The moderate friends of the Whigs in Edinburgh also sent instructions to them, respecting the course they thought they should pursue, especially warning them against being led astray by the hotheaded party among them; advising them to send propositions to the Duke, narrating the oppressions they had endured, and cheerfully professing their fidelity to the king, for whom they were ready to sacrifice every thing they held most dear, excepting only their religion and liberty; and, above all, to avoid fighting, except with seen advantage by surprisal or ambuscade—to keep close together, sending scouts out in all directions, and particularly not to be too secure upon the Sabbath day; while they kept up close intercourse with their friends throughout the country, and endeavoured to induce them to join the army in defence of the grand principles held not only by themselves, but by a great sympathizing body throughout England.
A wholesome advice, unfortunately tendered in vain! Multitudes who came to the camp, when they perceived the distractions that prevailed, left it despairing of any happy issue, and not only weakened the troops by their desertion, but prevented many who were coming, or preparing to come, from joining so discordant an assemblage. This again caused accusations and recriminations, each side upbraiding the other for being the occasion of such mischief and visible hindrance to the good cause, destroyed all cordial co-operation, and prevented the discipline of the troops; so that, when the king’s forces approached, they presented the melancholy appearance of a disjointed rabble of countrymen, whose numbers did not exceed six thousand men. The necessity of naming officers who had had some experience in warlike affairs was pressing, and the leaders met for this purpose on the 21st; but, after a stormy discussion, not on the military merits of the men, but on the question, whether any should be intrusted with command who had owned the indulgence? Mr Hamilton and a number of his supporters withdrew in anger from the meeting, without having come to any determination. A few of the temperate who remained, drew up a respectful supplication to Monmouth, stating their grievances, and requesting liberty, under safe conduct, for a few of their number to state their grievances, that they might obtain through his favour some speedy and effectual redress.
Battle of Bothwell Bridge.
Vide page [374].
Edinr. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder, to the Queen, 1842.
Next day, the armies were within sight of each other. The king’s troops spread upon Bothwell-moor, with their advanced guard in the town; the Whigs stationed along Hamilton-moor, on the south side of the river Clyde, with their advanced guard at the bridge—an old narrow structure, the only pass by which they were assailable. Early that morning, Mr David Hume, Mr Fergusson of Caitloch, and Mr John Welsh went in disguise to Monmouth’s head-quarters. On passing, they were politely saluted by Claverhouse and had ready access to his Grace. When introduced, they stated their demands, which were—that they might be allowed the free exercise of their religion, and suffered to attend the ordinances dispensed by Presbyterian ministers without molestation; that a free Parliament and General Assembly might be called to settle the affairs of church and state; and an indemnity offered to all who were or had been in arms. The Duke, who heard them with great attention, replied that the king had given him no instructions respecting these matters; he therefore could not say any thing about them, only he assured the delegates he would lay their requests before his majesty, and as he thought them reasonable, had no doubt they would be granted; but in the meanwhile, he could enter into no terms till they laid down their arms and threw themselves entirely upon the royal mercy. He then dismissed them, and gave them half an hour to return him an answer from their friends whether they would consent to his proposal. At the same time, he issued orders to put the troops in motion.
When the commissioners reported the Duke’s demand, that they should lay down their arms previous to terms being offered, Mr Hamilton, who had now assumed the command, laughed at it, and said, “Aye! and hang next.” No answer was therefore returned. As soon as the half hour’s truce expired, Lord Livingston advanced at the head of the foot-guards with the cannon to force the bridge. He was firmly received by a small determined band under Ure of Shargarton and Major Learmont, who drove them back twice, and would even have taken the cannon had they been properly supported, but their ammunition failed; and when they sent to the commander for a fresh supply, or a reinforcement of men better provided, they received orders to retire upon the main body, which, having no other alternative, they did, and with heavy hearts left their vantage ground, and with it every chance of success.[[124]] The royal army then passed the bridge, and drew up upon the bank with their artillery in front, to which the patriots had nothing to oppose but one field-piece and two large uncouth unmounted muskets; yet did they force Lord Livingston to halt, till the cannon having been opened upon the left, threw the undisciplined horse of the countrymen into disorder, and the route immediately became universal.[[125]]
[124]. The honour of this defence is claimed by Russell for Hackston of Rathillet, who also had a command; but it is universally allowed that the nominal General, Hamilton, was among the first to flee.
[125]. Although we may lament the dreadful and bloody years which followed this victory, and hold up to merited execration the persecuting prelates, yet, perhaps, the descendants of the persecuted have reason to bless God that the ultra-covenanters did not gain that day. It would have given the chief power into the hands of Robert Hamilton, who commanded upon that occasion; and what use he would have made of it may be fairly conjectured from the following vindication of his conduct in murdering in cold blood a prisoner after the battle of Drumclog. It is contained in a letter from him addressed to “the anti-popish, anti-prelatic, anti-sectarian, true Presbyterian remnant of the church of Scotland,” dated December 7, 1685:—“As for that accusation they bring against me of killing the poor man (as they call him) at Drumclog, I may easily guess that my accusers can be no other but some of the house of Saul or Shemei, or some such risen again to espouse that poor gentleman’s (Saul) his quarrel against honest Samuel, for his offering to kill that poor man, Agag, after the king’s giving him quarters. But I being called to command that day, gave out the word that no quarter should be given; and returning from pursuing Claverhouse, one or two of these fellows were standing in the midst of our friends, and some were debating for quarters, some against it. None could blame me to decide the controversy; and I bless the Lord for it to this day!! There were five more that, without my knowledge, got quarters, who were brought to me after we were a mile from the place as having got quarters—which I reckoned among the first steppings aside; and seeing that spirit amongst us at that time, I then told it to some that were with me (to my best remembrance it was honest old John Nisbet) that I feared the Lord would not honour us to do much for him. I shall only say this—I desire to bless his holy name that, since ever he helped me to set my face to his work, I never had nor would take a favour from enemies, either on right or left hand, and desired to give as few.”—Faithful Contendings, p. 201 et seq.
Few fell in the fight, but the pursuit was cruel and bloody; upwards of four hundred were cut down, and twelve hundred who were on the moor, were forced to surrender at discretion. The slaughter would have been greater had not Monmouth, in spite of the advice of some of the other Generals, ordered the vanquished to be spared, when the yeomanry cavalry especially were executing cruel vengeance on the unresisting fugitives. Among the prisoners were Messrs King and Kid, ministers, who were, however, only preserved by his humanity from military violence, that they might afterwards satiate the cruelty of their clerical enemies by a more disgraceful execution, if dying in any manner for the cause of truth can be called disgraceful. The treatment of the captives by the inferior officers, to whose charge they were committed, was unnecessarily vindictive and severe. They were stripped nearly naked, and made to lie flat on the ground, nor suffered to change their position; and when some of them ventured to raise themselves to implore a draught of water, they were instantly shot. They were afterwards tied two and two and driven to Edinburgh, to be placed at the council’s disposal.
Nor was the cruelty confined to those taken in battle, numbers of unarmed men, who were merely coming to hear sermon at the camp, were murdered on the road by the soldiery; and one atrocious case stands painfully conspicuous. Arthur Inglis of Cambusnethan, while quietly reading his bible in a furrow, was observed by a party who were patrolling the country in search of delinquents, and being actually discovered in this treasonable fact, one of the soldiers fired at the traitor; but missing, the good man startled a little, looked round for a moment, and then, without appearing to be alarmed, resumed his reading, when another of the miscreants, by order of his viler commander, clave his skull, and left him dead on the spot! The numbers who were thus wantonly massacred, are variously stated; but if we take the lowest, two hundred—considering the then state of the population—it shows, in sufficiently strong colours, a barbarous waste of life, and the danger of committing such extravagant powers into the hands of an unbridled soldiery.