CHAPTER XIX.

A.D. 1660-1689.

BRITISH SOVEREIGNS:--

Charles II., 1660-1685. James II., (VII. of Scotland,) 1685-1688.

Trial and Execution of the Marquis of Argyle--His character--Feud

between the Earl of Argyle and the Macleans--The “Highland

Host”--The Test--Trial and Condemnation of the Earl of

Argyle--Argyle escapes--Argyle and Monmouth’s invasion--Execution

of Argyle--Unconstitutional proceedings of the King--Designs of

the Prince of Orange--Proceedings of King James--Landing of the

Prince of Orange--State of feeling in Scotland--Flight of the

King--The Duke of Gordon--Convention of Estates--Duke of Gordon

holds Edinburgh Castle--Viscount Dundee.

The news of the king’s arrival was received in Scotland with a

burst of enthusiasm not quite in accordance with the national

character;[520] but the idea that the nation was about to regain its

liberties made Scotsmen forget their wonted propriety. Preparatory to

the assembling of the Scottish parliament, which was summoned to meet

at Edinburgh on the 1st of January, 1661, Middleton, who had lately

been created an earl, was appointed his majesty’s commissioner; the

Earl of Glencairn, chancellor; the Earl of Lauderdale, secretary of

state; the Earl of Rothes, president of the council; and the Earl of

Crawford, lord-treasurer.

It would be quite apart from the object of this work to detail the

many unconstitutional acts passed by this “terrible parliament,” as

it is well named by Kirkton; but the trial of the Marquis of Argyle

must not be overlooked. That nobleman had, on the restoration of

the king, gone to London to congratulate his majesty on his return;

but on his arrival he was immediately seized and committed to the

Tower. He petitioned the king for a personal interview, which was

refused, and, to get rid of his importunities, his majesty directed

that he should be sent back to Scotland for trial. Being brought to

trial, he applied for delay, till some witnesses at a distance should

be examined on commission; but this also was refused. He thereupon

claimed the benefit of the amnesty which the king had granted at

Stirling. This plea was sustained by desire of the king; but as

there were other charges against him, arising out of transactions

subsequent to the year 1651, to which year only the amnesty extended,

the trial was proceeded in. These charges were, that he had aided

the English in destroying the liberties of Scotland--that he had

accepted a grant of £12,000 from Cromwell--that he had repeatedly

used defamatory and traitorous language in speaking of the royal

family--and, lastly, that he had voted for a bill abjuring the right

of the royal family to the crowns of the three kingdoms, which had

been passed in the parliament of Richard Cromwell, in which he sat.

Argyle denied that he had ever given any countenance or assistance

to the English in their invasion of Scotland; but he admitted the

grant from Cromwell, which he stated was given, not in lieu of

services, but as a compensation for losses sustained by him. He,

moreover, denied that he had ever used the words attributed to him

respecting the royal family; and with regard to the charge of sitting

in Richard Cromwell’s parliament, he stated that he had taken his

seat to protect his country from oppression, and to be ready, should

occasion offer, to support by his vote the restoration of the king.

This defence staggered the parliament, and judgment was postponed.

In the meantime Glencairn and Rothes hastened to London, to lay

the matter before the king, and to urge the necessity of Argyle’s

condemnation. Unfortunately for that nobleman, they had recovered

some letters which he had written to Monk and other English officers,

in which were found some expressions very hostile to the king; but as

these letters have not been preserved, their precise contents are not

known. Argyle was again brought before parliament, and the letters

read in his presence. He had no explanation to give, and his friends,

vexed and dismayed, retired from the house and left him to his fate.

He was accordingly sentenced to death on the 25th of May, 1661, and,

that he might not have an opportunity of appealing to the clemency of

the king, he was ordered to be beheaded within forty-eight hours. He

prepared for death with a fortitude not expected from the timidity

of his nature; wrote a long letter to the king, vindicating his

memory, and imploring protection for his poor wife and family; on

the day of his execution, dined at noon with his friends with great

cheerfulness, and was accompanied by several of the nobility to the

scaffold, where he behaved with singular constancy and courage. After

dinner he retired a short time for private prayer, and, on returning,

told his friends that “the Lord had sealed his charter, and said to

him, ‘Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven.’” When brought

to the scaffold he addressed the people, protested his innocence,

declared his adherence to the Covenant, reproved “the abounding

wickedness of the land, and vindicated himself from the charge

of being accessory to the death of Charles I.” With the greatest

fortitude he laid his head upon the block, which was immediately

severed from his body by the maiden. This event took place upon

Monday, the 27th of May, 1661, the marquis being then 65 years of

age. By a singular destiny, the head of Argyle was fixed on the same

spike which had borne that of his great rival Montrose.[521]

Argyle was held in high estimation by his party, and, by whatever

motives he may have been actuated, it cannot but be admitted, that

to his exertions Scotland is chiefly indebted for the successful

stand which was made against the unconstitutional attempts of

the elder Charles upon the civil and religious liberties of his

Scottish subjects. He appears to have been naturally averse to

physical pain, deficient in personal courage, the possession of

which, in the times in which Argyle lived, “covered a multitude of

sins,” and the want of which was esteemed by some unpardonable. We

believe that it is chiefly on this account that his character is

represented by his enemies and the opponents of his principles in

such an unfavourable light, contrasting as it does so strikingly with

that of his great opponent, the brave and chivalrous Montrose. That

he was an unprincipled hypocrite, we think it would be difficult

to prove; genuine hypocrisy, in a man of his ability, would have

probably gained for its possessor a happier fate. That he was wary,

cunning, reticent, and ambitious, there cannot be any doubt;--such

qualities are almost indispensable to the politician, and were more

than ordinarily necessary in those times, especially, considering

the men Argyle had to deal with. We believe that he was actuated all

along by deep but narrow and gloomy religious principle, that he had

the welfare of his country sincerely at heart, and that he took the

means he thought best calculated to maintain freedom, and, what he

thought, true religion in the land. As he himself said in a letter to

the Earl of Strafford,[522] he thought “his duty to the king would be

best shown by maintaining the constitution of his country in church

and state.” On the whole, he appears to have been a well-meaning,

wrong-headed, narrow-minded, clever politician. Mr. Grainger, in his

_Biographical History of England_, justly observes, “The Marquis of

Argyle was in the cabinet what his enemy, the Marquis of Montrose,

was in the field, the first character of his age for political

courage and conduct.” Had he been tried by impartial judges, the

circumstances of the times would have been considered as affording

some extenuation for his conduct; but it was his misfortune to be

tried by men who were his enemies, and who did not scruple to violate

all the forms of justice to bring him to the block, in the hope of

obtaining his vast possessions.

[Illustration: The Scottish “Maiden.”--Now in the Edinburgh

Antiquarian Museum.[523]]

The execution of Argyle was not in accordance with the views of the

king, who, to show his disapprobation of the death of the marquis,

received Lord Lorn, his eldest son, with favour at court; from which

circumstance the enemies of the house of Argyle anticipated that they

would be disappointed in their expectations of sharing among them

the confiscated estates of the marquis. To impair, therefore, these

estates was their next object. Argyle had obtained from the Scottish

parliament a grant of the confiscated estate of the Marquis of

Huntly, his brother-in-law, on the ground that he was a considerable

creditor, but as Huntly was indebted to other persons to the extent

of 400,000 merks, the estate was burdened to that amount on passing

into Argyle’s possession. Middleton and his colleagues immediately

passed an act, restoring Huntly’s estate free of incumbrance, leaving

to Huntly’s creditors recourse upon the estates of Argyle for payment

of their debts. Young Argyle was exasperated at this proceeding, and

in a letter to Lord Duffus, his brother-in-law, expressed himself

in very unguarded terms respecting the parliament. This letter was

intercepted by Middleton, and on it the parliament grounded a charge

of verbal sedition, or _leasing-making_, as the crime is known in

the statutory law of Scotland, an offence which was then capital.

Upon this vague charge the young nobleman was brought to trial before

the parliament, and condemned to death. The enemies of the house of

Argyle now supposed that the estates of the family were again within

their grasp; but the king, at the intercession of Lauderdale, the

rival of Middleton, pardoned Lorn, released him from prison after

about a year’s confinement, restored to him the family estates, and

allowed him to retain the title of Earl.[524]

After the suppression of Glencairn’s short-lived insurrection, the

Highlands appear to have enjoyed repose till the year 1674, when an

outbreak took place which threatened to involve the greater part of

that country in the horrors of feudal war, the occasion of which was

as follows. The Marquis of Argyle had purchased up some debts due

by the laird of Maclean, for which his son, the earl, applied for

payment; but the laird being unwilling or unable to pay, the earl

apprised his lands, and followed out other legal proceedings, to make

the claim effectual against Maclean’s estates. In the meantime the

latter died, leaving a son under the guardianship of his brother,

to whom, on Maclean’s death, the earl renewed his application for

payment. The tutor of Maclean stated his readiness to settle, either

by appropriating as much of the rents of his ward’s lands in Mull

and Tirey as would be sufficient to pay the interest of the debt, or

by selling or conveying to him in security as much of the property

as would be sufficient to pay off the debt itself; but he required,

before entering into this arrangement, that the earl would restrict

his claim to what was justly due. The earl professed his readiness to

comply with the tutor’s offer; but the latter contrived to evade the

matter for a considerable time, and at length showed a disposition to

resist the earl’s demand by force.

The earl, therefore, resolved to enforce compliance, and armed with a

decree of the Court of Session, and supported by a body of 2,000 of

his tenants and vassals, he crossed into Mull, in which, he landed

at three different places without opposition, although the Macleans

had 700 or 800 men in the island. The Macleans had sent their cattle

into Mull for safety, a considerable number of which were killed or

houghed by Lord Neill, brother to the earl, at the head of a party of

the Campbells. The islanders at once submitted, and the earl having

obtained possession of the castle of Duart, and placed a garrison

therein, left the island. Although the Macleans had promised to pay

their rents to the earl, they refused when applied to the following

year, a refusal which induced him to prepare for a second invasion

of Mull. In September, 1675, he had collected a force of about 1,500

men, including 100 of the king’s troops from Glasgow, under the

command of Captain Crichton, and a similar number of militia-men,

under Andrew M’Farlane, the laird of M’Farlane, the use of which

corps had been granted to the earl on application to the Council. The

Macleans, aware of their danger, had strengthened themselves by an

alliance with Lord Macdonald and other chieftains, who sent a force

of about 1,000 men to their aid; but Argyle’s forces never reached

the island, his ships having been driven back damaged and dismantled

by a dreadful hurricane, which lasted two days.[525]

This misfortune, and intelligence which the earl received from the

commander of Duart castle that the Macleans were in great force in

the island, made him postpone his enterprise. With the exception

of 500 men whom he retained for the protection of his coasts, and

about 300 or 400 to protect his lands against the incursions of the

Macleans, he dismissed his forces, after giving them instructions

to re-assemble on the 18th of October, unless countermanded before

that time. The earl then went to Edinburgh to crave additional aid

from the government; but receiving no encouragement, he posted to

London, where he expected, with the help of his friend the Duke of

Lauderdale, to obtain assistance. Lord Macdonald and the other

friends of the Macleans, hearing of Argyle’s departure, immediately

followed him to London, and laid a statement of the dispute before

the king, who, in February, 1676, remitted the matter to three lords

of the Privy Council of Scotland for judgment. The earl returned to

Edinburgh in June following. A meeting of the parties took place

before the lords to whom the matter had been referred, but they

came to no decision, and the subsequent fate of Argyle put an end

to these differences, although it appears that he was allowed to

take possession of the island of Mull without resistance in the year

1680.[526]

Except upon one occasion, now to be noticed, the Highlanders took

no share in any of the public transactions in Scotland during the

reigns of Charles the Second and his brother James. Isolated from the

Lowlands by a mountain barrier which prevented almost any intercourse

between them and their southern neighbours, they happily kept free

from the contagion of that religious fanaticism which spread over

the Lowlands of Scotland, in consequence of the unconstitutional

attempts of the government to force episcopacy upon the people. Had

the Highlanders been imbued with the same spirit which actuated the

Scottish whigs, the government might have found it a difficult task

to have suppressed them; but they did not concern themselves with

these theological disputes, and they did not hesitate when their

chiefs, at the call of the government, required their services to

march to the Lowlands to suppress the disturbances in the western

counties. Accordingly, an army of about 8,000 men, known in Scottish

history by the name of the “Highland Host,” descended from the

mountains under the command of their respective chiefs, and encamped

at Stirling on the 24th of June, 1678, whence they spread themselves

over Clydesdale, Renfrew, Cunningham, Kyle, and Carrick, and overawed

the whigs so effectually, that they did not attempt to oppose the

government during the stay of these hardy mountaineers among them.

According to Wodrow and Kirkton, the Highlanders were guilty of great

oppression and cruelty, but they kept their hands free from blood,

as it has been correctly stated that not one whig lost his life

during the invasion of these Highland crusaders.[527] After remaining

about eight months in the Lowlands, the Highlanders were sent home,

the government having no further occasion for their services, but

before their departure they took care to carry along with them a

large quantity of plunder they had collected during their stay.[528]

After the departure of the Highlanders, the Covenanters again

appeared upon the stage, and proceeded so far as even to murder some

soldiers who had been quartered on some landlords who had refused to

pay cess. The assassination of Archbishop Sharp, and the insurrection

of the Covenanters under a preacher named Hamilton, followed by the

defeat of the celebrated Graham of Claverhouse at Drumclog on the

1st of June, 1679, alarmed the government; but the defeat of the

Covenanters by the king’s forces at Bothwell bridge, on the 22d

of June, quieted their apprehensions. Fresh measures of severity

were adopted against the unfortunate whigs, who, driven to despair,

again flew to arms, encouraged by the exhortations of the celebrated

Richard Cameron,--from whom the religious sect known by the name of

Cameronians takes its name,--and Donald Cargill, another enthusiast;

but they were defeated in an action at Airs-moss in Kyle, in which

Cameron, their ecclesiastical head, was killed.

To check the diffusion of anti-monarchical principles, which were

spreading fast throughout the kingdom under the auspices of the

disciples of Cameron, the government, on the meeting of the Scottish

parliament on the 28th of July, 1681, devised a test, which they

required to be taken by all persons possessed of any civil, military,

or ecclesiastical office. The parties taking this test were made to

declare their adhesion to the true Protestant religion, as contained

in the original confession of faith, ratified by parliament in the

year 1560, to recognise the supremacy of the king over all persons

civil and ecclesiastical, and to acknowledge that there “lay no

obligation from the national covenant, or the solemn league and

covenant, or any other manner of way whatsoever, to endeavour any

alteration in the government in church or state, as it was then

established by the laws of the kingdom.”[529]

The terms of this test were far from satisfactory to some even of

the best friends of the government, as it was full of contradictions

and absurdities, and it was not until the Privy Council issued

an explanatory declaration that they could be prevailed upon to

take it. The Dukes of Hamilton and Monmouth, however, rather

than take the test, resigned their offices. Among others who had

distinguished themselves in opposing the passing of the test, was

the Earl of Argyle, who supported an amendment proposed by Lord

Belhaven, for setting aside a clause excepting the Duke of York,

brother to the king, and the other princes of the blood, from its

operation. The conduct of Argyle gave great offence to the duke, who

sat as commissioner in the parliament, and encouraged his enemies

to set about accomplishing his ruin. The Earl of Errol brought in

a bill reviving some old claims upon his estates, and the king’s

advocate endeavoured to deprive him of his hereditary offices;

but the Duke of York interposed, and prevented the adoption of

these intended measures. To gratify his enemies, however, and to

show the displeasure of the court at his recent opposition, Argyle

was deprived of his seat in the Court of Session. But this did

not sufficiently appease their resentment, and, anxious for an

opportunity of gratifying their malice, they hoped that he would

refuse to take the test. Accordingly, he was required to subscribe

it: he hesitated, and craved time to deliberate. Aware of the

plot which had been long hatching against him, and as he saw that

if he refused he would be deprived of his important hereditary

jurisdictions, he resolved to take the test, with a declaratory

explanation, which, it is understood, received the approbation

of the Duke of York, to whom the earl had submitted it. The earl

then subscribed the test in presence of the council, and added the

following explanation:--“I have considered the test, and am very

desirous of giving obedience as far as I can. I am confident that the

parliament never intended to impose contradictory oaths: Therefore I

think no man can explain it but for himself. Accordingly, I take it

so far as it is consistent with itself and the Protestant religion.

And I do declare, that I mean not to bind myself, in my station, in

a lawful way, from wishing and endeavouring any alteration which I

think to the advantage of Church or State, and not repugnant to the

Protestant religion and my loyalty. And this I understand as a part

of my oath.” This declaration did not please the council, but as the

Duke appeared to be satisfied, the matter was passed over, and Argyle

kept his seat at the council board.

Although the Duke of York had been heard to declare that no honest

man could take the test,--a declaration which fully justified the

course Argyle had pursued,--yet the enemies of that nobleman wrought

so far upon the mind of his royal highness as to induce him to think

that Argyle’s declaration was a highly criminal act. The earl,

therefore, was required to take the test a second time, without

explanation; and having refused, he was committed a prisoner to the

castle of Edinburgh, and on the slight foundation of a declaration

which had been sanctioned by the next heir to the crown, was raised a

hideous superstructure of high treason, leasing-making, and perjury.

Argyle was brought to trial on Monday, the 12th of December, 1681,

before the High Court of Justiciary. The Earl of Queensberry, the

justice-general, and four other judges, sat upon the bench, and

fifteen noblemen acted as jurors. The absurdity of the charges,

and the iniquity of the attempt to deprive a nobleman, who had,

even in the worst times, shown an attachment to the royal family,

of his fortune, his honours, and his life, were ably exposed by

the counsel for the earl; but so lost was a majority of the judges

to every sense of justice, that, regardless of the infamy which

would for ever attach to them, they found the libel relevant; and

on the following day the assize or jury, of which the Marquis of

Montrose, cousin-german to Argyle, was chancellor, found him guilty.

Intelligence of Argyle’s condemnation was immediately sent to the

king, but the messenger was anticipated in his arrival by an express

from the earl himself to the king, who, although he gave orders that

sentence should be passed against Argyle, sent positive injunctions

to delay the execution till his pleasure should be known. Argyle,

however, did not wish to trust to the royal clemency, and as he

understood preparations were making for his execution, he made his

escape from the castle of Edinburgh, disguised as a page carrying the

train of Lady Sophia Lindsay, his step-daughter, daughter of Lord

Balcarres, whose widow Argyle married.[530] He went to London, where

he lay some time in concealment, whence he went over to Holland. On

the day of his escape, being the 21st of December, he was proclaimed

a fugitive at the market cross of Edinburgh, and, on the 24th, the

Court of Justiciary passed sentence of death against him, ordered his

arms to be reversed and torn at the market cross of Edinburgh, and

declared his titles and estates forfeited.

In exculpation of their infamous proceedings, the persecutors

of Argyle pretended that their only object in resorting to such

unjustifiable measures, was to force him to surrender his extensive

hereditary jurisdictions, which, they considered, gave him too great

authority in the Highlands, and the exercise of which in his family,

might obstruct the ends of justice; and that they had no designs

either upon his life or fortune. But this is an excuse which cannot

be admitted, for they had influence enough with the Crown to have

deprived Argyle of these hereditary jurisdictions, without having

recourse to measures so glaringly subversive of justice.

The only advantage taken by the king of Argyle’s forfeiture was the

retention of the heritable jurisdictions, which were parcelled out

among the friends of the court during pleasure. Lord Lorn, the earl’s

son, had the forfeited estates restored to him, after provision had

been made for satisfying the demands of his father’s creditors.

During the latter years of Charles II., a number of persons from

England and Scotland had taken refuge in Holland, to escape state

prosecutions with which they were threatened. Among the Scottish

exiles, besides Argyle, were Sir James Dalrymple, afterwards Earl

of Stair, the celebrated Fletcher of Salton, and Sir Patrick Hume

of Polwarth,--all of whom, as martyrs of liberty, longed for an

opportunity of vindicating its cause in the face of their country.

The accession of James II, in 1685, to the crown of his brother,

seemed an event favourable to their plans, and at a meeting which

some of the exiled leaders held at Rotterdam, they resolved to raise

the standard of revolt in England and Scotland, and invited the

Duke of Monmouth, also an exile, and the Earl of Argyle, to join

them.[531] Monmouth, who was then living in retirement at Brussels,

spending his time in illicit amours, accepted the invitation, and

having repaired to Rotterdam, offered either to attempt a descent on

England, at the head of the English exiles, or to go to Scotland as a

volunteer, under Argyle.[532] The latter, who had never ceased since

his flight to keep up a correspondence with his friends in Scotland,

had already been making preparations, and by means of a large sum

of money he had received from a rich widow of Amsterdam, had there

purchased a ship and arms, and ammunition. He now also repaired to

Rotterdam, where it was finally arranged that two expeditions should

be fitted out,--one for England, under Monmouth, and the other for

Scotland, under the command of Argyle, who was appointed by the

council at Rotterdam captain-general of the army, “with as full power

as was usually given to generals by the free states in Europe.”[533]

On the 2d of May, 1685, the expedition under Argyle, which consisted

of three ships and about 300 men, left the shores of Holland, and

reached Cairston in the Orkneys on the 6th, after a pleasant voyage.

The seizure, by the natives, of Spence, the earl’s secretary, and of

Blackadder, his surgeon, both of whom had incautiously ventured on

shore, afforded the government the necessary information as to the

strength and destination of the expedition. A proclamation had been

issued, on the 28th of April, for putting the kingdom in a posture

of defence, hostages had been taken from the vassals of Argyle as

sureties for their fidelity, and all persons whose loyalty was

suspected were either imprisoned or had to find security for their

fidelity to the government; but as soon as the council at Edinburgh

received the intelligence of Argyle’s having reached the Orkneys,

they despatched troops to the west, and ordered several frigates

to cruise among the Western Isles. After taking four Orcadians as

hostages for the lives of his secretary and surgeon, Argyle left

the Orkneys on the 7th of May, and arrived at Tobermory in the isle

of Mull on the 11th, whence he sailed to the mainland, and landed

in Kintyre. Here he published a declaration which had been drawn up

in Holland by Sir James Stuart, afterwards king’s advocate, full of

invective against the government, and attributing all the grievances

under which the country had laboured in the preceding reign to a

conspiracy between popery and tyranny, which had, he observed, been

evidently disclosed by the cutting off of the late king and the

ascension of the Duke of York to the throne. It declared that the

object of the invaders was to restore the true Protestant religion,

and that as the Duke of York was, from his religion, as they

supposed, incapable of giving security on that head, they declared

that they would never enter into any treaty with him. The earl

issued, a few days thereafter, a second declaration, from Tarbet,

reciting his own wrongs, and calling upon his former vassals to join

his standard. Messengers were despatched in all directions, bearing

aloft the fiery cross, and in a short time about 800 of his clan,

headed by Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck, rallied around their

chief. Other reinforcements arrived, which increased his army to

2,500 men; a force wholly insufficient to meet a body of about 7,000

militia and a considerable number of regular troops already assembled

in the west to oppose his advance.

Although Argyle’s obvious plan was at once to have dashed into

the western Lowlands, where the spirit of disaffection was deeply

prevalent, and where a great accession of force might have been

expected, he, contrary to the advice of some of his officers,

remained in Argyle a considerable time in expectation of hearing of

Monmouth’s landing, and spent the precious moments in chasing out of

his territories a few stragglers who infested his borders. Amid the

dissensions which naturally arose from this difference of opinion,

the royalists were hemming Argyle in on all sides. Whilst the Duke

of Gordon was advancing upon his rear with the northern forces, and

the Earl of Dumbarton with the regular troops pressing him in front,

the Marquis of Athole and Lord Charles Murray, at the head of 1,500

men, kept hanging on his right wing, and a fleet watched his ships

to prevent his escape by sea. In this conjuncture Argyle yielded to

the opinion of his officers, and, leaving his stores in the castle of

Allangreg, in charge of a garrison of 150 men, he began his march, on

the 10th of June, to the Lowlands, and gave orders that his vessels

should follow close along the coast. The commander of the castle,

on the approach of the king’s ships under Sir Thomas Hamilton,

abandoned it five days thereafter, without firing a single shot, and

the warlike stores which it contained, consisting of 5,000 stand

of arms and 300 barrels of powder, besides a standard bearing the

inscription “Against Popery, Prelacy, and Erastianism,” fell a prey

to the royalists. The vessels also belonging to Argyle were taken at

the same time.[534]

On the 16th of June Argyle crossed the Leven near Dumbarton, but

finding it impracticable, from the numerous forces opposed to him,

and which met him at every point, to proceed on his intended route

to Glasgow by the ordinary road, he betook himself to the hills,

in the expectation of eluding his foes during the darkness of the

night; but this desperate expedient did not succeed, and next morning

Argyle found his force diminished by desertion to 500 men. Thus

abandoned by the greater part of his men, he, in his turn, deserted

those who remained with him, and endeavoured to secure his own

safety. Disguised in a common dress he wandered for some time in

the company of Major Fullarton in the vicinity of Dumbarton, and on

the opposite side of the Clyde, but was at last taken prisoner by a

few militiamen in attempting to reach his own country.[535] About

100 of the volunteers from Holland crossed the Clyde in boats, but

being attacked by the royalists were dispersed. Thus ended this ill

concerted and unfortunate expedition.[536]

Argyle was carried to Glasgow, and thence to Edinburgh, where he

underwent the same ignominious and brutal treatment which the brave

Montrose had suffered on being brought to the capital after his

capture. As the judgment which had been pronounced against Argyle,

after his escape from the castle of Edinburgh, was still in force, no

trial was considered necessary. He was beheaded accordingly on the

26th of June, evincing in his last moments the fortitude of a Roman,

and the faith of a martyr. “When this nobleman’s death,” observes Sir

Walter Scott, “is considered as the consequence of a sentence passed

against him for presuming to comment upon and explain an oath which

was self-contradictory, it can only be termed a judicial murder.” His

two sons, Lord Lorn and Lord Neill Campbell, were banished. Monmouth,

who did not land in England till the 11th of June, was equally

unfortunate, and suffered the death of a traitor on Tower Hill on the

15th of July.

[Illustration: Ninth Earl of Argyle.]

The ill-fated result of Argyle’s expedition, and the suppression

of Monmouth’s rebellion, enabled James to turn the whole of his

attention to the accomplishment of an object more valuable, in his

opinion, than the crown itself--the restoration of the Catholic

religion. In furtherance of this design, the king adopted a series

of the most unconstitutional and impolitic measures, which destroyed

the popularity he had acquired on his accession, and finally ended

in his expulsion from the throne.

It was not, however, till the Scottish parliament, which met on the

28th of April, 1686, and on the obsequiousness of which the king

had placed great reliance, had refused to repeal the test, that he

resolved upon those desperate measures which proved so fatal to him.

This parliament was prorogued by order of the king on the 15th of

June, and in a few months thereafter, he addressed a succession of

letters to the council,--from which he had previously removed some

individuals who were opposed to his plans,--in which he stated,

that in requiring the parliament to repeal the penal statutes, he

merely meant to give them an opportunity of evincing their loyalty,

as he considered that he had sufficient power, by virtue of his

prerogative, to suspend or dispense with those laws; a most erroneous

and dangerous doctrine certainly, but which could never be said to

have been exploded till the era of the revolution. In these letters

the king ordered the council to allow the Catholics to exercise their

worship freely in private, to extend the protection of government

to his Protestant as well as Catholic subjects, to receive the

conformist clergy in general to livings in the church, and to admit

certain individuals whom he named to offices in the state without

requiring any of them to take the test.[537]

But these letters, though disapproved of in part by the council, were

merely preparatory to much more important steps, viz., the issuing

of two successive proclamations by the king on the 12th of February

and the 5th of July in the following year, granting full and free

toleration to Presbyterians, Catholics, and Quakers, with liberty

to exercise their worship in houses and chapels. He also suspended

the severe penal statutes against the Catholics, which had been

passed during the minority of his grandfather; but he declared his

resolution to preserve inviolate the rights and privileges of the

then established (Episcopal) church of Scotland, and to protect the

holders of church property in their possessions.

By the Presbyterians who had for so many years writhed under the

lash of persecution, these proclamations were received with great

satisfaction; and at a meeting which was held at Edinburgh of the

Presbyterian ministers, who had assembled from all parts of the

country to consider the matter, a great majority not only accepted

the boon with cheerfulness, but voted a loyal address to his majesty,

thanking him for the indulgence he had granted them. Some there were,

however, of the more rigorous kind, who denounced any communication

with the king, whom they declared “an apostate, bigoted,

excommunicated papist, under the malediction of the Mediator; yea,

heir to the imprecation of his grandfather,” and who found warm

abettors in the clergy of the Episcopal church in Scotland, who

displayed their anger even in their discourses from the pulpit.[538]

Although the Presbyterians reaped great advantages from the

toleration which the king had granted, by being allowed the free and

undisturbed exercise of their worship, and by being, many of them,

admitted into offices of the state, yet they perceived that a much

greater proportion of Catholics was admitted to similar employments.

Thus they began to grow suspicious of the king’s intentions, and,

instead of continuing their gratitude, they openly declared that

they did not any longer consider themselves under any obligation

to his majesty, as the toleration had been granted for the purpose

of introducing Catholics into places of trust, and of dividing

Protestants among themselves. These apprehensions were encouraged

by the Episcopal party, who, alarmed at the violent proceedings

of the king against the English universities, and the bishops who

had refused to read his proclamation for liberty of conscience in

the churches, endeavoured to instil the same dread of popery and

arbitrary power into the minds of their Presbyterian countrymen which

they themselves entertained. By these and similar means discontent

spread rapidly among the people of Scotland, who considered their

civil and religious liberties in imminent danger, and were,

therefore, ready to join in any measure which might be proposed for

their protection.

William, Prince of Orange, who had married the Princess Mary, the

eldest daughter of James, next in succession to the Crown, watched

the progress of this struggle between arbitrary power and popular

rights with extreme anxiety. He had incurred the displeasure of his

father-in-law, while Duke of York, by joining the party whose object

it was to exclude James from the throne, by the reception which

he gave the Duke of Monmouth in Holland, and by his connivance,

apparent at least, at the attempts of the latter and the Earl of

Argyle. But, upon the defeat of Monmouth, William, by offering

his congratulations on that event, reinstated himself in the good

graces of his father-in-law. As James, however, could not reconcile

the protection which the prince afforded to the numerous exiles

from England and Scotland who had taken refuge in Holland, with

the prince’s professions of friendship, he demanded their removal;

but this was refused, through the influence of the prince with the

States, and though, upon a hint being given that a war might ensue in

consequence of this refusal, they were removed from the Hague, yet

they still continued to reside in other parts of Holland, and kept

up a regular communication with the Prince. Another demand made by

the king to dismiss the officers of the British regiments serving

in Holland, whose fidelity was suspected, met with the same evasive

compliance; for although William displaced those officers, he refused

commissions to all persons whom he suspected of attachment to the

king or the Catholic faith. The wise policy of this proceeding was

exemplified in the subsequent conduct of the regiments which declared

themselves in favour of the prince’s pretensions.[539]

Early in the year 1687, William perceived that matters were

approaching to a crisis in England, but he did not think that the

time had then arrived for putting his intended design of invasion

into execution. To sound the dispositions of the people, he sent

over in February, that year, Dyckvelt, an acute statesman, who kept

up a secret communication with those who favoured the designs of his

master. Dyckvelt soon returned to Holland, with letters from several

of the nobility addressed to the prince, all couched in favourable

terms, which encouraged him to send Zuleistein, another agent, into

England to assure his friends there that if James attempted, with the

aid “of a packed parliament,” to repeal the penal laws and the test

act, he would oppose him with an armed force.[540]

Although the king was aware of the prince’s intrigues, he could

never be persuaded that the latter had any intention to dispossess

him of his crown, and continued to pursue the desperate course he

had resolved upon, with a pertinacity and zeal which blinded him to

the dangers which surrounded him. The preparations of the prince for

a descent on England went on in the meantime with activity; but a

temporary damp was cast on his hopes by reports of the pregnancy of

the queen, an event which, if a son was the result, might prevent the

accession of his wife, the Princess Mary. On the 10th of June, 1688,

the queen gave birth to a prince, afterwards known as the Pretender.

It was not till the month of September, when James was on the verge

of the precipice, that he saw the danger of his situation. He

now began, when too late, to attempt to repair the errors of his

reign, by a variety of popular concessions; but although these were

granted with apparent cheerfulness, and accepted with indications

of thankfulness, it was evident that they were forced from the king

by the necessity of his situation, and might be withdrawn when that

necessity ceased to exist, an idea which appears to have prevailed

among the people.

Being now convinced that the Prince of Orange contemplated an

invasion of England, James began to make the necessary preparations

for defence. In September, 1688, he sent down an express to Scotland

to the members of the Privy Council, acquainting them with the

prince’s preparations, and requiring them to place that part of his

dominions on the war establishment. The militia was accordingly

embodied, the castles of Edinburgh, Stirling, &c. provisioned, and

orders were sent to the chiefs of the Highland clans to be ready

to assemble their men on a short notice. Many persons at first

discredited the report of an invasion from Holland, and considered

that it was a mere device of the king either to raise money or to

collect an army for some sinister purpose; but their suspicions were

allayed by intelligence being brought by some seamen from Holland

of the warlike preparations which were making in the Dutch ports.

The jealousies which were entertained of the king’s intentions were

dissipated by the dread of a foreign invasion, and addresses were

sent in to the Privy Council from the different towns, and from the

country gentlemen, with offers of service.[541]

Whilst the Privy Council were engaged in fulfilling the king’s

instructions, they received an order from his majesty to concentrate

the regular army, and despatch it without delay into England. This

force, which did not exceed 3,000 men, was in a state of excellent

discipline, and was so advantageously posted throughout the kingdom

that any insurrection which might break out could be easily

suppressed. As the Prince of Orange had many adherents in Scotland,

and as the spirit of disaffection to the existing government in the

western counties, though subdued, had not been extinguished, the

Privy Council considered that to send the army out of the kingdom

under such circumstances would be a most imprudent step; and they,

therefore, sent an express to the king, representing the danger of

such a movement, of which the disaffected would not fail to avail

themselves, should an opportunity occur. They proposed that the army

should remain as it was then stationed, and that, in lieu thereof, a

body of militia and a detachment of Highlanders, amounting together

to 13,000 men, should be despatched to the borders, or marched into

the north of England, to watch the movements of the king’s enemies in

that quarter, and to suppress any risings which they might attempt

in favour of the prince. But, although the Council were unanimous in

giving this advice, the king disregarded it altogether, reiterated

the order he had formerly given, and intimated, that if any of them

were afraid to remain in Scotland, they might accompany the army into

England.

Accordingly, the Scottish army began its march early in October,

in two divisions. The first, consisting of the foot, at the head of

which was General Douglas, brother of the Duke of Queensberry, who

had the chief command of the army, took the road to Chester; and the

second, consisting of the horse, under the direction of Graham of

Claverhouse, as major-general, marched by York. These detachments, on

their arrival at London, joined the English army under the command of

the Earl of Feversham, about the end of October.

To supply the absence of the regular troops, and to prevent the

disaffected from making the capital the focus of insurrection,

a large body of militia, under the command of Sir George Munro,

was quartered in Edinburgh and the suburbs; but no sooner had the

army passed the borders, than crowds from all parts of the kingdom

congregated, as if by mutual consent, in the metropolis, where they

held private meetings, which were attended by the Earls of Glencairn,

Crawford, Dundonald, and others. The objects of these meetings were

made known to the council by spies, who were employed to attend them;

and although they were clearly treasonable, the council had not

the courage to arrest a single individual. Among other things, the

leaders of these meetings resolved to intercept all correspondence

between the king and the council, a task which Sir James Montgomery

undertook to see accomplished, and which he did so effectually that

very few despatches reached their destination.[542]

For several weeks the Privy Council, owing to this interruption, was

kept in a state of painful uncertainty as to the state of the king’s

affairs in England; but at last an express arrived from the Earl of

Melfort, announcing the important intelligence that the Prince of

Orange had landed in England with a considerable force, and that his

majesty had gone to meet him at the head of his army.

The landing of the prince, which was effected without opposition

on the 5th of November 1688, at Torbay in Devonshire, excited

the greatest alarm in the mind of the king, who had entertained

hopes that a well appointed fleet of thirty-seven men-of-war, and

seventeen fire-ships which had been stationed off the Gun-fleet

under the Earl of Dartmouth, an old and experienced commander, would

have intercepted the prince in his voyage. Unfortunately, however,

for the king, the cruisers which the admiral had sent out to watch

the approach of the enemy had been driven back by the violence of

the wind, and when the fleet of the prince passed the Downs towards

its destined place of disembarkation, the royal fleet was riding at

anchor abreast of the Long-sand, several miles to leeward, with the

yards and topmasts struck; and as twenty-four hours elapsed before

it could be got ready to commence the pursuit, the commander, on the

representation of his officers, desisted from the attempt.

As soon as the king had recovered from the panic into which the news

of the prince’s arrival had thrown him, he ordered twenty battalions

of infantry and thirty squadrons of cavalry to march towards

Salisbury and Marlborough, leaving six squadrons and six battalions

behind to preserve tranquillity in the capital.[543] The prince, who

had been led to expect that he would be received with open arms by

all classes on his arrival, met at first with a very cold reception,

and he felt so disappointed that he even threatened to re-embark his

army. Had James therefore adopted the advice given him by the King of

France, to push forward his troops immediately in person and attack

the invader before the spirit of disaffection should spread, he

might, perhaps, by one stroke, have for ever annihilated the hopes of

his son-in-law and preserved his crown; but James thought and acted

differently, and he soon had cause to repent bitterly of the course

he pursued. Owing to the open defection of some of his officers and

the secret machinations of others, the king soon found, that with the

exception perhaps of the Scottish regiments, he could no longer rely

upon the fidelity of his army. On the 20th of November he arrived at

Salisbury, and reviewed a division of the army stationed there; and

intended to inspect the following day, another division which lay at

Warminster; but being informed that General Kirk, its commander,

Lord Churchill and others, had entered into a conspiracy to seize him

and carry him a prisoner to the enemy’s camp, he summoned a council

of war, at which these officers were present, and without making

them aware that he was in the knowledge of such a plot, proposed a

retreat beyond the Thames. This proposition met with keen opposition

from Churchill, but was supported by the Earl of Feversham, his

brother the Count de Roye, and the Earl of Dumbarton, who commanded

one of the Scottish foot regiments. The proposal having been adopted,

Churchill and some other officers went over to the prince during the

night.[544]

The army accordingly retired behind the Thames, and the king, without

leaving any particular instructions to his officers, proceeded to

London, to attend a council of peers which he had summoned to meet

him at Whitehall. The departure of the king was a subject of deep

regret to his real friends in the army, and particularly to the Earl

of Dumbarton, and Lord Dundee, who had offered to engage the enemy

with the Scots troops alone. This offer his majesty thought proper to

decline, and in a conference which Dundee and the Earl of Balcarras

afterwards had with him in London, when he had made up his mind to

retire to France, he gave them to understand that he meant to intrust

the latter with the administration of his civil affairs in Scotland,

and to appoint the former the generalissimo of his forces.

In the Scottish Privy Council there were several persons who

were inimical to the king, and who only waited for a favourable

opportunity of offering their allegiance and services to the Prince

of Orange. These were the Marquis of Athole, the Viscount Tarbet,

and Sir John Dalrymple, the Lord-president of the Court of Session.

The two latter, in conjunction with Balcarras, had been appointed

by the council to proceed to England, to obtain personally from

the king the necessary instructions how to act on the landing of

the prince; but on some slight pretext they declined the journey,

and Balcarras, a nobleman of undoubted loyalty, was obliged to go

alone, and had the meeting with his majesty to which allusion has

been made. These counsellors were duly apprised of the advance of

the prince, the defection of some of the king’s officers, and of his

return to London; but as the result of the struggle seemed still

to be dubious, they abstained from openly declaring themselves. In

order, however, to get rid of the chancellor, the Earl of Perth, and

get the government into their own hands, as preliminary to their

designs, Viscount Tarbet proposed that, with the exception of four

companies of foot and two troops of horse to collect the revenue,

the remainder of the troops should be disbanded, as he considered

it quite unnecessary to keep up such a force in time of peace, the

Prince of Orange having stated in a declaration which he had issued,

that that was one of the grievances complained of by the nation.

The chancellor, not foreseeing the consequences, assented to the

proposal, and he had the mortification, after the order for dismissal

had been given, to receive an intimation from the Marquis of Athole

and his party, who waited personally upon him at his lodgings, that

as they considered it dangerous to act with him and other Catholic

counsellors who were incapacitated by law, they meant to take the

government into their own hands in behalf of the king, and they

demanded that he and his party should retire from the administration

of affairs. The Duke of Gordon and the other Catholic members of the

council, on hearing of this proceeding, assembled in the chancellor’s

house to consult with him as to the nature of the answer which

should be given to this extraordinary demand. As they saw resistance

hopeless, they advised the chancellor to submit, and, probably to

avoid personal danger, he retired immediately to the country.

The Marquis of Athole called a meeting of the council, and proposed

an address of congratulation to the Prince of Orange, strongly

expressive of gratitude to him for his generous undertaking to

relieve them from popery and arbitrary power, and offering a tender

of their services; but this address was warmly opposed by the two

archbishops, Sir John Dalrymple, Sir George Mackenzie and others,

and was finally negatived. They even opposed the voting of any

address under existing circumstances, but the marquis and his party

succeeded in carrying a short address, drawn up in general terms.

Lord Glammis was sent up with it, but it was so different from what

the Prince expected, that it met with a very cold reception.

The fate of the unfortunate monarch had by this time been decided.

Before his return to London a great defection had taken place among

the officers of the army, and he had at last the mortification to see

himself deserted by his son-in-law, Prince George of Denmark, and by

his daughter the Princess Anne, the wife of the Prince. “God help me!

my very children have forsaken me;” such was the exclamation uttered

by the unhappy monarch, his countenance suffused with tears, when

he received the afflicting intelligence of the flight of Anne from

Whitehall. When the king saw he could no longer resist the torrent of

popular indignation, and that an imperious necessity required that

he should leave the kingdom, his first solicitude was to provide for

the safety of the queen and his son, whom he managed to get safely

conveyed to France.

The resolution of the king to quit the kingdom was hastened after a

fruitless attempt at negotiation with the Prince of Orange, by the

appearance of an infamous proclamation against Catholics, issued

under the signature of the prince, and which, though afterwards

disowned by him, was, at the time, believed to be genuine. Having,

therefore, made up his mind to follow the queen without delay, the

king wrote a letter to the Earl of Feversham, the commander of

the forces, intimating his intention, and after thanking him and

the army for their loyalty, he informed them that he did not wish

them any longer to run the risk of resisting “a foreign army and a

poisoned nation.” Shortly after midnight, having disguised himself

as a country gentleman, he left the palace, and descending by the

back stairs, entered into a hackney coach, which conveyed him to the

horse-ferry, whence he crossed the river, into which the king threw

the great seal. Having arrived at Emley ferry near Feversham by ten

o’clock, he embarked on board the custom-house hoy, but before she

could be got ready for sea the king was apprehended, and placed under

a strong guard.

When the king’s arrest was first reported in London, the intelligence

was not believed; but all uncertainty on the subject was removed by

a communication from James himself in the shape of a letter, but

without any address, which was put into the hands of Lord Mulgrave by

a stranger at the door of the council chamber at Whitehall. A body of

about thirty peers and bishops had, on the flight of the king, formed

themselves into a council, and had assumed the reins of government,

and many of these, on this letter being read, were desirous of

taking no notice of it, lest they might, by so doing, displease

the prince. Lord Halifax, the chairman, who favoured the prince’s

designs, attempted to quash the matter, by adjourning the meeting,

but Mulgrave prevailed on the members of the council to remain, and

obtained an order to despatch the Earl of Feversham with 200 of the

life-guards to protect the person of the king.

On the arrival of Feversham the king resolved to remain in the

kingdom, and to return to London, a resolution which he adopted at

the urgent entreaty of Lord Winchelsea, whom, on his apprehension,

he had appointed lord-lieutenant of Kent. James was not without

hopes that the prince would still come to terms, and to ascertain

his sentiments he sent Feversham to Windsor to invite the prince to

a personal conference in the capital, and to inform him that St.

James’s palace would be ready for his reception. The arrival of the

earl with such a proposal was exceedingly annoying to William and

his adherents, the former of whom, on the supposition that the king

had taken a final adieu of the kingdom, had begun to act the part

of the sovereign, while the latter were already intriguing for the

great offices of the state. Instead of returning an answer to the

king’s message, William, on the pretence that Feversham had disbanded

the army without orders, and had come to Windsor without a passport,

ordered him to be arrested, and committed a prisoner to the round

tower, an order which was promptly obeyed.

At Rochester, whence he had despatched Feversham, the king was met

by his guards, and thence proceeded to London, which he entered on

the 16th of December amidst the acclamations of the citizens, and

the ringing of bells, and other popular manifestations of joy, a

remarkable proof of the instability and inconstancy of feeling which

actuate masses of people under excitement.

As James conceived that the only chance he now had of securing the

confidence of his subjects and preserving his crown, consisted in

giving some signal proof of his sincerity to act constitutionally,

he made the humiliating offer to Lewis and Stamps, two of the city

aldermen, to deliver himself up into their hands on receiving an

assurance that the civil authorities would guarantee his personal

safety, and to remain in custody till parliament should pass such

measures as might be considered necessary for securing the religion

and liberties of the nation. But Sir Robert Clayton dissuaded the

common council from entering into any engagement which the city might

possibly be unable to fulfil, and thus a negotiation was dropt,

which, if successful, might have placed William in a situation of

great embarrassment.[545]

But although James did not succeed in his offer to the city, his

return to Whitehall had changed the aspect of affairs, and had placed

William in a dilemma from which he could only extricate himself by

withdrawing altogether his pretensions to the crown, or by driving

his uncle out of it by force. William considered that the most safe

and prudent course he could pursue would be to force James to leave

the kingdom; but in such a manner as to induce the belief that he did

so freely and of his own accord. Accordingly, to excite the king’s

alarms, a body of Dutch guards, by order of the prince, marched

into Westminster, and, after taking possession of the palace of St.

James’s, marched with their matches lighted to Whitehall, of which

they also demanded possession. As resistance, owing to the great

disparity of numbers, was considered by the king to be unavailing,

he, contrary to the opinion of Lord Craven, the commander of his

guards, who, though eighty years of age, offered to oppose the

invaders, ordered the guards to resign their posts, of which the

Dutch took possession. This event took place late on the evening of

the 16th of December.[546]

The king now received orders from William to quit Whitehall by ten

o’clock next morning, as the latter meant to enter London about

noon, and that he should retire to Ham, a house in Surrey belonging

to the dowager duchess of Lauderdale, which had been provided

for his reception. The king objected to Ham as a residence being

uncomfortable, but stated his willingness to return to Rochester.

Permission being granted by the prince, James left Whitehall about

twelve o’clock noon, after taking an affectionate adieu of his

friends, many of whom burst into tears. He embarked on board the

royal barge, attended by Viscount Dundee and other noblemen, and

descended the river, surrounded by several boats filled with Dutch

guards, in presence of an immense concourse of spectators, many of

whom witnessed with sorrow the humiliating spectacle.[547]

The king arrived at Rochester the following day from Gravesend,

where he had passed the previous night. Having remained four days at

Rochester, he, accompanied by two captains in the navy, his natural

son the Duke of Berwick, and a domestic, went on board the Eagle

fireship, being unable to reach, on account of the unfavourable

state of the weather, a fishing smack which had been hired for his

reception. On the following morning he went on board the smack,

and after a boisterous voyage of two days, arrived at Ambleteuse,

in France, on the 25th of December, and joined his wife and child,

at the castle of St. Germain’s, on the 28th. Thus ingloriously and

sadly ended the reign of the last of the unfortunate and seemingly

infatuated royal race of Stuarts.

Considering the crisis at which matters had arrived, the course which

the king pursued, of withdrawing from the kingdom, was evidently the

most prudent which could be adopted. All his trusty adherents in

England were without power or influence, and in Scotland the Duke of

Gordon was the only nobleman who openly stood out for the interests

of his sovereign. He had been created a duke by Charles II. James

had appointed him governor of the castle of Edinburgh, and he had

been thereafter made a privy-counsellor and one of the lords of the

treasury. Though a firm and conscientious Catholic, he was always

opposed to the violent measures of the court, as he was afraid that

however well meant, they would turn out ruinous to the king; not

indeed that he did not wish to see the professors of the same faith

with himself enjoy the same civil privileges as were enjoyed by his

Protestant countrymen, but because he was opposed to the exercise of

the dispensing power at a time when the least favour shown to the

professors of the proscribed faith was denounced as an attempt to

introduce popery. The king, influenced by some of his flatterers,

received the duke coldly on his appearance at court in March, 1688,

and curtailed some of his rights and privileges over the lands of

some of his vassals in Badenoch. Even his fidelity appeared to be

questioned, by various acts of interference with the affairs of the

castle, of which he disapproved. He resented these indignities by

tendering his resignation of the various appointments he held from

the crown, and demanded permission from the king to retire beyond

seas for a time; but James put a negative upon both proposals, and

the duke returned to his post at Edinburgh.[548]

Notwithstanding the bad treatment he had received, the duke, true to

his trust, determined to preserve the castle of Edinburgh for the

king, although the Prince of Orange should obtain possession of every

other fortress in the kingdom. He requested the privy council to lay

in a quantity of provisions and ammunition, but this demand was but

partially attended to, for though the garrison consisted only of 120

men, there was not a sufficiency of materials for a three months’

siege. The duke shut himself up in the castle, and invited the Earl

of Perth, the chancellor, to join him; but the earl declined the

offer, and, in attempting to make his escape to the continent, was

seized near the Bass, in the Frith of Forth, by some seamen from

Kirkcaldy, under a warrant from the magistrates of that burgh, and

committed to Stirling castle, where he remained a close prisoner for

nearly four years.[549] A few days after the duke had retired to the

castle, an attempt was made by some of the prince’s adherents to

corrupt the fidelity of the garrison, by circulating a false report

that the duke meant to make the whole garrison, who were chiefly

Protestants, swear to maintain the Catholic religion. A mutiny was

on the eve of breaking out, but it was detected by the vigilance

of some officers. The duke, thereupon, drew out the garrison,

assured them that the report in question was wholly unfounded, and

informed them that all he required of them was to take the oath of

allegiance to the king, which was immediately done by the greater

part of the garrison. Those who refused were at once dismissed. To

supply the deficiency thus made, the duke sent notice to Francis

Gordon of Midstrath to bring up from the north 45 of the best and

most resolute men he could find on his lands; but, on their arrival

at Leith, a hue and cry was raised that the duke was bringing down

Papists and Highlanders to overawe the Protestants. To calm the minds

of the people, the duke ordered these men to return home.[550]

As soon as the news of the arrival of the Prince of Orange in London,

and the departure of the king, was received in Edinburgh, an immense

concourse of persons, “of all sorts, degrees, and persuasions,” who

“could (says Balcarras) scrape so much together” to defray their

expenses, went up to London, influenced by motives of interest or

patriotism. The Prince of Orange took the wise expedient of obtaining

all the legal sanction which, before the assembling of a parliament,

could be given to his assumption of the administration of affairs

in England; obtaining the concurrence of many of the spiritual and

temporal peers, and of a meeting composed of some members who had

sat in the House of Commons during the reign of Charles II., as also

of the Lord-Mayor of London, and 50 of the common council. He now

adopted the same expedient as to Scotland, and taking advantage of

the great influx into the capital of noblemen and gentlemen from

that country, he convened them together. A meeting was accordingly

held at Whitehall, at which 30 noblemen and 80 gentlemen attended.

The Duke of Hamilton, who aimed at the chief direction of affairs in

Scotland, was chosen president. At this meeting a motion was made by

the duke that a convention of the estates should be called as early

as possible, and that an address should be presented to the prince to

take upon him the direction of affairs in Scotland in the meantime;

but this motion was unexpectedly opposed by the Earl of Arran, the

duke’s eldest son, who proposed that the king should be invited back

on condition that he should call a free parliament for securing the

civil and religious liberties of Scotland. This proposition threw

the assembly into confusion, and a short adjournment took place, but

on resuming their seats, the earl’s motion was warmly opposed by Sir

Patrick Hume, and as none of the members offered to second it, the

motion was consequently lost, and the duke’s being put to the vote,

was carried.

A convention of the estates, called by circular letters from the

prince, was accordingly appointed to be held at Edinburgh, on the

14th of March, 1689, and the supporters of the prince, as well as the

adherents of the king, prepared to depart home to attend the ensuing

election. But the prince managed to detain them till he should be

declared king, that as many as might feel inclined might seal their

new-born loyalty by kissing his hand; but William had to experience

the mortification of a refusal even from some of those whom he

had ranked amongst his warmest friends. The Earl of Balcarras and

Viscount Dundee, the former of whom had, as before mentioned, been

invested by the king with the civil, the latter with the military

administration of affairs in Scotland, were the first of either party

who arrived in Scotland, but not until the end of February, when the

elections were about to commence. On their arrival at Edinburgh they

found the Duke of Gordon, who had hitherto refused to deliver up the

castle, though tempted by the most alluring offers from the prince,

about to capitulate, but they dissuaded him from this step, on the

ground that the king’s cause was not hopeless, and that the retention

of such an important fortress was of the utmost importance.

The elections commenced. The inhabitants of the southern and western

counties (for every Protestant, without distinction, was allowed to

vote), alarmed for the extinction of their religious liberties, and

excited by the recollection of the wrongs they and their forefathers

had suffered, gave their suffrages to the popular candidate, and

the adherents of the king soon perceived that the chances were

against him. Yet, when the convention met, a respectable minority

seemed, notwithstanding, to be in favour of the king, but they had

neither the courage nor address to oppose the popular current. To

overawe, as is supposed, the friends of the king, or to prevent the

convention from being overawed by the troops in the castle, the

Duke of Hamilton and his friends, a few days before the meeting of

the convention, introduced a considerable number of armed men into

Edinburgh, some of whom were concealed in cellars and houses, ready

to act as occasion might require. The first trial of strength between

the two parties took place on the election of a president. To the

Duke of Hamilton the adherents of the king opposed the Marquis of

Athole, who, in consequence of being slighted by the prince, had

promised his support to the royal party; but the duke was elected by

a considerable majority. This vote sealed the fate of the Tory party,

and many who had hitherto wavered in their allegiance now openly

abandoned the cause of James. The consequence was, that within a few

days, the number of the adherents of the king was greatly reduced.

The first act of the convention was to send the Earls of Tweeddale

and Leven, with an order to the Duke of Gordon to deliver up the

castle within twenty-four hours. The duke, overcome by the smooth and

insinuating behaviour of Tweeddale, reluctantly yielded, and promised

to surrender the castle next morning at ten o’clock. When this answer

was brought to the convention, Balcarras and Dundee were alarmed, and

immediately despatched a confidential servant to the duke reminding

him of his promise to hold out, and imploring him not to give way.

The duke wavered, but on obtaining a writing which he required under

the hands of these noblemen that the retention of the castle was

absolutely necessary for the success of the king’s affairs, and

being visited the following morning by Lord Dundee, who impressed

on him the importance of holding out, he resolved to break with the

convention. To prepare matters in the north he despatched thither

the Earl of Dunfermline, his brother-in-law, to whom he granted a

written commission, authorising him to raise his friends and vassals

in support of the king.[551]

In consequence of the refusal of the duke to deliver up the castle,

he was, by order of the convention, summoned by the heralds at the

gate of the castle to surrender, and a proclamation was read at the

same time prohibiting all persons from having any communication with

him, and promising a reward of six months’ pay to the Protestants

in the garrison who should seize him and deliver him and the castle

up to the convention. The duke addressed the heralds from within

the gate, and told them, that he kept the castle by commission from

their common master, and would defend it to the last extremity; and

after handing them some guineas, which he requested they would spend

in drinking the king’s health, and the healths of all his loyal

subjects, he facetiously advised them not to proclaim men traitors

with the king’s coats on their backs till they had turned them. Upon

the departure of the heralds, the duke drew out the garrison and gave

them their option, either to remain in the castle and share with him

the dangers that awaited them, or to depart. Upwards of a third of

the garrison took advantage of the permission to depart, and left the

castle on that and the following day.[552]

As the king’s friends saw that any efforts they could make in the

convention would be quite unavailing, they agreed at a private

meeting which they held on the 17th of March, to repair to Stirling

and there hold a convention by themselves. This resolution was

adopted agreeably to the wish of the king himself, who had sent a

written authority, dated from Ireland, empowering the Archbishop of

St. Andrews, the Earl of Balcarras, and Viscount Dundee, to call a

meeting of the estates at Stirling. Balcarras and Dundee received

an assurance from the Marquis of Athole, who, ever since the cold

reception he had met with from William, had been wonderfully loyal,

that he would accompany them, and a similar promise was obtained from

the Earl of Mar, governor of Stirling castle. Athole, however, began

to waver, a circumstance which deferred the departure of the king’s

friends.

Here it may not be improper to notice a circumstance which probably

had its weight in the deliberations preceding the departure of

Dundee. On the morning of 16th March, just as Lord Dundee was on the

point of going to the convention, he was waited upon by James Binnie,

a dyer, who informed him that he had overheard a conversation the

day before among some persons of their intention of murdering him and

Sir George Mackenzie, and Binnie offered, if a warrant were granted

him, to apprehend them. Dundee immediately went to the convention and

applied for protection, but they refused to act in the matter, and

passed to the order of the day. Whether this affair was the device of

the Whig party, as has been supposed, to get quit of two individuals

particularly obnoxious to them, there are no means of ascertaining;

but when the circumstances of the times, and the opinions then held

by many of the people are considered, the design of assassinating

them is far from improbable.[553]

But be this as it may, Dundee resolved to remain as short as

possible in a place where he might be every moment exposed to the

dagger of the assassin; and, accordingly, he and his friends fixed

on Monday the 18th of March for their departure for Stirling. With

the exception of Dundee, they all assembled at the appointed place

of rendezvous in the city at the hour which had been fixed; but

as the Marquis of Athole, who had promised to accompany them and

to protect them on their arrival at Stirling with a body of his

vassals, wished them to postpone their departure till the following

day; they consented to remain, and were in the act of dispersing

and proceeding to the convention when Dundee made his appearance.

Such an unexpected resolution greatly surprised him, but he told

Balcarras, that whatever were the views of his friends, he would not

remain another day in Edinburgh. Balcarras remonstrated with him,

and represented, that his departure would give the alarm to their

enemies, who would not fail to take advantage of the discovery;

but he replied, that as he had a select body of between forty and

fifty troopers ready mounted and prepared to start, he would not

remain any longer within the city, but would clear the walls with

his party and wait without for such friends as might choose to join

him. Dundee accordingly left the city at the head of his troopers, to

go, as he is said to have emphatically replied to a friend who put

the question to him, wherever the spirit of Montrose should direct.

After passing the Nether Bow port, he turned to the left down Leith

Wynd, and after clearing the suburbs of the Calton, he faced to the

west, and proceeded along the line of road known at the time by the

name of the Lang-gate, and which now forms the splendid terrace of

Princes’ street. On arriving opposite the castle, Dundee ordered his

men to halt, and alighting from his horse, he clambered up the steep

precipice on the west side of that fortress, and from the bottom of

the wall held a conference with the Duke of Gordon, who stood in

an adjoining postern gate immediately above. No account has been

preserved of the nature of the conversation which passed between

these two devoted adherents of the king, but it is understood that

the viscount entreated the duke to hold out the castle as long as he

could, and that he would endeavour to raise the siege as soon as he

had collected sufficient forces.[554]

The convention despatched a Major Bunting with a party of horse in

pursuit, but although he overtook Dundee, he had not the courage

to attack him, alarmed by a threat with which, it is said, Dundee

menaced him, that he would send him (Bunting) back to the convention,

in a pair of blankets, did he dare to molest him.[555] Dundee crossed

Stirling bridge the second day of his departure, and proceeded to

his residence of Dudhope, near Dundee, to ruminate over the events

which had just passed, and to concoct his plans, under the new

and extraordinary circumstances in which he was placed, for the

restoration of James.

FOOTNOTES:

[520] “I believe there was never accident in the world altered the

disposition of a people more than that (the king’s return) did

the Scottish nation. Sober men observed, it not only inebriat but

really intoxicate, and made people not only drunk but frantick; men

did not think they could handsomely express their joy except they

turned brutes for debauch, rebels, and pugeants; yea, many a sober

man was tempted to exceed, lest he should be condemned as unnatural,

disloyal, and unsensible. Most of the nobility, and many of the

gentry, and hungry old souldiers, flew to London, just as the vulture

does to the carcase. And though many of them were bare enough, they

made no bones to give 15 of the 100 of exchange.”--Kirkton, p. 65.

[521] _State Trials_, vol. v., 1369-1508.--Kirkton, 100-4.

[522] Strafford’s _Letters_, vol. ii. pp. 187-290.

[523] This is the veritable instrument devised by the Regent Morton,

and by which were beheaded the Marquis and Earl of Argyle, “and many

more of the noblest blood of Scotland.”

[524] Kirkton, pp. 143, 166.

[525] “A rumour went that there was a witch-wife named Muddock who

had promised to the M’Lains, that, so long as she lived, the Earle of

Argile should not enter Mull; and indeed many of the people imputed

the rise of that great storme under her paction with the devil, how

true I cannot assert.”--Law’s _Memorials_, p. 83.

[526] Note to Kirkton by Sharpe, p. 391.

[527] Law’s _Memorials_, pp. 80, 1, 2, 3, 94, 159.

[528] “But when this goodly army retreated homeward, you would have

thought by their baggage they had been at the sack of a besieged

city; and, therefore, when they passed Stirling bridge every man drew

his sword to show the world they hade returned conquerors from their

enemies’ land; but they might as well have showen the pots, pans,

girdles, shoes taken off country men’s feet, and other bodily and

household furniture with which they were burdened; and among all,

none purchast so well as the two earles Airly and Strathmore, chiefly

the last, who sent home the money, not in purses, but in bags and

great quantities.”--Kirkton, pp. 390-1.

[529] _Scots Acts_, 1681, c. vi.

[530] “He was lying a prisoner in Edinburgh castle in daily

expectation of the order arriving for his execution, when woman’s

wit intervened to save him, and he owed his life to the affection of

his favourite step-daughter, the sprightly Lady Sophia, who, about

eight o’clock in the evening of Tuesday, the 20th of December, 1681,

effected his escape in the following manner, as related to Lady Anne

Lindsay, by her father, Earl James, Lady Sophia’s nephew:--‘Having

obtained permission to pay him a visit of one half-hour, she

contrived to bring as her page a tall, awkward, country clown,

with a fair wig procured for the occasion, who had apparently been

engaged in a fray, having his head tied up. On entering she made

them immediately change clothes; they did so, and, on the expiration

of the half-hour, she, in a flood of tears, bade farewell to her

supposed father, and walked out of the prison with the most perfect

dignity, and with a slow pace. The sentinel at the drawbridge, a

sly Highlander, eyed her father hard, but her presence of mind did

not desert her, she twitched her train of embroidery, carried in

those days by the page, out of his hand, and, dropping it in the

mud, “Varlet,” cried she, in a fury, dashing it across his face,

“take that--and that too,” adding a box on the ear, “for knowing no

better how to carry your lady’s garment.” Her ill-treatment of him,

and the dirt with which she had besmeared his face, so confounded

the sentinel, that he let them pass the drawbridge unquestioned.’

Having passed through all the guards, attended by a gentleman from

the castle, Lady Sophia entered her carriage, which was in waiting

for her; ‘the Earl,’ says a contemporary annalist, ‘steps up on

the hinder part of her coach as her lackey, and, coming forgainst

the weighhouse, slips off and shifts for himself.’”--_Lives of the

Lindsays_, vol. ii. p. 147.

[531] Hume’s _Narrative_, pp. 5-9.

[532] Hume’s _Nar._, p. 15. Wellwood App., p. 323.

[533] Hume’s _Nar._, pp. 9, 12-14, 15-18.

[534] Hume’s _Narrative_, pp. 46-56. _Gazette_, 2044.

[535] He was attacked by two troopers who were ignorant of his

quality, till the exclamation “Unfortunate Argyle,” uttered as he

fell, betrayed him. “The clan of the Riddells,” says Dr. Burns,

editor of Wodrow, “have taken the honour, or the disgrace of having

furnished one of these two militiamen. A person of this name from

Lochwinnoch, within forty years ago, had gone to the Balloch fair,

near Dumbarton, in the capacity of a horse-dealer. The Campbells

from Argyleshire heard his hated name, which called up to their

imaginations one of the principal murderers of their chief, and

they were preparing themselves for a feudal clan battle, when the

companions of the Lowlander interposed and prevented bloodshed by

a cunning device or _ruse de guerre_, transforming his name from

_Riddell_ to _Ridet_.”--“The spot where Argyle was taken [commonly

said to have been near Inchinnan in Renfrewshire] is marked out by a

stone, which passes among the country-people by the name of ‘Argyle’s

Stone.’” _Hist._ &c., tom. iv. p. 297.

[536] Hume’s _Narrative_, pp. 56-67. Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. 533-537.

_Gazette_, 2045.

[537] Fountainhall, p. 1177.

[538] Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 624, App. 187, 192, 194, 195. Fountainhall,

_State Trials_, vol. x. p. 785, vol. xi. p. 1179. Balcarras’s

Account, p. 3.

[539] D’Avaux.

[540] Dalrymple, pp. 200-210.

[541] Balcarras, p. 9.

[542] Idem, p. 19.

[543] Barillon.

[544] James’ _Memoirs_, vol. ii. p. 222. &c. Burnet, vol. iii. p. 316.

[545] _James_ (_Memoirs_), vol. ii. p. 271.--_Great Britain’s Just

Complaint_, p. 8.

[546] “A day or two after his return, Earl Colin (of Balcarras) and

his friend Dundee waited on his Majesty. Colin had been in town but

three or four days, which he had employed in endeavours to unite his

Majesty’s friends in his interest. ‘He was received affectionately,’

says his son, ‘but observed that there were none with the king but

some of the gentlemen of his bed-chamber.’ L---- came in, one of the

generals of his army disbanded about a fortnight before. He informed

the king that most of his generals and colonels of his guards had

assembled that morning upon observing the universal joy of the city

upon his return; that the result of their meeting was to appoint him

to tell his Majesty that still much was in their power to serve and

defend him; that most part of the army disbanded was either in London

or near it; and that, if he would order them to beat their drums,

they were confident twenty thousand men could be got together before

the end of next day.--‘My lord,’ says the king, ‘I know you to be

my friend, sincere and honourable; the men who sent you are not so,

and I expect nothing from them.’--He then said it was a fine day--he

would take a walk. None attended him but Colin and Lord Dundee. When

he was in the Mall, he stopped and looked at them, and asked how they

came to be with him, when all the world had forsaken him and gone to

the Prince of Orange? Colin said their fidelity to so good a master

would ever be the same; they had nothing to do with the Prince of

Orange,--Lord Dundee made the strongest professions of duty;--‘Will

you two, as gentlemen, say you have still attachment to me?’--‘Sir,

we do.’--‘Will you give me your hands upon it, as men of honour?’

they did so,--‘Well, I see you are the men I always took you to be;

you shall know all my intentions. I can no longer remain here but

as a cypher, or be a prisoner to the Prince of Orange, and you know

there is but a small distance between the prisons and the graves of

kings; therefore I go for France immediately; when there, you shall

have my instructions,--you, Lord Balcarres, shall have a commission

to manage my civil affairs, and you, Lord Dundee, to command my

troops in Scotland.’”--_Lives of the Lindsays_, vol. ii. pp. 161, 162.

[547] _James_, vol. ii. pp. 265-267.

[548] Gordon’s _Hist. of the Family of Gordon_, vol. ii. pp. 585, 586.

[549] Balcarras, p. 29.

[550] Gordon’s _Hist. of the Family of Gordon_, vol. ii. pp. 587, 588.

[551] Balcarras, pp. 41-2. Gordon’s _Hist. of the Family of Gordon_,

p. 592.

[552] Gordon’s _Hist. of the Family of Gordon_, pp. 593-4.

[553] Balcarras, p. 24.--_Minutes of Convention_, 16th March.

[554] It is to this interview that Sir Walter Scott alludes in his

well-known and stirring ballad of “Bonnie Dundee.”

--“The Gordon has asked of him whither he goes?

‘Wherever shall guide me the soul of Montrose!

Your grace in short space shall have tidings of me,

Or that low lies the bonnet of Bonnie Dundee!

‘There’s lands beyond Pentland, and hills beyond Forth,

If there’s lords in the South-land, there’s chiefs in the North,

And wild dunnie-wassels three thousand times three,

Will cry hoigh! for the bonnet of Bonnie Dundee?

‘Away to the hills, to the woods, to the rocks--

Ere I own an usurper I’ll couch with the fox;

So, tremble, false Whigs, though triumphant ye be,

For ye’ve not seen the last of my bonnet or me!’

He waved his proud arm and the trumpets were blown,

The kettle-drums clashed, and the horsemen rode on,

Till by Ravelston craigs and on Clermiston-lea

Died away the wild war-note of Bonnie Dundee.

--‘Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can,

Come saddle my horses and call up my men,

Fling all your gates open and let me go free,

For it’s up with the bonnets of Bonnie Dundee!’”

[555] _Life of Dundee._