Produced by Irma Spehar, Janet Blenkinship and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net.
Produced from page images provided by Internet
Archive/Canadian Libraries.







  AN OUTLINE OF THE

  RELATIONS BETWEEN

  ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND
     (500-1707)

  BY

  ROBERT S. RAIT
  FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD



  LONDON
  BLACKIE & SON, LIMITED, 50 OLD BAILEY, E.C.
  GLASGOW AND DUBLIN
  1901




PREFATORY NOTE


I desire to take this opportunity of acknowledging valuable aid derived
from the recent works on Scottish History by Mr. Hume Brown and Mr.
Andrew Lang, from Mr. E.W. Robertson's _Scotland under her Early Kings_,
and from Mr. Oman's _Art of War_. Personal acknowledgments are due to
Professor Davidson of Aberdeen, to Mr. H. Fisher, Fellow of New College,
and to Mr. J.T.T. Brown, of Glasgow, who was good enough to aid me in
the search for references to the Highlanders in Scottish mediæval
literature, and to give me the benefit of his great knowledge of this
subject.

                                                            R.S.R.

    NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD,
          _April, 1901_.




                     CONTENTS


                                                           Page

   INTRODUCTION                                              ix

  CHAP. I. RACIAL DISTRIBUTION AND FEUDAL RELATIONS,
           _c._500-1066 a.d.                                  1

   "   II. SCOTLAND AND THE NORMANS, 1066-1286               11

   "  III. THE SCOTTISH POLICY OF EDWARD I, 1286-1296        31

   "   IV. THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, 1297-1328                41

   "    V. EDWARD III AND SCOTLAND, 1328-1399                64

   "   VI. SCOTLAND, LANCASTER, AND YORK, 1400-1500          80

   "  VII. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ENGLISH ALLIANCE,
          1500-1542                                         101

   " VIII. THE PARTING OF THE WAYS, 1542-1568               116

   "   IX. THE UNION OF THE CROWNS, 1568-1625               141

   "    X. "THE TROUBLES IN SCOTLAND", 1625-1688            157

   "   XI. THE UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS, 1689-1707          180

   APPENDIX A. REFERENCES TO THE HIGHLANDERS IN
               MEDIÆVAL LITERATURE                          195

     "      B. THE FEUDALIZATION OF SCOTLAND                204

     "      C. TABLE OF THE COMPETITORS OF 1290             214

   INDEX                                                    215




INTRODUCTION


The present volume has been published with two main objects. The writer
has attempted to exhibit, in outline, the leading features of the
international history of the two countries which, in 1707, became the
United Kingdom. Relations with England form a large part, and the heroic
part, of Scottish history, relations with Scotland a very much smaller
part of English history. The result has been that in histories of
England references to Anglo-Scottish relations are occasional and
spasmodic, while students of Scottish history have occasionally
forgotten that, in regard to her southern neighbour, the attitude of
Scotland was not always on the heroic scale. Scotland appears on the
horizon of English history only during well-defined epochs, leaving no
trace of its existence in the intervals between these. It may be that
the space given to Scotland in the ordinary histories of England is
proportional to the importance of Scottish affairs, on the whole; but
the importance assigned to Anglo-Scottish relations in the fourteenth
century is quite disproportionate to the treatment of the same subject
in the fifteenth century. Readers even of Mr. Green's famous book, may
learn with surprise from Mr. Lang or Mr. Hume Brown the part played by
the Scots in the loss of the English dominions in France, or may fail to
understand the references to Scotland in the diplomatic correspondence
of the sixteenth century.[1] There seems to be, therefore, room for a
connected narrative of the attitude of the two countries towards each
other, for only thus is it possible to provide the _data_ requisite for
a fair appreciation of the policy of Edward I and Henry VIII, or of
Elizabeth and James I. Such a narrative is here presented, in outline,
and the writer has tried, as far as might be, to eliminate from his work
the element of national prejudice.

The book has also another aim. The relations between England and
Scotland have not been a purely political connexion. The peoples have,
from an early date, been, to some extent, intermingled, and this mixture
of blood renders necessary some account of the racial relationship. It
has been a favourite theme of the English historians of the nineteenth
century that the portions of Scotland where the Gaelic tongue has ceased
to be spoken are not really Scottish, but English. "The Scots who
resisted Edward", wrote Mr. Freeman, "were the English of Lothian. The
true Scots, out of hatred to the 'Saxons' nearest to them, leagued with
the 'Saxons' farther off."[2] Mr. Green, writing of the time of Edward
I, says: "The farmer of Fife or the Lowlands, and the artisan of the
towns, remained stout-hearted Northumbrian Englishmen", and he adds that
"The coast districts north of the Tay were inhabited by a population of
the same blood as that of the Lowlands".[3] The theory has been, at all
events verbally, accepted by Mr. Lang, who describes the history of
Scotland as "the record of the long resistance of the English of
Scotland to England, of the long resistance of the Celts of Scotland to
the English of Scotland".[4] Above all, the conception has been firmly
planted in the imagination by the poet of the _Lady of the Lake_.

  "These fertile plains, that soften'd vale,
   Were once the birthright of the Gael;
   The stranger came with iron hand,
   And from our fathers reft the land."

While holding in profound respect these illustrious names, the writer
ventures to ask for a modification of this verdict. That the Scottish
Lowlanders (among whom we include the inhabitants of the coast
districts from the Tay to the Moray Firth) were, in the end of the
thirteenth century, "English in speech and manners" (as Mr. Oman[5]
guardedly describes them) is beyond doubt. Were they also English in
blood? The evidence upon which the accepted theory is founded is
twofold. In the course of the sixth century the Angles made a descent
between the Humber and the Forth, and that district became part of the
English kingdom of Northumbria. Even here we have, in the evidence of
the place-names, some reasons for believing that a proportion of the
original Brythonic population may have survived. This northern portion
of the kingdom of Northumbria was affected by the Danish invasions, but
it remained an Anglian kingdom till its conquest, in the beginning of
the eleventh century, by the Celtic king, Malcolm II. There is, thus,
sufficient justification for Mr. Freeman's phrase, "the English of
Lothian", if we interpret the term "Lothian" in the strict sense; but it
remains to be explained how the inhabitants of the Scottish Lowlands,
outside Lothian, can be included among the English of Lothian who
resisted Edward I. That explanation is afforded by the events which
followed the Norman Conquest of England. It is argued that the
Englishmen who fled from the Normans united with the original English of
Lothian to produce the result indicated in the passage quoted from Mr.
Green. The farmers of Fife and the Lowlands, the artisans of the towns,
the dwellers in the coast districts north of Tay, became, by the end of
the thirteenth century, stout Northumbrian Englishmen. Mr. Green admits
that the south-west of Scotland was still inhabited, in 1290, by the
Picts of Galloway, and neither he nor any other exponent of the theory
offers any explanation of their subsequent disappearance. The history of
Scotland, from the fourteenth century to the Rising of 1745, contains,
according to this view, a struggle between the Celts and "the English of
Scotland", the most important incident of which is the battle of Harlaw,
in 1411, which resulted in a great victory for "the English of
Scotland". Mr. Hill Burton writes thus of Harlaw: "On the face of
ordinary history it looks like an affair of civil war. But this
expression is properly used towards those who have common interests and
sympathies, who should naturally be friends and may be friends again,
but for a time are, from incidental causes of dispute and quarrel, made
enemies. The contest ... was none of this; it was a contest between
foes, of whom their contemporaries would have said that their ever
being in harmony with each other, or having a feeling of common
interests and common nationality, was not within the range of rational
expectations.... It will be difficult to make those not familiar with
the tone of feeling in Lowland Scotland at that time believe that the
defeat of Donald of the Isles was felt as a more memorable deliverance
even than that of Bannockburn."[6]

We venture to plead for a modification of this theory, which may fairly
be called the orthodox account of the circumstances. It will at once
occur to the reader that some definite proof should be forthcoming that
the Celtic inhabitants of Scotland, outside the Lothians, were actually
subjected to this process of racial displacement. Such a displacement
had certainly not been effected before the Norman Conquest, for it was
only in 1018 that the English of Lothian were subjected to the rule of a
Celtic king, and the large amount of Scottish literature, in the Gaelic
tongue, is sufficient indication that Celtic Scotland was not confined
to the Highlands in the eleventh century. Nor have we any hint of a
racial displacement after the Norman conquest, even though it is
unquestionable that a considerable number of exiles followed Queen
Margaret to Scotland, and that William's harrying of the north of
England drove others over the border. It is easy to lay too much stress
upon the effect of the latter event. The northern counties cannot have
been very thickly populated, and if Mr. Freeman is right in his
description of "that fearful deed, half of policy, half of vengeance,
which has stamped the name of William with infamy", not very many of the
victims of his cruelty can have made good their flight, for we are told
that the bodies of the inhabitants of Yorkshire "were rotting in the
streets, in the highways, or on their own hearthstones". Stone dead left
no fellow to colonize Scotland. We find, therefore, only the results and
not the process of this racial displacement. These results were the
adoption of English manners and the English tongue, and the growth of
English names, and we wish to suggest that they may find an historical
explanation which does not involve the total disappearance of the
Scottish farmer from Fife, or of the Scottish artisan from Aberdeen.

Before proceeding to a statement of the explanation to which we desire
to direct the reader's attention, it may be useful to deal briefly with
the questions relating to the spoken language of Lowland Scotland and to
its place-names. The fact that the language of the Angles and Saxons
completely superseded, in England, the tongue of the conquered Britons,
is admitted to be a powerful argument for the view that the Anglo-Saxon
conquest of England resulted in a racial displacement. But the argument
cannot be transferred to the case of the Scottish Lowlands, where, also,
the English language has completely superseded a Celtic tongue. For, in
the first case, the victory is that of the language of a savage people,
known to be in a state of actual warfare, and it is a victory which
follows as an immediate result of conquest. In Scotland, the victory of
the English tongue (outside the Lothians) dates from a relatively
advanced period of civilization, and it is a victory won, not by
conquest or bloodshed, but by peaceful means. Even in a case of
conquest, change of speech is not conclusive evidence of change of race
(_e.g._ the adoption of a Romance tongue by the Gauls); much less is it
decisive in such an instance as the adoption of English by the
Lowlanders of Scotland. In striking contrast to the case of England, the
victory of the Anglo-Saxon speech in Scotland did not include the
adoption of English place-names. The reader will find the subject fully
discussed in the valuable work by the Reverend J.B. Johnston, entitled
_Place-Names of Scotland_. "It is impossible", says Mr. Johnston, "to
speak with strict accuracy on the point, but Celtic names in Scotland
must outnumber all the rest by nearly ten to one." Even in counties
where the Gaelic tongue is now quite obsolete (_e.g._ in Fife, in
Forfar, in the Mearns, and in parts of Aberdeenshire), the place-names
are almost entirely Celtic. The region where English place-names abound
is, of course, the Lothians; but scarcely an English place-name is
definitely known to have existed, even in the Lothians, before the
Norman Conquest, and, even in the Lothians, the English tongue never
affected the names of rivers and mountains. In many instances, the
existence of a place-name which has now assumed an English form is no
proof of English race. As the Gaelic tongue died out, Gaelic place-names
were either translated or corrupted into English forms; Englishmen,
receiving grants of land from Malcolm Canmore and his successors, called
these lands after their own names, with the addition of the suffix-ham
or-tun; the influence of English ecclesiastics introduced many new
names; and as English commerce opened up new seaports, some of these
became known by the names which Englishmen had given them.[7] On the
whole, the evidence of the place-names corroborates our view that the
changes were changes in civilization, and not in racial distribution.

We now proceed to indicate the method by which these changes were
effected, apart from any displacement of race. Our explanation finds a
parallel in the process which has changed the face of the Scottish
Highlands within the last hundred and fifty years, and which produced
very important results within the "sixty years" to which Sir Walter
Scott referred in the second title of _Waverley_.[8] There has been no
racial displacement; but the English language and English civilization
have gradually been superseding the ancient tongue and the ancient
customs of the Scottish Highlands. The difference between Skye and Fife
is that the influences which have been at work in the former for a
century and a half have been in operation in the latter for more than
eight hundred years.

What then were the influences which, between 1066 and 1300, produced in
the Scottish Lowlands some of the results that, between 1746 and 1800,
were achieved in the Scottish Highlands? That they included an infusion
of English blood we have no wish to deny. Anglo-Saxons, in considerable
numbers, penetrated northwards, and by the end of the thirteenth
century the Lowlanders were a much less pure race than, except in the
Lothians, they had been in the days of Malcolm Canmore. Our contention
is, that we have no evidence for the assertion that this Saxon admixture
amounted to a racial change, and that, ethnically, the men of Fife and
of Forfar were still Scots, not English. Such an infusion of English
blood as our argument allows will not explain the adoption of the
English tongue, or of English habits of life; we must look elsewhere for
the full explanation. The English victory was, as we shall try to show,
a victory not of blood but of civilization, and three main causes helped
to bring it about. The marriage of Malcolm Canmore introduced two new
influences into Scotland--an English Court and an English Church, and
contemporaneously with the changes consequent upon these new
institutions came the spread of English commerce, carrying with it the
English tongue along the coast, and bringing an infusion of English
blood into the towns.[9] In the reign of David I, the son of Malcolm
Canmore and St. Margaret, these purely Saxon influences were succeeded
by the Anglo-Norman tendencies of the king's favourites. Grants of
land[10] to English and Norman courtiers account for the occurrence of
English and Norman family and place-names. The men who lived in
immediate dependence upon a lord, giving him their services and
receiving his protection, owing him their homage and living under his
sole jurisdiction, took the name of the lord whose men they were.

A more important question arises with regard to the system of land
tenure, and the change from clan ownership to feudal possession. How was
the tribal system suppressed? An outline of the process by which
Scotland became a feudalized country will be found in the Appendix,
where we shall also have an opportunity of referring, for purposes of
comparison, to the methods by which clan-feeling was destroyed after the
last Jacobite insurrection. Here, it must suffice to give a brief
summary of the case there presented. It is important to bear in mind
that the tribes of 1066 were not the clans of 1746. The clan system in
the Highlands underwent considerable development between the days of
Malcolm Canmore and those of the Stuarts. Too much stress must not be
laid upon the unwillingness of the people to give up tribal ownership,
for it is clear from our early records that the rights of
joint-occupancy were confined to the immediate kin of the head of the
clan. "The limit of the immediate kindred", says Mr. E.W. Robertson,[11]
"extended to the third generation, all who were fourth in descent from a
Senior passing from amongst the joint-proprietary, and receiving,
apparently, a final allotment; which seems to have been separated
permanently from the remainder of the joint-property by certain
ceremonies usual on such occasions." To such holders of individual
property the charter offered by David I gave additional security of
tenure. We know from the documents entitled "Quoniam attachiamenta",
printed in the first volume of the _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland_,
that the tribal system included large numbers of bondmen, to whom the
change to feudalism meant little or nothing. But even when all due
allowance has been made for this, the difficulty is not completely
solved. There must have been some owners of clan property whom the
changes affected in an adverse way, and we should expect to hear of
them. We do hear of them, for the reigns of the successors of Malcolm
Canmore are largely occupied with revolts in Galloway and in Morayshire.
The most notable of these was the rebellion of MacHeth, Mormaor of
Moray, about 1134. On its suppression, David I confiscated the earldom
of Moray, and granted it, by charters, to his own favourites, and
especially to the Anglo-Normans, from Yorkshire and Northumberland, whom
he had invited to aid him in dealing with the reactionary forces of
Moray; but such grants of land in no way dispossessed the lesser
tenants, who simply held of new lords and by new titles. Fordun, who
wrote two centuries later, ascribes to David's successor, Malcolm IV, an
invasion of Moray, and says that the king scattered the inhabitants
throughout the rest of Scotland, and replaced them by "his own peaceful
people".[12] There is no further evidence in support of this statement,
and almost the whole of Malcolm's short reign was occupied with the
settlement of Galloway. We know that he followed his grandfather's
policy of making grants of land in Moray, and this is probably the germ
of truth in Fordun's statement. Moray, however, occupied rather an
exceptional position. "As the power of the sovereign extended over the
west," says Mr. E.W. Robertson, "it was his policy, not to eradicate the
old ruling families, but to retain them in their native provinces,
rendering them more or less responsible for all that portion of their
respective districts which was not placed under the immediate authority
of the royal sheriffs or baillies." As this policy was carried out even
in Galloway, Argyll, and Ross, where there were occasional rebellions,
and was successful in its results, we have no reason for believing that
it was abandoned in dealing with the rest of the Lowlands. As, from time
to time, instances occurred in which this plan was unsuccessful, and as
other causes for forfeiture arose, the lands were granted to strangers,
and by the end of the thirteenth century the Scottish nobility was
largely Anglo-Norman. The vestiges of the clan system which remained may
be part of the explanation of the place of the great Houses in Scottish
History. The unique importance of such families as the Douglasses or the
Gordons may thus be a portion of the Celtic heritage of the Lowlands.

If, then, it was not by a displacement of race, but through the subtle
influences of religion, feudalism, and commerce that the Scottish
Lowlands came to be English in speech and in civilization, if the
farmers of Fife and some, at least, of the burghers of Dundee or of
Aberdeen were really Scots who had been subjected to English influences,
we should expect to find no strong racial feeling in mediæval Scotland.
Such racial antagonism as existed would, in this case, be owing to the
large admixture of Scandinavian blood in Caithness and in the Isles,
rather than to any difference between the true Scots and "the English
of the Lowlands". Do we, then, find any racial antagonism between the
Highlands and the Lowlands? If Mr. Freeman is right in laying down the
general rule that "the true Scots, out of hatred to the 'Saxons' nearest
to them, leagued with the 'Saxons' farther off", if Mr. Hill Burton is
correct in describing the red Harlaw as a battle between foes who could
have no feeling of common nationality, there is nothing to be said in
support of the theory we have ventured to suggest. We may fairly expect
some signs of ill-will between those who maintained the Celtic
civilization and their brethren who had abandoned the ancient customs
and the ancient tongue; we may naturally look for attempts to produce a
conservative or Celtic reaction, but anything more than this will be
fatal to our case. The facts do not seem to us to bear out Mr. Freeman's
generalization. When the independence of Scotland is really at stake, we
shall find the "true Scots" on the patriotic side. Highlanders and
Islesmen fought under the banner of David I at Northallerton; they took
their place along with the men of Carrick in the Bruce's own division at
Bannockburn, and they bore their part in the stubborn ring that
encircled James IV at Flodden. At other times, indeed, we do find the
Lords of the Isles involved in treacherous intrigues with the kings of
England, but just in the same way as we see the Earls of Douglas
engaged in traitorous schemes against the Scottish kings. In both cases
alike we are dealing with the revolt of a powerful vassal against a weak
king. Such an incident is sufficiently frequent in the annals of
Scotland to render it unnecessary to call in racial considerations to
afford an explanation. One of the most notable of these intrigues
occurred in the year 1408, when Donald of the Isles, who chanced to be
engaged in a personal quarrel about the heritage which he claimed in
right of his Lowland relatives, made a treacherous agreement with Henry
IV; and the quarrel ended in the battle of Harlaw in 1411. The real
importance of Harlaw is that it ended in the defeat of a Scotsman who,
like some other Scotsmen in the South, was acting in the English
interest; any further significance that it may possess arises from the
consideration that it is the last of a series of efforts directed
against the predominance, not of the English race, but of Saxon speech
and civilization. It was just because Highlanders and Lowlanders did
represent a common nationality that the battle was fought, and the blood
spilt on the field of Harlaw was not shed in any racial struggle, but in
the cause of the real English conquest of Scotland, the conquest of
civilization and of speech.

Our argument derives considerable support from the references to the
Highlands of Scotland which we find in mediæval literature. Racial
distinctions were not always understood in the Middle Ages; but readers
of Giraldus Cambrensis are familiar with the strong racial feeling that
existed between the English and the Welsh, and between the English and
the Irish. If the Lowlanders of Scotland felt towards the Highlanders as
Mr. Hill Burton asserts that they did feel, we should expect to find
references to the difference between Celts and Saxons. But, on the
contrary, we meet with statement after statement to the effect that the
Highlanders are only Scotsmen who have maintained the ancient Scottish
language and literature, while the Lowlanders have adopted English
customs and a foreign tongue. The words "Scots" and "Scotland" are never
used to designate the Highlanders as distinct from other inhabitants of
Scotland, yet the phrase "Lingua Scotica" means, up to the end of the
fifteenth century, the Gaelic tongue.[13] In the beginning of the
sixteenth century John Major speaks of "the wild Scots and Islanders" as
using Irish, while the civilized Scots speak English; and Gavin Douglas
professed to write in Scots (_i.e._ the Lowland tongue). In the course
of the century this became the regular usage. Acts of the Scottish
Parliament, directed against Highland marauders, class them with the
border thieves. There is no hint in the Register of the Privy Council or
in the Exchequer Rolls, of any racial feeling, and the independence of
the Celtic chiefs has been considerably exaggerated. James IV and James
V both visited the Isles, and the chief town of Skye takes its name from
the visit of the latter. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, it
was safe for Hector Boece, the Principal of the newly founded university
of Aberdeen, to go in company of the Rector to make a voyage to the
Hebrides, and, in the account they have left us of their experiences, we
can discover no hint that there existed between Highlanders and
Lowlanders much the same difference as separated the English from the
Welsh. Neither in Barbour's _Bruce_ nor in Blind Harry's _Wallace_ is
there any such consciousness of difference, although Barbour lived in
Aberdeen in the days before Harlaw. John of Fordun, a fellow-townsman
and a contemporary of Barbour, was an ardent admirer of St. Margaret and
of David I, and of the Anglo-Norman institutions they introduced, while
he possessed an invincible objection to the kilt. We should therefore
expect to find in him some consciousness of the racial difference. He
writes of the Highlanders with some ill-will, describing them as a
"savage and untamed people, rude and independent, given to rapine, ...
hostile to the English language and people, and, owing to diversity of
speech, even to their own nation[14]." But it is his custom to write
thus of the opponents of the Anglo-Norman civil and ecclesiastical
institutions, and he brings all Scotland under the same condemnation
when he tells us how David "did his utmost to draw on that rough and
boorish people towards quiet and chastened manners".[15] The reference
to "their own nation" shows, too, that Fordun did not understand that
the Highlanders were a different people; and when he called them hostile
to the English, he was evidently unaware that their custom was "out of
hatred to the Saxons nearest them" to league with the English. John
Major, writing in the reign of James IV (1489-1513), mentions the
differences between Highlander and Lowlander. The wild Scots speak
Irish; the civilized Scots use English. "But", he adds, "most of us
spoke Irish a short time ago."[16] His contemporary, Hector Boece, who
made the Tour to the Hebrides, says: "Those of us who live on the
borders of England have forsaken our own tongue and learned English,
being driven thereto by wars and commerce. But the Highlanders remain
just as they were in the time of Malcolm Canmore, in whose days we began
to adopt English manners."[17] When Bishop Elphinstone applied, in 1493,
for Papal permission to found a university in Old Aberdeen, in proximity
to the barbarian Highlanders, he made no suggestion of any racial
difference between the English-speaking population of Aberdeen and their
Gaelic-speaking neighbours.[18] Late in the sixteenth century, John
Lesley, the defender of Queen Mary, who had been bishop of Ross, and
came of a northern family, wrote in a strain similar to that of Major
and Boece. "Foreign nations look on the Gaelic-speaking Scots as wild
barbarians because they maintain the customs and the language of their
ancestors; but we call them Highlanders."[19]

Even in connexion with the battle of Harlaw, we find that Scottish
historians do not use such terms in speaking of the Highland forces as
Mr. Hill Burton would lead us to expect. Of the two contemporary
authorities, one, the Book of Pluscarden, was probably written by a
Highlander, while the continuation of Fordun's _Scoti-chronicon_, in
which we have a more detailed account of the battle, was the work of
Bower, a Lowlander who shared Fordun's antipathy to Highland customs.
The _Liber Pluscardensis_ mentions the battle in a very casual manner.
It was fought between Donald of the Isles and the Earl of Mar; there was
great slaughter: and it so happened that the town of Cupar chanced to be
burned in the same year.[20] Bower assigns a greater importance to the
affair;[21] he tells us that Donald wished to spoil Aberdeen and then to
add to his own possessions all Scotland up to the Tay. It is as if he
were writing of the ambition of the House of Douglas. But there is no
hint of racial antipathy; the abuse applied to Donald and his followers
would suit equally well for the Borderers who shouted the Douglas
battle-cry. John Major tells us that it was a civil war fought for the
spoil of the famous city of Aberdeen, and he cannot say who won--only
the Islanders lost more men than the civilized Scots. For him, its chief
interest lay in the ferocity of the contest; rarely, even in struggles
with a foreign foe, had the fighting been so keen.[22] The fierceness
with which Harlaw was fought impressed the country so much that, some
sixty years later, when Major was a boy, he and his playmates at the
Grammar School of Haddington used to amuse themselves by mock fights in
which they re-enacted the red Harlaw.

From Major we turn with interest to the Principal of the University and
King's College, Hector Boece, who wrote his _History of Scotland_, at
Aberdeen, about a century after the battle of Harlaw, and who shows no
trace of the strong feeling described by Mr. Hill Burton. He narrates
the origin of the quarrel with much sympathy for the Lord of the Isles,
and regrets that he was not satisfied with recovering his own heritage
of Ross, but was tempted by the pillage of Aberdeen, and he speaks of
the Lowland army as "the Scots on the other side".[23] His narrative in
the _History_ is devoid of any racial feeling whatsoever, and in his
_Lives of the Bishops of Aberdeen_ he omits any mention of Harlaw at
all. We have laid stress upon the evidence of Boece because in Aberdeen,
if anywhere, the memory of the "Celtic peril" at Harlaw should have
survived. Similarly, George Buchanan speaks of Harlaw as a raid for
purposes of plunder, made by the islanders upon the mainland.[24] These
illustrations may serve to show how Scottish historians really did look
upon the battle of Harlaw, and how little do they share Mr. Burton's
horror of the Celts.

When we turn to descriptions of Scotland we find no further proof of the
correctness of the orthodox theory. When Giraldus Cambrensis wrote, in
the twelfth century, he remarked that the Scots of his time have an
affinity of race with the Irish,[25] and the English historians of the
War of Independence speak of the Scots as they do of the Welsh or the
Irish, and they know only one type of Scotsman. We have already seen the
opinion of John Major, the sixteenth-century Scottish historian and
theologian, who had lived much in France, and could write of his native
country from an _ab extra_ stand-point, that the Highlanders speak Irish
and are less respectable than the other Scots; and his opinion was
shared by two foreign observers, Pedro de Ayala and Polydore Vergil. The
former remarks on the difference of speech, and the latter says that the
more civilized Scots have adopted the English tongue. In like manner
English writers about the time of the Union of the Crowns write of the
Highlanders as Scotsmen who retain their ancient language. Camden,
indeed, speaks of the Lowlands as being Anglo-Saxon in origin, but he
restricts his remark to the district which had formed part of the
kingdom of Northumbria.[26]

We should, of course, expect to find that the gradually widening breach
in manners and language between Highlanders and Lowlanders produced some
dislike for the Highland robbers and their Irish tongue, and we do
occasionally, though rarely, meet some indication of this. There are not
many references to the Highlanders in Scottish literature earlier than
the sixteenth century. "Blind Harry" (Book VI, ll. 132-140) represents
an English soldier as using, in addressing Wallace, first a mixture of
French and Lowland Scots, and then a mixture of Lowland Scots and
Gaelic:

   "Dewgar, gud day, bone Senzhour, and gud morn!

         *       *       *       *       *

   Sen ye ar Scottis, zeit salust sall ye be;
   Gud deyn, dawch Lard, bach lowch, banzoch a de".

In "The Book of the Howlat", written in the latter half of the fifteenth
century, by a certain Richard Holland, who was an adherent of the House
of Douglas, there is a similar imitation of Scottish Gaelic, with the
same phrase "Banachadee" (the blessing of God). This seemingly innocent
phrase seems to have some ironical signification, for we find in the
_Auchinleck Chronicle_ (anno 1452) that it was used by some Highlanders
as a term of abuse towards the Bishop of Argyll. Another example occurs
in a coarse "Answer to ane Helandmanis Invective", by Alexander
Montgomerie, the court poet of James VI. The Lowland literature of the
sixteenth century contains a considerable amount of abuse of the
Highland tongue. William Dunbar (1460-1520), in his "Flyting" (an
exercise in Invective), reproaches his antagonist, Walter Kennedy, with
his Highland origin. Kennedy was a native of Galloway, while Dunbar
belonged to the Lothians, where we should expect the strongest
appreciation of the differences between Lowlander and Highlander.
Dunbar, moreover, had studied (or, at least, resided) at Oxford, and was
one of the first Scotsmen to succumb to the attractions of "town". The
most suggestive point in the "Flyting" is that a native of the Lothians
could still regard a Galwegian as a "beggar Irish bard". For Walter
Kennedy spoke and wrote in Lowland Scots; he was, possibly, a graduate
of the University of Glasgow, and he could boast of Stuart blood.
Ayrshire was as really English as was Aberdeenshire; and, if Dunbar is
in earnest, it is a strong confirmation of our theory that he, being
"of the Lothians himself", spoke of Kennedy in this way. It would,
however, be unwise to lay too much stress on what was really a
conventional exercise of a particular style of poetry, now obsolete.
Kennedy, in his reply, retorts that he alone is true Scots, and that
Dunbar, as a native of Lothian, is but an English thief:

  "In Ingland, owle, suld be thyne habitacione,
   Homage to Edward Langschankis maid thy kyn".

In an Epitaph on Donald Owre, a son of the Lord of the Isles, who raised
a rebellion against James IV in 1503, Dunbar had a great opportunity for
an outburst against the Highlanders, of which, however, he did not take
advantage, but confined himself to a denunciation of treachery in
general. In the "Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins", there is a well-known
allusion to the bag-pipes:

  "Than cryd Mahoun[27] for a Healand padyane;
   Syne ran a feynd to feche Makfadyane[28]
       Far northwart in a nuke.[29]
   Be he the correnoch had done schout
   Erschemen so gadderit him about
     In Hell grit rowme they tuke.
   Thae tarmegantis with tag and tatter
   Full lowde in Ersche begowth to clatter,
     And rowp lyk revin and ruke.
   The Devill sa devit was with thair yell
   That in the depest pot of Hell
     He smorit thame with smoke."

Similar allusions will be found in the writings of Montgomerie; but such
caricatures of Gaelic and the bagpipes afford but a slender basis for a
theory of racial antagonism.

After the Union of the Crowns, the Lowlands of Scotland came to be more
and more closely bound to England, while the Highlands remained
unaffected by these changes. The Scottish nobility began to find its
true place at the English Court; the Scottish adventurer was
irresistibly drawn to London; the Scottish Presbyterian found the
English Puritan his brother in the Lord; and the Scottish Episcopalian
joined forces with the English Cavalier. The history of the seventeenth
century prepared the way for the acceptance of the Celtic theory in the
beginning of the eighteenth, and when philologists asserted that the
Scottish Highlanders were a different race from the Scottish Lowlanders,
the suggestion was eagerly adopted. The views of the philologists were
confirmed by the experiences of the 'Forty-five, and they received a
literary form in the _Lady of the Lake_ and in _Waverley_. In the
nineteenth century the theory received further development owing to the
fact that it was generally in line with the arguments of the defenders
of the Edwardian policy in Scotland; and it cannot be denied that it
holds the field to-day, in spite of Mr. Robertson's attack on it in
Appendix R of his _Scotland under her Early Kings_.

The writer of the present volume ventures to hope that he has, at all
events, done something to make out a case for re-consideration of the
subject. The political facts on which rests the argument just stated
will be found in the text, and an Appendix contains the more important
references to the Highlanders in mediæval Scottish literature, and
offers a brief account of the feudalization of Scotland. Our argument
amounts only to a modification, and not to a complete reversal of the
current theory. No historical problems are more difficult than those
which refer to racial distribution, and it is impossible to speak
dogmatically on such a subject. That the English blood of the Lothians,
and the English exiles after the Norman Conquest, did modify the race
over whom Malcolm Canmore ruled, we do not seek to deny. But that it was
a modification and not a displacement, a victory of civilization and
not of race, we beg to suggest. The English influences were none the
less strong for this, and, in the end, they have everywhere prevailed.
But the Scotsman may like to think that mediæval Scotland was not
divided by an abrupt racial line, and that the political unity and
independence which it obtained at so great a cost did correspond to a
natural and a national unity which no people can, of itself, create.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 1: Spanish and Venetian Calendars of State Papers. Cf.
especially the reference to the succour afforded by Scotland to France
in Spanish Calendar, i. 210.]

[Footnote 2: _Historical Essays_, First Series, p. 71.]

[Footnote 3: _History of the English People_, Book III, c. iv.]

[Footnote 4: _History of Scotland_, vol. i, p. 2. But, as Mr. Lang
expressly repudiates any theory of displacement north of the Forth, and
does not regard Harlaw in the light of a great racial contest, his
position is not really incompatible with that of the present work.]

[Footnote 5: _History of England_, p. 158. Mr. Oman is almost alone in
not calling them English in blood.]

[Footnote 6: _History of Scotland_, vol. ii, pp. 393-394.]

[Footnote 7: Instances of the first tendency are Edderton, near Tain,
_i.e._ _eadar duin_ ("between the hillocks"), and Falkirk, _i.e._
_Eaglais_ ("speckled church"), while examples of the second tendency are
too numerous to require mention. Examples of ecclesiastical names are
Laurencekirk and Kirkcudbright, and the growth of commerce receives the
witness of such names as Turnberry, on the coast of Ayr, dating from the
thirteenth century, and Burghead on the Moray Firth.]

[Footnote 8: Cf. _Waverley_, c. xliii, and the concluding chapter of
_Tales of a Grandfather_.]

[Footnote 9: William of Newburgh states this in a probably exaggerated
form when he says:--"Regni Scottici oppida et burgi ab Anglis habitari
noscuntur" (Lib. II, c. 34). The population of the towns in the Lothians
was, of course, English.]

[Footnote 10: For the real significance of such grants of land, cf.
Maitland, _Domesday Book and Beyond_, Essay II.]

[Footnote 11: _Scotland under her Early Kings_, vol. i, p. 239.]

[Footnote 12: Annalia, iv.]

[Footnote 13: There is a possible exception in Barbour's _Bruce_ (Bk.
XVIII, 1. 443)--"Then gat he all the Erischry that war intill his
company, of Argyle and the Ilis alswa". It has been generally understood
that the "Erischry" here are the Scottish Highlanders; but it is certain
that Barbour frequently uses the word to mean Irishmen, and it is
perhaps more probable that he does so here also than that he should use
the word in this sense only once, and with no parallel instance for more
than a century.]

[Footnote 14: Chronicle, Book II, c. ix. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 15: Ibid, Book V, c. x. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 16: _History of Greater Britain_, Bk. I, cc. vii, viii, ix.
Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 17: _Scotorum Regni Descriptio_, prefixed to his "History".
Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 18: _Fasti Aberdonenses_, p. 3.]

[Footnote 19: _De Gestis Scotorum_, Lib. I. Cf. App. A. It is
interesting to note, as showing how the breach between Highlander and
Lowlander widened towards the close of the sixteenth century, that
Father James Dalrymple, who translated Lesley's History, at Ratisbon,
about the beginning of the seventeenth century, wrote: "Bot the rest of
the Scottis, quhome _we_ halde as outlawis and wylde peple". Dalrymple
was probably a native of Ayrshire.]

[Footnote 20: _Liber Pluscardensis_, X, c. xxii. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 21: _Scoti-chronicon_, XV, c. xxi. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 22: _Greater Britain_, VI, c. x. Cf. App. A. The keenness of
the fighting is no proof of racial bitterness. Cf. the clan fight on the
Inches at Perth, a few years before Harlaw.]

[Footnote 23: _Scotorum Historiæ_, Lib. XVI. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 24: _Rerum Scotorum Historia_, Lib. X. Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 25: _Top. Hib._, Dis. III, cap. xi.]

[Footnote 26: _Britannia_, section _Scoti_.]

[Footnote 27: Mahoun = Mahomet, _i.e._ the Devil.]

[Footnote 28: The Editor of the Scottish Text Society's edition of
Dunbar points out that "Macfadyane" is a reference to the traitor of the
War of Independence:

  "This Makfadzane till Inglismen was suorn;
   Eduard gaiff him bath Argill and Lorn".

  Blind Harry, VII, ll. 627-8.

]

[Footnote 29: "Far northward in a nuke" is a reference to the cave in
which Macfadyane was killed by Duncan of Lorne (Bk. VIII, ll. 866-8).]




CHAPTER I

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION AND FEUDAL RELATIONS

_c._ 500-1066 A.D.


Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, it has been customary to
speak of the Scottish Highlanders as "Celts". The name is singularly
inappropriate. The word "Celt" was used by Cæsar to describe the peoples
of Middle Gaul, and it thence became almost synonymous with "Gallic".
The ancient inhabitants of Gaul were far from being closely akin to the
ancient inhabitants of Scotland, although they belong to the same
general family. The latter were Picts and Goidels; the former, Brythons
or Britons, of the same race as those who settled in England and were
driven by the Saxon conquerors into Wales, as their kinsmen were driven
into Brittany by successive conquests of Gaul. In the south of Scotland,
Goidels and Brythons must at one period have met; but the result of the
meeting was to drive the Goidels into the Highlands, where the Goidelic
or Gaelic form of speech still remains different from the Welsh of the
descendants of the Britons. Thus the only reason for calling the
Scottish Highlanders "Celts" is that Cæsar used that name to describe a
race cognate with another race from which the Highlanders ought to be
carefully distinguished. In none of our ancient records is the term
"Celt" ever employed to describe the Highlanders of Scotland. They never
called themselves Celtic; their neighbours never gave them such a name;
nor would the term have possessed any significance, as applied to them,
before the eighteenth century. In 1703, a French historian and Biblical
antiquary, Paul Yves Pezron, wrote a book about the people of Brittany,
entitled _Antiquité de la Nation et de la Langue des Celtes autrement
appellez Gaulois_. It was translated into English almost immediately,
and philologists soon discovered that the language of Cæsar's Celts was
related to the Gaelic of the Scottish Highlanders. On this ground
progressed the extension of the name, and the Highlanders became
identified with, instead of being distinguished from, the Celts of Gaul.
The word Celt was used to describe both the whole family (including
Brythons and Goidels), and also the special branch of the family to
which Cæsar applied the term. It is as if the word "Teutonic" had been
used to describe the whole Aryan Family, and had been specially employed
in speaking of the Romance peoples. The word "Celtic" has, however,
become a technical term as opposed to "Saxon" or "English", and it is
impossible to avoid its use.

Besides the Goidels, or so-called Celts, and the Brythonic Celts or
Britons, we find traces in Scotland of an earlier race who are known as
"Picts", a few fragments of whose language survive. About the identity
of these Picts another controversy has been waged. Some look upon the
Pictish tongue as closely allied to Scottish Gaelic; others regard it as
Brythonic rather than Goidelic; and Dr. Rhys surmises that it is really
an older form of speech, neither Goidelic nor Brythonic, and probably
not allied to either, although, in the form in which its fragments have
come down to us, it has been deeply affected by Brythonic forms. Be all
this as it may, it is important for us to remember that, at the dawn of
history, modern Scotland was populated entirely by people now known as
"Celts", of whom the Brythonic portion were the later to appear, driving
the Goidels into the more mountainous districts. The Picts, whatever
their origin, had become practically amalgamated with the "Celts", and
the Roman historians do not distinguish between different kinds of
northern barbarians.

In the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth, a new
settlement of Goidels was made. These were the Scots, who founded the
kingdom of Dalriada, corresponding roughly to the Modern Argyllshire.
Some fifty years later (_c._ 547) came the Angles under Ida, and
established a dominion along the coast from Tweed to Forth, covering the
modern counties of Roxburgh, Berwick, Haddington, and Midlothian. Its
outlying fort was the castle of Edinburgh, the name of which, in the
form in which we have it, has certainly been influenced by association
with the Northumbrian king, Edwin.[30] This district remained a portion
of the kingdom of Northumbria till the tenth century, and it is of this
district alone that the word "English" can fairly be used. Even here,
however, there must have been a considerable infusion of Celtic blood,
and such Celtic place-names as "Dunbar" still remain even in the
counties where English place-names predominate. A distinguished Celtic
scholar tells us: "In all our ancient literature, the inhabitants of
ancient Lothian are known as Saix-Brit, _i.e._ Saxo-Britons, because
they were a Cymric people, governed by the Saxons of Northumbria".[31] A
further non-Celtic influence was that of the Norse invaders, who
attacked the country from the ninth to the eighteenth century, and
profoundly modified the racial character of the population on the south
and west coasts, in the islands, and along the east coast as far south
as the Moray Firth.

Such, then, was the racial distribution of Scotland. Picts, Goidelic
Celts, Brythonic Celts, Scots, and Anglo-Saxons were in possession of
the country. In the year 844, Kenneth MacAlpine, King of the Scots of
Dalriada, united under his rule the ancient kingdoms of the Picts and
Scots, including the whole of Scotland from the Pentland Firth to the
Forth. In 908, a brother of the King of Scots became King of the Britons
of Strathclyde, while Lothian, with the rest of Northumbria, passed
under the overlordship of the House of Wessex. We have now arrived at
the commencement of the long dispute about the "overlordship". We shall
attempt to state the main outlines as clearly as possible.

The foundation of the whole controversy lies in a statement, "in the
honest English of the Winchester Chronicle", that, in 924, "was Eadward
king chosen to father and to lord of the Scots king and of the Scots,
and of Regnold king, and of all the Northumbrians", and also of the
Strathclyde, Brythons or Welsh. Mr. E.W. Robertson has argued that no
real weight can be given to this statement, for (1) "Regnold king" had
died in 921; (2) in 924, Edward the Elder was striving to suppress the
Danes south of the Humber, and had no claims to overlordship of any kind
over the Northumbrian Danes and English; and (3) the place assigned,
Bakewell, in Derbyshire, is improbable, and the recorded building of a
fort there is irrelevant. The reassertion of this homage, under
Aethelstan, in 926, which occurs in one MS. of the Chronicle, is open to
the objection that it describes the King of Scots as giving up idolatry,
more than three hundred and fifty years after the conversion of the
country; but as the entry under the year 924 is probably in a
contemporary hand, considerable weight must be attached to the double
statement. In the reign of Edmund the Magnificent, an event occurred
which has given fresh occasion for dispute. A famous passage in the
"Chronicle" (945 A.D.) tells how Edmund and Malcolm I of
Scotland conquered Cumbria, which the English king gave to Malcolm on
condition that Malcolm should be his "midwyrtha" or fellow-worker by sea
and land. Mr. Freeman interpreted this as a feudal grant, reading the
sense of "fealty" into "midwyrtha", and regarded the district described
as "Cumbria" as including the whole of Strathclyde. It is somewhat
difficult to justify this position, especially as we have no reason for
supposing that Edmund did invade Strathclyde, and since, in point of
fact, Strathclyde remained hostile to the kingdom of Scotland long after
this date. In 946 the statement of the Chronicle is reasserted in
connection with the accession of Eadred, and in somewhat stronger
words:--"the Scots gave him oaths, that they would all that he would".
Such are the main facts relating to the first two divisions of the
threefold claim to overlordship, and their value will probably continue
to be estimated in accordance with the personal feelings of the reader.
It is scarcely possible to claim that they are in any way decisive. Nor
can any further light be gained from the story of what Mr. Lang has
happily termed the apocryphal eight which the King of Scots stroked on
the Dee in the reign of Edgar. In connection with this "Great
Commendation" of 973, the Chronicle mentions only six kings as rowing
Edgar at Chester, and it wisely names no names. The number eight, and
the mention of Kenneth, King of Scots, as one of the oarsmen, have been
transferred to Mr. Freeman's pages from those of the twelfth-century
chronicler, Florence of Worcester.

We pass now to the third section of the supremacy argument. The district
to which we have referred as Lothian was, unquestionably, largely
inhabited by men of English race, and it formed part of the Northumbrian
kingdom. Within the first quarter of the eleventh century it had passed
under the dominion of the Celtic kings of Scotland. When and how this
happened is a mystery. The tract _De Northynbrorum Comitibus_ which used
to be attributed to Simeon of Durham, asserts that it was ceded by Edgar
to Kenneth and that Kenneth did homage, and this story, elaborated by
John of Wallingford, has been frequently given as the historical
explanation. But Simeon of Durham in his "History"[32] asserts that
Malcolm II, about 1016, wrested Lothian from the Earl of Northumbria,
and there is internal evidence that the story of Edgar and Kenneth has
been constructed out of the known facts of Malcolm's reign. It is, at
all events, certain that the Scottish kings in no sense governed Lothian
till after the battle of Carham in 1018, when Malcolm and the
Strathclyde monarch Owen, defeated the Earl of Northumbria and added
Lothian to his dominions. This conquest was confirmed by Canute in 1031,
and, in connection with the confirmation, the Chronicle again speaks of
a doubtful homage which the Scots king "not long held", and, again, the
Chronicle, or one version of it, adds an impossible statement--this time
about Macbeth, who had not yet appeared on the stage of history. The
year 1018 is also marked by the succession of Malcolm's grandson,
Duncan, to the throne of his kinsman, Owen of Strathclyde, and on
Malcolm's death in 1034 the whole of Scotland was nominally united under
Duncan I.[33] The consolidation of the kingdom was as yet in the future,
but from the end of the reign of Malcolm II there was but one Kingdom of
Scotland. From this united kingdom we must exclude the islands, which
were largely inhabited by Norsemen. Both the Hebrides and the islands of
Orkney and Shetland were outside the realm of Scotland.

The names of Macbeth and "the gentle Duncan" suggest the great drama
which the genius of Shakespeare constructed from the magic tale of
Hector Boece; but our path does not lie by the moor near Forres, nor
past Birnam Wood or Dunsinane. Nor does the historian of the relations
between England and Scotland have anything to tell about the English
expedition to restore Malcolm. All such tales emanate from Florence of
Worcester, and we know only that Siward of Northumbria made a fruitless
invasion of Scotland, and that Macbeth reigned for three years
afterwards.

We have now traced, in outline, the connections between the northern and
the southern portions of this island up to the date of the Norman
Conquest of England. We have found in Scotland a population composed of
Pict, Scot, Goidel, Brython, Dane, and Angle, and we have seen how the
country came to be, in some sense, united under a single monarch. It is
not possible to speak dogmatically of either of the two great problems
of the period--the racial distribution of the country, and the Edwardian
claims to overlordship. But it is clear that no portion of Scotland was,
in 1066, in any sense English, except the Lothians, of which Angles and
Danes had taken possession. From the Lothians, the English influences
must have spread slightly into Strathclyde; but the fact that the Celtic
Kings of Scotland were strong enough to annex and rule the Lothians as
part of a Celtic kingdom implies a limit to English colonization. As to
the feudal supremacy, it may be fairly said that there is no portion of
the English claim that cannot be reasonably doubted, and whatever force
it retains must be of the nature of a cumulative argument. It must, of
course, be recollected that Anglo-Norman chroniclers of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, like English historians of a later date, regarded
themselves as holding a brief for the English claim, while, on the other
hand, Scottish writers would be the last to assert, in their own case, a
complete absence of bias.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 30: Johnston: _Place-Names of Scotland_, p. 102.]

[Footnote 31: Rev. Duncan MacGregor in _Scottish Church Society
Conferences_. Second Series, Vol. II, p. 23.]

[Footnote 32: _Hist. Dun._ Rolls Series, i. 218.]

[Footnote 33: Duncan was the grandson of Malcolm, and, by Pictish
custom, should not have succeeded. The "rightful" heir, an un-named
cousin of Malcolm, was murdered, and his sister, Gruoch, who married the
Mormaor of Moray, left a son, Lulach, who thus represented a rival line,
whose claims may be connected with some of the Highland risings against
the descendants of Duncan.]




CHAPTER II

SCOTLAND AND THE NORMANS

1066-1286


The Norman Conquest of England could not fail to modify the position of
Scotland. Just as the Roman and the Saxon conquests had, in turn, driven
the Brythons northwards, so the dispossessed Saxons fled to Scotland
from their Norman victors. The result was considerably to alter the
ecclesiastical arrangements of the country, and to help its advance
towards civilization. The proportion of Anglo-Saxons to the races who
are known as Celts must also have been increased; but a complete
de-Celticization of Southern Scotland could not, and did not, follow.
The failure of William's conquest to include the Northern counties of
England left Northumbria an easy prey to the Scottish king, and the
marriage of Malcolm III, known as Canmore, to Margaret, the sister of
Edgar the Ætheling, gave her husband an excuse for interference in
England. We, accordingly, find a long series of raids over the border,
of which only five possess any importance. In 1069-70, Malcolm (who had,
even in the Confessor's time, been in Northumberland with hostile
intent) conducted an invasion in the interests of his brother-in-law.
It is probable that this movement was intended to coincide with the
arrival of the Danish fleet a few months earlier. But Malcolm was too
late; the Danes had gone home, and, in the interval, William had himself
superintended the great harrying of the North which made Malcolm's
subsequent efforts somewhat unnecessary. The invasion is important only
as having provoked the counter-attack of the Conqueror, which led to the
renewal of the supremacy controversy. William marched into Scotland and
crossed the Forth (the first English king to do so since the unfortunate
Egfrith, who fell at Nectansmere in 685). At Abernethy, on the banks of
the Tay, Malcolm and William met, and the English Chronicle, as usual,
informs us that the King of Scots became the "man" of the English king.
But as Malcolm received from William twelve _villae_ in England, it is,
at least, doubtful whether Malcolm paid homage for these alone or also
for Lothian and Cumbria, or for either of them. There is, at all events,
no question about the _villae_. Scottish historians have not failed to
point out that the value of the homage, for whatever it was given, is
sufficiently indicated by Malcolm's dealings with Gospatric of
Northumberland, whom William dismissed as a traitor and rebel. Within
about six months of the Abernethy meeting, Malcolm gave Gospatric the
earldom of Dunbar, and he became the founder of the great house of
March. No further invasion took place till 1079, when Malcolm took
advantage of William's Norman difficulties to make another harrying
expedition, which afforded the occasion for the building of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The accession of Rufus and his difficulties with
Robert of Normandy led, in 1091, to a somewhat belated attempt by
Malcolm to support the claims of the Ætheling by a third invasion, and,
in the following year, peace was made. Rufus confirmed to Malcolm the
grant of twelve _villae_, and Malcolm in turn gave the English king such
homage as he had given to his father. What this vague statement meant,
it was reserved for the Bruce to determine, and the Bruces had, as yet,
not one foot of Scottish soil. The agreement made in 1092 did not
prevent Rufus from completing his father's work by the conquest of
Cumberland, to which the Scots had claims. Malcolm's indignation and
William's illness led to a famous meeting at Gloucester, whence Malcolm
withdrew in great wrath, declining to be treated as a vassal of England.
The customary invasion followed, with the result that Malcolm was slain
at Alnwick in November, 1093.

But the great effects of the Norman Conquest, as regards Scotland, are
not connected with strictly international affairs. They are partially
racial, and, in other respects, may be described as personal. It is
unquestionable that there was an immigration of the Northumbrian
population into Scotland; but the Northumbrian population were
Anglo-Danish, and the north of England was not thickly populated. When
William the Conqueror ravaged the northern counties with fire and sword,
a considerable proportion of the population must have perished. The
actual infusion of English blood may thus be exaggerated; but the
introduction of English influences cannot be questioned. These
influences were mainly due to the personality of Malcolm's second wife,
the Saxon princess, Margaret. The queen was a woman of considerable
mental power, and possessed a great influence over her strong-headed and
hot-tempered husband. She was a devout churchwoman, and she immediately
directed her energies to the task of bringing the Scottish church into
closer communion with the Roman. The changes were slight in themselves;
all that we know of them is an alteration in the beginning of Lent, the
proper observance of Easter and of Sunday, and a question, still
disputed, about the tonsure. But, slight as they were, they stood for
much. They involved the abandonment of the separate position held by the
Scottish Church, and its acceptance of a place as an integral portion of
Roman Christianity. The result was to make the Papacy, for the first
time, an important factor in Scottish affairs, and to bridge the gulf
that divided Scotland from Continental Europe. We soon find Scottish
churchmen seeking learning in France, and bringing into Scotland those
French influences which were destined seriously to affect the
civilization of the country. But, above all, these Roman changes were
important just because they were Anglican--introduced by an English
queen, carried out by English clerics, emanating from a court which was
rapidly becoming English. Malcolm's subjects thenceforth began to adopt
English customs and the English tongue, which spread from the court of
Queen Margaret. The colony of English refugees represented a higher
civilization and a more advanced state of commerce than the Scottish
Celts, and the English language, from this cause also, made rapid
progress. For about twenty-five years Margaret exercised the most potent
influence in her husband's kingdom, and, when she died, her reputation
as a saint and her subsequent canonization maintained and supported the
traditions she had created. Not only did she have on her side the power
of a court and the prestige of courtly etiquette, but, as we have said,
she represented a higher civilizing force than that which was opposed to
her, and hence the greatness of her victory. It must, however, be
remembered that the spread of the English language in Scotland does not
necessarily imply the predominance of English blood. It means rather the
growth of English commerce. We can trace the adoption of English along
the seaboard, and in the towns, while Gaelic still remained the
language of the countryman. There is no evidence of any English
immigration of sufficient proportions to overwhelm the Gaelic
population. Like the victory of the conquered English over the
conquering Normans, which was even then making fast progress in England,
it is a triumph of a kind that subsequent events have revealed as
characteristically Anglo-Saxon, and it called into force the powers of
adaptation and of colonization which have brought into being so great an
English-speaking world.

Malcolm's reign ended in defeat and failure; his wife died of grief, and
the opportunity presented itself of a Celtic reaction against the
Anglicization of the reign of Malcolm III. The throne was seized by
Malcolm's brother, Donald Bane. Malcolm's eldest son, Duncan, whose
mother, Ingibjorg, had been a Dane, received assistance from Rufus, and
drove Donald Bane, after a reign of six months, into the distant North.
But after about six months he himself was slain in a small fight with
the Mormaer or Earl of the Mearns, and Donald Bane continued to reign
for about three years, in conjunction with Edmund, a son of Malcolm and
Margaret. But in 1097, Edgar, a younger brother of Edmund, again
obtained the help of Rufus and secured the throne. The reign of Edgar is
important in two respects. It put an end to the Celtic revival, and
reproduced the conditions of the time of Malcolm and Margaret.
Henceforward Celtic efforts were impossible except in the Highlands, and
the Celts of the Lowlands resigned themselves to the process of
Anglicization imposed upon them alike by ecclesiastical, political, and
commercial circumstances. It saw also the beginning of an influence
which was to prove scarcely less fruitful in results than the
Anglo-Saxon triumph of which we have spoken. In November, 1100, Edgar's
sister, Matilda, was married to the Norman King of England, Henry I, and
two years later, another sister, Mary, was married to Eustace, Count of
Boulogne, the son of the future King Stephen. These unions, with a son
and a grandson respectively of William the Conqueror, prepared the way
for the Norman Conquest of Scotland. Edgar died in January, 1106-7, and
his brother and successor, Alexander I, espoused an Anglo-Norman,
Sybilla, who is generally supposed to have been a natural daughter of
Henry I. On the death of Alexander, in 1124, these Norman influences
acquired a new importance under his brother David, the youngest son of
Malcolm and Margaret. During the troubles which followed his father's
death, David had been educated in England, and after the marriage of
Henry I and Matilda, had resided at the court of his brother-in-law,
till the death of Edgar, when he became ruler of Cumbria and the
southern portion of Lothian. He had married, in 1113-14, the daughter
and heiress of Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon, who was also the widow of a
Norman baron. In this way the earldom of Huntingdon became attached to
the Scottish throne, and afforded an occasion for reviving the old
question of homage. Moreover, Waltheof of Huntingdon was the son of
Siward of Northumbria, and David regarded himself as, on this account,
possessing claims over Northumbria.

David, as we have seen, had been brought up under Norman influences, and
it is under the son of the Saxon Margaret that the bloodless Norman
conquest of Scotland took place. Edgar had recognized the new English
nobility and settlers by addressing charters to all in his kingdom,
"both Scots and English"; his brother, David, speaks of "French and
English, Scots and Galwegians". The charters are, of course, addressed
to barons and land-owners, and their evidence refers to the English and
Anglo-Norman nobility. The Norman fascination, which had been turned to
such good account in England, in Italy, and in the Holy Land, had
completely vanquished such English prepossessions as David might have
inherited from his mother. Normans, like the Bruces and the Fitzalans
(afterwards the Stewarts), came to David's court and received from him
grants of land. The number of Norman signatures that attest his charters
show that his _entourage_ was mainly Norman. He was a very devout
Church-man (a "sair sanct for the Crown" as James VI called him), and
Norman prelate and Norman abbot helped to increase the total of Norman
influence. He transformed Scotland into a feudal country, gave grants of
land by feudal tenure, summoned a great council on the feudal principle,
and attempted to create such a monarchy as that of which Henry I was
laying the foundations. There can be little doubt that this strong
Norman influence helped to prepare the Scottish people for the French
alliance; but its more immediate effect was to bring about the existence
of an anti-national nobility. These great Norman names were to become
great in Scottish story; but it required a long process to make their
bearers, in any sense, Scotsmen. Most of them had come from England,
many of them held lands in England, and none of them could be expected
to feel any real difference between themselves and their English
fellows.

During the reign of Henry I, Anglo-Norman influences thus worked a great
change in Scotland. On Henry's death, David, as the uncle of the Empress
Matilda, immediately took up arms on her behalf. Stephen, with the
wisdom which characterized the beginning of his reign, came to terms
with him at Durham. David did not personally acknowledge the usurper,
but his son, Henry, did him homage for Huntingdon and some possessions
in the north (1136). In the following year, David claimed
Northumberland for Henry as the representative of Siward, and, on
Stephen's refusal, again adopted the cause of the empress. The usual
invasion of England followed, and after some months of ravaging, a short
truce, and a slight Scottish victory gained at Clitheroe on the Ribble,
in June, 1138, the final result was David's great defeat in the battle
of the Standard, fought near Northallerton on the 22nd August, 1138.

The battle of the Standard possesses no special interest for students of
the art of war. The English army, under William of Albemarle and Walter
l'Espec, was drawn up in one line of battle, consisting of knights in
coats of mail, archers, and spearmen. The Scots were in four divisions;
the van was composed of the Picts of Galloway, the right wing was led by
Prince Henry, and the men of Lothian were on the left. Behind fought
King David, with the men of Moray. The Galwegians made several
unsuccessful attempts upon the English centre. Prince Henry led his
horse through the English left wing, but the infantry failed to follow,
and the prince lost his advantage by a premature attempt to plunder. The
Scottish right made a pusillanimous attempt on the English left, and the
reserve began to desert King David, who collected the remnants of his
army and retired in safety to a height above Cowton Moor, the scene of
the fight. Prince Henry was left surrounded by the enemy, but saved the
position by a clever stratagem, and rejoined his father. Mr. Oman
remarks that the battle was "of a very abnormal type for the twelfth
century, since the side which had the advantage in cavalry made no
attempt to use it, while that which was weak in the all-important arm
made a creditable attempt to turn it to account by breaking into the
hostile flank.... Wild rushes of unmailed clansmen against a steady
front of spears and bows never succeeded; in this respect Northallerton
is the forerunner of Dupplin, Halidon Hill, Flodden, and Pinkie."[34]
The chief interest, for our purpose, attaching to the battle of the
Standard, is connected with the light it throws upon the racial
complexion of the country seventy years after the Norman Conquest. Our
chief authorities are the Hexham chroniclers and Ailred of Rivaulx[35],
English writers of the twelfth century. They speak of David's host as
composed of Angli, Picti, and Scoti. The Angli alone contained mailed
knights in their ranks, and David's first intention was to send these
mail-clad warriors against the English, while the Picts and Scots were
to follow with sword and targe. The Galwegians and the Scots from beyond
Forth strongly opposed this arrangement, and assured the king that his
unarmed Highlanders would fight better than "these Frenchmen". The king
gave the place of honour to the Galwegians, and altered his whole plan
of battle. The whole context, and the Earl of Strathern's sneer at
"these Frenchmen", would seem to show that the "Angli" are, at all
events, clearly distinguished from the Picts of Galloway and the Scots
who, like Malise of Strathern, came from beyond the Forth. It is
probable that the "Angli" were the men of Lothian; but it must also be
recollected both that the term included the Anglo-Norman nobility
("these Frenchman") and the English settlers who had followed Queen
Margaret, and that David was fighting in an English quarrel and in the
interests of an English queen. The knights who wore coats of mail were
entirely Anglo-Norman, and it is against them that the claim of the
Highlanders is particularly directed. When Richard of Hexham tells us
that Angles, Scots, and Picts fell out by the way, as they returned
home, he means to contrast the men of Lothian and the new Anglo-Norman
nobility with the Picts of Galloway and the Highlanders from north of
the Forth, and this unusual application of the term _Angli_, to a
portion of the Scottish army, is an indication, not that the Lowlanders
were entirely English, but that there was a strong jealousy between the
Scots and the new English nobility. The "Angli" are, above all others,
the knights in mail.[36]

It is not possible to credit David with any real affection for the
cause of the empress or with any higher motive than selfish greed, and
it can scarcely be claimed that he kept faith with Stephen. Such,
however, were the difficulties of the English king, that, in spite of
his crushing defeat, David reaped the advantages of victory. Peace was
made in April, 1139, by the Treaty of Durham, which secured to Prince
Henry the earldom of Northumberland, as an English fief. The Scottish
border line, which had successively enclosed Strathclyde and part of
Cumberland, and the Lothians, now extended to the Tees. David gave
Stephen some assistance in 1139, but on the victory of the Empress
Maud[37] at Lincoln, in 1141, David deserted the captive king, and was
present, on the empress's side, at her defeat at Winchester, in 1141.
Eight years later he entered into an agreement with the claimant, Henry
Fitz-Empress, afterwards Henry II, by which the eldest son of the
Scottish king was to retain his English fiefs, and David was to aid
Henry against Stephen. An unsuccessful attempt on England followed--the
last of David's numerous invasions. When he died, in 1153, he left
Scotland in a position of power with regard to England such as she was
never again to occupy. The religious devotion which secured for him a
popular canonization (he was never actually canonized) can scarcely
justify his conduct to Stephen. But it must be recollected that,
throughout his reign, there is comparatively little racial antagonism
between the two countries. David interfered in an English civil war, and
took part, now on one side, and now on the other. But the whole effect
of his life was to bring the nations more closely together through the
Norman influences which he encouraged in Scotland. His son and heir held
great fiefs in England,[38] and he granted tracts of land to
Anglo-Norman nobles. A Bruce and a Balliol, who each held possessions
both in Scotland and in England, tried to prevent the battle of the
Standard. Their well-meant efforts proved fruitless; but the fact is
notable and significant.

David's eldest son, the gallant Prince Henry, who had led the wild
charge at Northallerton, predeceased his father in 1152. He left three
sons, of whom the two elder, Malcolm and William, became successively
kings of Scotland, while from the youngest, David, Earl of Huntingdon,
were descended the claimants at the first Inter-regnum. It was the fate
of Scotland, as so often again, to be governed by a child; and a strong
king, Henry II, was now on the throne of England. As David I had taken
advantage of the weakness of Stephen, so now did Henry II benefit by the
youth of Malcolm IV. In spite of the agreement into which Henry had
entered with David in 1149, he, in 1157, obtained from Malcolm, then
fourteen years of age, the resignation of his claims upon
Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. In return for this,
Malcolm received a confirmation of the earldom of Huntingdon (cf. p.
18). The abandonment of the northern claims seems to have led to a
quarrel, for Henry refused to knight the Scots king; but, in the
following year, Malcolm accompanied Henry in his expedition to Toulouse,
and received his knighthood at Henry's hands. Malcolm's subsequent
troubles were connected with rebellions in Moray and in Galloway against
the new _régime_, and with the ambition of Somerled, the ruler of
Argyll, and of the still independent western islands. The only occasion
on which he again entered into relations with England was in 1163, when
he met Henry at Woodstock and did homage to his eldest son, who became
known as Henry III, although he never actually reigned. As usual, there
is no statement precisely defining the homage; it must not be forgotten
that the King of Scots was also Earl of Huntingdon.

Malcolm died in 1165, and was succeeded by his brother, William the
Lion, who reigned for nearly fifty years. Henry was now in the midst of
his great struggle with the Church, but William made no attempt to use
the opportunity. He accepted the earldom of Huntingdon from Henry, and
in 1170, when the younger Henry was crowned in Becket's despite, William
took the oath of fealty to him as Earl of Huntingdon. But in 1173-74,
when the English king's ungrateful son organized a baronial revolt,
William decided that his chance had come. His grandfather, David, had
made him Earl of Northumberland, and the resignation which Henry had
extorted from the weakness of Malcolm IV could scarcely be held as
binding upon William. So William marched into England to aid the rebel
prince, and, after some skirmishes and the usual ravaging, was surprised
while tilting near Alnwick, and made a captive. He was conveyed to the
castle of Falaise in Normandy, and there, on December 8th, 1174, as a
condition of his release, he signed the Treaty of Falaise, which
rendered the kingdom of Scotland, for fifteen years, unquestionably the
vassal of England.[39] The treaty acknowledged Henry II as overlord of
Scotland, and expressly stated the dependence of the Scottish Church
upon that of England. The relations of the churches had been an
additional cause of difficulty since the time of St. Margaret, and the
present arrangement was in no sense final. A papal legate held a council
in Edinburgh in 1177, and ten years afterwards Pope Clement III took the
Scottish Church directly under his own protection.

About the political relationship there could be no such doubt. William
stood, theoretically, if not actually, in much the same position to
Henry II, as John Baliol afterwards occupied to Edward I. It was not
till the accession of Richard I that William recovered his freedom. The
castles in the south of Scotland which had been delivered to the English
were restored, and the independence of Scotland was admitted, on
William's paying Richard the sum of 10,000 marks. This agreement, dated
December, 1189, annulled the terms of the Treaty of Falaise, and left
the position of William the Lion exactly what it had been at the death
of Malcolm IV. He remained liegeman for such lands as the Scottish kings
had, in times past, done homage to England. The agreement with Richard I
is certainly not incompatible with the Scottish position that the
homage, before the Treaty of Falaise, applied only to the earldom of
Huntingdon; but the usual vagueness was maintained, and the arrangement
in no way determines the question of the homage paid by the earlier
Scottish kings. For a hundred years after this date, the two countries
were never at war. William had difficulties with John; in 1209, an
outbreak of hostilities seemed almost certain, but the two kings came to
terms. The long reign of William came to an end in 1214. His son and
successor, Alexander II, joined the French party in England which was
defeated at Lincoln in 1216. Alexander made peace with the regent,
resigned all claims to Northumberland, and did homage for his English
possessions--the most important of which was the earldom of Huntingdon,
which had, since 1190, been held by his uncle, David, known as David of
Huntingdon. In 1221, he married Joanna, sister of Henry III. Another
marriage, negotiated at the same time, was probably of more real
importance. Margaret, the eldest daughter of William the Lion, became
the wife of the Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh. Mr. Hume Brown
has pointed out that immediately on the fall of Hubert de Burgh, a
dispute arose between Henry and Alexander. The English king desired
Alexander to acknowledge the Treaty of Falaise, and this Alexander
refused to do. The agreement, which averted an appeal to the sword, was,
on the whole, favourable to Scotland. Nothing was said about homage for
this kingdom. David of Huntingdon had died in 1119, and Alexander gave
up the southern earldom, but received a fief in the northern counties,
always coveted of the kings of Scotland. This arrangement is known as
the Treaty of York (1236). Some trifling incidents and the second
marriage of Alexander, which brought Scotland into closer touch with
France (he married Marie, daughter of Enguerand de Coucy), nearly
provoked a rupture in 1242, but the domestic troubles of Henry and
Alexander alike prevented any breach of the long peace which had
subsisted since the capture of William the Lion. In 1249, the Scottish
king died, and his son and successor,[40] Alexander III, was knighted by
Henry of England, and, in 1251, married Margaret, Henry's eldest
daughter. The relations of Alexander to Henry III and to Edward I will
be narrated in the following chapter. Not once throughout his reign was
any blood spilt in an English quarrel, and the story of his reign forms
no part of our subject. Its most interesting event is the battle of
Largs. The Scottish kings had, for some time, been attempting to annex
the islands, and, in 1263, Hakon of Norway invaded Scotland as a
retributive measure. He was defeated at the battle of Largs, and, in
1266, the Isles were annexed to the Scottish crown. The fact that this
forcible annexation took place, after a struggle, only twenty years
before the death of Alexander III, must be borne in mind in connection
with the part played by the Islanders in the War of Independence.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 34: _Art of War in the Middle Ages_, p. 391.]

[Footnote 35: Cf. App. A.]

[Footnote 36: In the final order of battle, David seems to have
attempted to bring all classes of his subjects together, and the
divisions have a political as well as a military purpose. The right wing
contained Anglo-Norman knights and men from Strathclyde and Teviotdale,
the left wing men from Lothian and Highlanders from Argyll and the
islands, and King David's reserve was composed of more knights along
with men from Moray and the region north of the Forth.]

[Footnote 37: The Empress Maud, daughter of Henry I, and niece of David,
must be carefully distinguished from Queen Maud, wife of Stephen, and
cousin of David, who negotiated the Treaty of Durham.]

[Footnote 38: Ailred credits Bruce with a long speech, in which he tries
to convince David that his real friends are not his Scottish subjects,
but his Anglo-Norman favourites, and that, accordingly, he should keep
on good terms with the English.]

[Footnote 39: William's English earldom of Huntingdon, which had been
forfeited, was restored, in 1185, and was conferred by William upon his
brother, David, the ancestor of the claimants of 1290.]

[Footnote 40: As Alexander III was the last king of Scotland who ruled
before the War of Independence, it is interesting to note that he was
crowned at Scone with the ancient ceremonies, and as the representative
of the Celtic kings of Scotland. Fordun tells us that the coronation
took place on the sacred stone at Scone, on which all Scottish kings had
sat, and that a Highlander appeared and read Alexander's Celtic
genealogy (Annals XLVIII. Cf. App. A). There is no indication that
Alexander's subjects, from the Forth to the Moray Firth, were "stout
Northumbrian Englishmen", who had, for no good reason, drifted away from
their English countrymen, to unite them with whom Edward I waged his
Scottish wars.]




CHAPTER III

THE SCOTTISH POLICY OF EDWARD I

1286-1296


When Alexander III was killed, on the 19th March, 1285-86, the relations
between England and Scotland were such that Edward I was amply justified
in looking forward to a permanent union. Since the ill-fated invasion of
William the Lion in 1174, there had been no serious warfare between the
two countries, and in recent years they had become more and more
friendly in their dealings with each other. The late king had married
Edward's sister, Margaret, and the child-queen was her grand-daughter;
Alexander and Margaret had been present at the English King's coronation
in 1274; and, in addition to these personal connections, Scotland had
found England a friend in its great final struggle with the Danes. The
misfortunes which had overtaken Scotland in the premature deaths[41] of
Alexander and his three children might yet prove a very real blessing,
if they prepared the way for the creation of a great island kingdom,
which should be at once free and united. The little Margaret, the Maid
of Norway, Edward's grand-niece, had been acknowledged heir to the
throne of her grandfather, in February, 1283-84, and on his death her
succession was admitted. The Great Council met at Scone in April, 1286,
and appointed six Guardians of the Kingdom. It was no easy task which
was entrusted to them, for the claim of a child and a foreigner could
not but be disputed by the barons who stood nearest to the throne. The
only rival who attempted to rebel was Robert Bruce of Annandale, who had
been promised the succession by Alexander II, and had been disappointed
of the fulfilment of his hopes by the birth of the late king in 1241.
The deaths of two of the guardians added to the difficulties of the
situation, and it was with something like relief that the Scots heard
that Eric of Norway, the father of their queen, wished to come to an
arrangement with Edward of England, in whose power he lay. The result of
Eric's negotiations with Edward was that a conference met at Salisbury
in 1289, and was attended, on Edward's invitation, by four Scottish
representatives, who included Robert Bruce and three of the guardians.
Such were the troubles of the country that the Scots willingly acceded
to Edward's proposals, which gave him an interest in the government of
Scotland, and they heard with delight that he contemplated the marriage
of their little queen to his son Edward, then two years of age. The
English king was assured of the satisfaction which such a marriage would
give to Scotland, and the result was that, by the Treaty of Brigham, in
1290, the marriage was duly arranged. Edward had previously obtained the
necessary dispensation from the pope.

The eagerness with which the Scots welcomed the proposal of marriage was
sufficient evidence that the time had come for carrying out Edward's
statesmanlike scheme, but the conditions which were annexed to it should
have warned him that there were limits to the Scottish compliance with
his wishes. Scotland was not in any way to be absorbed by England,
although the crowns would be united in the persons of Edward and
Margaret. Edward wisely made no attempt to force Scotland into any more
complete union, although he could not but expect that the union of the
crowns would prepare the way for a union of the kingdoms. He certainly
interpreted in the widest sense the rights given him by the treaty of
Brigham, but when the Scots objected to his demand that all Scottish
castles should be placed in his power, he gave way without rousing
further suspicion or indignation. Hitherto, his policy had been
characterized by the great sagacity which he had shown in his conduct of
English affairs; it is impossible to refuse either to sympathize with
his ideals or to admire the tact he displayed in his negotiations with
Scotland. His considerateness extended even to the little Maid of
Norway, for whose benefit he victualled, with raisins and other fruit,
the "large ship" which he sent to conduct her to England. But the large
ship returned to England with a message from King Eric that he would not
entrust his daughter to an English vessel. The patient Edward sent it
back again, and it was probably in it that the child set sail in
September, 1290. Some weeks later, Bishop Fraser of St. Andrews, one of
the guardians, and a supporter of the English interest, wrote to Edward
that he had heard a "sorrowful rumour" regarding the queen.[42] The
rumour proved to be well-founded; in circumstances which are unknown to
us, the poor girl-queen died on her voyage, and her death proved a fatal
blow to the work on which Edward had been engaged for the last four
years.

Of the thirteen[43] competitors who put forward claims to the crown,
only three need be here mentioned. They were each descended from David,
Earl of Huntingdon, brother of William the Lion and grandson of David I.
The claimant who, according to the strict rules of primogeniture, had
the best right was John Balliol, the grandson of Margaret, the eldest
daughter of Earl David. His most formidable opponent was Robert Bruce of
Annandale, the son of Earl David's second daughter, Isabella, who based
his candidature on the fact that he was the grandson, whereas Balliol
was the great-grandson, of the Earl of Huntingdon, through whom both the
rivals claimed. The third, John Hastings, was the grandson of David's
youngest daughter, Ada. Bishop Fraser, in the letter to which we have
already referred, urged Edward I to interfere in favour of John Balliol,
who might be employed to further English interests in Scotland. The
English king thereupon decided to put forward a definite claim to be
lord paramount, and, in virtue of that right, to decide the disputed
succession.

Since Richard I had restored his independence to William the Lion, in
1189, the question of the overlordship had lain almost entirely dormant.
On John's succession, William had done homage "saving his own right",
but whether the homage was for Scotland or solely for his English fiefs
was not clear. His successor, Alexander II, aided Louis of France
against the infant Henry III, and, after the battle of Lincoln, came to
an agreement with the regent, by which he did homage to Henry III, but
only for the earldom of Huntingdon and his other possessions in Henry's
kingdom. After the fall of Hubert de Burgh, Henry used his influence
with Pope Gregory IX, who looked upon the English king as a valuable
ally in the great struggle with Frederick II, to persuade the pope to
order the King of Scots to acknowledge Henry as his overlord (1234).
Alexander refused to comply with the papal injunction, and the matter
was not definitely settled. Henry made no attempt to enforce his claim,
and merely came to an agreement with Alexander regarding the English
possessions of the Scottish king (1236). During the minority of
Alexander III, when Henry was, for two years, the real ruler of Scotland
(1255-1257), he described himself not as lord paramount, but as chief
adviser of the Scottish king. Lastly, when, in 1278, Alexander III took
a solemn oath of homage to Edward at Westminster, he, according to the
Scottish account of the affair, made an equally solemn avowal that to
God alone was his homage due for the kingdom of Scotland, and Edward had
accepted the homage thus rendered.

It is thus clear that Edward regarded the claim of the overlordship as a
"trump card" to be played only in special circumstances, and these
appeared now to have arisen. The death of the Maid of Norway had
deprived him of his right to interfere in the affairs of Scotland, and
had destroyed his hopes of a marriage alliance. It seemed to him that
all hope of carrying out his Scottish policy had vanished, unless he
could take advantage of the helpless condition of the country to obtain
a full and final recognition of a claim which had been denied for
exactly a hundred years. At first it seemed as if the scheme were to
prove satisfactory. The Norman nobles who claimed the throne declared,
after some hesitation, their willingness to acknowledge Edward's claim
to be lord paramount, and the English king was therefore arbiter of the
situation. He now obtained what he had asked in vain in the preceding
year--the delivery into English hands of all Scottish strongholds (June,
1291). Edward delayed his decision till the 17th November, 1292, when,
after much disputation regarding legal precedents, and many
consultations with Scottish commissioners and the English Parliament, he
finally adjudged the crown to John Balliol. It cannot be argued that the
decision was unfair; but Edward was fortunate in finding that the
candidate whose hereditary claim was strongest was also the man most
fitted to occupy the position of a vassal king. The new monarch made a
full and indisputable acknowledgment of his position as Edward's liege,
and the great seal of the kingdom of Scotland was publicly destroyed in
token of the position of vassalage in which the country now stood. Of
what followed it is difficult to speak with any certainty. Balliol
occupied the throne for three and a half years, and was engaged, during
the whole of that period, in disputes with his superior. The details
need not detain us. Edward claimed to be final judge in all Scottish
cases; he summoned Balliol to his court to plead against one of the
Scottish king's own vassals, and to receive instructions with regard to
the raising of money for Edward's needs. It may fairly be said that
Edward's treatment of Balliol does give grounds for the view of Scottish
historians that the English king was determined, from the first, to goad
his wretched vassal into rebellion in order to give him an opportunity
of absorbing the country in his English kingdom. On the other hand, it
may be argued that, if this was Edward's aim, he was singularly
unfortunate in the time he chose for forcing a crisis. He was at war
with Philip IV of France; Madoc was raising his Welsh rebellion; and
Edward's seizure of wool had created much indignation among his own
subjects. However this may be, it is certain that Balliol, rankling with
a sense of injustice caused by the ignominy which Edward had heaped upon
him, and rendered desperate by the complaints of his own subjects,
decided, by the advice of the Great Council, to disown his allegiance to
the King of England, and to enter upon an alliance with France. It is
noteworthy that the policy of the French alliance, as an anti-English
movement, which became the watchword of the patriotic party in Scotland,
was inaugurated by John Balliol. The Scots commenced hostilities by some
predatory incursions into the northern counties of England in 1295-96.

Whether or not Edward was waiting for the opportunity thus given him, he
certainly took full advantage of it. Undisturbed by his numerous
difficulties, he marched northwards to the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Tradition tells that he was exasperated by insults showered upon him by
the inhabitants, but the story cannot go far to excuse the massacre
which followed the capture of the town. After more than a century of
peace, the first important act of war was marked by a brutality which
was a fitting prelude to more than two centuries of fierce and bloody
fighting. On Edward's policy of "Thorough," as exemplified at Berwick,
must rest, to some extent, the responsibility for the unnecessary
ferocity which distinguished the Scottish War of Independence. It was,
from a military stand-point, a complete and immediate success;
politically, it was unquestionably a failure. From Berwick-on-Tweed
Edward marched to Dunbar, cheered by the formal announcement of
Balliol's renunciation of his allegiance. He easily defeated the Scots
at Dunbar, in April, 1296, and continued an undisturbed progress through
Scotland, the castles of Dunbar, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling
falling into his hands. Balliol determined to submit, and, on the 7th
July, 1296, he met Edward in the churchyard of Stracathro, near Brechin,
and formally resigned his office into the hands of his overlord. Balliol
was imprisoned in England for three years, but, in July, 1299, he was
permitted to go to his estate of Bailleul, in Normandy, where he
survived till April, 1313.

Edward now treated Scotland as a conquered country under his own
immediate rule. He continued his progress, by Aberdeen, Banff, and
Cullen, to Elgin, whence, in July, 1296, he marched southwards by Scone,
whence he carried off the Stone of Fate, which is now part of the
Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. He also despoiled Scotland of
many of its early records, which might serve to remind his new subjects
of their forfeited independence. He did not at once determine the new
constitution of the country, but left it under a military occupation,
with John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey, as Governor, Hugh de Cressingham
as Treasurer, and William Ormsby as Justiciar. All castles and other
strong places were in English hands, and Edward regarded his conquest as
assured.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 41: David, the youngest child of Alexander and Margaret of
England, died in June, 1281; Alexander, his older brother, in January,
1283-84; and their sister, Margaret, Queen of Norway, in April, 1283.
Neither Alexander nor David left any issue, and the little daughter of
the Queen of Norway was only about three years old when her grandfather,
Alexander III, was killed.]

[Footnote 42: Nat. MSS. i. 36, No. LXX.]

[Footnote 43: Cf. Table, App. C.]




CHAPTER IV

THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

1297-1328


Edward I had failed to recognize the difference between the Scottish
barons and the Scottish people, to which we have referred in a former
chapter. To the Norman baron, who possessed lands in England and
Scotland alike, it mattered little that he had now but one liege lord
instead of two suzerains. To the people of Scotland, proud and
high-spirited, tenacious of their long traditions of independence,
resentful of the presence of foreigners, it could not but be hateful to
find their country governed by a foreign soldiery. The conduct of
Edward's officials, and especially of Cressingham and Ormsby, and the
cruelty of the English garrisons, served to strengthen this national
feeling, and it only remained for it to find a leader round whom it
might rally.[44] A leader arose in the person of Sir William Wallace, a
heroic and somewhat mysterious figure, who first attracted notice in
the autumn of 1296, and, by the spring of the following year, had
gathered round him a band of guerilla warriors, by whose help he was
able to make serious attacks upon the English garrisons of Lanark and
Scone (May, 1297). These exploits, of little importance in themselves,
sufficed to attract the popular feeling towards Wallace. The domestic
difficulties of Edward I rendered the time opportune for a rising, and,
despite the failure of an ill-conceived and badly-managed attempt on the
part of some of the more patriotic barons, which led to the submission
of Irvine, in 1297, the little army which Wallace had collected rapidly
grew in courage and in numbers, and its leader laid siege to the castle
of Dundee. He had now attained a position of such importance that Surrey
and Cressingham found it necessary to take strong measures against him,
and they assembled at Stirling, whither Wallace marched to meet them.
The battle of Stirling Bridge (or, more strictly, Cambuskenneth Bridge)
was fought on September 11th, 1297. Wallace, with his army of knights
and spearmen, took up his position on the Abbey Craig, with the Forth
between him and the English. Less than a mile from the Scottish camp was
a small bridge over the river, giving access to the Abbey of
Cambuskenneth. Surrey rashly attempted to cross this bridge, in the face
of the Scots, and Wallace, after a considerable number of the enemy had
been allowed to reach the northern bank, ordered an attack. The English
failed to keep the bridge, and their force became divided. Surrey was
unable to offer any assistance to his vanguard, and they fell an easy
prey to the Scots, while the English general, with the remnants of his
army, retreated to Berwick.

Stirling was the great military key of the country, commanding all the
passes from south to north, and the great defeat which the English had
sustained placed the country in the power of Wallace. Along with an
Andrew de Moray, of whose identity we know nothing, he undertook the
government of the country, corresponded in the name of Scotland with
Lübeck and Hamburg, and took the offensive against England in an
expedition which ravaged as far south as Hexham. To the great monastery
of Hexham he granted protection in the name of "the leaders of the army
of Scotland",[45] although he was not successful in restraining the
ferocity of his followers. The document in question is granted in the
name of John, King of Scotland, and in a charter dated March 1298,[46]
Wallace describes himself as Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, acting
for the exiled Balliol. In the following summer, Edward marched into
Scotland, and although his forces were in serious difficulties from want
of food, he went forward to meet Wallace, who held a strong position at
Falkirk. Wallace prepared to meet Edward by drawing up his spearmen in
four great "schiltrons" or divisions, with a reserve of cavalry. His
flanks were protected by archers, and he had also placed archers between
the divisions of spearmen. On the English side, Edward himself commanded
the centre, the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford the right, and the Bishop
of Durham the left. The Scottish defeat was the result of a combination
of archers and cavalry. The first attack of the English horse was
completely repulsed by the spearmen. "The front ranks", says Mr. Oman,
"knelt with their spear-butts fixed in the earth; the rear ranks
levelled their lances over their comrades' heads; the thick-set grove of
twelve-foot spears was far too dense for the cavalry to penetrate." But
Edward withdrew the cavalry and ordered the archers to send a shower of
arrows on the Scots. Wallace's cavalry made no attempt to interfere with
the archers; the Scottish bowmen were too few to retaliate; and, when
the English horse next charged, they found many weak points in the
schiltrons, and broke up the Scottish host.

As the battle of Stirling had created the power of Wallace, so that of
Falkirk completely destroyed it. He almost immediately resigned his
office of guardian (mainly, according to tradition, because of the
jealousy with which the great barons regarded him), and took refuge in
France. Edward was still in the midst of difficulties, both foreign and
domestic, and he was unable to reduce the country. The Scots elected new
guardians, who regarded themselves as regents, not for Edward but for
Balliol. They included John Comyn and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, the
future king. The guardians were successful in persuading both Philip IV
of France and Pope Boniface VIII to intervene in their favour, but
Edward disregarded the papal interference, and though he was too busy to
complete his conquest, he sent an army into Scotland in each of the
years 1300, 1301, and 1302. Military operations were almost entirely
confined to ravaging; but, in February 1302-3, Comyn completely defeated
at Rosslyn, near Edinburgh, an English army under Sir John Segrave and
Ralph de Manton, whom Edward had ordered to make a foray in Scotland
about the beginning of Lent. In the summer of 1303, the English king,
roused perhaps by this small success, and able to give his undivided
attention to Scotland, conducted an invasion on a larger scale. In
September, he traversed the country as far north as Elgin, and,
remaining in Scotland during the winter of 1303-4, he set to work in the
spring to reduce the castle of Stirling, which still held out against
him. When the garrison surrendered, in July, 1304, Scotland lay at
Edward's feet. Comyn had already submitted to the English king, and
Edward's personal vindictiveness was satisfied by the capture of Wallace
by Sir John Menteith, a Scotsman who had been acting in the English
interest. Wallace was taken to London, subjected to a mock trial,
tortured, and put to death with ignominy. On the 23rd August, 1305, his
head was placed on London Bridge, and portions of his body were sent to
Scotland. His memory served as an inspiration for the cause of freedom,
and it is held in just reverence to the present hour. If it is true that
he did not scruple to go beyond what we should regard as the limits of
honourable warfare, it must be remembered that he was fighting an enemy
who had also disregarded these limits, and much may be forgiven to brave
men who are resisting a gratuitous war of conquest. When he died, his
work seemed to have failed. But he had shown his countrymen how to
resist Edward, and he had given sufficient evidence of the strength of
national feeling, if only it could find a suitable leader. The English
had to learn the lesson which, five centuries later, Napoleon had to
learn in Spain, and Scotland cannot forget that Wallace was the first to
teach it.

It is not less pathetic to turn to Edward's scheme for the government of
Scotland. It bears the impress of a mind which was that of a statesman
and a lawyer as well as a soldier. It is impossible to deny a tribute of
admiration to its wisdom, or to question the probability of its success
in other circumstances. Had the course of events been more propitious
for Edward's great plan, Scotland and England might have been spared
much suffering. But Edward failed to realize that the Scots could no
longer regard him as the friend and ally to whose son they had willingly
agreed to marry their queen. He was now but a military conqueror in
temporary possession of their country, an enemy to be resisted by any
means. The new constitution was foredoomed to failure. Carrying out his
scheme of 1296, Edward created no vassal-king, but placed Scotland under
his own nephew, John of Brittany; he interfered as little as might be
with the customs and laws of the country; he placed over it eight
justiciars with sheriffs under them. In 1305, Edward's Parliament, which
met at London, was attended by Scottish representatives. The
incorporation of the country with its larger neighbour was complete, but
it involved as little change as was possible in the circumstances.

The Parliament of 1305 was attended by Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick,
who attended not as a representative of Scotland, but as an English
lord. Bruce was the grandson of the Robert Bruce of Annandale who had
been promised the crown by Alexander II, and who had been one of the
claimants of 1290. His grandfather had done homage to Edward, and Bruce
himself had been generally on the English side, and had fought against
Wallace at Falkirk. When John Balliol had decided to rebel, he had
transferred the lands of Annandale from the Bruces to the Comyns, and
they had been restored by Edward I after Balliol's submission. From 1299
to 1303, Bruce had been associated with Comyn in the guardianship of the
kingdom, but, like Comyn, had submitted to Edward. Nobody in Scotland
could now think of a restoration of Balliol, and if there was to be a
Scottish king at all, it must obviously be either Comyn or Bruce. The
claim of John Comyn the younger was much stronger than that of his
father had been. The elder Comyn had claimed on account of his descent
from Donald Bane, the brother and successor of Malcolm Canmore; but the
younger Comyn had an additional claim in right of his mother, who was a
sister of John Balliol. Between Bruce and Comyn there was a
long-standing feud. In 1299, at a meeting of the Great Council of
Scotland at Peebles, Comyn had attacked Bruce, and they could only be
separated by the use of violence. On the 10th February, 1305-6, Bruce
and the Comyn met in the church of the convent of the Minorite Friars at
Dumfries. Tradition tells that they met to adjust their conflicting
claims, with a view to establishing the independence of the country in
the person of one or other of the rivals; that a dispute arose in which
they came to blows; and that Bruce, after inflicting a severe wound upon
his enemy, left the church. "I doubt I have slain the Red Comyn," he
said to his followers. "Doubt?" was the reply of Sir Roger Fitzpatrick,
"I'll mak siccar." The actual circumstances of the affair are unknown to
us; but Bruce may fairly be relieved of the suspicion of any
premeditation, because it is most unlikely that he would have needlessly
chosen to offend the Church by committing a murder within sanctuary. The
real interest attaching to the circumstances lies in the tradition that
the object of the meeting was to organize a resistance against Edward I.
Whether this was so or not, there can be no doubt that the result of the
conference compelled the Bruce to place himself at the head of the
national cause. A Norman baron, born in England, he was by no means the
natural leader for whose appearance men looked, and there was a grave
chance of his failing to arouse the national sentiment. But the murder
of one claimant to the Scottish throne at the hands of the only other
possible candidate, who thus placed himself in the position of undoubted
heir, could scarcely have been forgiven by Edward I, even if the Comyn
had not, for the past two years, proved a faithful servant of the
English king. There was no alternative, and, on the 27th March, 1306,
Robert, Earl of Carrick and Lord of Annandale, was crowned King of the
Scots at Scone. The ancient royal crown of the Scottish kings had been
removed by Balliol in 1296, and had fallen into the hands of Edward, but
the Countess of Buchan placed on the Bruce's head a hastily made coronet
of gold.

It was far from an auspicious beginning. It is difficult to give Bruce
credit for much patriotic feeling, although, as we have seen, he had
been one of the guardians who had maintained a semblance of
independence. The death of the Comyn had thrown against him the whole
influence of the Church; he was excommunicate, and it was no sin to slay
him. The powerful family, whose head had been cut off by his hand, had
vowed revenge, and its great influence was on the side of the English.
It is no small tribute to the force of the sentiment of nationality that
the Scots rallied round such a leader, and it must be remembered that,
from whatever reason the Bruce adopted the national cause, he proved in
every respect worthy of a great occasion, and as time passed, he came to
deserve the place he occupies as the hero of the epic of a nation's
freedom.

The first blow in the renewed struggle was struck at Methven, near
Perth, where, on the 19th June, 1306, the Earl of Pembroke inflicted a
defeat upon King Robert. The Lowlands were now almost entirely lost to
him; he sent his wife[47] and child to Kildrummie Castle in
Aberdeenshire, whence they fled to the sanctuary of St. Duthac, near
Tain. In August, Bruce was defeated at Dalry, by Alexander of Lorn, a
relative of the Comyn. In September, Kildrummie Castle fell, and Nigel
Bruce, King Robert's brother, fell into the hands of the English and was
put to death at Berwick. To complete the tale of catastrophes, the
Bruce's wife and daughter, two of his sisters, and other two of his
brothers, along with the Countess of Buchan, came into the power of the
English king. Edward placed some of the ladies in cages, and put to
death Sir Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, Dean of Glasgow (February,
1306-7). Meanwhile, King Robert had found it impossible to maintain
himself even in his own lands of Carrick, and he withdrew to the island
of Rathlin, where he wintered. Undeterred by this long series of
calamities, he took the field in the spring of 1307, and now, for the
first time, fortune favoured him. On the 10th May, he defeated the
English, under Pembroke, at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire. He had been joined
by his brother Edward and by the Lord James of Douglas (the "Black
Douglas"), and the news of his success, slight as it was, helped to
increase at once the spirit and the numbers of his followers. His
position, however, was one of extreme difficulty; he was still only a
king in name, and, in reality, the leader of a guerilla warfare. Edward
was marching northwards at the head of a large army, determined to crush
his audacious subject. But Fate had decreed that the Hammer of the Scots
was never again to set foot in Scotland. At Burgh-on-Sand, near
Carlisle, within sight of his unconquered conquest, the great Edward
breathed his last. His death was the turning-point in the struggle. The
reign of Edward II in England is a most important factor in the
explanation of Bruce's success.

With the death of Edward I the whole aspect of the contest changes. The
English were no longer conducting a great struggle for a statesmanlike
ideal, as they had been under Edward I--however impossible he himself
had made its attainment. There is no longer any sign of conscious
purpose either in their method or in their aims. The nature of the
warfare at once changed; Edward II, despite his father's wish that his
bones should be carried at the head of the army till Scotland was
subdued, contented himself with a fruitless march into Ayrshire, and
then returned to give his father a magnificent burial in Westminster
Abbey. King Robert was left to fight his Scottish enemies without their
English allies. These Scottish enemies may be divided into two
classes--the Anglo-Norman nobles who had supported the English cause
more or less consistently, and the personal enemies of the Bruce, who
increased in numbers after the murder of Comyn. Among the great families
thus alienated from the cause of Scotland were the Highlanders of Argyll
and the Isles, some of the men of Badenach, and certain Galloway clans.
But that this opposition was personal, and not racial, is shown by the
fact that, from the first, some of these Highlanders were loyal to
Bruce, _e.g._ Sir Nigel Campbell and Angus Og. We shall see, further,
that after the first jealousies caused by Comyn's death and Bruce's
success had passed away, the men of Argyll and the Isles took a more
prominent part on the Scottish side. In December, 1307, Bruce routed
John Comyn, the successor of his old rival, at Slains, on the
Aberdeenshire coast, and in the following May, when Comyn had obtained
some slight English assistance, he inflicted a final defeat upon him at
Inverurie. The power of the Comyns in their hereditary earldom of Buchan
had now been suppressed, and King Robert turned his attention to their
allies in the south. In the autumn of 1308, he himself defeated
Alexander of Lorn and subdued the district of Argyll, his brother Edward
reduced Galloway to subjection, and Douglas, along with Randolph, Earl
of Moray, was successful in Tweeddale. Thus, within three years from the
death of Comyn, Bruce had broken the power of the great families, whose
enmity against him had been aroused by that event. One year later the
other great misfortune, which had been brought upon him by the same
cause, was removed by an act which is important evidence at once of the
strength of the anti-English feeling in the country, and of the
confidence which Bruce had inspired. On the 24th February, 1309-10, the
clergy of Scotland met at Dundee and made a solemn declaration[48] of
fealty to King Robert as their lawful king. Scotland was thus united in
its struggle for independence under King Robert I.

It now remained to attack the English garrisons who held the castles of
Scotland. An invasion conducted by Edward II in 1310 proved fruitless,
and the English king returned home to enter on a long quarrel with the
Lords Ordainers, and to see his favourite, Gaveston, first exiled and
then put to death. While the attention of the rulers of England was thus
occupied, Bruce, for the first time since Wallace's inroad of 1297,
carried the war into the enemy's country, invading the north of England
both in 1311 and in 1312. Meanwhile the strongholds of the country were
passing out of the English power. Linlithgow was recovered in 1311;
Perth in January, 1312-13; and Roxburgh a month later. The romantic
capture of the castle of Edinburgh, by Randolph, Earl of Moray, in
March, 1313, is one of the classical stories of Scottish history, and
in the summer of the same year, King Robert restored the Scottish rule
in the Isle of Man. In November, 1313, only Stirling Castle remained in
English hands, and Edward Bruce rashly agreed to raise the siege on
condition that the garrison should surrender if they were not relieved
by June 24th, 1314. Edward II determined to make a heroic effort to
maintain this last vestige of English conquest, and his attempt to do so
has become irrevocably associated with the Field of Bannockburn.

In his preparations for the great struggle, which was to determine the
fate of Scotland, the Bruce carefully avoided the errors which had led
to Wallace's defeat at Falkirk. He selected a position which was
covered, on one side by the Bannock Burn and a morass, and, on the other
side, by the New Park or Forest. His front was protected by the stream
and by the famous series of "pottes", or holes, covered over so as to
deceive the English cavalry. The choice of this narrow position not only
prevented the possibility of a flank attack, but also forced the great
army of Edward II into a small space, where its numbers became a
positive disadvantage. King Robert arranged his infantry in four
divisions; in front were three schiltrons of pikemen, under Randolph,
Edward Bruce, and Sir James Douglas, and Bruce himself commanded the
reserve, which was composed of Highlanders from Argyll and the Islands
and of the men of Carrick.[49] Sir Robert Keith, the Marischal, was in
charge of a small body of cavalry, which did good service by driving
back, at a critical moment, such archers as made their way through the
forest. The English army was in ten divisions, but the limited area in
which they had to fight interfered with their arrangement. As at
Falkirk, the English cavalry made a gallant but useless charge against
the schiltrons, but it was not possible again to save the day by means
of archers, for the archers had no room to deploy, and could only make
vain efforts to shoot over the heads of the horsemen. Bruce strengthened
the Scots with his reserve, and then ensued a general action along the
whole line. The van of the English army was now thoroughly demoralized,
and their comrades in the rear could not, in these narrow limits, press
forward to render any assistance. King Robert's camp-followers, at this
juncture, rushed down a hill behind the Scottish army, and they appeared
to the English as a fresh force come to assist the enemy. The result was
the loss of all sense of discipline: King Edward's magnificent host fled
in complete rout and with great slaughter, and the cause of Scottish
freedom was won.

The victory of Bannockburn did not end the war, for the English refused
to acknowledge the hard-won independence of Scotland, and fighting
continued till the year 1327. The Scots not only invaded England, but
adopted the policy of fighting England in Ireland, and English reprisals
in Scotland were uniformly unsuccessful. Bruce invaded England in 1315;
in the same year, his brother Edward landed with a Scottish army at
Carrickfergus, in the hope of obtaining a throne for himself. He was
crowned King of Ireland in May, 1316, and during that and the following
year, King Robert was personally in Ireland, giving assistance to his
brother. But, in 1318, Edward Bruce was defeated and slain near Dundalk,
and, with his death, this phase of the Bruce's English policy
disappears. A few months before the death of Edward Bruce, King Robert
had captured the border town of Berwick-on-Tweed, which had been held by
the English since 1298. In 1319, Edward II sent an English army to
besiege Berwick, and the Scots replied by an invasion of England in the
course of which Douglas and Randolph defeated the English at
Mitton-on-Swale in Yorkshire. The English were led by the Archbishop of
York, and so many clerks were killed that the battle acquired the name
of the Chapter of Mitton. The war lingered on for three years more. The
year 1322 saw an invasion of England by King Robert and a
counter-invasion of Scotland by Edward II, who destroyed the Abbey of
Dryburgh on his return march. This expedition was, as usual, fruitless,
for the Scots adopted their usual tactics of leaving the country waste
and desolate, and the English army could obtain no food. In October of
the same year King Robert made a further inroad into Yorkshire, and won
a small victory at Biland Abbey. At last, in March, 1323, a truce was
made for thirteen years, but as Edward II persisted in declining to
acknowledge the independence of Scotland, it was obvious that peace
could not be long maintained.

During the fourteen years which followed his victory of Bannockburn,
King Robert was consolidating his kingdom. He had obtained recognition
even in the Western Highlands and Islands, and the sentiment of the
whole nation had gathered around him. The force of this sentiment is
apparent in connection with ecclesiastical difficulties. When Pope John
XXII attempted to make peace in 1317 and refused to acknowledge the
Bruce as king, the papal envoys were driven from the kingdom. For this
the country was placed under the papal ban, and when, in 1324, the pope
offered both to acknowledge King Robert and to remove the
excommunication, on condition that Berwick should be restored to the
English, the Scots refused to comply with his condition. A small
rebellion in 1320 had been firmly repressed by king and Parliament. The
birth of a son to King Robert, on the 5th March, 1323-24, had given
security to the dynasty, and, at the great Parliament which met at
Cambuskenneth in 1326, at which Scottish burghs were, for the first
time, represented, the clergy, the barons, and the people took an oath
of allegiance to the little Prince David, and, should his heirs fail, to
Robert, the son of Bruce's daughter, Marjorie, and her husband, Robert,
the High Steward of Scotland. The same Parliament put the financial
position of the monarch on a satisfactory footing by granting him a
tenth penny of all rents.

The deposition and murder of Edward II created a situation of which the
King of Scots could not fail to take advantage. The truce was broken in
the summer of 1327 by an expedition into England, conducted by Douglas
and Randolph, and the hardiness of the Scottish soldiery surprised the
English and warned them that it was impossible to prolong the contest in
the present condition of the two countries. The regents for the young
Edward III resolved to come to terms with Bruce. The treaty of
Northampton, dated 17th March, 1327-28, is still preserved in Edinburgh.
It acknowledged the complete independence of Scotland and the royal
dignity of King Robert. It promised the restoration of all the symbols
of Scottish independence which Edward I had removed, and it arranged a
marriage between Prince David, the heir to the Scottish throne, and
Joanna, the sister of the young king of England. A marriage ceremony
between the two children was solemnized in the following May, but the
Stone of Fate was never removed from Westminster, owing, it is said, to
the opposition of the abbot. The succession of James VI to the throne of
England, nearly three centuries later, was accepted as the fulfilment of
the prophecy attached to the Coronation Stone, "Lapis ille grandis":

  "Ni fallat fatam, Scoti, quocunque locatum,
   Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem".

Thus closed the portion of Scottish history which is known as the War of
Independence. The condemnation of the policy of Edward I lies simply in
its results. He found the two nations at peace and living together in
amity; he left them at war and each inspired with a bitter hatred of the
other. A policy which aimed at the unification of the island and at
preventing Scotland from proving a source of danger to England, and
which resulted in a warfare covering, almost continuously, more than two
hundred and fifty years, and which, after the lapse of four centuries,
left the policy of Scotland a serious difficulty to English ministers,
can scarcely receive credit for practical sagacity, however wise its
aim. It created for England a relentless and irritating (if not always a
dangerous) enemy, invariably ready to take advantage of English
difficulties. England had to fight Scotland in France and in Ireland,
and Edward IV and Henry VII found the King of Scots the ally of the
House of Lancaster, and the protector of Perkin Warbeck. Only the
accident of the Reformation rendered it possible to disengage Scotland
from its alliance with France, and to bring about a union with England.
Till the emergence of the religious question the English party in
Scotland consisted of traitors and mercenaries, and their efforts to
strengthen English influence form the most discreditable pages of
Scottish history.

We are not here dealing with the domestic history of Scotland; but it is
impossible to avoid a reference to the subject of the influence of the
Scottish victory upon the Scots themselves. It has been argued that
Bannockburn was, for Scotland, a national misfortune, and that Bruce's
defeat would have been for the real welfare of the country. There are,
of course, two stand-points from which we may approach the question. The
apologist of Bannockburn might lay stress on the different effects of
conquest and a hard-won independence upon the national character, and
might fairly point to various national characteristics which have been,
perhaps, of some value to civilization, and which could hardly have been
fostered in a condition of servitude. On the other hand, there arises a
question as to material prosperity. It must be remembered that we are
not here discussing the effect of a peaceful and amicable union, such as
Edward first proposed, but of a successful war of conquest; and in this
connection it is only with thankfulness and gratitude to Wallace and to
Bruce that the Scotsman can regard the parallel case of Ireland, which,
from a century before the time of Edward I, had been annexed by
conquest. The story we have just related goes to create a reasonable
probability that the fate of Scotland could not have been different;
but, further, leaving all such problems of the "might have been", we may
submit that the misery of Scotland in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and
sixteenth centuries has been much exaggerated. It is true that the
borders were in a condition of perpetual feud, and that minorities and
intrigues gravely hampered the progress of the country. But, more
especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there are not
wanting indications of prosperity. The chapter of Scottish history which
tells of the growth of burghs has yet to be written. The construction of
magnificent cathedrals and religious houses, and the rise of three
universities, must not be left out of account. Gifts to the infant
universities, the records of which we possess, prove that for humble
folk the tenure of property was comparatively secure, and that there was
a large amount of comfort among the people. Under James IV, trade and
commerce prospered, and the Scottish navy rivalled that of the Tudors.
The century in which Scottish prosperity received its most severe blows
immediately succeeded the Union of the Crowns. If for three hundred
years the civilizing influence of England can scarcely be traced in the
history of Scottish progress, that of France was predominant, and
Scotland cannot entirely regret the fact. Scotland, from the date of
Bannockburn to that of Pinkie, will not suffer from a comparison with
the England which underwent the strain of the long French wars, the
civil broils of Lancaster and York, and the oppression of the Tudors.
Moreover, there is one further consideration which should not be
overlooked. The postponement of an English union till the seventeenth
century enabled Scotland to work out its own reformation of religion in
the way best adapted to the national needs, and it is difficult to
estimate, from the material stand-point alone, the importance of this
factor in the national progress. The inspiration and the education which
the Scottish Church has given to the Scottish people has found one
result in the impulse it has afforded to the growth of material
prosperity, and it is not easy to regret that Scotland, at the date of
the Reformation, was free to work out its own ecclesiastical destiny.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 44: There is no indication of any racial division in the
attitude of the Scots. Some Highlanders, from various personal causes,
are found on the English side at the beginning of the War of
Independence; but Mr. Lang has shown that of the descendants of Somerled
of Argyll, the ancestor of the Lords of the Isles, only one fought
against Wallace, while the Celts of Moray and Badenach and the Highland
districts of Aberdeenshire, joined his standard. The behaviour of the
Highland chiefs is similar to that of the Lowland barons. If there is
any racial feeling at all, it is not Celtic _v._ Saxon, but Scandinavian
_v._ Scottish, and it is connected with the recent conquest of the
Isles. But even of this there is little trace, and the behaviour of the
Islesmen is, on the whole, marvellously loyal.]

[Footnote 45: Hemingburgh, ii, 141-147.]

[Footnote 46: _Diplomata Scotiæ_, xliii, xliv.]

[Footnote 47: Bruce had married, 1st, Isabella, daughter of the 10th
Earl of Mar, by whom he had a daughter, Marjorie, and 2nd, in 1302,
Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the Earl of Ulster.]

[Footnote 48: Nat. MSS. ii. 12, No. XVII. The original is preserved in
the Register House.]

[Footnote 49: Pinkerton suggests that King Robert adopted this
arrangement because he was unable to trust the Highlanders, but this is
unlikely, as their leader, Angus Og, had been consistently faithful to
him throughout.]




CHAPTER V

EDWARD III AND SCOTLAND

1328-1399


Almost immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Northampton,
the conditions of government in England and Scotland were reversed.
Since the death of Edward I, Scotland, under a strong king, had gained
by the weakness of the English sovereign; now England, under the
energetic rule of Edward III, was to profit by the death of King Robert
and by the succession of a minor. On the 7th June, 1329, King Robert
died (probably a leper) at his castle of Cardross, on the Clyde, and
left the Scottish throne to his five-year-old son, David II. In October
of the following year the young Edward III of England threw off the yoke
of the Mortimers and established his personal rule, and came almost
immediately into conflict with Scotland. The Scottish regent was
Randolph or Ranulph, Earl of Moray, the companion of Bruce and the Black
Douglas[50] in the exploits of the great war. Possibly because Edward
III had afforded protection to the Pretender, Edward Balliol, the
eldest son of John Balliol, and had received him at the English court,
Randolph refused to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of
Northampton, by which their lands were to be restored to the
"Disinherited", _i.e._ to barons whose property in Scotland had been
forfeited because they had adopted the English side in the war. A
somewhat serious situation was thus created, and Edward, not
unnaturally, took advantage of it to disown the Treaty of Northampton,
which had been negotiated by the Mortimers during his minority, and
which was extremely unpopular in England. He at once recognized Edward
Balliol as King of Scotland. The only defence of Randolph's action is
the probability that he suspected Edward to be in search of a pretext
for refusing to be bound by a treaty made in such circumstances, and if
a struggle were to ensue, it was certainly desirable not to increase the
power of the English party. Edward proceeded to assist Balliol in an
expedition to Scotland, which Mr. Lang describes as "practically an
Anglo-Norman filibustering expedition, winked at by the home government,
the filibusters being neither more nor less Scottish than most of our
_noblesse_". But before Balliol reached Scotland, the last of the
paladins whose names have been immortalized by the Bruce's wars, had
disappeared from the scene. Randolph died at Musselburgh in July, 1332,
and Scotland was left leaderless. The new regent, the Earl of Mar, was
quite incapable of dealing with the situation. When Balliol landed at
Kinghorn in August, he made his way unmolested till he reached the river
Earn, on his way to Perth. The regent had taken up a position near
Dupplin, and was at the head of a force which considerably outnumbered
the English. But the Scots had failed to learn the lesson taught by
Edward I at Falkirk and by Bruce at Bannockburn. The English succeeded
in crossing the Earn by night, and took up a position opposite the hill
on which the Scots were encamped. Their archers were so arranged as
practically to surround the Scots, who attacked in three divisions,
armed with pikes, making no attempt even to harass the thin lines of
archers who were extended on each side of the English main body. But the
unerring aim of the archers could not fail to render the Scottish attack
innocuous. The English stood their ground while line after line of the
Scots hurled themselves against them, only to be struck down by the
gray-goose shafts. At last the attack degenerated into a complete rout,
and the English made good their victory by an indiscriminate massacre.

The immediate result of the battle of Dupplin Moor was that "Edward I of
Scotland" entered upon a reign which lasted almost exactly twelve weeks.
He was crowned at Scone on September 24th, 1332, and unreservedly
acknowledged himself the vassal of the King of England. On the 16th
December the new king was at Annan, when an unexpected attack was made
upon him by a small force, led, very appropriately, by a son of
Randolph, Earl of Moray, and by the young brother of the Lord James of
Douglas. Balliol fled to Carlisle, "one leg booted and the other naked",
and there awaited the help of his liege lord, who prepared to invade
Scotland in May. Meanwhile the patriotic party had failed to take
advantage of their opportunity. Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, the regent
chosen to succeed Mar (who had fallen at Dupplin), had been captured in
a skirmish near Roxburgh, either in November, 1332, or in April, 1333,
and was succeeded in turn by Sir Archibald Douglas, the hero of the
Annan episode, but destined to be better known as "Tyneman the Unlucky".
The young king had been sent for safety to France.

In April, Balliol was again in Scotland, and, in May, Edward III began
to besiege Berwick, which had been promised him by Balliol. To defend
Berwick, the Scots were forced to fight a pitched battle, which proved a
repetition of Dupplin Moor. Berwick had promised to surrender if it were
not relieved by a fixed date. When the day arrived, a small body of
Scots had succeeded in breaking through the English lines, and Sir
Archibald Douglas had led a larger force to ravage Northumberland. On
these grounds Berwick held that it had been in fact relieved; but
Edward III, who lacked his grandfather's nice appreciation of situations
where law and fact are at variance, replied by hanging a hostage. The
regent was now forced to risk a battle in the hope of saving Berwick,
and he marched southwards, towards Berwick, with a large army. Edward,
following the precedent of Dupplin, occupied a favourable position at
Halidon Hill, with his front protected by a marsh. He drew up his line
in the order that had been so successful at Dupplin, and the same result
followed. Each successive body of Scottish pikemen was cut down by a
shower of English arrows, before being able even to strike a blow. The
regent was slain, and Moray, his companion in arms, fled to France, soon
to return to strike another blow for Scotland.

The victory of Halidon added greatly to the popularity of Edward III,
for the English looked upon the shame of Bannockburn as avenged, and
they sang:

  "Scots out of Berwick and out of Aberdeen,
   At the Burn of Bannock, ye were far too keen,
   Many guiltless men ye slew, as was clearly seen.
   King Edward has avenged it now, and fully too, I ween,
     He has avenged it well, I ween. Well worth the while!
     I bid you all beware of Scots, for they are full of guile.

  "'Tis now, thou rough-foot, brogue-shod Scot, that begins thy care,
   Then boastful barley-bag-man, thy dwelling is all bare.
   False wretch and forsworn, whither wilt thou fare?
   Hie thee unto Bruges, seek a better biding there!
   There, wretch, shalt thou stay and wait a weary while;
   Thy dwelling in Dundee is lost for ever by thy guile."[51]

In Scotland, the party of independence was, for the time, helpless.
Edward and Balliol divided the country between them. The eight counties
of Dumfries, Roxburgh, Berwick, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Edinburgh,
and Linlithgow formed the English king's share of the spoil, along with
a reassertion of his supremacy over the rest of Scotland. English
officers began to rule between the Tweed and the Forth. But the cause of
independence was never really hopeless. Balliol and the English party
were soon weakened by internal dissensions, and the leaders on the
patriotic side were not slow to take advantage of the opportunities thus
given them. It was, indeed, necessary to send King David and his wife to
France, and they landed at Boulogne in May, 1334. But from France, in
return, came the young Earl of Moray, who, along with Robert the High
Steward, son of Marjory Bruce, and next heir to the throne, took up the
duties of guardians. The arrival of Moray gave fresh life to the cause,
but there is little interest in the records of the struggle. The Scots
won two small successes at the Borough-Muir of Edinburgh and at
Kilblain. But the victory in the skirmish at the Borough-Muir (August,
1335) was more unfortunate than defeat, for it deprived Scotland for
some time of the services of the Earl of Moray. He had captured Guy de
Namur and conducted him to the borders, and was himself taken prisoner
while on his journey northwards. Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, who had
been made guardian after the battle of Dupplin, and was captured in
April, 1333, had now been ransomed, and he was again recognized as
regent for David II. So strong was the Scottish party that Balliol had
to flee to England for assistance, and, in 1336, Edward III again
appeared in Scotland. It was not a very heroic effort for the future
victor of Crécy; he marched northwards to Elgin, and, on his way home,
burned the town of Aberdeen.

As in the first war the turning-point had proved to be the death of
Edward I in the summer of 1307, so now, exactly thirty years later, came
another decisive event. In the autumn of 1337, Edward III first styled
himself King of France, and the diversion of his energies from the Scots
to their French allies rendered possible the final overthrow of Balliol
and the Scottish traitors. The circumstances are, however, parallel only
to the extent that an intervention of fortune rendered possible the
victory of Scottish freedom. In 1337 there was no great leader: the hour
had come, but not the man. For the next four years, castle after castle
fell into Scottish hands; many of the tales are romantic enough, but
they do not lead to a Bannockburn. The only incident of any significance
is the defence of the castle of Dunbar. The lord of Dunbar was the Earl
of March, whose record throughout the troubles had been far from
consistent, but who was now a supporter of King David, largely through
the influence of his wife, famous as "Black Agnes", a daughter of the
great Randolph, Earl of Moray. From January to June, 1338, Black Agnes
held Dunbar against English assaults by sea and land. Many romantic
incidents have been related of these long months of siege: the stories
of the Countess's use of a dust-cloth to repair the damage done by the
English siege-machines to the battlements, and of her prophecy, made
when the Earl of Salisbury brought a "sow" or shed fitted to protect
soldiers in the manner of the Roman _testudo_,

  "Beware, Montagow,
   For farrow shall thy sow",

and fulfilled by dropping a huge stone on the machine and thus
scattering its occupants, "the litter of English pigs"--these, and her
"love-shafts", which, as Salisbury said, "pierce to the heart", are
among the most wonderful of historical fairy tales. In the end the
English had to raise the siege:

  "Came I early, came I late,
   I found Agnes at the gate",

they sang as the explanation of their failure.

The defence of Dunbar was followed by the surrender of Perth and the
capture of the castles of Stirling and Edinburgh, and in June, 1341,
David II returned to Scotland, from which Balliol had fled. David was
now seventeen years of age, and he had a great opportunity. Scotland was
again free, and was prepared to rally round its national sovereign and
the son of the Bruce. The English foe was engaged in a great struggle
with France, and difficulties had arisen between the English king and
his Parliament. But the unworthy son of the great Robert proved only a
source of weakness to his supporters. The only redeeming feature of his
policy is that it was, at first, inspired by loyalty to his French
protectors. In their interest he made, in the year of the Crécy
campaign, an incursion into England, thus ending a truce made in 1343.
After the usual preliminary ravaging, he reached Neville's Cross, near
Durham, in the month of October. There he found a force prepared to meet
him, led, as at Northallerton and at Mitton, by the clergy of the
northern province. The battle was a repetition of Dupplin and Halidon
Hill, and a rehearsal of Homildon and Flodden. Scots and English alike
were drawn up in the usual three divisions; the left, centre, and right
being led respectively, on the one side, by Robert the Steward, King
David, and Randolph, and, on the other, by Rokeby, Archbishop Neville,
and Henry Percy. The English archers were, as usual, spread out so as to
command both the Scottish wings. They were met by no cavalry charge, and
they soon threw the Scottish left into confusion, and prepared the way
for an assault upon the centre. Randolph was killed; the king was
captured, and for eleven years he remained a prisoner in England.
Meanwhile Robert the Steward (still the heir to the throne, for David
had no children) ruled in Scotland. There is reason for believing that,
in 1352, David was allowed to go to Scotland to raise a ransom, and, two
years later, an arrangement was actually made for his release. But
Robert the Steward and David had always been on bad terms, and, after
everything had been formally settled, the Scots decided to remain loyal
to their French allies. Hostilities recommenced; in August, 1355, the
Scots won a small victory at Nesbit in Berwickshire, and captured the
town of Berwick. Early in the following year it was retaken by Edward
III, who proclaimed himself the successor of Balliol, and mercilessly
ravaged the Lowlands. So great was his destruction of churches and
religious houses that the invasion is remembered as the "Burned
Candlemas". Peace was made in 1357, and David's ransom was fixed at
100,000 marks. It was a huge sum; but in connection with the efforts
made to raise it the burgesses acquired some influence in the government
of the country.

David's residence in France and in England had entirely deprived him of
sympathy with the national aspirations of his subjects. He loved the
gay court of Edward III, and the Anglo-Norman chivalry had deeply
affected him. He hated his destined successor, and he had been charmed
by Edward's personality. Accordingly we find him, seven years after his
return to Scotland, again making a journey to England. It is a striking
fact that the son of the victor of Bannockburn should have gone to
London to propose to sell the independence of Scotland to the grandson
of Edward I. The difficulty of paying the yearly instalment of his
ransom made a limit to his own extravagant expenditure, and he now
offered, instead of money, an acknowledgment of either Edward himself or
one of his sons as the heir to the Scottish throne. The result of this
proposal was to change the policy of Edward. He abandoned the Balliol
claim and the traditional Edwardian policy in Scotland, and accepted
David's offer. David returned to Scotland and laid before his Parliament
the less violent of the two schemes, the proposal that, in the event of
his dying childless, Prince Lionel of England should succeed (1364).

  "To that said all his lieges, Nay;
   Na their consent wald be na way,
   That ony Ynglis mannys sone
   In[to] that honour suld be done,
   Or succede to bere the Crown,
   Off Scotland in successione,
   Sine of age and off vertew there
   The lauchfull airis appearand ware."

So the proposal to substitute an "English-man's son" for the lawful
heirs proved utterly futile. Equally vain were any attempts of the Scots
to mitigate Edward's rigour in the exaction of the ransom, and Edward
reverted to his earlier policy, disowned King David, and prepared for
another Scottish campaign to vindicate his right as the successor of
Balliol, who had died in 1363. But English energies were once more
diverted at a critical moment. The Black Prince had involved himself in
serious troubles in Gascony, and England was called upon to defend its
conquests in France. In 1369 a truce was made between Scotland and
England, to last for fourteen years.

David II died, unregretted, in February, 1370-1371. It was fortunate for
Scotland that the miserable seven years which remained to Edward III,
and the reign of his unfortunate grandson, were so full of trouble for
England. Robert the Steward succeeded his uncle without much difficulty.
He was fifty-six years of age, already an old man for those days, eight
years the senior of the nephew whom he succeeded. The main lines of the
foreign policy of his reign may be briefly indicated; but its chief
interest lies in a series of border raids, the story of which is too
intricate and of too slight importance to concern us. The new king began
by entering into an agreement with France, of a more definite
description than any previous arrangement, and the year 1372 may be
taken as marking the formal inauguration of the Franco-Scottish League.
The truce with England was continued and was renewed in 1380, three
years before the date originally fixed for its expiry. The renewal was
necessitated by various acts of hostility which had rendered it, in
effect, a dead letter. The English were still in possession of such
Scottish strongholds as Roxburgh, Berwick, and Lochmaben, and round
these there was continual warfare. The Scots sacked the town of Roxburgh
in 1377, but without regaining the castle, and, in 1378, they again
obtained possession of Berwick. John of Gaunt, who had forced the
government of his nephew to acknowledge his importance as a factor in
English politics, was entrusted with the command of an army directed
against Scotland. He met the Scottish representatives at Berwick, which
was again in English hands, and agreed to confirm the existing truce,
which was maintained till 1384, when Scotland was included in the
English truce with France. The truce, which was to last for eight
months, was negotiated in France in January, 1383-84. In February and
March, John of Gaunt conducted a ravaging expedition into Scotland as
far as Edinburgh. During the Peasants' Revolt he had taken refuge in
Scotland, and the chroniclers tell us that the expedition of 1384 was
singularly merciful. Still, it was an act of war, and the Scots may
reasonably have expressed surprise, when, in April, the French
ambassadors (who had been detained in England since February) arrived in
Edinburgh, and announced that Scotland and England had been at peace
since January. About the same time there occurred two border forays.
Some French knights, with their Scottish hosts, made an incursion into
England, and the Percies, along with the Earl of Nottingham, conducted a
devastating raid in Scotland, laying waste the Lothians. About the date
of both events there is some doubt; probably the Percy invasion was in
retaliation for the French affair. But all the time the two countries
were nominally at peace, and it was not till May, 1385, that they were
technically in a state of war. In that month a French army was sent to
aid the Scots, and, under the command of John de Vienne, it took part in
an incursion on a somewhat larger scale than the usual raids. The
English replied, in the month of August, by an invasion conducted by
Richard II in person, at the head of a large army, while the Scots,
declining a battle, wasted Cumberland. Richard sacked Edinburgh and
burned the great religious houses of Dryburgh, Melrose, and Newbattle,
but was forced to retire without having made any real conquest. The
Scots adopted their invariable custom of retreating after laying waste
the country, so as to deprive the English of provender; even the
impatience of their French allies failed to persuade them to give
battle to King Richard's greatly superior forces. From Scotland the
English king marched to London, to commence the great struggle which led
to the impeachment of Suffolk and the rise of the Lords Appellant. While
England was thus occupied, the Scots, under the Earl of Fife, second son
of Robert II (better known as the Duke of Albany), and the Earl of
Douglas, made great preparations for an invasion. Fife took his men into
the western counties and ravaged Cumberland and Westmoreland, but
without any important incident. Douglas attacked the country of his old
enemies, the Percies, and won the victory of Otterburn or Chevy Chase
(August, 1388), the most romantic of all the fights between Scots and
English. The Scots lost their leader, but the English were completely
defeated, and Harry Hotspur, the son of Northumberland, was made a
prisoner. Chevy Chase is the subject of many ballads and legends, and it
is indissolubly connected with the story of the House of Douglas:

  "Hosts have been known at that dread sound to yield,
   And, Douglas dead, his name hath won the field".

From the date of Otterburn to the accession of Henry IV there was peace
between Scotland and England, except for the never-ending border
skirmishes. Robert II died in 1390, and was succeeded by his eldest son,
John, Earl of Carrick, who took the title of Robert III, to avoid the
unlucky associations of the name of John, which had acquired an
unpleasant notoriety from John Balliol as well as John of England and
the unfortunate John of France. Under the new king the treaty with
France was confirmed, but continuous truces were made with England till
the deposition of Richard II.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 50: Douglas disappeared from the scene immediately after King
Robert's death, taking the Bruce's heart with him on a pilgrimage to
Palestine. He was killed in August, 1330, while fighting the Moors in
Spain, on his way to the Holy Land.]

[Footnote 51: Minot. Tr. F. York Powell.]




CHAPTER VI

SCOTLAND, LANCASTER, AND YORK

1400-1500


When Henry of Lancaster placed himself on his cousin's throne, Scotland
was divided between the supporters of the Duke of Rothesay, the eldest
son of Robert III and heir to the crown, and the adherents of the Duke
of Albany, the brother of the old king. In 1399, Rothesay had just
succeeded his uncle as regent, and to him, as to Henry IV, there was a
strong temptation to acquire popularity by a spirited foreign policy.
The Scots hesitated to acknowledge Henry as King of England, and he, in
turn, seems to have resolved upon an invasion of Scotland as the first
military event of his reign. He, accordingly, raised the old claim of
homage, and marched into Scotland to demand the fealty of Robert III and
his barons. As usual, we find in Scotland some malcontents, who form an
English party. The leader of the English intrigue on this occasion was
the Scots Earl of March,[52] the son of Black Agnes. The Duke of
Rothesay had been betrothed to the daughter of March, but had married
in February, 1399-1400, a daughter of the Earl of Douglas, the
hereditary foe of March. The Dunbar allegiance had always been doubtful,
and it was only the influence of the great countess that had brought it
to the patriotic side. In August, 1400, Henry marched into Scotland, and
besieged for three days the castle of Edinburgh, which was successfully
defended by the regent, while Albany was at the head of an army which
made no attempt to interfere with Henry's movements. Difficulties in
Wales now attracted Henry's attention, and he left Scotland without
having accomplished anything, and leaving the record of the mildest and
most merciful English invasion of Scotland. The necessities of his
position in England may explain his abstaining from spoiling religious
houses as his predecessors had done, but the chroniclers tell us that he
gave protection to every town that asked it. While Henry was suppressing
the Welsh revolt and negotiating with his Parliament, Albany and
Rothesay were struggling for the government of Scotland. Rothesay fell
from power in 1401, and in March, 1402, he died at Falkland.
Contemporary rumour and subsequent legend attributed his death to
Albany, and, as in the case of Richard II, the method of death was
supposed to be starvation. Sir Walter has told the story in _The Fair
Maid of Perth_. Albany, who had succeeded him as regent or guardian,
made no effort to end the meaningless war with England, which went
fitfully on. An idiot mendicant, who was represented to be Richard II,
gave the Scots their first opportunity of supporting a pretender to the
English throne; but the pretence was too ridiculous to be seriously
maintained. The French refused to take any part in such a scheme, and
the pseudo-Richard served only to annoy Henry IV, and scarcely gave even
a semblance of significance to the war, which really degenerated into a
series of border raids, one of which was of unusual importance. Henry
had no intention of seriously prosecuting the claim of homage, and the
continuance of hostilities is really explained by the ill-will between
March and Douglas and the old feud between the Douglases and the
Percies. In June, 1402, the Scots were defeated in a skirmish at Nesbit
in Berwickshire (the scene of a small Scottish victory in 1355), and, in
the following September, occurred the disaster of Homildon Hill. Douglas
and Murdoch Stewart, the eldest son of Albany, had collected a large
army, and the incursion was raised to the level of something like
national importance. They marched into England and took up a strong
position on Homildon Hill or Heugh. The Percies, under Northumberland
and Hotspur, sent against them a body of English archers, who easily
outranged the Scottish bowmen, and threw the army into confusion. Then
ensued, as at Dupplin and Halidon Hill, a simple massacre. Murdoch
Stewart and Douglas were taken captive with several other Scots lords.
Close on Homildon Hill followed the rebellion of the Percies, and the
result of the English victory at Homildon was merely to create a new
difficulty for Henry IV. The sudden nature of the Percy revolt is
indicated by the fact that, when Albany marched to relieve a Scottish
stronghold which they were besieging, he found that the enemy had
entered into an alliance with the House of Douglas, their ancient foes,
and were turning their arms against the English king. Percy and Douglas
fought together at Shrewsbury, while the Earl of March was in the ranks
of King Henry.

The battle of Shrewsbury was fought in July, 1403. In 1405,
Northumberland, a traitor for a second time, took refuge in Scotland,
and received a dubious protection from Albany, who was ready to sell him
should any opportunity arise. A truce which had been arranged between
Scotland and England expired in April, 1405, and the two countries were
technically in a state of war, although there were no great military
operations in progress.[53] In the spring of 1406, Albany sent the heir
to the Scottish throne, Prince James, to be educated in France. The
vessel in which he sailed was captured by the English off Flamborough
Head, and the prince was taken to Henry IV. It has been a tradition in
Scotland that James was captured in time of truce, and Wyntoun uses the
incident to point a moral with regard to the natural deceitfulness of
the English heart:

  "It is of English nationn
   The common kent conditionn
   Of Truth the virtue to forget,
   When they do them on winning set,
   And of good faith reckless to be
   When they do their advantage see."

But it would seem clear that the truce had expired, and that the English
king was bound to no treaty of peace. His son's capture was immediately
followed by the death of King Robert III, who sank, broken-hearted, into
the grave. Albany continued to rule, and maintained a series of truces
with England till his death in 1420. The peace was occasionally broken
in intervals of truce, and the advantage was usually on the side of the
Scots. In 1409 the Earl of March returned to his allegiance and received
back his estates. In the same year his son recovered Fast Castle (on St.
Abb's Head), and the Scots also recovered Jedburgh.

Albany's attention was now diverted by a danger threatened by the
Highland portion of the kingdom. Scotland, south of Forth and Clyde,
along with the east coast up to the Moray Firth, had been rapidly
affected by the English, French, and Norman influences, of which we
have spoken. The inhabitants of the more remote Highland districts and
of the western isles had remained uncorrupted by civilization of any
kind, and ever since the reign of Malcolm Canmore there had been a
militant reaction against the changes of St. Margaret and David I; from
the eleventh century to the thirteenth, the Scottish kings were scarcely
ever free from Celtic pretenders and Celtic revolts.[54] The inhabitants
of the west coast and of the isles were very largely of Scandinavian
blood, and it was not till 1266 that the western isles definitely passed
from Norway to the Scottish crown. The English had employed several
opportunities of allying themselves with these discontented Scotsmen;
but Mr. Freeman's general statement, already quoted, that "the true
Scots, out of hatred to the Saxons nearest them, leagued with the Saxons
farther off", is very far from a fair representation of the facts. We
have seen that Highlander and Islesman fought under David I at the
battle of the Standard, against the "Saxons farther off", and that
although the death of Comyn ranged against Bruce the Highlanders of
Argyll, numbers of Highlanders were led to victory at Bannockburn by
Earl Randolph; and Angus Og and the Islesmen formed part of the Scottish
reserves and stood side by side with the men of Carrick, under the
leadership of King Robert. During the troubles which followed King
Robert's death, the Lords of the Isles had resumed their general
attitude of opposition. It was an opposition very natural in the
circumstances, the rebellion of a powerful vassal against a weak central
government, a reaction against the forces of civilization. But it has
never been shown that it was an opposition in any way racial; the
complaint that the Lowlands of Scotland have been "rent by the Saxon
from the Gael", in the manner of a racial dispossession, belongs to "The
Lady of the Lake", not to sober history. All Scotland, indeed, has now,
in one sense, been "rent by the Saxon" from the Celt. "Let no one doubt
the civilization of these islands," wrote Dr. Johnson, in Skye, "for
Portree possesses a jail." The Highlands and islands have been the last
portions of Scotland to succumb to Anglo-Saxon influences; that the
Lowlands formed an earlier victim does not prove that their racial
complexion is different. The incident of which we have now to speak has
frequently been quoted as a crowning proof of the difference between the
Lowlanders and the "true Scots". Donald of the Isles had a quarrel with
the Regent Albany, and, in 1408, entered into an agreement with Henry
IV, to whom he owned allegiance. But this very quarrel arose about the
earldom of Ross, which was claimed by Donald (himself a grandson of
Robert II) in right of his wife, a member of the Leslie family. The
"assertor of Celtic nationality" was thus the son of one Lowland woman
and the husband of another. When he entered the Scottish mainland his
progress was first opposed, not by the Lowlanders, but by the Mackays of
Caithness, who were defeated near Dingwall, and the Frasers immediately
afterwards received what the historians of the Clan Donald term a
"well-merited chastisement".[55] Donald pursued his victorious march to
Aberdeenshire, tempted by the prospect of plundering Aberdeen. It is
interesting to note that, while the battle which has given significance
to the record of the dispute was fought for the Lowland town of Aberdeen
in a Lowland part of Aberdeenshire, the very name of the town is Celtic,
and the district in which the battlefield of Harlaw is situated abounds
to this day in Celtic place-names, and, not many miles away, the Gaelic
tongue may still be heard at Braemar or at Tomintoul. It was not to a
racial battle between Celt and Saxon that the Earl of Mar and the
Provost of Aberdeen, aided by the Frasers, marched out to Harlaw, in
July, 1411, to meet Donald of the Isles. Had the clansmen been
victorious there would certainly have been a Celtic revival; but this
was not the danger most dreaded by the victorious Lowlanders. The battle
of Harlaw was part of the struggle with England. Donald of the Isles was
the enemy of Scottish independence, and his success would mean English
supremacy. He had taken up the rôle of "the Disinherited" of the
preceding century, just as the Earl of March had done some years before.
As time passed, and civilization progressed in the Lowlands while the
Highlands maintained their integrity, the feeling of separation grew
more strongly marked; and as the inhabitants of the Lowlands
intermarried with French and English, the differences of blood became
more evident and hostility became unavoidable. But any such abrupt
racial division as Mr. Freeman drew between the true Scots and the
Scottish Lowlanders stands much in need of proof.

Harlaw was an incident in the never-ending struggle with England. It was
succeeded, in 1416 or 1417, by an unfortunate expedition into England,
known as the "Foul Raid", and after the Foul Raid came the battle of
Baugé. They are all part of one and the same story; although Harlaw
might seem an internal complication and Baugé an act of unprovoked
aggression, both are really as much part of the English war as is the
Foul Raid or the battle of Bannockburn itself. The invasion of France by
Henry V reminded the Scots that the English could be attacked on French
soil as well as in Northumberland. So the Earl of Buchan, a son of
Albany, was sent to France at the head of an army, in answer to the
dauphin's request for help. In March, 1421, the Scots defeated the
English at Baugé and captured the Earl of Somerset. The death of Henry
V, in the following year, and the difficulties of the English government
led to the return of the young King of Scots. The Regent Albany had been
succeeded in 1420 by his son, who was weak and incompetent, and Scotland
longed for its rightful king. James had been carefully educated in
England, and the dreary years of his captivity have enriched Scottish
literature by the _King's Quair_:

  "More sweet than ever a poet's heart
   Gave yet to the English tongue".

Albany seems to have made all due efforts to obtain his nephew's
release, and James was in constant communication with Scotland. He had
been forced to accompany Henry V to France, and was present at the siege
of Melun, where Henry refused quarter to the Scottish allies of France,
although England and Scotland were at war. Although constantly
complaining of his imprisonment, and of the treatment accorded to him in
England, James brought home with him, when his release was negotiated in
1423-24, an English bride, Joan Beaufort, the heroine of the _Quair_.
She was the daughter of Somerset, who had been captured at Baugé, and
grand-daughter of John of Gaunt.

The troublous reign of James I gave him but little time for conducting a
foreign war, and the truce which was made when the king was ransomed
continued till 1433. It had been suggested that the peace between
England and Scotland should extend to the Scottish troops serving in
France, but no such clause was inserted in the actual arrangement made,
and it is almost certain that James could not have enforced it, even had
he wished to do so. He gave, however, no indication of holding lightly
the ties that bound Scotland to France, and, in 1428, agreed to the
marriage of his infant daughter, Margaret, to the dauphin. Meanwhile,
the Scottish levies had been taking their full share in the struggle for
freedom in which France was engaged. At Crevant, near Auxerre, in July,
1423, the Earl of Buchan, now Constable of France, was defeated by
Salisbury, and, thirteen months later, Buchan and the Earl of Douglas
(Duke of Touraine) fell on the disastrous field of Verneuil. At the
Battle of the Herrings (an attack upon a French convoy carrying Lenten
food to the besiegers of Orleans, made near Janville, in February,
1429), the Scots, under the new constable, Sir John Stewart of Darnley,
committed the old error of Halidon and Homildon, and their impetuous
valour could not avail against the English archers. They shared in the
victory of Pathay, gained by the Maid of Orleans in June 1429, almost on
the anniversary of Bannockburn, and they continued to follow the Maid
through the last fateful months of her warfare. So great a part had
Scotsmen taken in the French wars that, on the expiry of the truce in
1433, the English offered to restore not only Roxburgh but also Berwick
to Scotland. But the French alliance was destined to endure for more
than another century, and James declined, thus bringing about a slight
resuscitation of warlike operations. The Scots won a victory at
Piperden, near Berwick, in 1435 or 1436, and in the summer of 1436, when
the Princess Margaret was on her way to France to enter into her
ill-starred union with the dauphin, the English made an attempt to take
her captive. James replied by an attempt upon Roxburgh, but gave it up
without having accomplished anything, and returned to spend his last
Christmas at Perth. His twelve years in Scotland had been mainly
occupied in attempts to reduce his rebellious subjects, especially in
the Highlands, to obedience and loyalty, and he had roused much
implacable resentment. So the poet-king was murdered at Perth in
February, 1436-37, and his English widow was left to guard her son, the
child sovereign, now in his seventh year. It was probably under her
influence that a truce of nine years was made.

When the truce came to an end, Scotland was in the interval between the
two contests with the House of Douglas which mark the reign of James II.
William the sixth earl and his brother David had been entrapped and
beheaded by the governors of the boy king in November, 1440, and the
new earl, James the Gross, died in 1443, and was succeeded by his son,
William, the eighth earl, who remained for some years on good terms with
the king. Accordingly, we find that, when the English burned the town of
Dunbar in May, 1448, Douglas replied, in the following month, by sacking
Alnwick. Retaliation came in the shape of an assault upon Dumfries in
the end of June, and the Scots, with Douglas at their head, burned
Warkworth in July. The successive attacks on Alnwick and Warkworth
roused the Percies to a greater effort, and, in October, they invaded
Scotland, and were defeated at the battle of Sark or Lochmaben
Stone.[56] In 1449 the Franco-Scottish League was strengthened by the
marriage of King James to Marie of Gueldres.

Now began the second struggle with the Douglases. Their great
possessions, their rights as Wardens of the Marches, their prestige in
Scottish history made them dangerous subjects for a weak royal house.
Since the death of the good Lord James their loyalty to the kings of
Scotland had not been unbroken, and it is probable that their
suppression was inevitable in the interests of a strong central
government. But the perfidy with which James, with his own hand,
murdered the Earl, in February, 1451-52, can scarcely be condoned, and
it has created a sympathy for the Douglases which their history scarcely
merits. James had now entered upon a decisive struggle with the great
House, which a temporary reconciliation with the new earl, in 1453, only
served to prolong. The quarrel is interesting for our purpose because it
largely decided the relations between Scotland and the rival lines of
Lancaster and York. In 1455, when the Douglases were finally suppressed
and their estates were forfeited, the Yorkists first took up arms
against Henry VI. Douglas had attempted intrigues with the Lord of the
Isles, with the Lancastrians, and with the Yorkists in turn, and, about
1454, he came to an understanding with the Duke of York. We find,
therefore, during the years which followed the first battle of St.
Albans, a revival of active hostilities with England. In 1456, James
invaded England and harried Northumberland in the interests of the
Lancastrians. During the temporary loss of power by the Duke of York, in
1457, a truce was concluded, but it was broken after the reconciliation
of York to Henry VI in 1458, and when the battle of Northampton, in
July, 1460, left the Yorkists again triumphant, James marched to attempt
the recovery of Roxburgh.[57] James I, as we have seen, had abandoned
the siege of Roxburgh Castle only to go to his death; his son found his
death while attempting the same task. On Sunday, the 3rd of August,
1460, he was killed by the bursting of a cannon, the mechanism of which
had attracted his attention and made him, according to Pitscottie, "more
curious than became him or the majesty of a king".

The year 1461 saw Edward IV placed on his uneasy throne, and a boy of
ten years reigning over the turbulent kingdom of Scotland. The Scots had
regained Roxburgh a few days after the death of King James, and they
followed up their success by the capture of Wark. But a greater triumph
was in store. When Margaret of Anjou, after rescuing her husband, Henry
VI, at the second battle of St. Albans, in February, 1461, met, in
March, the great disaster of Towton, she fled with Henry to Scotland,
where she had been received when preparing for the expedition which had
proved so unfortunate. On her second visit she brought with her the
surrender of Berwick, which, in April, 1461, became once more a Scots
town, and was represented in the Parliament which met in 1469. In
gratitude for the gift, the Scots made an invasion of England in June,
1461, and besieged Carlisle, but were forced to retire without having
afforded any real assistance to the Lancastrian cause. There was now a
division of opinion in Scotland with regard to supporting the
Lancastrian cause. The policy of the late king was maintained by the
great Bishop Kennedy, who himself entertained Henry VI in the Castle of
St. Andrews. But the queen-mother, Mary of Gueldres, was a niece of the
Duke of Burgundy, and was, through his influence, persuaded to go over
to the side of the White Rose. While Edward IV remained on unfriendly
terms with Louis XI of France, Kennedy had not much difficulty in
resisting the Yorkist proclivities of the queen-mother, and in keeping
Scotland loyal to the Red Rose. They were able to render their allies
but little assistance, and their opposition gave the astute Edward IV an
opportunity of intrigue. John of the Isles took advantage of the
minority of James III to break the peace into which he had been brought
by James II, and the exiled Earl of Douglas concluded an agreement
between the Lord of the Isles and the King of England. But when, in
October, 1463, Edward IV came to terms with Louis XI, Bishop Kennedy was
willing to join Mary of Gueldres in deserting the doomed House of
Lancaster. Mary did not live to see the success of her policy; but peace
was made for a period of fifteen years, and Scotland had no share in the
brief Lancastrian restoration of 1470. The threatening relations between
England and France nearly led to a rupture in 1473, but the result was
only to strengthen the agreement, and it was arranged that the infant
heir of James III should marry the Princess Cecilia, Edward's daughter.
In 1479-80, when the French were again alarmed by the diplomacy of
Edward IV, we find an outbreak of hostilities, the precise cause of
which is somewhat obscure. It is certain that Edward made no effort to
preserve the peace, and he sent, in 1481, a fleet to attack the towns on
the Firth of Forth, in revenge for a border raid for which James had
attempted to apologize. Edward was unable to secure the services of his
old ally, the Lord of the Isles, who had been again brought into
subjection in the interval of peace, and who now joined in the national
preparations for war with England. But there was still a rebel Earl of
Douglas with whom to plot, and Edward was fortunate in obtaining the
co-operation of the Duke of Albany, brother of James III, who had been
exiled in 1479. Albany and Edward made a treaty in 1482, in which the
former styled himself "Alexander, King of Scotland", and promised to do
homage to Edward when he should obtain his throne. The only important
events of the war are the recapture of Berwick, in August, 1482, and an
invasion of Scotland by the Duke of Gloucester. Berwick was never again
in Scottish hands. Albany was unable to carry out the revolution
contemplated in his treaty with Edward IV; but he was reinstated, and
became for three months Lieutenant-General of the Realm of Scotland. In
March, 1482-83, he resigned this office, and, after a brief interval, in
which he was reconciled to King James, was again forfeited in July,
1483. Edward IV had died on the 9th of April, and Albany was unable to
obtain any English aid. Along with the Earl of Douglas he made an
attempt upon Scotland, but was defeated at Lochmaben in July, 1484.
Thereafter, both he and his ally pass out of the story: Douglas died a
prisoner in 1488; Albany escaped to France, where he was killed at a
tournament in 1485; he left a son who was to take a great part in
Scottish politics during the minority of James V.

Richard III found sufficient difficulty in governing England to prevent
his desiring to continue unfriendly relations with Scotland, and he
made, on his accession, something like a cordial peace with James III.
It was arranged that James, now a widower,[58] should marry Elizabeth
Woodville, widow of Edward IV, and that his heir, Prince James, should
marry a daughter of the Duke of Suffolk. James did not afford Richard
any assistance in 1485, and after the battle of Bosworth he remained on
friendly terms with Henry VII. A controversy about Berwick prevented the
completion of negotiations for marriage alliances, but friendly
relations were maintained till the revolution of 1488, in which James
III lost his life. Both James and his rebellious nobles, who had
proclaimed his son as king, attempted to obtain English assistance, but
it was given to neither side.

The new king, James IV, was young, brave, and ambitious. He was
specially interested in the navy, and in the commercial prosperity of
Scotland. It was scarcely possible that, in this way, difficulties with
England could be avoided, for Henry VII was engaged in developing
English trade, and encouraged English shipping. Accordingly, we find
that, while the two countries were still nominally at peace, they were
engaged in a naval warfare. Scotland was fortunate in the possession of
some great sea-captains, notable among whom were Sir Andrew Wood and Sir
Andrew Barton.[59] In 1489, Sir Andrew Wood, with two ships, the _Yellow
Carvel_ and the _Flower_, inflicted a severe defeat upon five English
vessels which were engaged in a piratical expedition in the Firth of
Forth. Henry VII, in great wrath, sent Stephen Bull, with "three great
ships, well-manned, well-victualled, and well-artilleried", to revenge
the honour of the English navy, and after a severe fight Bull and his
vessels were captured by the Scots. There was thus considerable
irritation on both sides, and while the veteran intriguer, the Duchess
of Burgundy, attempted to obtain James's assistance for the pretender,
Perkin Warbeck, the pseudo-Duke of York, Henry entered into a compact
with Archibald, Earl of Angus, well-known to readers of _Marmion_. The
treachery of Angus led, however, to no immediate result, and peace was
maintained till 1495, although the French alliance was confirmed in
1491. The rupture of 1495 was due solely to the desire of James to aid
Maximilian in the attempt to dethrone Henry VII in the interests of
Warbeck. Henry, on his part, made every effort to retain the friendship
of the Scottish king, and offered a marriage alliance with his eldest
daughter, Margaret. James, however, was determined to strike a blow for
his protegé, and in November, 1495, Warbeck landed in Scotland, was
received with great honour, assigned a pension, and wedded to the Lady
Katharine Gordon, daughter of the greatest northern lord, the Earl of
Huntly. In the following April, Ferdinand and Isabella, who were
desirous of separating Scotland from France, tried to dissuade James
from supporting Warbeck, and offered him a daughter in marriage,
although the only available Spanish princess was already promised to
Prince Arthur of England. But all efforts to avoid war were of no avail,
and in September, 1496, James marched into England, ravaged the English
borders, and returned to Scotland. The English replied by small border
forays, but James's enthusiasm for his guest rapidly cooled; in July,
1497, Warbeck left Scotland. James did not immediately make peace,
holding himself possibly in readiness in the event of Warbeck's
attaining any success. In August he again invaded England, and attacked
Norham Castle, provoking a counter-invasion of Scotland by the Earl of
Surrey. In September, Warbeck was captured, and, in the same month, a
truce was arranged between Scotland and England, by the Peace of Aytoun.
There was, in the following year, an unimportant border skirmish; but
with the Peace of Aytoun ended this attempt of the Scots to support a
pretender to the English crown. The first Scottish interference in the
troubles of Lancaster and York had been on behalf of the House of
Lancaster; the story is ended with this Yorkist intrigue. When next
there arose circumstances in any way similar, the sympathies of the
Scots were enlisted on the side of their own Royal House of Stuart.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 52: George Dunbar, Earl of March, must be carefully
distinguished from the child, Edmund Mortimer, the English Earl of
March, grandson of Lionel of Clarence, and direct heir to the English
throne after Richard II.]

[Footnote 53: In the summer of 1405 the English ravaged Arran, and the
Scots sacked Berwick. There were also some naval skirmishes later in the
year.]

[Footnote 54: Cf. App. B.]

[Footnote 55: _The Clan Donald_, vol. i, p. 154. The Mackenzies were
also against the Celtic hero.]

[Footnote 56: There is great doubt as to whether these events belong to
the year 1448 or 1449. Mr. Lang, with considerable probability, assigns
them to 1449.]

[Footnote 57: James's army contained a considerable proportion of
Islesmen, who, as at Northallerton and at Bannockburn, fought _against_
"the Saxons farther off".]

[Footnote 58: He had married, in 1469, Margaret, daughter of Christian I
of Denmark. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were assigned as payment
for her dowry, and so passed, a few years later, under the Scottish
Crown.]

[Footnote 59: Cf. _The Days of James IV_, by Mr. G. Gregory Smith, in
the series of "Scottish History from Contemporary Writers".]




CHAPTER VII

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ENGLISH ALLIANCE

1500-1542


When, in 1501, negotiations were in progress for the marriage of James
IV to Margaret Tudor, Polydore Virgil tells us that the English Council
raised the objection that Margaret or her descendants might succeed to
the throne of England. "If it should fall out so," said Henry, "the
realm of England will suffer no evil, since it will not be the addition
of England to Scotland, but of Scotland to England." It is obvious that
the English had every reason for desiring to stop the irritating
opposition of the Scots, which, while it never seriously endangered the
realm, was frequently a cause of annoyance, and which hampered the
efforts of English diplomacy. The Scots, on the other hand, were
separated from the English by the memories of two centuries of constant
warfare, and they were bound by many ties to the enemies of England. The
only King of Scots, since Alexander III, who had been on friendly terms
with England, was James III, and his enemies had used the fact as a
weapon against him. His successor had already twice refused the
proffered English alliance, and when he at length accepted Henry's
persistent proposal and the thrice-offered English princess, it was only
after much hesitation and upon certain strict conditions. No Englishmen
were to enter Scotland "without letters commendatory of their own
sovereign lord or safe conduct of his Warden of the Marches". The
marriage, though not especially flattering to the dignity of a monarch
who had been encouraged to hope for the hand of a daughter of Spain, was
notable as involving a recognition (the first since the Treaty of
Northampton) of the King of Scots as an independent sovereign. On the
8th of August, 1503, Margaret was married to James in the chapel of
Holyrood. She was received with great rejoicing; the poet Dunbar, whom a
recent visit to London had convinced that the English capital, with its
"beryl streamis pleasant ... where many a swan doth swim with wingis
fair", was "the flower of cities all", wrote the well-known poem on the
Union of the Thistle and the Rose to welcome this second English
Margaret to Scotland. But the time was not yet ripe for any real union
of the Thistle and the Rose. Peace continued till the death of Henry
VII; but during these years England was never at war with France. James
threatened war with England in April, 1505, in the interests of the Duke
of Gueldres; in 1508, he declined to give an understanding that he would
not renew the old league with France, and he refused to be drawn, by
Pope Julius II, into an attitude of opposition to that country. Even
before the death of Henry VII, in 1509, there were troubles with regard
to the borders, and it was evident that the "perpetual peace" arranged
by the treaty of marriage was a sheer impossibility.

Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of England in April, 1509; three
years and five months later, in September, 1513, was fought the battle
of Flodden. The causes may soon be told. They fall under three heads.
James and Henry were alike headstrong and impetuous, and they were alike
ambitious of playing a considerable part in European affairs. They were,
moreover, brothers-in-law, and, in the division of the inheritance of
Henry VII, the King of England had, with characteristic Tudor avarice,
retained jewels and other property which had been left to his sister,
the Queen of Scots. In the second place, the ancient jealousies were
again roused by disputes on the borders, and by naval warfare. James had
long been engaged in "the building of a fleet for the protection of our
shores"; in 1511, he had built the _Great Michael_, for which, it was
said, the woods of Fife had been wasted. The Scottish fleet was
frequently involved in quarrels with Henry's ships, and in August, 1511,
the English took two Scottish vessels, which they alleged to be pirates,
and Andrew Barton was slain in the fighting. James demanded redress,
but, says Hall, "the King of England wrote with brotherly salutations
to the King of Scots of the robberies and evil doings of Andrew Barton;
and that it became not one prince to lay a breach of a league to another
prince, in doing justice upon a pirate or thief".[60] These personal
irritations and petty troubles might have proved harmless, and, had no
European complications intervened, it is possible that there might have
"from Fate's dark book a leaf been torn", the leaf which tells of
Flodden Field. But, in 1511, Julius II formed the Holy League against
France, and by the end of the year it included Spain, Austria, and
England. The formation of a united Europe against the ancient ally of
Scotland thoroughly alarmed James. It was true that, at the moment,
England was willing to be friendly; but, should France be subdued,
whither might Scotland look for help in the future? James used every
effort to prevent the League from carrying out their project; he
attempted to form a coalition of Denmark, France, and Scotland, and
wrote to his uncle, the King of Denmark, urging him to declare for the
Most Christian King. He wrote Henry offering to "pardon all the damage
done to us and our kingdom, the capture of our merchant ships, the
slaughter and imprisonment of our subjects", if only Henry would
"maintain the universal concord of the Church". He made a vigorous
appeal to the pope himself, beseeching him to keep the peace. His
efforts were, of course, futile, nor was France in such extreme danger
as he supposed. But the chance of proving himself the saviour of France
appealed strongly to him, and, when there came to him, in the spring of
1513, a message from the Queen of France, couched in the bygone language
of chivalry, and urging him, as her knight, to break a lance for her on
English soil, James could no longer hesitate. Henry persevered in his
warlike measures against France, and James, after one more despairing
effort to act as mediator, began his preparations for an invasion of
England. His wisest counsellors were strongly opposed to war: most
prominent among them was his father's faithful servant, Bishop
Elphinstone, the founder of the University of Aberdeen. Elphinstone was
a saint, a scholar, and a statesman, and he was probably the only man in
Scotland who could influence the king. During the discussion of the
French alliance he urged delay, but was overborne by the impetuous
patriotism of the younger nobles, whose voice was, as ever, for war. So,
war it was. Bitter letters of defiance passed between the two kings,
and, in August, 1513, James led his army over the border. Lowlanders,
Highlanders, and Islesmen had alike rallied round his banner; once again
we find the "true Scots leagued", not "with", but against "the Saxons
farther off". The Scots took Norham Castle and some neighbouring
strongholds to prevent their affording protection to the English, and
then occupied a strong position on Flodden Edge. The Earl of Surrey, who
was in command of the English army, challenged James to a pitched
battle, and James accepted the challenge. Meanwhile, Surrey completely
outmanoeuvred the King of Scots, crossing the Till and marching
northwards so as to get between James and Scotland. James seems to have
been quite unsuspicious of this movement, which was protected by some
rising ground. The Scots had failed to learn the necessity of scouting.
Surrey, when he had gained his end, recrossed the Till, and made a march
directly southwards upon Flodden. James cannot have been afraid of
losing his communications, for his force was well-provisioned, and
Surrey was bound by the terms of his own challenge to fight immediately;
but he decided to abandon Flodden Edge for the lower ridge of Brankston,
and in a cloud of smoke, which not only rendered the Scots invisible to
the enemy but likewise concealed the enemy from the Scots, King James
and his army rushed upon the English. The battle began with artillery,
the superiority of the English in which forced the Scots to come to
close quarters. Then

  "Far on the left, unseen the while,
   Stanley broke Lennox and Argyle";

on the English right, Sir Edmund Howard fell back before the charge of
the Scottish borderers, who, forthwith, devoted themselves to plunder.
The centre was fiercely contested; the Lord High Admiral of England, a
son of Surrey, defeated Crawford and Montrose, and attacked the division
with which James himself was encountering Surrey, while the archers on
the left of the English centre rendered unavailing the brave charge of
the Highlanders. With artillery and with archery the English had drawn
the Scottish attack, and the battle of Flodden was but a variation on
every fight since Dupplin Moor. Finally the Scots formed themselves into
a ring of spearmen, and the English, with their arrows and their long
bills, kept up a continuous attack. The story has been told once for
all:

  "But yet, though thick the shafts as snow,
   Though charging knights as whirlwinds go,
   Though bill-men ply the ghastly blow,
     Unbroken was the ring;
   The stubborn spearmen still made good
   Their dark impenetrable wood,
   Each stepping where their comrade stood
     The instant that he fell.
   No thought was there of dastard flight;
   Link'd in the serried phalanx tight
   Groom fought like noble, squire like knight,
     As fearlessly and well;
   Till utter darkness closed her wing
   O'er their thin host and wounded king."

No defeat had ever less in it of disgrace. The victory of the English
was hard won, and the valour displayed on the stricken field saved
Scotland from any further results of Surrey's triumph. The results were
severe enough. Although the Scots could boast of their dead king that

  "No one failed him; he is keeping
   Royal state and semblance still",

they had lost the best and bravest of the land. Scarcely a family record
but tells of an ancestor slain at Flodden, and many laments have come
down to us for "The Flowers of the Forest". But, although the disaster
was overwhelming, and the loss seemed irreparable at the time, though
the defeat at Flodden was not less decisive than the victory of
Bannockburn, the name of Flodden, notwithstanding all this, recalls but
an incident in our annals. Bannockburn is an incident in English
history, but it is the great turning-point in the story of Scotland; the
historian cannot regard Flodden as more than incidental to both.

When James V succeeded his father he was but one year old, and his
guardian, in accordance with the desire of James IV, was the
queen-mother, Margaret Tudor. Her subsequent career is one long tale of
intrigue, too elaborate and intricate to require a full recapitulation
here. The war lingered on, in a desultory fashion, till May, 1515. Lord
Dacre ravaged the borders, and the Scots replied by a raid into England;
but there is nothing of any interest to relate. From the accession of
Francis I, in 1515, the condition of politics in Scotland, as of all
Europe, was influenced and at times dominated by his rivalry with the
Emperor. The unwonted desire of France for peace and alliance with
England placed the Scots in a position of considerable difficulty, and
the difficulty was accentuated by the more than usually distracted state
of the country during the minority of the king. In August, 1514,
Margaret (who had in the preceding April given birth to a posthumous
child to James IV) was married to the Earl of Angus, the grandson of
Archibald Bell-the-Cat. It was felt that the sister of Henry VIII and
the wife of a Douglas could scarcely prove a suitable guardian of a
Stewart throne, and the Scots invited the Duke of Albany, son of the
traitor duke, and cousin of the late king, to come over to Scotland and
undertake the government. Despite some efforts of Henry to prevent him,
Albany came to Scotland in May, 1515. He was a French nobleman,
possessed large estates in France, and, although he was, ere long,
heir-presumptive to the Scottish throne, could speak no language but
French. When he arrived in Scotland he found against him the party of
Margaret and Angus, while the Earls of Lennox and Arran were his ardent
supporters. The latter nobleman was the grandson of James II, being the
son of the Princess Mary and James, Lord Hamilton, and he was,
therefore, the next heir to the throne after Albany. The interests of
both might be endangered should Margaret and Angus become all-powerful,
and so we find them acting together for some time. Albany was
immediately made regent of Scotland, and the care of the young king and
his brother, the baby Duke of Ross, was entrusted to him. It required
force to obtain possession of the children, but the regent succeeded in
doing so in August, in time to defeat a scheme of Henry VIII for
kidnapping the princes. The queen-mother fled to England, where, in
October, she bore to Angus a daughter, Margaret, afterwards Countess of
Lennox and mother of the unfortunate Darnley. She then proceeded to pay
a visit to Henry VIII. Meanwhile, in Scotland, Albany was finding many
difficulties. Arran was now in rebellion against him, and now in
alliance with him. In May, 1516, Angus himself, leaving his imperious
wife in England, made terms with the regent. The infant Duke of Ross had
died in the end of 1515, and only the boy king stood between Albany and
the throne. In 1517 Albany returned to France to cement more closely the
old alliance, and remained in France till 1521. Margaret immediately
returned to Scotland, and, had she behaved with any degree of wisdom,
might have greatly strengthened her brother's tortuous Scottish policy.
But a Tudor and a Douglas could not be other than an ill-matched pair,
and Margaret was already tired of her husband. In 1518, she informed
her brother that she desired to divorce Angus. Henry, whose own
matrimonial adventures were still in the future, and to whom Angus was
useful, scolded his sister in true Tudor fashion, and told her that,
alike by the laws of God and man, she must stick to her husband. A
formal reconciliation took place, but, henceforth, Margaret's one desire
was to be free, and to this she subordinated all other considerations.
In 1519, she came to an understanding with Arran, her husband's
bitterest foe, and in the summer of the same year we find Henry
marvelling much at the "tender letters" she sent to France, in which she
urged the return of Albany, whose absence from Scotland had been the
main aim of English policy since Flodden. While Francis I and Henry VIII
were on good terms, Albany was detained in France; but when, in 1521,
their relations became strained, he returned to Scotland to find Angus
in power. Scotland rallied round him, and in February, 1522, Angus, in
turn, retired to France, while Henry VIII devoted his energies to the
prevention of a marriage between his amorous sister and the handsome
Albany. The regent led an army to the borders and began to organize an
invasion, for which the north of England was ill-prepared, but was
outwitted by Henry's agent, Lord Dacre, who arranged an armistice which
he had no authority to conclude. Albany then returned to France, and
the Scots, refusing Henry's offer of peace, had to suffer an invasion by
Surrey, which was encouraged by Margaret, who was again on the English
side. When Albany came back in September, 1523, he easily won over the
fickle queen; but, after an unsuccessful attack on Wark, he left
Scotland for ever in May, 1524.

No sooner had Albany disappeared from the scene than Margaret entered
into a new intrigue with the Earl of Arran; it had one important result,
the "erection" of the young king, who now, at the age of twelve years,
became the nominal ruler of the country. This manoeuvre was executed
with the connivance of the English, to whose side Margaret had again
deserted. For some time Arran and Margaret remained at the head of
affairs, but the return of the Earl of Angus at once drove the
queen-mother into the opposite camp, and she became reconciled to the
leader of the French party, Archbishop Beaton, whom she had imprisoned
shortly before. Angus, who had been the paid servant of England
throughout all changes since 1517, assumed the government. The alliance
between England and France, which followed the disaster to Francis I at
Pavia, seriously weakened the supporters of French influence in
Scotland, and Angus made a three years' truce in 1525. In the next year,
Arran transferred his support to Angus, who held the reins of power till
the summer of 1528. The chief event of this period is the divorce of
Queen Margaret, who immediately married a youth, Henry Stewart, son of
Lord Evandale, and afterwards known as Lord Methven.

The fall of Angus was brought about by the conduct of the young king
himself, who, tired of the tyranny in which he was held, and escaping
from Edinburgh to Stirling, regained his freedom. Angus had to flee to
England, and James passed under the influence of his mother and her
youthful husband. In 1528 he made a truce with England for five years.
During these years James showed leanings towards the French alliance,
while Henry was engaged in treasonable intrigues with Scottish nobles,
and in fomenting border troubles. But the truce was renewed in 1533, and
a more definite peace was made in 1534. Henry now attempted to enlist
James as an ally against Rome, and, by the irony of fate, offered him,
as a temptation to become a Protestant, the hand of the Princess Mary.
James refused to break with the pope, and negotiations for a meeting
between the two kings fell through--fortunately, for Henry was prepared
to kidnap James. The King of Scots arranged in 1536 to marry a daughter
of the Duc de Vendome, but, on seeing her, behaved much as Henry VIII
was to do in the case of Anne of Cleves, except that he definitely
declined to wed her at all. Being in France, he made a proposal for the
Princess Madeleine, daughter of Francis I, and was married to her in
January, 1536-37. This step naturally annoyed Henry, who refused James a
passport through England, on the ground that "no Scottish king had ever
entered England peacefully except as a vassal". So James returned by sea
with his dying bride, and reached Scotland to find numerous troubles in
store for him--among them, intrigues brought about by his mother's wish
to obtain a divorce from her third husband. Madeleine died in July,
1537, and the relations between James and Henry VIII (now a widower by
the death of Jane Seymour) were further strained by the fact that nephew
and uncle alike desired the hand of Mary of Guise, widow of the Duke de
Longueville, who preferred her younger suitor and married him in the
following summer. These two French marriages are important as marking
James's final rejection of the path marked out for him by Henry VIII.
The husband of a Guise could scarcely remain on good terms with the
heretic King of England; but Henry, with true Tudor persistency, did not
give up hope of bending his nephew to his will, and spent the next few
years in negotiating with James, in trying to alienate him from Cardinal
Beaton--the great supporter of the French alliance,--and in urging the
King of Scots to enrich himself at the expense of the Church. As late as
1541, a meeting was arranged at York, whither Henry went, to find that
his nephew did not appear. James was probably wise, for we know that
Henry would not have scrupled to seize his person. Border troubles
arose; Henry reasserted the old claim of homage and devised a scheme to
kidnap James. Finally he sent the Earl of Angus, who had been living in
England, with a force to invade Scotland, and this without the formality
of declaring war. Henry, in fact, was acting as a suzerain punishing a
vassal who had refused to appear when he was summoned. The English
ravaged the county of Roxburgh in 1542; the Scottish nobles declined to
cross the border in what they asserted to be a French quarrel; and in
November a small Scottish force was enclosed between Solway Moss and the
river Esk, and completely routed. The ignominy of this fresh disaster
broke the king's heart. On December 8th was born the hapless princess
who is known as _the_ Queen of Scots. The news brought small comfort to
the dying king, who was still mourning the sons he had lost in the
preceding year. "'Adieu,' he said, 'farewell; it came with a lass and it
will pass with a lass.' And so", adds Pitscottie, "he recommended
himself to the mercy of Almighty God, and spake little from that time
forth, but turned his back unto his lords, and his face unto the wall."
Six days later the end came. With "a little smile of laughter", and
kissing his hand to the nobles who stood round, he breathed his last.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 60: Gregory Smith, p. 123.]




CHAPTER VIII

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS

1542-1568


Mary of Guise, thus for the second time a widow, was left the sole
protector of the infant queen, against the intrigues of Henry VIII and
the treachery of the House of Douglas. Fortunately, Margaret Tudor had
predeceased her son in October, 1541, and her death left one disturbing
element the less. But the situation which the dowager had to face was
much more perplexed than that which confronted any other of the long
line of Scottish queen-mothers. During the reign of James V the Reformed
doctrines had been rapidly spreading in Scotland. It was at one time
possible that James V might follow the example of Henry VIII, and a
considerable section of his subjects would have welcomed the change. His
death added recruits to the Protestant cause; the greater nobles now
strongly desired an alienation of Church property, because they could
take advantage of the royal minority to seize it for their private
advantage. The English party no longer consisted only of outlawed
traitors; there were many honest Scots who felt that alliance with a
Protestant kingdom must replace the old French league. The main
interest had come to be not nationality but religion, and Scotland must
decide between France and England. The sixteenth century had already, in
spite of all that had passed, made it evident that Scots and English
could live on terms of peace, and the reign of James IV, which had
witnessed the first attempt at a perpetual alliance, was remembered as
the golden age of Scottish prosperity. The queen-mother was, by birth
and by education, committed to the maintenance of the old religion and
of the French alliance. The task was indeed difficult. Ultimate success
was rendered impossible by causes over which she possessed no kind of
control; a temporary victory was rendered practicable only by the folly
of Henry VIII.

The history of Henry's intrigues becomes at this point very intricate,
and we must be content with a mere outline. On James's death he
conceived the plan of seizing the Scottish throne, and for this purpose
he entered into an agreement with the Scottish prisoners taken at Solway
Moss. They professed themselves willing to seize Mary and Cardinal
Beaton, and so to deprive the national party of their leaders. Then came
the news that the Earl of Arran had been appointed regent in December,
1542. He was heir-presumptive to the throne, and so was unlikely to
acquiesce in Henry's scheme, and the traitors were instructed to deal
with him as they thought necessary. But the traitors, who had, of
course, been joined by the Earl of Angus, proved false to Henry and were
falsely true to Scotland. They imprisoned Beaton, but did not deliver
him up to the English, and they came to terms with Arran; nor did they
carry out Henry's projects further than to permit the circulation of
"haly write, baith the new testament and the auld, in the vulgar toung",
and to enter into negotiations for the marriage of the young queen to
the Prince of Wales, afterwards Edward VI. The conditions they made were
widely different from those suggested by Henry. Full precautions were
taken to secure the independence of the country both during Mary's
minority and for the future. Strongholds were to be retained in Scottish
hands; should there be no child of the marriage, the union would
determine, and the proper heir would succeed to the Scottish throne. In
any case, no union of the kingdoms was contemplated, although the crowns
might be united. These terms were slightly modified in the following
May. Beaton, who had escaped to St. Andrews, did not oppose the treaty,
but made preparations for war. The treaty was agreed to, and the war of
intrigues went on, Henry offering almost any terms for the possession of
the little queen. Finally, in September, Arran joined the cardinal,
became reconciled to the Church, and left Henry to intrigue with the
Earl of Lennox, the next heir after Arran.

Hostilities broke out in the end of 1543, when the Scots, enraged by
Henry's having attacked some Scottish shipping, declared the treaty
annulled. In the spring of 1544, the Earl of Hertford conducted his
expedition into Scotland. The "English Wooing", as it was called, took
the form of a massacre without regard to age or sex. The instructions
given to Hertford by Henry and his council read like quotations from the
book of Joshua. He was to leave none remaining, where he encountered any
resistance. Hertford, abandoning the usual methods of English invaders,
came by sea, took Leith, burned Edinburgh, and ravaged the Lothians.
Lennox attempted to give up Dumbarton to the English, but his treachery
was discovered and he fled to England, where he married Margaret, the
daughter of Angus and niece of Henry VIII, by whom he became, in 1545,
the father of Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who thus stood within the
possibility of succession, in his own right, to both kingdoms. Angus and
his brother, Sir George Douglas, seized the opportunity given them by
the misery caused by the English atrocities to make a move against Arran
and Beaton, and seized the person of the queen-mother. But their success
was brought to an end by the meeting of a Parliament, summoned by Arran,
in December, 1544, and the Douglases were reconciled and restored to
their estates, deeming this the most profitable step for themselves.
Their breach with Henry was widened by the events of the next two
months. A body of Englishmen, under Sir Ralph Eure, defeated Arran at
Melrose, and desecrated the abbey, the sepulchre of the Douglas family.
In revenge, Angus, along with Arran, fell upon the English at Ancrum
Moor in Roxburghshire, and inflicted on them a total defeat. This was
followed by a second invasion of Hertford (this time by land). He
ravaged the borders in merciless fashion. A counter-invasion by an army
of Scots and French auxiliaries had proved futile owing to the
incompetence or the treachery of Angus, who almost immediately returned
to the English side. About the same time a descendant of the Lord of the
Isles whom James IV had crushed made an agreement with Henry, but was of
little use to his cause. Beaton, after some successful fighting on the
borders, in the end of 1545, went to St. Andrews in the beginning of
1546. On the 1st March, George Wishart, who had been condemned on a
charge of heresy, was hanged, and his body was burned at the stake. On
May 29th the more fierce section of the Protestant party took their
revenge by murdering the great cardinal in cold blood. We are not here
concerned with Beaton's private character or with his treatment of
heretics. His public actions, as far as foreign relations are concerned,
are marked by a consistent patriotic aim. He represented the long line
of Scottish churchmen who had striven to maintain the integrity of the
kingdom and the alliance with France. He had shown great ability and
tact, and in politics he had been much more honest than his opponents.
But for his support of the queen-dowager in 1542-43, and but for his
maintaining the party to which Arran afterwards attached himself, it is
possible that Scotland might have passed under the yoke of Henry VIII in
1543, instead of being peacefully united to England sixty years later.
With him disappeared any remaining hope of the French party. "We may say
of old Catholic Scotland", writes Mr. Lang, "as said the dying Cardinal:
'Fie, all is gone'."

Though Beaton was dead, the effects of his work remained. He had saved
the situation at the crisis of December, 1542, and the insensate cruelty
of Henry VIII had made it impossible that the Cardinal's work should
fall to pieces at once. It seemed at first as if the only difference was
that the castle of St. Andrews was held by the English party. Ten months
after Beaton's death, the small Protestant garrison was joined by John
Knox, who was present when the regent succeeded, with help from France,
in reducing the castle in July, 1547. Its defenders, including Knox,
were sent as galley-slaves to France. Henry VIII had died in the
preceding January, but Hertford (now Protector Somerset) continued the
Scottish policy of the preceding reign. In the summer of 1547 he made
his third invasion of Scotland, marked by the usual barbarity. In the
course of it, on 10th September, was fought the last battle between
Scots and English. Somerset met the Scots, under Arran, at Pinkiecleuch,
near Edinburgh, and by the combined effect of artillery and a cavalry
charge, completely defeated them with great slaughter. The English,
after some further devastation, returned home, and the Scots at once
entered into a treaty with France, which had been at war with England
since 1544. It was agreed that the young queen should marry the dauphin,
the eldest son of Henry II. While negotiations were in progress, she was
placed for safety, first in the priory of Inchmahome, an island in the
lake of Menteith, and afterwards in Dumbarton Castle. In June, 1548, a
large number of French auxiliaries were sent to Scotland, and, in the
beginning of August, Mary was sent to France. The English failed to
capture her, and she landed about 13th August. The war lingered on till
1550. The Scots gradually won back the strongholds which had been seized
by the English, and, although their French allies did good service,
serious jealousies arose, which greatly weakened the position of the
French party. Finally, Scotland was included in the peace made between
England and France in 1550.

All the time, the Reformed faith was rapidly gaining adherents, and
when, in April, 1554, the queen-dowager succeeded Arran (now Duke of
Chatelherault) as regent, she found the problem of governing Scotland
still more difficult. The relations with England had, indeed, been
simplified by the accession of a Roman Catholic queen in England, but
the Spanish marriage of Mary Tudor made it difficult for a Guise to
obtain any help from her. She continued the policy of obtaining French
levies, and the irritation they caused was a considerable help to her
opponents. Knox had returned to Scotland in 1555, and, except for a
visit to Geneva in 1556-57, spent the rest of his life in his native
country. In 1557 was formed the powerful assembly of Protestant clergy
and laymen who took the title of "the Congregation of the Lord", and
signed the National Covenant which aimed at the abolition of Roman
Catholicism. Their hostility to the queen-regent was intensified by the
events of the year 1558-59. In April, 1558, Queen Mary was married to
the dauphin, and her husband received the crown-matrimonial and became
known as King of Scots. Scotland seemed to have passed entirely under
France. We know that there was some ground for the Protestant alarm,
because the girl queen had been induced to sign documents which
transferred her rights, in case of her decease without issue, to the
King of France and his heirs. These documents were in direct antagonism
to the assurance given to the Scottish Parliament of the maintenance of
national independence. The French alliance seemed to have gained a
complete triumph, while the shout of joy raised by its supporters was
really the swan-song of the cause. Knox and the Congregation had
rendered it for ever impossible.

Nor was it long before this became apparent. In November, 1558, Mary
Tudor died, and England was again Protestant. Henry II ordered Francis
and Mary to assume the arms of England, in virtue of Mary's descent from
Margaret Tudor, which made her in Roman Catholic eyes the rightful Queen
of England, Elizabeth being born out of wedlock. The Protestant Queen of
England had thus an additional motive for opposition to the government
of Mary of Guise and her daughter. It was unfortunate for the
queen-regent that, at this particular juncture, she was entering into
strained relations with the Reformers. Hitherto she had succeeded in
satisfying Knox himself; but, in the beginning of 1559, she adopted more
severe measures, and the lords of the congregation began to discuss a
treasonable alliance with England, which proved the beginning of the
end. The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis set the French government free to
pay greater attention to the progress of Scottish affairs, and Mary of
Guise forthwith denounced the leading Protestant preachers as heretics.
It was much too late. The immediate result was the Perth riots of May
and June, 1559, which involved the destruction of the religious houses
which were the glory of the Fair City. The aspect of affairs was so
threatening that the regent came to terms, and promised that she would
take no vengeance on the people of Perth, and that she would not leave a
French garrison in the town. The regent kept her word in garrisoning the
town with Scotsmen, but her introduction of a French bodyguard, in
attendance on her own person, was regarded as a breach of her promise.
The destruction of religious buildings continued, although Knox did his
endeavour to save the palace of Scone. The Protestants held St. Andrews
while the regent entered into negotiations which they considered to be a
mere subterfuge for gaining time, and, on the 29th June, they marched
upon Edinburgh. In July, 1559, occurred the sudden death of Henry II;
Francis and Mary succeeded, and the supreme power in France and in
Scotland passed to the House of Guise. The Protestants who had been
making overtures to Cecil and Elizabeth declared, in October, that the
regent had been deposed. This bold step was justified by the help
received from England, and by the indignation caused by the excesses of
the regent's French troops in Scotland. So far had religious emotion
outrun the sentiment of nationality that the Protestants were willing to
admit almost any English claim. The result of Elizabeth's treaty with
the rebels was that they were enabled to besiege Leith, by means of an
English fleet, while the regent took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The
English attack on Leith was unsuccessful, but the dangerous illness of
the queen-mother led to the conclusion of peace. A truce was made on
condition that all foreign soldiers, French and English alike, should
leave Scotland, and that the Scottish claim to the English throne should
be abandoned. On the 11th June, 1560, Mary died. The wisdom of the
policy of her later years may be questioned, but her conduct during her
widowhood forms a strange contrast to that of her Tudor mother-in-law in
similar circumstances. It is probable that her intentions were honest
enough, and that the Protestant indignation at her "falsehoods" was
based on invincible misunderstanding. Her gracious charm of manner was
the concomitant of a tolerance rare in the sixteenth century; and she
died at peace with all men, and surrounded by those who had been in arms
against her, receiving "all her nobles with all pleasure, with a
pleasant countenance, and even embracing them with a kiss of love".

Her death set the lords of the congregation free to carry out their
ecclesiastical programme. In August Roman Catholicism was abolished by
the Scottish Parliament and the celebration of the mass forbidden, under
severe penalties. There remained the question of the ratification of the
Treaty of Edinburgh, the final form of the agreement by which peace had
been made. The young Queen of Scots objected to the treaty on the ground
that it included a clause that "the most Christian King and Queen Mary,
and each of them, abstain henceforth from using the title and bearing
the arms of the kingdom of England or of Ireland".[61] She interpreted
the word "henceforth" as involving an absolute renunciation of her claim
to the English throne, and so prejudicing her succession, should she
survive Elizabeth. Cecil had suggested to the Scots that it might be
advisable to raise the claim of the Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate
son of James V, and afterwards Earl of Moray, to the throne, or to
support that of the House of Hamilton. The Scots improved on this
suggestion, and proposed that Elizabeth should marry the Earl of Arran,
the eldest son of the Duke of Chatelherault, who might succeed to the
throne. There were many reasons why Elizabeth should not wed the
imbecile Arran, and it may safely be said that she never seriously
considered the project although she continued to trifle with the
suggestion, which formed a useful form of intrigue against Mary.

The situation was considerably altered by the death of Francis II, in
December, 1560. That event was, on the whole, welcome to Elizabeth, for
it destroyed the power of the Guises, and Mary Stuart[62] had now to
face her Scottish difficulties without French aid. She was not on good
terms with her mother-in-law, Catherine de Medici, who now controlled
the destinies of France, and it was evident that she must accept the
fact of the Scottish Reformation, and enter upon a conflict with the
theocratic tendencies of the Church and with the Scottish nobles who
were the pensioners of Elizabeth. On the other hand, although Francis II
was dead, his widow survived, young, beautiful, charming, and a queen.
The dissolution of her first marriage had removed an actual difficulty
from the path of the English queen, but, after all, it only meant that
she might be able to contract an alliance still more dangerous. As early
as December 31st, 1560, Throckmorton warned Elizabeth that she must
"have an eye to" the second marriage of Mary Stuart.[63] The Queen of
England had a choice of alternatives. She might prosecute the intrigue
with the Earl of Arran, capture Mary on her way to Scotland, and boldly
adopt the position of the leader of Protestantism. There were, however,
many difficulties, ecclesiastical, foreign, and personal, in such a
course. Arran was an impossible husband; Knox and the lords of the
congregation made good allies but bad subjects; and the inevitable
struggle with Spain would be precipitated. The other course was to
attempt to win Mary's confidence, and to prevent her from contracting an
alliance with the Hapsburgs, which was probably what Elizabeth most
feared. This was the alternative finally adopted by the Queen of
England; but, very characteristically, she did not immediately abandon
the other possibility. On the pretext that Mary refused to confirm the
Treaty of Edinburgh, her cousin declined to grant her request for a
safe-conduct from France to Scotland, and spoke of the Scottish queen in
terms which Mary took the first opportunity of resenting. "The queen,
your mistress," she remarked to the English ambassador who brought the
refusal, "doth say that I am young and do lack experience. Indeed I
confess I am younger than she is, and do want experience; but I have age
enough and experience to use myself towards my friends and kinsfolk
friendly and uprightly; and I trust my discretion shall not so fail me
that my passion shall move me to use other language of her than it
becometh of a queen and my next kinswoman."[64]

When, in August, 1561, Mary did sail from France to Scotland, Elizabeth
made an effort to capture her. It was characteristically hesitating, and
it succeeded only in giving Mary an impression of Elizabeth's hostility.
Some months later Elizabeth imprisoned the Countess of Lennox, the
mother of Darnley, for giving God thanks because "when the queen's
ships were almost near taking of the Scottish queen, there fell down a
mist from heaven that separated them and preserved her".[65] The arrival
of Mary in Scotland effectually put an end to the Arran intrigue, but
the girl-widow of scarcely nineteen years had many difficulties with
which to contend. As a devout Roman Catholic, she had to face the
relentless opposition of Knox and the congregation, who objected even to
her private exercise of her own faith. As the representative of the
French alliance, now but a dead cause, she was confronted by an English
party which included not only her avowed enemies but many of her real or
pretended friends. Her brother, the Lord James Stewart, whom she made
Earl of Moray, and who guided the early policy of her reign, was
constantly in Elizabeth's pay, as were most of her other advisers. Her
secretary, Maitland of Lethington, the most distinguished and the ablest
Scottish statesman of his day, had, as the fixed aim of his policy, a
good understanding with England. Furthermore, she was disliked by all
the nobles who had seized upon the property of the Church and added it
to their own possessions. Up to the age of twenty-five she had, by Scots
law, the right of recalling all grants of land made during her minority,
and her greedy nobles knew well that the victory of Roman Catholicism
meant the restoration of Church lands. Her relations with France were
uncertain, and the Guises found their attention fully occupied at home.
As the next heir to the throne of England, she was bound to be very
careful in her dealings with Elizabeth. United by every tie of blood and
sentiment to Rome and the Guises, she was forced, for reasons of policy,
to remain on good terms with Protestantism and the Tudor Queen of
England. The first years of Mary's reign in Scotland were marked by the
continuance of good relations between herself and her half-brother, whom
she entrusted with the government of the kingdom. In 1562 she suppressed
the most powerful Catholic noble in Scotland, the Earl of Huntly. The
result of this policy was to raise an unfounded suspicion in England and
Spain that the Queen of Scots was "no more devout towards Rome than for
the sustentation of her uncles".[66] The indignation felt at Mary's
conduct among Roman Catholics in England and in Spain may have been one
of the reasons for Elizabeth's adopting a more distinctly Protestant
position in 1562. In the Act of Supremacy of that year the first avowed
reference is made to the authority used by Henry VIII and Edward VI,
_i.e._ the Supreme Headship of the Church. It at all events made
Elizabeth's position less difficult, because Spain and Austria were not
likely to attack England in the interests of a queen whose orthodoxy was
doubtful.

Meanwhile Elizabeth was directing all her efforts to prevent Mary from
contracting a second marriage, and, at all hazards, to secure that she
should not marry Don Carlos of Spain or the Archduke of Austria. Her
persistent endeavours to bribe Scottish nobles were directed, with
considerable acuteness, to creating an English party strong enough to
deter foreign princes from "seeking upon a country so much at her
devotion".[67] She warned Mary that any alliance with "a mighty prince"
would offend England[68] and so imperil her succession. Mary, on her
part, was attempting to obtain a recognition of her position as "second
person" [heir presumptive], and she professed her willingness to take
Elizabeth's advice in the all-important matter of her marriage. The
English queen made various suggestions, and found objections to them
all. Finally she proposed that Mary should marry her own favourite,
Leicester, and a long correspondence followed. It was suggested that the
two queens should have an interview, but this project fell through.
Elizabeth, of course, was too fondly attached to Leicester to see him
become the husband of her beautiful rival; Mary, on her part, despised
the "new-made earl", and Leicester himself apologized to Mary's
ambassador for the presumption of the proposal, "alleging the invention
of that proposition to have proceeded from Master Cecil, his secret
enemy".[69] While the Leicester negotiations were in progress, the Earl
of Lennox, who had been exiled in 1544, returned to Scotland with his
son Henry, Lord Darnley, a handsome youth, eighteen years of age. As
early as May, 1564, Knox suspected that Mary intended to marry
Darnley.[70] There is little doubt that it was a love-match; but there
were also political reasons, for Darnley was, after Mary herself, the
nearest heir to Elizabeth's throne, and only the Hamiltons stood between
him and the crown of Scotland. He had been born and educated in England,
as also had been his mother, the daughter of Angus and Margaret Tudor,
and Elizabeth might have used him as against Mary's claim. That claim
the English queen refused to acknowledge, although, in the end of 1564,
Murray and Maitland of Lethington tried their utmost to persuade her to
do so.

On the 29th July, 1565, Mary was married to Darnley in the chapel of
Holyrood. Elizabeth chose to take offence, and Murray raised a
rebellion. There are two stories of plots: there are hints of a scheme
to capture Mary and Darnley; and Murray, on the other hand, alleged that
Darnley had entered into a conspiracy to kidnap him. It is, at all
events, certain that Murray raised a revolt and that the people rallied
to Mary, who drove her brother across the border. Elizabeth received
Murray with coldness, and asked him "how he, being a rebel to her sister
of Scotland, durst take the boldness upon him to come within her
realm?"[71] But Murray, confident in Elizabeth's promise of aid, knew
what this hypocritical outburst was worth, and the English queen soon
afterwards wrote to Mary in his favour. The motive which Murray alleged
for his revolt was his fear for the true religion in view of Mary's
marriage to Darnley, nominally a Roman Catholic; but his position with
regard to the Rizzio Bond renders it, as we shall see, somewhat
difficult to give him credit for sincerity. It is more likely that he
was ambitious of ruling the kingdom with Mary as a prisoner. About
Elizabeth's complicity there can be no doubt.[72]

Mary's troubles had only begun. On the 16th January, 1566, Randolph, the
English ambassador, wrote from Edinburgh: "I cannot tell what mislikings
of late there hath been between her grace and her husband; he presses
earnestly for the matrimonial crown, which she is loth hastily to
grant". Darnley, in fact, had proved a vicious fool, and was possessed
of a fool's ambition. Rizzio, Mary's Italian secretary, who had urged
the Darnley marriage, strongly warned Mary against giving her husband
any real share in the government, and Darnley determined that Rizzio
should be "removed".[73] He therefore entered into a conspiracy with his
natural enemies, the Scottish nobles, who professed to be willing to
secure the throne for this youth whom they despised and hated. The plot
involved the murder of Rizzio, the imprisonment of Mary, the
crown-matrimonial for Darnley, and the return of Murray and his
accomplices, who were still in exile. The English government was, of
course, privy to the scheme.[74] The murder was carried out, in
circumstances of great brutality, on the night of the 9th March. Mary's
condition of health, "having then passed almost to the end of seven
months in our birth", renders the carrying out of the deed in her
presence, and while Rizzio was her guest, almost certainly an attempt
upon the queen's own life. There were numberless opportunities of
slaying Rizzio elsewhere, and the ghastly details--the sudden appearance
of Ruthven, hollow, pale, just risen from a sick bed, the pistol of Ker
of Faudonside,--are so rich in dramatic effect that one can scarcely
doubt what _dénouement_ was intended. The plot failed in its main
purpose. Rizzio, indeed, was killed, and Murray made his appearance next
morning and obtained forgiveness. The queen "embracit him and kisset
him, alleging that in caice he had bene at hame, he wald not have
sufferit her to have bene sa uncourterly handlit". But the success ended
here. Mary won over her husband, and together they escaped and fled to
Dunbar. Darnley deserted his accomplices, proclaimed his innocence, and
strongly urged the punishment of the murderers. They, of course, threw
themselves on the hospitality of Queen Elizabeth, who sent them money,
and lied to Mary,[75] who did not put too much faith in her cousin's
assurances. On June 19th, a prince was born in Edinburgh Castle, but the
event brought about only a partial reconciliation between his unhappy
parents. Mary was shamefully treated by her worthless husband, and in
the following November her nobles suggested to her the project of a
divorce. Darnley, however, was not doomed to the fate which overtook his
descendants, the life of a king without a crown. He had awakened the
enmity of men whose feuds were blood-feuds, and the Rizzio conspirators
were not likely to forgive the upstart youth whose inconstancy had
foiled their plan for Mary's fall, and whose treachery had involved them
in exile. Darnley had proved useless even as a tool for the nobles, he
had offended Mary and disgusted everybody in Scotland, and there were
many who were willing to do without him. At this point a new tool was
ready to the hands of the discontented barons. The Earl of Bothwell,
whether with Mary's consent or not, aspired to the queen's hand, and
devised a plan for the murder of Darnley. On the night of the 10th
February, 1566-67, the wretched boy, not yet twenty-one years of age,
was strangled,[76] and the house in which he had been living was blown
up with gunpowder. Public opinion accused Bothwell of the murder; he was
tried and found innocent, and Parliament put its seal upon his
acquittal. On the 24th April he seized the person of the queen as she
was travelling from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, and Mary married him on the
15th May. _Mense malum Maio nubere vulgus ait._ The nobles almost
immediately raised a rebellion, professedly to deliver the queen from
the thraldom of Bothwell. On June 15th she surrendered at Carberry Hill,
and the nobles disregarded a pledge of loyalty to the queen given on
condition of her abandoning Bothwell, alleging that she was still in
correspondence with him. They now accused her of murdering her husband,
and imprisoned her in Lochleven Castle. The whole affair is wrapped in
mystery, but it is impossible to give the Earl of Morton and the other
nobles any credit for honesty of purpose. There can be little doubt that
they used Bothwell for their own ends, and, while they represented the
murder as the result of a domestic conspiracy between the queen and
Bothwell, they afterwards, when quarrelling among themselves, hurled at
each other accusations of participation in the plot, and their leader,
the Earl of Morton, died on the scaffold as a criminal put to death for
the murder of Darnley. This, of course, does not exclude the hypothesis
of Mary's guilt, and while the view of Hume or of Mr. Froude could not
now be seriously advanced in its entirety, it is only right to say that
a majority of historians are of opinion that she, at least, connived at
the murder. The question of her implication as a principal in the plot
depends upon the authenticity of the documents known as the "Casket
Letters", which purported to be written by the queen to Bothwell, and
which the insurgent lords afterwards produced as evidence against
her.[77]

Moray had left Scotland in the end of April. When he returned in the
beginning of August he found that the prisoner of Lochleven, to whom he
owed his advancement and his earldom, had been forced to sign a deed of
abdication, nominating himself as regent for her infant son. On the 15th
August he went to Lochleven and saw his sister, as he had done after the
murder of Rizzio, when she was a prisoner in Holyrood. Till an hour past
midnight, Elizabeth's pensioner preached to the unfortunate princess on
righteousness and judgment, leaving her "that night in hope of nothing
but of God's mercy". It was merely a threat; Mary's life was safe, for
Elizabeth, roused, for once, to a feeling of generosity, had forbidden
Moray to make any attempt on that. Next morning he graciously accepted
the regency and left his sister's prison with her kisses on his
lips.[78]

On the 2nd May, 1568, Mary escaped from Lochleven, and her brother at
once prepared a hostile force to meet her. Her army, composed largely of
Protestants, marched towards Dunbarton Castle, where they desired to
place the queen for safe keeping. The regent intercepted her at
Langside, and inflicted a complete defeat upon her forces. Mary was
again a fugitive, and her followers strongly urged her to take refuge in
France. But Elizabeth had given her a promise of protection, and Mary,
impelled by some fateful impulse, resolved to throw herself on the mercy
of her kinswoman.[79] On the 16th day of May, her little boat crossed
the Solway. When the Queen of Scots, the daughter of the House of Guise,
the widow of a monarch of the line of Valois, set foot on English soil
as a suppliant for the protection which came to her only by death, the
last faint hope must have faded out of the hearts of the few who still
longed for an independent Scotland, bound by gratitude and by ancient
tradition to the ally who, more than once, had proved its salvation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 61: Cf. the present writer's "Mary, Queen of Scots" (Scottish
History from Contemporary Writers).]

[Footnote 62: The spelling "Stuart", which Queen Mary brought with her
from France, now superseded the older "Stewart".]

[Footnote 63: Foreign Calendar: Elizabeth, December 31st, 1560.]

[Footnote 64: _Cabala, Sive Scrinia Sacra_, pp. 345-349.]

[Footnote 65: Foreign Calendar, May 7th, 1562.]

[Footnote 66: Foreign Calendar, June 8th, 1562.]

[Footnote 67: Foreign Calendar, March 31st, 1561.]

[Footnote 68: Foreign Calendar, 20th August, 1563.]

[Footnote 69: Sir James Melville's _Memoirs_, pp. 116-130 (Bannatyne
Club).]

[Footnote 70: Laing's _Knox_, vi, p. 541.]

[Footnote 71: Laing's _Knox_, vol. ii, p. 513. Melville's _Memoirs_, p.
134.]

[Footnote 72: Foreign Calendar, July-December, 1565.]

[Footnote 73: The evidence for the scandal which associated Mary's name
with that of Rizzio will be found in Mr. Hay Fleming's _Mary, Queen of
Scots_, pp. 398-401. It is very far indeed from being conclusive.]

[Footnote 74: Foreign Calendar, March, 1566.]

[Footnote 75: Mary to Elizabeth, July, 1566. Keith's History, ii, p.
442.]

[Footnote 76: It is almost certain that Darnley was murdered before the
explosion.]

[Footnote 77: Mary's defenders point out that her 25th birthday fell in
November, 1567, and that it was necessary to prevent her from taking any
steps for the restitution of Church land; and they look on the plot as
devised by Bothwell and the other nobles, the latter aiming at using
Bothwell as a tool to ruin Mary. On the question of the Casket Letters,
see Mr. Lang's _Mystery of Mary Stuart_.]

[Footnote 78: Keith's History, ii, pp. 736-739.]

[Footnote 79: In forming any moral judgment with regard to Elizabeth's
conduct towards Mary, it must be remembered that Mary fled to England
trusting to the English Queen's invitation.]




CHAPTER IX

THE UNION OF THE CROWNS

1568-1625


When Mary fled to England, Elizabeth refused to see her, on the ground
that she ought first to clear herself from the suspicion of guilt in
connection with the murder of Darnley. In the end, Mary agreed that the
case should be submitted to the judgment of a commission appointed by
Elizabeth, and she appeared as prosecuting Moray and his friends as
rebels and traitors. They defended themselves by bringing accusations
against Mary, and produced the Casket Letters and other documents in
support of their assertions. Mary asked to be brought face to face with
her accusers; Elizabeth thought the claim "very reasonable", and refused
it. Mary then asked for copies of the letters produced as evidence
against her, and when her request was pressed upon Elizabeth's notice by
La Mothe Fénélon, the French ambassador, he was informed that
Elizabeth's feelings had been hurt by Mary's accusing her of
partiality.[80] Mary's commissioners then withdrew, and Elizabeth closed
the case, with the oracular decision that, "nothing has been adduced
against the Earl of Moray and his adherents, as yet, that may impair
their honour or allegiances; and, on the other part, there has been
nothing sufficiently produced nor shown by them against the queen, their
sovereign, whereby the Queen of England should conceive or take any evil
opinion of the queen, her good sister, for anything yet seen". So
Elizabeth's "good sister" was subjected to a rigorous imprisonment, and
the Earl of Moray returned to Scotland, with an increased allowance of
English gold. Henceforth the successive regents of Scotland had to guide
their policy in accordance with Elizabeth's wishes. If they rebelled,
she could always threaten to release her prisoner, and, once or twice in
the course of those long, weary years, Mary, whose nature was buoyant,
actually dared to hope that Elizabeth would replace her on her throne.
While Mary was plotting, and hope deferred was being succeeded by hope
deferred and vain illusion by vain illusion, events moved fast. In
November, 1569, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland raised a
rebellion in her favour, which was easily suppressed. In January, 1570,
Moray was assassinated at Linlithgow, and the Earl of Lennox, the father
of Darnley, and the traitor of Mary's minority, succeeded to the
regency, while Mary's Scottish supporters, who had continued to fight
for her desperate cause, were strengthened by the accession of Maitland
of Lethington, who, with Kirkaldy of Grange, also a recruit from the
king's party, held Edinburgh Castle for the queen. Mary's hopes were
further raised by the rebellion of the Duke of Norfolk, whose marriage
with the Scottish queen had been suggested in 1569. Letters from the
papal agent, Rudolfi, were discovered, and, in June, 1572, Norfolk was
put to death. Lennox had been killed in September, 1571, and his
successor, the Earl of Mar, was approached on the subject of taking
Mary's life. Elizabeth was unwilling to accept the responsibility for
the deed, and proposed to deliver up Mary to Mar, on the understanding
that she should be immediately killed. Mar, who was an honourable man,
declined to listen to the proposal. But, after his death, which occurred
in October, 1572, the new regent, the Earl of Morton, professed his
willingness to undertake the accomplishment of the deed, if Elizabeth
would openly acknowledge it. This she refused to do, and the plot
failed. It is characteristic that the last Douglas to play an important
part in Scottish history should be the leading actor in such a plot as
this.

The castle of Edinburgh fell in June, 1573, and with its surrender
passed away Mary's last chance in Scotland. Morton held the regency till
1578, when he was forced to resign, and the young king, now twelve years
old, became the nominal ruler. In 1581, Morton was condemned to death as
"airt and pairt" in Darnley's murder, and Elizabeth failed in her
efforts to save him. Mary entered into negotiations with Elizabeth for
her release and return to Scotland as joint-sovereign with James VI, and
the English queen played with her prisoner, while, all the time, she was
discussing projects for her death. The key to the policy of James is his
desire to secure the succession to the English crown. To that end he was
willing to sacrifice all other considerations; nor had he, on other
grounds, any desire to share his throne with his mother. In 1585, he
negotiated a league with England, which, however, contained a provision
that "the said league be without prejudice in any sort to any former
league or alliance betwixt this realm and any other auld friends and
confederates thereof, except only in matters of religion, wheranent we
do fully consent the league be defensive and offensive". As we are at
the era of religious wars, the latter section of the clause goes far to
neutralize the former. Scotland was at last at the disposal of the
sovereign of England. Even the tragedy of Fotheringay scarcely produced
a passing coldness. On the 8th February, 1587, Elizabeth's warrant was
carried out, and Mary's head fell on the block. She was accused of
plotting for her own escape and against Elizabeth's life. It is probable
that she had so plotted, and it would be childish to express surprise or
indignation. The English queen, on her part, had injured her kinswoman
too deeply to render it possible to be generous now. Mary had sent her,
on her arrival in England, "a diamond jewel, which", as she afterwards
reminded her, "I received as a token from you, and with assurance to be
succoured against my rebels, and even that, on my retiring towards you,
you would come to the very frontiers in order to assist me, which had
been confirmed to me by divers messengers".[81] Had the protection thus
promised been vouchsafed, it might have spared Elizabeth many years of
trouble. But it was now too late, and the relentless logic of events
forced her to complete the tale of her treachery and injustice by a deed
which she herself could not but regard as a crime. But while this excuse
may be made for the deed itself, there can be no apology for the manner
of it. The Queen of England stooped to urge her servants to murder her
kinswoman; when they refused, she was mean enough to contrive so as to
throw the responsibility upon her secretary, Davison. After Mary's
death, she wrote to King James and expressed her sincere regret at
having cut off the head of his mother by accident. James accepted the
apology, and, in the following year, made preparations against the
Armada. Had the son of Mary Stuart been otherwise constituted, it would
scarcely have been safe for Elizabeth to persevere in the execution of
his mother; an alliance between Scotland and Spain might have proved
dangerous for England. But Elizabeth knew well the type of man with whom
she had to deal, and events proved that she was wise in her generation.
And James, on his part, had his reward. Elizabeth died in March, 1603,
and her successor was the King of Scots, who entered upon a heritage,
which had been bought, in the view of his Catholic subjects, by the
blood of his mother, and which was to claim as its next victim his
second son. Within eighty-five years of his accession, his House had
lost not only their new kingdom, but their ancestral throne as well. In
all James's references to the Union, it is clear that he regarded that
event from the point of view of the monarch; had it proved of as little
value to his subjects as to the Stuart line there would have been small
reason for remembering it to-day. The Union of England and Scotland was
one of the events most clearly fore-ordained by a benignant fate: but it
is difficult to feel much sympathy for the son who would not risk its
postponement, when, by the possible sacrifice of his personal ambition,
he might have saved the life of his mother.

There are certain aspects of James's life in Scotland that explain his
future policy, and they are, therefore, important for our purpose. In
the first place, he spent his days in one long struggle with the
theocratic Church system which had been brought to Scotland by Knox and
developed by his great successor, Andrew Melville. The Church Courts,
local and central, had maintained the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
and they dealt out justice with impartial hand. In all questions of
morality, religion, education, and marriage the Kirk Session or the
Presbytery or the General Assembly was all-powerful. The Church was by
far the most important factor in the national life. It interfered in
numberless ways with legislative and executive functions: on one
occasion King James consulted the Presbytery of Edinburgh about the
raising of a force to suppress a rebellion,[82] and, as late as 1596, he
approached the General Assembly with reference to a tax, and promised
that "his chamber doors sould be made patent to the meanest minister in
Scotland; there sould not be anie meane gentleman in Scotland more
subject to the good order and discipline of the Kirk than he would
be".[83] Andrew Melville had told him that "there is twa kings and twa
kingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the King and his Kingdom
the Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is: and of whase Kingdom
nocht a King, nor a lord, nor a heid, bot a member."[84] James had done
his utmost to assert his authority over the Church. He had tried to
establish Episcopacy in Scotland to replace the Presbyterian system, and
had succeeded only to a very limited extent. "Presbytery", he said,
"agreeth as well with a king as God with the Devil." So he went to
England, not only prepared to welcome the episcopal form of
church-government and to graciously receive the episcopal adulation so
freely showered upon him, but also determined to suppress, at all
hazards, "the proud Puritanes, who, claining to their Paritie, and
crying, 'We are all but vile wormes', yet will judge and give Law to
their king, but will be judged nor controlled by none".[85] "God's
sillie vassal" was Melville's summing-up of the royal character in
James's own presence. "God hath given us a Solomon", exulted the Bishop
of Winchester, and he recorded the fact in print, that all the world
might know. James was wrong in mistaking the English Puritans for the
Scottish Presbyterians. Alike in number, in influence, and in aim, his
new subjects differed from his old enemies. English Puritanism had
already proved unsuited to the genius of the nation, and it had given up
all hope of the abolition of Episcopacy. The Millenary Petition asked
only some changes in the ritual of the Church and certain moderate
reforms. Had James received their requests in a more reasonable spirit,
he might have succeeded in reconciling, at all events, the more moderate
section of them to the Church, and at the very first it seemed as if he
were likely to win for himself the blessing of the peace-maker, which
he was so eager to obtain. But just at this crisis he found the first
symptoms of Parliamentary opposition, and here again his training in
Scotland interfered. The Church and the Church alone had opposed him in
Scotland; he had never discovered that a Parliament could be other than
subservient.[86] It was, therefore, natural for him to connect the
Parliamentary discontent with Puritan dissatisfaction. Scottish Puritans
had employed the General Assembly as their main weapon of offence; their
English fellows evidently desired to use the House of Commons as an
engine for similar purposes. Therefore said King James, "I shall make
them conform themselves, or I will harry them out of the land, or else
do worse". So he "did worse", and prepared the way for the Puritan
revolution. If the English succession enabled the king to suppress the
Scottish Assembly, the Assembly had its revenge, for the fear of it
brought a snare, and James may justly be considered one of the founders
of English dissent.

A violent hatred of the temporal claims of the Church also affected
James's attitude to Roman Catholicism. His Catholic subjects in Scotland
had not been in a position to do him any harm, and the son of Mary
Stuart could not but have some sympathy for his mother's
fellow-sufferers. Accordingly, we find him telling his first Parliament:
"I acknowledge the Roman Church to be our Mother Church, although
defiled with some infirmities and corruption". But, after the Gunpowder
Plot, and when he was engaged in a controversy with Cardinal Perron
about the right of the pope to depose kings, he came to prove that the
pope is Antichrist and "our Mother Church" none other than the Scarlet
Woman. His Scottish experience revealed clearly enough that the claims
of Rome and Geneva were identical in their essence. There is on record
an incident that will serve to illustrate his position. In 1615, the
Scottish Privy Council reported to him the case of a Jesuit, John
Ogilvie. He bade them examine Ogilvie: if he proved to be but a priest
who had said mass, he was to go into banishment; but if he was a
practiser of sedition, let him die. The unfortunate priest showed in his
reply that he held the same view of the royal supremacy as did the
Presbyterian clergy. It was enough: they hanged him.

Once more, James's Irish policy seems to have been influenced by his
experience of the Scottish Highlands. He had conceived the plan which
was afterwards carried out in the Plantation of Ulster--"planting
colonies among them of answerable inland subjects, that within short
time may reforme and civilize the best-inclined among them; rooting out
or transporting the barbarous or stubborne sort, and planting civilitie
in their roomes".[87] Although James continued to carry on his efforts
in this direction after 1603, yet it may be said that the English
succession prevented his giving effect to his scheme, and that it also
interfered with his intentions regarding the abolition of hereditary
jurisdictions, which remained to "wracke the whole land" till after the
Rising of 1745.

On the 5th April, 1603, King James set out from Edinburgh to enter upon
the inheritance which had fallen to him "by right divine". His departure
made considerable changes in the condition of Scotland. The absence of
any fear of an outbreak of hostilities with the "auld enemy" was a great
boon to the borders, but there was little love lost between the two
countries. The union of the crowns did not, of course, affect the
position of Scotland to England in matters of trade, and beyond some
thirty years of peace, James's ancient kingdom gained but little. King
James, who possessed considerable powers of statesmanship, if not much
practical wisdom, devised the impossible project of a union of the
kingdoms in 1604. "What God hathe conjoyned", he said, "let no man
separate. I am the Husband, and all the whole Isle is my lawful wife....
I hope, therefore, that no man will be so unreasonable as to think that
I, that am a Christian King under the Gospel, should be a Polygamist
and husband to two wives." He desired to see a complete union--one king,
one law, one Church. Scotland would, he trusted, "with time, become but
as Cumberland and Northumberland and those other remote and northern
shires". Commissioners were appointed, and in 1606 they produced a
scheme which involved commercial equality except with regard to cloth
and meat, the exception being made by mutual consent. The discussion on
the Union question raised the subject of naturalization, and the rights
of the _post-nati_, _i.e._ Scots born after James's accession to the
throne. The royal prerogative became involved in the discussion and a
test case was prepared. Some land in England was bought for the infant
grandson of Lord Colvill, or Colvin, of Culross. An action was raised
against two defendants who refused him possession of the land, and they
defended themselves on the ground that the child, as an alien, could not
possess land in England. It was decided that he, as a natural-born
subject of the King of Scotland, was also a subject of the King of
England. This decision, and the repeal of the laws treating Scotland as
a hostile country, proved the only result of the negotiations for union.
The English Parliament would not listen to any proposal for commercial
equality, and the king had to abandon his cherished project.

James had boasted to his English Parliament that, if they agreed to
commercial equality, the Scottish estates would, in three days, adopt
English law. It is doubtful if the acquiescence even of the Scottish
Parliament would have gone so far; but there can be no doubt that the
English succession had made James more powerful in Scotland than any of
his predecessors had been. "Here I sit", he said, "and governe Scotland
with my pen. I write and it is done, and by a clearke of the councell I
governe Scotland now, which others could not doe by the sword." The
boast was justified by the facts. The king's instructions to his Privy
Council, which formed the Scottish executive, are of the most
dictatorial description. James gives his orders in the tone of a man who
is accustomed to unswerving obedience, and he does not hesitate to
reprove his erring ministers in the severest terms of censure. The whole
business of Parliament was conducted by the Lords of the Articles, who
represented the spiritual and temporal lords, and the Commons. All the
bishops were the king's creatures, and by virtue of their position,
entirely dependent on him. It was therefore arranged that the prelates
should choose representatives of the temporal lords, and they took care
to select men who supported the king's policy. The peers were allowed to
choose representatives of the bishops, and could not avoid electing the
king's friends, while the representatives of the spiritual and temporal
lords choose men to appear for the small barons and the burgesses. In
this way the efficient power of Parliament was completely monopolized,
and none dared to dispute the king's will. Even the Church was reduced
to an unwilling submission, which, from its very nature, could only be
temporary. He forbade the meeting of a General Assembly; and the
convening of an Assembly at Aberdeen, in defiance of his command, in
1605, served to give him an opportunity of imprisoning or banishing the
Presbyterian leaders. He had to give up his scheme of abolishing the
Presbyterian Church courts, and contented himself with engrafting on to
the existing system the institution of Episcopacy, which had practically
been in abeyance since 1560, although Scotland was never without its
titular prelates. Bishops were appointed in 1606; presbyteries and
synods were ordered to elect perpetual moderators, and the scheme was
devised so that the moderator of almost every synod should be a bishop.
The members of the Linlithgow Convention, which accepted this scheme,
were specially summoned by the king, and it was in no sense a free
Assembly of the Church. But the royal power was, for the present,
irresistible; in 1610 an Assembly which met at Glasgow established
Episcopacy, and its action was, in 1612, ratified by the Scots
Parliament. Three of the Scottish bishops[88] received English orders,
to ensure the succession; but, to prevent any claim of superiority,
neither English primate took any part in the ceremony. In 1616, the
Assembly met at Aberdeen, and the king made five proposals, which are
known as the Five Articles of Perth, from their adoption there in 1618.
The Five Articles included:--(1) The Eucharist to be received kneeling;
(2) the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to sick
persons in private houses; (3) the administration of Baptism in private
houses in cases of necessity; (4) the recognition of Christmas, Good
Friday, Easter, and Pentecost; and (5) the episcopal benediction.
Scottish opposition centred round the first article, which was not
welcomed even by the Episcopalian party, and it required the king's
personal interference to enforce it in Holyrood Chapel, during his stay
in Edinburgh in 1616-17. His proposal to erect in the chapel
representations of patriarchs and saints shocked even the bishops, on
whose remonstrances he withdrew his orders, incidentally administering a
severe rebuke to the recalcitrant prelates, "at whose ignorance he could
not but wonder". Not till the following year were the articles accepted
at Perth, under fear of the royal displeasure, and considerable
difficulty was experienced in enforcing them.

The only other Scottish measures of James's reign that demand mention
are his attempts to carry out his policy of plantations in the
Highlands. As a whole, the scheme failed, and was productive of
considerable misery, but here and there it succeeded, and it tended to
increase the power of the government. The end of the reign is also
remarkable for attempts at Scottish colonization, resulting in the
foundation of Nova Scotia, and in the Plantation of Ulster.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 80: Fénélon, i, 133 and 162.]

[Footnote 81: Mary to Elizabeth, 8th Nov., 1582. Strickland's _Letters
of Mary Stuart_, i, p. 294.]

[Footnote 82: Calderwood, _History of the Kirk of Scotland_, v, 341-42.]

[Footnote 83: _Ibid_, pp. 396-97.]

[Footnote 84: James Melville's _Autobiography and Diary_, p. 370.]

[Footnote 85: _Basilikon Doron_.]

[Footnote 86: Cf. the present writer's _Scottish Parliament before the
Union of the Crowns_.]

[Footnote 87: _Basilikon Doron_.]

[Footnote 88: The old controversy about the relation of the Church of
Scotland to the sees of York and Canterbury had been finally settled, in
1474, by the erection of St. Andrews into a metropolitan see. Glasgow
was made an archbishopric in 1492.]




CHAPTER X

"THE TROUBLES IN SCOTLAND"


The new reign had scarcely begun when trouble arose between King Charles
and his Scottish subjects. On the one hand, he alienated the nobles by
an attempt, partially successful, to secure for the Church some of its
ancient revenues. More serious still was his endeavour to bring the
Scottish Church into uniformity with the usage of the Church of England.
James had understood that any further attempt to alter the service or
constitution of the Church of Scotland would infallibly lead to serious
trouble. He had given up an intention of introducing a new prayer-book
to supersede the "Book of Common Order", known as "Knox's Liturgy",
which was employed in the Church, though not to the exclusion of
extemporary prayers. When Charles came to Edinburgh to be crowned, in
1633, he made a further attempt in this direction, and, although he had
to postpone the introduction of this particular change, he left a most
uneasy feeling, not only among the Presbyterians, but also among the
bishops themselves. An altar was erected in Holyrood Chapel, and behind
it was a crucifix, before which the clergy made genuflexions. He erected
Edinburgh into a bishopric, with the Collegiate Church of St. Giles for
a cathedral, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, as they followed in rapid
succession, gained the reputation of innovators and supporters of Laud
and the English. Even more dangerous in its effect was a general order
for the clergy to wear surplices. It was widely disobeyed, but it
created very great alarm.

In 1635, canons were issued for the Church of Scotland, which owed their
existence to the dangerous meddling of Laud, now Archbishop of
Canterbury. James, who loved Episcopacy, had dreaded the influence of
Laud in Scotland; his fear was justified, for it was given to Laud to
make an Episcopal Church impossible north of the Tweed. Although certain
of the Scottish bishops had expressed approval of these canons, they
were enjoined in the Church by royal authority, and the Scots, whose
theory of the rights of the Church was much more "high" than that of
Laud, would, on this account alone, have met them with resistance. But
the canons used words and phrases which were intolerable to Scottish
ears. They spoke of a "chancel" and they commended auricular confession;
they gave the Scottish bishops something like the authority of their
English brethren, to the detriment of minister and kirk-session, and
they made the use of a new prayer-book compulsory, and forbade any
objection to it. Two years elapsed before the book was actually
introduced. It was English, and it had been forced upon the Church by
the State, and, worse than this, it was associated with the hated name
of Laud and with his suspected designs upon the Protestant religion.
When it came it was found to follow the English prayer-book almost
exactly; but such changes as there were seemed suspicious in the
extreme. In the communion service the rubric preceding the prayer of
consecration read thus: "During the time of consecration he shall stand
at such a part of the holy table where he may with the more ease and
decency use both his hands". The reference to both hands was suspected
to mean the Elevation of the Host, and this suspicion was confirmed by
the omission of the sentences "Take and eat this in remembrance that
Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with
thanksgiving", and "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was
shed for thee, and be thankful", from the words of administration. On
more general grounds, too, strong objection was taken to the book, and
on July 23rd, 1637, there occurred the famous riot in St. Giles's, which
has become connected with the name of Jennie Geddes. The objection was
not, in any sense, to read prayers in themselves; the Book of Common
Order had been read in St. Giles's that very morning. The difficulty lay
in the particular book, and it is notable that the cries which have come
down to us as prefacing the riot are all indicative of a suspected
attempt to reintroduce Roman Catholicism. "The mass is entered upon us."
"Baal is in the Church." "Darest thou sing mass in my lug."

The Privy Council was negligent in punishing the rioters, and it soon
became evident that they had public opinion behind them. Alexander
Henderson, who ministered to a Fifeshire congregation in the old Norman
church of Leuchars, and whom the king was to meet in other
circumstances, issued a respectful and moderate protest, in which he did
not deal with the particular points at issue, but asserted the
ecclesiastical independence of Scotland. Riots continued to disturb
Edinburgh, and Charles was impotent to suppress them. He refused
Henderson's "Supplication"; its supporters drew up a second petition
boldly asking that the bishops should be tried as the real authors of
the disturbances, and, in November, 1637, they chose a body of
commissioners to represent them. These commissioners, and some
sub-committees of them, are known in Scottish history as The Tables, the
name being applied to several different bodies. Charles replied to the
second petition in wrathful terms, and it was decided to revive the
National Covenant of 1581, to renounce popery. It had been drawn up
under fear of a popish plot, and was itself an expansion of the Covenant
of 1557. To it was now added a declaration suited to immediate
necessities. On the 1st and 2nd March, 1638, it was signed by vast
multitudes in the churchyard of Greyfriars, in Edinburgh, and it
continued to be signed, sometimes under pressure, throughout the land.
Hamilton, Charles's agent in Scotland, was quite unable to meet the
situation. In the end Charles had to agree to the meeting of a General
Assembly in Glasgow, in November, 1638. Hamilton, the High Commissioner,
attempted to obtain the ejection of laymen and to create a division
among his opponents. When he failed in this, he dissolved the Assembly
in the king's name. At the instance of Henderson, supported by Argyll,
the Assembly refused to acknowledge itself dissolved, and proceeded to
abolish Episcopacy and re-establish the Presbyterian form of Church
government.

The king, on his part, began to concert measures with his Privy Council
for the subjugation of Scotland. The "Committee on Scotch affairs" of
the English Privy Council was obviously unconstitutional, but matters
were fast drifting towards civil war, and it was no time to consider
constitutional niceties. It is much more important that the committee
was divided and useless. Wentworth, writing from Ireland, advised the
king to maintain a firm attitude, but not to provoke an outbreak of war
at so inconvenient a moment. Charles again attempted a compromise. He
offered to withdraw Laud's unlucky service-book, the new canons, and
even the Articles of Perth, and to limit the power of the bishops; and
he asked the people to sign the Covenant of 1580-81, on which the new
Covenant was based, but which, of course, contained no reference to
immediate difficulties. But it was too late; the sentiment of religious
independence had become united to the old feeling of national
independence, and war was inevitable. The Scots were fortunate in their
leaders. In the end of 1638 there returned to Scotland from Germany,
Alexander Leslie, the great soldier who had fought for Protestantism
under Gustavus Adolphus. In February, 1639, he took command of the army
of the Covenant, which had been largely reinforced by veterans from the
Thirty Years' War. A more attractive personality than Leslie's was that
of the young Earl of Montrose, who had attached himself with enthusiasm
to the national cause, and had attempted to convert the people of
Aberdeen to covenanting principles. Charles, on his part, asserted that
his throne was in danger, and that the Scottish preparations constituted
a menace to the kingdom of England, and so attempted to rouse enthusiasm
for himself.

While the king was preparing to reinforce the loyalist Marquis of Huntly
at Aberdeen, the news came that the garrisons of Edinburgh and Dunbarton
had surrendered to the insurgents (March, 1639), who, a few days later,
seized the regalia at Dalkeith. On March 30th Aberdeen fell into the
hands of Montrose and Leslie, and Huntly was soon practically a
prisoner. Charles had by this time reached York, and it was now evident
that he had entirely miscalculated the strength of the enemy. He had
hoped to subdue Scotland through Hamilton and Huntly; he now saw that,
if Scotland was to be conquered at all, it must be through an English
army. The first blood in the Civil War was shed near Turriff, in
Aberdeenshire (May 14th, 1639), where some of Huntly's supporters gained
a slight success, after which the city of Aberdeen fell into their hands
for some ten days, when it was reoccupied by the Covenanters. Meanwhile
Charles and Leslie had been facing each other near Berwick; the former
unwilling to risk his raw levies against Leslie's trained soldiers,
while the Covenanters were not desirous of entering into a war in which
they might find the whole strength of England ultimately arrayed against
them. On the 18th June the two parties entered into the Pacification of
Berwick, in accordance with which both armies were to be disbanded, and
Charles promised to allow a free General Assembly and a free Parliament
to govern Scotland. While the pacification was being signed at Berwick,
a battle was in progress at Aberdeen, where, on June 18th-19th, Montrose
gained a victory, at the Bridge of Dee, over the Earl of Aboyne, the
eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly. For the third time, Montrose
spared the city of Aberdeen, and Scotland settled down to a brief period
of peace.

It was clear that the pacification was only a truce, for no exact terms
had been agreed upon, and both sides thoroughly distrusted each other.
Disputes immediately arose about the constitution of Parliament and the
Assembly. Charles refused to rescind the acts constituting Episcopacy
legal, and it is clear that he never intended to keep his promise to the
Scots, who, on their part, were too suspicious of his good faith to
carry out their part of the agreement. In the end Assembly and
Parliament alike abolished Episcopacy, and Parliament passed several
acts to ensure its own supremacy. Charles refused to assent to these
Acts, and prorogued Parliament from November, 1639, to June, 1640. The
result of the king's evident disinclination to implement the Treaty of
Berwick, was an interesting attempt to undo the work of the preceding
century by a reversion to the old policy of a French alliance. It was,
of course, impossible thus to turn back, and Richelieu met the Scottish
offers with a decisive rebuff, while the fact of these treasonable
negotiations became known to Charles, and embittered the already bitter
controversy. A new attempt at negotiation failed, and in June, 1640, the
second Bishops' War began. As usual the north suffered, especially from
the fierceness of the Earl of Argyll, who disliked the more moderate
policy advocated by Montrose. The king's English difficulties were
increasing, and the Scots had now many sympathizers among Englishmen,
who looked upon them as fighting for the same cause of Protestantism and
constitutional government.

In August the Scots invaded England for the first time since the
minority of Mary Stuart, and, on August 28th, they defeated a portion of
the king's army at Newburn, a ford near Newcastle. The town was
immediately occupied, and from Newcastle the invaders advanced to the
Tees and seized Durham. Charles was forced, a second time, to give way.
In October he agreed that the Scottish army of occupation should be paid
until the English Parliament, which he was about to summon, might make a
final arrangement. By Parliament alone could the Scots be paid, and
thus, by a strange irony of fate, the occupation of the northern
counties by a Scottish army was, for the time, the best guarantee of
English liberties. There were, however, points on which the Scottish
army and the English Parliament found it difficult to agree, and it was
not till August, 1641, that the Scots recrossed the Tweed. Charles, who
hoped to enlist the sympathy of the Scots in his struggle with the
English Parliament, paid a second visit to Edinburgh, where he gave his
assent to the abolition of Episcopacy, and to the repeal of the Acts
which had given rise to the dispute. But it became evident that the
Parliament, and not the king, was to bear rule in Scotland. The king's
stay in Edinburgh was marked by what is known as "The Incident", a
mysterious plot to capture Argyll and Hamilton, who was now the ally of
Argyll. It was supposed that the king was cognizant of the plan; he had
to defend himself from the accusation, and was declared guiltless in the
matter. At the time of the Incident, Argyll fled, but soon returned, and
Charles had to yield to him in all things. Parliament, under Argyll,
appointed all officials. Argyll himself was made a marquis, and Leslie
became Earl of Leven. There was a general amnesty, and among those who
obtained their liberty was the Earl of Montrose, who had been imprisoned
in May for making terms with the king. In November, 1641, Charles left
Scotland for London, to face the English Parliament. He can scarcely
have hoped for Scottish aid, and when, a few months later, he was on the
verge of hostilities and made a request for assistance, it was twice
refused.

With the general course of the Great Rebellion we are not here
concerned. It is important for our purpose to notice that it affected
Scotland in two ways. The course of events converted, on the one hand,
the Episcopalian party into a Royalist party, and placed at its head the
Covenanter, Montrose. On the other hand, the National Covenant was
transformed into the Solemn League and Covenant, which had for its aim
the establishment of Presbytery in England as well as in Scotland. This
"will o' the wisp" of covenanted uniformity led the Scottish Church into
somewhat strange places. As early as January, 1643, Montrose had offered
to strike a blow for the king in Scotland, but Charles would not take
the responsibility of beginning the strife. In August negotiations began
for the extension of the covenant to England. The Solemn League and
Covenant, which provided for the abolition of Episcopacy in England, was
adopted by the Convention of Estates at Edinburgh on August 17th, and in
the following month it passed both Houses of Parliament in England, and
was taken both by the House of Commons and by the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster. Its only ultimate results were the substitution in Scotland
of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory for
Public Worship, in place of the older Scottish documents, and the
approximation of Scottish Presbytery to English Puritanism, involving a
distinct departure from the ideals of the Scottish Reformation, and the
introduction into Scotland of a form of Sabbatarianism which has come to
be regarded as distinctively Scottish, but which owes its origin,
historically, to English Nonconformity.[89] Its immediate effects were
the short-lived predominance of Presbytery in England, and the crossing
of the Tweed, in January, 1644, by a Scottish army in the pay of the
English Parliament. The part taken by the Scottish army in the war was
not unimportant. In April they aided Fairfax in the siege of York; in
July they took an honourable share in the battle of Marston Moor; they
were responsible for the Uxbridge proposals which provided for peace on
the basis of a Presbyterian settlement. In June, 1645, they advanced
southwards to Mansfield, and, after the surrender of Carlisle, on June
28th, and its occupation by a Scottish garrison, Leven proceeded to
Alcester and thereafter laid siege to Hereford, an attempt which events
in Scotland forced him to abandon. Finally, in May, 1646, the king
surrendered to the Scottish army at Newark, which had been invested by
Leven since the preceding November.

While the Scottish army was thus aiding the Parliamentary cause, the
Earl of Montrose had created an important diversion on the king's side
in Scotland itself. In April, 1644, he occupied Dumfries and made an
unsuccessful attempt on the Scottish Lowlands. In May Charles conferred
on him a marquisate, and in August he prepared to renew the struggle. To
his old foes, the Gordons, he first looked for assistance, but was
finally compelled to raise his forces in the Highlands, and to obtain
Irish aid. On September 1st he gained his first victory at Tippermuir,
near Perth, on which he had marched with his Highland host. From Perth
he marched on Aberdeen, gaining some reinforcements from the northern
gentry, and in particular from the Earl of Airlie. Once again Montrose
fought a battle which delivered the city of Aberdeen into his power
(September 13th), but now he was unwilling or unable to protect the
captured town, which was cruelly ravaged. From Aberdeen Montrose
proceeded by Rothiemurchus to Blair Athole, but suddenly turned
backwards to Aberdeenshire, where he defended Fyvie Castle, slipped past
Argyll, and again reached Blair Athole. The enemies of Argyll crowded to
his banner, but his army was still small when, in December, 1644, he
made his descent upon Argyll, and reached the castle of Inverary. From
Inverary he went northwards, ravaging as he went, till he found, at Loch
Ness, that there was an army of 5000 men under the Earl of Seaforth
prepared to resist his advance, while Argyll was behind him at
Inverlochy. Although Argyll's army considerably outnumbered his own,
Montrose turned southwards and made a rapid dash at Argyll's forces as
they lay at Inverlochy, and won a complete victory, the news of which
dispersed Seaforth's men and enabled Montrose to invite Charles to a
country which lay at his mercy. At Elgin he was joined by the heir of
the Marquis of Huntly, his forces increased, and the excommunication
which the Church immediately published against him seemed of but little
importance. On April 4th he seized Dundee, and on May 9th won a fresh
victory at Auldearn, which was followed, in rapid succession, by a
victory at Alford in July, and in August by the "crowning mercy" of
Kilsyth, which made him master of the situation, and forced Leven to
raise the siege of Hereford. From Kilsyth he marched to Glasgow, where
both the Highlanders and the Gordons began to desert him. From England,
Leven sent David Leslie to meet Montrose as he marched by the Lothians
into the border counties. On September 13th, 1645, just one year after
his victory at Aberdeen, Montrose was completely defeated at
Philiphaugh. He escaped, but his power was broken, and he was unable
henceforth to take any important share in the war.

When Charles surrendered himself to the Scots, in May, 1646, his friends
in Scotland were helpless, and he had to meet the Presbyterian leaders
without any hope beyond that of being able to take advantage of the
differences of opinion between Presbyterians and Independents, which
were fast assuming critical importance. The king held at Newcastle a
conference with Alexander Henderson, which led to no definite result. In
the end the Scots offered to adopt the king's cause if he would accept
Presbyterianism. This he declined to do, and his refusal left the Scots
no choice except keeping him a prisoner or surrendering him to his
English subjects. They owed him no gratitude, and, while it might be
chivalrous, it could scarcely be expedient to retain his person. While
he was unwilling to accede to their conditions they were powerless to
give him any help. He was therefore handed over to the commissioners of
the English Parliament, and the Scots, on the 30th January, 1647,
returned home, having been paid, as the price of the king's surrender,
the money promised them by the English Parliament when they entered into
the struggle in 1644.

In the end of 1647 the Scots again entered into the long series of
negotiations with the king. When Charles was a prisoner at Newport, and
while he was arranging terms with the English, he entered into a secret
agreement with commissioners from Scotland. The "Engagement", as it was
called, embodied the conditions which Charles had refused at
Newcastle--the recognition of Presbytery in Scotland and its
establishment in England for three years, the king being allowed
toleration for his own form of worship. The Engagement was by no means
unanimously carried in the Scottish Parliament, and its results were
disastrous to Charles himself. It caused the English Parliament to pass
the vote of No Addresses, and the second civil war, which it helped to
provoke, had a share in bringing about his death. The Duke of Hamilton
led a small army into England, where in August 17th, 1648, it was
totally defeated by Cromwell at Preston. Meanwhile the Hamilton party
had lost power in Scotland, and when Cromwell entered Scotland, Argyll,
who had opposed the Engagement, willingly agreed to his conditions, and
accepted the aid of three English regiments. In the events of the next
six months Scotland had no part nor lot. The responsibility for the
king's death rests on the English Government alone.

The news of the execution of the king was at once followed by the fall
of Argyll and his party. The Scots had no sympathy with English
republicanism, and they were alarmed by the growth of Independency in
England. On February 5th Charles II was proclaimed King of Great
Britain, France, and Ireland, and the Scots declared themselves ready to
defend his cause by blood, if only he would take the Covenant. This the
young king refused to do while he had hopes of success in Ireland.
Meanwhile three of his most loyal friends perished on the scaffold. The
English, who held the Duke of Hamilton as a prisoner, put him to death
on March 9th, 1649, and on the 22nd day of the same month the Marquis of
Huntly was beheaded at Edinburgh. On April 27th, Montrose, who had
collected a small army and taken the field in the northern Highlands,
was defeated at Carbisdale and taken prisoner. On the 25th May he was
hanged in Edinburgh, and with his death the story is deprived of its
hero.

The pressure of misfortune finally drove Charles to accept the Scottish
offers. Even while Montrose was fighting his last battle, his young
master was negotiating with the Covenanters. Conferences were held at
Breda in the spring of 1650, and Charles landed at the mouth of the
river Spey on the 3rd July, having taken the Covenant. In the middle of
the same month Cromwell crossed the Tweed at the head of an English
army. The Scots, under Leven and David Leslie, took up a position near
Edinburgh, and, after a month's fruitless skirmishing, Cromwell had to
retire to Dunbar, whither Leslie followed him. By a clever manoeuvre,
Leslie intercepted Cromwell's retreat on Berwick, while he also seized
Doon Hill, an eminence commanding Dunbar. The Parliamentary Committee,
under whose authority Leslie was acting, forced him to make an attack to
prevent Cromwell's force from escaping by sea. The details of the battle
have been disputed, and the most convincing account is that given by Mr.
Firth in his "Cromwell". When Leslie left the Doon Hill his left became
shut in between the hill and "the steep ravine of the Brock burn", while
his centre had not sufficient room to move. Cromwell, therefore, after a
feint on the left, concentrated his forces against Leslie's right, and
shattered it. The rout was complete, and Leslie had to retreat to
Stirling, while the Lowlands fell into Cromwell's hands. Cromwell was
conciliatory, and a considerable proportion of Presbyterians took up an
attitude hostile to the king's claims. The supporters of Charles were
known as Resolutioners, or Engagers, and his opponents as Protesters or
Remonstrants. The consequence was that the old Royalists and
Episcopalians began to rejoin Charles. Before the battle of Dunbar
(September 2nd) Charles had been really a prisoner in the hands of the
Covenanters, who had ruled him with a rod of iron. As the stricter
Presbyterians withdrew, and their places were filled by the "Malignants"
whom they had excluded from the king's service, the personal importance
of Charles increased. On January 1st, 1651, he was crowned at Scone, and
in the following summer he took up a position near Stirling, with Leslie
as commander of his army. Cromwell outmanoeuvred Leslie and seized
Perth, and the royal forces retaliated by the invasion of England, which
ended in the defeat of Worcester on September 3rd, 1651, exactly one
year after Dunbar. The king escaped and fled to France.

Scotland was now unable to resist Monk, whom Cromwell had left behind
him when he went southwards to defeat Charles at Worcester. On the 14th
August he captured Stirling, and on the 28th the Committee of Estates
was seized at Alyth and carried off to London. There was no further
attempt at opposition, and all Scotland, for the first time since the
reign of Edward I, was in military occupation by English troops. The
property of the leading supporters of Charles II was confiscated. In
1653 the General Assembly was reduced to pleading that "we were an
ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of Jesus Christ, which meddled
not with anything civil"; but their unwonted humility was of no avail to
save them. An earlier victim than the Assembly was the Scottish
Parliament. It was decided in 1652 that Scotland should be incorporated
with England, and from February of that year till the Restoration, the
kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist. The "Instrument" of Government of
1653 gave Scotland thirty members in the British Parliament. Twenty were
allotted to the shires--one to each of the larger shires and one to each
of nine groups of less important shires. There were also eight groups of
burghs, each group electing one member, and two members were returned by
the city of Edinburgh. Between 1653 and 1655 Scotland was governed by
parliamentary commissioners, and, from 1655 onwards, by a special
council. The Court of Session was abolished, and its place taken by a
Commission of Justice.[90] The actual union dates from 1654, when it was
ratified by the Supreme Council of the Commonwealth of England, but
Scotland was under English rule from the battle of Worcester. The wise
policy of allowing freedom of trade, like the improvement in the
administration of justice, failed to reconcile the Scots to the union,
and, to the end, it required a military force to maintain the new
government.

As Scotland had no share in the execution of Charles I, so it had none
in the restoration of his son. The "Committee of Estates", which met
after the 29th of May, was not lacking in loyalty. All traces of the
union were swept away, and the pressure of the new Navigation Act was
severely felt in contrast to the freedom of trade that had been the
great boon of the Commonwealth. But worse evils were in store. The
"Covenanted monarch" was determined to restore Episcopacy in Scotland,
and for this purpose he employed as a tool the notorious James Sharpe,
who had been sent up to London to plead the cause of Presbytery with
Monk. Sharpe returned to Scotland in the spring of 1661 as Archbishop of
St. Andrews. Parliament met by royal authority and passed a General Act
Rescissory, which rendered void all acts passed since 1638. The
episcopal form of church government was immediately established. The
Privy Council received enlarged powers, and was again completely
subservient to the king. The execution of Argyll atoned for the death of
Montrose, in the eyes of Royalists, and two notable ecclesiastical
politicians, Johnston of Warriston and James Guthrie, were also put to
death. An Indemnity Act was passed, but many men found that the king's
pardon had its price. On October 1st, 1662, an act was passed ordering
recusant ministers to leave their parishes, and the council improved on
the English Five Mile Act, by ordering that no recusant minister should,
on pain of treason, reside within twenty miles of his parish, within six
miles of Edinburgh or any cathedral town, or within three miles of any
royal burgh. A Court of High Commission, which had been established by
James VI in 1610, was again entrusted with all religious cases. The
effect of these harsh measures was to rouse the insurrections which are
the most notable feature of the reign. In 1666 the Covenanters were
defeated at the battle of Pentland, or Rullion Green, and those who were
suspected of a share in the rising were subjected to examination under
torture, which now became one of the normal features of Charles's brutal
government. Prisoners were hanged or sent as slaves to the plantations.
In 1669, an Indulgence was passed, permitting Presbyterian services
under certain conditions, but in 1670, Parliament passed a Conventicle
Act, making it a capital crime to "preach, expound scripture, or pray",
at any unlicensed meeting. On May 5th, 1679, Sharpe was assassinated
near St. Andrews. The murderers escaped, and some of them joined the
Covenanters of the west. The Government had determined to put a stop to
the meetings of conventicles, and had chosen for this purpose John
Graham of Claverhouse. On the 11th June, Claverhouse was defeated at
Drumclog, but eleven days later he routed the Covenanting army at
Bothwell Bridge, and took over a thousand prisoners. Only seven were
executed, but the others were imprisoned in Greyfriars' churchyard, and
a large number of them were sold as plantation slaves. A small rising at
Aird's Moss in Ayrshire, in 1680, was easily suppressed. In 1681 the
Scottish Parliament prescribed as a test the disavowal of the National
Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1644, and it
declared that any attempt to alter the succession involved the subjects
"in perjury and rebellion". In connection with the Test Act, an
opportunity was found for convicting the Earl of Argyll[91] of treason.
His property was confiscated, but he himself was allowed to escape. The
last years of the reign, under the administration of the Duke of York,
were marked by exceptional cruelty in connection with the religious
persecutions. The expeditions of Claverhouse, the case of the Wigtown
martyrs, and the horrible cruelties of the torture-room have given to
these years the title of "the Killing time".

The Scottish Parliament welcomed King James VII with fulsome adulation.
But the new king was scarcely seated on the throne before a rebellion
broke out. The Earl of Argyll adopted the cause of Monmouth, landed in
his own country, and marched into Lanarkshire. His attempt was an entire
failure: nobody joined his standard, and he himself, failing to make
good his retreat, was captured and executed without a new trial. The
Parliament again enforced the Test Act, and renewed the Conventicle Act,
making it a capital offence even to be present at a conventicle. The
persecutions continued with renewed vigour. James failed in persuading
even the obsequious Parliament to give protection to the Roman
Catholics. He attempted to obtain the same end by a Declaration of
Indulgence, of which the Covenanters might be unable to avail
themselves, but in its final form, issued in May, 1688, it included
them. The conjunction of popery and absolute prerogative thoroughly
alarmed the Scots, and the news of the English Revolution was received
with general satisfaction. The effect of the long struggle had been to
weaken the country in many ways. Thousands of her bravest sons had died
on the scaffold or on the battle-field or in the dungeons of Dunnottar,
or had been exiled to the plantations. Trade and commerce had declined.
The records of the burghs show us how harbours were empty and houses
ruinous, where, a century earlier, there had been a thriving trade.
Scotland in 1688 was in every way, unless in moral discipline, poorer
than she had been while England was still the "auld enemy".

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 89: Sabbath observance had been introduced from England six
centuries earlier. Cf. p. 14.]

[Footnote 90: Justices of the peace were appointed throughout the
country, and heritable jurisdictions were abolished.]

[Footnote 91: The son of the Marquis who was executed in 1661. The
earldom, but not the marquisate, had been restored in 1663.]




CHAPTER XI

THE UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS

1689-1707


On April 4th, 1689, a Convention of the Estates of Scotland met to
consider the new situation which had been created by the course of
events in England. They had no difficulty in determining their course of
action, nor any scruples about deposing James, who was declared to have
forfeited his right to the crown. A list was drawn up of the king's
misdeeds. They included "erecting schools and societies of Jesuits,
making papists officers of state", taxation and the maintenance of a
standing army without consent of Parliament, illegal imprisonments,
fines, and forfeitures, and interference with the charters of burghs.
The crown was then offered to William and Mary, but upon certain
strictly defined conditions. All the acts of the late king which were
included in the list of his offences must be recognized as illegal: no
Roman Catholic might be King or Queen of Scotland; and the new
sovereigns must agree to the re-establishment of Presbytery as the
national religion. It was obvious that the nation was not unanimous.

  "To the Lords of Convention, 'twas Claverhouse spoke,
   Ere the King's crown go down there are crowns to be broke."

The opponents of the revolution settlement consisted mainly of the old
Royalist and Episcopalian party, the representatives of those who had
followed Montrose to victory, and the supporters of the Restoration
Government. As the Great Rebellion had made Royalists of the Scottish
Episcopalians, so the Revolution could not but convert them into
Jacobites. Their leader was James Graham of Claverhouse, who retreated
from Edinburgh to the north to prepare for a campaign against the new
government. The discontent was not confined to the Episcopalian party.
Such Roman Catholics as there were in Scotland at the time were prepared
to take up arms for a Stuart king who was a devout adherent of their
religion. Moreover, the Presbyterians themselves were not united. A
party which was to grow in strength, and which now included a
considerable number of extreme Presbyterians, still longed, in spite of
their experience of Charles II, for a covenanted king, and looked with
great distrust upon William and Mary. The triumphant party of moderate
Presbyterians, who probably represented most faithfully the feeling of
the nation, acted throughout with considerable wisdom. The acceptance of
the crown converted the Convention into a Parliament, and the Estates
set themselves to obtain, in the first place, their own freedom from the
tyranny of the committee known as the "Lords of the Articles", through
which James VI and his successors had kept the Parliament in
subjection. William was unwilling to lose entirely this method of
controlling his new subjects, but he had to give way. The Parliament
rescinded the Act of Charles II asserting his majesty's supremacy "over
all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical" as "inconsistent with the
establishment of Church government now desired", but, in the military
crisis which threatened them, they proceeded no further than to bring in
an Act abolishing Prelacy and all superiority of office in the Church of
Scotland.

While William's first Parliament was debating, his enemies were entering
upon a struggle which was destined to be brief. Edinburgh Castle held
out for King James till June 14th, 1689, when its captain, the Duke of
Gordon, capitulated. Graham of Claverhouse, now Viscount Dundee, had
collected an army of Highlanders, against whom William sent General
Mackay, a Scotsman who had served in Holland. Mackay followed Dundee
through the Highlands to Elgin and on to Inverness, and finally, after
many wanderings, the two armies met in the pass of Killiecrankie. Dundee
and his Highlanders were victorious, but Dundee himself was killed in
the battle, and his death proved a fatal blow to the Jacobite cause.
After some delay Mackay was able to attain the object for which the
battle had been fought--the possession of Blair Athole Castle. The
military resistance soon came to an end.

The ecclesiastical settlement followed the suppression of the
rebellion. The deprivation of nonjuring clergymen had been proceeding
since the establishment of the new Government, and in 1690 an act was
passed restoring to their parishes the Presbyterian clergy who had been
ejected under Charles II. A small temporary provision was made for their
successors, who were now, in turn, expelled. On the 26th May, 1690, the
Parliament adopted the Confession of Faith, although it refused to be
committed to the Covenant. The Presbyterian form of Church government
was established; but King William succeeded in maintaining some check on
the General Assembly, and toleration was granted to such Episcopalian
dissenters as were willing to take the oath of allegiance. On the other
hand, acceptance of the Confession of Faith was made a test for
professors in the universities. The changes were carried out with little
disturbance to the peace, there was no blood spilt, and except for some
rough usage of Episcopalians in the west (known as the "rabbling of the
curates"), there was nothing in the way of outrage or insult. The credit
of the settlement belongs to William Carstares, afterwards Principal of
the University of Edinburgh, whose tact and wisdom overcame many
difficulties.

The personal union of Scotland and England had created no special
difficulties while both countries were under the rule of an absolute
monarch. The policy of both was alike, because it was guided by one
supreme ruler. But the accession of a constitutional king, with a
parliamentary title, at once created many problems difficult of
solution, and made a more complete union absolutely necessary. The Union
of 1707 was thus the natural consequence of the Revolution of 1689,
although, at the time of the Revolution, scrupulous care was taken,
alike by the new king and by his English Parliament, to recognize the
existence of Scotland as a separate kingdom. The Scottish Parliament,
which regarded itself as the ruler of the country, found itself hampered
and restricted by William's action. It was allowed no voice on questions
of foreign policy, and its conduct of home affairs met with not
infrequent interference, which roused the indignation of Scottish
politicians, and especially of the section which followed Fletcher of
Saltoun. Several causes combined to add to the unpopularity which
William had acquired through the occasional friction with the
Parliament. Scotland had ceased to have any interest in the war, and its
prolongation constituted a standing grievance, of which the partisans of
the Stuarts were not slow to avail themselves.

There were two events, in particular, which roused widespread resentment
in Scotland. These were the Massacre of Glencoe, and the failure of the
scheme for colonizing the Isthmus of Darien. The story of Glencoe has
been often told. The 31st December, 1691, had been appointed as the
latest day on which the government would receive the submission of the
Highland chiefs. MacDonald of Glencoe delayed till the last moment, and
then proceeded to Fort-William, where a fortress had just been erected,
to take the oath in the presence of its commander, who had no power to
receive it. From Fort-William he had to go to Inverary, to take the oath
before the sheriff of Argyll, and he did so on the 6th January, 1692.
The six days' delay placed him and his clan in the power of men who were
unlikely to show any mercy to the name of MacDonald. Acting under
instructions from King William, the nature of which has been matter of
dispute, Campbell of Glenlyon, acting with the knowledge of Breadalbane
and Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, the Secretary of State, and as their
tool, entered the pass of Glencoe on the 1st February, 1692. The
MacDonalds, trusting in the assurances which had been given by the
Government, seem to have suspected no evil from this armed visit of
their traditional enemies, the Campbells, and received them with
hospitality. While they were living peaceably, all possible retreat was
being cut off from the unfortunate MacDonalds by the closing of the
passes, and on the 13th effect was given to the dastardly scheme. It
failed, however, to achieve its full object--the extirpation of the
clan. Many escaped to the hills; but the chief himself and over thirty
others were murdered in cold blood. The news of the massacre roused a
fierce flame of indignation, not only in the Highlands, but throughout
the Lowlands as well, and the Jacobites did not fail to make use of it.
A commission was appointed to enquire into the circumstances, and it
severely censured Dalrymple, and charged Breadalbane with treason, while
many blamed, possibly unjustly, the king himself.

The other grievance was of a different nature. About 1695, William
Paterson, the founder of the Bank of England, suggested the formation of
a Scottish company to trade to Africa and the Indies. It was originally
known as the African Company, but it was destined to be popularly
remembered by the name of its most notable failure--the Darien Company.
It received very full powers from the Scottish Parliament, powers of
military colonization as well as trading privileges. These powers
aroused great jealousy and indignation in England, and the House of
Commons decided that, as the company had its headquarters in London, the
directors were guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. There followed a
failure of the English capital on which the promoters had reckoned, but
shares to the value of £400,000 (on which £219,094 was paid up) were
subscribed in Scotland. At first the company was a prosperous trading
concern, but its only attempt at colonization involved it in ruin.
Paterson wished his fellow-countrymen to found a colony in the Isthmus
of Panama, and to attract thither the whole trade of North and South
America. The ports of the colony were to be open to ships of all
nations. In the end of 1698 twelve hundred Scots landed on the shore of
the Gulf of Darien, without organization and without the restraint of
responsibility to any government. They soon had difficulties with their
Spanish neighbours, and the English colonists at New York, Barbadoes,
and Jamaica were warned to render them no assistance. Disease and famine
completed the tale of misery, and the first colonists deserted their
posts. Their successors, who arrived to find empty huts, surrounded by
lonely Scottish graves, were soon in worse plight, and they were driven
out by a band of Spaniards. The unfortunate company lingered on for some
time, but merely as traders. The Scots blamed the king's ill-will for
their failure, and he became more than ever unpopular in Scotland. The
moral of the whole story was that only through the corporate union of
the two countries could trade jealousies and the danger of rival schemes
of colonization be avoided.

In the reign of Charles II the Scots, who felt keenly the loss of the
freedom of trade which they had enjoyed under Cromwell, had themselves
broached the question of union, and William had brought it forward at
the beginning of his reign. It was, however, reserved for his successor
to see it carried. In March, 1702, the king died. The death of "William
II", as his title ran in the kingdom of Scotland, was received with a
feeling amounting almost to satisfaction. The first English Parliament
of Queen Anne agreed to the appointment of commissioners to discuss
terms of union, and the Estates of Scotland chose representatives to
meet them. But the English refused to give freedom of trade, and so the
negotiations broke down. In reply, the Scottish Parliament removed the
restrictions on the import of wines from France, with which country
England was now at war. In the summer of 1703 the Scots passed an Act of
Security, which invested the Parliament with the power of the crown in
case of the queen's dying without heirs, and entrusted to it the choice
of a Protestant sovereign "from the royal line". It refused to such king
or queen, if also sovereign of England, the power of declaring war or
making peace without the consent of Parliament, and it enacted that the
union of the crowns should determine after the queen's death unless
Scotland was admitted to equal trade and navigation privileges with
England. Further, the act provided for the compulsory training of every
Scotsman to bear arms, in order that the country might, if necessary,
defend its independence by the sword. The queen's consent to the Act of
Security was refused, and the bitterness of the national feeling was
accentuated by the suspicion of a Jacobite plot. Parliament had been
adjourned on 16th September, 1703. When it met in 1704 it again passed
the Act of Security, and an important section began to argue that the
royal assent was merely a usual form, and not an indispensable
authentication of an act. For some time, it seemed as if the two
countries were on the brink of war. But, as the union of the crowns had
been rendered possible by the self-restraint of a nation who could
accept their hereditary enemy as their hereditary sovereign, so now
Queen Anne's advisers resolved, with patient wisdom, to secure, at all
hazards, the union of the kingdoms.

It was not an easy task, even in England, for there could be no union
without complete freedom of trade, and many Englishmen were most
unwilling to yield on this point. In Scotland the difficulties to be
overcome were much greater. The whole nation, irrespective of politics
and religion, felt bitterly the indignity of surrendering the
independent existence for which Scotland had fought for four hundred
years. It could not but be difficult to reconcile an ancient and
high-spirited people to incorporation with a larger and more powerful
neighbour, and the whole population mourned the approaching loss of
their Parliament and their autonomy. Almost every section had special
reasons for opposing the measure. For the Jacobites an Act of Union
meant that Scotland was irretrievably committed to the Hanoverian
succession, and whatever force the Jacobites might be able to raise
after the queen's death must take action in the shape of a rebellion
against the _de facto_ government. It deprived them of all hope of
seizing the reins of power, and of using the machinery of government in
Scotland for the good of their cause--a _coup d'état_ of which the Act
of Security gave considerable chance. On this very account the
triumphant Presbyterians were anxious to carry the union scheme, and the
correspondence of the Electress Sophia proves that the negotiations for
union were looked upon at Hanover as solely an important factor in the
succession controversy. But the recently re-established Presbyterian
Church of Scotland regarded with great anxiety a union with an
Episcopalian country, and hesitated to place their dearly won freedom at
the mercy of a Parliament the large majority of whom were Episcopalians.
The more extreme Presbyterians, and especially the Cameronians of the
west, were bitterly opposed to the project. They protested against
becoming subject to a Parliament in whose deliberations the English
bishops had an important voice, and against accepting a king who had
been educated as a Lutheran, and they clamoured for covenanted
uniformity and a covenanted monarch. By a curious irony of fate, the
Scottish Episcopalians were forced by their Jacobite leanings to act
with the extreme Presbyterians, and to oppose the scheme of amalgamation
with an Episcopalian country. The legal interest was strongly against a
proposal that might reduce the importance of Scots law and of Scottish
lawyers, while the populace of Edinburgh were furious at the suggestion
of a union, whose result must be to remove at once one of the glories of
their city and a valuable source of income. There was still another body
of opponents. The reign of William had been remarkable for the rise of
political parties. The two main factions were known as Williamites and
Cavaliers, and in addition to these there had grown up a Patriot or
Country party. It was brought into existence by the enthusiasm of
Fletcher of Saltoun, and it was based upon an antiquarian revival which
may be compared with the mediæval attempts to revive the Republic of
Rome. The aim of the patriots was to maintain the independence of
Scotland, and they attempted to show that the Scottish crown had never
been under feudal obligations to England, and that the Scottish
Parliament had always possessed sovereign rights, and could govern
independently of the will of the monarch. They were neither Jacobites
nor Hanoverians; but they held that if the foreign domination, of which
they had complained under William, were to continue, it mattered little
whether it emanated from St. Germains or from the Court of St. James's,
and they had combined with the Jacobites to pass the Act of Security.

Such was the complicated situation with which the English Government had
to deal. Their first step was to advise Queen Anne to assent to the Act
of Security, and so to conserve the dignity and _amour propre_ of the
Scottish Parliament. Commissioners were then appointed to negotiate for
a union. No attempt was made to conciliate the Jacobites, for no attempt
could have met with any kind of success. Nor did the commissioners make
any effort to satisfy the more extreme Presbyterians, who sullenly
refused to acknowledge the union when it became an accomplished fact,
and who remained to hamper the Government when the Jacobite troubles
commenced. An assurance that there would be no interference with the
Church of Scotland as by law established, and a guarantee that the
universities would be maintained in their _status quo_, satisfied the
moderate Presbyterians, and removed their scruples. Unlike James VI and
Cromwell, the advisers of Queen Anne declared their intention of
preserving the independent Scots law and the independent Scottish courts
of justice, and these guarantees weakened the arguments of the Patriot
party. But above all the English proposals won the support of the
ever-increasing commercial interest in Scotland by conceding freedom of
trade in a complete form. They agreed that "all parts of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain be under the same regulations, prohibitions,
and restrictions, and liable to equal impositions and duties for export
and import". The adjustment of financial obligations was admitted to
involve some injustice to Scotland, and an "equivalent" was allowed, to
compensate for the responsibility now accruing to Scotland in connection
with the English National Debt. It remained to adjust the representation
of Scotland in the united Parliament. It was at first proposed to allow
only thirty-eight members, but the number was finally raised to
forty-five. Thirty of these represented the shires. Each shire was to
elect one representative, except the three groups of Bute and Caithness,
Clackmannan and Kinross, and Nairn and Cromarty. In each group the
election was made alternately by the two counties. Thus Bute,
Clackmannan, and Nairn each sent a member in 1708, and Caithness,
Kinross, and Cromarty in 1710. The device is sufficiently unusual to
deserve mention. The burghs were divided into fifteen groups, each of
which was given one member. In this form, after considerable difficulty,
the act was carried both in Scotland and in England. It was a union much
less extensive than that which had been planned by James VI or that
which had been in actual force under Cromwell. The existence of a
separate Church, governed differently from the English Establishment,
and the maintenance of a separate legal code and a separate judicature
have helped to preserve some of the national characteristics of the
Scots. Not for many years did the union become popular in Scotland, and
not for many years did the two nations become really united. It might,
in fact, be said that the force of steam has accomplished what law has
failed to do, and that the real incorporation of Scotland with England
dates from the introduction of railways.




                                  APPENDIX A

               REFERENCES TO THE HIGHLANDERS IN MEDIÆVAL LITERATURE


     ~I. AELRED (12th Century)~

     _Account of the Battle of the Standard_

     "Rex interim, coactis in unum comitibus, optimisque regni sui
     proceribus, coepit cum eis de belli ratione tractare, placuitque
     plurimis, ut quotquot aderant armati milites et sagittarii cunctum
     praeirent exercitum, quatenus armati armatos impeterent, milites
     congrederentur militibus, sagittae sagittis obviarent. Restitere
     Galwenses, dicentes sui esse juris primam construere aciem.... Cum
     rex militum magis consiliis acquiescere videretur, Malisse comes
     Stradarniae plurimum indignatus: 'Quid est,' inquit, 'o rex, quod
     Gallorum te magis committis voluntati, cum nullus eorum cum armis
     suis me inermem sit hodie praecessurus in bello?' ... Tunc rex ...
     ne tumultus hac altercatione subitus nasceretur, Galwensium cessit
     voluntati. Alteram aciem filius regis et milites sagittariique cum
     eo, adjunctis sibi Cumbrensibus et Tevidalensibus cum magna
     sagacitate constituit.... Conjunxerat se ei ejusque interfuit aciei
     Eustacius filius Joannis de magnis proceribus Angliae ... qui a
     rege Anglorum ideo recesserat.... Tertium cuneum Laodonenses cum
     Insulanis et Lavernanis fecerunt. Rex in sua acie Scotos et
     Muranenses retinuit, nonnullos etiam de militibus Anglis et Francis
     ad sui corporis custodiam deputavit."--Aelred, _De Bello
     Standardii_, Migne, _Patrologia Latina_, vol. cxcv, col. 702-712.

     ~2. JOHN OF FORDUN (d. 1394?)~

     (_a_) _Description of the Highlanders_

     "Mores autem Scotorum secundum diversitatem linguarum variantur;
     duabus enim utuntur linguis, Scotica videlicet, et Teutonica; cujus
     linguae gens maritimas possidet et planas regiones: linguae vero
     gens Scoticae montanas inhabitat, et insulas ulteriores. Maritima
     quoque domestica gens est, et culta, fida, patiens, et urbana;
     vestitu siquidem honesta, civilis atque pacifica; circa cultum
     divinum devota, sed et obviandis hostium injuriis semper prona.
     Insulana vero, sive montana, ferma gens est et indomita, rudis et
     immorigerata, raptu capax, otium diligens, ingenio docilis et
     callida; forma spectabilis, sed amictu deformis; populo quidem
     Anglorum et linguae, sed et propriae nationi, propter linguarum
     diversitatem, infesta jugiter et crudelis. Regi tamen et regno
     fidelis et obediens, nec non faciliter legibus subdita, si
     regatur.... Scotica gens ea ab initio est quae quondam in Hibernia
     fuit, et ei similis per omnia, lingua, moribus, et
     natura."--_Scoti-chronicon_, Bk. ii, ch. ix.

     This contrast between the Highlanders and the civilized Scots must
     be read in the light of Fordun's general view of the work of the
     descendants of Malcolm Canmore. He describes how David I changed
     the Lowlanders into civilized men, but never hints that he did so
     by introducing Englishmen. He represents the whole nation (outside
     the old Northumbrian kingdom) as Picts and Scots, on whose
     antiquity he lays stress, and merely mentions that Malcolm Canmore
     welcomed English refugees. The following extracts show that he
     looked upon the Lowlanders, not as a separate race from the
     Highlanders, but simply as men of the same barbarian race who had
     been civilized by David:--

     "Unde tota illa gentis illius barbaries mansuefacta, tanta se mox
     benevolentia et humilitate substravit, ut naturalis oblita
     saevitiae, legibus quas regia mansuetudo dictabat, colla
     submitteret, et pacem quam eatenus nesciebat, gratanter
     acciperet."--Bk. v, ch. xxxvii.

     "Ipse vero pretiosis vestibus pallia tua pilosa mutavit et antiquam
     nuditatem byssa et purpura texit. Ipse barbaros mores tuos
     Christiana religione composuit...."--Bk. v, ch. xliii.


     (_b_) _Coronation of Alexander III as a king of Scots_

     "Ipso quoque rege super cathedram regalem, scilicet, lapidem,
     sedente, sub cujus pedibus comites ceterique nobiles sua vestimenta
     coram lapide curvatis genibus sternebant. Qui lapis in eodem
     monasterio reverenter ob regum Albaniae consecrationem servatur.
     Nec uspiam aliquis regum in Scocia regnare solebat,[92] nisi super
     eundem lapidem regium in accipiendum nomen prius sederet in Scona,
     sede vero superiori, videlicet Albaniae constituta regibus ab
     antiquis. Et ecce, peractus singulis, quidam Scotus montanus ante
     thronum subito genuflectens materna lingua regem inclinato capite
     salutavit hiis Scoticis verbis, dicens:--'Benach de Re Albanne
     Alexander, mac Alexander, mac Vleyham, mac Henri, mac David', et
     sic pronunciando regum Scotorum genealogiam usque in finem legebat.
     Quod ita Latine sonat:--'Salve rex Albanorum Alexander, filii
     Alexandri ... filii Mane, filii Fergusii, primi Scotorum regis in
     Albania'. Qui quoque Fergusius fuit filius Feredach, quamvis a
     quibusdam dicitur filius Ferechere, parum tamen discrepant in sono.
     Haec discrepantia forte scriptoris constat vitio propter
     difficultatem loquelae. Deinde dictam genealogiam dictus Scotus ab
     homine in hominem continuando perlegit donec ad primum Scotum,
     videlicet, Iber Scot. pervenit."--_Annals_, xlviii.

      ~3. BOOK OF PLUSCARDEN (written in the latter half of the 15th
          century)~

      _Account of Harlaw_

     "Item anno Domini M°CCCCXI fuit conflictus de Harlaw, in
     Le Gariach, per Donaldum de Insulis contra Alexandrum comitem de
     Mar et vicecomitem Angusiae, ubi multi nobiles ceciderunt in bello.
     Eodem anno combusta est villa de Cupro casualiter."--Bk. x, ch.
     xxii.

      ~4. WALTER BOWER (d. 1449)~

      _Account of Harlaw_

     "Anno Dom. millesimo quadringentesimo undecimo, in vigilia sancti
     Jacobi Apostoli, conflictus de Harlaw in Marria, ubi Dovenaldus de
     Insulis cum decem millibus de insulanis et hominibus suis de Ross
     hostiliter intravit terram cis montes, omnia conculcans et
     depopulans, ac in vastitatem redigens; sperens in illa expeditione
     villam regiam de Abirdene spoliare, et consequenter usque ad aquam
     de Thya suae subjicere ditioni. Et quia in tanta multitudine ferali
     occupaverunt terram sicut locustae, conturbati sunt omnes de
     dominica terra qui videbant eos, et timuit omnis homo. Cui occurrit
     Alexander Stewart, comes de Marr, cum Alexandro Ogilby vicecomite
     de Angus, qui semper et ubique justitiam dilexit, cum potestate de
     Mar et Garioch, Angus et Mernis, et facto acerrimo congressu,
     occisi sunt ex parte comitis de Mar Jacobus Scrymgeour
     constabularius de Dundé, Alexander de Irevin, Robertus de Malvile
     et Thomas Murrave milites, Willelmus de Abirnethy ... et alii
     valentes armigeri, necnon Robertus David consul de Abirdene, cum
     multis burgensibus. De parte insulanorum cecidit campidoctor.
     Maclane nomine, et dominus Dovenaldus capitaneus fugatus, et ex
     parte ejus occisi nongenti et ultra, ex parte nostra quingenti, et
     fere omnes generosi de Buchane."--Lib. xv, ch. xxi.

     ~5. JOHN MAJOR OR MAIR (1469-1550)~

     _(a) References to the Scottish nation, and description of the
          Gaelic-speaking population_

     "Cum enim Aquitaniam, Andegaviam, Normanniam, Hiberniam, Valliamque
     Angli haberent, adhuc sine bellis in Scotia civilibus, nihil in ea
     profecerunt, et jam mille octingentos et quinquaginta annos in
     Britannia Scoti steterunt, hodierno die non minus potentes et ad
     bellum propensi quam unquam fuerint...."--_Greater Britain_, Bk. i.
     ch. vii.

     "Praeterea, sicut Scotorum, uti diximus, duplex est lingua, ita
     mores gemini sunt. Nam in nemoribus Septentrionalibus et montibus
     aliqui nati sunt, hos altae terrae, reliquos imae terrae viros
     vocamus. Apud exteros priores Scoti sylvestri, posteriores
     domestici vocantur, lingua Hibernica priores communiter utuntur,
     Anglicana posteriores. Una Scotiae medietas Hibernice loquitur, et
     nos omnes cum Insulanis in sylvestrium societate deputamus. In
     veste, cultu et moribus, reliquis puta domesticis minus honesti
     sunt, non tamen minus ad bellum praecipites, sed multo magis, tum
     quia magis boreales, tum quia in montibus nati et sylvicolae,
     pugnatiores suapte natura sunt. Penes tamen domitos est totius
     regni pondus et regimen, quia melius vel minus male quam alii
     politizant."--Bk. i, ch. viii.

     "Adhuc Scotiae ferme medietas Hibernice loquitur, et a paucis
     retroactis diebus plures Hibernice loquuti sunt."--Bk. i, ch. ix.


     _(b) Account of Harlaw_

     "Anno 1411, praelium Harlaw apud Scotos famigeratum commissum est.
     Donaldus insularum comes decies mille viris clarissimis
     sylvestribus Scotis munitus, Aberdoniam urbem insignam et alia loca
     spoliare proposuit; contra quem Alexander Steuartus comes Marrae,
     et Alexander Ogilvyus Angusiae vice-comes suos congregant et
     Donaldo Insularum apud Harlaw occurrunt. Fit atrox et acerrima
     pugna; nec cum exteris praelium periculosius in tanto numero unquam
     habitum est; sic quod in schola grammaticali juvenculi ludentes, ad
     partes oppositas nos solemus retrahere, dicentes nos praelium de
     Harlaw struere velle. Licet communius a vulgo dicatur quod
     sylvestres Scoti erant victi, ab annalibus tamen oppositum invenio:
     solum Insularum comes coactus est retrocedere, et plures occisos
     habuit quam Scoti domiti...."--Bk. vi, ch. x.

     ~6. HECTOR BOECE (1465?-1536)~

      _(a) Account of the differences between Highlanders and Lowlanders_

     "Nos vero qui in confinio Angliae sedes habemus, sicut Saxonum
     linguam per multa commercia bellaque ab illis didicimus nostramque
     deseruimus; ita priscos omnes mores reliquimus, priscusque nobis
     scribendi mos ut et sermo incognitus est. At qui montana incolunt
     ut linguam ita et caetera prope omnia arctissime tuentur....
     Labentibus autem seculis idque maxime circa Malcolmi Canmoir
     tempora mutari cuncta coeperunt. Vicinis enim Britannis primum a
     Romanis subactis ocioque enervatis, ac postea a Saxonibus expulsis
     commilitii eorum commercio nonnihil, mox Pictis quoque deletis ubi
     affinitate Anglis coniungi coepimus, expanso, ut ita dicam, gremio
     mores quoque eorum amplexi imbibimus. Minus enim prisca patrum
     virtus in pretio esse coeperat, permanente nihilominus vetere
     gloriae cupiditate. Verum haud recta insistentes via umbras
     germanae gloriae non veram sectabantur, cognomina sibi nobilitatis
     imponentes, eaque Anglorum more ostentantes atque iactantes, quum
     antea is haberi esseque nobilissimus soleret, qui virtute non
     opibus, qui egregiis a se factis non maiorum suorum clarus erat.
     Hinc illae natae sunt Ducum, Comitum, ac reliquorum id genus ad
     ostentationem confictae appellationes. Quum antea eiusdem
     potestatis esse solerent, qui Thani id est quaestores regii
     dicebantur illis muneribus ob fidem virtutemque donari."--_Scotorum
     Regni Descriptio_, prefixed to his History.


     _(b) Account of Harlaw_

     "Exortum est subinde ex Hebridibus bellum duce Donaldo Hebridiano
     injuria a gubernatore affecto. Nam Wilhelmus comes Rossensis filius
     Hugonis, is quem praelio ad Halidounhil periisse supra memoratum
     est,[93] duas habuit filias, quarum natu maiorem Waltero Leslie
     viro nobilissimo coniugem dedit una cum Rossiae comitatu. Walterus
     susceptis ex ea filio Alexandro nomine, quem comitem Rossiae fecit,
     et filia, quam Donaldo Hebridiano uxorem dedit, defunctus est.
     Alexander ex filia Roberti gubernatoris, quam duxerat, unam
     duntaxat filiam reliquit, Eufemiam nomine, quae admodum adhuc
     adolescentula erat, dum pater decederet, parumque rerum perita. Eam
     gubernator [Albany], blanditiis an minis incertum, persuasam
     induxit, ut resignato in ipsum comitatu Rossensi, ab eo rursum
     reciperet his legibus, ut si ipsa sine liberis decederet, ad filium
     eius secundo natum rediret. Quod si neque ille masculam prolem
     reliquisset, tum Robertus eius frater succederet, ac si in illo
     quoque defecisset soboles, tum ad regem rediret Rossia. Quibus
     astute callideque peractis haud multo post Eufemia adhuc virgo
     moritur, ut ferebatur, opera gubernatoris sublata, ut ad filium
     comitatus veniret. Ita Ioannes, quum antea Buthquhaniae comes
     fuisset Rossiae comitatum acquisivit, et unicam tantum filiam
     reliquit, quam Willelmus à Setoun eques auratus in coniugem
     accepit; unde factum est ut eius familiae principes ius sibi
     Buthquhaniae vendicent. At Donaldus qui amitam Eufemiae Alexandri
     Leslie sororem, uxorem habebat, ubi Eufemiam defunctam audivit, à
     gubernatore postulavit ex haereditate Rossiae comitatum; ubi quum
     ille nihil aequi respondisset, collecta ex Hebridibus ingenti manu,
     partim vi, partim benevolentia, secum ducens Rossiam invadit, nee
     magno negotio in ditionem suam redegit, Rossianis verum recipere
     haeredem haud quaquam recusantibus. Verum eo successu non
     contentus, nec se in eorum quae iure petiverat, finibus continens,
     Moraviam. Bogaevallem iisque vicinas regiones hostiliter
     depopulando in Gareotham pervenit, Aberdoniam, uti minitabatur,
     direpturus. Caeterum in tempore obvians temeritati eius Alexander
     Stuart Alexandri filii Roberti regis secundi comitis Buthquhaniae
     nothus, Marriae comes ad Hairlau (vicus est pugna mox ibi gesta
     cruentissima insignis) haud expectatis reliquis auxiliis cum eo
     congressus est. Qua re factum est, ut dum auxilia sine ordinibus
     (nihil tale suspicantes) cum magna neglegentia advenirent, permulti
     eorum caesi sint, adeoque ambigua fuerit victoria, ut utrique se in
     proximos montes desertis castris victoria cedentes receperint.
     Nongenti ex Hebridianis et iis qui Donaldo adhaeserant cecidere cum
     Makgillane et Maktothe praecipuis post Donaldum ducibus. Ex Scotis
     adversae partis vir nobilis Alexander Ogilvy Angusiae vice-comes
     singulari iustitia ac probitate praeditus, Jacobus Strimger
     Comestabulis Deidoni magno animo vir ac insigni virtute, et ad
     posteros clarus, Alexander Irrvein à Drum ob praecipuum robur
     conspicuus, Robertus Maul à Pammoir, Thomas Moravus, Wilhelmus
     Abernethi à Salthon, Alexander Strathon à Loucenstoun, Robertus
     Davidstoun Aberdoniae praefectus; hi omnes equites aurati cum
     multis aliis nobilibus eo praelio occubere. Donaldus victoriam
     hostibus prorsus concedens, tota nocte quanta potuit celeritate ad
     Rossiam contendit, ac inde qua proxime dabatur, in Hebrides se
     recepit. Gubernator in sequenti anno cum valido exercitu Hebrides
     oppugnare parans, Donaldum veniam supplicantem, ac omnia
     praestiturum damna illata pollicentem, nec deinceps iniuriam ullam
     illaturum iurantem in gratiam recepit."--_Scotorum Historiae_, Lib.
     xvi.

     ~7. JOHN LESLEY (1527-1596)~

      _Contrast between Highlanders and Lowlanders_

     "Angli etenim sicut et politiores Scoti antiqua illa Saxonum
     lingua, quae nunc Anglica dicitur promiscue, alia tamen atque alia
     dialecto loquuntur. Scotorum autem reliqui quos exteri (quod
     majorum suorum instituta, ac antiquam illam simplicemque amiciendi
     ac vivendi formam mordicus adhuc teneant) feros et sylvestres,
     montanos dicimus, prisca sua Hibernica lingua utuntur."--_De Gestis
     Scotorum_, Lib. i. (_De Populis Regnis et Linguis_.)

     ~8. GEORGE BUCHANAN (1506-1582)~

      _Account of Harlaw_

     "Altero vero post anno, qui fuit a Christo 1411, Donaldus Insulanus
     OEbudarum dominus cum Rossiam iuris calumnia per Gubernatorem
     sibi ablatam, velut proximus haeres (uti erat) repeteret, ac nihil
     aequi impetraret, collectis insulanorum decem millibus in
     continentem descendit; ac Rossiam facile occupavit, cunctis
     libenter ad iusti domini imperium redeuntibus. Sed ea Rossianorum
     parendi facilitas animum praedae avidum ad maiora audenda impulit.
     In Moraviam transgressus eam praesidio destitutam statim in suam
     potestatem redegit. Deinde Bogiam praedabundus transivit; et iam
     Abredoniae imminebat. Adversus hunc subitum et inexpectatum hostem
     Gubernator copias parabat; sed cum magnitudo et propinquitas
     periculi auxilia longinqua expectare non sineret, Alexander Marriae
     Comes ex Alexandro Gubernatoris fratre genitus cum tota ferme
     nobilitate trans Taum ad Harlaum vicum ei se objecit. Fit praelium
     inter pauca cruentum et memorabile: nobilium hominum virtute de
     omnibus fortunis, deque gloria adversus immanem feritatem
     decertante. Nox eos diremit magis pugnando lassos, quam in alteram
     partem re inclinata adeoque incertus fuit eius pugnae exitus, ut
     utrique cum recensuissent, quos viros amisissent, sese pro victis
     gesserint. Hoc enim praelio tot homines genere, factisque clari
     desiderati sunt, quot vix ullus adversus exteros conflictus per
     multos annos absumpsisse memoratur. Itaque vicus ante obscurus ex
     eo ad posteritatem nobilitatus est."--_Rerum Scotorum Historia_,
     Lib. x.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 92: This was written after the stone had been carried to
England.]

[Footnote 93: He had fallen in the front rank of the Scottish army at
Halidon Hill.]




                               APPENDIX B

                      THE FEUDALIZATION OF SCOTLAND


The object of this Appendix is to give a summary of the process by which
Anglo-Norman feudalism came to supersede the earlier Scottish
civilization. For a more detailed account, the reader is referred to
Skene's _Celtic Scotland_, Robertson's _Scotland under her Early Kings_,
and Mr. Lang's _History of Scotland_.

The kingdom[94] of which Malcolm Canmore became the ruler in 1058 was
not inhabited by clans. It had been, from of old, divided into seven
provinces, each of which was inhabited by tribes. The tribe or tuath was
governed by its own chief or king (Ri or Toisech); each province or Mor
Tuath was governed by Ri Mor Tuath or Mormaer,[95] and these seven
Mormaers seem (in theory, at all events) to have elected the national
king, and to have acted as his advisers. The tribe was divided into
freemen and slaves, and freemen and slaves alike were subdivided into
various classes--noble and simple; serfs attached to land, and personal
bondmen. The land was held, not by the tribe in general, but by the
_ciniod_ or near kin of the _flath_ or senior of each family within the
tribe. On the death of a senior, the new senior was chosen (generally
with strict regard to primogeniture) from among the nearest in blood,
and all who were within three degrees of kin to him, shared in the
joint-proprietary of the proceeds of the land. The senior had special
privileges and was the representative and surety of the _ciniod_, and
the guardian of their common interests. After the third generation, a
man ceased to be reckoned among the _ciniod_, and probably received a
small personal allotment. Most of his descendants would thus be
landless, or, if they held land, would do so by what soon amounted to
servile tenure. Thus the majority of the tribe had little or nothing to
lose by the feudalization that was approaching.

The changes of Malcolm's reign are concerned with the Church, not with
land-tenure. But the territorialization of the Church, and the abolition
of the ecclesiastical system of the tribe, foreshadowed the innovations
that Malcolm's son was to introduce. We have seen that an anti-English
reaction followed the deaths of Malcolm and Margaret. This is important
because it involved an expulsion of the English from Scotland, which may
be compared with the expulsion of the Normans from England after the
return of Godwin. Our knowledge of the circumstances is derived from the
following statement of Symeon of Durham:--

     "Qua [Margerita] mortua, Dufenaldum regis Malcolmi fratrem Scotti
     sibi in regem elegerunt, et omnes Anglos qui de curia regis
     extiterunt, de Scotia expulerunt. Quibus auditis, filius regis
     Malcolmi Dunechan regem Willelmum, cui tune militavit, ut ei regnum
     sui patris concederet, petiit, et impetravit, illique fidelitatem
     juravit. Et sic ad Scotiam cum multitudine Anglorum et Normannorum
     properavit, et patruum suum Dufenaldum de regno expulit, et in loco
     ejus regnavit. Deinde nonnulli Scottorum in unum congregati,
     homines illius pene omnes peremerunt. Ipse vero vix cum paucis
     evasit. Veruntamen post haec illum regnare permiserunt, ea ratione,
     ut amplius in Scotiam nec Anglos nec Normannos introduceret,
     sibique militare permitteret."-_Rolls Series edn._, vol. ii, p.
     222.

It was not till the reign of Alexander I (1107-1124) that the new
influences made any serious modification of ancient custom. The peaceful
Edgar had surrounded himself with English favourites, and had granted
Saxon charters to Saxon landholders in the Lothians. His brother,
Alexander, made the first efforts to abolish the old Celtic tenure. In
1114, he gave a charter to the monastery of Scone, and not only did the
charter contemplate the direct holding of land from the king, but the
signatories or witnesses described themselves as Earls, not as Mormaers.
The monastery was founded to commemorate the suppression of a revolt of
the Celts of Moray, and the earls who witnessed the charter bore Celtic
names. This policy of taking advantage of rebellions to introduce
English civilization became a characteristic method of the kings of
Scotland. Alexander's successor, David I, set himself definitely to
carry on the work which his brother had begun. He found his opportunity
in the rising of Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Moray. To this rising we have
already referred in the Introduction. It was the greatest effort made
against the innovations of the anti-national sons of Malcolm Canmore,
and its leader, Malcolm MacHeth, was the representative of a rival line
of kings. David had to obtain the assistance, not only of the
Anglo-Normans by whom he himself was surrounded, but also of some of the
barons of Northumberland and Yorkshire, with whom he had a connection as
Earl of Huntingdon, for the descendant of the Celtic kings of Scotland
was himself an English baron. We have seen that David captured MacHeth
and forfeited the lands of Moray, which he regranted, on feudal terms,
to Anglo-Normans or to native Scots who supported the king's new policy.
The war with England interrupted David's work, as a long struggle with
the Church had prevented his brother, Alexander, from giving full scope
to the principles that both had learned in the English Court; but, by
the end of David's reign, the lines of future development had been quite
clearly laid down. The Celtic Church had almost disappeared. The bishops
of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, Moray, Glasgow, Ross, Caithness, Aberdeen,
Dunblane, Brechin, and Galloway were great royal officers, who
inculcated upon the people the necessity of adopting the new political
and ecclesiastical system. The Culdee monasteries were dying out; north
of the Forth, Scone had been founded by Alexander I as a pioneer of the
new civilization, and, after the defeat of Malcolm MacHeth and the
settlement of Moray, David, in 1150, founded the Abbey of Kinloss. The
Celtic official terms were replaced by English names; the Mormaer had
become the Earl, the Toisech was now the Thane, and Earl and Thane alike
were losing their position as the royal representative, as David
gradually introduced the Anglo-Norman _vice-comes_ or sheriff, who
represented the royal Exchequer and the royal system of justice. David's
police regulations tended still further to strengthen the nascent
Feudalism; like the kings of England, he would have none of the
"lordless man, of whom no law can be got", and commendation was added to
the forces which produced the disintegration of the tribal system. Not
less important was the introduction of written charters. Alexander had
given a written charter to the monastery of Scone; David gave private
charters to individual land-owners, and made the possession of a charter
the test of a freeholder. Finally, it is from David's reign that
Scottish burghs take their origin. He encouraged the rise of towns as
part of the feudal system. The burgesses were tenants-in-chief of the
king, held of him by charter, and stood in the same relation to him as
other tenants-in-chief. So firmly grounded was this idea that, up to
1832, the only Scottish burgesses who attended Parliament were
representatives of the ancient Royal Burghs, and their right depended,
historically, not on any gift of the franchise, but on their position as
tenants-in-chief. That there were strangers among the new burgesses
cannot be doubted; Saxons and Normans mingled with Danes and Flemish
merchants in the humble streets of the villages that were protected by
the royal castle and that grew into Scottish towns; but their numbers
were too few to give us any ground for believing that they were, in any
sense, foreign colonies, or that they seriously modified the ethnic
character of the land. Men from the country would, for reasons of
protection, or from the impulse of commerce, find their way into the
towns; it is certain that the population of the towns did not migrate
into the country. The real importance of the towns lies in the part they
played in the spread of the English tongue. To the influence of Court
and King, of land tenure, of law and police, of parish priest and monk,
and Abbot and Bishop, was added the persuasive force of commercial
interest.

The death of David I, in 1153, was immediately followed by Celtic
revolts against Anglo-Norman order. The province of Moray made a final
effort on behalf of Donald Mac Malcolm MacHeth, the son of the Malcolm
MacHeth of the previous reign, and of a sister of Somerled of Argyll,
the ancestor of the Lord of the Isles. The new king, Malcolm IV, the
grandson of David, easily subdued this rising, and it is in connection
with its suppression that Fordun makes the statement, quoted in the
Introduction, about the displacement of the population of Moray. There
is no earlier authority for it than the fourteenth century, and the
inherent probability in its favour is so very slight that but little
weight can reasonably be assigned to it. David had already granted Moray
to Anglo-Normans who were now in possession of the Lowland portion and
who ruled the Celtic population. We should expect to hear something
definite of any further change in the Lowlands, and a repopulation of
the Highlands of Moray was beyond the limits of possibility. The king,
too, had little time to carry out such a measure, for he had immediately
to face a new rebellion in Galloway; he reigned for twelve years in all,
and was only twenty-four years of age when he died. The only truth in
Fordun's statement is probably that Malcolm IV carried on the policy of
David I in regard to the land-owners of Moray, and forfeited the
possessions of those who had taken part in MacHeth's rising. In
Galloway, a similar policy was pursued. Some of the old nobility,
offended perhaps by Malcolm's attendance on Henry II at Toulouse, in his
capacity as an English baron, joined the defeated Donald MacHeth in an
attempt upon Malcolm, at Perth, in 1160. MacHeth took refuge in
Galloway, which the king had to invade three times before bringing it
into subjection. Before his death, in 1165, Galloway was part of the
feudal kingdom of Scotland.

Only once again was the security of the Anglo-Celtic dynasty seriously
threatened by the supporters of the older civilization. When William the
Lion, brother and successor of Malcolm IV, was the prisoner of Henry II,
risings took place both in Galloway and in Moray. A Galloway chieftain,
by name Gilbert, maintained an independent rule to his death in 1185,
when William came to terms with his nephew and successor, Roland. In the
north, Donald Bane Mac William, a great-grandson of Malcolm Canmore,
raised the standard of revolt in 1181, and it was not till 1187 that the
rebellion was finally suppressed, and Donald Bane killed. There were
further risings, in Moray in 1214 (on the accession of Alexander II),
and in Galloway in 1235. The chronicler, Walter of Coventry, tells us
that these revolts were occasioned by the fact that recent Scottish
kings had proved themselves Frenchmen rather than Scots, and had
surrounded themselves solely with Frenchmen. This is the real
explanation of the support given to the Celtic pretenders. A new
civilization is not easily imposed upon a people. Elsewhere in Scotland,
the process was more gradual and less violent. In the eastern Lowlands
there were no pretenders and no rebellions, and traces of the earlier
civilization remained longer than in Galloway and in Moray. "In Fife
alone", says Mr. Robertson, "the Earl continued in the thirteenth
century to exercise the prerogatives of a royal Maor, and, in the reign
of David I, we find in Fife what is practically the clan MacDuff."[96]
Neither in the eastern Lowlands, nor in the more disturbed districts of
Moray and Galloway, is there any evidence of a radical change in the
population. The changes were imposed from above. Mr. Lang has pointed
out that we do not hear "of feuds consequent on the eviction of prior
holders.... The juries, from Angus to Clyde, are full of Celtic names of
the gentry. The Steward (FitzAlan) got Renfrew, but the _probi
homines_, or gentry, remain Celtic after the reigns of David and
William."[97] The contemporary chronicler, Aelred, gives no hint that
David replaced his Scottish subjects by an Anglo-Norman population; he
admits that he was terrible to the men of Galloway, but insists that he
was beloved of the Scots. It must not be forgotten that the new system
brought Anglo-Norman justice and order with it, and must soon have
commended itself by its practical results. The grants of land did not
mean dispossession. The small owners of land and the serfs acquiesced in
the new rule and began to take new names, and the Anglo-Norman strangers
were in actual possession, not of the land itself, but of the
_privilegia_ owed by the land. Even with regard to the great lords, the
statements have been slightly exaggerated; Alexander II was aided in
crushing the rebellion of 1214-15 by Celtic earls, and in 1235 he
subdued Galloway by the aid of a Celtic Earl of Ross.

       *       *       *       *       *

We have attempted to explain the Anglicization of Scotland, south and
east of "the Highland line", by the combined forces of the Church, the
Court, Feudalism, and Commerce, and it is unnecessary to lay further
stress upon the importance of these elements in twelfth century life. It
may be interesting to compare with this the process by which the
Scottish Highlands have been Anglicized within the last century and a
half. It must, in the first place, be fully understood that the interval
between the twelfth century and the suppression of the last Jacobite
rising was not void of development even in the Highlands. "It is in the
reign of David the First", says Mr. Skene,[98] "that the sept or clan
first appears as a distinct and prominent feature in the social
organization of the Gaelic population", and it is not till the reign of
Robert III that he finds "the first appearance of a distinct clan".
Between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of the
eighteenth, the clan had developed a complete organization, consisting
of the chief and his kinsmen, the common people of the same blood, and
the dependants of the clan. Each clan contained several septs, founded
by such descendants of chiefs as had obtained a definite possession in
land. The writer of _Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland
in 1726_, mentions that the Highland clans were "subdivided into smaller
branches of fifty or sixty men, who deduce their original from their
particular chieftains, and rely upon them as their more immediate
protectors and defenders".

The Hanoverian government had thus to face, in 1746, a problem in some
respects more difficult than that which the descendants of Malcolm
Canmore had solved. The clan organization was complete, and clan loyalty
had assumed the form of an extravagant devotion; a hostile feeling had
arisen between Highlands and Lowlands, and all feeling of common
nationality had been lost. There was no such important factor as the
Church to help the change; religion was, on the whole, perhaps rather
adverse than favourable to the process of Anglicization. On the other
hand, the task was, in other aspects, very much easier. The Highlands
had been affected by the events of the seventeenth century, and the
chiefs were no longer mere freebooters and raiders. The Jacobite rising
had weakened the Highlands, and the clans had been divided among
themselves. It was not a united opposition that confronted the
Government. Above all, the methods of land-tenure had already been
rendered subject to very considerable modification. Since the reign of
James VI, the law had been successful in attempting to ignore "all
Celtic usages inconsistent with its principles", and it "regarded all
persons possessing a feudal title as absolute proprietors of the land,
and all occupants of the land who could not show a right derived from
the proprietor, as simple tenants".[99] Thus the strongest support of
the clan system had been removed before the suppression of the clans.
The Government of George II placed the Highlands under military
occupation, and began to root out every tendency towards the persistence
of a clan organization. The clan, as a military unit, ceased to exist
when the Highlanders were disarmed, and as a unit for administrative
purposes when the heritable jurisdictions were abolished, and it could
no longer claim to be a political force of any kind, for every vestige
of independence was removed. The only individual characteristic left to
the clan or to the Highlander was the tartan and the Celtic garb, and
its use was prohibited under very severe penalties. These were measures
which were not possible in the days of David as they were in those of
George. But a further step was common to both centuries--the forfeiture
of lands, and although a later Government restored many of these to
descendants of the attainted chiefs, the magic spell had been broken,
and the proprietor was no longer the head of the clan. Such measures,
and the introduction of sheep-farming, had, within sixty years, changed
the whole face of the Highlands.

Another century has been added to Sir Walter's _Sixty Years Since_, and
it may be argued that all the resources of modern civilisation have
failed to accomplish, in that period, what the descendants of Malcolm
Canmore effected in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This is true
as far as language is concerned, but only with regard to language. The
Highlanders have not forgotten the Gaelic tongue as the Lowlanders had
forgotten it by the outbreak of the War of Independence.[100] Various
facts account for this. One of the features of recent days is an
antiquarian revival, which has tended to preserve for Highland children
the great intellectual advantage of a bi-lingual education. The very
severance of the bond between chieftain and clan has helped to
perpetuate the ancient language, for the people no longer adopt the
speech of their chief, as, in earlier days, the Celt of Moray or of Fife
adopted the tongue spoken by his Anglo-Norman lord, or learned by the
great men of his own race at the court of David or of William the Lion.
The Bible has been translated into Gaelic, and Gaelic has become the
language of Highland religion. In the Lowlands of the twelfth century,
the whole influence of the Church was directed to the extermination of
the Culdee religion, associated with the Celtic language and with Celtic
civilization. Above all, the difference lies in the rise of burghs in
the Lowlands. Speech follows trade. Every small town on the east coast
was a school of English language. Should commerce ever reach the
Highlands, should the abomination of desolation overtake the waterfalls
and the valleys, and other temples of nature share the degradation of
the Falls of Foyers, we may then look for the disappearance of the
Gaelic tongue.

Be all this as it may, it is undeniable that there has been in the
Highlands, since 1745, a change of civilization without a displacement
of race. We venture to think that there is some ground for the view that
a similar change of civilization occurred in the Lowlands between 1066
and 1286, and, similarly, without a racial dispossession. We do not deny
that there was some infusion of Anglo-Saxon blood between the Forth and
the Moray Firth in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; but there is no
evidence that it was a repopulation.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 94: In this discussion the province of Lothian is not
included.]

[Footnote 95: Ri Mortuath is an Irish term. We find, more usually, in
Scotland, the Mormaer.]

[Footnote 96: _Op. cit._, vol. i, p. 254.]

[Footnote 97: _History of Scotland_, vol. i, pp. 135-6.]

[Footnote 98: _Celtic Scotland_, vol. iii, pp. 303, 309.]

[Footnote 99: _Celtic Scotland_, vol. iii, p. 368.]

[Footnote 100: It should of course be recollected that the Gaelic tongue
must have persisted in the vernacular speech of the Lowlands long after
we lose all traces of it as a literary language.]




                                                      APPENDIX C

                                          TABLE OF THE COMPETITORS OF 1290

                                (_Names of the thirteen Competitors are in bold type_)


                                                      Duncan I
                                                    (1034-1040)
                                                         |
                             +---------------------------+-------------------------------------+
                             |                                                                 |
                  Malcolm III (Canmore)                                                   Donald Bane
                       (1057-8-1093)                                                      (1093-1097)
                             |                                                                 |
                     David I (1134-1753)                                                       |
                             |                                                                 |
                        Prince Henry                                                           |
                             |                                                                 |
                             +------------------------------------+-------------+------+       |
                             |                                    |             |      |       |
                             |                                    |             |      |       |
                     William the Lion                           David          Ada     |       |
                        (1165-1214)                            Earl of    m. the Count |       |
                             |                               Huntingdon    of Holland  |       |
                             |                                    |             |      |       |
                             |                                    |             |  Marjorie    |
                             |                                    |             |  m. John     |
                             |                                    |             |  Lindesay    |
                             |                                    |             |      |       |
        +-------------+------+------+------+------+      +--------+------+      |      |       |
        |             |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        |             |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
  Alexander II    Isabella   |    Margaret |    Henry    |   Isabella m. |      |      |       |
   (1214-1249)   m. Robert   |  m. Eustace |   Galithly  |      Robert   |      |      |       |
        |            Ros     |    Vesci    |      |      |      Bruce    |      |      |       |
        |             |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        |             |     Ada     |  Aufricá m. | Margaret m.   |     Ada     |      |       |
        |             | m. Patrick, | William Say |   Alan of     |  m. Henry   |      |       |
        |             |   Earl of   |      |      |  Galloway     |  Hastynges  |      |       |
        |             |    Dunbar   |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        +-------+     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        |       |     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
  Alexander III |     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
  (1249-1285-6) |     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        |       |     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
        |    Marjorie |      |      |      |      | Devorguilla   |    Henry    |      |       |
        |       |     |      |      |      |      |   m. John     |  Hastynges  |      |       |
        |       |     |      |      |      |      |   Balliol     |      |      |      |       |
        |       |     |      |      |      |      |      |        |      |      |      |       |
  Margaret m.   | ~William~  |  ~William~  |  ~Patrick~  |    ~Robert~   |  ~Florent~, | ~John Comyn~
   ~Eric II~    |   ~Ros~    |   ~Vesci~   |  ~Galithly~ |    ~Bruce~    |    Count    | m. a sister of
  ~of Norway~   |            |             |             |        |      | of Holland  |  John Balliol
        |       |            |             |             |        |      |             |       |
        |   ~Nicolas~    ~Patrick~      ~Roger~    ~John Balliol~ |    ~John~      ~Robert~    |
        |   ~Sovles~    ~of Dunbar~  ~Mandeville~   (1292-1296)   |  ~Hastynges~  ~Pinkeny~    |
        |                                                 |       |                            |
        |                                                 |     Robert                         |
  Margaret, the                                           |   Earl of Carrick                  |
  Maid of Norway                                          |        |                       John Comyn
  (1285-6-1290)                                           |        |                        (stabbed
                                                          |        |                       by Bruce in
                                                          |        |                         1305-6)
                                                    Edward Balliol |
                                                                   |
                                                               Robert I
                                                              (1306-1329)





  INDEX


  Abbey Craig, 42.

  Aberdeen, xv, xxiii, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, 40, 68, 70, 87, 162, 163,
            164, 169, 170, 202.
  ---- Assembly at, 154, 155.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.
  ---- University of, xxxi, 105.

  Aberdeenshire, xvii, xxxiv, 51, 87, 163, 169.

  Abernethy, 12.

  Abirdene, Robert of, 198.

  Aboyne, Earl of, 163.

  _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland_, xxi.

  Ada, daughter of Earl David, 35.

  Aelred of Rivaulx, 21, 195.

  Aethelstan, 5.

  Aird's Moss, rising at, 178.

  Airlie, Earl of, 169.

  Albany, 201.
  ---- Alexander, Duke of, 96, 97.
  ---- Duke of, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89.
  ---- 3rd Duke of, 109, 110, 111, 112.

  Alcester, 168.

  Alexander I, 17, 205, 207.
  ---- II, 28, 29, 32, 35, 36, 47, 209, 210.
  ---- III, 29, 30, 31, 36, 101, 197.
  ---- Earl of Mar, 198, 199.
  ---- son of Alexander III, 31.
  ---- of Lorn, 51, 53.
  ---- of Ross, 201.

  Alford, victory at, 170.

  Alnwick, 13, 26.
  ---- sacking of, 92.

  Alyth, 174.

  Ancrum Moor, battle of, 120.

  Angus, 198, 209.

  Angus, Earl Archibald, 99.
  ---- grandson of Earl Archibald, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 118, 119,
                                   120, 133.
  Angus Og, 53, 56, 85.

  Annan, 67.

  Annandale, 32, 47, 48, 50.

  Anne, Queen, 188, 189, 192.
  ---- of Cleves, 113.

  "Answer to ane Helandmanis Invective", xxxiv.

  _Antiquité de la Nation et de la Langue
   des Celtes autrement appellez Gaulois_, 2.

  Antony, Bishop of Durham, 44.

  Argyll, Bishop of, xxxiv.
  ---- Earl of, 178.
  ---- Highlanders of, 52, 55, 85, 106.
  ---- Marquis and Earl of, 161, 164, 166, 169, 172, 176.

  Argyllshire, xxiii, 3, 23, 25, 185.

  Armada, 145.

  Arran, 83.
  ---- Earl of (Chatelherault), 109, 110, 111, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120,
                                122, 123.
  ---- Earl of, son of Chatelherault, 127, 128, 130.

  Arthur, Prince, 99.

  _Auchinleck Chronicle_, xxxiv.

  Auldearn, victory at, 170.

  Auxerre, 90.

  Ayr, xvii.

  Ayrshire, xxix, xxxiv, 51, 52, 178.

  Aytoun, Peace of, 100.


  Badenach, Celts of, 41, 53.

  Bailleul, estate of, 39.

  Bakewell, 5.

  Balliol, Edward, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75.
  ---- John, 27, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 45, 48, 50, 65, 79.

  Banff, 40.

  Bannockburn, battle of, xiv, xxiv, 55, 58, 61, 63, 66, 68, 74, 85, 88,
                          90, 93, 108.
  Barbadoes, 187.

  Barbour's _Bruce_, xxvi, xxvii.

  Barton, Sir Andrew, 98, 103.

  Baugé, battle of, 88, 89.

  Beaton, Cardinal, 112, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121.

  Beaufort, Joan, 89.

  Becket, Thomas, 26.

  Berwick, 3, 39, 43, 51, 57, 58, 73, 76, 83, 91, 94, 96, 163, 173.
  ---- county of, 69, 73, 82.
  ---- pacification of, 163.
  ---- siege of, 67, 68.
  ---- Treaty of, 164.

  Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, 44.

  Biland Abbey, 58.

  Birnam Wood, 9.

  Bishops' War, 164.

  "Black Agnes", 71.

  Blair Athole, 169.
  ---- Castle, 182.

  Blind Harry's _Wallace_, xxvii, xxxiii.

  Boece, Hector, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxxi, 9, 200.

  Boniface VIII, 45.

  "Book of the Howlat", the, xxxiii.

  "Book of Pluscarden", the, xxx, 198.

  Borough-Muir of Edinburgh, 69.

  Bosworth, battle of, 97.

  Bothwell, 67, 70.
  ---- Earl of, 136, 137, 138.
  ---- Bridge, battle of, 178.

  Boulogne, 69.

  Bower, Walter, xxx, 198.

  Braemar, 87.

  Brankston ridge, 106.

  Breadalbane, Marquis of, 185, 186.

  Brechin, 39.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.

  Breda, Conference at, 173.

  Bridge of Dee, battle of, 163.

  Brigham, Treaty of, 33.

  Brittany, 1.

  Brockburn, 173.

  Brown, Mr. Hume, x.

  Bruce, Alexander, 51,
  ---- Edward, 51, 55, 57.
  ---- Marjory, 51, 59, 69.
  ---- Nigel, 51.
  ---- Robert I, xxiv, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
                 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 72, 85, 86.
  ---- Robert of Annandale, 32, 34, 35, 47.
  ---- Sir Thomas, 51.

  Bruces, the, 13, 18, 24, 48.

  Bruges, 68.

  Buchan, Countess of, 50, 51.
  ---- earldom of, 53.
  ---- Earl of, 88, 90.
  ---- men of, 198.

  Buchanan, George, xxxii, 203.

  Bull, Stephen, 98.

  Burgh, Elizabeth de, 51.
  ---- Hubert de, 28, 35.

  Burghead, xvii.

  Burgh-on-Sands, 52.

  Burgundy, Duchess of, 98.
  ---- Duke of, 95.

  "Burned Candlemas", 73.

  Burton, Mr. Hill, xiii, xxiv, xxvi, xxx, xxxi, xxxii.

  Bute, 193.


  Cæsar, Julius, 1, 2.

  Caithness, xxiii, 87, 193.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.

  Calderwood's _History of the Kirk_, 147.

  Cambuskenneth, Abbey of, 43.
  ---- Bridge, battle of, 42.
  ---- Parliament at, 59.

  Camden's _Britannia_, xxxiii.

  Campbell, Sir Nigel, 53.

  Campbell of Glenlyon, 185.

  Canute, 8.

  Carberry Hill, 137.

  Carbisdale, defeat at, 172.

  Cardross, castle of, 64.

  Carham, battle of, 8.

  Carlisle, 52, 67, 94, 168.

  Carrick, xxiv, 47, 51.

  ---- earldom of, 45.

  ---- men of, 56, 85.

  Carrickfergus, 57.

  Carstares, William, 183.

  Casket Letters, 138, 141.

  Cateau-Cambresis, Treaty of, 124.

  Cecil, Lord Burleigh, 125, 127, 133.

  Cecilia, d. of Edward IV, 96.

  Charles I, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170,
             171, 176.
  ---- II, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 182, 183, 187.

  Chatelherault, Duke of, 123.

  Chester, 7.

  Chevy Chase, battle of, 78.

  Clackmannan, 193.

  Clarence, Lionel of, 74, 80.

  Clement III, 27.

  Clitheroe, victory at, 20.

  Clyde, river, 64, 84, 209.

  Colvin of Culross, 152.

  Comyn, John, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 85.

  Comyns, the, 48.

  Conventicle Act, 177, 179.

  Cowton Moor, 200.

  Crawford, defeat of, 107.

  Creçy, battle of, 70, 72.

  Cressingham, Hugh of, 40, 41.

  Crevant, battle of, 90.

  Cromarty, 193.

  Cromwell, Oliver, 172, 173, 174, 187, 192, 193.

  Cullen, 40.

  Cumberland, 13, 23, 25, 151
  ---- ravaged, 78.

  Cumbria, 6, 12, 17, 195.

  Cupar, xxx, 198.


  Dacre, Lord, 108, 111.

  Dalkeith, 163.

  Dalriada, kingdom of, 3, 4.

  Dalry, defeat at, 51.

  Dalrymple, Father James, xxix.
  ---- Sir John, of Stair, 185, 186.

  "Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins", xxxv.

  Darc, Joan, 90.

  Darien Scheme, 184, 186, 187.

  Darnley, 90.
  ---- Lord, 110, 119, 129, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143.

  David I, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
           24, 25, 26, 34, 85, 196, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213.
  ---- II, 59, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.
  ---- Earl of Huntingdon, 24, 28, 34, 35, 206.
  ---- son of Alexander III, 31.

  Davidstone, Robert, 202.

  Davison, Secretary, 145.

  Declaration of Indulgence, 179.

  De Coucy, Enguerand, 29.
  ---- Marie, 29.

  Dee, river, 7.

  _De Northynbrorum Comitibus_, 7.

  Derbyshire, 5.

  Dingwall, defeat near, 87.

  Don Carlos, 132.

  Donald, Clan of, 87.

  Donald Bane, 16, 48, 209.
  ---- of the Isles, xiv, xxv, xxx, 86, 87, 148, 199, 201, 202, 203.

  Doon Hill, 173.

  Douglas, David, 91.
  ---- Earl of, 78, 81, 82, 92.
  ---- 6th Earl William, 91.
  ---- 8th Earl William, 92, 95, 96, 97.
  ---- Gavin, xxvii.
  ---- House of, xxx, xxxiii, 83, 116.
  ---- Lord James, 51, 53, 57, 59, 67.
  ---- Lord James the Good, 92.
  ---- Lord James the Gross, 92.
  ---- Sir Archibald, 67.

  Douglas, Sir George, 119.
  ---- Sir James, 55.

  Douglases, the, xxiii, xxv, 82, 92, 93.

  Drumclog, battle of, 178.

  Dryburgh, Abbey of, 57, 58, 77.

  Dumbarton, 119, 162.

  Dumfries, 92, 168.
  ---- convent of, 48.
  ---- county of, 69.

  Dunbar, 4, 136.
  ---- battle of (1296), 39.
  ---- battle of (1650), 173, 174.
  ---- burning of, 92.
  ---- castle of, 70, 71.
  ---- earldom of, 12.
  ---- William, xxxiv, xxxv, 102.

  Dunbarton Castle, 139.

  Dunblane, Bishop of, 206.

  Duncan I, 8, 9.

  Duncan, son of Malcolm III, 16.
  ---- of Lorne, xxxv.

  Dundalk, defeat at, 57.

  Dundee, xxiii, 170, 198.
  ---- castle of, 42.
  ---- meeting at, 54.

  Dunkeld, Bishop of, 206.

  Dunottar, castle of, 179.

  Dunsinane, 9.

  Dupplin Moor, battle of, 21, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 82, 108.

  Durham, city of, 19, 72, 165.
  ---- Treaty of, 23.


  Eadred, 6.

  Earn, river, 66.

  Edderton, xvii.

  Edgar, 7, 205.

  Edgar, son of Malcolm III, 16, 17, 18.

  Edgar the Atheling, 11, 13.

  Edinburgh, 4, 27, 45, 59, 76, 77, 113, 119, 125, 137, 151, 157, 161, 162,
             165, 166, 172, 173, 175, 181.
  ---- Bishop of, 158.
  ---- castle of, 39, 54, 71, 81, 126, 136, 143, 182.
  ---- Convention at, 167.
  ---- county of, 69.
  ---- Presbytery of, 147.
  ---- riots in, 160.
  ---- Treaty of, 126, 127, 129.
  ---- University of, 183.

  Edmund the Magnificent, 6, 16.

  Edward I, x, xi, xii, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,
            42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66,
            70, 74, 179.
  ---- II, 32, 33, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59.
  ---- III, 59, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75.
  ---- IV, 61, 94, 95, 96, 97.
  ---- VI, 118, 131.
  ---- the Black Prince, 75.
  ---- the Elder, 5.

  Edwin, 4.

  Egfrith, 12.

  Elgin, 40, 45, 70, 182.
  Elizabeth, Queen, x, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134,
                    136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146.

  Elphinstone, Bishop, xxix, 105.

  "English Wooing", the, 119.

  Eric of Norway, 32, 34.

  Esk, river, 115.

  Eugenia, 201.

  Eure, Sir Ralph, 120.

  Eustace of Boulogne, 17.

  Eustacius, 195.

  Evandale, Lord, 113.


  _Fair Maid of Perth_, 81.

  Fairfax, Lord, 168.

  Falaise, castle of, 26.
  ---- Treaty of, 27, 28.

  Falkirk, battle of, xvii, 44, 55, 56, 66.

  Falkland, 81.

  Falls of Foyers, 213.

  Fast Castle, 84.

  Fénélon, La Mothe, 141.

  Ferdinand of Spain, 99.

  Feredach, 197.

  Fergus, 197.

  Fife, xi, xiii, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xxiii, xxxiv, 103.
  ---- Celts of, 213.
  ---- Earl of, 78.

  Fifeshire, 160.

  Firth, Mr. C., 173.

  FitzAlan, or Steward, 210.

  Fitzalans, the, 18.

  Fitzpatrick, Sir Roger, 49.

  Five Mile Act, 177.

  Flamborough Head, 83.

  Fletcher of Saltoun, 184, 191.

  Flodden, battle of, xxiv, 21, 72, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111.

  Florence of Worcester, 7, 9.

  _Flower_, the, 98.

  "Flyting", xxxiv.

  Fordun, John of, xxii, xxvii, xxx, 196, 208.

  Forfar, xvii, xix.

  Fort-William, 185.

  Forth, Firth of, xii, 3, 5, 12, 21, 22, 42, 69, 84, 96, 98, 213.

  Fotheringay Castle, 144.

  "Foul Raid", the, 88.

  Francis I, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114.
  ---- II, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128.

  Fraser, Bishop, 34, 35.

  Frasers, the, 87.

  Frederick II, the Emperor, 35.

  Freeman, Edward, x, xii, xv, xxiv, 6, 7, 85, 88.

  Froude, Mr., 138.

  Fyvie Castle, 169.


  Galloway, xiii, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 22, 25, 208, 209, 210.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.

  Gascony, 75.

  Gaul, 1.

  Gaveston, Piers, 54.

  Geddes, Jennie, 159.

  Geneva, 123, 150.

  George II, 212.

  Gilbert of Galloway, 209.

  Giraldus Cambrensis, xxvi, xxxii.

  Glasgow, 51, 170.
  ---- Assembly at, 154, 161.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.
  ---- University of, xxxiv.

  Glencoe, Massacre of, 184, 185.

  Gloucester, Duke of, 96.
  ---- meeting at, 13.

  Godwin, Earl, 205.

  Gordon, Duke of, 182.
  ---- Lady Katharine, 99.

  Gordons, the, xxiii, 168, 170.

  Gospatric of Northumberland, 12.

  Graham, John, of Claverhouse, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182.

  _Great Michael_, the, 103.

  Green, J.R., x, xi, xiii.

  Gregory IX, 35.

  Greyfriars, church of, 161, 178.

  Gruoch, wife of Mormaor, 8.

  Gueldres, Duke of, 102.

  Guise, Mary of, 114, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126.

  Gunpowder Plot, 150.

  Gustavus Adolphus, 162.

  Guthrie, James, 176.


  Haddington, xxxi, 3.
  ---- county of, 69.

  Hakon of Norway, 29.

  Halidon Hill, battle of, 21, 68, 72, 90, 201.

  Hall, the chronicler, 104.

  Hamburg, 43.

  Hamilton, Duke and Marquis of, 161, 163, 166, 171, 172.

  Hamiltons, the, 133.

  Hapsburgs, the, 129.

  Harlaw, battle of, xiii, xxiv, xxv, xxix, xxxi, xxxii, 87, 88, 198, 199,
                     200, 201, 202, 203.

  Hastings, John, 35.

  Hebrides, xxix, 8.

  Henderson, Alexander, 160, 161, 170.

  Henry I, 17, 19.

  Henry II, 23, 25, 26, 27, 208, 209.
  ---- III, 28, 29, 35, 36.
  ---- IV, xxv, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86.
  ---- V, 88, 89.
  ---- VI, 93, 94, 95.
  ---- VII, 61, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103.
  ---- VIII, x, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
             118, 119, 120, 121, 131.
  ---- II of France, 122, 124, 125.
  ---- Prince of Scotland, 20, 23, 24.

  Hereford, Earl of, 44.
  ---- siege of, 168, 170.

  Herrings, battle of, 90.

  Hertford, Earl of, 119, 120, 121.

  Hexham Chronicle, 21.
  ---- monastery of, 43.

  Holland, Richard, xxxiii.

  Holyrood, 102, 133, 138, 155, 157.

  Homildon Hill, battle of, 72, 82, 83, 90.

  Hotspur, Sir Harry, 78, 82.

  Howard, Sir Edmund, 106.

  Hugo of Ross, 201.

  Humber, river, xii.

  Hume, the historian, 138.

  Huntingdon, earldom of, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35.

  Huntly, Earl of, 99, 131.
  ---- Marquis of, 162, 163, 164, 169, 172.


  Ida, 3.

  Inchmahome priory, 122.

  Ingibjorg, 16.

  "Instrument" of Government, 175.

  Inverary, 185.
  ---- Castle, 169.

  Inverlochy, 169.

  Inverness, 182.

  Inverurie, defeat at, 53.

  Irevin, Alexander, 198.

  Irvine, submission of, 42.

  Isabella, daughter of Earl David, 35.
  ---- of Spain, 99.

  Italy, 18.


  Jamaica, 187.

  James I, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 93.
  ---- II, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 109.
  ---- III, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101.
  ---- IV, xxiv, xxvii, xxviii, xxxv, 62, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
           104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 117, 120.
  ---- V, xxvii, 97, 108, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 127.
  ---- VI, x, xxxiv, 19, 60, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,
           153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 177, 181, 192, 193, 211.
  ---- VII, 178, 179, 180, 182.
  ---- Lord Hamilton, 109.

  Janville, 90.

  Jedburgh, 84.

  Joanna, daughter of Edward II, 60.

  ---- daughter of John, 28.
  John, 28, 35, 79, 195.

  ---- XXII, the Pope, 58.
  ---- of Brittany, 47.
  ---- of Carrick, 78.
  ---- of France, 79.
  ---- of Gaunt, 76, 89.
  ---- of the Isles, 95, 96.
  ---- of Wallingford, 7.

  Johnson, Dr., 86.

  Johnston, J.B., xvi, 4.

  Johnston of Warriston, 170.

  Julius II, 103, 104.


  Keith, Sir Robert, 56.

  Kennedy, Bishop, 95.
  ---- Walter, xxxiv, xxxv.

  Kenneth Macalpine, 4.

  Kenneth of Scotland, 7.

  Ker of Faudonside, 135.

  Kilblain, victory at, 69.

  Kildrummie Castle, 51.

  Killiecrankie, battle of, 182.

  Kilsyth, victory at, 170.

  Kinghorn, 66.

  _Kings Quair_, 89.

  Kinloss, Abbey of, 207.

  Kinross, 193.

  Kirkaldy of Grange, 142.

  Kirkcudbright, xvii.

  Knox, John, 121, 123, 124, 125, 128, 130, 133, 146.


  _Lady of the Lake_, the, xi, xxxvii, 86.

  Lanark, 42.

  Lanarkshire, 179.

  Lang, Mr. Andrew, x, xi, 7, 41, 65, 92, 121, 204.

  Langside, battle of, 139.

  Largs, battle of, 29, 30.

  Laud, Archbishop, 158, 159, 162.

  Laurencekirk, xvii.

  Leicester, Earl of, 132.

  Leith, 119.
  ---- besieged, 126.

  Lennox, Earl of, 106, 108, 109, 119, 133, 142, 143.

  Lesley, John, xxix, 203.

  Leslie, Alexander, 201.
  ---- Alexander, Earl of Leven, 162, 163, 166, 168, 170, 173, 174.
  ---- David, 170, 173.
  ---- family of, 86.
  ---- Walter, 201.

  Leuchars, church of, 160.

  Lincoln, battle of (1216), 28.
  ---- victory at, 23.

  Linlithgow, 54, 137, 142.
  ---- Convention at, 154.
  ---- county of, 69.

  Lochleven Castle, 137, 138, 139.

  Lochmaben, 76.
  ---- battle of, 97.
  ---- Stone, battle of, 92.

  Loch Ness, 169.

  London, xxxvi, 46, 73, 78, 102, 166, 174, 176.

  Longueville, Duc de, 114.

  Lords of the Articles, 153, 181.

  Lords Ordainers, 54.

  Lothians, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, xix, xxxiv, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 22,
            23, 77, 119, 170, 206.

  Loudon Hill, battle of, 51.

  Louis IX, 35.

  Louis XI, 95.

  Lubeck, 43.


  MacAlexander, 197.

  Macbeth, 8, 9.

  MacDavid, 197.

  MacDonald of Glencoe, 185.

  MacDuff, Clan of, 209.

  Macfadyane, xxxv.

  MacGregor, Red Duncan, 4.

  MacHenry, 197.

  MacHeth, xxi, 206, 207, 208.

  Mackay, General, 182.

  Mackays, the, 87.

  Mackenzies, the, 87.

  MacLane, 198.

  Madeline, daughter of Francis I, 113, 114.

  Madoc of Wales, 38.

  Mahomet, xxxv.

  Maitland of Lethington, 130, 133, 142.

  Major, John, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, 199.

  Malcolm I, 6.
  ---- II, xii, 7, 8, 9.
  ---- III (Canmore), xvii, xix, xx, xxi, xxix, xxxvii, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
                      16, 17, 48, 85, 196, 200, 204, 205, 206, 209, 211, 212.
  ---- IV, xxii, 24, 25, 26, 27, 208.

  Malvile, Robert de, 198.

  Man, Isle of, 55.

  Mansfield, town of, 168.

  Manton, Ralph de, 45.

  Mar, Alexander, 203.
  ---- 10th Earl of, 50.
  ---- 11th Earl of, 65, 66, 67.
  ---- 12th Earl of, 87.
  ---- Earls of, xxx, 143, 202.
  ---- Isabella of, 50.

  March, Edmund, Earl of, 80.
  ---- George, Earl of, 71, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88.

  Margaret, daughter of Alexander III, 31.
  ---- daughter of Angus, 110, 119, 129, 133.
  ---- daughter of Christian I, 97.
  ---- daughter of David, 34.
  ---- daughter of Henry III, 31.
  ---- daughter of Henry VII, 99, 101, 102, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
                              113, 114, 116, 124, 133.
  ---- daughter of James I, 90, 91.
  ---- daughter of William the Lion, 28.
  ---- grand-daughter of Alexander III, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36.
  ---- Saint, xix, xxvii, 27, 85.
  ---- wife of Canmore, xiv, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 205.
  ---- of Anjou, 94.

  Marston Moor, battle of, 168.

  Mary, Queen of Scots, xxix, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130,
                        131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141,
                        142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 165.
  ---- II, 180, 181.
  ---- daughter of Henry VIII, 113, 123, 124.
  ---- daughter of James II, 109.
  ---- wife of Eustace, 17.
  ---- of Gueldres, 95.

  Matilda, the Empress, 19, 20, 23.
  ---- wife of Henry I, 17.

  Maximilian the Emperor, 99.

  Mearns, Earl of, 16.
  ---- the, xvii, 198.

  Medici, Catherine de, 128.

  Melrose Abbey, 77, 120.

  Melun, siege of, 89.

  Melville, Andrew, 147, 148.

  Menteith, Lake of, 122.
  ---- Sir John, 46.

  Methven, 50.
  ---- Lord, 113.

  Midlothian, 3.

  Millenary Petition, the, 148.

  Mitton-on-Swale, battle of, 57, 72.

  Monk, General, 174, 176.

  Monmouth, Duke of, 179.

  Montgomerie, Alexander, xxxiv, xxxvi.

  Montrose, Marquis of, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172,
                        173, 176, 181.

  Moors, the, 64.

  Mor Tuath, 204.

  Moray, Andrew of, 43.
  ---- Bishop of, 206.
  ---- Celts, 206, 208, 213.
  ---- earldom of, xxi, xxii, 8.
  ---- Firth, xii, xvii, 4, 84, 213.
  ---- Sir Andrew, 67, 70.
  ---- Thomas, 198, 202.

  Morayshire, xxi, 25.

  Mormaers, the, 204, 206.

  Mortimers, the, 64, 65.

  Morton, Earl of, 137, 138, 143.

  Musselburgh, 65.


  Namur, Guy de, 70.

  Napoleon, 46.

  National Covenant, 160, 162, 166, 178.

  Navigation Act, 176.

  Nectansmere, battle of, 12.

  Nesbit, skirmish at, 82.
  ---- victory at, 73.

  Neville, Archbishop, 72.

  Neville's Cross, battle of, 72.

  Newark, 168.

  Newbattle Abbey, 77.

  Newburn, battle of, 165.

  Newcastle, 13, 165.
  ---- Propositions of, 170.

  Newport, 171.

  New York, 187.

  Norfolk, Duke of, 143.

  Norham Castle, 100, 105.

  Normandy, 26, 40.

  Northallerton, xxiv, 20, 21, 24, 72, 93.

  Northampton, battle of, 93.
  ---- Treaty of, 59, 64, 65, 101.

  Northumberland, xxii, 11, 12, 18, 19, 25, 67, 88, 93, 151, 206.
  ---- earldom of, 23, 26, 28.
  ---- Earl of, 78, 82, 83, 142.

  Northumbria, xii, xxxiii, 4, 5.

  Northumbria, Earl of, 7, 8, 9.

  Nottingham, Earl of, 77.

  Nova Scotia, 156.


  Ogilby, Alexander, 198, 199, 202.

  Ogilvie, John, 150.

  Oman, Mr., xii, 21, 44.

  Orkneys, 8, 97.

  Orleans, siege of, 90.

  Ormsby, William, 40, 41.

  Otterburn, battle of, 78.

  Owen of Strathclyde, 8.

  Owre, Donald, xxxv.

  Oxford, xxxiv.


  Palestine, 18, 64.

  Panama, Isthmus of, 187.

  Paterson, William, 186, 187.

  Pathay, victory of, 90.

  Pavia, battle of, 112.

  Peasants' Revolt, 76.

  Pedro de Ayala, xxxii.

  Peebles, 48.
  ---- county of, 69.

  Pembroke, Earl of, 50, 51.

  Pentland, battle of, 177.
  ---- Firth of, 5.

  Percies, the, 77, 78, 82, 83, 92.

  Percy, Henry, 72.

  Perron, Cardinal, 150.

  Perth, xxxi, 50, 54, 66, 91, 168, 169, 174, 208.
  ---- Five Articles of, 155, 162.
  ---- riots in, 124, 125.
  ---- surrender of, 71.

  Pezron, Paul Ives, 2.

  Philip IV, 38, 45.

  Philiphaugh, defeat at, 170.

  Pinkerton's suggestion, 56.

  Pinkie, battle of, 21, 63, 122.

  Piperden, victory of, 91.

  Pitscottie, 94, 115.

  _Post-nati_ case, 152.

  Preston, battle of, 172.


  Randolph, Earl of Moray, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 64, 65, 67, 71, 85.
  ---- Earl of Moray, the younger, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73.
  ---- the ambassador, 134.

  Rathlin, island of, 51.

  Ratisbon, xxix.

  Regnold, King, 5.

  Renfrew, 10.

  Rhys, Dr., 3.

  Richard I, 27, 35.
  ---- II, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82.
  ---- III, 97.

  Richard of Hexham, 22.

  Richelieu, Cardinal, 164.

  Rizzio, David, 134, 135, 136, 138.

  Robert II, the Steward, 59, 69, 72, 73, 75, 78, 86.
  ---- III, 78, 80, 81, 84, 210.
  ---- the High Steward, 59.
  ---- of Normandy, 13.

  Robertson, E.W., xxi, xxii, xxxvii, 5, 209.

  Rokeby, 72.

  Ross, Bishop of, xxix, 206.
  ---- county of, xxiii, xxxi.
  ---- Duke of, 110.
  ---- earldom of, 86.
  ---- Earl of, 201, 202, 203, 210.

  Rosslyn, defeat at, 45.

  Rothesay, Duke of, 80, 81.

  Rothiemurchus, 169.

  Roxburgh, 39, 54, 91, 93.
  ---- castle of, 94.
  ---- county of, 69, 76, 115, 120.
  ---- skirmish at, 67.

  Rudolfi, 143.

  Rullion Green, battle of, 177.

  Ruthven, Earl of, 135.


  St. Abb's Head, 84.

  St. Albans, 1st battle of, 93.
  ---- 2nd battle of, 94.

  St. Andrews, 34, 118, 120, 121, 125, 177.
  ---- Archbishop of, 176, 206.
  ---- castle of, 95.

  St. Duthac, 51.

  St. Germains, 191.

  St. Giles' Collegiate Church, 158, 159.

  St. James's, 191.

  Salisbury, Earl of, 70.
  ---- meeting at, 32.

  Sark, battle of, 92.

  Scone, 32, 40, 42, 66, 174.

  _Scoti-chronicon_, xxx.

  Scott, Sir Walter, xviii, 81, 212.

  Scrymgeour, James, 198.

  Seaforth, Earl of, 169.

  Segrave, Sir John, 45.

  Selkirk, county of, 69.

  Seymour, Jane, 114.

  Shakespeare, 9.

  Sharpe, James, 176, 177.

  Shetlands, 8, 97.

  Shrewsbury, battle of, 83.

  Siward of Northumbria, 9, 18, 20.

  Skene's _Celtic Scotland_, 204, 210.

  Skye, xviii, xxvii, 86.

  Slains, rout at, 53.

  Smith, Mr. G. Gregory, 98, 104.

  Solemn League and Covenant, 167, 172, 173, 178.

  Solway, the, 139.
  ---- Moss, battle of, 115, 117.

  Somerled of Argyll, 25, 41, 208.

  Somerset, Earl of, 88.

  Sophia of Hanover, 190.

  Spain, 46, 64, 104, 128, 131, 132, 146.

  Spey, river, 173.

  Standard, battle of, 20, 21, 24, 85, 195.

  Stanley, 106.

  Stephen, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25.

  Stewart, Henry, 113.
  ---- Lord James, 127, 130, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 142.
  ---- Murdoch, 82.
  ---- Sir John, 90.

  Stirling, 113, 173, 174.
  ---- battle of, 42, 44.
  ---- castle of, 34, 45, 55, 71.

  Stracathro, 39.

  Stradarniae comes, 195.

  Strathclyde, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23.

  Strathern, Earl of, 22.

  Strathon, Alexander, 202.

  Strickland, Miss, 145.

  Stuart, Alexander, 202.

  Stuarts, the, xx, 18, 100.

  Suffolk, Earl of, 78.

  Surrey, Earl of, 100, 106, 107, 108, 112.

  Sybilla, daughter of Henry I, 17.

  Symeon of Durham, 7, 205.


  Tables, the, 160.

  Tain, xvii, 51.

  _Tales of a Grandfather_, xviii.

  Tay, xi, xii, xiii, xxx.

  Tees, 23, 165.

  Test Act, 178, 179.

  Teviotdale, 23.

  "The Incident", 166.

  Thirty Years' War, 162.

  Throckmorton, 126.

  Till, river, 106.

  Tippermuir, victory at, 168.

  Tomintoul, 87.

  Toulouse, 25, 208.

  Touraine, Duke of, 90.

  Towton, battle of, 94.

  Tudors, the, 63.

  Turnberry, xvii.

  Turriff, battle of, 163.

  Tweed, 13, 69, 158, 165, 168, 173.

  Tweeddale, 53.

  "Tyneman the Unlucky", 67.


  Ulster, Plantation of, 150, 156.

  Uxbridge, Proposals of, 168.


  Vendome, Duc de, 113.

  Verneuil, battle of, 90.

  Vienne, John de, 77.

  Virgil, Polydore, xxxii, 101.


  Wales, 1, 81.

  Wallace, William, xxxiii, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 54, 55, 62.

  Walter l'Espec, 20.
  ---- of Coventry, 209.

  Waltheof, 18.

  Warbeck, Perkin, 61, 99, 100.

  Warenne, John of, 40, 43.

  Wark, attack on, 112.
  ---- capture of, 94.

  Warkworth, castle of, 92.

  _Waverley_, xviii, xxxvii.

  Wentworth, Lord Strafford, 161.

  Wessex, 5.

  Westminster, 36.
  ---- Abbey, 36, 40, 52, 60.
  ---- Assembly, 167.

  Westmoreland, 25, 78.
  ---- Earl of, 142.

  Wigtown, martyrs of, 178.

  Winchester, Bishop of, 148.
  ---- Chronicle, 5.
  ---- defeat at, 23.

  Wishart, George, 120.

  William I, xiv, xv, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17.
  ---- III, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 191.

  William the Lion, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 205, 209, 210, 213.
  ---- Earl of Ross, 201.
  ---- of Albemarle, 20.
  ---- of Newburgh, xix.
  ---- Rufus, 13, 16.

  Wood, Sir Andrew, 98.

  Woodstock, homage at, 25.

  Woodville, Elizabeth, 97.

  Worcester, battle of, 174, 175.

  Wyntoun, 84.


  _Yellow Carvel_, 98.

  York, 168.

  York, Archbishop of, 57.
  ---- Duke of, 98.
  ---- meeting at, 114.
  ---- reconciliation of, 93.
  ---- siege of, 168.
  ---- Treaty of, 29.

  Yorkshire, xv, xxii, 57, 58, 206.