says Baillie in his letter to Spang of the 26th July, "called a meeting at Old Aberdeen, of sundry noblemen, to subscribe a writ for an enterprize, under Montrose and Ogilvy's conduct, which Huntly subscribed ; but Marischal refused absolutely, and made Huntly recall his subscription, which, in the great providence of God, seems to have marred the design."

It was immediately after this expedition to the north, that Montrose effected his interview with Alexander Henderson, whom he was very anxious to sound, that he might positively assure himself of the measures to be proposed at the Convention now about to meet. But he was careful not to compromise his character, in those calumnious times, by a private meeting with the Moderator of the Kirk, unaccompanied by such witnesses as would be a sure guarantee of the integrity of his own position in this delicate affair. On a day between the 10th and 22d of June, another scene of the Plotters occurred well worthy of the pencil of Vandyke. There came to a spot, on the banks of the Forth, hard by the Bridge of Stirling, the celebrated political clergyman, whose head and hand were never away from the work of revolutionary agitation, although the clamour against the Bishops for their connection with secular affairs, was a war cry of the faction whom this zealot so ardently aided. Henderson was the very Don Quixote of Presbyterianism, and all his recent misgivings at the crooked ways of the Covenant, and something like a yearning towards the more honest and enlightened paths of loyalty,-not unmarked by the determined democrats whose tool he became,-were now merged in the new insanity of this Presbyterian crusade against Episcopal England. But his lucid interval came again, and, broken hearted, he died ere the murder of his So

vereign had consummated that crusade. He was attended on the present occasion by Sir James Rollock, whose first wife was the sister of Montrose, but now he was married to the sister of Argyle. To meet these, came the family party of Plotters,-Montrose, Napier, and Sir George Stirling of Keir,—and, according to Wishart, some others, probably Montrose's constant aide-camps, the Lord Ogilvy, and the Master of Napier. For two hours, "by the water-side," did this conference continue. Montrose commenced by expressing his sense of being honoured by the visit of so excellent a person, upon whose faith, honesty, and judgment, he much relied. To allow,' he added, the ill opinion of my enemies to breathe itself after some little mistakes, I have been contented to remain in domestic retirement, and am altogether ignorant of your Parliamentary affairs; indeed, I am at a loss how to comport myself in these very ticklish times, and must beg of you, for old acquaintance sake, to tell me frankly, what it is you mean to do.' The apostle of the Covenant, who mistook this for the signal of Montrose's apostacy, replied without reserve, that it was resolved to send as strong an army as they could raise, in aid of their brethren of England, and that the Covenanters in both kingdoms had unanimously agreed to bring the King to their lure, or perish in the attempt. Then he uttered hallelujahs over the supposed acquisition of Montrose, and thanks unto his Lord God, who had vouchsafed to make use of himself as the minister and mediator of so great a work. Finally, he entreated Montrose to cast off all reserve, and abandon himself entirely to his guidance and confidence, with regard to every thing he might desire from the Parliament, either in relation to his honour or his profit. But Montrose

had already obtained all he desired from the Reverend Alexander Henderson. They had endeavoured to allure him from the path of honour, and he had outmanœuvred one of the most wily of the faction, whose confessions to Montrose completely justified all the counsels of that loyal nobleman to his sovereign. He had only now to withdraw himself from the conference, without compromising his safety by a quarrel, or his honour by a pledge he meant not to fulfil. Turning to Sir James Rollock, he inquired if their present proposals were in consequence of a direction from the Committee, or out of their own good wills. 'I conceive,' said Sir James, that Mr Henderson is commissioned from the Parliament to this effect.' 'Not exactly so,' replied the Moderator, but I doubt not the Parliament will make good whatever I promise.' 'Gentlemen,' rejoined Montrose, 'I wish you good evening. In a matter of so high importance, I can form no positive resolutions, where there is not the public faith to build upon, and where the messengers disagree among themselves.' And so saying our hero, who " was stately to affectation," departed with his relatives, leaving the Representative of the Kirk, and the Representative of Argyle, disputing on the banks of the Forth, as to whose fault the omission was, in not coming provided with the credentials of plenipotentiaries.*

* That Montrose in this interview had not the slightest intention of selling himself to the Covenanters, and that he did nothing therein to compromise his honour, is sufficiently guaranteed, even by the fact, that his advisers and companions in that matter were such men as Lord Napier, and Sir George Stirling of Keir.

CHAPTER VIII.

HOW THE KING TOOK MONTROSE TO HIS COUNCILS, AND SENT HAMILTON TO PRISON, WHEN IT WAS TOO LATE.

IN the passage quoted below* it will be found, that, while the character of Hamilton is occasionally handled with a tenderness strangely contradicted by the overwhelming details adopted against him in the same chapter, the notices of Montrose are, from such a writer, unaccountably crude and unjust. A chap

*

"The mysterious conduct of the brothers still continued. Two years after the affair of the Incident, when in 1643 the Scots had resolved to raise an army to maintain their " cause," the Marquis sate among them, and seemed only a looker on; while his brother Lanerick, who had the custody of the King's signet, put it to a proclamation to raise this very Scottish army. This extraordinary act done, the ambiguous brothers hastened to Charles, at Oxford, to justify their proceedings, and to explain that inevitable crisis which affairs had taken. They had, however, been anticipated by the zealous friends of the Monarch, and the ever watchful and vindictive Montrose had again denounced the Hamiltons for their infidelity. Yet even in the present alarming event Charles seems to have seen no treachery, but only misfortune in the brothers. Had they been criminal would they have returned to Court -they who could have framed apologies for their absence? The charges against Hamilton were, however, of so high a nature, and took so wide a view of all his proceedings, and were so positively asserted by the Marquis of Montrose, that, to satisfy the friends about him, the King was compelled to put both brothers under arrest. The Marquis had of late been created Duke of Hamilton, and he who had so long deprived Charles of the zealous services of Montrose, and whose rankling jealousies of that aspiring genus had induced him to pursue the meanest artifices to accomplish Montrose's ruin, now drank himself from the poison ed chalice returned to his own lips.”—D'Israeli's Comment. V. iv. p. 312.

ter composed of damning facts, and severe expressions, against Hamilton, alternated with merciful doubts and deprecating conjectures, is at least in keeping with his double career, and wofully impotent conclusion. And such conflict of judgment, upon the character of the man who of all others was dear to Charles I., may be pardoned in so loyal a writer. But why is Montrose-the brave, the unflinching, self-sacrificed martyr of loyalty-made to occupy so dark a spot in that picture? A poisoned chalice, it seems, mingled with rankling jealousies, and the meanest artifices, had been presented by Hamilton to Montrose, which Montrose now returned to the lips of the falling favourite. Deprived of its dramatic ornament, and in its naked sense, this can only mean that Montrose was no less depraved, in his jealousies and duplicity, than Hamilton, and that his present political position was simply that of one treacherous statesman repaying another in kind. In the same breath, however, we are told of the zealous services of the ever watchful Montrose which can mean nothing else than his devoted loyalty at the most hopeless crisis for monarchy, and of," that aspiring genus," a meagre allusion to the very characteristics by which Montrose is so brightly distinguished from Hamilton, no less than from Argyle. Yet, after all, the same paragraph insinuates that the Hamiltons were denounced for their infidelity solely by one individual, that individual being the "vindictive" Montrose. And then comes, as if to break the fall of these Hamiltons, the deprecating question," had they been criminal, would they have returned to court, they who could have framed apologies for their absence ?”