This ill-conducted siege was an unsuccessful enterprise, but it gave to Charles’s Highlanders their victory at Falkirk. History never repeats itself, but sometimes it nearly does so. As Edward II. had marched to Bannockburn in order to relieve the Castle of Stirling, so General Hawley advanced by the same route from Edinburgh for the purpose of saving the same ancient stronghold from falling into the hands of Bruce’s descendant. Charles left the Duke of Perth with over a thousand men to continue the blockade while the rest of the army barred the way near Bannockburn, as King Robert had done long before; but finding that Hawley was in no haste to attack, Charles quitted the field of happy omen and advanced to unpropitious Falkirk. The memory of Wallace’s defeat, however, did not oppress the eager Highlanders, for they routed the Government troops in a storm of wind and rain, and drove them back on Linlithgow. After this victory Charles returned to Stirling to proceed with the siege of the castle, and twice on the day of his arrival the garrison was summoned to surrender. Blakeney, however, answered that he had always been looked upon as a man of honour, and that the rebels should find that he would die so.[90] In their desperation a number of Highlanders tried to scale the castle rock, but they were driven back with heavy loss of life in their daring attempt to imitate the feats of medieval warriors. The chiefs at length saw the hopelessness of the undertaking, and with difficulty managed to persuade their Prince—who at times was bravely exposing himself to the fire of the garrison’s guns—to withdraw his troops to the Highland hills. On February 1st the army began its disorderly retreat, taking the road to the Fords of Frew, for Blakeney had some time before destroyed the south arch of the old Bridge of Forth, and next day the Duke of Cumberland, who had superseded Hawley, entered and occupied Stirling town.
To many people the history of Scotland seems to cease with the suppression of the Rebellion of Forty-five. This idea doubtless takes its rise from the fact that no battle has been fought on Scottish soil since the Jacobites were vanquished by Cumberland. Up to that point strife and bloodshed are so characteristic of the nation’s history, that the important half-centuries that have elapsed since Culloden are apt to be considered as having no connection with the story that began in the early ages and ended when “Prince Charlie” took ship at Lochnanuagh. Yet because royalty has forsaken its former seat, and because in times of peace a fortress cannot play a glorious part, the retiral of the Highlanders in 1746 does mark the close of Stirling Castle’s long and noble history.
Since that time the building has been used as barracks and has become a recruiting depot for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Once or twice in the course of the nineteenth century its former days were recalled. In 1820, Hardie and Baird, two prominent leaders in the “Radical War,” were imprisoned in the castle before their execution, like Archbishop Hamilton and other political offenders in the times of the Stewart kings. On the 13th of September, 1842, the pleasanter days of the past were brought to mind when the presence of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert within the walls revived the old associations of royalty. Seventeen years later their son, the Prince of Wales, inspected the ancient building where his ancestors had lodged, and from the spot where his mother had surveyed the scene, he admired the view which kings have enjoyed of the Vale of Menteith and the Highland hills. To Queen Victoria and her son thoughts must have occurred similar to those which passed through the mind of James, Duke of Albany and York, when he observed that it was inherent and natural to all the Royal Family to have a particular kindness for Stirling.
CHAPTER VII.
THE BUILDINGS, THE PARK AND THE BRIDGE.
The castle that stands on Stirling rock to-day is not the building that was the home of Alexander I. and William the Lion. Their royal dwelling was thrown into ruins in the days of the devastating War of Independence. Robert the Bruce’s invariable policy was to destroy all fortresses that fell into his hands, lest they should be captured again by the English and made the seats of oppression; so that most of the castellated buildings that had escaped destruction before Bannockburn were cast down or dismantled soon after that battle. In 1336, when the Southrons were again overrunning distracted Scotland, King Edward III. ordered the castle to be repaired and fortified, and it is possible that some of the work then done has lasted to the present day. A portion of the north-west structure, overlooking the steepest part of the rock, may date from the time when Thomas de Rokeby held Stirling for Edward III.
Throughout the reigns of the Stewart monarchs money was spent on mason-work at the castle, but it is impossible to say with certainty for how much of the building each king was responsible. It seems clear, however, that the ancient gateway, afterwards built up, leading to Ballengeich, was erected by Robert II., for the Exchequer Rolls of 1380–1 mention the construction at Stirling Castle of a barbican and a northern gate. This was apparently the main entrance to the fortress; but either because the approach to the inner ward was found to be too steep, or because a later building—perhaps the Parliament Hall—partly obstructed the way, a new gateway was made beside the older one, and a twisted tunnel was boldly cut through the lower storey of the Mint—a building which was probably the “cunyie-house” of the early Stewarts, and which seems to have been erected at the same time as the original archway. There is little doubt also that important additions were made during James III.’s reign. Certainly the castle wall was rebuilt in 1467,[91] and the likelihood is that it remains to the present day in the part above the Prince’s Walk and in the portion of similar construction overlooking Ballengeich.
THE OLD MINT.