knowledge of such parts of Scottish history as did not involve a very laborious sifting and weighing of evidence, "the cause of Prelacy or Presbytery, King or Parliament, was often what was least in the thoughts of the Scottish barons, who made such phrases indeed the pretext for the war, but in fact looked forward to indulging, at the expense of some rival family, the treasured vengeance of a hundred

2

The case of Montrose was a notable instance of this. Montrose began his career as a Covenanter, but found himself supplanted by Argyle, a man of considerable political craft, but of no military talent. Now, as the experience of all history from the earliest to the most recent times proves, military talent in any high degree is rare and extremely difficult to discover; for indeed it can only be discovered by practical experiments of the most costly kind. To the rivalry, which as we have seen is inherent in the nature of oligarchies, there was added on this occasion a deadly ancient feud between the families of Montrose and Argyle. Moreover, while the dark crafty character of Argyle had to ordinary observers the show of prudence and wisdom, Montrose appeared to them, though a bold and to some extent able, a vain and rash young man, whose fiery character and great ambition might

1 Sir Walter Scott. History of Scotland continued in Tales of a Grandfather, vol. i. p. 455. Edinburgh, 1846.

2 Argyle did not nominally command the army, but the soldiers of fortune, Alexander Leslie, David Leslie, and Baillie, appointed by his influence, were controlled completely and with most disastrous consequences, as appeared at Kilsyth, Preston, and Dunbar, by Argyle and other noblemen of the Committee of Estates. See Lieut.-Ge

neral Baillie's "Vindication for his own part of Kilsyth and Preston," Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. ii. p. 420.+ Edinburgh, 1841. Robert Baillie says of Montrose's desertion of the Covenanters, "His first voyage to Aberdeen made him swallow the certain hopes of a Generallat over all our armies; when that honour was put on Leslie, he incontinent began to deal with the king." Vol. ii. p. 261.

render him perhaps rather a dangerous friend than a formidable enemy. The covenanted oligarchy of Scotland accordingly committed the great political blunder of throwing him aside for Argyle, whose abilities were worse than useless at such a time, and they soon learned to their cost that Montrose, whatever he might have been as a friend, was a very formidable enemy. I am no admirer of Montrose's character, though his great abilities are beyond a question; for, if he was a poet and a scholar, these accomplishments do not appear to have been able to make him a man either of principle or humanity; yet during these wars his must on the whole be considered as coming nearest to the highest standard of military genius. It is true that he was surprised by David Leslie at Philiphaugh. But with such resources as Leslie possessed, Montrose was not likely to have committed the blunders committed by Leslie at Dunbar, even though the first and greatest blunder, that of moving his troops from Down Hill, was not Leslie's but that of the Committee of Estates. And neither Leslie nor Cromwell ever showed military genius approaching to that displayed by Montrose in the battle of Aulderne, which only wanted numbers and slaughter on a greater scale to place it on a level with some of the most wonderful achievements of the genius of Hannibal and Frederic. With such an incapable king as Charles insisting on giving orders and on being obeyed, the ablest general could hardly have achieved final success; but if Montrose had taken the strong instead of the weak side, or rather if the strong side had taken him (for his taking the weak side was not matter of choice, but of necessity), I think it extremely probable that Cromwell would neither have won the battle of Dunbar, nor of Worcester, would not have conquered Scotland, and would not have been Protector.

We should then have had two very able men opposed to each other, the one with the greater military, genius; the other with the greater political sagacity; Hannibal to the Roman consul; but Hannibal with more resources and more vantage ground than the Carthaginian had in Italy. Who shall say what might have been the issue of the contest?

There were at this time three parties in Scotland, the rigid Presbyterians, the moderate Presbyterians, and the Royalists. The first, headed by Argyle, was made up of a few of the nobility, Eglinton, Cassilis, Lothian, and others, of the greater part of the clergy, and of the people of the middle and lower ranks, chiefly in the western counties. But though many persons of the middle and lower classes might be said to belong to this party, the influence of such persons on its counsels was extremely small. The aristocratical portion of the party, which though small in number, preponderated in influence, was in favour of a republic, so far as a republic might transfer the power of the king to themselves, while they held fast to the appearance of monarchy as necessary to the preservation of their exclusive privileges. This party was determined not to restore monarchy except on certain conditions, which should limit the power of the king and extend their own.

The second party was chiefly composed of the nobility and gentry and the representatives of the larger towns, and was headed by the Hamiltons, Lauderdale, Dunfermline, and others. This party, like the first-mentioned, professed to adhere to the Covenant; and perhaps the principal distinction between these two parties may be stated to be that the leaders of the moderate Presbyterians more manifestly made use of the Covenant as an instrument for their own worldly aggrandizement. If Lauderdale may

1649.] PRINCE CHARLES PROCLAIMED KING OF SCOTLAND. 283

be in any degree taken as a type or even as a specimen of this party, the figure which he subsequently made as not only a renegade, but a cruel and tyrannical persecutor of those stern enthusiasts who acted up to what they understood to be the meaning of that Covenant which he had professed as well as they, would lead us to form a very unfavourable opinion of its honesty.

The third party consisted of the absolute Loyalists, friends and followers of Montrose, such as the Marquis of Huntly, Lord Ogilvy, a few other noblemen and gentlemen, and some Highland chiefs. And if Montrose may be taken as a specimen of this party, as Lauderdale of the last-mentioned, the absolute Loyalists, though they committed many savage and unjustifiable acts, may nevertheless, when their crimes are placed beside the hundred villanies and cruelties of Lauderdale, be pronounced brave and honourable men.'

After the death of King Charles, the rigid Presbyterians in accordance with their doctrine of monarchy in the State and republicanism in the Church, and likewise in accordance with their doctrine of forcing their opinions upon all other men,-a doctrine expressed in the words of their Covenant, in which they swear that they shall not give themselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in that cause," were bound to call to the throne Charles, the eldest son of their late king, provided he would consent to take the Solemn League and Covenant, for the support of Presbytery, and the putting down of all other forms of religion. Accordingly, in the beginning of February 164 Prince Charles was at Edinburgh solemnly proclaimed King of Scotland by consent of the Scottish

1 Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. iii. p. 35, et. seq. ed. Edinburgh, 1842. Burnet's Mem. of the Hamiltons, p.

336. Thurloe's State Papers, vol. i. pp. 73, 74.

Parliament; and it was agreed that commissioners with certain instructions should be sent to invite him to Scotland.1 The instructions given to the Scotch commissioners were: 1. That he take the covenant. 2. That he put from him all who have assisted his father in the war, particularly Montrose else not to treat with him. 3. That he bring but one hundred with him into Scotland, and none who have assisted his father in arms. 4. That he bring no forces into Scotland from other nations without their consent. And he was not to be admitted to the actual power as king, until he should bind himself to ratify all acts of Parliament by which Presbyterian Government, the Directory of Worship, the Confession of Faith, and the Catechism were established; and in civil affairs to conform himself entirely to the direction of Parliament, and in ecclesiastical to that of the Assembly. Commissioners were sent to Charles at Breda to offer him the throne of Scotland on these terms.

On the 26th of February the Speaker of the English Parliament acquainted the House with a letter the Scots Commissioners had sent him, at their going away, which was without leave. The letter was full of bitterness against the Parliament and their late proceedings against the king, the House of Lords, and the secluded members. The House ordered guards to be sent to Gravesend after the Scots Commissioners to apprehend them, and at the same time passed the following declaration. "The Parliament having received a paper dated Feb. 24th subscribed by the Earl of Lothian, Sir John Chiesley, and Mr. Glendinning, in the name of the Kingdom of Scotland, and taking the same into their serious consideration, they do declare, that the said paper doth contain

1 Whitelock, p. 381. Feb. 12, 1648. 2 Whitelock, p. 392. Mar. 27, 1649.