committed by the Macdonalds: and he believed his 1661. people, when they had the better of them, had taken cruel revenges: this was to be imputed to the heat of the time, and to the tempers of the people, 123 who had been much provoked by the burning of his whole country, and by much blood that was shed. And as to many stories laid to the charge of his men, he knew some of them were mere forgeries, and others were aggravated much beyond the truth: but, what truth soever might be in them, he could not be answerable but for what was done by himself, or by his orders. As to the third head, of his compliance with the usurpation, he had stood out till the nation was quite conquered: and in that case it was the received opinion both of divines and lawyers, that men might lawfully submit to an usurpation, when forced to it by an inevitable necessity. It was the epidemical sin of the nation. His circumstances were such, that more than a bare compliance was required of him. What he did that way was only to preserve himself and his family, and was not done on design to oppose the king's interest. Nor did his service suffer by any thing he did. This was the substance of his defence in a long speech, which he made with so good a grace and so skilfully, that his character was as much raised as his family suffered by the prosecution. In one speech, excusing his compliance with Cromwell, he said, what could he think of that matter, after a man so eminent in the law as his majesty's advocate had taken the engagement? This inflamed the other so much, that he called him an impudent villain, and was not so much as chid for that barbarous treatment. Lord Argile gravely said, he had 1661. learnt in his affliction to bear reproaches: but if the parliament saw no cause to condemn him, he was less concerned at the king's advocate's railing. The king's advocate put in an additional article, of charging him with accession to the king's death, for which all the proof he offered lay in a presumption: Cromwell had come down to Scotland with his army in September 1648, and at that time he had many and long conferences with Argile; and immediately upon his return to London the treaty with the king was broken off, and the king was brought to his trial: the advocate from thence inferred, that it was to be presumed that Cromwell and Argile had concerted that matter between them. While this process was carried on, which was the solemnest that ever was in Scotland, the lord Lorn continued at court soliciting for his father; and obtained a letter to be writ by the king to the earl of Midletoun, requiring him to order his advocate not to insist on any public proceedings before the indemnity he himself had passed in the year 1651. He also required him, when the trial was ended, to send up the whole process, and lay it before the king, before 124 the parliament should give sentence. The earl of Midletoun submitted to the first part of this: so all farther inquiry into those matters was superseded. But as to the second part of the letter, it looked so like a distrust of the justice of the parliament, that he said, he durst not let it be known, till he had a second and more positive order, which he earnestly desired might not be sent; for it would very much discourage this loyal and affectionate parliament : and he begged earnestly to have that order recalled ; which was done. For some time there was a stop to the proceedings, in which lord Argile was con- 1661. triving an escape out of the castle. He kept his bed for some days: and his lady being of the same stature with himself, and coming to him in a chair, he had put on her clothes, and was going into the chair: but he apprehended he should be discovered, and his execution hastened; and so his heart failed him. The earl of Midletoun resolved, if possible, to have the king's death fastened on him. By this means, as he would die with the more infamy, so he reckoned this would put an end to the family, since nobody durst move in favour of the son of one judged guilty of that crime. And he, as was believed, hoped to obtain a grant of his estate. Search was made into all the precedents of men who had been at any time condemned upon presumption. And the earl of Midletoun resolved to argue the matter himself, hoping that the weight of his authority would bear down all opposition. He managed it indeed with more force than decency: he was too vehement, and maintained the argument with a strength that did more honour to his parts than to his justice or his character. But Gilmore, though newly made president of the session, which is the supreme court of justice in that kingdom, abhorred the precedent of attainting a man upon so remote a presumption; and looked upon it as less justifiable, than the much decried attainder of the earl of Strafford. So he undertook the argument against Midletoun they replied upon one another thirteen or fourteen times in a debate that lasted many hours. Gilmore had so clearly the better of the argument, that though the parliament was so set against Argile, that every thing was like to pass that might 1661. blacken him, yet, when it was put to the vote, he was acquitted as to that by a great majority: at which he expressed so much joy, that he seemed little concerned at any thing that could happen to him after that. All that remained was to make his compliance with the usurpers appear to be treason. The debate was like to have lasted long. The earl of Lowdun, who had been lord chancellor, and was counted the eloquentest man of that time, for he had a copiousness in speaking that was never ex125 hausted, (he was come of his family, and was his particular friend,) had prepared a long and learned argument on that head. He had gathered the opinions both of divines and lawyers, and had laid together a great deal out of history, more particularly out of the Scotish history, to shew that it had never been censured as a crime: but that, on the contrary, in all their confusions, the men, who had merited the most of the crown in all its shakings, were persons who had got credit by compliance with the side that prevailed, and by that means had brought things about again. But, while it was very doubtful how it would have gone, Monk, by an inexcusable baseness, had searched among his letters, and found some that were writ by Argile to himself, that were hearty and zealous on their side. These he sent down to Scotland. And after they were read in parliament, it could not be pretended that his compliance was feigned, or extorted from him. Every body blamed Monk for sending these down, since it was a betraying the confidence that they (had) then lived in. They were sent by an express, and came to the earl of Midletoun after the parliament was engaged in the debate. So he ordered the let ters to be read. This was much blamed, as contrary 1661. to the forms of justice, since probation was closed on both sides. But the reading of them silenced all farther debate. All his friends went out: and he was condemned as guilty of treason. The marquis of Montrose only refused to vote. He owned, he had too much resentment to judge in that matter. It was designed he should be hanged, as the marquis of Montrose had been: but it was carried that he should be beheaded, and that his head should be set up where lord Montrose's had been set. He received his sentence decently, and composed himself to suffer, [with a courage that was not expected from him.] tion. The day before his death he wrote to the king, And execujustifying his intentions in all he had acted in the matter of the covenant: he protested his innocence, as to the death of the late king: he submitted patiently to his sentence, and wished the king a long and happy reign: he cast his family and children upon his mercy; and prayed that they might not suffer for their father's fault. On the twenty-seventh of May, the day appointed for his execution, he came to the scaffold in a very solemn but undaunted manner, accompanied with many of the z (Many negative arguments have been brought against this charge on Monck, both by Campbell in the Biographia Britannica, and in his Lives of the Admirals; and by Rose, in his Observations on Fox's Historical Work. But they have been ably discussed by Sergeant Heywood in his Vindication of the last mentioned work; and the truth of the accusation is perhaps sufficiently confirmed |