty thanks, and wished them to
be confident that, with all alacrity and diligence, they would
go about and proceed in answering the expectations of all their
reasonable desires, as they might themselves perceive in their
procedure hitherto; and, withal, he entreated them, in the name of
the house, that they would be earnest with God to implore and beg his
blessing to assist and encourage them to the performance of what they
demanded.”[344]
Notwithstanding the entreaties of the ministers to proceed with the
condemnation of the prisoners, the parliament postponed proceedings
till the 17th of January, 1646; but, as a peace-offering, they
ordered, in the mean time, some Irish prisoners, composed partly
of those who had been taken at Philiphaugh, and who had escaped
assassination, and partly of stragglers who had been picked up after
that battle, and who were confined in various prisons throughout
the kingdom, especially in those of Selkirk, Jedburgh, Glasgow,
Dumbarton, and Perth, to be executed without trial, “conform to the
treaty betwixt both kingdoms.”[345] A more illegal act it is scarcely
possible to conceive, but in these times even the forms of justice
were set aside.
The Committee of Estates, when sitting in Glasgow, had condemned the
Earl of Hartfell and Lord Ogilvie to death, along with Sir William
Rollock, Sir Philip Nisbet, and Alexander Ogilvie; but, for some
reason or other, their execution was deferred. So that, with the
exception of Adjutant Stuart, who escaped while under the charge of
General Middleton, there remained only four persons of any note for
condemnation, viz., Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, Sir Robert Spottiswood,
the Honourable William Murray, and Captain Guthry. It appears from
the parliamentary register of Sir James Balfour, that these four
prisoners pleaded exemption from trial, or rather from condemnation,
on the ground of “quarters;” but after three hours’ debate, on the
10th of January, the parliament overruled this defence; and the
committee having, of course, found them all “guilty of high treason
against the states of the kingdom,” they fixed the 16th of that month
for taking into consideration the punishment to be inflicted upon
them.
The first case taken up on the appointed day, was that of Colonel
Nathaniel Gordon, who, after a debate of three hours’ duration, was
sentenced to be beheaded at the cross of St. Andrews, on Tuesday, the
20th of January, at twelve o’clock, noon, and his lands and goods
were declared forfeited to the public. The lord chancellor declined
voting. Similar sentences were pronounced upon the Honourable William
Murray and Captain Guthry, by a majority of votes, a few of the
members having voted that they should be imprisoned during life. Mr.
Murray’s brother, the Earl of Tulliebardine, absented himself. These
three fell under an act passed the preceding year, declaring that all
persons who, after having subscribed the Covenant, should withdraw
from it, should be held as guilty of high treason. But the case of
Sir Robert Spottiswood, who had not subscribed the Covenant, not
falling within the scope of this _ex-post-facto_ law, the committee
had stated in a special report the grounds on which they found Sir
Robert guilty of high treason, namely, 1st, that he had advised,
docketed, signed, carried, and delivered to Montrose the commission
appointing him “lieutenant-governor and captain-general” of all his
majesty’s forces in Scotland; and 2dly, that he had been taken in
arms against the country at Philiphaugh. After a lengthened debate,
the parliament decided that both these charges were capital offences,
and accordingly Sir Robert was condemned by a large majority to lose
his head.[346]
It was the intention of the parliament to have ordered the Earl
of Hartfell and Lord Ogilvie to be executed along with the other
prisoners; but on the evening of the 19th of January Lord Ogilvie
effected his escape in the following way. Pretending sickness he
applied for, and obtained, though with considerable difficulty,
liberty to his mother, wife, and sister, to visit and attend him in
prison. On entering his chamber the sentinels retired out of respect
to the ladies; and, as soon as the door was shut, his lordship jumped
out of bed, and attired himself in his sister’s clothes, who, on
undressing, took the place of her brother in bed, and put on his
night-cap. After spending some time together to prevent suspicion,
the two other ladies and his lordship, after opening the door ajar so
as to be seen by the guards, pretended to take a most affectionate
and painful leave of the unfortunate bed-ridden prisoner, and drawing
the door after them, passed the sentinels without interruption. This
happened about eight o’clock in the evening; and as horses had been
prepared for his lordship and two companions who were waiting to
escort him, he immediately mounted, and was out of all danger before
next morning, when the deception was discovered. The escape of Lord
Ogilvie highly incensed Argyle, who hated the Ogilvies, and who, it
is said, longed for the death of his lordship. He could not conceal
the chagrin he felt on the occasion, and even had the audacity to
propose that the three ladies should be immediately punished; but the
Hamiltons and Lord Lindsay, who, on account of their relationship to
Lord Ogilvie, were suspected of being privy to his escape, protected
them from his vengeance. The escape of Lord Ogilvie was a fortunate
occurrence for the Earl of Hartfell, for whose life it is alleged
the Hamiltons thirsted in their turn; and to disappoint whom Argyle
insisted that the earl’s life should be spared, a concession which he
obtained.[347]
Of the four prisoners, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, “a man,” says
Wishart, “of excellent endowments both of body and mind,” was the
first that suffered. He had been long under the ban of the church for
adultery; but on signing a paper, declaratory of his repentance, he
was absolved from the sentence of excommunication. He died expressing
great sorrow for the vices and follies of his youth; but vindicated
himself for the part he had taken in the troubles of his country,
professed the most unshaken loyalty to his king, and declared that
if there were any thing in the instrument he had signed which might
be construed as dishonourable to the king, or repugnant to his
authority, he completely disowned it.
Colonel Gordon was followed to the scaffold by Sir Robert
Spottiswood, a man of spotless integrity, and one of the most
profound scholars of the age. He was the eldest son of Archbishop
Spottiswood, and had, by his rare endowments and great merit, been
noticed with distinction by King James and his successor Charles.
James conferred on him the order of knighthood, and made him a privy
councillor, and Charles promoted him to the high situation of lord
president of the court of session; and, upon the desertion of the
Earl of Lanark to the Covenanters, the king appointed him principal
secretary of state for Scotland instead of that nobleman. This
appointment drew down upon him the hatred of the leading Covenanters,
but still there were some among them who continued to respect him
on account of his worth and shining talents; and when the vote was
taken in parliament whether he should suffer, the Earls of Eglintoun,
Cassilis, Dunfermline, and Carnwath, voted that his life should be
spared; and the lord chancellor and the Earl of Lanark, by leave
of the house, declined voting. “Though many liked not his party,
they liked his person, which made him many friends even among the
Covenanters, insomuch, that after his sentence was read, some of the
nobility spoke in his behalf, and entreated the house to consider
the quality and parts of that excellent gentleman and most just
judge, whom they had condemned, and begged earnestly his life might
be spared. But an eminent knowledge and esteem, which, in other
cases, might be a motive to save a criminal, was here only the cause
of taking an innocent man’s life--so dangerous is it, in a corrupt
age, to be eminently constant and virtuous. The gentlemen who spoke
were told that the authority of the established government was not
secure while Sir Robert’s life was spared. Whereupon the noblemen
who presided at the meeting of the estates at Glasgow, and in the
parliament at St. Andrews, openly declared, when they signed the
respective sentences, that they did sign as preses, and in obedience
to the command of the estates, but not as to their particular
judgment.”[348]
After he had mounted the scaffold, still reeking with the blood of
Colonel Gordon, Sir Robert surveyed the terrific scene around him
with singular composure, which, added to his naturally grave and
dignified appearance, filled the breasts of the spectators with a
feeling of compassion. Sir Robert had intended to have addressed
the people, and had prepared a written speech for the occasion;
but on turning round to address the spectators, he was prevented
from proceeding by the provost of St. Andrews, formerly a servant
of Sir Robert’s father, who had been instigated to impose silence
upon him by Robert Blair, one of those ministers who, to the scandal
of religion, had dishonoured their profession by calling out for
the blood of their countrymen. Blair’s motive in occasioning this
interruption is said to have arisen from a dread he entertained that
Sir Robert would expose the designs of the Covenanters, and impress
the bystanders with an unfavourable opinion of their proceedings.
Sir Robert bore the interruption with the most unruffled composure,
and, as he saw no chance of succeeding, he threw the manuscript
of his speech amongst the crowd, and applied himself to his
private devotions. But here again he was annoyed by the officious
impertinence of Blair, who rudely asked him whether he (Blair)
and the people should pray for the salvation of his soul? To this
question Sir Robert answered, that he indeed desired the prayers of
the people; but knowing the bloodthirsty character of the man he
was addressing, who had come to tease him in his last moments, he
told him that he “would have no concern with his prayers, which he
believed were impious, and an abomination unto God; adding, that of
all the plagues with which the offended majesty of God had scourged
the nation, this was certainly by far the greatest, greater than even
the sword, fire, or pestilence; that for the sins of the people God
had sent a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets.”[349] This
answer raised the fury of Blair, who assailed Sir Robert with the
most acrimonious imputations, and reviled the memory of his father
by the most infamous charges; but Sir Robert was too deeply absorbed
in meditation to regard such obloquy. Having finished his devotions,
this great and good man, after uttering these words, “Merciful Jesus!
gather my soul unto thy saints and martyrs who have run before me in
this race,” laid his neck upon the fatal block, and in an instant his
head was severed from his body.
After Sir Robert Spottiswood’s execution, Captain Guthry, son of the
ex-bishop of Moray, was next led to the scaffold. The fierce and
unfeeling Blair, who had already officiously witnessed, with the
most morbid complacency, the successive executions of Colonel Gordon
and Sir Robert, not satisfied with reviling the latter gentleman in
his last moments, and lacerating his feelings by heaping every sort
of obloquy upon the memory of his father, vented the dregs of his
impotent rage upon the unfortunate victim now before him; but Guthry
bore all this man’s reproaches with becoming dignity, and declared
that he considered it an honour to die in defence of the just cause
of his sovereign. He met his death with the fortitude of a hero and
the firmness of a Christian.
In consequence of an application to the parliament by the Earl
of Tulliebardine, the execution of his brother, William Murray,
was delayed till the 23d of January. The case of this unfortunate
young man excited a strong feeling of regret among the Covenanters
themselves, and some writers have not scrupled to blame the earl as
the cause of his death, that he might succeed to his patrimony. Some
countenance is afforded to this conjecture from the circumstance
that the earl not only made no exertions to save his brother from
condemnation, but that he even absented himself from parliament
the day that his brother’s case came to be discussed, when, by his
presence or his vote, he might have saved his brother’s life. Nor
is this supposition, it is contended, in any shape weakened by the
attempt he afterwards made to get off his brother; for he must have
known that the parliament had gone too far to retract, and could not,
without laying itself open to the charge of the grossest partiality,
reprieve Mr. Murray, and allow their sentence to be carried into
execution against the other prisoners. If true, however, that the
earl delivered the speech imputed to him by Bennet, there can be no
doubt of his being a participator in the death of his brother, but,
it would be hard to condemn him on such questionable authority. To
whatever cause it was owing, Mr. Murray was not, during his last
moments, subjected to the annoyances of Blair, nor was he prevented
from delivering the following speech to the persons assembled
to witness his execution. He spoke in a loud tone of voice as
follows: “I hope, my countrymen, you will reckon that the house of
Tulliebardine, and the whole family of Murray, have this day acquired
a new and no small addition of honour; that a young man, descended
of that ancient race, has, though innocent, and in the flower of his
age, with the greatest readiness and cheerfulness, delivered up his
life for his king, the father of his country, and the most munificent
patron and benefactor of that family from which he is sprung. Let not
my honoured mother, my dearest sisters, my kindred or my friends,
lament the shortness of my life, seeing that it is abundantly
recompensed by the honour of my death. Pray for my soul, and God be
with you.”[350]
Many prisoners, but of less note, still remained to be disposed
of; but the parliament, either averse to shed more blood, or from
other considerations, took no steps against them. The committee
of the kirk, however, being actuated by other motives, pressed
the parliament to dispose of some more of the “malignants;” but
the bloody zeal of these clerical enthusiasts was checked by the
better sense of the parliament; and in order to get rid of their
importunities for blood, a suggestion was made to them by the leading
men in parliament to lay before them an “overture,” proposing some
more lenient mode of punishment. The “godly” brotherhood soon met,
but a considerable difference of opinion prevailing as to the nature
of the punishment to be submitted to parliament in the proposed
overture, the moderator asked David Dickson what he thought best
to be done with the prisoners, who answered “in his homely way of
speaking, ‘shame them and herry (plunder) them.’” This proposal,
being adopted, was made the subject of an overture, which was
accordingly presented to parliament; and to meet the views of the
ministers, a remit was made to a large committee, which was appointed
to meet at Linlithgow, on the 25th of February, to fix the amount of
the fines to be imposed upon the different delinquents.
While the proceedings before detailed were going on at St. Andrews,
Montrose was ineffectually endeavouring to reduce the garrison
of Inverness, the acquisition of which would have been of some
importance to him. Had the Marquis of Huntly kept his promise, and
joined Montrose, its capture might have been effected; but that
nobleman never made his appearance, and as Inverness was thus left
open on the side which it was intended he should block up, the enemy
were enabled to supply themselves with provisions and warlike stores,
of which they stood in great need. Huntly, however, afterwards
crossed the Spey, and entered Moray with a considerable force; but
instead of joining Montrose, who repeatedly sent for him, he wasted
his time in fruitless enterprises, besieging and taking a few castles
of no importance.
As Huntly probably did not think that the capture of a few obscure
castles was sufficient to establish his pretensions as Montrose’s
rival, he resolved to seize Aberdeen, and had advanced on his way
as far as Kintore, where he was met by Ludovick Lindsay, Earl
of Crawford, who had retired from the Mearns, where he had been
stationed with Montrose’s horse, on hearing of the approach of the
parliamentary army under the command of General Middleton towards
Aberdeen. This intelligence was quite sufficient to induce the
marquis to desist from his enterprise. Lindsay then marched into
Buchan, and burnt the town of Fraserburgh. He, thereafter, went to
Banff, but was compelled to retire hastily into Moray with some
loss in February 1646, by a division of Middleton’s army under the
command of Lieutenant-Colonel Montgomery and Major David Barclay.[351]
About this time intelligence was brought to Montrose that General
Middleton had arrived at Aberdeen with a force of 600 horse and
800 foot. He now renewed his entreaties to Huntly to join him
immediately, that they might either reduce Inverness or march jointly
upon Aberdeen and attack Middleton; Huntly, however, refused to
accede to Montrose’s request. This refusal exasperated Montrose to
such a degree that he resolved to have recourse to force to compel
compliance, as he could no longer endure to see the authority of the
sovereign, whose deputy he was, thus trampled upon and despised.
As he had already brought over to his side the Earl of Seaforth,
who had induced the heads of some of the principal clans to form
a confederation for obtaining a national peace, he was fully in a
condition to have reduced Huntly to obedience. Montrose having got
a new commission, sent a copy of it to Huntly, and, as governor and
general of the royal forces, charged him to come without delay, with
his whole force to Inverness, and there receive further orders.
Huntly appears to have made preparations for complying with this
order, but Middleton’s sudden advance on Inverness induced him to
alter his purpose.[352]
Wishart relates rather an incredible story respecting an alleged
piece of treachery on the part of Lord Lewis Gordon on this occasion.
He states that, as Montrose had no reliance on Huntly, and as he
began now to think it high time to look more carefully to his own
safety, lest Huntly’s malice might at last carry him the length even
to betray him, he sent three troops of horse to the fords of the Spey
to watch the motions of the enemy, with orders, if they approached,
to send him immediate intimation of their movements. This body, it is
said, occupied the most convenient stations, and watched with very
great diligence for some time, till Lord Lewis, who then kept the
castle of Rothes, having contrived his scheme of villany, assured
the officers who commanded the horse, that the enemy was very far
distant, and had no intention to pass the river; he, therefore,
advised them to cease watching, and having invited them to the castle
where they were sumptuously entertained by him, plied with wine and
spirits, and detained till such time as Lord Middleton had crossed
the Spey with a large army of horse and foot, and penetrated far
into Moray, he dismissed his guests with these jeering remarks--“Go,
return to your general Montrose, who will now have better work than
he had at Selkirk.” Gordon of Ruthven, however, contradicts this very
improbable story, and attributes Middleton’s unmolested crossing of
the Spey to the negligence of the troops who guarded the passage;
asserting that Lord Lewis knew nothing of it till Mortimer, one of
the captains in command of the troops, appeared at Rothes to tell
him that Middleton was on the other side of the Spey on his way to
Inverness. Moreover such a statement carries its own condemnation
upon the face of it, for even supposing that Montrose’s officers had
acted the stupid part imputed to them, they would certainly not have
forgotten their duty so far as to order their men to abandon their
posts.
It was in the month of May, 1646, that General Middleton left
Aberdeen at the head of his army, on his way to Inverness. He left
behind him in Aberdeen a regiment of horse, and another of foot, for
the protection of the town, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel
Montgomery. Middleton made a rapid march, and arrived in the
neighbourhood of Inverness on the 9th of May, driving before him the
few troops of horse which Montrose had stationed on the Spey to watch
his motions. On being warned of Middleton’s approach, Montrose drew
his troops together, and took up a position at some distance from the
town; but having ascertained that Middleton was strong in cavalry,
he hastily crossed the river Ness. Middleton, thereupon, despatched
two regiments of cavalry after him, who attacked his rear, cut off
some of his men, and captured two pieces of cannon and part of his
baggage. Montrose continued his retreat by Beauly into Ross-shire,
whither he was pursued by Middleton, who, however, suffered some loss
in the pursuit. As Montrose’s forces were far inferior, in point of
numbers, to those of Middleton, he avoided coming to an engagement,
and as Seaforth’s men, who had joined Montrose at Inverness, under
their chief, began to desert him in great numbers, and as he could
not depend on the population by which he was surrounded, Montrose
turned to the right, and passing by Lochness, marched through
Strathglass and Stratherrick to the banks of the Spey. Middleton did
not follow Montrose, but went and laid siege to the castle of the
Earl of Seaforth in the canonry of Ross, which he took after a siege
of four days. He behaved towards the Countess of Seaforth, who was
within the castle, with great politeness, and restored it to her
after taking away the ammunition which it contained.
The absence of Middleton from Aberdeen afforded Huntly an opportunity
of accomplishing the design which he formerly entertained, till
prevented by the approach of Middleton from the south, of taking
Aberdeen, and accordingly he ordered his men to march from Deeside
to Inverury, where he appointed a general rendezvous to be held on
the 10th of May. Colonel Montgomery being aware of his motions, beat
up his quarters the same night at Kintore with a party of horse, and
killed some of his men. But Montgomery was repulsed by Lord Lewis
Gordon, with some loss, and forced to retire to Aberdeen. The marquis
appeared at the gates of Aberdeen at 12 o’clock on the following
day, with a force of 1,500 Highland foot and 600 horse, and stormed
it in three different places. The garrison defended themselves with
courage, and twice repulsed the assailants, in which contest a
part of the town was set on fire; but a fresh reinforcement having
entered the town, under Lord Aboyne, the attack was renewed, and
Montgomery and his horse were forced to retire down to the edge of
the river Dee, which they crossed by swimming. The covenanting foot,
after taking refuge in the tolbooth and in the houses of the Earl
Marischal and Menzies of Pitfoddles, craved quarter and surrendered
at discretion. Although, the city of Aberdeen had done nothing to
incur Huntly’s displeasure, he allowed his Highlanders to pillage it.
About twenty officers were taken prisoners, among whom were Colonels
Hurry, Barclay, and David Leighton; besides Sir William Forbes of
Craigievar, and other country gentlemen, particularly of the name of
Forbes; but they were all released next day on their parole of honour
not to serve against the king in future. There were killed on the
side of the Covenanters, Colonel William Forbes, Captain Lockhart,
son of Sir James Lockhart of Lee, and three captains of foot, besides
a number of privates; but Huntly lost only about twenty men.
[Illustration: Old Aberdeen in the 17th century.--From Slezer’s
_Theatrum Scotiæ_ (1693).]
As Huntly’s force was considerably reduced by the return of the
Highlanders, who had accompanied him, to their own houses, with
the booty which they had collected in Aberdeen, and, as he was
apprehensive of the immediate return of Middleton from the north,
he remained but a short time in Aberdeen. Marching up the north
bank of the Dee, he encamped in Cromar; but the sudden appearance
of Middleton, who, on hearing of Huntly’s advance on Aberdeen, had
retraced his steps and re-crossed the Spey, made him retire into
Mar. Middleton, after pursuing him for a short distance, returned to
Aberdeen, which he found had suffered severely from Huntly’s visit.
After an ineffectual attempt by Montrose to obtain an interview with
Huntly at the bog of Gight, whither he had gone after Middleton’s
return to Aberdeen, Montrose resolved to make a tour through the
Highlands, in the hope that he would be able, by his personal
presence, and by promising suitable rewards, to induce the clans
to rise in defence of their sovereign; but with the determination,
in case of refusal, to enforce obedience to his commands. This
resolution was not taken by Montrose, without the concurrence of
some of his best friends, who promised to aid him by every means in
their power, in carrying it into effect. In pursuance of his design,
Montrose was just about setting out on his proposed journey, when,
on the last day of May, a messenger arrived with a letter from the
king, requesting him to disband his forces, and to retire, himself,
to France, where he would receive “further directions.” After the
disastrous battle of Naseby, which was fought on the 14th of June,
1644, between the English royalists and the parliamentary forces,
the campaign in England, on the part of the king, “presented little
more than the last and feeble struggles of an expiring party.”[353]
The king had been enabled, in consequence of the recall of the
horse, which had reached Nottingham, on their way to Hereford,
under General David Leslie, after the battle of Kilsyth, to drive
the parliamentary infantry back from the siege of Hereford; but the
surrender of Bristol to the forces of the parliament, on the 10th
of September, and the defeat of the royalists at Chester, on the
23d of the same month, completed the ruin of the king’s affairs.
Having shut himself up in Oxford, for the last time, in November
following, Charles, after the discovery of the secret treaty with
the Catholics of Ireland, which had been entered into by the Earl of
Glamorgan, endeavoured to negotiate with the English parliament in
the expectation that if he could gain either the presbyterians or
independents over to his side, by fair promises, he would be enabled
to get the upper hand of both.[354] That negotiation, however, not
succeeding, another was set on foot, through the medium of Montrevil,
the French envoy, with the Scots army before Newark, the leaders
of which offered an asylum to the king on certain conditions. At
length Charles, undetermined as to the course he should pursue, on
hearing of the approach of the parliamentary army, under Fairfax,
left Oxford at midnight, on the 27th of April, 1646, in the disguise
of a servant, accompanied by Mr. Ashburnham and Dr. Hudson, a
clergyman, and, after traversing the neighbouring country, arrived
at Southwell on the 5th of May, where he was introduced by Montrevil
to the Earl of Leven, the commander of the Scots army, and the
officers of his staff. The arrival of the king seemed to surprise
the officers very much, although it is generally supposed that they
had been made previously aware of his intentions by Hudson, who
had preceded him, and they treated him with becoming respect, the
commander tendering his bare sword upon his knee;[355] but when
Charles, who had retained Leven’s sword, indicated his intention to
take the command of the army, by giving orders to the guard, that
crafty veteran unhesitatingly thus addressed him:--“I am the older
soldier, Sire, your majesty had better leave that office to me.”[356]
The king was, in fact, now a prisoner. As soon as the intelligence
reached the capital, that the king had retired to the Scots camp, the
two parliamentary factions united in accusing the Scots of perfidy,
and sent a body of 5,000 horse to watch their motions; but the Scots
being desirous to avoid hostilities, raised their camp before
Newark, and hastily retired to Newcastle, carrying the king along
with them.
On arriving at Newcastle, the king was waited upon by the Earls of
Lanark and Callander, and Lord Balmerino, who paid their respects
to him. As Callander was understood to be favourably inclined to
the king, Lanark and Balmerino were desirous to get rid of him, and
accordingly they prevailed upon his majesty to send Callander back
to Edinburgh with a letter, which they had induced his majesty to
write to the Committee of Estates, expressive of his desire to comply
with the wishes of the Scots parliament, and containing instructions
to them to order Montrose, Huntly, and Sir Alexander Macdonald to
disband their forces. And it was also at the desire of these two
noblemen that the king wrote the letter to Montrose already referred
to.
After Montrose had read this letter he was filled with deep amazement
and concern. All those visionary schemes for accomplishing the great
object of his ambition, which a few minutes before had floated in his
vivid imagination, were now dispelled. He was now placed in one of
the most painful and difficult situations it is possible to conceive.
He had no doubt that the letter had been extorted from the king, yet
he considered that it would neither be prudent nor safe for him to
risk the responsibility of disobeying the king’s orders. Besides,
were he to attempt to act contrary to these instructions, he might
thereby compromise the safety of the king, as his enemies would find
it no difficult affair to convince the army that Montrose was acting
according to private instructions from the king himself. On the
other hand, by instantly disbanding his army, Montrose considered
that he would leave the royalists, and all those friends who had
shared his dangers, to the mercy of their enemies. In this dilemma,
he determined to convene a general meeting of all the principal
royalists, to consult as to how he should act--a resolution which
showed his good sense, and kind and just feeling towards those who
had been induced by his means to risk their lives and fortunes in
the cause of the king. Notwithstanding the many slights which had
been put upon him by the Marquis of Huntly, Montrose, anxious to
preserve a good understanding with him, sent Sir John Hurry and Sir
John Innes to Huntly, to invite him to attend the proposed meeting,
and that there might be no appearance of dictation on the part of
Montrose, the time and place of meeting was left to Huntly’s own
choice. But this nobleman answered that he himself had received
orders similar to those sent to Montrose, which he was resolved to
obey immediately, and, therefore, he declined to attend any meeting
on the subject.
In this situation of matters, Montrose considered that his best and
wisest course would be to keep his army together till he should
receive another communication from the king, in answer to a letter
which he sent by a messenger of his own, in which he begged his
majesty to acquaint him with the real situation of matters, whether
he considered his person safe in the hands of the Covenanters, and
if he could be of any farther service to him. Montrose begged also
to be informed by the king, if he persevered in his resolution to
disband an army which had fought so bravely in his defence, and that
at a time when his enemies, in both kingdoms, were still under arms;
and if so, he wished to be instructed by his majesty as to the course
he should pursue, for the protection and security of the lives and
fortunes of those brave men, who had encountered so many dangers, and
had spent their blood in his defence, as he could not endure the idea
of leaving such loyal subjects to the mercy of their enemies.[357]
The king returned an answer[358] to this letter, by the former
messenger, Ker, in which he assured him that he no less esteemed
his willingness to lay down arms at his command, “for a gallant and
real expression” of his zeal and affection to his service than any
of his former actions; but he hoped that Montrose had not such a
mean opinion of him, that for any particular or worldly respects
he would suffer him (Montrose) to be ruined,--that his only reason
for sending Montrose out of the country was that he might return
with greater glory, and, in the meantime, to have as honourable an
employment as he (the king) could confer upon him,--that Ker would
tell him the care he had of all Montrose’s friends, and his own, to
whom, although he could not promise such conditions as he would have
wished, yet they would be such, all things considered, as were most
fit for them to accept. “Wherefore,” continues his majesty, “I renew
my former directions, of laying down arms, unto you, desiring you to
let Huntly, Crawford, Airly, Seaforth, and Ogilvy, know, that want of
time hath made me now omit to reiterate my former commands unto you,
intending that this shall serve for all; assuring them, and all the
rest of my friends, that, whensoever God shall enable me, they shall
reap the fruits of their loyalty and affection to my service.”
These ‘conditions,’ which consisted of several articles, and in the
drawing up of which the king probably had no concern, were far from
satisfactory to Montrose, who refused to accede to them. He even
refused to treat with the Covenanters, and sent back the messenger to
the king to notify to him, that as he had acted under his majesty’s
commission, he would admit of no conditions for laying down his
arms, or disbanding his army, which did not come directly from the
king himself; but that if his majesty imposed conditions upon him,
he would accept of them with the most implicit submission. The king,
who had no alternative but to adopt these conditions as his own,
put his name to them and sent back the messenger with them, with
fresh instructions to Montrose to disband his army forthwith under
the pain of high treason. Besides Ker, the king despatched another
trusty messenger to Montrose with a private letter[359] urging him
to accept of the conditions offered, as in the event of his refusal
to break up his army, his majesty might be placed “in a very sad
condition,” such as he would rather leave Montrose to guess at than
seek himself to express. From this expression, it would appear that
Charles already began to entertain some apprehensions about his
personal safety. These commands of the king were too peremptory to be
any longer withstood, and as Montrose had been informed that several
of the leading royalists, particularly the Marquis of Huntly, Lord
Aboyne, and the Earl of Seaforth, were negotiating with the Estates
in their own behalf, and that Huntly and Aboyne had even offered to
compel Montrose to lay down his arms in compliance with the orders of
the king, he immediately resolved to disband his army.
As Middleton had been intrusted by the Committee of Estates with
ample powers to negotiate with the royalists, and to see the
conditions offered to Montrose implemented by him in case of
acceptance, a cessation of arms was agreed upon between Montrose and
Middleton; and in order to discuss the conditions, a conference was
held between them on the 22d day of July, on a meadow, near the river
Isla, in Angus, where they “conferred for the space of two hours,
there being none near them but one man for each of them to hold his
horse.”[360] The conditions agreed upon were these, that with the
exception of Montrose himself, the Earl of Crawford, Sir Alexander
Macdonald, and Sir John Hurry, all those who had taken up arms
against the Covenanters would be pardoned on making their submission,
and that Montrose, Crawford, Hurry, and Graham of Gorthy, should
transport themselves beyond seas, before the last day of August, in
a ship to be provided by the Estates. This arrangement was ratified
by the committee of Estates, but the committee of the kirk exclaimed
against it, and petitioned the Committee of Estates not to sanction
it.
Preparatory to disbanding his army, Montrose appointed it to
rendezvous at Rattray, in the neighbourhood of Coupar-Angus, at which
place, on the 30th of July, he discharged his men, after addressing
them with feeling and animation. After giving them due praise for
their faithful services and good behaviour, he told them his orders,
and bade them farewell, an event no less sorrowful to the whole
army than to himself; and, notwithstanding that he used his utmost
endeavours to raise their drooping spirits, and encourage them with
the flattering prospect of a speedy and desirable peace, and assured
them that he contributed to the king’s safety and interest by his
present ready submission, no less than he had formerly done by his
military attempts; yet they concluded, that a period was that day
put to the king’s authority, which would expire with the dissolution
of their army, for disbanding which, they were all convinced the
orders had been extorted from the king, or granted by him on purpose
to evite a greater and more immediate evil. And, upon whatever
favourable conditions their own safety might be provided for, yet
they lamented their fate, and would much rather have undergone the
greatest fatigue and hardships than be obliged to remain inactive
and idle spectators of the miseries and calamities befalling their
dearest sovereign. Neither were their generous souls a little
concerned for the unworthy and disgraceful opinion which foreign
nations and after ages could not fail to conceive of the Scots, as
universally dipt in rebellion, and guilty of defection from the best
of kings. Their sorrow was likewise considerably augmented by the
thoughts of being separated from their brave and successful general,
who was now obliged to enter into a kind of banishment, to the
irreparable loss of the king, the country, themselves, and all good
men, at a time when they never had greater occasion for his services:
And falling down upon their knees, with tears in their eyes, they
obtested him, that seeing the king’s safety and interest required his
immediate departure from the kingdom, he would take them along with
him to whatever corner of the world he would retire, professing their
readiness to live, to fight, nay, if it so please God, even to die
under his command. And not a few of them had privately determined,
though at the evident risk of their lives and fortunes, to follow him
without his knowledge, and even against his inclination, and to offer
him their service in a foreign land, which they could not any longer
afford him in their own distressed native country.[361]
Such is the account of the affecting farewell between Montrose and
the few remaining brave and adventurous men who had shared with him
all the dangers and vicissitudes of the battle-field, as related by a
warm partisan of fallen royalty; yet there is no reason for supposing
that he has given an exaggerated view of the feelings of the warlike
and devoted band at parting, under existing circumstances, with their
beloved commander who had so often led them to victory, and whose
banishment from his native country they regarded as the death-blow
to their hopes.
Upon the dissolution of Montrose’s army, the Scots officers and
soldiers retired to their homes, and the Irish troops marched
westward into Argyle, whence they embarked for their own country,
being accompanied thither by the Earl of Crawford, who from thence
went to Spain. Montrose, along with the few friends who were to
follow him abroad, took up his abode at his seat of Old Montrose,
there to wait the arrival of the vessel destined to convey them to
the continent. The day fixed for Montrose’s departure was the 1st
of September, and he waited with impatience for the arrival of the
expected vessel; but as the month of August was fast expiring without
such vessel making its appearance, or any apparent preparation for
the voyage, Montrose’s friends applied to the committee of the
Estates for a prorogation of the day stipulated for his departure,
but they could obtain no satisfactory answer.
At length, on the last day of August, a vessel for the reception of
the marquis entered the harbour of Montrose, in which he proposed
immediately to embark, but he was told by the shipmaster, “a violent
and rigid Covenanter,” that he meant to careen his vessel before
going to sea, an operation which would occupy a few days. In the
course of conversation, the shipmaster bluntly stated to his intended
passengers, that he had received express instructions to land them
at certain ports. The behaviour of the captain, joined to the
information he had communicated, and the fact that several English
ships of war had been seen for several days off the coast, as if
watching his embarkation and departure, created a strong suspicion
in Montrose’s mind that a plan had been laid for capturing him,
and induced him to consult his own safety and that of his friends,
by seeking another way of leaving the kingdom. The anxiety of
Montrose and his followers was speedily relieved by the arrival of
intelligence, that a small vessel belonging to Bergen, in Norway,
had been found in the neighbouring harbour of Stonehaven; and that
the master had engaged, on being promised a handsome freight, to be
in readiness, on an appointed day, to sail with such passengers as
should appear.
Accordingly, after sending off Sir John Hurry, John Drummond of
Balloch, Graham of Gorthy, Dr. Wishart, and a few other friends by
land to Stonehaven, on the 3d of September 1646, he himself left the
harbour of Montrose in a small boat, disguised as the servant of
James Wood, a clergyman, who accompanied him; and the same evening
went safely on board the vessel, into which his friends had embarked,
and setting sail with a fair wind, arrived in a few days at Bergen,
in Norway, where he received a friendly welcome from Thomas Gray, a
Scotsman, the governor of the castle of Bergen.[362]
It is beyond the province of this history to give a detailed account
of the transactions which took place between the Scotch and English
concerning the disbanding of the Scottish army and the delivery of
the king to the English parliament. Although the Scotch are certainly
not free from blame for having betrayed their king, after he had cast
himself upon their loyalty and mercy, still it must be remembered,
in extenuation, that the king was merely playing a game, that his
giving himself up to the Scotch army was his last desperate move,
and that he would not have had the least scruple in outwitting,
deceiving, and even destroying his protectors. In September, 1646,
an agreement was come to between the Scotch commissioners and the
English parliament, that the army should be disbanded, on the latter
paying £400,000 as payment in full of the arrears of pay due to
the army for its services. There was no mention then made of the
delivery of the king, and a candid examination of the evidence on
both sides proves that the one transaction was quite independent of
the other. “That fanaticism and self-interest had steeled the breasts
of the Covenanters against the more generous impulses of loyalty and
compassion, may, indeed, be granted; but more than this cannot be
legitimately inferred from any proof furnished by history.”[363]
While the negotiations for the delivery of the king were pending,
Charles, who seems to have been fully aware of them, meditated the
design of escaping from the Scots army, and putting himself at the
head of such forces as the Marquis of Huntly could raise in the
north. In pursuance of this design, his majesty, about the middle of
December, sent Robert Leslie, brother of General David Leslie, with
letters and a private commission to Huntly, by which he was informed
of his majesty’s intentions, and Huntly was, therefore, desired
to levy what forces he could, and have them in readiness to take
the field on his arrival in the north. On receipt of his majesty’s
commands, Huntly began to raise forces, and having collected them at
Banff, fortified the town, and there awaited the king’s arrival.[364]
But the king was prevented from putting his plan into execution by a
premature discovery, and was thenceforth much more strictly guarded.
After the delivery of the king to the English, on the 28th of
January, 1647, the Scots army returned to Scotland. It was thereupon
remodelled and reduced, by order of the parliament, to 6,000 foot,
and 1,200 horse; a force which was considered sufficient not only
to keep the royalists in awe, but also to reduce the Marquis of
Huntly and Sir Alexander Macdonald, who were still at the head of
some men. The dispersion, therefore, of the forces under these
two commanders became the immediate object of the parliament. An
attempt had been made in the month of January, by a division of
the covenanting army stationed in Aberdeenshire, under the command
of Major Bickerton, to surprise the Marquis of Huntly at Banff,
but it had been obliged to retire with loss; and Huntly continued
to remain in his position till the month of April, when, on the
approach of General David Leslie with a considerable force, he fled
with a few friends to the mountains of Lochaber for shelter. Leslie
thereupon reduced the castles belonging to the marquis. He first took
that of Strathbogie, and sent the commander thereof, the laird of
Newton-Gordon, to Edinburgh; then the castle of Lesmore; and lastly,
the Bog of Gicht, or Gordon castle, the commander of which, James
Gordon of Letterfurie, and his brother, Thomas Gordon of Clastirim,
and other gentlemen of the name of Gordon, were sent to Edinburgh as
prisoners. Leslie next took the isle of Lochtanner, in Aboyne, which
had been fortified by Huntly.[365] Quarter was given to the men who
garrisoned those different strengths, with the exception of the Irish
and deserters, who were hanged immediately on their capture.[366]
Having taken these different places, Leslie, in quest of the
marquis, next marched into Badenoch, where he captured the castle of
Ruthven. Thence he proceeded into Lochaber, and took the fortress
of Inverlochy. Huntly disbanded his forces in Badenoch, reserving
only a few as a body-guard for himself and his son; “showing them
that he was resolved to live an outlaw till provident heaven should
be pleased to change the king’s fortune, upon whose commandments
his life and fortune should always depend.”[367] The covenanting
general, thereupon, marched to the south with a part of his forces,
leaving the remainder in the north, under the command of Middleton,
and encamped in Strathallan, he himself taking up his head-quarters
in Dunblane. Here he remained till the middle of May, when he was
joined by the Marquis of Argyle, and ordered to advance into that
nobleman’s country to drive out Sir Alexander Macdonald. Accordingly,
he set out on the 17th of May, and arrived at Inverary on the 21st.
Sir Alexander Macdonald was at this time in Kintyre, with a force of
about 1,400 foot and two troops of horse, which would have been fully
sufficient to check Leslie, but he seems not to have been aware of
the advance of the latter, and had taken no precautions to guard the
passes leading into the peninsula, which might have been successfully
defended by a handful of men against a considerable force. Having
secured these difficult passes, Leslie advanced into Kintyre, and
after skirmishing the whole of the 25th of May with Macdonald, forced
him to retire. After throwing 300 men into a fortress on the top of
the hill of Dunaverty, and in which “there was not a drop of water
but what fell from the clouds,”[368] Macdonald, on the following day,
embarked his troops in boats provided for the occasion, and passed
over into Islay.
Leslie, thereupon, laid siege to the castle of Dunaverty, which was
well defended; but the assailants having carried a trench at the
bottom of the hill which gave the garrison the command of water,
and in the storming of which the besieged lost 40 men, the latter
craved a parley, in consequence of which Sir James Turner, Leslie’s
adjutant-general, was sent to confer with the garrison on the terms
of surrender. Leslie would not grant “any other conditions than that
they should yield on discretion or mercy. And it seemed strange to
me,” continues Sir James Turner, “to hear the lieutenant-general’s
nice distinction, that they should yield themselves to the kingdom’s
mercy, and not to his. At length they did so, and after they had
come out of the castle, they were put to the sword, every mother’s
son, except one young man, Maccoul, whose life I begged to be sent
to France, with 100 fellows which we had smoked out of a cave, as
they do foxes, who were given to Captain Campbell, the chancellor’s
brother.”[369] This atrocious act was perpetrated at the instigation
of John Nave or Neaves, “a bloody preacher,”[370] but, according to
Wodrow, an “excellent man,” who would not be satisfied with less than
the blood of the prisoners. As the account given by Sir James Turner,
an eye-witness of this infamous transaction, is curious, no apology
is necessary for inserting it. “Here it will be fit to make a stop,
till this cruel action be canvassed. First, the lieutenant-general
was two days irresolute what to do. The Marquis of Argyle was
accused at his arraignment of this murder, and I was examined as a
witness. I declared, which was true, that I never heard him advise
the lieutenant-general to it. What he did in private I know not.
Secondly, Argyle was but a colonel then, and he had no power to do
it of himself. Thirdly, though he had advised him to it, it was no
capital crime; for counsel is no command. Fourthly, I have several
times spoke to the lieutenant-general to save these men’s lives, and
he always assented to it, and I know of himself he was unwilling
to shed their blood. Fifthly, Mr. John Nave (who was appointed by
the commission of the kirk to wait on him as his chaplain) never
ceased to tempt him to that bloodshed, yea, and threatened him with
the curses befell Saul for sparing the Amalekites, for with them
his theology taught him to compare the Dunaverty men. And I verily
believe that this prevailed most with David Leslie, who looked upon
Nave as the representative of the kirk of Scotland.” The fact of
Sir James and David Leslie’s repugnance to shed the blood of those
defenceless men is fully corroborated by Bishop Guthry, on the
authority of many persons who were present, who says that while
the butchery was going on, and while Leslie, Argyle, and Neaves
were walking over the ancles in blood, Leslie turned out and thus
addressed the latter:--“Now, Mr. John, have you not once got your
fill of blood?” The sufferers on this occasion were partly Irish, and
partly belonging to the clan Dougal or Coull, to the castle of whose
chief, in Lorne, Colonel Robert Montgomerie now laid siege, while
Leslie himself, with a part of his forces, left Kintyre for Islay in
pursuit of Macdonald.
On landing in Islay, Leslie found that Macdonald had fled to Ireland,
and had left Colkittoch, his father, in the castle of Dunniveg, with
a force of 200 men to defend the island against the superior power
of Leslie. The result turned out as might have been anticipated.
Although the garrison made a brave resistance, yet, being wholly
without water, they found themselves unable to resist, and offered
to capitulate on certain conditions. These were, that the officers
should be entitled to go where they pleased, and that the privates
should be sent to France. These conditions were agreed to, and were
punctually fulfilled. Old Colkittoch had, however, the misfortune
not to be included in this capitulation, for, before the castle had
surrendered, “the old man, Coll,” says Sir James Turner, “coming
foolishly out of the house, where he was governor, on some parole or
other,[371] to speak with his old friend, the captain of Dunstaffnage
castle, was surprised, and made prisoner, not without some stain to
the lieutenant-general’s honour. He was afterwards hanged by a jury
of Argyle’s sheriff-depute, one George Campbell, from whose sentence
few are said to have escaped that kind of death.”
Leaving Islay, Leslie “boated over to Jura, a horrible isle,” says
Sir James Turner, “and a habitation fit for deer and wild beasts; and
so from isle to isle,” continues he, “till he came to Mull, which
is one of the best of the Hebrides. Here Maclaine saved his lands,
with the loss of his reputation, if he ever had any. He gave up his
strong castles to Leslie, gave his eldest son for hostage of his
fidelity, and, which was unchristian baseness in the lowest degree,
he delivered up fourteen prettie Irishmen, who had been all along
faithful to him, to the lieutenant-general, who immediately caused
hang them all. It was not well done to demand them from Maclaine, but
inexcusablie ill done in him to betray them. Here I cannot forget one
Donald Campbell, fleshed in blood from his very infancie, who with
all imaginable violence pressed that the whole clan Maclaine should
be put to the edge of the sword; nor could he be commanded to forbear
his bloody suit by the lieutenant-general and two major-generals;
and with some difficulty was he commanded silence by his chief, the
Marquis of Argyle. For my part, I said nothing, for indeed I did not
care though he had prevailed in his suit, the delivery of the Irish
had so irritated me against that whole clan and name.”
While Leslie was thus subduing the Hebrides, Middleton was occupied
in pursuing the Marquis of Huntly through Glenmoriston, Badenoch, and
other places. Huntly was at length captured by Lieutenant-Colonel
Menzies, in Strathdon, in December, 1647. Having received
intelligence of the place of the marquis’s retreat, Menzies came to
Dalnabo with a select body of horse, consisting of three troops,
about midnight, and immediately entered the house just as Huntly was
going to bed. The marquis was attended by only ten gentlemen and
servants, as a sort of body-guard, who notwithstanding the great
disparity of numbers, made a brave attempt to protect the marquis, in
which six of them were killed and the rest mortally wounded, among
whom was John Grant, the landlord. On hearing that the marquis had
been taken prisoner, the whole of his vassals in the neighbourhood,
to the number of between 400 and 500, with Grant of Carron at
their head, flew to arms to rescue him. Lieutenant-Colonel Menzies
thereupon carried the marquis to the castle of Blairfindie, in
Glenlivet, about four miles from Dalnabo, where the latter received
a notice from Grant and his party by the wife of Gordon of Munmore,
that they had solemnly sworn either to rescue him or die to a man,
and they requested him to give them such orders to carry their plan
into effect as he might judge proper. But the marquis dissuaded his
people from the intended attempt, and returned for answer that, now
almost worn out with grief and fatigue, he could no longer live in
hills and dens; and hoped that his enemies would not drive things to
the worst; but, if such was the will of heaven, he could not outlive
the sad fate he foresaw his royal master was likely to undergo; and
be the event as it would, he doubted not but the just providence of
God would restore the royal family, and his own along with it.[372]
Besides the gentlemen and servants about Huntly’s person, there were
some Irish who were quartered in the offices about Dalnabo. These
were carried prisoners by Menzies to Strathbogie, where Middleton
then was, who ordered them all to be shot. In consequence of an
order from the committee of Estates at Edinburgh, Menzies carried
the marquis under a strong guard of horse to Leith, where, after
being kept two days, he was delivered up to the magistrates, and
incarcerated in the jail of the city. The committee had previously
debated the question whether the marquis should be immediately
executed or reprieved till the meeting of parliament, but although
the Argyle faction, notwithstanding the Marquis of Argyle withdrew
before the vote was taken, and the committee of the church did every
thing in their power to procure the immediate execution of the
marquis, his life was spared till the meeting of the parliament by a
majority of one vote.[373] The Earl of Aboyne and Lord Lewis Gordon
had the good fortune to escape to the continent. The first went to
France, where he shortly thereafter died--the second took refuge in
Holland. A reward of £1,000 sterling had been promised to any person
who should apprehend Huntly, which sum was duly paid to Menzies by
the Committee of Estates.[374]
[Illustration: Second Marquis of Huntly.--From a rare print in the
collection of W. F. Watson, Esq., Edinburgh.]
There appears to be no doubt that Argyle was highly gratified at the
capture of Huntly. It is related by Spalding, that taking advantage
of Huntly’s situation, Argyle bought up all the comprisings on his
lands, and that he caused summon at the market-cross of Aberdeen by
sound of trumpet, all Huntly’s wadsetters and creditors to appear
at Edinburgh in the month of March following Huntly’s imprisonment,
calling on them to produce their securities before the lords of
session, with certification that if they did not appear, their
securities were to be declared null and void. Some of Huntly’s
creditors sold their claims to Argyle, and having thus bought up all
the rights he could obtain upon Huntly’s estate at a small or nominal
value, under the pretence that he was acting for the benefit of his
nephew, Lord Gordon, he granted bonds for the amount which, according
to Spalding, he never paid. In this way did Argyle possess himself
of the marquis’s estates, which he continued to enjoy upwards of
twelve years; viz., from 1648, till the restoration of Charles II. in
1660.
When the king, who was then a prisoner in Carisbrook castle, heard
of the capture of Huntly, he wrote a letter to the Earl of Lanark,
then in London, earnestly urging him to do all in his power in behalf
of the Marquis. The earl, however, either from unwillingness or
inability, appears to have paid no attention to this letter.
Shortly before the capture of the Marquis of Huntly, John Gordon
of Innermarkie, Gordon, younger of Newton-Gordon, and the laird of
Harthill, three of his chief friends, had been taken prisoners by
Major-General Middleton, and sent to Edinburgh, where they were
imprisoned. The two latter were condemned to die by the Committee
of Estates, and although their friends procured a remission of the
sentence from the king, they were, notwithstanding, both beheaded at
the market-cross of Edinburgh.
While the hopes of the royalists, both in England and Scotland,
seemed to be almost extinguished, a ray of light, about this time,
darted through the dark gloom of the political horizon, which they
fondly imagined was the harbinger of a new and, for them, a better
order of things; but all their expectations were destined to end in
bitter disappointment. The Duke of Hamilton, who had lately formed
an association to release the king from his captivity, which went
under the name of the “Engagement,” prevailed upon the parliament,
which met in March, 1648, to appoint a committee of danger, and to
consent to a levy of 40,000 men. The bulk of the English population,
with the exception of the army, had grown quite dissatisfied with the
state of matters. Their eyes were now directed towards Scotland, and
the news of the Scots’ levy made them indulge a hope that they would
soon be enabled, by the aid of the Scots auxiliaries, to throw off
the military yoke, and restore the king on conditions favourable to
liberty. But Hamilton, being thwarted by Argyle and his party, had it
not in his power to take advantage of the favourable disposition of
the English people, and instead of raising 40,000 men, he found, to
his great mortification, that, at the utmost, he could, after upwards
of three months’ labour, only bring about 15,000 men into the field,
and that not until several insurrections in England, in favour of the
king, had been suppressed.
It was the misfortune of Hamilton that with every disposition to
serve the cause of his royal master, he had neither the capacity to
conceive, nor the resolution to adopt bold and decisive measures
equal to the emergency of the times. Like the king, he attempted
to act the part of the cunning politician, but was wholly unfitted
for the performance of such a character. Had he had the address
to separate old Leslie and his nephew from the party of Argyle,
by placing the direction of military affairs in their hands, he
might have succeeded in raising a force sufficient to cope with
the parliamentary army of England; but he had the weakness, after
both these generals had joined the kirk in its remonstrance to
the parliament that nothing should be done without the consent of
the committee of the general assembly, to get himself appointed
commander-in-chief of the army, a measure which could not fail to
disgust these hardy veterans. He failed in an attempt to conciliate
the Marquis of Argyle, who did all in his power to thwart Hamilton’s
designs. Argyle went to Fife and induced the gentry of that county
not only to oppose the levies, but to hold themselves in readiness to
rise on the other side when called upon. He was not so successful in
Stirlingshire, none of the gentlemen of that county concurring in his
views except the laird of Buchanan, Sir William Bruce of Stenhouse,
and a few persons of inferior note; but in Dumbartonshire he
succeeded to the utmost of his wishes. After attending a meeting with
the Lord Chancellor, (Loudon,) the Earls of Cassilis and Eglinton,
and David Dick and other ministers, at Eglinton’s house, on the 29th
of May, Argyle went home to raise his own people.
Several instances of opposition to the levy took place; but the most
formidable one, and the only one worthy of notice, was in Ayrshire,
where a body of armed insurgents, to the number of 800 horse and
1,200 foot according to one writer,[375] and 500 horse and 2,000 foot
according to another,[376] headed by several ministers, assembled at
Mauchline; but they were defeated and dispersed, on the 10th of June,
by Middleton, who had been appointed lieutenant-general of horse,
with the loss of 80 men.
There are no data by which to ascertain the number of men raised
in the Highlands for Hamilton’s army; but it must necessarily
have been very inconsiderable. Not a single man was of course
raised in Argyleshire, and scarcely any in the adjoining part of
Inverness-shire, to which the influence or power of Argyle extended.
The Earl of Sutherland, who had been appointed a colonel of foot in
his own division, declined the office, and Lord Reay was so disgusted
with “Duke Hamilton’s failure,” that he took shipping at Thurso in
the month of July, and went to Norway,[377] where he was appointed
governor of Bergen, and received the colonelcy of a regiment from the
King of Denmark, whom he had formerly served. The only individual who
could have benefitted the royal-cause in the north was the Marquis
of Huntly, but by a strange fatality the Duke of Hamilton, who could
have easily procured an order from the parliament for his liberation
from prison, allowed him to continue there, and merely contented
himself with obtaining a warrant for changing the marquis’s place of
confinement from the jail to the castle of Edinburgh.
In consequence of the many difficulties which occurred in collecting
his troops, and providing the necessary _matériel_ for the use of
the army, the duke was not able to begin his march till the 8th of
July, on which day he put his army in motion towards the borders.
His force, which amounted to about 10,000 foot and 4,000 horse, was
composed of raw and undisciplined levies, and he had not a single
field-piece. He entered England by the western border, where he was
met by Sir Marmaduke Langdale and a body of 4,000 brave cavaliers,
all devotedly attached to the king. At this time Lambert, the
parliamentary general, had invested Carlisle, and Hamilton was
induced by the English royalists, contrary to his own views, to march
upon Carlisle, and force Lambert to raise the siege. That general,
who had received orders from Cromwell not to engage the Scots till he
should join him, accordingly retired, and Carlisle was delivered up
next day to Hamilton by the English royalists, who also put him in
possession of Berwick.
It is unnecessary to enter into details concerning this mismanaged
and unfortunate expedition, the result of which is well known to
every reader of English history. Sir Marmaduke Langdale was defeated
by Cromwell at Preston on the 17th of August, and on entering the
town after the defeat, was mortified to find that his Scotch allies
had abandoned it. Langdale having now no alternative but flight,
disbanded his infantry, and along with his cavalry and Hamilton, who,
refusing to follow the example of his army, had remained in the town,
swam across the Ribble.
The Scotch army retired during the night towards Wigan, where it
was joined by the duke next morning, but so reduced in spirits and
weakened by desertion as to be quite unable to make any resistance
to the victorious troops of Cromwell, who pressed hard upon them.
The foot, under the command of Baillie, continued to retreat during
the day, but were overtaken at Warrington, and, being unable either
to proceed or to resist, surrendered. The number which capitulated
amounted to about 3,000. Upwards of 6,000 had previously been
captured by the country people, and the few who had the good fortune
to escape joined Munro and returned to Scotland. These prisoners were
sold as slaves, and sent to the plantations.
The duke, abandoning Baillie to his fate, carried off the whole
cavalry; but he had not proceeded far when his rear was attacked by
the parliamentary army. Middleton made a gallant defence, and was
taken prisoner; but the duke escaped, and fled to Uttoxeter, followed
by his horse, where he surrendered himself to General Lambert and
Lord Grey of Groby, who sent him prisoner to Windsor. The Earl
of Callander, having effected his escape, went over to Holland,
disgusted at the conduct of the duke.
As soon as the news of the defeat of Hamilton reached Scotland,
the Covenanters of the west began to bestir themselves, and a
party of them, under the command of Robert Montgomery, son of the
Earl of Eglinton, attacked a troop of Lanark’s horse, quartered in
Ayrshire, killed some and routed the rest. The Committee of Estates,
apprehensive that the spirit of insurrection would speedily spread,
immediately ordered out all the fencible men in the kingdom to put
down the rising in the west. A difference, however, arose in the
committee in the choice of a commander. The Earl of Lanark and the
Earl Marischal were proposed by their respective friends. Lanark’s
chief opponent was the Earl of Roxburgh, who, (says Wishart,) “in a
grave and modest speech, earnestly entreated him, for the sake of
their dear sovereign and their distressed country, not to insist
in demanding that dignity, which was extremely unseasonable and
ill-judged at that time.”[378] Roxburgh’s remonstrance had no effect
upon Lanark, who, on a vote being taken, was found to have the
majority, and so anxious was he to obtain the command of the army
that he actually voted for himself.[379] He had even the indiscretion
to declare, that he would not permit any other person to command in
his brother’s absence. This rash and imprudent behaviour on the part
of Lanark so exasperated Roxburgh and his friends, who justly dreaded
the utter ruin of the king’s affairs, that they henceforth withdrew
altogether from public affairs.
As soon as Lanark had been appointed to the command of the new levy,
he set about raising it with great expedition. For this purpose he
sent circulars, plausibly written, to every part of Scotland, calling
upon all classes to join him without delay. These circulars had the
desired effect. The people beyond the Forth, and even the men of
Fife, showed a disposition to obey the call. The Earl of Seaforth
raised 4,000 men in the Western Islands and in Ross-shire, whom he
brought south, and the Earl of Morton also brought into Lothian 1,200
men from the Orkneys. In short, with the exception of Argyle, there
were few places in Scotland from which considerable bodies of men
might not have been expected.
Before the defeat of Hamilton’s army, Lanark had raised three
regiments of horse, which were now under his command. These, with
the accessions of force which were daily arriving from different
parts of the kingdom, were quite sufficient to have put down the
insurrection in the west; but instead of marching thither, Lanark, to
the surprise of every person, proceeded through East Lothian towards
the eastern borders to meet Sir George Munro, who was retiring
upon Berwick before the army of Cromwell. The people of the west
being thus relieved from the apprehensions of a visit, assembled
in great numbers, and taking advantage of Lanark’s absence, a body
of them, to the number of no less than 6,000 men, headed by the
chancellor, the Earl of Eglinton, and some ministers, advanced upon
the capital, which they entered without opposition, the magistrates
and ministers of the city welcoming their approach by going out to
meet them. Bishop Wishart describes this body as “a confused rabble,
composed of farmers, cow-herds, shepherds, coblers, and such like
mob, without arms, and without courage,” and says, that when they
arrived in Edinburgh, “they were provided with arms, which, as they
were unaccustomed to, were rather a burden and incumbrance than of
any use,”--that “they were mounted upon horses, or jades rather,
which had been long used to the drudgery of labour, equipped with
pack saddles and halters, in place of saddles and bridles.”[380]
This tumultuary body, however, was soon put into proper order by the
Earl of Leven, who was invested with the chief command, and by David
Leslie, as his lieutenant-general, and presented a rather formidable
appearance, for on Lanark’s return from the south, he did not venture
to engage it, though his force amounted to 4,000 or 5,000 horse and
as many foot, many of whom were veterans who had served in Ireland
under Munro.
In thus declining to attack Leslie, Lanark acted contrary to the
advice of Munro and his other officers. According to Dr. Wishart,
Lanark’s advanced guard, on arriving at Musselburgh, fell in with
some of Leslie’s outposts, who defended the bridge over the Esk, and
Lanark’s advanced guard, though inferior in number, immediately put
them in great disorder, and killed some of them without sustaining
any loss. This success was reported to Lanark, and it was represented
to him, that by following it up immediately, while the enemy
continued in the state of alarm into which this affair of outposts
had thrown them, he might, perhaps, obtain a bloodless victory, and
secure possession of the city of Edinburgh and the town of Leith,
with all the warlike stores, before sunset.
Leading his army along the base of the Pentland hills, Lanark
proceeded to Linlithgow, which he entered on the evening of the 11th
of September, where he almost surprised the Earl of Cassilis, who,
at the head of 800 horse from Carrick and Galloway, had taken up his
quarters there for the night; but a notice having been sent to him of
the Earl of Lanark’s approach by some friend, he fled precipitately
to Queensferry, leaving the supper which was cooking for him and
his men on the fire, which repast was greedily devoured by Lanark’s
troops.
Ever since Lanark’s march to the borders to meet Munro, the
Marquis of Argyle had been busily employed in raising men in his
own territory to assist the insurgents, but it had been so much
depopulated by the ravages of Montrose and Macdonald, that he could
scarcely muster 300 men. With these and 400 more which he had
collected in the Lennox and in the western part of Stirlingshire,
he advanced to Stirling, entering it upon the 12th of September
at eleven o’clock forenoon. After assigning to the troops their
different posts in the town, and making arrangements with the
magistrates for their support, Argyle went to dine with the Earl of
Mar at his residence in the town. But while the dinner was serving
up, Argyle, to his infinite alarm, heard that a part of Lanark’s
forces had entered Stirling. This was the advanced guard, commanded
by Sir George Munro, who, on hearing that Argyle was in possession of
the town when only within two miles of it, had, unknown to Lanark,
who was behind with the main body of the army, pushed forward and
entered the town before Argyle’s men were aware of his approach.
Argyle, as formerly, having a great regard for his personal safety,
immediately mounted his horse, galloped across Stirling bridge,
and never looked behind till he reached North Queensferry, where
he instantly crossed the Frith in a small boat and proceeded to
Edinburgh. Nearly 200 of Argyle’s men were either killed or drowned,
and the remainder were taken prisoners.
A negotiation for peace immediately ensued between the two parties,
and on the 15th of September a treaty was entered into by which
the Hamilton party agreed to refer all civil matters in dispute
to a Parliament, to be held before the 10th of January, and all
ecclesiastical affairs to an assembly of the kirk. It was also
stipulated that both armies should be disbanded before the 29th of
September, or at farthest on the 5th of October, that the adherents
of the king should not be disturbed, and that all the prisoners taken
in Scotland should be released. Munro perceiving that the king’s
affairs would be irretrievably ruined by this compromise, objected to
the treaty, and would have stood out had he been backed by the other
officers; but very few seconding his views, he addressed the troops,
who had accompanied him from Ireland, in St Ninian’s church, and
offered to lead back to Ireland such as were inclined to serve under
their old commander, Major-General Robert Munro; but having received
intelligence at Glasgow that that general had been taken prisoner and
sent to London, he disbanded the troops who had followed him thither,
and retired to Holland.
According to the treaty the two armies were disbanded on the
appointed day, and the “Whigamores,” as the insurgents from the west
were called, immediately returned home to cut down their corn, which
was ready for the sickle. Argyle’s men, who had been taken prisoners
at Stirling, were set at liberty, and conducted home to their own
country by one of Argyle’s officers.
[Illustration: MUNRO. (Tartan)]
The Marquis of Argyle, Loudon the chancellor, the Earls of Cassilis
and Eglinton, and others, now met at Edinburgh, and formed themselves
into a body under the title of the Committee of Estates, and having
arranged matters for the better securing their own influence, they
summoned a parliament to meet on the 4th of January. In the meantime,
Oliver Cromwell, who, after the pursuit of Munro, had laid siege
to Berwick, was waited upon by Argyle, Lord Elcho, and Sir Charles
Erskine, to compliment him upon his success at Preston, and after
making Ludovick Leslie deliver up Berwick to him, they invited him
and Lambert to Edinburgh. Cromwell took up his residence in the House
of Lady Home in the Canongate, where he received frequent visits
from Argyle, Loudon, the Earl of Lothian, Lords Arbuthnot, Elcho,
and Burleigh, and the most noted of the ministers. It is said, that
during these conferences, Cromwell communicated to his visitors his
intentions with respect to the king, and obtained their consent.[381]
In the meantime the Independents were doing their utmost to induce
the English parliament to bring the king to trial for high treason.
They, having in the meantime been disappointed in their views by
the presbyterians, prevailed upon Fairfax to order Hammond, the
governor of the Isle of Wight, to attend him at Windsor, and to
send Colonel Eure with orders to seize the king at Newport, where
he was conferring with the commissioners, and imprison him again
in Carisbrook castle; but Hammond having declined to allow Eure to
interfere without an order from the parliament, Eure left the island
without attempting to fulfil his instructions. Hammond, however,
afterwards left the island with the commissioners, and committed
Charles to the custody of one Major Rolfe, a person who, only six
months before, had been charged with a design on the life of the
king, and who had escaped trial because only one witness had attested
the fact before the grand jury.
The king seemed to be fully aware of the danger of his present
situation, and on the morning of the 28th of November, when the
commissioners left the island, he gave vent to his feelings in a
strain of the most pathetic emotions, which drew tears from his
attendants; “My lords,” said he to the commissioners, “I believe we
shall scarce ever see each other again, but God’s will be done! I
have made my peace with him, and shall undergo without fear whatever
he may suffer men to do to me. My lords, you cannot but know, that in
my fall and ruin you see your own, and that also near you. I pray God
send you better friends than I have found. I am fully informed of the
carriage of those who plot against me and mine; but nothing affects
me so much as the feeling I have of the sufferings of my subjects,
and the mischief that hangs over my three kingdoms, drawn upon them
by those who, upon pretences of good, violently pursue their own
interests and ends.”[382] As soon as the commissioners and Hammond
had quitted the island, Fairfax sent a troop of horse and a company
of foot, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Cobbett, to seize
the king, who received notice of the approach of this body and of its
object next morning from a person in disguise; but although advised
by the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Lindsay, and Colonel Coke to
make his escape, which he could easily have accomplished, he declined
to do so, because he considered himself bound in honour to remain
twenty days after the treaty. The consequence was, that Charles was
taken prisoner by Cobbett, and carried to Hurst castle.
The rest of this painful tragedy is well known. After the _purified_
house of commons had passed a vote declaring that it was high treason
in the king of England, for the time being, to levy war against the
parliament and kingdom of England, his majesty was brought to trial
before a tribunal erected _pro re nata_ by the house called the high
court of justice, which adjudged him “as a tyrant, traitor, murderer,
and public enemy to the good people of the nation, to be put to death
by the severing of his head from his body,” a sentence which was
carried into execution, in front of Whitehall, on the 30th of January
1649. The unfortunate monarch conducted himself throughout the whole
of these melancholy proceedings with becoming dignity, and braved the
terrors of death with fortitude and resignation.
The Duke of Hamilton, who, by his incapacity, had ruined the king’s
affairs when on the point of being retrieved, was not destined long
to survive his royal master. In violation of the articles of his
capitulation, he was brought to trial, and although he pleaded that
he acted under the orders of the Scottish parliament, and was not
amenable to an English tribunal, he was, under the pretence that
he was Earl of Cambridge in England, sentenced to be beheaded. He
suffered on the 9th of March.
The Marquis of Huntly had languished in prison since December 1647,
and during the life of the king the Scottish parliament had not
ventured to bring him to the block; but both the king and Hamilton,
his favourite, being now put out of the way, they felt themselves no
longer under restraint, and accordingly the parliament, on the 16th
of March, ordained the marquis to be beheaded, at the market-cross
of Edinburgh, on the 22d of that month. As he lay under sentence
of ecclesiastical excommunication, one of the “bloody ministers,”
says the author of the History of the family of Gordon, “asked him,
when brought upon the scaffold, if he desired to be absolved from
the sentence;” to which the marquis replied, “that as he was not
accustomed to give ear to false prophets, he did not wish to be
troubled by him.” And thereupon turning “towards the people, he told
them that he was going to die for having employed some years of his
life in the service of the king his master; that he was sorry he
was not the first of his majesty’s subjects who had suffered for
his cause, so glorious in itself that it sweetened to him all the
bitterness of death.” He then declared that he had charity to forgive
those who had voted for his death, although he could not admit that
he had done any thing contrary to the laws. After throwing off his
doublet, he offered up a prayer, and then embracing some friends
around him, he submitted his neck, without any symptoms of emotion,
to the fatal instrument.
FOOTNOTES:
[336] _History of the Family of Gordon_, vol. ii. p. 495. _Britane’s
Distemper_, p. 166.
[337] _Memoirs_, p. 164.
[338] This report fortunately appears to be belied by the following
entries in Balfour’s Annals, 17th and 19th January, 1646. “The earl
of Tulliebardine humbly petitions the House that they would be
pleased to pardon his brother, William Murray’s life, in respect
he averred on his honour, that he was not _compos mentis_, as also
within age.” “The earl of Tulliebardine again this day gave in a
humble petition to the House for prolonging the execution of that
sentence pronounced against his brother.” Vol. iii. pp. 362, 363.
[339] Wishart p. 223.
[340] Wishart, p. 227.
[341] Guthry, p. 172.
[342] Balfour, vol. iii. pp. 311, 312.
[343] Balfour, vol. iii. p. 323.
[344] Balfour, vol. iii. p. 325.
[345] Ibid. p. 341.
[346] Balfour, vol. iii. pp. 356-61.
[347] Wishart, p. 238; Guthry, p. 168.
[348] Life prefixed to Sir Robert’s work, entitled _Practicks_,
folio, printed in 1706.
[349] Wishart, p. 242.
[350] Guthry, p. 245.
[351] Gordon’s _Continuation_, p. 531.
[352] _Britane’s Distemper_, p. 182.
[353] Lingard, vol. vi. p. 539, 4to.
[354] Lingard, vol. vi. p. 543.
[355] Kirkton.
[356] Rushworth, vi.
[357] Wishart, p. 262.
[358] June 15, 1646.
[359] July 16, 1646.
[360] Guthry, p. 179.
[361] Wishart, pp. 264-5.
[362] Wishart.
[363] Lingard, vol. vi.
[364] Gordon’s _Continuation_, p. 536.
[365] Gordon’s _Continuation_, p. 537.
[366] Guthry.
[367] _Britane’s Distemper_, p. 200.
[368] Turner’s _Memoirs_.
[369] Turner’s _Memoirs_.
[370] Guthry.
[371] Spalding says that Col Kittoch came out of the castle to treat
for a surrender on an assurance of personal safety.
[372] Gordon’s _History of the Family of Gordon_, vol. ii. p. 546.
[373] Guthry, p. 207.
[374] See the Act of Sederunt of the committee in the appendix to
Gordon’s _History of the family of Gordon_, vol. ii. p. 537.
[375] Baillie.
[376] Guthry.
[377] Gordon’s _Continuation_, p. 541.
[378] _Memoirs_, p. 311.
[379] Guthry, p. 327.
[380] _Memoirs_, p. 316.
[381] Guthry.
[382] Appendix to Evelyn’s _Memoirs_, vol. ii. pp. 128, 390.
Clarendon, vol. iii. p. 234.