A SHORT HISTORY OF SCOTLAND

CHAPTER I. SCOTLAND AND THE ROMANS. 

If we could see in a magic mirror the country now called Scotland as itwas when the Romans under Agricola (81 A. D. ) crossed the Border, weshould recognise little but the familiar hills and mountains. Therivers, in the plains, overflowed their present banks; dense forests ofoak and pine, haunted by great red deer, elks, and boars, covered landthat has long been arable. There were lakes and lagoons where forcenturies there have been fields of corn. On the oldest sites of ourtowns were groups of huts made of clay and wattle, and dominated, perhaps, by the large stockaded house of the tribal prince. In thelochs, natural islands, or artificial islets made of piles (crannogs), afforded standing-ground and protection to villages, if indeed these lake-dwellings are earlier in Scotland than the age of war that followed thewithdrawal of the Romans. 

The natives were far beyond the savage stage of culture. They lived inan age of iron tools and weapons and of wheeled vehicles; and were inwhat is called the Late Celtic condition of art and culture, familiar tous from beautiful objects in bronze work, more commonly found in Irelandthan in Scotland, and from the oldest Irish romances and poems. 

In these "epics" the manners much resemble those described by Homer. Likehis heroes, the men in the Cuchullain sagas fight from light chariots, drawn by two ponies, and we know that so fought the tribes in Scotlandencountered by Agricola the Roman General (81-85 A. D. ) It is even saidin the Irish epics that Cuchullain learned his chariotry in _Alba_--thatis, in our Scotland. {2} The warriors had "mighty limbs and flaminghair, " says Tacitus. Their weapons were heavy iron swords, in bronzesheaths beautifully decorated, and iron-headed spears; they had largeround bronze-studded shields, and battle-axes. The dress consisted oftwo upper garments: first, the smock, of linen or other fabric--inbattle, often of tanned hides of animals, --and the mantle, or plaid, withits brooch. Golden torques and heavy gold bracelets were worn by thechiefs; the women had bronze ornaments with brightly coloured enamelleddecoration. 

Agriculture was practised, and corn was ground in the circular querns ofstone, of which the use so long survived. The women span and wove thegay smocks and darker cloaks of the warriors. 

Of the religion, we only know that it was a form of polytheism; thatsacrifices were made, and that Druids existed; they were soothsayers, magicians, perhaps priests, and were attendant on kings. 

Such were the people in Alba whom we can dimly descry around Agricola'sfortified frontier between the firths of Forth and Clyde, about 81-82A. D. When Agricola pushed north of the Forth and Tay he still met menwho had considerable knowledge of the art of war. In his battle at MonsGraupius (perhaps at the junction of Isla and Tay), his cavalry had thebetter of the native chariotry in the plain; and the native infantry, descending from their position on the heights, were attacked by hishorsemen in their attempt to assail his rear. But they were swift offoot, the woods sheltered and the hills defended them. He made no moreeffectual pursuit than Cumberland did at Culloden. 

Agricola was recalled by Domitian after seven years' warfare, and hisgarrisons did not long hold their forts on his lines or frontier, whichstretched across the country from Forth to Clyde; roughly speaking, fromGraham's Dyke, east of Borrowstounnis on the Firth of Forth, to OldKilpatrick on Clyde. The region is now full of coal-mines, foundries, and villages; but excavations at Bar Hill, Castlecary, and Roughcastledisclose traces of Agricola's works, with their earthen ramparts. TheRoman station at Camelon, north-west of Falkirk, was connected with thesouthern passes of the Highland hills by a road with a chain of forts. The remains of Roman pottery at Camelon are of the first century. 

Two generations after Agricola, about 140-145, the Roman Governor, Lollius Urbicus, refortified the line of Forth to Clyde with a wall ofsods and a ditch, and forts much larger than those constructed byAgricola. His line, "the Antonine Vallum, " had its works on commandingridges; and fire-signals, in case of attack by the natives, flashed thenews "from one sea to the other sea, " while the troops of occupationcould be provisioned from the Roman fleet. Judging by the coins found bythe excavators, the line was abandoned about 190, and the forts werewrecked and dismantled, perhaps by the retreating Romans. 

After the retreat from the Antonine Vallum, about 190, we hear of thevigorous "unrest" of the Meatae and Caledonians; the latter people aresaid, on very poor authority, to have been little better than savages. Against them Severus (208) made an expedition indefinitely far to thenorth, but the enemy shunned a general engagement, cut off smalldetachments, and caused the Romans terrible losses in this march to a non-existent Moscow. 

Not till 306 do we hear of the Picts, about whom there is infinitelearning but little knowledge. They must have spoken Gaelic by Severus'stime (208), whatever their original language; and were long recognised inGalloway, where the hill and river names are Gaelic. 

The later years of the Romans, who abandoned Britain in 410, wereperturbed by attacks of the Scoti (Scots) from Ireland, and it is to asettlement in Argyll of "Dalriadic" Scots from Ireland about 500 A. D. That our country owes the name of Scotland. 

Rome has left traces of her presence on Scottish soil--vestiges of theforts and vallum wall between the firths; a station rich in antiquitiesunder the Eildons at Newstead; another, Ardoch, near Sheriffmuir; a thirdnear Solway Moss (Birrenswark); and others less extensive, with someroads extending towards the Moray Firth; and a villa at Musselburgh, found in the reign of James VI. {4}

CHAPTER II. CHRISTIANITY--THE RIVAL KINGDOMS. 

To the Scots, through St Columba, who, about 563, settled in Iona, andconverted the Picts as far north as Inverness, we owe the introduction ofChristianity, for though the Roman Church of St Ninian (397), at Whithernin Galloway, left embers of the faith not extinct near Glasgow, StKentigern's country, till Columba's time, the rites of Christian Scotlandwere partly of the Celtic Irish type, even after St Wilfrid's victory atthe Synod of Whitby (664). 

St Columba himself was of the royal line in Ulster, was learned, aslearning was then reckoned, and, if he had previously been turbulent, henow desired to spread the Gospel. With twelve companions he settled inIona, established his cloister of cells, and journeyed to Inverness, thecapital of Pictland. Here his miracles overcame the magic of the King'sdruids; and his Majesty, Brude, came into the fold, his people followinghim. Columba was no less of a diplomatist than of an evangelist. In acrystal he saw revealed the name of the rightful king of the DalriadScots in Argyll--namely, Aidan--and in 575, at Drumceat in North Ireland, he procured the recognition of Aidan, and brought the King of the Pictsalso to confess Aidan's independent royalty. 

In the 'Life of Columba, ' by Adamnan, we get a clear and complete view ofeveryday existence in the Highlands during that age. We are among thered deer, and the salmon, and the cattle in the hills, among the second-sighted men, too, of whom Columba was far the foremost. We see thesaint's inkpot upset by a clumsy but enthusiastic convert; we even makeacquaintance with the old white pony of the monastery, who mourned whenSt Columba was dying; while among secular men we observe the differencesin rank, measured by degrees of wealth in cattle. Many centuries elapsebefore, in Froissart, we find a picture of Scotland so distinct as thatpainted by Adamnan. 

The discipline of St Columba was of the monastic model. There weresettlements of clerics in fortified villages; the clerics were a kind ofmonks, with more regard for abbots than for their many bishops, and withpeculiar tonsures, and a peculiar way of reckoning the date of Easter. Each missionary was popularly called a Saint, and the _Kil_, or cell, ofmany a Celtic missionary survives in hundreds of place-names. 

The salt-water Loch Leven in Argyll was on the west the south frontier of"Pictland, " which, on the east, included all the country north of theFirth of Forth. From Loch Leven south to Kintyre, a large cantle, including the isles, was the land of the Scots from Ireland, theDalriadic kingdom. The south-west, from Dumbarton, including our modernCumberland and Westmorland, was named Strathclyde, and was peopled byBritish folk, speaking an ancient form of Welsh. On the east, fromEttrick forest into Lothian, the land was part of the early Englishkingdom of Bernicia; here the invading Angles were already settled--thoughriver-names here remain Gaelic, and hill-names are often either Gaelic orWelsh. The great Northern Pictland was divided into seven provinces, orsub-kingdoms, while there was an over-King, or Ardrigh, with his capitalat Inverness and, later, in Angus or Forfarshire. The country aboutEdinburgh was partly English, partly Cymric or Welsh. The south-westcorner, Galloway, was called Pictish, and was peopled by Gaelic-speakingtribes. 

In the course of time and events the dynasty of the Argyll Scoti fromIreland gave its name to Scotland, while the English element gave itslanguage to the Lowlands; it was adopted by the Celtic kings of the wholecountry and became dominant, while the Celtic speech withdrew into thehills of the north and northwest. 

The nation was thus evolved out of alien and hostile elements, Irish, Pictish, Gaelic, Cymric, English, and on the northern and western shores, Scandinavian. 

CHAPTER III. EARLY WARS OF RACES. 

In a work of this scope, it is impossible to describe all the warsbetween the petty kingdoms peopled by races of various languages, whichoccupied Scotland. In 603, in the wild moors at Degsastane, between theLiddel burn and the passes of the Upper Tyne, the English Aethelfrith ofDeira, with an army of the still pagan ancestors of the Borderers, utterly defeated Aidan, King of Argyll, with the Christian convertedScots. Henceforth, for more than a century, the English between Forthand Humber feared neither Scot of the west nor Pict of the north. 

On the death of Aethelfrith (617), the Christian west and north exercisedtheir influences; one of Aethelfrith's exiled sons married a Pictishprincess, and became father of a Pictish king, another, Oswald, wasbaptised at Iona; and the new king of the northern English of Lothian, Edwin, was converted by Paullinus (627), and held Edinburgh as hiscapital. Later, after an age of war and ruin, Oswald, the convert ofIona, restored Christianity in northern England; and, after his fall, hisbrother, Oswiu, consolidated the north English. In 685 Oswiu's sonEgfrith crossed the Forth and invaded Pictland with a Northumbrian army, but was routed with great loss, and was slain at Nectan's Mere, inForfarshire. Thenceforth, till 761, the Picts were dominant, as againstScots and north English, Angus MacFergus being then their leader (731-761). 

Now the invaders and settlers from Scandinavia, the Northmen on the westcoast, ravaged the Christian Scots of the west, and burned Iona: finally, in 844-860, Kenneth MacAlpine of Kintyre, a Scot of Dalriada on thepaternal, a Pict on the mother's side, defeated the Picts and obtainedtheir throne. By Pictish law the crown descended in the maternal line, which probably facilitated the coronation of Kenneth. To the Scots and"to all Europe" he was a Scot; to the Picts, as son of a royal Pictishmother, he was a Pict. With him, at all events, Scots and Picts wereinterfused, and there began the _Scottish_ dynasty, supplanting thePictish, though it is only in popular tales that the Picts wereexterminated. 

Owing to pressure from the Northmen sea-rovers in the west, the capitaland the seat of the chief bishop, under Kenneth MacAlpine (844-860), weremoved eastwards from Iona to Scone, near Perth, and after an interval atDunkeld, to St Andrews in Fife. 

The line of Kenneth MacAlpine, though disturbed by quarrels over thesuccession, and by Northmen in the west, north, and east, none the lessin some way "held a good grip o' the gear" against Vikings, English ofLothian, and Welsh of Strathclyde. In consequence of a marriage with aWelsh princess of Strathclyde, or Cumberland, a Scottish prince, Donald, brother of Constantine II. , became king of that realm (908), and hisbranch of the family of MacAlpin held Cumbria for a century. 

ENGLISH CLAIMS OVER SCOTLAND. 

In 924 the first claim by an English king, Edward, to the over-lordshipof Scotland appears in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The entry contains amanifest error, and the topic causes war between modern historians, English and Scottish. In fact, there are several such entries ofScottish acceptance of English suzerainty under Constantine II. , andlater, but they all end in the statement, "this held not long. " The"submission" of Malcolm I. To Edmund (945) is not a submission but analliance; the old English word for "fellow-worker, " or "ally, " designatesMalcolm as fellow-worker with Edward of England. 

This word (midwyrhta) was translated _fidelis_ (one who gives fealty) inthe Latin of English chroniclers two centuries later, but Malcolm I. HeldCumberland as an ally, not as a subject prince of England. In 1092 anEnglish chronicle represents Malcolm III. As holding Cumberland "byconquest. "

The main fact is that out of these and similar dim transactions arose theclaims of Edward I. To the over-lordship of Scotland, --claims that wereurged by Queen Elizabeth's minister, Cecil, in 1568, and were boldlydenied by Maitland of Lethington. From these misty pretensions came thecenturies of war that made the hardy character of the folk of Scotland. {10}

THE SCOTTISH ACQUISITION OF LOTHIAN. 

We cannot pretend within our scope to follow chronologically "thefightings and flockings of kites and crows, " in "a wolf-age, a war-age, "when the Northmen from all Scandinavian lands, and the Danes, who hadacquired much of Ireland, were flying at the throat of England andhanging on the flanks of Scotland; while the Britons of Strathclydestruck in, and the Scottish kings again and again raided or sought tooccupy the fertile region of Lothian between Forth and Tweed. If thedynasty of MacAlpin could win rich Lothian, with its English-speakingfolk, they were "made men, " they held the granary of the North. Bydegrees and by methods not clearly defined they did win the Castle of theMaidens, the acropolis of Dunedin, Edinburgh; and fifty years later, insome way, apparently by the sword, at the battle of Carham (1018), inwhich a Scottish king of Cumberland fought by his side, Malcolm II. Tookpossession of Lothian, the whole south-east region, by this time entirelyanglified, and this was the greatest step in the making of Scotland. TheCeltic dynasty now held the most fertile district between Forth andTweed, a district already English in blood and speech, the centre andfocus of the English civilisation accepted by the Celtic kings. Underthis Malcolm, too, his grandson, Duncan, became ruler of Strathclyde--thatis, practically, of Cumberland. 

Malcolm is said to have been murdered at haunted Glamis, in Forfarshire, in 1034; the room where he died is pointed out by legend in the ancientcastle. His rightful heir, by the strange system of the Scots, shouldhave been, not his own grandson, Duncan, but the grandson of Kenneth III. The rule was that the crown went alternately to a descendant of the Houseof Constantine (863-877), son of Kenneth MacAlpine, and to a descendantof Constantine's brother, Aodh (877-888). These alternations went ontill the crowning of Malcolm II. (1005-1034), and then ceased, forMalcolm II. Had slain the unnamed male heir of the House of Aodh, a sonof Boedhe, in order to open the succession to his own grandson, "thegracious Duncan. " Boedhe had left a daughter, Gruach; she had by theMormaor, or under-king of the province of Murray, a son, Lulach. On thedeath of the Mormaor she married Macbeth, and when Macbeth slew Duncan(1040), he was removing a usurper--as he understood it--and he ruled inthe name of his stepson, Lulach. The power of Duncan had been weakenedby repeated defeats at the hands of the Northmen under Thorfinn. In 1057Macbeth was slain in battle at Lumphanan, in Aberdeenshire, and MalcolmCanmore, son of Duncan, after returning from England, whither he had fledfrom Macbeth, succeeded to the throne. But he and his descendants forlong were opposed by the House of Murray, descendants of Lulach, whohimself had died in 1058. 

The world will always believe Shakespeare's version of these events, andsuppose the gracious Duncan to have been a venerable old man, and Macbethan ambitious Thane, with a bloodthirsty wife, he himself being urged onby the predictions of witches. He was, in fact, Mormaor of Murray, andupheld the claims of his stepson Lulach, who was son of a daughter of thewrongfully extruded House of Aodh. 

Malcolm Canmore, Duncan's grandson, on the other hand, represented theEuropean custom of direct lineal succession against the ancient Scots'mode. 

CHAPTER IV. MALCOLM CANMORE--NORMAN CONQUEST. 

The reign of Malcolm Canmore (1057-1093) brought Scotland into closerconnection with western Europe and western Christianity. The NormanConquest (1066) increased the tendency of the English-speaking people ofLothian to acquiesce in the rule of a Celtic king, rather than in that ofthe adventurers who followed William of Normandy. Norman operations didnot at first reach Cumberland, which Malcolm held; and, on the death ofhis Norse wife, the widow of Duncan's foe, Thorfinn (she left a son, Duncan), Malcolm allied himself with the English Royal House by marryingMargaret, sister of Eadgar AEtheling, then engaged in the hopeless effortto rescue northern England from the Normans. The dates are confused:Malcolm may have won the beautiful sister of Edgar, rightful king ofEngland, in 1068, or at the time (1070) of his raid, said to have been ofsavage ferocity, into Northumberland, and his yet more cruel reprisalsfor Gospatric's harrying of Cumberland. In either case, St Margaret'sbiographer, who had lived at her Court, whether or not he was herConfessor, Turgot, represents the Saint as subduing the savagery ofMalcolm, who passed wakeful nights in weeping for his sins. A lover ofbooks, which Malcolm could not read, an expert in "the delicate, andgracious, and bright works of women, " Margaret brought her own gentlenessand courtesy among a rude people, built the abbey church of Dunfermline, and presented the churches with many beautiful golden reliquaries andfine sacramental plate. 

In 1072, to avenge a raid of Malcolm (1070), the Conqueror, with an armyand a fleet, came to Abernethy on Tay, where Malcolm, in exchange forEnglish manors, "became his man" _for them_, and handed over his sonDuncan as a hostage for peace. The English view is that Malcolm becameWilliam's "man for all that he had"--or for all south of Tay. 

After various raidings of northern England, and after the death of theConqueror, Malcolm renewed, in Lothian, the treaty of Abernethy, beingsecured in his twelve English manors (1091). William Rufus then took andfortified Carlisle, seized part of Malcolm's lands in Cumberland, andsummoned him to Gloucester, where the two Kings, after all, quarrelledand did not meet. No sooner had Malcolm returned home than he led anarmy into Northumberland, where he was defeated and slain, near Alnwick(Nov. 13, 1093). His son Edward fell with him, and his wife, StMargaret, died in Edinburgh Castle: her body, under cloud of night, wascarried through the host of rebel Celts and buried at Dunfermline. 

Margaret, a beautiful and saintly Englishwoman, had been the rulingspirit of the reign in domestic and ecclesiastical affairs. She hadcivilised the Court, in matters of costume at least; she had read booksto the devoted Malcolm, who could not read; and he had been herinterpreter in her discussions with the Celtic-speaking clergy, whoseideas of ritual differed from her own. The famous Culdees, originallyascetic hermits, had before this day united in groups living undercanonical rules, and, according to English observers, had ceased to bebachelors. Masses are said to have been celebrated by them in some"barbarous rite"; Saturday was Sabbath; on Sunday men worked. Lentbegan, not on Ash Wednesday, but on the Monday following. We have noclearer account of the Culdee peculiarities that St Margaret reformed. The hereditary tenure of benefices by lay protectors she did not reform, but she restored the ruined cells of Iona, and established _hospitia_ forpilgrims. She was decidedly unpopular with her Celtic subjects, who nowmade a struggle against English influences. 

In the year of her death died Fothadh, the last Celtic bishop of StAndrews, and the Celtic clergy were gradually superseded and replaced bymonks of English name, English speech, and English ideas--or rather theideas of western Europe. Scotland, under Margaret's influence, becamemore Catholic; the celibacy of the clergy was more strictly enforced (ithad almost lapsed), but it will be observed throughout that, of allwestern Europe, Scotland was least overawed by Rome. Yet for centuriesthe Scottish Church was, in a peculiar degree, "the daughter of Rome, "for not till about 1470 had she a Metropolitan, the Archbishop of StAndrews. 

On the deaths, in one year, of Malcolm, Margaret, and Fothadh, the lastCeltic bishop of St Andrews, the see for many years was vacant or merelyfilled by transient bishops. York and Canterbury were at feud for theirsuperiority over the Scottish Church; and the other sees were notconstituted and provided with bishops till the years 1115 (Glasgow), 1150, --Argyll not having a bishop till 1200. In the absence of aMetropolitan, episcopal elections had to be confirmed at Rome, whichwould grant no Metropolitan, but forbade the Archbishop of York to claima superiority which would have implied, or prepared the way for, Englishsuperiority over Scotland. Meanwhile the expenses and delays of appealsfrom bishops direct to Rome did not stimulate the affection of theScottish "daughter of Rome. " The rights of the chapters of theCathedrals to elect their bishops, and other appointments toecclesiastical offices, in course of time were transferred to the Pope, who negotiated with the king, and thus all manner of jobbery increased, the nobles influencing the king in favour of their own needy youngersons, and the Pope being amenable to various secular persuasions, so thatin every way the relations of Scotland with the Holy Father wereanomalous and irksome. 

Scotland was, indeed, a country predestined to much ill fortune, totribulations against which human foresight could erect no defence. Butthe marriage of the Celtic Malcolm with the English Margaret, and thefriendly arrival of great nobles from the south, enabled Scotland toreceive the new ideas of feudal law in pacific fashion. They were notviolently forced upon the English-speaking people of Lothian. 

DYNASTY OF MALCOLM. 

On the death of Malcolm the contest for the Crown lay between hisbrother, Donald Ban, supported by the Celts; his son Duncan by his firstwife, a Norse woman (Duncan being then a hostage at the English Court, who was backed by William Rufus); and thirdly, Malcolm's eldest son byMargaret, Eadmund, the favourite with the anglicised south of thecountry. Donald Ban, after a brief period of power, was driven out byDuncan (1094); Duncan was then slain by the Celts (1094). Donald wasnext restored, north of Forth, Eadmund ruling in the south, but wasdispossessed and blinded by Malcolm's son Eadgar, who reigned for tenyears (1097-1107), while Eadmund died in an English cloister. Eadgar hadtrouble enough on all sides, but the process of anglicising continued, under himself, and later, under his brother, Alexander I. , who rulednorth of Forth and Clyde; while the youngest brother, David, held Lothianand Cumberland, with the title of Earl. The sister of those sons ofMalcolm, Eadgyth (Matilda), married Henry I. Of England in 1100. Thereseemed a chance that, north of Clyde and Forth, there would be a Celtickingdom; while Lothian and Cumbria would be merged in England. Alexanderwas mainly engaged in fighting the Moray claimants of his crown in thenorth and in planting his religious houses, notably St Andrews, withEnglish Augustinian canons from York. Canterbury and York contended forecclesiastical superiority over Scotland; after various adventures, Robert, the prior of the Augustinians at Scone, was made Bishop of StAndrews, being consecrated by Canterbury, in 1124; while York consecratedDavid's bishop in Glasgow. Thanks to the quarrels of the sees of Yorkand Canterbury, the Scottish clergy managed to secure theirecclesiastical independence from either English see; and became, finally, the most useful combatants in the long struggle for the independence ofthe nation. Rome, on the whole, backed that cause. The ScottishCatholic churchmen, in fact, pursued the old patriotic policy ofresistance to England till the years just preceding the Reformation, whenthe people leaned to the reformed doctrines, and when Scottish nationalfreedom was endangered more by France than by England. 

CHAPTER V. DAVID I. AND HIS TIMES. 

With the death of Alexander I. (April 25, 1124) and the accession of hisbrother, David I. , the deliberate Royal policy of introducing intoScotland English law and English institutions, as modified by the Normanrulers, was fulfilled. David, before Alexander's death, was Earl of themost English part of Lothian, the country held by Scottish kings, andCumbria; and resided much at the court of his brother-in-law, Henry I. Heassociated, when Earl, with nobles of Anglo-Norman race and language, such as Moreville, Umfraville, Somerville, Gospatric, Bruce, Balliol, andothers; men with a stake in both countries, England and Scotland. Oncoming to the throne, David endowed these men with charters of lands inScotland. With him came a cadet of the great Anglo-Breton House ofFitzAlan, who obtained the hereditary office of Seneschal or _Steward_ ofScotland. His patronymic, FitzAlan, merged in Stewart (later Stuart), and the family cognizance, the _fesse chequy_ in azure and argent, represents the Board of Exchequer. The earliest Stewart holdings of landwere mainly in Renfrewshire; those of the Bruces were in Annandale. Thesetwo Anglo-Norman houses between them were to found the Stewart dynasty. 

The wife of David, Matilda, widow of Simon de St Liz, was heiress ofWaltheof, sometime the Conqueror's Earl in Northumberland; and to gain, through that connection, Northumberland for himself was the chief aim ofDavid's foreign policy, --an aim fertile in contentions. 

We have not space to disentangle the intricacies of David's first greatdomestic struggles; briefly, there was eternal dispeace caused by theCelts, headed by claimants to the throne, the MacHeths, representing therights of Lulach, the ward of Macbeth. {20} In 1130 the Celts weredefeated, and their leader, Angus, Earl of Moray, fell in fight near theNorth Esk in Forfarshire. His brother, Malcolm, by aid of David's Anglo-Norman friends, was taken and imprisoned in Roxburgh Castle. The resultof this rising was that David declared the great and ancient CelticEarldom of Moray--the home of his dynastic Celtic rivals--forfeit to theCrown. He planted the region with English, Anglo-Norman, and Lowlandlandholders, a great step in the anglicisation of his kingdom. Thereafter, for several centuries, the strength of the Celts lay in thewest in Moidart, Knoydart, Morar, Mamore, Lochaber, and Kintyre, and inthe western islands, which fell into the hands of "the sons of Somerled, "the Macdonalds. 

In 1135-1136, on the death of Henry I. , David, backing his own niece, Matilda, as Queen of England in opposition to Stephen, crossed the Borderin arms, but was bought off. His son Henry received the Honour ofHuntingdom, with the Castle of Carlisle, and a vague promise ofconsideration of his claim to Northumberland. In 1138, after a disturbedinterval, David led the whole force of his realm, from Orkney toGalloway, into Yorkshire. His Anglo-Norman friends, the Balliols andBruces, with the Archbishop of York, now opposed him and his son PrinceHenry. On August 22, 1138, at Cowton Moor, near Northallerton, wasfought the great battle, named from the huge English sacred banner, "TheBattle of the Standard. "

In a military sense, the fact that here the men-at-arms and knights ofEngland fought as dismounted infantry, their horses being held apart inreserve, is notable as preluding to the similar English tactics in theirFrench wars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 

Thus arrayed, the English received the impetuous charge of the wildGalloway men, not in armour, who claimed the right to form the van, andbroke through the first line only to die beneath the spears of thesecond. But Prince David with his heavy cavalry scattered the forceopposed to him, and stampeded the horses of the English that were held inreserve. This should have been fatal to the English, but Henry, likeRupert at Marston Moor, pursued too far, and the discipline of the Scotswas broken by the cry that their King had fallen, and they fled. Davidfought his way to Carlisle in a series of rearguard actions, and atCarlisle was joined by Prince Henry with the remnant of his men-at-arms. It was no decisive victory for England. 

In the following year (1139) David got what he wanted. His son Henry, bypeaceful arrangement, received the Earldom of Northumberland, without thetwo strong places, Bamborough and Newcastle. 

Through the anarchic weakness of Stephen's reign, Scotland advanced instrength and civilisation despite a Celtic rising headed by a strangepretender to the rights of the MacHeths, a "brother Wimund"; but all wentwith the death of David's son, Prince Henry, in 1152. Of the prince'sthree sons, the eldest, Malcolm, was but ten years old; next came hisbrothers William ("the Lion") and little David, Earl of Huntingdon. Fromthis David's daughters descended the chief claimants to the Scottishthrone in 1292--namely, Balliol, Bruce, and Comyn: the last also wasdescended, in the female line, from King Donald Ban, son of MalcolmCanmore. 

David had done all that man might do to settle the crown on his grandsonMalcolm; his success meant that standing curse of Scotland, "Woe to thekingdom whose king is a child, "--when, in a year, David died at Carlisle(May 24, 1153). 

SCOTLAND BECOMES FEUDAL. 

The result of the domestic policy of David was to bring all accessibleterritory under the social and political system of western Europe, "theFeudal System. " Its principles had been perfectly familiar to CelticScotland, but had rested on a body of traditional customs (as in HomericGreece), rather than on written laws and charters signed and sealed. Among the Celts the local tribe had been, theoretically, the sole sourceof property in land. In proportion as they were near of kin to therecognised tribal chief, families held lands by a tenure of threegenerations; but if they managed to acquire abundance of oxen, which theylet out to poorer men for rents in kind and labour, they were apt to turnthe lands which they held only temporarily, "in possession, " into realpermanent _property_. The poorer tribesmen paid rent in labour or"services, " also in supplies of food and manure. 

The Celtic tenants also paid military service to their superiors. Theremotest kinsmen of each lord of land, poor as they might be, were valuedfor their swords, and were billeted on the unfree or servile tenants, whogave them free quarters. 

In the feudal system of western Europe these old traditional customs hadlong been modified and stereotyped by written charters. The King gavegifts of land to his kinsmen or officers, who were bound to be "faithful"(_fideles_); in return the inferior did homage, while he receivedprotection. From grade to grade of rank and wealth each inferior didhomage to and received protection from his superior, who was also hisjudge. In this process, what had been the Celtic tribe became the new"thanage"; the Celtic king (_righ_) of the tribe became the thane; theprovince or group of tribes (say Moray) became the earldom; the CelticMormaer of the province became the earl; and the Crown appointed _vice-comites_, sub-earls, that is sheriffs, who administered the King'sjustice in the earldom. 

But there were regions, notably the west Highlands and isles, where thenew system penetrated slowly and with difficulty through a mountainousand almost townless land. The law, and written leases, "came slowly upthat way. "

Under David, where his rule extended, society was divided broadly intothree classes--Nobles, Free, Unfree. All holders of "a Knight's fee, " orpart of one, holding by _free_ service, hereditarily, and by charter, constituted the _communitas_ of the realm (we are to hear of the_communitas_ later), and were free, noble, or gentle, --men of coatarmour. The "ignoble, " "not noble, " men with no charter from the Crown, or Earl, Thane, or Church, were, if lease-holders, though not "noble, "still "free. " Beneath them were the "unfree" _nativi_, sold or givenwith the soil. 

The old Celtic landholders were not expropriated, as a rule, except whereCeltic risings, in Galloway and Moray, were put down, and the lands wereleft in the King's hands. Often, when we find territorial surnames offamilies, "_de_" "of" this place or that, --the lords are really of Celticblood with Celtic names; disguised under territorial titles; and finallydisused. But in Galloway and Ayrshire the ruling Celtic name, Kennedy, remains Celtic, while the true Highlands of the west and northwestretained their native magnates. Thus the Anglicisation, except in veryrebellious regions, was gradual. There was much less expropriation ofthe Celt than disguising of the Celt under new family names andregulation of the Celt under written charters and leases. 

CHURCH LANDS. 

David I. Was, according to James VI. , nearly five centuries later, "asair saint for the Crown. " He gave Crown-lands in the southern lowlandsto the religious orders with their priories and abbeys; for example, Holyrood, Melrose, Jedburgh, Kelso, and Dryburgh--centres of learning andart and of skilled agriculture. Probably the best service of the regularclergy to the State was its orderliness and attention to agriculture, forthe monasteries did not, as in England, produce many careful chroniclersand historians. 

Each abbey had its lands divided into baronies, captained by a lay"Church baron" to lead its levies in war. The civil centre of the baronywas the great farm or grange, with its mill, for in the thirteenthcentury the Lowlands had water-mills which to the west Highlands werescarcely known in 1745, when the Highland husbandmen were still using theprimitive hand-quern of two circular stones. Near the mill was a hamletof some forty cottages; each head of a family had a holding of eight ornine acres and pasturage for two cows, and paid a small money rent andmany arduous services to the Abbey. 

The tenure of these cottars was, and under lay landlords long remained, extremely precarious; but the tenure of the "bonnet laird" (_hosbernus_)was hereditary. Below even the free cottars were the unfree serfs or_nativi_, who were handed over, with the lands they tilled, to the abbeysby benefactors: the Church was forward in emancipating these serfs; norwere lay landlords backward, for the freed man was useful as a spear-manin war. 

We have only to look at the many now ruined abbeys of the Border to seethe extent of civilisation under David I. , and the relatively peacefulcondition, then, of that region which later became the cockpit of theEnglish wars, and the home of the raiding clans, Scotts, Elliots, andArmstrongs, Bells, Nixons, Robsons, and Croziers. 

THE BURGHS. 

David and his son and successor, William the Lion, introduced a stablemiddle and urban class by fostering, confirming, and regulating therights, privileges, and duties of the already existing free towns. Thesebecame _burghs_, royal, seignorial, or ecclesiastical. In origin thetowns may have been settlements that grew up under the shelter of amilitary castle. Their fairs, markets, rights of trading, internalorganisation, and primitive police, were now, mainly under William theLion, David's successor, regulated by charters; the burghers obtained theright to elect their own magistrates, and held their own burgh-courts;all was done after the English model. As the State had its "good men"(_probi homines_), who formed its recognised "community, " so had theborough. Not by any means all dwellers in a burgh were free burghers;these free burghers had to do service in guarding the royal castle--laterthis was commuted for a payment in money. Though with power to electtheir own chief magistrate, the burghers commonly took as Provost thehead of some friendly local noble family, in which the office was apt tobecome practically hereditary. The noble was the leader and protector ofthe town. As to police, the burghers, each in his turn, provided men tokeep watch and ward from curfew bell to cock-crow. Each ward in the townhad its own elected Bailie. Each burgh had exclusive rights of tradingin its area, and of taking toll on merchants coming within its _Octroi_. An association of four burghs, Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, andStirling, was the root of the existing "Convention of Burghs. "

JUSTICE. 

In early societies, justice is, in many respects, an affair to be settledbetween the kindreds of the plaintiff, so to speak, and the defendant. Aman is wounded, killed, robbed, wronged in any way; his kin retaliate onthe offender and _his_ kindred. The blood-feud, the taking of blood forblood, endured for centuries in Scotland after the peace of the wholerealm became, under David I. , "the King's peace. " Homicides, forexample, were very frequently pardoned by Royal grace, but "the pardonwas of no avail unless it had been issued with the full knowledge of thekin of the slaughtered man, who otherwise retained their _legal_ right ofvengeance on the homicide. " They might accept pecuniary compensation, the blood-fine, or they might not, as in Homer's time. {27} At allevents, under David, offences became offences against the King, notmerely against this or that kindred. David introduced the "Judgment ofthe Country" or _Visnet del Pais_ for the settlement of pleas. Everyfree man, in his degree, was "tried by his peers, " but the old ordeal byfire and Trial by Combat or duel were not abolished. Nor did"compurgation" cease wholly till Queen Mary's reign. A powerful man, when accused, was then attended at his trial by hosts of armed backers. Men so unlike each other as Knox, Bothwell, and Lethington took advantageof this usage. All lords had their own Courts, but murder, rape, arson, and robbery could now only be tried in the royal Courts; these were "TheFour Pleas of the Crown. "

THE COURTS. 

As there was no fixed capital, the King's Court, in David's time, followed the King in his annual circuits through his realm, betweenDumfries and Inverness. Later, the regions of Scotia (north of Forth), Lothian, and the lawless realm of Galloway, had their Grand Justiciaries, who held the Four Pleas. The other pleas were heard in "Courts ofRoyalty" and by earls, bishops, abbots, down to the baron, with his"right of pit and gallows. " At such courts, by a law of 1180, theSheriff of the shire, or an agent of his, ought to be present; so thatroyal and central justice was extending itself over the minor localcourts. But if the sheriff or his sergeant did not attend when summoned, local justice took its course. 

The process initiated by David's son, William the Lion, was very slowlysubstituting the royal authority, the royal sheriffs of shires, juries, and witnesses, for the wild justice of revenge; and trial by ordeal, andtrial by combat. But hereditary jurisdictions of nobles and gentry werenot wholly abolished till after the battle of Culloden! Where Abbotsheld courts, their procedure, in civil cases, was based on lawssanctioned by popes and general councils. But, alas! the Abbot mightgive just judgment; to execute it, we know from a curious instance, wasnot within his power, if the offender laughed at a sentence ofexcommunication. 

David and his successors, till the end of the thirteenth century, madeScotland a more civilised and kept it a much less disturbed country thanit was to remain during the long war of Independence, while the beautifulabbeys with their churches and schools attested a high stage of art andeducation. 

CHAPTER VI. MALCOLM THE MAIDEN. 

The prominent facts in the brief reign of David's son Malcolm the Maiden, crowned (1153) at the age of eleven, were, first, a Celtic rising byDonald, a son of Malcolm MacHeth (now a prisoner in Roxburgh Castle), anda nephew of the famous Somerled Macgillebride of Argyll. Somerled wonfrom the Norse the Isle of Man and the Southern Hebrides; from his sonsdescend the great Macdonald Lords of the Isles, always the leaders of thelong Celtic resistance to the central authority in Scotland. Again, Malcolm resigned to Henry II. Of England the northern counties held byDavid I. ; and died after subduing Galloway, and (on the death ofSomerled, said to have been assassinated) the tribes of the isles in1165. 

WILLIAM THE LION. 

Ambition to recover the northern English counties revealed itself in theovertures of William the Lion, --Malcolm's brother and successor, --for analliance between Scotland and France. "The auld Alliance" now dawned, with rich promise of good and evil. In hopes of French aid, Williaminvaded Northumberland, later laid siege to Carlisle, and on July 13, 1174, was surprised in a morning mist and captured at Alnwick. Scotlandwas now kingless; Galloway rebelled, and William, taken a captive toFalaise in Normandy, surrendered absolutely the independence of hiscountry, which, for fifteen years, really was a fief of England. WhenWilliam was allowed to go home, it was to fight the Celts of Galloway, and subdue the pretensions, in Moray, of the MacWilliams, descendants ofWilliam, son of Duncan, son of Malcolm Canmore. 

During William's reign (1188) Pope Clement III. Decided that the ScottishChurch was subject, not to York or Canterbury, but to Rome. Seven yearsearlier, defending his own candidate for the see of St Andrews againstthe chosen of the Pope, William had been excommunicated, and his countryand he had unconcernedly taken the issue of an Interdict. The Pope wastoo far away, and William feared him no more than Robert Bruce was to do. 

By 1188, William refused to pay to Henry II. A "Saladin Tithe" for acrusade, and in 1189 he bought from Richard I. , who needed money for acrusade, the abrogation of the Treaty of Falaise. He was still disturbedby Celts in Galloway and the north, he still hankered afterNorthumberland, but, after preparations for war, he paid a fine anddrifted into friendship with King John, who entertained his littledaughters royally, and knighted his son Alexander. William died onDecember 4, 1214. He was buried at the Abbey of Arbroath, founded by himin honour of St Thomas of Canterbury, who had worked a strange posthumousmiracle in Scotland. William was succeeded by his son, Alexander II. (1214-1249). 

ALEXANDER II. 

Under this Prince, who successfully put down the usual northern risings, the old suit about the claims to Northumberland was finally abandoned fora trifling compensation (1237). Alexander had married Joanna, daughterof King John, and his brother-in-law, Henry III. , did not press hisdemand for homage for Scotland. The usual Celtic pretenders to thethrone were for ever crushed. Argyll became a sheriffdom, Galloway wasbrought into order, and Alexander, who died in the Isle of Kerrera in thebay of Oban (1249), well deserved his title of "a King of Peace. " He wasburied in Melrose Abbey. In his reign the clergy were allowed to holdProvincial or Synodal Councils without the presence of a papal Legate(1225), and the Dominicans and Franciscans appeared in Scotland. 

ALEXANDER III. 

The term King of Peace was also applied to Alexander III. , son of thesecond wife of Alexander II. , Marie de Coucy. Alexander came to thethrone (1249) at the age of eight. As a child he was taken and held(like James II. , James III. , James V. , and James VI. ) by contendingfactions of the nobles, Henry of England intervening. In 1251 he weddedanother child, Margaret, daughter of Henry III. Of England, but Henryneither forced a claim to hold Scotland during the boy's minority (hisright if Scotland were his fief), nor in other respects pressed hisadvantage. In February 1261-1262 a girl was born to Alexander atWindsor; she was Margaret, later wife of Eric of Norway. Her daughter, on the death of Alexander III. (March 19, 1286), was the sole directdescendant in the male line. 

After the birth of this heiress, Alexander won from Norway the isles ofthe western coast of Scotland in which Norse chieftains had long heldsway. They complained to Hakon of Norway concerning raids made on themby the Earl of Ross, a Celtic potentate. Alexander's envoys to Hakonwere detained, and in 1263, Hakon, with a great fleet, sailed through theislands. A storm blew most of his Armada to shore near Largs, where hismen were defeated by the Scots. Hakon collected his ships, sailed north, and (December 15) died at Kirkwall. Alexander now brought the islandprinces, including the Lord of Man, into subjection; and by Treaty, in1266, placed them under the Crown. In 1275 Benemund de Vicci (calledBagimont), at a council in Perth, compelled the clergy to pay a tithe fora crusade, the Pope insisting that the money should be assessed on thetrue value of benefices--that is, on "Bagimont's Roll, "--thenceforthrecognised as the basis of clerical taxation. In 1278 Edward I. Labouredto extract from Alexander an acknowledgment that he was England's vassal. Edward signally failed; but a palpably false account of Alexander'shomage was fabricated, and dated September 29, 1278. This was not theonly forgery by which England was wont to back her claims. 

A series of bereavements (1281-1283) deprived Alexander of all hischildren save his little grandchild, "the Maid of Norway. " She wasrecognised by a great national assembly at Scone as heiress of thethrone; and Alexander had no issue by his second wife, a daughter of theComte de Dreux. On the night of March 19, 1285, while Alexander wasriding from Edinburgh to visit his bride at Kinghorn, his horse slippedover a cliff and the rider was slain. 

CHAPTER VII. ENCROACHMENTS OF EDWARD I. --WALLACE. 

The Estates of Scotland met at Scone (April 11, 1286) and swore loyaltyto their child queen, "the Maid of Norway, " granddaughter of AlexanderIII. Six guardians of the kingdom were appointed on April 11, 1286. Theywere the Bishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, two Comyns (Buchan andBadenoch), the Earl of Fife, and Lord James, the Steward of Scotland. NoBruce or Baliol was among the Custodians. Instantly a "band, " orcovenant, was made by the Bruces, Earls of Annandale and Carrick, tosupport their claims (failing the Maid) to the throne; and there wereacts of war on their part against another probable candidate, JohnBalliol. Edward (like Henry VIII. In the case of Mary Stuart) moved forthe marriage of the infant queen to his son. A Treaty safeguarding allScottish liberties as against England was made by clerical influences atBirgham (July 18, 1290), but by October 7 news of the death of the youngqueen reached Scotland: she had perished during her voyage from Norway. Private war now broke out between the Bruces and Balliols; and the partyof Balliol appealed to Edward, through Fraser, Bishop of St Andrews, asking the English king to prevent civil war, and recommending Balliol asa person to be carefully treated. Next the Seven Earls, alleging somedim elective right, recommended Bruce, and appealed to Edward as theirlegal superior. 

Edward came to Norham-on-Tweed in May 1291, proclaimed himself LordParamount, and was accepted as such by the twelve candidates for theCrown (June 3). The great nobles thus, to serve their ambitions, betrayed their country: _the communitas_ (whatever that term may heremean) made a futile protest. 

As lord among his vassals, Edward heard the pleadings and evidence inautumn 1292; and out of the descendants, in the female line, of DavidEarl of Huntingdon, youngest son of David I. , he finally (November 17, 1292) preferred John Balliol (_great-grandson_ of the earl through hiseldest daughter) to Bruce the Old, grandfather of the famous RobertBruce, and _grandson_ of Earl David's second daughter. The decision, according to our ideas, was just; no modern court could set it aside. ButBalliol was an unpopular weakling--"an empty tabard, " the people said--andEdward at once subjected him, king as he was, to all the humiliations ofa petty vassal. He was summoned into his Lord's Court on the score ofthe bills of tradesmen. If Edward's deliberate policy was to goadBalliol into resistance and then conquer Scotland absolutely, in thefirst of these aims he succeeded. 

In 1294 Balliol was summoned, with his Peers, to attend Edward inGascony. Balliol, by advice of a council (1295), sought a Frenchalliance and a French marriage for his son, named Edward; he gave theAnnandale lands of his enemy Robert Bruce (father of the king to be) toComyn, Earl of Buchan. He besieged Carlisle, while Edward took Berwick, massacred the people, and captured Sir William Douglas, father of thegood Lord James. 

In the war which followed, Edward broke down resistance by a sanguinaryvictory at Dunbar, captured John Comyn of Badenoch (the Red Comyn), received from Balliol (July 7, 1296) the surrender of his royal claims, and took the oaths of the Steward of Scotland and the Bruces, father andson. He carried to Westminster the Black Rood of St Margaret and thefamous stone of Scone, a relic of the early Irish dynasty of the Scots;as far north as Elgin he rode, receiving the oaths of all persons of noteand influence--except William Wallace. _His_ name does not appear in thelist of submissions called "The Ragman's Roll. " Between April andOctober 1296 the country was subjugated; the castles were garrisoned byEnglishmen. But by January 1297, Edward's governor, Warenne, Earl ofSurrey, and Ormsby, his Chief Justice, found the country in an uproar, and at midsummer 1297 the levies of the northern counties of England wereordered to put down the disorders. 

THE YEAR OF WALLACE. 

In May the _commune_ of Scotland (whatever the term may here mean) hadchosen Wallace as their leader; probably this younger son of Sir MalcolmWallace of Elderslie, in Renfrewshire, had already been distinguished forhis success in skirmishes against the English, as well as for strengthand courage. {36} The popular account of his early adventures given inthe poem by Blind Harry (1490?) is of no historical value. His mendestroyed the English at Lanark (May 1297); he was abetted by Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, and the Steward; but by July 7, Percy and Clifford, leading the English army, admitted the Steward, Robert Bruce (the futureking), and Wishart to the English peace at Irvine in Ayrshire. But theNorth was up under Sir Andrew Murray, and "that thief Wallace" (to quotean English contemporary) left the siege of Dundee Castle which he wasconducting to face Warenne on the north bank of the Forth. On September11, the English, under Warenne, manoeuvred vaguely at Stirling Bridge, and were caught on the flank by Wallace's army before they could deployon the northern side of the river. They were cut to pieces, Cressinghamwas slain, and Warenne galloped to Berwick, while the Scots harriedNorthumberland with great ferocity, which Wallace seems to have beenwilling but not often able to control. By the end of March 1298 heappears with Andrew Murray as Guardian of the Kingdom for the exiledBalliol. This attitude must have aroused the jealousy of the nobles, andespecially of Robert Bruce, who aimed at securing the crown, and who, after several changes of side, by June 1298 was busy in Edward's servicein Galloway. 

Edward then crossed the Border with a great army of perhaps 40, 000 men, met the spearmen of Wallace in their serried phalanxes at Falkirk, brokethe "schiltrom" or clump of spears by the arrows of his archers;slaughtered the archers of Ettrick Forest; scattered the mounted nobles, and avenged the rout of Stirling (July 22, 1298). The country remainedunsubdued, but its leaders were at odds among themselves, and Wallace hadretired to France, probably to ask for aid; he may also conceivably havevisited Rome. The Bishop of St Andrews, Lamberton, with Bruce and theRed Comyn--deadly rivals--were Guardians of the Kingdom in 1299. But inJune 1300, Edward, undeterred by remonstrances from the Pope, enteredScotland; an armistice, however, was accorded to the Holy Father, and thewar, in which the Scots scored a victory at Roslin in February 1293, dragged on from summer to summer till July 1304. In these years Brucealternately served Edward and conspired against him; the intricacies ofhis perfidy are deplorable. 

Bruce served Edward during the siege of Stirling, then the central key ofthe country. On its surrender Edward admitted all men to his peace, oncondition of oaths of fealty, except "Messire Williame le Waleys. " Menof the noblest Scottish names stooped to pursue the hero: he was takennear Glasgow, and handed over to Sir John Menteith, a Stewart, and son ofthe Earl of Menteith. As Sheriff of Dumbartonshire, Menteith had nochoice but to send the hero in bonds to England. But, if Menteithdesired to escape the disgrace with which tradition brands his name, heought to have refused the English blood-price for the capture of Wallace. He made no such refusal. As an outlaw, Wallace was hanged at London; hislimbs, like those of the great Montrose, were impaled on the gates ofvarious towns. 

What we really know about the chief popular hero of his country, fromdocuments and chronicles, is fragmentary; and it is hard to find anythingtrustworthy in Blind Harry's rhyming "Wallace" (1490), plagiarised as itis from Barbour's earlier poem (1370) on Bruce. {38} But Wallace wastruly brave, disinterested, and indomitable. Alone among the leaders henever turned his coat, never swore and broke oaths to Edward. He arisesfrom obscurity, like Jeanne d'Arc; like her, he is greatly victorious;like her, he awakens a whole people; like her, he is deserted, and isunlawfully put to death; while his limbs, like her ashes, are scatteredby the English. The ravens had not pyked his bones bare before the Scotswere up again for freedom. 

CHAPTER VIII. BRUCE AND THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. 

The position towards France of Edward I. Made it really more desirablefor him that Scotland should be independent and friendly, than halfsubdued and hostile to his rule. While she was hostile, England, inattacking France, always left an enemy in her rear. But Edward supposedthat by clemency to all the Scottish leaders except Wallace, by givingthem great appointments and trusting them fully, and by calling them tohis Parliament in London, he could combine England and Scotland inaffectionate union. He repaired the ruins of war in Scotland; he beganto study her laws and customs; he hastily ran up for her a newconstitution, and appointed his nephew, John of Brittany, as governor. But he had overlooked two facts: the Scottish clergy, from the highest tothe lowest, were irreconcilably opposed to union with England; and thegreatest and most warlike of the Scottish nobles, if not patriotic, werefickle and insatiably ambitious. It is hard to reckon how often RobertBruce had turned his coat, and how often the Bishop of St Andrews hadtaken the oath to Edward. Both men were in Edward's favour in June 1304, but in that month they made against him a treasonable secret covenant. Through 1305 Bruce prospered in Edward's service, on February 10, 1306, Edward was conferring on him a new favour, little guessing that Bruce, after some negotiation with his old rival, the Red Comyn, had slain him(an uncle of his was also butchered) before the high altar of the Churchof the Franciscans in Dumfries. Apparently Bruce had tried to enlistComyn in his conspiracy, and had found him recalcitrant, or feared thathe would be treacherous (February 10, 1306). 

The sacrilegious homicide made it impossible for Bruce again to waver. Hecould not hope for pardon; he must be victorious or share the fate ofWallace. He summoned his adherents, including young James Douglas, received the support of the Bishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, hurried toScone, and there was hastily crowned with a slight coronet, in thepresence of but two earls and three bishops. 

Edward made vast warlike preparations and forswore leniency, while Bruce, under papal excommunication, which he slighted, collected a few nobles, such as Lennox, Atholl, Errol, and a brother of the chief of the Frazers. Other chiefs, kinsmen of the slain Comyn, among them Macdowal of Argyll, banded to avenge the victim; Bruce's little force was defeated at MethvenWood, near Perth, by Aymer de Valence, and prisoners of all ranks werehanged as traitors, while two bishops were placed in irons. Bruce tookto the heather, pursued by the Macdowals no less than by the English; hisqueen was captured, his brother Nigel was executed; he cut his way to thewild west coast, aided only by Sir Nial Campbell of Loch Awe, who thusfounded the fortune of his house, and by the Macdonalds, under Angus Ogof Islay. He wintered in the isle of Rathlin (some think he even went toNorway), and in spring, after surprising the English garrison in his owncastle of Turnberry, he roamed, now lonely, now with a mobile littleforce, in Galloway, always evading and sometimes defeating his Englishpursuers. At Loch Trool and at London Hill (Drumclog) he dealt themheavy blows, while on June 7, 1307, his great enemy Edward died atBorough-on-Sands, leaving the crown and the war to the weakling EdwardII. 

Fortune had turned. We cannot follow Bruce through his campaign in thenorth, where he ruined the country of the Comyns (1308), and through thevictories in Galloway of his hard-fighting brother Edward. With enemieson every side, Bruce took them in detail; early in March 1309 he routedthe Macdowals at the west end of the Pass of Brander. Edward II. Wasinvolved in disputes with his own barons, and Bruce was recognised by hiscountry's Church in 1310 and aided by his great lieutenants, Sir JamesDouglas and Thomas Randolph, Earl of Murray. By August 1311 Bruce wascarrying the war into England, sacking Durham and Chester, failing atCarlisle, but in January 1313, capturing Perth. In summer, Edward Bruce, in the spirit of chivalry, gave to Stirling Castle (Randolph had takenEdinburgh Castle) a set day, Midsummer Day 1314, to be relieved or tosurrender; and Bruce kept tryst with Edward II. And his English and Irishlevies, and all his adventurous chivalry from France, Hainault, Bretagne, Gascony, and Aquitaine. All the world knows the story of the firstbattle, the Scottish Quatre Bras; the success of Randolph on the right;the slaying of Bohun when Bruce broke his battle-axe. Next day Bruce'sposition was strong; beneath the towers of Stirling the Bannockburnprotected his front; morasses only to be crossed by narrow paths impededthe English advance. Edward Bruce commanded the right wing; Randolph thecentre; Douglas and the Steward the left; Bruce the reserve, theIslesmen. His strength lay in his spearmen's "dark impenetrable wood";his archers were ill-trained; of horse he had but a handful under Keith, the Marischal. But the heavy English cavalry could not break the squaresof spears; Keith cut up the archers of England; the main body could notdeploy, and the slow, relentless advance of the whole Scottish linecovered the plain with the dying and the flying. A panic arose, causedby the sight of an approaching cloud of camp-followers on the Gillie'shill; Edward fled, and hundreds of noble prisoners, with all the waggonsand supplies of England, fell into the hands of the Scots. In eightstrenuous years the generalship of Bruce and his war-leaders, theresolution of the people, hardened by the cruelties of Edward, thesermons of the clergy, and the utter incompetence of Edward II. , hadredeemed a desperate chance. From a fief of England, Scotland had becomean indomitable nation. 

LATER DAYS OF BRUCE. 

Bruce continued to prosper, despite an ill-advised attempt to winIreland, in which Edward Bruce fell (1318. ) This left the succession, ifBruce had no male issue, to the children of his daughter, Marjory, andher husband, the Steward. In 1318 Scotland recovered Berwick, in 1319routed the English at Mytton-on-Swale. In a Parliament at Aberbrothock(April 6, 1320) the Scots announced to the Pope, who had beeninterfering, that, while a hundred of them survive, they will never yieldto England. In October 1322 Bruce utterly routed the English at BylandAbbey, in the heart of Yorkshire, and chased Edward II. Into York. InMarch 1324 a son was born to Bruce named David; on May 4, 1328, by theTreaty of Northampton, the independence of Scotland was recognised. InJuly the infant David married Joanna, daughter of Edward II. 

On June 7, 1329, Bruce died and was buried at Dunfermline; his heart, byhis order, was carried by Douglas towards the Holy Land, and when Douglasfell in a battle with the Moors in Spain, the heart was brought back bySir Simon Lockhart of the Lee. The later career of Bruce, after he hadbeen excommunicated, is that of the foremost knight and most sagaciousman of action who ever wore the crown of Scotland. The staunchness withwhich the clergy and estates disregarded papal fulminations (indeed underWilliam the Lion they had treated an interdict as waste-paper) indicateda kind of protestant tendency to independence of the Holy See. 

Bruce's inclusion of representatives of the Burghs in the first regularScottish Parliament (at Cambuskenneth in 1326) was a great step forwardin the constitutional existence of the country. The king, in Scotland, was expected to "live of his own, " but in 1326 the expenses of the warwith England compelled Bruce to seek permission for taxation. 

CHAPTER IX. DECADENCE AND DISASTERS--REIGN OF DAVID II. 

The heroic generation of Scotland was passing off the stage. The Kingwas a child. The forfeiture by Bruce of the lands of hostile ortreacherous lords, and his bestowal of the estates on his partisans, hadmade the disinherited nobles the enemies of Scotland, and had fed toofull the House of Douglas. As the star of Scotland was thus clouded--shehad no strong man for a King during the next ninety years--the sun ofEngland rose red and glorious under a warrior like Edward III. TheScottish nobles in many cases ceased to be true to their proud boast thatthey would never submit to England. A very brief summary of the wretchedreign of David II. Must here suffice. 

First, the son of John Balliol, Edward, went to the English Court, andthither thronged the disinherited and forfeited lords, arranging a raidto recover their lands. Edward III. , of course, connived at theirpreparations. 

After Randolph's death (July 20, 1332), when Mar--a sister's son ofBruce--was Regent, the disinherited lords, under Balliol, invadedScotland, and Mar, with young Randolph, Menteith, and a bastard of Bruce, "Robert of Carrick, " leading a very great host, fell under the shafts ofthe English archers of Umfraville, Wake, the English Earl of Atholl, Talbot, Ferrers, and Zouche, at Dupplin, on the Earn (August 12, 1332). Rolled up by arrows loosed on the flanks of their charging columns, theyfell, and their dead bodies lay in heaps as tall as a lance. 

On September 24, Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone. Later, AndrewMurray, perhaps a son of the Murray who had been Wallace's companion-in-arms, was taken, and Balliol acknowledged Edward III. As his liege-lordat Roxburgh. In December the second son of Randolph, with Archibald, thenew Regent, brother of the great Black Douglas, drove Balliol, flying inhis shirt, from Annan across the Border. He returned, and was opposed bythis Archibald Douglas, called Tineman, the Unlucky, and on July 19, 1333, Tineman suffered, at Halidon Hill, near Berwick, a defeat asterrible as Flodden; Berwick, too, was lost, practically for ever, Tineman fell, and Sir William Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale, was aprisoner. These Scots defeats were always due to rash frontal attacks onstrong positions, the assailants passing between lines of English bowmenwho loosed into their flanks. The boy king, David, was carried to France(1334) for safety, while Balliol delivered to Edward Berwick and thechief southern counties, including that of Edinburgh, with their castles. 

There followed internal wars between Balliol's partisans, while thepatriots were led by young Randolph, by the young Steward, by Sir AndrewMurray, and the wavering and cruel Douglas, called the Knight ofLiddesdale, now returned from captivity. In the desperate state ofthings, with Balliol and Edward ravaging Scotland at will, none showedmore resolution than Bruce's sister, who held Kildrummie Castle; andRandolph's daughter, "Black Agnes, " who commanded that of Dunbar. Byvast gifts Balliol won over John, Lord of the Isles. The Celts turned tothe English party; Edward III. Harried the province of Moray, but, in1337, he began to undo his successes by formally claiming the crown ofFrance: France and Scotland together could always throw off the Englishyoke. 

Thus diverted from Scotland, Edward lost strength there while he warredwith Scotland's ally: in 1341 the Douglas, Knight of Liddesdale, recovered Edinburgh Castle by a romantic surprise. But David returnedhome in 1341, a boy of eighteen, full of the foibles of chivalry, rash, sensual, extravagant, who at once gave deadly offence to the Knight ofLiddesdale by preferring to him, as sheriff of Teviotdale, the brave SirAlexander Ramsay, who had driven the English from the siege of DunbarCastle. Douglas threw Ramsay into Hermitage Castle in Liddesdale andstarved him to death. 

In 1343 the Knight began to intrigue traitorously with Edward III. ; aftera truce, David led his whole force into England, where his rash chivalrycaused his utter defeat at Neville's Cross, near Durham (October 17, 1346). He was taken, as was the Bishop of St Andrews; his ransom becamethe central question between England and Scotland. In 1353 Douglas, Knight of Liddesdale, was slain at Williamshope on Yarrow by his godson, William, Lord Douglas: the fact is commemorated in a fragment of perhapsour oldest narrative Border ballad. French men-at-arms now helped theScots to recover Berwick, merely to lose it again in 1356; in 1357 Davidwas set free: his ransom, 100, 000 merks, was to be paid by instalment. The country was heavily taxed, but the full sum was never paid. Meanwhilethe Steward had been Regent; between him, the heir of the Crown failingissue to David, and the King, jealousies arose. David was suspected ofbetraying the kingdom to England; in October 1363 he and the Earl ofDouglas visited London and made a treaty adopting a son of Edward as kingon David's demise, and on his ransom being remitted, but in March 1364his Estates rejected the proposal, to which Douglas had assented. Till1369 all was poverty and internal disunion; the feud, to be so oftenrenewed, of the Douglas and the Steward raged. David was madecontemptible by a second marriage with Margaret Logie, but the war withFrance drove Edward III. To accept a fourteen years' truce with Scotland. On February 22, 1371, David died in Edinburgh Castle, being succeeded, without opposition, by the Steward, Robert II. , son of Walter, and ofMarjorie, daughter of Robert Bruce. This Robert II. , somewhat outworn bymany years of honourable war in his country's cause, and the father of afamily, by Elizabeth Mure of Rowallan, which could hardly be renderedlegitimate by any number of Papal dispensations, _was the first of theRoyal Stewart line_. In him a cadet branch of the English FitzAlans, themselves of a very ancient Breton stock, blossomed into Royalty. 

PARLIAMENT AND THE CROWN. 

With the coming of a dynasty which endured for three centuries, we mustsketch the relations, in Scotland, of Crown and Parliament till the daysof the Covenant and the Revolution of 1688. Scotland had but little ofthe constitutional evolution so conspicuous in the history of England. The reason is that while the English kings, with their fiefs and wars inFrance, had constantly to be asking their parliaments for money, andwhile Parliament first exacted the redress of grievances, in Scotland theking was expected "to live of his own" on the revenue of crown-lands, rents, feudal aids, fines exacted in Courts of Law, and duties onmerchandise. No "tenths" or "fifteenths" were exacted from clergy andpeople. There could be no "constitutional resistance" when the Crownmade no unconstitutional demands. 

In Scotland the germ of Parliament is the King's court of vassals of theCrown. To the assemblies, held now in one place, now in another, wouldusually come the vassals of the district, with such officers of state asthe Chancellor, the Chamberlain, the Steward, the Constable or Commander-in-Chief, the Justiciar, and the Marischal, and such Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, Barons, and tenants-in-chief as chose to attend. At thesemeetings public business was done, charters were granted, and statuteswere passed; assent was made to such feudal aids as money for the king'sransom in the case of William the Lion. In 1295 the seals of six Royalburghs are appended to the record of a negotiation; in 1326 burgesses, aswe saw, were consulted by Bruce on questions of finance. 

The misfortunes and extravagance of David II. Had to be paid for, andParliament interfered with the Royal prerogative in coinage and currency, directed the administration of justice, dictated terms of peace withEngland, called to account even hereditary officers of the Crown (such asthe Steward, Constable, and Marischal), controlled the King's expenditure(or tried to do so), and denounced the execution of Royal warrantsagainst the Statutes and common form of law. They summarily rejectedDavid's attempt to alter the succession of the Crown. 

At the same time, as attendance of multitudes during protractedParliaments was irksome and expensive, arose the habit of intrustingbusiness to a mere "Committee of Articles, " later "The Lords of theArticles, " selected in varying ways from the Three Estates--Spiritual, Noble, and Commons. These Committees saved the members of Parliamentfrom the trouble and expense of attendance, but obviously tended tobecome an abuse, being selected and packed to carry out the designs ofthe Crown or of the party of nobles in power. All members, of whateverEstate, sat together in the same chamber. There were no elected Knightsof the Shires, no representative system. 

The reign of David II. Saw two Scottish authors or three, whose works areextant. Barbour wrote the chivalrous rhymed epic-chronicle 'The Brus';Wyntoun, an unpoetic rhymed "cronykil"; and "Hucheoun of the Awle Ryal"produced works of more genius, if all that he is credited with be hisown. 

CHAPTER X. EARLY STEWART KINGS: ROBERT II. (1371-1390). 

Robert II. Was crowned at Scone on March 26, 1371. He was elderly, jovial, pacific, and had little to fear from England when the deaths ofEdward III. And the Black Prince left the crown to the infant Richard II. There was fighting against isolated English castles within the Scottishborder, to amuse the warlike Douglases and Percies, and there weretruces, irregular and ill kept. In 1384 great English and Scottish raidswere made, and gentlemen of France, who came over for sport, werescurvily entertained, and (1385) saw more plundering than honest fightingunder James, Earl of Douglas, who merely showed them an army that, underRichard II. , burned Melrose Abbey and fired Edinburgh, Perth, and Dundee. Edinburgh was a town of 400 houses. Richard insisted that not more thana third of his huge force should be English Borderers, who had no idea ofhitting their Scottish neighbours, fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, too hard. The one famous fight, that of Otterburn (August 15, 1388), wasa great and joyous passage of arms by moonlight. The Douglas fell, thePercy was led captive away; the survivors gained advancement in renownand the hearty applause of the chivalrous chronicler, Froissart. Theoldest ballads extant on this affair were current in 1550, and showtraces of the reading of Froissart and the English chroniclers. 

In 1390 died Robert II. Only his youth was glorious. The reign of hisson, Robert III. (crowned August 14, 1390), was that of a weakling wholet power fall into the hands of his brother, the Duke of Albany, or hisson David, Duke of Rothesay, who held the reins after the Parliament (aParliament that bitterly blamed the Government) of January 1399. (Withthese two princes the title of Duke first appears in Scotland. ) Thefollies of young David alienated all: he broke his betrothal to thedaughter of the Earl of March; March retired to England, becoming the manof Henry IV. ; and though Rothesay wedded the daughter of the Earl ofDouglas, he was arrested by Albany and Douglas and was starved to death(or died of dysentery) in Falkland Castle (1402). The Highlanders hadbeen in anarchy throughout the reign; their blood was let in the greatclan duel of thirty against thirty, on the Inch of Perth, in 1396. Probably clans Cameron and Chattan were the combatants. 

On Rothesay's death Albany was Governor, while Douglas was taken prisonerin the great Border defeat of Homildon Hill, not far from Flodden. Butthen (1403) came the alliance of Douglas with Percy; Percy's quarrel withHenry IV. And their defeat; and Hotspur's death, Douglas's capture atShrewsbury. Between Shakespeare, in "Henry IV. , " and Scott, in 'The FairMaid of Perth, ' the most notable events in the reign of Robert III. Areimmortalised. The King's last misfortune was the capture by the Englishat sea, on the way to France, of his son James in February-March 1406. {52} On April 4, 1406, Robert went to his rest, one of the most unhappyof the fated princes of his line. 

THE REGENCY OF ALBANY. 

The Regency of Albany, uncle of the captured James, lasted for fourteenyears, ending with his death in 1420. He occasionally negotiated for hisking's release, but more successfully for that of his son Murdoch. ThatJames suspected Albany's ambition, and was irritated by his conduct, appears in his letters, written in Scots, to Albany and to Douglas, released in 1408, and now free in Scotland. The letters are of 1416. 

The most important points to note during James's English captivity arethe lawlessness and oppression which prevailed in Scotland, and thebeginning of Lollard heresies, nascent Protestantism, nascent Socialism, even "free love. " The Parliament of 1399, which had inveighed againstthe laxity of Government under Robert II. , also demanded the extirpationof heresies, in accordance with the Coronation Oath. One Resby, aheretical English priest, was arraigned and burned at Perth in 1407, under Laurence of Lindores, the Dominican Inquisitor into heresies, whohimself was active in promoting Scotland's oldest University, St Andrews. The foundation was by Henry Wardlaw, Bishop of St Andrews, by virtue of abull from the anti-pope Benedict XIII. , of February 1414. Lollard ideaswere not suppressed; the chronicler, Bower, speaks of their existence in1445; they sprang from envy of the wealth, and indignation against thecorruptions of the clergy, and the embers of Lollardism in Kyle were notcold when, under James V. , the flame of the Reformation was rekindled. 

The Celtic North, never quiet, made its last united effort in 1411, whenDonald, Lord of the Isles, who was in touch with the English Government, claimed the earldom of Ross, in right of his wife, as against the Earl ofBuchan, a son of Albany; mustered all the wild clans of the west and theisles at Ardtornish Castle on the Sound of Mull; marched through Ross toDingwall; defeated the great northern clan of Mackay, and was hurrying tosack Aberdeen when he was met by Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar, thegentry of the northern Lowlands, mounted knights, and the burgesses ofthe towns, some eighteen miles from Aberdeen, at Harlaw. There was apitched battle with great slaughter, but the Celts had no cavalry, andthe end was that Donald withdrew to his fastnesses. The event iscommemorated by an old literary ballad, and in Elspeth's ballad inScott's novel, 'The Antiquary. '

In the year of Albany's death, at a great age (1420), in compliance withthe prayer of Charles VII. Of France, the Earl of Buchan, Archibald, Douglas's eldest son, and Sir John Stewart of Derneley, led a force ofsome 7000 to 10, 000 men to war for France. Henry V. Then compelled thecaptive James I. To join him, and (1421) at Bauge Bridge the Scots, withthe famed La Hire, routed the army of Henry's brother, the Duke ofClarence, who, with 2000 of the English, fell in the action. The victorywas fruitless; at Crevant (1423) the Scots were defeated; at Verneuil(1424) they were almost exterminated. None the less the remnant, withfresh levies, continued to war for their old ally, and, under Sir HughKennedy and others, suffered at Rouvray (February 1429), and were withthe victorious French at Orleans (May 1429) under the leadership ofJeanne d'Arc. The combination of Scots and French, at the last push, always saved the independence of both kingdoms. 

The character of Albany, who, under his father, Robert III. , and duringthe captivity of James I. , ruled Scotland so long, is enigmatic. He iswell spoken of by the contemporary Wyntoun, author of a chronicle inrhyme; and in the Latin of Wyntoun's continuator, Bower. He kept onfriendly terms with the Douglases, he was popular in so far as he wasaverse to imposing taxation; and perhaps the anarchy and oppression whichpreceded the return of James I. To Scotland were due not to the weaknessof Albany but to that of his son and successor, Murdoch, and to theiniquities of Murdoch's sons. 

The death of Henry V. (1422) and the ambition of Cardinal Beaufort, determined to wed his niece Jane Beaufort to a crowned king, may havebeen among the motives which led the English Government (their own king, Henry VI. , being a child) to set free the royal captive (1424). 

CHAPTER XI. JAMES I. 

On March 28, 1424, James I. Was released, on a ransom of 40, 000 pounds, and after his marriage with Jane Beaufort, grand-daughter of John ofGaunt, son of Edward III. The story of their wooing (of course in theallegorical manner of the age, and with poetical conventions in place ofactual details) is told in James's poem, "The King's Quair, " a beautifulcomposition in the school of Chaucer, of which literary scepticism hasvainly tried to rob the royal author. James was the ablest and not themost scrupulous of the Stuarts. His captivity had given him an Englisheducation, a belief in order, and in English parliamentary methods, and afiery determination to put down the oppression of the nobles. "If Godgives me but a dog's life, " he said, "I will make the key keep the castleand the bracken bush keep the cow. " Before his first Parliament, in May1424, James arrested Murdoch's eldest son, Sir Walter Fleming ofCumbernauld, and the younger Boyd of Kilmarnock. The Parliament left aCommittee of the Estates ("The Lords of the Articles") to carry out theroyal policy. Taxes for the payment of James's ransom were imposed; toimpose them was easy, "passive resistance" was easier; the money wasnever paid, and James's noble hostages languished in England. He nextarrested the old Earl of Lennox, and Sir Robert Graham of the Kincardinefamily, later his murderer. 

These were causes of unpopularity. During a new Parliament (1425) Jamesimprisoned the new Duke of Albany (Murdoch) and his son Alexander, andseized their castles. {57} The Albanys and Lennox were executed; theirestates were forfeited; but resentment dogged a king who was too fierceand too hurried a reformer, perhaps too cruel an avenger of his ownwrongs. 

Our knowledge of the events of his reign is vague; but a king of Scotlandcould never, with safety, treat any of his nobles as criminals; the wholeorder was concerned to prevent or avenge severity of justice. 

At a Parliament in Inverness (1427) he seized the greatest of theHighland magnates whom he had summoned; they were hanged or imprisoned, and, after resistance, Alastair, the new Lord of the Isles, did penanceat Holyrood, before being immured in Tantallon Castle. His cousin, Donald Balloch, defeated Mar at Inverlochy (where Montrose later routedArgyll) (1431). Not long afterwards Donald fled to Ireland, whence ahead, said to be his, was sent to James, but Donald lived to fightanother day. 

Without a standing army to garrison the inaccessible Highlands, the Crowncould neither preserve peace in those regions nor promote justice. Thesystem of violent and perfidious punishments merely threw the Celts intothe arms of England. 

Execution itself was less terrible to the nobles than the forfeiting oftheir lands and the disinheriting of their families. None the less, James (1425-1427) seized the lands of the late Earl of Lennox, madeMalise Graham surrender the earldom of Strathearn in exchange for thebarren title of Earl of Menteith, and sent the sufferer as a hostage intoEngland. The Earl of March, son of the Earl who, under Robert III. , hadgone over to the English cause, was imprisoned and stripped of hisancient domains on the Eastern Border; and James, disinheriting LordErskine, annexed the earldom of Mar to the Crown. 

In a Parliament at Perth (March 1428) James permitted the minor baronsand freeholders to abstain from these costly assemblies on the conditionof sending two "wise men" to represent each sheriffdom: a Speaker was tobe elected, and the shires were to pay the expenses of the wise men. Butthe measure was unpopular, and in practice lapsed. Excellent laws werepassed, but were not enforced. 

In July-November 1428 a marriage was arranged between Margaret the infantdaughter of James and the son (later Louis XI. ) of the still uncrownedDauphin, Charles VIII. Of France. Charles announced to his subjectsearly in 1429 that an army of 6000 Scots was to land in France; thatJames himself, if necessary, would follow; but Jeanne d'Arc declared thatthere was no help from Scotland, none save from God and herself. She wasright: no sooner had she won her victories at Orleans, Jargeau, Pathay, and elsewhere (May-June 1429) than James made a truce with England whichenabled Cardinal Beaufort to throw his large force of anti-Hussitecrusaders into France, where they secured Normandy. The Scots in France, nevertheless, fought under the Maid in her last successful action, atLagny (April 1430). 

An heir to the Crown, James, was born in October 1430, while the King wasat strife with the Pope, and asserting for King and Parliament power overthe Provincial Councils of the Church. An interdict was threatened, James menaced the rich and lax religious orders with secular reformation;settled the Carthusians at Perth, to show an example of holy living; andpursued his severities against many of his nobles. 

His treatment of the Earl of Strathearn (despoiled and sent as a hostageto England) aroused the wrath of the Earl's uncle, Robert Graham, whobearded James in Parliament, was confiscated, fled across the Highlandline, and, on February 20, 1437, aided, it is said by the old Earl ofAtholl (a grandson of Robert II. By his second marriage), led a forceagainst the King in the monastery of the Black Friars at Perth, surprisedhim, and butchered him. The energy of his Queen brought the murderers, and Atholl himself, to die under unspeakable torments. 

James's reforms were hurried, violent, and, as a rule, incapable ofsurviving the anarchy of his son's minority: his new Court of Session, sitting in judgment thrice a-year, was his most fortunate innovation. 

CHAPTER XII. JAMES II. 

Scone, with its sacred stone, being so near Perth and the Highlands, wasperilous, and the coronation of James II. Was therefore held at Holyrood(March 25, 1437). The child, who was but seven years of age, was bandiedto and fro like a shuttlecock between rival adventurers. The Earl ofDouglas (Archibald, fifth Earl, died 1439) took no leading part in thestrife of factions: one of them led by Sir William Crichton, who held theimportant post of Commander of Edinburgh Castle; the other by SirAlexander Livingstone of Callendar. 

The great old Houses had been shaken by the severities of James I. , atleast for the time. In a Government of factions influenced by privategreed, there was no important difference in policy, and we need notfollow the transference of the royal person from Crichton in Edinburgh toLivingstone in Stirling Castle; the coalitions between these worthies, the battles between the Boyds of Kilmarnock and the Stewarts, who had toavenge Stewart of Derneley, Constable of the Scottish contingent inFrance, who was slain by Sir Thomas Boyd. The queen-mother married SirJames Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorne, and (August 3, 1439) she wascaptured by Livingstone, while her husband, in the mysterious words ofthe chronicler, was "put in a pitt and bollit. " In a month Jane Beaufortgave Livingstone an amnesty; he, not the Stewart family, not the queen-mother, now held James. 

To all this the new young Earl of Douglas, a boy of eighteen, tacitlyassented. He was the most powerful and wealthiest subject in Scotland;in France he was Duc de Touraine; he was descended in lawful wedlock fromRobert II. ; "he micht ha'e been the king, " as the ballad says of thebonny Earl of Moray. But he held proudly aloof from both Livingstone andCrichton, who were stealing the king alternately: they then combined, invited Douglas to Edinburgh Castle, with his brother David, and servedup the ominous bull's head at that "black dinner" recorded in a balladfragment. {61} They decapitated the two Douglas boys; the earldom fellto their granduncle, James the Fat, and presently, on _his_ death (1443), to young William Douglas, after which "bands, " or illegal covenants, between the various leaders of factions, led to private wars of shiftingfortune. Kennedy, Bishop of St Andrews, opposed the Douglas party, nowstrong both in lands newly acquired, till (July 3, 1449) James marriedMary of Gueldres, imprisoned the Livingstones, and relied on the Bishopof St Andrews and the clergy. While Douglas was visiting Rome in 1450, the Livingstones had been forfeited, and Crichton became Chancellor. 

FALL OF THE BLACK DOUGLASES. 

The Douglases, through a royal marriage of an ancestor to a daughter ofthe more legitimate marriage of Robert II. , had a kind of claim to thethrone which they never put forward. The country was thus spareddynastic wars, like those of the White and Red Roses in England; but, none the less, the Douglases were too rich and powerful for subjects. 

The Earl at the moment held Galloway and Annandale, two of his brotherswere Earls of Moray and Ormond; in October 1448, Ormond had distinguishedhimself by defeating and taking Percy, urging a raid into Scotland, at abloody battle on the Water of Sark, near Gretna. 

During the Earl of Douglas's absence in Rome, James had put down some ofhis unruly retainers, and even after his return (1451) had persevered inthis course. Later in the year Douglas resigned, and received back hislands, a not uncommon formula showing submission on the vassal's favouron the lord's part, as when Charles VII. , at the request of Jeanne d'Arc, made this resignation to God!

Douglas, however, was suspected of intriguing with England and with theLord of the Isles, while he had a secret covenant or "band" with theEarls of Crawford and Ross. If all this were true, he was planning amost dangerous enterprise. 

He was invited to Stirling to meet the king under a safe-conduct, andthere (February 22, 1452) was dirked by his king at the sacred table ofhospitality. 

Whether this crime was premeditated or merely passionate is unknown, asin the case of Bruce's murder of the Red Comyn before the high altar. Parliament absolved James on slender grounds. James, the brother of theslain earl, publicly defied his king, gave his allegiance to Henry VI. OfEngland, withdrew it, intrigued, and, after his brothers had been routedat Arkinholm, near Langholm (May 18, 1455), fled to England. His Housewas proclaimed traitorous; their wide lands in southern and south-westernScotland were forfeited and redistributed, the Scotts of Buccleuchprofiting largely in the long-run. The leader of the Royal forces atArkinholm, near Langholm, was another Douglas, one of "the RedDouglases, " the Earl of Angus; and till the execution of the Earl ofMorton, under James VI. , the Red Douglases were as powerful, turbulent, and treacherous as the Black Douglases had been in their day. Whenattacked and defeated, these Douglases, red or black, always alliedthemselves with England and with the Lords of the Isles, the hereditaryfoes of the royal authority. 

Meanwhile Edward IV. Wrote of the Scots as "his rebels of Scotland, " andin the alternations of fortune between the Houses of York and Lancaster, James held with Henry VI. When Henry was defeated and taken atNorthampton (July 10, 1460), James besieged Roxburgh Castle, an Englishhold on the Border, and (August 3, 1460) was slain by the explosion of agreat bombard. 

James was but thirty years of age at his death. By the dagger, by thelaw, and by the aid of the Red Douglases, he had ruined his most powerfulnobles--and his own reputation. His early training, like that of JamesVI. , was received while he was in the hands of the most treacherous, bloody, and unscrupulous of mankind; later, he met them with their ownweapons. The foundation of the University of Glasgow (1451), and thebuilding and endowment of St Salvator's College in St Andrews, by BishopKennedy, are the most permanent proofs of advancing culture in the reignof James. 

Many laws of excellent tendency, including sumptuary laws, which suggestthe existence of unexpected wealth and luxury, were passed; but such lawswere never firmly and regularly enforced. By one rule, which does seemto have been carried out, no poisons were to be imported: Scottishchemical science was incapable of manufacturing them. Much later, underJames VI. , we find a parcel of arsenic, to be used for politicalpurposes, successfully stopped at Leith. 

CHAPTER XIII. JAMES III. 

James II. Left three sons; the eldest, James III. , aged nine, was crownedat Kelso (August 10, 1460); his brothers, bearing the titles of Albanyand Mar, were not to be his supports. His mother, Mary of Gueldres, hadthe charge of the boys, and, as she was won over by her uncle, Philip ofBurgundy, to the cause of the House of York, while Kennedy and the Earlof Angus stood for the House of Lancaster, there was strife between themand the queen-mother and nobles. Kennedy relied on France (Louis XL), and his opponents on England. 

The battle of Towton (March 30, 1461) drove Henry VI. And his queenacross the Border, where Kennedy entertained the melancholy exile in theCastle of St Andrews. The grateful Henry restored Berwick to the Scots, who could not hold it long. In June 1461, while the Scots were failingto take Carlisle, Edward IV. Was crowned, and sent his adherent, theexiled Earl of Douglas, to treat for an alliance with the Celts, underJohn, Lord of the Isles, and that Donald Balloch who was falsely believedto have long before been slain in Ireland. 

It is curious to think of the Lord of the Isles dealing as an independentprince, through a renegade Douglas, with the English king. A treaty wasmade at John's Castle of Ardtornish--now a shell of crumbling stone onthe sea-shore of the Morvern side of the Sound of Mull--with the Englishmonarch at Westminster. The Highland chiefs promise allegiance toEdward, and, if successful, the Celts are to recover the ancient kingdomfrom Caithness to the Forth, while Douglas is to be all-powerful from theForth to the Border!

But other intrigues prevailed. The queen-mother and her son, in the mostfriendly manner, met the kingmaker Warwick at Dumfries, and again atCarlisle, and Douglas was disgraced by Edward, though restored to favourwhen Bishop Kennedy declined to treat with Edward's commissioners. TheTreaty of England with Douglas and the Celts was then ratified; butDouglas, advancing in front of Edward's army to the Border, met oldBishop Kennedy in helmet and corslet, and was defeated. Louis XI. , however, now deserted the Red for the White Rose. Kennedy followed hisexample; and peace was made between England and Scotland in October 1464. Kennedy died in the summer of 1465. 

There followed the usual struggles between confederations of the nobles, and, in July 1466, James was seized, being then aged fourteen, by theparty of the Boyds, Flemings, and Kennedys, aided by Hepburn of Hailes(ancestor of the turbulent Earl of Bothwell), and by the head of theBorder House of Cessford, Andrew Ker. 

It was a repetition of the struggles of Livingstone and Crichton, and nowthe great Border lairds begin to take their place in history. Boyd madehimself Governor to the king, his son married the king's eldest sister, Mary, and became Earl of Arran. But brief was the triumph of the Boyds. In 1469 James married Margaret of Norway; Orkney and Shetland were herdower; but while Arran negotiated the affair abroad, at home the fall ofhis house was arranged. Boyd fled the country; the king's sister, divorced from young Arran, married the Lord Hamilton; and his family, whowere Lords of Cadzow under Robert Bruce, and had been allies of the BlackDouglases till their fall, became the nearest heirs of the royalStewarts, if that family were extinct. The Hamiltons, the wealthiesthouse in Scotland, never produced a man of great ability, but theirnearness to the throne and their ambition were storm-centres in the timeof Mary Stuart and James VI. , and even as late as the Union in 1707. 

The fortunes of a nephew of Bishop Kennedy, Patrick Graham, Kennedy'ssuccessor as Bishop of St Andrews, now perplex the historian. Grahamdealt for himself with the Pope, obtained the rank of Archbishop for theBishop of St Andrews (1472), and thus offended the king and country, always jealous of interference from Rome. But he was reported on as moreor less insane by a Papal Nuncio, and was deposed. Had he been defending(as used to be said) the right of election of Bishop for the Canonsagainst the greed of the nobles, the Nuncio might not have taken anunfavourable view of his intellect. In any case, whether the clergy, backed by Rome, elected their bishops, or whether the king and noblesmade their profit out of the Church appointments, jobbery was theuniversal rule. Ecclesiastical corruption and, as a rule, ignorance, were attaining their lowest level. {67} By 1476 the Lord of the Isles, the Celtic ally of Edward IV. , was reduced by Argyll, Huntly, andCrawford, and lost the sheriffdom of Inverness, and the earldom of Ross, which was attached to the Crown (1476). His treaty of Ardtornish hadcome to light. But his bastard, Angus Og, filled the north and west withfire and tumult from Ross to Tobermory (1480-1490), while James'sdevotion to the arts--a thing intolerable--and to the society of low-bornfavourites, especially Thomas Cockburn, "a stone-cutter, " prepared thesorrows and the end of his reign. 

The intrigues which follow, and the truth about the character of James, are exceedingly obscure. We have no Scottish chronicle written at thetime; the later histories, by Ferrerius, an Italian, and, much later, byQueen Mary's Bishop Lesley, and by George Buchanan, are full of rumoursand contradictions, while the State Papers and Treaties of England merelyprove the extreme treachery of James's brother Albany, and no evidencetells us how James contrived to get the better of the traitor. James'sbrothers Albany and Mar were popular; were good horsemen, men of theirhands, and Cochrane is accused of persuading James to arrest Mar on acharge of treason and black magic. Many witches are said to have beenburned: perhaps the only such case before the Reformation. However itfell out--all is obscure--Mar died in prison; while Albany, also aprisoner on charges of treasonable intrigues with the inveterate Earl ofDouglas, in the English interest, escaped to France. 

Douglas (1482) brought him to England, where he swore allegiance toEdward IV. , under whom, like Edward Balliol, he would hold Scotland ifcrowned. He was advancing on the Border with Edward's support and withthe Duke of Gloucester (Richard III. ), and James had gone to Lauder toencounter him, when the Earl of Angus headed a conspiracy of nobles, suchas Huntly, Lennox, and Buchan, seized Cochrane and other favourites ofJames, and hanged them over Lauder Bridge. The most tangible grievancewas the increasing debasement of the coinage. James was immured atEdinburgh, but, by a compromise, Albany was restored to rank and estates. Meanwhile Gloucester captured Berwick, never to be recovered by Scotland. In 1483 Albany renewed, with many of the nobles, his intrigues withEdward for the betrayal of Scotland. In some unknown way James separatedAlbany from his confederates Atholl, Buchan, and Angus; Albany went toEngland, betrayed the Castle of Dunbar to England, and was only checkedin his treasons by the death of Edward IV. (April 9, 1483), after which afull Parliament (July 7, 1483) condemned him and forfeited him in hisabsence. On July 22, 1484, he invaded Scotland with his ally, Douglas;they were routed at Lochmaben, Douglas was taken, and, by singularclemency, was merely placed in seclusion in the Monastery of Lindores, while Albany, escaping to France, perished in a tournament, leaving adescendant, who later, in the minority of James V. , makes a figure inhistory. 

The death of Richard III. (August 18, 1485) and the accession of theprudent Henry VII. Gave James a moment of safety. He turned hisattention to the Church, and determined to prosecute for treason suchScottish clerics as purchased benefices through Rome. He negotiated forthree English marriages, including that of his son James, Duke ofRothesay, to a daughter of Edward IV. ; he also negotiated for therecovery of Berwick, taken by Gloucester during Albany's invasion of1482. After his death, and before it, James was accused, for thesereasons, of disloyal dealings with England; and such nobles as Angus, upto the neck as they were in treason and rebellion, raised a party againsthim on the score that he was acting as they did. The almost aimlesstreachery of the Douglases, Red or Black, endured for centuries from thereign of David II. To that of James VI. Many nobles had received noamnesty for the outrage of Lauder Bridge; their hopes turned to the heirof the Crown, James, Duke of Rothesay. We see them offering peace for anindemnity in a Parliament of October 1487; the Estates refused all suchpardons for a space of seven years; the king's party was manifestly thestronger. He was not to be intimidated; he offended Home and the Humesby annexing the Priory of Coldingham (which they regarded as their own)to the Royal Chapel at Stirling. The inveterate Angus, with others, induced Prince James to join them under arms. James took theChancellorship from Argyll and sent envoys to England. 

The rebels, proclaiming the prince as king, intrigued with Henry VII. ;James was driven across the Forth, and was supported in the north by hisuncle, Atholl, and by Huntly, Crawford, and Lord Lindsay of the Byres, Errol, Glamis, Forbes, and Tullibardine, and the chivalry of Angus andStrathtay. Attempts at pacification failed; Stirling Castle was betrayedto the rebels, and James's host, swollen by the loyal burgesses of thetowns, met the Border spears of Home and Hepburn, the Galloway men, andthe levies of Angus at Sauchie Burn, near Bannockburn. 

In some way not understood, James, riding without a single knight orsquire, fell from his horse, which had apparently run away with him, atBeaton's Mill, and was slain in bed, it was rumoured, by a priest, feigned or false, who heard his confession. The obscurity of his reignhangs darkest over his death, and the virulent Buchanan slandered him inhis grave. Under his reign, Henryson, the greatest of the Chaucerianschool in Scotland, produced his admirable poems. Many other poets whoseworks are lost were flourishing; and _The Wallace_, that elaborateplagiarism from Barbour's 'The Brus, ' was composed, and attributed toBlind Harry, a paid minstrel about the Court. {71}

CHAPTER XIV. JAMES IV. 

The new king, with Angus for his Governor, Argyll for his Chancellor, andwith the Kers and Hepburns in office, was crowned at Scone about June 25, 1488. He was nearly seventeen, no child, but energetic in business as inpleasure, though lifelong remorse for his rebellion gnawed at his heart. He promptly put down a rebellion of the late king's friends and of thelate king's foe, Lennox, then strong in the possession of DumbartonCastle, which, as it commands the sea-entrance by Clyde, is of greatimportance in the reign of Mary and James VI. James III. Must have paidattention to the navy, which, under Sir Andrew Wood, already facedEnglish pirates triumphantly. James IV. Spent much money on his fleet, buying timber from France, for he was determined to make Scotland a powerof weight in Europe. But at the pinch his navy vanished like a mist. 

Spanish envoys and envoys from the Duchess of Burgundy visited James in1488-1489; he was in close relations with France and Denmark, and causedanxieties to the first Tudor king, Henry VII. , who kept up the Douglasalliance with Angus, and bought over Scottish politicians. While James, as his account-books show, was playing cards with Angus, that traitor wasalso negotiating the sale of Hermitage Castle, the main hold of theMiddle Border, to England. He was detected, and the castle was intrustedto a Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell; it was still held by Queen Mary'sBothwell in 1567. The Hepburns rose to the earldom of Bothwell on thedeath of Ramsay, a favourite of James III. , who (1491) had arranged tokidnap James IV. With his brother, and hand them over to Henry VII. , for277 pounds, 13s. 4d. ! Nothing came of this, and a truce with England wasarranged in 1491. Through four reigns, till James VI. Came to theEnglish throne, the Tudor policy was to buy Scottish traitors, andattempt to secure the person of the Scottish monarch. 

Meanwhile, the Church was rent by jealousies between the holder of thenewly-created Archbishop of Glasgow (1491) and the Archbishop of StAndrews, and disturbed by the Lollards, in the region which was later thecentre of the fiercest Covenanters, --Kyle in Ayrshire. But James laughedaway the charges against the heretics (1494), whose views were, on manypoints, those of John Knox. In 1493-1495 James dealt in the usual waywith the Highlanders and "the wicked blood of the Isles": some werehanged, some imprisoned, some became sureties for the peacefulness oftheir clans. In 1495, by way of tit-for-tat against English schemes, James began to back the claims of Perkin Warbeck, pretending to beRichard, Duke of York, escaped from the assassins employed by RichardIII. Perkin, whoever he was, had probably been intriguing betweenIreland and Burgundy since 1488. He was welcomed by James at Stirling inNovember 1495, and was wedded to the king's cousin, Catherine Gordon, daughter of the Earl of Huntly, now supreme in the north. Rejecting adaughter of England, and Spanish efforts at pacification, James preparedto invade England in Perkin's cause; the scheme was sold by Ramsay, thewould-be kidnapper, and came to no more than a useless raid of September1496, followed by a futile attempt and a retreat in July 1497. TheSpanish envoy, de Ayala, negotiated a seven-years' truce in September, after Perkin had failed and been taken at Taunton. 

The Celts had again risen while James was busy in the Border; he put themdown, and made Argyll Lieutenant of the Isles. Between the Campbells andthe Huntly Gordons, as custodians of the peace, the fighting clans wereexpected to be more orderly. On the other hand, a son of Angus Og, himself usually reckoned a bastard of the Lord of the Isles, gave muchtrouble. Angus had married a daughter of the Argyll of his day; theirson, Donald Dubh, was kidnapped (or, rather, his mother was kidnappedbefore his birth) for Argyll; he now escaped, and in 1503, found alliesamong the chiefs, did much scathe, was taken in 1506, but was as activeas ever forty years later. 

The central source of these endless Highland feuds was the family of theMacdonalds, Lords of the Isles, claiming the earldom of Ross, resistingthe Lowland influences and those of the Gordons and Campbells (Huntly andArgyll), and seeking aid from England. With the capture of Donald Dubh(1506) the Highlanders became for the while comparatively quiescent;under Lennox and Argyll they suffered in the defeat of Flodden. 

From 1497 to 1503 Henry VII. Was negotiating for the marriage of James tohis daughter Margaret Tudor; the marriage was celebrated on August 8, 1503, and a century later the great grandson of Margaret, James VI. Cameto the English throne. But marriage does not make friendship. There hadexisted since 1491 a secret alliance by which Scotland was bound todefend France if attacked by England. Henry's negotiations for thekidnapping of James were of April of the same year. Margaret, the youngqueen, after her marriage, was soon involved in bitter quarrels over herdowry with her own family; the slaying of a Sir Robert Ker, Warden of theMarches, by a Heron in a Border fray (1508), left an unhealed sore, asEngland would not give up Heron and his accomplice. Henry VII. Had beenpacific, but his death, in 1509, left James to face his hostile brother-in-law, the fiery young Henry VIII. 

In 1511 the Holy League under the Pope, against France, imperilledJames's French ally. He began to build great ships of war; hissea-captain, Barton, pirating about, was defeated and slain by shipsunder two of the Howards, sons of the Earl of Surrey (August 1511). Jamesremonstrated, Henry was firm, and the Border feud of Ker and Heron wasfestering; moreover, Henry was a party to the League against France, andFrance was urging James to attack England. He saw, and wrote to the Kingof Denmark, that, if France were down, the turn of Scotland to fall wouldfollow. In March 1513, an English diplomatist, West, found James in awild mood, distraught "like a fey man. "

Chivalry, and even national safety, called him to war; while his oldremorse drove him into a religious retreat, and he was on hostile termswith the Pope. On May 24th, in a letter to Henry, he made a last attemptto obtain a truce, but on June 30th Henry invaded France. The Frenchqueen despatched to James, as to her true knight, a letter and a ring. Hesent his fleet to sea; it vanished like a dream. He challenged Henrythrough a herald on July 26th, and, in face of strange and evil omens, summoned the whole force of his kingdom, crossed the Border on August22nd, took Norham Castle on Tweed, with the holds of Eital, Chillingham, and Ford, which he made his headquarters, and awaited the approach ofSurrey and the levies of the Stanleys. On September 5th he demolishedFord Castle, and took position on the crest of Flodden Edge, with thedeep and sluggish water of Till at its feet. Surrey, commanding an armyall but destitute of supplies, outmanoeuvred James, led his men unseenbehind a range of hills to a position where, if he could maintainhimself, he was upon James's line of communications, and thence marchedagainst him to Branxton Ridge, under Flodden Edge. 

James was ignorant of Surrey's movement till he saw the approach of hisstandards. In place of retaining his position, he hurled his force downto Branxton, his gunners could not manage their new French ordnance, andthough Home with the Border spears and Huntly had a success on the right, the Borderers made no more efforts, and, on the left, the Celts fledswiftly after the fall of Lennox and Argyll. In the centre Crawford andRothes were slain, and James, with the steady spearmen of his command, drove straight at Surrey. James, as the Spaniard Ayala said, "was nogeneral: he was a fighting man. " He was outflanked by the Admiral(Howard) and Dacre; his force was surrounded by charging horse and foot, and rained on by arrows. But

 "The stubborn spearmen still made good Their dark impenetrable wood, "

when James rushed from the ranks, hewed his way to within a lance'slength of Surrey (so Surrey writes), and died, riddled with arrows, hisneck gashed by a bill-stroke, his left hand almost sundered from hisbody. Night fell on the unbroken Scottish phalanx, but when dawn arrivedonly a force of Border prickers was hovering on the fringes of the field. Thirteen dead earls lay in a ring about their master; there too lay hisnatural son, the young Archbishop of St Andrews, and the Bishops ofCaithness and the Isles. Scarce a noble or gentle house of the Lowlandsbut reckons an ancestor slain at Flodden. 

Surrey did not pursue his victory, which was won, despite sore lack ofsupplies, by his clever tactics, by the superior discipline of his men, by their marching powers, and by the glorious rashness of the Scottishking. It is easy, and it is customary, to blame James's adherence to theFrench alliance as if it were born of a foolish chivalry. But he hadpassed through long stress of mind concerning this matter. If herejected the allurements of France, if France were overwhelmed, he knewwell that the turn of Scotland would come soon. The ambitions and theclaims of Henry VIII. Were those of the first Edwards. England was benton the conquest of Scotland at the earliest opportunity, and through theentire Tudor period England was the home and her monarch the ally ofevery domestic foe and traitor to the Scottish Crown. 

Scotland, under James, had much prospered in wealth and even in comfort. Ayala might flatter in some degree, but he attests the great increase incomfort and in wealth. 

In 1495 Bishop Elphinstone founded the University of Aberdeen, while(1496) Parliament decreed a course of school and college for the sons ofbarons and freeholders of competent estate. Prior Hepburn founded theCollege of St Leonard's in the University of St Andrews; and in 1507Chepman received a royal patent as a printer. Meanwhile Dunbar, reckonedby some the chief poet of Scotland before Burns, was already denouncingthe luxury and vice of the clergy, though his own life set them a badexample. But with Dunbar, Henryson, and others, Scotland had a school ofpoets much superior to any that England had reared since the death ofChaucer. Scotland now enjoyed her brief glimpse of the Revival ofLearning; and James, like Charles II. , fostered the early movements ofchemistry and physical science. But Flodden ruined all, and the country, under the long minority of James V. , was robbed and distracted by Englishintrigues; by the follies and loves of Margaret Tudor; by actual warfarebetween rival candidates for ecclesiastical place; by the ambitions andtreasons of the Douglases and other nobles; and by the arrival fromFrance of the son of Albany, that rebel brother of James III. 

The truth of the saying, "Woe to the kingdom whose king is a child, " wasnever more bitterly proved than in Scotland between the day of Floddenand the day of the return of Mary Stuart from France (1513-1561). JamesV. Was not only a child and fatherless; he had a mother whose passionsand passionate changes in love resembled those of her brother Henry VIII. Consequently, when the inevitable problem arose, was Scotland during theminority to side with England or with France? the queen-mother waveredceaselessly between the party of her brother, the English king, and theparty of France; while Henry VIII. Could not be trusted, and the policyof France in regard to England did not permit her to offer any stablesupport to the cause of Scottish independence. The great nobles changedsides constantly, each "fighting for his own hand, " and for the spoils ofa Church in which benefices were struggled for and sold like stocks inthe Exchange. 

The question, Was Scotland to ally herself with England or with France?later came to mean, Was Scotland to break with Rome or to cling to Rome?Owing mainly to the selfish and unscrupulous perfidy of Henry VIII. , James V. Was condemned, as the least of two evils, to adopt the Catholicside in the great religious revolution; while the statesmanship of theBeatons, Archbishops of St Andrews, preserved Scotland from Englishdomination, thereby preventing the country from adopting Henry's Church, the Anglican, and giving Calvinism and Presbyterianism the opportunitywhich was resolutely taken and held. 

The real issue of the complex faction fight during James's minority wasthus of the most essential importance; but the constant shiftings ofparties and persons cannot be dealt with fully in our space. James'smother had a natural claim to the guardianship of her son, and was leftRegent by the will of James IV. , but she was the sister of Scotland'senemy, Henry VIII. Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow (later of St Andrews), with the Earl of Arran (now the title of the Hamiltons), Huntly, andAngus were to advise the queen till the arrival of Albany (son of thebrother of James III. ), who was summoned from France. Albany, of course, stood for the French alliance, but when the queen-mother (August 6, 1514)married the new young Earl of Angus, the grandson and successor of theaged traitor, "Bell the Cat, " the earl began to carry on the usualunpatriotic policy of his house. The appointment to the see of StAndrews was competed for by the Poet Gawain Douglas, uncle of the newEarl of Angus; and himself of the English party; by Hepburn, Prior of StAndrews, who fortified the Abbey; and by Forman, Bishop of Moray, apartisan of France, and a man accused of having induced James IV. Todeclare war against England. 

After long and scandalous intrigues, Forman obtained the see. Albany wasRegent for a while, and at intervals he repaired to France; he was in thefavour of the queen-mother when later she quarrelled with her husband, Angus. At one moment, Margaret and Angus fled to England where was bornher daughter Margaret, later Lady Lennox and mother of Henry Darnley. 

Angus, with Home, now recrossed the Border (1516), and was reconciled toAlbany; against all unity in Scotland Henry intrigued, bribing with afree hand, his main object being to get Albany sent out of the country. In early autumn, 1516, Home, the leader of the Borderers at Flodden, andhis brother were executed for treason; in June, 1517, Albany went to seekaid and counsel in France; when the queen-mother returned from England toScotland, where, if she retained any influence, she might be useful toher brother's schemes. But, contrary to Henry's interests, in this yearAlbany renewed the old alliance with France; while, in 1518, the queen-mother desired to divorce Angus. But Angus was a serviceable tool ofHenry, who prevented his sister from having her way; and now the heads ofthe parties in the distracted country were Arran, chief of the Hamiltons, and Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, standing for France; and Angusrepresenting the English party. 

Their forces met at Edinburgh in the street battle of "Cleanse theCauseway, " wherein the Archbishop of Glasgow wore armour, and theDouglases beat the Hamiltons out of the town (April 30, 1520). Albanyreturned (1521), but the nobles would not join with him in an English war(1522). Again he went to France, while Surrey devastated the ScottishBorder (1523). Albany returned while Surrey was burning Jedburgh, wasonce more deserted by the Scottish forces on the Tweed, and left thecountry for ever in 1524. Angus now returned from England; but the queen-mother cast her affections on young Henry Stewart (Lord Methven), whileAngus got possession of the boy king (June 1526) and held him, areluctant ward, in the English interest. 

Lennox was now the chief foe of Arran, and Angus, with whom Arran hadcoalesced; and Lennox desired to deliver James out of Angus's hands. OnJuly 26, 1526, not far from Melrose, Walter Scott of Buccleuch attackedthe forces guarding the prince; among them was Ker of Cessford, who wasslain by an Elliot when Buccleuch's men rallied at the rock called "TurnAgain. " Hence sprang a long-enduring blood-feud of Scotts and Kers; butAngus retained the prince, and in a later fight in the cause of James'sdelivery, Lennox was slain by the Hamiltons, near Linlithgow. The springof 1528 was marked by the burning of a Hamilton, Patrick, Abbot of Ferne, at St Andrews, for his Lutheran opinions. Angus had been making futileattacks on the Border thieves, mainly the Armstrongs, who now became veryprominent and picturesque robbers. He meant to carry James with him onone of these expeditions; but in June 1528 the young king escaped fromEdinburgh Castle, and rode to Stirling, where he was welcomed by hismother and her partisans. Among them were Arran, Argyll, Moray, Bothwell, and other nobles, with Maxwell and the Laird of Buccleuch, SirWalter Scott. Angus and his kin were forfeited; he was driven across theBorder in November, to work what mischief he might against his country;he did not return till the death of James V. Meanwhile James was atpeace with his uncle, Henry VIII. He (1529-1530) attempted to bring theBorder into his peace, and hanged Johnnie Armstrong of Gilnockie, withcircumstances of treachery, says the ballad, --as a ballad-maker wascertain to say. 

Campbells, Macleans, and Macdonalds had all this while been burning eachother's lands, and cutting each other's throats. James visited them, andpartly quieted them, incarcerating the Earl of Argyll. 

Bothwell and Angus now conspired together to crown Henry VIII. InEdinburgh; but, in May 1534, a treaty of peace was made, to last till thedeath of either monarch and a year longer. 

CHAPTER XV. JAMES V. AND THE REFORMATION. 

The new times were at the door. In 1425 the Scottish Parliament hadforbidden Lutheran books to be imported. But they were, of course, smuggled in; and the seed of religious revolution fell on minds disgustedby the greed and anarchy of the clerical fighters and jobbers ofbenefices. 

James V. , after he had shaken off the Douglases and become "a free king, "had to deal with a political and religious situation, out of which we maysay in the Scots phrase, "there was no outgait. " His was the dilemma ofhis father before Flodden. How, against the perfidious ambition, theforce in war, and the purchasing powers of Henry VIII. , was James topreserve the national independence of Scotland? His problem was evenharder than that of his father, because when Henry broke with Rome androbbed the religious houses a large minority, at least, of the Scottishnobles, gentry, and middle classes were, so far, heartily on the anti-Roman side. They were tired of Rome, tired of the profligacy, ignorance, and insatiable greed of the ecclesiastical dignitaries who, too often, were reckless cadets of the noble families. Many Scots had read theLutheran books and disbelieved in transubstantiation; thought that moneypaid for prayers to the dead was money wasted; preferred a married andpreaching to a celibate and licentious clergy who celebrated Mass; wereconvinced that saintly images were idols, that saintly miracles wereimpostures. Above all, the nobles coveted the lands of the Church, thespoils of the religious houses. 

In Scotland, as elsewhere, the causes of the religious revolution weremany. The wealth and luxury of the higher clergy, and of the dwellers inthe abbeys, had long been the butt of satire and of the fiercerindignation of the people. Benefices, great and small, were jobbed onevery side between the popes, the kings, and the great nobles. Ignorantand profligate cadets of the great houses were appointed to highecclesiastical offices, while the minor clergy were inconceivablyignorant just at the moment when the new critical learning, withknowledge of Hebrew and Greek, was revolutionising the study of thesacred books. The celibacy of the clergy had become a mere farce; andthey got dispensations enabling them to obtain ecclesiastical livings fortheir bastards. The kings set the worst example: both James IV. AndJames V. Secured the richest abbeys, and, in the case of James IV. , thePrimacy, for their bastard sons. All these abuses were of old standing. "Early in the thirteenth century certain of the abbots of Jedburgh, supported by their chapters, had granted certain of their appropriatechurches to priests with a right of succession to their sons" (see 'TheMediaeval Church in Scotland, ' by the late Bishop Dowden, chap. Xix. Mac-Lehose, 1910. ) Oppressive customs by which "the upmost claith, " or apecuniary equivalent, was extorted as a kind of death-duty by the clergy, were sanctioned by excommunication: no grievance was more bitterly feltby the poor. The once-dreaded curses on evil-doers became a popularjest: purgatory was a mere excuse for getting money for masses. 

In short, the whole mediaeval system was morally rotten; the statementsdrawn up by councils which made vain attempts to check the stereotypedabuses are as candid and copious concerning all these things as thesatires of Sir David Lyndsay. 

Then came disbelief in mediaeval dogmas: the Lutheran and other hereticalbooks were secretly purchased and their contents assimilated. Intercession of saints, images, pilgrimages, the doctrine of theEucharist, all fell into contempt. 

As early as February 1428, as we have seen, the first Scottish martyr forevangelical religion, Patrick Hamilton, was burned at St Andrews. Thissufferer was the son of a bastard of that Lord Hamilton who married thesister of James III. As was usual, he obtained, when a little boy, anabbey, that of Ferne in Ross-shire. He drew the revenues, but did notwear the costume of his place; in fact, he was an example of the ordinaryabuses. Educated at Paris and Louvain, he came in contact with thecriticism of Erasmus and the Lutheran controversy. He next read at StAndrews, and he married. Suspected of heresy in 1427, he retired toGermany; he wrote theses called 'Patrick's Places, ' which were reckonedheretical; he was arrested, was offered by Archbishop Beaton a chance toescape, disdained it, and was burned with unusual cruelty, --as a rule, heretics in Scotland were strangled before burning. There were othersimilar cases, nor could James interfere--he was bound by his CoronationOath; again, he found in the bishops his best diplomatists, and they, ofcourse, were all for the French alliance, in the cause of theindependence of their country and Church as against Henry VIII. 

Thus James, in justifiable dread of the unscrupulous ambition of HenryVIII. , could not run the English course, could not accept the varyingcreeds which Henry, who was his own Pope, put forward as his spirit movedhim. James was thus inevitably committed to the losing cause--the causeof Catholicism and of France--while the intelligence no less than theavarice of his nobles and gentry ran the English course. 

James had practically no choice. In 1536 Henry proposed a meeting withJames "as far within England as possible. " Knowing, as we do, that Henrywas making repeated attempts to have James kidnapped and ArchbishopBeaton also, we are surprised that James was apparently delighted at thehope of an interview with his uncle--in England. Henry declined toexplain why he desired a meeting when James put the question to hisenvoy. James said, in effect, that he must act by advice of his Council, which, so far as it was clerical, opposed the scheme. Henry justifiedthe views of the Council, later, when James, returning from a visit toFrance, asked permission to pass through England. "It is the king'shonour not to receive the King of Scots in his realm except as a vassal, for there never came King of Scots into England in peaceful mannerotherwise. " Certain it is that, however James might enter England, hewould leave it only as a vassal. Nevertheless his Council, especiallyhis clergy, are blamed for embroiling James with Henry by dissuading himfrom meeting his uncle in England. Manifestly they had no choice. Henryhad shown his hand too often. 

At this time James, by Margaret Erskine, became the father of James, later the Regent Moray. Strange tragedies would never have occurred hadthe king first married Margaret Erskine, who, by 1536, was the wife ofDouglas of Loch Leven. He is said to have wished for her a divorce thathe might marry her; this could not be: he visited France, and on NewYear's Day, 1537, wedded Madeline, daughter of Francis I. Six monthslater she died in Scotland. 

Marriage for the king was necessary, and David Beaton, later CardinalBeaton and Archbishop of St Andrews, obtained for his lord a lady covetedby Henry VIII. , Mary, of the great Catholic house of Lorraine, widow ofthe Duc de Longueville, and sister of the popular and ambitious Guises. The pair were wedded on June 10, 1538; there was fresh offence to Henryand a closer tie to the Catholic cause. The appointment of CardinalBeaton (1539) to the see of St Andrews, in succession to his uncle, gaveJames a servant of high ecclesiastical rank, great subtlety, andindomitable resolution, but remote from chastity of life and fromclemency to heretics. Martyrdoms became more frequent, and GeorgeBuchanan, who had been tutor of James's son by Margaret Erskine, thoughtwell to open a window in a house where he was confined, walk out, anddepart to the Continent. Meanwhile Henry, no less than Beaton, wasbusily burning his own martyrs. In 1539 Henry renewed his intercoursewith James, attempting to shake his faith in David Beaton, and to makehim rob his Church. James replied that he preferred to try to reform it;and he enjoyed, in 1540, Sir David Lyndsay's satirical play on the vicesof the clergy, and, indeed, of all orders of men. In 1540 James ratifiedthe College of Justice, the fifteen Lords of Session, sitting as judgesin Edinburgh. 

In 1541 the idea of a meeting between James and Henry was again mooted, and Henry actually went to York, where James did not appear. Henry, whohad expected him, was furious. In August 1542, on a futile pretext, hesent Norfolk with a great force to harry the Border. The English had theworse at the battle of Hadden Rig; negotiations followed; Henryproclaimed that Scottish kings had always been vassals of England, andhorrified his Council by openly proposing to kidnap James. Henry'sforces were now wrecking an abbey and killing women on the Border. Jamestried to retaliate, but his levies (October 31) at Fala Moor declined tofollow him across the Border: they remembered Flodden, moreover theycould not risk the person of a childless king. James prepared, however, for a raid on a great scale on the western Border, but the fact had beendivulged by Sir George Douglas, Angus's brother, and had also been soldto Dacre, cheap, by another Scot. The English despatches prove thatWharton had full time for preparation, and led a competent force ofhorse, which, near Arthuret, charged on the right flank of the Scots, whoslowly retreated, till they were entangled between the Esk and a morass, and lost their formation and their artillery, with 1200 men: a few wereslain, most were drowned or were taken prisoners. The raid was no secretof the king and the priests, as Knox absurdly states; nobles of theReforming no less than of the Catholic party were engaged; the Englishhad full warning and a force of 3000 men, not of 400 farmers; the Scotswere beaten through their own ignorance of the ground in which they hadbeen burning and plundering. As to confusion caused by the claim ofOliver Sinclair to be commander, it is not corroborated by contemporarydespatches, though Sir George Douglas reports James's lament for theconduct of his favourite, "Fled Oliver! fled Oliver!" The misfortunebroke the heart of James. He went to Edinburgh, did some business, retired for a week to Linlithgow, {89} where his queen was awaiting herdelivery, and thence went to Falkland, and died of nothing more specificthan shame, grief, and despair. He lived to hear of the birth of hisdaughter, Mary (December 8, 1542). "It came with a lass and it will gowith a lass, " he is said to have muttered. 

On December 14th James passed away, broken by his impossible task, lostin the bewildering paths from which there was no outgait. 

James was personally popular for his gaiety and his adventures while hewandered in disguise. Humorous poems are attributed to him. A man ofgreater genius than his might have failed when confronted by a tyrant sowealthy, ambitious, cruel, and destitute of honour as Henry VIII. ;constantly engaged with James's traitors in efforts to seize or slay himand his advisers. It is an easy thing to attack James because he wouldnot trust Henry, a man who ruined all that did trust to his seemingfavour. 

CHAPTER XVI. THE MINORITY OF MARY STUART. 

When James died, Henry VIII. Seemed to hold in his hand all the winningcards in the game of which Scotland was the stake. He held Angus and hisbrother George Douglas; when he slipped them they would again wield thewhole force of their House in the interests of England and of Henry'sreligion. Moreover, he held many noble prisoners taken atSolway--Glencairn, Maxwell, Cassilis, Fleming, Grey, and others, --and allof these, save Sir George Douglas, "have not sticked, " says Henryhimself, "to take upon them to set the crown of Scotland on our head. "Henry's object was to get "the child, the person of the Cardinal, and ofsuch as be chief hindrances to our purpose, and also the chief holds andfortresses into our hands. " By sheer brigandage the Reformer king hopedto succeed where the Edwards had failed. He took the oaths of hisprisoners, making them swear to secure for him the child, Beaton, and thecastles, and later released them to do his bidding. 

Henry's failure was due to the genius and resolution of Cardinal Beaton, heading the Catholic party. 

What occurred in Scotland on James's death is obscure. Later, Beaton wassaid to have made the dying king's hand subscribe a blank paper filled upby appointment of Beaton himself as one of a Regency Council of four orfive. There is no evidence for the tale. What actually occurred was theproclamation of the Earls of Arran, Argyll, Huntly, Moray, and of Beatonas Regents (December 19, 1542). Arran, the chief of the Hamiltons, was, we know, unless ousted by Henry VIII. , the next heir to the throne afterthe new-born Mary. He was a good-hearted man, but the weakest ofmortals, and his constant veerings from the Catholic and national to theEnglish and reforming side were probably caused by his knowledge of hisvery doubtful legitimacy. Either party could bring up the doubt; Beaton, having the ear of the Pope, could be specially dangerous, but so couldthe opposite party if once firmly seated in office. Arran, in any case, presently ousted the Archbishop of Glasgow from the Chancellorship andgave the seals to Beaton--the man whom he presently accused of ashameless forgery of James's will. {91}

The Regency soon came into Arran's own hands: the Solway Moss prisoners, learning this as they journeyed north, began to repent of their oaths oftreachery, especially as their oaths were known or suspected in Scotland. George Douglas prevailed on Arran to seize and imprison Beaton till heanswered certain charges; but no charges were ever made public, none wereproduced. The clergy refused to christen or bury during his captivity. Parliament met (March 12, 1543), and still there was silence as to thenature of the accusations against Beaton; and by March 22 George Douglashimself released the Cardinal (of course for a consideration) and carriedhim to his own strong castle of St Andrews. 

Parliament permitted the reading but forbade the discussion of the Biblein English. Arran was posing as a kind of Protestant. Ambassadors weresent to Henry to negotiate a marriage between his son Edward and the babyQueen; but Scotland would not give up a fortress, would never resign herindependence, would not place Mary in Henry's hands, would never submitto any but a native ruler. 

The airy castle of Henry's hopes fell into dust, built as it was on theoaths of traitors. Love of such a religion as Henry professed, retainingthe Mass and making free use of the stake and the gibbet, was not, evento Protestants, so attractive as to make them run the English course andsubmit to the English Lord Paramount. Some time was needed to makeScots, whatever their religious opinions, lick the English rod. But thescale was soon to turn; for every reforming sermon was apt to produce theharrying of religious houses, and every punishment of the robbers waspersecution intolerable against which men sought English protection. 

Henry VIII. Now turned to Arran for support. To Arran he offered thehand of his daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, who should later marry theheir of the Hamiltons. But by mid-April Arran was under the influence ofhis bastard brother, the Abbot of Paisley (later Archbishop Hamilton). The Earl of Lennox, a Stuart, and Keeper of Dumbarton Castle, arrivedfrom France. He was hostile to Arran; for, if Arran were illegitimate, Lennox was next heir to the crown after Mary: he was thus, for themoment, the ally of Beaton against Arran. George Douglas visited Henry, and returned with his terms--Mary to be handed over to England at the ageof ten, and to marry Prince Edward at twelve; Arran (by a priorarrangement) was to receive Scotland north of Forth, an auxiliary Englisharmy, and the hand of Elizabeth for his son. To the English contingentArran preferred 5000 pounds in ready money--that was his price. 

Sadleyr, Henry's envoy, saw Mary of Guise, and saw her little daughterunclothed; he admired the child, but could not disentangle the cross-websof intrigue. The national party--the Catholic party--was strongest, because least disunited. When the Scottish ambassadors who went to Henryin spring returned (July 21), the national party seized Mary and carriedher to Stirling, where they offered Arran a meeting, and (he said) thechild queen's hand for his son. But Arran's own partisans, Glencairn andCassilis, told Sadleyr that he fabled freely. Representatives of bothparties accepted Henry's terms, but delayed the ratification. Henryinsisted that it should be ratified by August 24, but on August 16 heseized six Scottish merchant ships. Though the Treaty was ratified onAugust 25, Arran was compelled to insist on compensation for the ships, but on August 28 he proclaimed Beaton a traitor. In the beginning ofSeptember Arran favoured the wrecking of the Franciscan monastery inEdinburgh; and at Dundee the mob, moved by sermons from the celebratedmartyr George Wishart, did sack the houses of the Franciscans and theDominicans; Beaton's Abbey of Arbroath and the Abbey of Lindores werealso plundered. Clearly it was believed that Beaton was down, and thatchurch-pillage was authorised by Arran. Yet on September 3 Arran joinedhands with Beaton! The Cardinal, by threatening to disprove Arran'slegitimacy and ruin his hopes of the crown, or in some other way, haddominated the waverer, while Henry (August 29) was mobilising an army of20, 000 men for the invasion of Scotland. On September 9 Mary was crownedat Stirling. But Beaton could not hold both Arran and his rival Lennox, who committed an act of disgraceful treachery. With Glencairn he seizedlarge supplies of money and stores sent by France to Dumbarton Castle. In1544 he fled to England and to the protection of Henry, and marriedMargaret, daughter of Angus and Margaret Tudor, widow of James IV. Hebecame the father of Darnley, Mary's husband in later years, and thefortunes of Scotland were fatally involved in the feud between the LennoxStewarts and the House of Hamilton. 

Meanwhile (November 1543) Arran and Beaton together broke and persecutedthe abbey robbers of Perthshire and Angus, making "martyrs" andincurring, on Beaton's part, fatal feuds with Leslies, Greys, Learmonths, and Kirkcaldys. Parliament (December 11) declared the treaty withEngland void; the party of the Douglases, equally suspected by Henry andby Beaton, was crushed, and George Douglas was held a hostage, stillbetraying his country in letters to England. Martyrs were burned inPerth and Dundee, which merely infuriated the populace. In April 1544, while Henry was giving the most cruel orders to his army of invasion, oneWishart visited him with offers, which were accepted, for the murder ofthe Cardinal. {94} Early in May the English army under Hertford tookLeith, "raised a jolly fire, " says Hertford, in Edinburgh; he burned thetowns on his line of march, and retired. 

On May 17 Lennox and Glencairn sold themselves to Henry; for amplerewards they were to secure the teaching of God's word "as the mere andonly foundation whence proceeds all truth and honour"! Arran defeatedGlencairn when he attempted his godly task, and Lennox was driven backinto England. 

In June Mary of Guise fell into the hands of nobles led by Angus, whilethe Fife, Perthshire, and Angus lairds, lately Beaton's deadly foes, cameinto the Cardinal's party. With him and Arran, in November, were bandedthe Protestants who were to be his murderers, while the Douglases, inDecember, were cleared by Parliament of all their offences, and Henryoffered 3000 crowns for their "trapping. " Angus, in February 1545, protested that he loved Henry "best of all men, " and would make LennoxGovernor of Scotland, while Wharton, for Henry, was trying to kidnapAngus. Enraged by the English desecration of his ancestors' graves atMelrose Abbey, Angus united with Arran, Norman Leslie, and Buccleuch toannihilate an English force at Ancrum Moor, where Henry's men lost 800slain and 2000 prisoners. The loyalty of Angus to his country was now, by innocents like Arran, thought assured. The plot for Beaton's murderwas in 1545 negotiated between Henry and Cassilis, backed by GeorgeDouglas; and Crichton of Brunston, as before, was engaged, a godly lairdin Lothian. In August the Douglases boast that, as Henry's friends, theyhave frustrated an invasion of England with a large French contingent, which they pretended to lead, while they secured its failure. Meanwhile, after forty years, Donald Dubh, and all the great western chiefs, none ofwhom could write, renewed the alliance of 1463 with England, callingthemselves "auld enemies of Scotland. " Their religious predilections, however, were not Protestant. They promised to destroy or reduce half ofScotland, and hailed Lennox as Governor, as in Angus's offer to Henry inspring 1545. Lennox did make an attempt against Dumbarton in Novemberwith Donald Dubh. They failed, and Donald died, without legitimateissue, at Drogheda. The Macleans, Macleods, and Macneils then came intothe national party. 

In September 1545 Hertford, with an English force, destroyed thereligious houses at Melrose, Kelso, Dryburgh, and Jedburgh. {96}Meanwhile the two Douglases skulked with the murderous traitor Cassilisin Ayrshire, and Henry tried to induce French deserters from the Scottishflag to murder Beaton and Arran. 

Beaton could scarcely escape for ever from so many plots. His capture, in January 1546, of George Wishart, an eminently learned and virtuousProtestant preacher, and an intimate associate of the murderous, double-dyed traitor Brunston and of other Lothian pietists of the English party;and his burning of Wishart at St Andrews, on March 1, 1546, sealed theCardinal's doom. On May 29th he was surprised in his castle of StAndrews and slain by his former ally, Norman Leslie, Master of Rothes, with Kirkcaldy of Grange, and James Melville who seems to have dealt thefinal stab after preaching at his powerless victim. They insulted thecorpse, and held St Andrews Castle against all comers. 

How gallant a fight Beaton had waged against adversaries how many andmultifarious, how murderous, self-seeking, treacherous, and hypocritical, we have seen. He maintained the independence of Scotland against themost recklessly unscrupulous of assailants, though probably he was ratherbent on defending the lost cause of a Church entirely and intolerablycorrupt. 

The two causes were at the moment inseparable, and, whatever we may thinkof the Church of Rome, it was not more bloodily inclined than the Churchof which Henry was Pope, while it was less illogical, not being thecreature of a secular tyrant. If Henry and his party had won their game, the Church of Scotland would have been Henry's Church--would have beenAnglican. Thus it was Beaton who, by defeating Henry, made PresbyterianCalvinism possible in Scotland. 

CHAPTER XVII. REGENCY OF ARRAN. 

The death of Cardinal Beaton left Scotland and the Church without askilled and resolute defender. His successor in the see, ArchbishopHamilton, a half-brother of the Regent, was more licentious than theCardinal (who seems to have been constant to Mariotte Ogilvy), and hadlittle of his political genius. The murderers, with others of theirparty, held St Andrews Castle, strong in its new fortifications, whichthe queen-mother and Arran, the Regent, were unable to reduce. Receivingsupplies from England by sea, and abetted by Henry VIII. , the murdererswere in treaty with him to work all his will, while some nobles, likeArgyll and Huntly, wavered; though the Douglases now renounced theircompact with England, and their promise to give the child queen inmarriage to Henry's son. At the end of November, despairing of successin the siege, Arran asked France to send men and ships to take St AndrewsCastle from the assassins, who, in December, obtained an armistice. Theywould surrender, they said, when they got a pardon for their guilt fromthe Pope; but they begged Henry VIII. To move the Emperor to move thePope to give no pardon! The remission, none the less, arrived early inApril 1547, but was mocked at by the garrison of the castle. {99}

The garrison and inmates of the castle presently welcomed the arrival ofJohn Knox and some of his pupils. Knox (born in Haddington, 1513-1515?), a priest and notary, had borne a two-handed sword and been of the body-guard of Wishart. He was now invited by John Rough, the chaplain, totake on him the office of preacher, which he did, weeping, so strong washis sense of the solemnity of his duties. He also preached and disputedwith feeble clerical opponents in the town. The congregation in thecastle, though devout, were ruffianly in their lives, nor did he sparerebukes to his flock. 

Before Knox arrived, Henry VIII. And Francis II. Had died; the successorof Francis, Henri II. , sent to Scotland Monsieur d'Oysel, who became theright-hand man of Mary of Guise in the Government. Meanwhile the advanceof an English force against the Border, where they occupied Langholm, caused Arran to lead thither the national levies. But this gave no greatrelief to the besieged in the castle of St Andrews. In mid-July a well-equipped French fleet swept up the east coast; men were landed with guns;French artillery was planted on the cathedral roof and the steeple of StSalvator's College, and poured a plunging fire into the castle. In a dayor two, on the last of July, the garrison surrendered. Knox, with manyof his associates, was placed in the galleys and carried captive toFrance. On one occasion the galleys were within sight of St Andrews, andthe Reformer predicted (so he says) that he would again preach there--ashe did, to some purpose. 

But the castle had not fallen before the English party among the nobleshad arranged to betray Scottish fortresses to England; and to lead 2000Scottish "favourers of the Word of God" to fight under the flag of StGeorge against their country. An English host of 15, 000 was assembled, and marched north accompanied by a fleet. On the 9th of September 1547the leader, Somerset, found the Scottish army occupying a well-chosenposition near Musselburgh: on their left lay the Firth, on their front amarsh and the river Esk. But next day the Scots, as when Cromwelldefeated them at Dunbar, left an impregnable position in their eagernessto cut Somerset off from his ships, and were routed with great slaughterin the battle of Pinkie. Somerset made no great use of his victory: hetook and held Broughty Castle on Tay, fortified Inchcolme in the Firth ofForth, and devastated Holyrood. Mischief he did, to little purpose. 

The child queen was conveyed to an isle in the loch of Menteith, whereshe was safe, and her marriage with the Dauphin was negotiated. In June1548 a large French force under the Sieur d'Esse arrived, and latercaptured Haddington, held by the English, while, despite someFranco-Scottish successes in the field, Mary was sent with her FourMaries to France, where she landed in August, the only passenger who hadnot been sea-sick! By April 1550 the English made peace, abandoning alltheir holds in Scotland. The great essential prize, the child queen, hadescaped them. 

The clergy burned a martyr in 1550; in 1549 they had passed measures fortheir own reformation: too late and futile was the scheme. Early in 1549Knox returned from France to England, where he was minister at Berwickand at Newcastle, a chaplain of the child Edward VI. , and a successfulopponent of Cranmer as regards kneeling at the celebration of the HolyCommunion. He refused a bishopric, foreseeing trouble under Mary Tudor, from whom he fled to the Continent. In 1550-51 Mary of Guise, visitingFrance, procured for Arran the Duchy of Chatelherault, and for his eldestson the command of the Scottish Archer Guard, and, by way of exchange, in1554 took from him the Regency, surrounding herself with French advisers, notably De Roubay and d'Oysel. 

CHAPTER XVIII. REGENCY OF MARY OF GUISE. 

In England, on the death of Edward VI. , Catholicism rejoiced in theaccession of Mary Tudor, which, by driving Scottish Protestant refugeesback into their own country, strengthened there the party of revoltagainst the Church, while the queen-mother's preference of French overScottish advisers, and her small force of trained French soldiers ingarrisons, caused even the Scottish Catholics to hold France in fear andsuspicion. The French counsellors (1556) urged increased taxation forpurposes of national defence against England; but the nobles would ratherbe invaded every year than tolerate a standing army in place of their oldirregular feudal levies. Their own independence of the Crown was dearerto the nobles and gentry than safety from their old enemy. They mighthave reflected that a standing army of Scots, officered by themselves, would be a check on the French soldiers in garrison. 

Perplexed and opposed by the great clan of Hamilton, whose chief, Arran, was nearest heir to the crown, Mary of Guise was now anxious toconciliate the Protestants, and there was a "blink, " as the Covenanterslater said, --a lull in persecution. 

After Knox's release from the French galleys in 1549, he had played, aswe saw, a considerable part in the affairs of the English Church, and inthe making of the second Prayer-Book of Edward VI. , but had fled abroadon the accession of Mary Tudor. From Dieppe he had sent a tract toEngland, praying God to stir up some Phineas or Jehu to shed the blood of"abominable idolaters, "--obviously of Mary of England and Philip ofSpain. On earlier occasions he had followed Calvin in deprecating suchsanguinary measures. The Scot, after a stormy period of quarrels withAnglican refugees in Frankfort, moved to Geneva, where the city was undera despotism of preachers and of Calvin. Here Knox found the model ofChurch government which, in a form if possible more extreme, he laterplanted in Scotland. 

There, in 1549-52, the Church, under Archbishop Hamilton, Beaton'ssuccessor, had been confessing her iniquities in Provincial Councils, andattempting to purify herself on the lines of the tolerant and charitableCatechism issued by the Archbishop in 1552. Apparently a _modus vivendi_was being sought, and Protestants were inclined to think that they mightbe "occasional conformists" and attend Mass without being false to theirconvictions. But in this brief lull Knox came over to Scotland at theend of harvest, in 1555. On this point of occasional conformity he wasfixed. The Mass was idolatry, and idolatry, by the law of God, was acapital offence. Idolaters must be converted or exterminated; they wereno better than Amalekites. 

This was the central rock of Knox's position: tolerance was impossible. He remained in Scotland, preaching and administering the Sacrament in theGenevan way, till June 1556. He associated with the future leaders ofthe religious revolution: Erskine of Dun, Lord Lorne (in 1558, fifth Earlof Argyll), James Stewart, bastard of James V. , and lay Prior of StAndrews, and of Macon in France; and the Earl of Glencairn. WilliamMaitland of Lethington, "the flower of the wits of Scotland, " was to Knoxa less congenial acquaintance. Not till May 1556 was Knox summoned totrial in Edinburgh, but he had a strong backing of the laity, as was thecustom in Scotland, where justice was overawed by armed gatherings, andno trial was held. By July 1556 he was in France, on his way to Geneva. 

The fruits of Knox's labours followed him, in March 1557, in the shape ofa letter, signed by Glencairn, Lorne, Lord Erskine, and James Stewart, Mary's bastard brother. They prayed Knox to return. They were ready "tojeopardy lives and goods in the forward setting of the glory of God. "This has all the air of risking civil war. Knox was not eager. It wasOctober before he reached Dieppe on his homeward way. Meanwhile therehad been hostilities between England and Scotland (as ally of France, then at odds with Philip of Spain, consort King of England), and therewere Protestant tumults in Edinburgh. Knox had scruples as to raisingcivil war by preaching at home. The Scottish nobles had no zeal for theEnglish war; but Knox, who received at Dieppe discouraging letters fromunknown correspondents, did not cross the sea. He remained at Dieppe, preaching, till the spring of 1558. 

In Knox's absence even James Stewart and Erskine of Dun agreed to hurryon the marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Francis, Dauphin ofFrance, a feeble boy, younger than herself. Their faces are pitiablyyoung as represented in their coronation medal. 

While negotiations for the marriage were begun in October, on December 3, 1557, a godly "band" or covenant for mutual aid was signed by Argyll(then near his death, in 1558); his son, Lorne; the Earl of Morton (sonof the traitor, Sir George Douglas); Glencairn; and Erskine of Dun, oneof the commissioners who were to visit France for the Royal marriage. They vow to risk their lives against "the Congregation of Satan" (theChurch), and in defence of faithful Protestant preachers. They willestablish "the blessed Word of God and His Congregation, " and henceforththe Protestant party was commonly styled "The Congregation. "

Parliament (November 29, 1557) had accepted the French marriage, all theancient liberties of Scotland being secured, and the right to the throne, if Mary died without issue, being confirmed to the House of Hamilton, notto the Dauphin. The marriage-contract (April 19, 1558) did ratify thesejust demands; but, on April 4, Mary had been induced to sign them allaway to France, leaving Scotland and her own claims to the English crownto the French king. 

The marriage was celebrated on April 24, 1558. In that week the lastProtestant martyr, Walter Milne, an aged priest and a married man, wasburned for heresy at St Andrews. This only increased the zeal of theCongregation. 

Among the Protestant preachers then in Scotland, of whom Willock, anEnglishman, seems to have been the most reasonable, a certain PaulMethuen, a baker, was prominent. He had been summoned (July 28) to standhis trial for heresy, but his backing of friends was considerable, andthey came before Mary of Guise in armour and with a bullying demeanour. She tried to temporise, and on September 3 a great riot broke out inEdinburgh, the image of St Giles was broken, and the mob violentlyassaulted a procession of priests. The country was seething withdiscontent, and the death of Mary Tudor (November 17, 1558), with theaccession of the Protestant Elizabeth, encouraged the Congregation. Maryof Guise made large concessions: only she desired that there should be nopublic meetings in the capital. On January 1, 1559, church doors wereplacarded with "The Beggars' Warning. " The Beggars (really the Brethrenin their name) claimed the wealth of the religious orders. Threats werepronounced, revolution was menaced at a given date, Whitsunday, and thethreats were fulfilled. 

All this was the result of a plan, not of accident. Mary of Guise wasintending to visit France, not longing to burn heretics. But she fellinto the worst of health, and her recovery was doubted, in April 1559. Willock and Methuen had been summoned to trial (February 2, 1559), fortheir preachings were always apt to lead to violence on the part of theirhearers. The summons was again postponed in deference to renewedmenaces: a Convention had met at Edinburgh to seek for some remedy, andthe last Provincial Council of the Scottish Church (March 1559) hadconsidered vainly some proposals by moderate Catholics for internalreform. {106}

Again the preachers were summoned to Stirling for May 10, but just a weekearlier Knox arrived in Scotland. The leader of the French Protestantpreachers, Morel, expressed to Calvin his fear that Knox "may fillScotland with his madness. " Now was his opportunity: the Regent was weakand ill; the Congregation was in great force; England was at least notunfavourable to its cause. From Dundee Knox marched with manygentlemen--unarmed, he says--accompanying the preachers to Perth: Erskineof Dun went as an envoy to the Regent at Stirling; she is accused by Knoxof treacherous dealing (other contemporary Protestant evidence saysnothing of treachery); at all events, on May 10 the preachers wereoutlawed for non-appearance to stand their trial. The Brethren, "thewhole multitude with their preachers, " says Knox, who were in Perth wereinfuriated, and, after a sermon from the Reformer, wrecked the church, sacked the monasteries, and, says Knox, denounced death against anypriest who celebrated Mass (a circumstance usually ignored by ourhistorians), at the same time protesting, "We require nothing but libertyof conscience"!

On May 31 a composition was made between the Regent and the insurgents, whom Argyll and James Stewart promised to join if the Regent broke theconditions. Henceforth the pretext that she had broken faith was madewhenever it seemed convenient, while the Congregation permitted itself agodly liberty in construing the terms of treaties. A "band" was signedfor "the destruction of idolatry" by Argyll, James Stewart, Glencairn, and others; and the Brethren scattered from Perth, breaking down altarsand "idols" on their way home. Mary of Guise had promised not to leave aFrench garrison in Perth. She did leave some Scots in French pay, and onthis slim pretext of her treachery, Argyll and James Stewart proclaimedthe Regent perfidious, deserted her cause, and joined the crusade against"idolatry. "

NOTE. 

It is far from my purpose to represent Mary of Guise as a kind ofstainless Una with a milk-white lamb. I am apt to believe that shecaused to be forged a letter, which she attributed to Arran. See my'John Knox and the Reformation, ' pp. 280, 281, where the evidence isdiscussed. But the critical student of Knox's chapters on these events, generally accepted as historical evidence, cannot but perceive hispersonal hatred of Mary of Guise, whether shown in thinly veiled hintsthat Cardinal Beaton was her paramour; or in charges of treacherousbreach of promise, which rest primarily on his word. Again, that "theBrethren" wrecked the religious houses of Perth is what he reports to alady, Mrs Locke; that "the rascal multitude" was guilty is the tale hetells "to all Europe" in his History. I have done my best to compareKnox's stories with contemporary documents, including his own letters. These documents throw a lurid light on his versions of events, as givenin this part of his History, which is merely a partisan pamphlet ofautumn 1559. The evidence is criticised in my 'John Knox and theReformation, ' pp. 107-157 (1905). Unhappily the letter of Mary of Guiseto Henri II. , after the outbreak at Perth, is missing from the archivesof France. 

CHAPTER XIX. THE GREAT PILLAGE. 

The revolution was now under weigh, and as it had begun so it continued. There was practically no resistance by the Catholic nobility and gentry:in the Lowlands, apparently, almost all were of the new persuasion. TheDuc de Chatelherault might hesitate while his son, the Protestant Earl ofArran, who had been in France as Captain of the Scots Guard, was escapinginto Switzerland, and thence to England; but, on Arran's arrival there, the Hamiltons saw their chance of succeeding to the crown in place of theCatholic Mary. The Regent had but a small body of professional Frenchsoldiers. But the other side could not keep their feudal levies in thefield, and they could not coin the supplies of church plate which musthave fallen into their hands, until they had seized the Mint atEdinburgh, so money was scarce with them. It was plain to Knox andKirkcaldy of Grange, and it soon became obvious to Maitland ofLethington, who, of course, forsook the Regent, that aid from Englandmust be sought, --aid in money, and if possible in men and ships. 

Meanwhile the reformers dealt with the ecclesiastical buildings of StAndrews as they had done at Perth, Knox urging them on by his sermons. Wemay presume that the boys broke the windows and images with a sanctifiedjoy. A mutilated head of the Redeemer has been found in a _latrine_ ofthe monastic buildings. As Commendator, or lay Prior, James Stewart mayhave secured the golden sheath of the arm-bone of the Apostle, presentedby Edward I. , and the other precious things, the sacred plate of theChurch in a fane which had been the Delphi of Scotland. Lethingtonappears to have obtained most of the portable property of St Salvator'sCollege except that beautiful monument of idolatry, the great silver macepresented by Kennedy, the Founder, work of a Parisian silversmith, in1461: this, with maces of rude native work, escaped the spoilers. Themonastery of the Franciscans is now levelled with the earth; of theDominicans' chapel a small fragment remains. Of the residential part ofthe abbey a house was left: when the lead had been stripped from the roofof the church it became a quarry. 

"All churchmen's goods were spoiled and reft from them . . . For everyman for the most part that could get anything pertaining to any churchmenthought the same well-won gear, " says a contemporary Diary. Arranhimself, when he arrived in Scotland, robbed a priest of all that he had, for which Chatelherault made compensation. 

By the middle of June the Regent was compelled to remove almost all herFrench soldiers out of Fife. Perth was evacuated. The abbey of Sconeand the palace were sacked. The Congregation entered Edinburgh: theyseem to have found the monasteries already swept bare, but they seizedHolyrood, and the stamps at the Mint. The Regent proclaimed that thiswas flat rebellion, and that the rebels were intriguing with England. 

Knox denied it, in the first part of his History (in origin acontemporary tract written in the autumn), but the charge was true, andKnox and Kirkcaldy were, since June, the negotiators. Already his partywere offering Arran (the heir of the crown after Mary) as a husband forElizabeth, who saw him but rejected his suit. Arran's father, Chatelherault, later openly deserted the Regent (July 1). The death ofHenri II. , wounded in a tournament, did not accelerate the arrival ofFrench reinforcements for the Regent. The weaker Brethren, however, waxed weary; money was scarce, and on July 24, the Congregation evacuatedEdinburgh and Leith, after a treaty which they misrepresented, broke, andaccused the Regent of breaking. {111a}

Knox visited England, about August 1, but felt dissatisfied with hisqualification for diplomacy. Nothing, so far, was gained from Elizabeth, save a secret supply of 3000 pounds. On the other hand, fresh Frenchforces arrived at Leith: the place was fortified; the Regent was againaccused of perfidy by the perfidious; and on October 21 the Congregationproclaimed her deposition on the alleged authority of her daughter, nowQueen of France, whose seal they forged and used in their documents. OneCokky was the forger; he saw Arran use the seal on public papers. {111b}Cokky had made a die for the coins of the Congregation--a crown ofthorns, with the words _Verbum Dei_. Leith, manned by French soldiers, was, till in the summer of 1560 it surrendered to the Congregation andtheir English allies, the centre of Catholic resistance. 

In November the Congregation, after a severe defeat, fled in grief fromEdinburgh to Stirling, where Knox reanimated them, and they sentLethington to England to crave assistance. Lethington, who had been inthe service of the Regent, is henceforth the central figure of everyintrigue. Witty, eloquent, subtle, he was indispensable, and he had onegreat ruling motive, to unite the crowns and peoples of England andScotland. Unfortunately he loved the crafty exercise of his dominionover men's minds for its own sake, and when, in some inscrutable way, heentered the clumsy plot to murder Darnley, and knew that Mary could provehis guilt, his shiftings and changes puzzle historians. In Scotland hewas called Michael Wily, that is, Macchiavelli, and "the necessary evil. "

In his mission to England Lethington was successful. By December 21 theEnglish diplomatist, Sadleyr, informed Arran that a fleet was on its wayto aid the Congregation, who were sacking Paisley Abbey, and issuingproclamations in the names of Francis and Mary. The fleet arrived whilethe French were about to seize St Andrews (January 23, 1560), and theFrench plans were ruined. The Regent, who was dying, found shelter inEdinburgh Castle, which stood neutral. On February 27, 1560, at Berwick, the Congregation entered into a regular league with England, Elizabethappearing as Protectress of Scotland, while the marriage of Mary andFrancis endured. 

Meanwhile, owing to the Huguenot disturbances in France (such as theTumult of Amboise, directed against the lives of Mary's uncles theCardinal and Duc de Guise), Mary and Francis could not help the Regent, and Huntly, a Catholic, presently, as if in fear of the western clans, joined the Congregation. Mary of Guise had found the great northernchief treacherous, and had disgraced him, and untrustworthy he continuedto be. On May 7 the garrison of Leith defeated with heavy loss an Anglo-Scottish attack on the walls; but on June 16 the Regent made a good end, in peace with all men. She saw Chatelherault, James Stewart, and theEarl Marischal; she listened patiently to the preacher Willock; she badefarewell to all, and died, a notable woman, crushed by an impossibletask. The garrison of Leith, meanwhile, was starving on rats andhorseflesh: negotiations began, and ended in the Treaty of Edinburgh(July 6, 1560). 

This Treaty, as between Mary, Queen of France and Scotland, on one hand, and England on the other, was never ratified by Mary Stuart: she appearsto have thought that one clause implied her abandonment of all her claimsto the English succession, typified by her quartering of the RoyalEnglish arms on her own shield. Thus there never was nor could be amitybetween her and her sister and her foe, Elizabeth, who was justlyaggrieved by her assumption of the English arms, while Elizabethquartered the arms of France. Again, the ratification of the Treaty asregarded Mary's rebels depended on their fulfilling certain clauseswhich, in fact, they instantly violated. 

Preachers were planted in the larger town, some of which had alreadysecured their services; Knox took Edinburgh. "Superintendents, "--by nomeans bishops--were appointed, an order which soon ceased to exist in theKirk: their duties were to wander about in their provinces, superintending and preaching. By request of the Convention (which wascrowded by persons not used to attend), some preachers drew up, in fourdays, a Confession of Faith, on the lines of Calvin's rule at Geneva:this was approved and passed on August 17. The makers of the documentprofess their readiness to satisfy any critic of any point "from themouth of God" (out of the Bible), but the pace was so good that either nocriticism was offered or it was very rapidly "satisfied. " On August 24four acts were passed in which the authority of "The Bishop of Rome" wasrepudiated. All previous legislation, not consistent with the newConfession, was rescinded. Against celebrants and attendants of the Masswere threatened (1) confiscation and corporal punishment; (2) exile; and(3) for the third offence, Death. The death sentence is not known tohave been carried out in more than one or two cases. (Prof. Hume-Brownwrites that "the penalties attached to the breach of these enactments"(namely, the abjuration of Papal jurisdiction, the condemnation of allpractices and doctrines contrary to the new creed, and of the celebrationof Mass in Scotland) "were those approved and sanctioned by the exampleof every country in Christendom. " But not, surely, for the sameoffences, such as "the saying or hearing of Mass"?--' History ofScotland, ' ii. 71, 72: 1902. ) Suits in ecclesiastical were removed intosecular courts (August 29). 

In the Confession the theology was that of Calvin. Civil rulers wereadmitted to be of divine institution, their duty is to "suppressidolatry, " and they are not to be resisted "when doing that whichpertains to their charge. " But a Catholic ruler, like Mary, or atolerant ruler, as James VI. Would fain have been, apparently may beresisted for his tolerance. Resisted James was, as we shall see, whenever he attempted to be lenient to Catholics. 

The Book of Discipline, by Knox and other preachers, never was ratifiedby the Estates, as the Confession of Faith had been. It made admirableprovisions for the payment of preachers and teachers, for theUniversities, and for the poor; but somebody, probably Lethington, spokeof the proposals as "devout imaginations. " The Book of Disciplineapproved of what was later accepted by the General Assembly, The Book ofCommon Order in Public Worship. This book was not a stereotyped Liturgy, but it was a kind of guide to the ministers in public prayers: theminister may repeat the prayers, or "say something like in effect. " Onthe whole, he prayed "as the Spirit moved him, " and he really seems tohave been regarded as inspired; his prayers were frequently politicaladdresses. To silence these the infatuated policy of Charles I. Thrustthe Laudian Liturgy on the nation. 

The preachers were to be chosen by popular election, after examination inknowledge and as to morals. There was to be no ordination "by laying onof hands. " "Seeing the miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony wedeem not necessary"; but, if the preachers were inspired, the miracle hadnot ceased, and the ceremony was soon reinstated. Contrary to Genevanpractice, such festivals as Christmas and Easter were abolished. TheScottish Sabbath was established in great majesty. One "rag of Rome" wasretained, clerical excommunication--the Sword of Church Discipline. Itwas the cutting off from Christ of the excommunicated, who were handedover to the devil, and it was attended by civil penalties equivalent touniversal boycotting, practical outlawry, and followed by hell fire:"which sentence, lawfully pronounced on earth, is ratified in heaven. "The strength of the preachers lay in this terrible weapon, borrowed fromthe armoury of Rome. 

Private morals were watched by the elders, and offenders were judged inkirk-sessions. Witchcraft, Sabbath desecration, and sexual laxities werethe most prominent and popular sins. The mainstay of the system is theidea that the Bible is literally inspired; that the preachers are theperhaps inspired interpreters of the Bible, and that the country mustimitate the old Hebrew persecution of "idolaters, " that is, mainlyCatholics. All this meant a theocracy of preachers elected by thepopulace, and governing the nation by their General Assembly in whichnobles and other laymen sat as elders. These peculiar institutions camehot from Geneva, and the country could never have been blessed with them, as we have observed, but for that instrument of Providence, CardinalBeaton. Had he disposed of himself and Scotland to Henry VIII. (whowould not have tolerated Presbyterian claims for an hour), Scotland wouldnot have received the Genevan discipline, and the Kirk would have groanedunder bishops. 

The Reformation supplied Scotland with a class of preachers who were purein their lives, who were not accessible to bribes (a virtue in which theystood almost alone), who were firm in their faith, and soon had learningenough to defend it; who were constant in their parish work, and of whommany were credited with prophetic and healing powers. They couldexorcise ghosts from houses, devils from men possessed. 

The baldness of the services, the stern nature of the creed, werecongenial to the people. The drawbacks were the intolerance, thespiritual pretensions of the preachers to interference in secularaffairs, and the superstition which credited men like Knox, and later, Bruce, with the gifts of prophecy and other miraculous workings, andinsisted on the burning of witches and warlocks, whereof the writer knowsscarcely an instance in Scotland before the Reformation. 

The pulpit may be said to have discharged the functions of the press (apress which was all on one side). When, in 1562, Ninian Winzet, aCatholic priest and ex-schoolmaster, was printing a controversialtractate addressed to Knox, the magistrates seized the manuscript at theprinter's house, and the author was fortunate in making his escape. Thenature of the Confession of Faith, and of the claims of the ministers tointerfere in secular affairs, with divine authority, was certain to causewar between the Crown and the Kirk. That war, whether open and armed, ora conflict in words, endured till, in 1690, the weapon of excommunicationwith civil penalties was quietly removed from the ecclesiastical armoury. Such were the results of a religious revolution hurriedly effected. 

The Lords now sent an embassy to Elizabeth about the time of the death ofAmy Robsart, and while Amy's husband, Robert Dudley, was very dear to theEnglish queen, to urge, vainly, her marriage with Arran. On December 5, 1560, Francis II. Died, leaving Mary Stuart a mere dowager; while herkinsmen, the Guises, lost power, which fell into the unfriendly hands ofCatherine de Medici. At once Arran, who made Knox his confidant, beganto woo Mary with a letter and a ring. Her reply perhaps increased histendency to madness, which soon became open and incurable by the scienceof the day. 

Here we must try to sketch Mary, _la, Reine blanche_, in her white royalmourning. Her education had been that of the learned ladies of her age;she had some knowledge of Latin, and knew French and Italian. French wasto her almost a mother-tongue, but not quite; she had retained her Scots, and her attempts to write English are, at first, curiously imperfect. Shehad lived in a profligate Court, but she was not the wanton of hostileslanders. She had all the guile of statesmanship, said the Englishenvoy, Randolph; and she long exercised great patience under dailyinsults to her religion and provocations from Elizabeth. She wasgenerous, pitiful, naturally honourable, and most loyal to all who servedher. But her passions, whether of love or hate, once roused, weretyrannical. In person she was tall, like her mother, and graceful, withbeautiful hands. Her face was somewhat long, the nose long and straight, the lips and chin beautifully moulded, the eyebrows very slender, theeyes of a reddish brown, long and narrow. Her hair was russet, drawnback from a lofty brow; her smile was captivating; she was ratherfascinating than beautiful; her courage and her love of courage in otherswere universally confessed. {118}

In January, 1561, the Estates of Scotland ordered James Stuart, Mary'snatural brother, to visit her in France. In spring she met him, and anenvoy from Huntly (Lesley, later Bishop of Ross), who represented theCatholic party, and asked Mary to land in Aberdeen, and march south atthe head of the Gordons and certain northern clans. The proposal camefrom noblemen of Perthshire, Angus, and the north, whose forces could nothave faced a Lowland army. Mary, who had learned from her mother thatHuntly was treacherous, preferred to take her chance with her brother, who, returning by way of England, moved Elizabeth to recognise theScottish queen as her heir. But Elizabeth would never settle thesuccession, and, as Mary refused to ratify the Treaty of Edinburgh, forbade her to travel home through England. 

CHAPTER XX. MARY IN SCOTLAND. 

On August 19, 1561, in a dense fog, and almost unexpected and unwelcomed, Mary landed in Leith. She had told the English ambassador to France thatshe would constrain none of her subjects in religion, and hoped to beunconstrained. Her first act was to pardon some artisans, under censurefor a Robin Hood frolic: her motive, says Knox, was her knowledge thatthey had acted "in despite of religion. "

The Lord James had stipulated that she might have her Mass in her privatechapel. Her priest was mobbed by the godly; on the following Sunday Knoxdenounced her Mass, and had his first interview with her later. In vainshe spoke of her conscience; Knox said that it was unenlightened. Lethington wished that he would "deal more gently with a young princessunpersuaded. " There were three or four later interviews, but Knox, strengthened by a marriage with a girl of sixteen, daughter of LordOchiltree, a Stewart, was proof against the queen's fascination. Inspite of insults to her faith offered even at pageants of welcome, Marykept her temper, and, for long, cast in her lot with Lethington and herbrother, whose hope was to reconcile her with Elizabeth. 

The Court was gay with riotous young French nobles, well mated withBothwell, who, though a Protestant, had sided with Mary of Guise duringthe brawls of 1559. He was now a man of twenty-seven, profligate, reckless, a conqueror of hearts, a speaker of French, a ruffian, and welleducated. 

In December it was arranged that the old bishops and other high clericsshould keep two-thirds of their revenues, the other third to be dividedbetween the preachers and the queen, "between God and the devil, " saysKnox. Thenceforth there was a rift between the preachers and thepoliticians, Lethington and Lord James (now Earl of Mar), on whom Maryleaned. The new Earl of Mar was furtively created Earl of Murray andenjoyed the gift after the overthrow of Huntly. 

In January 1562 Mary asked for an interview with Elizabeth. CertainlyLethington hoped that Elizabeth "would be able to do much with Mary inreligion, " meaning that, if Mary's claims to succeed Elizabeth weregranted, she might turn Anglican. The request for a meeting, dalliedwith but never granted, occupied diplomatists, while, at home, Arran(March 31) accused Bothwell of training him into a plot to seize Mary'sperson. Arran probably told truth, but he now went mad; Bothwell wasimprisoned in the castle till his escape to England in August 1562. Lethington, in June, was negotiating for Mary's interview with Elizabeth;Knox bitterly opposed it; the preachers feared that the queen would turnAnglican, and bishops might be let loose in Scotland. The masques forMary's reception were actually being organised, when, in July, Elizabeth, on the pretext of persecutions by the Guises in France, broke off thenegotiations. 

The rest of the year was occupied by an affair of which the origins areobscure. Mary, with her brother and Lethington, made a progress into thenorth, were affronted by and attacked Huntly, who died suddenly (October28) at the fight of Corrichie; seized a son of his, who was executed(November 2), and spoiled his castle which contained much of the propertyof the Church of Aberdeen. Mary's motives for destroying her chiefCatholic subject are not certainly known. Her brother, Lord James, inFebruary made Earl of Mar, now received the lands and title of Earl ofMurray. At some date in this year Knox preached against Mary because shegave a dance. He chose to connect her dance with some attack on theHuguenots in France. According to 'The Book of Discipline' he shouldhave remonstrated privately, as Mary told him. The dates areinextricable. (See my 'John Knox and the Reformation, ' pp. 215-218. )Till the spring of 1565 the main business was the question of the queen'smarriage. This continued to divide the ruling Protestant nobles from thepreachers. Knox dreaded an alliance with Spain, a marriage with DonCarlos. But Elizabeth, to waste time, offered Mary the hand of LordRobert Dudley (Leicester), and, strange as it appears, Mary wouldprobably have accepted him, as late as 1565, for Elizabeth let it beunderstood that to marry a Catholic prince would be the signal for war, while Mary hoped that, if she accepted Elizabeth's favourite, Dudley, shewould be acknowledged as Elizabeth's heiress. Mary was young, and showedlittle knowledge of the nature of woman. 

In 1563 came the affair of Chatelard, a French minor poet, a Huguenotapparently, who, whether in mere fatuity or to discredit Mary, hidhimself under her bed at Holyrood, and again at Burntisland. Mary hadlistened to his rhymes, had danced with him, and smiled on him, butChatelard went too far. He was decapitated in the market street of StAndrews (Feb. 22, 1563). It is clear, if we may trust Knox's account, singularly unlike Brantome's, that Chatelard was a Huguenot. 

About Easter priests were locked up in Ayrshire, the centre ofPresbyterian fanaticism, for celebrating Mass. This was in accordancewith law, and to soften Knox the girl queen tried her personal influence. He resisted "the devil"; Mary yielded, and allowed Archbishop Hamiltonand some fifty other clerics to be placed "in prison courteous. " TheEstates, which met on May 27 for the first time since the queen landed, were mollified, but were as far as ever from passing the Book ofDiscipline. They did pass a law condemning witches to death, a source ofunspeakable cruelties. Knox and Murray now ceased to be on terms tilltheir common interests brought them together in 1565. 

In June 1563 Elizabeth requested Mary to permit the return to Scotland ofLennox (the traitor to the national cause and to Cardinal Beaton, and therival of the Hamiltons for the succession to the thrones), apparently forthe very purpose of entangling Mary in a marriage with Lennox's sonDarnley, and then thwarting it. (It was not Mary who asked Elizabeth tosend Lennox. ) Knox's favourite candidate was Lord Robert Dudley: despitehis notorious character he sometimes favoured the English Puritans. WhenHolyrood had been invaded by a mob who, in Mary's absence in autumn 1563, broke up the Catholic attendants on Mass (such attendance, in Mary'sabsence, was illegal), and when both parties were summoned to trial, Knoxcalled together the godly. The Council cleared him of the charge ofmaking an unlawful convocation (they might want to make one, any day, themselves), and he was supported by the General Assembly. Similarconduct of the preachers thirty years later gave James VI. Theopportunity to triumph over the Kirk. 

In June 1564 there was still discord between the Kirk and the Lords, and, in a long argument with Lethington, Knox maintained the right of thegodly to imitate the slayings of idolaters by Phineas and Jehu: thedoctrine bore blood-red fruits among the later Covenanters. Elizabeth, in May 1564, in vain asked Mary to withdraw the permission (previouslyasked for by her) to allow Lennox to visit Scotland and plead for therestitution of his lands. The objection to Lennox's appearance had come, through Randolph, from Knox. "You may cause us to take the LordDarnley, " wrote Kirkcaldy to Cecil, to stop Elizabeth's systems ofdelays; and Sir James Melville, after going on a mission to Elizabeth, warned Mary that she would never part with her minion, now Earl ofLeicester. 

Lennox, in autumn 1564, arrived and was restored to his estates, whileLeicester and Cecil worked for the sending of his son Darnley toScotland. Leicester had no desire to desert Elizabeth's Court and hischance of touching her maiden heart. 

The intrigues of Cecil, Leicester, and Elizabeth resemble rather achapter in a novel than a page in history. Elizabeth notoriously hatedand, when she could, thwarted all marriages. She desired that Maryshould never marry: a union with a Catholic prince she vetoed, threatening war; and Leicester she offered merely "to drive time. " ButMary, evasively tempted by hints, later withdrawn, of her recognition asElizabeth's successor, was, till the end of March 1565, encouraged byRandolph, the English ambassador at her Court, to remain in hope ofwedding Leicester. 

Randolph himself was not in the secret of the English intrigue, which wasto slip Darnley at Mary. He came (February 1565): Cecil and Leicesterhad "used earnest means" to ensure his coming. On March 17 Mary wasinformed that she would never be recognised as Elizabeth's successor tillevents should occur which never could occur. On receiving this news Marywept; she also was indignant at the long and humiliating series ofElizabeth's treacheries. Her patience broke down; she turned to Darnley, thereby, as the English intriguers designed, breaking up the concord ofher nobles. To marry Darnley involved the feud of the Hamiltons, and thereturn of Murray (whom Darnley had offended), of Chatelherault, Argyll, and many other nobles to the party of Knox and the preachers. Leicesterwould have been welcome to Knox; Darnley was a Catholic, if anything, anda weak passionate young fool. Mary, in the clash of interests, was alost woman, as Randolph truly said, with sincere pity. Her longendurance, her attempts to "run the English course, " were wasted. 

David Riccio, who came to Scotland as a musician in 1561, was now high inher and in Darnley's favour. Murray was accused of a conspiracy to seizeDarnley and Lennox; the godly began to organise an armed force (June1565); Mary summoned from exile Bothwell, a man of the sword. On July29th she married Darnley, and on August 6th Murray, who had refused toappear to answer the charges of treason brought against him, though asafe-conduct was offered, was outlawed and proclaimed a rebel, whileHuntly's son, Lord George, was to be restored to his estates. Thuseverything seemed to indicate that Mary had been exasperated intobreaking with the party of moderation, the party of Murray andLethington, and been driven into courses where her support, if any, mustcome from France and Rome. Yet she married without waiting for thenecessary dispensation from the Pope. Her policy was henceforthinfluenced by her favour to Riccio, and by the jealous and arroganttemper of her husband. Mary well knew that Elizabeth had sent money toher rebels, whom she now pursued all through the south of Scotland; theyfled from Edinburgh, where the valiant Brethren, brave enough in throwingstones at pilloried priests, refused to join them; and despite the feudsin her own camp, where Bothwell and Darnley were already on the worstterms, Mary drove the rebel lords across the Border at Carlisle onOctober 8. 

Mary seemed triumphant, but the men with her--Lethington, and Morton theChancellor--were disaffected; Darnley was mutinous: he thought himselfneglected; he and his father resented Mary's leniency to Chatelherault, who had submitted and been sent to France; all parties hated Riccio. There was to be a Parliament early in March 1566. In February Mary sentthe Bishop of Dunblane to Rome to ask for a subsidy; she intended toreintroduce the Spiritual Estate into the House as electors of the Lordsof the Articles, "tending to have done some good anent the restoring ofthe old religion. " The Nuncio who was to have brought the Pope's moneylater insisted that Mary should take the heads of Murray, Argyle, Morton, and Lethington! Whether she aimed at securing more than tolerance forCatholics is uncertain; but the Parliament, in which the exiled Lordswere to be forfeited, was never held. The other nobles would neverpermit such a measure. 

George Douglas, a stirring cadet of the great House was excitingDarnley's jealousy of Riccio, but already Randolph (February 5, 1566) hadwritten to Cecil that "the wisest were aiming at putting all in hazard"to restore the exiled Lords. The nobles, in the last resort, would allstand by each other: there was now a Douglas plot of the old sort tobring back the exiles; and Darnley, with his jealous desire to murderRiccio, was but the cat's-paw to light the train and explode Mary and herGovernment. Ruthven, whom Mary had always distrusted, came into theconspiracy. Through Randolph all was known in England. "Bands" weredrawn up, signed by Argyll (safe in his own hills), Murray, Glencairn, Rothes, Boyd, Ochiltree (the father of Knox's young wife), and Darnley. His name was put forward; his rights and succession were secured againstthe Hamiltons; Protestantism, too, was to be defended. Many Douglases, many of the Lothian gentry, were in the plot. Murray was to arrive fromEngland as soon as Riccio had been slain and Mary had been seized. 

Randolph knew all and reported to Elizabeth's ministers. 

The plan worked with mechanical precision. On March 9 Morton and hiscompany occupied Holyrood, going up the great staircase about eight atnight; while Darnley and Ruthven, a dying man, entered the queen's supper-room by a privy stair. Morton's men burst in, Riccio was dragged forth, and died under forty daggers. Bothwell, Atholl, and Huntly, partisans ofMary, escaped from the palace; with them Mary managed to communicate onthe morrow, when she also held talk with Murray, who had returned withthe other exiles. She had worked on the fears and passions of Darnley;by promises of amnesty the Lords were induced to withdraw their guardsnext day, and in the following night, by a secret passage, and throughthe tombs of kings, Mary and Darnley reached the horses brought by ArthurErskine. 

It was a long dark ride to Dunbar, but there Mary was safe. She pardonedand won over Glencairn, whom she liked, and Rothes; Bothwell and Huntlyjoined her with a sufficient force, Ruthven and Morton fled to Berwick(Ruthven was to die in England), and Knox hastened into Kyle in Ayrshire. Darnley, who declared his own innocence and betrayed his accomplices, wasnow equally hated and despised by his late allies and by the queen andMurray, --indeed, by all men, chiefly by Morton and Argyll. Lethingtonwas in hiding; but he was indispensable, and in September was reconciledto Mary. 

On June 19, in Edinburgh Castle, she bore her child, later James VI. ; onher recovery Darnley was insolent, and was the more detested, whileBothwell was high in favour. In October most of the Lords signed, withMurray, a band for setting Darnley aside--_not_ for his murder. He issaid to have denounced Mary to Spain, France, and Rome for neglectingCatholic interests. In mid-October Mary was seriously ill at Jedburgh, where Bothwell, wounded in an encounter with a Border reiver, waswelcomed, while Darnley, coldly received, went to his father's house onthe Forth. On her recovery Mary resided in the last days of November atCraigmillar Castle, near Edinburgh. Here Murray, Argyll, Bothwell, Huntly, and Lethington held counsel with her as to Darnley. Lethingtonsaid that "a way would be found, " a way that Parliament would approve, while Murray would "look through his fingers. " Lennox believed that theplan was to arrest Darnley on some charge, and slay him if he resisted. 

At Stirling (December 17), when the young prince was baptised withCatholic rites, Darnley did not appear; he sulked in his own rooms. Aweek later, the exiles guilty of Riccio's murder were recalled, amongthem Morton; and Darnley, finding all his enemies about to be united, went to Glasgow, where he fell ill of smallpox. Mary offered a visit(she had had the malady as a child), and was rudely rebuffed (January 1-13, 1567), but she was with him by January 21. From Glasgow, at thistime, was written the long and fatal letter to Bothwell, which placesMary's guilt in luring Darnley to his death beyond doubt, if we acceptthe letters as authentic. {129}

Darnley was carried in a litter to the lonely house of Kirk o' Field, onthe south wall of Edinburgh. Here Mary attended him in his sickness. OnSunday morning, February 9, Murray left Edinburgh for Fife. In the nightof Sunday 9-Monday 10, the house where Darnley lay was blown up bygunpowder, and he, with an attendant, was found dead in the garden: howhe was slain is not known. 

That Bothwell, in accordance with a band signed by himself, Huntly, Argyll, and Lethington, and aided by some Border ruffians, laid andexploded the powder is certain. Morton was apprised by Lethington andBothwell of the plot, but refused to join it without Mary's writtencommission, which he did not obtain. Against the queen there is notrustworthy direct evidence (if we distrust her alleged letters toBothwell), but her conduct in protecting and marrying Bothwell (who wasreally in love with his wife) shows that she did not disapprove. Thetrial of Bothwell was a farce; Mary's abduction by him (April 24) andretreat with him to Dunbar was collusive. She married Bothwell on May15. Her nobles, many of whom had signed a document urging her to marryBothwell, rose against her; on June 15, 1567, she surrendered to them atCarberry Hill, while they, several of them deep in the murder plot, werenot sorry to let Bothwell escape to Dunbar. After some piraticaladventures, being pursued by Kirkcaldy he made his way to Denmark, wherehe died a prisoner. 

Mary, first carried to Edinburgh and there insulted by the populace, wasnext hurried to Lochleven Castle. Her alleged letters to Bothwell werebetrayed to the Lords (June 21), probably through Sir James Balfour, whocommanded in Edinburgh Castle. Perhaps Murray (who had left for Francebefore the marriage to Bothwell), perhaps fear of Elizabeth, or humanpity, induced her captors, contrary to the counsel of Lethington, tospare her life, when she had signed her abdication, while they crownedher infant son. Murray accepted the Regency; a Parliament in Decemberestablished the Kirk; acquitted themselves of rebellion; and announcedthat they had proof of Mary's guilt in her own writing. Her romanticescape from Lochleven (May 2, 1568) gave her but an hour of freedom. Defeated on her march to Dumbarton Castle in the battle of Langside Hill, she lost heart and fled to the coast of Galloway; on May 16 crossed theSolway to Workington in Cumberland; and in a few days was Elizabeth'sprisoner in Carlisle Castle. 

Mary had hitherto been a convinced but not a very obedient daughter ofthe Church; for example, it appears that she married Darnley before thearrival of the Pope's dispensation. At this moment Philip of Spain, theFrench envoy to Scotland, and the French Court had no faith in herinnocence of Darnley's death; and the Pope said "he knew not which ofthese ladies were the better"--Mary or Elizabeth. But from this time, while a captive in England, Mary was the centre of the hopes of EnglishCatholics: in miniatures she appears as queen, quartering the Englisharms; she might further the ends of Spain, of France, of Rome, of Englishrebels, while her existence was a nightmare to the Protestants ofScotland and a peril to Elizabeth. 

After Mary's flight, Murray was, as has been said, Regent for the crownedbaby James. In his council were the sensual, brutal, but vigorousMorton, with Mar, later himself Regent, a man of milder nature;Glencairn; Ruthven, whom Mary detested--he had tried to make unwelcomelove to her at Lochleven; and "the necessary evil, " Lethington. How aman so wily became a party to the murder of Darnley cannot be known: nowhe began to perceive that, if Mary were restored, as he believed that shewould be, his only safety lay in securing her gratitude by secretservices. 

On the other side were the Hamiltons with their ablest man, theArchbishop; the Border spears who were loyal to Bothwell; and two of theconspirators in the murder of Darnley, Argyll and Huntly; with Flemingand Herries, who were much attached to Mary. The two parties, influencedby Elizabeth, did not now come to blows, but awaited the results ofEnglish inquiries into Mary's guilt, and of Elizabeth's consequentaction. 

CHAPTER XXI. MINORITY OF JAMES VI. 

"Let none of them escape" was Elizabeth's message to the gaolers of Maryand her companions at Carlisle. The unhappy queen prayed to see her inwhose hospitality she had confided, or to be allowed to depart free. Elizabeth's policy was to lead her into consenting to reply to hersubjects' accusations, and Mary drifted into the shuffling Englishinquiries at York in October, while she was lodged at Bolton Castle. Murray, George Buchanan, Lethington (now distrusted by Murray), andMorton produced, for Norfolk and other English Commissioners at York, copies, at least, of the incriminating letters which horrified the Dukeof Norfolk. Yet, probably through the guile of Lethington, he changedhis mind, and became a suitor for Mary's hand. He bade her refusecompromise, whereas compromise was Lethington's hope: a full and freeinquiry would reveal his own guilt in Darnley's murder. The inquiry wasshifted to London in December, Mary always being refused permission toappear and speak for herself; nay, she was not allowed even to see theletters which she was accused of having written. Her own Commissioners, Lord Herries and Bishop Lesley, who (as Mary knew in Herries's case) hadno faith in her innocence, showed their want of confidence by proposing acompromise; this was not admitted. Morton explained how he got thesilver casket with the fatal letters, poems to Bothwell, and otherpapers; they were read in translations, English and Scots; handwritingswere compared, with no known result; evidence was heard, and Elizabeth, at last, merely decided--that she could not admit Mary to her presence. The English Lords agreed, "as the case does now stand, " and presentlymany of them were supporting Norfolk in his desire to marry the accused. Murray was told (January 10, 1669) that he had proved nothing which couldmake Elizabeth "take any evil opinion of the queen, her good sister, "nevertheless, Elizabeth would support him in his government of Scotland, while declining to recognise James VI. As king. 

All compromises Mary now utterly refused: she would live and die a queen. Henceforth the tangled intrigues cannot be disengaged in a work of thisscope. Elizabeth made various proposals to Mary, all involving herresignation as queen, or at least the suspension of her rights. Maryrefused to listen; her party in Scotland, led by Chatelherault, Herries, Huntly, and Argyll, did not venture to meet Murray and his party in war, and was counselled by Lethington, who still, in semblance, was ofMurray's faction. Lethington was convinced that, sooner or later, Marywould return; and he did not wish to incur "her _particular_ ill-will. "He knew that Mary, as she said, "had that in black and white which wouldhang him" for the murder of Darnley. Now Lethington, Huntly, and Argyllwere daunted, without stroke of sword, by Murray, and a Convention todiscuss messages from Elizabeth and Mary met at Perth (July 25-28, 1569), and refused to allow the annulment of her marriage with Bothwell, thoughpreviously they had insisted on its annulment. Presently Lethington waspublicly accused of Darnley's murder by Crawford, a retainer of Lennox;was imprisoned, but was released by Kirkcaldy, commander in EdinburghCastle, which henceforth became the fortress of Mary's cause. 

The secret of Norfolk's plan to marry the Scottish queen now reachedElizabeth, making her more hostile to Mary; an insurrection in the Northbroke out; the Earl of Northumberland was driven into Scotland, wasbetrayed by Hecky Armstrong, and imprisoned at Loch Leven. Murrayoffered to hand over Northumberland to Elizabeth in exchange for Mary, her life to be guaranteed by hostages, but, on January 23, 1570, Murraywas shot by Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh from a window of a house inLinlithgow belonging to Archbishop Hamilton. The murderer escaped andjoined his clan. During his brief regency, Murray had practicallydetached Huntly and Argyll from armed support of Mary's cause; he hadreduced the Border to temporary quiet by the free use of the gibbet; buthe had not ventured to face Lethington's friends and bring him to trial:if he had, many others would have been compromised. Murray was sly andavaricious, but, had he been legitimate, Scotland would have been wellgoverned under his vigour and caution. 

REGENCIES OF LENNOX, MAR, AND MORTON. 

Randolph was now sent to Edinburgh to make peace between Mary's party andher foes impossible. He succeeded; the parties took up arms, and Sussexravaged the Border in revenge of a raid by Buccleuch. On May 14, Lennox, with an English force, was sent north: he devastated the Hamiltoncountry; was made Regent in July; and, in April 1571, had his revenge onArchbishop Hamilton, who was taken at the capture, by Crawford, ofDumbarton Castle, held by Lord Fleming, a post of vital moment to theMarians; and was hanged at Stirling for complicity in the slaying ofMurray. George Buchanan, Mary's old tutor, took advantage of these factsto publish quite a fresh account of Darnley's murder: the guilt of theHamiltons now made that of Bothwell almost invisible!

Edinburgh Castle, under Kirkcaldy with Lethington, held out; Knoxreluctantly retired from Edinburgh to St Andrews, where he was unpopular;but many of Mary's Lords deserted her, and though Lennox was shot(September 4) in an attack by Buccleuch and Ker of Ferniehirst onStirling Castle, where he was holding a Parliament, he was succeeded byMar, who was inspired by Morton, a far stronger man. Presently thediscovery of a plot between Mary, Norfolk, the English Catholics, andSpain, caused the Duke's execution, and more severe incarceration forMary. 

In Scotland there was no chance of peace. Morton and his associateswould not resign the lands of the Hamiltons, Lethington, and Kirkcaldy;Lethington knew that no amnesty would cover his guilt (though he had beennominally cleared) in the slaying of Darnley. One after the other ofMary's adherents made their peace; but Kirkcaldy and Lethington, inEdinburgh Castle, seemed safe while money and supplies held out. Knoxhad prophesied that Kirkcaldy would be hanged, but did not live to seehis desire on his enemy, or on Mary, whom Elizabeth was about to handover to Mar for instant execution. Knox died on November 24, 1572; Mar, the Regent, had predeceased him by a month, leaving Morton in power. OnMay 28, 1573, the castle, attacked by guns and engineers from England, and cut off from water, struck its flag. The brave Kirkcaldy was hanged;Lethington, who had long been moribund, escaped by an opportune death. The best soldier in Scotland and the most modern of her wits thusperished together. Concerning Knox, the opinions of his contemporariesdiffered. By his own account the leaders of his party deemed him "tooextreme, " and David Hume finds his ferocious delight in chronicling themurders of his foes "rather amusing, " though sad! Quarrels of religionapart, Knox was a very good-hearted man; but where religion wasconcerned, his temper was remote from the Christian. He was a perfectagitator; he knew no tolerance, he spared no violence of language, and indiplomacy, when he diplomatised, he was no more scrupulous than another. Admirably vigorous and personal as literature, his History needs constantcorrection from documents. While to his secretary, Bannatyne, Knoxseemed "a man of God, the light of Scotland, the mirror of godliness";many silent, douce folk among whom he laboured probably agreed in theallegation quoted by a diarist of the day, that Knox "had, as wasalleged, the most part of the blame of all the sorrows of Scotland sincethe slaughter of the late Cardinal. "

In these years of violence, of "the Douglas wars" as they were called, two new tendencies may be observed. In January 1572, Morton induced anassembly of preachers at Leith to accept one of his clan, John Douglas, as Archbishop of St Andrews: other bishops were appointed, called_Tulchan_ bishops, from the _tulchan_ or effigy of a calf employed toinduce cows to yield their milk. The Church revenues were drawn throughthese unapostolic prelates, and came into the hands of the State, or atleast of Morton. With these bishops, superintendents co-existed, but notfor long. "The horns of the mitre" already began to peer abovePresbyterian parity, and Morton is said to have remarked that there wouldnever be peace in Scotland till some preachers were hanged. In fact, there never was peace between Kirk and State till a deplorable number ofpreachers were hanged by the Governments of Charles II. And James II. 

A meeting of preachers in Edinburgh, after the Bartholomew massacre, inthe autumn of 1572, demanded that "it shall be lawful to all the subjectsin this realm to invade them and every one of them to the death. " Thepersons to be "invaded to the death" are recalcitrant Catholics, "grit orsmall, " persisting in remaining in Scotland. {137}

The alarmed demands of the preachers were merely disregarded by the PrivyCouncil. The ruling nobles, as Bishop Lesley says, would never gratifythe preachers by carrying out the bloody penal Acts to their full extentagainst Catholics. There was no expulsion of all Catholics who dared tostay; no popular massacre of all who declined to go. While Morton was inpower he kept the preachers well in hand. He did worse: he starved theministers, and thrust into the best livings wanton young gentlemen, ofwhom his kinsman, Archibald Douglas, an accomplice in Darnley's death anda trebly-dyed traitor, was the worst. But in 1575, the great AndrewMelville, an erudite scholar and a most determined person, began toprotest against the very name of bishop in the Kirk; and in Adamson, madeby Morton successor of John Douglas at St Andrews, Melville found a markand a victim. In economics, as an English diplomatist wrote to Cecil inNovember 1572, the country, despite the civil war, was thriving; "thenoblemen's great credit decaying, . . . The ministry and religionincreaseth, and the desire in them to prevent the practice of thePapists. " The Englishman, in November, may refer to the petition forpersecution of October 20, 1572. 

The death of old Chatelherault now left the headship of the Hamiltons inmore resolute hands; Morton was confronted by opposition from Argyll, Atholl, Buchan, and Mar; and Morton, in 1576-1577, made approaches toMary. When the young James VI. Came to his majority Morton's enemieswould charge him with his guilty foreknowledge, through Both well, ofDarnley's murder, so he made advances to Mary in hope of an amnesty. Shesuspected a trap and held aloof. 

CHAPTER XXII. REIGN OF JAMES VI. 

On March 4, 1578, a strong band of nobles, led by Argyll, presented sofirm a front that Morton resigned the Regency; but in April 1578, aDouglas plot, backed by Angus and Morton, secured for the Earl of Mar thecommand of Stirling Castle and custody of the King; in June 1578, afteran appearance of civil war, Morton was as strong as ever. After diningwith him, in April 1579, Atholl, the main hope of Mary in Scotland, diedsuddenly, and suspicion of poison fell on his host. But Morton's ensuingsuccess in expelling from Scotland the Hamilton leaders, Lord Claude andArbroath, brought down his own doom. With them Sir James Balfour, deepin the secrets of Darnley's death, was exiled; he opened a correspondencewith Mary, and presently procured for her "a contented revenge" onMorton. 

Two new characters in the long intrigue of vengeance now come on thescene. Both were Stewarts, and as such were concerned in the feudagainst the Hamiltons. The first was a cousin of Darnley, brought up inFrance, namely Esme Stuart d'Aubigny, son of John, a brother of Lennox. He had all the accomplishments likely to charm the boy king, now in hisfourteenth year. 

James had hitherto been sternly educated by George Buchanan, more mildlyby Peter Young. Buchanan and others had not quite succeeded in bringinghim to scorn and hate his mother; Lady Mar, who was very kind to him, hadexercised a gentler influence. The boy had read much, had hunted yetmore eagerly, and had learned dissimulation and distrust, so natural to achild weak and ungainly in body and the conscious centre of the intriguesof violent men. A favourite of his was James Stewart, son of LordOchiltree, and brother-in-law of John Knox. Stewart was Captain of theGuard, a man of learning, who had been in foreign service; he was skilledin all bodily feats, was ambitious, reckless, and resolute, and no friendof the preachers. The two Stewarts, d'Aubigny and the Captain, becameallies. 

In a Parliament at Edinburgh (November 1579) their foes, the chiefs ofthe Hamiltons, were forfeited (they had been driven to seek shelter withElizabeth), while d'Aubigny got their lands and the key of Scotland, Dumbarton Castle, on the estuary of Clyde. The Kirk, regardingd'Aubigny, now Earl of Lennox, despite his Protestant professions, as aPapist or an atheist, had little joy in Morton, who was denounced in aprinted placard as guilty in Darnley's murder: Sir James Balfour couldshow his signature to the band to slay Darnley, signed by Huntly, Bothwell, Argyll, and Lethington. This was not true. Balfour knew much, was himself involved, but had not the band to show, or did not dare toproduce it. 

To strengthen himself, Lennox was reconciled to the Kirk; to help theHamiltons, Elizabeth sent Bowes to intrigue against Lennox, who wasconspiring in Mary's interest, or in that of the Guises, or in his own. When Lennox succeeded in getting Dumbarton Castle, an open door forFrance, into his power, Bowes was urged by Elizabeth to join with Mortonand "lay violent hands" on Lennox (August 31, 1580), but in a monthElizabeth cancelled her orders. 

Bowes was recalled; Morton, to whom English aid had been promised, wasleft to take his chances. Morton had warning from Lord Robert Stewart, Mary's half-brother, to fly the country, for Sir James Balfour, with hisinformation, had landed. On December 31, 1580, Captain Stewart accusedMorton, in presence of the Council, of complicity in Darnley's murder. Hewas put in ward; Elizabeth threatened war; the preachers stormed againstLennox; a plot to murder him (a Douglas plot) and to seize James wasdiscovered; Randolph, who now represented Elizabeth, was fired at, andfled to Berwick; James Stewart was created Earl of Arran. In March 1581the king and Lennox tried to propitiate the preachers by signing anegative Covenant against Rome, later made into a precedent for thefamous Covenant of 1638. On June 1 Morton was tried for guiltyforeknowledge of Darnley's death. He was executed deservedly, and hishead was stuck on a spike of the Tolbooth. The death of this avaricious, licentious, and resolute though unamiable Protestant was a heavy blow tothe preachers and their party, and a crook in the lot of Elizabeth. 

THE WAR OF KIRK AND KING. 

The next twenty years were occupied with the strife of Kirk and King, whence arose "all the cumber of Scotland" till 1689. The preachers, ledby the learned and turbulent Andrew Melville, had an ever-present terrorof a restoration of Catholicism, the creed of a number of the nobles andof an unknown proportion of the people. The Reformation of 1559-1560 hadbeen met by no Catholic resistance; we might suppose that the enormousmajority of the people were Protestants, though the reverse has beenasserted. But whatever the theological preferences of the country mayhave been, the justifiable fear of practical annexation by France hadoverpowered all other considerations. By 1580 it does not seem thatthere was any good reason for the Protestant nervousness, even if somenorthern counties and northern and Border peers preferred Catholicism. The king himself, a firm believer in his own theological learning andacuteness, was thoroughly Protestant. 

But the preachers would scarcely allow him to remain a Protestant. Theirclaims, as formulated by Andrew Melville, were inconsistent with theright of the State to be mistress in her own house. In a GeneralAssembly at Glasgow (1581) Presbyteries were established; Episcopacy wascondemned; the Kirk claimed for herself a separate jurisdiction, uninvadable by the State. Elizabeth, though for State reasons sheusually backed the Presbyterians against James, also warned him of "asect of dangerous consequence, which would have no king but apresbytery. " The Kirk, with her sword of excommunication, and with theinspired violence of the political sermons and prayers, invaded thesecular authority whenever and wherever she pleased, and supported thepreachers in their claims to be tried first, when accused of treasonablelibels, in their own ecclesiastical courts. These were certain to acquitthem. 

James, if not pressed in this fashion, had no particular reason fordesiring Episcopal government of the Kirk, but being so pressed he saw norefuge save in bishops. Meanwhile his chief advisers--d'Aubigny, nowDuke of Lennox, and James Stewart, the destroyer of Morton, now, to theprejudice of the Hamiltons, Earl of Arran--were men whose private life, at least in Arran's case, was scandalous. If Arran were a Protestant, hewas impatient of the rule of the pulpiteers; and Lennox was working, ifnot sincerely in Mary's interests, certainly in his own and for those ofthe Catholic House of Guise. At the same time he favoured the king'sEpiscopal schemes, and, late in 1581, appointed a preacher namedMontgomery to the recently vacant Archbishopric of Glasgow, while hehimself, like Morton, drew most of the revenues. Hence arose tumults, and, late in 1581 and in 1582, priestly and Jesuit emissaries went andcame, intriguing for a Catholic rising, to be supported by a largeforeign force which they had not the slightest chance of obtaining fromany quarter. Archbishop Montgomery was excommunicated by the Kirk, andJames, as we saw, had signed "A Negative Confession" (1581). 

In 1582 Elizabeth was backing the exiled Presbyterian Earl of Angus andthe Earl of Gowrie (Ruthven), while Lennox was contemplating a _coupd'etat_ in Edinburgh (August 27). Gowrie, with the connivance ofEngland, struck the first blow. He, Mar, and their accomplices capturedJames at Ruthven Castle, near Perth (August 23, "the Raid of Ruthven"), with the approval of the General Assembly of the Kirk. It was a Douglasplot managed by Angus and Elizabeth. James Stewart of the Guard (nowEarl of Arran) was made prisoner; Lennox fled the country. In October1582, in a Parliament at Holyrood, the conspirators passed Actsindemnifying themselves, and the General Assembly approved them. TheseActs were rescinded later, and James had learned for life his hatred ofthe Presbyterians who had treacherously seized and insulted their king. {144}

In May 1583 Lennox died in Paris, leaving an heir. On June 27 James madehis escape, "a free king, " to the castle of St Andrews: he proclaimed anamnesty and feigned reconciliation with his captor, the Earl of Gowrie, chief of the house so hateful to Mary--the Ruthvens. At the same timeJames placed himself in friendly relations with his kinsfolk, the Guises, the terror of Protestants. He had already been suspected, on account ofLennox, as inclined to Rome: in fact, he was always a Protestant, butbaited on every side--by England, by the Kirk, by a faction of hisnobles: he intrigued for allies in every direction. 

The secret history of his intrigues has never been written. We find thepersecuted and astute lad either in communication with Rome, orrepresented by shady adventurers as employing them to establish suchcommunications. At one time, as has been recently discovered, a youngman giving himself out as James's bastard brother (a son of Darnleybegotten in England) was professing to bear letters from James to thePope. He was arrested on the Continent, and James could not be broughteither to avow or disclaim his kinsman!

A new Lennox, son of the last, was created a duke; a new Bothwell, Francis Stewart (nephew of Mary's Bothwell), began to rival his uncle inturbulence. Knowing that Anglo-Scottish plots to capture him again werebeing woven daily by Angus and others, James, in February 1584, wrote afriendly and compromising letter to the Pope. In April, Arran (JamesStewart) crushed a conspiracy by seizing Gowrie at Dundee, and thenrouting a force with which Mar and Angus had entered Scotland. Gowrie, confessing his guilt as a conspirator, was executed at Stirling (May 2, 1584), leaving, of course, his feud to his widow and son. The chiefpreachers fled; Andrew Melville was already in exile, with severalothers, in England. Melville, in February, had been charged withpreaching seditious sermons, had brandished a Hebrew Bible at the PrivyCouncil, had refused secular jurisdiction and appealed to a spiritualcourt, by which he was certain to be acquitted. Henceforward, whencharged with uttering treasonable libels from the pulpit, the preacherswere wont to appeal, in the first instance, to a court of their owncloth, and on this point James in the long-run triumphed over the Kirk. 

In a Parliament of May 18, 1584, such declinature of royal jurisdictionwas, by "The Black Acts, " made treason: Episcopacy was established; theheirs of Gowrie were disinherited; Angus, Mar, and other rebels wereforfeited. But such forfeitures never held long in Scotland. 

In August 1584 a new turn was given to James's policy by Arran, who wasProtestant, if anything, in belief, and hoped to win over Elizabeth, theharbourer of all enemies of James. Arran's instrument was the beautifulyoung Master of Gray, in France a Catholic, a partisan of Mary, andleagued with the Guises. He was sent to persuade Elizabeth to banishJames's exiled rebels, but, like a Lethington on a smaller scale, he sethimself to obtain the restoration of these lords as against Arran, whilehe gratified Elizabeth by betraying to her the secrets of Mary. This manwas the adoring friend of the flower of chivalry, Sir Philip Sidney!

As against Arran the plot succeeded. Making Berwick, on English soil, their base, in November 1585 the exiles, lay and secular, backed byEngland, returned, captured James at Stirling, and drove Arran to lurkabout the country, till, many years after, Douglas of Parkhead met andslew him, avenging Morton; and, when opportunity offered, Douglas washimself slain by an avenging Stewart at the Cross of Edinburgh. The agereeked with such blood feuds, of which the preachers could not cure theirfiery flocks. 

In December 1585 Parliament restored Gowrie's forfeited family to theirown (henceforth they were constantly conspiring against James), and theexiled preachers returned to their manses and pulpits. But bishops werenot abolished, though the Kirk, through the Synod of Fife, excommunicatedthe Archbishop of St Andrews, Adamson, who replied in kind. He wascharged with witchcraft, and in the long-run was dragged down and reducedto poverty, being accused of dealings with witches--and hares!

In July 1586 England and Scotland formed an alliance, and Elizabethpromised to make James an allowance of 4000 pounds a-year. This, it maybe feared, was the blood-price of James's mother: from her son, and anyhope of aid from her son, Mary was now cut off. Walsingham laid thesnares into which she fell, deliberately providing for her means ofcommunication with Babington and his company, and deciphering and copyingthe letters which passed through the channel which he had contrived. Atrifle of forgery was also done by his agent, Phelipps. Mary, knowingherself deserted by her son, was determined, as James knew, to disinherithim. For this reason, and for the 4000 pounds, he made no strong protestagainst her trial. One of his agents in London--the wretched accomplicein his father's murder, Archibald Douglas--was consenting to herexecution. James himself thought that strict imprisonment was the bestcourse; but the Presbyterian Angus declared that Mary "could not beblamed if she had caused the Queen of England's throat to be cut fordetaining her so unjustly imprisoned. " The natural man within usentirely agrees with Angus!

A mission was sent from Holyrood, including James's handsome newfavourite, the Master of Gray, with his cousin, Logan of Restalrig, whosold the Master to Walsingham. The envoys were to beg for Mary's life. The Master had previously betrayed her; but he was not wholly lost, andin London he did his best, contrary to what is commonly stated, to secureher life. He thus incurred the enmity of his former allies in theEnglish Court, and, as he had foreseen, he was ruined in Scotland--his_previous_ letters, hostile to Mary, being betrayed by his aforesaidcousin, Logan of Restalrig. 

On February 8, 1567, ended the lifelong tragedy of Mary Stuart. Thewoman whom Elizabeth vainly moved Amyas Paulet to murder was publiclydecapitated at Fotheringay. James vowed that he would not accept fromElizabeth "the price of his mother's blood. " But despite the fury of hisnobles James sat still and took the money, at most some 4000 poundsannually, --when he could get it. 

During the next fifteen years the reign of James, and his struggle forfreedom from the Kirk, was perturbed by a long series of intrigues ofwhich the details are too obscure and complex for presentation here. Hischief Minister was now John Maitland, a brother of Lethington, and asversatile, unscrupulous, and intelligent as the rest of that House. Maitland had actually been present, as Lethington's representative, atthe tragedy of the Kirk-o'-Field. He was Protestant, and favoured theparty of England. In the State the chief parties were the Presbyteriannobles, the majority of the gentry or lairds, and the preachers on oneside; and the great Catholic families of Huntly, Morton (the title beingnow held by a Maxwell), Errol, and Crawford on the other. Bothwell (asister's son of Mary's Bothwell) flitted meteor-like, more Catholic thananything else, but always plotting to seize James's person; and in thishe was backed by the widow of Gowrie and the preachers, and encouraged byElizabeth. In her fear that James would join the Catholic nobles, whomthe preachers eternally urged him to persecute, Elizabeth smiled on theProtestant plots--thereby, of course, fostering any inclination whichJames may have felt to seek Catholic aid at home and abroad. The plotsof Mary were perpetually confused by intrigues of priestly emissaries, who interfered with the schemes of Spain and mixed in the interests ofthe Guises. 

A fact which proved to be of the highest importance was the passing, inJuly 1587, of an Act by which much of the ecclesiastical property of theancient Church was attached to the Crown, to be employed in providing forthe maintenance of the clergy. But James used much of it in makingtemporal lordships: for example, at the time of the mysterious GowrieConspiracy (August 1600), we find that the Earl of Gowrie had obtainedthe Church lands of the Abbey of Scone, which his brother, the Master ofRuthven, desired. With the large revenues now at his disposal Jamescould buy the support of the baronage, who, after the execution in 1584of the Earl of Gowrie (the father of the Gowrie of the conspiracy of1600), are not found leading and siding with the ministers in a resoluteway. By 1600 young Gowrie was the only hope of the preachers, andprobably James's ability to enrich the nobles helped to make them standaloof. Meanwhile, fears and hopes of the success of the Spanish Armadaheld the minds of the Protestants and of the Catholic earls. "In thisworld-wolter, " as James said, no Scot moved for Spain except that LordMaxwell who had first received and then been deprived of the Earldom ofMorton. James advanced against him in Dumfriesshire and caused hisflight. As for the Armada, many ships drifted north round Scotland, andone great vessel, blown up in Tobermory Bay by Lachlan Maclean of Duart, still invites the attention of treasure-hunters (1911). 

THE CATHOLIC EARLS. 

Early in 1589 Elizabeth became mistress of some letters which proved thatthe Catholic earls, Huntly and Errol, were intriguing with Spain. Theoffence was lightly passed over, but when the earls, with Crawford andMontrose, drew to a head in the north, James, with much more than hisusual spirit, headed the army which advanced against them: they fled fromhim near Aberdeen, surrendered, and were for a brief time imprisoned. Asnobody knows how Fortune's wheel may turn, and as James, hard pressed bythe preachers, could neglect no chance of support, he would never gratifythe Kirk by crushing the Catholic earls, by temperament he was nopersecutor. His calculated leniency caused him years of trouble. 

Meanwhile James, after issuing a grotesque proclamation about the causesof his spirited resolve, sailed in October to woo a sea-king's daughterover the foam, the Princess Anne of Denmark. After happy months passed, he wrote, "in drinking and driving ower, " he returned with his bride inMay 1590. 

The General Assembly then ordered prayers for the Puritans oppressed inEngland; none the less Elizabeth, the oppressor, continued to patronisethe plots of the Puritans of Scotland. They now lent their approval tothe foe of James's minister, Maitland, namely, the wild Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, a sister's son of Mary's Bothwell. This young man hadthe engaging quality of gay and absolute recklessness; he was dear toladies and the wild young gentry of Lothian and the Borders; he brokeprisons, released friends, dealt with wizards, aided by Lady Gowrie stoleinto Holyrood, his ruling ambition being to capture the king. Thepreachers prayed for "sanctified plagues" against James, and regardedBothwell favourably as a sanctified plague. 

A strange conspiracy within Clan Campbell, in which Huntly and Maitlandwere implicated, now led to the murder, among others, of the bonny Earlof Murray by Huntly in partnership with Maitland (February 1592). 

James was accused of having instigated this crime, from suspicion ofMurray as a partner in the wild enterprises of Bothwell, and was so hardpressed by sermons that, in the early summer of 1592, he allowed theBlack Acts to be abrogated, and "the Charter of the liberties of theKirk" to be passed. One of these liberties was to persecute Catholics inaccordance with the penal Acts of 1560. The Kirk was almost an _imperiumin imperio_, but was still prohibited from appointing the time and placeof its own General Assemblies without Royal assent. This weak point intheir defences enabled James to vanquish them, but, in June, Bothwellattacked him in the Palace of Falkland and put him in considerable peril. 

The end of 1592 and the opening of 1593 were remarkable for the discoveryof "The Spanish Blanks, " papers addressed to Philip of Spain, signed byHuntly, the new Earl of Angus, and Errol, to be filled up with an oralmessage requesting military aid for Scottish Catholics. Such proceedingsmake our historians hold up obtesting hands against the perfidy ofidolaters. But clearly, if Knox and the congregation were acting rightlywhen they besought the aid of England against Mary of Guise, then Erroland Huntly are not to blame for inviting Spain to free them frompersecution. Some inkling of the scheme had reached James, and a paperin which he weighed the pros and cons is in existence. His suspectedunderstanding with the Catholic earls, whom he merely did not wish toestrange hopelessly, was punished by a sanctified plague. On July 24, 1593, by aid of the late Earl Gowrie's daughter, Bothwell enteredHolyrood, seized the king, extorted his own terms, went and amazed theDean of Durham by his narrative of the adventure, and seemed to have theconnivance of Elizabeth. But in September James found himself in aposition to repudiate his forced engagement. Bothwell now allied himselfwith the Catholic earls, and, as a Catholic, had no longer the prayers ofthe preachers. James ordered levies to attack the earls, while Argyllled his clan and the Macleans against Huntly, only to be defeated by theGordon horse at the battle of Glenrinnes (October 3). Huntly and hisallies, however, dared not encounter King James and Andrew Melville, whomarched together against them, and they were obliged to fly to theContinent. Bothwell, with his retainer, Colville, continued, withCecil's connivance, to make desperate plots for seizing James; indeed, Cecil was intriguing with them and other desperadoes even after 1600. Throughout all the Tudor period, from Henry VII. To 1601, England wasengaged in a series of conspiracies against the persons of the princes ofScotland. The Catholics of the south of Scotland now lost Lord Maxwell, slain by a "Lockerby Lick" in a great clan battle with the Johnstones atDryfe Sands. 

In 1595, James's minister, John Maitland, brother of Lethington, died, and early in 1596 an organisation called "the Octavians" was made toregulate the distracted finance of the country. On April 13, 1596, Walter Scott of Buccleuch made himself an everlasting name by thebloodless rescue of Kinmont Willie, an Armstrong reiver, from the Castleof Carlisle, where he was illegally held by Lord Scrope. The period wasnotable for the endless raids by the clans on both sides of the Border, celebrated in ballads. 

James had determined to recall the exiled Catholic earls, undeterred bythe eloquence of "the last of all our sincere Assemblies, " held with deepemotion in March 1596. The earls came home; in September at FalklandPalace Andrew Melville seized James by the sleeve, called him "God'ssilly vassal, " and warned him that Christ and his Kirk were the king'soverlords. Soon afterwards Mr David Black of St Andrews spoke againstElizabeth in a sermon which caused diplomatic remonstrances. Black wouldbe tried, in the first instance, only by a Spiritual Court of hisbrethren. There was a long struggle, the ministers appointed a kind ofstanding Committee of Safety; James issued a proclamation dissolving it, and, on December 17, inflammatory sermons led a deputation to try tovisit James, who was with the Lords of Session in the Tolbooth. Whetherunder an alarm of a Popish plot or not, the crowd became so fierce andmenacing that the great Lachlan Maclean of Duart rode to Stirling tobring up Argyll in the king's defence with such forces as he couldmuster. The king retired to Linlithgow; the Rev. Mr Bruce, a famouspreacher credited with powers of prophecy, in vain appealed to the Dukeof Hamilton to lead the godly. By threatening to withdraw the Court andCourts of Justice from Edinburgh James brought the citizens to theirknees, and was able to take order with the preachers. 

CHAPTER XXIII. THE GOWRIE CONSPIRACY. 

James, in reducing the Kirk, relied as much on his cunning and"kingcraft" as on his prerogative. He summoned a Convention of preachersand of the Estates to Perth at the end of February 1597, and thither hebrought many ministers from the north, men unlike the zealots of Lothianand the Lowlands. He persuaded them to vote themselves a GeneralAssembly; and they admitted his right to propose modifications in Churchgovernment, to forbid unusual convocations (as in Edinburgh during theautumn of 1596); they were not to preach against Acts of Parliament or ofCouncil, nor appoint preachers in the great towns without the Royalassent, and were not to attack individuals from the pulpit. An attemptwas to be made to convert the Catholic lords. A General Assembly atDundee in May ratified these decisions, to the wrath of Andrew Melville, and the Catholic earls were more or less reconciled to the Kirk, which atthis period had not one supporter among the nobility. James had madelarge grants of Church lands among the noblesse, and they abstained fromtheir wonted conspiracies for a while. The king occupied himself much inencouraging the persecution of witches, but even that did not endear himto the preachers. 

In the Assembly of March 1598 certain ministers were allowed to sit andvote in Parliament. In 1598-1599 a privately printed book by James, the'Basilicon Doron, ' came to the knowledge of the clergy: it revealed hisopinions on the right of kings to rule the Church, and on the tendency ofthe preachers to introduce a democracy "with themselves as Tribunes ofthe People, " a very fair definition of their policy. It was to stop themthat he gradually introduced a bastard kind of bishops, police to keepthe pulpiteers in order. They were refusing, in face of the king'slicence, to permit a company of English players to act in Edinburgh, forthey took various powers into their hands. 

Meanwhile James's relations with England, where Elizabeth saw with dismayhis victory over her allies, his clergy, were unfriendly. Plots wereencouraged against him, but it is not probable that England was aware ofthe famous and mysterious conspiracy of the young Earl of Gowrie, who waswarmly welcomed by Elizabeth on his return from Padua, by way of Paris. He had been summoned by Bruce, James's chief clerical adversary, and theKirk had high hopes of the son of the man of the Raid of Ruthven. He ledthe opposition to taxation for national defence in a convention of June-July 1600. On August 5, in his own house at Perth, where James, summonedthither by Gowrie's younger brother, had dined with him, Gowrie and hisbrother were slain by John Ramsay, a page to the king. 

This affair was mysterious. The preachers, and especially Bruce, refusedto accept James's own account of the events, at first, and this was notsurprising. Gowrie was their one hope among the peers, and the storywhich James told is so strange that nothing could be stranger or lesscredible except the various and manifestly mendacious versions of theGowrie party. {156}

James's version of the occurrences must be as much as possible condensed, and there is no room for the corroborating evidence of Lennox and others. As the king was leaving Falkland to hunt a buck early on August 5, theMaster of Ruthven, who had ridden over from his brother's house in Perth, accosted him. The Master declared that he had on the previous eveningarrested a man carrying a pot of gold; had said nothing to Gowrie; hadlocked up the man and his gold in a room, and now wished James to comeinstantly and examine the fellow. The king's curiosity and cupidity wereless powerful than his love of sport: he would first kill his buck. During the chase James told the story to Lennox, who corroborated. Ruthven sent a companion to inform his brother; none the less, when theking, with a considerable following, did appear at Gowrie's house, nopreparation for his reception had been made. 

The Master was now in a quandary: he had no prisoner and no pot of gold. During dinner Gowrie was very nervous; after it James and the Masterslipped upstairs together while Gowrie took the gentlemen into the gardento eat cherries. Ruthven finally led James into a turret off the longgallery; he locked the door, and pointing to a man in armour with adagger, said that he "had the king at his will. " The man, however, fella-trembling, James made a speech, and the Master went to seek Gowrie, locking the door behind him. At or about this moment, as was fullyattested, Cranstoun, a retainer of Gowrie, reported to him and thegentlemen that the king had ridden away. They all rushed to the gate, where the porter, to whom Gowrie gave the lie, swore that the king hadnot left the place. The gentlemen going to the stables passed under theturret-window, whence appeared the king, red in the face, bellowing"treason!" The gentlemen, with Lennox, rushed upstairs, and through thegallery, but could not force open the door giving on the turret. Butyoung Ramsay had run up a narrow stair in the tower, burst open theturret-door opening on the stair, found James struggling with the Master, wounded the Master, and pushed him downstairs. In the confusion, whilethe king's falcon flew wildly about the turret till James set his foot onits chain, the man with the dagger vanished. The Master was slain by twoof James's attendants; the Earl, rushing with four or five men up theturret-stair, fell in fight by Ramsay's rapier. 

Lennox and his company now broke through the door between the gallery andthe turret, and all was over except a riotous assemblage of the town'sfolk. The man with the dagger had fled: he later came in and gavehimself up; he was Gowrie's steward; his name was Henderson; it was hewho rode with the Master to Falkland and back to Perth to warn Gowrie ofJames's approach. He confessed that Gowrie had then bidden him put onarmour, on a false pretence, and the Master had stationed him in theturret. The fact that Henderson had arrived (from Falkland) at Gowrie'shouse by half-past ten was amply proved, yet Gowrie had made nopreparations for the royal visit. If Henderson was not the man in theturret, his sudden and secret flight from Perth is unexplained. Moreover, Robert Oliphant, M. A. , said, in private talk, that the part of the man inthe turret had, some time earlier, been offered to him by Gowrie; herefused and left the Earl's service. It is manifest that James could nothave arranged this set of circumstances: the thing is impossible. Therefore the two Ruthvens plotted to get him into their hands early inthe day; and, when he arrived late, with a considerable train, theyendeavoured to send these gentlemen after the king, by averring that hehad ridden homewards. The dead Ruthvens with their house were forfeited. 

Among the preachers who refused publicly to accept James's account of theevents in Gowrie's house on August 5, Mr Bruce was the most eminent andthe most obstinate. He had, on the day after the famous riot of December1596, written to Hamilton asking him to countenance, as a chief nobleman, "the godly barons and others who had convened themselves, " at that time, in the cause of the Kirk. Bruce admitted that he knew Hamilton to beambitious, but Hamilton's ambition did not induce him to appear ascaptain of a new congregation. The chief need of the ministers' partywas a leader among the great nobles. Now, in 1593, the young Earl ofGowrie had leagued himself with the madcap Bothwell. In April 1594, Gowrie, Bothwell, and Atholl had addressed the Kirk, asking her to favourand direct their enterprise. Bothwell made an armed demonstration andfailed; Gowrie then went abroad, to Padua and Rome, and, apparently in1600, Mr Bruce sailed to France, "for the calling, " he says, "of theMaster of Gowrie"--he clearly means "the Earl of Gowrie. " The Earl came, wove his plot, and perished. Mr Bruce, therefore, was averse toaccepting James's account of the affair at Gowrie House. After a longseries of negotiations Bruce was exiled north of Tay. 

UNION OF THE CROWNS. 

In 1600 James imposed three bishops on the Kirk. Early in 1601 broke outEssex's rebellion of one day against Elizabeth, a futile attempt toimitate Scottish methods as exhibited in the many raids against James. Essex had been intriguing with the Scottish king, but to what extentJames knew of and encouraged his enterprise is unknown. He was on illterms with Cecil, who, in 1601, was dealing with several men thatintended no good to James. Cecil is said to have received a sufficientwarning as to how James, on ascending the English throne, would treathim; and he came to terms, secretly, with Mar and Kinloss, the king'senvoys to Elizabeth. Their correspondence is extant, and proves thatCecil, at last, was "running the Scottish course, " and making smooth theway for James's accession. (The correspondence begins in June 1601. )

Very early on Thursday, March 24, 1603, Elizabeth went to her account, and James received the news from Sir Robert Carey, who reached Holyroodon the Saturday night, March 26. James entered London on May 6, andEngland was free from the fear of many years concerning a war for thesuccession. The Catholics hoped for lenient usage: disappointment ledsome desperate men to engage in the Gunpowder Plot. James was not moresatisfactory to the Puritans. 

Encouraged by the fulsome adulation which grew up under the Tudordynasty, and free from dread of personal danger, James henceforthgoverned Scotland "with the pen, " as he said, through the Privy Council. This method of ruling the ancient kingdom endured till the Union of 1707, and was fraught with many dangers. The king was no longer in touch withhis subjects. His best action was the establishment of a small force ofmounted constabulary which did more to put down the eternal homicides, robberies, and family feuds than all the sermons could achieve. 

The persons most notable in the Privy Council were Seton (later LordDunfermline), Hume, created Earl of Dunbar, and the king's advocate, Thomas Hamilton, later Earl of Haddington. Bishops, with Spottiswoode, the historian, Archbishop of Glasgow, sat in the Privy Council, and theirprogressive elevation, as hateful to the nobles as to the Kirk, was amongthe causes of the civil war under Charles I. By craft and by illegalmeasures James continued to depress the Kirk. A General Assembly, proclaimed by James for July 1604 in Aberdeen, was prorogued; again, unconstitutionally, it was prorogued in July 1605. Nineteen ministers, disobeying a royal order, appeared and constituted the Assembly. Joinedby ten others, they kept open the right of way. James insisted that theCouncil should prosecute them: they, by fixing a new date for anAssembly, without royal consent; and James, by letting years pass withoutan Assembly, broke the charter of the Kirk of 1592. 

The preachers, when summoned to the trial, declined the jurisdiction. This was violently construed as treason, and a jury, threatened by thelegal officers with secular, and by the preachers with future spiritualpunishment, by a small majority condemned some of the ministers (January1606). This roused the wrath of all classes. James wished for moreprosecutions; the Council, in terror, prevailed on him to desist. Hecontinued to grant no Assemblies till 1608, and would not allow "caveats"(limiting the powers of Bishops) to be enforced. He summoned (1606) thetwo Melvilles, Andrew and his nephew James, to London, where Andrewbullied in his own violent style, and was, quite illegally, firstimprisoned and then banished to France. 

In December 1606 a convention of preachers was persuaded to allow theappointment of "constant Moderators" to keep the presbyteries in order;and then James recognised the convention as a General Assembly. Suspectedministers were confined to their parishes or locked up in BlacknessCastle. In 1608 a General Assembly was permitted the pleasure ofexcommunicating Huntly. In 1610 an Assembly established Episcopacy, andno excommunications not ratified by the Bishop were allowed: the onlycomfort of the godly was the violent persecution of Catholics, who werenosed out by the "constant Moderators, " excommunicated if they refused toconform, confiscated, and banished. 

James could succeed in these measures, but his plan for uniting the twokingdoms into one, Great Britain, though supported by the wisdom andeloquence of Bacon, was frustrated by the jealousies of both peoples. Persons born after James's accession (the _post nati_) were, however, admitted to equal privileges in either kingdom (1608). In 1610 James hadtwo of his bishops, and Spottiswoode, consecrated by three Englishbishops, but he did not yet venture to interfere with the forms ofPresbyterian public worship. 

In 1610 James established two Courts of High Commission (in 1615 unitedin one Court) to try offences in morals and religion. The Archbishopspresided, laity and clergy formed the body of the Court, and it wasregarded as vexatious and tyrannical. The same terms, to be sure, wouldnow be applied to the interference of preachers and presbyteries withprivate life and opinion. By 1612 the king had established Episcopacy, which, for one reason or another, became equally hateful to the nobles, the gentry, and the populace. James's motives were motives of police. Long experience had taught him the inconveniences of presbyterialgovernment as it then existed in Scotland. 

To a Church organised in the presbyterian manner, as it has beenpractised since 1689, James had, originally at least, no objection. Butthe combination of "presbyterian Hildebrandism" with factions of theturbulent _noblesse_; the alliance of the Power of the Keys with thesword and lance, was inconsistent with the freedom of the State and ofthe individual. "The absolutism of James, " says Professor Hume Brown, "was forced upon him in large degree by the excessive claims of thePresbyterian clergy. "

Meanwhile the thievish Border clans, especially the Armstrongs, wereassailed by hangings and banishments, and Ulster was planted by Scottishsettlers, willing or reluctant, attracted by promise of lands, or plantedout, that they might not give trouble on the Border. 

Persecution of Catholics was violent, and in spring 1615 Father Ogilviewas hanged after very cruel treatment directed by ArchbishopSpottiswoode. In this year the two ecclesiastical Courts of HighCommission were fused into one, and an Assembly was coerced into passingwhat James called "Hotch-potch resolutions" about changes in publicworship. James wanted greater changes, but deferred them till he visitedScotland in 1617, when he was attended by the luckless figure of Laud, who went to a funeral--in a surplice! James had many personal bickeringswith preachers, but his five main points, "The Articles of Perth" (ofthese the most detested were: (1) Communicants must kneel, not sit, atthe Communion; (4) Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost must be observed; and(5) Confirmation must be introduced), were accepted by an Assembly in1618. They could not be enforced, but were sanctioned by Parliament in1621. The day was called Black Saturday, and omens were drawn by bothparties from a thunderstorm which occurred at the time of theratification of the Articles of Perth by Parliament in Edinburgh (August4, 1621). 

By enforcing these Articles James passed the limit of his subjects'endurance. In their opinion, as in Knox's, to kneel at the celebrationof the Holy Communion was an act of idolatry, was "Baal worship, " and nopressure could compel them to kneel. The three great festivals of theChristian Church, whether Roman, Genevan, or Lutheran, had no certainwarrant in Holy Scripture, but were rather repugnant to the Word of God. The king did not live to see the bloodshed and misery caused by hisreckless assault on the liberties and consciences of his subjects; hedied on March 27, 1625, just before the Easter season in which it wasintended to enforce his decrees. 

The ungainliness of James's person, his lack of courage on certainoccasions (he was by no means a constant coward), and the feebleness ofhis limbs might be attributed to pre-natal influences; he was injuredbefore he was born by the sufferings of his mother at the time ofRiccio's murder. His deep dissimulation he learnt in his bitterchildhood and harassed youth. His ingenious mind was trained topedantry; he did nothing worse, and nothing more congenial to the cruelsuperstitions of his age, than in his encouragement of witch trials andwitch burnings promoted by the Scottish clergy down to the early part ofthe eighteenth century. 

His plantation of Ulster by Scottish settlers has greatly affectedhistory down to our own times, while the most permanent result of theawards by which he stimulated the colonisation of Nova Scotia has beenthe creation of hereditary knighthoods or baronetcies. 

His encouragement of learning left its mark in the foundation of theTown's College of Edinburgh, on the site of Kirk-o'-Field, the scene ofhis father's murder. 

The south-western Highlands, from Lochaber to Islay and Cantyre, were, inhis reign, the scene of constant clan feuds and repressions, resulting inthe fall of the Macdonalds, and the rise of the Campbell chief, Argyll, to the perilous power later wielded by the Marquis against Charles I. Many of the sons of the dispossessed Macdonalds, driven into Ireland, were to constitute the nucleus of the army of Montrose. In the Orkneysand Shetlands the constant turbulence of Earl Patrick and his familyended in the annexation of the islands to the Crown (1612), and theEarl's execution (1615). 

CHAPTER XXIV. CHARLES I. 

The reign of Charles I. Opened with every sign of the tempests which wereto follow. England and Scotland were both seething with religious fearsand hatreds. Both parties in England, Puritans and Anglicans, could besatisfied with nothing less than complete domination. In England theextreme Puritans, with their yearning after the Genevan presbyteriandiscipline, had been threatening civil war even under Elizabeth. Jameshad treated them with a high hand and a proud heart. Under Charles, wedded to a "Jezebel, " a Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria, the Puritanhatred of such prelates as Laud expressed itself in threats of murder;while heavy fines and cruel mutilations were inflicted by the party inpower. The Protestant panic, the fear of a violent restoration ofCatholicism in Scotland, never slumbered. In Scotland Catholics were atthis time bitterly persecuted, and believed that a presbyterian generalmassacre of them all was being organised. By the people the Anglicanbishops and the prayer-book were as much detested as priests and theMass. When Charles placed six prelates on his Privy Council, andrecognised the Archbishop of St Andrews, Spottiswoode, as first inprecedence among his subjects, the nobles were angry and jealous. Charleswould not do away with the infatuated Articles of Perth. James, as heused to say, had "governed Scotland by the pen" through his PrivyCouncil. Charles knew much less than James of the temper of the Scots, among whom he had never come since his infancy, and _his_ Privy Councilwith six bishops was apt to be even more than commonly subservient. 

In Scotland as in England the expenses of national defence were a causeof anger; and the mismanagement of military affairs by the king'sfavourite, Buckingham, increased the irritation. It was brought to ahead in Scotland by the "Act of Revocation, " under which all Church landsand Crown lands bestowed since 1542 were to be restored to the Crown. This Act once more united in opposition the nobles and the preachers;since 1596 they had not been in harmony. In 1587, as we saw, James VI. Had annexed much of the old ecclesiastical property to the Crown; but hehad granted most of it to nobles and barons as "temporal lordships. " Now, by Charles, the temporal lords who held such lands were menaced, thejudges ("Lords of Session") who would have defended their interests wereremoved from the Privy Council (March 1626), and, in August, the temporallords remonstrated with the king through deputations. 

In fact, they took little harm--redeeming their holdings at the rate often years' purchase. The main result was that landowners were empoweredto buy the tithes on their own lands from the multitude of "titulars oftithes" (1629) who had rapaciously and oppressively extorted these tenthsof the harvest every year. The ministers had a safe provision at last, secured on the tithes, in Scotland styled "teinds, " but this did notreconcile most of them to bishops and to the Articles of Perth. Severalof the bishops were, in fact, "latitudinarian" or "Arminian" in doctrine, wanderers from the severity of Knox and Calvin. With them began, perhaps, the "Moderatism" which later invaded the Kirk; though theirideal slumbered during the civil war, to awaken again, with the teachingof Archbishop Leighton, under the Restoration. Meanwhile the nobles andgentry had been alarmed and mulcted, and were ready to join hands withthe Kirk in its day of resistance. 

In June 1633 Charles at last visited his ancient kingdom, accompanied byLaud. His subjects were alarmed and horrified by the sight of prelatesin lawn sleeves, candles in chapel, and even a tapestry showing thecrucifixion. To this the bishops are said to have bowed, --plainidolatry. In the Parliament of June 18 the eight representatives of eachEstate, who were practically all-powerful as Lords of the Articles, werechosen, not from each Estate by its own members, but on a methodinstituted, or rather revived, by James VI. In 1609. The nobles made thechoice from the bishops, the bishops from the nobles, and the electedsixteen from the barons and burghers. The twenty-four were all thusepiscopally minded: they drew up the bills, and the bills were voted onwithout debate. The grant of supply made in these circumstances wasliberal, and James's ecclesiastical legislation, including the sanctionof the "rags of Rome" worn by the bishops, was ratified. Remonstrancesfrom the ministers of the old Kirk party were disregarded; and--the thinend of the wedge--the English Liturgy was introduced in the Royal Chapelof Holyrood and in that of St Salvator's College, St Andrews, where ithas been read once, on a funeral occasion, in recent years. 

In 1634-35, on the information of Archbishop Spottiswoode, Lord Balmerinowas tried for treason because he possessed a supplication or petitionwhich the Lords of the minority, in the late Parliament, had drawn up buthad not presented. He was found guilty, but spared: the proceedingshowed of what nature the bishops were, and alienated and alarmed thepopulace and the nobles and gentry. A remonstrance in a manly spirit byDrummond of Hawthornden, the poet, was disregarded. 

In 1635 Charles authorised a Book of Canons, heralding the imposition ofa Liturgy, which scarcely varied, and when it varied was thought todiffer for the worse, from that of the Church of England. By thesecanons, the most nakedly despotic of innovations, the preachers could notuse their sword of excommunication without the assent of the Bishops. James VI. Had ever regarded with horror and dread the licence of"conceived prayers, " spoken by the minister, and believed to beextemporary or directly inspired. There is an old story that oneminister prayed that James might break his leg: certainly prayers for"sanctified plagues" on that prince were publicly offered, at the will ofthe minister. Even a very firm Presbyterian, the Laird of Brodie, whenhe had once heard the Anglican service in London, confided to his journalthat he had suffered much from the nonsense of "conceived prayers. " Theywere a dangerous weapon, in Charles's opinion: he was determined toabolish them, rather that he might be free from the agitation of thepulpit than for reasons of ritual, and to proclaim his own headship ofthe Kirk of "King Christ. "

This, in the opinion of the great majority of the preachers and populace, was flat blasphemy, an assumption of "the Crown Honours of Christ. " TheLiturgy was "an ill-mumbled Mass, " the Mass was idolatry, and idolatrywas a capital offence. However strange these convictions may appear, they were essential parts of the national belief. Yet, with the mostextreme folly, Charles, acting like Henry VIII. As his own Pope, thrustthe canons and this Liturgy upon the Kirk and country. No sentimentalarguments can palliate such open tyranny. 

The Liturgy was to be used in St Giles' Church, the town kirk ofEdinburgh (cleansed and restored by Charles himself), on July 23, 1637. The result was a furious brawl, begun by the women, of all presbyteriansthe fiercest, and, it was said, by men disguised as women. A gentlemanwas struck on the ear by a woman for the offence of saying "Amen, " andthe famous Jenny Geddes is traditionally reported to have thrown herstool at the Dean's head. The service was interrupted, the Bishop wasthe mark of stones, and "the Bishops' War, " the Civil War, began in thisbrawl. James VI. , being on the spot, had thoroughly quieted Edinburghafter a more serious riot, on December 17, 1596. But Charles was faraway; the city had not to fear the loss of the Court and its custom, ason the earlier occasion (the removal of the Council to Linlithgow inOctober 1637 was a trifle), and the Council had to face a storm ofpetitions from all classes of the community. Their prayer was that theLiturgy should be withdrawn. From the country, multitudes of all classesflocked into Edinburgh and formed themselves into a committee of publicsafety, "The Four Tables, " containing sixteen persons. 

The Tables now demanded the removal of the bishops from the Privy Council(December 21, 1637). The question was: Who were to govern the country, the Council or the Tables? The logic of the Presbyterians was not alwaysconsistent. The king must not force the Liturgy on them, but later, their quarrel with him was that he would not, at their desire, force theabsence of the Liturgy on England. If the king had the right to inflictPresbyterianism on England, he had the right to thrust the Liturgy onScotland: of course he had neither one right nor the other. On February19, 1638, Charles's proclamation, refusing the prayers of thesupplication of December, was read at Stirling. Nobles and peoplereplied with protestations to every royal proclamation. Foremost on thepopular side was the young Earl of Montrose: "you will not rest, " saidRothes, a more sober leader, "till you be lifted up above the lave inthree fathoms of rope. " Rothes was a true prophet; but Montrose did notdie for the cause that did "his green unknowing youth engage. "

The Presbyterians now desired yearly General Assemblies (of which JamesVI. Had unlawfully robbed the Kirk); the enforcement of an oldbrief-lived system of restrictions (_caveats_) on the bishops; theabolition of the Articles of Perth; and, as always, of the Liturgy. Ifhe granted all this Charles might have had trouble with the preachers, asJames VI. Had of old. Yet the demands were constitutional; and inCharles's position he would have done well to assent. He was obstinatein refusal. 

The Scots now "fell upon the consideration of a band of union to be madelegally, " says Rothes, their leader, the chief of the House of Leslie(the family of Norman Leslie, the slayer of Cardinal Beaton). Now a"band" of this kind could not, by old Scots law, be legally made; suchbands, like those for the murder of Riccio and of Darnley, and for manyother enterprises, were not smiled upon by the law. But, in 1581, as wesaw, James VI. Had signed a covenant against popery; its tenor wasimitated in that of 1638, and there was added "a general band for themaintenance of true religion" (Presbyterianism) "_and of the King'sperson_. " That part of the band was scarcely kept when the Covenantingarmy surrendered Charles to the English. They had vowed, in their band, to "stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's Majesty, hisperson and authority. " They kept this vow by hanging men who held theking's commission. The words as to defending the king's authority werefollowed by "in the defence and preservation of the aforesaid truereligion. " This appears to mean that only a presbyterian king is to bedefended. In any case the preachers assumed the right to interpret theCovenant, which finally led to the conquest of Scotland by Cromwell. Asthe Covenant was made between God and the Covenanters, on ancient Hebrewprecedent it was declared to be binding on all succeeding generations. Had Scotland resisted tyranny without this would-be biblical pettifoggingCovenant, her condition would have been the more gracious. The signingof the band began at Edinburgh in Greyfriars' Churchyard on February 28, 1638. 

This Covenant was a most potent instrument for the day, but the fruitsthereof were blood and tears and desolation: for fifty-one years common-sense did not come to her own again. In 1689 the Covenant was silentlydropped, when the Kirk was restored. 

This two-edged insatiable sword was drawn: great multitudes signed withenthusiasm, and they who would not sign were, of course, persecuted. Asthey said, "it looked not like a thing approved of God, which was begunand carried on with fury and madness, and obtruded on people withthreatenings, tearing of clothes, and drawing of blood. " Resistance tothe king--if need were, armed resistance--was necessary, was laudable, but the terms of the Covenant were, in the highest degree impolitic andunstatesmanlike. The country was handed over to the preachers; theScots, as their great leader Argyll was to discover, were "distracted menin distracted times. "

Charles wavered and sent down the Marquis of Hamilton to represent hiswaverings. The Marquis was as unsettled as his predecessor, Arran, inthe minority of Queen Mary. He dared not promulgate the proclamations;he dared not risk civil war; he knew that Charles, who said he was ready, was unprepared in his mutinous English kingdom. He granted, at last, aGeneral Assembly and a free Parliament, and produced another Covenant, "the King's Covenant, " which of course failed to thwart that of thecountry. 

The Assembly, at Glasgow (November 21, 1638), including noblemen andgentlemen as elders, was necessarily revolutionary, and needlesslyriotous and profane. It arraigned and condemned the bishops in theirabsence. Hamilton, as Royal Commissioner, dissolved the Assembly, whichcontinued to sit. The meeting was in the Cathedral, where, says asincere Covenanter, Baillie, whose letters are a valuable source, "ourrascals, without shame, in great numbers, made din and clamour. " All theunconstitutional ecclesiastical legislation of the last forty years wasrescinded, --as all the new presbyterian legislation was to be rescindedat the Restoration. Some bishops were excommunicated, the rest weredeposed. The press was put under the censorship of the fanatical lawyer, Johnston of Waristoun, clerk of the Assembly. 

On December 20 the Assembly, which sat on after Hamilton dissolved it, broke up. Among the Covenanters were to be reckoned the Earl of Argyll(later the only Marquis of his House), and the Earl, later Marquis, ofMontrose. They did not stand long together. The Scottish Revolutionproduced no man at once great and successful, but, in Montrose, it hadone man of genius who gave his life for honour's sake; in Argyll, anastute man, not physically courageous, whose "timidity in the field wasequalled by his timidity in the Council, " says Mr Gardiner. 

In spring (1639) war began. Charles was to move in force on the Border;the fleet was to watch the coasts; Hamilton, with some 5000 men, was tojoin hands with Huntly (both men were wavering and incompetent); Antrim, from north Ireland, was to attack and contain Argyll; Ruthven was to holdEdinburgh Castle. But Alexander Leslie took that castle for theCovenanters; they took Dumbarton; they fortified Leith; Argyll ravagedHuntly's lands; Montrose and Leslie occupied Aberdeen; and their party, in circumstances supposed to be discreditable to Montrose, carried Huntlyto Edinburgh. (The evidence is confused. Was Huntly unwilling to go?Charles (York, April 23, 1639) calls him "feeble and false. " Mr Gardinersays that, in this case, and in this alone, Montrose stooped to a meanaction. ) Hamilton merely dawdled and did nothing: Montrose had enteredAberdeen (June 19), and then came news of negotiations between the kingand the Covenanters. 

As Charles approached from the south, Alexander Leslie, a Continentalveteran (very many of the Covenant's officers were Dugald Dalgettys fromthe foreign wars), occupied Dunse Law, with a numerous army in greatdifficulties as to supplies. "A natural mind might despair, " wroteWaristoun, who "was brought low before God indeed. " Leslie was in astrait; but, on the other side, so was Charles, for a reconnaissance ofLeslie's position was repulsed; the king lacked money and supplies;neither side was of a high fighting heart; and offers to negotiate camefrom the king, informally. The Scots sent in "a supplication, " and onJune 18 signed a treaty which was a mere futile truce. There were to bea new Assembly, and a new Parliament in August and September. 

Charles should have fought: if he fell he would fall with honour; and ifhe survived defeat "all England behoved to have risen in revenge, " saysthe Covenanting letter-writer, Baillie, later Principal of GlasgowUniversity. The Covenanters at this time could not have invaded England, could not have supported themselves if they did, and were far from beingharmonious among themselves. The defeat of Charles at this moment wouldhave aroused English pride and united the country. Charles set out fromBerwick for London on July 29, leaving many fresh causes of quarrelbehind him. 

Charles supposed that he was merely "giving way for the present" when heaccepted the ratification by the new Assembly of all the Acts of that of1638. He never had a later chance to recover his ground. The newAssembly made the Privy Council pass an Act rendering signature of theCovenant compulsory on all men: "the new freedom is worse than the oldslavery, " a looker-on remarked. The Parliament discussed the method ofelecting the Lords of the Articles--a method which, in fact, though ofprime importance, had varied and continued to vary in practice. Argyllprotested that the constitutional course was for each Estate to elect itsown members. Montrose was already suspected of being influenced byCharles. Charles refused to call Episcopacy unlawful, or to rescind theold Acts establishing it. Traquair, as Commissioner, dissolved theParliament; later Charles refused to meet envoys sent from Scotland, whowere actually trying, as their party also tried, to gain French mediationor assistance, --help from "idolaters"!

In spring 1640 the Scots, by an instrument called "The Blind Band, "imposed taxation for military purposes; while Charles in England calledThe Short Parliament to provide Supply. The Parliament refused and wasprorogued; words used by Strafford about the use of the army in Irelandto suppress Scotland were hoarded up against him. The Scots Parliament, though the king had prorogued it, met in June, despite the opposition ofMontrose. The Parliament, when it ceased to meet, appointed a StandingCommittee of some forty members of all ranks, including Montrose and hisfriends Lord Napier and Stirling of Keir. Argyll refused to be a member, but acted on a commission of fire and sword "to root out of the country"the northern recusants against the Covenant. It was now that Argyllburned Lord Ogilvy's Bonny House of Airlie and Forthes; the cattle weredriven into his own country; all this against, and perhaps in consequenceof, the intercession of Ogilvy's friend and neighbour, Montrose. 

Meanwhile the Scots were intriguing with discontented English peers, whocould only give sympathy; Saville, however, forged a letter from six ofthem inviting a Scottish invasion. There was a movement for makingArgyll practically Dictator in the North; Montrose thwarted it, and inAugust, while Charles with a reluctant and disorderly force was marchingon York Montrose at Cumbernauld, the house of the Earl of Wigtoun made asecret band with the Earls Marischal, Wigtoun, Home, Atholl, Mar, Perth, Boyd, Galloway, and others, for their mutual defence against the schemeof dictatorship for Argyll. On August 20 Montrose, the foremost, fordedTweed, and led his regiment into England. On August 30, almostunopposed, the Scots entered Newcastle, having routed a force which metthem at Newburn-on-Tyne. 

They again pressed their demands on the king; simultaneously twelveEnglish peers petitioned for a parliament and the trial of the king'sMinisters. Charles gave way. At Ripon Scottish and Englishcommissioners met; the Scots received "brotherly assistance" in money andsupplies (a daily 850 pounds), and stayed where they were; while the LongParliament met in November, and in April 1641 condemned the greatStrafford: Laud soon shared his doom. On August 10 the demands of theScots were granted: as a sympathetic historian writes, they had lived fora year at free quarters, "and recrossed the Border with the handsome sumof 200, 000 pounds to their credit. "

During the absence of the army the Kirk exhibited symptoms not favourableto its own peace. Amateur theologians held private religious gatherings, which, it was feared, tended towards the heresy of the EnglishIndependents and to the "break up of the whole Kirk, " some of whoserepresentatives forbade these conventicles, while "the rigid sort"asserted that the conventiclers "were esteemed the godly of the land. " AnAct of the General Assembly was passed against the meetings; we observethat here are the beginnings of strife between the most godly and therather moderately pious. 

The secret of Montrose's Cumbernauld band had come to light afterNovember 1640: nothing worse, at the moment, befell than the burning ofthe band by the Committee of Estates, to whom Argyll referred the matter. On May 21, 1641, the Committee was disturbed, for Montrose was collectingevidence as to the words and deeds of Argyll when he used his commissionof fire and sword at the Bonny House of Airlie and in other places. Montrose had spoken of the matter to a preacher, he to another, and thenews reached the Committee. Montrose had learned from a prisoner ofArgyll, Stewart the younger of Ladywell, that Argyll had held counsels todiscuss the deposition of the king. Ladywell produced to the Committeehis written statement that Argyll had spoken before him of theseconsultations of lawyers and divines. He was placed in the castle, andwas so worked on that he "cleared" Argyll and confessed that, advised byMontrose, he had reported Argyll's remarks to the king. Papers withhints and names in cypher were found in possession of the messenger. 

The whole affair is enigmatic; in any case Ladywell was hanged for"leasing-making" (spreading false reports), an offence not previouslycapital, and Montrose with his friends was imprisoned in the castle. Doubtless he had meant to accuse Argyll before Parliament of treason. OnJuly 27, 1641, being arraigned before Parliament, he said, "My resolutionis to carry with me fidelity and honour to the grave. " He lay in prisonwhen the king, vainly hoping for support against the English Parliament, visited Edinburgh (August 14-November 17, 1641). 

Charles was now servile to his Scottish Parliament, accepting an Act bywhich it must consent to his nominations of officers of State. Hamiltonwith his brother, Lanark, had courted the alliance and lived in theintimacy of Argyll. On October 12 Charles told the House "a very strangestory. " On the previous day Hamilton had asked leave to retire fromCourt, in fear of his enemies. On the day of the king's speaking, Hamilton, Argyll, and Lanark had actually retired. On October 22, fromtheir retreat, the brothers said that they had heard of a conspiracy, bynobles and others in the king's favour, to cut their throats. Theevidence is very confused and contradictory: Hamilton and Argyll weresaid to have collected a force of 5000 men in the town, and, on October5, such a gathering was denounced in a proclamation. Charles in vainasked for a public inquiry into the affair before the whole House. Henow raised some of his opponents a step in the peerage: Argyll became amarquis, and Montrose was released from prison. On October 28 Charlesannounced the untoward news of an Irish rising and massacre. He was, ofcourse, accused of having caused it, and the massacre was in turn thecause of, or pretext for, the shooting and hanging of Irish prisoners--menand women--in Scotland during the civil war. On November 18 he leftScotland for ever. 

The events in England of the spring in 1642, the attempted arrest of thefive members (January 4), the retreat of the queen to France, Charles'sretiral to York, indicated civil war, and the king set up his standard atNottingham on August 22. The Covenanters had received from Charles allthat they asked; they had no quarrel with him, but they argued that if hewere victorious in England he would use his strength and withdraw hisconcessions to Scotland. 

Sir Walter Scott "leaves it to casuists to decide whether one contractingparty is justified in breaking a solemn treaty upon the suspicion that infuture contingencies it might be infringed by the other. " He suggeststhat to the needy nobles and Dugald Dalgettys of the Covenant "the goodpay and free quarters" and "handsome sums" of England were anirresistible temptation, while the preachers thought they would beallowed to set up "the golden candlestick" of presbytery in England('Legend of Montrose, ' chapter i. ) Of the two the preachers were themore grievously disappointed. 

A General Assembly of July-August 1642 was, as usual, concerned withpolitics, for politics and religion were inextricably intermixed. TheAssembly appointed a Standing Commission to represent it, and the powersof the Commission were of so high a strain that "to some it is terriblealready, " says the Covenanting letter-writer Baillie. A letter from theKirk was carried to the English Parliament which acquiesced in theabolition of Episcopacy. In November 1642 the English Parliament, unsuccessful in war, appealed to Scotland for armed aid; in DecemberCharles took the same course. 

The Commission of the General Assembly, and the body of administratorscalled Conservators of the Peace, overpowered the Privy Council, put downa petition of Montrose's party (who declared that they were bound by theCovenant to defend the king), and would obviously arm on the side of theEnglish Parliament if England would adopt Presbyterian government. Theyheld a Convention of the Estates (June 22, 1643); they discovered aPopish plot for an attack on Argyll's country by the Macdonalds inIreland, once driven from Kintyre by the Campbells, and now to be led byyoung Colkitto. While thus excited, they received in the GeneralAssembly (August 7) a deputation from the English Parliament; and now wasframed a new band between the English Parliament and Scotland. It was analliance, "The Solemn League and Covenant, " by which Episcopacy was to beabolished and religion established "according to the Word of God. " Tothe Covenanters this phrase meant that England would establishPresbyterianism, but they were disappointed. The ideas of theIndependents, such as Cromwell, were almost as much opposed to presbyteryas to episcopacy, and though the Covenanters took the pay and fought thebattles of the Parliament against their king, they never received whatthey had meant to stipulate for, --the establishment of presbytery inEngland. Far from that, Cromwell, like James VI. , was to deprive them oftheir ecclesiastical palladium, the General Assembly. 

Foreseeing nothing, the Scots were delighted when the English acceptedthe new band. Their army, under Alexander Leslie (Earl of Leven), nowtoo old for his post, crossed Tweed in January 1644. They might neverhave crossed had Charles, in the autumn of 1643, listened to Montrose andallowed him to attack the Covenanters in Scotland. In December 1643, Hamilton and Lanark, who had opposed Montrose's views and confirmed theking in his waverings, came to him at Oxford. Montrose refused to servewith them, rather he would go abroad; and Hamilton was imprisoned oncharges of treason: in fact, he had been double-minded, inconstant, andincompetent. Montrose's scheme implied clan warfare, the use of exiledMacdonalds, who were Catholics, against the Campbells. The obviousobjections were very strong; but "needs must when the devil drives": theHanoverian kings employed foreign soldiers against their subjects in 1715and 1745; but the Macdonalds were subjects of King Charles. 

Hamilton's brother, Lanark, escaped, and now frankly joined theCovenanters. Montrose was promoted to a Marquisate, and received theRoyal Commission as Lieutenant-General (February 1644), which alienatedold Huntly, chief of the Gordons, who now and again divided and paralysedthat gallant clan. Montrose rode north, where, in February 1644, oldLeslie, with twenty regiments of foot, three thousand horse, and manyguns, was besieging Newcastle. With him was the prototype of Scott'sDugald Dalgetty, Sir James Turner, who records examples of Leslie'ssenile incompetency. Leslie, at least, forced the Marquis of Newcastleto a retreat, and a movement of Montrose on Dumfries was paralysed by thecowardice or imbecility of the Scottish magnates on the western Border. He returned, took Morpeth, was summoned by Prince Rupert, and reached himthe day after the disaster of Marston Moor (July 2, 1644), from whichBuccleuch's Covenanting regiment ran without stroke of sword, whileAlexander Leslie also fled, carrying news of his own defeat. It appearsthat the Scottish horse, under David Leslie, were at Marston Moor, asalways, the pick of their army. 

Rupert took over Montrose's men, and the great Marquis, disguised as agroom, rode hard to the house of a kinsman, near Tay, between Perth andDunkeld. Alone and comfortless, in a little wood, Montrose met a man whowas carrying the Fiery Cross, and summoning the country to resist theIrish Scots of Alastair Macdonald (Colkitto), who had landed with a forceof 1500 musketeers in Argyll, and was believed to be descending onAtholl, pursued by Seaforth and Argyll, and faced by the men of Badenoch. The two armies {181} were confronting each other when Montrose, in plaidand kilt, approached Colkitto and showed him his commission. Instantlythe two opposed forces combined into one, and with 2500 men, some armedwith bows and arrows, and others having only one charge for each musket, Montrose began his year of victories. 

The temptation to describe in detail his extraordinary series ofsuccesses and of unexampled marches over snow-clad and pathless mountainsmust be resisted. The mobility and daring of Montrose's irregular andcapricious levies, with his own versatile military genius and the heroicvalour of Colkitto, enabled him to defeat a large Covenanting force atTippermuir, near Perth: here he had but his 2500 men (September 1); torepeat his victory at Aberdeen {182} (September 13), to evade anddiscourage Argyll, who retired to Inveraray; to winter in and ravageArgyll's country, and to turn on his tracks from a northern retreat anddestroy the Campbells at Inverlochy, where Argyll looked on from hisgalley (February 2, 1645). 

General Baillie, a trained soldier, took the command of the Covenantinglevies and regular troops ("Red coats"), and nearly surprised Montrose inDundee. By a retreat showing even more genius than his victories, heescaped, appeared on the north-east coast, and scattered a Covenantingforce under Hurry, at Auldearn, near Inverness (May 9, 1645). 

Such victories as Montrose's were more than counterbalanced by Cromwell'sdefeat of Rupert and Charles at Naseby (June 14, 1645); while presbyterysuffered a blow from Cromwell's demand, that the English Parliamentshould grant "freedom of conscience, " not for Anglican or Catholic, ofcourse, but for religions non-Presbyterian. The "bloody sectaries, " asthe Presbyterians called Cromwell's Independents, were now masters of thefield: never would the blue banner of the Covenant be set up south ofTweed. 

Meanwhile General Baillie marched against Montrose, who outmanoeuvred himall over the eastern Highlands, and finally gave him battle at Alford onthe Don. Montrose had not here Colkitto and the western clans, but hisGordon horse, his Irish, the Farquharsons, and the Badenoch men weretriumphantly successful. Unfortunately, Lord Gordon was slain: he alonecould bring out and lead the clan of Huntly. Only by joining hands withCharles could Montrose do anything decisive. The king, hoping for nomore than a death in the field "with honour and a good conscience, "pushed as far north as Doncaster, where he was between Poyntz's army anda great cavalry force, led by David Leslie, from Hereford, to launchagainst Montrose. The hero snatched a final victory. He had but ahundred horse, but he had Colkitto and the flower of the fighting clans, including the invincible Macleans. Baillie, in command of new levies ofsome 10, 000 men, was thwarted by a committee of Argyll and other nobleamateurs. He met the enemy south of Forth, at Kilsyth, between Stirlingand Glasgow. The fiery Argyll made Baillie desert an admirableposition--Montrose was on the plain, Baillie was on the heights--andexpose his flank by a march across Montrose's front. The Macleans andMacdonalds, on the lower slope of the hill, without orders, saw theirchance, and racing up a difficult glen, plunged into the Covenantingflank. Meanwhile the more advanced part of the Covenanting force weredriving back some Gordons from a hill on Montrose's left, who wererescued by a desperate charge of Aboyne's handful of horse among the redcoats; Airlie charged with the Ogilvies; the advanced force of theCovenant was routed, and the Macleans and Macdonalds completed the workthey had begun (August 15). Few of the unmounted Covenanters escapedfrom Kilsyth; and Argyll, taking boat in the Forth, hurried to Newcastle, where David Leslie, coming north, obtained infantry regiments to back his4000 cavalry. 

In a year Montrose, with forces so irregular and so apt to go home afterevery battle, had actually cleared militant Covenanters out of Scotland. But the end had come. He would not permit the sack of Glasgow. Threethousand clansmen left him; Colkitto went away to harry Kintyre. Aboyneand the Gordons rode home on some private pique; and Montrose relied onmen whom he had already proved to be broken reeds, the Homes and Kers(Roxburgh) of the Border, and the futile and timid Traquair. When hecame among them they forsook him and fled; on September 10, at Kelso, SirRobert Spottiswoode recognised the desertion and the danger. 

Meanwhile Leslie, with an overpowering force of seasoned soldiers, horseand foot, marched with Argyll, not to Edinburgh, but down Gala to Tweed;while Montrose had withdrawn from Kelso, up Ettrick to Philiphaugh, onthe left of Ettrick, within a mile of Selkirk. He had but 500 Irish, whoentrenched themselves, and an uncertain number of mounted Border lairdswith their servants and tenants. Charteris of Hempsfield, who had beenscouting, reported that Leslie was but two or three miles distant, atSunderland Hall, where Tweed and Ettrick meet; but the news was notcarried to Montrose, who lay at Selkirk. At breakfast, on September 13, Montrose learned that Leslie was attacking. What followed is uncertainin its details. A so-called "contemporary ballad" is incrediblyimpossible in its anachronisms, and is modern. In this egregiousdoggerel we are told that a veteran who had fought at Solway Moss acentury earlier, and at "cursed Dunbar" a few years later (or underEdward I. ?), advised Leslie to make a turning movement behind LinglieHill. This is not evidence. Though Leslie may have made such amovement, he describes his victory as very easy: and so it should havebeen, as Montrose had only the remnant of his Antrim men and a rabble ofreluctant Border recruits. 

A news letter from Haddington, of September 16, represents the Cavaliersas making a good fight. The mounted Border lairds galloped away. Mostof the Irish fell fighting: the rest were massacred, whether afterpromise of quarter or not is disputed. _Their captured women were hangedin cold blood some months later_. Montrose, the Napiers, and some fortyhorse either cut their way through or evaded Leslie's overpoweringcavalry, and galloped across the hills of Yarrow to the Tweed. He hadlost only the remnant of his Scoto-Irish; but the Gordons, when Montrosewas presently menacing Glasgow, were held back by Huntly, and Colkittopursued his private adventures. Montrose had been deserted by the clans, and lured to ruin by the perfidious promises of the Border lords andlairds. The aim of his strategy had been to relieve the Royalists ofEngland by a diversion that would deprive the Parliamentarians of theirpaid Scottish allies, and what man might do Montrose had done. 

After his first victory Montrose, an excommunicated man, fought under anoffer of 1500 pounds for his murder, and the Covenanters welcomed theassassin of his friend, Lord Kilpont. 

The result of Montrose's victories was hostility between the Covenantingarmy in England and the English, who regarded them as expensive andinefficient. Indeed, they seldom, save for the command of David Leslie, displayed military qualities, and later, were invariably defeated whenthey encountered the English under Cromwell and Lambert. 

Montrose never slew a prisoner, but the Convention at St Andrews, inNovember 1645, sentenced to death their Cavalier prisoners (Lord Ogilvyescaped disguised in his sister's dress), and they ordered the hanging ofcaptives and of the women who had accompanied the Irish. "It was certainof the clergy who pressed for the extremest measures. " {186a} They hadrevived the barbarous belief, retained in the law of ancient Greece, thatthe land had been polluted by, and must be cleansed by, blood, underpenalty of divine wrath. As even the Covenanting Baillie wrote, "to thisday no man in England has been executed for bearing arms against theParliament. " The preachers argued that to keep the promises of quarterwhich had been given to the prisoners was "_to violate the oath of theCovenant_. " {186b}

The prime object of the English opponents of the king was now "to hustlethe Scots out of England. " {187} Meanwhile Charles, not captured buthopeless, was negotiating with all the parties, and ready to yield onevery point except that of forcing presbytery on England--a matter which, said Montereuil, the French ambassador, "did not concern them but theirneighbours. " Charles finally trusted the Scots with his person, and thequestion is, had he or had he not assurance that he would be wellreceived? If he had any assurance it was merely verbal, "a shadow of asecurity, " wrote Montereuil. Charles was valuable to the Scots only as apledge for the payment of their arrears of wages. There was muchchicanery and shuffling on both sides, and probably there weremisconceptions on both sides. A letter of Montereuil (April 26, 1646)convinced Charles that he might trust the Scots; they verbally promised"safety, honour, and conscience, " but refused to sign a copy of theirwords. Charles trusted them, rode out of Oxford, joined them atSouthwell, and, says Sir James Turner, who was present, was commanded byLothian to sign the Covenant, and "barbarously used. " They took Charlesto Newcastle, denying their assurance to him. "With unblushingfalsehood, " says Mr Gardiner, they in other respects lied to the EnglishParliament. On May 19 Charles bade Montrose leave the country, which hesucceeded in doing, despite the treacherous endeavours of his enemies todetain him till his day of safety (August 31) was passed. 

The Scots of the army were in a quandary. The preachers, their masters, would not permit them to bring to Scotland an uncovenanted king. Theycould not stay penniless in England. For 200, 000 pounds down and apromise, never kept, of a similar sum later, they left Charles in Englishhands, with some assurances for his safety, and early in February 1647crossed Tweed with their thirty-six cartloads of money. The act washateful to very many Scots, but the Estates, under the command of thepreachers, had refused to let the king, while uncovenanted, cross intohis native kingdom, and to bring him meant war with England. But _that_must ensue in any case. The hope of making England presbyterian, asunder the Solemn League and Covenant, had already perished. 

Leslie, with the part of the army still kept up, chased Colkitto, and, atDunavertie, under the influence of Nevoy, a preacher, put 300 Irishprisoners to the sword. 

The parties in Scotland were now: (1) the Kirk, Argyll, the two Leslies, and most of the Commons; (2) Hamilton, Lanark, and Lauderdale, who had nolonger anything to fear, as regards their estates, from Charles or frombishops, and who were ashamed of his surrender to the English; (3)Royalists in general. With Charles (December 27, 1647) in his prison atCarisbrooke, Lauderdale, Loudoun, and Lanark made a secret treaty, _TheEngagement_, which they buried in the garden, for if it were discoveredthe Independents of the army would have attacked Scotland. 

An Assembly of the Scots Estates on March 3, 1648, had a large majorityof nobles, gentry, and many burgesses in favour of aiding the captiveking; on the other side Argyll was backed by the omnipotent Commission ofthe General Assembly, and by the full force of prayers and sermons. Theletter-writer, Baillie, now deemed "that it were for the good of theworld that churchmen did meddle with ecclesiastical affairs only. " TheEngagers insisted on establishing presbytery in England, which neithersatisfied the Kirk nor the Cavaliers and Independents. Nothing morefutile could have been devised. 

The Estates, in May, began to raise an army; the preachers denouncedthem: there was a battle between armed communicants of the preachers'party and the soldiers of the State at Mauchline. Invading England onJuly 8, Hamilton had Lambert and Cromwell to face him, and left Argyll, the preachers, and their "slashing communicants" in his rear. Lanark hadvainly urged that the west country fanatics should be crushed before theBorder was crossed. By a march worthy of Montrose across the fells intoLanarkshire, Cromwell reached Preston; cut in between the northern partsof Hamilton's army; defeated the English Royalists and Langdale, and cutto pieces or captured the Scots, disunited as their generals were, atWigan and Warrington (August 17-19). Hamilton was taken and wasdecapitated later. The force that recrossed the Border consisted of suchmounted men as escaped, with the detachment of Monro which had not joinedHamilton. 

The godly in Scotland rejoiced at the defeat of their army: the levies ofthe western shires of Ayr, Renfrew, and Lanark occupied Edinburgh: Argylland the Kirk party were masters, and when Cromwell arrived in Edinburghearly in October he was entertained at dinner by Argyll. The left wingof the Covenant was now allied with the Independents--the deadly foes ofpresbytery! To the ordinary mind this looks like a new breach of theCovenant, that impossible treaty with Omnipotence. Charles had writtenthat the divisions of parties were probably "God's way to punish them fortheir many rebellions and perfidies. " The punishment was now beginningin earnest, and the alliance of extreme Covenanters with "bloodysectaries" could not be maintained. Yet historians admire thestatesmanship of Argyll!

If the edge which the sword of the Covenant turned against the Englishenemies of presbytery were blunted, the edge that smote Covenanters lessextreme than Argyll and the preachers was whetted afresh. In the Estatesof January 5, 1649, Argyll, whose party had a large majority, and thefanatical Johnston of Waristoun (who made private covenants with Jehovah)demanded disenabling Acts against all who had in any degree been taintedby the _Engagement_ for the rescue of the king. The Engagers weredivided into four "Classes, " who were rendered incapable by "The Act ofClasses" of holding any office, civil or military. This Act deprived thecountry of the services of thousands of men, just at the moment when theEnglish army, the Independents, Argyll's allies, were holding the Trialof Charles I. ; and, in defiance of timid remonstrances from the ScottishCommissioners in England, cut off "that comely head" (January 30, 1649), which meant war with Scotland. 

SCOTLAND AND CHARLES II. 

This was certain, for, on February 5, on the news of the deed done atWhitehall, the Estates proclaimed Charles II. As Scottish King--if hetook the Covenant. By an ingenious intrigue Argyll allowed Lauderdaleand Lanark, whom the Estates had intended to arrest, to escape toHolland, where Charles was residing, and their business was to bring thatuncovenanted prince to sign the Covenant, and to overcome the influenceof Montrose, who, with Clarendon, of course resisted such a treblydishonourable act of perjured hypocrisy. During the whole struggle, since Montrose took the king's side, he had been thwarted by theHamiltons. They invariably wavered: now they were for a futile policy ofdishonour, in which they involved their young king, Argyll, and Scotland. Montrose stood for honour and no Covenant; Argyll, the Hamiltons, Lauderdale, and the majority of the preachers stood for the Covenant withdishonour and perjury; the left wing of the preachers stood for theCovenant, but not for its dishonourable and foresworn acceptance byCharles. 

As a Covenanter, Charles II. Would be the official foe of the EnglishIndependents and army; Scotland would need every sword in the kingdom, and the kingdom's best general, Montrose, yet the Act of Classes, underthe dictation of the preachers, rejected every man tainted withparticipation in or approval of the Engagement--or of neglecting familyprayers!

Charles, in fact, began (February 22) by appointing Montrose hisLieutenant-Governor and Captain-General in Scotland, though Lauderdaleand Lanark "abate not an ace of their damned Covenant in all theirdiscourses, " wrote Hyde. The dispute between Montrose, on the side ofhonour, and that of Lanark, Lauderdale, and other Scottish envoys, endedas--given the character of Charles II. And his destitution--it must end. Charles (January 22, 1650) despatched Montrose to fight for him inScotland, and sent him the Garter. Montrose knew his doom: he replied, "With the more alacrity shall I abandon still my life to search my deathfor the interests of your Majesty's honour and service. " He searched hisdeath, and soon he found it. 

On May 1, Charles, by the Treaty of Breda, vowed to sign the Covenant; aweek earlier Montrose, not joined by the Mackenzies, had been defeated byStrachan at Carbisdale, on the south of the Kyle, opposite Invershin, inSutherlandshire. He was presently captured, and crowned a glorious lifeof honour by a more glorious death on the gibbet (May 21). He had kepthis promise; he had searched his death; he had loyally defended, likeJeanne d'Arc, a disloyal king; he had "carried fidelity and honour withhim to the grave. " His body was mutilated, his limbs were exposed, --theynow lie in St Giles' Church, Edinburgh, where is his beautiful monument. 

Montrose's last words to Charles (March 26, from Kirkwall) implored thatPrince "to be just to himself, "--not to perjure himself by signing theCovenant. The voice of honour is not always that of worldly wisdom, butevents proved that Charles and Scotland could have lost nothing and musthave gained much had the king listened to Montrose. He submitted, wesaw, to commissioners sent to him from Scotland. Says one of thesegentlemen, "_He_ . . . Sinfully complied with what _we_ most sinfullypressed upon him, . . . _our_ sin was more than _his_. "

While his subjects in Scotland were executing his loyal servants takenprisoners in Montrose's last defeat, Charles crossed the sea, signing theCovenants on board ship, and landed at the mouth of Spey. What he gainedby his dishonour was the guilt of perjury; and the consequent distrust ofthe wilder but more honest Covenanters, who knew that he had perjuredhimself, and deemed his reception a cause of divine wrath and disastrousjudgments. Next he was separated from most of his false friends, who hadurged him to his guilt, and from all Royalists; and he was not allowed tobe with his army, which the preachers kept "purging" of all who did notcome up to their standard of sanctity. 

Their hopeful scheme was to propitiate the Deity and avert wrath bypurging out officers of experience, while filling up their places withgodly but incompetent novices in war, "ministers' sons, clerks, and suchother sanctified creatures. " This final and fatal absurdity was theresult of playing at being the Israel described in the early historicbooks of the Old Testament, a policy initiated by Knox in spite of thehumorous protests of Lethington. 

For the surer purging of that Achan, Charles, and to conciliate the partywho deemed him the greatest cause of wrath of all, the king had to sign afalse and disgraceful declaration that he was "afflicted in spirit beforeGod because of the impieties of his father and mother"! He was helplessin the hands of Argyll, David Leslie, and the rest: he knew they woulddesert him if he did not sign, and he yielded (August 16). MeanwhileCromwell, with Lambert, Monk, 16, 000 foot and horse, and a victuallingfleet, had reached Musselburgh, near Edinburgh, by July 28. 

David Leslie very artfully evaded every attempt to force a fight, buthung about him in all his movements. Cromwell was obliged to retreat forlack of supplies in a devastated country, and on September 1 reachedDunbar by the coast road. Leslie, marching parallel along thehill-ridges, occupied Doonhill and secured a long, deep, and steepravine, "the Peaths, " near Cockburnspath, barring Cromwell's line ofmarch. On September 2 the controlling clerical Committee was stillbusily purging and depleting the Scottish army. The night of September 2-3 was very wet, the officers deserted their regiments to take shelter. Says Leslie himself, "We might as easily have beaten them as we did JamesGraham at Philiphaugh, if the officers had stayed by their own troops andregiments. " Several witnesses, and Cromwell himself, asserted that, owing to the insistence of the preachers, Leslie moved his men to thelower slopes on the afternoon of September 2. "The Lord hath deliveredthem into our hands, " Cromwell is reported to have said. They nowoccupied a position where the banks of the lower Broxburn were flat andassailable, not steep and forming a strong natural moat, as on the higherlevel. All night Cromwell rode along and among his regiments of horse, biting his lip till the blood ran down his chin. Leslie thought tosurprise Cromwell; Cromwell surprised Leslie, crossed the Broxburn on thelow level, before dawn, and drove into the Scots who were all unready, the matches of their muskets being wet and unlighted. The centre made agood stand, but a flank charge by English cavalry cut up the Scots foot, and Leslie fled with the nobles, gentry, and mounted men. In killed, wounded, and prisoners the Scots are said to have lost 14, 000 men, amanifest exaggeration. It was an utter defeat. 

"Surely, " wrote Cromwell, "it is probable the Kirk has done her do. " TheKirk thought not; purging must go on, "nobody must blame the Covenant. "Neglect of family prayers was selected as one cause of the defeat!Strachan and Ker, two extreme whigamores of the left wing of the godly, went to raise a western force that would neither acknowledge Charles norjoin Cromwell, who now took Edinburgh Castle. Charles was reduced byArgyll to make to him the most slavish promises, including the payment of40, 000 pounds, the part of the price of Charles I. Which Argyll had notyet touched. 

On October 4 Charles made "the Start"; he fled to the Royalists ofAngus, --Ogilvy and Airlie: he was caught, brought back, and preached at. Then came fighting between the Royalists and the Estates. Middleton, agood soldier, Atholl, and others, declared that they must and would fightfor Scotland, though they were purged out by the preachers. The Estates(November 4) gave them an indemnity. On this point the Kirk split intotwain: the wilder men, led by the Rev. James Guthrie, refusedreconciliation (the Remonstrants); the less fanatical would consent toit, on terms (the Resolutioners). The Committee of Estates dared toresist the Remonstrants: even the Commissioners of the General Assembly"cannot be against the raising of all fencible persons, "--and at lastadopted the attitude of all sensible persons. By May 21, 1651, theEstates rescinded the insane Act of Classes, but the strife betweenclerical Remonstrants and Resolutioners persisted till after theRestoration, the _Remonstrants_ being later named _Protesters_. 

Charles had been crowned at Scone on January 1, again signing theCovenants. Leslie now occupied Stirling, avoiding an engagement. InJuly, while a General Assembly saw the strife of the two sects, came newsthat Lambert had crossed the Forth at Queensferry, and defeated a Scotsforce at Inverkeithing, where the Macleans fell almost to a man; Monkcaptured a number of the General Assembly, and, as Cromwell, moving toPerth, could now assail Leslie and the main Scottish force at Stirling, they, by a desperate resolution, with 4000 horse and 9000 foot, invadedEngland by the west marches, "laughing, " says one of them, "at theridiculousness of our own condition. " On September 1 Monk stormed andsacked Dundee as Montrose sacked Aberdeen, but if he made a massacre likethat by Edward I. At Berwick, history is lenient to the crime. 

On August 22 Charles, with his army, reached Worcester, whither Cromwellmarched with a force twice as great as that of the king. Worcester was aSedan: Charles could neither hold it nor, though he charged gallantly, could he break through Cromwell's lines. Before nightfall on September 3Charles was a fugitive: he had no army; Hamilton was slain, Middleton andDavid Leslie with thousands more were prisoners. Monk had alreadycaptured, at Alyth (August 28), the whole of the Government, theCommittee of Estates, and had also caught some preachers, including JamesSharp, later Archbishop of St Andrews. England had conquered Scotland atlast, after twelve years of government by preachers acting asinterpreters of the Covenant between Scotland and Jehovah. 

CHAPTER XXV. CONQUERED SCOTLAND. 

During the nine years of the English military occupation of Scotlandeverything was merely provisional; nothing decisive could occur. In thefirst place (October 1651), eight English Commissioners, including threesoldiers, Monk, Lambert, and Deane, undertook the administration of theconquered country. They announced tolerance in religion (except forCatholicism and Anglicanism, of course), and during their occupation theEnglish never wavered on a point so odious to the Kirk. The Englishrulers also, as much as they could, protected the women and men whom thelairds and preachers smelled out and tortured and burned for witchcraft. By way of compensation for the expenses of war all the estates of men whohad sided with Charles were confiscated. Taxation also was heavy. Onfour several occasions attempts were made to establish the Union of thetwo countries; Scotland, finally, was to return thirty members to sit inthe English Parliament. But as that Parliament, under Cromwell, wassubject to strange and sudden changes, and as the Scottishrepresentatives were usually men sold to the English side, the experimentwas not promising. In its first stage it collapsed with Cromwell'sdismissal of the Long Parliament on April 20, 1653. Argyll meanwhile hadsubmitted, retaining his estates (August 1652); but of five garrisons inhis country three were recaptured, not without his goodwill, by theHighlanders; and in these events began Monk's aversion, finally fatal, tothe Marquis as a man whom none could trust, and in whom finally nobodytrusted. 

An English Commission of Justice, established in May 1652, wasconfessedly more fair and impartial than any Scotland had known, whichwas explained by the fact that the English judges "were kinless loons. "Northern cavaliers were relieved by Monk's forbidding civil magistratesto outlaw and plunder persons lying under Presbyterian excommunication, and sanitary measures did something to remove from Edinburgh the ancientreproach of filth, for the time. While the Protesters and Resolutionerskept up their quarrel, the Protesters claiming to be the only genuinerepresentatives of Kirk and Covenant, the General Assembly of theResolutioners was broken up (July 21, 1653) by Lilburne, with a fewsoldiers, and henceforth the Kirk, having no General Assembly, was lesscapable of promoting civil broils. Lilburne suspected that the Assemblywas in touch with new stirrings towards a rising in the Highlands, tolead which Charles had, in 1652, promised to send Middleton, who hadescaped from an English prison, as general. It was always hard to findany one under whom the great chiefs would serve, and Glencairn, withKenmure, was unable to check their jealousies. 

Charles heard that Argyll would appear in arms for the Crown, when hedeemed the occasion good; meanwhile his heir, Lord Lorne, would join therising. He did so in July 1653, under the curse of Argyll, who, byletters to Lilburne and Monk, and by giving useful information to theEnglish, fatally committed himself as treasonable to the Royal cause. Examples of his conduct were known to Glencairn, who communicated them toCharles. 

At the end of February 1654 Middleton arrived in Sutherland to head theinsurrection: but Monk chased the small and disunited force from countyto county, and in July Morgan defeated and scattered its remnants at LochGarry, just south of Dalnaspidal. The Armstrongs and other Border clans, who had been moss-trooping in their ancient way, were also reduced, andnew fortresses and garrisons bridled the fighting clans of the west. WithCromwell as protector in 1654, Free Trade with England was offered to theScots with reduced taxation: an attempt to legislate for the Unionfailed. In 1655-1656 a Council of State and a Commission of Justiceincluded two or three Scottish members, and burghs were allowed to electmagistrates who would swear loyalty to Cromwell. Cromwell died on theday of his fortunate star (September 3, 1658), and twenty-one members forScotland sat in Richard Cromwell's Parliament. When that was dissolved, and when the Rump was reinstated, a new Bill of Union was introduced, and, by reason of the provisions for religious toleration (a thingabsolutely impious in Presbyterian eyes), was delayed till (October 1659)the Rump was sent to its account. Conventions of Burghs and Shires werenow held by Monk, who, leading his army of occupation south in January1660, left the Resolutioners and Protesters standing at gaze, as hostileas ever, awaiting what thing should befall. Both parties still cherishedthe Covenants, and so long as these documents were held to be for everbinding on all generations, so long as the king's authority was to beresisted in defence of these treaties with Omnipotence, it was plain thatin Scotland there could neither be content nor peace. For twenty-eightyears, during a generation of profligacy and turmoil, cruelty andcorruption, the Kirk and country were to reap what they had sown in 1638. 

CHAPTER XXVI. THE RESTORATION. 

There was "dancing and derray" in Scotland among the laity when the kingcame to his own again. The darkest page in the national history seemedto have been turned; the conquering English were gone with theirabominable tolerance, their craze for soap and water, their aversion towitch-burnings. The nobles and gentry would recover their lands andcompensation for their losses; there would be offices to win, and "thespoils of office. "

It seems that in Scotland none of the lessons of misfortune had beenlearned. Since January the chiefs of the milder party of preachers, theResolutioners, --they who had been reconciled with the Engagers, --wereemploying the Rev. James Sharp, who had been a prisoner in England, astheir agent with Monk, with Lauderdale, in April, with Charles inHolland, and, again, in London. Sharp was no fanatic. From the first heassured his brethren, Douglas of Edinburgh, Baillie, and the rest, thatthere was no chance for "rigid Presbyterianism. " They could conceive ofno Presbyterianism which was not rigid, in the manner of Andrew Melville, to whom his king was "Christ's silly vassal. " Sharp warned them earlythat in face of the irreconcilable Protesters, "moderate Episcopacy"would be preferred; and Douglas himself assured Sharp that the newgeneration in Scotland "bore a heart-hatred to the Covenant, " and are"wearied of the yoke of presbyterial government. "

This was true: the ruling classes had seen too much of presbyterialgovernment, and would prefer bishops as long as they were not pamperedand all-powerful. On the other hand the lesser gentry, still more theirgodly wives, the farmers and burgesses, and the preachers, regarded thevery shadow of Episcopacy as a breach of the Covenant and an insult tothe Almighty. The Covenanters had forced the Covenant on the consciencesof thousands, from the king downwards, who in soul and conscience loathedit. They were to drink of the same cup--Episcopacy was to be forced onthem by fines and imprisonments. Scotland, her people and rulers weremoving in a vicious circle. The Resolutioners admitted that to allow theProtesters to have any hand in affairs was "to breed continual distemperand disorders, " and Baillie was for banishing the leaders of theProtesters, irreconcilables like the Rev. James Guthrie, to the Orkneyislands. But the Resolutioners, on the other hand, were no less eager tostop the use of the liturgy in Charles's own household, and to persecuteevery sort of Catholic, Dissenter, Sectary, and Quaker in Scotland. Meanwhile Argyll, in debt, despised on all sides, and yet dreaded, washolding a great open-air Communion meeting of Protesters at Paisley, inthe heart of the wildest Covenanting region (May 27, 1660). He was stilldangerous; he was trying to make himself trusted by the Protesters, whowere opposed to Charles. It may be doubted if any great potentate inScotland except the Marquis wished to revive the constitutional triumphsof Argyll's party in the last Parliament of Charles I. Charles now namedhis Privy Council and Ministers without waiting for parliamentaryassent--though his first Parliament would have assented to anything. Hechose only his late supporters: Glencairn who raised his standard in1653; Rothes, a humorous and not a cruel voluptuary; and, as Secretaryfor Scotland in London, Lauderdale, who had urged him to take theCovenant, and who for twenty years was to be his buffoon, his favourite, and his wavering and unscrupulous adviser. Among these greedy andtreacherous profligates there would, had he survived, have been no placefor Montrose. 

In defiance of warnings from omens, second-sighted men, and sensible men, Argyll left the safe sanctuary of his mountains and sea-straits, andbetook himself to London, "a fey man. " Most of his past was covered byan Act of Indemnity, but not his doings in 1653. He was arrested beforehe saw the king's face (July 8, 1660), and lay in the Tower till, inDecember, he was taken to be tried for treason in Scotland. 

Sharp's friends were anxious to interfere in favour of establishingPresbyterianism in England; he told them that the hope was vain; herepeatedly asked for leave to return home, and, while an English preacherassured Charles that the rout of Worcester had been God's vengeance forhis taking of the Covenant, Sharp (June 25) told his Resolutioners that"the Protesters' doom is dight. "

Administration in Scotland was intrusted to the Committee of Estates whomMonk (1650) had captured at Alyth, and with them Glencairn, asChancellor, entered Edinburgh on August 22. Next day, while theCommittee was busy, James Guthrie and some Protester preachers met, and, in the old way, drew up a "supplication. " They denounced religioustoleration, and asked for the establishment of Presbytery in England, andthe filling of all offices with Covenanters. They were all arrested andaccused of attempting to "rekindle civil war, " which would assuredly havefollowed had their prayer been accepted. Next year Guthrie was hanged. But ten days after his arrest Sharp had brought down a letter of Charlesto the Edinburgh Presbytery, promising to "protect and preserve thegovernment of the Church of Scotland as it is established by law. " Hadthe words run "as it may be established by law" (in Parliament) it wouldnot have been a dishonourable quibble--as it was. 

Parliament opened on New Year's Day 1661, with Middleton as Commissioner. In the words of Sir George Mackenzie, then a very young advocate and manof letters, "never was Parliament so obsequious. " The king was declared"supreme Governor over all persons and in all causes" (a blow at Kirkjudicature), and all Acts between 1633 and 1661 were rescinded, just asthirty years of ecclesiastical legislation had been rescinded by theCovenanters. A sum of 40, 000 pounds yearly was settled on the king. Argyll was tried, was defended by young George Mackenzie, and, when heseemed safe, his doom was fixed by the arrival of a Campbell from Londonbearing some of his letters to Lilburne and Monk (1653-1655) which theIndemnity of 1651 did not cover. He died, by the axe (not the rope, likeMontrose), with dignity and courage. 

The question of Church government in Scotland was left to Charles and hisadvisers. The problem presented to the Government of the Restoration bythe Kirk was much more difficult and complicated than historians usuallysuppose. The pretensions which the preachers had inherited from Knox andAndrew Melville were practically incompatible, as had been proved, withthe existence of the State. In the southern and western shires, --such asthose of Dumfries, Galloway, Ayr, Renfrew, and Lanark, --the forces whichattacked the Engagers had been mustered; these shires had backed Strachanand Ker and Guthrie in the agitation against the king, the Estates, andthe less violent clergy, after Dunbar. But without Argyll, and with noprobable noble leaders, they could do little harm; they had done noneunder the English occupation, which abolished the General Assembly. Tohave restored the Assembly, or rather two Assemblies--that of theProtesters and that of the Resolutionists, --would certainly have beenperilous. Probably the wisest plan would have been to grant a GeneralAssembly, to meet _after_ the session of Parliament; not, as had been thecustom, to meet before it and influence or coerce the Estates. Had thatmeasure proved perilous to peace it need not have been repeated, --theKirk might have been left in the state to which the English had reducedit. 

This measure would not have so much infuriated the devout as did theintroduction of "black prelacy, " and the ejection of some 300 adoredministers, chiefly in the south-west, and "the making of a desert first, and then peopling it with owls and satyrs" (the curates), as ArchbishopLeighton described the action of 1663. There ensued the finings of allwho would not attend the ministrations of "owls and satyrs, "--a grievancewhich produced two rebellions (1666 and 1679) and a doctrine ofanarchism, and was only worn down by eternal and cruel persecutions. 

By violence the Restoration achieved its aim: the Revolution of 1688entered into the results; it was a bitter moment in the evolution ofScotland--a moment that need never have existed. Episcopacy wasrestored, four bishops were consecrated, and Sharp accepted (as mighthave long been foreseen) the See of St Andrews. He was henceforthreckoned a Judas, and assuredly he had ruined his character for honour:he became a puppet of Government, despised by his masters, loathed by therest of Scotland. 

In May-September 1662, Parliament ratified the change to Episcopacy. Itseems to have been thought that few preachers except the Protesters wouldbe recalcitrant, refuse collation from bishops, and leave their manses. In point of fact, though they were allowed to consult their consciencestill February 1663, nearly 300 ministers preferred their consciences totheir livings. They remained centres of the devotion of their flocks, and the "curates, " hastily gathered, who took their places, werestigmatised as ignorant and profligate, while, as they were resisted, rabbled, and daily insulted, the country was full of disorder. 

The Government thus mortally offended the devout classes, though noattempt was made to introduce a liturgy. In the churches the serviceswere exactly, or almost exactly, what they had been; but excommunicationscould now only be done by sanction of the bishops. Witch-burnings, inspite of the opposition of George Mackenzie and the Council, were soon ascommon as under the Covenant. Oaths declaring it unlawful to enter intoCovenants or take up arms against the king were imposed on all persons inoffice. 

Middleton, of his own authority, now proposed the ostracism, byparliamentary ballot, of twelve persons reckoned dangerous. Lauderdalewas mainly aimed at (it is a pity that the bullet did not find itsbillet), with Crawford, Cassilis, Tweeddale, Lothian, and other peers whodid not approve of the recent measures. But Lauderdale, in London, seeing Charles daily, won his favour; Middleton was recalled (March1663), and Lauderdale entered freely on his wavering, unscrupulous, corrupt, and disastrous period of power. 

The Parliament of June 1663, meeting under Rothes, was packed by theleast constitutional method of choosing the Lords of the Articles. Waristoun was brought from France, tried, and hanged, "expressing morefear than I ever saw, " wrote Lauderdale, whose Act "against Separationand Disobedience to Ecclesiastical Authority" fined abstainers fromservices in their parish churches. In 1664, Sharp, who was despised byLauderdale and Glencairn, obtained the erection of that old grievance--aCourt of High Commission, including bishops, to punish nonconformists. Sir James Turner was intrusted with the task of dragooning them, byfining and the quartering of soldiers on those who would not attend thecurates and would keep conventicles. Turner was naturally clement andgood-natured, but wine often deprived him of his wits, and his soldierybehaved brutally. Their excesses increased discontent, and war withHolland (1664) gave them hopes of a Dutch ally. Conventicles becamecommon; they had an organisation of scouts and sentinels. Themalcontents intrigued with Holland in 1666, and schemed to capture thethree Keys of the Kingdom--the castles of Stirling, Dumbarton, andEdinburgh. The States-General promised, when this was done, to sendammunition and 150, 000 gulden (July 1666). 

When rebellion did break out it had no foreign aid, and a casual origin. In the south-west Turner commanded but seventy soldiers, scattered allabout the country. On November 14 some of them mishandled an old man inthe clachan of Dalry, on the Ken. A soldier was shot in revenge(Mackenzie speaks as if a conventicle was going on in the neighbourhood);people gathered in arms, with the Laird of Corsack, young Maxwell ofMonreith, and M'Lennan; caught Turner, undressed, in Dumfries, andcarried him with them as they "went conventicling about, " as Mackenziewrites, holding prayer-meetings, led by Wallace, an old soldier of theCovenant. At Lanark they renewed the Covenant. Dalziel of Binns, whohad learned war in Russia, led a pursuing force. The rebels weredisappointed in hopes of Dutch or native help at Edinburgh; they turned, when within three miles of the town, into the passes of the PentlandHills, and at Bullion Green, on November 28, displayed fine soldierlyqualities and courage, but fled, broken, at nightfall. The soldiers andcountryfolk, who were unsympathetic, took a number of prisoners, preachers and laymen, on whom the Council, under the presidency of Sharp, exercised a cruelty bred of terror. The prisoners were defended byGeorge Mackenzie: it has been strangely stated that he was Lord Advocate, and persecuted them! Fifteen rebels were hanged: the use of torture toextract information was a return, under Fletcher, the King's Advocate, toa practice of Scottish law which had been almost in abeyance since1638--except, of course, in the case of witches. Turner vainly tried tosave from the Boot {208} the Laird of Corsack, who had protected his lifefrom the fanatics. "The executioner favoured Mr Mackail, " says the Rev. Mr Kirkton, himself a sufferer later. This Mr Mackail, when a lad oftwenty-one (1662), had already denounced the rulers, in a sermon, as onthe moral level of Haman and Judas. 

It is entirely untrue that Sharp concealed a letter from the kingcommanding that no blood should be shed (Charles detested hangingpeople). If any one concealed his letter, it was Burnet, Archbishop ofGlasgow. Dalziel now sent Ballantyne to supersede Turner and to exceedhim in ferocity; and Bellenden and Tweeddale wrote to Lauderdaledeprecating the cruelties and rapacity of the reaction, and avowingcontempt of Sharp. He was "snibbed, " confined to his diocese, and "castdown, yea, lower than the dust, " wrote Rothes to Lauderdale. He was heldto have exaggerated in his reports the forces of the spirit of revolt;but Tweeddale, Sir Robert Murray, and Kincardine found when in power thatmatters were really much more serious than they had supposed. In thedisturbed districts--mainly the old Strathclyde and Pictish Galloway--theconformist ministers were perpetually threatened, insulted, and robbed. 

According to a sympathetic historian, "on the day when Charles shouldabolish bishops and permit free General Assemblies, the western Whigswould become his law-abiding subjects; but till that day they would beirreconcilable. " But a Government is not always well advised in yieldingto violence. Moreover, when Government had deserted its clergy, and hadgranted free General Assemblies, the two Covenants would re-arise, andthe pretensions of the clergy to dominate the State would be revived. Lauderdale drifted into a policy of alternate "Indulgences" ortolerations, and of repression, which had the desired effect, at themaximum of cost to justice and decency. Before England drove James II. From the throne, but a small remnant of fanatics were in activeresistance, and the Covenants had ceased to be dangerous. 

A scheme of partial toleration was mooted in 1667, and Rothes was removedfrom his practical dictatorship, while Turner was made the scapegoat ofRothes, Sharp, and Dalziel. The result of the scheme of toleration wasan increase in disorder. Bishop Leighton had a plan for abolishing allbut a shadow of Episcopacy; but the temper of the recalcitrants displayeditself in a book, 'Naphtali, ' advocating the right of the godly to murdertheir oppressors. This work contained provocations to anarchism, and, inKnox's spirit, encouraged any Phinehas conscious of a "call" from Heavento do justice on such persons as he found guilty of troubling the godly. 

Fired by such Christian doctrines, on July 11, 1668, one Mitchell--"apreacher of the Gospel, and a youth of much zeal and piety, " says Wodrowthe historian--shot at Sharp, wounded the Bishop of Orkney in the streetof Edinburgh, and escaped. This event delayed the project ofconciliation, but in July 1669 the first Indulgence was promulgated. Onmaking certain concessions, outed ministers were to be restored. Two-and-forty came in, including the Resolutioner Douglas, in 1660 thecorrespondent of Sharp. The Indulgence allowed the indulged to rejectEpiscopal collation; but while brethren exiled in Holland denounced thescheme (these brethren, led by Mr MacWard, opposed all attempts atreconciliation), it also offended the Archbishops, who issued aRemonstrance. Sharp was silenced; Burnet of Glasgow was superseded, andthe see was given to the saintly but unpractical Leighton. By 1670conventiclers met in arms, and "a clanking Act, " as Lauderdale called it, menaced them with death: Charles II. Resented but did not rescind it. Infact, the disorders and attacks on conformist ministers were of aviolence much overlooked by our historians. In 1672 a second Indulgencesplit the Kirk into factions--the exiles in Holland maintaining thatpreachers who accepted it should be held men unholy, false brethren. Butthe Indulged increased in numbers, and finally in influence. 

To such a man as Leighton the whole quarrel seemed "a scuffle of drunkenmen in the dark. " An Englishman entering a Scottish church at this timefound no sort of liturgy; prayers and sermons were what the ministerchose to make them--in fact, there was no persecution for religion, saysSir George Mackenzie. But if men thought even a shadow of Episcopacy anoffence to Omnipotence, and the king's authority in ecclesiastical casesa usurping of "the Crown Honours of Christ"; if they consequently brokethe law by attending armed conventicles and assailing conformistpreachers, and then were fined or imprisoned, --from their point of viewthey were being persecuted for their religion. Meanwhile they bulliedand "rabbled" the "curates" for _their_ religion: such was Leighton's"drunken scuffle in the dark. "

In 1672 Lauderdale married the rapacious and tyrannical daughter of WillMurray--of old the whipping-boy of Charles I. , later a disreputableintriguer. Lauderdale's own ferocity of temper and his greed had createdso much dislike that in the Parliament of 1673 he was met by aconstitutional opposition headed by the Duke of Hamilton, and with SirGeorge Mackenzie as its orator. Lauderdale consented to withdrawmonopolies on salt, tobacco, and brandy; to other grievances he would notlisten (the distresses of the Kirk were not brought forward), and hedissolved the Parliament. The opposition tried to get at him through theEnglish Commons, who brought against him charges like those which werefatal to Strafford. They failed; and Lauderdale, holding seven officeshimself, while his brother Haltoun was Master of the Mint, ruled througha kind of clique of kinsmen and creatures. 

Leighton, in despair, resigned his see: the irreconcilables of the Kirkhad crowned him with insults. The Kirk, he said, "abounded in furiouszeal and endless debates about the empty name and shadow of a differencein government, in the meanwhile not having of solemn and orderly publicworship as much as a shadow. "

Wodrow, the historian of the sufferings of the Kirk, declares thatthrough the riotous proceedings of the religious malcontents "the countryresembled war as much as peace. " But an Act of Council of 1677 biddinglandowners sign a bond for the peaceable behaviour of all on their landswas refused obedience by many western lairds. They could not enforceorder, they said: hence it seemed to follow that there was much disorder. Those who refused were, by a stretch of the law of "law-burrows, " boundover to keep the peace of the Government. Lauderdale, having nothingthat we would call a police, little money, and a small insufficient forceof regulars, called in "the Highland Host, " the retainers of Atholl, Glenorchy, Mar, Moray, and Airlie, and other northern lords, andquartered them on the disturbed districts for a month. They were thensent home bearing their spoils (February 1678). Atholl and Perth (laterto be the Catholic minister of James II. ) now went over to "the Party, "the opposition, Hamilton's party; Hamilton and others rode to London tocomplain against Lauderdale, but he, aided by the silver tongue ofMackenzie, who had changed sides, won over Charles, and Lauderdale'sassailants were helpless. 

Great unpopularity and disgrace were achieved by the treatment of thepious Mitchell, who, we have seen, missed Sharp and shot the Bishop ofOrkney in 1668. In 1674 he was taken, and confessed before the Council, after receiving from Rothes, then Chancellor, assurance of his life: thiswith Lauderdale's consent. But when brought before the judges, heretracted his confession. He was kept a prisoner on the Bass Rock; in1676 was tortured; in January 1678 was again tried. Haltoun (who in aletter of 1674 had mentioned the assurance of life), Rothes, Sharp, andLauderdale, all swore that, to their memory, no assurance had been givenin 1674. Mitchell's counsel asked to be allowed to examine the Registerof the Council, but, for some invisible technical reasons, the Lords ofthe Justiciary refused; the request, they said, came too late. Mackenzieprosecuted; he had been Mitchell's counsel in 1674, and it is impossibleto follow the reasoning by which he justifies the condemnation andhanging of Mitchell in January 1678. Sharp was supposed to have urgedMitchell's trial, and to have perjured himself, which is far fromcertain. Though Mitchell was guilty, the manner of his taking off wasflagrantly unjust and most discreditable to all concerned. 

Huge armed conventicles, and others led by Welsh, a preacher, marchedabout through the country in December 1678 to May 1679. In April 1679two soldiers were murdered while in bed; next day John Graham ofClaverhouse, who had served under the Prince of Orange with credit, andnow comes upon the scene, reported that Welsh was organising an armedrebellion, and that the peasants were seizing the weapons of the militia. Balfour of Kinloch (Burley) and Robert Hamilton, a laird in Fife, werethe leaders of that extreme sect which was feared as much by the indulgedpreachers as by the curates, and, on May 2, 1679, Balfour, with Hackstounof Rathillet (who merely looked on), and other pious desperadoes, passedhalf an hour in clumsily hacking Sharp to death, in the presence of hisdaughter, at Magus Moor near St Andrews. 

The slayers, says one of them, thanked the Lord "for leading them by HisHoly Spirit in every step they stepped in that matter, " and it is obviousthat mere argument was unavailing with gentlemen who cherished suchopinions. In the portraits of Sharp we see a face of refined goodnesswhich makes the physiognomist distrust his art. From very early timesCromwell had styled Sharp "Sharp of that ilk. " He was subtle, he had nofanaticism, he warned his brethren in 1660 of the impossibility ofrestoring their old authority and discipline. But when he accepted anarchbishopric he sold his honour; his servility to Charles and Lauderdalewas disgusting; fear made him cruel; his conduct at Mitchell's last trialis, at best, ambiguous; and the hatred in which he was held is proved bythe falsehoods which his enemies told about his private life and hissorceries. 

The murderers crossed the country, joined the armed fanatics of the west, under Robert Hamilton, and on Restoration Day (May 29) burned Acts of theGovernment at Rutherglen. Claverhouse rode out of Glasgow with a smallforce, to inquire into this proceeding; met the armed insurgents in astrong position defended by marshes and small lochs; sent to Lord Ross atGlasgow for reinforcements which did not arrive; and has himself told howhe was defeated, pursued, and driven back into Glasgow. "This may beaccounted the beginning of the rebellion in my opinion. "

Hamilton shot with his own hand one of the prisoners, and reckoned thesparing of the others "one of our first steppings aside. " Men soconscientious as Hamilton were rare in his party, which was ruinedpresently by its own distracted counsels. 

The forces of the victors of Drumclog were swollen by their success, butthey were repulsed with loss in an attack on Glasgow. The commands ofRoss and Claverhouse were then withdrawn to Stirling, and whenLivingstone joined them at Larbert, the whole army mustered but 1800men--so weak were the regulars. The militia was raised, and the kingsent down his illegitimate son, Monmouth, husband of the heiress ofBuccleuch, at the head of several regiments of redcoats. Argyll was notof service; he was engaged in private war with the Macleans, who refusedan appeal for help from the rebels. They, in Glasgow and at Hamilton, were quarrelling over the Indulgence: the extremists called Mr Welsh'sparty "rotten-hearted"--Welsh would not reject the king's authority--theWelshites were the more numerous. On June 22 the Clyde, at BothwellBridge, separated the rebels--whose preachers were inveighing againsteach other--from Monmouth's army. Monmouth refused to negotiate till theothers laid down their arms, and after a brief artillery duel, the Royalinfantry carried the bridge, and the rest of the affair was pursuit bythe cavalry. The rival Covenanting leaders, Russel, one of Sharp'smurderers, and Ure, give varying accounts of the affair, and each partyblames the other. The rebel force is reckoned at from five to seventhousand, the Royal army was of 2300 according to Russel. "Somehundreds" of the Covenanters fell, and "many hundreds, " the Privy Councilreported, were taken. 

The battle of Bothwell Bridge severed the extremists, Robert Hamilton, Richard Cameron and Cargill, the famous preachers, and the rest, from themajority of the Covenanters. They dwindled to the "Remnant, " growing thefiercer as their numbers decreased. Only two ministers were hanged;hundreds of prisoners were banished, like Cromwell's prisoners afterDunbar, to the American colonies. Of these some two hundred were drownedin the wreck of their vessel off the Orkneys. The main body were pennedup in Greyfriars Churchyard; many escaped; more signed a promise toremain peaceful, and shun conventicles. There was more of cruelcarelessness than of the deliberate cruelty displayed in the massacresand hangings of women after Philiphaugh and Dunaverty. But theavaricious and corrupt rulers, after 1679, headed by James, Duke of York(Lauderdale being removed), made the rising of Bothwell Bridge thepretext for fining and ruining hundreds of persons, especially lairds, who were accused of helping or harbouring rebels. The officials wererapacious for their own profit. The records of scores of trialsprosecuted for the sake of spoil, and disgraced by torture and injustice, make miserable reading. Between the trials of the accused and thestruggle with the small minority of extremists led by Richard Cameron andthe aged Mr Cargill, the history of the country is monotonously wretched. It was in prosecuting lairds and peasants and preachers that Sir GeorgeMackenzie, by nature a lenient man and a lover of literature, gained thename of "the bluidy advocate. "

Cameron and his followers rode about after issuing the wildestmanifestoes, as at Sanquhar in the shire of Dumfries (June 22, 1680). Bruce of Earlshall was sent with a party of horse to pursue, and, in thewild marshes of Airs Moss, in Ayrshire, Cameron "fell praying andfighting"; while Hackstoun of Rathillet, less fortunate, was taken, andthe murder of Sharp was avenged on him with unspeakable cruelties. TheRemnant now formed itself into organised and armed societies; theirconduct made them feared and detested by the majority of the preachers, who longed for a quiet life, not for the establishment of a Mosaiccommonwealth, and "the execution of righteous judgments" on "malignants. "Cargill was now the leader of the Remnant, and Cargill, in a conventicleat Torwood, of his own authority excommunicated the king, the Duke ofYork, Lauderdale, Rothes, Dalziel, and Mackenzie, whom he accused ofleniency to witches, among other sins. The Government apparently thoughtthat excommunication, to the mind of Cargill and his adherents, meantoutlawry, and that outlawry might mean the assassination of theexcommunicated. Cargill was hunted, and (July 12, 1681) was captured by"wild Bonshaw. " It was believed by his party that the decision toexecute Cargill was carried by the vote of Argyll, in the Privy Council, and that Cargill told Rothes (who had signed the Covenant with him intheir youth) that Rothes would be the first to die. Rothes died on July26, Cargill was hanged on July 27. 

On the following day James, Duke of York, as Royal Commissioner, openedthe first Parliament since 1673-74. James secured an Act making theright of succession to the Crown independent of differences of religion;he, of course, was a Catholic. The Test Act was also passed, a thing soself-contradictory in its terms that any man might take it whose sense ofhumour overcame his sense of honour. Many refused, including a number ofthe conformist ministers. Argyll took the Test "as far as it isconsistent with itself and with the Protestant religion. "

Argyll, the son of the executed Marquis, had recovered his lands, andacquired the title of Earl mainly through the help of Lauderdale. Duringthe religious troubles from 1660 onwards he had taken no great part, buthad sided with the Government, and approved of the torture of preachers. But what ruined him now (though the facts have been little noticed) washis disregard of the claims of his creditors, and his obtaining the landsof the Macleans in Mull and Morven, in discharge of an enormous debt ofthe Maclean chief to the Marquis, executed in 1661. The Macleans hadvainly attempted to prove that the debt was vastly inflated by familiarprocesses, and had resisted in arms the invasion of the Campbells. Theyhad friends in Seaforth, the Mackenzies, and in the Earl of Errol andother nobles. 

These men, especially Mackenzie of Tarbet, an astute intriguer, seizedtheir chance when Argyll took the Test "with a qualification, " andthough, at first, he satisfied and was reconciled to the Duke of York, they won over the Duke, accused Argyll to the king, brought him before ajury, and had him condemned of treason and incarcerated. The object mayhave been to intimidate him, and destroy his almost royal power in thewest and the islands. In any case, after a trial for treason, in whichone vote settled his doom, he escaped in disguise as a footman (perhapsby collusion, as was suspected), fled to England, conspired there withScottish exiles and a Covenanting refugee, Mr Veitch, and, as Charleswould not allow him to be searched for, he easily escaped to Holland. (For details, see my book, 'Sir George Mackenzie. ')

It was, in fact, clan hatred that dragged down Argyll. His condemnationwas an infamous perversion of justice, but as Charles would not allow himto be captured in London, it is most improbable that he would havepermitted the unjust capital sentence to be carried out. The escape wasprobably collusive, and the sole result of these intricate iniquities wasto create for the Government an enemy who would have been dangerous if hehad been trusted by the extreme Presbyterians. In England no less thanin Scotland the supreme and odious injustice of Argyll's trial excitedgeneral indignation. The Earl of Aberdeen (Gordon of Haddo) was nowChancellor, and Queensberry was Treasurer for a while; both wereintrigued against at Court by the Earl of Perth and his brother, laterLord Melfort, and probably by far the worst of all the knaves of theRestoration. 

Increasing outrages by the Remnant, now headed by the Rev. Mr JamesRenwick, a very young man, led to more furious repression, especially asin 1683 Government detected a double plot--the wilder English aim beingto raise the rabble and to take or slay Charles and his brother at theRye House; while the more respectable conspirators, English and Scots, were believed to be acquainted with, though not engaged in, this design. The Rev. Mr Carstares was going and coming between Argyll and the exilesin Holland and the intriguers at home. They intended as usual first tosurprise Edinburgh Castle. In England Algernon Sidney, Lord Russell, andothers were arrested, while Baillie of Jerviswoode and Carstares wereapprehended--Carstares in England. He was sent to Scotland, where hecould be tortured. The trial of Jerviswoode was if possible more unjustthan even the common run of these affairs, and he was executed (December24, 1684). 

The conspiracy was, in fact, a very serious affair: Carstares wasconfessedly aware of its criminal aspect, and was in the closestconfidence of the ministers of William of Orange. What his dealings werewith them in later years he would never divulge. But it is clear that ifthe plotters slew Charles and James, the hour had struck for the Dutchdeliverer's appearance. If we describe the Rye House Plot as aimingmerely at "the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne, " we shutour eyes to evidence and make ourselves incapable of understanding theevents. There were plotters of every degree and rank, and they wereintriguing with Argyll, and, through Carstares who knew, though herefused a part in the murder plot, were in touch at once with Argyll andthe intimates of William of Orange. 

Meanwhile "the hill men, " the adherents of Renwick, in October 1684, declared a war of assassination against their opponents, and announcedthat they would try malignants in courts of their own. Their manifesto("The Apologetical Declaration") caused an extraordinary measure ofrepression. A test--the abjuration of the _criminal_ parts of Renwick'sdeclaration--was to be offered by military authority to all and sundry. Refusal to abjure entailed military execution. The test was onlyobnoxious to sincere fanatics; but among them must have been hundreds ofpersons who had no criminal designs, and merely deemed it a point ofhonour not to "homologate" any act of a Government which was corrupt, prelatic, and unholy. 

Later victims of this view of duty were Margaret Lauchleson and MargaretWilson--an old woman and a young girl--cruelly drowned by the localauthorities at Wigtown (May 1685). A myth represents Claverhouse ashaving been present. The shooting of John Brown, "the ChristianCarrier, " by Claverhouse in the previous week was an affair of anothercharacter. Claverhouse did not exceed his orders, and ammunition andtreasonable papers were in Brown's possession; he was also sheltering ared-handed rebel. Brown was not shot merely "because he was aNonconformist, " nor was he shot by the hand of Claverhouse. 

These incidents of "the killing time" were in the reign of James II. ;Charles II. Had died, to the sincere grief of most of his subjects, onFebruary 2, 1685. "Lecherous and treacherous" as he was, he was humorousand good-humoured. The expected invasion of Scotland by Argyll, ofEngland by Monmouth, did not encourage the Government to use respectivelenity in the Covenanting region, from Lanarkshire to Galloway. 

Argyll, who sailed from Holland on May 2, had a council of Lowlanders whothwarted him. His interests were in his own principality, but he foundit occupied by Atholl and his clansmen, and the cadets of his own Houseas a rule would not rally to him. The Lowlanders with him, Sir PatrickHume, Sir John Cochrane, and the rest, wished to move south and joinhands with the Remnant in the west and in Galloway; but the Remnantdistrusted the sudden religious zeal of Argyll, and were cowed byClaverhouse. The coasts were watched by Government vessels of war, andwhen, after vain movements round about his own castle, Inveraray, Argyllwas obliged by his Lowlanders to move on Glasgow, he was checked at everyturn; the leaders, weary and lost in the marshes, scattered fromKilpatrick on Clyde; Argyll crossed the river, and was captured byservants of Sir John Shaw of Greenock. He was not put to trial nor totorture; he was executed on the verdict of 1681. About 200 suspectedpersons were lodged by Government in Dunottar Castle at the time andtreated with abominable cruelty. 

The Covenanters were now effectually put down, though Renwick was nottaken and hanged till 1688. The preachers were anxious for peace andquiet, and were bitterly hostile to Renwick. The Covenant was a deadletter as far as power to do mischief was concerned. It was notpersecution of the Kirk, but demand for toleration of Catholics and amanifest desire to restore the Church, that in two years lost James hiskingdoms. 

On April 29, 1686, James's message to the Scots Parliament askedtoleration for "our innocent subjects" the Catholics. He had substitutedPerth's brother, now entitled Earl of Melfort, for Queensberry; Perth wasnow Chancellor; both men had adopted their king's religion, and theinfamous Melfort can hardly be supposed to have done so honestly. Theirfamilies lost all in the event except their faith. With the request fortoleration James sent promises of free trade with England, and he askedfor no supplies. Perth had introduced Catholic vestments and furnishingsin Holyrood chapel, which provoked a No Popery riot. Parliament wouldnot permit toleration; James removed many of the Council and filled theirplaces with Catholics. Sir George Mackenzie's conscience "dirled"; herefused to vote for toleration and he lost the Lord Advocateship, beingsuperseded by Sir James Dalrymple, an old Covenanting opponent ofClaverhouse in Galloway. 

In August James, by prerogative, did what the Estates would not do, andhe deprived the Archbishop of Glasgow and the Bishop of Dunkeld of theirSees: though a Catholic, he was the king-pope of a Protestant church! Ina decree of July 1687 he extended toleration to the Kirk, and a meetingof preachers at Edinburgh expressed "a deep sense of your Majesty'sgracious and surprising favour. " The Kirk was indeed broken, and, whenthe Revolution came, was at last ready for a compromise from which theCovenants were omitted. On February 17, 1688, Mr Renwick was hanged atEdinburgh: he had been prosecuted by Dalrymple. On the same dayMackenzie superseded Dalrymple as Lord Advocate. 

After the birth of the White Rose Prince of Wales (June 10, 1688), Scotland, like England, apprehended that a Catholic king would befollowed by a Catholic son. The various contradictory lies about thechild's birth flourished, all the more because James ventured to selectthe magistrates of the royal burghs. It became certain that the Princeof Orange would invade, and Melfort madly withdrew the regular troops, with Claverhouse (now Viscount Dundee) to aid in resisting William inEngland, though Balcarres proposed a safer way of holding down theEnglish northern counties by volunteers, the Highland clans, and newlevies. Thus the Privy Council in Scotland were left at the mercy of thepopulace. 

Of the Scottish army in England all were disbanded when James fled toFrance, except a handful of cavalry, whom Dundee kept with him. Perthfled from Edinburgh, but was taken and held a prisoner for four years;the town train-band, with the mob and some Cameronians, took Holyrood, slaying such of the guard as they did not imprison; "many died of theirwounds and hunger. " The chapel and Catholic houses were sacked, andgangs of the armed Cameronian societies went about in the south-west, rabbling, robbing, and driving away ministers of the Episcopalian sort. Atholl was in power in Edinburgh; in London, where James's Scots friendsmet, the Duke of Hamilton was made President of Council, and power wasleft till the assembling of a Convention at Edinburgh (March 1689) in thehands of William. 

In Edinburgh Castle the wavering Duke of Gordon was induced to remain byDundee and Balcarres; while Dundee proposed to call a Jacobite conventionin Stirling. Melfort induced James to send a letter contrary to thedesires of his party; Atholl, who had promised to join them, broke away;the life of Dundee was threatened by the fanatics, and on March 18, seeing his party headless and heartless, Dundee rode north, going"wherever might lead him the shade of Montrose. "

Mackay now brought to Edinburgh regiments from Holland, which overawedthe Jacobites, and he secured for William the key of the north, thecastle of Stirling. With Hamilton as President, the Convention, withonly four adverse votes, declared against James and his son; and Hamilton(April 3) proclaimed at the cross the reign of William and Mary. Theclaim of rights was passed and declared Episcopacy intolerable. Balcarreswas thrown into prison: on May 11 William took the Coronation oath forScotland, merely protesting that he would not "root out heretics, " as theoath enjoined. 

This was "the end o' an auld sang, " the end of the Stuart dynasty, and ofthe equally "divine rights" of kings and of preachers. 

In a sketch it is impossible to convey any idea of the sufferings ofScotland, at least of Covenanting Scotland, under the Restoration. Therewas contest, unrest, and dragoonings, and the quartering of a brutal andlicentious soldiery on suspected persons. Law, especially since 1679, had been twisted for the conviction of persons whom the administrationdesired to rob. The greed and corruption of the rulers, from Lauderdale, his wife, and his brother Haltoun, to Perth and his brother, the Earl ofMelfort, whose very title was the name of an unjustly confiscated estate, is almost inconceivable. {225} Few of the foremost men in power, exceptSir George Mackenzie and Claverhouse, were free from personal profligacyof every sort. Claverhouse has left on record his aversion to severitiesagainst the peasantry; he was for prosecuting such gentry as theDalrymples. As constable of Dundee he refused to inflict capitalpunishment on petty offenders, and Mackenzie went as far as he dared inopposing the ferocities of the inquisition of witches. But in cases ofalleged treason Mackenzie knew no mercy. 

Torture, legal in Scotland, was used with barbarism unprecedented thereafter each plot or rising, to extract secrets which, save in one or twocases like that of Carstares, the victims did not possess. They werepeasants, preachers, and a few country gentlemen: the nobles had noinclination to suffer for the cause of the Covenants. The Covenantscontinued to be the idols of the societies of Cameronians, and of manypreachers who were no longer inclined to die for these documents, --theexpression of such strange doctrines, the causes of so many sorrows andof so many martyrdoms. However little we may sympathise with thedoctrines, none the less the sufferers were idealists, and, no less thanMontrose, preferred honour to life. 

With all its sins, the Restoration so far pulverised the pretensionswhich, since 1560, the preachers had made, that William of Orange was notobliged to renew the conflict with the spiritual sons of Knox and AndrewMelville. 

This fact is not so generally recognised as it might be. It is thereforeproper to quote the corroborative opinion of the learned Historiographer-Royal of Scotland, Professor Hume Brown. "By concession and repressionthe once mighty force of Scottish Presbyterianism had been broken. Mostdeadly of the weapons in the accomplishment of this result had been thethree Acts of Indulgence which had successively cut so deep into theranks of uniformity. In succumbing to the threats and promises of theGovernment, the Indulged ministers had undoubtedly compromised thefundamental principles of Presbyterianism. . . . The compliance of theseministers was, in truth, the first and necessary step towards thatreligious and political compromise which the force of circumstances wasgradually imposing on the Scottish people, " and "the example of theIndulged ministers, who composed the great mass of the Presbyterianclergy, was of the most potent effect in substituting the idea oftoleration for that of the religious absolutism of Knox and Melville. "{226}

It may be added that the pretensions of Knox and Melville and all theirfollowers were no essential part of Presbyterial Church government, butwere merely the continuation or survival of the clerical claims ofapostolic authority, as enforced by such popes as Hildebrand and suchmartyrs as St Thomas of Canterbury. 

CHAPTER XXVII. WILLIAM AND MARY. 

While Claverhouse hovered in the north the Convention (declared to be aParliament by William on June 5) took on, for the first time in Scotlandsince the reign of Charles I, the aspect of an English Parliament, anddemanded English constitutional freedom of debate. The Secretary inScotland was William, Earl of Melville; that hereditary waverer, the Dukeof Hamilton, was Royal Commissioner; but some official supporters ofWilliam, especially Sir James and Sir John Dalrymple, were criticised andthwarted by "the club" of more extreme Liberals. They were led by theLowland ally who had vexed Argyll, Hume of Polwarth; and by Montgomery ofSkelmorley, who, disappointed in his desire of place, soon engaged in aJacobite plot. 

The club wished to hasten the grant of Parliamentary liberties whichWilliam was anxious not to give; and to take vengeance on officials suchas Sir James Dalrymple, and his son, Sir John, now Lord Advocate, as hehad been under James II. To these two men, foes of Claverhouse, Williamclung while he could. The council obtained, but did not need to use, permission to torture Jacobite prisoners, "Cavaliers" as at this timethey were styled; but Chieseley of Dalry, who murdered Sir GeorgeLockhart, President of the College of Justice, was tortured. 

The advanced Liberal Acts which were passed did not receive the touch ofthe sceptre from Hamilton, William's Commissioner: thus they were"vetoed, " and of no effect. The old packed committee, "The Lords of theArticles, " was denounced as a grievance; the king was to be permitted toappoint no officers of State without Parliament's approbation. Hamiltonoffered compromises, for William clung to "the Articles"; but heabandoned them in the following year, and thenceforth till the Union(1707) the Scottish was "a Free Parliament. " Various measures oflegislation for the Kirk---some to emancipate it as in its palmy days, some to keep it from meddling in politics--were proposed; some measuresto abolish, some to retain lay patronage of livings, were mooted. Theadvanced party for a while put a stop to the appointment of judges, butin August came news of the Viscount Dundee in the north which terrifiedparliamentary politicians. 

Edinburgh Castle had been tamely yielded by the Duke of Gordon;Balcarres, the associate of Dundee, had been imprisoned; but Dundeehimself, after being declared a rebel, in April raised the standard ofKing James. As against him the Whigs relied on Mackay, a brave officerwho had been in Dutch service, and now commanded regiments of the ScotsBrigade of Holland. Mackay pursued Dundee, as Baillie had pursuedMontrose, through the north: at Inverness, Dundee picked up someMacdonalds under Keppoch, but Keppoch was not satisfactory, beingsomething of a freebooter. The Viscount now rode to the centre of hishopes, to the Macdonalds of Glengarry, the Camerons of Lochiel, and theMacleans who had been robbed of their lands by the Earl of Argyll, executed in 1685. Dundee summoned them to Lochiel's house on Loch Arkaigfor May 18; he visited Atholl and Badenoch; found a few mounted men asrecruits at Dundee; returned through the wilds to Lochaber, and sentround that old summons to a rising, the Fiery Cross, charred and dippedin a goat's blood. 

Much time was spent in preliminary manoeuvring and sparring betweenMackay, now reinforced by English regulars, and Dundee, who for a timedisbanded his levies, while Mackay went to receive fresh forces and toconsult the Government at Edinburgh. He decided to march to the west andbridle the clans by erecting a strong fort at Inverlochy, where Montroserouted Argyll. A stronghold at Inverlochy menaced the Macdonalds to thenorth, and the Camerons in Lochaber, and, southwards, the Stewarts inAppin. But to reach Inverlochy Mackay had to march up the Tay, pastBlair Atholl, and so westward through very wild mountainous country. Tooppose him Dundee had collected 4000 of the clansmen, and awaitedammunition and men from James, then in Ireland. By the advice of thegreat Lochiel, a man over seventy but miraculously athletic, Dundeedecided to let the clans fight in their old way, --a rush, a volley atclose quarters, and then the claymore. By June 28 Dundee had received noaid from James, --of money "we have not twenty pounds"; and he was betweenthe Earl of Argyll (son of the martyr of 1685) and Mackay with his 4000foot and eight troops of horse. 

On July 23 Dundee seized the castle of Blair Atholl, which had been thebase of Montrose in his campaigns, and was the key of the country betweenthe Tay and Lochaber. The Atholl clans, Murrays and Stewarts, breakingaway from the son of their chief, the fickle Marquis of Atholl, were ledby Stewart of Ballechin, but did not swell Dundee's force at the moment. From James Dundee now received but a battalion of half-starved Irishmen, under the futile General Cannon. 

On July 27, at Blair, Dundee learned that Mackay's force had alreadyentered the steep and narrow pass of Killiecrankie, where the roadskirted the brawling waters of the Garry. Dundee had not time to defendthe pass; he marched his men from Blair, keeping the heights, whileMackay emerged from the gorge, and let his forces rest on the wide levelhaugh beside the Garry, under the house of Runraurie, now called Urrard, with the deep and rapid river in their rear. On this haugh the touristsees the tall standing stone which, since 1735 at least, has been knownas "Dundee's stone. " From the haugh rises a steep acclivity, leading tothe plateau where the house of Runraurie stood. Mackay feared thatDundee would occupy this plateau, and that the fire thence would break uphis own men on the haugh below. He therefore seized the plateau, whichwas an unfortunate manoeuvre. He was so superior in numbers that both ofhis wings extended beyond Dundee's, who had but forty ill-horsedgentlemen by way of cavalry. After distracting Mackay by movements alongthe heights, as if to cut off his communications with the south, Dundee, who had resisted the prayers of the chiefs that he would be sparing ofhis person, gave the word to charge as the sun sank behind the westernhills. Rushing down hill, under heavy fire and losing many men, theclans, when they came to the shock, swept the enemy from the plateau, drove them over the declivity, forced many to attempt crossing the Garry, where they were drowned, and followed, slaying, through the pass. Halfof Hastings' regiment, untouched by the Highland charge, and all ofLeven's men, stood their ground, and were standing there when sixteen ofDundee's horse returned from the pursuit. Mackay, who had lost his army, stole across the Garry with this remnant and made for Stirling. He knewnot that Dundee lay on the field, dying in the arms of Victory. Preciselywhen and in what manner Dundee was slain is unknown; there is even a fairpresumption, from letters of the English Government, that he was murderedby two men sent from England on some very secret mission. When last seenby his men, Dundee was plunged in the battle smoke, sword in hand, inadvance of his horse. 

When the Whigs--terrified by the defeat and expecting Dundee at Stirlingwith the clans and the cavaliers of the Lowlands--heard of his fall, their sorrow was changed into rejoicing. The cause of King James wasmortally wounded by the death of "the glory of the Grahams, " who alonecould lead and keep together a Highland host. Deprived of his leadershipand distrustful of his successor, General Cannon, the clans graduallyleft the Royal Standard. The Cameronian regiment, recruited from theyoung men of the organised societies, had been ordered to occupy Dunkeld. Here they were left isolated, "in the air, " by Mackay or hissubordinates, and on August 21 these raw recruits, under Colonel Cleland, who had fought at Drumclog, had to receive the attack of the Highlanders. Cleland had fortified the Abbey church and the "castle, " and hisCameronians fired from behind walls and from loopholes with such successthat Cannon called off the clansmen, or could not bring them to a secondattack: both versions are given. Cleland fell in the fight; the clansdisbanded, and Mackay occupied the castle of Blair. 

Three weeks later the Cameronians, being unpaid, mutinied; and Ross, Annandale, and Polwarth, urging their demands for constitutional rights, threw the Lowlands into a ferment. Crawford, whose manner of speech wassanctimonious, was evicting from their parishes ministers who remainedtrue to Episcopacy, and would not pray for William and Mary. Polwarthnow went to London with an address to these Sovereigns framed by "theClub, " the party of liberty. But the other leaders of that party, Annandale, Ross, and Montgomery of Skelmorley, all of them eager forplace and office, entered into a conspiracy of intrigue with theJacobites for James's restoration. In February 1690 the Club wasdistracted; and to Melville, as Commissioner in the Scottish Parliament, William gave orders that the Acts for re-establishing Presbytery andabolishing lay patronage of livings were to be passed. Montgomery wasobliged to bid yet higher for the favour of the more extreme preachersand devotees, --but he failed. In April the Lords of the Articles wereabolished at last, and freedom of parliamentary debate was thus secured. The Westminster Confession was reinstated, and in May, after the lastremnants of a Jacobite force in the north had been surprised andscattered or captured by Sir Thomas Livingstone at Cromdale Haugh (May1), the alliance of Jacobites and of the Club broke down, and the leadersof the Club saved themselves by playing the part of informers. 

The new Act regarding the Kirk permitted the holding of Synods andGeneral Assemblies, to be summoned by permission of William or of thePrivy Council, with a Royal Commissioner present to restrain thepreachers from meddling, as a body, with secular politics. The Kirk wasto be organised by the "Sixty Bishops, " the survivors of the ministersejected in 1663. The benefices of ejected Episcopalian conformists weredeclared to be vacant. Lay patronage was annulled: the congregations hadthe right to approve or disapprove of presentees. But the Kirk wasdeprived of her old weapon, the attachment of civil penalties (that ispractical outlawry) to her sentences of excommunication (July 19, 1690). The Covenant was silently dropped. 

Thus ended, practically, the war between Kirk and State which had ragedfor nearly a hundred and twenty years. The cruel torturing of NevilePayne, an English Jacobite taken in Scotland, showed that the newsovereigns and Privy Council retained the passions and methods of theold, but this was the last occasion of judicial torture for politicaloffences in Scotland. Payne was silent, but was illegally imprisonedtill his death. 

The proceedings of the restored General Assembly were awaited withanxiety by the Government. The extremists of the Remnant, the"Cameronians, " sent deputies to the Kirk. They were opposed toacknowledging sovereigns who were "the head of the Prelatics" in England, and they, not being supported by the Assembly, remained apart from theKirk and true to the Covenants. 

Much had passed which William disliked--the abolition of patronage, thepersecution of Episcopalians--and Melville, in 1691, was removed by theking from the Commissionership. 

The Highlands were still unsettled. In June 1691 Breadalbane, at heart aJacobite, attempted to appease the chiefs by promises of money insettlement of various feuds, especially that of the dispossessed Macleansagainst the occupant of their lands, Argyll. Breadalbane was known byHill, the commander of Fort William at Inverlochy, to be dealing betweenthe clans and James, as well as between William and the clans. William, then campaigning in Flanders, was informed of this fact, thought it of noimportance, and accepted a truce from July 1 to October 1 with Buchan, who commanded such feeble forces as still stood for James in the north. At the same time William threatened the clans, in the usual terms, with"fire and sword, " if the chiefs did not take the oaths to his Governmentby January 1, 1692. Money and titles under the rank of earldoms were tobe offered to Macdonald of Sleat, Maclean of Dowart, Lochiel, Glengarry, and Clanranald, if they would come in. All declined the bait--ifBreadalbane really fished with it. It is plain, contrary to LordMacaulay's statement, that Sir John Dalrymple, William's trusted man forScotland, at this time hoped for Breadalbane's success in pacifying theclans. But Dalrymple, by December 1691, wrote, "I think the Clan Donellmust be rooted out, and Lochiel. " He could not mean that he hoped tomassacre so large a part of the population. He probably meant by"punitive expeditions" in the modern phrase--by "fire and sword, " in thestyle current then--to break up the recalcitrants. Meanwhile it wasDalrymple's hope to settle ancient quarrels about the "superiorities" ofArgyll over the Camerons, and the question of compensation for the landsreft by the Argyll family from the Macleans. 

Before December 31, in fear of "fire and sword, " the chiefs submitted, except the greatest, Glengarry, and the least in power, MacIan orMacdonald, with his narrow realm of Glencoe, whence his men were used toplunder the cattle of their powerful neighbour, Breadalbane. Dalrymplenow desired not peace, but the sword. By January 9, 1692, Dalrymple, inLondon, heard that Glencoe had come in (he had accidentally failed tocome in by January 1), and Dalrymple was "sorry. " By January 11Dalrymple knew that Glencoe had not taken the oath before January 1, andrejoiced in the chance to "root out that damnable sect. " In fact, in theend of December Glencoe had gone to Fort William to take the oaths beforeColonel Hill, but found that he must do so before the Sheriff of theshire at remote Inveraray. Various accidents of weather delayed him; theSheriff also was not at Inveraray when Glencoe arrived, but administeredthe oaths on January 6. The document was taken to Edinburgh, where LordStair, Dalrymple's father, and others caused it to be deleted. Glengarrywas still unsworn, but Glengarry was too strong to be "rooted out";William ordered his commanding officer, Livingstone, "to extirpate thatsect of thieves, " the Glencoe men (January 16). On the same dayDalrymple sent down orders to hem in the MacIans, and to guard all thepasses, by land or water, from their glen. Of the actual _method_ ofmassacre employed Dalrymple may have been ignorant; but orders "fromCourt" to "spare none, " and to take no prisoners, were received byLivingstone on January 23. 

On February 1, Campbell of Glenlyon, with 120 men, was hospitablyreceived by MacIan, whose son, Alexander, had married Glenlyon's niece. On February 12, Hill sent 400 of his Inverlochy garrison to Glencoe tojoin hands with 400 of Argyll's regiment, under Major Duncanson. Thesetroops were to guard the southern passes out of Glencoe, while Hamiltonwas to sweep the passes from the north. 

At 5 A. M. On February 13 the soldier-guests of MacIan began to slay andplunder. Men, women, and children were shot or bayoneted, 1000 head ofcattle were driven away; but Hamilton arrived too late. Though the agedchief had been shot at once, his sons took to the hills, and the greaterpart of the population escaped with their lives, thanks to Hamilton'sdilatoriness. "All I regret is that any of the sect got away, " wroteDalrymple on March 5, "and there is necessity to prosecute them to theutmost. " News had already reached London "that they are murdered intheir beds. " The newspapers, however, were silenced, and the story wasfirst given to Europe in April by the 'Paris Gazette. ' The crime wasunprecedented: it had no precedent, admits of no apology. Many anexpedition of "fire and sword" had occurred, but never had there been amidnight massacre "under trust" of hosts by guests. King William, onMarch 6, went off to his glorious wars on the Continent, probably hopingto hear that the fugitive MacIans were still being "prosecuted"--if, indeed, he thought of them at all. But by October they were receivedinto his peace. 

William was more troubled by the General Assembly, which refused to takeoaths of allegiance to him and his wife, and actually appointed a datefor an Assembly without his consent. When he gave it, it was oncondition that the members should take the oaths of allegiance. Theyrefused: it was the old deadlock, but William at the last moment withdrewfrom the imposition of oaths of allegiance--moved, it is said, by MrCarstares, "Cardinal Carstares, " who had been privy to the Rye HousePlot. Under Queen Anne, however, the conscientious preachers werecompelled to take the oaths like mere laymen. 

CHAPTER XXVIII. DARIEN. 

The Scottish Parliament of May-July 1695, held while William was abroad, saw the beginning of evils for Scotland. The affair of Glencoe wasexamined into by a Commission, headed by Tweeddale, William'sCommissioner: several Judges sat in it. Their report cleared Williamhimself: Dalrymple, it was found, had "exceeded his instructions. " Hillwas exonerated. Hamilton, who commanded the detachment that arrived toolate, fled the country. William was asked to send home for trialDuncanson and other butchers who were with his army. The king was alsoinvited to deal with Dalrymple as he thought fit. He thought fit to giveDalrymple an indemnity, and made him Viscount Stair, with a grant ofmoney, but did not retain him in office. He did not send the subalternbutchers home for trial. Many years later, in 1745, the MacIans insistedon acting as guards of the house and family of the descendant of Campbellof Glenlyon, the guest and murderer of the chief of Glencoe. 

Perhaps by way of a sop to the Scots, William allowed an Act for theEstablishment of a Scottish East India Company to be passed on June 20, 1695. He afterwards protested that in this matter he had been "badlyserved, " probably meaning "misinformed. " The result was the DarienExpedition, a great financial disaster for Scotland, and a terriblegrievance. Hitherto since the Union of the Crowns all Scottish effortsto found trading companies, as in England, had been wrecked on Englishjealousy: there had always been, and to this new East India Company therewas, a rival, a pre-existing English company. Scottish Acts forprotection of home industries were met by English retaliation in a war oftariffs. Scotland had prohibited the exportation of her raw materials, such as wool, but was cut off from English and other foreign markets forher cloths. The Scots were more successful in secret and unlegalisedtrading with their kinsmen in the American colonies. 

The Scottish East India Company's aim was to sell Scottish goods in manyplaces, India for example; and it was secretly meant to found a factoryand central mart on the isthmus of Panama. For these ends capital waswithdrawn from the new and unsuccessful manufacturing companies. Thegreat scheme was the idea of William Paterson (born 1658), thefar-travelled and financially-speculative son of a farmer inDumfriesshire. He was the "projector, " or one of the projectors, of theBank of England of 1694, investing 2000 pounds. He kept the Darien partof his scheme for an East India Company in the background, and it seemsthat William, when he granted a patent to that company, knew nothing ofthis design to settle in or near the Panama isthmus, which was quiteclearly within the Spanish sphere of influence. When the philosopherJohn Locke heard of the scheme, he wished England to steal the idea andseize a port in Darien: it thus appears that he too was unaware that todo so was to inflict an insult and injury on Spain. There is reason tosuppose that the grant of the patent to the East India Company wasobtained by bribing some Scottish politician or politicians unnamed, though one name is not beyond probable conjecture. 

In any case Paterson admitted English capitalists, who took up half ofthe shares, as the Act of Patent permitted them to do. By DecemberWilliam was writing that he "had been ill-served by some of myMinisters. " He had no notice of the details of the Act of Patent till hehad returned to England, and found English capitalists and the EnglishParliament in a fury. The Act committed William to interposing hisauthority if the ships of the company were detained by foreign powers, and gave the adventurers leave to take "reparation" by force from theirassailants (this they later did when they captured in the Firth of Forthan English vessel, the _Worcester_). 

On the opening of the books of the new company in London (October 1695)there had been a panic, and a fall of twenty points in the shares of theEnglish East India Company. The English Parliament had addressed Williamin opposition to the Scots Company. The English subscribers of half thepaid up capital were terrorised, and sold out. Later, Hamburginvestments were cancelled through William's influence. All lowlandScotland hurried to invest--in the dark--for the Darien part of thescheme was practically a secret: it was vaguely announced that there wasto be a settlement somewhere, "in Africa or the Indies, or both. "Materials of trade, such as wigs, combs, Bibles, fish-hooks, andkid-gloves, were accumulated. Offices were built--later used as anasylum for pauper lunatics. 

When, in July 1697, the secret of Panama came out, the English Council ofTrade examined Dampier, the voyager, and (September) announced that theterritory had never been Spain's, and that England ought to anticipateScotland by seizing Golden Island and the port on the mainland. 

In July 1698 the Council of the intended Scots colony was elected, boughtthree ships and two tenders, and despatched 1200 settlers with twopreachers, but with most inadequate provisions, and flour as bad as thatpaid to Assynt for the person of Montrose. On October 30, in the Gulf ofDarien they found natives who spoke Spanish; they learned that thenearest gold mines were in Spanish hands, and that the chiefs werecarrying Spanish insignia of office. By February 1699 the Scots andSpaniards were exchanging shots. Presently a Scottish ship, cruising insearch of supplies, was seized by the Spanish at Carthagena; the men layin irons at Seville till 1700. Spain complained to William, and theScots seized a merchant ship. The English Governor of Jamaica forbadehis people, by virtue of a letter addressed by the English Government toall the colonies, to grant supplies to the starving Scots, most of whomsailed away from the colony in June, and suffered terrible things by seaand land. Paterson returned to Scotland. A new expedition which leftLeith on May 12, 1699, found at Darien some Scots in two ships, andremained on the scene, distracted by quarrels, till February 1700, whenCampbell of Fonab, sent with provisions in the _Speedy Return_ fromScotland, arrived to find the Spaniards assailing the adventurers. Hecleared the Spaniards out of their fort in fifteen minutes, but theColonial Council learned that Spain was launching a small but adequatearmada against them. After an honourable resistance the garrisoncapitulated, and marched out with colours flying (March 30). Thisoccurred just when Scotland was celebrating the arrival of the news ofFonab's gallant feat of arms. 

At home the country was full of discontent: William's agent at Hamburghad prevented foreigners from investing in the Scots company. Englishcolonists had been forbidden to aid the Scottish adventurers. Twohundred thousand pounds, several ships, and many lives had been lost. "Itis very like 1641, " wrote an onlooker, so fierce were the passions thatraged against William. The news of the surrender of the colonistsincreased the indignation. The king refused (November 1700) to gratifythe Estates by regarding the Darien colony as a legal enterprise. To doso was to incur war with Spain and the anger of his English subjects. Yetthe colony had been legally founded in accordance with the terms of theAct of Patent. While the Scots dwelt on this fact, William replied thatthe colony being extinct, circumstances were altered. The Estates votedthat Darien _was_ a lawful colony, and (1701) in an address to the Crowndemanded compensation for the nation's financial losses. William repliedwith expressions of sympathy and hopes that the two kingdoms wouldconsider a scheme of Union. A Bill for Union brought in through theEnglish Lords was rejected by the English Commons. 

There was hardly an alternative between Union and War between the twonations. War there would have been had the exiled Prince of Wales beenbrought up as a Presbyterian. His father James VII. Died a few monthsbefore William III. Passed away on March 7, 1702. Louis XIV. Acknowledged James, Prince of Wales, as James III. Of England and Irelandand VIII, of Scotland; and Anne, the boy's aunt, ascended the throne. Asa Stuart she was not unwelcome to the Jacobites, who hoped for variouschances, as Anne was believed to be friendly to her nephew. 

In 1701 was passed an Act for preventing wrongous imprisonment andagainst undue delay in trials. But Nevile Payne continued to be untriedand illegally imprisoned. Offenders, generally, could "run theirletters" and protest, if kept in durance untried for sixty days. 

The Revolution of 1688-89, with William's very reluctant concessions, hadplaced Scotland in entirely new relations with England. Scotland couldnow no longer be "governed by the pen" from London; Parliament could nolonger be bridled and led, at English will, by the Lords of the Articles. As the religious mainspring of Scottish political life, the domination ofthe preachers had been weakened by the new settlement of the Kirk; as thecountry was now set on commercial enterprises, which England everywherethwarted, it was plain that the two kingdoms could not live together onthe existing terms. Union there must be, or conquest, as under Cromwell;yet an English war of conquest was impossible, because it was impossiblefor Scotland to resist. Never would the country renew, as in the olddays, the alliance of France, for a French alliance meant the acceptanceby Scotland of a Catholic king. 

England, on her side, if Union came, was accepting a partner with verypoor material resources. As regards agriculture, for example, vastregions were untilled, or tilled only in the straths and fertile spots bythe hardy clansmen, who could not raise oats enough for their ownsubsistence, and periodically endured famines. In "the ill years" ofWilliam, years of untoward weather, distress had been extreme. In thefertile Lowlands that old grievance, insecurity of tenure, and theraising of rents in proportion to improvements made by the tenants, hadbaffled agriculture. Enclosures were necessary for the protection of thecrops, but even if tenants or landlords had the energy or capital to makeenclosures, the neighbours destroyed them under cloud of night. The oldlabour-services were still extorted; the tenant's time and strength werenot his own. Land was exhausted by absence of fallows and lack ofmanure. The country was undrained, lochs and morasses covered what isnow fertile land, and hillsides now in pasture were under the plough. Theonce prosperous linen trade had suffered from the war of tariffs. 

The life of the burghs, political and municipal and trading, was littleadvanced on the mediaeval model. The independent Scot steadily resistedinstruction from foreign and English craftsmen in most of the mechanicalarts. Laws for the encouragement of trades were passed and bore littlefruit. Companies were founded and were ruined by English tariffs andEnglish competition. The most energetic of the population went abroad, here they prospered in commerce and in military service, while anenormous class of beggars lived on the hospitality of their neighbours athome. In such conditions of inequality it was plain that, if there wasto be a Union, the adjustment of proportions of taxation and ofrepresentation in Parliament would require very delicate handling, whilethe differences of Church Government were certain to cause jealousies andopposition. 

CHAPTER XXIX. PRELIMINARIES TO THE UNION. 

The Scottish Parliament was not dissolved at William's death, nor did itmeet at the time when, legally, it ought to have met. Anne, in amessage, expressed hopes that it would assent to Union, and promised toconcur in any reasonable scheme for compensating the losers by the Darienscheme. When Parliament met, Queensberry, being Commissioner, soon foundit necessary (June 30, 1702) to adjourn. New officers of State were thenappointed, and there was a futile meeting between English and ScottishCommissioners chosen by the Queen to consider the Union. 

Then came a General Election (1703), which gave birth to the lastScottish Parliament. The Commissioner, Queensberry, and the otherofficers of State, "the Court party, " were of course for Union; amongthem was prominent that wavering Earl of Mar who was so active inpromoting the Union, and later precipitated the Jacobite rising of 1715. There were in Parliament the party of Courtiers, friends of England andUnion; the party of Cavaliers, that is Jacobites; and the Country party, led by the Duke of Hamilton, who was in touch with the Jacobites, but wasquite untrustworthy, and much suspected of desiring the Crown of Scotlandfor himself. 

Queensberry cozened the Cavaliers--by promises of tolerating theirEpiscopalian religion--into voting a Bill recognising Anne, and thenbroke his promise. The Bill for tolerating worship as practised by theEpiscopalians was dropped; for the Commissioner of the General Assemblyof the Kirk declared that such toleration was "the establishment ofiniquity by law. "

Queensberry's one aim was to get Supply voted, for war with France hadbegun. But the Country and the Cavalier parties refused Supply till anAct of Security for religion, liberty, law, and trade should be passed. The majority decided that, on the death of Anne, the Estates should nameas king of Scotland a Protestant representative of the House of Stewart, who should not be the successor to the English crown, save underconditions guaranteeing Scotland as a sovereign state, with frequentParliaments, and security for Scottish navigation, colonies, trade, andreligion (the Act of Security). 

It was also decided that landholders and the burghs should drill and armtheir tenants and dependants--if Protestant. Queensberry refused to passthis Act of Security; Supply, on the other side, was denied, and after astormy scene Queensberry prorogued Parliament (September 16, 1703). 

In the excitement, Atholl had deserted the Court party and voted with themajority. He had a great Highland following, he might throw it on theJacobite side, and the infamous intriguer, Simon Frazer (the Lord Lovatof 1745), came over from France and betrayed to Queensberry a real or afeigned intrigue of Atholl with France and with the Ministers of JamesVIII. , called "The Pretender. "

Atholl was the enemy of Frazer, a canting, astute, and unscrupulousruffian. Queensberry conceived that in a letter given to him by Lovat hehad irrefutable evidence against Atholl as a conspirator, and he allowedLovat to return to France, where he was promptly imprisoned as a traitor. Atholl convinced Anne of his own innocence, and Queensberry fell underridicule and suspicion, lost his office of Commissioner, and wassuperseded by Tweeddale. In England the whole complex affair of Lovat'srevelations was known as "The Scottish Plot"; Hamilton was involved, orfeared he might be involved, and therefore favoured the new proposals ofthe Courtiers and English party for placing limits on the prerogative ofAnne's successor, whoever he might be. 

In the Estates (July 1704), after months passed in constitutionalchicanery, the last year's Act of Security was passed and touched withthe sceptre; and the House voted Supply for six months. But owing to afierce dispute on private business--namely, the raising of the question, "Who were the persons accused in England of being engaged in the'Scottish Plot'?"--no hint of listening to proposals for Union wasuttered. Who could propose, as Commissioners to arrange Union, men whowere involved--or in England had been accused of being involved--in theplot? Scotland had not yet consented that whoever succeeded Anne inEngland should also succeed in Scotland. They retained a means ofputting pressure on England, the threat of having a separate king; theyhad made and were making military preparations (drill once a-month!), andEngland took up the gauntlet. The menacing attitude of Scotland wasdebated on with much heat in the English Upper House (November 29), and aBill passed by the Commons declared the retaliatory measures whichEngland was ready to adopt. 

It was at once proved that England could put a much harder pinch onScotland than Scotland could inflict on England. Scottish drovers wereno longer to sell cattle south of the Border, Scottish ships trading withFrance were to be seized, Scottish coals and linen were to be excluded, and regiments of regular troops were to be sent to the Border if Scotlanddid not accept the Hanoverian succession before Christmas 1705. If itcame to war, Scotland could expect no help from her ancient ally, France, unless she raised the standard of King James. As he was a Catholic, theKirk would prohibit this measure, so it was perfectly clear to everyplain man that Scotland must accept the Union and make the best bargainshe could. 

In spring 1705 the new Duke of Argyll, "Red John of the Battles, " a manof the sword and an accomplished orator, was made Commissioner, and, ofcourse, favoured the Union, as did Queensberry and the other officers ofState. Friction between the two countries arose in spring, when anEdinburgh jury convicted, and the mob insisted on the execution of, anEnglish Captain Green, whose ship, the _Worcester_, had been seized inthe Forth by Roderick Mackenzie, Secretary of the Scottish East IndiaCompany. Green was supposed to have captured and destroyed a ship of theCompany's, the _Speedy Return_, which never did return. It was notproved that this ship had been Green's victim, but that he had committedacts of piracy is certain. The hanging of Green increased the animosityof the sister kingdoms. 

When Parliament met, June 28, 1705, it was a parliament of groups. Tweeddale and others, turned out of office in favour of Argyll'sGovernment, formed the Flying Squadron (_Squadrone volante_), voting inwhatever way would most annoy the Government. Argyll opened byproposing, as did the Queen's Message, the instant discussion of theUnion (July 3). The House preferred to deliberate on anything else, andthe leader of the Jacobites or Cavaliers, Lockhart of Carnwath, a veryable sardonic man, saw that this was, for Jacobite ends, a tacticalerror. The more time was expended the more chance had Queensberry to winvotes for the Union. Fletcher of Saltoun, an independent and eloquentpatriot and republican, wasted time by impossible proposals. Hamiltonbrought forward, and by only two votes lost, a proposal which Englandwould never have dreamed of accepting. Canny Jacobites, however, abstained from voting, and thence Lockhart dates the ruin of his country. Supply, at all events, was granted, and on that Argyll adjourned. Thequeen was to select Commissioners of both countries to negotiate theTreaty of Union; among the Commissioners Lockhart was the only Cavalier, and he was merely to watch the case in the Jacobite interest. 

The meetings of the two sets of Commissioners began at Whitehall on April16. It was arranged that all proposals, modifications, and resultsshould pass in writing, and secrecy was to be complete. 

The Scots desired Union with Home Rule, with a separate Parliament. TheEnglish would negotiate only on the lines that the Union was to becomplete, "incorporating, " with one Parliament for both peoples. ByApril 25, 1706, the Scots Commissioners saw that on this point they mustacquiesce; the defeat of the French at Ramilies (May 23) proved that, even if they could have leaned on the French, France was a broken reed. International reciprocity in trade, complete freedom of trade at home andabroad, they did obtain. 

As England, thanks to William III. With his incessant Continental wars, had already a great National debt, of which Scotland owed nothing, and astaxation in England was high, while Scottish taxes under the Union wouldrise to the same level, and to compensate for the Darien losses, theEnglish granted a pecuniary "Equivalent" (May 10). They also did notraise the Scottish taxes on windows, lights, coal, malt, and salt to theEnglish level, that of war-taxation. The Equivalent was to purchase theScottish shares in the East India Company, with interest at five per centup to May 1, 1707. That grievance of the shareholders was thus healed, what public debt Scotland owed was to be paid (the Equivalent was about400, 000 pounds), and any part of the money unspent was to be given toimprove fisheries and manufactures. 

The number of Scottish members of the British Parliament was fixed atforty-five. On this point the Scots felt that they were hardly used; thenumber of their elected representatives of peers in the Lords wassixteen. Scotland retained her Courts of Law; the feudal jurisdictionswhich gave to Argyll and others almost princely powers were retained, andScottish procedure in trials continued to vary much from the Englishmodel. Appeals from the Court of Session had previously been broughtbefore the Parliament of Scotland; henceforth they were to be heard bythe Judges, Scots and English, in the British House of Lords. On July23, 1706, the treaty was completed; on October 3 the Scottish Parliamentmet to debate on it, with Queensberry as Commissioner. Harley, theEnglish Minister, sent down the author of 'Robinson Crusoe' to watch, spy, argue, persuade, and secretly report, and De Foe's letters containthe history of the session. 

The parties in Parliament were thus variously disposed: the Cavaliers, including Hamilton, had been approached by Louis XIV. And King James (thePretender), but had not committed themselves. Queensberry always knewevery risky step taken by Hamilton, who began to take several, but ineach case received a friendly warning which he dared not disregard. Atthe opposite pole, the Cameronians and other extreme Presbyteriansloathed the Union, and at last (November-December) a scheme for theCameronians and the clans of Angus and Perthshire to meet in arms inEdinburgh and clear out the Parliament caused much alarm. But Hamilton, before the arrangement came to a head, was terrorised, and the intentionsof the Cameronians, as far as their records prove, had never beenofficially ratified by their leaders. {250} There was plenty of popularrioting during the session, but Argyll rode into Edinburgh at the head ofthe Horse Guards, and Leven held all the gates with drafts from thegarrison of the castle. The Commissioners of the General Assembly madeprotests on various points, but were pacified after the security of theKirk had been guaranteed. Finally, Hamilton prepared a parliamentarymine, which would have blown the Treaty of Union sky-high, but on thenight when he should have appeared in the House and set the match to hispetard--he had toothache! This was the third occasion on which he haddeserted the Cavaliers; the Opposition fell to pieces. The _Squadronevolante_ and the majority of the peers supported the Bill, which waspassed. On January 16, 1707, the Treaty of Union was touched with thesceptre, "and there is the end of an auld sang, " said Seafield. In May1707 a solemn service was held at St Paul's to commemorate the Union. 

There was much friction in the first year of the Union over excisemen andtax-collectors: smuggling began to be a recognised profession. Meanwhile, since 1707, a Colonel Hooke had been acting in Scotland, nominally inJacobite, really rather in French interests. Hooke's intrigues were inpart betrayed by De Foe's agent, Ker of Kersland, an amusingly impudentknave, and were thwarted by jealousies of Argyll and Hamilton. Bydeceptive promises (for he was himself deceived into expecting the aid ofthe Ulster Protestants) Hooke induced Louis XIV. To send five men-of-war, twenty-one frigates, and only two transports, to land James in Scotland(March 1708). The equinoctial gales and the severe illness of James, whoinsisted on sailing, delayed the start; the men on the outlook for thefleet were intoxicated, and Forbin, the French commander, observingEnglish ships of war coming towards the Firth of Forth, fled, refusingJames's urgent entreaties to be landed anywhere on the coast (March 24). It was believed that had he landed only with a valet the discontentedcountry would have risen for their native king. 

In Parliament (1710-1711) the Cavalier Scottish members, by Tory support, secured the release from prison of a Rev. Mr Greenshields, anEpiscopalian who prayed for Queen Anne, indeed, but had used the liturgy. The preachers were also galled by the imposition on them of an abjurationoath, compelling them to pray for prelatical Queen Anne. Lay patronageof livings was also restored (1712) after many vicissitudes, and thisthorn rankled in the Kirk, causing ever-widening strife for more than acentury. 

The imposition of a malt tax produced so much discontent that evenArgyll, with all the Scottish members of Parliament, was eager for therepeal of the Act of Union, and proposed it in the House of Peers, whenit was defeated by a small majority. In 1712, when about to start on amission to France, Hamilton was slain in a duel by Lord Mohun. Accordingto a statement of Lockhart's, "Cavaliers were to look for the best" fromHamilton's mission: it is fairly clear that he was to bring over James indisguise to England, as in Thackeray's novel, 'Esmond. ' But the sword ofMohun broke the Jacobite plans. Other hopes expired when Bolingbroke andHarley quarrelled, and Queen Anne died (August 1, 1714). "The best causein Europe was lost, " cried Bishop Atterbury, "for want of spirit. " Hewould have proclaimed James as king, but no man supported him, and theElector of Hanover, George I. , peacefully accepted the throne. 

CHAPTER XXX. GEORGE I. 

For a year the Scottish Jacobites, and Bolingbroke, who fled to Franceand became James's Minister, mismanaged the affairs of that mostunfortunate of princes. By February 1715 the Earl of Mar, who had beendistrusted and disgraced by George I. , was arranging with the clans for arising, while aid from Charles XII. Of Sweden was expected from March toAugust 1715. It is notable that Charles had invited Dean Swift to visithis Court, when Swift was allied with Bolingbroke and Oxford. From theauthor of 'Gulliver' Charles no doubt hoped to get a trustworthy accountof their policy. The fated rising of 1715 was occasioned by the Duke ofBerwick's advice to James that he must set forth to Scotland or lose hishonour. The prince therefore, acting hastily on news which, two or threedays later, proved to be false, in a letter to Mar fixed August 10 for arising. The orders were at once countermanded, when news proving theirfutility was received, but James's messenger, Allan Cameron, was detainedon the road, and Mar, not waiting for James's answer to his own lastdespatch advising delay, left London for Scotland without a commission;on August 27 held an Assembly of the chiefs, and, _still without acommission from James_, raised the standard of the king on September 6. {254a}

The folly of Mar was consummate. He knew that Ormonde, the hope of theEnglish Jacobites, had deserted his post and had fled to France. 

Meanwhile Louis XIV. Was dying; he died on August 30, and the Regentd'Orleans, at the utmost, would only connive at, not assist, James'senterprise. 

Everything was contrary, everywhere was ignorance and confusion. LordJohn Drummond's hopeful scheme for seizing Edinburgh Castle (September 8)was quieted _pulveris exigui jactu_, "the gentlemen were powdering theirhair"--drinking at a tavern--and bungled the business. The folly ofGovernment offered a chance: in Scotland they had but 2000 regulars atStirling, where "Forth bridles the wild Highlandman. " Mar, who promptlyoccupied Perth, though he had some 12, 000 broadswords, continued till theend to make Perth his headquarters. A Montrose, a Dundee, even a PrinceCharles, would have "masked" Argyll at Stirling and seized Edinburgh. InOctober 21-November 3, Berwick, while urging James to sail, absolutelyrefused to accompany him. The plans of Ormonde for a descent on Englandwere betrayed by Colonel Maclean, in French service (November 4). Indisguise and narrowly escaping from murderous agents of Stair (Britishambassador to France) on his road, {254b} James journeyed to St Malo(November 8). 

In Scotland the Macgregors made a futile attempt on Dumbarton Castle, while Glengarry and the Macleans advanced on Inveraray Castle, negotiatedwith Argyll's brother, the Earl of Islay, and marched back toStrathfillan. In Northumberland Forster and Derwentwater, with someCatholic fox-hunters, in Galloway the pacific Viscount Kenmure, cruisedvaguely about and joined forces. Mackintosh of Borlum, by awell-concealed movement, carried a Highland detachment of 1600 men acrossthe Firth of Forth by boats (October 12-13), with orders to join Forsterand Kenmure and arouse the Border. But on approaching EdinburghMackintosh found Argyll with 500 dragoons ready to welcome him; Mar tookno advantage of Argyll's absence from Stirling, and Mackintosh, whenArgyll returned thither, joined Kenmure and Forster, occupied Kelso, andmarched into Lancashire. The Jacobite forces were pitifullyill-supplied, they had very little ammunition (the great charge againstBolingbroke was that he sent none from France), they seem to have had noidea that powder could be made by the art of man; they were torn byjealousies, and dispirited by their observation of Mar's incompetence. 

We cannot pursue in detail the story of the futile campaign. On November12 the mixed Highland, Lowland, and English command found itself coopedup in Preston, and after a very gallant defence of the town the Englishleaders surrendered to the king's mercy, after arranging an armisticewhich made it impossible for Mackintosh to cut his way through theEnglish ranks and retreat to the north. About 1600 prisoners were taken. Derwentwater and Kenmure were later executed. Forster and Nithsdale madeescapes; Charles Wogan, a kinsman of the chivalrous Wogan of 1650, andMackintosh, with six others, forced their way out of Newgate prison onthe night before their trial. Wogan was to make himself heard of again. Mar had thrown away his Highlanders, with little ammunition and withoutorders, on a perfectly aimless and hopeless enterprise. 

Meanwhile he himself, at Perth, had been doing nothing, while in thenorth, Simon Frazer (Lord Lovat) escaped from his French prison, raisedhis clan and took the castle of Inverness for King George. He thusearned a pardon for his private and public crimes, and he lived to ruinthe Jacobite cause and lose his own head in 1745-46. 

While the north, Ross-shire and Inverness, were daunted and thwarted bythe success of Lovat, Mar led his whole force from Perth to Dunblane, apparently in search of a ford over Forth. His Frazers and many of hisGordons deserted on November 11; on November 12 Mar, at Ardoch (the siteof an old Roman camp), learned that Argyll was marching through Dunblaneto meet him. Next day Mar's force occupied the crest of rising ground onthe wide swell of Sheriffmuir: his left was all disorderly; horse mixedwith foot; his right, with the fighting clans, was well ordered, but thenature of the ground hid the two wings of the army from each other. Onthe right the Macdonalds and Macleans saw Clanranald fall, and onGlengarry's cry, "Vengeance to-day!" they charged with the claymore andswept away the regulars of Argyll as at Killiecrankie and Prestonpans. But, as the clans pursued and slew, their officers whispered that theirown centre and left were broken and flying. Argyll had driven them toAllan Water; his force, returning, came within close range of thevictorious right of Mar. "Oh, for one hour of Dundee!" cried Gordon ofGlenbucket, but neither party advanced to the shock. Argyll retiredsafely to Dunblane, while Mar deserted his guns and powder-carts, andhurried to Perth. He had lost the gallant young Earl of Strathmore andthe brave Clanranald; on Argyll's side his brother Islay was wounded, andthe Earl of Forfar was slain. Though it was a drawn battle, it provedthat Mar could not move: his forces began to scatter; Huntly was said tohave behaved ill. It was known that Dutch auxiliaries were to reinforceArgyll, and men began to try to make terms of surrender. Huntly rode offto his own country, and on December 22 (old style) James landed atPeterhead. 

James had no lack of personal courage. He had charged again and again atMalplaquet with the Household cavalry of Louis XIV. , and he hadencountered great dangers of assassination on his way to St Malo. Butconstant adversity had made him despondent and resigned, while he sawfacts as they really were with a sad lucidity. When he arrived in hiskingdom the Whig clans of the north had daunted Seaforth's Mackenzies, while in the south Argyll, with his Dutch and other fresh reinforcements, had driven Mar's men out of Fife. Writing to Bolingbroke, Jamesdescribed the situation. Mar, with scarcely any ammunition, was facingArgyll with 11, 000 men; the north was held in force by the Whig clans, Mackays, Rosses, Munroes, and Frazers; deep snow alone delayed theadvance of Argyll, now stimulated by the hostile Cadogan, Marlborough'sfavourite, and it was perfectly plain that all was lost. 

For the head of James 100, 000 pounds was offered by Hanoverian chivalry:he was suffering from fever and ague; the Spanish gold that had at lastbeen sent to him was lost at sea off Dundee, and it is no wonder thatJames, never gay, presented to his troops a disconsolate and discouragingaspect. 

On January 29 his army evacuated Perth; James wept at the order to burnthe villages on Argyll's line of march, and made a futile effort tocompensate the people injured. From Montrose (February 3-14) he wrotefor aid to the French Regent, but next day, urged by Mar, and unknown tohis army, he, with Mar, set sail for France. This evasion was doubtlesscaused by a circumstance unusual in warfare: there was a price of 100, 000pounds on James's head, moreover his force had not one day's supply ofpowder. Marshal Keith (brother of the Earl Marischal who retreated tothe isles) says that perhaps one day's supply of powder might be found atAberdeen. Nevertheless the fighting clans were eager to meet Argyll, andwould have sold their lives at a high price. They scattered to theirwestern fastnesses. The main political result, apart from executions andthe passing of forfeited estates into the management of that notedeconomist, Sir Richard Steele, and other commissioners, was--the disgraceof Argyll. He, who with a petty force had saved Scotland, wasrepresented by Cadogan and by his political enemies as dilatory anddisaffected! The Duke lost all his posts, and in 1716 (when James hadhopes from Sweden) Islay, Argyll's brother, was negotiating with Jacobiteagents. James was creating him a peer of England!

In Scotland much indignation was aroused by the sending of Scottishprisoners of war out of the kingdom for trial--namely, to Carlisle--andby other severities. The Union had never been more unpopular: thecountry looked on itself as conquered, and had no means of resistance, for James, now residing at Avignon, was a Catholic, and any insults andinjuries from England were more tolerable than a restored nationalitywith a Catholic king. 

Into the Jacobite hopes and intrigues, the eternal web which from 1689 to1763 was ever being woven and broken, it is impossible here to enter, though, in the now published Stuart Papers, the details are well known. James was driven from Avignon to Italy, to Spain, finally to live apensioner at Rome. The luckless attempt of the Earl Marischal, Keith, his brother, and Lord George Murray, brother of the Duke of Atholl, toinvade Scotland on the west with a small Spanish force, was crushed onJune 10, 1719, in the pass of Glenshiel. 

Two or three months later, James, returning from Spain, married the fairand hapless Princess Clementina Sobieska, whom Charles Wogan, in anenterprise truly romantic, had rescued from prison at Innspruck andconveyed across the Alps. From this wedding, made wretched by thedisappointment of the bride with her melancholy lord, --always busied withpolitical secrets from which she was excluded, --was born, on December 31, 1720, Charles Edward Stuart: from his infancy the hope of the Jacobiteparty; from his cradle surrounded by the intrigues, the jealousies, theadulations of an exiled Court, and the quarrels of Protestants andCatholics, Irish, Scottish, and English. Thus, among changes of tutorsand ministers, as the discovery or suspicion of treachery, the bigotry ofClementina, and the pressure of other necessities might permit, was thatchild reared whose name, at least, has received the crown of Scottishaffection and innumerable tributes of Scottish song. 

CHAPTER XXXI. THE ARGATHELIANS AND THE SQUADRONE. 

Leaving the fortunes of the Jacobite party at their lowest ebb, andturning to the domestic politics of Scotland, after 1719, we find that ifit be happiness to have no history, Scotland had much reason to becontent. There was but a dull personal strife between the faction ofArgyll and his brother Islay (called the "Argathelians, " from theLatinised _Argathelia_, or Argyll), and the other faction known, sincethe Union, as the _Squadrone volante_, or Flying Squadron, who professedto be patriotically independent. As to Argyll, he had done all that manmight do for George I. But, as we saw, the reports of Cadogan and thejealousy of George (who is said to have deemed Argyll too friendly withhis detested heir) caused the disgrace of the Duke in 1716, and the_Squadrone_ held the spoils of office. But in February-April 1719 Georgereversed his policy, heaped Argyll with favours, made him, as Duke ofGreenwich, a peer of England, and gave him the High Stewardship of theHousehold. 

At this time all the sixteen representative peers of Scotland favoured, for various reasons of their own, a proposed Peerage Bill. The Prince ofWales might, when he came to the throne, swamp the Lords by large newcreations in his own interest, and the Bill laid down that, henceforth, not more than six peers, exclusive of members of the Royal Family, shouldbe created by any sovereign; while in place of sixteen _representative_Scotland should have twenty-five _permanent_ peers. From his new hatredof the Prince of Wales, Argyll favoured the Bill, as did the others ofthe sixteen of the moment, because they would be among the permanencies. The Scottish Jacobite peers (not representatives) and the Commons of bothcountries opposed the Bill. The election of a Scottish representativepeer at this juncture led to negotiations between Argyll and Lockhart asleader of the suffering Jacobites, but terms were not arrived at; theGovernment secured a large Whig majority in a general election (1722), and Walpole began his long tenure of office. 

ENCLOSURE RIOTS. 

In 1724 there were some popular discontents. Enclosures, as we saw, hadscarcely been known in Scotland; when they were made, men, women, andchildren took pleasure in destroying them under cloud of night. Enclosures might keep a man's cattle on his own ground, keep other men'soff it, and secure for the farmer his own manure. That good Jacobite, Mackintosh of Borlum, who in 1715 led the Highlanders to Preston, in 1729wrote a book recommending enclosures and plantations. But when, in 1724, the lairds of Galloway and Dumfriesshire anticipated and acted on hisplan, which in this case involved evictions of very indolent and ruinousfarmers, the tenants rose. Multitudes of "Levellers" destroyed the loosestone dykes and slaughtered cattle. They had already been passiveresisters of rent; the military were called in; women were in theforefront of the brawls, which were not quieted till the middle of 1725, when Lord Stair made an effort to introduce manufactures. 

MALT RIOTS. 

Other disturbances began in a resolution of the House of Commons, at theend of 1724, _not_ to impose a Malt Tax equal to that of England (thishad been successfully resisted in 1713), but to levy an additionalsixpence on every barrel of ale, and to remove the bounties on exportedgrain. At the Union Scotland had, for the time, been exempted from theMalt Tax, specially devised to meet the expenses of the French war ofthat date. Now, in 1724-1725, Scotland was up in arms to resist theattempt "to rob a poor man of his beer. " But Walpole could put force onthe Scottish Members of Parliament, --"a parcel of low people that couldnot subsist, " says Lockhart, "without their board wages. " Walpolethreatened to withdraw the ten guineas hitherto paid weekly by Governmentto those legislators. He offered to drop the sixpence on beer and putthreepence on every bushel of malt, a half of the English tax. On June23, 1725, the tax was to be exacted. The consequence was an attack onthe military by the mob of Glasgow, who wrecked the house of their Memberin Parliament, Campbell of Shawfield. Some of the assailants were shot:General Wade and the Lord Advocate, Forbes of Culloden, marched a forceon Glasgow, the magistrates of the town were imprisoned but released onbail, while in Edinburgh the master brewers, ordered by the Court ofSession to raise the price of their ale, struck for a week; some wereimprisoned, others were threatened or cajoled and deserted their Union. The one result was that the chief of the Squadrone, the Duke of Roxburgh, lost his Secretaryship for Scotland, and Argyll's brother, Islay, withthe resolute Forbes of Culloden, became practically the governors of thecountry. The Secretaryship, indeed, was for a time abolished, but Islaypractically wielded the power that had so long been in the hands of theSecretary as agent of the Court. 

THE HIGHLANDS. 

The clans had not been disarmed after 1715, moreover 6000 muskets hadbeen brought in during the affair that ended at Glenshiel in 1719. General Wade was commissioned in 1724 to examine and report on theHighlands: Lovat had already sent in a report. He pointed out thatLowlanders paid blackmail for protection to Highland raiders, and thatindependent companies of Highlanders, paid by Government, had beenuseful, but were broken up in 1717. What Lovat wanted was a company andpay for himself. Wade represented the force of the clans as about 22, 000claymores, half Whig (the extreme north and the Campbells), halfJacobite. The commandants of forts should have independent companies:cavalry should be quartered between Inverness and Perth, and QuarterSessions should be held at Fort William and Ruthven in Badenoch. In 1725Wade disarmed Seaforth's clan, the Mackenzies, easily, for Seaforth, thenin exile, was on bad terms with James, and wished to come home with apardon. Glengarry, Clanranald, Glencoe, Appin, Lochiel, Clan Vourich, and the Gordons affected submission--but only handed over two thousandrusty weapons of every sort. Lovat did obtain an independent company, later withdrawn--with results. The clans were by no means disarmed, butWade did, from 1725 to 1736, construct his famous military roads andbridges, interconnecting the forts. 

The death of George I. (June 11, 1727) induced James to hurry to Lorraineand communicate with Lockhart. But there was nothing to be done. Clementina had discredited her husband, even in Scotland, much more inEngland, by her hysterical complaints, and her hatred of every manemployed by James inflamed the petty jealousies and feuds among theexiles of his Court. No man whom he could select would have beenapproved of by the party. 

To the bishops of the persecuted Episcopalian remnant, quarrelling overdetails of ritual called "the Usages, " James vainly recommended"forbearance in love. " Lockhart, disgusted with the clergy, and sidingwith Clementina against her husband, believed that some of the wranglingchurchmen betrayed the channel of his communications with his king(1727). Islay gave Lockhart a hint to disappear, and he sailed fromScotland for Holland on April 8, 1727. 

Since James dismissed Bolingbroke, every one of his Ministers wassuspected, by one faction or another of the party, as a traitor. Atterbury denounced Mar, Lockhart denounced Hay (titular Earl ofInverness), Clementina told feminine tales for which even the angryLockhart could find no evidence. James was the butt of every slanderoustongue; but absolutely nothing against his moral character, or hisefforts to do his best, or his tolerance and lack of suspiciousness, canbe wrung from documents. {264}

By 1734 the elder of James's two sons, Prince Charles, was old enough toshow courage and to thrust himself under fire in the siege of Gaeta, where his cousin, the Duc de Liria, was besieging the Imperialists. Hewon golden opinions from the army, but was already too strong for histutors--Murray and Sir Thomas Sheridan. He had both Protestant andCatholic governors; between them he learned to spell execrably in threelanguages, and sat loose to Catholic doctrines. In January 1735 died hismother, who had found refuge from her troubles in devotion. The grief ofJames and of the boys was acute. 

In 1736 Lovat was looking towards the rising sun of Prince Charles; wasaccused by a witness of enabling John Roy Stewart, Jacobite and poet, tobreak prison at Inverness, and of sending by him a message of devotion toJames, from whom he expected a dukedom. Lovat therefore lost hissheriffship and his independent company, and tried to attach himself toArgyll, when the affair of the Porteous Riot caused a coldness betweenArgyll and the English Government (1736-1737). 

THE PORTEOUS RIOT. 

The affair of Porteous is so admirably well described in 'The Heart ofMid-Lothian, ' and recent research {265} has thrown so little light on themystery (if mystery there were), that a brief summary of the tale maysuffice. 

In the spring of 1736 two noted smugglers, Wilson and Robertson, werecondemned to death. They had, while in prison, managed to widen thespace between the window-bars of their cell, and would have escaped; butWilson, a very stoutly built man, went first and stuck in the aperture, so that Robertson had no chance. The pair determined to attack theirguards in church, where, as usual, they were to be paraded and preachedat on the Sunday preceding their execution. Robertson leaped up andfled, with the full sympathy of a large and interested congregation, while Wilson grasped a guard with each hand and a third with his teeth. Thus Robertson got clean away--to Holland, it was said, --while Wilson wasto be hanged on April 14. The acting lieutenant of the Town Guard--anunpopular body, mainly Highlanders--was John Porteous, famous as agolfer, but, by the account of his enemies, notorious as a brutal andcallous ruffian. The crowd in the Grassmarket was great, but there wasno attempt at a rescue. The mob, however, threw large stones at theGuard, who fired, killing or wounding, as usual, harmless spectators. Thecase for Porteous, as reported in 'The State Trials, ' was that the attackwas dangerous; that the plan was to cut down and resuscitate Wilson; thatPorteous did not order, but tried to prevent, the firing; and thatneither at first nor in a later skirmish at the West Bow did he firehimself. There was much "cross swearing" at the trial of Porteous (July20); the jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to be hanged onSeptember 8. A petition from him to Queen Caroline (George II. Wasabroad) drew attention to palpable discrepancies in the hostile evidence. Both parties in Parliament backed his application, and on August 28 adelay of justice for six weeks was granted. 

Indignation was intense. An intended attack on the Tolbooth, wherePorteous lay, had been matter of rumour three days earlier: the prisonershould have been placed in the Castle. At 10 P. M. On the night ofSeptember 7 the magistrates heard that boys were beating a drum, andordered the Town Guard under arms; but the mob, who had already securedthe town's gates, disarmed the veterans. Mr Lindsay, lately Provost, escaped by the Potter Row gate (near the old fatal Kirk-o'-Field), andwarned General Moyle in the Castle. But Moyle could not introducesoldiers without a warrant. Before a warrant could arrive the mob hadburned down the door of the Tolbooth, captured Porteous--who was hidingup the chimney, --carried him to the Grassmarket, and hanged him to adyer's pole. The only apparent sign that persons of rank above that ofthe mob were concerned, was the leaving of a guinea in a shop whence theytook the necessary rope. The magistrates had been guilty of grossnegligence. The mob was merely a resolute mob; but Islay, in London, suspected that the political foes of the Government were engaged, or thatthe Cameronians, who had been renewing the Covenants, were concerned. 

Islay hurried to Edinburgh, where no evidence could be extracted. "TheHigh Flyers of our Scottish Church, " he wrote, "have made this infamousmurder a point of conscience. . . . All the lower rank of the people whohave distinguished themselves by the pretensions of superior sanctityspeak of this murder as the hand of God doing justice. " They went by theprecedent of the murder of Archbishop Sharp, it appears. In the Lords(February 1737) a Bill was passed for disabling the Provost--oneWilson--for public employment, destroying the Town Charter, abolishingthe Town Guard, and throwing down the gate of the Nether Bow. Argyllopposed the Bill; in the Commons all Scottish members were against it;Walpole gave way. Wilson was dismissed, and a fine of 2000 pounds waslevied and presented to the widow of Porteous. An Act commandingpreachers to read monthly for a year, in church, a proclamation biddingtheir hearers aid the cause of justice against the murderers, was aninsult to the Kirk, from an Assembly containing bishops. It is said thatat least half of the ministers disobeyed with impunity. It wasimpossible, of course, to evict half of the preachers in the country. 

Argyll now went into opposition against Walpole, and, at least, listenedto Keith--later the great Field-Marshal of Frederick the Great, andbrother of the exiled Earl Marischal. 

In 1737 the Jacobites began to stir again: a committee of five Chiefs andLords was formed to manage their affairs. John Murray of Broughton wentto Rome, and lost his heart to Prince Charles--now a tall handsome lad ofseventeen, with large brown eyes, and, when he pleased, a very attractivemanner. To Murray, more than to any other man, was due the Rising of1745. 

Meanwhile, in secular affairs, Scotland showed nothing more remarkablethan the increasing dislike, strengthened by Argyll, of Walpole'sGovernment. 

CHAPTER XXXII. THE FIRST SECESSION. 

For long we have heard little of the Kirk, which between 1720 and 1740passed through a cycle of internal storms. She had been little vexed, either during her years of triumph or defeat, by heresy or schism. Butnow the doctrines of Antoinette Bourignon, a French lady mystic, reachedScotland, and won the sympathies of some students of divinity--includingthe Rev. John Simson, of an old clerical family which had been notorioussince the Reformation for the turbulence of its members. In 1714, andagain in 1717, Mr Simson was acquitted by the Assembly on the charges ofbeing a Jesuit, a Socinian, and an Arminian, but was warned against "atendency to attribute too much to natural reason. " In 1726-29 he wasaccused of minimising the doctrines of the creed of St Athanasius, andtending to the Arian heresy, --"lately raked out of hell, " said the Kirk-session of Portmoak (1725), addressing the sympathetic Presbytery ofKirkcaldy. At the Assembly of 1726 that Presbytery, with others, assailed Mr Simson, who was in bad health, and "could talk of nothing butthe Council of Nice. " A committee, including Mar's brother, Lord Grange(who took such strong measures with his wife, Lady Grange, forciblytranslating her to the isle of St Kilda), inquired into the views of MrSimson's own Presbytery--that of Glasgow. This Presbytery cross-examinedMr Simson's pupils, and Mr Simson observed that the proceedings were "anunfruitful work of darkness. " Moreover, Mr Simson was of the party ofthe _Squadrone_, while his assailants were Argathelians. A largemajority of the Assembly gave the verdict that Mr Simson was a heretic. Finally, though in 1728 his answers to questions would have satisfiedgood St Athanasius, Mr Simson found himself in the ideal position ofbeing released from his academic duties but confirmed in his salary. Thelenient good-nature of this decision, with some other grievances, setfire to a mine which blew the Kirk in twain. 

The Presbytery of Auchterarder had set up a kind of "standard" of theirown--"The Auchterarder Creed"--which included this formula: "It is notsound or orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to ourcoming to Christ, and instating us in Covenant with God. " The GeneralAssembly condemned this part of the Creed of Auchterarder. The Rev. MrHog, looking for weapons in defence of Auchterarder, republished part ofa forgotten book of 1646, 'The Marrow of Modern Divinity. ' The workappears to have been written by a speculative hairdresser, anIndependent. A copy of the Marrow was found by the famous Mr Boston ofEttrick in the cottage of a parishioner. From the Marrow he sucked muchadvantage: its doctrines were grateful to the sympathisers withAuchterarder, and the republication of the book rent the Kirk. 

In 1720 a Committee of the General Assembly condemned a set ofpropositions in the Marrow as tending to Antinomianism (the doctrine thatthe saints cannot sin, professed by Trusty Tompkins in 'Woodstock'). But--as in the case of the five condemned propositions of Jansenius--theAuchterarder party denied that the heresies could be found in the Marrow. 

It was the old quarrel between Faith and Works. The clerical petitionersin favour of the Marrow were rebuked by the Assembly (May 21, 1722); theyprotested: against a merely human majority in the Assembly they appealedto "The Word of God, " to which the majority also appealed; and there wasa period of passion, but schism had not yet arrived. 

The five or six friends of the Marrow really disliked moral preaching, asopposed to weekly discourses on the legal technicalities ofjustification, sanctification, and adoption. They were also opposed tothe working of the Act which, in 1712, restored lay patronage. If theAssembly enforced the law of the land in this matter (and it did), theAssembly sinned against the divine right of congregations to elect theirown preachers. Men of this way of thinking were led by the Rev. MrEbenezer Erskine, a poet who, in 1714, addressed an Ode to George I. Hetherein denounced "subverting patronage" and

 "the woful dubious Abjuration Which gave the clergy ground for speculation. "

But a Jacobite song struck the same note--

 "Let not the Abjuration Impose upon the nation!"

and George was deaf to the muse of Mr Erskine. 

In 1732, 1733, Mr Erskine, in sermons concerning patronage, offended theAssembly; would not apologise, appeared (to a lay reader) to claim directinspiration, and with three other brethren constituted himself and theminto a Presbytery. Among their causes of separation (or rather ofdeciding that the Kirk had separated from them) was the salary ofEmeritus Professor Simson. The new Presbytery declared that theCovenants were still and were eternally binding on Scotland; in fact, these preachers were "platonically" for going back to the oldecclesiastical claims, with the old war of Church and State. Theynaturally denounced the Act of 1736, which abolished the burning ofwitches. After a period of long-suffering patience and conciliatoryefforts, in 1740 the Assembly deposed the Seceders. 

In 1747 a party among the Seceders excommunicated Mr Erskine and hisbrother; one of those who handed Mr Erskine over to Satan (if the oldformula were retained) was his son-in-law. 

The feuds of Burghers and Antiburghers (persons who were ready to take orrefused to take the Burgess oath), New Lights and Old Lights, lasted verylong and had evil consequences. As the populace love the headiestdoctrines, they preferred preachers in proportion as they leaned towardsthe Marrow, while lay patrons preferred candidates of the opposite views. The Assembly must either keep the law and back the patrons, or break thelaw and cease to be a State Church. The corruption of patronage wasoften notorious on one side; on the other the desirability of burningwitches and the belief in the eternity of the Covenants were articles offaith; and such articles were not to the taste of the "Moderates, "educated clergymen of the new school. Thus arose the war of "HighFlyers" and "Moderates" within the Kirk, --a war conducing to the greatDisruption of 1843, in which gallant little Auchterarder was again in theforemost line. 

CHAPTER XXXIII. THE LAST JACOBITE RISING. 

While the Kirk was vainly striving to assuage the tempers of Mr Erskineand his friends, the Jacobites were preparing to fish in troubled waters. In 1739 Walpole was forced to declare war against Spain, and Walpole hadpreviously sounded James as to his own chances of being trusted by thatexiled prince. James thought that Walpole was merely angling forinformation. Meanwhile Jacobite affairs were managed by two rivals, Macgregor (calling himself Drummond) of Balhaldy and Murray of Broughton. The sanguine Balhaldy induced France to suppose that the Jacobites inEngland and Scotland were much more united, powerful, and ready foraction than they really were, when Argyll left office in 1742, whileWalpole fell from power, Carteret and the Duke of Newcastle succeeding. In 1743 Murray found that France, though now at war with England over theSpanish Succession, was holding aloof from the Jacobite cause, thoughplied with flourishing and fabulous reports from Balhaldy and theJacobite Lord Sempill. But, in December 1743, on the strength of allegedJacobite energy in England, Balhaldy obtained leave from France to visitRome and bring Prince Charles. The Prince had kept himself in trainingfor war and was eager. Taking leave of his father for the last time, Charles drove out of Rome on January 9, 1744; evaded, in disguise, everytrap that was set for him, and landed at Antibes, reaching Paris onFebruary 10. Louis did not receive him openly, if he received him atall; the Prince lurked at Gravelines in disguise, with the EarlMarischal, while winds and waves half ruined, and the approach of aBritish fleet drove into port, a French fleet of invasion underRoqueville (March 6, 7, 1744). 

The Prince wrote to Sempill that he was ready and willing to sail forScotland in an open boat. In July 1744 he told Murray that he would comenext summer "if he had no other companion than his valet. " He nearlykept his word; nor did Murray resolutely oppose his will. At the end ofMay 1745 Murray's servant brought a letter from the Prince; "fall back, fall edge, " he would land in the Highlands in July. Lochiel regrettedthe decision, but said that, as a man of honour, he would join his Princeif he arrived. 

On July 2 the Prince left Nantes in the _Dutillet_ (usually styled _LaDoutelle_). He brought some money (he had pawned the Sobieski rubies), some arms, Tullibardine, his Governor Sheridan, Parson Kelly, the titularDuke of Atholl, Sir John Macdonald, a banker, Sullivan, and oneBuchanan--the Seven Men of Moidart. 

On July 20 his consort, _The Elizabeth_, fought _The Lion_ (CaptainBrett) off the Lizard; both antagonists were crippled. On [July22/August 2] Charles passed the night on the little isle of Eriskay;appealed vainly to Macleod and Macdonald of Sleat; was urged, atKinlochmoidart, by the Macdonalds, to return to France, but swept themoff their feet by his resolution; and with Lochiel and the Macdonaldsraised the standard at the head of Glenfinnan on August [19/30]. 

The English Government had already offered 30, 000 pounds for the Prince'shead. The clans had nothing to gain; they held that they had honour topreserve; they remembered Montrose; they put it to the touch, andfollowed Prince Charlie. 

The strength of the Prince's force was, first, the Macdonalds. On August16 Keppoch had cut off two companies of the Royal Scots near Loch Lochy. But the chief of Glengarry was old and wavering; young Glengarry, captured on his way from France, could not be with his clan; his youngbrother AEneas led till his accidental death after the battle of Falkirk. 

Of the Camerons it is enough to say that their leader was the gentleLochiel, and that they were worthy of their chief. The Macphersons camein rather late, under Cluny. The Frazers were held back by the craftyLovat, whose double-dealing, with the abstention of Macleod (who wassworn to the cause) and of Macdonald of Sleat, ruined the enterprise. Clan Chattan was headed by the beautiful Lady Mackintosh, whose husbandadhered to King George. Of the dispossessed Macleans, some 250 weregathered (under Maclean of Drimnin), and of that resolute band some fiftysurvived Culloden. These western clans (including 220 Stewarts of Appinunder Ardshiel) were the steel point of Charles's weapon; to them shouldbe added the Macgregors under James Mor, son of Rob Roy, a shiftycharacter but a hero in fight. 

To resist these clans, the earliest to join, Sir John Cope, commanding inScotland, had about an equal force of all arms, say 2500 to 3000 men, scattered in all quarters, and with very few field-pieces. Tweeddale, holding the revived office of Secretary for Scotland, was on the worstterms, as leader of the _Squadrone_, with his Argathelian rival, Islay, now (through the recent death of his brother, Red Ian of the Battles)Duke of Argyll. Scottish Whigs were not encouraged to arm. 

The Prince marched south, while Cope, who had concentrated at Stirling, marched north to intercept him. At Dalnacardoch he learned that Charleswas advancing to meet him in Corryarrick Pass (here came in Ardshiel, Glencoe, and a Glengarry reinforcement). At Dalwhinnie, Cope found thatthe clans held the pass, which is very defensible. He dared not facethem, and moved by Ruthven in Badenoch to Inverness, where he vainlyexpected to be met by the great Whig clans of the north. 

Joined now by Cluny, Charles moved on that old base of Montrose, theCastle of Blair of Atholl, where the exiled duke (commonly called Marquisof Tullibardine) was received with enthusiasm. In the mid-region betweenHighland and Lowland, the ladies, Lady Lude and the rest, simply forcedtheir sons, brothers, and lovers into arms. While Charles danced andmade friends, and tasted his first pine-apple at Blair, James Mor tookthe fort of Inversnaid. At Perth (September 4-10) Charles was joined bythe Duke of Perth, the Ogilvys under Lord Ogilvy, some Drummonds underLord Strathallan, the Oliphants of Gask, and 200 Robertsons of Struan. Lord George Murray, brother of the Duke of Atholl, who had been out in1715, out in 1719, and later was _un reconcilie_, came in, and with himcame Discord. He had dealt as a friend and ally with Cope at Crieff; hisloyalty to either side was thus not unnaturally dubious; he was suspectedby Murray of Broughton; envied by Sullivan, a soldier of some experience;and though he was loyal to the last, --the best organiser, and the mostdaring leader, --Charles never trusted him, and his temper was alwayscrossing that of the Prince. 

The race for Edinburgh now began, Cope bringing his troops by sea fromAberdeen, and Charles doing what Mar, in 1715, had never ventured. Hecrossed the Forth by the fords of Frew, six miles above Stirling, passedwithin gunshot of the castle, and now there was no force between him andEdinburgh save the demoralised dragoons of Colonel Gardiner. The soleuse of the dragoons was, wherever they came, to let the world know thatthe clans were at their heels. On September 16 Charles reachedCorstorphine, and Gardiner's dragoons fell back on Coltbridge. 

On the previous day the town had been terribly perturbed. The old walls, never sound, were dilapidated, and commanded by houses on the outside. Volunteers were scarce, and knew not how to load a musket. On Sunday, September 15, during sermon-time, "The bells were rung backwards, thedrums they were beat, " the volunteers, being told to march against theclans, listened to the voices of mothers and aunts and of their ownhearts, and melted like a mist. Hamilton's dragoons and ninety of thelate Porteous's Town Guard sallied forth, joining Gardiner's men atColtbridge. A few of the mounted Jacobite gentry, such as Lord Elcho, eldest son of the Earl of Wemyss, trotted up to inspect the dragoons, whofled and drew bridle only at Musselburgh, six miles east of Edinburgh. 

The magistrates treated through a caddie or street-messenger with thePrince. He demanded surrender, the bailies went and came, in a hackneycoach, between Charles's quarters, Gray's Mill, and Edinburgh, but ontheir return about 3 A. M. Lochiel with the Camerons rushed in when theNether Bow gate was opened to admit the cab of the magistrates. Murrayhad guided the clan round by Merchiston. At noon Charles entered "thatunhappy palace of his race, " Holyrood; and King James was proclaimed atEdinburgh Cross, while the beautiful Mrs Murray, mounted, distributedwhite cockades. Edinburgh provided but few volunteers, though the ladiestried to "force them out. "

Meanwhile Cope was landing his men at Dunbar; from Mr John Home (authorof 'Douglas, a Tragedy') he learnt that Charles's force was under 2000strong. He himself had, counting the dragoons, an almost equal strength, with six field-pieces manned by sailors. 

On September 20 Cope advanced from Haddington, while Charles, with allthe carriages he could collect for ambulance duty, set forth from hiscamp at Duddingston Loch, under Arthur's Seat. Cope took the low roadnear the sea, while Charles took the high road, holding the ridge, tillfrom Birsley brae he beheld Cope on the low level plain, between Seatonand Prestonpans. The manoeuvres of the clans forced Cope to change hisfront, but wherever he went, his men were more or less cooped up andconfined to the defensive, with the park wall on their rear. 

Meanwhile Mr Anderson of Whitburgh, a local sportsman who had shot ducksin the morass on Cope's left, brought to Charles news of a practicablepath through that marsh. Even so, the path was wet as high as the knee, says Ker of Graden, who had reconnoitred the British under fire. He wasa Roxburghshire laird, and there was with the Prince no better officer. 

In the grey dawn the clans waded through the marsh and leaped the ditch;Charles was forced to come with the second line fifty yards behind thefirst. The Macdonalds held the right, as they said they had done atBannockburn; the Camerons and Macgregors were on the left they "casttheir plaids, drew their blades, " and, after enduring an irregular fire, swept the red-coat ranks away; "they ran like rabets, " wrote Charles in agenuine letter to James. Gardiner was cut down, his entire troop havingfled, while he was directing a small force of foot which stood itsground. Charles stated his losses at a hundred killed and wounded, allby gunshot. Only two of the six field-pieces were discharged, by ColonelWhitefoord, who was captured. Friends and foes agree in saying that thePrince devoted himself to the care of the wounded of both sides. LordGeorge Murray states Cope's losses, killed, wounded, and taken, at 3000, Murray, at under 1000. 

The Prince would fain have marched on England, but his force was thinnedby desertions, and English reinforcements would have been landed in hisrear. For a month he had to hold court in Edinburgh, adored by theladies to whom he behaved with a coldness of which Charles II. Would nothave approved. "These are my beauties, " he said, pointing to a burly-bearded Highland sentry. He "requisitioned" public money, and suchhorses and fodder as he could procure; but to spare the townsfolk fromthe guns of the castle he was obliged to withdraw his blockade. He sentmessengers to France, asking for aid, but received little, though theMarquis Boyer d'Eguilles was granted as a kind of representative of LouisXV. His envoys to Sleat and Macleod sped ill, and Lovat only dallied, France only hesitated, while Dutch and English regiments landed in theThames and marched to join General Wade at Newcastle. Charles himselfreceived reinforcements amounting to some 1500 men, under Lord Ogilvy, old Lord Pitsligo, the Master of Strathallan (Drummond), the brave LordBalmerino, and the Viscount Dundee. A treaty of alliance with France, made at Fontainebleau, neutralised, under the Treaty of Tournay, 6000Dutch who might not, by that treaty, fight against the ally of France. 

The Prince entertained no illusions. Without French forces, he toldD'Eguilles, "I cannot resist English, Dutch, Hessians, and Swiss. " OnOctober [15/26] he wrote his last extant letter from Scotland to KingJames. He puts his force at 8000 (more truly 6000), with 300 horse. "With these, as matters stand, I shal have one decisive stroke for't, butiff the French" (do not?) "land, perhaps none. . . . As matters stand Imust either conquer or perish in a little while. "

Defeated in the heart of England, and with a prize of 30, 000 poundsoffered for his head, he could not hope to escape. A victory for himwould mean a landing of French troops, and his invasion of England hadfor its aim to force the hand of France. Her troops, with Prince Henryamong them, dallied at Dunkirk till Christmas, and were then dispersed, while the Duke of Cumberland arrived in England from Flanders on October19. 

On October 30 the Prince held a council of war. French supplies and gunshad been landed at Stonehaven, and news came that 6000 French were readyat Dunkirk: at Dunkirk they were, but they never were ready. The newsprobably decided Charles to cross the Border; while it appears that hismen preferred to be content with simply making Scotland again anindependent kingdom, with a Catholic king. But to do this, with Frenchaid, was to return to the state of things under Mary of Guise!

The Prince, judging correctly, wished to deal his "decisive stroke" nearhome, at the old and now futile Wade in Northumberland. A victory wouldhave disheartened England, and left Newcastle open to France. If Charleswere defeated, his own escape by sea, in a country where he had many well-wishers, was possible, and the clans would have retreated through theCheviots. Lord George Murray insisted on a march by the western road, Lancashire being expected to rise and join the Prince. But this planleft Wade, with a superior force, on Charles's flank! The onedifficulty, that of holding a bridge, say Kelso Bridge, over Tweed, wasnot insuperable. Rivers could not stop the Highlanders. Macdonald ofMorar thought Charles the best general in the army, and to the layman, considering the necessity for an _instant_ stroke, and the advantages ofthe east, as regards France, the Prince's strategy appears better thanLord George's. But Lord George had his way. 

On October 31, Charles, reinforced by Cluny with 400 Macphersons, concentrated at Dalkeith. On November 1, the less trusted part of hisforce, under Tullibardine, with the Atholl men, moved south by Peeblesand Moffat to Lockerbie, menacing Carlisle; while the Prince, LordGeorge, and the fighting clans marched to Kelso--a feint to deceive Wade. The main body then moved by Jedburgh, up Rule Water and down throughLiddesdale, joining hands with Tullibardine on November 9, andbivouacking within two miles of Carlisle. On the 10th the Atholl menwent to work at the trenches; on the 11th the army moved seven milestowards Newcastle, hoping to discuss Wade at Brampton on hilly ground. But Wade did not gratify them by arriving. 

On the 13th the Atholl men were kept at their spade-work, and Lord Georgein dudgeon resigned his command (November 14), but at night Carlislesurrendered, Murray and Perth negotiating. Lord George expressed hisanger and jealousy to his brother, Tullibardine, but Perth resigned hiscommand to pacify his rival. Wade feebly tried to cross country, failed, and went back to Newcastle. On November 10, with some 4500 men (therehad been many desertions), the march through Lancashire was decreed. Savefor Mr Townley and two Vaughans, the Catholics did not stir. Charlesmarched on foot in the van; he was a trained pedestrian; the townspeoplestared at him and his Highlanders, but only at Manchester (November 29-30) had he a welcome, enlisting about 150 doomed men. On November 27Cumberland took over command at Lichfield; his foot were distributedbetween Tamworth and Stafford; his cavalry was at Newcastle-under-Lyme. Lord George was moving on Derby, but learning Cumberland's dispositionshe led a column to Congleton, inducing Cumberland to concentrate atLichfield, while he himself, by way of Leek and Ashburn, joined thePrince at Derby. 

The army was in the highest spirits. The Duke of Richmond on the otherside wrote from Lichfield (December 5), "If the enemy please to cut usoff from the main army, they may; and also, if they please to give us theslip and march to London, I fear they may, before even this _avant garde_can come up with them; . . . There is no pass to defend, . . . The campat Finchley is confined to paper plans"--and Wales was ready to join thePrince! Lord George did not know what Richmond knew. Despite theentreaties of the Prince, his Council decided to retreat. On December 6the clans, uttering cries of rage, were set with their faces to thenorth. 

The Prince was now an altered man. Full of distrust, he marched not withLord George in the rear, he rode in the van. 

Meanwhile Lord John Drummond, who, on November 22, had landed at Montrosewith 800 French soldiers, was ordered by Charles to advance with largeHighland levies now collected and meet him as he moved north. Lord Johndisobeyed orders (received about December 18). Expecting his advance, Charles most unhappily left the Manchester men and others to holdCarlisle, to which he would return. Cumberland took them all, --many werehanged. 

In the north, Lord Lewis Gordon routed Macleod at Inverurie (December23), and defeated his effort to secure Aberdeen. Admirably commanded byLord George, and behaving admirably for an irregular retreating force, the army reached Penrith on December 18, and at Clifton, Lord George andCluny defeated Cumberland's dragoons in a rearguard action. 

On December 19 Carlisle was reached, and, as we saw, a force was left toguard the castle; all were taken. On December 20 the army forded theflooded Esk; the ladies, of whom several had been with them, rode it ontheir horses: the men waded breast-high, as, had there been need, theywould have forded Tweed if the eastern route had been chosen, and ifretreat had been necessary. Cumberland returned to London on January 5, and Horace Walpole no longer dreaded "a rebellion that runs away. " Bydifferent routes Charles and Lord George met (December 26) at HamiltonPalace. Charles stayed a night at Dumfries. Dumfries was hostile, andwas fined; Glasgow was also disaffected, the ladies were unfriendly. AtGlasgow, Charles heard that Seaforth, chief of the Mackenzies, was aidingthe Hanoverians in the north, combining with the great Whig clans, withMacleod, the Munroes, Lord Loudoun commanding some 2000 men, and theMackays of Sutherland and Caithness. 

Meanwhile Lord John Drummond, Strathallan, and Lord Lewis Gordon, withLord Macleod, were concentrating to meet the Prince at Stirling, thepurpose being the hopeless one of capturing the castle, the key of thenorth. With weak artillery, and a futile and foolish French engineerofficer to direct the siege, they had no chance of success. The Prince, in bad health, stayed (January 4-10) at Sir Hugh Paterson's place, Bannockburn House. 

At Stirling, with his northern reinforcements, Charles may have had someseven or eight thousand men wherewith to meet General Hawley (a veteranof Sheriffmuir) advancing from Edinburgh. Hawley encamped at Falkirk, and while the Atholl men were deserting by scores, Lord George skilfullydeceived him, arrived on the Falkirk moor unobserved, and held the ridgeabove Hawley's position, while the General was lunching with LadyKilmarnock. In the first line of the Prince's force the Macdonalds heldthe right wing, the Camerons (whom the great Wolfe describes as thebravest of the brave) held the left; with Stewarts of Appin, Frazers, andMacphersons in the centre. In the second line were the Atholl men, LordLewis Gordon's levies, and Lord Ogilvy's. The Lowland horse andDrummond's French details were in the rear. The ground was made up ofeminences and ravines, so that in the second line the various bodies wereinvisible to each other, as at Sheriffmuir--with similar results. WhenHawley found that he had been surprised he arrayed his thirteenbattalions of regulars and 1000 men of Argyll on the plain, with threeregiments of dragoons, by whose charge he expected to sweep awayCharles's right wing; behind his cavalry were the luckless militia ofGlasgow and the Lothians. In all, he had from 10, 000 to 12, 000 menagainst, perhaps, 7000 at most, for 1200 of Charles's force were left tocontain Blakeney in Stirling Castle. Both sides, on account of the heavyroads, failed to bring forward their guns. 

Hawley then advanced his cavalry up hill: their left faced Keppoch'sMacdonalds; their right faced the Frazers, under the Master of Lovat, inCharles's centre. Hawley then launched his cavalry, which were met atclose range by the reserved fire of the Macdonalds and Frazers. Throughthe mist and rain the townsfolk, looking on, saw in five minutes "thebreak in the battle. " Hamilton's and Ligonier's cavalry turned and fled, Cobham's wheeled and rode across the Highland left under fire, while theMacdonalds and Frazers pursuing the cavalry found themselves among theGlasgow militia, whom they followed, slaying. Lord George had no pipersto sound the recall; they had flung their pipes to their gillies and gonein with the claymore. 

Thus the Prince's right, far beyond his front, were lost in the tempest;while his left had discharged their muskets at Cobham's Horse, and couldnot load again, their powder being drenched with rain. They received thefire of Hawley's right, and charged with the claymore, but wereoutflanked and enfiladed by some battalions drawn up _en potence_. Manyof the second line had blindly followed the first: the rest shunned theaction; Hawley's officers led away some regiments in an orderly retreat;night fell; no man knew what had really occurred till young Gask andyoung Strathallan, with the French and Atholl men, ventured into Falkirk, and found Hawley's camp deserted. The darkness, the rain, the nature ofthe ground, and the clans' want of discipline, prevented the annihilationof Hawley's army; while the behaviour of his cavalry showed that thePrince might have defeated Cumberland's advanced force beyond Derby withthe greatest ease, as the Duke of Richmond had anticipated. 

Perhaps the right course now was to advance on Edinburgh, but thehopeless siege of Stirling Castle was continued--Charles perhaps hopingmuch from Hawley's captured guns. 

The accidental shooting of young AEneas Macdonnell, second son ofGlengarry, by a Clanranald man, begat a kind of blood feud between theclans, and the unhappy cause of the accident had to be shot. Lochgarry, writing to young Glengarry after Culloden, says that "there was a generaldesertion in the whole army, " and this was the view of the chiefs, who, on news of Cumberland's approach, told Charles (January 29) that the armywas depleted and resistance impossible. 

The chiefs were mistaken in point of fact: a review at Crieff latershowed that even then only 1000 men were missing. As at Derby, and withright on his side, Charles insisted on meeting Cumberland. He did well, his men were flushed with victory, had sufficient supplies, were toencounter an army not yet encouraged by a refusal to face it, and, ifdefeated had the gates of the hills open behind them. In a verytemperately written memorial Charles placed these ideas before thechiefs. "Having told you my thoughts, I am too sensible of what you havealready ventured and done for me, not to yield to your unanimousresolution if you persist. "

Lord George, Lovat, Lochgarry, Keppoch, Ardshiel, and Cluny did persist;the fatal die was cast; and the men who--well fed and confident--mighthave routed Cumberland, fled in confusion rather than retreated, --to beruined later, when, starving, out-wearied, and with many of their bestforces absent, they staggered his army at Culloden. Charles had told thechiefs, "I can see nothing but ruin and destruction to us in case weshould retreat. " {287}

This retreat embittered Charles's feelings against Lord George, who mayhave been mistaken--who, indeed, at Crieff, seems to have recognised hiserror (February 5); but he had taken his part, and during the campaign, henceforth, as at Culloden, distinguished himself by every virtue of asoldier. 

After the retreat Lord George moved on Aberdeen; Charles to Blair inAtholl; thence to Moy, the house of Lady Mackintosh, where a blacksmithand four or five men ingeniously scattered Loudoun and the Macleods, advancing to take him by a night surprise. This was the famous Rout ofMoy. 

Charles next (February 20) took Inverness Castle, and Loudoun was driveninto Sutherland, and cut off by Lord George's dispositions from anychance of joining hands with Cumberland. The Duke had now 5000 Hessiansoldiers at his disposal: these he would not have commanded had thePrince's army met him near Stirling. 

Charles was now at or near Inverness: he lost, through illness, theservices of Murray, whose successor, Hay, was impotent as an officer ofCommissariat. A gallant movement of Lord George into Atholl, where hesurprised all Cumberland's posts, but was foiled by the resistance of hisbrother's castle, was interrupted by a recall to the north, and, on April2, he retreated to the line of the Spey. Forbes of Culloden and Macleodhad been driven to take refuge in Skye; but 1500 men of the Prince's besthad been sent into Sutherland, when Cumberland arrived at Nairn (April14), and Charles concentrated his starving forces on Culloden Moor. TheMacphersons, the Frazers, the 1500 Macdonalds, and others in Sutherlandwere absent on various duties when "the wicked day of destiny"approached. 

The men on Culloden Moor, a flat waste unsuited to the tactics of theclans, had but one biscuit apiece on the eve of the battle. Lord George"did not like the ground, " and proposed to surprise by a night attackCumberland's force at Nairn. The Prince eagerly agreed, and, accordingto him, Clanranald's advanced men were in touch with Cumberland'soutposts before Lord George convinced the Prince that retreat wasnecessary. The advance was lagging; the way had been missed in the dark;dawn was at hand. There are other versions: in any case the hungry menwere so outworn that many are said to have slept through next day'sbattle. 

A great mistake was made next day, if Lochgarry, who commanded theMacdonalds of Glengarry, and Maxwell of Kirkconnel are correct in sayingthat Lord George insisted on placing his Atholl men on the right wing. The Macdonalds had an old claim to the right wing, but as far as researchenlightens us, their failure on this fatal day was not due to jealousanger. The battle might have been avoided, but to retreat was to loseInverness and all chance of supplies. On the Highland right was thewater of Nairn, and they were guarded by a wall which the Campbellspulled down, enabling Cumberland's cavalry to take them in flank. Cumberland had about 9000 men, including the Campbells. Charles, according to his muster-master, had 5000; of horse he had but a handful. 

The battle began with an artillery duel, during which the clans lostheavily, while their few guns were useless, and their right flank wasexposed by the breaking down of the protecting wall. After someunexplained and dangerous delay, Lord George gave the word to charge, inface of a blinding tempest of sleet, and himself went in, as did Lochiel, claymore in hand. But though the order was conveyed by Ker of Gradenfirst to the Macdonalds on the left, as they had to charge over a widerspace of ground, the Camerons, Clan Chattan, and Macleans came first tothe shock. "Nothing could be more desperate than their attack, or moreproperly received, " says Whitefoord. The assailants were enfiladed byWolfe's regiment, which moved up and took position at right angles, likethe fifty-second on the flank of the last charge of the French Guard atWaterloo. The Highland right broke through Barrel's regiment, swept overthe guns, and died on the bayonets of the second line. They had throwndown their muskets after one fire, and, says Cumberland, stood "and threwstones for at least a minute or two before their total rout began. "Probably the fall of Lochiel, who was wounded and carried out of action, determined the flight. Meanwhile the left, the Macdonalds, menaced onthe flank by cavalry, were plied at a hundred yards by grape. They sawtheir leaders, the gallant Keppoch and Macdonnell of Scothouse, with manyothers, fall under the grape-shot: they saw the right wing broken, andthey did not come to the shock. If we may believe four sworn witnessesin a court of justice (July 24, 1752), whose testimony was accepted asthe basis of a judicial decreet (January 10, 1756), {290} Keppoch waswounded while giving his orders to some of his men not to outrun the linein advancing, and was shot dead as a friend was supporting him. When allretreated they passed the dead body of Keppoch. 

The tradition constantly given in various forms that Keppoch chargedalone, "deserted by the children of his clan, " is worthless if swornevidence may be trusted. 

As for the unhappy Charles, by the evidence of Sir Robert Strange, whowas with him, he had "ridden along the line to the right animating thesoldiers, " and "endeavoured to rally the soldiers, who, annoyed by theenemy's fire, were beginning to quit the field. " He "was got off thefield when the men in general were betaking themselves precipitately toflight; nor was there any possibility of their being rallied. " Yorke, anEnglish officer, says that the Prince did not leave the field till afterthe retreat of the second line. 

So far the Prince's conduct was honourable and worthy of his name. Butpresently, on the advice of his Irish entourage, Sullivan and Sheridan, who always suggested suspicions, and doubtless not forgetting the greatprice on his head, he took his own way towards the west coast in place ofjoining Lord George and the remnant with him at Ruthven in Badenoch. OnApril 26 he sailed from Borradale in a boat, and began that course ofwanderings and hairbreadth escapes in which only the loyalty of Highlandhearts enabled him at last to escape the ships that watched the isles andthe troops that netted the hills. 

Some years later General Wolfe, then residing at Inverness, reviewed theoccurrences, and made up his mind that the battle had been a dangerousrisk for Cumberland, while the pursuit (though ruthlessly cruel) wasinefficient. 

Despite Cumberland's insistent orders to give no quarter (ordersjustified by the absolutely false pretext that Prince Charles had set theexample), Lochgarry reported that the army had not lost more than athousand men. Fire and sword and torture, the destruction of tilledlands, and even of the shell-fish on the shore, did not break the spiritof the Highlanders. Many bands held out in arms, and Lochgarry was onlyprevented by the Prince's command from laying an ambush for Cumberland. The Campbells and the Macleods under their recreant chief, the WhigMacdonalds under Sir Alexander of Sleat, ravaged the lands of theJacobite clansmen; but the spies of Albemarle, who now commanded inScotland, reported the Macleans, the Grants of Glenmoriston, with theMacphersons, Glengarry's men, and Lochiel's Camerons, as all eager "to doit again" if France would only help. 

But France was helpless, and when Lochiel sailed for France with thePrince only Cluny remained, hunted like a partridge in the mountains, tokeep up the spirit of the Cause. Old Lovat met a long-deserved death bythe executioner's axe, though it needed the evidence of Murray ofBroughton, turned informer, to convict that fox. Kilmarnock andBalmerino also were executed; the good and brave Duke of Perth died onhis way to France; the aged Tullibardine in the Tower; many gallantgentlemen were hanged; Lord George escaped, and is the ancestor of thepresent Duke of Atholl; many gentlemen took French service; others foughtin other alien armies; three or four in the Highlands or abroad took thewages of spies upon the Prince. The 30, 000 pounds of French gold, buriednear Loch Arkaig, caused endless feuds, kinsman denouncing kinsman. Thesecrets of the years 1746-1760 are to be sought in the Cumberland andStuart MSS. In Windsor Castle and the Record Office. 

Legislation, intended to scotch the snake of Jacobitism, began withreligious persecution. The Episcopalian clergy had no reason to lovetriumphant Presbyterianism, and actively, or in sympathy, were favourersof the exiled dynasty. Episcopalian chapels, sometimes mere rooms inprivate houses, were burned, or their humble furniture was destroyed. AllEpiscopalian ministers were bidden to take the oath and pray for KingGeorge by September 1746, or suffer for the second offence transportationfor life to the American colonies. Later, the orders conferred byScottish bishops were made of no avail. Only with great difficulty anddanger could parents obtain the rite of baptism for their children. Verylittle is said in our histories about the sufferings of the Episcopalianswhen it was their turn to be under the harrow. They were not violent, they murdered no Moderator of the General Assembly. Other measures werethe Disarming Act, the prohibition to wear the Highland dress, and theabolition of "hereditable jurisdictions, " and the chief's right to callout his clansmen in arms. Compensation in money was paid, from 21, 000pounds to the Duke of Argyll to 13 pounds, 6s. 8d. To the clerks of theRegistrar of Aberbrothock. The whole sum was 152, 237 pounds, 15s. 4d. 

In 1754 an Act "annexed the forfeited estates of the Jacobites who hadbeen out (or many of them) inalienably to the Crown. " The estates wererestored in 1784; meanwhile the profits were to be used for theimprovement of the Highlands. If submissive tenants received betterterms and larger leases than of old, Jacobite tenants were evicted fornot being punctual with rent. Therefore, on May 14, 1752, some personunknown shot Campbell of Glenure, who was about evicting the tenants onthe lands of Lochiel and Stewart of Ardshiel in Appin. Campbell rodedown from Fort William to Ballachulish ferry, and when he had crossed itsaid, "I am safe now I am out of my mother's country. " But as he drovealong the old road through the wood of Lettermore, perhaps a mile and ahalf south of Ballachulish House, the fatal shot was fired. For thiscrime James Stewart of the Glens was tried by a Campbell jury atInveraray, with the Duke on the bench, and was, of course, convicted, andhanged on the top of a knoll above Ballachulish ferry. James wasinnocent, but Allan Breck Stewart was certainly an accomplice of the manwith the gun, which, by the way, was the property neither of JamesStewart nor of Stewart of Fasnacloich. The murderer was anxious to saveJames by avowing the deed, but his kinsfolk, saying, "They will only hangboth James and you, " bound him hand and foot and locked him up in thekitchen on the day of James's execution. {293} Allan lay for some weeksat the house of a kinsman in Rannoch, and escaped to France, where he hada fight with James Mor Macgregor, then a spy in the service of the Dukeof Newcastle. 

This murder of "the Red Fox" caused all the more excitement, and is allthe better remembered in Lochaber and Glencoe, because agrarian violencein revenge for eviction has scarcely another example in the history ofthe Highlands. 

CONCLUSION. 

Space does not permit an account of the assimilation of Scotland toEngland in the years between the Forty-five and our own time: moreover, the history of this age cannot well be written without a dangerouslyclose approach to many "burning questions" of our day. The History ofthe Highlands, from 1752 to the emigrations witnessed by Dr Johnson (1760-1780), and of the later evictions in the interests of sheep farms anddeer forests, has never been studied as it ought to be in the richmanuscript materials which are easily accessible. The great literaryRenaissance of Scotland, from 1745 to the death of Sir Walter Scott; theyears of Hume, a pioneer in philosophy and in history, and of the Rev. Principal Robertson (with him and Hume, Gibbon professed, very modestly, that he did not rank); the times of Adam Smith, of Burns, and of SirWalter, not to speak of the Rev. John Home, that foremost tragic poet, may be studied in many a history of literature. According to Voltaire, Scotland led the world in all studies, from metaphysics to gardening. Wethink of Watt, and add engineering. 

The brief and inglorious administration of the Earl of Bute at once gaveopenings in the public service to Scots of ability, and excited thatEnglish hatred of these northern rivals which glows in Churchill's'Satires, ' while this English jealousy aroused that Scottish hatred ofEngland which is the one passion that disturbs the placid letters ofDavid Hume. 

The later alliance of Pitt with Henry Dundas made Dundas far morepowerful than any Secretary for Scotland had been since Lauderdale, andconfirmed the connection of Scotland with the services in India. But, politically, Scotland, till the Reform Bill, had scarcely a recognisableexistence. The electorate was tiny, and great landholders controlled thevotes, whether genuine or created by legal fiction--"faggot votes. "Municipal administration in the late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies was terribly corrupt, and reform was demanded, but the FrenchRevolution, producing associations of Friends of the People, who wereprosecuted and grievously punished in trials for sedition, did not afforda fortunate moment for peaceful reforms. 

But early in the nineteenth century Jeffrey, editor of 'The EdinburghReview, ' made it the organ of Liberalism, and no less potent in Englandthan in Scotland; while Scott, on the Tory side, led a following ofScottish penmen across the Border in the service of 'The QuarterlyReview. ' With 'Blackwood's Magazine' and Wilson, Hogg, and Lockhart;with Jeffrey and 'The Edinburgh, ' the Scottish metropolis almost rivalledLondon as the literary capital. 

About 1818 Lockhart recognised the superiority of the Whig wits inliterature; but against them all Scott is a more than sufficient set-off. The years of stress between Waterloo (1815) and the Reform Bill (1832)made Radicalism (fostered by economic causes, the enormous commercial andindustrial growth, and the unequal distribution of its rewards) perhapseven more pronounced north than south of the Tweed. In 1820 "the Radicalwar" led to actual encounters between the yeomanry and the people. Theruffianism of the Tory paper 'The Beacon' caused one fatal duel, and waswithin an inch of leading to another, in which a person of the veryhighest consequence would have "gone on the sod. " For the Reform Billthe mass of Scottish opinion, so long not really represented at all, wasas eager as for the Covenant. So triumphant was the first Whig orRadical majority under the new system, that Jeffrey, the Whig pontiff, perceived that the real struggle was to be "between property and noproperty, " between Capital and Socialism. This circumstance had alwaysbeen perfectly clear to Scott and the Tories. 

The watchword of the eighteenth century in literature, religion, andpolitics had been "no enthusiasm. " But throughout the century, since1740, "enthusiasm, " "the return to nature, " had gradually conquered tillthe rise of the Romantic school with Coleridge and Scott. In religionthe enthusiastic movement of the Wesleys had altered the face of theChurch in England, while in Scotland the "Moderates" had lost position, and "zeal" or enthusiasm pervaded the Kirk. The question of laypatronage of livings had passed through many phases since Knox wrote, "Itpertaineth to the people, and to every several congregation, to electtheir minister. " In 1833, immediately after the passing of the ReformBill, the return to the primitive Knoxian rule was advocated by the"Evangelical" or "High Flying" opponents of the Moderates. Dr Chalmers, a most eloquent person, whom Scott regarded as truly a man of genius, wasthe leader of the movement. The Veto Act, by which the votes of amajority of heads of families were to be fatal to the claims of apatron's presentee, had been passed by the General Assembly; it wascontrary to Queen Anne's Patronage Act of 1711, --a measure carried, contrary to Harley's policy, by a coalition of English Churchmen andScottish Jacobite members of Parliament. The rejection, under the VetoAct, of a presentee by the church of Auchterarder, was declared illegalby the Court of Session and the judges in the House of Lords (May 1839);the Strathbogie imbroglio, "with two Presbyteries, one taking its ordersfrom the Court of Session, the other from the General Assembly" (1837-1841), brought the Assembly into direct conflict with the law of theland. Dr Chalmers would not allow the spiritual claims of the Kirk to besuppressed by the State. "King Christ's Crown Honours" were once more inquestion. On May 18, 1843, the followers of the principles of Knox andAndrew Melville marched out of the Assembly into Tanfield Hall, and madeDr Chalmers Moderator, and themselves "The Free Church of Scotland. " In1847 the hitherto separated synods of various dissenting bodies cametogether as United Presbyterians, and in 1902 they united with the FreeChurch as "the United Free Church, " while a small minority, mainlyHighland, of the former Free Church, now retains that title, andapparently represents Knoxian ideals. Thus the Knoxian ideals havemodified, even to this day, the ecclesiastical life of Scotland, whilethe Church of James I. , never by persecution extinguished (_nec tamenconsumebatur_), has continued to exist and develop, perhaps more inconsequence of love of the Liturgy than from any other cause. 

Meanwhile, and not least in the United Free Church, extreme tenacity ofdogma has yielded place to very advanced Biblical criticism; and Knox, could he revisit Scotland with all his old opinions, might not be whollysatisfied by the changes wrought in the course of more than threecenturies. The Scottish universities, discouraged and almost destituteof pious benefactors since the end of the sixteenth century, haveprofited by the increase of wealth and a comparatively recent outburst ofgenerosity. They always provided the cheapest, and now they provide thecheapest and most efficient education that is offered by any homes oflearning of mediaeval foundation. 

FOOTNOTES

{2} A good example of these Celtic romances is 'The Tain Bo Cualgne. '

{4} The best account of Roman military life in Scotland, from the timeof Agricola to the invasion by Lollius Urbicus (140-158 A. D. ), may bestudied in Mr Curie's 'A Roman Frontier Post and Its People' (Maclehose, Glasgow, 1911). The relics, weapons, arms, pottery, and armour of Romanmen, and the ornaments of the native women, are here beautifullyreproduced. Dr Macdonald's excellent work, 'The Roman Wall in Scotland'(Maclehose, 1911), is also most interesting and instructive. 

{10} For the Claims of Supremacy see Appendix C. To vol. I. Of my'History of Scotland, ' pp. 496-499. 

{20} Lord Reay, according to the latest book on Scottish peerages, represents these MacHeths or Mackays. 

{27} 'Iliad, ' xviii. 496-500. 

{36} As Waleys was then an English as much as a Scottish name, I see noreason for identifying the William le Waleys, outlawed for bilking a poorwoman who kept a beer house (Perth, June-August, 1296), with the greathistorical hero of Scotland. 

{38} See Dr Neilson on "Blind Harry's Wallace, " in 'Essays and Studiesby Members of the English Association, ' p. 85 ff. (Oxford, 1910. )

{52} The precise date is disputed. 

{57} By a blunder which Sir James Ramsay corrected, history has accusedJames of arresting his "whole House of Lords"!

{61} The ballad fragments on the Knight of Liddesdale's slaying, and on"the black dinner, " are preserved in Hume of Godscroft's 'History of heHouse of Douglas, ' written early in the seventeenth century. 

{67} The works of Messrs Herkless and Hannay on the Bishops of StAndrews may be consulted. 

{71} See p. 38, note 1. 

{89} Knox gives another account. Our evidence is from a household bookof expenses, _Liber Emptorum_, in MS. 

{91} As to the story of forgery, see a full discussion in the author's'History of Scotland, ' i. 460-467. 1900. 

{94} There is no proof that this man was the preacher George Wishart, later burned. 

{96} A curious controversy is constantly revived in this matter. It isurged that Knox's mobs did not destroy the abbey churches of Kelso, Melrose, Dryburgh, Roxburgh, and Coldingham: that was done by Hertford'sarmy. If so, they merely deprived the Knoxian brethren of the pleasuresof destruction which they enjoyed almost everywhere else. The English, if guilty, left at Melrose, Jedburgh, Coldingham, and Kelso morebeautiful remains of mediaeval architecture than the Reformers were wontto spare. 

{99} This part of our history is usually and erroneously told as givenby Knox, writing fifteen years later. He needs to be corrected by theletters and despatches of the day, which prove that the Reformer'smemory, though picturesque, had, in the course of fifteen years, becomeuntrustworthy. He is the chief source of the usual version of SolwayMoss. 

{106} The dates and sequence of events are perplexing. In 'John Knoxand the Reformation' (pp. 86-95) I have shown the difficulties. 

{111a} The details of these proceedings and the evidence for them may befound in the author's book, 'John Knox and the Reformation, ' pp. 135-141. Cf. Also my 'History of Scotland, ' ii. 58-60. 

{111b} See 'Affaires Etrangeres: Angleterre, ' xv. 131-153. MS. 

{118} Mary's one good portrait is that owned by Lord Leven and Melville. 

{129} I have no longer any personal doubt that Mary wrote the lostFrench original of this letter, usually numbered II. In the CasketLetters (see my paper, "The Casket Letters, " in 'The Scottish HistoricalReview, ' vol. V. , No. 17, pp. 1-12). The arguments tending to suggestthat parts of the letter are forged (see my 'Mystery of Mary Stuart') are(I now believe) unavailing. 

{137} I can construe in no other sense the verbose "article. " It may beread in Dr Hay Fleming's 'Reformation in Scotland, ' pp. 449, 450, withsufficient commentary, pp. 450-453. 

{144} It appears that there was both a plot by Lennox, after the Raid ofRuthven, to seize James--"preaching will be of no avail to convert him, "his mother wrote; and also an English plot, rejected by Gowrie, to poisonboth James and Mary! For the former, see Professor Hume Brown, 'Historyof Scotland, ' vol. Ii. P. 289; for the latter, see my 'History ofScotland, ' vol. Ii. Pp. 286, 287, with the authorities in each case. 

{156} Of these versions, that long lost one which was sent to Englandhas been published for the first time, with the previously unnoticedincident of Robert Oliphant, in the author's 'James VI. And the GowrieMystery. ' Here it is also demonstrated that all the treasonable lettersattributed in 1606-1608 to Logan were forged by Logan's solicitor, GeorgeSprot, though the principal letter seems to me to be a copy of anauthentic original. That all, _as they stand_, are forgeries is theunanimous opinion of experts. See the whole of the documents in theauthor's 'Confessions of George Sprot. ' Roxburghe Club. 

{181} Colkitto's men and the Badenoch contingent. 

{182} Much has been made of cruelties at Aberdeen. Montrose sent in adrummer, asking the Provost to remove the old men, women, and children. The drummer was shot, as, at Perth, Montrose's friend, Kilpont, had beenmurdered. The enemy were pursued through the town. Spalding names 115townsmen slain in the whole battle and pursuit. Women were slain if theywere heard to mourn their men--not a very probable story. Not one womanis named. The Burgh Records mention no women slain. Baillie says "thetown was well plundered. " Jaffray, who fled from the fight as fast ashis horse could carry him, says that women and children were slain. Seemy 'History of Scotland, ' vol. Iii. Pp. 126-128. 

{186a} Craig-Brown, 'History of Selkirkshire, ' vol. I. Pp. 190, 193. 'Act. Parl. Scot. , ' vol. Vi. Pt. I. P. 492. 

{186b} 'Act. Parl. Scot. , ' vol. Vi. Pt. I. P. 514. 

{187} Hume Brown, vol. Ii. P. 339. 

{208} The Boot was an old French and Scottish implement. It was aframework into which the human leg was inserted; wedges were then drivenbetween the leg and the framework. 

{225} Many disgusting details may be read in the author's 'Life of SirGeorge Mackenzie. '

{226} Hume Brown, ii. 414, 415. 

{250} Dr Hay Fleming finds no mention of this affair in the Minutes ofthe Societies. 

{254a} All this is made clear from the letters of the date in the StuartPapers (Historical Manuscript Commission). 

{254b} In addition to Saint Simon's narrative we have the documentaryevidence taken in a French inquiry. 

{264} See 'The King over the Water, ' by Alice Shield and A. Lang. Thackeray's King James, in 'Esmond, ' is very amusing but absolutely falseto history. 

{265} 'The Porteous Trial, ' by Mr Roughead, W. S. 

{287} See the author's 'History of Scotland, ' iv. 446-500, where theevidence is examined. 

{290} 'Register of Decreets, ' vol. 482. 

{293} Tradition in Glencoe.