“In many respects, therefore, we cannot be surprised at the anxiety and vigour with which the Cameronians were persecuted, although we may be of opinion that milder means would have induced a melioration of their principles. These men, as already noticed, excepted against such Presbyterians as were contented to exercise their worship under the Indulgence granted by government, or, in other words, who would have been satisfied with toleration for themselves, without insisting on a revolution in the state, or even in the Church government.
“When, however, the success at Loudon Hill was spread abroad, a number of preachers, gentlemen, and common people, who had embraced the more moderate doctrine, joined the army of Hamilton, thinking that the difference in their opinions ought not to prevent their acting in the common cause. The insurgents were repulsed in an attack upon the town of Glasgow, which, however, Claverhouse shortly afterwards thought it necessary to evacuate. They were now nearly in full possession of the west of Scotland, and pitched their camp at Hamilton, where, instead of modelling and disciplining their army, the Cameronians and Erastians (for so the violent insurgents chose to call the more moderate Presbyterians) only debated, in council of war, the real cause of their being in arms. Hamilton, their general, was the leader of the first party; Mr. John Welsh, a minister, headed the Erastians. The latter so far prevailed as to get a declaration drawn up, in which they owned the King’s government; but the publication of it gave rise to new quarrels. Each faction had its own set of leaders, all of whom aspired to be officers; and there were actually two councils of war, issuing contrary orders and declarations, at the same time—the one owning the King, and the other designating him a malignant, bloody, and perjured tyrant.
“Meanwhile, their numbers and zeal were magnified at Edinburgh, and great alarm excited lest they should march eastward. Not only was the foot militia instantly called out, but proclamations were issued, directing all the heritors in the eastern, southern, and northern shires, to repair to the King’s host, with their best horses, arms, and retainers. In Fife, and other counties, where the Presbyterian doctrines prevailed, many gentlemen disobeyed this order, and were afterwards severely fined. Most of them alleged, in excuse, the apprehension of disquiet from their wives. A respectable force was soon assembled, and James Duke of Buccleuch and Monmouth, was sent down by Charles to take the command, furnished with instructions not unfavourable to the Presbyterians. The royal army now moved slowly forward towards Hamilton, and reached Bothwell Moor on the 22nd of June, 1679. The insurgents were encamped, chiefly in the Duke of Hamilton’s park, along the Clyde, which separated the two armies. Bothwell Bridge, which is long and narrow, had then a portal in the middle, with gates, which the Covenanters shut, and barricadoed with stones and logs of timber. This important post was defended by three hundred of their best men, under Hackston of Rathillet and Hall of Haughhead. Early in the morning, this party crossed the bridge and skirmished with the royal vanguard, now advanced as far as the village of Bothwell; but Hackston speedily retired to his post at the west end of Bothwell Bridge.
“While the dispositions made by the Duke of Monmouth announced his purpose of assailing the pass, the more moderate of the insurgents resolved to offer terms. Ferguson of Kaitlock, a gentleman of landed fortune, and David Hume, a clergyman, carried to the Duke of Monmouth a supplication, demanding free exercise of their religion, a free Parliament, and a free general assembly of the Church. The Duke heard their demands with his natural mildness, and assured them he would interpose with his Majesty in their behalf, on condition of their immediately dispersing themselves, and yielding up their arms. Had the insurgents been all of the moderate opinion, the proposal would have been accepted, much bloodshed saved, and perhaps some permanent advantage derived to their party; or had they been all Cameronians, their defence would have been fierce and desperate. But, while their motley and misassorted officers were debating upon the Duke’s proposal, his field-pieces were already planted on the eastern side of the river, to cover the attack of the footguards, who were led on by Lord Livingston to force the bridge. Here Hackston maintained his post with zeal and courage; nor was it till his ammunition was expended, and every support denied him by the general, that he reluctantly abandoned the important pass. When his party were drawn back, the Duke’s army slowly, and with their cannon in front, defiled along the bridge, and formed in line of battle as they came over the river. The Duke commanded the foot, and Claverhouse the cavalry. It would seem that these movements could not have been performed without at least some loss, had the enemy been serious in opposing them. But the insurgents were otherwise employed. With the strangest delusion that ever fell upon devoted beings, they chose these precious moments to cashier their officers, and elect others in their room. In this important operation they were at length disturbed by the Duke’s cannon, at the first discharge of which the horse of the Covenanters wheeled and rode off, breaking and trampling down the ranks of their infantry in their flight. The Cameronian account blames Weir of Greenridge, a commander of the horse, who is termed a sad Achan in the camp. The more moderate party lay the whole blame on Hamilton, whose conduct, they say, left the world to debate whether he was most traitor, coward, or fool. The generous Monmouth was anxious to spare the blood of his infatuated countrymen, by which he incurred much blame among the high-flying Royalists. Lucky it was for the insurgents that the battle did not happen a day later, when old General Dalziel, who divided with Claverhouse the terror and hatred of the Whigs, arrived in the camp, with a commission to supersede Monmouth as commander-in-chief. He is said to have upbraided the Duke publicly with his lenity, and heartily to have wished his own commission had come a day sooner, when, as he expressed himself, ‘these rogues should never more have troubled the King or country.’ But, notwithstanding the merciful orders of the Duke of Monmouth, the cavalry made great slaughter among the fugitives, of whom four hundred were slain.
“There were two Gordons of Earlston, father and son. They were descended of an ancient family in the west of Scotland, and their progenitors were believed to have been favourers of the reformed doctrine, and possessed of a translation of the Bible as early as the days of Wickliffe. William Gordon, the father, was in 1663 summoned before the privy council, for keeping Conventicles in his house and woods. By another act of council he was banished out of Scotland; but the sentence was never put into execution. In 1667, Earlston was turned out of his house, which was converted into a garrison for the King’s soldiers. He was not in the battle of Bothwell Bridge, but he was met hastening towards it by some English dragoons engaged in the pursuit, already commenced. As he refused to surrender, he was instantly slain.
“His son, Alexander Gordon of Earlston, was not a Cameronian, but one of the more moderate class of Presbyterians, whose sole object was freedom of conscience and relief from the oppressive laws against Nonconformists. He joined the insurgents shortly after the skirmish at Loudon Hill. He appears to have been active in forwarding the supplication sent to the Duke of Monmouth. After the battle, he escaped discovery, by flying into a house at Hamilton, belonging to one of his tenants, and disguising himself in a female attire. His person was proscribed, and his estate of Earlston was bestowed upon Colonel Theophilus Ogilthorpe by the crown, first in security for £5000, and afterwards in perpetuity.
“The same author mentions a person tried at the circuit-court, July 10th, 1683, solely for holding intercourse with Earlston, an intercommuned rebel. As he had been in Holland after the battle of Bothwell, he was probably accessory to the scheme of invasion which the unfortunate Earl of Argyll was then meditating. He was apprehended upon his return to Scotland, tried, convicted of treason, and condemned to die; but his fate was postponed by a letter from the King, appointing him to be reprieved for a month, that he might, in the interim, be tortured for the discovery of his accomplices. The council had the unusual spirit to remonstrate against this illegal course of severity. On November 3rd, 1683, he received a further respite, in hopes he would make some discovery. When brought to the bar to be tortured, (for the King had reiterated his command,) he, through fear or distraction, roared like a bull, and laid so stoutly about him, that the hangman and his assistant could hardly master him. At last he fell into a swoon, and, on his recovery, charged General Dalziel and Drummond, (violent tories,) together with the Duke of Hamilton, with being the leaders of the fanatics. It was generally thought that he affected this extravagant behaviour to invalidate all that agony might extort from him concerning his real accomplices. He was sent first to Edinburgh Castle, and afterwards to a prison upon the Bass island, although the privy council more than once deliberated upon appointing his immediate death. On the 22nd August, 1684, Earlston was sent for from the Bass, and ordered for execution, 4th November, 1684. He endeavoured to prevent his doom by escape; but was discovered and taken after he had gained the roof of the prison. The council deliberated, whether, in consideration of this attempt, he was not liable to instant execution. Finally, however, they were satisfied to imprison him in Blackness Castle, where he remained till the Revolution, when he was set at liberty, and his doom of forfeiture reversed by Act of Parliament.”
ADDITIONAL NOTICES RELATIVE TO THE INSURRECTION OF 1679.
From “A History of the Rencontre at Drumclog,” etc.
By William Aiton, Esq.