The earl, therefore, resolved to enforce compliance, and armed with a decree of the Court of Session, and supported by a body of 2,000 of his tenants and vassals, he crossed into Mull, in which, he landed at three different places without opposition, although the Macleans had 700 or 800 men in the island. The Macleans had sent their cattle into Mull for safety, a considerable number of which were killed or houghed by Lord Neill, brother to the earl, at the head of a party of the Campbells. The islanders at once submitted, and the earl having obtained possession of the castle of Duart, and placed a garrison therein, left the island. Although the Macleans had promised to pay their rents to the earl, they refused when applied to the following year, a refusal which induced him to prepare for a second invasion of Mull. In September, 1675, he had collected a force of about 1,500 men, including 100 of the king’s troops from Glasgow, under the command of Captain Crichton, and a similar number of militia-men, under Andrew M’Farlane, the laird of M’Farlane, the use of which corps had been granted to the earl on application to the Council. The Macleans, aware of their danger, had strengthened themselves by an alliance with Lord Macdonald and other chieftains, who sent a force of about 1,000 men to their aid; but Argyle’s forces never reached the island, his ships having been driven back damaged and dismantled by a dreadful hurricane, which lasted two days.[525]
This misfortune, and intelligence which the earl received from the commander of Duart castle that the Macleans were in great force in the island, made him postpone his enterprise. With the exception of 500 men whom he retained for the protection of his coasts, and about 300 or 400 to protect his lands against the incursions of the Macleans, he dismissed his forces, after giving them instructions to re-assemble on the 18th of October, unless countermanded before that time. The earl then went to Edinburgh to crave additional aid from the government; but receiving no encouragement, he posted to London, where he expected, with the help of his friend the Duke of Lauderdale, to obtain assistance. Lord Macdonald and the other friends of the Macleans, hearing of Argyle’s departure, immediately followed him to London, and laid a statement of the dispute before the king, who, in February, 1676, remitted the matter to three lords of the Privy Council of Scotland for judgment. The earl returned to Edinburgh in June following. A meeting of the parties took place before the lords to whom the matter had been referred, but they came to no decision, and the subsequent fate of Argyle put an end to these differences, although it appears that he was allowed to take possession of the island of Mull without resistance in the year 1680.[526]
Except upon one occasion, now to be noticed, the Highlanders took no share in any of the public transactions in Scotland during the reigns of Charles the Second and his brother James. Isolated from the Lowlands by a mountain barrier which prevented almost any intercourse between them and their southern neighbours, they happily kept free from the contagion of that religious fanaticism which spread over the Lowlands of Scotland, in consequence of the unconstitutional attempts of the government to force episcopacy upon the people. Had the Highlanders been imbued with the same spirit which actuated the Scottish whigs, the government might have found it a difficult task to have suppressed them; but they did not concern themselves with these theological disputes, and they did not hesitate when their chiefs, at the call of the government, required their services to march to the Lowlands to suppress the disturbances in the western counties. Accordingly, an army of about 8,000 men, known in Scottish history by the name of the “Highland Host,” descended from the mountains under the command of their respective chiefs, and encamped at Stirling on the 24th of June, 1678, whence they spread themselves over Clydesdale, Renfrew, Cunningham, Kyle, and Carrick, and overawed the whigs so effectually, that they did not attempt to oppose the government during the stay of these hardy mountaineers among them. According to Wodrow and Kirkton, the Highlanders were guilty of great oppression and cruelty, but they kept their hands free from blood, as it has been correctly stated that not one whig lost his life during the invasion of these Highland crusaders.[527] After remaining about eight months in the Lowlands, the Highlanders were sent home, the government having no further occasion for their services, but before their departure they took care to carry along with them a large quantity of plunder they had collected during their stay.[528]
After the departure of the Highlanders, the Covenanters again appeared upon the stage, and proceeded so far as even to murder some soldiers who had been quartered on some landlords who had refused to pay cess. The assassination of Archbishop Sharp, and the insurrection of the Covenanters under a preacher named Hamilton, followed by the defeat of the celebrated Graham of Claverhouse at Drumclog on the 1st of June, 1679, alarmed the government; but the defeat of the Covenanters by the king’s forces at Bothwell bridge, on the 22d of June, quieted their apprehensions. Fresh measures of severity were adopted against the unfortunate whigs, who, driven to despair, again flew to arms, encouraged by the exhortations of the celebrated Richard Cameron,—from whom the religious sect known by the name of Cameronians takes its name,—and Donald Cargill, another enthusiast; but they were defeated in an action at Airs-moss in Kyle, in which Cameron, their ecclesiastical head, was killed.
To check the diffusion of anti-monarchical principles, which were spreading fast throughout the kingdom under the auspices of the disciples of Cameron, the government, on the meeting of the Scottish parliament on the 28th of July, 1681, devised a test, which they required to be taken by all persons possessed of any civil, military, or ecclesiastical office. The parties taking this test were made to declare their adhesion to the true Protestant religion, as contained in the original confession of faith, ratified by parliament in the year 1560, to recognise the supremacy of the king over all persons civil and ecclesiastical, and to acknowledge that there “lay no obligation from the national covenant, or the solemn league and covenant, or any other manner of way whatsoever, to endeavour any alteration in the government in church or state, as it was then established by the laws of the kingdom.”[529]
The terms of this test were far from satisfactory to some even of the best friends of the government, as it was full of contradictions and absurdities, and it was not until the Privy Council issued an explanatory declaration that they could be prevailed upon to take it. The Dukes of Hamilton and Monmouth, however, rather than take the test, resigned their offices. Among others who had distinguished themselves in opposing the passing of the test, was the Earl of Argyle, who supported an amendment proposed by Lord Belhaven, for setting aside a clause excepting the Duke of York, brother to the king, and the other princes of the blood, from its operation. The conduct of Argyle gave great offence to the duke, who sat as commissioner in the parliament, and encouraged his enemies to set about accomplishing his ruin. The Earl of Errol brought in a bill reviving some old claims upon his estates, and the king’s advocate endeavoured to deprive him of his hereditary offices; but the Duke of York interposed, and prevented the adoption of these intended measures. To gratify his enemies, however, and to show the displeasure of the court at his recent opposition, Argyle was deprived of his seat in the Court of Session. But this did not sufficiently appease their resentment, and, anxious for an opportunity of gratifying their malice, they hoped that he would refuse to take the test. Accordingly, he was required to subscribe it: he hesitated, and craved time to deliberate. Aware of the plot which had been long hatching against him, and as he saw that if he refused he would be deprived of his important hereditary jurisdictions, he resolved to take the test, with a declaratory explanation, which, it is understood, received the approbation of the Duke of York, to whom the earl had submitted it. The earl then subscribed the test in presence of the council, and added the following explanation:—“I have considered the test, and am very desirous of giving obedience as far as I can. I am confident that the parliament never intended to impose contradictory oaths: Therefore I think no man can explain it but for himself. Accordingly, I take it so far as it is consistent with itself and the Protestant religion. And I do declare, that I mean not to bind myself, in my station, in a lawful way, from wishing and endeavouring any alteration which I think to the advantage of Church or State, and not repugnant to the Protestant religion and my loyalty. And this I understand as a part of my oath.” This declaration did not please the council, but as the Duke appeared to be satisfied, the matter was passed over, and Argyle kept his seat at the council board.
Although the Duke of York had been heard to declare that no honest man could take the test,—a declaration which fully justified the course Argyle had pursued,—yet the enemies of that nobleman wrought so far upon the mind of his royal highness as to induce him to think that Argyle’s declaration was a highly criminal act. The earl, therefore, was required to take the test a second time, without explanation; and having refused, he was committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh, and on the slight foundation of a declaration which had been sanctioned by the next heir to the crown, was raised a hideous superstructure of high treason, leasing-making, and perjury.
Argyle was brought to trial on Monday, the 12th of December, 1681, before the High Court of Justiciary. The Earl of Queensberry, the justice-general, and four other judges, sat upon the bench, and fifteen noblemen acted as jurors. The absurdity of the charges, and the iniquity of the attempt to deprive a nobleman, who had, even in the worst times, shown an attachment to the royal family, of his fortune, his honours, and his life, were ably exposed by the counsel for the earl; but so lost was a majority of the judges to every sense of justice, that, regardless of the infamy which would for ever attach to them, they found the libel relevant; and on the following day the assize or jury, of which the Marquis of Montrose, cousin-german to Argyle, was chancellor, found him guilty. Intelligence of Argyle’s condemnation was immediately sent to the king, but the messenger was anticipated in his arrival by an express from the earl himself to the king, who, although he gave orders that sentence should be passed against Argyle, sent positive injunctions to delay the execution till his pleasure should be known. Argyle, however, did not wish to trust to the royal clemency, and as he understood preparations were making for his execution, he made his escape from the castle of Edinburgh, disguised as a page carrying the train of Lady Sophia Lindsay, his step-daughter, daughter of Lord Balcarres, whose widow Argyle married.[530] He went to London, where he lay some time in concealment, whence he went over to Holland. On the day of his escape, being the 21st of December, he was proclaimed a fugitive at the market cross of Edinburgh, and, on the 24th, the Court of Justiciary passed sentence of death against him, ordered his arms to be reversed and torn at the market cross of Edinburgh, and declared his titles and estates forfeited.
In exculpation of their infamous proceedings, the persecutors of Argyle pretended that their only object in resorting to such unjustifiable measures, was to force him to surrender his extensive hereditary jurisdictions, which, they considered, gave him too great authority in the Highlands, and the exercise of which in his family, might obstruct the ends of justice; and that they had no designs either upon his life or fortune. But this is an excuse which cannot be admitted, for they had influence enough with the Crown to have deprived Argyle of these hereditary jurisdictions, without having recourse to measures so glaringly subversive of justice.
The only advantage taken by the king of Argyle’s forfeiture was the retention of the heritable jurisdictions, which were parcelled out among the friends of the court during pleasure. Lord Lorn, the earl’s son, had the forfeited estates restored to him, after provision had been made for satisfying the demands of his father’s creditors.