loss of blood as to be fatal. A wound in the left breast, between the third and fourth upper ribs, pierced downwards through the midriff and caul, sufficient to produce death, but not immediately. He had also a dangerous slash in the right
leg. It is believed that the duke, after his right arm was disabled, being ambidexter, shifted his weapon, and killed Mohun with his left hand. The wound in his own breast was the last that was inflicted, and colonel Hamilton gave his
oath that it was the sword of general Macartney, Mohun's second, which dealt it. So strong was the presumption of the truth of this, that the general absconded, and when brought to trial in the ensuing reign, the evidence upon which he was acquitted still left the matter doubtful.
The death of two men of rank in so bloody a rencounter, was in itself enough to produce a strong feeling of horror in the public mind. The unfair play by which it was believed one of them had been sacrificed, filled every honourable bosom with indignation ; and the agitation was increased by reports that the duke had fallen a victim to assassination instigated by political hatred. Immediately before the duel took place, he had been named ambassador extraordinary to Paris, with powers to effect an arrangement for the restoration of the exiled family on the death of the queen; and the party who were desirous of such a consummation, openly alleged that his death had been conspired by the whigs with a view to prevent it. This does not appear to have been the case, however true it may be that Mohun was a zealot in politics, and disreputable in his private character.[1] The duke's body was conveyed to Scotland for burial. The deplorable death of so amiable a nobleman spread a very general regret; a bill to prevent duelling was in consequence introduced into the house of commons, but it was dropt after the first reading.
HAMILTON, John, a secular priest, made himself remarkable in the 16th century by his furious zeal in behalf of the church of Rome ; leaving all the Scottish ecclesiastics of that period far behind by the boldness and energy with which he defended the tenets of the Romish church, and assailed those of the reformed religion. There is nothing known of the earlier part of his life, but
- ↑ The following curious anecdote respecting the fifth duke of Hamilton, son of the above, occurs in a manuscript account of the ducal family, in the possession of Mr Chancellor of Shieldhill:—
"Upon the 31 st of October, 1726, he was, at the palace of Holyrood house, installed knight of the most noble order of the thistle, by James, earl of Findlater and Seafield, appointed for that effect representative of king George I.
"The regalia, now after the union, being locked up in the castle, they wanted the sword of state for that purpose, and, as the storie went, they had recourse to the earle of Rothes's, which was not only gifted by general M'Kertney to him, but the same with which he should have so basely stabbed the duke his father. And the guards, who drew up about the earle of Findlater, as king's commissioner, chanced also to be the Scots Fuzielieres, then under the command of the said M'Kertney; which occasioned the following verses:—
" Ye sons of old Scotland, come hither and look
On Rothes's sword, that knighted the duke.
Dispell all your thoughts, your cares, and your fears,
Being noblie guarded by your own fuzieliers.Yet
The peers and the heraulds were in a strange bustle,
How they could install a knight of the thistle ;
For, wanting the sword and honours of state,
What shame could they get to lay on his pate ?
Some voted a cane, and others a mace,
But true-hearted Seafield's
My lord, upon honour, the regalia are fled,
Which were basely sold off by me and your dade,—
But—here's Rothes's sword—so down on your knee!
Now, rise up a knight and a knave lyke me."
