less achieved, to the amazement of the world, and nothing but the mismanagement of the King's military affairs in England, and his constant discomfiture there, to a degree Montrose could not anticipate, prevented the latter from thus earning the glory of saving the Monarchy. If those victories then were glorious, if their object was legitimate, we must not speak of their being sullied by severities, when, from the circumstances of his undertaking, from the military habits of his country and times, and from the peculiar nature of his military resources, it was absolutely impossible to have accomplished them on other terms. Had the district of Argyle not been ravaged as it was, Mac Cailinmor would not have been at Inverlochy, at the head of his finest gathering, to receive the death-blow of his military power and character in Scotland. And the remark seems equally crude and unjust, that Montrose's system was the result of private animosity against the chieftain, as much as of zeal for the public cause. His contempt for the character of Argyle, and his animosity towards him, was only personal and particular, inasmuch as the covenanting movement was identified with that individual. His dislike and pursuit of Argyle are not to be separated from his love for monarchical government, and determination to preserve it. Montrose had long detected the secret springs of the movement in Scotland, and the real sources of the approaching flood. It was to Argyle and Hamilton he alluded, in his letter of the year 1640, when he said," and you great men, if any such be among you so blinded with ambition, who aim so high as the crown, do you think we are so far degenerate from the virtue, valour, and fidelity to our true and lawful Sovereign, as to suffer you, with all your policy, to reign over us? Take heed you be not Æsop's dog, and lose the cheese for the shadow in the well." And in March 1644, as Montrose was on his way from Oxford to commence the adventure for which he had just been commissioned, he wrote to Sir Robert Spotiswood, that," Argyle, upon the rumour of our coming, is returned to Scotland in haste, to prepare against us there; but we intend to make all possible despatch to follow him at the heels in whatsoever posture we can." This is not the enmity of private rivalry or malice, but of public spirit, in one who saw deeply into the designs of the enemies of good order. The idea, that his predatory campaign was merely the result of ferocious rivalry and malice, is founded upon no mature consideration either of his natural character or the position in which he was placed. The Church of Scotland herself bears witness to the fact, that Montrose was too humane for the arms of the Covenant,* and was not one to indulge in conflagrations where the object could be attained at a cheaper rate. He tells us himself, and it is better evidence than all the calumnies of covenanting malice, that he did every thing in his power to restrain his unpaid soldiery from lawless excess, and spoil on their own account. He wasted the lands of Argyle, but he wasted the lands of Marischal also,† and the all * See Vol. i. p. 246, 264, 295. + Mr Brodie's highest excitement, on the subject of Montrose's malicious cruelty, is when alluding to the burning of Dunnotter, and yet it is founded on a total mistake in point of fact. He says, " See page 285, of Spalding, for a proof of inexorable cruelty in Montrose, scarcely credible of one in civilized life. The men, women, and children, with prayers, tears, and lamentations, addressed him in vain." Hist. Vol. iii. p. 537. The passage of Spalding referred to, we have already adopted, (p. 375) and the precise words are,- "It is said, the people of Stanehevin and Cowie cam out, man and woman, children at thair foot, and children in thair armes crying, houlling and weiping, praying the erll for Godis cause to saif them from this fyre, howsone it wes kendlit. Bot the poor people absorbing feeling of his mind, long ere this time, was far above that of a petty or personal feud with either, -it was the intense perception of the fall of the English Monarchy, and the desperate determination to save it, and his Sovereign, or perish in the attempt. Another consideration enters deeply into the question of the animus of Montrose in his devastating progress. He was imbued, to a wonderful extent when his years and public occupations are considered, with all letters most apt to elevate the mind and humanize the heart, namely, the sacred Scriptures, a favourite study of his, and the writings of the ancient historians, philosophers, and poets. His best beloved friends, too, the companions of these very wars, were highly accom gat no answer, nor knew they quhair to go with thair children." Bannatyne edit. Vol. ii. p. 307. Now this passage does not refer to Montrose at all, who was a Marquis, and, three pages before, Spalding speaks of the "Marques of Montrois." The anecdote refers to the Earl Marischal, and its obvious meaning is, that the poor people looked to him to save them from the fire, either by acceding to Montrose's summons, or by admitting them within the extensive fortifications which sheltered the sixteen ministers. Godwin, in his History of the Commonwealth of England, p. 452, has fallen into the same mistake as Mr Brodie, and made the same use of it. He calls the supposed appeal to Montrose's obdurate heart," a memorable instance of his severity, deservedly selected" by Spalding! Malcolm Laing had obviously put the same mistaken interpretation on Spalding's anecdote. Stonehaven," he says, "amidst the entreaties and outcries of the inhabitants, was consigned to the flames by the inexorable Montrose." Mr Hallam, in his History of England, Vol. ii. p. 37, speaks of “ Montrose, whom the Scots Presbyterian army abhorred, and very justly, for his treachery and cruelty, above all men living." This dictum is certainly not founded upon any investigation of the history of Montrose, and probably was rashly derived from Mr Brodie, and perhaps from the very sentence refuted above. Even if there were any rational exposition of the "treachery and cruelty” with which Montrose has been charged, it cannot be said that he was very justly" abhorred by the Scots Presbyterian army, unless Mr Hallam is also prepared to prove that the Presbyterians were neither treacherous nor cruel. VOL. II. cr B b plished, and of the most gentle natures. I have elsewhere* quoted Baillie's description of the covenanting camp, and may here give a picture of Montrose's, so far at least as his influence extended. It is an eye-witness also who says that the camp of the Marquis "was an Academy, admirably replenished with discourses of the best and deepest sciences, whose several parts were strongly held up, under him the head, by those knowing, noble souls, the Earls of Kinnoul and Airly, the Lords of Gordoun, Ogilvy, Naper, and Maderty, and the two famous Spottswoods, Sir Robert and his nephew, whose heads were too precious to be cut off by them who knew not how to understand them. This I am bold to mention, because such noble discourses banished from his quarter all obscene and scurrilous language, with all those offensive, satyrical reflections, which are now the only current wit among us; and if any such peep'd forth in his presence, his severe looks told the speaker it was unwelcome."+ * Vol. i. p. 254. This very interesting and curious testimony is from Thomas Sydserf or Saint Serf, a son of Thomas Sydserf, Bishop of Galloway. It occurs in a dedication to the second Marquis of a now rare work, entitled, "Entertainments of the Cours; or Academical Conversations, held upon the Cours at Paris, by a cabal of the principal wits of that Court; compiled by that eminent and now celebrated author, Monsieur de Marmet, Lord of Valcroissant, and rendered into English by Thomas Saint Serf, Gent. London: printed by T. C., and are to be sold at the Three Pigeons, in St Paul's Church-yard, 1658." Sydserf mentions that he himself had the honour of being under the great Marquis's command. Some further account of him will be found in "The Miscellany of the Abbotsford Club," now in the course of being privately printed for the Club, under the editorship of James Maidment, Esq. to whom I am indebted for the privilege of seeing the proof-sheets. CHAPTER XIV. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE KING AND MONTROSE AFTER THE BATTLE OF INVERLOCHY. 66 It is interesting to observe that at the very moment when Montrose was in all the excitement of collecting the clans for his march upon Inverlochy, Charles I. was writing on the subject of our hero to the Secretary Nicholas. The impracticable treaty attempted in 1645 was opened, as is well known, at Uxbridge, on the 30th of January in that year. Of that same date the King writes to Sir Edward Nicholas the following sentence in reference to Scotland and Montrose :-" Tell your fellow Commissioners that if there be any treaty proposed concerning Scotland, (of which I forgot to speak to them at parting,) their answer must be to demand a passport for a gentleman to go from me to see what state the Marquis of Montrose is in, there being no reason that I should treat blindfold in so important a business, nor without the knowledge of him whom I have now chiefly employed in that kingdom, and who hath undertaken my service there with so much gallantry when nobody else would." On the 11th of February his Majesty again writes :-" Nicholas, the directions I gave you concerning sending to Montrose I mean only should extend to those things which merely concern Scotland. I stick close to my former order of sending to Montrose, not being ashamed to avow that I shall be much guided by what I shall hear from him, and should be much more ashamed to * 66 |