Trial and Execution of the Marquis of Argyle—His character—Feud between the Earl of Argyle and the Macleans—The “Highland Host”—The Test—Trial and Condemnation of the Earl of Argyle—Argyle escapes—Argyle and Monmouth’s invasion—Execution of Argyle—Unconstitutional proceedings of the King—Designs of the Prince of Orange—Proceedings of King James—Landing of the Prince of Orange—State of feeling in Scotland—Flight of the King—The Duke of Gordon—Convention of Estates—Duke of Gordon holds Edinburgh Castle—Viscount Dundee.
The news of the king’s arrival was received in Scotland with a burst of enthusiasm not quite in accordance with the national character;[520] but the idea that the nation was about to regain its liberties made Scotsmen forget their wonted propriety. Preparatory to the assembling of the Scottish parliament, which was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 1st of January, 1661, Middleton, who had lately been created an earl, was appointed his majesty’s commissioner; the Earl of Glencairn, chancellor; the Earl of Lauderdale, secretary of state; the Earl of Rothes, president of the council; and the Earl of Crawford, lord-treasurer.
It would be quite apart from the object of this work to detail the many unconstitutional acts passed by this “terrible parliament,” as it is well named by Kirkton; but the trial of the Marquis of Argyle must not be overlooked. That nobleman had, on the restoration of the king, gone to London to congratulate his majesty on his return; but on his arrival he was immediately seized and committed to the Tower. He petitioned the king for a personal interview, which was refused, and, to get rid of his importunities, his majesty directed that he should be sent back to Scotland for trial. Being brought to trial, he applied for delay, till some witnesses at a distance should be examined on commission; but this also was refused. He thereupon claimed the benefit of the amnesty which the king had granted at Stirling. This plea was sustained by desire of the king; but as there were other charges against him, arising out of transactions subsequent to the year 1651, to which year only the amnesty extended, the trial was proceeded in. These charges were, that he had aided the English in destroying the liberties of Scotland—that he had accepted a grant of £12,000 from Cromwell—that he had repeatedly used defamatory and traitorous language in speaking of the royal family—and, lastly, that he had voted for a bill abjuring the right of the royal family to the crowns of the three kingdoms, which had been passed in the parliament of Richard Cromwell, in which he sat. Argyle denied that he had ever given any countenance or assistance to the English in their invasion of Scotland; but he admitted the grant from Cromwell, which he stated was given, not in lieu of services, but as a compensation for losses sustained by him. He, moreover, denied that he had ever used the words attributed to him respecting the royal family; and with regard to the charge of sitting in Richard Cromwell’s parliament, he stated that he had taken his seat to protect his country from oppression, and to be ready, should occasion offer, to support by his vote the restoration of the king. This defence staggered the parliament, and judgment was postponed. In the meantime Glencairn and Rothes hastened to London, to lay the matter before the king, and to urge the necessity of Argyle’s condemnation. Unfortunately for that nobleman, they had recovered some letters which he had written to Monk and other English officers, in which were found some expressions very hostile to the king; but as these letters have not been preserved, their precise contents are not known. Argyle was again brought before parliament, and the letters read in his presence. He had no explanation to give, and his friends, vexed and dismayed, retired from the house and left him to his fate. He was accordingly sentenced to death on the 25th of May, 1661, and, that he might not have an opportunity of appealing to the clemency of the king, he was ordered to be beheaded within forty-eight hours. He prepared for death with a fortitude not expected from the timidity of his nature; wrote a long letter to the king, vindicating his memory, and imploring protection for his poor wife and family; on the day of his execution, dined at noon with his friends with great cheerfulness, and was accompanied by several of the nobility to the scaffold, where he behaved with singular constancy and courage. After dinner he retired a short time for private prayer, and, on returning, told his friends that “the Lord had sealed his charter, and said to him, ‘Son, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven.’” When brought to the scaffold he addressed the people, protested his innocence, declared his adherence to the Covenant, reproved “the abounding wickedness of the land, and vindicated himself from the charge of being accessory to the death of Charles I.” With the greatest fortitude he laid his head upon the block, which was immediately severed from his body by the maiden. This event took place upon Monday, the 27th of May, 1661, the marquis being then 65 years of age. By a singular destiny, the head of Argyle was fixed on the same spike which had borne that of his great rival Montrose.[521]
Argyle was held in high estimation by his party, and, by whatever motives he may have been actuated, it cannot but be admitted, that to his exertions Scotland is chiefly indebted for the successful stand which was made against the unconstitutional attempts of the elder Charles upon the civil and religious liberties of his Scottish subjects. He appears to have been naturally averse to physical pain, deficient in personal courage, the possession of which, in the times in which Argyle lived, “covered a multitude of sins,” and the want of which was esteemed by some unpardonable. We believe that it is chiefly on this account that his character is represented by his enemies and the opponents of his principles in such an unfavourable light, contrasting as it does so strikingly with that of his great opponent, the brave and chivalrous Montrose. That he was an unprincipled hypocrite, we think it would be difficult to prove; genuine hypocrisy, in a man of his ability, would have probably gained for its possessor a happier fate. That he was wary, cunning, reticent, and ambitious, there cannot be any doubt;—such qualities are almost indispensable to the politician, and were more than ordinarily necessary in those times, especially, considering the men Argyle had to deal with. We believe that he was actuated all along by deep but narrow and gloomy religious principle, that he had the welfare of his country sincerely at heart, and that he took the means he thought best calculated to maintain freedom, and, what he thought, true religion in the land. As he himself said in a letter to the Earl of Strafford,[522] he thought “his duty to the king would be best shown by maintaining the constitution of his country in church and state.” On the whole, he appears to have been a well-meaning, wrong-headed, narrow-minded, clever politician. Mr. Grainger, in his Biographical History of England, justly observes, “The Marquis of Argyle was in the cabinet what his enemy, the Marquis of Montrose, was in the field, the first character of his age for political courage and conduct.” Had he been tried by impartial judges, the circumstances of the times would have been considered as affording some extenuation for his conduct; but it was his misfortune to be tried by men who were his enemies, and who did not scruple to violate all the forms of justice to bring him to the block, in the hope of obtaining his vast possessions.
The Scottish “Maiden.”—Now in the Edinburgh
Antiquarian Museum.[523]
The execution of Argyle was not in accordance with the views of the king, who, to show his disapprobation of the death of the marquis, received Lord Lorn, his eldest son, with favour at court; from which circumstance the enemies of the house of Argyle anticipated that they would be disappointed in their expectations of sharing among them the confiscated estates of the marquis. To impair, therefore, these estates was their next object. Argyle had obtained from the Scottish parliament a grant of the confiscated estate of the Marquis of Huntly, his brother-in-law, on the ground that he was a considerable creditor, but as Huntly was indebted to other persons to the extent of 400,000 merks, the estate was burdened to that amount on passing into Argyle’s possession. Middleton and his colleagues immediately passed an act, restoring Huntly’s estate free of incumbrance, leaving to Huntly’s creditors recourse upon the estates of Argyle for payment of their debts. Young Argyle was exasperated at this proceeding, and in a letter to Lord Duffus, his brother-in-law, expressed himself in very unguarded terms respecting the parliament. This letter was intercepted by Middleton, and on it the parliament grounded a charge of verbal sedition, or leasing-making, as the crime is known in the statutory law of Scotland, an offence which was then capital. Upon this vague charge the young nobleman was brought to trial before the parliament, and condemned to death. The enemies of the house of Argyle now supposed that the estates of the family were again within their grasp; but the king, at the intercession of Lauderdale, the rival of Middleton, pardoned Lorn, released him from prison after about a year’s confinement, restored to him the family estates, and allowed him to retain the title of Earl.[524]
After the suppression of Glencairn’s short-lived insurrection, the Highlands appear to have enjoyed repose till the year 1674, when an outbreak took place which threatened to involve the greater part of that country in the horrors of feudal war, the occasion of which was as follows. The Marquis of Argyle had purchased up some debts due by the laird of Maclean, for which his son, the earl, applied for payment; but the laird being unwilling or unable to pay, the earl apprised his lands, and followed out other legal proceedings, to make the claim effectual against Maclean’s estates. In the meantime the latter died, leaving a son under the guardianship of his brother, to whom, on Maclean’s death, the earl renewed his application for payment. The tutor of Maclean stated his readiness to settle, either by appropriating as much of the rents of his ward’s lands in Mull and Tirey as would be sufficient to pay the interest of the debt, or by selling or conveying to him in security as much of the property as would be sufficient to pay off the debt itself; but he required, before entering into this arrangement, that the earl would restrict his claim to what was justly due. The earl professed his readiness to comply with the tutor’s offer; but the latter contrived to evade the matter for a considerable time, and at length showed a disposition to resist the earl’s demand by force.