CHAPTER XV.

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.

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]

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.

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.