Tag Archives: Charles II

30th January: The Executions of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell

On Tuesday 30th January 1649, Charles Stuart, 11th monarch of the House of Stuart, 2nd incumbent of the unified throne was marched from St James’ Palace to Whitehall to be publicly beheaded. His forbears had sat on the throne of Scotland for 261 years and now it was to end. In the snow, in a foreign land, in front of a silent mob.

Charles I heads for his execution

Charles I heads for his execution

Twelve years later, on Wednesday 30th January 1661, the disinterred body of Oliver Cromwell, which had lain in its grave for over two years, was taken from the Red Lion Inn in Holborn along with that of Henry Ireton, another of the regicides, to Tyburn where it was publicly hanged in chains. No public pronouncement of death being deemed necessary as the corpse had been such for some time.

After hanging there for some hours his body was taken down and the head struck unceremoniously from the rest of it whence it was placed high on a wooden stake for all to see.

Cromwell's corpse is hanged (with his fellow regicides Bradshaw and Ireton)

Cromwell’s corpse is hanged (with his fellow regicides Bradshaw and Ireton)

Cromwell: a man who had come close to being crowned himself and who was deemed then and since to represent the quintessentialness of British values to have his body treated in a manner so contemptuous that even now, three and a half centuries later we have no idea, and less concern, as to the location of said head.

Cromwell's severed head, as pictured in 1700. It's present whereabouts are unknown

Cromwell’s severed head, as pictured in 1700. It’s present whereabouts are unknown

As Cromwell’s corpse swung in the winter breeze, there was to be no dwelling on the manner in which events had unfolded. When he had died, the first time, he was at the height of his powers as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of the Three Kingdoms. His position backed up by his New Model Army, an extremely effective military force of his own creation. Nonetheless, it was remarkable the extent to which the fortunes of his interests had deteriorated so much in such a short space of time.

For Charles Stuart, however, there was plenty of time for him to consider the vicissitudes of his life. By January 1649 he had been held prisoner for nearly three years. First by the Scots Covenanting Army in Newcastle, upon whose mercy he had thrown himself when he had exhausted all other options following the defeat of his army in the Civil War. And then when the Scots handed him over to the vengeful Parliamentarians he was held under house arrest in a number of different locations whilst said Parliamentarians made up their mind as to what to do with him.

During this time his prospects were not entirely grim with the Scots rising in arms once more, this time to seek his freedom. But these hopes were to be dashed as Cromwell and his New Model destroyed this army at the Battle of Preston. And as negotiations wound tediously on over the months it was only near the end when Parliament sought to indict him for treason that he would have had some idea that matters might end with his death.

Charles I at his trial. Parliament had sacked his barber and he would let no-one near him with a razor.

Charles I at his trial. Parliament had sacked his barber and he would let no-one near him with a razor.

Like the citizenry of England, the Scots were not averse to brutally assassinating their anointed monarch when the need arose. As when James I was done to death in the basement of Blackfriars Monastery in 1437. Or when James III died at the hands of a mysterious assassin in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Sauchieburn in 1488.

Edward II of England’s grizzly end by means of a hot poker testifies to the enthusiasm with which such matters were conducted south of the border, albeit this happened after his abdication. However, we have the cases of Henry VI and the Princes in the Tower as eloquent evidence of due process in that part of the world.

However, in the long and colourful history of the Kingdom of Scotland there had never been efforts made to prosecute then execute a monarch. In England, however, not only was there a proud tradition of executing reigning monarchs, such as Lady Jane Grey in 1554. They had also taken it upon themselves to execute other peoples’ monarchs. The utterly reprehensible fashion in which Her Grace, Mary Queen of Scots was held prisoner for some nineteen years before a shameless show trial found her guilty of treason against a monarch of whom she was not a subject and condemned her to death, stands in clear testimony to the barbaric manner in which such matters have been conducted there over the centuries.

Mary, Queen of Scots at her execution in 1587.

Mary, Queen of Scots at her execution in 1587.

In January 1649, the first effort of the Rump Commons to raise the treason indictment against King Charles was immediately thrown out as unlawful by the three Chief Justices of the Common Law Courts of England. And so, in the high-handed manner in which this august body conducts its business, the Rump Commons unconstitutionally declared itself capable of legislating alone.

It then created a bill for the King’s trial and passed it as an act without royal assent. By this stage even the incorrigible optimism of Charles Stuart would have begun to give way to a more realistic assessment of the way the wind was blowing.

Charles had a firm and unaltered view of his God-anointed position. It was largely this firmness of purpose expressed as a wholesale refusal to compromise with any and all which had brought him into conflict with his Parliaments and his citizenry and which, arguably, had brought about the ruinous collapse in the fortunes of himself and those of the noble House of whom he was but the latest progeny.

So we can be reasonably sure that he did not entertain himself in his final hours with thoughts of what might have been done, by himself or by others, in the years gone by, to avoid this disastrous outcome.

Perhaps he might have handled his dealings regarding religious worship less high-handedly. The manner in which the he imposed his chosen form of worship on the people of Scotland led directly to the Signing of the National Covenant and thus to years of needless bloodshed which would continue long after his death.

The National Covenant is signed in 1638. The bloodshed of the Covenant Wars would soon follow.

The National Covenant is signed in 1638. The bloodshed of the Covenant Wars would soon follow.

Perhaps, he might have recognized the fundamental split that had occurred with his English Parliament and returned to the land of his fathers to re-establish the separate Kingdom of Scotland. Perhaps, in 1603, his father before him, James VI/I, might have given more thoughtful consideration to the offer of the joint crown in the first place. And instead of haring across the border at the first opportunity never once to return on the twenty-two years of his remaining life, he might have considered the possible downside of the arrangement. He might have pondered how a political arrangement with a single monarch presiding over two nations with separate sovereign Parliaments and with clear and historically proven diverse interests could ever possibly work.

No such thoughts occurred to either man. Nor indeed to those who came after. Charles’ son, Charles II, restored to the throne when the whole Cromwellian nonsense crumbled to dust after the man’s death, had too many other distractions to entertain him than taking action to provide long-term political stability.

And his brother, James II, had little enough time during his reckless reign to consider what could be done before jumping into the boat and heading for France, despite the entreaties of those who had the interests of him, his Ancient House and the people of Scotland at heart.

It was James’ reckless abandonment of his responsibilities that directly gave rise to another 57 years of bloodshed and sacrifice in the Jacobite Risings.

So perhaps there was a clear inevitability about the manner of his death. The mistakes, however, were not all his.

.

Advertisements

22 June 1679, The Battle of Bothwell Bridge

On the anniversary of this key military encounter I re-post an updated version of last year’s piece……

In a previous post we looked at the Battle of Drumclog where on 1st June 1679, a small government force under Bonnie Dundee’s command was attacked and routed by a larger, irregular force of Covenanters.

Emboldened by this outstanding success the Covenanters moved to capitalise on it. While in Edinburgh, the Privy Council initiated counter measures designed to quell the rebellion before it got completely out of hand. All of this would lead to a second and decisive military encounter some three weeks later and 20 odd miles further north on 22 June at the Battle of Bothwell Bridge.

Battle of Bothwell Bridge monument

Battle of Bothwell Bridge monument

In the immediate aftermath of his defeat at Drumclog, Dundee had written a full report to his commander, the Earl of Linlithgow, Major General of his Majesty’s forces in Scotland expressing his opinion that “This may be counted the beginning of the rebellion”. And so this would seem to be the case with the sudden appearance of covenanting sympathies in many hitherto seemingly law-abiding citizens.

3rd Earl of Linlithgow, Claverhouse's commander

3rd Earl of Linlithgow, Claverhouse’s commander

While many of those to the fore of the Covenanting force could be deemed to be determined, ruthless and experienced, none of them were generals. And the military command initially fell upon Robert Hamilton who, as was so often the case in these troubled times, would feature in a prominent role on both pro and anti Stuart divide, having fought for the Stuarts in the defeats at Cromwell’s hands at Dunbar (1650) and Worcester (1651) and would eventually flee to Holland in the aftermath of the failure of the Monmouth Rising (1685) the purpose of which was to remove James VII and II from the throne, replacing him with Charles II’s illegitemate but acceptably Protestant offspring, the Duke of Monmouth.

As soon as they had abandoned their pursuit of Dundee’s defeated force after Drumclog, the Covenant Army resolved, under Hamilton’s leadership, to “continue and abide together in arms”. They understood well that it was only a matter of time before the Government would move against them, in force. On the afternoon of their victory they marched the fifteen miles to Hamilton (the village not the man) where they camped. Glasgow, where Dundee and his remaining troops stood to arms with the Government garrison under the command of Lord George Ross of Hawkhead, was only 10 miles distant.

In the wee, small hours of the following morning the post boy galloped through the dark, Edinburgh streets bearing Ross’ despatch to Linlithgow announcing the defeat at Drumclog and his intention to barricade the streets of Glasgow in the face of the advancing covenanting host. Within an hour the Privy Council were gathered and plans laid to assemble the scattered Government troops from Fife and Dumfries for the Earl of Linlithgow to lead westwards against the rebels on 4th June.

17th century Glasgow, where the Covenanting rebels attacked Claverhouse and Ross

17th century Glasgow, where the Covenanting rebels attacked Claverhouse and Ross

At sunrise on 2nd June the rebel force approached Glasgow and at 11 am made a rash and ill-judged assault on the barricades at the bottom of High Street and the Gallowgate. The troops of Ross and Claverhouse fired on them from behind these and within a short time their assailants withdrew leaving many wounded lying in the street and at least seven dead. They rallied a mile to the east of the town where the setback of their repulse now gave rise to the splits and schisms long-threatened in a mob where each man and woman considered themselves to be a party of one.

If they possessed ‘leaders of integrity and followers with a singleness of purpose’ then this army of Covenanters might have been forged into a force as strong as any led by Cromwell. However, with fully two thirds of them deemed by themselves to be preachers, with the vanity and unwillingness to subvert to the greater good often prevalent in the species, it was a hopeless cause. Even with strong leadership it would have been an almost impossible task but the leadership of this rebel force was inept to a degree rarely seen before or since in our little corner part of the world.

The total number of different shades of religious opinion amongst them would have been impossible to determine but in broad terms they were split into two factions. These being the Moderates (which was purely a relevant term) led by John Welsh of Irongray, a great grandson of John Knox. And the Honest Party, led by the previously mentioned Robert Hamilton, who had no aspirations to moderation when it came to matters religious amd political. And a considerable surprise it would have been, no doubt, for the redoubtable Mr Welsh to find himself for once outstripped in his fanaticism.

John Welsh, leader of one of the Covenant factions at Bothwell Bridge

John Welsh, leader of one of the Covenant factions at Bothwell Bridge

Having checked the forward movement of the rebels, Linlithgow now amended his initial plan of concentrating his forces in Glasgow and decided instead to carry out this assembling of his forces at Stirling. A strange choice explained only by timidity on his part and one which left both Glasgow and Edinburgh vulnerable to subsequent advance by the still intact rebel force. And if they were to repeat their manouevre of the Pentland Rising of 1666 then there might yet be an undesired outcome to this revolt.

Thus Ross and Dundee were ordered to withdraw from Glasgow towards Stirling, doing so on 3rd June while Linlithgow advanced from Edinburgh. Their forces joined at Bonnybridge on the 5th. This combined force now numbered 1800 men; horse, dragoons (mounted infantry) and foot. A despatch was then received from the magistrates of Glasgow reporting that the Covenanters, now some 7000 strong, were camped in the vicinity of Bothwell Bridge, near Hamilton.

Bothwell Bridge, scene of the eponymous battle

Bothwell Bridge, scene of the eponymous battle

Linlithgow advanced once more, reaching Kirkintilloch at midday on 6th June. A reconnaissance party reported that the rebels had now occupied Glasgow and after due consideration and consultation with his officers, Linlithgow decided that the disparity in size of the two armies was such that he risked disaster by attacking and was duly recalled to Edinburgh by the Privy Council. Drumclog was only 5 days old and the rebellion was now entirely out of hand.

Still more of the disaffected rallied to the Covenant banner and the rebel force continued to grow in size, and to their collective misfortune, to grow also in disparity of strongly-held opinion. There now ensued fully two weeks of internecine bickering over religious intricacies. On 8th June a ‘very great convention’ was held in Rutherglen where a resolution was determined by the Honest Party to remain aloof from Welsh and his moderates. They met again the following day where both sides of the debate agreed on the necessity of issuing a unified, public declaration of their aims. Yet neither could accept the other’s drafting of this. On 10th June there was a ‘very hot disputation, particularly concerning the indulgence’ which is to say who was to be forgiven for previous political / religious transgressions and who was not. Again no resolution was determined. And so it continued. Each passing day brought further discussion and yet more disagreement as the differences between the disparate viewpoints became emphasised and that which drew them together became drowned in the din.

But now the King, his majesty Charles II, became stirred into action by the reports of rebellion from the north. He decided to appoint his illegitimate son, James, Duke of Monmouth as commander-in-chief of his forces in Scotland. Monmouth’s orders were issued on 11th June and he disembarked in Edinburgh on 19th June.

James, Duke of Monmouth. commander of the Government army at Bothwell Bridge

James, Duke of Monmouth. commander of the Government army at Bothwell Bridge

He brought only two troops of horse from England to supplement the Scottish Government’s now concentrated army which he rendezvoused with at Blackburn, West Lothian on 19th June, assuming overall command of a combined force of some 5000 men.

If this army force was small in numbers it was strong in leadership. Monmouth had extensive campaigning experience in Flanders. The 3 principal dragoon officers were seasoned and experienced men. Claverhouse and the Earls of Home and Airlie commanded their own separate troops and with Montrose (not The Montrose, note) leading the Life Guards there was no shortage of skill, experience and, crucially, military discipline.

On 20th June Monmouth was at Muirhead and on the evening of 21 June he was advancing on Bothwell Bridge and the larger Covenanting Army. How had things gone with them in the meantime? Not well. The advance of the Government Army had merely accentuated the acute divisions in their camp. On 16th, 17th and 18th, camped on Shawhead Moor, their leadership, such as it was, continued to meet in acrimonious debate. Hamilton’s Moderates had proposed a Day of Humiliation which Welsh’s Honest men had protested. With the whole gathering deep in confusion they had recrossed Bothwell Bridge on 18th June and encamped on Hamilton Moor.

The wrangling continued through the 19th, and on 20th June they were joined by reinforcements from Galloway. These were favourers of the Indulgence and thus natural allies of Welsh’s party. They submitted a written statement of their desires to Hamilton who promptly, and unsurprisingly, rejected it.

Late in the evening of 21 June, just hours before the battle would commence, the two factions met in their final council of war. One desired to purge the army of undesirables while the other refused to fight under the officers which had been selected prior to the arrival of the Galloway men which had given the moderates numerical superiority in the argument. After heated discussion Hamilton and his people withdrew. The Moderates sat down to frame a petition to Monmouth but once again agreement over the content proved impossible. And in a few short hours this host of pious men, leaderless, unprepared and distracted would blunder into battle.

The surviving comments from among their number give us an insight into the shortcomings of their situation;……..”We were not concerned with an enemy as if there were none within 100 miles of us”………………..”There were none went through the army to see if we wanted powder or ball”……”A little before day we saw the enemy kindling their matches a great way off”…………
At about 3 am in the morning of 22 June the advance guard of Monmouth’s army closed on one end of the bridge. The rebels formed into two bodies with one holding their end of the bridge and the other drawn up a mile or so to the rear, while the single piece of cannon they possessed was dragged down to command the approach to the bridge. This piece and its gunner would be the star of the show for the discomfited rebels.

An exchange of pistol fire began across the water as Monmouth came to the front line. The two rebel factions, faced now with the imminent destruction of their host, had managed to thrash together a parley with which they could both live and now this representation was made to Monmouth, who could do little but entertain it. So hostilities ceased temporarily.

Their submission though was merely a list of their grievances and a request that they might meet with Monmouth to discuss the matters. The erstwhile Duke sent back that he could not enter into any discussions with rebels until they lay down their arms. He did not bother to await their reply before recommencing preparations for his assault and ordered the deployment of his own cannon to command the bridge. A second parley was sent out from the Covenant lines desiring to be told the nature of any terms that he might have brought from England. Monmouth sent them packing and duly ordered his cannon to open fire.

And this provided the first surprise of the day as the lone Covenant gun, manned by a stalwart whose name posterity has not preserved but was their one true hero if the day, drove the government artillerymen from their pieces. However, after their initial discomfiture they returned to their pieces and under the cover of their fire a storming party of dragoons led by the splendidly named Major Theophilus Oglethorpe, stormed and forced the bridge.

Oglethorp's dragoons storm the bridge

Oglethorp’s dragoons storm the bridge

Under instruction not to advance any further than the other end of said bridge, they became carried away by the heat of the moment and advanced up the hill towards the main body of the enemy. Who, perceiving the small numbers of the force approaching them, moved down the hill and drove them into the houses at that end of the bridge.

In response 300 foot, under the command of Lord Livingstone’s son, were sent across the bridge and they, in turn, drove the Covenanters back on their main body. Monmouth himself now came forward over the bridge with his own troop and together with those already over, formed up to face the rebels ‘but two carabines shot apart’.

A haphazard and leaderless effort, but an effort nonetheless, was made by the rebels in an attempt to rescue the day. An assault was made on a body of Atholl Highlanders on Monmouth’s right, as the commander sought to form his second line. A brief cannonade forced them back in confusion with the Covenanting horse among them driven headlong from the field. Seconds later the foot joined the stampede and the rout began.

Oglethorp and Claverhouse were ordered to pursue with Monmouth following with the foot. At about ten o’clock that morning a messenger was despatched to Edinburgh bearing news of the victory.

And so the rule of law was once again imposed in all areas of the nation. The defeat at Drumclog could now be placed in proper perspective as a one-off thrown up by the particular circumstances of the day. And appropriate, measured action could now be taken against those who had initiated rebellion against King and lawful Government.

The bubble which had been blown at Rutherglen two months previously had now burst spectacularly with the rout at Bothwell. Monmouth was able to lead his men through the country across which the rebels had so recently roamed at will and confirmed the conclusion that all signs of rebellion were extinguished. On June 25th the local militia were dismissed, their function fulfilled. And on the 26th Monmouth returned to Edinburgh for the grateful thanks of the Privy Council, receiving the Freedom of the City in a large gold box. By 29th June he was on his way back to London.

Controversy, inevitably abounds as we look back on the whole episode, particularly in relation to two of the day’s participants; the Duke of Monmouth, commander-in-chief of the Government force and a lowly commander of horse troops, John Graham of Claverhouse.

Within 6 years Monmouth was dead: tried and executed for treason following his defeat at the Battle of Sedgemoor as he attempted to overthrow his uncle, King James VII and II, and seize the British throne for himself. From this vantage point many re-assess his behaviour at, and after Bothwell Bridge and seek to find indications, through his clemency towards the rebels, of his future treasonous actions.

As far as Claverhouse is concerned there has been as much opprobrium heaped upon him by future historians over his actions at Bothwell Bridge as there is at any other occasion in his career. The attempt to redress which is the driving force for this blog.

Much of this abuse is due to Sir Walter Scott’s depiction of the events of Bothwell Bridge in his novel,Old Mortality, which was published in 1816, nearly 140 years after the events took place. Scott gives Claverhouse a degree of prominence which far outweighs his actual involvement on the day and  also bestows upon him an aura of rapacious cruelty and vengefulness for which there is no basis. However, to be fair to Scott, he could have had little idea of the extent to which his work would outlive and outgrow him to the degree that it has. As Charles Terry, briefly and eloquently puts it, sober history competes unequally with romance.

Scott, author of Old Mortality

Scott, author of Old Mortality

Scott portrays Claverhouse as a colonel at the battle, promoted to General in the aftermath, whereas he was but a plain captain of horse, on the day and for some time afterwards. He and General Tam Dalziel, who was not in fact present at the battle having refused to serve under Monmouth, are credited by Scott with the ruthless pursuit of the fleeing rebels, in flagrant disobedience of Monmouth’s orders, rapaciously slaughtering the vanquished enemy.

Doubtless the emotion generated by his defeat at Drumclog would have been strong. The extensive source material relating to the battle itself and its immediate aftermath make passing mention only of his leading the cavalry on the right once Monmouth was over the bridge and reference to the capture ‘with his own two hands’ of two Covenant battle standards. Once again tradition becomes crystallized into fact in the face of a total absence of evidence. But it was ever thus.

28th November 1666, The Battle of Rullion Green and the End of the Pentland Rising

When the National Covenant was drawn up in 1638 virtually the whole nation of Scotland queued up to append their signature (below Montrose’s) to this historic document. By the time the Solemn League and Covenant was drafted in 1643, the tone had become more extreme and the appendants fewer.

The National Covenant (1638)

The National Covenant (1638)

By 1660, when Charles II was restored to his throne, signaling the end of that most miserable of periods known as the Cromwellian Interregnum, most Scots had had their fill of covenants, particularly amongst the political leadership, the nobility. And only the hard core remnant in the south west of the country held to the now extremist viewpoint.

During the 25 years between Charles ll’s restoration and his death in 1685, hard core factions in Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Galloway maintained the pot of febrile fanaticism in a boiling condition. Despite the efforts of the authorities to maintain law and order, lawlessness whilst quelled, was never fully eliminated. With conventicles,open air gatherings presided over by kirk ministers where often hysterical behaviour masqueraded as divine worship , the principal mechanism for coordinating community-wide disregard for the law.

Periodically during this quarter century, the enthusiasm of these factions peaked and armed insurrection then ensued. For the most part these efforts displayed common characteristics leading inevitably to disasterous failure: lack of weapons, lack of leadership, lack of a coherent plan, an absence of common agreement as to the specific nature of their divine mission and a grievous failure to ignore minute stratifications of doctrinal disagreement on the eve of battle in order to present a united front to their enemy.

On the one occasion when their ducks fortuitously lined up in a row, at the Battle of Drumclog in 1679, they were able to combine the element of surprise, a local advantage in numbers and favourable terrain, to achieve limited, localised military success. However, this merely encouraged yet more of the unruly to harness their fortunes to a wagon which subsequently careered madly to destruction.

Drumclog stands alone as a covenanting military success during this period, and is balanced out by a litany of failure; the Battles of Bothwell Bridge (June 1679), Airds Moss (1680), and earliest of all, Rullion Green (1666).

Indeed if some of the basic lessons from this initial, sweeping defeat had been absorbed then the future calamities might have been avoided. However, it was not part of the philosophical approach of covenanters to look dispassionately on their failures in order that learnings might be taken from them, since this might too closely require some admission that the chosen sons and daughters of Jacob were mistaken in their analysis or intent. So each subsequent rising saw efforts renewed to re-invent the wheel from its most basic level.

Let us look, specifically then at the train of events that culminated in the Battle of Rullion Green.

After Charles ll’s restoration to the throne in 1660, the various mechanisms of Cromwellian rule were dismantled and things largely returned to they way they were before his father’s disagreements with both his parliaments led to full scale civil war in 1642. In 1663 bishops were re-installed as an estate of the Scottish Parliament, much to the disgruntlement of covenanting folk who held no truck with those appointed to intercede between good Presbyterians and their god.

Charles ll, restored to the throne in 1660

Charles ll, restored to the throne in 1660

Soon, the scale of illegal field conventicles was such that the Government felt compelled to take action, passing legislation to fine any and all who failed to attend worship, as it was intended, in their own parish church. Rather than administer this process through the local land-owners, who were often overtly sympathetic, they brought in external support in the shape of Sir James Turner, whose troops were required to be supported in he area. In the face of this escalation of government action against non-conformers, the extent of field conventicles did not diminish.

Sir James Turner, appointed by the Privy Council to impose order in the south west

Sir James Turner, appointed by the Privy Council to impose order in the south west

 

Things did not improve and further forays by Turner were carried out in the spring of 1666. Shortly thereafter, the Government took the decision to establish a standing army in Scotland. A combined infantry and cavalry force of some 3000 men, with the command given to General Thomas Dalyell, a veteran of the Battle of Worcester (1651) and subsequently the Polish Wars under the Russian Tsar, Alexei l.

 

General Thomas Dalyell, commander of the Government army at Rullion Green

General Thomas Dalyell, commander of the Government army at Rullion Green

The decisive flashpoint occurred on 15 November 1666 when a number of Dumfries-shire lairds with their tenants, who had been involved in a minor confrontation with troopers two days previously decided to strike at Turner before he took any further action.

They surprised him in his pyjamas and took him prisoner. Finding themselves, even at this early stage in the proceedings, without a plan, they paused. Once word of their imprudence was out, however, the full mechanism of government reaction began to move apace. The Privy Council immediately took the appropriate steps to quell what they perceived to be a full-scale rebellion. Tam Dalyell was instructed to march his available force to Glasgow while Stirling bridge and various Forth ferry crossings were guarded to prevent any southward movement of covenant sympathisers.

Turner’s captors were in a difficult position. They perceived of their action as being simply a loyal protest against military oppression. Their options were now to disband and await arrest or move to extend their act into full-scale rebellion. On 21st November, an official proclamation was issued which denounced their action and made no mention of any indemnity for those surrendering. And so they moved for escalation. Their appeals for support fell largely on deaf ears but by close of play on the 22nd they had pulled together a force of over 600 men and command was given to Colonel James Wallace. A soldier not entirely without experience having served as a captain in the Marquis of Argyll’s covenanting army during the Bishop’s War in 1640 and subsequently in Ulster.

Colonel James Wallace, commander of the insurgents at Rullion Green

Colonel James Wallace, commander of the insurgents at Rullion Green

Turning to face their perceived oppressor this uncertain body of men began to march towards Edinburgh, hoping to pick up reinforcements on the way. Trudging through the cold, wet, short days they held a council of war at Douglas in Lanarkshire. Loud voices were raised in favour of abandoning their enterprise. However, as was often the case when the extremists met to discuss issues, more fanatical tones held sway. Surely the very sudden and unexpected nature of this mission was, in itself, a sign from God. A purpose was proclaimed – the restoration of the Covenants. With the redoubtable Reverend John Welsh of Irongray present in their midst, anything less would have been the surprise. And renewed somewhat in their vigour, they continued to squelch their way towards the Capital.

Most onlookers, even those who sympathised with their cause, viewed the whole escapade as hopeless and remained indoors. During the next dismal, rain-swept night in Bathgate, around half of them straggled away.

The following day, what was left of them, probably 900 in number, reached Colinton, from where they could see Edinburgh Castle. An emissary from the Duke of Hamilton approached them and pleaded for their surrender. Colonel Wallace, who could recognise a doomed project when he saw one but could not be accused of lacking optimism, sent messages to Hamilton and Dalyell indicating that he and his men were willing to discuss terms of surrender.

The reply duly received from the Privy Council advised them simply to lay down their arms “that they might petition for mercy”. Things were beginning to look pretty bleak indeed for these sodden souls and they began to withdraw whence they came, along the eastern flank of the Pentland Hills, while Dalyell continued to close in on them.

On the 28th they paused again, at Rullion Green to regroup and prepare a fresh parley. Dalyell though had had enough and immediately attacked. The few covenanting horsemen made something of an issue of the fight on their part of the field but Wallace’s infantry, exhausted, ill-armed, ill-prepared, ill-led, so much like their compadres at Bothwell Bridge, succumbed quickly to the musket fire of their regular opponents. The covenanting army dissolved into a terrified rabble and fled in all directions leaving some fifty dead and the same number prisoner. Wallace and Welsh escaped the field, and justice, escaping in the end to Holland to swell the ranks of the disaffected already encamped there. And it was from here some 23 years later that their ultimate salvation would come

The graves and monument at Rullion Green today

The graves and monument at Rullion Green today

Retribution for the prisoners was reflective of the times: balanced but harsh in the end. The Privy Council accorded them the not insignificant legal services of Sir George Lockhart and Sir George Mackenzie, two of the foremost advocates of the day. Mackenzie pleaded for clemency on the basis that they had been offered quarter on the field of battle. A claim supported by Dalyell himself. However, it was determined that the accused had not been involved in a just war but rather an act of sedition and so the accepted rules relating to war did not apply.

Their right arms, which had been raised to support the Covenant at the outset of the rising, were cut off and sent to Lanark for display. A further 30 supporters were hanged in the ensuing days in Glasgow and some 50 odd transported to Barbados. Extensive finings and forfeitures were also carried out.

An unhappy episode in Scotland’s history. However, worth placing in some context. Although ministers were drawn towards it at an early stage, its Covenanting label was only adopted by the rebellion after it had begun. Furthermore the initial spark behind it all was simply long-standing resentment against government fines and the associated aggressive methods used by government forces to enforce these and to obtain quarters and victuals for themselves.

And while the stoking of the flames of hatred by Presbyterian ministers at conventicles led directly to this unhappy finale, as it did indeed at Bothwell Bridge, there was as has been pointed out “a genuine feeling of grievance, a real wish to preserve important things, seen to be under threat. Something precious and pure, personal as well as communal, was perceived within the rites of the Presbyterian Kirk”.

Sadly, for us all, the preciousness and pureness were always drowned out by the hatred and the fanaticism.

The inscription on the monument at Rullion Green

The inscription on the monument at Rullion Green

Death of Charles II…..and its all downhill from here.

On this day in 1685 Charles II died after a short, sudden illness and was received into the Catholic Church on his passing.

Chas II admitted to Holy Mother ChurchCharles is converted to Catholicism on his death bed…..

And so his brother began his brief and troubled reign as James II and VII. The proclamation of his accession in Scotland was signed on 10th February by the entire Scottish Privy Council, including Bonnie Dundee, with no mention being made of the Covenant, that troubled document which had overshadowed all political and military events in Scotland since 1638.

Although it was in Scotland that Charles had first landed and been proclaimed King in 1649, on the basis that he signed up to the Covenant, he had had little interest in matters north of the border following his eventual Restoration to the throne of the three kingdoms in 1660. So in the following 25 years he made no effort to travel back to the kingdom of his fathers, in much the same fashion as his grandfather, James I and VI, after he acceded to the unified throne in 1603.

Chas II signs up to the Covenant

Charles II signs up to the Covenant

To be fair there were many other matters to demand his attention during this time; the first, second and third Dutch wars,  the Great Plague of London, the Great Fire of London and his determined efforts to achieve some degree of emancipation for English Catholics to name but a few.

great fire of london

The Great Fire of London….amongst Charles II’s concerns

Charles’ good lady wife, Catherine of Braganza, fell pregnant on a number of occasions but sadly none of these ended successfully. And since the fourteen odd illegitimate offspring that the “Merry Monarch” was able to produce could not inherit the throne the succession duly passed to James. If the loyal citizens of Scotland had thought that Charles’ reign had been a disappointment then they would soon find that there were new depths of dismay to be tholed.

If Charles was somewhat disconnected from affairs in Scotland the new monarch was considerably more familiar with matters Scots having set up in residence in Holyrood way back in 1679 when Charles had taken suddenly and seriously ill and a political storm had blown up in England over a Catholic being next in line to the throne. Irony abounds. James had been made a member of the Scottish Privy Council and rapidly came to take a dominant position on this august body which ruled the country on a day to bay basis in the King’s name.

holyrood-640x553Holyrood Palace ..from where the Duke of York headed up the Scottish Privy Council in 1679

Dundee had little involvement with Charles during his reign but had long enjoyed the patronage of James, from when he was first recommended to him by William of Orange following Dundee’s service in the Dutch Army. In due course, Dundee became a friend and close advisor to the then Duke of York. Sadly James took advice from many and was unable to distinguish between the good and the bad.

james-ii as DofY

James II & VII when still the Duke of York

January 24th 1679 – Charles II dissolves the Cavalier Parliament

On this day in 1679 Charles II dissolved the seemingly interminable Cavalier Parliament. This had opened almost 18 years previously in May 1661 but still sat for less time than Charles I’s Long Parliament of 1640 – 1660.

The first act of this august body was to pass the Sedition Act which declared the Solemn League and Covenant null and void and ordered it be publicly burned. 17 years too late in the mind of many, as by then the damage was done. The Solemn League, signed in 1643, was an agreement between the Scottish Covenanters and the English Parliament by which the Scots agreed to provide military aid to the English against their mutual, lawful king, in exchange for their agreement to ensure the extirpation of papacy and prelacy and, ultimately and bizarrely, the imposition of the full weight of dogmatic Presbyterianism on the people of England.

the solemn league

   Solemn League and Covenant – publicly repudiated and burned by order of the Cavalier Parliament

Unsurprisingly there was a host of other legislation passed during this epic sitting and much repealing of legislation passed during the twenty years of the Long Parliament, so rigidly opposed to Charles I. Although at one point Parliament had to adjourn to Oxford to conduct its business due to the Great Fire.

great fire of london                                Great Fire of London – Cavalier Parliament moved to Oxford

This included the Militia Act which placed the command of the armed forces wholly and clearly under the King’s authority. Also the Indemnity and Oblivion Act which pardoned all involved in the regicide of Charles I in 1649 with the exception of those directly involved. Who was to be included on this list was the subject of rancorous debate for some two months as names were added to the original list of seven miscreants and others taken off. John Milton, of Paradise Lost fame, walked free.

John Milton

John Milton – pardoned for his part in Charles I’s regicide

Ultimately only thirteen individuals were executed for this heinousness. Although nineteen were imprisoned for life and a further three, already dead by the time of Charles II’s restoration, had their bodies desecrated.

Also repealed was the Bishops’ Exclusion Act of 1642 which permitted the aforementioned Bishops to resume their temporal positions from which they had been heaved so unceremoniously by the previous regime. And the first licensing of hackney carriages took place.

hackney-coach-1680

Hackney cabs – first licensed by the Cavalier Parliament

However, after this promising start relations between the king and his parliament deteriorated. Prejudice against the King’s brother, the Duke of York and future King James II and VII, led to a raft of provocative legislation; requiring the taking of oaths renouncing papal authority, imposing the requirement of parliamentary consent to royal marriages and the threat of charges of high treason against the Duke of York led to a difficult and confrontational atmosphere reminiscent of the situation prevailing under Charles I twenty years earlier.

Ultimately the king’s disastrous foreign intriguing over the Dutch French war, with his foreign secretary Lord Danby, during which it was decided that marrying the Duke of York’s daughter, Mary, to William of Orange would be helpful and constructive step to ensuring the future prosperity of the Stuart monarchy, led to a situation of deep and mutual distrust which was tipped over the edge by the hysterical nonsense of the Popish Plot and Charles was forced to agree the parliament’s dissolution.

 

 

 

The English Convention Parliament (1689) – King James’ Usurpation Legitimised.

James II succeeded to the throne of the three kingdoms in 1685 following the death of his brother Charles II. The three years of his reign were an unhappy time for all as the king’s Catholicism left him unprepared to compromise even a little with the growing religious demands of his mostly Protestant subjects, particularly in Scotland.

James II                                                                   King James II

Dissatisfaction led to intrigue and conspiracy as William of Orange’s ambition for the crown coincided with the desire of many of the men of influence at the Royal Court to replace James with a suitably protestant successor.

Amid much scheming in both Dutch and English courts, towards the end of 1688, a plan was hatched to usurp James. And so, on 5th November William of Orange landed at Brixham at the head of an uninvited army of some 40,000 men, twice the size of the Spanish Armada,

Landing of William of Orange

William of Orange lands at Torbay

On the 9th November William’s forces seized Exeter after the magistrates had fled. And on 18th November Plymouth surrendered to the Dutch. There was a brief skirmish at Wincanton where a small force of James’ English army defeated a small party of Dutch scouts before retreating.

However, as the days went on there were widespread political and military defections to William as James was abandoned by subjects, friends and family.

As the Dutch army marched towards London, James, with characteristic indecision, first fled the capital only to return on being discovered in flight.

However, by 17th December with William and his forces on the verge of entering London there could be no other recourse than the king abandoning his throne and leaving for exile. On this day James was attended by Bonnie Dundee and Colin Lindsay, 3rd Earl of Balcarres, the last 2 nobles of his court who remained loyal to the Stuarts.

(c) Traquair Charitable Trust; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Colin Lindsay, 3rd Earl of Balcarres

The three of them walked for a while in the Mall. James briefed Balcarres to attend to the civil affairs of Scotland and told Dundee he would receive a commission to command his army. And he left them trudging disconsolately off into exile.

So James was gone and William had arrived, without any major fighting much to the satisfaction of the miscreants involved. However, such a usurpation was unprecedented and had no easy resolution from the constitutional viewpoint.

William refused to simply take the crown as de facto king, preferring that the whole arrangement be properly documented and he gave instructions for an assembly of peers to be called. This gathering, on 22 January 1689, has become known as the Convention Parliament. Its purpose was to justify the overthrow of the properly anointed monarch and as such it had no legal standing.

For three weeks month arguments were heard as to the various proposals for monarchical arrangements going forward. Should William rule alone, or his wife, Mary who was James’s sister? Should, in fact, the throne pass to James and Mary’s sister Anne, who was satisfyingly protestant and who did, in the fullness of time, inherit the throne. Arguments were also put forward for a republic and the small voices of the loyal bishops proposed that James should be conditionally restored to the throne of his fathers.

De Hooghe's image of William III addressing the convention 'Parliament'

William of Orange addresses the Convention Parliament

It was, however, duly determined that since England was a protestant kingdom only a protestant could rule. The Commons agreed that the throne had become vacant due to the king’s abdication but the Lords rejected this as abdication was then a term of no legal standing. And furthermore that if the throne had become vacant then it should pass to the next in line which would be Mary.

Eventually, amidst the tawdry postulating over how best to tie up the loose ends of the whole debased affair, the Lords proposed that William and Mary should rule jointly, and the Commons agreed on the basis that William alone would hold the regal power.

William IIIs coronation

Coronation of William III and II and Mary II

On 13th February William and Mary were duly proclaimed joint monarchs of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. And on 23rd February, with the same deft touch, the new King William retrospectively converted the Convention into a legitimate Parliament by dissolving it and summoning it again to pass the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689.

He further ordered that a similar assembly be called in Edinburgh in order that he might be properly anointed monarch there. And it was this Convention of the Three Estates which opened on 14 March 1689 from which Bonnie Dundee withdrew and left to eventually raise the standard for the King and commence the campaign which ended at Killiecrankie.

And so a key turning point was reached in the History of Scotland. Within 20 years we would witness such events as the Massacre of Glencoe, the Darien disaster and finally and fatally, Parliamentary union with all that has come to pass from there.

%d bloggers like this: