AN OUTLINE OF THE

 RELATIONS BETWEEN

 ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND (500-1707)

 BY

 ROBERT S. RAIT FELLOW OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD

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

PREFATORY NOTE

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

 R. S. R. 

 NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD, _April, 1901_. 

 CONTENTS

 Page

 INTRODUCTION ix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 APPENDIX A. REFERENCES TO THE HIGHLANDERS IN MEDIÆVAL LITERATURE 195

 " B. THE FEUDALIZATION OF SCOTLAND 204

 " C. TABLE OF THE COMPETITORS OF 1290 214

 INDEX 215

INTRODUCTION

The present volume has been published with two main objects. The writerhas attempted to exhibit, in outline, the leading features of theinternational history of the two countries which, in 1707, became theUnited Kingdom. Relations with England form a large part, and the heroicpart, of Scottish history, relations with Scotland a very much smallerpart of English history. The result has been that in histories ofEngland references to Anglo-Scottish relations are occasional andspasmodic, while students of Scottish history have occasionallyforgotten that, in regard to her southern neighbour, the attitude ofScotland was not always on the heroic scale. Scotland appears on thehorizon of English history only during well-defined epochs, leaving notrace of its existence in the intervals between these. It may be thatthe space given to Scotland in the ordinary histories of England isproportional to the importance of Scottish affairs, on the whole; butthe importance assigned to Anglo-Scottish relations in the fourteenthcentury is quite disproportionate to the treatment of the same subjectin the fifteenth century. Readers even of Mr. Green's famous book, maylearn with surprise from Mr. Lang or Mr. Hume Brown the part played bythe Scots in the loss of the English dominions in France, or may fail tounderstand the references to Scotland in the diplomatic correspondenceof the sixteenth century. [1] There seems to be, therefore, room for aconnected narrative of the attitude of the two countries towards eachother, for only thus is it possible to provide the _data_ requisite fora fair appreciation of the policy of Edward I and Henry VIII, or ofElizabeth and James I. Such a narrative is here presented, in outline, and the writer has tried, as far as might be, to eliminate from his workthe element of national prejudice. 

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

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

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

We venture to plead for a modification of this theory, which may fairlybe called the orthodox account of the circumstances. It will at onceoccur to the reader that some definite proof should be forthcoming thatthe Celtic inhabitants of Scotland, outside the Lothians, were actuallysubjected to this process of racial displacement. Such a displacementhad certainly not been effected before the Norman Conquest, for it wasonly in 1018 that the English of Lothian were subjected to the rule of aCeltic king, and the large amount of Scottish literature, in the Gaelictongue, is sufficient indication that Celtic Scotland was not confinedto the Highlands in the eleventh century. Nor have we any hint of aracial displacement after the Norman conquest, even though it isunquestionable that a considerable number of exiles followed QueenMargaret to Scotland, and that William's harrying of the north ofEngland drove others over the border. It is easy to lay too much stressupon the effect of the latter event. The northern counties cannot havebeen very thickly populated, and if Mr. Freeman is right in hisdescription of "that fearful deed, half of policy, half of vengeance, which has stamped the name of William with infamy", not very many of thevictims of his cruelty can have made good their flight, for we are toldthat the bodies of the inhabitants of Yorkshire "were rotting in thestreets, in the highways, or on their own hearthstones". Stone dead leftno fellow to colonize Scotland. We find, therefore, only the results andnot the process of this racial displacement. These results were theadoption of English manners and the English tongue, and the growth ofEnglish names, and we wish to suggest that they may find an historicalexplanation which does not involve the total disappearance of theScottish farmer from Fife, or of the Scottish artisan from Aberdeen. 

Before proceeding to a statement of the explanation to which we desireto direct the reader's attention, it may be useful to deal briefly withthe questions relating to the spoken language of Lowland Scotland and toits place-names. The fact that the language of the Angles and Saxonscompletely superseded, in England, the tongue of the conquered Britons, is admitted to be a powerful argument for the view that the Anglo-Saxonconquest of England resulted in a racial displacement. But the argumentcannot be transferred to the case of the Scottish Lowlands, where, also, the English language has completely superseded a Celtic tongue. For, inthe first case, the victory is that of the language of a savage people, known to be in a state of actual warfare, and it is a victory whichfollows as an immediate result of conquest. In Scotland, the victory ofthe English tongue (outside the Lothians) dates from a relativelyadvanced period of civilization, and it is a victory won, not byconquest or bloodshed, but by peaceful means. Even in a case ofconquest, change of speech is not conclusive evidence of change of race(_e. G. _ the adoption of a Romance tongue by the Gauls); much less is itdecisive in such an instance as the adoption of English by theLowlanders of Scotland. In striking contrast to the case of England, thevictory of the Anglo-Saxon speech in Scotland did not include theadoption of English place-names. The reader will find the subject fullydiscussed in the valuable work by the Reverend J. B. Johnston, entitled_Place-Names of Scotland_. "It is impossible", says Mr. Johnston, "tospeak with strict accuracy on the point, but Celtic names in Scotlandmust outnumber all the rest by nearly ten to one. " Even in countieswhere the Gaelic tongue is now quite obsolete (_e. G. _ in Fife, inForfar, in the Mearns, and in parts of Aberdeenshire), the place-namesare almost entirely Celtic. The region where English place-names aboundis, of course, the Lothians; but scarcely an English place-name isdefinitely known to have existed, even in the Lothians, before theNorman Conquest, and, even in the Lothians, the English tongue neveraffected the names of rivers and mountains. In many instances, theexistence of a place-name which has now assumed an English form is noproof of English race. As the Gaelic tongue died out, Gaelic place-nameswere either translated or corrupted into English forms; Englishmen, receiving grants of land from Malcolm Canmore and his successors, calledthese lands after their own names, with the addition of the suffix-hamor-tun; the influence of English ecclesiastics introduced many newnames; and as English commerce opened up new seaports, some of thesebecame known by the names which Englishmen had given them. [7] On thewhole, the evidence of the place-names corroborates our view that thechanges were changes in civilization, and not in racial distribution. 

We now proceed to indicate the method by which these changes wereeffected, apart from any displacement of race. Our explanation finds aparallel in the process which has changed the face of the ScottishHighlands within the last hundred and fifty years, and which producedvery important results within the "sixty years" to which Sir WalterScott referred in the second title of _Waverley_. [8] There has been noracial displacement; but the English language and English civilizationhave gradually been superseding the ancient tongue and the ancientcustoms of the Scottish Highlands. The difference between Skye and Fifeis that the influences which have been at work in the former for acentury and a half have been in operation in the latter for more thaneight hundred years. 

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

A more important question arises with regard to the system of landtenure, and the change from clan ownership to feudal possession. How wasthe tribal system suppressed? An outline of the process by whichScotland became a feudalized country will be found in the Appendix, where we shall also have an opportunity of referring, for purposes ofcomparison, to the methods by which clan-feeling was destroyed after thelast Jacobite insurrection. Here, it must suffice to give a briefsummary of the case there presented. It is important to bear in mindthat the tribes of 1066 were not the clans of 1746. The clan system inthe Highlands underwent considerable development between the days ofMalcolm Canmore and those of the Stuarts. Too much stress must not belaid upon the unwillingness of the people to give up tribal ownership, for it is clear from our early records that the rights ofjoint-occupancy were confined to the immediate kin of the head of theclan. "The limit of the immediate kindred", says Mr. E. W. Robertson, [11]"extended to the third generation, all who were fourth in descent from aSenior passing from amongst the joint-proprietary, and receiving, apparently, a final allotment; which seems to have been separatedpermanently from the remainder of the joint-property by certainceremonies usual on such occasions. " To such holders of individualproperty the charter offered by David I gave additional security oftenure. We know from the documents entitled "Quoniam attachiamenta", printed in the first volume of the _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland_, that the tribal system included large numbers of bondmen, to whom thechange to feudalism meant little or nothing. But even when all dueallowance has been made for this, the difficulty is not completelysolved. There must have been some owners of clan property whom thechanges affected in an adverse way, and we should expect to hear ofthem. We do hear of them, for the reigns of the successors of MalcolmCanmore are largely occupied with revolts in Galloway and in Morayshire. The most notable of these was the rebellion of MacHeth, Mormaor ofMoray, about 1134. On its suppression, David I confiscated the earldomof Moray, and granted it, by charters, to his own favourites, andespecially to the Anglo-Normans, from Yorkshire and Northumberland, whomhe had invited to aid him in dealing with the reactionary forces ofMoray; but such grants of land in no way dispossessed the lessertenants, who simply held of new lords and by new titles. Fordun, whowrote two centuries later, ascribes to David's successor, Malcolm IV, aninvasion of Moray, and says that the king scattered the inhabitantsthroughout the rest of Scotland, and replaced them by "his own peacefulpeople". [12] There is no further evidence in support of this statement, and almost the whole of Malcolm's short reign was occupied with thesettlement of Galloway. We know that he followed his grandfather'spolicy of making grants of land in Moray, and this is probably the germof truth in Fordun's statement. Moray, however, occupied rather anexceptional position. "As the power of the sovereign extended over thewest, " says Mr. E. W. Robertson, "it was his policy, not to eradicate theold ruling families, but to retain them in their native provinces, rendering them more or less responsible for all that portion of theirrespective districts which was not placed under the immediate authorityof the royal sheriffs or baillies. " As this policy was carried out evenin Galloway, Argyll, and Ross, where there were occasional rebellions, and was successful in its results, we have no reason for believing thatit was abandoned in dealing with the rest of the Lowlands. As, from timeto time, instances occurred in which this plan was unsuccessful, and asother causes for forfeiture arose, the lands were granted to strangers, and by the end of the thirteenth century the Scottish nobility waslargely Anglo-Norman. The vestiges of the clan system which remained maybe part of the explanation of the place of the great Houses in ScottishHistory. The unique importance of such families as the Douglasses or theGordons may thus be a portion of the Celtic heritage of the Lowlands. 

If, then, it was not by a displacement of race, but through the subtleinfluences of religion, feudalism, and commerce that the ScottishLowlands came to be English in speech and in civilization, if thefarmers of Fife and some, at least, of the burghers of Dundee or ofAberdeen were really Scots who had been subjected to English influences, we should expect to find no strong racial feeling in mediæval Scotland. Such racial antagonism as existed would, in this case, be owing to thelarge admixture of Scandinavian blood in Caithness and in the Isles, rather than to any difference between the true Scots and "the Englishof the Lowlands". Do we, then, find any racial antagonism between theHighlands and the Lowlands? If Mr. Freeman is right in laying down thegeneral rule that "the true Scots, out of hatred to the 'Saxons' nearestto them, leagued with the 'Saxons' farther off", if Mr. Hill Burton iscorrect in describing the red Harlaw as a battle between foes who couldhave no feeling of common nationality, there is nothing to be said insupport of the theory we have ventured to suggest. We may fairly expectsome signs of ill-will between those who maintained the Celticcivilization and their brethren who had abandoned the ancient customsand the ancient tongue; we may naturally look for attempts to produce aconservative or Celtic reaction, but anything more than this will befatal to our case. The facts do not seem to us to bear out Mr. Freeman'sgeneralization. When the independence of Scotland is really at stake, weshall find the "true Scots" on the patriotic side. Highlanders andIslesmen fought under the banner of David I at Northallerton; they tooktheir place along with the men of Carrick in the Bruce's own division atBannockburn, and they bore their part in the stubborn ring thatencircled James IV at Flodden. At other times, indeed, we do find theLords of the Isles involved in treacherous intrigues with the kings ofEngland, but just in the same way as we see the Earls of Douglasengaged in traitorous schemes against the Scottish kings. In both casesalike we are dealing with the revolt of a powerful vassal against a weakking. Such an incident is sufficiently frequent in the annals ofScotland to render it unnecessary to call in racial considerations toafford an explanation. One of the most notable of these intriguesoccurred in the year 1408, when Donald of the Isles, who chanced to beengaged in a personal quarrel about the heritage which he claimed inright of his Lowland relatives, made a treacherous agreement with HenryIV; and the quarrel ended in the battle of Harlaw in 1411. The realimportance of Harlaw is that it ended in the defeat of a Scotsman who, like some other Scotsmen in the South, was acting in the Englishinterest; any further significance that it may possess arises from theconsideration that it is the last of a series of efforts directedagainst the predominance, not of the English race, but of Saxon speechand civilization. It was just because Highlanders and Lowlanders didrepresent a common nationality that the battle was fought, and the bloodspilt on the field of Harlaw was not shed in any racial struggle, but inthe cause of the real English conquest of Scotland, the conquest ofcivilization and of speech. 

Our argument derives considerable support from the references to theHighlands of Scotland which we find in mediæval literature. Racialdistinctions were not always understood in the Middle Ages; but readersof Giraldus Cambrensis are familiar with the strong racial feeling thatexisted between the English and the Welsh, and between the English andthe Irish. If the Lowlanders of Scotland felt towards the Highlanders asMr. Hill Burton asserts that they did feel, we should expect to findreferences to the difference between Celts and Saxons. But, on thecontrary, we meet with statement after statement to the effect that theHighlanders are only Scotsmen who have maintained the ancient Scottishlanguage and literature, while the Lowlanders have adopted Englishcustoms and a foreign tongue. The words "Scots" and "Scotland" are neverused to designate the Highlanders as distinct from other inhabitants ofScotland, yet the phrase "Lingua Scotica" means, up to the end of thefifteenth century, the Gaelic tongue. [13] In the beginning of thesixteenth century John Major speaks of "the wild Scots and Islanders" asusing Irish, while the civilized Scots speak English; and Gavin Douglasprofessed to write in Scots (_i. E. _ the Lowland tongue). In the courseof the century this became the regular usage. Acts of the ScottishParliament, directed against Highland marauders, class them with theborder thieves. There is no hint in the Register of the Privy Council orin the Exchequer Rolls, of any racial feeling, and the independence ofthe Celtic chiefs has been considerably exaggerated. James IV and JamesV both visited the Isles, and the chief town of Skye takes its name fromthe visit of the latter. In the beginning of the sixteenth century, itwas safe for Hector Boece, the Principal of the newly founded universityof Aberdeen, to go in company of the Rector to make a voyage to theHebrides, and, in the account they have left us of their experiences, wecan discover no hint that there existed between Highlanders andLowlanders much the same difference as separated the English from theWelsh. Neither in Barbour's _Bruce_ nor in Blind Harry's _Wallace_ isthere any such consciousness of difference, although Barbour lived inAberdeen in the days before Harlaw. John of Fordun, a fellow-townsmanand a contemporary of Barbour, was an ardent admirer of St. Margaret andof David I, and of the Anglo-Norman institutions they introduced, whilehe possessed an invincible objection to the kilt. We should thereforeexpect to find in him some consciousness of the racial difference. Hewrites of the Highlanders with some ill-will, describing them as a"savage and untamed people, rude and independent, given to rapine, . .. Hostile to the English language and people, and, owing to diversity ofspeech, even to their own nation[14]. " But it is his custom to writethus of the opponents of the Anglo-Norman civil and ecclesiasticalinstitutions, and he brings all Scotland under the same condemnationwhen he tells us how David "did his utmost to draw on that rough andboorish people towards quiet and chastened manners". [15] The referenceto "their own nation" shows, too, that Fordun did not understand thatthe Highlanders were a different people; and when he called them hostileto the English, he was evidently unaware that their custom was "out ofhatred to the Saxons nearest them" to league with the English. JohnMajor, writing in the reign of James IV (1489-1513), mentions thedifferences between Highlander and Lowlander. The wild Scots speakIrish; the civilized Scots use English. "But", he adds, "most of usspoke Irish a short time ago. "[16] His contemporary, Hector Boece, whomade the Tour to the Hebrides, says: "Those of us who live on theborders of England have forsaken our own tongue and learned English, being driven thereto by wars and commerce. But the Highlanders remainjust as they were in the time of Malcolm Canmore, in whose days we beganto adopt English manners. "[17] When Bishop Elphinstone applied, in 1493, for Papal permission to found a university in Old Aberdeen, in proximityto the barbarian Highlanders, he made no suggestion of any racialdifference between the English-speaking population of Aberdeen and theirGaelic-speaking neighbours. [18] Late in the sixteenth century, JohnLesley, the defender of Queen Mary, who had been bishop of Ross, andcame of a northern family, wrote in a strain similar to that of Majorand Boece. "Foreign nations look on the Gaelic-speaking Scots as wildbarbarians because they maintain the customs and the language of theirancestors; but we call them Highlanders. "[19]

Even in connexion with the battle of Harlaw, we find that Scottishhistorians do not use such terms in speaking of the Highland forces asMr. Hill Burton would lead us to expect. Of the two contemporaryauthorities, one, the Book of Pluscarden, was probably written by aHighlander, while the continuation of Fordun's _Scoti-chronicon_, inwhich we have a more detailed account of the battle, was the work ofBower, a Lowlander who shared Fordun's antipathy to Highland customs. The _Liber Pluscardensis_ mentions the battle in a very casual manner. It was fought between Donald of the Isles and the Earl of Mar; there wasgreat slaughter: and it so happened that the town of Cupar chanced to beburned in the same year. [20] Bower assigns a greater importance to theaffair;[21] he tells us that Donald wished to spoil Aberdeen and then toadd to his own possessions all Scotland up to the Tay. It is as if hewere writing of the ambition of the House of Douglas. But there is nohint of racial antipathy; the abuse applied to Donald and his followerswould suit equally well for the Borderers who shouted the Douglasbattle-cry. John Major tells us that it was a civil war fought for thespoil of the famous city of Aberdeen, and he cannot say who won--onlythe Islanders lost more men than the civilized Scots. For him, its chiefinterest lay in the ferocity of the contest; rarely, even in struggleswith a foreign foe, had the fighting been so keen. [22] The fiercenesswith which Harlaw was fought impressed the country so much that, somesixty years later, when Major was a boy, he and his playmates at theGrammar School of Haddington used to amuse themselves by mock fights inwhich they re-enacted the red Harlaw. 

From Major we turn with interest to the Principal of the University andKing's College, Hector Boece, who wrote his _History of Scotland_, atAberdeen, about a century after the battle of Harlaw, and who shows notrace of the strong feeling described by Mr. Hill Burton. He narratesthe origin of the quarrel with much sympathy for the Lord of the Isles, and regrets that he was not satisfied with recovering his own heritageof Ross, but was tempted by the pillage of Aberdeen, and he speaks ofthe Lowland army as "the Scots on the other side". [23] His narrative inthe _History_ is devoid of any racial feeling whatsoever, and in his_Lives of the Bishops of Aberdeen_ he omits any mention of Harlaw atall. We have laid stress upon the evidence of Boece because in Aberdeen, if anywhere, the memory of the "Celtic peril" at Harlaw should havesurvived. Similarly, George Buchanan speaks of Harlaw as a raid forpurposes of plunder, made by the islanders upon the mainland. [24] Theseillustrations may serve to show how Scottish historians really did lookupon the battle of Harlaw, and how little do they share Mr. Burton'shorror of the Celts. 

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

We should, of course, expect to find that the gradually widening breachin manners and language between Highlanders and Lowlanders produced somedislike for the Highland robbers and their Irish tongue, and we dooccasionally, though rarely, meet some indication of this. There are notmany references to the Highlanders in Scottish literature earlier thanthe sixteenth century. "Blind Harry" (Book VI, ll. 132-140) representsan English soldier as using, in addressing Wallace, first a mixture ofFrench and Lowland Scots, and then a mixture of Lowland Scots andGaelic:

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

 * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the Union of the Crowns, the Lowlands of Scotland came to be moreand more closely bound to England, while the Highlands remainedunaffected by these changes. The Scottish nobility began to find itstrue place at the English Court; the Scottish adventurer wasirresistibly drawn to London; the Scottish Presbyterian found theEnglish Puritan his brother in the Lord; and the Scottish Episcopalianjoined forces with the English Cavalier. The history of the seventeenthcentury prepared the way for the acceptance of the Celtic theory in thebeginning of the eighteenth, and when philologists asserted that theScottish Highlanders were a different race from the Scottish Lowlanders, the suggestion was eagerly adopted. The views of the philologists wereconfirmed by the experiences of the 'Forty-five, and they received aliterary form in the _Lady of the Lake_ and in _Waverley_. In thenineteenth century the theory received further development owing to thefact that it was generally in line with the arguments of the defendersof the Edwardian policy in Scotland; and it cannot be denied that itholds the field to-day, in spite of Mr. Robertson's attack on it inAppendix R of his _Scotland under her Early Kings_. 

The writer of the present volume ventures to hope that he has, at allevents, done something to make out a case for re-consideration of thesubject. The political facts on which rests the argument just statedwill be found in the text, and an Appendix contains the more importantreferences to the Highlanders in mediæval Scottish literature, andoffers a brief account of the feudalization of Scotland. Our argumentamounts only to a modification, and not to a complete reversal of thecurrent theory. No historical problems are more difficult than thosewhich refer to racial distribution, and it is impossible to speakdogmatically on such a subject. That the English blood of the Lothians, and the English exiles after the Norman Conquest, did modify the raceover whom Malcolm Canmore ruled, we do not seek to deny. But that it wasa modification and not a displacement, a victory of civilization andnot of race, we beg to suggest. The English influences were none theless strong for this, and, in the end, they have everywhere prevailed. But the Scotsman may like to think that mediæval Scotland was notdivided by an abrupt racial line, and that the political unity andindependence which it obtained at so great a cost did correspond to anatural and a national unity which no people can, of itself, create. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

[Footnote 4: _History of Scotland_, vol. I, p. 2. But, as Mr. Langexpressly repudiates any theory of displacement north of the Forth, anddoes not regard Harlaw in the light of a great racial contest, hisposition is not really incompatible with that of the present work. ]

[Footnote 5: _History of England_, p. 158. Mr. Oman is almost alone innot calling them English in blood. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 12: Annalia, iv. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 26: _Britannia_, section _Scoti_. ]

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

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

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

 Blind Harry, VII, ll. 627-8. 

]

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

CHAPTER I

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION AND FEUDAL RELATIONS

_c. _ 500-1066 A. D. 

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

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

In the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth, a newsettlement of Goidels was made. These were the Scots, who founded thekingdom of Dalriada, corresponding roughly to the Modern Argyllshire. Some fifty years later (_c. _ 547) came the Angles under Ida, andestablished a dominion along the coast from Tweed to Forth, covering themodern counties of Roxburgh, Berwick, Haddington, and Midlothian. Itsoutlying fort was the castle of Edinburgh, the name of which, in theform in which we have it, has certainly been influenced by associationwith the Northumbrian king, Edwin. [30] This district remained a portionof the kingdom of Northumbria till the tenth century, and it is of thisdistrict alone that the word "English" can fairly be used. Even here, however, there must have been a considerable infusion of Celtic blood, and such Celtic place-names as "Dunbar" still remain even in thecounties where English place-names predominate. A distinguished Celticscholar tells us: "In all our ancient literature, the inhabitants ofancient Lothian are known as Saix-Brit, _i. E. _ Saxo-Britons, becausethey were a Cymric people, governed by the Saxons of Northumbria". [31] Afurther non-Celtic influence was that of the Norse invaders, whoattacked the country from the ninth to the eighteenth century, andprofoundly modified the racial character of the population on the southand west coasts, in the islands, and along the east coast as far southas the Moray Firth. 

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

The foundation of the whole controversy lies in a statement, "in thehonest English of the Winchester Chronicle", that, in 924, "was Eadwardking chosen to father and to lord of the Scots king and of the Scots, and of Regnold king, and of all the Northumbrians", and also of theStrathclyde, Brythons or Welsh. Mr. E. W. Robertson has argued that noreal weight can be given to this statement, for (1) "Regnold king" haddied in 921; (2) in 924, Edward the Elder was striving to suppress theDanes south of the Humber, and had no claims to overlordship of any kindover the Northumbrian Danes and English; and (3) the place assigned, Bakewell, in Derbyshire, is improbable, and the recorded building of afort there is irrelevant. The reassertion of this homage, underAethelstan, in 926, which occurs in one MS. Of the Chronicle, is open tothe objection that it describes the King of Scots as giving up idolatry, more than three hundred and fifty years after the conversion of thecountry; but as the entry under the year 924 is probably in acontemporary hand, considerable weight must be attached to the doublestatement. In the reign of Edmund the Magnificent, an event occurredwhich has given fresh occasion for dispute. A famous passage in the"Chronicle" (945 A. D. ) tells how Edmund and Malcolm I ofScotland conquered Cumbria, which the English king gave to Malcolm oncondition that Malcolm should be his "midwyrtha" or fellow-worker by seaand land. Mr. Freeman interpreted this as a feudal grant, reading thesense of "fealty" into "midwyrtha", and regarded the district describedas "Cumbria" as including the whole of Strathclyde. It is somewhatdifficult to justify this position, especially as we have no reason forsupposing that Edmund did invade Strathclyde, and since, in point offact, Strathclyde remained hostile to the kingdom of Scotland long afterthis date. In 946 the statement of the Chronicle is reasserted inconnection with the accession of Eadred, and in somewhat strongerwords:--"the Scots gave him oaths, that they would all that he would". Such are the main facts relating to the first two divisions of thethreefold claim to overlordship, and their value will probably continueto be estimated in accordance with the personal feelings of the reader. It is scarcely possible to claim that they are in any way decisive. Norcan any further light be gained from the story of what Mr. Lang hashappily termed the apocryphal eight which the King of Scots stroked onthe Dee in the reign of Edgar. In connection with this "GreatCommendation" of 973, the Chronicle mentions only six kings as rowingEdgar at Chester, and it wisely names no names. The number eight, andthe mention of Kenneth, King of Scots, as one of the oarsmen, have beentransferred to Mr. Freeman's pages from those of the twelfth-centurychronicler, Florence of Worcester. 

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

The names of Macbeth and "the gentle Duncan" suggest the great dramawhich the genius of Shakespeare constructed from the magic tale ofHector Boece; but our path does not lie by the moor near Forres, norpast Birnam Wood or Dunsinane. Nor does the historian of the relationsbetween England and Scotland have anything to tell about the Englishexpedition to restore Malcolm. All such tales emanate from Florence ofWorcester, and we know only that Siward of Northumbria made a fruitlessinvasion of Scotland, and that Macbeth reigned for three yearsafterwards. 

We have now traced, in outline, the connections between the northern andthe southern portions of this island up to the date of the NormanConquest of England. We have found in Scotland a population composed ofPict, Scot, Goidel, Brython, Dane, and Angle, and we have seen how thecountry came to be, in some sense, united under a single monarch. It isnot possible to speak dogmatically of either of the two great problemsof the period--the racial distribution of the country, and the Edwardianclaims to overlordship. But it is clear that no portion of Scotland was, in 1066, in any sense English, except the Lothians, of which Angles andDanes had taken possession. From the Lothians, the English influencesmust have spread slightly into Strathclyde; but the fact that the CelticKings of Scotland were strong enough to annex and rule the Lothians aspart of a Celtic kingdom implies a limit to English colonization. As tothe feudal supremacy, it may be fairly said that there is no portion ofthe English claim that cannot be reasonably doubted, and whatever forceit retains must be of the nature of a cumulative argument. It must, ofcourse, be recollected that Anglo-Norman chroniclers of the twelfth andthirteenth centuries, like English historians of a later date, regardedthemselves as holding a brief for the English claim, while, on the otherhand, Scottish writers would be the last to assert, in their own case, acomplete absence of bias. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II

SCOTLAND AND THE NORMANS

1066-1286

The Norman Conquest of England could not fail to modify the position ofScotland. Just as the Roman and the Saxon conquests had, in turn, driventhe Brythons northwards, so the dispossessed Saxons fled to Scotlandfrom their Norman victors. The result was considerably to alter theecclesiastical arrangements of the country, and to help its advancetowards civilization. The proportion of Anglo-Saxons to the races whoare known as Celts must also have been increased; but a completede-Celticization of Southern Scotland could not, and did not, follow. The failure of William's conquest to include the Northern counties ofEngland left Northumbria an easy prey to the Scottish king, and themarriage of Malcolm III, known as Canmore, to Margaret, the sister ofEdgar the Ætheling, gave her husband an excuse for interference inEngland. We, accordingly, find a long series of raids over the border, of which only five possess any importance. In 1069-70, Malcolm (who had, even in the Confessor's time, been in Northumberland with hostileintent) conducted an invasion in the interests of his brother-in-law. It is probable that this movement was intended to coincide with thearrival of the Danish fleet a few months earlier. But Malcolm was toolate; the Danes had gone home, and, in the interval, William had himselfsuperintended the great harrying of the North which made Malcolm'ssubsequent efforts somewhat unnecessary. The invasion is important onlyas having provoked the counter-attack of the Conqueror, which led to therenewal of the supremacy controversy. William marched into Scotland andcrossed the Forth (the first English king to do so since the unfortunateEgfrith, who fell at Nectansmere in 685). At Abernethy, on the banks ofthe Tay, Malcolm and William met, and the English Chronicle, as usual, informs us that the King of Scots became the "man" of the English king. But as Malcolm received from William twelve _villae_ in England, it is, at least, doubtful whether Malcolm paid homage for these alone or alsofor Lothian and Cumbria, or for either of them. There is, at all events, no question about the _villae_. Scottish historians have not failed topoint out that the value of the homage, for whatever it was given, issufficiently indicated by Malcolm's dealings with Gospatric ofNorthumberland, whom William dismissed as a traitor and rebel. Withinabout six months of the Abernethy meeting, Malcolm gave Gospatric theearldom of Dunbar, and he became the founder of the great house ofMarch. No further invasion took place till 1079, when Malcolm tookadvantage of William's Norman difficulties to make another harryingexpedition, which afforded the occasion for the building ofNewcastle-upon-Tyne. The accession of Rufus and his difficulties withRobert of Normandy led, in 1091, to a somewhat belated attempt byMalcolm to support the claims of the Ætheling by a third invasion, and, in the following year, peace was made. Rufus confirmed to Malcolm thegrant of twelve _villae_, and Malcolm in turn gave the English king suchhomage as he had given to his father. What this vague statement meant, it was reserved for the Bruce to determine, and the Bruces had, as yet, not one foot of Scottish soil. The agreement made in 1092 did notprevent Rufus from completing his father's work by the conquest ofCumberland, to which the Scots had claims. Malcolm's indignation andWilliam's illness led to a famous meeting at Gloucester, whence Malcolmwithdrew in great wrath, declining to be treated as a vassal of England. The customary invasion followed, with the result that Malcolm was slainat Alnwick in November, 1093. 

But the great effects of the Norman Conquest, as regards Scotland, arenot connected with strictly international affairs. They are partiallyracial, and, in other respects, may be described as personal. It isunquestionable that there was an immigration of the Northumbrianpopulation into Scotland; but the Northumbrian population wereAnglo-Danish, and the north of England was not thickly populated. WhenWilliam the Conqueror ravaged the northern counties with fire and sword, a considerable proportion of the population must have perished. Theactual infusion of English blood may thus be exaggerated; but theintroduction of English influences cannot be questioned. Theseinfluences were mainly due to the personality of Malcolm's second wife, the Saxon princess, Margaret. The queen was a woman of considerablemental power, and possessed a great influence over her strong-headed andhot-tempered husband. She was a devout churchwoman, and she immediatelydirected her energies to the task of bringing the Scottish church intocloser communion with the Roman. The changes were slight in themselves;all that we know of them is an alteration in the beginning of Lent, theproper observance of Easter and of Sunday, and a question, stilldisputed, about the tonsure. But, slight as they were, they stood formuch. They involved the abandonment of the separate position held by theScottish Church, and its acceptance of a place as an integral portion ofRoman Christianity. The result was to make the Papacy, for the firsttime, an important factor in Scottish affairs, and to bridge the gulfthat divided Scotland from Continental Europe. We soon find Scottishchurchmen seeking learning in France, and bringing into Scotland thoseFrench influences which were destined seriously to affect thecivilization of the country. But, above all, these Roman changes wereimportant just because they were Anglican--introduced by an Englishqueen, carried out by English clerics, emanating from a court which wasrapidly becoming English. Malcolm's subjects thenceforth began to adoptEnglish customs and the English tongue, which spread from the court ofQueen Margaret. The colony of English refugees represented a highercivilization and a more advanced state of commerce than the ScottishCelts, and the English language, from this cause also, made rapidprogress. For about twenty-five years Margaret exercised the most potentinfluence in her husband's kingdom, and, when she died, her reputationas a saint and her subsequent canonization maintained and supported thetraditions she had created. Not only did she have on her side the powerof a court and the prestige of courtly etiquette, but, as we have said, she represented a higher civilizing force than that which was opposed toher, and hence the greatness of her victory. It must, however, beremembered that the spread of the English language in Scotland does notnecessarily imply the predominance of English blood. It means rather thegrowth of English commerce. We can trace the adoption of English alongthe seaboard, and in the towns, while Gaelic still remained thelanguage of the countryman. There is no evidence of any Englishimmigration of sufficient proportions to overwhelm the Gaelicpopulation. Like the victory of the conquered English over theconquering Normans, which was even then making fast progress in England, it is a triumph of a kind that subsequent events have revealed ascharacteristically Anglo-Saxon, and it called into force the powers ofadaptation and of colonization which have brought into being so great anEnglish-speaking world. 

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

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

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

The battle of the Standard possesses no special interest for students ofthe art of war. The English army, under William of Albemarle and Walterl'Espec, was drawn up in one line of battle, consisting of knights incoats of mail, archers, and spearmen. The Scots were in four divisions;the van was composed of the Picts of Galloway, the right wing was led byPrince Henry, and the men of Lothian were on the left. Behind foughtKing David, with the men of Moray. The Galwegians made severalunsuccessful attempts upon the English centre. Prince Henry led hishorse through the English left wing, but the infantry failed to follow, and the prince lost his advantage by a premature attempt to plunder. TheScottish right made a pusillanimous attempt on the English left, and thereserve began to desert King David, who collected the remnants of hisarmy and retired in safety to a height above Cowton Moor, the scene ofthe fight. Prince Henry was left surrounded by the enemy, but saved theposition by a clever stratagem, and rejoined his father. Mr. Omanremarks that the battle was "of a very abnormal type for the twelfthcentury, since the side which had the advantage in cavalry made noattempt to use it, while that which was weak in the all-important armmade a creditable attempt to turn it to account by breaking into thehostile flank. .. . Wild rushes of unmailed clansmen against a steadyfront of spears and bows never succeeded; in this respect Northallertonis the forerunner of Dupplin, Halidon Hill, Flodden, and Pinkie. "[34]The chief interest, for our purpose, attaching to the battle of theStandard, is connected with the light it throws upon the racialcomplexion of the country seventy years after the Norman Conquest. Ourchief authorities are the Hexham chroniclers and Ailred of Rivaulx[35], English writers of the twelfth century. They speak of David's host ascomposed of Angli, Picti, and Scoti. The Angli alone contained mailedknights in their ranks, and David's first intention was to send thesemail-clad warriors against the English, while the Picts and Scots wereto follow with sword and targe. The Galwegians and the Scots from beyondForth strongly opposed this arrangement, and assured the king that hisunarmed Highlanders would fight better than "these Frenchmen". The kinggave the place of honour to the Galwegians, and altered his whole planof battle. The whole context, and the Earl of Strathern's sneer at"these Frenchmen", would seem to show that the "Angli" are, at allevents, clearly distinguished from the Picts of Galloway and the Scotswho, like Malise of Strathern, came from beyond the Forth. It isprobable that the "Angli" were the men of Lothian; but it must also berecollected both that the term included the Anglo-Norman nobility("these Frenchman") and the English settlers who had followed QueenMargaret, and that David was fighting in an English quarrel and in theinterests of an English queen. The knights who wore coats of mail wereentirely Anglo-Norman, and it is against them that the claim of theHighlanders is particularly directed. When Richard of Hexham tells usthat Angles, Scots, and Picts fell out by the way, as they returnedhome, he means to contrast the men of Lothian and the new Anglo-Normannobility with the Picts of Galloway and the Highlanders from north ofthe Forth, and this unusual application of the term _Angli_, to aportion of the Scottish army, is an indication, not that the Lowlanderswere entirely English, but that there was a strong jealousy between theScots and the new English nobility. The "Angli" are, above all others, the knights in mail. [36]

It is not possible to credit David with any real affection for thecause of the empress or with any higher motive than selfish greed, andit can scarcely be claimed that he kept faith with Stephen. Such, however, were the difficulties of the English king, that, in spite ofhis crushing defeat, David reaped the advantages of victory. Peace wasmade in April, 1139, by the Treaty of Durham, which secured to PrinceHenry the earldom of Northumberland, as an English fief. The Scottishborder line, which had successively enclosed Strathclyde and part ofCumberland, and the Lothians, now extended to the Tees. David gaveStephen some assistance in 1139, but on the victory of the EmpressMaud[37] at Lincoln, in 1141, David deserted the captive king, and waspresent, on the empress's side, at her defeat at Winchester, in 1141. Eight years later he entered into an agreement with the claimant, HenryFitz-Empress, afterwards Henry II, by which the eldest son of theScottish king was to retain his English fiefs, and David was to aidHenry against Stephen. An unsuccessful attempt on England followed--thelast of David's numerous invasions. When he died, in 1153, he leftScotland in a position of power with regard to England such as she wasnever again to occupy. The religious devotion which secured for him apopular canonization (he was never actually canonized) can scarcelyjustify his conduct to Stephen. But it must be recollected that, throughout his reign, there is comparatively little racial antagonismbetween the two countries. David interfered in an English civil war, andtook part, now on one side, and now on the other. But the whole effectof his life was to bring the nations more closely together through theNorman influences which he encouraged in Scotland. His son and heir heldgreat fiefs in England, [38] and he granted tracts of land toAnglo-Norman nobles. A Bruce and a Balliol, who each held possessionsboth in Scotland and in England, tried to prevent the battle of theStandard. Their well-meant efforts proved fruitless; but the fact isnotable and significant. 

David's eldest son, the gallant Prince Henry, who had led the wildcharge at Northallerton, predeceased his father in 1152. He left threesons, of whom the two elder, Malcolm and William, became successivelykings of Scotland, while from the youngest, David, Earl of Huntingdon, were descended the claimants at the first Inter-regnum. It was the fateof Scotland, as so often again, to be governed by a child; and a strongking, Henry II, was now on the throne of England. As David I had takenadvantage of the weakness of Stephen, so now did Henry II benefit by theyouth of Malcolm IV. In spite of the agreement into which Henry hadentered with David in 1149, he, in 1157, obtained from Malcolm, thenfourteen years of age, the resignation of his claims uponNorthumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. In return for this, Malcolm received a confirmation of the earldom of Huntingdon (cf. P. 18). The abandonment of the northern claims seems to have led to aquarrel, for Henry refused to knight the Scots king; but, in thefollowing year, Malcolm accompanied Henry in his expedition to Toulouse, and received his knighthood at Henry's hands. Malcolm's subsequenttroubles were connected with rebellions in Moray and in Galloway againstthe new _régime_, and with the ambition of Somerled, the ruler ofArgyll, and of the still independent western islands. The only occasionon which he again entered into relations with England was in 1163, whenhe met Henry at Woodstock and did homage to his eldest son, who becameknown as Henry III, although he never actually reigned. As usual, thereis no statement precisely defining the homage; it must not be forgottenthat the King of Scots was also Earl of Huntingdon. 

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

About the political relationship there could be no such doubt. Williamstood, theoretically, if not actually, in much the same position toHenry II, as John Baliol afterwards occupied to Edward I. It was nottill the accession of Richard I that William recovered his freedom. Thecastles in the south of Scotland which had been delivered to the Englishwere restored, and the independence of Scotland was admitted, onWilliam's paying Richard the sum of 10, 000 marks. This agreement, datedDecember, 1189, annulled the terms of the Treaty of Falaise, and leftthe position of William the Lion exactly what it had been at the deathof Malcolm IV. He remained liegeman for such lands as the Scottish kingshad, in times past, done homage to England. The agreement with Richard Iis certainly not incompatible with the Scottish position that thehomage, before the Treaty of Falaise, applied only to the earldom ofHuntingdon; but the usual vagueness was maintained, and the arrangementin no way determines the question of the homage paid by the earlierScottish kings. For a hundred years after this date, the two countrieswere never at war. William had difficulties with John; in 1209, anoutbreak of hostilities seemed almost certain, but the two kings came toterms. The long reign of William came to an end in 1214. His son andsuccessor, Alexander II, joined the French party in England which wasdefeated at Lincoln in 1216. Alexander made peace with the regent, resigned all claims to Northumberland, and did homage for his Englishpossessions--the most important of which was the earldom of Huntingdon, which had, since 1190, been held by his uncle, David, known as David ofHuntingdon. In 1221, he married Joanna, sister of Henry III. Anothermarriage, negotiated at the same time, was probably of more realimportance. Margaret, the eldest daughter of William the Lion, becamethe wife of the Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh. Mr. Hume Brownhas pointed out that immediately on the fall of Hubert de Burgh, adispute arose between Henry and Alexander. The English king desiredAlexander to acknowledge the Treaty of Falaise, and this Alexanderrefused to do. The agreement, which averted an appeal to the sword, was, on the whole, favourable to Scotland. Nothing was said about homage forthis kingdom. David of Huntingdon had died in 1119, and Alexander gaveup the southern earldom, but received a fief in the northern counties, always coveted of the kings of Scotland. This arrangement is known asthe Treaty of York (1236). Some trifling incidents and the secondmarriage of Alexander, which brought Scotland into closer touch withFrance (he married Marie, daughter of Enguerand de Coucy), nearlyprovoked a rupture in 1242, but the domestic troubles of Henry andAlexander alike prevented any breach of the long peace which hadsubsisted since the capture of William the Lion. In 1249, the Scottishking died, and his son and successor, [40] Alexander III, was knighted byHenry of England, and, in 1251, married Margaret, Henry's eldestdaughter. The relations of Alexander to Henry III and to Edward I willbe narrated in the following chapter. Not once throughout his reign wasany blood spilt in an English quarrel, and the story of his reign formsno part of our subject. Its most interesting event is the battle ofLargs. The Scottish kings had, for some time, been attempting to annexthe islands, and, in 1263, Hakon of Norway invaded Scotland as aretributive measure. He was defeated at the battle of Largs, and, in1266, the Isles were annexed to the Scottish crown. The fact that thisforcible annexation took place, after a struggle, only twenty yearsbefore the death of Alexander III, must be borne in mind in connectionwith the part played by the Islanders in the War of Independence. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

[Footnote 35: Cf. App. A. ]

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 40: As Alexander III was the last king of Scotland who ruledbefore the War of Independence, it is interesting to note that he wascrowned at Scone with the ancient ceremonies, and as the representativeof the Celtic kings of Scotland. Fordun tells us that the coronationtook place on the sacred stone at Scone, on which all Scottish kings hadsat, and that a Highlander appeared and read Alexander's Celticgenealogy (Annals XLVIII. Cf. App. A). There is no indication thatAlexander's subjects, from the Forth to the Moray Firth, were "stoutNorthumbrian Englishmen", who had, for no good reason, drifted away fromtheir English countrymen, to unite them with whom Edward I waged hisScottish wars. ]

CHAPTER III

THE SCOTTISH POLICY OF EDWARD I

1286-1296

When Alexander III was killed, on the 19th March, 1285-86, the relationsbetween England and Scotland were such that Edward I was amply justifiedin looking forward to a permanent union. Since the ill-fated invasion ofWilliam the Lion in 1174, there had been no serious warfare between thetwo countries, and in recent years they had become more and morefriendly in their dealings with each other. The late king had marriedEdward's sister, Margaret, and the child-queen was her grand-daughter;Alexander and Margaret had been present at the English King's coronationin 1274; and, in addition to these personal connections, Scotland hadfound England a friend in its great final struggle with the Danes. Themisfortunes which had overtaken Scotland in the premature deaths[41] ofAlexander and his three children might yet prove a very real blessing, if they prepared the way for the creation of a great island kingdom, which should be at once free and united. The little Margaret, the Maidof Norway, Edward's grand-niece, had been acknowledged heir to thethrone of her grandfather, in February, 1283-84, and on his death hersuccession was admitted. The Great Council met at Scone in April, 1286, and appointed six Guardians of the Kingdom. It was no easy task whichwas entrusted to them, for the claim of a child and a foreigner couldnot but be disputed by the barons who stood nearest to the throne. Theonly rival who attempted to rebel was Robert Bruce of Annandale, who hadbeen promised the succession by Alexander II, and had been disappointedof the fulfilment of his hopes by the birth of the late king in 1241. The deaths of two of the guardians added to the difficulties of thesituation, and it was with something like relief that the Scots heardthat Eric of Norway, the father of their queen, wished to come to anarrangement with Edward of England, in whose power he lay. The result ofEric's negotiations with Edward was that a conference met at Salisburyin 1289, and was attended, on Edward's invitation, by four Scottishrepresentatives, who included Robert Bruce and three of the guardians. Such were the troubles of the country that the Scots willingly accededto Edward's proposals, which gave him an interest in the government ofScotland, and they heard with delight that he contemplated the marriageof their little queen to his son Edward, then two years of age. TheEnglish king was assured of the satisfaction which such a marriage wouldgive to Scotland, and the result was that, by the Treaty of Brigham, in1290, the marriage was duly arranged. Edward had previously obtained thenecessary dispensation from the pope. 

The eagerness with which the Scots welcomed the proposal of marriage wassufficient evidence that the time had come for carrying out Edward'sstatesmanlike scheme, but the conditions which were annexed to it shouldhave warned him that there were limits to the Scottish compliance withhis wishes. Scotland was not in any way to be absorbed by England, although the crowns would be united in the persons of Edward andMargaret. Edward wisely made no attempt to force Scotland into any morecomplete union, although he could not but expect that the union of thecrowns would prepare the way for a union of the kingdoms. He certainlyinterpreted in the widest sense the rights given him by the treaty ofBrigham, but when the Scots objected to his demand that all Scottishcastles should be placed in his power, he gave way without rousingfurther suspicion or indignation. Hitherto, his policy had beencharacterized by the great sagacity which he had shown in his conduct ofEnglish affairs; it is impossible to refuse either to sympathize withhis ideals or to admire the tact he displayed in his negotiations withScotland. His considerateness extended even to the little Maid ofNorway, for whose benefit he victualled, with raisins and other fruit, the "large ship" which he sent to conduct her to England. But the largeship returned to England with a message from King Eric that he would notentrust his daughter to an English vessel. The patient Edward sent itback again, and it was probably in it that the child set sail inSeptember, 1290. Some weeks later, Bishop Fraser of St. Andrews, one ofthe guardians, and a supporter of the English interest, wrote to Edwardthat he had heard a "sorrowful rumour" regarding the queen. [42] Therumour proved to be well-founded; in circumstances which are unknown tous, the poor girl-queen died on her voyage, and her death proved a fatalblow to the work on which Edward had been engaged for the last fouryears. 

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

Since Richard I had restored his independence to William the Lion, in1189, the question of the overlordship had lain almost entirely dormant. On John's succession, William had done homage "saving his own right", but whether the homage was for Scotland or solely for his English fiefswas not clear. His successor, Alexander II, aided Louis of Franceagainst the infant Henry III, and, after the battle of Lincoln, came toan agreement with the regent, by which he did homage to Henry III, butonly for the earldom of Huntingdon and his other possessions in Henry'skingdom. After the fall of Hubert de Burgh, Henry used his influencewith Pope Gregory IX, who looked upon the English king as a valuableally in the great struggle with Frederick II, to persuade the pope toorder the King of Scots to acknowledge Henry as his overlord (1234). Alexander refused to comply with the papal injunction, and the matterwas not definitely settled. Henry made no attempt to enforce his claim, and merely came to an agreement with Alexander regarding the Englishpossessions of the Scottish king (1236). During the minority ofAlexander III, when Henry was, for two years, the real ruler of Scotland(1255-1257), he described himself not as lord paramount, but as chiefadviser of the Scottish king. Lastly, when, in 1278, Alexander III tooka solemn oath of homage to Edward at Westminster, he, according to theScottish account of the affair, made an equally solemn avowal that toGod alone was his homage due for the kingdom of Scotland, and Edward hadaccepted the homage thus rendered. 

It is thus clear that Edward regarded the claim of the overlordship as a"trump card" to be played only in special circumstances, and theseappeared now to have arisen. The death of the Maid of Norway haddeprived him of his right to interfere in the affairs of Scotland, andhad destroyed his hopes of a marriage alliance. It seemed to him thatall hope of carrying out his Scottish policy had vanished, unless hecould take advantage of the helpless condition of the country to obtaina full and final recognition of a claim which had been denied forexactly a hundred years. At first it seemed as if the scheme were toprove satisfactory. The Norman nobles who claimed the throne declared, after some hesitation, their willingness to acknowledge Edward's claimto be lord paramount, and the English king was therefore arbiter of thesituation. He now obtained what he had asked in vain in the precedingyear--the delivery into English hands of all Scottish strongholds (June, 1291). Edward delayed his decision till the 17th November, 1292, when, after much disputation regarding legal precedents, and manyconsultations with Scottish commissioners and the English Parliament, hefinally adjudged the crown to John Balliol. It cannot be argued that thedecision was unfair; but Edward was fortunate in finding that thecandidate whose hereditary claim was strongest was also the man mostfitted to occupy the position of a vassal king. The new monarch made afull and indisputable acknowledgment of his position as Edward's liege, and the great seal of the kingdom of Scotland was publicly destroyed intoken of the position of vassalage in which the country now stood. Ofwhat followed it is difficult to speak with any certainty. Ballioloccupied the throne for three and a half years, and was engaged, duringthe whole of that period, in disputes with his superior. The detailsneed not detain us. Edward claimed to be final judge in all Scottishcases; he summoned Balliol to his court to plead against one of theScottish king's own vassals, and to receive instructions with regard tothe raising of money for Edward's needs. It may fairly be said thatEdward's treatment of Balliol does give grounds for the view of Scottishhistorians that the English king was determined, from the first, to goadhis wretched vassal into rebellion in order to give him an opportunityof absorbing the country in his English kingdom. On the other hand, itmay be argued that, if this was Edward's aim, he was singularlyunfortunate in the time he chose for forcing a crisis. He was at warwith Philip IV of France; Madoc was raising his Welsh rebellion; andEdward's seizure of wool had created much indignation among his ownsubjects. However this may be, it is certain that Balliol, rankling witha sense of injustice caused by the ignominy which Edward had heaped uponhim, and rendered desperate by the complaints of his own subjects, decided, by the advice of the Great Council, to disown his allegiance tothe King of England, and to enter upon an alliance with France. It isnoteworthy that the policy of the French alliance, as an anti-Englishmovement, which became the watchword of the patriotic party in Scotland, was inaugurated by John Balliol. The Scots commenced hostilities by somepredatory incursions into the northern counties of England in 1295-96. 

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

CHAPTER IV

THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

1297-1328

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

Stirling was the great military key of the country, commanding all thepasses from south to north, and the great defeat which the English hadsustained placed the country in the power of Wallace. Along with anAndrew de Moray, of whose identity we know nothing, he undertook thegovernment of the country, corresponded in the name of Scotland withLübeck and Hamburg, and took the offensive against England in anexpedition which ravaged as far south as Hexham. To the great monasteryof Hexham he granted protection in the name of "the leaders of the armyof Scotland", [45] although he was not successful in restraining theferocity of his followers. The document in question is granted in thename of John, King of Scotland, and in a charter dated March 1298, [46]Wallace describes himself as Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, actingfor the exiled Balliol. In the following summer, Edward marched intoScotland, and although his forces were in serious difficulties from wantof food, he went forward to meet Wallace, who held a strong position atFalkirk. Wallace prepared to meet Edward by drawing up his spearmen infour great "schiltrons" or divisions, with a reserve of cavalry. Hisflanks were protected by archers, and he had also placed archers betweenthe divisions of spearmen. On the English side, Edward himself commandedthe centre, the Earls of Norfolk and Hereford the right, and the Bishopof Durham the left. The Scottish defeat was the result of a combinationof archers and cavalry. The first attack of the English horse wascompletely repulsed by the spearmen. "The front ranks", says Mr. Oman, "knelt with their spear-butts fixed in the earth; the rear rankslevelled their lances over their comrades' heads; the thick-set grove oftwelve-foot spears was far too dense for the cavalry to penetrate. " ButEdward withdrew the cavalry and ordered the archers to send a shower ofarrows on the Scots. Wallace's cavalry made no attempt to interfere withthe archers; the Scottish bowmen were too few to retaliate; and, whenthe English horse next charged, they found many weak points in theschiltrons, and broke up the Scottish host. 

As the battle of Stirling had created the power of Wallace, so that ofFalkirk completely destroyed it. He almost immediately resigned hisoffice of guardian (mainly, according to tradition, because of thejealousy with which the great barons regarded him), and took refuge inFrance. Edward was still in the midst of difficulties, both foreign anddomestic, and he was unable to reduce the country. The Scots elected newguardians, who regarded themselves as regents, not for Edward but forBalliol. They included John Comyn and Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, thefuture king. The guardians were successful in persuading both Philip IVof France and Pope Boniface VIII to intervene in their favour, butEdward disregarded the papal interference, and though he was too busy tocomplete his conquest, he sent an army into Scotland in each of theyears 1300, 1301, and 1302. Military operations were almost entirelyconfined to ravaging; but, in February 1302-3, Comyn completely defeatedat Rosslyn, near Edinburgh, an English army under Sir John Segrave andRalph de Manton, whom Edward had ordered to make a foray in Scotlandabout the beginning of Lent. In the summer of 1303, the English king, roused perhaps by this small success, and able to give his undividedattention to Scotland, conducted an invasion on a larger scale. InSeptember, he traversed the country as far north as Elgin, and, remaining in Scotland during the winter of 1303-4, he set to work in thespring to reduce the castle of Stirling, which still held out againsthim. When the garrison surrendered, in July, 1304, Scotland lay atEdward's feet. Comyn had already submitted to the English king, andEdward's personal vindictiveness was satisfied by the capture of Wallaceby Sir John Menteith, a Scotsman who had been acting in the Englishinterest. Wallace was taken to London, subjected to a mock trial, tortured, and put to death with ignominy. On the 23rd August, 1305, hishead was placed on London Bridge, and portions of his body were sent toScotland. His memory served as an inspiration for the cause of freedom, and it is held in just reverence to the present hour. If it is true thathe did not scruple to go beyond what we should regard as the limits ofhonourable warfare, it must be remembered that he was fighting an enemywho had also disregarded these limits, and much may be forgiven to bravemen who are resisting a gratuitous war of conquest. When he died, hiswork seemed to have failed. But he had shown his countrymen how toresist Edward, and he had given sufficient evidence of the strength ofnational feeling, if only it could find a suitable leader. The Englishhad to learn the lesson which, five centuries later, Napoleon had tolearn in Spain, and Scotland cannot forget that Wallace was the first toteach it. 

It is not less pathetic to turn to Edward's scheme for the government ofScotland. It bears the impress of a mind which was that of a statesmanand a lawyer as well as a soldier. It is impossible to deny a tribute ofadmiration to its wisdom, or to question the probability of its successin other circumstances. Had the course of events been more propitiousfor Edward's great plan, Scotland and England might have been sparedmuch suffering. But Edward failed to realize that the Scots could nolonger regard him as the friend and ally to whose son they had willinglyagreed to marry their queen. He was now but a military conqueror intemporary possession of their country, an enemy to be resisted by anymeans. The new constitution was foredoomed to failure. Carrying out hisscheme of 1296, Edward created no vassal-king, but placed Scotland underhis own nephew, John of Brittany; he interfered as little as might bewith the customs and laws of the country; he placed over it eightjusticiars with sheriffs under them. In 1305, Edward's Parliament, whichmet at London, was attended by Scottish representatives. Theincorporation of the country with its larger neighbour was complete, butit involved as little change as was possible in the circumstances. 

The Parliament of 1305 was attended by Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, who attended not as a representative of Scotland, but as an Englishlord. Bruce was the grandson of the Robert Bruce of Annandale who hadbeen promised the crown by Alexander II, and who had been one of theclaimants of 1290. His grandfather had done homage to Edward, and Brucehimself had been generally on the English side, and had fought againstWallace at Falkirk. When John Balliol had decided to rebel, he hadtransferred the lands of Annandale from the Bruces to the Comyns, andthey had been restored by Edward I after Balliol's submission. From 1299to 1303, Bruce had been associated with Comyn in the guardianship of thekingdom, but, like Comyn, had submitted to Edward. Nobody in Scotlandcould now think of a restoration of Balliol, and if there was to be aScottish king at all, it must obviously be either Comyn or Bruce. Theclaim of John Comyn the younger was much stronger than that of hisfather had been. The elder Comyn had claimed on account of his descentfrom Donald Bane, the brother and successor of Malcolm Canmore; but theyounger Comyn had an additional claim in right of his mother, who was asister of John Balliol. Between Bruce and Comyn there was along-standing feud. In 1299, at a meeting of the Great Council ofScotland at Peebles, Comyn had attacked Bruce, and they could only beseparated by the use of violence. On the 10th February, 1305-6, Bruceand the Comyn met in the church of the convent of the Minorite Friars atDumfries. Tradition tells that they met to adjust their conflictingclaims, with a view to establishing the independence of the country inthe person of one or other of the rivals; that a dispute arose in whichthey came to blows; and that Bruce, after inflicting a severe wound uponhis enemy, left the church. "I doubt I have slain the Red Comyn, " hesaid to his followers. "Doubt?" was the reply of Sir Roger Fitzpatrick, "I'll mak siccar. " The actual circumstances of the affair are unknown tous; but Bruce may fairly be relieved of the suspicion of anypremeditation, because it is most unlikely that he would have needlesslychosen to offend the Church by committing a murder within sanctuary. Thereal interest attaching to the circumstances lies in the tradition thatthe object of the meeting was to organize a resistance against Edward I. Whether this was so or not, there can be no doubt that the result of theconference compelled the Bruce to place himself at the head of thenational cause. A Norman baron, born in England, he was by no means thenatural leader for whose appearance men looked, and there was a gravechance of his failing to arouse the national sentiment. But the murderof one claimant to the Scottish throne at the hands of the only otherpossible candidate, who thus placed himself in the position of undoubtedheir, could scarcely have been forgiven by Edward I, even if the Comynhad not, for the past two years, proved a faithful servant of theEnglish king. There was no alternative, and, on the 27th March, 1306, Robert, Earl of Carrick and Lord of Annandale, was crowned King of theScots at Scone. The ancient royal crown of the Scottish kings had beenremoved by Balliol in 1296, and had fallen into the hands of Edward, butthe Countess of Buchan placed on the Bruce's head a hastily made coronetof gold. 

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

The first blow in the renewed struggle was struck at Methven, nearPerth, where, on the 19th June, 1306, the Earl of Pembroke inflicted adefeat upon King Robert. The Lowlands were now almost entirely lost tohim; he sent his wife[47] and child to Kildrummie Castle inAberdeenshire, whence they fled to the sanctuary of St. Duthac, nearTain. In August, Bruce was defeated at Dalry, by Alexander of Lorn, arelative of the Comyn. In September, Kildrummie Castle fell, and NigelBruce, King Robert's brother, fell into the hands of the English and wasput to death at Berwick. To complete the tale of catastrophes, theBruce's wife and daughter, two of his sisters, and other two of hisbrothers, along with the Countess of Buchan, came into the power of theEnglish king. Edward placed some of the ladies in cages, and put todeath Sir Thomas Bruce and Alexander Bruce, Dean of Glasgow (February, 1306-7). Meanwhile, King Robert had found it impossible to maintainhimself even in his own lands of Carrick, and he withdrew to the islandof Rathlin, where he wintered. Undeterred by this long series ofcalamities, he took the field in the spring of 1307, and now, for thefirst time, fortune favoured him. On the 10th May, he defeated theEnglish, under Pembroke, at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire. He had been joinedby his brother Edward and by the Lord James of Douglas (the "BlackDouglas"), and the news of his success, slight as it was, helped toincrease at once the spirit and the numbers of his followers. Hisposition, however, was one of extreme difficulty; he was still only aking in name, and, in reality, the leader of a guerilla warfare. Edwardwas marching northwards at the head of a large army, determined to crushhis audacious subject. But Fate had decreed that the Hammer of the Scotswas never again to set foot in Scotland. At Burgh-on-Sand, nearCarlisle, within sight of his unconquered conquest, the great Edwardbreathed his last. His death was the turning-point in the struggle. Thereign of Edward II in England is a most important factor in theexplanation of Bruce's success. 

With the death of Edward I the whole aspect of the contest changes. TheEnglish were no longer conducting a great struggle for a statesmanlikeideal, as they had been under Edward I--however impossible he himselfhad made its attainment. There is no longer any sign of consciouspurpose either in their method or in their aims. The nature of thewarfare at once changed; Edward II, despite his father's wish that hisbones should be carried at the head of the army till Scotland wassubdued, contented himself with a fruitless march into Ayrshire, andthen returned to give his father a magnificent burial in WestminsterAbbey. King Robert was left to fight his Scottish enemies without theirEnglish allies. These Scottish enemies may be divided into twoclasses--the Anglo-Norman nobles who had supported the English causemore or less consistently, and the personal enemies of the Bruce, whoincreased in numbers after the murder of Comyn. Among the great familiesthus alienated from the cause of Scotland were the Highlanders of Argylland the Isles, some of the men of Badenach, and certain Galloway clans. But that this opposition was personal, and not racial, is shown by thefact that, from the first, some of these Highlanders were loyal toBruce, _e. G. _ Sir Nigel Campbell and Angus Og. We shall see, further, that after the first jealousies caused by Comyn's death and Bruce'ssuccess had passed away, the men of Argyll and the Isles took a moreprominent part on the Scottish side. In December, 1307, Bruce routedJohn Comyn, the successor of his old rival, at Slains, on theAberdeenshire coast, and in the following May, when Comyn had obtainedsome slight English assistance, he inflicted a final defeat upon him atInverurie. The power of the Comyns in their hereditary earldom of Buchanhad now been suppressed, and King Robert turned his attention to theirallies in the south. In the autumn of 1308, he himself defeatedAlexander of Lorn and subdued the district of Argyll, his brother Edwardreduced Galloway to subjection, and Douglas, along with Randolph, Earlof Moray, was successful in Tweeddale. Thus, within three years from thedeath of Comyn, Bruce had broken the power of the great families, whoseenmity against him had been aroused by that event. One year later theother great misfortune, which had been brought upon him by the samecause, was removed by an act which is important evidence at once of thestrength of the anti-English feeling in the country, and of theconfidence which Bruce had inspired. On the 24th February, 1309-10, theclergy of Scotland met at Dundee and made a solemn declaration[48] offealty to King Robert as their lawful king. Scotland was thus united inits struggle for independence under King Robert I. 

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

In his preparations for the great struggle, which was to determine thefate of Scotland, the Bruce carefully avoided the errors which had ledto Wallace's defeat at Falkirk. He selected a position which wascovered, on one side by the Bannock Burn and a morass, and, on the otherside, by the New Park or Forest. His front was protected by the streamand by the famous series of "pottes", or holes, covered over so as todeceive the English cavalry. The choice of this narrow position not onlyprevented the possibility of a flank attack, but also forced the greatarmy of Edward II into a small space, where its numbers became apositive disadvantage. King Robert arranged his infantry in fourdivisions; in front were three schiltrons of pikemen, under Randolph, Edward Bruce, and Sir James Douglas, and Bruce himself commanded thereserve, which was composed of Highlanders from Argyll and the Islandsand of the men of Carrick. [49] Sir Robert Keith, the Marischal, was incharge of a small body of cavalry, which did good service by drivingback, at a critical moment, such archers as made their way through theforest. The English army was in ten divisions, but the limited area inwhich they had to fight interfered with their arrangement. As atFalkirk, the English cavalry made a gallant but useless charge againstthe schiltrons, but it was not possible again to save the day by meansof archers, for the archers had no room to deploy, and could only makevain efforts to shoot over the heads of the horsemen. Bruce strengthenedthe Scots with his reserve, and then ensued a general action along thewhole line. The van of the English army was now thoroughly demoralized, and their comrades in the rear could not, in these narrow limits, pressforward to render any assistance. King Robert's camp-followers, at thisjuncture, rushed down a hill behind the Scottish army, and they appearedto the English as a fresh force come to assist the enemy. The result wasthe loss of all sense of discipline: King Edward's magnificent host fledin complete rout and with great slaughter, and the cause of Scottishfreedom was won. 

The victory of Bannockburn did not end the war, for the English refusedto acknowledge the hard-won independence of Scotland, and fightingcontinued till the year 1327. The Scots not only invaded England, butadopted the policy of fighting England in Ireland, and English reprisalsin Scotland were uniformly unsuccessful. Bruce invaded England in 1315;in the same year, his brother Edward landed with a Scottish army atCarrickfergus, in the hope of obtaining a throne for himself. He wascrowned King of Ireland in May, 1316, and during that and the followingyear, King Robert was personally in Ireland, giving assistance to hisbrother. But, in 1318, Edward Bruce was defeated and slain near Dundalk, and, with his death, this phase of the Bruce's English policydisappears. A few months before the death of Edward Bruce, King Roberthad captured the border town of Berwick-on-Tweed, which had been held bythe English since 1298. In 1319, Edward II sent an English army tobesiege Berwick, and the Scots replied by an invasion of England in thecourse of which Douglas and Randolph defeated the English atMitton-on-Swale in Yorkshire. The English were led by the Archbishop ofYork, and so many clerks were killed that the battle acquired the nameof the Chapter of Mitton. The war lingered on for three years more. Theyear 1322 saw an invasion of England by King Robert and acounter-invasion of Scotland by Edward II, who destroyed the Abbey ofDryburgh on his return march. This expedition was, as usual, fruitless, for the Scots adopted their usual tactics of leaving the country wasteand desolate, and the English army could obtain no food. In October ofthe same year King Robert made a further inroad into Yorkshire, and wona small victory at Biland Abbey. At last, in March, 1323, a truce wasmade for thirteen years, but as Edward II persisted in declining toacknowledge the independence of Scotland, it was obvious that peacecould not be long maintained. 

During the fourteen years which followed his victory of Bannockburn, King Robert was consolidating his kingdom. He had obtained recognitioneven in the Western Highlands and Islands, and the sentiment of thewhole nation had gathered around him. The force of this sentiment isapparent in connection with ecclesiastical difficulties. When Pope JohnXXII attempted to make peace in 1317 and refused to acknowledge theBruce as king, the papal envoys were driven from the kingdom. For thisthe country was placed under the papal ban, and when, in 1324, the popeoffered both to acknowledge King Robert and to remove theexcommunication, on condition that Berwick should be restored to theEnglish, the Scots refused to comply with his condition. A smallrebellion in 1320 had been firmly repressed by king and Parliament. Thebirth of a son to King Robert, on the 5th March, 1323-24, had givensecurity to the dynasty, and, at the great Parliament which met atCambuskenneth in 1326, at which Scottish burghs were, for the firsttime, represented, the clergy, the barons, and the people took an oathof allegiance to the little Prince David, and, should his heirs fail, toRobert, the son of Bruce's daughter, Marjorie, and her husband, Robert, the High Steward of Scotland. The same Parliament put the financialposition of the monarch on a satisfactory footing by granting him atenth penny of all rents. 

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

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

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

We are not here dealing with the domestic history of Scotland; but it isimpossible to avoid a reference to the subject of the influence of theScottish victory upon the Scots themselves. It has been argued thatBannockburn was, for Scotland, a national misfortune, and that Bruce'sdefeat would have been for the real welfare of the country. There are, of course, two stand-points from which we may approach the question. Theapologist of Bannockburn might lay stress on the different effects ofconquest and a hard-won independence upon the national character, andmight fairly point to various national characteristics which have been, perhaps, of some value to civilization, and which could hardly have beenfostered in a condition of servitude. On the other hand, there arises aquestion as to material prosperity. It must be remembered that we arenot here discussing the effect of a peaceful and amicable union, such asEdward first proposed, but of a successful war of conquest; and in thisconnection it is only with thankfulness and gratitude to Wallace and toBruce that the Scotsman can regard the parallel case of Ireland, which, from a century before the time of Edward I, had been annexed byconquest. The story we have just related goes to create a reasonableprobability that the fate of Scotland could not have been different;but, further, leaving all such problems of the "might have been", we maysubmit that the misery of Scotland in the fourteenth, fifteenth, andsixteenth centuries has been much exaggerated. It is true that theborders were in a condition of perpetual feud, and that minorities andintrigues gravely hampered the progress of the country. But, moreespecially in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there are notwanting indications of prosperity. The chapter of Scottish history whichtells of the growth of burghs has yet to be written. The construction ofmagnificent cathedrals and religious houses, and the rise of threeuniversities, must not be left out of account. Gifts to the infantuniversities, the records of which we possess, prove that for humblefolk the tenure of property was comparatively secure, and that there wasa large amount of comfort among the people. Under James IV, trade andcommerce prospered, and the Scottish navy rivalled that of the Tudors. The century in which Scottish prosperity received its most severe blowsimmediately succeeded the Union of the Crowns. If for three hundredyears the civilizing influence of England can scarcely be traced in thehistory of Scottish progress, that of France was predominant, andScotland cannot entirely regret the fact. Scotland, from the date ofBannockburn to that of Pinkie, will not suffer from a comparison withthe England which underwent the strain of the long French wars, thecivil broils of Lancaster and York, and the oppression of the Tudors. Moreover, there is one further consideration which should not beoverlooked. The postponement of an English union till the seventeenthcentury enabled Scotland to work out its own reformation of religion inthe way best adapted to the national needs, and it is difficult toestimate, from the material stand-point alone, the importance of thisfactor in the national progress. The inspiration and the education whichthe Scottish Church has given to the Scottish people has found oneresult in the impulse it has afforded to the growth of materialprosperity, and it is not easy to regret that Scotland, at the date ofthe Reformation, was free to work out its own ecclesiastical destiny. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 48: Nat. MSS. Ii. 12, No. XVII. The original is preserved inthe Register House. ]

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

CHAPTER V

EDWARD III AND SCOTLAND

1328-1399

Almost immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of Northampton, the conditions of government in England and Scotland were reversed. Since the death of Edward I, Scotland, under a strong king, had gainedby the weakness of the English sovereign; now England, under theenergetic rule of Edward III, was to profit by the death of King Robertand by the succession of a minor. On the 7th June, 1329, King Robertdied (probably a leper) at his castle of Cardross, on the Clyde, andleft the Scottish throne to his five-year-old son, David II. In Octoberof the following year the young Edward III of England threw off the yokeof the Mortimers and established his personal rule, and came almostimmediately into conflict with Scotland. The Scottish regent wasRandolph or Ranulph, Earl of Moray, the companion of Bruce and the BlackDouglas[50] in the exploits of the great war. Possibly because EdwardIII had afforded protection to the Pretender, Edward Balliol, theeldest son of John Balliol, and had received him at the English court, Randolph refused to carry out the provisions of the Treaty ofNorthampton, by which their lands were to be restored to the"Disinherited", _i. E. _ to barons whose property in Scotland had beenforfeited because they had adopted the English side in the war. Asomewhat serious situation was thus created, and Edward, notunnaturally, took advantage of it to disown the Treaty of Northampton, which had been negotiated by the Mortimers during his minority, andwhich was extremely unpopular in England. He at once recognized EdwardBalliol as King of Scotland. The only defence of Randolph's action isthe probability that he suspected Edward to be in search of a pretextfor refusing to be bound by a treaty made in such circumstances, and ifa struggle were to ensue, it was certainly desirable not to increase thepower of the English party. Edward proceeded to assist Balliol in anexpedition to Scotland, which Mr. Lang describes as "practically anAnglo-Norman filibustering expedition, winked at by the home government, the filibusters being neither more nor less Scottish than most of our_noblesse_". But before Balliol reached Scotland, the last of thepaladins whose names have been immortalized by the Bruce's wars, haddisappeared from the scene. Randolph died at Musselburgh in July, 1332, and Scotland was left leaderless. The new regent, the Earl of Mar, wasquite incapable of dealing with the situation. When Balliol landed atKinghorn in August, he made his way unmolested till he reached the riverEarn, on his way to Perth. The regent had taken up a position nearDupplin, and was at the head of a force which considerably outnumberedthe English. But the Scots had failed to learn the lesson taught byEdward I at Falkirk and by Bruce at Bannockburn. The English succeededin crossing the Earn by night, and took up a position opposite the hillon which the Scots were encamped. Their archers were so arranged aspractically to surround the Scots, who attacked in three divisions, armed with pikes, making no attempt even to harass the thin lines ofarchers who were extended on each side of the English main body. But theunerring aim of the archers could not fail to render the Scottish attackinnocuous. The English stood their ground while line after line of theScots hurled themselves against them, only to be struck down by thegray-goose shafts. At last the attack degenerated into a complete rout, and the English made good their victory by an indiscriminate massacre. 

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

In April, Balliol was again in Scotland, and, in May, Edward III beganto besiege Berwick, which had been promised him by Balliol. To defendBerwick, the Scots were forced to fight a pitched battle, which proved arepetition of Dupplin Moor. Berwick had promised to surrender if it werenot relieved by a fixed date. When the day arrived, a small body ofScots had succeeded in breaking through the English lines, and SirArchibald Douglas had led a larger force to ravage Northumberland. Onthese grounds Berwick held that it had been in fact relieved; butEdward III, who lacked his grandfather's nice appreciation of situationswhere law and fact are at variance, replied by hanging a hostage. Theregent was now forced to risk a battle in the hope of saving Berwick, and he marched southwards, towards Berwick, with a large army. Edward, following the precedent of Dupplin, occupied a favourable position atHalidon Hill, with his front protected by a marsh. He drew up his linein the order that had been so successful at Dupplin, and the same resultfollowed. Each successive body of Scottish pikemen was cut down by ashower of English arrows, before being able even to strike a blow. Theregent was slain, and Moray, his companion in arms, fled to France, soonto return to strike another blow for Scotland. 

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

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

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

In Scotland, the party of independence was, for the time, helpless. Edward and Balliol divided the country between them. The eight countiesof Dumfries, Roxburgh, Berwick, Selkirk, Peebles, Haddington, Edinburgh, and Linlithgow formed the English king's share of the spoil, along witha reassertion of his supremacy over the rest of Scotland. Englishofficers began to rule between the Tweed and the Forth. But the cause ofindependence was never really hopeless. Balliol and the English partywere soon weakened by internal dissensions, and the leaders on thepatriotic side were not slow to take advantage of the opportunities thusgiven them. It was, indeed, necessary to send King David and his wife toFrance, and they landed at Boulogne in May, 1334. But from France, inreturn, came the young Earl of Moray, who, along with Robert the HighSteward, son of Marjory Bruce, and next heir to the throne, took up theduties of guardians. The arrival of Moray gave fresh life to the cause, but there is little interest in the records of the struggle. The Scotswon two small successes at the Borough-Muir of Edinburgh and atKilblain. But the victory in the skirmish at the Borough-Muir (August, 1335) was more unfortunate than defeat, for it deprived Scotland forsome time of the services of the Earl of Moray. He had captured Guy deNamur and conducted him to the borders, and was himself taken prisonerwhile on his journey northwards. Sir Andrew Moray of Bothwell, who hadbeen made guardian after the battle of Dupplin, and was captured inApril, 1333, had now been ransomed, and he was again recognized asregent for David II. So strong was the Scottish party that Balliol hadto flee to England for assistance, and, in 1336, Edward III againappeared in Scotland. It was not a very heroic effort for the futurevictor of Crécy; he marched northwards to Elgin, and, on his way home, burned the town of Aberdeen. 

As in the first war the turning-point had proved to be the death ofEdward I in the summer of 1307, so now, exactly thirty years later, cameanother decisive event. In the autumn of 1337, Edward III first styledhimself King of France, and the diversion of his energies from the Scotsto their French allies rendered possible the final overthrow of Ballioland the Scottish traitors. The circumstances are, however, parallel onlyto the extent that an intervention of fortune rendered possible thevictory of Scottish freedom. In 1337 there was no great leader: the hourhad come, but not the man. For the next four years, castle after castlefell into Scottish hands; many of the tales are romantic enough, butthey do not lead to a Bannockburn. The only incident of any significanceis the defence of the castle of Dunbar. The lord of Dunbar was the Earlof March, whose record throughout the troubles had been far fromconsistent, but who was now a supporter of King David, largely throughthe influence of his wife, famous as "Black Agnes", a daughter of thegreat Randolph, Earl of Moray. From January to June, 1338, Black Agnesheld Dunbar against English assaults by sea and land. Many romanticincidents have been related of these long months of siege: the storiesof the Countess's use of a dust-cloth to repair the damage done by theEnglish siege-machines to the battlements, and of her prophecy, madewhen the Earl of Salisbury brought a "sow" or shed fitted to protectsoldiers in the manner of the Roman _testudo_, "Beware, Montagow, For farrow shall thy sow", and fulfilled by dropping a huge stone on the machine and thusscattering its occupants, "the litter of English pigs"--these, and her"love-shafts", which, as Salisbury said, "pierce to the heart", areamong the most wonderful of historical fairy tales. In the end theEnglish had to raise the siege:

 "Came I early, came I late, I found Agnes at the gate", they sang as the explanation of their failure. 

The defence of Dunbar was followed by the surrender of Perth and thecapture of the castles of Stirling and Edinburgh, and in June, 1341, David II returned to Scotland, from which Balliol had fled. David wasnow seventeen years of age, and he had a great opportunity. Scotland wasagain free, and was prepared to rally round its national sovereign andthe son of the Bruce. The English foe was engaged in a great strugglewith France, and difficulties had arisen between the English king andhis Parliament. But the unworthy son of the great Robert proved only asource of weakness to his supporters. The only redeeming feature of hispolicy is that it was, at first, inspired by loyalty to his Frenchprotectors. In their interest he made, in the year of the Crécycampaign, an incursion into England, thus ending a truce made in 1343. After the usual preliminary ravaging, he reached Neville's Cross, nearDurham, in the month of October. There he found a force prepared to meethim, led, as at Northallerton and at Mitton, by the clergy of thenorthern province. The battle was a repetition of Dupplin and HalidonHill, and a rehearsal of Homildon and Flodden. Scots and English alikewere drawn up in the usual three divisions; the left, centre, and rightbeing led respectively, on the one side, by Robert the Steward, KingDavid, and Randolph, and, on the other, by Rokeby, Archbishop Neville, and Henry Percy. The English archers were, as usual, spread out so as tocommand both the Scottish wings. They were met by no cavalry charge, andthey soon threw the Scottish left into confusion, and prepared the wayfor an assault upon the centre. Randolph was killed; the king wascaptured, and for eleven years he remained a prisoner in England. Meanwhile Robert the Steward (still the heir to the throne, for Davidhad no children) ruled in Scotland. There is reason for believing that, in 1352, David was allowed to go to Scotland to raise a ransom, and, twoyears later, an arrangement was actually made for his release. ButRobert the Steward and David had always been on bad terms, and, aftereverything had been formally settled, the Scots decided to remain loyalto their French allies. Hostilities recommenced; in August, 1355, theScots won a small victory at Nesbit in Berwickshire, and captured thetown of Berwick. Early in the following year it was retaken by EdwardIII, who proclaimed himself the successor of Balliol, and mercilesslyravaged the Lowlands. So great was his destruction of churches andreligious houses that the invasion is remembered as the "BurnedCandlemas". Peace was made in 1357, and David's ransom was fixed at100, 000 marks. It was a huge sum; but in connection with the effortsmade to raise it the burgesses acquired some influence in the governmentof the country. 

David's residence in France and in England had entirely deprived him ofsympathy with the national aspirations of his subjects. He loved thegay court of Edward III, and the Anglo-Norman chivalry had deeplyaffected him. He hated his destined successor, and he had been charmedby Edward's personality. Accordingly we find him, seven years after hisreturn to Scotland, again making a journey to England. It is a strikingfact that the son of the victor of Bannockburn should have gone toLondon to propose to sell the independence of Scotland to the grandsonof Edward I. The difficulty of paying the yearly instalment of hisransom made a limit to his own extravagant expenditure, and he nowoffered, instead of money, an acknowledgment of either Edward himself orone of his sons as the heir to the Scottish throne. The result of thisproposal was to change the policy of Edward. He abandoned the Balliolclaim and the traditional Edwardian policy in Scotland, and acceptedDavid's offer. David returned to Scotland and laid before his Parliamentthe less violent of the two schemes, the proposal that, in the event ofhis dying childless, Prince Lionel of England should succeed (1364). 

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

So the proposal to substitute an "English-man's son" for the lawfulheirs proved utterly futile. Equally vain were any attempts of the Scotsto mitigate Edward's rigour in the exaction of the ransom, and Edwardreverted to his earlier policy, disowned King David, and prepared foranother Scottish campaign to vindicate his right as the successor ofBalliol, who had died in 1363. But English energies were once morediverted at a critical moment. The Black Prince had involved himself inserious troubles in Gascony, and England was called upon to defend itsconquests in France. In 1369 a truce was made between Scotland andEngland, to last for fourteen years. 

David II died, unregretted, in February, 1370-1371. It was fortunate forScotland that the miserable seven years which remained to Edward III, and the reign of his unfortunate grandson, were so full of trouble forEngland. Robert the Steward succeeded his uncle without much difficulty. He was fifty-six years of age, already an old man for those days, eightyears the senior of the nephew whom he succeeded. The main lines of theforeign policy of his reign may be briefly indicated; but its chiefinterest lies in a series of border raids, the story of which is toointricate and of too slight importance to concern us. The new king beganby entering into an agreement with France, of a more definitedescription than any previous arrangement, and the year 1372 may betaken as marking the formal inauguration of the Franco-Scottish League. The truce with England was continued and was renewed in 1380, threeyears before the date originally fixed for its expiry. The renewal wasnecessitated by various acts of hostility which had rendered it, ineffect, a dead letter. The English were still in possession of suchScottish strongholds as Roxburgh, Berwick, and Lochmaben, and roundthese there was continual warfare. The Scots sacked the town of Roxburghin 1377, but without regaining the castle, and, in 1378, they againobtained possession of Berwick. John of Gaunt, who had forced thegovernment of his nephew to acknowledge his importance as a factor inEnglish politics, was entrusted with the command of an army directedagainst Scotland. He met the Scottish representatives at Berwick, whichwas again in English hands, and agreed to confirm the existing truce, which was maintained till 1384, when Scotland was included in theEnglish truce with France. The truce, which was to last for eightmonths, was negotiated in France in January, 1383-84. In February andMarch, John of Gaunt conducted a ravaging expedition into Scotland asfar as Edinburgh. During the Peasants' Revolt he had taken refuge inScotland, and the chroniclers tell us that the expedition of 1384 wassingularly merciful. Still, it was an act of war, and the Scots mayreasonably have expressed surprise, when, in April, the Frenchambassadors (who had been detained in England since February) arrived inEdinburgh, and announced that Scotland and England had been at peacesince January. About the same time there occurred two border forays. Some French knights, with their Scottish hosts, made an incursion intoEngland, and the Percies, along with the Earl of Nottingham, conducted adevastating raid in Scotland, laying waste the Lothians. About the dateof both events there is some doubt; probably the Percy invasion was inretaliation for the French affair. But all the time the two countrieswere nominally at peace, and it was not till May, 1385, that they weretechnically in a state of war. In that month a French army was sent toaid the Scots, and, under the command of John de Vienne, it took part inan incursion on a somewhat larger scale than the usual raids. TheEnglish replied, in the month of August, by an invasion conducted byRichard II in person, at the head of a large army, while the Scots, declining a battle, wasted Cumberland. Richard sacked Edinburgh andburned the great religious houses of Dryburgh, Melrose, and Newbattle, but was forced to retire without having made any real conquest. TheScots adopted their invariable custom of retreating after laying wastethe country, so as to deprive the English of provender; even theimpatience of their French allies failed to persuade them to givebattle to King Richard's greatly superior forces. From Scotland theEnglish king marched to London, to commence the great struggle which ledto the impeachment of Suffolk and the rise of the Lords Appellant. WhileEngland was thus occupied, the Scots, under the Earl of Fife, second sonof Robert II (better known as the Duke of Albany), and the Earl ofDouglas, made great preparations for an invasion. Fife took his men intothe western counties and ravaged Cumberland and Westmoreland, butwithout any important incident. Douglas attacked the country of his oldenemies, the Percies, and won the victory of Otterburn or Chevy Chase(August, 1388), the most romantic of all the fights between Scots andEnglish. The Scots lost their leader, but the English were completelydefeated, and Harry Hotspur, the son of Northumberland, was made aprisoner. Chevy Chase is the subject of many ballads and legends, and itis indissolubly connected with the story of the House of Douglas:

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

CHAPTER VI

SCOTLAND, LANCASTER, AND YORK

1400-1500

When Henry of Lancaster placed himself on his cousin's throne, Scotlandwas divided between the supporters of the Duke of Rothesay, the eldestson of Robert III and heir to the crown, and the adherents of the Dukeof Albany, the brother of the old king. In 1399, Rothesay had justsucceeded his uncle as regent, and to him, as to Henry IV, there was astrong temptation to acquire popularity by a spirited foreign policy. The Scots hesitated to acknowledge Henry as King of England, and he, inturn, seems to have resolved upon an invasion of Scotland as the firstmilitary event of his reign. He, accordingly, raised the old claim ofhomage, and marched into Scotland to demand the fealty of Robert III andhis barons. As usual, we find in Scotland some malcontents, who form anEnglish party. The leader of the English intrigue on this occasion wasthe Scots Earl of March, [52] the son of Black Agnes. The Duke ofRothesay had been betrothed to the daughter of March, but had marriedin February, 1399-1400, a daughter of the Earl of Douglas, thehereditary foe of March. The Dunbar allegiance had always been doubtful, and it was only the influence of the great countess that had brought itto the patriotic side. In August, 1400, Henry marched into Scotland, andbesieged for three days the castle of Edinburgh, which was successfullydefended by the regent, while Albany was at the head of an army whichmade no attempt to interfere with Henry's movements. Difficulties inWales now attracted Henry's attention, and he left Scotland withouthaving accomplished anything, and leaving the record of the mildest andmost merciful English invasion of Scotland. The necessities of hisposition in England may explain his abstaining from spoiling religioushouses as his predecessors had done, but the chroniclers tell us that hegave protection to every town that asked it. While Henry was suppressingthe Welsh revolt and negotiating with his Parliament, Albany andRothesay were struggling for the government of Scotland. Rothesay fellfrom power in 1401, and in March, 1402, he died at Falkland. Contemporary rumour and subsequent legend attributed his death toAlbany, and, as in the case of Richard II, the method of death wassupposed to be starvation. Sir Walter has told the story in _The FairMaid of Perth_. Albany, who had succeeded him as regent or guardian, made no effort to end the meaningless war with England, which wentfitfully on. An idiot mendicant, who was represented to be Richard II, gave the Scots their first opportunity of supporting a pretender to theEnglish throne; but the pretence was too ridiculous to be seriouslymaintained. The French refused to take any part in such a scheme, andthe pseudo-Richard served only to annoy Henry IV, and scarcely gave evena semblance of significance to the war, which really degenerated into aseries of border raids, one of which was of unusual importance. Henryhad no intention of seriously prosecuting the claim of homage, and thecontinuance of hostilities is really explained by the ill-will betweenMarch and Douglas and the old feud between the Douglases and thePercies. In June, 1402, the Scots were defeated in a skirmish at Nesbitin Berwickshire (the scene of a small Scottish victory in 1355), and, inthe following September, occurred the disaster of Homildon Hill. Douglasand Murdoch Stewart, the eldest son of Albany, had collected a largearmy, and the incursion was raised to the level of something likenational importance. They marched into England and took up a strongposition on Homildon Hill or Heugh. The Percies, under Northumberlandand Hotspur, sent against them a body of English archers, who easilyoutranged the Scottish bowmen, and threw the army into confusion. Thenensued, as at Dupplin and Halidon Hill, a simple massacre. MurdochStewart and Douglas were taken captive with several other Scots lords. Close on Homildon Hill followed the rebellion of the Percies, and theresult of the English victory at Homildon was merely to create a newdifficulty for Henry IV. The sudden nature of the Percy revolt isindicated by the fact that, when Albany marched to relieve a Scottishstronghold which they were besieging, he found that the enemy hadentered into an alliance with the House of Douglas, their ancient foes, and were turning their arms against the English king. Percy and Douglasfought together at Shrewsbury, while the Earl of March was in the ranksof King Henry. 

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

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

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

Albany's attention was now diverted by a danger threatened by theHighland portion of the kingdom. Scotland, south of Forth and Clyde, along with the east coast up to the Moray Firth, had been rapidlyaffected by the English, French, and Norman influences, of which wehave spoken. The inhabitants of the more remote Highland districts andof the western isles had remained uncorrupted by civilization of anykind, and ever since the reign of Malcolm Canmore there had been amilitant reaction against the changes of St. Margaret and David I; fromthe eleventh century to the thirteenth, the Scottish kings were scarcelyever free from Celtic pretenders and Celtic revolts. [54] The inhabitantsof the west coast and of the isles were very largely of Scandinavianblood, and it was not till 1266 that the western isles definitely passedfrom Norway to the Scottish crown. The English had employed severalopportunities of allying themselves with these discontented Scotsmen;but Mr. Freeman's general statement, already quoted, that "the trueScots, out of hatred to the Saxons nearest them, leagued with the Saxonsfarther off", is very far from a fair representation of the facts. Wehave seen that Highlander and Islesman fought under David I at thebattle of the Standard, against the "Saxons farther off", and thatalthough the death of Comyn ranged against Bruce the Highlanders ofArgyll, numbers of Highlanders were led to victory at Bannockburn byEarl Randolph; and Angus Og and the Islesmen formed part of the Scottishreserves and stood side by side with the men of Carrick, under theleadership of King Robert. During the troubles which followed KingRobert's death, the Lords of the Isles had resumed their generalattitude of opposition. It was an opposition very natural in thecircumstances, the rebellion of a powerful vassal against a weak centralgovernment, a reaction against the forces of civilization. But it hasnever been shown that it was an opposition in any way racial; thecomplaint that the Lowlands of Scotland have been "rent by the Saxonfrom the Gael", in the manner of a racial dispossession, belongs to "TheLady of the Lake", not to sober history. All Scotland, indeed, has now, in one sense, been "rent by the Saxon" from the Celt. "Let no one doubtthe civilization of these islands, " wrote Dr. Johnson, in Skye, "forPortree possesses a jail. " The Highlands and islands have been the lastportions of Scotland to succumb to Anglo-Saxon influences; that theLowlands formed an earlier victim does not prove that their racialcomplexion is different. The incident of which we have now to speak hasfrequently been quoted as a crowning proof of the difference between theLowlanders and the "true Scots". Donald of the Isles had a quarrel withthe Regent Albany, and, in 1408, entered into an agreement with HenryIV, to whom he owned allegiance. But this very quarrel arose about theearldom of Ross, which was claimed by Donald (himself a grandson ofRobert II) in right of his wife, a member of the Leslie family. The"assertor of Celtic nationality" was thus the son of one Lowland womanand the husband of another. When he entered the Scottish mainland hisprogress was first opposed, not by the Lowlanders, but by the Mackays ofCaithness, who were defeated near Dingwall, and the Frasers immediatelyafterwards received what the historians of the Clan Donald term a"well-merited chastisement". [55] Donald pursued his victorious march toAberdeenshire, tempted by the prospect of plundering Aberdeen. It isinteresting to note that, while the battle which has given significanceto the record of the dispute was fought for the Lowland town of Aberdeenin a Lowland part of Aberdeenshire, the very name of the town is Celtic, and the district in which the battlefield of Harlaw is situated aboundsto this day in Celtic place-names, and, not many miles away, the Gaelictongue may still be heard at Braemar or at Tomintoul. It was not to aracial battle between Celt and Saxon that the Earl of Mar and theProvost of Aberdeen, aided by the Frasers, marched out to Harlaw, inJuly, 1411, to meet Donald of the Isles. Had the clansmen beenvictorious there would certainly have been a Celtic revival; but thiswas not the danger most dreaded by the victorious Lowlanders. The battleof Harlaw was part of the struggle with England. Donald of the Isles wasthe enemy of Scottish independence, and his success would mean Englishsupremacy. He had taken up the rôle of "the Disinherited" of thepreceding century, just as the Earl of March had done some years before. As time passed, and civilization progressed in the Lowlands while theHighlands maintained their integrity, the feeling of separation grewmore strongly marked; and as the inhabitants of the Lowlandsintermarried with French and English, the differences of blood becamemore evident and hostility became unavoidable. But any such abruptracial division as Mr. Freeman drew between the true Scots and theScottish Lowlanders stands much in need of proof. 

Harlaw was an incident in the never-ending struggle with England. It wassucceeded, in 1416 or 1417, by an unfortunate expedition into England, known as the "Foul Raid", and after the Foul Raid came the battle ofBaugé. They are all part of one and the same story; although Harlawmight seem an internal complication and Baugé an act of unprovokedaggression, both are really as much part of the English war as is theFoul Raid or the battle of Bannockburn itself. The invasion of France byHenry V reminded the Scots that the English could be attacked on Frenchsoil as well as in Northumberland. So the Earl of Buchan, a son ofAlbany, was sent to France at the head of an army, in answer to thedauphin's request for help. In March, 1421, the Scots defeated theEnglish at Baugé and captured the Earl of Somerset. The death of HenryV, in the following year, and the difficulties of the English governmentled to the return of the young King of Scots. The Regent Albany had beensucceeded in 1420 by his son, who was weak and incompetent, and Scotlandlonged for its rightful king. James had been carefully educated inEngland, and the dreary years of his captivity have enriched Scottishliterature by the _King's Quair_:

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

Albany seems to have made all due efforts to obtain his nephew'srelease, and James was in constant communication with Scotland. He hadbeen forced to accompany Henry V to France, and was present at the siegeof Melun, where Henry refused quarter to the Scottish allies of France, although England and Scotland were at war. Although constantlycomplaining of his imprisonment, and of the treatment accorded to him inEngland, James brought home with him, when his release was negotiated in1423-24, an English bride, Joan Beaufort, the heroine of the _Quair_. She was the daughter of Somerset, who had been captured at Baugé, andgrand-daughter of John of Gaunt. 

The troublous reign of James I gave him but little time for conducting aforeign war, and the truce which was made when the king was ransomedcontinued till 1433. It had been suggested that the peace betweenEngland and Scotland should extend to the Scottish troops serving inFrance, but no such clause was inserted in the actual arrangement made, and it is almost certain that James could not have enforced it, even hadhe wished to do so. He gave, however, no indication of holding lightlythe ties that bound Scotland to France, and, in 1428, agreed to themarriage of his infant daughter, Margaret, to the dauphin. Meanwhile, the Scottish levies had been taking their full share in the struggle forfreedom in which France was engaged. At Crevant, near Auxerre, in July, 1423, the Earl of Buchan, now Constable of France, was defeated bySalisbury, and, thirteen months later, Buchan and the Earl of Douglas(Duke of Touraine) fell on the disastrous field of Verneuil. At theBattle of the Herrings (an attack upon a French convoy carrying Lentenfood to the besiegers of Orleans, made near Janville, in February, 1429), the Scots, under the new constable, Sir John Stewart of Darnley, committed the old error of Halidon and Homildon, and their impetuousvalour could not avail against the English archers. They shared in thevictory of Pathay, gained by the Maid of Orleans in June 1429, almost onthe anniversary of Bannockburn, and they continued to follow the Maidthrough the last fateful months of her warfare. So great a part hadScotsmen taken in the French wars that, on the expiry of the truce in1433, the English offered to restore not only Roxburgh but also Berwickto Scotland. But the French alliance was destined to endure for morethan another century, and James declined, thus bringing about a slightresuscitation of warlike operations. The Scots won a victory atPiperden, near Berwick, in 1435 or 1436, and in the summer of 1436, whenthe Princess Margaret was on her way to France to enter into herill-starred union with the dauphin, the English made an attempt to takeher captive. James replied by an attempt upon Roxburgh, but gave it upwithout having accomplished anything, and returned to spend his lastChristmas at Perth. His twelve years in Scotland had been mainlyoccupied in attempts to reduce his rebellious subjects, especially inthe Highlands, to obedience and loyalty, and he had roused muchimplacable resentment. So the poet-king was murdered at Perth inFebruary, 1436-37, and his English widow was left to guard her son, thechild sovereign, now in his seventh year. It was probably under herinfluence that a truce of nine years was made. 

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

Now began the second struggle with the Douglases. Their greatpossessions, their rights as Wardens of the Marches, their prestige inScottish history made them dangerous subjects for a weak royal house. Since the death of the good Lord James their loyalty to the kings ofScotland had not been unbroken, and it is probable that theirsuppression was inevitable in the interests of a strong centralgovernment. But the perfidy with which James, with his own hand, murdered the Earl, in February, 1451-52, can scarcely be condoned, andit has created a sympathy for the Douglases which their history scarcelymerits. James had now entered upon a decisive struggle with the greatHouse, which a temporary reconciliation with the new earl, in 1453, onlyserved to prolong. The quarrel is interesting for our purpose because itlargely decided the relations between Scotland and the rival lines ofLancaster and York. In 1455, when the Douglases were finally suppressedand their estates were forfeited, the Yorkists first took up armsagainst Henry VI. Douglas had attempted intrigues with the Lord of theIsles, with the Lancastrians, and with the Yorkists in turn, and, about1454, he came to an understanding with the Duke of York. We find, therefore, during the years which followed the first battle of St. Albans, a revival of active hostilities with England. In 1456, Jamesinvaded England and harried Northumberland in the interests of theLancastrians. During the temporary loss of power by the Duke of York, in1457, a truce was concluded, but it was broken after the reconciliationof York to Henry VI in 1458, and when the battle of Northampton, inJuly, 1460, left the Yorkists again triumphant, James marched to attemptthe recovery of Roxburgh. [57] James I, as we have seen, had abandonedthe siege of Roxburgh Castle only to go to his death; his son found hisdeath while attempting the same task. On Sunday, the 3rd of August, 1460, he was killed by the bursting of a cannon, the mechanism of whichhad attracted his attention and made him, according to Pitscottie, "morecurious than became him or the majesty of a king". 

The year 1461 saw Edward IV placed on his uneasy throne, and a boy often years reigning over the turbulent kingdom of Scotland. The Scots hadregained Roxburgh a few days after the death of King James, and theyfollowed up their success by the capture of Wark. But a greater triumphwas in store. When Margaret of Anjou, after rescuing her husband, HenryVI, at the second battle of St. Albans, in February, 1461, met, inMarch, the great disaster of Towton, she fled with Henry to Scotland, where she had been received when preparing for the expedition which hadproved so unfortunate. On her second visit she brought with her thesurrender of Berwick, which, in April, 1461, became once more a Scotstown, and was represented in the Parliament which met in 1469. Ingratitude for the gift, the Scots made an invasion of England in June, 1461, and besieged Carlisle, but were forced to retire without havingafforded any real assistance to the Lancastrian cause. There was now adivision of opinion in Scotland with regard to supporting theLancastrian cause. The policy of the late king was maintained by thegreat Bishop Kennedy, who himself entertained Henry VI in the Castle ofSt. Andrews. But the queen-mother, Mary of Gueldres, was a niece of theDuke of Burgundy, and was, through his influence, persuaded to go overto the side of the White Rose. While Edward IV remained on unfriendlyterms with Louis XI of France, Kennedy had not much difficulty inresisting the Yorkist proclivities of the queen-mother, and in keepingScotland loyal to the Red Rose. They were able to render their alliesbut little assistance, and their opposition gave the astute Edward IV anopportunity of intrigue. John of the Isles took advantage of theminority of James III to break the peace into which he had been broughtby James II, and the exiled Earl of Douglas concluded an agreementbetween the Lord of the Isles and the King of England. But when, inOctober, 1463, Edward IV came to terms with Louis XI, Bishop Kennedy waswilling to join Mary of Gueldres in deserting the doomed House ofLancaster. Mary did not live to see the success of her policy; but peacewas made for a period of fifteen years, and Scotland had no share in thebrief Lancastrian restoration of 1470. The threatening relations betweenEngland and France nearly led to a rupture in 1473, but the result wasonly to strengthen the agreement, and it was arranged that the infantheir of James III should marry the Princess Cecilia, Edward's daughter. In 1479-80, when the French were again alarmed by the diplomacy ofEdward IV, we find an outbreak of hostilities, the precise cause ofwhich is somewhat obscure. It is certain that Edward made no effort topreserve the peace, and he sent, in 1481, a fleet to attack the towns onthe Firth of Forth, in revenge for a border raid for which James hadattempted to apologize. Edward was unable to secure the services of hisold ally, the Lord of the Isles, who had been again brought intosubjection in the interval of peace, and who now joined in the nationalpreparations for war with England. But there was still a rebel Earl ofDouglas with whom to plot, and Edward was fortunate in obtaining theco-operation of the Duke of Albany, brother of James III, who had beenexiled in 1479. Albany and Edward made a treaty in 1482, in which theformer styled himself "Alexander, King of Scotland", and promised to dohomage to Edward when he should obtain his throne. The only importantevents of the war are the recapture of Berwick, in August, 1482, and aninvasion of Scotland by the Duke of Gloucester. Berwick was never againin Scottish hands. Albany was unable to carry out the revolutioncontemplated in his treaty with Edward IV; but he was reinstated, andbecame for three months Lieutenant-General of the Realm of Scotland. InMarch, 1482-83, he resigned this office, and, after a brief interval, inwhich he was reconciled to King James, was again forfeited in July, 1483. Edward IV had died on the 9th of April, and Albany was unable toobtain any English aid. Along with the Earl of Douglas he made anattempt upon Scotland, but was defeated at Lochmaben in July, 1484. Thereafter, both he and his ally pass out of the story: Douglas died aprisoner in 1488; Albany escaped to France, where he was killed at atournament in 1485; he left a son who was to take a great part inScottish politics during the minority of James V. 

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

The new king, James IV, was young, brave, and ambitious. He wasspecially interested in the navy, and in the commercial prosperity ofScotland. It was scarcely possible that, in this way, difficulties withEngland could be avoided, for Henry VII was engaged in developingEnglish trade, and encouraged English shipping. Accordingly, we findthat, while the two countries were still nominally at peace, they wereengaged in a naval warfare. Scotland was fortunate in the possession ofsome great sea-captains, notable among whom were Sir Andrew Wood and SirAndrew Barton. [59] In 1489, Sir Andrew Wood, with two ships, the _YellowCarvel_ and the _Flower_, inflicted a severe defeat upon five Englishvessels which were engaged in a piratical expedition in the Firth ofForth. Henry VII, in great wrath, sent Stephen Bull, with "three greatships, well-manned, well-victualled, and well-artilleried", to revengethe honour of the English navy, and after a severe fight Bull and hisvessels were captured by the Scots. There was thus considerableirritation on both sides, and while the veteran intriguer, the Duchessof Burgundy, attempted to obtain James's assistance for the pretender, Perkin Warbeck, the pseudo-Duke of York, Henry entered into a compactwith Archibald, Earl of Angus, well-known to readers of _Marmion_. Thetreachery of Angus led, however, to no immediate result, and peace wasmaintained till 1495, although the French alliance was confirmed in1491. The rupture of 1495 was due solely to the desire of James to aidMaximilian in the attempt to dethrone Henry VII in the interests ofWarbeck. Henry, on his part, made every effort to retain the friendshipof the Scottish king, and offered a marriage alliance with his eldestdaughter, Margaret. James, however, was determined to strike a blow forhis protegé, and in November, 1495, Warbeck landed in Scotland, wasreceived with great honour, assigned a pension, and wedded to the LadyKatharine Gordon, daughter of the greatest northern lord, the Earl ofHuntly. In the following April, Ferdinand and Isabella, who weredesirous of separating Scotland from France, tried to dissuade Jamesfrom supporting Warbeck, and offered him a daughter in marriage, although the only available Spanish princess was already promised toPrince Arthur of England. But all efforts to avoid war were of no avail, and in September, 1496, James marched into England, ravaged the Englishborders, and returned to Scotland. The English replied by small borderforays, but James's enthusiasm for his guest rapidly cooled; in July, 1497, Warbeck left Scotland. James did not immediately make peace, holding himself possibly in readiness in the event of Warbeck'sattaining any success. In August he again invaded England, and attackedNorham Castle, provoking a counter-invasion of Scotland by the Earl ofSurrey. In September, Warbeck was captured, and, in the same month, atruce was arranged between Scotland and England, by the Peace of Aytoun. There was, in the following year, an unimportant border skirmish; butwith the Peace of Aytoun ended this attempt of the Scots to support apretender to the English crown. The first Scottish interference in thetroubles of Lancaster and York had been on behalf of the House ofLancaster; the story is ended with this Yorkist intrigue. When nextthere arose circumstances in any way similar, the sympathies of theScots were enlisted on the side of their own Royal House of Stuart. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[Footnote 54: Cf. App. B. ]

[Footnote 55: _The Clan Donald_, vol. I, p. 154. The Mackenzies werealso against the Celtic hero. ]

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER VII

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ENGLISH ALLIANCE

1500-1542

When, in 1501, negotiations were in progress for the marriage of JamesIV to Margaret Tudor, Polydore Virgil tells us that the English Councilraised the objection that Margaret or her descendants might succeed tothe throne of England. "If it should fall out so, " said Henry, "therealm of England will suffer no evil, since it will not be the additionof England to Scotland, but of Scotland to England. " It is obvious thatthe English had every reason for desiring to stop the irritatingopposition of the Scots, which, while it never seriously endangered therealm, was frequently a cause of annoyance, and which hampered theefforts of English diplomacy. The Scots, on the other hand, wereseparated from the English by the memories of two centuries of constantwarfare, and they were bound by many ties to the enemies of England. Theonly King of Scots, since Alexander III, who had been on friendly termswith England, was James III, and his enemies had used the fact as aweapon against him. His successor had already twice refused theproffered English alliance, and when he at length accepted Henry'spersistent proposal and the thrice-offered English princess, it was onlyafter much hesitation and upon certain strict conditions. No Englishmenwere to enter Scotland "without letters commendatory of their ownsovereign lord or safe conduct of his Warden of the Marches". Themarriage, though not especially flattering to the dignity of a monarchwho had been encouraged to hope for the hand of a daughter of Spain, wasnotable as involving a recognition (the first since the Treaty ofNorthampton) of the King of Scots as an independent sovereign. On the8th of August, 1503, Margaret was married to James in the chapel ofHolyrood. She was received with great rejoicing; the poet Dunbar, whom arecent visit to London had convinced that the English capital, with its"beryl streamis pleasant . .. Where many a swan doth swim with wingisfair", was "the flower of cities all", wrote the well-known poem on theUnion of the Thistle and the Rose to welcome this second EnglishMargaret to Scotland. But the time was not yet ripe for any real unionof the Thistle and the Rose. Peace continued till the death of HenryVII; but during these years England was never at war with France. Jamesthreatened war with England in April, 1505, in the interests of the Dukeof Gueldres; in 1508, he declined to give an understanding that he wouldnot renew the old league with France, and he refused to be drawn, byPope Julius II, into an attitude of opposition to that country. Evenbefore the death of Henry VII, in 1509, there were troubles with regardto the borders, and it was evident that the "perpetual peace" arrangedby the treaty of marriage was a sheer impossibility. 

Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of England in April, 1509; threeyears and five months later, in September, 1513, was fought the battleof Flodden. The causes may soon be told. They fall under three heads. James and Henry were alike headstrong and impetuous, and they were alikeambitious of playing a considerable part in European affairs. They were, moreover, brothers-in-law, and, in the division of the inheritance ofHenry VII, the King of England had, with characteristic Tudor avarice, retained jewels and other property which had been left to his sister, the Queen of Scots. In the second place, the ancient jealousies wereagain roused by disputes on the borders, and by naval warfare. James hadlong been engaged in "the building of a fleet for the protection of ourshores"; in 1511, he had built the _Great Michael_, for which, it wassaid, the woods of Fife had been wasted. The Scottish fleet wasfrequently involved in quarrels with Henry's ships, and in August, 1511, the English took two Scottish vessels, which they alleged to be pirates, and Andrew Barton was slain in the fighting. James demanded redress, but, says Hall, "the King of England wrote with brotherly salutationsto the King of Scots of the robberies and evil doings of Andrew Barton;and that it became not one prince to lay a breach of a league to anotherprince, in doing justice upon a pirate or thief". [60] These personalirritations and petty troubles might have proved harmless, and, had noEuropean complications intervened, it is possible that there might have"from Fate's dark book a leaf been torn", the leaf which tells ofFlodden Field. But, in 1511, Julius II formed the Holy League againstFrance, and by the end of the year it included Spain, Austria, andEngland. The formation of a united Europe against the ancient ally ofScotland thoroughly alarmed James. It was true that, at the moment, England was willing to be friendly; but, should France be subdued, whither might Scotland look for help in the future? James used everyeffort to prevent the League from carrying out their project; heattempted to form a coalition of Denmark, France, and Scotland, andwrote to his uncle, the King of Denmark, urging him to declare for theMost Christian King. He wrote Henry offering to "pardon all the damagedone to us and our kingdom, the capture of our merchant ships, theslaughter and imprisonment of our subjects", if only Henry would"maintain the universal concord of the Church". He made a vigorousappeal to the pope himself, beseeching him to keep the peace. Hisefforts were, of course, futile, nor was France in such extreme dangeras he supposed. But the chance of proving himself the saviour of Franceappealed strongly to him, and, when there came to him, in the spring of1513, a message from the Queen of France, couched in the bygone languageof chivalry, and urging him, as her knight, to break a lance for her onEnglish soil, James could no longer hesitate. Henry persevered in hiswarlike measures against France, and James, after one more despairingeffort to act as mediator, began his preparations for an invasion ofEngland. His wisest counsellors were strongly opposed to war: mostprominent among them was his father's faithful servant, BishopElphinstone, the founder of the University of Aberdeen. Elphinstone wasa saint, a scholar, and a statesman, and he was probably the only man inScotland who could influence the king. During the discussion of theFrench alliance he urged delay, but was overborne by the impetuouspatriotism of the younger nobles, whose voice was, as ever, for war. So, war it was. Bitter letters of defiance passed between the two kings, and, in August, 1513, James led his army over the border. Lowlanders, Highlanders, and Islesmen had alike rallied round his banner; once againwe find the "true Scots leagued", not "with", but against "the Saxonsfarther off". The Scots took Norham Castle and some neighbouringstrongholds to prevent their affording protection to the English, andthen occupied a strong position on Flodden Edge. The Earl of Surrey, whowas in command of the English army, challenged James to a pitchedbattle, and James accepted the challenge. Meanwhile, Surrey completelyoutmanoeuvred the King of Scots, crossing the Till and marchingnorthwards so as to get between James and Scotland. James seems to havebeen quite unsuspicious of this movement, which was protected by somerising ground. The Scots had failed to learn the necessity of scouting. Surrey, when he had gained his end, recrossed the Till, and made a marchdirectly southwards upon Flodden. James cannot have been afraid oflosing his communications, for his force was well-provisioned, andSurrey was bound by the terms of his own challenge to fight immediately;but he decided to abandon Flodden Edge for the lower ridge of Brankston, and in a cloud of smoke, which not only rendered the Scots invisible tothe enemy but likewise concealed the enemy from the Scots, King Jamesand his army rushed upon the English. The battle began with artillery, the superiority of the English in which forced the Scots to come toclose quarters. Then

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

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

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

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

 "No one failed him; he is keeping Royal state and semblance still", they had lost the best and bravest of the land. Scarcely a family recordbut tells of an ancestor slain at Flodden, and many laments have comedown to us for "The Flowers of the Forest". But, although the disasterwas overwhelming, and the loss seemed irreparable at the time, thoughthe defeat at Flodden was not less decisive than the victory ofBannockburn, the name of Flodden, notwithstanding all this, recalls butan incident in our annals. Bannockburn is an incident in Englishhistory, but it is the great turning-point in the story of Scotland; thehistorian cannot regard Flodden as more than incidental to both. 

When James V succeeded his father he was but one year old, and hisguardian, in accordance with the desire of James IV, was thequeen-mother, Margaret Tudor. Her subsequent career is one long tale ofintrigue, too elaborate and intricate to require a full recapitulationhere. The war lingered on, in a desultory fashion, till May, 1515. LordDacre ravaged the borders, and the Scots replied by a raid into England;but there is nothing of any interest to relate. From the accession ofFrancis I, in 1515, the condition of politics in Scotland, as of allEurope, was influenced and at times dominated by his rivalry with theEmperor. The unwonted desire of France for peace and alliance withEngland placed the Scots in a position of considerable difficulty, andthe difficulty was accentuated by the more than usually distracted stateof the country during the minority of the king. In August, 1514, Margaret (who had in the preceding April given birth to a posthumouschild to James IV) was married to the Earl of Angus, the grandson ofArchibald Bell-the-Cat. It was felt that the sister of Henry VIII andthe wife of a Douglas could scarcely prove a suitable guardian of aStewart throne, and the Scots invited the Duke of Albany, son of thetraitor duke, and cousin of the late king, to come over to Scotland andundertake the government. Despite some efforts of Henry to prevent him, Albany came to Scotland in May, 1515. He was a French nobleman, possessed large estates in France, and, although he was, ere long, heir-presumptive to the Scottish throne, could speak no language butFrench. When he arrived in Scotland he found against him the party ofMargaret and Angus, while the Earls of Lennox and Arran were his ardentsupporters. The latter nobleman was the grandson of James II, being theson of the Princess Mary and James, Lord Hamilton, and he was, therefore, the next heir to the throne after Albany. The interests ofboth might be endangered should Margaret and Angus become all-powerful, and so we find them acting together for some time. Albany wasimmediately made regent of Scotland, and the care of the young king andhis brother, the baby Duke of Ross, was entrusted to him. It requiredforce to obtain possession of the children, but the regent succeeded indoing so in August, in time to defeat a scheme of Henry VIII forkidnapping the princes. The queen-mother fled to England, where, inOctober, she bore to Angus a daughter, Margaret, afterwards Countess ofLennox and mother of the unfortunate Darnley. She then proceeded to paya visit to Henry VIII. Meanwhile, in Scotland, Albany was finding manydifficulties. Arran was now in rebellion against him, and now inalliance with him. In May, 1516, Angus himself, leaving his imperiouswife in England, made terms with the regent. The infant Duke of Ross haddied in the end of 1515, and only the boy king stood between Albany andthe throne. In 1517 Albany returned to France to cement more closely theold alliance, and remained in France till 1521. Margaret immediatelyreturned to Scotland, and, had she behaved with any degree of wisdom, might have greatly strengthened her brother's tortuous Scottish policy. But a Tudor and a Douglas could not be other than an ill-matched pair, and Margaret was already tired of her husband. In 1518, she informedher brother that she desired to divorce Angus. Henry, whose ownmatrimonial adventures were still in the future, and to whom Angus wasuseful, scolded his sister in true Tudor fashion, and told her that, alike by the laws of God and man, she must stick to her husband. Aformal reconciliation took place, but, henceforth, Margaret's one desirewas to be free, and to this she subordinated all other considerations. In 1519, she came to an understanding with Arran, her husband'sbitterest foe, and in the summer of the same year we find Henrymarvelling much at the "tender letters" she sent to France, in which sheurged the return of Albany, whose absence from Scotland had been themain aim of English policy since Flodden. While Francis I and Henry VIIIwere on good terms, Albany was detained in France; but when, in 1521, their relations became strained, he returned to Scotland to find Angusin power. Scotland rallied round him, and in February, 1522, Angus, inturn, retired to France, while Henry VIII devoted his energies to theprevention of a marriage between his amorous sister and the handsomeAlbany. The regent led an army to the borders and began to organize aninvasion, for which the north of England was ill-prepared, but wasoutwitted by Henry's agent, Lord Dacre, who arranged an armistice whichhe had no authority to conclude. Albany then returned to France, andthe Scots, refusing Henry's offer of peace, had to suffer an invasion bySurrey, which was encouraged by Margaret, who was again on the Englishside. When Albany came back in September, 1523, he easily won over thefickle queen; but, after an unsuccessful attack on Wark, he leftScotland for ever in May, 1524. 

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

The fall of Angus was brought about by the conduct of the young kinghimself, who, tired of the tyranny in which he was held, and escapingfrom Edinburgh to Stirling, regained his freedom. Angus had to flee toEngland, and James passed under the influence of his mother and heryouthful husband. In 1528 he made a truce with England for five years. During these years James showed leanings towards the French alliance, while Henry was engaged in treasonable intrigues with Scottish nobles, and in fomenting border troubles. But the truce was renewed in 1533, anda more definite peace was made in 1534. Henry now attempted to enlistJames as an ally against Rome, and, by the irony of fate, offered him, as a temptation to become a Protestant, the hand of the Princess Mary. James refused to break with the pope, and negotiations for a meetingbetween the two kings fell through--fortunately, for Henry was preparedto kidnap James. The King of Scots arranged in 1536 to marry a daughterof the Duc de Vendome, but, on seeing her, behaved much as Henry VIIIwas to do in the case of Anne of Cleves, except that he definitelydeclined to wed her at all. Being in France, he made a proposal for thePrincess Madeleine, daughter of Francis I, and was married to her inJanuary, 1536-37. This step naturally annoyed Henry, who refused James apassport through England, on the ground that "no Scottish king had everentered England peacefully except as a vassal". So James returned by seawith his dying bride, and reached Scotland to find numerous troubles instore for him--among them, intrigues brought about by his mother's wishto obtain a divorce from her third husband. Madeleine died in July, 1537, and the relations between James and Henry VIII (now a widower bythe death of Jane Seymour) were further strained by the fact that nephewand uncle alike desired the hand of Mary of Guise, widow of the Duke deLongueville, who preferred her younger suitor and married him in thefollowing summer. These two French marriages are important as markingJames's final rejection of the path marked out for him by Henry VIII. The husband of a Guise could scarcely remain on good terms with theheretic King of England; but Henry, with true Tudor persistency, did notgive up hope of bending his nephew to his will, and spent the next fewyears in negotiating with James, in trying to alienate him from CardinalBeaton--the great supporter of the French alliance, --and in urging theKing of Scots to enrich himself at the expense of the Church. As late as1541, a meeting was arranged at York, whither Henry went, to find thathis nephew did not appear. James was probably wise, for we know thatHenry would not have scrupled to seize his person. Border troublesarose; Henry reasserted the old claim of homage and devised a scheme tokidnap James. Finally he sent the Earl of Angus, who had been living inEngland, with a force to invade Scotland, and this without the formalityof declaring war. Henry, in fact, was acting as a suzerain punishing avassal who had refused to appear when he was summoned. The Englishravaged the county of Roxburgh in 1542; the Scottish nobles declined tocross the border in what they asserted to be a French quarrel; and inNovember a small Scottish force was enclosed between Solway Moss and theriver Esk, and completely routed. The ignominy of this fresh disasterbroke the king's heart. On December 8th was born the hapless princesswho is known as _the_ Queen of Scots. The news brought small comfort tothe dying king, who was still mourning the sons he had lost in thepreceding year. "'Adieu, ' he said, 'farewell; it came with a lass and itwill pass with a lass. ' And so", adds Pitscottie, "he recommendedhimself to the mercy of Almighty God, and spake little from that timeforth, but turned his back unto his lords, and his face unto the wall. "Six days later the end came. With "a little smile of laughter", andkissing his hand to the nobles who stood round, he breathed his last. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

CHAPTER VIII

THE PARTING OF THE WAYS

1542-1568

Mary of Guise, thus for the second time a widow, was left the soleprotector of the infant queen, against the intrigues of Henry VIII andthe treachery of the House of Douglas. Fortunately, Margaret Tudor hadpredeceased her son in October, 1541, and her death left one disturbingelement the less. But the situation which the dowager had to face wasmuch more perplexed than that which confronted any other of the longline of Scottish queen-mothers. During the reign of James V the Reformeddoctrines had been rapidly spreading in Scotland. It was at one timepossible that James V might follow the example of Henry VIII, and aconsiderable section of his subjects would have welcomed the change. Hisdeath added recruits to the Protestant cause; the greater nobles nowstrongly desired an alienation of Church property, because they couldtake advantage of the royal minority to seize it for their privateadvantage. The English party no longer consisted only of outlawedtraitors; there were many honest Scots who felt that alliance with aProtestant kingdom must replace the old French league. The maininterest had come to be not nationality but religion, and Scotland mustdecide between France and England. The sixteenth century had already, inspite of all that had passed, made it evident that Scots and Englishcould live on terms of peace, and the reign of James IV, which hadwitnessed the first attempt at a perpetual alliance, was remembered asthe golden age of Scottish prosperity. The queen-mother was, by birthand by education, committed to the maintenance of the old religion andof the French alliance. The task was indeed difficult. Ultimate successwas rendered impossible by causes over which she possessed no kind ofcontrol; a temporary victory was rendered practicable only by the follyof Henry VIII. 

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

Hostilities broke out in the end of 1543, when the Scots, enraged byHenry's having attacked some Scottish shipping, declared the treatyannulled. In the spring of 1544, the Earl of Hertford conducted hisexpedition into Scotland. The "English Wooing", as it was called, tookthe form of a massacre without regard to age or sex. The instructionsgiven to Hertford by Henry and his council read like quotations from thebook of Joshua. He was to leave none remaining, where he encountered anyresistance. Hertford, abandoning the usual methods of English invaders, came by sea, took Leith, burned Edinburgh, and ravaged the Lothians. Lennox attempted to give up Dumbarton to the English, but his treacherywas discovered and he fled to England, where he married Margaret, thedaughter of Angus and niece of Henry VIII, by whom he became, in 1545, the father of Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who thus stood within thepossibility of succession, in his own right, to both kingdoms. Angus andhis brother, Sir George Douglas, seized the opportunity given them bythe misery caused by the English atrocities to make a move against Arranand Beaton, and seized the person of the queen-mother. But their successwas brought to an end by the meeting of a Parliament, summoned by Arran, in December, 1544, and the Douglases were reconciled and restored totheir estates, deeming this the most profitable step for themselves. Their breach with Henry was widened by the events of the next twomonths. A body of Englishmen, under Sir Ralph Eure, defeated Arran atMelrose, and desecrated the abbey, the sepulchre of the Douglas family. In revenge, Angus, along with Arran, fell upon the English at AncrumMoor in Roxburghshire, and inflicted on them a total defeat. This wasfollowed by a second invasion of Hertford (this time by land). Heravaged the borders in merciless fashion. A counter-invasion by an armyof Scots and French auxiliaries had proved futile owing to theincompetence or the treachery of Angus, who almost immediately returnedto the English side. About the same time a descendant of the Lord of theIsles whom James IV had crushed made an agreement with Henry, but was oflittle use to his cause. Beaton, after some successful fighting on theborders, in the end of 1545, went to St. Andrews in the beginning of1546. On the 1st March, George Wishart, who had been condemned on acharge of heresy, was hanged, and his body was burned at the stake. OnMay 29th the more fierce section of the Protestant party took theirrevenge by murdering the great cardinal in cold blood. We are not hereconcerned with Beaton's private character or with his treatment ofheretics. His public actions, as far as foreign relations are concerned, are marked by a consistent patriotic aim. He represented the long lineof Scottish churchmen who had striven to maintain the integrity of thekingdom and the alliance with France. He had shown great ability andtact, and in politics he had been much more honest than his opponents. But for his support of the queen-dowager in 1542-43, and but for hismaintaining the party to which Arran afterwards attached himself, it ispossible that Scotland might have passed under the yoke of Henry VIII in1543, instead of being peacefully united to England sixty years later. With him disappeared any remaining hope of the French party. "We may sayof old Catholic Scotland", writes Mr. Lang, "as said the dying Cardinal:'Fie, all is gone'. "

Though Beaton was dead, the effects of his work remained. He had savedthe situation at the crisis of December, 1542, and the insensate crueltyof Henry VIII had made it impossible that the Cardinal's work shouldfall to pieces at once. It seemed at first as if the only difference wasthat the castle of St. Andrews was held by the English party. Ten monthsafter Beaton's death, the small Protestant garrison was joined by JohnKnox, who was present when the regent succeeded, with help from France, in reducing the castle in July, 1547. Its defenders, including Knox, were sent as galley-slaves to France. Henry VIII had died in thepreceding January, but Hertford (now Protector Somerset) continued theScottish policy of the preceding reign. In the summer of 1547 he madehis third invasion of Scotland, marked by the usual barbarity. In thecourse of it, on 10th September, was fought the last battle betweenScots and English. Somerset met the Scots, under Arran, at Pinkiecleuch, near Edinburgh, and by the combined effect of artillery and a cavalrycharge, completely defeated them with great slaughter. The English, after some further devastation, returned home, and the Scots at onceentered into a treaty with France, which had been at war with Englandsince 1544. It was agreed that the young queen should marry the dauphin, the eldest son of Henry II. While negotiations were in progress, she wasplaced for safety, first in the priory of Inchmahome, an island in thelake of Menteith, and afterwards in Dumbarton Castle. In June, 1548, alarge number of French auxiliaries were sent to Scotland, and, in thebeginning of August, Mary was sent to France. The English failed tocapture her, and she landed about 13th August. The war lingered on till1550. The Scots gradually won back the strongholds which had been seizedby the English, and, although their French allies did good service, serious jealousies arose, which greatly weakened the position of theFrench party. Finally, Scotland was included in the peace made betweenEngland and France in 1550. 

All the time, the Reformed faith was rapidly gaining adherents, andwhen, in April, 1554, the queen-dowager succeeded Arran (now Duke ofChatelherault) as regent, she found the problem of governing Scotlandstill more difficult. The relations with England had, indeed, beensimplified by the accession of a Roman Catholic queen in England, butthe Spanish marriage of Mary Tudor made it difficult for a Guise toobtain any help from her. She continued the policy of obtaining Frenchlevies, and the irritation they caused was a considerable help to heropponents. Knox had returned to Scotland in 1555, and, except for avisit to Geneva in 1556-57, spent the rest of his life in his nativecountry. In 1557 was formed the powerful assembly of Protestant clergyand laymen who took the title of "the Congregation of the Lord", andsigned the National Covenant which aimed at the abolition of RomanCatholicism. Their hostility to the queen-regent was intensified by theevents of the year 1558-59. In April, 1558, Queen Mary was married tothe dauphin, and her husband received the crown-matrimonial and becameknown as King of Scots. Scotland seemed to have passed entirely underFrance. We know that there was some ground for the Protestant alarm, because the girl queen had been induced to sign documents whichtransferred her rights, in case of her decease without issue, to theKing of France and his heirs. These documents were in direct antagonismto the assurance given to the Scottish Parliament of the maintenance ofnational independence. The French alliance seemed to have gained acomplete triumph, while the shout of joy raised by its supporters wasreally the swan-song of the cause. Knox and the Congregation hadrendered it for ever impossible. 

Nor was it long before this became apparent. In November, 1558, MaryTudor died, and England was again Protestant. Henry II ordered Francisand Mary to assume the arms of England, in virtue of Mary's descent fromMargaret Tudor, which made her in Roman Catholic eyes the rightful Queenof England, Elizabeth being born out of wedlock. The Protestant Queen ofEngland had thus an additional motive for opposition to the governmentof Mary of Guise and her daughter. It was unfortunate for thequeen-regent that, at this particular juncture, she was entering intostrained relations with the Reformers. Hitherto she had succeeded insatisfying Knox himself; but, in the beginning of 1559, she adopted moresevere measures, and the lords of the congregation began to discuss atreasonable alliance with England, which proved the beginning of theend. The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis set the French government free topay greater attention to the progress of Scottish affairs, and Mary ofGuise forthwith denounced the leading Protestant preachers as heretics. It was much too late. The immediate result was the Perth riots of Mayand June, 1559, which involved the destruction of the religious houseswhich were the glory of the Fair City. The aspect of affairs was sothreatening that the regent came to terms, and promised that she wouldtake no vengeance on the people of Perth, and that she would not leave aFrench garrison in the town. The regent kept her word in garrisoning thetown with Scotsmen, but her introduction of a French bodyguard, inattendance on her own person, was regarded as a breach of her promise. The destruction of religious buildings continued, although Knox did hisendeavour to save the palace of Scone. The Protestants held St. Andrewswhile the regent entered into negotiations which they considered to be amere subterfuge for gaining time, and, on the 29th June, they marchedupon Edinburgh. In July, 1559, occurred the sudden death of Henry II;Francis and Mary succeeded, and the supreme power in France and inScotland passed to the House of Guise. The Protestants who had beenmaking overtures to Cecil and Elizabeth declared, in October, that theregent had been deposed. This bold step was justified by the helpreceived from England, and by the indignation caused by the excesses ofthe regent's French troops in Scotland. So far had religious emotionoutrun the sentiment of nationality that the Protestants were willing toadmit almost any English claim. The result of Elizabeth's treaty withthe rebels was that they were enabled to besiege Leith, by means of anEnglish fleet, while the regent took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. TheEnglish attack on Leith was unsuccessful, but the dangerous illness ofthe queen-mother led to the conclusion of peace. A truce was made oncondition that all foreign soldiers, French and English alike, shouldleave Scotland, and that the Scottish claim to the English throne shouldbe abandoned. On the 11th June, 1560, Mary died. The wisdom of thepolicy of her later years may be questioned, but her conduct during herwidowhood forms a strange contrast to that of her Tudor mother-in-law insimilar circumstances. It is probable that her intentions were honestenough, and that the Protestant indignation at her "falsehoods" wasbased on invincible misunderstanding. Her gracious charm of manner wasthe concomitant of a tolerance rare in the sixteenth century; and shedied at peace with all men, and surrounded by those who had been in armsagainst her, receiving "all her nobles with all pleasure, with apleasant countenance, and even embracing them with a kiss of love". 

Her death set the lords of the congregation free to carry out theirecclesiastical programme. In August Roman Catholicism was abolished bythe Scottish Parliament and the celebration of the mass forbidden, undersevere penalties. There remained the question of the ratification of theTreaty of Edinburgh, the final form of the agreement by which peace hadbeen made. The young Queen of Scots objected to the treaty on the groundthat it included a clause that "the most Christian King and Queen Mary, and each of them, abstain henceforth from using the title and bearingthe arms of the kingdom of England or of Ireland". [61] She interpretedthe word "henceforth" as involving an absolute renunciation of her claimto the English throne, and so prejudicing her succession, should shesurvive Elizabeth. Cecil had suggested to the Scots that it might beadvisable to raise the claim of the Lord James Stewart, an illegitimateson of James V, and afterwards Earl of Moray, to the throne, or tosupport that of the House of Hamilton. The Scots improved on thissuggestion, and proposed that Elizabeth should marry the Earl of Arran, the eldest son of the Duke of Chatelherault, who might succeed to thethrone. There were many reasons why Elizabeth should not wed theimbecile Arran, and it may safely be said that she never seriouslyconsidered the project although she continued to trifle with thesuggestion, which formed a useful form of intrigue against Mary. 

The situation was considerably altered by the death of Francis II, inDecember, 1560. That event was, on the whole, welcome to Elizabeth, forit destroyed the power of the Guises, and Mary Stuart[62] had now toface her Scottish difficulties without French aid. She was not on goodterms with her mother-in-law, Catherine de Medici, who now controlledthe destinies of France, and it was evident that she must accept thefact of the Scottish Reformation, and enter upon a conflict with thetheocratic tendencies of the Church and with the Scottish nobles whowere the pensioners of Elizabeth. On the other hand, although Francis IIwas dead, his widow survived, young, beautiful, charming, and a queen. The dissolution of her first marriage had removed an actual difficultyfrom the path of the English queen, but, after all, it only meant thatshe might be able to contract an alliance still more dangerous. As earlyas December 31st, 1560, Throckmorton warned Elizabeth that she must"have an eye to" the second marriage of Mary Stuart. [63] The Queen ofEngland had a choice of alternatives. She might prosecute the intriguewith the Earl of Arran, capture Mary on her way to Scotland, and boldlyadopt the position of the leader of Protestantism. There were, however, many difficulties, ecclesiastical, foreign, and personal, in such acourse. Arran was an impossible husband; Knox and the lords of thecongregation made good allies but bad subjects; and the inevitablestruggle with Spain would be precipitated. The other course was toattempt to win Mary's confidence, and to prevent her from contracting analliance with the Hapsburgs, which was probably what Elizabeth mostfeared. This was the alternative finally adopted by the Queen ofEngland; but, very characteristically, she did not immediately abandonthe other possibility. On the pretext that Mary refused to confirm theTreaty of Edinburgh, her cousin declined to grant her request for asafe-conduct from France to Scotland, and spoke of the Scottish queen interms which Mary took the first opportunity of resenting. "The queen, your mistress, " she remarked to the English ambassador who brought therefusal, "doth say that I am young and do lack experience. Indeed Iconfess I am younger than she is, and do want experience; but I have ageenough and experience to use myself towards my friends and kinsfolkfriendly and uprightly; and I trust my discretion shall not so fail methat my passion shall move me to use other language of her than itbecometh of a queen and my next kinswoman. "[64]

When, in August, 1561, Mary did sail from France to Scotland, Elizabethmade an effort to capture her. It was characteristically hesitating, andit succeeded only in giving Mary an impression of Elizabeth's hostility. Some months later Elizabeth imprisoned the Countess of Lennox, themother of Darnley, for giving God thanks because "when the queen'sships were almost near taking of the Scottish queen, there fell down amist from heaven that separated them and preserved her". [65] The arrivalof Mary in Scotland effectually put an end to the Arran intrigue, butthe girl-widow of scarcely nineteen years had many difficulties withwhich to contend. As a devout Roman Catholic, she had to face therelentless opposition of Knox and the congregation, who objected even toher private exercise of her own faith. As the representative of theFrench alliance, now but a dead cause, she was confronted by an Englishparty which included not only her avowed enemies but many of her real orpretended friends. Her brother, the Lord James Stewart, whom she madeEarl of Moray, and who guided the early policy of her reign, wasconstantly in Elizabeth's pay, as were most of her other advisers. Hersecretary, Maitland of Lethington, the most distinguished and the ablestScottish statesman of his day, had, as the fixed aim of his policy, agood understanding with England. Furthermore, she was disliked by allthe nobles who had seized upon the property of the Church and added itto their own possessions. Up to the age of twenty-five she had, by Scotslaw, the right of recalling all grants of land made during her minority, and her greedy nobles knew well that the victory of Roman Catholicismmeant the restoration of Church lands. Her relations with France wereuncertain, and the Guises found their attention fully occupied at home. As the next heir to the throne of England, she was bound to be verycareful in her dealings with Elizabeth. United by every tie of blood andsentiment to Rome and the Guises, she was forced, for reasons of policy, to remain on good terms with Protestantism and the Tudor Queen ofEngland. The first years of Mary's reign in Scotland were marked by thecontinuance of good relations between herself and her half-brother, whomshe entrusted with the government of the kingdom. In 1562 she suppressedthe most powerful Catholic noble in Scotland, the Earl of Huntly. Theresult of this policy was to raise an unfounded suspicion in England andSpain that the Queen of Scots was "no more devout towards Rome than forthe sustentation of her uncles". [66] The indignation felt at Mary'sconduct among Roman Catholics in England and in Spain may have been oneof the reasons for Elizabeth's adopting a more distinctly Protestantposition in 1562. In the Act of Supremacy of that year the first avowedreference is made to the authority used by Henry VIII and Edward VI, _i. E. _ the Supreme Headship of the Church. It at all events madeElizabeth's position less difficult, because Spain and Austria were notlikely to attack England in the interests of a queen whose orthodoxy wasdoubtful. 

Meanwhile Elizabeth was directing all her efforts to prevent Mary fromcontracting a second marriage, and, at all hazards, to secure that sheshould not marry Don Carlos of Spain or the Archduke of Austria. Herpersistent endeavours to bribe Scottish nobles were directed, withconsiderable acuteness, to creating an English party strong enough todeter foreign princes from "seeking upon a country so much at herdevotion". [67] She warned Mary that any alliance with "a mighty prince"would offend England[68] and so imperil her succession. Mary, on herpart, was attempting to obtain a recognition of her position as "secondperson" [heir presumptive], and she professed her willingness to takeElizabeth's advice in the all-important matter of her marriage. TheEnglish queen made various suggestions, and found objections to themall. Finally she proposed that Mary should marry her own favourite, Leicester, and a long correspondence followed. It was suggested that thetwo queens should have an interview, but this project fell through. Elizabeth, of course, was too fondly attached to Leicester to see himbecome the husband of her beautiful rival; Mary, on her part, despisedthe "new-made earl", and Leicester himself apologized to Mary'sambassador for the presumption of the proposal, "alleging the inventionof that proposition to have proceeded from Master Cecil, his secretenemy". [69] While the Leicester negotiations were in progress, the Earlof Lennox, who had been exiled in 1544, returned to Scotland with hisson Henry, Lord Darnley, a handsome youth, eighteen years of age. Asearly as May, 1564, Knox suspected that Mary intended to marryDarnley. [70] There is little doubt that it was a love-match; but therewere also political reasons, for Darnley was, after Mary herself, thenearest heir to Elizabeth's throne, and only the Hamiltons stood betweenhim and the crown of Scotland. He had been born and educated in England, as also had been his mother, the daughter of Angus and Margaret Tudor, and Elizabeth might have used him as against Mary's claim. That claimthe English queen refused to acknowledge, although, in the end of 1564, Murray and Maitland of Lethington tried their utmost to persuade her todo so. 

On the 29th July, 1565, Mary was married to Darnley in the chapel ofHolyrood. Elizabeth chose to take offence, and Murray raised arebellion. There are two stories of plots: there are hints of a schemeto capture Mary and Darnley; and Murray, on the other hand, alleged thatDarnley had entered into a conspiracy to kidnap him. It is, at allevents, certain that Murray raised a revolt and that the people ralliedto Mary, who drove her brother across the border. Elizabeth receivedMurray with coldness, and asked him "how he, being a rebel to her sisterof Scotland, durst take the boldness upon him to come within herrealm?"[71] But Murray, confident in Elizabeth's promise of aid, knewwhat this hypocritical outburst was worth, and the English queen soonafterwards wrote to Mary in his favour. The motive which Murray allegedfor his revolt was his fear for the true religion in view of Mary'smarriage to Darnley, nominally a Roman Catholic; but his position withregard to the Rizzio Bond renders it, as we shall see, somewhatdifficult to give him credit for sincerity. It is more likely that hewas ambitious of ruling the kingdom with Mary as a prisoner. AboutElizabeth's complicity there can be no doubt. [72]

Mary's troubles had only begun. On the 16th January, 1566, Randolph, theEnglish ambassador, wrote from Edinburgh: "I cannot tell what mislikingsof late there hath been between her grace and her husband; he pressesearnestly for the matrimonial crown, which she is loth hastily togrant". Darnley, in fact, had proved a vicious fool, and was possessedof a fool's ambition. Rizzio, Mary's Italian secretary, who had urgedthe Darnley marriage, strongly warned Mary against giving her husbandany real share in the government, and Darnley determined that Rizzioshould be "removed". [73] He therefore entered into a conspiracy with hisnatural enemies, the Scottish nobles, who professed to be willing tosecure the throne for this youth whom they despised and hated. The plotinvolved the murder of Rizzio, the imprisonment of Mary, thecrown-matrimonial for Darnley, and the return of Murray and hisaccomplices, who were still in exile. The English government was, ofcourse, privy to the scheme. [74] The murder was carried out, incircumstances of great brutality, on the night of the 9th March. Mary'scondition of health, "having then passed almost to the end of sevenmonths in our birth", renders the carrying out of the deed in herpresence, and while Rizzio was her guest, almost certainly an attemptupon the queen's own life. There were numberless opportunities ofslaying Rizzio elsewhere, and the ghastly details--the sudden appearanceof Ruthven, hollow, pale, just risen from a sick bed, the pistol of Kerof Faudonside, --are so rich in dramatic effect that one can scarcelydoubt what _dénouement_ was intended. The plot failed in its mainpurpose. Rizzio, indeed, was killed, and Murray made his appearance nextmorning and obtained forgiveness. The queen "embracit him and kissethim, alleging that in caice he had bene at hame, he wald not havesufferit her to have bene sa uncourterly handlit". But the success endedhere. Mary won over her husband, and together they escaped and fled toDunbar. Darnley deserted his accomplices, proclaimed his innocence, andstrongly urged the punishment of the murderers. They, of course, threwthemselves on the hospitality of Queen Elizabeth, who sent them money, and lied to Mary, [75] who did not put too much faith in her cousin'sassurances. On June 19th, a prince was born in Edinburgh Castle, but theevent brought about only a partial reconciliation between his unhappyparents. Mary was shamefully treated by her worthless husband, and inthe following November her nobles suggested to her the project of adivorce. Darnley, however, was not doomed to the fate which overtook hisdescendants, the life of a king without a crown. He had awakened theenmity of men whose feuds were blood-feuds, and the Rizzio conspiratorswere not likely to forgive the upstart youth whose inconstancy hadfoiled their plan for Mary's fall, and whose treachery had involved themin exile. Darnley had proved useless even as a tool for the nobles, hehad offended Mary and disgusted everybody in Scotland, and there weremany who were willing to do without him. At this point a new tool wasready to the hands of the discontented barons. The Earl of Bothwell, whether with Mary's consent or not, aspired to the queen's hand, anddevised a plan for the murder of Darnley. On the night of the 10thFebruary, 1566-67, the wretched boy, not yet twenty-one years of age, was strangled, [76] and the house in which he had been living was blownup with gunpowder. Public opinion accused Bothwell of the murder; he wastried and found innocent, and Parliament put its seal upon hisacquittal. On the 24th April he seized the person of the queen as shewas travelling from Linlithgow to Edinburgh, and Mary married him on the15th May. _Mense malum Maio nubere vulgus ait. _ The nobles almostimmediately raised a rebellion, professedly to deliver the queen fromthe thraldom of Bothwell. On June 15th she surrendered at Carberry Hill, and the nobles disregarded a pledge of loyalty to the queen given oncondition of her abandoning Bothwell, alleging that she was still incorrespondence with him. They now accused her of murdering her husband, and imprisoned her in Lochleven Castle. The whole affair is wrapped inmystery, but it is impossible to give the Earl of Morton and the othernobles any credit for honesty of purpose. There can be little doubt thatthey used Bothwell for their own ends, and, while they represented themurder as the result of a domestic conspiracy between the queen andBothwell, they afterwards, when quarrelling among themselves, hurled ateach other accusations of participation in the plot, and their leader, the Earl of Morton, died on the scaffold as a criminal put to death forthe murder of Darnley. This, of course, does not exclude the hypothesisof Mary's guilt, and while the view of Hume or of Mr. Froude could notnow be seriously advanced in its entirety, it is only right to say thata majority of historians are of opinion that she, at least, connived atthe murder. The question of her implication as a principal in the plotdepends upon the authenticity of the documents known as the "CasketLetters", which purported to be written by the queen to Bothwell, andwhich the insurgent lords afterwards produced as evidence againsther. [77]

Moray had left Scotland in the end of April. When he returned in thebeginning of August he found that the prisoner of Lochleven, to whom heowed his advancement and his earldom, had been forced to sign a deed ofabdication, nominating himself as regent for her infant son. On the 15thAugust he went to Lochleven and saw his sister, as he had done after themurder of Rizzio, when she was a prisoner in Holyrood. Till an hour pastmidnight, Elizabeth's pensioner preached to the unfortunate princess onrighteousness and judgment, leaving her "that night in hope of nothingbut of God's mercy". It was merely a threat; Mary's life was safe, forElizabeth, roused, for once, to a feeling of generosity, had forbiddenMoray to make any attempt on that. Next morning he graciously acceptedthe regency and left his sister's prison with her kisses on hislips. [78]

On the 2nd May, 1568, Mary escaped from Lochleven, and her brother atonce prepared a hostile force to meet her. Her army, composed largely ofProtestants, marched towards Dunbarton Castle, where they desired toplace the queen for safe keeping. The regent intercepted her atLangside, and inflicted a complete defeat upon her forces. Mary wasagain a fugitive, and her followers strongly urged her to take refuge inFrance. But Elizabeth had given her a promise of protection, and Mary, impelled by some fateful impulse, resolved to throw herself on the mercyof her kinswoman. [79] On the 16th day of May, her little boat crossedthe Solway. When the Queen of Scots, the daughter of the House of Guise, the widow of a monarch of the line of Valois, set foot on English soilas a suppliant for the protection which came to her only by death, thelast faint hope must have faded out of the hearts of the few who stilllonged for an independent Scotland, bound by gratitude and by ancienttradition to the ally who, more than once, had proved its salvation. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER IX

THE UNION OF THE CROWNS

1568-1625

When Mary fled to England, Elizabeth refused to see her, on the groundthat she ought first to clear herself from the suspicion of guilt inconnection with the murder of Darnley. In the end, Mary agreed that thecase should be submitted to the judgment of a commission appointed byElizabeth, and she appeared as prosecuting Moray and his friends asrebels and traitors. They defended themselves by bringing accusationsagainst Mary, and produced the Casket Letters and other documents insupport of their assertions. Mary asked to be brought face to face withher accusers; Elizabeth thought the claim "very reasonable", and refusedit. Mary then asked for copies of the letters produced as evidenceagainst her, and when her request was pressed upon Elizabeth's notice byLa Mothe Fénélon, the French ambassador, he was informed thatElizabeth's feelings had been hurt by Mary's accusing her ofpartiality. [80] Mary's commissioners then withdrew, and Elizabeth closedthe case, with the oracular decision that, "nothing has been adducedagainst the Earl of Moray and his adherents, as yet, that may impairtheir honour or allegiances; and, on the other part, there has beennothing sufficiently produced nor shown by them against the queen, theirsovereign, whereby the Queen of England should conceive or take any evilopinion of the queen, her good sister, for anything yet seen". SoElizabeth's "good sister" was subjected to a rigorous imprisonment, andthe Earl of Moray returned to Scotland, with an increased allowance ofEnglish gold. Henceforth the successive regents of Scotland had to guidetheir policy in accordance with Elizabeth's wishes. If they rebelled, she could always threaten to release her prisoner, and, once or twice inthe course of those long, weary years, Mary, whose nature was buoyant, actually dared to hope that Elizabeth would replace her on her throne. While Mary was plotting, and hope deferred was being succeeded by hopedeferred and vain illusion by vain illusion, events moved fast. InNovember, 1569, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland raised arebellion in her favour, which was easily suppressed. In January, 1570, Moray was assassinated at Linlithgow, and the Earl of Lennox, the fatherof Darnley, and the traitor of Mary's minority, succeeded to theregency, while Mary's Scottish supporters, who had continued to fightfor her desperate cause, were strengthened by the accession of Maitlandof Lethington, who, with Kirkaldy of Grange, also a recruit from theking's party, held Edinburgh Castle for the queen. Mary's hopes werefurther raised by the rebellion of the Duke of Norfolk, whose marriagewith the Scottish queen had been suggested in 1569. Letters from thepapal agent, Rudolfi, were discovered, and, in June, 1572, Norfolk wasput to death. Lennox had been killed in September, 1571, and hissuccessor, the Earl of Mar, was approached on the subject of takingMary's life. Elizabeth was unwilling to accept the responsibility forthe deed, and proposed to deliver up Mary to Mar, on the understandingthat she should be immediately killed. Mar, who was an honourable man, declined to listen to the proposal. But, after his death, which occurredin October, 1572, the new regent, the Earl of Morton, professed hiswillingness to undertake the accomplishment of the deed, if Elizabethwould openly acknowledge it. This she refused to do, and the plotfailed. It is characteristic that the last Douglas to play an importantpart in Scottish history should be the leading actor in such a plot asthis. 

The castle of Edinburgh fell in June, 1573, and with its surrenderpassed away Mary's last chance in Scotland. Morton held the regency till1578, when he was forced to resign, and the young king, now twelve yearsold, became the nominal ruler. In 1581, Morton was condemned to death as"airt and pairt" in Darnley's murder, and Elizabeth failed in herefforts to save him. Mary entered into negotiations with Elizabeth forher release and return to Scotland as joint-sovereign with James VI, andthe English queen played with her prisoner, while, all the time, she wasdiscussing projects for her death. The key to the policy of James is hisdesire to secure the succession to the English crown. To that end he waswilling to sacrifice all other considerations; nor had he, on othergrounds, any desire to share his throne with his mother. In 1585, henegotiated a league with England, which, however, contained a provisionthat "the said league be without prejudice in any sort to any formerleague or alliance betwixt this realm and any other auld friends andconfederates thereof, except only in matters of religion, wheranent wedo fully consent the league be defensive and offensive". As we are atthe era of religious wars, the latter section of the clause goes far toneutralize the former. Scotland was at last at the disposal of thesovereign of England. Even the tragedy of Fotheringay scarcely produceda passing coldness. On the 8th February, 1587, Elizabeth's warrant wascarried out, and Mary's head fell on the block. She was accused ofplotting for her own escape and against Elizabeth's life. It is probablethat she had so plotted, and it would be childish to express surprise orindignation. The English queen, on her part, had injured her kinswomantoo deeply to render it possible to be generous now. Mary had sent her, on her arrival in England, "a diamond jewel, which", as she afterwardsreminded her, "I received as a token from you, and with assurance to besuccoured against my rebels, and even that, on my retiring towards you, you would come to the very frontiers in order to assist me, which hadbeen confirmed to me by divers messengers". [81] Had the protection thuspromised been vouchsafed, it might have spared Elizabeth many years oftrouble. But it was now too late, and the relentless logic of eventsforced her to complete the tale of her treachery and injustice by a deedwhich she herself could not but regard as a crime. But while this excusemay be made for the deed itself, there can be no apology for the mannerof it. The Queen of England stooped to urge her servants to murder herkinswoman; when they refused, she was mean enough to contrive so as tothrow the responsibility upon her secretary, Davison. After Mary'sdeath, she wrote to King James and expressed her sincere regret athaving cut off the head of his mother by accident. James accepted theapology, and, in the following year, made preparations against theArmada. Had the son of Mary Stuart been otherwise constituted, it wouldscarcely have been safe for Elizabeth to persevere in the execution ofhis mother; an alliance between Scotland and Spain might have proveddangerous for England. But Elizabeth knew well the type of man with whomshe had to deal, and events proved that she was wise in her generation. And James, on his part, had his reward. Elizabeth died in March, 1603, and her successor was the King of Scots, who entered upon a heritage, which had been bought, in the view of his Catholic subjects, by theblood of his mother, and which was to claim as its next victim hissecond son. Within eighty-five years of his accession, his House hadlost not only their new kingdom, but their ancestral throne as well. Inall James's references to the Union, it is clear that he regarded thatevent from the point of view of the monarch; had it proved of as littlevalue to his subjects as to the Stuart line there would have been smallreason for remembering it to-day. The Union of England and Scotland wasone of the events most clearly fore-ordained by a benignant fate: but itis difficult to feel much sympathy for the son who would not risk itspostponement, when, by the possible sacrifice of his personal ambition, he might have saved the life of his mother. 

There are certain aspects of James's life in Scotland that explain hisfuture policy, and they are, therefore, important for our purpose. Inthe first place, he spent his days in one long struggle with thetheocratic Church system which had been brought to Scotland by Knox anddeveloped by his great successor, Andrew Melville. The Church Courts, local and central, had maintained the old ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and they dealt out justice with impartial hand. In all questions ofmorality, religion, education, and marriage the Kirk Session or thePresbytery or the General Assembly was all-powerful. The Church was byfar the most important factor in the national life. It interfered innumberless ways with legislative and executive functions: on oneoccasion King James consulted the Presbytery of Edinburgh about theraising of a force to suppress a rebellion, [82] and, as late as 1596, heapproached the General Assembly with reference to a tax, and promisedthat "his chamber doors sould be made patent to the meanest minister inScotland; there sould not be anie meane gentleman in Scotland moresubject to the good order and discipline of the Kirk than he wouldbe". [83] Andrew Melville had told him that "there is twa kings and twakingdomes in Scotland. Thair is Chryst Jesus the King and his Kingdomthe Kirk, whase subject King James the Saxt is: and of whase Kingdomnocht a King, nor a lord, nor a heid, bot a member. "[84] James had donehis utmost to assert his authority over the Church. He had tried toestablish Episcopacy in Scotland to replace the Presbyterian system, andhad succeeded only to a very limited extent. "Presbytery", he said, "agreeth as well with a king as God with the Devil. " So he went toEngland, not only prepared to welcome the episcopal form ofchurch-government and to graciously receive the episcopal adulation sofreely showered upon him, but also determined to suppress, at allhazards, "the proud Puritanes, who, claining to their Paritie, andcrying, 'We are all but vile wormes', yet will judge and give Law totheir king, but will be judged nor controlled by none". [85] "God'ssillie vassal" was Melville's summing-up of the royal character inJames's own presence. "God hath given us a Solomon", exulted the Bishopof Winchester, and he recorded the fact in print, that all the worldmight know. James was wrong in mistaking the English Puritans for theScottish Presbyterians. Alike in number, in influence, and in aim, hisnew subjects differed from his old enemies. English Puritanism hadalready proved unsuited to the genius of the nation, and it had given upall hope of the abolition of Episcopacy. The Millenary Petition askedonly some changes in the ritual of the Church and certain moderatereforms. Had James received their requests in a more reasonable spirit, he might have succeeded in reconciling, at all events, the more moderatesection of them to the Church, and at the very first it seemed as if hewere likely to win for himself the blessing of the peace-maker, whichhe was so eager to obtain. But just at this crisis he found the firstsymptoms of Parliamentary opposition, and here again his training inScotland interfered. The Church and the Church alone had opposed him inScotland; he had never discovered that a Parliament could be other thansubservient. [86] It was, therefore, natural for him to connect theParliamentary discontent with Puritan dissatisfaction. Scottish Puritanshad employed the General Assembly as their main weapon of offence; theirEnglish fellows evidently desired to use the House of Commons as anengine for similar purposes. Therefore said King James, "I shall makethem conform themselves, or I will harry them out of the land, or elsedo worse". So he "did worse", and prepared the way for the Puritanrevolution. If the English succession enabled the king to suppress theScottish Assembly, the Assembly had its revenge, for the fear of itbrought a snare, and James may justly be considered one of the foundersof English dissent. 

A violent hatred of the temporal claims of the Church also affectedJames's attitude to Roman Catholicism. His Catholic subjects in Scotlandhad not been in a position to do him any harm, and the son of MaryStuart could not but have some sympathy for his mother'sfellow-sufferers. Accordingly, we find him telling his first Parliament:"I acknowledge the Roman Church to be our Mother Church, althoughdefiled with some infirmities and corruption". But, after the GunpowderPlot, and when he was engaged in a controversy with Cardinal Perronabout the right of the pope to depose kings, he came to prove that thepope is Antichrist and "our Mother Church" none other than the ScarletWoman. His Scottish experience revealed clearly enough that the claimsof Rome and Geneva were identical in their essence. There is on recordan incident that will serve to illustrate his position. In 1615, theScottish Privy Council reported to him the case of a Jesuit, JohnOgilvie. He bade them examine Ogilvie: if he proved to be but a priestwho had said mass, he was to go into banishment; but if he was apractiser of sedition, let him die. The unfortunate priest showed in hisreply that he held the same view of the royal supremacy as did thePresbyterian clergy. It was enough: they hanged him. 

Once more, James's Irish policy seems to have been influenced by hisexperience of the Scottish Highlands. He had conceived the plan whichwas afterwards carried out in the Plantation of Ulster--"plantingcolonies among them of answerable inland subjects, that within shorttime may reforme and civilize the best-inclined among them; rooting outor transporting the barbarous or stubborne sort, and planting civilitiein their roomes". [87] Although James continued to carry on his effortsin this direction after 1603, yet it may be said that the Englishsuccession prevented his giving effect to his scheme, and that it alsointerfered with his intentions regarding the abolition of hereditaryjurisdictions, which remained to "wracke the whole land" till after theRising of 1745. 

On the 5th April, 1603, King James set out from Edinburgh to enter uponthe inheritance which had fallen to him "by right divine". His departuremade considerable changes in the condition of Scotland. The absence ofany fear of an outbreak of hostilities with the "auld enemy" was a greatboon to the borders, but there was little love lost between the twocountries. The union of the crowns did not, of course, affect theposition of Scotland to England in matters of trade, and beyond somethirty years of peace, James's ancient kingdom gained but little. KingJames, who possessed considerable powers of statesmanship, if not muchpractical wisdom, devised the impossible project of a union of thekingdoms in 1604. "What God hathe conjoyned", he said, "let no manseparate. I am the Husband, and all the whole Isle is my lawful wife. .. . I hope, therefore, that no man will be so unreasonable as to think thatI, that am a Christian King under the Gospel, should be a Polygamistand husband to two wives. " He desired to see a complete union--one king, one law, one Church. Scotland would, he trusted, "with time, become butas Cumberland and Northumberland and those other remote and northernshires". Commissioners were appointed, and in 1606 they produced ascheme which involved commercial equality except with regard to clothand meat, the exception being made by mutual consent. The discussion onthe Union question raised the subject of naturalization, and the rightsof the _post-nati_, _i. E. _ Scots born after James's accession to thethrone. The royal prerogative became involved in the discussion and atest case was prepared. Some land in England was bought for the infantgrandson of Lord Colvill, or Colvin, of Culross. An action was raisedagainst two defendants who refused him possession of the land, and theydefended themselves on the ground that the child, as an alien, could notpossess land in England. It was decided that he, as a natural-bornsubject of the King of Scotland, was also a subject of the King ofEngland. This decision, and the repeal of the laws treating Scotland asa hostile country, proved the only result of the negotiations for union. The English Parliament would not listen to any proposal for commercialequality, and the king had to abandon his cherished project. 

James had boasted to his English Parliament that, if they agreed tocommercial equality, the Scottish estates would, in three days, adoptEnglish law. It is doubtful if the acquiescence even of the ScottishParliament would have gone so far; but there can be no doubt that theEnglish succession had made James more powerful in Scotland than any ofhis predecessors had been. "Here I sit", he said, "and governe Scotlandwith my pen. I write and it is done, and by a clearke of the councell Igoverne Scotland now, which others could not doe by the sword. " Theboast was justified by the facts. The king's instructions to his PrivyCouncil, which formed the Scottish executive, are of the mostdictatorial description. James gives his orders in the tone of a man whois accustomed to unswerving obedience, and he does not hesitate toreprove his erring ministers in the severest terms of censure. The wholebusiness of Parliament was conducted by the Lords of the Articles, whorepresented the spiritual and temporal lords, and the Commons. All thebishops were the king's creatures, and by virtue of their position, entirely dependent on him. It was therefore arranged that the prelatesshould choose representatives of the temporal lords, and they took careto select men who supported the king's policy. The peers were allowed tochoose representatives of the bishops, and could not avoid electing theking's friends, while the representatives of the spiritual and temporallords choose men to appear for the small barons and the burgesses. Inthis way the efficient power of Parliament was completely monopolized, and none dared to dispute the king's will. Even the Church was reducedto an unwilling submission, which, from its very nature, could only betemporary. He forbade the meeting of a General Assembly; and theconvening of an Assembly at Aberdeen, in defiance of his command, in1605, served to give him an opportunity of imprisoning or banishing thePresbyterian leaders. He had to give up his scheme of abolishing thePresbyterian Church courts, and contented himself with engrafting on tothe existing system the institution of Episcopacy, which had practicallybeen in abeyance since 1560, although Scotland was never without itstitular prelates. Bishops were appointed in 1606; presbyteries andsynods were ordered to elect perpetual moderators, and the scheme wasdevised so that the moderator of almost every synod should be a bishop. The members of the Linlithgow Convention, which accepted this scheme, were specially summoned by the king, and it was in no sense a freeAssembly of the Church. But the royal power was, for the present, irresistible; in 1610 an Assembly which met at Glasgow establishedEpiscopacy, and its action was, in 1612, ratified by the ScotsParliament. Three of the Scottish bishops[88] received English orders, to ensure the succession; but, to prevent any claim of superiority, neither English primate took any part in the ceremony. In 1616, theAssembly met at Aberdeen, and the king made five proposals, which areknown as the Five Articles of Perth, from their adoption there in 1618. The Five Articles included:--(1) The Eucharist to be received kneeling;(2) the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to sickpersons in private houses; (3) the administration of Baptism in privatehouses in cases of necessity; (4) the recognition of Christmas, GoodFriday, Easter, and Pentecost; and (5) the episcopal benediction. Scottish opposition centred round the first article, which was notwelcomed even by the Episcopalian party, and it required the king'spersonal interference to enforce it in Holyrood Chapel, during his stayin Edinburgh in 1616-17. His proposal to erect in the chapelrepresentations of patriarchs and saints shocked even the bishops, onwhose remonstrances he withdrew his orders, incidentally administering asevere rebuke to the recalcitrant prelates, "at whose ignorance he couldnot but wonder". Not till the following year were the articles acceptedat Perth, under fear of the royal displeasure, and considerabledifficulty was experienced in enforcing them. 

The only other Scottish measures of James's reign that demand mentionare his attempts to carry out his policy of plantations in theHighlands. As a whole, the scheme failed, and was productive ofconsiderable misery, but here and there it succeeded, and it tended toincrease the power of the government. The end of the reign is alsoremarkable for attempts at Scottish colonization, resulting in thefoundation of Nova Scotia, and in the Plantation of Ulster. 

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 85: _Basilikon Doron_. ]

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

[Footnote 87: _Basilikon Doron_. ]

[Footnote 88: The old controversy about the relation of the Church ofScotland to the sees of York and Canterbury had been finally settled, in1474, by the erection of St. Andrews into a metropolitan see. Glasgowwas made an archbishopric in 1492. ]

CHAPTER X

"THE TROUBLES IN SCOTLAND"

The new reign had scarcely begun when trouble arose between King Charlesand his Scottish subjects. On the one hand, he alienated the nobles byan attempt, partially successful, to secure for the Church some of itsancient revenues. More serious still was his endeavour to bring theScottish Church into uniformity with the usage of the Church of England. James had understood that any further attempt to alter the service orconstitution of the Church of Scotland would infallibly lead to serioustrouble. He had given up an intention of introducing a new prayer-bookto supersede the "Book of Common Order", known as "Knox's Liturgy", which was employed in the Church, though not to the exclusion ofextemporary prayers. When Charles came to Edinburgh to be crowned, in1633, he made a further attempt in this direction, and, although he hadto postpone the introduction of this particular change, he left a mostuneasy feeling, not only among the Presbyterians, but also among thebishops themselves. An altar was erected in Holyrood Chapel, and behindit was a crucifix, before which the clergy made genuflexions. He erectedEdinburgh into a bishopric, with the Collegiate Church of St. Giles fora cathedral, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, as they followed in rapidsuccession, gained the reputation of innovators and supporters of Laudand the English. Even more dangerous in its effect was a general orderfor the clergy to wear surplices. It was widely disobeyed, but itcreated very great alarm. 

In 1635, canons were issued for the Church of Scotland, which owed theirexistence to the dangerous meddling of Laud, now Archbishop ofCanterbury. James, who loved Episcopacy, had dreaded the influence ofLaud in Scotland; his fear was justified, for it was given to Laud tomake an Episcopal Church impossible north of the Tweed. Although certainof the Scottish bishops had expressed approval of these canons, theywere enjoined in the Church by royal authority, and the Scots, whosetheory of the rights of the Church was much more "high" than that ofLaud, would, on this account alone, have met them with resistance. Butthe canons used words and phrases which were intolerable to Scottishears. They spoke of a "chancel" and they commended auricular confession;they gave the Scottish bishops something like the authority of theirEnglish brethren, to the detriment of minister and kirk-session, andthey made the use of a new prayer-book compulsory, and forbade anyobjection to it. Two years elapsed before the book was actuallyintroduced. It was English, and it had been forced upon the Church bythe State, and, worse than this, it was associated with the hated nameof Laud and with his suspected designs upon the Protestant religion. When it came it was found to follow the English prayer-book almostexactly; but such changes as there were seemed suspicious in theextreme. In the communion service the rubric preceding the prayer ofconsecration read thus: "During the time of consecration he shall standat such a part of the holy table where he may with the more ease anddecency use both his hands". The reference to both hands was suspectedto mean the Elevation of the Host, and this suspicion was confirmed bythe omission of the sentences "Take and eat this in remembrance thatChrist died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, withthanksgiving", and "Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood wasshed for thee, and be thankful", from the words of administration. Onmore general grounds, too, strong objection was taken to the book, andon July 23rd, 1637, there occurred the famous riot in St. Giles's, whichhas become connected with the name of Jennie Geddes. The objection wasnot, in any sense, to read prayers in themselves; the Book of CommonOrder had been read in St. Giles's that very morning. The difficulty layin the particular book, and it is notable that the cries which have comedown to us as prefacing the riot are all indicative of a suspectedattempt to reintroduce Roman Catholicism. "The mass is entered upon us. ""Baal is in the Church. " "Darest thou sing mass in my lug. "

The Privy Council was negligent in punishing the rioters, and it soonbecame evident that they had public opinion behind them. AlexanderHenderson, who ministered to a Fifeshire congregation in the old Normanchurch of Leuchars, and whom the king was to meet in othercircumstances, issued a respectful and moderate protest, in which he didnot deal with the particular points at issue, but asserted theecclesiastical independence of Scotland. Riots continued to disturbEdinburgh, and Charles was impotent to suppress them. He refusedHenderson's "Supplication"; its supporters drew up a second petitionboldly asking that the bishops should be tried as the real authors ofthe disturbances, and, in November, 1637, they chose a body ofcommissioners to represent them. These commissioners, and somesub-committees of them, are known in Scottish history as The Tables, thename being applied to several different bodies. Charles replied to thesecond petition in wrathful terms, and it was decided to revive theNational Covenant of 1581, to renounce popery. It had been drawn upunder fear of a popish plot, and was itself an expansion of the Covenantof 1557. To it was now added a declaration suited to immediatenecessities. On the 1st and 2nd March, 1638, it was signed by vastmultitudes in the churchyard of Greyfriars, in Edinburgh, and itcontinued to be signed, sometimes under pressure, throughout the land. Hamilton, Charles's agent in Scotland, was quite unable to meet thesituation. In the end Charles had to agree to the meeting of a GeneralAssembly in Glasgow, in November, 1638. Hamilton, the High Commissioner, attempted to obtain the ejection of laymen and to create a divisionamong his opponents. When he failed in this, he dissolved the Assemblyin the king's name. At the instance of Henderson, supported by Argyll, the Assembly refused to acknowledge itself dissolved, and proceeded toabolish Episcopacy and re-establish the Presbyterian form of Churchgovernment. 

The king, on his part, began to concert measures with his Privy Councilfor the subjugation of Scotland. The "Committee on Scotch affairs" ofthe English Privy Council was obviously unconstitutional, but matterswere fast drifting towards civil war, and it was no time to considerconstitutional niceties. It is much more important that the committeewas divided and useless. Wentworth, writing from Ireland, advised theking to maintain a firm attitude, but not to provoke an outbreak of warat so inconvenient a moment. Charles again attempted a compromise. Heoffered to withdraw Laud's unlucky service-book, the new canons, andeven the Articles of Perth, and to limit the power of the bishops; andhe asked the people to sign the Covenant of 1580-81, on which the newCovenant was based, but which, of course, contained no reference toimmediate difficulties. But it was too late; the sentiment of religiousindependence had become united to the old feeling of nationalindependence, and war was inevitable. The Scots were fortunate in theirleaders. In the end of 1638 there returned to Scotland from Germany, Alexander Leslie, the great soldier who had fought for Protestantismunder Gustavus Adolphus. In February, 1639, he took command of the armyof the Covenant, which had been largely reinforced by veterans from theThirty Years' War. A more attractive personality than Leslie's was thatof the young Earl of Montrose, who had attached himself with enthusiasmto the national cause, and had attempted to convert the people ofAberdeen to covenanting principles. Charles, on his part, asserted thathis throne was in danger, and that the Scottish preparations constituteda menace to the kingdom of England, and so attempted to rouse enthusiasmfor himself. 

While the king was preparing to reinforce the loyalist Marquis of Huntlyat Aberdeen, the news came that the garrisons of Edinburgh and Dunbartonhad surrendered to the insurgents (March, 1639), who, a few days later, seized the regalia at Dalkeith. On March 30th Aberdeen fell into thehands of Montrose and Leslie, and Huntly was soon practically aprisoner. Charles had by this time reached York, and it was now evidentthat he had entirely miscalculated the strength of the enemy. He hadhoped to subdue Scotland through Hamilton and Huntly; he now saw that, if Scotland was to be conquered at all, it must be through an Englisharmy. The first blood in the Civil War was shed near Turriff, inAberdeenshire (May 14th, 1639), where some of Huntly's supporters gaineda slight success, after which the city of Aberdeen fell into their handsfor some ten days, when it was reoccupied by the Covenanters. MeanwhileCharles and Leslie had been facing each other near Berwick; the formerunwilling to risk his raw levies against Leslie's trained soldiers, while the Covenanters were not desirous of entering into a war in whichthey might find the whole strength of England ultimately arrayed againstthem. On the 18th June the two parties entered into the Pacification ofBerwick, in accordance with which both armies were to be disbanded, andCharles promised to allow a free General Assembly and a free Parliamentto govern Scotland. While the pacification was being signed at Berwick, a battle was in progress at Aberdeen, where, on June 18th-19th, Montrosegained a victory, at the Bridge of Dee, over the Earl of Aboyne, theeldest son of the Marquis of Huntly. For the third time, Montrosespared the city of Aberdeen, and Scotland settled down to a brief periodof peace. 

It was clear that the pacification was only a truce, for no exact termshad been agreed upon, and both sides thoroughly distrusted each other. Disputes immediately arose about the constitution of Parliament and theAssembly. Charles refused to rescind the acts constituting Episcopacylegal, and it is clear that he never intended to keep his promise to theScots, who, on their part, were too suspicious of his good faith tocarry out their part of the agreement. In the end Assembly andParliament alike abolished Episcopacy, and Parliament passed severalacts to ensure its own supremacy. Charles refused to assent to theseActs, and prorogued Parliament from November, 1639, to June, 1640. Theresult of the king's evident disinclination to implement the Treaty ofBerwick, was an interesting attempt to undo the work of the precedingcentury by a reversion to the old policy of a French alliance. It was, of course, impossible thus to turn back, and Richelieu met the Scottishoffers with a decisive rebuff, while the fact of these treasonablenegotiations became known to Charles, and embittered the already bittercontroversy. A new attempt at negotiation failed, and in June, 1640, thesecond Bishops' War began. As usual the north suffered, especially fromthe fierceness of the Earl of Argyll, who disliked the more moderatepolicy advocated by Montrose. The king's English difficulties wereincreasing, and the Scots had now many sympathizers among Englishmen, who looked upon them as fighting for the same cause of Protestantism andconstitutional government. 

In August the Scots invaded England for the first time since theminority of Mary Stuart, and, on August 28th, they defeated a portion ofthe king's army at Newburn, a ford near Newcastle. The town wasimmediately occupied, and from Newcastle the invaders advanced to theTees and seized Durham. Charles was forced, a second time, to give way. In October he agreed that the Scottish army of occupation should be paiduntil the English Parliament, which he was about to summon, might make afinal arrangement. By Parliament alone could the Scots be paid, andthus, by a strange irony of fate, the occupation of the northerncounties by a Scottish army was, for the time, the best guarantee ofEnglish liberties. There were, however, points on which the Scottisharmy and the English Parliament found it difficult to agree, and it wasnot till August, 1641, that the Scots recrossed the Tweed. Charles, whohoped to enlist the sympathy of the Scots in his struggle with theEnglish Parliament, paid a second visit to Edinburgh, where he gave hisassent to the abolition of Episcopacy, and to the repeal of the Actswhich had given rise to the dispute. But it became evident that theParliament, and not the king, was to bear rule in Scotland. The king'sstay in Edinburgh was marked by what is known as "The Incident", amysterious plot to capture Argyll and Hamilton, who was now the ally ofArgyll. It was supposed that the king was cognizant of the plan; he hadto defend himself from the accusation, and was declared guiltless in thematter. At the time of the Incident, Argyll fled, but soon returned, andCharles had to yield to him in all things. Parliament, under Argyll, appointed all officials. Argyll himself was made a marquis, and Lesliebecame Earl of Leven. There was a general amnesty, and among those whoobtained their liberty was the Earl of Montrose, who had been imprisonedin May for making terms with the king. In November, 1641, Charles leftScotland for London, to face the English Parliament. He can scarcelyhave hoped for Scottish aid, and when, a few months later, he was on theverge of hostilities and made a request for assistance, it was twicerefused. 

With the general course of the Great Rebellion we are not hereconcerned. It is important for our purpose to notice that it affectedScotland in two ways. The course of events converted, on the one hand, the Episcopalian party into a Royalist party, and placed at its head theCovenanter, Montrose. On the other hand, the National Covenant wastransformed into the Solemn League and Covenant, which had for its aimthe establishment of Presbytery in England as well as in Scotland. This"will o' the wisp" of covenanted uniformity led the Scottish Church intosomewhat strange places. As early as January, 1643, Montrose had offeredto strike a blow for the king in Scotland, but Charles would not takethe responsibility of beginning the strife. In August negotiations beganfor the extension of the covenant to England. The Solemn League andCovenant, which provided for the abolition of Episcopacy in England, wasadopted by the Convention of Estates at Edinburgh on August 17th, and inthe following month it passed both Houses of Parliament in England, andwas taken both by the House of Commons and by the Assembly of Divines atWestminster. Its only ultimate results were the substitution in Scotlandof the Westminster Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory forPublic Worship, in place of the older Scottish documents, and theapproximation of Scottish Presbytery to English Puritanism, involving adistinct departure from the ideals of the Scottish Reformation, and theintroduction into Scotland of a form of Sabbatarianism which has come tobe regarded as distinctively Scottish, but which owes its origin, historically, to English Nonconformity. [89] Its immediate effects werethe short-lived predominance of Presbytery in England, and the crossingof the Tweed, in January, 1644, by a Scottish army in the pay of theEnglish Parliament. The part taken by the Scottish army in the war wasnot unimportant. In April they aided Fairfax in the siege of York; inJuly they took an honourable share in the battle of Marston Moor; theywere responsible for the Uxbridge proposals which provided for peace onthe basis of a Presbyterian settlement. In June, 1645, they advancedsouthwards to Mansfield, and, after the surrender of Carlisle, on June28th, and its occupation by a Scottish garrison, Leven proceeded toAlcester and thereafter laid siege to Hereford, an attempt which eventsin Scotland forced him to abandon. Finally, in May, 1646, the kingsurrendered to the Scottish army at Newark, which had been invested byLeven since the preceding November. 

While the Scottish army was thus aiding the Parliamentary cause, theEarl of Montrose had created an important diversion on the king's sidein Scotland itself. In April, 1644, he occupied Dumfries and made anunsuccessful attempt on the Scottish Lowlands. In May Charles conferredon him a marquisate, and in August he prepared to renew the struggle. Tohis old foes, the Gordons, he first looked for assistance, but wasfinally compelled to raise his forces in the Highlands, and to obtainIrish aid. On September 1st he gained his first victory at Tippermuir, near Perth, on which he had marched with his Highland host. From Perthhe marched on Aberdeen, gaining some reinforcements from the northerngentry, and in particular from the Earl of Airlie. Once again Montrosefought a battle which delivered the city of Aberdeen into his power(September 13th), but now he was unwilling or unable to protect thecaptured town, which was cruelly ravaged. From Aberdeen Montroseproceeded by Rothiemurchus to Blair Athole, but suddenly turnedbackwards to Aberdeenshire, where he defended Fyvie Castle, slipped pastArgyll, and again reached Blair Athole. The enemies of Argyll crowded tohis banner, but his army was still small when, in December, 1644, hemade his descent upon Argyll, and reached the castle of Inverary. FromInverary he went northwards, ravaging as he went, till he found, at LochNess, that there was an army of 5000 men under the Earl of Seaforthprepared to resist his advance, while Argyll was behind him atInverlochy. Although Argyll's army considerably outnumbered his own, Montrose turned southwards and made a rapid dash at Argyll's forces asthey lay at Inverlochy, and won a complete victory, the news of whichdispersed Seaforth's men and enabled Montrose to invite Charles to acountry which lay at his mercy. At Elgin he was joined by the heir ofthe Marquis of Huntly, his forces increased, and the excommunicationwhich the Church immediately published against him seemed of but littleimportance. On April 4th he seized Dundee, and on May 9th won a freshvictory at Auldearn, which was followed, in rapid succession, by avictory at Alford in July, and in August by the "crowning mercy" ofKilsyth, which made him master of the situation, and forced Leven toraise the siege of Hereford. From Kilsyth he marched to Glasgow, whereboth the Highlanders and the Gordons began to desert him. From England, Leven sent David Leslie to meet Montrose as he marched by the Lothiansinto the border counties. On September 13th, 1645, just one year afterhis victory at Aberdeen, Montrose was completely defeated atPhiliphaugh. He escaped, but his power was broken, and he was unablehenceforth to take any important share in the war. 

When Charles surrendered himself to the Scots, in May, 1646, his friendsin Scotland were helpless, and he had to meet the Presbyterian leaderswithout any hope beyond that of being able to take advantage of thedifferences of opinion between Presbyterians and Independents, whichwere fast assuming critical importance. The king held at Newcastle aconference with Alexander Henderson, which led to no definite result. Inthe end the Scots offered to adopt the king's cause if he would acceptPresbyterianism. This he declined to do, and his refusal left the Scotsno choice except keeping him a prisoner or surrendering him to hisEnglish subjects. They owed him no gratitude, and, while it might bechivalrous, it could scarcely be expedient to retain his person. Whilehe was unwilling to accede to their conditions they were powerless togive him any help. He was therefore handed over to the commissioners ofthe English Parliament, and the Scots, on the 30th January, 1647, returned home, having been paid, as the price of the king's surrender, the money promised them by the English Parliament when they entered intothe struggle in 1644. 

In the end of 1647 the Scots again entered into the long series ofnegotiations with the king. When Charles was a prisoner at Newport, andwhile he was arranging terms with the English, he entered into a secretagreement with commissioners from Scotland. The "Engagement", as it wascalled, embodied the conditions which Charles had refused atNewcastle--the recognition of Presbytery in Scotland and itsestablishment in England for three years, the king being allowedtoleration for his own form of worship. The Engagement was by no meansunanimously carried in the Scottish Parliament, and its results weredisastrous to Charles himself. It caused the English Parliament to passthe vote of No Addresses, and the second civil war, which it helped toprovoke, had a share in bringing about his death. The Duke of Hamiltonled a small army into England, where in August 17th, 1648, it wastotally defeated by Cromwell at Preston. Meanwhile the Hamilton partyhad lost power in Scotland, and when Cromwell entered Scotland, Argyll, who had opposed the Engagement, willingly agreed to his conditions, andaccepted the aid of three English regiments. In the events of the nextsix months Scotland had no part nor lot. The responsibility for theking's death rests on the English Government alone. 

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

The pressure of misfortune finally drove Charles to accept the Scottishoffers. Even while Montrose was fighting his last battle, his youngmaster was negotiating with the Covenanters. Conferences were held atBreda in the spring of 1650, and Charles landed at the mouth of theriver Spey on the 3rd July, having taken the Covenant. In the middle ofthe same month Cromwell crossed the Tweed at the head of an Englisharmy. The Scots, under Leven and David Leslie, took up a position nearEdinburgh, and, after a month's fruitless skirmishing, Cromwell had toretire to Dunbar, whither Leslie followed him. By a clever manoeuvre, Leslie intercepted Cromwell's retreat on Berwick, while he also seizedDoon Hill, an eminence commanding Dunbar. The Parliamentary Committee, under whose authority Leslie was acting, forced him to make an attack toprevent Cromwell's force from escaping by sea. The details of the battlehave been disputed, and the most convincing account is that given by Mr. Firth in his "Cromwell". When Leslie left the Doon Hill his left becameshut in between the hill and "the steep ravine of the Brock burn", whilehis centre had not sufficient room to move. Cromwell, therefore, after afeint on the left, concentrated his forces against Leslie's right, andshattered it. The rout was complete, and Leslie had to retreat toStirling, while the Lowlands fell into Cromwell's hands. Cromwell wasconciliatory, and a considerable proportion of Presbyterians took up anattitude hostile to the king's claims. The supporters of Charles wereknown as Resolutioners, or Engagers, and his opponents as Protesters orRemonstrants. The consequence was that the old Royalists andEpiscopalians began to rejoin Charles. Before the battle of Dunbar(September 2nd) Charles had been really a prisoner in the hands of theCovenanters, who had ruled him with a rod of iron. As the stricterPresbyterians withdrew, and their places were filled by the "Malignants"whom they had excluded from the king's service, the personal importanceof Charles increased. On January 1st, 1651, he was crowned at Scone, andin the following summer he took up a position near Stirling, with Leslieas commander of his army. Cromwell outmanoeuvred Leslie and seizedPerth, and the royal forces retaliated by the invasion of England, whichended in the defeat of Worcester on September 3rd, 1651, exactly oneyear after Dunbar. The king escaped and fled to France. 

Scotland was now unable to resist Monk, whom Cromwell had left behindhim when he went southwards to defeat Charles at Worcester. On the 14thAugust he captured Stirling, and on the 28th the Committee of Estateswas seized at Alyth and carried off to London. There was no furtherattempt at opposition, and all Scotland, for the first time since thereign of Edward I, was in military occupation by English troops. Theproperty of the leading supporters of Charles II was confiscated. In1653 the General Assembly was reduced to pleading that "we were anecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of Jesus Christ, which meddlednot with anything civil"; but their unwonted humility was of no avail tosave them. An earlier victim than the Assembly was the ScottishParliament. It was decided in 1652 that Scotland should be incorporatedwith England, and from February of that year till the Restoration, thekingdom of Scotland ceased to exist. The "Instrument" of Government of1653 gave Scotland thirty members in the British Parliament. Twenty wereallotted to the shires--one to each of the larger shires and one to eachof nine groups of less important shires. There were also eight groups ofburghs, each group electing one member, and two members were returned bythe city of Edinburgh. Between 1653 and 1655 Scotland was governed byparliamentary commissioners, and, from 1655 onwards, by a specialcouncil. The Court of Session was abolished, and its place taken by aCommission of Justice. [90] The actual union dates from 1654, when it wasratified by the Supreme Council of the Commonwealth of England, butScotland was under English rule from the battle of Worcester. The wisepolicy of allowing freedom of trade, like the improvement in theadministration of justice, failed to reconcile the Scots to the union, and, to the end, it required a military force to maintain the newgovernment. 

As Scotland had no share in the execution of Charles I, so it had nonein the restoration of his son. The "Committee of Estates", which metafter the 29th of May, was not lacking in loyalty. All traces of theunion were swept away, and the pressure of the new Navigation Act wasseverely felt in contrast to the freedom of trade that had been thegreat boon of the Commonwealth. But worse evils were in store. The"Covenanted monarch" was determined to restore Episcopacy in Scotland, and for this purpose he employed as a tool the notorious James Sharpe, who had been sent up to London to plead the cause of Presbytery withMonk. Sharpe returned to Scotland in the spring of 1661 as Archbishop ofSt. Andrews. Parliament met by royal authority and passed a General ActRescissory, which rendered void all acts passed since 1638. Theepiscopal form of church government was immediately established. ThePrivy Council received enlarged powers, and was again completelysubservient to the king. The execution of Argyll atoned for the death ofMontrose, in the eyes of Royalists, and two notable ecclesiasticalpoliticians, Johnston of Warriston and James Guthrie, were also put todeath. An Indemnity Act was passed, but many men found that the king'spardon had its price. On October 1st, 1662, an act was passed orderingrecusant ministers to leave their parishes, and the council improved onthe English Five Mile Act, by ordering that no recusant minister should, on pain of treason, reside within twenty miles of his parish, within sixmiles of Edinburgh or any cathedral town, or within three miles of anyroyal burgh. A Court of High Commission, which had been established byJames VI in 1610, was again entrusted with all religious cases. Theeffect of these harsh measures was to rouse the insurrections which arethe most notable feature of the reign. In 1666 the Covenanters weredefeated at the battle of Pentland, or Rullion Green, and those who weresuspected of a share in the rising were subjected to examination undertorture, which now became one of the normal features of Charles's brutalgovernment. Prisoners were hanged or sent as slaves to the plantations. In 1669, an Indulgence was passed, permitting Presbyterian servicesunder certain conditions, but in 1670, Parliament passed a ConventicleAct, making it a capital crime to "preach, expound scripture, or pray", at any unlicensed meeting. On May 5th, 1679, Sharpe was assassinatednear St. Andrews. The murderers escaped, and some of them joined theCovenanters of the west. The Government had determined to put a stop tothe meetings of conventicles, and had chosen for this purpose JohnGraham of Claverhouse. On the 11th June, Claverhouse was defeated atDrumclog, but eleven days later he routed the Covenanting army atBothwell Bridge, and took over a thousand prisoners. Only seven wereexecuted, but the others were imprisoned in Greyfriars' churchyard, anda large number of them were sold as plantation slaves. A small rising atAird's Moss in Ayrshire, in 1680, was easily suppressed. In 1681 theScottish Parliament prescribed as a test the disavowal of the NationalCovenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1644, and itdeclared that any attempt to alter the succession involved the subjects"in perjury and rebellion". In connection with the Test Act, anopportunity was found for convicting the Earl of Argyll[91] of treason. His property was confiscated, but he himself was allowed to escape. Thelast years of the reign, under the administration of the Duke of York, were marked by exceptional cruelty in connection with the religiouspersecutions. The expeditions of Claverhouse, the case of the Wigtownmartyrs, and the horrible cruelties of the torture-room have given tothese years the title of "the Killing time". 

The Scottish Parliament welcomed King James VII with fulsome adulation. But the new king was scarcely seated on the throne before a rebellionbroke out. The Earl of Argyll adopted the cause of Monmouth, landed inhis own country, and marched into Lanarkshire. His attempt was an entirefailure: nobody joined his standard, and he himself, failing to makegood his retreat, was captured and executed without a new trial. TheParliament again enforced the Test Act, and renewed the Conventicle Act, making it a capital offence even to be present at a conventicle. Thepersecutions continued with renewed vigour. James failed in persuadingeven the obsequious Parliament to give protection to the RomanCatholics. He attempted to obtain the same end by a Declaration ofIndulgence, of which the Covenanters might be unable to availthemselves, but in its final form, issued in May, 1688, it includedthem. The conjunction of popery and absolute prerogative thoroughlyalarmed the Scots, and the news of the English Revolution was receivedwith general satisfaction. The effect of the long struggle had been toweaken the country in many ways. Thousands of her bravest sons had diedon the scaffold or on the battle-field or in the dungeons of Dunnottar, or had been exiled to the plantations. Trade and commerce had declined. The records of the burghs show us how harbours were empty and housesruinous, where, a century earlier, there had been a thriving trade. Scotland in 1688 was in every way, unless in moral discipline, poorerthan she had been while England was still the "auld enemy". 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 89: Sabbath observance had been introduced from England sixcenturies earlier. Cf. P. 14. ]

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

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

CHAPTER XI

THE UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS

1689-1707

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

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

The opponents of the revolution settlement consisted mainly of the oldRoyalist and Episcopalian party, the representatives of those who hadfollowed Montrose to victory, and the supporters of the RestorationGovernment. As the Great Rebellion had made Royalists of the ScottishEpiscopalians, so the Revolution could not but convert them intoJacobites. Their leader was James Graham of Claverhouse, who retreatedfrom Edinburgh to the north to prepare for a campaign against the newgovernment. The discontent was not confined to the Episcopalian party. Such Roman Catholics as there were in Scotland at the time were preparedto take up arms for a Stuart king who was a devout adherent of theirreligion. Moreover, the Presbyterians themselves were not united. Aparty which was to grow in strength, and which now included aconsiderable number of extreme Presbyterians, still longed, in spite oftheir experience of Charles II, for a covenanted king, and looked withgreat distrust upon William and Mary. The triumphant party of moderatePresbyterians, who probably represented most faithfully the feeling ofthe nation, acted throughout with considerable wisdom. The acceptance ofthe crown converted the Convention into a Parliament, and the Estatesset themselves to obtain, in the first place, their own freedom from thetyranny of the committee known as the "Lords of the Articles", throughwhich James VI and his successors had kept the Parliament insubjection. William was unwilling to lose entirely this method ofcontrolling his new subjects, but he had to give way. The Parliamentrescinded the Act of Charles II asserting his majesty's supremacy "overall persons and in all causes ecclesiastical" as "inconsistent with theestablishment of Church government now desired", but, in the militarycrisis which threatened them, they proceeded no further than to bring inan Act abolishing Prelacy and all superiority of office in the Church ofScotland. 

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

The ecclesiastical settlement followed the suppression of therebellion. The deprivation of nonjuring clergymen had been proceedingsince the establishment of the new Government, and in 1690 an act waspassed restoring to their parishes the Presbyterian clergy who had beenejected under Charles II. A small temporary provision was made for theirsuccessors, who were now, in turn, expelled. On the 26th May, 1690, theParliament adopted the Confession of Faith, although it refused to becommitted to the Covenant. The Presbyterian form of Church governmentwas established; but King William succeeded in maintaining some check onthe General Assembly, and toleration was granted to such Episcopaliandissenters as were willing to take the oath of allegiance. On the otherhand, acceptance of the Confession of Faith was made a test forprofessors in the universities. The changes were carried out with littledisturbance to the peace, there was no blood spilt, and except for somerough usage of Episcopalians in the west (known as the "rabbling of thecurates"), there was nothing in the way of outrage or insult. The creditof the settlement belongs to William Carstares, afterwards Principal ofthe University of Edinburgh, whose tact and wisdom overcame manydifficulties. 

The personal union of Scotland and England had created no specialdifficulties while both countries were under the rule of an absolutemonarch. The policy of both was alike, because it was guided by onesupreme ruler. But the accession of a constitutional king, with aparliamentary title, at once created many problems difficult ofsolution, and made a more complete union absolutely necessary. The Unionof 1707 was thus the natural consequence of the Revolution of 1689, although, at the time of the Revolution, scrupulous care was taken, alike by the new king and by his English Parliament, to recognize theexistence of Scotland as a separate kingdom. The Scottish Parliament, which regarded itself as the ruler of the country, found itself hamperedand restricted by William's action. It was allowed no voice on questionsof foreign policy, and its conduct of home affairs met with notinfrequent interference, which roused the indignation of Scottishpoliticians, and especially of the section which followed Fletcher ofSaltoun. Several causes combined to add to the unpopularity whichWilliam had acquired through the occasional friction with theParliament. Scotland had ceased to have any interest in the war, and itsprolongation constituted a standing grievance, of which the partisans ofthe Stuarts were not slow to avail themselves. 

There were two events, in particular, which roused widespread resentmentin Scotland. These were the Massacre of Glencoe, and the failure of thescheme for colonizing the Isthmus of Darien. The story of Glencoe hasbeen often told. The 31st December, 1691, had been appointed as thelatest day on which the government would receive the submission of theHighland chiefs. MacDonald of Glencoe delayed till the last moment, andthen proceeded to Fort-William, where a fortress had just been erected, to take the oath in the presence of its commander, who had no power toreceive it. From Fort-William he had to go to Inverary, to take the oathbefore the sheriff of Argyll, and he did so on the 6th January, 1692. The six days' delay placed him and his clan in the power of men who wereunlikely to show any mercy to the name of MacDonald. Acting underinstructions from King William, the nature of which has been matter ofdispute, Campbell of Glenlyon, acting with the knowledge of Breadalbaneand Sir John Dalrymple of Stair, the Secretary of State, and as theirtool, entered the pass of Glencoe on the 1st February, 1692. TheMacDonalds, trusting in the assurances which had been given by theGovernment, seem to have suspected no evil from this armed visit oftheir traditional enemies, the Campbells, and received them withhospitality. While they were living peaceably, all possible retreat wasbeing cut off from the unfortunate MacDonalds by the closing of thepasses, and on the 13th effect was given to the dastardly scheme. Itfailed, however, to achieve its full object--the extirpation of theclan. Many escaped to the hills; but the chief himself and over thirtyothers were murdered in cold blood. The news of the massacre roused afierce flame of indignation, not only in the Highlands, but throughoutthe Lowlands as well, and the Jacobites did not fail to make use of it. A commission was appointed to enquire into the circumstances, and itseverely censured Dalrymple, and charged Breadalbane with treason, whilemany blamed, possibly unjustly, the king himself. 

The other grievance was of a different nature. About 1695, WilliamPaterson, the founder of the Bank of England, suggested the formation ofa Scottish company to trade to Africa and the Indies. It was originallyknown as the African Company, but it was destined to be popularlyremembered by the name of its most notable failure--the Darien Company. It received very full powers from the Scottish Parliament, powers ofmilitary colonization as well as trading privileges. These powersaroused great jealousy and indignation in England, and the House ofCommons decided that, as the company had its headquarters in London, thedirectors were guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. There followed afailure of the English capital on which the promoters had reckoned, butshares to the value of £400, 000 (on which £219, 094 was paid up) weresubscribed in Scotland. At first the company was a prosperous tradingconcern, but its only attempt at colonization involved it in ruin. Paterson wished his fellow-countrymen to found a colony in the Isthmusof Panama, and to attract thither the whole trade of North and SouthAmerica. The ports of the colony were to be open to ships of allnations. In the end of 1698 twelve hundred Scots landed on the shore ofthe Gulf of Darien, without organization and without the restraint ofresponsibility to any government. They soon had difficulties with theirSpanish neighbours, and the English colonists at New York, Barbadoes, and Jamaica were warned to render them no assistance. Disease and faminecompleted the tale of misery, and the first colonists deserted theirposts. Their successors, who arrived to find empty huts, surrounded bylonely Scottish graves, were soon in worse plight, and they were drivenout by a band of Spaniards. The unfortunate company lingered on for sometime, but merely as traders. The Scots blamed the king's ill-will fortheir failure, and he became more than ever unpopular in Scotland. Themoral of the whole story was that only through the corporate union ofthe two countries could trade jealousies and the danger of rival schemesof colonization be avoided. 

In the reign of Charles II the Scots, who felt keenly the loss of thefreedom of trade which they had enjoyed under Cromwell, had themselvesbroached the question of union, and William had brought it forward atthe beginning of his reign. It was, however, reserved for his successorto see it carried. In March, 1702, the king died. The death of "WilliamII", as his title ran in the kingdom of Scotland, was received with afeeling amounting almost to satisfaction. The first English Parliamentof Queen Anne agreed to the appointment of commissioners to discussterms of union, and the Estates of Scotland chose representatives tomeet them. But the English refused to give freedom of trade, and so thenegotiations broke down. In reply, the Scottish Parliament removed therestrictions on the import of wines from France, with which countryEngland was now at war. In the summer of 1703 the Scots passed an Act ofSecurity, which invested the Parliament with the power of the crown incase of the queen's dying without heirs, and entrusted to it the choiceof a Protestant sovereign "from the royal line". It refused to such kingor queen, if also sovereign of England, the power of declaring war ormaking peace without the consent of Parliament, and it enacted that theunion of the crowns should determine after the queen's death unlessScotland was admitted to equal trade and navigation privileges withEngland. Further, the act provided for the compulsory training of everyScotsman to bear arms, in order that the country might, if necessary, defend its independence by the sword. The queen's consent to the Act ofSecurity was refused, and the bitterness of the national feeling wasaccentuated by the suspicion of a Jacobite plot. Parliament had beenadjourned on 16th September, 1703. When it met in 1704 it again passedthe Act of Security, and an important section began to argue that theroyal assent was merely a usual form, and not an indispensableauthentication of an act. For some time, it seemed as if the twocountries were on the brink of war. But, as the union of the crowns hadbeen rendered possible by the self-restraint of a nation who couldaccept their hereditary enemy as their hereditary sovereign, so nowQueen Anne's advisers resolved, with patient wisdom, to secure, at allhazards, the union of the kingdoms. 

It was not an easy task, even in England, for there could be no unionwithout complete freedom of trade, and many Englishmen were mostunwilling to yield on this point. In Scotland the difficulties to beovercome were much greater. The whole nation, irrespective of politicsand religion, felt bitterly the indignity of surrendering theindependent existence for which Scotland had fought for four hundredyears. It could not but be difficult to reconcile an ancient andhigh-spirited people to incorporation with a larger and more powerfulneighbour, and the whole population mourned the approaching loss oftheir Parliament and their autonomy. Almost every section had specialreasons for opposing the measure. For the Jacobites an Act of Unionmeant that Scotland was irretrievably committed to the Hanoveriansuccession, and whatever force the Jacobites might be able to raiseafter the queen's death must take action in the shape of a rebellionagainst the _de facto_ government. It deprived them of all hope ofseizing the reins of power, and of using the machinery of government inScotland for the good of their cause--a _coup d'état_ of which the Actof Security gave considerable chance. On this very account thetriumphant Presbyterians were anxious to carry the union scheme, and thecorrespondence of the Electress Sophia proves that the negotiations forunion were looked upon at Hanover as solely an important factor in thesuccession controversy. But the recently re-established PresbyterianChurch of Scotland regarded with great anxiety a union with anEpiscopalian country, and hesitated to place their dearly won freedom atthe mercy of a Parliament the large majority of whom were Episcopalians. The more extreme Presbyterians, and especially the Cameronians of thewest, were bitterly opposed to the project. They protested againstbecoming subject to a Parliament in whose deliberations the Englishbishops had an important voice, and against accepting a king who hadbeen educated as a Lutheran, and they clamoured for covenanteduniformity and a covenanted monarch. By a curious irony of fate, theScottish Episcopalians were forced by their Jacobite leanings to actwith the extreme Presbyterians, and to oppose the scheme of amalgamationwith an Episcopalian country. The legal interest was strongly against aproposal that might reduce the importance of Scots law and of Scottishlawyers, while the populace of Edinburgh were furious at the suggestionof a union, whose result must be to remove at once one of the glories oftheir city and a valuable source of income. There was still another bodyof opponents. The reign of William had been remarkable for the rise ofpolitical parties. The two main factions were known as Williamites andCavaliers, and in addition to these there had grown up a Patriot orCountry party. It was brought into existence by the enthusiasm ofFletcher of Saltoun, and it was based upon an antiquarian revival whichmay be compared with the mediæval attempts to revive the Republic ofRome. The aim of the patriots was to maintain the independence ofScotland, and they attempted to show that the Scottish crown had neverbeen under feudal obligations to England, and that the ScottishParliament had always possessed sovereign rights, and could governindependently of the will of the monarch. They were neither Jacobitesnor Hanoverians; but they held that if the foreign domination, of whichthey had complained under William, were to continue, it mattered littlewhether it emanated from St. Germains or from the Court of St. James's, and they had combined with the Jacobites to pass the Act of Security. 

Such was the complicated situation with which the English Government hadto deal. Their first step was to advise Queen Anne to assent to the Actof Security, and so to conserve the dignity and _amour propre_ of theScottish Parliament. Commissioners were then appointed to negotiate fora union. No attempt was made to conciliate the Jacobites, for no attemptcould have met with any kind of success. Nor did the commissioners makeany effort to satisfy the more extreme Presbyterians, who sullenlyrefused to acknowledge the union when it became an accomplished fact, and who remained to hamper the Government when the Jacobite troublescommenced. An assurance that there would be no interference with theChurch of Scotland as by law established, and a guarantee that theuniversities would be maintained in their _status quo_, satisfied themoderate Presbyterians, and removed their scruples. Unlike James VI andCromwell, the advisers of Queen Anne declared their intention ofpreserving the independent Scots law and the independent Scottish courtsof justice, and these guarantees weakened the arguments of the Patriotparty. But above all the English proposals won the support of theever-increasing commercial interest in Scotland by conceding freedom oftrade in a complete form. They agreed that "all parts of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain be under the same regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions, and liable to equal impositions and duties for exportand import". The adjustment of financial obligations was admitted toinvolve some injustice to Scotland, and an "equivalent" was allowed, tocompensate for the responsibility now accruing to Scotland in connectionwith the English National Debt. It remained to adjust the representationof Scotland in the united Parliament. It was at first proposed to allowonly thirty-eight members, but the number was finally raised toforty-five. Thirty of these represented the shires. Each shire was toelect one representative, except the three groups of Bute and Caithness, Clackmannan and Kinross, and Nairn and Cromarty. In each group theelection was made alternately by the two counties. Thus Bute, Clackmannan, and Nairn each sent a member in 1708, and Caithness, Kinross, and Cromarty in 1710. The device is sufficiently unusual todeserve mention. The burghs were divided into fifteen groups, each ofwhich was given one member. In this form, after considerable difficulty, the act was carried both in Scotland and in England. It was a union muchless extensive than that which had been planned by James VI or thatwhich had been in actual force under Cromwell. The existence of aseparate Church, governed differently from the English Establishment, and the maintenance of a separate legal code and a separate judicaturehave helped to preserve some of the national characteristics of theScots. Not for many years did the union become popular in Scotland, andnot for many years did the two nations become really united. It might, in fact, be said that the force of steam has accomplished what law hasfailed to do, and that the real incorporation of Scotland with Englanddates from the introduction of railways. 

 APPENDIX A

 REFERENCES TO THE HIGHLANDERS IN MEDIÆVAL LITERATURE

 ~I. AELRED (12th Century)~

 _Account of the Battle of the Standard_

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

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

 (_a_) _Description of the Highlanders_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 _Account of Harlaw_

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

 ~4. WALTER BOWER (d. 1449)~

 _Account of Harlaw_

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

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

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

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

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

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

 _(b) Account of Harlaw_

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

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

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

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

 _(b) Account of Harlaw_

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

 ~7. JOHN LESLEY (1527-1596)~

 _Contrast between Highlanders and Lowlanders_

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

 ~8. GEORGE BUCHANAN (1506-1582)~

 _Account of Harlaw_

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

 APPENDIX B

 THE FEUDALIZATION OF SCOTLAND

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

The kingdom[94] of which Malcolm Canmore became the ruler in 1058 wasnot inhabited by clans. It had been, from of old, divided into sevenprovinces, each of which was inhabited by tribes. The tribe or tuath wasgoverned by its own chief or king (Ri or Toisech); each province or MorTuath was governed by Ri Mor Tuath or Mormaer, [95] and these sevenMormaers seem (in theory, at all events) to have elected the nationalking, and to have acted as his advisers. The tribe was divided intofreemen and slaves, and freemen and slaves alike were subdivided intovarious classes--noble and simple; serfs attached to land, and personalbondmen. The land was held, not by the tribe in general, but by the_ciniod_ or near kin of the _flath_ or senior of each family within thetribe. On the death of a senior, the new senior was chosen (generallywith strict regard to primogeniture) from among the nearest in blood, and all who were within three degrees of kin to him, shared in thejoint-proprietary of the proceeds of the land. The senior had specialprivileges and was the representative and surety of the _ciniod_, andthe guardian of their common interests. After the third generation, aman ceased to be reckoned among the _ciniod_, and probably received asmall personal allotment. Most of his descendants would thus belandless, or, if they held land, would do so by what soon amounted toservile tenure. Thus the majority of the tribe had little or nothing tolose by the feudalization that was approaching. 

The changes of Malcolm's reign are concerned with the Church, not withland-tenure. But the territorialization of the Church, and the abolitionof the ecclesiastical system of the tribe, foreshadowed the innovationsthat Malcolm's son was to introduce. We have seen that an anti-Englishreaction followed the deaths of Malcolm and Margaret. This is importantbecause it involved an expulsion of the English from Scotland, which maybe compared with the expulsion of the Normans from England after thereturn of Godwin. Our knowledge of the circumstances is derived from thefollowing statement of Symeon of Durham:--

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

It was not till the reign of Alexander I (1107-1124) that the newinfluences made any serious modification of ancient custom. The peacefulEdgar had surrounded himself with English favourites, and had grantedSaxon charters to Saxon landholders in the Lothians. His brother, Alexander, made the first efforts to abolish the old Celtic tenure. In1114, he gave a charter to the monastery of Scone, and not only did thecharter contemplate the direct holding of land from the king, but thesignatories or witnesses described themselves as Earls, not as Mormaers. The monastery was founded to commemorate the suppression of a revolt ofthe Celts of Moray, and the earls who witnessed the charter bore Celticnames. This policy of taking advantage of rebellions to introduceEnglish civilization became a characteristic method of the kings ofScotland. Alexander's successor, David I, set himself definitely tocarry on the work which his brother had begun. He found his opportunityin the rising of Malcolm MacHeth, Earl of Moray. To this rising we havealready referred in the Introduction. It was the greatest effort madeagainst the innovations of the anti-national sons of Malcolm Canmore, and its leader, Malcolm MacHeth, was the representative of a rival lineof kings. David had to obtain the assistance, not only of theAnglo-Normans by whom he himself was surrounded, but also of some of thebarons of Northumberland and Yorkshire, with whom he had a connection asEarl of Huntingdon, for the descendant of the Celtic kings of Scotlandwas himself an English baron. We have seen that David captured MacHethand forfeited the lands of Moray, which he regranted, on feudal terms, to Anglo-Normans or to native Scots who supported the king's new policy. The war with England interrupted David's work, as a long struggle withthe Church had prevented his brother, Alexander, from giving full scopeto the principles that both had learned in the English Court; but, bythe end of David's reign, the lines of future development had been quiteclearly laid down. The Celtic Church had almost disappeared. The bishopsof St. Andrews, Dunkeld, Moray, Glasgow, Ross, Caithness, Aberdeen, Dunblane, Brechin, and Galloway were great royal officers, whoinculcated upon the people the necessity of adopting the new politicaland ecclesiastical system. The Culdee monasteries were dying out; northof the Forth, Scone had been founded by Alexander I as a pioneer of thenew civilization, and, after the defeat of Malcolm MacHeth and thesettlement of Moray, David, in 1150, founded the Abbey of Kinloss. TheCeltic official terms were replaced by English names; the Mormaer hadbecome the Earl, the Toisech was now the Thane, and Earl and Thane alikewere losing their position as the royal representative, as Davidgradually introduced the Anglo-Norman _vice-comes_ or sheriff, whorepresented the royal Exchequer and the royal system of justice. David'spolice regulations tended still further to strengthen the nascentFeudalism; like the kings of England, he would have none of the"lordless man, of whom no law can be got", and commendation was added tothe forces which produced the disintegration of the tribal system. Notless important was the introduction of written charters. Alexander hadgiven a written charter to the monastery of Scone; David gave privatecharters to individual land-owners, and made the possession of a charterthe test of a freeholder. Finally, it is from David's reign thatScottish burghs take their origin. He encouraged the rise of towns aspart of the feudal system. The burgesses were tenants-in-chief of theking, held of him by charter, and stood in the same relation to him asother tenants-in-chief. So firmly grounded was this idea that, up to1832, the only Scottish burgesses who attended Parliament wererepresentatives of the ancient Royal Burghs, and their right depended, historically, not on any gift of the franchise, but on their position astenants-in-chief. That there were strangers among the new burgessescannot be doubted; Saxons and Normans mingled with Danes and Flemishmerchants in the humble streets of the villages that were protected bythe royal castle and that grew into Scottish towns; but their numberswere too few to give us any ground for believing that they were, in anysense, foreign colonies, or that they seriously modified the ethniccharacter of the land. Men from the country would, for reasons ofprotection, or from the impulse of commerce, find their way into thetowns; it is certain that the population of the towns did not migrateinto the country. The real importance of the towns lies in the part theyplayed in the spread of the English tongue. To the influence of Courtand King, of land tenure, of law and police, of parish priest and monk, and Abbot and Bishop, was added the persuasive force of commercialinterest. 

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

Only once again was the security of the Anglo-Celtic dynasty seriouslythreatened by the supporters of the older civilization. When William theLion, brother and successor of Malcolm IV, was the prisoner of Henry II, risings took place both in Galloway and in Moray. A Galloway chieftain, by name Gilbert, maintained an independent rule to his death in 1185, when William came to terms with his nephew and successor, Roland. In thenorth, Donald Bane Mac William, a great-grandson of Malcolm Canmore, raised the standard of revolt in 1181, and it was not till 1187 that therebellion was finally suppressed, and Donald Bane killed. There werefurther risings, in Moray in 1214 (on the accession of Alexander II), and in Galloway in 1235. The chronicler, Walter of Coventry, tells usthat these revolts were occasioned by the fact that recent Scottishkings had proved themselves Frenchmen rather than Scots, and hadsurrounded themselves solely with Frenchmen. This is the realexplanation of the support given to the Celtic pretenders. A newcivilization is not easily imposed upon a people. Elsewhere in Scotland, the process was more gradual and less violent. In the eastern Lowlandsthere were no pretenders and no rebellions, and traces of the earliercivilization remained longer than in Galloway and in Moray. "In Fifealone", says Mr. Robertson, "the Earl continued in the thirteenthcentury to exercise the prerogatives of a royal Maor, and, in the reignof David I, we find in Fife what is practically the clan MacDuff. "[96]Neither in the eastern Lowlands, nor in the more disturbed districts ofMoray and Galloway, is there any evidence of a radical change in thepopulation. The changes were imposed from above. Mr. Lang has pointedout that we do not hear "of feuds consequent on the eviction of priorholders. .. . The juries, from Angus to Clyde, are full of Celtic names ofthe gentry. The Steward (FitzAlan) got Renfrew, but the _probihomines_, or gentry, remain Celtic after the reigns of David andWilliam. "[97] The contemporary chronicler, Aelred, gives no hint thatDavid replaced his Scottish subjects by an Anglo-Norman population; headmits that he was terrible to the men of Galloway, but insists that hewas beloved of the Scots. It must not be forgotten that the new systembrought Anglo-Norman justice and order with it, and must soon havecommended itself by its practical results. The grants of land did notmean dispossession. The small owners of land and the serfs acquiesced inthe new rule and began to take new names, and the Anglo-Norman strangerswere in actual possession, not of the land itself, but of the_privilegia_ owed by the land. Even with regard to the great lords, thestatements have been slightly exaggerated; Alexander II was aided incrushing the rebellion of 1214-15 by Celtic earls, and in 1235 hesubdued Galloway by the aid of a Celtic Earl of Ross. 

 * * * * *

We have attempted to explain the Anglicization of Scotland, south andeast of "the Highland line", by the combined forces of the Church, theCourt, Feudalism, and Commerce, and it is unnecessary to lay furtherstress upon the importance of these elements in twelfth century life. Itmay be interesting to compare with this the process by which theScottish Highlands have been Anglicized within the last century and ahalf. It must, in the first place, be fully understood that the intervalbetween the twelfth century and the suppression of the last Jacobiterising was not void of development even in the Highlands. "It is in thereign of David the First", says Mr. Skene, [98] "that the sept or clanfirst appears as a distinct and prominent feature in the socialorganization of the Gaelic population", and it is not till the reign ofRobert III that he finds "the first appearance of a distinct clan". Between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of theeighteenth, the clan had developed a complete organization, consistingof the chief and his kinsmen, the common people of the same blood, andthe dependants of the clan. Each clan contained several septs, foundedby such descendants of chiefs as had obtained a definite possession inland. The writer of _Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotlandin 1726_, mentions that the Highland clans were "subdivided into smallerbranches of fifty or sixty men, who deduce their original from theirparticular chieftains, and rely upon them as their more immediateprotectors and defenders". 

The Hanoverian government had thus to face, in 1746, a problem in somerespects more difficult than that which the descendants of MalcolmCanmore had solved. The clan organization was complete, and clan loyaltyhad assumed the form of an extravagant devotion; a hostile feeling hadarisen between Highlands and Lowlands, and all feeling of commonnationality had been lost. There was no such important factor as theChurch to help the change; religion was, on the whole, perhaps ratheradverse than favourable to the process of Anglicization. On the otherhand, the task was, in other aspects, very much easier. The Highlandshad been affected by the events of the seventeenth century, and thechiefs were no longer mere freebooters and raiders. The Jacobite risinghad weakened the Highlands, and the clans had been divided amongthemselves. It was not a united opposition that confronted theGovernment. Above all, the methods of land-tenure had already beenrendered subject to very considerable modification. Since the reign ofJames VI, the law had been successful in attempting to ignore "allCeltic usages inconsistent with its principles", and it "regarded allpersons possessing a feudal title as absolute proprietors of the land, and all occupants of the land who could not show a right derived fromthe proprietor, as simple tenants". [99] Thus the strongest support ofthe clan system had been removed before the suppression of the clans. The Government of George II placed the Highlands under militaryoccupation, and began to root out every tendency towards the persistenceof a clan organization. The clan, as a military unit, ceased to existwhen the Highlanders were disarmed, and as a unit for administrativepurposes when the heritable jurisdictions were abolished, and it couldno longer claim to be a political force of any kind, for every vestigeof independence was removed. The only individual characteristic left tothe clan or to the Highlander was the tartan and the Celtic garb, andits use was prohibited under very severe penalties. These were measureswhich were not possible in the days of David as they were in those ofGeorge. But a further step was common to both centuries--the forfeitureof lands, and although a later Government restored many of these todescendants of the attainted chiefs, the magic spell had been broken, and the proprietor was no longer the head of the clan. Such measures, and the introduction of sheep-farming, had, within sixty years, changedthe whole face of the Highlands. 

Another century has been added to Sir Walter's _Sixty Years Since_, andit may be argued that all the resources of modern civilisation havefailed to accomplish, in that period, what the descendants of MalcolmCanmore effected in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This is trueas far as language is concerned, but only with regard to language. TheHighlanders have not forgotten the Gaelic tongue as the Lowlanders hadforgotten it by the outbreak of the War of Independence. [100] Variousfacts account for this. One of the features of recent days is anantiquarian revival, which has tended to preserve for Highland childrenthe great intellectual advantage of a bi-lingual education. The veryseverance of the bond between chieftain and clan has helped toperpetuate the ancient language, for the people no longer adopt thespeech of their chief, as, in earlier days, the Celt of Moray or of Fifeadopted the tongue spoken by his Anglo-Norman lord, or learned by thegreat men of his own race at the court of David or of William the Lion. The Bible has been translated into Gaelic, and Gaelic has become thelanguage of Highland religion. In the Lowlands of the twelfth century, the whole influence of the Church was directed to the extermination ofthe Culdee religion, associated with the Celtic language and with Celticcivilization. Above all, the difference lies in the rise of burghs inthe Lowlands. Speech follows trade. Every small town on the east coastwas a school of English language. Should commerce ever reach theHighlands, should the abomination of desolation overtake the waterfallsand the valleys, and other temples of nature share the degradation ofthe Falls of Foyers, we may then look for the disappearance of theGaelic tongue. 

Be all this as it may, it is undeniable that there has been in theHighlands, since 1745, a change of civilization without a displacementof race. We venture to think that there is some ground for the view thata similar change of civilization occurred in the Lowlands between 1066and 1286, and, similarly, without a racial dispossession. We do not denythat there was some infusion of Anglo-Saxon blood between the Forth andthe Moray Firth in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; but there is noevidence that it was a repopulation. 

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 94: In this discussion the province of Lothian is notincluded. ]

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

[Footnote 96: _Op. Cit. _, vol. I, p. 254. ]

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

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

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

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

 APPENDIX C

 TABLE OF THE COMPETITORS OF 1290

 (_Names of the thirteen Competitors are in bold type_)

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

 INDEX

 Abbey Craig, 42. 

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

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

 Abernethy, 12. 

 Abirdene, Robert of, 198. 

 Aboyne, Earl of, 163. 

 _Acts of the Parliament of Scotland_, xxi. 

 Ada, daughter of Earl David, 35. 

 Aelred of Rivaulx, 21, 195. 

 Aethelstan, 5. 

 Aird's Moss, rising at, 178. 

 Airlie, Earl of, 169. 

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

 Alcester, 168. 

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

 Alford, victory at, 170. 

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

 Alyth, 174. 

 Ancrum Moor, battle of, 120. 

 Angus, 198, 209. 

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

 Annan, 67. 

 Annandale, 32, 47, 48, 50. 

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

 "Answer to ane Helandmanis Invective", xxxiv. 

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

 Antony, Bishop of Durham, 44. 

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

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

 Armada, 145. 

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

 Arthur, Prince, 99. 

 _Auchinleck Chronicle_, xxxiv. 

 Auldearn, victory at, 170. 

 Auxerre, 90. 

 Ayr, xvii. 

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

 Aytoun, Peace of, 100. 

 Badenach, Celts of, 41, 53. 

 Bailleul, estate of, 39. 

 Bakewell, 5. 

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

 Banff, 40. 

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

 Barbour's _Bruce_, xxvi, xxvii. 

 Barton, Sir Andrew, 98, 103. 

 Baugé, battle of, 88, 89. 

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

 Beaufort, Joan, 89. 

 Becket, Thomas, 26. 

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

 Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, 44. 

 Biland Abbey, 58. 

 Birnam Wood, 9. 

 Bishops' War, 164. 

 "Black Agnes", 71. 

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

 Blind Harry's _Wallace_, xxvii, xxxiii. 

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

 Boniface VIII, 45. 

 "Book of the Howlat", the, xxxiii. 

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

 Borough-Muir of Edinburgh, 69. 

 Bosworth, battle of, 97. 

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

 Boulogne, 69. 

 Bower, Walter, xxx, 198. 

 Braemar, 87. 

 Brankston ridge, 106. 

 Breadalbane, Marquis of, 185, 186. 

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

 Breda, Conference at, 173. 

 Bridge of Dee, battle of, 163. 

 Brigham, Treaty of, 33. 

 Brittany, 1. 

 Brockburn, 173. 

 Brown, Mr. Hume, x. 

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

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

 Bruges, 68. 

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

 Buchanan, George, xxxii, 203. 

 Bull, Stephen, 98. 

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

 Burghead, xvii. 

 Burgh-on-Sands, 52. 

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

 "Burned Candlemas", 73. 

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

 Bute, 193. 

 Cæsar, Julius, 1, 2. 

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

 Calderwood's _History of the Kirk_, 147. 

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

 Camden's _Britannia_, xxxiii. 

 Campbell, Sir Nigel, 53. 

 Campbell of Glenlyon, 185. 

 Canute, 8. 

 Carberry Hill, 137. 

 Carbisdale, defeat at, 172. 

 Cardross, castle of, 64. 

 Carham, battle of, 8. 

 Carlisle, 52, 67, 94, 168. 

 Carrick, xxiv, 47, 51. 

 ---- earldom of, 45. 

 ---- men of, 56, 85. 

 Carrickfergus, 57. 

 Carstares, William, 183. 

 Casket Letters, 138, 141. 

 Cateau-Cambresis, Treaty of, 124. 

 Cecil, Lord Burleigh, 125, 127, 133. 

 Cecilia, d. Of Edward IV, 96. 

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

 Chatelherault, Duke of, 123. 

 Chester, 7. 

 Chevy Chase, battle of, 78. 

 Clackmannan, 193. 

 Clarence, Lionel of, 74, 80. 

 Clement III, 27. 

 Clitheroe, victory at, 20. 

 Clyde, river, 64, 84, 209. 

 Colvin of Culross, 152. 

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

 Comyns, the, 48. 

 Conventicle Act, 177, 179. 

 Cowton Moor, 200. 

 Crawford, defeat of, 107. 

 Creçy, battle of, 70, 72. 

 Cressingham, Hugh of, 40, 41. 

 Crevant, battle of, 90. 

 Cromarty, 193. 

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

 Cullen, 40. 

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

 Cumbria, 6, 12, 17, 195. 

 Cupar, xxx, 198. 

 Dacre, Lord, 108, 111. 

 Dalkeith, 163. 

 Dalriada, kingdom of, 3, 4. 

 Dalry, defeat at, 51. 

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

 "Dance of the Seven Deadly Sins", xxxv. 

 Darc, Joan, 90. 

 Darien Scheme, 184, 186, 187. 

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

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

 Davidstone, Robert, 202. 

 Davison, Secretary, 145. 

 Declaration of Indulgence, 179. 

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

 Dee, river, 7. 

 _De Northynbrorum Comitibus_, 7. 

 Derbyshire, 5. 

 Dingwall, defeat near, 87. 

 Don Carlos, 132. 

 Donald, Clan of, 87. 

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

 Doon Hill, 173. 

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

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

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

 Drumclog, battle of, 178. 

 Dryburgh, Abbey of, 57, 58, 77. 

 Dumbarton, 119, 162. 

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

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

 Dunbarton Castle, 139. 

 Dunblane, Bishop of, 206. 

 Duncan I, 8, 9. 

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

 Dundalk, defeat at, 57. 

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

 Dunkeld, Bishop of, 206. 

 Dunottar, castle of, 179. 

 Dunsinane, 9. 

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

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

 Eadred, 6. 

 Earn, river, 66. 

 Edderton, xvii. 

 Edgar, 7, 205. 

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

 Edgar the Atheling, 11, 13. 

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

 Edmund the Magnificent, 6, 16. 

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

 Edwin, 4. 

 Egfrith, 12. 

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

 Elphinstone, Bishop, xxix, 105. 

 "English Wooing", the, 119. 

 Eric of Norway, 32, 34. 

 Esk, river, 115. 

 Eugenia, 201. 

 Eure, Sir Ralph, 120. 

 Eustace of Boulogne, 17. 

 Eustacius, 195. 

 Evandale, Lord, 113. 

 _Fair Maid of Perth_, 81. 

 Fairfax, Lord, 168. 

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

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

 Falkland, 81. 

 Falls of Foyers, 213. 

 Fast Castle, 84. 

 Fénélon, La Mothe, 141. 

 Ferdinand of Spain, 99. 

 Feredach, 197. 

 Fergus, 197. 

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

 Fifeshire, 160. 

 Firth, Mr. C. , 173. 

 FitzAlan, or Steward, 210. 

 Fitzalans, the, 18. 

 Fitzpatrick, Sir Roger, 49. 

 Five Mile Act, 177. 

 Flamborough Head, 83. 

 Fletcher of Saltoun, 184, 191. 

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

 Florence of Worcester, 7, 9. 

 _Flower_, the, 98. 

 "Flyting", xxxiv. 

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

 Forfar, xvii, xix. 

 Fort-William, 185. 

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

 Fotheringay Castle, 144. 

 "Foul Raid", the, 88. 

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

 Fraser, Bishop, 34, 35. 

 Frasers, the, 87. 

 Frederick II, the Emperor, 35. 

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

 Froude, Mr. , 138. 

 Fyvie Castle, 169. 

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

 Gascony, 75. 

 Gaul, 1. 

 Gaveston, Piers, 54. 

 Geddes, Jennie, 159. 

 Geneva, 123, 150. 

 George II, 212. 

 Gilbert of Galloway, 209. 

 Giraldus Cambrensis, xxvi, xxxii. 

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

 Glencoe, Massacre of, 184, 185. 

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

 Godwin, Earl, 205. 

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

 Gordons, the, xxiii, 168, 170. 

 Gospatric of Northumberland, 12. 

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

 _Great Michael_, the, 103. 

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

 Gregory IX, 35. 

 Greyfriars, church of, 161, 178. 

 Gruoch, wife of Mormaor, 8. 

 Gueldres, Duke of, 102. 

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

 Gunpowder Plot, 150. 

 Gustavus Adolphus, 162. 

 Guthrie, James, 176. 

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

 Hakon of Norway, 29. 

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

 Hall, the chronicler, 104. 

 Hamburg, 43. 

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

 Hamiltons, the, 133. 

 Hapsburgs, the, 129. 

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

 Hastings, John, 35. 

 Hebrides, xxix, 8. 

 Henderson, Alexander, 160, 161, 170. 

 Henry I, 17, 19. 

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

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

 Herrings, battle of, 90. 

 Hertford, Earl of, 119, 120, 121. 

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

 Holland, Richard, xxxiii. 

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

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

 Hotspur, Sir Harry, 78, 82. 

 Howard, Sir Edmund, 106. 

 Hugo of Ross, 201. 

 Humber, river, xii. 

 Hume, the historian, 138. 

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

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

 Ida, 3. 

 Inchmahome priory, 122. 

 Ingibjorg, 16. 

 "Instrument" of Government, 175. 

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

 Inverlochy, 169. 

 Inverness, 182. 

 Inverurie, defeat at, 53. 

 Irevin, Alexander, 198. 

 Irvine, submission of, 42. 

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

 Italy, 18. 

 Jamaica, 187. 

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

 Janville, 90. 

 Jedburgh, 84. 

 Joanna, daughter of Edward II, 60. 

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

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

 Johnson, Dr. , 86. 

 Johnston, J. B. , xvi, 4. 

 Johnston of Warriston, 170. 

 Julius II, 103, 104. 

 Keith, Sir Robert, 56. 

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

 Kenneth Macalpine, 4. 

 Kenneth of Scotland, 7. 

 Ker of Faudonside, 135. 

 Kilblain, victory at, 69. 

 Kildrummie Castle, 51. 

 Killiecrankie, battle of, 182. 

 Kilsyth, victory at, 170. 

 Kinghorn, 66. 

 _Kings Quair_, 89. 

 Kinloss, Abbey of, 207. 

 Kinross, 193. 

 Kirkaldy of Grange, 142. 

 Kirkcudbright, xvii. 

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

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

 Lanark, 42. 

 Lanarkshire, 179. 

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

 Langside, battle of, 139. 

 Largs, battle of, 29, 30. 

 Laud, Archbishop, 158, 159, 162. 

 Laurencekirk, xvii. 

 Leicester, Earl of, 132. 

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

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

 Lesley, John, xxix, 203. 

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

 Leuchars, church of, 160. 

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

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

 Lochleven Castle, 137, 138, 139. 

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

 Loch Ness, 169. 

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

 Longueville, Duc de, 114. 

 Lords of the Articles, 153, 181. 

 Lords Ordainers, 54. 

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

 Loudon Hill, battle of, 51. 

 Louis IX, 35. 

 Louis XI, 95. 

 Lubeck, 43. 

 MacAlexander, 197. 

 Macbeth, 8, 9. 

 MacDavid, 197. 

 MacDonald of Glencoe, 185. 

 MacDuff, Clan of, 209. 

 Macfadyane, xxxv. 

 MacGregor, Red Duncan, 4. 

 MacHenry, 197. 

 MacHeth, xxi, 206, 207, 208. 

 Mackay, General, 182. 

 Mackays, the, 87. 

 Mackenzies, the, 87. 

 MacLane, 198. 

 Madeline, daughter of Francis I, 113, 114. 

 Madoc of Wales, 38. 

 Mahomet, xxxv. 

 Maitland of Lethington, 130, 133, 142. 

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

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

 Malvile, Robert de, 198. 

 Man, Isle of, 55. 

 Mansfield, town of, 168. 

 Manton, Ralph de, 45. 

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

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

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

 Marston Moor, battle of, 168. 

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

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

 Maximilian the Emperor, 99. 

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

 Medici, Catherine de, 128. 

 Melrose Abbey, 77, 120. 

 Melun, siege of, 89. 

 Melville, Andrew, 147, 148. 

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

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

 Midlothian, 3. 

 Millenary Petition, the, 148. 

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

 Monk, General, 174, 176. 

 Monmouth, Duke of, 179. 

 Montgomerie, Alexander, xxxiv, xxxvi. 

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

 Moors, the, 64. 

 Mor Tuath, 204. 

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

 Morayshire, xxi, 25. 

 Mormaers, the, 204, 206. 

 Mortimers, the, 64, 65. 

 Morton, Earl of, 137, 138, 143. 

 Musselburgh, 65. 

 Namur, Guy de, 70. 

 Napoleon, 46. 

 National Covenant, 160, 162, 166, 178. 

 Navigation Act, 176. 

 Nectansmere, battle of, 12. 

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

 Neville, Archbishop, 72. 

 Neville's Cross, battle of, 72. 

 Newark, 168. 

 Newbattle Abbey, 77. 

 Newburn, battle of, 165. 

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

 Newport, 171. 

 New York, 187. 

 Norfolk, Duke of, 143. 

 Norham Castle, 100, 105. 

 Normandy, 26, 40. 

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

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

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

 Northumbria, xii, xxxiii, 4, 5. 

 Northumbria, Earl of, 7, 8, 9. 

 Nottingham, Earl of, 77. 

 Nova Scotia, 156. 

 Ogilby, Alexander, 198, 199, 202. 

 Ogilvie, John, 150. 

 Oman, Mr. , xii, 21, 44. 

 Orkneys, 8, 97. 

 Orleans, siege of, 90. 

 Ormsby, William, 40, 41. 

 Otterburn, battle of, 78. 

 Owen of Strathclyde, 8. 

 Owre, Donald, xxxv. 

 Oxford, xxxiv. 

 Palestine, 18, 64. 

 Panama, Isthmus of, 187. 

 Paterson, William, 186, 187. 

 Pathay, victory of, 90. 

 Pavia, battle of, 112. 

 Peasants' Revolt, 76. 

 Pedro de Ayala, xxxii. 

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

 Pembroke, Earl of, 50, 51. 

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

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

 Percy, Henry, 72. 

 Perron, Cardinal, 150. 

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

 Pezron, Paul Ives, 2. 

 Philip IV, 38, 45. 

 Philiphaugh, defeat at, 170. 

 Pinkerton's suggestion, 56. 

 Pinkie, battle of, 21, 63, 122. 

 Piperden, victory of, 91. 

 Pitscottie, 94, 115. 

 _Post-nati_ case, 152. 

 Preston, battle of, 172. 

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

 Rathlin, island of, 51. 

 Ratisbon, xxix. 

 Regnold, King, 5. 

 Renfrew, 10. 

 Rhys, Dr. , 3. 

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

 Richard of Hexham, 22. 

 Richelieu, Cardinal, 164. 

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

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

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

 Rokeby, 72. 

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

 Rosslyn, defeat at, 45. 

 Rothesay, Duke of, 80, 81. 

 Rothiemurchus, 169. 

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

 Rudolfi, 143. 

 Rullion Green, battle of, 177. 

 Ruthven, Earl of, 135. 

 St. Abb's Head, 84. 

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

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

 St. Duthac, 51. 

 St. Germains, 191. 

 St. Giles' Collegiate Church, 158, 159. 

 St. James's, 191. 

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

 Sark, battle of, 92. 

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

 _Scoti-chronicon_, xxx. 

 Scott, Sir Walter, xviii, 81, 212. 

 Scrymgeour, James, 198. 

 Seaforth, Earl of, 169. 

 Segrave, Sir John, 45. 

 Selkirk, county of, 69. 

 Seymour, Jane, 114. 

 Shakespeare, 9. 

 Sharpe, James, 176, 177. 

 Shetlands, 8, 97. 

 Shrewsbury, battle of, 83. 

 Siward of Northumbria, 9, 18, 20. 

 Skene's _Celtic Scotland_, 204, 210. 

 Skye, xviii, xxvii, 86. 

 Slains, rout at, 53. 

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

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

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

 Somerled of Argyll, 25, 41, 208. 

 Somerset, Earl of, 88. 

 Sophia of Hanover, 190. 

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

 Spey, river, 173. 

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

 Stanley, 106. 

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

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

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

 Stracathro, 39. 

 Stradarniae comes, 195. 

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

 Strathern, Earl of, 22. 

 Strathon, Alexander, 202. 

 Strickland, Miss, 145. 

 Stuart, Alexander, 202. 

 Stuarts, the, xx, 18, 100. 

 Suffolk, Earl of, 78. 

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

 Sybilla, daughter of Henry I, 17. 

 Symeon of Durham, 7, 205. 

 Tables, the, 160. 

 Tain, xvii, 51. 

 _Tales of a Grandfather_, xviii. 

 Tay, xi, xii, xiii, xxx. 

 Tees, 23, 165. 

 Test Act, 178, 179. 

 Teviotdale, 23. 

 "The Incident", 166. 

 Thirty Years' War, 162. 

 Throckmorton, 126. 

 Till, river, 106. 

 Tippermuir, victory at, 168. 

 Tomintoul, 87. 

 Toulouse, 25, 208. 

 Touraine, Duke of, 90. 

 Towton, battle of, 94. 

 Tudors, the, 63. 

 Turnberry, xvii. 

 Turriff, battle of, 163. 

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

 Tweeddale, 53. 

 "Tyneman the Unlucky", 67. 

 Ulster, Plantation of, 150, 156. 

 Uxbridge, Proposals of, 168. 

 Vendome, Duc de, 113. 

 Verneuil, battle of, 90. 

 Vienne, John de, 77. 

 Virgil, Polydore, xxxii, 101. 

 Wales, 1, 81. 

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

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

 Waltheof, 18. 

 Warbeck, Perkin, 61, 99, 100. 

 Warenne, John of, 40, 43. 

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

 Warkworth, castle of, 92. 

 _Waverley_, xviii, xxxvii. 

 Wentworth, Lord Strafford, 161. 

 Wessex, 5. 

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

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

 Wigtown, martyrs of, 178. 

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

 Wishart, George, 120. 

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

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

 Wood, Sir Andrew, 98. 

 Woodstock, homage at, 25. 

 Woodville, Elizabeth, 97. 

 Worcester, battle of, 174, 175. 

 Wyntoun, 84. 

 _Yellow Carvel_, 98. 

 York, 168. 

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

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